-------
O.
H
«
-d
*O
^
n
w u -t.
o !H
* i
>
^H
>s
'" rt
,6
le operation, location, and physical hazar
upon an evaluation of these factors, the
*" C
ti ™
4) * *.
•~ 8
•r-4
*S
V
a ^
P
a o
°£
**-* QJ
CO
ring data shall indicate any or all of the foll<
nd final surface contours; the proposed f
•ea; access roads; on-site roads; grades
if each lift required and a typical cross-
5
CD C
1* 'J
3 u
!*
»j i)
^ 2
*"* (4
2 ID
. »
i?
il drainage devices if necessary; fencing; s
xisting and proposed utilities; and all oth
n to indicate clearly the soil characters
:rly development, operation and completion
ni
"O*
nj
V
•s
c
_rt
"a
D
3
•o
a)
r-t
rt
•a
S
>^
!-<
<"--««Si«c-;3..SeT!
c m
3 >>
n) -Q
w to
(U o
t; g
to ^5
O n)
0.
to ^>
-e «
<• t, >
IV
a;
o
5 I
W
O
H
OS
73
C
flj
>,
^
a!
C >
n) M
OT £
t/3
Q
§
H
W
S
DISPOSAL
0
j'S
J <
E£
g*
ITARY LA
accordance
£ c
< •=
«>
££
u c
m nj u
|-S|
t, C O
ni T3
O "S "(3
-II
-J *-< Ll
3
.0
2.
O
.
O
z
I
•S 01
"O C
Si I
x"-oo
M D 4J C
'
cr
gg
>
xx
^C
O o £
- « aco
3 5j rt
•g o c
flj t^ c
be a c
-------
I D
t. £
- c
°
v
~
•s «
s
v g
*• o
• s
** t*
o c
**
0)
x:
« *
W a
w £
o 3
in _>>
at C
4; o
V
J3
•*>
0
w
09
I
of •—'
5 •-<
O (I)
1*13
a-Ji
at
s
in §
1) ...
•»* O
3 > "•"
QJ O j
t* L
a a;
§§•
) The site shall be adequately fenced, with an
entrance gate that can be locked, and posted.
Opening and closing hours and days of oper-
ation shall be clearly shown.
nj
• —
) All-weather operational road(s) shall be pro-
vided for vehicular movement within the site.
J3
Separate operational areas may be operated
within the site to allow for wet or dry wea-
ther operation and access. When necessary,
to prevent dust nuisance, operational roads
within the site shall be surfaced or treated.
) A shelter, convenient for use by operating
personnel, shall be furnished. The shelter
shall be screened and provided with heating
o
facilities and adequate lighting. Provisions
shall also be made for safe drinking water
and sanitary hand-washing and toilet facili-
ties.
0) •*-*
£3 m
£*
1.04. FIRE PROTECTION. Arrangements s
ire protection services when a fire protection
**H
0> I*
3 .2
°* 0>
(fl
.s
J^ r-H
O 'rt
ra 01
S .2
ubiic fire protection service is available. Wh
s not available, practical alternate arrangemer
D, -1
. (1) .
™ O 0)
V •«-* 73
o S E
O rt .5
^H
•rH
C
•-1
) Burning material, or any refuse at a tem-
perature likely to cause fire shall not be de-
posited in £he fill. Said material may be de-
posited in a separate location a sufficient
distance from the fill to prevent fires from
spreading to the normal fill area and shall
be immediately covered with a sufficient
amount of earth to extinguish same.
A R -T I C L E V
SANITARY LANDFILL OPERATION
.01. GENERAL. All operation of the sanitary
i accordance with the approved plan.
rt m |j
' 01
3 .0
a, _
1
tn
8-5
-------
2 ^5 ™ K
g S-a«
. t>
^ e
* T!
•w U
d C
* •-
BO T)
e v
1 s
I!
4) d
O <3
3 .5
1 *
S *»*
o -3
«
a
0)
Q
3.2,
i/i • -a -a o «)
£; to a; a> ** x;
i-J hn iT^ ^ i «
§^ M bO C a *"
C L, --2 <_> c
a m u
c .a .a >, a
rt ^, s-.cn
Q *• o to rt m
Z 0 =£ >.S
<(• .S -- ^ >.
Ud- gs
§ SS 2 E *
Q O co
•-i . tn t- e TI
5.08. DEPOSITION OF LIQU
LLS. Sewage solids or liquids,
liquids or hazardous substance
tary landfill until written app:
Department. Special provisioi
nding upon local conditions, an
letter.
n, "Jj w 3 U 4) ^-i
J2 ^ CU c C Q- rt
"3 «^ !^5 £-5
tf g-g w c-o o
H rt C n, U
5 ~° 0 S a
* c o 2 S d
-- j_» t»_l UJ W
"o
"c
o *:
" c
- c
c S
CD 4->
-a u
O rt
S a
4)
73 Q
C
(T) a>
4-> -*-*
1) ^>
CO -"
C T3
5.09. VECTOR CONTROL. I
s shaH be employed as directe-
4) tu
f~* «,
3 3
a! co
rt
4>
6
w c oe
j- "-i e
2sl
di o
t. e *••
d) cd CD
1 — ' r!
a 5
o "•>
^ *r
4) rt 3
2?~ C
Ri c
> rt -0
rt m i
«rt fc
• 43 rt
trt *• '-S
K C 4) ^
£ X o
M f^ W
•< *3 u
C
"O
0>
^-»
u
3
Tl
u
c
o
0
CD
JO
.
(a) All salvage operations shal
a sanitary manner.
C 4)
n) £.
*j
•i i
0 ^
**
-0 41
W U
S-2
•a «•
o £
°3
Hi Li
(b) Salvage operations shall b
area remote from the ope
fill.
xT
;>
9
to
Li
4> c
•Co
1?
C Li
•* 4>
^ a
0 0
(c) Salvage operations shall n
or otherwise delay the fill
n
q JJ i! S c -
NITARY LANDFILL VARIATION. L
ombustible and non-putrescible waste s
PS. broken paving, or materials resultmj
molition operations may be disposed o
open dumping. Such material shall be 1
-lent intervals to prevent unsightly appei
e, and shall be finally covered as requi
;ry landfill in Rule 5.07, unless approve
cover.
^Y-g-S^a-SS
g e J~ 1 o S I
-§-3oS;|g«
"• <*, »
•S.2-? s £" S-3.S
LOfflBITED ACTIVITIES. The followini
hibited in conjunction with, or upon the
ill.
£2*
^ a c
d
• 4) -5
- JO
m'S 5"
«j5^
3 co C
avenging operations. Scavenging shall
the manual sorting of refuse, either in
ucks, at the face of the fill, or in un-
ed truck discharge areas.
o - L. c
to c *• £
d "a
r-J 0) 4) C
3 H£ S
"Tf
'
eding of farm or domestic animals.
-6-
4)
CM
5
^
R-fi
-------
ILLINOIS SANITARY WATER BOARD
Rules and Regulations SWB-8
Illinois River and
Lower Section of Des Plaines River
AUTHORITY
Pursuant to the authority contained in Sec. 6, Paragraphs (b) and (f) of "An Act to establish a
Sanitary Water Board and to control, prevent, and abate pollution of the streams, lakes, ponds, and
other surface and underground waters in the State" (approved and in force July 12,1951, Par. 145.6,
Ch. 19, m. Rev. Stat. 1965), the Sanitary Water Board adopts the following Rules and Regulations.
STATEMENT OF POLICY
In the above Act, it has been declared to be the public policy of this State to maintain reasonable
standards of purity of the waters of the State consistent with their use for domestic and industrial water
supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial,
recreational and other legitimate uses, including their use in the final distribution of the water-borne
wastes of our economy. It has also been declared to be the public policy of this State to provide that
no waste be discharged into any waters of the State without first being given the degree of treatment
necessary to prevent the pollution of such waters.
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
ARTICLE 1
Rule 1.01. Introduction
These criteria of water quality prescribe the qualities or properties of the waters of
the State which are necessary for the designated public use or benefit, and which, if the
limiting conditions given are exceeded, shall be considered indicative of a polluted condition
subject to abatement.
These stream criteria shall be applicable to the Illinois River main stream, the DesPlaines River down-
stream from the confluence with the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, and each tributary at its confluence
with the main stream.
"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water", Twelfth Edition, 1965, American
Public Health Association, Inc. should be employed where applicable, but it is recognized that other approved
methods may be required in applying some of the criteria. The Illinois Sanitary Water Board shall designate
the alternate procedure in "Standard Methods", and approve any departure from these procedures,
with the concurrence of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Changes requested by U.S. Department of Interior are italicized.
Revised -101766,081167, 030568
DBM:mh
B-7
-------
Rule 1.02 STR E AM SECTORS AND USES
a) The Illinois River and the Des Flaines River downstream from the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal to the mouth of the Pox River is designated as an Industrial Water Supply Sector. Industrial
Water Supply criteria shall apply.
b) The Illinois River from the mouth of the Fox River to the mouth of Bureau Creek is designated
as an Aquatic Life Sector. Aquatic life criteria shall apply.
c) The Illinois River from the mouth of Bureau Creek to the Peoria and Pekin Union RR Bridge at
Peoria is designated as an Aquatic Life, Recreational and Public Water Supply Sector. Aquatic, Recreational
Criteria shall apply. The Public Water Supply Criteria shall apply at the point at which water is withdrawn
for treatment and distribution as a potable supply.
d) The Illinois River from the Peoria and Pekin Union RR Bridge to the Mississippi River is designated
as an Aquatic Life Sector. Aquatic life criteria shall apply.
Rule 1.03 MINIMUM CONDITIONS
These Minimum Criteria shall apply to all waters at all places and at all times in addition to specific
criteria applicable to specific sectors.
• a) Free from substances attributable to municipal, industrial or other discharges that will settle to
form putrescent or otherwise objectionable sludge deposits; or which will form bottom deposits that may
be detrimental to bottom biota (such as coal fines, limestone dust, fly ash, etc.)
b)Free from floating debris, oil, scum and other floating materials attributable to municipal, industrial
or other discharges in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious;
Oils, grease and floating solids shall be reduced to a point such that they will not
create fire hazards, coat hulls ofwatercraft, injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, or will
adversely affect public or private recreational development or other legitimate shoreline
developments or uses.
c) Free from materials attributable to municipal, industrial or other discharges producing color,
odor or other conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance;
d) Free from substances attributable to municipal, industrial or other discharges in concentrations
or combinations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal, plant or aquatic life.
Rule 1.04 FOR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY and FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY
The following criteria are for evaluation of river quality at the point at which water is withdrawn
for treatment and distribution as a potable supply;
a) Bacteria: Coliform group not to exceed 5,000 per 100 ml as a monthly average value (either MPN
or MF count); nor exceed this number in more than 20 per cent of the samples examined during any
month; nor exceed 20,000 per 100 ml in more than five per cent of such samples.
-2-
B-8
-------
b) Dissolved solids: Not to exceed 500 mg/1 as a monthly average value, nor exceed 7SO mg/1 at
any time. Values of specific conductance of 750 and 1025 micromhos/cm (at 25 deg. C.) may be considered
equivalent to dissolved solid concentration of 500 to 750 mg/1.
c) Chemical Constituents: Not to exceed the following specific concentration at any time:
Stream Samples
Constituent Concentration mg/1
Acidity (Total) 0.0
Ammonia Nitrogen (N) 2.5
*Arsenic 0.05
•Barium 1.0
*Cadmium 0.01
CCE (Carbon Chloroform Extract) 0.2
Chloride 150
•Chromiurn-Hexavalent (Chromate or dkhromate) 0.05
•Chronuum-Trivalent (Chromic or chromite) 1.00
*Cooper 1.0
i.yanide 0.025
Fluoride 1.00
Iron (total) 0.3
'Lead 0.05
MBAS 0.5
Nitrate (as NO3)- 45
Oil Substantially free of visible floating oil
pH 6.0-9.0
Phenols .02
Phosphate 4.0
'Selenium 0.01
*Silver 0.05
Sulphate 200
Temperature 90°F
•Zinc 5.0
•Heavy Metals
d) Radio active substances: Gross beta activity in the known absence of Strontium 90 and alpha emitters
not to exceed 1,000 micromicro curies per liter at any time. "Absence of" is defined as not more than
10 pica curies of Strontium 90 and 3 pico annies of alpha radiation.
Rule 1.05 FOR AQUATIC LIFE SECTORS
The following criteria are for evaluation of conditions at any point in the river, except for areas immed-
iately adjacent to outfalls. In such areas cognizance will be given to opportunities for the admixture of waste
effluents with river water:
a) Dissolved oxygen:
For maintenance of well balanced Aquatic life habitats the dissolved oxygen content shall be not
less than 5.0 mg/1 during at least 16 hours of any 24-hour period, nor less than 4.0 mg/1 at anytime.
b)PH:
No value below 6.0 nor greater than 9.0 at any time, and preferably between 6.5 and 8.5. Sampling
shall be beyond 100 feet of an outfall sewer.
-3-
B-9
-------
c) Temperature:
Not to exceed 90 deg. F. at any time during the months of April through November, and not to
exceed 60 deg. F. at any time during the months of December to April.
d) Toxic substances:
Not to exceed one-tenth of the 48-hour median tolerance limit, for fish, except that other limiting
concentrations may be used in specific cases. Chemical constituents listed below are not to exceed
the specific concentration at any time at any point in aqua tic sectors of ithe basin, except for areas
immediately adjacent to outfalls:
Constituent Concentration mg/1
Ammonia Nitrogen (N) 2.5
* Arsenic 1.0
*Barium 5.0
*Cadmium 0.05
*Chromium4Iexavalent 0.05
*Chromium-Trivalent 1.00
*Copper 0.04
Cyanide 0.025
Iron 1.00
*Lead 0.1
Phenols 0.2
*Silver 0.05
*Zinc 1.00
*Heavy Metals
e) Taste and Odor:
Waters shall be free of substances from other than natural origin which will result in
impairment of taste, odor or other factors which would reduce the acceptability of
fishes for human consumption
Rule 1.06 FOR RECREATION SECTOR
The following criterion is for evaluafion of conditioi s at any point in a recreation sector used for such
water contact activities as swimming and water skiing:
Bacteria - Number per 100 mi by i«l F'ermenwuou or MF Techniques
Bacteria: As determined by multiple-tube fermentation or membrane filter procedures,
and based on a minimum of no,1 fe.w than five samples taken over not more than a 30-day
period, the fecal coliform content of primary contact recreation waters shall not exceed
a geometric mean of 200/100 ml, nor shall more than 10% of total samples during any
30-day period exceed 400110'.) ml.
(Primary contact recrea;io;> is ii-at-nded to include activities in which there is prolonged
and intimate contact with the water involving considerable risk of ingesting water.)
Rule 1.07 FOR INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY SECTOR
The following criteria are applicable to stream water at the point at which the water is withdrawn for
use for industrial cooling and processing, and at any point in trie industrial water use sector:
a) Dissolved Oxygen: Not less than 3.0 rng/! during at least \ t hours of any 24-hour period, nor less
than 2,0 mg/1 at any tinm.
b) pH: Not less than 6.0 not greatei thai! 9.0 at any time.
'4- B-IO
-------
c) Temperature: Not to exceed 93 deg. F. at any time.
d) Dissolved Solids: Not to exceed 750 mg/1 as a monthly avenge value, nor exceed 1,000 mg/1 at
any time.
e) All items of Minimum Conditions applicable to all waters at all places and at all times. (See Rule 1.03)
0 Bacteria: The fecal coliform content of secondary contact recreation waters, as deter-
mined by either multiple-tube fermentation or membrane filter techniques, shall not
exceed a geometric mean of 1,000/100 ml, nor shall they equal or exceed 2,000/100 ml
in more than 10% of the samples.
(This criterion is intended to provide for water uses customarily described as "secondary
contact uses", including boating, fishing, and limited contact with water incident to
shoreline activities; in which contact with the water is either incidental or accidental
and the probability of ingesting appreciable quantities of water is minimal.)
Rule 1.08 IMPLEMENT A TION AND ENFORCEMENT PLAN
1. The Illinois Sanitary Water Board, under the 1951 Sanitary Water Board Act as amended (Ch. 19,
Par. 145.1 -145.18, IRS 1965), has the responsibility to control and prevent pollution in the waters
of this State exclusive of the area embraced by Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
Authority to adopt and enforce water quality standards within the Metropolitan Sanitary District is
contained in the recently adopted HB 1177,75th General Assembly.
2. The Board adopted the criteria, Rules and Regulations SWB-8, December 1,1966 as standards of
water quality for the waters of the Illinois River and the Des Flaines River downstream from the
confluence with the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and each tributary at its confluence with the
main stream. AH waters will be required to meet the standards for the appropriate public and indust-
rial water supply, aquatic life, recreational and agricultural uses. Compliance with these standards
will enhance the quality of waters within these streams.
Waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards as of the date which
such standards become effective will be maintained in their present high quality within
the powers granted by the "Illinois" water pollution control statutes. Such waters will not
be lowered in quality unless and until it has been affirmatively demonstrated to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration that such change is justifiable as a result of neces-
sary economic or social development and will not interfere with or become injurious to,
any appropriate beneficial uses made of, or presently possible-in. such waters.
3. The minimum weekly flow, which occurs once in 10 years, will be used in applying the
standards. The Board plans to require compliance with the bacteriological standards for recreation
during the recreational season of April through October inclusive. It is recognized that there are uncon-
trollable sources of bacterial pollution other than that of sewage treatment plant effluents.
4. Drastic or sudden temperature changes will not be permitted. The Board will insist upon
controlled changes in temperature not to exceed 2 deg. F. per hour, nor more than a
5 deg. cumulative change from natural water temperature.
5. The Board collects samples bimonthly from various locations on streams in the Illinois River Basin.
Monthly samples are collected from most of the Illinois River stations and weekly samples from one
station during May through October. Additional stations are being added as needed and two electronic
stations are programmed for the Fall of 1967.
6. Rules and Regulations, SWB 2, require the certification of waste treatment plant operators. The prompt
and regular submission of monthly operational reports is required to enable evaluation of effluent quality.
Certification and record of operation report submissions are recorded in a computer system to facilitate
periodic data processing. The frequency of inspections of wastewater treatment plants by representatives
of the Board have been increased and will be increased more to insure compliance with the standards.
B-H
-------
7. Secondary treatment resulting in effluents ranging from 20 to 40 mg/1 five day BOD and 25
to 45 mg/1 suspended solids must be provided by all municipalities, including disinfection
of the effluent.
8. All industries will be required to provide a degree of treatment or control that is equiv-
alent to that required of municipalities. I n some instances supplemental or advanced waste
treatment in excess of secondary treatment may be necessary.
9. It is the plan of the Board that, where needed, the control of pollution caused by combined sewer
overflow or storm flow bypassing at sewage treatment works be provided at the time of improvement
or expansion of treatment works. The separation of combined sewers or special treatment works in
some instances, the reduction of nutrients and provision of tertiary treatment should be accom-
plished, where deemed necessary, within the next ten yean, or as practical technical methods
are developed.
10. Treatment Requirements and Effluent Criteria
In order to establish a basis for treatment works design, municipal and industry representatives and
consultants frequently inquire regarding the limits or effluent standards that must be met. The adop-
tion of stream water quality criteria as required by the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965(PL 89-234
amendments to PL 84-660; 33 U.S.C. 466) emphasizes the need to relate stream quality to effluent
quality and treatment requirements. The expressed goals established by this Act are to protect and
upgrade water quality; any wastes amenable to treatment or control must receive the best practicable
treatment or control prior to diiicharge into any interstate water. The same goals have been, and con-
tinue to be, basic under the Sanitary Water Board Act for all waters of Illinois. Both the Federal Law
and the Illinois Act prohibit the use of any stream or portion thereof for the sole or principal purpose
of transporting wastes.
a. All municipal or industrial facilities for treatment of deoxygenating waste shall provide at least
secondary biological treatment, or advanced waste treatment, adequate to reduce the organic
pollution load of the treatment works effluent at the final treatment structure in accordance with
effluent guidelines in paragraph 11, below. A final treatment structure is considered the last point
of access before discharge to waters of the State. Effluents shall meet all criteria expressed in Item
b below.
b. All faculties for the treatment of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes shall provide for the
following:
1) Substantially complete removal of settleable solids.
2) Removal of all floating debris, oil, grease, scum, or sludge solids.
3) Removal of color, odor, or turbidity to below obvious levels.
4) Removal of heavy metals, or of toxic and odor producing substances in accordance with the levels
of constituents and properties determined by the Board.
c. Storage facilities for materials; which are hazardous to health and welfare, and for oils, gases, fuels, or
other materials capable of causing water pollution if accidentally discharged, shall be located so as to
minimize or prevent any spillage or leakage that might result in water pollution. Structures and devices
to contain spillage, such as catchment areas, relief vessels, or entrapment dikes, should be installed at
existing facilities, shall be installed at all new facilities, and shall be required following any discharge
resulting in pollution.
B-12
-------
11. Guidelines Regarding Range of Treatment
a. Secondary treatment resulting in effluents ranging from 20 to 40 mg/1 five-day BOD and 25 to
45 mg/1 suspended solids is acceptable on the Illinois River and lower Des Plaines River. Tertiary
or other advance treatment or modifications of conventional treatment will be specified for all
intermittent streams and small or low flow streams, and shall include effluent disinfection at least
through the recreational season of April through October.
b. Permissive Treatment & Effluent Requirements
Based on Average Strength Municipal Wastes
Type
Treatment
Secondary
BOD or GDI
Reduction
Percent
85
Effluent
BOD, GDI
mg/1
30
Effluent
Suspended
Solids
mg/1
35
Type Facilities
Trickling Filter
Secondary 90 20 25
*(or trickling filter & supplemental treatment)
Tertiary
95
10
13
•Activated Sludge
Secondary plus
Supplemental
Stream
Dilution
Requirements
Illinois and
Des Plaines
2tol
Itol
Disinfection with up to lmg/1 of chlorine residual in the effluent to reduce fecal Coliform to 400 or less,
where necessary for primary contact waters or to 2000 or less forsecondary contact waters.
Bypass flows in excess of waste treatment works capacity shall be given primary treatment, and chlorination
if necessary, in auxiliary facilities.
c. Within design limitations, operation shall be of such quality to obtain the best possible degree of treat-
ment from all treatment works. Every effort must be made to eliminate all system bypasses and overflows,
otherwise measures must be taken to provide treatment units such as lagoons, detention or holding basins,
and chlorination. Installation of new combined sewers are prohibited. Existing combined sewer systems
should be patrolled; overflow regulating devices shall be adjusted to convey the maximum practicable
amount of combined flow to treatment facilities. Excess infiltration into the sewer system should be
eliminated to keep dry weather flow within design limits of conduits and treatment works.
12. The Board will follow Typical Project Completion Schedules listed below:
a. Chlorination Facilities
1) Completion of plans and specifications -12 months before completion date.
2) Award of construction contracts - 6 months before completion date.
b. Treatment Works - Municipalities less than 10,000 Population and Industries
1) Completion of plans and specifications -18 months before completion date.
2) Award of construction contracts -12 months before completion date.
c. Treatment Works - Municipalities above 10,000 Population
1) Completion of plans and specifications - 30-33 months before completion date.
2) Award of construction contracts - 21-24 months before completion date.
-7-
8-13
-------
13. If it appears at any time prior to the above dates that there will not be compliance with the
timetables, the Board will hold administrative hearings and issue orders to submit schedule for
abatement of pollution with a minimum time for completion of waste treatment facilities. When
a waste producer fails to comply with an order, the Board will initiate legal action through the
Attorney General for enforcement of the order in the appropriate court.
14. The Board will require and has scheduled construction of municipal treatment works improve-
ments in accordance with the timetable, pages pages 9 to 11.
IS. All industries with effluent discharge will be required to construct additional or improved treat-
ment works in accordance with the timetable, pages pages 12 to IS.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Effective Date and Sanitary Water Board Certification on Page 16.
-8-
B-I1
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA ON INVESTIGATED SITES FOR
A SOLID WASTE MOUNTAIN AND RECREATION AREA
IN SOUTHWEST COOK COUNTY
The following is the basic data considered in selecting and evaluating investi-
gated sites for a solid waste mountain and recreation area. Matters common to
two or more sites are discussed under a number of topic headings relating to
site suitability. Detail information peculiar to the individual sites is presented
under the same headings in a tabulation following the general discussion.
SIZE AND CONFIGURATION
Each of the investigated sites has an area in excess of 3,200 acres. Sites 1, 4,
and 5 each exceed 5 square miles while Sites 2 and 3 each encompass an area
of approximately 6 square miles. Each site exceeds 3 miles in length; however,
their width and configuration vary. Sites 1 and 4 both average approximately
1.5 miles in width. Site 2 is 1.25 miles wide at its north boundary and 3 miles
wide at its south boundary. Site 3 is 2 miles in width. Site 5 averages approxi-
mately 1.8 miles in width. The two larger sites (2 and 3) would permit greater
design flexibility for the proposed solid waste mountain and recreation
facilities
Depending upon permissible landfill side slopes, site wicuh n;ay limit rhe
maximum height of fill on some sites to less than 1,000 feet. For example, an
average side slope of 4 to 1 on a 1,000-foot high fill would require a base width
of 8,000 feet. Such a fill could not be placed on Sites 1 or 4 as they are only
8,000 feet wide and some setback of the fill would be necessary.
EXISTING STRUCTURES ON SITES
AH of the investigated sites are located in rural Cook County. Site 1 embraces
about 200 single family residences (including farm homes) and 7 non-residential
structures. Approximately half of these structures are sub-standard. No attempt
was made to catalogue the number of farm accessory buildings on any of the
sites. Site 2 includes only about 100 single family residences and 2 non-
residential structures. With both Westhaven and Fernway Park located within its
boundaries, Site 3 encompasses more structures than all the other sites com-
bined. Approximately 510 single family residences and 6 non-residential struc-
tures are located within Site 3. The majority of these structures are
C-l
-------
sub-standard. Site 4 has the fewest structures with only 35 single family
residences and 2 non-residential structures. Site 5 has 118 single family struc-
tures and 6 non-residential uses.
None of the sites has extensive commercial or industrial usage. A few
scattered public buildings are located on all the sites. Sites 2, 4, and 5 contain
cemeteries; however, these are not extensively developed at this time and
should not create insurmountable difficulties. Site 5 encompasses 5 major
public uses: 2 country clubs, a home for the aged, a scout camp, and a
cemetery.
Site 3 contains 2 schools: The Fernway School and the Hollstein School.
Site 2 also contains 2 schools. Sites 1, 4, and 5 contain no schools.
All of the sites are traversed by utilities, principally gas and oil pipelines and
high voltage power transmission lines. In most instances, these utilities would
have to be rerouted around the site.
Major streets traverse all the sites. The ultimate design for the completed
landfill will determine which streets would have to be entirely eliminated and
which would be rerouted to serve local traffic.
LAND VALUE
Approximate land value information indicates that most of the undeveloped
land in the investigated sites is currently valued in the range of $3,000 to $4,500
per acre. Small areas of residential and commercial development are valued
considerably higher and will significantly affect the overall land cost of the
different sites.
ACCESSIBILITY
The distance and accessibility of the disposal site from areas of solid waste
generation are major factors in the overall cost of solid waste disposal. Char-
acter of highway haul routes largely determines whether the hauling operation
will create a nuisance. Fortunately, Sites 2, 3 and 4 now have excellent access
via the interstate highway system. The same highways provide haul routes to
Site 1, but several miles of undesirable travel on two-lane highways would be
required to reach the site from the interstate system. Proposed express high-
ways may provide excellent access to Site 1 in the future. The proposed South
Suburban Freeway may bisect Site 5 when it is constructed.
C-2
-------
Sites 1 and 2 have direct access to the Wabash Railroad and Site 3 has direct
access to the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad. Site 4 is l/2 mile north
of rail and Site 5 has rail access within '4 mile. Subsequent transportation
studies will determine whether railroads will be a feasible means for delivering
solid wastes to the disposal sites.
All of the sites are several miles from water transportation routes except
Site 5 which has access to the Calumet Sag Channel and the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal.
The sites are 15 to 20 miles from the initial stage of the proposed deep
tunnel project, via the interstate highway system.
Passenger transportation by rail to the solid waste mountain and recreation
area would be beneficial in making the recreation facilities available to the
maximum number of people. Under the C.A.T.S. "Alternate Transit Network"
the Wabash Railroad, which has direct access to Sites 1 and 2, would be a
commuter railroad. However, under the C.A.T.S. "Recommended Transit
System", no passenger service via rail would be available to Sites 1, 2, 4, or 5.
Site 3 would be served by a local railroad under the C.A.T.S. "Recommended
Transit System".
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAND USES
All of the investigated sites are located within the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago. Site 4 includes one of the District's proposed
sludge disposal sites.
Site 1 abuts existing Forest Preserves on both the north and the east. Site 2
includes 1.5 square miles of undeveloped Forest Preserve ground. Site 3 abuts
this same area. Site 4 includes approximately one square mile of undeveloped
Forest Preserve ground in its northeast comer. The Forest Preserve properties
included in Sites 2 and 4 are necessary to provide sites of adequate size and
suitable shape. Site 5 abuts Forest Preserve holdings along its east boundary.
Site 1 contains considerable residential development and its east side borders
the Village of Orland Park. Site 3 contains the Fernway Park and Westhaven
residential developments. Site 4 abuts the west side of the Village of Matteson.
Site 5 is adjacent to the Village of Lemont. Site 2 is the least exposed to
existing urban development. Residents of the sites and of the adjoining villages
will probably strongly oppose the solid waste mountain.
C-3
-------
Sites 1, 4 and 5 would be the most compatible with the proposed NIPC
Finger Concept of urban development, as they are in proposed buffer wedges
between development corridors. Sites 2 and 3 are in the proposed development
corridors and would not be compatible with the Finger Concept.
WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL
All sites are underlain by a creviced dolomite aquifer, and over a major part
of all sites except Sites 3 and 5 a sand and gravel aquifer overlies the dolomite.
These aquifers are a valuable natural resource and should be protected from
pollutants which might leach from a solid waste landfill.
It is probable that reasonable protection of the aquifers would be provided
by the approximately 50 to 150 feet of relatively impervious glacial till which
extends from the ground surface to the top of the aquifers. Some glacial till
would probably be used for cover on the refuse fill reducing the amount
available for protection of the aquifers. Collection and treatment of leachate
from the solid waste fill would also probably be necessary to control pollution
of both ground water and surface water.
The preceding evaluation is based primarily on generalized information con-
tained in publications of the Illinois State Geological Survey and State Water
Survey. Subsurface drilling and investigations will be required to more defi-
nitely evaluate the water pollution potential of the sites. It may be possible to
limit such detailed investigations to one or two sites selected on the basis of
other factors.
DRAINAGE
Where possible, sites were selected in the upper portion of watersheds to
minimize the amount of runoff to be diverted around the refuse fill. Ownership
of all drainage area tributary to a site would be advantageous as this would
permit filling in a manner to facilitate drainage.
All sites are considered suitable from the standpoint of drainage. However,
some sites will be more difficult to drain than others.
FOUNDATIONS
Soil borings and other subsurface investigations will be required to determine
whether the subsurface formations will adequately support a 1,000-foot high
solid waste mountain, and the structural design parameters for the solid waste fill.
-------
Since each of the sites is underlain by substantial depths of glacial till,
formation conditions on all of the sites are expected to be similar except for
variation in depth of till. The load bearing capacity of the subsurface form-
ations may control the maximum slope of solid waste fill which, in turn, could
limit the maximum height of fill.
It may be possible to limit subsurface investigations to one or two sites
selected on the basis of other factors.
OBSTRUCTION TO AIR TRAFFIC
A Federal Aviation Administration representative advises that: (l)a
1,000-foot high structure anywhere within 40 miles of Q'Hare Airport would be
considered an obstruction to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) navigation,
(2) structures 500 feet in height and higher within 2 miles of a major highway,
river or other prominent topographic feature would be considered an obstruc-
tion to Visual Flight Rules (VFR) navigation, (3) the FA A has successfully
blocked installation of some radio and television antennas in the Chicago area
which would have interfered with air traffic, and (4) if a proposed obstructing
structure were essential for the public welfare, the FAA might accept it and
adjust operating procedures accordingly.
All of the sites are within 30 airline miles of O'Hare Airport and within 2
miles of existing highways or proposed express highways; therefore, a
1,000-foot high structure would probably be considered by the FAA to be an
obstruction to both IFR and VFR navigation.
Inquiry has been made to the Aviation Department of the City of Chicago as
to whether a 1,000-foot high mountain on any of the potential sites would be
compatible with the City's long-range aviation program. A reply had not been
received when this was written.
MAPS AND SITE DETAILS
Attached are a detailed tabulation of evaluation data for each of the 5 sites,
a tabulation of the advantages and disadvantages of each site, a site location
map and maps of each of the sites.
-------
SITE 1
Advantages
lf Sparsely developed,
2. Would complement adjacent Forest Preserve.
3. In NIPC Open Space Wedge,
4. Direct rail access.
5. Partially screened by Forest Preserve and industrial area.
6. Minimum water pollution potential-
Disadvantages
1. No freeway access now.
2. Two future freeways may cross site.
3, In NIPC Environmental Scenic District.
4. Many ownerships,
5. No access to water transportation.
6. Shape limits development possibilities.
7. Rerouting of major streets.
SITE 2
Advantages
1. Sparsely developed.
2. Large ownerships.
3. Good freeway access-
4. Direct rail access.
5. Shape favorable for design.
6. Slight utility conflict (most need not be moved).
7. Lower comparative site cost.
Disadvantages
1. In NIPC Development Corridor.
2. Includes existing Forest Preserve land.
3. No access to water transportation.
SITE 3
Advantages
1. Good freeway access.
2. Direct rail access.
3. Shape favorable for design.
C-6
-------
Disadvantages
1. In NIPC Development Corridor-
2. Extensive residential development.
3. Extensive utility conflict.
4, No water access.
5. Relatively high site cost.
6, Many ownerships.
SITE 4
Advantages
1, Sparsely developed-
2. Large ownerships.
3. In NIPC Open Space Wedge,
4. Good freeway access.
5. Slight utility conflict,
6. Slight street rerouting.
7. Relatively low site cost.
Disadvantages
1. Includes existing Forest Preserve.
2. No water access.
3. Least protection of aquifer.
4. Indirect rail access.
SITE 5
Advantages
1. Water access.
2. Rail access.
3. Minimum water pollution potential.
4. Shape favorable for design-
5. Offers transportation flexibility.
6. Partially in NIPC Open Space Wedge.
7. Partially screened by Forest Preserve and
Cal Sag Channel.
Disadvantages
1. No existing freeway access.
2. Future N-S freeway may cross site.
3. Large semi-public and public land uses.
4. Extensive utility conflict.
5. Relatively high site cost.
6. Extensive rerouting of highways.
C-7
-------
SITE RATING
From the preceding evaluation, the sites are rated in order of suitability for a
solid waste mountain, as follows: 4, 5, 2, 1, and 3. However, none of the sites
is considered really suitable for the solid waste disposal operation covered by
this study. There is serious doubt that any of the sites could be acquired over
the objections of the public arid the numerous agencies that would be affected
by use of the land for solid waste disposal
C-8
-------
Cd
CO
§
5 r-
§
Hill
o S
"5 «
Q S
>•
Cd
I
00
i!
§g
§
*/t
*
§
i
« m
I
c
X
*f I
Is
>• n <•) >•
«
Wo cd
H'£ g
°^
w z
o
o
I!
s
IA
5
§
§
V)
S
S
111 c
< Si* S
o
I
!§
o
o «
2 >•
S <
I
•o
1
u
I
O 6
S
S
Q
8 *
O 6
a
-------
lake
Michigan
PNORTH^
O
I I I I I I
SITES INVESTIGATED FOP. SOLID WASTE
MOUNTAIN AND RECREATION AREA
-------
. rv Y* : f "XJ^J^A. ''•
O Va 1 iVa 2 mites
SITES 1,2, 3&4
c - n
-------
?•'<£_•
Va mile
SITE 5
-------
APPENDIX D
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING CONFLICT BETWEEN A 1000-FOOT
HIGH SOLID WASTE MOUNTAIN IN COOK COUNTY AND AIR TRAFFIC
BLACK & VEATCH A«Acoo«e.e
CONSULTING ENGINEERS Tcu.36l-7OOO
ISOO MEADOW LAKE PARKWAY
MAILINO ADDRESS ' P. O. BOX NO 8-4OS
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 6-4114
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago October 31, 1969
Solid Waste Disposal Study (Ski Mountain)
Project 5180
Mr. Frank Dalton
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Dear Mr. Dalton:
We believe that the effects of the proposed 1000-foot high solid waste
mountain on air traffic in the Chicago area should be determined as soon
as possible.
The normal method for determining whether a proposed tall structure will
be a significant hazard to air traffic is to submit FAA Form 7460-1 to the
Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
with a request that an immediate study be made of the matter. Since the
Metropolitan Sanitary District is the sponsoring agency for the proposed
solid waste mountain, we believe it appropriate that the District submit
this form and request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Accordingly, we have filled in the appropriate information on a copy of
FAA Form 7460-1 and are enclosing this form and two blank copies of it.
The data shown on the form are merely our suggestions and may be modified
as you see fit.
Please complete one of the blank forms and submit it, together with a
request for an immediate study, to:
Mr. M. L. Kolhler, Chief
Air Traffic Branch
FAA Chicago Area Office
3166 Des Plaines Avenue
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018
We would appreciate receiving copies of all correspondence between the
D-l
-------
BLACK A VEATCH
Mr. Frank Dalton - 2 - October 31, 1969
Metropolitan Sanitary District and the FAA on this matter, so that we
will be apprised of the FAA findings.
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
FEK:mm F. E. Kirkpatrick
-------
November 4, 1369
Mr. M. L. Kolhler, Chief
Air Traffic Branch
F\* Chioeno Area Office
31€f Dea Plaines Avenuo
Des Plaint)*, Illinois 60019
Dear Mr. Kolhlwri
Subject i Solid Waste Disposal Study (Ski Mountain)
The Metropolitan Sanitary District is preparing an
engineering design report for a posnible solution to
the poll-? vast*" 3i*p«Hal problem of rook County.
This report is being prepared because ttu* District does
anticipato a substantial amount of excavated naterinln
fror our T'rono»ed capital ir.provi.m«ntfi r^o^*"5 *o*" tho
next ten years. It is estimated thnt we nay have approxi-
mately nix million cubic yards of rook •xcavated annually
from rock tunnels, and we art* actively purpuino a solution
to the problem of! ditpouinc of this rook material so as not
to create other environmental problem* within Cook County.
In order to make certain that our excavation disposal
solution is conrvxtibia with solution* of other agensies,
w« have established a steering coBimittae composed cf repre-
sentatives indicated on the attached list.
One of the possihle .'Jolutiona to the solids disposal
problem ia to develop a mountain composed of solid materials,
The ultimate development will have a tremendous recreational
potential and will be developed in such * manner so as to be
froe of any environmental hazard.
We have received a grant pf $140,000 from the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Bureau of Solid V7aste Manage-
ment, Public Health Service, Grant number oo-l-ui-00163, in
order to develop a d«sicjn report for this work.
'fork nan progressed on this design report; however, wo do
want to determine what effect, if any, the proposed
mountain will have on air traffic in the Chitwgo area if
D-3
-------
M. t. Kolhlur
IMgo 2
ilovorcbor 4, 1969
tho proposed development is Ipqated in tho nroa which is
indicated on tho attaghod map.
Wo have complstcc! your Porro 7460-1, and wa would aporcaiate
your review of this m^ttep ftW<3 any conwtenta which you may
Ivava. Vtork on our (Hoaign report conwwnced May 1969 and is
schedule*! to bo con«f>4.©t«4 by April 1970. Thorofore, wa
would appreciate your cowjwmta at your vary earliest
oonvenionce.
Very truly yours,
' , „ .?
s s'r ./'•- '
-------
I Him A|>|>ri>vi'.l. llinlc.ri lint. .111 N». 114-U(100 I.
PKPARTMCNT 01 7
FEDERAL AVIATIOI
'NSPORTATION
•MINISTRATION
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION
1. NATURE OF STRUCTURE «;;*/>l<-l<- lx>ih A f«W H
A.fC.'/vrfc i>m>)
CONSTRUCTION
ALTERATION
B- (Check one)
[XI PERMANENT
,_, (Stale ir
Q TEMPORARY „/ ,im^
2. NAME AND ADDRESS OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY. CORPORATION, ETC. PROPOSING
THE CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION w««*c.. !(«„.<, aiy. Su» ,.<&, ,
r - n
The Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
L J
AERO
RE COMPI. I TCD D V FA A
flCAL STUDY Nil.
FAA WILL COMPI r rr ANO HI runN THIS
FORM IF ONI OH Minn
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
B. NEAREST »'H*). I/ oinrt- •.[wcr is rrtiuirrti. roHlinui' UH * xi-fxiralp xhcrl of faff' Iftl aimrh In thi\ HOlin'.l
Center of 3000-acre site is about 2 miles southeast of junction of
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal with Calumet Sag Channel. Site is
bisected by McCarthy Road and by Bell Road. See attached highway map.
5. HEIGHT AND ELEVATION (Complete A, B and C to the nearesl fool)
6. WORK SCHEDULE DATES
A. ELEVATION OF SITE ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
B HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE INCLUDING APPURTENANCES AND LIGHTING
' <-/«yJ ABOVE GROUND. OR WATER IF SO SITUATED
C. OVERALL HEIGHT ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL M + «)
700 to 740
A. WILL START
1973 +
1000+
1740+
B. WILL COMPLETE
2000 +
7. OBSTRUCTION MARKINGS- TU cptnpl«t»d itruetur. will b«;
YES NO
A. MARKED AS SPECIF I ED IN THE FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR 70/7460-1, OBST RUCTION MARKING AND LIGHTING
B. LIGHTED AS SPECIFIED IN THE FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR 70/7440-1, OBSTRUCTION MARKING AND LIGHTING
X
1 UKRbHY r.l-.KTU-'Y that all of ihc above statements pmd* by me «re tcuc, complete, and correct to the beat of my knowledge
8. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON FILING THISNOTICE y Srclltm 90J(») of ihr I'rdrnil Avlmliw Art »/ flM *» »mrnilril,
I'AA Forw'/IOO-l OI-AH) -.ui'i ir.i ui s IAA
\\t. .
-------
12/10/69 Original to Mr. Dalton. FCN/w
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
CHICAGO AUtA OFFICE
31M OM FMUMS* AVBMUK
DM PMMMM. U.UNOI*
9 DEC 1969
Mr. Forrest C. Neil
Acting Chief Engineer
The Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Dear Mr. Neil:
We have completed an aeronautical study of the proposed solid waste
mountain and recreation area to be constructed »» described in the
FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of proposed Construction or Alteration, that
you submitted to us on 10 November 1969. The study was conducted
within our organization and was not circularized to aviation interests
as agreed upon in your telephone conversation with Mr. Keith Potts
of our office on 17 November 1969.
Our study disclosed that the proposed facility would have the following
effect upon aeronautical operations and procedures in the Chicago
Metropolitan Area:
1. It would shield the new Chicago South radar site that we are
installing to enhance air traffic control in the Chicago area. This
would eliminate any low angle coverage to the west of the proposed
mountain from approximately 280° to 300°, resulting in a mandatory
relocation of the new radar. This radar site is very critical and
vital to aeronautical operations in the Chicago area. Radar site
acquisition in this area is most difficult and the present site is
the only one we have found suitable to meet requirements. This
proposed solid waste mountain would, therefore, jeopardize our radar
planning.
2. It will be close to the radar microwave link repeater path between
the LaGrange, Indiana radar site and the Chicago Air Route Traffic
Control Center at Aurora, Illinois. There is a very good chance that
the mountain will have an adverse effect on the performance of the
LaGrange radar remoted to the Chicago AKTCC.
-------
3. It will require that the initial departure altitude for aircraft
departing the Midway Airport be increased from 2000 feet MSL to 3000
feet MSL. As a result of this increase, the minimum altitudes for the
O'Hare parallel Runway 32 instrument approach procedure would be
increased to 4000 feet MSL for Runway 32L and 5000 feet MSL for
Runway 32R. This would place the aircraft above the glide path
intercept point and would negate the procedure. Inasmuch as
2000 feet MSL is the only altitude available for aircraft departing
Midway when Runway 32 approaches are in progress at O'Hare and the
fact that it is imperative that parallel 32 approaches at O'Hare
be retained, independent operations at Midway and O'Hare would be
eliminated. This results in a substantial adverse effect on both
O'Hare and Midway Airports.
4. It would require that Federal Airway V69 V173 V262 minimum
obstruction clearance altitude be increased from 2000 feet MSL to
2800 feet MSL and the minimum en route altitude be increased from
2500 feet MSL to 2800 feet MSL. Present procedures provide for
the use of 2000 feet MSL in this area and this would be increased
to 3000 feet MSL, thus the loss of a cardinal altitude.
5. We are presently in the process of establishing a full instrument
landing system (ILS) for Runway 4 at Midway. The localizer outer
marker site (LOM) is planned to be located 4.4 to 4.5 miles southwest
of Midway and cannot be relocated because of existing structures.
The proposed mountain would be located in the procedure turn area
of this new procedure and would be of such height as to require
an unacceptable descent gradient after the outer marker site and
would negate the whole system.
6. Inasmuch as the proposed facility would exceed 500 feet above
ground, it would be in conflict with Public Law 85-726, PAA Act of
1958. The Act defines "navigable airspace" as that "airspace above
minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations issued under
this Act, and shall include airspace needed to ensure safety in
take-off and landing of aircraft." Minimum flight altitudes are
prescribed by regulation in Section 91.79 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations. Generally speaking from a Visual Flight Rules
standpoint, it must be considered that the navigable airspace
include all airspace 500 feet and more above the surface and that
airspace below 500 feet required for flight over sparsely populated
areas. In view of the fact that the proposed facility would be
located in an area that is used extensively for Visual Flight Rules
traffic transitioning to and from the airports in the Chicago
Metropolitan Area to outlying points, and would occupy the airspace
D-7
-------
which has been declared to be "navigable airspace", any aircraft
attempting to use this airspace would run a risk of colliding
with the proposed facility. Therefore, the structure would have
an adverse effect upon Visual Flight Rules operations in the
Chicago area.
In consideration of the foregoing, we have determined that the
proposed solid waste mountain could have a substantial adverse
effect upon aeronautical operations and procedures in the Chicago
Metropolitan Area.
We regard the navigable airspace as a limited national resource
and have been charged by Congress with administering it for the
public benefit. While the aviation community is the principal
user, there are others who have legitimate requirements for the
use of airspace. When conflicts of interest over the use of
airspace arise out of proposals such as yours, we emphasize the
need for conserving the navigable airspace, for protecting air
navigation facilities and aeronautical procedures, the encroachments
of which would preclude them from performing their operational
functions for the use of aircraft. However, every effort must be
made to satisfy both interests.
Therefore, we request that at such time as plans for the proposed
mountain become more definite, that you notify us and at that time,
we will initiate a full aeronautical study, which will include
circularization of the proposal to all interested persons and issue
an official airspace determination.
Additionally, we would like to suggest that you coordinate the
subject proposal with the City of Chicago, Department of Aviation,
concerning their plans for siting of future airports in the Chicago
Metropolitan Area.
If we may be of any further assistance or service in this matter or
if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Chief, Air Traffic Branch, CHI-500
-------
RICHARD J. DALJCY
MAYOP
CITY OF CHICAGO
OFFICE OF THE MAYOH
January 12, 1970
Mr. F. E. Kirkpatrlck
Black & Veatch
1500 Meadow Lake Parkway
P. 0. Box 8405
Kansas City, Missouri
Dear Mr. Kfrkpatrick:
Your letters of October 8 and October 28 furnished information
concerrvi-ng studies directed toward the construction of a 1000-
foot high solid waste mountain in southwest Cook County, and
inquired concerning the compatibility of this proposal with the
long range aviation program of the City of Chicago.
The information forwarded with your correspondence has been
circulated to the departments of the City concerned with aviation
planning, requesting the! r advice on the impact of the proposal
you suggested. The replies indicate that the development of a
1000-foot high mountain in any of the general areas under con-
sideration would conflict with the development of sites now under
consideration for a future major airport. Construction on the
proposed project prior to the selection of a site for a major
airport could result in the elimination of a site for possible
airport development.
A meeting with you to discuss the matter is not considered to be
necessary. However, if you desire to discuss the matter further,
a meeting would be scheduled at your convenience.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely,
John B. W. Corey
t
~s
cc: F. Dal ton, MSDGC
inistrative Assistant
D-9
-------
LACK & VEATCH
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
AREA CODE 816
TEL.36I-7OOO
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
Solid Waste Disposal Study
Project No. 5180
I5OO MEADOW I.AKC PARKWAY
MAILING ADDRESS ' f>. O. SOX NO. 84O5
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64114
February 19, 1970
Mr. Forrest Neil
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Dear Mr. Neil:
At your request, we submit our version of the outcome of discussions held
with the FAA concerning the expected effect of the solid waste mountain on
air traffic in the Chicago area. Please review these comments carefully
in the light of your notes and recollections, as well as those of Mr. Scapiu,
so that the meeting summary will present a true picture of the situation to
the sub-committee.
The meeting was held at 1:30 p.m., February 18, 1970 in the FAA Chicago Area
Office at Des Plaines. Those in attendance were:
John Scapin
Forrest Neil
Bill Mercks
Keith Potts
Harry Mclntyre
Carl W. Johnson
C. W. Collins
Mike Moore
L. W. Breraser
F. E. Kirkpatrick
Subcommittee, Village Engineer, Wilmette
MSDGC
FAA
FAA
FAA
FAA
FAA
FAA
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch
Our understanding of the position taken by the FAA officials with regard to
the several items discussed in their letter to you, dated December 9, 1969,
is summarized below: <
(1) It was pointed out that site selection for radar was a
difficult problem and that the site in question had been
selected after much careful study. The purpose of this
installation is to improve radar coverage of traffic from the
-------
LACK ft VEATCH
Mr. Forrest Neil - 2 - February 19, 1970
small airports in the Chicago area, as well as from the major
commercial airports. The radar will be mounted close to the
ground and beamed upward at a slight angle to eliminate, as
much as possible, interference from structures on the ground.
Because of ground interference, it was not considered practical
to mount the radar atop the mountain.
The radar display will be installed remotely at the control
center. The question was raised concerning the installation
of another radar to cover the sector blanked out by the
mountain. This is possible but not desirable since it would
require another radar display. The technology is not yet
available to combine displays from two radars. Development
effort is being expended on this problem and it is conceivable
that a multi-radar display will be developed. If and when this
is available, an additional radar might be sited to cover the
blind area.
(2) The micro-wave path between LaGrange, Indiana, and Aurora,
Illinois, may require modification, possibly an additional
repeater station to carry the path around the mountain. This
would cost $50,000 i plus land for the site.
(3) The fact that the increased altitude required at Midway to
clear the mountain would also raise the approach altitude to
Runways 32R and 32L at O'Hare means that simultaneous landings
on 32L and 32R would experience interference, thus cutting
capacity of these approaches. It was estimated that approaches
in the 32 direction are necessary about 302 of the time.
During such periods of interference, stack-ups would occur
and traffic would be affected not only at Chicago but all across
the country.
(4) The loss of a cardinal altitude means that a proportionately
smaller amount of traffic could be accommodated.
(5) The mountain would defeat the purpose of the 1LS for Runway
4 at Midway.
(6) By being over 500 feet above the ground, the mountain would
extend into airspace used by a large volume of small, private
aircraft in skirting the heavy Chicago area traffic and, in
effect, would reduce the air space. It is particularly important
for pilots not familiar with the area. This is not an insur-
mountable problem but would probably require that the mountain
be well-lighted to outline the obstruction at night.
D-ll
-------
LACK a VEATCH
Mr. Forrest Neil - 3 - February 19, 1970
Conclusion; It was indicated that unless Midway was abandoned, FAA would
not accept the mountain at the location proposed. It was indicated that
there were probably no other sites in this general area of Cook County which
would not have basically the same objections. It was believed that Item 1
was a problem that might be solved by a monetary expenditure along with
advanced technology; Item 2 could be solved by the expenditure of funds;
Items 3, 4 and 5 were insurmountable unless Midway Airport was abandoned;
and Item 6 could be compromised.
The subject of a future Chicago airport was discussed in general, and the
FAA representatives expressed the opinion that if the facility was sited
somewhere to the south of the mountain site as presently envisioned, the
mountain would very likely cause a hazard to its operations.
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
• <
FEKrmm F. E. Kirkpatrick
-------
BLACK & VEATCH
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
AREA CODE 8ie
TEL.36I-7OOO
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
Solid Waste Disposal Study
Project 5180
ISOO MEADOW LAKE PARKWAY
MAILING ADDRESS' P.O.BOX NO 84O5
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 6411-4
March 17 , 1970
Mr. Frank Dalton
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Dear Mr. Dalton:
At your request, we submit herein our understanding of the Ski Mountain
Steering Committee Meeting on March 13,
Chairman Sosewitz opened the meeting at 2:00 p.m. The following were present:
Name Position Organization
Ben Sosewitz
Forrest C. Neil
Frank E. Dalton
Peter Johnson
John Harmon
Peter H. Sonnenfeld
James Castle
Douglas W, Smith
Norman L. Bacon
Richard Buck
B. Kieth Potts
Gary Englehorn
Mel Noel
F. E. Kirkpatrick
L. W. Bremser
Acting General Super-
intendent
Acting Chief Engineer
Assistant Chief Engineer
Project Officer
Research Planner
Planning Officer
Engineer
Supt. Streets & Refuse
Engineer & Planning
Director
Landscape Architect
Federal Aviation Admin-
istration
Engineer- Liaison w/
Federal Aid
Chief Engineer
Project Engineer
Partner
MSDGC
MSDGC
MSDGC
USPHS Bureau of Solid
Waste Management
NIPC
Illinois State Department
Local Governmental Affairs
Bureau of Sanitation
City of Chicago
Evanston, Illinois
Village of Oak Lawn
Forest Preserve District
Air Traffic - Airspace
MSDGC
Bureau of Sanitation
City of Chicago
Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch
D-13
-------
LACK ft VEATCH
Mr. Frank Dalton
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago - 2 - March 17, 1970
A copy of the Black & Veatch letter of February 19, 1970, reporting results
of the meeting held with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on February
18, was passed out. Mr. B. K. Potts, an FAA representative, indicated that the
consultants' interpretation was substantially correct. He stated that a solid
waste mountain at the Leraont Township site with top elevation up to elevation
1049 MSL (300* + above ground) would pose no problems for air traffic, but that
a 500' mountain (top elevation 1249' MSL) would have to be studied and would
pose some problems to FAA; although, the problems would be much less severe
than for a 1000' mountain. It was indicated that much the same problems would
be posed by a 1000* mountain located at any of the sites considered in southwest
Cook County. Mr. Potts also pointed out that the mountain would have effects on
the proposed new Chicago airport which is expected to be located somewhere south
of Cook County, but that these effects could not be determined until an airport
site has been selected.
Further discussion indicated that a solid waste mountain, possibly as high as
elevation 1500* MSL; might be tolerated by the FAA at certain locations in
northwestern Cook County.
It was concluded that there are two alternatives available: construct a
mountain substantially less than 1000* high in Cook County; or build the
1000' mountain outside Cook County. The merits of basing the study on sites
in Cook County and outside Cook County were discussed. It was the consensus
that, if a definitive study of a solid waste mountain outside Cook County was
to be undertaken, the State of Illinois should become involved in sponsoring
the work.
The consultants noted that while there may be suitable sites for a 1000' solid
waste mountain along the Illinois Waterway outside Cook County, the feasibility
of skiing facilities would be reduced by a shorter season and the necessity for
snow-making more of the time if the site were located south of Cook County.
Investigations show that ski slopes in Cook County have a substantially shorter
season than those only 60 to 70 miles further north in southern Wisconsin.
The Consultants stated that about $95,000 had been committed to date on the
study, leaving some $70,000 available for the Consultant's completion of the
study.
It was noted that if the direction of the study is altered to cover one or
more smaller mountains, this change should be cleared with the Board of the
Metropolitan Sanitary District: of Greater Chicago and with the Bureau of
Solid Wastes.
The consultants were instructed to provide the Committee with preliminary
findings by April 17 on:
-------
•LACK ft VEATCH
Mr. Frank Dalton
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago - 3 - March 17, 1970
1. The feasibility of a mountain 500* or less in height at site 5.
2. Whether there is a site in northwest Cook County that could
accommodate a 500* + mountain.
3. Approximate distance it will be necessary to go to find a site
for a 1000 ' high mountain which will not interfere with air traffic.
It was noted that private haulers represented by the Chicago and Suburban
Refuse Disposal Association collect more than half of the solid wastes in
Cook County and have a vital interest in the future disposal program, and it
was suggested that it would be appropriate to have a representative of the
Association on the Steering Committee,
To be certain that the entire Steering Committee is fully informed, it is
suggested that copies of the FAA letter of December 9, 1969 as well as the
Black & Veatch letter of February 19 be sent to all members of the Steering
Committee.
A tentative date for April 24 was selected for the next committee meeting.
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
FEKrmm F. E. Kirkpatrick
D-15
-------
APPENDIX E
DATA ON INVESTIGATED SITES FOR
A SOLID WASTE MOUNTAIN AND RECREATION AREA
IN NORTHWEST COOK COUNTY
WITHOUT SERIOUS CONFLICT WITH AIR TRAFFIC
Data are presented for four investigated sited in northwest Cook County, plus
Revised Site 5 in Lemont Township modified for a 300-foot mountain which
would not conflict with air traffic. Considerations common to two or more
sites are discussed under topic headings relating to site suitability. Detailed
information peculiar to individual sites is presented in a tabulation following
the general discussion. A general location map and maps of the individual sites
follow the tabulation.
Also attached is a brief discussion of the areas nearest Chicago where the
Federal Aviation Administration indicates that a 1,000-foot high solid waste
mountain would not conflict significantly with air traffic.
SIZE AND CONFIGURATION
Area, width and length limit the permissible height and volume of a solid
waste mountain, influence its general form, and restrict design flexibility. A
large site with a generous width permits a higher landfill as well as greater
latitude in naturalizing the mountain into the surrounding landscape. To obtain
maximum height and fill capacity on a small site, naturalization must be
sacrificed. Sites 6, 7 and 9 would permit much greater design flexibility on a
500-foot high mountain with an average side slope of 4 to 1 than Site 8 which
has a width of only one mile and an area of only 1,200 acres. Revised Site 5
was limited to a height of 300 feet (MSL elevation 1049) to eliminate conflict
with air traffic, and its area was reduced to about 1,400 acres.
Site size and configuration were governed by availability of large, relatively
undeveloped tracts not bisected by major thoroughfares which satisfy to a
reasonable degree the other site selection parameters discussed.
The volume for solid waste deposition in a mountain that could be con-
structed on a site is a major factor in evaluation of potential sites. The attached
site maps show a preliminary filling plan for each site. Landfill capacity in
acre-feet for each site was calculated and is shown on the attached graph
E-l
-------
together with the estimated cumulative landfill capacity in acre-feet required
for disposal of Cook County refuse prior to 1995, based on the following
assumptions:
— The disposal operation would be conducted at one site and
would start in 1975.
— Between 1975 and 1985, only 50 per cent of the wastes not
disposed of through existing incinerator plants, or plants cur-
rently under construction, would go to the Ski Mountain
disposal site.
— After 1985, all solid wastes not incinerated would go to the
Ski Mountain disposal site.
— Rock spoil from the storage chambers for the proposed deep
tunnel system would be delivered to the Ski Mountain dis-
posal site at a uniform annual rate over a 10 year period
starting in 1975, and would occupy a total of 75,000 acre-
feet of space in the solid waste mountain, including a 35 per
cent swell factor.
Intersections of each site capacity line on the graph with the curves of
cumulative required landfill space indicate the year that the site would be filled
under the assumed conditions. Completion dates are shown to range from 1990
to beyond 2000.
Landfill capacities of the sites considered herein range from 170,000 to
280,000 acre-feet. This compares with a capacity of approximately 1,000,000
acre-feet estimated for a 1,000-foot solid waste mountain on the original Site 5.
EXISTING STRUCTURES ON SITE
Sites with fewer existing structures are preferable to those having extensive
development because acquisition would be less costly and development would
disrupt fewer people.
The sites under consideration in northwest Cook County are generally less
populated than those considered in southwest Cook County. Only Site 9 shows
any indication of recent subdivision for development. Some areas adjacent to
the other sites, however, are rapidly urbanizing. Observations indicate that
basically all of the structures are of good quality, whereas a considerable
number of the structures located on sites in southwest Cook County were
substandard.
-------
None of the sites have commercial or industrial development except Site 9
which has an existing gravel pit operation and one radio tower. Site 9 is the
only site traversed by a major utility, a large gas pipeline.
Minor roads traverse all sites. Ultimate design for the completed landfill will
determine which roads would have to be entirely eliminated and which would
be rerouted to serve local traffic. Only Site 6 is traversed by a major thorough-
fare (Dundee Road).
LAND VALUE
Generally, land values in northwest Cook County are much higher than in
southwest Cook County. The fact that most of the dwelling units in the area
are large estates suggests that current land value estimates of $10,000 to
$15,000 per acre may be low. Because of impending development, land acqui-
sition will become more costly in the future.
ACCESSIBILITY
Sites 7 and 8 have direct access to the Northwest Toll way. Access to Site 6
is also provided by the Northwest Tollway, but three miles of travel on
Harrington Road is required to reach the site from the Tollway. Site 9 is two
miles south of the Northwest Tollway via Rohlwing Road.
Sites 6 and 7 have rail access. However, the railroad that could serve Site 7
does not traverse the heavily populated areas of Cook County. None of the
sites have access to water transportation routes. AH of the sites are over 40
road miles from the initial stage of the proposed deep tunnel project.
Passenger transportation by rail would be beneficial in making the recreation
facilities available to the maximum number of people. Only Site 6 would have
direct access to commuter rail under the C.A.T.S. recommended transit system.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAND USE
With the exception of Site 7, all of the investigated sites are located within or
partially within the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. All sites
abut existing Forest Preserve holdings but only Site 5 includes Forest Preserve
lands. All sites are in the path of urbanization except, perhaps, Site 6 which
does not presently show signs of impending development. Sites 7 and 8 would
E-3
-------
be most compatible with the proposed NIPC Finger Concept of urban develop-
ment as both are located in a proposed low density buffer wedge between
development corridors. Site 9 is in a proposed development corridor and would
not be compatible with the Finger Concept. Site 6 is in a fringe area com-
patible with low density or open space development.
Sites 7 and 8 contain parts of South Harrington, Site 6 includes about 80
acres of the incorporated area of Inverness and Site 9 includes an area within
the city limits of Schaumburg.
WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL
Water pollution potential of the sites was evaluated from information con-
tained in publications of the Illinois State Geological Survey and discussions
with State Geological Survey personnel at the Naperville, Illinois office. Avail-
able data indicate that geological conditions at all of the sites are generally
favorable for solid waste disposal. The creviced dolomite aquifer which under-
lies the sites is covered with relatively impervious glacial till, ranging in thick-
ness from about 100 to 200 feet. Although some of the till would probably be
excavated and used for covering the refuse, a sufficient thickness of till would
remain to prevent the passage of leachate in sufficient quantity to cause
significant pollution of usable ground water. Leachate would probably be
collected, by underdrains, and treated as additional protection of both surface
water and ground water.
Consideration was not given to investigated sites on the western edge of
northwest Cook County because geological reports indicate that in this area
sand and gravel deposits overlay the creviced dolomite. Under this condition, it
would be difficult to prevent pollution of the aquifer.
DRAINAGE
Where possible, sites were selected in the upper portions of watersheds to
minimize the amount of runoff that would need to be diverted. Ownership of
all drainage area tributary to a site would be advantageous, as this would
permit filling in a manner to facilitate drainage.
Revised Site 5, and Sites 6,7 and 8 are considered suitable from the standpoint
of drainage. Runoff from a large outside area which flows through Site 9 would
reduce the usable area of this site or necessitate extensive grading for proper
control of drainage.
-------
FOUNDATIONS
Soil borings and other subsurface investigations will be required to determine
whether the subsurface formations will support a solid waste mountain, and to
determine the structural design parameters of the rill. Foundation conditions
may control the maximum slope of solid waste fill and thereby limit the height
of fill. Subsurface investigation will also provide further data for evaluation of
water pollution potential.
Since each site is underlain by a substantial depth of glacial till bearing on
bedrock, foundation conditions are expected to be similar for all sites except
for variations in depth of til). Therefore, it will probably be necessary to make
subsurface investigations of only the site or sites selected on the basis of other
factors.
OBSTRUCTION TO AIR TRAFFIC
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Chicago office, provided guide-
line elevations for structure heights at the four sites which would not adversely
affect air traffic at O'Hare Airport. The FAA advised that structures within the
guideline heights on the four sites would not interfere with traffic control
radar.
Although appreciably higher structures could be accommodated by air traffic
in northwest Cook County than in southwest Cook County, the height of a
solid waste mountain in the northwest area would be restricted to less than
1,000 feet. Structures over 500 feet high would constitute obstruction to small
aircraft on VFR navigation.
MAPS AND SITE DETAILS
Attached are a detailed tabulation of evaluation data for each of the five
sites, a tabulation of advantages and disadvantages for each site, a location map,
and maps of each of the sites showing a preliminary filling plan.
REVISED SITE 5
Advantages
1. Shorter haul distance than NW sites.
2. Rail access.
3. Water access.
E-5
-------
4. Freeway access good in future when South Suburban
Freeway is completed.
5. Relatively close to initial stage of the proposed deep
tunnel project.
6. Partially screened by Forest Preserve District, Cal Sag
Channel and proposed freeway.
7. Partially in NIFC Open Space Wedge,
8. Minimum water pollution potential.
Disadvantages
1. Site configuration limits design flexibility.
2. Lowest fill capacity of all sites.
3. Site contains two large public facilities (Camp Palos and
Catholic Home for the Aged).
4. Site traversed by two pipelines, two gas lines and a
power line.
5, Site requires rerouting of Calumet Sag Road and a por-
tion of State Highway 83.
6. Existing freeway access is poor.
7. Proposed South Suburban Freeway may encroach on
site.
8. Contains 80 acres of Forest Preserve land.
9, FAA restrictions prevent construction of solid waste
mountain in excess of elevation 1,049,or about 300 feet
above the ground surface.
SITE 6
Advantages
1. Favorable site configuration permits reasonable design
flexibility.
2. Largest fill capacity.
3. Sparsely developed.
4. Large ownerships.
5. No major utility conflict.
6. Direct rail access via Chicago and Northwestern.
7. Direct access to commuter rail under C.A.T.S. recom-
mended transit system.
8. Favorable relationship to Forest Preserve District hold-
ings.
9. Minimum water pollution potential.
E-6
-------
Disadvantages
1. Major thoroughfare must be rerouted.
2. High land and acquisition cost.
3. Poor highway access.
4. No water access.
S. Remote from initial stage of the proposed deep tunnel
project,
6. Abuts urbanized area on two sides.
SITE?
Advantages
1. Favorable site configuration permits reasonable design
flexibility.
2. Large fill capacity.
3. Sparsely developed.
4. Large ownerships.
5. No major utility or thoroughfare conflict.
6. Good freeway access.
7. Favorable relationship to Forest Preserve District holdings.
8. In NIPC Open Space Wedge.
9. Minimum water pollution potential.
Disadvantages
1. High value residential subdivision abuts site.
2. High land acquisition cost.
3. Rail access via Elgin, Joliet and Eastern provides no
direct connection to Cook County.
4. No water access.
5. Remote from initial stage of the proposed deep tunnel
project.
6. Not in MSDGC.
SITES
Advantages
1. Sparsely developed.
2. Large ownerships.
3. No major utility or thoroughfare conflict.
4. Good freeway access.
5. Favorable relationship to Forest Preserve District holdings.
E-7
-------
6. In NIPC Open Space Wedge.
7. Minimum water pollution potential.
Disadvantages
1. Design flexibility severely limited by site size and con-
figuration.
2. Low volume fill capacity.
3. High value residential subdivision abuts site.
4. High land acquisition cost.
5. No rail access.
6. No water access.
7. Remote from intial stage of the proposed deep tunnel
project.
SITE 9
Advantages
1. Site configuration permits adequate design flexibility.
2. Shorter haul distance via freeway than other NW sites.
3. Favorable relationship to Forest Preserve District holdings.
4. Minimum water pollution potential.
Disadvantages
1. Rapidly urbanizing - new residential subdivision pre-
sently exists on site.
2. Gas line traverses site.
3. Highest land acquisition cost of all sites.
4. No rail access.
5. No water access.
6. Remote from initial stage of the proposed deep tunnel
project.
7. WGN radio tower on site.
8. In NIPC Development Corridor.
9. Extensive grading required — poor drainage conditions.
E-8
-------
2
O
I
Q
W c
L_ >••
c/3 *
< 2
*§:
Q<
J £
s:
*j
O "«
u, >
w S
35
UJ 2
H-
UJ
>
2
O
_ S *
f-
Cd
5 V
• I
I
1
B r
o a
z a
5
i
I -s
2 «S
III
— •= ° a
1 "3 1 « 5
: B e Tt o
>o r< -. Z
u "O
Sb.§
t»n 3
00 !T
«» mU
i,|
I!1
S ii1*
« x B >< »«
fllllfl
D -' = <,-;
•o
- V
«. o is
III
O O
O Z
« n
S 5 3
•n -" Z
E-9
-------
NEAREST AREAS OUTSIDE COOK COUNTY WHERE
A 1000-FOOT HIGH SOLID WASTE MOUNTAIN WOULD
NOT CONFLICT SIGNIFICANTLY WITH AIR TRAFFIC
Conferences were held with the Chicago Area Office of the Federal Aviation
Administration to determine the nearest areas outside Cook County where a
1000-foot high solid waste mountain would not conflict significantly with air
traffic. The FAA advised:
1. To the north and south of O'Hare Airport, heavy air traffic
and existing airports virtually prohibit a 1000-foot high solid
waste mountain.
2. The proposed new Chicago Airport, expected to be located
southwest of Chicago, may also be a major deterrent to a
solid waste mountain south of Cook County.
3. Preliminary investigation indicates three general areas to the
west where a 1,000-foot mountain would apparently cause few
problems for air traffic. These areas, shown on the attached
Chicago Region map, are located:
Northwest in McHenry County in the Woodstock,
Marengo, Harvard triangle;
West in Kane County, approximately 15 miles west of
Elgin; and
Southwest in Grundy or LaSalle Counties, south of the
Illinois River and the Town of Seneca.
4. The FAA would have to make an in-depth study to render an
official opinion of the effects on air traffic of a 1,000-foot
high solid waste mountain in any of these areas.
5. Any structure more than 100 feet above the ground surface
poses some obstruction to Visual Flight Rules navigation.
However, since VFR traffic is much lighter over the three
suggested areas than over western Cook County, the adverse
effect of a 1,000-foot mountain in these areas would be
much less than for the same mountain in Cook County.
The west and southwest areas are near Interstate highways. The northwest
and west areas are served by railroads. The southwest area is near the Illinois
Waterway. Detailed investigations of transportation and other site factors would
bv required to ascertain the suitability of any of the three areas for use as a
solid waste disposal site.
-------
i.akt
Michigan
rNORTM^
O
1 i
SITES INVESTIGATED FOR SOLID WASTE
MOUNTAIN AND RECHEATI0N AHEA
E - 11
-------
REVISED SITE 5
-------
rNORTH
9 f Vz
1 mile
SITES 6, 7 & 8
E - 13
-------
SITE 9
-------
THE CHICAGO REGION
60
0 " NEAREST AREA FOR IOOO FT. HIGH SOLID WASTE MOUNTAIN
WHICH WILL NOT CONFLICT SIGNIFICANTLY WITH AIR TRAFFIC
-------
APPENDIX F
DATA ON INVESTIGATED SITES
FOR A 1000-FOOT HIGH
SOLID WASTE MOUNTAIN AND RECREATION AREA
NEAR COOK COUNTY AND ALONG ILLINOIS WATERWAY
As instructed by the Steering Committee on April 24, preliminary investi-
gations have been made of potential solid waste mountain sites along the
Illinois Waterway in the vicinity of Seneca, Illinois. Data are presented for five
sites considered to have potential for construction of a 1,000-foot high solid
waste mountain without causing serious hazard to air traffic. Considerations
common to the sites are discussed under topic headings relating to site suit-
ability. Detailed information peculiar to individual sites is presented in a
tabulation following the general discussion. A general location map and maps of
the individual sites follow the tabulation.
SIZE AND CONFIGURATION
Investigated ski mountain sites selected for consideration outside Cook County
range in size from 6.6 to 12.1 square miles and all are larger than the largest
site previously analyzed inside Cook County. The open, rural character of
outlying Grundy and LaSalle Counties facilitated selection of potential sites
with sufficient acreage to permit generous setbacks and protective buffers
around the sites. In rapidly urbanizing Cook County, this amenity was less
easily accommodated. Other advantages of larger sites are greater design flexi-
bility, greater fill capacity, more latitude in the provision of recreational
facilities and a better opportunity to retain existing natural features, such as
drainage areas and tree cover. For example, Site 10, largest of the five sites,
would be most adaptable to staged development, would permit an earlier
realization of recreational potential, would be almost completely buffered
from abuting land uses, and would permit almost total preservation of its
rugged physical characteristics.
Each site will support a mountain with a height of at least 1,000 feet with
maximum side slopes of 4 to 1. Generalized mountain configurations, shown on
the attached site maps, were developed to roughly estimate the fill volume
which could be supported reasonably on each site without destroying its most
interesting natural assets. These should not be construed as final design
concepts.
F-l
-------
Estimated landfill volumes; of the sites range from 1,093,000 to 1,858,000
acre-feet. Considering that the landfill space requirments of Cook County are
estimated to average about 10,000 acre-feet per year over the next 20 year
period, life of the sites for Cook County solid wastes appear to be in the range
of 50 to 150 years.
EXISTING LAND USE AND STRUCTURES ON SITES
The principal land use on each of the investigated sites is agricultural. None
of the sites is heavily populated. The smallest site (No. 11) contains 19 existing
homes, while the largest site (No. 10) contains about 100. Site 10 includes a
small cemetery which could be rehabilitated and retained in the final design
concept. None of the sites presently contain commercial or industrial develop-
ment. Sites 11 and 13 each contain a marina which could become an integral
part of the proposed recreational facilities. None of the other sites contain
major nonagricultrual land uses. Site 11 abuts the DuPont Seneca Works
(fertilizer plant) on the north. Site 13 abuts a proposed Commonwealth Edison
power plant on the Illinois River. An 8,000 acre tract is purportedly being
acquired to the south of this site for a large cooling lake. The possibility of
obtaining additional fill material from this proposed lake remains to be
investigated. Site 14 abuts Starved Rock State Park on its north boundary.
Two gas lines, two power lines and a microwave path traverse Site 10. A
powerline crosses Sites 11, 13, and 14. Site 13 is traversed by a microwave path
along its east border. Only Site 10 is bisected by a major highway, U.S. 6,
which would require rerouting.
LAND VALUE
Land values in Grundy and LaSa|le Counties according to their respective
County Assessors, average about $700 per acre for good farm land. Properties
along the Illinois River are selling for prices ranging up to $1,500 per acre.
Each of the investigated sites considered herein would cost less than any of the
smaller sites considered earlier in Cook County.
ACCESSIBILITY
Sites 10, 11 and 13 have direct access to the Illinois River while Sites 12 and
14 are approximately Vz mile from the river bank. Major highway access to all
the sites is via 1-80. Highway access to each of the sites except Site 12 passes
through an existing town. This disadvantage could be rectified more easily for
Site 10 than for Sites 11, 13, and 14.
F-2
-------
Sites 10, 11, and 12 have direct rail access, while Sites 13 and 14 have rail
access within Vt mile and IVi miles respectively. Site 10 has access to two
railroads: the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific and the Elgin, Joliet and
Eastern. Other sites have access only to the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific.
Approximate distances of the sites from Chicago Loop are:
Site Highway Miles Water Miles
10 53 53
11 87 73
12 82 73
13 87 73
14 100 94
LOCATION
All investigated sites are located along the Illinois River in northeastern Illinois.
Sites 12, 13, 14 are located in LaSalle County. Site 11 straddles the LaSalle-
Grundy County Line and Site 10 straddles the Grundy-Will County Line.
WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL
Water pollution potential of the sites was evaluated from published reports
of the Illinois Geological Survey, the State of Illinois Department of Business
and Economic Development, and discussions with State Geological Survey
personnel at the Naperville office.
Available information indicates that hydrogeological conditions are generally
favorable for solid waste disposal at all of the investigated sites. Fifty to 100 feet
of relatively impervious silty clay glacial till covers bedrock at each of the sites.
Bedrock at Site' 10 consists of the Maquoketa Group, a poor aquifer composed
mainly of impervious shales which retards vertical movement of water to lower
bedrock aquifers.
Bedrock at the other sites is the Carbondale formation of the Pennsylvanian
System, a poor aquifer consisting mainly of shale with siltstone, sandstone,
limestone and coal. Water in the Pennsylvanian System tends to be highly
mineralized at greater depths.
F-3
-------
DRAINAGE
Where possible, sites were selected in upper portions of watersheds to
minimize the amount of runoff to be diverted. Ownership of all drainage area
tributary to a site would be advantageous, as it would permit filling in a
manner to facilitate drainage. Due to size of the sites, all will pose some
drainage problems.
Drianage of Site 10 will be facilitated by high interior topography which
drains in all directions to the exterior. Sites 11 through 14 each drain large
outside areas to the river. Although more extensive grading may be required at
these sites, initial investigations indicate adequate drainage can be accomplished.
Drainage from Site 14 passes through Starved Rock State Park and will have to
be carefully controlled to prevent inconvenience to the public.
FOUNDATIONS
Soil borings and other subsurface investigations will be required to determine
whether subsurface formations will support a 1,000-foot solid waste mountain
and to determine structural design parameters of the fill. Foundation conditions
may control the maximum slope of the solid waste fill and, consequently, the
height and configuration of the fill. Subsurface investigations will also provide
useful hydrogeological data for evaluating water pollution potential and means
for preventing or minimizing pollution.
OBSTRUCTION TO AIR TRAFFIC
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Chicago office, delineated the
general areas along the Illinois waterways where a IpOO-foot high solid waste
mountain would conflict significantly with air traffic. Areas of conflict are
indicated on the attached site location map. Potential disposal sites were
selected in areas free of such conflict-
Any structure over 500 feet above existing ground is considered an obstruc-
tion to small aircraft on VFR navigation. However, the FAA indicated that
approval is normally granted for structures erected in the public interest if they
do not consitute a serious hazard to air traffic.
Prior to actual construction of a 1000-foot high solid waste mountain on any
of the investigated sites, an official notice of proposed construction should be
filed with the FAA.
F-4
-------
MAPS AND SITE DETAILS
Attached are a detailed tabulation of pertinent data for each of the five sites,
a tabulation of advantages and disadvantages for each site, a location map, and
maps of each of the sites showing a preliminary fill plan.
SITE 10
Advantages
»
1. Permits greater design flexibility than other sites.
2. Permits larger fill capacity than other sites.
3. Permits generous buffer strip around perimeter.
4. Permits more extensive preservation of existing natural
amenities than other sites.
5. Is nearer Chicago Metropolitan Area than other sites.
6. Has direct water access.
7. Has direct rail access.
8. Has convenient access to two Interstate expressways.
9. Drainage conditions are more favorable than for other
sites.
10. Minimum water pollution potential.
Disadvantages
1. Traversed by more existing utility lines than other sites
(2 gas lines, 2 power lines, a microwave path).
2. Requires relocation of U.S. Route 6 in final design con-
cept.
3. Existing highway access is through small towns.
SITE 11
Advantages
1. Has direct water access.
2. Has direct rail access.
3. Minimum water pollution potential.
Disadvantages
1. Highway access is circuitous and passes through an exist-
ing town.
2. Power line crosses site.
F-5
-------
SITE 12
Advantages
1. Has future potential for excellent access to 1-80 since site
is only 1 /2 mile south of 1-80.
2. Access to site does not require haul through an existing
town.
3. Minimum water pollution potential.
4. No major utility conflict.
Disadvantages
1. Rail and water access are not direct. Haul from barge
and rail will conflict with U.S, Hwy 6.
2. Drainage conditions are not favorable,
SITE 13
Advantages
1. Has direct water access.
2. Minimum water pollution potential.
Disadvantages
1. Has poor existing rail access.
2. Highway access is circuitous and passes through an exist-
ing town.
3. Power line passes through site.
SITE 14
Advantages
1. Minimum water pollution potential.
2. Could be integrated with existing park and recreational
facilities.
Disadvantages
1. Requires truck haul through an existing town.
2. Further from solid waste generation points than other
sites.
3. Power line passes through site.
4. Does not have direct access to the river- Haul from
barges must pass through Starved Rock State Park.
F-6
-------
i
05 3
O "a
PU >
tt> -"
uj 3
H 'C
38 B
SI
L_
<<
o-
fe
UJ
Z
Z
o
Q
UJ
C*
<
O,
S
8
u <
So
F-7
-------
-------
_ C. -CL
o
I
1 mile
PROPOSED FINAL TOPOGRAPHY OF
SKI MOUNTAIN ON STTE
F - 9
-------
SITES 11, 12 & 13
-------
SITE 14
F - 11
-------
APPENDIX G
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING SITE 10
BLACK & VEATCH
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
AREA CODE 616
TEL.3ei-7OOO
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
Solid Waste Disposal Study
Project 5180
I5OO MEADOW LAKE PARKWAY
MAILING ADDRESS - P. O BOX NO 8"»O5
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64114
July 8, 1970
Mr. Frank Dalton
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Dear Mr. Dalton:
Although we discussed the proposed ski mountain site near Minooka (Site 10)
with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Chicago Area Office, and
received an unofficial opinion that a 1000 foot high mountain at this site
would not be a significant hazard to air traffic, we believe FAA Form 7460-1
should be submitted on this site as was done for the proposed Lemont Site.
Accordingly, we have filled in the appropriate information on a copy of
FAA Form 7460-1 and are enclosing this form and blank copies of it.
The data shown on the form are merely our suggestions and may be modified
as you see fit.
Please complete the blank form and submit it, together with a request for
an immediate study, to:
Mr. M. L. Kolhler, Chief
Air Traffic Branch
FAA Chicago Area Office
3166 Des Plaines Avenue
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018
We would appreciate receiving copies of all correspondence between the
Metropolitan Sanitary District and the FAA on this matter, so that we will
be apprised of the FAA findings.
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
FEKrmm
Enclosure
r <-
F. E. Kirkpatrick
G-l
-------
SKI-MOUNTAIN STEERING COMMITTEE
100 E.ERIE STREET - CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611 - PHONE 312-787-8900
July 16, 1970
PROJECT DIRECTOR
Frank E. Dalton
The Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED
The Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
City of Chicago
Bureau of Sanitation
Cook County Forest Preserve
District
Cook County Council
of Governments
State of Illinois
Dept. of Conservation
State of Illinois
Dept of Business and
r omic Development
United States Public
Health Service
American Public Works
Administration
Northeastern Illinois
Planning Commission
Robert Thorsen
Attorney
City of Evanston
City of Des Plumes
Village of Arlington Heights
Village of Alsip
Village of Glenview
Village of LaGrange
Village of Oak Lawn
Villjg? of Odk Park
Villdg? of Pr.rk Forest
Village: of Skokie
" of WilmPtte
Mr. M. L. Kolhler, Chief
Air Traffic Branch
FAA Chicago Area Office
3166 DesPlaines Avenue
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018
Dear Mr. Kolhler:
The proposed Ski Mountain site near Minooka,
Illinois, is being studied as the solution to the
solids disposal problem of Cook County.
To comply with FAA regulations, the Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago is submitting
FAA Form 7460-1 for your review and comments.
Since design work cannot proceed without this
information, we would appreciate your comments
at your very earliest convenience.
Thank you for your earliest consideration of
this project.
Very truly yours,
Frank E. Dalton
Assistant Chief Engineer and
Project Director
FED:jn
Enclosure
-------
^f U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE) lt69-9**-02A
Brforc completing this form it la recommended that chc following excerpts from the
u u.
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, Subcbapter B below be reviewed.
USE BACK OF THIS SHEET AS WORKSHEET
Form Approved. Budgtt B«reau No. 04-R0001.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION
TO BE COMPLETED BY FAA
AERONAUTICAL STUDY NO.
1. NATURE OF STRUCTURE (Complete both A and B below)
I. (Check one)
0 NEW CONSTRUCTION
ALTERATION
B.fC
C* one)
PERMANENT
TEMPORARY
(Stale length
of time)
.Has.
2. NAME AND ADDRESS OF INDIVIDUAL. COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC. PROPOSING
THE CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION
-------
DEPARTMENT OF IKANbHORlATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
CHICAGO AREA OFFICE
316» OE8 PLAIN** AVENUE
DCS PLAINER, ILLINOIS «OO1«
3 1 AUG 1970
Mr. Frank E. Dalton
Assistant Chief Engineer
The Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Dear Mr. Dalton:
We have completed an aeronautical review of the proposed solid waste
ski-mountain and recreation area, in accordance with the information
submitted to us in the FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction
or Alteration, dated 14 July 1970. The review was conducted within
our organization and was not circularized to aviation interests as
agreed upon during your telephone conversation with Mr. Keith Potts
of our office on 30 July 1970.
Our study disclosed that the proposed ski-mountain would have the
following effect upon present aeronautical operations and procedures:
1. It would require that the minimum en route altitude of Federal
Airways V171, V429 and V38 be increased from 2500 feet MSL to 2700
feet MSL.
2. It would require that the minimum obstruction clearance altitude
of Federal Airways V171, V429 and V38 be increased from 2100 feet MSL
to 2700 feet MSL.
3. It would be located immediately adjacent to the Illinois River,
which is a prominent, readily identifiable landmark that may constitute
a regularly used Visual Flight Rules route. As previously pointed out
in our comments concerning the proposed ski-mountain, the public has
che right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace in
accordance with Public Law 85-726, Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Our
procedures dictate that a proposed object would have an adverse effect
upon air navigation if it would exceed a height of 500 feet above the
surface at its site and would be located within two statute miles of
any regularly used Visual Flight Rules route identifiable by prominent
landmarks suitable as visual aids to air navigation. Further study
including aeronautical circularization of the proposal to all known
interested persons would be necessary in order to determine if the
Illinois River is or is not a Visual Flight Rules route.
-------
Therefore, we request that at such time as plans for the ski-mountain
become more definite, that you notify us and at that time, we will
initiate a full aeronautical study and issue an official airspace
determination.
If we may be of any further assistance or service in this matter,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
'M. L. KOEHLER
'/Chief, Air Traffic Branch, CHI-500
G-5
-------
STATE OF ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF
REGISTRATION AND
EDUCATION
WILLIAM M MOHIN6ON
DlftfCTO* • pmMbr.El.o
flJLS.
. ' l Z.J 3.
fl^^
M0«
m ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
in NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING
ITT PEABQDY EAST OF IIOUTH SIXTH
I* URBANA. ILLINOIS QI8O1
Mr. C. E. Clark, Chief
Bureau of Solid Waste
Environmental Protection Agency
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Dear Mr. Clark:
RECEIVED
SFP 3 1970
TELEPHONE Z17 344-1481
JOHN C FRVE. CHIEF
August 31, 1970
In re
PHQFtCTIQN WKNCf
S)
haqp of rhp formation. A few remnants of the tnm rcnnsy ivanian (,coal Measures)
are present. Underlying the Maquoketa is the Galena-Platteville dolomite which is
in turn underlain by the St. Peter sandstone.
The glacial drift overlying the bedrock is variable in thickness and
character. In the northeastern part of the site between Minooka and Channahon the
drift is relatively thin, less than 50 feet thick; in the DuPage River Valley
gravel is present but the rest of the area is mostly clayey till. In the Aux
Sable Creek lowland sandy deposits are also found near the surface, but are under-
lain by rather thick, clayey till. In a large part of the site the glacial drift
is 100 to 150 feet thick. VJjjere t^iis thick, the upper 80 to 100 feet is clayey
till which is underlain by permeable sand and gravel. Sometimes more than one
gravel zont is present.
-------
Mr. C. E. Clark, Chief - 2 August 31, 1970
Water supplies in the area are mostly obtained from drilled wells finished
in the bedrock, although undoubtedly a number of old dug wells are present in the
area which are still in use. The most productive horizon is the St. Peter sandstone,
encountered at an average depth of about 500 feet. However, both the Maquoketa and
Galena-Platteville are productive and most domestic supplies are finished in these
formations at 150 to 130 feet. The gravel in the glacial drift probably is also
highly productive where present. However, most wells are flhished in the underlying
rock because of ease of well construction (and therefore lower costs); some wells
finished in the rock immediately below the gravel undoubtedly draw water from the
gravel also.
We have no records of a public water supply at Channahon; apparently water
is obtained from individual wells. Minooka obtains water from wells 640 feet deep;
the St. Peter sandstone is the principal producing zone, although the holes are open
to the shallower dolomites. The drift at this site is only 40 to 45 feet thick.
Water levels in the wells in this area average about 80 to 100 feet below land sur-
face.
It is impossible to give an overall opinion of the site as a landfill pro-
ject of the dimensions of this project. Obviously a considerable amount of drilling
would have to be done to better evaluate the thickness and character of the glacial
drift. From the available data it appears that the area is, in general, favorable
as a landfill site. My main concern would be for the northeast area where the
drift appears to be thin and deep trenching could strip most, if not all, the
protection from underlying dolomite aquifers, which then could transmit pollutants
large distances ( dolomites, like limestones, transmit water through fractures
which afford little or no filtering). Also the shallow sand in the Aux Sable Creek
area could possible be affected. There is ample water available from the deep
St. Peter sandstone to provide an alternate supply should it be necessary to provide
for one.
Considerable care by an experienced well plugging company would have to be
taken to plug all wells penetrating the aquifer in the area as they make a direct
connection between the surface and aquifers. Location of all wells may be somewhat
difficult and operation of the landfill may reveal wells not located during the
original plugging operations, and appropriate care must be taken to plug these when
found.
Very truly yours,
/L
Keros Cartwright
Assistant Geologist
Section of Ground-Water Geology
and Geophysical Exploration
G-7
-------
(1GPL.
J. E. THOMPSON
VICE PRESIDENT - ENOINEERINO
Black and Veatch
Consulting Engineers
1500 Meadow Lake Parkway
Kansas City, Missouri
Attention: Mr. H. E.
RE: Metropolitan Sanitary Di
of Greater Chicago
Solid Waste Disposal Study
(Ski Mountain)
Project Number 5180
1*2 SOUTH MICHIGAN AVE
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 8OOO3
**HONC: 312/431.76*0
tober 9, 1970
Gentlemen:
As requested, we have prepared a cost estimate based on relocating our
three pipelines to the perimeter of the proposed disposal site south of the
town of Minooka.
We have determined that the route proposed in your original correspondence
is generally acceptable to us and was used in preparing the estimate. In utili-
zing this routing, approximately 3.7 miles each of existing three lines would be
replaced with U.75 miles of relocated lines.
Existing facilities consist of one 30-inch and two 36-inch pipelines. Be-
cause of the increased length of the relocated lines compared with the existing
facilities, an increased pressure drop of h psi will result if pipe of the same
diameter is used. To eliminate this pressure drop and the resulting loss of
capacity, the replacement pipe must consist of three 36-inch lines.
In preparing the estimate, it has been assumed that the existing lines will
be abandoned in place. If it is determined at the time of relocation that it
would be economical to salvage these lines, this would then be done. This aspect
cannot be determined at this time.
Also, it has been assumed that we will not acquire new right-of-way but will
utilize Sanitary District right-of-way on the periphery of the site.
Page 1 of 2
-------
Black and Veatch
Page 2 of 2
October 9, 1970
Based on three 36-inch lines, each 4.75 miles in length we have estimated
a total cost of $3,580,000 or approximately $48 per lineal foot. This figure
assumes 1971 construction and material costs.
Data on these new facilities are as follows:
Pipe 36" O.D. x .330" W.T. X65
Design Pressure 856 psig (same as existing)
Function Natural Gas Transmission
We hope this information will aid you in the feasibility study and if you
should require additional information, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICA
' /1 / ',r-, .,/< ;<&'• —
J. E. Thompson
G-9
-------
Commonwealth Edison Company
72 WEST ADAMS STREET * CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Addrtli Rtply to:
POST OFFICE 1OX 767 if CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60490
January 25, 1971
Mr. F. E. Klrkpatrlck
Black and Veateh
Consulting Engineers
1500 Meadowlake Parkway
P.O. Box Mo. 8405
Kansas City, Missouri 64114
Dear Mr. Klrkpatrick:
This is to confirm my telephone conversation with
Mr. Tancy regarding an estimate of costs we could incur in
relocating facilities to clear the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago-Ski Mountain Project 5180, Site
No. 10. I gave Mr. Yancy a figure of $5,000,000 for the cost
of relocating existing and planned facilities through the area
exclusive of any alternate right-of-way costs.
I superimposed on your attached print the location
of our rlght§-of-wmy, together with a legend indicating the
number of existing and planned transmission lines and their
voltage through the various segments. The planned lines are
those which are currently being engineered for early construc-
tion.
The estimate is contingent on our being able to install
the 765-KV tower line along an alternate route as indicated by
dashed red line. If this line had to be rerouted in a manner
involving more angles or, if it had to be rerouted outside the
area completely, the estimate would be substantially increased.
If you desire any further information, please let
me know.
Yours truly,
A. R. Heidecke
Asst. Director of Real Estate
-------
Ill" " D II 7 East clinton Street
IllinOIS bell Joliet, Illinois 60431
Telephone Company September 30, 1970
Mr. H. E. Lutz
Black & Veatch, Consulting Engineers
P. 0. Box No. 8405
Kansas City, Missouri 64114
Dear Sir:
This is in response to your request regarding the solid waste disposal
study near Channahon, Illinois (Project No. 5180). The location and
height of this waste deposit would interfere with our microwave and
other outside plant facilities.
We have estimated the cost of relocation and adjusting our facilities
based on current cost at $460,000.
Very truly yours,
District Engineering Manager
DIM:jb
G-ll
-------
WOODWARD-CLYDE & ASSOCIATES
K-70-5
• 6OO EAST 9STH STREET • KA'JSAS CITY MISSOl'H!
• 1EI.F.PHONE EM 3 3663
Coniutttnt> Soil and Fnundation Engineers
June 29, 1970
OAKLAND, CALIF
DENVER, COLO.
OMAHA, NEB.
KANSAS CITY, MO
PHILADELPHIA, PA
CLIFTON, NJ.
ST. LOUIS. MO.
SAN DIEGO, CALIF
SAN JOSE, CALIF.
NFW YORK, N.Y
Black £ Veatch
1500 Meadowlake Parkway
Kansas City, Missouri
Attention: Mr. L. W. Bremser
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
SOLID V/ASTE DISPOSAL CONCEPT
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Gentlemen:
This letter confirms verbal presentations made to you and your
engineers on June 2k. We have, at your request, identified probable
geologic subsurface conditions using reference information you made
available plus our own library resources. A list of the Information
available is attached in the bibliography. The object of this review
was to provide the basis for preliminary findings relating these con-
ditions to foundation performance of the proposed construction. The
scope of all work is preliminary. The data available for review has
been of a geologic character. Within this site, denoted Site 10, no
borings have been performed and no laboratory test results of an engi-
neering nature are available. The only wells for which data are avail-
able have been extended into bedrock; logs in the surficial deposits
are not aval table.
To provide perspective to our findings the scope of proposed
construction Is described. The general geologic setting, with possible
-------
K-70-5 Page 2
variations and expected important characteristics, is described and
subsequently the findings and recommendations are presented.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Proposed construction envisions an ultimate 1000 foot maximum
sanitary landfill constructed with average outboard slopes of k (hori-
zontal) to I (vertical) covering portions of twelve sections, ten of
which are in Grundy County and two in adjacent east Will County. The
site is generally bounded by the DuPage River and the Des Plains River
on the east and the area of confluence with the Kankakee River to the
south. (Below these watersheds it is known as the Illinois River.)
As generally visualized,the soil material present within this area
would be used as cover material for the landfill layers. Assuming
a 10 percent proportion of soil to total mass, it is estimated that
some 50 feet of excavation throughout the area of landfill mass would
be necessary. To provide a base for permanent construction,a relatively
non-yielding central core area has been proposed. A required width
of 50 feet at the crest is necessary. Phased construction is desired.
During construction portions of the site would be used desirably for
recreation and ultimately the area would be a ski mountain site. The
time to ultimate development is estimated at one hundred years.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
Our review of the available geologic literature suggests this
site is underlain by bedrock at depths of 50 to 100 feet. The uppermost
G-13
-------
K-70-5 Page 3
bedrock unit is likely shale of the Maquoketa formation. Outcrops
of overlying dolotnitlc rocks are present short distances to the east
particularly along the Des Plains River. The shale beds of this unit
are low pervious, generally not productive of groundwater, although
included dolomitic beds are sometimes low yield aquifers. The bedrock
surface is overlain by glacial deposits of which the most prominent
feature is the Minooka moraine. This is an interglacial terminal
moraine oriented north-south. It terminates at the confluence of the
rivers bounding this site. This type glacial feature is normally composed
of a large variety of grain sized materials including everything from
boulders down to and including clay till. As mapped, this feature
extends areally over the central portion estimated at approximately
two-thirds of the construction area. It was constructed by the glacial
Ice sheet at a point in Its recession when the advancing ice and melting
resulted in a virtual standstill of the ice advance. This resulted
in the production of accumulation of glacial debris in which the local
production and distribution of melt water determined the character
of the deposits. As mapped by Thornburn the surface materials are
described as "dark colored moderately slowly permeable soils from thin
loess on silty clay loam till." Figure 6 of groundwater report number
1 shows a sand content in the Minooka moraine. Bergstrom, in his "Disposal
of Wastes" paper, quotes previous writers as saying, "the piezometer
response to precipitation at various depths in glacial till suggests
that some groundwater movement takes place rather quickly through joints
rather than through intergranular openings." All indications considered,
-------
K-70-5 Page *
we anticipate the Mlnooka moraine is an indurated mass of variable
deposits, predominantly a sllty clay till but including, very likely,
important quantities of granular materials In some positions with unknown
configurations.
Subsequent to deposition of the Mlnooka moraine, the area was
inundated to a maximum level of about elevation 6^0 by fresh water.
The water level fluctuated but was held in the area by a natural dam
south and west of the area under consideration. This inundation is
known as the Lake Wauponsee occurrence. Deposits of Lake Wauponsee,
as described in the literature are thin, 4 to 6 feet being the only
stated reference. These materials are mapped by Thornburn as "predominantly
dark colored moderately permeable from medium .to fine textured soils."
An old agricultural soils publication on Grundy County also describes
organic accumulations within the mass of glacial drift.
In a time sequence between the Minooka formation and Lake Wauponsee,
the terminal moraine was also subjected to important quantities of
melt water known as the Kankakee torrent. Deposits from the torrent
would logically be granular and highly pervious.
We interpret these data as suggesting that overlying the moraina)
tilt soils a variety of materials which are likely of finer texture
and lower strength will occur with from limited to possibly important
but presently undetermined maximum thicknesses. It would not surprise
this writer if these thicknesses increased to from 20 to 30 feet. These
deposits, where they occur, undoubtedly overlap the basal portion of
the Hinooka moraine and envelop the irregular configuration of the
G-15
-------
K-70-5 Page 5
moraine formed by erosion of that feature during the important inter-
glacial periods which occurred between its deposition and1 the Lake
Wauponsee time. Whereas the moralnal materials because of their deposi-
tion and character are precompressed and likely relatively high strength.
The overlying water-worked deposits will be less strong, generally
more pervious with the potential for highly pervious layers or lenticu-
lar materials within the sediments. Because the permeability of the
morainal materials is small and controlled by joint configurations,
surface run-in more than likely moves to the regional drainage features
at the interface of the glacial till and the waterlaid materials. It
also is likely channeled and controlled by flow in the most pervious
materials, if they exist in continuous ffeatures leading towards the
major drainage pattern.
SITE 10
Preliminary Conclusions
1. The site is underlain partially by glacial moraine and, partially,
by a lacustrine and/or outwash over till profile. Areal extent
of the water-worked materials is unknown but it will be limited
to edges. Their thickness may be thin with local variations.
2. Contact of ti11-lacustrlne units may be sloping; it may also be
a contact on which surface in-flow moves to the drainage system.
3. Softer, local accumulations of organic contaminated soils pro-
bably occur sporadically at existing grade.
-------
K-70-5 Page 6
4. Strength of the post-glacial or water-laid materials is likely
less, and probably considerably less, than moral pa 1 materials.
5. Probable cross-sections through the mass are as shown on attached
figures; proposed fills are shown In proper scale.
6. Compacted soil properties will vary in a wide range, as would be
Indicated by expected variations In material types - sands to
medium plastic clays and clay-gravel-boulder mixtures.
7- Local changes in soil water content and perched water tables are
likely. Amount of pumping in excavations will vary greatly
with
location,
depth of contact, and
season.
8. The mechanisms of soil slope failure considered possible include:
A. Base failure through lacustrine soils;
B. Wedge failure on:
1 - Plane inclined on moraine;
2 - Soft layer in natural profile;
3 - Plane built into fill.
9. It is impossible to analyse potential to failure without soil
strengths, but the "A" type failure at edges of mass is judged
to be likely in some areas. If it occurred it could be of
large magnitude.
10. No data on strength of constructed fills other than experience
with existing land fills. This evidence does not cover the
G-17
-------
K-70-5 Page 7
range of stresses expected. The data may not be indicative
for high range stresses, if envelopes are not linear, and we
would expect they are not linear.
II. The over-all stability of the fill mass could be marginal - we
actually expect that it will be marginal in some locations.
The failure mechanism may be by circular base failure, first,
with over-all wedge movement later as the fill reaches maximum
proportions.
12. A very complex stress distribution will occur adjacent to a semi-
rigid mass placed within the waste fill. The stress distribu-
tion will likely change with time as well as applied stress.
13. A 50 foot wide soil wall, for "Spine", is probably not stable if
constructed 1000 feet high within the fill. With limited analysis
we do not believe a base width of less than 250 feet can be
accommodated without risking a failure controlled by geometric
considerations rather than by shear strength.
1*». Temperature conditions are not definable with present data. Logically
we believe construction control will be key to controlling the
temperature production. This will require knowledge of heat
production at thIs site with these environmental conditions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that:
1. A preliminary study to identify ranges in types of soil materials,
area! extent and depth to top of moraine, and depth to ground-
water.
-------
K-70-5 Page 8
2. Work be commenced in edge areas as berm construction will likely
be desirable for maximum stability. The extent and limitations
of this procedure should be studied.
3. The "Spine" must be located directly on till at all locations. The
geometry is such that a 50 foot base width will not be suffi-
cient. Our estimates would suggest 250 feet at base might be
required as minimum to eliminate the "geometry problem." Although
very complex, the expected stress system makes this a "real"
problem. It must be studied now before any construction of
"Spine" areas begin. (See Figure).
A. Prior to fixing the design objectives you find and program 50 foot
average excavation in order to make a mountain, 1000 feet high,
feasible. This criteria assumes 10 percent cover and usable
materials (clay type soils) obtainable above free water levels.
5. Monitoring be included as necessary elements in the design pro-
cedure. Several features of the construction suggest no reason-
able alternatives are available to identifying prototype perfor-
mance. I terns to be measured are:
»
A. Relative settlement
B. Lateral movement
C. Stresses -
Vertical
Horizontal
0. Gas formation
E. Temperature
F. Water movement
G-19
-------
K-70-5 Page 9
6. Construction of the "Ski Mountain" site be considered carefully
in a feasibility study to consider magnitudes of problems asso-
ciated with subsurface foundation conditions. The scope of
studies should be defined after preliminary borings provide a
correct picture of subsurface conditions.
The opportunity to consider the foundation and soil mechanics
aspects of this unique project has been appreciated. We have attempted
to communicate the results of our review and analyses without fully
describing mechanistic considerations and background. If brevity
causes problems we wi11 be happy to meet with you, or your clients,
and discuss the areas of concern. Be assured of our continuing interest
to serve you as this project advances.
Very truly yours,
WOODWAX-CLYDE £ ASSOCIATES'*
ionald H. Duncan, P. E.
DHD:rg
att.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Piskin, K., and R. E. Bergstrom. Glacial drift in Illinois:
thickness and character. Urbana, Illinois State Geological
Survey, 1967. 33 p.
2. County of Los Angeles, Department of County Engineer.
Development of construction and use criteria for sanitary
landfills; an interim report. Cincinnati, U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969. [267 p.]
3. Smith, R. S., E. E. De Turk, F. C. Bauer, and L. H. Smith.
Grundy County soils. University of Illinois Agricultural
Experiment Station Soil Report No. 26. Urbana, Mar. 1924. 66 p.
4. Geotechnique, 16(2), June 1966.
5. Laboratory shear testing of soils. ASTM Special Technical
Publication No. 361. Philadelphia, American Society of Testing
and Materials, 1963. 505 p.
6. Bergstrom, R. E. Disposal of wastes: scientific and administrative
considerations. Bnvireaattntal Geology Notes No. 20. Urbana,
Illinois State Geological Survey, J«n. 1968. 12 p.
7. Thornburn, T. H. Surface deposits of Illinois: a guide for
soil engineers. University of Illinois Engineering Experiment
Station Circular No. 80, Sept. 1963. 135 p.
8. Hughes, G. M., P. Kraatz, and R. A. Landon. Bedrock aquifers of
Northeastern Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey
Circular 406, 1966. 15 p.
9. Willman, H. B. Geologic map of Illinois. Illinois State
Geological Survey, Department of Registration and Education,
1967.
10. Suter, M., R. E. Bergstrom, H. F. Smith, G. H. Emrich, W. C. Walton, and
T. E. Larson. Preliminary report on ground-water resources of the
Chicago region, Illinois. Illinois Geological Survey and Illinois
Water Survey Cooperative Ground-Water Report No. 1. Urbana, 1959.
p.17-41.
11. Willman, H. B., and J. N. Payne. Geology and mineral resources
of the Marseilles, Ottawa, and Streator Quadrangles. Illinois
State Geological Survey Bulletin No. 66, 1942. 388 p.
12. Illinois Technical Advisory Committee on Water Resources.
Water for Illinois, a plan for action. State of Illinois,
Department of Business and Economic Development, Mar. 1967.
p.67-89.
G-21
-------
o
o
H Uf,
< uj -
•6 Z
ui O
-I D
O Z
• O
D"-
a: O;
< ?!
O m
T I
O
CD t-
O =!
O O
S «^
on
Is:
8
r i
0
r
VJ
uJ
(ft
o
c
LI
CQ
(U
W d>
w H
0) IQ
5 m
•r-l O »H
fiU 3
* -H
i-t -r< *»
(0 M 0)
•d 55
$ Q
•P *O QI
I Si?
-------
O
m
O
o
CM
\
\
\
b?
M
n n
\
/*3
Cfl
-o
V
•-
I
M
cn
i »)
n
S £
« *>
c«
\
\
\
\
\
o
o
•s-
p
f
o
-
r"
C
S
u
w
tJ M
*: o
& z
C n
K j
(1. M
f C_3
^ cH
Q^ ^4 Hjj
li |S
t8^
H4 ^ O
r8S
u; U CO
« 0)
U K
K W
< hi
U ?
0 5
2
•1 |y
_ z
* 0
LYOE
IDATI
t) *•
o£
K
< Q
j Z
Q *
0 d
is
0 i
o
_ r if.
ft ' z i
3
O
W
z
to o
°7
X
Ul |||
Q Q
i.
(3
1
Ull-1
p
t
U
\
U
' U
(i
*" 0
u
in
. .. o
8) 0) i Ci
< -. i-
tf) * L B
z * i h
< a * U
r u C
C
o
m
ex
O
o
rs
o
in
o
IT
O
in
w
p.
in
0]
i s
- s s a
v a H s
-------
CO
0.
to
to
150
100
50
COMPACTED
FILL
Point 2
LAND FILL
x*Pv
Point 1
CONCLUDF:
Strains for equal stress levels widely
different - differential movement at
interface to equilibrium required.
Sanitary
Fill
t- - STRAIN -
NOTE: Stresses at
interface must
be equal
Sanitary
. Fill
30
Per Cent
15
G-24
SOLID WASTE
COOK rcnr-v, ri.r.rcois
BLACK & VEATCH
"WEPT
WOODWARD - CLYDE A ASSOCIATES
SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS
KANSAS CITY ___ _____ MISSOU*
(-J04WN 8V DATE,
rn KD BY: DATE
HYPOTHETICAL "STRESS ;"- STRAIN
CURVES
-------
0
_- •
r^
£
*z
c>
W
2o
Vi SS
C M
f- d
W M
w M a:
Q C
•* £•*
f»l Kj ^t
W »H *.
Ig^
*&"
Q M
»-. « O
w O <
c o 3
W O ffi
K
• - 3
5«8
5S«
0 2 *
o 5
£ z
5 w
<
•g
y — .
2<
. Q
J i. I
U § i
2* :
< 0 >
wooow
SOIL AN
NSAS CIT
4
X
0
ZT
HI o
Of-
-« i
UJ |jj
^~ >-
22
i
i
> >- 1
0) O
hi
< * '
a r
o „
HI 1H3I3H Til,*
G-25
-------
RICHARD B. OBILVIE ^ LtfiflKfi CLARENCE W. KLASSEN
Governor J j- ,S i A IS 71 \^^H^M Director
& VEAlCfijATE OF ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
January 11, 1971
GRUNDY COUNTY - Solid Waste Disposal
Minooka/MSD (Proposed)
Black & Veatch, Inc.
P. 0. Box 8405
Kansas City, Missouri 64114
ATTENTION: Mr. F. E. Kirkpatrick
Gentlemen:
This is in reply to your letters of September 25 and October 30,
1970, referring to a thousand foot high solid waste mountain to be lo-
cated in Grundy and Will Counties.
We have considered the information which you have submitted, and
have given considerable thought to the feasibility of such a project
with regard to environmental protection. We have also obtained a site
survey report from the Illinois State Geological Survey for the area
outlined in your correspondence. It is noted that the Survey Report
was in considerable disagreement with the information contained in your
correspondence regarding the bedrock and ground water conditions in the
proposed area.
In view of the foregoing, it is strongly recommended that you ar-
range for a conference between responsible members of your staff and this
Agency with regard to the project prior to the completion of your feasi-
bility report. I will arrange for such a conference and include represen-
tatives of the Bureau of Water Pollution Control if you so desire.
Very truly yours,
C. E. Clark, Chief
Bureau of Land Pollution Control
In the New Illinois, we accommodate!
2200 CHURCHILL ROAD
AT 2400 WEST JEFFERSON
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62706
AREA CODE 217-525-3397
-------
BLACK & VEATCH
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
AREA CODE 616
TEL 3SI-7OOO
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
Solid Waste Disposal Study
Project 5180
I5OO MEADOW LAKE PARKWAY
MAILING ADDRESS ' P. O. BOX NO 34Q5
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
January 20, 1971
Mr. C. E. Clark, Chief
Bureau of Land Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Dear Mr. Clark:
Thank you for the opportunity afforded Mr. Weiner and myself to discuss
with you, Mr. Palmquist, Mr. Morton and Mr. Busch the study our firm is
conducting for the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
The study is to determine the feasibility of disposing of the solid
wastes of Cook County by constructing a mountain that would be used for
skiing and other outdoor recreation. This letter will provide a brief
record of our discussions in your office on January 18, 1971.
As indicated in previous correspondence to you, the study is being based
on a 7000-acre solid waste mountain site in Grundy and Will counties
south of Minooka.
You gave us copies of a letter report by the State Geological Survey
regarding hydrogeologic conditions of this site, dated August 31, 1970.
You also gave us copies of the Environmental Protection Act - 1970 and
of other State rules and regulations pertaining to solid wastes.
As discussed, we have revised the filling concept outlined in our letter
of September 25, 1970. We now propose to exclude organic waste from the
solid waste mountain to the maximum practical extent. This change was
made because we see no way of assuring the structural stability of a
1000 foot high fill composed largely of organic matter. The fill would
be made with relatively stable materials such as glass, metals, ceramics,
incinerator residue, noncombustible demolition debris, broken pavement,
concrete, rock from the proposed MSDGC Deep Tunnel project, and wastes
of a similar nature.
Organic materials would be disposed of by a combination of other methods,
including: recycling, incineration, and returning to agriculture land as
compost or as shredded material which would be worked into the soil to
compost naturally.
G-27
-------
BLACK a VEATCH
Mr. C. E. Clark, Chief - 2 - January 20, 1971
We believe the 50 to 100 feet of glacial till and lake deposits on the
proposed solid waste mountain site would protect the bedrock aquifers
from pollution by landfill leaching. However, a thorough subsurface
investigation should be made prior to final design to further define
subsurface conditions, suitability of the site, and provisions which
may be required to protect ground water.
Our report will recommend that an underdrain system be provided around
the periphery of the solid waste mountain to collect leachate, and that
leachate be treated by a modification of the activated sludge process
in oxidation ditches. After final settling and chlorination, the ef-
fluent would be used to irrigate grass or crops on the site or discharged
to the Des Plaines or Illinois river. Surface runoff from the fill site
would flow through sedimentation ponds prior to discharge to the rivers.
You advised that:
1. Rules and regulations to be issued soon will require daily covering
of incinerator residue, power plant ash, inorganics removed from
combined refuse, and any other wastes containing organic matter.
2. Rock, concrete, brick, earth and similar natural inorganic materials
will not require daily cover.
3. There is no prohibition on land disposal of organic matter if no
pollution results.
4. A special permit is required for placing any sludges in sanitary
landfills and the general policy is to exclude sludges if there
is a possibility of water pollution.
5. A test hole to bedrock would be required for each 5 acres of a
proposed landfill site. Permanent inspection and check wells
would be required to monitor leachate. All existing wells on the
site would have to be located and plugged.
6. Runoff and treated leachate from the solid waste mountain site should
go to the Des Plaines or Illinois rivers and be excluded from the
DuPage River and AuxSable Creek. Secondary treatment would be
required for leachate discharged to the Des Plaines or Illinois rivers,
7. Your are opposed to the concept of constructing solid waste hills
or mountains.
8. At this time, you are opposed to a solid waste mountain at the pro-
posed site near Minooka because of the possibility of water pollution
and because you believe the coal strip mines in Illinois are more
logical areas for solid waste disposal.
-------
BLACK a VEATCH
Mr. C. E. Clark, Chief - 3 - January 20, 1971
As discussed, we plan to complete the feasibility study for the solid
waste mountain based on the site near Minooka and the requirements of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this project, for the
information furnished, and for your candor regarding the ski-mountain
concept. All of this will assist in evaluating the feasibility of
the project.
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH
7", £, /fc
F. E. Kirkpatrick
G-29
-------
APPENDIX H
COSTING OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Costs of transportation systems for delivering solid wastes to the Ski
Mountain were estimated on the following basis:
Level of costs prevailing in 1970
Public ownership, operation and maintenance of:
Collection vehicles
Transfer stations
Processing equipment
Stationary compaction equipment
Containers
Highway transfer vehicles
Barges
Railroad equipment
Pipelines
Disposal site equipment
Contracts with private firms to own, operate, and maintain tugs
for towing barges and trackage for movement of railroad cars,
and to operate all railroad equipment
Illinois State size and weight limitations for highway vehicles
Interest rate of 6 per cent for capital
Amortization of publicly owned facilities with equal annual
payments of principal and interest over a normal economic life:
Transfer stations 20 years
Processing equipment 20 years
Unloading stations 20 years
Barges 20 years
Railroad equipment 20 years
Mobile cranes 5 years
Trucks (100 ton) 5 years
Transfer tractors 400,000 miles
Transfer trailers 200,000 miles
Annual cost of land as 6 per cent of purchase cost.
H-l
-------
DIRECT HAUL
In Compactor Trucks
Figures H-l, H-2, and H-3 are curves of the estimated average ton-mile costs
for transporting refuse in 20, 25, and 30 cubic yard compactor type refuse
collection trucks at average travel speeds ranging from 10 to 50 mph and for 1,
2, and 3 man crews. The curves are for pay loads based on a compacted refuse
density of 500 pounds per cubic yard of rated vehicle capacity. Costs for the
other pay loads are approximately inversely proportional to pay load.
The curves cover off-route hauling costs and are not applicable to actual
collection operations. Estimates were premised on one 8 hour shift, 5 days per
week, and include an allowance of one hour of unproductive time per day for
startup, refueling, crew breaktime and other lost time.
Major cost factors for the curves are summarized in Table H-l. Hourly fixed
costs for vehicles were based on amortizing the initial vehicle cost plus 10 per
cent for spares over 5 years for the chassis and 10 years for the packer body.
Variable vehicle costs include fuel, oil, grease, tires, servicing and repairs. Labor
costs were based on City of Chicago pay scales, plus approximately 26 per cent
employee fringe benefits, including holidays, vacation, sick leave, hospitalization
insurance, Social Security tax, Workmen's Compensation and pension.
Dumping costs were estimated to be equivalent to the cost of the crew and
the truck traveling at 20 mph for 10 minutes.
-------
o
o
l.20i
I. 10-
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60-
0.50-
O.i(0'
0.30-
0.20-
0.10
NOTE: COSTS ARE SHOWN FOR ONE-MAY DISTANCE AND INCLUDE
COST OF RETURN TRIP. CURVES ARE BASED ON 5-TON
PAY LOAD. COSTS FOR OTHER PAY LOADS ARE APPROX-
IMATELY INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO PAY LOAD.
COST FOR
10-MINUTE DUMP TIME
CREW SIZE
5-TON
*/TON
0.40
0.61
0.83
I-MAN CREW
0.00-
10 20 30
AVERAGE SPEED - MILES PER HOUR
50
ESTIMATED REFUSE HAULING COSTS
20-CUBIC YARD COMPACTOR TRUCKS
-------
1.20-
1.10
1.00-
0.90
UJ
£ 0.80-
i
Of. - _.
ut 0.70-
^
ta
ee
3 0.60-
8
^
0.50-
O.HOJ
0.30-
0.20^
0,
O.I
I-MAN CREW
NOTE: COSTS ARE SHOWN FOR ONE-WAY DISTANCE AND
INCLUDE COST OF RETURN TRIP. CURVES ARE
8ASED ON 6-TON PAY LOAD. COSTS FOR OTHER
PAY LOADS ARE APPROXIMATELY INVERSELY
PROPORTIONAL TO PAY LOAD.
COST FOR
10-MINUTE DUMPING TIME
CHEW SIZE 6 TONS
I/TON
0.38
0.56
0.7H
10 20 30 10
AVERAGE SPEED - MILES PER HOUR
50
ESTIMATED REFUSE HAULING COSTS
25-CUBIC YARD COMPACTOR TRUCKS
H - 2B
FIGURE H-2
-------
l.20n
NOTE: COSTS ARE SHOWN FOR ONE-WAY DISTANCE AND INCLUDE
COST FOR RETURN TRIP. CURVES ARE BASED ON 7.5-
TON PAY LOAD. COSTS FOR OTHER PAY LOADS ARE
APPROXIMATELY INVERSELY PROPORTIONED TO PAY LOAD.
o
Q
I
»—
V)
O
o
1.10-
1.00-
0.90-
0.80-
0.70-
0.60-
0.50-
0.1*0-
0.30-
0.20-
0.10-
COST FOR
10-MINUTE DUMPING TIME
CREW SIZE 7^ TONS
$/TON
I 0.32
2 0.46
3 0.60
I MAN CREW
0.00-
10 20 30
AVERAGE SPEED - MILES PER HOUR
50
ESTIMATED REFUSE HAULING COSTS
30-CUBIC YARD FRONT LOADING
COMPACT^ TRUCK*
-------
Table H-l
COMPACTOR TYPE TRUCK
ESTIMATED COST FACTORS
Rated
Truck
Capacity
cu yd
20
25
30
Truck
Initial
Investment
$
20,500
26,000
32,000
Fixed
Cost
$/hour
2.05
2.56
3.00
Variable
Cost
$/mile
0.15
0.21
0.22
Labor
Driver
Cost
$/hour
6.84
6.84
6.84
Laborer
Cost
$/hour
6.44
6.44
6.44
Use of the curves for estimating hauling costs is illustrated by the following example.
Given:
30 cubic yard collection truck
1 man crew
10 miles travel on city streets at 15 mph
30 miles travel on freeway at 40 mph
Find:
Hauling costs for pay load of 7.5 tons and 5.0 tons
Solution:
Cost for 7.5 ton pay load (Figure H-3)
10 miles x $0.24/ton-mile
30 miles x $0.12/ton-mile
Dumping
Cost for 5.0 ton pay load
$6.32/ton x 7.5/5.0
= $2.40/ton
= $3.60/ton
= $0.32/ton
$6.32/ton
= $9.48/ton
H-3
-------
In Self-Dumping Trucks and Semitrailers
Figures H-4 through H-7 are curves of the estimated average unit costs for
transporting solid wastes in self-dumping vehicles ranging in capacity from 5 to
60 cubic yards. Except for pay load, the curves were calculated on the same
basis as the curves for compactor type trucks using an estimated 5-year life.
Major cost factors for the curves are summarized in Table H-2.
Table H-2
SELF-DUMPING TRUCKS AND SEMITRAILERS
ESTIMATED COST FACTORS
Vehicle
Truck Type Initial Fixed Variable Driver
and Capacity Investment Cost Cost Cost
$ $/hour $/mile $/hour
Two axle truck
5 cubic yards 13,500 1.61 0.14 6.84
18 cubic yards 15,800 1.89 0.14 6.84
Three axle truck
10 cubic yards 19,300 2.28 0.22 6.84
Tractor-semitrailer
33 cubic yards 30,500 3.61 0.22 6.84
60 cubic yards 35,000 4.16 0.22 6.84
Figure H-8 shows a basis for estimating the cost of hauling incinerator
residue in 10-cubic yard dump trucks and 33-cubic yard self-dumping semi-
trailers. Quenched residue weighs about 1,000 pounds per cubic yard.
Figure H-8 is based on a 3-shift per day hauling operation.
Use of the curves on Figure H-8 to estimate the per ton cost of hauling
incinerator residue to specific disposal sites is as follows:
1. From a map, determine the approximate distance in miles of
travel at various speeds for a tractor and semitrailer between
the incinerator plant and disposal site. Also determine total
one-way miles.
2. From data in (1), estimate one-way travel time between
incinerator plant and disposal site.
M-4
-------
NOTE: COSTS ARE SHOWN FOR ONE-WAY DISTANCE AND INCLUDE
COST OF RETURN TRIP. CURVES ARE BASED ON 2-TON
PAY LOAD. COST FOR OTHER PAY LOADS ARE APPROX-
IMATELY INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO PAY LOAD.
1.20
1,10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
3j o.eo-
g
' 0.50
o
o
o.w-
0.30-
0.20-
0.10
0.00
COST FOR
IO-M1NUTE DUMPtNG TIME
CREW
2-TOH
$/TON
0.94
I-MAN CREW, 2-TON PAY LOAD
10 20 30
AVERAGE SPEED - MILES PER HOUR
50
ESTIMATED REFUSE HAULING COSTS
5 CUBIC YARD DUMP TRUCK
FIGURE
-------
NOTE: COSTS ARE SHOWN FOR ONE-WAY DISTANCE AND INCLUDE
COST OF RETURN TRIP. CURVES ARE BASED ON 5-TON
PAY LOAD. COSTS FOR OTHER PAY LOADS ARE APPROX-
IMATELY INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO PAY LOAD.
0.60
0.60-
j
i 0.10
V)
3 0,30-
«o
o
o
_J
1 0.20-
0.10-
COST FOR
10-MINUTE DUMPING TIME
5-1
FTON
10 20 30
AVERAGE SPEED - MILES PER HOUR
MO
50
ESTIMATED REFUSE HAULING COSTS
10-CUBIC YARD OPEN DUMP TRUCKS
H - 4B
FIGURE H-5
-------
NOTE:
2.20-
2.00-
1.80-
•± 1.60-
ae I.HO-
UJ
a.
en
% 1.20-
o
o
CO
o
1.00-
0.80
0.60-
0.20-
0.00
COSTS ARE SHOWN FOR ONE-WAY DISTANCE AND INCLUDE
COST OF RETURN TRIP. CURVES ARE BASED ON 2-TON
PAY LOAD. COSTS FOR OTHER PAY LOADS ARE APPROX-
IMATELY INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO PAY LOAD.
COST FOR
10-MINUTE DUMPING TIME
2-TOM
$/TON
0.96
1.50
2.03
1-MAN CREW
10 20 30
AVERAGE SPEED - MILES PER HOUR
50
ESTIMATED REFUSE HAULING COSTS
18-CUBIC YARD DUMP TRUCKS
-------
NOTE:
0.30-1
0.25-
5 0.20
0.15-
i
tn
0.10
0.05-
COSTS ARE SHOWN FOR ONE-WAY DISTANCE AND INCLUDE COST
FOR RETURN TRIP. CURVES ARE BASED ON PAY LOADS
INDICATED. COSTS FOR OTHER PAY LOADS ARE APPROXIMATELY
INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO PAY LOAD.
COST FOR
10-MINUTE DUMPING TIME
CREW 33 CY
$/TON
I 0.22
60 CY
$/TON
0.17
-33-CUBIC YARD OPEN DUMP SEMITRAILER
(10-TON PAY LOAD)
60-CUBIC YARD OPEN DUMP
SEMITRAILER (15-TON PAY LOAD)
10 20 30 40
AVERAGE SPEED - MILES PER HOUR
50
ESTIMATED REFUSE HAULING COSTS
33 - AND 60-CUBIC YARD SEMITRAILERS
-------
10-CUBIC YARD DUMP TRUCK,
5-TON PAY LOAD
33 CUBIC YARD SEMITRAILER,
17-TON PAY-LOAD
0.00
30 40 50 60 70
ONE-WAY DISTANCE-MILES
CURVE A - VARIABLE COSTS
7.00-
6.00-
10-CUBIC YARD DUMP
TRUCK, 5-TON PAY LOAD
S &•
il. 00-
' 3.00-
co
o
o
2.00-
1.00-
NOTE: COSTS ARE SHOWN FOR ONE-WAY TRAVEL AND
INCLUDED COST OF RETURN TRIP. COSTS
FOR OTHER PAY LOADS ARE APPROXIMATELY
INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO PAY LOAD.
RIPS PER 8-HOUR SHIFT
33-CUBtC YARD SEMITRAILER,
17-TON PAY LOAD
20 30 IK> 50 60 70 80 90
ONE-WAY TRAVEL TIME - MINUTES
CURVE B - FIXED COSTS
100 110 120
TRUCK HAULING COSTS
-------
3. With this one-way travel time, determine from Curve B the
number of round trips a tractor can make per 8-hour shift.
Project the "trips/shift" line horizontally to the left margin
and read the fixed cost of hauling.
4. Determine the variable hauling cost from Curve A for the
total one-way miles.
5. Add the per ton costs determined from (3) and (4).
H-5
-------
TRANSFER VIA HIGHWAY SEMITRAILER
Unprocessed Refuse
Table H-3 shows the estimated initial cost and annual cost of a transfer
station designed to handle 1,000 tons per day of unprocessed residential,
commercial, and industrial refuse.
Per ton costs for the elements of transfer are shown by the curves on
Figure H-9. Curve A shows estimated variable costs consisting principally of
fuel, oil, tires, servicing, and repairs. Curve B shows estimated fixed costs of
hauling consisting principally of driver costs, insurance, and amortization of
investment in tractors and semitrailers. Curve C shows the estimated cost for
owning and operating the transfer station. Hauling costs were estimated on the
following premises:
1. Hauling three 8-hour shifts per day.
2. Capacity to handle peak daily quantities 130 per cent of
design average daily quantities.
3. Average trailer pay load of 16 tons.
4. Transportation equipment to handle peak load of 1,300 tons
per day:
Trips per 8-Hour Shift
One Two
Tractors 27 14
Trailers 73 59
5. Initial cost of $21,000 for each tractor and $13,000 for each
trailer.
6. Amortization of tractors in 400,000 miles and trailers in
200,000 miles.
7. Driver cost of $12,300 per year including employee fringe
benefits but excluding overtime.
Use of the curves to estimate the per ton cost of transferring and hauling to
specific disposal sites is as follows:
1. From a map, determine the approximate distance in miles of
travel at various speeds for a tractor and semitrailer between
H-fi
-------
CO
5
o
I
O
O
3.00
2.00-
1.00-
CURVE A
VARIABLE HAULING COSTS
0.00-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
ONE-WAY DISTANCE - MILES
80
90
100
V)
ae.
6.00-1
5.00-
4.00-
3.00-
2.00-
1.00-
CURVE B
FIXED HAULING COSTS
TRIPS PER 8-HOUR SHIFT,
2 TRIPS PER SHIFT PLUS
OWE HOUR OVERTIME-^.
2
NOTE: COSTS ON CURVES A AND B ARE FOR ONE-WAY
TRAVEL AND INCLUDE COST OF RETURN TRIP. CUR-
VES ARE FOR 16-TON AVERAGE PAY LOAD. COSTS
FOR OTHER PAY LOADS ARE APPROXIMATELY INVERSELY
PROPORTIONAL TO PAY LOAD.
0.00
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
ONE-WAY TRAVEL TIME - MINUTES
100
NO
120
3.00-1
00
ae
_i
O
o
2.00-
1.00-
CURVE C
TRANSFER STATION COSTS
0.00
250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330
ANNUAL REFUSE QUANTITY - 1000 TONS
340
350
ESTIMATED TRANSFER HAUL COSTS
NONCOMPACTING TRAILERS
H _ fifl
FIGURE H-9
-------
Table H-3
TRANSFER STATION COSTS
FOR HAUL VIA SEMITRAILER
(1,000 Tons/Day Capacity)
Estimated Costs
Capital Costs
Land (allowance)
Building and site development
Station mobile equipment
Subtotal - Capital Costs
Initial
Cost
$
750,000
2,000,000
200,000
2,950,000
Annual
Cost
45,000
175,000
30,000
250,000
Operating Expense
Labor
Superintendent (1) 20,000
Shift foreman (3) 50,700
Equipment operator (3) 51,300
Truck driver (3) 36,900
Laborer (4) 11,600
Scaleman (4) 34.800
Subtotal - 5 days 240,100
Add for 6th day 36.900
Utilities
Station maintenance
Equipment operation and maintenance
Materials and supplies
Trailer unloading
Subtotal - Operating Expense
Total Annual Cost
277,000
10,000
8,000
30,000
5,000
30,000
360,000
$610,000
H-7
-------
the transfer station and disposal site. Also determine total
one-way miles.
2. From data in (1), estimate one-way travel time between
transfer station and disposal site.
3. With this one-way travel time, determine from Curve B the
number of round trips a tractor can make per 8-hour shift.
Project the "trips/shift" line horizontally to the left margin
and read the fixed cost of hauling.
4. Determine the variable hauling cost from Curve A for the
total one-way miles.
5. With the annual tonnage to be transferred per 1,000 tons per
day of station capacity, determine from Curve C the transfer
station cost.
6. Add the per ton costs determined from (3), (4)., and (5).
For example, assuming transfer of 300,000 tons annually from a 1,000 ton
per day station and one-way travel of 10 miles at 15 mph and 30 miles at 40
mph, the cost of transfer is estimated as follows:
One-way travel:
10 miles x 4 minutes/mile = 40 minutes
30 miles x 1.5 minutes/mile = 45 minutes
40 miles 85 minutes
Round trips per shift (Curve B) = 2
Hauling fixed cost (Curve B) = $2.95/ton
Hauling variable cost (Curve A) = $1.05/ton
Transfer station cost (Curve C) = $1.90/ton
Total $5.90/ton
Baled Refuse
Table H-4 shows the estimated initial cost and annual cost of a 1,000 ton per
day transfer and baling station handling residential, commercial, and industrial
refuse.
H-8
-------
The curves on Figure H-10 show the elements of cost for baling and transfer
of baled refuse by semitrailer. Hauling costs on the curves are premised on the
following:
1. Hauling three 8-hour shifts per day.
2. Capacity to handle peak daily quantities 130 per cent of
design average daily quantities.
3. Average pay load of 25 tons due to low weight of trailer.
4. Transportation equipment to handle load of 1,300 tons per
day:
Trips per 8-Hour Shift
One Two
Tractors 18 9
Trailers 20 10
5. Initial cost of $21,000 per tractor and $5,000 per trailer.
6. Amortization of tractors in 400,000 miles and trailers in
200,000 miles.
7. Driver cost of $12,300 per year including employee fringe
benefits but excluding overtime.
Use of the curves for estimating transfer and hauling cost is the same as
explained previously for transfer of unprocessed refuse in van type semitrailers.
For example, assuming transfer of 300,000 tons annually from a 1,000 ton per
day station and one-way travel of 10 miles at 15 mph and 30 miles at 40 mph,
the cost is estimated as follows:
One-way travel:
10 miles x 4 minutes/mile = 40 minutes
30 miles x 1.5 minutes/mile = 45 minutes
40 miles 85 minutes
Round trips per shift (Curve B) = 2
Hauling fixed cost (Curve B) = $1.60/ton
Hauling variable cost (Curve A) = $0.65/ton
Transfer station cost (Curve C) = $4.40/ton
Total $6.65/ton
H-9
-------
Table H-4
TRANSFER AND BALING STATION COSTS
FOR HAUL VIA SEMITRAILERS
(1,000 Tons/Day Capacity)
Capital Costs
Land (allowance)
Transfer and baling station
Station mobile equipment
Subtotal - Capital Costs
Estimated Costs
Initial
Cost
750,000
4,800,000
50,000
5,600,000
Annual
Cost
$
45,000
418,600
6,800
470,400
Operating Expense
Labor
Superintendent (1) 20,000
Shift foreman (2) 33,800
Equipment operators (10) 171,000
Electrician (1) 18,700
Maintenance mechanic (2) 35,600
Truck driver (2) 24,600
Laborer (10) 116,000
Scaleman (2) 17,400
Subtotal - 5 days 437,100
Add for 6th day 102,400
Utilities
Maintenance
Materials and supplies
Trailer unloading
Subtotal - Operating Expense
Total Annual Cost
539,500
170,000
103,500
16,600
25,000
854,600
$1,325,000
H-10
-------
4.001
3.00
2.00
VARIABLE HAULING COSTS
0.
10
20
30
1*0 50 60 70
ONE-WAY DISTANCE - MILES
o
v>
o
o
i
V)
o
o
it.OOi
3.00-
1.00-
o.ooJ
NOTE: COSTS ON CURVES A AND B ARE FOR ONE-WAY TRAVEL AND
INCLUDE THE COST OF RETURN TRIP. CURVES ARE BASED
ON A 25-TON AVERAGE PAY LOAD. COSTS FOR OTHER PAY
LOADS ARE APPROXIMATELY INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO
PAY LOAD
TRIPS PER 8-HOUR SHIFT
\TWO TRIPS PER SHIFT-
PLUS I HOUR OVERTIME
CURVE B
FIXED HAULING COST
20 30 W 50 60 70 80 90
ONE-WAY TRAVEL TIME - MINUTES
100
110
120
6.001
5.0C-
4.00
3.00-
CURVE C
TRANSFER AND BALING STATION COSTS
2. OOf
250
275 300 325
ANNUAL REFUSE QUANTITY - 1,000 TONS
350
ESTIMATED BALING AND TRANSFER
HAUL COST ON FLATBED TRAILERS
-------
Shredded and Separated Refuse
Table H-5 shows the estimated initial cost and annual cost for a 1,000 ton
per day transfer station designed to receive and shred residential, commercial,
and industrial refuse and to separate the shredded material into organic and
inorganic fractions.
The curves on Figure H-l 1 show the elements of costs for shredding,
separating and transfer of separated refuse by semitrailer. Separate haul cost
curves are shown for organic and inorganic materials because the latter are
more dense and will permit larger pay loads. Hauling costs on the curves are
premised on the following:
1. Hauling three 8-hour shifts per day.
2. Capacity to handle peak daily quantities 130 per cent of
design average daily quantities.
3. Average pay load of 16 tons for organics and 20 tons for
inorganics.
4. Transportation equipment to handle 1,300 tons per day:
Trips per 8-Hour Shift
One Two
Tractors 28 14
Trailers 28 17
5. Initial cost of $21,000 for tractors and $13,000 for trailers.
6. Amortization of tractors in 400,000 miles and trailers in
200,000 miles.
7. Driver cost of $12,300 per year including employee fringe
benefits but excluding overtime.
H-ll
-------
Table H-5
TRANSFER AND SEPARATION STATION COSTS
FOR HAUL VIA SEMITRAILER
(1,000 Tons/Day Capacity)
Estimated Costs
Capital Costs
Land (allowance)
Building and site development
Station equipment
Shredding
Separation
Mobile
Subtotal - Capital Cost
Initial
Cost
750,000
3,350,000
1,300,000
1,000,000
50,000
6,450,000
Annual
Cost
$
45,000
292,100
113,400
87,200
6.800
544,500
Operating Expense
Labor
Superintendent (1) 20,000
Foreman (3) 50,700
Equipment operators (12) 205,200
Scaleman (4) 34,800
Clerk (1) 6,500
Laborer (23) 266,800
Truck driver (3) 36,900
Maintenance mechanic (3) 53,400
Electrician (1) 18.700
Subtotal - 5 days (51) 693,000
Add for 6th day 114,400
Utilities
Station maintenance
Equipment maintenance
Materials and supplies
Unloading
Subtotal - Operating Expense
Total Annual Cost
807,400
180,000
16,800
136,300
5,000
25.000
1,170,500
$1,715,000
H-12
-------
fi5
a.
en
ae
3
o
o
I
I-
oo
3.00,
2.00
1.00-
0.00
ORGAN ICS (16-TON PAY LOAD)-
^INORGANICS (20-TON PAY LOAD)
CURVE A
VARIABLE HAULING COSTS
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
ONE-WAY DISTANCE - MILES
80
90
100
6.00-t
NOTE: COSTS ON CURVES A AND B ARE FOR ONE-WAY TRAVEL
AND INCLUDE COST OF RETURN TRIP. COSTS FOR OTHER
PAY LOADS ARE APPROXIMATELY INVERSELY PROPOR-
ac
Of
m
at
3
_j
8
H-
O
O
5.00-
4.00-
3.00-
2.00-
1.00-
TWO TRIPS PER SHIFT PLUS 1
1 HOUR OVERT! ME ~N. j
ORGAN ICS( 16-TON PAY LOAD)—- \ J\ '
TRIP'S PFR R-HOIIR SHIFTr* \ _ \ !
y ti I
_^ 2 , I
3-^^ r \
3 " ' I \~INOKttANICS (20- ION PAY LOAD)
4 r ~ ~ — '
J CURVE B
FIXED HAULING COSTS
20
30
50 60 70 80 90
ONE-WAY TRAVEL TIME - MINUTES
100
110 120
v>
ac
7.00i
6.00-
5.00-
V)
S n.
CURVE C
SEPARATION TRANSFER STATION COSTS
250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330
ANNUAL REFUSE QUANTITY - 1,000 TONS
340 350
ESTIMATED SEPARATION AND TRANSFER
HAUL COSTS IN NONCOMPACTING TRAILERS
U _
FIGURE H-ii
-------
TRANSFER VIA BARGE
Rock
Table H-6 shows the estimated initial capital investment exclusive of tugs,
annual capital and operating costs, and average unit costs for barge transpor-
tation of deep tunnel rock to the proposed Ski Mountain site. The analysis was
premised on all rock being sized to a maximum of 8 inches and loaded on the
barges by others. The estimates were based on transporting 20,000,000 tons of
rock per year from three barge loading stations located near the three principal
storm water storage facilities proposed for the Deep Tunnel system. Costs
include transferring Northside rock from small barges to standard barges,
unloading all rock from barges and hauling in 100-ton trucks to the final
disposal area.
The cost of transporting ash by barge from power plants in Cook County to
the Ski Mountain was estimated on the basis of providing 5 loading docks, one
unloading dock, 10 barges, one crane, and one 100-ton truck for hauling from
the unloading dock to the fill area. The cost of loading ash on barges would be
borne by the customer and was not included in the estimate. Table H-7 shows
the estimated initial capital investment exclusive of tugs, the annual capital and
operating costs, and the average unit cost for barge transportation of 500,000
tons of ash annually.
Incinerator Residue
The cost of transporting incinerator residue by barge from incinerator
plants in Cook County to the Ski Mountain was estimated on the basis of
providing 3 barge loading docks, one unloading dock, 8 barges, one crane,
and one 100-ton truck for hauling from the unloading dock to the fill area.
The cost of delivering residue from incinerator plants to barge docks was
not included.
H-13
-------
Table H-6
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR BARGE TRANSPORTATION
OF DEEP TUNNEL ROCK
Receiving and Barge Loading Stations
Disposal
Property Required
Station - tons per year
Barges
Small
Standard
Unloading equipment
Cranes
Trucks
Capital Required
Land
Station
Barges
Unloading equipment
Total
Annual Cost
Receiving loading
Interest on land
Amortization of facilities
Labor
Maintenance and supplies
Utilities
Subtotal
Transportation
Amortization of barges
Maintenance
Contract towing
Subtotal
Unloading, placing in landfill
Amortization of facilities
Amortization of equipment
Labor
Maintenance and supplies
Utilities
Fleeting tug
Subtotal
Total Annual Cost
Cost Per Ton
Receiving
Transportation
Unloading, placing in landfill
Total
Northside
4,000,000
14
36
6
-
$
750,000
2,240,000
3,940,000
570,000
7,500,000
45,000
195,000
318,000
12,000
10,000
580,000
344,000
185,000
3,898,000
4,427,000
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
5,007,000
0.15
1.11
0.24
1.50
Southwest
14,000,000
_
108
_
-
$
750,000
3,490,000
9,720,000
_
13,960,000
45.000
304,000
1,028,000
19,000
10,000
1,406,000
848,000
400,000
5,192,000
6,440,000
_
-
—
-
_
-
7,846,000
0.10
0.46
0.24
0.80
Calumet
2,000,000
_
17
_
-
$
750,000
1,620,000
1,530,000
_
3,900,000
45,000
141,000
178,000
9,000
10,000
383,000
133,000
63,000
872,000
1,068,000
_
-
-
—
-
—
-
1,451,000
0.19
0.53
0.24
0.96
Site
20,000,000
-
7
25
$
-
2,270,000
-
5.570.000
7,840,000
_
_
—
_
-
—
_
-
197,000
1,322,000
2,329,000
719,000
10,000
219,000
4,796,000
4,796,000
—
0.24
0.24
Total
20,000,000
14
161
13
25
$
2,250,000
9,620,000
15,190,000
6,140,000
33,200,000
135.000
640,000
1,524,000
40,000
30,000
2,369,000
1,325,000
648,000
9,962,000
11,935,000
197,000
1,322,000
2,329,000
719,000
10,000
219,000
4,796,000
19,100,000
0.12
0.60
0.24
0.96
-------
Table H-7
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR BARGE
TRANSPORTATION OF POWER PLANT ASH
(500,000 Tons per Year)
Estimated Costs
Initial Annual
Cost Cost
$ $
Capital Costs
Loading docks (5) 5,100,000 444,200
Unloading dock (1) 665,000 58,500
Barges (10) 900,000 78,500
Unloading equipment 295,000 70,000
Subtotal - Capital Cost 5,960,000 651,200
Operating Expense
Labor for unloading 29,400
Dock maintenance 28,800
Equipment maintenance 51,800
Equipment operating 16,000
Towing (contract) 222,000
Subtotal - Operating Expense 348,000
Total Annual Cost $999,200
Average Cost per Ton 2.00
H-15
-------
Table H-8 shows the estimated initial capital investment exclusive of tugs,
the annual capital and operating costs, and the average unit cost for barge
transportation of approximately 440,000 tons of incinerator residue annually.
Table H-8
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR BARGE
TRANSPORTATION OF INCINERATOR
PLANT RESIDUE
(440,000 Tons per Year)
Estimated Costs
Initial Annual
Cost Cost
$ $
Capital Cost
Loading docks (3) 3,060,000 266,800
Land for docks (3) 1,125,000 67,500
Unloading docks (1) 665,000 58,000
Barges (8) 640,000 55,800
Unloading equipment 295,000 70,000
Subtotal - Capital Cost 5,785,000 518,100
Operating Expense
Labor for loading and unloading barges 193,900
Dock maintenance 18,600
Equipment maintenance 45,400
Equipment operation 16,000
Towing (contract) 209.000
Subtotal - Operating Expense 482,900
Total Annual Cost $1,001,000
Average Cost per Ton 2.28
H-16
-------
Baled Refuse
Table H-9 shows the estimated initial capital investment exclusive of tugs,
annual capital and operating costs, and average per ton cost for barge
transportation of baled refuse to the proposed Ski Mountain including baling,
loading on barges, unloading from barges, and hauling to the final disposal
area. The estimates are based on the projected 1975 quantity of residential,
commercial, and industrial refuse which might be delivered economically to
barge transfer stations.
Containerized Refuse
Table H-10 shows the estimated initial capital investment, annual capital
and operating costs, and average per ton cost for barge transportation of
containerized refuse to the proposed Ski Mountain including unloading from
barges and hauling to the final disposal area. The estimates are based on the
projected 1975 quantity of residential, commercial, and industrial refuse
which might be delivered economically to barge transfer stations.
H-17
-------
o
8
s s
,00 _ M
s§§
° 5 q
> 0*0 o o
10 v> e e
oo >n q»
r-" oo r-" »
00
— PI r- o o
r* fn oo ro o
o o o o
s si§
PI Ov O>
«•* O v»
>o PI <•>
o o o <
§§§:
o o o o o
Ov « O
•* ftf
I I
s s
.0
BJ
H
z
o
2
z
W tu
o S
tti J
o <
b 09
feo
Q
w
H
K
tu
o
§
00
8-
"
I I I
s§§
o
o
o
o
q
I I I
o
o
<=
o
O ***
O «
o
O o <•» o «•«
00
.
O 00 vO o O
» PI oo m PI
O PI *
I I I i I
O O V
00 e- o
n o -<
q i- q
tj d «
oo r- q
«
§§;
I I i I I I
pi oo
-------
O
O p fi
O O m
§0000
o o o o
o o o o o
^ o, q q
!"» «" —'
00 NO I-
»—i o ••«
O O 00 <*> O
in O* OX
OOO;
IN m O
o
O
o
"
"
o o
' 8 ' ' g
"
*
3
I I I I I I
I I I I I
§§§§§
0 O O O 0
O O oo m o
-« * •a ox —
f> OX (*) in
n"
O
O
o
»
r^
in*
O
o
o
*
0 — —
O O O O
§§§§
I I I I I
00 r; OX
- ci 6
§P^ OO
C4 *H
O oo
O O
8.8.
O
.8
O « f* O
O oo in r«
v> r* ^ «-o
M \o m" -^
O O O O O
0
o" oo" o> o oo
O^ O^ in 00 o»
O O O O
§§§§
- -"oo"
S2SS
§
I I I I I
J
o
o"
>c
o r- —
O m . ° =>
• O m O O
O * O c — o
OX * 00 * M
00 OX — «
§
§§§
[O O O
To'o"
I I I I I
-. .§
f i
in
u o n
- ~.s
Si
ex
a
il
o a
O X)
t^
-------
PIPELINE SLURRY TRANSPORT
The estimated cost of transporting 4,200,000 tons of solid wastes annually
through a pipeline 53 miles long is summarized in Table H-ll.
Table H-ll
ESTIMATED COST FOR TRANSPORTING
SOLID WASTE IN A SLURRY
THROUGH A PIPELINE
(4,200,000 tons annually)
Receiving and
processing
Pipeline and
booster pumping
Capital
Requirement Cost
T
Annual
Annual Operating and Total
Capital Maintenance Annual
Cost
Cost
$
80,000,000 7,620,000 18,380,000 26,000,000
76,000,000 6,650,000 5,350,000 12,000,000
Separation of
solids and
wastewater treatment 54,000,000 4,700,000 4,300,000 9,000,000
Totals
210,000,000 18,970,000 28,030,000 47,000,000
Unit
Cost
$/ton
6.19
2.86
2.14
11.19
TRANSFER VIA RAILROADS
A report prepared jointly by three Chicago area railroads on the feasibility
and cost of rail transportation of solid waste from Cook County to the Ski
Mountain site is presented in Appendix I. The railroad companies' estimates
cover only rail- transportation and do not include the cost of receiving,
processing and loading solid wastes into rail cars, or the cost of unloading
and delivering material to the landfill from the rail siding at the Ski
Mountain site.
A second report, prepared by the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Com-
pany, also included in Appendix I, presents a plan and estimate of cost for
H-20
-------
receiving, processing, transporting by rail, and placing deep tunnel rock in
the Ski Mountain. The cost of land for receiving, processing and loading
facilities must be added to the railroad company estimates.
Table H-12 presents the estimated costs for receiving, processing, loading,
transporting by rail, and delivering solid wastes to the fill area of the Ski
Mountain based on the railroad companies' estimates of the rail trans-
portation cost. The estimates are premised on ownership by the solid waste
management agency of all facilities except the railroad companies' trackage
on existing ROW, and upon the railroads operating and maintaining all rail
transportation facilities, with the solid waste management agency operating
and maintaining all other facilities.
Residential, Commercial and
Industrial Refuse and Demolition Debris
Columns 1, 2 and 3 of Table H-12 show the estimated capital investment
exclusive of railroad trackage on existing ROW, the annual capital and
operating costs, and the average costs per ton for rail transportation to the
Ski Mountain of baled, containerized, and shredded-separated-containerized
residential, commercial and industrial refuse and combustible demolition
debris. The costs, based on projected 1975 quantities, include receiving
refuse at the twelve potential transfer stations indicated on Figure IV-3, process-
ing, loading onto rail cars, transporting by rail, unloading from rail cars, and
delivering to the final placement area.
Bales would be hauled on open cars but would be covered to prevent
blowing and littering. Unbaled materials would be hauled in enclosed con-
tainers to achieve increased density and to provide sanitary and litter-free
transportation, unloading, and conveyance to the final placement area. Baled
refuse and containers would be unloaded from rail cars by crane and hauled
to the placement area in large off-highway vehicles.
Incinerator Residue
Column 4 of Table H-12 shows the estimated capital investment exclusive
of railroad trackage on existing ROW, the annual capital and operating costs,
and the average cost per ton for rail transportation to the Ski Mountain of
containerized incinerator residue. The costs are based on receiving residue at
four of the twelve transfer stations proposed for residential, commercial, and
H-21
-------
industrial refuse, loading into containers on rail cars, transporting by rail in
trains with other solid wastes, unloading from rail cars, and delivering to the
final placement area. The estimates include 40 railroad cars, 200 containers,
one crane, and one 100-ton off-highway truck for unloading and emptying
containers at the Ski Mountain. The cost of delivering residue from incinera-
tor plants to the transfer stations is not included.
Power Plant Ash
Columns of Table H-12 shows the estimated capital investment exclusive
of railroad trackage on existing ROW, the annual capital and operating costs,
and the average cost per ton for rail transportation to the Ski Mountain of
power plant ash. The costs are based on providing three receiving stations to
which power plant ash would be delivered and loaded into railroad cars by
others. Ash would be hauled to the Ski Mountain in trains with other solid
wastes where it would be dumped into large off-highway vehicles and
conveyed to the final disposal area. The cost of delivering ash to transfer
stations and loading onto rail cars is not included.
Rock
Column 6 of Table H-12 shows the estimated initial capital investment
exclusive of railroad trackage on existing ROW, annual capital and operating
costs, and average cost per ton for transportation by rail of Deep Tunnel
rock to the Ski Mountain. The analysis was premised on providing three rail
loading stations located near the three principal storm water storage facilities
proposed for the Deep Tunnel system. The transporatation system would
handle 20,000,000 tons of rock per year in essentially the manner described
in the railroad company report, except that the rock would be sized to a
maximum of 8 inches, delivered and loaded onto rail cars by others. The
costs for these operations are not included.
H-22
-------
o
o
o
O SO
to O
r-i to
O
ON
o oo
ro Tt
m »n
ooo o
ooo o
r-- oo o' wT
vo O O r-
*-* •—* fs" wf
W
H
g
O
t
oo
vo
o o
§0
. o.
O O
O
OO
O
o
o
-N .—I W>
^M m
O
O O
§o
o
" o" r-"
00 O*>
V> sO
§000000 o
o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
§O\ O O O O V* ^1
O O TT un r- O r*
»o CTN ^- oo c*4 — 0 —< to —
to O -^ ~* r^ *t
°.
to" so" ON o"
•§ S ^
X -S- <9 O efl
S §|il
g-oi o as D
•o
i
1
!?
•- 3
o,-i
ea
u
rs>
c
Receiving statio
Containers
c
u
a.
3
O-
Railroad cars
Other railroad e
c
n 0
•S i
Unloading facili
Unloading equif
3
o
H
ing and loading
S3 g
inual Cost
Receiving, proc«
Interest on la
K
<
F facilities
F containers
o o
Amortization
Amortization
8
"3.
D.
rt
Labor
Maintenance ;
Utilities
Subtotal
f railroad cars
o
Transportation
Amortization
F other railroad
g
o .«
Amortization
Contract haul
Subtotal
H-23
-------
X>
H
o o o o o
o o g o ~
o
«
f*> 00 *ri
r-l r~ O
r~ oo 01
VO Tf •»
Wl
OS
o
oo"
•o
a Sr
's '?3
S
a
a.
3
C
O
tf
0 C
5 .2
OH "ti
Unloading,
Amortiz:
c
o
ta
Amortiz,
S
XI
ed
-4
d>
o
c
'a
5
13
0
3
cn
8
o
73
c
c
a
o
H
st Per Ton
o
O
§
5,
Receiving, ;
e
Q
Transporta
'o
.3
a
Unloading,
3
o
H
H-24
-------
APPENDIX I
REPORTS BY RAILROAD COMPANIES
ON FEASIBILITY AND COST OF RAIL TRANSPORTATION
CHICAGO AND NORTH ',,'USTEPH PAILWAY CCJTAHY
ILLINOIS CENTRAL PAILRCAD
ELOIIJ, JOLIET AND EASTERN RAILWAY COJTAflY
Chicapo, Illinois
Mav 27, 1971
rr. F.E. Kirkpatrick
rtlacK i, Veatch
IS,")'! Meadow Lake Parkway
r'anr-.as Citv, ''issouri 6'tiiu
Ueir ;'.r. Kirkpatrick:
The Chicaro and 'Jorth '.-,'estern, Illinois Central, and Elpin, Joliet anH
: mtarn Railways have completed t);?ir pr^liniincrv r.tudy rej-ardinp the transporta-
tion of refuse materials to he accumulated bv the Chicago Sanitary District. We
hv/<5 based orir.in and destination sites on vour recommendations with minor Tnru'.i-
'"ications.
nur study includes a detailed ooeratinp plan which we feel is realistic
und°r the conditions that we have outlined for loadinp and unloading. Should
conditions at oririn and destination conflict with our assumptions, chanres to
our operating nlan and projected rate would be in order.
This has been a post interesting project and we have devoted considerable
effort to the development of the nlan. Should you have nuestions concerning the
, we would be pleased to discuss it with vou.
Yours verv truly«
Chicago & No^th Western R.-ilway 'Illinois Central RR
\-\
-------
CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
JLLI'JOIG CENTRAL RAILROAD
ELHIN, JOLIET AN!) EASTERN "AILWAY COMPANY
WASTE DISPOSAL PROJECT
f.o SA;;ITAPY DISTRICT
1-2
C
Mav 27, l/i71
-------
West \
Chicago *
Mattescn
O Site 10
Scale of Miles
10 5 10
1-3
-------
C&NW. 1C. EJ£E KAS7E DISPOSAL PROJECT
Chicago £ North Western, Illinois Central, and Elgin, Joliet and Eastern
Railroads present the followinp rail handling plan and estimate of rail charges
for Black and Veatch's use in their larger project to provide preliminary estimates
of system requirements and costs for disposal of solid wastes from the built-up
area of Cook County, Illinois Central speaks for its subsidiary Chicago and Illinois
Western, who is also involved in the project.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
System design is based on projected 1985 quantities of solid wastes by major
category as follows:
TONS PER YEAR
Residential refuse 2,500,000
Commercial refuse 1,300,000
Industrial refuse 2,500,000
Incinerator residue 450,000
Twelve tentative locations for loading stations were suggested by Black -ind
Veatch to permit relativelv short haul distances for refuse collection vehicle.'; and
so that each stition could serve an area which wculd ^enerats about 2 GOQ tons ^er
day on a six day per week basis. The map on the opposing page displavs: tentative
loading locations, the three rail carriers, and the disposal site in Northeastern
Grundy County referred to as Site No. 10.
In connection with the refuse disposal, the creation of a 1,000 foot mountain
is being considered, using reck spoil from a deep tunnel project. The mountain
would be designed for recreational use. Possible rail transport of the rock spoil
is discussed in a separate report.
The refuse would be compacted into containers measuring 9 ft. wide, 11-1/2 ft.
high, 20 ft. long, with a volumetric capacity of 60 yards. This is a slight change
from the suggested 10 X 10-1/2 X 20 and was made to accommodate RR Plate B clearances
for 65-ft. flat cars - 9 ft. width with ordinary truck spacing. A density of ?>50
pounds per cubic yard is anticipated, producing a 20 net ton load per container.
Three containers would be transported on one 65-ft. flat car. Container tare would
be approximately four tons each. Gross weight of three loaded containers and the
flat car would be approximately 100 net tons.
Separate loading sites have been studied for incinerator residue, recognizing
these plants are already at established locations. However, volumes, spread over
four incinerator stations, do not promote special handling bv rail. Savings
associated with open-top conventional rail cars are dissipated by the slower turn-
around of conventional handling and the need for separate unloading facilities.
Therefore, we have considered the incinerator residue being handled in the same
manner as the much larger volume of refuse - through the refuse loadinp stations.
The container could carry at least 20 tons of incinerator residue.
1-4
-------
-2-
Station volume is recapped below:
CSNW Origins:
(A) Clybourn
£ incinerator
(B) Mayfair
(C) Chicago Shops, 40th St.
£ incinerator
(D) Wilrnette
(E) Des Plaines
(F) Proviso
TOTAL
1C Origins:
(G) KcCook (CIW RR)
(H) Crawford (CIW RR)
6 incinerator
(I) Fordhan
6 incinerator
(J) Wildwood
(K) Markhan
TOTAL
EJCE Oripin: (L) 1-90
GRAND TOTAL
6 DAY PER WEEK
DAILY AVERAGE
ANNUAL TOMS
624,000
100,000
624,000
312,000
150,000
312,000
624,000
624,000
3,370,000
780,000
312,000
100,000
312,000
100,000
624,000
780,000
3,008,000
312,000
2,300
2,000
1,500
1,000
2,000
2,000
10,800
2,500
1,300
1,300
2,000
2,500
9,600
1,000
21,400
65' CARLOADS
39
34
42
22
22
34
42
112,944 Carloads Annually
The carriers have made only one su.rfested change re^ardinp loading site
locations. The area sho-.m on Black and Yeatch's nap south of the Sanitary Canal
near Brighton Park Yard (GM60) should be relocated on the C£IW tracks near Crawford.
Refuse collection has been stated at a daily average rate based on a six day
pickup. Proponed rail handlinr is on a six day per week basis with one day dead tire
at all loading sites and Site lio. 10. This in itself can accommodate the daily averare
volures. Seasonality and peakinr can be expected, running 120 per cent peaks durinp
sunrrer months with 80 per cent lows durinp, winter. By operating the seventh day, a
peak of 116 per cent could be accommodated, assuninf, storape capacity at orir.in
stations. We have provided for 3 per cent equipment spares and by holdinr the
maintenance outap.e to 4 rer cent durinp surner months and opsratinp seven days, the
peaks could be net. Cur estimated price contemplates 337 days operation: 6 days per
week year round, plus 25 additional days.
Average daily trail inn tonnape to be handled is 36,200 - the schedules are
devised to allow operation of four relatively e-^-al sized trains. With four trains
rirr :' v ':;,• in,! drvnrtir. • il.ii]v, .->: ttr.Tticm at Site Mo, 10 ••:ill require 24 nour unloading
o
:;o AS to allo'.' an even dir.tr: ijution cf arrival- -nd departures (and roi'u^e
dispoi, il) over each 24 hour period.
1-5
-------
-3-
EJ£E would have to operate a terminal at Site Mo. 10, leaking locomotive and
caboose servicing available. A switch crew would be necessary around the clock for
train breakup and makeup.
EJ&E road crews would be called at Site No. 10 for turnaround service to West
Chicago (interchange CfcNW-EJSE) and "atteson (interchange IC-EJ6E). C6NW-EJ6E
would interchange once every twelve hours - say 0:00 and 12:00 - and IC-EJ&E would
interchange once every twelve hours - say 6:00 and 10:00 - to facilitate an even
arrival of loads at Site No. 10. Match at West Chicago and t'atteson, with return
loads in the case of EJ&E, and return empties in the case of CSNW and 1C, has been
conterplated and is a critical part of the economics of the rail schedules. Irter-
change would amount to the enpine and train crews trading a loaded train with
run-through power and caboose for an empty train with run-through power and caboose.
C61IW would run two collection trains daily from Proviso: one picking up at
(A) Clybourn, (B) Mayfair, and (C) 40th Street; and the other at (D) t/ilmette,
(E) DCS Plaines, and (F) Proviso,, Two read trains would run daily from Proviso
to West Chicago interchange and return. C6JIW would also run two empty distribution
trains daily from Proviso setting out in the reverse order of pickup.
Cf.IW RR would run a crew daily from Crawford Yard to pick up at (G) XcCook,
and (H) Crvr.'ford, and interchange with 1C at Crawford. 1C would run a yard crew
from tlarkham to pick up these loads at the C6IW interchange and fill out at
(I) Fordharn - the crev would tie up at "arkhan Yard. A road crew would take the
loads to interchange with EJ&E at i'atteson and raturn to t'arkham. Yard with cnoties..
A yard crev: fron Karkha- would deliver these empties to (I) Fordham and interchange
with Cf.I'*' R^ at Crawfrrc. A C6IW crev; would deliver empties to (H) Crawford and
(G) McCook. 1C would also run a road crew from Xarkham Yard, picking up at (J)
Wildwcod and (K) Markhan, delivering to L'J£E at !'atteson and returning'with empties
for set-off at (K) J'arkr.am and (J) V.'ildwood before tying up at "arkham Yard, "'ha
EJ&E site (L) 1-90 would be serviced six days per week with existing crews.
Crev; schematics are shown as Exhibits A and 3. Those schedules allow a minimum
of 7 - 8 hours to unload at Site No. 10 and eight hours at: each of the loading sites.
Car set schematics are shown as Exhibits C and D. The tines at the loading sites
vary substantially in terms of hour of the day. Loadinr would have to be accomplished
within the time the empties were there regardless if it were 3:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
or some other unusual shift. The loading tiire is the same at each individual station
each day, within tne reliability of the schedule.
ROLLING STCCK REQUIRE!'-::.^
Cars and Containers:
Service to C6NW origins would require three car sets. The sane is true of
service to 1C origins. Each set turns every 1-1/2 davs . Two car sets would be
required to service the LJtL 1-90 site. Total flat car and container requirements
are developed as follows:
C&:,",: (A) 3<), (HI 3U, (C) 25 = °R rlatr, per dr.v X 1.5 day turn = 1U7
(D) 17, (E) 3S (F) 3U = 85 flats per day X l.!3 day turn = 128
(Cont'd.)
-------
-u-
IC (G) 142, (H) 22, (I) 22
(J) 34, (K) U2
EJ6E (L) 17
86 flats per day X 1.5 day turn
76 flats per day X 1.5 day turn
= 129
= 17 flats per day X 2.0 day turn =
8% spares
Total Flat Car Requirements
Total Container Requirements
552
U8
600
1800
Locomotives and Cabooses:
CGIW would utilize existing locomotives. C&MW, 1C, and EJSL would require two
2000 HP diesels to handle the train sizes outlined above. Locomotive set turnaround
on C&NW-EJCL is every 36 hours, with 8 hours service time at Site No. 10. Turn-
around on IC-F.JCE is every 24 hours (because CSIW service is separate) with 6-8
hours service time at Site tlo. 10. See schematic - Exhibit E. Ten road locomotives
are required for constant service and an outage of 1 has been contemplated. A 1000
IIP switcher would be necessary at Site No. 10. Road cabooses follow locomotive sets
plus one spare.
Requirements: 11
1
6
1
2000 HP road diesels
1000 HP yard diesel
road cabooses
yard caboose
TRACKS AND PERMANENT FACILITIES
Track construction at origins for railroad purposes could theoretically be
limited to a single track long enough to hold the dailv number of loads at that
station. This is possible because one crew is picking up loads and another crew,
later in the day, is delivering empties. However, if empties were ordered in and
not loaded they would have to be pulled out empty and run to Site Ho. JO - the
next day's empty supply is already on its way and there would be no place to put it.
Breaking the trains at Proviso and Markham to add or delete cars is not desirable
nor provided for. We therefore conclude that each origin would need track capacity
for two days loading. This allows unused empties to be left behind and gives tire
to adjust empty orders so as to work off the overage.
There will always be a minimum of two car sets physically on hand at one time
at Site 10, plus the UO spares and other excess empties during low periods (train
arrivals and departures every six hours versus unloading on a 7 - 8 hour cycle).
At a minimum, a five track yard is necessary (each track 6500 ft. in longth):
three tracks for cars on hand, one track tc use as a run-around, and one track to
protect possible arrival of a loaded train before departure of an er.pty train.
These tracks are for arrival, departure, and train makeup purposes. Tracks necessary
for unloading would be in addition.
Diesel fu^linr and inspection facilities and c-iboose servicirtf tracks would
be necesr.rtrv. Protective buildings dnd nanit-ary facilities for crew members, car
inspectors, and supervisors would bo required.
1-7
-------
RAIL RATES
Our study indicates that rail rates of $1.20 net ton are feasible including:
1. Crew expense;
2. Locomotive repair and maintenance, exclusive of ownership costs and
facilities at Site 10;
3« Car repair and naintenance, exclusive of ownership costs;
U. Track repair and maintenance, exclusive of ownership of origin and
destination trackage;
5. Upgrading of EJ&E's Illinois River Line;
6. Contingencies, overhead and rail profit.
The figure contemplates six day per week crew schedules as outlined, and 25
days of seventh day operation. The carriers would need a minimum charge oer day,
regardless of cars handled, to protect the schedule. This is an overall averape
pricing approach for the entire job as defined to us. The manner of collecting
these charges is not yet clear. There could be separate charges from various
origin groups reflecting the particular cost characteristics of servicing that area.
This would protect against high volur.es developing at high cost origins and low
volumes at low cost areas to the detrirent of an overall average price. It would
also facilitate the rate treatment of new origin stations on a cost oriented basis.
We have specificallv excluded certain ownership costs from the above fipure
for practical reasons. The carriers cannot forecast their ability tc borrow
capital in the 1980's, nor interest rates and depreciation laws that would apply,,
All of these have a bearing on conversion of the capital costs to a cents per ton
figure. It could well be that the apency would have rore advantageous circurstances
than the carriers, which would mean that they should own the equipment. If you
assume an 8 per cent cost of borrowing and a ten year amortization period, conversion
of the capital cost to $.44 net ton is possible as outlined on Exhibit F (Summary
of Capital Cost).
This would bring the cost to a total of $1.64 net ton still exclusive of con-
tainer ownership ana repair and maintenance. The methods chosen to compact the
refuse in the containers and to disgorge the contents will greatly influence their
original cost and the maintenance necessary. At the present time the carriers do
not have insight into tr.ese loading and unloading matters and cannot make a reasonable
estimate of costs in this area. As a point of design, however, we supgest a wedpe-
shaped bottom which would secure itself into a deep well in the floor of the car.
This would provide a simple method of holding the containers on the rail cars
without latching or locking devices which would require activation and maintenance.
We are pleased to be able to work with you in the development of this project
and stand ready to furnish additional data and firm quotes as the development of
the project merits.
These figures are at 1970 wage and price levels and would have to be reviewed
and uo-dated at the tine of decision to handle via rail.
1-8
-------
SU:!!'A?Y CF CAPITAL COST
ROLLING STOCK:
1800 Containers Not estimated
600 Flat cars, standard UF, 77-ton capacity, Q $21,000 $12,600,000
11 Road diesels SD-33 AC, 2000 HP, ballasted to 390,000 Ibs.,
radio and train control equipped Q $307,000 3,377,000
1 Yard diesel, 1000 HP, radio equipped
7 Cabooses, radio equipped Q $30,000 .
.TOTAL (Excluding containers)
175,000
210.000
$16,362.000
TRACKS AT ORIGINS:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I)
(J)
(K)
(L)
NUMBER OF
CARS/DAY
39
34
25
17
34
34
42
22
22
34
17
X 2 Days X 70' Per Car
5,460 feet
4,760 "
3,500 "
2,380 "
4,760
4,760
5,880
3,080
3,080
4,760
5,880
2,380
"
"
"
'"
"
"
Total linear feet of 115# new rail 50,680 @ $20/ft. =
Add 12 turnouts fror: main line @ $6,000
Add 12 turnouts for second track Q $6,000
Add estimated 500 ft. lead ? station 1 $20/ft.
TOTAL TRACK AT ORIGINS
Yard tracks at Cite «10, locomotive and caboose
servicing facilities, buildings, sanitary
facilities, parking, etc.
GRAND TOTAL CAPITAL
Add interest cost e?tir,ated at R per cent simple
for ten year terr, r^vronts quarterly
TOTAL
Divided by 66,900,000 tons available in a
ten year period
$ 1,014,000
72,000
72,000
120,000
$1,278.000
2.288.000
$19,920,000
2_,r_io.'u-)0
c; 2 Q !"•)(' x n O
$ ,4U
ton
(1) All track costs are exclusive of sub-prade. It is assured that each site
will have close-L>y fill because of foundation work or other site preparations.
-------
TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE ROCK FROM DEEP TUNNEL DRAINAGE SYSTEM
CHICAGO SANITARY DISTRICT
ELGIN, JOLIET 6 EASTERN RAILWAY CO.
Chicago, Illinois
May 27, 1971
1-10
-------
TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE ROCK FROM DKEP TUNNEL DRAIN'AGE SYSTEM
CHICAGO SANITARY DISTRICT
During periods of high precipitation, storm water runoff infiltrates
Chicago's sanitary sewer collection system to such an extent that the combined
sewerage exceeds the capability of the treatment facility. The Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago has propcsed to eliminate this condition
through creation of underground reservoirs to store the excess flows for sub-
sequent treatment during periods of low flow. Creation of the "Deep Tunnel
Drainage System," as it is called, will require the removal of 200 million
tons of rock from three excavation sites in Chicago over a ten year construction
period. The disposal of this amount of waste rock in or around Chicago presents
still another problem to the Sanitary District. Cnc proposed solution is to utilize
the material to construct a ski-hill on a site about twelve miles southwest of
Joliet (called Disposal Site 10).
Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company serves the proposed site for
construction of the ski-hill and also connects with all rail lines entering the
City of Chicago. For these reasons it is in position to uursuo transportation
of this product via rail from the three prooosed excavation sites even thour.h
the precise location of these sites is not deter-.ined and the particular rail-
roads with whom EJfcE would be working are not known.
Our studies have been based on the following annual figures for a ten year
period:
Net Tons per
Excavation Site Year
Northside 4,000,000
Southwest 14,000,000
Calumet 2, OOPfOOP
TOTAL 20,000,000
No information was available as to the mining techniques to be utilized
or the type and size consist of the material to be produced. Our principal
concern here in developing a transportation system is the size of the product as
it might be tendered to the railroads and the methods that would be available to
load and unload such material. EJ&E engaged a consulting engineering firm whose
principal activity involves large scale mining and transportation methods. For
purposes of their feasibility study, it was assumed that the material excavated
would be run-of-mine dolomitic limestone, having a weight of approximately 10n Lbs.
per cubic foot upon delivery to the railroads. To represent the worst possible
condition for the railroads, the studv was bused on the premise that the rock
would DO loaded after blasting by track Jess minim- t-jut risen t for haulare to a
shaft or skioway wher-j it would be hoisted to the ;urface and durned into a roc-.et
or bin in the head frame for subsequent aisoosal. Considering retnoas avai-laois
Ml
-------
for loading, unloading, and distribution on the mountain of an unsized material
versus a sized material, our consulting engineer has recommended crushing at
origin.
A flow sheet showing the material preparation and loading scheme is
shown on Exhibit I. A general description of the material handling concept
is carried on Exhibit II.
CRUSHING AND RAIL LOADING COSTS
Capital costs of the crushing plants at the three sites, including surge,
stockpile, and reclaim facilities, loadout facilities including tracks and roacs,
fencing, repair and maintenance facilities, etc., total $10,931,000, as detailed
on Exhibit III. Annual operating costs for crushing and loading operations have
been estimated at $2,311,400 or approximately 12 cents a ton. Details are shown
on Exhibit IV.
RAIL UNLOADING AND FINAL PLACEMENT COSTS
Capital costs of unloading and placement facilities at Disposal Site 10,
including rotary dur.per, rail terminal and yards, overland conveyor, mobile
stacker and spreader equipment total $12,277,000, as detailed on Exhibit V.
Annual operating costs of unloading and placement operations are estimated at
$3,360,500 or approximately 17 cents per ton. Details of these costs are shewn
on Exhibit VI.
RAIL HAUL COSTS
Assuming a 360 day work year, but only 92.5 per cent operating time, the
following tonnages would be available on a daily basis:
EXCAVATION SITE TONS PER YEAR TONS PER DAY
Northside 4,000,000 12,000
Southwest 14,000,000 42,000
Calumet 2,000,000 6,000
Total 20^000,000 60,000
Five 120 car trains will be required each day to transport the waste rock
in 100-ton cars to the disposal site. The schedule would call for one train per
day from the Northside site, three and four trains per day from the Southwest site
on alternate days, and one from Calumet every other day.
A 100-ton car with swivel couplings appears to be the most economical
type for this service - winning out over the side dumn (with or without air
cylinders for self-dumping) and the bottom dump because of overall impact on the
cost of rolling stock plus unloading facilities. A car measuring about 32 ft. coupler
to coupler and having anproximate inside dimensions of 28' X 9-1/4' X 7' should weigh
about ?n tens for this service and could re^.cilv carry 100 tons of waste rock at
its assumed loose weiflit of 100 Ibs, per cubic foot.
1-12
-------
-3-
Assuming a 1 per cent ruling grade against the loads on any of the routes
chosen, four 2000 HP diesel electric locomotives would be required to handle each
of the 120 car trains.
The loading sites are capable of UOOO tons per hour and the locomotives
would stay on the train during loading operations. Considering a runaround for
the locomotive and caboose at origin, the work should be accomplished in approx-
imately four hours. The longest distance from any of the loading sites to the
disposal sites is approximately seventy miles and five hours running time in
either direction would appear adequate. At the disposal site switch crews would
feed 40 car cuts of loads to the Barney for positioning in the rotary dunper, which
has an operating rate of 4000 tons per hour and should handle a trainload in under
four hours. Considering traffic delays and contingencies then, it is very
realistic to expect a 24 hour cycle for each train. Therefore, five car sets
of 120 cars would be needed and allowing for 8 per cent outage, an investment
in 650 cars would be required. Considering switching service at the disposal
site and maintenance outage, 26 locomotives would be required. Five read cabooses
would also be needed. Capital requirements for rail haul are summarized be lew:
650 cars @ $ 20,000 each = $13,000,000
26 locomotives @ 307,000 each = 7,982,000
5 road cabooses Q 35,000 each = 175,000
Total $gJ_, 157, OOP
We estimate that operating costs for the schedule outlined above, including
locomotive and car repair and maintenance, crews, agency, maintenance of roadway,
plus overhead, contingencies and rail profit, would make possible rail rates cf
approximately 63 cents net ton, exclusive of depreciation.
SUMMARY
Total capital requirements for the entire project, including crushing, loading,
rail haul, unloading and placement, are recapped below:
Interest
Capital Expense* Total
Crush and load $10,931,000
Rail haul 21,157,000
Unload and place 12,277,000
Total $41,365,000 $20,503,000 $64,868,000
"Assumes 8 per cent simple interest nayable quarterly over 10 years.
1-13 .
-------
-u-
If this cost were spread out over the 200,000,000 tons indicated for
the project life, the grand total capital costs might be viewed in the area
of 33 cents net ton, depending on prevailing interest rates and the ability
of the borrower to secure the loan.
Summarizing further then:
Operating costs for crushing and loading - $ .12 net ton
Operating costs for rail haul - .63 net ton
Operating costs for unloading and placement - ,17 net ton
Capital and interest - ,33 net ton
Grand Total - $1.25 net ton
We have not been able to project the detail with regards to the haulage
of waste rock that we were able to build into our proceeding study concerning
the haulage of refuse simply because the origin railroads are not clear at
this time. We would point out that certain improvements necessary on the
EJ&C in order to accommodate the refuse movement are prerequisite to the move-
ment of waste rocK, and if for any reason the rock should be considered without
the refuse, the figures indicated in this report would have to be revised up-
ward by some small amount. Also, our figures in this study do not recognize
the cost of land acquisition.
All estimates are based on current wage and price levels and, of course,
these would have to be up-graded at the time the project was to take form.
T.J. Siegel
1-14
-------
EXHIBIT II
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OP MATERIAL HANDLIKG CONCEPT
The rock would be loaded, after blasting, by trackless mining equip-
ment for haulage to a shaft or skipway where it would be hoisted to the
surface and dumped into a pocket or bin in the headframe for subsequent
disposal.
In the design depicted by the schematic flowsheet, the run-of-mine
rock in the bin would be fed by a pan feeder to a vibrating grizzly where
the plus 8-inch material would be scalped off for primary crushing. The
product from grizzly and crusher would then be pan-fed to a vibrating
screen from which the through product would drop to the out-haul belt and
the oversize discharged to the secondary crusher for a further reduction
in top-size before joining the by-passed material on the out-haul belt.
The ninus 4-inch material, possibly with soire tramp oversize, would
then be conveyed to the surge pile for accumulation in live storage between
railcar loading, operations. Withdrawal from stockpile would be by under-
ground draw points with pans feeding the out-haul belt to the 500 ton
pcckct at a rate comr.cnnurate with that required for the optimum car loading
schedule.
Rail haul of the material to the disposal site would be in 100 ton
cars, equipped with swivel couplings for roll-over dumping, made up into
120 car trains powered by four 2000 HP diesel locomotives.
At the disposal site, the train would be broken into forty car cuts
for feed to a rotary clunper equipped with a positioner, or "Barney," for
accurate spotting of the cars. After the cars had been dumped into a bin,
the material would be pan-fed to an out-haul belt for transfer to the
"overland" conveyor which, in turn, would discharge onto the rail-mounted
trailing conveyor of the stacker.
The rotating, luffing boom stacker, mounted on either rail trucks or
crawlers, would then either deposit the material in its final position or
would transfer it to rubber-mounted, high-speed scrapers for controlled
placement. The scrapers could also be used for loading, hauling, placing
and compacting a suitable top dressing for the ski-hill from local borrow
pits.
1-15
-------
EXHIBIT
TTT
APPROXIMATION OF CAPITAL COSTS
FOR CRUSHING AMD RAIL 1-OMJTNG
Thousands of Iiollars
Norths 3de Southwest Calur.-gt
1.0 Excavation Sites
1.1 Crushing Plants*
Building:
Site Preparation
Piling £ Concrete
Structure
Heating £ Ventilating
Total
Equipment Installed:
Feeders
Crushers
Screens
Cranes £ Hoists
Total
Electrical 115 270 115
Total Crushing Plants 1,000 2,112 1,000
1.2 Stockpile £ Reclaim Facilities**
Stockpile Conveyors 125
Reclaim Tunnels £ Gates 300
Reclair, Conveyors 250
Electrical 100
Total 775
1.3 Load-out Facilities
Load-out Pocket (Complete) 250 250 250
Yard £ Pocket Tracks 315 500 315 '
Total 595 750 595
1.1 Miscellaneous Facilities £ Equip.
Roads, Fence £ Area Lighting
Repair £ Xaint. Facilities
Front End Loader £ Service Vehicles
Utilities
Total
Total Excavation Sites $2,677 $1.167 $2,677
Total Excavation Sites $9,821
Engineering (6%) 589
Contingencies (5%) of Sub-Total
Grand Total Investment Excavation Sites
NOTE: Northside Southwest
- 1.1 Crushing Plants: No. of Shifts 3 32
Tons per hour 600 2,100 500
** 1.2 Reclaim Rate: Tons per hour 1,000 1,000 1,000
-------
APPROXIMATION nr ANNUAL OPERATING COST
TOR CRUSHING AND "AIL LOADING
EXHI&IT IV
Item Annual Cost
1.0 Material Preparation £ Loading
1.1 Northside Site
1.1.1 Labor:
Crushing 6 Stockpiling:
5 men/shift, 3 shifts/day = 15 men
Load- Out:
1 man/shift, 1 shift/day * 1 man
Total
16 men 0 $14,000 = $ 224,000
Add Swing Shifts @ 40% 89,600
1.1.2 Power:
7,494,000 KWH
$0.015/KWH 112,410
1.1.3 Repair 6 Maintenance:
2^ of Structures ($640,000)
5% of Mechanical ($1,400,000)
1.1.4 Fuels, Lubricants, £ Supplies
12,800
70,000
30,000
Total Item 1.1 S 533.810"
1.2 Southwest Site
1.2.1 Labor:
Crushing 6 Stockpiling:
10 men/shift, 3 shifts/day = 30 men
Load-Out:
2 men/shift, 3 shifts/day = 6 men
Total
3b irc-n 1 $14,000 =
Add Swing Shifts (i 40%
1.2.2 Power:
16,656,000 KWH 3 $0.015/KWH
1,2.3 Repair & Maintenance:
2% of Structures ($795,000)
5* of Mechanical ($2,345,000)
1.2.4 Fuels,Lubricants, & Supplies
Total Item 1.2
1.3 Calunet Site
1.3.1 Labor:
Crushing 6 Stockpiling:
3 men/shift, 2 shifts/day = 6 men
Load-Out:
2 men/shift, 1/2 shift/day = 1 man
Total
7 men 0 $14,000
Add Swing Shifts 9 40%
1.3.2 Power:
4,746,000 KWH @ $0.015/KHH
1.3.3 Repair 6 Maintenance:
2% of Structures ($640,000)
5% of Mechanical ($1,400,000)
1.3.4 fuels. Lubricants, Supplies & Misc.
Total Item 1.3
Total Item 1.0 Direct
1.4
1.5
Supervision
' 15% of Lahor ($1,156,400)
State £ Local Taxes
n of Investment ($10,931,000)
Total Annual Operating Cost
Cost per Ton (» 20,000,000)
$ 50»,000
201,600
249,840
15,900
117,250
85.000
$1.173.590
$ 98,000
39,200
$ 71,200
12,800
70,000
25.000
$ 316,200
$2,028,600
173,500
109.300
1-17
-------
EXHIBIT V
APPROXIMATION OF CAPITAL COSTS FOR RAIL TERMINAL,
UNLOADING, AND FINAL PLACEMENT FACILITIES
Thousands
of Dollars
Rail Terminal 6 Yards $ 2,500
Unloading Facilities
Yard and Dump Tracks $ 500
Rotary Dumper (Complete) 1,750
Overland Conveyor 3,150
Mobile Stacker 500
Spr"?3c!in£ Fnuicr^nt 1 100
Repair and Maintenance Facilities 250
Service Vehicles and Other Equipment 150
Electrical and Floodlighting 1,130
TOTAL $ 8,530
Total Disposal Site $ 11,030
Engineering (6%) 662
Contingencies (5%) of Sub Total 585
Grand Total Investment Disposal Site $ 12,277
1-18
-------
APPROXIMATION OF ANNUAL OPERATING COST
UNLOADING AND PLACEMENT
EXHIBIT VI
Item
Annual Cost
1.0 Unloading and Placement
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Labor
Rotary Duriper: 3 men/shift
Conveyors and Stacker: 3 men/shift
Spreading Equipment: 9 men/shift
Total: 15 men/shift, 3 shifts/day
45 men @ $14,000
Add Swing Shifts @ 40%
Power
49,950,000 KWH @ $0.015 KWH
Repair and Maintenance
2% of Structures ($750,000)
5% of Mechanical plus Belt Replacement
Fuels,Lubricants, Supplies and Misc.
4 Tractors 3 $10.00/hr. = $40.00/hr.
4 Scrapers @ $16.00/hr. = $64.00/hr.
$104.00/hr. X 6660 hrs/yr.
Miscellaneous
Total Direct
Supervision
15% of Labor ($882,000)
State and Local Taxes
1% of Investment ($12,277,000)
Total Annual Operating Cost
$ 630,000
252,000
749,250
15,000
666,500
$ 692,650
100,000
$3,105,400
132,300
122,800
$3,360,500
Cost per Ton (+ 20,000,000)
17C N.T.
ya653
1-19
-------
THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE DUPLICATES OF
ILLUSTRATIONS APPEARING ELSEWHERE IN THIS
REPORT. THEY HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY
A DIFFERENT METHOD SO AS TO .FURNISH THE
BEST. POSSIBLE DETAIL TO THE USER.
-------
"f he development ot the Comprehensive Site Plan
for the Sks Mruntr'i> r>- ' ' 1 was divirhd into
thrne (jenerai acv;s •»< *,< =<;1 and oonsicl-jration:
1. The merning of construction techniques
and related pioblems into an integrated
0>nnir»g prog; 'in*,
2. Th« vi'>iial, fj^nloyi-.Tii nnd geographical
emerging of the miMinffiin into the. Illinois
The program ten ;
construction t\>t>, -
was divided »tt» •••'•••
First, the transfes
regional transpCMt.ir
distribution &y- K=.
ment and
of the mountain
- dli development plan
rt»eas of consideratisin
« solid waste from tr.e
network to the lo< si
• :;xv!, the on-site ninv--
3 The development of the site into a
multiple-use facility.
-------
A transfer point was located along the
river near the western boundary of the
site. This site was selected because of
its potential for receiving materials
from three modes of transportation:
rail movement, road vehicles and
barge transport through the inland
waterway system, and because of an
existing 70 foot bluff which visually
isolates the site from the surrounding
countryside.
-------
The construction techniques to be
used and the patterns of on-site move-
ment of the material were based on the
projected final shape of the mountain
and its relationship to the overall site
plan. In general, the mountain is plan-
ned to be constructed from the south
towards the north with an ultimate
projected increase 6f 1000 feet over
existing elevations.
Throughout the development of the
mountain facility, portions of the site
will be made available for recreational
use. The areas around the mountain,
between the edges of the site and the
base of the mountain construction will
be made immediately available for use
as a recreations! facility. These periph-
eral areas will form visual barriers be-
tween the on-site work and the sur-
rounding countryside. As the construc-
tion of the mountain moves northward
and upward, portions of the original
construction areas will be landscaped
and utilized. By the time the final
construction is completed at the north-
ern boundary of the site, major por-
tions of the facility will be in constant
use.
i
s «*
-------
-------
The development of a 1000 foot high mountain
that is integrated visually into the flat Illinois
topography was the second area of considera-
tion. The final design shape of the mountain
resulted from the synthesis of anticipated recrea-
tional demands, construction techniques, drain-
age, landscape design, and topographic and visual
considerations. The mountain is designed to be
an extension of the existing native landscaping,
ravines and gullies along the waterway. The
result is a visually pleasing mountain aestheti-
cally integrated into the Illinois topography and
designed for maximum multiple use potential.
The development of the Site Plan was divided
into three main areas of consideration: recrea-
tion, conservation and natural science education.
The mountain was designed to provide a recrea-
tional facility which will afford people of all age
groups and interests an opportunity to partici
pate in a variety of year round recreational
activities in an atmosphere which will insure
maximum enjoyment.
The Ski Mountain Plan provides for the conser
vation of natural resources and the development
of new, permanent open space areas. The Moun-
tain will be landscaped to encourage the growth
of native grasses, plants and trees, recreating the
indigenous Illinois landscape while providing a
natural habitat for a wide range of animals and
birds. In addition, areas will be designed to
provide natural habitats for selected species of
animals and birds which are in danger of extinc-
tion. Specifically designated sites within densely
wooded areas will become sanctuaries for larger
animals such as deer, fox, beaver and badgers.
The entire site will be designed to act as a living
museum of native plants and wildlife.
The Ski Mountain, with its programs of conser-
vation, reconstruction and wildlife preservation,
will provide an ideal setting for the construction
of a natural science education facility. The
planting of native plants and the presence of
common and rare species of native wildlife will
provide a setting for the education of all age
groups, beginning at the grammar school level
and progressing through sophisticated graduate
The site was divided into three areas for plan-
ning of ultimate use. Area No. 1 with its ideal
sun orientation, was designed as an active recrea-
tional facility. Area No. 2 was designed as a
conservation area and natural science education
facility, and Area No. 3 was designed as a
passive recreational facility. Due to its proximity
to the receiving and transfer point, Area No. 3
would be the last area developed for ultimate
use. Although activities are primarily located
within the specific area designed for them, many
functions overlap creating a single, unified facility.
-------
Area No. 1, the year-round active recreational
area is visually identifiable by its three bowl-
shaped areas, specifically formed and oriented to
capture and retain the winter snows. The three
bowl-shaped areas, ranging in vertical height
from 300 to 500 feet on the south and up to
1000 feet on the north, provide skiing traits
with varying degrees of difficulty. In addition to
the skiing facility, which provides the site's most
dynamic recreational resource the area is plan
ned to contain numerous additional recreational
facilities.
The lakes, which provide the mnoff, silt, and
pollution control during the construction phases,
are to be utilized as a source of water oriented
recreation on a year-round basis. During the
warm weather, the lakes are to be used for
swimming, fishing, boating and sailing. Winter
activities include ice fishing, ice skating, speed
skating, ice hockey and ice boating. Pollution of
the lakes will be prevented by constructing the
mountain with essentially stable material and by
collecting water which percolates through the
fill and treating it to remove or stabilize any
pollutants. In addition, a complete interception
system would be provided for collecting surface
runoff before it enters the lakes. This would
include surface ditching, subsurface piping, and
retention reservoirs. The interception and con-
trol system would prevent surface water from
entering directly into the lakes. Upon the detec-
tion of a nutrient within the retention reservoir
the water would be recycled over cropland for
nutrient removal. In addition to the interception
system, a 100-foot wide barrier surrounding the
lakes would be developed, including very deep-
rooted trees and shrubs — its purpose being the
interception by the root system of any high-
nutrient subsurface water.
The low hills surrounding the lakes are designed
for use in the winter time for toboggan runs,
and the most gently sloping hills at the base of
the mountain become sledding runs.
A complete public convenience facility, in-
cluding specialty shops, restaurants and lodge
facilities, is located between two lakes at the
base of the center bowl. This facility could be
expanded into a regionally oriented convention
and sports center for family enjoyment within a
short distance of the Chicago metropolitan area.
Across the lake from the lodge and in the open
space at the base of the center bowl, a ski jump
facility is planned to attract national and inter-
national ski jump events.
Park facilities along the existing inland waterway
system will be expanded to include a marina,
and fishing and sightseeing charter boats. The
road adjacent to the waterway will be improved
lo facilitate pedestrian and automobile sight-
seeing. The Channahon Lock on the former
Illinois and Michigan Canal will be maintained as
an historical landmark.
The open fields and meadows around the base
of the completed mountain will be developed
into family recreation areas which will include
picnic facilities, fields for sports such as base-
ball, football, and soccer, and open spaces for
model airplane flying.
-------
*".&i
-------
The northern part of the site, designated as Area
No. 2, is designed as a large and significant
conservation area and natural science education
facility. Automobiles will be excluded from this
densely covered wilderness area. The reservoirs
in this area will be developed into marshes and
sloughs for use as natural habitats for a variety
of native animals. They also will provide places
for birds to rest and feed during their migra-
tions.
The sides of the mountain within this area will
be heavily landscaped with native plants, ranging
from prairie grasses at the bottom of the slopes
through small shrubs and trees and finally into
native forests. They will be specifically designed
to provide habitats for small and large animals
and birds which are native to this region.
A natural science education facility consisting of
a nature center with museum space, classrooms
and laboratory facilities will be constructed at
the base of the mountain. It will be utilized for
orientation lectures and research conducted
within the area. It will also be the starting point
for a series of hiking trails leading through and
around specific areas within the site to amplify
the educational programs.
10
-------
11
-------
The area on the southwest portion of the moun-
tain site, designated as Area No. 3, will be
developed into a passive recreational facility.
This site will provide for family camping, in-
cluding facilities for camping trailers, cabins and
tents. These facilities will be provided in and
around the lakes and up on the mountain
slopes. All locations wil! include necessary san-
itary facilities. Specific areas will be set aside for
institutional use such as Thp Boy Scout Program.
The site will be honeycombed with equestrian,
bicycle and snowmobile trails for family use and
enjoyment. Trails from these camping facilities,
as well as from other points, will lead to an
observation point and restaurant complex at the
highest point on the mountain.
-------
The result of the three phase design approach is
a mountain that visually blends into the Illinois
topography and provides a multiple use recrea-
tional and educational facility for all the
residents of the Chicago metropolitan area.
13
-------