John M. Fairall,  P.E.
          v/ater, Sewage *xnd. Industrial Wastes ilecoion
          technical Advisory  ".nd Investigations Branch
Sources of Stream Pollution

       Within the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago

(MSD) there are three classes of pollution sources discharging to

the watercourses:

       (l)  Eleven sewage treatment plants operated by MSD.  Those

of primary concern are West-Southwest, Northside, and Calumet.

       (2)  The combined sewer overflows and pumping stations for

sewer relief discharge of raw sewage and storm water to the water-


       (3)  Private sewers discharging to the watercourses.  These

discharges are primarily industrial wastes and are the subject of

this report.

Sewage Collection System

       The MSD operates a system of interceptor sewers which collect

sewage and other liquid wastes and transport the wastewaters to the

MSD sewage treatment plants.   Sewerage systems of municipalities

with a population of less than 500,000 people are under the control

of the MSD.  The City of Chicago operates local sewer systems which

discharge to the MSD interceptor sewer system at many points.  The

MSD does not maintain any surveillance of industrial waste discharges

to the City of Chicago sewer system, except for about five industrial

plants which has disrupted operations or caused damage to the MSD

sewage treatment plants.

Pollution Control

       There is no economic incentive for industrial plants within

the MSD to reduce the amount of clear water being discharged to the

sewer system and sewage treatment plants, such as a sewer service

charge based on volume of flow.  The low strength of the raw sewage

at the sewage treatment plants under dry weather conditions indi-

cates that excessive clear water is being discharged, resulting in

higher treatment costs.

       There is no economic incentive for industrial plants within

the MSD to control the amount of biodegradable and inert matter

being discharged to the sewer system and the sewage treatment plants,

such as a surcharge for sewer service.  The cost of controlling and

treating industrial wastes has not been minimized within the MSD.

       The 19^-6 ordinance for the control and abatement of pollution

of water within the MSD requires a written permit from the Board of

Trustees for a sewerage system discharging wastewater which may

cause pollution of waters within the MSD.  There is provision for

revoking the permit when the discharges cause pollution of the

waters.  To implement this revocation authority depends on sur-

veillance by the MSD.

       The 1962 Industrial Waste Ordinance provides the MSD with

control over the quantity and quality of industrial wastes admitted

to the sewer system, watercourses or natural outlets within the

boundaries of the MSD.  (Sewers within the City of Chicago are

excluded.)  A permit is required for the construction of a sewer

system discharging to the waters of the MSD and no changes or ex-

tensions of sewer systems may be made without a permit in munici-

palities of less than 500,000 population.  It is the policy of the

MSD to admit to its sewage works those types and quantities of

industrial wastes that are not harmful or damaging to structures,

processes or operation of the sewage works and not specifically

prohibited by the ordinance.  Wo charges are made other than the

ad valorem tax.

       Prohibited wastewaters are those with more than 100 ppm of

oils or greases, explosives, noxious vapors, pH lower than ^.5 or

higher than 10, material corrosive to structures, substances toxic

to the biological processes of the sewage works, unground garbage,

certain radioactive wastes, solid or viscous wastes, and wastes

with temperatures in excess of 150°F.

       Wherever possible, clear waters shall be discharged to

storm sewers, combined, sewers, or natural outlets.  If the storm

sewers discharge to the combined sewers or MSD interceptors, there

is no benefit in segregating clear water with the present system.

       In the 1962 ordinance there is also provision for revocation

of permits to discharge industrial wastes to public severs and

watercourses.  Again, adequate surveillance by the MSB is required

to implement this revocation authority.

       Since July 1, 19^7^ stream standards and effluent standards

as set forth in SWB-15 of the Illinois Sanitary Water Board have

been applicable to all watercourses within the jurisdiction of the

MSB.  Industrial discharges are to be in compliance by the end of

1968.  It is the policy of MSB to enforce SWB-15.

       As a result of the MSB ordinances and SWB-15, essentially

all industrial wastes are being diverted to the sewer system and

the MSB sewage treatment plants except those of the steel mills

along the Calumet River.  The volumes of the wastewaters which the

steel mills would like to divert are too great for the hydraulic

capacity of the sewerage system.

       The ordinances do not appear to provide for any review of

engineering plans for control and pre-treatment of wastes going to

sewers or of plans for control and treatment of wastewaters going

to the watercourses, and the MSB does not have any jurisdiction

over the local sewers or industrial discharges to the City of Chicago

local sewers.


       Surveillance and revocation of permits (cease and desist

orders) are the principal means of water pollution control available

to MSD.

       The quantity and quality of sewage treatment plant's efflu-

ents are monitored and reported by the Maintenance and Operations

Department of the MSD.  The Waterways Research Section of the MSD

periodically collects water samples at designated stations along

the waterways and analyzes the samples for specified, constituents.

Beginning in July 19^7, the constituents were those specified in

SWB-15.  The Industrial Waste Control Division (IWCD), Research and

Development, maintains surveillance on industrial waste discharges

to the interceptors, local sewers of municipalities of less than

500,000 population, and the watercourses within the MSD.

Industrial Waste Control Division

       When industrial discharges to the sewers or the watercourses

are discovered by application for permit by the industry, by reply

to a questionnaire to all directory-listed industries, by visual

observation of discharges, or by complaint, an investigator is

sent to the site.  If the investigator believes there is a poten-

tial waste discharge to the sewer or watercourse, a preliminary

sampling survey is conducted.  Sewers and receiving watercourses

in the area are checked for discharges from the industry being

investigated and samples are collected.   If the preliminary survey

indicates a potential violation of the 19^6 or 1962 ordinances a

second sampling survey is conducted which consists of several con-

secutive 2^-hour composites.  Based on this survey, if the industry

is found to be in compliance vith the ordinances it is so notified.

       If the industry is not in compliance, it is given an oppor-

tunity to correct the condition.  During this period, an expediter

visits the industry frequently to prevent inaction.  Following the

correction, another sampling survey is made and if compliance is

not attained, the current practice is to go to a show cause hearing,

as to why the discharge should not be discontinued.

       The IWC Division conducts about 20 sampling surveys per

month, around 50 new investigations, and around IpO repeat expedi-

ter calls per month.

       The status of the various industrial waste discharges

changes rapidly and it is difficult to get an exact count.  Based

on an MSD report dated August 29, 19^7,  and limiting reporting to

industrial waste discharges, these were the following known number

of discharges to the indicated watercourses:

No. Dischargers                  Watercourse

       2                    NORTH SHORE CHANNEL

                            1.  Illinois Tube Co.

                            2.  Material Service


Ho. Dischargers	Watercourse	
       20              CHICAGO RIVER AED TRIBUTARIES
                        1.  Advance Transformer
                        2.  Chicago Union Station
                        3.  Commonwealth Edison
                        ^.  Container Corp. of America
                        5.  Corbett, J.  M.
                        6.  Cuneo Press, Inc.
                        1.  Curtiss Candy Co.
                        8.  Greyhound Bus Lines
                        9.  Imperial Eastman
                       10.  Lissner Paper & Grading
                       11.  Medill Incinerator
                       12.  Montgomery Ward & Co.
                       13.  Morton Salt  Co.
                       ih.  North America Cold Storage
                       15.  Proctor & Gamble
                       16.  Pure Carbonic
                       17.  Sucrest Corp.
                       18.  Vapor Corp.
                       19.  Harper & Co.
                       20.  Commonwealth Edison

       1                     LAKE MICHIGAN
                        1.  United States Steel Co.

       2                   CAL-SAG CHAMEL
                        1.  Clark Oil Refining
                        2.  Gilbert & Bennett


No. Dischargers	Watercourse	

      17              CALUMET RIVER AW TRIBUTARIES
                        1.  Bulk Terminals
                        2.  Catalin Corp
                        3.  Commonwealth Edison
                        h.  Ford Motor Co.
                        5.  General Mills
                        6.  General Chemical
                        7.  Great Lakes Carbon
                        8.  Illinois Central RR
                        9.  Interlake Steel
                       10.  Republic Steel
                       11.  Robertson Transformer
                       12.  Spencer Chemical
                       13.  Stauffer Chemical
                       Ik.  United States Steel
                       15.  Valley Mould
                       l6.  Wisconsin Steel
                       17.  Interlake Steel

      25            SANITARY AMD SHIP CHAJTOEL
                        1.  American Brake Shoe
                        2.  American Oil
                        3.  American Sugar Refinery
                        h.  Barrett Plastic
                        5.  Commonwealth Edison
                        6.  Commonwealth Edison
                        7.  Connelly, Inc.
                        8.  Corn Products
                        9.  DeMert & Dougherty
                       10.  Fisher Body Works

Ho. Dischargers
                         11.  Hannah Inland
                         12.  Humble Oil & Refinery
                         13.  Lake River Terminal
                         1^.  R. Lavin & Sons
                         15.  Lemont Mfg. Co.
                         l6.  Mineral Ind., Inc.
                         17.  Worth American Tank Car
                         18.  Pure Oil Co.
                         19.  Richardson Chemical
                         20.  Sante Fe Grain Elevator
                         21.  Sante Fe RR Yards
                         22.  Trumbull Asphalt
                         23.  U.B.S. Chemical
                         23.  Witco Chemical
                         25.  Globe Oil & Refining
 1.  Armour Industrial Chem.
 2.  By-Products, Inc.
 3.  Coan, John
 k.  Electromotive
 5-  McCook Drum & Barrel
 6.  Motor Oil Refining
 T.  PeIron Corp.
 8.  Pielet Bros.
 9•  Reynold s Me taIs
10.  Tamms Industries
11.  Universal Oil
12.  Valspar Corp. •

Wo. Dischargers                 Watercourse	

       17                 EfiS PLAIKES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
                           1.  Amphenol Corp.
                           2.  Automatic Electric
                           3-  Borg Warner
                           h.  Bruning Co.
                           5.  Chicago N.W. RR
                           6.  Clow, James B. & Sons
                           7-  Frederick Post
                           8.  Henry Valve
                           9.  International Harvester
                          10.  Johnson, J. W.
                          11.  Material Service
                          12.  O'Hare Field Area
                          13.  Parker Hannifin
                          lU.  Spraying Systems
                          15-  Thompson Wire
                          l6.  Western Engine
                          IT-  Flexonics Corp.

      In 1966 there were 15 show cause hearings for sewer violations;
            1.   Proctor & Gamble
            2.   Dalerol Oil Products
            3.   Jero Steel Treating
            4.   Schiller Park Steel
            5.   Clean Tanks
            6.   Alsip Barrel
            7.   Haag Industries
            8.   Tri-States Industrial Lab
            9-   Boyle Midway

              10.   Sterling Laboratory
              11.   Ace Anodizing
              12.   Signede Corp.
              13-   Standard Screw
              1^.   Kalmus & Associates
              15.   El Kay Manufacturing

In 1965 and 1966 there were six show cause hearings  for stream viola-
tions:         1.   Pielet Brothers
              22.   Proctor & Gamble
               3.   Bruning Co.
               h.   Lincoln Manufacturing
               5.   Standard Screw
               6.   R. G.  Smith Equipment

Seventeen of th? 21 sewer and stream violation cases were in com-
pliance or approved by August 1967.
       Since March 19^7;  IWCD has been preparing a monthly summary
report.  The activities of IWCD for one year,  through the February
1968 report, may be summarized as follows:
       19 industries were found to be in compliance  with the
               Code (waterways).
               1.   The Cuneo Press, Inc.
               2,   Rockwell Manufacturing Co.
               3.   R. G.  Smith Equipment Co.
               k.   Village of Schiller Park
               5.   The Frederick Post Co.
               6.   Blaski Metal Products Co.
               7.   K. A.  Steel Chemicals, Inc.

       8.   Clark Oil & Refining  Corp.,  Chemical Plant
       9.   Witco Chemical Co.
      10.   Pielet Bros.
      11.   Medill Incinerator
      12.   Demert & Dougherty, Inc.
      13.   Illinois Tube
      1^.   Henry Valve
      15.   Greyhound Lines,  Inc.
      16.   Atchison, Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  RR
      17.   Alexander Chemical
      18.   Clark Oil Co.
      19.   Vapor Corp.

36 industries were found  to  be in compliance with the  1967 Code  (sewers)
       1.   Allraetal Weatherstrip
       2,   Enthone Inc.
       3.   Luminall Paints,  Inc.
       h.   Koppers Co.,  Inc.
       5.   ₯itco Chemical Co.
       6.   Color Wrap, Div.  of Cellu-Craft
       7.   Frito-Lay, Inc.
       8.   Prenco Co. of Chicago
       9.   Methode Electronics,  Inc.
      10.   Brightly Galvanizing  Co.
      11.   Haydock Engineering Co.
      12.   Day-Wite Service
      13.   Cities Service Co.
      1^.   Automatic Electric  Co.
      15.   DeMuth Steel Products
      l6.   Acme Gravure Services, Inc.
      17.   Borg & Deck Corp.

       18.  Monarch Metals  Co.
       19.  Fleet Tool Corp.
       20.  Alcoa Castings
       21.  Twinplex Manufacturing
       22.  Anchor Metal Finishing
       23.  Custom Plating
       2k.  Ace Pecan  Co.
       25.  AmForge
       26.  Great Lakes Screw
       27.  Deburco, Inc.
       28.  Henry Valve
       29.  Trask, Arthur C.
       30.  Western Electric
       31.  Erickson Mfg. Co.
       32.  Suburban Oil Co.
       33.  Hellstrom  Corp.
       3^.  Badger Manufacturing
       35-  Dean Foods
       36.  Medill Incinerator

23 industrial discharges were otherwise  approved:
        1.  International Paper Co.
        2.  Bell & Howe11 Co.
        3.  Pre-Finish Metal  Co.
        ^.  Pure Carbonic
        5.  R.C. Can & Tube Co.
        6.  Cinch Manufacturing Co.
        7.  Escay Screw Products Co.
        8.  Dale Valve Co.
        9-  Weber Valentine Co.
       10.  Design Screen Printers, Inc.

      11.   Globe  Glass Mfg.  Co.
      12.   Honeywell Co.
      13.   Morton Chemical Co.
      lU.   Automated Plating
      15.   Clorox
      l6.   Jupiter Press
      17.   Jordan Co.-
      18.   Coach  & Car Equipment Co.
      19.   National Can Co.
      20.   Alexander Chemical Co.
      21.   Acme Specialities Corp.
      22.   Chromium Corporation  of America
      23.   Chicago Float  Works

25 industries have been given order  to  cease  and desist discharging

   to the  MSD sewers or waterways:
       1.   Air Products Co.
       2.   Artistic Plating Co.
       3.   Bulk Terminals
       h.   Calumet Refining Co.
       5.   Celotex
       6.   Chicago Copper & Chemical
       7.   Chicago Northwestern  RR
       8.   Corey  Steel Co.
       9.   Dewey  & Almey
      10.   Elk Grove Trailer Park
      11.   Gilbert & Bennett
      12.   Home Juice Co.
      13.   Illinois Central RR
      14.   International  Harvester  - Melrose  Park
      15-   Lehman Trailer Park

       l6.  Lindberg Steel Treating Co.
       IT.  Mobil Oils Refining Co.
       18.  McCook Drum & Barrel Co.
       19-  Oasis Mobile Homes
       20.  Riverdale Plating
       21.  Taylor Forge & Pipe Works
       22.  Trumbull Asphalt Co.
       23.  United Chemical Co.
       24.  Western Engine Co.
       25.  Vest-Town Plating Association

In February 1968:
  11 industries were at the stage of having been  given a  notice  of
        1.  Soberer Freight Lines Co.
        2.  Chesapeake & Ohio RR
        3.  Material Service Div. of General Dynamics
        h.  Interlake Steel - Chicago Plant
        5.  United States Steel
        6.  Wisconsin Steel
        7.  Joslyn Manufacturing
        8.  Salerno Cookies
        9.  Republic Steel
       10.  Nelson Steel
       11.  Gilbert & Bennett

   10 industries had been recommended for show cause hearings.
        1.  Hendrickson Mfg. Co.
        2.  UBS Chemical
        3.  Armour Chemical
        4.  Lake River Terminals


      5.   Parker Hannifin
      6.   Pennsylvania RR
      7.   Transport Service
      8.   International Harvester - Tractor Works
      9.   Lake River Termina1s
     10.   Marsh Instrument Co.

5 industries were in various stages of court  action for violation
  of Board Orders.
      1.   Catalin Corp.
      2.   Empire Metal Products
      3.   Enterprise Wire Co.
      4.   Standard Screw Co.
      5.   Sterling Laboratories

^4- industries had corrective measures under construction.
      1.   Atlantic Steel Co.
      2.   Bastian Blessing
      3-   Borg Warner Corp.
      4.   Clow Corp.
      5-   Commonwealth Edison Co. - Fisk Station
      6.   Electro-Motive
      7.   Ford Motor Co.
      8.   Hall,, C.  P.
      9.   Illinois Brick Co.
     10.   Walco Chemical
     11.   O'Hare Field
     12.   Rose Packing Co.
     13.   Universal Oil Products
     1^.   Wyeth Laboratories

industries were in the stage of having their cases con-
tinued for various reasons; continuation of hearing,
resampling  by MSI), awaiting seasonal operations,  etc.
   1.  Agar Packing Co.
   2.  Aircraft Gear Corp.
   3.  American Oi3 Co.
   4.  Bliss & Laughlin
   5.  Continental Baking Co.
   6.  Continental Grain Co.
   7.  Federal Sign & Signal Co.
   8.  Fisher Body
   9-  Imperial Eastman
  10.  Jewel Tea Co.
  11.  Material Service Co.
       (McCook Area Companies)
       12.  Tamms Industries
       13.  Heil Chicago
       1^.  John M. Coan
       15-  By-Products
       l6.  Valspar
  17.  Nelsen Steel Co.
  18.  Pure Oil Co.
  19.  Reynolds Metal Co.
  20.  Richardson Chemical Co.
  21.  Silver Skillet Co.
  22.  Thompson Wire Co.
  23.  Valley Mould & Iron Co.
  2.h.  Vapor Corp.

So that 78 industrial plants had been found in compliance or other-

wise approved, 59 plants were active cases, and 25 plants had been

ordered to discontinue discharging.  Five cases had been found in

violation of cease and desist orders arid were back in court.

Calumet River
       Thus far, emphasis has been placed on the reach of the Calumet

River above (lakeward) the T. J. O'Brien locks.  There were three

primary reasons for choosing this particular reach:

       1.  The flow of water in this reach is controlled by the

operation of the locks.

       2.  Major sources of wastewaters will still be discharging

to this reach of the Calumet after 1968, when industries are to be

in compliance with SWB-15.

       3.  Under some dry weather flow conditions a mixture of waste -

waters may discharge to Calumet Harbor from industries along this

reach.  Other watercourses of the MSD do not discharge to Lake

Michigan under dry weather conditions.

       During the course of collecting information regarding this

reach, general practices of the IWCD were observed.

       During I96j} the Waterways Research Section collected water

samples once a week at stations along the reach under study for

this report.  These stations were:

            T. J. O'Brien locks (began July 1,  1967)

            E. 130th Street

            106th Street

            Torrence Avenue

            Ewing Avenue

            Calumet Harbor Light

            Wolf Lake Ditch, Carondolet Avenue

The Calumet Area Post Action Surveillance Project, FWPCA,  also

collected weekly samples at:

            Calumet Harbor

            Calumet River mouth

            Wolf Lake ditch, Carondolet Avenue bridge

       Over a year  and a half ago, the IWCD instituted a  require-

ment for industrial plants discharging to the Calumet (and other

vatercourses) that the plant would collect composite samples from

and measure flowing discharges once a month and analyze and report

certain specified characteristics.  This requirement underwent

minor refinements in June 1967.  Only the data collected, and reported

after July 1, 19^7, were evaluated for this report.  Discharge

data were available from the following industries along this reach

of the Calumet River:

               Ford Motor Co.
               General Chemical Div.  of Allied. Chemical Corp.
               Republic Steel
               Great Lakes Carbon
               Wisconsin Steel
               Interlake Steel
               General Mills
               U. S. Steel Corp. - South Works

       The IWCD collects composite samples from industrial dis-
charges to streams, and sewers about once a year.
       The results of analyses of composite samples indicates
whether the average concentrations of constituents on the day of
collection are in compliance with the effluent standards.  The
results of analyses of the weekly stream samples by Waterways
Research Section indicates whether the water samples are in com-
pliance with the stream standards.  Where the stream standard  is
specified as an annual mean value, the stream samples serve to
determine a mean value.

Data Evaluation
       On the reach of the Calumet River above the T. J. O'Brien
locks and on Calumet Harbor there are 10 watercourse sampling  sta-
tions which are sampled weekly; ^8 industrial discharges, and  10
industrial intakes sampled monthly; and possibly four industrial
waste discharges to the sewers which are sampled annually.  Samples
collected from these sources are analyzed for a large number of


constituents or characteristics.  For purposes of this report con-
sideration was limited to 20 characteristics.
       It was necessary to develop methods of evaluating these
data on a more frequent interval than once a year, or visual com-
parison of weekly or monthly observations as presently practiced.
To do this a number of computer programs were developed or modified.
These were:
       Statistical Quality Control
       Acceptance Inspection
       Mathematical Modeling

Statistical Quality; Control
Evaluation of Stream Data
       In orde''"1 to maintain an adequate check on the effect of the
industrial waste discharges to Calumet nlarbor and the Calumet Eiver
above the T. J. O'Brien locks it was necessary to analyze currently
the available stream data as collected by the Waterways Research
Section of MSD and the Calumet Area Lower Lake Michigan Conference
Post Action Surveillance of I₯?CA.  The method suggested is the
statistical quality control method (SQC).
       Briefly, this statistical method uses available data to
determine the limits within which various constituents indicative
of water quality should fall under normal conditions of waste dis-
charge as presently practiced.  Any values of a constituent that
fall either below or above the established limits indicates the

occurrence of abnormal plant operation, a spill or deliberate dump,

or some other unusual condition.  By maintaining a continuing check

as suggested it would be possible to recognize an adverse occurrence

soon after the event, while there still is a good probability of

being able to determine the cause.  This would permit rapid correc-

tion of any continuing adverse practice, or steps to prevent recur-

rence of an intermittent event.

       As treatment facilities are installed new limits of consti-

tuents can be derived from the stream data as the water quality

improves.  The ultimate limits will be those that will prevent

violation of the stream standards.

       The application of this method is illustrated by Table 1,

which was computed from the available data.

       The table includes the standards that have been established

for comparison with present water quality, but of course the stand-

ards will not be applicable until the scheduled completion of waste

corrective measures by the end of 1968.  As an example, the summary

information in Table 1 for the East 130th Street sample station will

be discussed.

       The criteria for  D.O. (dissolved oxygen) are stated in terms

of percent saturation and are not directly applicable to the re-

ported concentration in mg/1.  A future computer program could be

modified to make the necessary calculations.  Tho existing system

can be expected to produce an average D.O. in the river of 3.2 mg/1,

with normal chance variations ranging from 2.1 to ^.2.  Fifty-six

percent of the means were within the normal limits.  All results

outside the limits were above the upper limit, which is desirable

from the standpoint of D.O.

       The average temperature was l6°C with expected chance varia-

tions from 13 to 19.  Thirty percent of the observations were with-

in the limits.  With a stream standard of 29°C for an annual mean,

temperature at this station is not a water pollution problem.

       The existing system produces a water with an average con-

centration of 1.4 mg/1 ammonia as nitrogen with chance variations

from 0.96 to 1.8 mg/1.  Only 38.5 percent of the means were within

the limits.  Those that were outside the limits were in excess of

the upper limit of 1.8.  This indicates that there were variations

which are not typical of normal operation.  If these means had

been plotted on a control chart as the chemical analyses became

available it would have been immediately known that they exceeded

the upper limit and action could have been taken to locate the

cause.  When the summary data is compared with the stream standards

it is obvious that there is about 25 times as much ammonia in the

river at this station as the standards permit.  The MSD staff is

fully aware of the fact that ammonia is excessive.

       The average cyanide concentration was 3-7 mg/1 with chance

variations from 0 to 8.4 mg/1.  One-hundred percent of the means

were within the limits, indicating a remarkably stable system.

Roughly, there are eight times as much cyanide in the water at this

station as the standards permit.  The pollution does not appear to

be from sporadic discharges.

       The average concentration of phenols was 6.3 ppb at this

station with chance variations ranging from 2.2 to 1.0.k ppb.

Eighty percent of the means were within the limits, and those out-

side were on the high side.  The excessive concentrations were

observed in consecutive samples collected on April 5 and 11, 1967.

If these observations had been plotted on a control chart in April,

action could have been taken to find the cause.  There was about

three times as much phenols in the river as the standards permit.

       The average concentration of BODr (5-day biochemical oxygen

demand) was 2.6 mg/1 with chance variations from Q,k to k.9 mg/1.

The means were within the limits 86.^ percent of the time, there

being high observations in September.

       The COD (chemical oxygen demand) averaged 3^- mg/1 with

chance variations from 19 to ^9 mg/1.  The means were within the

limits 80.0 percent of the time.  Low values occurred in September

and October.

       There appears to be some material, reported as COD, in the

system at this station, which is not biodegradable.  When this

material is lower than normal a greater BOD is exerted.


       The concentration of total iron averaged 0.59 raS/l with

expected chance variations from 0.21 to 0.97 mg/1.  The means were

within the limits 69.6 percent of the time.  The weans outside the

limits were largely due to a high concentration sample collected

on March 30, 1967,  There is about four times as much total iron

in the water at this station as the stream standards permit as dis-

solved iron.

       It should be kept in mind that the system being evaluated

by Statistical Quality Control includes the effects of any errors

in sample collection and chemical analysis as well as for varia-

tions in concentrations.  The cause for the high value on March 30

might have been errors in some of these procedures.

       The concentration of chlorides averaged Ul mg/1 with an

expected chance variation from 27 to 55-  The system appeared to

be highly variable with only ^6,2 percent of the means within the

limits.  There were about twice as much chlorides in the water at

this station as the stream standards permit.

       The sulfates averaged 55 mg/1 with chance variations to be

expected from 39 "bo 71.  T-'he system was variable with ^t-2.3 percent

of the means within the limits.

       The oil expressed as hexane solubles averaged 9-0 mg/1 with

expected chance variations from 0.^1 to 17.6 mg/1.  The system was

stable with 100 percent of the means within the limits.


       The turbidity expressed in Jackson candle units (JCLf)  had

an average value of 20, with expected chance variations from  11

to 30.  Sixty percent of tho means were within the limits.

       The total phosphates as P(X had an average concentration

of 1.33 mg/1 with expected chance variations from 0 to 3-^  mg/1.

The system was stable with 100 percent of the means within  the

limits.  There was about 30 times as much total phosphate in  the

water at this station as the stream standards permit.

       Similar detailed evaluations could be made for each  con-

stituent at each station tabulated in Table 1.   With the addi-

tional information from the computer, which was too voluminous

for this report, the dates of abnormal occurrences could have

been shown.  Comparisons of means and limits for a constituent

may also be made between stations.

       It is recommended that SQC charts be maintained for  each

station.  To establish control limits for the charts it would

be desirable to process the available data for 1966, 19^7^  and

up to the date of the computer run.  Continuing analysis of the

data would have two benefits:

       1.  As abnormal means occurred, especially above

           the limits (except for D.O.) action could be

           taken to find the cruise,   investigation of

           variations within the limits are not normally

           instituted because the variations probably

           are due to chance, unless they persist on

           the same side of the average of the means.

       2.  As water pollution control is improved the

           means should show a trend to be below the a

           average of the means, (except for D.O.) and

           even go below the lower limit.  If these

           trends do not occur, reduction of pollu-

           tants is not occurring at the particular

           stream sampling stations.  Thus a contin-

           uously developing picture of the effective-

           ness of water pollution control is developed

           from surveillance data.

       The discrete samples should be collected randomly with

respect to time and position in the  cross-section of the river.


Acceptance Inspection of

       A computer program was written End industrial effluent data

were evaluated for the application of the method of "acceptance

inspection."  The method was not applicable to the limited data

available because the average concentrations of constituents in the

discharge exceeded the single value effluent standards.  The data

used was from the monthly composite samples collected and analyzed

by the industries plus data from composites collected by the MSB.

       In order to develop a sound sampling program for surveillance

purposes it is necessary to know the rates of discharge and the

variations in concentrations of critical constituents in the waste-

water stream to be sampled.  Data necessary for statistical quality

control charts based on previous sampling are not available, and

sampling for this purpose should be started.  These samples must

be collected randomly with regard to time and position in the

cross section of the wastewater discharge.  An accumulation of

results of from 100 to 300 samples is required for initiating the

use of the acceptance inspection method.  Statistical quality con-

trol charts may be started after about 25 samples have been collected

and analyzed.  In order to accumulate data within a reasonable time

interval, samples should be collected at least once during every

2*1-hour period.  Initially, waste streams with average concentra-

tions less than single value effluent standards should be selected.


Later other waste streams would be added to the sampling program.

The range of concentrations of a constituent in a waste-water stream

should vary in the two rightmost significant figures reported for

application to the sampling plans in Gampling In spec t i on by Variables,

by A. H. Bowker and H. P. Goode, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1952.

       Acceptance inspection relates the observed concentration to

the effluent standard and control charts may be prepared to provide

information indicating whether any wastewater,  not within the effluent

standards, is probably being discharged at the selected level of risk.

Acceptance inspection provides a basis for decisions regarding fre-

quency of sampling with respect to costs of collection and analysis

and the risk involved of having a volume of wastewater discharged.

which has a concentration of some constituent not complying with

the applicable effluent standard.  If a greater risk can be taken

for one constituent than another the frequencies of analysis will

be different.  If the volume of water represented by one water

sample from a large flow is worth the risk then a smaller flow would.

not have to be sampled so frequently if the same risk may be taken.

Mathematical Modeling

       The part of the Calumet Elver under consideration for this

report and the Calumet PTarbor were divided into 1'f reaches on the

river and 3 segments of the harbor.  The model treated each reach

or segment as a confined, volume of water in which all influents

were instantaneously mixed and there were no changes in constituents


in the stream due to the usual forces of natural ascimulation or

dispersion.  The river was viewed as a long impoundment with re-

versible direction of flow.  Material balances of variables other

than flow were only valid for positive directions of flow from

the lake to the locks, but bhe mode], can bo revised to compute

effects of negative flow.

       It was anticipated that if th^ model fit the available

observed data it would provide a meats of predicting bhe effect


of any proposed pollution control an

reported storm water flows -.vere added to the calculations.   The

calculations were performed by a computer.

        The first set of runs with the mathematical model con-

sidered the effect of the Commonwealth Edison plant and the 95th

Street pumping station on the river system.   The results of the

runs are tabulated in Table 2,

        The first run was for nominal summer discharges and in-

takes for the industries, without any discharges from the 95th

Street pumping station or Commonwealth Edison.  It is noted that

in reach 8 the rate of flow in the river was greater than in the

adjacent reaches.  This is caused by an intake being in one reach

and part of the water taken in being discharged in another reach.

This indicates that there is recirculation of water between seg-

ments in the river from pumping and discharging of water.

        Run No. 2 was for the Commonwealth Edison plant circulat-

ing 3^0 cfs with a slightly higher flow through the locks.   Other

than the increased flow through the locks,  the only difference in

the flow results from Run No. 1 and Run Wo.  2 was the difference

in the flow at the locks for the two runs.

        In the following runs the same nominal summer flows were

used, with flows from the 95th Street pumping station and through

the locks for selected 1966 data.

        Run No. 5 was for an unknown negative flow at the locks as

reported by MGD.  An assumed flow of -0.1 cfs was used.  Under these


conditions the model indicate"! a net flow of 13 cfs from the lake

into the harbor.  If a larger negative flow had been assumed it would

have been reflected in ajl segments.

       For Run Ho. 10, the flow in the river was toward bhe harbor

from the vicinity of Ewing Avenue.  Part of the pumping station flow

was going to the harbor.  The net flow from the lake into the harbor

was 3 cfs.

       For Run Wo. 12, when the flow through the locks was about

equal to the discharge from the pumping station, all of the pumping

station discharge went down the river, in the model, and only the

discharges from the south end of U.S. Steel went to the harbor.

       These runs with the flow model indicated the response of the

model to variations in flow and indicated a means of computing the

net rate of flow at various stations along the. stream.  The flow

data are essential for calculation of concentrations of waste con-

stituents in the segments of the river.

Material Balance Model
Without Assimulation

       Preliminary test runs of the mathematical model to compute the

concentrations of constituents in various segments of the river, based

on "FWPCA stream at the mouth of the river, reported monthly

composite results on industrial discharges, and flows at the locks

from MSD records; showed encouraging correlation with concentrations'

observed in the river.  The sources of observed data were stream


sampling stations and Industrial intakes.  The program also computed

the mass (thousands of poane'.s per cJsy) of various pollutants being

added to the river in various roaches.

       The test runs for material balances and concentrations wan for

nominal summer data.  The computer program is being modified to be

run for the available data for each month, July through November 196? •

If the ultimate fit of the model after adjustments with observed

stream sample data is acceptable it can be modified to simulate pro-

posed effluent discharges and estimate the concentration of constitu-

ents in the river for various rates of flow at the locks, to compare

the compliance with stream standards that will result from meeting

the effluent standards, and. determine the quantities of waste con-

stituents that will reach the harbor when stream flow is into the


Sediment Balance in
Calumet River

       The available data from the MSB files, the FvTPCA Chicago
Program Office, and the Corps of Engineers, Chicago "District,

reveal that the total sediment load removed from the Calumet River

each year by dredging cannot be accounted for by present waste and

stream surveillance procedures.  The reach of the Calumet River

between E.L. & J. Railway bridge and the mouth of the river is

dredged annually to remove an estimated 50,000 cubic yards of accumu-

lated, material per year.   The sludge from this area of the Calumet

River contains approximately 2-'r.l peicen'c total iron content on a

dry weight basis.  The total iron entering this i-each of the

Calumet River should be derived from the summation of iron in

waste discharges to the area and the net quantity of iron in sedi-

ment transported from Lake Michigan less the material transported

beyond the E. L. & J. Railway bridge downstream toward the T. J.

O'Brien locks.  Such a summation, using present data, yields less

than one-fourth of the iron deposition found in the Calumet River.

Prior to 1968 only a few core samples of the bottom sediments were

analyzed for specific pollutants.

        Soundings by MSD on relative depths near major wastewater

outfalls in the reach between the mouth of the Calumet River and

Ewing Avenue bridge have recorded deposits near certain outfalls.

        Since coke, limestone and iron are used in the steel mills

and are the materials most apt to contribute to the deposits in

the river, it is recommended that suspended solids in waste dis-

charges and additional bottom sediments be analyzed for fixed

carbon, calcium, magnesium, arid total iron.

        These data should establish the sources, nature and quantity

of suspended and. settleable solids pollution discharged to the Calu-

met River.  Only by careful definition of the sediment loadings

imposed upon the Calumet River can adequate recommendations be

developed regarding remedial measures required to attain the

proposed Water Quality Criteria for the Calumet River and

harbor.  In light of the foregoing facts;  l) the MSD is cur-

rently evaluating the outfall sampling procedures and recording

depbhs near specific outfalls, and 2)  the YWPCA Chicago Pro-

gram Office is collecting samples throughout the cross-section

at the Ewing Avenue bridge station.

Conclusions and "Recommendations

         1.  It is recommended that a single organization be

responsible for the control of industrial waste disposal, in the

City of Chicago and the Metropolitan Sanitary District of

Greater Chicago with the necessary authority to prevent the dis-

charges to the sewers of hazardous and damaging materials.

         2.  It is recommended that the MSD undertake a program

of training industrial personnel in the control, treatment,

sampling, and analysis of industrial wastewaters.  This program

should provide for the exchange of information between indus-

trial plants.

         3.  It is recommended that the M3D develop a method

of evaluating stream sampling data as rapidly as the results

of laboratory analyses can be reported.  This method of evalua-

tion should indicate unusual discharges to the watercourses

promptly so that the source may be located.  This method of

evaluation should provide a means of observing trends in im-

provement of water pollution control on a weekly basis.  The

statistical quality control method illustrated in this report

for part of the Calumet River is suggested for the watercourses

within the jurisdiction of the MSD.  Samples for this purpose

should be collected on a random basis with respect to time and

position of the point of collection in the cross-section of the

river.  Stream samples should be analyzed for total suspended

solids in addition to the constituents presently being deter-

mined .

         IK  It is recognized that the collection of composite

samples from industrial discharges may be desirable when it is

anticipated that cases are to be taken into a court of law.  For

surveillance purposes to determine that control is being main-

tained it is recommended that the MSD give consideration to the

desirability of collecting and analyzing discrete samples.

             As Indicated in this report, the method of "accept-

ance inspection" may be applied to the control of quality and

waste discharges.  It cannot be applied, until the average con-

centration of a constituent in consecutive samples i? less than

the specified limit or effluent standard.  Because the majority

of constituents in most ;,raste discharges do not yet meet the

effluent standards available data are not suitable for illustrat-

ing the suggested method for determining frequency of sampling.

There is a need for improving the sampling of industrial waste

discharges for surveillance by the MSB.  It is recommended that

consideration be given to the application of the "acceptance

inspection" method to develop a sampling plan for Industrial

waste effluents and to monitor them subsequently.

         5.  Unavoidable delays in use of the computer prevented

completion of a mathematical model for evaluation of the pollu-

tion of the Calumet River in time to incorporate it in this

report.  When completed it will permit estimates of the effects

of changes in stream flow and waste discharges on water quality

and prediction of the probability that meeting the effluent

standards that have been adopted will achieve the water quality

standards for the stream.  Work on the mod.el is continuing.

             It is suggested that a sever service charge or

appropriate alternate methods be explored to control the dis-

charge of Industrial wastewater and. water to the sewer-

age systems of the City of Chicago and the MSD.


CO --'• i-4
-; > o "•--
o Pi t/:
EH I-.


H b
EH h>


b> j co
'^1 *i~t " •( — f ,--^ 'in • [^
io Ul O ; 1 i-"-l -P J-J

p< !4 o >-> in M co a ,a
•P -I-1 -H 0 ^^ (i; |3  u u p
CO '') >-^ ^ Ji i-l Pi I'H
P W)
ir\ 0"i o O

CO iH O O !>-
UA .H \ O O
. . • •

VO O -d" O

t- - CT, 0 0 00
t-- ir\ co_Hf cxi


LT\ H t— VO ON
LT\^t OJ ^j- OJ

t— ON r-l
o o o ONVD

ON O r-l O
to -r ON o CO
,J- 0-) rH CO CXI

ONVO -d- -H-

_j- OO CXI O
o vo 01 o co

•^ ^7 °. °.
r~l rH O CO ON

— ^
r-l H H 00 OJ

EH 0
pq ^ «
K -P Pi
fU CQ p: O
EH .p rj ^J 0 -,H
rn -H r^j -H cj> -]J
S a> C co
Cj -r 1 ''S"1 «(— 1 • t>
p I-l "" ^ p Pi
O OJ CO (p
oo r-l .ri rH -P en
rH O -p O CO ,-0
f) f-i O
• n -P q i p P:
PJ en P; o PI -H »-)
>1 O O O
i o w cj p
1 h)Q £j £..[
ri . r-i in PI a) a.1
o 1>> CD ft ru o ru
•H 0 PH (D > p, fi
-ij n PJ > o a) P
cO 0 L-J 
O i^l i-l P P)
r^r 0; CO OJ
W .4 ,i1 r-l -P 03
Pi o P o ra ,0
ff< fl JH O
OOP cn -P PJ
t-i en p" o H -H CH
>•; o o Q
1 CJ 0) O -p
I M> Pi P!
f' P< lO JH (D •} 0 f-i a) o ..a
•rl CJ 04 (]; -5 P, a
P f! Pi r> O (D tJ
03 OJ D ^ i-l PH 12;
P W) ^


rH rH
05 _-J"^-
P O t)
o PI a
F-i P
Is O

CO \,

b/ F-

O bD
O bO
H .H
KJ 0) \
4^ 1>H bU
o a

O bD
o a
P3 g
O rQ



O bO

a H
M hi)
r=^ a

(!) o
• H
*"• fci)
p a

oj ro
\Q o-l O O
• • • •
-^1- VO CO O
• • • *
OJ H t- H

— O O
• • • •
H ro o O OJ
-d- H OH
,--J- ro ro
O H OJ o
OJ H O O _*
0 H
-^J- H O\VO LA

VO OA ro ro
rH t— -4" CO LA
-p ri
frl] CQ ri O
p -P ri 4J o -H
fe -H uj -M 0 4J
M a a; a PS
f> -rl ^ -H • K>
(D ~" Cu '11
C5 rH rd H -P CQ
,2-, O p O CQ ,£3
H FH J) 0
t: O 4^ (M 4J ri
H to ri o ri -H 1 0 0 0
1 0 cl) 0 -P
1 bO ri FH
ri FH cd FH o> o>
0 S  !H fj
-p ri Pi f> O 0) P
oS  p 
P ;• « a a?
O -H s.; -H • >
J (U Oi CP

w • O r-l FH O
H PH 4J '"n -P ri
ftl I-- f-1 0 ri -H CI4
fr-t 0 O O
I O (\> O -P
I tiQ ri Jn
ri ?-i c3 f-i o) 0
O >} QJ FH 0) 0 ,0
•r4 O Pi CL) *>•-- ,M 51
4J ri Pi > O 0) JJ

-! 3 t'O '" '
rH o o ro
• • • •
o o O roco
O\ H
. • . •
VO -]- H O VO
0 H
^H "^
f~ 1

VO ro H O CO
CJ o CO o") CO
H H O\ H
ro t— H
• • • •
0 H
O\-3- co ro
OJ o\ LA roco
H t- H
rovo c\ O\
t~- rH

VO ro O O OJ
0 H

 0 -H
ffl -H 03 v-L O -p
ft a CD a a
f$ -H g -H • >
(U CXJ (1)
M rH ,ri i— 1 -p m
M <1 O 4J O CO Q
K; r^ FI FH O
te; p-i !J rn 4^ ri "
H £-- x! O ri -H CM
EH 0 O O
I 0  O d) '3

4^ fcj "J 'y' h ^ ^


CH ^->
a ui
•> 0
03 0
O (D
r-T rd VO
f2! O-
H .3
PQ   0
0 f-i
P^ ?H
£ a
a g
E-l CH
S 1H
P 0

H 'H
H -P
t> --H
>3 o
0 v_^






~-\. rH r-i O
C— rH rH
00 H O OO
^ H .j- .-1
VO O")
H co o ON
•--^ r-1 S- ON
\ QN ON rH
VO r — 1

\, co o oo

co • •

rH CO -=h
ifN CM

i — 1 i — 1
LC~\' o ON
i H

rH O ro
-•-. -3- o

oo O CO
~^~ O i — 1
LTN' oo oj

*•••*_ * " •
£ CM 0 ~h
i-j d-) CO

_ q'

^H? i-^" O
'rH [— 4 ^ —

^ — •*

d C/l
-p ^.-^
-P d
W) -H
flj r^5
.(-i p{^
p< fH

,N4 t-3 P
o PH H
O o!
i-'-i • 
P ^
o -j,( en d
>;-:•, w o
"D ,.' ri-! fi
^ d o -p H
13 r* ,-i to o
:, Pi [v, ON o

_3- OO r-l i- i iS- t-- S- L- ON CO CM LfN O O VO ON ON O O
00.3- i I 0 o O O CC O", O LTN O O CO O OH H
i H H ,--! r-1 H H rH H H H H H

ON CM ,--t ,-J- tr- - b - t~ - t"- ON CC OJ lr\ O O VO ON ON O o
ifNoo CM '.XI •'->.••; oo ro H CO ro CO a~) oo r-l oo oo _~t _j-
r>") CM oo o-) c'~, oo ro ro oo oo oo co oo ro oo oo co oo oo

c O _d- CM 00 L - Is- t— IS- ON CO CM LfN O O VO ON ON CO O
iii H
ON oj -d- IS- N- is- i~- 1— ON co co LTN o O vo ON ON o o
CM H H H r-1 r-i r-1 H rH rH H CM H H H H H H H

rO VO CO CO Is- C~- is- t— ON CO CM LfN O O VO ON ON O O
iH H r-1 r-1 r-l r-t rH rH rH H H CM H H rH H rH OJ CM

OJLr\ls-t~-t--t>-IS-[s-ON co CM LTN o o vo ON ON o o
H i H rH H rH H r-1 H rH H CM H rl rH rH rH CM OJ

co H oo o"i ts- t— i^- 1— ON co oj LTN o o vo ON ON o o
O OO t— t— ON ON ON ON t" - CO ON-=h ONON t— ONCNO o
CM rH rH r-1 H ,H - ON ON iS- iS- IS- i>- ON CO OJ LfN O O VO ON ON CO 9
r-i oo Is- is- ON ON ON ON is- co ON J- ON ON is- ON ON o X;
CO H r-l i-1 H rH H H i-H H rH OJ rH H rH H r -1 CM tVJ

CO ir\ IS- IS- IS- t-- t— IS- ON OO OJ LfN O O VO ON ON O 8
rn i o ON ON ON ON ON ON is- co ON '-d- CJN ON b- ON ON o y.
10 CO CO CO OJ OJ CXJ CM OJ OJ CO 0-1 OJ CM OJ OJ 00 00 °°

VO ON H H rH H H H oo OJ VO ON _=J- _J- O oo CO .;± -r£.
O CM IS- IS- tS- t~ t- IS- LTN VO VO r-1 VO VO LTN t>~ t^- ^ f,.

ri H H 03
CD CU H 03 O
CD iij CJ c3 !H T-I
 O 0) ^ .X CD CD -H -H -H fl d) C) -P CO
rH • -H r-H -H ,'i', ^ M CD 01 O -P -P Si r- O (U !> d)
O CD r-l Oj >* • 'O 03 rC5 OS -JJ ,M Q) CO CO CO ra (D -H C^i  en  r-l co w ^i w ft as i-l co o o o H o rx! •% QJ -p r-i o
en ra d :a CD cu r-l ,"H ]~i] -ri -ri -H -H H to H o o ca oo
to in O fn rfi rcd p rd -P FM fij i-i r-1 H >' rc5 cl i ^ H r- *? o H
• d 03 53 -P -I-5 -P H -f3 d P -P r" ,O rO 'DO 03 CD
co -H r=; H d vo ^ i-i I-1 H CD d o3 r-i r5 P> ai -H -H ci-! CH f-i rd cu -P
• £ O O 3; O O O ,V! |H 0) P) ft P( f) r-i ir'i r-l -P fH iH ,M l'5
f-l [T5 f£] TL! O O3 r-1 'f< cS CO «3 O f I Q) CD V -ri r 1 CD O '.~i O O 03 03
O ,d r t o'3 c'J PH ^H Pi K--- -^j' d ^' o '" ' r^r ' -i P^I
,6 -p i i i i i i i i ~ ' *~~ 1 'a) *~~
j-j pi i i i i i i i i i
,\1 O S-VO LfN.iJ- COCO r-i O
M S^ rH r-l r-l rH r- 1 r H rH H ON OO IS-VO IfS _cj- TO CM H

r-i f-j ,d ,d A.' rd rd rd ,d rd ,d rd rd rd rd ,o ,d ,d ,d
CD « o o o o a o o a o o o o o o u o o
d l> CO oj ci3 '.o '.ii 03 03 03 03 i(3 oj oj 03 03 03 aj 03
d -rl O fj OJ oj .•;; o 0 CD CD c; OJ