Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

IEPA ATTACHMENT

NO..Gisa

100 EAST ERIE STREET

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611-3154

312.751.5600

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Terrence J. O'Brien

President

Kathleen Therese Meany

Vice President

Gloria Alitto Majewski

Chairman of Finance

Mr. Toby Frevert, Manager

Division of Water Pollution Control

Bureau of Water

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 627p4-9276

Dear Mr. Frevert:

Subject: Evaluation of Management Alternatives for the Chicago Area

Waterways: Investigation of Technologies for Supplemental

Aeration of the North and South Branches of the Chicago River,

Flow Augmentation of the Upper North Shore Channel, and Flow

Augmentation and Supplemental Aeration of the South Fork of the

South Branch of the Chicago River

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, at the

request of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), hereby

submits the enclosed reports entitled "Technical Memorandum 4WQ:

Supplemental Aeration of the North and South Branches of the Chicago

River", "Technical Memorandum SWQ: Flow Augmentation of the Upper North

Shore Channel", and "Technical Memorandum 6WQ: Flow Augmentation and

Supplemental Aeration of the South Fork of the South Branch of the

Chicago River."

Using the services of Consoer Townsend Envirodyne Engineers, Inc., these

reports have been developed to evaluate technologies and costs for

Supplemental Aeration of the North and South Branches of the Chicago

River, Flow Augmentation of the Upper North Shore Channel, and Flow

Augmentation and Supplemental Aeration of the South Fork of the South

Branch of the Chicago River.

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Lou Kollias at (312) 751-

vim--

General Superintendent

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6WQ

FLOW AUGMENTATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL AERATION OF THE SOUTH FORK

OF THE SOUTH BRANCH OF THE CHICAGO RIVER

(BUBBLY CREEK)

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF

GREATER CHICAGO

NORTH SIDE

WATER RECLAMATION PLANT AND SURROUNDING

Revision 4— January 12, 2007

MWRDGC

Project No. 04-014-2P

CTE Project No. 40779

FINAL 01/12/07

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Flow Augmentation and Supplemental Aeration

6-1

Objective and Scope of Study

6-4

Water Quality Dissolved Oxygen Standards for Bubbly Creek

6-5

Target Waterway DO Levels for this Study

6-5

Flow Augmentation Modeling

6-5

Modeling Runs for Flow Augmentation of Bubbly Creek without

Aeration

6-6

Modeling Runs For Flow Augmentation with Aeration of the

Transferred Flow

6-7

Modeling Runs for Flow Augmentation without Aeration of the

Transferred Flow in Combination with Supplemental Aeration

6-11

LAND AVAILABILITY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL AERATION

6-14

COSTS FOR FLOW AUGMENTATION WITH AERATION OF THE

TRANSFERRED FLOW ?

6-16

COSTS FOR FLOW AUGMENTATION (WITHOUT AERATION) AND

SUPPLEMENTAL AERATION ?

6-16

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ?

6-18

FINAL 01/12/07

LIST OF TABLES

Table 6.1

Percentage of Time that Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations are

Greater than 5 mg/1 at 1-55 and Bubbly Creek for July 12, 2001 -

November 10, 2001 for Different Transfer Rates for Unaerated

Flow Augmentation

6-7

Table 6.2

Summary of Costs for Flow Augmentation with Aeration of

Transferred Flow

6-16

Table 6.3?

Summary of Costs for Supplemental Aeration and Flow

Augmentation of Bubbly Creek

6-17

Table 6.4?

Summary of Costs for Flow Augmentation with Aeration

Of Transferred Flow and Supplemental Aeration and Flow

Augmentation without Aeration of Bubbly Creek

? 6-19

FINAL 01/12/07

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 6.1

The Chicago Area Waterways

6-2

Figure 6.2?

Aerial Photograph of Bubbly Creek

6-3

Figure 6.3

Flow Augmentation with Aeration of Transferred Flow,

% Compliance with 5 mg/I Minimum Dissolved Oxygen,

For All Simulated Time Periods in the Marquette Model

6-9

Figure 6.4

Flow Augmentation of Bubbly Creek with Aeration of

Transferred Flow

6-10

Figure 6.5?

Flow Augmentation (50 mgd) and Supplemental Aeration

Of Bubbly Creek at 3 locations, Percent of Hours Complying

with 5 mg/I Dissolved Oxygen Criterion, For All Simulated

Time Periods in the Marquette Model

6-12

Figure 6.6

Flow Augmentation and Supplemental Aeration

of Bubbly Creek

6-13

Figure 6.7?

Conceptual Layout For 80 g/s SEPA Technology

6-15

FINAL 01/12/07

APPENDICES

Appendix A Unit Costs for Cost Estimates

Appendix B Report Authored by Marquette University "Progress on Flow

Augmentation Simulations for Bubbly Creek"

Appendix C Land Availability for Three Supplemental Aeration Stations on Bubbly

Creek

Appendix D Capital Costs for Flow Augmentation with Aeration of the Transferred

Flow

Appendix E Operation and. Maintenance Costs for Flow Augmentation with Aeration of

the Transferred Flow

Appendix F Capital Costs for Supplemental Aeration Technologies

Appendix G Operation and Maintenance Costs for Supplemental Aeration

Technologies

Appendix H Capital Costs for Flow Augmentation — No Aeration (in Combination with

Supplemental Aeration)

Appendix I

Operation and Maintenance Costs for Flow Augmentation — No Aeration

(in Combination with Supplemental Aeration)

FINAL 01/12/07

FLOW AUGMENTATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL AERATION OF THE SOUTH FORK OF

THE SOUTH BRANCH OF THE CHICAGO RIVER (BUBBLY CREEK)

TM-6WQ

INTRODUCTION

Background

Consoer Townsend Envirodyne Engineers, Inc. (CTE) was retained in 2005 by the Metropolitan

Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) to provide engineering services to

prepare a comprehensive Infrastructure and Process Needs Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study)

for the North Side Water Reclamation Plant (WRP). As part of the scope of work for the

Feasibility Study, CTE was directed to determine the technologies and costs of water quality

management options which originated from the on-going Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) being

conducted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) of the Chicago Area

Waterways (CAWs). The CAWs are shown in Figure 6.1.

This report presents the results of a study of one of the water quality management options that

originated from the UAA, namely flow augmentation and supplemental aeration of the South

Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River commonly known as Bubbly Creek. Flow

augmentation and supplemental aeration of Bubbly Creek is among several water quality

management options studied by CTE. Other water quality management options are discussed

in separate reports. These reports are not designed to determine which (if any) of the water

quality management options should be implemented. Such a determination can only be made

by conducting a comparison of the costs and benefits of all the management options and then

developing a water quality management plan which combines the most cost effective option into

an integrated strategy for improving the water quality of the CAWs. Such an integrated strategy

has not been developed at this time.

•UAA Process

The Clean Water Act requires the states to periodically review the uses of waterways to

determine if changes to the existing water quality standards are needed to support a change in

use. Based upon a study of the CAWs, the IEPA had decided that a change may be required in

the dissolved oxygen (DO) standards for these waterways.

As part of the UAA the IEPA suggested several water quality management options for improving

the DO of the CAWs and asked that the MWRDGC determine the technologies and costs for

these options. One of the options that was suggested by the IEPA was flow augmentation and

supplemental aeration of Bubbly Creek.

Flow Augmentation and Supplemental Aeration

Figure 6.1 shows the entire CAWs. Bubbly Creek consists of the section of the CAWs from the

MWRDGC's Racine Avenue Pumping Station to the junction with the South Branch of the

Chicago River (SBCR). Figure 6.2 shows an aerial photograph of Bubbly Creek.

Bringing flow from the SBCR to the headwaters of Bubbly Creek near the Racine Avenue

Pumping Station could have the following benefits:

Increasing the DO of the Bubbly Creek.

Eliminating stagnant conditions during dry weather flow to improve aesthetics.

FINAL 01/12/07

Division Street Avenue

RIVER

Figure 6.1 — The Chicago Area Waterways

FINAL 01/12/07

Figure 6.2 — Aerial Photograph of Bubbly Creek

FINAL 01/12/07

Supplemental aeration is another water quality management option which has the potential for

improving the DO of Bubbly Creek. This option was also studied in this report.

Supplemental aeration is already being practiced in the CAWs by the MWRDGC. Two

supplemental aeration stations exist on the North Shore Cannel (NSC) and the North Branch of

the Chicago River (NBCR) at Devon and Webster Avenues, respectively. These stations

provide aeration by means of porous ceramic diffusers at the bottom of the waterway. The

diffusers are supplied with air from an on-shore blower facility at each station. Along the Little

Calumet River, Calumet River and Cal-Sag Channel waterways, the MWRDGC has five

supplemental aeration stations utilizing sidestream aeration where low lift pumps remove a

portion of the flow from the waterway and aerate this flow using a free-fall weir system which

subsequently returns the flow back to the waterway.

Objective and Scope of Study

The objective of the study was to determine the technology and cost to transfer flow from the

SBCR to the headwaters of Bubble Creek and investigate the possibility of supplemental

aeration in conjunction with flow augmentation.

The District directed that CTE investigate two alternatives for flow augmentation of Bubbly

Creek.

Transfer the flow from the SBCR to the Bubbly Creek without providing any

artificial aeration of the transferred flow. In other words, the inherent DO of the

SBCR would not be increased before discharge at the headwaters of Bubbly

Creek.

Aerate the SBCR Flow to saturation before discharge at the headwaters of

Bubbly Creek.

Supplemental aeration was also studied as a possible water quality management option for

Bubbly Creek. For this option, it was necessary to include the combination of supplemental

aeration with flow augmentation since there is virtually no flow in Bubbly Creek during dry

weather. The main discharge to the waterway is the MWRDGC's Racine Avenue Pump Station

which only discharges to Bubbly Creek during wet weather.

Therefore, this report contains a study of three water quality management options for Bubbly

Creek:

Flow Augmentation without aeration of the transferred flow

Flow Augmentation with aeration of the transferred flow

Supplemental Aeration in combination with flow augmentation without aeration of

the transferred flow

This report makes no attempt to determine whether flow augmentation and supplemental

aeration is a cost-effective method to'improve the water quality of Bubbly Creek. To reach such

a conclusion, all of the water quality management options that have been suggested by the

IEPA in the UAA process would have to be studied in an integrated fashion to determine which

(if any) of the alternatives or combination of alternatives, would be the most cost-effective for

meeting the future water quality standards for the entire CAWs as determined by the UAA.

Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this study and would require significant input from the

various stakeholders in the UAA process. Through the UAA process, the IEPA and the

6-4

FINAL 01/12/07

stakeholders will examine the technologies and costs of the various individual options, review

their water quality benefits and ultimately determine which of the alternatives should be

seriously considered for possible implementation.

Water Quality Dissolved Oxygen Standards for Bubbly Creek

Currently under existing Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) Secondary Contact water quality

regulations, Bubbly Creek is required to have a minimum of 4 mg/I of DO at all times. So far, the

IEPA through the UAA process has not reached a final decision as to the future DO water

quality standards for Bubbly Creek. They have suggested that current IPCB General Use water

quality DO standards might be applied to Bubbly Creek (6 mg/I for 16 out of 24 hours and not

less than 5 mg/I at any time) or minimum DO levels of 4, 5 or 6 mg/I may be required in the

future for Bubbly Creek.

Target Waterway DO Levels for this Study

It is necessary in this study to select a dissolved oxygen target in order to determine process

sizing and thus determine the cost for a flow augmentation and supplemental aeration system

for Bubbly Creek. After discussions with the MWRDGC, it was decided that the dissolved

oxygen target would be 5 mg/I. This level is within the range of potential DO standards

suggested in the UAA. However, recognizing that a rigid DO standard is difficult to meet under

all waterway conditions, it was decided that the target would be 5 mg/I and that achieving this

level 90% of the time at all locations in a waterway would be acceptable. It is hoped that the

IEPA will adopt a similar approach to a waterway DO standard and recognize that 100%

compliance is not possible or necessary. The use of this target for this study in no way

represents a recommendation from the MWRDGC.

Flow Augmentation Modeling

In orderto determine the capacity of a flow augmentation and supplemental aeration system

including the amount of transferred flow, the need for aeration of this flow and the size and

location of the supplemental aeration stations, an existing water quality model of the CAWs was

used. This model was developed by Marquette University for the MWRDGC.

This model is described in the report entitled, "Preliminary Calibration of a Model for Simulation

of. Water Quality During Unsteady Flow in the Chicago Waterway System and Proposed

Application to Proposed Changes to Navigation make-Up Diversion Procedures", dated August,

2004. This report was produced by Dr. Charles Melching from the Institute for Urban

Environmental Risk Management at Marquette University (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) for the

MWRDGC.

The Marquette Model was used to simulate the two flow augmentation alternatives described

previously:

Transfer of unaerated SBCR flow to the headwaters of Bubbly Creek

Transfer of aerated SBCR flow to the headwaters of Bubbly Creek

The model was also used to determine the size of supplemental aeration stations used in

conjunction with flow augmentation. The model allowed CTE to determine effects of various

versions of these alternatives on the DO levels of Bubbly Creek. The model can simulate the

6-5

FINAL 01/12/07

DO in the waterway as a result of a simulated amount of flow augmentation with a certain

simulated dissolved oxygen concentration and simulate the effect of supplemental aeration.

For the unaerated flow augmentation alternative, simulated SBCR flows and DO levels in the

SBCR from the Marquette Model were used. For an aerated flow augmentation simulation run,

the model simulated the flow of the SBCR raised to saturated DO levels. Of course, saturated

DO concentrations are dependent upon temperature but typically the saturated DO is about 8 to

10 mg/I.

The time periods simulated in the Marquette Model were:

Year

Time Period

2001?

July 12 to September 14

2001?

September 1 to November 10

2002?

May 1 to August 11

2002?

August 10 to September 23

Model simulations in the Marquette Model include overlapping time periods. It is inappropriate

to use overlapping time periods for the evaluation of water quality management options.

Therefore, percent compliance in this report does not include overlapping periods. For this

report, all the results for the July 12 to September 14, 2001 and May 1 to August 11, 2002 times

periods were used; those parts of the time periods of September 1 to November 10, 2001 and

August 10 to September

23,

2002 which overlapped with these periods were not used.

These time periods were chosen by Marquette as inputs to the model since the data base was

the most complete of any available.

Percentage compliance was based upon determining the percent of time that model simulated

hourly DO stream DO levels were at or above 5 mg/I.

The Marquette Model runs conducted for this study had the following general assumptions.

Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) Tunnels are fully operational

TARP Reservoirs are not on-line.

Other water quality management options requested by IEPA in the UAA are not

on-line.

Evaluation of the Alternatives contained in the report is based upon hourly results from all

Marquette model simulation periods since there is considerable variation in the water quality

conditions between the simulation periods in the Marquette Model.

The Racine Avenue Pump Station (RAPs) has a significant effect upon the DO levels in Bubbly

Creek during wet weather events. Any significant change in the RAPs discharge concentrations

of oxygen demanding substances or the RAPs discharge volume would significantly affect the

size and the cost of the various water quality management alternatives studied.

Modeling Runs for Flow Augmentation of Bubby Creek Without Aeration

Modeling runs were conducted by Marquette University to determine if flow augmentation alone

without aeration of the transferred flow would be sufficient to meet the DO target level for Bubbly

6-6

FINAL 01/12/07

Creek. A report of these model runs authored by Marquette University can be found in

Appendix B.

The withdrawal point for flow augmentation of Bubbly Creek is the intersection of Throop Street

and the SBCR. This point is slightly upstream of the intersection of Bubbly Creek and the

SBCR.

Six different unaerated flows of 50, 100, 200, 400, 450 and 550 mgd were evaluated. A

maximum transfer rate of 550 mgd was selected since this was the approximate maximum

amount of available flow in the SBCR for transfer to Bubbly Creek. Since for certain time

periods, the model sometimes showed flows in the SBCR at Throop Street to be less than the

transferred amount, the amount of flow was still transferred and the flow in the SBCR was set to

zero. This approach did not result in hydraulic problems in the model computations. In the

actual design of a flow augmentation scheme, more precise flow transfers should be used in the

model. In such a design a time series of analysis of transferred flows would be constructed for

the periods when the simulated SBCR discharge was less than the transferred amount. This

time series analysis would be used to calculate the percent compliance with the DO standard.

Such an analysis

beyond the scope of the existing Marquette Model project. For this report,

percent compliance was calculated assuming that the transferred amount was available and

thus the percent compliance is optimistic, especially for the higher transferred amounts.

Even though Marquette completed simulations for unaerated flow augmentation for 6 different

transfer values varying from 50 to 550 mgd, results of only the 50 and 400 mgd transfer

simulation results are shown in this report. These model runs show that flow augmentation

without aeration does not significantly affect the DO of Bubbly Creek at 1-55 near its discharge

to SBCR. Table 6.1 shows the percentage of time that DO levels in Bubbly Creek at 1-55 are

above 5 mg/I for both wet and dry periods for transfer rates of 50 and 400 mgd. As can be seen

in Table 6.1, there is no significant difference in the percent compliance for the two flows. Thus

unaerated flow augmentation by itself will not significantly improve the DO of Bubbly Creek.

TABLE 6.1

PERCENTAGE OF TIME THAT DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS ARE GREATER

THAN 5 MG/L AT

1-55

AND BUBBLY CREEK FOR JULY 12-NOVEMBER 10, 2001 FOR

DIFFERENT TRANSFER RATES FOR UNAERATED FLOW AUGMENTATION

Unaerated Flow

Augmentation

of Time

This result is not surprising since the Marquette Model generally shows low DO in the SBCR

during summer conditions. Dissolved oxygen levels in the SBCR at Throop Street during the

summer often are 1 mg/I or less.

Modeling Runs for Flow Augmentation with Aeration of the Transferred Flow

The Marquette model was used to simulate dissolved oxygen levels in Bubbly Creek where

saturation DO concentrations were assigned to the transferred flow. A written report authored

by Marquette University of these run can be found in Appendix B. Transfer volumes of 50, 100,

6-7

FINAL 01/12/07

200, 400, 450 and 550 mgd were simulated. A transfer rate of 550 mgd was found necessary

to approach 5 mg/I of DO more than 90% of the time at the intersection of Bubbly Creek and I-

55. It should be again stated that a approximately 550 mgd of flow in the SBCR is available for

flow augmentation. Figure 6.3 shows the percent compliance at various locations on Bubbly

Creek with the 5 mg/I target water quality standard based upon the Marquette Simulations with

550 mgd of aerated transferred flow. The river miles on the x-axis of Figure 6.3 represent the

mid-point of the model segments from the mouth of Bubbly Creek (confluence with the South

Branch of the Chicago River). 1-55 is the dividing line between the

nd and 3rd

segments in the

model and is located at River Mile 0.32. As can be seen, the target DO water quality target is

not achieved at all locations on Bubbly Creek even with aeration of 550 mgd of transferred flow.

Over 90% compliance with 5 mg/I was only achieved in the upper reaches of Bubbly Creek and

not at the mouth (the 1-55 bridge).

Marquette model simulations showed a very high oxygen demand at the mouth of Bubbly Creek

near the junction with the SBCR. This demand was so high that even pumping 550 mgd of

aerated SBCR flow to the headwaters of Bubbly Creek was not sufficient to raise the percent

compliance with 5 mg/I of DO to 90% at end of Bubbly Creek near the junction with the SBCR.

The reasons for this high oxygen demand was not fully investigated but it is believed to be

caused by the influence of the SBCR at the junction. The SBCR has a relatively low DO at this

location and this low DO water may be impacting the DO of Bubbly Creek near the junction with

the SBCR.

Figure 6.4 shows a map with the location of the 550 mgd flow augmentation pumping station

and force main aeration system. The pumping station and force main aeration system would be

located on land adjacent to the SBCR and the force main would be located on land adjacent to

the SBCR and Bubbly Creek. There is sufficient vacant land adjacent to Throop Street on the

SBCR to accommodate this pump station and force main aeration system.

For cost estimating purposes, compressed air U-Tubes will be used to provide force main

aeration. Compressed air U-Tubes are routinely used for force main aeration to control odors

from sewage pump stations. Thus, this is a proven technology for force main aeration. In

addition, this aeration technology was among the four short-listed technologies selected for

supplemental aeration in TM-4WQ. U-Tubes allow DO levels far above saturation, thus

requiring less of the transferred flow to be aerated. If this Water Quality Management option

should proceed to implementation, a more detailed study of force main aeration alternatives

should be conducted to select a final candidate for design purposes.

FINAL 01/12/07

Racine

Ave. P.S.

■ Baseline 550 mgd (aerated)

River Mile from Confluence with South Branch Chicago River

Atitiontiwin

Flow

Figure 6.3 – Flow Augmentation with Aeration of Transferred Flow, % Compliance with 5

mg/I Minimum Dissolved Oxygen, For All Simulated Time Periods in the Marquette Model

KE MICHI N

Figure 6.4 — Flow Augmentation of Bubbly Creek with Aeration Of Transferred Flow

FINAL 01/12/07

Modeling Runs for Flow Augmentation without Aeration of the Transferred Flow in

Combination with Supplemental Aeration

Marquette Modeling runs were conducted by the MWRDGC's Research and Development

Department utilizing a combination of flow augmentation without aeration of the transferred flow

and supplemental aeration of Bubbly Creek. A number of modeling runs were conducted

utilizing different supplemental aeration station capacities and locations in combination with

various amounts of flow augmentation. Ultimately, it was determined that a combination of

these technologies would meet the quality objective of 5 mg/1 of dissolved oxygen, 90% of the

time. The chosen scenario was as follows:

•

Three Supplemental Aeration Stations

Station

Oxygen Delivery Capacity

Location

80 g/sec (15,200 lbs/day)

Mouth of Bubbly Creek

50 g/sec (9,500 lbs/day)

Approximated

Mid-point

Bubbly Creek

10 g/sec. (1, 900 lbs/day)

Headwater of Bubby Creek

•

50 MGD Flow Augmentation Pump Station

o 50 MGD Pump Station on SBCR at Throop Street

2 Mile Force Main to Headwaters of Bubbly Creek

Force Main Aeration is not Practiced

For the above chosen scenario, Figure 6.5 shows the percent compliance (at various locations

on Bubbly Creek) with the 5 mg/1 target water quality standard. As can be seen, the

combination of 50 mgd of flow augmentation and 3 supplemental aeration stations is sufficient

to maintain dissolved oxygen at 5 mg/I more than 90% of the time. The river miles on the x-axis

of Figure 6.5 represent the mid-point of the model segments from the mouth of Bubbly Creek

(confluence with the South Branch of the Chicago River). 1-55 is the dividing line between the

2nd and Td

segments in the model and is located at River Mile 0.32.

It should again be noted that the Marquette Model shows a very high oxygen demand at the

mouth of Bubbly Creek near the junction with the SBCR. This demand results in a relatively

large supplemental aeration station at this location. Model simulation runs demonstrated that

aeration stations even twice as large as the 80 g/sec station could not raise the percent

compliance much above 90%.

If low DO flow from the SBCR is the cause of the high oxygen demand at the mouth of Bubbly

Creek, then providing supplemental aeration, flow augmentation or other water quality

management options on the SBCR may eliminate the need for this aeration station on Bubbly

Creek. The elimination of the aeration station at the mouth of Bubbly Creek should be justified

based upon a detailed analysis of the Marquette Model followed by additional runs with perhaps

a modified version of the model. Such an exercise is outside the scope of this study.

Figure 6.6 shows a map with the locations of the 50 mgd flow augmentation pump station and

force main and the three supplemental aeration stations. The force main would be located on

land adjacent to and along the SBCR and Bubbly Creek. There is sufficient vacant land area at

Throop Street adjacent to the SBCR to accommodate this pump station.

FINAL 01/12/07

0.13 0.23 0.32 0.43 0.54 0.66 0.78 0.90 1.02 1.17 1.31

River Mile from Confluence with. South Branch Chicago River

Ave. P.S.

.4aleisslanign

Flow

Figure 6.5 — Flow Augmentation (50 mgd) and Supplemental Aeration of Bubbly Creek at 3 locations, Percent of Hours

Complying with 5 mg/I Dissolved Oxygen Criterion, For All Simulated Time Periods in the Marquette Model

KE MICHIGAN

FINAL 01/12/07

Figure 6.6 — Flow Augmentation & Supplemental Aeration of Bubbly Creek

6-13

FINAL 01/12/07

LAND AVAILABILITY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL AERATION

Figure 6.7 shows a conceptual layout for an 80 g/s sidestream elevated pool aeration (SEPA)

supplemental aeration station. This layout was taken from TM-4WQ. The land requirement for

the 80 g/s station is approximately 1 acre. The land requirement for the 50 g/s and 10 g/s

stations would be approximately 1/2 acre. As noted in TM-4WQ, the SEPA supplemental

aeration technology requires the largest land area of the four short-listed technologies. Thus

the land requirement for SEPA technology was used to determine if sufficient vacant land was

available at the three supplemental aeration sites on Bubbly Creek.

Appendix C contains aerial photographs of each of the three supplemental aeration sites with an

overlay showing the land requirements for the SEPA supplemental aeration technology. As can

be seen, there is sufficient vacant land for SEPA technology at each site and therefore any of

the four technologies could be located at each of the three sites without the need for building

demolition. As was done for TM-4WQ, land costs for supplemental aeration were assumed to

be $1.2 Million per acre and it was further assumed that all sites would have to be purchased by

the MWRDGC.

The 80 g/s aeration station at the mouth of Bubbly Creek had a simulated location at river mile

0.13, 233 yards from the junction with the SBCR. However, this part of Bubbly Creek has many

elevated roadways including 1-55. Thus, the best available vacant land location for this aeration

station is at river mile 0.32 which is about 560 yards from the mouth.

..........? .? .? .? .? .? . ? .......? .? .? .?

Figure 6.7 — Conceptual Layout for 80 g/s (Oxygen) SEPA Technology

6- 15

FINAL 01/12/07

COSTS FOR FLOW AUGMENTATION WITH AERATION OF THE TRANSFERRED FLOW

Appendix A contains the unit costs for this technical memorandum.

Appendix D contains the detailed spreadsheet for the capital costs for the approximate 2 mile

flow augmentation pipeline and the 550 mgd pump station.

Appendix E contains the detailed cost estimate for the force main aeration system. The system

chosen for cost estimation purposes was U-tube aeration using compressed air

Compressed air U-Tubes are routinely used for force main aeration to control odors from

sewage pump stations. Thus, this is a proven technology for force main aeration. In addition,

this aeration technology was among the four short-listed technologies selected for supplemental

aeration in TM-4WQ. U-Tubes allow DO levels far above saturation, thus requiring less of the

transferred flow to be aerated. If this Water Quality Management option should proceed to

implementation, a more detailed study of force main aeration alternatives should be conducted

to select a final candidate for design purposes.

Table 6:2 contains a summary of the Capital and Maintenance and Operation Costs for Flow

Augmentation with aeration of the transferred flow. These costs were developed for the flow

augmentation scenario shown in Figure 6.4.

TABLE 6.2

SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR FLOW AUGMENTATION (WITH AERATION) OF THE

TRANSFERRED FLOW

Item

Capital Costs

Annual Costs

Total Present

Worth

FORCE MAIN AERATION using

U-Tubes (compressed air)

$39,000,000

$685,000

$53,000,000

FLOW AUGMENTATION (PUMP

STATION AND FORCE-MAIN)

COSTS FOR FLOW AUGMENTATION (WITHOUT AERATION) AND SUPPLEMENTAL

AERATION

In TM-4WQ (Supplemental Aeration), CTE developed a long list of supplemental aeration

technologies. Based upon a matrix evaluation of the long list, CTE determined that the following

supplemental aeration technologies would constitute the short list:

Free Fall Step Weirs (Similar to the MWRDGC's Sidestream Elevated Pool

Aeration (SEPA) Stations)

Jet Aerators

Ceramic Fine Bubble Diffusers

Compressed Air U-Tube

Therefore the above four short-listed supplemental aeration technologies will be used for this

study of Bubbly Creek.

6-16

FINAL 01/12/07

Appendix F contains the detailed spreadsheets showing the capital cost for the four short-listed

supplemental aeration technologies. It should be noted that the costs for the SEPA aeration

station at the headwaters of Bubbly Creek does not include a pump station. This is because it is

assumed that the 50 mgd of flow from the SBCR was directed to the weir system of this station.

Thus no pump station was needed for this supplemental aeration alternative.

Appendix G contains the detailed spreadsheets for annual operation and maintenance costs for

the four supplemental aeration short-listed technologies.

Appendix H contains the detailed spreadsheets for the capital cost for the approximately 2 mile

flow augmentation pipeline and the 50 mgd flow augmentation pumping station.

Appendix I contains the annual operation and maintenance costs for the flow augmentation

pump station and force main.

Table 6.2 contains a summary of the capital and maintenance and operation costs for flow

augmentation and supplemental aeration of Bubbly Creek. These costs were developed for the

flow augmentation and supplemental aeration scenario shown in Figure 6.3. As was done for

TM-4WQ, costs are presented for each of the four short-listed supplemental aeration

technologies. Again, it was felt that the scope of this study precluded a detailed evaluation of

the many site specific factors necessary to make a final decision on a supplemental aeration

technology. Also, pilot and/or laboratory scale testing is recommended to determine the design

parameters for supplemental aeration stations. This information along with a site-specific

analysis should be used to determine the most cost-effective supplemental aeration technology

for each of the three sites.

TABLE 6.3

SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL AERATION AND FLOW AUGMENTATION

Total Present Worth

Supplemental Aeration

Flow Augmentation

$29,966,000

$509,000

$40,146,000

(1) Includes land acquisition cost - 3 x $1,200,000 = $3,600,000.

In summary the cost for flow augmentation and supplemental aeration of Bubby Creek would be

approximately:

Capital Cost:

$60.4 Million - $102.9 Million

Total Annual Costs:

$1.0 Million - $2.8 Million

Total Present Worth

$81.9 Million - $145 Million

6-17

FINAL 01/12/07

This Technical Memorandum is to include an examination of the Environmental and Human

Health Impacts of: The energy required to operate the facilities; the energy required for

processing and production of process chemicals; and the conversion and degradation of

process chemicals. TM-6WQ, at the District's direction, does not make any technology

recommendations but rather prepares cost estimates (capital and operation and maintenance)

for the short listed technologies. There are no chemicals used in these technologies and

therefore the impact of chemicals is non-existent. The energy requirements and costs for the

shortlisted alternatives have been calculated and are presented in this report. Since the report

only concludes with a shortlist of technologies, it is appropriate to evaluate the environmental

and public health impacts of the energy for these technologies in any future studies of the water

quality management options in TM-6WQ.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A study was conducted to determine the technology and costs for flow augmentation and

supplemental aeration of Bubbly Creek. This study was conducted at the request of the IEPA

who is currently exploring methods to improve the DO of the CAWs as part of their UM.

Simulations were undertaken using a water quality model developed for the MWRDGC by

Marquette University to determine the amount of flow augmentation and supplemental aeration

to achieve a DO target of 5 mg/I in Bubbly Creek, 90% of the time. This target was a consensus

decision with the MWRDGC and may not represent the target chosen by IEPA for the CAWs.

The IEPA has not as yet chosen a water quality DO target for the CAWs. Thus, it was

necessary to choose a target so that a cost estimate for flow augmentation and supplemental

aeration could be prepared.

Three water quality management options were studied:

Flow Augmentation without aeration of the transferred amount

Flow Augmentation with aeration of the transferred amount

Supplemental aeration in combination with flow augmentation without

aeration

the transferred amount

Based upon simulations conducted by Marquette University (shown in Appendix B), it was

found that bringing up to 550 mgd of unaerated flow from the SBCR to Bubbly Creek would not

significantly raise the DO of Bubbly Creek. This is mainly due to the relatively low levels of DO

present in the SBCR at Throop Street during summer conditions.

Based upon Marquette Model simulations (See Appendix B) bringing 550 mgd of aerated flow

from SBCR to the headwaters for Bubbly Creek will improve the DO of Bubbly Creek but will

not achieve the DO target level at the end of this waterway near the mouth of its junction with

the SBCR. It is not practical to bring more than 550 mgd from the SBCR since flows in the

SBCR are generally lower than this amount during the summer months.

A cost estimate was prepared for flow augmentation using compressed air U-tubes for aeration.

This method of force-main aeration was chosen for cost estimation purposes since it is

commonly used for controlling odors at sewage pump stations. The capital cost for this

alternative was $268 million and the annual 0 & M costs were $2.9 million. If this alternative is

found to have merit in the future, a study of other methods of force main aeration should be

undertaken before proceeding to final design.

Since flow augmentation did not achieve the DO target chosen for this study, a combination of

flow augmentation (no aeration of the augmented flow) and supplemental aeration was studied.

6-18

FINAL 01/12/07

The MWRDGC's R&D Department conducted various model runs testing various combinations

of flow augmentation and supplemental aeration to achieve the DO target. It was found that

flow augmentation of 50 mgd from the SBCR and the following locations and sizes of

supplemental aeration stations would achieve the DO target for Bubbly Creek:

Station

Oxygen Delivery

? Location

Capacity

80 g/sec (15,200 lbs/day)

?Mouth

of Bubbly Creek

50 g/sec (9,500 lbs/day)

?Approximate

midpoint of

Bubbly Creek

10 g/sec (1,900 lbs/day)?

Headwaters of Bubbly Creek

The total capital cost

for the 4

supplemental aeration technologies chosen for this cost estimate

(U-Tubes, SEPA, Ceramic Diffusers and Jet Aeration) in combination with flow augmentation

ranged from $60.4 Million to $102.9 Million. The total annual O&M costs ranged from $1.0

Million to $2.8 Million. A final decision as to the supplemental aeration technology that is most

appropriate for implementation in Bubbly Creek would require additional study.

The study did show that the combination of flow augmentation (50 mgd) and three supplemental

aeration stations achieved the DO target while aerated flow augmentation alone did not. Also

the combination of flow augmentation and supplemental aeration was considerably lower in cost

than aerated flow augmentation. Thus it would appear that the combination of flow

augmentation and supplementation aeration would be the most cost effective for the DO control

alternatives studied here for Bubbly Creek. However, it should be stated that it is not possible to

determine whether any water quality management options suggested by the IEPA in the UM

should be implemented until all these alternatives are studied in an integrated analysis to

compare and analyze their relative benefits and cost.

Table 6.4 shows a summary of the costs for flow augmentation with aeration and supplemental

aeration in combination with flow augmentation without aeration.

TABLE 6.4

SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR FLOW AUGMENTATION WITH AERATION OF TRANSFERRED

FLOW AND SUPPLEMENTAL AERATION AND FLOW AUGMENTATION WITHOUT

AERATION OF BUBBLY CREEK

Option

Capital Cost

Annual Costs

Total Present Worth

Flow Augmentation with $?

with Flow Augmentation

Unit Costs for Cost Estimates

FINAL 01/12/07

UNIT COSTS FOR COST ESTIMATES

Life cycle cost (LCC) analysis requires the development of certain constants that will be used

throughout the evaluation of alternatives. Values used for constants are presented below.

These values have been developed in consultation with District staff and represent actual

values or agreed upon assumptions.

1.?

Present Worth Factors for Life-Cycle Costs

Annual inflation rate

•

Annuity Present Worth Factor (with inflation)

19.42

2.?

Design Life

• Structural Facilities?

•

Mechanical Facilities

3. Electrical Cost

$0.075/kW-hr

Labor Rates Per Hour Including Benefits (1)

Contractor Overhead and Profit (2)?

15%

Planning Level Contingency (3)?

30%

Engineering Fees including Construction Management (4)?

20%

(1) A multiplier of 2.9 was used to reflect benefits as provided by the

District.

(2)

Percent of Total Construction Cost

(3) Percent of Total Construction Cost plus Contractor Overhead and

Profit

(4)

Percent of Total Construction Cost, Contractor Overhead and Profit

plus Contingency

FINAL 01/12/07

APPENDIX B

Report Authored by Marquette University "Progress on Flow Augmentation Simulations

for Bubbly Creek"

FINAL 01/12/07

APPENDIX C

Land Availability for Three Supplemental Aeration Stations on Bubbly Creek

FINAL 01/12/07

Land Availability for 80 g/s Station at 1-55 and Bubbly CreekLand Availability for 80 g/s Station at 1-55 and

may

FINAL 01/12/07

Land Availability for 50 g/s station at S. Throop Street and Bubbly Creek

C-3

FINAL 01/12/07

Land Availability for 10 g/s Station near Racine Ave. P.S. and Bubbly Creek

C-4

FINAL 01/12/07

APPENDIX D

Capital Costs for Flow Augmentation with Aeration of the Transferred Flow

FINAL 01/12/07

APPENDIX E

Operation and Maintenance Costs for Flow Augmentation with Aeration of the

Transferred Flow

FINAL 01/12/07

APPENDIX F

Capital Costs for Supplemental Aeration Technologies

FINAL 01/12/07

APPENDIX G

Operation and Maintenance Costs

for Supplemental Aeration Technologies

FINAL 01/12/07

APPENDIX H

Capital Costs for Flow Augmentation — No Aeration

(In Combination with Supplemental Aeration)

FINAL

01/12/07

APPENDIX

Operation & Maintenance Costs

for Flow Augmentation — No Aeration

(In Combination with Supplemental Aeration)

FINAL 01/12/07

APPENDIX B

Report Authored by Marquette University "Progress on Flow Augmentation Simulations

for Bubbly Creek"

September 22, 2005

DRAFT EFFORT -

PROGRESS (*FLOW AUGMENTATION-SIMUIATIONS

?•

* FOR BUBBLY

CREEK

Two sets of simulations considering diverting a portion of the South Branch Chicago

RiVer(SBCR) flow to the upstream end of the Bubbly Creek have been completed..The

set of sinudatiOns considers

transferred flow without aeration and the second set of

simulations considers aerated transferred flow. Six different (50, 100, 200, 400, 450, and

550 mgd) fixed amounts of flow transfer have been evaluatedfor the periods July 12:—

September 14, 2001, September 15 -; November 10, 2001, May 1-August 11, 2002 and

August 12-September 23,2002. The withdrawal point for flow angmentation.for Bubbly

Creek is the intersection of the SBCR and 'Iliroop Street. This point is slightly upstream

(-0.4 nule).of the intersectiera of Bubbly Creek and the SBCR.

Plots of simulated (baseline) discharges at Throop Street ate given in Figure Average

discharges for July 12.to November 10, 2001 and May 1 to September 23, 2002 are 1,186

cfs (767 mgd) and 984

(636 mgd); respectively.

Six different

augmentation flow

transfer values (50, 100, 200, 400, 450,

and

550 mid)

have'

been evaluated and the

maXimum transferred flow was kept around the average discharge at Throop Street. For

.periods when the simulated

discharge was less than:thei transfer amount,

the flow in the

SBCR was at

to zero

rmdihefixed

amounts of flow still was transferred even though the

available flow was

notsufficient.

This .apprOach.did not result in hydraulic problems in

the computations. In the actual design of the augmentation scheme, more precise .flow

transfers (i.e. time series of flow for theperiods when the simulated &charge is less than

transfer amount and the-iota/ simulated discharge is trarisfened) should be used in the

simulation to Calculate percentage compliances-especWly if the desired transferred flow

is much larger

than the average simulated discharge

at Throop

Street at a specific time.

The percentage of hours that target dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations of-3,

5, and

6 mg/L. areequaled or.exceeded for the total pedod of July 12 —November 10, 2001 are

listed. in Tables 1-3for Jackson

Boulevard

(SBCR), 1-55 (Bubbly Creek), and. Cicero

Avenue (Chicago

Sanitary

and Ship Carl* CSSC), respectively. The wet periods listed in

these tables correspond- to tiniee

.when

flows

at Romeoville

were higher

than typical dry

weather flows (i.e. typically greater than 100

nifs

3530 cfs for sustained periods).

ri:

rigggSSIligEESSIEEEE§§8S-SSRBIBig

Thioop Street_tBCR, 7/12-11/10,20131 (Model output)

Time

Throop StreeLSBOR 5/14/23, 2002 (Model output)

Sna211§5

S.E1

Sa 4121

Time

Piguic -1. Simulated discharges ailbroop Street for July. 12 to November 10, 2001 and.

May 1 to September 23,

2002?

•

B-3

Table I:Perm:daze Of time that dissolved Oxygen

concentratiOns

are greater than the •

target concentrations

at Jackson Boulevard (South Branch Chicago-River) forJuly 12 -

-November.

10, 2001

fon:Efferent

witbdtawal values for flow au ritation:

Table 2. Percentage of time that dissolved oxygen concentrations are greater than the

target concentrations at I-55 (Bubbly Creek) for July 12-November 10, 2001 for

different withdrawal values for flow a mentation?

661

41.0 41.8. 31.6 :25.9

20.3

50 mgd

•

'713 66.2 56.6 41.0 41.9

66.4

*No measured dissolved oxygen data avi ableefor2001 •

Table 3.

Percentage of time that dissolved oxygen concentrations are higher than the

•

target

concentrations at

Cicero Avenue (Chkago Sanitary and Ship Canal) for July 12 - • •

ovember 10, 2001 for different withdrawal.

augmentation

drir

19.4

Even though.simulations have

been completed for

all

6 -different firm.

Minder

values for

2001 and 2002, results of only 50 and 400 mgd flow transfer simulations for 2001- are

presented here since simulation results show that different levels of augmentation without

aeration do not affect the DO concentration at 1-55.

Measured DO concentrations at Jackson- Boulevard can get as low as 1.1 mg/L and

mostly fluctuate between 4 and 6 mg/L (Figure 2). Measured-DO Concentrations at 1-55

(Bubbly Creek) are always lower than Jackson Boulevard DO concentrations and get as

low- as 0 ma. at certain periods. Simulated DO concentrations at Milton Street are

. usually lower thAn Jackson Boulevard

concentrations.

-4.

-Jackson-Howdy measured

Street-HociiY simulated

Dissolved Oxygen Coneenetration

g at Different Locations t

Jackson 13oulevart1435

Throop Skeet- 5f1-9/23,2002

•

1; g

g131;eggli;;;;;1-:;;

Date

§ 1:11

Dissolved Oxygen Concenctrations at Different Lot:talons

Jacicson DotirOvard-Ittriunt Street, 7/12-11/10, 2001

•

gt440-0i4kiiist4taillimaggIg5;i

Cate

Figure

2: Dissolved

oxygen

(DO) concentrations measured at Jackson Boulevard on the

-South Branch Chicago River and 1-55 on Bubbly Creek and simidated: at'111 Street

on the South Branch Chicago River for July to November 10, 2001 and

WY 1 to

• September 23,• 2002 (no measured DO

available for the 2001 period

. Street on the South Brunch Chicago River for July 12 to November 10, 20G1 and May 1 .

September

23, 2002 (no measured DO available for the 2001 period at 1

:55 (Bubbly

Creek))

B-5

Comparison .of Measured hourly DO concentration

plots for Jackson Boulevard and

Cicero Avenue

for 2001 and 2002

simuladon-periods

are given in Figinel. Comparison

. of the sin:minted (baseline) DO concentration at Throo•Stteet and 1-55 for the 2001 and

. 2002

simulation

periods are given in Figure 4. Figures 3 and 4 show that DO

_ concentrations at Cicero Avenue are always lower than Jackson • Boulevard .150

concentrations and simulated DO Concentration at Throop Street and 1-55 are almost

• identical. The agreement between Throop Street and 1-55 results because during periods

of no flow in Bubbly Creek the ambient water quality in the SBCR and CSSC

dominates

the downstream reaches. of Bubbly Creek, whereas when the Racine Avenue Pumping

- Station

is . operating water quality at the downstream- end of Bubbly (reek has a large

effect on water quality in the nearby portions of the

SBCR, and-CSSC. Figures 3 and 4

also show that simulated

DO concentrations at Throop

Street show a very similar trend

' with

Cicero Avenue DO concentrations. Since simulated DO-

concentrations just at the

upstream and downstream of the junction of the SBCR and tubbly Creek are very similar

to Bubbly Creek

DO concentrations,Bubbly Creek

augmentation without aeration did not

improve DO concentrations in Bubbly Creek.

Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations atDifferent Locations :

Jackson Boulevard-Cicero Avenue, 7112

11110; 201

Jackson-Houn► measured

Cicere-Hourly measured

..)..'

rlow II?

.61Ml

PI, g -

g3tclag66"2.2211kl%S.S.SRSSZ

0 4

Dissolved Oxygen boncenctraf

Tons

Different

Locations :

Jaeloton Boulevard-Clown Avenue,

6,14,423.

2002

eke°

Figure 3.

Comparison of measuredD0 concentrations at Jackson Boulevard and amp)

• Mum-for

July 12 to November 10,

2001 and May

1 to

September 23, 2002

B-7

Throop Street-l-lourty simulated (baseline)

t-55-Hourly simulated (baseline)

gggggss

Dissolved Oxygen

Oalicenetralions

at Different Lotattons:

7hroop Street, 145, 7/1241/10, 2001

Date

Dissolved Oxygen Conoenotredions at Different Locations:

VW-Thump Street. 6f1;0120,2002

Date

Figure 4. CompadsOn of simulated DO concentrations at I-55 and

ThroOp Street for

baseline.eonditions (no transfer) for

July 12 to November 10, 2001 and May 1 to

Mk* AUGMENTATION WITH ABRATION FOR BUBBLY CRESS

In this section, results of shnulations of scenarios of Bubbly

Creek flow angroentation

with- aeration are presented. In these simulations, saturation

DO concentrations

were

assigned to the augmented flow. The rest of the water

quality variables

were

kept the

same as

the siniulated

Thmop

Street concentrations. Jackson Boulevard water

temperatures were used to calculate saturation

concentrations

(Figures 5 and 6). This

makes the following simulation results somewhat optimistic because the Midwest'

Generation Fisk Power Plant

sits

between Jackson Boulevard and Throop Street and

comparison of monthly sample data at Madison Street and Damen Avenue indicate about

a 1°C temperature increase primarily due to- the Fisk Power Plant. Because only monthly

data are available 'to estimate the temperature increase and this

is a preliminary,

planning.

level analysis no attempt *as made to account for the temperature increase. In the actual

design

a flow transfer scheme, Are temperature increase resulting from the Pisk Power

Plant shouldbe Considered.

Jackson Boulevard,

7/1241110,

2001 ..

•

..BgtOSSEARIESSEEENEEirMaggii

Jackson

Boutoratd,7/11-11/10,2001

gklotesstS2R164sEEEnEnsEagEE5sz

Dab

Figure?

Temperature (PC) and calculated saturation dissolved oxygen (DO)

. • concentrations at Iackson Boulevard for July

12 to

November 10, 2001

Jackson Boulevard,

5114123,2002?

Jackson BoulevariL 0423,2002

so?

tt?

V 2

sssetAgammiguamputsuantmg

1staniEs:SHOOPgraggs:WOMME

Gate?

Dab

Figure 6. Temperature (°C) and calculated saturation dissolved oxygen (DO)

concentrations at Jackson Boulevard for May 1

to September 23, 2002

B-9

RESULTS

oilicAERATEDAUGMENTATION

SIVIDLATI

ONS

• The percentage of hours that target DO concentrations of 3, 4, 5, and 6 mg/L, are equaled

of exceeded for July 12 - November 10, •

2001 are listed in Tables 4-6 for. Jackson

Boulevard (SBMQ, 1-55 (Bubbly Creek), and Cicero-Avenue (CSSC), respectively.

'Table 4. Percentage of time that dissolved oxygen concentrations are greater than the

target concentrations at Jackson Boulevard (South Branch Chieago River) for July 12

liovember 10, 1 for different withdrawal values for aerated flow augmentation

•cenario.

3 mg/L

4 mg/L

wet

Wet

.982

54.0 41.9

169

87.0 : 64.7. 72.1 . 43.1' - 36.2

659

72.7 -

81.6

'47.1

- 37.4

550•mgd

96.2 . 96.1 - 822 - 89.4 . 68.9

74.7 . 47.2

37.7

- Table 5. Percentage of time that dissolved oxygen concentrations. are greater than the

target concentrations at 1-55 (Bubbly Creek) for July 12 - November 10, 2001 for

• different withdrawal values for aerated

flow augmentation.

inn,

Measured

Calibfated

564

44.5 -

91.2.

target concentrations

LW=

avenue kUlICage

mammy tam amp Lanai)

isTovember

10, 2001

for

crifferes4

withdrawal values for

aeraiad flow an?

.ntat

Scenario .

mg.

Cicato-2001

27.6

29.4

292

55.1

41.0

91.7

Table 6. Percentage of time that dissolved oxygen concentrations

are

greater than the

•

Results of the aerated flow augmentation simulations show that aeration of the transferred

flow improves the

DO conditions in Bubbly

Creek. It can

lie seen that the

transfer of 550

.mgd 'of aerated flow results in•attainment

of DO concentrations In

ati-

wet

percent of the time. Whereas 3 mg/L.

concentrations are achieved 100 percent of the time during just dry weather for 400 and

450

mgd

transfer simnlations.•More than 95% of the

time

the.4

mg/L DO target level is

achieved with a transfer of 550 mgd

both for

wet and dry periods..Resultt also show that

aerated flow

mignientation

influences

the DO coneentrations

locations downstream

from the junction of Bubbly Creek and the

SBCR (Table

6). At Cicero Avenue the

percentage compliance with the.3

ing/L DO

target

level increased from 85.4 % and 70.4

% for

wet

and dry periods, respectively, daring

calibration to 98.7% and

transfer of 550 mgd of aerated SBCR water. Even

though aerated augmentation simulations have

little effect

ow DO concentrations at

. • Jackson Boulevard (Table

4) it

possible to see the effect of

aerated augmentation

operations along

the CSSC until the

downstream boundary

(Remeoville)

• of the modeled

section of the river system (Table 7)

The percentage of

pouts

that target DO concentrations of 3, 4, 5, and 6 mg/L are equaled

or exceeded fertile total period of May 1•September 23, 2002 are listed-in Tables 8-10

for Jackson

Boulevard

(SBCR),

1-55 (Bubbly (reek), and Cicero Avenue (CSSC),

respectively.

B-11

Table 7. Percentage of time that dissolved oxygen concentrations are

grease than the

target concentrations at Romeovffie (Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal) for July 12 -

November 10, 2001 for

diftereat

withdrawal values for aerated flow aug ntation

Scenario

904

Table 8. Percentage of time that dissolved oxygen concentrations are greater than the

target concentrations at Jackson Boulevard (South Branch Chicago Rives) for May

tember 23,

2002 for differ iv

values

for aerated floW augmentation

Measured .

607

543

993 .

60.7

55.0

lall

. 99.8 . 94.3• . 69.1 84.2 Elm 75.3 igi 58.6

400

mgd

100.0 95.4 Egimug 50.4 iirm

95.7

Like the- simulations for 2091, aerated transferred flow improved the DO concentrations

Bubbly Creek. The 3 mg/L-DO target•evel is achieved for .the 200, 400, 450, and 550

mgd

augmentation scenarios

1-55. (Table

9) for dry periods.

Whemas.3 nig& target

level cannot be- achieved even with the transfer

550 mgd of aerated flow for ivet

periods at I-55.

The

400, 450, and 550 mgd simulations result in achievement of 4 mg/L

100 % of the lime for dry

•

erkid.t. Effects of aerated flow

augmentation extend until

R013100Ville

(Table 11).

B-12

Table 9: Percentage

-of

time that dissolved oxygen concentrations

are greater than the

target

concentrations at 1-55 (Bubbly (reek) for May 1-September 23, 2002 for different

. withdrawal values for =Dated flow auameatation

24.5

200

79.2

95.0

100.0

85.7

69.8

732

Table 10. Percentage of time that dissolved oxygen concentrations are greater than

the

target concentrations at Cicero

Avenue (Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal) for May 1-

SePtember 23 2002 for different withdrawal values for aerated flow au entation

11111111111111111

11111111111

47.0

Loco

Lizi

Lungn

Lig

-953

111111

iii

III

For each flow transfer amount the overall percentage compliance for

4, 5,

and 6

mg/x,

1-55 are given in Table 12 and Figure 7.

can be seen from Figure 7, 95 % compliance

.for 4 mg/L is achieved with a transfer of 400 mgd. A transfer of approximately 700 nigd

(by

eXtrapolation) is needed to attain 5 mg/L 95% of the time.

-Therefore,

increase in

.the transferred flow of 300 mgd is needed to increase

95 % compliance

from 4 mg/L to

riag/L. Since the average daily simulated flow at Throop Street for 2002 was only 636

mgd, this

an impractical. solution. Even though transfer of aerated flow can help to

improve DO conditions in Bubbly meek, it is still very hard to attain 6 mg/L 95 % of the .

time

since Bubbly Creek water quality is still affected by the water quality of South

Branch Chicago River (SBCIL) and Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal (CSSC). Hence, it is

possible to expect more improvement in DO in Bubbly Creek if the water quality of the

South Branch Chicago River gets better.

B,-13

B-14

Table 11. Percentage of time that dissolved oxygen.concentrations are greater than the

target concentrations

at Aomeoville (Chic'

ago

Sanitary-

and Ship (anal) for May 1-

Se tember 23 2002 for criffereat withdrawal values forte fed

865

100.0

89.8

79.7 '493

Table 12. Par,entage of dime that dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations are greater than

the target

conoentrationsat

1-55 for all pedals during July 12 - November

10,

2001 and

•

May 1. - September 23, 2002 for different withdrawal values for aerated flow

292

MIL

16.1

356

193

87.8?

g4•

M5-20642002

-s-a.4 matt. -

-Ar-ab ingtl..

-sc-a.6

mg&

—

SO .100 160

•

200 250

soo

250 400 450 60O. 650 600

Transferred Flow with aeration (MGD)

Figure 7. Relation between the amount of aerated transferred flow and percentage

compliance

With the dissolved oxygen

ooncenttation criteria for July

12—November

10,

2001

andMay

1— September 23, 2002 at 1-55 (Bubbly Creek).

FINAL 01112/07

APPENDIX D

Capital Costs for Flow Augmentation with Aeration of the Transferred Flow

TABLE D.1

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION FOR 550 MGD FLOW AUGMENTATION BUBBLY CREEK

PROJECT NO. 40779

Site Utility Relocations and Extensions

Diffuser Pipe Into Bubbly Creek

Contractor OH&P 0 15%

$17,042,480

Subtotal

$130,659,011

Planning Level Contingency @ 30%

Legal and Fiscal Fees @ 15%

Engineering Fees including CM @ 20%

D-2

Forcemaln Aeration BUBBLY COST10.xls

FINAL 01/12107

APPENDIX E

Operation and Maintenance Costs for Flow Augmentation with Aeration of the

Transferred Flow

TABLE E.1

ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR BUBBLY CREEK 550 MOD P.S. WITH AERATED FORCEMAIN

AND

(assume 1% of Total PS costs)

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 0 & M

Capital Costs for Supplemental Aeration Technologies

g44a

—al a-

8658%?

..sii

lig

dr34

2Pn

aRk

gg R

g?ggg

8698% 85 % 5 66L5tt965....

i8.

R Eataa

E manna as ammaaataa au

I figgal

ial

4":_444

Ema

I I

illi

amiam

ga4

ggg

ammaa

lhagg

‘ggI

TABLE F.4

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION FOR JET AERATION (10 Ws)

WET COST

MAT COST

MobIlbalion for dredging

Blowers Pump Bldg Excavation

Pump and Blower Building

Pumps, Blowers, Manifolds

Aft Supply Piping and Appurtenances

20e Pump control Valve

ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION

Control systems and MatnimentatIon

$2,333

OH&P

Planning Level Contingency 0 30% .

Legal and Fiscal Fees 0 16%

$334,283

Engineering Fees Including CM 0 20%

Bubbly Creek Cost10.xls

TABLE F.5

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION FOR JET AERATION (50

sfs)

TOTAL COST % MAT COST

UNIT COST TOTAL COST '

Mobilization tor dredging

Blower d, Pump Bldg. Excavation

Pump and Blower Building

Pumps, Blowers, Manifolds

Pressure Gages/Transmitters

Air Supply Piping and Appurtenances

20' Pump control Valve

ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION

Control systems and Instruinentation

Level

Legal and Fiscal Fees 0 15%

$1,671,416

Engineering Fees Including CM C 20%

Bubbly Creek Coati axis

TABLE FS

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION FOR JET AERATION (80

g/s)

Mobilization for dredging

29222

Blower & Pump Bldg. ExcavatIon

Pump and Blower Building

Pumps, Blowers, Manifolds

Pressure Gages/Transmitters

Alr Supply Plping and Appurtenances

20' Pump control Valve

ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION

Control systems and Instrumentation

Planning Level Contingency 0 30%

Legal and Ffscal Fees 0 15%

$2,674,268

Engineering Fees Including CM 0 20%

Bubbly Creek Cost10.ls

TABLE F.7

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION FOR SEPA 10

gls

STATION (No Pump Station)1

PROJECT NO. 40779

TOTAL COST' %MAT COST

SUBTOTAL

Subtotal

Planning Level Contingency

30%

Subtotal

Misc. Capital Costs

Legal and Fiscal Fees

15%

(1) Costs are to be used for 10 g/s station for Bubbly Creek only. This SEPA station does not require its own pump station.

F-8

Bubbly Creek Cost10.;ds

TABLE F.8

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION FOR SEPA50 gls STATION

SUBTOTAL

Contractor

Subtotal

OH&P

15%?

Planning Level Contingency

Subtotal

Misc. Capital Costs

Legal and Fiscal Fees

15%

Engineering Fees Including

(1) Costs were obtained from existing SEPA station construction costs, updated to 2006 rates using ENR Index of 7660.

F-9

Bubbly Creek Cost10.xls

TABLE F.9

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION FOR SEPA80 g/s STATION

1GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Contractor OH&P 0 16%

Subtota

Planning Level Contingency

30%

Subtota

Misc. Capital Costs

Legal and

Fiscal Fees @

16%

Engineering Fees Including

CM 0

20%

Subtotal

Project Total

$23,311,883

(1) Costs were obtained from existing SEM station construction costs, updated to 2006 rates using ENR Index of 7660.

F-10

Bubbly Creek Cost10.xis

TABLE F.10

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION FOR CERAMIC DIFFUSER SYSTEM (10

Mobilization f or dredging

Blower Bldg. Excavation

Alr Supply Piping and Appurtenances

ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION

Control systems and instrumentation

Level

Legal and Fiscal Fees 015%

•?

$212,536

Engineering Fees Including CM 0 20%

Bubbly Creek Cost10.ds

TABLE F.11

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION FOR CERAMIC DIFFUSER SYSTEM (50

g/s)

PROJECT

Mobilization f or dredging

Blower Bldg. Excavation

Air

Supply Plp1ng and Appurtenances

ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION

Control systems and Instrumentation

Contractor OH&P 0 15%

$710,820

Subtotal

$5,449,619

Planning Level Contingency 0 30%

Legal and Fiscal Fees 0 15%

$1,062,678

Engineering Fees Including CM 0 20%

Bubbly Creek Cost10.xls

TABLE F.12 .

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION FOR CERAMIC DIPPUSER SYSTEM (80

Mobilization for dredging

Blower Bldg. Excavation

. PEC1AL CONSTRUCTION

CHANIOAL

Air Supply Piping and Appurtenances

ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION

Control systems and Instrumentation

Contractor OH&P 0 15%

$1,137,312

Subtotal

$8,719,390

Planning Level Contingency 0 30'%

Legal and Fiscal Fees 0 15%

$1,700,281

Engineering Fees Including CM 0 20%

Bubbly Creek Cost10.xis

FINAL 01/12/07

APPENDIX G

Operation and Maintenance Costs

for Supplemental Aeration Technologies

ANNUAL

TABLE G.1

O&M COSTS FOR U-TUBE 10 g/s AERATION SYSTEM

$3,285

$83,795

$3,285

(UY ONLY)

AND

$23,968

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 0&

TABLE 0.2

O&M COSTS FOR U-TUBE

g/s AERATION SYSTEM

YEAR

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 0 & M COST

$3,850,251

G-3

Bubbly Creek Cost10.xlsBubbly 60

g O&M

ANNUAL

TABLE G.3

O&M COSTS FOR U-TUBE 80 & AERATION SYSTEM

(Sihr)

(5)

0.8

$68,564

REPLACED PER

YEAR (UV ONLY)

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 0

M COST

$6,814,360

G-4

Bubbly Creek Cost10.xleBubbly 80 g O&M

TABLE 0.4

ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR JET AERATION 10

gls

($)

$2,445,484

0.2

AND

PER

YEAR (UV ONLY)

Bubbly Creek Cost10.xls

19.42

TABLE G.5

ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR JET AERATION 50

Ws SYSTEM

ANNUAL

COST

LAMPS

REPLACED

(IV

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 0 & M COST

$16,333,484

G-6

Bubbly., Creek Cost10.AsBubbly 60 g O&M

TABLE 0.8

•

ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR JET AERATION 80

g!s

SYSTEM

(ltakilY)

COST

(s)

AND

Bubbly Creek CostIO.NsBubbly 80 g O&M

TABLE G.T

ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR 10

gIs

SEPA STATION

NOTE: The 10

gis

SEPA station for BO* Creek utilizes the existing Racine Avenue Pump Station. Therefore, no additional Ci&M mists are incurred.

(kW)

(Mu)

(S)

ANNUAL

LAMPS

REPLACED PER

YEAR (UV ONLY)

LAMP

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 0 & M COST

G— 8

Bubbly Creek Cost10.)ds

TAKE

ANNUAL

O&M COSTS FOR SO cys SEPA STATION

(usidaY)

TOTAL TIME

1.2

0.75

(DV

$5,035

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 0 & M COST

$11,997,862

G-9

Bubbly Creek Cost10.tds&Aibly 50 g O&M

TABLE G.9

ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR

Egs

47718.4

19.42

day)

(MO

AND

• TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 0 & M COST

• $18,739,810

G- 1

Bubbly Creek Cott 0. gsBubbly 80

O&M

TABLE

0.16

ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR CERAMIC DIFFUSEFISYSTEM

19.42

Marne

(mar/day)

day?

lidhil

(UV

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 0 & M COST

$1,352,005

G-11

Bubbly Creek Cost10.)ds

TABLE 0.11

ANNUAL. O&M COSTS FOR CERAMIC DIFFUSER SYSTEM

($)

(UV

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 0 &

COST

$6,526,643.

G-12

Bubbly Creek Cost10.AsBubbly

g OEM

TABLE 61.12

ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR CERAMIC DIFFUSER SYSTEM 80 g/s SYSTEM

$kWh

ITE

POWER

USAGE

(OW

65,476

(UV

PER

Bubbly Creek CostIOAsBubbly 80 g O&M

FINAL 01/12/07

APPENDIX H

Capital Costs for Flow Augmentation — No Aeration

(In Combination with Supplemental Aeration)

TABLE H.1

COST ESTIMATE FOR BUBBLY CREEK 50 MGD PUMP

STATION AND FORCEMAIN

Relocations and Extensions

$130,360$384,000$42,750

•

$130,360$384,000$397,215$42,750

$10,000.00$500.00$650.00

$10,010,000$30,000$10,000$36,000

$17,074,442$2,227,101

SubtotalPlanning

Level Contingency 0 30%

$22,196,775$5,122,333

$7,768,871$3,329,516$4,439,355

Project Total

$29,965,646

11-2

Bubbly Creek Cost10.xisBubbly 60 mgd Forcemain-CAPITAL

FINAL 01/12/07

APPENDIX

Operation & Maintenance Costs

for Flow Augmentation — No Aeration

(In Combination with Supplemental Aeration)

TABLE 1.1

ANNUAL O&M COSTS FOR BUBBLY CREEK 50 MGD P.S.

8933.3

($br)

($)

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 0 & M COST

$9,881,867

1-2

Bubbly Creek Cost10.11sBubbly 50 MOD P.S.-O&M