METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT
GREATER CHICAGO
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MAY 1975
Prepared by:
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
Chicago, Illinois
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
DBS PLAINES - O'HARE WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
AND SOLIDS PIPELINE
PREPARED BY THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
VOLUME II
APPENDICES
MAY 1975
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Boom 1670
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
TAW.K OF CONTENTS
Volume I
Summary Sheet i
Acknowledgement iv
1. BACKGROUND " 1-1
A. Identification of Grant Applicant . . . ~ "\ 1-1
B. Description of the Proposed Action 1-1
C. General and Specific Location of the Proposed Action . 1-1
D. V/ater Quality and Quantity Problems 1-2
1. Sources of W; ter Supply in the Service Area . . . .' 1-2
2. Sanitary and Combined Sewers . . 1-5
E. Other Water Quality and Quantity Objectives 1-8
F. Costs and Financing 1-12
G. History of the Application 1-12
2. THE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-1
A. General 2-1
B. Detailed Description 2-2
1. Climate 2-2
2. Topography 2-3
3. Geology 2-3
4. Soils 2-8
5. Hydrology 2-10
a. Surface Wat^r 2-10
b. Groundwater Aquifers in the Service Area . . . 2-13
c. Water Usage f- 2-15
d. Water Quality and Quantity Problems 2-16
e. Water Quality Management 2-16
f. Flood Hazards ...... 2-17
6. Biology T 2-18
7. Air Quality 2-21
a. Particulate Matter 2^22
b. Nitrogen Oxides -.. 2-23
c. Total Hydrocarbons 2-24
8. Land Use 2-25
9. Sensitive Areas 2-26
10. Population Projections and Economic Forecasts . . . 2-27
11. Other Programs in the Area 2-27
3. ALTERNATIVES 3-1
A. Service Area Alternatives 3-1
B. Capacity of the Proposed WRP 3-9
-------
C. Site Selection for the WRP 3-19
1. Site Selection Criteria 3-19
2. Site Alternatives and Conditions . 3-20
3. Common Environmental Factors ... 3-26
a. Water Quality 3-26
b. Noise 3-26
c. Visual Effect on the Surrounding Area ..... 3-26
d. Flood Potential v ." . . . 3-27
4. Preliminary Screening of Site Alternatives .... 3-27
5., Final Selection Process , y 3-28
D. Other Facility Alternatives -'."...„.. 3-33
1. Aesthetics . . . . , 3-33
2. Land Use . . 3-34
3. Safety ' 3-35
4. Consumption of Resources , * 3-36
5. Construction and Cost Considerations ....... 3-37
E. Process Alternatives 3-40
F, Solids Handling Alternatives . . 3-41
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 4-1
A. Treatment Facilities 4-1
B. Effluent Disposal System " 4-2
C. Solids Disposal System 4-4
5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 5-1
A. Water 5-1
1. Water Quality 5-1
2. Water Quantity 5-4
B. Air Quality 5-5
1. Odor Generation 5-5
2. Aerosol Generation 5-8
C. Land . 5-10
D. Biology -.-. . . . 5-13
E. Environmentally Sensitive Areas 5-14
F. Aesthetics . „ 5-14
G. Operating Personnel 5^-15
H. Impacts of Solids Processing -. 5-18
I, Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided should the
proposal be implemented and steps to minimize harm to •
the environment . 5-19
J. The relationship between local short term uses of
man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement
of long term productivity 5-20
K. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources to the proposed action should it be
implemented 5-21
L. Recommendations 5-22
-------
6. FEDERAL/STATE AGENCY COMMENTS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .... 6-1
A. Oral Testimony at Public Hearing 6-1
B. Written Comments • • 6-65
C. Letter Comments 6-120
D. Resolution and Petitions 6-176
7. SELECTED REFERENCES
*
VOLUME II - Appendices
»_ /•
A - O'Hare Area Flood Control Activities
B - MSDGC TARP Program
C - O'Hare Service Area Determination
D - Health Questionnaire arid Responses
E - Geology
F - Regional Water Resources
G - Water Conservation and Re-use Measures
H - MSDGC—Justification of Ultimate Size
I - MSDGC—Position Paper on Health Aspects
J - MSDGC—Odor Control Measures
K - Letter from Bart T. Lynam to Francis T. Mayo
L - Process Alternatives: Land Application.
M - Solids Handling Alternatives
N - Design Criteria—O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant
0 - HUD Guidelines
P - MSDGC—Flow Projections
Q - Additional Site Information
R - City of Des Plaines—Density Graph and Matrix
S - Aerosol Literature Survey
T - Water Quality Data
U - Ten State Standards
V - EPA Correspondence
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
APPENDIX A
O'Hare Area Flood Control Activities
Design Criteria
Wilke-Kirchoff Reservoir, Project 70-407-2F
Heritage Park Reservoir, Project 68-815-2F
..White Pine Ditch Retention Reservoir, Project 72-313-2F
Buffalo Creek Retention Reservoir, Project 67-803-2F
WillowHiggins Retention Reservoir, Project 68-836-2F
Mount Prospect Retention Reserv.oir, Project 69-308-2F
A-l
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
WILKE-KIRCHOFF RESERVOIR, PROJECT 70-407-2F
The Wilke-Kirchoff Reservoir is a multi-purpose' excavated flood-
water retarding, pump evacuated reservoir constructed by the Metropoli-
tan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, in cooperation with the
Village of Arlington Heights, at a cost of $871,000. The reservoir
occupies a 16 acre site, is 12 feet deep, and has a storage capacity of
100 acre-£eac. It serves a 717 acre tributary area and is designed to
accotranocaee a 100 year atorm.
The Wilke-Kirchoff Reservoir is located south of Kirchoff Road,
and east of Wilke Road in the Village of Arlington Heights,
The reservoir was designed to serve as a recreational facility, in
addition to ica primary function of reducing local flooding. Possible
winter activities include tobogganing and skiing on a large earth mound
in one corner of the reservoir formed with excavated material. Summer
activities can include such things as volleyball, basketball, baseball,
soccer, football, nnd a general play area. All recreational activities
are supervised by the Arlington Hexghta Park District.
The reservoir is excavated in a clay soil. The side slopes are
7:ls providing eaay access to the bottom of the reservoir for recrea-
tional usage. The bottom and side slopes are sodded to prevent erosion
and to present an esthetically attractive appearance.
A pumping station, located at the northwest corner of the site con-
tains three variable apeed pumps with a capacity of 6.67 cfs to 12 cfs
and two low flow pumps with a capacity of 0.33 cfs. These pumps can
empty a full reservoir in 6 days. Most storms, however, will not fill -
the reservoir completely, and the dewatering time will be less than 6
days. An underdrain system is provided beneath the reservoir floor to
remove the excess ground and storm water and thereby provide maximum
recreational usage of the reservoir bottom.
Storm sewers draining the tributary area carry the runoff into the
reservoir through two inlet structures. At low flows, the runoff drops
through a grate in the inlet structures and is conveyed to the pumping
station through the reservoir dewatering system. The multi-purpose use
of the reservoir is enhanced by use of tlje.low flow bypass system. The
water from the reservoir is pumped through a 30 inch force main to a
storm sewer that discharges into Weller JZreek, the natural drainage out-
let for the reservoir tributary area.
Construction of the reservoir began in August 1972, and was com-
pleted in the fall of 1973. The Metropolitan Sanitary District contri-
buted $736,000 of the construction cost and the Village of Arlington
Heights contributed $135,000. In addition, 'the Village 'of Arlington
A-2
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Heights paid $195,000 to acquire the reservoir site and also assumed
the engineering design costs. The Village will be responsible for the
operation and maintenance of the facilities.
-------
Will! - KIRCHOFF RETENTION RESERVOIR
RESERVOIR - PROJECT NO. 70-407-2F
OOTFALL SEWER - PROJECT NO. 71-310-2F
SHEET 1 Of 2
DRAINAGE AREA 717 ACRES
DESIGN STORM 100 YR.
PUMPING STA, CAPACITY 36.7 c.f.s.
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED
CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 871.000
LAND AREA 14.6 ACRES
LAND COST $ 232,000
-RESERVOIR '-OUTFALL SEWER
>
s-
j£'» VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS
EXISTING STORM
SEWER
LOCATION MAP
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT
OF GREATER CHICAGO
FLOOD CONTROL SECTION
JAN. 1973
-------
WILKE - KIRCHOFF RETENTION RESERVOIR
RESERVOIR - PROJECT NO. 70-407-2F
OUTFALL SEWER - PROJECT NO. 71-310-2F
SHEET 2 OF Z
PUMPING STATION
30' GRAVITY
OUTFALL
RESERVOIR LAYOUT
(Jkv.
no
105
STORAGE IN BASIN • 100 acn ft
TOTAL STORAGE • 100 acre ft
-STORM PUMP
\n #2 a #3
RESERVOIR BASIN. FLOOR 1677.5'
665.6
PUMP STATION
PROFILE
88576'
STORM PUMPS #1. #2 & #3
VARIABLE - 3.000 to 5.400 gpm
6.67 to 12.0 cfs - 100 hp
mil SUMP PUMPS #4 & #5
CONSTANT - 150 gpm - 0.33 cfs
• 7.5 hp
TOTAL PUMP CAPACITY - 16.500 gpm
36.7 cfs
OVERFLOW @ 689.5' elev.
PUMP CONTROLS • SPARLING - FLOAT
30" 8.CP.
GRAVITY StWER
•705
•700
69!
•6SC
88:
68C
•675
670
885
+660
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT
OF GREATER CHICAGO
FLOOD CONTROL SECTION
JAN. 1973
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
HERITAGE PARK RESERVOIR, PROJECT 68-815-2F
The Heritage Park Reservoir is a multi-purpose flood water reser-
voir constructed at a coat of $270,000 by the Metropolitan Sanitary
District in cooperation with the Village of Wheeling and the Wheeling
Park District. The reservoir is on a 25 acre site and has an average
depth of 5 feet. It haa a usable storage volume of 112 acre-feet which
serves a tributary area of 447 acres and is designed to accommodate a
100 year storm.
The reservoir is an excavated storage gravity discharge structure.
The reservoir was designed as a multi-purpose facility for recreation,
in addition to its primary function of reducing local flooding. A per-
manent lake, about 8 acres in area and 5 feet deep, is provided to en-
hance the recreational features of the reservoir and usage for winter
activities. Tobogganing and skiing utilize a large earthen hill con-
structed east of the reservoir with material excavated from the reser-
voir. The adjacent park areas are utilized for all other seasonal
activities. Recreational activities are supervised by the Wheeling
Park District.
The reservoir side slopes are 4:1 or less, permitting easy access
to the reservoir bottom except for the permanent lake area. The reser-
voir area is grassed to prevent erosion and enhance the recreational
use.
The reservoir is emptied through a 60 inch diameter pipe into the
Wheeling.Drainage Ditch. A flap gate on the 60 inch discharge pipe pre-
vents water from the drainage ditch entering the reservoir during peri-
ods of high water in the Wheeling Drainage Ditch. The flap gate also
restricts the flow of storm water out.of the reservoir until flow capa-
city is available in the Wheeling Drainage Ditch.
The reservoir construction was completed in 1970. The Metropolitan
Sanitary District contributed $180,000 of the facility's construction
cost and the Village of Wheeling contributed $90,000 for the construc-
tion and paid the engineering design costs. The land for the reservoir
was provided by the Wheeling Park District.
A-6
-------
HERITAGE PARK WEST RETENTION RESERVOIR
PROJECT NO. 68-815-2F
•I
DRAINAGE AREA 447 ACRES
DESIGN STORM 100 YEARS
PUMPING STA. CAPACITY NONE
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED 2-16-70
CONSTRUCTION COSTS $270.000 TOTAL (M.S.D. PAID 67%)
LAND AREA 25 ACRES
LAND COST (furnished by village)
RESERVOIR
RD.
DRAINAGE AREA
VILLAGE OF WHEELING
DISCHARGE
PIPE
l\
LOCATION MAP
650
jc WHEELING RO.
1 /[ RAILROAD
•MAX. WATER ELEV. IN
RESERVOIR 639.0
WHEELING DRAIN, DITCh
WATER EL 638.5 WITH
W YR. RUNQfP
GROUND LINE
650 ~
V)
640
630
ca
e/i
EL 630.0
INV. EL 630.8-
PROFILE
A-7
'09 R
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT
W MfATER CHICASO
FLOOD CONTROL SECTiON
8.H.8. U6UST. IS
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
WHITE PINE DITCH RETENTION RESERVOIR, CONTRACT NO. 72-313-2F
The White Pine Ditch Retention Reservoir is a project of inter-
agency cooperation that will divert flow from the White Pine Ditch
Watershed to control chronic overbank flooding and sanitary sewer back-
up caused by storm flows entering and overloading the sanitary sewer
system. The need for additional public services to assist people in
flooded areas, and the loss of direct access to or around flooded areas
with emergency equipment, is costly to the habitants in both life and
assets. Diversion of the existing and increased flows from the road im-
provement and urbanization will convey the flows to a reservoir site
with the capacity to store the excess storm runoffs. Along the water-
course no site could adequately provide the protection from the 100-year
storm event.
The Dundee Road improvement project, developed and under construc-
tion by the Department of Transportation, State of Illinois, includes
the larger sized storm sewer to divert flows from the White Pine Ditch
to the east. The discharge of this sewer and the naturally contributing
areas are directed into the retention reservoir of 50 acre-feet storage
capacity. The reservoir and White Pine both discharge into Buffalo
Creek.
The Village of Buffalo Grove reported the monetary flood related
losses for the year 1972 to be $50,700. These losses for the White Pine
Ditch area only involved 119 homes.
Cost involvement for the reservoir project are as follows:
$120,000 from the Metropolitan Sanitary District, $130,000 from the
Department of Transportation of the State of Illinois, and any addi-
tional cost by the Village of Buffalo .Grove.
In addition to the construction cost for the reservoir, the Sani-
tary District will administer the construction contract and the Village
of Buffalo Grove will secure the land rights upon which the reservoir is
located.
The Sanitary District has authority to undertake this work and com-
mit funds without a general election. Plans and specifications were
awarded August 8, 1974. Work will be completed by May 1, 1975.
A-8
-------
WHITE PINE DITCH RESERVOIR
ORttMAL WHITE PINE DITCH DRAINAGE
AREA (58S ACRES) —-
WHITE PIME OITCH DRAINAGE AREA DIVERTED
BY HttMWAY IMPROVEMENT (315 ACRES) —
FLOOD DAMAGED
RESIDENTIAL AREA
RESERVOIR BY M.S.D.
(Sat detail below)
STORM SEWER BY STATE HIGHWAY AGENCY
LOCATION PLAN
CONSTRUCTION PLAN
I** ••% v .X
i i 6th green by others
u 1
Ttii tee by others
2nd tei
1st green
IXHIBIT 3
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRIC
OF GREATER CHICAGO
FLOOD CONTROL SECTION
O.H.G. NOV. H 7
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
BUFFALO CREEK RETENTION RESERVOIR, CONTRACT NO. 67-803-2F
Urbanization of the Buffalo Creek Watershed has,increased storm
runoff and flooding in areas adjacent to Buffalo Creek and the Wheeling
Drainage Ditch in the Village of Buffalo Grove and Wheeling. To reduce
this flooding, the proposed Buffalo Creek Retention Reservoir will im-
pound approximately 700 acre-feet of storm water. This valley reservoir
will be an earthfill dam located just west of Arlington Heights Road and
south of Checker Road in Lake County. A culvert control structure will
pass low flows and limit the maximum discharge from the reservoir to ap-
proximately 250 cfs. An emergency spillway will be provided to pass
storm flows from storm events that exceed the 100-year storm event stor-
age capacity and to protect the dam structure.
Additional construction work includes a le'vee or other flood pro-
tection method for the private buildings adjacent to the reservoir site
north of Checker Road. Checker Road will be raised above, the high water
elevation as will the new bridge over Buffalo Creek. The reservoir site
is approximately 160 acres located west of Arlington Heights Road in
Section 31 of Vernon Township, Lake County. The site also included some
area in Wheeling Township, Cook County. Total cost to the District is
estimated at $2,100,000.
Project implementation will be guided by a Cooperative Agreement
between the Lake County Forest Preserve District, Village of Buffalo
Grove, and the Metropolitan Sanitary District.
The reservoir site will be a multiple-use facility for open space
recreation uses, in addition to the primary function for flood control.
The Sanitary District has authority to undertake this work and com-
mit funds without & general election. Plans and specifications will be
available for bid advertisement in March, 1975. The construction con-
N tract will be let within 90 days after bid advertisement. Work will be
completed by December, 1975.
A-10
-------
£
IS
O
•—a
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
WILLOW-HIGGINS RETENTION RESERVOIR, PROJECT 68-836-2F
The project includes the construction of two storm water retention
reservoirsj Willow-Higgins Creek Channel Modifications and Willow Creek
relocation to control the flooding in the Willow-Higgins Creek Watershed
for the 100 year atom event as shown on Exhibit 1. This provides for
storing flows from the O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant that exceeds chan-
nel capacity. The reservoirs will be located in the O'Hare Airport run-
way clear zone areas. Clear zones are provided at the ends of runways
because of the high noise level in these areas, the need to control ele-
vation of structures in runway approaches and to provide for aircraft
over run conditions and thus are unavailable for individual public use.
The Ravenswood Reservoir site is located approximately 2750 feet
from the end of the runway 32R-14L and the Lee Street Reservoir site is
located approximately 900 feet from the end of runway 4L-22R. The
Willow-Higgins Creek Channel Modifications will be a closed concrete
section downstream of the Lee Street Site. The Willow Creek Relocation
will consist of both grass lined earth channel and closed concrete sec-
tions as physical conditions permit.
Willow Creek will be relocated generally along the western limits
of O'Hare Airport south of Old Higgins Road, and then northerly to the
Ravenswood Reservoir.
The project will relieve the flooding problems in the Willow Higgins
Watershed downstream of O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant for storm events
vfp to the 100 year frequency. Relocation of Willow Creek would facilitate
the future development of O'Hare Airport. Also, conveying the flow of
Willow Creek drainage area to the Ravenswood Reservoir, will effectively
utilize the greater storage capacity available at the Ravenswood site.
The flows added by O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant will be stored
at Ravenswood Reservoir when the flow in the downstream channel exceeds
the design capacity. These added flows will result from the treatment
of flows from an ultimate population equivalent of 439,000 in the service
area and also from the treatment of the storm flows from a combined sewer
area of 8000 acres located in Weller Creek Watershed, part of Upper
Des Plaines Tunnel and Reservoir Plan.
The proposed project would have following long term effects:
1. Eliminate flood damages for storm events up to the 100-year
frequency and would provide peace of mind to the citizens
in flood prone areas.
2. Provide storage for additional flows from the proposed
O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant.
A-12
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OP GREATER CHICAGO
3. Facilitate the O'Hare Airport expansion program.
4, lisa land located in clear zones for additional public benefit.
5. Increase property valuation by control of overbank flooding
and thereby increase real estate tax revenues, even with the
removal of some private land from the tax rolls for the project.
A-13
-------
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
MOUNT PROSPECT RETENTION RESERVOIR, PROJECT NO. 69-308-2F
The reservoir will be an interim facility designed to provide a
certain level of protection to the area until such time as ihe Tunnel
and Reservoir Plan is implemented. At that time, the reservoir will be
enlarged from 130 acre-feet (interim) to 850 acre-feet (ultimate). The
baain will function by gravity. No pumping will be required.
The interim plan involved 130 acre-feet of storage providing relief to
the upstream storm sewer system. The Village will be responsible for
the measures necessary to convey separate storm flows into the reser-
voir. Conversion to the ultimate facility will involve enlargement of
the reservoir and conveyance facilities to bring combined overflows
into the reservoir.
The interim facility will store storm flows only. The ultimate
facility will include measures to handle combined flows. The DeLeuw
Gather report, "Preliminary Plans for O'Hare Collection Facility", con-
cerns the O'Hare Tunnel and Reservoir system of which the ultimate fa-
cility will be a part. The interim facility is not covered in this re-
port. Detailed design and analysis of the interim proposal will com-
mence subsequent to the completion of negotiations with the Village and
the purchase of the site.
Drop Shaft No. 1 under the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan for the
(O'Hare) Upper Des Plaines Basin will be situated at Central Road and
Weller Creek. The 850 acre-foot Mount Prospect combined waste water
•Setenticu baain will function to limit the flow to Shaft No. 1 to 800
cfs. Besed on a fully developed upstream drainage area, and an unre-
stricted upstream local sewer system (exceeding 100-year design storm
frequency), thia flow was exceeded 24 .times in the 21 year record period,
there were 21 times the maximum detention volume did not exceed 100 acre-
feet. Twelve times the volume detained did not exceed fifty acre-feet.
The maximum time of detention in the study period was 20 hours. This
was for a recurrence of the July 1957 storm. In general, the detention
period vould be a small fraction of the 20 hour maximum even under full
development conditions.
-------
N
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS
Ave.
ML PROSPECT
VILLAGE BOUNDARY
EXISTING M.S.D. SEWER
MT. PROSPECT
SITE OF PROPOSED
m. PROSPECT
RETENTION RESERVOIR
CONTRACT 69-308-2F
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT
OF GREATER CHICAGO
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
A-16
FJ.K.
AUG., 1973
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
APPENDIX B
M3DGC TARP PROGRAM
Combined Sewer Overflow Elimination
The selected plan for eliminating untreated combined sewer over-
flows or plant bypasses was chosen from various alternatives and was
described in the August 1972 "Summary of Technical Reports," presented
by the Flood Control Coordinating Committee. Since 1972 refinements
to sub-systems of the plan have been made as additional studies and
sub-surface exploration work have been performed.
This chapter first describes the August 1972 Recommended Plan
and then describes the five revisions that have been made. These
revisions do not change the concept of the plan but only present
additional development of the project to reflect sub-system optimiza-
tion.
August 1972 FCC Reconaaended Plan
Description and Maps
After extensive rtwiew of the alternatives, the Flood Control
Coordinating Committee unanimously agreed that the Alternatives "G",
"H", "J" and "S" Mod 3, are less costly and would be more environ-
mentally acceptable to the community than any of the other plans
presented. Detailed studies and layouts along the lines of these
plana were then continued to develop the recommended plan.
The system recommended herein, a composite of several of the above
Alternatives, is outstanding in its relative storage economy and
simplicity. It will capture the total runoff from all of the record
meteorological sequences of history, if they were to recur on future
ultimate developed drainage basins, except for the peak few hours of
three of the most severe storm events. The system will convey these
captured combined sewer flows through high velocity, out-of-sight
underflow tunnels below the routes of the existing surface water-
courses to large pit-type storage reservoirs. Figure M-IX-1 shows
the general location of the conveyance tunnel system and storage
reservoirs.
The primary storage reservoir is shown located in the area now
occupied by the sludge lagoons of the Metropolitan Sanitary District
in the McCook-Summit area. This reservoir will be in the form of a
300 to 330 teet deep rock quarry, with a maximum water depth of
approximately 200 feet, in the heaviest storm .event,and water surface
dimensions averaging about 1,000 feet wide by 2 1/2 miles long. Total
storage capacity of the reservoir with the water surface as its
maximum level of -100 CCD, will be 57,000 acre-feet.
Figure M-X-2 shows the general layout of the reservoir, conduits
and pumping facilities. The lower 100 feet of depth of the reservoir
B-l
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
will be divided into three basins by transverse dikes, providing two
small basins, each with a volume of 5,000 acre-feet for the more
frequent small runoff periods. The larger runoff volumes will flood
the remaining basin and the water surface will rise in elevation over
the entire reservoir.
The dewatering pumping station shown on Figure M-X-2 will dis-
charge from the storage reservoir to the West-Southwest Treatment Plant
at an average rate of about 700 cfs. The station's total capacity
will be 2400 cfs in order to dewater the conveyance tunnels and Stearns
Quarry into the reservoir within two or three days following a storm.
Computer studies indicate that the storage utilized in Basins 1
and 2 will exceed their combined volume (10,000 acre-feet) at an
average frequency of six or seven times per year and that these two
basins alone will entrap more than 70% of the annual combined sewer
spillage containing over 95% of the annual Suspended Solids.
The use of a deep pit storage basin of such magnitude and depth
requires that aeration be provided to insure positive odor control by
floating equipment. This is necessary because the range of liquid
level varies over 200 feet. It is proposed to use submerged turbine
aerators provided with a downflow draft tube with air injection below
the propeller.
The submerged turbine aerators will be provided with a bar screen
to prevent large ice chunks from being drawn into the draft tube and
damaging the blades. The aerators will be provided with legs to
protect the draft tube and will need a minimum of 20 feet of water to
operate. When floating at greater depths, it is considered that
active aeration will be limited to the upper 50 feet of the water in
storage.
Aerators, in the heaviest rainfall year will be in near continuous
operation in or above Basins 1 and 2. A lesser amount of aeration on
an intermittent schedule will be required in Basin No. 3.
An aerated reservoir of lesser depth and a volume of 1,800 acre-
feet, will be provided near the proposed O'Hare Water Reclamation
Plant, to serve the combined sewered area of the suburban communities
to the northwest.
Another reservoir will utilize the existing Stearns rock quarry
in the vicinity of 28th and Halsted Streets. This reservoir will
provide approximately 4,000 acre-feet of storage space and will be
used only during record storm events to flatten out the peak discharge
through the conveyance tunnels.
B-2
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Conveyance Tunnels
There are approximately 120 miles of conveyance tunnels inter-
cepting 640 sewer overflow points in the 375 square milt .:>.rea served
by combined sewers. Most of the conveyance tunnels will be constructed
in the Silurian Dolomite rock formation 150 to 300 feet below the
surface of the waterways. In some areas, the smaller tunnels will be
constructed in the clay overburden. See Figure M-X-3, 4 for profiles
of the tunnels.
The tunnels will in general be drilled by mining machine (moles),
except for the largest sizes which will probably be constructed by
the conventional drill and blast method.
Three main conveyance tunnel systems fork out from the primary
reservoir facility located in the McCook-Cummit area. See Figure M-X-1.
Figure MX-1. The Des Plaines Tunnel Svstem extends north alone the
Dea Plaines River to the Village of Des Plaines, thence northwest
terminating at the Village of Palatine. The Mainstream Tunnel System
extends under the Sanitary and Ship Canal, the North and South Branches
of the Chicago River and the North Shore Channel to the Wilmette
controlling works. The Calumet Tunnel System extends south and south-
easterly along public right-of-way to the Sag Channel, thence eastward
under the Little Calumet, Grand Calumet and Calumet Rivers to near the
State Line. The storage space in the conveyance tunnel system is
9,100 acre-feet.
Drop Shafts
The spillages will be delivered to the tunnels by hundreds of
vertical drop shafts, capturing the present spillage from the existing
riverbank sewer outlets of over five thousand miles of near-surface
sewer systems. A typical drop shaft is shown in Figure M-X-5.
The drop shafts will have a split vertical shaft, one side for
water and the other side for air. The center dividing wall will have
slots to insufflate air in the falling water. This reduces the impact
when the air-water mixture hits bottom. An air separation chamber is
provided to reduce the amount of air entering the tunnel. At the top,
a vent chamber will allow air to escape during filling and to be drawn
in during dewatering.
Groundwater Protection and Recharge
The major project elements are sited in rock units of the Silurian
System of the geologic strata underlying the Chicagoland area. These
limestone and dolomite rock units, together with the hydraulically
interconnected overlying glacial drift, comprise the so-called shallow
aquifer of the region which is recharged by local rainfall.
B-3
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Additional data on protection of groundwater and limitation of
infiltration into tunnels and storage areas is available in Technical
Report No. 4, Geology and Water Supply. This upper aquifer system is
used as a water supply for individuals and certain municipalities.
However, the water supply for the vast majority of the area is through
piped systems using Lake Michigan water.
The preservation of groundwater quality and quantity is achieved
by positioning the project elements in the best available rock units,
taking advantage of the natural low permeabilities of the rock and
augmenting this low permeability by sealing the water bearing bedding
planes and joints, thus providing for elimination of the direct connec-
tions between the aquifer and the project element.
Additionally, the naturally high piezometric level within the
aquifer will provide a positive inward presssure providing additional
assurance against exfiltration of flows. In those areas were excessive
groundwater withdrawals occur, adversely lowering the groundwater
table, the added protection could be provided by artificial recharge
to restore high levels around the project element. The identification
of this recharge need, however, can only be made after sub-surface
exploration, testing and detailed positioning of the project elements.
Benefits
A brief listing of anticipated benefits to be derived from
completion of the system of flood and pollution control proposed
herein, includes the following:
1. Protection of the valuable water resources of Lake Michigan
from flood release of river water as now required through
the existing Chicago River, the North Shore Channel and
the Calumet River into Lake Michigan.
2. Achieving and maintaining acceptable water quality (in
accordance with National Goals and Regulations of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board and the Metropolitan
Sanitary District) in the open waterways known as the
Chicago River and its branches, the Sanitary and Ship
Canal, the North Shore Channel, the Calumet-Sag Channel
and those portion of the Calumet River, Des Plaines River,
Salt Creek and other open waterways, under the jurisdiction
and control of the Metropolitan Sanitary District oE Greater
Chicago.
3. Reduction of surface and basement flooding by underground
backwaters or overbank flooding.
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
4. Improvement of recreational values of all surface waterways.
5. Increase in property values due to general improvement of
environment.
Additional Plan Developnu.i-ts
The plan described in previous sections was produced in 1972.
The intervening two years have provided the opportunity to incorporate
new analysis and information, and improve the Plan accordingly. These
up-dates can be grouped under five headings, with the revised Recommen-
ded Plan shown on the attached map (Figure M-X-6).
a. Independent Calumet System: The most significant revisions are the
separation of the Calumet Area from the Central System and having an
independently opera tin;' system with dewatering to the Calumet Plant.
The decision to separate the Calumet Area was based on detailed
study' ' of operational flexibility and cost. This study originated
with the recognition that several potential reservoir sites exist in
the Calomet Area, and the cost of the 55,000-foot connection tunnel
($100 Billion) would be saved by independently operating systems.
The study considered three alternative concepts, each with
several variations :
A. Maximum Size Intert JQ Tunnel Plan; In this plan, no
storage would be provided in the Calumet area. All flow would be
directed to the McCook-Summit area terminal reservoir. Economies
would be realized by concentrating terminal reservoir facilities.
These savings would be compared to the extra costs associated with
conveyance facilities required to concentrate the storage.
This scheme is similar to the layout shown in Figure M-X-1 (the
Recommended Plan from the Summary of Technical Reports) for the
project area remaining after exclusion of the O'Hare sub-project area.
However, these studies included drainage flow from the communities of
Lansing and part of Markham which were not a part of the prior studies
made in sxipport of the Summary of Technical Reports. This additional
drainage flow is included as well in all other alternatives evaluated
in this study.
An JIntermediate Size Intertie Tunnel Plan. Storage would
be provided in the Calumet area but it would be an amount which would
be insufficient to accommodate all of the runoff in the Calumet area
during a large storm. In these instances, the Calumet area reservoirs
would fill and, subsequently, flow would be diverted through the
intertie tunnel to the McCook-Summit area reservoir.
B-5
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
No Intertie Tunnel Plan. In this scheme, storage volume
provided i« the Calumet area would be sufficient to accept the excess
combined sewer flow in that area. The Mainstream and Des Plaines Tunnel
Systems vould drain to the McCook-Summit area terminal reservoir.
Several variations within each of the above basic concept plans
are possible and were examined in this study so that the least-cost
representation of each of the above concepts could be identified. This
led to development of twelve separate project layouts for comparative
evaluation, which included different reservoir locations and tunnel
systems.
Initial Evaluation of Project Layouts; The evaluation and cost estima-
ting methods employed in the initial phase of this study are identical
to those used in the studies which a re reported in the Summary of
Technical Reports. The same basic unit costs and cost curves were
used as were the computer programs previously developed., These were
accepted and used to conduct simulation studies which yielded results
concerning performance of the twelve project layouts. A "trial and
error" procedure was employed in the development of these layouts
wherein tunnel diameters and reservoir sizes were first assumed; then,
for selected storm events, the system performance was simulated by
electronic digital computer cooperation; and system performance defi-
ciencies were noted upon completion of the computer run,, Adjustments
were then made in tunnel diameters and reservoir dimensions as
indicated by the simulation analysis results. The procedure was
repeated until all of the twelve project layouts satisfied the perfor-
mance requirements. These performance requirements were to limit
the overflow quantities during repeat of the largest storms to prevent
backflow to the Lake and to treat the captured water at the existing
treatment plants at a rate such that the total flow to the plant
combined with dry weather flow did not exceed 1.5 times average dry-
weather flow. The estimates of costs of construction of the sanitary
systems were compiled using the cost parameter data developed for the
prior studies.
The general approach employed in the initital evaluation phase
of this study is presented here. The prior studies which are described
in the Summary of Technical Reports showed that, of the 21 year
continuous record of precipitation, a tunnel-reservoir system which
functioned adequately in simulation analysis during the events of
July 12-13, 1957 and October 3-12, 1954 would also function satis-
factorily throughout the remainder of the period of record. Further,
the tunnel sizes required in any given layout were dictated principally
by conditions which prevailed during the 1957 storm; a storm- which
yielded the maximum instantaneous peak runoff flow. Also, the prior
studies showed that the total reservoir storage volumes required
were controlled by the conditions which obtained during the 1954 storm.
B-6
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Moreover, an approximate correlation existed between the reservoir
requirements established by simulation of the 1957 storm and those
established by simulation of the 1954 storm.
For these initial evaluation studies, only the July 12-13, 1957
precipitation event, was used in simulation analysis step of the work.
This was made necessary because of the large number of computer runs
required and the especially lengthy run-time of the 1954 event simu-
lation. The July, 1957 analyses yielded the required tunnel diameters
of the several schemes. The construction costs of these tunnel networks
were computed. The July, 1957 analyses also indicated reservoir volume
requirements for satisfactory system performance for this event.
These values were extrapolated to approximate total reservoir volume
requirements which would be needed for satisfactory system performance
during the October, 1954 storm. Reservoir construction cost estimates
were then developed.
Cost comparison of the twelve alternatives was made on the basis
of the sum of the tunnel and reservoir costs. These were regarded as
the controlling project costs since these two project compontents
comprise approximately ninety percent of the total construction cost.
Additionally, much of the remaining 10 percent of construction costs
consist of modification of surface collection facilities and drop
shafts, both elements being a common and near-constant cost factor for
all proposed systems.
"Least Cost" Alternatives - Detailed Evaluations ; The maximum size
intertie tunnel plan (Scheme 1A), the intermediate size intertie
tunnel plan (Scheme 2E), and the no intertie tunnel plan (Scheme 3A),
having been identified as the most economicaly systems for each of the
three concepts, were examined in greater detail than the remainder of
the alternatives. Each of these schemes include the use of existing
quarries as reservoirs. These quarries, already having depths in
excess of 200 feet and large volumes available, had distinct advantages
over other sites with no significant existing storage volume such as
in the sludge lagoon sites. Preliminary reservoir layouts were made
for these plans and more detailed construction cost estimates were
prepared as shown in Table M-X-1.
The totals show the cost advantage of 3A, separation. Addi-
tional advantage is found in the freedom of construction phasing.
B-7
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
TABLE M-X-1 LEAST COST SCHEMES ESTIMATE OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS; MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS (Based on a Limitation of Stockpile Height of
200 Feet in the McCook-Summit Area)
Sum of Tunnels and Reservoirs (1972 Costs, Unescalated)
Item
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2
McCook-Summit Reservoir
2
Thornton Reservoir
Mainstream On-Line
Reservoir
Tunnels1
Pumping Stations
a. McCook-Summit
b. Stearns Quarry
c, Thornton-Calumet
TOTAL, without contingencies
Scheme 1A Scheme 2E Scheme 3A
496 351
56
15 15
691 568
71 65
8 8
- 30
1,281 1,093
286
74
15
552
64
30
1,029
^Estimates of tunnel cost require a determination of whether or not
they are concrete-lined. The final decision concerning concrete
lining must be reserved for the design phase of the project and
completion of subsurface investigations. This decision cannot alter
the conclusions of this optimization study because all project
layouts will be similarly affected.
2Includes credit for future sale of rock and other future land values,
B-8
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
As a result of these studies, the interconnecting tunnel has been
eliminating and planning and subsurface explorations have been concen-
trated on development of the plan with an independently operating
Calumet System.
b. Palatine Tunnel Elimination
An additional revision is the elimination of a tunnel leg into
the Village of Palatine. A report titled "Preliminary Engineering
Study of Palatine, Illinois for Intercepting and Holding Combined-
Sewage Overflows" was completed in September, 1973. Eighteen alternate
solutions were studied. The lowest cost alternate for a tunnel and
reservoir concept system for Palatine area to connect to the O'Hare
System, as originally proposed was $22,700,000. Of the alternates
discharging to Salt Creek Water Reclamation Plant, the lowest cost was
$17,300,000; however the recommended tunnel and reservoir concept
system was estimated at $18,900,000. It was further established that
construction of a separate new five-year storm sewer system for the
combined-sewer area would cost $11,100,000 and the construction of a
new sanitary sewer system would cost an estimated $12,700,000. Either
a new storm sewer system or new sanitary sewer system would eliminate
combined-sewer overflows in this drainage basin.
At the regular Board Meeting of April 22, 1971, the Board of
Trustees of the District approved the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Upper Salt Creek Watershed Work Plan. This plan, of which the District
is a local sponsor, is a comprehensive program which will prevent
overflow of Salt Creek in the Palatine area. The District has already
committed $4,861,000 for seven projects under the Work Plan. In view
of this program, the flood control benefits of the District's Tunnel
and Reservoir Plan for the Palatine area will not be required.
The estimated cost of the tunnel and reservoir plan exceeds the
estimated cost of separating sewers within that portion of the Village
of Palatine which has combined-sewers; and therefore, the tunnel and
Reservoir concept is not the cost-effective method for preventing
discharge of combined-sewage to the waterways.
Therefore, the Palatine tunnel leg in the Northwest Area of the
District has been eliminated and at meetings with the Village of
Palatine the Village Officials have been so informed.
c. Mainstream Dual Tunnel System
A third revision or updating includes dual tunnels for the
Mainstream System from Summit to Lawrence Avenue. The August 1972
Plan included a 42-foot diameter or equivalent along this reach. In
order to maintain a uniform slope, this tunnel would have to be constructs
through the Maquoketa shale. This shale formed from clay sized
B-9
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
particles is a softer rock than the dolomitic limestone, and presents
different stability considerations for both long-term use and during
construction. Thus, the construction in this shale will be more costly
than in limestone.
During 1974, additional rock borings have been made to further
identify the location of this shale formation and additional analysis
have been performed. As a result, it has been determined that the most
cost-effective plan is to construct a smaller tunnel first at the
required slope and at a latter date construct a second tunnel which
would be totally in the limestone formations. Each of the dual tunnels
would provide one-half the required conveyance capacity.
B-10
-------
TABLE
IrlC WICinWrWWIIMH w»l»ll»»ni isiwinivi
M-X-2 TUNNELS MAINSTREAM SYSTEM (McCook
to Confluence)
SINGLE TUNNEL
LINE
z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
48
49
50
LENGTH
b,yju
7,095
13,575
8,00
8,600
7,332
8,368
10,992
11,718
8,285
4,095
5,451
4,104
3,823
2,865
24,400
11,300
14,580
DIA.
45
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Cost
shown exclude shafts,
COST
$ x 1000
$ I / , UUU
15,600
29,800
17,600
18,900
16,100
18,400
24,100
25,700
18,200
10,800
11,900
9,010
8,390
6,290
$247,790
$247,790
connecting
Dia.
33
33
33
33
33
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
structure
DUAL TUNNELS
Stage I Stage IT
COST DIA. COST
$ X 1000 $ x 1000
$ Itr,5/u '3b $ II.DUU
10,820 35 7,810
20,700 35 14,930
12,200 35 8,800
13,120 35 9,460
9,750
11,130
14,620
15,590
11,020
6,520
7,250
3,650
3,400
2,550 35 35
35, 2k, ?<-.'>
35 12,4:o
35 16,:;:'-
$152,890 $110,.
$263,848
and contingences
B-ll
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
The Table M-X-2 compares the construction costs of the single tunnel
with the costs of the dual tunnel system. As can be seen the cost
difference is $16 million or 6 per cent of the total. This difference
is insignificant when considering the total costs of the program. There-
fore, also considering the uncertainties of grant funding, the dual
tunnel system is chosen because the first tunnel can be constructed at
a lower initial cost and provide for the capture of in excess of 80 per
cent of the pollutants now discharged to the waterways, and thus obtain
an early return on the invested funds. The dual tunnel system also
offers time to further optimize the size needed for the second tunnel
to meet project objectives.
d. Mainstream On-Line Reservoir
Another revision has been elimination of Stearns Quarry as the
location of the Mainstream On-Line Detention Reservoir. This reservoir
has been included in the Plan in order to reduce the size and cost of
the Mainstream Tunnel System. Without such a reservoir, the lengthy
Mainstream Tunnel would have to increase in size from a 42-foot diameter
equivalent tunnel to a 55-foot diameter equivalent tunnel'2).
The Stearns site is now being filled in and will eventually
be used as a park. The previous studies had considered this site only
in relation to evaluating different alternatives of solving the combined-
sewer overflow problem, and not in terms of the specific details of the
site. It has now been determined that the best and highest use of the
site is as a park.
In its place, a Mainstream On-line Reservoir at an unidentified
site is included. The location of this reservoir can be anywhere along
the tunnel between the Stearns site and Wilmette Harbor. Since this
reservoir will be used only during the large storms of record to reduce
the peak flow rates to the tunnels, it will be one of the last facilities
to be constructed. If a suitable site is not found for the reservoir,
the alternative does exist to increase the size of the second tunnel of
the Mainstream Dual Tunnel System.
e.
Des Plaines Watershed
A fifth revision provides for the total capture of the combined-
sewer overflows in the Des Plaines River Watershed. The August 1972 Plan
included the equivalent of a Mod 3 level of capture for the sizing of the
Des Plaines River Tunnel and the O'Hare Northwest System. However, as
was stated in the report, total capture would be needed in order to meet
the higher water quality standards of the General Use and the Public and
Food Processing Water Supply Designated waterways. (See Figure M-X-7.)
This was the case in the Little Calumet River and the North Branch of
the Chicago River Upstream with its junction with the North Shore Channel.
Tunnel sizing is provided so as not to spill into these waterways.
B-12
-------
THE METROPOUTAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
The higher water quality standards for the above waterways includes,
among others, the requirement that the dissolved oxygen level shall not
fall below five milligrams per liter at any time. The computer simu-
lation of the overflows into the Chicago and Calumet River Systems
(designated as secondary contact waters) demonstrates that depression of
the oxygen levels below five milligrams per liter will occur. Since these
latter waterways have a lower water quality designation and instream
aeration is to be provided the Mod 3 level of protection is judged to be
adequate. However, it is not judged to be adequate in the Des Plaines
River Watershed. A computer model of the Des Plaines River has not been
developed as for the above waterways. However, the same level of contami-
nants would be discharged during overflow and the results can be expected
to be the same.
Therefore, the plan now includes reservoir capacity in the O'Hare
Area to provide for total capture and increased sizing in the Des Plaines
River tunnels to transport a higher rate of flow to the Mainstream-
Suiranit Reservoir.
In the O'Hare Area, the August 1972 Report provides for an 1800
acre-foot reservoir including capacity for Palatine. Subsequent
Analysis £*) demonstrates that 1280 acre-feet is required for the
equivalent of Mod 3 level storage for the O'Hare sewered area and 2700
acre-feet for total capture. Provision for the latter quantity of storage
is being included in the Plan. The sizing of the tunnels is not changed
because of the decision to include total capture. The tunnel size has
been chosen to transport dry-weather flows to the O'Hare Plant, and on
the basis of transporting peak storm flows with an On-line reservoir
providing for the detention of peak flow rates so as to control the tunnel
surcharge. The cost of both the 2700 acre-foot O'Hare terminal storage
reservoir and the On-Line reservoir is included in the Plan.
The Des Plaines River Tunnel has been increased in size to provide
for total capture. This size increase is shown on Table M-X-3. The
original size was picked such that spillage to the waterways occurred
during a repeat of the July 1957 storm, (the storm of record for rate of
flow) at approximately the same ratio to total flow as in the Chicago
and Calumet River Systems. During the 1954 storm (the storm of record
for total volume), there was no spillage to the Des Plaines River and the
total flow was transported to the reservoir. Thus, no additional storage
volume is needed to provide for total capture and only increased tunnel
sizing is required.
B-13
-------
i """ int wicinwrwuiiMi* OMPII i Mn i uio
•
TABLE M-X-3 TUNNELS- DES PLAINES RIVER
i nit* i
SYSTEM
ur untAitK umtAt»u
i
i
I
'
LINE LENGTH
(ft.) DIA
•
18 8800
| 19 5040
20 11,280
21 9460
i
22 12,200
\ 23 11.200
1
1
24 8160
! 25 14,390
26 5100
| 27 8600
28 7050
| 29 10,380
j. 30 6470
j
!'
TOTAL 118,130
Cost shown exclude
TOTAL CAPTURE
. (FT.) COST
($ x 1000)
36 15,224
15 2,974
10 3,948
36 16,366
32 17,690
15 6,608
32 11,832
32 20,866
32 7,395
24 8,600
24 - 7,050
24 10,380
24 6,470
135,403
shafts, connecting
R-U
MoD 3
DIA.
30
15
15
30
25
15
25
25
25
25
25
20
20
LEVEL PROTECTION
(FT.) COST
($ X 1000) '<
11,704 , j
2,974 j
6,655
i
t
12,582 i
12,810
6,608 l
8,568
15,110
5,355
9,030
7,403
8,304
5,176
112,279
structures and contingencies i
i
-------
THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
AUGUST 1972
I am
It
r
J
N
STORAGE
RESERVOIRS
TREATMENT
WORKS
FIGURE M-X-1
B-15
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF A FLOOD AND POLLUTIOH
CONTROL PLAN FOR THE CHICAGOLAND AREA
PART 5 - ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS
PRELIMINARY LAYOUT OF STICKNEY RESERVOIR
-------
i ! i Ills! i
NODI NUMIIfll—
•100
-400
THOUSANDS Of FEET— 0
STORAGE
RESERVOIR
10 20 30 40
SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL
50 60 ID 10 90 100 110 120 110 140 ISO
SOUTH NORTH CHICAGO RIVER NORTH SHORE CHANNEL
CHICAGO RIVER i
MAINSTREAM SYSTEM
-400
THOUSANDS OF FEET— 0
J>TORAGE_ |
RESERVOIR
20 30 40 50 SO 10 BO 90 i 100 110 120 130 140
DES PLAINES RIVER
O'HARE AREA
PALATINE BRANCH
DES PLAINES RIVER SYSTEM
i 1 i 1 ii
4 51 12 S3 54
1
'* Qi*'
«t— 4-- •• • > •- .,.....-f.,.,,.J j
I
ii
i
IS
20' 0.«
--
,i
1 1
! 1
-
M' Oi».
__^.
^
!
-201)
-300
0 10 20 30 40 0 t 0 S
NORTH BRANCH CHICAGO RIVER
CHGO SOUTH_
RIVER FORK
MAINSTREAM BRANCHES
II t
1 !
I >
Mi • |i «
I l« I 41
1 ! j 1 * *
1 94 35 37 38 4) 47
IV 01.
Silurian DolDiulf
_ _. .,„
J*-^_
15' Die
- - - .„
, . , ,
,
111 1 ^"
. ^_J ^.
.
_- - -
,
*100
n
-100
-200
-300
0 10 20 , 0 10 0 5
SALTJREEK BRANCH ADOISON FEEHANVILLE
CREEK DITCH
DES PLAINES RIVER BRANCHED
TUNNEL PROFILES
FIGIIRF M.X.3
B-17
-------
THOUSANDS OF FEET-* 0
10
STORAGE
RESERVOIR
HARBOR BELT
R.fi.
20
30 40
HARLEM AVE.
60 70 80
CAL. SAG CHANNEL
90 100
LITTLE CALUMET
110 120
CAL. I GRAND
RIVER CALUMET
CALUMET SYSTEM
Sit*!!- i - ••
| i 3 1 i i 1 1 • g Is
NODE NUMM3I— 27 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 31 3
0
0
o
z
o
< -200 i
u>
ui
-400
SANDS OF H£T—
•^— -^«
*»'
|"
1
1 Silun
_ -j
)to. 50' ^'a
~T
_ '"
n Dolomite
. 17' Dlo.
! 1 •"
zm
IS' Dla.
... 1 1 •*
I
I 10 20 30 40
LITTLE CALUMET BIVER
. .
1
tS' Dla.
1 10
1TERCONNECTIO
1
U—
CALUMET BRANCHES
TUNNEL PROFILES
FIGURE M-X-4 B-i8
-------
ENTRANCE
CHAMBER
\
VENT CHAMBER
CONNECTING PIPE
WATER SIDE-
AIR SIDE
TOP OF ROCK
AIR SEPARATION CHAMBEI
TYPICAL DROP SHAFT STRUCTURE
FIGURE M-X-5
-------
TUNNEL AND RESERVOIR PLAN
FIGURE M-X-6
A ON-LINE RESERVOIR
*«»ROCK TUNNEL
W STORAGE
RESERVOIRS
a TREATMENT
WORKS
NOV. 1974
-------
THE METROPOLITAN
SANITARY DJSTRICT
OF GREATER CHBCAGO
N
6EN. USE AND WATER SUPPLY
'> GEN. USE ONLY
. SECONDARY CONTACT
TREATMENT PLANT
CITY
' OF «*•;.
CHICAGO \ , *;•'
SCALE
10123
-------
APPENDIX C
THE METROPOLITAN SAWITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
POSITION PAPSR ON SELECTION OF
UPPER DESPLAINES SERVICE BASIN PLAN
OV5R OTHBR SUGGESTED ALTERNATBS
The O'Hare Facility Area (Upper DesPlaines Service Basin)
is a 53 square mile area in. the northwest region of the
Metropolitan Sanitary District. At present, all sanitary sewage
and the combined sewage finding its way into District inter-
ceptors through regulated control structures, is diverted
through existing interceptors to the District's Northside
Sewage Treatment Works for treatment. Initially, following
annexation into the District of most of the area in 1956,
it was planned to transmit sewage flows for the District's
northwest area to the West-Southwest Sewage Treatment Plant
in otickney for treatment. However, further study indicated
the cost-effectivsness and desirability of dividing the north-
west area into four (4) service areas. This Paper gives, in
detail, the planning history and rationale of dividing the
northwest area of which the O'Hare Facility Area is a part,
into four (4) facility (service) areas.
Collection and treatment of sewage generated in this
basin has been the subject of many studies and reports. In
1961, the Sewer Design Section of the Metropolitan Sanitary
District recommended that the Northwest Intercepting System ".
be constructed to relieve existing sewers in the northwest
portion of the District to provide service for the ultimate
development of that area (Ref.1). The northwest area comprises
the O'Hare, Salt Creek, Hanover Park and Poplar Creek (Elgin)
Facility Areas as shown in Figure 1. The consulting firm of
Greeley and Hansen was retained to investigate this proposal.
Based on their report, submitted in 1962, a teAative decision
was made to convey all sewage from the araa to Ihe West—Southwest
Treatment Plant (Ref.2). Further investigationAf this proposal
indicated that the cost and magnitude of the project would
require such time and resources as to necessitate construction
of temporary plants in the northwest area (Refs.1,2). Additional
studies and investigations carried out primarily due to the
trend toward higher standards for disposal of treated affluent,
indicated -the advisability of collecting and treating the
sewage from each facility area in the northwest area separately,
sinca construction of temporary tertiary treatment plants, of
the magnitude indicated, would riot be cost-affective (Ref. 3).
Furthermore, the District considered that diversion of substantial
quantities of water from the northwest area would not be conducive
to water reuse. Trie utilisation of tertiary quality, effluents for
stream augmentation, within the area, was considered to hava
C-l
-------
C-2
-------
environmental and recreational benefits. The Northwest Inter-
cepting Sewer proposal would have diverted all sewage flows
from the area for treatment at West-Southwest Treatment Plant
and treated effluent would be discharged into the Sanitary
and Ship Canal at Stickney.
As a consequence, the Northwest Area was divided into
Facility Areas corresponding to existing drainage basins:
Upper DesPlaines Service Basin, O'Hare Facility Area; Upper
Salt Creek Service Basin, Salt Creek Facility Area; Upper
DuPage Service Basin, Hanover Park Facility Area? and Poplar
Creek Service Basin, Poplar Creek (Elgin) Facility Area.
A preliminary design concept for the O'Hare Water Reclama-
tion Plant and intercepting sewers was prepared in report form
by Brown and Caldwell, consulting engineers, in 1968 (Ref.4),,
The contract plans for O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant have been
prepared by Consoer, Townsend and Associates, consulting engineers
and are presently under review by the District. Preliminary plans
for two (2) collection facilities systems were prepared in a
report by DeLeuw, Gather & Company, consulting engineers (Ref.5).
One system would divert total sanitary sewage flow only within
the basin to the O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant? the second
system would convey all sanitary sewage to the plant but would,
in addition, eliminate combined sewer overflows by collecting
and storing for treatment, all combined sewer overflows presently
discharging to waterways within the drainage area. They are
presently developing contract plans for the O'Hare Tunnel System
as part of the second system.
In 1973, The Corps of Engineers published the Chicago-South
End of Lake Michigan Study (Ref .6} . The investigation included
the O'Hare Facility Area and the O'Hare T//ater Reclamation Plant
was defined in three of the five alternates presented in the
Raport.
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) included
the District's plan for the O'Hare Facility Area in its "Regional
Wastewater Plan" in 1971 (Ref.7). This plan has been revised a
number of times since (Refs.3,9,10,11,12) but revisions have not •
affected the O'Hare Facility Area except to include the District's
Tunnel and Reservoir Plan as a regional solution to the combined
sexier overflow problem. The first three NIPC Plan revisions have
b<3en certified by the State of Illinois and the Federal Government
in accordance with 40 CFR 35.555 (Refs.8,9,10).
The review of the planning history indicates that the
division of the District's Northwest area into four_facility
areas is cost-effectivs and environmentally sound and has been
C-3
-------
recogn:i.2ju by NIPC, the State of Illinois and the Federal
Oo-<"->i"~v?.ient „ The District's comprehensive plan calls for
collection and treatment of sev/age within each facility area
separately. For the O'Hare Facility Area, the District has
planned a collection system designated as O'Hare Tunnel System
and ci treatment facility, O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant.
It is, therefore, clear that the selection of the Upper
-DesPlaines Service Basin Plan over other alternates suggested
vras a sound judgment, based on a number of detailed engineering
studies concurred in by a multitude of governmental agencies,
Based on the results of the studies and concurrence of the
applicable regulatory and planning agencies, as well as the
majority of the affected communities, decisions have been
made and actions taken over a number of years which weigh even
nioro heavily in favor of continuing the proposed course of
action as expeditiously as possible. The initiation of new
studies and reconsideration of numerous alternates suggested
by individuals untrained in the relevant fields of endeax^or
and uninformed in the history of past decisions and the multi-
tude of facts and data drawn upon in making these decisions
is unwarranted.
C-U
-------
REFERENCES;
/
1. MSDGC, "Recommendation for Site Acquisition
for Additional Sewage Treatment Plants for
Northwest Section of Cook County, Salt Creek
and DesPlaines River Areas," June 25, 1964
2. Greeley and Hansen,"Proposed West and Northwest
Sewers," MSDGC, 1962
>
3. Greeley and Hansen, "Report for Northwest Area",
MSDGC, 1968
4. Brown and Caldwall, "Design Report, O'Hare Re-
clamation Plant", MSDGC, 1968
5. DeLeuw, Gather & Company, "Preliminary Plans for
O'Hare Collection Facility", MSDGC, 1972
6. Corps of Engineers, "Chicago South End of Lake
Michigan Study", Chicago District, 1974 '
7. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission,
"Regional Wastewater Plan", March, 1971
8. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission,
"Regional Wastewater Plan",' Revised September, 1971
9. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission,
"Regional Wastewater Plan", Revised October, 1971
10. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission,
"Regional Wastewater Plan", Revised January, 1972
11. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission,
"Regional Wastewater Plan", Revised July, 1972
12, Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission,
"Regional Wastewater Plan", Revised October, 1972
C-5
-------
APPENDIX D
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL rROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
23O SOUTH DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 606O4
January 16, 1975
Dear Sir:
Region V of the USEPA is initiating the preparation of a draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the proposed O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant in Des Plaines,
Illinois.
Much of the public opposition to the proposed treatment facility has focused
on the potential health hazard of locating a sewage treatment plant in close
proximity to a residential neighborhood. We want to determine the present
state of knowledge of the health significance of airborne bacteria, viruses,
and gaseous chemical compounds which may be emitted from uncovered sewage
treatment plants of this size and process.
Attached is a brief description of the proposed project with accompanying
maps illustrating the wastewater facility design layout, the site location
and other relevant background information.
To aid in our environmental impact evaluation, we would like you to address
the following questionnaire. We are interested in your own research ex-
periences with these topics and in any relevant references to the scientific
literature that you can identify. To incorporate the results of this
questionnaire into the draft Environmental Impact Statement, we need to have
your response by February 3, 1975.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact Dale Luecht
or Cathy Grissom of my staff at 312-353-7730. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely yours,
s*~Gv— (/ *~
Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Planning Branch .
Enclosures
a/s
D-l
-------
Questionnaire
I, Are any synergistic effects known between airplane related emission;;
and aerosols' or gases generated by activated sludge treatment processes?
If so, what are these effects?
2, What epldemiological studies have been conducted on the health of sewage
treatment plant workers or residents in the area of a treatment facility?
What do the results indicate?
!>„ In your opinion, is there any significant health hazard associated with
siting a wastewater treatment plant of'this size and process type in
this location? Why or why not?
4. In your opinion, will there be any significant odor problems associated
with the operation of a facility such as this? Why or why not?
5. Is Chere a minimum distance and/or special protecti/ve measures which
should be incorporated into the design of a treatment plant such as
this to protect the workers and the adjacent residential communities
from any potential health hazard?
6. In your opinion, would a wastewater reclamation plant of this size and
process type produce significant quantities of chemical emissions of
a corrosive or abrasive nature? Discuss the reasons why you feel this
will or will not be a problem.
7. Are you aware of any other comparable, situations where similar issues
occurred? What were these issues and how were they resolved?
. D-2
-------
Sent January 20, 1975
Dr. G. J. Love
Human Studies Laboratory
EPA, National Environmental
Research Center
Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711
Dr. F3ora Mae Wellings
Epidemiological Research Center
4000 W. Buffalo Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33614
813-876-1351
George F. Mallison, Asst. Dir.
Bacterial Diseases Division
Center for Disease Control
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
404-633-3311
Dr. Peter Skaliy, Deputy Chief
Microbial Control Branch
Bureau of Epidemiology
Center for Disease Control
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Dr. J. E. Quon
Dept. of Civil Engineering
Northwestern University
Evanston, Illinois 60201
Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing
Director of Research & Development
Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago
100 East Erie
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Dr. Blumenthal, Chairman
Department of Microbiology
Loyola University
Stritch School of Medicine
Maywood, Illinois 60153
Dr. Lawrence Wang
Argonne National Laboratory
Building 12
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
D-3
Dr. Lee McCabe, Chief
Criteria Development Branch
Water Supply Research Laboratory
National Environmental Health Center
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Dr. Paul Kenline
EPA, National Environmental Research
Center - R.I.P.
Room M-311
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
John Convery
Advanced Waste Treatment Research Lab.
National Environmental Research Center
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Dr. Robert Bunch, Chief
Treatment Process Development Branch
Advanced Waste Treatment Research Centex
National Environmental Research Center
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Dr. Gerald Berg, Chief
Biological Methods Branch
M.D.Q.A.R.L.
National Environmental Research Center
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Edward Barth
A.W.T.R.L.
National Environmental Research Center
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Mrs. Edie Tomkins
Human Studies Laboratory
EPA National Environmental Research Cent
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Dr. Button D. Slade
Department of Microbiology
Northwestern School of Medicine
303 East Chicago
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Valdas Adamkus, Deputy Reg. Adminis.
Region V
Clifford Risley,Jr., R & D.
R eeion V
-------
Project Description
The proposed O'liare Water Reclamation Plant is a 72 MGD facility serving a
suburban Chicago population in Des Plaines, Mt. Prospect, Elk Grove, Rolling
Meadows, Arlington Heights, Prospect Heights, Wheeling, and Buffalo Grove,
Illinois, The present, population of the service area is 250,000. The projected
population in the design year is 300,000. The ultimate size of this facility
is anticipated to be 96 MGD. Wastewater characteristics and flow projections
are tabulated tit enclosure C. No unusual industrial wasteloadings are anti-
cipated In the .service area.
The sewage conveyance system consists of laterals, connections to existing
sewer lines, drop shafts and tunnels. The tunnels are to be located 40 to
160 feet below the surface and are 5' to 20' in diameter. Both combined
sewage ( approximately 20% of the service area) and sanitary sewage will be
conveyed to the treatment plant by this system. The tunnels have a total
volume of 200 acre feet providing storage capacity and should reduce com-
bined sewage overflows in the service area from approximately 80 to 6 a year.
•In the two stage treatment process, carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and ammonia nitrogen are removed in two separate sets of aeration and
sedimentation rank modules. (Aeration tanks cover approximately 6.6 acres
for the 72 MGD facility and an additional 2 acres at 96 MGD). Final effluent
polishing and disinfection are to be accomplished by dual media filters and
the injection or sodium hypochlorite. Post aeration will raise the dissolved
oxygen content of the effluent before it is discharged to Higgins Creek.
Sludge will be piped to the Salt Creek facility, at another location, for
treatment,
The 104 acre proposed treatment plant site is bounded by an industrial area
and abandoned gravel pit to the east, a commercial area to the west, and a
toll road to the south. Residential areas are located immediately
to the north of the site and on the south side of the tollway. Homes are within
400 feet from the north edges of the aeration tanks. (See enclosure D-2 and D-3) .
List of Enclosures
A. Climate - O'Hare Airport
B. Air Quality - Data presented at public hearing
C, Influent Wastewater Characteristics and process flow diagram
D. Maps
Chica'go.area.•• •.. •."'•• '; ••••;.•'.
2. Air photo - treatment plant site
3. Map - treatment plant site
4. Treatment plant layout
E. Conveyance System
D-4
-------
Enclosure A
Climate - O'Hare International Airport
1. Annual Summary, Local Climatological Data, 1973, U.S. Dept.
of Commerce.
2. Summary of Hourly Observations, 1956-1960, U.S. Dept. of
Commerce.
3. Annual and Monthly Wind Roses based on hourly observations,
1956-1960, U.S. EPA.
Concentric circles represent composite percent frequencies,
These wind roses were developed from table B, Summary of
Hourly Observations, 1956-1960.
^ ••
D-5
-------
OSiPAttfMENT G? !
, COMMERCE '
1 PUBUCAYiON
LOCAL CLiMAIULUC^ICAL DATA
ANNUAL SUMMARY WITH COMPARATIVE DATA
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
O'HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CLIMATOLOGICAL SUMMARY
Chicago 1* along tht; southweai shore of Lake Michigan and occupies
it plain which, .for the mo»t part, is only some tens of feet above the
lake. Lake Michigan averages 579 feet above m. B.I. Natural water
drainage over mow of the City would be into Lake Michigan, and
from arts** weal of the City Is into the Mississippi River system.
But actual drainage over most of the City ia artificially channeled
also into the MlssUr.lppl system.
Topography does not significantly affect air iiowlnor near the City
except thsu Icgaer frlctlonal drag over Lake Michigan causes winds
id 3x: frequently stronger along the lake shore, and often permits air-
masses moving irom the north 10 reach shore areas an hour 01 more
before affecting western pa.te of the City.
Chicago iginareglonoi'trequeritlvchangeableweather. The climate
IB predominantly f.ontmental, ranging from relatively warm in sum-
mer to relatively rolo ir> winter. However, rhe continentallty Is
partially modified by lake Michigan, andtoalesser extent by other
Great Lakes. In late iiutumu and winter, airmasses that are initially
very cold often reach the City only after being tempered by passage
owr one or more of the lakes. Similarly, in late spring and sum-
mer, airmawaes reaching the i;ity from the north, northeast, or
east sre cooler because of movement over the Great Lakes. Very
low winter temperatures meat often occur in air that flows south-
ward to the west of Lak^ Superior before reaching the Chicago
krea. In summer ;i,e higher temperatures are with south or south-
west How and are therefore not influenced by the- lakes, the only
modifying effect being a local lake breeze. Strong south or south-
west flow may ovcrcoms the lake breeze and cause high tempera-
tures to extend over ih« entire Clcy,
During the warm season, when the lake is cold relative to land,
there i* frequently a lake l«re»ze that reduces daytime temperature
near the shore, sometimes by 10* or more below temperatures far-
ther Inland, Whet, the breeze off the lake is light thia effect usually
reaches inland only a mile or two, but with stronger on- shore winds
the whole City is cooled, On the other hand, temperatures at night
are warmer near the lake so that 24-hour averages on the whole are
only slightly different in various parts of the City and suburbs.
fo summer a combination of high temperature and humidity may
develop, usually building up progressively over a period of several
days when winds continue out of the south or southwest, becoming
oppressive for one or perhaps several days, then ending abruptly
with a shift of winds into northwest or northerly. The change may
be preceded or accompanied by thundershowers. High relative
humidity often results from wind flow off the lake, but the air is
then cooler and not oppressive.
At the O'Hare International Airport temperatures of 96* or higher
occur in about half ot the summers while about half of the winters
have minima as low as- 15° . The average date of the first tempera-
ture as low as 32" In the fall is October 12 and the average date of
the temperature as low as 32" in the'spring Is April 29 (1959-1972
data). However, temperatures this low haveoccurred as early as
September 28 in autumn, and as late at»May 29 in spring. Normal
daily mean temperatures are below 32° for 96 days during winter.
The normal heating season is from mid-September to early June.
Ninety-four percent of the normal heating load is between October 1
and April 30, and 55 percent during the winter months of December
through February. The normal air-conditioning season lastsfrom
about mid- Juna to early September.
Precipitation falls mostly from air that has passed over the
Gulf of Mexico. But In winter there is sometimes snowfall, light
Inland but locally heavy near the lake shore, with Lake Michigan
as the principal moisuure source. The heavy lake - shore snow
accurs when initially colder air moves from the north with a long
trajectory over Lake Michigan and impinges on the Chicago lake
shore. In this situation the airmass is warmed and its moisture
content increased up to a height of several thousand feet. Snowfall
is produced by upward currents that become stronger, because of
frictional effects, when the air moves from the lake onto land. This
type of snowfall therefore tends to be heavier and to extend farther
Inland in aouth-shore areas of the City and in Indiana suburbs,
where the angle between wind- flow and shoreline is greatest. The
effect of Lake Michigan, both on winter temperatures and lake-
produced snowfall, is enhanced by non-freezing of much of the lake
during winter, even though shore areas and harbors are often ice-
choked. This type of local heavy snowfall may occur once or a few
times in a normal sea sen.
Summer thunder shower s are often locally heavy and variable;
parts of the City may receive substantial rainfall and other pans
none. Longer periods of continous precipitation are mostly in
autumn, winter, and spring. About one-half the precipitation in
winter, and about 10 percent of the yearly total precipitation falls
as snow. Snowfall from month to month and year to year is greatly
variable. There is a SO percent likelihood that the first and last
1- inch snowfall of a season will occur by December 5 and March
20, respectively. The corresponding dates for the first and last
3-inch snowfall are December 24 and March 2. Freezing rain
sometimes occurs but is usually light. During the cold season slight
melting and refreezing of precipitation is a fairly common hazard
to highway traffic.
Channeling of winds between tall buildings often causes locally
stronger gusts in the central business area. Also winds are often
locally more brisk along the shoreline; otherwise the nickname
"windy city" is a misnomer, because the average wind speed is
not greater than in many other pans of the United States.
Fog is infrequent. Visibility is much more often restricted by
local air pollution, a condition that is worst during the heating
season, but which comlnues throughout the year because of ex-
tensive industrial activity. For much of the time in autumn,
winter, and spring, smoke and other air pollution is carried
away by winds, sometimes rapidly, but on come occasions when
there is little or no wind the 'pollution accumulates, especially
during night and early morning hours. Summertime air pollu-
tion is less, partly because of lesser output, but also because of
better vertical dispersal: on the other hand, on many summer
days surface wind flow converges into the City, preventing or
lessening horizontal outflow at the ground.
The amount of sunshine is moderate in summer and quite low in
winter. A considerable amount of cloudiness, especially In win-
ter, is locally produced by lake effect. Days in summer with no
sunshine are rare. The total sunshine in December, partly be-
cause of shorter days, is only a little over one-third the July
total.
D-6
-------
METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR THE CURRENT YEAR
*«*«* CHK4CQ1 tLlifcOIS Q MAKE INTSftNATlONAi. MfcWT &»*.rt ), a* «4 C£KTft*l L*U!*dfr *!« 5*' N LoBtiUfe. 87' 3V M EterrS^c U
1 ^7
P^,»8.»,V
'
'
.
jn
in
P«IS
wn«iia
jH -*
-__. „_
DH - I
JrtOH o «
ifioH o
s.
«,
•"(»Z
,-x
AltQ
..,."»"
,~i
1 S
1.1
.
t-
J
f
»U,,00D
,„..„
•lifl
iw»n
uiniuiuiu
X]HQ
wnwixpui
r^ <-t in
00000, „ «0 „
M
*
__.__ _, ^ ^™ .»
o«^.o>o - "" 5S
s2
252222 5:-2222 2 £j
222^22 222^* " r\
w
4SITSST g"
M
mr- « .« *^H
JJ7Y22 157 «7 j M O O OOOO «v (M ' ^^H
^mtftil t i « i » i tn * r*-i
oo on •*'>*•*•*• « /^\
"- ~~~-- ~ QJ
..,55s ss:5n 2 »
= SS2" *
^< 0 «tn tr, rst^M t-
SES-"5 2"— S. S2
«**O M(WM| •j*
T.-OOT^^— w-wiwmi^— ^K
-wKO-=r^, Tmnnr^r— T<
iiSii^iH"
ssssjs sssss,; s
tt«flu«| - innttfwi
i*1o« X(>tp al«J*Ay
«
1
i
i
I1
|.
1 P"«.0
P»!K
p«!zc
P"«.06
So, XAt«H
wuoiuapwU
•JOUl JO 43U1 1(J
i-i
'P°»ID
Xpnop
*!"•<(
«D
IMirot 01 »«iJun«
j*A03 <)!• "••Kj
*
•a
•i
S ?
11
1
s.
1
Jl
u.
"•A
«.w,a
p^ts
»,7.Z!
p.-.u^,
inou *°
i»oH 2 1
««H S S
"OH S ~
Snow, Ice pellets
-A
ir,z..«
»»A
±Z
"""""''
""A
«M n «'
'"A
«Z»°R
-*
™.^
ln.,,«»K
^-^.z
i
1
!
**A
(MOMJI
-A
ESS
'"'"«
•inniiiiiui
*i'«a
» tfl 4T .«• fit •* iM * • M -1 4> • " ^ 41 -5 2 « °3
^ •a .*u'
2 SS*S«2 5«5S2? S "^«l
SSSSS ££££ ^5 w|^ -I^"?£ "* rf
- :-:-2222 :-:-:-22 2 jw p|ii| fi |
»*•••••*> *• » » o- << v> ^i-iai j- ^ u £^« Q. 'C
r^r««««4.4 ^Vvt^tr^ ~J^« *B,*J £&,3.£c'S Z*~' 5
= £§525 55-255 3 ||f. JjjWjj jj }
13" Jijt Vo 1; =
?»ccls $i?il£ c? " ^ !i*"fi§ i» !„•
s ssss?s sjyssn 3 -s^ |lsll^ 1* S|
«_-~~« «.,.,„» » S--;5!!:? '8" '8°
v« M'4*>»44t •«n«t<^r-N ^« m c c 5 " U^ S w 1*4 "2 *
...... ...... . O ^ M <-> Kl H- -° ^) " ^- %' ° «J V^-
444i4r-4> i^r-***^ *. 4> * *•' .2 Js 3 S) i o **3S *
v4 -^r- o r* -^o- «t»»i»\f-w -# j S101 ^SjSHS"* ** 5 ^°
r- »«^ •» ^ g, 5 S^,j JS^8.3|to*' ^*f 51
g 11222s "*2t§ | jg- j| | j!
1 _^-^_ ___„_ -,_ „ ^^ ?°^° 5,1* ?|
2 32SSSS SSSSES S - g^ sE|8|'l|[| ^
Si^SS^ S5K3S2 S « «j| ^sisil^IrA ill
e^'i's's'^ iss5:'s s '-^" 2 s'"""*
a"1-1? •"""OI° 5
D-7
-------
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
HEATING DEGREE DAYS
CH1CACO, JLLIN01S
O'HARE INTERNATIONAL A1RH.IKT
Y«u-|jan.
1931
1939
l»»0
1961
1«62
1963
1964
1969
1966
1967
>96»
19»9
1970
1971
1972
1973
IttCORC
MEAN
KIN
16.2
26. «
20.)
16. »
11.9
27.7
21.4
16.1
27.7
it. a
21.1
16.1
It. 9
19.6
21. >
20.9
11. 9
•
Feb. | Mar.
31.
24.
16.
26.
24.
26.
19.
23.
29.
26.1
21.1
23.6
21,7
29.!
17.!
33.0
13.9
19.9
33.7
39.6
16.3
42.7
34.4
14.1
19,0
14.0
44,0
39.4
27.1
Apr.
43,3
41,9
30,9
49,1
49.2
<4>,4
92,3
90,9
SI, 7
41,6
44,1
49,1
49,6
19.7
May
94.9
69.0
36.3
62, •*
93.4
93. B
97.0
60.1.
61.9
37. t
61.0
34.9
SO. 8
47.9
June
07,4
67.9
69.0
69,0
69.9
69,9
70.2
64.3
69. »
73.5
63.7
71.1
1,8,6
97.6
July] Aug. (Sept.! Oct.
71.1
69,2
72.1
72.1
74.9
68,4
72.0
73.0
74,7
71.9
71.6
74.7
72,1
61.9
70, »
71. «
69.9
67,7
69,6
66,2
73.7
73,9
72.9
32,0
73,9
74,6
71,6
91,2
61.6
60,7
64.9
63.3
62.9
61,7
69.'
69,3
69,2
69.7
63,3
66.0
64.9
36.3
91.6
33.1
60.;
49,0
31.4
52.9
34.7
31.9
39.4
61.7
49,3
37.9
34,0
43,6
Nov. [ D«c. (Annual
J9.9
40.1
41. .9
41.4
42.3
J7.3
40,0
>1.3
40,7
41.7
17.7
41.9
19.9
11.6
25.3
23.2
13,3
24,7
27.1
30,3
27.9
29,0
30. B
14,2
23.9
29.1
26.9
19,3
49,3
41.1
47,1
49,9
49,1
47,7
30,3
49.3
90.0
91,0
47,6
91,9
49.9
19.9
Season {July
195«-39
. 1961-62
1 6i-63
1 63-64
1 64-63
1 69-66
1 66-67
I 67.69
1969-69
1969-70
1970*71
1971-72
1972-71
1971-74
2
19
6
16
• 10
12
1
39
14
4
2
7
15
0
Aug.|S«pt|Oct
3
11
1
24
52
33
12
53
12
0
o
3
10
0
54
126
179
96
149
110
127
160
99
79
99
64
109
72
34»
sto
310
174
521
370
420
393
335
423
102
154
491
244
Nov^Dec
701
691
747
740
6S4
699
733
669
927
740
794
725
*93
111
497
1373
1212
1223
1291
1991
1240
915
1170
1069
1146
1110
1039
949
1269
1139
Jan.
1509
1177
1499
1695
114
114
130
11*
127
1135
1506
1422
1403
1133
Feb,|M«r,|Apr,
nil
1164
933
1129
1339
1106
1134
1019
12J7
1192
976
1016
1026
11*7
1012
197
1247
130
970
776
963
1193
171
632
941
929
923
954
643
523
407
640
504
425
479
543
491
176
419
419
414
602
901
May (Juru;| Total
in
243
332
147
281
139
117
25 I
51 1 6799
53 | 6549
90 6770
59 7062
63! 6493
77 7113
162 19
257 29
204 124
169 |, 44
262
178
311
14
90
6554
6351
63*3
6595
6300
6293
6301
TOTAL PRECIPITATION TOTAL SNOWFALL
Y*»r
lift
1999
*
jm
196!
1966
19*3
1966
1967
1969
1970
1971
197!
1971
MCORO
Hla*
Jan.
l.»l
'
0,21
t.»«
0.72
4,11
1.09
1.62
0,12
1,01
1.14
1.60
Feb.
1.66
0.93
1.18
0.32
1.19
1.71
1.92
0.12
0.39
0.73
1,19
1.11
Mar
J.J9
4.01
l.H
i.ts
1.06
2.64
2.30
1.91
2.K
2.50
Apr.
2.14
2.47
1.14
5.22
6.19
1.97
4.01
4.29
6.99
t.ei
May
1.44
2.03
J.36
2,26
4,71
1.61
1.17
1,69
1.10
June
1.68
4.20
2,l>
2.86
2.15
7.94
7.76
2.97
1.99
July
3,11
1,69
9,27
4,23
2.19
1.87
1.43
5.27
1,13
Aug.
2.03
1.34
1.62
1,95
1.00
2.60
0.51
0.61
2,10
Sept.
1.91
11.44
1.90
1.96
0.35
2.43
3.01
6.01
4.22
Oct.
4.04
1.14
0.39
0.16
2.16
1.9«
6.35
2.36
2.21
Nov. Dec.
1.99
2.57
1.76
0.71
2.90
4.74
2.19
1.11
1.90
2.13
0.72
1.33
0.23
1.31
Annual
32.04
36.78
21.77
29.74
1.88 32.00
2.41
1.19
3.71
2.02
33. !7
34.41
27.57
38.10
13.30
Season
1953-39
1939-60
1961-62
1962-4!
1963-64
1967-68
19&8-69
1971-72
July
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
Aug.
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
SeptJOct.
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
T
0,0
0.1
7
T
0.0
6.6
0.0
Nov.
2.0
0.1
7
2.4
5.7
Dec. Jan.
10.7
2.3
8.9
2.9
10.9
18.6
16.1
1.6
10.4
1.7
Feb.|Mar.| Apr.|May|June| Total
10.0
8.4
3.9
3.
2.
II. »
3.7
7.3
1»,8
1.5
4.7
'
'
T
0.7
T
7
0,1
0.0
0.4
'
•
T
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
T
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(
31.7
47.7
35.3
36,2
67.7
27,7
23.1
36. »
1
1
»«cord m**n v«luti «bov« (not «djuit«d for InacrwMnt loot ion ch«\gei ll«t«d In th« Station Location t«bl«) «te
period beginning In 1958.
# Indlcit>9 • brok'ln th* diti i«qu«nc« during th« y«»r, or icaion, du« to. « lOtton oov« or relocation el Inet
Steclon Location table.
l for th«
te. See
D-8
-------
STATION LOCATION
CHICAGO, ILL
O'KAHE INTERNATIONAL Al
toottioD
International Building
j
1
10/30/51
J
1
Fy*.**nt
. 1
III
1 1 j
ill
latitude
North
41* 59'
Longitude
Heat
87- 54'
Elevation above
See
level
is
u
• e
S3
s:
d&
658
Ground
«
'I
i
|
b20
j
J
j
1
j
41
d39
;
i
1
!
'
K
1
W
40
d39
f
1
t
H
1
I*
l!
•
J
i
|
*
c38
d39
S>
I
|
0
36
d38
t*
e
i
o
&
&
a4
Sea
level
e
J
t!
Reiaarke
a • Comissioned 3300 feet
of office 12/1/60.
b - 65 feet to 12/8/60.
c • Comnissioned 6/4/62.
d - Relocated 1200 feet E •
toquesC* for Additional cllMtU infornAtlon rfhould be addren^ed Co: Director, National Clinacic Center, Federal Building, Aahevilla, N. C. 28501
Sale Price: IS cent* per copy. Check* and money order* thould be made payable Co Department of Comnerce, NOAA. • Remittance* and correspondence
regarding thl* publication ihould be *ent to: National Cltnatic Center, federal Building, Aaheville, N. C. 28801. Accn: Publications.
USCWtl-NOAA-ASHEVILLE - 2750
US DETRIMENT Of COMMERCE
"WIIOHAI CUMAFIC CfNIfR
ffDfRAl BUIIOING
f,».c. 2SSQ1
** fQOAL OPfOHTUMITY tMf LOVER
... J?TAOt *"D FEES PAID
Ui DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
210
FIRST CLASS
D-9
-------
HOURLY WIND ROSE
NW
W
SW
N
CHK5WSO, ILLINOIS
O'HARE
JANUARY
1956-1960
3% Calm
D-10
-------
HOURLY WIND ROSE
W
SW
N
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
O'HARE
FEBRUARY
1956-1960
2.3% Calm
NE
SE
D-ll
-------
HOURLY WIND ROSE
N
NW
W
SW
NE
SE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
O'HARE
MARCH
1956-1960
2.8% Calm
D-12
-------
NW
W
HOURLY WIND ROSE
N
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
O'HARE
APRIL
1956-1960
3.8% Calm
SE
D-13
-------
HOURLY WIND ROSE
SW
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
O'HARE
MAY
1956-1960
3.0% Calm
D-14
-------
HOURLY WIND ROSE
N
W
su
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
O'HARE
1956-1960
4.1% Calm
D-15
-------
W
HOURLY WIND ROSE
N
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
O'HARE
JULY
1956-1960
3.9% Calm
CM
D-16
-------
HOURLY WIND ROSE
NW
W
su
N
NE
£.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
O'HARE
AUGUST
19^6-1960
6.5% Calm
D-17
-------
HOURLY WIND ROSE
w
SW
N
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
O'HARE
SEPTEMBER
1956-1960
6.0% Calm
SE
D-18
-------
HOURLY WIND ROSE
NW
W
SW
N
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
O'HARE
3.7% Calm
D-19
-------
HOURLY WIND ROSE
4-
NU
U
sw
N
CHCCAGO, ILLINOIS
O'HARE
NOVEMBER
1956-1960
2.0% Calm
D-20
-------
HOURLY WIND ROSE
W
SI
N
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
O'HARE
DECEMBER
1956-1960
1.9% Calm
SE
D-21
-------
ENCLOSURE B
AIR QUALITY
Th«i "A u.
port V'Jrinity ^ir Pollution Study," Argonne National Laboratories, Energy and
Lnvl L(:r,:v.cui:nl Systems Division, Argonne Illinois Federal Project FA-71WT-223, initiated
in lj/!lr survc-\ed the following air quality parameters at O'Hare International Airport:
c.a-:bon monoxide, CO; cotal hydrocarbons; nitrogen oxides, NOX; and particulate matter.
A comparison v.is inade between the levels of these constituents and the levels specified
in the Nnti oriel Arab .lent Air Quality Standards <"40 CFR50), promulgated pursuant to the
CJcac Air Act • >:; L967 as amended in 1970, Following are selected excerpts presented
at the public near trig on December 19, 1974.
l^CTROG^ OXIDES:_
A :co£'Jin;r;, t-.o the: National Standards, the annual average level of nitrogen oxides, as
pho!:n:hcuri(;ai oxidaots., should not exceed 160 micrograms per cubic meter or 0.08 p.p.m.
ipa^imuif in or,?> hour. The Argonne Study, however, indicates nitrogen oxides, average
levels as high PS 209 .aicrograms per cubic meter or 0.10 p.p.m. at the O'Hare perimeter
(p»I4), at the end of Runway 14L, about 2 miles from the proposed plant site levels as
'uipji AS ViO it)")c--ograms per cubic meter or 0.21 p.p.m. (p.181) and at the old Ravens-
wood Airport le.f.3 than 1/4 miles from the plant site concentrations as high as 320
mi-crovyrrims per cubic meter or 0.155 p.p.m. (p. 81 and converted to 32°F., p.278).
According .to the National Standards the maximum concentrations for a 3 hour period, not
Lo be exceeded wore than once a year, is 160 micrograms per cubic meter or 0.24 p. p.m.
The Acgorme frudy, however, indicates average levels at the O'Hare perimeter of 1970
mierograms per cubic meter or 2.75 p. p.m. (p. 14) and at the old Ravenswood Airport area
approximately 1/4 miles from the proposed plant site levels as high as 2130 micrograms
per cubic meter or 2,97 p. p.m. (p. 81 and converted to 32°F. ,p. 278) .
According to the National Standards, the secondary standards provide that the annual
average, of particulate matter should not exceed 60 micrograms per cubic meter and the
primary standards provide an annual average of 75 micrograms per cubic meter and a
24 hour maximum not. to exceed 260 micrograms per cubic meter. The Argonne Study,
however, Indicates levels outside O'Hare as high as 180 micrograms per cubic meter and
inside O'Hare as high as 240 micrograms per cubic meter (p. 189). Also significant in
thia regard is the statement on page 187 of the Argonne Study in reference to certain
areas inside O'Hare as follows:
"If such levels persist throughout the year, then the annual
, • standard of 75 micrograms per cubic meter, would- certainly -be • . /
. • ' exceeded.". . . . • '' "'
D-22
-------
—9—
With regard to the leve] of all pollutants reported in the Study, the Argonne personnel
observe on p.82, that the level of pollutants obviously increases in the immediate area
of the jet engine exhaust plume and further on p. 174 that such exhaust plume trailing
a landing aircraft is visible at ground level for a distance of 1 to 2 miles from the
end of the runway. Thus aircraft landing on runway 14L will leave a jet engine exhaust
plume with high pollution levels extending from 1 to 2 miles from the end of runway 14
and therefore directly into and onto the area of the plant site....
One might assume or hope that the ambient air quality may have improved since 1972
through the employment and adoption of the so called "smokeless" jet engine employing
retro-fitted clean burners or through reduced aircraft operations. Unfortunately th^s
is not the situation. For example, on p.215 of the Argonne Study, an analysis of the
Pratt and Whitney JT8D engine, used for such aircraft as the B-727, the DC-9 and the
B-737 is provided showing a comparison before and after retro-fitting. Such analysis
reveals that the hydrocarbon emissions for the clean burning engine when compared to
the unmodified engine is approximately the same during both take-off and landing.
However, such analysis, does show an increase in the level of nitrogen oxides for the
clean burning engine during both take-off and landing. These nitrogen oxides are,
of course, a main reactant in the photochemical production of smog, which is universall
recognized as a serious health hazard.
Moreover, there has not been any reduction in flight operations since 1972 but rather
an increase in the number of flights. Thus the level of pollutants in the plant site
area has,probably risen since 1972 and will rise even further in the future with an
increase in the number of flights at O'Hare.
According to a report prepared by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission entitle
"Metropolitan Aircraft Noise Abatement Policy Study, O'Hare International Airport,
Chicago, Illinois" dated July 1971, the number of aircraft operations has steadily
increased over the years and in 1975 there sho'Od be in excess of 700,000 flight
operations. This Report which is also cited by the District in their assessment
further reveals that runway 32R in 1965 was employed approximately 44 percent of the
time for take-offs and predicts that in 1975 such runway will be employed approximately
73.88 percent of the time for take-offs. This runway is, of course, the nearest to
the plant site and in fact directs aircraft directly over the site. These increased
operations for such runway, with associated high levels of pollutants such as nitrogen
oxides, will directly and adversely affect the quality of air at the proposed plant
site.
D-23
-------
THE ESTIMATED RAW WASTEWATER INFLUENT TO THE O'HARE WATER RECLAMATION PLANT IS AS
FOLLOWS:
PROCESS CONDITIONS (a)
F (KGD)
PO (rng/1)
BOD5 (mg/i)
DO (mg/1)
S3 (mg/1)
RC (mg/1)
NiL-N (mg/1)
INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS:
72
5-15
146
0
180
0
20
PROPOSED EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS; *
72
4.0 !
4.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
2.5
(a)* ALL CONDITIONS APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION BY CONSULTANT.
THERE ARE NO UNUSAL INDUSTRIAL WASTE LOADINGS ANTICIPATED IN THE SERVICE AREA.
PROJECTIONS ARE AS INDICATED:
FLOW
GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY:
YEAR: POP.(1000): DOMESTIC: INDUSTRIAL;
INFILTRATION
ALLOW. EXC.:
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
223
26.1
277
300
315
332
350
(1)
73
80
94
113
116
117
118
29
61
75
78
74
70
67
33
33
33
32
32
32
31
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1)« SEWERED POPULATION IN 1970 = 200,700
TOTAL PROJECTED FLOWS:
"NIPC POP,
DOMESTIC FLOW (GPCPD): INDUSTRIAL FLOW (MGD)
1970 -
1980 -
1990 -
2000 -
2010 -
2020 -
2030 -
223,000
261,000
277,000
300,000
315,000
332,000
350,000
106
113
127
144
148
149
150
6.4
16.0
20.8
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
TOTAL; FLOW (MGD)
150
174
202
223
222
219
216
30
45
56
67
70
73
75
TOTAL,FLOW (MGD)
30.0
45.5
56.0
66.6
70.0
72.9
75.9
D-24
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT 01- GRcATER
;_._, Page
J
CHICAGO
14 of 1G
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARV DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
• Page 15 of 16
DESIGN CRITERIA , ' .
s
O'HARE WRP
- -PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
•
IDENTIFICATION SHEET
i
T—101 Pumping Station - .•
T-1G2 Grit Chamber ,.
T-104 Aeration Tank, First Stage
T-10L: . Settling Tank, First Stage
1J»"106 Aeration Tank, Second Stage •
I'-*107 Settling Tank, Second Stage
T-iuS Clear Well
T-10B Chlorine Contact Chamber
I'-liO Scum .Oewatering Tank
F-10X Mechanically Cleaned Coarse Bar Screens
P-lts2 Mechanically Cleaned Fine Screens
F-lv3 Sand Filter
J"~10I Raw Sewage Pumps
J-1Q3 Sludge Air Lift, First Stage
J-104 Sludge Air Lift, Second Stage
Cf—3.GS Back Wash Purap
J-106 Sludge Trans far 'Pump #1 '
•J-107 Slvidge Transfer Pump ^2
V-101 Air Blowers
PROCESS CONDITIONS
Pos
P
1 p
PO
I
BOD
H ! ' DO"
I ss
RC
NH3
ition
(Ft H70)
CMGD)
Crag/1)
5 (mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
-N(mg/3.)
1
(a)
72
5-15
146
0
' 180
0
20
2
(a)
72
4,0
. 20
2.0
25
0
20 .
3
(a)
72
4.0
15
2.0
25
0
2.5
4
(a)
72
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
2.5
(a)
To be' determined
All conditions approximate- and subject to
confirmation-by consultant.
D-26
-------
fc
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ National Environmental Research Center
'«< ww^ Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
January 23, 1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RECEIVE 0
JAN 28 1975
Mr. Marian D. Hirt WANNING BRANCH- Region V
Chief, Planning Branch WANMW, ww j>
Environmental Protection Agency, Region V FILSHO. — —
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
As you requested, I have answered the Questionnaire relating to the
O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant. I have limited myself to answering the
questions related to health effects which is my area of expertise. As
you will see, the state of knowledge of the potential health signifi-
cance of aerosols formed during the treatment process is practically
non-existent. I am attaching a list of the few references on this
subject which we have been able to find.
Sincerely yours,
Edythalena Torfipkins
Epidemiology Branch
Human Studies Laboratory
Attachments
D-27
-------
Reply to Questionnaire
1. Before synergistic effects resulting from exposure to two or more
agents can be demonstrated, it. is necessary to identify and quantify the
effects associated with the individual agents. At the present time,
neither affects which might be associated with airplane emissions nor
aerosols or gases from wastewater treatment processes have been iden-
tified nor quantified,
2, The only published epidemic logic study of which I am aware which
investigated health hazards associated with wastewater treatment evaluated
reported illness episodes in sewage treatment plant workers. Rather
than interpret the findings, I will give you the reference:
Hanek9 Reynolds, "Health Hazards from Wastewater Treat-
ment Practices ,!l Environmental Letters 4:225 (1973)
EPA is currently conducting epidemiology investigations of a population
living in the environs of a wastewater treatment facility and of waste-
water treatment plant workers.
3. There is not sufficient data available to have a valid opinion
about the potential health hazard of locating this or any other plant in
a populated area. One can make an educated guess that the health risks
associated with the operation of wastewater treatment plants must be
relatively small or there would not be such a paucity of information on
the subject. There are many plants operating in populated areas through-
out the world and it can be assumed that any "significant" disease out-
break associated with such plants would have been reported.
4. I have no opinion on this subject,
5. Without any knowledge of the potential health hazard, it is impossible
to recommend protective measures.
6. ! have no opinion on this subject.
7. This question is not clear. If you are asking whether I am aware
of any other wastewater treatment plants which have been opposed on the
basis of potential health hazards, the answer is the North Shore Plant
in Chicago, and I am sure you know what the issues were and how they
were resolved.
D-28
-------
References
Emission of M1crob1al Aerosols from Sewage Treatment Plants that Use
Trickling Filters, Goff, Spendlove, Adams and Nichols
Health Services Reports, August-September 1973, Vol. 88, No. 7, pp. 640-
652.
Sizes and Numbers of Aerosols Generated by Activated Sludge Aeration,
Glaser and Ledbetter
Water and Sewage Works, June 1967, pp. 219-221
M1crob1al Content of A1r Near Sewage Treatment Plants, Napolitans and
Rowe
Water and Sewage Works, December 1966, pp. 480-483
CoHform Aerosols Emitted by Sewage Treatment Plants, Adams and Spendlove
Science, September 1970, pp. 1218-1220
Bacteria A1r Pollution from Activated Sludge Units, Randall and Ledbetter
American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, November-December 1966,
pp. 506-519
D-29
-------
Hutton D. Slade, Ph.D.
Consultant in Microbiology
. '(VlKONMENTAL kROltl U^N A t <
303 East Chicago Avenue RECEIVED
Chicago, Illinois 60611 JAN ' ' ' •
fLAJNJNJJNG bUANUI - i;, .•!,.« v
rite NO
29 January 1975
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Planning Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt,
In response to your letter of 16 January 1975 concerning the O'Hare
Water Reclamation Plant, I can reply to the following questions which you
presented.
^- Question: In your opinion, is there any significant: health
hazard associated with sitting a wastewater treatment plant of this size
and process type in this location? Why?
Reply: There is a potential health hazard associated with the
O'Hare plant. This hazard concerns the possible spread of bacterial and
viral respiratory pathogens which would be emitted into the air above the
aeration tanks in aerosol droplets. The information available in the
scientific literature concerning the aerosol spread of bacteria and viruses
'is summarized in my "Report to the Mayor and City Council of the City of
Des Plaines Concerning Ordinance M-23-74", dated 15 November 1974. In my
opinion the evidence indicates that a health hazard exist in the case of
the O'Hare plant. The 6.6 acres of aeration tanks would provide constant
source of aerosol clouds. The changing pattern of wind direction at
various times of the year would assure the movement of these clouds in all
directions. The bacterial and viral content per unit volume of cloud and
the size of the clouds would increase as the acreage of the aeration tanks
reached its capacity of 8.6 acres. Those Des Plaines homes located within
400 feet of the north side of the aeration tanks would be especially
vulnerable to these aerosol clouds. As stated in my report, the evidence
indicates that viable bacterial and viruses can travel much further than
this distance.
D-30
-------
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt 2 29 January 1975
2. Question: Is there a minimum distance and/or special protective
measures which should be incorporated into the design of a treatment plant
such as this to protect the workers and the adjacent residential communities
from any potential health hazard?
Reply: In order to prevent the dissemination of aerosol clouds the
aeration tanks would need to be covered. The air which would be emitted
from these covered tanks would need to be passed through filters and then
burned. This combined process would guarantee that the viable bacterial and
viral content of this air was zero.
I would appreciate receiving a copy of your environmental impact
statement.
Sincerely yours,
Hutton D. Slade, Ph.D.
Consultant in Microbiology
HDS/pb
D-31
-------
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
EVANSTON, ILLINOIS 60301
THE TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
DEPARTMBNT OP CIVIL ENGINEERING January 30, 1975
Mr. Harlan D0 Hirt u
Chief, Planning Branch JAN 3| ]q7c
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency J3/D
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Re: O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant
Questionnaire
Dear Mr. Hirt:
Thank you for sending the material dealing with the description of the
propsed O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant in Des Plaines, Illinois and the
questionnaire to me for comment. As discussed with Mr. Dale Leucht on the
phone, I would be able to comment on only one or two of the seven questions
on the questionnaire.
1. The synergistic effect of sulfur dioxide and particulates is well
known. The episode air quality standards recognizes this and
considers the combination of these pollutants. Specific synergistic
effect between airplane related emissions and potential aerosols
generated by the activated sludge process has not been documented
to my knowledge.
3. The siting of a wastewater treatment plant of 72 to 96 MGD capacity
poses the same potential health hazard as with the siting of any
wastewater treatment plant handling sanitary wastes. While there
is a potential health hazard, the actual manifestation of this
hazard hae not been documented to my knowledge.
4. Odor problems are frequently associated with the operation of waste-
water treatment facilities. The frequency and intensity of the odor
problems is highly variable, depending upon the quantity of the
operation. Major sources of odors are incoming sewage which may be
septic; the bar screen areas; the scum collection areas; and sewage
handling and dewatering facilities. Facilities for treatment and
dewatering are not planned for the proposed plant. Hence, the major
sources of odors is not present. The track record of the MSB in the
operation of the North Side Sewage Treatment Plant would be fairly
indicative of the odor problems which may be expected in the proposed
Des Plaines site. Mild odor problems may pervade a distance of per-
haps one-quarter to one-half mile; while, severe problems may per-
vade a distance of a mile or so. It is my perception that odor
problems are infrequent and mild at the North Side Plant.
D-32
-------
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt -2- 1/30/75
The trucking and screening of scum from the site may pose a transient
odor problem if part of the truck route is along residential streets.
6, Description of the project indicates that sodium hypochlorite
will be used for disinfection rather than gaseous chlorine.
Hence, the potential release of gaseous chlorine into the air
is not present in this situation.
7. The Clavey Road Sewage Treatment Plant in Highland Park is
adjacent to residential areas. Covering of all treatment pro-
cesses and installation of an air cleaning process to treat the
process air was installed as a means of providing protection
against odor problems. The effectiveness of the system installed
can only be ascertained with operational experience. Since the
plan is just being completed at present, this experience will not
be available for years to come.
Covering of odorous operations without the treatment of the air does serve
to confine the odor problem and reduce its impact on the surrounding areas.
Aerobic processes are not expected to produce odor problems during normal
operations.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely youis,
J. E. Quon
Professor of Civil Engineering
JEQ/ms
D-33
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
CINCINNATI, OHIO 43268
SUBJECT: O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant Questionnaire
DATE Feb. 4, 1975
FHOM Robert L. Bunch, Chief __
Treatment Process Development Branch, AUTRL
ro Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Planning Branch
EPA, Region V
Your questionnaire uas sent to both Mr. Convery and me. We
have combined our reply.
Being a research laboratory, we have had limited field experi-
ence, so our reply is based mainly on information in the scientific
literature. A list of relevant references is attached.
Enclosure
LNVIRONMtNTAL PROTECTION AGENC
RECEIVED
JflAWINiMG BRANCH - Region V
FlLf HO.
D-34
-------
REPLY TO QUESTIONNAIRE
1. No reactions between airplane emissions and gases from activated sludge
treatment processes have been called to our attention. This is not to
say that chlorine, if accidentally released, would not react.
2. Dixon and McCabe (4) concluded from the information available that even
though operating personnel might be exposed to potentially dangerous
materials and organisms in raw sewage, the actual incidence of infections
and parasitic diseases acquired *"rom their work is probably not very high.
The few cases of infectious henf.titis reported could be chance occurrences.
They pointed out that most of the data available from plants dealt mostly
with accidents and physical injuries.
Browning and Gannon (3) reported on a survey by the California State
Department of Public HeaJ ',h of health and safety conditions affecting
operators at 200 wastewater treatment plants in northern California.
Of the 572 operators employed at the plants studied, only one possible
job-related infection uas reported during the 12-month period preceding
the survey. They also found that at more than half of the plants, oper-
ators do not receive regular typhoid and tetanus innoculations.
Ledbetter, ejt al. (7) made an epidemiological survey of the pneumonia
incidence among employees at the major wastewater treatment plants in
Texas. The control group was made up of employees of the water treatment
plants in many of the same cities as the wastewater plants. The definite
cases of pneumonia during employment showed three and six for the waste-
water and water plants, respectively. Apparently even though, theoretically,
there should be more pneumonia cases from working at a wastewater treatment
plant, the data does not indicate it.
Viraraghavan (11) made a survey of several Ottawa municipalities to
determine what diseases were contracted by workers and could be directly
correlated with their working environment. On a general analysis, it was
found that out of 19 municipalities, 15 reported no illness attributable
to the eight diseases that are usually associated with sewage. The few
cases of infectious hepatitis can not be related because the incidence of
infectious hepatitis among the general population was not available.
3. The literature is replete in documenting the potential hazards of aero-
solized sewage organisms. Some of the pertinent references are attached.
Although the investigators differ somewhat, it appears that at least 50^
of the particles emitted are less than 5.0 microns in diameter. The
nasal passages are about 100$ efficient in removing or retaining particles
five microns or greater. Particles smaller than five microns can penetrate
the lungs; therefore, they are considered a potential danger.
D-35
-------
- 2 -
Although the potential health hazards exist, the actual data available
would indicate that the riak is very small. More than the presence of
the pathogens in sewage is needed to cause disease. An infective dose
of the organism must be ingested by a person. Apparently this does not
happen in the vicinity of a treatment plant. The risk appears minimum.
4. Any poorly run uasteuater treatment plant has odors. Methyl mercaptans,
methyl sulfide, indoles, skatoles and hydrogen sulfide are common offenders.
The most important single aspect of odor control is good housekeeping,
preventing deposits of grit, grease and serum. Primary settling basins
may need covers if the setuers coming into the plant m septic or contain
volatile offensive organic compounds.
5. There is no accepted, rule-of-thumb. It is assumed that scientifically
placed wind baffles would prevent the drift of bacteria from the aeration
tanks. To our knowledge, this haa not been tried. The baffles would be
to prevent the drift to the adjacent residential community and not to
cut down on the exposure to yorkers.
6. Hydrogen sulfide emission can occur in plants where the incoming sewage
is septic. It is corrosive and has an objectionable odor.
7. No.
AWTRL, Cincinnati
D-36
-------
REFERENCES
HEALTH HAZARDS FROM UASTEUATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
1. Adams, A. P., and Spendlove, 3. C., "Coliform Aerosols Emitted by
Sewage Treatment Plants." Science. 169t 1218 (1970).
2. Benarde, 1*1. A., "Land Disposal and Sewage Effluent: Appraisal of Health
Effects of Pathogenic Organisms." Jour. Am.Water Works Assoc., J55,
432 (1973).
3, Browning, G. E., and Gannon, 3. 3., "Operator Protection in Uasteuiater
Treatment Plants." 2our. Water Poll. Control Fed., 35, 186 (1963).
4. Dixon, F. R., and McCabe, L. 3., "Health Aspects of Wastewater Treatment."
Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed.. J36, 984 (1964).
5. Glaser, 3. R., and Ledbetter, 3. 0., "Sizes and Numbers of Aerosols
Generated by Activated Sludge Aeration." Water & Sewage Works, 114,
6, 219 (1967).
6. Goff, G. D., ^et, _al^, "Emission of Microbial Aerosols from Sewage Treatment
Plants That Use Trickling Filters." Health Service Repte., 88, 640
(1973).
7. Ledbetter, 3. 0., _et_ ad., "Health Hazards from bJastewater Treatment Practices
Environmental Letters. ±t 3, 225 (1973).
8. Ledbetter, 3. 0., "Air Pollution from Aerobic Waste Treatment." Water &
Sewage Works. 111. 1, 62 (1964).
9. Napolitano, P. 3., and Rowe, D. R., "Microbial Content of Air Near Sewage
Treatment Plants." Water & Sewage Works, 113, 480 (1966).
10. Randall, C. W., and Ledbetter, 3. 0., "Bacterial Air Pollution from Acti-
v/ated Sludge Unite." Am. Ind. Hygiene 3our.. J27, 506 (1966).
11. Viraraghauan, T., "Occupationally Related Health Hazards in Uastewater
Treatment Systems." Water Poll. Control Fed.. Highlights. 10. 11,
2 (1973).
AWTRL, Cincinnati
D-37
-------
I DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES . . STATE OF FLORIDA
j"V2% Olivir J Ktlltr, Stcritiry Rubin O'D Arttw, Govtrnor
DIVISION OF HEALTH
POST OFFICE BOX 210 • JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32201
t Chorlton Prother, M D , M P H , Director
PHONE (904) 354-3961
January 29, 1975
£» fi NO
PLBASK REPLY TO:
EPIDEMIOLOGY RESEARCH CENTER
400O WEiT BUFFALO AVENUE
TAMPA. FLORIDA 33814
TELEPHONE ((111 878-1391
•NVIRONM NTAI !JHOIhCUON AG-Nt
P f • f ' V E D
Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Planning Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
Attached are my responses to the questions posed in your communication
of 16 January. Unfortunately, we have only scratched the surface in
approaching the solutions to problems posed. At least a start has been
made.
I hope these data will be of help to you.
Respectfully,
FMWsms
enc.
D-38
Flora Mae We 11 ings, Sc.D.
Administrator
Epidemiology Research Center
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RECEIVED
n.B 31975
PLANNING BKANOi - Kegwn V
ffUNO. —
(IIVIS10N m MWHNIMHMIVl SIHVICIS • DIVISION Of AfilNfi • DIVISION Of CHII DFMS MU1ICAI SERVICES • DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS • DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES • DIVISION OF HEALTH
,... »..»i ,.i wru'" •"•.. ,„ _ „,,..,.,„„ „, „, ».,«.,.«• «.m r^iAMiATinKi . """^::":'j'"LTA,". "./. nivisiCM OF VOCATIONAL REn«BiLiT«ium • UIVINUNOF vuu
-------
1. Are any synergistic effects known between airplane related emissions and
aerosols or gases generated by activated sludge treatment processes? If
so, what are these effects?
Answer: Not qualified to answer.
2. What epidemiological studies have b^sn conducted on the health of sewage
treatment plant workers or residents in the area of a treatment facility?
What do,the results indicate?
Answer: To my knowledge then uas been only one epidemiological study
conducted on the health of towage treatment plant workers. This was done
by Melnick, et al. This bas been referred to in several meetings but I do
not have the actual reference. I believe it was in the early 1950's.
They noted less absenteeism among sewage plant workers than among com-
parable groups in offic»s. It was suggested that sewage plant operators
are exposed to small quantities of pathogenic organisms over time and,
thus, build up immunity. To clarify this issue studies should be done
to determine time lost during the first six months of employment. Perhaps
we would find the reverse. As for health related effects on residents in
the neighborhood of a treatment plant facility, no data are available.
3. In your opinion, is there any significant health hazard associated with
siting a wastewater treatment plant of this size and process type in
this location? Why or why not?
Answer: There are numerous references in the literature pertaining to
pathogenic organisms in aerosols generated by activated sludge or
trickling filter treatment plants. King, et_ al^., 1973. Airborne
Bacteria from an Activated Sludge Plant. J.E.H., ^650-54; Goff, et al.,
1973. Emission of Microbial Aerosols from Sewage Treatment Plants that
use Trickling Filters. Health Serv, Rep. 88_: 640-652; Randall, C. W.
and Ledbetter, J. 0. Bacterial Air Pollution from Activated Sludge Units.
Amer Ind. Hyg. Ass. J. 1966, pp. 506-519. In general these data indicate
survival of airborne particles at a distance of three kilometers (1.8
miles) downwind from the source. Emissions and survival of organisms
was dependent upon many variables including temperature, relative
humidity, wind speed and solar radiation. All plants studied were much
smaller (15-30 Mgd) than the proposed plant in Chicago. It has been
shown that wind speeds between 6 and 10 miles per hour(MPH) favored
emission of microbial aerosols as opposed to wind speeds above or below
these levels. Data derived from the Climatpgraphy of the United States
No. 82-11 furnished with this questionnaire reveals that 47.3% of all
observerations made occurred when the wind speed was 5-14 MPH and the
relative humidity (RH) between 50 and 89%, a RH which favors survival
of polio virus and most probably others in the enterovirus group.
Another important facet of these studies was the determination that the
largest number of particles (7j«.) containing viable bacteria were of the
size which permits lung penetration (5 microns or less). These data
indicate that there is a possible health hazard in siting a waste
treatment facility of this size and type in this location.
D-39
-------
-2-
4. In your opinion, will there be any significant odor problems associated
with the operation of a facility such as this? Why or why not?
Answer: There are odor problems in a half to one mile radius of a 5 MGD
activated sludge treatment plant in northwest St. Petersburg. The odors
are augumented by humidity and wind direction. 1 would anticipate that
the proposed plant would pose similar problems. However, there are some
odor masking chemicals available on the market which has ameliorated,
somewhat, the problem in St. Petersburg.
5. Is there a minimum distance and/or special protective measures which
should be incorporated into the design of a treatment plant such as this
to protect the workers and the adjacent residential communities from any
potential health hazard?
Answer: Since the maximum distances of aerosol spread have not been
determined unequivocally, there is little hope of establishing distance
standards. However, the use of trees as a barrier would add not only
some protection but would have esthetic value as well.
6. In your opinion, would a wastewater reclamation plant of this size and
process type produce significant quantities of chemical emissions of a
corrosive or abrasive nature? Discuss the reasons why you feel this will
or will not be a problem.
Answer: Not qualified to answer.
7, Are you aware of any other comparable situations where similar issues
occurred? What were these issues and how were they resolved?
Answer: Not really except for #4 as described above.
D-40
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
CINCINNATI, OHIO *5268
SUBJECT: Questionnaire about O'Hare Water Reclamation
Plant
FROM-
TO
DATE February 11, 197h>
Leland J. McCabe
Chief, Criteria Development Branch, WSRL
Marian D. Hist
Chief, Planning Branch
EPA Region V
FEBU 1975
During my work assignments with the Public Health Service
and the Environmental Protection Agency, I have been asked to con-
sider health effects of human contact with fecies to slightly polluted
water and on one occasion to consider the health status of sewage
treatment workers. I can answer your questionnaire in light of this
experience, but some of your questions would require more specific
experience that I do not have.
1. Synergistic effects. I have never considered that there
could be synergistic effects but have not given the problem
much thought.
2. What epidemiological studies. We were asked by the Safety
Committee of the Water Pollution Control Federation to review
the health status of sewage treatment plant workers and
reported at their annual meeting in Seattle in 1963. From
the data we could obtain we concluded that these workers had
higher rates of Leptospirosis and Infectious Hepatitis than
the general public. Our report suggested some research that
would provide more data on this problem. A copy of the paper
is attached.
Funds were provided in this fiscal year for some of the
research we suggested and a grant from EPA to conduct this
research is about to be awarded. Another part of EPA has let
a contract to study the effects on nearby residents.
State and local health agencies do investigate the unusual
occurrence of disease. To my knowledge, J know of no occasion
when an unusual amount of disease in nearby residents of
sewage treatment plants required an investigation. This is
not very good evidence thft there is not a problem but the
D-41
-------
extent of food and waterborne disease is determined by this
technique. A recent publication by the Center for Disease
Control - Foodborne and Waterborne Disease Outbreaks - Annual
Summary 1973 (DHEW Publication No. (CDC) 75-8185) has details
on 307 foodborne outbreaks and 24 waterborne outbreaks. If
the neighborhood disease that might occur would be due to
unusual occurrences, this outbreak investigation technique
would be the only way to determine the extent of the problem
although some insight might be gained by retrospective study
of a large number of neighbors.
To demonstrate that there is not an endemic effect will
require a prospective study of neighbors and it is my under-
standing that the Human Studies Laboratory of the National
Environmental Research Center- RTP has such research underway.
3. Is there a significant health hazard. I do not know if
there are now wastewater treatment plants of this size and
process type in use that are somewhat the same distance from
residents. I expect that there are some plants now in use
that would represent a comparable situation but would appre-
ciate reviewing data on this subject. Because we have not had
disease outbreaks attributed to being a neighbor of a sewage
treatment plant, I am of the opinion that this is not a signi-
ficant health hazard.
4. Will there be an odor problem. I have smelled sewage
treatment plants but have not studied the type of treatment
being provided or operating conditions. I have also visited
sewage treatment plants that did not have significant odor
problems. I would expect that others would have more objec-
tive data on this point than the impressions I have.
5. Specific protective measures. I do not know what these
should be except for the prevention of cross-connection
with drinking water distribution and wash-up provision for
workers.
6. Chemical emissions. I have heard of problems of hydrogen
sulfite where very septic sewage reached the treatment plant.
There should be plants where the wastes are from a comparable
area and the sewers conveying the waste to the plant are of
the same type. Data should be obtained on the quality of
influent to such plants. There were problems in Philadelphia
when ozone was improperly used. A few years back there were
D-42
-------
some deaths in nearby residents when there was an escape of
chlorine at a plant in Cleveland. Sodium hypochlorite is
to be used for disinfection at this plant and this would
eliminate the possibility of ozone or chlorine hazard.
7. Similar issues. Have not been involved with any.
Enclosure
D-43
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
National Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
s> ..JECT. Questionnaire Regarding Health Hazards Associated DATE: peDruary 24, 1975
With Wastewater Tretment Plants
FROM: OD/HSL
-------
'°' "i °n
1. Arc nny synergistJc effects known between airplane related emissions
nncl ai'vouols or p,aser. p/Mierat od by activated sludge treatment processes?
jf «\>, wiial a; i' tlic^.i1 o{frc, '.
*' I i )' i (.'< M-i ol i /. Ira ) f;it.i~ ; ••., i, , -.- 1-rtTi conduced on the health u' :•> '..' go
ticatmcnt plant workers or rcsLcU-nls in tlie area of a treatment facility?
What do the results indicate?
3. IP yoi'i" opinion, if; thoro any r -i ^n j f .{ cant health hazard associated with
oil 'v;; ;>. w:i:;l. .\M( v treatment pliint of this sixe ami in'ocejjs typ'1 ,in
A. In your opinion, in'1.1 tin. ^o 1 ' nny significant odor problems associated
\;j l.h Hi-.' o) c:....; i :>'> of a facjiliy such as this? Vrtiy or why not?
J &0>v^/ /&«-***-> -
3. Ifj there a minimi"! distance and/or special protective measure
should be incorporated Into the design of a treatment plant such ac
this to protect the workers and the adjacent residential communities
,, fiom any ijotei'iv.-il hcnllh ha/;;vtl? ^i <-**v ; .'rable situations where similar i.r.
occurred? Vlhat were these ioci'eu and hov; were they resolvfed?
D-45
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Questionaire Submitted January 16, 1975, For Use In
SUBJECT: Preparation Of A Draft Environmental Impact StatementPATE:
For The Proposed O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant in
Des Plainesj Illinois
FROM-. Clifford Risley, Jr., Director
Otfice of Research & Development, Region V
TO: Harlan D, Hirt
Chief, PIannang Branch
02/24/75
At the, outset it should be noted that the answers to many of these
questions are. based on our extensive knowledge and experience in re-
search planning, direction, and the application of research findings
to the solution of practical problems. These answers are not given on
the basis of personal expertise in the field of such medically related
sciences as virology, bacteriology, epidemiology, and so forth, but
rather on the more practical aspects of sanitary waste disposal and
the chetrlcal and engineering factors related to this practical appli-
cation. We have read extensively in the. areas of work done in these
other fields of medically related sciences and are thoroughly familiar
with much of the work done as it relates to sewage treatment plants.
However, the opinions we express in answer to such questions are based
on the work of experts in those fields, as we interpret their findings.
Question Mo. 1: We know of no synergistic effects reported between
airplane related emissions and aerosols or gasses generated by activated
sludge treatment processes.
Question No, 2; We know of no epidemiological studies that have
been conducted to date en the health of sewage treatment plant workers
or residents in the area of treatment facilities. It is our understanding
that a project to study the basic effects of such problems on sewage
treatment workers is about to begin at the University of Cincinnati.
Question No. 3: We know of no factual information that establishes
any significant health hazard associated with siting a waste treatment
plant of this size and process type in any location.
Question No. 4: Odors have resulted from improperly operated sewage
treatment plants of. similar design; however, this particular plant has
designed into it several safety factors and back-up facilities for preven-
tion of odors. If the plant is properly operated and properly maintained,
the probability of odor coming from this plant is essentially negligible.
Question No. 5: We know of no established minimum distance or
special protective measures which can be recommendad for incorporation
into the design of the treatment plant based on present knowledge of
the need to protect workers and adjacent residential communities from
potential health hazards.
D-46
EPA Form 1320-4 (R.v. 6.72)
-------
—2—
Question No. 6: We know of nc prior studies establishing that a
wastewater reclamation plant ot this size and process type would produce
significant quantities of chemical emissions of a corrosive or abrasive
rature. Plants of similar design are operating throughout the country
and have been for several years with no recorded detrimental effects.
Whether or not such emissions occur is probably directly related to the
proper operation of the plant. Safeguards have been included in this
plant design to assure the prevention of release of an undue amount of
chemical emmisions and to assure proper operations at all times.
Question No. 7: Similar discussions regarding potential problems
arising from various plants occur frequently. It cannot be assumed that
the potential problems suggested for other plants can be directly applied
to this plant as problems also. We know of no instances where .Identical
situations and identical problems have come up for discussion.
It ahould be noted that many previous studies have been made of bacteria,
virus, and toxic materials originating in sewage treatment processes.
Any ope of these studies taken as a separate isolated situation might be
interpreted as a potentially alarming problec to someone not directly
involved in the utilization of such information. The Public Health Service
and many medical groups have been carefully scrutinizing these individual
problems for many years for the purpose of avoiding the development of
epidemics or similar catastrophic problems related to the general public.
Reliance must be placed in the hands of such Public Health officials to
take these individual pieces of scientific information for their respec-
tive values and to put them into perspective in terms of public need.
For us to attempt to make such an interpretation at this time is not in
the interest of everyone concerned because of the many areas of this type
of research that art presently uninvestigated. We therefore recommend
diligence In the pursuit of this missing information but also recommend
avoiding conclusions that are not justified based on known facts at this
time.
D-47
-------
THE CITY OF DES PLAINES
RICHARD f WARD C°OK COUNTY. ILL.NOI.
Ald»rm»n 8th Ward •«.
1«10Mi»ml U»n«
DCS Pl«ln«s, Illinois 60013 MEMBER ILLINOIS
(AC 3*218278716 MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
February 18, 1975
Mr, Gene Wojcik, Planning Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 6060^
Dear Mr. Wojcik,
Thank you for sending a copy of your health questionnaire
that I received on January 30, 1975- With the exception of
question #6t all of the other references listed below are
contained ir our December 27, 197^ comments on the proposed
MSB O'Kare projects and are presented here for your convenience
** SynergjrStic effects! Para 3.8A, Rogoff Att. Z, Argonne
Report, Para 3.8C, Garnovr Att.AA, Para 3.8F, Para 2.13(8-1*4-71)
2- SiMifefi* para 3.11B, Att#7t Para 5. 50, Para 3«5t Berg Att Y,
Para376V Ledbetter Att V
3« &ii&« Para 2.3(Epstein) , Para 2.21A, Para 3.8D, Para 3.8E
(Blanchard)
4. IF, Barbolini Att#10, Para 3-9» Att.DD, Att.EE,
Para 3.10A, Herr Att#6, Para 3.11, Att.GG, Para 3. HA,
Para 3.12, Consoer Att.HH, Para 4.U, Para 3.14D, Metcaff Att#8,
Para 3,1^E, Para 3
5« Distance and/or prQte.ct4.ye measures t Para 3'l^H, Para 4-. 13,
Para 3.11, Greenley Att.GG, Para 5«HA,B,G.
6. Chem. Emissions - corrftsive 0£ abrasivei "corrosion of some
building materials during construction" July, 1973 MSB Initial
Draft of EA on alternative TARP plans.
"Mystery Spots Plague Suburb" Chicago Sun Times 9/7/67 page 32,
Gasses and odors from MSD's Orland Park STP caused paint to
discolor on nearby homes.
7. Comparable situations! Para l.OB, Clavey EIS Att.B, Para 3.9A,
Sacramento Att#5, Para 3.9B, Eli Lilly Att#6, Para 3.13»
Para ij-,13.
Please include our input with the answers you have received
from the MSD and other respondents.
D-48 Sincerely,
Richard F. Ward
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CENTER POR DISEASE CONTROL
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30333
TELEPHONE (40«| 63J-3311
Harlan Hirt, Chief
Planning Branch, Region V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, II 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
February 26, 1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT.ON A6ENCY
RECEIVED
MAR 31975
PUNWING ttRAWQl. Kagon V
rnm NOl—~-. _
Reference is made to your letter of January 16 and to UWfe SLLL'iitl'iwl
questionnaire.
My answers to your questions concerning the proposed O'Hare Water
Reclamation Plant in Des Plaines are as follows, using the same
numbering system you used:
1. I don't know.
2. I don't know of any. However, the following references are
related; Gellln and Zavon, Arch. Env. Hlth 20: 510, 1970; Browning
and Gannon, JWPCF 35: 186, 1963; and Dixon and McCabe, JWPCF 36:
984, 1964.
3. I have no knowledge of significant health hazards, but definitive
studies to determine if such health hazards exist have not been
conducted.
4. In my opinipn, it is probable that there will be odor problems
associated with a facility such as described in your attachments
to your letter, because I have never yet seen a large sewage-
treatment plant that does not from time to time produce odor problems.
5. Until a definitive, controlled study is done on the health of
workers in sewage-treatment plants (a contract study on the health
of sewer maintenance workers will be undertaken by EPA shortly),
there is no answer available to this question. Even then, a
controlled study of the health of the residents near sewage treat-
ment plants may also be necessary to answer the question. Workers
in sewage treatment plants should practice careful handwashing and
care of minor wounds, and they should have reconaended immunizations
(at least polio and tetanus).
6. I don't know.
D-U9
-------
Page - 2 - Harlan Hirt
7. I am not personally aware of any comparable situations.
If I can be of further assistance at any time, pi ease let roe know,
Sincerely yours,
G. F. Mallison, Assistant Director
Bacterial Diseases Division
Bureau of Epidemiology
D-50
-------
APPENDIX E
BEDROCK GEOLOGY
This description of the general bedrock geologic conditions
in the study area is complemented by the analysis of field borings
as reported in The Geotechnical Report on the Upper Des Plaines
Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, Volume 1, Bedrock Geologic Investi-
gation, 1974, De Leuw, Gather & Company.
The limestone and dolomite rock units, together with the
hydraulically interconnected overlying glacial drift, function as
an aquifer.
Rocks in the project area date back to the Upper OrdovLcian
Period. They consist of mudstones, argillaceous dolomite, pure
dolomite and unconsolidated or semi-consolidated glacial deposits.
Stratigraphic hiatuses (disconformities) occur between Middle Silurian
and Pleistocene, and between the Lower Silurian and Upper Ordovician
age rocks. Local lensing may totally remove some rock units
(Waukesha Formation). See Exhibit II-1.
The lowering of sea level which produced the disconformity
at the end of the Ordovician period resulted in local valleys cut as
much as 150 feet deep in the underlying mudstones. With the re-
advance of the sea, these valleys were subsequently filled with
the shaley dolomite of the Edgewood Formation, which was not
E-l
-------
EXHIBIT 11-1
|
\System
«
s
i-
\
1 fe
^ 3
i Q;
! ?
i ^
j eJ
i
i
' SILURIAN
L
ORDOVICIAN
Series
Recent
I
u
o
'*v
fft
i
Q*
Niagsran
r
Alexandrian
Cincinnotian
A
Formation/Member
WADSWQRTH
MEMBER
WEDRON
FORMATION
RACINE
(O -3O0)
(WAUKESHA)
(0-20')
JOLIET
(40-70')
Romeo
Markgraf
Brandon
Bridge
KANKAKEE
(2O-5O')
(EDGEWOOQ)
(O-IOO')
NEDA
(0-15')
I
& BRAINARD
* SHALE
\ (0-100')
Base
Column
_
/
«f4
/
/
\A
•>
v
'&
>^
/
^
/
^
/
*£
¥
/
•::,y
/
•/...
/
U
Li
/
_^_
L
fc,
7
*.
«
-r
h
w
±
1
/UN
,—,„-
t
4i
-i-
/
2_
L«L
Cm
r /
vr^
JSJL
_ rv
^~jL±\
^
••
A.1
•not
t^f
••ma
in ill
•^p— -
descn
Description
Till and autwash deposits. Clayey silt with
sand lenses. (Gravel tenses possible but not
probable - described in soils report. )
Botitdfry till, clayey sift with sand lenses,
growl, bouiders common near base and at
unconformity. (Described in soils report.)
6ray-brewn} <3rgil/oceous,fine grained,
fhir, bedded dolomite containing reefs
of pure, gray, massive, vuggy, dolomite.
Gray, fine grained, silty dolomite.
(Generally absent in northern area.)
Light gray, pure, porous dolomite.
Light gray, silty, very fine grained dolomite.
Rffd or greenish gray dolomite and
interbedded shale.
Light brown, ft ne grained dolomite with
prominent wavy clay partings.
Brown to gray sholey dotomite.
(Cherty near top. Not recognized in
project area.)
— Oolite and red shale.[Senerolly absent )
Oolite and red stool®. (Generally absent)
bed
STRATIGRAPHSC SEQUENCE
-------
recognized in any of the rock cores recovered during the explorations
reported herein, but which may exist in local areas of the project.
The stratigraphic sequence used in this report has been
developed from rock cores taken along the project alignment.
No surface rock exposures are available for study. The rock units
used follow as closely as possible formational units as described in
the literature (Willman, 1971 and 1973), but vary somewhat in the
designation of formational member units as the contacts between
member units are gradational and thus subject to personal judgment.
Bedrock Surface
The bedrock surface is covered by glacial till throughout
the project area; the bedrock contours shown in Exhibit II-2 are based
totally on interpretation of boring data and are generalized. The
E-3
-------
Sr RACiNE
Sjr ROMEO
Sm MARKGRAF
Sbb BRANDON BRIDGE
Sh KANKAKEE
Ob BRAINARD SHALE
SCALE IN MILES
Formation Contact
EXHIBIT 11-2
NOTE I. ELEVATIONS IN FEET AND
BASED ON C.C.D (CHICAGO
CITY DATUM )
2. FAULTS REPORTED BY VIBROSEIS
SURVEY. HAR2A ENGR. CO.
CONTOURS ©W TOP OF ROCK
A &B •-» 1-»E-" V*t «°& ft. *** US' *P* ^ m. m ***. ^a,.,, „
-------
bedrock relief in the project area is over 60 feet.
The rock units at the till/rock contact are the Niagaran
age dolomites of the Racine and Joliet Formations. The top of
rock surface is usually broken and open for five to ten feet and
occasionally carries significant quantities of water.
Stratigraphy
A detailed discussion of the stratigraphy of the study
area can be found in the Foundation Science Report, A Geotechnical
Report on the Upper Des Flames Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, pre-
pared for De Leuw, Gather & Company.
Structure
The geologic structure described in this report is based
solely on interpretation of boring data. No exposures of bedrock
are available for study in the project area. Therefore, the
situation presented in maps and sections must be used in its
broad diagrammatic sense only.
Faults. A number of faults of ten to 30 feet vertical offset
are postulated. The faults are interpretive and have not been
physically observed, but they do further explain stratigraphic
facts developed by the boring program. None of the borings
actually intersected a major fault zone. In many cases, strati-
E-5
-------
graphic offsets of a single fault are probable — the result of more
than one fault of smaller proportion stair-stepped to produce the
total offset.
With borings spaced at 1, 000-foot centers, as in this
program, it is also possible for fault blocks of greater or lesser
proportion than those shown to exist between borings and not be
represented on geologic maps and sections. The general structural
trend for faults is expected to be NE-SW and NNW-SSE. The actual
fault trends indicated on the accompanying map are interpreted from
apparent bedrock drainage displacements and may or may not in
fact represent actual conditions.
Three angle borings were drilled to try to sample a fault
aone. No significant amounts of faulted or gouged rock could be
identified in any of these holes although a few core loss zones
occurred which may represent small shear zones. However, the
rock on either side of the core loss zones does not appear bisected
as might be expected if a major fault zone were nearby.
The Des Plaines Disturbance. The project is immediately
west of a geologic anomaly known^as the Des Plaines Disturbance.
This disturbance is a five- and one-half-mile-diameter area having
a very complex system of higk-angle faults. Fault displacements
E-6
-------
along the edges of the disturbance range from 50 to 300 feet, and
in the interior reach 900 feet. Thus, faulting may be aptly described
as severe, and the fault system may be expected to extend some
considerable distance away from the boundary of the disturbance.
Shear ^ones associated with the fault system would cause support
problems and would yield high volumes of water. Because of the
anticipated areal faulting, water infiltration problems would prob-
ably be savere. Also, because of the offsets across individual
faults, it would be difficult to avoid the contacts between rock
meinhers, again adding to water inflow and support problems.
Jointing. Joints, although not numerous in the rock, have
a significant influence on its permeability and local tunnel stability.
The open joints act as a conduit to carry groundwater from the
overlying glacial till to the bedding planes in the upper rock units
(Racine and Joliet Formations). The numbers of the open joints
are relative indicators of the amount of groundwater to be
expected in a given rock. These data clearly demonstrate the
more open and permeable natures of the Racine and Upper Joliet
(Romeo) Formations.
E-7
-------
Earthquakes. In the past, damage from earthquakes has
not been extensive or severe in Northern Illinois. Past disturbances
have ranged in intensity up to VII on the Mercalli scale, but a VII
intensity-was recorded only once in history. Presently, the study
area is in Seismic Risk Zone 1, an area predicted to experience
only minor damage from earthquakes that have the epicenters
outside the state. Intensities of the disturbances are predicted
to range from V to VI on the Mercalli scale. A V intensity distur-
bance is felt by nearly everyone and breaks glassware and windows.
A VI intensity disturbance is felt by everyone; objects are upset;
and chimney and plaster damage occurs.
SOILS AND SURFICIAL GEOLOGY
The basic drainage patterns, landforms and soil parent
materials are related to the Wisconsin glaciation. Glacial deposits
may approach depths of 60 feet in this area. The textural composi-
tion of these morainal till deposits range from clay to clayey silt,
with varying amounts of sand, gravel and boulders. At the earth
tunnel depth, the soils range from clayey silts to silty clays, with
occasional sand and gravel. In this area, the Tinley Moraine
directly overlies the Valparaiso Moraine. The Tinley Moraine,
predominately a silty clay, may contain waterbearing sand layers.
E-8
-------
APPENDIX F
REGIONAL WATER RBO'l^CB AND NEEDS
SECTION A
Sources of Wa
ndwaior is i<, ;)•-> /,.•.. -;al dri< , r^.; sh'Jlcv.
.... Me. SirncHi s.j<.i.;i»r. 'f'j.' ,)..rj;«..i a ;,-c - Vs repori, die :>ai\ti and
gravel dej.asiU Jmi «he •»?-
ftrred to .u ihr sii?Jkv, fifiiii»j«: -vi'lc th«' Cii.nL('in-Ordo1'"icia*a
aquifer L rei«.".'."•-.' t,, &» til- fr;^ sar-;stone i.qi':^,, Thr Mt
Sinion i.qoiifc/ »s ccvisice.ed s-.vi.-ij'> >n-i dwcisr.sed -c ;,• lesse.'
degree ueiMHie if is. v'-'oAaUy I'i.us1'-- 't '.T;,I'-H '•«':!.'••: lhii-e are
iovera! sus^a-''* strettiflii ti-iwir^ Li'ou^,'- ire r^^s..". .:o,!y ilic Kan-
xvalev si(>ip]y
2,02 LAi'lK W^CHK-AN I.'.k- HU-h,-fan >„ ihp vno',. ex^uiiv-iv
(MGO) lot pvtbUo wat-,r tuvpiy >/, 19'"'.;, or abonl 85 percent of
the rcjjior'i tota) rsubiic wa ;i Ji'viilv ,ie'jcis(/) From c p.irely
water tbn; c;*a be >•, aa;iv iur..f-:i it- ycc?:>iubiK d^-ikioi; wate:
quality. It siLoulcl be ncfed 'tal no water *JCWE na'iuraiiy from
the Lake to ths togion. Tbnt \vkoli is • viiadi :' ?p«3C'i': .'is> i, or about 2.080
MOD, »i ft lesivk of a ]S67 U.S. Sup;^,'is Ccjtc DecK;r.K.
T3w C^-; if Cij''c.ig(i Js ?bi iar^est >i^/ ~x i^f- M'cllip:!") water,
wtiiJrs.v'in^ arr'OiBUi, to nseei itr own necc.'i •-.£ well 5s taose olf
"';{ iiubu'beii coramwul'es on Caok Cou;.;"./ -.'K-^i pyfobase water
'inder co.-t.ftfo. Atdditioua! wafer is v.'i;"fi'.V c.^vr by f';uri.i-er- other
P'.ib'i" iu:.'..f;; itipply systeiijs jaca.ecl al'i^ li-" ^^ke ivhcbigan
iJ^orehai" ir Cook arid i>ke Counths, i^r^'c- by tbose systems
i< iisi^sly iin.itid to one or *wc t.a.Tu;.urr-Jv-=. G!ve>i the axpe^tcd
"!' ot fb'> !3;voi,. co.,T)}ec! i "Va de-'.rv^d ground-
in cer'aLi a'.aas, >Le Lt1:,;-' v«''ii l:t r»jo c lieaviiy
roiico r«oo > fo; public water supply m .13 fut^ft.
2,03 S3i\LI.-OW "iQTi;FEHi i'iv Uua;i' v icuiie' 5} S':eiu in
iior.iitrutern Jlinois is cOi'/iprised cjf u' /c; iicolJ'.iated sdf.d and
i.':uvd afpos1*1' o'tiie g'ecial drift and ••"oio.-.-Ke forcR»,-.;OT>'-. .osialj'
o£ Fi'l.fia''1 age., Although tke^e atju;£iTj '<~? njd;au ica!!\ Inter-
Bi'isli.'s i' " .:.i!:'_.c" ."'• exf'eveal ro "'aryant
», stnc' wtf tV.-ovil Accifer; i'lj.^ rwic' r\n ' ',,•&•-•«: 'iqaaeti ran-
d&'THv anOt'rfio 5pr)f3r*im>itcly !iO percoxii o? the vejirsi at rlepths
vsnaiij? .f<'0i.i ntBf the 'land surface- in ce tarn t ";as ;o rr'ore than
40C> feet in others. (Figvirft 2-1 is a cro.;.">scc!.or!| SANC AND GRAVEL i'Si'l «"
-------
the entire regional aquifer system.) Extensive .wrficial sand and
gravel deposits are found In oarta of DuPage, Kane, Lake,
McJIonry imd Will count';1 •. •, 'in'Ie depp'y buried deposits are
founu widely scauwd tlinnv;UnH K.n,.*n. t'.nd McK^nry counties,
western Luke County, noithfif.pi<:n! 'L'ook ami DuPage counties
and ceiitrai Will County. Geoa&il'/ 'i\t- grtateaf; chance for suc-
cessful well penetration or. » proji.auv water yielding sand and
gravel formation is within subsurface vsllflyi out into the bedrock
by preglacial and glacial Reolog;etJ
Because of their inegujiu oo.,tiT;x'> • •'., the sard and gravel
aquifers are more difficult co iouul;1 tr.asi llie deeper, more exten-
sive sandstone aquifers. Th;y ttn H.'SC. inure .'."ifficull to develop
for jarife water supply syH't-ncr vjiv:1 Mv"/ a.* v.oor.? directly ;iffei.ted
by the vagaries alt i&ii>£t>U a;«t •Jreugn''. O^ the othet hand,
tie glacial drift aquifers arc- ^fiievyiiy n'O-e raoidly • recharged,
are more pezineable than tha f]g«f,- aquifers, and involve lower
drilling costs. Loeaih they Dr,;'/>uc $ood souicfls of supply to
municipalities arid private r»d:-/i''i.:>J JSSTJ with some wiills yield-
ing in excess of 1,000 gn'loas *;?•- ;m.iutt (gpm). In 1970, ap-
prcxivnately 31.4 MGD -.vai'y pi .^pecl h'jra the- sand and gravel
aquifers to the six-cour/ty ."tig-io^. 'Hiis a/v-jitutpd to approximately
Figure
Area of High 'yield trom ihs
Shaildw O
12 percent of the estimated total groimdwater pumpags in that
year, which was 281.2 MGD.(SS)
The hardness content ol' fft\v waie» is extfcsKieiy variable but
usually ranges between 100 jiart'j per million (pptfl) and 450 ppm.
fhe iron content whirh can affect the taste, appeoiancs and use
of water .jv?rages about 2 ppm ead is higVer tiian That of the
deep aquifers t.nd Lake Michigan. Water temporal ures average
about 52 degrees, which is considrred to b;j cool and refreshing.
b. Dolomite Aquifer Underlying much of tine region at depths
varying from ground surface to 450 feet deep is tbe shallow dolo-
mite aquifer. In this aquifer gvoundwater is found "m joints and
fractures, and it rooves through an Interconnected -network of
these openings. Since these water-oeidng cavities are unevenly
distributed both horizontally and vertically, the yie'ds of wells
drilled info the dolomite vary greatly from place 10 place. Suc-
cessful development for water supply depends upon a well iater-
secting a large, water-filled fracture which is capable of sustaining
heav>- pumpaqe over time. Some wells drilled into dolomite yield
ir, excess of J.OOO gpm, while others result in ver>' low yields.
Figure 2-2 shows the general area ri highest yields from this
formation.
The dolomite aquifer is an exteislveiy used source of water
supply for many municipalities, particularly in DuPage County
and southern and northwestern COOK County. In 1970, total
pumpage from die dolomite wan estimated at 90.7 MGD, which
was approximately 35 percent of She region's groundwaier with-
drawal.(3) in several aseas, the aquifer is being pumped in excess
or recharge, and thete have been sigriiSca;?! declines in water
levels and well yields.
e. Estimates of Potential. Yield Potential yield is defined as the
maximum amount of water that can be developed ivom a reason-
able number of wells and well Sold;; without creating critical water
levels or exceeding the raie of groundwater recharge. 'The Illinois
State Water Survey has estimated the potential yield of the shal-
low aquifers (sand and gravel and dolotnite combined) at 507
MGD, assuming they are fuDy developed tu the six-county
area.(4) According to fre total shallow aquifer pumpage iigures
noted above, only 12&.1 MGD were withdrawn ia 1970. Thus, on
a regionwide baoi?, the shallow aquifers are crweutly producing
only about 25 percent of their potential yield, aucl 'here is greater
opportunity for increased development of them fa/ future water
supply.-
2.04 CAMBRUN-ORDOVICIAN AQUIFER The Cambrian-
Ordovicisn (or deep sandstone aquifer) is regarded as the best
bedrock aquifer in Illinois because of its consistentl/ high yield.
It extends continuously throughout the region and is uniformly
productive. This aquifer is actually & vertical ssries of water-
bearing rock formations, of which the Glenwood-St. Peter and
Ironton-Galesville sandstones are the principal producers. The
latter is considered to be the most productive end supplies over
50 percent of the aquifer's total yield. Because this aquifer has a
regional southeasterly dip of about 10 feet per mile, the top of
the Ironton-GaJesville sandstoine lies about SOO feet below the land
surface in the northwest comer of lisa region and increases to a
depth of about 1,800 feet in the southeastern part. The saturated
thickness of this aquifer varies from approximately 100 feet to
about 275 feet, while the average collectve diiekness of Hie geo-
logic formations comprising tba aquifer is about 1,000 feet. It is
significant to note that while isome recharge of the deep sandstone
Adapted fram map prtparml by
Alv.-trt, BunticH tnd Hew«*n Englmwn
(2):Ref. 2
(3): Ref. 2
(4): Ref. 3
F-2
-------
occurs lu *esl«p I'.ars..'. oad Mcllenry counties, most takes place
ui ii'«B' outsicl; .i '<'-jO .'.k- :.f» •"uM'i area,. wot iiave an adverse impact on
>_ i>r.i;i:.u: O: Jo""--icp flfj.Jie: it> the most heavily pumped
! A-1 r-'jVjn ;'" innushed approximately 53 percent of
i ,',:0'.i;:iv * »;: <,stU h- '.970, iinct 195S, .vithdruwals from
yiJei ;<>•." "A. 'c*d the ."••icttoai sustained yield which is
,.-• v -j.fu •:•-.-;• '.,'i'jun; oc water which caa be continu-
~r .••• .'xi-'iii^ pu^'.j ;ng centers vvithuuf eventually
• ' ^ofvov/e r.rir ;ie., the Ironton Galesville
"• ,' .-c;,c. 41 -.urtairx'A'l yield of the Cumbrian-
: • r -.' 'jev* -i-drrtatcd D.I only 48 MGD. Pumpage
.'i.cte; fail' au.ua i withdrawals approximated 139
rj";e dines >iie estimated sustained yield.(5) This
<•<. " J. f.iic-L, •';, MOMS of natural recharge (termed
t>i ^ n*-t< ive<5 jj' ;• nrog~«ssive decline in water
> ,i"j.)' 'j£ r.fis aa-J increases in pumping costs.
:••• 'f.6u- j'"'7J, (J.ISJIIA! vater ievi.1 declines m wells
- ,-i'Jo'uitni ,«;uifer ^vu-aged nine feet.
- .', ! irvvfia:«?s in prar.page from the deep sand-
;HOW DEil- WELLS IK NORTHEASTERN
(IN MGD;(8)
indufttrai
Cupplias Total
Cook
li«tft
24
1
?
1
1
16
•«
1971
~i '(
1
2
2
•j
14
37
Id66
55
12
26
3
3
28
127
1971
59
17
28
7
3
2fc
142
VVh '.«•-• ,s;ti istnci ii'.-t.-'pagti dscJined over tiie five-year period, total
puB'-t:.p)4i. s«-,*:i;«liv /r<«e.^).ed 13 MGL) as a result of greater with-
d-asj./i: 'o>; jiubln supply Particularly noticeable are tlie increases
is puollc p!"npag»- U-. Co-ik aud DuPage counties.
,'>osi.i!"i the ;j: v/iiieni of ovei'iiu.'npag's, tiie Cambrian-Ordovician
ft<;.iUMv s\ili '/jOtJn-ae to be an important source of .supply. Water
ir. ''JMS sj ite* ii, :,);.ur-il!y free of btt.rterial pollution. The hardness
cuj.tav^ te iVciii 200 fc JJ30 ppm in tlie northwest part of Ihr. region,
Hud .ncrc've- ^.iwj.vl the east es the aquifer increases in depth,
The or, a coT-i.e"t y{ iho water is uiuaily less than 0.4 ppm. Tem-
pc.'t'l i'es ra-: I/ce
estimated at 14 MGD, although develops, .e'u of nii s;i>uco t.z
been virtually nonexistent to date. In J973. tfcr: lliinoi. liiact Wate
Survey completed a feasibility xtj(/y cf developing atsd cU-idilin
water from the Mt. Simon aquifer. f\cv ;;:e osroo.'-i; and >Vcazin
processes werf considered feasible for -. :v,GD sapa-ritj creatmci
plants, while distiliation was considtred iers;bif- for 5 MGD plant
Costs (including iveil>;, transmhsioti linss, desalt.'ng .facilities an
brine diiposal) ranged frcir $l.33/],OOG islk'-is fcr -; i MO]
reverse osmosw plant to $1.85/1,1)00 gallons for E. 5 <>i.^ ie.-:soi, (
least anti! recently) has Ksert fJi.-' r'ivc'ily &vai(a!;jc, ;i up!y <
groundvvi!ei whicii coulti be devei. peo ^t !c.v . os.i. ,~,L c ,'>u n:<»j(
ucteirent h&s been the general poor jvali y ff .* ro-,',ioi :• ^uriac
vaieis, a problem which nece.ssitales t'l-oou?,-'", -vpj-. y;/. Irea
rnent. While water treatment technology bas ,jf!v-?ac-o;sc waters :'c '' '. ' •• ^crioc
cal'y reevaluated in light of cfaanginj, r.d«t, aix c,.u,Ii,
improved methods oi wastewater treatfi.-ont arc eiipsoy^
nonpoint sources of pollution are reduce.'., .lUi'i'att . lit/w
become economically feasible and aiin.o.V; v\ ler . n tee-, lu t>
interim, greater attention could be givtn 10 inc.Ti'.j.^o-i u;j f,*.' tee,
waters for non-domestic purposes whenever prKsfolt \i or»ii.i
alleviate competitive pressures on vmter resc.i/ji.: >vl',k\ i-t su;
able for public supply.
b. Kankakee Fiiver ll should be noted ihet •_>. •• KaTiKakj'j i'.iv
is an exception to the foregoing discussion ar.d does offer r^lenti
for development as municipal supply. Th^ nivcr'.1 rav.' wi-'er <;uali
is reasonably good, and its large flow VC'UIOP vo'ilu ^>i; i-.-ato Li
need to construct expensive storage r3S-j".'o;is, Jr1 duiujj-,, it
proximately located to the Joliet area where thoro is couccrn f
the long-term availabih't>' of gioundwate''.
c. Fox River At the present time i' lr r.oi idviiaolc to use tl
Fox River for domestic purposei since y higl ic.centuge of i
flow consists of wastewater treatment plant effluent '.vireh uresen
a risk of \iral or chemical contarain&tio ».(7) 'iov/.,vtr, io TTi
River may offer some potential ;'or it t ir.i ise &s a " til j( wat
supply. Indeed, state water qur.lity slaiii'ards Iw^e -lesipijxd tl
river for "domestic and food processing ,"s>lei i,u; ply," ir/.i r->H
(5):Hef. 2
(6): Ref. 4, pg. 8
(7): Ref. 5
F-3
-------
tion abatement efforts necessary to achieve that standard are un-
auiway. After the desired level of water quality has been attained,
t«e river might be used for this purpose. One possible approach
v'ouiu i»c to reduce il-.'ep well purnpage in the Fox Valley area to
the rate -,v!ucb can be sustained without mining. Demands which
'.\Hi.(J not be satisfied by grounclwater under this condition could
i;t ooniijcnsitied for through withdrawals from the river. During
seasonal taw strcamilov/s. wei: pumpage could be increased beyond
seamed yield cm a short-term basis until normal flows arc
resinned.
d. Olhe> Slu'jirm F'-naily it js significant to note that whiie there
;iio a !,:r;^ iimnixn of tributary siieums in northeastern Illinois,
S'fw rt'r^.vi fiOnlic wV:e rnpply opportunities. In addition to
iiuuhty jirohluns, lrc
-------
raising Lskv , Michigan and Huron by 4.4 inches, excluding the
ofi'ecii .)f hi;-; TSHnois dpvrsion. The effect of the present Illinois
JiVi-i .inn : .•-liu-.v i!n\r.'. ifiis
'-.-.I) :,-y i.? n.'lii !j,-'t'ii pi
''if . ! Ml ^HKv.'S pICSC
. tijjp,, '.Ai'iyrfeK l,8iX) 'j
,' '•>_' '„«<(, i, it cv. ud bo l
^l"i<. •" ,K'.ir i.akes B
,n,o\v .1 bHk-i' n
APPENDIX G
Water Conservation, Recharge, and Kecy«:iiJng
8.14 GENERAL One means of helping to avert water shortage
is to institute water conservation arm/or reuse ami :ecyding tech
niques. Conservation measures employ te''Vu-^al , economic- , edaca
tional or legal tools to control waicr usage if such a way as t
balance it with supply. Recycling seoki to maximize the us
potential of any given quantity of watei. The prirpa.y objectiv
of both of these approaches is to manage existing sources mor
efficienth' and effectively as nr alternative to developing nei
sou.ces.
1 ^?>v- '.."e two basic approaches to groundwatev
h, .t >"j!4-ir'is aqui-'er-i only .is system? through
-., ;-.r,.i fuvois lirniiing well witlidrawals to the
, •'•;! Tise second approach, mining, favors con-
aquifers at s rate which
i1 of watet hors>
A) tr,: piosent S.me, ppproximalely 96'
;;r;ipfd {r(;rn the deep sandstone aquifer
>'••' ,::,t;'s AI'C DISADVANTAGES Mining is t de-
- !h,- .nosj ccnin\)ii arguraont against the practice
s I.O.M, 'h.it- .,;ric-"- ii resnoves "vater held in s*orage, it
t't ./.-iei'«iri .'jf ihi1; rea.ioninj', is that present pumpagf
i .. susti l.u-J yielo, A'ith any deficiencies to be
'„ ,("vel> piuL-'i. of aitrrnalivo supplies, including
i'. ^.,, ! • 'hi.; -v.iy, twc vvi!! :esult in the (Tjaxirnum net benefit.
S.nci: i lie cost u5 'nining water is usually ics: than the cost of
obtaining .val-.>j from £>n outs'de source, it follows that mining
sni)/ n'ier t;> hi> conducted until it is no longer ecooomicaliy f'.-a-
sible, «' wliic'i tiiML1 'be next "]O\V.T cost" source would be de-
velops u.
Ther'5 are a number of other reasons why mining of the deep
sandstone aquiie- might be continued on a managed basis in north-
eastern Illinois. Viral, if mining were not practiced and with-
diawals ver« limited to the rate of recharge, a number of
townshrpi in .'i?. re;;Tion would become deficient in groundwater
by 1980 Given existing lepal limitations on diversion of Lake
vvaler, these dtftciencies could not easily be satisfied by importa-
tion ITO.I that source. Furthermore, considering the existing
invoslr.-efii in wells and pumping facilities, coupled with the large
amount of water held in aquifer storage, it may be expedient to
continue or accelerate mining, at least on a short-term basis. It
should also be noted that the devvatering of the aquifer as a result
of mining probably v/ould not cause serious damage to the
aquifor's wafer storage or tiancmitting properties. Indeed, if after
f. period of mining, pumpage v/ere reduced to sustained yield,
waU-r levels v/ould rise arid the capacity of the aquifer to transmit
watm wouFcl eventually return to its original state.
8.15 WATEB CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES A detaile
discussion 01 water conservation (particularly domestic conserve
tion techniques) is contained in Appendix E. That which follow
is primai ily concerned with water metering arid leakage contu
\vith brief attention given to reduction of in-house water wasti
a. Metering Metering water consumpiior- is onp method of ei
C(jiirag:r>n thrift and norma'iziug water c'e^naji; j- £• oommunit'
Metering allows consumers to !ne charged v'xx>ic>ing io ,:!}'j amour
of water they use, thu-, providing a;-, economic .nceudve (
minimize waste. For example, greater use of mete's Has been cite
as a contributing foctor to the reduction in per capita consumptio
in the City of Chicago, where average '-/u'er use decreased froi
302 gpcpd in 193C to ?,49 gpcpd in 197:1
Metering is regarded as one of the mc.st fundaniental precep
of modern water management. Vet, a numbci of public wat(
.systems in the region do not meter consumption .met prefer i
charge ? flat rate for water provided regardless of the amount use<
With a iltit rate system in opeiation, .here is vrfurily no ee<
nomic -.ncentive for consumers to piactioe water conservation.
It must be recognized thai: che cosl or jjurciiasmg, instalhn;
maintaining and reading water meters u subitaritiel. TSii;s, it ms
not be economical io meter £li water users ';;i'-l are present1
unmelered, particularly in light of the relative!/ io-v rates charge
for water in most comrnurdties. However, a.-; water ueoonies
more valuable resource in the future, grsate; .neierrng (at 3ea
of new and large users) will probably be pracdcess.
b. Control of Leaks Leakage from wcler dbtr'^ua^a systen
can create a substantial r? emend on \vate> surpiies -,v:.hout pn
viding any corresponding benance.
While no system is absolutely tigh". and 1,07:10 i callage wi
inevitably occur, leaks should be reduced lo the gre^leit practic
degree. In the conotruction of new distribution lacilit.'es or in tl
replacement or addition to older facilities, leakage con'aoi can I
achieved through proper sealing of joints and tesiirj.-, for trghtnes
Control in existing systems can be achieved through an ongoir
detection and correction program. However, the saving" derive
from such a program must be balanced agaiiis1 the costs of i
operation. Total elimination is seldom ji viiifiabk' economically, bi
it can proceed to the point where the cost of s,a'vage?b!e writer lo
equals the cost of a repair program. Any additional rthabiiit.-.tic
beyond this point would not be economic" s'aco ll>; cost of repa
would exceed the incremental bene.lL derived from the vat,
savings.
The appropriate magnitude of a leakage detection and '-epa
program is thus dependent upon a number of factors, the mo
G-l
-------
imp' ilarii of whirl) an1: the rate of loss of salvageable water
..it'fu! i'l!! system, 'hi cost of supplying water; and the cost of
-ysiein ii.aiiiierwnte ain! cepau. Individual communities contem-
,>i.!tiiit< .> Irakujy ronimi >Ki>tfriMu should evaluate their particular
.sy.sien>s !'i light oi. iiir.v '(Jtiiliiions to determine the extent of
'•omelive aclio;i war.uiied. Those having serious leakage prob-
lem:, m'ty ivocfif >•>;!.•iulcribij fiom increased water savings,
especially i) witi'i costs aie high or supply is inadequate. Con-
•A ,'seiv, eommutiiiics liia; have relatively minor leakage problems,
low v.'Ufei r("i's uad ain ruiunt supplies probably need not under-
take fsii'tHH'!' !(>ulCu! jilOj'i'dmS.
c. v,i!Jfr Conservr,..! • ". it, the Home Several steps can be taken
id ic'i'i' " ,*!>)• i('t>' t.iiuii ( i! .m;i u L;-iir <>i lea! < onse1. jc water biit alsc result in economic savings in the
loin! if reduced iv;;t'\" '.nils.
8.16 ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE Intensive development of
groundwatcr (IH<. created coiisuleiable interest ixi the possibility of
.ifiificiallv recharging (lie aquifers. Replenishment of water in
.ireas »1 conccntratr'd p-impagc, if feasible, would reduce the rate
oi w.ttei level decline and improve the yield capacity of wells.
(lunscfjin'nlly, the lives <>f existing wells could be prolonged and
tiie ,1'j.nfvr eou'd continue lo provide a dependable water supply.
a, Scuries oi. Kcchnrxe Water The most readily available source
of water fin atiiricial recbuigo is the seasonal high flow in surface
shc.tiuv TK(> diversion of l;i((h flows from stream channels for
.iiuficia! fchargc would aiso make available additional storage
space in those channels tor the temporary storage of flood peaks.
hophistx oleu sUmuwaler drainage systems provide efficient means
for th" eiiilectuin and t'-mpmary (letcntion in basins of water that
also CLISI be tjsul [(><• artifi<'iril recharge of the shallow aquifers. If
the highy pi>lli:icii initial flush from urban areas is bypassed, the
leniiiininft -Jtonnwater, if treated, may be suitable for artificial re-
charK". However, the feasibility of this technique needs to be
more thoroughly investigated. Other possible sources include cool-
ing water, certain industrial wastewaters, and conceivably, treated
domestic' •waslewutor.
b. Methods The three principal methods of direct artificial re-
charge arc water spieading, seepage pits and injection wells.
Induced iffHttation f)om streams caused by pumpage from nearby
wells is an indirect method of artificial recharge. Whatever the
method, ariificiul recharge requires agencies and facilities to:
obtain, treat (if necessary) and transport the water to the recharge
area; infiltrate or inject the water; and provide for the disposal of
any excess watei. The development of the area affects the capital
costs of the project. High land costs in the urbanized parts of
the, icgion favor the use of the pit and injection well methods
which icquire less land. Spreading basin methods require more
land and would more likely be used in rural areas. Economics will
strongly influence the degree to which artificial recharge operations
arc initiated in the future.
c. Potential Kecharge Areas The Illinois State Water Survey has
identified ten areas in northeastern Illinois which would probably
be suitable lor the pit method of artificial recharge. These areas
were selected because: there was a well-defined cone of depression
in the water level surface of the aquifei under consideration; there
was a suificial sand and gravel deposit in the area; ^nd there was
a perennial stream in the immediate vicinity to serve as a source
of water with which to recharge. The ten sites so identified are
listed in Table 8-2, generally in order of decreasing need.
8.17 ENHANCEMENT OF NATURAL RECHARGE Manage-
ment measures can also be taken to protect or enhance natural
recharge. For example, in rural areas, natural recharge rates can
be increased through the use1 of basic soil conservation techniques
such as contour plowing and terracing. In urban areas (as well as
in undeveloped rural areas) natural recharge can be sustained
by restricting the construction of buildings, pavement and other
impelmeable surfaces in prime recharge areas. If these areas are
reserved as open space and protected from intensive urbanization,
they can continue to function in their recharge capacity. On the
other hand, if they are substantially developed, recharge will not
be able to keep pace with withdrawal and groundwater shortages
may develop. Figure 8-1 depicts the prime natural recharge areas
in the region.
TABLE 8-2: POTENTIAL ARTIFICIAL GROUNDWATER
RECHARGE AREAS IN NORTHEASTERN
ILIWOIS(14)
County
Potential
Recharge Area
Recharge
Source
Cook-Will .... Park Forest- Thorn Creek
Chicago Heights
Will Joliet (Hadloy Spring and
Valley) Hickory Creeks
Lake Libertyville- Des Plaines River
Mundelein
DuPage-Cook .Western Springs- Salt Creek
Hinsdaie
DuPage Glen Ellyn-Lombard East Branch of
DuPage River
Cook Wheeling
Des Plaines River
Kane East Dundee- Fox River
Carpentersville
Kane Elgin-South Elgin Fox River
McHenry Marengo
DuPage Lisle-Downers
Grove
Kishwaukoe River
East Branch of
DuPage River
Aquifer
Dolomite
Sand and
Gravel
Sand and
Gravel
Dolomite
Sand and
Gravel
Dolomite
Sand and
Gravel
Dolomite
Sand and
Gravel
Dolomite
Sand and
Gravel
Sand and
Gravel
Sand and
Gravel
Sand and
Gravel
Dolomite
8.18 WASTEWATER RECYCLING AND REUSE Land dis-
posal of wastewater has recently received a great deal of publicity
and attention. In this approach, treated effluent is spread on the
ground surface, usually with spray irrigation equipment. Nutrients
are removed through vegetative uptake, and the effluent is further
treated by filtration through the soil. Originally, it was intended
that the water would continue to percolate through the soil and
eventually become a part of the groundwater supply. However,
pending more extensive investigations, concern for the protection
of public health prohibits the use of such treated wastewater as
a source of public water supply. Indeed, spray irrigation projects
undertaken to date have employed underdrain systems to prevent
pollution of the aquifers.
It also is not likely that large scale, direct recycling of waste-
water effluent for use as public water supply will become a
(14): Ref. 8
G-2
-------
Figure 8-1 Prime Natural Recharge Areas in Northeastern Illinois
north %w '
246 8 10
scale in miles
THE ntnuTim or mi MAP WAI FINANCED IN nun THROUGH »» uiun
PUNRIM flUNT FROM THE HOUSIW AND HOME FINANCE AGENcr UNDEK
THE FMVtSIWI OF SECTION 701 OF THE HOUSINB ACT OF 1»M A3 AMENDED
Based on information provided by the
Illinois State Water Survey
G-3
-------
realistic alternative in northeastern Illinois, at least in the immedi-
ate future. U is true that sophisticated methods of waste treatment
are presently a%'ailahle which allow near total reduction in the
biological und chemical contaminants of wastewalers. When thus
purified, the effluent is suitable for industrial or agricultural pur-
poses. However! the cost of such treatment, when coupled with
health concerns and probable aesthetic objections, does not pres-
ently j'avor the use of recycled vvastewater for municipal supply.
During } 973, this Commission reviewed two separate but related
applications for federal funds which involved testing the feasibility
of recycling wastevater effluent for use as potable water supply.
The applicant^ were the Village of Bensenville and the Hinsdale
Si.ii'ttiry Distiict, both of which are located in eastern DuPage
County where there is considerable concern for the adequacy of
iocu! Hroundviiter supplies. The basic concept of both these pro-
pOM'd reset1 rch and development ptojccls involves the incineration
of municipal solid waste to produce heat, which can then be used
to distill treated wastewater plant effluent. Depending upon the
outcoinc of test results, the distillate could be used to directly
uuKiiV.-nl present water supplies or to increase local groundwater
rt'chaige. Both projects are presently being reviewed by the
USEPA. Their futures tire uncertain at this time due to the paucity
of federal fnm's for projects of this nature.
SECTION E
Organization and Administration
8.19 FRAGMENTATION Perhaps the most conspicuous short-
coining of the present institutional framework for water supply
is the extensive fragmentation of authority and responsibility.
Severe! federal, multi-slate, state, regional, and county agencies
conduct specialized programs which have significance in water
supply planning and management. At the local operational level,
there are approximately 280 municipalities and numerous special
purpose districts which are empowered to furnish water and en-
gage in related activities. Then, too, there are a number of private
utility companies authorized to provide water, principally in
subdivision^ and other unincorporated areas.
At the present time, this Commission is the only governmental
unit conducting a comprehensive water resources management
planning program in the six-Gounty northeastern Illinois region.
On the operational level, the trend continues toward the creation
of more separate and independent systems which deal with prob-
lems on a piecemeal basis. Waterworks have been constructed and
expanded without benefit of areawide planning, coordination or
controls. Slight attention has been pfeid toward developing a water
supply system for the region as a whole, with the view of pro-
viding for needs beyond the immediate future. Instances of co-
ordinated, iuterUxal efforts have been few. Indeed, there are cases
in which there has been keen competitioA between communities for
available water, a situation which has at\imes interfered with the
optimum development of the resource. \
There are, of course, examples of successful intergovernmental
cooperation. The arrangement by which the City of Chicago pro-
vides writer to suburban Cook County comrminities is the most
notable. Some of the fakeshore communitiesViorth of Chicago
provide water to neighboring inland municipaniies on a similar
though more limited basis. There are also four public water com-
missions or districts which were organized for the purpose of
obtaining and furnishing water to customer municipalities on a
sub-regional scale.
The Great Lakes Basin Commission has noted that although it
may be difficult, more emphasis should be put forth in developing
plans for areawide utilities and cooperate efforts. (15) Problems
G-4
such as well interference could be solved by preventing the
proliferation of small water systems while favoring larger utilities
which cross corporate boundaries and which develop the best
available source >rf water rather than relying heavily on wells in
the immediate area\ The GLBC recommends that the preparation
of such plans, before) population pressures and increased water use
necessitate independent crash programs, should begin immediately
and be worked out with local, county and regional planning com-
missions. Implementing plans for areawide utilities may require
the creation of additional laws and regulations.
The most pressing future water supply need will be that of ^
providing adequate substitute sources for those areas of the region
where groundwater deficiencies are expected to occur. Given the
fact that the areas of projected shortage are generally located some
distance from Lake Michigan, it is not feasible for individual
municipalities to construct their own independent systems. Some t
type of multi-community approach may have to be taken in order
to achieve economies of scale and to minimize conflicts and in-
ofFiciercies.
3.20 ORGANIZATIONAL, ALTERNATIVES There are several
alternative organizational slructures which might be established for
this purpose, varying both in scope of authority and area of juris-
diction. A number of thesis possible alternatives are highlighted
below to illustrate the range of management opportunities avail-
ble.
a. Maintain Existing Arrangements This is a continuance of the
status quo in which no major changes in agency stiuctures or pre-
rogatives would be effected. Water supply development and use
decisions would continue to be made at local levels, generally
without regard for broader area needs and problems.
Water supply has traditionally been viewed as a local respon-
sibility, and attempts to clrasticaljy alter, this approach may not
withstand the test of implementation. Therefore, expansion and
coordination of the water supply,' programs of existing local units
may be the most politically feasible and realistic method for deal-
ing with water supply problems /on a regional scale. The potential
for duplication of effort, waste of funds, and competition and
conflict would remain. . <
b. Metropolitan Water Authority At the opposite end of the
institutional spectrum would b^ the creation of a, six-county metro-
politan water authority. If authorized, this ageriey would assume
primary responsibility for i'urpishing water on a "wholesale" basis
throughout the region, or for significant portion^ thereof where
economies of scale might favor such an arrangement. Source
development, treatment, and primary transmissiop would fall
within its purview. Individual municipalities would retain re- 4.
sponsibility for constructing and operating local distribution and
storage systems. | <
It would also be possible to expand the role oft the water
authority to include othef important aspects of walesr resources J
management. This has tieen done in vhe Detroit metropolitan
area where a single agency was created to deal with (the water
supply, wastewater, and stormwater drainage problems ef Detroit
and 88 neighboring municipalities. With respect to water supply
alone, significant cost savings have been realized as a result of
the metropolitan utility approach.
Such an agency would allow for the systematic expansion and
operation of all public water facilities in the region. It would of
course be necessary to base such functional program on a com-
prehensive plan for the region to ensure orderly and efficient
growth and development. Other issues requiring careful consid-
(15): Ref. 9,pg. 278
-------
APPENDIX H
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
O'lIARU WRP
JUSTIFICATION FOR ULTIMATE SIZING
Justification for ultimate sizing of O'Hare WRP at 96 MGD is based
on a rational evaluation of population forecasts made by Northeastern
Illinois Planning Commission (:,TIPC) and MSDGC.
TABLE OF PROJECTED POPULATION & FLOWS
NIPC Forecast
Year
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
(1,000)
223
2&L
277
300
315
332
350
Flow (MGD)
36
50
62
73
77
80
83
Original MSDGC Forecast
Pop. (1,000)Flow (MGD)
223
351
^39
32
53
67
76
8l
87
92
The presently proposed O'Hare WRP was designed using population and
flows originally forecasted by the MSDC
According to this forecast,
the O'Hare WRP was designed as a 72 MGD plant with a design year of
1988 and ultimate average dry weather flow of 96 MGD.
Since that time the MSDGC has agreed with ISPA to use the demographic
forecasts developed by NIPC for facility planning purposes. Using
this data, the design year for the 72 MGD plant has been extended to
approximately, year 2000. However, in the opinion of the MSDGC, the
ultimate sizing of O'Hare WRP will remain at 96 MGD in spite of the
NIPC Population projection. This conclusion is based on the following
considerations:
1. NIPC population forecj.ct indicates continued increases
beyond year 2030. This implies that flow will also
continue to increase.
2. Demographic projections are in all cases based on
subjective evaluation of present and historical
data. Being subjective, it should be recognized that
neither MSDGC's nor HIPC's population forecasts may
be entirely correct.
3. Flow for year 2030, derived by using NIPC's population
and MSDGC" s per capita flow, is 83 MGD. If the MSDGC's
original population projection is assigned to the same
per capita flow, the year 2030 flow would be 10^- MGD.
k. In th? opinion of the MCDGC, s plant serving a growing
area such as O'Hare Facility Area should be designed
-H=L
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
conservatively within the limits of economic effectiveness.
5. The 72 MGD O'Hare WRP is designed on a modular concept,
and presently consists of three 2k MGD modules. Thus,
addition of one more module would result in a plant
capacity of 96 MGD at ultimate condition. While it is
possible to add less than 2.k MGD capacity, the modular
concept would then be partially destroyed. Interchange-
ability of equipment would not be possible and the un-
equal flows to the addition may result a more difficult
plant operation.
In view of all considerations stated above it is firmly believed and
recommended that the ultimate size of the-0'Hare WRP "be 96 MGD.
December 19, 1971)-
H-2.
-------
APPENDIX I
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
HEALTH ASPECTS OF SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES
Research & Development Department
S. J. Sedita January, 1975
i-l
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Nearly every city in the United States with a population
of more than 2,500 has some type of sewage treatment facility.
Such facilities vary from primary settling and lagooning only,
to the most sophisticated secondary (biological) and tertiary
(physico-chemical) treatments available.
The purpose of this survey is to review what is known about
aerosols' generated by sewage treatment plants from two points
t
of view:
1. The aerosols themselves, their persistence and compo-
sition.
2. Public health implications associated with sewage
treatment facilities.
The second topic will be discussed primarily with respect
to wastewater treatment personnel. This emphasis is justified
on the basis that such personnel represent the largest population
in possible contact with these aerosols and should reflect any
problems which might confront the general population upon
exposure.
In reviewing we should attempt to answer two questions:
1. What specific health implications are associated with
physical exposure to aerosols from sewage plants.
2. How valid are the assumptions concerning these
implications?
1-2
-------
II. SEWAGE PLANTS AS AEROSOL GENERATORS
Bacterial air pollution associated with sewage treatment
plants has been investigated by Albrecht (1958), Higgins (1964),
Randall and Ledbetter (1966) , Kenline (1968) , Adams and
Spendlove (1970), Goff et al, (1973) and others.
From a review of the literature it may reasonably be con-
cluded that microorganisms exist and persist in the sewage
treatment process; and that the aerosols generated carry these
organisms.
Aeration of sewage produces droplets by several mechanisms.
The droplets evaporate to yield droplet nuclei (1-20 microns in
diameter). Droplet nuclei generally contain a single bacterium
(Kenline and Scarpino, 1972).
Once in the air, the organisms travel passively downwind.
As they travel, their concentration (viable cells per unit
volume of air) decreases due to several factors, e.g., atmospheric
dispersion (Turner, 1967), deposition (removal from the air) ,
and die-off (loss of viability).
Kenline and Scarpino (1972) modified Turner's (1967) dis-
persion equations to estimate atmospheric dispersion, and micro-
bial populations at three sewage treatment plants in Ohio. An
activated sludge plant in Hamilton, Ohio (12 million gal per day)
and two extended aeration plants in Cincinnati (165,000 and 41,OOC
gallons per day, respectively) were the test facilities, and tht
study covered a period of 15 months.
1-3
-------
In their study, Kenline and Scarpino (1972) estimated
dispersion as a function of downwind distance, for an atmospheric
I
(stability of Class B and a wind speed of 2 meters/sec. The
initial bacterial concentration was reduced by 50% at 15 feet
downwind, and by 90% at 100 feet downwind. Kenline and Scarpino
(1972) attributed this rapid reduction to the combined effects
of deposition (independent of distance), diffusion and die-off
tr_
(become more effective with increasing distance). In comparing
extended 'aeration and activated sludge plants Kenline and
Scarpino (1972) made the following points:
1. Extended aeration plants have a lower emission rate
by 27%.
2. Aerosols from extended aeration plants have a 230%
longer half-life than those from activated sludge
plants.
3. The deposition rate is higher (380%) for extended
aeration. *
4. The combination of 2 and 3 above produced a bacterial cloud
with essentially the same persistence at both types of
facility.
Adams and Spendlove (1970) in a study of trickling filters,
were able to show up to 98% reduction in coliform counts per
cubic meter at distances of from 1320 to 4224 feet from the
1-4
-------
source. Kenline and Scarpino (1972) were also able to show that
the vast majority of the total bacterial cloud belonged to
families other than Enterobactericeae which accounted for only 5%
of the total.
Adams and Spendlove (1970) and Goff ejb al (1973) , were
able to demonstrate the effects of sunlight and relative
humidity on the survival of bacteria in aerosols from a trick-
ling filter. Their data also indicate that coliforms make up
from 0.3-24% of the total bacterial cloud depending upon the
distance from the source.
The most obvious conclusions which may be drawn from these
studies relate to survival of airborne bacteria and conditions
which favor or preclude this survival, i.e.:
1. There is a rapid die-off of aerosolized bacteria
(Adams and Spendlove, 1970; Randall and Ledbetter,
1966; Kenline and Scarpino, 1972).
2. Relative humidity shows almost no correlation with
aerosolized bacterial survival (Randall and Ledbetter,
1966; Adams and Spendlove, 1970).
3. Sunlight kills bacteria trapped in aerosols (Adams
and Spendlove, 1970; Goff e_t al, 1973).
4. The higher the wind velocity the farther entrapped
bacteria travel (Goff et al, 1973; Adams and Spendlove,
1970) .
1-5
-------
5. The half-life of an aerosolized bacterium is approxi-
mately 13,8 seconds (JKenline and Scarpino, 1972).
I-'6
-------
III. HEALTH ASPECTS
Let us now examine the larger issue of the health implica-
tions associated with the generation of microbial aerosols. The
major question to be answered is, "Are the assumptions concerning
the implications valid?" Based purely on the experience associated
with the construction and operation of activated sludge plants
in the United States and the rest of the world since 1915, the
answer must be no!
An obvious place to further explore this question would be
to look at the health prospects of the population with the greatest
exposure, namely, the wastewater industry worker. Several
extensive surveys of this group have been carried out (Ander's,
1954; Browning and Gannon, 1963; California Water Pollution
Control Board, 1965; Dixon and McCabe, 1964). The results of
these studies lead one to conclude that workers in the wastewater
industry are not exposed to any special danger because of the
\
chemical and biological composition of sewage. With specific
reference to infectious hepatitis, the Safety Committee of the
California Water Pollution Control Board (1965) concluded that
transmission of this disease by the usual means (personal contac..
or transfusion) was more likely even among this group (waste-
water industry workers).
Considerable attention has been given to the studies of
Randall and Ledbetter (1966), and Adams and Spendlove (1970),
in arriving at the conclusion that a recognizable health hazara
exists in the form of bacterial aerosols. The Randall and
Ledbetter work was carried out at a maximum distance of 100
feet from the aeration basin of the plants studied, which is
1-7
-------
surely not a fair test of the exposure liability of individuals
living at greater distances from the aerosol source. The Adams
;and Spendlove paper, on the other hand, purports to show signi-
ficant coliform survival at distances of up to 0.8 miles
(4224 ft.) from the aerosol source. In both samplings cited
at 0.8 mi, the upwind control coliform count was 25% and 33%
respectively of the downwind test sample. Further, with respect
to the total bacterial count the upwind control at 0.8 mi
was 71% of the upwind test sample, indicating that a significant
i
proportion of the viable particles per cubic meter came from
sources other than the waste treatment facility under consideration.
A consideration of the health aspects of aerosolized viruses and
bacteria must necessarily include several factors, i.e.:
a) The concentration of ingested or respired viruses
necessary to elicit symptoms in an individual.
b) The concentration of airborne viruses in the immediate
environment of an individual.
\
c) Definable parameters that affect the survival of airborne
viruses (presumably the same factors which affect bacterial
survival in aerosols).
d) The degree of aerosolization associated with the activated
sludge process.
e) The concentration of individual types of viruses in the
wastewater being treated and aerosolized.
Although definitive information pertaining to all of the
above factors does not exist, let us make an attempt to analyze
some relevant aspects of each (Metcalf, et-al,1974).
1-8
-------
It is recognized that as little as one tissue culture
infective dose (TCID) of certain viruses may initiate infection
in man. (Berg, 1971, states that, "a single plaque forming unit
(PFU) of virus is capable of producing infection in man.") One
must keep in mind, however, that the virus particle must come
into contact with a susceptible cell (Plotkin and Katz, 1967).
One must also realize that the ingestion of a single virus
may not necessarily produce infection and probably does not in
the majority of cases (see also letter to Mr. R. Ward from
i
G. F. Mallison, Assistant Director Bacterial Diseases Division
Bureau of Epidemiology, Center for Disease Control, Atlanta,
Georgia). An examination of the variability of results in minimal
infective dose studies indicates that there may be as much as
a hundred-fold variation in data from study to study and with
different enteroviruses (Plotkin and Katz, 1967).
Most of the studies on minimal infective dose such as those
described above, were carried out using only one type of virus
t
as total inoculum. Viruses encountered in the environment,
whatever the source, generally include a somewhat heterogenous
population (Metcalf, et al, 1974; Lamb, et al, 1964). It is,
therefore, altogether possible that an individual ingesting or
breathing more than one virus will ingest or breathe in more
than one virus type. There is no evidence to suggest that this
situation results in a greater risk of infection than ingesting
or breathing more than one virus of the same type. On the
contrary, experience with the Sabin strain of poliovirus
1-9
-------
types suggests that infection with more than one virus type
may induce viral interference. (Davis ejt al, 1967)
One must also be aware, regarding the enteroviruses, that
infection with a minimal dose does not normally result in
perceivable symptoms. Polioviruses have been most extensively
studied in this regard, and of the cases studied only one to two
percent of persons exposed and infected exhibited frank symptoms
of the disease. (Davis et al, 1967).
In a study of enteric viruses in activated sludge effluents,
52.6% of the isolates were identified as polioviruses. The
population of the country is, on the whole, immunized against
these viruses if they were non-vaccine strains. In addition,
the remaining vaccine strains of poliovirus are non-virulent.
The majority of viruses that have been isolated from waste-
water fall into three classification groups: picornaviruses,
adenoviruses and reoviruses. Of the three groups picornaviruses
(poliovirus , coxsackievirus , and echovirus) are most often
isolated. Ingestion of picornaviruses very seldom results in
anything more serious than transient infection of the alimentary
tract, and reoviruses are, "questionable causes of respiratory
tract disease " (Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases,
American Academy of Pediatrics, Evanston, 111., 1974). The
points made here apply equally to bacterial infections.
It is pertinent to this discussion to recognize that popula-
tions do not live in sterile environments and that microbes are
everywhere. "One must be chary of the type of microbiological
1-10
-------
thinking that equates the mere presence of microbes with illness
or the potential for illness. The fact is that illness is an
unusually complex phenomenon that does not have a 1:1 relation-
ship to microbes " (Benarde , 1973).
Returning, for a moment, to the question of "minimal
infective dose," as posed in our previous discussion on viruses
(and indirectly on bacteria) let us face a few facts. Reports
appear in the literature from time to time indicating that one
or another laboratory animal was given a specific disease. The
range of'numbers of organisms required to produce the illness
may extend from a single cell (or virus particle) to several
million. Additionally, the investigator very often has had to
manipulate or stress the animal in order to produce "a take."
The fact is that the combination of factors necessary to produce
an illness is not known. "Among epidemiologists, it is widely
accepted that it is even more difficult to start an epidemic
than to try and stop one " (Benarde , 1973).
Addressing the problem oi: aerosol generation further, it is
not difficult to appreciate the concern which public officials
have for their constituency. They should not, however, create a problc.-.
where none is known to exist. J-t might be well to
bear in mind the admonition of Dr. James W. Mosely, Chief,
Hepatitis Unit, Epidemiology Branch, CDC to workers in the fiela
of public health. His comments concerned the transmission of
viral diseases by drinking water, but we feel that they are
germaine to this discussion (Mosely, J. W., P. 5 in Berg, 1967),
l-ll
-------
"There are valid reasons for looking for new evidence. They
are not, however/ adequate substitutes for evidence. Our eager-
ness as public health workers to "do something" must not compromise
the quality of data which we demand as scientists. We must also
not confuse the possibilities which we entertain as scientists
with the probabilities on which we base our recommendations as
publie health workgrs...."
Also relevant to our discussion is the concern expressed
that the existence of the O'Hare Treatment Plant will be a
nuisance and lower property values. Let us examine this
question in the light of our experience at the Hanover plant.
The Hanover plant, admittedly much smaller than the proposed
O'Hare facility, was constructed in an area relatively far
removed from the population of the area. Now, however, residences
abut the property line, children pass through the plant grounds
on their way to school, and there is a park and playground on the
other side of the fence surrounding the plant property.
The nuisances associated'with sewage treatment facilities
generally arise from odors associated with primary sludge treat-
ment. The O'Hare facility is designed to be only a biological
aeration facility. There is no generation of primary sludge
for anaerobic digestion, nor will wasted secondary sludge be
treated on site. On the contrary, it will be pumped via closed
pipe to the new Salt Creek plant (John E. Egan Plant) for final
treatment. Raw sewage will be pumped from a covered wet-well
100 ft. up to the aeration basin which should eliminate any
odor problems. Also all grit, screenings and scum removed,from
the wastewater will be collected and temporarily stored in covered
containers. Such operations will be performed in a temperature
1-12
-------
controlled room and the filled containers will be removed from
the plant site on a routine basis (Letter to Mr. R. Ward from
Bart T. Lynam, 1973).
Research
In as much as available data show that sewage treatment plant
workers are healthier than workers in other industries, and that
no documented evidence to the contrary exists, the District supports
the position that more research is desirable to better define and
evaluate the health implications of sewage treatment plant related
i
aerosols.
Under USEPA Contract #68-02-1746 the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago is cooperating fully with the South-
west Research Institute of San Antonio, Texas in a study entitled
"Health Implications of Sewage Treatment Facilities". The Dis-
trict has made the complete facilities of the John E. Egan Plant,
Schaumburg, Illinois, available to the Southwest Research Insti-
tute for the conduct of this study. The objectives of this study
t
are summarized as follows:
"To determine whether or not there are any health
-hazards associated with the operation of activated sludge
treatment plants. There are many new sewage plants under
construction within the United States, and by necessity
most are being sited in close proximity to populated areas.
This project will collect information on the transport of
bacterial and viral pathogens, parasites and trace metals
from an activated sludge treatment plant (John E. Egan
Plant, Schaumburg, Illinois) to persons living within a
5-km radius. There will also be a survey of the popu-
lation near this plant before the plant is operational
and during its operation to determine possible incidence
of disease that may be associated with a sewage treat-
ment plant. The information generated from this study
will be used by the Environmental Protection Agency in
its assessment of potential health effects associated
with the operation of a sewage treatment facility."
1-13
-------
In addition the District in cooperation with, the Illinois
Institute of Technology Research Institute, Life Sciences Re-
search Division has submitted to the USEPA for funding a proposal
entitled "Viral and Bacterial Levels Resulting from Land Appli-
cation of Digested Sludge".
The objectives of this study include a comprehensive eval-
uation of the environmental effects of aerosols associated with
the use of digested sewage sludges in agricultural production.
It is clear that the efforts demonstrated by the District
i
to gather new information on the Health Implications of Sewage
Treatment Activities completely contradicts the claims of others
that the District is insensitive in this regard.
1-14
-------
CONCLUSION
From the foregoing, it must be obvious that our two orginal
questions can be answered fairly specifically: From our
knowledge of aerosols, microbial survival, disease patterns
experience and the available literature we can ascertain no
direct evidence which indicates any significant risk through
physical exposure to aerosols from sewage treatment facilities.
Given the declining rate of communicable diseases in the U.S.
(Benarde, 1973), the possibility of an aerosol associated
health risk far outstrips the probability of its actual occurrence
In more recent surveys conducted by Ledbetter, et al (1972,
1973), it was found that there are no significant health
hazards for sewage plant workers. Absenteeism among sewage
plan'; personnel was found to be lower than among all other
occupational groups studied (J. L. Melnick in Berg 1967).
No greater incidence of disease would be found among sewage
treatment plant workers, than is found in the general population
including (by extrapolation) persons living in the area surround!:
a plant.
1-15
-------
REFERENCES
,1. Adams, A. Paul and J. Clifton Spendlove, 1970. Coliform
| Aerosols Emitted by Sewage Treatment Plants. Science,
Vol - 169, pp. 1218-1220.
2. Albrecht, C. R., M. S. Thesis, cited by Goff e_t al, 1973.
3. Anders, Werner, 1954. The Berlin Sewer Workers.
Zeitschrift fur Hygiene, Vol. 1, pp. 341-371 (English
translation by Ralph E. Oesper excerpts made available by
personal communication Scott Clark, Ph. D., University of
Cincinnati Medical Center Department of Environmental
Health).
4. Benarde , Melvin, 1973. Land Disposal and Sewage Effluent:
Appraisal of Health Effects of Pathogenic Organisms.
5. Berg, 1971. Report Viruses In Waste, Renovated, and Other
Waters. Federal E. P. A., Water Quality Office, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45226 (25 pages).
6. Browning, Glen E. and Gannon, John J., 1963. Operator
Protection in Waste Water Treatment Plants. J.W.P.C.F.,
Vol. 35, pp. 186-190.
7. California Water Pollution Control Association - Safety
Committee, 1965. Report on Hepatitis J.W.P.C.F., Vol. 37,
pp. 1629-1634.
8. Davis, B. D., Dulbecco, R., Eisen, H. W., Ginsberg, H.S.,
Wood, W. B. Microbiology^ New York, Harper and Row, 1967.
9. Dixon, Fritz R. and McCabe, Leland J., 1964. Health Aspects
of Waste Water Treatment. J.W.P.C.F., Vol. 36,
pp. 984-989.
10. Goff, Gordon D., J. C. Spendlove, A. P. Adams, Paul S.
Nicholes, 1973. Emission of Microbial Aerosols from Sewage
Treatment Plants that use Trickling Filters. Health
Services Reports, Vol. 88(7), pp. 640-652.
11. Higgins, F. B., Ph.D. Thesis, cited by Kenline and Scarpino,
1972.
12. Kenline, P. A., Ph.D. Thesis, cited by Kenline and Scarpino,
1972.
13. Kenline, P. A. and P. V. Scarpino, 1972. Bacterial Air
Pollution from Sewage Treatment Plants. Am. Ind. Hyg.
Assoc. Journal, May, pp. 346-352.
14. Ledbetter, J. 0., L. M. Hauck and R. Reynolds, 1972. Health
Hazards from Waste Water Treatment Practices.
1-16
-------
I
«-
15. Ledbetter, J.O., 1973. Health Hazards from Waste Water
Treatment Practice. Env. Letter, Vol. 4, pp. 225-32.
16. Lamb, G.A., Chin, T.D.Y., Scarce, L.E. 1964. Isolations
of Enteric Viruses from Sewage and River Water in a Metro-
politan Area. Amer. J. of Hyg. 80, 320-327.
17. Metcalf, T.G., Wallis, C., Melmich, J.L. Virus Survival in
Water and Wastewater Systems, J.F. Malina, Jr. and B. P.
Sagik, et., Center for Research in Water Resources, U. of
Texas, Austin (1974).
18. Mosley, J.W., 1967. Transmission of Viral Diseases by
Drinking Water in Transmission of Viruses by the Water
Route, pp. 5-23. G. Berg, Ed.
19. Plotkin, S.A. and Katz, M. Transmission of Viruses by the
Water Route, G. Berg, ed. New York, J. Wiley & Sons (1967)
20. Randall, C.W. and Ledbetter, J.O., 1966. Bacterial Air
Pollution from Activated Sludge Units, Am. Ind. Hyg.
Assoc., Vol. 27, pp. 506-519.
21. Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases, American
Academy of Pediatrics, Evanston, Illinois, (1974).
1-17
-------
APPENDIX J
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
STATEMENT OF POSITION
ON ODOR ORIGINATING FROM
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
J-l
-------
J
O'HARE WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STATEMENT
ODOR CONTROL
I. INTRODUCTION '
One of the areas of pollution control that causes so much concern
today is the possible odor problem. Although it "has the least
potential to do harm to the environment", the public's reaction
to this factor is so intense that it "can most quickly ruin a
plant or a company's image in a community" (1). Many urban areas
are faced with this situation. Because of increasing growth, i.e.
urbanization, essential facilities, such as wastewater treatment
plants, are being unavoidably located in proximity to residential
areas. This, however, is causing vehement opposition from the
public, notably because of an apparent odor potential. A need,
therefore, has come to include in the design of wastev/ater treatment
plants, facilities which would reduce—if not eliminate—odors to
undetectable levels.
II. SOURCES OF ODORS
Occasional odors from a conventional wastewater treatment plant can
usually be traced to the following sources: septic raw wastewater,
screenings, grit and scum facilities, and sludge treatment facilities.
« •', •
Odor producing substances in the raw sewage are generally products of
anaerobic decomposition. Extended residence time in sewers causes
the depletion of dissolved oxygen in the sewage thus creating'an
environment conducive to the grov/th and activity of facultative and
* o
J-2
-------
anaerobic bacteria. The product of such an activity is a highly
odorous gas, hydrogen sulfide (H^S). Also present are such other
odorous compounds as indol, skatol, nercaptans, disulfides, volatile
fatty acids and ammonia. These compounds usually appear in the
pump station wet well.
Screenings and grit consist of the larger solid materials which are
physically removed from the rav.~ sewage at the pretreatment stage.
It is necessary to remove these materials in order to prevent
interference with subsequent plant operations and wear and tear of
plant equipment. Since the organic fraction of these materials can
still undergo decomposition, they constitute a potential source of
odors.
Scum accumulates on the water surfaces of the sedimentation tanks, an,
is collected by skimming devices. Like the grit and screenings, the
scum also constitutes a potential source of odors. Proper scum
handling is essential in order not to create an unpleasant atmosphere
for the plant personnel"and neighboring population.
Sludge is the solids by-product of wastewater treatment plant proems,
It is composed largely of the substances responsible for the offense ,
character of the septic sewage. Sludge characteristics depend on its
origin, the amount of aging that has taken place, and the type of
processing to which it has be^n subjected. In a conventional bio-
logical treatment plant, the sludge sources are the primary sediment
tion tanks and the final settling tanks. Aged primary sludge has
J-3
-------
an offensive odor while the waste activated sludge, under favorable
conditions, has an inoffensive characteristic odor. Most odor
complaints are caused by improper operation of the. sludge handling
facilities which include thickening, digestion, dev:atcring and
drying, and disposal. -
III. ODOR CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
f
The literature and proven experience present several basic means of
ex'or control. They are ventilation, adsorption, washing and
scrubbing, chemical oxidation, counteraction (masking or neutralization)
and combustion.(2) Although these methods can all be capably employed
to control odors, their effective applications require recognition
of the source, the nature of the odors and the degree of abatement
required. In a conventional wastewater treatment plant, the selection.
of the odor control method requires familiarity with the operational
treatment procedures and the potential sources of the odors. In
fact most of the methods available for odor control are presented
in the USEPA's Technology Transfer Series. (3) The odor control
methods are summarized in the following sections.
1. Changes in Operational Procedures and New Techniques
Inadequate p]ant design which results in overloading of *
the treatment processes, such as sludge concentration
<
tanks, anaerobic digesters, etc., can cause odor problems. *
Plant modifications, such as improved temperature control
and efficient mixing of digester contents as well as the
J-4
-------
observance of good house^r-opine; piactices can
contribute to the elimination o-T unwanted odors.
2. Chemical Treatment
Most odors in wastewater can be destroyed by oxidizing the
substances that produce them.. Chlorine and ozone are two
commonly used oxidizing agents in v;aste treatment. Both
serve to accomplish the sane purposes: to retard biological
action which produces odors and to react cheraically with
odorous sulfur compounds, oxidizing them to relatively inert
and inoffensive sulfur forns. Ozone has extremely high
reactivity but because of its high cost, its use is limited.
Chlorination is most cornnonly employed with the use of the
liquid chlorine or sodium hypochlorite.
Other, but less common, odor control agents used in wastewate:
treatment are lime and powdered carbon. Lime decreases the
odor level by raising the pH of the septic sewage thereby
minimizing the amount of f^S evolved. Consideration should,
however, be given to the increase in sludge production as a
result of lime addition. The significant adsorptions character.
of powdered activated carbons is very useful in reducing the-
odor level. Tests show that a concentration of less than
10 mg/1 of powdered activated carbon was successful in reduci;
odors.
J-5
-------
3 . Coll ect .i. on a n_d _T r
-------
o/ its molecule, but: usually t.bo r^ac:v.ion proceeds to for-'i
an ozonide wherein all the o;:one is completely coupled with
the organic compound. Such reactions are complicated and
are affected by such parameters as accumulation of reaction
products, moisture, temperature, etc.
The ozone generation process involves the passage of dry air
between electrodes across which an alternating high-voltage
*« potential is maintained. To insure optimum conversion of
oxygen to ozone, a uniform blue-violet glow discharge is
maintained throughout the gas. The glox-; discharge is created
by inserting a dielectric material between the electrodes
which causes the glow to spread uniformly and prevents
• breakdown into brush and arc discharges.
Catalytic combustion oxidizes odorous air at temperatures
500 to SOO^F lower than required by simple combustion, (4)
Its advantage over ordinary ccnbustion is the considerable
lowering of the firing temperature, with a resultant saving
of energy for heating air, and capital equipment costs for
heating capacity.
IV. ODOR CONTROL AT THE O'HARE VJRP
t **
One of the major issues expressed by local residents against the cor •
struction of the O'Hare WRP ir the potential odor problem. People
*
are instinctively opposed to construction of facilities which .may
J-7
-------
at times result in possible odor nuisance. While this can be
naturally understood, it is worthvhile to note that the MSDGC,
cognizant of its prime obligation to promote a healthful environment
within its jurisdiction, is employing techniques which have been -
"* *
proved to be effective in'the elimination of the potential pollutants.
The design of this proposed facility incorporates several modifications
of the conventional wastewatcr plant to either eliminate an odor sourcc-
or control potential odor sources. As a result of an economic study
sludge will be pumped and piped to the John Egan WRP for treatment
and handling. This eliminates the sludge thickening, digestion, and
handling facilities which are principal sources of possible odors.
1. Potential Sources of Odors at the O'Hare WRP
The only potential sources of odors at the O'Hare facility
will be the following locations:
a. Raw sewage pump station wet well
b. Screenings and grit storage area
c. Scum handling area
2 • Methods of Odor Control at the 0' Flare V7RP
1
The most effective method of odor control is to prevent
• •' ' the escape of the pollutant to the atmosphere. This is
economically accomplished by eliminating the odor at its
source or collecting the odor producing substance and
treating it prior to its release to the atmosphere. The
O'Hare WP.P has b?en provided vrith the follov:ing facilities
to achieve the above objective.
J-8
-------
a< Prcj-Ch.lori r.c- tj..on . A pr:, -cM ruination facility
has been provided to chlorinate the raw sewage
as it enters the treatment processes. This
accomplishes both odor control and increased
treatment efficiency. Chlorine reacts with the
odor-producing substances such as H2S and other
sulfur compounds through oxidation which results
in chemical compounds devoid of any unpleasant
Ovlur. (3) AG a disinfectant it kills odor-producing
bacteria relieving subsequent treatment units such
as the primary and secondary facilities from emitting
the noxious gases. Pre-chlorination also inhibits
the corrosive characteristics of the raw sewage,
thereby reducing its detrimental effect on the
metallic components of the facility and helps promote
consistent plant efficiency.
Chlorination will be accomplished utilizing a coirumer „
sodium hypochlorito solution. Since the MSDGC has
a vast experience in this process, the efficient am
safe operation of this facility need not be further
discussed0
b. Ozonation. The proposed treatment plant will contai
two packaged orone generating units. One unit will
be on-line and the other unit will be on standby,
J-9
-------
The units are designed to treat exhaust air
from the pump station wet well and from the
screenings, grit and scum areas. The units
will be complete with reaction chamber,
transformers, variable voltage controls, com-
pressor air filter, motors, aJ *- cooler, air dryer,
interconnecting piping, ozone supply piping, ozone
diffusers and controls.
Each unit is designed to treat a maximum of
94,000 CFM of exhaust air. The ozone generator
will be capable of operating with a pressure range
of 12 to 15 psig pressure and producing a minimum
of 31.5 pounds of ozone, at 1% concentration, per
day. This represents an ozone dosage of approximately
1.75 ppm (volumetric) which is within the recommended
dosage range of 1 to 2 ppm (volumetric) for effective
odor treatment.(5)
The ozonation system has also been designed so that
ozone concentration in the discharged air will always
be zero. Electronic monitoring and control equipment
will be installed to detect and control emission quality.
The ozonated exhaust system will be equipped with an
ozone sensor at the discharge. If the ozone concentratior
of the exhaust air exceeds zero level (above the minimum
detectable limits of the sensor), the ozone generator
J-10
-------
is manually adjusted to reduce ozone production.
In this way,'ozone concentration is continuously
kept below TOL (Threshold Odor Level, the level
at which its odors can be detected), 0.01 to
0.02 ppm (volumetric). (The IPCB rules regarding
ozone state that "ozone watch'-' .lust be called when
the aver !>je o^one concentrations exceeds 0,07 ppm
for two hours and the official weather forecast
indicates no substantial improvement in stagnation
conditions.)
c. Isolation of Odors. Screenings, grit and scum will be
collected in such methods as to prevent the leakage of
the noxious gases emanating from them into the atmos-
phere. They will be separately enclosed in areas
which will be temperature controlled to inhibit format:c.
of odors. Exhaust air from these areas will be con-
ducted to the ozonation chamber to insure complete
deodorization. The -MSDGC has also adopted containeriza-
tion methods wherein these materials are placed in con-
tainers and disposed off the plant premises daily by
private scavenging contractors.
J-ll
-------
CONCLUSION
The satj sf actory performance of a properly designed wastewater
treatment plant is hinged on the reliability of back-up facilities
to sustain the system at its design capacity at all times. Observa-
tions indicate that odor problems, if at all, occur during plant '
overloading or bypassing of essential treatment processes resulting
from mechanical difficulties and unreliable standby facilities.
Indifferent maintenance and operation management may also supplement
or aggravate the problem.
The plants cited by some witnesses at the Public Hearing held on
December 19, 1974, have experienced at least one of the above
difficulties to cause an odor problem. Although the existing MSDGC's
North Side and Hanover Park plants do not have odor control facilities,
such as proposed at the O'Hare V,TRP, good housekeeping and improved
treatment processes have afforded an almost completely odor free
atmosphere in spite of frequent overloading prior to the construction
t
of the 4 MGD Addition at Hanover and existence of sludge concentration
facilities at North Side. The O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant does
have adequate back up facilities to handle overloading and does not
i
have sludge concentration facilities.
* ** '
The--treatment plant at the City of Lodi, California apparently treats
and handles its sludge and does not appear to have odor control
facilities. The Sacramento Plant employs trickling filters and has
a peculiar problem of treating seasonal canning waste. It will be
noted that odor problems have occurred during the canning season
J-12
-------
which overloaded the plant. After the plant expansion and the
introduction of odor controls, performance proved that "sewage
tr-.'dtment plants can now be built closer to residential areas"(6).
The Clavey Road Plant was severely overloaded for many years prior
to the time when residents demanded relief from odors and irri-
tating emissions. Process failures under overloaded conditions
would produce significantly greater problems than a failure under
design conditions.
In addition to the proposed odor control facilities at the O'Hare
WRP, it is to be emphasized that the MSDGC has a strict,policy of
adhering to the rules of good housekeeping. The awareness of the
inherent responsibility of the District in promoting a climate
conducive to better living and clean environment can be traced
back to the long standing record of the District. This record
will be maintained in the future years.
J-13
-------
References:
1. Herr, G.A., "Odor Destruction-A Case History"., presented at
G6th Annual AICHE Meeting, Nov. 13, 1973, Philadelphia, Pa.
2. ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals
3. Roy F. Weston, Inc., "Process Design Manual for Upgrading
Existing VTastewater Treatment Plants", EPA Technology Transfer,
Oct. 1971,
4. Guic*:.* r.ncl Data Book, ASIIPAE
5. Ozonation in Sewage Treatment, University of Wisconsin,
Nov. 9-10, 1971, p. 20.
6. E, Herr & R. L. Potorak, "Program Goal - No Plant Odors,"
Water and Sewage Works, Oct.. 1974.
J-14
-------
APPENDIX K
NICHOLAS J. MELAS
PRESIDENT
Bart T. Lynam
General Superintendent
751 5722
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
JOANNE H. ALTER
JOAN G. ANDERSON
JEROME A COSENTINO
VALENTINE JANICKI
WILLIAM A. JASKULA
JAMES C KIRIE
CHESTER P MAJEWSKI
NICHOL«, J 1ELAS
JOHN W ROGERS
February 11, 1975
-S.. Z. 3.
Mr. Francis T. Mayo • •.••IROINMLNIAI t-KOstci,..i\
Regional Director R Ef f I V E 0
Region V
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Subject: Environmental Impact Statement
O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant
Dear Mr. Mayo:
During the past several weeks, the District has generated and sub-
mitted to the Region V office, position papers related to the general
areas of comment received at the Public Hearing held in December for
this project. These papers cover the general topics of odors, site
selection, the O'Hare Basin Plan, and health aspects of wastewater
treatment plants.
Based on an analysis of the submittals on the draft statement, the
question of potential health hazards associated with aerosol generat-
ion was the primary concern of the individuals who participated. Many
arguments were made for eliminating this potential. These Included
plant relocation, covering of the plant process areas, and abandonment
of the O'Hare Basin Plan (for which a number of alternates were pre-
sented) .
Representatives of the public presented a large number of references
which cited the potential for aerosols to serve as a vector for disease
transmission. There is, however, an obvious lack of case histories or
documentation which would indica+~~ that any hazard has ever actually
occurred. As noted in our position paper on the health aspects, there-
is no recorded incident of disease associated with the operations of
a well-managed wastewater treatment facility.
K-l
-------
Mr. Francis T. Mayo
February 11, 1975
Page 2 .
In today's world of almost instantaneous communication, epidemiological
outbreaks of disease associated with these operations-presented as
being of great concern to the public-would be easily found. This has
not been the case. Those studies associated with occupational health
hazards for treatment plant operators have failed to indicate any
evidence that the potential so frequently referred to has been realized.
As you are aware, intensified research related to this particular po-
tential has been initiated. Many studies are being conducted nationally
to evaluate the degree of remedial and future actions, if any, related
to this potential. The District, whose primary responsibility is to
safeguard the health of its constituents, is participating in some of
the research projects and will closely follow the progress and results
of such programs. If it is determined that modifications, to any
degree, are required for the District's facilities, the District on
its own initiative would expedite the necessary actions.
In the meantime, the District will maintain its high standards of main-
tenance and operation of facilities in order to prevent development of
situations which could cause the public concern. In addition, the
District is evaluating methodology for reducing aerosol transmission
from the plant proper.
During the construction period of the O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant,
it is anticipated that a large amount of information related to this
problem will be generated. This information will relate not only to
cause and effect, but the parameters upon which technology for address-
ing the question would be based. It is expected that a period of three
years would give adequate time for the development of this information.
If the results of the information gathering projects indicate the need
for some level of aerosol containment, retrofitting of the O'Hare Plant
could be accomplished prior to startup. The information gained would
permit determination of a cost-effective solution with a high degree
of reliability. It could reach $30 million for this facility. In
view of the lack of any empirical indication that a health hazard po-
tential has been realized, it is obviously prudent to evaluate the
conjecture in a professional manner prior to imposing requirements
which are unneeded or could be ineffective.
K-2
-------
Mr. Francis T. Mayo
February 11, 1975
Page 3.
The second largest area of concern appears to be the question of
odors. The major case cited, the Clavey Road Plant, presented an
obvious case for public concern. It must be categorically stated
that the proper operation and maintenance of a wastewater treatment
facility, which was prope 'ly designed to handle the imposed load and
is treating the type of wastes associated with wastewater in the
Metropolitan Chicago Area, does not present an odor concern for thj
public. The degree of sophisticated instrumentation for the operat-
ional control incorporated into the design of the O'Hare Plant assures
to the greatest degree possible, that upsets associated with mechanica
or operational failures will not be a matter of concern. The degree
of insurance against all possibilities requested by some members of
the public is without precedent in our society. The District, in
its design of the facility, feels that the highest degree of relia.
lity is provided. Our society cannot afford to expend huge sums of
money to prevent a potential temporary inconvenience which may occur
a few times during the life of the facility.
A third area of concern was the emission of materials from treatment
plant processes which could be considered air polluting substances.
This concern was expressed in the context of potential cumulative or
synergistic effects when the level of pollutants resulting from the
activities associated with O'Hare Airport were at or above accepted
levels. Basically, the District has indicated that the only signifi-
cant emission of this type is carbon monoxide (C^). Based on an air
feed to the system of 26 million pounds per day, the C02 exhausted
would amount to 25,'400 pounds per day or less than 1/10 of 1% of the
total exhausted. It is somewhat incongruous that the District must
respond to concerns associated with emissions from aircraft operations
Additionally, the impact on real estate values is far more a function
of proximity to the O'Hare Airport than any impact the proposed water
reclamation plant may have. It is curious that, to our knowledge,
the City of Des Plaines has neither passed regulatory ordinances nor
filed lawsuits against the activities at O'Hare International Airport,
which is claimed to have such a harmful effect on the Des Plaines
environment.
K-3
-------
Mr. Francis T. Mayo
February 11, 1975
Page 4.
In general, the District has not attempted to answer each individ-
ual question submitted in connection with the Public Hearing on the
draft statement. Rather, the District has chosen, through the use
of position papers, to respond to those major areas of concern ex-
pressed. The District's major responsibility is safeguarding the
health of the citizens it serves. The District has made and will
make every effort-in a reasonable and rational manner-to fulfill
this responsibility. The location and design of this facility are
well within the limits for providing safeguards for the residents
of the area.
Very truly yours,
Bart T. Lynam
General Superintendent
K-4
-------
APPENDIX L
1. Land Treatment Alternative
The MSDGC modeled their land treatment alternative after the
conceptualized system described in the "Wastewater Management
Study for Chicago - South End of Lake Michigan" (C-SELM)
prepared by the Chicago District Corps of Engineers. MSDGC
evaluated the alternative for a design year of 1990 assuming a
total flow of 2118 MGD and a service population of 5,770,000.
a. Objectives
The primary objective of any wastewater management system
is to economically remove waste constituents from all
wastewaters in an environmentally acceptable way.
Proponents of the Land Treatment system anticipate the
following treatment performance:
Constituents Effluent Concentration (mg/1)
COD 6
BOD 5 day 2
Suspended Solids 0
Dissolved Solids 500
Soluble Phosphorus 0.01
Ammonia NH4 0
Nitrate & Nitrite 2
Organic N 0
Heat - Temp. (F) 53-78
L-l
-------
Constituents Effluent Concentration (nig/1)
Oils « 0
Phenols 0
Pathogens, Virus Absent
Trace Metals 0
Boron 0.7
Arsenic 0
Cyanide 0
Absent or zero (0) means not detectable by standard testing
methods and current technology.
Inspection of the wastewater qualities for the C-SELM
area and the MSDGC service area indicate that the character-
istics of the two sources are very similar. Therefore, it was
concluded by the C-SELM that the MSDGC flows could be treated
without adjusting for differences in wastewater characteristics.
b. Brief Description of Land Treatment System
1) Treatment System
This system includes the wastewater lift stations
which convey wastewater from land conveyance tunnels to
degritting facilities and biological treatment lagoons.
The effluent from these aerated lagoons is then discharged
to storage facilities when irrigation of the wastewater
is not feasible. The storage lagoon water is chlorinated
prior to irrigation on the land at controlled rates to
coincide with the critical nutrient requirements of
agricultural crops during the growing season. Following
advanced treatment provided by the soil medium, the
percolated water is collected by a drainage system for
conveyance and returned by reuse tunnels to the MSDGC
Service Area.
L-2
-------
2) Sludge Management System
The treatment of MSDGC wastewater results in two
end-products: the treated effluent and the solids, or
sludge, removed during treatment. The treatment and
disposal of sludge is a major design consideration of
this wastewater management study.
The problem of dealing with the sludge is compli-
cated. The solids content of sludge represents only a
small percentage of its total weight, with the rest
being water, both cell tissue water and supernatant
water.
Land treatment sludges would have a high concen-
tration of decomposable organic matter. Sludge is ex
expected to be 6.0% total solids by weight with the
balance being water. Approximately 0.77 dry tons of
digested sludge would be produced per million gallons
of sewage treated. This yield figure includes grit.
Ultimate disposal of sludge generated as a by-
product of sewage treatment is accomplished by appli-
cation of sludge considered for the MSDGC system is
land reclamation.
The land reclamation approach assumes the application
of biological sludges to strip-mined areas in Illinois
at a controlled race during a short period of time.
In the land treatment system, the solid wastes are
conveyed with the wastewater to the land treatment sites
L-3
-------
where, after biological treatment, they are stabilized
by anaerobic digestion on the bottom of the land treatment
storage lagoons. After a period of years, the digested
sludge is dredged from the bottom of the lagoon and
transported to land reclamation sites.
Land Treatment Process
1) Aerated Lagoons
It is proposed that the wastewater first be
degritted then treated in the aeration lagoons. The
land treatment modular design is based on provisions
for a 5000-acre surface water storage lagoon to handle
a 265-mgd average daily wastewater flow, and to provide
organic removals equivalent to secondary treatment in
a detention time of three days based on the 265 MGD
average daily flow. The working water depth in these
lagoons is 15 feet and the total area required,
including berms, is about 200 acres. The total
earthwork necessary to construct a three-celled
lagoon for the modular design exceeds three million
cubic yards. Aeration is provided by low-speed
surface mechanical aerator-mixers.
2) Storage Lagoons
The aerated lagoon effluent is conveyed by gravity
flow to the storage facilities to provide solids sepa-
ration and storage of wastewater when irrigation is
not feasible due to wet or freezing weather conditions.
L-li
-------
They are designed for a four-month storage capacity
at 265 MGD, or a total volume of nearly 33 billion
gallons of wastewater. An average water depth of
of 20 feet makes necessary a total surface area,
including berms, of 5,400 acres. A three-foot dead
storage volume is provided for solids accumulation
prior to sludge utilization. The estimated in-place
earthwork requirements for the construction of the
storage berms is 12 million cubic yards. The water
discharged from the storage lagoon would be chlor-
inated prior to land application, requiring facilities
with a capacity of 615 MGD or a peak chemical demand
exceeding ten tons per day, at a dosage of 4 mg/1.
3) Irrigation Facilities
Upon completion of chlorination, the lagoon
effluent is pumped to the irrigation lands for appli-
cation to the soil. The irrigation facilities consist
of pumping stations and a force main transmission
network to convey the water to irrigation machines
for application to the land. The irrigation system
results in a land utilization factor in the range
of 35 to 60 percent by minimizing disruptions to the
present land use. For the modular 265 MGD design,
an irrigation land utilization factor of 40 percent
is used; thus, 2.5 acres of land are required to
provide an acre of irrigated land.
L-5
-------
4) Drainage System
After passage through the soil, the reclaimed
water is collected in a drainage network of pipes and
channels to central access points for discharge to a
recalaimed water tunnel system and subsequent trans-
mission back to the receiving streams. The drainage
capacity is equal to the irrigation application rate
of 6 inches/week or the equivalent 615 MGD for the
modular site. The basic drainage criterion is the
maintenance of a minimum aerobic soil zone five feet
deep to facilitate the chemical, physical and biological
soil treatment processes so that effluent standards
may be attained. Thus, prolonged saturation and
increased salt content of the soils and resultant
crop losses are eliminated.
5) Effluent Characteristics
The Land Treatment Alternative is expected to
produce an effluent equivalent to that produced by
an advanced level of treatment. The equivalent of
primary and secondary treatment is first provided by
the aeration and storage lagoons, while land appli-
cation utilizing the biosystem of both the soil and
the cover crops will produce renovated water suitable
for almost all uses.
6) Sludge Treatment
Land treatment of wastewater produces two end-
L-6
-------
products, the treated effluent and the solids, or
sludge, removed during treatment. The latter is a
biological or organic sludge with a high concentration
of decomposable organic matter that could produce
offensive odors if allowed to decompose in an
unregulated manner. To prevent this, anaerobic
digestion is used to stabilize the organic matter.
This sludge is expected to be 6 percent total solids
by weight. The process is expected to produce 0.77
dry tons of anerobically digested sludge per million
gallons of sewage. As the soil in the strip-mined
areas contains only limited amounts of organic matter
or humus, the application of sludge serves to increase
the humus content and the fertility of the soil,
stimulating the growth of grass or trees for recrea-
tional uses.
d. Land Treatment System - Cost Estimate
The cost estimate for the MSDGC's Land Treatment
Alternative is modeled after the cost methodology used
in the C-SELM Report. Thus, where applicable, unit
process and component cost developed in the C-SELM Report
are used to estimate the cost of an equivalent system for
the MSDGC's Land Treatment Alternative.
In order to make the economic comparison of the various
treatment alternatives valid, all unit costs derived in
the C-SELM Report are adjusted by a factor of 1.3. The
L-7
-------
resulting adjustments reflect the 1975 costs based on an
EM Construction Cost Index (CCI) of 2400.
The capital costs of treatment processes included all
associated construction, field engineering, design, legal,
administrative and contingency costs, but do not include
land or sludge disposal costs. These cost factors are
treated independently.
A summary of the costs for the Land Treatment Alter-
native are given in Tables L-l and L-2. More detailed
costs for the system components are presented on pages l*-2i
Table
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL, REPLACEMENT AND ANNUAL COSTS;
Item
Lift Station &
Grit Removal
Aerated Lagoon
Storage Facilities
Irrigation System
Drainage System
Misc. Land System
Construction
172
155
303
775
429
120
1,954
Cost ($Million)
Present Worth
164
143
222
598
416
75
1,618
Annual
16.42
14.59
22.64
61.00
42.40
7.7
164.75
Capital Present Worth = $1,618 Million
Capital & Replacement - Annual = $164.75 Million
L-8
-------
Table L-2
SUMMARY OF LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE ($MILLIONS)
Present Worth
CAP.
Treatment $1618
Land 382
Sludge Mngmt 101
Conveyance 355
Reuse Convey 410
Res. Soil &
Rock Mngmt.
Total $2866
M & 0
$1525
—
72
30
591
48
$2266
Total
$3143
382
173
385
1001
48
$5132
Annual
CAP. M & 0 Total
$165 $156 $321
39 — 39
10 7 17
36 3 39
42 60 102
— 5 5
$292 $231 $523
e. Environmental Impacts
The major impact of the Land Treatment Alternative would
be on the water quality of the region. Within the area of
the plan, there would be a measurable increase in dissolved
oxygen. Phosphorus and nitrogen discharges from municipal
and industrial sources would be reduced by 99 percent and,
from the first 2.5 - 2.85 inches of storm water runoff, by
97 percent, thereby reducing the potential for algal blooms.
The plan would also provide enhanced instream recreational
L-9
-------
usage Including fishing and an Improved flow regimen.
Possible beneficial effects of the plan on aquatic
life and wildlife are relatively minor, and, therefore,
cannot influence any decision based on environmental
impacts.
C-SELM Study (G-XIII-29, and Tables B-VII-B-1 and
B-VI1-B-2) gives the following summary of chemical and
primary energy requirements and secondary energy re-
quirements (energy required to manufacture chlorine
used) for the land treatment system:
Resources
Chemicals
Chlorine (Ib/MG) 33
Primary Energy
Electrical (1000 BTU/MG) 22,400
Fuel (1000 BTU/MG) 100
Secondary Energy
Electrical (1000 BTU/MG 180
Natural Gas (1000 BTU/MG)(9,590)
Crop Drying (gas) 1,000
L-10
-------
However, an electrical requirement of about 25 percent
(5,600 BTU) must be added for conveyance, storm water
management and reuse systems. At 3414 BTU/KWH, the electrical
requirements will equal 8254 KWH/MG. At an estimated flow
in 1990 of 2,118 MGD for the MSDGC, the District's share
of the cost of electricity, at 0.025/KWH, would be $451,000/day,
This would represent an appreciable impact on the electricity
generating capacity of the area.
The natural gas credit is given dn the basis that the
agricultural use of nitrogen fertilizer, which required the
consumption of a natural gas-equivalent fuel, is relieved to
the extent of the nitrogen applied by the sludge utilization
and wastewater irrigation programs. On the other hand,
consideration should be given to the fact that if reclamation
of strip-mine land is part of the program, the nitrogen
demands of reclamation are also one of the costs of the
program. Although it is proper to give a natural gas credit
for the agricultural program on cultivated land, since normal
cultivation would require nitrogen fertilizer, a credit for
the reclamation program is doubtful. Reclamation itself
should be the only credit.
L-ll
-------
The major impact on resources will be on agricultural
land. To carry out the MSDGC's share of the program, it will
require the acquisition or leasing of a minimum of enough
land to construct 8.07 treatment modules (2118 MGD/265 MGD
per module). A module would have the following approximate
area:
Aeration lagoons, acres 200
Storage lagoons, acres 5,400
Irrigated land, acres 66,000
Total acres 71,600
Therefore, the needs of the MSDGC would require a
total of 71,600 x 8.07 = 577,800 acres of agricultural
land. This does not include the land requirements for
sludge disposal, since the latter would be carried out
only on strip-mine land. At 1350 dry tons of sludge
per day, accepting the figure given in the C-SELM Study
of an application rate of 100 dry tons per acre, the land
requirement would be 13.5 acres/day, or 4928 acres per
year.
f. Institutional Aspects
In a November 15, 1973 letter from this Agency to
Colonel James M. Miller, District Engineer, U.S. Army
L-12
-------
Engineer District, Chicago we pointed out the major
impediment in the way of the Land Treatment Alternative.
Briefly, there is no known method of implementation,
certainly none thac would meet the necessary time schedule
imposed by PL92-500 or by Illinois law. Quoting the above
letter, "the institutional arrangements in effect in the
area probably offer more nearly insuperable obstructions
to the achievement of effective urban management than the
technical difficulties". Also, "... a project of (this)
magnitude utilizing primarily good quality farm land does
not appear justifiable at this time". Again, "the public
hearings also emphasized the need to seriously address
the wisdom of converting a significant portion of the
nation's agricultural lands into a restricted land use".
Finally, "the apparently most economical alternative ...
that this study promotes has not been shown to be
environmentally sound or socially acceptable".
The MSDGC does not have the power of eminent domain
outside of its own area. The Land Treatment Alternative
indicates that it would be necessary to purchase 17,200
acres additional (C-SELM Study, Summary Report, Table VII-3)
The experience of the MSDGC indicates that it would be most
L-13
-------
difficult, probably impossible, to buy or lease land
to the extent necessary to establish such a program.
Without regard to any other considerations, the
institutional objections to the Land Treatment Alternative
would appear to rule out its implementation at any time
in the foreseeable future.
2. RE-USE
a. Groundwater Recharge
The effluent from the O'Hare Plant may be of
acceptable quality for recharging underground aquifers,
however such recharging is not practicable under the present
state of the art.
The deep sandstone aquifers lie from 1,400 to 1,900
feet below the surface, and are overlain with many hundreds
of feet of impervious strata. The coefficients of trans-
missibility of the sandstone are so low that only small
amounts of water could be forced into the aquifer.
Any attempt to recharge the shallow dolomitic aquifer
would probably fail because of the impervious nature of the
rock itself, and the uncertain nature and continuity of the
crevices and solution channels.
L-U*
-------
b. Surface Water Supply Enhancement
There are no known users of surface waters in the
O'Hare drainage basin. There are no known water-producing
glacial sand and gravrl deposits in the basin.
c. Recreational Use
Water quality in Higgins Creek will be suitable
for primary ant' secondary contact use. The size and location
of the stream may significantly limit its recreational value,
however.
3. Treatment and Discharge
The alternatives for the O'Hare treatment system, as
given below, reflect the analyses published in MSDGC planning
and design reports. As assumptions of plant loadings and
acceptable systems have evolved during the planning process,
it is to be noted that the reported loadings and assumptions
are not totally consistent with the final design criteria.
However, as the relative acceptability of the studied
alternative is not influenced by these changes in assumptions,
the reported alternatives are germane.
A 1968 Brown and Cladwell preliminary design report
as a treatment plant for the O'Hare area used the following
effluent standards for preliminary design.
L-15
-------
BOD 4 mg/l
SS 5 mg/1
Ammonia 2.5 mg/1
Dissolved Solids 750 mg/1
Fecal Coliform 1000/1.00 ml
Alternatives for treatment were analyzed by process;
preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment. The
recommended processes were as follows:
a. Preliminary Treatment. Removal of gross floatable
mechanically cleaned bar screens with return of ground
screenings to sewage flow.
b. Primary Treatment. Removal of grit in aerated grit tanks
with grit hauled away for offsite disposal. Removal of
floatable material and reduction of suspended solids and
BOD in primary sedimentation tanks with skimmings and
sludge pumped to offsite areas for treatment and disposal.
Design of the primary sedimentation tanks to provide for
maximum efficienty in BOD removal.
c. Secondary Treatment. Reduction of substantially all of
the suspended solids and BOD by the activated sludge process.
Aeration tanks to be designed and operated for maximum
oxidation of carbonaceous matter only. Settling of activated
sludge in secondary sedimentation tanks with waste activated
L-16
-------
sludge pumped along with primary sludge to offsite
areas for treatment and disposal.
d. Tertiary Treatment. Reduction of suspended solids to
a maximum of 5 mg/1 ancf BOD to a maximum of 4 mg/1 on rapid
sand filters using dual media filter beds. Reduction of
ammonia to less than 2.5 mg/1 by pH adjustment and stripping.
Sludge removed irom coagulation and sedimentation tanks to
be pumped along with primary and waste activated sludge to
offsite areas for treatment and disposal.
The ammonia stripping recommendation, however, was
estimated to cost more than an equivalent biological
nitrification - denitrification tertiary alternative. The
cost for ammonia stripping was estimated at $38 per million
gallons, and the cost for a nitrification - denitrification
system was estimated at $36 per million gallons. The
stripping alternative was recommended by the consultant,
Brown and Caldwell because of the following advantages:
1) The process is subject to positive control so that
the effluent nitrogen content can be consistently maintained
at a given level.
2) Conversion of ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen
is not required. This simplifies operation of the secondary
L-17
-------
treatment process and leads to the production of a secondary
effluent low in suspended solids and BOD.
3) Ammonia is removed in gaseous form and there are
no solid nitrogenous wastes requiring disposal.
4) Treatment with lime not only provides pH adjustment
but also reduced the phosphorus and dissolved solids in the
effluent at no additional chemical cost.
Two alternate modes of plant operation were given in
the report with regard to ammonia reduction, as the choice of
the ammonia stripping alternative was not clear cut.
In 1970, the design criteria were revised. This
revision reflected the MSDGC's decision to proceed with a
biological nitrification tertiary system for ammonia removal.
The following factors indicated the selection of biological
nitrification:
1) The Brown and Caldwell ammonia stripping recommendation
was estimated by the consultant to cost more than an equivalent
biological nitrification alternative, $38 per million gallons
versus $36 per million gallons respectively.
2) As denitrification was not required in the immediate
future, the cost comparison was $38 per million gallons for
stripping against $11 per million gallons for biological
nitrification.
L-18
-------
3) It was not certain Clint a stripping system could be
operated efficiently in a cold climate.
4.0) Significant chemical additions to the flow stream were required
to increase the stream pH and subsequently lower the pH.
The nitrification process selection was based on the
above discussion, and the conclusions in the Salt Creek Water
Reclamation Plant report. The selected criteria also recognized
that while two stage nitrification reflected the most conservative
approach to ammonia removal, this technology had not been
comprehensively demonstrated on a large scale. As a consequence,
MSDGC decided to design the plant so that it could be operated
as a conventional one stage plant or as a two stage, nitrification
plant.
4. No Action
The no action alternative involves retaining the present
wastewater collection system in the service area, with treatment
at the MSDGC North Side Plant. This arrangement can continue to
accomodate dry weather flows for an undetermined period, but cannot
treat the system overload during storm flows. About 80 storm
overflows would continue to degrade the area's stream annually.
L-19
-------
If no action Is taken, the 29 outfalls in the study
area will, after December 1977, be in violation of the Water
Pollution Regulations adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control
Board in July 1973, and approved by USEPA. These regulations
require that the effluent from existing combined sewers be
given sufficient treatment to prevent pollution or the
violation of applicable water quality standards by December
31, 1977.
L-20
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
The amortized coats of treatment processes are determined by the
following formula:
Annual Cost = C.R.F. (C + P.W.(R) - P.W0(S))
where C.R.F. = Capital Recovery Factor with
interest at 5-7/87<, and n = 15
C - Initial Construction Cost
P.W.(R) = Present worth of Replacement Cost
at 5-7/87> and varying n.
.W.(S) = Present worth of Salvage Value at
5-7/87>. Salvage is determined using
straight line depreciation.
Waatewater Lift Station and Grit Removal; The wastewater lift
stations are designed to pump peak flow of 3180 MGD at 625 ft. of head.
The lift station discharges the water to concrete tanks for grit re-
moval prior to biological treatment.
Lift Station Structure &
Pumping Facilities @ 44,000 HP
and $175/HP
Aerated Grit Tanks & Grit
Removal Facilities
Total Lift Station & Grit
Removal Capital Cost
$129 Million
43 Million
$172 Million
Aerated Lagoon; The capital costs for the aerated lagoons in-
clude earthwork for lagoon cell construction, lagoon slope stabiliza-
tion, pavement construction, flow structures and mechanical surface
aerator-mixers.
Earthwork, Slope Stabilization, etc.
Aerator-Mixers
Total Aerated Lagoon Capital Cost
$102.5 Million
52.5 Million
$155 Million
Storage Facilities; The capital costs for this unit process in-
clude site preparation earthwork for lagoon construction, lagoon slope
stabilization, pavement construction, flow structures and chlorination
facilities.
L-21
-------
— THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Earthwork, Slope Stabilization, etc. $273.6 Million
Chlorination Facilities 29.4 Million
Total Storage Lagoon Capital Cost $303 Million
Irrigation System; The capital costs for this unit process in-
clude irrigation pumping facilities, a flow distribution network and
the irrigation machines. The peak capacity of the total system is
4915 MGD.
Pumping Facilities $ 41 Million
Irrigation Machines 114 Million
Conduits 620 Million
Total Irrigation System Capital Costs $775 Million
Drainage System; Drain tile, channel construction, sewer pipe,
and drainage tunnels are included in capital costs of this unit proc-
ess. The peak capacity of the drainage system is equal to that of the
irrigation system - 4415 MGD.
Total Drainage System Capital Cost $429 Million
Miscellaneous Land System Components: The land treatment system
costa include electrical facility construction in the rural areas to-
gether with building structure costs for administration, maintenance
and lab buildings and a reclaimed water monitoring system.
Total Miscellaneous System Capital Cost $130 Million
Land Treatment System - Replacement Costs: The land treatment
system replacement costs are programmed capital expenditures for cer-
tain treatment components which are to be replaced within the 50 year
life of the system. The following replacement costs for the various
unit processes of the land treatment system are presented as follows:
Wastewater Lift Station & Grit Removal; For this unit proc-
ess, 10% of the grit collection and removal facilities are programmed
to be replaced every ten years. This is equal to a capital expenditure
of $4 Million. Also, 50% of the pumping facilities for the main waste-
water lift station are replaced every ten years. This is equivalent to
a $65 Million replacement cost.
L-22
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Aerated Lagoon; The life of the aerator-mixers is ten years.
Therefore, 1007,, of the aerator cost, or $52 = 5 Million, is programmed to
be replaced every ten years.
Storage Facilities: The chlori r.ation facilities are replaced
every ten years at a cost equal to 25% of the facilities. For the to-
tal land treatment system, this is equal to a $7.35 Million capital ex-
penditure for four times during the life of the system.
Irrigation System; The ^.rrigation pumps are replaced every ten
years at a cost equal to 807, of the irrigation pump station. This is
equal to $32.6 Million every ten years. Every 15 years, the irrigation
machines are to be replaced at a cost equal to 907» of the total capital
irrigation machine cost. This is equivalent to capital expenditure of
$100 Million every 15 years.
Miscellaneous System Components: Major electrical repairs to the
land treatment system are programmed after 25 years of system opera-
tion. This replacement cost is equal to 357o of the total electrical
facilities cost. This is equal to $45.5 Million for the entire system.
TABLE M-VIII-4
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL, REPLACEMENT AND ANNUAL COSTS;
Cost ($Million)
Item
Construction
Present Worth
Annual
Lift Station &
Grit Removal
Aerated Lagoon
Storage Facilities
Irrigation System
Drainage System
Misc. Land System
172
155
303
775
429
120
1,964
164
143
222
598
416
75
1,618
16.42
14.59
22.64
61.00
42.40
7.7
164.75
Capital Present Worth = $1,618 Million
Capital & Replacement - Annual - $164.75 Million
Land Treatment System - Operation and Maintenance Costs; The op-
eration and maintenance costs of the treatment facility components in-
clude labor, chemicals and supplies and energy requirements. The main
wastewater lift station and aerated treatment lagoons are similar to
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
the treatment plant systems in that they require 24 hours maintenance
on a year-round basis. The irrigation and drainage systems require
eight hours per day maintenance on a year-round basis. During the win-
ter months, when the irrigation machines are not in operation, labor is
still utilized for major overhauls of these machines. The eight hour
sick time and weekends are taken into account. The following M & 0
costs are presented for the major process units. ,
Labor
Main waatewater lift station & grit removal
1 Supervisor
4 Skilled Labor
1.5 Unskilled Labor
Labor Cost/shift
@ 4.5 Shifts
Total Cost
$ 17,000/year
61,000/year
21,500/year
$ 99,500/year
477,750/year/module
$4.18 Million/year
General plant functions
5 Supervisors
4 Unskilled Labor
Labor Cost
Total Cost
$136,500/year
52,OOP/year
$188,500/year/module
$188)1500/year
Aerated lagoon
1 Supervisor
11 Skilled Labor
Labor Cost/shift
@ 4.5 Shifts
Total Cost
$ 19,600/year
157,300/year
$176,900/year
796,OOP/year/module
$6.42 Million/year
Storage lagoon facilities
1 Supervisor
14 Unskilled Labor
Labor Cost/shift
@ 1.5 Shifts
$ 15, POP/year
182,PPP/year
$197,PPP/year
$297,5PP/year/module
Total Cost
$2.38 Million/ year
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Chlorination facilities
3 Skilled Labor
@ 4.5 Shifts
Total Cost
$ 58,500/year
263,000/year/module
$2.12 Million/year
Irrigation & drair^ge system maintenance
1 Supervisor
4 Skilled Labor
4 Unskilled Labor
Labor Cost/shift
@ 1.5 Shifts
Total Cost
Total Labor Cost for Entire
Treatment System including
15% for fringe benefit costs.
$ 19,500/year
70,200/year
54,600/year
$144,300/year
216,OOP/year
$1.74 Million/year
$26.21 Million/year
Chemicals & Supplies for Entire Treatment System
Chlorine @ 4 mg/1 & $0.22/pound
Main lift station @ 17, Capital
Cost/Year (1)
Aerator-Mixers @ !*/„ Capital Cost/Yr.
Chlorination facilities @ 1%
Capital Cost/Yr.
Irrigation pumps @ 17, Capital Cost/Yr.
Irrigation machines @ 170 Capital
Cost/Year
Transmission facilities @ 0.17,
Capital Cost/Year
$ 5.94 Million
1.29 Million
0.53 Million
0.29 Million
0.41 Million
1.14 Million
0.7 Million
Total Chemical & Supply Cost $10.30 Million/Year
Footnote:
(1) Figure represents capital cost of pump station
portion of total Lift Station/Grit Removal Cost
= (0.01) (172) (0.76) = $1.29 M
L-2$
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Energy
For the land treatment system, all energy costs reflect electri-
city requirements for the various components presented herein.
These costs are based on an electricity rate of $0.025/KWH.
Ma in wa s t ewat e r lift station
@ 44,000 HP/Module $ 67.20 Million/year
Aerated lagoon @ 13,500
HP/Module 17.29 Million/year
Irrigation distribution system
@ 38,000 HP/Module & 158 days
in operation 21.96 Million/year
Irrigation machines @ 7,100
HP/Module and 158 days in
operation 4.05 Million/year
Drainage system (§ 14,000
HP/Module and 158 days in
operation 7.97 Million/year
Total Energy Cost $118.47 Million/year
Summary of Labor, Energy, Chemical & Supplies Costs;
Item Cost ($ Million/year)
Labor $ 26.62
Chemicals & Supplies 10.30
Energy ' 118.47
Total M & 0 $155.39 Million/year
Present worth - M & 0 = 1, 525 Million
L-26
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Land Treatment System - Land Costs: Associated with the land
treatment system are a number of land costs and annual land payments.
For the land treatment system, the only land that is purchased is for
the lagoon facilities. The cost of land, together with relocation
costs for families or buildings on tKxs land, are developed on a per
acre basis as discussed in detail in the land displacement subsection
of Section VII A of Appendix B C-dELM Report. For the modular land
treatment system, some 5,600 acros of lagoon land are required to ac-
comodate the 265-MGD average do_ly flow. The unit land and relocation
coat for this module is $l,26lv'acre. Including a 207=, contingency cost
factor and a 15% engineering, design, legal and administration fee, the
total land cost for the land treatment system is some $79.0 Million.
Also associated wit i the land treatment system are initial and
inconvenience payments to the participating landowners in the amount of
1070 of the present land value within the irrigation system. This pay-
ment is used to help the participating farmer defray the cost of new
agricultural equipment and also to pay for any loss in crop revenue due
to construction of the land treatment system. Based on a gross irriga-
tion land requirement of $532,620 acres, an average land value of $745/
acre and a contingency cost factor of 2070, the initial and inconven-
ience land payments equal $47.6 Million.
Finally, an initial land cost is paid to people residing within
the site boundary who presently utilize shallow wells as a water supply
source. The cost includes provisions for constructing deeper wells
(200 feet) to replace existing shallow ones so that the rural communi-
ties' water supply is isolated from the potable, reclaimed land treat-
ment effluent which interfaces with the groundwater supply. The well
cost, including contingencies, equals $2,000 per unit. Therefore, to-
tal coat equals $12.7 Million.
Annual Payments; Included in the land cost analysis for the land
treatment system is a recognition of the fact that purchased lagoon fa-
cilities remove lands from the tax base and hence create an annual tax
loss. Based on the modular design requirement of 5,600 acres of lagoon
land, an average land value of $745/acre, an average rural tax multi-
plier of $2/$100 of assessed valuation and a contingency factor of 207°,
some $1.9 Million per year of tax revenue will be lost through con-
struction of the Land Treatment Facility. In order to make up for this
annua.l tax loss, a unit tax revenue treatment cost of $1/MG of treated
influent is assessed. The revenue from this tax will be $0.772 Million/
year.
Also an annual land cost payuent is paid to the participating
landowner since his land will be unavailable for other uses during the
50-year life of the treatment system. This annual cost, which is also
based on the gross irrigation area utilized by the system, is equal to
47o of the present land value. Based on the total land system require-
ment of $532,620 acres, an average land value of $745/acre and a con-
tingency cost factor of 207», the annual land payment is equal to $19.04
Million/year.
L-27
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Summary of Land Costs;
Initial Construction Costs;
Land reqd. for Lagoons
Initial and Inconvenience Payment
Water Supply Costs
Total
$ 79.0 Million
47.6 Million
12.7 Million
$139.3 Million
Annual Costs;
Loss of Tax Base
Tax Revenue
Payment to Participating Farmers
Total
Total Present Worth
Total Annual Cost
$ 1.90 Million/year
0.77 Million/year
19.04 Million/year
$ 21.71 Million/year
$382
$ 39 Million/year
Storawater Management Systems
In contrast to the C-SELM Wastewater Management System, the
MSDGC'a Land Treatment Alternative includes only those costs associated
with the management of Urban Stormwater.
The costs connected with the management of urban stormwater are
taken from the Summary of Technical Reports by the Flood Control Coor-
dinating Committee dated August, 1972, for the Chicago Underflow Plan.
These costs include surface collection and drop shafts, conveyance tun-
nels, storage reservoir facilities, pumping stations and discharge con-
duits.
The estimate coats for the Chicago Underflow Plan are summarized
below: (Cost reflects 1972 prices.)
Surface Collection and Drop Shafts
Conveyance Tunnels
Storage Reservoir Facilities
$ 93,000,000
567,200,000
350,000,000
L-28
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Pumping Stations and Discharge Conduits
McCook-Summit $ 30,000,000
Calumet (Temporary) 6,000,000
O'Hare Northwest 2,000,000
Subtotal
Undefined Work & Contingencies
Total Construction Cost
Engineering, Legal & Administrative
Total Project Cost
$1,048,200,000
100,000,000
$1,148,200,000
75,000,000
$1,223,200,000
The revised estimated equivalent annual costs for operation,
maintenance, equipment replacement and water for aquifer protection
for the recommended plan are as follows:
Maintenance and Operation
Equipment Replacement
Aquifer Protection
Total
$ 8,700,000
1,000,000
3,900,000
$ 13,600,000
Conveyance System; For estimating the cost of the conveyance
system, the following assumptions were used:
. 1. Minimum velocity in the Tunnel = 2.0 fps and Manning coeffi-
cient =0.017.
2. Functional headless in the Tunnel could not exceed 150 ft.
over the entire length.
3. Total distance from the main access point (WSW-STW) to the
Land Treatment Site is approximately 70 miles.
4. Tunnels are assumed to be unlined, mole-excavated structures
and their costs are based on experience gained by the City of
L-59
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Chicago over the past few years. Three such tunnels have re-
cently been constructed: These are:
a. Lawrence Avenue Tunnel, 5.5 miles long, upper diameter
12 feet, lower diameter 17 feet, cost about $10 million,
including allowance for concrete lining.
b. Crawford Avenue Tunnel, 3.5 miles long, diameter about
16 feet, cost about $7.5 million, including concrete
lining.
c. Forty-Seventh Street Tunnel, 3.5 miles long, diameter
about 16 feet, cost about $7.5 million, including con-
crete lining.
All three of these tunnels were let by competitive bid-
ding with construction to include concrete lining.
After experience with the "mole" construction, it was
decided to eliminate the concrete lining as the bored
hole proved to be smooth and strong. Both hydraulic
capacity and storage capacity would have been reduced by
the concrete lining. Infiltration into the tunnel was
found to be controllable through grouting at selected
locations, and roof spalling was found to be almost non-
existent.
Present costs for unlined mole-tunnels range from $200
per foot for a 10-foot diameter, and $300 per foot for a
16-foot diameter up to $1,000 per foot for a 35-foot
diameter. These figures correspond to $1.50/cu.ft. for
a 16-foot diameter and $1.00/cu.ft. for a 35-foot diam-
eter. The cost curve for an unlined mole tunnel is en-
closed as Figure B-VI-E-1 of the C-SELM Report.
Tunnel drop shaft costs are estimated from the cost
curve presented in Appendix B, Section VI-D, Figure B-
VI-D-2, C-SELM Report.
Capital Cost: 36 ft. diameter, unlined Tunnel. 70 miles...Cost =
$505 Million.
Operation and Maintenance Costs: Operation and maintenance costs
include labor and material required for regular operation and mainte-
nance of pressure conveyance lines, tunnels, and pumping stations. Cost
of power required to run the pumping station is also included. Labor
costs include salaries for superintendents, operators, clerks, laborers,
electricians and other tradesmen. Materials include all the necessary
implements for normal operation cf the system. Energy costs are esti-
mated at $0.025 per KWH. Labor and material costs are estimated at 0.5%
of capital costs plus contingencies (at 20% of capital cost).
L-30
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Replacement Costs: Replacement costs are only applicable to pump-
ing stations. Tunnels and pressure lines are estimated to last the
life of the project and have no replacement factors. The following re-
placement schedule is pertinent:
C proponent
Land and Structure
Mechanical
Other
7, of Total Cost
Replacement Required
in Years
None in 50 years
Every 25 years
Every 10 years
Every 10 years
in 50 years
Total 100
The schedule indicates that 20% of capital cost, plus contingen-
cies at 20%, of capital cost of the pumping station will need replace-
ment at the end of the 25th year of operation. Mechanical components
such as pumps, valves, etc., plus other parts, will be replaced at
scheduled ten-year intervals or four times in the life of the project.
Summary of Conveyance Cost
Present Worth
Capital
M & 0
Total
$355 Million
30 Million
$385 Million
Annual Coat
Capital
M & 0
Total
$ 36 Million/Yr.
3
$ 39 Million/Yr.
Sludge Management System: The sludge disposal option selected for
the MSDGC's Land Treatment Alternative is Land Reclamation. Of the
three possible Land Reclamation sites mentioned in the C-SELM Report,
the Fulton County site is assumed to be the selected site. This ap-
peared to be a logical choice because the MSDGC is presently operating
a land reclamation project of its own in Fulton County.
L-31
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
The sludge management cost for the Land Treatment Alternative con-
sists of three major components: 1. dredging costs for removing
sludge from the storage lagoons; 2. transportation costs for pumping
the sludge to the Land Reclamation site; and 3. application costs for
distributing and applying the sludge onto the land.
Costa associated with dredging sludge from the storage lagoons,
however, are developed using a scheme conceptualized by MSDGC. This
was necessary because of the rather sketchy treatment of the subject in
the C-SELM Report.
Both transportation and application cost are developed using the
basic assumptions delineated in the C-SELM Report. These assumptions,
with slight modifications, are:
Dredging: MSDGC has had experience in sludge removal from lagoons
utilizing two methods: mobile and stationary. In the mobile method,
dredging machines scrape the bottom of the lagoons and pump the sludge
to a collection point. In the stationary method, sludge is brought by
a dragline system from where it is pumped out of the lagoon.
Considering the area of the storage facilities (ca. 5000 acres per
module) involved, neither of the above methods appear to be feasible.
Therefore, the conceptualized sludge dredging operation for the Land
Treatment Alternative includes such items as permanent sludge draw-
points which are thought to be required to make the method workable.
Capital Costs
Collection Conduits and Drawoff Structures $52 Million
Dredging Machines $ 1 Million
Total Construction Cost $53 Million
Replacement Cost $1.0 Million
Amortized Capital & Replacement Cost = $4.0 Million/yr.
Labor Costs
3 Supervisors $ 80,000/yr.
24 Operating Engineers - 500,000/yr.
36 Laborers 590,000/yr.
12 Skilled Tradesmen 251.000/yr.
Total $l,421,000/yr.
L-32
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Energy Coats
24 Dredging machines operating
8 hrs. day 182 days per year
200 H.P. per machine - Diesel
Fuel @ $0.45/gal.
Summary of Dredging Operation'
Capital - Present Worth
Capital & Replacement - Annual
M & 0 - Present Worth
M & 0 - Annual
$ 39.76 Million
$ 3.99 Million/year
$ 18.12 Million
$ 1.25 Million/year
Sludge Transportation: Analyses of costs associated with sludge
transportation systems indicate that transportation cost varies with
the solids content of the sludge. A preliminary cost analysis, compar-
ing each mode of sludge transportation including pipeline, truck,
barge, and railroad, indicates that a pipeline system is the most eco-
nomical means of transportation when the solids content of the sludge
transported is maintained at the 670 level for biological sludges and
107o for physical-chemical sludges. This analysis is based on the as-
sumption that a railroad or waterway exists between the transfer sta-
tion and the land application site.
In the final determination of the biological sludge transportation
costs for this study it is assumed that sludge thickening, combined
with barge or railroad systems of transportation, could produce unit
costs comparable to those for the pipeline system. While the costs for
a pipeline transportation system are used as the sludge transportation
costs for this study, they are not necessarily any less than the costs
for the most economic version of either of the alternative rail or
barge transportation systems.
The cost for a pipeline transportation system is developed using
the fpllowing basic assumptions:
1. Pipe size and the horsepower required at the pumping station
are determined using a design flow of 13 MGD and pumping
sludge to the Fulton Bounty Land Reclamation Site.
2. The average cost of installed pipeline equals $2 per inch of
diameter/linear foot of pipe.
3. The cost of the pumping stations is taken from the unit costs
of pumping stations developed for wastewater conveyance.
L-33
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Figure B-VI-C-1 of C-SELM Report and corrected using a factor
of 1.32 to compensate for the increase in power and in physi-
cal size of the pumps and motors.
4. Labor costs equal 1.8% of the construction cost per year.
5. Energy costs are based on a unit cost of $O.OL/KWH and 24
hours per day operation.
6. Maintenance and supplies equal 0.67, of the construction costs.
7. Replacement costs for a pumping station and associated pipe-
line are computed using the following schedule.
Components
Land & Structures
Structures & Pipeline
Mechanical
Other
Other
REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE
% of Total
Cost
20%
60%
107o
5%
57,
Replacement Required
in Years
No Replacement in 50 Yrs.
Every 25 Yrs.
Every 10 Yrs.
Every 10 Yrs.
No Replacement
Capital Coats
Sludge Pipeline
Pump Stations
Total
Replacement Cost = $545,000
$50.68 Million
0.73 Million
$51.41 Million
Amortized Capital and Replacement Cost - $4.39 Million/year
Labor Costs
1.87, (Construction Cost - $51.41 Million) = $930,000/year
Energy Cost
Sludge pumping $100,000/yr.
L-3U
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
4. Maintenance & Supplies
0.67» (Construction Coat = $51.4 Million) = $310,000/yr.
5. Summary of Transportation Costs
Capital - Present Worth
Capital & Replacement - An mal
M & 0 - Present Worth
M & 0 - Annual
$43.03 Million
$ 4.39 Million/year
$13.12 Million
$1.34 Million/year
Land Application Systems; The costs for the sludge distribution
system, land clearing, and construction of sludge storage lagoons are
included in the following land application cost estimate. The costs for land
application systems are developed using the following basic assumptions:
1. The system designs are based on the design criteria described
in Appendix B, Section IV-C of the C-SELM Report.
2. The same methodology for the pipeline transportation system
is used here for the computation of pumping station and pipe-
line costs.
3. The costs of fittings are based on responses from manufactur-
ers and contractors for each particular type and size re-
quired. No general rule is used.
4. The cost of a tractor plus plow is assumed to be $32,000.
5. Land clearing costs for land reclamation is $500/ac.
6. The land reclamation application system is designed so that
once the desired quantity of sludge is applied to a 1400 acre
unit, the system is abandoned and a new one is utilized on
adjacent lands. Thus in a strict sense, there is no replace-
ment schedule for this sludge application system. However,
the construction of all the sludge application units during a
five or 'ten year period is not feasible since certain units
would not be utilized for 20 to 40 years after their con-
struction. Thus a construction schedule is substituted for
the replacement schedu"-.,. The initial construction is de-
signed to accommodate one-fourth of the total sludge applica-
tion requirements. At 10 year intervals, three more applica-
tion system construction projects are programmed with each
providing one-fourth of the total system requirements.
L-35
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Typical cost analyses for the land application of sludge are given
in Table B-VI-C-2 C-SELM for land reclamation. These costs are based upon
the layouts of Figures B-IV-O3 and B-IV-C-6 of the C-SELM Report including an
allowance of $1,000,000 per unit for distribution costs from the end of
the main sludge transportation system to each unit. This allowance is
required because of the commonly scattered locations of application
areas within a general region, requiring additional pumping stations
and pipelines to convey the sludge from the main supply point in that
region to each new distribution unit being developed.
Capital Costs
Sludge Storage Lagoon
Distribution System
Pump Station
Tractor/Sprinklera
Land Clearing
Total
Labor;
Pump Station
1 Supervisor
2 Skilled Labor
2 Unskilled Labor
Total @ 4.5 Shift
Sludge Distribution
2 Supervisors
56 Heavy Machine Operators
Total (Only 1 Shift)
Pipe Disassembling & Installation
2 Supervisors
5 Operating Engineers
10 Unskilled Labor
Total (Only 1 Shift)
L-36
$1.27 Million
3.38 Million
0.50 Million
1.82 Million
2.98 Million
$9.95 Million
$ 18,000/yr.
42,000/yr.
33.000/yr.
$ 93,000/yr.
$4189000/yr.
$ 42,000/yr.
1.172.000/yr.
$l,2!4,000/yr.
$ 42,000/yr.
105,000/yr.
165,000/yr.
$312,000/yr.
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Equipment Maintenance
1 Supervisor
5 Skilled Tradesmen
5 Unskilled Labor
Total @ 1.5 Shift
Total Labor Cost = $2.54 Million/Year
Energy
Pump Station
Sprinkler/Tractors
Total
Supplies
10% (Construction Cost) =
Land Clearing
Clearing 5950 ac/year =
Summary of Land Application:
Capital - Present Worth
Capital & Replacement - Annual
M & 0 - Present Worth
M & 0 - Annual
Summary of Sludge Management Costs
Capital - Present Worth
Capital & Replacement - Annual
M & 0 - Present Worth
M & 0 - Annual
L37
$ 21,000/yr.
105,000/yr.
82.000/yr.
$208,000/yr.
$162,000/yr.
$ 40,800/yr.
1.060.000/yr.
$l,100,800/yr.
$1.42 Million/yr.
$2.98 Million/yr.
$18.05 Million
1.82 Million/Year
41.02 Million
4.19 Million/Year
$100.84 Million
10.20 Million/Year
72.26 Million
7.28 Million/Year
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Reuse Conveyance System
The only reuse system contemplated for MSDGC's Land Treatment Al-
ternative is that for navigational purposes. The capital cost of
water reuse system therefore includes pumping station at various
injection points and return flow tunnels only.
Capital;
Tunnels
Main Tunnel
Calumet to WSW
WSW to N.S.
WSW to O'Hare
Other Points
Total
Pump Stations
WSW
. Northside
Calumet
Others
Total
M & 0:
Labor for Pump Stations
WSW P.S.
Northaide P.S.
Calumet P.S.
All Other P.S.
Labor for Tunnels (0.005) (474) =
Energy
All Pump Stations
Supplies - 1.07. of Capital Cost
(0.01) (107) -
T.-38
$350 Million
72 Million
28 Million
11 Million
13 Million
$474 Million
$ 63 Million
18 Million
18 Million
8 Million
$107 Million
$396,000/yr.
242,000/yr.
242,000/yr.
400,000/yr.
$2.37 Million/yr,
$55.7 Million/yr.
$1.07 Million/yr.
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Summary of Reuse Conveyance Costs:
Present Worth
Capital
M & 0
Total
$ 410 Million
591 Million
$1001 Million
Annual Cost
Capital
M & 0
Total
$ 42 Million
60 Million
$ 102 Million
Rock and Residual Soil Management Systems: The costs associated
with the selected management and transportation methods are estimated
from available sources, including reports containing applicable infor-
mation and interviews with people in the materials and transportation
fields. The resulting basis of cost information presented here is not
detailed but constitutes a best attempt to assign reasonable costs to
an enormous materials-management program.
Moled Rock from the Urban Areas: It is assumed that one-third of
this rock is to be used in the vicinity of its origin. The cost for
loading (crushing is not required for moled rock), transport and place-
ment is estimated to be $0.50/ton by using truck transport of less than
5 miles in city driving. For the remaining two-thirds of the rock, the
same $0.50/ton is assumed to transport the rock to a rail loading sta-
tion. The rail loading, transport, unloading, and placement is then
estimated to be the same $1.13/ton as is estimated for rock from the
McCook-Summit site. It is assumed that the savings from elimination of
rock crushing will be offset by smaller volumes and longer hauls. Thus,
for each ton of moled rock produced in the urban area, an average cost
is:
1/3 (0.50) + 2/3 (0.50 + 1.13)
$1.26/ton
An average cost of $1.26/ton is used to obtain the total cost of man-
aging all of the moled rock from ^~ 2 urban area.
Total Cost
$6.86 Million
Overburden, Mined Rock and Moled Rock in the Rural and Suburban
Areas: All of this material is assumed to be used in landscaping open
space. Transport is by truck and the distance varies for different lo-
cations. A unit of $0.75/ton is a.ssumed to apply to all of the materials
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
This assumes a haul distance of 10-15 miles for overburden and moled
rock and somewhat less for mined rock, where crushing is required.
Total Cost
$285 Million
It is assumed that much of the residual rock can be sold. Therefore,
actual cost is reduced by 757°.
Present Worth
Annual Cost
$ 48 Million
$ 5 Million/Yr.
TABLE M-VIII-5 Summary of Land Treatment System Cost Estimate ($Millions)
Present Worth
CAP.
M & 0
Total
Res. Soil &
Rck. Mangmt.
48
48
Annual
CAP.
M&O
Total
Treatment
Land
Sludge Mngmt.
Conveyance
Reuse Convey.
$1618
382
101
355
410
$1525
--
72
30
591
$3143
382
173
385
1001
$165
39
10
36
42
$156
--
7
3
60
$321
39
17
39
102
Total
$2866 $2266 $5132
$292
$231 $523
L-UO
-------
APPENDIX M
Solids Handling Alternatives
1. Solids Stabilization Processes
The principal purposes for solids stabilization are to
render the material less odorous and putrescible and to
reduce the pathogenic organism content. The processes which
were examined included anaerobic and aerobic digestion,
composting, lime treatment and thermal methods.
a) Anaerobic Digestion
There are two general types of anaerobic digestion
processes. They are the widely used heated anaerobic
digestion process and the unheated anaerobic digestion
process. They are well established means of biological
sludge stabilization.
Anaerobic digestion has a low energy requirement. Power
consumption is much less than that required for other
stabilization methods considered. The digester gas
produced during anaerobic digestion has a heating value
of approximately 700 BTU/cubic foot and is used as source
of fuel for the digester processing heating requirements
and/or other plant energy requirements.
Following the anaerobic digestion process, a stabilized
sludge of 4.0% solids is produced containing nutrients of
6% nitrogen (as N), 2.4% phosphorus (as P) and 0.4%
potassium (as K) on a dry basis. Thus, the sludge is suitable
M-l
-------
as an agricultural fertilizer. At present market costs,
the MSDGC's stabilized sludge has a commercial value, based
on nutrients, of $17.28/dry ton. This does not include
the humic content and its economic worth.
b) Aerobic Digestion
The process of aerobically digesting sludge is a modifica-
tion of the activated sludge process. It is based on the
principle that biological cells will use their own cell
material and dead cells present as food in the absence
of an external source of nutrients in the environment.
The process is made viable by the continuous aeration of
the waste sludge so that the sludge is always in the auto-
oxidation phase.
Tests conducted in aerobically digested sludge showed:
(1) a fairly high degree of digestion, (2) no disagreeable
odor, (3) nitrification and (4) improved drainability of the
digested sludge. Also, the supernatant contained a low
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and therefore would not
create as great a BOD load increase as an anaerobic digester
supernatant when recycled to the plant for treatment.
Aerobic digestion has the advantage over anaerobic digestion,
in that there is considerable reductions in supernatant BOD.
Significant reduction in ammonia-nitrogen has been observed
M-2
-------
in aerobic digestion.
c) Composting
Composting is a method which converts sludge into a
relatively safe humus-l-"ce material suitable for both
land application and Jandfilling.
Wastewater sludges that do not contain chemicals toxic to
microbial decomposition can be thickened and composted in
combination with relatively dry wastes. Raw sludge alone
may also be amenable to aerobic decomposition in a mechanical
composting unit with forced aeration, but such sludge is
generally gelatinous and has particles too fine for proper
aeration.
Composting may be defined as the aerobic thermophilic
decomposition of organic solid wastes to a relatively stable
fibrous humus-like material called the compost. Decomposition
is accomplished by various microorganisms including bacteria
and fungi.
Composting has been used in Europe and Asia for many centuries.
It is an outgrowth of age-old agricultural process in which
various types of organic matter are used to increase crop
yields and continues to } used in Europe and Asia.
Depending upon the system used, the composting mixture can
M-3
-------
develop temperatures of 120°F or higher within a few hours
to a few days and can be free from pathogens within a period
of one day to several weeks. Successful killing of pathogens
depends upon good turning, mixing and aeration. As com-
posting progresses, the material appears to be increasingly
less capable of supporting pathogenic organisms. In open
air windrowing, curing follows the active digestion period.
For curing, the mass is stored as a large pile herein heating
continues for about a month and the number of pathogens
is reduced to a very low level,
Composting can be done to both digested and undigested
sludges using suitable bulking agents.
Wilson and Walker reported no problems with open air windrowing
of digested sludge with wood chips during mild weather, but
severe rain or below freezing temperatures hampered their
operation. Processed compost was successfully used for
bulking and seeding the compost feed in Los Angeles County.
Compost in this country has had a history of failure as a
commercial venture. Isolated cases of marketing the compost
are reported but this does not necessarily mean that compost
can be sold to support the operation.
d) Lime Stabilization
Raw primary and secondary sludges can be stabilized by adding
lime in a 25% slurry form. The process of lime addition can
M-ii
-------
2) High efficiency scrubbers are required to conform
to the IEPA particulate emission code.
Incineration and ash disposal are used by many municipalities
for solids reduction and disposal. Incineration oxidizes the
volatiles in the sludge solids and the resultant ash and operated
incinerator can meet the stringent emission standards.
Of the many types of incinerators, only the multiple hearth
and the fluidized bed incinerators have found wide acceptance for
sludge incineration. Other types of incinerators such as rotary
kilns, atomized suspension, cyclone reactors, flash dryers, and
chain and grate, have operating difficulties because of poor
mixing of the combustibles and air. Also these units have rela-
t
tively small heat sinks making the operation too dependent on
sludge characteristics, thus making continuous operation
difficult. Therefore, these units are not efficient for sludge
incineration.
One of the major drawbacks of incineration as a means of
solids reduction is the great demand it puts on energy resources.
This is mainly due to the fact that normal dewatering methods
produce a sludge cake with relatively low solids content, often
containing a high portion of chemicals to aid dewatering. There-
fore, incineration consumes fuel to drive off large quantities
of water before the moisture content of the cake is reduced
to the point where combustion becomes self sustaining.
M-6
-------
The present energy shortage makes the energy intensive
incineration system economically unattractive. Coal can be
considered an alernative fuel for incineration, but present
air quality standard for SO, emissions would necessitate
scrubbing equipment, more relaxed ordinances, or the use of
low sulphur coal. Therefore, the uncertainty over the future
availability of natural gas, oil, or low sulphur coal would
place the incineration process low on a list of possible
solids reduction process alternatives that the MSDGC might
consider at this time.
2. Solids Dewatering
In order to obtain maximum operational flexibility with
respect to the existing solids processing methods and the
proposed alternate methods for final solids disposal, mechanical
solids dewatering processes were investigated by the MSDGC. The
primary objective of any solids dewatering operation is to prepare
the material for the next step of the process, whether it be in-
cineration, landfilling, heat drying, or land application. Solids
dewatering has been achieved, using various mechanical methods,
namely, but not limited to, vacuum filtration, centrifugation,
plate and frame filters, and the belt filter press.
a) Vacuum Filtration
Vacuum filtration is probably the most widely used
mechanical method of dewatering sludge. Its popularity
M-7
-------
accounts for the following advantages: (1) a wide
variety of sludges can be dewatered; (2) filters
occupy a smaller space than sand beds or lagoons and
are unaffected by climate; (3) a relatively dry filter
cake that can be incinerated is produced, which
eliminates 'the need for digesters; (4) the solids
capture can be good, and (5) plant operations are
improved because filters offer some flexibility in
scheduling so dewatering can be coordinated with other
treatment processes.
From a negative point of view, important disadvantages
of the vacuum filtration are: (1) high operating cost
due mainly to excessive chemical requirements; (2) fre-
quent media binding required shutdowns, washing and a
resultant high labor cost; (3) odors from filtering
raw sludge; (4) the need for more highly trained filter
operators than are required by other dewatering techniques;
(5) lack of scientific control to accommodate fluctuation
in sludge quantity and quality; and (6) the necessity
for additional handling steps because filtration does
not represent ultimate sludge disposal.
b) Centrifugation
The increasing use of centrifuges in the wastewater
treatment field is a result of recent improvements in
M-8
-------
centrifuge design and the availability of reliable
performance data. Its growing popularity counts on
the following advantages:
1) The capital cost is low in comparison
with other mechanical equipments.
2) The operating and maintenance costs are
moderate.
3) The unit is totally enclosed so odors are
minimized.
4) The unit is simple and will fit in a small
space.
5) Chemical conditioning of the sludge is
often not required.
6) The unit is flexible in that it can handle
a wide variety of solids and function as a
thickening as well as dewatering device, and
7) Little supervision is required.
Overall, the operating characteristics of the cen-
trifuge was superior to that of the belt filter press
and vacuum filter when analyzed on digested waste
activated sludge.
With respect t chemical costs, an effective dosage
rate of 9 Ibs. polyelectrolyte per ton solids, achieving
solids recovery values of 97.6%, reflects chemical costs
M-9
-------
of $12.63/dry ton solids for chemical addition to the
belt filter press.
The adaptability of centrifugal dewatering of
digested sludge is a suitable compliment to anaerobic
digestion in the application of a dry solids on land
ultimate disposal mode of operation.
c) Belt Filter Press
The unit consists of two endless belts, similar to
conveyor belts, which run between pairs of rollers and
a rotating cylindrical mixing drum in which the sludge
and polymer are mixed prior to deposition on the moving
belts. The rollers are adjusted in a manner which
gradually brings the belts closer and closer together,
thus applying increasing pressure to the sludge that is
carried between them. It is in this pressure zone that
the filter cake is formed. Scraper blades at the
discharge end of the press then remove the cake from the
belts. After passing the blades, spray jets back-
wash both belts to remove any solids trapped in the fabric.
d) Plate and Frame Filter
This technique uses a porous media to separate the
solids from the liquid. The filter consists of alternating
a series of plates and frames with porous media placed
between each plate and frame. After precoating the filter
M-10
-------
media, the sludge is pumped into the press. The cake
which is formed also acts as a filter medium. The plate
and frame filter produces the dryest cake and has the
highest solids recovery of any mechanical dewatering
device. The major drawbacks are high capital and
operating costs.
3. Final Solids Disposal
The final solids disposal options available to the MSDGC
are landfill and land application. At the present time, the
MSDGC uses land application as a method of final disposal. How-
ever, for planning purposes, both methods are considered viable
techniques. Therefore, various combinations of solids stabili-
zation processes together with the two final disposal techniques,
taken singularly or together, were evaluated.
a) Land Application
Land application of stabilized sewage solids recycles
the wastes and enhances agricultural production. The
method of sludge disposal utilizes the fertilizer
value for the positive benefit to the environment.
Recycling solids to land for crop production has been
practiced as early as 1895 and is presently utilized
in many municipalities in this country and extensively
in Europe.
The major steps in utilization of wastewater solids
in a land application program are as follows:
M-ll
-------
1) Stabilization of the solids.
2) Transportation of the solids to the
application site.
3) Distribution on the application site.
4) Planting and harvesting crops which remove
the nutrients.
5) Continuous monitoring of environmental and
ecological factors.
Studies on application of digested sludge indicate
that nitrogen loading is the controlling factor. Studies
indicate that 2" of liquid fertilizer per acre per
year supplies the necessary nitrogen consumed by non-
leguminous crops. Removal of nitrogen in the fertilizer
increases loading rates. Removal can be accomplished by
lagooning prior to application is the optimum method
of stabilizing the sludge solids.
The practice of land application of stabilized
sewage solids to enhance agricultural production has
advantages as follows:
1) It does not contribute to any environmental
pollution (air or water).
2) It conserves the organic matter for bene-
ficial use.
3) It is economical.
M-12
-------
4) It is permanent, i.e., it completed the
natural cycle.
b. Sanitary Landfill
Sanitary landfilling is a method of disposal
that involves spreading and compacting the solid
wastes into cells and covering them each day with
earth in a manner that poses no threat to the public
health of environment.
The major problems associated with landfills
are the production of leachate which may contaminate
the groundwater and the accumulation of gas which
may catch fire or explode. The disadvantages of
the sanitary landfills for sewage sludge include
determination of a location which is economically
accessible to the plant, the dewatering of digested
sludge to 30% cake dryness to reduce leachate problems,
the collection and treatment of leachate before
discharge to surface waters and the monitoring of
local groundwater conditions to maintain water quality.
4. Environmental Considerations of Solids Stabilization Processes
a) Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion converts raw materials, such
as fats, proteins, and pathogenic organisms to more
acceptable or more easily disposable products. Such
stabilization is required when it is to be followed
M-13
-------
by final disposal by landfilling or land application.
Gas produced in the process is captured and, being
principally methane, can be utilized as a fuel
supplement for total energy requirements of the
plant. Occasional wasting of excess gas by flaring
will cause a discharge of non-combustible gases,
such as carbon dioxide and water vapor, posing no
air pollution problem. Energy is consumed by
heating the digester contents and mixing with
recirculation pumps. The consumption is minimized
by using external heat exchangers with high transfer
coefficient, and non-clog centrifugal recirculating
pumps, with supplemental gas compressors for mixing.
Energy consumption is reduced further by the
use of fill material around the digester structure
to reduce process heat losses. The anaerobic
digestion system is self-contained in that it places
no environmental demand or ground and surface waters,
or any ecosystems.
b) Aerobic Digestion
Aerobic digestion produces a biologically
stable end product suitable for subsequent treatment.
Unless denitrification is utilized, the nitrates
will remain in the sludge supernatant eventually
being transported to the final effluent.
M-1U
-------
The inability to utilize any methane gas from
the stabilization process may result in high operating
costs. The sensitivity of the biological reaction
rates at temperat ires below 15 C (59°F), adequate
mixing and dissolved oxygen levels and general unclear
design parameters at present stages of technological
development create environmental risks which would
make this system unsuitable for a favorable environ-
mental evaluation.
c) Composting
Composting of wastewater solids converts the
organic wastes to a humus valuable as a soil condi-
tioner, and nutrient source. Nutrients are then
returned to the soil. A good compost could contain
as much as two percent nitrogen, one percent
phosphoric acid and many trace elements.
The use of raw sludge is preferable because
of its higher nitrogen content. It is environmentally
advantageous to be able to use solid wastes along
with sludge solids. The final produce is non-odorous
and easily handled.
Environmental disadvantages of the process are
mainly the energy requirements for the numerous steps:
transportation of raw materials to the compost site,
dewatering of sludge, trash separation, grinding
M-15
-------
and blending of solids, turning of compost, re-
grinding and further processing for commercial sale.
Aerobic decomposition proceeds generally at a
temperature in excess of 140°F, sufficient to kill
many pathogens, but many strains of Shigella and
Salmonella have been isolated from compost made
with air dried sewage sludge. There is a potential
for public nuisance problems involving odors, insects
and rodents.
d) Lime Stabilization
Lime, in sufficient quantities to maintain
highly alkaline condition, stabilizes sludge and
destroys pathogenic microorganisms.
Lime treated sludge would be disposed of by
land application or sanitary landfill. Essentially
no organic matter is destroyed with lime treatment
and a drop in the pH to near neutrality would cause
a regrowth of microorganisms and resulting noxious
conditions.
Although lime has been demonstrated to be an
effective preconditioner for mechanical dewatering,
its use as an individual process for stabilization
of biological sludges does not appear to have the
environmental reliability of other processes.
M-16
-------
e) Thermal Processes
The heat drying process has a net positive
environmental effecc. The dried solids derived
from a waste material is returned to productive use
as a soil conditioner and fertilizer. An adverse
aspect of the heat drying process is its high
energy reouirements.
Air pollution is minimized by providing effective
scrubbers and by use of afterburners or integral
high-temperature processing of the gaseous combustion
products. Scrubber water may be plant effluent to
preserve water; it should be returned to the plant
for treatment to remove suspended solids. The sterile
ash may be flushed out of the incinerator outlet to
a settling lagoon or removed for landfill. Sometimes
ash is recycled as a conditioning agent or filter
aid. Ash containing lime may be returned to the
conditioning step to conserve chemicals.
5. Selection of Solids Stabilization Processes
Based on the survey presented in MSDGC's facilities
planning overview report, the following conclusions were
reached.
a) Heat anaerobic digestion will be utilized because:
1) Costs are well defined and the method is
cost-effective.
M-l?
-------
2) MSDGC has design and operating experience.
3) No adverse environmental effects are known to exist.
b) Aerobic digestion will not be utilized because:
1) Preliminary estimate indicates that this process
is not as cost-effective as the heated anaerobic
process.
2) Technology is not well developed.
c) Composting will not be considered because:
1) Unreliability of cost data.
2) Possible adverse environmental effect.
3) Pilot plant program is required.
d) Lime treatment will not be considered because:
1) Technology is not well defined.
2) Uncertainty exists in regard to environmental effect,
3) Overall evaluation is that the process merits
pilot study investigation.
e) Incineration for solids reduction will not be
considered because:
1) The high energy requirements of the process.
2) At present, questionable guarantee of producing an
environmentally acceptable air product.
6, Environmental Considerations of Solids Dewatering
Dewatering is a necessary part of the stabilization process
preparatory to final disposal of sludge by landfilling or
incineration, and may also be used to provide a product suitable
M-18
-------
for land application.
Environmental effects are dependent both on the type of
equipment and the feed material. Undigested sludge may cause
local odor problems, primarily within the building housing
the equipment. Centrifuges are totally enclosed and thus
cause no odor problems. When dewatering digested sludge, the
filtrate or centrate, in addition to carrying suspended
solids back to the treatment plant, will return dissolved
BOD, nitrogen compounds and phosphorus compounds. The latter,
nitrogen and phosphorus, will remain in the plant flow.
If the dewatered sludge cake is to be incinerated, the
solids content of the cake will be a factor in determining
the need for fuel energy in the process, as will the chemicals
retained in the cake when it is necessary to use chemical con-
ditioning, and as will the proportion of volatile solids.
Since digestion converts volatile solids to gases or to liquids,
it is environmentally more effective to incinerate undigested
sludge, requiring less fuel energy.
7. Environmental Considerations of Final Solids Disposal
a) Land Application
Application of sludge to the land for conditioning
of soil and fertilization of plans has the environmental
advantage of recycling nutrients to their origin, so
that they may be reused. The purpose is to accomplish
M-19
-------
economical waste disposal in a beneficial manner. Sludge
may be applied to land in three forms, liquid, dewatered
or dried.
Application of sludge in the liquid form is advan-
tageous because of the difficulty in dewatering most
waste sludge, the improvement in nutrient removal in
the treatment plant because liquid removed from the
sludge is not recycled, the liquid serving as a source
of irrigation water, and the convenience in transporting
and distributing to the land. Disadvantages include the
necessity to handle large volumes of liquid, the energy
requirements for moving such large volumes over great
distances, the difficulty in controlling distribution so
as to minimize aerosol formation and the dissemination
of odors, and the high ammonia nitrogen content of the
liquid. A report, "Environmental Assessments of the Prairie
Plan - Fulton County, Illinois", contains an extensive
discussion of the environmental factors associated with
the application of digested sludge in the liquid form.
b) Sanitary Landfill
Sanitary landfills are used as final disposal sites
for dewatered stabilized sludges or incinerator ash. A
sanitary landfill differs from uncontrolled dumping in
M-20
-------
that the form requires a systematically depositing and
covering with earth to control the environmental impact.
The land costs and dewatering requirements can be
major cost factors in l_ue design of a system. In the
vicinity of urban areas, it is becoming difficult to
locate sufficient available land for this purpose. If
the distance fiom the treatment facility to the landfill
site is very great, landfilling can be a relatively ex-
pensive disposal technique and transportation energy
demands would be high. If trucks are required for trans-
portation, the resultant air pollution would be an environ-
mental liability.
8. System Selection
For the ultimate disposal of solids, the MSDGC has
adopted and is implementing a policy of solids-on-land
disposal which entails the returning of all stabilized
solid waste material back to the land. This method is
deemed most consistent with processes occurring in nature.
An alternative to land application is the disposal of di-
gested and dewatered, or composted, or incinerated sludge
in a properly located and operated sanitary landfill.
The soil absorbs oils and sludges and furnishes an
extended surface for microbial attack on the wastes.
The results of an engineering and econmic analysis
M-21
-------
favori-d processing the solids genernted in the Northwest
Region of the MSDGC at a central facility. The John Egan
Water Reclamation Plant, in the Salt Creek Basin to the
west of this project area, has been chosen as the sludge
processing facility. Here sludge will be thickened and
digested prior to land application.
Solids from the O'Hare plant will be transported by
an 18 inch pipeline to the Egan facility. Three alternate
routes were evaluated for the pipeline:
a) Oakton Street to Arlington Heights Road to
Cosman Road to the Cook County Forest Preserve
to Rohlwing Road to the Salt Creek Water
Reclamation Plant.
b) Oakton Street to Higgins Road to Rohlwing Road
to the Salt Creek Water Reclamation Plant.
c) Oakton Street to Busse Road to Touhy Avenue
to Elk Grove Boulevard to J. F. Kennedy
Boulevard to Biesterfield Road to 1-90 to
Rohlwing Road to the Salt Creek Water Reclama-
tion Plant.
Alternate A included a sub-alternate through the Cook
County Forest Preserve along the Salt Creek outfall sewer.
Alternate C included two sub-alternates, (1) Eisner Road
M-22
-------
from Biesterfield Road to Cosman Road and (2) Arlington
Heights Road from Biesterfield Road to the Cook County
Forest Preserve.
After the examination of all incoming utility infor-
mation and contacts with the Cook County Forest Preserve
District, it was determined that Alternate A was the
preferred alignment for the following reasons:
1) 31,365 feet length versus 33,400 feet for
Alternate B and 37,500 feet for Alternate C.
2) Excessive surface restoration connected with
Alternate C due to completely developed
residential areas along John F. Kennedy
Boulevard and Touhy Avenue.
3) Almost unobstructed alignment presented by
the joint use of a planned MSDGC sewer
easement along Oakton Street. This easement
would be along the north property line of
Oakton Street from Wildwood Road to Busse Road.
The sub-alternate through the Cook County Forest
Preserve along the existing Salt Creek Outfall Sewer was
eliminated because the additional investigation by the
MSDGC indicated a problem rn acquiring the right-of-way
for the extreme easterly 2,300 foot portion of the heavily
wooded area.
M-23
-------
The existing anaerobic digestion facilities under
construction at the John E. Egan WRP will have sufficient
capacity to handle projected sludge production quantities
for the year 2000. Following this system, two ultimate
disposal modes were investigated. System 1 was based on
centrifugation of the digested sludge with landfill
disposal within 25 miles of the plant site. System 2 was
based on the same centrifugation assumptions with ultimate
disposal as dry fertilizer. Centrifugation as a means of
mechanical dewatering at the John Egan WRP is based on
pilot studies recently conducted by the MSDGC on alternate
dewatering systems at the Hanover Park WRP. Pages M-25 ~
present a summary of the cost analyses of the alternative
disposal systems in combination with the sludge stabiliza-
tion system recommended for the John Egan WRP. Final
disposal will be either to a landfill or by hauling and
spreading on land as a fertilizer. No decision has yet
been made with respect to final disposal.
M-2U
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
TABLE M-IX-33- JOHN E. EGAN AND O'HARE WRP SOLIDS DISPOSAL SYSTEM
Planning Period: 25 years
Average solids production during planning period: 58.
Maximum solids production during planning period: 76,
Stabilization system Sta 1 - Anaerobic digestion at J,
Reclamation Plant
Present Worth Costs @ 5-7/8%:
A. 18" diameter sludge pipeline between O'Hare
Water Reclamation Plant, 50-year life
B. Construction Costs
C. Total Capital
Annual Costs @ 5-7/8%
A. Amortized Capital
B. M & 0 - Pumping Station
C. M & 0 - Anaerobic Digestion
D. Total Annual Cost
3 dt/d
7 dt/d
E. Egan Water
to J.E. Egan
$2,075,800
74,400
$2,150,200
$ 166,300/yr.
$ 10,400/yr.
$ 472.100/yr.
$ 649,100/yr.
M-25
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
TABLE M-IX-34 JOHN E. EGAN AND O'HARE WRP's SOLIDS DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Planniog Period: 25 years
Average digested solids production during planning period: 43.7 dt/d
Maximum digested solids production during planning period: 57.4 dt/d
Disposal System: Dl - Landfill within 25 mile radius
Present Worth Costs @ 5-7/8%:
A. 2 centrifuges in 1975
B. 3 centrifuges in 1985
C. 3 centrifuges in 1995
D. Additional Flotation-Concentration Tanks $
$
$
$
$
270,000
228,825
80,595
808,500
$ 1,387,900
$ 108,000/yr.
$ 421,000/yr.
$ 570,300/yr.
$ 1,099,300/yr.
E, Total Capital
Annual Costs @ 5-7/8%:
A. Amortized Capital
B. M & 0 (centrifuges)
C. M & 0 (transportation)
D. Total Annual Cost
Disposal System: D2 - Dry fertilizer application within 25 mile radius
Present Worth Costs @ 5-7/8%:
A. 2 centrifuges in 1975
B. 3 centrifuges in 1985
C. 3 centrifuges in 1995
D. Additional Flotation-Concentration Tanks $
E. 1,580 acres of land $
F. Application equipment
G. Grading
H. Total Capital
M-26
$
$
$
270,000
228,800
80,200
808,500
593,000
$ 3,160,000
$ 2,120,000
$ 7,260,900
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
TABLE M-IX-35 SUMMARY OF THE JOHN E. EGAN WATER RECLAMATION PLANT SOLIDS
SYSTEMS ($/YR.)
Sta-1
CAP
M&O
D-l
CAP
M&O
D-2
CAP
M&O
$166,300
482,800
108,000
991,300
$166,300
482,800
527,200
1,145,300
TOTAL CAP.
TOTAL M&O
TOTAL
$ 274,300
$1,474,100
$1,748,400
$ 693,500
$1,628,100
$2,321,600
M-27
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
APPENDIX N
Design Criteria O'Hare Reclamation Plant
N-l
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Proj. No.:
Page; 1 of 16
Date: 9/2/70
67-300-2P
Proj.Engr.; F.K.
Re*.No.: 4
Rev. Date: 2-21-73
DESIGN CRITERIA
O'HARE WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
1.0 SCOPE
This document describes the basic engineering criteria for
the installation of a Water Reclamation Plant to serve the ,
O'Hare Area in the northwest section of the MSDGC. The
northern and southern boundaries of the area follow Cook
County boundary lines. The eastern boundary extends from
Lake County south along Des Plaines River to the inter-
section of Rand and River Roads, thence in a southwesterly
direction along the Chicago and Northwestern Railway to
DuPage County line. The western boundary separates the
service areas of the O'Hare and Salt Creek water reclamation
plants, and generally follows along the ridge line dividing
the Salt Creek and Des Plaines River drainage areas.
Present land use is predominantly residential with a degree
of commercial activity normally associated with residential
areas. The proportion of industrial development is
considerably below the average for the Metropolitan Chicago
area.
Effluent quality will meet or exceed the requirements of all
applicable water quality and effluent criteria officially
adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) on
March 7, 1972.
2.0 TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION
" The O'Hare Area consists of 3.1,400 acres of residential-
• commercial and industrial development, and 5850 acres of
rural or otherwise unsewered areas, a total of 37,250
acres. The 1970 census reflected a population of
223,000 for the entire O'Hare Service Area.
N-2
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Page 2 ->f 16
The first construction phase (Phase I) .will be designed
for an average dry weather flow of 72 MGD. It is pro-
jected that this flow will be attained by 1988 and the
service area population will be 410,000. The ultimate
population in the service area is projected to be
439,000 and will occur approximately by the year 2000.
The ultimate average dry v^ather flow, which will occur
sometime after the ultimate population is attained be-
cause of a projected slight incremental increase in
per capita wastewater contribution with time, is
estimated to be in tb-i range of 90 to 96 MGD. Therefore,
space and engineering design considerations will be
provided to permit the construction of at least an
additional 24 MGD of treatment capacity. The actual
construction scheduling and size of the necessary
additional treatment capacity will be governed by
future conditions in the service area.
3.0 PROCESS REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Process Description
i •
3.1.1 The design of the O'Hare Wastewater Re-
clamation Plant shall initially proceed
as a two-stage activated plant providing
for biological ammonia oxidation and meeting
or exceeding all applicable IPCB effluent
and stream standards at the average dry
weather flow of 72 MGD. The effluent BOD
and SS concentrations shall not exceed
4 mg/1 and 5 mg/1, respectively, on the
basis of 24-hour composite samples averaged
over any consecutive 30-day period, and no
more than 5% of the daily samples shall
exceed 2.5 times the above numerical
limits.
The secondary Tacility shall be designed
so that it can be operated either as a
two stage plant (i.e. series mode), or
as two parallel activated sludge plants.
N-3
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
. Page 3 of 16
The hydraulic design and/or physical space
shall be provided for the following facilities:
1. Phosphate Removal (chemical feed) facility.
S 2. Third stage (denitrification) facility.
3. The additional 24 MOD ADWP facility
(Phase II).
Whenever possible, the Consultant shall specify
identical equipment as installed in the Salt
Creek and Hanover WRPs. The MSDGC shall furnish
to the Consultant Contract Documents of the ab'ove
facilities and other information regarding
actual installed equipment as this information
becomes available.
3.2 Population Data
3.2.1 Design population is 410,000
3.2.2 The design year is 1988.
3*2.3 The anticipated wastewater ADWF components,
including infiltration, are:
Domestic and commercial....-.-.-».. 50.5 MGD
* "*- t-t " -
Industrial .-'2T.5' lY^D
Total..1 '.72.0 MGD
3.3 Flow Conditions will be as follows:
3.3.1 Average Dry Weather Flow 72 MGD
3.3.2 Maximum Dry Weather Flow 110 MGD
3.3.3 Hydraulic Capacity (Phase I) 144 MGD
3.3.4 Ultimate Hydraulic Capacity 192 MGD
3.4 Equipment and Facilities
3.4.1 Raw sewage pumps will be provided under
Section 4.0. Variable speed pump driving
mechanisms, computer controlled by elevations
in the influent sewer and by flow control,
will be provided.
N-4
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Page 4 of 16
3.4.2 Raw waste screening equipment will be provided.
_ *.
3.4.2.1 Inclined coarse bar screens,
mechanically cleaned, with 2-inch ;
.clear opening between bars will
be nsed. t
3.4.2.2 Inclined fine bar screens, mechanically
cleaned, 5/8-inch clear opening
between bars will be used.
3.4.2.2.1 Facilities will be provided
for one week's storage of
screenings, grit and scum to
allow for transportation
interruption.*
3.4.3 Grit Chambers will be provided. The design of
this facility shall be the Consultant's
responsibility. However, the following shall
be provided:
3.4.3.1 Grit will be moved by conveyor to a
receiving area to be trucked away.
3.4.3.2 Flow Conditions (See Paragraph No. 3.3}
3.4.4 Aeration Tanks
The first and second stage aeration tanks will
be designed as follows:
3.4.4.1 Displacement:
Wastewater Flow at 72 MGD-hrs...4.58
(approx.)
. . • Wastewater Flow at 110 MGD-hrs...3.00
(approx.}
3.4.4.2 BOD loading @ 72 MGD-(first stage)
lbs/1,000 C.F./day 47 (approx.)
3.4.4.3 Watr depth - feet 16 (approx.)
*The anticipated quantities, physical properties, proposed method
of material handling and ultimate disposal of the materials are
included in a report prepared for the MSDGC by Havens & Emerson.
A copy of this report shall be furnished to the O'Hare WRP
Consultant.
N-5
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
. < . Page 5 of 16
3.4.4.4 The Consultant sh'all recommend the
number of tanks and the number of
passes per tank for each stage.
3.4.4.5 Capability of operation as conventional
and step aeration will be provided.
3.4.4.6 Conduits will provide for 100% return
sludge based on 72 MGD.
3.4.4.7 Air requirements at 72 MGD, firm •
capacity, will be 1000 cu ft/lb.
BOD removed (first stage aeration).
Consultant will determine air re-
quirements for the second aeration
stage.
3.4.4.8 Diffuser plate will be 60 to 80
permeability.
3.4.4.9 Each aeration tank pass will be auto-
matically controlled by means of
DO probes with a provision for remote
manual operation.
3.4.4.10 Air will be controlled to each plate
header by manually operated valves.
3.4.4.11 Provision for liquid chemical storage
and feed equipment for phosphate removal
vill be made for each stage (front and
end) ,
;
3.4.5 Final Sedimentation Tanks
First and second stage final tanks will be
designed as follows:
3.4.5.1 Surface Settling rates (gal/ft2/day) at
72 MGD ..; • 640 (approx.)
3.4.5.2 Sidewall depth (feet)..., 15 (approx.)
N-6
-------
TNt METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Page 6 of 16
3.4.5.3 Center feed and annular effluent
arrangement shall be provided. Weir
overflow rate shall not exceed 15,000
gal/day/ft at 72-MOD. V-notched weirs
will be used.
.» . 3*4.5.4 Sir Jge collecting mechanism types:
First stage Plow type.
Second stage The Consultant shall
provide two alternate sludge collector
designs for the second stage settling,
tanks. The two alternate sludge
collectors shall be plow type and
suction type.
- 3.4.5.5 Air lift for sludge pumping will
be provided.
3.4.5.6 Scum removal mechanism will be provided
in each stage.
3.4.5.6.1 Scum will be piped to
ejector and then to screen
building. A scum dewatering
facility will be provided.
3.4.6 Tertiary Filter - The filter will be mixed
media type and be designed as follows:*
3.4.6.1 Filter depth - (feet) 3.5
3.4.6.2 Filter rate @ 110 MGD
(GPM/SF) 5
3.4.6.3 Capability shall be provided to recycle
filter.backwash water to the wet well
and the head end of the second stage
aeration tanks.
3.4.7 Chlorination Tacility
3.4.7.1 Chemical feed equipment shall be
provided.
*Additional study will be made on filter recycle. The size of
the clear veil will be determined from this study.
N-7
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Page 7 of 16
*
3.4.7.2 Sodium hypochlori£e will be used.
3.4.7.2.1 Ability to dose in the range
of 0 ,to 10 ppm will be
provided for secondary and
tertiary sewage.
3.4.7.2.2 Sodium hypochlorite feed
will be controlled by
effluent flow and chlorine
residual analysis.
•
3.4.7.2.3 Three week storage facilities
on basis of 1.5 ppm dosage
will be provided.
3.4.7.3 Provision for dosing before and after
filtration will be made.
3.4.7.4 A chlorine contact chamber, based on
15 minute detention time at 144 MGD
will be provided downstream of filters.
s
3.4.8 Sludge Transfer Facilities
3.4.8.1 No sludge thickening or storage v
facilities will be provided.
3.4.8.2 Sludge transfer sump will be located
in the screen room of the pump building.
3.4.8.3 Sludge transfer pumps including standby
pump will be provided to pump the waste
activated sludge.
3.4.8.3.1 Operation of the pumps will
be regulated automatically
by the level of the sludge
in the sump.
N-8
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
a 8 of 16
3.4.8.3.2
Pumping capacities and head
requirements shall be s^ .:ri-
fled by the o'Hare WRP Con-
sultant upon conferring
with the MSDGC force main
consultant. The meetings
between consultants shall
be coordinated by the MSDGC.
4.0. MECHANICAL REQUIREMENTS
The following mechanical facilities and equipment will be
provided:
4.1 Centrifugal type blowers
4.1.1 Blower air surge protection
4.1.2 Bag type air filters with roll type filter
as back-up system.
4.2 Raw sewage pumps (see Section 3.4.1)
4.3 Effluent water supply system
4.4 Potable water supply system
4.5 Dual fuel system (i.e. natural gas and oil)
for space heating
4.6 Air conditioning equipment, etc. for office and
control area.
4.7 Building heating system
4.8 Plumbing, water heaters, etc.
4.9 Intake ductwork for fresh air and seasoned temperature
control.
NOTE: Projection of equipment above tanks shall be held to a
minimum.
5.0 STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS
5.1 Reinforced concrete - pump and blower house, screen
house, grit chamber, aeration tanks, settling tanks,
clear well, connecting conduits, channels, manholes
and miscellaneous structures.
5.1.1 Air main to be constructed in concrete
tunnel which will also contain other
utility services where feasib-le.
N-9
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Page 9 of 16
4
5.2 Filter building and administration building.
5.3 Entrance road, parking area/ and miscellaneous plant
roads and walkways. Plant entrance shall be on
Oakton Street.
5.4 Garage building will be provided which will include
area for:
5.4.1 Maintenance equipment storage.
5.4.2 Underground gasoline storage exterior to
Garage Building. •
5.4.3 Commodity storage
5.4.4 Small work shop
5.4.5 Storage of equipment for lifting heavy
materials.
6.0 ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS -
6.1 Major process equipment will be motor driven.
6.1.1 Major motors will operate on 480 volt,
3 phase, 60 Hertz, 3-wire ungrounded
for motors less than 200 H.P. For motors
of 200 H.P. or higher, the power service
will be 4160 volt, 3 phase, 60 Hertz,
3-wire ungrounded.
6.1.2 All electrical equipment shall be grounded.
6.2 Plant lighting (exterior and interior) will be
included.
6.3 Wiring for automatic and remote control of equipment
and instruments will be provided.
6.4 All wiring will be in rigid conduit in tunnel or
underground in cable duct.
6.5 There shall be two separate sources of electrical
power provided by Commonwealth Edison Co. to the plant
N-10
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Page 10 of 16
6.5.1 There shall be a third source of electrical
power by means of a power-generating system
at the plant. This system shall be independent
of any utilitv company and shall supply only
emergency power for the process control system,
instrumentation, critical process equipment
and emergency lighting.
7.0 INSTRUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
7.1 Automation anv* instrumentation, as complete as present
technology permits, will be provided for both on line*
plant control as well as preventive maintenance
detection.
7.1.1 Instrumentation will include, but not be limited
to, flow control, chemical feed control, sludge
level control, automatic D.O. control, wet well
level control, automatic backwash of filters,
remote sluice gate operation and turbidity
monitoring.
7.2 Automatic sampling will also be provided.
%
8.0 ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS
8.1 Exterior of buildings will be compatible with
surrounding area.
8.2 Where feasible, utility services will be placed in
tunnel sections.
8.3 Sound insulation will be provided in buildings, where
required, as protection from noise caused by low-flying
aircraft.
8.4 Landscaping of the entire plant site will be included.
8.5 A minimum 150-foot isolation strip with dense
vegetation for plant protection will be provided
along Oakton Street, Elmhurst Road and Marshall
Drive. The width of the isolation zone along
the MSDGC property line bordering the Northwest
T6llway shall be left to the recommendation of the
N-ll
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Page 11 of 16
Consultant. *'
8.6 Plant layout shall include provision for future
modules and expansion of all facilities.
8.7 Plant layout shall include first-aid and safety
room.
8.8 Higgins Creek will be rerouted and enlarged within
the plant site. The maximum capacity of the creek
will be 1207 cfs. The creek invert elevations in .
and out of the plant site are 648.4 and 645.7
(MSL-1929 adj.), respectively. Compensatory storage
in accordance with the MSDGC's Sewer Permit Ordinance
and Suggested Guidelines for Flood Damage Prevention
shall be provided for in the MSDGC's Ravenswood
Retention Reservoir.
8.9 Handrails shall be provided for all open tanks which
" can constitute a safety hazard. This requirement
includes, but is not limited to, aeration and
settling tanks.
8.10 All architectural materials shall be specified in
the plans and/or specifications by name and color.
This requirement shall include, but not limited
to, office furniture, carpeting, drapes, shop
benches.
9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
9.1 An "Environmental Assessment Statement" will be prepared
for submission to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
10.0 MATERIALS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY OTHERS
10.1 Soil Borings by Construction Division.
10.2 Survey by Administration Division.
10.3 Water table observations by Construction Division.
N-12
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Page 12 of 16
11.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .,
11.1 Plant construction will have to run concurrent with
a ewer construction so that plant- can be tested and put
in operation on completion of construction. The O'Hare
WRP and sewer Consultants will have to coordinate their
engineering design activities in order to arrive at
compatible systems.
12.0 GOVERNING CODES AND STANDARDS
•
12.1 MSDGC Standards, where applicable, shall be used
throughout the engineering work. In particular, the
requirement of stainless steel for handrails, doors, .
etc. shall be included in the Contract Documents.
12.2 Wherever applicable, the latest revisions of the codes, j
standards, and the recommended practices of the following^
organizations shall govern the design, construction, I
Installation, inspection, and testing of all work and
materials:
I
Engineers (IEEE) .
12.2.1 Institute of Electrical and Electronics !
12.2.2 National Electrical Manufacturer's Association
(NEMA) .
12.2.3 National Electrical Code (NEC).
12.2.4 Insulated Power Cable Engineers Association
(IPCES) .
12.2.5 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
12.2.5.1 American .Tational Standards
(ANSI)
12.2.6 American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM)
12.2.7 American Water Works Association (AWWA)
N-13.
/ » ' , . • i
'BUI'1""""""" '1 " "
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Page 13 of 16
«.
12.2.8 American Welding Society (AWS)
12.2.9 American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
12.2.10 .American Concrete Institute (ACI)
12.2.11 Chicago Building Code
12.2.12 Illinois Division of Highways (IDE)
12.2.13 Instrument Society of America (ISA)
»
12.2.14 Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago (MSDGC)
12.2.15 Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
13.0 REFERENCE DATA
13.J. Process Flow Diagram Drawing PF-1 (attached)
13.2 Design Report, O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant,
June 1968, by Brown and Caldwell, Consulting Engineers.
N-14
-------
THE METROPOLITAN
SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Page 14 of 16
S
XT° K
(fgl
X.
X
""o
^
* V
f
ACT
ulta
i
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
I Page 15 of 16
DESIGN CRITERIA
O'HARE WRP
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
IDENTIFICATION SHEET
T—101 Pumping Station .
T-102 Grit Chamber
T-104 Aeration Tank, First Stage
T-105 Settling Tank, First Stage
T-106 Aeration Tank, Second Stage
T-107 Settling Tank, Second Stage
T-108 Clear Well
T-109 Chlorine Contact Chamber
T—110 Scum Dewatering Tank
P—101 Mechanically Cleaned Coarse Bar Screens
P—102 Mechanically Cleaned Fine Screens
F-103 Sand Filter
J—101 Raw Sewage Pumps
J-103 Sludge Air Lift, First Stage
J-104 Sludge Air Lift, Second Stage
J-105 Back Wash Pump
J—106 Sludge Transfer Pump #1
J-107 Sludge Transfer Pump #2
V-101 Air Blowers
PROCESS CONDITIONS (b)
Position 1 2 3_^ 4
p (Ft H20) (a) (a) (a) (a)
F (MGD) - 72 72 72 72
PO (mg/1) 5-15 4>0 4^0 4>0
BOD5 (mg/1) 146 20 15 4.0
DO (mg/1) 0 2.0 2.0 5.0
SS (mg/1) 180 25 25 5.0
RC (mg/1) 0 o 0 1.0
NH3-N(mg/l) 20 20 2.5 2.5
(a) To be determined
(b) All conditions approximate and subject to
confirmation by consultant.
N-16
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Page 16 of 16
\ 9 (I • / ,-.
^.'C* -—- V O-A-1 OX^X3>U-,
John Variakojis
Engineer of Process Planning
Robert R. Barbolini
Assistant Chief Enginaer
J^t
Forrest c".
Chief Engineer "
Raymond R. Rimkus
Acting Chief of Maintenance and Operations
Approved as to Maintenance and Operations
Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing ^
Director of Research and/Development
Approved as to Researcn and Development
N-17
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
ADDENDUM NO. 1 of REV. NO. 4 (2/21/73)
April 10, 1973
ADDENDUM NO. 1
DESIGN CRITERIA DOCUMENT
O'HARE WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
PROJECT 67-300-2P
SECTION
8.8
t; OV-s^v_ V CU>\ COVvxO
John Variakojis
Supervising Engineer
Robert R. Barbolini
Assistant Chief Engineer
Hugh McMillan
Acting Chief Engineer
REVISION
Delete paragraph and add:
Higgins Creek will be re-
routed and enlarged within
the property to accomodate
plant: effluent and upstream
storm runoff. The Contract
Documents shall be prepared
so that alternate bids are
submitted with and without
compensatory surface storage
on plant site.
Raymond R. Rimkus
Acting Chief of Maintenance and Operation
Approved as to Maintenance and Operation
Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing-^X^
Director of Research and Development
Approved as to Research and Development
N-18
-------
HUD Handbook January,1973
APPENDIX 0
4135.1
(1-4) will be maintained so as to be competitive in the locality.
All data submitted shall be carefully analyzed to determine
acceptability of the system and its operation. For guidance
refer to Reference 1 of the Foreword . During the preliminary
planning stage it shall be determined that all details of
the proposed system are acceptable. Complete final drafts
of all legal documents pertaining to the organizational
structure of ownership and operation of the system shall be
secured. During the final planning stage it shall be deter-
mined that the permanent organization for owning and
operating the system is acceptable as evidenced by copies of
all recorded documents pertaining thereto.
i. Sewage Treatment ?lants. Residential properties located
close to the site of a sewage treatment plant may be
adversely affected in marketability. There are times when
odors may be expected, if the plant is overloaded or not
operated in an efficient manner. The direction of the
prevailing breeze appears not to be of major significance
since objectionable odors may be more noticeable when the
air is still. Topography, trees or undergrowth may be help-
ful. However, the best means of assuring protection against
possible odors is to provide adequate space between the
residential properties and the sewage treatment plant.
(1) Due to the variety of types of sewage plants as well as
the variations in size, topography, and climate which
may be encountered, the advice of the Sanitary Engineer
should be obtained in determining the proper location
for the treatment plant for all except the very small
and simple installations.
(2) The distance from sewage treatment plants at which
locations would be eligible for mortgage insurance
varies. When the local Health Authority requires a
minimum isolation distance, it is generally established
on the basis of potential health hazards to the
occupants. Since HUD-FHA must consider many other
factors, HUD-FHA1 s minimum is sometimes in excess of
that minimum distance established by the Local Health
Authority, but in no case will it be less. This
situation is no different from that encountered where
HUD-FHA Minimum Property Standards exceed local codes.
If local codes or Health Department requirements exceed
HUD-FHA requirements, then HUD-FHA would, of course,
require that the higher standards be met.
0-1
1/73
HUD-WaBh., D. C.
-------
4135.1
(1-4) j. Isolation Distances. If the odors arising from sewage treat-
ment plants are objectionable and affect the desirability
and marketability of homes at a greater distance than that
prescribed for reasons of health, HUD-FHA would necessarily
have to establish a higher minimum. The adequacy of the
sewer system, type of sewage treatment, topography, natural
or artificial screening, seasonal weather and wind conditions
are all important factors to which HUD-FHA must give careful
consideration in determining isolation distances. Since these
conditions vary widely, HUD-FHA cannot establish isolation
distances in an arbitrary manner. Each individual situation
must be carefully studied and a decision made based on all
the facts surrounding that particular case.
k. Distance and Value. The underwriting problems introduced
by sewage disposal plants are no different than those problems
introduced by other types of nuisances which produce smoke,
noxious odors, offensive noises or unsightly neighborhood
features. Within certain distances, the adverse affect of
these conditions is so great that the location would be
unacceptable. Beyond this point, acceptability of the loca-
tion could be established, but in all likelihood values in
relation to cost would be impaired. As the distance from the
nuisance increases, progressively higher values in relation
to cost would logically follow. Only findings derived from
an analysis based on a complete comprehension of this approach
can be logically supported.
(1) Sound underwriting must recognize the fact that HUD-FHA
does not arbitrarily establish a line having a reject
area on one side and an acceptable area on the other
wherein property values are not impared.
(2) It is the responsibility of the Valuation Section to
reflect the intensity of the conditions as the properties
recede from the nuisance.
1. Individual Water and Sewerage Systems. Other conditions
being equal, market acceptance is restricted when individual
water-supply and sewerage-disposal systems are installed in
a new subdivision when competitive areas in the community
are, or can be, served by acceptable public or community
systems. Water supply and sewerage disposal sometimes can be
provided by individual systems on each property within a
subdivision. However, individual water-supply systems are
0-2
HUD-Wa»h., D. C.
1/73
-------
4140.1
(5-6) The location of the shopping'center should be for the greatest
convenience of the greatest number of patrons. Usually the
site selected should be directly accessible from an arterial
or collector street with adequate provision for off-street
parking and delivery services. It has been a common specula-
tive error to locate too many shopping centers too close
together and with more land than needed, thereby creating
unfavorable influences upon adjoining neighborhoods as well as
resulting in unsuccessful commercial ventures.
f. School Sites. Based on data supplied by school authorities,
school sites should be adequate in size for present and
anticipated needs. They should be conveniently located and
have ample provision for vehicular parkin" <=naee to avoid
Parks and Playgrounds. When large undeveloped areas adjoin
a subdivision the need for parks and playgrounds is not
always recognized. Future needs should be anticipated, and
the difficulty and expense of procuring necessary space for
parks after the area has been densely developed should be
foreseen. Parks and properly located playgrounds are a
definite asset to neighborhoods, providing a safe place for
outdoor play and recreation. Rough wooded areas that are
difficult to develop into economical dwelling sites are often
well adapted for park purposes. Furthermore, the provision
of parks and playgrounds usually benefits not only the user,
but the developer as well through the enchancement in values
of his properties. HUD-FHA encourages local authorities in
the establishment of these community facilities where
appropriate.
Sewage Treatment Plants. In addition to sanitary engineering
considerations, care should be exercised in selecting the
site for a sewage treatment plant. Residential properties
should be located so that they will not be adversely affected
from an aesthetic standpoint or by reason of possible odors.
There are times when odors may be expected if the plant is
over-loaded or not operated in an efficient manner or a
sewage lagoon system is used. The direction of the prevailing
breeze appears not to be of major significance since objec-
tionable odors may be more noticable when the air is still.
Topography, trees or undergrowth may be helpful. However,
the best means of assuring protection against possible odors
is to provide adequate space between the residential
properties and the sewage treatment facility.
03
5/73
HUD-Wa«h., D. C.
-------
i
615-9 ' SEWAGE DISroSAL SYSTEM
615-9.1 General
Provide each living unit with a water-carried sewerage
system adequate to dispose of all domestic wastes in a
manner which will not create a nuisance, contaminate any
existing or prospective water source or water supply, or
in any way endanger the public health.
Whenever feasible, connection shall be made to a public
sewerage system.
C« When ' nt«M-!^ s^'Strrn is not avail "hie or C-TI ruction
thert^w is ^ut ic^jiL. j.k-, cu>..iv-_i:ioa s'U . ~>v. .. . L
a community system, if feasible. Such system shall
comply with 4940.3. All privately owned central or
community sewerage systems shall be approved by the
state health and pollution control authorities and the
local health department.
d. When service from an acceptable public or community
sewerage system is not available or feasible, and grour.d
water and soil conditions meet the requirements of this
standard, an individual system may be accepted by HUD
provided it is installed in accordance with the requirements
contained herein.
e. Any system of individual sewage disposal which is acceptable
herein but which is not permitted by the local health ' i /
authority having jurisdiction shall not be used. Evidence > v
of approval by such authority for each completed system will
' • be required in all cases.
615-9.2 Individual Sewerage Systems - General
' - a. No part of the system shall be installed closer' to other
features of the property than the minimum distances shown
' in Table 6-15.5.
b. Installation of individual systems in swampy areas, areas
with a high water table (permanent, fluctuating or seasonal),
areas with ledge rock or areas which are subject to flooding
is not acceptable. ....
•' o-U
•1 SF
-------
HUD Handbook, November 1972
4940.3
To provide each living unit with a water-carried sewerage
system adequate to collect, treat and dispose of waste water
in a manner whicli will not create nuisances or endanger the
public health.
CS200 GENERAL ACCEPTABILITY
CS201 LOCAL CODES AND REGUl.AT T ON S
CS201-1 The minimum standards set forth herein have "been established
to accomplish certain basic HUD-F1IA objectives and shall not
be construed -is relieving the builders of responsibility for
compliance with local ordinances, code and regulations
including established requirements of a health authority
having jurisdiction.
CS201-2 HUD-FHA docs not assume the. responsibility for enforcing or
determining compliance with local codes or regulations or
making interpretations regarding their application in any
specific instance.
CS201-3 Where the local code, regulation or requirement permits lower
standards than required herein, these Minimum Design Standards
shall apply. In the event, the local code, regulation or
requirement precluded compliance with these standards, the
property must be ineligible unless the stated objectives set
forth heroin are fully attained by the alternate means 'pro-
posed.
CS202 REVTSIONS TO ATP ROVED PLANS
Any deviations from the. approved plans or specifications must
be approved in writing by the appropriate Field Office before
such changes are undertaken. A re quest for such approval
shall be accompanied by written evidence that the proposed
changes are acceptable to the State Department of Health and
any other state or local authority having jurisdiction. The
request shall also be accompanied by a supplementary engineer's
report describing the changes and the reasons for them.
o-5
HUD-Waeh., D. C.
31/72
-------
4940.3
CS5)0
CS510-1
CS510-2
CS510-3
FQRCE HATNS
Velocity
A design average flow velocity in excess of two feet per
second shall be maintained.
A_j_r_ Relief Valve
Where necessary an automatic air relief valve shall be
placed at high points in the force main to prevent air
locking. Where possible, the force main shall pitch con-
tinuously upward avoiding any high points in the line.
Termination
Force mains should enter the gravity sewer system at a
point not more than two feet above the flow line of the
receiving manhole.
CS511 POWER SUPPLY
Power supp]y should be available from at least two indepen-
dent generating sources, or emergency power equipment should
be provided. Where this is not feasible, an overflow should
be provided at such an elevation as to prevent basement
flooding or back water from stream affecting operation.
Where power failure would result, in objectionable conditions
because of the resultant discharge or basement flooding,
means fort emergency operation shall be provided.
CS600
SWAGE TREATMENT WORKS
to
id
CS601 . PLANT LOCATION
In general to avoid local objections a sewage, treatment
plant site should be as far as practicable from any present
built-up area or any area which will probably be built up
within a reasonable future period. If a critical location
must be used, special consideration must be given to the .
design and type of plant provided. Plants should be located
at an elevation which is not subject to flooding or else be
adequately protected against flood damage. The plant should
be readily accessible in all seasons.
0-6
HUD-Wosh., D. C.
11/72
-------
HUD Valuation Handbook, April 1973^
4150.1
CHAPTER 2. LOCATION ANALYSIS
2-1. PUKPOSI'. OFJ/)C:ATTqi[_AJMI.YSJS. The purpose of Location Analysis
~ls to identity the charac'U'VJ si Jcs of location which affect the
value and economic ]jfe of a specific property.
2-2. GENERAL. The. analysis of location requires a determination of
desirability and utility_o. the site and the degree and extent
to which the site, by reason of its environmental influences,
shares in the market for comparable and competitive sites in the
community. The analysis of location involves a forecast of the
changes likely to be experienced at the site due to probable
future trends in addition to an appraisal of the present situa-
tion. A knowledge if the trends which affect the valuation of
real property is necessary to properly analyze the location.
The principle of change is fundamental to real estate appraising
and to the analysis of a location. Value is created and modified
by economic, social and governmental changes which occur outside
of the property itself. It is necessary to predict the direction
of the trend and determine the future effect it will have on
property values.
2-3, CO^T.Trrj_VE^LQ(:A.TIONS. Locations are construed to be competitive
when they are improved.with, or appropriate for, residential
properties that arc approximately similar in accocmcdatioiis,' and
are within a sales price range or rental range that proves
acceptable to typical residents or prospective occupants.
2-4. THR _.. METHOD__pF AN ALYSIS. The analysis of location is accomplished
through the consideration of the features hereinafter discussed.
Each feature of the location is compared with the same feature
of competitive locations in the community. An acceptable loca-
tion must be related to the needs of the prospective occupants
and to the alternatives available to them in other competitive
• _ locations.
2~5• "CONSIDERATION INTHE ANALYSIS OF LOCATION. In the analysis of
location, no cognizance is taken of the character or quality of
the building improvements which exist on the site or which are
proposed in the application for mortgage insurance. A vacant
cite will, there-fore, have the same location evaluation of quality
as an improved site under similar environmental influences.
0-7 'Wakh., D. C,
-------
4150.1
TRENDS. Consideration must be given to economic trends
of the nation, region, community and the neighborhood, such as:
n. Industrial, commercial, agricultural and retail sales
activity.
b. Price and wage levels - purchasing power of individuals. ,
c. Employment.
d. Supply and demand of living units.
e. Taxation levels.
f. Mortgage interest rates.
g. Building Costs.
h. Population change.
1. Activity in the real estate sales market.
LAND USES. Location Analysis involves a determination of the ,
effect of actual and potential neighborhood land uses upon the )
subjnct location. A location which contains the proper balance
of land usage such as residential, commercial, parks, schools,
and playgrounds enhances the value and the economic security of
a property. The following are factors which form the pattern
for present and future land uses:
a. Zoning. Appropriate and well-drawn zoning ordinances which
receive public approval and are strictly enforced will provide
one of the best means of protecting residential locations
from adverse influences that diminish the desirability of
sites.
k- ProJ'^c.tive Covenants. Properly drawn protective covenants
have proved more effective than zoning ordinances in providing
protection from adverse environmental influences; and, when
combined with proper zoning, provide maximum legal protection
to assure that a developed residential area will maintain
desirable characteristics, or that a proposed, or partially
built-up neighborhood will develop in a desirable manner.
The protective convenants should be superior to any mortgage
and should be binding on all parties and all persons claiming
under them.
4/73
0-8
rt*!!., D. C.
-------
/J50.1
Iclent: i f i co t : J.on of TnhnnnoirJ OUR
"N
'
. Inharmonious land
uses in the neighborhood must, be identified. The present and
long term effect: such uses wit \ have on the market value and
economic life of the subjec. property must be defined. The
market value and remaining economic ] i f e must reflect these
influences. In situations where the inharmonious land uses
represent a serious detr i, oat to either the health or safety
of the occupants or to 'he economic security of the property,
the application for mortgage insurance must be rejected.
2-8. PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL ATTRACTIVENESS. The features listed below
are analyzed to determine the physical conditions of the neigh-
borhood that affect tl.i physical improvements and the health and
safety of the occupants or influence their pleasure in the
appearance of the environment. The elements considered in this
analysis arc:
a. Special Hazards and Nui snncc's . Physical conditions may be
\ ' found in some neighborhoods that are a hazard to the personal
health and safety of the occupants or that may endanger the
physical improvements. Such conditions include unusual
topography, subsidence, flood, unstable soils, traffic
hazards to health, and various kinds of grossly offensive ^
nuisances. ^
(1) Topography. Special hazards are sometimes found to
result from the peculiar topography of a neighborhood. 8y M?«
Marketability is often adversely affected in hillside i--ip
areas by the hazards caused by denuded slopes, soil
erosion, and land slippages. Earth and mud slides from
adjoining property, falling rocks, etc., are some of
the hazards associated with steep grades and must be
considered in the evaluation of the location.
(2) Subsidence . Danger of subsidence is a special hazard
that may be encountered under a variety of circumstances.
. The danger may exist when buildings are constructed on
uncontrolled fill or unsuitable soil containing foreign
matter such as organic material. It may be present in
certain areas where the sub-soil is unstable and subject
to slippage or expansion. In mining areas consideration
must be given to the depth or extent of mining opera-
tions, and the location of operating or abandoned
shafts or tunnels in o^sr to reach a conclusion as to
WAN'S R.
7 f
0-9
4/73
-------
/i 150.1
(2-8) whether the danger is ir,:.uinenf, probable, or negligible.
In locations Xs'here the danger of subsidence exists, a
specific site will be deemed ineligible unices complete
and satisfactory evidence can be secured that x^i]l
establish the probability that any threat of subsidence
is negligible.
(3) Fjogd_J|nz,ird . In low lying areas or other locations
subject to frequent periodic floods which cause serious
property damage or clanger to personal safety, the degree
of risk will be considered too great to be acceptable.
(4) Heavy Traffic. Location on streets having he'avy or fast
traffic lessens desirability because of noise and danger
and often affects the value. Sites backing to freeways
or other thoroughfares which are heavily screened or
where traffic is well below grade and sufficient distance
from the property may not be adversely affected.
(5) Ai rpo r t s. Locations near an airport may be subjected to
the noise and hazard of low-flying aircraft. The ever
increasing volume of aircraft activity together with the
use of jet aricraft has substantially increased the
noise nuisance and potential hazards in locations near
major airports. In the analysis of this feature consid-
eration must be given to the desirability of an affected
location in comparison with unaffected locations that
are improved with or are appropriate for competitive
structures. *
BY
(6) Fire and Explosion, The storage or manufacture of
volatile or explosive products, and other conditions
that constitute extraordinary exposure to the danger of
explosion or conflagration from nearby industry, gas
lines, or contiguous brush or grass land, are hazards
that adversely affect value of the dwellings in the
neighborhood.
Smoke., Fume, Noise, Etc. Smoke, fog, chemical fumes, '
noxious odors, stagnant ponds or marshes, poor surface
drainage and excessive dampness may exist to a degree
that is hazardous to the health of neighborhood
occupants. Offensive noises, odors and unsightly
neighborhood features such as stables, kennels, and
malfunctioning sewage disposal systems adversely affect
the appeal of the neighborhood.
4/73 0-10
HUIVWonh.. D. C.
-------
4150.1
II
.4
(2-8) (8) Sewage- System Failure. Where Individual sewage disposal
systems are involved, an analysis of the location must
be made to assure that the area is free from conditions
vihich adversely affect the operation of the systems.
Consider at-i on will be given to the type of systems,
topography, depth to ground water, soil permeability
.. and the type of soil to a depth of several feet below
the surface. A check of the other septic systems in
^ the neighborhood must be made to assure that other
failures within the neighborhood will not adversely
affect the subject property. Whenever there are
instances of doubt concerning the operation of sewage
disposal systems in a neighborhood, the services of the
Sanitary Engineer should be utilized.
b. Natural Physical Features and Landscaping. Few, if any,
home owners are oblivious to favorable topographic and site
features such as pleasing view, wooded lots, broad vistas,
and climatic advantages. But some segments of the market
will be more insistent in their demands for attractive
- . neighborhoods than others. Attractive 'street layouts and
preservation of natural attractiveness are characteristics
of good neighborhood design. Areas in which streets have
been laid out with proper regard to drainage, land contours
and traffic, flow increase the desirability of the
neighborhood.
Cf Attractiveness of /Neighborhood Buildings. The appeal of a
location is strengthened if the buildings in a neighborhood
are attractive as a group and harmonize with one another,
and with their physical surroundings. A pleasing variety
that results in harmoniously blended properties without
monotomous repetition is desirable. It-has been demonstrated
that pleasing variety in dwelling design need not be
sacrificed in neighborhoods composed of low-cost housing.
<*. Neighborhood Character. Mobility and economic growth have
combined to alter neighborhood patterns. Shopping, recrea-
tion, places of worship, schools and places' of employment
are reached with comparative ease. The lessened disparity
between income of professions and trades and of management
and skilled labor has contributed to a mingling of such
families in stable neighborhoods.
o
D-n
4/73
. • JlUO-Wutih., D. C.
-------
! APPENDIX P
I
j
FACILITIES PLANNING STUDY
O'HARE WRP COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
I. Summary
i
At the request of USEPA's Region V Office, the MSDGC's staff has
conducted an economic analysis '.o determine the most cost effective
plant size to be constructed in the O'Hare Facility Area. Specifically
the question was raised whether the construction of the presently propc
72 MGD facility could be economically justified. If the analysis were
to show that a 48 MGD plant or some size intermediate between 48 and
72 MGD were to be optimal, then the USEPA and IEPA would fund only
those costs attributable to the optimal size facility.
Because the rate of increase of future flows significantly influences
^ the outcome of the analysis, a step by step derivation of forecasted
flows is included in this study.
•
The economic analysis was performed using guidelines established by thc-
USEPA.
The results of this analysis indicate that the most cost effective plar
size is a 72 MGD plant to be constructed by 1978.
II. Derivation of Flows
In forecasting wastewater flows to be generated in O'Hare Facility Area
the following information is required:
a. Unit wastewater flow, Gallons Per Capita Per Day
(GPCPD), based on sewer gaging records.
P-l
-------
b. Projected rate of increase of sewage flow based on
assessment of historical data and future events.
c. Projection of industrial flow.
d. Quantity of allowable infiltration.
A. Unit Wastewater Flow in 1970; .
In 1970, flows from the O'Hare Service Area were measured and
recorded at the Rand Road Sewer Gaging Station. These data
indicated that average daily flow was 31.6 MGD.
Assumptions for computing GPCPD:
a. Total Population in O'Hare Facility in 1970 = 223,000
b. Sewered Population in O'Hare Facility Area in 1970 = 200,700
c. Average Dry Weather Flow = 95%(Measured Flow) = 30 MGD
*
Based on these assumptions, the unit wastewater loading in the
O'Hare Service Area in 1970 was 150 gpcpd. This value includes
contributions from Domestic, Infiltration and Industrial sources.
s
B. Rate of Increase of Sewage Flow;
In designing a sewage treatment facility it is often necessary
to consider the future flows in terms of anticipated increases
in .population and per capita flows. However, it has been suggested
by the USEPA staff that increase in per capita flow may not be
valid for the O'Hare Facility Area. To'determine whether this
claim was valid, water consumption records for five communities
P-2
-------
situated in the O'Hare Facility Area were analyzed. It
was reasoned that historical data would offer the most reliable
information regarding trend and rate of flow increase for the
near future.
1. Historical Data;
r
la) 'Water Consumption in 1966;
Community Per Capita. Consumption
Des Plaines 126
Mt. Prospect 97
Arlington Hts. 69
Elk Grove Village 148
Wheeling 103
GPCPD for all Five Communities = 15.
152
.lb) Water Consumption in 1970:
(3)
Community Per Capita Consumption
Des Plaines 138
Mt. Prospect 97
Arlington Hts. 98
Elk Grove Village 131
Wheeling 91
\
GPCPD for All Five Communities = 22.
Population
48,000
28,000
50,000
15,000
11,000
152,000
567 MGD =
,000
(4)
Population
57,300
35,000
64,880
24,500
14,600
196,280
199 MGD =
Flow (MGD)
6.048
2.716
3.450
2.220
1.133
15.567
102.43
Flow (MGD)
7.907
3.395
6.358
3.210
1.329
22,199
113.10
196,280
References and Bases:
(1) Based on "Report Upon Adequate Water Supply for the
Chicago Metropolitan Area 1969 to 2000", by Alvord,
Burdick & Howson
(2) Estimated population in 1966 based on census data
of 1960 and 1970.
P-3
-------
(3) Based on "Report on Water Supply for Northeastern
Illinoisl972-2000", by Alvord, Burdick and Howson.
(4) Estimated population based on 1970 census data.
.Therefore, historical data between 1966 and 1970 show that
rate of per capita increase including Domestic, Industrial
and Infiltration flow equalled (113.1 - 102.43)/4 years
= 2.667 GPCPD/year.
2. Future Considerations;
In addition to historical data, rate of increase of future
flow must also be evaluated in light of such factors as
industrial development, adequacy of water supply, and
probable water usage habits of people within the O'Hare
Facility Area. Assessment of these factors must by
necessity be based on incomplete data and opinions.
Nevertheless, these factors and their potential impact
on future wastewater flows must be recognized and accounted
for in designing the treatment facility.
MSDGC has assessed the foregoing factors mentioned and con-
cluded the following:
2a) Industrial Development
The O'Hare Facility Area is adjacent to O'Hare Airport
and is served by two major expres:>ways as well as
several railroads. Being bounded by established
- communities to the east and southeast, t\e labor market
*'
-------
is excellent both in terms of skilled and unskilled
workers. The Facility Area also has considerable
amount of open space which can be used for industrial
purposes. Thus, three key ingredients necessary for
industrial development (transportation, labor market
and land) exist in or near the Facility Area. There-
fore, it is assumed that in the near future moderate
to intense industrial development will occur within
the O'Hare Facility Area.
2b) Adequacy of Water Supply ^
Presently, the City of Des Plaines is the only com-
munity served by the City of Chicago or Lake Michigan
supply. Other communities located in the Facility
•,
Area are dependent upon wells which provide a limited
but presently adequate supply. As communities expand,
demand for more water will either force these
communities to seek other sources or to curtail their
growth. The most probable "other source" available
to the communities in the west is the Lake Michigan
water via the City of Chicago. Several reports have
been prepared to date studying the feasibility of
extending Lake Michigan water to the inland communities.
These reports have recommended extension of Lake Michigan
water supply as an action which would be mutually
» i:
beneficial to the City of Chicago and the suburbs.
Therefore, it is believed that in the future, an
adequate water supply will be available to support
P-5
-------
continued growth in the O'Hare Facility Area.
2c) Water Usage Habits
The effects of this factor are difficult to assess
because it requires subjective evaluation. Water
Usage Habits reflect the society's so called lifestyle
and is a function of among other elements, attitudes,
economic state (income) and social strata. The MSDGC
has addressed these factors and concluded that per
capita flow will continue to increase in the future.
Based upon the conclusions drawn above, it is assumed that recent
per capita increases as indicated by historical data will continue
to occur in the O'Hare Facility Area. Furthermore, the future
increases are assumed to occur in the following manner:
a) Domestic per capita flow will increase almost
linearly reaching near maximum level around
year 2000.
v'
b) Industrial flow will increase in the 80's and 90's
as result of intense industrial development during
this period.
c) Both unit Domestic and Industrial flows will remain
relatively constant after year 2000 as near ultimate
development will have been-attained,
P-6
-------
C. Industrial Flow;
Greeley and Hansen Engineers, in their report entitled "Report
on Basic Data", projected the following unit industrial flow for
the MSDGC's northwest area in gallons per acre per day (GPAPD):
^
Vv^--. Industrial Flow
(GPAPD)
1960 1985 2015
3200 5500 6400
Brown and Caldwell, in their report for O'Hare WRP, modified
Greeley and Hansen's estimate to the following:
Industrial Flow
(GPAPD)
1960 1985 2015
3200 . 5200 5200
Camp, Dresser & McKee, in their report for Egan WRP (formerly
Salt Creek), serving Facility Area adjacent to O'Hare used a value
of 6400 GPAPD for unit industrial discharge in 2020.
The MSDGC staff considered all of the above estimates and concluded
that unit industrial wastewater loading of 3200 GPAPD was reasonable
It..was also concluded that this" value would remain constant due to
\
such factors as increased recycling and more stringent regulations
applying to industrial discharges.
P-7 . .
-------
Based on NIPC Land Use information, the MSDGC staff estimated
that industrial land use will increase from approximately 2000
ac. in 1970 to 7300 ac. by year 2000.
Industrial development and flow is projected as follows:
*"•*», ,
Flow MGD @ 3200 GPAPD
6.4
16.0
20.8
23,4
23.4
23.4
23,4
Year ^
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Infiltration:
Industrial Acres
2000
5000
6500
7300
7300
7300
7300
* Maximum allowable infiltration in the O'Hare Combined Sewer Area
equalled 2.93 MGD in 1974
-------
It can be assumed that population in combined sewer area (older
established part of the community) will remain relatively constant.
Therefore/ increase in allowable infiltration will be approxi ..ately
i
proportional to the increase of population in the separate sewered
area.
Pop. in Comb. Flow 'MGD) Pop. in Sep. Flow (MGD)
Year Area x 1000 @ 49.5 GPCPD Area x 1000 % 27.4 GPCPD
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
59.2 2.93
62.2 3.08
63.7 3.15
63.7 3.15
63.7 3.15
63.7 3.15
63.7 3.15
Projected Allowable Infiltration
Total All.
• Infil. Flow (MGD)
7.27
8.53
8.99
9.62
10.04
10.50
V
10.99
155.6
198.8
213.3
236.3
251.3
268.3
286.3
in Terms of
Pop. x 1000
223
261
"277
300
315
332
350
4.34
5.45
5.84
6.47
6.89
7.35
7.84
GPCPD
GPCPD
33
v'
33
33
32
32
32
31
Footnote:
(1) MSDGC I/I Analysis for O'Hare Service Area.
P-9
-------
III. Flow Projection
In the preceding sections, the following was established:
Ve
a. Measured flow in 1970 = 150 GPCPD (Ave. Dry Weather Flow)
j£
' b. Water Pumpage Record in 1970 = 113 GPCPD (Ave. for O'Hare S.A.)
c. Unit Industrial Flow in 1970 = (6.4/223,000) = 29 GPCPD
d. Allowable Infiltration in 1970 =33 GPCPD
Jk
Although water pumpage record is a good indication of per capita
consumption/ it usually does npt represent the actual amount reaching
the sewer. Leakage within the water distribution system, water used
for gardens and lawns, and other miscellaneous uses account for the
disparity. For the O'Hare Facility Area, it is assumed that 10% of
• the recorded consumption does not enter the sewer.
Therefore, unit wastewater flow from Industrial and Domestic sources
in 1970 was (113 - 10%(113))=102 GPCPD. Adding the allowable infiltratic
»
flow of 33 GPCPD, the total unit wastewater flow in 1970 should have beer
102+33= 135 GPCPD. The difference between the measured, 150 GPCPD,
and the calculated, 135 GPCPD, is attributed to excessive infiltration.
In summary, 1970 flow can be broken down to the following:
Source GPCPD
Domestic 73
Industrial 29
Allowable Infiltration 33
• . Excessive Infiltration 15 .
TOTAL 150
P-10
-------
Using 1970 as the base, the O'Hare Facility Area flow is projected
as follows:
GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY
Year
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Design
•
Infiltration
Pop. (1000) Domestic .Industrial Allow. Exc. Total
223<1J 73 29 33 _/15 . 150
261 80 61 33 0 174
277 94 75 33 0 202
300 113 78 32 0 223
315 116 74 32 0 222
332 117 70 32 .0 219
350 118 67 31 0 216
(1) Sewered Pop. in 1970 = 200,700
Flow = Calculated Flow x 1.1 (10% Reserve Capacity)
•Design Flow
Year (MGD)
1970 33
1980 50
1990 62
2000 73
2010 77
2020 80
2030 ^ 83
Flo^
(MG1
30
45
56
67
70
73
75
p-11
-------
Economic Analysis
The following cost effective analysis for O'Hare WRP is performed in
accordance with the EPA Guidelines (40 CFR Part 35) Amended portion
of FWPC Act Amendments.
*
A. Elements of Analysis
1. Method of Analysis Present Worth
2. Planning Period 22 years (1978-2000)
3. Elements of Costs Capital&M&O (Labor, Energ
Chemicals)
4. Prices Indexed to ENR=2400
(Inflation not included)
5. Interest Rate 5 7/8%
\
6. Interest During Construction Ic=IxPxC/2
1=5.875%
P=Const. Period in Years
C=Total Capital Cost
. 7. .Salvage Values , Straight Line Depre,ciatic
8. Service Life
Land Permanent
Structures 30-50 years
Process Equip. 15-30 years
Aux. Equip. 10-15 years
B. Plant Sizes for Phased Construction
The projected flow indicates that the initial installation should
not be less than 60 MGD, since a smaller capacity plant would resu],
in a service life of 10 years or less. Therefore, phased construct
will consist of 60 MGD initial installation in 1978 and 12 MGD
addition in 1988.
P-12
-------
Capital Costs
!• Cost of 72 MGD Plant:
Estimated by consultant for O'Hare WRP:
Cost: $100,000,000.00
2. Cost of 60 MGD Plant;
Based on cost curves developed by Robert Smith d', the cost
ratio of 72 MGD to 60 MGD is approximately 1.05 to 1.00.
Therefore, cost of 60 MGD plant would be:
Cost = (1.00/1.05) ($100,000,000.00) =$95,200,000.00
(1) Ref: Robert Smith "Cost of Conventional and Advanced
Treatment of Wastewater", JWPCF Conference
Issue, September 1968.
3« Cost of 12 MGD Addition;
It is assumed that the initial 60 MGD installation will provide
space for additions of blowers, pumps, etc., and that 12 MGD
addition can be easily facilitated.
Aeration Tanks $2.22 Million
Diffused Air System 1.20
Final Settling Tanks 1.82
Pumps 0.86
Filters 1.80
Site Work 0.22
Instrumentation (Elec., Plumbing) 2.96
Miscellaneous'- 0.50
11.58
Design, Legal, Admin ii?J native,
Printing, Advertising etc. 15% 1.74
Contingency 15% 1.74
TOTAL $15.06 Million
P-13
-------
D. Replacement Costs
1. 72 MGD Plant -
$14.4 Million in 1993
$ 1.0 Million in 1998
1
• 2. 60 MGD Plant
$12.6 Million in 1993
$ 1.0 Million in 1998
E, Salvage Values
1. 72 MGD Plant
2. 60 MGD Plant + 12 MGD Addition,
,$47.6 Million in 2000
,$48.4 Million in 2000
F. M&O Costs
1. 72 MGD Plant
Personnel
Pumping
Air (Blowers)
Misc. Energy
Chemicals
Equivalent Annual Cost
In. 1978
817,000
383,000
552,000
50,000
110,000
1,912,000/yr.
$2,244,000/yr.
2.
60 MGD Plant + 12 MGD Addition in 1988
In 1978
Personnel
Pumping
Air (Blowers)
Misc. Energy
Chemicals
710,200
383,000
458,000
50,000
110,000
1,711,200/yr.
Equivalent Annual Cost = $2,097,000/yr.
In. 2000
1,057,000
608,000
876,000
80,000
175,000
2,796,000/yr.
In 2000
1,057,000
608,000
876,000
80,000
175,000
* 2,796,000/yr.
P-U*
-------
6. Interest During Construction
Js
1. 72 MGD Plant "
100x3x0.05875 = $8.82 Million
2
I
2. 60 MGD Plant + 12 MGD in 1988
«
60 MGD = 95.2x3x0.05875 = $8.39 Million
2
12 MGD = 15.1x1.5x0.05875 = $0.67 Million
2
H. Present Worth Comparison
1. 72 MGD Plant
Item Cost ($ Million)
Initial Construction 100.00
Replacement (14 .4) (0.425) 6.12
Replacement (1.0) (0.319) 0.32
Salvage (47. 6) (0.284) -13.52
M&O (1.853) (12.17)x 106 27.32
Int. During Const. 8.82
Total $129.06 Million
'2, 60 MGD in 1978 + 12 MGD in 1988
Item Cost ($ Million)
Initial Construction 60 MGD . 95.20
12 MGD Addition (15.06) (0.565) 8.51
Replacement (12.6) (0 . 425) 5.36
Replacement (1.0) (0.319) 0.32
Salvage (48.4) (0.284) -13.75
M&O (1.743)(12.17)x 106 25.53
Int. During Const. - Initial Plant 8.39
Int. During Const - Addition 0.38
•Cost of Redesign 0. 30
$130.24 Million
Based upon the foregoing analysis, it is more cost effective to construct
a 72 MGD plant under one contract than it is to phase the construction
into two contracts.
-------
APPENDIX Q
ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY M3DGC
-------
A'.TACHfAENT. A
Part I - Pertinent Technical Information for Each Site
Pertinent technical- information for each site has been assembled and is
presented herein. Each site is identified in either the Draft EIS
prepared by the Region V USEPA f-jr the O'Hare WRP and Solids Pipeline,
or the EAS prepared by the MSDGC for the Upper Des Plaines Service
Basin. See Figure 1 for location of sites studied.
A
Each site is analyzed in terms of thirteen (13) specific factors and
one (1) general consideration. Explanation and applicability of these
factors used in assessing the various sites are given below:
A. Location:
Self explanatory.
,**
B. Area in Acres: '
Area of each site, unless specifically known, is
' based on approximate land area as determined through
field surveys and recent aerial photographs. Boundaries
were 'established where they appeared to be reasonable.
C. Physical Description:
1) Geological: X
Geological description for soil, surficial and
,*
bedrock strata are not presented for each site.
) '
>
However, in view of the fact that every site
Q-l
-------
considered is within close proximity of site
No. 1, (within 3 mile radius) the generalized
geological description given in the EAS for
that site is assumed to apply for all other sites.
For a detailed geological description, reference
is made to MSDGC's EAS fofc The Upper Des Plaines
Service Basin Nov. 1974, pgs. II-3 to 11-11 of
O'Hare Tunnel System, and pgs. II-2 to II-4 of
O'Hare WRP.
*
2) Topographical:
Description of topography of each site is given in
terms of estimated maximum variation in ground elevation.
Sites which contain flood plain land are designated as
such.
D. Improvements on Site: »J
Any existing structures above or below ground are considered
to be improvements on the site. Therefore, utility pipelines,
water storage tanks, single family houses, barns, offices,
garages, manufacturing buildings, parking lots and driveways
are all considered to be improvements existing on site.
The owner(s) of these improvements must be equitably compensated
for his (their) losses. ' . '
Q-2
-------
E. Site Zoning and Description of Surrounding Area:
Zoning of the specific site is taken from Olcott's Land
Values as are the zoning of areas adjacent to the site
of interest. Description of ahe surrounding area is based
on field surveys and recent abrial photographs.
4
F. Availability of Land:
As a baseline assumption it is assumed that all sites can be
purchased outright ox acquired through condemnation proceedings
However, time required to obtain the various sites depends on
such factors as who the owner is, how many owners there are,
what improvements exist on the site, and whether condemnation
process can be enforced. Procurement time also includes site
study, appraisals, title search, negotiation, and MSD Board
action.
'?
G. Receiving Stream:
Name of stream is given in which plant effluent would be
discharged. "On-Site" indicates that the stream flows through
or adjacent to the site.
H. Length of Outfall Conduit:
Self explanatory. v
Q-3
-------
I. Channel Improvements Required on Plant Site and Downstream
of Plant Site:
On sites which require channel improvements, the hydraulic
capacity of the receiving stream is increased to handle the
100 year design storm flow. The different storm flow values
at the sites reflect the variations in tributary drainage area.
f.
4
Channel improvements downstream of the plant site are based
on hydraulically accommodating the maximum plant flow plus
the 100 year design storm.
*.
Channel is improved to a point where the stream is capable of
handling this flow without utilizing overbank capacity.
J. Channel Relocation Required on Plant Site:
Depending on the site and whether the stream flows through
the site, the stream or the channel must be relocated in order
to provide space for the treatment plant. Lejngth of channel
requiring relocation is given.
K.' Length of Influent Sewer: *
The 20 ft diametor tunnel has its low point near the intersection"
3
of Oakton and Elmhurst Rd. From here wastewater must be conveyed
to the plant pump station via 10 ft diameter plant influent
sewer. Length of this sewer varies^ depending on the location
* •
of the site. -t '
>
L. Compensatory Storage: J j
Plant sites which include flood plain area must provide
|
Compensatory storago facility. The required compensatory } |
storage in AC-FT is based on volume of fl'ood plain displaced \
\
\
at £he site due to construction of the plant. Volumes given j
Q-U ' I
-------
include 10 ac-ft for retention of site runoff.
M. Project Delay Incurred by Relocating O'Hare WRP to
Another Site from Site No. 1:
In relocating the plant to another site from the presently
proposed site, the construction of O'Hare WRP will be
V'
delayed. The delay will be caused principally by time
*
required to acquire the land, and time required to re-
locate business or people and to design and prepare
contract documents.
N, Other Considerations:
This item covers special features which appear to be of some
significance in considering the particular site for the
O'Hare WRP.
Q-5
-------
\\\l^
1 ' '-
-------
Site No. 1
1) Location
2) Area (Acres)
3) Physical Description
t
4) Improvements on Site
5) Site Zoning and Description
of Surrounding Area
6) Availability of Land
7) Receiving Stream
8) Length of Outfall (FT)
9) Channel Improvements
Required on Plant Site
and Downstream of
Plant Site (CFS)
10) Channel Relocation Required
on Plant Site (FT)
11) Length of Influent Sewer
From Tunnel to Plant (FT)
12) Compensatory Storage
Required (AC-F T)
13) Project Delay Incurred by
Relocating O'Hare WRP to
Site No. 1
]4) Other Considerations
DCS Plaines - East of Elrahurst.Rd.
South of Oakton Rd., North of NW Tollway
104
Geological: - •' (See introductory text)
Topo Est. Variation from 654 to 660 MSL
Apr-j-ox. Half cf Site in Flood Plain
One Single Family Dwelling Owned by MSDGC.
Purchased by MSDGC on 10/26/72 for $42,500.
Site Zoned for Restricted and General Industry
N: Gns Station, Florist, and 20 Houses
(North Zoned for Residential)
E: Gas Station, Motel, Industry
W: Industry
S: One House, Trailer Park
(East, West, South Zoning same as Site)
Owned by MSDGC
(Purchased in 1966 for $1,651,800)
Higgins Creek - On Site
200
'*
516
1500
700
60
>
NONE
MSDGC's Selected Site for O'Hare WKP
Q-7
-------
Site No. 2
1) Location
2) Area-(Acres)
3) Physical Description
4
4) Improvements on Site
5) Site Zoning and Description
of Surrounding Area
6) Availability of Land
7) Receiving Stream
8) Length of Outfall (FT)
9) Channel Improvements Required
on Plant Site and Downstream
of Plant Site (CFS)
10) Channel Relocation Required
on Plant Site (FT)
11) Length of Influent Sewer
From Tunnel to Plant (FT)
12) Compensatory Storage
Required (AC-FT)
13) Project Delay Incurred by
Relocating O'Hare WRP to
Site No. 2
14) Other Considerations
Unincorporated Area of Cook County
South of NW Tollway, West of Elmhurst
Rd., North of Higgins Rd.
94
Geological: * (See introductory text)
Topo: Est. Variation from 658 to 664 MSL
Most of Site in Flood Plain
No Above Ground Structures.
Dubuque Gas Co; Gas Pipelines 22", 30" amd 36"
Shell Oil Co; Oil Pipeline 14"
Illinois Bell; Talepnone Cables
West Shore Pipeline Co; Gas Pipeline 16"
Badger Pipeline Co; 6" and 8"
Site Zoned for Restricted and General Industry
NR: Commerce and light industry.
E: Trailer Park, commerce and industry.
SW: Mixture of residential, commerce and industry.
Site entirely surrounded by Restricted & General
Ind. Zoning
'*?
Owned by MSDGC (purchased in 1974 for $4,229,807)
Higgins Creek - On Site
200
318
1500
1000
54
Concurrent Activities:
Utility Relocation &
Design, Reviews, Etc.
36 mos.
TOTAL= 36 mos.
This site was purchased by MSDGC for use as a
reservoir in the O'Hare TARP System.
Q-8
-------
1) Location
2) Area (Acres;)
3) Physical Description
*
4) Improvements on Site
5) Site Zoning and Description
of Surrounding Area
6) Availability of Land
7) Receiving Stream
8) Length of Outfall (FT)
9) Channel Improvements Required
on Plant Site and Downstream
of Plant Site (CPS)
10) Channel Relocation Required
on Plant Site (FT)
11) Length of Influent Sewer
From Tunnel to Plant (FT)
12) Compensatory Storage
Required (AC-FT)
13) Project Delay Incurred by
Relocating O'Hare WRP to
Site No. 3
14) Other Considerations
Site No. 3
O'Hare Int. Airport
Maintenance Expansion Area
Approx, 85
Geological:-/(See introductory text)
Top : Est. Variation 657 to 664 MSL
ho above or below grade improvements
as far as is known.
This site is part of O'Hare Airport and
borders private land to the north only.
The adjacent area is*zoned for residential
and industrial uses.
Availability not known-Airport authority possibly
reserving land for specific future use-Acquisition
by condemnation possible, but likely to require up
to two (2) years of proceedings.
Willow Creek - On Site
300
(None Required)
(None Required)
9000
10
Land Acquisition 24 mos.
Design, Reviews, Et&u j3G _
TOTAL=60 mos.
Q-9
-------
Site No. 4
1) Location
2) Area (Acres)
3) Physical- Description
4} Improvement on Site
5) Site Zoning and Description
of Surrounding Area
6) Availability of Land
7) Receiving Scream
8) Length of Outfall (FT)
9) Channel Improvements Required
on Plant Site and Dovmstream
of Plant Site (CFS)
10) Channel Relocation Required
on Plant Site (FT)
11) Length of Influent Sewer
From Tunnel to Plant (FT)
12) Compensatory Storage
Required (AC-FI)
1
13) Project Delay Incurred by
Relocating O'Hare WRP to
Site No. 4
14) Other Considerations
Unincorporated Area of Cook County
East of Elmhurst, South of NW Tollway
Approx. 80
Geological: __ .(see introductory text)
Topo: Est. Variation 650 to 660 MSL
Facilities for approx. 600 mobile homes plus additional
125 presently being relocated from Busse Woods.
*•
Site Zoned for Restricted arid General Industry
N: Site No. 1 across NW Tollway
E: Empty parcel of land including old Ravenswood Airpor'
W: Industry and Commerce (Site No. 2)
SW: Standard Oil Fuel Storage Tanks
Site totally surrounded by Restricted and Ind. Zoning
Availability Unknown-At least three oxcners involved
in negotiations-Condemnation possible-Proceedings
likely to take up to 1.5 years
Higgins Creek - On Site
300
539
(None Required)
2000
11
Land Acquisition , 18 mos.
Concurrent Activities: . •
Relocation of People and
Design, Reviews, Etc. 36
Total 54 mos.
Fedsral Relocation Act applies-Approx. 2400 people
residing in mobile homes would have to be relocated-
Relocation to another mobile home community would
have to be outside Cook County because of the present
County ban on construction of new mobile home sites.
Q-10
-------
Site No. 5
1) Location
2) Area (Acres)
3) Physical Description
*
A) Improvements on Site
5) Site Zoning and Description
of Surrounding Area
6) Availability of Land
7) Receiving Stream
8) Length of Outfall (FT)
9) Channel Improvements Required
on Plant Site and Downstream
of Plant Site (CFS)
10) Channel Relocation Required
on Plant Site (FT)
11) Length of Influent Sewer
From Tunnel to Plant (FT)
12) Compensatory Storage
Required (AC FT)
13) Project Delay Incurred by
Relocating O'Hare WRP to
Site No. 5
1A) Other Considerations
Unincorporated Area of Cook County
East o£ Busse, South of Higgins Rd,
Approx. P5
Geological: V (See introductory text)
Topo: ::st. Variation from 670 to 680 MSL
SDK Industrial Park under Construction-Building
dimensions 740' x 690' x 22'-Est. Const. Cost
$30.0 Million-lndust . Park occupies approx. 2.5 Ac: os
Site Zoned for Restricted and General Industry
Nfi: Commerce and Industry
SE: Residential and Industry
S: Industry
W: Industry
A portion of area to south zoned for residential
uses. All other area zoned for Restricted and
General Industry.
Availability Unknown -All or portions of SDK
Park may be necessary-Acquisition by Condemnation
possible-Negotiations and/or legal proceedings li
to take 1 . 0 year.
Higgins Creek - On Site '*
200
300
500
5000
16
Land Acquisition 12 mos.
Concurrent Activities:
Relocation of Business
Design, Reviews, Etc. 36
Total A8 mos.
Q-n
-------
Site No. 6
1) Location
2) Area (Ar.res)
3) Physical Description
4) Improvements on Rite
5) Site Zoning nnd Description
of Surrounding Area
6) Availability of Land
7) Receiving Stream
8) Length of Outfall (FT)
9) Channel Improvements Required
on Plant Site and Downstream
of Plant Site (CFS)
10) Channel Relocation Required
on Plant Site (FT)
11) Length of Influent Sewer
Fron Tunnel to Plant (FT)
12) Compensatory Storage
Required (AC-FT)
13) Project Delay Incurred by.
Relocating O'Harc WRP to
Site No. 6
14) Other Considerations
Unincorporated Area of Cook County
West of Mount Prospect Ave., South of Touhy
Approx. 100
Geological: Y(See introductory test)
Topo: Est. Variation 651 to656 MSL
Approximately 10 industrial firms and 20 residential
houses are located on this site.
Site is Zoned for Single Dwelling Residential,
Restricted and Genera,! Industry.
N: Mostly unoccupied land
E: Approach area for runway
W: Residential and industry.
S: O'Hare Airport Maintenance Expansion Area.
Area to E, N and W are zoned for restricted and
general Industry.
Availability Unknown-Negotiations for land acquisition
would involve 20 to 30 owners-Condemnation possible-
Legal proceedings likely to take up to 1.5 years.
Higgins Creek - On Site
200 '*
(None Required)
(None Required)
7300
10
18- mos.
36
Land Acquisition
Concurrent Activities:
Relocation of Business & People
Design, Reviews, Etc,
Total 54 mos,
Site is divided by Old Higgins Road.
Federal Relocation Act applies - all businesses
a'nd private citizens must 'be compensated in
accordance with the Act. -,
Q-12
-------
Site No. 7
1) Location
2) Area (Acres)
3) Physical Description
4) Improvements on Site
5) Site Zoning and Description
of Surrounding Area
6) Availability of Land
7) Receiving Stream
8) Length of Outfall (FT)
9) Channel Improvements Required
on Plant Site and Downstream
of Plant Site (CFS)
10) Channel Relocation Required
on Plant Site (FT)
11) Length of Influent Sewer
From Tunnel to .Plant (FT)
12) Compensatory Storage
j
13) Project Delay Incurred by
Relocating O'Hare WRP to
Site No. 7
14) Other Considerations
DuPage County
Part of O'Hare Intl. Airport approach area
for Runway 9L
Approx. 100-f.
Geological: ^(See introductory text)
Topo: Lst. Variation 659 to 662 MSL
Most of site in flood plain-The site is very
wet and marshy
No above or underground improvements known to
bj existing on site.
«
The site is surroanded by O'Hare Airport to the
north, east and south. The area to west, across
Elmhurst Rd., is zoned for restricted and general
industrial uses.
Availability Unknown-Land Acquisition by condeunation
not possible-Negotiations likely to take over 2.0 years
Willow Creek
200
(None Required) f»
(None Required)
13,000
10
Land Acquisition
Design, Reviews, Etc
24 mos.
36
TOTA!L= 60 mos.
MSDGC has no power of condemnation in DuPage County-The
site appi/>,rs to be in or near "Clear Zone", ••where above
ground structures are prohibited-No direct access to
site unless overpass or underpass is bui^t across Cf-lw'
R.R.-Wet condition of site may require pilings for
all structures.
Q-13
-------
Site No. 8A
1) Location
2) Area (Acres)
3) Physical Description
4) Improvements on Site
5) Site Zoning and Description
of Surrounding Area
6) Availability of Land
7) Receiving Stream
8) Length of Outfall (FT)
9) Channel Improvements
Required on Plant Site
and Downstream of Plant
Site (CFS)
10) Channel Relocation Required
on Plant Site (FT)
11) Length of Influent Sewer
From Tunnel to Plant (FT)
12) Compensatory Storage
Required (AC-FT)
33) Project Delay Incurred by
Relocating O'Hare WRP to
Site No. 8A
Other Considerations
Unincorporated Area of DuPage County
South of Devon, West of Elmhurst
Approx. 75
Geological: _. (See introductory text)
Topo: Est. fVariation 656. to 665 MSL
Half of site in flood plain
Approx. 8 industrial firms located on eastern
side of propcrty-4 residential houses on western
side,
Site Zoned For Indusfcry-
N&E: Southern and western edge of Centex
Industrial Park
W: Approx. 12 residential houses
S: Unoccupied land within corporate limits
of Bensenville
Surrounding area to North, West and South are zoned
for Light Industry.
Availability Unknown-Land Acquisition by condemnation
not possible-Direct negotiations with owners likely
to take 2.0 years.
Branch of Willow Creek - On
200
585
2000
12,400
32
Land Acquisition
Design, Reviews, Etc.
24 mos.
36
TOTAL= 60 mos.
•>
MSDGC does not have power pf eminent domain
in DuPage County.
Q-1U
-------
Site No. 8B
]) Location
2) Area (Acres)
3) Physical Description
4
4) Improvements on Site
5) Site Zoning and Description
of Surrounding Area
6) Availability of Land
7) Receiving Stream
8) Length of Outfall (FT)
9) Channel Improvements Required
on Plant Site and Downstream
of Plant Site (CFS)
10) Channel Relocation Required
on Plant Site (FT)
11) Length of Influent Sewer
' From Tunnel to Plant (FT)
12) Compensatory Storage
Required (AC-FT)
13) Project Delay Incurred by
Relocating O'tlare WRP at •
Site No. 8B
14) Other Considerations
Unincorporated Area of Du Page County
West of Elmhurst, North of Flick-Reedy
Approx. 75
Geological:.,(See introductory text)
Topo: Est. 'Variation 656 to 666 MSL
Half of site in flood plain
No improvements on site as far as is known.
Site Zoned for Industry
N: Southern edge of Centex Ind. Park
W: Unoccupied land ftithin corporate limits
of Bensenville
S: Industry (Flick-Reedy)
E: O'Hare Airport
Site totally surrounded by industry zoning
Land known to be for sale, but if mutually agreeable
price cannot be reached between owners and MSD,
condemnation process cannot be used to acquire this
site. Negotiations likely to take at least 2.0 years,
Branch of Willow Creek - On Site
200 »*J
585
(None Required)
12,400
32
Land Acquisition 24 mos.
Design, Reviews, Etc. 36
TOTAL* 60 mos.
MSDGC does not have power of eminent domain in
Du Page County,
Q-15
-------
1) Location
2) Area (Acres)
3) Physical Description
«
4) Improvement on Site
5) Site Zoning and Description
of Surrounding Area
6) Availability of Land
7) Receiving Stream
8) Length of Outfall (FT)
9) Channel Improvements Required
on Plant Site and Downstream
of Plant Site (CFS)
10) Channel Relocation
Required on Plant Site (FT)
11) Length of Influent Sewer
From Tunnel to Plant (FT)
12) Compensatory Storage
Required (AC-FT)
13) Project Delay Incurred by
Relocating O'Hare WRP to
Site Ho. 9
14) Other Considerations
Site No. 9
Unincorporated Area of Cook County
South of Oakton, West of Busse, East
of Crossen, North of Bruramel
Approx. 80
V
Geological: (See introductory text)
Topo: list. Variation 683 to 686 MSL
3 houses, 1 farm structure, 10 light industrial
f " - TT, • 11 r r ' " n~r '
manufacturing io.i...i v.,uj.^ ..-^.n.j.^i^--ajj.u.to.
Dimension 900' x 990' x 26')
Size Zoned for Restricted and General Industry
N: Industry and unoccupied land.
E: Industry and commerce
S&W: Approx. 20 light industrial firms
Site totally surrounded by Restricted and
General Industry zoning
Availability unknoun-A portion of Halo Lighting
would be required-Acquisition by condemnation
possible-Legal proceedings likely to take 2.0
years
»«
No receiving stream on site '
2700
185
None Required
7290
None Required
Land Acquisition 24 mos.
Concurrent Activities:
Relocation of People & Business
Design, Reviews, Etc. . 36
Total 60 mos.
Q-16
-------
1) Location
2) Area (Acres)
Site No. 10
Unincorporated Area of Cook County
South of N.W. Tollway, West of Wolf Rd.
100+
3) Physical Description (See Introductory text)
Geological: Topo: Est. variation from 645 to 655 MSL.
Most of site in Flood Plain.
4) Improvements on Site: Mo above or below grade improvements as
far as is known.
5) Site Zoning and Des-
cription of Surroun-
ding Area:
Site mostly zoned*for single family
houses.
N: Residential zoning across N.W. Tollway
E: Unoccupied land zoned for Residential
S: O'Hare Intl. Airport
W: Restricted and General Industry
6) Availability of Land Availability not known - condemnation
possible - outright purchase more
likely - negotiation for acquisition
probably within 1.0 year
7) Receiving Stream
Willow Creek - On Site
8) LengLh of Outfall (ft) 200
9) Channel Improvements 653
Required on Plant Site
& Downstream of etc.(CFS)
10) Channel Relocation
Required on Plant Site (FT)
11) Length of Influent Sewer
From Tunnel to Plant(FT)
12) Compensatory Storage ,
Required (AC-FT) '
13) Project Delay Incurred By >
Relocating O'Hare WRP
to Site No. 10
14 ) Other Consideration
900
10,500 >
217
Land Acquisition
Design Reviews Etc.
Total
12 mos.
36 mos.
48 mos.
Q-17
-------
Part II - Cost Effective Analysis
Cost effective analysis was performed on the ten (10) possible
plant, sites identified in Part I. •;
TV
*
The ten sites are costed based on monies required to render the
Site, u o ii>j i O j_ . i». ».* £« O iV c~ <._j ( . L _ i ^ <.i 111. __
monies required in relocating the O'Hare ttRP to another site
from the present plant location, Site No. 1.
The cost analysis is summarized in Tables I and II. Table I
indicates two totals, one without consideration to time value
of money and one with. The former assumes that the cost of
construction will remain unchanged, whereas the latter assumes
that cost of constructing the plant will increase at a rate
approximately equal to 1.0% per month above the currently
estimated construction cost of O'Hare WRP ($100 million). The
first total, without consideration to time value of money,
(which, we believe, is an unrealistic assumption) demonstrates
that even with zero cost escalation, keep\Lng the O'Hare WRP at
the presently proposed site is the most cost effective alter-*1
j
native. The second total, with consideration given to time value
:>
of money, represents the more realistic value of additional costy
which would be incurred in relocating the plant to another site.
0-18
-------
Table II summarises the cost effective analysis based on
energy consumption at various sites. The amoxmts given are
the present worth of the estimated annual power cost at each
-1"
site from 1978 to 2000. *"
•*
Explanation of cost elements and their criteria are as
given below:
*
A. Land Costs:
Land costs are derived using Olcott's Land Value
Blue Book of Chicago, 1974. Sites Ho. 1 and No. 2
result in no additional cost to the MSDGC as they
are presently owned by the MSDGC. Values for Sites
,*<
3 through 10 represent the difference between selling
price of Site No. 1 and purchase price of an alter-
nate site. Minus indicates that land cost for that
particular site v;as less than the selling price of
Site No. 1 resulting in a net gain. Thus, the amount
is subtracted from the total.
\
B. Influent Sewer:
.*
The influent sewer costs for varic/us sites are derived
by using the following criteria:
Q-19
-------
1) Diameter = 10 ft
2) Slope = 0.001
3) Cost Per Foot = $600 V
"4) Invert Elev. of 20 Ft. Main Tunnel Adjacent
to Site No. 1 - -80.02 CCD
5) Invert Elev. of 10 Ft. influent Sewer Adjacent
to Site No. 1 = -95.00 CCD
C. Outfall Conduit, Improvementc to Channel on Plant
Site, Improvements to Channel Downstream of Plant
Site, Relocation of Channel and Compensating Reservoir:
Criteria used for costing these items are "es follows:
1) Hydrologic Data:
Bank Fill Bank*
lite
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8A
8B
9
10
Cap a c i ty ( CF S ) Elev.
306
112
NA
370
NA
NA
NA
182
182
NA
1397
654.1
657.5
657.6
651.2
NA
651.5
659.7
656.8
656.8
NA
645.6
Design Storm Design Storir
Flow (CF£)
822
430
1055
909
V' NA
1137
895
767
767
NA
2050
Elev.
656,1*
658 .3
650.8
653.7*
NA
647.5
652.8'
658.3
653.3
NA
646.4
Q-2O
-------
Notes:
a) NA - Information Not Available
b) On Site Detention - 10 Acre Ft. (All Sites)
c) Aver.acje Daily Plant ^low - 72 MGD.
d) Maximum Plant Flow - ^£0 MGD.
'e) Plant Outfall Conduit Capacity - 192 MGD.
f) * Includes Maximum Plant Flow
2) Cost Data:
a) Compensatory Storage - $8,000/Acre Ft.
b) Channel Improvement on Plant Site at Design
Storm Flow ------ $3/cu. yd.
c) Channel Improvement Downstream of Plant Site
at Design Storm Flow Plus Maximum •«
Plant Flow ^ ----- $3/cu. yd.
d) Channel Relocation at Design Storm
Flows -----__-•_ $3/cu. yd.
e) Plant Outfall Conduit, 7 ft. Diameter - - $350/ft.
D. Reimbursements to Displaced Businesses and People:
Cost for this element is based on an estimated value,
of businesses and personal properties affected at each
site. All or the applicable requirements set forth in
the Federal Relocation Act are assumed to be enforced
in deriving this cost.
Q-21
-------
S. Additional Design Cost:
This cost element applies to every site except for
Site No. 1, where the treatment facility has already
been designed.
*
It is believed that a plant at each site must be
tailor-designed to suit that specific site. Critics
have argued that O'Hare WRP as designed for Site
No. 1 could be "transplanted" to another site
necessitating only slight modifications in the design.
While this argument may be partly true, there are
factors such as ground conditions, location and
elevation of receiving stream, arrangement of main
buildings, and arrangement of processes in relation
to the buildings which make the translation of the
Site No. 1 plant in its present configuration most
difficult, if not impossible. With the possible excep-
tion of Site No. 4, relocating o'Hare WRP to any other
site would require a complete redesign.
* 4
F. Anticipated Increase in Construction Cost Due to Delays:
This cost element merely represents a trend of
spiralling construction cost which is associated
with time.
-------
< i-3
V O
M ft
£ w
(D I-1
0 W,
ct
O
ft) H-
< 3
ft)
"
M
M
O
V-1
UJ
o
I-1
L 'ru- ' ' "*""*"
0
NJ
CD
Ul
CO
cx>
U)
O 3
3 ft
CD h1-
rt O
T5
r: fJ
O rt
o< O
rt PJ
V? H
,T> O
M
rt (D
O CD
CO
o ro
ro
M H
cu y
Ul
*
o
U)
0s!
o
o
o
Oi
o
o
o
o
Ul
fi.
0
o
t-J rr
d t>
(D M
O <
Hi p-
rt
o b
O rt
H-
CO .
H1
OJ
O
Ul
(.U
0
— J
O
NO
Uc
U)
r~*
a,
D,
rt
Design
o
o
Ul
rt
O
0
O
O
U)
o
o
o
n
o
_
I--1 "•« X!
o ro t!
O O [-'•
DJ ra N
(t M (J1
o
^ Hi rt
0 0
t-3 M
X W
~j r~-j £
O en w
l"5 en H-
M ro D
o rt ro
CO
{?"* fl)
CO
ft) !?»
j.
o
M
I—1
CO
GJ
O
N
U)
J1
0 > "
(
ro n
'3 O
;o -j
r> n
'-1 • CJ
I-! rr
ih
-
00
c
N^
CO
o
CO,
-23
"> O
'0 O
jj-1 n
rr f-1-
CO Li
rt- o
0 Hi
O
CJ
y
ro
M
-0
o
01
o
o
'
H
*' 3
^J
^ M
M <
={ '
to Char
t Site
13
ro
i_j
vD
O
(0
O
O
-
O H
o h5
5 H
CO <
ft •
ro rt
TJ O
o
o ^
Hi W
M b
OJ h-1
3
rt
o
o
^4
o
D
o
rt
tu
0
ci
rt
O
O
O
Ul
— 1
"I
H
D
O
rt
ro
ro
NJ
O
o
o
Ul
.*J
o
OJ O
o
V)
O O
O ^
Co
O CL
•0
i- it,
O
?n"!c'J'
fl" U"!
o
^ o o j: -,
o
,• m
Hi
i rt
CO O
o o
o°!o
-------
X-
I'1 c' r ^
K 0 rd H-
o re ~-\
,•: a. 'j o'
rj- o, c:
rt o H- i-l
UJ ^ Jj (n
t-Q O
fi o :-;
^ i-1 0 iD
3 " rt
'•i. H • 13'
H- D O Mi
rt^ PI :•; O
O 0 r^
rt " Q D
ft> X
ft V hrt
1 J- rt- M hi
M r-1- OJ 'J
O K .^ HJ
!D rt £
<, M to
01 '•< h>- ft
I-1 ' W ^
i.--. H-
(3 ID CD
i-ii l-S I—1
o o n
(fi H 0-' 13
2 CU
T r! u) i-<
o ^ CD ;V
y o QJ
'•--; i -< o to
• PJ ^3
rh hj-
n rt tl
(D t3J O
H H- h-1
in d
O Oj
(3 t/) fi)
in H- PJ
rt rt
Q W
£ >. tn
O
c n H-
i-j O rt
O. M
O H
DJ 6 a)
ft) ru 'C1
n rt- M
{1 i— J . iT)
'" O tn
CD M n>
'i
•i/i rh rt
t(\ y (!)
K> ^ w
^ „ 'd'
S Q O
rt
WOO)
0. D r-:
H-
• r>' fu
Ul CD M
ro
•MO
io o o
(T\ 1 rn
wl I L/J
if*. rt
•t'.
< *
r~J r^
§ ^
O :-3
l-ti H-
rt
s H"
(D
O
'P1
>l^
^J
o
\»
LO
4^-
Ul
"^J
LO
^
-J
^
*.
^j
{*)
CO
1
n v
c ;j
r^ ri
'O
fj rt
C Ci.
0 '
o
o
Ul
4
o
o
o
en
o
**
o
o
o
tK " **""*'
o
o
o
o
^ ,
r"'' c
-1 r I*
. i fti
ft) M
0 ^
ithout Tirfi
f ilonev
ro
CJ
o
p,'i-
^.
M
0^
w
U!
.^
Ul
— 1
(jj
-J
O
l~>
J"'*
tj
CO
x*^
O-
Qj
ri
M
d
(D
(/)
H-
a
o
o
LO
rt
LO
o
O
O
(O
w
o
0
0
co
V*
o
0
0
.
co
o
o
o
•£•
?) ^1 V
rJ Q Q
--, o H.
J '0 M
o i-1 bj
'" (T) •
t
to Busines
for Assets
ic/; Siuens
D tn
fr> (D
tn
fr
co
--J
CO
o
ft
CO
w
I—1
CT>
Ul
o
•
J
Ul
M
co
(Ti
-— '
\-> O
("J O
C/) '
ro '-;
< :j
O t/)
H- OJ
f1 rt
H-
M
cQ
,_,
IO
co
CO
o
m
o
>
03
D
•^
C> Vj
r> o
i — i
ht) C^
f- 0
DJ p
•3 rt
tt H-
O
C/J 3
H-
r^ 0
CD Hi
n
3
l^s
fi)
t— '
*
i_i
fo
o
0
OD
ji
c;
o
1 ~''r
^ <
ni •"
us
to Channel
r. Site
,K.
to
*•
0
0
>,
v
-0
Ul
~L-.
O H
o y
"!•" ^r)
3 ^
rt •
>-!
to Channel
earn of Pla
3
rt
CO
to
O
' '
D
\J
0
^
O
-t
-h
— i
Conduit .
^j
o
^j
D
-0
O
-o
0
^
-1
3
hti
3
rt
CO
-!
CO
o
0
o
4^
U)
CO
o
_,
CO
o
D
-J
^
fi
D
c
tr"
»-^
a
w — , i
M CO IV)
rt Ul >-
O
D^ to
< 0 0
OJ
- ©
_>
D •
O
11 •
•vl
•y> ui
:o tn
' <-Q
•^-J Hi
33 rt
2£
•— *°
-r| ^-x -h
M M 01
-f- O Ui
• 0 0
<^ ^
3J O
— j
:i ©
ft
•co-
ll (— '
•
CA to
JT Ul
' CO
-!>' iQ
Ji Hi
•S rt
™~'
W — . -)-
:n t— ' 10
rt o «.
1 O CO
to
< ;j> o
2> o
— 1
~* ^-D
T)
-co-
ll [_J
f
o us
• tn
v^ ^0
v) t-f!
iJ rt
7.i -~s 1^
•t Ul <-
to
!)>• O
^ 0 0
u
~> (p
IJ ^^
1 \~>
^> o
n
o
CO
1-1
^
0
CO
CO
H
t'j
.!— 1
O
•
Ul
CO
M
l
-------
* Reimbursement f
Depending on ho
eliminated. Fo
with and withou
rt h £ O
M
rt rt rt
H- 3* r.r ti,
',"J CD fD 01
»fl) &—1
h' tJ O
OJ rt PJ f
I-1 rt ;.J H
c-" 0) rt I.Q
f& '"< D
H- ri
O O M H
MI ni ;i
in n' LQ
•J fD H
o <• l~i H
fD n n
>•<; o »i} H
• cn fD a
rt a O
t * d
O H QJ
d fD fD
Gi O
n w
ty P cn
fD rt
O H- H-
O O ft
(D ' M
fD fD
-C/> !>j TJ
**J '0 !~t
• fD n>
o r> M
CA cn m
••J fD 3
(/) rt
3 0
a fu (D
• *TJ
Cn ti' O
-J (D rt
fD
o n 3
0^ a> rt
•-J DJ h1-
d DJ
MI n M
O fD
. h d, O
o
O CO
H rt
*
h-1
N)
cu d
M rt
C CJ
fD I-1
O i^
Ml P-
O
0) H-
< 3
o
o
tn
-J
to
^
tn
(j; •"•-"—-
M
O
CO
I-1
I-1
Anticipated Incr i
Cost Due to Delays
2
o
o
cn
rt
o
o
6
o
o
o
o
-£"
CO
o
o
o
1_
-
Total Without Time
Value of Money
o
o
U1
to
tn
cn
-j
h- >
O
CO
if*.
£,
Addt'l Design Cost
to
O
o
o
to
O
o
o
•*M>--"tr
to
O
O
O
CO
Reimb. to Business
People for Assets
Relocation Expense
fr o
cn
(V,
o
cn
U1
o
o
*
*
0
•^
Compensating
Reservoir
to
Ol
CO
o
M
^
Q-2$
2i
O ^)
rj a)
'•o o
hj fj
w n;
D fT
rf H-
0
tn 3
rt O
fD Mi
. O
** B
fD
O
O
t-J
0
to
Irr.prv. to Channel
on 1 lant Site
tn *
0
V
*
tn
i
Imprv. to Channel
Downstream of Plar
rt
o
"'
to
o
to
Outfall Conduit
o
VD
Ul
O
to
Influent Sewer
-j
"co
cn
o
*
to
00
0
ljuja
o\
to
O
o
»,
^
0)
a
.-^ , ^— .—_*•.
W -v 1
cn -o 1-1
rt (n >•
> O
^ (el
^
fD -co-
I—1
11 •
• '
-c/> o
to
' w
1, L-
s, Mi
"— rt
W *-» 1
IT. CO \->
rr O >•
^y r"^
< O O
^ ©
J
Ci> -ift
\->
\ •
O
-W O
LO
(n
ir
^ tti
' — ft
«
cn ('--> 10
t o ^
O OJ
to
< :;j o
CJ 0
^ f~,
fD '7
•CO
B h-
1—1
r° *-"
C"> cn
c • ;
("J
o
0';
h
O
—
r*-*
M
M
r •
*
CO
ta
- -v
"n
• -i
P
{£s
1
r 1
C' '
h- ;
1--,
t"~>
' \
'' '(
C )
1
-------
TABLE II
Comparative Energy Costs at Various Sites
Site No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8A
8B
9
10
Present Worth of
Total Energy"^'
Costs 1978-2000
18,074,000
18,255,000
19,032,000
18,179,000
19,201,000
18,569,000
18,407,000
19,141,000
19,167,000
19,288,000
18,123,000
Additional Energy Costs
Incurred at Sites
Other Than No. 1
Between 1978-2000 ($)
181,000
938,000
105,000
1,127,000
495,000
333,000
1,067,000
1,093,000
1,214,000
49,000
Notes:
'<
1) Present Worth of Annualized Energy Cost in-
cludes energy required for air blowers, raw
sewage pumping, and miscellaneous plant
operations.
2) Energy requirement is assumed to increase
3)
linearly from 1978 to 2000.
Costs given are in 1975 dollars.
4) Interest rate assumed at 6.0%.
5) Unit energy cost assumed at $0.025/kw.hr.
Q-26
-------
The following comments are directed to the compatibility of
existing land use surrounding each of the nine (9) alternate
potential sites for the O'Hare WRP. These sites are identified in
the USEPA Environmental Impact Statement for the plant. One
additional site identified in the EAS prepared by MSDGC is commented
on at the end of the list. (Identified as Site 10 in Attachment A)
These statements are prefaced by the following:
1. Since aesthetic aspects of plant design would /unquestionably
vary according to the site, they have a direct bearing
on land use compatibility. With appropriate consideration
given to architectural features, site and landscape
design, each of the sites may be considered compatible
with the land uses found around them.
2. Existing use on the- potential sites is an extremely
important factor in terms of relocation costs, >
inconvenience, construction delay and increased construction
cost. To the extent that these factors may be minimized,
one particular site, site number one (1), is considered
more compatible than the others.
Site #1 North of Northwest Tollway and East of Elmhurst Road
This 104 acre vacant site is bounded by industry on the east
and west, the Northwest Tollway on the south and residential land on
north. The residential land is predominantly single family,.detached
units on lots about one half acre in size. The high quality
proposed architectural design and site detailing, make this site
compatible with the existing industrial, transportation and low densi
surrounding land uses.
Q-27
-------
Site #2 - South of Northwest Tollway, West of Elmhurst Road
Northeast of Higgins Road
The Northwest Tollway separates this triangular site from
an area of light industry on the north. To the east, separated by "
Elmhurst Road, is a tank farm and a large trailer park. Adjacent,
on the south, is a developing area of light industry. To the south,
across Higgins Road is an area of light industry and single
family houses. The site is vacant. With some degree of architectural anc ,
tif
site detailing, this site'*would be compatible with the existing
land uses in the area. ~-
*,
Site #3 - O'Hare Maintenance Expansion Area
•*
This site, located on O'Hare International Airport, is the site
of a potential stormwater reservoir. The surrounding land use is
predominantly industrial in nature. Only routine architectural and
siting considerations would be required for compatibility-.
Site #4 - East of Elmhurst Road, South of Northwest Tollway
Unincorporated Cook County
A mobile home community is located on this site. Considerable
relocation costs and delays would be encountered with development
of this site since numerous families would be involved.
The vacant area north of the site is separated from it by the \
Northwest Tollway. To the east, a tollway plaza and an industrial
area lie at the far side of a 90 acre tract of vacant land. To the
south, industrial uses, separated by Higgins Road and a small vacant
tract of land, represent the predominant land use. Industrial
.uses, across Elmhurst Road border the site to the west. Only
routine architectural and site considerations would be required
for compatibility with the existing land use.
Q-28
-------
Site #5 - Ea^o of Busse, South of Oakto.
This site is in the Centex Industrial Park. Site #2 lies due
east of it across Higgins Road. Industrial construction is taking
place on the site and would cause considerable relocation
difficulties and cost increases. Single family homes are locattJ
southeast of the site and compatibility with existing land usfe is
slightly more dependent on a higher degree of archtectural design ai
site considerations because of this.
Site #6 - West of Mourit Prospect Road, South of Touhy
v * " '
This site has a few homes and several industrial developments.
v
Old Higgins Road bisects the propose^, site. Extensive relocation
*
"ik
of businesses and residences would be necessary. Only routine
site and architectural considerations are necessary for
compatibility with existing uses.
Site #7 - Approach area Runway 9L
This site is located on O'Hare Airport. Development of this site
I
may cause a safety hazard due to Runway 9L. Development of a WRP,
therefore, would be inconsistent with airport operations.
Site #8 - . Vacant parcels south of Devon, west of
Elmhurst Road
These sites are located east and south of the Centex Industrial
Park in DuPage County. Vacant land and industrial development
surround these sites. Depending on the type of development of the
adjacent area (most probably industrial), architectural and site
considerations would range from standard to high quality to be
compatible.
Q-29
-------
Site =j!9 - West of Buss;c, south of Oakton
Unincorporated Cook County
This site is part of the Centex Industrial Park. Site 4r5
lies due east of this cite, across Busse Road. Only routine
>
architectural and site considerations are necessary for
compatibility with existing uses.
Site # 10-adjacent to O tare .Airport, west of Lee Street
The site is bordered on the north by the Northwest Tollway.
Residential and commercial areas are located north of the Toll-
way. The remaining three sides of the site are bordered by
industrial development to the west and unoccupied land to
the east and south. Only routine architectural and site
considerations would be necessary for compatibility with
existing uses.
Q-30
-------
a
*
Envi ron_menta 1 Ma t r i x; ^
A summary environmental matrix for the ten sites identified in
either the EIS or the EAS is presented herein. The table is
- /'
preceded by a brief discussion of environmental factors
*
addressed for each site and justifications for assigning the
indicated scores.
i
Environmental Factors;
A. Water Quality;
As a result of constructing the O'Hare WRP, the impact
on the water quality will ultimately be beneficial and
will affect the entire drainage basin. The quality of
.*«
<
the receiving stream will be enhanced due to the anti-
cipated high quality of O'Hare WRP's effluent. Other streams
within the O'Hare Facility Area which presently receive
combined sewer overflows will also be improved as result
of reduction in such discharges. These improvements will
be effected within and outside the O'Hare Facility Area
\
regardless of the p.lant location. Thus, for the ultimate
condition, it can be assumed that one site would, be no .•
more or no less advantageous than an o-her in terras of impact
on water quality.
Q-31
-------
On the otherhand, if the plant is to be relocated
from the presently proposed Site No. 1, there will be
substantial project delays extending up to maximum of
•5 years depending on the particular alternate site
V
selected. During this delay, more combined sewage
4
overflow will be discharged to the streams, frequency
of basement flooding will be greater, and the probability
of North Side Plant becoming overloaded*will be increased.
Therefore, in terms of environmental impact in the near
future, all sites must be graded negatively in the matrix
except Site No. 1.
Collectively, that is considering the near future and the
ultimate conditions, only Site No. 1 can be assigned the
most beneficial rating.
B. Air Quality:
Before proceeding with the discussion of impact on air
quality at the various sites, several pertinent comments
are in order. \
*
First, the MSDGC firmly believes that the proposed O'Hare '
)
WRP will in no way adversely affect the air quality surrounding
the plant site. This implies that aerosols generated by the
plant will not pose any health hazard to the people residing
Q-321
-------
or working near the plant.
If there was an objectionable emission, it would be
necessary to determine ito effect upon some impacted area.
To assess the environmental effects of an air pollution
v<
source^ the impacted area must be defined. What are the
dimensions and geometry of an impacted area? Considering
the sources and types of imaginary air poButants, it is
*.
the opinion of the MSDGC that the impacted area is limited
to a zone immediately adjacent to the plant and within 500
feet of its boundaries.
Since the baseline assumption is that the O'Hare WRP is
allegedly an air pollution source, every site is assigned
;*
a negative environmental impact rating. However/ Sites No.
4, No. 5 and No. 9 are rated as having a severely adverse
impact because of their proximity to a large number of
people either residing or working in the adjacent area
(within' 500 feet of plant boundaries) .
A plant relocated to Site No. 4 would displace all of the
Oasis Mobile Home Park and the northern half of Lehman's
-------
Park and the Touhy Mobile Home Park. The remain-
ing portion of latter two mobile parks would accomodate
approximately IjOOO people. Nearly half of these people
would bo residing within the 500,feat limits of the plant.
f.
A plant relocated on Site No. 9 would be surrounded pre-
dominately by light industry buildings;. Most of these
buildings appear to be used for combination of office,
warehouse and production purposes. Excluding a plant owned
by Halo Lighting, approximately 600 persons would be
situated in the impacted arc-:a. In addition to the 600,
another 1200 employees of the Halo Lighting Company would
be located in the impacted area if the 0'IIare WRP could be
*4
located on land adjacent to, but not occupied by 'the Halo
Plant. If Halo Lighting Company is displaced from the site,
the obvious first effect would be to displace 1200 persons,
but a secondary effect would be to reduce the number of people
>
in the impacted area to about 600. In summary, the potential
number of people affected by locating the plsnt at Site No.
9 is in the range of 600 to 1800.
*
+
A plant relocated to Site No. 5 could affect the employees
of Halo Lighting and SDK Industrial Park as well as the
people residing in the residential area located southeast
of Site No. LI. The number of people affected would vary
considerably depending on how and where the plant is
-------
located within the site. Potentially, the range of
number of people affected varies from 200 to 1400.
Site No. 1, although adjacent to a residential area, does
not affect as many people within-the assumed impacted
r*'
area as sites No. 4, No. 5 or No. 9. Within the impacted
area there are approximately 50 homes and two medium size
industrial complexes. The number of people affected at
*.
Site No. 1 is therefore estimated to be less than 300.
C. No is a I
Noise generated by routine plant operation will be attenuated
by use of acoustical building materials and mechanical devices.
Noise will be minimized to the extent that it will not be
detectable beyond the plant limits. Hence, the site selection
process is not affected by consideration of noise as an
impact on the environment.
D. Visual Effect on tlie Surrounding Area;
The proposed O'Hare WRP is designed to\have an aesthetically
pleasing appearance. The four main buildings will have an '•
^ '
earthy brownish brick facing mixed with glass and precast
architectural concrete. Areas exposed to the public will
be architecturally landscaped. In general, the plant
Q-35
-------
complex will be similar in appearance to many office
parks or light manufacturing buildings found in the
surrounding areas. Since all of the sites considered,
are adjacent to areas zoned for light industry, the plant >
is visually well suited for placement in any of the sites
considered. Thus, site selection process is not influenced
to any substantial degree by consideration of visual impact
on the various sites.
E* Flood Potential;
For any plant site considered it is assumed that the channel
located on site will be improved to handle a 100 year storm
flov and that channel located downstream of the plant will
be improved to carry flow equal to 100 year storm flow plus
the maximum plant flow. In addition to improvements to the
receiving stream, compensatory storage will be provided for
all sites at which it is required. Construction of the plan£
will in no way aggravate the flood potential conditions which
now exist at the sites considered.
In all likelihood, flood potential will be lessened because
of the construction of O'Hare WRP. The impact would then
be considered as being positive and apply equally to all
sites. Furthermore, stream relocation at any of the plant
sites considered will not adversely affect the environment.
-------
Summary of Matrix Impacts
SITES
Quality
-Water
Air
Noise
Visual' Effect
Flood Potential -t-1
Net Impact
1
4-2
-1
0
0
4-1
+ 2
2
4-1
-1
0
0
4-1
4-1
3
+ 1
-1
0
0
4-]
4
-: i
-2
0
0
4-1
Til o
5
-! 1
—2
0
0
4-1
0
G
-Hi
"•0
"o
0
+1
4-1
7
4-1
— 1
0
0
4-1
4-1
8A
+ 1
-3
0
0
-' 1
4-1
8B
4-1
-1
0
0
4-1
4-1
9
4-1
-2
0
0
4-1
0
10
4-1
-1
0
0
4-1
+1
Key:
4-2
-fl
0
_i
-2
Highly Beneficial
Above Average Benefits
No Effects
Adverse Effects
Severely Adverse Effects
Based on the foregoing subjective assessment it can
be concluded that Site 1 is somewhat superior tq all
'<•
other sites considered, but other sites could be
environmentally acceptable.
Q-37
-------
Response to Ward's Criticism on /^r Quality
»
1) Pg. 43 (Slide #19)
If Site No. 4 were selected, and if the O'Hare WRP were
located on approximately 65 acres of land the Oasis Mobile
Home Park and the northern half of Touhy and Lehman Mobile
-• i
t*
Home Parks would be displaced leaving about 2500 people
4
homeless. Approximately 1000 people would remain in the
impacted area immediately adjacent to the plant.
*.
Mr. Ward's statement regarding Site No. 5 is in error.
Within, half mile there is a trailer park (Willoway Trailer
Park on Oakton) in which an estimated 700 people reside.
In addition, residential homes to southeast and west are
within the stated distance.
'"?
2) Pg. 43 (Slide #20)
The key word here is "relative". It is obvious that Mr.
Ward's interpretation of relative does not coincide with
that of the MSDGC.
We did not claim that Site No. 5 was surrounded by residential
homes only. Out statement read, "... Si^te No. 5 is
surrounded by residential houses and small manufacturing
*
firms on all four sides". This is a fact.
Q-38
-------
3) Pcj. 44 (Slide #21)
Response to this criticism is presented in the environ-
mental matrix description. Basically, our conclusion
was that more people would be afftocted at Site No. 4,
4
because of the mobile Vickie community, and at Site No. 5
because of the concentration of industry surrounding
the site. ^
4) Pg. 44 (Slide #22)
As previously stated in the environmental matrix state-
ment, we have assumed that the impacted area will be
adjacent to and within 500 feet of the plant boundaries.
In consideration of all the environmental precautions
,•«
<
being taken at the plant, we feel that this assumption
is reasonable.
9-39
-------
Frequency Of Odor Problems At The
O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant
An analysis of the odor potential at the O'Hare Water Reclamation
Plant was addressed in Volume 3, Section 2 of the MSDGC's "Public
Hearing Documents". This paper was prepared in the response to public
testimony received on the draft document entitled "Environmental
Assessment Statements For Proposed Projects For The Upper Des
Plaines Service Basin." The three possible odor generating
locations at the plant and the methods which will be used to
contain and neutralize these conditions were discussed in pages
14 to 19 of the odor control section of the report.
Previously, Mr. Lynam, in a letter to Mr. Richard F. Ward, dated
March 26, 1973, discussed the reliability of the North Side STW
odor complaint survey conducted in February 1973 as well as the
nature of the "odor problem" at this plant. A copy of Mr.
Lynam's letter is attached.
Q-UO
-------
BAKT T. LYNAM
. _
T O 71>r" ' " ^> /• * *"l ' 1 rA> '^ X;,T *>? \ '••" ""•» «• '*••>",•' l~ •• t f s'r" ••». - ei-'Tf
-val'v. MvxCi'ii-1^. ..3 .! ;;\/;< c>.i*5ui,.u«-..i, i^-jfsJTi.i. LIT
ICO UASTjl'RIE'ST., CHICAGO. ILLINOIS. GOG 1 \. .'-'., J 7 51_- .i 7 2 2
^Tr. not NT
UOAHO or Ti'
.'CAUNt M. AL1L
^OAM C. ANDCIT
JOMN t. CCA.N
VALtMTIME JASIC
CHt&TLR P. MAJt
NICHpLAS J k-tl.
ir; w. KOCH.-..
March 26, 1973
N
N.'
Mr. Richard F. Ward
1410 Miami Lane *
Des Plaines/ Illinois «
% .
Ref: Your letter dated February 22, 1973
o
Subject: O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant Project
Dear Mr. Ward:
• . t
Trustee J. Anderson has referred your letter of February 22f 1973
to me for a reply. Before answering the questions posed in year
letter.- I would like to take this opportunity to commend you for
your interest in the O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant (vvRP) Project
and for your concern for possible odor problems which you feel
could be associated with this facility.
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSDGC) 'is
highly cognizant of its responsibility in minimizing any adverse
effects of our operations on the environment. In regard to the
O'Hare WP.P Project, we have taken all reasonable measures in .
the design of this facility to insure that the probability of
odors emanating from the plant is exr.rernely soiall.
J.n answer to your letter, please find the following numbered
responses corresponding to the questions you submitted:
s
1. We have read the results of the
February 6, 1973 survey transmitted
by your February 8, 1973 memorandum
to the MSDGC Beard of Trustees.
Although we do not question your
intent to be objective in the
Q-U1
-------
Mr. Richard F. Ward March 26, 1973
Subject: O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant Project
handling of this survey information, we
do know that survey questions of this
type can be suggestive and introduce bias
into the results.
The development of survey'questionnaires is
a highly complex task. Organizations which
specialize in survey analysis often, employ
psychologists to assure that the questions
employed in the survey are "neutral" and
do not tend *to lead respondents.; to offer
a desired or undesired reply. It would
appear that the question, cis posed in your
questionnaire, presupposes that an odor
problem exists and cannot, therefore, be
considered a "neutral" query. Tie validity
of results obtained from such a question is,
at best, dubious.
2. A well operated aeration tank dofis>.not emit
obnoxious odors. The MSDGC is well known
I •for its excellence in maintaining and \
operating its treatment facilities.
Additionally, back-up systems are provided
for electrical power and critical c-schanical
equipment to insure continuous pQant. operations.
Therefore, the aeration tanks do ncot constitute
a problem area.
3. You have asked what specific steps the MSDGC will
take to eliminate the "odor problem" at the
North Side STW. The District does not consider
that an "odor problem" exists at tta North Sic3e
STW. However, we can assure you tliat whenever
an odor potential exists, plant operating pro-
cedures are immediately instituted to avoid any
problems.
4. The specific design differences between the
O'Hare WRP and the North Side STW vbich will
reduce the probability of obnoxious odors
being emitted are:
a. All grit, screenings and scran
•removed fron the wastewatcr will
-------
— 3 —
•
Mr. Richard F. Ward March 26, 1973
Subject: O'Hare Viator Reclamation Plant Project
5.
We
be collected and temporarily stored in
covered containers. These operations will ;
be performed in a temperature controlled
building and the filled containers will be
removed from Lhe plant site on a frequent routine
basis.
y*
All waste -"solids generated in the O'Hare WRP
will b'e pumped to the Salt Creek WRF for pro-
cessing • Processing at the Salt Creek WRP
includes solids concentration and heated
anaerobic digestion. **
*
•»
shall investigate if there are plants operating
in any part of the country which would be comparable
to the O'Hare WRP. This information will be trans-
mitted to you when it is available.
In regard to a plant tour of the North Side STW, we will be
happy to arrange a tour for any interested group. However,
before definite arrangements can be made for the tour, we would
like to know the size of the group and at least three (3) alter-
nate dates the group can be available for the tour. We would
then extend the invitation to the Mayor ana aldermen of the
City of Des Plaines, as well as to representatives of the
Villages of Arlington Heights, Mount Prospect and Elk Grove
Village. Additionally, we would be happy to arrange a meeting
with the consultant designing the plant to discuss the plant
features. , (
.r
If I can be of further assistance, please advise.
Very truly yours,
Bart 'TT 'Lynam
General Superintendent
cc: Board of Trustees
bcc: Messrs.
Lynam
Neil
Lue-Hing
Rimkus '•
Barbolirii
Variakojis
Kanabara
-------
ATTACHfftEMT E
Engineering Documents :
The engineering documents (plans and specifications) for the first
stage, 72 MGD Water Reclamation Plant, for Site 1 are virtually
complete. To modify these documents for a different site would
entail a considerable amount of engineering time and money
depending upon the shape, size and soil conditions of the site.
Locating the plant at a different site covild involve considerable
• •• ^
changes in the relative locations of various plant facilities
*,
including major sewage conduits, piping, electrical and other
»
•»
components. Also, complete redesign of foundations may be required
depending on the nature of underlying soil.
Need To Proceed With Project
The basic reason to proceed with the construction of the 0'Hare\
WRP is that the sewage originating in the O'Hare Sarvice Area
presently flows to the North Side Plant which will become over-
loaded without the construction of the O'Hare WRP. The annual '
daily average flows (domestic, industrial, infiltration and
rainfall which enters the combined sewer system) for the North
Side Plant and O'Hare WRP are as follows: (Assumes North Side
STW hydraulic capacity expanded to 500 MGD in 1980).
Q-UU
-------
Year North Side *(MOD) O'Hare **(MGD) Total *(MGD)
(1) (2) (3) = (l)+(2)
1970 291 30 321
1900
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
319
331
344
350
356
362
45
56
67 .
70 /•'
73
76 *
364
387
411
420
429
438
*Does not. include Egan WRP Service Area flow of 14 MGD which will
be diverted from the North Side STW to the Egan WRP in 1975
when Egan WRP goes on-line.
**O'Hare Service Basin flow does not include the 10% reserve capacity.
The North Side Plant is presently a secondary treatment plant
with a design capacity of 333 MGD and a hydraulic capacity of y
414 MGD. It is estimated that the design capacity of 333 MGD
will be reached in about the year 1975.
i
Another factor delineating the need for proceeding with the con-
struction of the O'llare WRP is the low ratio of the hydraulic
capacity to the design capacity of 1.2 4= (414 MCD)which would exist
(333MGB)
at the North Side Plant prior to hydraulic expansion. Without
either the construction of the o\iare WRP or t&e modification of
the North Side Plant this ratio will decrease with concomitant
deterioration of plant effluent quality.
Q-U5
-------
7\nothor ro.'latcd factor is that, the? combined pumpirg and
treatment capacity of the North Side and O'Harc plants
will be larger than just that of the North Side Plant. Thus,
the construction of the O'Hare WRP will result in a decrease
in the volume of combined sewer overflow and probability of
flooding for both service areas.
>
>•
Status of Storm Water Reservoir - Site 1
An approximately 65 acre-foot surface runoff storage basin is
being provided as a part of the O'Hare WRP. This basin will
be located just south of Wille Road on Site 1. The 65 acre-foot
volume is made up of the following components: 50 acre-foot •
i
of compensatory storage, 10 acre-foot of on-site detention,
I
and 5 acre-foot which is miscellaneous storage.
If the proposed plan of the MSDGC to construct the downstream
2,335 acre-foot Ravenswood Reservoir is successfully implemented,
the 65 acre-foot basin on the 0'IIare WRP site will be deleted
from the O'Hare WRP construction contract.
Q-U6
-------
I y M \aini tot ir-xi g r
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Updating The Cost-Effective Analysis
For The O'Hare WRP Alternates
The updating of the cost estinv-tes of the five alternates con-
sidered in the December,, 1965 "Report on Sewerage for the
Northwest Area" would not provide any viable input data because
of significant extensive changes that have been subsequently
made to the design criteria used as d basis in the report's com-
parative analysis, and tho subsequent 1EPA and NIPC approval of
the MSDGC separate drainage basin criteria (1).
The major changes in the original criteria are:
1.) The Greeley and Hansen Engineers' 1965 report on
on the Northwest area alternates is based on
reducing the quantity of combined sewage over-
flow only to the extent of providing 5:1 dilution
of raw sewage before discharging to the Des
Plaines River and small streams in the Upper Des
Plaines and Salt Creek drainage basins (2,3).
Under the concept of the TARP program the con- l
struction of the Northwest area tunnel storage
plan, 72 percent of the volume of combined
sewer overflows will be captured for complete
treatment at the O'Hare WRP, and the annual
average number of spills will be reduced by
92 percent from 80 to less than 6 (4). '
The construction of the Northwest Area Tunnel
and Reservoir will provide sufficient storage
to prevent spills resulting from the maximum
rainfall of 21 years of record, and eliminate
the backup of sewers into homos, provided local
sewer upgrading policy is implemented (5).
Q-U.7
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
2.) The sizing of the activated sludge facilities
used in the Greelcy and Hanson proposed alter-
nates are based on sludge agos of four days (3).
This design criterion is ineidcquate for achiev-
ing nitrification in a single-stage facility.
Recent MSDGC pilot plant studios at the West-
Southwest STP indicate a minimum SRT of 8-10
days is required for single-^tage nitrification.
.* >'
The O'Hare'WRP decision provides for the removal
of ammonia nitfogen via a two-stage activated
sludge process. The Greelcy and Hansen reports
do not include any process for meeting the IPCB
ammonia nitrogen criteria in any of the five
alternates investigated.
3.) No provisions are made for the inclusion of
tertiary treatment facilities in the Greeley
and Hansen report (6). To meet the IPCB
effluent discharge criteria of 4 mg/1 BOD
and 5 mg/1 suspended solids, mixed media tertiary
filters are included in the O'Hare WRP design (7).
4.) The Northwest area report rocommends the phasing
out of the Hanover Park and Streamwood WRP's.
The flow from these two plants would be conveyed,
via a 72-inch diameter sewer, to one of the five
alternate sites (8). The aroa to be serviced in
the Upper Des Plaincs Drainage Basin, as proposed
in the Greeley and Fan.yen study, includes those
portions of Hanover, Peilotino and Wheeling Town-
ships outside of Cook County (9).
Conversely, the Facilities Planning Study
recommends a 6 MGD expansion for the Hanover Park
WRP (10), and the replacement of the Streamwood
WRP with an 84-Inch interceptor to the Elgin Main
Plant (part of the Elgin Sanitary District)
projected for 1978.
Q-U8
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
The MSDGC plan of action also differs signi-
ficantly from the Greeley and Hansen 1965-66
reports in that the proposed defined Upper ;
Des Plaines Drainage Basin for the O'Hare
V7RP and Northwest area TARP does not extend
beyond the Cook Coiin'-v border (11).
Alternates A and B as indicated in the .Greeley and Hansen "Report
on Sewerage for the Northwest Area" provide sewer conveyance systems
to the West-Southwest and Northside Drainage Basins, respectively,
for the total flow from'-the Upper Des Plaines Basin, as defined in
the report (12). These alternates violate the MSDGC's separate
drainage basin criteria, and could result in a greater frequency
of flooding and possible aquatic biota kills from the shifting of
significant quantities of flow across natural drainage basins.
For these reasons the MSDGC is of the opinion that the O'Hare Area
Facilities Planning Study as revised, January, 1975 adequately
reflects the accumulation of planning knowledge and forethought
used to formulate the present status of the O'Hare Water Reclama-
tion Plant.
Any additional delays in reevaluating previously studied and re-
jected alternates encumbers an additional financial burden of
approximately $1.0 million per month delayed (13). This value
represents the sum of the effects on environmental and social
inventory of inadequately treated sewage effluent and the in-
flationary escalation of sewage treatment plant construction
costs. The erosion of the purchasing power of the MSDGC Con-
struction Bond Fund, also due to those inflationary pressures,
aggravates the effect of this financial burden, and hinders the
MSDGC in discharging its responsibility of protecting the
environment.
Q-U9
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
1.
6,
7.
8,
9,
10,
Footnotes
Letter from Dr. Richard Bricelancl to Pres. John Egan, '
September 6, 1974.
Report: on Sewerage for tl'K' Ik^thwervt Area., prepared by
Greeley and Han sen Engineers, August,, 1965, revised
December 20, 1965-* p. 17. •'
T- • "
Sumina r v of Recori'Vi i e nda ti o n r- In Gree .ley and Fa nsen Report^
Subm_i t Led to jth e 1 1SDGC 3. '3 C 5 -6jg_, p . i .
EnvironiLion bal Assesment SLate'inen 1" G Foc Pr oo sed
Pro j ec^t^s For Th_e Upper Dor;. P3_aim' ^ irasin,, prepared by
Consoer^ Townsend and Associates, November, 1974,
p.S«3, 4.
P^relimi n ary Plans _fo_r_ O_'_IKi;cc_ Co 1 ] c c t ion Fa c^ i.l ij:y_,
prepared by DeLeuv;, Gather and Coinpany, November, '
1972, p.V-4.
Report on Sewage for th e_ I Jo r thw e s t A r oa , p ,. 18.
Fja_c_.ll iJJ^c^K Planninr-; Study , ___O_' I!are_ _]•' ?: c i 1 j. _ty 7 '
revised January, 1975, p. CA«C~4 .
Report on Sewage for the j\T orj-jwes L __ ?'.roa_ , fig. 5 - 9 ,
and p. 7-12.
Ibid. , p. 3.
Fac i 1 i I I e_f: P3.ji^ni n g Study ,_ JJ a nover Fncility 7\rea,
revised January, .1975, p. j\!->'.-l
1] . En v i r ci) i, a o n t a 1 7^. s:; o s sme n t St-:1 temen t For The O' Hare
viator J < o c 1 a m a b i o. i i}lanL, ;".rejTared by Consoer,
Townsend and Associates, I\u\yvrriber, 1974, p. 1-2.
12,
'Report on Sewage for the Northwest Area, p. 7-10.
-------
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
13. Based on an overall construction cost estimate of
$197,010,000. (including the 0' liarc WRP, Upper Dos
Plainos Tunnels 20 , 207., 20B, 20C, 21, and 22, and
the Northwest-O'Hare Reservoir), and an annual
average inflation factor of 6%.
Q -
-------
APPENDIX R
11,000 -
10,000 ..
I l,7oo
1
5
^000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
DISTANCE FROl'I CENTER OF AERATION TANKS (FEET)
R.F.Ward 3/12/75
R-l
-------
-------
Value
5 Excellent
Good
SITE SELECTION
3 'Fair
2 Poor
1 Very Po
Uj.
Expand Salt Creek Plant
and interconnect IIW
and Dec Plaines Tunnels
Airport
Sites 1 & 2
Centex Site 3
Southeast of
Higgins and
Busse
Site 5
South\vest of
Mt. Prospect
and Touhy
Site b
Southv/eot of
Toll\vay and
Elmhurst.
and Ravensv;oc
Airport site
Oakton and
Elmhurst
Uncovered
Covered
Underground
Uncovered
Covered
Underground
Uncovered
Covered
Underground
Uncovered
Covered
Underground
Uncovered
Covered
Underground
Uncovered
Covered
Underground
Aesthetically
Remote
Value
H
$*
£
£
*4
^
d
U
4
H
3
3
3
1
1
I
V/ eight
/? x 1
Z o
Z^
If
2.Z
&£>
2 o
^o
Zo
£0
2. o
1?
1$
(Z
5"
f
£
Emission
Control
Value
V
/
tl
'/
V^
J^
Zei
3«
2.^
The above represents our local value judgements and weights.
It is requested that each menber of the EIS team fill in his
or her ov/n valuer, and weights and add any other factors that
each individual feels would be professionally relevant.
' R-3 R. F. Ward 2/13/75
-------
APPENDIX R
Aerosols have been defined as particles in the size range of 0.01-
50 (microns) suspended in air (Magill, et el., 1956). Much of the re-
ported work with biological aerosols has centered on the study of coliform
bacteria that have been the traditional indicators of domestic fecal
water pollution.
The first study of bacteria emitted to the atmosphere by sewage dis-
posal processes was that by Fair and Wells (1934), who concluded that
respitatory and skin disease organisms could remain airborn and viable
for long periods. In 1955, A. H. Woodcock described "the bubble-jet-
droplet mechanism" of aerosol formation under most atmospheric conditions,
a droplet will evaporate quickly, thus leaving the materials that were
suspended or dissolved in the droplet as a solid particle in the air.
The solid particles left suspended in the air will settle very slowly
because of their small size (usually less than 10 to 15 microns) and
flocculent nature.
Ledbetter and Randall (1965) reported that the number of recovered
coliforms above background increases linearly with wind velocity, when
S-l
-------
measured at a constant 20-foot distance, and decreases asymototically with
distance downwind, and falls off severely at relative humidity readings
below 55%. Poon (1966) also found E. coli to have an extremely short
life span in aerosol form.
Randall and Ledbetter (1966) showed the bacterial population of air
is significantly increased by passage over an activated sludge waste
treatment unit, from about 8 per cubic foot on the upwind side to 1,170
per cubic foot on the downwind side. Despite a rapid die-off of bacteria
during the first 3 seconds they are airborne, the increase in bacterial
population persisted for a considerable time and distance. The distance
was strongly dependent on the wind velocity.
They also found that pathogenic bacteria of the genus Klebsiella.
formed a large capsule which apparently protects the organism from desic-
cation in flight. The most significant aspect of this observation is
that all species of this genus are known pathogens of the respiratory
tract. 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. Spendlove (1957) found production of bacterial aerosols in a
rendering plant process and recovered airborne organisms downwind from
the plant. Bacterial air pollution associated with a sewage treatment
plant utilizing trickling filters for secondary treatment was investigated
by Albrecht (1958). He was able to recover coliforms up to fifty feet
downwind of a high-rate filter. He also found that distance of travel
from the trickling filter source was proportional to wind velocity.
Napolitano and Rowe (1966) reported that the activated sludge process
S-2
-------
liberates ten times as many airborne coliforms as the trickling filter.
A similar relation was reported by Ladd (1966). Adams and Spendlove
(1970) found coliforms emitted fror. a trickling-filter sewage treat-
ment plant at a distance 0.8 mi^es downwind from the source. This was
the largest distance sampled. Higgins (1964) brought the wastewater
bursting bubble phenomenon into the laboratory. He observed that aero-
solization is decreased by detergents, and that many droplets are too
small for the jet droplet mechanism responsible for much bursting bubble
aerosolization. He found a very low recovery of coliforms (no E. coli)
in comparison to Serratia marcescens, Bacillus subtilis, and Streptococcus
spp. He then determined that there occurs within the liquid a migration
of S. marcescens toward the surface, and of coliforms away from the
surface, thus affecting aerosolization rates. This finding should be
borne in mind in considering coliforms as indicators for bursting-bubble-
based air pollution.
A dispersion model was developed to relate airborne bacterial con-
centrations to the rate of bacterial emission by Kenline (1968). He
studied the number and types of bacteria emitted from an activated sludge
sewage treatment plant and two extended aeration treatment plants. The
dispersion model accounted for the depletion of the bacterial cloud by
atmospheric diffusion, deposition, and die—off. The predominant size
range of the bacteria was 3 to 6 microns. The average emission rate of
bacteria from the aeration tank 'as 440 bacteria/sq.m/second.
In general, it can be concluded that bacterial aerosols remain viable
and travel further with increased wind velocity, increased relative
S-3
-------
humidity, lower temperatures, and darkness. The fact that aerosols are
generated cannot be disputed. Aside from the environmental factors con-
sidered to this point, a considerable amount of work has been done on
the effect of other environmental factors and their impact on the survival
of bacterial and viral aerosol particles.
Resistance to aerosol stress is highly dependent on species and life
cycle stage. Klebsiella propably owes much of its resistance to its
polysaccharlde capsule. Even the effect of varying critical parameters
is not the same. For example, lipid-containing viruses are inactivated
more rapidly at high relative humidities, while lipid-free viruses are
inactivated at low relative humidities (Webb, et. al., 1963). Air
pollutants normally present in varying concerntrations are not without
their effect on aerosol survival. Won and Ross (1969) found that 3 ppm
NCU was bactericidal to airborne Rhizobium, especially at 95% relative
humidity. Five ppm N0_ produced a threefold increase in the biological
decay rate of VEE virus. Carbon monoxide, (85 ppm, 15°C), enhanced the
inactlvation of S. marcescens 4- to 7- fold at lower relative humidity
values but was protective under more humid conditions (Lightheart, 1973).
Sarcina lutea also exhibited both a protection and a poisoning phenomenon.
The author hypothesized that CO uncouples energy-requiring death events
as well as maintenance mechanisms. Workers at Porton have reported the
presence of a bactericidal factor in the open rural air (Druett & May,
1968). Open night time air results (May et al., 1969) in E. coli decay
S-U
-------
rates of 3 to 10% per minute as opposed to laboratory air values under
0.2%/minute. The E. coll results were paralleled by those for three
viruses: T_, vaccinia, and Semliki Forest, and five bacteria: S. mar—
cescens, P. tularensis, Brucella suis, Staph epidermidie, and group C.
Streptococcus, B.S. niger spores and Micrococcus radiodurans were
resistant. This is important when one considers the proximity of man
and animals to sewage effluent. The inhalation of bacteria was studied
and it was determined that adjacent to an activated sludge aeration
plant approximately 40 percent of the biological aerosols penetrated the
lungs and approximately six percent penetrated the alveoli (Randall and
Ledbetter, 1966). These precentages increased to 60 and 13 percent,
respectively, 20 feet downwind from the tank as the droplet size de-
creased due to desiccation.
It is also important to consider the potential protective or lethal
effects of chemicals in sewage on biological aerosols. Zentner (1966)
demonstrated that the presence of both organic and inorganic compounds
of a specific nature prolonged the survival of aerosolized Serratia mar-
cescens in air (relative humidity 40 percent). These chemicals evidently
protect or stabilize the organisms against desiccation and oxidation.
Ledbetter (1964) states that in sewage aerosols high evaporation rates
produce nuclei of solid waste which were originally dissolved or sus-
pended in the biological aerosols. It would appear likely that these
solid waste nuclei may surround or coat the microbes within the desic-
cated droplet. Atmospheric bacterial die-off is geometric in nature,
-------
with the majority of the organisms dying within three seconds. The re-
maining resistant bacteria, protected by chemical additives which in-
hibit evaporation, continue to die at a decreasing rate with time (Adam
and Spendlove, 1970 ; Randall and Ledbetter, 1966; Poon, 1968). This
observation has a great effect on which methods of analysis and what
specific bacteria should be determined in assessing the pathogenesis
of biological aerosols.
It is not known if the chemicals in sewage enhance the infectivity
on biological aerosols by synergistic effects. To the contary, it
would seem likely that, if chlorine were present in combined form (e.g.
chloramines), then lethality to micro-organisms might even be enhanced
because of the close and prolonged proximity of the disinfecting species
to the microbes following desiccation.
Even more uncertain are the processes of the infection machanism
once contaminated aerosols are inhaled by humans. Because little is
known of the minimum infecting dose of most organisms, little can be
concluded from a public health standpoint.
The infectious process is indeed complicated and almost in-
numerable variables must be considered. A range of from one to many
thousands of infectious organisms may be required to produce a disease
state. Authorities have observed that sewage effluent is not parti-
cularly hazardous to sewage plant workers or people associated with
sewage irrigation sites (Herzik, 1958 and Wells, 1961). In fact, as
a group, sewage workers may have less sick days than the general pop-
S-6
-------
ulation. Melnick (1967) suggested that sewage workers were possibly
immunized by their exposure to small amounts of infectious organisms.
Dowling (1966) questions what would happen to our immunity if we
breathed in no micro-organisms over long time periods. He cites the
experience with measles in isolated populations and also poliomye-
litis in advanced countries. Immunization by inhalation of small
quantities of pathogens may protect us from disease. Additional studies
in the United States have demonstrated that local inhabitants of certain
areas with inadequately treated water may have low case rates of gastro-
enteritis, while visitors and newcomers to the area have considerably
higher case rates. This could be due to differences in immunity to
indigenous waterborne microbial populations. A similar situation is
often evident among travelers to foreign countries. Americans often
get gastroenteritis in travels to Latin American countries, where food
and water sanitation is often not as extensive as in the United States.
The permanent populations appear unaffected by the same water and food.
Again the probable difference is that the local populations have re-
ceived prolonged small and even infective immunizing doses (but no
disease-producing) of the organisms that stress the visitors. There-
fore, it is not adequate to compare "sewage workers" to individuals in
the general population who may come into sporadic contact with in-
fectious agents in sewage aerosols or on vegatation and soil. It is
necessary to explore the survival jf all pathogenic microbes in raw
or inadequately disinfected but treated sewage, at least until such time
S-7
-------
as a substantial epidemiologic study may prove the harmlessness of these
organisms in this context.
In summary, it can be seen that there are innumerable factors which
control the viability and infection potential of micro-organisms commonly
found in wastewater aerosols. To conclude that the presence of these
aerosols will positively result in a public health hazard is not sup-
ported by scientific evidence. Conversely, it has not been proven that
there is no possibility that such aerosols have any public health impact.
There'is simply no epidemiological data available, of which we are
aware, that would indicate any public health impacts whatsoever. Given
this tremendous gap in evidence, we cannot, at this time, conclude that
the aerosols generated at the O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant will have
any significant adverse Impact. This is by no means a closed case.
Should such evidence become available, we would find it imperative to
require mitigative remedies necessary to eliminate any public health
hazard as well as implement compliance with any law applicable. Because
of the interest in this particular subject, we have also included
MSDGC's position paper with respect to health aspects in Appendix I.
S-8
-------
APPENDIX T
WATER QUALITY DATA OF WELLER'S CREEK*
COMPARED TO STATE STANDARDS**
Waller's Creek
Unit
State Standards
Water
Temperature (F°)
Number of Analyses 10
Maximum Value 75
Minimum Value 36
Average Value 55
Field Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Number of Analyses 8
Maximum Value 8. 5
Minimum Value 0.0
Average Value 2.9
Turbidity (JTU)
Number of Analyses 10
Maximum Value 800
Minimum Value 17
Average Value 102
Total Solids (Dissolved) (mg/1)
Number of Analyses 10
Maximum Value 1,309
Minimum Value 234
Average Value 701
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/1)
Number of Analyses
Maximum Value
Minimum Value
Average Value
1
5
5
5
The maximum temperature
rise above natural temperature
shall not exceed 5°F.
January 60° F. maximum
August 90° F. maximum
Not less than 6.0 mg/1 during
at least 16 hours of any 24
hour period, nor less than
5.0 mg/1 at any time.
No State standards
Waters shall be free from unnatural
sludge or bottom deposits, floating
debris, visible oil, odor, unnatural
plant or algal growth, or unnatural
odor or turbidity.
1,000 mg/1
No State standards
**
Water Quality Network, 1971. Summary of Data, Volume 2. State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
Illinois Pollution Control Board, Rules and Regulations, Chapter 3, Water
Pollution. July 1973.
T-l
-------
WATER QUALITY DATA OF WELLER'S CREEK
COMPARED TO STATE STANDARDS
Weller's Creek
PH
Number of Analyses
Maximum of Value
Minimum of Value
Average Value
Total Phosphate (mg/1 of
Number of Analyses
Maximum Value
Minimum Value
Average Value
Ammonia (mg/1 of N)
Number of Analyses
Maximum Value
Minimum Value
Average Value
Chloride (mg/1)
Number of Analyses
Maximum Value
Minimum Value
Average Value
Fluoride (mg/1)
Number of Analyses
Maximum Value
Minimum Value
Average Value
Iron (Total) (mg/1)
Number of Analyses
Maximum Value
Minimum Value
Average Value
Unit
10
8.3
7,3
7.7
10
4.2
0.3
1.7
5
3.8
0.6
2.1
10
395
70
181
7
0.6
0 . 3
0.4
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
State Standards
Shall be within the range of
6.5-9.0.
Phosporus as P shall not
exceed 0.05 mg/1.
Shall not exceed 1.5 mg/1.
Shall not exceed 500 mg/1.
Shall not exceed 1.4 mg/1.
Shall not exceed 1.0 rag/1.
T-2
-------
WATER QUALITY DATA OF WELLER'S CREEK
COMPARED TO STATE STANDARDS
Weller's Creek Unit
Phenols (mg/1)
Number of Analyses 7
Maximum Value 0.6
Minimum Value 0.3
Average Value 0.4
Sulfate (mg/1)
Number of Analyses 10
Maximum Value 215
Minimum Value 42
Average Value 99
Fecal Coliforms (per 100 ml)
Number of Analyses 10
Maximum Value 80,000
Minimum Value 400
Average Value 18,180
Fecal Streptococcus (/100 ml)
Number of Analyses
Maximum Value
Minimum Value
Average Value
Coliform (/100 ml)
3
37,000
270
15,090
Number of Analyses 5
Maximum Value 700,000
Minimum Value 13,000
Average Value 188,600
Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/1)
Number of Analyses 10
Maximum Value 120
Minimum Value 22
Average Value 49
State Standards
Shall not exceed 0.1 mg/1.
Shall not exceed 500 mg/1.
Based on a minimum of 5 samples
taken over not more than a 30 day
period, shall not exceed a geometric
mean of 200/100 ml nor shall more
than 10% of the samples during any
30-day period, exceed 400/ml.
No State standards
No State standards
No State standards
T-3
-------
W,'ier Quality Data 1973 •- Surnn.try
lif.^iii:, (IT! Jot.') C,j IK i.. ul the 0.:.". J'"l ;t j lies KJvfr
ajr,-, ;>)v in nig/], unless ol hen/i ;'c iucl i <-a ton!)
N....OI A,l;l|y:;..s
Ma/iir:-li. ValllC'
M i ,: i •,!• mi Val u. •
I',- ar \'a j in '
>!.-•>] !-:n V'ahi.'
0 i' i i i ' r Kin
No . i ! ./'.<: a i y : ".
i>5a f, ,:/:,, V.- ' .'••
?1 i 1 1 i 1 ulll! V-i 111,'
M"a. Vali e
t-'i- ;! i DI \'.'"i i!f
C'~ J i. e r Jon
Ko.oi Air: ! v; ;••,
iVi. . 1 11111,11 V'.'i 1 ;;-
I-, i u i ,,.i,iii Vali,"
Mr • V,, I,,"
Is !< ' , ii \'a 1 Hi •
;;, ; , . , ;,,,i
Ni'. •• i Ana 1 > .•;,•<;
M,-- I-ai, V.ilua
Hi'. ;..i.\iu v.iiu-'
>!'•- :; V-i;i;..
M.-
4 . ;•; 7 . 5
9.0 ?:.!
7.6 ',',.'>
5.0 6.5-0
Pa (.(1
3 3
.0 .000
.0 .000
.0 .000
.0 .000
5.0 .050
n.nor Chi or
3 3
. 4 1 30
.3 /O
.3 98
. 3 9 5
1.4 300
Cu on,
3
.000
.000
.000
.000
.250
Total Avg COD
Phor, BOD-5
11
.900
. 1HO
.496
.45')
none
Cr Cr Cr
1IFX TR] TOTAL
3 3
.00 .00
. 00 . 00
.00 .00
.00 .00
.05 1.00
Sail' Total Boron
Sulf-r
3 3
.140 .3
84 . 2
105 .2
86 . 3
500 1.0
MliAS CCK TUKBY
//UNITS
1 1
1 . 50
.40
.65
.60
None
T-U
-------
,11 t> I a iiij' / I .. mi '<""'. (; I li'' r w i so j ml i o.i tod)
No . of" Ann Lysos
Mnr. U.I'.H!' Va1\K'
Mil) j i.r.iTi V;i] IK-
Monn V.ilm-
Modi.m V,iHu-
Cr J t L-r i o'i
r
No. o j A ; i < ', \ y : ; ' ' ,i ;
M/I-. il.H':', V.lilH-
Mill i '-,.ii . V;:1 IK-
Me; in V.il ii'.
Mod I ,.,i V;i 1 uo
('r i t o i i oil
No. of Aii.-.1v.<;;\':
M;ix]i.ui;'i V.-i.1u(>
Mini mum Value-
Mpnn Vnluo
Mf;;/-!
3
. 2
.0
.0
.0
.5
OK'I
N
N;
'j
)
.0
.0
.0
.0
1 .0
So
3
.00
.00
.00
.00
1,00
TOTAi, TSS
N
A;; Zii
Q '>
^P >)
".000 .1
.000 .0
.000 .0
.00;) .0
.005 1.0
PL]\";rr; COLO;-
NO/ UNT'i K
T-5
-------
Water Ouality Da I a 1(J7''i -- Sunnn-ny
(U>
No. ol Analy
, i.i .\ i ii'ii ; V'.i i MI
M i ji i ipur.i \!•• 1 n:
,M', i nf: U< i 1 !«u) (
i> i i":-1, a re in i.r1,/ '
Water
Temp i1'
/, T 7
H 72
I e 3 3
4}',
. A?
63 -03
As
,..es 2
.0
.0
.0
.0
1 ,(}
TDS/KO
,'::•-•.>•, 6
K' 810
i.- 410
603
61 S
.1000
Phono!
,.,<•;; 7
.oof,
!>• .000
.00.1
.000
. 100
,1,'CK .it I
, unless
Fie 1 o
1)0
7
19. /
'1.7
12.7
] 2 . 2
5.0
Ba
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
5 . 0
Fluor
2
.5
.3
.4
.4
1 .4
Cn
.1
.00
.00
.00
.00
.25
!(,' 11<\: 11:': I
o the- vw i ! : e. 'i
I-.1)
(Jll i \-K
7
t . b
{; . o
fi . 3
P, . 3
6 , 5 -9
(M
2
.00
.00
.00
.00
.05
Chi or
2
]()0
65
82
82
500
Oi 1
m-;: ,u.ver
i,.l teal ed)
Total
Phor.
7
.600
. 200
.350
. 300
None
Cr
Hcx
2
.00
.00
.00
. 00
.05
SuHu
2
120
93
106
106
500
NBAS
7
.60
.40
.47
.40
None
Avp, COD
BOD-5
Cr Cr
Tri Total
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
Total Boron
Sulfr
2
.3
.2
.2
.2
1.0
CCE Turby
//Units
T-6
-------
W.'ler Qunlity l\\'ca 1974 - Summary
H-ir,:<',i«r- (WM.lov) Cr-ek ;,< t.hc- Drr; i;"l a i n<-<-; River
(Units arc; Ju inR/L, xin'li-.'js otrherw:! .so. indicated)
via: COL.
./;oo „;).
AMM NTKAT I
ORG
N
TOTAL
Iv
'SSOO
100
7
1 .,°,
0.1
1 .0
1 ..I
None
Cu
M
Ag
Zn
2 2
.10 .09
.00 . 0!>
.Or> .07
.Or> .07
.02 .10
Fc I'Y
TOTAL 1)1 ST.
2
1 , 3
0.6
0.9
0.9
L.O
2
.09
.(Y)
.0°
.09
1 . 00
Hj,
/if,/ 1
2
.3
.0
.]
.J
. s
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
St-
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
] .0
2
.000
. 000
.000
.000
.005
PLNkfN
NO ML
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
COLOR
UNITS
T-7
-------
APPENDIX U
&f&
w
>c-i
Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River
Board Of State Sanitary Engineers
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
NEW YORK
OHIO
PENNSYLVANIA
WISCONSIN
rf^Ts y. 3 yi* •- -'->•.
>?S» .! /--' ." v-"ft, •' 1 >"
a u testi '<-/
u-i
v „
3 9 Li ^;.,.-' !':
-------
CHAPTER 40
SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS
Treatment, the extent of which will depend upon local conditions, shall be
provided in connection with all sewer installations. Primary settling with
adequate sludge handling and disposal facilities shall be the minimum degree
of treatment. The engineer should confer with the reviewing authority before
proceeding with the design of detailed plans. The engineering report and
preliminary plan should include plant site selection.
Ordinarily sewage treatment plants should be designed to provide for the
estimated population 15 to 25 years hence, under normal growth conditions.
All plants should be designed so they can be readily increased in capacity
except where circumstances preclude the probability of expansion. Expansion
by modular steps should be considered.
The following items should be taken into consideration in planning sewage
treatment works:
41. Plant Location
In general, to avoid local objections, a sewage treatment plant site
should be as far as practicable from any present built-up area or any
area which will probably be built up within a reasonable future period.
The direction of the prevailing winds should be considered when selecting
the plant site. If a critical location must be used, special consideration
must be given to the design and type of plant provided. Plants shall be
located at an elevation which is not subject to flooding or otherwise be
adequately protected against flood damage. The plant should be readily
accessible in all seasons. The site should be of ample size to
accommodate expansion and for addition of facilities to increase the
degree of treatment.
42. -Quality Of Effluent
The required degree of treatment for sewage treatment plants shall be
based on the Water Quality Standards and objectives for the receiving
waters as established by *che responsible state agency. The selection
oii the type of treatment process involved must be such as to meet these
requirements.
U-2
-------
NV!»*
APPENDIX V
March 25, 1975
Coffcii SB loner William E. Downes, Jr.
Department of Aviation
City of Chicago
Rooa 1111 - City Hall
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Dear Mr. Downes:
AM you *ay know, this Agency ±s presently preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement on the proposed O'Hare-Dea Plaines Water Reclamation
Plant for which the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
la seeking grant assistance under P.L. 92-500. The treatment facility
1* to serve all or part of the following communities: Arlington
Heights, Buffalo Crave, Des Plaines, Elk Grove, Mount Prospect, Prospect
Heights, Rolling Meadows and Wheeling.
Our regulations require that we consider alternate sites for all
projects Involving construction. Furthermore, our analysis of alternate
•Ites oust take into account engineering, environmental, economic and
•octal factors. One of the nine sites considered for the Water Recla-
mation Plant was the O'Hare Airport Maintenance Expansion Area. In
1966, your Department Indicated that this site was not available. Since
that time, this alte has been considered for a MSDCC stornwater retention
reservoir with the approval of the Department of Aviation.
In order that we nay document our consideration of this proposed site
we would appreciate learning of the status of this site, your future
plans for it, If any, and any reasons why the site would be acceptable
for a stonawater reservoir but not a water reclamation facility.
We appreciate your assistance In this matter. Should you have any
I questions or need additional Inforaation, please contact this office.
Sincerely yours,
OFFICIAL R;,L COPY
-------
CITY Of CHICAGO
J3ICHARD J. DALEY
Mayor
EPARTMENT OF AVIATION
Room INI , City Half • Chicago, Illinois 60602
May 8, 1975
WILLIAM C. OOWNES. JR.
CommUtion«r
Mr. Harlan D. llirt
Chief, Planning Branch
United Statori Environmental
Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
R F <: F I v e o
MAY 0 91975
FLAJNiNJUvo tfKANUl - jRegion V
FILE NO. . '
I*
Chicago-O'Hare International Airport
Proposed O'Hare-Des Plaines Water
Reclamation Plant
Dear Mr. Hirt:
On March 25, 1975, you wrote to me regarding the proposed O'Hare-
Des Plaines Water Reclamation Plant which the Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago has programmed for construction. i
We have been in contact with the Metropolitan Sanitary District on and
off for a number of years, as recalled in your letter. We have explored any
number of ways whereby the siting of the proposed plant could be accommodated
on airport property. Each time I have been obliged to reiterate the Department's
position that no accommodation for this plant may be made.
X
The vast majority of airport property has been acquired through Federal
Programs. Each of these Grant Agreements contain a condition whereby the
city agrees_to use land so acquired only for airport or airport related objectives.
This provision has forestalled any leasing for lucrative commercial or agricul-
tural purposes,'has prohibited us from accommodating other Federal Government
projects, and restricted other requests for non-airport purposes.
I hope that this re-statement of our position in regard to the siting of the
proposed Water Reclamation Plant satisfies your requirements. Should you have
any further question or need additional information, please be assured of my
cooperation.
Very truly yours,
William K. Dowries, Jr.
Commissioner of Aviation
V-2
-------
'•J -•
April 11, 1975
Mr. Joseph Abel
Executive Director
DuPage County Regional
Planning Coramiflsion A
421 fl. County Farm Eoad ^0
Wheaton, Illinois 60187 *
Dear Mr, Abel:
/
This letter is being sent to follow up.a.telephone conversation between
Sara Wiae of this office and Richard(Katzv;of your office regarding a
proposal by the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. We
are enclosing copies of the Draft Envlrontaental Impact Statements
prepared by this office for the MSDGC proposals.
MSDGC has proposed construction of a Water Reclamation Plant (WE?) for
the O'Hare Basin. As proposed, the site would be constructed in
Des Plainea, Illinois. Objections to the location of the site at the
southeast area of Oakton and Elmhurst Roads have been heard and alter-
native sites have been suggested.
Alternate #8 per Figure 3-1 (page 3-12) of the enclosed Draft EIS for
the WRP was suggested for a number of reasons including industrial
location, existence of a receiving stream and an undeveloped site.
Please note that site #8 is within DuPage County.
We understand that the Illinois Pollution Control Board has a ruling
which determined that the sewage treatment plants in Bensenville and
Addison are to be the major facilities located in that portion of DuPage
County and that the study completed on Salt Creek by the DuPage County
Forest Preserve District, DuPage County Planning Department and Bauer
Engineering, entitled "Living With A River In Suburbia" does not
indicate the possibility of construction of a new facility. In addition,
legal questions arise regarding the authority of the MSDGj^tp_jConatruct
V-3
-------
^*r. Joi-<*T.h Abel
April 11» 1975
Our r^BuIatious ruquira that we connt,:.'. r ;iltcn:.at:e eltes for All .
Snvslvinp construction. Onr analysis of ~.Ui-rr:ate sites nu^t take into
accof-it rrsg'Jnfc^rirs, cavisnTnaent-.il, oc.oncrdlc arid cocial factors. In
regard to the sites Identified as #8 in the enclosed EIS, wo vould
Gpnr?.eiat
------- |