Region V February 1 981
905R81105
vvEPA Environmental Final
Impact Statement
Rehabilitation of
Wastewater Facilities
Streator, Illinois
-------
EPA-5-IL-LASALLE-STREATOR-WWTP AND CSO-1981
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REHABILITATION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES
STREATOR, ILLINOIS
Prepared by the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
And
WAPORA, Incorporated
Chicago, I I Iinois
With
Law Engineering Testing
Company
Marietta, Georgia
FEBRUARY, 1981
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency /
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, II 60604-3590
Approved by:
hn McGuire
gional Administrator
-------
SUMMARY SHEET
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REHABILITATION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES
STREATOR, ILLINOIS
Draft ( )
Final (X)
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Chicago, Illinois
1. Type of Action; Administrative (X)
Legislative ( )
2. Description of Action Proposed in the Facilities Plan
The action proposed in the draft Facilities Plan for the City of
Streator, Illinois, includes sewer separation, and upgrading and expansion
of the existing treatment plant. New sanitary sewers would be installed in
the present service area and in adjacent areas. The existing combined
sewer system would be rehabilitated for use as a storm sewer. The treat-
ment plant would be expanded to accommodate a design average flow of 5.59
mgd and would be upgraded with the addition of tertiary treatment and
chlorination. The effluent discharged to the Vermilion River would meet
the requirements of the final NPDES permit (4 mg/1 BOD- and 5 mg/1 SS).
The Facilities Plan recommends investigating the need of a mine re-
charge system to maintain present water levels in the mines located beneath
Streator. Recharge may be critical to minimize the potential for ground
subsidence. If a mine recharge system were needed, the proposed system
would recharge the mines with effluent from the treatment plant during
dry-weather periods. During wet-weather periods, the mines would be re-
charged with stormwater via drop shafts in the existing collection system
and via storm sewers installed in the presently sewered and unsewered
areas.
Federal financing has been requested by the City of Streator under the
statutory authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) and the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977
(Public Law 95-217). Streator's consulting engineers estimated the total
project cost to be $52,334,840 at January 1975 price levels (Warren & Van
Praag, Inc. 1975). The total capital cost was recalculated and was esti-
mated to be $56,237,300 at January 1978 price levels.
ii
-------
3. Description of the EIS Proposed Action
The proposed action includes rehabilitation of the existing wastewater
facilities at Streator, Illinois. The three major interceptor sewers in
the combined sewer system would be replaced (Figure S-l). A Sewer System
Evaluation Survey will be conducted to determine the extent of cost-effec-
tive rehabilitation of other segments of the collection system, including
the amount of infiltration that needs to be controlled. The treatment
plant would be upgraded to include nitrification and chlorination. It is
assumed that the effluent discharged to the Vermilion River would meet
acceptable effluent limitations (10 mg/1 BOD5 and 12 mg/1 SS). Combined
sewer flows in excess of the plant's capacity would receive primary treat-
ment and chlorination prior to discharge to the River.
Additional "Step I" facilities planning will be required to confirm
the cost-effectiveness of the EIS proposed action. Planning, for example,
will be necessary to determine how to cost-effectively dispose of waste-
water from areas adjacent to the existing sewer service area. The treat-
ment plant's capacity would have to be expanded if sewers were extended and
if present industrial discharges of process and cooling waters to the mines
were not permitted to continue, and/or if the amount of infiltration re-
maining after cost-effective sewer system rehabilitation were significant.
In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis will have to be conducted to
determine the volume of excess combined sewer flow that needs to be treated
and on the required level of treatment.
The mines beneath Streator would be recharged with wastewater and
stormwater to maintain present water levels in the mines. During dry-
weather periods, the mines would be recharged with effluent from the treat-
ment plant (Figure S-l). During wet-weather periods, the mines would be
recharged with overflows from the combined sewer system and with stormwater
from additional storm sewers in the presently sewered area. (A recharge
option that needs to be considered during additional facilities planning
involves continuous recharge of treated effluent, which would not require
additional storm sewers and thus would result in considerable cost
savings.)
The total capital cost of the EIS proposed action has been estimated
to be $22,515,900 (at January 1978 price levels). Average annual operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs have been estimated to be $316,300. The EIS
proposed action alternative does not include costs for sludge treatment and
disposal facilities. Also, costs to minimize subsidence damage to the col-
lection system, including costs for slight changes in interceptor routes,
light-weight sewer pipes, flexible joints, timber cradles, and concrete
support (Section 5.2.2.1.) are not included. Seventy-five percent of the
total capital cost will be eligible for Federal Construction Grant funds.
The local costs will include 25% of the total capital cost and 100% of the
O&M cost. The average annual local cost over a 20-year period has been
estimated to be $833,077. Assuming a population of 12,700 in the sewer
service area, the per capita cost will be approximately $66 per year. The
additional, necessary cost-effectiveness analysis, however, may alter
significantly project costs.
iii
-------
LEGEND
MINE WATER LEVEL
MONITOR INS POINT
EFFLUENT DISTRIBUTION
FORCE MAIN
POSSIBLE EXTENSION
OF FORCE MAIN
MAJOR INTERCEPTOR
TO 8£ REPLACED
Figure S-l. Location of the major interceptors and the proposed effluent
recharge system at Streator, Illinois.
IV
-------
4. Major Environmental Impacts of the BIS Proposed^ Action
The EIS proposed action would reduce substantially pollutant loads
discharged to the Vermilion River from the Streator Facilities Planning
Area. Water quality in the Area and downstream, therefore, should im-
prove, especially during periods of low river flows. Combined sewer over-
flows and discharges from cracked and broken sewer lines would be reduced
significantly. In addition, pollutant loads to the mine would be con-
trolled, and thus, the quality of mine leachates would improve over time.
All sanitary wastewater discharges to the mines would be eliminated.
However, because the water levels in the mines would be maintained by
artificial recharge if necessary, the potential for ground subsidence would
not be increased.
Temporary construction impacts such as increases in noise and dust,
traffic disruption, and erosion and sedimentation would occur along exist-
ing interceptor sewer routes and near storm sewer and recharge system
construction sites. Measures, however, would be taken to minimize these
impacts. Upgrading of existing treatment facilities would not result in
any significant impacts. The WWTP site is relatively secluded, and the
existing levee would prevent construction-related sedimentation. The
manpower, material, energy, and land used in the rehabilitation and con-
struction of facilities would be unavailable for other uses.
The population of the Streator Facilities Planning Area is stable and
is not limited by the availability of wastewater facilities. The EIS
proposed action, therefore, would not have any significant secondary im-
pacts, such as induced development and economic growth. Secondary impacts
would be primarily construction related and, thus, minimal and short-term.
5. Alternatives Considered in the EIS
Alternatives developed and considered included different options for
wastewater and stormvrater collection, treatment, and mine recharge. The
collection options were 1) sewer separation, 2) rehabilitation of the ex-
isting combined sewer system, and 3) sewer extensions. The treatment op-
tions for the treatment plant influent were 1) tertiary treatment with fil-
tration and chemical coagulation, 2) tertiary treatment without chemical co-
agulation, 3) upgraded secondary treatment with nitrification and chlorina-
tion, and 4) existing treatment with effluent discharge to the mines. Op-
tions to treat excess combined sewer flows (if the existing collection sys-
tem were used to convey sanitary wastewater and storm water) were 1) pri-
mary treatment and chlorination, 2) storage, primary treatment, and chlori-
nation, and 3) storage and mine discharge. Options for mine recharge were
1) re-charge of treatment plant effluent during dry-weather periods and
discharges from the existing collection system and additional storm sewers
and 2) continuous effluent recharge and discharges from the existing
collection system.
6. Federal, State, and Local Agencies and Organizations Notified of this
Action
FEDERAL
Hon. Charles H. Percy, US Senate
Hon. Alan Dixon, US Senate
-------
Hon. Thomas J. Corcoran, US House of Representatives
Council on Environmental Quality
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
Facilities Requirement Branch
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Office of Public Affairs
Public Information Reference Unit
Office of Federal Activities
Office of Legislature Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
US Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division
Chicago District Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Region V
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Region V
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Water Resources Council
STATE
Office of the Governor
Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Soil & Water Conservation
Department of Business and Economic
Development Department of Conservation
Division of Long Range Planning
Office of Preservation Services
Department of Mines & Minerals
Department of Public Health
Department of Transportation
Illinois Bureau of Environmental Sciences
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Planning and Standards Section
Region 1
Illinois Natural History Survey
Illinois State Clearinghouse
Illinois State Geological Survey
Illinois State Water Survey
Illinois Water Resources Commission
vi
-------
LOCAL
La Salle County Regional Planning Commission
Livingston County Board of Supervisors
City of Streator
City of Ottawa
City of Pontiac
City of LaSalle
Village of Rangley
Village of Cornell
ORGANIZATIONS
Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality
American Water Resources Association
Citizens For A Better Environment
Coalition On American Rivers
Illinois Division of Izaak Walton League
Lake Michigan Federation
National Audubon Society
National Wildlife Federation
Sierra Club
American Water Works Association
Streator Public Library
Illinois State Library
Illinois Institute of Technology, Kemper Library
University of Illinois Library (Urbana)
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
COVER SHEET i
SUMMARY ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiv
1.0. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1. Background 1-1
1.2. Action Proposed in the Facilities Plan 1-3
1.3. EIS-Related Issues 1-3
1.4. The Study Process 1-4
2.0. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS 2-1
2.1. Correspondence from Federal and State Agencies 2-2
2.2. Correspondence from Individuals • 2-3
2.3. Comments at the Public Hearing 2-4
3.0. THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3-1
3.1. Atmosphere 3-1
3.1.1. Meteorology 3-1
3.1.2. Air Quality 3-1
3.1.3. Sound 3-1
3.2. Land 3-1
3.2.1. Geology and Soils 3-1
3.2.1.1. Coal Mining 3-2
3.2.1.2. Subsidence Potential 3-2
3.2.2. Terrestrial Biota 3-2
3.3. Water , . 3-3
3.3.1. Surface Water 3-3
3.3.1.1. Hydraulics of the Vermilion River 3-3
3.3.1.2. Water Uses 3-7
3.3.1.3. Water Quality 3-9
3.3.1.4. Aquatic Biota 3-12
3.3.2. Groundwater 3-13
3.3.2.1. Availability 3-13
3.3.2.2. Quality 3-13
3.3.3. Water in Coal Mines 3-13
3.4. Cultural Resources 3-16
3.4.1. Archaeological Resources .............. 3-16
3.4.2. Cultural, Historic, and Architectural Resources. . . 3-16
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
3.5. Population of the Streator FPA 3-19
3.5.1. Base-year Population 3-19
3.5.2. Recent Population Trends ... 3-21
3.5.3. Population Projections to the Year 2000 3-22
3.6. Financial Condition 3-22
3.6.1. Community Services 3-22
3.6.1.1. Costs of Community Services 3-22
3.6.1.2. Sources of Funds for Community Services. , 3-24
3.6.2. Indebtedness 3-24
3.6.3. Comparison of Expenditures, Revenues, Assessments,
and Debt Among Cities 3-24
4.0. EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES AND FLOWS 4-1
4.1. Sewer System , 4-1
4.2. Treatment Facilities 4-3
4.3. Wastewater Flows 4-3
4.3.1. Industrial Wastewater Survey ..... 4-3
4.3.2. Domestic Wastewater Flows 4-6
4.3.3. Inflow/Infiltration 4-6
4.4. Wastewater Quality 4-7
4.5. Future Environmental Problems Without Corrective Action. . , 4-8
5.0. ALTERNATIVES 5-1
5.1. Objectives 5-1
5.2. System Components and Component Options 5-1
5.2.1. Flow and Waste Reduction 5-2
5.2.1.1. Infiltration/Inflow Reduction 5-2
5.2.1.2. Water Conservation Measures. . . 5-3
5.2.2. Collection System 5-3
5.2.2.1. Sewer Separation 5-3
5.2.2.2. Rehabilitation of the Combined Sewer
System 5-4
5.2.2.3. Service Area Options 5-4
5.2.3. Wastewater Treatment 5-6
5.2.3.1. Treatment Plant Design Capacities and
Industrial Wastewater Disposal Options. . 5-6
5.2.3.2. Level of Treatment 5-8
5.2.3.3. Treatment of Excess Combined Sewer Flows . 5-9
5.2.4. Mine Recharge 5-10
5.2.5. Leachate Control .... 5-12
5.2.6. Permanent Subsidence Control 5-13
5.3. System Alternatives 5-14
5.4. Alternative Costs 5-19
6.0. IMPACTS OF COMPONENT OPTIONS AND SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 6-1
6.1. Atmosphere 6-1
6.1.1. Air Quality 6-1
6.1.1.1. Construction Impacts . . 6-1
6.1.1.2. Operation Impacts — Aerosols 6-1
6.1.1.3. Operation Impacts — Gases 6-2
6.1.1.4. Operation Impacts — Odor 6-2
6.1.2. Sound 6-2
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
6.2. Land 6-4
6.2.1. Subsidence Potential 6-4
6.2.2. Terrestrial Vegetation 6-4
6.2.2.1. Sewer Separation 6-5
6.2.2.2. Replacement of Interceptors. . . 6-5
6.2.2.3. Sewer Extensions and Recharge System
Construction 6-5
6.2.3. Wildlife 6-5
6.3. Water 6-6
6.3.1. Surface Water 6-6
6.3.1.1. Effluent Quality and Pollutant Loads of
Alternatives 6-6
6.3.1.2. Quantity and Quality of Mine Leachates . . 6-10
6.3.1.3. Non-point Sources of Pollutant Loads
Generated by Construction Activities. . . 6-10
6.3.1.4. Aquatic Biota 6-11
6.3.1.5. Water Uses 6-11
6.3.2. Groundwater 6-12
6.4. Cultural Resources 6-12
6.4.1. Archaeological Resources 6-12
6.4.2. Cultural, Historic, and Architectural Resources. . . 6-12
6.4.3. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation
Officer 6-13
6.5. Socioeconomic Characteristics. . 6-13
6.5.1. Construction Impacts 6-13
6.5.2. Employment Impacts ........ 6-14
6.5.3. Project Benefits ..... 6-14
6.5.4. Costs 6-14
6.5.4.1. Local Costs 6-14
6.5.4.2. Per Capita Costs 6-16
6.5.4.3. Per Capita Income 6-16
6.5.4.4. Allocation of the Average Annual Equiva-
lent Cost 6-16
6.6. Financial Condition 6-17
6.6.1. Debt Financing 6-17
6.6.2. Debt Criteria 6-17
6.6.3. Debt Ratios 6-18
6.6.4. Comparative Debt Per Capita 6-20
6.7. Public Health Considerations 6-20
6.8. Aesthetic Impacts 6-23
6.9. Secondary Impacts 6-24
7.0. THE PROPOSED ACTION 7-1
7.1. The Selection of Component Options 7-1
7.1.1. Collection System 7-1
7.1.2. Wastewater Treatment 7-2
7.1.2.1. Treatment Plant Design Capacity 7-2
7.1.2.2. Level of Treatment 7-3
7.1.2.3. Treatment of Excess Combined Sewer Flows . 7-4
7.1.3. Mine Recharge , 7-4
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
Page
7.2. Total and Local Costs , , 7-4
7.3. Minimization of Adverse Impacts , . . 7-5
7.3.1. Minimization of Construction Impacts . . . 7-5
7.3.2. Minimization of Operation Impacts , . 7-9
7.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 7-10
7.5. Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments 7-11
7.6. Relationship Between Short-term Uses of Man's Environment
and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity , 7-12
8.0. RECOMMENDATIONS 8-1
8.1. Collection System 8-1
8.2. Wastewater Treatment 8-1
8.2.1. Treatment Plant Design Capacity 8-1
8.2.2. Level of Treatment 8-3
8.2.3. Treatment of Excess Combined Sewer Flows 8-3
8.2.4. Sludge Management 8-3
8.3. Mine Recharge 8-3
8.4. Financing 8-4
9.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS 9-1
10.0. LITERATURE CITED 10-1
11.0. INDEX 11-1
APPENDIX A. Comment Letters on Draft EIS A-l
APPENDIX B. Evaluation of the Potential for Ground Subsidence B-l
APPENDIX C. Water Quality Investigations in the Streator, Illinois, FPA C-l
APPENDIX D. Preliminary Cost Estimates of System Alternatives D-l
xi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
S-l. Location of the major interceptors and the proposed effluent
recharge system at Streator, Illinois iv
1.1. The location of the Streator Facilities Planning Area in the
State of Illinois 1-2
1-2. The Streator Facilities Planning Area, including the Village
of Kangley, Illinois 1-5
3-1. The Illinois River Basin 3-4
3-2. Waterways in the Streator FPA and flows reflecting 7-day 10-
year low flows plus 1970 effluent flows 3-5
3-3. Vermilion River times-of-travel during estimated low, me-
dium, and high flow conditions 3-8
3-4. Cultural, historic, and architectural sites in the Streator
FPA 3-17
3-5. The Streator FPA and the 5-Township Area, La Salle and
Livingston Counties, Illinois 3-20
4-1. Location of the sewer service area, the major interceptors,
and the wastewater treatment plant in the Streator, Illinois,
FPA 4-2
5-1. The existing sewer service area and the proposed service area
extensions in the Streator, Illinois, FPA 5-5
8-1. The sequence of interdependent recommendations 8-2
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
3-1.
3-2.
3-3.
3-4.
3-5.
4-1.
4-2.
4-3.
5-1.
5-2.
5-3.
6-1.
6-2.
6-3.
6-4.
6-5.
6-6.
7-1.
7-2.
Summary of flow of the Vermilion River near Streator, Illinois . .
Vermilion River flows from 1961 to 1976 near Leonore, Illinois . .
Vermilion River flows for the 1975-1976 water-year near Leonore,
Illinois
Summary of water quality monitoring data during 1975 and 1976 for
the Vermilion River in the vicinity of the Streator FPA
Groundwater quality data for the Streator study area
Documented industrial wastewater flows discharging to the mines
and to the City sewers during 1976 in the Streator, Illinois,
FPA
Types of industrial wastewater flows discharging to the mines and
sewers in the Streator, Illinois, FPA
Performance of the Streator wastewater treatment plant during the
period from July 1976 to June 1977
Average daily dry-weather flows to the 2.0 mgd treatment plant and
to a 2.6 mgd treatment plant
Alternatives and component options for the treatment of wastewater
at Streator, Illinois
Preliminary costs of system alternatives for the treatment of
wastewater at Streator, Illinois
Equipment used and resultant sound levels during construction of
sewer lines
BOD5 wasteloads that would be discharged to surface waters and
underground mines during a 10-year storm for each alternative . .
Local costs for Alternatives 2h and la over a 20-year period . . .
Debt ratios for Alternatives 2h and la
Criteria for local government full-faith and credit debt analysis.
Total outstanding debt per capita in 1975 for 20 cities in the
North Central Illinois Region
Local costs of Alternative 2e for wastewater facilities at
Streator, Illinois
Debt ratios of Alternative 2e for wastewater facilities at
Streator, Illinois
3-6
3-6
3-8
3-10
3-14
4-4
4-5
4-7
5-7
5-15
5-20
6-3
6-9
6-15
6-21
6-21
6-22
7-6
7-6
Kill
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BOD5 5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
cfs cubic feet per second
CO Carbon Monoxide
DO Dissolved Oxygen
FPA Facilities Planning Area
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
HC Hydrocarbon
IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
I/I Infiltration/Inflow
IPCB Illinois Pollution Control Board
mgd million gallons per day
mg/1 milligrams per liter
ml milliliter(s)
msl mean sea level
NH3-N Ammonia-Nitrogen
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M Operation and Maintenance
ppm parts per million
S02 Sulfur Dioxide
SS Suspended Solids
,ug/l micrograms per liter
USEPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
xiv
-------
1.0. INTRODUCTION
The City of Streator, Illinois, submitted a draft "Step I Facilities
Plan" to the State of Illinois in 1975 that proposed improvements and ex-
pansion of existing wastewater facilities. The Plan, entitled Comprehen-
sive Sewerage and Drainage Report, was prepared for the City by Warren &
Van Praag, Inc. (1975). It was used to apply for funding under the State
and Federal Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants pro-
grans. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) certified
Streator's "Step I" grant application in March 1975, and the US Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (USEPA), Region V, awarded the City the "Step I"
grant in June 1975. In October 1975, IEPA forwarded the draft Plan to
USEPA, Region V, before lEPA's certification of the Plan, because it had
identified project-related issues that warranted an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires a
Federal agency to prepare an EIS on "...major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment ..." In addition, USEPA
published Regulations (40CFR Part 6) to guide its determination of whether
Federal funds, which it commits through the Construction Grants Program,
would result in a project significantly affecting the environment. Pursuant
to these regulations and subsequent guidelines, USEPA, Region V, determined
that an EIS would have to be prepared on the proposed project at Streator,
Illinois, before a grant for design ("Step II") and construction ("Step
III") could be approved.
l.l. Background
The City of Streator is located in La Salle and Livingston Counties in
north-central Illinois (Figure 1-1). The City presently is served by a
combined sewer system. Developed areas immediately beyond the city limits
are without sewers. The existing wastewater treatment plant is an acti-
vated sludge plant designed to provide secondary treatment to produce an
effluent of 20 mg/1 BOD and 25 mg/1 suspended solids (SS). Treatment
facilities will have to be upgraded to achieve more stringent effluent
requirements. The plant's current, final National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit (IL 0022004), which was issued in Decem-
ber 1974 and reissued in October 1978, requires an effluent quality of 4
mg/1 BODS, 5 mg/1, SS, 1.5 mg/1 NH -N, and fecal coliform counts not larger
than 200 per 100 milliters (30-day average).
The City of Streator is situated over abandoned coal mines. Ground
surface subsidence has occurred, but it has been limited because the aban-
doned mines are flooded. Presently, wet-weather combined sewer overflows,
some dry-weather flows, and a large percentage of the industrial wastewater
flows are discharged to the underlying mines and maintain the flooded
condition. These flows enter the mines via drop shafts in the sewers and
in areas where there are no sewers.
Discharges of untreated wastewater and/or of combined sewer flows to
the mines are prohibited by State regulations. Flows from the mines
(leachates) to surface waters also could have adverse effects on water
quality and could cause violations of stream water quality standards.
Other discharges that should be controlled, but presently occur, include
1-1
-------
LAKE
MICHIGAN
IOWA
INTERSTATE i COUNTY |
FACILITIES _ \ I
PLANNING AREA
KENTUCKY
Figure 1-1. The location of the Streator Facilities Planning Area in the State
of Illinois.
1-2
-------
discharges of untreated combined sewer overflows to surface waters and
discharges from broken and cracked sewer lines to surface waters.
1.2. Action Proposed in the Facilities Plan
The draft Facilities Plan for Streator, Illinois, was developed to
comply with current Federal and State regulations and to provide sewerage
for an expanded service area and for future growth. Sewer separation, up-
grading and expansion of the treatment plant, and the discharge of treated
wastewater and untreated stormwater to the abandoned mines beneath the City
were proposed. Fifty-three miles of new sanitary sewers would be installed
in the present service area. The existing combined sewer system would be
rehabilitated for use as a storm sewer. New sanitary sewers would be built
in areas outside the present service area. The treatment plant would be
expanded to accommodate a design average flow of 5.59 ragd and would be
upgraded with the addition of tertiary treatment and chlorination.
Sewer separation and extension of sewers would eliminate the discharge
of sanitary and combined sewage to the mines. However, to maintain water
levels in the mines, the installation of some additional storm sewers in
the presently sewered area was proposed. These sewers would not only
collect stormwater runoff, but they also would collect flows from down-
spouts and footing drains. This would ensure that a maximum amount of
stormwater would be discharged to the mines and that there would be suffi-
cient stormwater capacity in the existing system. Stormwater also would be
discharged to the mines via drop shafts in the existing system. Storm
sewers would be built in presently unsewered areas to discharge stormwater
runoff to the mines where sanitary wastewaters are discharged presently.
In addition, the possibility of a mine recharge system to pump waste-
water treatment plant effluent to the mines was considered in the Facili-
ties Plan. Such a system may be necessary because storm sewers might not
discharge the required amount of water to the mines frequently enough due
to the uneven distribution of rainfall throughout the year. If required, a
pump station and distribution lines would be necessary to supplement the
water in the mines during dry-weather periods. Presently, there are few
data available on water levels in the mines and on how they fluctuate. A
monitoring system was proposed to determine if a recharge system is needed
and where it should be installed if needed.
Streator's consulting engineers estimated the total project cost to be
$52,334,840 at January 1975 price levels (Warren & Van Praag, Inc. 1975).
The total capital cost was recalculated by WAPORA, Inc., and was estimated
to be $56,237,300 at January 1978 price levels.
1.3. EIS-Related Issues
USEPA, upon review of the draft Facilities Plan, concurred with IEPA
that the proposed project has the potential for significant environmental
impacts and that an EIS was warranted. On 9 March 1976, USEPA, Region V,
issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on the proposed Streator waste-
water facilities. Specifically, the Agency's concerns were related to the
following issues:
1-3
-------
• Injection of treated or untreated wastewater into the mines
beneath Streator and the possible adverse impacts of mine
leachates on the water quality of the Vermilion River
• The need for consideration of additional alternatives to
retard mine subsidence other than injection of treated or
untreated wastewater into the mines
• The need for additional study related to whether discharges
to the mines are actually preventing subsidence and what
effect not pumping wastewater into the mines would have on
subsidence
• The effect of subsidence on the project life of the present
sewer system or a new sewer system
• The project's potential for stimulating development over the
mines and increasing the potential for subsidence
• The cost-effectiveness of including the Village of Kangley
in the facilities planning area
• The high per capita cost of constructing the proposed
project.
Based on the determination to prepare an EIS, USEPA, Region V, ob-
tained the assistance of a consultant, WAPORA, Inc., to collect information
on environmental conditions, to consider alternatives to the proposed
action, and to evaluate the impacts of the various alternatives. The EIS
study area (Figure 1-2) is much larger than the facilities planning area
considered by Warren & Van Praag, Inc. (1975).
1.4. The Study Process
The bulk of the work on the preparation of the Draft EIS occurred be-
tween August 1977 and September 1978. During that period, WAPORA submitted
various interim reports to USEPA, including "Existing Environmental Condi-
tions of the Streator Facilities Planning Area" and "Alternatives for the
City of Streator Wastewater Facilities."
Public meetings, sponsored by USEPA, were held at Streator to facili-
tate public involvement during the preparation of the EIS:
Date Subject
3 October 1977 The Study Process and EIS-Related Issues
17 April 1978 Significant Environmental Factors and
System Alternatives
27 July 1978 The Alternative Selection Process
Four informational newsletters also were prepared during the study
period and were mailed to persons who expressed interest in the project.
Several interviews were held with the staff of the local newspaper (The
1-4
-------
Figure 1-2. The Streator Facilities Planning Area, including the Village
of Kangley, Illinois. The previous facilities planning area
is indicated by the dotted line (Warren & Van Praag, Inc. 1975).
MILES
I ' 1
0 I
WAPORA, INC.
1-5
-------
Streator Times Press) and the local radio station (WIZZ-AM). One radio
interview was broadcast in September 1978.
Many issues relevant to the preparation of the EIS on the Streator
wastewater facilities were addressed in the reports and newsletters and
during public presentations and interviews. In addition to those concerns
listed in the USEPA Notice of Intent, the following issues were considered
during the EIS process:
• Determination of the most cost-effective alternative to meet
project objectives, including identification of areas that
contribute to the water quality problem and the cost-effec-
tive level of treatment
• The need to treat all flows that cause the water quality
problem
• The potential for groundwater contamination from the injec-
tion of treated or untreated wastewater into the mines
• The time needed for the quality of mine leachates to improve
if sanitary and/or industrial wastewaters were no longer
discharged to the mines
• Development of information on the present condition of the
mines (e.g. inflow and outflow, direction of flows, mine
water levels, pressures, etc.) that is needed to develop
water pollution control alternatives that do not increase
the potential for subsidence
• Determination of the present condition of Streator's com-
bined sewer system as accurately as necessary to identify
its potential use
• The accuracy of the population projections presented in the
draft Facilities Plan
• Collection of sufficient information to predict accurately
the impacts of various alternatives developed in the facili-
ties planning process and in the preparation of the EIS
• Determination of the costs related to water pollution con-
trol, stormwater control, and subsidence control
• Identification of potential mitigative measures to control
adverse impacts that could result from the project.
The Draft EIS was published in August 1979. A 45-day comment period
ended in early November 1979, pursuant to NEPA and USEPA regulations (40
CFR Part 6). A public hearing on the Draft EIS was held on 29 October 1979
at the Streator City Countil Chambers. The major issues and concerns
expressed at the hearing and in letters received during the comment period
are discussed in Section 2.0. Copies of the transcript of the hearing are
1-6
-------
available for reference at IEPA in Springfield, at the Streator Public
Library, and at USEPA, Region V, in Chicago. The Record of Decision will
be mailed 30 days after the Final EIS is published to those who receive the
EIS and to others who request it.
1-7
-------
2.0. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS
There were several comments on the Draft EIS, which were received by
mail or expressed at the public hearing. Responses to these comments are
presented below. Copies of the letters received are included in Appendix
A.
2.1. Correspondence from Federal and State Agencies
Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture (25 September 1979)
Impacts on prime farmland: comment noted.
Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(22 October 1979)
1. Impacts on the subsidence potential:
All of the wastewater management alternatives developed for Streator
include mine recharge so that the potential for subsidence would not
increase. The EIS investigations confirmed that the best method of
not increasing the subsidence potential is to maintain present water
levels in the mines (Appendix B). The inundated mines should never be
allowed to drain, because air entering the mines would cause drying
and subsequent deterioration of the pillars and any wooden roof sup-
port system. One of the major EIS recommendations is to characterize
the hydrology of the mines to determine the extent of mine recharge
necessary to maintain water levels (Section 8.3.).
Subsidence at Streator cannot be permanently controlled cost-
effectively. Measures, however, can be taken to minimize the poten-
tial for damage to new interceptors, storm sewers, and the recharge
system from possible future subsidence (Section 7.3.1.).
Wastewater management alternatives would not determine the extent and
location of future residential, commercial, or industrial development.
None of the alternatives, therefore, would affect the potential for
subsidence related to future development (Section 6.9.).
2. Discharges to the mines:
The State would have to approve all proposed discharges to the mines,
including combined sewer flows, stormwater, and treated effluent.
Some industrial process and cooling waters may be allowed to be dis-
charged to the mines; appropriate permits would have to be obtained
from State agencies. The industries would have to provide water
quality data to obtain the permits; no data are available at this time
to describe the quality of industrial wastewaters currently being
discharged to the mines.
All sanitary wastewater discharges to the mines would be eliminated.
In addition, drop shafts in the existing sewer system that are found
to be level with the bottom of sewers or manholes would be raised, if
2-1
-------
possible, to prevent the discharge of dry-weather flows to the mines.
Not all of these drop shafts would be located.
3. Impacts on groundwater:
The alternatives would not adversely affect groundwater resources.
The water quality in the mines may improve, and thus, the public
health risks related to contaminated groundwater may be reduced
(Section 6.3.2.).
United States Department of the Interior (22 October 1979)
1. Impacts on floodplains and wetlands:
Construction activities would destroy some floodplain habitat, but the
impacts generally would be insignificant and/or short-term if miti-
gative measures were used (Sections 6.2.2., 6.2.3. and 7.3). No
wetlands are located in the study area; thus, none would be affected.
The alternatives would not affect the floodway of the Vermilion River.
The site of the existing treatment facilities is not located in the
floodway; a levee was constructed to protect it from flooding. The
site for the facilities to treat excess combined sewer flows would not
be located in the floodway.
2. Impacts on archaeological resources:
Coordination with Illinois Department of Conservation has been initi-
ated to avoid impacts on cultural resources. Coordination will have
to continue during additional facilities planning.
3. Impacts on recreational resources:
Improved water quality resulting from reduced wasteloads to the Ver-
milion River may cause recreational use of the river segment down-
stream from the wastewater treatment plant and Prairie Creek to in-
crease (Section 6.3.1.5.).
Replacement of interceptors, sewer system rehabilitation, and con-
struction of the mine recharge system may have adverse impacts on
parks and other recreation areas. The impacts would depend on the
final routes of the interceptors and the mine recharge distribution
lines, which would be determined during additional facilities
planning. Recreational resources that will be affected and appro-
priate mitigative measures should be identified by the facilities
planners.
4. Impacts of subsidence:
Subsidence may have created fissures that would allow mine waters to
migrate more easily to water-bearing units locally tapped by wells and
to surface waters. The alternatives, however, would reduce pollutant
2-2
-------
loads discharged to the mines, and the water quality in the mines may
improve, which would reduce the public health risks.
The alternatives would include stations to record water levels in the
mines; these stations would be monitored continuously. Any signifi-
cant changes in water levels caused by fissures, therefore, would be
noticed, and additional recharge could be provided, or other subsi-
dence control measures could be implemented.
Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation (31 October
1979)
Impacts on transportation facilities: comment noted.
Illinois Department of Conservation (14 and 27 September 1979)
Impacts on cultural resources: comments noted.
2.2. Correspondence from Individuals
Unsigned (3 October 1979)
Impacts of costs to homeowners:
The local share of the cost for the proposed action would impose a
financial burden on some Streator homeowners, especially those that
are on fixed incomes. Based on available income data, however, the
proposed action would not be considered a high-cost project (Section
6.5.4.4.) and would be financially feasible (Section 7.2.). USEPA
would not force the City of Streator to construct the proposed pro-
ject. The City could meet State and Federal pollution control re-
quirements by some other means, although the City would not be eli-
gible for a grant under the Construction Grants Program.
Lawrence Benner (30 October 1979)
Impacts from areas upstream from Streator: comment noted.
Irate citizen (November 1979)
1. Need for action:
The City of Streator is not in compliance with State and Federal
regulations. Untreated combined sewer overflows and flows from
cracked and broken sewer lines are entering area streams. Sanitary
wastewaters also are being discharged to the mines, and the effluent
from the treatment facilities is not meeting the effluent limits of
the final NPDES permit. In addition, some of the elements of the
wastewater collection and treatment system are old and deteriorated;
they need to be either rehabilitated or replaced. The average life
of treatment facilities is 20 years.
2-3
-------
2. Ability to pay the local share:
Refer to Sections 6.5.4.4. and 7.2.
3. Areas adjacent to the present service area:
Discharges of sanitary wastewater to the mines from areas adjacent to
the present service area must be eliminated. The facilities planners
will have to determine if it would be cost-effective to extend sewers
into these areas.
2.3. Comments at the Public Hearing
Mayor Theodore Bakalar
1. Compliance with State and Federal laws and regulations: comment
noted.
2. State approval of proposed mine discharges: comment noted.
3. Request for a 100% project grant: comment noted.
4. Financial burden on the people of Streator: comment noted.
Edward Nowotarski
1. Justification of costs:
Wastewater-related problems extend beyond the operation of the exist-
ing treatment facilities; refer to response #1 to irate citizen's
letter.
2. Request for a 100% project grant: comment noted.
James Lynch
1. Equitable payment of local share:
How and who pays the local share of the project costs is a local
issue. The mechanism to finance the local share will be determined by
the City and its consulting engineers, the facilities planners.
2. Cost-effectiveness:
The EIS proposed action was selected as the most cost-effective alter-
native. It is the least expensive alternative that would comply with
State and Federal regulations and that could be implemented.
The selection, however, was based on some limited data and on some
assumptions that need to be resolved. During additional facilities
planning, data gaps will be filled, assumptions will be verified, and
the actual extent of the project will be determined. The local share
of the project cost could be significantly different.
2-4
-------
Herman Engle
Project costs: comment noted.
Mr. Dell
Project costs: comment noted.
James Leinike (IEPA)
Concurrence with the findings of the EIS and its recommendations:
comments noted.
David Tulp (Warren & Van Praag, Inc., the City's Facilities Planners)
1. Planning area: comment noted.
2. Population projections: comment noted.
3. Plant design for dry-weather flows:
IEPA indicated during the preparation of the Draft EIS that it was
reasonable to proceed with the EIS using effluent limitations of 10
mg/1 BODS and 12 mg/1 SS (By letter, Mr. Roger A. Kanerva, IEPA, to
Mr. Charles Sutfin, USEPA, 18 July 1978). In addition, IEPA indicated
that discharges to the mines should meet the same requirement as
discharges to surface waters. Therefore, all alternatives that
included secondary treatment prior to mine recharge were eliminated in
the Draft EIS (Section 7.1.2.2.).
4. Plant design for wet-weather flows:
IEPA indicated that the combined sewer program recommended in the EIS
is quite acceptable to the State, as it provides for compliance with
their Chapter 3, Rule 602(c) (By letter, Mr. Roger A. Kanerva, IEPA,
to Mr. Charles Sutfin, USEPA, 18 July 1978). IEPA did not make any
reference to the Technical Advisory TA-3 in that letter.
The facilities planners should evaluate wet-weather flows in accord-
ance with TA-3 during additional facilities planning. The need for
additional treatment capacity as well as additional sewers should be
determined.
5. Alternative treatment processes:
It was assumed in the EIS that the effluent limitations of 10 mg/1
BOD /and 12 mg/1 SS could be met by upgraded secondary treatment,
because no data on influent wastewater strength were available. This
assumption should be verified by additional facilities planning.
The influent should be analyzed after the combined sewer system is
rehabilitated and during dry-weather and wet-weather flow conditions.
2-5
-------
Treatment must be sufficient to meet effluent limitations during worst
conditions.
The method of nitrification included in the EIS alternatives has been
changed. Nitrification would be provided by using a single-stage
activated sludge process that would be accomplished by the addition of
aeration tank capacity, final clarifier capacity, and aeration blower
capacity to the existing activated sludge units (Section 5.2.3.2.).
The costs for the additional units have been added to the costs of the
applicable alternatives (Section 5.4. and Appendix D). A cost-
effectiveness analysis should be performed during additional facili-
ties planning among different methods of nitrification to determine if
any cost-savings can be realized.
6. Treatment plant design flows:
The actual design flow should be determined during additional facili-
ties planning. The design flow would have to be expanded if sewers
were extended, and if present industrial discharges of process and
cooling waters to the mines were not permitted to continue and/or if
the amount of infiltration remaining after cost-effective sewer system
rehabilitation were significant. However, it may not be cost-
effective to extend sewers outside the City limits, and some indus-
trial discharges to the mines may be allowed (By letter, Mr. Foger A.
Kanerva, IEPA, to Mr. Charles Sutfin, USEPA, 18 July 1978;. The
design flows in the EIS alternatives include design infiltration (200
gallons per inch of sewer diameter per mile of sewer per day; 0.101
mgd).
7. Storm drainage:
A complete sewer system evaluation survey is one of the recommenda-
tions of the EIS. Storm drainage for the area should be evaluated
further during additional facilities planning.
8. Cost estitnates:
The layouts used in the EIS were the ones presented in the draft
Facilities Plan (Warren & Van Praag, Inc. 1975).
9. Cost-effective analysis:
During additional facilities planning, the specific requirements of
PRM 75-34 (also referred to as PG-61; USEPA 1975b) should be ful-
filled. A cost-effectiveness analysis on the volume of excess com-
bined sewer flow that needs to be treated and on the required level of
treatment needs to be conducted.
John Pedelty
Cost assumptions:
The intent of this EIS was to resolve specific issues, not to develop
2-6
-------
detailed alternative costs (Section 1.3.). Detailed costs will be
developed during additional facilities planning.
John Fornof
1. Need for action:
Refer to response #1 to irate citizen's letter.
2. Ability to pay local share:
Based on available information, the proposed action would not be
considered a high-cost project (Section 6.5.4.4.) and would be finan-
cially feasible (Section 7.2.). The detailed costs, including costs
to homeowners and industries, will be determined during additional
facilities planning.
3. Extent of project:
It will be determined during additional facilities planning if it
would be cost-effective to extend sewers to areas outside the City
limits. However, discharges of sanitary wastewater to the mines from
these areas will not be permitted by the State. If sewers were ex-
tended, the users of the system residing outside the City limits also
would pay for sewer service.
4. Impacts of heavy rains on the potential for ground subsidence:
The areas most susceptible to subsidence are those where thin roof
rock and thin glacial overburden exist (Appendix B) . Heavy rains
increase the potential for ground subsidence in these areas. The
overburden becomes saturated and heavy and susceptible to erosion from
water flow in the mines. If the mines were not flooded, the potential
for subsidence during heavy rains would be greater, because there
would be no water to provide support.
Mrs. Edward Hozie
Cost to homeowners:
Refer to response #2 to Mr. Fornof's comments.
Richard Conners
1. Need for action:
Refer to response #1 to irate citizen's letter.
2. Need for mine recharge:
In order to not increase the potential for ground subsidence, it is
necessary to maintain present water levels in the mines. Therefore,
because some discharges to the mines would be eliminated, a mine
recharge system may be required (Section 5.2.4.).
2-7
-------
3. Condition of the existing combined sewer system:
The three major east-west interceptors are old and in poor condition,
and other segments of the sewer system need rehabilitation (Section
4.1.).
4. Ability to pay local share of project costs:
Refer to response #2 to Mr. Fornof's comments.
John Butterly
Impact of homeowner costs on residents on fixed incomes:
Comments noted.
Edward Wyand
Extent of project:
Refer to response #3 to Mr. Fornof's comments.
2-8
-------
3.0. THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
3.1. Atmosphere
3.1.1. Meteorology
Streator has a continental-type climate. Thus, it experiences a large
annual temperature range and frequent temperature fluctuations over a short
period of time. The average annual precipitation is approximately 35
inches. Detailed data on other relevant meteorological conditions, such as
wind direction, mixing layer heights, and precipitation, are available in
the Draft EIS, Section 2.1.1. and Appendix H.
3.1.2. Air Quality
Although there are no air quality monitoring stations in Streator,
data from nearby stations indicate that there are no significant air qual-
ity problems in the Streator FPA. Particulate and oxidant levels may be
high at times but not because of point-source emissions in the area. Air
quality data from nearby monitoring stations, air quality standards, and
the principal sources of atmospheric emissions in the Streator FPA are
presented in the Draft EIS (Section 2.1.2., Appendix A, and Appendix H).
There are no significant odor problems in the Streator study area.
The area is predominantly agricultural, and there are no significant indus-
trial sources. The existing sewage treatment plant is not known to pose
any significant odor problem (By telephone, Mr. Richard Goff, IEPA, Divi-
sion of Air Pollution Control, Region I, to David Bush, WAPORA, Inc.,
December 1977). This was confirmed by field investigations during 1977.
3.1.3. Sound
Sound levels in Streator were measured and were found to be typical of
those found in small cities. The principal sources are automobile, truck,
and railroad traffic. Sound levels created by traffic are not subject to
the State noise regulations (IPCB 1973). The principal sound sources near
the wastewater treatment plant are the plant and the wind. Sound levels at
this location are relatively uniform throughout a 24-hour period and are in
accordance with the Illinois regulations.
3.2. Land
3.2.1. Geology and Soils
The Streator FPA lies within the Illinois Basin, a structural and
depositional basin that extends into Kentucky, Tennessee, and Indiana.
Paleozoic rocks overlie a Precambrian basement complex of igneous rocks
(Willman and others 1975). The bedrock surface (the uppermost surface of
the Paleozoic sequence) consists of Pennsylvanian rocks that generally are
covered by glacial drift of Wisconsinan age (Willman and Payne 1942). The
topography of the Streator FPA is characterized by gently rolling plains
dissected by the valleys of the Vermilion River and several of its tribu-
taries. The geology and soils of the area are described in Appendix B, as
well as in Sections 2.2.2. and 2.2.3. of the Draft EIS.
3-1
-------
3.2.1.1. Coal Mining
Streator is in the oldest mining district of the State. Coal mining
in the area began in the 1860s, reached its peak in the 1890s, and began to
decline around 1900. The majority of the mines were abandoned between 1885
and 1917. Some mining activity occurred during the economic depression of
the early 1930s.
The two workable coal seams in the area, Herrin No. 6 and La Salle No.
2, were mined extensively. Mine maps (Renz) indicate that the room and
pillar method of mining was used and that extraction ratios often exceeded
50%. In the 1930s, many of the abandoned mines were pumped dry and pillars
were robbed. There is evidence that the mines may be interconnected par-
tially. The condition of the abandoned mines is discussed in greater
detail in Appendix B.
3.2.1.2. Subsidence Potential
There have been numerous accounts of subsidence associated with coal
mining in the Streator study area since the initiation of mining. Evidence
of subsidence varies from gentle distortions that have cracked plaster and
jammed doors and windows to large potholes along streets that have affected
as many as three houses. Investigations indicate that the potential for
subsidence still exists and appears to be greatest in areas where the mine
roof rock and/or the glacial overburden are thin (Appendix B).
The existing water levels in the mines, maintained by stormwater and
wastewater discharges, partially support the overlying rock and soil mass.
If water levels were to decrease significantly, stresses within the roof
rock units would increase and would increase the load carried by the roof,
pillars, and floor. Therefore, the subsidence potential could be increased
by changing present stormwater/wastewater management practices (Appendix
B).
3.2.2. Terrestrial Biota
The Streator FPA consists predominantly of agricultural and urban land
uses. There are few remnants of the original vegetation that characterized
the geographic region (the Grand Prairie Division) in which Streator is
located. Patches of prairie vegetation may be found along railroads and in
cemeteries. Examples of previous forest types occur in parks, older resi-
dential areas, and along streams. The wildlife in the area, therefore, is
limited. The vegetation and wildlife in the Streator FPA are described in
Sections 2.2.4. and 2.2.5. of the Draft EIS.
No areas in the Streator FPA have been recognized as "natural areas"
during an inventory conducted by the Illinois Department of Conservation
and the Nature Preserves Commission (By letter, Mr. Robert Schanzle, Illi-
nois Department of Conservation, to Mr. Gerard Kelly, WAPORA, Inc., 12
December 1977). No plant species extant in this area is known to be en-
dangered or threatened (By telephone, Mr. Charles Sheviak, Illinois Nature
Preserves Commission, to Mr. Gerard Kelly, WAPORA, Inc., 10 December 1977).
There also are no known species of mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians
3-2
-------
in the Streator FPA currently listed as endangered or threatened at the
Federal or State levels (By telephone, Mr. Vernon Kleen, Illinois Depart-
ment of Conservation, to Mr. Gerard Kelly, WAPORA, Inc., 10 December 1977).
3.3. Water
3.3.1. Surface Water
The Vermilion River Basin includes 1,380 square miles (883,200 acres)
and encompasses most of Livingston and La Salle Counties and parts of
Marshall, Woodford, McLean, Ford, and Iroquois Counties. The main stem of
the Vermilion River rises in Ford County as a drainage ditch and flows
northwesterly on a 110-mile course to its confluence with the Illinois
River near La Salle-Peru. The Illinois River and its major tributaries,
including the Vermilion River, are shown in Figure 3-1. The City of
Streator is located on the lower Vermilion River, approximately 25 miles
upstream from the mouth of the river.
The characteristics of the Vermilion River change considerably along
its course. The upper reaches of the river and its tributaries have been
dredged or channelized. Downstream from Pontiac, the scenic character of
the middle reach of the river is much improved, but the flow remains slow-
moving and the streambed consists mostly of mud. Downstream from Streator,
however, the stream gradient is much steeper, causing the flow velocity to
increase. The lower reach of the river exhibits numerous riffles and small
rapids, and the river bottom is mostly gravel. Bluffs in this reach tower
above the river as high as 80 to 100 feet, and the banks are forested. The
segment of the river between Streator and Oglesby has been nominated for
inclusion as a scenic stream in recent legislative proposals.
There are six minor tributaries that join the Vermilion River in the
Streator FPA (Figure 3-2). Most of the urban area is drained by Prairie
Creek and Coal Run. Otter Creek, the largest of these tributaries (11
miles in length), has a relatively steep stream gradient of 16.8 feet per
mile and joins the main stem from the east, downstream from Streator.
A dam has been constructed on the river just south of Streator near
the southern boundary of the FPA. The dam regulates flow and creates a
storage pool on the main stem that is the source of potable water for the
City.
3.3.1.1. Hydraulics of the Vermilion River
The flow of the Vermilion River is measured on a continuing basis by
the US Geological Survey at two locations. One of the gaging stations is
situated approximately 30 miles upstream from Streator at Pontiac (Gage No.
5-5545) and has a 34-year period of record. The other gage is 8 miles
downstream from Streator (Gage No. 5-5555), near Leonore, and has a 45-year
period of record. A summary of the records from the two stations is pre-
sented in Table 3-1.
The drainage area upstream from the Leonore gage is 1,251 square
miles, compared with a drainage area of 1,093 square miles upstream from
3-3
-------
DES PLAINES R.
IOWA
KENTUCKY
Figure 3-1. The Illinois River Basin (outlined by the dashed line).
The Vermilion River flows to the northwest through Livingston
and La Salle Counties, Illinois.
3-4
-------
Figure 3-2.
Waterways in the Strcator FPA and flows (in cfs) reflecting
7-day 10-year low flows plus 1970 effluent flows (Singh and
Stall 1973)
MILES
I
WAPORA, INC.
3-5
-------
Table 3-1. Summary of flow of the Vermilion River near Streator, Illinois
(USGS 1976).
Near Leonore At Pontiac
(cfs) (cfs)
Average Discharge 774 376
Extremes for Period of Record:
Maximum Discharge 33,500 13,600
Minimum Discharge 5.0 0
Extremes for 1975-1976 Water Year:
Maximum Discharge 13,000 6,810
Minimum Discharge 11 5.2
Table 3-2. Vermilion River flows from 1961 to 1976 near Leonore, Illinois
(USGS 1962-1976).
Discharge (cfs)
Wateryear Mean Maximum Minimum
61-62 1,152 13,400 27
62-63 206 5,340 9
63-64 144 4,060 5.0
64-65 922 12,700 7.6
65-66 296 4,540 5.7
66-67 701 7,720 5.7
67-68 1,078 15,200 10
68-69 437 4,500 8.8
69-70 1,278 21,700 14
70-71 611 5,880 7.6
71-72 884 5,460 7
72-73 2,045 16,000 24
73-74 1,393 16,200 16
74-75 880 7,850 16
75-76 854 12,000 _11
Average 859 10,170 11.6
3-6
-------
Streator. Thus, gage records at Leonore are adequate to characterize
river-flow variations in the FPA. Table 3-2 presents annual flow informa-
tion for the past 15 years, and Table 3-3 presents a monthly summary of
flow for the water year 1975-1976. The lowest flows in recent years oc-
curred during the 1963-1964 water year, the highest flows during 1972-1973.
The monthly records illustrate the typical seasonal variations in flow,
which correspond to low flow in late summer and fall and to high flows
during spring.
Flow in the Vermilion River through the Streator FPA is regulated by
the water supply dam. On the average, 3.0 million gallons of water per day
are diverted from the storage pool for water supply. This volume of water
largely is returned to the river downstream as municipal sewage effluent
and industrial wastewater discharge. Additionally, wastewater discharged
to the abandoned mines returns to the river as leachate, either directly or
via Prairie Creek. Thus, downstream from Streator, flow patterns more
closely resemble natural flow patterns.
The 7-day 10-year low flows of the river at several locations within
the Streator FPA are noted in Figure 3-2. These flows represent the na-
tural low flow plus the 1970 levels of effluent flow. As shown, the 7-day
10-year low flow at the southern boundary of the FPA is 5.2 cfs but is only
1.0 cfs immediately downstream from the dam. Just upstream from the con-
fluence of Otter Creek, the 7-day 10-year low flow is 6.3 cfs, which ac-
counts for the discharge from the Streator wastewater treatment plant and
local industrial discharges. Tributaries are expected to contribute no
flow during the 7-day 10-year low flow condition.
The Illinois State Water Survey has computed times-of-travel of conta-
minants in the Vermilion River for high, medium, and low flow conditions at
flow frequencies of 10%, 50%, and 90%, respectively. These values are dis-
played in Figure 3-3. The calculated values were compared with actual
times-of-travel through the use of dye tracers. The high flow computations
were the most reliable, becoming less so at reduced flow rates.
Flooding in the Streator area has been reduced significantly through
the emplacement of levees to protect flood-prone areas. Flooding of the
minor tributaries in the FPA may occur after intense storm events or sudden
thaws.
3.3.1.2. Water Uses
As the major surface water resource in the basin, the Vermilion River
presently is being used in several beneficial ways. It is the principal
source of potable water. In 1976, a total of over 1.38 billion gallons of
water was pumped for residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The
river also serves as the receiving water for wastewater effluent. It
assimilates and disperses both human and industrial wastes discharged from
municipalities and industries (see Section 4.3. for a detailed discussion
of these wastewater discharges).
In addition, the Vermilion River is a scenic and recreational resource
of regional significance. The Illinois Department of Conservation's
Illinois Canoeing Guide (n.d.) names the Vermilion River as "the best
3-7
-------
Table 3-3. Vermilion River flows for the 1975-1976 water-year near Leonore,
Illinois (USGS 1976).
Month
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Mean
91.3
61.3
478
164
2,140
2,895
1,453
1,535
886
524
51.1
15.9
Discharge (cfs)
Maximum
214
110
1,600
280
7,140
12,000
8,200
6,400
3,600
3,720
120
45
Minimum
51
41
205
131
117
628
329
490
307
102
14
11
VERMILION RIVER (ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN)
10 20 30 *»0 50 60 70
DISTANCE, MILES
80
90
100
Figure 3-3. Vermilion River times-of-travels during estimated low, medium,
and high flow conditions (Illinois State Water Survey 1969).
3-8
-------
Whitewater stream in Illinois." In addition to outstanding canoeing on the
lower river and some boating in the pools upstream from the Pontiac and
Streator dams, the river and its adjacent lands provide other important
recreational activities, such as fishing, hunting, swimming, hiking, and
camping. Game fish that attract fishermen include small-mouth bass, blue-
gill, green sunfish, white and black crappies, catfish, bullhead, and carp.
Hunting on adjacent lands is primarily for squirrel, rabbit, and upland
game birds, such as pheasant and quail.
Although the river's recreational potential is of regional signifi-
cance, access is limited because most of the river and its tributaries are
bordered by privately-owned lands. There is a public park near the Pontiac
dam; a private campground where Route 23 crosses the river north of Cor-
nell; Matthiessen State Park, which is contiguous to the river several
miles downstream from Lowell; and various public rights-of-way at bridge
crossings that provide the only public access to the river (Illinois De-
partment of Conservation n.d.). The steepness of the banks along the river
in Streator and downstream also hinder access to the river.
3.3.1.3. Water Quality
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has responsibility
under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act of 1970 to monitor water
quality and to investigate violations of established water quality stan-
dards (Draft EIS, Appendix A). IEPA, therefore, has developed a statewide
network of water quality monitoring stations. Periodic samples to deter-
mine water quality in the Vermilion River are collected at five locations
under this program. Three water quality monitoring sites are located
upstream from Streator. The nearest station upstream from the FPA is
designated as Station DS-02 and is located 2.0 miles west of Cornell, or
about 12 river-miles upstream from Streator. Data from this sampling site
can be considered representative of background water quality in the Ver-
milion River as it flows into the Streator FPA. Of the two monitoring
sites downstream from Streator, the first (DS-05) is located within the
FPA, 1.0 mile north of Kangley. Water quality data collected at this
station reflect the effects from the addition of contaminants discharged to
the river as it flows through the Streator urban area. A summary of recent
water quality data obtained at these two sites for the most significant
parameters analyzed is presented in Table 3-4.
The extreme ranges in values of several of the parameters indicate
occasional unstable water quality conditions in the Vermilion River.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations can be used as an indicator of general
water quality conditions, because the level of oxygen in the stream re-
flects the ability of the river to support aquatic life. The extremely
low, minimum DO value measured during low-flow conditions in 1975 (at
Station DS-02 upstream from Streator) illustrates this water quality vari-
ability. It represents an in-stream oxygen concentration much too low to
maintain a diverse fish population. The mean DO values for both 1975 and
1976, however, indicate conditions generally adequate to support diverse
aquatic life.
Mean fecal coliform values for both sites indicate significant fecal
contamination of the river (Table 3-4). Fecal coliform counts also provide
3-9
-------
cu
rfl
4-1
a
•rl
r-i
0)
>
*rH
(^
HM
c
o
•rH
rH
M
CU
>
CU
,C
4-1
rH
O
14H
VD
r^
ox
rH
13
c
cfl
LO
r~
C7*»
rH
Ml
•H
J_l
13
cfl
4-1
Cfl
13
M
c
•H
< ,
H
o
4-1
•H
O
6
r*.
4-1
•tH
rH
Cfl
3
CT1
rl
CU
4-1
CO
">
tf
UH
O
r>-»
J-l
Cfl
g
3
c/)
•
.
/"N
O
VO
p^
Ov
rH
r.
LO
r^
ON
rH
<;
PH
I-H
>
4J
•H
a
.,-j
o
•H
>
H
w
4-1
M-l
cfl
rl
P
CU
j3
4J
•H
13
CU
4-1
CO
•H
rH
CU
(H
cfl
en
13
rl
cfl
13
c
cfl
4J
CO
cu
4-1
Cfl
4-1
C/)
*
s^
&
CO
•H
r-l
0)
4J
CO
tfl
C
cfl
&
11
->J-J
•H
,5
T3
CU
^^
rH
E
01
r-l
Cfl
13
M
Cfl
T3
cfl •
4-1
4J
•H
LJ
4J
•— t
z
c
QJ
00
O
r*
JJ
^H
C
rH
CO
u
QJ
b
"O
a.
z
0
to
n
•rH
o
r-s
B rH
O -*
H 01
IH 6
^
/"\
•O rH
O
•3J
V4 /-N
01 rH
a.---
a u
o e
o *-*•
0} s-<
•O rH
•H — .
rH 01
54
^^
(B rH
3 **«•
v- at
0 E
j: l^
e.
0) CU
o
_c at
PM <8
^^
2 «H
• "i
w B
^^
SE f-l
^^
a 01
a E
^^
B
I-1 rH
S3
-1 rH
O
U Ik
C «•»
01 rH
00--
>s 0(
t«s
§
iJ
lu U
0 «
(C
M >
S-H
A) CO
^5
u
AJ
•H
CO C
o
00 -H
C *-•
•H R)
rH U
&.S
(Q
W
cn oo O a> en
. <•
r*
*
en MD «H CM r-
MO *n CM o^ in o oo
rH "H
n B
0 0
n to
X x
rH rH
ce td
5 •§
^ 1 § - § §
O E E O E E
«H «H C *H «i-t
X C ee X C
O €0 "H (U O *3 «r^
z £ as z z £ £
IT! drO
r-* rv.
Ov <^
rH r-i
u u
o oo
M "O
CO *H
S w
w ^) ***
4J O
t/> *n
CM 4J
fN E 0)
o o at 01
1 U *-• S
C/l *« 3
O on
E K ai
C (Q rH rH
O V OC5-H
£ZZ££ ZXE
in ^
r* r*
o\ ON
r-l rH
•
01 U
j: oo
u -a
c v o
E -rH CO
of j:
m ti w c *J
O *" *H TH r-l
1 » CJ O
in E *-' -i c
a a x
01 U 01
C r- O W rH >*
O *J AJ CO -H CJ
•H » n E -4
u c a> <•% oc
to 5 u < o c
4J O *-* P« • (0
Ul O U3 M- rH b^
«
in
rH
rH
«
n
rH
O
«
vO
O
d
VO
CM
in
CM
•»
vO
o
m
vO
o
00
d
«
r-
r*.
00
in
c
to
01
£
3-10
-------
an indication of the potential presence of pathogenic organisms and, there-
fore, can be used to determine the relative safety of water for consumption
or recreational uses. The extremely high maximum value of 70,000 fecal
coliform organisms per 100 milliliters of sample (found in one sample in
1975 at Station DS-02 upstream from Streator) reflects conditions hazardous
to public health.
The 1975 maximum ammonia-nitrogen (NH -H) concentration of 14 mg/1 at
Station DS-02 indicates a high level of organic pollution and represents a
value in excess of the ammonia toxicity limits necessary to kill fish. The
3.5 mg/1 maximum value at Station DS-05 in 1976 also indicates toxic condi-
tions.
Phosphorus concentrations are not in violation of a standard, because
the Vermilion River is not directly tributary to a lake or reservoir. The
maximum values at both stations for both years, however, represent nutrient-
enriched conditions. Phosphorus is considered the nutrient that, if pres-
ent in sufficient concentration, can stimulate overproduction of algae and
result in decreased DO levels. Nitrate also is necessary for the produc-
tion of algae. The mean concentration values measured at both stations
reflect nitrate-enriched waters.
Concentrations of copper, iron, and lead occasionally violated water
quality standards. The levels of copper and iron that are in violation of
standards present a potential hazard to aquatic life. Elevated lead levels
present a health hazard in public water supplies.
Based on data in addition to those presented in Table 3-4, the IEPA
concluded that the water quality of the lower Vermilion River has deteri-
orated from "fair" to "semi-polluted" over recent years (IEPA 1976b). The
limited nature of available data on water quality in the Vermilion River,
however, precludes the development of a more thorough analysis of water
quality trends and problems. The number and location of monitoring sta-
tions and the frequency of sampling do not permit determinations of speci-
fic causes of water quality degradation.
There are many sources of pollution along the Vermilion River that
could be responsible for violations of water quality standards. Of the 21
known point source discharges of pollutants to the Vermilion River, four
are located a relatively short distance upstream from Station DS-02 (lo-
cated near Cornell). Two of these, the Livingston County Nursing Home and
the Pontiac wastewater treatment plant, are reported as having discharged
effluents with high levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia-
nitrogen (NH -N), and fecal coliforms during 1975 (IEPA 1976b). The IEPA
states that additional amounts of these substances are contributed by
non-point sources immediately upstream from the monitoring station and from
other sources farther upstream. Leachates from the Markgraf landfill at
Pontiac have contained concentrations of ammonia-nitrogen and iron as high
as 285 mg/1 and 1,000 mg/1, respectively (IEPA 1976b).
In the Streator FPA, sources of BOD, ammonia, and fecal coliform
include effluent from the Streator wastewater treatment plant, combined
sewer overflows, discharges from broken and cracked sewer lines, leachates
3-11
-------
from abandoned mines and septic tank systems, and other non-point sources
including livestock farms. Potential sources of copper, iron, and lead
include landfills, mine wastes, abandoned mines, other non-point sources,
and natural sources. The results of limited field investigations to deter-
mine the impact of pollutant sources in the Streator FPA on water quality
are presented in Appendix C.
There are no water quality data available for the six tributaries in
the Streator FPA. Otter Creek and three unnamed tributaries should have
relatively good water quality. The streams receive no municipal or indus-
trial discharges. The only potential pollutant loads are from agricultural
runoff and possibly from septic tank leachates.
Prairie Creek and Coal Run, however, drain most of the Streator urban
area and receive wasteloads from several pollutant sources (Appendix C) .
The most significant pollutant contribution to Coal Run is raw sewage from
the broken Coal Run interceptor. Mine leachates are the major pollutant
sources to Prairie Creek. Both streams also receive pollutant loads from
urban run-off, leachates from septic tank systems, and combined sewer
overflows.
3.3.1.4. Aquatic Biota
Studies on the aquatic biota of the Vermilion River and its tribu-
taries have concentrated almost exclusively on fish. Results generally
indicate that the river has a diverse fish population. Smith (1971) re-
ported that 80 species of fish were present in the Vermilion River but
classified the river as "fair" based on its fish population. The Vermilion
River has a variety of habitats and should support a richer fish fauna.
The elimination of certain native species is attributable to
domestic, industrial, and agricultural pollution. Siltation, particularly
in the upper reaches of the river, also is a significant factor responsible
for reduced species diversity. The effects of siltation include loss of
water clarity and subsequent disappearance of aquatic vegetation, and the
deposition of silt over substrates that were once bedrock, rubble, gravel,
or sand. Feeding and spawning sites thus can be destroyed. Data from
inventories of fish in the Vermilion River that were conducted by the
Illinois Department of Conservation and the Illinois Natural History Survey
are presented in the Draft EIS (Section 2.3.1.4. and Appendix C).
Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled in the Streator FPA during
October 1974 (By memorandum, Mr. W.H. Ettinger, IEPA, to Field Operations
Section, 24 October 1974). This sampling was part of a larger study to
assess the impacts of mine leachates and wastewater discharges on water
quality in the Vermilion River. Both the number of species and the number
of organisms generally increased downstream through the Streator study area
(Draft EIS, Appendix C). A sharp increase in the number of organisms was
found in the sample obtained 30 feet downstream from the Streator waste-
water treatment plant discharge. The number of species also increased at
this location. The predominant macroinvertebrate species was the Chirono-
midae larve (midge). The numbers of species and organisms were fewer
downstream from this location but were still larger than the numbers found
3-12
-------
upstream from the treatment plant outfall. Based on the survey, IEPA
classified the segment of the Vermilion River in the Streator FPA as "semi-
polluted or unbalanced." No conclusions, however, were drawn as to the
pollutant sources.
3.3.2. Groundwater
3.3.2.1. Availability
Limited data are available on existing groundwater resources in the
Streator FPA. Water supply wells in the study area most frequently pene-
trate glacial drift aquifers, Pennsylvanian aquifers, the Galena-Platte-
ville aquifer, and the Glenwood-St. Peter aquifer (Willman and Payne 1972;
Hackett and Bergstrom 1956; Walton and Csallany 1962; and Hoover and
Schicht 1967). Glacial drift in the vicinity of Streator is thin, and
groundwater pumpage for wells penetrating sand and gravel deposits is
limited to low capacity systems (Sasman and others 1974). Sandstone and
creviced dolomite beds in the Pennsylvanian System yield small quantities
of water, and the water quality is generally poor. Limestones and dolo-
mites of the Galena and Platteville Groups generally are creviced only
slightly and yield small quantities of water.
Most wells in the study area and in the immediate vicinity tap water
from the Glenwood-St. Peter aquifer (Hackett and Bergstrom 1956). This
aquifer generally consists of fine- to medium-grained sandstones, but its
lithology can vary abruptly both horizontally and vertically. Yields from
wells in this formation are sufficient for small municipalities and small
industries but are usually less than 200 gallons per minute (gpm). The
specific capacity of the municipal well at Kangley is 1.1 gpm per foot of
drawdown (Walton and Csallany 1962).
3.3.2.2. Quality
Data on groundwater quality in the study area similarly are scarce.
The results of twelve analyses conducted by the Illinois State Water Survey
during the period from 1934 to 1977 are listed in Table 3-5. Glacial drift
wells usually yield waters that are low in dissolved solids. Groundwater
from bedrock aquifers has high concentrations of sodium, chloride, and
total dissolved minerals. Shallow drift and bedrock aquifers are suscept-
ible to contamination from surface waters, agricultural activities, and
sewage disposal practices. Such contamination usually results in elevated
nitrate concentrations in the groundwater.
3.3.3. Water in Coal Mines
The majority of abandoned coal mines beneath the Streator study area
are flooded. From the time the mines were closed, infiltrating ground-
water, stormwater runoff, and wastewaters (residential, commercial, and
industrial) have been entering the mines. Measurements of water pressure
in the mines indicate that there is a hydraulic gradient toward the Vermi-
lion River (Appendix B). This implies that the mines are not openly inter-
connected, although water from one mine may flow to an adjacent mine
through crevices in thin walls separating the mines. If the mines were
connected, water pressure in the mines would be nearly equal.
3-13
-------
e'-
en
1-1
3
CO
0)
4J
1
0)
4-1
id
4->
CO
CO
•H
O
._!
^
iH
i— 1
*"* C 0 = u C
^^ n * * ! ~ "
u e e c b c
0) a JSf! ST!3 fIS S
^ *'l"i«i«ScS "
Id i&lZSSZ *£S 3
3 * S- " " " "
4J
n
°, B i i J i -
t} S|*jassZ>
Id !»Ti'0»««
n 1 1 | : . 1 s
£ -i -JJ8JSZ3
Q e§OQ«9>o><
^™" M
« a-jaS^sss
id
•0 s
>i S
4J
"*j ||HMUHMNI;
id 21
g,
jj ||"
id
3 £
T3 --»,,*.r.
3 *
0
O
1
0)
3
— C^I^MIN d "*
WWJJOO-HINOCI 1 --OO-^O
f, —|
i|| i i 2 i i i i 2 i i i :
* — 1
«_)
Sai i i : i d d H ° i i i
b.
3=1
s9o^»i-ooS^«2«»
U o^^tn^i* i-.
c SSJiiiiiii^dS^^
S W W O. Ul S j"1-!)
8 ° "* ° ' — i
< ^ ~
> 9 s *|
o S ^ ^1 *M ! ! J ! ! 1 o r-
t fr < |S
Si,- II |s|| i i : i ! i i s 3 i j s
S i S S ?=, 2 ° " "• '
S S S ! 2S ' ' ! ; ' ' " ' 2 s "
SS'S2 S S S ffl ". s. S-2SSSSS3S
a
*> m
~*3»* -*vo*"oeoo IN^
HWMMM 5 » •— 1 *^ ^ ^
« —
z < i§|| : •« -
S S S s S |J| S s ! 2 S S S • 3 5 5 8
* !
- - - - , „ -
g
Bl
g
sr
5
1
•g
•
1
•o
1
-------
It was estimated that during dry-weather periods approximately 1.56
mgd of wastewater is discharged directly to the mines through drop shafts
located throughout the study area (Section 4.3.)- Most of this flow is
from industries (1.03 mgd; Section 4.3.1.). A portion of the residential
and commercial flow is from septic tanks that discharge their effluent to
the mines. In addition, some dry-weather flow enters the mines indirectly
via drop shafts installed in the sewer system (Section 4.1.).
During wet-weather periods, unknown but significant amounts of storm-
water and combined sewer flows (wastewater and stormwater) are discharged
to the mines. Stormwater enters directly through drop shafts as surface
runoff. Combined sewer flows are diverted by drop shafts installed in the
sewer system to prevent the system from exceeding its capacity and causing
sewer back-ups (Section 4.1.). Because the number of drop shafts (inside
and outside the sewer system) is not known, quantities of wet-weather flows
discharging to the mines cannot be determined. Recharge due to natural
infiltration is estimated to be only 0.03 mgd (Walton 1970).
The principal mechanism for discharge of water from the mines is via
natural seepage and drainage from horizontal shafts and seam outcrops along
the Vermilion River and Prairie Creek. A small, unknown amount is pumped
from the mines for irrigation purposes. Downward leakage to the Galena-
Platteville and Glenwood-St. Peter aquifers should be minimal due to the
relatively impervious character of the clays and shales of the Pennsyl-
vanian System.
Because the wastewater and stormwater that presently recharge the
mines are untreated, discharges may have adverse impacts on the quality of
surface waters. The chemical characteristics of mine leachates indicate
that waters undergo partial treatment in the mines, but leachates contain
high concentrations of fecal colifonn bacteria, ammonia, and iron. Field
investigations conducted during high river flows showed that leachates did
not have a significant impact on the water quality of the Vermilion River.
Impacts from leachate pollutant loads, however, may be more pronounced when
flows in the Vermilion River are low. A discussion detailing field inves-
tigations to determine leachate characteristics and leachate impacts on the
quality of surface waters is presented in Appendix C.
Contamination of the Galena-Platteville and Glenwood-St. Peter aqui-
fers due to leakage through confining beds is unlikely. However, leaky
well-casings, which extend through Pennsylvanian strata, may provide con-
duits for vertical flow. Because static levels in the mines are much
higher than those in the Glenwood-St. Peter aquifer (Sasman and others
1973), the vertical flow would be downward. Chemical analyses of water in
the Streator Brick Company well, which comes from the St. Peter Aquifer,
indicate that anomalously low concentrations of chloride, sodium, and total
dissolved minerals existed at the time of the sampling (Table 3-5). If the
mines at this location were flooded at that time, downward leakage of less
mineralized water could have diluted the water in the well.
3-15
-------
3.4. Cultural Resources
3.4.1. Archaeological Resources
Prehistoric occupation of the Illinois River Basin has been documented
as early as the Paleo-Indian period (prior to 8000 BC; Willey 1966). One
of the better-known sites of prehistoric occupation in Illinois is at the
present location of the Starved Rock State Park. The park is situated on a
bluff along the Illinois River in La Salle County approximately 20 miles
northwest of Streator. Occupation of this site dates to Archaic times
(8000 BC - 1000 BC). When the French explorers (Marquette and Joliet)
reached Illinois in the early 1670s, they found many Indians inhabiting
other areas near Starved Rock and a large Indian town at Kaskaskia.
Because the Streator FPA is situated along the Vermilion River and its
tributaries less than 20 miles from an area of major prehistoric settle-
ment, the potential for undiscovered archaeological resources in the area
is great. Considerable disturbance has occurred in the plow zone over
large parts of the study area. There should have been less disturbance on
the gently rolling land along the Vermilion River, Otter Creek, and Moon
Creek, and in the Eagle Creek-Spring Lake area. These areas, therefore,
are potentially promising locations for archaeological finds. Collectors
in the Streator area have uncovered many stone implements and projectile
points along the Vermilion River and its tributaries (Historical Centennial
Program 1968).
3.4.2. Cultural, Historic, and Architectural Resources
Eight sites in the Streator FPA have been documented by the Illinois
Historic Sites Survey as having cultural, historic, or architectural signi-
ficance (Figure 3-4; Historic Sites Survey 1972,1973). These are:
1) Streator Public Library - northwest corner of Bridge Street -
Park Street intersection
2) Residence - 408 South Bloomington Street
3) State Armory - south side Bridge Street, near Armory Court
4) Commercial building - north side Main Street, east of Vermi-
lion Street
5) Commercial building - north side Main Street, east of Wasson
Street
6) Residence - 312 South Park Street
7) Residence - 108 South Water Street
8) Episcopal Christ Church - intersection of Bridge Street and
Vermilion Street, northwest corner.
3-16
-------
National Register Site
Potentially Significant Sites
Identified During Field Survey
• Illinois Historic Survey Site #• Potentially Eligible For National Register
Figure 3-4. Cultural, historic, and architectural sites in the
Streator FPA.
MILES
I ' I
o i
WAPORA, INC.
3-17
-------
In addition, there is one site in Streator listed in the National
Register of Historic Places (Figure 3-4). This site, the Baker House, is
situated on the northeast corner lot at the intersection of Broadway and
Everett Streets.
As a result of a windshield/on-foot survey, three sites were identi-
fied that may possess sufficient cultural, historic, or architectural
significance to warrant their inclusion in the National Register of His-
toric Places (Figure 3-4). These sites are: St. Stephen's Parish, the
Slovak Lutheran Church at Old Number Three, and the Crawford Farm west of
Streator on Kangley Road (0.75 mile north of Route 18). They are described
in Section 2.4.2. of the Draft EIS.
In addition to the three potential National Register sites, numerous
sites that possess cultural, historic, or architectural significance of
lesser importance were identified in the Streator study area (Figure 3-4).
1) Residence - south side Wilson Street across from Pleasant
Street
2) Moon House - west of Streator, 0.5 mile on Route 18
3) Residence on Bridge Street immediately east of Armory
4) Hagi Funeral Home - 205 High Street
5) Barnhart Cemetery - south of Marilla Park, 100 yards south
of Marilla Road
6) Residence - intersection of Wasson Street and Kent Street,
southwest corner
7) Commercial section of Main Street, including both north and
south sides of street from Bloomington Street east to Illi-
nois Street
8) Plumb House (Hotel) - intersection of Bloomington Street and
Main Street, northwest corner
9) Heenan Mercantile Company Building - intersection of Main
Street and Park Street, northwest corner
10) Plumb School - intersection of Sterling Street and Living-
ston Street, northeast corner
11) Lincoln School - north side Charles Street between Illinois
Street and Powell Street
12) Residence - Court Street across from Wall Street
13) Residence - 213 South Park Street
14) Residence - 510 Broadway Street
15) Residence - intersection of Broadway and Sterling Street,
northwest corner.
In conducting the cultural and historic resources survey, three nodes
of potentially architecturally significant houses were located. (Apparent-
ly these were the "well-to-do" areas of Streator circa 1900.) They are:
Broadway Street; south of Main Street; and sections of old Unionville.
There are, however, no remaining visible signs of the ethnic neighborhoods
present at the turn of the century.
3-18
-------
3.5. Population of the Streator FPA
3.5.1. Base-year Population
The Streator FPA contains parts of five townships: Bruce, Eagle, and
Otter Creek Townships in La Salle County; and Reading and Newton Townships
in Livingston County (Figure 3-5). The study area includes the incor-
porated areas of Streator and the Village of Kangley. Several nearby
unincorporated residential areas plus a considerable amount of presently
undeveloped area that may require sewer service from the Streator system
also are included. The City of Streator is the largest community in the
area and is situated mainly in La Salle County. The populations of various
communities in the Streator FPA, as reported in the 1970 Census (US Bureau
of the Census 1973), were as follows:
Streator (Bruce, Eagle, Otter Creek, and Reading Twps)
Kangley Village (Eagle Twp)
Streator West (unincorporated, Bruce Twp)
Streator East (unincorporated, Otter Creek Twp)
South Streator (unincorporated, Reading and Newtown Twps)
Total 21,496
The 1970 population of the five townships in which the FPA lies was 25,808.
This population was distributed as follows:
Bruce Township
Eagle Township
Otter Creek Township
Reading Township
Newtown Township
Total 25,808
Most of the population in the five townships (83%), thus, was located
within the boundaries of the Streator FPA.
Some developed areas and some individual residences (mainly farm-
houses) in the Streator FPA are not included among the populated areas
listed in the 1970 Census (La Salle County Planning Commission 1977; Warren
& Van Praag, Inc. 1975). One area is along the western boundary of the FPA
about 2.0 miles south of Kangley. It contains about 50 residences, a
population of about 150 (based on 3 persons per dwelling unit in the
Streator FPA). To account for these outlying areas, a base-year 1970
population of 21,750 for the Streator FPA is a reasonable estimate. The
21,750 figure conforms with the base-year population estimate used in the
draft Facilities Plan (Warren & Van Praag, Inc. 1975).
There are, however, certain differences between the base-year popula-
tion in the EIS and in the Facilities Plan. The base-year population used
in the Facilities Plan was taken from the 1967 population estimate for the
"Streator Planning Area" used in the Centennial City Plan of Streator,
Illinois (Harlan Bartholomew & Associates 1969). Additionally, Kangley was
3-19
-------
f
/
I
BRUCE TWP.
1 'L
["Konc
P
t
nl
1
EAGLE TWP.
1
u
<
M
i
8
z
O
le7")
_ i
1 \ 5
•i O
LJ A
1
1 in
xv
3L
w
"3
r
1
V
Q-
^
rt
Ft
•/••:•
^
^tre
H 1
f dd
1
1
J
\
••
^
3
d
5
i_
nfr
I"
U
^^m
H
S
•
If
^
n
J
z>
p
m
t
1
! OTTER CREEK TWP.
i
-1
|
— • —1
i "
,
y, i
•••i
READING TWP.
1
1
J
V^-iai
•:;.;.:,
^ J LASALLE CO.
LIVINGSTON CO.
.— J
NEWTOWN TWP.
1
[ I [ I Incorporated areas
Unincorporated residential
Manufacturing
MILES
I ' 1
0 2
WAPORA, INC.
Figure 3-5. The Streator FPA and the 5-Township Area, La Salle and Livingston
Counties, 111inois.
3-20
-------
not included in the "planning area" of the Facilities Plan. Nevertheless,
the 21,750 population figure is considered a reasonable base-year 1970
population estimate for the Streator FPA.
3.5.2. Recent Population Trends
A review of recent population trends for the City of Streator, the
Streator metropolitan area (Kangley and incorporated and unincorporated
sections of Streator), the five townships in the FPA, and La Salle and
Livingston Counties revealed a pattern of little growth to slight decline
in population (Draft EIS, Table E-l). The City of Streator has not grown
substantially during this century (Draft EIS, Table E-2). Streator's
population was slightly over 14,000 in the year 1900 and grew only to
15,600 by 1970. The City's Census-year population peaked at 16,868 in I960
and declined from 1960 to 1970. The Streator metropolitan area (incorpor-
ated and unincorporated communities) increased in population from 1960 to
1970 by 4.5%. This primarily was caused by the addition of Streator West
population (2,077 persons) to the metropolitan area. Population that may
have resided in the Streator West area was not reported in the 1960 Census.
Some residential areas, however, were not included in Census reports of
incorporated and unincorporated communities. Estimates were not available
for the 1970 to 1975 population change for the Streator metropolitan area.
A pattern of slower growth rates (or accentuated declines in growth
rates) for counties and townships was revealed for the 1970 to 1975 period
compared to the 1960 to 1970 period. The 1970 to 1975 percent change was
calculated at a 10-year rate for comparison with the rate of change over
the 10 years, 1960 to 1970. The five-township area declined in population
at a rate of 1.9% (per decade) from 1970 to 1975 compared to a 0.7 percent
rate of decline from 1960 to 1970. The two counties declined in population
at a rate of 3.1% (per decade) from 1970 to 1975 compared to a 0.6% in-
crease from 1960 to 1970. In Grundy County (adjacent to La Salle County on
the east; Draft EIS, Figure E-l), population grew by 18.9% from 1960 to
1970 but only grew by 2.8% during the period from 1970 to 1975. In Mar-
shall County, to the west, population declined by 0.4% from 1960 to 1970
and by 2.8% per decade from 1970 to 1975.
During the period from 1960 to 1970, populations declined in several
of the communities in the vicinity of Streator. The population and rates
of population change for eleven communities within a 25-mile radius of
Streator with populations larger than 500 persons (except Kangley) were
analyzed (Draft EIS, Figure E-l and Table E-3). Overall, population de-
clined by 1.3% from 1960 to 1970 in these communities. Declines were
experienced mainly in the larger communities. Streator is second in popu-
lation of the eleven cities in the 25-mile radius area.
Population changes in twenty townships in an approximate 25- by 25-
mile square around Streator also were examined (Draft EIS, Figure E-2).
Overall population declined at a 10-year rate of 4.4% in this twenty town-
ship region (from 41,856 in 1970 to 40,930 in 1975). This compares to a
same-period decline of 4.5% for La Salle County and 1.9% for the five-
township area containing the Streator FPA. The 4.4% decline from 1970 to
1975 compares with a 0.5% decline from 1960 to 1970 in the twenty-township
3-21
-------
total population, again showing a dampening (an acceleration in the rate of
population decline).
Dampened rates of growth in the twenty-township region are similar to
those in Illinois and the US. State of Illinois population grew at a rate
(per decade) of 2.3% from 1970 to 1975, compared to 10.3% from 1960 to
1970. Estimated Illinois population declined from 1973 to 1975 (Illinois
Bureau of the Budget 1976). In the US, population grew at a rate of 13%
during the 1960s but declined to an approximate 8% rate from 1970 through
1975.
In summary, based on recent trends, the population of the Streator FPA
either declined slightly from 1970 to 1975 or remained essentially un-
changed. Thus, by extension, the use of the estimated 1970 population as a
1977 base-year population figure for the area is justified.
3.5.3. Population Projections to the Year 2000
It appears that no growth or even a slight decline in the Streator FPA
population will occur over the period from the present to the year 2000. A
projected year-2000 baseline population of 21,750 for the area (the same as
the estimated population for 1970 and 1977), therefore, appears reasonable.
Such a projection assumes a continuation of the various forces that have
been behind the recent population trends in the Streator FPA (Draft EIS,
Section 2.5.2. and Appendix E). These include lower birth rates and re-
duced population growth in the US and Illinois, and limited new employment
opportunities in the Streator area. No evidence suggests that new industry
may locate in the area.
Minor population fluctuations may occur annually between now and the
year 2000. Minor fluctuations, however, are not predictable with any
degree of accuracy or reliability. In any event, they would not affect the
ultimate projected levels. It is estimated that the population of the
Streator FPA will remain essentially stable over the period through the
year 2000.
3.6. Financial Condition
3.6.1. Community Services
Persons living in the City of Streator and nearby areas receive a
number of community services, such as fire and police protection, garbage
collection and disposal, sewer service, and schools. The City of Streator
is the major supplier of such services. Schools are administered by school
districts, and water is supplied by a private company. The incorporated
Village of Kangley supplies water, street maintenance and repair, street
lighting, and minor services to its citizens.
3.6.1.1. Costs of Community Services
Total expenditures for services provided by the City of Streator
during fiscal year 1977 were a little over $3 million (Draft EIS, Table
E-12). The major cost items were police protection, fire protection,
3-22
-------
construction of local streets, street maintenance, garbage collection and
disposal, and sewer service. Both "local" and "non-local" expenditures for
streets and bridges were over $1,000,000, or more than twice the expendi-
tures for the next largest item, police protection. The costs for local
services, including overhead items, were slightly less than $2.4 million.
Expenditures for sewer service were more than $140,000, or about 6% of
all local costs. Unlike other categories, debt amortization is included in
this item, because this debt is in the form of revenue bonds. Sewer ren-
tals amounted to approximately 60% of sewer service costs (Draft EIS, Table
E-13).
Sewer service is provided to residential, commercial, and industrial
customers (Draft EIS, Table E-14). Service is provided to most residences
in the City of Streator. There were 4,235 residences served in fiscal year
1977. At about three persons per household, 12,700 persons were served, or
about 80% of the City's 1970 population. The sewer rental charge is $4 per
quarter per household ($16 per year). Actual receipts were somewhat less,
at $15.85 per residence, or about $5.28 per capita.
Water is provided by the Northern Illinois Water Corporation. The
company serves Streator and nearby areas, except for Kangley that has its
own municipal service. Costs per residential customer were $93.17 during
fiscal year 1977 (or about $31 per capita per year assuming three persons
per dwelling unit; Draft EIS, Table E-15). Costs for water service, there-
fore, are slightly less than per capita costs for police protection (Draft
EIS, Table E-12).
For Kangley, revenues for water service and meters totalled $9,190 for
the year ending 30 April 1976. Based on a 1970 population of 290, this was
$31.69 per capita. Revenues in 1976 exceeded operating costs by about
$2,000. An analysis of the Village's Financial Statements and Accountant's
Report for fiscal year 1976, however, revealed that debt service on the
water system totalled about $5,000 (based on an outstanding debt of
$58,000; Burkett and Associates, Ltd. 1976). An additional $3,000, there-
fore, should be added to the cost, making water service costs about $42.03
per capita. The Village currently is investigating the possibility of
constructing a water main from the City of Streator and purchasing water
from the Northern Illinois Water Company (By letter, Mr. J. J. Yendro, PE,
Chamlin & Associates, Inc., to V.S. Hastings, WAPORA, Inc., 5 December
1977).
The people of Streator pay a local share for schools. They also pay a
local share for the County's community college, Illinois Valley Community
College, located near Oglesby. The combined equalized tax rate for these
schools for Bruce Township, where most of the people of Streator live, is
5.6342. It is 5.7779 for Eagle and 5.7679 for Otter Creek Township (La
Salle County Clerk's Office 1977). Practically all of the local share
comes from property taxes. Total assessment for the City of Streator in
1976 was $55,392,519 (Kincannon 1977). Using 5.7 as the tax rate, the cost
to the people of Streator for the local share of all schools was about
$3,150,000 (about $202 per capita based on a population of 15,600). Per
capita local costs for schools exceed per capita costs for all other local
services combined (Draft EIS, Table E-12).
3-23
-------
3.6.1.2. Sources of Funds for Community Services
Total revenues of the City of Streator for fiscal year 1977 equaled
total disbursements (expenditures) by the City. The major source of funds
(almost $1.4 million) is local taxes (Draft EIS, Table E-16). Substantial
sums also are received from Federal and State sources (about $1.2 million
if funds of approximately $647 thousand for arterial streets and bridges
are included). About $355 thousand are received from licenses, fees, and
rentals, including sewer rentals.
Local property taxes and fire insurance taxes are paid by City pro-
perty owners, but sales taxes are paid partially by transients. As a rough
estimate, residents of the City pay $1.2 million in total local taxes, or
about $77 per capita.
Based on budget information from the local high school, local taxes
cover about 60% of the school costs. Most of the remainder is from State
sources. Tax sources represent about $279 per capita per year (City, $77,
and school services, $202). The source of funds for water service is by
direct charge.
3.6.2. Indebtedness
Based on the City of Streator's fiscal-year 1977 Financial Statements
and Accountant's Report, the City is sound financially. The major debt,
covered by sewer revenue bonds issued in 1961, was for the replacement of
the City's wastewater treatment facilities. Bonds outstanding totalled
$315,000 on 30 April 1977. The total annual debt service was about
$30,000. It will remain at this level through 1992. (Total debt service
through 1992 will amount to $443,128.) Funds to cover total sewer costs
were derived from sewer rentals ($84,910; Draft EIS, Table E-13) and
general funds.
Other indebtedness included $100,000 in tax anticipation warrants,
about $130,000 in accounts payable including accrued payroll at the end of
the fiscal year, about $70,000 on a fire engine, $65,000 on a garbage
truck, and less than $1,000 on parking meters. Partially offsetting this
indebtedness were cash balances of over $65,000 in the sewerage revenue
bond fund account, $10,000 in the motor fuel tax fund, and over $17,000 in
miscellaneous funds. In addition, there is considerable equity in facili-
ties and equipment, specifically fire engines, garbage trucks, and parking
meters.
3.6.3. Comparison of Expenditures, Revenues, Assessments, and Debt
Among Cities
Municipal finance characteristics of twenty cities in the vicinity of
Streator (in the fourteen-county North Central Illinois Region; Draft EIS,
Figure E-3) for 1974 were examined and compared with those of Streator
(Draft EIS, Table E-17). The cities range in population from 125,963
(Peoria) to 1,232 (Granville). Streator ranks as the seventh largest of
the twenty cities, based on a population of 15,600.
3-24
-------
Streator's expenditures are at the median level. The level (at $128
per capita) is much closer to the low (at $58 per capita) than to the high
(at $508 per capita) finance value. Streator's revenues per capita ($130)
are lower than the median level ($141), but its revenues still slightly
exceed expenditures. Streator is in a particularly favorable relative
position with respect to per capita debt. Its $27 per capita is consider-
ably less than the median of $96 and substantially less than the high of
$1,193 per capita. Assessment per capita ($2,154) is somewhat less than
median ($3,554) but not by enough to affect Streator's rank among cities
with respect to debt. Streator remains at a favorable seventeenth, with
only $9 of debt per $1,000 assessed value compared to the high of $298.
Streator's relative position in the rankings remains about the same
among the top ten cities in population and among ten cities in the mid-
population range (from Normal with about twice Streator's population to
Clinton with about half). With respect to expenditures, Streator ranks
sixth out of ten in both groupings. With respect to debt (expressed either
on a per capita or per $1,000 assessment basis), Streator ranks eighth out
of the ten top cities and ninth out of the ten mid-size cities.
The major portion of Streator's 1974 per capita debt, $23 of $27, was
in revenue bonds (Draft EIS, Table E-17). This does not represent a general
obligation of the City. The revenue bonds are those covering the City's
wastewater treatment facilities.
The general picture of indebtedness was about the same in 1977 as in
1974. Based on the analysis of the 1977 Financial Statements, outstanding
revenue bond indebtedness was lower than in 1974, the City having reduced
this indebtedness during the interim. The revenue bond indebtedness stood
at $315,000 or $20 per capita compared to $358,000 or $23 per capita in
1974. Other net indebtedness appeared to be somewhat higher.
If Streator were to increase its debt to the median of the twenty
cities, that is from $27 to $96 per capita (or by $69/capita), this would
provide about $1.08 million in funds (15,600 x $69/capita). The average
(arithmetic mean) debt of the twenty cities at $101 per capita is slightly
above the median at $96 (Draft EIS, Table E-18). Raising Streator's debt
to this level (by $74 per capita rather than $69) would yield about $1.15
million. Finally, if Streator were to increase its per capita debt to the
highest per capita debt level among the twenty cities, that is from $27 to
$1,193 per capita, this would provide over $18 million in funds ($15,600 x
$l,160/capita) . This would raise the debt to $378 per $1,000 of 1974
assessed valuation.
Streator's expenditures, revenues, and debt position also can be
compared with the expenditures, revenues, and debt position of large cities
in the US (Draft EIS, Tables E-19 and E-20). Streator's financial require-
ments are very low and its debt position is extremely low compared to large
cities. Two cities, New York and Washington, have higher per capita debts
than Princeton, which has the highest in the Streator region. One city,
Atlanta, has about the same as Princeton. The lowest per capita debt among
the thirty largest cities in the US is for San Diego. At $185, this is
much higher than Streator's $27. In summary, the financial burden of
3-25
-------
community services and debt to the people of the Streator area is very
moderate compared with the burden in other cities.
3-26
-------
4.0. EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES AND FLOWS
4.1. Sewer System
The City of Streator has a combined sewer system that includes ap-
proximately 53 miles of sewers. It provides service to most of the City
(Warren & Van Praag, Inc. 1975). A small area, west of Bloomington Street
and north of 1st Street, is served by a separate sanitary sewer system
(about 3 miles of sewers). Both systems are primarily clay sewer tile with
okum-sealed joints. There are some brick sewers in the combined sewer
system. The location of the sewer service area, the major interceptor
sewers, and the treatment plant are indicated in Figure 4-1.
In a combined system, both wastewater (dry-weather flow) and storm-
water are transported in the same sewers. Currently, when the capacity of
the Streator facilities is exceeded during wet-weather periods, the excess
combined flow escapes the sewer system without treatment (Warren & Van
Praag, Inc. 1975). Some of this flow is diverted to the Vermilion River or
to its tributaries by about fourteen diversion structures. The rest of the
excess flow is discharged to the mines via numerous (possibly as many as
600) drop shafts installed throughout the sewer system. The drop shafts
generally protrude above base level in the sewers. Some, however, were
installed flush, or nearly so, with the bottom of the sewer. In these
cases, dry-weather flows are discharged to the mines as well.
The three major east-west interceptors (Prairie Creek, Kent Street,
and Coal Run) were inspected during Autumn 1977. All three were very old
and were in poor condition. Specific problems included:
Ponding of sewage/stormwater flow
Manholes with grit/sludge deposits hindering flow
Surcharging of raw sewage into adjacent watercourses
Stream flow entering the sewage system in large quantities
Numerous by-passes to streams
Curved pipe alignments along streams to follow natural drain-
age ways
• Presence of toxic gases in manholes caused by gases entering
through drop shafts (two men have been killed in Streator by
these gases)
• Presence of gasoline in the sewage flow.
A massive rehabilitation program is required if these interceptors are to
be used in the future. Findings during the inspections are detailed in
the Draft EIS, Appendix F.
The trunk and lateral lines generally are in good condition (Warren &
Van Praag, Inc. 1975). Infiltration (groundwater seepage into the lines),
however, has become a problem due to the age of the system and the type of
materials used to seal pipe joints. Seepage increases flows to the
treatment plant, reduces the wastewater capacity in the sewers and at the
plant, and increases the frequency and volume of overflows to surface
waters.
4-1
-------
Major Interceptors
Sewer Service Area
Wastewoter Treatment Plant
Figure 4-1. Location of the sewer service area, the major inter-
ceptors, and the wastewater treatment plant in the
Streator, Illinois, FPA.
4-2
MILES
I ' I
0 I
WAPORA, INC.
-------
4.2. Treatment Facilities
The Streator wastewater treatment plant was designed to provide
secondary treatment for an average daily flow of 2.0 mgd. Sewage flow is
measured with a Parshall flume. Preliminary treatment is provided by bar
racks, a barminutor, an aerated grit chamber, and a preaeration tank.
Sewage undergoes primary treatment in settling tanks and then is treated
biologically by a conventional activated sludge unit. Secondary settling
is provided, and the treated sewage is discharged through a cascade aera-
tor. The aerator is used to increase the dissolved oxygen level in the
effluent. Sludge is digested anaerobically and is stored on-site in sludge
lagoons.
The treatment plant was inspected during October 1977 (Draft EIS,
Appendix F). The plant was in excellent condition, reflecting regular
maintenance and repair. With minor improvements, the facilities can be
incorporated in an upgraded or expanded system. Various components have
deteriorated through normal use over a 22-year period, and some areas of
the plant do not meet OSHA safety standards.
4.3. Wastewater Flows
4.3.1. Industrial Wastewater Survey
During the facilities planning process, Warren & Van Praag, Inc.
(1975), conducted an industrial wastewater survey to determine the quanti-
ties and strengths of industrial wastewaters and the methods of discharge.
To update and expand the data base, industries that initially responded
were contacted again by telephone during Autumn 1977. Most of the indus-
tries were unable to supply specific information on the chemical charac-
teristics of their wastewaters. None of the industries contacted expressed
any plans for expansions of their plants or for increases in water consump-
tion in the near future.
The latest survey indicated that the documented industrial wastewater
flows accounted for 82% of the total industrial water consumption (504
million gallons) in the Streator FPA during 1976 (Table 4-1). Approxi-
mately 74.5% of the wastewater was discharged to the mines, and 25.5% was
discharged to the sewer system. The glass industries were the major water
consumers and dischargers in Streator. Owens-Illinois, Inc., accounted for
72% of the documented industrial wastewater flow, and Thatcher, Inc. ac-
counted for 10%. The respective contributions of this industrial group to
drop shafts and city sewers was approximately the same as for the total
industrial wastewater flows, 76% and 24%, respectively.
Documented industrial wastewater flows were separated to show the
amounts of contaminated process water, clean cooling water, and sanitary
wastes discharging to the mines and to the sewers (Table 4-2). For those
few iadustries from which such specific data were not available, estimates
were made based on data for similar industries. When this was not pos-
sible, the wastewater flows, less estimated sanitary wastes, were assumed
to be contaminated process waters. Estimates of sanitary wastes were
based on an employee generation of 30 gallons per working day, except in
4-3
-------
3
•a
3« in
0
EH
Id
0)
CO
o
i-H
0
o
o
r- i
ro |
ro
CN
rH
0
o
o
1 CO
i r-
CN
rH
CN
0
O
o
o
o
m
o
o
CN
o
o
o
ro
ro
ro
0
O
0
en
ro
rH
O
O
o
in i
O 1
r~
0
o
o
1 O
1 O
VD
en
ro
o
o <*>
o in
CN 'tf
en r^
ro
00
(N
T3
CO
o
cu „
4J CO
£d -H
id i—i
> M
rH „
Id Lj
•H O
C
•H
.
0) 4,
c c
.
O en
O r-l
^
CO
id
EH
0
u
8
Flink
Knoedler Inc.
Myers-Sherman
Owens-Illinois
Plymouth Tube
Streator Brick
Streator Dependab:
Sunstar Foods
Teleweld
Thatcher
g
rH rH
id fn
4J
O >i
EH rH
•H
IH (d
O Q
rH
id -P cu
-P C DI
0 a) rd
4-> U M
A ^
4-4
-------
03
•H
O
c
•H
o
4-1
Cfl
Q)
fSt
ro f»
H (DO
0)
3
0)
•a
c
(0
CO
0)
H
e
0)
.a
_p
0
tn
c
•H
Di
(0
U
cn
•rl
•a
03
^
0
i— i
4-1
M
0)
P
(0
3
0)
4-1
CO
rH
to
•H
tH
03
03
0)
U
O
V-J
ft
•a
0)
4J
rd
d
4-1
C
0
U
M
0)
rd
3S
cn
c
•H
rH
0
0
U
C
rd
0)
rH
CJ
03
OJ
4-1
fd
*
0
o
0
vO
^
in
0
o
o
\o
rH
CN
CN
0
o
o
O 1
m i
m
0
o
0
o
1 1 0
1 1 CN
r-
co
0
o
0
CN
ro
0
CN
r-
o
0
0
cn
CN
o
in
en
0
O
0
CO
m
cn
o
o
0
oo
CN
CO
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
rH
o
0
0
CO
sr
o
0
o
0
rH
rH
O
0
O
in
co
00
ro
O
O
O
0
r-
rH
CO
o
o
o
CO
i-H
o
CN
o
o
0
rH
oo
cn
CM
0
O
o
o
vD
ro
cn
O
o
o
i r-
1 rH
rH
0
o
o
r-
r-
•>tf
cn
o
o
o
cT
o
in
«N
rH
o
o
o
in
r-
r-
CN
O
O
0
o
m
<£>
in
m
0
o
o
1 0 1
1 CN |
ro
CO
0
O
0
in
^J*
f-
m>
vD
O
o
o
TT
m
o
co
CO
c
-rl
0)
Q)
CN
I
X)
rd
EH
-
J>,
\
rH
S
* — •
03
0)
C
•H
s
^
M
4-1
03
3
•a
c
H
o
4-1
03
O
rH
f
O
u
>1
c
o
4-1
c
03
C -H
§ g
in -H
Q) rH
X rH
CO H
1 1
CO 03
rl C
0) CD
>i 3
S O
rX
0) U
XI -H
3 rl
E-i CQ
A rl
4J 0
3 -P
O rd
I 0)
rH -P
ft CO
(1)
rH
rd
TQ
C
0)
a
0)
Q
M M
0 0)
4-1 X
rd U
0> 4-1
M rd
4-i .C
CO E-i
rH
rd
4-1
O
4J
XJ
CO
rH
4->
O
4->
1
T3
0)
to
^3
•n
''O
^j
>i
rH
rd
Dl
CO
0)
CO
o
4J
03
0
rH
rl
0)
i-H
C 0)
"H O
rH C
03
•H Q)
0 XI
C 3
•H EH
rH
•H £!:
H 4J
1 3
03 O
SI,
1 -1
O ft
CO
"H
0
n3
rl rH
rrj cu
03 QJ
C rH
3 0)
CO E-i
rd
4J
0
•M
rH -0
rd Q)
4J V
0 U)
4-> 3
XI -r-1
CO i=C
4-5
-------
those cases where available data provided a more accurate determination.
The various wastewater flows were adjusted upward (by a factor of 1.319) to
account for total 1976 industrial water consumption (the actual amount
consumed by industry during 1976 divided by the total amount of industrial
wastewater in 1976 equals 1.319; Table 4-1). Industrial flows by category
and discharge method are summarized below:
Average Million Percent
Daily Flow Gallons of
Industrial Wasteflows (mgd) per year Total
Contaminated Industrial Wastes to Sewers 0.241 88.1
Contaminated Industrial Wastes to Mines 0.739 269.7
Clean (cooling water etc.) Wastes to Sewers 0.034 12.5
Clean (cooling water etc.) Wastes to Mines 0.260 95.0
Sanitary Wastes to Sewers 0.076 27.9
Sanitary Wastes to Mines 0.029 10.5
1.379 503.7
Approximately 21.4% of the total industrial wastewater flow was uncontami-
nated cooling water, approximately 7.6% was sanitary waste, and the remain-
ing 71% was wastewater contaminated to some degree by industrial processes.
4.3.2. Domestic Wastewater Flows
Domestic wastewater flows to the treatment facilities were determined
from water consumption records. During 1976, a total of 3.0 mgd of water
was distributed to all users (Northern Illinois Water Corporation 1977).
Thus 1.62 mgd were consumed by commercial, municipal, and residential users
(3.0 mgd minus 1.38 mgd for industries). Assuming the population of the
water service area was equivalent to the population of the Streator FPA
minus the population of Kangley that uses groundwater (21,750 - 290 =
21,460; Section,3.5.1.), the rate of use was approximately 75.5 gallons per
capita per day.
In the sewer service area (not as large as the water service area),
there are approximately 12,700 residents (Section 3.5.1.), and at 75.5
gallons per capita per day, they used 0.96 mgd. If it is assumed that 80%
of the water is discharged to the sewer system (generally 60% to 80%;
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1972), 0.77 mgd were directed to the wastewater
treatment plant during 1976. Based on the same assumptions, residents in
the Streator FPA but outside the sewer service area (21,460 - 12,700 =
8,760) consumed 0.66 mgd of water and generated 0.53 mgd of domestic waste-
water. A significant portion of this wastewater flow is discharged to the
mines.
4.3.3. Inflow/Infiltration
The wastewater measured at the treatment plant averaged 2.03 mgd
during 1976 (Nichols 1977). The difference between the measured, annual
This assumption implies that there are approximately 3 people per resi-
dence (21,460 people in the service area -4- 7,087 residential customers =
3.03). Statistics for Streator show that there are 2.94 persons per
household (Draft EIS, Section 2.5.2.2.).
4-6
-------
average flow, and the combined, theoretical industrial and domestic waste-
water flows (1.12 mgd) is 0.91 mgd. This value represents the estimated
average inflow and infiltration (I/I) to the treatment plant. It, however,
reflects flows over the entire year during both dry-weather and wet-weather
conditions. The I/I flow entering the sewer system and reaching the treat-
ment plant during storm events is considerably higher.
The actual amount of I/I could not be estimated accurately. No sub-
system within the sewer system was found in which all incoming and outgoing
florfs could be measured. The amount of flow from roof and foundation
drains, cracked and broken sewer lines, stormwater runoff, and other
sources, and the amount of flow discharged from the sewer system to the
mines and to surface waters could not be determined. The I/I entering the
sewer system could be significantly larger than the I/I reaching the plant.
4.4. Wastewater Quality
The wastewater treatment plant originally was designed to treat an or-
ganic loading of 3,400 pounds BOD5 (204 mg/1) and 4,400 pounds SS (264
rag/1) per day. The design loadings were based on a tributary population
equivalent to 20,000 at 100 gallons per capita per day, 0.17 pound BOD,-,
and 0.22 pound SS per capita per day. The total daily average loading for
the period from July 1976 to June 1977 is presented in Table 4-3, along
with treatment plant performance records. The average BOD,, loading is
about 200 pounds per day larger than the loading presented in the draft
Facilities Plan (Warren and Van Praag, Inc. 1975). In addition, the aver-
age BOD,, concentration in the plant effluent has increased from 5.5 mg/1 in
1973-1974 to 14.5 rag/1 in 1976-1977 (Nichols 1977). This is unusual for an
area that has achieved little, if any, growth. The increased use of gar-
bage disposals and/or different industrial discharges often can result in
an increased organic loading to a wastewater treatment plant.
Using design loading values of 0.17 pound of BOD,, and 0.22 pound of SS
per capita per day and assuming a population of 12,700 within the service
area, a total of 2,159 pounds of BOD5 and 2,794 pounds of SS should reach
the wastewater treatment plant. Based on the plant records, however, the
influent contains about 60% of the expected BOD,- and SS loads (Nichols
1977). Some of this load is discharged to the mines and to surface waters.
In addition, because wastewater flows are higher than predicted for the
population served, significant dilution of wastewater occurs due to I/I.
Table 4-3. Performance of the Streator wastewater treatment plant during
the period from July 1976 to June 1977 (Nichols 1977). The
average flow was 1.8 mgd.
Percent
Influent " Effluent Purification
BOD5 1,310 Ibs/day 218 Ibs/day - 83~
83 mg/1 14.5 mg/1
ss 1,651 Ib/day 78 Ibs/day 95
mg/1 5.2 mg/1
00 7.9 mg/1
4-7
-------
The Streator wastewater treatment plant has authorization to discharge
under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit number
IL0022004. The discharge presently is meeting the interim effluent limita-
tions of 20 mg/1 BOD5 and 25 mg/1 SS, but the wastewater treatment plant
will have to meet more stringent effluent requirements in the future. The
final NPDES permit requires an effluent quality of 4 mg/1 BODc, 5 mg/1 SS,
1.5 mg/1 NH~-N, and fecal coliform counts not larger than 200 per 100
milliliters "(30-day average). IEPA, however, indicated that the effluent
limitations for BOD,, and SS may be changed to 10 mg/1 and 12 mg/1, respec-
tively. (By letter, Mr. Roger A. Kanewa, IEPA, to Mr. Charles Sutfin,
USEPA, 18 July 1978); ammonia-nitrogen and fecal coliform requirements
would remain the same.
4.5. Future Environmental Problems Without Corrective Action
Existing environmental problems associated with the wastewater collec-
tion and treatment facilities would persist and could worsen if no correc-
tive action were taken. Presently, pollutant loads to surface waters from
the sewer system and the treatment plant are significant and, to a certain
degree, are responsible for water quality problems in the Vermilion River
and its tributaries in the Streator study area. In-stream conditions
sometimes exist that are hazardous to both aquatic life and public health
and that could affect downstream uses of surface waters (Section 3.3.1.3.).
Based on the effluent limitations of the final NPDES permit or the
less stringent limitations that are acceptable to IEPA, the treatment
facilities will have to be upgraded (Section 4.4.). The NPDES permit
imposes limitations on combined sewer overflows to surface waters and to
the mines. These are:
1) Secondary-tertiary facilities must have capacity for and must
treat all flows up to 2.5 times design average flow
2) All flows to combined sewer systems that exceed 2.5 times the
design average flow and that cannot be reasonably eliminated must
receive at least primary treatment and disinfection for up to 10
times design average flow ... to be treated by the secondary-
tertiary facilities
3) Flows in excess of (2) above may be required to be treated to
prevent water quality violations, to remove floating debris and
solids, and to prevent depression of oxygen levels below those
specified in Rule 203 (d) of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
regulations (1977)
(4) The annual average quality of all flows discharged in (1), (2),
and (3) above must not exceed 30 mg/1 BOD. and 30 mg/1 SS.
The City of Streator would be in violation of the conditions in its NPDES
permit if it were not to provide the treatment necessary to achieve efflu-
4-8
-------
ent regulations.
In addition, because of the deteriorated condition of the three inter-
ceptor lines and the age of the trunk and lateral lines, infiltration to
the collection system would increase. This would increase flows discharged
to the mines and the frequency and volume of overflows and bypasses to
surface waters. Flows to the treatment plant also would increase, as well
as the operation and maintenance costs to treat the flows. I/I already
contributes 45% of the average daily flow to the plant (Section A.3.3.).
Discharges of raw sewage from the interceptors to surface waters and
ponding of wastewater flows would continue if the deteriorated interceptors
were used in the future. Blockages or constrictions in the interceptors
because of deterioration or subsidence could cause wastewater flows to back
up and create nuisance conditions. Drop shafts in the sewer system that
discharge flows to the mines also could become blocked. Reduction in the
amount of flow to the mines would result in lowered water levels in the
mines and thus would increase the potential for subsidence (Appendix B) .
If the sources of water for mine recharge and the discharges to the mines
were to remain the same, mine leachates would continue to contribute simi-
lar pollutant loads to Prairie Creek and tha Vermilion River (Appendix C).
These conditions may be modified based on the final determination of a
cost-effective solution to the potential mine subsidence problem.
4-9
-------
5.0. ALTERNATIVES
5.1. Objectives
Wastewater management alternatives for the Streator FPA, as presented
herein, were developed to meet the needs/requirements of the current and
future service area population and to conform with State and Federal regu-
lations. The principal objective was to reduce pollutant loads to surface
waters (Section 3.3.1.3.). All alternatives must provide treatment to
achieve the effluent requirements of the final NPDES permit or those ac-
ceptable to IEPA (Section 4.4.). Alternatives also must include measures/
facilities to reduce discharges of untreated wastewater from cracked and
broken sewer lines and combined sewer overflows to surface waters. In
addition, because leachates from the mines mix with surface waters, alter-
natives must include measures to reduce to varying degrees pollutant loads
discharged directly or indirectly to the mines via the sewer system.
Another common objective was to develop alternatives that would not
increase the potential for subsidence. Because hydrostatic levels in the
mines should be maintained and because water level fluctuations should be
minimized (Appendix B), alternatives include measures to continue recharge
(inflow) comparable to the domestic, industrial, and stormwater flows cur-
rently entering the mines.
The third objective was to minimize costs for construction and for
operation and maintenance of the appropriate wastewater control system.
All facilities are sized to reflect a zero growth population projection
(Section 3.5.3.).
5.2. System Components and Component Options
The development of wastewater management alternatives began with the
identification of possible functional components that would comprise feas-
ible and implementable wastewater collection and treatment systems. The
functional components considered are:
• Flow and Waste Reduction — includes infiltration/inflow
reduction and water conservation measures
• Collection System — includes sewer separation, rehabilita-
tion of the combined sewer system, and service area exten-
sions
• Wastewater Treatment — includes expansion of plant capac-
ity, additional treatment to meet effluent limitations, and
construction of facilities to store and/or treat excess
combined sewer flows not discharged to the mines
• Recharge to Subsurface Mines — includes recharge from a
storm-water collection system, recharge from the combined
sewer system, and recharge of treatment plant effluent
5-1
-------
• Mine Leachate Control — includes collection and treatment
of mine leachates
• Permanent Subsidence Control — includes backfilling of
mines with solids.
The methods considered for fulfilling the functions of each of these six
system components are termed "component options" or "options."
The selection of options for one component is, to some extent, depen-
dent on options considered for other components. For example, the type of
collection system being considered can modify the quality of wastewater
entering the treatment plant and, thus, the level of treatment required to
meet effluent limitations. If rehabilitation of the combined sewer system
at Streator were chosen as a collection system option, the influent would
be more dilute than if construction of a separate sanitary sewer system
were chosen. This is an example of functional dependence when considera-
tion of one component option may either preclude or necessitate considera-
tion of a dependent option in another component. This type of dependence
normally can be distinguished from design dependence when the capacity,
length, strength, area, etc., of an option depends on the selection of
options in a separate component. For instance, the options for industrial
wastewater disposal will affect the hydraulic design of wastewater treat-
ment processes.
In the following sections, component options for the Streator waste-
water facilities will be identified and discussed to the extent necessary
to justify or reject their inclusion in system-wide alternatives. Reason-
able combinations of component options will be combined to define system
alternatives. Often a change in an independent option within one component
will not affect substantially the overall cost-effectiveness of an alterna-
tive. In these instances, sub-alternatives will be identified so that
decisions on the specific independent options can be made separately from
the comparisons between system alternatives.
5.2.1. Flow and Waste Reduction
5.2.1.1. Infiltration/Inflow Reduction
The actual amount of I/I presently entering the Streator sewer system
is unknown. The treatment plant flow records, however, reveal that the
amount of I/I is significant (Section 4.3.3.). An average of 0.91 mgd
reaches the plant and an unknown quantity enters the mines via drop shafts.
Based on characteristics of the combined sewer system such as age, type of
joints, and physical condition, the maximum infiltration rate was estimated
to be 90,000 gallons per mile of sewer per day, or approximately 5.0 mgd
(Warren & Van Praag, Inc. 1975).
The amount of inflow to the sewer system can not be quantified because
all sources and their flows are unknown. The amount of I/I that can be eli-
minated depends on the collection system option utilized (Section 5.2.2.).
Construction of a new sewer system would reduce infiltration signifi-
cantly. New sewers would be constructed from the most modern materials and
5-2
-------
would have almost water-tight joints. The maximum infiltration rate for
new sewer systems should be 200 gallons or less per inch of sewer pipe
diameter per mile per day (Ten States Standards 1978). Based on the length
of the Streator sewer system (56 miles) and the average sewer pipe diameter
(9 inches), the amount of infiltration to a new sewer system would be
approximately 101,000 gallons per day or 1,800 gallons per sewer mile per
day. This represents a reduction in the maximum infiltration rate of about
98%.
The use of the existing sewers in collection system options would
require a sewer system survey and subsequent rehabilitation work. The
average infiltration eliminated by previous rehabilitation work in the
Midwest is approximately 62% (Warren & Van Praag, In. 1975). Rehabilita-
tion of the sewer system at Streator, therefore, could reduce the maximum
infiltration to approximately 34,200 gallons per mile per day. If the
interceptors (4.7 miles of sewers) were replaced and the collector lines
were rehabilitated, the infiltration rate could be reduced further.
Inflow would be reduced significantly by rehabilitation and/or con-
struction of a new sewer system. If the interceptors were replaced, a
major source of inflow (stream flow into cracked and broken interceptors)
would be eliminated. Sewer separation would eliminate all stormwater inflow
to the treatment plant.
5.2.1.2. Water Conservation Measures
Because the per capita amount of water consumed in the Streator FPA is
relatively small, water conservation measures would be marginally effective
in reducing wastewater flows to the treatment plant and, thus, are not
necessary. Water consumption for the commercial, municipal, and residen-
tial uses averaged 75.5 gallons per capita per day during 1976 (Section
4.3.2.). Assuming that 80% of water consumed in the sewer service area
enters the sewer system, an average flow of only about 60 gallons per
capita per day was conveyed to the wastewater treatment plant.
5.2.2. Collection System
5.2.2.1. Sewer Separation
Sewer separation would require installation of a new sanitary sewer
system. Such a system would reduce significantly the amount of I/I reach-
ing the treatment plant and would eliminate the discharge of untreated
sewage to the mines. The existing combined sewer system would be rehabili-
tated and modified to discharge stormwater to the mines (Section 5.2,4.).
The option for sewer separation is similar to the alternative recom-
mended in the draft Facilities Plan (Warren & Van Praag, Inc. 1975), except
that the collector and interceptor sewers were sized to reflect a zero-
population growth projection (Section 3.5.3.). Interceptor routes would be
changed slightly to avoid areas where the potential for subsidence is high
(Appendix B) . Light-weight, plastic-type sewer pipes and joints could be
used to provide flexibility, and timber cradles and concrete supports could
be provided to distribute the weight of the interceptor lines. Such mea-
5-3
-------
sures would minimize the potential for damage to new sewers from future
subsidence.
5.2.2.2. Rehabilitation of the Combined Sewer System
This option includes continued use of the existing combined sewer
system after rehabilitation. The three main interceptors would be replaced
to reduce the amount of I/I at the treatment plant and to eliminate dis-
charges to surface waters from cracked and broken sections. The intercep-
tors would be sized to convey large storm flows to the treatment facili-
ties, thereby reducing combined sewer overflows to surface waters.
The existing system would continue to discharge combined sewer flows
to the mines. This discharge is necessary for mine recharge (Section
5.2.4.). The discharge of combined sewer flows to the mines, however,
would require approval from the Illinois Pollution Control Board and the
Illinois Mining Board (By letter, Mr. Roger A. Kanverva, IEPA, to Mr.
Charles Sutfin, USEPA, Region V, 18 July 1978).
If combined sewer flows could not escape to the mines, the entire
sewer system would have to be enlarged considerably. Similarly, treatment
and/or storage facilities would have to be sized to accommodate all com-
bined sewer flows. Such a project would be prohibitively expensive and
would cause extensive disturbance and disruption in Streator.
Rehabilitation of the collector lines also would be required. A sewer
system evaluation survey would be conducted to detect significant sources
of I/I. In addition, drop shafts in the system that are found to be level
with the bottom of sewers or manholes would be raised, if possible, to
prevent the discharge of dry-weather flows to the mines. Not all of these
drop shafts, however, will be located.
5.2.2.3. Service Area Options
Two service area options are being considered. One is maintaining the
present size of the service area. The other is extending sewer service to
unsewered sections of the Streator FPA. Areas include South Streator, East
Streator, and West Streator (Figure 5-1). The layout of additional sani-
tary sewers was presented in the draft Facilities Plan (Warren & Van Praag,
Inc. 1975). The system, however, has been re-sized for a zero-growth
population projection.
Federal funding for the extension of sewer service to unsewered areas
depends on compliance with requirements presented in Program Requirements
Memorandum (PRM) 78-9 (USEPA 1978). The Village of Kangley does not meet
all of the funding requirements. Septic tank systems currently are being
used on suitable soils (Draft EIS, Section 2.2.3.1.). Some wastewater may
be discharged directly or indirectly as septic tank effluent to mined-out
areas beneath the Village. There is no evidence, however, of a public
health hazard or a suface water quality violation that can be attributed to
wastewater disposal practices in the area. No mine leachates have been
observed near Kangley (Appendix C). Potable water is obtained from ground-
water sources, but the aquifers are protected from downward contamination
5-4
-------
'IX* 'IK'/ft
Existing Sewer Service
Area
City Boundary
[::::•'.• Proposed Extensions to Service Area
Figure 5-1. The existing sewer service area and the proposed
service area extensions in the Streator, Illinois,
FPA.
MILES
I
WAPORA, INC.
5-5
-------
by the relatively impervious character of the clays and shales above them
(Section 3.3.3.)* Extension of sewers to Kangley, therefore, would not be
cost-effective and was eliminated as a viable extension.
Extension of sewers to those areas being considered may be eligible
for Federal funding. Many of the lot sizes are too small to be suitable
for septic tank systems. Some residential lots have septic tanks without
absorption fields that discharge effluents to the mines. It is not known
if these discharges cause violations of State water quality standards,
because it is not clear to what extent mine leachates adversely affect
surface water quality (Appendix C) and to what degree unsewered areas
contribute to the pollutant concentrations of the leachates. To comply
with the Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act and Code of 1974 and other
State regulations (IPCB 1977), it will be necessary to eliminate discharges
of septic tank effluents and other sanitary wasteflows to the mines from
the unsewered areas. Additional facilities planning will have to determine
whether this can be accomplished most cost-effectively by means of collec-
tor sewers or by alternative on-site disposal systems. It would not appear
to be cost-effective for the different unincorporated areas to build their
own collection and treatment facilities.
5.2.3. Wastewater Treatment
5.2.3.1. Treatment Plant Design Capacities and Industrial Wastewater
Disposal Options
Two treatment plant design capacities are being considered. One is
the existing 2.0 mgd capacity, and the other is a 2.6 mgd capacity. The
capacity options are dependent on the size of the service area and on
industrial disposal options.
There are several options for the disposal of industrial wastewaters.
The options being considered include:
• Continued discharge of wastewaters (sanitary wastes, cooling
water, and contaminated process water) to both the sewer
system and to the mines (Section 4.3.1.)
• Continued discharge of cooling and process waters to both
the sewer system and the mines, and discharge of all sani-
tary wastes to the sewer system
• Continued discharge of cooling water to both the sewer
system and the mines, and discharge of all sanitary wastes
and process water to the sewer system.
The existing treatment plant capacity would be sufficient if current
industrial discharge practices (Scenario A, Table 5-1) were continued; if
all industrial sanitary wastes were directed to the sewer system (Scenario
B); if all industrial sanitary wastes were directed to the sewer system,
and if the sewer service area were expanded (Scenario C); or if all indus-
trial sanitary wastes and process water were directed to the sewer system
(Scenario D). The treatment plant would have to be expanded if all indus-
5-6
-------
Table 5-1. Average daily dry-weather flows to the 2.0 mgd treatment plant
and to a 2,6 mgd treatment plant, Flows are based on service
area options and industrial wastewater disposal options. Methods
used to estimate flows are presented in Section 3.3,
Flows to the 2.0 mgd plant (mgd)
Current flows (Scenario A)
Domestic 0.77
Industrial 0.351
Total 1.121
Current flows plus industrial sanitary wastes presently discharged to
the mines (Scenario B)
Domestic 0.77
Industrial
(existing) 0.351
(additional sanitary wastes) 0,029
Total 1.150
Current flows plus additional domestic flows and industrial sanitary
wastes presently discharged to the mines (Scenario C)
Domestic
(existing) 0,77
(additional) 0.53
Industrial
(existing) 0.351
(additional sanitary wastes) 0,029
Total 1.680
Current flows plus industrial sanitary wastes and process water presently
discharged to the mines but no additional domestic flows (Scenario D)
Domestic 0.77
Industrial
(existing) 0,351
(additional sanitary wastes) 0.029
(additional process water) 0.739
Total 1.889
Flows to a 2.6 mgd plant (mgd)
Current flows plus additional domestic flows and industrial sanitary wastes
and process water presently discharged to the mines (Scenario E)
Domestic
(existing) 0.77
(additional) 0,53
Industrial
(existing) 0.351
(additional sanitary wastes) 0.029
(additional process water) 0.739
Total 2.419
5-7
-------
trial sanitary wastes and process water were conveyed to the sewer system,
and if the sewer service area were expanded (Scenario E).
All discharges to the mines would require permits from the 1EPA and
the Illinois Mining Board (By letter, Mr. Roger A. Kanerva, IEPA, to Mr.
Charles Sutfin, USEPA, Region V, 18 July 1978). The State, in attempting
to reduce organic loads, may not allow the discharge of sanitary wastes to
the mines. Conversely, the State may allow the discharge of cooling and
process waters to the mines. Not all of the process water, however, may be
considered innocuous and suitable for mine recharge. When industries apply
for appropriate permits to discharge to the mines, the process water will
be analyzed. Results may show that only a small percentage of the process
water is suitable for mine recharge. If this were the case, some of the
process water would have to be pretreated prior to mine discharge or con-
veyed to the treatment plant. Regardless, pretreatment of some process
water may be necessary before conveyance to the treatment plant.
The two treatment capacity options are not dependent on the amount of
I/I associated with the different collection options (Section 5.2.1.1.).
The sewer separation option would contribute a maximum infiltration rate of
only 0.101 mgd. The rehabilitation of the combined sewer system would
contribute more infiltration than sewer separation, but excess combined
flows would be treated at separate facilities, not at the treatment facili-
ties for dry-weather flows. Stormwater inflow would be reduced signifi-
cantly by rehabilitation of the existing system and would be eliminated by
sewer separation. Extension of sanitary sewers would not contribute exces-
sive infiltration.
5.2.3.2. Level of Treatment
Four levels of treatment are being considered for dry-weather flows.
The treatment options include:
• Existing secondary treatment (Section 4.2.) with continuous
effluent recharge to the mines
• Upgraded secondary treatment — existing secondary treatment
with nitrification and disinfection
• Tertiary treatment — existing secondary treatment with
nitrification, chemical coagulation, multi-media filtration,
and disinfection
• Tertiary treatment without chemical coagulation.
Nitrification would be provided by a single-stage activated sludge process
that would be accomplished by the addition of aeration tank capacity, final
claifier capacity and aeration blower capacity to the existing activated
sludge units. Disinfection would be provided by chlorination. Options that
involve nitrification and filtration include a side-line flow equalization
basin after preliminary treatment to reduce diurnal flow peaks and to
optimize the performance of the additional unit processes.
5-8
-------
Treatment options with stream discharge are not dependent on plant
capacity options, but are dependent on collection system options. Collec-
tion options will have different amounts of I/I entering the sewers and,
thus, will affect the concentrations of constituents in the treatment plant
influent. The level of treatment required to achieve effluent limitations
for stream discharge may depend on influent concentrations to some extent.
The use of a separate sewer system would require tertiary treatment to
meet the final NPDES permit requirements (Section 4.4.). If the less
stringent effluent limitations (10 mg/1 BOD5 and 12 mg/1 SS versus 4 mg/1
BOD,- and 5 mg/1 SS) were acceptable, chemical coagulation (tertiary treat-
ment) would not be necessary.
The influent should be analyzed after the combined sewer system is
rehabilitated to determine the required level of treatment. The influent
should be sampled during dry-weather and wet-weather periods. Treatment
must be sufficient to meet effluent limitations during worst conditions.
For this study, with a rehabilitated combined sewer system, it is assumed
that the final NPDES permit requirements could be met by tertiary treatment
without chemical coagulation and that the less stringent requirements could
be met by upgraded secondary treatment. The ability of the existing secon-
dary treatment to meet effluent requirements is unknown.
Existing secondary treatment with continuous effluent recharge to the
mines is an option that would not require upgraded treatment. The effluent
would be discharged to the mines and may not have to meet requirements for
stream discharge. This option also would use the mines for additional
treatment. Analyses of mine leachates indicate that the physical, chemical,
and biological processes occurring in the mines effectively remove BOD and
suspended solids (Appendix C). The leachates analyzed during wet-weather
conditions generally had 800, concentrations that were at levels required
by the final NPDES effluent limitations. The recharge of secondary efflu-
ent would have to be approved by the Illinois Pollution Control Board and
the Illinois Mining Board. In addition, the leachate quantity and quality
would have to be monitored during both dry-weather and wet-weather periods
to assess the impacts of leachates on the quality of surface waters,
5.2.3.3. Treatment of Excess Combined Sewer Flows
The use of the rehabilitated combined sewer system would require
treatment of excess wet-weather flows at the end of the collection system.
Some sewer flows during wet-weather periods would be discharged to the
mines, but there still would be flows conveyed to the treatment plant in
excess of plant capacity. These flows can not be discharged to surface
waters without appropriate treatment (Section 4.5.). Treatment options for
excess wet-weather flows include:
• Primary treatment (12.3 mgd), followed by chlorinatlon
• Storage (12.3 mgd), followed by primary treatment and
chlorination at a slower rate (4.8 mgd)
• Storage (12.3 mgd) and mine recharge (4.8 mgd) without
primary treatment or chlorination.
5-9
-------
Mine recharge of excess combined sewer flows would require permits from the
Illinois EPA and the Illinois Mining Board.
The ultimate storage volume and rate(s) of treatment are dependent on
the design storm and the associated amount of excess combined sewer flows
after rehabilitation of the combined sewer system. The amount of I/I that
would enter the rehabilitated collection system and the amount of combined
flows that would be discharged to the mines, however, are not known at this
time. Therefore, the amount of excess flow for a design storm can not be
determined. Once the sewer system is rehabilitated, the amount of excess
flow should be measured to determine the ultimate storage volume and
rate(s) of treatment. The excess flow would be larger if sewers were
extended to presently unsewered areas and/or if industrial process waters
were conveyed to the plant. The final design of facilities would depend on
the results of analyses required under PRM 75-34 (USEPA 1975b; also re-
ferred to a Program Guidance Memorandum 61).
To compare treatment options and their costs, the amount of excess com-
bined sewer flow that would require treatment was estimated using the Needs
Estimation Model for Urban Runoff (USEPA 1977c). A 10-year design storm
was assumed. It also was assumed that no combined sewer flows would be
discharged to the mines. The amount of excess flow was calculated to be
12.3 million gallons. A storage capacity of 12.3 mgd, therefore, would
have to be provided to accommodate this flow. The design discharge rate,
based on storm intervals averaged over a 10-year period, was calculated to
be 4.8 mgd. Rates of treatment, therefore, could range from 12.3 mgd to
4.8 mgd. Assuming a 10-year design storm, however, is very conservative; a
cost-effectiveness analysis will most likely indicate that a much smaller
design storm should be used to compute the storage volume and treatment
rate(s), which would result in smaller, less expensive facilities to treat
excess flows.
5.2.4. Mine Recharge
Mines beneath Streator would be recharged most cost-effectively by
discharges from both the collection system and an effluent recharge system.
Recharge would depend on collection and treatment options. If sanitary
sewers were constructed in the presently sewered area, stormwater collected
by the existing sewer system would be discharged to the mines through drop
shafts. If the existing system were rehabilitated, combined sewer over-
flows would be discharged to the mines during wet-weather periods.
Both of the collection options would eliminate flows discharged to the
mines during dry-weather periods (Section 5.2.2.). Sewer separation would
convey all domestic and industrial (dry-weather) flows to the treatment
plant. Rehabilitation of the existing system would eliminate the present
discharge of dry-weather flows to the mines. Drop shafts level with the
bottom of the collection system would be raised (where possible) to inter-
cept only wet-weather flows. A means to recharge the mines during dry-
A storm that generates an average rate of rainfall for a 30-minute dura-
tion that would be equaled or exceeded on the average of once in a 10-year
period.
5-10
-------
weather periods, therefore, would be necessary to maintain water levels in
the mines and to minimize the potential for subsidence. A system to pump
wastewater treatment plant effluent to the mines would provide the neces-
sary amount of recharge. Stream flow during periods of low-flow would not
be sufficient to provide the required amount of recharge and stream dilu-
tion (necessary for pollutant loads discharged from the treatment plant and
other sources of pollution in the Streator FPA). The impoundment upstream
from Streator does not have a supply large enough for both existing water
users and mine recharge during drought periods.
The recharge system would extend to both presently sewered and un-
sewered areas to ensure sufficient and even distribution of treated efflu-
ent in the mines (Warren & Van Praag, Inc. 1975). This would be necessary
because the mines are partially interconnected (Appendix B), and thus, mine
recharge can not be directed only to areas with a greater subsidence poten-
tial. Water recharged only to mines with unstable conditions may diffuse
to other mines and may not be sufficient to minimize the potential for
subsidence.
Depending on wastewater treatment options (Section 5.2.3.2.), the re-
charge system would be used on a continuous or intermittent basis. If
treatment options include upgraded treatment and stream discharge, treated
effluent would be recharged to the mines only during dry-weather periods
when stormwater would not be recharging the mines. If treatment only
involves existing secondary treatment, effluent would be recharged continu-
ously. The option to store but not treat excess combined sewer flows would
require use of the recharge system following wet-weather periods.
If treated effluent were recharged only during dry-weather periods,
storm sewers and additional drop shafts would be installed in the presently
sewered area to direct more stormwater to the mines (Warren & Van Praag,
Inc. 1975). If sewers were separated, storm sewers would be necessary,
because only stormwater would be discharged from the existing system to the
mines. The flows discharged to the mines would be less than the combined
sewer flows currently discharged during wet-weather periods. No dry-
weather flows would enter the existing system, and I/I would be reduced
significantly after rehabilitation. If the existing sewers were rehabili-
tated, storm sewers would be necessary, because less flow would be dis-
charged to the mines during wet-weather periods. The amounts of domestic
and industrial flows collected by the sewer system would be comparable to
present flows, but the amount of I/I that would enter the system and that
would be discharged to the mines would be reduced substantially. Storm
sewers and additional drop shafts would help minimize the required capacity
of new interceptors and facilities to treat excess combined sewer flows.
Larger interceptor capacities and treatment facilities would be more expen-
sive than the storm sewers and would result in higher operation and mainte-
nance costs.
Storm sewers would not be installed in the presently sewered area if
effluent were recharged continuously or if excess combined sewer flows were
recharged to the mines. This would ensure that there would be sufficient
capacity in the mines for the recharge of excess combined sewer flows and
effluent during wet-weather periods.
5-11
-------
If sewer service were extended (Section 5.2.2.3.), storm sewers would
not be installed in those presently unsewered areas. If sanitary sewers
were constructed, wasteflow (sanitary and industrial) presently discharged
to the mines would be conveyed to the treatment plant. During dry-weather
periods, this flow would be returned to the mines via the effluent recharge
system. During wet-weather periods, this flow would be returned to the
mines if treated effluent were recharged continuously, but it would not be
returned if effluent were recharged only during dry-weather periods. The
dry-weather flow, however, probably would not be significant enough to
minimize the potential for subsidence in unsewered areas. The flow was
estimated conservatively to be 0.53 rngd (Section 4.3.2.), assuming that all
per capita flows from residents presently not receiving sewer service or
living in Kangley are discharged to the mines. In addition, not all of
this flow is discharged to the mines, and not all of the flow discharged is
from those areas considered for sewer extension. The dry-weather flow
contributed to the mines from these areas could be considerably less than
0.53 mgd and probably does not need to be replaced by stormwater contribu-
tions. In addition, construction of storm sewers would be very expensive
and would not be cost-effective. The capital costs for storm sewers in
presently unsewered areas, as outlined in the draft Facilities Plan (Warren
& Van Praag, Inc. 1975) would be approximately $14.7 million, and operation
and maintenance costs would be about $532,500 per year (at January 1978
price levels).
Stations recording water levels in the mines would be installed
throughout the presently sewered and unsewered areas, as described in the
draft Facilities Plan (Warren & Van Praag, Inc. 1975), and would be moni-
tored continuously. The monitoring program should begin as soon as the
existing sewer system is rehabilitated, whether it is to be used as a
combined sewer or as a storm sewer. Monitoring would indicate if storm
sewers are necessary in presently sewered and unsewered areas to maintain
water levels. Monitoring also would show how water levels vary during
dry-weather and wet-weather periods, and vrtien and how much effluent should
be recharged. If excess combined sewer flows were recharged to the mines
(during wet-weather periods) monitoring would be necessary to prevent mine
overloading and potential above-ground flooding.
5.2.5. Leachate Control
The impact of mine leachates on water quality can be controlled either
by collection and treatment or by reducing pollutant loads discharged to
the mines. Collection and treatment does not appear to be cost-effective.
Field investigations indicated that leachates may not have a significant
adverse effect on water quality in the Vermilion River, at least during
high river flows (Appendix C). Construction of a collection system also
would be extremely difficult. Leachate discharges to the Vermilion River
occur along the stream banks and are under water during high river flows.
Leachate discharges to Prairie Creek emerge on steep slopes and are scat-
tered widely. Leachate channels at the base of the slopes are in the
floodplain that is inundated during high water conditions.
Component options previously mentioned would reduce pollutant loads
discharged to the mines and would improve the quality of leachates over
5-12
-------
time. Eliminating the discharge of dry-weather flows from the collection
system to the mines and reducing direct discharges from residences and
industries would reduce the concentrations of BOD , ammonia-nitrogen, and
fecal coliform in the leachates. Smaller pollutant loads from leachates to
the Vermilion River may be sufficient to eliminate any adverse impacts
leachates may have on water quality in the river.
5.2.6. Permanent Subsidence Control
The various wastewater and stormwater management options considered in
the development of system alternatives included maintenance of the water
level in the mines to minimize the potential for subsidence. Such a
management program, however, will not eliminate the potential for subsi-
dence. Options for permanent subsidence control are discussed below.
The most widely used method of alleviating subsidence in undermined
areas is backfilling the mine voids with mine refuse or other inexpensive
materials (US Bureau of Mines 1976). This provides lateral support to mine
pillars and vertical support to the mine roof and overburden. The US
Bureau of Mines has sponsored such backfilling work in Pennsylvania in
conjunction with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
From 1964 through 1975, they jointly completed thirteen projects totaling
860 acres of surface area. These efforts cost approximately $9 million to
protect property valued at over $121 million.
The Bureau of Mines conducted or participated in numerous demon-
stration projects during recent years to develop a pumped-slurry technique
to fill inaccessible mine voids (US Bureau of Mines 1976). Granular ma-
terial is injected hydraulically into the mine voids via drop shafts. This
eliminates the need for mine dewatering and the subsequent hazard of subsi-
dence during the interim. When resistance to slurry distribution is en-
countered, the slurry must be injected under pressure (60-80 psi). This
ensures adequate distribution of the solids within the mine. The estimated
cost per surface acre (assuming 50% extraction and 6-foot ceilings) for
filling by this method has ranged from $30,000 to $36,000 (By phone, Mr.
Tom Glover, US Bureau of Mines, Illinois State Office, to Mr. Dan Sweeney,
WAPORA, Inc., 2 March 1978). This cost, however, assumes that mine-waste
solids for fill are available on-site at no cost.
This technique could have some promise for application at Streator but
would be plagued by two significant problems. Because of the pressure that
must be utilized to inject the slurry, the mine system involved must be a
relatively closed one. It would be extremely difficult, however, if not
impossible, to cap drop shafts and discharge points from the mines at
Streator. Uncapped drop shafts would act as pressure release points,
emitting jets of mine water. Secondly, no on-site source of no- or low-
cost fill material is readily available in the Streator area. Therefore,
transportation and material costs could increase the total cost of the
technique considerably.
The US Bureau of Mines has utilized sand for backfill material in in-
stances where mine refuse materials were not available. Sand, when mined
commercially, can be purchased for $1 to $2 per ton. Fly ash also has been
5-13
-------
utilized in Pennsylvania as a backfill material and is usually available at
no cost as a waste product from coal burning power plants.
Law Engineering Testing Company (LETCo) estimated the total volume of
mine voids in the Streator area to be 148.5 million cubic yards. If the
hydraulic fill technique could be applied, the estimated cost would be from
$17 to $20.5 million, plus any cost for the solid material and crushing
that would be required for the slurry. If sand were available at an aver-
age cost of $1.50 per ton and if transportation costs averaged $2 per ton,
the cost would be increased by an additional $800 million (148.5 million
cubic yards, and 1.5 tons of sand per cubic yard). Although fly ash can be
obtained for free and some utilities might even pay to have large quanti-
ties hauled away, Streator is not in close proximity to any coal burning
power plant (approximately 25 miles distant). Transportation costs, es-
pecially with the need for pneumatically sealed bulk tank trucks, would
increase the cost of the technique substantially.
Permanent subsidence control in areas that are most susceptible to
subsidence would be technically and economically more feasible. A tech-
nique that could be used would be to form grout columns in critical mine
voids. Grout columns would provide supplemental mine roof support. The
procedure involves injecting a mixture of granular material and cement into
the mines through drop shafts to form pyramidal shaped columns. After
injection, the grout gains strength and becomes incompressible relative to
other types of backfill material. The amount of~material required per
column is roughly equivalent to the cube of the thickness of the void
(i.e., a 6-foot ceiling would require 216 cubic feet of material). The
presence of water in mine voids and past caving, however, could hinder the
use of this technique at Streator.
The costs of any permanent subsidence control measure would be consid-
erably larger than the costs of recharge options. In addition, permanent
subsidence control would not be eligible for Federal funding under the Con-
struction Grants Program, because it would be considered much more than a
mitigative measure. Recharge options would be grant eligible, because they
would minimize impacts of collection options by maintaining water levels in
the mines without affecting the current potential for subsidence.
5.3. System Alternatives
Based on the component options, thirty-six alternatives have been de-
veloped. The alternatives are combinations of various collection, treat-
ment, and mine recharge component options. Although many of the alterna-
tives contain several of the same options, each alternative contains a
unique set of options. The thirty-six alternatives were separated into
four general groups (Table 5-2). The nine alternatives in each group share
one or more common options.
Alternatives in the first group include a separate sanitary sewer
system. The treatment options consist of complete tertiary treatment,
tertiary treatment without chemical coagulation, and secondary treatment
with continuous effluent recharge to the mines. The last two options
assume that effluent limitations less stringent than those of the final
NPDES permit would be approved (10mg/l BOD,- and 12 mg/1 SS versus 4mg/l
c and 5 mg/1 SS. Mine recharge would be provided by stormwater dis-
5-14
-------
co
•H
O
cd
CU
1-1
4J
en
4-1
cd
M
CU
4-1
g
CU
4-1
CO
cd
(4-1
o
CJ
cu
e
4-1
cd
cu
)-i
4J
1-1
O
CO
g
•rl
C
3
o
&
o
u
a
cd
CO
cu
cd
g
cu
Recharge System
TJ
O
.fl
4-1
cu
a
4-1
C
g
4-1
cd
cu
1-1
H
with Mine discharge from old sewers
plant and storm sewers in presently
sewered area, and effluent re-
charge during dry^weather periods
cd
4-1
cJ
cu
e
4-1
cd
cu
M
4J
>>
1-1
cd
•rl
4-1
rl
cu
H
x-X
TJ
00
S
^o
.
CN
\~s
•
TJ >>
CU 4-1
TJ -rl
C O
cd cd
a ex
X cd
cu u
•
cd
rH
=tt=
8
§
cd
CO
4-1
J3 C
4-1 Cd
•g *
4J /-^
CJ TJ
cu oo
e 3
4-J
cd o
cu •
rl CN
4-1 ^
>, 00
rl C
Cd -rl
•H 4-1
4-1 CO
rl -rl
CU X
H CU
•
cd
rH
=fe
CO
cd
I
CO
.
,n
S
=Ste
£ ca
•H cd
CJ
cd cu
ex S
cd cd
CJ CO
•
cd
rH
=S=
CO
cd
cd
co
I C
.e o
4J -rl
•H 4J
;s cd
rH
4J 3
C 00
CU Cd
3 o
4-1 U
cd
CU rH
)-i cd
4-1 O
•H
>> 3
M CU
cd ,£
•H 0
4-1
rl 4-1
.
> 3
M CU
cd ,£
•rl 0
4J
M 4->
Q) 3
H 0
/-N
TJ
3°
o
CN
^~s
00
•rl .
4-1 >.
CO 4-1
•rl -H
X 0
cu cd
tx
J3 cd
4J O
•H
S 4->
c
TJ cd
s <-*
cd ex
cd
rH
=s=
ca
cd
CU
CO
•
0)
rH
-rfc
CO
cd
cu
3
cd
CO
treatment Continuous effluent recharge, and
mgd) plant mine discharge from old sewers.
onal treat-
•rl
f^vO 4J .
rl • -H M
Cd CM TJ CU
TJ ^ TJ (3
C cd >H
0 TJ 3
CJ Q) TJ
Q) TJ C CU
co c3 cd J3
Cd 4-1
00 CX >,
a >< w c
•H CU -H -rl
4-1 0
CO J3 Cd 4J
•H 4-1 CX C
X -H cd » 00
% .s
TJ 4J
(2 CO
O -H
0 X
cu cu
CO
J3
00 4J
G -H
•H IS
4J
CO 4-1
•H CJ
X cu
W 3
additional
nes.
•H
I6
cd cu
J2
>. 4J
4-1
•H CJ
O -H
cd
CX 4J
cd a
o cu
3
4J 4J
CJ Cd
cd cu
rH >-l
CX 4J
•S
CO
t.
M
cu
e
cu
4-1
CO
S*i
CO
a
o
•H
4-1
o
CU
rH
rH
o
CJ
S
cu
CO
>.
i-i
cd
4-J
•rl
CJ
cd
CO
cu
4-1
cd
h
cd
CX
cu
CO
I
TJ
C
cd
TJ
cu
rl
CU
CU
CO
>•.
rH
4-1
CJ
cd co
cx cu
CU H
to ex
ca
cd
cd
co
co
cd
co
cd
I
ca
co
cd
!
CO
co
cd
1
ca
co
cd
cd
ca
•H
4-1
cd
rl
4J
a
O
•H
4-J
cd
rH
00
cd
o
a
cd
a
•H
g
cu
U-l
o
CO
4-1
CO
•rl
S
o
o
4-1
C
CU
4J
CU
00
cd
•rl
4-1
M
&
5-15
-------
T3
01
3
•H
4-1
O
o
60
CO
efl
efl
CO
O
01
4-1
CO
CU
rl
H
CO
cd
tfl
CO
13
prj cu
C! r-i
cfl Ol
13
13 oi
0) CO
C
•rl >,
Xj -H
O G
O Ol
CO
B 01
O rl
rl Cu
0) -H
60
M CO
cfl H
XI Ol
a 5
CO 0)
•H CO
13
B
CU rl
C O
60
•S
M
13
cu
60
rl
cfl
X!
a
CO
4-1 T3
C O
CU -rl
3 rl
rH 0)
01 rl
0>
T3 XI
C J-1
Cfl Cfl
CJJ
ed"?
CO efl
CO
CO
4J CJ
C X
cfl W
rH
Cu
O T3
4-1
13
cu
Ol
G cO
o
O 13
0)
CO 4J
|S cfl
O 0)
i co
CU
/~N -H
CO 13 -W
S 60 -H
5 6 rH
rH -H
<4-l CO CJ
• efl
)-l CM >4-4
CU
3
cu
CO
M 4-1
13 cfl CO
co B C
C -rl -H
•H )-i 5-i
(O f^, o
B rH
O >-, XI
a xi o
G
O
•H
cfl
CM
CO
cfl
a
cfl
CO
CO
CO
01
4-1 O
C X
cfl W
rH Cfl
a • g •
O 01 rH Cfl
4-1 rH 14-1 CM
13 H
01 C 01 C
o) a)
> CO CO CO
C cd to
O 13
O 13 CU T)
0) C
CO 4-1 -rl
S to xi
o cu S
rH rl O
t&4 4-J CJ
CU
cd
0)
CO
CM
CO
efl
1
CO
XI
CM
CO
cfl
8
cfl
CO
efl
CM
CO
efl
CU
S
cfl
CO
c
cd
C
CO -H
CO
CU CO
a cfl
X
W T)
CU
• cd
cu >, cu
cfl G T3 4-1 }-i
Ol O G -H 4J
Jj -H Cfl O
4-1 4-1 Cu Cfl CO
W X Cu IS
>, O o) efl O
(J -H CJ rH
nj i4-( -a 14-1
•O -H CJ 4J
C ^ cfl C M
O 4-J efl CU
CJ -H C rH >
cu - -
CO
O Cu CU
CO
13
cu
cfl
G
efl M
t-i 4J o
60 C
a I
60 0)
B G
• B CD
G CM O CN
O ^ O =S=
cfl
CM
CO
cd
I
co
4J
I
cd
01
4->
^t
M
cd
^
rj
O
o
CU
CO
Tj
Ol
cd
VJ
60
ft
£)
chlori-
*O
c
cd
C
o
•H
4J
efl
O
•H
14-4
•H
l-l
4-1
•H
G
4-1
•H
IS
•a
60
O
CM
60
C
•H
4-1
CO
•H
X
0>
13
C
cd
G
O
•H
4-J
cfl
G
combined
CO
CO
0>
o
X
W
•
£*•*
4-1
•H
O
cfl
CU
cfl
0
4-1
G
cfl
rH
Cu
ed
CM
=«=
•S
CO
cfl
13
CU
4-1
cfl
CU
4-1
CO
Is
0
rH
M-4
J_l
01
Ol
CO
efl
CM
CO
efl
CO
.
01
CSl
CO
efl
§
efl
CO
treated Continuous effluent recharge,
4-1
C
efl
rH
ft
O
4-1
T3
Ol
^
Ol
C
0
o
CO
is
o
rH
fe
ined sewer and mine discharge from combined
x>
B
0
U
CO
CO
cu
o
X
M
•
60
rH,
=fe
c
•rl
CO
cfl
sewers .
ed
CM
:$£:
G
•3
CO
ed
13
CU
4-J
ed
0)
M
4-1
CO
§
rH
CO
o
Cu
O
CJ
01
o
o
o
T3
C
CO
CO
0>
•H
4-J
cfl
C
rl
CU
4-1
CU
4-1
CO
C
O
•H
4-J
O
CU
rH
rH
O
CJ
er system in
wered area,
itation and
•
cd
rH
=«=
CO
cfl
CU
efl
CO
Jj
, cfl
rH XI
4J CU
0 W
0)
co xi
CU U
IJ -H
ft Is
of interceptors
ers in present-
is
4-1 01
C co
CU
B >.
cu n
CJ Cfl
efl 4-1
rH -H
ft G
CU CO
M CO
areas.
Tj
CU
cu
[J
01
CO
^
rH
er system
itation and
Jj
cu
CO
HTJ
01
G
•H
o
£3
O
U
rH
•H
n
cfl
XI
cu
M
d
4-}
•H
|S
of intercep-
4J
d
0)
B
01
u
cd
rH
Cu
cu
rl
•
CO
(-1
o
4-1
•
efl
CM
=>fc
CO
CO
CU
co
CO
•
tfl
CM
s^fc
CO
CO
Ol
B
cd
CO
3
01
cfl
CM
CO
cfl
I
CO
cfl
CM
=«=
CO
cfl
CM
I
IT)
XI
CO
H
0)
•H
4-1
efl
efl
CM
Xl
CM
O
CM
13
CM
0)
CM
60
CM
5-15
-------
.
X""\
TJ
0)
3
C
•H
4-1
C
O
O
CO
C
O
4-1
(±
0
4-1
C
0)
C
0
(X
B
o
0
-o
pi
co
CO
01
^
•H
4J
CO
P!
M
CU
treated
4-J
"O
0
42
4-1
OJ
g
4-1
C
0)
B
4J
CO
CU
}-J
H
C
cd
rH
CX
O
4-J
TJ
CU
>>
CU
>
Pi
0
o
CO
^
o
rH
pL|
S
cu
4J
CO
^>
C/)
C
O
•H
4J
O
CU
i-H
rH
o
U
*
J3
CM
=*!=
CO
Cfl
a
s
CO
M
S
t
CO
13
(U
•H •
f> CO
B CN
0 =*=
G
C
CO -H
CO
cu co
G CO
X
W TJ
01
4-J
• cfl
.C CU
rH H
=*fe 4-1
C CO
•H ^
0
CO rH
cfl MH
.
c^
CM
-fe
co
cfl
CU
B
co
.
cfl
CM
=«=
CO
CO
CU
g
cO
CO
treated
ed sewer
e facili-
c &o
4J -H cfl
C £> >-i
co B o
rH O 4-1
CX G CO
o co o
4J CO 4-1
01
TJ G TJ
cu X cu
t^ W >>
0) 0>
> • >
c -o c
O rH O
G =fe G
co C co
> -H S
o 5
rH CO rH
(±4 (0 IH
Cd 4J TJ
CM 3 01
=S= O C
^i *H
co co ^a
CO rH B
Q
01 01 G
B ex
S -H CO
CO Q, CO
OI
Q) 4-1 G
A C X
4J 0) 01
}•!
CO 01 >-,
•H M-l 0»
4H ^
B -H C
cu -d o
4J G
CO 4-1
>> 3 0
CO 42 4-1
ted by
lorination
cfl &
0) G
M
4-1 TJ
C
TJ Cfl
PI
cO ^^
T3
^-N 00
-o B
00
B oo
• •
ro 4-J
"-^ W -H
Cfl rH
CO B -H
CU iH G
•H M CO
4-) O,UH
.
CU
00
CO
o
4J
CO
o
CO
5
o
rH
MH
H
0)
[5
(U
CO
treated
ned sewer
•H
4-J £>
G B
cfl O
rH G
a
ca
o ca
4-1 CU
G
T3 X
CU W
>>
cu
> •
C 01
O rH
G =8=
CO C
^ *H
Q
i-H CO
pti CO
43 4-J
Cvl 3
=fe O
>>
co cd
Cfl rH
CU CU
B cx
cd -iH
CO CX
0) 4-J
J3 PI
4-1 01
V4
CO CU
•H 4-1
MH
B iH
0) T3
4J
CO 4-1
>, 3
W 42
•
cd
CO
=s=
C
•H
CO
cd
T3
01
4-1 -Q
cd CO
CU =Ste
H
4-1 CO
cd
CO
£ CU
o B
rH Cd
MH CO
TJ
01
•H CU
& 00
B cd
O H
O O
4J
CO CO
CO
O) O
a 4-1
X •
o) co cd
% CO
>> O =fe
0) rH
> MH CO
C cd
O M
u at a)
£ S
o cu cd
4-1 CO CO
treated
ned sewer
•H •
4-1 43 CO
r- B co
CO O =«=
rH 0
CX C
CO -H
o co
4-1 Q) CO
G V
TJ X
O) W T3
^ 0)
0) 4J
> • CO
C 13 0>
O CM H
G =»= 4-1
CO C CO
15 -H S
O O
rH CO rH
PL, CO IH
.
CO
CO
CO
cO
cu
B
CO
CO
treated
ned sewer
•H •
4J 43 CO
c e c-o
cfl O =»=
rH G
CX C
cn T-I
O cn
4-1 O) CO
G cd
TJ X
0) W T3
>> CU
0) 4-1
> • CO
Pi 0) 01
O CM H
G =S= 4->
CO Pi CO
o o
rH CO i-H
fn CO , cu
CU 4J
> • cO
C oo cu
O i-H (-1
G =S= 4-1
co p: co
O O
rH CO rH
P^ co m
.
cd
CO
=*=
CO
cd
cu
B
5
CO
treated
ned sewer
•H •
4-1 ,0 Cd
C B ro
cd o =s=
rH G
P< C
CO -H
O CO
4J 0) CO
G cd
T3 X
CU W TJ
>, 01
0) 4J
> • cd
a ft oi
O rH H
G =S= 4J
co C co
!S -H S
0 0
rH CO rH
pt| Cd 4H
.
^£J
CO
CO
cd
01
B
CCJ
CO
CM
•s
H
0)
•H
4J
CO
CU
4J
rH
-------
0)
T)
rH
O
O
o
13
0)
B
•H
43
§
e
01
4-J
CO
^.
CO
01
W
M
CO
O
01
p4
o
CO
CO
01
CJ
X
0)
.
60 4H
CM O
=**=
01
B
o
M
4-1
01
60
r4
Cfl
43
O
CO
•H
13
01
B
•H
£5
»
CO
[3
Q
rH
CO 60MH
cfl M
CO
01 43
B 0
CO 01
CO P4
01
4-1
cfl
01
r4
4J
4J
B
13
0
n
4J
01
S
4-1
PJ
0)
B
4-1
Cfl
a)
M
H
cfl
rH
&
o
4-1
-a
01
. ^
43 01
m >
^ B
o
co a
cfl
CO
OJ ^
S o
Cfl rH
CO PM
r4
0)
Jj
0)
CO
i-l
Q)
0)
ca
13
01
(3
•H
^Q
£•
0
o
CO
ca
OJ
o
^
[V)
.
13
rH
=S=
B
•rl
CO
cfl
4-1
B
01
3
rH
MH
14H
0)
•a
B
cfl
•t
co
r4
0)
0)
ca
-a
01
B
•H
43
o
O
1
•H
, 1
r^
•H
O
CO
01
60
CO
M
O
4-1
CO
O
13
OJ
^>
0)
^
B
O
a
CO
jj
o
rH
4-1
M
01
43
4-1
Cfl
01
r
>,
r4
13
60
B
•H
r4
•a
13
01
60
•n
CO
43
O
01
1
01
*""
o
4-1
'O
01
p.
3
a.
•a
B
cfl
/— \
13
60
B
fO
.
CN
rH
<^s
CO
01
•H
4-J
•
CO
*o
o
•H
r4
0)
O.
60
B
oo
•
01
> •
B 13
O CN
0 =S=
co B
|3 T)
O
rH CO
[J-I Cfl
cfl
V4
4J
CO
&
0
rH
m
cfl
, 01
01 4-J
> • Cfl
B 60 01
O rH r4
O ^ 4-1
CO B CO
& -H S
O O
rH CO rH
fH CO <4H
ed to plant treated same as //4g.
Excess combined sewer
^
0)
B 43
O rH
CJ =Sfc
co B
o
rH W
P-l Cfl
cfl
•H
CO
cfl
13
0)
4-1
cfl
0)
}-i
4J
CO
S
S
rH
<4H
60
CO
cfl
0)
cfl
CO
•
<••;
»i
CO
Cfl
0)
B
cfl
CO
CO
c
o
a
o
01
c
o
o
y
a
CO
ca
01
CO
C
M
01
!
CO
o
•H
4-1
CJ
Q)
rH
rH
O
O
.
cfl
CO
~fe
CO
cfl
CJ
rt
cfl
co
B
•H
CO
H
0)
^
01
CO
13
01
B
•H
43
B
o
o
wered area,
01
CO
^
rH
4-1
B
0)
co
01
l-i
P.
it at ion and
rH
•rl
ri
cfl
43
01
r4
43
4-1
•P^
£
of intercep-
4-1
B
01
B
01
o
cfl
rH
O.
0)
r4
ary sewers
4-1
•H
B
cO
*
co
^
o
4-1
unsewered
r*t
rH
4J
B
Ol
CO
0)
^
a
B
•H
.
CO
cfl
01
cfl
•
^Q
CO
=»fe
CO
cd
d)
S
cfl
CO
ca
co
0)
e
cfl
CO
CO
cfl
cfl
CO
CO
CO
01
6
cfl
ca
ca
cfl
0)
B
cfl
CO
co
cfl
0)
S
CO
CO
cfl
01
B
cO
ca
ca
cfl
0)
B
cfl
ca
CXI
0)
rH
43
01
>
cfl
C
r4
0)
•a
•sl-
60
si-
5-18
-------
charges from the existing collection system, an effluent recharge system,
and storm sewers and additional drop shafts in presently sewered areas if
effluent were recharged only during dry-weather periods.
Alternative la is identical to the alternative proposed in the draft
Facilities Plan, except that storm sewers in presently unsewered areas are
not inlcuded (Warren & Van Praag, Inc. 1975). These storm sewers would
discharge an amount of stormwater to the mines (during wet-weather periods)
larger than the amount currently discharged. These sewers, therefore,
would not be necessary to maintain existing water levels in the mines.
Alternatives that do not include storm sewers in presently unsewered areas
would not increase the potential for subsidence. In addition, these sewers
proposed in the draft Facilities Plan would increase the total capital cost
of an alternative by $18,608,500 (Section 1.2. and Table 5-3).
Alternatives in the second group include rehabilitation of the exist-
ing combined sewer system. The three main interceptors would be replaced
with interceptors sized to eliminate all overflows to surface waters. The
alternatives assume that the discharge of combined flows to the river would
be permitted. The mines also would be recharged by an effluent recharge
system and storm sewers and additional drop shafts in presently sewered
areas if effluent were recharged only during dry-weather periods. Excess
combined sewer flows would be treated by a primary treatment (12.3 mgd)
system followed by chlorination. The options to treat dry-weather flows
include tertiary treatment without chemical coagulation, upgraded secondary
treatment, and existing secondary treatment with continuous effluent re-
charge to the mines. All of the treatment options assume that effluent
limitations of 10mg/l BOD,- and 12 mg/1 SS would be approved.
Alternatives in the third group include the same collection system as
in the second group. Options to treat dry-weather flows and to recharge
the mines also are similar. Excess combined sewer flows would be stored
and treated at a rate of 4.8 mgd by a primary system followed by chlori-
nation.
Alternatives in the fourth group include the same collection system
and options to treat dry-weather flows as in the second and third groups.
Excess combined sewer flows would be stored and conveyed to the mine re-
charge system at a rate of 4.8 mgd. Storm sewers would not be installed in
the presently sewered area to ensure that there would be sufficient capac-
ity in the mines for discharges from the sewer system and the recharge of
excess flows and effluent during wet-weather periods.
5.4. Alternative Costs
Alternatives that include sewer separation, extension of sewers, an
expanded plant capacity, and/or upgraded treatment are more expensive than
those alternatives that do not include these options (Table 5-3). Total
capital costs for the alternatives range from $16.1 million (Alternative
4h) to $38.0 million (Alternative la). Total operation and maintenance
costs range from $140.5 thousand per year (Alternative 2h) to $454.J3 thou-
sand per year (Alternative 3a). Average annual equivalent costs range
from $1.5 million (Alternative 4h) to $3.5 million (Alternative la).
5-19
-------
Table 5-3. Preliminary costs of system alternatives for the treatment of waste-
water at Streator, Illinois (cost in $ X 1,000). Descriptions and
cost estimates are presented in Appendix D,
Alternative
Number
la
Ib
Ic
Id
le
If
lg
Ih
li
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
2g
2h
21
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
3h
31
4a
4b
4c
4d
4e
4f
4g
4h
41
Total
Capital
Cost
38,030.1
36,759.6
37,151.3
37,998.4
26,730.4
37,122.1
31,653.7
20,389.0
30,780.0
34,321.7
23,262.9
33,654.6
33,486.5
22,515.9
32,907.6
28,097.5
17,035.3
27,426.9
33,972.8
22,913.1
33,305.7
33,137.6
22,166.1
32,558.7
27,748.6
16,685.4
27,078.1
29,317.3
18,048.4
28,441.0
28,482.0
17,301.3
27,694.0
27,337.9
16,071.5
26,464.1
Present
Worth of
Salvage
Value
4,032.8
2,818.8
3,952.8
4,032.9
2,818.8
3,952.8
3,383.5
2,506.2
3,327.9
3,356.2
2,165.3
3,299.3
3,273.9
2,092.6
3,226.6
2,716.6
1,550.0
2,683.2
3,280.9
2,089.9
3,224.1
3,198.6
2,017.1
3,151.4
2,641.4
1,474.7
2,608.0
2,774.7
1,560.6
2,694.7
2,692.4
1,487.9
2,622.0
2,602.3
1,413.4
2,546.7
Net
Capital
Cost
33,997.3
23,940.8
33,198.5
33,965.5
23,884.6
33,169.3
28,270.2
17,882.8
27,452.1
30,965.5
21,097.6
30,355.3
30,212.6
20,423.3
29,681.0
25,380.9
15,485.3
24,743.7
30,691.9
20,823.2
30,081.6
29,939.0
20,149.0
29,407.3
25,107.2
15,210.7
24,470.1
26,542.6
16,487.8
25,746.3
25,789.6
15,813.4
25,072.0
24,735.6
14,658.1
23,917.4
Annual
Operation
& Maintenance
Cost
438.7
403.0
412.6
390.3
364.3
373.9
176.5
151.1
160.7
391.4
365.4
375.0
337.5
316.3
325.9
177.6
140.5
150.1
454.8
437.5
447.0
391.7
388.4
397.9
252.4
228.4
237.9
327.0
301.1
310.6
273.1
252.0
261.5
207.1
199.6
209.1
Total
Present
Worth
38,783.5
28,337.5
37,699.9
38,223.7
27,859.1
37,248.5
30,195.8
19,531.3
29,205.3
35,235.7
25,084.1
34,446.5
33,894.7
23,874.1
33,236.6
27,318.5
17,018.2
26,381.3
35,675.6
25,596.3
34,958.4
34,212.4
24,386.4
33,748.4
27,860.9
17,702.5
27,065.6
30,110.2
19,772.8
29,134.9
28,769.1
18,562.7
27,924.9
26,995.1
16,835.7
26,198.7
Average
Annual
Equivalent
Cost
3,556.4
2,598.5
3,457.1
3,505.1
2,554.6
3,415.7
2,769.0
1,791.0
2,678.1
3,231.1
2,300.2
3,158.7
3,108.1
2,189.3
3,047.8
2,505.1
1,560.6
2,419.2
3,271.4
2,347.2
3,205.7
3,137.3
2,236.2
3,094.7
2,554.8
1,623.3
2,481.9
2,761.1
1,813.2
2,671.7
2,638.1
1,702.2
2,560.7
2,475.4
1,543.8
2,402.4
5-20
-------
Seventy-five percent of the total capital cost eligible for funding
under the Construction Grants Program will be paid for by Federal and/or
State governments. The capital costs eligible for fundings will include
the cost for mine recharge. Twenty-five percent of the capital cost and
100% of the operation and maintenance costs will be funded locally by an
undetermined combination of municipal bonds, new sewer connection fees, and
user charges.
The costs of alternatives, which are summarized below and are pre-
sented in detail in Appendix D, have not been updated to 1980 price levels.
The cost for materials, construction, and O&M are based on indexes for
January 1978. Recently published indexes would increase the alternative
costs. However, any index values may or may not correspond with actual
project bids because of local economic conditions. What is important is
that the costs provide a means to rank alternatives and to determine which
is most cost-effective. Updated costs for the selection alternative will
be developed during the facilities planning process. These costs will be
based on the detailed designs for the facilities.
Equivalent annual cost is the expression of a non-uniform series of expen-
ditures as a uniform annual amount to simplify calculation of present
worth. Present worth may be thought of as the sum that, if invested now at
a given rate, would provide exactly the funds required to make all neces-
sary expenditures during the life of the project.
5-21
-------
6.0. IMPACTS OF COMPONENT OPTIONS AND SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Atmosphere
6.1.1. Air Quality
The potential atmospheric emissions that could result from the con-
struction and operation of wastewater management alternatives include
fugitive dust and other particulates, aerosols, hazardous gases, and odors.
Implementation of control measures during the construction and operation of
the facilities would reduce the impacts of these atmospheric emissions to
negligible levels.
6.1.1.1. Construction Impacts
Fugitive dust emissions may occur in connection with the stockpiling
and handling of dry, finely divided materials (such as chemicals for waste-
water treatment), but are of concern primarily with respect to project
construction. The types of construction activities ordinarily associated
with the creation of dusty conditions include land clearing, blasting,
demolition, excavation, loading, transporting, unloading, leveling, and
grading. In addition, the increased vehicular highway and access road
traffic associated with the transportation of the construction crew mem-
bers, their equipment, and the required materials to and around the project
area would be expected to increase the local levels of dust, especially in
the case of unpaved access roads. There also would be exhaust emissions of
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and parti-
culate matter associated with the increased vehicular traffic, as well as
with any stationary internal combustion engine that may be utilized at the
construction site. Alternatives that include sewer separation, extension
of sanitary sewers, construction of storm sewers, and/or plant expansion
would be responsible for more construction-related atmospheric emissions
than alternatives that do not include these component options.
6.1.1.2. Operation Impacts — Aerosols
Aerosols are defined as solid or liquid particles, ranging in size
from 0.01 to 50 micrometers (um) that are suspended in the air. These
particles are produced at wastewater treatment facilities during the vari-
ous treatment processes, especially those involving aeration. Some of
these aerosols could be pathogenic and could cause respiratory and gastro-
intestinal infections. Bacteria are between 0.3 and 15 um, and viruses are
between 0.015 and 0.45 um (Jacobson and Morris 1976). Both can be found in
fine liquid droplets, attached to solid particles, or individually airborne.
Concentrations of bacteria and/or viruses in aerosols that could be
generated during various stages of wastewater treatment, however, have been
found to be insignificant (Hickey and Reist 1975). The vast majority of
aerosolized microorganisms are destroyed by solar radiation, dessication,
and other environmental phenomena. There are no records of disease out-
breaks resulting from pathogens present in aerosols. No adverse impacts,
therefore, are expected from aerosol emissions for any of the alternatives.
6-1
-------
6.1.1.3. Operation Impacts — Gases
Gaseous emissions could be associated with the operation of the waste-
water treatment plant. Explosive, toxic, noxious, lachrymose (causing
tears), and asphyxiating gases found at treatment plants include chlorine,
methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitr-
ogen, sulfur, and phosphorus. Discharges of these gases could be hazardous
to public health and/or could affect adversely the environment. The know-
ledge that such gases could escape from a plant in dangerous or nuisance
concentrations might affect adjacent land uses. Gaseous emissions, how-
ever, can be controlled by proper design, operation, and maintenance.
6.1.1.4. Operation Impacts — Odor
Incomplete oxidation of organic material containing sulfur or nitrogen
can result in the emission of byproducts that may be malodorous. The most
frequently emitted odors found in a study of 300 wastewater treatment
plants were methylmercaptans, methylsulfides, and amines. These odors were
followed by indole, skatole, and hydrogen sulfide and to a lesser extent by
sulfur dioxide, phenolics, and chlorine compounds (USEPA 1976a). Some
organic acids, aldehydes, and ketones also may be odorous either indivi-
dually or in combination with other compounds. Sources of wastewater
treatment related odors include:
• Fresh, septic, or incompletely treated wastewater
• Screenings, grit, and skimmings containing septic or putres-
cible matter
• Oil, grease, fats, and soaps from industry, homes, and
surface runoff
• Gaseous emissions from treatment processes, manholes, wells,
pumping stations, leaking containers, turbulent flow areas,
and outfall areas
• Chlorinated water containing phenols
• Raw or incompletely stabilized sludge.
No odor problems associated with any of the alternatives are expected
to occur if the wastewater treatment facilities are designed, operated, and
maintained properly. Upgraded treatment with nitrification and chlorina-
tion would result in fewer odors than the existing secondary treatment.
The option to treat the excess combined sewer flows would result in fewer
odors than the option to store the excess flows before treatment.
6.1.2. Sound
Noise would be associated with each of the alternatives. Possible im-
pacts on local sound levels would be related primarily to construction
activities and, thus, would be of relatively short duration. The extent of
the impacts would vary depending on the amount of construction required for
each alternative. Illinois noise regulations do not apply to noise caused
by construction (IPCB 1973).
6-2
-------
Noise generated at the treatment plant site would be related to up-
grading and/or expansion of treatment facilities and to construction of
storage and/or treatment basins for excess combined sewer flows. The
highest sound levels would occur during excavation, which would produce
approximately 55 dBA 1,000 feet from the center of activity. This level
would be in accordance with USEPA guidelines to protect public health and
welfare (USEPA 1974).
Noise created by the construction of sanitary and storm sewers and the
mine recharge system would have more widespread impacts, as construction
would extend into residential and other noise-sensitive land use areas.
Alternatives that include sewer separation would have the most severe
impacts, because a new sanitary sewer system would be installed throughout
the entire presently sewered area.
It was estimated that sewer line construction (8-hour construction
day) would produce the equivalent daytime sound level of 57 dBA at 500
feet. This estimate was made based on equipment generally used during
sewer line construction and sound levels that result from the use of the
equipment (Table 6-1). The day/night sound level during sewer line con-
struction would be approximately 65 dBA. Such levels would exceed USEPA
guidelines by 10 decibels (USEPA 1974). Streator, however, is an urban
area, and the existing day/night sound level at locations surveyed (Section
3.1.3.) was 62 dBA, which exceeds the USEPA guidelines by 7 decibels.
Table 6-1. Equipment used and resultant sound levels during construction
of sewer lines (USEPA 1975a).
Equipment
Backhoe
Truck
Air Compressor
Paving Breaker
Crane, Mobile
Welding Machine
No. of
Units
1
1
1
1
1
1
A-weigh ted
sound level
(dBA) at 50 feet
85
88
81
88
83
83a
Usage ,
Factor
0.4
0.16
0.5a
0.253
0.16
0.25a
Estimated.
Fraction of time equipment is operating at its loudest mode.
6-3
-------
Noise during the operation of the wastewater treatment facilities
would be generated predominantly by pumps and aeration equipment. Some
alternatives would generate more noise than others, depending on the treat-
ment processes. Upgraded treatment with nitrification would require an
additional blower. The recharge system would require pumps, and the extent
of sound level impacts would depend on whether recharge was on a continuous
or an intermittent basis. Pumps also would be required for storage of
excess combined sewer flows, but not for their treatment.
No adverse impacts due to operation are anticipated. A typical pump
(above ground and not enclosed) generates a sound level of 70 dBA at 50
feet. The noise contribution of such a pump at the nearest residential
property line would be approximately 44 dBA. If such a pump were to oper-
ate continuously, it would increase daytime sound levels from 46 decibels
to 48 decibels and nighttime sound levels from 43 decibels to 47 decibels
at the property line. Both of these levels are in accordance with Illinois
noise regulations (IPCB 1973). The day/night equivalent sound level, Ldn,
is estimated to increase from 50 dBA to 54 dBA. This level is less than
the level recommended by EPA to protect public health and welfare with an
adequate margin of safety (USEPA 1974). Nevertheless, above-ground pumps
would be enclosed and installed to minimize sound impacts.
6.2. Land
6.2.1. Subsidence Potential
The alternatives being considered would have no adverse effect on
geologic conditions in the study area. Each alternative has been designed
to maintain the present hydrostatic head in the mines (Section 5.2.4.), and
therefore, none of the alternatives would increase the potential for subsi-
dence. The alternatives would have the same potential for subsidence as
the "no action" alternative, because the amount of mine recharge would be
approximately equivalent to the current amount.
6.2.2. Terrestrial Vegetation
Alternatives would have adverse impacts on vegetation, including
direct vegetation losses from clearing and indirect losses caused by soil
compaction and by soil erosion. The extent of disruption would depend on
the amount of construction required for the different alternatives. Im-
pacts would be associated with the following component options:
• Construction of a new sanitary sewer system (sewer separation)
• Rehabilitation of the combined sewer system, including replace-
ment of the major interceptors
• Extension of sanitary sewers
• Construction of a recharge system.
Component options would involve construction activities in residential
areas, along streets and city rights-of-way, and adjacent to streams.
Agricultural lands would not be affected by any of the component options.
6-4
-------
Similarly, park vegetation would not be disturbed by construction activi-
ties. No endangered or threatened plant species are known to occur in the
Streator FPA (Section 3.2.2.).
6.2.2.1. Sewer Separation
Sewer separation would result in the greatest amount of disruption to
terrestrial vegetation. It would involve installation of sanitary sewers
throughout the presently sewered area. In addition, because the new sani-
tary sewer system would parallel and/or transect the Vermilion River,
Prairie Creek, and Coal Run, construction would result in more floodplain
habitat disruption than the other collection system options. Approximately
4.5 miles of floodplain would be disturbed if sanitary sewers were in-
stalled. Assuming a 60-foot construction right-of-way, about 33 acres
would be affected. Impacts on vegetation could be more extensive if con-
struction accelerates erosion in adjacent areas.
The floodplain forests in the study area are dominated by bur, black,
and white oaks, with scattered cottonwoods and weeping willows (Draft EIS,
Section 2.2.4.2.). The subcanopy and understory, however, are dominated by
river, silver and sugar maples, and black cherry. This indicates that the
original oak-hickory forests of this region are being replaced by more
mesic forest associations. Large openings in the forest canopy would be
created by construction clearing. These openings would tend to favor the
reproduction and growth of oaks over maples, because oaks are shade into-
lerant and sprout quickly.
6.2.2.2. Replacement of Interceptors
The effects of construction activities for this collection option
would be similar but less extensive than those from the construction of a
new sanitary sewer system. The major interceptors intermittently follow
the Vermilion River, Prairie Creek, and Coal Run. Approximately 3.2 miles
of floodplain would be disturbed if the major interceptors were replaced.
Assuming a 60-foot construction right-of-way, about 23 acres would be
affected.
6.2.2.3. Sewer Extensions and Recharge System Construction
Activities related to the extension of sanitary sewers and construc-
tion of a recharge system would occur primarily along streets and city-
owned rights-of-way. Impacts on vegetation should be minimal.
6.2.3. Wildlife
Wildlife would be affected by construction activities. Impacts would
depend on the amount of construction. Most birds and mobile mammals, rep-
tiles, and amphibians that reside on or near proposed construction sites
would migrate from disturbed areas. In residential areas, birds, squir-
rels, raccoons, rodents, and other animals that are acclimated to human
activities would reoccupy the disturbed areas shortly after construction
activities cease.
6-5
-------
Construction along segments of interceptor routes would affect animals
that reside in or partially depend on habitats bordering streams. White-
tailed deer, beavers, squirrels, rabbits, and several migratory and non-
migratory bird species utilize these habitats. The smaller mammals and
reptiles would incur the highest mortality rates under stressed conditions.
Displacement of most animals, however, would be temporary, coinciding with
the duration of construction. Currently, there are no animal species inha-
biting the Streator study area that are listed as endangered or threatened
at either the State or the Federal levels (Section 3.2.2.).
6.3. Water
6.3.1. Surface Water
Wastewater management alternatives developed for the Streator FPA
would reduce pollutant loads discharged to surface waters and would result
in improved in-stream water quality, especially during periods of low
flow. All of the alternatives provide a level of wastewater treatment in
excess of the current level of treatment. The alternatives also reduce
significantly discharges of untreated sewage to surface waters from deteri-
orated sewer lines and combined sewer overflows. In addition, mine leach-
ate quality could be improved by eliminating direct wastewater discharges
from residences in the present sewer service area to the mines and by
miaimizing discharges of dry-weather wastewater flows from the combined
interceptor sewers to the mines.
Specific water quality improvements from alternative wastewater
management programs can not be predicted and compared. The data on in-
stream water quality, flow and physical characteristics of the Vermilion
River and its tributaries, and pollutant loadings from the various sources
in the Streator FPA are insufficient or are not available (Section
3.3.1.3.). Wasteloads generated by the different alternatives and/or
component options, however, are estimated and compared in the following
sections.
6.3.1.1. Effluent Quality and Pollutant Loads of Alternatives
The quality of the wastewater treatment plant effluent and the quan-
tity of pollutants that would be discharged to surface waters and under-
ground mines in the Streator FPA would vary according to the component
options selected for wastewater collection, treatment, and recharge to the
mines. Wastewater pollutants of primary concern include oxygen consuming
materials (measured as BODr), suspended solids (SS), ammonia-nitrogen, and
fecal coliform bacteria. Concentrations of these pollutants in the efflu-
ent would be regulated by effluent limitations imposed by the conditions of
the final NPDES permit or by less stringent limitations acceptable to IEPA
(Section 5.3.).
Discharges to Surface Waters
Treated Effluent
Wasteloads from the treatment plant would depend on the effluent
requirements and the treatment plant capacity. The existing 2.0 mgd plant,
6-6
-------
upgraded to meet requirements of the final NPDES permit (4 mg/1 BOD^ and 5
mg/1 SS), would discharge 66.7 pounds of BOD_/day and 83.4 pounds of SS/day.
A 2.6 mgd plant meeting the same effluent concentrations would discharge
86.7 pounds of BOD5/day and 108.4 pounds of SS/day. The 2.0 mgd plant,
upgraded to meet the less stringent effluent requirements (10 mg/1 BOD and
12 mg/1 SS), would discharge 166.8 pounds of BOD_/day and 200.2 pounds of
SS/day. A 2.6 mgd plant meeting the less stringent requirements would
discharge 216.8 pounds of BOD5/day and 260.2 pounds of SS/day.
Treated Excess Combined Sewer Flow
Alternatives that use the combined sewer collection system provide
treatment of excess combined sewer flow produced during wet-weather periods
prior to discharge to the Vermilion River. It was estimated using the
Needs Estimation Model for Urban Runoff (Section 5.2.3.3.) that the excess
flow reaching the end of the collection system during a typical 10-year
storm would discharge 1,673 pounds of BOD,-/day to the Vermilion River after
primary treatment. If the excess combined sewer flow were stored for 2.1
days (the 10-year mean number of days between storms) and then treated, the
BOD,- load to the Vermilion River would be 794.3 pounds/day. Both of these
BOD- loads were estimated assuming that 4,289 pounds of BOD,- would enter
the combined sewer system during a 10-year storm, that approximately 35% of
the wet-weather flow in the collection system (12.3 mgd X 0.35 = 4.3 mgd)
would be discharged to the mines, and that primary treatment would have a
40% BOD,- removal efficiency. The BODc concentration of the treated excess
flow would be 25 mg/1 for both of the treatment options. Wasteloads dis-
charged would not be any larger if sewers were extended, because I/I into
the new sewers would be insignificant.
Discharges to the Mines
Treated Effluent
Alternatives that utilize the existing secondary level of treatment
include continuous discharge of treated effluent to the mines for addi-
tional treatment. No ammonia-nitrogen control or disinfection is provided.
The effluent would have BOD and SS concentrations of 20 mg/1 and 25 mg/1,
respectively, regardless of the treatment plant capacity. The existing 2,0
mgd plant would discharge 333.6 pounds of BOD /day and 417 pounds of SS/day
to the mines. The 2.6 mgd plant would discharge 433.7 pounds of BOD,-/day
and 542.1 pounds of SS/day.
During dry-weather periods when the mines would have to be recharged
to maintain water levels, all alternatives that normally include effluent
discharge to the Vermilion River would provide discharge of treated efflu-
ent to the mines. The effluent discharged to the mines would have the same
concentrations as the effluent discharged to the Vermilion River. Loads to
the mines would depend on the required frequency and rate of recharge.
Treated Excess Combined Sewer Flow
One group of alternatives that uses the combined sewer system includes
storage and discharge of excess combined sewer flow to the mines. Assuming
6-7
-------
that excess flow would contain 2,788 pounds of BOD /day (without primary
treatment; 4,289 Ibs X 0.65) during a 10-year storm and that storage would
be for 2.1 days, excess flow would contribute 1,328 pounds of BOD5/day.
Combined Sewer Overflows
Approximately 35% of the wet-weather flow collected in the combined
sewer system would overflow to the mines. During a 10-year storm, an
estimated 1,501 pounds of BOD^/day would enter the mines.
Stormwater
New additional storm sewers in the presently sewered area would
discharge storrawater to the mines. Based on the EPA model (USEPA 1977c),
approximately 1,042 pounds of BOD^ would enter these storm sewers during a
10-year storm. Assuming that 50% of the stormwater runoff would be
discharged to the mines, approximately 521 pounds of BOD^ would enter the
mines.
Domestic Discharges
For those alternatives that do not include sewer extensions, resi-
dences in presently unsewered areas (Figure 5-1) would contribute 1,489
pounds of BOD^/day to the mines. This loading was estimated assuming that
approximately 8,760 residents are not in the presently sewered area (Sec-
tion 4.3.2.) and that 0.17 pounds of BOD,- are discharged per capita per day
(Section 4.4.).
Summary of Pollutant Loads
Estimated BOD,- loads that would be discharged to underground mines and
surface waters in the Streator FPA during a 10-year storm are listed in
Table 6-2 for each alternative. Wasteloads to surface waters would be
largest for alternatives that include the treatment and discharge of excess
combined sewer flow without storage. Alternatives that include sewer
separation and continuous effluent recharge would involve no direct dis-
charges to surface waters. Alternatives that include continuous effluent
recharge and recharge of excess combined sewer flow also would have no
discharges to surface waters. All alternatives that include intermittent
effluent recharge to the mines would eliminate discharges to surface waters
during dry-weather periods.
Wasteloads to underground mines would be largest for alternatives that
include discharge of excess combined sewer flows to the mines and no expan-
sion of the sewer service area. Wasteloads to mines would be smallest for
those alternatives that include sewer separation and stream discharge.
Industrial wasteloads to the mines were not predicted for alterna-
tives. Some process water, cooling water, and sanitary wastes currently
are discharged to the mines (Section 4.3.1.). The quality of most of these
industrial wastewaters is unknown. IEPA may determine that present indus-
trial wastewater disposal practices should not continue (Section 5.2.3.1.).
6-8
-------
Table 6-2. BOD,, wasteloads that would be discharged to surface waters and
underground mines during a 10-year storm for each alternative.
BODcj loads presently discharged to the mines from industries
are not included. BOD5 loads in stormwater runoff and mine
leachates that would discharge to surface waters similarly are
not included.
BODq Wasteloads (Ibs/day)
Discharges to Discharges to
Alternatives Surface Waters the Mines Total
la
Ib
Ic
Id
le
If
ig
Ih
li
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
2g
2h
2i
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
3h
3i
4a
4b
4c
4d
4e
4f
4g
4h
4i
6-9
86.7
66.7
66.7
216.8
166.8
166.8
-
-
—
1,759.7
1,739.7
1,739.7
1,889.8
1,839.8
1,839.8
1,673
1,673
1,673
883.2
863,2
863.2
1,013.3
963.3
963.3
796.5
796.5
796.5
86.7
66.7
66.7
216.8
166.8
166.8
-
—
-
521
2,010
521
521
2,010
521
433.7
1,822.6
333.6
2,022
3,511
2,022
2,022
3,511
2,022
1,934.7
3,323.6
1,834.6
2,022
3,511
2,022
2,022
3,511
2,022
1,934.7
3,323.6
1,834.6
2,829
4,318
2,829
2,829
4,318
2,829
3,262,7
4,651.6
3,162.6
607.7
2,076.7
587.7
737.8
2,176.8
687.8
433.7
1,822.6
333.6
3,781.7
5,250.7
3,761.7
3,911.8
5,350.8
3,861.8
3,607.7
4,996.6
3,507.6
2,905.2
4,374.2
2,885.2
3,035.3
4,474.3
2,985.3
2,731.2
4,120.1
2,631.1
2,915.7
4,384.7
2,895.7
3,045.8
4,484.8
2,995,8
3,262.7
4,651.6
3,162.6
-------
6.3.1.2. Quantity and Quality of Mine Leachates
The quantity and quality of mine leachates that discharge to surface
waters in the Streator FPA depend to a large extent on the flows and waste-
loads discharged to the mines. The mined-out areas under Streator, how-
ever, are extensive, and the volumes of minewater are large (Appendix B).
The specific hydraulics of minewaters and processes in the mines that
affect leachate quality largely are unknown. In addition, leachates have
not been monitored over a period of time sufficient to characterize leach-
ate quality and flow during dry-weather and wet-weather periods. Available
data (Appendix C) only represent conditions existing during field investi-
gations by WAPORA on 7 September, 3 October, and 19 December 1977. More
detailed investigations are required to characterize both average and
extreme conditions.
Leachate flows and possibly the number of leachate sites may vary ac-
cording to the amount of inflow to the mines associated with the different
alternatives. Leachate flows during dry-weather periods should be similar
for all alternatives, because recharge would consist only of treated efflu-
ent. Alternatives that rely more heavily on mine discharges during wet-
weather periods may result in larger leachate flows.
Because alternatives would reduce pollutant loads to the mines, all
alternatives should improve the quality of mine leachates. The process,
however, would take a long time. Alternatives that involve smaller dis-
charges of pollutant loads to the mines (Section 6.3.1.1.) may cause leach-
ate quality to improve at a faster rate. It is expected that all alterna-
tives that include upgraded treatment would reduce ammonia-nitrogen concen-
trations in mine leachates, which presently are considered high (Appendix
C).
6.3.1.3. Non-point Source Pollutant Loads Generated by Construction Activ-
ities
Construction activities can contribute significant pollutant loads to
surface waters. The major non-point source pollutant is sediment. Other
pollutants include organic matter, plant nutrients, and pesticides. Im-
pacts from siltation and sedimentation, however, should be of short-term
duration. Water quality and riverbed characteristics would revert quickly
to present conditions.
Collection system options and mine recharge options could have adverse
impacts because they involve construction over large areas. Work along
present interceptor routes adjacent to Prairie Creek and Coal Run could
result in significant sediment runoff. Alternatives that have the most
potential for sediment-related impacts include sewer separation. They
would require extensive construction activities throughout the present
service area.
Upgrading and/or expansion of the treatment plant and construction of
storage facilities for excess combined sewer flows also could increase
sediment loads to surface waters. Because the topography at the plant site
is flat, the potential for significant siltation and sedimentation can be
minimized by conventional control measures.
6-10
-------
6.3.1.4. Aquatic Biota
All alternatives developed for the Streator FPA would reduce waste-
loads discharged to surface waters and, therefore, would improve water
quality. Improvements could be most significant in Prairie Creek and Coal
Run where combined sewer overflows and discharges of untreated sewage from
deteriorated sewer lines would be reduced considerably. Based on an IEPA
survey of benthic macroinvertebrates, the Vermilion River in the Streator
FPA is classified as "semi-polluted or unbalanced" (Section 3.3.1.4.).
Whether this status could be changed by wastewater management alternatives
can not be determined. Alternatives that would result in smaller discharges
of pollutant loads would have a greater potential to affect positively the
aquatic biota.
Localized, short-term impacts on the aquatic biota could result from
increased sediment loads caused by construction activities. Short-term im-
pacts could be most significant along Prairie Creek and Coal Run where much
construction would occur. Most fish and mobile macroinvertebrates would
avoid the areas of in-stream disturbance. Sedimentation, however, would
bury and suffocate macroinvertebrates and other organisms that have limited
mobility. In general, siltation and sedimentation can degrade or destroy
habitats and can be responsible for reduced species diversity.
Adverse impacts to the aquatic biota may result from alternatives that
include chlorination prior to stream discharge. Presently, the effluent
from the existing treatment plant is not chlorinated. Tsai (1973) docu-
mented the reduced occurrence of fish and macroinvertebrates downstream
from plants discharging chlorinated sewage effluent. No fish were found in
water with a chlorine residual greater that 0.37 mg/1, and the species
diversity index reached zero at 0.25 mg/1. A 50% reduction in the species
diversity index occurred at 0.10 mg/1. Arthur (1972) reported that con-
centrations of chlorine residual lethal to various species of warm water
fish range from 0.09 to 0.30 mg/1. Many wastewater treatment plants have
effluents with chlorine residual concentrations of 0.5 to 2.0 mg/1. A
study of 20 plants in Illinois showed that effluent concentrations ranged
from 0.98 to 5.17 mg/1 (Snoeyink and Markus 1974). Those alternatives that
include chlorination will require especially careful operation and routine
monitoring to ensure that concentrations of chlorine residual do not exceed
0.09 mg/1.
6.3.1.5. Water Uses
Improved water quality resulting from reduced wasteloads to the Ver-
milion River may cause recreational use of the river segment downstream
from the wastewater treatment plant and Prairie Creek to increase. The
recreational activity that might benefit the most is fishing if the species
diversity and population sizes increase. The knowledge that the water
quality of the river is improved also might result in more canoeing and
swimming. Those alternatives that would result in the most significant
quality improvements would have the greatest effect on recreational uses.
The alternatives would not affect the other uses of surface waters in the
Streator FPA (Section 3.3.1.2.).
6-11
-------
6.3.2. Groundwater
The groundwater quality of underlying aquifers is dependent on both
the renovation of minewaters and the vertical leakages through the rela-
tively impermeable clay and shale layers in the Pennsylvanian strata.
Recharging the mines with treated wastewater would not be expected to have
any immediate effects on minewater quality due to the slow movement of
water. A gradual improvement of the minewater quality, however, may occur.
Impacts on the quality of groundwater resources would be negligible due to
the slow renovation of minewaters and the low rate of leakage to usable
groundwater sources. Any impact on groundwater quality would be similar
for each of the alternatives.
6.4. Cultural Resources
6.4.1. Archaeological Resources
No known or documented archaeological sites exist in the presently
sewered area or adjacent areas that may receive sewer service. The files
of the Illinois Historic Sites Division, however, indicate two unidentified
archaeological sites in the Streator service area (By letter, Ms. Anne
Manuel1, Illinois Department of Conservation, Historic Sites Division, to
Mr. George Bartnik, WAPORA, Inc., 21 December 1977). No information is
available concerning the occupation period(s) of these sites. The first
site is situated along Prairie Creek north of Bluff Street and east of
Kelly Street. The second site is situated north of the Vermilion River in
the vicinity of Barr Street. A survey would be necessary to determine the
exact locations of these sites and if they would be impacted by construc-
tion activities.
6.4.2. Cultural, Historic, and Architectural Resources
Eight sites in the Streator FPA have been documented by the Illinois
Historic Sites Survey as having cultural, historic, or architectural sig-
nificance (Section 3.4.2.). Another site, the Baker House, is listed on
the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, a windshield/on-
foot survey located two sites that potentially are eligible for nomination
to the National Register of Historic Places. None of these sites would be
impacted directly by any of the proposed alternatives, because construction
activities would be limited to street corridors.
Construction activities, however, could involve disturbance of up to
7.0 miles of brick streets. The majority of brick streets are aggregated
in four areas:
• An area roughly bounded by Monroe Street to the east, Van
Buren Street to the west, Sumner Street to the north, and La
Rue Street to the south
• An area rougly bounded by Park Street to the west, Illinois
Street to the east, Bridge Street to the north, and Spring
Street to the south
6-12
-------
• An area roughly bounded by La Salle and Washington Streets
to the north, 12th Street to the south, Bloomington Street
to the east, and Coal Run to the west
• A 1.0-mile stretch of Main Street from Bloomington Street on
the west to Otter Creek Road on the east.
The brick streets are not historically significant, but they are aesthetic
reminders of the city's past. There is local interest in Streator con-
cerning preservation of the remaining brick streets.
Certain areas of the city may possess cultural resources of sufficient
significance to warrant establishment of historic districts. These areas
are: Old Unionville, Broadway Street, Main Street, and an area roughly
corresponding to the third brick street area listed above. In these areas,
the brick streets would function as an integral facet of the potential
district's integrity. An in-depth survey would be needed to ascertain the
feasibility of establishing historic districts.
6.4.3. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer
Consultation and coordination with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) concerning cultural resources is mandatory. This coordina-
tion should occur as detailed plans for construction of the collection
system and the recharge system are developed.
6.5. Socioeconomic Characteristics
6.5.1. Construction Impacts
All alternatives would require some excavation of streets in the City
of Streator. The construction activities would disrupt temporarily normal
traffic patterns and could increase local travel costs. Road detours also
would disrupt business and shopping patterns temporarily, possibly ad-
versely affecting tnose businesses in close proximity to construction sites
and benefiting those along the detour routes. Those alternatives that
include sewer separation, installation of storm sewers, and extension of
sewers to presently unsewered areas would have a more extensive and longer
excavation phase than other alternatives that do not include these compo-
nent options. Local economic losses related to construction, however,
would be short-term and could be offset by economic gains generated by the
construction labor force spending in Streator. In general, no significant
net loss in City sales tax receipts is expected.
Construction requirements would include building materials, sewer
pipes, and equipment. Streator was a major producer of clay products and
still produces bricks as well as concrete blocks. Successful bidding for
some of the building materials by local producers could stimulate temporar-
ily the City's economy. The impacts of this stimulus, however, would be
small.
6-13
-------
6.5.2. Employment Impacts
Employment related to the construction and the operation and mainte-
nance of wastewater facilities in Streator would not generate enough income
to stimulate the local economy. The existing contract construction labor
force in LaSalle and Livingston Counties would not need to expand to con-
struct the facilities, and the number of new employees needed to operate
and maintain the facilities would be insignificant (Draft EIS, Sections
5.5.2. and 5.5.3.).
6.5.3. Project Benefits
All of the alternatives developed for the Streator FPA would improve
substantially the city's sewer system and would reduce pollutant loads dis-
charged to surface waters. The water quality of the Vermilion River would
improve, especially during low-flow conditions. This improvement could in-
crease the recreational use of the river and adjacent lands. Improved
collection of storm and wastewaters could reduce local flooding of yards
and basements. These improvements would tend to increase property values
and make Streator generally more attractive. Any financial benefits re-
sulting from improvements, however, are expected to be minimal when com-
pared to the cost of even the lowest cost alternative. The community's
ability to fund any of the alternatives would not be improved.
Because all alternatives eliminate some discharges to the mines, they
all include a mine recharge system. The intent of the recharge system is
to maintain water levels in the mines. The potential for subsidence would
not change, therefore, providing a recharge system would not result in any
new benefits.
6.5.4. Costs
6.5.4.1. Local Costs
Total estimated costs for wastewater collection and treatment facili-
ties are presented in Appendix D and are summarized in Table 5-3 (Section
5.4.). Seventy-five percent of the total capital cost eligible for funding
under the Construction Grants Program would be funded by Federal and/or
State government. Twenty-five percent of the total capital cost and 100%
of the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs would be funded locally by an
undetermined combination of municipal bonds, new sewer connection fees,
and/or user charges. Alternatives 2h and la represent the lowest and
highest local cost alternatives. The average annual equivalent cost of the
local share over a 20-year period would be $531,000 for Alternative 2h and
would be $1,310,500 for Alternative la (at an interest rate of 6.625%;
Table 6-3). The annual local costs would depend on the actual interest
rate paid on bonds. The current interest rates for municipal bonds range
from about 5% to 7%.
In addition to the local costs for alternative wastewater management
programs, there is an annual cost to retire the remaining debt on the
existing facilities. The debt was $300,000 at the end of fiscal year 1978.
If the debt were paid off over the next twenty years, the annual cost would
be $15,000.
6-14
-------
Table 6-3. Local costs for Alternatives 2h and la over a 20-year period
($ X 1,000) .
Alternative 2h
Present Worth
Capital Cost 4,258.8
O&M Cost 1,532.9
Total 5,791.7
Average Annual Equivalent
Capital Cost 390.5
O&M Cost 140.5
Total 531.0
Alternative la
Present Worth
Capital Cost 9,507.5
O&M Cost 4,786.2
Total 14,293.7
Average Annual Equivalent
Capital Cost 871.8
O&M Cost 438.7
Total 1,310.5
Note: The local, total present worth is determined by adding 25% of the
total capital cost to the present worth of the O&M cost over the
20-year analysis period. The present worth of salvage is not
deducted because the local share of the total capital cost must be
financed. The present worth of O&M is determined by multiplying
.the uniform or equal payment series factor (10.91) by the average
annual O&M cost. The average annual equivalent capital cost is
determined by multiplying the capital recovery factor (0.0917) by
the present worth of the capital cost. In all calculations, an
interest rate of 6.625% was used.
6-15
-------
6.5.4.2. Per Capita Costs
The per capita costs of alternatives would depend on the size of the
population served. The annual per capita costs over a 20-year period would
be $42 for Alternative 2h and would be $62 for Alternative la. Alternative
2h does not provide service for presently unsewered areas, and therefore,
per capita costs are based on the population currently being served
(12,700). Alternative la provides a separate collection system for both
presently sewered and unsewered areas. The per capita costs for this
alternative are based on 1970 population statistics for Streator, Streator
West, Streator East, and South Streator (21,206 persons, Section 3.5.1.).
6.5.4.3. Per Capita Income
The 1978 constant dollar per capita income was estimated to be $5,500
for the presently sewered areas and $5,800 for the combined sewered and
unsewered areas. These figures are based on the average estimated 1972
constant dollar per capita income for 1970, 1975, and 1980 in the five
townships in the Streator FPA (Langford 1977). The estimated 1972 per
capita income was adjusted to 1978 dollars by using the average annual
increase in the Consumer Price Index (6.5% from 1972 to 1977) over the
6-year period from 1972 to 1978. The average annual equivalent cost per
capita would be 0.76% and 1.07% of the estimated per capita income for
Alternatives 2h and la, respectively.
6.5.4.4. Allocation of the Average Annual Equivalent Cost
Costs for the existing wastewater collection and treatment facilities
at Streator are being paid for by sewer rental billings (user charges) and
general revenue funds. During fiscal year 1977, 80% of the sewer rental
billings were allocated to residential customers, 12% to industrial custo-
mers, and 8% to commercial customers. Assuming that the allocation of the
total average annual equivalent cost were similar to the allocation of
sewer billings, the annual costs to the different customers for the lowest
and highest O&M cost alternatives (Table 5-3) would be as follows:
Alternative 2h Alternative la
Residential $424,800 $1,048,400
Industrial 63,720 157,260
Commercial 42,480 104,840
There are an estimated 4,235 households in the presently sewered area
and a total of 7,069 households in the combined sewered and unsewered
areas. The annual cost per household, therefore, would be $100 for the
lowest O&M cost alternative and $148 for the highest O&M cost alternative.
High-cost wastewater treatment facilities may place an excessive
financial burden on users. The Federal Government has developed criteria
to identify high-cost wastewater projects (USEPA 1979). A project is
6-16
-------
identified as high-cost if the annual user charges are:
• 1.5% of median family income if median family income is less
than $6,000
• 2.0% of median family income if median family income is
between $6,000 and $10,000
• 2.5% of median family income if median family income is
greater than $10,000.
None of the alternatives can be classified as high-cost at this time,
because no current data on median family income are available. If the
median family income were $6,000 or less, however, all alternatives would
be considered high-cost. If the median family income were $7,500 or
greater, none of the alternatives would be considered high-cost. Because
the average per capita income in 1978 was approximately $5,500, the median
family income was probably equal to or greater than $7,500, and therefore,
the local residential user charges may not exceed the Federal criterion.
A significant percentage of the households in the watershed may ex-
perience financial burden or even displacement pressure, even if the
Federal criteria were met. A financial burden generally is imposed if the
annual residential costs exceed 2.5% of the family income. A displacement
pressure, the pressure to move out of a service area, generally is felt if
the annual residential costs exceed 5% of the family income. The percent-
ages of households that would experience financial burden or pressure to
move cannot be determined, because no data on local income distribution are
available. The percentages would be higher if Alternative la were imple-
mented and lowest if Alternative 2h were implemented.
6.6. Financial Condition
6.6.1. Debt Financing
All of the wastewater management alternatives would require capital
financing. At the end of fiscal year 1977, the City of Streator had insig-
nificant liquid assets and, thus, would have had to issue bonds for the
entire present worth of the local capital cost of the chosen alternative.
This assumes that O&M costs would be offset by user charges, connection
fees, and/or general funds without incurring debt.
Revenue bonds probably would be issued to finance the capital costs.
This type of financing would commit sewer system revenues toward debt
payment. Revenues would have to be sufficient to retire the debt within a
given time period. There are no State restrictions on revenue bonds or
rate limitations for debt payment. In addition, a referendum would not be
required. This type of financing currently is being used to finance the
existing debt on sewer facilities.
6.6.2. Debt Criteria
The amount of debt a local government may incur safely depends on
6-17
-------
several criteria, which include (Moak and Hillhouse 1975):
• The community's population dynamics and economic stability
• The community's financial management system
• The amount of debt overlapping governments incur
• The residents' willingness to support the debt.
In general, Streator's economic base appears secure enough to incur
some debt. The population is stable, but there is no indication that
population will increase (Section 3.5.3.). Similarly, there is no indica-
tion that employment in Streator will increase. The major source of em-
ployment is manufacturing, and within this, one major industry, glass.
Streator, therefore, does not have a diversified economic base, and the
long-term ability to support debt depends on the viability of one industry.
The glass industry, however, has a valuable resource base in the form of
high quality sand, and it appears that it will continue to be viable in the
foreseeable future.
The City of Streator has been able to obtain the revenues necessary to
meet its debt obligations incurred to date. The amount of revenue require-
ments needed to meet commitments for any of the alternatives, however, will
be large compared to previous revenue requirements.
If sewer service were extended beyond the existing service area,
commitments from potential users to appropriate charges would be required.
The City would prefer to incorporate the potential sewer service extension
areas. This would solve the problem of securing charge commitments.
Revenues, however, could be assured by outside authorities, such as IEPA or
the Illinois Department of Public Health, requiring hookup to the sewer
system. Such hookups would require that appropriate payments be made for
service.
There are no significant, long-term, overlapping government debts in
the area that would compete for general revenue funds. The debt on the
high school will be paid off in early 1979. The debt on the elementary
school includes a fire prevention bond issue that will be paid off in 1981
and a building bond issue that will be paid off in 1984. Because the
elementary school debt will be retired in the near future, resources pres-
ently committed to this debt will be available for sewer service debt
payments.
Users of the wastewater facilities would not receive any significant
direct financial benefits from improvements. Improved facilities, however,
would enhance the environment and would tend to result in increased pro-
perty values. Residents might be more willing to support a debt issue if
they believed that their property values would go up as a result of system
improvements. No attempt has been made, however, to assess the impacts of
alternatives on property values.
6.6.3. Debt Ratios
In addition to qualitative criteria used to assess the financial feas-
ibility of incurring debt, there are standard debt ratios used by credit-
rating agencies, investment bankers, and large institutional investors.
6-18
-------
These quantitative measures generally are used to analyze full-faith and
credit debt limits. Full-faith and credit debts are financed by general
obligation bonds that are retired by tax revenues. Revenue bonds that
would be issued for improvements to wastewater facilities, on the other
hand, would be retired by revenues generated by the service (i.e., user
charges and connection fees). These revenue bonds for sewer service depend
on the general economic resources and health of the community and, thus,
have the same base of support as general obligation bonds. Therefore,
quantitative criteria for general obligation bonds are used in this
analysis.
The debt ratios used to evaluate financial feasibility of alternatives are:
• Net direct and overlapping tax-supported debt per capita
• Net direct and overlapping tax-supported debt to adjusted
assessed valuation of property
• Net direct tax-supported debt service to revenue (budget)
• Net direct and overlapping tax-supported debt to personal
income.
The net direct and overlapping tax-supported debt for this analysis is the
present worth of the capital cost plus the outstanding debt on the existing
facilities ($300,000). The present overlapping government debt on the ele-
mentary school is not included, because it will be retired very early in
the life of any implemented alternative. The debt service is the average
annual equivalent capital cost plus the debt service on the existing debt,
which is $15,000 when refinanced over a 20-year period. Estimates of
population, adjusted assessed valuation of property, revenue, and personal
income used in the debt analysis are as follows:
City of Existing Expanded
Streator Service Area Service Area
Population 15,600 12,700 21,206
Property Value
($ X 1,000) 166,179
Revenue
($ X 1,000) 3,024 not applicable not applicable
Personal Income
($ X 1,000) 85,800 69,850 122,995
Estimates of property value for the existing and expanded service areas
could not be determined because of insufficient information.
The debt ratios resulting from the lowest and highest O&M cost alter-
natives were estimated for the City of Streator, the existing service area,
and the expanded service area (Table 6-4). Estimates indicate that the
debt that would be incurred if the lowest O&M cost alternative (2h) were
6-19
-------
chosen would be financially feasible. The debt would not exceed the cri-
teria for local government debt (Table 6-5).
The highest O&M cost alternative does not appear financially feasible,
based on debt ratios. The debt per capita and the debt to personal income
would be high, and the criterion for debt service to revenue would be ex-
ceeded.
6.6.4. Comparative Debt Per Capita
The 1975 debt per capita estimates for 20 cities in the North Central
Illinois Region are presented in Table 6-6. The total debt per capita for
Streator was $25. This debt is very low compared to the debt per capita
estimates for most of the 19 other cities. The new debt per capita for
Streator, however, would be considerably higher once an alternative is
implemented. This debt per capita will include the present worth of the
capital cost and the outstanding debt on the existing facilities (presented
in Table 6-4 for the lowest and highest O&M cost alternatives). If the
lowest O&M cost alternative were chosen, the Streator debt per capita
($292) would rank fifth among the 20 cities. The highest cost alternative
would create a debt per capita that would rank second ($629).
6.7. Public Health Considerations
Each wastewater management alternative developed for the Streator FPA
has a potential public health related risk. In general, the potential
effects are related to pathogenic organisms present in municipal wastewater
and their possible transmission to the public and to chemicals in the
wastewater and the possible contamination of water supplies. All of the
alternatives, however, have smaller potential risks than the possible risks
associated with the present wastewater management practices. All alterna-
tives would reduce significantly the discharge of untreated sewage from
deteriorated sewer lines and combined sewer overflows to surface waters.
Alternatives also would eliminate direct discharge of residential waste-
flows to the mines in the presently sewered area.
Alternatives that include extension of sewer service would eliminate
the use of septic tank systems and residential wastewater discharges to the
mines in the presently unsewered areas. Use of septic tank systems fre-
quently results in contamination of soil, groundwater, and surface waters
and constitutes a public health hazard (Patterson and others 1971). Even
if systems are designed, installed, and maintained properly, soil absorp-
tion fields eventually fail as the soils become clogged by chemical, physi-
cal, and biological processes. In the Streator FPA, many residences have
septic tanks without absorption fields that discharge to the mines. These
systems cannot be relied on to remove either fecal bacteria or significant
amounts of dissolved organic material from the household sewage. In addi-
tion, only 15% to 30% of the BOD,- is removed by these septic tanks (Patter-
son and others 1971).
All of the treatment options included in the alternatives involve a
greater level of treatment than the present level and, therefore, reduce
public health related risks. All options include either chlorination of
6-20
-------
Table 6-4. Debt ratios for Alternatives 2h and la.
City of Existing Expanded
Streator Service Area Service Area
Alternative 2h
Debt Per Capita $292 $359 NA
Debt to Property Value 2.7% NC NA
Debt Service to Revenue 13% NA NA
Debt to Personal Income 5.3% 6.5% NA
Alternative la
Debt Per Capita $629 NA $462
Debt to Property Value 5.9% NA NC
Debt Service to Revenue 29% NA NA
Debt to Personal Income 11% NA 8.0%
NA - not applicable
NC - not calculated due to insufficient information
Table 6-5. Criteria for local government full-faith and credit debt
analysis. (Adapted from Moak and Hillhouse 1975, and
Aronson and Schwartz 1975).
Debt Ratio Standard Upper Limit for Debt
Debt Per Capita
Low Income $ 500
Middle Income 1,500
High Income 5,000
Debt to Market Value of
Property 10% of current market value
Debt Service to Revenue 25% of the local government's
(or Budget) total budget
Debt to Personal Income 7%
a
Not an upper limit, but the national average in 1970.
6-21
-------
Table 6-6. Total outstanding debt per capita3 in 1975 for 20 cities in the
North Central Illinois Region (Illinois Department of Business
and Economic Development 1976).
City Outstanding Debt per Capita ($)
Princeton $1,134.50
Granville 448.90
Peru 380.20
East Peoria 339.30
Normal 238.00
Bloomington 196.70
Havana 166.80
Ottawa 164.00
La Salle 155.20
Morton 154.60
Eureka 135.70
Morris 129.50
Clinton 89.40
Pontiac 83.80
Piano 75.00
Peoria 54.60
Henry 46.00
Wyoming 33.60
Streator 25.00
Pekin 22.30
the sum of general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and other
forms of debt, divided by the 1970 municipal population.
6-22
-------
treated wastewater before discharge to the Vermilion River or disposal of
treated wastewater into the mines without chlorination. Neither of these
practices are employed presently. Disinfection removes a significant
number of bacteria, although it does not remove all pathogenic organisms
from the effluent. Furthermore, chlorination of wastewater can result in
the formation of halogenated organic compounds that are suspected of being
toxic to man (USEPA 1976b). Rapid mixing of the chlorine and design of
contact chambers to provide long contact times, however, can achieve the
desired disinfection and the minimum chlorine residual discharge (USEPA
1977a).
Treated wastewater and excess combined sewer flows would not be disin-
fected prior to mine recharge. Processes that occur in the mines provide
significant treatment, including removal of large amounts of bacteria (Ap^
pendix C). Mine leachates that would result from alternatives using the
existing secondary treatment and continuous effluent recharge may contain
slightly higher fecal bacteria concentrations than leachates that would
result from alternatives using upgraded treatment and effluent recharge
only during dry-weather periods.
A potential risk of all alternatives is the generation of pathogenic
aerosols at the wastewater treatment plant and their transmission to the
public (Section 6.1.1.2.). Alternatives that include a larger (2.6 mgd)
plant capacity and/or additional treatment processes may result in higher
rates of aerosolization than those alternatives with the 2.0 mgd plant
capacity and the existing secondary treatment. Alternatives that include
the option to store and then treat excess combined sewer flows also may
have higher rates of aerosolization than those alternatives that include
the option to only treat those flows. The concentrations of viable aero-
sols generated by any of the alternatives and the possibility of disease
transmission, however, are considered insignificant (Hickey and Reist
1975).
6.8. Aesthetic Impacts
Aesthetic considerations are related primarily to the location of the
collection, treatment, and disposal facilities and to the treatment pro-
cesses. Some aesthetic aspects such as odor, noise, and disruption are
discussed in other sections. This section considers the visual impacts of
the wastewater management alternatives.
All alternatives would' involve construction activities that would
create short-term visual impacts. Construction at the plant site would be
required for upgrading and/or expansion of existing facilities and for
additional facilities to store and/or treat excess combined sewer flows.
Impacts, however, would be minimal, because most of the site is visually
isolated from other land uses. Sewer separation and rehabilitation of the
combined sewer system would have impacts, but the present aesthetic condi-
tions would be restored after construction.
The locations of most above-ground facilities are identical for all
alternatives. Visual impacts, therefore, would be similar. Slightly
larger treatment facilities and adjacent facilities to store and/or treat
6-23
-------
excess combined sewer flows would have no significant impact. Stations to
monitor water levels in the mines would be located throughout the service
area for all alternatives. These stations, however, would be small and
their visual impact would be minimal.
The water quality of mine leachates would improve over time, but iron
deposits and the hydrogen sulfide odors may remain essentially the same.
Aesthetically, the leachate discharges may continue to be unsightly and
malodorous.
6.9. Secondary Impacts
The population of the Streator FPA is stable and is not limited by the
availability of wastewater collection and treatment facilities (Section
.3.5.3.). Wastewater management alternatives would not determine the extent
and location of future residential, commercial, or industrial development.
None of the alternatives, therefore, would have any significant secondary
environmental or socioeconomic impacts. Air quality and water quality
would not be degraded by alternative program-related growth. Alternatives
would not affect the local economy. Any secondary impacts would be con-
struction-related and, thus, minimal and short-term.
Some development may be directed away from the central business dis-
trict to presently unsewered areas if sewers were extended, but it would
not be significant. If sewers were extended, property values in presently
unsewered areas would tend to increase, and residents might spend some
income on home improvements. The spending, however, would not stimulate
the local economy significantly.
6-24
-------
7.0. THE PROPOSED ACTION
The alternative that was selected as the most cost-effective waste-
water management plan for the Streator FPA is Alternative 2e (Table 5-2) .
This alternative would achieve the environmental objectives and would be
financially feasible. The collection system consists of a rehabilitated
combined sewer system. Wastewater treatment includes upgraded secondary
treatment at the existing 2.0 mgd treatment plant. Excess combined sewer
flows (flows not discharged to the mines or treated at the plant) would
receive primary treatment and chlorination prior to discharge to the Ver-
milion River at the existing outfall. The mines beneath Streator would be
recharged with effluent from the treatment plant during dry-weather
periods. During wet-weather periods, the mines would be recharged with
overflows from the combined sewer system and with stortnwater from new storm
sewers in the presently sewered area. The estimated total capital cost for
Alternative 2e is $22,515,900. The annual operation and maintenance (O&M)
cost is approximately $316,300.
7.1. The Selection of Component Options
The selection of component options that comprise the most cost-
effective alternative involved the consideration of effectiveness in elimi-
nating environmental problems and in complying with discharge requirements;
costs, including the local share of the capital cost and the O&M cost; land
requirements and extent of construction disruption; and public acceptabil-
ity. The selection process also involved coordination between USEPA and
State agencies, such as IEPA, the Illinois Department of Public Health, and
the Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals (Section 5.2.).
The discussion below will present in summary form the rationale used
to select the component options that appear most cost-effective at this
point in the planning process. A matrix comparing the major impacts of
system alternatives on the different environmental components was not
developed. A matrix for thirty-six alternatives could not provide practi-
cally a summary of impacts for comparison and selection of the most cost-
effective alternative. In addition, impacts of alternatives on some envi-
ronmental components can not be quantified until additional studies are
conducted (see Chapter 8), and differences between some impacts are insig-
nificant. Often the only major differences are construction and/or O&M
costs.
7.1.1. Collection System
The proposed action includes the continued use of the existing collec-
tion system as a combined sewer system. The three major interceptors
(Prairie Creek, Kent Street, and Coal Run) would be replaced and other
segments of the system would be rehabilitated (Section 5.2.2.2.). The
extent of rehabilitation would depend on the findings of a recommended
sewer system evaluation survey. The total capital cost of this component
option would be $14,473,428 and the annual O&M cost would be $10,300.
This option would meet several objectives. The new interceptors and
the rehabilitation would reduce significantly I/I at the treatment plant
7-1
-------
and discharges of raw sewage to surface waters from cracked and broken
sewers (Section 4.1.). In addition, the interceptors would be sized to
convey large storm flows to the treatment facilities, thereby reducing
combined sewer overflows to surface waters. Some combined sewer flows
would continue to discharge to the mines (Section 5.2.2.2.)- These dis-
charges would help maintain water levels in the mines during wet-weather
periods and would decrease the needed capacity (size) of the new intercep-
tors. It is expected that the State will allow the discharge of combined
sewer flows to the mines (By letter, Mr. Roger A. Kanverva, IEPA, to Mr.
Charles Sutfin, USEPA, Region V, 18 July 1978).
Sewer separation is considerably more expensive than the preferred
option and would cause significant construction-related impacts (Section
6.O.). The installation of sanitary sewers in the presently sewered area
would be $4,280,800 more costly than the rehabilitation of the existing
system. The annual O&M cost would be $21,000 higher. The alternatives in
the first group, therefore, were discarded.
Sewer extensions were not included in this component option. Addi-
tional facilities planning will be required to determine how to cost-
effectively dispose of domestic sewage in the presently unsewered areas
(Section 5.2.2.3.). Extension of sewers would cost approximately
$10,391,600, and the annual O&M cost would be about $9,600 (see Alternative
2f, Table 5-3 and Appendix D).
7.1.2. Wastewater Treatment
7.1.2.1. Treatment Plant Design Capacity
The proposed action includes use of the 2.0 mgd design capacity at the
existing plant for average daily dry-weather flows. This capacity would
accommodate present domestic and industrial flows (1.121 mgd), additional
flows from presently unsewered areas (0.53 mgd), and industrial sanitary
wastes presently discharged to the mines (0.029 mgd; Section 5.2.3.1.). It
is assumed that the State will not allow untreated sanitary wastes to be
discharged to the mines (By letter, Mr. Roger A. Kanverva, IEPA, to Mr.
Charles Sutfin, USEPA, Region V, 18 July 1978).
The use of the 2.0 mgd capacity plant assumes that the present dis-
charge of industrial cooling and process waters to the mines will be al-
lowed to continue by State agencies once NPDES permits are issued (By
letter, Mr. Roger A. Kanverva, IEPA, to Mr. Charles Sutfin, USEPA, Region
V, 18 July 1978). The existing plant capacity, however, would have to be
expanded to 2.6 mgd if sewer extensions were determined to be cost-
effective, and if much of the process water were considered unsuitable for
mine discharge and if industries did not choose to treat their process
water prior to discharge to the mines. If all industrial process water
presently discharged to the mines (0.739 mgd) were conveyed to the treat-
ment plant and if sewer service were not extended, the existing plant
capacity (2.0 mgd) would be sufficient.
7-2
-------
The expansion of the capacity of the treatment plant would cause
minimal construction-related impacts but would increase costs signifi-
cantly. Expansion of the treatment plant, which would provide upgraded
secondary treatment, would increase the total capital cost of the proposed
alternative by $455,800 and the annual O&M cost by $11,600. The extension
of sewers would increase the total capital cost and the annual O&M cost by
$11,159,100 and $12,700, respectively (these costs are for sewers only; see
Alternative 2d, Table 5-3 and Appendix D).
7.1.2.2. Level of Treatment
Alternative 2e (the preferred alternative) includes upgraded secondary
treatment, which consists of the existing secondary treatment plus nitrifi-
cation and disinfection (Section 5.2.3.2.). For this study it is assumed
that this level of treatment should produce an effluent that meets the less
stringent effluent requirements for stream discharge (10 mg/1 BOD,-, 12 mg/1
suspended solids, 1.5 mg/1 ammonia-nitrogen, and fecal coliform counts not
larger than 200 per 100 milliliters; Section 4.4.).
It is assumed in Alternative 2e that the less stringent effluent
limitations will be acceptable (By letter, Mr. Roger A. Kanverva, IEPA, to
Charles Sutfin, USEPA, Region V, 18 July 1978). There are generally no
BOD/SS-related water quality problems in the Vermilion River (Section
3.3.1.3.) and discharges of effluent containing 10 mg/1 BOD_ and 12 mg/1 SS
are not expected to cause a violation of any applicable water quality
standard. A higher level of treatment, therefore, is not necessary if
upgraded secondary treatment results in an effluent that can meet the 10
mg/1 BOD,, and 12 mg/1 SS requirements.
The quality of the treated effluent, however, depends not only on the
level of treatment but also is contingent on the quality of the influent to
some extent. Because the existing combined sewer system will be used,
there still will be I/I in the system following rehabilitation. The neces-
sary level of treatment should be determined by analyzing the influent
after sewer system rehabilitation (Section 5.2.3.2.). Treatment must be
sufficient to meet effluent limitations during worst conditions.
If the amount of I/I were small, the concentrations of BOD and SS in
the influent may be sufficiently high so that upgraded secondary treatment
would not remove sufficient oxygen demanding substances (BOD) and SS to
meet the effluent limitations (10 mg/1 BOD5 and 12 mg/1 SS). If this were
the case, a higher degree of treatment would be necessary. Tertiary treat-
ment without chemical coagulation could produce the necessary quality
effluent. This level of treatment would increase the total capital cost of
the recommended alternative by $747,000 and the annual O&M cost by $37,400
(see Alternative 2b, Table 5-3 and Appendix D). Full tertiary treatment
would not be necessary if a combined sewer system were used.
Existing secondary treatment and continuous effluent recharge to the
mines for additional treatment would not be permitted by IEPA if the efflu-
ent did not meet requirements for stream discharge (By letter, Mr. Roger A.
7-3
-------
Kanverva, IEPA, to Mr. Charles Sutfin, USEPA, Region V, 18 July 1978).
IEPA believes that discharges to the mines should be provided a level of
treatment comparable to that required for discharge to surface waters. In
the agency's opinion, the waters in the abandoned mines are "waters of the
State," and the point-source discharges to them should be treated accord-
ingly. Based on this reason, the alternatives in the fourth group and all
other alternatives that include only secondary treatment were eliminated.
7.1.2.3. Treatment of Excess Combined Sewer Flows
Alternative 2e includes primary treatment and chlorination of excess
combined sewer flows. This option to control excess combined sewer flows
is acceptable to the State, as it provides for significant reduction in
combined sewer overflows to surface waters and provides for compliance with
current regulations of the Illinois Pollution Control Board (By letter, Mr.
Roger A. Kanverva, IEPA, to Mr. Charles Sutfin, USEPA, Region V, 18 July
1978). The option to store excess combined sewer flows and then recharge
the mines with these flows would not be acceptable to the State. Dis-
charges to the mines would have to meet the same requirements as for stream
discharge.
Storage of excess flows, followed by primary treatment and chlorina-
tion at a slower rate also would be acceptable to the State (By letter, Mr.
Roger A. Kanverva, IEPA, to Mr. Charles Sutfin, USEPA, Region V, 18 July
1978). This option would decrease the total capital cost of the recom-
mended alternative by $349,900. This option, however, would increase the
annual O&M cost by $72,100. It also would require additional land for a
storage basin. A basin designed to accommodate 12.3 mgd would require 2.5
acres if the basin were 15 feet deep. An acceptable site for such a basin
is not readily available, especially a site that does not have a high
potential for subsidence. Based on this reason, the alternatives in the
third group were dropped.
7.1.3. Mine Recharge
The proposed action would provide for mine recharge via the combined
sewer system, storm sewers, and an effluent recharge system (Section
5.2.4.). The recharge should be sufficient to maintain water levels in the
mines and, thus, minimize the potential for subsidence (Section 5.2.4.).
During wet-weather periods, combined flows would be discharged to the mines
from drop shafts located throughout the existing collection system. Addi-
tional stormwater would be directed to the mines by storm sewers and drop
shafts that would be installed in the presently sewered area. During
dry-weather periods, treatment plant effluent would be pumped to the mines
via a recharge system that would extend to both presently sewered and
unsewered areas. Stations recording water levels in the mines would be
installed throughout the recharge area and would be monitored continuously.
Changing water levels would indicate when the recharge system should be
used or when recharge has been sufficient.
7.2. Total and Local Costs
Alternative 2e has a total capital cost of $22,515,900 and an annual
O&M cost of $316,300 (based on January 1978 price levels; see Appendix D).
7-4
-------
The average annual equivalent cost over a 20-year period (with a 6.625%
interest rate) is $2,189,300.
The local costs of this alternative include 25% of the total capital
cost eligible for funding under the Construction Grants Program and 100% of
the annual O&M cost, plus the remaining debt on the existing facilities
(Table 7-1). The mine recharge costs will be eligible for Federal and/or
State funding. The present debt is $300,000, which would increase the
annual local cost of the alternative by $15,000 over a 20-year period.
Local costs would be funded by an undetermined combination of municipal
bonds, new sewer connection fees, and/or user charges.
The financial feasibility of the proposed action was evaluated by
determining debt ratios on the debt that would be incurred to finance the
local share of the total capital cost (Table 7-2; see Section 6.6.3. for
methodology and debt criteria). Alternative 2e would be financially feas-
ible. The debt to personal income ratio in the presently sewered area
(8.5%) would exceed the 1970 national average (7.0%), but no standard upper
limit for debt would be exceeded (Table 6-5). The debt per capita for the
City of Streator would rank fourth among the 20 cities in the North Central
Ilinois Region (Table 6-6).
7.3. Minimization of Adverse Impacts
Some adverse impacts would be associated with the proposed action.
There are, however, a variety of legal requirements and other measures that
are intended to minimize adverse impacts. To the extent that these mea-
sures are applied, many adverse impacts could be reduced significantly or
eliminated. Potential measures to minimize impacts related to the con-
struction and operation of the proposed wastewater facilities are discussed
below.
7.3.1. Minimization of Construction Impacts
Construction activities could cause significant impacts. Impacts
would be associated primarily with the rehabilitation of the collection
system, including the replacement of the three major interceptors, the
installation of the effluent recharge system and the storm sewers, and the
construction of facilities to treat excess combined sewer flows. Adverse
impacts, however, can be controlled, and most should be of short duration.
Plans and specifications must include mitigative measures as discussed in
the following paragraphs.
Fugitive dust at the various construction sites can be reduced through
various techniques. Construction sites, spoil piles, and unpaved access
roads can be wetted periodically to minimize dust. Large spoil piles also
can be covered with matting, mulch, and other materials to reduce exposure
to wind erosion. Street sweeping can control traffic dust where excavated
material is tracked or dumped on paved surfaces.
Proper maintenance of construction equipment would minimize emissions
of hydrocarbons and other fumes. Air pollution control devices also could
be used on stationary internal combustion engines. The resident engineer
should be given the authority to refuse usage of poorly maintained equip-
ment.
7-5
-------
Table 7-1. Local costs ($) of Alternative 2e fox wa,stewa,ter facilities.
at Streator, Illinois. A 2CHyear analysis, period WQ,S. used.
Costs
Present Worth
Capital Cost (25% of Total Capital Cost) 5,628,975
O&M Cost 3,450,835
Total 9,079,810
Average Annual Equivalent
Capital Cost 516,177
O&M Cost 316,300
Subtotal 832,477
Existing Annual Debt 15,000
Total 847,477
Note: See Table 6-3 for methodology used to calculate local costs.
Table 7-2. Debt ratios of Alternative 2e for wastewater facilities
at Streator, Illinois.
City of Existing
Streator Service Area
Debt Ratios
Debt Per Capita $380 $467
Debt to Property
Value 3.6% NC
Debt Service to
Revenue 18% NA
Debt to Personal
Income 6.9% 8.5%
NA - not applicable
NC - not calculated due to insufficient information
Note: See Section 6.6.3. for methodology used to determine debt ratios
and for debt criteria.
7-6
-------
Burning of construction-related wastes would be controlled by regula-
tions of the Illinois Pollution Control Board (1977). The rules allow
burning of landscape waste only at the place where the waste is generated;
when atmospheric dispersion conditions are favorable; if no visibility
hazard is created; and in sparsely populated areas.
A careful analysis will have to be conducted to select a site for
facilities to treat excess combined sewer flows. Such facilities should
not be located above an abandoned mine and/or in an area where there is a
potential for subsidence (Appendix B) . These areas could not support such
facilities. There are areas near the treatment plant that are not under-
mined and, thus, would be appropriate for excess flow treatment facilities.
Measures also should be taken to minimize the potential for damage to
new interceptors, storm sewers, and the recharge system from possible
future subsidence. Where possible, routes should be changed to avoid areas
that have a high subsidence potential. Light weight pipes, flexible
joints, and timber or concrete supports could be provided where necessary.
The facilities planners will determine what would be necessary and appro-
priate during detailed planning.
Where land is disturbed and soils are exposed, measures must be taken
to minimize erosion. USEPA's Program Requirements Memorandum 78-1 (1977b)
established requirements for the control of erosion and runoff from con-
struction sites. Adherence to these requirements would minimize the poten-
tial for problems to a large extent. The requirements include:
• Construction site selection should consider potential occur-
rence of erosion and sediment losses
• The project plan and layout should be designed to fit the
local topography and soil conditions
• When appropriate, land grading and excavating should be kept
at a minimum to reduce the possibility of creating runoff
and erosion problems that require extensive control measures
• Whenever possible, topsoil should be removed and stockpiled
before grading begins
• Land exposure should be minimized in terms of area and time
• Exposed areas subject to erosion should be covered as
quickly as possible by means of mulching or vegetation
• Natural vegetation should be retained whenever feasible
• Appropriate structural or agronomic practices to control
runoff and sedimentation should be provided during and after
construction
7-7
-------
• Early completion of a stabilized drainage systems (temporary
and permanent systems) will reduce substantially erosion
potential
• Access roadways should be paved or otherwise stabilized as
soon as feasible
•• Clearing and grading should not be started until a firm con-
struction schedule is known and can be coordinated effec-
tively with the grading and clearing activities.
The number of pipes crossing streams should be minimized to protect
water quality and aquatic biota. Where crossings are necessary, careful
planning could minimize adverse effects. Installation of pipes across
streams should be scheduled during low-flow conditions, usually during the
late summer. Low flows would transport smaller sediment loads downstream.
Some project area waterways also are dry at that time of year. Potentially
erodible bank-cuts must be stabilized so that a storm event would not cause
significant erosion. Where significant stream flow would be encountered,
temporary diversion channels with artificially stabilized banks or culverts
should be used to minimize the potential for erosion. Regardless, Section
10 (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899) and/or Section 404 (PL92-500) permits
would be required for all stream crossings.
Disturbed land should be regraded, compacted, and revegetated immedi-
ately after construction. Construction sites should be restored to their
original condition as closely as possible. Native vegetation should be
used. Such efforts would facilitate re-establishment of wildlife habitats.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Executive Order 11593,
the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the 1973
Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation require that
care must be taken early in the planning process to identify cultural
resources and to minimize adverse effects on them. US-EPA's final regula-
tions for the preparation of EISs (40FR16818) also specify that compliance
with these regulations is required when a Federally funded, licensed, or
permitted project is undertaken. Due to the lack of adequate information
on existing archaeological resources at some potential construction sites
(along proposed routes for storm sewers and the recharge system), a survey
by professional archaeologists would be necessary to identify potentially
significant areas. In addition, it may be necessary to provide archae-
ological expertise during construction in critical areas to avoid destruc-
tion of archaeological resources. If not already identified, project
delays due to involvement with discovered archaeological sites would be
costly. For this reason, adequate ground coverage surveys during the
planning period are advisable. Consultation with the State Historic Pres-
ervation Officer (SHPO) should be undertaken by the City and its facilities
planners concerning cultural resources before the commitment of capital for
project construction.
Appropriate planning can control construction-related disruption in
the community. Announcements should be published in newspapers and broad-
cast through other news media to alert drivers of temporary closings of
7-8
-------
primary traffic routes during sewer rehabilitation and installation of
storm sewers and the recharge system. Traffic control may be needed at
points where certain construction equipment would enter onto public streets
from access areas. Special care should be taken to minimize disruption of
access to commercial establishments and to frequently visited areas.
Planning of routes for heavy construction equipment should include consi-
deration of surface load restrictions to prevent damage to streets and
roadways.
7.3.2. Minimization of Operation Impacts
Impacts related to the operation of the proposed wastewater facilities
would be minimal if the facilities were designed, operated, and maintained
properly. Aerosols, gaseous emissions, odors, and noise from the various
treatment processes can be controlled to a large extent. Above-ground
pumps would be enclosed and installed to minimize sound impacts. The
effluent discharged from the treatment plant will be regulated by the
conditions of the NPDES permit. The permit will specify the discharge
quality (Section 5.3.) and will require regular monitoring of the effluent.
Periodic plant inspection will be conducted by IEPA. If the conditions of
the permit are violated, enforcement actions will be taken against the City
of Streator to ensure compliance. Special care will have to be taken to
control chlorination and effluent concentrations of chlorine residuals
(Section 6.3.1.4.) .
Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities (Federal Water Quality Administration 1970) require
that:
All water pollution control facilities should be planned and designed
so as to provide for maximum reliability at all times. The facilities
should be capable of operating satisfactorily during power failures,
flooding, peak loads, equipment failure, and maintenance shutdowns.
The facilities planners for the City of Streator should consider the fol-
lowing types of measures (if not implemented previously) to ensure system
reliability:
• Duplicate sources of electric power
• Standby power for essential plant elements
• Multiple units and equipment to provide maximum flexibility
in operation
• Replacement parts readily available
• Holding tanks or basins to provide for emergency storage of
overflow and adequate pump-back facilities
• Flexibility of piping and pumping facilities to permit
rerouting of flows under emergency conditions
• Provision for emergency storage or disposal of sludge
• Dual chlorination units
• Automatic alarm systems to warn of high water, power fail-
ure, or equipment malfunction
• No treatment plant bypasses or upstream bypasses
7-9
-------
• Design of interceptor to permit emergency storage without
causing back-ups
• Enforcement of pretreatment regulations to avoid industrial
waste-induced treatment upsets
• Flood-proofing of treatment plant
• Plant Operations and Maintenance Manual to have section on
emergency operation procedures
• Use of qualified plant operators.
Through the incorporation of these types of measures, the facilities would
be virtually "fail-safe," ensuring that effluent limitations would be met
during the system's entire design life.
Proper and regular maintenance of collection, treatment, and recharge
components is essential to maximize efficiency and to prevent adverse
impacts. Federal and State O&M guidelines and regulations should be fol-
lowed. Special care should be taken to maintain the combined sewers, the
storm sewers, and the recharge system to ensure maximum mine recharge and,
thus, to minimize the potential for subsidence. Drop shafts, where pos-
sible, should be inspected regularly so that they do not become blocked.
If records from the mine recharge monitoring stations indicate that the
amount of flow recharged to the mines is decreasing, drop shafts may be
becoming blocked, and additional drop shafts may be necessary if the exist-
ing ones can not be kept open.
The provision for stations to record water levels in the mines and for
continuous monitoring is critical. When water levels begin to decline, the
effluent recharge system can be activated to minimize the potential for
subsidence. When water levels begin to increase above present levels, the
system can be deactivated to prevent overcharging and above-ground flood-
ing. An automatic alarm system can be installed to warn the treatment
plant operator when water levels are changing.
Industries discharging process and cooling waters to the mines would
require appropriate permits from State agencies (Section 5.2.3.1.). Treat-
ment prior to mine discharge may be considered necessary to minimize the
potential impact of leachates on the water quality of surface waters.
Domestic discharges to the mines would have to be eliminated in com-
pliance with the Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act and Code of 1974 and
other State regulations. If extensions of sewers to presently unsewered
areas were not considered cost-effective, alternative on-site disposal
systems would be developed to sewer these areas.
7.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
There is a general amount of disruption associated with the implemen-
tation of the proposed action that cannot be avoided. Construction activi-
ties would create dusty and noisy conditions that would degrade the aesthe-
tic quality of affected areas. Traffic congestion may be created when
sewers are rehabilitated and when storm sewers and the effluent recharge
system are installed. Some loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat and
7-10
-------
some erosion and siltation/sedimentation are inevitable. Impacts, however,
should be minimal and/or of short duration.
Discharges from the proposed treatment facilities would have some
effect in the mixing zone and some lesser effect downstream. The effects
traditionally have been considered acceptable when the economics of waste-
water treatment are considered. Impacts would be less if discharges met
the conditions of the final NPDES permit (specifying 4 mg/1 BOD and 5 mg/1
SS as opposed to 10 mg/1 BOD and 12 mg/1 SS) , but the costs would be
considerably larger. Discharges, however, would not cause the violation of
any in-stream water quality standard. Current uses of the Vermilion River
and the aquatic biota would not be affected adversely.
The proposed action would not eliminate mine leachate flows to surface
waters. Thus leachates would continue to contribute pollutant loads to
surface waters in the Streator FPA. Leachates would have some effect on
water quality, but the impacts should be reduced as pollutant loads dis-
charged to the mines are controlled (Appendix C). Leachates still would
contain significant concentrations of coliform bacteria and iron and would
create malodorous and unsightly conditions near leachate discharge points.
7.5. Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments
The construction and operation of rehabilitated and upgraded waste-
water facilities at Streator would cost a considerable amount of money and
would consume a large amount of resources (Section 7.2.). The types of
resources that would be committed through the implementation of the pro-
posed action include public capital, labor, energy, and unsalvageable
materials. Non-recoverable resources would be foregone for the provision
of improved water pollution control.
The proposed action proposes the use of most of the existing facili-
ties. These facilities represent a significant commitment of resources
previously made by the City of Streator. Commitment of additional re-
sources to rehabilitate deteriorated components and to comply with current
regulations, therefore, would not only achieve present environmental ob-
jectives but also would extend the longevity of past investments.
Capital expenditures and resource requirements for the construction of
facilities would be significant. A large construction labor force (ap-
proximately 550 workers for one year; Draft EIS, Section 5.5.2.1.) and
considerable construction equipment would be needed for the different
component systems. A large amount of materials also would be consumed,
especially pipes for new interceptors, storm sewers, and the effluent
recharge system. In addition, a substantial amount of energy resources
would be consumed, primarily through combustion of fossil fuels by con-
struction equipment.
Annual O&M expenditures, including labor, would be considerably higher
than present expenditures, but other resource commitments would not in-
crease substantially. The annual O&M cost would increase from $111,338
(disbursements during fiscal year 1977; Draft EIS, Table E-12) to approxi-
mately $316,300 (184% increase). Six plant operators would be necessary
7-11
-------
(Draft EIS, Section 5.5.2.2.)- Additional energy would be required for an
extra blower to provide sufficient nitrification and for pumping treated
effluent to the mines during dry-weather periods. New disinfection facili-
ties also would consume energy, as well as chlorine. Other additional
chemicals would not be utilized.
7.6. Relationship Between Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and Mainte-
nance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity
The short-term disruption and commitment of resources associated with
construction and operation of rehabilitated and upgraded wastewater facili-
ties would be necessary to improve water pollution control and to minimize
the potential for subsidence. Environmental impacts and resource require-
ments, however, would be offset by water quality improvements and stabil-
ized mine conditions. Long-term, significant environmental benefits would
be derived from short-term, minimal environmental costs.
7-12
-------
8.0. RECOMMENDATIONS
Alternative 2e was developed as a conceptual scheme to control water
pollution in the Streator FPA and to minimize the potential for subsidence.
More facilities planning, however, is necessary before any alternative can
be finalized. Additional studies that are necessary were presented in
previous sections of this EIS and are discussed together below. These
studies will enable all alternative components to be designed and imple-
mented. The sequence of interdependent recommendations is presented in
Figure 8-1.
Before any additional planning is done to refine the proposed action,
it is critical to confirm the feasibility of certain assumptions that were
incorporated in the alternative. The assumptions include: 1) approval of
less stringent effluent limitations (specifically 10 mg/1 BOD,, and 12 mg/1
SS) and 2) approval of that the discharge of treated combined sewer flows
(wet-weather flows) from the collection system, stormwater, and treatment
plant effluent to the mines. The City of Streator should request a change
in the current, final NPDES permit and should start the process of obtain-
ing permits to discharge to the mines. This will require consultation and
coordination with the IEPA, the Illinois Pollution Control Board, the
Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, and the Illinois Mining Board.
8.1. Collection System
A thorough sewer system evaluation survey (SSES) is necessary before
the existing collection system can be rehabilitated. Such a survey would
detect significant sources of I/I and would indicate the extent of reha-
bilitation required. Drop shafts to the mines also would be located, and
those found to be level with the bottom of sewers or manholes would be
raised during rehabilitation, if possible, to prevent dry-weather flows
from discharging to the mines. The SSES should include determination of
the amount of I/I remaining after cost-effective rehabilitation of the
sewer system. Treatment capacity should be provided for the amount of I/I
reaching the treatment facilities.
The facilities planners should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of
sewer extensions. As part of the analysis, they should conduct a survey in
presently unsewered areas (areas considered for sewer extensions; Figure
5-1) to determine if septic tank systems are suitable for these areas, and
to identify which systems are malfunctioning and which residential lots
have septic tanks without absorption fields that discharge effluents to the
mines. All requirements of PRM 78-9 should be met (Section 5.2.2.3.).
Detailed plans for sewers and for alternative on-site disposal systems
should be developed to evaluate which course of action would be most cost-
effective.
8.2. Wastewater Treatment
8.2.1. Treatment Plant Design Capacity
Before the wastewater treatment plant is upgraded, industries should
obtain permits from the appropriate State agencies to continue discharging
8-1
-------
1C CJ 4J
O. It 01 TJ
E o> s: 1-1 oi
•H ~4 4J re O
3 re
h< cu E cr »w •
CCO hi CO
4J i-l hi 3 hi
W E (0 01 CO 01
o u-i 4-1 re u-i re
S o re 3 o 3
oi
60
u
It
X CO J=
•u CO U
•H CU CO
—< O -H
•H C -O
£ hi
to a o
4J B
•H i-H iH
3 re B-
CO -rt
k. 1-
0) 4J O
E a i4-i
•H 3
€ -a co
U E hi
01 -H 01
4J U
0) uj re
D O 9
CO
01 -~N
73 -H 01
E 4J 00
« -rt T)
0.-H 3
X i-l rt
CU U CO •
CO S-
"t? "~ 1 re
4J re co
C m
OJ QJ T3
•o
co 01
c o; c
o -H 1-1
cu
CU CO
"3 -2
4-1 E
CO CU
O 4-1
CJ X
cu
cu
E hi
re
to
u re o" E
oo oi —i
d. ^ i-i CO
3 4J .-x re
4J L» CO
•H 3
^ CO O
•H CO -H
o cu y-
re u
>*- X hi
a cu
u 3
u 4J a)
3 re co
Vw 01
4J VJ T3
0) u CU
c c
o a>
(— i 4J 4-)
CU C
> 00 CU
01 e 3
•a >, c
QJ .-H *H
1- R
•HBO!
1-1 rfl re cu
CJ
OJ
rH
CU
CC
01
•rH
CO
4J
y
o
01
00
CC
u
o
4J
CC
cu
E
"e
01
4-1
01
Q
*H
i-l
CJ
re
^
0
u«
CO
•H
CC
^
t— 1
CO
c
re
u^
o
0)
4J
to
h;
•c
E
Q
01
3
-H
0
>
O
CJ
CO
CO
cu
CJ
X
01
4J
CO
01
^4
4J
o
4J
CC
CO
cu
CJ
cu
0
4-1
c
V
a
01
hi
4J
*
CO -I
3
o
U-4
^
01
g
w
CC
3
0
l-t
U-4
i-l
OJ
s
CC
CO
CO
cu
c
cu
>
-H
4J
0
cu
IM
u-
. 01
1
4-1
1C
o
u
re
4-1
3
c
o
cu
c
2
E
o
o
CO
CO
cu
0
X
(U
UH
O
01
3
O
>
CU
_c
4J
E
O
CO
CC
,__!
CC
E
re
o
4J
CO
•u
01
cu
E
4-1
re
4J
3
Q
hi
CU
3
01
CC
cu
E
.E
O
U
T3
OJ
hi
•H
3
cr
cu
h
01
£
4J
c
o
•a
c
CO
•O
CU
4J
re
01
4J
01
J2
1
4_1
C
U 00
CC U
o re
o .c
CJ
4J 01
CO U
o
E cu
^H M •
•H 4J E
CO U CU
4J CU 4J
CO UH CO
E w >,
I-l 01 CO
i-i
(U
S
CC
re
4J
o
3
•O
E
0
CJ
(U
AJ
£
u—
c
o
I
«
3
•—i
(C
>
(U
g
4-1
Ol
>>
to
c
0
•H
p..
3
CO
Cfl
CO
i
>
p
3
CC
E
O
•H
jj
•O 4J
01 1 10
4J 10 JT
n E 4J
hi U
O 01 CU CU
e. 4J IN T3
hi r-< 3
O < 0) — 1
CJ > CJ
B B -H E
•H o. to
O 34-1
h; *-• «H
D. u E
O, U-i U-l «H
10 O CU <-H
•
CC
-H
re
>
0
P
o.
n
•
01
00
re
J= "0
0 -O 01
to 01 c
•H 4J IH
"O 1C A
O hi O
4-1 4J O
1
n
CO
t*4
a
4J
cc
T5
d
f
- 1 01
hi cc E hi
01 3 hi 0!
3 O o 4j
ci ft 4j re
co M-I to 3
1
E
o
E
o
4J
CC
E
O
i-t
4J
E
cu
E
4J
tC
hi
4J
^
CU
4J
3
h;
O
4J
I
U-l
01
4J
B
re
f— i
o.
01
•"
E
CO
1— 1
01
>
c
1
o
4J
4-1
c
cu
3
~H
14-4
CU
hi N
01 -H
0 4J
CJ
re
CO X
CU CJ
E
•H O
CO
01
E
6
01
jr
4J
>, X CD
^ E t i2 re oi
O -H CU JE 4-1
T3 CU O> 01
^ 01 O CU hi C
X .C 4J E C
4j 0> C-
O) *O OI E E
oo
0)
VI
t>0
vH
8-2
-------
process and cooling waters to the mines. The plant capacity assumed in the
proposed action would have to be expanded if 1) sewer extensions were
determined cost-effective; 2) if much of the process water were considered
unsuitable for mine discharge and if industries were to choose not to treat
their process water prior to discharge to the mines; and 3) if the amount
of infiltration remaining after cost-effective sewer system rehabilitation
were significant (Section 7.1.2.1.)*
8.2.2. Level of Treatment
After the three major interceptors are replaced and the other segments
of the collection system are rehabilitated, the strength of the wastewater
entering the treatment plant (the influent) should be analyzed to determine
the level of treatment required to meet acceptable effluent limitations.
It presently is assumed that upgraded secondary treatment would provide the
necessary removal of oxygen demanding wastes, suspended solids, and am-
monia. A higher level of treatment, however, might be required to meet
effluent limitations based upon the influent wastewater strength. The
influent should be analyzed after the combined sewer system is rehabili-
tated to determine the required level of treatment. The influent should be
sampled during dry-weather and wet-weather periods. Treatment provided
must be sufficient to meet effluent limitations during worst conditions.
The facilities planners should evaluate the need of the tertiary treatment
to meet effluent limitations during additional facilities planning work.
8.2.3. Treatment of Excess Combined Sewer Flows
The facilities planners should conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis
on the volume of excess combined sewer flow that needs to be treated and on
the required level of treatment. For this alternative component to be
eligible for Federal/State funding, the specific requirements of PRM 75-34
(USEPA 1975b) must be met. After the collection system is rehabilitated,
analyses should be conducted to determine I/I, its quality, and peak pollu-
tant loads. Treatment options then should be developed, specifying the
ultimate storage volume and rate(s) of treatment, and should be assessed in
terms of their environmental impacts and costs. Special attention should
be given to the selection of sites for the facilities to avoid areas with
subsidence potential.
8.2.4. Sludge Management
Once the required level of wastewater treatment has been determined,
the facilities planners should develop sludge management strategies and
should evaluate their cost-effectiveness. Existing facilities should be
inspected closely, as damages have been observed (Draft EIS, Appendix F).
8.3. Mine Recharge
Stations recording water levels in the mines should be installed as
soon as possible. These stations are necessary to characterize the hydro-
logy of the mines and to verify the need for mine recharge components.
Water levels were measured as part of previous investigations (Appendix B),
but long-term data are necessary to determine the effects of storm events
8-3
-------
and seasonal trends. It also will be critical to see how water levels
differ in the future from present conditions and how they fluctuate after
the collection system is rehabilitated. It may not be necessary to install
additional storm sewers and drop shafts or to construct an effluent re-
charge system. Recharge of effluent (after upgraded treatment) during
wet-weather ( on an as-needed basis) also should be considered. This
recharge option would eliminate the need for additional storm sewers and
drop shafts, and thus would result in considerable cost savings. The costs
of the proposed alternative using continuous effluent recharge (instead of
additional storm sewers and drop shafts) are presented below (compare them
with the costs of the other alternatives; Table 5-3, Section 5.4).
Total Capital
Cost
$18,150,700
Total O&M
Cost
$204,600
Total Present
Worth
$18,767,800
Average Annual
Equivalent Cost
$1,721,000
A determination will be made by the City's facilities planners regarding
what is essential to cost-effectively maintain water levels in the mines.
If storm sewers and/or an effluent recharge system were determined to
be necessary, an archaeological survey might be required. After the de-
tailed plans for recharge components are developed, the State Historic
Preservation Officer should be consulted to ensure that construction would
not affect significant archaeological resources.
Once the proposed action is implemented, including a mine recharge
scheme, the water quality of surface waters and the impacts of leachates on
water quality should be investigated. The quantity and quality of leachate
flows should be monitored over a sufficient period of time to characterize
dry-weather and wet-weather conditions and to assess weather-related im-
pacts. Other sources of pollution in the Streator FPA (i.e., treatment
plant effluent, combined sewer overflows, and discharges from cracked and
broken sewer lines) would be controlled, and it might be possible to deter-
mine if leachates were having an adverse impact on water quality. The
quality of mine leachates, however, should improve over time as pollutant
loads currently discharged to the mines are eliminated.
8.4. Financing
After additional facilities planning, when the specifics of the pro-
posed action have been refined, the best manner of financing the local
costs and of phasing the project should be determined. The share of con-
struction and operation costs to be borne by industrial users should be
determined (as required by Federal regulations—39FR5261). This would
permit a more realistic estimation of the costs to local residents.
1
Storm sewers and additional drops shafts, however, would help minimize the
required capacity of new interceptors and facilities to treat excess com-
bined sewer flows (Section 5.2.4.).
8-4
-------
9.0. GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
Alluvium. Detrital material, such as silt, clay, sand, or gravel, depos-
ited by moving water.
Ammonia-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of ammonia (NH ) that is produced
in nature when nitrogen-containing organic material is biologically
decomposed.
Anticline. A fold in which layered strata are inclined down and away from
the axes.
Argillaceous. Of rocks or sediments made of or largely composed of clay-
size particles or clay minerals.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). A bioassay-type procedure in which the
weight of oxygen utilized by microorganisms to oxidize and assimilate
the organic matter present per liter of water is determined. It is
common to note the number of days during which a test was conducted as
a subscript to the abbreviated name. For example, BOD indicates the
results are based on a five-day long (120 hours) test. The BOD value
is a relative measure of the amount (load) of living and dead
oxidizable organic matter in water. A high demand may deplete the
supply of oxygen in the water, temporarily or for a prolonged time, to
the degree that many or all kinds of aquatic organisms are killed.
Determinations of BOD are useful in evaluating the impact of waste-
water on receiving waters.
Carbon monoxide (CO). A colorless, odorless, and very toxic gas that is
formed by the incomplete oxidation of carbon. It is released from
motor vehicles, furnaces, and other machines that burn fossil fuels.
Coliform bacteria. Members of a large group of bacteria that flourish in
the feces and/or intestines of warm-blooded animals, including man.
Fecal coliform bacteria, particularly Escherichia coli (E. coli),
enter water mostly in fecal matter, such as sewage or feedlot runoff.
Coliforms apparently do not cause serious human diseases, but these
organisms are abundant in polluted waters and they are fairly easy to
detect. The abundance of coliforas in water, therefore, is used as an
index to the probability of the occurrence of such diseaseproducing
organisms (pathogens) as Salmonella, Shigella, and enteric viruses.
The pathogens are relatively difficult to detect.
Combined sewer. A sewer, or system of sewers, that is used to collect and
convey both sanitary sewage and storrawater runoff. During dry-weather
periods, most or all of the flow in a combined sewer is composed of
sanitary sewage. During a storm, runoff increases the rate of flow
and may overload the sewage treatment plant to which the sewer
connects. At such times, it is common to divert most or all of the
flow, without treatment, into the receiving water.
9-1
-------
Decibel (dB). A unit of measurement used to express the relative inten-
sity of sound. For environmental assessment, it is common to use a
frequency-rated scale (A scale) on which the units (dBA) are corre-
lated with responses of the human ear. On the A scale, 0 dBA repre-
sents the average least perceptible sound (rustling leaves, gentle
breathing), and 140 dBA represents the intensity at which the eardrum
may rupture (jet engine at open throttle). Intermediate values
generally are: 20 dBA, faint (whisper at 5 feet, classroom, private
office); 60 dBA, loud (average restaurant or living room, play-
ground); 80 dBA, very loud (impossible to use a telephone, noise
made by food blender or portable sanding machine; hearing impair-
ment may result from prolonged exposure); 100 dBA, deafening noise
(thunder, car horn at 3 feet, loud motorcycle, loud power lawn
mower).
Dissolved oxygen (DO). Oxygen gas (0 ) in water. It is utilized in res-
piration by fish and other aquatic organisms, and those organisms
may be injured or killed when the concentration is low. Because much
oxygen diffuses into water from the air, the concentration of DO is
greater, other conditions being equal, at sea level than at high ele-
vations, during periods of high atmospheric pressure than periods
of low pressure, and when the water is turbulent (during rainfall,
in rapids, and waterfalls) rather than when it is placid. Because
cool water can absorb more oxygen than warm water, the concentra-
tion tends to be greater at low temperatures than at high tempera-
tures. DO is depleted by the oxidation of organic matter and of
various inorganic chemicals. Should depletion be extreme, the water
may become anaerobic and could stagnate and stink.
Drift. Rock material picked up and transported by a glacier and deposited
elsewhere.
Fissle. Capable of being split along the line of the grain or cleavage
plane.
Interceptor sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from
a series of trunk sewers and to convey it to a sewage treatment plant.
Inversion. A condition of the atmosphere in which an air mass is trapped
by an overlying layer of warmer air and cannot rise. During an in-
version, polluted air spreads horizontally, rather than vertically,
so that contaminants are not dispersed widely. Air pollution epi-
sodes commonly are associated with prolonged inversions.
Lateral sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
limited number of individual properties and to convey it to a trunk
sewer. Also known as a street sewer or collecting sewer.
Leachate. A solution formed when water percolates through solid waste,
soil, or other materials and extracts soluble or suspendable sub-
stances from the material.
9-2
-------
Lithology. The description of the physical character of a rock as deter-
mined by the eye or with a low-power magnifier, and based on color,
structure, mineralogic components, and grain size.
Loam. Soil mixture of sand, silt, clay, and humus.
Loess. An unsorted, wind-flown deposit of fine-grained soil material, pre-
dominately silt or very fine sand.
Macroinvertebrates. Invertebrates that are visible to the unaided eye
(retained by a standard No. 30 sieve, which has 28 meshes per inch or
0.595 mm openings); generally connotates bottom-dwelling aquatic
animals (benthos).
Mesic. Characterized by intermediate and generally optimal conditions
of moisture.
Moraine. A mound, ridge, or other distinctive accumulation of sediment
deposited by a glacier.
Nitrate-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrate (NO ). It is the most
oxidized phase in the nitrogen cycle in nature and occurs in high
concentrations in the final stages of biological oxidation. It can
serve as a nutrient for the growth of algae and other aquatic plants.
Nitrite-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrite (NO ). It is an inter-
mediate stage in the nitrogen cycle in nature. Nitrite normally is
found in low concentrations and represents a transient stage in the
biological oxidation of organic materials.
Nitrogen dioxide (NO ). A reddish-brown gas that is toxic in high concen-
trations. It is a precursor of photochemical smog. The odor is
strong and irritating. It is produced by the oxidation of nitric
oxide in the atmosphere.
Outwash. Sand and gravel transported away from a glacier by streams of
meltwater and either deposited as a floodplain along a preexisting
valley bottom or broadcast over a preexisting plain in a form similar
to an alluvial fan.
Photochemical oxidants. Secondary pollutants formed by the action of sun-
light on nitric oxides and hydrocarbons in the air; they are the
primary components of photochemical smog.
Piezometric level. An imaginary point that represents the static head of
groundwater and is defined by the level to which water will rise.
Plagioclase feldspar. A common rock-forming mineral having the general
formula (Na,Ca)AL(Si,Al)Si 0 , also known as sodium-calcium feldspar.
2 3
Primary treatment. The first stage in the treatment of wastewater in
which floating wastes and settleable solids are removed mechanically
by screening and sedimentation.
9-3
-------
Sanitary sewer. A sewer that conveys only domestic, industrial, and com-
mercial wastewaters. Stormwater runoff is conveyed in a separate sys-
tem.
Secondary treatment. The second stage in the treatment of wastewater in
which bacteria are utilized to decompose the organic matter in sewage.
This step is accomplished by introducing the sewage into a trickling
filter or an activated sludge process. Effective secondary treatment
processes remove virtually all floating solids and settleable solids,
as well as 90% of the BOD and suspended solids.
Storm sewer. A conduit that collects and transports stormwater runoff.
In most sewerage systems, storm sewers are separate from those carry-
ing sanitary or industrial wastewater.
Study Area. The Streator Facilities Planning Area as shown in Figure 12.
Syncline. A fold having a stratigraphically younger rock material in its
core; it is concave upward.
Tertiary treatment. Wastewater treatment beyond the secondary, or biolog-
ical, stage that includes removal of nutrients, such as phosphorus
and nitrogen, as well as a large percentage of suspended solids. It
produces an effluent with high water quality. Tertiary treatment
also is known as advanced waste treatment.
Till. Unsorted and unstratified drift consisting of a heterogeneous mix-
ture of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders that is deposited by and
underneath a glacier.
Trunk sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
number of lateral sewers and to conduct it to an interceptor sewer
or, in some cases, to a sewage treatment plant.
9-4
-------
10.0. LITERATURE CITED
Alexander, J.D., and J.E. Paschke. 1972. Soil Survey: La Salle County,
Illinois. University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station
Soil Report 91, Urbana IL, 140 pp.
Angle, Paula. 1962. Biography in black, a history of Streator, Illinois.
Weber Company.
Aronson, R., and E. Schwartz (Editors). 1975. Management policies in lo-
cal government finance. International City Managers Association,
Washington DC.
Arthur, J.W., and others. 1975. Comparative toxicity of sewage-effluent
disinfection to freshwater aquatic life. Water Pollution Control
Research Service, US-EPA, Washington DC.
Bailey, R.M. 1960. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from
the US and Canada. American Fisheries Society Special Publication
Number 2, Washington DC, 102 pp.
Burkett and Associates, Ltd. 1976. Village of Kangley, financial state-
ments and additional information (with accountant's report). Village
Clerk's Office, Kangley IL.
Cady, G.H. 1915. Coal resources of District I (Longwall). Illinois
State Geological Survey, Cooperative Coal Mining Series Bulletin
10, Urbana IL.
Dunrud, R.C. 1976. Some engineering geologic factors controlling coal
mine subsidence in Utah and Colorado. US Geological Survey Profes-
sional Paper 969.
Federal Water Quality Administration. 1970. Design, operation and main-
tenance of wastewater treatment facilities: Federal guidelines. US
Department of the Interior, Washington DC, 29 pp.
Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. Eighth edition. American
Book Company, New York NY, 1632 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 1963. Fish and wildlife as related to water
quality of the Illinois River Basin. US Department of the Interior,
96 pp.
Foelsch, C.B. 1973. Landmark churches of our faith: Holy Trinity. In:
BOND Lutheran Brotherhood, volume 50, number 3, July.
Ganow, H.C. 1975. A geotechnical study of the squeeze problem associated
with the underground mining of coal, Ph.D. thesis, University of
Illinois, Urbana IL.
Gary, Margaret, Robert McAfee, Jr., and C.L. Wolf (Editors). 1972. Glossary
of geology. American Geological Institute, Washington D.C., 857 pp.
10-1
-------
Great Lakes - Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers. 1978,
Recommended standards for sewage works (ten states standards). Health
Education Service, Inc., Albany NY, variously paged.
Hackett, J.E., and R.E. Bergstrom. 1956. Groundwater in northeastern
Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 207, Urbana IL,
24 pp.
Harlan Bartholomew & Associates. 1969. Centennial city plan of Streator,
Illinois.
Rickey, J.L.S., and P.C. Reist. 1975. Health significance of airborne
microorganisms from wastewater treatment processes. Journal of
the Water Pollution Control Federation, volume 47.
Historical Centennial Program. 1968. Streator, Illinois Centennial 1868-
1968. Sigma Press, Inc., Streator IL.
Hoffman, V.J. 1906. History of La Salle County, Illinois. Clarke Pub-
lishing Co., Chicago IL.
Hoover, L.R., and R.J. Schicht. 1967. Development in deep sandstone
aquifers along the Illinois River in La Salle County. Illinois State
Water Survey Report of Investigation 59, Urbana IL, 233 pp.
Illinois Bureau of the Budget. 1976. Illinois population projections.
Springfield IL.
Illinois Department of Business and Economic Development. 1976, Illinois
state and regional economic data book. Springfield IL.
Illinois Department of Conservation. 1967. Inventory of the fishes of six
river basins in Illinois, 1966. Division of Fisheries special fisheries
report no. 18, Springfield IL, 22 pp.
Illinois Department of Conservation. No date. Illinois canoeing guide.
Boating Section, Springfield IL.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). 1974. Special analysis
of mine discharges to the Vermilion River in the Streator IL vicinity.
From the files of Alan Keller, Division of Water Pollution Control,
Permit Section, Springfield IL.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Water quality network,
1975, summary of data, volume 2, Illinois Fox, Sangamon, and Kankakee
Basins. Water Quality Monitoring Unit, Springfield IL.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1976a. Illinois air quality re-
port. Ambient Air Monitoring Section, Springfield IL.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1976b. Water quality management
basin plan phase I, Illinois River Basin, volume 1. Division of Water
Pollution Control, Springfield IL.
10-2
-------
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1976c. Water quality network,
1976, summary of data, volume 2, Illinois Fox, Sangamon, and Kankakee
Basins. Water Quality Monitoring Unit, Springfield IL.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1977a. Monthly air quality re-
ports, January to August. Ambient Air Monitoring Section, Spring-
field IL.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1977b. Surveillance report,
plant information, and source information for non-confidential
sources. Division of Air Pollution Control, Springfield IL.
Illinois Historic Sites Survey. 1972. Inventory of historic structures
in La Salle County. Illinois Historic Structures Survey, Springfield
IL.
Illinois Historic Sites Survey. 1973. Inventory of historic landmarks in
La Salle County. Illinois Historic Landmark Survey, Springfield IL.
Illinois Manufacturers Directory. 1977. Springfield IL.
Illinois Natural History Survey. 1966. Ichthyological collection of the
Vermilion River. Urbana IL, 10 pp.
Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) 1973. State of Illinois noise
regulations. Springfield IL.
Illinois Pollution Control Board. 1976. State of Illinois air pollution
control regulations. Springfield IL.
Illinois Pollution Control Board. 1977. Rules and regulations, chapter
3: water pollution. Springfield IL.
Illinois State Geological Survey. Boring file for Streator, Illinois.
Urbana IL.
Illinois State Geological Survey. Map of mined out areas, Streator,
Illinois, map no. 7. Urbana IL.
Illinois State Water Survey. 1977. Data sent to Kent Peterson, WAPORA,
Inc., from Urbana IL.
Information Please Almanac, Atlas, and Yearbook. 1977.
Jacobson, A.R., and S.C. Morris. 1976. The primary air pollutants—viable
particulates—their occurrence, sources and effects. In: A.C. Stern,
Air pollution, 3rd edition, volume 1, Academic Press.
Kincannon, T.A. 1977. City of Streator, financial statements and accountant's
report. City Clerk's Office, Streator IL.
10-3
-------
Langford, T.W. 1977. Unpublished computer printouts givings population
projections by township (1970-2025), 1972 constant dollar per capita
money income projections by township (1970-2000), and employment pro-
jections by 51 industry categories (1975-2000), for La Salle and
Livingston Counties, Illinois. Prepared for the Illinois Bureau of
the Budget, Springfield IL.
La Salle County Clerk's Office. 1977". Data sent to V.S. Hastings, WAPORA,
Inc., by Lynn Stovicik, Ottawa IL.
La Salle County Regional Planning Commission. 1976a. La Salle County
housing trends, 1970-1975. Ottawa IL.
La Salle County Regional Planning Commission. 1976b. La Salle County trends
in new subdivisions. Ottawa IL.
La Salle County Regional Planning Commission. 1977. Generalized existing
land use map of La Salle County, Illinois. Ottawa IL.
Law Engineering Testing Company. 1978. Evaluation of potential mine sub-
sidence, Streator, Illinois. Prepared for WAPORA, Inc., Chicago IL.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1972. Wastewater engineering: collection, treatment,
disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York NY, 782 pp.
Miller, T.B. 1975. La Salle County surface water resources. Illinois
Department of Conservation, Division of Fisheries, Springfield IL,
51 pp.
Moak, L.L., and A.M. Hillhouse. 1975. Concepts and practices in local
government finance. Municipal Finance Officers Association of the
US and Canada, Chicago IL.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1976. Local cli-
matological data. US Department of Commerce, National Climatic Center,
Asheville NC.
Nichols, George. 1977. Streator wastewater treatment operation reports.
Streator IL.
Northern Illinois Water Company. 1977. Data sent to V.S. Hastings, WAPORA,
Inc., by Joseph Hansen, Streator IL.
Patterson, J.W., R.A. Minear, and T.K. Nedved. 1971. Septic tanks and the
environment. Written for the Illinois Institute of Environmental
Quality.
Piskin, Kemal, and R.E. Bergstrom. 1975. Glacial drift in Illinois: thick-
ness and character. Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 490,
Urbana IL.
Quade, J.C. 1935. Report on coal mining conditions, La Salle County,
Illinois. Unpublished report prepared for the Federal Land Bank,
St. Louis MO.
10-4
-------
Renz, Fred, past Streator City Engineer. Unpublished maps of the mined out
areas under Streator IL. In the possession of Mrs. Renz, Streator IL.
Sasman, R.T., C.R. Benson, G.L. Dzurisin, and N.E. Risk. 1973. Water level
decline and pumpage in deep wells in northern Illinois, 1966-1971.
Illinois State Water Survey Circular 113, Urbana IL, 41 pp.
Sasman, R.T., C.R. Benson, G.L. Dzurisin, and N.E. Risk. 1974. Groundwater
pumpage in northern Illinois, 1960-1970. Illinois State Water Survey
Report of Investigation 73, Urbana IL, 46 pp.
Singh, K.P. , and J.B. Stall. 1973. The 7-day 10-year low flows of Illinois
streams. Illinois State Water Survey Bulletin 57, Urbana IL, 24 pp.
Smith, P.W. 1971. Illinois streams: a classification based on their fishes
and an analysis of factors responsible for disappearance of native spe-
cies. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 76, 14 pp.
Snoeyink, V.L., and F.I. Markus. 1974. Chlorine residuals in treated ef-
fluents. Water and Sewage Works, volume 21, number 25.
Soil Testing Services, Inc. 1976. Report of subsurface investigations for
proposed housing for the elderly, Streator IL. Prepared for US Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development, Chicago IL.
Stall, J.B., and D.W. Hiestand. 1969. Provisional time-of-travel for
Illinois streams. Illinois State Water Survey Report of Investiga-
tion 63, Urbana IL, 31 pp.
St. Stephen's Parish. 1966. Financial statement. Streator IL.
Tsai, C. 1973. Water quality and fish life below sewage outfalls. Trans.
Amer. Fish. Soc., volume 102, number 281.
US Bureau of Mines. 1976. Final environmental statement, surface subsidence
control in mining regions. US Department of the Interior, 162 pp.
US Bureau of the Census. 1963. Census of population, 1960, volume 1,
characteristics of the population, part 15, Illinois, section 1. US
Department of Commerce.
US Bureau of the Census. 1969. Census of agriculture. US Department of
Commerce.
US Bureau of the Census. 1973. Census of population, 1970, volume 1, char-
acteristics of the population, part 15, Illinois, section 1. US De-
partment of Commerce.
US Bureau of the Census, 1974. City government finances. US Department of
Commerce.
10-5
-------
US Bureau of the Census. 1975. Business statistics. US Department of
Commerce.
US Bureau of the Census. 1976. Census of manufacturers. US Department of
Commerce.
US Department of Commerce. 1976. US statistical abstract.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on levels of environ-
mental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an
adequate margin of safety (EPA-550/9-74-004).
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975a. Background document for pro-
posed portable air compressor noise emission regulations (EPA 550/9-
76-004).
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975b. Grants for treatment and control
of combined sewer overflows and stormwater discharges. Construction
Grants Program Requirements Memorandum #75-34, Washington DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976a. Direct environmental factors
at municipal wastewater treatment works (EPA-430/9-76-003). Washing-
ton DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976b. Disinfection of wastewater
(EPA-430/9-75-012). Washington DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976c. Process design manual for phos-
phorus removal (EPA 625/1-76-OOla). Technology Transfer, Cincinnati OH.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977a. EPA's research and development
report in wastewater disinfection. Technology Transfer, Environmental
Research Information Center (October).
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977b. Erosion and sediment control in
the construction grants program. Construction Grants Program Require-
ments Memorandum #78-1. Washington DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977c. Technical appendix to 1978 needs
survey, cost estimating procedures. Unpublished, received from US-EPA,
Region V, Chicago IL, 7 December 1977, 25 pp.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Funding of sewage collection
system projects. Construction Grants Program Requirements Memorandum
#78-9. Washington DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Grant funding of projects re-
quiring treatment more stringent than secondary, program requirements
memorandum #79-7. Office of Water and Waste Management, Washington DC.
US Geological Survey. 1962-1976. Water resources data for Illinois. US
Department of the Interior, Champaign IL.
Walton, W.C. 1970. Groundwater resource evaluation. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York NY.
10-6
-------
Walton, WC., and Sandor Csallany. 1962. Yields of deep sandstone wells in
northern Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey Report of Investigation
43, Urbana IL, 47 pp.
Warzyn Engineering, Inc. 1961. Report of soil borings for St. Mary's
Hospital, Streator IL.
Wascher, H.L., R.S. Smith, and R.T. Odell. 1949. Livingston County soils.
University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station Soil Report 72,
Urbana IL, 58 pp.
Warren & Van Praag, Inc. 1975. Comprehensive sewerage and drainage report,
City of Streator, Illinois. Chicago IL, variously paged.
Willey, G.R. 1966. An introduction to American archaeology, volume 1, north
and middle America. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs NJ.
Willman, H.B. 1971. Summary of the geology of the Chicago area. Illinois
State Geological Survey Circular 460, Urbana IL, 77 pp.
Willman, H.B., Elwood Atherton, T.C. Buschbach, Charles Collinson, J.C. Frye,
M.E. Hopkins, J.A. Lineback, and J.A. Simon. 1975. Handbook of Il-
linois stratigraphy. Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin 95,
Urbana IL, 261 pp.
Willman, H.B., and J.C. Frye. 1970. Pleistocene stratigraphy of Illinois.
Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin 94, Urbana IL, 204 pp.
Willman, H.B., and J.N. Payne. 1942. Geology and mineral resources of the
Marseilles, Ottawa, and Streator quadrangles. Illinois State Geologi-
cal Survey Bulletin 66, Urbana IL, 388 pp.
Zebrun, G. 1969. Livingston County surface water resources. Illinois De-
partment of Conservation, Division of Fisheries, Springfield IL, 32 pp.
10-7
-------
11.0. INDEX
Aesthetics, 3-1, 6-2, 6-23, 6-24, 7-9
Agriculture, 3-2, 3-12, 6-4, 7-7
See also Land Uses
Air quality, 3-1, 6-1, 6-2, 6-24
Alternatives:
considered, v, 2-5, 5-1, 5-14-5-19, 6-1-6-24, 7-1
costs, 2-4, 5-19, 5-20
evaluation, 1-4, 6-14, 6-23, 7-1
impacts. See Impacts
most cost-effective, iii, 1-6, 2-4, 5-1, 5-21, 7-1
recommended, iii, 7-1-7-4
adverse impacts, 7-10, 7-11
Ammonia-nitrogen:
in leachates, 3-11, 3-15, 5-13, 6-10
in point source discharges, 6-6, 6-7, 8-3
in surface waters, 3-11
standards, 3-11, 4-8, 7-3
Aquatic biota. See Vegetation, aquatic; Wildlife, aquatic
Aquifers, 3-13, 3-15, 5-4, 6-12
Archaeology. See Cultural Resources
Architecture. See Cultural Resources
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), 3-11, 6-6, 7-3
in leachates, 3-11, 5-13
in surface waters, ii, 3-11, 6-9
standards, 1-1, 3-11, 4-7, 5-14, 5-19, 6-7, 7-3, 8-1
to mines, 3-15, 6-9
Chlorination, iii, 5-8, 5-19, 6-11, 6-20, 6-23, 7-3, 7-4, 7-9
Coal Run, 3-12, 6-5, 6-10, 6-11
Coal, 3-2
See also Mines
Combined sewer system. See Sewer System
Community services, 3-22-3-24, 6-19
11-1
-------
Comprehensive Sewerage and Drainage Report, 1-1
Construction impacts. See Impacts, construction
Costs, 1-3, 1-6, 5-19-5-21, 6-20, 7-1, 8-4
average annual equivalent, 5-21, 6-14, 6-16, 7-5
construction, 5-1, 5-21, 7-11
local, 6-14, 6-15, 7-4, 7-5
operation and maintenance, iii, 5-12, 5-19, 5-21, 6-16, 6-19, 6-20,
7-1, 7-3, 7-11
per capita, iii, 1-4, 6-16
per household, 2-3, 2-4, 6-16, 6-17
See also Community services; Funding
Cultural resources, 2-2, 3-16-3-18
impacts on, 6-12, 6-13, 7-8
Debts, 3-24, 6-14, 6-17-6-20, 7-5
See also Finances
Design:
capacity, 5-6, 7-2, 8-1, 8-3
discharge rate, 4-7, 5-10
flow, 1-3, 2-6, 4-3, 4-8, 7-2
Discharges, v, 1-4, 3-15, 4-6, 4-8
contaminants, 3-15
from mines, 3-15, 7-11
stormwater, 1-3, 3-15, 4-1, 6-8
to mines, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1, 2-3-2-5, 3-15, 4-1, 4-3, 5-8, 6-7, 6-8, 6-23
to surface waters, ii, 4-1, 5-9, 6-6, 6-7, 7-11
wastewater:
industrial, 1-1, 2-1, 3-15, 4-3-4-6, 5-6, 6-8, 7-2
sanitary, 2-1, 2-3, 4-6
treated, 2-1, 4-1, 6-23
untreated, 1-1, 4-1, 4-9
See also Flows; Leachates; Overflows
Disinfection. See Chlorination
Dropshafts, 1-1, 4-1, 5-3
additional, 5-11, 5-19, 8-1
existing, 1-3, 4-1, 5-10
Effluent, 5-11
quality, 1-1, 4-7-4-9, 6-6, 6-7, 7-3, 8-4
requirements, 4-7, 6-6, 6-7, 7-3, 7-9, 8-3
EIS, required, 1-1, 7-8
EIS study area, 1-4
11-2
-------
Employment, impacts on, 6-13, 6-14, 6-18, 7-11
Energy consumption, 7-11, 7-12
Erosion, 6-4, 6-5, 7-7, 7-8
Environmental impact statement, See EIS
Environmental impacts, See Impacts, environmental
Facilities Plan, 1-1, 1-3, 5-6, 7-9, 8-1, 8-3
Fecal coliforms, 6-6
in leachates, 3-15, 5-13, 7-11
in surface waters, 3-11, 5-13
sources, 3-11
standards, 3-11, 7-11
Finances, Streator and vicinity, 3-24, 3-25, 6-17
Flooding, 3-7
Floodplains, 2-2, 6-5
Flows,
combined sewer, 1-1, 4-1, 4-8, 5-4, 6-7, 6-23, 6-24, 7-4, 7-7
dry-weather, 2-5, 6-7
wet-weather, 2-5, 6-7, 8-1
Funding,
Federal, ii, iii, 2-3, 5-4, 5-14, 5-21, 6-14, 7-5, 8-3
general revenue, 6-14, 6-19
local, iii, 5-21, 7-5,
Geology, 3-1, 6-4
Groundwater, 1-6, 2-2, 3-13, 3-14, 6-12
Historical resources. See Cultural resources
Impacts,
construction, 6-1, 6-3, 6-10, 6-13, 6-23, 6-24, 7-3, 7-5, 7-10
minimization, 7-5, 7-7-7-10
environmental, iii, v, 4-8, 6-2-6-13, 6-24, 6-12
See also Under the specific topic (e.g., Air Quality)
operation, 6-1, 6-2, 6-4
minimization, 7-9, 7-10
11-3
-------
Income, 6-16, 6-17, 7-5
Industries, 4-3, 7-2, 8-1, 8-3
Infiltration/inflow, 4-1, 4-6, 4-8, 5-2, 5-3, 7-3, 8-1
Kangley, Village of, 1-4, 3-23, 5-4
Land:
use, 3-2
values, 6-24
LaSalle County, Illinois, 1-1, 3-3, 6-14
Leachates,
collection and treatment, 5-8, 5-9
dry-weather flows, 5-12
impacts, 1-3, 5-12, 7-10, 8-4
from landfill, 3-11
monitoring, 6-10, 8-4
quality, ii, 1-6, 3-11, 5-9, 6-8, 6-10, 6-24
quantity, 6-10, 8-4
septic tank effluent, 5-6
to surface water, 1-1, 3-12, 5-1, 5-12, 6-10, 7-10
Livingston County, Illinois, 1-1, 3-3, 6-14
Maintenance, system components, 7-10
Meteorology, 3-1
Mines, coal:
abandoned, 1-1, 3-2, 3-13, 7-7
condition of, 1-6
leachates, iii, 1-6, 3-12, 3-15, 5-2
recharge system, 2-2, 2-3, 3-15, 5-1, 5-10, 5-11, 5-19, 6-14, 7-4, 8-3
subsidence. See Subsidence
See also Water, level in mines
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, 1-1, 2-3, 4-8, 5-9, 6-6
"Natural areas," 3-2
Nitrification, 2-6, 5-8, 7-3
11-4
-------
Noise pollution, 3-1, 6-2-6-4, 6-23
Notice of intent, 1-3, 1-6
NPDES, permit. See National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
On-site systems, 5-6, 6-20, 7-10
Operation impacts, See Impacts, operation
Overflows,
combined sewer, 4-8, 5-9, 6-7, 6-8, 7-1, 7-4, 8-3
See also Discharges, flows
Pollutant loads, reduction:
to mines, 2-2, 6-8-6-10
to surface waters, 2-2, 6-6, 6-9, 6-14
See also Discharges
Pollution
non-point sources, 3-15, 6-10
See also Under specific types, e.g., Ammonia-nitrogen
Population, v, 3-19
projections, 1-6, 3-21, 6-24
trends, 3-20, 3-21
Prairie Creek, 3-12, 4-9, 5-12, 6-10
Pretreatment, 4-3, 5-8, 7-9
Program Requirements Memorandum, 5-10, 7-7, 8-1, 8-3
Proposed action, 1-4, 7-1-7-11, 8-1, 8-4
Public health, 2-3, 3-11, 5-4, 6-1, 6-20
Public participation, 1-4, 1-6, 1-7, 7-9
Recharge system, mine. See Mines, recharge system
Recommendations, 8-1-8-4
Recreation, 2-2, 3-9, 6-11
11-5
-------
Separation of sewers, 5-3, 5-4, 5-14, 7-2
impacts of, 6-5
Service area, sewer:
existing, 1-1, 3-23, 4-1, 4-2, 5-18, 6-19
extension, 3-23, 5-4, 6-18, 6-19, 7-2, 8-3
population, 3-23, 4-6
See also unsewered areas
Sewer system:
capacity, 7-2
collection system 1-3, 5-1, 5-19, 7-5, 8-1
combined 1-3, 2-8, 4-1, 5-4
existing, 1-1, 5-3, 7-11
extension,
new, 5-2
rehabilitation, 2-2, 2-3, 4-1, 5-4, 5-19, 7-1, 7-11, 8-4
See a_lso Sewers
Sewer System Evaluation Survey, iii, 8-1
Sewers
extended, 2-7, 5-12, 6-24
interceptor, 2-2, 2-8, 4-1, 5-19, 7-2, 7-5
sanitary, ii, 1-3
separated. See Separation of sewers
storm, 5-11, 5-19
installation, 5-19, 7-5, 8-3, 8-4
Sludge, 1-1, 4-3, 8-3
Soils, 3-1, 4-22, 7-7
SS. See Suspended solids
Stormwater, 1-3, 1-6, 5-3, 5-8, 5-10, 6-8, 8-1
Stream discharge, 5-8, 5-9, 5-11, 6-8, 7-3, 7-4
Streator, City of, 1-1, 3-23-3-25
Subsidence, 1-1, 1-4, 4-9, 7-4
control of, 1-1, 2-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4
damage caused, 2-2
potential, v, 2-1, 2-7, 3-2, 6-4
minimization, 8-1
Suspended solids, ii, 1-1, 4-7, 5-9, 5-14, 5-19, 6-6, 6-7, 7-3, 8-1, 8-3
Taxes. See Community services
11-6
-------
Terrestrial vegetation. See Vegetation, terrestrial
Treatment system, ii, 5-1, 5-2, 7-3, 7-4, 8-3
Unsewered area, 5-11, 6-8, 6-20
See also Service area, sewer
Vegetation,
aquatic, 3-12
impacts on, 6-4, 6-5, 7-8, 7-10
terrestrial, 3-2
threatened and endangered species, 3-2, 6-5
Vermilion River,
drainage basin, 3-3, 3-5
effluents to, ii, iii, 3-15, 4-1, 4-9, 5-9, 5-12, 6-6, 6-7
flow, 3-3-3-7, 5-11
quality, 1-4, 3-9, 6-11, 6-14
uses, 3-3, 3-7, 3-9-3-12, 6-11, 7-1
Visual impacts. See Aesthetics
Warren & Van Praag, Inc., ii, 1-1, 1-4, 4-3
Wastewater treatment, 4-3, 4-7, 4-8, 5-1, 5-6-5-10, 7-1
Water:
conservation, 5-3
consumption, 5-3
levels in mines:
maintenance, 2-7, 6-14, 7-4
monitoring, 5-12, 7-4
present, 3-2, 3-13, 8-3
pollution. See Water quality
supply, 3-3, 3-13
surface, 2-5, 3-3, 3-7, 6-6
Water quality:
improvement, 6-6, 6-11
in mines, 6-11
monitoring, 3-9, 3-10
problems, 3-11, 4-8
protection, 7-8
standards, 1-1, 3-11, 5-4, 5-6, 6-6, 6-10, 7-10, 8-4
Wetlands, 2-2, 6-5
Wildlife,
aquatic, 3-12
impacts on, 6-5, 6-6, 6-11, 7-8, 7-10
terrestrial, 3-2
threatened and endangered species, 3-2, 6-6
11-7
-------
APPENDIX A.
COMMENT LETTERS ON DRAFT EIS
A 1
-------
SS\ United States
Department of
Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
P. 0. Box 678
Champaign, IL
61820
September 25, 1979
Mr. Gene Wojcik, Chief
EIS Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Wojcik:
We have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement regarding
Rehabilitation of Wastewater Facilities, Streator, Illinois.
There is an insignificant area of prime farmland involved.
Sincerely,
Warren J. Fitzgerald
State Conservationist
cc: Director, Office of Federal Activities (5)
Berg, Administrator
Lett, w/copy of draft
Smith, AC, A-2
Madison, DC, A-2
3» t°
>• c/>
H =3
m
.33 is
'— 5c
m
o
m
D
.2
O~)
o
A-2
-------
a
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30333
October 22, 1979 j£
•••.e
rr
Mr. Gene Wojcik ;X: ro
Chief, EIS Section ,_., \ T]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency !_' j& —
230 South Dearborn Street •<- <^
Chicago, Illinois 60604 ^ ~ -p
Dear Mr. Wojcik: J~ ^ L-/
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
Rehabilitation of Wastewater Facilities in Streator, Illinois. We are
responding on behalf of the Public Health Service and are offering the
following comments for your use in preparing the final EIS.
We understand that the proposed rehabilitation of wastewater facilities
includes replacement of three major combined interceptor sewers and up-
grading of the existing treatment plant to include nitrification and
chlorination.
Subsidence
We have some concerns about the potential for continued local subsidence
and its effects upon the life of the project works and future human health
and welfare. These potential effects should be further addressed. The
subsidence effects caused from periodic inundation of mine shafts from
sewage, stormwater, and excess combined flows are unknown. The extent to
which past subsidence control efforts may have aggravated subsidence
because of not maintaining stable water levels in the mines should be
disclosed. According to Appendix B, Evaluation of the Potential for
Ground Surface Subsidence, "fluctuation in mine water levels must be
minimized. . ." because mine inundation ". . .would cause drying and
subsequent deterioration of the pillars and wooden roof support system."
Past subsidence has been documented on pages B-31 to B-33 of the EIS and
reveals the very unstable subsurface conditions in Streator.
The long-term viability of this project appears to be dependent upon both
the availability of sufficient recharge water during summer drought periods
and satisfactory maintenance of stable and flooded water levels in the
mines. Even with these subsidence control measures, there is no guarantee
that subsidence will be abated. According to the EIS, there is no "safe"
level at which mine water should be maintained. If permanent subsidence
control measures (such as providing grout columns) are not implemented by
the city, how viable will this project be in view of the past cases of
sheared sewer and water lines, collapsed streets, etc. from subsidence?
A-3
-------
Page 2 - Mr. Gene Wojcik
The secondary effects of encouraging development in local areas that are
particularly susceptible to future subsidence, such as the northwest part
of Streator, should be addressed.
Mine Leachate and Water Supply
We agree that more detailed investigations are required to characterize
mine leachate quality and flow during dry-weather and wet-weather periods.
Since industry is contributing to the existing wasteload conveyed to the
treatment plant and/or mines, the quality of the industrial wastewater
should be better described in the EIS. We trust project plans will
include measures to eliminate all direct dry-weather discharges of waste-
water to the mines.
In view of the industrial and municipal wastewater discharged into the
mines, the incompetency and local failure of the roof rock above the mine
chambers, and the potential for vertical downflow via leaky well casings,
any past or potential problems associated with the contamination of local
public and private wells should be disclosed in the EIS.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft EIS. Please send us
one copy of the final EIS when it becomes available.
Sincerely yours,
Frank S. Lisella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Bureau of State Services
A-4
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
ER-79/897
OCT 2 2
CD
c ~>
--i
~T I"0
-*' cjn
C -cr
Mr. Gene Wojcik ~ sc
Chief, EIS Section •; r>o
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ~L
230 South Dearborn Street O J=
Chicago, Illinois 60604 S2 •c
Dear Mr. Wojcik:
We have reviewed the draft environmental statement on rehabilitation
of wastewater facilities for Streator, Illinois. We are principally
concerned about potential impacts on wildlife habitat and on archeo-
logical and recreational resources, and about the potential hazard of
coal mine subsidence.
We note that mention is made that Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899) and/or Section 404 (Public Law 92-500) permits would be re-
quired for all stream crossings (p. 6-8) and we wish to point out that
our comments on this statement do not in any way preclude additional
and separate evaluation and comments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C.
661 et seq.). In review of any permit application, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as a minimum: (1) will recommend that the Corps of
Engineers require features to reduce turbidity and minimize pollution
during construction and measures to protect disturbed areas from
erosion; and (2) may recommend such other measures as would be appar-
ent and appropriate from the information available at the time.
Wildlife Habitat
It appears that water quality would be improved significantly as a
result of the proposed action but at the expense of adverse impacts
on floodplain and wetland habitats (p. 5-5). The final statement
should include a discussion of how the selected alternative complies
with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order
11990, Protection of Wetlands. The "Pfeffer exemption," to which
several references are made throughout the document, should be explained.
o
.CONSERVE
i AM ERICA'S
ENERGY
Save Energy and You Serve America!
A-5
-------
The discussion of unavoidable adverse impacts (p. 6-10, par. 5) should be
expanded to include the quantity (acres) and quality of the wildlife habitat
that would be directly and indirectly impacted by the selected alternative.
This information would better assist the reviewer in determining whether
or not project impacts would be "minimal and/or short duration" as stated
in the last sentence of the paragraph.
Archeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Officer should be consulted immediately to
develop an archeological survey and to discuss determinations of eligibility
for those districts in which brick streets may be affected.
Recreational Resources
The draft statement appears to give no consideration to recreation although
P.L. 95-^17 requires such consideration in the planning of wastewater facil-
ities. The final statement should address the recreation potential of the
proposal and the actions to be taken in that regard.
The map on page xii shows a major interceptor to be replaced and an effluent-
distribution force main crossing the James Street Recreation Area in the
City of Streator. Construction activities which disrupt the soils, vege-
tation, and physical facilities could have long-lasting and adverse effects
on the park or other recreation areas not identified within the project
boundaries. The final statement should identify all park and recreational
resources which may be affected, and impacts and appropriate mitigation
measures should be discussed.
Mine Subsidence
An objective of the proposed action is to develop alternatives that would
not increase the potential for subsidence (p. 4-1, item 4.1). Because
numerous accounts of subsidence associated with coal mining in the
Streator area have been reported since mining was begun, the propagation
of mine-subsidence fissures from passive subsidence areas into potential
subsidence areas should be considered. Such an expanded fissure system
could permit increased migration of mine water leachate from the flooded
mines to water-bearing units locally tapped by wells and also result in
greater pollution in Prairie Creek and the Vermillion River. Further,
mine water levels could be significantly lowered and might not provide
the hydrostatic head necessary to minimize the mine subsidence potential.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft.
Sincerel
A-6
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION 5
182O9 DIXIE HIGHWAY
HOMEWOOD. ILLINOIS 6O43O
October 31, 1979
IN REPLY REFER TO
HED-05
•t»
—J
•<; co
*f~
^f 72
Mr. Gene Wojcik —'- --? ,l
Chief, EIS Section !V
Environmental Engineering Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street -~; '^ ^
Chicago, Illinois 60604 1 — .,-,
c: ^-' '^
Dear Mr. Wojcik: 7— cr v J
z ~°
The draft environmental statement for the rehabilitation of
wastewater facilities at Streator, Illinois has been reviewed.
The proposed action has no impact on facilities within our
functional area of responsibility. Therefore, we have no
comments to offer on the statement.
Sincerely yours,
Donald E. Trull
Regional Administrator
}. Emrich, Director
f01^ Office of Environment and Design
A-7
-------
Illinois lAI Department of Conservation
life and land together
605 WM. G. STRATTON BUILDING MOO SOUTH SPRING STREET "SPRINGFIELD R2701
CHICAGO OFFICE - ROOM 100, 160 NO. LASALLE 60601
David Kenney, Director • James C. Helfrich, Assistant Director
September 14, 1979
Mr. John McGuire —
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. McGuire:
Vfe have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement
for Rehabilitation of Wastewater Facilities in Streator, Illinois.
In our opinion, the document adequately addresses the
concerns of this department pertaining to cultural resources.
Sincerely,
V-A
David Kenney
State Historic Preservation Officer
DK/AEM/js
-------
Illinois
Department of Conservation
life and land together
605 WM. G. STRATTON BUILDING «400 SOUTH SPRING STREET •
CHICAGO OFFICE - ROOM 100. 160 NO. LASALLE 60601
David Kenney, Director • James C. Helfrich, Assistant Director
September 27, 1979
23P
o
rf\
o
rn
O
Mr. Gene Wojcik
Chief EIS Section
US EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Wojcik:
RE: Rehabilitation of Streator
Wastewater Facilities
SAI# 79091360
LaSalle & Livingston County
We have noted your proposal for planning for the above proposed
project. Within your planning area we have record of several sites.
The area of the sites is indicated on the enclosed map. Please be
aware that to prevent damage to the archaeological resources, this
locational information should remain confidential and is provided
for planning purposes only.
It is possible that there may be other sites within this area
and that some may qualify for the National Register. When you have
locations for construction, we would need to review the plans. This
letter does not constitute "sign-off" for construction purposes.
Sincerely,
Margaret Kimball Brown
Staff Archaeologist
MKB/LSA
cc: T.E. Hornbacker
A-9
-------
,j'L^ ^Marseilles F.P.A.'\ • M ' A | N L I
J* _ g B R; o'
C* "^^V"^ **! x.
LA SALLE COUNTY
SCALE
,. . I I '- *^ __!t Mlt-"
5000 10000 IS'JOO JOOOO JSOOO »Ef
jcj-Jrc^Kya^a-i^-r rr i
•«
15'JOO JOOOO JSOOO »Ef ;
=T^?ri"fc3^trf^
|/. f u H „ •
N-M '
" iLsJ
/: *>. 'air 'Vtaf •
'^""l^r'-
1
air •ftai • : ( }=-> ..
r7f'^^»^^T
! / HO W':-B '(s
r i __^
u if>
-------
3 ^ •
c
CX
JicrtLA^ /^strlst,
d
/»^
^k-o
-**L' -J *
-^tLe- &< ^eo^*4
"** - ——^"
^ioe.
, ^r^
-M. -^tctf> ^ix^CcV- ^c
cJ-jL^
A-ll
-------
^
^-c^xte-*-
A-12
-------
'Vc^
*.r9 NCV 6 AM 10:33
-YVUt.
.-tt! <— '-
_.
kii~k yV-i
v ' tt- ,
' (.\ii
U u C
.
A
A-13
-------
-------
•x2-y^_:,\£<~'.'^. , '
UJ -:
j
*
o:
A-15
-------
Cr.tober 11 , 157S
WARREN & VAN PRAAG, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS' IKCHITKrni
ciC'3 H'cy is, Rc^rt • Chicago, Mln.ois 6! f 31 • (312) ryjV --.,1 e
United States f.rvi ror.ii.tnt? I Protecticr /-cency
Reel on V
230 Sci'th Dearborn Street
Chice&o, Illinois 60b04
Attention: Gene V.'ojik. Chief, ESS Section
Subject* Comments en Draft Envi ronnentsl Irpect
St&te-rrent for Streator. Illinois
Gentlemen:
Warren 6 V'r?n Pra":c h?s conducted a prel ini"3"~y review of the Draft of
the Environmental lirpact Staten-tnt (tlS) for Streator, Illinois prepared by
the United f.tntcs Env! ror.ner.tal Protection A&ency 3rd Wapora, Inc. The findings
of this st.'-'o'y were co^psred with the fir.cings presented in the City cf
niirois "Ccrnprehensive Sewerrge and Drainage Report (CSfiR) February, i
prepared by Wsrren £ Vtn Fra^g. The purpose of this comparison we.s to c,r>certr. i n
whet differences, if any, cxis'i. between the reconTiendc-.ticns developed from these
two studies, to ciisucver the. reasons for cry differences, and to determine what
effect there differences would i.ave en irr.proverronts proposed.
Following is s listing of nvajor "points cf difference1' between the E I S and
V.'arrer. f- Ven Prang's study which have been identified Ihusfar:
1)
2)
3)
Plnnning Area
Population Projections
Plert Design Criteria
a) Dry Weather Flow
b) Wot Weethcr Pew
A-16
jcc'/ve Of/icfs. '• "•; \ '/vVs. n F.oed •
-------
A) Alternative Treatment Processes
5) Treatment Plant Design Flows
6) Storm Drainage
7) Cost Estimates
8) Cost-Effectiveness
Generally, Warren £ Van Praag supports the overall findings of the EIS
regarding the potential subsidence hazard in Streator and the need for providing
positive control measures. As both the EIS end Warren & Van Praag's study point
out, the only control measure vhich eppeers to be cost-effective et this time, is
the continued flooding of the mine system using municipal, private and storm waste-
v.'ater to retard further deterioration of the supporting structures. As was also
pointed out in both studies, this flooding will not stop subsidence, but will only
reduce the number and severity of incidents. Seme subsidence will continue to
occur in and around Streator. While Warren & Van Praag agrees with the overall
conclusions, we cannot agree, however, with the plan for providing the necessary
mine flooding as recommended in the EIS. We do not believe it is truly the cost-
effective solution because of the "points of difference" listed previously.
Following are discussions of each of these "points" and their effect on the
recommenda t i ons:
1) PLANNING AREA
The difference of planning area boundaries between the EIS snd Warren £
Van Praag studies are shown in Figure 1-2 (page 1-5) of the EIS. The area
shown enclosed by a dotted line in Figure 1-2 identified as the Warren & Van
Praag Planning Area is, in fact, the projected year 2000 service area of the
Streator sewer system. The ultimate sewer service, area (and planning area)
is shown in Figure 1 of the Comprehensive Sewerage & Drainage Report (CSDR).
The boundary of this ultimate service area agrees mere closely with the
A-17
-------
Planning area boundary of the EIS. The major difference being the
exclusion of Kangley from the CSDR area. However, as pointed out in
the EIS (Paragraph A.2.2.3, psge k-b), inclusion of Kangley in the
Streator wastewater collection/treatment system is not cost-effective
at this time.
2) POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The analyses and recommendations presented in the Environmental Impect
Statement are based on a projected zero population growth for the EIS
planning area. That is, population is expected to remain at its current
(1970 & 1977) 21,750 level for the EIS planning period which extends to
the year 2000. The bases of this projection are discussed in detail in the
EIS in Paragraphs 2.5.1 thru 2.5.3 (pg. 2-30 thru 39). This projection differs
substantially from the population forecasts used to develop the Comprehensive
Sewerage and Drainage Report (CSDR) recommendations. Those forecasts were
prepared from data presented in the Comprehensive Plan for Streator, January,
1962, prepared by Her land Bartholomew end Associates. These forecasts call
for a population of 3^,000 within the year 2000 sewer service area (CSDR
figure 1), which is substantially smaller than the EIS planning area.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency also assists in population
growth forecasting in that it provides disaggregaticns, by township and/or
planning area, of Bureau of the Budget (state and county) population pro-
jections. The IEPA was contacted as part of our review of the EIS to provide
an additional source of information regarding population growth estimates for
Streator. Data from this agency seems to be somewhat of a median between
projections used in the EIS and CSDR. IEPA forecasts indicate a slow but
steady growth for the townships surrounding Streator which also is expected
to affect Streator itself. Streator's sewer service area population is
A-18
-------
expected to be approximately 21,000 by the year 2000, while the EIS planning
area population is projected to exceed 29,000. The IEPA also advised that
if Streator were to pursue an aggressive annexation program, the 2000 sewer
service area population could be substantially greater than the 21,000 now
forecast.
The differences in the EIS, CSDR and IEPA projections demonstrate the
inconclusiveness of population forecasting. It appears that, based on
current trends, the projections included in the February, 1S75 CSDR are
probably somewhat high, and that projections included in the EIS may be
low. It is extremely unwise, however, to base the sizing of major sewers
on low projections such as those included in the EIS (particularly in the
face of the conflicting data provided by Warren & Van Praag and IEPA pro-
jections) due to the extremely long (^0 to 50 year) service lives of such
sewers. This is particularly true because of the low cost of providing
additional capacity at the time of construction by means of pipe size
increases versus the high cost of adding capacity at later times by con-
struction of parallel sewers. Warren £ Van Praag recommends that, at the
very least, major sewers be sized on the basis of current IEPA population
growth projections and that consideration be given to providing further
additional capacity b&sed on the ultimate needs of the Streator planning
area. The increase in sewer sizes will, of course, increase the capital
costs of all the alternatives presented in the EIS. However, it is
expected that this cost increase will affect all alternatives analyzed
relatively equally. The greatest effect will probably be felt in the plans
calling for rehabilitation and reuse of the existing sewers as the sanitary
system, since the providing of additional capacity to meet ultimate needs
nay require construction of additional parallel sewers which would not be
needed with other plans.
A-19
-------
3) PLANT DESIGN CRITERIA - DRY WEATHER FLOWS
The Environmental Impect Statement analyses and recommendations are
based on the cost of providing dry weather flow treatment to meet current
State effluent regulations which ere (based on the dilution ratio of the
Vermilion River at Streator): biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) not greater
than 4 mg/1 end Suspended Solids (SS) not greater than 5 mg/1. The Illinois
Pollution Control Board and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency have
recognized that this standard is not consistently achievable using today's
best practicable treatment technology and have generally granted a variance
from this standard to: BCD not greater than 10 mg/1 , an SS not greater than
12 mg/1. It can be expected that such a variance would also be granted to
Streator. The probability cf obtaining this type of variance was assumed in
the EIS, although it was incorrectly described ES a "Pfeffer exemption"
(Paragraph k.2.3.2, pages 4~8 c 9, Paragraph 3-5, paces 3~8 6 3) which are
generally nc longer granted.
The EIS also assumes that if all treatment plant discharges were
directed to the underground mines a further reduction in required effluent
quality could be obtained wherein BOD not greater than 20 mg/1 and SS net
greater than 25 mg/1 could be discharged (to the mines). This plan also
assumes that additional treatment will be provided in the mines (Paragraph
4.2.3.2, page 4-9 and Table 4-2, page 4-15). These assumptions are in
direct contradiction with current !PCB regulations and are diametrically
opposed to actions taken thusfar by I EPA and other regulatory agencies.
Recent contacts with IEPA have confirmed that the chances for obtaining
permits for such discharges are extremely slim if not non-existent. All
alternatives included in the EIS besed en obtaining this permit variance
shcL-ld be eliminated from consideration. This includes alternatives la,
Ih, li, 2g, 2h, 21, 3g, 3h, 3i, 4g, 4h, and 4i. If these alternatives
A-20
-------
are to remain in consideration, appropriate capital and operating costs
should be added to provide acceptable levels of treatment.
PLANT DESIGN CRITERIA - WET WEATHER FLOWS
The Environmental Impact Statement presents a listing of State
regulations regarding combined sewer discharge treatment requirements
(Paragraph 3-5 pages 3~8 & 9). The regulations listed do rot represent
current guidelines. Current regulations are contained in Illinois Pollution
Control Board Rule 602 and interpretations, such as Technical Advisory TA-3
June 1, 1977 and the March IA, 1379 Memorandum on Combined Sev/er Overflov/s
by the I EPA, These updated regulations appear to cause an increase In
treatment costs over those now included in the EIS. Latest IEPA procedures
for determining compliance with Rule 602, are summarized as follows (from
1EFA TA-3 June 1, 1977 page 6) :
3. Levels of Treatment
Summarizing the above discussions, the following levels of treatment
are required under the provisions of Rule 6C2(c).
a. Dry weather flow - Complete treatment
b. First flurh - Complete treatment
c. All ^lo^vs in excess of "A" plus I:B" (Separate Sewers) - Primary
clarification and disinfection* plus 30/30 mg/1 BOD/TSS on a
monthly average.
d. Flows in excess of "A" plus "B" (Combined Sewers) - Primary
clarification end disinfection- for flows up to 1250 gal/P.E. x
P.E. (organic).
e. No discharge may cause or. contribute to water quality violations.
* - In addition, discharges must comply with all requirements of
Part IV (Chapter 3) except Rule
A-21
-------
Based on the procedures outlined in TA-3, and the projected domestic
and industrial loadings presented in the EIS, the year 2000 organic loading
on Streator's combined sewer system is estimated to be epproximately 40,000
P.E. (population equivalent). For such a loading, State regulations require
dry weather flow end combined sewer overflow pollution control facilities to
have a total peak capacity cf at least 50 MGD (40,000 PE x 1250 GPD per PE).
Additional capacity may also be required to prevent potential water quality
violations. Assuming that the minimum required facilities (50 MGD peak)
will be sufficient to prevent water quality violations and that the dry
weather flow treatment system is sized to handle the peak theoretical waste-
water loads of 2.4 MGD (Average Daily Flow - EIS Table 4-1, Scenario E,
page 4~7) x 2.5 peaking factor = 6 HGD, the combined overflow storage end/
or treatment facilities would be required to have a peak flow capacity of
at least 44 MGD (50 MGD total peak capacity for all systems minus 6 MGD
peak dry weather flew capacity).
The 44 MGD combined overflow facility would, of course, be substantially
more costly than the 4.8 tc 12.3 MGD facilities included in the various
alternatives presented in the EIS. It is also highly unlikely that the
existing combined sewer lateral system, even if rehabilitated, could trans-
port the volume of flow required to meet State regulations without the
addition of a substantial number of relief sewers. Therefore, the cost of
increased treatment capacity as well as the cost of the additional sewers
required should be added to those alternative plans presented in the EIS
which include treatment of combined flows, which are plans 2a-2i and 3a~3i.
Plans 4a thru 41 call for the discharge of virtually untreated combined
overflow sewage to the mines. This is specifically prohibited by IFCB
regulations, therefore, these alternatives should be excluded from further
consideration.
A-22
-------
4) ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROCESSES
The Environnental Impact Statement establishes the probable effluent
limitations with which Streator will heve to comply, which ere: effluent
containing no greater than 10 rng/1 BCD, 12 mg/1 SS, and 1.5 me/! (April -
October else 4 rrg/1) KH-j-N. It is our opinion that some of the treatment
processes considered by the EIS will not, in fact, consistently produce an
effluent which will meet these standards.
In Paragraph k.2.3.2 of the EIS it is stated, in part, thr-t by dis-
charging a dilute influent to a waste treatment plant (i.e. not eliminating
l/i), less sophisticated treatment processes would be required to refch a
particular effluent quality than would be required for a higher strength
influent. While this is true over United ranges, a certain practical
limit is reached for each succeedingly sophisticated level of treatment.
Increasing dilution beyond this limit can actually be counter-productive
In that waste strength falls below the point necessary to maintain adequate
biological end/or chemical activity. Recent contacts with IEPA have con-
firmed thet to reach a 10/12 standerd consistently, some form of tertiary
treatment will be required. Therefore, all alternatives discussed in the L'lS
which do not include adequate tertiary treatment should be eliminated from
comparison. These plans are: Ig, lh, li, 2g, 2h, 2i, 3g, 3h, 3>, ^gf 4h,
end Ai. If these plans are to be compared, additional capital and operating
costs should be included to account for the more sophisticated treatment
processes which are actually required to meet expected effluent limitations.
In Paragraph 4.2.3.2 (page 4-8), the EIS states, "Nitrification wc-uld
be provided by the addition of one 150 horsepower blower in the activated
sludge unit...". The ability to nitrify in an activated sludge system is
not a furction of air volume but rsther of sludge age. A common method for
A-23
-------
increasing sludge age while maintaining proper mixed liquor solids
i
concentration is the addition of aeration tank capacity thus increasing
detention tine. This may be done using a single aeration stage process or
a two stage process, in which additional clarifiers would also be required.
The existing aeration tankage at Streator is not sufficient to provide an
adequate detention time for nitrification based on the year 2000 projected
theoretical wastewater load of 2.^ KGD (discussed elsewhere in this report).
Therefore, additional capital and operating costs should be included in the
various EIS treatment alternatives to account for the additions] aeration
tank capacity required. Other methods of nitrification should also b-s
considered to determine if any cost savings may be realized.
5) TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN FLOWS
Several of the wastewater collection plans considered in the Environ-
mental Impact Statement (Paragraph '».2.3.1 pages k-6 thru **-8) call for the
continuing of the discharge of certain untreated wastewster to the abandoned
mines. These discharges include portions of: combined sewer overflow?,
contaminated industrial process wastewaters, and/or sanitary wastewaters.
Continuing the discharge of any untreated wastes to the mine system appears
to be in direct contradiction with current regulations of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board end other agencies, and contrary to the actions
taken thusfar by these agencies. We recommend that no plan be considered
which does not meet all applicable regulations. V,'ith regard to the various
design flow alternatives presented in Table 4-1 (page k-j] of the EIS, only
the flow listed as Scenario E includes the treatment of all contaminated
wastewaters (although some adjustment may be required if population, pro-
jections are revised). Year 2000 avsrsoe daily flow projected for Scenario
E is 2.^2 KGD. It is our opinion that al ! al ternat iveb which cio net provide
A-24
-------
treatment for at least 2.A HGD be excluded from further consideration.
Those plans which do not appear to provide sufficient capacity ere: Ib,
Ic, 1e, If, Ih, li, 2b, 2c, 2e (the EIS recommended plan), 2f, 2h, 2i, 3b,
3c, 3e, 3f, 3h, 3i, Ab, Ac, Ae, Af, Ah end Ai.
In addition to the theoretical wastewater flow, the wastewater treat-
ment system must also be sized to handle whatever infiltration and/or inflow
enters the system. It Is expected that for the alternatives which call for
replacement of the sanitary severs, Plens la thru li, inflow could be
virtually eliminated thru careful construction and testing procedures.
Infiltration could also be reduced to minimal levels through proper
selection of sewer materials end through proper installation. Current
standards (Ten State Standards) call for a maximum infiltration of 200
gallons per inch of sewer diameter per mile of sewer per day. For the
average sewer diatveter of 5 inches and length of 5& miles, as stated in
Paragraph A.2.1.1 (pages A-2 & 3) of the EIS, infiltration should not
exceed 100,800 gallons per day. This amount should be added to projected
theoretical wastewater flow to determine westewater treatment plant
loadings.
For those alternatives plans 2a thru 2i, 3a thru 3i, and Aa thru Ai
which call for rehabilitation of the existing sewers, infiltration and
inflow loadings will be substantially higher. Since these plans call for
the existing sewers to continue to function as a combined sewer system, it
is assumed that no inflow sources wi'll be eliminated by the rehabilitation
proposed. Based on the ten year storm used as the basis for analyses pre-
sented in the EIS (Paragraph 4.2.3-3, page A-10) and a duration of 3 hours,
approximately 120 KG of water wculd enter the combined sewer system.
Assuming a time of concentration of one hour for the sewer system, the
instantaneous peak flew rate would be in the range of 20CO MGD. As
A-25
-------
discussed elsewhere in this report, current !PCB regulations would require
a capture and/or treatment of approximately 50 KGD of this flow for a period
of sufficient duration to prevent receiving water quality violations. A
substantially lower capture rate is used for the various alternatives pre-
sented in the EIS calling for collection, storage and/or treatment of combined
flows. Design criteria (and costs) for these plans should be adjusted to
reflect the systems required to meet State and other regulations.
As discussed in the Comprehensive Sewerage end Drainage Report (CSDR),
the existing sewer system is also subject to a substantial amount of infil-
tration. Estimates presented therein indicate that the oeak infiltration
may be as high as 5 KGD. In the 1975 study it was estimated that as much
as 62% of this infiltration could be eliminated through cost-effective
rehabilitation. It was estimated that rehabilitation, including an SSES,
might cost approximately $1,500,000. These estimates were reused in the
CIS for development of the alternates presented therein. Additional surveys
in other communities performed by Warren & Van Praag and others have shown
that the 62% infiltration elimination efficiency represents the near maximum
obtainable for this type of work and this high efficiency is not normally
achieved in typical systems. Further, it has been shown that the service
Jives of conventional types of rehabilitation is proving to be substantially
shorter than originally estimated. For Streator, assuming that 25% of the
sewer joints would require grouting and that this grout would last 10 years,
the estimated cost could be $3,500,000 to $5,000,000 including the SSES. It
is now estimated that such a progrem could reduce infiltration by 25 to 50
percent depending on the number and severity of defects which could net be
grouted (such as cracked pipes). Assuming a
-------
capacity over and above the theoretical wastewater must be provided for
this flow.
The following wastewater loading rates should be used for the various
alternatives presented in the EIS:
For alternatives which include the replacement of the existing
sanitary sewers:
Average Daily Peak Daily
Flow-HGD Flow-MGD
Theoretical Wastewater Flow 2.42 * 6.05
Infiltration .10- .10
Inflow (negligible) (negl igible)
Year 2000 plant design flow
dry weather system 2.52 6.15
wet weather system (none required)
For alternatives which include rehabilitation of the existing
sanitary sewers:
Average Daily Peak Daily
Flow-MGD ..Flow-HGD.
Theoretical Wastewater Flow 2.42 * 6.05
Infiltration 3.00 3.00
Inflow (not applicable) 50.00
Year 2000 plant design flow
dry weather system 5.42 9.05
excess flow - 50.0
" (based on EIS population projections)
Comparing these estimated design flows with the alternatives presented
in the EIS, the treatment facilities included in all alternatives except
la and Id do not provide sufficient treatment capacity to meet projected
needs and wastewater treatment criteria as describee in IPCB and other
regulations. Treatment costs for all alternatives, except la end Id should,
therefore, be revised to include the required treatment capacity.
A-27
-------
6) STORM DRAINAGE
As discussed in the paragraphs of this report on Treatment Plant Desicn
Flows, during the 10 year rainfall used as the basis for the analyses and
recommendations presented in the EIS, 120 MG of storm runoff may enter the
combined system at peak rates up to 2000 MG. It is unlikely the existing
sewer system can transport this volume of flow. This is demonstrated by
the substantial (possibly up to 600) number of drop pipes which have been
installed in these sewers. The major purpose of these overflows was to
relieve overloaded sewers. In order to transport the volumes of combined
flow to the treatment facilities required by current regulations, parallel
relief sewers will probably be required. The cost of these sewers should
be added to all plans which involve rehabilitation and use of the existing
sewers as a combined system.
If the existing sewer system is to be used as a storm drainage and
supplemental mine recharge system (as suggested in the plans calling for
construction of new sanitary sewers), it is likely that some additional
storm sewers (primarily laterals) will be required to insure that flows
are distributed evenly to the mine system. A complete survey of existing
drop shafts to the mines is required to assure this even distribution. It
is probable that additional drop shafts to the mines will also be required
together with adjustment and/or rehabilitation of the existing shafts.
7) COST ESTIMATES
Detailed layouts of the various alternatives collection and treatment
processes considered in the EIS have not been included. Therefore, it is
not possible to evaluate fully the various capital and operating cost
estimate and comparisons presented therein. It is suggested that this
A-28
-------
information be provided so as to more accurately define the scope of the
various plans considered and to assess their suitability to meet current
and future needs in Streator.
8) COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
Table 4-3 (page 4-20) of the Environmental Impact Statement presents
a summary of total estimated capital, operating and present worth costs of
the 36 alternatives analyzed. Table 5~2 (page 5"S) presents a summary of
the estimated BOD loadings of the discharges resulting following implemen-
tation of the alternatives. In order to select the most cost-effective
solution to the Streator problem, the E!S relies only on the cost data
presented in Table 4-3. Warren £ Van Praag suggests that the data of
tables 4-3 and 5~2, and other data be corrbined in a form which indicates
total present worth ccst per pound of BOD eliminated. We believe that the
values determined will provide an additional criterion from which to select
the most cost-effective alternative. This procedure is suggested in Federal
regulations, particularly those guidelines covering the cost/benefit of
combined sewer overflow treatment.
A summary of the most significant of Warren & Van Praag's comments are
included in the attached document, the basis of which is the EIS Summary Sheet
(pages x-xiii). We hope that our comments will be of benefit in the developing
and Smplementable, environmentally sound, and cost-effective plen for wastewater
management in Streator, which will serve that City's present and future needs.
We vfould be very happy to present any additional information regarding cur
comments presented herein, cr any other services which the agency may require
to aid in the timely completion of the Environmental Impact Statement for
Streator.
A-29
-------
Very truly yours,
WARREN & VAN PRAAG, INC.
-'? -----
! / t+
David P. lu]p, P.E. '
Manager - Chicago Office
J. Thomas Rowlett, P,E.
Project Manager
JTR/DPT/lw
cc: T. Eakalar, Mayor, City of Streatcr
Michael Mauzy, I EPA
Al Keller, IEPA
Ron Drainer, IEPA
A-30
-------
ATTACHMENT TO
COMMENTS ON DRAFT OF
STREATOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Following is a reiteration of pertinent portions of the Summary of the
Environmental Impact Statement ennotated to reflect Warren £ Van Praag's
major comments and concerns. The EIS summary is presented in upper case
letters and the Warren £ Van Praag comments in lower case letters enclosed
by brackets:
SUMMARY SHEET
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REHABILITATION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES
STREATOR, ILLINOIS
DRAFT (X)
FINAL ( )
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
1. TYPE OF ACTION: ADMINISTRATIVE (X)
LEGISLATIVE ( )
2- DESCRIPTION OF ACTION PROPOSED IN THE FACILITIES PLAN
THE ACTION PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
STREATOR, ILLINOIS, INCLUDES SEWER SEPARATION, AND UPGRADING AND EXPANSION OF
THE EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT. NEW SANITARY SEWERS WOULD BE INSTALLED IN THE
PRESENT SERVICE AREA AND IN ADJACENT AREAS. [Projected service population
3^,000 plus industrial and commercial - appears to be high based on current
I EPA forecasts]. THE EXISTING COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM WOULD BE REHABILITATED
FOR USE AS A STORM SEVER. THE TREATMENT PLANT WOULD BE EXPANDED TO ACCOMMODATE
A DESIGN AVERAGE FLOW OF 5-59 MGD AND WOULD BE UPGRADED WITH JHE ADDITION OF
TERTIARY TREATMENT AND CHLORINATIPN. THE EFFLUENT DISCHARGED TO THE VERMILION
RIVER WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FINAL NPDES PERM.IT (4 mg/1 BODr and
5 mg/1 SS).
A-31
-------
THE POF.POSED ACTION IN THE DRAFT FACILITIES PLAN INCLUDES MINE RE-
CHARGE OF WASTEWATER AMD STORHWATER TO MAINTAIN PRESENT WATER LEVELS IN THE
MINES. RECHARGE IS CRITICAL TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR GROUND SUBSIDENCE.
DURING DRY-WEATHER PERIODS, THE MINES WOULD BE RECHARGED WITH EFFLUENT FROM
THE TREATMENT PLANT. DURING WET-WEATHER PERIODS, THE MINES WOULD BE RECHARGED
WITH STORMWATER VIA DROPS SHAFTS IN THE EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM AND VIA STORM
SEWERS INSTALLED IK THE PRESENTLY SEWERED AND UNSEWERED AREAS.
FEDERAL FINANCING HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF STREATOR UNDER THE
STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF \$12
(PUBLIC LAW 92-500) AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1577 (PUBLIC LAW 55*217).
STREATOR'S CONSULTING ENGINEERS ESTIMATED THE TOTAL PROJECT COST TO BE $52,33^,840
AT JANUARY 1975 PRICE LEVELS (WARREN & VAN PRAAG, INC. 1975). THE TOTAL CAPITAL
COST WAS RECALCULATED BY WAPORA, INC., AND WAS ESTIMATED TO BE $56,237,300 AT
JANUARY 1976 PRICE LEVELS.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE EIS PROPOSED ACTION
THE PROPOSED ACTION INCLUDES REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING WASTEWATER
FACILITIES AT STREATOR, ILLINOIS. [Treatment capacity selected appears to be
inadequate to serve developed but currently unsewered areas adjacent to Streator,
to eliminate all existing discharges of contaminated industrial flows to mines,
or to allow for a reasonable growth of Streator as shown by IEPA population
projections]. THE THREE MAJOR INTERCEPTOR SEWERS IN THE COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM
WOULD BE REPLACED (FIGURE S-l). [Proposed sewer sizes appear to be too small
to capture sufficient combined sewer flow to meet IPCB regulations. The lateral
sewers of the existing combined system may also be too small to transport required
flow. It may not be possible to obtain permits to discharge combined sewer over-
flows to mines]. A SEWER SYSTEM EVALUATION SURVEY WILL BE CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE
THE EXTENT OF COST-EFFECTIVE REHABILITATION OF OTHER SEGMENTS OF THE COLLECTION
SYSTEM, INCLUDING THE LEVEL OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW REMOVAL. [Costs estimated to
perform survey and rehabilitation appear to be too low, and projected repair
efficiency too high. No treatment capital or operating costs have been included
for treatment of the infiltration remaining after rehabilitation which is estimated
to be approximately 3 *GD peak]. THE TREATMENT PLANT WOULD BE UPGRADED TO INCLUDE
NITRIFICATION AND CHLORINAT ION. [As proposed, the treatment process will not be
able to achieve a 10/12 effluent consistently nor will it be able to nitrify.
As stated elsewhere, design capacity proposed will not meet needs or regulations].
THE EFFLUENT DISCHARGED TO THE VERMILION RIVER WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A
'•PFEFFER EXEMPTION" (10 mg/1 BOD^ and 12 mg/1 SS). ["Pfeffer exemptions" as such
are no longer granted; 10/12 varisnces are now based en best practicable treatment
technology which is economically achievable], COMBINED SEWER FLOWS IN EXCESS OF
THE PLANT'S CAPACITY WOULD RECEIVE PRIMARY TREATMENT AND CHLORINATION PRIOR TO
DISCHARGE TO THE RIVER. [Size of the proposed combined sewers and treatment
system are not sufficient to meet IPCB regulations. Most of the combined flows
would h.£ve to overflow to mines thru drop shafts in the sewer system due to the
inadequate capacity of that system. Possibility of obtaining a permit for sufch
discharges to mines is highly doubtful].
A-32
-------
ADDITIONAL "STEP I" FACILITIES PLANNING WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONFIRM
THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EIS PROPOSED ACTION. PLANNING, FOR EXAMPLE, WILL
BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE HOW TO COST-EFFECTIVELY DISPOSE OF WASTEWATER FROM
AREAS ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING SEWER SERVICE AREA. THE TREATMENT PLANT'S
CAPACITY WOULD HAVE TO BE EXPANDED IF SEWERS WERE EXTENDED AND IF PRESENT
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES OF PROCESS AND COOLING WATERS TO THE MINES WERE NOT
PERMITTED TO CONTINUE.
THE MINES BENEATH STREATOR WOULD BE RECHARGED WITH WASTEWATER AND
STORMWATER TO MAINTAIN PRESENT WATER LEVELS IN THE MINES. DURING DRY-WEATHER
PERIODS, THE MINES WOULD BE RECHARGED WITH EFFLUENT FROM THE TREATMENT PLANT
(FIGURE S-l). DURING WET-WEATHER PERIODS, THE MINES WOULD BE RECHARGED WITH
OVERFLOWS FROM THE COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM AND WITH STORMWATER FROM NEW STORK
SEWERS IN THE PRESENTLY SEWERED AREA.
THE TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF THE EIS PROPOSED ACTION HAS BEEN ESTIMATED TO
BE $21,932,800 (AT JANUARY 1978 PRICE LEVELS). AVERAGE ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAIN-
TENANCE (OSM) COSTS HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED TO BE $266,500. [The estimated capital
end operating costs are inappropriate since they are based on a proposed plan
which does not meet current or projected needs in Streator or comply with all
environmental regulations, as discussed elsewhere]. SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE
TOTAL CAPITAL COST WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT FUNDS. THE
LOCAL COSTS WILL INCLUDE 25% OF THE TOTAL CAPITAL COST AND 100% OF THE OSM COST.
THE AVERAGE ANNUAL LOCAL COST OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD HAS BEEN ESTIMATED TO BE
$769,309. ASSUMING A POPULATION OF 12,700 IN THE SEWER SERVICE AREA, THE PER
CAPITA COST WILL BE APPROXIMATELY $61 PER YEAR.
It. MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE EIS PROPOSED ACTION
THE EIS PROPOSED ACTION WOULD REDUCE SUBSTANTIALLY POLLUTANT LOADS DIS-
CHARGED TO THE VERMILION RIVER FROM THE STREATOR FACILITIES PLANNING AREA. WATER
QUALITY IN THE AREA AND DOWNSTREAM, THEREFORE, SHOULD IMPROVE SIGNIFICANTLY,
ESPECIALLY DURING PERIODS OF LOW RIVER FLOWS. DISCHARGES OF UNTREATED COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOWS AND DISCHARGES FROM CRACKED AND BROKEN SEWER LINES WOULD BE
ELIMINATED. IN ADDITION, POLLUTANT LOADS TC THE MINE WOULD BE REDUCED, AND THUS,
THE QUALITY OF MINE LEACHATES WOULD IMPROVE OVER TIME. ALL SANITA"Y WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES TO THE MINES WOULD BE ELIMINATED. [The major portion of combined flow
Vv'ou 1 d be discharged to the mines thru a system of drop shaft-type overflows which
are required due to the inadequate size of the existing combined sewer lateral
system. Combined flows carry pollutant loads several times higher then sanitary
flows during certain portions of the overflow event. It is likely that a large
portion of these pollutants would be discharged to the mines, particularly during
high intensity rainfall events"]"."
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS SUCH AS INCREASES IN NOISE AND DUST,
TRAFFIC DISRUPTION, AND EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION'WOULD OCCUR ALONG INTERCEPTOR
SEWER ROUTES AND NEAR STORM SEWER AND RECHARGE SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION SITES. MEASURES,
HOWEVER, WOULD BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE THESE IMPACTS. THE MANPOWER, MATERIAL, ENERGY,
AMD LAND USED IN THE REHABILITATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES WOULD BE UN-
AVAILABLE FOR OTHER USES.
A-33
-------
THE POPULATION OF THE STREATOR FACILITIES PLANNING AREA IS STABLE AND
IS NOT LIMITED BY THE AVAILABILITY OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES. [Both Warren & Van
Praeg and [EPA population projections show growth in the Streator area, although
at differing rates. Should a zero growth plan be adopted, the growth projected
by Warren & Van Praag and I EPA would be artifically retarded]. THE EIS PROPOSED
ACTION, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT SECONDARY IMPACTS, SUCH AS
INDUCED DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH. SECONDARY IMPACTS WOULD BE PRIMARILY
CONSTRUCTION RELATED AND, THUS, M1NIKAL AND SHORT-TERM.
5- ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE EIS
ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPED AND CONSIDERED INCLUDED DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR
WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND MINE RECHARGE. THE COLLECTION
OPTIONS WERE 1) SEWER SEPARATION, [Cost used were low in that the sewers proposed
do not meet ultimate needs]; 2) REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING COMBINED SEWER
SYSTEM, [Cost used were low, because of higher rehabilitation costs now being
experienced, because of the observed shortened service lives of certain types
of rehabilitation and because the system as proposed is inadequate to transport
sufficient combined flow to meet IPCB regulations]; and 3) SEVER EXTENSIONS.
[Sewers considered may not meet ultimate needs]. THE TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR THE
TREATMENT PLANT INFLUENT WERE 1) TERTIARY TREATMENT (WITH FILTRATION AND CHEMICAL
COAGULATION), [Adequate nitrification unlikely]; 2) TERTIARY TREATMENT WITHOUT
CHEMICAL COAGULATION, [Adequate nitrification unlikely]; 3) UPGRADED SECONDARY
TREATMENT (WITH NITRIFICATION AND CHLORItlATION), [Process as proposed will not
meet 10/12 standard cr nitrify]; and k) EXISTING TREATMENT WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
TO THE KINES. [Will not meet current IPCE regulations]. OPTIONS 10 TREAT EXCESS
COMBINED SEWER FLOWS (IF THE EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM WERE USED TO CONVEY
SANITARY WASTEWATER) WERE 1) PRIMARY TREATMENT AND CHLORINATION, 2) STORAGE,
PRIMARY TREATMENT, AND CHLORINATION, AND 3) STORAGE AND MINE DISCHARGE. [Design
flow rates on which all alternatives are based are Insufficient to meet current
IPCB regulations]. OPTIONS FOR MINE RECHARGE WERE l) RECHARGE OF TREATMENT PLANT
EFFLUENT DURING DRY-WEATHER PERIODS AND DISCHARGES FROM THE EXISTING COLLECTION
SYSTEM AND ADDITIONAL STORM SEWERS AND 2) CONTINUOUS EFFLUENT RECHARGE AND DIS-
CHARGES FROM THE EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM.
A-34
-------
APPENDIX B. EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR GROUND SURFACE SUBSIDENCE
-------
INTRODUCTION
Law Engineering Testing Company (1978) investigated subsurface con-
ditions in the Streator, Illinois, area to determine the potential for
ground subsidence associated with the abandoned coal mines. The investiga-
tions were necessary to address major project-related issues, including
whether current discharges to the mines are preventing subsidence and what
effect not pumping wastewater and/or stormwater into the mines would have
on subsidence, and the effect of subsidence on the project life of the
existing sewer system or a new sewer system.
The investigations of the potential for subsidence consisted of four
parts: 1) literature review; 2) field investigation; 3) laboratory testing;
and 4) data evaluation. Findings, summarized below, pertain to the fol-
lowing :
• Geology and subsurface conditions
• Subsurface water conditions
• Coal mining
• Ground subsidence
• Factors related to subsidence
• Stability evaluation.
They will be critical to the selection of the most cost-effective wastewater
management program.
GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Geologic studies of Streator and surrounding areas have been pub-
lished by the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) since the late 1800's.
A comprehensive review and synthesis of the geology of this area was com-
pleted by Willman and Payne (1942). This study has served as the primary
geologic reference for the present evaluation of potential mine subsidence.
Law Engineering Testing Company (LETCO) concentrated on the engineering
characteristics of the Pleistocene deposits (glacial drift) and Pennsyl-
vanian strata, because they directly influence the assessment of subsidence
potential and related problems.
Throughout Illinois, overburden deposits consisting of Quaternary-aged
glacial drift (Figure B-l) and stream alluvium overlie thick sequences of
Paleozoic sedimentary rock. A generalized geologic column for the Streator
area was developed from the geologic literature and from borings drilled by
LETCO (Figure B-2, Tables B-l and B-2). A total of thirteen soil and rock
borings, ranging in depth from 53.3 feet to 114.0 feet, were drilled (Figures
B-3 and B-4). Typical subsurface profiles based on interpretation of the
subsurface conditions in the Streator area are summarized in Figures B-5
through B-9.
B-l
-------
EXPLANATION
HOLOCENE AND WISCONSINAM
IKwivm, Mfttf dunas,
ona aroml ilrracM
WISCONSINAN
1 -3 Lak« dcpault
WOOOFOROIAN
Moram*
Trent of morainic iy«t.m
|
!' ^
ALTONIAN
ILLINOIAN
M«ia«» and ndgtd
Ground morain*
KANSAN
';/////* TI" slain
Figure B-l. Generalized glacial geology of Illinois (Piskin and Bergstrom 1975)
B-2
-------
FROM LETCO BORINGS
FROM GEOLOGIC LITERATURE
PLEISTOCENE DEPOSITS
(16' - 60')2
PLEISTOCENE DEPOSITS
(20' - 50')2
GENERALLY ABSENT
UNIT 36
BRERETON LIMESTONE (3'|
GRAY SHALE/
SHALEV SILTSTONE
|7'-49')
UNIT S3
SILTY SANDSTONE
13' - 1 0-1
5
u
t-
l/l
>.
VI
Z
UNIT 52
SILTY CLAYEY SANDY SHAI.E
(20- - 60')
HERRIN NO. 6 COAL
SHALE WITH
SOME UNOERCLAY
..^^C^J^jCfiAL—iiiJiiL.
SHALE |0 - 4')
SANDSTONE
(BORINGS TERMINATED)
in
Z
Z
u
HERRIN NO. < COAL
TYP. «'
UNIT 48
HARD BLACK SHEETY SHALE
(I1 -3M
UNITS 47 - 44
SHALE
(7- - I2'|
UNIT 43 LOCAL COAL
io - z-s-'l
UNIT 42 UNOERCLAY
IQ - A'l
UNIT 41
VERMILLION SANDSTONE
(!S' -73')
After Willman and Payne 1942
2
Typical range of thickness
Figure B-2. Typical geologic section in the Streator, Illinois, area.
B-3
-------
rt
0)
CO
•H
o
•H
—* r
<2J IS;
p
CO
CO
14-1
O
3
CO
cfl
H
O O O o O
o
•H
-O
c
o
o
Q)
O
CO
O OOOOO O O
I
cu
0 OOOOQOQQOO
B-4
-------
(X
CO
CO 4->
co cu
cu cu
e ^H
A! ^
o
•H
H
o a\
• •
0 i—'
o 43
H
o o
O* rH
r~- m
m
i-.
CO
o
OS
vO
00
c
•H
i~i
O
43
CM
I
co
H
(1)
4J
•H C
X 3
O O
^ r<
P-O
^
CX
CO
S
CU
a
cfl
<4H
rl
CO
p;
o
•H
4-1
CO
O
O
H-3
00
•H
^i
0
FQ
_Q
p*J
c
0
•H
4-1
CO
CU
rH
M
O O
co CO
vO vO
,*"S
^
^
H
w
hJ
i-i
3
CO
, — 1
co
rH 0
CO -H
vO 60
O
, — |
O
CU
o
cu
4->
CO
±J
rH CO
CO
t CO
PQ -rt
CU
4-1
•H
CO
o
u
H
W
rJ
0
C
•rl
rH
rH
P^
O
rl
Pn
CO
4J
CU
cu
14H
CU
rl
cO
CO
m
w
3
rH
CO
*^
^
• ••>
(X
g
^
CO
O
co
£3
0
O
13
CU
CO
cO
m
43
B-5
-------
MINK BHAPTB • WIUUHAN k PAYNK 1*4*
A MINBMpLB* POM WATVH LKVBL OBMNVATtONS
Figure B-3.
Location of borings, mine shafts, and mineholes in the Streator,
Illinois, area.
B-6
-------
L E G F N n ..
® LETCO BORINGS
A BORINGS BY OTHERS
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-4. Location of LETCO borings drilled in the Kangley, Illinois,
area.
B-7
-------
r
Figure B-6
i
~
J&i
i"
jrj
j f.:
Figure B-8
\ v l 1 — . • - J
v I ?-*.
j
f 5
t
(J ? ^ _,.,-— . , .. _
Figure B-5. Index map for subsurface profiles in the Streator, Illinois, area.
B-8
-------
I
I
is
o
0
J
<
o
<
J
19
*
O
0
IT
L.
0
0
J
<
0
U
<
I
in
>
J
i_
Z
<
J
<
0
U
t-
-1
6
o
U
Z
9
o
T
10
O
s
O
00
1ft
O
•H
4J
nj
4-t
C
OJ
•H
o n
C I
•H P3
rH
rH 0)
H (J
» 00
I-i -H
O fa
U
tO C
0) -H
M
u C
co 3
O
- J3
j-j co
cu
0) 01
)-l M
w tfl
O)
CO
A! C
^ O
SO -H
PH U
tfl
00 O
C O
O iH
iH
«
S C
O -H
CO
1 i
js X
4J CO
1-1
o w
Z iH
c
•T
in
o
o
in
60
B-9
-------
0'
2
0
0
a
WEST
640
620 4.
600 4-
580 4-
560 4-
540 4-
520 4-
500
B-27
16
EAST
640
T 620
-f- 600
+ 580
-f 560
4- 540
-1- 520
500
LEGEND
GLACIAL OVERBURDEN
ROOF ROCK
COAL
PREDOMINANTLY SHALE
MINED OUT COAL
SCALE: V 1 " - 40 FT
H |" - 2000 FT
Figure B-7.
East - west subsurface profile along Coal Run, Streator, Illinois.
The orientation of the profile is shown in Figure B-5, and boring
locations are shown in Figure B-3.
B-10
-------
Ul
u
s
(•
(fl
z
0
j
>
^
t-
u
s
H
z
0
IJ
^
2
0
0
J
a
J
Ul
Z
o
E
Ul
(-
h
0
WEST
EAST
640
620 • •
600 • •
580 ' •
560 --
540 - -
520 -•
500 --
180
B-24
640
-- 620
.. 600
-- 580
-- 560
. - 540
-- 520
-- 500
480
NOT*I TMK SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS EXTRA-
POL. ATI O BCTWKEN THESE BORINGS ARC
ESTIMATED BASED ON REASONABLE
GCOI.OGICAU ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT.
LEGEND
GLACIAL OVERBURDEN
ROOF ROCK
COAL
PREDOMINANTLY SHALE
MINED OUT COAL
SCALE:
V ) " - 40 FT
H 1 " ^ 2000 FT
Figure B-8. East - west subsurface profile along LaRue Street, Streator, Illinois.
The orientation of the profile is shown in Figure B-5, and boring lo-
cations are shown in Figure B-3.
B-ll
-------
NORTHWEST
650 __.
630 --
610
590 '•
570 __
550 ..
530 -.
510 ..
490
-. 510
490
L EG E N D
GLACIAL OVERBURDEN
ROOF ROCK
COAL
PREDOMINANTLY SHALE
SCALE: V I" •« 4O FT
H 1" APX 1000 FT
NOTCl THE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS EXTRA-
POLATED BETWEEN THESE BORINGS ARE
ESTIMATED BASED ON REASONABLE
GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT.
Figure B-9.
East - west subsurface profile, Kangley, Illinois. The orientation
ol the profile and boring locations are shown in Figure B-4.
B-12
-------
Pleistocene Deposits
Surface and near surface soils in the Streator area consist of glacial
lake deposits laid down during the Wisconsinan stage of glaciation. (Piskin
and Bergstrom 1975). The glacial drift regionally ranges in thickness from
tens of feet to a few hundred feet. The soils are heterogenous deposits of
sands, clayey silts, and silty clays with varying amounts of gravel. No
detailed correlation of these deposits was possible between the widely spaced
borings, however, silty sands and sands predominate in the central portion
of Streator, with the amounts of silts and clays increasing towards the north
and south. Results of standard penetration tests indicate the presence of
very stiff to hard silts and clays and firm to dense sands.
The total thickness of the glacial drift can be estimated by comparing
ground surface contours with bedrock topography. The total thickness is
generally less than 50 feet and is typically 25 to 40 feet (Figures B-6,
B-7, B-8, and B-10). Less than 30 feet of glacial drift exist in the areas
around Coal Run, Prairie Creek, the Vermilion River, and the southwest part
of town. Generally, the thicker deposits are in the east and northeast parts
of Streator.
In the vicinity of Kangley, the thickness of surficial deposits is more
variable. Depths range from less than 40 feet to more than 70 feet (Figure
B-9).
Bedrock
Bedrock in the study area and in about two-thirds of Illinois is sedi-
mentary in origin and is part of the Pennsylvanian System. These rocks gen-
erally exhibit repeating lithologic sequences within the stratigraphic
column. A given sequence is referred to as a cyclothem and ideally consists
of a basal sandstone, overlain by shale, limestone, underclay, and coal beds,
which are overlain in turn by shales and limestones. In actuality, this
ideal sequence seldom occurs, and only portions of the cyclothem are present.
The cyclothem of particular interest is the Brereton cyclothem, which
is part of the Carbondale Formation and the Kewanee Group (Willman and others
1975). The Brereton is described as "the thickest and one of the most vari-
able cyclothems in the area" (Willman and Payne 1942). The major signifi-
cance of this sedimentary sequence to subsidence evaluation in the Streator
area is the potential for variation with respect to thickness and composition
of both mine floor and mine roof units. A generalized section of the Brere-
ton cyclothem is presented in Figure B-2. This cyclothem is about 85 feet
thick in the Streator area and thins towards the northwest. A typical thick-
ness in the vicinity of Kangley is about 60 feet.
The most important commercial unit of the Brereton cyclothem is the
Herrin No. 6 coal. In older geologic publications, this coal is called the
Streator No. 7 coal. Another coal unit, the Colchester No. 2 coal is found
at the base of the Carbondale and has been deep mined to some extent in
Streator and Kangley. The No. 2 is referred to as the La Salle coal in
older geologic publications.
B-13
-------
THE CONTOURS ON THIS ISOPACH
MAP ARK ESTIMATED BASED ON
REASONABLE OEOlOSICAt.
JUDGEMENT
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-10. Generalized thickness (in feet) of pleistocene deposits in the
Streator, Illinois, area.
B-14
-------
Mine Roof Rock
The rock units that constitute the roof overlying the Herrin No. 6 coal
are primarily gray or greenish/gray sandy shale or shale-like siltstone.
The thickness of these units ranges from less than 10 feet to more than 50
feet. With respect to the evaluation of subsidence potential, the following
are particularly relevant:
• The roof rocks are primarily sandy shale and shaley siltstone. In
place and immediately after coring, these rocks are generally in-
tact with relatively few joints or partings. However, after exposure
to drying and without confinement, these units tend to shrink and
separate along bedding planes.
• In fresh samples of core, the hardness was generally soft to medium
hard. The hardness tended to increase after exposure to air.
Natural moisture contents ranged from 6% to 14% of the dry weight.
• The thickness of rock above the roof of the mines is variable
(Figure B-ll). Roof rock generally is thinnest in the southwest
and northwest parts of town. Thicknesses of less than 20 feet are
common. The thickness of roof rock, however, increases towards the
east to more than 60 feet.
• The siltstones are fairly thick bedded, however, numerous shale-like
laminations and severely weathered zones were encountered in the
borings. Several very soft zones or small voids were encountered,
indicating areas of probable roof collapse. LETCO Boring B-25 en-
countered two such voids, each approximately 2 feet thick (Table
B-l, Figure B-3).
Herrin No. 6 Coal
The Herrin No. 6 coal has been mined extensively in the Streator area.
The literature indicates that the thickness of the coal seam generally ranges
from 3.0 to 5.0 feet. Results of LETCO borings and logs of old mine shafts
indicate an average thickness of 5.4 feet (Table B-l). The coal appears to
thin east, west, and south from Streator, but it is very thick in the Klein
Bridge-Heenanville area, north of Kangley (Willman and Payne 1942), where it
is locally 9.0 feet thick.
The regional dip of the bedrock to the east-southeast is apparent in
the coal (Section 2.2.2.1.). Seam elevations are approximately 550 to 570
feet msl at the Vermilion River and decrease to around 510 to 530 feet msl
along the east side of the study area (Figure B-12).
The coal is rarely flat-lying and has been described as "having a
variable attitude with broad undulations 40 to 50 feet in amplitude" (Willman
and Payne 1942, p. 131). These broad undulations are the result of an uncon-
formity within the Brereton cyclothem, caused by a period of erosion of the
underlying sandstones prior to deposition of the coal. Outcrop elevations
along the Vermilion River vary as much as 25 feet within a horizontal dis-
tance of 100 feet, and drop shaft (minehole) depths vary as much as 20 feet
within several hundred feet.
B-15
-------
HOTEl THE CONTOUR* ON THIS ISOPACH
MAP ARE ESTIMATKD BASED ON
REASON-ABUS GEOLOGICAL.
JUDGEMENT
Figure B-ll. Approximate thickness (in feet) of mine roof rock in the
Streator, Ilinois, area.
B-16
-------
NOTEl THE CONTOUR* 0»» THIS
MAP Alt* MTIMATED BASED ON
REASONABLE GEOLOGICAL. JUDGEMENT
\
Figure B-12.
Contours of the base of the Herrin No. 6 coal in the Streator,
Illinois, area. Values are feet msl.
B-17
-------
The top of the coal, in addition to exhibiting broad undulations, is
very irregular. There are numerous depressions in the surface, 1.0 to 1.5
feet in depth, 5.0 to 6.0 feet in width, and as much as 20 feet long. These
depressions are filled with roof clay, and where they occur, the top of the
coal is missing (Cady 1915). The irregularities affect the thickness of the
seam and probably are associated with stream channel scouring. The scouring
is locally very severe and occasionally causes the coal to pinch out entire-
ly. Depressions are more predominant in the southern part of the Streator
area.
There is a prominant claystone or shale split in the lower portion of
the coal, locally known as the "blue band", which is normally 3.0 inches to
1.0 foot thick. This parting is widespread and resulted in large quantities
of spoil left in the mines. The coal above the split is relatively free
from bedded impurities. The coal exhibits a distinct and uniform cleating,
oriented N30°W.
Coal in the Kangley area has been found very near the base of the gla-
cial drift (Table B-2 and Figure B-9). The coal was generally 7.0 to 8.0
feet thick and had a 7.0 inch to 1.0 foot clay seam in the middle portion.
Roof rock in this area is generally very thin to non-existent. The two
LETCO borings in the Kangley area showed no appreciable coal, indicating that
it possibly was mined and that the roof has collasped. Large quantities of
coal remain unmined north of Kangley because of poor roof conditions.
Mine Floor Units
The Herrin No. 6 coal rests on soft shales and/or underclays that form
the floor of most of the mines. The shales range from a slate-like shale to
a shale with thin layers of underclays and are generally from 10 to 12 feet
thick. These shales are generally soft to medium hard and typically black
to dark gray or olive in color. Most are fairly slate-like and contain abun-
dant plant fossils and fish bone debris. The underclays are variable in
thickness, ranging from 1.0 to 4.0 feet. They rarely occur immediately be-
neath the coal and have been mined commercially in the south part of Streator.
Vermilionville Sandstone
Underlying the shales and underclays is the basal member of the Brere-
ton cyclothem, an argillaceous-to-silty, fine grained, thick bedded, compe-
tent sandstone, known as the Vermilionville Sandstone. The majority of the
LETCO borings terminated in the upper part of this unit.
An unconformity within the Brereton cyclothem occurs at the top of this
sandstone unit, where portions of the upper surface appear to have been chan-
neled prior to deposition of the Herrin coal. This channeling accounts for
the broad undulations and some local thickening of the coal.
Lower Coals
There are locally four cyclothems underlying the Brereton cyclothem in
the Streator area. Each of these contains a coal seam and can be summarized
as follows:
B-18
-------
Typical Thickness Typical Depth
Cyclothem Coal Member (feet) (feet)
Brereton Herrin No. 6 4-6 60 - 100
St. David No. 5 2.5 162
Summum Summum No. 4 2.5 160 - 185
Lowell No. 3 1.5 - 2.3 180 - 200
Liverpool La Salle No. 2 2.0-3.4 190 - 240
In addition to the Herrin No. 6 coal, the only coal mined to any extent
in the Streator area was the No. 2 coal. This is a very high quality coal
and was mined using the longwall method. The No. 2 coal also was mined in
the Kangley area.
A local coal seam, 8.0 inches to 1.0 foot thick, was encountered about
15 feet below the No. 6 coal in several of the borings. This thin coal seam
has been reported in the literature and may be found over much of the Strea-
tor area. This coal probably was not mined to any extent.
The No. 5 coal has been found only in the north part of Streator, near
the golf course, in a CW&V shaft. It was very impure and contained about
50% shale.
SUBSURFACE WATER CONDITIONS
The Streator area is underlain by abandoned coal mines, the majority
of which are presently flooded. From the time the mines were closed, natural
infiltrating water, stormwater runoff, and wastewater have entered or been
discharged to the mines and have completely inundated them. The water levels
in the mines are such that the roof rock and overlying soils also are inun-
dated to a certain extent.
Appreciable downward seepage of mine water from either the Herrin No.
6 or the La Salle No. 2 coal mines to lower lying aquifers, such as the
Galena-Platteville Group and the Glenwood-St. Peter Formation, should be
minimal because of the relative impervious character of the shales and silt-
stones of the Pennsylvanian System. The amount of seepage is probably less
than the natural infiltration to the mines because of the thicker sequences
of rock below the mines.
Historic Water Levels
Pumps were used during mining operations to drain the mines. Old
drawings and maps show pump shafts in the eastern part of Streator where the
coal was lowest. The size of the pumps used and the quantities of water
removed from the mines are not known. A retired mine inspector reported that
in most areas the mines were wet and pumps were required.
Mine records indicate that occasional "quick sand" conditions were en-
countered when roof rock was penetrated. In these cases, perched water from
the overlying glacial deposits drained into the mines.
B-19
-------
After abandonment of the mines and the pumping ceased, the mines ap-
parently were flooded slowly through natural infiltration and possibly as a
result of some wastewater disposal. According to interviews with local
residents, during the localized reopening of the mines in the 1930s, the in-
dividual mines were pumped prior to any pillar robbing.
Present Water Levels
LETCO monitored water levels in the abandoned mines from September 1977
to April 1978. Fifty-three mineholes were monitored, as shown in Figure B-13.
Water level readings represent the static head of the water in the mines
(piezometric levels; Table B-3). At most locations, the water levels fluc-
tuated less than 3.0 feet, however, fluctuations of as much as 20 feet were
noted at several locations. Significant fluctuations probably are attribut-
able to clogged mineholes or to mines with limited storage capacities that
are isolated from adjacent mines.
Figure B-14 is a piezometric contour map illustrating water level ele-
vations measured on 22 April 1978. The water levels shown are considered
typical and representative of existing water level conditions. Some seasonal
fluctuations, however, occur. The contours indicate a general downward gra-
dient towards the west. At a documented subsidence location, water was
observed flowing rapidly towards the river (Figure B-17, Table B-5, Location
No. 5), which confirms the westward gradient.
A comparison of mine level elevations (Figure B-12) with the recorded
water levels (Figure B-14 and Table B-3) indicates that the mines are flooded
except along the river and that under normal conditions water levels are
generally elevated 20 to 60 feet above the roof of the major mines. Based
on an average coal seam thickness of 5.0 feet and on knowledge that some
mining spoil was left in the mines, LETCO estimated that roughly 20 billion
gallons of water are presently in the mines. This estimate includes the
large Acme Coal mine to the east and the two CW&V No. 2 mines to the north-
east of Streator (Figure B-16).
COAL MINING
History
Streator and Kangley are in the oldest mining district of the State.
The two workable coal seams in the area, the Herrin No. 6 and the La Salle
No. 2, have been mined extensively. The location of the No. 6 hindered the
development of the deeper No. 2 coal for many years, although the deeper coal
is of a better quality.
Coal mining began in the 1860s, reached its peak in the 1890s, and be-
gan to decline around 1900. The majority of the mines were abandoned between
1885 and 1917. A period of renewed mining activity occurred in the early
1930s, when many of the abandoned mines were pumped dry and the pillars were
robbed (Angle 1962). The last notable production was in 1948, when 6*403
tons were mined in a slope mine near the Vermilion River in the southern part
of Streator (Renz).
B-20
-------
uoununn imQn
Figure B-13. Location of mineholes used to monitor water levels in the abandoned
mines beneath the Streator, Illinois, area.
B-21
-------
Table B-3. Water levels in the mineholes. The values indicate the static head
of the water in the mines (in feet).
Map Location
(Figure B-13)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Approximate
Ground
Surface
Elevation*
632
630
631
635
628
618
618
618
616
628
626
626
624
620
626
623
621
624
625
621
622
619
619
619
620
618
620
617
620
620
618
620
620
612
612
613
590
612
613
613
614
615
615
619
619
619
617
617
621
615
632
620
620
9/15/77
50.5
55.5
49.0
40.8
43.0
44.0
41.0
49.0
40.0
37.0
40.0
40.0
36.0
25.0
27.0
45.0
38.0
41.3
Monitoring Dates
9/24/77 10/5/77 2/19/78 3/15/78
28.5 30.0 29.0
54.3
56.3
47.0 47.0 46.0
39.0
37.5 37.5 37.0
42.0
49.0 48.0 47.5'
40.6 42.3 41.0
45.5
42.8
41.3
45.2
40.3
47.6
40.3
39.2
38.9
23.5 39.7 34.0
19.9
20.0 20.8 19.0
46.0
40.0
20.0 19.0
24.0
42.0
43.8
44.4
51.2
28.0 12.0 11.0
54.0
52.0
40.0 40.7 40.0
41.0 42.5 41.0
19.0 19.3 18.0
14.5 17.0 15.0
47.0
42.0
3/22/78 4/22/78
29.3
38.0
45.0
33.2
38.4
50.0
43.0
44.0
42.1
42.0
48.0
42.0
42.0
40.0
40.0
35.9
27.0
16.0
27.0
19.0
42.0
15.0
48.0
40.0
36.0
42.3
15.5
12.0
* Based on USGS map; values are feet msl
B-22
-------
NOTE: THE CpNTOOWS ON THIS
MA* ARE ESTIMATED BASED ON
REASONABLE GEOLOOICAl. JU DCEMENT
F" 'ire B-14.
Contours of mine water levels measured on 22 April 1978,
Values are feet msl.
B-23
-------
The Chicago, Wilmington and Vermilion (CW&V) Old No. 1 mine was the
largest mine in the area and covered almost the entire area of section 25 of
township 31N, R. 3E. This mine was abandoned in 1892. The CW&V Coal Company
also operated several other large mines in Streator. The Acme Coal Company
was the second largest producer and ran the second largest mine until its
abandonment in 1917.
Extent
The present condition of the mines prohibit inspection, therefore, the
extent of mining must be based on available documents (maps), which may or
may not reflect the final configurations of the mines. Composite mine boun-
dary maps (Figures B-15 and B-16) were developed by LETCO from unpublished
mine maps prepared by ISGS and the late F. H. Renz, past Streator City Engi-
neer. The boundaries were drawn primarily from photographs of individual maps
of various scales and should be considered approximate. Furthermore, areas
shown as unmined may have been mined and not mapped.
The irregular pattern or absence of mining in an area may be indicative
of poor roof rock or abnormal water problems. A review of the mine notes in-
dicated that roof failures and cave-ins did occur. The H&N Plumb Mine, in
northeast Streator, was severely plagued with water problems until its aban-
donment in 1940 (Angle 1962).
Methane gas was present to some extent during mining operations. Iso-
lated pockets of gas occasionally accumulated in the higher rolls in the coal.
Post-mining accumulations of methane also have been reported (Table B-5), and
some mineholes and abandoned mine shafts have caught fire and/or exploded.
The extent of interconnections between the mines cannot be determined
completely. Connections between many of the mines were inferred on several
mine maps prepared by Renz. It was common practice for miners to dig small
emergency escape tunnels from one mine to another. It also is possible that
pirate mining and pillar robbing may have created interconnections at various
locations. Some of the interconnections, however, may have been sealed off
by subsequent roof collapse.
Methodology
The majority of the Herrin No. 6 coal was mined by the room and pillar
method. Using this method, coal is removed by mining relatively long narrow
rooms and cross cuts, usually at right angles to these rooms. The remaining
coal is left in the form of pillars, or ribs, that support the weight of the
rock overlying both the pillars and the mined areas. The amount of coal ex-
tracted using this mining method ranged from 40% to 70%. Table B-4 lists
typical coal extraction ratios and general mine dimensions for several mines
in the Streator area.
The most economical results were obtained by advancing the room entry
to its full length and then mining the coal back towards the haulageway. This
would allow pillar drawing to begin as soon as the room was completed. The
extent and amount of pillar drawing is unknown, however, several Renz mine
maps indicate areas where all of the pillars were pulled.
B-24
-------
MOTIi THBM AUK APMOXIMAT*
•OVNDANin AMP AUK
•AMO *H A MBVIW*
MAP* MAWN •¥ TM« UAT«
rmmo *mnx AMD MM*
"AN
(MAP NO. 7)
Figure B-15. Boundary map of mines in the Streator, Illinois, area.
B-25
-------
20 OO
SCALE IN FEET
Figure B-16. Boundary map of mined area in the Kangley, Illinois, area.
B-26
-------
Table B-4. Typical coal extraction ratios and mine geometry.
Approximate
Extraction
Ratio
Mine (%)
CW&V Old No. 3
Harrison
CW&V Old No. 1
Stobbs @ Sterling St.
Hunts No. 3
CW&V No. 3
CW&V No. 2
South Howe
Luther & Taylor
New No. 4
North Howe
Large Acme
Bargern
Crew
78
61
66
67
66
69
53
64
69
58
69
53
Typical
Room
Width
(feet)
14
20
10
15-20
20
22
18
14
20
14
20-25
16
Typical
Pillar
Width
(feet)
4
12-14
5
10-19
10
8-15
16
8
9
10
10
14
Remarks
Rooms 220' Long
Rooms 200-240' Long
All Pillars Pulled
Rooms 300' Long
Rooms Approximately
70' Long
Pillars Pulled
Pillars Pulled
B-27
-------
Strip mining and open pit mining were used to some extent in southwest
Streator near the Vermilion River. The overburden is sufficiently thin there
to permit that type of mining.
The majority of the spoil and coal by-products were disposed of in
large waste piles located around Streator and Kangley. Over the years, these
piles have degraded and have been partially eroded. An indeterminant quan-
tity of spoil also was left in the mined-out rooms of the mines.
Mining of Lower Coals
The only other coal seam mined to any extent was the La Salle No. 2
coal seam, found at depths ranging from 181 feet to 244 feet. The No. 2 was
a much higher grade coal than the Herrin No. 6. It generally was mined using
the longwall method of mining, which allows for up to 95% recovery of the
coal. Because of this method of mining, the Streator area became known as
the Longwall District.
The longwall method involves mining a long, continuous working face.
The roof is supported for only a short distance behind the advancing "long
wall." Behind this support zone, the roof is allowed to fall, occasionally
resulting in considerable disturbance of the ground surface. The haulageway
and shafts generally are supported by pack walls built of mine timbers or
mine waste materials. The amount of subsidence in a longwall mining area
depends to some degree on the. quality and the quantity of the waste materials
used for support. If the material were rock and if it were carefully placed,
it may act as a vertical support for the roof much in the same way as coal
pillars support the roof when the room and pillar method is used (Ganow 1975).
MINE SUBSIDENCE
History
There have been numerous accounts of subsidence associated with coal
mining in the Streator study area since the initiation of mining operations.
Evidence of subsidence varies from gentle distortions that crack plaster and
jam doors and windows to large pot holes along streets that have affected as
many as three houses.
During the early mining period, "sink holes were abundantly present and so
numerous that they constituted a serious hazard to farming operations" (Quade
1935). One subsidence occurrence so badly damaged a tract of land and a
building that the coal company deeded a new tract of land to the owner and
reconstructed the building (Quade 1935).
The Renz maps show scattered areas as reserved (not mined), including
downtown areas between Hickory and Bridge Streets, from Bloomington to Ster-
ling Streets. In 1883, the CW&V Coal Company sold the mineral rights, thereby
reserving the coal to the property owners in the downtown area, for $0.50/sq.
ft. (Angle 1962). The coal also is shown as reserved under St. Mary's Hospi-
tal, at the corner of Bloomington and Spring Streets.
B-28
-------
Documented Subsidence
As part of their investigations, LETCO reviewed old photographs of sub-
sidence cases and interviewed local citizens to document areas of past subsi-
dence. Figure B-17 and Table B-5 summarize 33 known cases of subsidence.
Most of the documented cases are based on personal communication and reflect
subsidence generally over the past 20 years. Remedial measures, in most cases,
have consisted of repairing the affected utilities and backfilling with any
available miscellaneous material. For the most part, subsidence has not
seriously affected structures, although bracing systems sometimes have been
required.
Subsidence generally was abrupt, occurring with no warning. The deeper
depressions probably were associated with gradual raveling and sluffing of roof
material, which weakened support for the glacial drift and caused subsidence.
Subsidence associated with deep mining of the No. 2 seam occurred as
large sags approximately 4.0 to 6.0 inches deep. These sags usually formed
immediately after mining and are common to this mining method (Quade 1935).
No areas of recent subsidence were found that can be related to longwall mining.
Future Subsidence
Records of recent (last 20 years) subsidence and the presence of sub-
surface voids indicate that subsidence is not "complete", as might be ex-
pected when compared to other mined areas. The time and location of future
subsidence cannot be predicted in the Streator area. Certain areas, however,
are more susceptible to subsidence than others, as will be discussed below.
FACTORS RELATED TO SUBSIDENCE
Geologic Features
The areas of documented subsidence in Streator generally coincide with
one or more of the four following subsurface conditions:
1) Thin roof rock (Figure B-ll)
2) Thin glacial drift (Figure B-10)
3) Thin roof rock and thin glacial drift
4) Soft or fractured roof rock.
The relationship between subsurface conditions and areas of known subsidence
is shown in Figure B-18. The amount and rate of subsidence generally is less
where the overburden and roof rock is thick (Dunrad 1976). Thp nresence of
a competent zone of rock, typically comprised of sandstone or limestone, also
tends to retard or restrict roof failures. There is, however, a general ab-
sence of massive competent rock above the coal in the Streator area.
Another factor related to geologic features and the potential for sub-
sidence is the quality of the strata underlying the coal seams. Soft under-
B-29
-------
6
-43-
.3
V
15
- - ,
14
3..
' .- ; IN
; „. ' i r '
1 .... : JG
._«».. ! i.j
8
3
\
11
.O
1 i)
jew! .. AI ... — __ ___
22
2O\
1 1 ij r
J 1 1 i -
II.JL
2£J
-.3"o,
25
%
32
*•««_ :.
26
27 I
29 *
3 28
30
' i
Figure B-17.
3
31
Location of documented ground subsidence in the Streator, Illinois,
area.
B-30
-------
01
u
c
ai
-a
•rl
CO
,0
03
I
-d
a)
4-J
c
I
d
o
o
13
U-l
O
03
tfl
rQ
m
H
a
, *
01 M-i
T) CJ ^_
ai to
±j M-* OQ
et) I-, c
6 3 E
•H CO TH
4J X» 4J
CO 3 -pH
W CO t
0
O
^
Q J*
o
' rH 0
CQ P5
•H
iU 4-1
<0 O
rH O
O OS
o m
m CM
M *
(U CO
4J CU
cd rH
3 iH
O g
*O 4->
rH 3
CO
4J
co n
fl)
01 X!
r-l 4J
•H
jj s
01
C
CU
IH
3
CJ
U
o
cO
4-) rH
•H rH
S *H
cj O
C CO
OJ CQ
TS
•H
CO •
Xi E
3 O
CO 4J
4-1
•H j3
O,
55
r-
CTi
rH
0)
«
a
rH
rH
tO
QJ 4-1
4J 01
CO 01
e ^
X
a a
a 01
<; o
^
01 01
E '-'
X n
O 01
r4 4J
a o>
a B
- C/)
3 co
g £
jj ,3
O U-l
00 O
CO
CJ 4J
i-l CQ
,£ QJ
0 3
CN
U
Q .X
CJ
rH O
ID «
-H
U UH
CO O
rH O
O OS
in o
-3" rH
CO
01
•H
rH
4J
3
O
C
TJ
01
•o
•H
CO
3
CQ
OJ
CO
3
0
U-l
o
T3
cfl TJ
ts OJ
>
4J rH
ti O
O >
M C
-Of
C^
rH
in
CO
QJ
4-J QJ
01 K
OJ 4-1
rJ CO
4-1
CO CO
-a
CJ CO
C J3
01 CJ
rJ i-4
CO
k,
Q ^
CJ
"3 (§
•H
CJ I4~l
CO O
o ai
o o
CN rH
ffl
1-1
4J
rH
01
01
13
01
-O
•H
CO
3
01
01
3
O
U-l
O
•o
u
CO
vJD
ffi
m
rH
VO
«,
4J
OJ
01
14 01
« T3
CO -H
CO
^
rH 4J
rH CO
01 01
us *
•*
o ^
CJ
rH O
•H
cj UH
fO O
rH O
U C4
0 0
CM rH
1
O r-l
Xl 01
C -H
•H M
M TJ
Ol t-J
4J CO
co S
TJ 00
0> C
-0 -H
•H S
to o
XI rH
3 H-i
CO
TJ
o> aj
S£
O OJ
x: «
4-1 O
o
01
T! rH
V-J 0
nj x;
U-i
4J 0
C
o e
M O
[V, .p
O
CTs
•-H
O
vO
0>
4-1 Ol
0) r-l
0) 4J
t-t CO
4-1
W ^i
rH
4J rH
CO 0)
m
0 ^
^5
•H
0 U-l
ro 0
rH O
O O!
m o
rH rH
a.
CO
00
o
rx
o
4-1
00
e
•H •
rH T3
rH HI
O H
,-1 -H
3
co a1
CO 01
JZ M
4-1 01
01 CJ
01 c
M CO
4J C
CO 01
4J
UH C
O i-l
CO
4J
00 TJ
01 0
jn
01
CO
aj
D-
1
rH
01
01
r-l
t-1
CNJ
4J
1 C
01 OJ CO
c -a a M
•H 01 co a.
B rH J=
CO 4J U-l
rH 01 01 O
CO CO S
r-i a
01 01 UH O
> J3 O -H
0) 4J
CO O 01 CO
4-) CJ T3
C C
. T3 01 3
TJ CO CO O
01 J3 01 U-4
•H 01 O, r4
CO J> 01
rG CO O T3
3 £ 4-1 C
CO 3
4j a)
4J C 3 CO
O CO TJ 01
rH rH r-l
a co -H
00 M U-l
•H C 01 CO
j<: 3 ;», co
P O 00
It) M 01
a, co x: ^3
4J C
4-1 CO CO
O rH 01 CQ
rJ 0 > 10
fa Xi O 00
VO
—*
in
o
CN
01
3 c a
a rt o
JO rH 4-1
53 fi* 00
CO 00 -H
' c e
C M O
0 3 rH
f u ca
4-> CJ
5 a •
< UJ Z
r-
a jt
u
rH O
CO Kl
•H
CJ U-<
eg o
rH O
O ft
in o
vj CO
o
T3
4-1
CO
4-1
CO
c
o
•H
CO
CO
01
n
a.
01
w
CO
•°
13
rH
01
•H
B
o c
CJ iH
CO
OJ r!
Vw TJ
'H
C O
u c
4-1
0)
CO
0)
Ou
rH
rH
CO
4J QJ
CO CO
S S
TJCS
rH
iH rH
U-l O
C O
O UH
U O
00
Q M
«.§
•H
CJ U-t
ttj O
O r§
0 0
-J- CM
4J
rC
00
•H
0>
O "O
0>
t) >J
QJ CO
•O 0)
•H x;
CO tt
3 r-i
0) O»
CO 0)
QJ CO
CU
J-l "•
4J C
•H
M-l C^
O M
^ >,
-H >
CL QJ
CO
0 J-.
QJ
Ot 4J
O ^3
Ch
»— t
'
OJ
3
O
i-f
QO
JJ
O)
01
1-1
4-1
CO
0)
C iH
•H CO
Jw 4J
0) CO
4J Cfl
CO 0>
crv
Q .^
o
rH O
cfl PS
•H
CJ U-l
CO O
rH O
U PS
o o
Ol
CO
CO
cfl
O
C
QJ
CO
H
CO
x:
CO
p.
cfl •
CO CL,
0)
tJ rH
rH O
0 33
+ 1
O
CM
rH
m
o
0
o
r— |
4-J
O CU
C UJ
M
- O
4J
01 O)
0) ft
4J -H
M
•H O
O
i-l
rH
CO
•H
U
CO
rH
O
In
OJ
•H
CO
3
CO
QJ
CO
3
O
0
TJ
CO
U
CO
m
^
X!
r-l
o
C
^J
QJ
QJ
r-l
CO
3
rH
J
rH
rH
B-31
-------
a
Q) *•— •
Ti O
Estimatel
Subsurfai
Conditions
OJ
CJ
c
OJ
M
3
o
CJ
o
OJ
CO
Q
4J
IH
Q M
2s
o MH
«J O
rH O
U Pd
00 O\
en CN
1
h
01
i-H
CO
01
"O
u
H
o
o
rH
00
B
•H
M
CO
O.
O T3
01
rl T)
01 iH
4J CO
rl rO
CO 3
3 CO
cr
a
OJ iH
O CO
4J
IH
a ^
CJ MH
a o
•-H O
u ai
0 0
CN rH
•a
01
T)
CO
3
CO
QJ
CO
3
O
UH
O
•a
CO
4J
E
O
rl
IK
CTv
rH
„
rl
QJ
J3
S
01
U
«?
4J
IH
a .*
iH
CJ UH
CO O
rH O
CJ ai
O O
cn I-H
•a
01
•a
CO
3
CO
r-f
CO
3
QJ
-a
•H
C7*
rH
i!
Q
•H
CJ
cO
rH
O
O
CNl
1
O
0
<4H
O
OJ
B
o
M
E
OJ
4J
CO
01
S
B
iH
01
o
E
01
•a
•H
CO
3
CO
"rj
•H
a
S
o\
rH
.
rH
rH
flj
^
MH
0
&
O
rH
2
CO
01
CO
rl
OJ
3
01
CO
•a
i-H
01
iH
rH
rH
CO
IH
O
CO
-H
u
CO
rH
CJ
in
fO
IH
O
g
-rl
4J
CJ
OJ
10
rl
01
4J
B
•H
4J
CO
4J
B
01
g
OJ
5
o.
JJ
01
TI
E
3
•O
•H
O
>
CTs
rH
r.
g excavation 25 Roof Ro
as broken
nd backfilled.
C IS TO
JH 4J M
3 C CD
""O flj cti
QJ > j:
J-i flj ,y
d) P-i O
> cs
CJ •
CO 01 A
•H E 4J
T3 fH iH
i-H 9
co* co j:
4J CO 00
01 00 3
01 O
rl rl rl
CO IH 4-1
backfilled with
rl
CO
B
•H
01 •
cj -a
E E
01 CO
T3 CO
•H
CO IH
£> O
3
CO CO
B
•o o
•H 4-1
(X
co in
eg c~
i —
CTS
i— I
•a
CN
r^.
rH
r of foundation
QJ
£
o
CJ
4J
cd
0)
o
g
•o
iH
cfl
3
CO
13
iH
cx
CO
ai
m
vO
rH
T3
P
cti
c:
3
o
4J
iH
CO
iH
CJ
CO
i-H
O
O
CN
0
rl
01
rH
•rH
O
CO
IH
O
00
•H
rH
01
5>
CO
rl
CO
3
O
E
iH
4^
B
cS
,
CO
T3
; 5 truck loads
o backfill.
CO
Q.TJ
CO O
i-H T3
i-H OJ
O 01
0 B
i-H 0)
CO rl
U 01
•H 3
B
O rH
U CO
•H
•O rl
01 01
rl CO
O B
Is
4-1
MH
•H
rH
(0
*H
U
i-H
M
CO
01
-rH
4J
MH
DO
d
•H
-O
rH
-H
3
JD
MH
O
4J
C
0)
i-H
4-)
0)
C/3
m
o^
rH
u
S
IH
o
m
i-H
01
3
•O
4J
0
>,
O
B
•H 01
O
rl B
01 01
01 iH
CO CO
rl 3
0) CO
O 01
B
!>. iH
01 6
rH
rH O
CO 4J
4J
B
01
CO
01
rl
(X
O
4J
0) 4J
3 S
SSJ
< o
T)
01
a
CO
B
O
CJ
I
01
4J
!'
•H
X
o
rl
I
3
C
•H
O
U
LO
i
a*
01
B -a
a «
a oi
> oo
rH T3
rMH
co eA
01 ^1
01 01
H 01
U H
B
O rH
CO rH
iH 01
rl rl
rl rl
Ol
TJ i-H
•H O
CO O
01 J=
rQ O
rl
O
-
O
O
b.
!CO B 3
0 3 oc
OZ^l
CO CO
U(S
01
01 B
rl O
U CO
V] M
OJ
11
a: s
3.
(U MH
CJ 0
ai
01
4-1 rl
01 4J
01C/3
B rl
CO(Q
CO
rt n
01 CO
rH 01
Cu B
00
B
00
B
•a
CO
B-32
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000007K6\tiff\2000SDFZ.tif): Saving image to "C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000007K6\tiff\2000SDFZ.T$F.T$F" failed.
-------
z
u
a
DC
3
o
E
u
>
0
J
<
o
U.
0
p
u.
a.
u
0
SO-
40.
30-
20-
10.
4,5,13
1S
6,19,
23
20
21.30,
A3I
29,32
24.26
IS
t 1
12
28.29
27
10
20
30
40
50
DEPTH (FT) OF PENNSYLVANIAN ROOF ROCK
Figure B-18.
Subsurface conditions of areas of known subsidence. Numbers
refer to subsidence locations shown in Figure 17 and Table B-5
B-34
-------
lying strata can cause pillars to settle and/or result in a bearing capacity
failure of the pillars.
Another possible cause for subsidence associated with the room and
pillar method of mining is the deterioration of the pillars, roof, and floor
with time. The net effect of water and chemical reaction with the different
units is not well defined.
Hydrologic Factors
The existing water levels in the mines and overlying strata minimize
the stress within the roof rock units. Lower water levels would increase
the stress and thus would increase the load to be carried by the immediate
roof, pillars, and floor.
If mine recharge were restricted to natural infiltration, only a small
portion of the present amount of recharge would enter the mines (Section
2.3.3.). Declines in water levels of as much as 20 feet would be expected.
If sewage discharges to the mines were eliminated and only stormwater
were allowed to enter the mines, the amount of recharge would not be suf-
ficient to maintain the water levels during dry periods of the year. The
Streator area can be quite dry in the summer months, which causes groundwater
levels and river flow to drop significantly. A fluctuating water table would
increase the danger of mine instability.
Mining Conditions
Subsidence usually occurs at the time of mining or shortly thereafter.
Room and pillar mining generally causes more severe subsidence problems than
the longwall method, because of the greater potential for differential move-
ment: . Subsidence associated with longwall mining generally occurs during
mining operations and is usually in the form of large sags, which have a
depth roughly three-quarters of the thickness of the coal seam. Subsidence
associated with room and pillar mining is more isolated and depends primarily
upon:
1. Coal Extraction Ratios
2. Dimensions of pillars
3. Sizes of rooms and roof spans
4. Strength of roof, coal, and floor.
The coal extraction ratio is the area of mined coal divided by the total
area. Extraction ratios of typical mines in the Streator area, based on the
Renz mine maps, ranged from 50% to 78% prior to any pillar drawing or rob-
bing (Table B-4). Approximate room dimensions and pillar sizes also are pre-
sented in Table B-4.
B-35
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000007K6\tiff\2000SDG2.tif): Saving image to "C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000007K6\tiff\2000SDG2.T$F.T$F" failed.
-------
CONCLUSIONS
1. The abandoned mines are flooded, and the present wastewater/stormwater
disposal practices are responsible for the elevated water levels in the
mines.
2. Conditions conducive to subsidence exist in the Streator area. The most
susceptible areas are those where thin roof rock and/or thin glacial over-
burden exist. Although the only evidence of subsidence in the Kangley
area are a few depressions in a lawn, poor quality and thin sections of
roof rock make this area also susceptible to subsidence.
3. Recent ground subsidence has occurred and probably will continue based on
present conditions.
4. In the northwest part of Streator, weak and thin roof rock material in-
dicates areas particularly susceptible to future subsidence.
5. Areas in the central and eastern part of Streator may be less sensitive
to changes in mine water levels. These are areas of substantial roof
rock thickness. The mines there also are lower topographically, and thus,
the water levels in the mines would tend to fluctuate less.
6. Significant lowering of the existing water levels would increase stresses
in the roof, pillars, and floor and, therefore, would increase the potential
for subsidence. There is no "safe" level at which mine water should be
maintained. Fluctuation in water levels must be minimized. Inundated mines
should never be allowed to drain, because air entering the mines would cause
drying and subsequent deterioration of the pillars and any wooden roof support
system.
7. Lowering existing water levels can be prevented by maintaining recharge
equal to the present sanitary and industrial inflows to the mines. Ad-
ditional discharges will have to make up for flows diverted from the mines.
Recharge will have to be regulated carefully to maintain stable levels.
8. There are areas where recharge is not needed and where present discharges
may be eliminated:
a. No recharge is needed in unmined areas.
b. No recharge may be needed in mines immediately adjacent to discharge
(leachate) areas.
9. Elimination of discharges to the abandoned mines would not eliminate
totally leachate discharges to the Vermilion River, because natural in-
filtration to the mines would continue. The leachate quantity, however,
would be considerably less. The mines would never completely drain
naturally. Drainage is a function of floor elevation and natural seepage.
Because of the general eastward dip of the coal away from the discharge
points along the river and the sometimes severe rolling of the coal,
pumping would be necessary to dewater the mines.
B-37
-------
APPENDIX C. WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATIONS IN THE STREATOR, ILLINOIS, FPA
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
Figure C-l. Location of mine leachates discharging to the Vermilion River
in the Streator, Illinois, FPA on 7 September 1977.
MILES
0 I
WAPORA, INC.
C-2
-------
TableC-l. Locations at which mine leachates discharge to the Vermilion River
in the Streator, Illinois, FPA. Leachate sites were located during
field investigation conducted on 7 September 1977.
Location Description
1-11 On the east bank of the Vermilion River between Egg Bag
Creek and Prairie Creek. Individual discharges were
small but larger than trickles.
12 Discharges into Prairie Creek approximately 50 feet upstream
from its confluence with the Vermilion River. Leachate
flow originates approximately 200 feet from the creek.
Several small seepage points contribute to the flow in the
main leachate channel. The channel supports massive algal,
bacterial, and fungal growths and is malodorous. The flow
near Prairie Creek was large.
13 Upstream from Prairie Creek, approximately 50 feet down-
stream from the STP discharge. Leachate volume was small.
14 Upstream from the STP outfall, directly under the high
tension lines at the south end of the STP property. The
leachate discharge was small.
15 At the southern border of Streator and La Salle County,
at the west end of 12th Street. The discharge was not
small but not nearly as large as the discharge at 12.
16 and 17 Located close together, in Livingston County just upstream
from the Highway 23 bridge.
C-3
-------
IEPA water quality sampling station
IEPA 1974 special study sampling station
Figure C-2. IEPA water quality sampling locations in the Streator,
Illinois, FPA.
C-4
MILES
I ' I
0 I
WAPORA, INC.
-------
Table C-2. Summary of water quality data obtained at sites in the Streator
FPA (Adapted from IEPA Special Analysis 1974), Values in excess
of the current State water quality standards are marked with an
asterisk (*).
Sample
Designation
(listed from
upstream to
downstream)
7M
11M
14M
5M
6M
12M
DO
7.7
7.1
9.1
5.8
4.4*
8.2
8.1
7.5
7.8
7.6
7.6
7.8
Fecal
Coliforms
(///100ml)
50
4,200*
5,700*
300,000*
17,900*
7,400*
Cu
iBE/il
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
Fe
Ong/1)
0.3
0.9
1.0
1.3*
0,7
1.1*
NH3-N
(mg/1)
0.1
0.7
0.7
3.3*
*
2.9
1.4
Total P
(mg/1)
0.20
17.
7.4
3.7
3.5
3.6
C-5
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000007K6\tiff\2000SDGA.tif): Unspecified error
-------
Sampling excursions were conducted on 3 October 1977 and on 19 December
1977. During both excursions, flow in the Vermilion River was high. The flow
near Leonore was 6,330 cfs on 3 October 1977 and 5,480 on 19 December 1977.
Only two of the leachate sites located on 7 September 1977 (#12 and #14,
Figure C-l) could be sampled. All other sites were under water. Additional
leachate sites, however, were located along Prairie Creek and sampled.
Leachates along Prairie Creek are discharged from the hillside where mining
occurred. The leachate sites are situated high enough above the stream chan-
nel that high stream flows would not cover the seepage points. No leachate
sites were located along Coal Run. The floodplain of the stream is broad and
the hydrologic gradient of the mines trends away from Coal Run (Appendix B),
Stream and leachate sampling sites are shown in Figure C-3 and are described
in Table C-3. Samples of the Vermilion were taken along the east bank and
not at mid-stream, because the river flow was too high and fast. Results of
water quality analyses are presented in Tables C-4 and c-5.
Leachates that were sampled appear to originate from one mine, the Chicago,
Wilmington, and Vermilion "Old" No. 1. This mine is the largest in the area
(Appendix B) and must receive considerable flows from residences, industries,
commercial establishments, and combined sewer overflows. Several physical,
chemical, and biological processes occur in the water-filled mine and alter
the characteristics of leachates. These processes include sedimentation of
suspended solids, dissolution of minerals in the geologic formation, chem-
ical and biological decomposition of organic matter, and bacterial die-off.
The rates of these processes depend on the chemical and biological character-
istics of the waters, the physical characteristics of the mine, including the
surface area in contact with the water, the hydrologic gradient, and
retention time. Filtration between the mine and points of seepage also alter
the water quality of leachates.
The chemical characteristics of leachates indicate that the water undergoes
a high level of treatment in the mine (Tables C-4 and C-5). The leachates
were very clear and their BODcj was low, indicating that there is some sedi-
mentation, filtration, and decomposition of organic matter. Ammonia concen-
trations and fecal coliform counts, however, were high, confirming domestic
wastewater contributions to the mine. The leachates were also malodorous.
The odors are due to sulfides, indicating that the dissolved oxygen in the
mine waters may be quite low, lower than the concentrations at the leachate
sampling sites. The high ammonia and low nitrate concentrations further
attest to the reducing environment of the mine.
The leachates had high alkalinity and hardness levels and had a neutral pH,
ranging between 6.8 and 7.3. In the mine, carbonic acid is formed by solution
of carbon dioxide in water and causes the dissolution of minerals in the for-
mation. Carbonate minerals in solution then buffer the pH. Because a
reducing environment is indicated, the pH should not be lowered significantly
by the oxidation of pyrite (FeS2)• Iron concentrations in the leachates were
high, indicating that there may be other sources of iron.
Leachates from the mines appear to affect water quality in Prairie Creek.
Prairie Creek, however, exhibited degraded waters upstream from the leachate
sampling stations. The fecal coliform count and the chemical oxygen demand
were greater at sampling location F than at any of the leachate sampling
C-7
-------
• STREAM SAMPLING SITE
• LEACHATE SAMPLING SITE
A STP OUTFALL
Figure C-3.
Location of stream, leachate, and STP outfall sampling sites in
the Streator, Illinois, FPA. Sampling was conducted on 3 October
1977 and 19 December 1977.
C-8
-------
Table C-3. Stream, leachate, and STP outfall sampling sites in the Streator,
Illinois, FPA. Sampling was conducted on 3 October 1977 and 19
December 1977.
Location Description
A On the Vermilion River approximately 140 feet upstream
from the Coal Run confluence.
B On Coal Run approximately 150 feet upstream from its
confluence with the Vermilion River.
C On the Vermilion River approximately 300 feet downstream
from the Coal Run confluence.
D-l On the Vermilion River at the south end of the STP
property, upstream from mine discharge #14.
14 Mine leachate discharging into the Vermilion River from the
river bank upstream from the STP outfall, directly under
the high tension lines at the south end of the STP property.
Flow was larger than observed on 7 September 1977.
D-2 On the Vermilion River downstream from mine discharge #14,
approximately 150 feet upstream from the STP outfall.
STP Approximately 300 feet upstream from Prairie Creek.
The outfall pipe was under water during both sampling visits.
E On the Vermilion River between the STP outfall and the Prairie
Creek confluence at the CB&Q RR bridge.
F On Prairie Creek approximately 100 feet upstream from G-l.
G-l Discharge into Prairie Creek farthest upstream. The flow
in the channel comes from a large, gently sloping area where
there are several seepage points.
G-2, Discharges to Prairie Creek originating from the side of a
G-3, steep hill. The flows are large and malodorous. The
G-4 channels are red stained (from ferric compounds) and support
large algal, bacterial, and fungal growths.
G-5 Mine leachate channel at the source and approximately 60 feet
upstream from where flows enter Prairie Creek. (Table C-l, #12)
H On Prairie Creek approximately 25 feet upstream from its
confluence with the Vermilion River. Because of the high
flow in the Vermilion River, flows from the Vermilion River
and Prairie Creek were mixing.
I On the Vermilion River approximately 300 feet downstream from
the Prairie Creek confluence.
C-9
-------
T3
cu
4-1
O
•H
(X
CU
TJ
CU t3
)-i CU
CO 4J
o
co d
O CU
•H CO
4J -H
cfl p
o C
O CO
r-l rC
4J
60 O
d
•H CO
rH CO
tcu
fj
c/j 3
60
6
r-l
CU CO
rQ CU
O 3
4J rH
O cfl
o >
CO rH
rH
d N a
rH Cfl
cfl
C ro
cfl I
o
>4-l
O CU
)-(
en 3
4-1 00
rH -H
3 fn
CO
(U C
erf -H
I
o
•§
H
CO
§M
cu
C CU 4-1
•* M £
rH 4-1 JZ
rH W
M
O
•H
4-1
CO
O
O
iSfl
Ot
d
•H
rH
a
6
cfl
C/3
*>N TJ
4J r-l
•H Cfl
rH TJ
Cfl d
3 cfl
W
M
W
in
I
0
cfl
2
T
o
ci
fNJ
7
O
cl,
rH
j
rH
f^
4J
d
a)
3
4J
•H
4-1
CO
d
o
u
o
o
CM
ON
O rH 00*
O CO
CN
CN
sr
CD rH O*
^£> V r-t
m
CM
rH
O CO H
CM CO
CO
I— 1
l-»
O CO rH
m
rH
CO vO
0 rH
o
vO O
O rH
rH
rH ON
CO CM
CM
m o
CO CO
in
CO CM
CO CO
CM
O 0
CO CO
m
O CM
CO CO
rH
r- ON
CM CM
0
rH rH
CM CM
ON
CM r-«
CD rH
£5
1
Cfl
•H
d
o
1 H
CM
sr
rH
ON
rH
rH
in
o
o
V
m
o
o
V
in
o
o
V
in
o
o
V
m
o
0
CO
rH
o
m
o
o
CM
sr
rH
£3
1
cu
4-1
cfl
r-l
4-1
•H
2
ON
sT
o
oo
0
o
ON
CM
o
sr
CO
o
vO
CO
CD
in
CM
o
m
CM
0
rH
rH
0
CM
CO
o
OO
ON
CD
PH
CO
cfl
(U
4J
cfl
Ju*
a
Cfl
o
_f"l
p 1
rH
cfl
4J
0
H
0
0
0
rH
,3.
vO
vO
rH
in
si-
vO
r"~
in
o
00
CO
00
?^'
oo
ON
^
ON
r^.
^
ON
vO
r—
^
ON
ON
•H
oo
CM
CO
TJ
•H
rH
O
•a
cu
^
rH
0
CO
W
•H
Q
rH
CO
4-1
0
H
ON
vO
rH
m
m
CM
co
m
CO
vO
CO
o
vO
CO
vO
CO
CM
t^.
CO
oo
in
CO
vO
r-^
CO
vO
rH
CO
O
O
cfl
CO
CO
K*>
4J
•H
d
•H
rH
cfl
^
rH
-------
T3
01
o
C
o
I
a
3
rH CO
M
C
0
-rH
a
o
3
c
•rH
r-H
a
(0
CO
>- -o
•vJ rH
•i-H n3
rH T3
ftf C
3 10
C1* 4-)
co
M
35
^
in
i
(0
in
i
cj
^*
ro
CM
rH
1
O
r-H
,_(
1
Q
r-
o
0
o
m
o
0
o
CO
o
o
o
*
o
o
o*
r-H
rH
o
o
o
rH
o
o
CA
0
O
O
CO
o
o
•
o
u>
r-H
0
o
[^.
0
0
•
0
CM
o
•
o
H
o
0
CM
rH
o
o
^
rH
0
0
CO
rH
o
o
in
rH
o
o
CO
rH
o
o
co
o
o
o
T
r-4
o
•
o
en
rH
o
0
in
rH
0
o
o
I
rH
oo
m
rH
r-
o
^*
CM
ro
o
ro
•
ro
rH
rH
ro
in
in
CM
on
H
CM
CO
0
•
rH
*3"
CM
CO
^T
CO
rH
rH
•
O
o
r-H
O
0
0
rH
O
0
o
r-H
0
0
i-H
rH
0
O
O
rH
O
o
o
i-H
o
0
o
•H
o
o
CM
rH
o
•
o
ro
i-H
O
0
rH
r-H
O
•
0
o
•
,-f
^
rH
O
o
o
ro
ro
O
ro
ro
•
0
00
CM
O
(5\
fM
O
^
ro
O
CM
ro
•
O
in
00
o
P^
rH
i
O
o
1
r-H
Q Q Q
Dl— » i— j
1— ' t— '
a Q a
Dr—J r—t
.V-J I—'
Q Q Q
D^"1 l~)
t— ' »-J
Q Q Q
ODD
Q Q Q
Di— . )—.
l-J >_J
Q a Q
DI— » i>-K
1-J I_J
a o Q
Pr— s »— ^
1— ' t-J
Q Q Q
D D D
Q Q Q
D D D
Q Q Q
D D D
•*
rH
0
in
rH
^
in
rH
VD
in
rH
"tf
rH
ro
ro
rH
*r
rH
o
•
o
CM
^
'f
rH
[>^
•
^J1
4J
C
(1)
3
JJ
•H
4-1
cn
c
0
o
£
•H
CJ
M
x:
o
0
o
C T3
o 10
M a)
0)
w
a> >i
C r)
(0 3
D1 O
C M
iO <1)
S 2
C-ll
0
c
•H
N
tn
03
o
ft.
•O
C
(0
Ul
-------
a >. -a
•-« 6 M •*•> w<
o o a -H *o
c o *J -< -a
--< i4 d 13 n
-t AJ £ 3 <3
*-< oj O -w
Ml §
•HMO
o o a>
o M o o
o
3
H
X
o
A
(A
<9
0)
a
Q.
w
O
X
0*
•0
•H
O
14
•o
O
I
M
Ul
CO
01
w
•a
•H
O
•o
o
o
w
M
"4
O
in
rH
o1
o
3
a
•H
C
"
8*
3
CO
*
to
0
3 !
1 3
2 3
see
3 3 J2
« 3 e
C-12
-------
Q fl O -
e « *>
•H w «
SSS]
M
-I vo
o •v
o o
Ol m
O O
O <-i
ul
o
o
Ul vo
-------
locations (Figure C-3). The nitrate concentration was high, and the iron
concentration exceeded the Illinois stream water quality standard. Leachates,
however, contained higher concentrations of ammonia, total dissolved solids,
and iron. Leachates also had higher alkalinity and hardness levels and lower
dissolved oxygen concentrations. Downstream from the leachate discharges, at
sampling location H, the BOD5 level was the same as at location F, but fecal
coliform counts, ammonia, and iron concentrations were higher. Because the
distance between sampling locations F and H is less than 0.25 mile, the water
quality degradation most probably was attributable to the mine leachates and
not to other pollutant sources.
Leachates do not appear to have an adverse impact on the water quality of
the Vermilion River (Tables C-4, C-5). Constituent concentrations downstream
from the STP and downstream from Prairie Creek, between river sampling loca-
tions E and I, did not differ significantly. Impacts attributable to leach-
ates along Prairie Creek, however, are difficult to differentiate, because
pollutant loads from the STP enter the Vermilion River less than 0.25 mile
upstream from the Prairie Creek confluence. Impacts at river sampling loca-
tion H could be caused by loads from the STP and/or from leachates entering
Prairie Creek.
Impacts from leachate pollutant loads may be greater when flows in the
Vermilion River are low. There would be less flow available for dilution.
Loads from leachate sites, however, may not be as large during low flow
periods when no stormwater enters the mines. Leachate flows observed at
locations 12 and 14 on 3 October 1977 and on 19 December 1977 (those sites
discharging to the Vermilion River that were not under water) appeared to be
larger than flows observed on 7 September 1977.
Pollutant loads of certain constituents from the Prairie Creek leachate
sites (G-l through G-5) and in Prairie Creek upstream from these sites (F)
were calculated and are presented in Table C-6. Some of these combined loads
were substantial, and if leachate flows and concentrations are anywhere as
high when flows in the river are low as when flows are high, the impacts
could be significant. The BOD5 load from the leachate sites along Prairie
Creek was calculated to be 188 Ibs/day, and the 6005 load in Prairie Creek
upstream (location F) was calculated to be 236 Ibs/day. The total 6005 load
to the Vermilion River from Prairie Creek, therefore, was approximately 424 Ibs
/day. The BOD5 load from the STP during the period from July 1976 to
June 1977 was 218 Ibs/day, at 14.5 mg/1. It must be realized, however, that
the BOD5 load in the Vermilion River at sampling location A was approximately
118,149 Ibs during 3 October 1977, substituting the flow near Leonore for
the flow at Streator.
Pollutant loads from the STP and Coal Run appear to have little impact on
the water quality of the Vermilion River (Table C-5). Pollutant loads from
these sources may have a more significant impact when flows in the river are
low. At the time of sampling, the water quality of Coal Run was poor, partic-
ularly because of the high fecal coliform count and the high iron concentration.
The iron may enter the stream via leachates, although no lea-chate discharge
points were located. A major source of pollutants must be the broken inter-
ceptor along the streambank downstream from Highway 23. Flow from the inter-
ceptor was observed entering the creek. The odor at this location was very
strong.
C-14
-------
0)
4-1
to
td
U
(0
4->
O
EH
CN
CO
cr\
VD
VD
r-
co
CN
o
ro
LT)
SI
U)
•a
fO
5 >,
fd
•a
.* tQ
CD X!
(U rH
H
U 0)
(0
0)
•H
0)
tfl
fO 03
S-l 0)
•H
VD
CN
•sf
co
o
co
VD
O
00
CO
rH
(0
•P
O
4->
co
CO
co
en
VO
in
O
<*
n
co
co
C X
•H 0)
6 a)
fO M
0) IT)
M
•P T3
CO C
a, m
D
m
J
U
oo
r-
co
en
(M
co
CN
en
CN
CN
VD
o
C CTi
(0 H
CO 0)
a) ,0
u o>
u
0) 0)
•H Q
V4
•rH 01
fO H
SH
0, C
0
Cn
C -0
O 0)
rH M
fO 3
w
to ns
0) Q)
^ 6
,c w
U 3
fC O
4-) U
c c
fl O
-p u
•-f e
^ o
0 M
eu IM
a
01
rH
,0
%
t5
CTi
en
CN
r-l
Cn
-P
C
0)
3
-P
•H
-P
U)
C
O
O
in
§
m
z
i
0)
-P
(0
a,
U3
(0
cu
4-1
10
o
4-1
O
VD
en
o
VD
co
•O
•H
0)
iH
O
CO
10
fO
4J
g
n
co
VD
•o
•rH
M
O
rH
ff
U
•P
fl
4-1
rH
3
03
C
O
C-15
-------
The impact of pollutant loads entering the Vermilion River between river
sampling locations A and I appears negligible. Water quality upstream from
Coal Run and downstream from Prairie Creek was similar. The fecal coliform
count and the iron concentration were particularly high at both locations.
C-16
-------
APPENDIX D. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
-------
COST METHODOLOGY
1.) Costs for the sanitary sewer system were determined from the draft
Facilities Plan (Warren & Van Praag, Inc. 1975). The layout of the
system outlined in the Plan was used. Costs were recalculated to
reflect pipe sizes for a zero-population growth projection. The
costs for the sewer system evaluation survey and for rehabilitation
of the existing combined sewer system also were used. Costs to
minimize subsidence damage to the collection system, including
costs for slight changes in interceptor routes, light-weight sewer
pipes, flexible joints, timber cradles, and concrete supports (Section
5.2.2.1.) are not included.
2.) Costs for the mine recharge system were derived from the draft
Facilities Plan, including costs for storm sewers in presently
sewered areas, the drilling of additional mineholes, and the
effluent recharge system. The cost of the effluent recharge system
would not be greater for alternatives including expansion of the
sewer service area because the proposed system would discharge
effluent to the mines in both presently sewered and unsewered areas
for all alternatives.
3.) Capital costs include additions, replacements, and/or modifications
to the existing collection system and treatment facilities. The
costs are only for liquid handling. Solids handling and disposal
costs are not included.
4,) Costs for materials, construction, and operation and maintenance
were updated to January 1978 price levels. Capital costs for treatment
units and sewers were based on US-EPA indexes for Chicago of 292.2
and 318.5, respectively. The Engineering News Record Index for
Chicago of 2,786.82 also was used.
5.) Costs for flow equalization were determined for units sized to 20%
of the average design flow (2.0 mgd and 2.6 mgd).
6.) Costs for miscellaneous construction and equipment/ and improvements at
the treatment plant were determined by Clark, Dietz & Associates -
Engineers, Inc., after inspection of the facilities (Draft EIS, Appendix F)
7.) Costs for site work, and electrical and piping costs were estimated
to be 10% of the capital costs for treatment facilities.
Salvage value was determined using straight-line depreciation for a
planning period of 20 years. The service life of land was consid-
ered permanent. The service life of structures, including build-
ings, concrete process units, conveyance pipelines, etc., was
assumed to be 40 years. The service life of process equipment,
such as clarifier mechanisms, standby generators, etc., was assumed
to be 20 years. The service life of auxiliary equipment, including
instruments and control facilities, sewage pumps and electric motors,
mechanical equipment such as compressors, aeration system, chlorinators,
etc., was assumed to be 15 years and was given a zero salvage value
for the 20-year planning period.
D-l
-------
9.) Present worth of salvage value, operation and maintenance costs, and
average annual equivalent costs were determined for 20 years using a
discount rate of 6.625%.
10.) Present worth of salvage costs were determined using a single payment
present worth faptor of 0.2772 (salvage value X 0.277 = present worth
of salvage).
11.) Present worth of O&M costs were determined using a uniform original
payment series factor of 10.91 (average annual O&M cost X 10.91 = present
worth of O&M).
12.) Average annual equivalent costs were determined using a capital
recovery factor of 0.0917 (total present worth X 0.0917 = salvage
annual equivalent cost).
D-2
-------
Alternative la.
A. Collection System
Separate sanitary sewers in presently
sewered and unsewered areas.
New Sanitary Sewers in Service Area
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Pipe Size
8"
10"
12"
15"
18"
Linear Feet
262,840'
171,540'
7,500'
9,000'
16,400'
Capital
11,302.0
824.0
442.5
657.0
1,541.6
Salvage
5,651.0
412.0
221.3
329.0
770.5
O&M
13.7
1.1
.5
.6
15.4
Subtotal 14,767.1 7,383.8 31.3
New Sanitary Sewers in
Unsewered Areas
8"
10"
12"
15"
18"
21"
138,280'
11,320'
6,000'
4,800'
1,600'
7,200'
5,946.0
532.0
354.0
350.4
150.4
849.6
2,973.0
266.0
177.0
175.2
75.1
424.8
Subtotal 8,182.4 4,091.0 9.6
Treatment Method
Tertiary treatment with
expanded (2.6 mgd) plant
capacity.
Preliminary Treatment (Existing) 15.1
Flow Equalization 418.5 209.3 2.9
Primary Treatment 160.0 80.0 13.0
Activated Sludge & Nitrification 536.0 134.0 85.0
Secondary Clarifiers 217.0 62.3 20.6
Chemical Treatment 25.0 48.4
Multi-media Filters 593.8 296.9 63.9
Chlorination 94.8 33.6 20.6
Misc. Construction & Equipment 20.0
Site Work, Electrical & Piping 206.5
Improvements 209.0
Subtotal 2,480.6 816.1 269.5
D-3
-------
Alternative la.
C. Recharge System
Mine discharge from old sewers
and storm sewers in presently
sewered area, and effluent
recharge during dry-weather
periods.
Storm Sewers in Service Area
Effluent Recharge System
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital
3,437.2
1,077.7
4,514.9
Salvage
1,718.6
538.9
2,257.5
O&M
111.7
16.6
128.3
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 29,945.0
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 38,030.1
Present Worth of Salvage Value -4,032.8
Net Capital Cost 33,997.3
E. Total Present Worth 38,783.5
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 3,556.4
14,548.4
438.7
D-4
-------
Alternative Ib.
A. Collection System
Separate sanitary sewers in presently
sewered area.
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage O&M
Subtotal 14,767.1 7,383.8 31.3
B. Treatment Method
Tertiary treatment with existing
(2.0 mgd) plant capacity.
Existing Treatment 103.2
Flow Equalization 336.0 124.5 2.6
Nitrification 442.5 110.6 34.0
Chemical Treatment 23.0 — 38.7
Multi-media Filters 524.4 262.2 49.1
Chlorination 90.1 30.2 15.8
Misc. Construction & Equipment 20.0
Site Work, Electrical & Piping 143.6
Improvements 209.0
Subtotal 1,788.6 527.5 243.4
C. Recharge System
Same as # la.
Subtotal 4.514.9 2,257.5 128.3
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 21,070.6 10,168.8 403.0
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 26,759.6
Present Worth of Salvage Value -2,818.8
Net Capital Cost 23,940.8
D-5
-------
Alternative Ib.
E. Total Present Worth 28,337.5
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 2,598.5
D-6
-------
Alternative Ic.
A. Collection System
Same as //la.
Subtotal
B. Treatment Method
Same as #lb.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1.000)
Capital Salvage
22,949.5
1,788.6
4,514.9
29,253.0
C. Recharge System
Same as //la.
Subtotal
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 37,151.3
Present Worth of Salvage Value -3,952.8
Net Capital Cost 33,198.5
E. Total Present Worth
37,699.9
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 3,457.1
11,474.8
527.5
2,257.5
14,259.8
O&M
40.9
243.4
128.3
412.6
D-7
-------
Alternative Id.
A. Collection System
Same as #la.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage
22,949.5 11,474.8
O&M
40.9
B. Treatment Method
Tertiary treatment without
chemical coagulation and
with expanded (2.6 mgd)
plant capacity.
Subtotal
2,455.6
816.1
221.1
C. Recharge System
Same as #la.
Subtotal
4,514.9
2,257.5
128.3
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor 29,920.0 14,548.4
(1.27; engineering, administra- ~—
tion, and contingencies)
Total 37,998.4
Present Worth of Salvage Value -4,032.9
Not. Capital Cost 33,965.5
390.3
E. Total Present Worth
38,223.7
• Average Annual Equivalent Cost
3,505.1
D-8
-------
Alternative le.
A. Collection System
Same as #lb .
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage
14,767.1
7,383.8
O&M
31.3
B. Treatment Method^
Tertiary treatment without
chemical coagulation and
with existing (2.0 mgd)
plant capacity.
Subtotal
1,765.6
527.5
204.7
C. Recharge System
Same as #la.
Subtotal
4,514.9
2,257.5
128.3
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 26,730.4
Present Worth of Salvage Value -2,818.8
Net Capital Cost 23,884.6
21,047.6 10,168.8
E. Total Present Worth
27,859.1
364.3
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 2,554.6
D-9
-------
Alternative If.
A. Collection System
Same as #la.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage
22,949.5 11,474.8
O&M
40.9
B. Treatment Method
Same as #le.
Subtotal
1,765.6
527.5
204.7
C. Recharge System
Same as #la.
Subtotal
4,514.9
33,169.3
E. Total Present Worth 37,248.5
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 3,415.7
2,257.5
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor 29,230.0 14,259.8
(1.27; engineering, administra- ~~ ~~ • —
tiori, and contingencies)
Total 37,122.1
Present Worth of Salvage Value -3,952.8
Net Capital Cost
128.3
373.9
D-10
-------
Alternative lg.
A. Collection Systems
Same as #la.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage
22,949.5
11,474.8
O&M
40.9
B. Treatment Method
Existing secondary treatment
with expanded (2.6 mgd) plant
capacity and additional treat-
ment in the mines.
Preliminary Treatment (Existing)
Primary Treatment
Activated Sludge
Secondary Clarifiers
Misc. Constructions Equipment
Site Work Electrical & Piping
Improvements
-Subtotal
160.0
228.5
217.0
20.0
62.5
209.0
897.0
80.0
58.3
62.3
15.1
13.0
70.3
20.6
200.6
119.0
C. RechargeSystem
Continuous effluent recharge,
and mine discharge from old
sewers.
Subtotal
1,077.7
538.9
16.6
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor 24,924.2
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 31,653.7
Present Worth of Salv-rge Value -3,383.5
Net Capital Cost 28,^270.^2
12,214.3
176.5
D-ll
-------
Alternative Ig.
E. Total Present Worth 30,195.8
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 2,769.0
D-12
-------
Alternative Ih.
A- Collection System
Same as #lb .
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage
14,767.1
7,383.8
O&M
31.3
B. Treatment Method
Existing secondary treatment
with existing (2.0 mgd) plant
capacity and additional treat-
ment in the mines.
Subtotal
C. Recharge System
Same as #lg.
Subtotal
209.0
1,077.7
538.9
103.2
16.6
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor 16,054.3
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
9.047.4
151.1
Total 20,389.0
Present Worth of Salvage Value -2,506.2
Not Capital Cost 17,882.8
E- Total Present Worth
19,531.3
V. Avf-raoo Annual rXruivalent Cout
1,791.0
D-13
-------
Alternative li.
A. Collection System
Same as #la.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage O&M
22,949.5 11,474.8
40.9
B. Treatment Method
Same as #lh.
Subtotal
209.0
103.2
C. Recharge System
Same as #lg.
Subtotal
1,077.7
538.9
16.6
E. Total Present Worth
29,205.3
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor 24,236.2 12,013.7
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 30,780.0
Present Worth of Salvage Value -3,327.9
Net Capital Cost 27,452.1
160.7
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 2,678.1
D-14
-------
Alternative 2a.
A. Collection
System
Combined sewer system in presently sewered
area, with rehabilitation and replacement
of interceptors. Sanitary sewers in
presently unsewered areas.
Upgraded Combined Sewers
Pipe Size Linear Feet
12"
15"
18"
21"
24"
27"
36"
42"
48"
54"
60"
72"
SSESa- Existing
Rehabi li tation
800'
3,600'
2,400'
800'
600'
1,200'
2,000'
6,800'
6,800'
4,000'
4,000'
2,800
Sewers
New Sanitary Sewers for
Unsevered Areas
Subtotal
Capital
47.2
262.8
225.6
94.4
74.4
163.2
430.0
1,700.0
2,053.6
1,348.0
1,672.0
1,352.4
9,423.6
260.0
1,712.8
8,182.4
19,578.8
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Salvage
23.6
131.4
112.8
47.2
37.2
81.6
215.0
850.0
1,020.0
674.0
836.0
676.2
4,711.8
4,091.0
8,802.8
O&M
.05
.3
.2
,1
.1
.3
.5
2.1
2.3
1.4
1.6
1.3
10.3
9.6
19.9
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant treated
as in #ld. Excess combined sewer
flows treated by primary (12.3 mgd)
arid chlorination facilities.
Dry-weather Flow Treatment 2,200.8 702.5 187.5
Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment
Primary Treatmentb 514.4 257.2 20.7
Chlorination0 216.1 87.5 35.0
*3
Sewer System Evaluation Survey
Includes costs for primary treatment for dry-weather flow.
c
Includes costs for chlorination for dry-weather flow.
D-15
Subtotal 2,931.3 1,047.2 243.2
-------
Alternative 2a.
C. Recharge System
Mine discharge from combined and
storm sewers in presently sewered
area, and effluent recharge during
dry-weather periods.
Cost $ (x 1.000)
Capital Salvage O&M
Subtotal 4.514.9 2.257.5 128.3
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor 27.025.0 12,107.5 391.4
(1.27; engineering, administra
tion, and contingencies)
Total 34,321.7
Present Worth of Salvage Value -3,356.2
Net Capital Cost 30,965.5
E. Total Present Worth 35,235.7
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 3,231.1
D-16
-------
Alternative 2b.
A. Collection System
Combined sewer system with rehabilitation
and replacement of interceptors.
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage OSM
Upgraded Combined Sewers 9,423.6 4,711.8 10.3
SSES-Existing Sewers 260.0
Rehabilitation 1,712.8
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 23,262.9
Present Worth of Salvage Value -2,165.3
Net Capital Cost 21,097.6
25 '
F. Ay.? jf £K/e__Ann ua 1 Equ i va le n t Cos t 2,300.2
Subtotal 11,396.4 4,711.8 10.3
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant treated
as in #le. Excess combined sewer
flows treated as in #2a.
Subtotal 2,406.0 842.0 226.8
C. Recharge System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal 4,514.9 2,257.5 128.3
D- Kg_t_gapital Cost
Capital Cost 18,317.3 7.811.3 365.4
D-17
-------
Alternative 2c.
A. Collection System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal
Capital
19,578.8
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Salvage
8,802.8
O&M
19.9
B. Treatment Method
Same as #2b.
Subtotal
2,406.0
842.0
226.8
C. Recharge System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal
4,514.9
2,257.5
128.3
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total
Present Worth of Salvage Value
Net Capital Cost
26,499.7
33,654.6
-3,299.3
30,355.3
E. Total Present Worth
34,446.5
• Average Annual Equivalent Cost
3,158.7
11,902.3 375.0
D-18
-------
Alternative 2d.
A. Collection Systein
Same as #2a.
Slab total
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage O&M
19,578.8
8,802.8
19.9
B. Treatment Method
Upgraded secondary treatment
with nitrification and chlor-
ination and expanded (2.6 mgd)
plant capacity. Excess combined
sewer flows treated as in #2a.
Preliminary Treatment (Existing)
Flow Equalization 418.5
Activated Sludge & Nitrification 536.0
Secondary Clarifiers 217.0
Misc. Construction & Equipment 20.0
Site Work, Electrical & Piping 142.6
Improvements 209.0
Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment 730.5
Subtotal 2,273.6
15.1
209.3 2.9
134.0 95.0
62.3 20.6
344.7
750.3
55.7
189.3
C. Recharge System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal
4,514.9
2,257.5
128.3
D. Net Capital Cost 26,367.3
Capital Cost
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 33,486.5
Present Worth of Salvage Value -3,273.9
Net Capital Cost 30,212.6
11,810.6
337.5
D-19
-------
Alternative 2d.
E. Total Present Worth 33,894.7
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 3,108.1
a
Includes costs for primary treatment and chlorination for dry-weather flow.
D-20
-------
Alternative 2e.
A. Collection System
Same as #2b.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage O&M
11,396.4
4,711.8
10.3
B. Treatment Method
Upgraded secondary treatment with nitri-
fication and chlorination and existing
(2.0 mgd) plant capacity. Excess combined
sewer flows treated as in #2a.
Existing Treatment
Flow Equalization 336.0
Nitrification 4A2.5
Misc. Construction & Equipment 20.0
Site Work, Electrical & Piping 79.8
Improve men ts 209.0
Combined Sewer Overflow treatment _730.5
Subtotal 1,817.8
103.2
124.5 2.6
110.6 34.0
344.7
579.8
37,9
177.7
C. Recharge System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal
4,514.9
2,257.5
128.3
D. Net Capital Costs
Capital Cost 17,729.1
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 22,515.9
Present Worth of Salvage Value -2,092.6
Net Canital Cost 20,423.3
7,549.1
316.3
D-21
-------
Alternative 2e.
E. Total Present Worth 23,874.1
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 2,189.3
D-22
-------
Alternative 2f.
A. Collection System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage O&M
19,578.8
8,802.8 19.9
B. Treatment Method
Same as #2e.
Subtotal
C. Recharge System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal
1,817.8
4,514.9
579.8 177.7
2,257.5 128.3
D- Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 25,911.5
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 32,907.6
Present Worth of Salvage Value -3,226.6
Net Capital Cost 29,681.0
E. Total Present Worth
33,236.6
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 3,047.8
11,640.1 325.9
D-23
-------
Alternative 2g.
A. Collection System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal
Capital
Cost $ (x 1.000)
Salvage O&M
19,578.8
8,802.8
19.9
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant treated
as in #lg. Excess combined sewer
flows treated as in #2a.
Subtotal 1,467.5
465.3
141.1
C. Recharge System
Continuous effluent recharge,
and mine discharge from combined
sewers.
Subtotal
1,077.7
538.9
16.6
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 22,124.0
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 28,097.5
Present Worth of Salvage Value -2,716.6
Net Capital Cost 25,380.9
E. Total Present Worth
27,318.5
9.807.0
177.6
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 2,505.1
D-24
-------
Alternative 2h.
A. Collection System
Same as #2b.
Subtotal
Capital
11,396.4
Cost $ (x 1.000)
Salvage O&M
4,711.8
10.3
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant treated
as in #lh. Excess combined sewer
flows treated as in #2a.
Subtotal
939.5
344.7
113.6
C. Recharge System
Same as #2g.
Subtotal
1.077.7
538.9
16.6
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 13.413.6
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 17,035.3
Present Worth of Salvage Value -1,550.0
Net Capital Cost 15,485.3
E. Total Present Worth
17,018.2
5.595.4
140.5
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 1,560.6
D-25
-------
Alternative 21.
A. Collection System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal
B. Treatment Method
Same as #2h.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage
19,578.8
939.5
O&M
8,802.8
19.9
344.7
113.6
C. Recharge System
Same as #2g.
Subtotal
1,077.7
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 21,596.0
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 27,426.9
Present Worth of Salvage Value -2,683.2
Net Capital Cost 24,743.7
E. Total Present Worth
26,381.3
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 2,419.2
538.9
16.6
9,686.4
150.1
D-26
-------
Alternative 3a.
A. Collection System
System is the same as #2a but
different pipe layout to con-
vey excess combined sewer flows
to storage.
Upgraded Combined Sewers
Pipe Size
Linear Feet
12"
15"
18"
21"
24"
27"
36"
42"
48"
54"
60"
800'
3,600'
2,400'
800'
600'
1,200'
2,000'
6 , 800 '
7,200'
4,000'
6,000'
SSSS-Existing Sewers
Rehabilitation
New Sanitary Sewers for
Unsewered Areas
Cost S (x 1,000)
Subtotal
Capital
47.2
262.8
225.6
94.4
74.4
163.2
430.0
1,700.0
2,174.4
1,348.0
2,508.0
9,028.0
260.0
1,712.8
8,182.4
19,183.2
Salvage
23.6
131.4
112.8
47.2
37.2
81.6
215.0
850.0
1,087.2
674.0
1,254.0
4,513.8
4,091.0
8,604.8
O&M
.1
.3
.2
.1
.1
.3
.5
2.1
2.4
1.4
2.4
9.9
9.6
19.5
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant treated
as in #ld. Excess combined sewer
flows conveyed to storage facili-
ties (12.3 mgd) and treated by
p'-jmary (4.8 mgd) and chlorina-
tion facilities.
Dry-weather Flow Treatment 2,200.8
Storage (12.35 mgd} 187.0
Pumping 181.0
Combined Sewer Overflow Treatmenta
Primary 365.4
Chlorinat.ion 118.0
Subtotal 3,052.2
702.5
50.0
973.7
187.5
56.4
13.4
18.7
31.0
307.0
Includes costs for primary treatment and chlorination
for dry-weather flow.
D-27
-------
Alternative 3a.
C. Recharge Sys tem
Same as #2a.
Subtotal
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total
Present Worth of Salvage Value
Net Capital Cost
4,514.9
26,750.3
33,972.8
-3,280.9
30,691.9
2,257.5 128.3
11,836.0 454.8
E. Total Present Worth
35,675.6
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost
3,271.4
D-28
-------
Alternative 3b.
A. Collection System
System is the same as #2b but
different pipe layout to convey
excess combined sewer flows to
storage.
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage OSM
Upgraded Combined Sewers 9,027.2 4,513.6 10.0
SSES-Existing Sewers 260.0
Rehabilitation 1,712.8
Subtotal 11,000.0 4,513.6 10.0
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant treated
as in #le. Excess combined sewer
flows treated as in #3a.
Dry-weather Flow Treatment 1,675.5 497.3 188.9
Storage and Pumping 368.0 50.0 69.8
Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment 483.4 221.2 40.5
Subtotal 2,526.9 768.5 299,2
C. Recharge System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal 4,514.9 2,257.5 128.3
E. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 18,041.8 7,539.6 437.5
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 22,913.1
Present Worth of Salvage Value -2,089.9
Net Capital Cost 20,823.2
D-29
-------
Alternative 3b.
E. Total Present Worth 25,596.3
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 2,347.2
D-30
-------
Alternative 3c.
A. Collection System
Same as #3a.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,0001
Capital Salvage O&M
19,183.2
8,604.8
19.5
B. Treatment Method
Same as #3b.
Subtotal
2,526.9
768.5
299.2
C. Recharge System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal
4,514.9
2,257.5
128.3
D- Net Capital Cos^t
Capital Cost 26,225.0
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 33,305.7
Present Worth of Salvage Value -3,224.1
Net Capital Cost 30,081.6
E. Total Present Worth
34,958.4
11,630,8
447.0
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 3,205.7
D-31
-------
Alternative 3d.
A. Collection System
Same as #3a.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage OSM
19,183.2
8,604.8
19.5
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant and
treated as in #2d. Excess
combined sewer flows treated
as in #3a.
Upgraded Secondary Treatment
Storage and Pumping
Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment
Subtotal
1,543.1
368.0
483.4
2,394.5
405.6
50.0
221.2
676.8
133.6
69.8
40.5
243.9
C. Recharge System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal
4,514.9
2.257.5
128.3
E. Total Present Worth
34,212.4
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion and contingencies)
Total 33,137.6
Present Worth of Salvage Value -3,198.6
Net Capital Cost
26,092.6 11,539.1
29,939.0
391.7
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost
3,137.2
D-32
-------
Alternative 3e.
A. Collection System
Same as #3b.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage O&M
11,000.0
4,513.6
10.0
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant
treated as in #2e. Excess
combined sewer flows treated
as in #3a.
Subtotal
1,938.7
506.3
250.1
C. Recharge System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal
4,514.9
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 17,453.6
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 22,166.1
Present Worth of Salvage Value -2,017.1
Net Capital Cost 20,149.0
E. Total Present Worth
24,386.4
2,257.5
128.3
7,277.4
388.4
F. Averags Annual Equivalent Cost
2,236.2
D-33
-------
Alternative 3f.
A. Collection System
Same as #3a.
Stab total
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage OSM
19,183.2
8,604.8
19.5
B. Treatment Method
Same as #3e.
Subtotal
C. Recharge System
Same as #2a.
Subtotal
1,938.7
4,514.9
25,636.8
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 32,558.7
Q 1C! /
Present Worth of Salvage Value ~J, i:u '^
Net Capital Cost 29,407.3
E. Total Present Worth
33,748.4
P. Average Annual Equivalent Cost^ 3,094.7
506.3
2,257.5
11,368.6
250.1
128.3
397.9
D-34
-------
Alternative 3g.
A. Collection System
Same as #3a.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage OSM
19,183.2
8,604.8
19.5
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant treated
as in #lg. Excess combined sewer
flows treated as in #3a.
Expanded Secondary Treatment
Storage and Pumping
Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment
Subtotal
737.0
368.0
483.4
1,588.4
120.6
50.0
221.2
391.8
106.0
69.8
40.5
216.3
C. Recharge System
Same as #2g.
Subtotal
1,077.7
538.9
16.6
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 21,849.3
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 27,748.6
Present Worth of Salvage Value -2,641.4
Net Capital Cost 25,107.2
9,535.5 252.4
E. Total Present Worth
27,860.9
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost
2,554.8
D-35
-------
Alternative 3h.
A. Collection System
Same as #3b.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage OSM
11,000.0
4,513.6
10.0
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant treated
as in #lh. Excess combined
sewer flows treated as in #3a.
Secondary Treatment
Storage and Pumping
Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment
Subtotal
209.0
368.0
483.4
1,060.4
0.0
50.0
221.2
271.2
91.5
69.8
40.5
201.8
C. Recharge System
Same as #2g.
Subtotal
1,077.7
538.9
16.6
D> Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 13,138.1
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 16,685.4
Present Worth of Salvage Value -1,474.7
Net Capital Cost 15,210.7
5,323.7 228.4
E. Total Present Worth
17,702.5
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost
1,623.3
D-36
-------
Alternative 3i.
A. Collection System
Same as #3a.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage O&M
19,183.2
8,604.8
19.5
B. Treatment Method
Same as #3h.
Subtotal
1,060.4
271.2 201.8
C. Recharge System
Same as #2g.
Subtotal 1,077.7
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 21,321.3
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 27,078.1
Present Worth of Salvage Value -2,608.0
Net Capital Cost 24,470.1
K. Total Present Worth
27,065.6
538.9
9,414.9
16.6
237.9
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost
2,481.9
D-37
-------
Alternative 4a.
A. Collection System
Combined sewers in presently
sewered area with rehabilitation
and replacement of interceptors.
Sanitary sewers in presently
unsewered area. (Cost same as #3a.)
Subtotal
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant treated
as in #ld. Excess combined sewer
flows conveyed to storage facili-
ties (12.3 mgd) and pumped to re-
charge system at a rate of 4.8 mgd.
Dry-weather Flow Treatment 4
Storage and Pumping
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage O&M
19,183.2
2,45b.6
368.0
2,823.6
8,604.8
816.1
50.0
866.1
19.5
221.1
69.8
290.9
C. Recharge System
Recharge of excess combined sewer
flows, mine discharge from combined
sewers, and effluent recharge during
dry-weather periods.
Subtotal
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total
Present Worth of Salvage Value
Nst Capital Cost
1.077.7
23,084.5
29,317.3
-2,774.7
26,542.6
538.9
10,009.8
16.6
327.0
U-38
-------
A3.ternative 4a.
E. Total Present Worth 30,110.2
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost 2,761.1
D-39
-------
Alternative 4b,
A. Collection System
Same as #3b.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage O&M
11,000.0
4,513.6
10.0
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant treated
as in #le. Excess combined sewer
flows treated as in #4a.
Dry-weather Flow Treatment
Storage and Pumping
Subtotal
1,765.6
368.0
2,133.6
527.5
50.0
577.5
204.7
69.8
274.5
C. Recharge System
Same as #4a.
Subtotal
1.077.7
538.9
16.6
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total
14,211.3
18,048.4
Present Worth of Salvage Value -1,560.6
Net Capital Cost 16,487.8
E. Total Present Worth
19,772.8
5,630.0
301.1
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost
1,813.2
D-40
-------
Alternative 4c.
A. Collection System
Same as #4a
Subtotal
B. Treatment Method
Same as /Mb.
Subtotal
C. Recharge System
Same as #4a.
Subtotal
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor
(1. 27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total
Present Worth of Salvage Value
Net Capital Cost
E. Total Present Worth
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage O&M
19,183.2 8,604.8 19.5
2,133.6
1,077.7
28,441.0
-2,694.7
25,746.3
29,134.9
577.5 274.5
538.9 16.6
22,394.5 9,721.2 310.6
2,671.7
D-41
-------
Alternative 4d.
A. Collection System
Same as #4a.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage
19,183.2
8,604.8
O&M
19.5
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant
treated as in #2d. Excess
combined sewer flows
treated as in #4a.
Expanded and Upgraded
Secondary Treatment
Storage and Pumping
Subtotal
1.797.9
368.0
2,165.9
519.2
50.0
569.2
167.2
69.8
237.0
C. Recharge System
Same as #4a.
Subtotal
1,077.7
538.9
16.6
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 22,426.8
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 28,482.0
Present Worth of Salvage Value -2,692.4
Net Capital Cost 25,789.6
E. Total Present Worth
28,769.1
9,712.9 273.1
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost
2,638.1
D-42
-------
Alternative 4e.
A. Collection System
Same as #3b.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage OSM.
11,000.0
4,513.6
10.0
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant
treated as in #2e. Excess
combined sewer flows
treated as in #4a.
Subtotal
1,545.4
315.3
225.4
C. Recharge System
Same as #4a.
Subtotal
1,077.7
538.9
16.6
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total
Present Worth of Salvage Value
Net Capital Cost
13,623.1 5,367.8 252.0
17,301.3
-1,487.9
15,813.4
E. Total Present Worth
18,562.7
F. Ayerage_ Annual Equivalent Cost
1,702.2
D-43
-------
Alternative 4f.
A. Collection System
Same as #4a.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage O&M
19,183.2 8,604.8 19.5
B. Treatment Method
Same as #4e.
Subtotal
1,545.4
315.3
225.4
C. Recharge System
Same as #4a.
Subtotal
1,077.7
538.9
16.6
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Service Factoi
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total
Present Worth of Salvage Value
Net Capital Cost
21,806.3
27,694.0
-2,622.0
25,072.0
9,459.0 261.5
E. Total Present Worth
27.924.9
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost
2,560.7
D-44
-------
Alternative 4g.
A. Collection System
Same as #4a.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage OSM
19,183.2
8,604.8
19.5
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant treated
as in #lg. Excess combined sewer
flows treated as in #4a.
Expanded Secondary Treatment
Storage and Pumping
Subtotal
897.0
368.0
1,265.0
200.6
50.0
250.6
119.0
69.8
188.8
C. Recharge System
Continuous effluent recharge and
recharge of excess combined sewer
flows. Mine discharge from com-
bined sewers.
Subtotal
1,077.7
538.9
16.6
D. Uet Capital Cost
Capital Cost 21,525.9
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 27,337.9
Present Worth of Salvage Value --2,602.3
Net Capital Cost 24,735.6
9,394.3 207.1
E. Total Present Worth
26,995.1
Annual Equivalent Cost
2,475.4
D-45
-------
Alternative 4h.
A. Collection System
Same as #3b.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1.000)
Capital Salvage O&M
11,000.0
4,513.6
10.0
B. Treatment Method
Flows conveyed to plant treated
as in #lh. Excess combined sewer
flows treated as in #4a.
Secondary Treatment
Storage and Pumping
Subtotal
209.0
368.0
577.0
50.0
50.0
103.2
69.8
173.0
C. Recharge System
Same as #4g.
Subtotal
1.077.7
538.9
16.6
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 121654.7
Service Factor
(1,27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 16,071.5
Present Worth of Salvage Value -1,413.4
Net Capital Cost 14.658.1
5.102.5
199.6
E. Total Present Worth
16,835.7
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost
1,543.8
D-46
-------
Alternative 4i.
A. Collection System
Same as #4a.
Subtotal
Cost $ (x 1,000)
Capital Salvage OSM
19,183.2
8,604.8
19.5
B. Treatment Method
Same as #4h.
Subtotal
577.0
50.0
173.0
C. Recharge System
Same as #4g.
Subtotal 1,077.7
D. Net Capital Cost
Capital Cost 20,837.9
Service Factor
(1.27; engineering, administra-
tion, and contingencies)
Total 26,464.1
Present Worth of Salvage Value -2,546.7
Net Capital Cose 23,917.4
E. Total Present Worth
26,198.7
F. Average Annual Equivalent Cost
2,402.4
538.9
16.6
9,193.7 209.1
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981 750-912
D-47
-------
------- |