905R80109
FINAL
DRAFT
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ON
REMAINING SEGMENTS OF TUMNEL AND RESERVOIR PROJECT
AND
METROPXITAN SANITARY DISTRICT
OF GREATER CHICAGO
ADVANCED TREATMENT FACILITIES
PROPOSED FOR
METROPXITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
Prepared By:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVANCED TREATMENT TASK FORCE
August 1980
En*
-------
-------
FOREWORD
This report reviews the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) and advanced
secondary treatment plants of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago (MSOGC). Only unfunded segments of TARP and the
treatment plant projects were reviewed.
This report is one of a series prepared since 1979 in response to
Congressional direction that any project incorporating advanced waste
treatment, the incremental cost of which exceeds $3,000,000, shall be
personally reviewed by the EPA Administrator to determine that the
project provides significant water Quality benefits and public health
improvements.
EPA implemented the Congressional directive in Program Reouirements
Memorandum (PRM) 79-7. In 1979, the State of Illinois sued EPA regarding
these reviews and a settlement agreement was entered into and made a
court order. As a part of that settlement agreement, EPA proposed a
revision to PRM 79-7 in the June 20, 1980, Federal Register.
In 1979, the General Accounting Office (GAO), in response to a
Congressional reouest, issued a report on TARP. The report is critical
of the project. EPA, therefore, decided that the review of the treatment
plants would also include a detailed review of the TARP project in
relation to EPA combined sewer overflow policy and addressing the issues
raised by GAO. These reviews have been combined in this report.
-------
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Proposed treatment projects involve expansion and/or upgrading of
three wastewater treatment plants, with design flows totalling over
2,000 MGD.
Proposed CSO facilities considered in this review are three major
systems of TARP Phase I. TARP is basically a system of underground
tunnels that will hold CSOs until they can be pumped up for treatment
at two of the wastewater treatment plants.
Advanced treatment facilities and TARP facilities reviewed in
accordance with Program Reouirements Memoranda (PRM) 79-7 and" 75-34.
Impetus for this review of TARP facilities comes from May 1979 report
by GAO which recommended that TARP should be re-evaluated in light of
significant cost escalations that have occurred since the original
review and approval. In October 1979 response to the GAO report, EPA
agreed that this review should be conducted prior to further funding
of TARP elements.
TARP facilities addressed in this review are limited to the unfunded
portions of TARP Phase I. A 1975 EPA report distinguished between
those portions of TARP designed primarily for pollution control
(Phase I) and those portions primarily for flood control (Phase II).
Figure III-A-1 shows the study area, the status, and location of TARP.
Capital costs are ($ millions):
o Treatment Plants $ 822.73
o Unfunded TARP Phase I $1,124.4
Design for the unfunded TARP Phase I is complete. Construction could
begin around 1983, pending the outcome of this review.
Design of the Calumet treatment plant is near completion;
construction is scheduled to begin in FY 81. Design of the other
treatment facilities is underway and is scheduled to be completed
around 1983.
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
NOTE: The terms benthic demand, benthal demand and sediment oxygen
demand are used interchangeably in this report.
AOF - average daily flow
ADWF - average dry weather flow
AF - acre feet
AST - advanced secondary treatment
BOO - biochemical oxygen demand
BOD* - five-day biochemical oxygen demand
CBOD - carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
CFM (cfrr.) - cubic feet per minute
cfs - cubic feet per second
cnts/ml - counts per milliliter
°c - degrees centrigrade
CSO - combined sewer overflow
CSTW - Calumet sewage treatment wor«
-------
NH3-N - ammonia-nitrogen
NIPC - Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
NOj-N - Nitrate-Nitrogen
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS - nonpoint sources
NSSTW - Northside Sewage Treatment Wor<
-------
. _ - -—
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Attainability of Uses
Since Des Plaines River, North Branch and Little Calumet River flow
through predominately residential areas and forest preserves, toxic
conditions are unlikely to exist in these waterways.
Also, the relatively shallow sediments of these natural waterways
will allow rapid reduction in SOD after CSO control measures are
ta^en.
Thus, beneficial uses are lively to be attained in those waterways if
CSO control measures are taWen.
In waterways with instream aeration, including Main Channel Chicago
River, North Shore Channel, and Cal-Sag Channel, water duality
modeling shows 00 standard will be met even if there is no reduction
in SOD.
In Calumet River upstream from O'Brien locw, instream aerators are
not proposed; therefore, DO standard might not be achieved in this
area unless there is significant reduction in SOD.
Chemicals and heavy metals believed to be in the sediments of MSDGC
watarways, especially in the Main Channel of the Chicago River and in
Calumet region as a result of heavy industrialization and
urbanization.
The resuspension of these chemicals and heavy metals in the waters,
especially in the Main Channel and Calumet area, resulting from
improved DO conditions due to operation of instream aerators and the
implementation of TARP to reduce CSOs might prevent attainment of
beneficial uses of MSDGC and downstream waters. Dredging, if needed,
could correct this potential problem.
B. TARP Facilities
1. North Branch
Water ouality analyses and "Wnee of curve" analysis show that
proposed level of CSO control associated with TARP Phase I for the
North Branch segment is reasonable.
-------
Evaluation of CSO control alternatives is reasonable; proposed TARP
Phase I option is the most cost-effective alternative for this
segment.
2. Des Plaines
"Knee of curve" analysis shows that proposed level of CSO control is
justified for this segment of TARP Phase I.
Evaluation of CSO control alternatives is reasonable; proposed TARP
Phase I option is the most cost-effective alternative for this
segment.
3. Calumet
Little Calumet
Water Quality analyses and "Wnee of curve" analyses (done for entire
Calumet area) show that the proposed 87 percent level of control is
justified for the Little Calumet segment of TARP Phase I.
Evaluation of CSO control alternatives appears reasonable; proposed
TARP Phase I option is the most cost-effective alternative for this
segment.
Torrence Avenue (Calumet River) and 140 Street Legs (Grand Calumet)
Persistent SOD due to deep benthal deposits in Calumet River upstream
from O'Brien lock may preclude attainment of beneficial uses in this
area unless dredged, even with CSO control; benthal depth profiles
have not been provided for this area (for the Calumet River upstream
of O'Brien Lock).
Affects of chemicals in benthic deposits should be evaluated prior to
funding both segments of TARP.
CSO control for the Calumet waterway upstream from O'Brien Lock might
be needed to prevent standards violations at the South District water
supply intake located in Lake Michigan; however, (1) data concerning
the freouency and severity of standards violations at this point has
not been provided, (2) the linkage between CSO events in the Calumet
River and standards violations at the water supply intake has not
been established, and (3) even assuming some relationship between
CSO events and violations at the water supply intake, it is not clear
that the level or type of CSO control reouested by TARP Phase I is
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
the most cost-effective control option for this purpose. Therefore,
it is not clear that this segment of TARP is needed to eliminate
standards violations at the South District water supply intake (for
the Calumet River upstream of O'Brien
TARP is the most cost-effective option assuming the proposed 87
percent level of control is justified; however, other options
providing lower levels of CSO control may be less costly than TARP
(both Torrance Avenue and 140th Street Legs).
4. GAO Report Recommendations
Some GAO proposed alternatives to TARP are primarily for abating
local and basement flooding problems; others would provide for
limited pollution control.
None of GAO options would liWely provide sufficient CSO control to
ensure attainment of fishery use of North Branch, Oes Plaines, and
Little Calumet River's.
C. wastewater Treatment Plants
1. Water Quality Analyses
All conclusions (i.e., Sections 1 and 2, below) assume benthic
chemicals and heavy metals will not prevent attainment of water uses
or that bottom deposits will be dredged.
10 mg/1 BOD5 reouirement was established through Illinois State
regulation.
New MSOGC modeling analyses (June 26, 1980) showed that assuming no
SOD reduction, with each plant at 1978 treatment levels and with
instream aeration, the DO standard can be maintained during warm
weather months.
Results of new modeling (June 26, 1980) suggest that with some SOD
reduction, as is expected from CSO control, the 10 mg/1 8005
reouirement might be unnecessarily stringent.
Ammonia toxicity analysis shows that nitrification may be needed to
prevent ammonia toxicity during warm weather conditions in MSDGC
waters .
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
It is unclear whether ammonia removal is justified for ammonia
toxicity purposes during cold weather conditions due to discrepancy
of pH between the effluent and stream data, and also the dilution
capacity of the receiving water below the confluence with the Des
Plaines River; clarification of pH data and dilution flows of
receiving waters is needed. Information has been reouested from the
State of Illinois but not received at the time of this draft report.
Because DO modeling analyses of MSOGC waters are based on warm
weather conditions, it is unclear whether nitrification for either
CBOD or N800 reduction is needed during cold weather for 00
purposes. (During cold weather, reaction rates would be
significantly lower, and DO saturation would be higher.)
Water Quality data below LocWport show that DO problems are caused by
nitrification resulting from ammonia discharges in MSOGC waters, and
by low background DO's, which reflect polluted conditions in MSOGC
waters (i.e. existing benthal deposits and point source discharges).
If background DO problems are eliminated, it is reasonable that some
level of nitrification for discharges in MSDGC waters is needed to
prevent DO problems below Loc^port. The level of nitrification
needed in MSDGC waters under future conditions to attain DO standards
in waters below Loc^port is unclear; however, it is lively that at
least the level of ammonia removal provided by the Calumet STP (about
25 percent of total MSOGC ammonia) is needed.
2. Treatment Plants
All Treatment Plants
New modeling studies (June 26, 1980) show that the 10 mg/1 B005
effluent limitation may not be needed to attain beneficial uses.
Water Quality analyses show that nitrification is needed during warm
weather conditions to meet effluent limitations for BOO and NH3-N;
from a water Quality standpoint, it is unclear whether nitrification
is needed for either BOD or Nhhj removal during cold weather
conditions.
Northside Treatment Plant
Full scale treatability study at the existing plant showed that
nitrification followed by clarification could produce an effluent BOD
concentration of aoout 13 mg/1, or about 3 mg/1 greater than the
design effluent limitation of 10 mg/1; 50 percent tertiary filtration
is therefore proposed to assure compliance with effluent limitations.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
with the operation of the new O'Hare plant, NSSTW will receive flows
exclusively from combined sewers with lower influent BOD levels;
therefore, effluent BOD should decrease somewhat.
Existing facility used for pilot study provides inadeouate primary
clarification and does not have optimum nitrification capabilities,
/
Proposed facility will add primary clarifiers, areation basins to
optimize nitrification, and additional final clarifiers; it is
therefore lively that with these improvements and the elimination of
the O'Hare flows, the proposed facility will be capable of achieving
an effluent capable of meeting water ouality standards without
tsrtiary filters.
West-Southwest Treatment Plant
Available data show that secondary treatment followed by
nitrification is needed during warm weather conditions to meet permit
effluent limitations' for BOD and NH^-N; from a water Quality
standpoint, it is unclear whether nitrification is needed for either
BOD or NH} removal during cold weather conditions.
Operating data show proposed detention times to provide nitrification
are more than needed to achieve effluent BOD or NH3-N limitations;
these data show that detention times would be adeouate to meet
effluent limitations if only half of the additional tanw capacity is
added.
Calumet Treatment Plant
Operating data and engineering report (Metcalf & Eddy) indicate that
facility will be capable of meeting 10 mg/1 8005 effluent
limitation without filtration.
Water oualtiy analyses do not show the need for design effluent
limitations for suspended solids; therefore, filters are not
justified from a water oualtiy standpoint for this purpose.
The level of nitrification provided at Calumet STW is probably
reouired to achieve DO standards downstream of LocWport;
nitrification at one or both of the other STWs may be needed as
well. Additional modeling to settle the issue of nitrification at
the other STWs is being done but the results were not available at
the time of this draft report.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Attainability of Uses
Studies of possible existing and future contaminant problems in the
Calumet and Grand Calumet Rivers should be conducted prior to Step 3
funding of these sections of TARP; first, a rough water Quality
dilution and other preliminary analyses should be made to determine
potential impacts (including sensitivity analysis); more detailed
modeling studies should be conducted if simplified analyses show
potential problem (see detailed conclusions in Section VI. 8.1.).
If studies show contaminants will preclude attainment of uses,
abatement measures, such as dredging, should be assured when
remaining TARP Phase I receives Step 3 funding.
If 00 modeling or ammonia contaminant analysis below LocWport does
not justify need for nitrification at all the proposed treatment
facilities, studies of possible existing and future contaminant
problems in the Chicago River should be conducted prior to Step 3
funding of AST facilties for Northside and West Southwest STWs; if
studies show contaminants will preclude attainment of uses in the
Chicago River, corrective measures (e.g., dredging) should be assured
when treatment facilities beyond secondary for the Northside and West
Southwest treatment plants are Step 3 funded.
B. TARP
Funding of remaining portions of TARP Phase I for the North Branch,
Des Plaines, and Little Calumet areas should proceed.
Prior to funding of remaining portions of TARP Phase I for the
Calumet and Grand Calumet segments (i.e., Torrence Avenue and 140th
Street segments) the following analyses must be completed:
o studies of possible contaminants problems discussed in Section A
demonstrate that contaminants will not preclude attainment of
designated water uses or, if these studies show that
contaminants will preclude achieving benefiical uses, provisions
for corrective measures, such as dredging, are assured when
Step 3 grants are awarded.
in addition, for the segment upstream from the O'Brien
(1) benthic core sample analyses show that existing SOD due to
deep benthal deposits will be substantially reduced in a short
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
period of time after the construction of TARP Phase I (say, 5 to
10 years) to enable attainment of DO standards, or (2) water
ouality analyses show that the proposed level and type of of CSO
control are justified to prevent bac^flows at Calumet River from
causing water Quality stanaards violations at the South District
water supply intake in Lake Micnigan.
C. Treatment Plants
Funding of tertiary filtration for the Calumet and Northside
treatment plants should be deferred unless it is shown after
operation of the funded facilities that filters are needed to achieve
water Quality standards; the State should re-examine the permits and
change them based on results of most recent MSOGC modeling analyses.
Funding for nitrification facilities at Calumet STW should proceed if
mathematical modeling (including sensitivity analyses, but without
calibration) currently underway of waters below Locwport justifies
nitrification at the Calumet facility in order to achieve water
oualiy standards below Loc^port.
For the Northside and West Southwest plants, Step 3 funding of either
or both plants, as needed, may proceed if water Quality modeling or
ammonia contaminant analyses show that ammonia removal is needed at
one or both of these plants to prevent standards violations below
Locvport. (Modeling studies should be designed to determine the
level of ammonia removal reouired in MSGDC waters to maintain 00
standards below Loc^port).
If nitrification at either WSWSTW and NSSTW is not reouired to
protect water Quality standards downstream of l_oc*
-------
8
Cold weather ammonia removal reouirements should be reviewed after
resolving apparent inconsistencies in pH data and dilution capacity
below Loc^port.
Funding for construction of improvements needed to provide adeouate
primary and secondary treatment should proceed, regardless of water
ouality and facilities issues discussed above.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
III. EXISTING FACILITIES
A. Overview
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSDGC) was
established in 1889 by Illinois State legislature to protect Lake
Michigan from pollution.
MSDGC owns and operates 70.5 miles of navigable waterways, 487 miles
of interceptor sewers, and the following seven wastewater treatment
plants with combined treatment capacity of approximately 1,870 MGD:
Present Design Capacity
Plant (MGD) Level of Treatment
Northside 333 Secondary
West-Southwest 1,200 Secondary
Calumet 220 Secondary
O'Hare ' 72 AST
Lemont 1.6 Secondary
Egan 30 • AST
Hanover 12 AST
Service areas for above plants total approximately 838 souare miles.
Combined sewers serve forty-four percent of-this area, or 375 souare
miles, utilizes combined sewers which collect wastewater generated by
city of Chicago, plus 53 of 124 municipalities within MSDGC service
area. Eighty-two percent of MSOGC 5.5 million residents are served
by combined sewers. (See Figure III-A.)
There are 645 combined sewer overflow points. Figure III-A-a shows
the distribution of outfall points in the combined sewered area.
CSO occurs when combination of sanitary sewage, storm drainage and
infiltration exceeds capacity of interceptor sewers to convey
combined flow to wastewater treatment facilities. Overflow
structures bypass excess flow and discharge directly to streams.
MSDGC officials report CSO events occurring at some locations with as
little as one-tenth of an inch of rainfall. Overflow occurs at an
average freouency of 96 times each year. MSDGC treatment plants
treat an average storm runoff of 43.6 MGD (ref. 7, p. U9-40).
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
10
MSDGC estimates that annual pollutant load discharged to streams when
storms cause CSO events is eouivalent to 800 load of 43,000,000 Ibs.
This pollutant load is roughly eauivalent to 118 percent (ref. 7,
p. U9-36) of 800 load contained in total discharges of all seven
plants. Suspended solids (SS) loading is estimated at
199 million Ibs. annually.
During heavy rainfall when combined sewer outfalls lack sufficient
capacity to convey excess flows to streams, combined flows may back
up through collection system and cause flooding in basements and
streets. MSOGC service area is particularly susceptible to backup of
CSO because it contains large areas of flat, low-lying land.
8. Existing Treatment Facilities
1. Northside Sewage Treatment Works (NSSTW)
NSSTW is a 333 MGD activated sludge secondary treatment plant serving
a present population of approximately 1,374,000 (ref. 7, p. U9-123).
Average daily flow projected for 1980 is 319 MGD (ref. 7,
p. U9-125). Plant began operation in 1928 and was expanded
twice—once in 1937 and again in 1962—to the current design flow.
Effluent discharges into North Shore Channel.
Plant previously served Northside and O'Hare service areas. O'Hare
plant became operational in May 1980; NSSTW presently receives flows
originating exclusively from Northside service area
(Figure III-8-l-a) (ref. 19, p. N-II-2; ref. 98, p.l).
Northside service area is approximately 141 souare miles (ref. 85,
p. III-l to III-3).
414 MGD is present maximum hydraulic limitation imposed by NSSTW
in-line siphon. Quantities in excess of 414 MGD are stored in sewers
or diverted to either the North Branch of Chicago River or to North
Shore Channel (ref. 85, p. VI-7).
Northside tributary area is served by combined sewer system
consisting of three major interceptors with an estimated capacity of
640 MGD without surcharge.
Figure III-8-l-b presents schematic flow diagram of existing NSSTW.
Wastewater treatment processes include primary settling tanks,
aeration basins, final settling tanks and chlorination units.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
11
Primary sludges and secondary waste sludges are concentrated in
sludge concentration tanks. All dewatered sludge accumulated within
plant is pumped through a 17-mile pipeline for treatment and disposal
at west-Southwest sewage treatment works (WSWSTVI) (ref. 85, p. V-l to
V-18; ref. 93, p. 1-1; ref. 136, p. 1-2).
Operating efficiency of primary settling tanks is very low (ref. 85,
p. V-7) due to inadeouate primary settling capacity.
Characteristics of raw wastewater, primary settling tank effluent and
final settling tank effluent are documented in Table III-B-1.
Average effluent duality from 1973 to 1979 as illustrated in
Figure III-8-l-c, shows average annual 8005 of 10-15 mg/1, SS of
7-14 mg/1, and NH3-N of 4-7 mg/1.
2. West-Southwest Sewage Treatment Works (WSWSTW)
WSWSTW is a 1,200 MGD (design flow) activated sludge secondary
treatment plant consisting of two separate, but interconnected
facilities—westside facility and Southwest facility. Average flow
projected for 1980 was 874 MGO.
westside facility (operating since 1930) provides only primary
treatment with a design capacity of 472 MGD. Southwest facility
(operating since 1939) is an activated sludge plant with a design
capacity of 728 MGD for the primary portion and 1,200 MGD for the
secondary portion. Secondary portion also treats effluent from
westside facility.
Four interceptor sewer systems are tributaries to WSWSTW. Salt Creek
interceptor and Westside sewer are tributaries to Westside plant.
Southwest and Argo interceptors are tributaries to Southwest plant.
Cross connection between Westside sewer and Southwest interceptor
provides flexibility for balancing flow to both plants for optimum
treatment of total flow.
Treated effluent discharges into main channel of Sanitary and Ship
Canal.
WSWSTW serves an area of MSOGC defined as the Central Drainage Basin,
with a drainage area of 259.8 souare miles. Geographical definition
of Central Drainage Basin is shown in Figure III-B-2-a. Largest
single incorporated area in the Basin is 110 souare mile area of city
of Chicago.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
12
WSWSTV/ serves a present population of approximately 2,431,000
(ref. 7, p. U-9-123).
1975-1978 effluent Quality information indicates average annual
8005 of 5-7 mg/1, SS of 6-7 mg/1 and Nhh of 1.8-2.6 mg/1 (see
Table III-8-2). Excellent effluent Quality is attributable to good
plant design, light hydraulic load and excellent operation and
maintenance (O&M).
Figures III-B-2-b and III-B-2-c show existing plant layout and
schematic flow diagram.,
WSWSTW plant has handling, stabilization and recycle systems for
Northside solids output and for its own solids generation.
Figure III-B-2-d presents flow chart for sludge processing system.
Sludge from Northside plant is pumped through a 17-mile force main to
the facility for processing.
3. Calumet Sewage Treatment Works (CSTW)
Existing facility has a design capacity of 220 MGD and a maximum
hydraulic capacity of 330 MGD. It is designed to provide preliminary
and secondary treatment to the combined sewage of Calumet Basin.
During 1978, average daily wastewater flow at the Calumet plant was
223 MGO. Lowest and highest daily flows during 1978 were 176 MGD and
316 MGD, respectively. Table III-8-3-a summarizes flows at the
Calumet plant for the past several years.
Calumet Basin, located in southern part of Cook County, includes part
of city of Chicago and the suburban county communities. It is
bordered on the south and west by Will and Du Page Counties,
Illinois, and on the east by Lake County, Indiana. To the northeast
is La^e Michigan.
Area served by the Calumet plant, under MSDGC jurisdiction, is shown
on Figure III-8-3-a. Present service area is 295 souare miles.
Northeastern sector of the area is highly developed and contains more
than half of the area's population. 'It also contains a large
percentage of the present industrial development, most of which is
located between Lake Calumet and Lake Michigan.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
13
Northeast sector of service area contains combined sewers serving the
city of Chicago and a number of suburban communities of Cook County.
Approximately 70 sauare miles of the present service area are served
by combined sewers. Outside of the highly developed northeastern
sector, existing land use is predominantly suburban or rural.
Potential demand for sewage collection and treatment facilities
exists primarily in these more thinly populated outlying areas away
from the Calumet plant. It is in these areas, adjacent to the
corridors of transportation, that significant growth is taking place.
Census population of present service area is 921,000.
Table III-S-3-b shows past census data for present as well as
proposed service areas.
There are three main components of dry-weather flow: domestic flow,
industrial flow, and infiltration flow. Estimates of present waste
flows are 100 gpcd domestic flowj 60 gpcd industrial flow and 28 gpcd-
infiltration flow for a total present per capita dry-weather flow of
188 gcpd.
Process flow schematic diagrams of existing treatment system and
sludge process system for Calumet plant are shown in
Figures III-B-3-b and III-B-3-c, respectively.
Sludge is gravity thickened, anaerobically digested and lagooned on
plant site.
Design data for existing treatment units of Calumet plant are
summarized in Table III-B-3-c.
Performance of existing Calumet facilities during 1978 shows an
average effluent BOD of 13 rag/1 and NH3-N 15.1 mg/1
(Table III-B-3-d).
Combined sewer system contributes periodic peak loads to the plant
and causes storm flow bypassing.
C. CSO Facilities
1. North Branch and Mainstream System
For purpose of this review, existing CSO facilities include the
funded segments of TARP Phase I and three existing tunnels, one
built by the city of Chicago and two by MSDGC, prior to MSDGC program
which have since been incorporated into TARP project. (See
Figure III-A-1.)
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
14
Funded segments of Mainstream system contain approximately~31 miles
of tunnels excavated in deep rocw with associated collection
structures and drop shafts. Funded pump stations have capacity
sufficient to dewater tunnels of Mainstream TARP Phase I plus Des
Plaines TARP Phase I. Construction contracts were awarded in
seouence such that all funded segments can be made operational with
no additional tunnel construction.
Failure to complete TARP Phase I could result in excess pumping
capacity under the present MSOGC facilities programs.
WSWSTW is scheduled to treat CSO waters of North Branch and
Mainstream systems.
Tables III-C-1 and III-C-2 give descriptive data for funded and
unfunded segments of TARP Phase I, respectively. Storage capacities
in funded segments of Mainstream TARP Phase I are 2,558 acre-feet.
MSDGC estimates funded segments of TARP Phase I would "capture" an
average of 18,290,000 Ibs. 800 load each year, or 83 percent of load
discharged by some 222 overflows within funded segments (ref.7,
appendix G).
2. Des Plaines System
TARP Phase I tunnels for upper Des Plaines system have been funded
and are not included in this review. (See Figure III-A-1.)
No segment of lower Des Plaines tunnel system has been funded.
WSWSTW is scheduled to treat CSO waters of lower Des Plaines system.
Failure to complete TARP Phase I could result in excess pumping
capacity at WSW STY/ under the present MSDGC facilities programs.
3. Calumet System
Funded segments of Calumet system contain approximately 9.2 miles of
main tunnels with associated collection structure and drop shafts.
Funded pump stations have capacity sufficient to dewater funded plus
unfunded tunnel segments of the Calumet system. Construction
contracts were awarded in seauence such that funded segments can be
made operational with no additional tunnel construction.
Calumet sewage treatment plant is scheduled to treat CSO waters of
the Calumet system.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
15
Storage capacities availaole in the funded and unfunded segments of
Calumet TARP Phase I are 348 and 1,290 acre-feet, respectively. (See
Tables III-C-1 and III-C-2.)
Failure to complete Calumet Phase I could result in excess pumping
capacity under the present MSOGC facilities programs.
MSDGC estimates funded segments of TARP Phase I would "capture" an
average of 3,806,000 Ibs. 800s loads per year, or 78 percent of load
discharged at 16 outfalls within the area (ref.7, appendix G).
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
16
IV. EXISTING QUALITY AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF WATERS
A. Overview
MSDGC area includes about 35 miles of Lai
-------
17
Most of the major streams within MSDGC are classified as Secondary
Contact streams.
Violations of DO, NH-J-N, and coliform standards are observed in all
MSOGC waters. Table IV-A-1 shows the range of 1977 average monthly
concentrations of DO, BOO, NH3-N, SS and fecal coliform bacteria in
the three major water systems.
Chicago and Calumet River systems are severely degraded, especially
during summer periods. Although less severely degraded, the
Des Plaines River also appears to have serious water Quality problems.
Throughout the water system, large benthal oxygen uptake rates have
been measured. In situ studies indicate a range in oxygen demand
rates of 2.0 to 23 gm/mZ/day (an unpolluted stream would
characteristically have an uptake rate of about 0.5 gm/m2/day).
It is assumed that high benthal oxygen demands are the result of the
discharge of untreated combined sewer overflows.
Major source of NH3-N in receiving waters is effluent of MSDGC
sewage treatment facilities.
B. North Branch Chicago River and Mainstream System
1. Use Classification and Characteristics
North Branch Chicago River and a short reach of Chicago River are
classified General Use waters.
North Shore Channel and Sanitary and Ship Canal are classified as
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aouatic Life waters.
North Branch is a natural, free-flowing stream through residential and
light industrial areas, bordered by parWs, and supporting some fish
and birdlife species.
Upper section of Chicago River flows through heavily urbanized areas;
mid-section through commercial and industrial areas; and lower section
through commercial areas.
Channels are primarily used for navigation but also some recreational
boating and fishing. Portions of the channels are concrete lined and
water levels are controlled for navigation and flood control.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
13
Waters are not used for water supply; groundwater and La^e Michigan
are water supply sources for metropolitan Chicago.
2. Contributing Flows
Flow enters North Shore Channel from i_ai
-------
19
Lake diversion waters enter system with low levels of ammonia nitrogen
but the ammonia concentrations increase substantially to levels
exceeding stream ouality standards downstream of sewage treatment
facilities.
Sludge blanket up to 7 feet deep in channel. Tubificids (pollution
tolerant organisms) are predominant macroinvertebrate. (See Figure
IV-8-1.)
Measured sediment oxygen demand (1976) ranged from 9 to 15 gm/m2/cjay
in North Branch; and from 3 to 14 gm/m2/day in Sanitary and Ship
Canal.
C. Des Plaines River
1. Use Classification and Characteristics
Des Plaines River is classified for General Use and Water Supply north
of the 1-55 bridge; 'south of this point, the river is classified for
Secondary Contract. Presently Des Plaines is not usea for water
supply.
Oes Plaines River is generally free-flowing and unmaintained, but has
a number of stage control devices. River flows predominantly through,
rural forest preserves and residential areas. Large portions of
immediate bank area are parks and recreational areas.
2. Contributing Flows
Upstream flow from Lake County.
O'Hare WRP (45 MGD) (under construction; 4/5/1.5 plant).
Several large tributaries.
197 CSO points located along river (TARP Phase I unfunded).
Converges with Sanitary and Ship Canal below Lockpcrt.
3. Water Quality
Minimum 1977 DO values along river ranged from 0.5 to 3.3 mg/1; annual
averages ranged from 4.7 to 9.5 mg/1. Freouent violations of DO
standards are observed.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
20
Annual average BOD ranged from 2.6 to 9.9 mg/1 in 1977.
Average 1977 ammonia nitrogen concentrations ranged from 2.8 to
0.1 mg/1. Freouent violations of ammonia concentration level in water
ouality standards are observed.
Fecal coliform geometric mean values ranged from 155/100 ml to
11,400/100 ml in 1977. Fecal coliform levels appear to be freouently
in violation of standards.
Biological study indicates Des Plaines River has fair water Quality;
pollution tolerant fish species predominate.
Macroinvertebrate populations appear to indicate unbalanced or
semi-polluted conditions.
0. Little Calumet River, Calumet River, Grand Calumet River, and
Cal-Sag Channel
1. Use Classification and Characteristics
Little Calumet River is a General Use water.
Calumet River, Grand Calumet River and Cal-Sag Channel are classified
as Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aouatic Life waters.
Grand Calumet and Calumet Rivers flow through heavily industrialized
areas.
2. Contributing Flows
Some flow enters Grand and Little Calumet Rivers from Indiana; this is
variable and unpredictable, based on rainfall patterns. Flow for 7Q10
flow into Grand Calumet has been estimated as 20 cfs.
O'Brien Lock and Dam releases water into Calumet from Lake Michigan;
7Q10 is 30 cfs. During high flow conditions, Calumet River can
backflow into Lake Michigan.
Calumet SIX discharges 343 cfs.
7Q10 flow leaving Cal-Sag Channel is 293 cfs (1974).
66 CSO points in system.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
21
3. Water Quality
Minimum monthly DO in 1977 ranged from 1.5 mg/1 in Little Calumet
River, 1.0 to 6.3 mg/1 in Calumet River and 0 to 0.8 mg/1 in Cal-Sag
Channel. Violations of DO standard are observed regularly.
Average monthly DO in 1977 ranged from 9.6 mg/1 in upper areas to
2.3 mg/1 in Cal-Sag Channel.
1977 average monthly 800 in Calumet River lakeside of locw was
3.9 mg/1. It was 9.0 mg/1 below the Calumet SIX and 5.3 mg/1 just
above confluence with the Sanitary and Ship Canal.
Ammonia nitrogen levels in Grand Calumet, above treatment plant,
averaged 5.2 mg/1 in 1977; downstream of treatment plant this value
was 6.4 mg/1. These levels are well above the ammonia standard of
1.5 mg/1.
High fecal coli form -values were recorded in the lower part of the
Cal-Sag Channel (12,400/100 ml).
Biological study concluded that due to poor water Quality, the
majority of the watershed supports a very limited fish population.
Channel -bottom mostly clay in the Calumet and Little Calumet Rivers.
Channel bottom in Cal-Sag Channel mostly sludge and debris.
Measured SOD ranged from 2.4 to 12.0 gm/m2/day.
E. Downstream Considerations
Waters downstream of Loc*
-------
-------
22
Waters downstream of LocKport showed a gradual decrease of NH^-N and
a gradual increase of N03-N: an indication of nitrification which
was believed to have caused oxygen reduction in the waters (ref. 123).
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
23
V. PROPOSED FACILITIES
A. Overview
MSDGC has proposed an integrated program which is intended to serve
the purposes of pollution abatement, urban drainage and flood
control. Overall program consists of:
o Construction of tunnel interceptor systems to intercept CSOs and
transport these flows to reservoir storage and treatment plants;
o Construction of storage basins utilizing existing ouarries and
subsurface storage;
o Expansion and upgrading of treatment plants;
o Installation of instream aeration;
o Channel improvements.
•Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) comprises the tunnel and reservoir
system for controling CSO's.
TARP Phase I consists of the Mainstream, the Des Plaines (upper and
lower) and the Calumet Systems which will collect the CSOs from 645
overflow structures and store this flow in deep underground tunnels
until pumped into the MSDGC treatment plants. TARP Phase I, when
completed, will serve the objective of pollution control.
TARP Phase II consists of storage basins for the Mainstream,
Des Plaines and Calumet Systems and additional rocw tunnels. Storage
basins will provide about 95 percent of the total storage capacity and
will be constructed by widening and deepening existing ouarries.
Under TARP Phase II, tunnels would be constructed to supplement the
conveyance capacity of Phase I tunnels to these converted Quarries.
Major portions of TARP Phase I have already been funded under EPA's
Construction Grants Program. See Figure III-A-1 for TARP project
status.
Unfunded segments of TARP Phase I include the North Branch leg of the
Mainstream, the lower Des Plaines system and major portions of the
Calumet system.
Expansion and improvement of treatment plants is closely coordinated
with TARP. MSDGC has proposed to expand and upgrade three treatment
plants; Northside, West-Southwest and Calumet.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
24
Calumet and West-Southwest plants will treat flows stored in the TARP
tunnel system. Northside plant will not provide treatment for TARP
CSOs.
This review is limited to the following portions of the MSDGC program:
o Unfunded segments of TARP Phase I; and
o Expansion and upgrading of the Northside, the West-Southwest and
the Calumet treatment facilities.
8. Treatment Facilities
1. Northside Sewage Treatment Wor^s (NSSTW)
Project involves upgrading existing 333 MGO secondary facility to
provide single-stage nitrification and 50 percent tertiary
filtration; also will expand maximum hydraulic capacity from 414 MGO
to 500 MGD. No increase in the present design flow at this facility
is proposed.
Also, other improvements are proposed, as listed in Table v-8-l-a.
Flow in excess of plant maximum hydraulic capacity of NSSTW, after
improvement, will be diverted to mainstream tunnel of the TARP system
rather than receiving streams. This will provide flow eaualization
for plant influent.
Population projections (ref. 7, p. U9-125) and flow projections
(ref. 98, p. 8) are presented in Table V-S-l-b. Projected population
and total flow in 1990 are 1,387,000 and 332 MGO, respectively.
Design effluent limitations are:
BODs 10 mg/1 (30 days average)
Suspnded solids 12 mg/1 (30 days average)
M+j-N 2.5 mg/1 April-October
4.0 mg/1 all other times
Total costs of the proposed plant improvements and expansions are
(ref. 129, p. 2-5):
o Capital $ 101,867,000
o Investment Cost $ 14,261,400
o Salvage Value $ 33,955,700
o Yearly 04M $ 11,224,000
o Total Present Worth $ 225,742,100
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
25
Incremental AST cost (ref. 129, p.2):
o Capital
Nitrification $50,337,000
Filtration $23,494.000
Total: $73,831,000
o Investment Cost $10,336,300
o Salvage Value $24,610,300
o Yearly 04M
Nitrification $ 337,000
Filtration $ 978,000
Total: $ 1,315,000
o Present Worth
$73,831,000 + ($10,336,300)(0.8734) - ($24,610,300)(0.2584) +
(10.7086)($1,315,000) = $90,581,200
2. West-Southwest Sewage Treatment WorWs (WSWSTW)
Existing capacity of 1,200 MGO at WSWSTW facility is to be expanded
to 1,358 MGD. Expansion includes 455 MGD capacity to treat dewatered
flow from TARP system (See Table V-8-2-a). Without TARP even more
capacity for handling wet weather peak flows may be reouired because
TARP provides for wet weather flow eoualization.
Dry weather flow (DWF) for 1990 is 830 MGO. This is based on 1990
population of 2.45 million (ref. 7, pp. 49-123, 49-125), calculated
at 315 gpcd, which includes domestic, industrial and commercial and a
small combined sewer flow estimated at 6 percent on an annual average.
TARP dewatering capacity (1990) is designed based on 320 gpcd and is
eouivalent to 50 percent of dry weather flow.
Proposed facility is designed to utilize a single-stage nitrification
process to meet the following effluent limitations:
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
26
BOD5 10 mg/1 (30 days average)
Suspended Solids 12 mg/1 (30 days average)
NH3-N 2.5 mg/1 April-October
4.0 mg/1 all other times
Proposed improvements include:
o Rehabilitation of existing units;
o Increase aeration capacity for single-stage nitrification by
adding 207 MG (103 MG first phase, 52 MG each in 2nd and 3rd
phases) to existing aeration volume of 204 MG; and
o Construction of additional sludge concentration tanWs, anaerobic
digesters, and dewatering facilities.
Total cost of the proposed plant improvement and expansion (ref. 129,
p. 3-5):
o Capital $480,723,000
o Investment Cost $ 67,301,200
o Salvage Value $160,241,000
o Yearly 0AM $ 38,658,500
o Total present worth $536,756,100
Incremental AST costs (ref. 129, p. 3):
o Capital
Nitrification $425,928,000
o Investment Cost $ 59,630,000
o Salvage Value $141,976,000
o Yearly O&M
Nitrification $ 3,263,000
o Present Worth
425,928,000 * ($59,630,000)(0.8734) - ($141,976,000)(0.2584)
+ (10.7086)($3,263,000) = $476,264,400
3. Calumet Sewage Treatment WorWs
Proposed project involves expanding plant from existing design flow
of 220 MGD to a design flow of 354 MGD (1990); this expansion
includes a capacity of 118 MGD to treat dewatered flows from the
Calumet TARP system.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
27
Facility will be upgraded to two-stage nitrification; this will be
accomplished by expanding the existing capacity of the secondary
treatment facility from 220 MGD to 354 MGD, and by adding a new
354 MGD second-stage nitrification facility. In addition, tertiary
filtration of nitrified effluent is also proposed, but the amount of
flow to be filtered is not specified pending completion of a pilot
plant study. Also, capacity of primary clarifiers to be expanded
from 220 MGD to 354 MGO.
Design effluent limitations are:
BOD5 10 mg/1 (30 days average)
55 12 mg/1 (30 days average)
NH3-N 2.5 mg/1 April-October
4.0 mg/1 all other times
Proposed process flow diagram is shown in Figure V-8-3 (accompanying
Table V-B-3-a shows the wastewater Quality at significant points in
the treatment train}.
Proposed design flow conditions for the year 1990 and design
population 1,140,800 (NIPC) are summarized in Table V-B-3-b.
POPULATION FORECASTS (in thousands)
Area (so mi) 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
294.6 988 1082 1137 1302 1371
Average dry-weather flow forecast for 1990 is 194 gpcd as compared to
corresponding figure of 188 gpcd for 1973 (based on flow records.)
Dewatering flow based on assumption that dewatering flow rate is 50
percent of the average daily dry-weather flow (ADDWF).
Calumet plant flow forecasts (MGD) are as follows:
1990 2000
ADDWF TOW AOF ADDWF TDW ADF
230 118 278 251 113 299
1. ADF - Average Daily Flow
TDW - TARP Dewatering Flow
ADDWF - Average Daily Dry Weather Flow
2. TDW - is 50 percent of ADDWF
3. 1990 design flow is ADDWF + TDW or 354 MGD
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
28
Total costs: (ref. 129, January 1979):
o Capital Cost: $240,139,000
o Investment Cost: $ 33,619,500
o Salvage Value: $ 80,046,300
o Yearly C&M: $ 18,972,000
o Present Worth $451,982,300
Incremental AST costs (ref. 129, January 1979):
Nitrification (Battery E) Filtration Total
Capital: $111,300,000 53,000,000 164,300,000
Investment Cost: 15,582,000 7,420,000 23,002,000
Salvage Value: 37,100,000 17,666,700 54,766,700
Yearly 04M: 1,963,000 1,160,000 3,123,000
Present Worth: 136,343,700 67,337,500 203,681,200
C. TARP
1. North Branch and Mainstream System
For purposes of this review, the unfunded segments of TARP Phase I
constitute the proposed facilities. In the North Branch and
Mainstream System, the "North Branch Leg" is the only unfunded
segment of TARP phase I. (See Figure III-A-1.)
North Branch leg contains approximately 9.1 miles of main tunnels
with associated dropshafts and collection structures. Proposed
tunnels generally follow route of North Branch of Chicago River from
its confluence with Chicago River and North Snore Channel.
North Branch Leg has a storage volume of 612 acre-feet (See
Taole III-C-2).
CSO flows from the North Branch Leg are to combine with flows from
tunnels of the Mainstream system for treatment at WSWSTW.
MSDGC estimates North Branch Leg can capture 3,630,000 Ibs. BOD
annually, amounting to 86 percent of load discharged at 41 overflow
points in the area (ref.7, appendix G).
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
29
Costs of North Branch Leg (ref. 131): (January 1980 cost)
o Capital Cost: $174,900,000
o Investment Cost: $ 24,486,000
o Salvage Value: $104,940,000
o O&M Annual: $ 217,000 (including energy cost)
o Present Worth: $172,119,600
o Per Capita Cost: $3.03/year
2. Oes Plaines System
For purpc33 of this review, the unfunded segments of TARP Phase I
constitute the proposed facilities. Except for pump stations, the
entire lower Oes Plaines System is unfunded.
Oes Plaines tunnel system contains approximately 26.4 miles of main
tunnels with associated drop shafts and collections structures.
Tunnels generally follow course of Des Plaines River. (See
Figure III-A-1.)
Proposed Oes Plaines tunnels have a total storage volume of
1,267 acre-feet. (See Table III-8-2).
CSO flows from Oes Plaines System combine with flows from Mainstream
system for treatment at WSWSTW.
MSOGC estimates the proposed Des Plaines system can capture
3,913,000 Ibs. 800 which amounts to about 90 percent of total annual
overflow loading (ref. 7, appendix G).
Costs of Des Plaines System (ref. 131): (January 1980 cost)
o Capital: $517,200,000
o Investment Cost: $ 72,408,000
o Salvage Value: $310,320,000
o O&M Annual: $ 1,554,000 (including energy cost)
o Present Worth: $521,364,400
o Per capita cost: $9.11/year
3. Calumet System
For purposes of this review, the unfunded segments of TARP Phase I
constitute the proposed facilites. Unfunded segments of Calumet
Phase I system contain approximately 27.1 miles of main tunnels with
associated collection structures and drop shafts.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
30
Proposed tunnel system is located in southeast portion of MSOGC
service area. It consists of following major branches located under
the Calumet River, Calumet Sag Channel and Little Calumet River (See
Figure III-A-1):
o Torrence Ave Leg (Calumet River);
o 140 St. Leg (Grand Calumet River);
o Indiana Ave TrunWline and Mar*
-------
31
VI. EVALUATION OF TARP ISSUES
A. Identification of Major Issues
Project evaluated based on the following four criteria:
o the applicant should demonstrate that the level of pollution
control provided will be necessary to protect a beneficial use;
o provision has been made for funding of secondary treatment of
dry weather flows in the area;
o the proposed combined sewer overflow control is the most
cost-effective technioue to protect the beneficial uses; and
o marginal costs are not substantial compared to marginal benefits.
The major issues are:
o whether existing benthic deposits will preclude attainment of
beneficial uses even with CSO controls and advanced wastewater
treatment facilities in place;.
o justification for the proposed level of CSO control; and
o cost-effectiveness of proposed CSO controls.
Attainability of beneficial uses:
o This issue must be determined before a final decision on level
of CSO control or cost-effectiveness can be made;
recommendations regarding level of control and
cost-effectiveness in the following sections are contingent on
showing that existing benthic deposits will not preclude
attainment of beneficial uses.
B. Evaluation of Issues
1. Attainability of Beneficial Uses
Significant benthal deposits exist throughout much of M3DGC waters;
in the Main Stream system (Grand Calumet, Calumet), deposits average
about 3.9 feet, and reach up to 10 feet in depth; in the Oes Plaines,
North Branch and Little Calumet, benthal deposits average less than
1 foot in depth. Predicted oxygen demand resulting from these
deposits accounts for 2.0 - 5.0 mg/1 00 deficit. Benthal profiles
were not provided for the Calumet and Grand Calumet Rivers.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
32
New MSDGC modeling indicates that the 00 standard will not be
violated even if there is no reduction in SOD due to instream
aeration; model did not address area upstream of O'Brien lock in the
Calumet River where aerators will not be installed.
Attainment of beneficial uses might be precluded in certain
industrial and urbanized areas within Grand Calumet and Calumet
waterways due to chemicals and heavy metals in water column and
sediment beds.
MSDGC data indicate that no significant concentrations of heavy
metals exist at any of the sampling stations.
In the highly industrialized and urbanized waterways (Grand Calumet
and Calumet) high concentrations of contaminants (IEPA) are known to
exist. Due to the lesser degree of industrialization and
urbanization, contaminants should not be a problem in the North
Branch, Des Plaines, or Little Calumet.
Implementation of TARP will alter the sedimentation process in the
Grand Calumet, Calumet and other Chicago waterways due to a reduction
of suspended solids loading. Reduction of CSO loading could result
in resuspension of existing benthal deposits and release of
contaminants from the sediment bed.
The dynamics for benthal stabilization may involve stabilization of
the upper sludge layer, scouring away of residuals, stabilization of
the next lower layer, and so on (ref. 156}. Thus, the contaminant
potential may be exerted for the entire depth of benthal deposits,
rather than just the upper layer. It is therefore necessary to
evaluate concentrations of contaminants for the entire depth of
benthal deposits to determine future impact of these substances on
water Quality and on use attainability.
Previous studies have shown the long-term effects of contaminant
sediment resuspension on the water Quality of rivers, lakes and
estuaries (ref. 157, 158, 159). Problems have been projected to
persist in these various systems for 10-75 years depending upon rate
of resuspension, characteristics of the contaminants, and flushing
ability of the system.
With implementation of TARP, present and future contaminants found in
the water column might be bio-accumulated more readily and might
adversely affect downstream water intakes. This would occur because
resuspended contaminant sediments would exist more freouently in the
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
33
dissolved state than under existing conditions because of reduced
solids loadings after TARP is in place. Dissolved contaminant
concentrations increase as suspended solids decrease; it is only the
dissolved fraction that may be bio-accumulated by organisms
(ref. 160, 161). Dissolved fraction is easily transported downstream
and often difficult to remove with conventional water treatment
technologies, thus affecting downstream users.
Because of uncertainties involving the persistence of existing
benthal deposits, analysis of potential long-term impacts of these
deposits in the Calumet and Grand Calumet Rivers should be made to
determine when and to what extent these deposits will influence water
use.
Investigation of SCO persistence should be conducted for area above
O'Brien
Preliminary analyses of heavy metals data from MSDGC received by EPA
indicate that heavy 'metals will not preclude attainability of
beneficial uses.
Information is still needed for organic and other chemicals.
EPA will analyze the benthic data and conduct simple dilution studies
to determine whether these may be a contaminant problem.
If a problem exists, a detailed analysis will be made of Calumet and
Grand Calumet; this would include:
o Benthal analysis should involve core sampling and laboratory
testing to determine the depth and composition of deposits for
the entire core depth. The following parameters should be
measured:
* Porosity
* Suspended solids
* Volatile solids
* BOD
* COD
* Nitrogen series
* Heavy metals
* Other contaminants (i.e., pesticides, organics, etc.)
* Cs 137, pollen or Pb 210 dating to determine core age and
mixing depth
* Anaerobic activity
* All concentrations given in Mass Toxicant/Mass Solids width
depth distribution
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
34
Also, the following water Quality data should be collected above the
sediment bed sampling points:
o Suspended solids
o BOD
o COD
o Nitrogen series
o Heavy metals
o Other contaminants (i.e., pesticides, organics, etc.)
o 00
o All metal and contaminantant concentrations given as total
dissolved and particulate
Sampling should be conducted for four event types:
1. Quiescent conditions (low winds, limited or no barge traffic)
2. average conaitions (normal wind velocity, average barge traffic)
3. turbulent conditions (heavy barge traffic)
4. storm or post storm conditions (heavy rains, very high winds)
Water column samples should be taWen at varying depths: surface,
mid-depth, and 1 foot above sediment layer.
Prior to funding of TARP Phase I for Grand Calumet and Calumet areas,
EPA must determine whether recommended contaminant studies show
concentrations of contaminants are or will be sufficient to prevent
attainability of designated beneficial uses; if contaminants are
shown to be an existing or potential problem, corrective measures,
such as dredging, must be assured as a basis for Step 3 funding of
TARP Phase I.
For the area above O'Brien locw, prior to funding of TARP Phase I,
EPA must determine whether recommended SOD studies show that benthal
demand will be adeouately reduced and high rates of SOD would prevent
attainment of 00 standard; if DO standard in waterway can not be met,
funding could still proceed if it is shown that this TARP segment is
needed to prevent standards violations at the South District water
supply intake in La^e Michigan.
2. Segment Evaluation
a. Dynamic Water Quality Modeling
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
35
NIFC developed a dynamic model to show ability of TARP to maintain
water Quality standards after implementation of all control devices
(aerators, TARP Phase II, AST); model simulation included predictions
of runoff and CSO loadings from storm events which are beyond the
ability of TARP Phase II to control.
The following calibrated models were used to develope loadings:
o LANDS - simulates runoff over differing land surfaces.
o SCALP - simulates combined sewer system flow routing.
o RJELO - routes channel, flow through channel networks.
o QUALITY - simulates the physical, chemical and biological
interactions and produces temporal concentration
profiles.
NIPC model incorporated algal effects on 00 concentrations;
predictions of increased algal activity due to improved water ouality
were also made but data to substantiate these calculations were not
available.
NIPC model based .on the following assumptions:
o effluent limitations of 10 mg/1 BQD$, which are based on WLA
developed by MSOGC from steady state modeling.
o 80 percent SOD reduction below existing rates.
o Kd of .055 - .090/day (MSDGC used .23 - .46/day).
o no instream nitrification.
o reaeration rates based on O'Connor-Dobbins formula or lai
-------
36
o Des Plaines and North Branch DO standards violations will be
reduced by 50 percent.
o significant increase in chlorophyll "a" concentrations, up to
mean levels of 51 mg/1 (factor of 2 - 9 above present levels).
Based on model output, MSOGC waterways will show significant
improvement in 00 after full implementation of TARP Phase II if all
modeling assumptions are correct (i.e., 80 percent SOD reduction).
Model does not show effects of intermediate SOO reductions or for
construction of only TARP Phase I on the freouency of standards
violations; since TARP Phase I will capture 85 percent of the BOOj
loading, it may be inferred that the majority of water Quality
benefit (i.e., reduction in freouency of DO violations) would be
realized with construction of TARP Phase I; therefore, Tasw Force
concludes that TARP Phase I would result in significant water Quality
benefits if contaminant and SOO problems do not preclude attainment
of uses.
b. North Branch
Level of Control:
There are 41 CSO points in the North Branch reach.
The North Shore Channel flows into the North Branch of the Chicago
River. Presently DO standards are regularly violated in the North
Shore Channel.
The relative contributions by CSOs to'the total annual BOD loading in
the North Branch are about 20 percent on an annual basis, but much
greater during CSO events.
Simulation results indicate that up to an 80 percent reduction in the
present benthal demand in the North Shore Channel would be reouired
in addition to STW upgrading and instream aeration in order to meet
DO standards.
Water Quality standards would be violated 10 percent of the time even
with TARP Phase II based on analyses of water Quality modeling; it
may therefore be inferred that at least the level of control provided
by TARP Phase I would be reouired to prevent even more freouent
violations.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
37
"Knee of the curve" analysis shows that proposed level of control is
appropriate. (See Figure vi-1.)
Based on above considerations, the level of control provided*by TARP
Phase I is justified.
Cost-Effectiveness:
The analysis of the alternatives to the proposed plan include sewer
separation, multiple detention reservoirs and retention basins at
overflow points.
The cost-effectiveness analyses by EPA generally support MSDGC's
conclusion that TARP Phase I is the most cost-effective alternative.
A sunmary of the results of these analyses appears below (cost in $
millions):
Land, Construction
Alternative
Multiple
Engr., Adm. ,
EPA
185.40*
Leqal 4 Others
MSDGC
210.50
O&M
EPA MSOGC
3.42* 1.36
Total Present
Worth
EPA MSDGC
188.82 211.86
Detention
Basins in
Localized
Upstream Area
Multiple 185.40* 233.60 3.42* 2.95 188.62 236.50
Reservoirs
at Each
Outfall
TARP 174.90 174.90 2.95 2.95 177.85 177.85
*The cost methodology comes from EPA - 430/9-79-003, "1978 Needs Survey,
Cost Methodology for Control and Combined Sewer Overflow and Stormwater
Discharge."
**Sewer separation would be more expensive than any of these options.
It is therefore concluded that TARP Phase I would be the most
cost-effective CSO control alternative for the North Branch segment.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
38
c. Des Plaines
Level of Control;
Des Plaines waterway has a high use potential; river is classified
for General Use and Water Supply. Existing uses include fishing,
canoeing and swimming.
Model study shows that DO standard violations occur about 24 percent
of the time. Heavy benthal oxygen uptake rates have been measured.
Ammonia standard violations are calculated to occur 40 percent of the
time. Fecal coliform measurements have ranged from 155/100 ml to
11400/100 ml.
Simulations assuming 80 percent removal of benthal oxygen demand
indicate DO standards would be violated about 11 percent of the time
with TARP Phase II. Violations of ammonia standards will be reduced
to 10 percent of the time. It may therefore be inferred that at
least the level of control provided by TARP Phase I woulo be needed
to prevent even more freouent violations. The SOD for future
conditions is not expected to be a problem due to shallow benthic
deposits and CSO control.
"Knee of the curve" analyses for Des Plaines River show that the
proposed level of control is justified. (See Figure VI-2.)
Cost Effectiveness:
Alternatives evaluated were sewer separation, multiple detention
basins in upstream areas or at outfall points and TARP Phase I as
proposed.
MSDGC provided detailed cost analyses of three alternatives. The
summary of the cost analyses is listed as follows (cost in $
millions):
Land, Construction CAM Total Present
Engr., Adm., Legal'4 Others worth
Alternative
Multiple Detention 796.50 29.60 826.10
Basins in Localized
Upstream Area
Multiple Reservoirs 607.30 27.03 . 634.33
at Each Outfall
TARP 517.20 21.08 533.23
*Sewer separation would be more than any of these options.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
39
EPA reviewed the MSDGC detailed cost analyses and found tha unit
costs are in line with the recent actual cost figures in the area;
the cost analysis methodology is reasonable and the
cost-effectiveness analysis has complied with the EPA
cost-effectiveness analysis guidelines.
It is concluded that TARP is the most cost-effective CSO control
alternative for the Des Plaines segment.
d. Calumet
o Little Calumet Leg, and Indiana Ave and MarVham Leg (Little
Calumet system):
Level of Control;
These reaches of the Calumet River system flow through primarily
residential areas; thus the water use potential in these areas may be
greater than in the heavily industrialized areas in the Calument
system.
Currently, benthic conditions exist throughout the Little Calumet
system. These waters are polluted to heavily polluted as indicated
by freouent violations of DO, ammonia nitrogen, and fecal coliform
criteria. The 208 study estimates that 36 percent of the BOD
contributed to the Little Calumet system comes from boundaries, 30
percent from CSOs, 22 percent from other sources.
MSDGC estimates that 1,761,000 pounds per year of BOD is contributed
by CSOs in this leg and that TARP Phase I could remove 1,586,000
pounds per year (90 percent capture).
CSO pollutant loadings have been judged to be a major source of
untreated solids which causes the high benthal oxygen demand. In
addition, they contribute floatables and objectionable materials to
the waterways and appear to affect fecal coliform levels.
Cost Effectiveness:
Alternatives to the proposed plan in the Calumet system include sewer
separation, multiple detention reservoirs and retention'basins at
overflow points.
Shortage of open space in this area would ma^e the costs of options
to TARP prohibitive; therefore, TARP appears to be the most
cost-effective option for these segments.
o 140th Screet Leg (Grand Calumet) and Torrence Avenue Leg
(Calumet):
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
40
Level of Control: ~
CSOs in these legs contribute to the benthal oxygen demand not only
in these areas but downstream as well. In addition, they contribute
floatables and appear to contribute to the violation of fecal
coliform standards (both Calumet and Grand Calumet Rivers).
Since parts of these areas are heavily industrialized, and have
-extensive benthal deposits, it is unclear whether the warm water
fishery use classification is attainable (both Calumet and Grand
Calumet Rivers).
The MSDGC estimates that 1,266,000 pounds per year of BOD is
contributed by overflows in these legs. MSDGC estimates that TARP
could capture 1,107,000 pounds per year of this load, or about 87
percent.
The Grand Calumet was not incorporated into the MSDGC model. The
water Quality in thi's leg appears to be predominantly influenced by
CSOs and upstream loads from Indiana. Available information is
inadeouate to estimate the relative percentage of -these loads and the
nature and extent of existing water Quality degradation (both Calumet
and Grand Calumet Rivers).
Four CSO points are located upstream from the O'Brien Lock in the
Calumet River may contribute to the CSO backflow.in Lake Michigan
(the Calumet River upstream of O'Brien Lock).
Since dynamic water Quality modeling analyses were not done for
Calumet and Grand Calumet Rivers, the water Quality improvement
resulting from CSO controls is not known; modeling for other areas
indicate that TARP Phase I plus instream aeration would enable DO
standards to be achieved. It is not clear whether TARP would enable
DO standards to be achieved upstream from O'Brien lock where no
/• aerators are proposed (Calumet River upstream of O'Brien Lock).
CSO controls may also be needed to prevent backflows from CSOs above
the O'Brien Lock from causing standards violations at the South
District water supply intake located in Lake Michigan. However, data
concerning the severity and freouency of standards violations at the
water supply intake has not been provided; also, the linkage between
backflows in the Calument River and violations at the water supply
intake has not been established; also, it has not been shown that
TARP Phase I is needed to prevent these violations (i.e., less costly
CSO measures providing lower levels of control may be adeouate to
prevent violations at the intake) (Calumet River upstream of O'Brien
Lock only).
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
41
Based on above considerations, the proposed level of control is
justified for Calumet and Grand Calumet Rivers, except the Calumet
River upstream from O'Brien locw. water oualtiy analyses of impacts
on South District water supply intake should be made to better define
CSO induced water Quality problems and determine the type and level
of CSO control needed.
Cost Effectiveness:
Shortage of open space in 140th Street segment ma^es the costs of
alternatives to TARP prohibitive; therefore, TARP appears to be the
most cost-effective alternative for this segment.
MSOGC provided details of cost analyses of two CSO control
alternatives at Torrence Avenue segment. The summary of the cost
analyses is listed as follows:
TORRENCE AVENUE SEGMENT
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
(cost in $ millions)
Alternative Multiple Reservoirs TARP Phase I
At Outfall Points
Land 6.70 —
Construe., Engr.,
Adm., Legal 4
Others 192.52 144.32
O&M 9.52 5.33
Total Present Worth 208.74 149.65
*Sewer separation would be more expensive than any of these options.
EPA reviewed the MSDGC detailed cost analyses and found that unit
costs are in line with the recent actual cost figures in Chicago
area; the cost analysis methodology is reasonable and the
cost-effectiveness analysis has complied with the EPA
cost-effectiveness analysis guidelines.
It is therefore concluded that TARP Phase I is the most
cost-effective CSO control alternative for the Torrence Avenue
segment.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
42
C. EPA Comments Regarding GAO Suggested Alternatives to TARP
The GAO report (May 1979) had proposed the following alternatives:
o retaining the water in above-ground storage areas such as using
rooftop reservoirs, parking lot ponding, or temporary flooding
of natural and recreational areas;
o slowing the flow of water into the sewer system to reduce peak
loads such as disconnecting downspouts, using restrictors in
sewer inlets or catch basins to reduce runoff to the sewers or
using porous pavement to reduce runoff;
o educating the public on devices which can be installed in
individual basements to prevent flooding;
o using on-line or off-line storage devices in the system:
storage within sewer lines activated by automatically monitoring
flows in the se'wer system, off-line storage achieved by such
devices as tanks, tunnels, and holding basins;
o constructing relief sewer projects in limited areas.
The GAO proposed alternatives are primarily for reducing local and
basement flooding problems. Although some of the alternatives will
offer some degree of pollution control, none of them is a
cost-effective pollution control alternative to TARP Phase I in
achieving beneficial water uses. The following are some comments
regarding each of the proposed alternatives:
o retaining the water using rooftop reservoirs will reauire
substantial structural changes and reinforcements to existing
homes and buildings and is therefore not feasible except for new
buildings yet to be constructed;
o temporary storage on remote sections of parking lots is probably
not feasible due to lacw of such available additional parking
space in Chicago in addition to the expense of regrading the
existing parking lots;
o temporary flooding of natural and recreational areas is not
sufficient to solve the problem due to inadeouate open space in
the critical CSO problem areas;
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
43
disconnecting downspouts will not provide enough peak flow
reduction in congested residential areas due to easy access of
the water to reach the stormdrain inlets over the pavement;
using restrictors in sewer inlets would alleviate basement
flooding by preventing back-pressure in sewers, but would
contribute little toward pollution control;
using holding basins to reduce runoff has been reviewed and
found to be less cost-effective than TARP Phase I (see
Section VI.b. through VI.d);
upgrading sewer maintenance ana cleaning is a continuing
process, but not adeouate for water Quality improvement;
streetcleaning has been evaluated and found to be inadeouate for
pollution control (see Figure 2);
devices for preventing basement flooding have limited water
Quality improvement benefits;
on-line storage in the sewer line does not provide enough
storage capacity;
off-line storage using tunnels and holding basins is the concept
of TARP;
constructing relief sewer projects has been reviewed and found
to be less cost-effective than TARP Phase I.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
44
VII.EVALUATION OF ADVANCED TREATMENT ISSUES
A. Identification of Issues in Accordance with PRM 79-7
In addition to cost-effectivelness, criteria for review contained in
PRM 79-7 are:
o Seasonal treatment has been fully evaluated;
o Land application alternatives have been considered;
o Advanced treatment will definitely result in significant water
Quality benefits, and mitigation of public health problens where
they exist;
o Public is aware of the costs.
Land application is not viable for these projects because of the
large land reouirements and high cost. The Corps of Engineers
examined this alternative in detail in 1971 and 1972.
Total average annual household cost for TARP Phase I and AST combined
is about $198.57, or about 0.867 percent of median annual household
income. The public has been informed of the costs.
The major issues are:
,-o Is 10 mg/1 B005 reouirement technically justified?
o Will attainment of design effluent limitations result in
significant water Quality benefits?
o Are unit processes designed to neet effluent limitations
justified?
o Has seasonal treatment been fully evaluated?
Evaluations and recommendations presented below are contingent on
showing that possible existence of toxic substances will not preclude
attainment of beneficial uses (See Section vi.B.l.).
B. Evaluation of Major Issues
1. Water Quality Justification for Filtration and
Nitrification (All Treatment Plants)
FINAL DRAFT
:HICAGC REPORT
-------
45
Carbonaceous SOD Removal Requirements
Steaay-state Streeter-Phelps type model usea to justify treatment
levels for all three treatment facilities. Mooei assumea tne
following:
Kc (case e, 1/aay)
Ka (base e, I/day)
Kn (base e, I/day)
SOD (gm/m2/aay)
Temperature (&C)
Background DO (mg/1)
Target DO (mg/1)
Effluent DO (mg/1)
Streamflow (MGD)
Treatment Plant Flow (cfs)
Photosynthetic Effects
C.23-0.46 •» 2QOc
not provided; minimum is 0.23
C
0.2-7.0
25.0
7.4
4.0
7.0
not provided for each SIP;
total diverted is 278
453 (Northside)
1,309 (West-Southwest)
343 (Calumet)
Not considered
300 decay rates (K
-------
46
Moaei reported to be calibrated, but reports comparing calibration
result? with in-stream BOD, NH}, and DO data were not provided.
However, plots comparing two independent sets of calculated DO
concentrations were provided. Tnese plots compare well.
Results of the modeling snow that an effluent 8005 concentration of
aoout 10 mg/1 for all treatment plants, in conduction with in-stream
aeration ana CSO control, is neeaed to maintain DO standards.
New MSDGC Model (June 1980)
New MSDGC model was based on the following assumptions:
o background DO greater than 9.0 mg/1 (previously 6.0 - 7.0 mg/1)
o diversion flow of 1152 cfs (previously 320 cfs)
o ten instream aerators (same as previous run)
o no SOD reduction (previously 80 percent reduction)
Results of new model show that DO standard can be met with the use of
instream aerators under existing conditions (without TARP and STP
improvements). Tnese results are considered to be reasonable.
From this model, it can be inferred that if SOD is reduced, allowable
effluent BOD could be higher than 10 mg/1 design effluent limitation.
Ammonia Removal Requirements
Warm Weather:
Ammonia removal reouirement based on four concerns:
o ammonia contaminant;
o need to remove additional carbonaceous BOD beyond secondary
treatment levels;
o potential for future nitrification in MSDGC waters;
o existing and future nitrification in downstream waters.
Assuming a stream temperature of 30°C, and a pH of 7.5, a total
in-stream ammonia concentration of 2.5 mg/1 would result in an
un-ionized concentration of 0.06 mg/1; thus assuming these
conditions, and no stream dilution, ammonia removal would be needed
during warm weather to prevent ammonia contaminant.
Nitrification may be necessary to reduce CBOD and NOD. Without
nitrification (i.e. at secondary treatment level), effluent 8005
concentrations would exceed the BOO effluent limitation of 10 mg/1
and would result in failure to meet the DO criterion for MSDGC waters.
rINA._ CRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
47
Reduction of BOD beyond secondary could be accomplished via tertiary
filtration, rather than nitrification. However, because filtration
would not reduce nitrogeneous oxygen demand (NOD), there would be
potential for DO problems if nitrification oegins to occur in MSDGC
waters. Since it is presently unclear why nitrification is being
inhibited, it is not possible to conclusively predict whetner
nitrification will occur in MSDGC waters. However, improved DC
conditions (resulting from upgraded treatment plants ana CSO
controls) will ma*e it more lively that nitrification will occur.
Therefore, because nitrification will reduce NOD as well as CBOC,
nitrification would be a more effective option than filtration in
terms of UOD reduction. Also, if filters were ouilt now rather than
nitrification units, ana in-stream nitrification begins to occur, it
would be necessary to add nitrification at a later date in addition
to the filters already in place.
Even if nitrification is not a problem in MSDGC waters, it would
still be a possible problem in downstream waters. Information
suggests that nitrification resulting from NH3 discharged from
Chicago may be causing DO problems in these areas now. (ref. 123)
Since wastewater discnarged from Chicago ma*es up a large portion of
the flow in these waterways during low flow conditions, this
potential secondary DO sag could be significant. However, evidence
regarding this potential problem is inconclusive at this time.
Based on the aoove considerations, the Task Force concludes that a
warm weather effluent limit of of 2.5 mg/1 is needed. Considerations
affecting exactly when nitrification should be provided are discussed
further below.
Cold Weather:
Although a winter NH^ effluent limitation of Amg/1 is proposed,
lower levels of nitrification may be acceptable during cold weather
conditions for the following reasons:
o At colder temperatures, carbonaceous deoxygenation rates will be
lower and DO saturation higher; therefore, it may not be
necessary to provide as stringent levels of CBOD removal as
during warm weather conditions;
o During cold weather, in-strsam nitrification would be more
lively to be inhibited. Thus, it may not be necessary to remove
NH3-N for DO purposes;
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
48
o During cold weather, the ratio of un-ionized to total ammonia is
lower, ttius permitting greater concentrations of total ammonia
to be discharged.
Annual operating costs for nitrification are ($ millions):
Northside 0.3
West Southwest 3.3
Calumet 1.9
Toxicity analyses by the State of Illinois showed that during cold
weather, NH3 contaminant standard would be violated 8 of 11 times
just above Loc*port (where there is little dilution flow) and 9 of 10
times below Loc^port (after dilution effects); Illinois did not
account for dilution in their analysis.
Plant data provided by MSQGC show pH effluent values average about
7.5 to 7.6; instrsam pH data provided by Illinois show pH values
generally in excess of 8.0 even in areas without any dilution. The
reason for this discrepancy is unclear.
MSOGC has extensive records of effluent pH data, whereas IEPA has
provided only 11 pH samples; therefore, it might be that IEPA data
are not typical for areas without dilution flows.
In natural waterways, such as the Des Plaines River, pH values are
often greater than 8.0; therefore, pH values provided by IEPA for
these areas are typical. However, in assessing ammonia contaminant
in waters affected by these dilution rates, the effects of this
dilution must be considered.
For water without any dilution effect, the need for nitrification for
control of contaminants during cold weather is inconclusive because
of discrepancies in pH values measured by MSDGC and IEPA. These
discrepancies should be resolved to determine what pH values should
be used for the contaminant analysis. Such determination and review
of instream ammonia contaminant during cold weather will permit a
decision on the need for winter nitrification.
For diluted waters (i.e., below confluence of Des Plaines River),
contaminant analysis should consider effects of dilution (this is now
being evaluated in the MSDGC model below Loc^port; results will oe
considered in final report). Nitrification should not be provided
during cold weather to prevent ammonia contaminant in downstream
waters unless analysis that accounts for dilution flows shows it is
needed.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
49
2. Treatment Facilities
Northside:
Proposed design based on full scale (76 MGO) study using existing
facility, this study shewed that single stage nitrification followed
by clarification woulo produce an effluent of 13/8/2 (BOD/SS/Nrrj).
Thus, the study concluded that 50 percent tertiary filtration would
be needed to remove additional BOD to meet the 10 mg/1 effluent BOD
limit.
Proposed facility will not treat more concentrated flows to be
treated by O'Hare STP; thus, effluent Quality for proposed plant may
be better than during treatability study.
Existing facility used for tests was not optimized:
o Primary clarifiers were then capable of removing only about 25
percent BOD, rather than the approximate 35 percent attainable
from proposed design;
o Aeration time ranged only between 3.6 and 4.4 hours;
Optimization of proposed facility should enable BOD limitations to be
met without filters, although filters can serve an important function
in controlling the variations of the operation of treatment
facilities and delivering more uniform effluent Qualities.
Proposed facility will have additional primary clarifiers, which
should increase primary BOD removal to about 35 percent. Also,
aeration time in the proposed facility will be about 5.5 hours, which
should further improve BOD removal in comparison with the existing
faciltiy. Moreover, operation of proposed facility could be
optimized in terms of return sludge and pH control.
Capital and annual O&M costs for tertiary filtration are $24 million
and $0.98 million, respectively.
The Task Force concludes that the proposed facility should be capable
of meeting design effluent limitations without filtration. Also, new
modeling by MSDGC shows that 10 mg/1 8005 limitation may be more
stringent than needed to meet water Quality standards. Therefore,
construction of proposed tertiary filters should be deferred until
operation studies and water Quality analyses following operation of
tne plant without filters show such facilities to be necessary.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
50
The Task Force concludes that proposed nitrification is needed to
meet BOO and ammonia limitations during warm weather; however, it is
unclear whether nitrification is needed during cold weather pending
resolution of apparent discrepancies in pH data ana farmer instream
ammonia contaminant analyses.
«est-Southwest:
Major issue is the need for proposed 7.5 hour detention titr.s in
nitrification units.
Proposed increase in aeration tankage from 204 MG to 411 MG will
increase detention time from about 5.0-6.0 hours to about 7.5 hours.
Optimizing the operation proceaures such as controlling the waste
sludge return of sludge can improve the nitrification efficiency.
Operating data show that single stage nitrification followed by
clarification is needed to meet effluent limits.
Operating data for Marcn through Septemoer 1578, snow that permit
NH3-N limits can be met at detention times ranging from 5.0-6.0
hours. (See Table V-C-5.) For example, in March 1978, average and
maximum ammonia levels were 0.6 mg/1 and 2.3 mg/1 respectively (at
520c, 5.9 hours detention time).
Flow projections estimate design flow will increase from 1,200 MGD to
about 1,358 MGD (including dewatering). At this flow rate, a 6.0
hour detention time could be achieved if only the first phase
aeration tankage (half the total proposed additional aeration
tankage) were added.
Proposed increase in aeration tankage to be accomplished in three
phases:
o 50 percent (about 103 MG)
o 25 percent (52 MG)
o 25 percent (52 MG)
Total capital and O&M costs of proposed nitrification facilities
about $426 million and $3.3 million, respectively.
Task Force concludes that nitrification is needed to meet BOD and
ammonia limitations during warm weather; however, it is unclear
whether nitrification is needed during cola weather pending
resolution of apparent discrepancies in pH data and further instream
ar.-onia contaminant analyses.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPGR1
-------
51
Based on aoove considerations, the Task Force conduced that the
first phase of aeration tank additions (i.e. about 103 MG) are needed
but that the second and third phases (i.e. half of batteries E ana F)
are not justified at this time. Tnerefore, construction of pnases
two and three should be deferred unless effluent ana water Quality
data from the first phase of operation snow that tne second ano third
phases are also neeoea to acnieve water ouality standard limits (i.e.
effluent limits based on furtner water ouality studies of cold
weather BOD ana NH^-N removal reouirements. (See discussion aoove.)
Calumet:
Two-stage nitrification (as opposed to single-stage at other
facilities) proposed at this facility because of inaustrial waste
inputs.
Design engineer's report (Metcalf 4 Eddy) states that proposed
twc-stage nitrification system should be capable of meeting 10 mg/1
BOD limitation without tertiary filtration; this assessment appears
reasonable in view of existing operating data, which shows that BOD
effluent from existing secondary facility is about 13 mg/1 during the
summer months.
10 mg/1 BOD5 limitation may be too stringent based on results of
new MSDGC modeling (June 26, 1980).
Filters would be needed to reduce suspended solids to the 12 mg/1
limitation; however, since there is no water ouality justification
for this suspended solids limitation, filters are not needed for this
purpose, although filters can serve an important function of assuring
uniform effluent Qualities by controlling the variations of treatment
facility operations.
Capital and annual O&M costs of tertiary filters are $53 million and
$1.2 million, respectively..
Based on above considerations, the Task Force concludes that tertiary
filters are not justified at this time for the Calumet facility.
Task Force also concluded that nitrification is needed to meet BOD
and ammonia limitations during warm weather; however, it is unclear
whether nitrification is needed during cold weather oending
resolution of apoarent discrepancies in pH data and furtner instream
ammonia contaminant analyses.
FINAL u?>Ar i
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
52
Nitrification at Calumet STW is probably needed, regardless of
attainability issues in MSOGC waters, to improve water Quality below
Loc^port; mathematical modeling, including sensitivity analyses, is
needea to verify need for the level of NH^-N attainable from
proposed Calumet STW.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
53
CHICAGO TARP PROJECT
REVIEW OF MSDGC PROPOSALS
1. Final Environmneraj^ Impact Statement, Tunnel Component p_f the Tunnel
and Reservoir Plan Proposed by_ the Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago, Calumet^ Tunnel System, U.S. EFA, Region V, 1576.
2. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Tonnel Component of the
Tunnel and Reservoir Plan TARP Proposed oy_ the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago, Mainstream Tunnel System, 59tn Street to
Addison Street, U.S. EPA, Region v, 1976.
'• facilities Planning Study, MSDGC Overview Report. Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 1975.
A. Facilities Planning Study, MSDGC Update Supplement and Sur.r.ary,
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 1576.
5- Facilities Planning Study, MSDGC Update Supplement and Summary,
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 1977.
6. Facilities Planning Study, MSDGC Update Supplement and Summary,
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 1973.
7. Facilities Planning Study, MSDGC Update Supplement and Summary Action
Plan, Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 1979.
8. Evaluation of Water Quality of Chicago Area Streams, Study for State
of Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Water
Resources, by Harza Engineering Company, 1976.
9. "Testimony ana Recommendations to the Illinois Pollution Control
Board in the Matter of Water Quality Standards Revision R72-A,"
Sections IV-IVd, Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicaoo,
1972.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
54
10. Briefing Document for Chicago Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, U.S. EPA,
Region v, Updated January 19, 1980.
11. "Waste Load Allocation Reports for the Des Plaines River/LaWe
Michigan Basin, "Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
(Appendix C missing)
12. Acute Toxicity of Residual Chlorine and Ammonia to Some Native
Illinois Fisnes, by Donald P. Roseooon and Dorothy L. Richey,
Illinois State water Survey, Uroana, Illinois, 1577, 42 pages.
13. Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, Chapters 1-24, oy
Nortneastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1978.
14. Illinois Pollution Control Board Regulations - Chapter 3 - Water
Pollution, Illinois Pollution Control Board.
15. The complete (8) volume set of Development p_f a_ Flood and Pollution
Control Plan for the Chicagoland Area, Flood Control Coordinating
Committee, 1972.
16. Environmental Assessment, "Alternative Management Plans for Control
of Flodd and Pollution Problems Due to Combined Sewer Discharges in
the General Service Area of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago," MSDGC, 1973.
17. Facilities Planning Study, "Plant Reouirements to Meet the Enacted
IPCB Rules and Regulations," Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago, 1974.
18. Facilities Planning Study, Central Facility Area," Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Rev. 1975.
19 Facilities Planning Study, -."Northside Facility Area," Metrooolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Rev. 1975.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
55
20. Facilities Planning Study, O'Hare Facility Area," Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Revised 1975.
21. Facilities Planning Study, "South Facility Area," Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Revised 1975.
22. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Tunnel Component of the Tunnel
ana Reservoir Plan Proposeo oy_ tne Metropolitan Sanitary District o_£
Greater Chicago, Lower Des Piaines^ Tunnel System, U.S. EPA, Region
V, August 1977?
23. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Tunnel Component o_f the Tunnel
and Reservoir Plan Proposed by_ the Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago, Mainstream Tunnel System, U.S. EPA, Region V, 1976.
2^- Final Environmental Impact Statement, Metropolitan Sanitary District
£f_ Greater Chicago, O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant ana Solids
Pipeline, Final Vols. 1 and 2, U.S. EPA, Region V, 1975.
25. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Metropolitan Sanitary District
£l Greater Chicago, Q'Hare Service Area wastewater Conveyance
System, U.S. EPA, Region v, 1975.
26. EPA Evaluation of Proposed Chicago Tunnel and Reservoir Project
(TARP), March 1975.
27. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Metropolitan Sanitary Sewer
District of Greater Chicago O'Hare water Reclamation Plant,
Supplemental E.I.S., January 1980.
28. Final Environmental Impact Statement Tunnel Component c_f the Tunnel
and Reservoir Plan. Proposed the Metropolitan Sanitary Sewer
District of Greater Chicago Lower Des Plaines Tunnel System, Summary
Report, August 1977. "^
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
56
29. Report of the Copmtroller General of t^e United States. "Combined
Sewer Flooding and Pollution - A National Problem. The search for
Solutions in Chicago, "Six Volumes, May 15, 1979.
30. N1PC, "Regional water Supply Plan", 7/1/76.
31. NIPC, "Intergovernmental Coorporatic.- in Illinois," no cats).
32. NIPC, 1977 Annual Report.
33. NIPC, "Regional Land Use Policy Plan,"7/1/78.
34. NIPC, "Regional Solid Waste Management Policy Plan," 6/17/76.
35. NIPC, "Regional Qverban* Flooding ana Storrnwater Drainage Polciy
Plan," 6/17/76.
36. NIPC, "Comprehensive General Plan, 8/18/77.
37. "Water Quality and Land Use Relationships," May 1976.
38. "Biological Survey of the Des Plaines River," by Richard P. Reilly,
September 1976.
39. "Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Sampling
Stations in Northeastern Illinois," by Gary D. Herman, November 1976.
40. "La*e Michigan Water Quality Trends and Monitoring Programs in
Illinois Waters," by Gary R. Pep^e and Gary D. Herman, December 1976.
41. "Water Quality Sampling and Analysis," January 1977.
FINAL DQ,AFT
CHICAGO RE-CTT
-------
57
42. "Historical Water Quality Data," (Des Plaines, DuPaige, and KanU-aWee
River Basins) April 1977.
43. "Non-Point Source Pollution from Land Use Activities," by Anthony 5.
Dunigian, Jr., August 1977.
44. Summary of an Engineering Report, "The Potential Contributions of
Air Contaminants to water Pollution in the Six Country Area of
Northeastern Illinois," by Jeffrey A. Bart, September 1977.
45. "Watersheds of Northeastern Illinois Quality of Aauatic
Environment," baseo upon Water Quality and Fishing Data, Illinois
Natural Historical Survey, August 1978.
46. TARP Status Report, MSDGC, November 15, 1979.
47. Summary, Discussion of Findings, and Conclusions, pp. 1-12, "Great
Lakes-Illinois River Basins," August 1961, by HEW Public Health
Service.
48. "Wastewater Management Milestones, Facilites Planning Study
Interaction, 201-208 Planning, November 1976, oy MSDGC.
49. "Development of Flood and Pollution Control Plan for the Chacagoland
Area," Chicago Underflow Plan, December 1972.
50. "Statement of MSDGC on Proposed IPCB," Water Quality Standaros
Revisions R71-4, September 10, 1971.
51. "Statement of MSDGC on Proposed IPCB," Water Quality Standards
Revisions R71-4, December 27, 1971.
52. "Statement of MSDGC on Proocsed IPCB, "Water Quality Standards
Revisions R71-4, January 25, 1572.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
58
53. Letter to Francis T. Mayo from MSDGC datec April 8, 1975; sucject:
^^ "Water Pollution Control Benefits of Prooosed Tunnels".
54. "MSDGC Research and Development Department 1978 Annual Report".
55. "Draft Technical Report Analyses of So-Called Solutions tc "locc and
Pollution Problems," Engineering Department, MSDGC, October 197S.
56. MSDGC responses to the GAQ (TARP) studies dated Sepcemoer 6, 1577,
Decemoer 13, 1977 ond August 1, 1979.
57. Part Report by Consoer-Townsend Associates "Design
Criteria-Expansion and Improvements Project #73-l4Q-2P, WSW, STW,
"Vol. 1, August 1977, pp. 26-3A.
58. Yosnitani, J., "Report on Partial Tertiary Filtration Concept, N.S.
STW E&I, Projects Nos. 73-052-2P, 73-051-2P," MSDGC Engineering
Department, April 1977.
59. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc./Murphy Engineering, "Report on Partial
Filtration," May 3, 1977.
•
60. MSDGC, MAO Department 1978 Annual Report and Supplement".
61. "MSDGC, M&O Daily Operations Record for 1978".
62. Letter by MSDGC, response to reouest for clarification on pollution
loading removals by TARP Phase I dated March 27, 1980.
63. Letter by MSDGC, transmitting additional documentation and summary
of documentation sources for water Quality review dated March 20,
1980.
"NAL DRAFT
:HI:AGO REPORT
-------
59
64. Hydrocomp, Inc., "Chicago River/Sanitary and Ship Canal/Calumet Sag
Channel Basin," part of 208 Water Quality Evaluation, September 1979.
65. ^SDGC, "Comments on the proposed Amendments to the Water Pollution
Control Board, 1/4CB 77-12, Docket D, Section HI, Bacteria ana
Disinfection," Novemoer 8. 1978.
66. Hyarocomp, Inc., "Documentation of Programs Used to Model the
Sanitary and Ship Canal System," Decemoer 1978.
57. NIPC, "Chicago River/Sanitary and Ship Canal Basin: Existing and
Simulation Report: First Test Plan," Technical Appendix (pp.
23-62), no date.
68. Hydrocomp, Inc., "Hydrologic Simulation Operations Manual," January
1976.
69. Hydrocomp, Inc., "Hydrologic Simulation Operations Manual," April
1977.
70. Hydrocomp, Inc., "Des Plaines River Water Quality Calibration,
Volume V, Number 4," part of 208 Water Quality Evaluation, December
1977.
71. "1977 Annual Report," RiO Department, MSDGC, 1977.
72. "1976 Annual Report," R&D Department, MSDGC 1976.
73. "1977 Annual Summary Report," Water Quality within the Waterways
System of tne Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,"
Report No. 79-8A, Vol. 1, R&D Department, MSDGC, May 1979.
74. 1977 Annual Summary Reoort, Water Quality witnin tne waterways
System of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,"
Reoort No. 79-86, Vol. 2, R&D Department, MSDGC, December 1979.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
60
75. 1576 Annual Summary Report, "V.ater Quality within the waterways
System of the Meropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,"
Report No. 78-18A, Vol. 1, R&O Department, MSDGC, October 1978.
76. 1976 Annual Summary Report, "Water Quality within the Waterways
System of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,"
Report No. 7S-15B, Vol. 2, R&D Department, MSDGC, Dacsxcer 1573.
77. 1975 Annual Summary Report, "Water Quality within the Waterways
System of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,"
Report No. 78-5A, Vol. 1, R*D Department, MSDGC, May 1978.
78. 1975 Annual Summary Report, "Water Quality within the Waterways
System of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,"
Report No. 78-55, Vol. 2, R&D Department, MSDGC, May 1978.
79. 1974 Annual Summary Report, "Water Quality within the Waterways
System of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicaoo,"
Report No. 77-25A, Vol. 1, R&D Department, MSDGC, November 1977.
80. 1974 Annual Summary Report, "Water Quality within tne Waterways
System of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago,"
Report No. 77-25B, Vol. 1, R4D Department, MSDGC, Novemoer 1977.
81. "Instream Sampling Program," 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Plan, R&D Department, MSDGC, July 1978.
82. "Design Report Expansion and Improvement to west-Southwest Sewage
Treatment Wori
-------
61
34. Report on "Expansion and Improvement of the Calumet Treatment
Works," Metcalf & Eday, Inc., for MSDGC, December 1973.
85. Design Report "Expansion and Improvement North Side Sewage Treatment
Works," Alvord, Buraick and Howson for MSDGC, Project 72-G5G-2P,
December 1973.
86. "1975 Annual Report," R&D Department, MSDGC, 1575.
87. "Preliminary Report, A water Quality Investigation of the 'Jppar
Illinois Waterway," Illinois State Water Survey, July 1972.
88. In the Supreme court of the United States, October Term 1966,"
Report of Albert B. Maris, Special Master, December 8, 1966.
89. "Lake Diversion Testimony Technical Report—The Effects cf Lake
Diversion in Meeting Water Quality Standards," MSDGC, January 26,
1976.
90. "Planning Dissolved Oxygen Model," MSDGC, Engineering Department,
January 1971.
91. "Environmental Assessment on Proposed Expansion and Imporovement of
the Calumet Treatment Works, Vol. 1", Metcalf i Eddy, Inc., May 1974.
92. "Environmental Assessment—Exoansion and Improvement to
West-Southwest Sewage Treatment Works, Project 72-138-2P," Consoer,
Townseed 4 Associates, June 1974.
93. "Environmental Assessment Reoort, Project 72-050-2P, Expansion and
Improvements, North Side Sewage Treatment Works", Alvord, Burdick
and Howson, 1974.
94. "Design Criteria, Calumet Sewage Treatment wor*s, Expansion and
Improvement," MSDGC, May 1974.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
62
95. "USEPA NPDES Permit No. IL0028C61, MSDGC of Greater Chicago, Calumet
STP," March 15, 1978.
96. "USEPA NPOES Permit No. IL0028088, Northside Sewage Treatment Plant,
March 8, 1979.
97. "UScPA NPDES r&rmit ho. IuGG23C53, iVest-Soutn^est Sewage Treatment
Plant," Feoruary 26, 1979.
98. "Design Criteria and Plant Facilities Report, Northside Sewage
Treatment Wor*s Expansion and Nitrification, Contract 73-052-2P,
Reta Engineers for MSOGC, May 1977.
99. "Design Criteria Expansion and Improvements to West-Southwest STW,
Project 73-14Q-2P", Vol 1, Consoer, Townsend 4 Associates for MSDGC,
August 1977.
100. "Report No. 78-9, TARP Groundwater Monitoring Summary Report
(October 1976-Septemoer 1977)," MSOGC, R4D Department, June 1978.
101. "People of the State of Illinois and Michigan vs. City of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, City of Kenosha, Wisconsin, City of Racine, Wisconsin,
City of South Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Sewage Commission of the
City of Milwaukee, and the Metroolitan Sewage Commission of the
Country of Milwaukee," Case No. 72-C-1253, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
102. "Backflows to Lake Michigan," MSOGC, Waterways Control Section.
103. "Geotechnical Design Report for the Calumet System of the Tunnel and
Reservoir Plain, Keifer 4 Associates, Inc., December 1976.
104. "Des °laines River System Tunnel and Shafts of the Tunnel and
Reservoir Plan," Part I, Preliminary Faction and Design Report,
Projects Nos. 73-164-2H, 75-131-2H and 75-131-2H, KnorWle, Sender,
stone 4 Associates, Inc., June 1977.
FINAL CRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
63
105. "Des Plaines River System Tunnels and Shafts or the Tunnel and
°sservoir Plan," Projects Nos. 73-164-2H, 75-132-2H and 75-131-2H
and 73-13Q-2H, Knorle, Bender, Stone, 4 Associates, Inc., Decemoer
1976.
106. Geotecnnicai Design Report, Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, Mainstream
Tunnel System," harza Engineering Co., August 1975.
107. Geotechnical Design Report, Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, Mainstream
System," Appendice a 4 C, Harza Engineering Company, August 1975.
108. Geotecnnical Design Report, Tunnel and Reservoir Plan. Mainstream
System," Appendix B," Harza Engineering Company, August 1975.
109. Report no. 76-24, Preliminary Report on the Exertion of Nitrogeneous
Oxygen Demand in Completely Nitrified of Partially Nitrified
Wastewaters," MSOGC, R&O Department, July 1976.
110. "Report No. 76-8, Report on the Single Stage Biological
Nitrification of Calumet Sewage," MSDGC, R4D Department, March 1976.
111. "Report No. 76-2, Single Stage Nitrification Study at the
West-Southwest Treatment Plant," MSDGC, R4D Department, November
1975.
112. "Report No. 74-11, Final Report Calumet Nitrification Pilot Plant,
MSDGC, R4D Department, April 1974.
113. "Report No. 75-26, Full -Scale Single Stage Nitrification Study at
the north Side Sewage Treatment Plant," MSDGC, R&D Department,
October 1975.
. "Evaluation of Effluent Regulations of the State of Illinois,"
Document No. 76/21, Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality
Control, March 1963.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
64
115. United States Public Health Service, "Report on the Illinois River
System -Stream Flows Reouired for Water Quality Control," March 1963.
116. MSDGC, "Testimony and Recommendations to the Illinois Pollution
Control Board in the Matter of water Quality Stanaaros Revision
R72-4 Sec. I-IVd," October 19, 1372.
117. Letter John T, Pfeffer, University of Illinois to Jacob Durr.slle,
Chairman, Illinois Pollution Control Board, Novernoer 27, 1972.
118. MSDGC, "Hearings on the Amendments of Certain Water Quality
Stanoaros R-72-4, Additional Information Reouested from the MSDGC,"
undated.
119. MSDGC, "Proposals of the MSDGC for the Amendment of Certain Rules
and Regulations Contained in Chapter 3 of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board Rules and Regulations," R70-8 and R71-14, undated.
120. MSDGC, "Supplement to Section II of the Proposals of the MSDGC for
the Amendment of Certain Rules and Regulations Contained in Chapter
3 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations,
R70-8 and R71-14," undated.
121. FDCC, "Computer Simulations Programs, Technical Report Part 2,"
December 1972.
122. ISWS, "Preliminary Report - A Water Quality Investigation of the
Upper Illinois Waterway," July 1972.
123. ISWS, A Waste Allocation Study of Selected Streams in Illinois," May
1974.
124. IDWR, "Additional Testimony to the Illinois Department of
Transoortation - Division of Water Resources," Harza Engineering
Company, May 12, 1976.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
• 65
125. "Master Design Program for Treatment Facilities," MSDGC, January 11,
1930 (Revision No. 1).
126. "Summary of Staff Comments on the Recently Enacted Illinois
Pollution Control Board Effluent and Water Quality Standards R-71-14
ana R7Q-8 for Board of Trustees-Board Meeting of April 6, 1972,"
MSDGC, Committee on water Quality and Effluent standards, April 4,
1*72.
127. "Fish Survey of Northeastern Illinois Streams," MSDGC, R<*D
Department, January 1975.
128. Impact on Recieving waters Quality due to MSDGC Pollution Control
Programs," Memorandum, Keifer 4 Associates, Inc., February 11, 1976.
129. Cnecwlist transmittal to EPA, memo dated January 8,193C frp, Regopm
V to DAA in EPA HQ on AST Projects Proposed by MSDGC,
130. Letter from EPA (Drayton) to U.S. Senate (Ribicoff) dated October
23, 1979, in response to the GAO reports on TARP.
131. Letter of Transmittal from MSDGC to USEPA and attached dovument,
"TARP Review, Remaining Phase I", April, 1980.
132. Cost TAbles and Schedules of Expansion and Improvements for the
Calumet STW, Received by Bums and Roe from MSDGC at 4/17/80
meeting, lo pages.
133. EPA Progran Reouirements Memorandum 75-34, "Grants for Treatment and
Control of Combined Sewer Overflows and Stormwater Discharges,"
December 16, 1975, 2 pages.
134. EPA memorandum on Clarification of Criteria Used on Advanced
Treatment Reviews, from H.L. Longest II to Water Division Directors,
November 19, 1979, 7 pages.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPORT
-------
66
135. letter from MSDGC to EPA regarding the 1978 Needs Survay, Cost
Merhodology for Control of Combined Sewer Overflow and Stormwater
Discharges, dated Decemoer 21, 1978, 6 pages. (Attachments not
includea).
136. Bums ana Roe Conference Notes (no.7) on four of Narthsice Ss-sc
Treatment Plant, April 18, 1980, 4 pages (including attachments).
137. Letter from MSDGC (F.E. Dalton) to EPA (W.H.Huang) regarding EPA
review of MSDGC projects, March 4, 1980, 4 pages (including
attacnments).
138. EPA Program Reouirements Memorandum 77-4, "Cost Allocations for
Multiple Purpose Projects," December, 1976.
139. EPA Program Reouirements Memorandum 78-9, "Funding of Ss^ags
Collection System Projects," March 3, 1978.
140. EPA, "Grants for Construction of Treatment Wori
-------
67
145. "Recommended Standards for Sewage Works, "Great Lakes-Upper
Mississippi River 3card of State Sanitary Engilnesrs (Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Few York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), 1978.
1^6. "Wastewater Treatment Plant Design, l! water Floou^tion Control
Fereration, wasnington, D.C., 1977.
147. "Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manusl," U.S
Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.
148. "Nitrification ana Denitrification FAcilities,1' U.S.Environmental
Protection Protection Agency, 1978.
149. "Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control. "U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1975.
150. "Capital and OiM Cost Estimates for Biological Wastewater Treatment
Processes, " U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979.
151. Hydrocomp, Inc., "Chicago Sanitary ana Ship Canal riydrologic
Calibration, " part of 208 Water Quality Evaluation, May, 1979.
152. U.S. EPA Quality Criteria for Water. 1976.
153. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, May 5, 1980,
From: Frank E. Dalton, Deputy Chief Engineer; To: Or. Wen H. Huang,
Facility Reouirements Division:
Cost Breakdown of alternatives a,b,c, and d for the Des PLaines,
Calumet and Morth Branch into their separable components.
Present worth analysis of the four alternatives.
154. In addition the following information is submitted as reouested:
No. of comoinea sewer overflow points to Des Plaines River - 90
individual overflow ooints.
FINAL DRAFT
-------
68
Maximum flow from each of these overflows - This information as
well as the number of overflow locations is listed in the tables
starting after page 1-14 of the report submitted to you under
our cover letter 4/11/80.
155. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, May 6, 1980,
From: Fran* E. Dalton, Deputy Chief Engineer; To: Dr. V.'en H. Huang,
Facility Reouirements Division:
A copy of the November 27, 1970 final calibration of the
Sanitary District's DO model.
A copy of the NDvemoer 10, 1970 verification (correlation) run
off the Sanitary District's DO model. This run utilised the
model calibrated for an August 1961 condition for a May - April
1961 verification run.
A copy of the August 31, 1970 intermediate calibration run
referencing water Duality data for 1970.
A set of information whicn includes—on computer sheets labeled
MSOWTR—the Sanitary District's model SOD loads in grams per
souare meter per day based on the model's 1975 calibration.
Also included are copies of the SOD demand values (dated May
1977) which were measured by the Sanitary District for the 208
Study; and calculation sheets (dated October 4, 1977 and noted
May 2, 1980) which compare measured (208) SOD values against
those obtained by the 1970 and 1975 calibrations of the Sanitary
District's model.
It is to be noted that the Sanitary District's mooel
calibrations were for a hot weather, August, conditions. The
SOD values obtained for the 208 Study are not always directly
comparable.
Calculation sheets (dated April 29, 1980) show effluent ammonia
loads in pounds per day emanating from the Sanitary District's
treatment plants tributary to the Main Channel. The years 1976
and 1977 are represented. Additionally the average ammonia flow
through the loc^port facility in pounds per day for these two
years is given. These ammonia mass balance indicate that no
evidence of significant nitrification witnin the Sanitary
District's waterways exists under present conditions. This was
also a conclusion of the 1970 Sanitary District modeling work.
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO REPCRT
-------
69
In 1976 the average ammonia flow from the Sanitary District's
treatment facilities was approximately 57,000 pounds per day;
and through the Lockport approximately 78,000 pounds per day.
More ammonia flows through Lockport tnan is generated by the
treatment plants. It is assumed that the remaining ammonia load
on the waterways is combined sewer overflows ana tne resultant
benthic deposits.
156. Personal conversation with Tom Meinholz, Consultant, Ecol-Sciences,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin (July 1980).
157, Thomann, Robert V. and Dominic M. DiToro, "Preliminary Model of
Recovery of the Great Lakes Following Toxic Substances Pollution
Abatement," Environmental Engineering and Science Division,
Manhattan College, Bronx, New York (submitted for publication), 198G.
158. O'Connor, D. 3., et al., "Distribution of Keypone in the James
River," draft report, 36 pages, Manhattan College, Bronx, ^3* York,
1980.
159. Hetling, L., E. Horn and J. Tofflemire, "Summary of Hudson River PCB
Study Results," Technical Paper #51, 88 pages, New York State
Department of Environmental Control, Albany, New York, 1978.
160. Thomann, R. V., "Steady State Modal of Fate of Chemicals in Diverse
Aouatic Food Chains," 46 pages, Environmental Engineering and
Science Division, Manhattan College, Bronx, New York, I960.
161. "Modeling of Toxic Substances in Natural Water Systems," Manhattan
College Summer Institute Notes, Bronx, New York, 1980.
162. Butts, Thomas A., and Ralph L. Evans, "Sediment Oxygen Demand
Studies of Selected Northeastern Illinois Streams," January 1978.
153. Illinois EPA letter to Wen Huang, EPA, July 18, 1980, and attached
IEPA comments on USEPA "Draft Summary of Findings on Remaining
Segment of TARP and MSDGC Advanced Treatment Facilities Proposed for
MSDGC," (July 1980).
FINAL DRAFT
CHICAGO R£?GRT
-------
70
164. MSDGC letter to Henry Longest, EPA, July 18, 1980, and the attached
MSDGC comments on USEPA "Draft Summary of Findings on Remaining
Segment of TARP and MSDGC Advanced Treatment Facilities Proposed for
MSDGC," (July 1980).
FINAL DRAFT
XICAGO REPORT
-------
I H«T CO.j 1A«I CO.
"J" COOK "CO.
UCtND
A UNDER CONSTRUCTION
rtj
FIGURE *-A
THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF
GREATER CHICAGO
-------
OUTFALLS IN COMBINED SEWERED AREA
FIGURE
;
* Moaacs TWWI «
— IOCZ TUNNEL
O STORAGE
RESERVOIRS
« TREATMENT
WORKS
REACH
0
@
©
@
®
-------
FIGURE III-A-1 TARP Project Status
IAS1
MKHJ5.AA
MAlNSTtlAM
SYSTEM
$975 M.31.3 MU
UPPt* DCS PLAIN O
STSTIM
$44 M. *.* ML
NOKTMltl
IMSMUMi J ^ ^,
I
TOTAL OES PLAINES
STSTIM
M.24.4 ML
cu.us.us~*
MU M.» Mi /
want n. t
l«OM.UMi
IN01AKA AVt I
JJ Mi \ MMKX04US
ISO M.IJ ML
TOTAL CALUMtT
SYSTEM
$537 M.36.9 ML
•at i • ntASt I nmiia uicou OJHSTWCTB*
tm*ma mist i ninna nw«moan
^.^=wv WASI i nuixa KOI HI as
1 1 1 f f f r QSTDIfi TUNNO.
HUMS* Mswvom WASI 1
I""""! THUfMlin WOKC
ri Ittrlf !»S S7ATKH
*Built by City of Chicago prior to TARP
TUNNEL AND RESERVOIR PLAN
THE MrrcoroiruH SAXIURT DISTRICT
Of GRUTIS CHICAGO
ENCIKtIKINC DtFiJTWENT
-------
FIGURE
(Ref. 85, Fig. HI -
NORTH SIDE SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS
FUTURE (1978)
TRIBUTARY AREA
.
COOK co.
OUHOCI
• S^tsi \
-------
FIGtJRZ lll-B-1-b
NORTH SIDE SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM
1O8IUD. »T»«C»LB»fTt iai.BTI»I
' » t»»Vttt«T CO«TVir TV .«.T« J-«»t
1 i • » i A
1 rtNAL SETTLING FINAL SETTUNS TANKS
) TANKS BATTERIES ABC.
B ATTEST a
} 14 TANKS PCX iATTEKT •»*«
• 1 TANKS 3l * TANKS TT'irTi*1 SWO PUB ~"*" T"
X BO'»«M>' SWO 2| 4 TANKS TS'»il4'-»"$WD *-T*
i AVC, RCt'LOHKS. it AVC. Kcr.izo MH* »»!*"
AVC, 'Iff PPM 1 . , T . p.
AM urr r . 1 •
20,000 «A1_ { t 2 So ! j
AERATION TANKS f| AERATION TANKS 1 -- =
BATTERY 0. 5, ^ . ^ j ... »«l.1
"I I ' " I ItUICt yk U
' i • ^ •«(
veu i fn ^openmcs orrtN-noN-zi MM.O 230 *co f;
SJITT w&SMU y ± e«»«rfo« T» >*IL*O«» e»« ' IA,
|»ro.»--sogg| j g
PUMP & BLOWER HOUSE TS |
PUMPS («•»' HSAOK BUOW6RS' « * 3 3 l«|
. ^ ,, I A I3O 4Q^OO««OJ9OO C7M So -5 2.1.
* * 2Ai
^~ T •« t 1 *4 Jtl*l"CLtl*Tf Cli. ^ 1^ 1 •< 1 i • t 1C«**C»L>*T'CAU
C9Ni^ .^NK L™M-«™J
ILVOPO, sunoicx a HOWSON TM* METJ«OPOU'
- 1
two is ii r. HI MAIN woo
.1 MOO AIH Lift
PUMPS-MAI it. A ac
1 1
•WT
1 1
— 1 1 1
4"T +
SLUOCC
CONC
TANKS
TWO TANKS
TO'i44'-»"
t!4' SWO
-iUj.
|__<
COIIC. SLUDGE TUMPS
liinci its IIP. -100 fsi
i
;! .
=T-
•• : •
5-'i=-
«; 3»
s=;»
—1-
T
Ti.v SANiTiirr
liTEH C^'CiSC
-
1
1
1
t,
i
-------
Q.
Q.
LLI
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
Maintenance & Operations Department
NORTH SIDE SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS
FLOW AND EFFLUENT DATA
70 r-
60
c 50
03
o
I 30
+~t
I 20
10
350
340
330
320
310
300
290
Q
O
O
O
C5
CO
'73 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78
Year
*7S
Figure lll-B-l-c
(Compiled by B & R based on Ref. 60 & 136)
WASTEWATZ3 CEAKAC7SSISTICS OF NSSTW
-------
TABLE IH-8-2
PERFORMANCE OF WEST-SOUTHWEST FACILITY
Flow:
MGD:
BOO:
Mg/L:
SS:
Mg/L:
NE-:
Mg/L:
Average
Range
Influent
Effluent
% Removal
Influent
Effluent
% Removal
Influent
Effluent
% Removal
(ref. 4,5,6,7)
1975
847
744-1446
156
7
94
199
7
97
-
1976
786
744-1446
153
5
97
232
6
97
2
+
1977
797
570-1370
163
5
97
269
7
97
10.4
2.6
75
-
1978
821
569-1530
138
6
96
196
7
96
7.7
1.8
77
-------
o
(S
O C
£ —<
JJ (3
n 0
a w
3
O
en
CQ
a
S
r«6
—it .. _ ..
^ _, T
•><____
;
i
;
1
i
«
hi
t.
0)
U.
J
*»
a
V
Z
j
acuum
>
j
2
0
(/>
i
X
w
t
w
«
b>
j
«
^
vt
^
O
~L
,
L
"c
J5
a.
i
81
2J
j>
M
O
^en
5
i *
]s
o 2
-DC
I 8
(0 C
a.
^
»
k
*
A
i
M*
V .
5
3 «
O
oo
f
,
te
C
0
Z
•
i
C
I
1
r
i
1
0)
3
4
(U
T3
io
i/i
0)
j
•
L
«•
MM
6
ad
=
9
U
l/l
"c
_o
c_
k
(L
1
1
t
1
E
^
^
C
2
k
'1
: <
j
t
c
j
o.
1
Q
^
w»
-o
« _^.
0 — *"
i,
!
i
I
I
t
i
t
i
1
-------
TABLE lll-B-3-o
LOW AT CALUMET PLANT
(1950-751
i
1
i
1
1
i
1
^r_
560
or o
*r •* ^
970
971
573(1)
340
"at: ' ~aiss
oooulatioi
sillior.s
0.614
0.394
0.921
0.950
—
p 4i V»^ _.— . . w »
(raf.84, ?.
•ae« •?" r?»j
MGD GCD
126.
177.
197.
177.
223.
^
0 203
5 198
5 214
2 137
ocn
1Q7
2-5)
Aver.
MGD
119
131
163
153
•
ace crv-weather flow
percent of
GCD averace flow
193
169
182
166
138(D
94
£5
35
89
133
167
-------
a _
5 5
~ U
J c Z
«Q - 3
2 2
~
— 3
3 J
i
1
1
!
MHV
"1
I
1
i
.
?
I
.X
1^1
i
I
—
3
>
•
J
j
.
'
]
C
.
4
r
d
«
e
Mi
.
i
i
>
»
I
a
x,
5
_
• 1
|
1
i 1
— .
C
5
I
i
u
»
T
|
°-
IH»
2
c
6
]
! h
; i
j • !
.L..J
1
T
o
^
( »
^^"^^~^^j I
! .
J.^;
J- I '
2§ i ;
• *- ! |
^ I I .
1
1
T f "" ~] .
* I
11 ; 1 !
J ^
^^^J
4
j &
" " o
5 ° . 1 o
£
4
1
"H c
'
< "~
w-
J_ _
2
_c M
4
a
— ^£
i
r"MMMH^^Hi
J--1^
t
S
1
•~n
•J
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
*
i
i
i
•
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
*
i
t
r
i
-.1
„ u
S"
3 I
w I
o <
Ud
r
-r>4 *r
§£
BL 3
s C
-------
I
IH-
UJ
3
FIGURE £T-£-::-« -
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY FOR CENTRAL DRAINAGE BASIN
THE METROPOLITAN SANfTARY DOTR1CT OF GREATER CHCAGO
REPORT ON WEST-SOUTH WEST
SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS
CONSCCft TOWNSEND a ASSOC. CONSULTING ENGTCERS
-------
TA3LS lll-S-3-b
PAST C2NSUS POPULATION DATA
(re£.34, ?.2-2)
Basin stucv are*
oooulation ?
Suburban City of
'Year Cook Countv Chicaoo
1930
1 340
1950
1950
1970
120,573
140,794
214,794
451,355
653,047
254,
251,
325,
•368,
403,
509
929
096
250
358
Total
375
402
540
820
1,056
,032
,723
,535
,106
,415
uture
Subur
Cook
96
115
179
333
576
service a
rea cooul
bar. City of -
Countv Chicaao
,561
,496
,621
,439
,536
254
251
325
353
403
,509
,929
,096
,250
,368.
Tot
351
273
505
751
979
azion
ai
,078
,425
,717
,739
,954d)
1. Census population of Present Service Area is 921,000.
-------
DESIGN DATA FOR EXISTING CALUMET TREATMENT UNITS
( ref. 5, p. U7A-118 )
Design Data
Plant Design Capacity - (MGD) 220
Total Hydraulic Capacity - (MGD) 330
Blower Capacity
Total (CFM) 184,000
Firm (CFM) 140,000
Screens
Design Flow (MGD) 220
Grit Chamber
Design Flow (MGD) . 220
Primary Settling
Design Flow (MGD) 220
Secondary Treatment
Design Flow (MGD) 300
Return Sludge (MGD) 152
Chiorination Capacity
Design Row (MGD) 330
-------
PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING CALUMET FACILITIES - 1978 AVERAGE VALUES
(ref. 7, p.U9-58)
Parameter Influent Effluent Percent Reduction
(mg/1) (rag/1)
BOD .168 13 92
SS 328 22 93
NH3-N 17.6 15.1 U
-------
^Wv
^ « La
asaj*.. «±., urancsss
»™ u^i ? -
^/^ 1
•JX': « C
^«.
CALUMET BASIN
STUDY AREA
• PRESENT SERVICE AREA
TO BE INCLUDED IN
FUTURE SERVICE AREA
BLOOM TOWNSHIP SANITARY
DISTRICT
/ i
P 'f . : St^'.:4—" ! j OJ*
/ .: »-.,«„ Ao« ! • 3(3
/ • >~«
-------
TABLE III-B-I
(Compiled based on ref. 61)
North Side Sewage Treatment Works
1978 Sewage Treatment Operating Record
Raw Sewage Characteristics and Plant Performance
Porometer
Flow, MGD
mo. min,
mo. max.
yr. avg.
Row Sewage
208
395
294
Primary Effluent
Secondary Effluent
BCD5, mg/l
mo. mm.
mo. max.
yr. avg.
17
188
87
2!
207
65
2
40
13
TSS, mg/l
mo. min.
mo. max,
yr. avg.
13
288
104
9
258
73
2
32
10
Organ ic-N, mg/l
mo. min. 0.4
mo. max. 32.5
yr. avg. 7.1
0.3
33.9
5.6
0.0
7.2
1.5
NH3-N, mg/l
mo. min.
mo.max.
yr. avg.
O.i
19.3
11.3
1.3
17.0
7.8
O.I
13.7
6.0
-------
(»<• 7.
« 4*4 ra<. «•)
. MO
(.IM.OOO
w tfiJjMC«> LLroael
2. Cnenes so. 73-CS»-*« .<
(tJJliia '"ll-«t«4t Ccaa. sex.)
J. O««a«t »•. 7X3»-»
MS.1
. 73— 13«-3l
sex.)
S.
(.
T.
*«*.)
M. 73-1*0-3 t 7>U3>a
2. 743. WO
$ 75-ua-a
f. »B9m«t M. 75-U3-21 *
. JT>ia«n 'ninn io
».
13.
no. 7i-U4-a i 75-ti*-at
Xwaaa)
75-U»-2H
»*«ns« sa. 73-117- u
so. 73-111-3
« va. 7j-j;a-a
4. Caa«U«« »». 73-JIJ-2J
S.440,300
73S.OOO
3.S10.000
33.0B7.000
(40.000
340,000
1.000.000
3.304,000
3..2U.OOO
4.431.000
(13,000
:,3M.OOO
U.3M.OOO
UC.1OO
314.300
122,000
U.4
M.i
(4.6
(4.3
U.J71.740.-
UJ30.J7J.-
Mr4n.«7S.>
107.t37.300.
19.a77.J70.
101.170,MO.
U. Ml. 774.
tS.30S.S10.
11.1S2.13*.
712.3S7.J1S.
4.JM,«SO.-
*4 .403 .1*4.
«tinM C^nra
«4.140.4*0.- *.| MO 11.44
34.fM.400.-
3.<
4.*
4.1
3.1
4.3
31.3
3«t
n»
40*
30
3T7
J.3M
4».02
1*4.23
40.13
3S.14
«.* 217* «?
JluUu.
IMTC ant
-------
*» Q V»
-* O O
o
o
si
e
85
Ij U
w
a
o
o
o o
o o
o o
« «.
2 °
2 ^
O CO
a
«
«w
o
in
o
• > a
O U
o
a
o
o
o
o
*
o
o
o
O
O
a
o
o
tn
o
o
0
a.
o
c
o
O
CO
3
!i4
C
*s
»- o ^
o
o
o
a
^
p»
o
o
o
«
i
w
e
^
-a
u
jj
OT
»—
0
JJ
u
«
u
jj
c
r*
tu
O
f*
"o
£2
= c
tN U
I C
O
C£
O
Si
^
o
•^4
«M
ainstreau
Worth Ma
Z jj
^" *^
-S
a S
2 "
M w
0 Jj
r: u
System
05
C
w4
Itl
•M
P^
£4
CN a
1 O
^r
0 0
*~ JJ
1
n jj
P* 0
CJ
u 2
U JJ
<3 W
^
JJ *"
? 5
— .
«
i
CM
n
*—
m
r*
jj
o
|9
•^
\4
^}
z.
o
o >
•w <
tv< r™
~ n
» o
JJ
— tf «^
C O
(5 .
« ^^
U -a
_
?J
1 C
«— JJ
n
•— o
I >
>n <
r~
c
JJ c
0 JJ
a u
u u
JJ •*
C. ~4
V
>
<
a
-4
u
-4
i-3
-—
?!
i
o
n
1 C
ui o
r» — i
n
JJ C
0 -J
a jj
Vj X
J.) U
e
I
O
•C -O
o
•u 3
C «-i
3 C
tu 3
S 5 = M
* W H C
gi o 3
e K j:
c ^ o a.
•3 I S-
S S . 5:
0)
(u
10
O w
-. w
<
S2
31
3
U
rH
C
CJ
-------
-**- in
328"
QD cn
O\
in
•
r^
«o
r* o» c« o
• • • •
o in m r»
a o»
o o a
e» H- -u
«J 3 t
h >-4 «>
O O s-
H > °
fa <
«n
in
o
a
o
a
«N
•S
-I J=
c a ii
»* S C»
« e e
in
in
«
o
13
O O
«3 O
a
l ;
CN
=' O
w
e
a
c.
a
O <-4
^1 ^
es jJ 0
Sao
I) U O
n r»
in
O
m
i) 3 O
S i) t-
V £< 0
you
u y c.
a
fc a >
O a
a
o
«»>
e
ts
o
o
o
« O
to o
«n o
« «b
« O
to o>
»- o
^ «
^ «n
a m
m
•
a
in
•
p»
a
o
o
o
e
u
o
o
o
o
m
Q o
** o -i
a «i z . >
I °
o
•3
a
c
3
O
o
a
10
04
o
o
o
^
o
a
o
a
o
a
o
o
<3l
CJI
Hi
o i «: o i Q
Ul
d
jJ M
.d o i
^a « o
U u o
?5 JJ CN
a c i
o <-->
tl U r»
U
C
•a
Vi
o
c*
6-
u
a
S
r-
o
n
i-t
c
jj
o
e
c
JJ
n
E
3
i— (
1C
CJ
c
c
u
a
^
a,
-------
T
METHOWDUTA* SANItAUT QiSTHlCT O* ««ATtd CMtCAfiO («* S O C C.1
7 OAT 10 TIA* LOW fLOW ACL IWUl
StWAfiE TKCATMCMT H.AHT EMtUlNT g
LAKt UICXICAM OCVtXSlON
REF. 123 (1974)
• OlHECTiOMOf STRCAM HOW
FIGURE IV-A-I
FLOW REGIME AT 7Q10
-------
ac O >-
as o ^ s •<
a * S S a
o o = a S £
£ x N- o ^ js
«^ w _. 5 »
•< ^ ss S ~ *
Ill
P 2 ss
o
UJ
wn
O
CS
a.
-------
OT
Z
O
M
£4
|
Z
W
u
z
O W
CJ Z
u
&* fr*
Z W
)gj >•
H W
J CS
-7 iJ u
' 0 fr-
< 0, <
V S
^H
J EC
63 ZZ O
J r- <
S3 Z b
< OK
£-> S3
CO
63
fj oj
So
5 i^
< u
H
f S
r- U
rH Z
IH
tv
O
X
5
2
D
W
u E
0) 0)
C ^j
-H a
(C >.
rH W
O.
H
03 V
0) >
Q-H
°»
u
OJ
>
••4
(X S
0)
4J JJ
.
3 W
rH
(C
u
E
1 <0
1 -u
5^ T3 03
0) C >i
> 1C 05
•H
C5 >1»H
rM (Q
O « C
CT4J (C
1C -H U
u c
•H (0 CU
JS W-H
C/3
rH
r
in
•
ON
o
JJ
r*
»
^
^•4
1
r«»
•
OS
O .
4J
m
•
(N
rH
X,,
C^
E
•
o%
O
^"
•
C4
O
a
>— •
c
4)
>,
X
O
•a
0)
rH
O
03
03
•H
r->
^
1
ON
•
ON
O
4J
VO
• •
CN
^•^
1
'o
ON
0
4J
ON
•
m
rH
V^
0>
g
fX
•
09
O
as
•
r^
C
OJ
01
>^
X
0
^«.
rH O
ic o
U ffl
•H —
S
0} T3
J= C
O (C
0 S
•H 4}
<•> m
X.
S
o
CO
•
CN
rH
£
fi
^
O
4J
en
•
o
^
^s.
S
fl
«N
O
4J
f*1
rH
cn
W
^^
03
-a
-H
rH
0
03
flQ
(U
rg
C
flj
a
03
3
rH
o E
0
•V O
-o
rH rH
rH *V»
(13
O JJ
^t ^
3 .
in O
in u
•H —
^^
rH
O
0 0
V O
• rH
{X "Ny
rH 03
JJ
0 C
4J 3
O
ON O
c\ —
<_
rH
S
o
0 0
rH O
^ rH
rH ^s^
rH O
^
o e
4J S
o
«
4J
c
0
0}
V
i_l
a
(U -.
0) .
c o
T3 Ci
rr* *—
-------
09
9k
Process
Parameter
6 Design Flow
in
CO
r-
-f
05
^ S
id
H .C
»4
ca
H £* <
3 Z U
Oi3 M
62 2 CM
CS S-t M
< es
en w S-"
a a M
M £H Z
H a
o z
g*
u z
en o
H
Cu H en
O a z
^^
C-
X
u
IH
o
<
fc.
ss
U *a 4J
O C
JJ C 0)
«w O E
<~4
•H c o
ta a to
jj a aj
o x g
E-" W M
> C ,
f4 n JJ M cJ
a « ~< E
C -H O 4J «O H
ed Q 05
Cu -O *8
id O-H
H > «
o a|
M X
04 C3
•a c
•a «
r*i n co a
PA C E
«* O 3
V CJ CU
O^r
« 5 TJ
•H • 0) 0)
cu ca c a)
o o v. cu
CS Z Z en
•O O Q
« S C3
4) S
Cu o\
cn "-to
• m 09
JJ n m
C CU If
us a
CJ fi
o
e i
; o c a
H .c os « •
n cu«n
4 »-H •
r« cn r* O
a «
S-I r-l
a a
S 4)
M e
ca
c
O 0)
>-H SJ
id JJ e 0
C 3 * cn —•
O --4 > C (d E
A -4 OJ 2 O >i 3
Cu~4 rH 0 -H JJ JJ
M a o — £i -H «
en cn — co u cj c
S
id
ca
s-i ca
c
o
cu
S-l
o
U en
jj a
•H C
5-1 -H
O fa
-------
,f
^^
TT
<«»
0
f\l
\ ^4
e
1
>
a
,J
<
£4
en
^ . •••
e* wj
a cs z
S O'O
a s» H!
C£ £-<
M S-» <
D Z CJ
oa HI
£•3 ^?* 2^
CS r* w —
cn a =-i ei
a « M 3
H £-. Z C
S-, _|
H a Q jj
J C Z C
H < < 0
US 0
< a z*~
a oa o
M
b ca cn
O o z
HI <
es ss x
< EH a
r cs
s o
D Z
cn
rocess
rameter
;sign Flow
** «
L4 m ^
4) C
4J C 4)
c •
r-l 01 JJ HI C.
(0 4) -H g
c -H o 4) »a H
O ^^ fl C3 (U
,^J .^J ^* »2 ^2
JJ iH (0 O -H
•H -H O EH > •
TJ o o a
T3 (0 H H X
< fa o cu a
a
03
Ol 4}
C . S
Cnp4 irt
*Q U 1
E« 3 •
cro
VO-H IH
H HJ n
4)
g
j_i pH
(0 0
•H > O
3 £
O *O
14 01 -H CN
-H AJ 3 CO
O C D1 •
(0 -H vo
co S-. J U
D
4)
g
3
•H
O
0) CT
vi* 1^3 jg
G -H
(0 3 ci
£i C'vo
•H «
co iJ m
^
^
10
c ^n
•H C
E -H
•H i— 1 CO
fH JJ ^
4J J-) C
U 4J C
o- cn £1
•a
i-i
14
4)
4J
*
5
4)
Z
C
0
•H
4J
10
cn
j^
4)
4)
C
0
•H
4J
03
iJ Q^
cn c
•H
s-i -a
4) i-l
4J -H
0) 3
Z £3
01
4)
O O 0 O <
jj vo vo vo m i
4) n n a R
a < a o a i
vo
•
o
(0
XI
O C3
&» s
»
H U
31
>^
^j ^p
4) r*
OJ •
JJ H
« 1-1
n a
C3 O C3 O
S S 2 2
CD CO O T
n n n r*»
• « • •
CD CO C3 iH
iH iH i— 1
C 4)
O -H TJ
•H !-l -H
i) O 3
(0 *^ CT1
i_( ^j ^^•
4) iO i-3'
< ffl —
3 <
n
II
d
o a a a a
C3 C5 O O C5
S S S S S
cn m n vo vo
p» r» r*- m tn
n n u n R
< a cj c a
K
>^
^
4)
4J
jj
a
a
a a a o
O O C3 O
S S S S
PI n fi n
CO CO CO CO
n n n ii
< o o a
1
•H
S-l
jj o tn
01 -U 4J
•H -H
^^ C Vu
0 CJ
S-H -U
O *». il
t-f 3 (0
P-i O JJ2
1: per gallon
lewage treated
^w» V4
*H O
S S
a o n o
fl CU
•• O o « o
X^ F } ^5
^tJ W ^^
0* ^ ca
• VB^ ^^
l^t ^J ^ tf ^
di ca CN M o
a c -H M vo
< HI r) fa 04
»
0)
^3 V^
4-> 4)
•H 3;
3 0
O^ *"^
43 C 01 C5
O «H U
S3 JJ 4) 5
•H 01.3 41
C.-H O Z
4) X r-l
r-«
(0
G» g g
3 a VM a U O O O
e 4) • o o
dj 5 jj » g *
CJ O 01 O !M O
p^ c m ^ IH
f-~ S3 HI CN fa CN
01
J-l '
4)
3
o
rH
c
(4
•H
<
m m
^y in
4) C
W *H
•C A
£•« Z
M
•H
<
5
4)
C
C
4} •»-(
C <0
O S
n
c
•H
id
S
%4
•H
»^
O
5
£•"
01
c
•H
83
S
s_i
•H
<
0)
JJ
M
C\
-------
Process
Parameter
6 Design Flow
iHN
JJ JJ
jj u-i
o *•*
a o o o o o
<4-l r»
a « it n a n a
en K < oa o a H
Contact Tlme=15 min
including conduits
& filters
Return Rate
cn
;=> 5"i 05
f
C
S O O
Hs£
3£3
oa H
a s b.
K E* >-t —.
< C£ -C
cn a s-> co
a ss M 3
W*. *^ M
C"1 <- w
5" -H
H a a -u
i-3 C3 Z C
H < < o
OS O
< a z —
Cn cn o
H
6* a cn
O Q Z
> cn cu
< i? a
z «s
S O
=i Z
cn
%4 ia jj
0 C
-u c co
«w O S
< -H
»H C O
fl «J S-i
jj a a
o x s
EI a M
a
c
o
>»
JJ
c
H
13 O
O
O
1-1 V4
O 04
OJ
X
H
03
Cn co
•H JJ
JJ -H
03 «H
•H -H
X U
a io
fH
C
O
iO O O O O T
Jw ^ TT ^- O O II
CO »»«,»•, r-(
JJ CN CN CM VO ^O 53
JJ Crt G^ CN f**» P*
(8 i! ii n it n -o
is
u
•H
CJ
(8 03
S C 03
CU (S S-i (0
CO
M CM CN
JJ JJ JJ
Ll
0
83
oooiHig
i
O J-i
X •
JJ JJ
c CJi O
3 -H T3 «3
JJ JJ 3 CU
-------
oooooooooooooooooooooocc
ocoooooooooooooooo o o o o. o
OOOOvnOQoJOTGOOOOOOOO (MOOOm
o
(VI
en r< W
S en J
G (vi ca
ci S
< H
EX D
5 °
< °?
en :-H
oo
0- :-,
* °"
•r a
2
<
H
o
Q
Z
E-
o
fc.1
0
o
0,
o
en
O
2
River Grove
o
2
ca
5
Rosemont
Schiller Parl<
Stlckney
u
"c
D
cu
c
Stlckney Tow
Stone Park
Summit
Westchcster
CO
**
Western Spri
£2 "
*£ 0
en H
£
*M
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O^OOOOOOOOOOOOOvS
OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOCOO
oooor-ooooo^ooooino^oooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O-COOOOOOOOOOOO^OOOO
OOOOOO
OiDOOOO
o
r-
O —
-<
-------
Process
Parameter
@ Design Flow
v
S5
0
a.
M ** JJ
o c
jj c a;
«H O S
< -H CU
n >
rH C O
el ffl )H
jj a aj
o x g
5l H M
w cn
c c
O-H
•H -0
JJ rH
JJ 3
cn a
3*0
(U C
Z* fl3
ation
a cement
•H «
-a
O !>«<
Z 0
-,§
o
RJ JJ O O O
a c
rH 0 JJ Ha
O O -H S
C -H O O 13 M
o -u K3 a a
rtj O -H
•o o
•O
o
•3
O.
Q
rH
rH rH ti rH
J-l -H
(U
cn
a
o
3
a
i-i
0 -
CN E-i E-i vo
c ca
(U J<
o c
C (8
O £->
O
c
o o
Cn-H
13 JJ
3 f8
rH 5H
cn 4J
CN
CN
-------
id 2
CM
O"»
en
vo
CM
VO
O
CM
CM
O
CM
O
CM
o
CM
x c
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
CSI
o
CM
O
CM
O
CM
if)
CM
I
en
O>
.a
CJ 2 »— •
o u
O 10 u.
CM
r*.
CM
CM
cn
CM
S 2 *
ro csj co
CM
CM
1/1 gf
r*. o **
*—
if a I"
r- • cj
co -o
CM
00
«*)
CO
00
If)
CO
•3
Ol
Q.
vt
C
O
O)
-------
PLANT SIZING
1. Base Dry Weather Flow
( at 315 gpcd and 2.34 million population* ) 895 M6D
2. Lawndale lagocn Return Flow 5.2 M6D
3. Water Treatment Plant Sludge 2.3 MGD
4. TARP Dewatering Capacity** 455 MGD
* Population Projection from Ref. 82
**Estimated at SOX of DWF, based on 320 gpcd
1357.5 MGD
-------
(Ref. 5, P. U7A - 145)
Proposed Calumet Process
Condition Table
(To Accompany
Positions*
ADWF (M6D) 194 42 236 236 236 236 236
Design How (MGD) T94 160 354 354 354 354 354
BODc (ppm) • 145 145 145 126 17 20 10
SS (ppm) 2H 214 214 168 16 18 12
NH3-N (ppm) 21 21 21 NA 21 2.5 2.5
06 (ppm) 0000455
RC (ppm) 0000001
Hydraulic Capacity (MGD) 300 160 460 460 460 460 460
*Positions have following definitions:
1&2: Plant influent
3: Influent to grit chambers
4: Preliminary tank effluent
5: First-stage aeration tank effluent
6: Second stage effluent
7: Tertiary filter or final effluent
-------
. PROPOSED CALUMET PLANT FACILITIES - EXPANSION AND UPGRADE
(Ref. 5, p. 117A-113)
Existing New
n~"' *• ' Facilities Facilities Total
Projected Average Dry Weather Flow (MGD) 236
TARP Dewatering Flow (MGD) • US
(based on 149 days/yr pumpback)
Design Flow (MGD . 354
Pumping Capacity
Wetwell Firm (MGD) 224 219 443
Stand-by (MGD) 110 SO 160
Total Hydraulic Plant
Capacity (MGD) 330 460
Present Design Capacity 220
Blower Capacity
Total (CFM) ' • 184,000
Firm (CFM) 140,000 404,000 544,000
Screens
Design Flow (MGD) 220 ' 220 . 440
Grit Chamber
Design Flow (MGD) 220 354* 354
Primary Settling
Desing Flow (MGD) 220 134 354
First Stage Secondary
. Treatment
Design Flow (MGD) 300 . 54 354
Return Sludge 152** 54 354
Nitrification
Design Flow (MGD) 0 354 354
Return Sludge (MGD) 0 354 531
Filter Influent Pump
Station „ ... .„_
Firm 0 46a 465
Tertiary Treatment
(Filtration)
Design Flow (MGD) 0 354 354
Backwash (MGD) 0 22 22
AChlorination
Desing Flow (MGD) 330 354
* Consideration shall be given to either completely replacing-
existing aerated grit tanks or to retaining them.
-------
SXHJ3IT 4
o
Q
LiJ
c:
1-
o
c:
V
CALUMET SYSTEM
ON
200 3CC
COST IN 3i,cCC,CCOs
BOD REDUCTION
TXt
Of Gs
A
ttnin
"V/C
-------
o
o>
s.
II
O K—
> 1
J-g
2
O
5
I
u_
LU
O
ae.
o_
a
LU
O
a_
O
LU
s
c
U
V
U
o
?
-o
O
U
«
wo
CN
OJ
c
-------
97'
MAINSTREAM SYSTEM
ico .-
2C
2C
< i
. /
-T Ac
i7
/
f
SCO SCO !CCC :2CC I
COST IN 5 1,000,000s-
II!
I 1
V
i i
i i
Li
E O D
-------
LJ
h-
<
/ >
2
LJ
i . i
CL
100
so
eo
70
so
50
BES PLAINES'SYSTEM-
i
INCLUDES MAINSTREAM TUNNEL ,
AND QUARRY RESERVOIR STORAGE
DES PLJUNES! RIVES
UNNELS ONLY
L«
£
30
20
10
i I34x!0° ,
'/«?
h?
tarc«ptors only
150 300 " 450 SOO
CAPITAL COST (? i,000,000s ) JAN. 1950
2,475
1 k
I ,
^ ^* ^ f i • I / Q ^ *^ ^
c. c. r.>i W 2 =.nS
• in.in.i.. HOLDING TANKS
TARP
.'.'.rr:: SPOUT AM sj>H!?A,t
O7
-------
T-<- 5
1978 Operative Data for Battery D
(Ref. 61)
NH3 mg/1
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Temp. *F
52
52
52
56
61
63
70
71
72
69
64
55
uetenn on
Time, hrs.
7.3
7.7
5.9
4.8
5.8
5.5
5.1
5.4
5.4
7.0
7.2
6.9
Average
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
1.5
2.7
0.3
Maximum
• •V
0.5
2.3
2.7
0.3
1.1
1.1
0.9
2.3
6.8
5.6
2.0
-------
FIGURE 2.
50,
'Ca'ch Basin
2
C
s.
1
1
401
J
C ^**
G
O
S:or3ss—Treatment
(200 seres)
Lev-l A
Siorags-Tres'.ment
Sewer Seoaration
Ooti.-nized
Storagi-Treatmen:
(2'CCC acrss)
0 20 4O 60 30 IOC
=i 20D« SS.T.CVC
1"!; •= —cva' cos: for a tysics' cc -~^ "re IT.-.-;- 3^'
------- |