ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
of
WASTEWATER AMMONIA DISCHARGE
from
THE UNO-VEN REFINERY
Lemont. Illinois
Prepared by:
James E. Huff, P.E.
James Paulson, E.I.T.
Sean D. LaDieu, E.I.T.
December, 1992
HUFF
ENVIRONMENTAL
& HUFF,
CONSULTANTS
INC.
LaGRANGE, ILLINOIS
E,6104 3
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
of
WASTEWATER AMMONIA DISCHARGE
from
THE UNO-VEN REFINERY
Lemont. Illinois
Prepared by:
James E. Huff, P.E.
James Paulson, E.I.T.
Sean D. LaDieu, E.I.T.
December, 1992
HUFF
ENVIRONMENTAL
& HUFF,
CONSULTANTS
INC.
LaGRANGE, ILLINOIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER?
PAGE NO.
TABLE OF CONTENTS ?
LIST OF TABLES
?
LIST OF FIGURES ?
vi
APPENDICES
?
ix
1. INTRODUCTION ?
1
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ?
3
2.1 Site Description
?
3
2.2 Production Trends
?
3
2.3 Description of Wastewater Treatment Facility
and Modifications Since 1983
?
10
2.4 Applicable Regulations ?
14
2.5 Mixing Zone and Zone of Initial Dilution
?
16
2.6 Ammonia Acute Toxicity on Indigenous Fish
?
18
3.
EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY ?
20
3.1 Introduction
?
20
3.2 Influent and Effluent Monitoring Data Base ?
20
3.3 Effluent Quality ?
22
3.4 Un-ionized Effluent Ammonia Levels
?
26
3.5 Influent Ammonia Levels ?
32
3.6 Net Ammonia Loading ?
37
4. LOCALIZED IMPACTS OF UNO-VEN's DISCHARGE
?
41
4.1 Introduction
?
41
4.2 Site Description ?
41
4.3 Sampling Protocol ?
43
4.3.1 Plume Delineation ?
43
4.3.2 Benthic Sampling ?
44
4.4 Mixing Zone Delineation
?
45
4.5 Macroinvertebrate Results
?
56
5.
WATER QUALITY OF THE CHICAGO WATERWAY AND
ILLINOIS RIVER SYSTEM
?
66
5.1 Introduction ?
66
5.2 USGS Water Quality Sampling ?
67
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
CHAPTER?
PAGE NO.
5.3
Metropolitan Water District of Greater Chicago Water
Quality Evaluation ?
79
5.3.1 Introduction
?
79
5.3.2 Water Quality in the Chicago Man-Made
Water System ?
79
5.3.3 Illinois Waterway Quality ?
80
5.4 Point Sources on the Chicago Waterway
?
94
5.5 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago Water Quality Modeling
?
98
5.5.1 Introduction
?
98
5.5.2 Overview of QUAL2EU Model ?
100
5.5.3 Data Acquisition
?
100
5.5.4 Model Simulations ?
103
5.5.5 Modeling Results ?
103
5.5.6 Uncertainty Analysis ?
106
6.
UNO-VEN's IMPACT ON THE ILLINOIS RIVER SYSTEM
?
107
6.1 Introduction
?
107
6.2 Simulated UNO-VEN Loadings ?
107
6.3 Simulation Results ?
108
7. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
?
120
ii
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE NO.
TABLE 2-1:
TABLE 3-6:
TABLE 3-7:
WASTE
TREATMENT MODIFICATIONS AND
OPERATION COSTS ?
12-13
PARAMETERS MONITORED BY UNO-VEN ?
21
UNO-VEN EFFLUENT AMMONIA DISCHARGED SINCE 1984 . . . ? 25
UNO-VEN EFFLUENT AMMONIA LEVELS BY MONTH ?
28-29
UNO-VEN EFFLUENT UN-IONIZED AMMONIA ?
30
UNO-VEN UN-IONIZED AMMONIA FOR MONTHS WITH MONTHLY
AVERAGES EXCEEDING THE WATER QUALITY STANDARD ?
33
UNO-VEN INFLUENT FROM S&S CANAL ?
34-35
NET AMMONIA LOAD TO S&S CANAL ?
38-39
TABLE 3-1:
TABLE 3-2:
TABLE 3-3:
TABLE 3-4:
TABLE 3-5:
TABLE 4-1: WATER QUALITY SAMPLING RESULTS ON THE CHICAGO
SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL ?
?
50
TABLE 4-2: CHLORIDE SAMPLING RESULTS ON THE CHICAGO
SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL ?
52
TABLE 4-3: CONDUCTIVITY SAMPLING RESULTS ON THE CHICAGO
SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL ?
TABLE 4-4: AMMONIA SAMPLING RESULTS ON THE CHICAGO
SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL ?
TABLE 4-5: BENTHIC COLLECTION DATA
?
53
54
59
111
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
PAGE NO.
TABLE 4-6: BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COUNTS COLLECTED
IN THE CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL ? 60
TABLE 4-7: MBI VALUES FROM MWRDGC - JUNE, 1991 - BENTHIC DATA . . 63
TABLE 4-8: ELECTROFISHING RESULTS
?
65
TABLE 5-1: WATER QUALITY DATA FROM USGS STATION (05537000) .. 68-70
TABLE 5-2: WATER QUALITY DATA FROM USGS STATION (05536999) . . . . 73
TABLE 5-3: DISSOLVED OXYGEN RESULTS UPSTREAM &
DOWNSTREAM OF UNO-VEN ?
82
TABLE 5-4: UN-IONIZED AMMONIA RESULTS UPSTREAM &
DOWNSTREAM OF UNO-VEN ?
83
TABLE 5-5: ILLINOIS WATERWAY NAVIGATION POOLS
?
84
TABLE 5-6: MWRDGC, DESCRIPTION OF FIVE SAMPLING STATIONS
ALONG THE ILLINOIS WATERWAY ?
92
TABLE 5-7: SUMMARY OF MWRDGC DATA FOR ILLINOIS WATERWAY . . . ? 93
TABLE 5-8: EFFLUENT AMMONIA LOADINGS OF MWRDGC
WATER RECLAMATION PLANTS ?
97
TABLE 5-9: AMMONIA EFFLUENT QUALITY OF MWRDGC WRPs
?
99
iv
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
PAGE NO.
TABLE 5-10: DISCHARGE CONCENTRATIONS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANTS AS USED IN FIRST AND SECOND SECTIONS
QUAL2EU MODEL ?
101
TABLE 5-11: DISCHARGED AMMONIA LOADINGS
?
102
TABLE 6-1: QUAL2EU - UNO-VEN INPUT PARAMETERS
?
109
TABLE 6-2: UNO-VEN's IMPACT ON AMMONIA ?
117
TABLE 6-3: UNO-VEN's IMPACT ON DISSOLVED OXYGEN ?
118
TABLE 7-1: EFFLUENT AMMONIA LOADS FROM 1989 - 1992
?
121
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE NO.
FIGURE
2-1:?
SITE LOCATION MAP ?
4
FIGURE
2-2:?
THE CHICAGO WATERWAY AND UPPER ILLINOIS
RIVER SYSTEM
?
5
FIGURE
2-3:?
BARRELS OF OIL PROCESSED PER DAY ?
7
FIGURE
2-4:?
% NITROGEN CONTENT OF CRUDE OIL ?
8
FIGURE
2-5:?
% SULFUR CONTENT OF CRUDE OIL ?
9
FIGURE
2-6:?
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SCHEMATIC ?
11
FIGURE
3-1:?
AMMONIA EFFLUENT LOADING ?
23
FIGURE
3-2:
?
YEARLY AVERAGE WASTEWATER FLOW RATE ?
24
FIGURE
3-3:?
ANNUAL AVG. EFFLUENT AMMONIA CONCENTRATION 27
FIGURE
3-4:
?
MONTHLY AVG. UN-IONIZED AMMONIA
?
31
FIGURE
3-5:
?
YEARLY AVG. INFLUENT AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS
36
FIGURE
3-6:
?
AVG. INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT AMMONIA
? 40
FIGURE 4-1:?
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION ABOVE BACKGROUND . . ? 46
FIGURE
4-2:
?
DETAIL A, CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION
ABOVE BACKGROUND
?
47
FIGURE
4-3:?
CONDUCTIVITY MEASUREMENTS ABOVE BACKGROUND
48
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
(continued)
PAGE NO.
FIGURE 4-4:?
DETAIL B, CONDUCTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
ABOVE BACKGROUND
?
49
FIGURE 4-5:
?
BENTHIC SAMPLING OF THE CHICAGO
SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL ?
58
FIGURE 5-1A:?
DOWNSTREAM CANAL UN-IONIZED AMMONIA
LEVELS (1978 - 1984) ?
71
FIGURE 5-113:?
DOWNSTREAM CANAL UN-IONIZED AMMONIA
LEVELS (1985 - 1992)
?
72
FIGURE 5-2:
?
DOWNSTREAM CANAL UN-IONIZED AMMONIA
LEVELS (1987 - 1991)
?
74
FIGURE 5-3A:
?
DOWNSTREAM CANAL DISSOLVED
OXYGEN LEVELS (1978-1984)
?
76
FIGURE 5-3B:?
DOWNSTREAM CANAL DISSOLVED
OXYGEN LEVELS (1985-1991)
?
77
FIGURE 5-4:?
DOWNSTREAM CANAL DISSOLVED
OXYGEN LEVELS (1987-1991)
?
78
FIGURE 5-5:
?
WATERWAY SAMPLING LOCATION POINTS (MWRDGC)
? 81
FIGURE 5-6A:?
MAP OF ILLINOIS WATERWAY SHOWING
SAMPLING STATIONS (1-21) ?
85
FIGURE 5-6B:
?
MAP OF ILLINOIS WATERWAY
SHOWING SAMPLING STATIONS (22-49)
?
86
FIGURE 5-7:
?
MEAN CONCENTRATION OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN
AT 49 STATIONS, 1989
?
87
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
(continued)
PAGE NO.
FIGURE 5-8:
?
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF TOTAL AMMONIA
AT 49 STATIONS, 1989
?
88
FIGURE 5-9:
?
MEAN CONCENTRATION OF UN-IONIZED AMMONIA
AT 49 STATIONS, 1989
?
89
FIGURE 5-10:
?
MEAN WATER TEMPERATURE OF 49 STATIONS, 1989 .. 91
FIGURE 5-11:?
DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON THE ILLINOIS
WATERWAY (1989-1991) ?
95
FIGURE 5-12:?
TOTAL AMMONIA ON THE
ILLINOIS WATERWAY (1989-1991) ?
96
FIGURE 6-1:?
COMPARISON OF AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS DATA
(RIVER MILE 286-299)
?
110
FIGURE 6-2:
?
COMPARISON OF AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS DATA
(RIVER MILE 278-286)
?
111
FIGURE 6-3:?
AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS DOWNSTREAM
(RIVER MILE 180-278)
?
113
FIGURE 6-4:?
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS DOWNSTREAM
(RIVER MILE 278-299)
?
114
FIGURE 6-5:?
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS DOWNSTREAM
(RIVER MILE 180-278)
?
115
viii
APPENDICES
1.
40 CFR 419.23
2.
NPDES Permit
3.
MWRDGC R & D Report No. 91-50 - Fish Survey Data
4.
Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Aquatic Life and Its Uses
5.
Ammonia Effluent Loadings
6.
Plant Effluent Ammonia Data
7.
Estimated Mean Faunal Densities
ix
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION
The UNO-VEN Company (UNO-VEN), operates a petroleum refinery near Lemont,
Illinois, with a current rated capacity of 153,000 barrels per day. Nitrogenous compounds
are present in crude oil and a large fraction of this nitrogen is removed by various refinery
operations. Ammonia and organic nitrogen in the wastewater are a direct result of the
nitrogenous compounds from the crude oil.
UNO-VEN operates a physical/chemical and biological wastewater treatment plant
at the refinery. The treatment plant performs primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment
on the generated wastewater before it is discharged into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal (Ship Canal). The Ship Canal is part of the Chicago Waterway classified as a
secondary contact waterway under Title 35: Subtitle C: Chapter I of the Illinois
Administrative Code. The Illinois Pollution Control Board adopted Title 35: Part 304.122
to control ammonia discharges to the Chicago River System. Rule 304.122(b), limits larger
industrial discharges (greater than 100 lbs/day ammonia) to 3.0 mg/l.
The U.S. EPA has established effluent guidelines for wastewater discharges by
industry category. The petroleum refining industry is divided into five subcategories based
upon the processes utilized and the products produced. The UNO-VEN Refinery is
classified as a Subcategory-B cracking refinery, under the federal regulations. Effluent
limits under the federal effluent guidelines are based upon production, and are computed
on a pounds per day basis. Historically, UNO-VEN has achieved compliance with the
federal effluent guidelines; however, the 3.0 mg/1 state effluent limit has not been
attainable on a consistent basis.
From 1977 through 1984, UNO-VEN operated under several variances from the
Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB). In 1982, the IPCB granted UNO-VEN its fourth
variance, contingent that by May, 1984, UNO-VEN submit a program to ensure compliance
to Rule 304.122 or prepare a proposal for a site-specific regulatory change. In December
of 1984, UNO-VEN appeared before the Illinois Pollution Control Board requesting a site-
specific regulatory change. The IPCB granted UNO-VEN site-specific effluent limits set
at the U.S. EPA's Best Available Treatment (BAT) pursuant to 40 CFR 419.23 (1985). This
site specific rule change terminates December 31, 1993.
UNO-VEN has operated under two National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits since being granted the site specific rule change. The current ammonia
effluent discharge limits are set in the NPDES permit (No. 1L0001587) at 749.19 lbs/day (30
day average) and 1,648.21 lbs/day (daily maximum). These values were derived based upon
a crude oil throughput of 143,400 bbls/per day. Based on the most recent five years
production, BAT limits are 772 and 1,698 lbs/day, monthly maximum and daily maximum,
respectively.
The IPCB has established water quality standards for state waters, including the
Chicago Waterways to further protect water quality. The Ship Canal water quality
standards are regulated by secondary contact water standards. The ammonia in secondary
contact waters is regulated as un-ionized ammonia and is limited to 0.1 mg/l.
The purpose of this report is to assess the environmental impact of the ammonia
content in UNO-VEN's wastewater effluent. Both the localized impact upon the Ship Canal
as well as downstream Illinois River basin quality are described herein. Chemical and
biological sampling were used to determine the localized impacts by comparing upstream
and downstream conditions as well as conditions found in 1983, obtained from the previous
rule change request. A water quality computer model was used to assess the overall
impact attributable to UNO-VEN's ammonia discharge on the Illinois River System.
With the adoption of the toxic control strategies by both the U.S. EPA and the
Illinois Pollution Control Board, localized water quality issues must also be considered. The
Mixing Zone and Zone of Initial Dilution (ZID) for UNO-VEN's discharge are described
herein to address localized water quality concerns.
-2-
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 Site Description
The UNO-VEN Refinery is located southwest of Lemont, Illinois, east of Romeoville,
as depicted in Figure 2-1. The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (Ship Canal) is situated to
the north and east of UNO-VEN. The Ship Canal runs parallel to the Des Plaines River
generally flowing southwest until Romeoville where the canal turns to the south.
The Chicago Waterway is part of the Corps of Engineer River Mile system. River
Mile point 0.0 is the confluence of the Illinois River and the Mississippi River in Grafton,
Illinois. The Ship Canal ends at river mile 290 where the Des Plaines River and the Ship
Canal merge. UNO-VEN's outfall 001 is located at river mile 296.5 on the Ship Canal, 5.5
miles upstream from the Lockport Lock and Dam. The Chicago Waterway and the Illinois
River System are shown on Figure 2-2.
2.2 Production Trends
UNO-VEN refines domestic and foreign sour crude oil to produce gasoline, kerosene,
home heating oil, aviation fuel, diesel oil and petroleum coke. Petroleum in general
contains 85% carbon, 12% hydrogen, and the remaining 3% oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur
(Nemerow, 1971). Refining of crude oil includes the removal of the nitrogen and sulfur
compounds through distillation, desalting, and fractionation processes.
The nitrogen that is removed during the refining process typically
ends up in an
aqueous waste stream, often along with sulfur compounds in the form of sulfides. The
sulfide and nitrogen bearing aqueous waste streams are processed through one of two sour
water strippers at the refinery where most of the sulfides and ammonia are steam stripped
from the wastewater.
-3-
FIGURE 2-1
SITE LOCATION MAP
LLINOIS
UNO-VEN OIL REFINERY
F-
LEMONY, ILLINOIS?
0
11
CZ
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
?
Z
SOURCE: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
ROMEOVILLE QUADRANGLE
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
COOK CO.
04./ PACK CO.
Lake Michigan
KDOKAtEALLCOC.O. —
r?
WW"P'4CC4' CO.- '
.
.
I?
Romeoville I
?
''''‘.
â– UW.1,7;
711:5s,417:0-.------1--------28-
°-----
-
UNO-VEN OUTFALL 001
________I
?
RIVER MILE 296.5
__
1?
â– i
?
1/?
LL.002,7,11" 0,...
•Lockport
sl?
I?
i
Joliet
1-55 BRIDGE
r,.?r
,
r
8?
12?
16
miles
BRA41301.1 It0.40
LOCK
MO DMA
COCK CO.
WILL CC/.
Ottawa
SDP/ I
CKMaD
A
Channahon
Bureau
Junction •
La Salle
•
.
....%;
STARVED ROCK
mAR•zr1 I Ct
LOCK ///-0 DA/4
orris
WW1 CC.
--10;;C;;ETC0.--
FIGURE 2-2
THE CHICAGO WATERWAY
AND UPPER ILLINOIS RIVER SYSTEM
SOURCE: CAMP DRESSER & McKEE, WATER QUALITY MODELLING FOR THE
CHICAGO WATERWAY AND UPPER ILLINOIS RIVER SYTEMS, 1992.
Chillicothe •
-5-
Several refinery processes contribute to the nitrogen wastewater loading, including
the following:
Process
Pollutants
1.
Cracking and distillation
Organic nitrogen compounds
2.
Hydrodesulfurization
Ammonia
3.
Sweetening, neutralization
Organic nitrogen compounds
4.
Oil storage
Ammonium sulfide
5.
Gas purification and recovery
Organic nitrogen compounds
Organic nitrogen compounds formed include amines, amides, quinolines, and
pyridines. As the organic nitrogen compounds are biologically degraded during wastewater
treatment, ammonia is formed.
The UNO-VEN Refinery's capacity for oil production is currently 153,000 bbls/day.
Average production has generally increased over the last eight years, peaking in 1990 at
138,000 bbls/day. The peak month production occurred in 1992, at 147,700 bbls/day.
Figure 2-3 graphically depicts the annual average crude oil throughput.
Figure 2-4 presents the trend in nitrogen content in the crude since 1974. Nitrogen
increased from approximately 0.007% in the mid-70's to approximately 0.017% in the most
recent five years, or a 157% increase.
The trend in sulfur content in crude oil is presented in Figure 2-5. The sulfur
content steadily increased from 1% in 1974/75 to 1.8% in 1982. During the most recent
two years, the sulfur level has declined to the 1.2 to 1.3% range.
The nitrogen level in the crude has a direct bearing on the ammonia loading in the
wastewater. Coupling the 157% increase in nitrogen with the 25% increase in crude oil
throughput has more than doubled the nitrogen loading on the wastewater treatment
facilities at the refinery. The impact of this increase in nitrogen loading is described in
detailed in the following Chapter.
-6-
\LL
150
100
cn
0
H
50
FIGURE 2-3
BARRELS of OIL PROCESSED PER DAY
UNO—VEN REFINERY
1985 a/
?
1986
?
1987
?
1988?
1989
?
1990
?
1991
?
1992 b/
YEAR
a/ April — December
b/ January — August
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
FIGURE 2-4
% NITROGEN CONTENT of CRUDE OIL
UNO-VEN REFINERY
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
YEAR
FIGURE 2-5
% SULFUR CONTENT of CRUDE OIL
UNO-VEN REFINERY
2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
YEAR
2.3 Description of Wastewater Treatment Facility
and Modifications Since 1983
The UNO-VEN wastewater treatment plant began operation in 1969. The original
design included two oil/water separators, a flow equalization tank, a primary clarifier, an
activated sludge system and a polishing pond prior to discharge. Several wastewater
treatment plant modifications have been made since the original installation. Figure 2-6
depicts the process as it currently exists. Major changes to the system include covered
process water storage tanks, new oil/water separators, a new aeration basin, a new
clarifier, and new fine bubble diffusers.
Since UNO-VEN was granted its first ammonia variance in 1977, the wastewater
treatment plant and refinery have undergone numerous modifications in efforts to reduce
the ammonia concentration and other constituents in the effluent. Progress has been made
in the reduction of ammonia despite increasing nitrogen in the crude oil and higher crude
oil throughputs. In the previous report, "Environmental Assessment of Ammonia
Concentration in the Wastewater Discharge of Union Oil Company, Chicago Refinery,"
December, 1984 by L.L. Huff and J.E. Huff, costs incurred from 1977 to 1983 associated
with improving wastewater quality were itemized. Table 2-1 presents a summary of costs
incurred since 1983 directed toward improving effluent quality. Over $7 million has been
expended over the last nine years with an additional $13 million appropriated to improve
effluent quality and maintain the wastewater treatment.
The ammonia loading to the two sour water strippers has increased since 1984,
resulting in more ammonia removal through the strippers prior to sewering the water.
Improved maintenance and operation practices on the strippers have also occurred due to
increased awareness. All of these projects have impacted ammonia effluent quality.
STORM WATER BASIN
PRETREATMENT BYPASS
CHARGE PUMPS
900 GPM
AIR BLOWERS
5115 SCFM
6000 GPM
PUMP
EQ. TANK
AERATION TANKS
NEW
AERATION
TANK
FINE BUBBLE HEADER
SED. TANK
EFFLUENT PUMPS
6000 GPM
RETURN SLUDGE
PUMPS
2100 GPM
TO SANITARY
AND SHIP CANAL
NEW CLARIFIER
TREATED WATER BASIN
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SCHEMATIC
FLOATING
ROOF
NEW PROCESS WATER
STORAGE TANKS
FIGURE 2-6
TABLE 2-1
WASTE TREATMENT MODIFICATIONS AND OPERATION COSTS
Year
?
Project?
Cost
1984
?
Modify piping to treatment plant?
$ 12,000
Provide temporary aerators to
treatment plant
?
13,000
1985
?
DO analyzers for two aeration tanks?
6,000
Replace effluent weir?
6,000
Provide additional aerators to waste
treatment?
16,000
Replace stripper overhead piping with
aluminum?
22,000
Upgrade pump casings of reflux pumps
for sour water strippers
?
30,000
1986
?
Modify activated sludge clarifier
?
89,000
Eliminate stormwater basin overflows?
2,151,000
Replace two overhead coolers - sulfur unit ?
72,000
1988?
Provide additional aerators to waste
treatment?
45,000
1989?
Improve waste treatment handling
?
19,000
Reduce MEA System corrosion - rates
and chem losses - sulfur unit 19
?
55,000
Isolation block valves for overhead condenser 37,000
1990?
Improve operation of sour water stripper
by upgrading local control
?
197,000
Improve desalter efficiency - reduce
CN in effluent
?
36,000
Increase aeration capacity?
37,000
Upgrade wastewater treatment system?
4,290,000
(New clarifier, aeration, tank, blowers,
new lines, larger pumps, controls)
-12-
TABLE 2-1
WASTE TREATMENT MODIFICATIONS AND OPERATION COSTS
(continued)
Year
?
Project?
Cost
1991?
Increase vent line size on stripper tower
?
$ 62,000
Eliminate stormwater basin - engineering
study
?
113,000
1992?
Improve oil/water separator efficiency?
57,000
TOTAL?
$7,365,000
Ongoing
Ongoing
Wastewater segregation?
7,300,000
New process water storage tanks?
5,500,000
TOTAL
?
$12,800,000
2.4 Applicable Regulations
UNO-VEN discharges effluent from the wastewater treatment plant into the Ship
Canal. The plant's discharge quality is permitted under a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA). The Ship Canal is classified as a secondary contact water under Title 35:
Environmental Protection; Subtitle C: Water Pollution; Chapter I: Pollution Control Board;
Part 302: Subpart D. A secondary contact water is defined as a water:
. . . not suited for general use activities but which will be appropriate for all
secondary contact uses and which will be capable of supporting an indigenous
aquatic life limited only by the physical configuration of the body of water,
characteristics and origin of the water and the presence of contaminants in the
amounts that do not exceed the water quality standards listed in Subpart D.
The regulations establish water quality standards for secondary contact waters under
Subpart D. No discharger shall discharge effluent such that it causes the receiving stream
to exceed the water quality standard. Water quality standards are generally established
as maximum limits. Section 302.407 limits the water quality for un-ionized ammonia
concentration in a secondary contact water to 0.1 mg/l. Un-ionized ammonia is a function
of the ammonia concentration, pH and temperature. The 0.1 mg/1 as un-ionized ammonia
is based upon consideration of the 96-hour LC
50
value for fish species presently found in
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago waterways (Huff & Huff, Inc.,
1992).
The Illinois regulations also include general effluent limitations for discharges to
State Waters. These standards are given in Part 304: Effluent Standards; Subpart A:
General Effluent Standards. Section 304.122 contains the effluent standards for ammonia
discharges. Without the existing site specific rule change, UNO-VEN's monthly average
effluent limit would be 3.0 mg/1, all year around.
-14-
In addition to the Illinois effluent limitation, UNO-VEN is required to achieve Best
Available Treatment (BAT) limits as promulgated by the U.S. EPA in 40 CFR 419.23. The
applicable BAT limitations are based upon the crude oil throughput. The current BAT
limits for ammonia are 749.19 lbs/day monthly average and 1,648.21 lbs/day daily
maximum, as contained in the facility's NPDES permit. BAT limits based upon the most
recent five years production are 772 and 1,698 lbs/day. A comparison of the U.S. EPA
model plant to UNO-VEN's plant in 1984 indicated that the UNO-VEN plant is a model
treatment plant and is therefore employing the Best Available Technology that is consistent
with achieving BAT standards (Aware, 1984).
In September, 1977, UNO-VEN was granted a one-year variance allowing the plant
to discharge ammonia at 575 lbs/day (monthly average) and a 1,260 lbs/day maximum,
contingent that UNO-VEN investigate methods for additional ammonia removal. In 1978,
the IPCB granted a two-year variance to UNO-VEN acknowledging that progress in reducing
the ammonia content in the discharge had been made. In June, 1980, an additional two-
year variance was arranged by the IPCB allowing UNO-VEN to continue its research and
source control efforts. Modifications were made to the treatment plant including
increasing the efficiency of the sour water stripper, sour water oil separators, and the
installation of new lime slakers.
UNO-VEN, in 1982, then requested another variance which IPCB granted for an
additional two years. However, IPCB requested that UNO-VEN either submit a program
to ensure compliance to Rule 304.122 by May, 1984 or consider an application for site-
specific relief. UNO-VEN chose to apply for site-specific relief and appeared before the
board on December 12, 1984. IPCB granted UNO-VEN's site-specific request for its
discharge. UNO-VEN's discharge is currently regulated under Part 304: Effluent
Standards; Subpart B: Site Specific Rules and Exceptions not of General Applicability;
Section 304.213. UNO-VEN
. . . must meet applicable Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
limitations pursuant to 40 CFR 419.23 (1985) incorporated by reference in
subsection (c). . . . provisions of this Section shall terminate on December 31, 1993.
UNO-VEN currently operates under NPDES Permit No. IL0001589 (see Attachments),
which expires June 1, 1993. The ammonia nitrogen (NH
3 -N) is limited under this permit
to 749.19 lbs/day (30 day average) and 1,648.21 lbs/day (daily maximum), the BAT limits.
The permit ammonia limits derived are based on a maximum crude throughput of 143,400
bbls/day. BAT limits based on the most recent five years production are 772 lbs (30 day
average) and 1,698 lbs/day (daily maximum).
2.5 Mixing Zone and Zone of Initial Dilution
Mixing Zone and Zone of Initial Dilution (ZID) are integral parts of the State's
program to protect water quality. Mixing Zone and ZID are defined in Title 35:
Environmental Protection; Subtitle C: Water Pollution; Chapter 1: Pollution Control Board;
Part 302 Water Quality Standards; Subpart A: General Water Quality Provisions; Section
302.100 Definitions:
" 'Mixing Zone' means a portion of the waters of the State identified as a region
within which mixing is allowed pursuant to Section 302.102(d)."
Under the definitions in Section 302.100, Zone of Initial Dilution means,
. . . a portion of a mixing zone, identified pursuant to Section 302.102(e), within
which acute toxicity standards need not be met.
A Zone of Initial Dilution is a component of the mixing zone ". . . within which
effluent dispersion is immediate and rapid." (Section 302.102(e)).
"'Immediate' dispersion means an effluent's merging with receiving waters without
delay in time after its discharge within close proximity of the end of the discharge
pipe, so as to minimize the length of exposure time to aquatic life to undiluted
effluent."
-16-
"Rapid' dispersion means an effluent's merging with receiving waters so as to
minimize the length of exposure time of aquatic life to undiluted effluent."
According to Section 302.101(a), Part 302 which contains the mixing zone and ZID
regulations described above, are applicable "throughout the State as designated in 35 Ill
Adm. Code 303." The secondary contact waters are designated in Part 303 (Section
303.411).
Section 302.102, defines allowable Mixing Zone areas. Section (b)(8) limits the width
of the Mixing Zone to a maximum of 25% of the cross-sectional area of a stream (except
for those streams where a dilution ratio of less than 3:1). UNO-VEN's average flow is 4
mgd compared to the canal 7-day, 10 year low flow of approximately 1,100 mgd (Singh and
Stall, 1973). This is a ratio of 275:1, or greater dilution than 3:1. The width of the canal
at UNO-VEN's outfall is 172 feet, therefore the Mixing Zone allowed would be a maximum
of 43 feet, 25% of 172 feet.
Section 302.102 (b)(12) allows for the maximum area of the Mixing Zone to be no
larger than the area of 26 acres. Assuming that the entire length of the Mixing Zone was
43 feet wide and based on an area of 26 acres (1,132,560 sq ft), UNO-VEN would be allowed
a maximum Mixing Zone of up to 26,340 feet downstream, or five miles in length.
U.S. EPA has issued a guidance document entitled "Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control" (U.S. EPA, 1991). In general, the U.S. EPA policy
specifies that at the edge of the Zone of Initial Dilution that the acute criteria be met and
at the edge of the Mixing Zone, the water quality standards be achieved. The un-ionized
ammonia water quality standard (0.1 mg/1) for the Ship Canal should be achieved at the
edge of the Mixing Zone. U.S. EPA specifies for acute protection, the Criteria Maximum
Concentration (CMC) for specific compounds is to be set at 0.5 times the final acute value.
As explained in the U.S. EPA document:
"The CMC describes the condition under which lethality will not occur if the
duration of the exposure to the CMC level is less than 1 hour." (U.S. EPA, 1991).
-17-
U.S. EPA policy also restricts the size of the ZID, and provides for alternatives for
determining the size of the ZID (U.S. EPA, 1991). The pertinent alternative in UNO-VEN's
case is limiting the exposure to a drifting organism to 1 hour at an average concentration
not exceeding the CMC. The Technical Document suggests the collection of chemical
samples, field tracer studies or modeling estimates of concentration or dilution isopleths
to determine the size of the ZID (U.S. EPA, 1991).
From the above discussion of state regulations and federal policies, the ZID and
Mixing Zone can be determined through actual field studies on the effluent plume. UNO-
VEN appears eligible for both a ZID and Mixing Zone under federal and state criteria.
2.6 Ammonia Acute Toxicity on Indigenous Fish
Based upon the Zone of Initial Dilution regulations and policies described in the
previous section, the acute toxicity of ammonia to indigenous aquatic species is an
important consideration. As will be discussed in a future chapter, UNO-VEN's effluent is
a surface plume, so benthic organisms will not be exposed to elevated ammonia levels from
the discharge.
Fish collected by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(MWRDGC) in 1991 in the Ship Canal at Lockport included the following (Dennison, et al.,
1991):
No.
Gizzard Shad
1
Goldfish
12
Carp
35
Green Sunfish
2
Pumpkinseed
3
Golden Shiner
2
Emerald Shiner
1
Bluegill
1
-18-
A reasonable assumption is that these same fish species would also be present near
UNO-VEN's discharge, which is 4.5 miles upstream of the Lockport sampling point.
Average un-ionized ammonia Lethal Concentration Values (LC50) for the above fish,
taken from U.S. EPA's "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - 1984" (1985) are
as follows:
Average
LC50, mg/1
a/
Golden Shiner
0.72
Green Sunfish
1.2
Pumpkinseed
0.60
Bluegill
1.4
a/
?
Where more than one study reported, mean value utilized
Using the U.S. EPA's policy of protecting the most sensitive species, the
Pumpkinseed LC50 of 0.60 mg/1 should be utilized. Under the U.S. EPA policy, then the
Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) is to be set at 0.5 times the LC50 of 0.60 mg/1,
or in this case, 0.30 mg/l. This then is the un-ionized ammonia concentration that is to be
achieved at the edge of the ZID.
CHAPTER 3
EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY
3.1 Introduction
The UNO-VEN Refinery processes crude oil into various petroleum products
including gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, petrochemical solvents, and petroleum coke.
UNO-VEN's wastewater is different from domestic wastewater in terms of chemical
parameters and their concentrations, in part because of the high nitrogen and sulfur
content of the crude oil processed and the water conservation practices. Since 1977, the
refinery has implemented a variety of programs, both in-plant and end-of-pipe, to reduce
effluent ammonia loadings. Results of these efforts and the resultant effluent quality are
described herein.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the production of refined oil has increased 25% over the
last eight years, accompanied by a 157% increase in the nitrogen content of the crude oil.
These two parameters have caused an increased ammonia loading on the treatment
facilities at the refinery.
3.2 Influent and Effluent Monitoring Database
UNO-VEN monitors several chemical parameters in both the water intake to the
refinery as well as the discharge from the refinery. Intake water is taken from the Ship
Canal and used primarily for utility and cooling water. The water intake is located 400
feet upstream of UNO-VEN's discharge and is representative of upstream water quality.
The influent and effluent parameters monitored by UNO-VEN are listed in Table 3-1.
Data summarized herein for the period of January, 1984 to September, 1992 were
collected by UNO-VEN; twice per week for most constituents in the effluent and once per
week for the intake water constituents. Data from 1978-1983 were obtained from the
-20-
TABLE 3-1
PARAMETERS MONITORED BY UNO-VEN
Parameter
?
Influent?
Effluent
Flow, mgd?
X
?
X
pH?
X?
X
Temperature?
X?
X
Total Suspended Solids?
X?
X
COD
?
X?
X
BOD?
X?X
CBODc
?
X
Chromium
'?
?
+6
+
X?X
Total Chromium
?
X?X
Oil & Grease
?
X
?
X
Ammonia - Nitrogen
?
X?
X
Phenol?
X?
X
Total Cyanide?
X
?
X
Sulfide
?
X?
X
Total Dissolved Solids?
X?
X
Fluoride?
X?X
Nitrite (as N)?
X
Free Cyanide
?
X
Methylene Blue Active Substances?
X?
X
(MBAS) and Foam
previous report, "Environmental Assessment of Ammonia Concentrations in the Wastewater
Discharge of Union Oil Company, Chicago Refinery" (Huff and Huff, 1984).
The raw data from January, 1985 to September, 1992 are included in the
Attachments, along with computed monthly average values. Monthly data from 1984 is also
included in the Attachments.
3.3 Effluent Quality
Figure 3-1 presents the annual average and maximum monthly average ammonia
levels in UNO-VEN's effluent since 1978. From 1978 through June, 1984, the annual
averages ranged from 290 to 509 pounds per day, with no clear trend. The maximum month
values during this same period of time ranged from 503 pounds per day ammonia to 567
pounds per day. Since 1986, when the ammonia levels peaked, there has been a declining
trend in the ammonia discharged. Since 1989, the annual average has been less than 100
pounds per day and the maximum monthly discharge has been 259 pounds per day over the
same period. From 1986 to 1991, the annual average ammonia discharged by UNO-VEN has
declined 85%, from 493 lbs/day in 1986 to 72 lbs/day in 1991, with further improvement
in 1992 apparent.
Since 1985, the volume of UNO-VEN's discharge has ranged from 2.99 mgd to 4.22
mgd on an annual average basis. Figure 3-2 presents the annual average flow rates which
shows a generally increasing trend since 1985, with the current discharge rate of 4.0 mgd
25% higher than the rate in 1986. Therefore, the 85% of the reduction in the pounds of
ammonia discharge is due to improved removal efficiency and not due to lower flow rates.
Table 3-2 summarizes the annual average, monthly maximum, and daily maximum
ammonia effluent concentrations since 1984. Effluent quality, as measured by the monthly
maximum and daily maximum concentrations, has improved similarly to the annual average
ammonia discharge. The monthly maximum was decreased 88% from 1986 to 1991 and the
-22-
0
(/)
-0
0
eL
0
E
E
800
600
400
FIGURE 3-1
AMVO\IA EFFL ENT LOAlING
ANNUAL AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM MONTHLY LEVELS, pounds/day
1200
Annual Average
Maximum Month
1000
200
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 01-0604-12 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 01-09
1984 1985
?
1992
Year-
FIGURE 3-2
YEARLY AVERAGE WASTEWATER
UNO—VEN REFINERY
FLOWRATE (MGD)
1986
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992 b/
YEAR
a!
April through December
b!
January through September
TABLE 3-2
UNO—VEN EFFLUENT AMMONIA DISCHARGED
SINCE 1984
YEAR
ANNUAL AVG.
AMMONIA CONC.,
mg/I
MONTHLY MAX.?DAILY MAX.
AMMONIA CONC., AMMONIA CONC.,
mg/1?
mg/1
1984 a/
22.4
41.0
52.0
1985 b/
9.9
21.3
30.0
1986
22.2
57.3
78.0
1987
6.6
23.6
29.0
1988
3.9
16.2
23.0
1989
2.8
10.0
26.0
1990
0.9
2.6
11.6
1991
2.4
6.7
21.9
1992 c/
0.7
1.8
10.7
a/ January through June
b/ April through December
c/ January through September
and the daily maximum has declined 72% for the same time period. Figure
3-3
depicts the
change in effluent ammonia concentrations with time. From 1986 to 1991, the annual
average ammonia concentration has declined from 22.2 to 2.4
mg/l. This reduction has
occurred despite the higher nitrogen in the crude, higher crude oil throughput, and the
increase in the wastewater volume. As is apparent from Figure 3-3, the percentage of the
time nitrification has been achieved has increased over the past five years.
Table 3-3
presents a listing of effluent ammonia levels, by months, since April, 1985.
The effluent ammonia trend clearly shows that UNO-VEN's treatment plant is capable of
nitrification. However, there are periods, despite the upgradings described in Chapter 2,
when a 3.0 mg/1 monthly average ammonia and a 6.0 mg/1 daily maximum ammonia cannot
be achieved.
3.4 Un-ionized Effluent Ammonia Levels
UNO-VEN discharges into the Ship Canal, a secondary contact waterway. The un-
ionized ammonia level in Ship Canal is regulated by the IPCB and not total ammonia. As
discussed in Chapter 2,
the edge of the Zone of Initial Dilution (ZID) must achieve a certain
un-ionized concentration
(0.30 mg/1). To address this water quality issue, UNO-VEN's
ammonia concentrations have been converted to un-ionized ammonia. The un-ionized
ammonia in the effluent was calculated using monthly average data for pH, temperature
and ammonia concentration. These data are presented in Table 3-4 from 1989 to
September, 1992, which can be considered representative of what the refinery is currently
capable of achieving. Figure
3-4
illustrates the average effluent un-ionized ammonia
compared to the secondary contact water quality standard as well as the Criteria Maximum
Concentration (CMC) derived in Chapter 2. Since 1989, the peak monthly average un-
ionized ammonia was 0.264 mg/1 in July, 1991, below the CMC of 0.30
mg/1, required to
be achieved at the edge of the ZID.
-26-
FIGURE 3-3
ANNUAL AVERAGE
UNO—VEN
EFFLUENT
EFFLUENT
AMMONIA
TO S&S CANAL
CONC., mg/I
25
--.3
t..)
I
1
_
.-
20
E
(5
Z
0
0 15
2
<
10
Lil
LD
W
>
<?
5
0
1
t
I
1
i
I
I
I
1984 a/
1985 b/
a/ January through June
c/ April through December
1986
1987
1988
YEAR
c/ January through September
1989
1990
1991
1992 c/
TABLE 3-3
UNO-VEN EFFLUENT AMMONIA LEVELS, BY MONTH
DATE AVG FLOW, a/?
AVG NH3- N,?
AVG NH3- N,
mgd
? mg/1?
lbs/day
APR 1985
3.31
3.2
86
MAY
2.31
3.6
69
JUN
2.76
15.0
346
JUL
3.00
21.3
525
AUG
3.63
3.3
83
SEP
3.08
2.9
75
OCT
3.11
14.3
385
NOV
5.05
8.1
302
DEC
3.33
15.4
502
JAN 1986
1.88
40.1
664
FEB
2.54
57.3
1121
MAR
3.14
40.9
1052
APR
2.10
40.0
597
MAY
3.68
17.6
514
JUN
3.39
3.0
71
JUL
3.56
14.1
449
AUG
3.03
15.1
361
SEP
3.38
4.9
141
OCT
3.77
8.0
204
NOV
3.01
9.5
228
DEC
3.60
18.4
539
JAN 1987
3.50
15.0
440
FEB
3.24
23.6
600
MAR
3.07
11.9
325
APR
3.15
9.6
244
MAY
2.76
2.1
49
JUN
3.22
2.5
75
JUL
4.59
11.5
381
AUG
4.94
0.2
8
SEPT
3.87
0.1
4
OCT
3.27
2.9
67
NOV
4.03
2.6
56
DEC
4.87
1.1
45
JAN 1988
4.65
0.6
25
FEB
4.35
4.1
120
MAR
4.24
1.4
56
APR
4.30
7.7
257
MAY
3.78
5.8
155
JUN
3.39
16.2
472
JUL
2.93
1.2
26
AUG
3.51
0.6
19
SEP
2.90
1.3
27
OCT
4.17
1.0
31
NOV
4.19
5.0
178
DEC
4.23
3.3
90
JAN 1989
3.11
3.8
115
FEB
3.91
10.0
259
MAR
4.67
0.7
26
APR
2.04
8.5
97
MAY
2.54
0.4
7
JUN
3.56
0.6
13
JUL
3.32
4.6
117
AUG
3.33
2.5
80
SEP
3.52
0.5
13
OCT
3.09
1.0
27
NOV
3.71
0.8
24
DEC
2.98
0.8
24
-28-
TABLE 3-3
UNO-VEN EFFLUENT AMMONIA LEVELS, BY MONTH
DATE
AVG FLOW, a/
mgd
AVG NH3 - N,
mg/1
AVG NH3 - N,
lbs/day
JAN 1990
4.65
0.7
19
FEB
4.70
1.5
68
MAR
5.54
1.2
50
APR
3.81
0.6
25
MAY
5.17
0.2
10
JUN
3.42
0.8
20
JUL
4.19
0.4
13
AUG
3.35
1.9
53
SEP
2.74
0.3
6
OCT
4.06
0.6
17
NOV
4.17
0.3
10
DEC
4.70
2.6
79
JAN 1 991
4.40
0.9
29
FEB
4.12
0.3
8
MAR
4.34
0.1
5
APR
4.72
0.3
16
MAY
4.34
0.8
28
JUN
3.58
5.1
113
JUL
3.14
6.7
193
AUG
3.37
5.1
168
SEP
3.08
0.6
17
OCT
4.29
4.0
116
NOV
4.88
4.9
161
DEC
4.12
0.9
26
JAN 1 992
3.78
0.5
13
FEB
4.10
0.6
21
MAR
4.13
0.3
10
APR
3.90
0.4
13
MAY
3.20
0.3
8
JUN
3.46
0.2
5
JUL
3.53
1.8
52
AUG
3.44
1.8
55
SEP
4.08
0.2
7
1 985 -1992
MINIMUM
1.88
0.1
4
AVERAGES
3.67
6.3
159
MAXIMUM
5.54
57.3
1121 b/
1 989 -1 992
MINIMUM
2.04
0.1
5
AVERAGES
3.83
1.8
50
MAXIMUM
5.54
10.0
259 b/
a/ FLOWRATE IS MONITORED DAILY
b/ MAXIMUM MONTHLY AVERAGE
TABLE 3-4
UNO-VEN EFFLUENT UN-IONZED AMMONIA
DATE
FLOW,
mgd
MONTHLY
AVERAGE
pH?
AMMONIA,
mg/I
AVERAGE
UN- IONIZED
TEMP.,?
AMMONIA,
deg. C?
mg/1
JAN 1989
3.11
7.4
3.8
10.6?0.020
FEB
3.91
7.4
10.0
15.6
?
0.075
MAR
4.67
7.2
0.7
19.4?0.004
APR
2.04
7.6
8.5
20.0?0.140
MAY
2.54
7.7
0.4
21.1?
0.009
JUN
3.56
7.6
0.6
27.2?0.016
JUL
3.32
7.7
4.6
28.3?0.169
AUG
3.33
7.2
2.5
25.6?0.025
SEP
3.52
7.2
0.5
25.0?0.005
OCT
3.09
7.2
1.0
21.7
?
0.007
NOV
3.71
7.2
0.8
18.9?0.005
DEC
2.98
7.3
0.8
14.4
?0.004
JAN 1990
4.65
7.0
0.7
18.3?
0.003
FEB
4.70
7.3
1.5
17.8
?0.011
MAR
5.44
7.3
1.2
18.9?0.009
APR
3.81
7.2
0.6
21.7?
0.004
MAY
5,17
7.3
0.2
22.8?
0.002
JUN
3.42
7.4
0.8
26.7?
0.013
JUL
4.19
7.2
0.4
28.9?
0.005
AUG
3.35
7.1
1.9
29.4?
0.019
SEP
2.74
7.6
0.3
26.7?
0.008
OCT
4.06
7.2
0.5
20.6?
0.003
NOV
4.17
7.1
0.3
17.8
?0.001
DEC
4.70
7.0
2.6
18.3
?
0.010
JAN 1991
4.40
7.2
0.9
16.7?
0.005
FEB
4.12
7.5
0.3
17.8?0.003
MAR
4.34
7.3
0.1
18.9?0.001
APR
4.72
6.8
0.3
22.2?
0.001
MAY
4.34
7.5
0.8
28.3?
0.019
JUN
3.58
7.6
5.1
30.0?
0.167
JUL
3.14
7.7
6.7
29.4?0.264
AUG
3.37
7.5
5.1
29.4?0.129
SEP
3.08
7.4
0.4
26.7?0.007
OCT
4.29
7.4
4.0
21.7?0.047
NOV
4.88
7.3
4.9
19.4?
0.039
DEC
4.12
7.4
0.9
17.2?
0.008
JAN 1992
3.78
7.1
0.5
15.0?
0.002
FEB
4.10
7.3
0.6
19.4
?
0.005
MAR
4.13
7.4
0.3
20.0?0.003
APR
3.90
7.8
0.4
21.7?0.012
MAY
3.20
7.6
0.3
25.0?0.007
JUN
3.46
7.5
0.2
28.3?
0.005
JUL
3.53
7.3
1.6
30.6?
0.028
AUG
3.44
7.3
1.8
29.4
?0.029
SEP
4.08
7.3
0.2
27.2?0.003
U=
N
U=UN-IONIZED AMMONIA, mg/I
0.94412
(1+10^x)+.0559
N=AMMONIA NITROGEN, mg/I
T=TEMPERATURE, deg C
x= 0.09018+ 2729.12
?
-pH
(T+273.16)
NOTE: mg/I = ppm
- 30-
FIGURE 3-4
MONTHLY AVERAGE UN-IONIZED AMMONIA, m9/1
UNO-VEN EFFLUENT TO SHIP CANAL
1989 - SEPT. 1992
WATER QUALITY
?
CRITERIA MAXIMUM
AVERAGE EFFLUENT
?
STANDARD FOR?
CONCENTRATION
UN-IONIZED AMMONIA?
UN-IONIZED AMMONIA?
(CMC)
0.60
0.50
C_)
: O. 40-1--
0. 30
CI
14
0 20
II
0. 10
0. 00
1989. 00
Measured pH and temperature used
for calculation of un-ionized ammonia
1990.00
?
1991.00
MONTH
1992. 00
On a daily basis, the effluent un-ionized concentration was calculated for the five
months when the average un-ionized ammonia in the discharge exceeded 0.1 mg/1 standard.
(April and July 1989 and June, July, and August 1991). Table 3-5 presents these data. The
peak calculated un-ionized discharge was 1.006 mg/1 on July 6, 1989. Thus, to achieve the
CMC of 0.30 mg/1, the effluent must be diluted:
Required?Maximum Effluent Value =
?
1.006 mg/1
Dilution Ratio?CMC?
0.30 mg/1
?
3:1
in the Zone of Initial Dilution.
3.5 Influent Ammonia Levels
UNO-VEN uses water from the Ship Canal for its primary water source. The intake
is upstream of UNO-VEN's outfall and is therefore not effected by the effluent quality.
Two of the major uses for the influent wastewater are utilities and cooling water. The
average influent flow rate is 4.4 mgd compared to the effluent flow rate of 3.8 mgd for the
1989 to 1992 time period. The resulting reduction in flow rate is due to the evaporation
from the cooling towers.
Table 3-6 summarizes the ammonia levels and flow rate in the intake water since
1985, by month. Since 1987, an average 85.9 pounds per day of ammonia has been
withdrawn from the Ship Canal.
Figure 3-5 depicts the average ammonia concentrations in the intake water since
1985. A general declining trend is apparent since 1987, when the ammonia peaked at 3.8
mg/1, declining to 1.8 mg/1 in 1990 and 2.1 mg/1 in 1991, or approximately a 50% reduction
in ammonia. Through the first nine months of 1992, the Ship Canal ammonia has averaged
1.1 mg/l.
-32-
TABLE 3-5
UNO-VEN UN-IONIZED AMMONIA FOR MONTHS WITH MONTHLY
AVERAGES EXCEEDING THE WATER QUALITY STANDARD
DATE
pH
NH3-N,
mg/1
TEMP.,
deg. C
UN-IONIZED
AMMONIA
mg/1
MONTHLY
AVERAGE,
mg/I
4/4/89
7.1
0.6
21
0.003
4/6/89
7.0
0.9
19
0.004
4/11/89
7.8
8.6
16
0.167
4/13/89
7.8
12.2
17
0.257
4/1
8/8 9
7.8
16.2
19
0.386
4/20/89
7.9
16.0
19
0.496
4/25/89
7.8
9.1
23
0.297
4/27/89
7.7
4.7
24
0.132
0.22
7/5/89
8.2
6.5
31
0.826
7/6/89
8.3
6.5
31
1.006
7/11/89
7.9
2.5
32
0.176
7/13/89
7.9
3.1
27
0.158
7/18/89
7.3
0.8
27
0.011
7/20/89
7.4
0.4
26
0.006
7/25/89
7.1
1.3
27
0.011
7/27/89
7.2
5.3
27
0.056
0.28
6/4/91
6.6
1.2
31
0.004
6/6/91
7.3
14.6
28
0.218
6/11/91
7.4
16.1
30
0.337
6/13/91
7.6
6.6
29
0.208
6/18/91
8.0
0.4
30
0.031
6/20/91
7.8
0.3
31
0.016
6/25/91
8.0
1.6
30
0.125
6/27/91
8.0
0.2
30
0.016
0.12
7/2/91
8.3
0.4
30
0.058
7/3/91
8.0
0.4
30
0.031
7/9/91
7.8
0.4
32
0.024
7/11/91
7.7
0.4
32
0.018
7/16/91
7.4
9.6
31
0.209
7/18/91
7.2
21.9
32
0.338
7/24/91
7.4
10.3
26
0.159
7/25/91
8.1
10.3
27
0.808
7/30/91
7.4
2.8
28
0.050
0.19
8/1/91
8.1
2.8
28
0.236
8/6/91
7.3
10.6
29
0.164
8/8/91
6.9
20.8
29
0.129
8/13/91
7.4
5.7
29
0.111
8/15/91
7.9
2.2
30
0.139
8/20/91
7.2
0.7
29
0.009
8/22/91
7.4
0.3
29
0.006
8/27/91
7.6
0.2
28
0.006
8/29/91
7.7
0.1
32
0.005
0.09
TABLE 3-6
UNO-VEN INFLUENT FROM S&S CANAL
DATE
AVG FLOW,
mgd
AVG NH3-N,
mg/I
AVG NH3-N,
lbs/day
APR 1985
2.82
3.1
72.9
MAY
3.61
5.0
150.5
JUN
3.96
4.2
138.7
JUL
2.3
AUG
4.06
2.7
91.4
SEP
4.24
2.2
77.8
OCT
3.90
2.2
71.6
NOV
3.88
2.3
74.4
DEC
4.74
2.9
114.6
JAN 1986
3.71
4.5
139.2
FEB
3.47
4.3
124.4
MAR
3.44
6.4
183.6
APR
4.49
6.3
235.9
MAY
4.75
4.9
194.1
JUN
5.08
2.6
110.2
JUL
5.02
2.3
96.3
AUG
5.60
2.0
93.4
SEP
5.60
2.1
98.1
OCT
4.52
1.3
49.0
NOV
4.30
2.9
104.0
DEC
4.10
4.6
157.3
JAN 1987
4.36
4.1
149.1
FEB
4.58
6.3
240.6
MAR
4.25
5.9
209.1
APR
3.25
4.4
119.3
MAY
4.17
4.9
170.4
JUN
4.55
3.3
125.2
JUL
4.75
2.0
79.2
AUG
4.38
1.3
47.5
SEP
4.31
1.5
53.9
OCT
4.53
3.5
132.2
NOV
4.44
4.6
170.3
DEC
4.55
3.4
129 .0
JAN 1988
4.33
3.2
115.6
FEB
5.22
5.2
226.4
MAR
4.88
6.7
272.7
APR
4.63
3.8
146.7
MAY
5.01
3.0
125.4
JUN
4.32
1.1
39.6
JUL
4.65
1.0
38.8
AUG
4.74
0.9
35.6
SEP
4.65
0.5
19.4
OCT
4.71
1.9
74.6
NOV
4.37
1.0
36.4
DEC
4.83
1.4
56.4
-34-
TABLE 3-6
UNO-VEN INFLUENT FROM S&S CANAL
DATE
AVG FLOW,
mgd
AVG NH3-N,
mg/I
AVG NH3-N,
lbs/day
JAN 1989
4.24
3.2
113.2
FEB
4.74
2.9
114.6
MAR
5.11
5.0
213.1
APR
2.86
2.2
52.5
MAY
2.10
2.5
43.8
JUN
3.84
1.6
51.2
JUL
3.23
2.4
64.7
AUG
5.06
0.8
33.8
SEP
3.00
1.2
30.0
OCT
4.52
1.9
71.6
NOV
4.61
2.0
76.9
DEC
4.71
2.2
86.4
JAN 1990
4.97
5.2
215.5
FEB
5.06
2.8
1182
MAR
4.66
1.8
70.0
APR
4.87
2.4
97.5
MAY
3.57
1.3
38.7
JUN
4.37
1.7
62.0
JUL
4.24
1.1
38.9
AUG
4.09
0.5
17.1
SEP
4.21
0.4
14.0
OCT
4.45
1.4
52.0
NOV
4.26
1.3
46.2
DEC
4.38
1.6
58.4
JAN 1991
4.94
2.8
115.4
FEB
4.64
3.2
123.8
MAR
4.50
1.8
67.6
APR
4.30
1.1
39.4
MAY
4.29
1.8
64.4
JUN
3.27
1.7
46.4
JUL
4.58
1.2
45.8
AUG
4.51
3.6
135.4
SEP
4.42
2.0
73.7
OCT
3.99
3.3
109.8
NOV
4.26
1.7
60.4
DEC
4.43
1.3
48.0
JAN 1992
4.94
1.6
65.9
FEB
4.93
2.7
111.0
MAR
4.89
1.1
44.9
APR
4.73
1.2
47.3
MAY
4.65
0.4
11.6
JUN
4.70
1.1
43.1
JUL
4.71
0.8
31.4
AUG
4.69
0.7
27.4
SEP
4.01
0.3
17.5
AVERAGES
1985-1992
4.37
2.6
93.3
1987-1992
4.41
2.3
85.9
1989-1992
4.35
1.9
69.1
FIGURE 3-5
YEARLY AVG.
UNO—VEN
INFLUENT
INFLUENT
AMMONIA
FROM S&S CANAL
CONC., mg/I
1986
?
1987
?
1988?
1989
?
1990
?
1991
YEAR
a/ April through December
b/ January through September
3.6 Net Ammonia Loading
As noted in the previous section, UNO-VEN since 1987 has withdrawn an average of
85.9 pounds of ammonia from the Ship Canal per day. This is a significant quantity when
compared to the ammonia discharged by UNO-VEN. Table 3-7 compares the intake and
discharge ammonia levels, by month and annually since 1985.
From Table 3-7, since 1989, UNO-VEN has removed more pounds of ammonia from
the Ship Canal than the refinery has discharged on an annual' basis. Figure 3-6 graphically
depicts the influent/effluent ammonia levels on an annual basis.
On a monthly average basis, UNO-VEN has removed more ammonia than it has
discharged to the canal 31 out of the last 45 months (since 1989), or 69% of the time. The
peak net ammonia discharged since 1989 was 147 pounds per day in July, 1991.
TABLE 3-7
NET AMMONIA LOAD TO S&S CANAL
DATE
EFFLUENT
AVG NH3- N,
lbs/day
INFLUENT
AVG NH3- N,
lbs/day
NET DISCHARGE
EFFLUENT,
lbs/day
YEARLY AVG
EFFLUENT,
lbs/day
YEARLY AVG
INFLUENT,
lbs/day
YEARLY AVG
NET EFF.,
lbs/day
APR 1985
86.0
72.9
13.1
MAY
69.0
150.5
-81.5
JUN
346.0
138.7
207.3
JUL
525.0
525.0
AUG
83.0
91.4
-8.4
SEP
75.0
77.8
-2.8
OCT
385.0
71.6
313.4
NOV
302.0
74.4
227.6
DEC
502.0
114.6
387.4
263.7
99.0
175.7
JAN 1986
664.0
139.2
524.8
FEB
1121.0
124.4
996.6
MAR
1052.0
183.6
868.4
APR
597.0
235.9
361.1
MAY
514.0
194.1
319.9
JUN
71.0
110.2
-39.2
JUL
449.0
96.3
352.7
AUG
361.0
93.4
267.6
SEP
141.0
98.1
42.9
OCT
204.0
49.0
155.0
NOV
228.0
104.0
124.0
DEC
539.0
157.3
381.7
495.1
132.1
363.0
JAN 1987
440.0
149.1
290.9
FEB
600.0
240.6
359.4
MAR
325.0
209.1
115.9
APR
244.0
119.3
124.7
MAY
49.0
170.4
-121.4
JUN
75.0
125.2
-50.2
JUL
381.0
79.2
301.8
AUG
8.0
47.5
-39.5
SEP
4.0
53.9
-49.9
OCT
67.0
132.2
-65.2
NOV
56.0
170.3
-114.3
DEC
45.0
129.0
-84.0
191.2
135.5
55.7
JAN 1988
25.0
115.6
-90.6
FEB
120.0
226.4
-106.4
MAR
56.0
272.7
-216.7
APR
257.0
146.7
110.3
MAY
155.0
125.4
29.6
JUN
471.0
39.6
431.4
JUL
16.0
38.8
-22.8
AUG
19.0
35.6
-16.6
SEP
27.0
19.4
7.6
OCT
31.0
74.6
-43.6
NOV
178.0
36.4
141.6
DEC
90.0
56.4
33.6
120.4
99.0
21.5
TABLE 3-7
NET AMMONIA LOAD TO S&S CANAL
EFFLUENT
DATE?AVG NH3- N,
lbs/day
INFLUENT?
NET DISCHARGE
AVG NH3- N,?EFFLUENT,
lbs/day
?
lbs/day
YEARLY AVG
EFFLUENT,
lbs/day
YEARLY AVG
INFLUENT,
lbs/day
YEARLY AVG
NET EFF.,
lbs/day
JAN 1989
115.0
113.2
1.8
FEB
259.0
114.6
144.4
MAR
16.0
213.1
-197.1
APR
97.0
52.5
44.5
MAY
7.0
43.8
-36.8
JUN
13.0
51.2
-38.2
JUL
117.0
64.7
52.3
AUG
80.0
33.8
46.2
SEP
13.0
30.0
-17.0
OCT
27.0
71.6
-44.6
NOV
24.0
76.9
-52.9
DEC
24.0
86.4
-62.4
66.0
79.3
-13.3
JAN 1990
19.0
215.5
-196.5
FEB
68.0
118.2
-50.2
MAR
50.0
70.0
-20.0
APR
25.0
97.5
-72.5
MAY
10.0
38.7
-28.7
JUN
20.0
62.0
-42.0
JUL
13.0
38.9
-25.9
AUG
53.0
17.1
35.9
SEP
6.0
14.0
-8.0
OCT
17.0
52.0
-35.0
NOV
10.0
46.2
-36.2
DEC
79.0
58.4
20.6
30.8
69.0
-38.2
JAN 1991
29.0
115.4
-86.4
FEB
8.0
123.8
-115.8
MAR
5.0
67.6
-62.6
APR
16.0
39.4
-23.4
MAY
28.0
64.4
-36.4
JUN
113.0
46.4
66.6
JUL
193.0
45.8
147.2
AUG
168.0
135.4
32.6
SEP
17.0
73.7
-56.7
OCT
116.0
109.8
6.2
NOV
161.0
60.4
100.6
DEC
26.0
48.0
-22.0
73.3
77.5
-4.2
JAN 1992
13.0
65.9
-52.9
FEB
21.0
111.0
-90.0
MAR
10.0
44.9
-34.9
APR
13.0
47.3
-34.3
MAY
8.0
11.6
-3.6
JUN
5.0
43.1
-38.1
JUL
52.0
31.4
20.6
AUG
55.0
27.4
27.6
SEP
7.0
17.5
-10.5
20.4
44.5
-24.0
AVERAGES
1985 -1 992
158.7
93.3
66.4
1989-1992
49.5
69.1
-19.7
450
400
-D
O
350
13E 300
0
0
250
U
o•
200
E
150
50
Influent Ammonia
Effluent Ammonia
FIGURE 3-6
AVERAGE INFLUENT AND EFFL_ENT AV
UNO-VEN ON S&S CANAL
gO\
I A, lbs/dpy
500 ?
1
04-12
?
1986
?1987?
1988?1989?
1990
?
1991
?
01-09
1985
?
1992
Year
CHAPTER
4
LOCALIZED IMPACTS OF UNO-VEN'S DISCHARGE
4.1 Introduction
In order to assess the impact of UNO-VEN's discharge, both the localized impact as
well as the river basin impact must be evaluated. This chapter focuses on the localized
impact of the discharge on the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal in the vicinity of UNO-VEN's
outfall.
To characterize the localized impact, a Mixing Zone study was conducted, measuring
ammonia, chlorides, temperature, and conductivity. In addition, benthic samples were
collected to describe the biological community upstream and downstream of the outfall.
The results of the biological sampling are- also compared to the results of a previous
benthic study, completed in 1983.
4.2 Site Description
The Ship Canal runs approximately 30 miles from the south branch of the Chicago
River to one mile below the Lockport Dam. This segment carries all of the wastewater
discharges of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC)
as well as stormwater runoff from the Chicago area downstream into the Illinois River
system.
When the Ship Canal was constructed, the material collected from the river channel
was disposed of in various places, including the river banks. Where the UNO-VEN Refinery
is located at river mile 296.5, there is no access to the Ship Canal on the north bank
because of the spoil banks which extend 2,800 feet downstream of the discharge point to
the Romeo Highway Bridge. Portions of the spoil bank were removed in 1991, but access
is still limited. Commonwealth Edison's Will County generating station property extends
-41-
on the north side from the bridge several hundred feet downstream to the Material Service
Corporation property. Thus, on the north bank of the Ship Canal, there is no access for
recreational purposes. UNO-VEN does not permit recreational access to the Ship Canal
through its property. Thus, there is no access for recreational purposes on the Ship Canal
in the vicinity of UNO-VEN's outfall.
The Lockport Lock and Dam is approximately 5.5 miles downstream of the
Refinery. Although there is not access for recreational purposes, pleasure boats do
traverse the Ship Canal in order to reach desirable recreational locations. There are no
swimming, fishing, or shore activities near the refinery location, primarily because of
marine safety considerations, poor access, and water quality.
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers navigational maps, the Ship Canal
is approximately 160 feet wide at this point. During the field sampling, the width directly
across from UNO-VEN's outfall was measured to be 172 feet. The average depth in the
vicinity of UNO-VEN's outfall is 25 feet.
The flow rate in the Ship Canal is dependent upon the effluent volumes from the
three large MWRDGC treatment plants, volume of diversion water, and any runoff
occurring. The total average MWRDGC wastewater flow is 1,350 million gallons per day
and the diversion flow has an annual average of 207 mgd. The 7-day, 10-year low flow in
the canal is 1,100 mgd at Lockport (Singh and Stall, 1973), and the average flow rate in the
Sanitary & Ship Canal is 1,950 mgd according to the U.S. Geological Survey's data
(U.S.G.S., 1991).
Because the Ship Canal is a manmade waterway, it is completely channelized
without any meanders, riffles, or other physical features which enhance it as an aquatic
habitat. The walls and the stream bottom of the Ship Canal are composed primarily of
bedrock with some accumulation of sediment, generally closest to the shorelines. The
thickness of the sediment varies throughout the Chicago River system; however, in the area
of the UNO-VEN Refinery there is little sediment deposition.
UNO-VEN's discharge is through a 15 inch pipe that originates in a large
sampling/flow measuring structure. The treated wastewater overflows a weir, then enters
the discharge pipe which discharges the wastewater in a downward direction at a depth of
15 feet. Air is entrained in the wastewater as it overflows the weir, and the entrained air
is released along with the wastewater at the 15 foot depth. The entrained air makes the
effluent buoyant, resulting in the effluent plume literally rising to the Ship Canal's surface
at the outfall pipe.
4.3 Sampling Protocol
Sampling in the immediate vicinity of UNO-VEN's discharge was conducted on June
1 and 3, 1992. The sampling included the delineation of the wastewater plume and benthic
sampling of the Ship Canal, both upstream and downstream of UNO-VEN's discharge. Using
the results from the analysis, the area of local impact was determined.
The Ship Canal's depth is typically 25 feet in the area of the outfall. UNO-VEN's
effluent discharge on June 1, 1992, was 3.83 mgd. The flow in the Ship Canal during the
two days of sampling was 2020 mgd (Morgan, 1991) based on mean daily flow data from the
U.S.G.S. Station in Romoeville. Upstream temperature on June 1 was in the 61°F to 62°F
range, with conductivities near 620 p,mhos/cm . The effluent temperature was 78°F and
had a conductivity of 3,100 pmhos/cm.
4.3.1 Plume Delineation
On June 1, 1992, a three-member team from Huff & Huff and a boat operator from
UNO-VEN conducted a preliminary reconnaissance of the plume using a YS1 Model 33
conductivity meter and a Digi Sense Model 8520-40K Thermocouple Thermometer. First,
conductivity and temperature measurements were taken in situ adjacent to the vertical
outfall. As expected, the plume rose immediately to the surface before spreading laterally,
-43-
based on both conductivity and temperature readings. Downstream of the outfall,
conductivity and temperature readings were consistently highest near the surface, dropping
off by a 3 foot depth to near background values (62.2°F and 620 p,mhos/cm). By 150 feet
downstream and less than 50 feet off the near shore, the plume could no longer by tracked
by conductivity or temperature. From this preliminary reconnaissance, a buoyant plume
was apparent, and so the grid sampling focused on a surface plume.
Based upon these findings, the detailed Mixing Zone delineation was conducted at
a one foot depth from the surface on a grid pattern. Samples were collected with a
Subsurface Grab Sample II Water Sampler and borosilicate glass bottles. Conductivity and
temperature probes, attached to the water sampler pole, were used to measure both
parameters during the filling of the sample bottles at the 1 foot depth. Each sample
location was determined using a Lietz Set 4B Total Station, set up directly over the
concrete effluent structure and a range pole with four prisms located on the boat. A
portion of each water sample was transferred to two bottles. One 150 ml bottle with no
preservative was filled to analyze for chlorides and one 500 ml bottle with H
2SO4 for
preservative to analyze for ammonia. The ammonia samples were analyzed the same day
at UNO-VEN's laboratory. The chloride samples were delivered on ice to NET Midwest the
next day. As a conservative constituent, chloride can be used to delineate the Mixing
Zone.
4.3.2 Benthic Sampling
On June 3, 1992, the same personnel returned to the canal to collect benthic samples
from the canal bottom. Samples were collected using 9" x 9" x 9" Ekman Bottom Dredge
and a handwinch. Samples were collected along the southeastern bank, the center, and the
opposite wall of the canal, upstream and downstream UNO-VEN's outfall. Fourteen sample
sites were examined with varied success in retrieving sediment. The canal bottom is
primarily flat bedrock, with occasional sediment deposits because of the turbulence created
by the barge traffic.
-44-
The sediment samples were collected in separate, labelled, five-gallon buckets for
each sampling location and transported to shore. The samples were screened and washed
using a No. 30 sieve. Once the sediment was washed through the sieve, benthic organisms
were hand picked and placed in bottles filled with 70% isopropyl alcohol. These samples
were then delivered to Dr. Richard Whitman of Great Lakes Environmental for
identification. The specimens were identified to Genus taxonomic levels. The reference
used for identification was Handbook of Common Methods and Limnology (Lind, 1985). The
specimens were observed with two microscopes, depending on the sample, a Baush & Lomb
Dissecting Stereo Zoom 7 Microscope, 4x - 30x or a Compound Spencer Microscope, 40x -
1000x.
4.4 Mixing Zone Delineation
Water quality sampling in the immediate area of UNO-VEN's outfall was conducted
to determine the Zone of Initial Dilution and Mixing Zone associated with UNO-VEN's
outfall. Four parameters were measured at each sample location; conductivity,
temperature, chlorides, and ammonia. Temperature and ammonia are affected by
atmospheric conditions, and, in the case of ammonia, by biological activity. These
parameters therefore were not used to delineate the plume. Chloride is a conservative
constituent that changes strictly due to mixing. Conductivity was used to track the plume
and for verification of the chloride results.
The samples were collected in a semi-grid pattern as shown by the locations on
Figure 4-1 through 4-4. Results from the water quality analysis are tabulated in Table 4-1.
Upstream water quality was measured four times during the sampling period to define
background levels and any changes. The effluent water quality was measured five times
to detect changes in the effluent characteristics.
@I)
200:1
300'
200'
SEE DETAIL A
QA3
ROW
rl
UNO-VEN OUTFALL
100'
FLOW
500'
?
400'
\--COKE
LOADING ARM
200'
0
0
°
00
s00?
SOO
SCALE t INCH -1000 FEET
1000?
/SOS
REACH 16
J
o
u?
100 S0070;
MILE
293.1
SCALE WOOrn •
lk
SAMPLING SITE LOCATION
CANAL WALL
300'
MEASURED BACKGROUND
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS,
mg/I
I
I
EFFLUENT
UNO-VEN
CHLORIDES
TIME
EFFLUENT
BACKGROUND
ABOVE
CHLORIDE mg/I
CHLORIDE mg/I
BACKGROUND mg/I
8:15 A.M.
582
73
509
8:45 A.M.
586
75
511
9:15 A.M.
632
75
557
9:45 A.M.
584
75
509
10:15 A.M.
576
75
501
FIGURE 4-1
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS (mg/I) ABOVE BACKGROUND
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
UNO—VEN COMPANY, LEMONT IL
SAMPLED JUNE 1, 1992
SCALE: 1:60
20'
UNO-VEN OUTFALL
CANAL WALL ?
/
FIGURE 4-2
DETAIL A
CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/I)
ABOVE BACKGROUND
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
UNO-VEN COMPANY, LEMONT IL
SAMPLED JUNE 1, 1992
SCALE: 1:20
-47-
SEE DETAIL B
FLOW
@o
C)30
\ 100:1
?
30
0
200'
UNO—VEN OUTFALL
100'
200'
0
z
a
1
?
FLOW
®o
/200:1
500'
?
400'
?
300'
COKE LOADING ARM
0
°:
.0°
00
UNO-V N
OcomPANY
SAMPLING SITE LOCATION
100
?
0?
100
?
200 300 400 500 600 700
SCALE 1000/0 • Ikon
REACH 16
MILE
293.1
SC ALE I
114CH • 1000 FEET
500?
0
?
500?
1000?
1505
300'
FIGURE 4-3
CONDUCTIVITY MEASUREMENTS (umhos/cm) ABOVE BACKGROUND
CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
UNO—VEN COMPANY, LEMONT IL
SAMPLED JUNE 1, 1992
SCALE: 1:60
MEASURED BACKGROUND
CONDUCTIVITY LEVELS (umhos/cm)
UNO—VEN EFFLUENT CONDUCTIVITY = 3600 umhos/cm
BACKGROUND CONDUCTIVITY = 620 umhos/cm
EFFLUENT CONDUCTIVITY
ABOVE BACKGROUND
?
= 2480
umhos/cm
CANAL WALL
107
0
5
78?
D6
3
D5
105
7
D4
0
0
BARGE
?
BARGE
71 178
5
D2
7D1
00
34
?
121
7
?
6
U1?
U4
0 0
232
7
U2
200' 250' 300'
UNO-VEN 0 UTFALL
SANITARY
UNO-V N
()COMPANY
KEY
•
BLUE - TOTAL NUMBER OF ORGANISMS
•
RED - TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIES
SCALE I INCH -1000 FEET
5 . 0?
500?
1000?
,A0C.
REACH 16
FIGURE 4-5
SCALE
∎
000rn • Ikrn
MILE 293.1
SAMPLING SITE LOCATION
BENTHIC SAMPLING OF THE CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL
UNO-VEN COMPANY, LEMONT IL
SAMPLED JUNE 3, 1992
SCALE: 1:100
TABLE 4-5
BENTHIC COLLECTION DATA
SAMPLING DATE: JUNE 6, 1992
SAMPLE ID#
LOCATION
FROM OUTFALL
DISTANCE FROM DISTANCE FROM
OUTFALL, ft.?
SOUTH BANK, ft.
NUMBER
OF DROPS a/
U1
UPSTREAM
200
(near)?10
3
U2
UPSTREAM
1000
(near) 10
1
U3
UPSTREAM
500
(near)?
10
2
U4
UPSTREAM
250
(near)?10
2
U5
UPSTREAM
25
(near)
?
10
2
U6
UPSTREAM
300
(far) 172
1
D1
DOWNSTREAM
20
(near) 10
3
D2
DOWNSTREAM
30
(near) 10
3
D3
DOWNSTREAM
300
(near)
50
3
D4
DOWNSTREAM
600
(near)
?
10
4
D5
DOWNSTREAM
200
(center) 86
1
D6
DOWNSTREAM
10
(far) 172
2
D7
DOWNSTREAM
2000
(near)
?
10
3
D8
DOWNSTREAM
900
(center) 86
2
a/
NUMBER OF DROPS WITH ECKMAN DREDGE VARIED DEPENDING
ON THE VOLUME OF SEDIMENT COLLECTED
TABLE 4 —6
Benthic Macroinvertebrates Counts Collected in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
STATION
TOTAL
TAXA
IEPA
TOLERANCE
VALUE
COMMON
NAME
U-1?
U-2
?
U-3?
U-4
?
U-6?
U-6?
D-1?
D-2
?
D-3
?
D-4
?
D-5
?
D-6?
D-7?
D-8
Asellidae
Asellus
6
Aquatic plilbug
2
2
Gastropoda
Bithyria
not listed
Bythnia snail
(Great Lakes species)
7
1
12
1
6
1
5
513
50
Pelecypoda
Dressria
not listed
Zebra mussel
1
24
1
1
1
10
6
44
Gamrnaridae
Gammarus
3
Scud, Sideswimmer
1
192
9
47
3
1
4
18
12
8
295
Coelenterata
Hydra
not listed
Hydra
2
14
16
Coleopetera
Laccophilus
not listed
Predatious diving beetle
1
1
Libellulidae
Litrelluia
a
Dragon fly
1
1
Oligcha eta
Naidicig e
Tubifex
Stylaria
10
Naidid worm
Sludge worm
Naidid warn
15
145
48
4
71
5
1
3
6
2
1
1
1
300
1
Physidae
Physa
9
Physa snail
3
73
264
95
3
1
149
58
100
61
4
76
115
41
1043
Rhynchobde ilida
Piscicclidae
7
Leech
2
1
8
2
3
2
8
26
Sphaeriidae
Pisidium
Sh
g ehum
5
5
Fingernail clam
Fingernail clam
5
9
12
10
4
3
13
10
46
5
66
8
7
187
TOTAL
# SPECIES
34
7
232
7
561
8
121
6
82
6
61
3
178
7
71
5
157
5
1 05
7
78
3
107
5
132
4
68
5
1 967
14
MACROINVER7BRATE BIOTIC INDEX
6
9
6
8
9
3
8
8
7
6
5
7
8
8
Upstream
Downstream
Nearshore
Sites a/
Standard
Deviation
Nearshore
Sites b/
Standard
Deviation
Avg. Density of
Organisms (#/m2)
2,400
2,300
790
301
Avg. No. of Species
collected per site
6.6
1.1
5.6
1.3
Mean MBI Value
7.6
1.5
7.4
0.9
Ul through U5
D1, D2, D3, D4, D7
The higher number of organisms upstream reflect the greater quantity of sediment
found upstream, requiring fewer drops of the Ekman Dredge to collect a sample. The MBI
values and number of species collected per site are statistically similar. Therefore, no
measurable impact from UNO-VEN's discharge on the benthic organisms within the Mixing
Zone could be discerned.
In 1983, a similar study of benthic organisms was conducted by Huff & Huff, Inc. In
1983, the pollution tolerant organisms Tubifex tubifex (sludge worm, tolerance value of 10),
with Chironomidae (midges) and Helobdella fusca (leeches), both pollution tolerant, were
found. The MBI index upstream and downstream in 1983 would be approximately 10,
because of the sludge worm domination. The 1992 results show a dramatic improvement,
with sludge worms present at most sites, but no longer dominating (15% of all organisms
recovered). Gammaridae gammarus (sideswimmer scud, tolerance value 3, 15%) Physidae
physa (snail, tolerance value 9, 53%) and Sphaeridae pisidium (fingernail clam, tolerance
value 5, 10%) were also found in large quantities.
The zebra mussel was also found at 7 of the 14 sites. A total of 14 species were
collected, compared to the three species in 1983. The 1983 to 1992 average MBI values
(from 10 to 7) also show the overall improvement in water quality.
a/
b/
-61-
As part of Ruling R87-27 by the Illinois Pollution Control Board, a comprehensive
water quality evaluation including the Ship Canal was conducted by the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC). As part of this evaluation, benthic
invertebrate species and fish surveys were conducted in the Chicago Waterways. The
evaluation was conducted from 1989 to mid-1991.
Benthic invertebrates were collected on 84 miles of the Chicago Waterway System.
Samples were collected during April, July, and November of 1989 and 1990 and April and
June of 1991. The MWRDGC recovered similar macroinvertebrates during their sampling.
The predominate species collected each year were the Tubifex worm, which represented
an average of 78% over the sample period, and Naidid worms, 17% over the sample period.
These are both classified as pollution tolerant species with tolerance values of 10.
The latest benthic sampling round was conducted in June of 1991 by the MWRDGC.
This corresponds with the sampling conducted by Huff & Huff in June of 1992, as seasonal
variations have been eliminated. The nearest upstream sampling locations were upstream
of the Ship Canal and Cal-Sag confluence. These were both located at the Route 83
Bridges on the respective waterways, each 7.5 miles upstream. The nearest downstream
sampling location was 16th Street in Lockport, 4.3 miles down the Ship Canal. Sampling
occurred in two locations at each site, one in the center and the other along either bank
of the Ship Canal.
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index values were calculated from the MWRDGC
Comprehensive Water Quality Evaluation data from each of the referenced locations (Polls,
et al., 1991). The MBI values for the stations are presented in Table 4-7. The MBI
upstream on the Cal Sag was 10.0, while the upstream MBI on the Ship Canal ranged from
5.2 in the center to 8.8 on the right bank. Downstream 4.3 miles from UNO-VEN, MBI
values of 9.9 were reported for both the right bank and center stream.
TABLE 4-7
MBI VALUES FROM MWRDGC - June, 1991 - Benthic Data
Sample
Location
Location
in Ship Canal
a/
Location
From UNO-VEN
MBI Value
Ship Canal at
Right Bank
Upstream
8.8
Route 83
Center
Upstream
5.2
Cal Sag Channel
Left Bank
Upstream
10
Route 83
Center
Upstream
10
Ship Canal
Right Bank
Downstream
9.9
at 16th Street
Center
Downstream
9.9
a/
?
Facing upstream in waterway.
SOURCE: Polls, et al., 1991
To further define the aquatic community, the MWRDGC conducted an electrofishing
survey. The electrofishing survey was made at 20 locations on the Chicago Waterway. The
sample stations were at the same stations as the benthic sampling. The classification
system used to describe water quality from the electrofishing survey is based on the Index
of Biotic Integrity (IBI) (Dennison, et al., 1991). The IBI assesses the health of a fish
community using 12 fish community measures or metrics, which fall into three broad
categories: Species composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and condition.
The Illinois Department of Conservation (IDOC) and the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency have used the IBI to develop a five tiered stream classification system as shown
below:
Index of Biotic Integrity
Waterway
Class?
Quality
?
IBI Range
A
?
Excellent
?
60-51
B
Good?
50-41
C?
Fair?
40-31
D
Poor?
30-21
E
Very Poor
?
< 20
The results of the fish quality survey indicate that the Ship Canal varies between
a class D to E Waterway. The IBI average values for each sample site are listed in Table
4-8. Water quality, as measured by the fish quality improves downstream on the Ship
Canal. No effect on the fish quality, can be attributed to UNO-VEN's discharge.
In summary, the benthic and fish sampling conducted by the MWRDGC upstream and
downstream of UNO-VEN's discharge revealed similar biological quality. A significant
improvement in the benthic community has occurred when comparing the 1983 and 1992
results on the Ship Canal near the refinery, both upstream and downstream, reflecting the
overall improvement in water quality in the Ship Canal. No impact on the biological
community could be discerned attributable to UNO-VEN's effluent, from either the present
study or from the MWRDGC investigations.
-64-
TABLE 4-8
ELECTROFISHING RESULTS
Station
Location
Year
IBI Avg.
Overall
IBI Avg.
Class
Willow Springs
Upstream
1989
21
D
1990
21
20
D
1991
17
E
Route 83
Upstream
1989
21
D
1990
19
20
E
1991
21
D
16th Street
Downstream
1989
21
D
Lockport
1990
29
23
D
1991
20
D
SOURCE: Patterson and Associates, Inc., 1991
•
CHAPTER
5
WATER QUALITY OF THE CHICAGO WATERWAY AND ILLINOIS RIVER SYSTEM
5.1 Introduction
The UNO-VEN Refinery is located near Lemont in Will County, Illinois. The
wastewater discharge from the refinery into the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal occurs at
River Mile 296.5, 5.5 miles upstream of the Lockport Lock and Dam. Before discussing
river basin environmental impacts associated with UNO-VEN's discharge, the existing water
quality conditions with respect to ammonia and dissolved oxygen are briefly described. In
addition, the historical trends in water quality are provided. The river system has been
studied by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEFA), the Illinois State Water
Survey (ISWS), the MWRDGC, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In addition, Camp
Dresser and McKee, Inc. (CDM) has modelled the Chicago Waterway and Illinois River
System using the QUAL2E Modeling Program for the MWRDGC under present and various
future scenarios, and the results of this modeling are summarized herein.
The Ship Canal receives treated domestic waste from three major water
reclamations plants, combined sewer overflows, non-point source runoff, and numerous
smaller municipal discharges and industrial discharges. The combination of these sources
effects the quality of water in the Ship Canal. The Chicago Waterways have been
designated secondary contact waters up to the Des Plaines River at the 1-55 Bridge. Figure
2-2 of Chapter 2 depicted the location of the MWRDGC's three major plants and UNO-
VEN's discharge. The water quality standards for secondary contact waters are intended
to protect indigenous aquatic life and secondary contact uses. Parameters which are
important to this study have the following water quality standards for the Ship Canal.
Un-ionized Ammonia?0.1 mg/1
pH?
6.0 to 9.0 standard units
Dissolved Oxygen?
4.9 mg/1
Temperature
?
37.8 ° C
-66-
5.2 USGS Water Quality Sampling
The United States Geological Survey has maintained a water quality station (No.
05537000) near the Lockport Lock and Dam, 5.3 miles downstream from UNO-VEN's
outfall. Water Quality data have been tabulated from November, 1977 through September,
1991 (Water Years 1978 to 1991) from this USGS Station. The USGS has recently been
utilizing station No. 05536995 near Romeoville to collect water quality data (April, 1987 -
September, 1991) which is 0.3 miles downstream from UNO-VEN's outfall. Water quality
is determined 0-4 times per month at each of these stations. (Not all parameters are
monitored each time.)
Both water quality stations provide a historical perspective of ammonia and
dissolved oxygen water quality. Data from the Lockport USGS Station in Lockport are
tabulated in Table 5-1. The average monthly un-ionized ammonia is plotted in Figures 5-1A
and 5-1B. These figures compare the Ship Canal un-ionized ammonia concentration to the
water quality standard of 0.1 mg/l. The un-ionized ammonia standard has been exceeded
twice since 1977 in the USGS data, out of 127 data sets. In both excursions, the total
ammonia was less than or equal to 1.5 mg/l.
Table 5-2 presents the data from USGS Station No. 05536995 in Romeoville. This
station is 0.3 miles downstream from UNO-VEN's outfall and therefore would be more
responsive to any changes in water quality associated with UNO-VEN's discharge. Figure
5-2 is a similar plot to 5-1, showing the average monthly un-ionized ammonia levels
compared to the water quality standard. The un-ionized ammonia exceeded the water
quality standard once since 1987 (in August, 1987) at the Romeoville station. This was
caused by a high pH (8.78) recorded for that sample, since the ammonia concentration was
only 1.1 mg/l. The average pH at this station is 7.27, and the average ammonia
concentration is 2.1 mg/1 since 1987.
-67-
TABLE?
5-1
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM USGS STATION (05537000)
AT LOCKPORT ON THE S & S CANAL
DATE
AMMONIA,
YEAR?
mg/1
DO,
mg/I
pH,
UNITS
TEMPERATURE,
dep. C
UN-IONIZED
AMMONIA AS
N, mg/I
NOV 16
1977
4.8
1.0
7.4
16.0
0.037
DEC 2
5.1
3.1
7.2
8.0
0.014
DEC16
7.0
4.2
7.4
JAN 19
1978
5.7
5.4
7.6
5.5
0.031
FEB 01
6.6
5.0
FEB 23
5.6
4.4
7.6
3.5
0.026
MAR 22
3.6
4.4
6.8
8.5
0.004
APR 28
3.3
1.1
7.6
16.0
0.040
MAY 24
3.7
0.5
7.6
21.0
0.065
JUN 28
2.4
1.2
7.6
26.5
0.062
JUL 27
1.6
7.4
22.0
0.019
AUG 22
2.0
7.4
SEP 21
1.6
0.0
7.0
26.5
0.011
OCT 30
8.9
2.0
7.5
17.0
0.094
NOV 30
9.3
3.7
11.0
NOV 30
9.4
11.0
DEC 22
7.1
4.2
7.5
13.0
0.055
FEB 06
1979
6.8
4.5
7.4
5.0
0.022
MAR 01
4.8
3.2
8.1
MAR 26
2.8
4.1
7.1
10.0
0.007
APR 11
6.5
3.8
10.5
MAY 10
2.7
0.4
7.3
21.0
0.024
JUN 05
6.3
23.5
JUL 10
4.1
1.0
7.4
25.0
0.061
JUL 10
4.3
1.3
7.1
25.0
0.032
AUG 15
2.1
0.4
7.5
25.0
0.039
SEP 13
4.3
1.5
7.1
25.0
0.032
OCT 09
3.2
2.1
7.3
20.0
0.027
NOV 13
6.5
2.8
7.3
11.0
0.027
DEC 03
2.5
7.3
13.5
0.013
JAN 29
1980
4.5
5.2
7.5
8.0
0.024
JAN 29
4.4
5.2
7.5
8.0
0.023
FEB 19
5.3
5.2
7.4
10.0
0.026
MAR 18
4.3
5.9
7.3
6.0
0.012
APR 15
4.0
4.7
7.3
11.0
0.017
APR 15
4.0
4.8
7.3
11.0
0.017
MAY 20
5.1
1.7
7.3
19.0
0.039
JUN 17
2.8
0.5
7.1
20.5
0.015
JUL 15
2.8
2.0
7.3
29.5
0.045
AUG 19
2.3
2.2
6.7
24.5
0.007
SEP 16
1.7
3.7
6.7
21.0
0.004
OCT 22
3.0
1.7
6.9
19.0
0.009
NOV 20
4.8
7.4
16.0
0.037
DEC 16
2.2
4.8
7.3
13.0
0.011
JAN 20
1981
2.4
9.6
7.5
11.0
0.016
FEB 20
3.6
5.1
7.3
9.0
0.013
MAR 18
6.0
4.9
7.2
12.0
0.022
APR 07
6.2
2.5
6.2
17.5
0.003
MAY 21
0.2
12.2
7.7
14.0
0.002
JUL 07
1.8
1.2
7.3
26.0
0.023
JUL 14
2.6
10.2
7.0
25.5
0.016
AUG 13
1.5
5.0
8.4
25.0
0.197 a/
OCT 06
3.0
2.1
7.3
19.0
0.023
JAN 13
1982
3.1
6.8
8.0
6.0
0.044
MAR 08
5.4
5.5
5.8
8.5
0.001
MAR 23
1.8
6.2
6.8
9.5
0.002
APR 16
3.1
4.7
6.6
12.5
0.003
JUN 01
2.6
1.1
6.6
20.0
0.004
JUL 08
2.3
6.5
25.0
0.004
JUL 20
1.5
1.4
6.6
25.5
0.004
SEP 29
2.2
4.7
20.0
OCT 26
4.7
1.0
7.1
15.0
0.017
DEC 20
3.2
5.3
6.3
10.0
0.001
-68-
TABLE 5-1
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM USGS STATION (05537000)
AT LOCKPORT ON THE S & S CANAL
DATE
AMMONIA,
YEAR?
mg/I
DO,
mg/I
pH,?
TEMPERATURE,
UNITS?
deg. C
UN-IONIZED
AMMONIA AS
N, mg/I
JAN 19
1983
3.1
7.7
6.9
?
10.0
0.005
MAR 02
3.4
6.2
6.6?12.0
0.003
APR 01
1.4
6.0
6.9?10.0
0.002
APR 27
2.9
2.8
6.7?16.0
0.005
JUN 16
3.9
2.5
6.6?27.0
0.011
AUG 16
1.9
2.5
6.8
?26.0
0.008
SEP 29
2.6
4.8
6.6
?
22.0
0.005
OCT 26
1.4
2.3
0.001
NOV 21
4.2
6.2
0.001
JAN 23
1984
5.8
0.041
FEB 21
3.1
6.9
0.003
APR 04
4.9
1.5
0.004
MAY 09
JUL 10
2.2
4.9
0.012
JUL 27
2.8
2.5
0.010
SEP 25
3.1
OCT 29
4.4
1.6
0.001
NOV 26
4.4
4.1
0.004
JAN 16
1985
4.4
6.8
0.001
MAR 08
1.8
7.4
0.001
APR 12
2.5
4.1
0.007
MAY 16
5.0
2.3
0.002
JUN 20
2.9
1.3
0.001
JUL 25
2.1
2.5
0.009
SEP 16
2.8
3.8
0.002
OCT 11
1.7
4.0
0.003
NOV 26
1.1
5.5
0.002
JAN 10
1986
3.9
6.7
0.005
FEB 05
5.6
6.8
0.003
APR 04
4.7
4.4
0.003
MAY 13
5.0
1.2
0.017
JUN 10
2.4
0.7
0.004
AUG 01
2.1
2.8
0.024
SEP 04
2.1
3.1
0.013
OCT 09
2.4
3.4
0.013
NOV 26
3.1
6.5
0.015
JAN 14
1987
3.3
6.6
0.017
MAR 18
5.1
5.8
0.012
APR 07
6.2
4.4
0.011
MAY 18
5.1
2.8
0.024
JUL 02
4.0
1.8
0.018
JUL 31
2.4
2.0
0.016
SEP 10
1.3
2.4
0.009
OCT 09
4.1
3.7
0.015
NOV 19
5.2
4.6
0.030
JAN 05
1988
2.4
7.8
0.003
FEB 05
4.4
6.4
0.013
MAR 18
6.8
5.9
0.039
APR 28
2.8
4.8
0.014
JUN 24
1.0
3.6
0.047
AUG 12
0.8
1.3
0.003
SEP 30
0.6
5.5
0.004
OCT 25
1.7
4.8
0.055
NOV 29
1.1
5.5
JAN 23
1989
3.8
7.0
0.028
MAR 10
3.8
5.9
0.033
APR 12
1.6
6.0
0.019
MAY 30
1.4
4.3
0.108 a/
JUN 27
1.7
4.7
0.021
OCT 16
0.7
4.8
0.077
DEC 08
2.2
6.6
0.092
TABLE?
5-1
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM USGS STATION (05537000)
AT LOCKPORT ON THE S & S CANAL
AMMONIA,
DATE?
YEAR
?
mg/1
DO,
mg/1
pH,
UNITS
TEMPERATURE,
deg. C
UN-IONIZED
AMMONIA AS
N, mg/I
FEB 01
?
1990
2.1
7.7
0.013
MAR 01
1.1
6.9
0.013
APR 17
2.5
6.4
0.028
MAY 11
0.8
4.9
0.001
JUN 25
1.4
4.3
0.014
AUG 09
0.9
4.1
0.008
SEP 14
1.0
4.1
0.020
NOV 01
0.5
7.5
0.002
DEC 04
0.8
7.8
JAN 17
?
1991
3.4
6.3
0.006
FEB 14
2.2
7.5
0.003
MAR 22
0.9
7.4
0.004
MAY 03
1.1
5.6
0.017
JUN 03
1.2
4.5
0.004
AUG 06
1.2
8.0
0.076
SEP 13
0.9
4.3
0.024
AVERAGES
NOV. 1977 - SEP. 1991
3.3
4.3
7.2
16.1
0.021
APR. 1987 - SEP. 1991
2.2
5.2
0.025
a/ Un-ionized Ammonia Water Quality Standard Exceeded
0.25
SECONDARY CONTACT
UN—IONIZED AMMONIA
STANDARD
Sample station #05537000 is
5.3 miles downstream from
UNO-VEN's outfall
1
0.20
m
CANAL UN—IONIZED
AMMONIA LEVEL
z
Q
0.15t
â– -â–
CD
0
0.10
-7-
-
CD
0.05—
0
.
00
11,111111-11111
1978
?
1979
111111
? 1 1-1-H 1-1---1-4--1-1-?
1- 1 1 1 I 1 I 1
1980?
1981
?
1982
?
1983
?1984 1985
FIGURE 5-IA
lOWNSTREA y
CANAL UN-IONIZED AMMONIA LEVELS, m9/1
WATER RESOURCE DATA FROM STATION #05537000
SAMPLE DATES: JAN. 1978 — NOV. 1984
MONTH
FIGURE 5-IB
DOWNSTREAM CANAL UN-IONIZED AMMONIA LEVELS, m9/1
WATER RESOURCE DATA FROM STATION #05537000
SAMPLE DATES: JAN. 1985 - SEPT. 1991
0.25T
4-
?
SECONDARY CONTACT
CANAL UN-IONIZED
?
UN-IONIZED AMMONIA
0. 20+
?
AMMONIA LEVEL
?
STANDARD
Sample station #05537000 is
5.3 miles downstream from
UNO-VEN's outfall
S O. 15—
1-1
0.05
t
0. 00
1985
I
H
I—I I ?I 1—/-1-1- ?
I- I ?
I I—?
I—I- 1?
—1---I
?I
I I -I 1-1--4
?I- I
?
I I—I- I—I I?
1--1 -I
?I—I I+ I-- I
I—I
1986
?1987
1988?1989?
1990?1991?
1992
MONTH
TABLE 5-2
WATER QUALITY DATA FROM USGS STATION (05536995)
AT ROMEOVILLE ON THE S&S CANAL
DATE
YEAR
AMMONIA,
mg/1
DO,
mg/1
pH,
units
TEMPERATURE,
deg. C
UN-IONIZED
AMMONIA,
mg/1
APR 09
1987
7.00
APR 21
4.4
APR
22
5.7
7.40
MAY 05
7.60
JUN 10
7.52
JUL 08
4.3
3.6
7.34
25.5
0.058
AUG 12
1.6
0.6
7.78
26.5
0.061
AUG 14
1.9
3.6
7.25
25.5
0.021
AUG 27
1.1
1.7
8.78
19.5
0.214
SEP 09
1.1
0.032
OCT 07
2.6
3.7
6.74
16.5
0.005
NOV 10
6.63
2.8
7.60
14.0
0.069
DEC 09
3.5
5.8
7.60
9.3
0.024 a/
JAN 05
1988
2.9
6.4
7.65
4.0
0.016
FEB 10
4.6
8.5
7.30
3.0
0.01
MAR 10
7.4
6.9
7.00
8.5
0.013
APR 06
3.2
3.9
7.30
12.5
0.015
APR 06
3.2
3.9
7.30
12.5
0.015
MAY 05
3.0
3.6
7.20
15.5
0.014
JUN 07
1.2
3.5
6.90
22.0
0.005
JUL 06
1.2
5.9
7.10
24.0
0.008
AUG 10
1.2
2.4
7.00
25.0
0.007
AUG 23
0.6
9.3
7.30
25.0
0.007
SEP 12
0.8
4.9
8.00
21.0
0.033
OCT 12
0.4
5.3
7.70
16.5
0.004
NOV 08
0.7
4.3
7.10
12.0
0.003
DEC 07
1.2
6.0
8.70
8.5
0.095
JAN 12
1989
1.0
8.4
8.20
4.5
0.013
FEB 08
1.2
7.5
7.00
4.5
0.002
MAR 09
4.7
7.2
6.70
6.0
0.003
APR 06
2.7
4.8
7.50
10.0
0.017
MAY 12
2.2
4.8
6.80
14.5
0.004
JUN 07
1.0
1.8
6.70
19.5
0.002
JUL 12
2.2
2.9
6.90
27.0
0.012
JUL 12
1.8
2.9
6.90
25.5
AUG 09
0.8
3.4
7.10
23.5
0.006
AUG 31
1.7
2.6
7.10
24.5
0.013
OCT 04
0,8
5.1
7.00
18.5
0.003
NOV 02
2.1
5.0
7.20
15.0
0.009
DEC 06
2.2
6.1
7.20
8.5
0.006
JAN 10
1990
4.1
6.3
7.00
6.5
0.006
FEB 10
2.0
6.1
6.80
8.5
0.002
MAR 08
2.0
7.8
7.00
7.0
0.003
APR 03
2.2
4.9
7.10
11.5
0.006
MAY 02
2.4
4.1
7.30
18.5
0.018
JUN 06
1.5
4.0
7.20
18.5
0.009
JUL 12
1.4
4.2
7.10
23.0
0.009
AUG 08
0.8
3.5
6.90
23.5
0.003
SEP 04
0.8
3.8
25.5
0.02
OCT 05
2.9
3.7
7.10
19.5
0.016
NOV 09
0.6
4.0
7.40
10.5
0.003
DEC 07
0.6
7.0
7.30
8.0
0.002
JAN 09
1991
1.1
7.9
7.30
5.5
0.003
FEB 08
4.4
8.3
7.50
7.0
0.02
MAR 08
1.9
6.4
7.60
7.0
0.013
MAR 08
1.9
6.4
7.60
7.0
APR 12
1.6
3.7
7.10
11.5
0.004
MAY 10
0.9
3.3
7.10
16.0
0.003
JUN 06
1.0
3.3
7.00
21.0
0.004
JUL 12
0.5
4.0
7.20
25.0
0.005
AUG 08
1.4
3.5
7.10
23.5
0.011
SEP 05
1.0
3.2
7.00
24.5
0.005
AVERAGE
2.1
4.8
7.27
15.7
0.018
a/ Temperature reported as 93.00 C - Assumed this was to actually be 9.30 C.
-73-
0.25—
1989
0.00
"I
?
1-1?
1987
1990
19
91
1992
CD 0. 10
UJ
z
0
z
=
0.05
-L
FIGURE 5-2
DOWNSTREKA CA\AL UN-IONIZED AMMONIA LEVELS, m9/1
WATER RESOURCE DATA FROM STATION #05536995
SAMPLE DATES: JUL. 1987 - SEPT. 1991
SECONDARY CONTACT
UN-IONIZED AMMONIA
STANDARD
Sample station #05536995 is
0.3 miles downstream from
UNO-VEN's out-Fall
CANAL UN-IONIZED
AMMONIA LEVEL
MONTH
In comparing the two stations, average conditions were calculated for the same time
period (April, 1987 to September, 1991). These averages are presented below:
Mean
Mean
Miles
Ammonia
Un-ionized Mean
Station
Downstream
from
UNO-VEN
as N,
mg/1
Ammonia,
mg/1
DO,
mg/1
Romeoville
0.3
2.1
0.018
4.8
Lockport
5.3
2.2
0.025
5.2
The total ammonia values are similar, while the un-ionized ammonia downstream is
higher, reflecting the effect of pH and temperature on the un-ionized factor. However,
the overall un-ionized ammonia levels average well below the 0.1 mg/1 water quality
standard.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is another important indicator of water quality and potential
stream use. The minimum DO specified for the Ship Canal is 4.0 mg/l. Dissolved oxygen
(DO) is monitored at the Lockport USGS station. From Figure 5-3A and 5-3B, a gradual
improvement in the minimum DO levels and duration of low DO levels is apparent. Since
1989, the minimum DO values recorded at Lockport have been above the minimum water
quality standard of 4.0 mg/l.
Figure 5-4 presents the DO levels recorded at Romeoville (0.3 miles downstream of
UNO-VEN), since mid-1987. DO values below 4.0 mg/1 have been recorded each summer,
although the 1990 and 1991 minimum DO values have improved over previous years.
In summary, the DO levels downstream of UNO-VEN's outfall have shown a gradual
improvement since 1978. The minimum DO levels experienced in the summer months are
approaching the 4.0 mg/1 levels.
-75-
12. 0 —
-
?
CANAL DISSOLVED
11. 0
OXYGEN LEVEL
10.0
rn
E g.
o
L3
8.0
co
Li
2.1
2:
7.0
CD
6.0
co
13. 0—
DOWN
FIGURE 5-3A
STREAM CANAL lISSOLVED OXYG ?
LEVELS
â
mg/1
WATER RESOURCE DATA FROM STATION #05537000
SAMPLE DATES: JAN. 1978 - NOV. 1984
SHIP CANAL
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
STANDARD
Sample station #05537000 is
5.3
miles downstream from
UNO-VEN's outfall
5.0
CD
4.0
cn
3.0
2. 0
1. 0
1
0.0
?
I I I?
-1-1-+-1-1-1-1--1-1--1--1-t-1--I
?
I I 1 I I I+ -I-I-
?I--1-?
I-I
??
I I?
-I I I I -I-?
I I-}+-} -I-1- -I+?
I 1-1-' I- I--+--I-++
--I- -I- I--I I-
?
I
1978
?1979?
1980?1981?
1982?
1983?1984?
1985
MONTH
FIGURE 5-3B
DOW\STREA
v
l CA\AL DISSOLVE] OXYGEN LEVELS,
m9/1
WATER RESOURCE DATA FROM STATION #05537000
SAMPLE DATES: JAN. 1985 – SEPT. 1991
CANAL DISSOLVED
OXYGEN LEVEL
SHIP CANAL
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
11. 0—
STANDARD
10. 0
Sample station #05537000 is
Or)?
5.3 miles downstream from
UNO-VEN's outfall
0.
0
?
F-}-1--1-
?
?
I 1-4-1-1-1-1--1-+-1-44-1--1--1-4-4--1-1--1-1---+-1-1
1985?1986
?
1987?
1988?
1989?1990?1991?1992
MONTH
FIGURE 5-4
DOW\STREA
V
1 CANAL DISSOLVE] OXYGEN LEVELS, mg/1
WATER RESOURCE DATA FROM STATION #05536995
SAMPLE DATES:?
JUL.?
1987 - SEPT.?
1991
13. 0
12. 0
SHIP CANAL
CANAL DISSOLVED?DISSOLVED OXYGEN
OXYGEN LEVEL
? STANDARD
11.
0
rn
10. 0
Sample station #05536995 is
0.3 miles downstream from
E
9.0_
UNO-VEN's outfall
LLI
4.0
cn
2
.0—
1.
0—
0.0 ?
1
?
,1111111111,111,11-11-1-1
1987
?
1988
?
1989
? 1990?
1991
?
1992
MONTH
5.3 Metropolitan Water District of Greater Chicago
Water Quality Evaluation
5.3.1 Introduction
As a part of the Illinois Pollution Control Board's Order in R87-27, the Metropolitan
Water District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) was required to conduct a comprehensive
water quality study over a three-year period from January 1, 1989 through December 31,
1991. The study consisted of eight components and are as follows:
Study 1:
Study 2:
Study 3:
Study 4:
Study 5:
Study 6:
Study 7:
Study 8:
Water Quality in the Chicago Man-Made Water System
Benthic Invertebrates in the Chicago Man-Made Waterway System
Fish Survey of the Chicago Man-Made Waterway System
Calumet, North Side, and Stickney Water Reclamation Plants Effluent Quality
Biomonitoring of the Effluent from the Calumet, North Side, and Stickney
Water Reclamation Plants
Calumet, Mainstream, and O'Hare TARP System Pollutant Load Reductions
Water Quality in the Illinois Waterway from the Lockport Lock and Dam to
the Peoria Lock and Dam
Water Quality in the Illinois Waterway at Lockport, Morris, Starved Rock,
Henry and Peoria.
These studies pull together all of the relevant water quality data on the Chicago and
Illinois Waterways. Although this information maybe pertinent to understanding the
potential impact of UNO-VEN's ammonia discharge on the Chicago and Illinois Waterways,
UNO-VEN's potential must be measured on a much smaller scale than that of the
MWRDGC. Summarized herein is a brief overview of the relevant reports.
5.3.2 Water Quality in the Chicago Man-Made Water System
Study 1 evaluated the water quality of the Chicago Man-Made Waterways, the North
Shore Channel, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the Cal-Sag Channel. The Ship
-79-
Canal was sampled four times per month for three years. The sample locations relative
to UNO-VEN are depicted in Figure 5-5. After the merger of the Cal-Sag and the Ship
Canal, the first MWRDGC Sampling Station, No. 8, is the 16th Street Bridge in Lockport
4.5 miles downstream from UNO-VEN. Sample Station No. 42 on the Ship Canal, just
before the merger with the Cal-Sag and No. 43 on the Cal-Sag represent upstream water
quality. Samples were analyzed for DO, pH, temperature, and ammonia nitrogen. Un-
ionized ammonia was calculated from ammonia nitrogen. Tables 5-3 and 5-4 summarize
the results of the study. Minimum DO levels as low as 1.2 mg/1 were observed on the Cal-
Sag Channel, while the upstream Ship Canal minimum DO was 2.1 mg/1 and downstream 1.9
mg/l. DO levels were above the water quality standards (4.0 mg/1 Ship Canal; 3.0 mg/1, Cal
Sag) 79% of the time at the downstream station compared to 96% and 89% for the
upstream stations.
From Table 5-4, un-ionized ammonia downstream of UNO-VEN remained below the
0.1 mg/1 level for the entire study period. Upstream on the Ship Canal also remained below
the 0.1 mg/1 level, while the Cal-Sag exceeded 0.1 mg/1 un-ionized ammonia in one of the
113 observations.
5.3.3. Illinois Waterway Quality
The MWRDGC, as required in IPCB R87-27, conducted a water quality evaluation
along the Illinois Waterway from the Lockport Lock and Dam to the Peoria Lock and Dam.
Forty-nine sampling locations were monitored for temperature, DO, pH, total ammonia
nitrogen and calculated un-ionized ammonia. The Illinois Waterway is composed of eight
navigational pools listed in Table 5-5. The sample stations are depicted in Figure 5-6A and
5-6B, and begin at mile point 291.5, five miles downstream of UNO-VEN.
The summer conditions of 1989 represented "typical" warm weather water quality
conditions. Figures 5-7, 5-8, and 5-9 present the 1989 summer (May through October) DO,
total ammonia, and un-ionized ammonia levels.
-80-
FIGURE 5-5
C
I ?y
?
y.
()
Grand
Ave
0
Madison St
sG
0,1
/1,1•A
A
00111 Or.
Brides
4444.
Secondary contact wol•rs in Chicago
and Coluen•t Riser systems
orlon. A••.
UNO-VEN
OUTFALL
e
Highway 83 -Chicago
San4for7 a Ship Ca.
9111.T
e3-
©9
E
ying Ave
°Homan
Ave
0
Hoill•d St.
lodiona Arc
0
Loc4,port-i6rA St Dridg.
SCALE
1°°22■.■2,..122.°
FUT
WATERWAY SAMPLING
LOCATION POINTS
SOURCE:
Patterson Associates, Inc., 1991
-81-
TABLE 5-3
DISSOLVED OXYGEN RESULTS UPSTREAM & DOWNSTREAM OF UNO-VEN
STATION
WATERWAY
IPCB
STANDARD,
mg/I YEAR
NO. OF
OBSER-
VATIONS
DO LEVELS, mg/I
NO.
OF
OBSER-
VATIONS
ABOVE IPCB
STANDARD
PERCENT
OBSER-
VATIONS
ABOVE IPCB
AVG.
MIN.
MAX.
STANDARD
UPSTREAM
42 (Highway 83)
Ship Canal
4.0
1989
45
6.1
3.1
9.1
42
93
1990
48
6.0
2.1
8.7
46
96
1991
27
6.3
4.0
9.7
27
100
co
ND
1
43 (Highway 83)
Cal-Sag Channel
3.0
Overall
1989
120
45
6.1
5.0
2.1
1.2
9.7
10.2
115
37
96
82
1990
48
5.1
1.2
8.5
45
94
1991
21
5.3
1.3
8.5
19
90
Overall
114
5.1
1.2
10.2
101
89
DOWNSTREAM
8 (16th Street)
Ship Canal
4.0
1989
33
5.7
2.7
8.4
24
73
1990
36
5.3
1.9
8.1
31
86
1991
21
6.3
3.0
16.0
16
76
Overall
90
5.7
1.9
16.0
71
79
SOURCE: Patterson Associates, Inc., 1991.
TABLE 5-4
UN-IONIZED AMMONIA RESULTS UPSTREAM & DOWNSTREAM
OF UNO-VEN
STATION
WATERWAY
IPCB WQ
STANDARD,
mg/1
YEAR
NO. OF
OBSER-
UN-IONIZED AMMONIA,
mg/I
NO.
VALUES
LESS
THAN
0.1 mg/I
% OF
VALUES
LESS
THAN
VATIONS
AVG.
MIN.
MAX.
0.1 mg/I
UPSTREAM
42 (Highway 83)
Ship Canal
0.1
1989
45
0.01
0.00
0.04
45
100
1990
48
0.00
0.00
0.05
48
100
1991
27
0.01
0.00
0.09
27
100
Overall
120
0.01
0.00
0.09
120
100
cz
oc)
1
43 (Highway 83)
Cal-Sag Channel
0.1
1989
44
0.02
0.00
0.10
44
100
1990
48
0.01
0.00
0.11
47
98
1991
21
0.02
0.00
0.04
21
100
Overall
113
0.02
0.00
0.11
112
99
DOWNSTREAM
8 (16th Street)
Ship Canal
0.1
1989
33
0.01
0.00
0.05
33
100
1990
36
0.00
0.00
0.02
36
100
1991
21
0.01
0.00
0.03
21
100
Overall
90
0.01
0.00
0.05
90
100
SOURCE: Patterson Associates, Inc., 1991.
TABLE 5-5
ILLINOIS WATERWAY NAVIGATION POOLS
POOL
INCLUSIVE
WATERWAY
MILE—POINTS
LENGTH
(MILES)
Lockport
327.2 — 291,0
36.2
Brandon Road
291.0 — 286.0
4.7
Dresden Island
271.5 — 247.0
14.5
Marseilles
271.5 — 247.0
24.5
Starved Rock
247.0 — 231.0
15.4
Peoria
231.0 — 157.6
73.4
LaGrange
157.6 — 80.2
77.4
Alton
82.0 — 0.0
80.2
SOURCE:?
Patterson Associates, Inc., 1991.
ri
DEs •LAIT4E1
MYER
CHI CAAK) SAKI TART
•
SHIT CANAL,
LOCKPORT
LOCX
&
LIAM
JOLIET I
RAMOOK544
LOAD
Locx
CAW
CHANNAHON
OR ESO Ex
LOCK O OA I/
twts:Ertl
- ES
?S ENEC
DAII
M
ARSEILLES -
Lozic
MARSEI
LLES
CA
MAt
SOURCE: MWRDGCReport No. 90-32,
Comprehensive Evaluation of Water Quality
,Along the Illinois Waterway at 49 Sampling
Stations from the Lockport Lock and Dam
to
the
Peoria Lock and Dam During 1989, 1990, pg 3.
, LOCKPORT
FIGURE 5-6A
MAP OF ILLINOIS WATERWAY
SHOWING SAMPLING STATIONS
1-21 ( NUMBERED CIRCLES )
-85-
FIGURE 5-6B
MAP OF ILLINOIS WATERWAY
SHOWING SAMPLING STATIONS
22-49 ( NUMBERED CIRCLES )
SOURCE: MWRDGCReport No. 90-32, 1990, pg 4
-86-
0
_J
O
0
CC
cc
co
0
0
cc
VI
—
,_
cc
o
1,
0
-
0
cz
s
z
z
.3
cc
/
Ad
DRESDEN
ISLAND
POOL
oir
MARSEILLES
POOL
0
,,,,/
A
.4
STARVED
ROCK
POOL
'
/
v
PEORIA POOL
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
MEAN CONCENTRATION OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN AT
49
STATIONS
ALONG THE ILLINOIS WATERWAY FROM THE LOCKPORT LOCK
AND DAM
TO
.?
THE PEORIA LOCK
.
?
AND DAM
•
?
FROM MAY
•?
THROUGH OCTOBER
•
1989
4
10
9
z
0
0
8
0
Lr,
?
7
0
0
0
6
•
cc
z
5
z
0
3
Er'
0
0,
Vt
I-
<
I
-V)
CC
0
FIGURE
5-7
1 d?
5 0
?
tI 9 IC II 1/ 11
?I . 15 10
?
11
?10?
19 2C 21 22
21
2 .
75 20 2/ 20 29 SC 51 52 51?1.
?
50?
.11
?
50
?
19?.0?.1?
.0?
.1
?
1.1
?
.5
STATION NUMBER
SOURCE: MWRDGC Report No. 90-32,
Comprehensive Evaluation of Water Quality
Along the Illinois Waterway at 49 Sampling
Stations from the Lockport Lock and Dam to the
Peoria Lock and Dam
"
During 1989, 1990, pg 18.
1.2
O
z
I.0
0
CC
0.8
0.6
O
I-
LL
O
z
0
0.4
17-
a
U
0
0.2
z
Z
0.0
FIGURE 5-8
19
â–
i'
DRESDEN
ISLAND
POOL
MARSEILLES
POOL
STARVED
ROCK?
•
POOL
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
MEAN CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL AMMONIA NITROGEN
?
•
AT
49
STATIONS ALONG THE ILLINOIS WATERWAY FROM
THE LOCKPORT LOCK AND DAM TO THE PEORIA LOCK AND DAM
FROM MAY THROUGH OCTOBER 1989
...,
PEORIA POOL
‹
•
6
sz
°
Z
CC
cO
/
f
4
.?
/
.?.
.? .? .?
.
?
dot
IC 11
1 ?I' I?
I
?
I,
?I9?
21?
29
?
11?1
STATION NUMBER
SOURCE: MWRDGCReport No. 90-32, 1990, pg 20
t.D
In
CC
0
z
›C
0
O
66
o
f
0
!-
In
0
O.
u
_,
•
I
0
/
$
oa
<
rx
0 x
0
0
0
8
z
?
0.
II.
$
•
1
1
?
?
co
''
?
.0
A
I
il
l
/
$
#
10
0
1,
.44
/
0
.
fr
,
MARSEILLES
POOL
4
43
STARVED
ROCK
POOL
4
ok
/
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
MEAN CONCENTRATION OF UN-IONIZED AMMONIA AT
49
STATIONS
ALONG THE ILLINOIS WATERWAY FROM THE LOCKPORT LOCK AND DAM
TO THE PEORIA LOCK AND DAM FROM MAY THROUGH OCTOBER 1989
PEORIA POOL
?
/1"
,/,
DRESDEN
ISLAND
POOL
to
.
1111111111
.
0.012
t
• 0.0 I 0
0
-±
0.008
D
O• 0.006
z
0"- 0.004
0.002
FIGURE 5-9
ce
U
0
-
0
0
0
cc
O
EC
0
1 . )
?
I/
?
9 IC II 12 11?1. If lb
?
It
?10?
19 2C 21 22 25 2 2f I6
?2t 59 29 1C
51
52 55?
J.
?
if
?19?59
?
1?.1
STATION NUMBER
SOURCE: MWRDGC,Report No. 90-32, 1990, pg 21
The DO trend depicted in Figure 5-7, shows generally increasing DO levels with
distance downstream of the Lockport Lock & Dam. By the Brandon Road Lock & Dam, DO
levels above 6 mg/1 are attained, and the DO generally remains above the 6 mg/1 through
the remainder of the 139.3 mile study reach.
Ammonia nitrogen steadily declines from the Lockport Lock and Dam to Starved
Rock, as depicted in Figure 5-8. The ammonia decreases rapidly from the Lockport Lock
and Dam from about 1.1 mg/1, to the Starved Rock Pool where ammonia levels remain
below 0.2 mg/1. Un-ionized ammonia also shows a similarly decreasing trend from the
Lockport Lock and Dam, as illustrated in Figure 5-9. By the 1-55 Bridge, un-ionized
ammonia is at 0.01 mg/1 compared to the general use water quality standard of 0.04 mg/1.
In the Peoria Pool, the un-ionized ammonia begins to increase. Figure 5-10 presents the
average summer temperature in the waterway. The highest average temperatures were
generally experienced in the Dresdon and Marseilles Pools.
The MWRDGC selected five sampling locations to evaluate the Illinois Waterway
Quality. The stations were equally spaced to ensure representative coverage. These
sample locations are listed in Table 5-6 and referenced by distance to UNO-VEN. The
Lockport sample location is on the Ship Canal, where the waterway is regulated as
secondary contact water. The remaining sample locations are on general use waters and
therefore have different water quality standards. The sample stations were sampled three
times per week during the sampling period of April, 1989 to July, 1991. The results of the
data collection are summarized in Table 5-7 for dissolved oxygen and un-ionized ammonia,
as these are the parameters of interest.
Over the three-year study period in the warmer months, the DO has achieved the
water quality limits 68% of the time at Lockport, increasing to 96% and 98% at Morris and
Starved Rock, respectively.?
1 /
By Henry, DO levels achieved 5.0 mg/1 100% of the time.
1
/
For discussion purposes, 5.0 mg/1 DO was utilized as the water quality standard for
general use. The regulations also require a minimum of 16 hours per day above 6.0
mg/1.
-90-
FIGURE 5-10
0. 0
CE
w
V)
0
Z
<
S
LI v1 <
O?
COS
..,
a
IC
-c
m
2
E
1
_..,
0
z
co
<
a
z
1
Ive"
$
4
DRESDEN
ISLAND
POOL
ij
,
ifo
A
/
MARSEILLES
POOL
/
4
le
STARVED
ROCK
POOL
/
PEORIA POOL
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
MEAN WATER TEMPERATURE AT 49 STATIONS ALONG THE
?
.
ILLINOIS WATERWAY FROM THE LOCKPORT LOCK AND DAM
TO THE PEORIA LOCK AND DAM FROM MAY THROUGH OCTOBER 1989
9 IC II 121)?
1.1)11
?
It?I0?I9 7C 21
27
?
7
1
7425 21
?
71 20 59 1C II 17
11?la
?
1
?
11?
JD
?
<?
<
?
ct, <, 1.1.1 Al;
STATION NUMBER
SOURCE: MWRDGCReport No. 90-32,1990, pg 16
23
CE
7
CE
a.
S 22
z
).0
2
1
4
JY
0
0
TABLE 5-6
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
DESCRIPTION OF FIVE SAMPLING STATIONS ALONG THE ILLINOIS WATERWAY
DISTANCE
DESCRIPTION?
DESCRIPTION
?
FROM
SAMPLING
?
MILE—POINT?
OF SAMPLING?
UNO—VEN
STATION
?
WATERWAY
?
LOCATION?
STATION 1/?
Miles
Lockport
?
Chicago Sanitary &
?
292.7
?
Division Street
?
3.8
Ship Canal?
along left bank
of the canal
Morris
?
Illinois River
?
263.4
?
Approximately 600
?
33.1
feet below Route 47
bridge along left
bank of river
Starved Rock?
Illinois River
?
229.7
?
Approximately 2,600
?
66.8
feet above Route 178
Bridge along right
bank of river
Henry
?
Illinois River
?
195.9
?
Approximately 600
?
100.6
feet above Route 18
Bridge along left
bank of river
Peoria
?
Illinois River?
166.1
?
Approximately 600
?
130.4
feet above Route 150
Bridge along left
bank of river
1/ STATION LOCATION FACING UPSTREAM IN WATERWAY
SOURCE:
?
Patterson Associates, Inc., 1991.
)
-92-
TABLE 5-7
SUMMARY OF MWRDGC DATA FOR ILLINOIS WATERWAY
WATERWAY
YEAR
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN, mq/I
TOTAL
AMMONIA,
mg/I
UN-IONIZED AMMONIA,
mq/I
MIN.
AVG.
%
COMPLIANCE
AVG.
MAX.
AVG.
MAX.
%
COMPLIANCE
LOCKPORT
1989
2.1
5.0
78
1.54
4.30
0.03
0.29
95
(Mile 292.7)
1990
1.0
4.0
48
1.66
6.11
0.01
0.07
100
1991
2.7
6.3
91
1.30
3.88
0.01
0.02
100
Overall
1.0
4.9
68
1.53
6.11
0.01
0.29
99
MORRIS
1989
4.8
9.1
99
0.53
1.88
0.01
0.09
97
(Mile 263.4)
1990
3.8
7.9
92
0.45
1.93
0.01
0.05
99
1991
5.3
8.9
100
0.28
0.77
<0.01
0.01
100
Overall
3.8
8.5
96
0.43
1.93
0.01
0.09
99
STARVED ROCK
1989
4.9
9.6
99
0.37
1.91
0.01
0.15
97
1
co
(Mile 229.7)
1990
3.8
8.2
96
0.34
2.37
0.01
0.04
100
c....)
1991
6.1
9.2
100
0.22
0.68
<0.01
0.20
99
Overall
3.8
8.9
98
0.32
2.37
0.01
0.20
99
HENRY
1989
5.3
12.2
100
0.45
1.17
0.02
0.13
95
(Mile
195.9)
1990
5.5
10.7
100
0.41
1.73
0.01
0.06
97
1991
5.9
10.3
100
0.29
0.97
0.01
0.05
99
Overall
5.3
10.8
100
0.38
1.73
0.01
0.13
97
PEORIA
1989
5.8
11.5
100
0.37
1.21
0.01
0.23
94
(Mile 166.1)
1990
5.5
10.4
100
0.28
1.23
0.01
0.05
99
1991
6.1
10.3
100
0.18
0.62
<0.01
0.06
99
Overall
5.5
10.5
100
0.27
1.23
0.01
0.23
97
SOURCE: Patterson Associates, Inc., 1991.
From Table 5-7, the un-ionized ammonia water quality standard was achieved a high
percentage of the time, throughout the waterway; from 97% at Henry and Peoria to 99%
at Lockport, Morris and Starved Rock. Figures 5-11 and 5-12 graphically present the DO
and ammonia results for the three-year study period.
In summary, the water quality standards are generally being achieved in the Illinois
River System. However, achieving a consistent DO level above 4.0 mg/1 in the Ship Canal
has not be attained. From 1989 through 1991, DO levels in the warmer months were above
4.0 mg/1 only 68% of the time.
Both total ammonia and un-ionized ammonia have shown a general decrease in
concentration from 1989 to 1992. The total ammonia at the Peoria station has shown the
greatest improvement of the five monitoring stations with a 51% reduction in total
ammonia. The un-ionized ammonia has been in compliance 94% to 100% of the time at the
various sampling stations along the river system. The total ammonia decreases as it
traverses downstream. The greatest reduction occurs from the Lockport to the Morris
sample station reducing the total ammonia by 72% 1989 to 1991.
5.4 Point Sources on the Chicago Waterway
Point sources on the Chicago Waterway greatly influence the water quality of the
Chicago Waterway and Illinois River System. The three major MWRDGC Water
Reclamation Plants (WRPs) are upstream of UNO-VEN and contribute a large portion of
the ammonia loading to the Chicago Waterway. Table 5-8 lists the most recent data from
the discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) for the three MWRDGC WRPs. Figure 2-2 of
Chapter 2 depicts the location of the WRPs in the Chicago area. The total ammonia
loading added to the Chicago Waterway from all three WRPs is 21,320 pounds per day. The
Calumet WRP contributes 69% of the ammonia loading of the three WRPs based on an
annual average. The Calumet WRP currently operates under a site-specific rule (Section
204.201 of the IPCB Rules and Regulation) allowing Calumet WRP a monthly average of
-94-
FIGURE 5-11
DISSOLVED OXYGEN ON THE ILLINOIS WATERWAY
OVERALL AVERAGE FROM 1989-1991
50?
100
?
150
DISTANCE FROM UNO—VEN, miles
MIN. DO
?
AVG. DO
SOURCE: Patterson Associates, Inc., 1991.
FIGURE 5-12
TOTAL AMMONIA ON THE ILLINOIS WATERWAY
OVERALL AVERAGE FROM 1989-1991
50?
100
DISTANCE FROM UNO—VEN, miles
_♦_ AVG. AMMON. _►_ MAX. AMMON.
SOURCE: Patterson Associates, Inc., 1991.
TABLE 5-8
EFFLUENT AMMONIA LOADINGS OF MWRDGC WATER RECLAMATION PLANTS
STICKNEY
CALUMET
NORTH SIDE
MONTH
AVERAGE
FLOW,
mgd
AMMONIA
NITROGEN,
mg/I
AMMONIA
LOADING,
lbs/day
AVERAGE
FLOW,
mgd
AMMONIA
NITROGEN,
mg/I
AMMONIA
LOADING,
lbs/day
AVERAGE?
AMMO NIA?
AMMO NIA
FLOW,
?
NITROGEN,
?
LOADING,
mgd?mg/I?
lbs/day
JAN
1991
764
2.0
12744
279
8.10
18848
271
1.80
4068
FEB
698
1.4
8150
285
9.00
21392
277
1.30
3003
MAR
864
0.3
2162
352
6.10
17908
316
0.90
2372
APR
922
0.4
3076
330
3.30
9082
335
0.40
1118
MAY
827
0.3
2069
330
5.20
14311
311
0.30
778
JUN
772
0.4
2575
248
7.50
15512
271
0.50
1130
JUL
722
0.6
3613
236
5.60
11022
258
1.00
2152
AUG
778
0.9
5840
252
8.46
11780
258
0.70
1506
SEP
711
0.2
1186
239
7.36
14670
259
0.60
1296
OCT
846
0.2
1411
302
4:08
10276
307
0.50
1280
cs)
---.1
i
NOV
DEC
841
746
0.3
0.3
2104
1866
326
320
5.00
5.50
13594
14678
320
304
0.30
0.50
801
1268
JAN 1992
631
1.2
6315
246
11.20
22978
263
1.10
2413
FEB
668
1.8
10028
278
7.60
17621
280
1.20
2802
MAR
772
0.4
2575
286
3.76
8969
316
1.70
4480
APR
743
1.2
7436
264
3.23
7112
298
0.70
1740
AVERAGES
769
0.7
4572
286
6.3
14735
290
0.8
2013
PERMIT LIMITS
1200
2.5/4.0
a/
354
13.00 b/
333
2.5/4.0 a/
a/ Summer/Winter
b/ 13.0 mg/I monthly average limit, 26.0 mg/I daily maximum limit
of 13.0 mg/I of ammonia. Based on an average flow for 1991 to April 1992, of 286 mgd,
an ammonia concentration limit of 13 mg/1 would contribute 31,000 pounds per day of
ammonia to the Cal Sag Channel.
The MWRDGC conducted a comprehensive water quality evaluation of the Calumet,
Northside and Stickney Water Reclamation Plant Effluent Data from 1989 to July, 1991,
as required in IPCB R87-27. The data obtained are summarized in Table 5-9 along with the
IPCB effluent standards.
The ammonia trend form 1989 to July, 1991, has shown a general decrease in
concentration at the Stickney and Northside WRP. Overall, the reduction has been 47% and
36%, respectively. The ammonia trend at the Calumet WRP plant, however, has generally
increased by 1 mg/1 from 5.4 mg/1 in 1989 to 6.4 mg/I in 1991. This 1.0 mg/1 ammonia
increase results in an additional 2,400 pounds per day of ammonia being added to the Cal
Sag Channel, compared to 1989/1990.
5.5 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
of Greater Chicago Water Quality Modeling
5.5.1 Introduction
A computer model of the Chicago Waterway and Illinois River System has been de-
veloped by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC)
with assistance from Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM). The model was developed in two
sections, the first section includes the Chicago Waterway from the three inlet points on
Lake Michigan (Wilmette Lock, Chicago River, and the O'Brien Lock) to the 1-55 Bridge.
The second section continues from the 1-55 Bridge to the Peoria Lake in Chillicothe,
Illinois.
-98-
TABLE 5-9
AMMONIA EFFLUENT QUALITY OF MWRDGC WRPs
1989 — 1991
PLANT
AMMONIA, mg/I
YEAR
EFFLUENT
LIMIT
AVG.
DAILY
MAXIMUM
Calumet
1989
13.0
5.4
18.7
Monthly
1990
Average
4.4
13.8
1991
6.4
16.8
Overall
5.2
18.7
Stickney
1989
2.5 (Apr—Oct)
1.5
11.5
4.0 (Nov—Dec)
1990
1.0
6.9
1991
0.8
4.5
Overall
1.2
11.5
Northside
1989
2.5 (Apr—Oct)
1.4
5.6
4.0 (Nov—Dec)
1990
1.2
3.6
1991
09
3.3
Overall
1.2
5.6
5.5.2 Overview of QUAL2EU Model
QUAL2EU was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to model the
physical, chemical, and biological processes that affect dissolved oxygen (DO) in a river
system and is typically used for waste allocation studies by the U.S.EPA (CDM, Main
Report, 1992). QUAL2EU can simulate up to 15 water quality constituents, including DO,
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and nitrogen. It is applicable to diverging and non-
diverging waterways that are well mixed. QUAL2EU is essentially a steady-state model
in that it is assumed that stream flow and input waste loads are constant.
5.5.3 Data Acquisition
The major portion of the data acquired for the model was provided by the Illinois
State Water Survey (ISWS) from sampling between 1989 to 1991. Data for the model were
also obtained from MWRDGC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the National Weather
Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the IEPA and the U.S.
EPA. Point source contributions of 1 mgd per day or more to the Chicago Waterway and
Illinois River System were obtained by CDM from Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
submitted to the IEPA from October, 1989 to December, 1990.
Data from the three MWRDGC WRPs were obtained from 1986 to 1990. Non-
MWRDGC facilities also included in the model are listed in Table 5-10. Loadings for the
smaller wastewater treatment plants were kept constant throughout the modeling. The
loadings from the three MWRDGC WRPs were varied depending upon the flow condition
being modeled. Table 5-11 presents the ammonia loadings in lbs/day for the principal
ammonia dischargers to the Illinois Waterway. In most cases, the loadings were obtained
from the Discharge Monitoring Reports for January, 1991 to April, 1992.
-100-
TABLE 5-10
DISCHARGE CONCENTRATIONS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
AS USED IN FIRST AND SECOND SECTIONS OF QUAL2EU MODEL
RIVER
MILE
FLOW, 1/
mgd
DO, 2/
mg/I
CBOD, 2/
mg/I
NH3-N, 2/
mg/I
Chicago Waterway/
Des Plaines River
LTV Steel
333.0
35
7.7
32.0
2.50
Lemont WRP
300.6
1.4
6.4
12.8
1.24
UNO-VEN Ref
297.5 a/
3.94
7.7
32.0
2.50
Comm Edison
5.9
4.0
1,24
Lockport WRP
292.5
2.15
7.7
10.1
0.40
Joliet WRP
286.6
17.15
7.7
8.0
0.30
Joliet Army
283.7
4.67 b/
7.7
1.8
0.30
Joliet West WRP
278.7
4.71
7.7
3.2
0.30
Mobil Oil
14.32 b/
7.7
4.8
0.04
Upper Illinois River
Comm Edison
606.39
8.6
5.0
0.27
Quantum Refinery
3.91
7.7
8.9
1.30
Morris WRP
262.8
1.8
7.7
18.2
2.32
ETI Explosives
253.5
1.01
7.7
22.7
1.55
Marseilles WRP
246.0
1.2
7.7
11.2
1.30
Ottawa WRP
239.3
3.62
7.7
7.5
1.30
Carus Chemical
225.7
1.30
7.7
5.8
0.89
LaSalle WRP
223.2
1.91
7.7
3.5
1.30
Peru WRP
222.0
2.68
7.7
16.0
1.30
LTV Steel
7.15
7.7
32.0
1.30
BF Goodrich
197.8
0.97
7.7
5.8
1.30
a/ UNO-VEN mile point as input in model
UNO-VEN's discharge mile point is actually 296.5
b/ Total Flows
Source 1/:?CDM, Data Acquisition, 1991.
Source 2/:?CDM, Main Report, 1992.
TABLE 5-11
DISCHARGED AMMONIA LOADINGS
January 1991 - April 1992
FLOW,
mgd
NH3-N,
mg/I
NH3-N,
lbs/day
Chicago Waterway/
Des Plaines River
North Side WRP
290
0.8
2013
LTV Steel
27.6
0.2
58
Calumet WRP
286
6.3
14735
Stickney WRP
769
0.7
4572
Lemont WRP
1.7
2.2
36
UNO-VEN Ref
3.8
1.8
49 a/
Lockport WRP
2.1
1.6
30
Joliet WRP
18.0
1.0
159
Joliet Army
1.2
0.8
3 c/
Joliet West WRP
3.6
1.1
35
Mobil Oil
2.8
1.6
39
Upper Illinois River
Comm Edison
622
_ 0.4
1972 d/
Quantum Refinery
1.3
0.9
8
Morris WRP
1.8
2.3
35 b/
ETI Explosives
1.0
7.0
51
Marseilles WRP
1.2
1.3
13 b/
GE Plastics
1.2
2.3
23 e/
Ottawa WRP
3.6
1.3
39 b/
Carus Chemical
1.2
1.3
13
LaSalle WRP
1.9
1.3
21 b/
Peru WRP
2.7
1.3
29 b/
LTV Steel
7.2
1.3
78 b/
BF Goodrich
1.0
1.3
11 b/
a/ From UNO-VEN monthly monitoring reports, Jan 91 - Sep 92
b/ Calculated from Table 5-10
c/ Total from outfall 009 and 014
d/ Average flow from Jan 91 - Apr 92
and ammonia conc, measured on 3/92
e/ From 1991 DMRs - formerly Borg Warner Chemicals
SOURCE: Discharge Monitoring Reports issued to IEPA from
Jan. 1991 - Apr. 1992
Details of the data acquisition efforts and results are included in several reports
prepared by CDM for MWRDGC on the modeling efforts. The data collected were used
to calibrate and verify the model. Once the model was calibrated and verified, the model
was used to simulate three scenarios; existing conditions in the waterways, future
conditions through 1999 that account for water quality improvement projects underway by
the MWRDGC such as the Tunnel and Reservoir Project - Phase I (TARP 1) and sidestream
elevated pool aeration (SEPA), and future conditions in 2010 that reflect the District's loss
of annual discretionary diversion allowance from the current 320 cfs to 101 cfs in the year
2001.
5.5.4 Model Simulations
Two models were developed, one for flow conditions with diversion and one for flow
conditions without diversion. Diversion generally occurs as a result of low flows in the
waterway system typically experienced during summer dry weather.
Simulations using the QUAL2EU model were run for average dry weather flows and
two extraordinary hydrologic conditions; wet weather flows when reclamation plants would
operate at maximum capacity, and low flows representing 7-day, 10-year low flow
conditions. The average dry weather simulations assumed that the reclamation plants
achieved average 1991 effluent quality, and the extraordinary conditions were simulated
using NPDES permit limits of maximum weekly average limit for wet weather flows and
average monthly limit for low flows (CDM, Executive Summary, 1992).
5.5.5. Modeling Results
The following highlights the results of CDM's modeling efforts and is taken from the
Executive Summary of CDM's report on Water Quality Modeling for the Chicago Waterway
and Upper Illinois River Systems, January, 1992 Average Dry Weather Flows - Existing
Conditions. Dissolved oxygen (DO) standards are not achieved in the Cal Sag Channel, and
-103-
in the lower reach of the Chicago River during warmer, average dry weather conditions.
DO standards are met in the Upper Illinois River. Total ammonia nitrogen does not exceed
0.4 mg/1 at the 1-55 Bridge because of nitrification during the summer in the Chicago
Waterway, and the un-ionized ammonia remains below 0.1 mg/1 throughout Average Dry
Weather Flows - Future Conditions 1999 - Chicago Waterway. The completion of SEPA and
most of TARP 1 will improve average dry weather water quality. TARP will improve DO
concentrations by reducing combined sewer overflows (CSO) which reduces BOD and
ammonia loadings, and also sediment oxygen demand (SOD). Un-ionized ammonia is
projected to meet the water quality standards of less than 0.1 mg/1 in the Chicago
Waterway and less than 0.04 mg/1 in the Upper Illinois River.
As a result of TARP 1, the lowest dissolved oxygen concentration improves to 4.0
mg/1 in 1999 from 3.0 in 1991. SEPA will add up to 6 mg/1 of DO to the Cal Sag Channel
raising the spring DO concentrations from 2.0 mg/1 to 5.0 mg/1 at the downstream end of
the Cal Sag Channel. Completion of TARP and SEPA will assure that the minimum are at
or above the standard on the Chicago Waterway except for a short reach on the lower
North Branch of the Chicago River. Dissolved oxygen on the Upper Illinois River will
exceed the 5.0 mg/1 standard under future average flow conditions.
Average Dry Weather Flow - Future Conditions 2010: Following the reduction of
discretionary diversion in the year 2001, DO concentrations throughout the Chicago
Waterway are expected to decrease by 0.5 to 1.0 mg/l. DO water quality standards will
not be achieved during some periods of the year and the discretionary diversion reduction
will offset some of the benefits of MWRDGC's improvements.
Low Flow Conditions: Un-ionized ammonia standards will continue to be met
through the
year 2010 except in the Cal Sag Channel. Dissolved oxygen standards will not be met on
a consistent basis at monthly average permit limits and low flow conditions. DO in the
Calumet and Chicago Waterways does not meet all the standards in 1991 or 2010 for all
seasons. Because of the reduced discretionary diversion flows after 2001, the benefits of
-104-
the SEPA stations will be reduced. For the Upper Illinois River, the DO standard is not
met under existing conditions with low flows in the spring only. The DO for summer and
winter simulations exceeds the standard for all years and spring simulations exceed the
standard in 2010 only.
Wet Weather Flow Conditions: Wet weather flow simulated severe conditions of design
maximum flows from the District's plants and zero discretionary flow. This resulted in
CBOD20 loads 8 to 14 times greater than average conditions. DO on the Chicago Waterway
was below the 4.0 mg/1 standard for all seasons modeled for 1991 and 2010. Minimum DO
occurs on the Ship Canal below the Cal Sag Channel confluence. For the 2010 simulations,
the decreased discretionary diversion flow and increased reclamation plant flows tend to
offset the benefits of TARP and SEPA.
DO would be below the standard of 5.0 mg/1 on the Upper Illinois River upstream
of the Starved Rock Dam under three simulations; spring 1991, summer 1991, and summer
of 2010. DO recovers to above 5.0 mg/1 immediately below the dam under all three
scenarios.
For the 1991 simulations, the un-ionized ammonia standard would only be exceeded
for a short reach of the Cal Sag Channel. The un-ionized ammonia standards were met for
all the 2010 simulations.
The simulation of the extraordinary hydrologic events indicates that water quality
standards for dissolved oxygen and un-ionized ammonia could fail to be met for short
periods of time of extreme conditions. Past operational experience at the District's plants
indicates that the extreme conditions modeled, effluent concentrations as high as the
permitted weekly maximum average, would rarely occur.
-105-
5.5.6 Uncertainty Analysis
Uncertainty analysis of the calibrated and verified models was performed using the
UNCAS routine of the QUAL2EU mode. The uncertainty analysis examines the variability
is predicted water quality values based on the variability of the model input values. For
this model, the analysis indicated that temperature and the atmospheric reaeration rate,
K
2
, have the largest influence on DO in the Chicago Waterway and for the Upper Illinois
River. DO is most affected by headwater loadings, temperature, and velocity. The
uncertainty analysis of the model predicted a variability in the dissolved oxygen
concentration ranging from 4% to 33% which compares favorably with the variability in the
sampling data which ranged from 6% to 25%. Thus, the model can predict dissolved oxygen
concentrations with an error that approximates the measurement error.
CHAPTER 6
UNO-VEN'S IMPACT ON THE ILLINOIS RIVER SYSTEM
6.1 Introduction
The principal local effect associated with UNO-VEN's discharge is the change in
ammonia concentration within the Zone of Initial Dilution as discussed in Chapter 4.
Ammonia discharged to waterways also impacts dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, as 4.57
pounds of oxygen are consumed for every pound of ammonia biologically oxidized. This
chapter focuses on the impact of UNO-VEN's ammonia discharge has on both ammonia and
DO levels downstream, including the Illinois River System.
The QUAL2EU Model developed by the MWRDGC has been used to simulate the
impact of UNO-VEN's ammonia loading on both the Chicago Waterway and the Illinois
River system. The model was developed in two simulations; the Chicago Waterway from
Lake Michigan to the 1-55 Bridge on the Des Plaines River, and the Illinois River system
from the I-55-Bridge to Peoria Lake. For our purposes, average summer flow rates and
average summer ammonia and BOD 5 loadings for 1991 are used to describe the existing
water quality. This model will be referred to as the base model. The base model uses 2.5
mg/1 ammonia effluent concentration and 3.36 mgd for the discharge rate for the UNO-
VEN Refinery, as modeled by the MWRDGC. This yields an ammonia loading of 70 lbs/day
from the refinery. The MWRDGC model inputs UNO-VEN's discharge at river mile 297.5
as opposed to the actual discharge location at river mile 296.5. To remain consistent with
MRWDGC's work, the discharge point was not corrected in the model.
6.2 Simulated UNO-VEN Loadings
Three simulations were modeled to evaluate the impact of various ammonia loadings
from UNO-VEN. These were first simulated on the Chicago Waterway to the 1-55 Bridge,
which is the beginning of general use waters and the extent of the first model. The second
-107-
section of the model, simulating the Illinois Waterway, was run if a change in water quality
was occurring in the first model at the 1-55 Bridge.
The ammonia loadings from UNO-VEN used for the simulations are shown in Table
6-1. These data are from January, 1989 to May, 1992 and are representative of the UNO-
VEN's actual capacity.
The model was run to predict the changes an increased ammonia loading would have
on the downstream water quality. From Table 6-1, the mean ammonia loading discharged
since 1989 is 51 lbs/day, less than the base model loading of 70 lbs/day (2.5 mg/1 and 3.36
mgd) obviously resulting in better water quality than the base model. Therefore, the
average loadings were not modeled.
6.3 Simulation Results
The monthly maximum and daily maximum simulations were run on the QUAL2EU
computer model. Other input variables were not changed from the base model to isolate
the changes caused by an increased ammonia loading.
Figure 6-1 and 6-2 present the ammonia concentrations for river miles 299 to 278.
UNO-VEN's discharge occurs at river mile 297.5 in the model, and the river flow is from
higher to lower river miles (right to left on the figures). The daily maximum loading from
UNO-VEN between 1989 and 1992 was 744 lbs/day, and this loading increased the ammonia
concentration in the canal a maximum of 0.03 mg/1 for approximately 2.5 miles
downstream, then the ammonia incremental change gradually diminishes. By the end of the
first section of the model, river mile 278, the ammonia concentration is predicted for the
daily maximum discharge to be 0.02 mg/1 above the base model, 0.47 mg/1 compared to
0.45 mg/l. Both levels are less than the 1.5 mg/1 water quality standard that begins at
river mile 278.0. The monthly maximum ammonia loading increases the ammonia
concentration by 0.01 mg/1 initially in the Ship Canal, and stream concentrations are
virtually the same as the base model after river mile 278.
-108-
TABLE 6-1
QUAL2EU UNO-VEN INPUT PARAMETERS
1989 TO APRIL, 1992
Condition
Flow, mgd
NH3/N, mg/1
NH3/N, lbs/day
Base Model
3.36
2.5
70
Average Load
3.90
1.57
a/
51
Monthly Maximum
3.93
7.9 b/
259
Daily Maximum
4.29
20.80
742
a/
?
Calculated using average ammonia loading and average flow for 1989 to June, 1992.
b/
?
Calculated using monthly maximum ammonia load and monthly average flow for the
month of the maximum loading.
FIGURE 6-I
COMPARISON OF AMMO\IA CONCE\TRATION JATA, m9/1
MWRDGC DUAL2EU MODEL OF CHICAGO WATERWAY
River Miles:?
286.5 - 299.0
1.00
0.90
BASE MODEL
DAILY MAXIMUM
70 lbs/day
744 lbs/day
••■••••■•••■■..........slarawasriemay
11111011.wirmaosm.....•■•■••■••••■•■■■■■■■•••■••••■•
0.80
.----i
m
E 0. 70
Z
cz,
0. 60
1--
1----
<
z
w
0. 50
Li
Z
„„
0
L.)
<
0. 40
ci) 0.
30
<
DOWNSTREAM
0.20
BRANDON ROAD
LOCKPORT LOCK
UNO-VEN'S
LOCK AND DAM
AND DAM
OUTFALL
0.10—
0.00 i?
I?
I?
I?
1 I
i I?
I?
I?
1?
I
I
I I I I I I I+ I I
I
286. 0 287. 0 288. 0 289. 0 290. 0 291. 0 292. 0 293. 0 294. 0 295. 0 296.0 297. 0 298. 0 299. 0
RIVER MILE
FIGURE 6-2
COAPARISO\1 OF AMMONIA CO\CENTRATIO\ IATA, m9/1
MWRDGC OUAL2ELI MODEL OF CHICAGO WATERWAY
River Miles:?
278. 5 - 286. 0
1. 00
O. 90—
0. 80—
BASE MODEL
70 lbs/day
DAILY MAXIMUM
744 lbs/day
E O. 70—
Z
0. 60
1--
z
w
0. 50 —
(---) 0. 40—
°
0.30—
-
0. 20—
0. 10—
-.4----DOWNSTREAM
1-55?
BRANDON ROAD
LOCK AND DAM
O. 00 ?
278. 0?
279. 0?
280. 0?
281. 0?
282. 0
?
283. 0?
284. 0
?
285. 0
?
286. 0
RIVER MILE
Figure 6-3 depicts the ammonia concentrations predicted by the second section of
the QUAL2EU model. Nitrification continues to oxidize the ammonia in the waterway.
At the end of this model, the Peoria Lake (river mile 180.00), the ammonia concentration
has been reduced to 0.17 mg/1 in both the model, and under maximum ammonia loading
from UNO-VEN. From Figure 6-3, the Fox River enters the Illinois waterway at river mile
240. The ammonia increases at this point from 0.28 mg/1 to 0.33 mg/1, and the ammonia
levels under the maximum daily load are virtually identical to the base model below river
mile 240.
The dissolved oxygen (DO) predicted by the model for the Chicago Waterway is
shown in Figure 6-4. This figure presents the change in oxygen concentration caused by
the maximum ammonia loading from UNO-VEN. The daily maximum loading from 1989 to
1992 again decreased the DO in the Ship Canal by a maximum of 0.03 mg/l. At the end of
the first part of the model, at river mile 278.5 or 19 miles downstream, the predicted DO
change is down to 0.01 mg/l.
The dissolved oxygen depicted in Figure 6-4 indicates that the DO is below the
secondary contact water standard of 4.0 mg/1 from before UNO-VEN's outfall until river
mile 287.5. The Lockport Lock and Dam at river mile 291.0 increases the DO level by 0.40
mg/1, increasing the DO to approximately 3.7 mg/l. The Brandon Road Lock and Dam at
river mile 286.0, however, increases the DO approximately 3 mg/1 to above the water
quality standard as shown in Figure 6-4. The computer model does not include the two
currently operating sidestream aeration systems or the three others under construction by
the MWRDGC.
The DO in the second section of the model is presented in Figure 6-5. From this
figure, there is no discernable difference in DO levels at the daily maximum discharge from
UNO-VEN and the base model. Figure 6-5 also illustrates the 0.5 mg/1 to 1.5 mg/1 of DO
-112-
.---.
o
?
_
<
E
115_
O. 40 —
w
z
U
z
_
Li 0. 30 —
I2
0
i O. 20-
DOWNSTREAM
FOX RIVER?
1-55
STARVED ROCK
?
MARSEILLES LOCK DRESDEN ISLAND
0. 10—
PEORIA LAKE
LOCK AND DAM
AND DAM
LOCK AND DAM
0.00
180. 0 190. 0 200. 0 210. 0 220. 0 230.
185. 0 195. 0 205. 0 215. 0 225. 0
IiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII?
01,1
0
240. 0 250. 0 260. 0 270. 0
235. 0 245. 0 255. 0 265. 0 275. 0
0.
70—
0. 60 —
Cr)
E
Z"
0. 50—
FIGURE 6-3
AMMO\IA CO\C \TRATIO\S DOWNSTREAM, m9/1
MWRDGC OUAL2EU MODEL OF UPPER ILLINOIS RIVER SYSTEM
River- Miles:?
180. 0 - 278. 0
DAILY MAXIMUM
744 lbs/day
BASE MODEL
70 lbs/day
RIVER MILE
BASE MODEL
70 lbs/day
DAILY MAXIMUM
744 lbs/day
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
WATER QUALITY
STANDARD
4. 50-
4.00—
3.50—
3.00—
2. 50::
2. 00=21
z
CD
X
O
O
_J
0
U)
I.
cn
D
FIGURE 6-4
DISSOLVED OXYGE\ CONCENTRATIO\S DOWNSTREAM, m9/1
MWRDGC QUAL2EU MODEL OF CHICAGO WATERWAY
River Miles:?
278.5 - 299.0
7. 00 ---
6.
6. 00
5. 50
5.
00--
cr)
-
? DOWNSTREAM
1. 50-1
- I-55
?
BRANDON ROAD?
LOCKPORT LOCK? UNO-VEN'S
1. 00--
?
LOCK AND DAM?AND DAM?
OUTFALL
0.50—
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
i i
i
i
i
0.00
f?
i
I I I
F
i
i?
I
i i i
II!
278. 0?
280. 0?
282. 0?
284. 0
?
286. 0
?
288. 0?
290. 0?
292. 0?
294. 0?
296. 0?
298. 0
RIVER MILE
101
4.50
0 190. 0 200.
0 210. 0 220.
185. 0 195. 0 205. 0 215. 0
0?
230. 0?
240. 0
225. 0
?
235. 0
?
245.
1;111111111144110111
0 260. 0 270. 0
255. 0 265. 0 275. 0
.50
180.
250.
0
FIGURE 6
- 5
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCE\TRATIO\S DOW\STREA
vlp m9/1
MWRDGC OUAL2EU MODEL OF UPPER ILLINOIS RIVER SYSTEM
River Miles:?
180.0 - 278.0
E
BASE MODEL
DAILY MAXIMUM
u_
2
1
6.
00
70 lbs/day
744 lbs/day
LO
>.--
X
0
=1
5. 50
7.50
7.00
e-i
6. 50
cr)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
WATER QUALITY
STANDARD
DOWNSTREAM
I-55
PEORIA LAKE?
STARVED ROCK MARSEILLES LOCK DRESDEN ISLAND
4.00
LOCK AND DAM?AND
/
DAM LOCK AND DAM
RIVER MILE
added by three dams (Dresden Island, Marseilles, and Starved Rock) on the Upper Illinois
Water. The DO level at the lowest point is 6.5 mg/1, well above the minimum DO general
use water quality standard of 5.0 mg/l.
These modeled trends in the Upper Illinois Waterway are consistent with the water
quality measurements previously presented in Chapter 5. Figures 5-7 and 5-8 of Chapter
5 presented the downstream DO and ammonia levels as recorded in 1989 for the Upper
Illinois River. The DO generally increased at the Brandon Road, Dresden, Marseilles and
Starved Rock Locks and Dams, with a general decline across the Peoria pool.
Table 6-2 and 6-3 present the incremental changes in ammonia and DO predicted by
the computer model at selected river miles. Under UNO-VEN's maximum month discharge
rate, the ammonia in the Ship Canal will increase 0.01 mg/1, while with UNO-VEN's peak
day ammonia discharge, the ammonia concentration will increase a maximum of 0.03 mg/1,
before declining. The peak increase results in ammonia levels of 0.78 mg/1 versus 0.75
mg/1 in the base model. By river mile 229, the ammonia levels under all scenarios are back
to the base model levels.
The DO results are similar, with the DO declining 0.01 mg/1 under the maximum
month loading and 0.03 mg/1 under the peak day loading. By river mile 209, DO levels
under the worse scenario (peak day) are virtually identical to the base model.
The QUAL2EU model is a numerical model and is therefore capable of predicting
concentrations as high of a degree of precision as required by the user. For all practical
purposes, a change in ammonia concentration of 0.00 mg/1 to 0.03 mg/1 as predicted by the
model runs for UNO-VEN can be considered not measurable. "Standards Methods"
(Clesceri, et al., 1989) indicate that at levels of ammonia of 1.0 mg/1, the standard
deviation using the Ammonia Selective Electrode Method is ± 0.04 mg/l. Higher degrees
of precision are attainable using different methods if no interferences in the sample are
present. The Ammonia Selective Electrode Method is recommended for surface waters and
industrial wastes.
-116-
TABLE 6-2
UNO-VEN's IMPACT ON AMMONIA
INCREMENTAL WATER QUALITY CHANGES PREDICTED BY QUAL2EU
River Mile
Base Model
NH3-N, mg/I
Incremental NH3-N Change, mg/I
Max. Month
?
Daily Max.
298.0
0.78
0.00
0.00
297.5
0.77
0.01
0.03
297.0
0.75
0.01
0.03
296.0
0.73
0.01
0.03
291.5
0.64
0.01
0.02
286.5
0.55
0.01
0.02
283.5
0.51
0.01
0.02
274.0
0.39
0.01
0.02
271.0
0.35
0.01
0.02
264.0
0.35
0.00
0.01
253.0
0.31
0.00
0.01
229.0
0.28
0.00
0.00
TABLE 6-3
UNO-VEN's IMPACT ON DISSOLVED OXYGEN
INCREMENTAL WATER QUALITY CHANGES
River Mile
DO, mg/I
Base Model
Incremental DO Change, mg/I
Max. Month
?
Daily Max.
298.0
3.63
0.00
0.00
297.5
3.60
0.00
0.00
297.0
3.57
0.01
0.00
296.0
3.51
-0.01
-0.01
291.5
3.28
-0.01
-0.02
286.5
4.07
-0.01
-0.03
283.5
6.88
-0.01
-0.02
274.0
6.57
-0.01
-0.02
271.0
7.44
0.00
-0.01
264.0
7.34
0.00
-0.01
253.0
7.02
0.00
-0.01
229.0
7.39
0.00
-0.01
221.0
7.17
0.00
-0.01
209.0
6.72
0.00
-0.01
202.0
6.59
0.00
0.00
191.0
6.57
0.00
0.00
180.0
6.48
0.00
0.00
The model results are consistent with the field sampling. Ammonia water quality
is consistently being achieved on the entire waterway, while DO in the Chicago Waterway
does decline below 4.0 mg/1 under certain conditions.. The MWRDGC's side stream
aeration systems are expected to eliminate the low DO levels through the year 2000, when
the discretionary diversion may be lost. The resulting DO levels after the year 2000 are
difficult to predict because of the many unresolved issues including diversion water and
completion of the TARP program.
)
)
)
-119-
)
CHAPTER
7
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
In 1983, Union Oil petitioned the Pollution Control Board for relief from the effluent
ammonia standards. The Board granted the refinery's request, limiting the effluent to the
U.S. EPA's Best Available Treatment effluent guidelines. These limits were as follows in
the most recent NPDES Permit:
Monthly Maximum
?
749 pounds/day
Daily Maximum
?
1,648 pounds/day
UNO-VEN has consistently achieved these limits and has significantly reduced the
total ammonia loadings during the last six years. The site specific limits will end on
December 31, 1993, and the establishment of future effluent limits can be based upon
water quality impacts and current operating practices, consistent with other Pollution
Control Board decisions relating to dischargers to secondary contact waterways.
Since 1983, UNO-VEN has continued to upgrade its wastewater treatment
capabilities. Over $7 million has been expended to date, with an additional $13 million
appropriated for further upgrading work (see Table 2-2). These efforts and the
conscientious operating practices have resulted in declining effluent ammonia levels (see
Figure 3-1). These improvements have occurred during a period of higher crude oil
throughput (25%) and higher nitrogen in the crude oil (157%). Since 1989, the refinery has
achieved a 3.0 mg/1 monthly ammonia level 36 out of 45 months, or 80% of the time. Since
1989, UNO-VEN has also discharged fewer pounds of ammonia than it has drawn from the
Ship Canal (see Table 3-7 and Figure 3-6).
Table 7-1 summarizes the ammonia loading from 1989 to 1992. This time period can
be considered representative of what the refinery is capable of achieving. The peak month
discharge over the last 3.75 years was 259 pounds per day, compared to the BAT limit in
the current NPDES Permit of 749 pounds per day. The peak day discharge of 744 pounds
per day is also below the BAT permit limit of 1,648 pounds per day.
-120-
TABLE 7-1
EFFLUENT AMMONIA LOADS FROM 1989 — 1992
Year
Avg. Load
lbs/day
Monthly
Maximum,
lbs/day
Daily
Maximum,
lbs/day
1989
65
259
(02/89)
742 (02/08/89)
1990
30
79
(12/90)
335 (12/26/90)
1991
72
193
(07/91)
744 (08/07/91)
1992 a/
20
55
(08/92)
356 (07/30/92)
1989-1992 a/
48.5
259
744
a/ January — September
)
)
While UNO-VEN has made significant improvements in ammonia effluent quality,
achievement of a 3.0 mg/1 effluent ammonia level on a consistent basis has remained
impossible to meet with the present facilities.
The difficulty with maintaining the 3.0 mg/1 ammonia limit is that the current
system depends upon biological nitrification, and nitrification systems are sensitive to
influent quality fluctuations. UNO-VEN retained AWARE Environmental, Inc., to evaluate
alternatives for achieving 3.0 mg/1 on a consistent basis. The AWARE Report (1992)
concluded the addition of two fluidized bed attached growth aerobic biological reactors
would be the most cost effective approach for achieving a 3.0 mg/1 ammonia level on a
consistent basis. AWARE's projected capital cost was $7,093,000 and the annual operating
costs were estimated at $1,682,000. The annualized cost for this approach, assuming a 10
year life and 9% interest was $2,787,000.
From Table 7-1, UNO-VEN has discharged an average 48.5 pounds of ammonia per
day over the last 3.75 years. Assuming the average effluent from the fluidized bed will be
0.5 mg/1 ammonia, the discharge will contain an average 16.7 lbs/day. Thus, the additional
treatment will remove an average 31.8 lbs/day ammonia, or 11,600 lbs/yr. The unit cost
for this incremental removal would be as follows:
$2,787,000/yr = $240 per pound NH
3
removed.
11,600 lbs/yr
In the 1983 Report entitled "Environmental Assessment of Ammonia Concentrations
in the Wastewater Discharge of Union Oil Company, Chicago Refinery" (Huff & Huff, 1984)
ammonia removed at the Calumet WRP was estimated at $1.40 per pound. Updating to
1992 dollars, this number is currently closer to $3.00 per pound, well below the unit costs
UNO-VEN would be required to expend.
-122-
The primary concern with ammonia discharged to the Chicago Waterway is the
impact on dissolved oxygen. The MWRDGC is expending $35 million (MWRDGC, 1990) for
five sidestream aerations. These systems are capable of adding 2.0 to 6.0 mg/1 of DO in
the spring and summer. Assuming an average of 4.0 mg/1 DO addition into the Cal Sag (550
mgd), (CDM, Data Acquisition, 1991) six months per year, these systems will add 18,000
pounds of oxygen per day or compensating for the equivalent of 4,000 pounds ammonia
oxidation per day. Over six months, this yields 720,000 pounds of ammonia compensated.
Assuming an operating cost of $1.5 million for the sidestream aeration systems, and $3.5
million for the annualized capital cost, $5.0 million will be expended annually, or a unit
cost as follows:
Unit Cost?
$5,000,000/yr
720,000 pounds per yr
Unit Cost?
$6.94/pound of ammonia oxidized
Note that the above costs are approximations and are not intended to be definitive
costs. The above costs assume that the side-stream aeration is simply for ammonia
compensation, while in reality they are to increase the waterway DO levels. However,
when compared to the unit costs facing UNO-VEN ($240/lb), it is clear that if further
ammonia reduction is appropriate on this waterway, there are more cost effective
approaches than requiring UNO-VEN to install additional treatment operations.
Since Union Oil's previous site specific rule change, the MWRDGC has obtained
similar relief for the Calumet WRP. The Illinois Pollution Control Board has imposed
effluent ammonia limits of 13 mg/1 monthly and 26 mg/1 daily maximum on the Calumet
WRP. These values are similar to UNO-VEN's daily maximum ammonia concentrations
from UNO-VEN of 26.0 mg/1 and monthly maximum of 10 mg/1 (since 1989). Thus, limits
identical to the ammonia limits applicable to the Calumet WRP would be appropriate for
UNO-VEN, and would provide consistency. On a pound basis, assuming average flows, the
concentrations convert into the following loadings from the refinery:
-123-
Ammonia Proposed Effluent Limit
Concentration,
?Loading,
a/
?
BAT Limits, b/
mg
/1 ?
lbs/day
?
lbs/day
Monthly Maximum
13.0
656
772
Daily Maximum
26.0
1,873
1,698
a/
?
Based upon a design average flow and maximum pumping rates for monthly maximum
and daily maximum values.
b/
?
Based upon production values over the last five years.
From Table 7-1, the above proposed effluent limits would have been achieved over
the past 3.75 years.
The proposed monthly average discharge of 656 pounds per day can be compared to
the current ammonia loading in the Ship Canal. The average flow, as monitored at the
Romeoville USGS station for October, 1990 to September, 1991 was 1,950 mgd. The
average UNO-VEN influent ammonia concentration for the same period was 1.95 mg/1.
From this data, the Canal's average ammonia loading immediately upstream of UNO-VEN
is 32,000 lbs/day.
Thus, under the proposed limit, the maximum monthly average discharge from UNO-
VEN would account for 2% of the total Ship Canal ammonia load. Under the average
loading of the last 3.75 years, UNO-VEN has discharged 48.5 pounds per day, less than it
has taken in from the Ship Canal (69 pounds per day), and accounting for only 0.15% of the
total ammonia load in the Ship Canal.
The localized impact from UNO-VEN's discharge was presented in Chapter 4. The
Zone of Initial Dilution and Mixing Zone determined were both consistent with the Pollution
Control Board's definitions as well as with the U.S. EPA's toxic control policies. The
benthic community in the Ship Canal has shown a significant improvement since 1983,
reflecting the overall improvement in water quality. No difference in the benthic
community between the upstream and downstream sampling stations was discerned.
Water quality on the Ship Canal was presented in Chapter 5. Ammonia water quality
has consistently been below the 0.1 un-ionized ammonia water quality standard. However,
DO on the Ship Canal, both upstream and downstream of UNO-VEN has not consistently
attained the 4.0 mg/1 water quality standard.
To address this DO concern, the MWRDGC is installing five side-stream aeration
facilities on the Chicago Waterway. These five aeration systems will go a long way toward
achieving the DO water quality standard through the year 2000. In the year 2000, the
MWRDGC is scheduled to lose its discretionary Lake Michigan water, which will result once
again in DO levels below the water quality standards on the Chicago Waterways. As there
is uncertainty at this time as to the discretionary diversion and additional steps the
MWRDGC may implement, water quality concerns beyond the year 2000 are too speculative
at this point to seriously address. Once the year 2000 is reached, these future concerns
could be addressed using actual field measurement data. Currently, UNO-VEN's maximum
day discharge increases the ammonia a maximum of 0.03 mg/1 in the Ship Canal, while the
peak month discharge increases the Ship Canal ammonia by 0.01 mg/l. The maximum
dissolved oxygen consumption attributable to UNO-VEN's maximum day discharge is 0.03
mg/1 on the Illinois Waterway, and only 0.01 mg/1 for the maximum month loading.
In summary, UNO-VEN has continued to reduce ammonia levels since the 1984 rule
change. For the past 3.75 years, the refinery has discharged fewer pounds of ammonia than
it has withdrawn from the Ship Canal in the intake water. No localized impact could be
identified and under the worse case scenario, UNO-VEN would depress the DO in the Ship
-125-
Canal a maximum 0.03 mg/l. While the ammonia 3.0 mg/1 effluent limit can be achieved
80% of the time, to raise the compliance level to 100% will require an annualized
expenditure of $2.79 million. This cost will result in an incremental removal of 11,600
pounds of ammonia per year, or an average 31.8 pounds per day. No measurable
improvement in water quality will occur for this expenditure. As the refinery has done
under the existing site-specific limits, UNO-VEN will continue to seek cost-effective
improvements in reducing effluent ammonia levels. Adoption of effluent limits on a pounds
per day basis, derived from the Calumet WRP ammonia limits of 13/26 mg/1, would
encourage further water conservation practices at the refinery while being consistent with
previous Pollution Control Board decisions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AWARE Corporation, Treatment Alternatives for Ammonia Removal from Refinery
Wastewater, Prepared for Union Oil Company, 1984
AWARE Environmental, Inc., Treatment Alternatives for Ammonia Removal from Refinery
Wastewater, 1992
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., MWRDGC, Data Acquisition for Water Quality Modeling
of Chicago Waterway and Upper Illinois River System, 1991.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., MWRDGC, Water Quality Modeling for the Chicago
Waterway and Upper Illinois River System, Executive Summary, 1992.
Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., MWRDGC, Water Quality Modeling for the Chicago
Waterway and Upper Illinois River System, Main Report, 1992.
Clesceri, L.S., A.E. Greenberg, R.R. Trussell, Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 17th Edition, Port City Press, Baltimore, MD, 1989.
Dennison, S.G., S.J. Sedita, B. Sawyer, D.R. Zenz, C. Lue-Hing, MWRDGC, R&D Report
No. 91-50, Comprehensive Water Quality Evaluation, Fish Survey of the Chicago
Waterway from April through July 1991, 1991.
Huff, L.L. and J.E. Huff, Environmental Assessment of Ammonia Concentration in the
Wastewater Discharge of Union Oil Company, Chicago, Refinery, 1984.
Huff & Huff, Inc., "Technical Memorandum: On Ammonia Water Quality Data and Toxicity
for Chicago Inland Waterways and Illinois River System," CDM, Water Quality
Modeling for the Chicago Waterways and Upper Illinois River Systems, Appendices,
1992.
IEPA, Field Methods Manual, Section C, Macroinvertebrate Monitoring, 1987.
Lind, 0.T., Handbook of Common Methods and Limnology, Kendall/Hunt Publishing,
DeButte, Iowa, 1985, 199 pages.
Morgan, D., personal communications USGS Office, Springfield, November 2, 1992.
MWRDGC, Chief Engineers Report, 1990.
Nemerow, N.L., Liquid Waste of Industry, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading,
MA, 1971.
Patterson and Associates, Inc., MWRDGC, R&D Report No. 91-52, Comprehensive Water
Quality Evaluation, Summary Report for the Period of 1989-1991, 1991.
Polls, I., S.J. Sedita, B. Sawyer, D.R. Zenz, and C. Lue-Hing, MWRDGC, R&D Report No.
91-48, Comprehensive Water Quality Evaluation, Distribution of Benthic
Invertebrate Species in the Chicago Waterway System during April and June, 1991,
1991.
Singh, K.P., and J.B. Stall, "The 7-Day 10-Year Low Flows of Illinois Streams," ISWS
Bulletin 57, 1973.
U.S. EPA, EPA/440/5-85-001, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - 1984, 1985.
U.S. EPA, EPA/505/290-001, Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control, 1991.
U.S. Geological Survey, Report IL-91-2, Water Resources Data, Illinois Water Year 1991,
Volume 2. Illinois River Basin, 1991.
)
)
)
.ATTACHMENTS
CHAPTER 1
APPENDICES
BAT Effluent limitations
Pollutant or
pollutant property
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average
of daily
values tor
30
consecu-
tive days
shall not
exceed
Environmental Protection
Agency?
§
419.23
a ratio of 2.2 to 1 to the applicable effluent limitations for
SOD,.
Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.
[47 FR 46446, Oct. 18, 1982. as amended at
50 FR 28522. 28523, July 12, 1985; 50 FR
32414. Aug. 12, 19851
§ 419.23 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent re-
duction attainable by the application of
the best available technology economi-
cally achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR
125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart
must achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable:
Metric units (kilograms
per 1.000 m u
of
feedstock)
COD ?
Ammonia as N
?
Sulfide
?
English un is (pounds
per 1,000 bbl of
feedstock)
COD ?
Ammonia as N
?
Sulfide
?
See footnote following table in 419.13(4).
(b)
The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of this section are to be multiplied
by the following factors to calculate
the maximum for any one day and
maximum average of daily values for
thirty consecutive days.
(1) Size factor.
1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream day
Size
(actor
Less than 24.9
?
0.91
25.0 to 49.9 ?
0.95
50.0 to 74.9
?
1.04
75.0 to 99.9
?
1.13
100.0 to 124.9 ?
1.23
125.0 to 149.9 ?
1.35
150.0 or greater
?
1.41
(2) Process factor.
Process configuration
Process
factor
Less than 2.49
?
0.58
2.5 to 3.49
?
0.63
3.5 to 4.49
?
0.74
4.5 to 5.49 ?
0.88
5.5 to 5.99 ?
1.00
6.0 to 6.49 ?
1.09
6.5 to 6.99
?
1.19
7.0 to 7.49 ?
1.29
7.5 to 7.99 ?
1.41
8.0 to 8.49 ?
1.53
8.5-to 8.99
?
1.67
9.0 to 9.49?
1.82
9.5 or greater
?
1.89
(3) See the
comprehensive example
in subpart D, § 419.42(b)(3).
(c)(1) In addition to the provisions
contained above pertaining to COD,
ammonia and sulfide, any existing
point source subject to this subpart
must achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable
(BAT):
(i) For each of the regulated pollut-
ant parameters listed below, the efflu-
ent limitation for a given refinery is
the sum of the products of each efflu-
ent limitation factor times the applica-
ble process feedstock rate, calculated
as provided in 40 CFR 122.45(b). Appli-
cable production processes are pre-
sented in Appendix A, by process type.
The process identification numbers
presented in this Appendix A are for
the convenience of the reader. They
can be cross-referenced in the
Develop-
ment Document for Effluent Limita-
tions Guidelines, New Source Perform-
ance Standards, and Pretreatment
Standards for the Petroleum Refining
Point Source Category
(EPA 440/1-82/
014),
Table III-7, pp. 49-54.
210
?
109
18.8
?
8.5
0.18
?
0.082
74.0
?
38.4
6.6
?
3.0
0.065
?
0.029
431
Thomas G. HcSwiggin, P.>=.
Manager. Permit Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
NPDES Permit No. IL0001589
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois?
62794-9276
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
Modified (NPDES) Permit
Expiration Date:
?
June 1, 1993
Name and Address of Permittee:
The UNO-VEN Company
135th Street and New Avenue
Lemont, Illinois
?
60439
Discharge Number and Name:
001 Industrial, Sanitary and Stormwater
002 Overflow from Stormwater Basin
Issue Date: September 30, 1988
Effective Date: November 1, 1988
Modification Issue Date: August 21, 1990
Modification Effective Date:Sept. 20, 1990
Facility Name and Address:
The UNO-VEN Company
Chicago Refinery
135th Street and New Avenue
Lemont. Illinois 60439
(Will County)
Receiving Waters
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
Illinois and Michigan Canal
In compliance with the provisions of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Subtitle C and/or
Subtitle D Rules and Regulations of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, and the Clean Water Act,
the above-named permittee is hereby authorized to discharge at the above location to the
above-named receiving stream in accordance with the standard conditions and attachments herein.
Permittee is not authorized to discharge after the above expiration date. In order to receive
authorization to discharge beyond the expiration date, the permittee shall submit the proper
application as required by the Illinois Environmental Protection A enc
?
PA) not later than 180
days prior to the expiration date.
TGM:JOP:jd/1729j.sp
Page 2
NPDES Permit No. IL0001589
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
LOAD LIMITS?
CONCENTRATION
lbs/dav?
LIMITS ma/1
30 DAY
?
DAILY
?
30 DAY
?
DAILY
?
SAMPLE
?
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
?
AVG.?MAX.?
AVG.?
MAX.
?
FREQUENCY TYPE
1. From the effective date of this Permit until June 1, 1993, the effluent of the following
discharge(s) shall be monitored and limited at all times as follows:
Flow (MGD)
Outfall:
?
001 Treated Refinery Wastewater. Sanitary Waste and Stormwater
Report as a monthly average and a monthly maximum
?
Daily
?
Continuous
BOD 5
1009.41
2472.32
2/Week
Composite
C800
5
20
40
2/Week
Composite
TSS
1098.81
1723.13
25
50
2/Week
Composite
Fats.
Mathematical
Oil, and Grease 399.56
749.19
15
30
2/Week Comp.*
pH
See Special Condition 1
2/Week
Grab
Phenol
7.06
29.18
0.3
0.6
2/Week
Composite
NH
3
-N
749.19
1648.21
2/Week
Composite
COD
9589.63
18480.02
2/Week
Composite
Chromium(total)
8.27
23.79
1.0
2.0
2/Week
Composite
Chromium(+6)
0.67
1.52
0.1
0.3
2/Week
Grab
Sulfide
7.24
16.23
2/Week
Composite
Cyanide
5.04
14.42
0.1
0.2
2/Week
Composite
Fluoride
757.05
2163.00
15
30
2/Week
Composite
*See Special Condition 2
Page 3
NPDES Permit No. IL0001589
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
LOAD LIMITS
?
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
?
LIMITS mg/1
30 DAY
?DAILY?
30 DAY
?
DAILY
?
SAMPLE
?
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
?
AVG.
?
MAX.
?
AVG.
?
MAX.?
FREQUENCY TYPE
2. From the effective date of this Permit until June 1, 1993, for each week in which wastewater from
the Lemont, Unocal Chemicals Division Polymer Plant is being treated with the refinery wastewater,
the effluent of the following discharge(s) shall be monitored** and limited at all times as follows:
Sanitary Waste and Stormwater
Flow (MGD)
?
Report as a monthly average and a monthly maximum
?
Daily
?
Continuous
800
5
?1010.21?2474.45?
2/Week
?
Composite
CBOD
S
?20
?
40
?2/Week
?
Composite
TSS
?
1100.14
?
1727.46
?
25
?
50?
2/Week
?
Composite
Oil, and Grease
?
399.56
?
749.19
? 15?
30?
2/Week?
Comp.*
Fats,
?
Mathematical
P H
?See Special Condition 1
?
2/Week
?
Grab
Phenol
?
7.06?
29.18
?
0.3
?
0.6
?
2/Week?
Composite
NH
3
-N
?
749.19
?
1648.21
?
2/Week
?
Composite
COD?
9589.63
?18480.02?
2/Week
?
Composite
Chromium(total)
?
8.30
?23.88?
1.0
?2.0
?
2/Week
?Composite
Chromium(+6)?0.67
?
1.52
?
0.1
?
0.3
?
2/Week
?
Grab
Sulfide
?
7.24
?
16.23?
2/Week
?
Composite
Cyanide
?
5.05?14.46
?
0.1?0.2
?
2/Week
?
Composite
Fluoride?
757.05
?
2163.00
? 15
?
30?
2/Week
?
Composite
*See Special Condition 2
**See Special Condition 16
001 Treated
Refinery
and Polymer Plant
Page 4
NPDES Permit No. IL0001589
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
LOAD LIMITS
?
CONCENTRATION
lbs/day
?
LIMITS mg/1
30 DAY
?
DAILY
?
30 DAY
?DAILY
?
SAMPLE
?
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
?
AVG.
?
MAX.?
AVG.
?
MAX.
?
FREQUENCY TYPE
1. From the effective date of this Permit until June 1,
?
1993. the effluent of the following
discharge(s) shall be monitored and limited at all times as follows:
Outfall:
?
002 Stonnwater Retention Basin Overflow
***When Discharge Occurs
Flow (MGD)
Report as a monthly average and a monthly maximum
1/day
Estimate
BODs
20
40
1/day
Grab
ISS
25
50
1/day
Grab
Fats.
Oil and Grease
15
30
1/day
Grab
Phenols
0.3
0.6
1/day
Grab
Chromium(total)
1.0
2.0
1/day
Grab
Chromium(+6)
0.1
0.3
1/day
Grab****
Cyanide
0.1
0.2
1/day
Grab
Fluoride
15
30
1/day
Grab
NH 3 -N
See Special Condition 9
1/day
Grab
pH
See Special Condition 1
1/day
Grab
***When no discharge occurs for one month, the DMR for that month shall be submitted with the
words "no discharge" written on the top of the form.
****Analysis for Cr(+6) shall be completed within 24 hours of collection (40 CFR 136).
Page 5
NPDES Permit No. IL0001589
S p
ecial Conditions
1.
The pH shall be in the range 6.0 to 9.0. A monthly minimum and a monthly maximum shall be
reported on the DMR form.
2.
Mathematical composites for oil, fats and greases shall consist of a series of grab samples
collected over any 24-hour consecutive period. Each sample shall be analyzed separately and
the arithmetic mean of all grab samples collected during a 24-hour period shall constitute a
mathematical composite. No single grab sample shall exceed a concentration of 75 mg/l.
3.
Samples taken in compliance with the effluent monitoring requirements for Outfalls 001 and 002
shall be taken at a point representative of the discharge, but prior to entry into the
receiving stream.-
4. The permittee shall record monitoring results on Discharge Monitoring Report Forms using one
such form for each discharge each month.
The completed Discharge Monitoring Report forms shall be submitted to IEPA no later than the
15th day of the following month, unless otherwise specified by the permitting authority.
Discharge Monitoring Reports shall be mailed to the IEPA at the following address:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois
?
62794-9276
Attention: Compliance Assurance Section
5. Storm Water Credit for Outfall 001:
An additional storm water credit for the following parameters shall be calculated based on
100% of the storm water flow as defined below.
Pounds per 1000 gallons of storm water
Parameter
?
Averaae
?Maximum
BOD
5
?0.22? 0.40
Total Suspended Solids?
0.18
?
0.28
COD
?
1.5
?
3.0
Oil and Grease
?
0.067?
0.13
Phenol
?
0.0014
?
0.0029
Cr (tot)?
0.0018?
0.0050
Cr (+6)
?
0.00023? 0.00052
Page 6
NPDES Permit No. 1L0001589
S p
ecie Conditions
Dry Weather Flow -- The average flow from the waste water treatment facility for the last
three consecutive zero precipitation days. Previously collected storm water shall not be
included.
Storm Water Flows -- The storm water runoff which is treated in the waste water treatment
facility shall be defined as that portion of the flow greater than the dry weather flow.
In computing monthly average permit limits.to include storm water credit, the pound credit
calculated above shall be averaged along with process pound limits over the 30 day period.
Explanatory calculations and flow data shall be submitted together with discharge monitoring
reports.
The storm water credit does not authorize the permittee to exceed the concentration limits
contained in Effluent Limitations and Monitoring, Page 2.
6.
The permittee shall monitor, twice per year-, for outfall 002. for the following, if discharge
occurs:
Benzene, toluene and ethyl benzene using USEPA method #602 49
ER
43272).
Sample type shall be a grab sample. The results shall be submitted with the April and October
DMR to both IEPA and USEPA unless otherwise specified by the Agency.
If the Agency determines that any of the parameters are being discharged at a level of
environmental or human health significance, the permit may be reopened to incorporate the
limitations. in accordance with the Federal and State of Illinois Rules and Regulations.
7.
The effluent total dissolved solids concentration in the subject discharge (outfall 001) shall
be limited to a level that will not cause the receiving stream to exceed the water quality
standard in Rule 302.407 of the IPCB. Chapter 1 Rules and Regulations.
8.
This permit does not allow The UNO-VEN Company to operate onsite sludge disposal facility. A
proper permit shall be obtained from this Agency to operate onsite sludge disposal facility.
•
9.
The effluent ammonia-nitrogen concentration (outfall 002) shall be limited to a level that
will comply with the provisions of Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations,
Chapter 1, Rules 304.301 during its period of effectiveness, and thereafter to a level that
will not cause the receiving stream to exceed the water quality standard in Rule 302.212.
Chapter 1.
10.
The effluent total dissolved solids concentration in the subject discharge (outfall 002) shall
be limited to a level that will not cause the receiving stream to exceed the water quality
standards in Rule 302.208 of the IPCB. Chapter 1, Rules and Regulations.
11.
The permittee shall monitor the nitrogen concentration of its oil feedstocks and report on an
annual basis such concentrations to the Agency.
12.
The permittee shall submit the reports described in Special Condition 11 no later than 30 days
after the end of a calendar year.
13.
The provisions of IPCB Order R84-13 shall terminate on December 31, 1993.
14.
The permittee may use the upset provision as an affirmative defense, however all the
requirements listed in 40 CFR 122.41(n) have to be met.
Page 7
NPOES Permit No. IL0001589
S
p
ecial Conditions
15. One year
p
rior to the expiration date of this
p ermit. the ;:ermittee shall perform the
following tests to be submitted to the IEPA with the renewal application for NPDES Permit:
1.
Aquatic Toxicit y
Screening
Acute toxicity testing will be performed in accordance with —iethods for Measuring Acute
Toxicity of Effluents to Aquatic Organisms" (Third Edition). USEPA 600/4-85-013, and
"Environmental Effects Tests Guidelines" USEPA 560/6-82-002. The testing
will
be
performed utilizing fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) and Daphnia magna, Daphnia
pulex. or Ceriodaphnia dubia. Chronic testing will be conducted using the green alga
Selenastrum capricornutum in accordance with "Short-Term Methods for Estimating the
Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms" USEPA
600/4
-
-85-014. The test duration for fish and algal tests will be 96 hours, while the
test period for Daphnia or Cerodaphnia will be 48 hours. The testing should be performed
on 100% effluent samples and effluent diluted with receiving stream water at effluent
concentrations of 50%, 25%, 12.5%, and 6.25%.
2.
Chemical S
p
ecific Testing
Chemical specific testing should analyze the effluent for 113 priority pollutants (see 40
CFR 136 Appendix A, Methods 624 and 625) and for non-priority pollutants. Samples will
be handled, prepared, and analyzed by GC/MS in accordance with 40 CFR 136 Methods 624 and
625 (October 26, 1984 Federal Register). A reasonable attempt to identify and quantify
non-priority pollutant compounds in each GC/MS fraction shown to be present by peaks on
the total ion plots (reconstructed gas chromatogram) more than ten times higher than the
adjacent background noise which produce identifiable spectra, more than five scans wide.
Identification will be attempted by a laboratory whose computer data processing programs
are capable of comparing the sample mass spectrum to a computerized library of mass
spectra, with visual confirmation by an experienced analyst. Quantification may be an
order of magnitude estimate based on comparison with an internal standard. In addition,
samples will be handled, prepared, and analyzed by high pressure liquid chromatography
using methods such as 40 CFR 136 Methods 605 and 610. or other appropriate HPLC methods
to identify and quantify organic compounds, using extraction procedures outlined in the
regulations or column extraction techniques such as C18 or silica gel.
All sample collection, preservation, and storage times will conform to 40 CFR 136 or other
approved USEPA procedures and requirements. Detection limits for USEPA Methods, or
alternative methods, will be comparable with the method detection limit in 40 CFR 136
regulations. The detection limit for the direct injection protocol will be as sensitive as
possible utilizing sound laboratory practices.
Following chemical analysis, an evaluation of the toxicological properties will be provided
for any identified compounds, based on available toxicology data bases. If a class of
chemicals is identified as being present in the discharge, but the compound cannot be
specifically identified, toxicology information available for other members of that class will
be used to evaluate the potential for human exposure to any hazardous compounds identified and
evaluated.
16. The Lemont. Unocal Chemicals Division Polymer Plant wastewater shall initially be analyzed
once per week for a minimum of four weeks when hauling and treatment of this wastewater at the
Chicago Refinery commences. The Polymer Plant wastewater sample shall be collected at the
point where it is discharged from the tank truck into the sewer at the refinery. The Polymer
Plant wastewater shall be analyzed for the pollutants listed in 40 CFR 414.91. Discharge from
the Treated Water Basin (Outfall 001) at the Refinery shall be analyzed once per week for four
weeks after commencement of treatment of polymer plant wastewater at the refinery and analyzed
for the pollutants listed in 40 CFR 414.91.
Detection limits for the list of pollutants in 40 CFR 414.91 shall be in accordance with
Attachment A. of this Permit. Sampling results shall be submitted to the Agency Industrial
Unit, Division of Water Pollution Control within 45 days of the sample collection date. After
review of the sampling data this Agency may modify this Permit by imposing monitoring
requirements and/or limitations on the influent and/or effluent following public notice and
opportunity for public hearing.
Page 8
Attachment A
Detection Limits
All units are micrograms per liter.
Acenaphthene
?
10
Arcylonitrile
?
5
Benzene
?
Carbon Tetrachloride
?
Chlorobenzene ?
5
1,2,4-
Trichlorobenzene
?
10
Hexachlorobenzene
?
10
1.2-Dichloroethane ?
5
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ?
Hexachloroethane -
?
10
Chloroethane
?
10
Chloroform
?
2-Chlorophenol
?
10
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
?
10
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
? 10
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
?
10
1,1-Dichloroethylene
? 5
1,2-trans-
Dichloroethylene
? 5
2.4-Dichlorophenol ?
10
1,2-Dichloropropane
? 5
1,3-
Dichloropropylene
? 10
2,4-Dimethylphenol
?
10
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
?
10
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
?
10
Ethyl benzene
?
5
Fluoranthene
?
10
Bis(2-
Chloroisopropyl)
ether
?
10
Methylene Chloride
? S
Methyl Chloride
? 100
Hexachlorobutadiene ?
10
Naphthalene
?
10
Nitrobenzene
?
10
2-Nitrophenol
?
SO
4-Nitrophenol
?
SO
2,4-Dinitrophenol
?
SO
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
?
100
Phenol ?
10
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
?
10
Di-n-butyl phthalate ? 10
Diethyl phthalate ? 10
Oimethyl phthalate ?
10
Benzo(a)anthracene ?
10
Benzo(a)pyrene ?
10
3
,4-
Benzofluoranthene ? 10
Benzo(k)fluoranthene ? 10
Chrysene ?
10
Acenaphthylene
?
10
Anthracene ?
10
Fluorene
?
10
Phenanthrene
?
10
Pyrene
?
10
Tetrachloroethylene ?
Toluene
?
Trichloroethylene
? S
Vinyl Chloride
?
10
Total Chromium ?
10
Total Copper ?
25
Total
.
Cyanide
?
10
Total Lead ?
5
Total Nickel
?
40
Total Zinc
?
20
1
1111111i
zEgE
il
l
all
Fu
llI
?
?
t
1
R?
1
il§f
;li
i
II
l
i
?
wIlif1131
;1
?
gg
'
1111
rE.
?
100
?
" 1
?
q
I
t'
l
l II
?
i
t
,'
111.16
?
le
!!II
?
. 11
?
IP
1251
?
14:11
?
[
m
r2.1
4 I
/ It
tl
?
33!
1[814 If° I sta
"
i
K •
i 401
?
g[h
4
ita;
1
'4
II!
?
ii; 1
?
flip
101
?
(
ti
t
11
ti
?
14
;17
?
II
?
i
?
!
i
t
/111
,
1 ill I
?
Vi
l
f
?
'Pi
?
1
1 !
?
i
g
r
l
i?
5!
?
oL
p
! ill 11
1
;11
1
10
1
! !It ill
?
!I
?
!
f
i
l
l
?
II
1
'1
4
6
1
1 ill
?
4111
10114
?
fi 112.
?
li;
?
'4
101
?
I
f
W
7111
;
;
I?
ri
Jil
l!
il
I
T!
?
!!
?
Ea
?
1
le,l
a?
14
if
11: 1111i Idyl
?
q?
;'11
?
!
Id!1
?
Ili (
6 1
?
6
tii 29 lif
t
!
a
,a1
?
! 1
?
01
?
Ili
0 II! 1110t ill
int ill?
I?
!I?
11 1
ill
§
2
=
?
g?
g 2?
g
=?
hovn
If g
a
?
i
v
:-.
1
i
r
11
1
TN!
th?
; :
gg
:
?
i?
f
9.,
ifIllii
..a
l
o
i 1
vults-
III
?
11 II
t
I
?
i
sli
, -,;./.
lill
?
0
1?
till!
ii
?I
it
?
e?
'?
1
2?
?
C
I
II
1111
1
!
If PIP
r?
if
?
m?
E
?
CEt
• I II
I
?1 Il
i
il
I I
4111! lifiP1
liMill
i t
il
li
;/?
l!n
111
il
!I I
I
1
11/1
-
' 1 1613
1 Ili
/
I !II l
i ii 1
[
11
1 1
1
11111101 1
1
11 11
1 1
1
ii
11
11
1
1 11
i'
' Ill
i 114
1 in
ts
1 1
1
: !I
1 11.
?
R
?
;21_
?
i
2
/ t
5
"
?
i
!
cl
Y
;?
&i
R
f?
11
.
t
91!
I
i
Eiji
; ill
!
ij
I
iice
li
l lii
t
i;?
11?
0
1
1 1
4 1
/ 1 1?
I
rt I i a
p
11 I
I
?I.
i 0
?
1 -11 [
?
- 'it
g?
l
A
i
?
1 .
?
R?
11
0.2 2.
?
d [... .! f
l
ti ph
e 1
?
!ft
1
tt
1
"
?
1?
/
s
?
il
rl
F.z
l
1
1
1
i e
1
1
?
I
-
I
ii
i
:.
?
?
i
;
1
s:d
illill
p
1
141
r i
?
?
.
i I
sf
?
?
,
lbw
r9
1
1
211
tiii
?
.
1
I
?
?
le.
h
1-1
ii
!
II
?
I
1
1?
?
IR
' II
I
d
I
i
ill!!
-111
fii
g
i
i
1
IIIR
111
Mi
9i
I
1
4
1 1!1
?
I?
Ili li I'll
1
t
911
?
I
?
Ili
?
.5?
Li
III
liZ
?
I.
.91
II
511i.1
.0
.2
8
?
2b
i
f?
u;
g
?
II
p
16
?
!I
H?
?
upp11141
!215
I
'2?
I
l
l
L!
?
qi?
14!..
I 1.4
?
0E1
?
k
2
41
150
liZ'!
li
1111,
Hi
zl
?
i
?
?
?
141
'4t
4
44.
?
?
Is
P
d
?
?
1111
Ili
Ill
•?
?
?
?
if
el
IE
?
11
.8?
I?
!ill
tz:lz
.11z
1.
ticg
!
.2
111
?
?
1?
11
5 1111
2i
i'
IT1/11
?
l
lie
I
?
24
'
I
I
h
izt
!
T
'
?
14
?
II
E
l?
?
ic
?
!ill
II!!
4;1
?
4
/ II
:g
1
1
1
:11
il
111
11
?
:III
WI
il
l
fi
1
!
I
2
?
40
:lig
Ipz
Liz 1
E
1
3
?
3?
3
3
o
CHAPTER 2
APPENDICES
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
REPORT NO. 91-50
COMPREHENSIVE WATER QUALITY EVALUATION
FISH SURVEY OF THE
CHICAGO WATERWAY SYSTEM
FROM APRIL THROUGH JULY 1991
S.G. Dennison
S.J. Sedita
B.
Sawyer
D.R. Zenz
C.
Lue-Hing
December 1991
METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
TABLE AI-11
NUMBER AND WEIGHT OF FISH COLLECTED FROM STATION NUMBER 11
AT 16TH STREET, LOCKPORT ON THE CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL
FROM APRIL THROUGH JULY 1991
Date of Sample
and Fish Species
Collected
Number
of Fish
Weight (grams)
Total
Catch
Per 30
Minutes
Total
Catch
Per 30
Minutes
4/11/91 Sample
Gizzard shad
1
0.79
10.83
8.55
Goldfish
1
0.79
9.92
7.83
Carp
14
11.05 24,918.50
19,672.50
Green sunfish
1
0.79
4.09
3.23
Pumpkinseed
3
2.37
6.25
4.93
Total for 4/11/91
20
15.79 24,949.59 19,697.04
6/18/91 Sample
Goldfish
11
7.33
1,614.50 1,076.33
Carp
21
14.00 30,460.00 20,306.67
Golden shiner
2
1.33
10.10
6.73
Emerald shiner
1
0.67
5.92
3.95
Green sunfish
1
0.67
6.05
4.03
Bluegill
1
0.67
16.48
10.99
Total for 6/18/91
37
24.67
32,113.05
21,408.70
71! /4,60.t(
ctie,,c777y
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF AQUATIC LIFE AND ITS USES
AMMONIA
Final Draft
20 January 1983
Prepared By
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Research Laboratory
Duluth, Minnesota
Life Stage
Table 1. Acute values for ammonia.
Concentration
Temperature
D.O.
Species
or Size
Chemical
Methods
Effectb
(mq/L NH')
21-1
(*C)
(mg/L) Reference
FRESHWATER SPECIES
Flatworm,
Dendrocoelum lacteum
NH
4
CI
S,U
LC50
1.4d,f
8.2
18
Stammer 1953
(Procotyla
?fluvlatIlls)
Tublficld worm,
Tublfex tublfex
-
<2-h
old
NH4CI
NH
4
CI
S,U
FT,
LC50
LC50
2.7dAf
0.770d
8.2
7.06
12,
24
-
4.8-5.3
Stammer 1953
Cladoceran,
Mount?1982
Cerlodaphnla acanthina
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Mixed
ages
<24-h
old
NH
4
CI
NH
4
CI
S,
S,M
LC50
LC50
2.08
2.45
8.2
7.95
25
22.0
7.0-8.5
-
Parkhurst et al.?
1979,
Cladoceran,
Russo?et al.?
(In
?prep.)
Daphnia magna
QD
H
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
<24-h
old
<24-h
old
NH
4
CI
NH
4
CI
S,M
S,M
LC5
LC50
2.69
2.50
8.07
8.09
19.6
20.9
7.4
6.8
Russo?et al.?(In?prep.)
Cladoceran,
Russo
?
et al.
?
(In
?
prep.)
Daphnla magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
<24-h
old
NH
4
CI
S,
LC50
2.77
8.15
22.0
Russo
?et al.?(In?
prep.)
1
Cladoceran,
Daphnla magna
<24-h
old
NH4CI
S,M
LC50
2.38
8.04
22.8
Russo
?et al.?(In?
prep.)
Cladoceran,
Daphnla magna
<24-h
old
NH
4
CI
S,M
LC50
0.75
7.51 20.1
7.6
Russo
?
et al.
?(In?
prep.)
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
<24-h
old
<24-h
old
NH
4
CI
NH
4
CI
S,M
S,M
LC50
LC50
0.90
0.53
7.53
7.4
20.1
20.6
8.0
8.0
Russo
?et al.?(In?prep.)
Cladoceran,
Russo
?
et
?
al.?
(In
?
prep.)
Daphnla magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
<24-h
old
NH
4
CI
S,M
LC50
0.67
7.5
20.3
8.0
Russo
?et al.?(In?
prep.)
Table 1.
?
(Continued)
Life Stage
Concentration
Temperature
D.O.
Species
or Size
Chemical Methods
Effect
b
(mg/L NH3
Yli?
('c)
(mq/L)
Reference
Rainbow trout,
Salmo gairdneri
0.86 g
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
1.02
8.03-?
14.2
8.29
76-93%
Saturated
Reinbold?
& PescItelll
1982b
Rainbow trout,
Salmo coirdnerl
0.76 g
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
0.77
8.45-?
3.3
8.76
74-95%
Saturated
Reinbold
?
& PescItelll
1982b
Rainbow trout,
Salmo claIrdneri
1.47 g
NH4CI
FT,M
LC50
0.97
8.32-?
14.9
8.69
74-87%
Saturated
Relnbold
?& Pescitelll
1982b
Common carp,
Cyprinus carplo
4-5 cm
NH4
CI
R,M
LC50
1.1
d
7.4?
28
>5
Rao et al.?1975
Golden shiner,
Notemigonus crysoleucas
-
S,M
LC50
1.20c
7.9-
8.25
-
Baird
?
et
?
al.
?
1979
Red?shiner,
Notropls
?
lutrensIs
0.43 g
NH
4CI
Ff,M
LC50
2.83c
8.2-
?
24
8.4
7.6-
8.2
Hazel?et al.?
1979
-A
c)
Spotfln?shiner,
Notropis spliopterus
31-85 mm
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
1.200
7.7-?
26.5
8.2
81-89%
Saturated
Rosage et al.
?1979
Spotfln?
shiner,
Notropis spilopterus
41-78 mm
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
1.620
7.8-?
26.5
8.5
85-91%
Saturated
Rosage et al.?
1979
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
1.59
8.0-
?
14
8.1
7.2-
7.4
DeGraeve et al.
?
1980
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
0.09 g
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
1.50
7.91?16.3 8.1
Thurston?et al.?(in?
press,
Y
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
0.09 g
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
1.10
7.89?
13.1
8.7
Thurston
?
et al.
?
(in
?
press,
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
0.13 g
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
0.754
7.64
?
13.6
8.8
Thurston
?et al.?(In?press,
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
0.19 g
NH
4CI
FT,M
LC50
0.908
7.68?
13.5
8.8
Thurston?et al.?(In?press,
Fathead minnow,
Plmephales promelas
0.22 g
NE1
4
C1
FT,M
LC50
2.73
8.03?
22.1
7.6
Thurston?
et al.?(In?preps,
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
0.22 g
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
2.59
8.06
?
22.0
7.6
Thurston?et al.?
(In
?
press,
Table 1.?
(Continued)
Life Stage
Concentration
Temperature
0.0.
Species
or Slze
Chemical
Methodsa
Effecta
(
mg/
L
NH3)
Yli
(*C)
(mq/L)
Reference
Mosquitofish,
Gambusla affinis
Adult
females
NH
4
OH
S,U
LC50
2.4
d
8.2-
8.8
20-
26
Wallen?et?al.?1957
Mosqultofish,
Gambusla affinls
Adult
females
(NH
4
)
2
SO
4
S,U
LC50
0.48
d
6.3-
7.4
20-
21
Wallen
?
et al.
?1957
Guppy,
PoecIlla reticulate
8.0
mm
NH
4
CI
S,M
LC50
1.47c
6.95-
7.50
25
6.8-
8.2
Rubin & Elmaraghy 1976,
1977
Guppy,
Poeclila reticulata
8.2
mm
NH
4
CI
S,M
LC50
1.59c
7.40-
7.50
25
6.6-
8.2
Rubin
?
& Elmaraghy
?1976,
1977
Guppy,
Poecilla reticulate
8.7
MM
NH
4
CI
S,M
LC50
1.45c
7.40-
700
25
7.1-
8.2
Rubin?
& Elmaraghy
?1976,
1977
White perch,
76 mm
NH4
CI
S,M
LC50
0.15
6.0
16
Stevenson
?
1977
Morone americana
White perch,
76 mm
NH
4
CI
S,M
LC50
0.52
8.0
16
Stevenson
?
1977
Morone americana
White perch,
76 mm
NH
4
CI
S,M
LC50
0.20
6.0
16
Stevenson?
1977
Morone americana
White perch,
76 mm
NH
4
CI
S,M
LC50
2.13
8.0
16
Stevenson?
1977
Morone americana
Green sunfish,
Lepomis cyanellus
8.4 g
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
0.61
d
----.•••-â–
7.84 12.3
8.3
Jude?1973
Green sunfish,
Lepomis cyanellus
9-d old
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
1.08c
8.09-
8.46
26.2
88%
Saturated
Reinbold
?
d Pescltelli
1982a
Green sunfish,
63.1 mg
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
0.594
6.61
22.4
8.0
McCormick et al.
?
(In?
prep.)
Lepomis cyanellus
Green sunfish,
63.1 mg
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
1.29
7.20 22.4
8.1
McCormick et al.
?
(In
?prep.)
Lepomis cyanellus
Green sunfish,
63.1 mg
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
1.64
7.72
22.4
8.1
McCormick et al.
?(In?
prep.)
Lepomis cyanellus
Green sunfish,
63.1 mg
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
?
'
2.11
8.69
22.4
8.1
McCormick et al.
?(In?
prep.)
Lepomis cyanellus
0
Table 1.?
(Continued)
Life Stage
Concentration
Temperature
D.O.
Species
or
Size
Chemical
Methodsa Effects
(mq/L NH
3
)
yli?
(*C)
(mq/L)
Reference
Pumpkinseed,
4.5 g
NH
4CI
FT,M
LC50
0.14d
7.77
?
12.0
8.4
Jude
?1973
Lepomis qibbosus
Pumpkinseed,
16.7 g
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
0.78
7.77?
14.5
8.37
Thurston
?1981
Lepomis qibbosus
Pumpkinseed,
Lepomis qibbosus
18.0 g
18.9 g
NH
4
CI
NH
4
CI
FT,
FT,M
LC50
LC50
0.86
0.61
7.77
?
14.0
7.71
?
15.7
8.36
7.16
Thurston?
1981
Pumpkinseed,
Thurston?1981
Lepomis qibbosus
Blueg111,
Leaomis macrochirus
22.0-55.2
MM
NH 4CI
FT,M
LC50
0.89
7.96-
?
18.5
8.26
9.1 Emery & Welch?1969
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus
41.0-67.
MM
42.5-67.5
NH4C1
NH
4
CI
FT,M
FT,M
LC50
LC50
2.97
4.60
7.95-
18.5
8.43-
?
18.5
9.1
9.1
Emery & Welch?1969
Blueglii,
Emery & Welch 1969
N
C3
Lepomis macrochlrus
MM
8.89
cp.?
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochlrus
35.3-65.5
MM
NH
4
CI
FT,
LC50
2.57
8.50-
?
18.5
9.00
9.1 Emery & Welch
?
1969
Blueglii,
Lepomis macrochirus
0.072 g
NH
4
C1
FT,M
LC50
0.55k
8.01-?
22
8.13
95%
Saturated
Roseboom & Richey 1977
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus
0.217 g
0.646 g
NH
4
CI
NH
4
CI
FT,M
FT,
LC5
LC50
0.68k
1.1k
7.89-?
22
8.12
7.89-?
22
95%
Saturated
93%
Rosebocm & Richey 1977
Bluegill,
Roseboom & Richey 1977
Lepomis macrochlrus
7.97
Saturated
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochlrus
0.342 g
NH
4
CI
FT,M
LC50
I.8k
8.12-?
28
8.28
91%
Saturated
Roseboom & Richey 1977
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochlrus
0.078 g
N1
4
CI
FT,
LC50
0.50c
8.32-?
4.0
8.47
73-100%
Saturated
Relnbold
?& Pesclteill
1982b
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochlrus
0.111?
g
NH4CI
H
4
C
FT,M
LC50
1.98c
7.98-?
25.0
8.25
74-83%
Saturated
Relnbold?& Pescitelli
1982b
Bluegill,
0.250
/41-14C 1
FT,M
LC50
0.26c
8.06-?
4.5
87-97% Relnbold?& Pesch-611i
Lepomis macrochirus
8.26
Saturated
1982b
Table 1. (Continued)
Life Stage
or Size
?Chemical?
Methods'?
Effectb
0.267 g?
NH
4
CI
Concentration
?
Temperature
(mg/L NH
3
Y
?
('C)
24.8
Species
BluegIll,
Lepomis macrochlrus
49.2 mg?
NH
4
CI
265
mg?
NH
4CI
265 mg
?
NH
4
CI
265 mg
?
NH
4CI
265 mg
?
NH
4
CI
2.0-6.3 g?
NH
4
CI
0.09-0.32 g?
NH4CI
0.78 g?
NH
4
CI
0.71 g
?
*1
4
Cl
Walleye,
?
4-d
? NH
4
CI
Stizostedion vitreum?
old
vlfreum
Walleye,?
6-d?
NH
4CI
Stizostedlon vltreum?old
vitreum
Mottled sculpin,? 1.8 g?NH 4
CI
FT,M
LC50
1.35 c
7.98-
8.20
FT,M
LC50
0.94
7.60
...„.
?
........._
FT,M
LC50
0.694
6.53
FT,M
LC50
1.01
7.16
FT,M
LC50
1.20
7.74
FT,M
LC50
1.78
8.71
FT,M
LC50
1.0k
7.82-
8.11
FT,M
LC50
1.7k,
7.98-
8.10
FT,M
LC50
0.90c
8.4'
FT,M
LC50
1.07c
7.7-
8.5
FT,M
LC50
0.36c
8.17-
8.61
FT,M
LC50
0.85c
7.84-
8.31
FT,M
LC50
1.39
8.02
D.O.
?(mq/L)
?
Reference
74-89%?
Relnbold d Pescitelli
Saturated 1982b
21.7?7.89?
Smith & Roush (in prep.)
22.3?
7.93
?
Broderlus et al. (In prep.)
22.3
?
7.90?
Broderlus et al. (In prep.)
22.3?7.97?
Broderlus et al. (In prep.)
22.3
?
8.00?
Broderlus et al. (In prep.)
22?
85-94%
?
Roseboom & Richey 1977
Saturated
28
?83-88%?
Roseboom & Richey 1977
Saturated
21?
7.6-
?
Hazel et al. 1979
8.1
22? 7.5-?
Hazel et al. 1979
8.1
18.3?
100%?
Relnbold & Pesciteill
Saturated 1982a
18.2?
97%?
Relnbold & Pesch-Gill
Saturated 1982a
12.4?8.9?
Thurston & Russo 1981
Bluegill,
Lepomls macrochlrus
Smallmouth bass,
Micropterus dolomleul
Smallmouth bass,
Micropterus dolomleul
Smallmouth bass,
Mlcropterus dolomleul
Smallmouth bass,
Micropterus dolomleul
Largemouth bass,
Mlcropterus salmoldes
Largemouth bass,
Mlcropterus salmoldes
Orangethroat darter,
Etheostoma spectabile
Orangethroat darter,
Etheostcma spectablle
Cottus bairdl
CHAPTER 3
APPENDICES
AMMONIA EFFLUENT LOADINGS, pounds/day
YEAR
ANNUAL
AVERAGE,
lbs/day
MAXIMUM
MONTH,
lbs/day
1978
372
513
1979
290
525
1980
363
567
1981
293
503
1982
482
547
1983 a/
509
544
1984 b/
432
546
1985 c/
264
525
1986
493
1121
1987
183
600
1988
117
472
1989
65
259
1990
30
79
1991
72
193
1992 d/
20
55
a/ Data from Jan. through Nov.
b/ Data from Jan. through June
c/ Data from April through Dec.
d/ Data from Jan. through Sep.
Do!
F
)
0
1,3
F41.
?
,,,,)
r.
g
6
r
h.
-
7
-
k
- _e :
/
4
-e-
ffill
a ss-
T . $
S
1
1,1,
?
PPM
-s-
.0
2
-'
2
4-
Z",,:---
' -
251
al
1111111
0.
p
/- y
6, 7
1-7
•
re_ 1,?
_ ._
6'
S
t?
;
.p ,/Q._..4,..
Y. ? 0
4, S"
S iP
4 '3
I
?
...
15"
44
1'
3,,CV
. -
2, 1 6,
7.1
s- .․)
a, ),
)
se
?
-•
'?'I
9I2S
-
?
4.D9
G. S'
-7 , (,,
?
62.,
6y
1/
)?
?.....-
}14 ---' i$(T-
,2-:es-
____4
"
.C.S)._
,..S)
7,9
?
b
ti
70
10
2,
e
1.,..,_.t
` git
3.7'/
?
‘
.1
7,0
ID,
'
7
Y
0
7
1
i D-
rL1'
..y._‘
?q
Vi.
o•
1 91
I. -4;
5%10
£
D
Qa..(3
A. 1?
-
WIVIIIIIIIIIMEN
4., c)?
77
77
.
?
r
7
i
.,
eff
2-
1
1
.5,5--(0
-
1
2-
74'
MEI
70
c
P
ace
t- ' <IN
.2.9
g
•q.
C2-
•G, I-
E
gi
minall
/9
ANr- '
F
Y
.Li‘
zi
.IL
Mi
ariliM
'
4 a
4
1?
4,..
'tY
3 - 0?
'4'1)
EMI
-7 - .5?
.?
.9.
2
El
9
-
?
A
v-IL.
1111111111111
.
Te-
's"?
3_0f?
4,83
10
FA-?
? .5-
-1—
I. I ?
4. SO
1111
/ 3
.4
6
;,..)
?
' f?.
L 33 I
s-.9s-
1 2.,
1-f
,„,.
,
?•
e,c•
?.
•?
a .3 i
9, '13
4. 9
7' (,.?
73
11111111112111
10
T
A
"'2.-
'SS
.
Z-n
V.T V
.S,J
.
1
??_(." 3.0 a?
-
?
4
i. i i
.111
MI
e
il,
7,
1
El
m
.
2)
1 0
4/V
•
?
7,
0
20
5-
?
Oci-
?
'2C
3..1)
6./t)
7:3
7,9
c,
8
?
7
1.1
•
,-
?
_____
__
??
; :V3
_.
C. 9 G,,
4. 6,
/ 3
2-13
_._ _
„ .•
9
?
0 0)
Itiortroiqueop
Po--,Na-1,e,
P S
. P )1
T D
lLsw
r ti
l l
a?
PP
Cr-
C9
.?
?
-1'
6-
O?
6-
.?
.
O
.4-6—
4V:a
...
-?
*Pil
5.
?
•._.
-
_-
_____
_
1
30
T
o,
_ ) g V
r
e A3
I
5
1
lq()
36.29
yyD
ge,„99
i
f
?
,
?
3
„Qt
.
0
/
(-1.7
ti, ,....
Ii)
y
..s-1..
1 D__.
n.t.d_
4
411,j
?
I
.
i'V
VI
a
)
,3
q
6767
yx
ITS'
a39 1_
?
?
z,1
iig"
2.O
3,
lye
1
Q?
.2-
16
ie
H
9
Iv
/719
)96
g
..
2
6,1
18,
Li?
.1-,,,,,A:S7V
17t.
2
a179
4,0
7.3
•
/9 I
11,3
i P
'2(/
Icn_i
toz 1
ho
ho
47
iz,c/
I4
it
k 0
q
—
—
i',4/
14
19 1
)1.6
17
_ .
.ee
pt-
-''$4
—
—
MEI
'bq
/
(.,s-
0.0
»c,
9g'
27.
)9)
C.
0,1,
:,_,
14
19,1
_
od- '
e q
--
—
y,
iUerty-
U.<_..
?
?
'
?
igq___
y-
S-
C+ o
1.9
17:1. 3
A-A.,-e._
z
--
,,.....
'
es-
—
—
.?
i
0.1..?
0.1
F-
4.z-',K
—
—
3.7_
132
0,1?
o.2_.
_tj„j, . E)
..
ille-L-R '
'R
.(
728
?
j
1129
11.9
oil '
/03'1-?
1(1 ,16,
0,1
Jo.
0
11,,,
zr
iv
f
-
._:r.t.j‘
11
91 ?
&LC
z. 2_
4.1
I• 0
/5
-
19?
I?
16,18
. 1.7 .-,o
Ei
a
3C
' , ?
.i
.-
A--j.
'iis'
. _
'3,20
4's .sr
b t
,t '
e _;
jvcr,,,:e.--_,
1),,z-c:
A
l
? g"
13Z.CD-
/07s-
1a7o
_
...
),
,
y
o?
i
J15
/40? 1—
nCg-
.
?
1. 648
iâ–º1
2.?
30
i
'
)2
1s13
q
o
2,1
2,9
1
/0,0
9 9
3.0?
s-,9
9 . 0
i
c-i
c
i 1
1'1(4
2.o
/.1
mil
2,1,
/oti
1
4,,z,
REIN
Eill
13.2...
a80
1
a
g ,
)
Z.
?
1
00J
c o
?
6 "?
"0
PLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY
?
MONTHLY
PE NH3?PE FLOW
?PE NH3?
AVERAGE NH3?
AVG NH3 LOAD
, mg/I? ,mgd?
,pounds/day
?
, mg/1
?
,pounds/day
01/03/85
0.20
4.02
7
01/08/85
0.15
4.19
5
01/10/85
0.17
3.22
5
01/15/85
0.23
3.11
6
01/17/85
0.18
2.41
4
01/23/85
0.20
1.99
3
01/24/85
0.10
1.39
1
01/29/85
0.10
2.21
2
01/31/85
0.30
2.14
5
0.18
4
02/05/85
0.10
1.56
1
02/07/85
0.15
0.96
1
02/12/85
0.15
1.34
2
02/14/85
0.13
1.33
1
02/19/85
0.20
1.53
3
02/21/85
0.15
0.35
0
02/26/85
0.15
6.33
8
02/28/85
0.15
3.54
4
0.15
3
03/05/85
0.10
5.18
4
03/07/85
0.10
6.80
6
03/12/85
0.10
5.05
4
03/14/85
0.10
4.52
4
03/26/85
0.30
0.98
2
03/28/85
0.10
3.61
3
0.13
4
04/02/85
0.20
5.25
9
04/04/85
0.14
2.43
3
04/09/85
0.16
4.33
6
04/11/85
2.40
4.09
82
04/16/85
8.70
4.60
334
04/18/85
10.00
2.44
203
04/23/85
3.90
1.56
51
04/25/89
2.60
3.32
72
04/30/85
0.60
2.10
11
3.19
86
05/02/85 /a
0.10
2.31
2
05/06/86 /a
10.00
2.31
193
05/09/85 /a
11
2.31
212
05/13/85 /a
3
2.31
58
05/22/85 /a
0.3
2.31
6
05/27/85 /a
0.1
2.31
2
05/29/85 /a
0.7
2.31
13
3.60
69
06/03/85 /a
3
2.76
69
06/05/85 /a
1.9
2.76
44
06/10/85 /a
18
2.76
414
06/13/85 /a
22
2.76
506
06/17/85 /a
10
2.76
230
06/19/85 /a
8.2
2.76
189
06/24/85 /a
13
2.76
299
06/26/85 /a
35
2.76
806
06/27/85 /a
24
2.76
552
15.01
346
07/02/89
23.00
2.39
458
07/08/85
30.00
3.13
783
07/10/85
29.00
3.13
757
07/15/85
23.00
2.91
558
07/16/85
28.00
2.76
645
07/22/85
14.00
2.88
336
07/24/85
11.00
3.49
320
07/28/85
14.00
4.30
502
07/29/85
20.00
2.21
369
21.33
525
08/05/85
7.10
4.20
249
08/07/85
9.00
2.27
170
08/12/85 •
2.20
3.27
60
08/14/85
1.20
3.93
39
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
?
24-Nov-92
?
AMMONIA
PLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY
?MONTHLY
PE NH3
?
PE FLOW?
PE NH3?
AVERAGE NH3
?
AVG NH3 LOAD
,mg/1?
,mgd
?
,pounds/day
?
,mg/1?
,pounds/day
08/19/85
0.30
3.90
10
08/21/85
0.40
2.20
7
08/26/85
1.30
2.65
29
08/28/85
4.70
2.60
102
3.28
83
09/02/85
5.90
4.14
204
09/04/85
3.70
2.78
86
09/09/85
4.00
3.24
108
09/11/85
1.20
4.34
43
09/16/85
1.60
2.24
30
09/18/85
0.90
2.43
18
09/23/85
2.30
2.70
52
09/25/85
2.00
2.50
42
09/30/85
4.20
2.70
95
2.87
75
10/01/85
11.30
1.80
170
10/09/85
28.00
3.25
759
10/10/85
24.00
2.88
576
10/15/85
15.00
3.25
407
10/16/85
14.00
3.25
379
10/20/85
13.50
3.25
366
10/21/85
10.60
3.25
287
10/28/85
5.10
6.14
261
10/30/85
6.80
4.52
256
14.26
385
11/04/85
6.30
5.32
280
11/06/85
3.50
5.10
-
?149
11/11/85
4.10
5.90
202
11/13/85
4.70
5.24
205
11/18/85
6.10
6.07
309
11/21/85
5.00
5.93
247
11/25/85
16.80
4.25
595
11/26/85
18.20
2.83
430
8.09
302
12/02/85
21.00
4.23
741
12/04/85
20.00
5.76
961
12/10/85
15.00
4.53
567
12/11/85
14.00
3.80
444
12/16/85
12.00
4.09
409
12/17/85
15.00
3.58
448
12/23/85
13.00
2.14
232
12/24/85
13.00
1.97
214
15.38
502
01/01/86
45.00
2.12
796
01/07/86
27.00
0.79
178
01/09/86
30.00
2.63
658
01/13/86
36.00
1.27
381
01/15/86
39.00
2.14
696
01/19/86
41.00
3.20
1094
01/21/86
44.00
1.95
716
01/27/86
52.00
1.48
642
01/29/86
47.00
2.07
811
40.11
664
02/03/86
50.00
2.16
901
02/05/86
48.00
2.14
857
02/10/86
54.00
2.05
923
02/12/86
61.00
1.64
834
02/18/86
78.00
1.74
1132
02/20/86
66.00
1.74
958
02/24/86
52.00
2.56
1110
02/26/86
49.00
5.51
2252
57.25
1121
03/03/86
46.00
2.64
1013
03/04/86
48.00
2.53
1013
03/13/86
41.00
2.80
957
03/15/86
37.00
3.67
1132
03/18/86
32.00
4.20
1121
03/19/86
33.00
3.62
996
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
?
24-Nov-92?
AMMONIA
[PLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY
?MONTHLY
PE NH3?
PE FLOW?
PE NH3?
AVERAGE NH3?
AVG NH3 LOAD
,mg/1?
,mgd?
,pounds/day?
, mg/I
?
,pounds/day
03/23/86
40.00
3.17
1058
03/25/86
43.00
3.17
1137
03/31/86
48.00
2.59
1037
40.89
1052
04/02/86
54.00
2.30
1036
04/07/86
53.00
1.31
579
04/09/86
52.00
1.24
538
04/14/86
23.00
1.96
376
04/16/86
26.00
2.62
568
04/21/86
36.00
1.77
531
04/24/86
38.00
1.88
596
04/28/86
38.00
1.73
548
40.00
597
05/01/86
27.00
4.58
1031
05/05/86
21.00
1.72
301
05/07/86
21.00
1.66
291
05/12/86
18.00
3.93
590
05/14/86
18.00
4.38
658
05/19/86
16.00
4.59
612
05/21/86
12.00
4.40
440
05/26/86
13.00
2.96
321
05/28/86
12.00
3.80
380
17.56
514
06/02/86
5.70
2.67
127
06/04/86
1.90
2.64
42
06/09/86
3.80
4.15
132
06/11/86
1.70
2.86
41
06/16/86
1.40
3.06
36
06/18/86
0.80
3.70
25
06/23/86
1.60
2.32
31
06/25/86
1.20
1.42
14
06/30/86
8.90
2.56
190
3.00
71
07/02/86
14.00
2.51
293
07/07/86
11.00
3.32
305
07/09/86
6.90
4.86
280
07/14/86
14.00
4.44
518
07/16/86
16.00
3.51
468
07/21/86
19.00
3.85
610
07/23/86
18.00
4.47
671
14.13
449
08/05/86
12.00
3.69
369
08/07/86
15.00
3.26
408
08/11/86
9.60
3.46
277
08/13/86
12.00
4.23
423
08/19/86
29.00
2.57
622
08/20/86
26.00
2.43
527
08/25/86
11.00
1.46
134
08/27/86
6.30
2.50
131
15.11
361
09/01/86
2.30
2.58
49
09/03/86
1.20
1.45
15
09/08/86
2.20
3.06
56
09/10/86
3.00
2.86
72
09/15/86
6.10
2.58
131
09/17/86
7.30
3.16
192
09/22/86
11.00
3.95
362
09/24/86
8.20
4.01
274
09/29/86
3.10
4.42
114
4.93
141
10/01/86
1.30
4.47
48
10/06/86
0.90
5.99
45
10/08/86
4.80
5.74
230
10/13/86
15.00
3.69
462
10/15/86
15.00
2.49
311
10/20/86
16.00
1.99
266
10/22/86
13.00
2.89
313
10/27/86
3.80
2.79
88
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
?
24-Nov-92?
AMMONIA
[PLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
?
?
I
PE NH3
, mg/I
10/29/86
2.60
11/03/86
9.80
11/05/86
15.00
11/12/86
4.60
11/13/86
3.90
11/17/86
7.50
11/19/86
11.00
11/24/86
12.00
11/25/86
12.00
12/02/86
18.00
12/03/86
20.00
12/08/86
17.00
12/10/86
14.00
12/17/86
18.00
12/19/86
18.00
12/22/86
21.00
12/24/86
20.00
12/29/86
20.00
12/30/86
18.00
01/07/87
14.00
01/12/87
20.00
01/14/87
21.00
01/19/87
15.00
01/27/87
10.00
01/28/87
10.00
02/02/87
22.00
02/04/87
28.00
02/09/87
24.00
02/11/87
22.00
02/17/87
19.00
02/19/87
19.00
02/23/87
29.00
02/25/87
26.00
03/02/87
21.00
03/04/87
18.00
03/09/87
15.00
03/11/87
15.00
03/16/87
11.00
03/18/87
8.90
03/23/87
6.70
03/25/87
6.10
03/30/87
5.20
04/01/87
7.50
04/06/87
16.00
04/08/87
17.00
04/13/87
12.00
04/15/87
5.90
04/21/87
3.70
04/22/87
5.90
04/27/87
9.10
04/29/87
9.40
05/04/87
5.20
05/06/87
1.20
05/11/87
2.70
05/13/87
2.90
05/19/87
0.50
05/20/87
1.10
05/25/87
1.90
05/27/87
1.60
06/01/87
2.40
06/03/87
2.50
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY?MONTHLY
PE FLOW?
PE NH3 AVERAGE NH3 AVG NH3 LOAD
,mgd?
,pounds/day
?
,mg/1?
,pounds/day
3.32
72
8.04
204
2.07
169
2.14
268
3.11
119
2.81
91
2.04
128
3.26
299
4.03
403
3.44
344
9.48
228
4.00
600
4.71
786
3.74
530
4.47
522
3.71
557
3.02
453
3.37
590
2.60
434
2.82
470
2.97
446
18.40
539
3.52
411
3.28
547
3.21
562
3.72
465
3.78
315
4.10
342
15.00
440
2.68
492
2.85
666
3.19
639
3.94
723
3.65
578
3.81
604
3.01
728
1.73
375
23.63
600
3.83
671
3.77
566
3.10
388
3.50
438
1.94
178
2.87
213
3.52
197
2.60
132
3.19
138
11.88
325
3.47
217
2.44
326
2.02
286
3.16
316
4.73
233
4.40
136
3.32
163
3.61
274
3.09
242
9.61
244
2.57
111
2.60
26
2.91
66
3.06
74
4.13
17
5.53
51
2.31
37
0.93
12
2.14
49
5.02
100
5.91
123
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
?
24-Nov-92?
AMMONIA
PLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY?
MONTHLY
PE NH3?PE FLOW?
PE NH3?
AVERAGE NH3?
AVG NH3 LO AD
,mg/1?
, mgd
?
, pounds/day
?
• mg/1
?
, pound s/d ay
06/08/87
0.20
4.06
7
06/10/87
0.30
3.78
9
06/15/87
0.20
2.09
3
06/17/87
0.10
1.64
1
06/22/87
0.30
2.77
7
06/26/87
2.50
1.54
32
06/29/87
14.00
3.36
392
2.50
75
07/01/87
24.00
3.07
614
07/06/87
23.00
3.75
719
07/08/87
18.00
4.02
603
07/13/87
4.90
6.05
247
07/15/87
5.10
4.90
208
07/20/87
11.00
5.71
524
07/22/87
7.50
3.53
221
07/27/87
6.40
3.52
188
07/29/87
3.70
3.50
108
11.51
381
08/03/87
0.40
4.14
14
08/05/87
0.50
4.67
19
08/10/87
0.40
3.57
12
08/12/87
0.20
2.38
4
08/17/87
0.10
5.73
5
08/19/87
0.10
6.00
5
08/24/87
0.10
5.25
4
08/26/87
0.10
6.47
5
08/31/87
0.10
7.25
6
0.22
8
09/02/87
0.10
7.32
6
09/07/87
0.10
5.00
4
09/09/87
0.20
3.14
5
09/14/87
0.10
3.23
3
09/16/87
0.10
2.63
2
09/21/87
0.10
3.16
3
09/23/87
0.10
2.42
2
09/28/87
0.20
2.81
5
09/30/87
0.30
2.88
7
0.14
4
10/05/87
0.50
2.88
12
10/07/87
0.20
3.05
5
10/12/87
0.10
3.18
3
10/14/87
1.20
2.78
28
10/19/87
9.60
2.25
180
10/21/87
8.00
2.58
172
10/26/87
2.60
4.31
93
10/28/87
1.10
4.36
40
2.91
67
11/02/87
0.30
4.75
12
11/04/87
0.30
4.61
12
11/09/87
3.00
4.61
115
11/12/87
4.60
4.19
161
11/16/87
6.50
1.11
60
11/18/87
6.30
0.69
36
11/23/87
1.40
5.59
65
11/24/87
1.00
4.78
40
11/30/87
0.20
4.32
7
2.62
56
12/02/87
0.20
4.26
7
12/07/87
1.20
6.63
66
12/09/87
3.70
5.61
173
12/15/87
2.30
4.03
77
12/16/87
1.50
4.11
51
12/21/87
0.30
4.39
11
12/23/87
0.20
5.09
8
12/28/87
0.20
4.74
8
12/30/87
0.10
4.53
4
1.08
45
01/02/88
3.50
5.48
160
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
?
24-Nov-92
AMMONIA
LPLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY?MONTHLY
PE NH3?PE FLOW?
PE NN3
?
AVERAGE NH3?
AVG NH3 LOAD
, mg/1?,mgd?
, po u n d s/d ay?
, mg/1
?
, pounds/day
01/04/88
0.20
5.20
9
01/06/88
0.10
3.51
3
01/11/88
0.10
3.00
3
01/13/88
0.10
4.02
3
01/18/88
0.20
5.13
9
01/20/88
0.10
5.78
5
01/25/88
0.20
6.65
11
01/27/88
0.50
4.65
19
0.56
25
02/01/88
0.60
4.89
24
02/04/88
0.30
4.27
11
02/08/88
1.80
4.83
73
02/10/88
1.50
2.36
30
02/15/88
7.30
5.60
341
02/17/88
18.00
2.43
365
02/22/88
3.20
4.27
114
02/24/88
3.00
3.70
93
02/29/88
1.00
4.20
35
4.08
120
03/02/88
0.50
4.90
20
03/07/88
0.20
5.95
10
03/09/88
0.30
5.65
14
03/14/88
0.30
4.67
12
03/16/88
0.30
3.69
9
03/21/88
0.10
3.09
3
03/23/88
0.10
4.26
-?
4
03/28/88
5.00
4.97
207
03/30/88
5.70
4.69
223
1.39
56
04/04/88
7.10
3.12
185
04/06/88
4.10
3.53
121
04/11/88
2.90
5.46
132
04/13/88
5.80
4.12
199
04/18/88
7.00
5.79
338
04/20/88
9.90
2.81
232
04/25/88
10.90
4.54
413
04/27/88
14.00
3.75
438
7.71
257
05/02/88
6.60
3.13
172
05/04/88
12.00
2.97
297
05/09/88
4.30
3.14
113
05/12/88
2.70
3.43
77
05/16/88
9.70
2.71
219
05/18/88
8.90
2.57
191
05/23/88
1.80
4.50
68
05/25/88
2.50
6.29
131
05/30/88
3.40
4.32
122
5.77
155
06/02/88
2.20
3.12
57
06/06/88
5.70
2.00
95
06/14/88
21.00
4.19
734
06/15/88
21.00
4.19
734
06/21/88
23.00
3.87
742
06/22/88
23.00
3.96
760
06/27/88
18.00
2.30
345
06/29/88
16.00
2.32
310
16.24
472
07/04/88
4.30
2.36
85
07/07/88
2.60
2.42
52
07/12/88
0.50
1.35
6
07/13/88
0.60
4.22
21
07/14/88
0.30
4.48
11
07/18/88
0.80
1.84
12
07/20/88
0.50
2.62
11
07/26/88
0.60
3.54
18
07/27/88
0.60
3.75
19
1.20
26
08/01/88
0.60
5.11
26
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
?
24-Nov-92
?
AMMONIA
PLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY
?MONTHLY
PE NH3?
PE FLOW
?
PE NH3?
AVERAGE NH3?
AVG NH3 LOAD
, mg/1? , mgd?
, pou nd s/d ay?
, mg/I
?
, pound s/d ay
08/03/88
0.50
4.21
18
08/08/88
0.80
4.90
33
08/10/88
1.00
4.18
35
08/15/88
0.70
4.29
25
08/17/88
0.70
2.60
15
08/25/88
0.40
2.80
9
08/26/88
0.20
3.56
6
08/29/88
0.30
3.55
9
08/31/88
0.30
4.07
10
0.55
19
09/05/88
0.60
2.35
12
09/07/88
0.50
2.68
11
09/12/88
0.40
2.45
8
09/14/88
0.40
2.80
9
09/19/88
0.50
2.75
11
09/21/88
0.40
1.84
6
09/27/88
4.30
2.82
101
09/28/88
3.50
1.87
55
1.33
27
10/03/88
2.20
2.79
51
10/05/88
1.50
5.28
66
10/10/88
0.80
2.96
20
10/12/88
0.40
2.65
9
10/17/88
0.30
4.94
12
10/19/88
0.40
7.32
24
10/24/88
0.20
6.28
10
10/26/88
0.60
5.77
29
10/31/88
2.20
3.32
61
0.96
31
11/02/88
4.50
2.66
100
11/07/88
1.40
2.78
32
11/09/88
1.60
2.04
27
11/14/88
1.20
5.27
53
11/16/88
2.70
6.94
156
11/21/88
5.60
5.87
274
11/22/88
6.30
5.55
292
11/28/88
10.70
4.82
430
11/30/88
10.80
2.61
235
4.98
178
12/05/88
1.40
5.32
62
12/07/88
0.60
4.95
25
12/12/88
5.90
4.41
217
12/14/88
5.50
2.80
128
12/19/88
6.40
2.41
129
12/21/88
5.40
2.42
109
12/26/88
0.50
5.49
23
12/28/88
0.50
5.68
24
3.28
90
01/02/89
3.50
1.09
32
01/11/89
4.30
1.43
51
01/12/89
3.10
5.01
130
01/16/89
1.20
3.85
39
01/18/89
1.30
3.73
40
01/23/89
5.80
4.64
224
01/25/89
6.50
2.90
157
01/31/89
5.00
5.85
244
3.84
115
02/03/89
20.70
3.44
594
02/06/89
22.50
2.29
430
02/08/89
26.00
3.42
742
02/13/89
6.10
2.29
117
02/15/89
3.30
4.36
120
02/20/89
0.50
5.89
25
02/22/89
0.60
5.83
29
02/27/89
0.50
3.91
16
10.03
259
03/02/89
0.50
3.41
14
03/06/89
0.50
4.86
20
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
?
24 - Nov-92
?
AMMONIA
PLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY?
MONTHLY
PE NH3
?
PE FLOW
?PE NH3?
AVERAGE NH3
?
AVG NH3 LOAD
,mg/1
?
,mgd
?
,
pound s/d ay?
,mg/1?
, pounds/d ay
03/08/89
03/13/89
03/15/89
03/20/89
03/22/89
03/27/89
03/29/89
04/03/89
04/05/89
04/10/89
04/12/89
04/17/89
04/19/89
04/24/89
04/26/89
05/01/89
05/03/89
05/08/89
05/10/89
05/15/89
05/17/89
05/23/89
05/24/89
05/29/89
05/31/89
06/05/89
06/07/89
06/12/89
06/14/89
06/19/89
06/21/89
06/27/89
06/28/89
07/04/89
07/05/89
07/10/89
07/12/89
07/17/89
07/20/89
07/24/89
07/26/89
07/31/89
08/02/89
08/07/89
08/09/89
08/14/89
08/16/89
08/21/89
08/23/89
08/28/89
08/30/89
09/04/89
09/06/89
09/11/89
09/13/89
09/18/89
09/20/89
09/25/89
09/27/89
10/02/89
10/04/89
0.40
1.10
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.60
0.60
0.90
8.60
12.20
16.20
16.00
9.10
4.70
1.60
0.10
0.43
0.20
0.12
0.10
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.50
0.30
0.50
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.40
1.40
1.30
'7.60
6.50
2.50
3.10
0.80
0.40
1.30
5.30
14.30
13.30
3.80
2.60
0.40
0.20
0.40
0.70
0.70
0.60
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.30
0.20
0.30
0.30
0.90
0.40
0.30
5.82
3.52
4.48
5.90
5.69
4.24
5.89
3.91
2.82
0.36
1.14
0.81
0.75
3.46
3.03
1.23
4.21
0.73
0.71
1.43
1.44
3.61
3.68
4.74
3.54
5.80
6.05
3.95
4.53
2.93
3.12
1.43
1.19
1.02
1.00
1.85
2.91
3.52
4.98
6.95
6.56
3.45
3.91
4.21
2.48
2.85
4.61
1.03
1.90
5.59
6.07
6.82
1.96
3.85
4.21
4.58
1.42
2.69
1.51
2.84
2.78
19
32
26
34
33
25
29
20
21
26
116
109
100
263
119
16
4
3
1
1
1
9
9
12
15
15
25
10
15
2
10
17
13
65
54
39
75
23
17
75
290
411
434
133
54
10
8
3
11
33
30
40
10
16
11
8
4
7
11
9
7
'
0.66
8.54
0.40
0.59
4.64
2.52
0.48
26
97
7
13
117
80
13
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
?
24 - Nov-92?
AMMONIA
LPLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY
MONTHLY
PE NH3
PE FLOW
PE NH3
AVERAGE NH3
AVG NH3 LOAD
,mg/1
,mgd
,pounds/day
,mg/I
,pounds/day
10/09/89
0.10
3.10
3
10/11/89
0.70
2.98
17
10/16/89
1.40
1.54
18
10/18/89
0.80
2.91
19
10/23/89
1.60
4.69
63
10/26/89
3.40
3.17
90
10/30/89
0.60
3.37
17
1.03
27
11/01/89
1.40
3.87
45
11/06/89
2.80
3.57
83
11/08/89
1.50
3.12
39
11/13/89
0.30
1.90
5
11/15/89
0.30
2.33
6
11/20/89
0.20
4.65
8
11/21/89
0.20
4.08
7
11/27/89
0.30
4.47
11
11/29/89
0.30
5.43
14
0.81
24
12/04/89
0.20
2.40
4
12/06/89
0.30
3.15
8
12/11/89
0.10
2.32
2
12/13/89
0.10
3.05
3
12/18/89
0.20
2.97
5
12/20/89
0.20
3.58
6
12/25/89
3.00
4.02
101
12/27/89
2.40
3.25
65
0.81
24
01/01/90
1.60
1.61
21
01/03/90
0.90
4.85
36
01/08/90
0.30
3.78
9
01/10/90
0.50
5.12
21
01/15/90
0.50
2.25
9
01/17/90
0.40
2.60
9
01/22/90
0.60
5.85
29
01/24/90
0.90
3.39
25
01/29/90
0.20
4.79
8
01/31/90
0.60
4.51
23
0.65
19
02/05/90
3.00
5.84
146
02/07/90
5.70
6.48
308
02/12/90
1.60
1.56
21
02/14/90
1.00
6.02
50
02/19/90
0.10
5.67
5
02/21/90
0.10
1.87
2
02/26/90
0.10
7.77
6
02/28/90
0.10
4.92
4
1.46
68
03/05/90
0.10
7.02
6
03/07/90
0.10
5.79
5
03/12/90
0.20
7.10
12
03/14/90
0.20
7.20
12
03/19/90
2.60
6.61
143
03/21/90
0.10
5.22
4
03/26/90
4.60
3.59
138
03/28/90
2.00
4.91
82
1.24
50
04/02/90
4.00
5.23
174
04/04/90
0.20
5.76
10
04/09/90
0.20
1.86
3
04/11/90
0.20
4.17
7
04/16/90
0.10
5.67
5
04/18/90
0.10
3.48
3
04/23/90
0.10
4.75
4
04/25/90
0.10
1.50
1
04/30/90
0.30
5.81
15
0.59
25
05/02/90
0.20
2.99
5
05/07/90
0.10
3.28
3
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
24-Nov-92
AMMONIA
PLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY?
MONTHLY
PE NH3?
PE FLOW?
PE NH3?
AVERAGE NH3?
AVG NH3 LOAD
,mg/1
?
,mgd
?
,pounds/day
?
, mg/1
?
,pounds/day
05/09/90
0.30
5.68
14
05/14/90
0.20
8.16
14
05/16/90
0.20
7.50
13
05/21/90
0.20
5.11
9
05/23/90
0.30
6.83
17
05/28/90
0.20
5.47
9
05/30/90
0.20
2.84
5
0.21
10
06/04/90
1.60
3.63
48
06/06/90
1.30
2.50
27
06/11/90
0.60
2.11
11
06/13/90
0.50
3.40
14
06/18/90
0.60
4.60
23
06/20/90
0.60
3.12
16
06/25/90
0.80
2.44
16
06/27/90
0.30
3.07
8
0.79
20
07/02/90
0.60
4.21
21
07/05/90
0.40
3.34
11
07/09/90
0.60
2.16
11
07/11/90
0.60
2.83
14
07/12/90
0.50
4.08
17
07/16/90
0.30
3.52
9
07/18/90
0.10
4.67
4
07/19/90
0.60
4.67
23
07/23/90
0.20
5.21
9
07/25/90
0.10
8.28
7
07/30/90
0.50
4.45
19
0.41
13
08/01/90
0.60
1.76
9
08/06/90
0.50
3.26
14
08/08/90
0.20
3.16
5
08/13/90
1.60
3.03
40
08/15/90
5.70
2.18
104
08/20/90
2.50
4.86
101
08/22/90
1.90
4.86
77
08/27/90
2.90
4.02
97
08/29/90
0.90
3.83
29
1.87
53
09/03/90
0.70
2.49
15
09/05/90
0.50
2.72
11
09/10/90
0.10
2.78
2
09/12/90
0.10
2.93
2
09/17/90
0.20
2.92
5
09/19/90
0.20
3.01
5
09/24/90
0.10
3.02
3
09/26/90
0.10
2.00
2
0.25
6
10/01/90
0.10
3.34
3
10/03/90
0.30
2.87
7
10/08/90
0.30
3.47
9
10/10/90
0.40
4.81
16
10/15/90
0.90
6.23
47
10/17/90
1.10
3.37
31
10/22/90
0.50
4.35
18
10/24/90
1.20
3.11
31
10/29/90
0.10
3.57
3
10/31/90
0.10
3.08
3
0.58
17
11/05/90
0.20
4.82
8
11/07/90
0.70
6.06
35
11/12/90
0.20
4.48
7
11/14/90
0.20
4.49
7
11/19/90
0.20
2.45
4
11/20/90
0.20
1.92
3
11/26/90
0.10
4.88
4
11/28/90
0.20
5.75
10
0.25
10
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
?
24-Nov-92
?
AMMONIA
[ PLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY?MONTHLY
PE NH3?PE FLOW?
PE NH3?
AVERAGE NH3?
AVG NH3 LOAD
,mg/1?
,mgd
?
,pounds/day
?
.mg/I
?
,pounds/day
12/03/90
0.80
7.09
47
12/06/90
0.40
7.14
24
12/10/90
0.20
4.72
8
12/12/90
0.40
3.93
13
12/17/90
0.20
3.86
6
12/19/90
0.20
3.29
5
12/25/90
6.70
3.46
193
12/26/90
11.60
3.46
335
2.56
79
01/01/91
2.60
3.63
79
01/03/91
1.80
4.69
70
01/08/91
0.20
4.09
7
01/09/91
0.20
4.34
7
01/14/91
0.10
4.93
4
01/16/91
1.60
4.00
53
01/21/91
0.30
4.66
12
01/23/91
0.30
4.54
11
01/28/91
1.10
4.22
39
01/30/91
0.40
3.67
12
0.86
29
02/04/91
0.70
3.60
21
02/06/91
0.40
5.61
19
02/11/91
0.10
4.77
4
02/13/91
0.20
4.04
7
02/18/91
0.10
3.76
3
02/20/91
0.10
4.06
3
02/25/91
0.10
3.37
3
02/27/91
0.30
3.16
8
0.25
8
03/04/91
0.10
3.53
3
03/06/91
0.10
3.38
3
03/11/91
0.10
4.26
4
03/13/91
0.10
4.05
3
03/18/91
0.10
4.17
3
03/20/91
0.10
8.22
7
03/25/91
0.30
5.06
13
03/27/91
0.20
4.67
8
0.14
5
04/01/91
0.30
3.91
10
04/03/91
0.10
4.23
4
04/08/91
0.20
3.59
6
04/10/91
0.40
9.26
31
04/15/91
0.20
6.42
11
04/17/91
0.10
6.72
6
04/22/91
0.60
6.28
31
04/24/91
0.70
5.07
30
04/29/91
0.50
3.50
15
0.34
16
05/01/91
0.80
3.50
23
05/06/91
2.50
4.33
90
05/08/91
1.40
5.18
60
05/13/91
0.80
3.34
22
05/15/91
0.20
4.50
8
05/20/91
0.30
3.50
9
05/22/91
0.10
3.90
3
05/27/91
0.40
5.54
18
05/29/91
0.30
6.44
16
0.76
28
06/03/91
1.20
3.08
31
06/05/91
14.60
2.59
315
06/10/91
16.10
1.95
262
06/12/91
6.60
4.16
229
06/17/91
0.40
4.37
15
06/19/91
0.30
4.07
10
06/24/91
1.60
3.01
40
06/26/91
0.20
3.50
6
5.13
113
07/01/91
0.10
3.27
3
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
?
24 -Nov - 92?
AMMONIA
1
?
PLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY?
MONTHLY
PE NH3?
PE FLOW?
PE NH3?
AVERAGE NH3?
AVG NH3 LOAD
,mg/1
?
,mgd
?
,pounds/day?
, mg/I?
,pounds/day
07/02/91
0.40
2.44
8
07/08/91
0.40
3.86
13
07/10/91
0.40
3.55
12
07/15/91
9.60
3.14
251
07/17/91
21.90
3.61
659
07/22/91
19.20
3.65
584
07/24/91
10.30
3.37
289
07/29/91
2.80
3.42
80
07/31/91
2.30
1.54
30
6.74
193
08/05/91
10.60
3.21
284
08/07/91
20.80
4.29
744
08/12/91
5.70
4.23
201
08/14/91
2.20
4.14
76
08/19/91
0.70
4.06
24
08/21/91
0.30
3.69
9
08/26/91
0.20
3.42
6
08/28/91
0.10
2.42
2
5.08
168
09/02/91
0.50
2.39
10
09/04/91
0.50
3.05
13
09/05/91
0.70
2.61
15
09/09/91
0.40
2.57
9
09/11/91
0.40
2.59
9
09/16/91
0.50
3.98
17
09/18/91
0.30
2.81
7
09/23/91
0.10
3.43
3
09/25/91
0.10
2.66
2
09/30/91
0.40
2.76
9
0.63
17
10/02/91
0.80
2.53
17
10/07/91
0.20
5.09
8
10/10/91
3.50
3.88
113
10/14/91
0.40
3.53
12
10/16/91
3.20
3.45
92
10/21/91
3.20
2.56
68
10/23/91
19.30
2.71
436
10/28/91
3.80
7.47
237
10/30/91
1.30
5.66
61
3.97
116
11/04/91
10.80
3.65
329
11/06/91
15.60
3.49
454
11/11/91
5.20
5.30
230
11/13/91
2.60
4.06
88
11/18/91
0.70
5.98
35
11/20/91
0.40
5.97
20
11/25/91
1.40
4.64
54
11/26/91
2.40
3.81
76
4.89
161
12/02/91
0.70
5.42
32
12/04/91
0.30
5.28
13
12/09/91
0.10
4.54
4
12/11/91
0.20
4.18
7
12/16/91
0.10
3.78
3
12/18/91
0.10
4.09
3
12/23/91
2.10
2.13
37
12/25/91
3.50
3.42
100
12/30/91
1.20
3.74
37
0.92
26
01/01/92
1.10
2.40
22
01/06/92
0.40
3.69
12
01/08/92
0.20
1.92
3
01/13/92
0.20
4.05
7
01/15/92
0.30
4.19
10
01/20/92
0.80
4.11
27
01/22/92
0.70
3.55
21
01/27/92
0.30
4.03
10
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
?
24-Nov-92?
AMMONIA
PLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY?
MONTHLY
PE NH3
?
PE FLOW?
PE NH3?
AVERAGE NH3
?
AVG NH3 LOAD
,mg/1?
,mgd
?
,pounds/day
? , mg/1?
,pounds/day
01/29/92
0.20
3.75
6
0.47
13
02/03/92
0.60
3.43
17
02/05/92
0.50
3.78
16
02/10/92
0.60
3.40
17
02/12/92
0.40
4.27
14
02/17/92
0.30
3.89
10
02/19/92
1.70
4.80
68
02/25/92
0.40
5.31
18
02/26/92
0.30
4.51
11
0.60
21
03/02/92
0.10
3.55
3
03/04/92
0.10
4.17
3
03/09/92
0.20
3.96
7
03/11/92
0.20
5.43
9
03/16/92
0.40
4.09
14
03/18/92
0.40
3.76
13
03/23/92
0.20
4.03
7
03/25/92
0.20
4.09
7
03/30/92
0.70
4.46
26
0.28
10
04/01/92
0.40
5.15
17
04/06/92
0.12
3.87
4
04/08/92
0.45
3.70
14
04/13/92
0.72
2.99
18
04/15/92
0.48
4.18
17
04/20/92
0.48
5.26
21
04/22/92
0.25
5.38
11
04/27/92
0.20
3.81
6
04/29/92
0.30
3.04
8
0.38
13
05/04/92
0.30
3.03
8
05/06/92
0.20
3.38
6
05/11/92
0.20
3.54
6
05/13/92
0.20
2.95
5
05/18/92
0.20
2.49
4
05/20/92
0.10
1.71
1
05/25/92
0.60
3.30
17
05/27/92
0.50
3.43
14
0.29
8
06/01/92
0.10
3.83
3
06/03/92
0.10
3.41
3
06/08/92
0.10
4.09
3
06/10/92
0.20
3.39
6
06/15/92
0.30
1.59
4
06/17/92
0.20
2.11
4
06/22/92
0.40
3.92
13
06/24/92
0.20
1.50
3
06/29/92
0.20
3.56
6
0.20
5
07/01/92
0.10
2.76
2
07/05/92
0.30
2.19
5
07/08/92
0.30
3.82
10
07/13/92
0.20
3.55
6
07/15/92
0.50
4.23
18
07/20/92
0.20
4.91
8
07/22/92
0.20
4.28
7
07/27/92
0.10
1.97
2
07/29/92
4.60
2.70
104
07/30/92
9.40
4.55
357
1.59
52
08/03/92
10.70
3.78
337
08/05/92
3.10
3.87
100
08/10/92
0.40
3.64
12
08/12/92
0.30
2.93
7
08/17/92
0.30
1.55
4
08/19/92
0.40
3.51
12
08/24/92
0.30
2.54
6
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
?
24-Nov-92
?
AMMONIA
PLANT EFFLUENT AMMONIA
?
?
I
PE NH3
, mg/1
08/26/92
0.20
08/31/92
0.20
09/02/92
0.20
09/07/92
0.10
09/09/92
0.20
09/14/92
0.10
09/16/92
0.10
09/21/92
0.20
09/23/92
0.30
09/28/92
0.60
1/85-9/92
MINIMUM
0.10
MAXIMUM
78.00
AVERAGE
5.99
1/87-9/92
MINIMUM
0.10
MAXIMUM
29.00
AVERAGE
2.94
1
/89 -9/92
MINIMUM
0.10
MAXIMUM
26.00
AVERAGE
1.75
/a AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWRATE USED
DAILY FLOWRATE NOT AVAILABLE
POUNDS FACTOR
8.34
MONTHLY?
MONTHLY
PE FLOW?PE NH3?
AVERAGE NH3?
AVG NH3 LOAD
,mgd
?
,pounds/day
?
, mg/I?
, pounds/day
3.75
6
4.22
7
1.77
55
5.13
9
3.26
3
3.68
6
5.56
5
3.33
3
2.84
5
2.74
7
3.11
16
0.23
6
0.35
0
0.13
3
9.26
2252
57.25
1121
3.65
'?151
6.11
154
0.36
1
0.14
4
9.26
760
23.63
600
3.84
83
3.07
87
0.36
1
0.14
5
9.26
744
10.03
259
3.84
49
1.79
50
TECHNICAL AUDITING & ECONOMICS
?
24 -Nov -92
?
AMMONIA
CHAPTER 4
APPENDICES
ESTIMATED MEAN FAUNAL DENSITIES
FOR SAMPLE SITES ON CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL
NO. OF
AREA OF
DREDGE
TOTAL AREA
SAMPLED
TOTAL NO.
SAMPLE ID
DROPS
,sq. meters (no. drops x
SPECIMENS #SPEC./sq. m
area dredge)
,sq. m
U-1
3 0.0522575
0.156773
34
?
217
U-2
1
0.0522575
0.052258
232
?
4440
U-3
2 0.0522575
0.104515
561?
5368
U-4
2 0.0522575
0.104515
121?
1158
U-5
2 0.0522575
0.104515
82
?
785
U-6
1 0.0522575
0.052258
51
?976
D-1
3 0.0522575
0.156773
178?
1135
D-2
3 0.0522575
0.156773
71
?
453
D-3
3 0.0522575
0.156773
157
?1001
D-4
4 0.0522575
0.209030
105?502
D-5
1
0.0522575
0.052258
78?1493
D-6
2 0.0522575
0.104515
107
?1024
D-7
3
0.0522575
0.156773
132?
842
D-8
2
0.0522575
0.104515
58?555
SIZE OF DREDGE=?
9" X 9" = 0.75' X
0.75'
AREA OF DREDGE=
?
81 sq. in. = 0.5625 sq. ft.
CONVERSION FACTOR: 1 sq. ft. = 0.0929023 sq. m.
AREA OF DREDGE=?
0.0522575 sq. m.
Back to top
