ATTACHMENT

QQ

---

100

EAST

ERIE

STREET

CHICAGO,

ILLINOIS

6061

1-3154

312.751.5600

IEPA

ATTACHMENT

NO.

BOARD

O

COMMISSIONERS

Terrence

.1.

OBrien

President

Kathleen

Therese

Meany

Vice

President

Gloria

Atitto Majewski

Chairman

of

Finance

Frank Avita

Patricia

Horton

Barbara

J.

McGowan

Cynthia

M.

Santos

Debra

Shore

Patricia

Young

Richard

Lanyon

General

Superintendent

312—751—7900

FIiX

312.751.5681

January

23,

2007

Mr.

Toby

Frevert,

Manager

Division

of

Water

Pollution

Control

Bureau

of

Water

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield,

Illinois

62724—9276

Dear

Mr.

Frevert:

Subject:

Evaluation

of

Management

Alternatives

for

the

Chicago

Area

Waterways:

Investigation

of

Technologies

for

Supplemental

Aeration

of

the

North

and

South

Branches

of

the

Chicago

River,

Flow

Augmentation

of

the

Upper

North

Shore

Channel,

and

Flow

Augmentation

and

Supplemental

Aeration

of

the

South

Fork

of

the

South

Branch

of

the

Chicago

River

The

Metropolitan

Water

Reclamation

District

of

Greater

Chicago,

at

the

request

of

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(IEPA),

hereby

submits

the

enclosed

reports

entitled

“Technical

Memorandum

4WQ:

Supplemental

Aeration

of

the

North

and

South

Branches

of

the

Chicago

River”,

“Technical

Memorandum

5WQ:

Flow

Augmentation

of

the

Upper

North

Shore

Channel”,

and

“Technical

Memorandum

6WQ:

Flow

Augmentation

and

Supplemental

Aeration

of

the

South

Fork

of

the

South

Branch

of

the

Chicago

River.”

Using

the

services

of

Consoer

Townsend

Envirodyne

Engineers,

Inc.,

these

reports

have

been

developed

to

evaluate

technologies

and

costs

for

Supplemental

Aeration

of

the

North

and

South

Branches

of

the

Chicago

River,

Flow

Augmentation

of

the

Upper

North

Shore

Channel,

and

Flow

Augmentation

and

Supplemental

Aeration

of

the

South

Fork

of

the

South

Branch

of

the

Chicago

River.

If

you

have

any

questions,

please

contact

Mr.

Lou

Kollias

at

(312)

751—

5190.

J5

: TK

Attachments

cc:

L.

Kollias,

MWRD

R.

Sulski,

IEPA

Very

truly

yours,

i•

VNI-

Richard

Lanyon

U

General

Superintendent

Metropolitan

Water

Reclamation

District

of

Greater

Chicago

---

FINAL

01112/07

TECHNICAL

MEMORANDUM

6WQ

FLOW

AUGMENTATION AND

SUPPLEMENTAL

AERATION

OF

THE

SOUTH

FORK

OF

THE

SOUTH

BRANCH

OF

THE CHICAGO

RIVER

(BUBBLY

CREEK)

METROPOLITAN

WATER

RECLAMATION

DISTRICT

OF

GREATER

CHICAGO

NORTH

SIDE

WATER

RECLAMATION PLANT

AND

SURROUNDING

CHICAGO

WATERWAYS

Submitted

by:

CTE;

Revision

4—

January

12,

2007

MWRDGC

Project

No.

04-014-2P

CTE

Project

No.

40779

---

FINAL

01/12/07

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

6-1

Background

6-1

UAA

Process

6-1

Flow

Augmentation

and

Supplemental

Aeration

6-1

Objective

and

Scope

of

Study

6-4

Water

Quality

Dissolved

Oxygen

Standards

for

Bubbly

Creek

6-5

Target

Waterway

DO

Levels

for

this

Study

6-5

Flow

Augmentation

Modeling

6-5

Modeling

Runs

for

Flow

Augmentation

of

Bubbly

Creek

without

Aeration

6-6

Modeling

Runs

For

Flow

Augmentation

with

Aeration

of

the

Transferred

Flow

6-7

Modeling

Runs

for

Flow

Augmentation

without

Aeration

of

the

Transferred

Flow

in

Combination

with

Supplemental

Aeration

6-11

LAND

AVAILABILITY

FOR

SUPPLEMENTAL

AERATION

6-14

COSTS

FOR

FLOW

AUGMENTATION

WITH

AERATION

OF

THE

TRANSFERRED

FLOW

6-16

COSTS

FOR

FLOW

AUGMENTATION

(WITHOUT

AERATION)

AND

SUPPLEMENTAL

AERATION

6-16

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSIONS

6-18

6-i

---

FINAL

01/12107

LIST

OF

TABLES

Table

6.1

Percentage

of

Time

that

Dissolved

Oxygen

Concentrations

are

Greater

than

5 mg/I

at

1-55 and

Bubbly

Creek

for July

12,

2001

-

November

10, 2001

for

Different

Transfer

Rates

for

Unaerated

Flow

Augmentation

6-7

Table

6.2

Summary

of Costs

for

Flow

Augmentation

with

Aeration

of

Transferred

Flow

6-16

Table

6.3

Summary

of

Costs

for

Supplemental

Aeration

and

Flow

Augmentation

of

Bubbly

Creek

6-17

Table

6.4

Summary

of Costs

for

Flow

Augmentation

with

Aeration

Of

Transferred

Flow

and

Supplemental

Aeration

and

Flow

Augmentation

without

Aeration

of

Bubbly

Creek

6-19

6-u

---

FINAL

01/12/07

LIST OF

FIGURES

Figure

6.1

The Chicago

Area Waterways

6-2

Figure

6.2

Aerial

Photograph

of

Bubbly

Creek

6-3

Figure

6.3

Flow Augmentation

with

Aeration

of

Transferred

Flow,

% Compliance with

5 mg/I

Minimum

Dissolved

Oxygen,

For

All

Simulated

Time

Periods

in the

Marquette

Model

6-9

Figure

6.4

Flow Augmentation

of

Bubbly

Creek

with

Aeration

of

Transferred

Flow

6-10

Figure

6.5

Flow

Augmentation

(50

mgd)

and Supplemental

Aeration

Of

Bubbly

Creek at

3 locations,

Percent

of

Hours Complying

with

5 mg/I

Dissolved

Oxygen

Criterion,

For

All

Simulated

Time

Periods

in

the

Marquette

Model

6-12

Figure

6.6

Flow Augmentation

and

Supplemental

Aeration

of

Bubbly

Creek

6-13

Figure

6.7

Conceptual

Layout

For 80

g/s

SEPA

Technology

6-15

6-Hi

---

FINAL

01/12107

APPENDICES

Appendix

A

Unit

Costs

for

Cost

Estimates

Appendix

B

Report

Authored

by Marquette

University

“Progress

on

Flow

Augmentation

Simulations

for Bubbly

Creek”

Appendix

C

Land

Availability

for

Three

Supplemental

Aeration

Stations

on

Bubbly

Creek

Appendix

D

Capital

Costs for

Flow

Augmentation

with

Aeration

of

the Transferred

Flow

Appendix

E

Operation

and Maintenance

Costs

for

Flow

Augmentation

with Aeration

of

the

Transferred

Flow

Appendix

F

Capital

Costs

for Supplemental

Aeration

Technologies

Appendix

G

Operation

and

Maintenance

Costs

for

Supplemental Aeration

Technologies

Appendix

H

Capital

Costs

for

Flow

Augmentation

— No

Aeration

(in Combination

with

Supplemental Aeration)

Appendix

I

Operation

and

Maintenance

Costs

for Flow

Augmentation

— No

Aeration

(in

Combination

with

Supplemental

Aeration)

6-iv

---

FINAL

01/12/07

FLOW

AUGMENTATION

AND

SUPPLEMENTAL

AERATION OF

THE

SOUTH

FORK

OF

THE

SOUTH

BRANCH

OF THE

CHICAGO

RIVER

(BUBBLY

CREEK)

TM-6WQ

INTRODUCTION

Background

Consoer

Townsend Envirodyne

Engineers,

Inc.

(CTE)

was

retained

in 2005

by

the

Metropolitan

Water

Reclamation

District

of

Greater

Chicago

(FVM!RDGC)

to

provide

engineering

services

to

prepare

a

comprehensive

Infrastructure

and

Process

Needs

Feasibility

Study

(Feasibility

Study)

for

the North

Side

Water

Reclamation

Plant

(WRP).

As

part

of

the

scope

of

work

for

the

Feasibility

Study,

CTE

was

directed

to

determine

the technologies

and

costs

of water

quality

management options

which

originated

from

the

on-going

Use

Attainability

Analysis

(UAA)

being

conducted

by

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(IEPA)

of the

Chicago

Area

Waterways

(CAW5).

The

CAWs

are

shown

in

Figure

6.1.

This

report

presents

the

results

of a

study

of one

of

the water

quality

management

options

that

originated

from

the

UAA,

namely

flow

augmentation

and

supplemental

aeration

of

the

South

Fork

of

the

South

Branch

of the

Chicago

River

commonly

known

as Bubbly

Creek.

Flow

augmentation

and

supplemental

aeration

of

Bubbly

Creek

is

among

several

water

quality

management options

studied

by CTE.

Other

water

quality

management

options

are

discussed

in

separate

reports.

These

reports

are

not

designed

to

determine

which

(if any)

of

the

water

quality

management

options

should

be implemented.

Such

a determination

can

only

be

made

by conducting

a

comparison

of

the

costs

and benefits

of all

the

management

options

and

then

developing

a

water

quality

management

plan

which

combines

the most

cost

effective

option

into

an integrated strategy

for

improving

the water

quality

of the

CAWs.

Such

an

integrated

strategy

has not

been

developed

at this

time.

UAA

Process

The

Clean

Water

Act requires

the

states

to

periodically

review

the

uses

of

waterways

to

determine

if

changes

to

the existing

water

quality

standards

are

needed

to

support

a

change

in

use.

Based

upon

a

study

of

the

CAWs,

the

IEPA

had

decided

that

a change

may

be

required

in

the

dissolved oxygen

(DO)

standards

for

these

waterways.

As

part

of the

UAA

the

IEPA

suggested

several

water

quality

management

options

for

improving

the

DO

of

the CAWs

and

asked

that

the

MWRDGC

determine

the

technologies

and

costs

for

these

options.

One of

the

options

that was

suggested

by

the

IEPA

was

flow

augmentation

and

supplemental aeration

of

Bubbly

Creek.

Flow

Augmentation

and

Supplemental

Aeration

Figure

6.1

shows

the

entire

CAWs.

Bubbly

Creek

consists

of

the

section

of the

CAWs

from

the

MWRDGC’s Racine

Avenue

Pumping

Station

to

the

junction

with

the

South

Branch

of

the

Chicago

River

(SBCR).

Figure

6.2 shows

an aerial

photograph

of

Bubbly

Creek.

Bringing

flow

from

the

SBCR

to

the

headwaters

of

Bubbly

Creek

near

the Racine

Avenue

Pumping

Station

could

have

the

following

benefits:

1.

Increasing

the

DO of

the Bubbly

Creek.

2.

Eliminating stagnant

conditions

during

dry weather

flow

to

improve

aesthetics.

6-1

---

FINAL

01/12/07

Figure

6.1 —The

Chicago Area

Waterways

6-2

---

Figure

6.2

— Aerial

Photograph

of Bubbly

Creek

FINAL

01112/07

CTE

6-3

---

FINAL

01112/07

Supplemental

aeration

is another

water

quality

management

option which

has the

potential

for

improving

the

DO of Bubbly

Creek.

This option

was also

studied

in this report.

Supplemental

aeration

is already

being

practiced

in the CAWs

by

the

MWRDGC.

Two

supplemental

aeration

stations exist

on the North

Shore

Cannel

(NSC) and

the North Branch

of

the Chicago

River

(NBCR)

at Devon

and

Webster Avenues,

respectively.

These stations

provide

aeration

by

means

of porous

ceramic’diff

users

at the bottom

of

the

waterway.

The

diffusers

are

supplied with

air from

an on-shore

blower

facility at

each station.

Along the

Little

Calumet River,

Calumet

River

and

Cal-Sag

Channel

waterways,

the MWRDGC

has

five

supplemental

aeration

stations utilizing

sidestream

aeration

where

low lift pumps

remove

a

portion

of the

flow from

the waterway

and aerate

this flow

using

a

free-fall weir

system

which

subsequently

returns

the

flow

back

to the waterway.

Objective

and Scope

of Study

The

objective

of .the

study

was to

determine

the

technology

and

cost

to transfer

flow

from

the

SBCR to

the headwaters

of

Bubble

Creek

and

investigate

the possibility

of

supplemental

aeration in

conjunction

with flow

augmentation.

The

District

directed

that

CTE

investigate

two

alternatives

for flow

augmentation

of Bubbly

Creek.

1.

Transfer the

flow from

the SBCR

to the

Bubbly

Creek without

providing

any

artificial aeration

of the

transferred

flow.

In other words,

the inherent

DO of the

SBCR

would

not

be increased

before

discharge

at

the

headwaters

of Bubbly

Creek.

2.

Aerate the

SBCR Flow

to

saturation

before

discharge

at the

headwaters

of

Bubbly Creek.

Supplemental

aeration was

also

studied

as a

possible

water

quality

management

option

for

Bubbly

Creek.

For this

option, it was

necessary

to

include

the combination

of

supplemental

aeration

with

flow

augmentation

since

there is

virtually no

flow

in

Bubbly

Creek during

dry

weather.

The

main

discharge

to the

waterway

is the

MWRDGC’s

Racine

Avenue

Pump

Station

which

only

discharges

to Bubbly

Creek during

wet weather.

Therefore,

this report

contains

a study of

three

water

quality management

options for

Bubbly

Creek:

1.

Flow

Augmentation

without

aeration

of the transferred

flow

2.

Flow

Augmentation

with aeration

of the

transferred

flow

3.

Supplemental

Aeration

in

combination

with

flow

augmentation

without

aeration

of

the

transferred

flow

This

report makes

no attempt

to determine

whether

flow

augmentation

and

supplemental

aeration

is a cost-effective

method to improve

the

water quality

of

Bubbly

Creek.

To reach

such

a conclusion,

all

of the water

quality

management

options

that have

been suggested

by the

IEPA

in the

UAA

process would

have

to be studied

in an integrated

fashion

to

determine

which

(if any)

of the alternatives

or combination

of alternatives,

would

be

the

most

cost-effective

for

meeting

the

future

water

quality standards

for the

entire

CAWs

as

determined

by the

UAA.

Such

an analysis

is beyond

the scope

of this

study

and would

require

significant

input from

the

various

stakeholders

in the

UAA process.

Through

the

UM process,

the

IEPA

and the

6-4

---

FINAL

01/12/07

stakeholders

will

examine

the

technologies

and

costs

of

the

various

individual

options,

review

their

water

quality

benefits

and

ultimately

determine

which

of

the

alternatives

should

be

seriously

considered

for

possible

implementation.

Water

Quality

DissoIvd

Oxygen

Standards

for Bubbly

Creek

Currently

under

existing

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

(IPCB)

Secondary

Contact

water

quality

regulations,

Bubbly

Creek

is required

to have

a

minimum

of 4

mg/I

of DO

at

all times.

So

far,

the

IEPA

through

the

UAA

process

has

not

reached

a

final

decision

as

to

the future

DO

water

quality

standards

for

Bubbly

Creek.

They

have

suggested

that

current

IPCB

General

Use

water

quality

DO standards might

be

applied

to

Bubbly

Creek

(6

mg/I

for 16

out

of

24

hours

and

not

less

than

5

mg/I

at any

time)

or minimum

DO

levels

of

4, 5

or

6

mg/I

may be

required

in

the

future

for

Bubbly

Creek.

Target

Waterway

DO

Levels

for

this Study

It is

necessary

in this

study

to

select

a

dissolved

oxygen

target

in order

to

determine

process

sizing

and

thus

determine

the cost

for

a

flow

augmentation

and

supplemental

aeration

system

for

Bubbly

Creek.

After

discussions

with

the

MWRDGC,

it was

decided

that

the

dissolved

oxygen

target

would

be

5

mg/I.

This

level

is

within

the

range

of

potential

DO

standards

suggested

in

the

UAA.

However, recognizing

that

a rigid

DO

standard

is difficult

to

meet

under

all

waterway

conditions,

it

was

decided

that

the

target

would

be

5

mg/I

and

that

achieving

this

level

90%

of

the

time

at all

locations

in a

waterway

would

be acceptable.

It

is

hoped

that

the

IEPA

will

adopt

a

similar

approach

to a

waterway

DO

standard

and

recognize

that

100%

compliance

is not

possible

or

necessary.

The

use

of this

target

for this

study

in

no

way

represents

a

recommendation

from

the

MWRDGC.

Flow

Augmentation

Modeling

In order

to

determine

the

capacity

of

a flow

augmentation

and

supplemental

aeration

system

including

the

amount

of

transferred

flow,

the need

for

aeration

of

this

flow

and

the

size

and

location

of

the

supplemental aeration

stations,

an

existing

water

quality

model

of

the

CAWs

was

used.

This

model

was

developed

by

Marquette

University

for

the MWRDGC.

This

model

is

described

in

the

report

entitled,

“Preliminary

Calibration

of

a

Model

for

Simulation

of

Water

Quality

During

Unsteady

Flow

in

the

Chicago

Waterway

System

and

Proposed

Application

to

Proposed

Changes

to

Navigation

make-Up

Diversion

Procedures”,

dated

August,

2004.

This

report

was

produced

by

Dr. Charles

Melching

from

the

Institute

for

Urban

Environmental

Risk

Management

at

Marquette

University

(Milwaukee,

Wisconsin)

for

the

MWRDGC.

The

Marquette

Model

was

used

to simulate

the

two

flow

augmentation

alternatives

described

previously:

1.

Transfer

of

unaerated

SBCR

flow

to the

headwaters

of

Bubbly

Creek

2.

Transfer

of

aerated

SBCR

flow to

the

headwaters

of Bubbly

Creek

The

model

was also

used

to

determine

the size

of

supplemental

aeration

stations

used

in

conjunction

with flow

augmentation.

The

model

allowed

CTE

to determine

effects

of

various

versions

of these

alternatives

on

the

DO levels

of Bubbly

Creek.

The

model

can

simulate

the

6-5

---

FINAL

01/12107

DO

in the

waterway

as

a result

of

a

simulated

amount

of

flow augmentation

with

a certain

simulated

dissolved

oxygen

concentration

and

simulate

the

effect of

supplemental

aeration.

For

the unaerated

flow

augmentation

alternative,

simulated

SBCR

flows

and

DO

levels

in

the

SBCR

from the

Marquette

Model

were

used.

For

an

aerated

flow

augmentation

simulation

run,

the

model

simulated

the

flow

of the

SBCR raised

to

saturated

DO

levels.

Of course,

saturated

DO

concentrations

are

dependent

upon

temperature

but typically

the

saturated

DO

is about

8 to

10

mg/I.

The

time

periods

simulated

in

the

Marquette

Model

were:

Year

Time

Period

2001

July

12 to September

14

2001

September

ito

November

10

2002

May

ito

August

11

2002

August

10 to

September

23

Model

simulations

in

the Marquette

Model

include

overlapping

time

periods.

It is

inappropriate

to use

overlapping

time

periods

for the

evaluation

of

water

quality

management

options.

Therefore,

percent

compliance

in

this

report does

not

include

overlapping

periods.

For

this

report,

all the

results

for

the

July

12 to

September

14,

2001

and May

1

to

August

11, 2002

times

periods

were

used;

those

parts

of

the

time periods

of

September

ito November10,

2001

and

August

10 to

September

23, 2002

which

overlapped

with

these

periods

were

not

used.

These

time

periods

were

chosen

by Marquette

as

inputs

to

the model

since

the data

base

was

the most

complete

of

any

available.

Percentage

compliance

was

based

upon

determining

the

percent

of

time

that

model

simulated

hourly

DO

stream

DO

levels were

at

or

above

5

mg/I.

The Marquette

Model

runs

conducted

for

this study

had

the following

general

assumptions.

1.

Tunnel

and

Reservoir

Plan

(TARP)

Tunnels

are fully

operational

2.

TARP

Reservoirs

are

not on-line.

3.

Other

water quality

management

options

requested

by

IEPA

in the

UAA are

not

on-line.

Evaluation

of

the

Alternatives

contained

in

the

report

is based

upon

hourly

results

from

all

Marquette

model

simulation

periods

since

there

is

considerable

variation

in the

water

quality

conditions

between

the simulation

periods

in

the

Marquette

Model.

The

Racine

Avenue

Pump

Station

(RAPs)

has

a

significant

effect

upon the

DO

levels

in Bubbly

Creek

during

wet weather

events.

Any significant

change

in the RAPs

discharge

concentrations

of oxygen

demanding

substances

or

the

RAPs

discharge

volume

would significantly

affect

the

size

and

the

cost of

the various

water

quality

management

alternatives

studied.

Modeling

Runs

for Flow

Augmentation

of Bubby

Creek Without

Aeration

Modeling

runs

were

conducted

by

Marquette

University

to

determine

if flow augmentation

alone

without

aeration

of

the transferred

flow would

be

sufficient

to meet

the

DO

target

level

for Bubbly

6-6

---

FINAL

01/12/07

Creek.

A

report

of

these

model

runs

authored

by

Marquette

University

can

be

found

in

Appendix

B.

The

withdrawal

point

for

flow

augmentation

of

Bubbly

Creek

is

the

intersection

of

Throop

Street

and

the

SBCR.

This

point

is

slightly

upstream

of

the

intersection

of

Bubbly

Creek

and

the

SBCR.

Six

different

unaerated

flows

of

50,

100,

200,

400,

450

and

550

mgd

were

evaluated.

A

maximum

transfer

rate

of

550

mgd

was

selected

since

this

was

the

approximate

maximum

amount

of

available

flow

in

the

SBCR

for

transfer

to

Bubbly

Creek.

Since

for

certain

time

periods,

the

model

sometimes

showed

flows

in

the

SBCR

at

Throop

Street

to

be

less

than

the

transferred

amount,

the

amount

of

flow

was

still

transferred

and

the

flow

in

the

SBCR

was

set

to

zero.

This

approach

did

not

result

in

hydraulic

problems

in

the

model

computations.

In

the

actual

design

of

a

flow

augmentation

scheme,

more

precise

flow

transfers

should

be

used

in

the

model.

In

such

a

design

a

time

series

of

analysis

of

transferred

flows

would

be

constructed

for

the

periods

when

the

simulated

SBCR

discharge

was

less

than

the

transferred

amount.

This

time

series

analysis

would

be

used

to

calculate

the

percent

compliance

with

the

DO

standard.

Such

an

analysis

i

beyond

the

scope

of

the

existing

Marquette

Model

project.

For

this

report,

percent

compliance

was

calculated

assuming

that

the

transferred

amount

was

available

and

thus

the

percent

compliance

is

optimistic,

especially

for

the

higher

transferred

amounts.

Even

though

Marquette

completed

simulations

for

unaerated

flow

augmentation

for

6

different

transfer

values

varying

from

50

to

550

mgd,

results

of

only

the

50

and

400

mgd

transfer

simulation

results

are

shown

in

this

report.

These

model

runs

shOw

that

flow

augmentation

without

aeration

does

not

significantly

affect

the

DO

of

Bubbly

Creek

at

1-55

near

its

discharge

to

SBCR.

Table

6.1

shows

the

percentage

of

time

that

DO

levels

in

Bubbly

Creek

at

1-55

are

above

5

mg/I

for

both

wet

and

dry

periods

for

transfer

rates

of

50

and

400

mgd.

As

can

be

seen

in

Table

6.1,

there

is

no

significant

difference

in

the

percent

compliance

for

the

two

flows.

Thus

unaerated

flow

augmentation

by

itself

will

not

significantly

improve

the

DO

of

Bubbly

Creek.

TABLE

6.1

PERCENTAGE

OF

TIME

THAT

DISSOLVED

OXYGEN

CONCENTRATIONS

ARE

GREATER

THAN

5

MGIL

AT

1-55

AND

BUBBLY

CREEK

FOR

JULY

12-NOVEMBER

10,2001

FOR

DIFFERENT

TRANSFER

RATES

FOR

UNAERATED

FLOW

AUGMENTATION

Unaerated

Flow

%

of

Time

Augmentation

Wet

I

Dry

50mgd

41.9

I

31.6

400

mgd

42.0

31.9

This

result

is

not

surprising

since

the

Marquette

Model

generally

shows

low

DO

in

the

SBCR

during

summer

conditions.

Dissolved

oxygen

levels

in

the

SBCR

at

Throop

Street

during

the

summer

often

are

1

mg/I

or

less.

Modeling

Runs

for

Flow

Augmentation

with

Aeration

of

the

Transferred

Flow

The

Marquette

model

was

used

to

simulate

dissolved

oxygen

levels

in

Bubbly

Creek

where

saturation

DO

concentrations

were

assigned

to

the

transferred

flow.

A

written

report

authored

by

Marquette

University

of

these

run

can

be

found

in

Appendix

B.

Transfer

volumes

of

50, 100,

6-7

---

FINAL

01112/07

200,

400,

450

and

550 mgd

were

simulated.

A

transfer

rate

of 550

mgd was

found

necessary

to

approach

5

mg/I

of DO

more

than

90% of

the time

at the

intersection

of Bubbly

Creek

and

I-

55.

It should

be

again

stated

that

a

approximately

550

mgd

of flow

in the SBCR

is available

for

flow

augmentation.

Figure

6.3

shows

the

percent

compliance

at various

locations

on Bubbly

Creek

with the

5

mg/I target

water

quality

standard

based

upon

the Marquette

Simulations

with

550

mgd of

aerated

transferred

flow.

The

river

miles

on

the x-axis

of

Figure

6.3 represent

the

mid-point

of the

model

segments

from

the mouth

of

Bubbly

Creek

(confluence

with

the

South

Branch

of the

Chicago

River).

1-55 is

the dividing

line

between

the

2 and

3

rd

segments

in the

model

and is

located

at River

Mile 0.32.

As

can be

seen,

the

target

DO

water

quality

target

is

not

achieved

at all

locations

on

Bubbly

Creek

even

with

aeration

of

550

mgd of

transferred

flow.

Over

90%

compliance

with

5

mg/I was

only

achieved

in the

upper

reaches

of Bubbly

Creek

and

not at

the

mouth

(the

1-55 bridge).

Marquette

model

simulations

showed

a

very

high

oxygen

demand

at

the

mouth

of

Bubbly

Creek

near

the

junction

with

the

SBCR.

This

demand

was

so high

that

even

pumping

550

mgd

of

aerated

SBCR

flow

to the.

headwaters

of Bubbly

Creek

was

not

sufficient

to raise

the

percent

compliance

with

5 mg/I

of

DO

to

90%

at

end of

Bubbly

Creek

near the

junction

with

the

SBCR.

The

reasons

for

this

high

oxygen

demand

was

not fully

investigated

but

it

is believed

to

be

caused

by

the

influence

of

the SBCR

at the

junction.

The

SBCR

has

a relatively

low

DO

at this

location

and

this

low DO

water

may

be impacting

the

DO

of Bubbly

Creek

near

the

junction

with

the SBCR.

Figure

6.4 shows

a map

with

the location

of

the 550

mgd

flow

augmentation

pumping

station

and force

main

aeration

system.

The

pumping

station

and force

main

aeration

system

would

be

located

on

land

adjacent

to the

SBCR

and

the

force

main would

be located

on

land

adjacent

to

the

SBCR and

Bubbly

Creek.

There

is sufficient

vacant

land

adjacent

to

Throop

Street

on

the

SBCR

to accommodate

this

pump

station

and

force main

aeration

system.

For cost

estimating

purposes,

compressed

air U-Tubes

will

be

used

to provide

force

main

aeration.

Compressed

air

U-Tubes

are

routinely

used

for force

main

aeration

to control

odors

from

sewage

pump

stations.

Thus,

this

is

a

proven

technology

for

force

main

aeration.

In

addition,

this

aeration

technology

was

among

the

four

short-listed

technologies

selected

for

supplemental aeration

in

TM-4WQ.

U-Tubes

allow

DO levels

far

above

saturation,

thus

requiring

less

of

the

transferred

flow

to be

aerated.

If this

Water

Quality

Management

option

should

proceed

to

implementation,

a more

detailed

study

of force

main

aeration

alternatives

should

be conducted

to select

a

final

candidate

for design

purposes.

6-8

---

FINAL

01/12/07

E

I0

II

A

0

0

0

‘I-’

C

a,

C)

a,

a-

Baseline

550

mgd

(aerated)

Racine

Ave.

P.S.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Mouth

(RMO)

0.07

0.23

0.43

0.78

I

1.17

I

1.38

1-55

35th

St.

37th

St.

(RM

0.32)

(RM

1.0)

(RM

1.26)

River

Mile

from

Confluence

with

South

Branch

Chicago

River

Flow

Figure

6.3

— Flow

Augmentation with

Aeration

of Transferred Flow,

%

Compliance

with

5

mg/I

Minimum

Dissolved

Oxygen,

For

All

Simulated

Time

Periods

in

the

Marquette

Model

6-9

---

FINAL

01112/07

\

LAKE

MICiAN

:

::.

.:.. :.

:::

::::..*

:•:L

.

S

\

\

.-:•L’c.:::

S. v.

\

\:

N:

:

:

:

Figure

6.4

— Flow Augmentation

of Bubbly Creek

with Aeration

Of Transferred

Flow

Throop Street

•0

2:

N

550

.mgd

Pump

Station

and

200

g/s

U-tube

Station

Force main

cicne

6-10

---

FINAL

01112107

Modeling

Runs

for

Flow

Augmentation

without

Aeration

of

the

Transferred

Flow

in

Combination

with

Supplemental

Aeration

Marquette

Modeling

runs

were

conducted

by

the

MWRDGC’s

Research

and

Development

Department

utilizing

a

combination

of

flow

augmentation

without

aeration

of

the

transferred

flow

and

supplemental

aeration

of

Bubbly

Creek.

A

number

of

modeling

runs

were

conducted

utilizing

different

supplemental

aeration

station

capacities

and

locations

in

combination

with

various

amounts

of

flow

augmentation.

Ultimately,

it

was

determined

that

a

combination

of

these

technologies

would

meet

the

quality

objective

of

5

mg/I

of

dissolved

oxygen,

90%

of

the

time.

The

chosen

scenario

was

as

follows:

e

Three

Supplemental

Aeration

Stations

Station

#

Oxygen

Delivery

Capacity

Location

1.

80

g/sec

(15,200

lbs/day)

Mouth

of

Bubbly

Creek

2.

50

g/sec

(9,500

lbs/day)

Approximated

Mid-point

of

Bubbly

Creek

3.

10

g/sec.

(1,

900

lbs/day)

Headwater

of

Bubby

Creek

•

50

MGD

Flow

Augmentation

Pump

Station

o

50

MCD

Pump

Station

on

SBCR

at

Throop

Street

o

2

Mile

Force

Main

to

Headwaters

of

Bubbly

Creek

o

Force

Main

Aeration

is

not

Practiced

For

the

above

chosen

scenario,

Figure

6.5

shows

the

percent

compliance

(at

various

locations

on

Bubbly

Creek)

with

the

5

mg/I

target

water

quality

standard.

As

can

be

seen,

the

combination

of

50

mgd

of

flow

augmentation

and

3

supplemental

aeration

stations

is

sufficient

to

maintain

dissolved

oxygen

at

5

mg/I

more

than

90%

of

the

time.

The

river

miles

on

the

x-axis

of

Figure

6.5

represent

the

mid-point

of

the

model

segments

from

the

mouth

of

Bubbly

Creek

(confluence

with

the

South

Branch

of

the

Chicago

River).

1-55

is

the

dividing

line

between

the

2

nd

and

3’

segments

in

the

model

and

is

located

at

River

Mile

0.32.

It

should

again

be

noted

that

the

Marquette

Model

shows

a

very

high

oxygen

demand

at

the

mouth

of

Bubbly

Creek

near

the

junction

with

the

SBCR.

This

demand

results

in

a

relatively

large

supplemental

aeration

station

at

this

location.

Model

simulation

runs

demonstrated

that

aeration

stations

even

twice

as

large

as

the

80

g/sec

station

could

not

raise

the

percent

compliance

much

above

90%.

If

low

DO

flow

from

the

SBCR

is

the

cause

of

the

high

oxygen

demand

at

the

mouth

of

Bubbly

Creek,

then

providing

supplemental

aeration,

flow

augmentation

or

other

water

quality

management

options

on

the

SBCR

may

eliminate

the

need

for

this

aeration

station

on

Bubbly

Creek.

The

elimination

of

the

aeration

station

at

the

mouth

of

Bubbly

Creek

should

be

justified

based

upon

a

detailed

analysis

of

the

Marquette

Model

followed

by

additional

runs

with

perhaps

a

modified

version

of

the

model.

Such

an

exercise

is

outside

the

scope

of

this

study.

Figure

6.6

shows

a

map

with

the

locations

of

the

50

mgd

flow

augmentation

pump

station

and

force

main

and

the

three

supplemental

aeration

stations.

The

force

main

would

be

located

on

land

adjacent

to

and

along

the

SBCR

and

Bubbly

Creek.

There

is

sufficient

vacant

land

area

at

Throop

Street

adjacent

to

the

SBCR

to

accommodate

this

pump

station.

6-11

---

FINAL

01112/07

(15,200

Ibs/d)

(9,500

lbsld)

80

gls

50

gls

100%

-___

90%

80%

II

A

70%

0

60%

1

50%

Average

95%

40%

Compliance

30%

20%

°-

10%

0%

Figure

6.5

—

Flow

Augmentation

(50

mgd)

and

Supplemental

Aeration

of

Bubbly

Creek

at

3

locations,

Percent

of

Hours

Complying

with

5

mg/I

Dissolved

Oxygen

Criterion,

For

All

Simulated

Time

Periods

in

the

Marquette

Model

(1,900

Ibs/d)

10

gls

0.13

0.23

0.32

0.43

0.54

0.66

0.78

0.90

1.02

1.17

1.31

Mouth

1-55

35th

St.

37th

St.

(RM

0)

(RM

0.32)

(RM

1.0)

(RM

1.26)

Racine

River

Mile

from

Confluence

with.

South

Branch

Chicago

River

Ave.

P.S.

F

low

6-12

---

\

Figure

6.6

—

Flow

Augmentation

&

Supplemental

Aeration

of

Bubbly

Creek

6-13

FINAL

01112/07

Throop

Street

•

hicagoRi

-Chicago

River

Controlling

Works

C-)

—

.7

—

CD

-‘,--.

.%

()?‘

-

.‘

:2

.

80

(15.

-D

-Q

AKEM1CHIGAN

N

50

mgcl

Pump

Station

42”

Forcemain

10

g/s

(1

900

Ibs/d)

Proposed

Suppernental

Aeration

Station

---

FINAL

01/12/07

LAND

AVAILABILITY FOR

SUPPLEMENTAL

AERATION

Figure

6.7

shows

a conceptual

layout for an 80

gls sidestream elevated

pool aeration

(SEPA)

supplemental aeration

station.

This layout was taken

from

TM-4WQ.

The land

requirement

for

the

80

g/s station is approximately

1 acre.

The land requirement

for the 50

g/s and

10

g/s

stations

would be

approximately

14 acre. As noted

in

TM-4WQ,

the SEPA

supplemental

aeration

technology requires

the largest

land

area of the

four short-listed technologies.

Thus

the land

requirement for SEPA

technology

was used to determine

if sufficient

vacant land

was

available

at the three

supplemental aeration

sites

on Bubbly

Creek.

Appendix

C

contains aerial photographs

of

each of the

three

supplemental aeration

sites

with

an

overlay

showing the land requirements

for

the SEPA

supplemental

aeration technology.

As

can

be seen,

there

is sufficient

vacant

land for SEPA

technology at

each site and therefore

any

of

the four technologies

could

be located at each of the

three

sites

without the need for

building

demolition. As

was done for

TM-4WQ,

land costs

for

supplemental

aeration were

assumed

to

be

$1.2

Million

per

acre and

it was

further

assumed

that

all sites would

have to be

purchased

by

the

MWRDGC.

The

80 g/s

aeration station

at

the mouth

of Bubbly Creek

had a simulated location

at river

mile

0.13,

233

yards

from the

junction with the SBCR.

However,

this

part of Bubbly Creek

has

many

elevated

roadways including

1-55. Thus, the

best available vacant

land location for

this

aeration

station

is

at river mile 0.32

which is

about

560 yards from the

mouth.

6-14

---

FINAL

01112107

.250’

x

FENCE

80’

FLOW

PUMP

STATION

100’

—

60’-

—

—

.---

30’

—-

WET

WELL

---,--------——---——-—-

—=

-

-

.‘.

SLIJfCEGATES

RIVER

V.•V•VVV

.:.:

:........

Figure

6.7

—

Conceptual

Layout

for

80

gls

(Oxygen)

SEPA

Technology

6-15

---

FINAL

01/12/07

COSTS

FOR

FLOW AUGMENTATION

WITH

AERATION

OF THE TRANSFERRED

FLOW

Appendix

A contains the unit costs

for this

technical

memorandum.

Appendix D contains

the detailed

spreadsheet for

the capital costs for

the approximate

2 mile

flow

augmentation

pipeline and the

550

mgd

pump

station.

Appendix

E contains the detailed

cost estimate

for the

force

main aeration system.

The

system

chosen

for

cost estimation

purposes was U-tube

aeration using

compressed

air

Compressed

air U-Tubes are routinely

used

for force

main

aeration

to control

odors from

sewage

pump

stations. Thus, this

is a proven

technology

for

force main aeration.

In addition,

this

aeration

technology

was among the four short-listed

technologies

selected for

supplemental

aeration

in TM-4WQ.

U-Tubes allow

DO

levels

far above

saturation,

thus requiring

less of

the

transferred

flow

to

be

aerated. If this

Water Quality

Management

option should

proceed

to

implementation,

a more

detailed

study of force main

aeration alternatives

should be

conducted

to select

a

final candidate for design

purposes.

Table

6:2 contains

a

summary

of the

Capital

and Maintenance

and Operation

Costs

for Flow

Augmentation with

aeration

of the transferred

flow.

These

costs were developed

for the

flow

augmentation

scenario shown

in Figure 6.4.

TABLE 6.2

SUMMARY OF COSTS

FOR FLOW AUGMENTATION

(WITH

AERATION)

OF THE

TRANSFERRED

FLOW

Item

Capital Costs

Annual

Costs

Total

Present

FORCE MAIN AERATION

using

U-Tubes

(compressed

air)

$39,000,000

$685,000

$53,000,000

FLOW

AUGMENTATION (PUMP

$229,000,000

$2,200,000

$273,000,000

STATION

AND

FORCE-MAIN)

TOTAL

$268,000,000

$2,885,000

$326,000,000

COSTS

FOR

FLOW AUGMENTATION

(WITHOUT

AERATION)

AND

SUPPLEMENTAL

AERATION

In

TM-4WQ

(Supplemental Aeration),

CTE

developed

a long list

of supplemental

aeration

technologies.

Based upon

a

matrix

evaluation

of the long list,

CTE determined that

the

following

supplemental

aeration technologies

would constitute the

short list:

1.

Free Fall Step Weirs

(Similar

to the MWRDGC’s

Sidestream Elevated

Pool

Aeration

(S EPA) Stations)

2.

Jet Aerators

3.

Ceramic

Fine Bubble Diffusers

4.

Compressed

Air U-Tube

Therefore

the

above four

short-listed supplemental

aeration

technologies will

be used for

this

study

of Bubbly Creek.

6-16

---

FINAL

01/12/07

Appendix

F

contains

the

detailed

spreadsheets

showing

the

capital

cost

for

the

four

short-listed

supplemental

aeration

technologies.

It

should

be

noted

that

the

costs

for

the

SEPA

aeration

station

at

the

headwaters

of

Bubbly

Creek

does

not

include

a

pump

station.

This

is

because

it

is

assumed

that

the

50

mgd

of

flow

from

the

SBCR

was

directed

to

the

weir

system

of

this

station.

Thus

no

pump

station

was

needed

for

this

supplemental

aeration

alternative.

Appendix

G

contains

the

detailed

spreadsheets

for

annual

operation

and

maintenance

costs

for

the

four

supplemental

aeration

short-listed

technologies.

Appendix

H

contains

the

detailed

spreadsheets

for

the

capital

cost

for

the

approximately

2

mile

flow

augmentation

pipeline

and

the

50

mgd

flow

augmentation

pumping

station.

Appendix

I

contains

the

annual

operation

and

maintenance

costs

for

the

flow

augmentation

pump

station

and

force

main.

Table

6.2

contains

a

summary

of

the

capital

and

maintenance

and

operation

costs

for

flow

augmentation

and

supplemental

aeration

of

Bubbly

Creek.

These

costs

were

developed

for

the

flow

augmentation

and

supplemental

aeration

scenario

shown

in

Figure

6.3.

A

was

done

for

TM-4WQ,

costs

are

presented

for

each

of

the

four

short-listed

supplemental

aeration

technologies.

Again,

it

was

felt

that

the

scope

of

this

study

precluded

a

detailed

evaluation

of

the

many

site

specific

factors

necessary

to

make

a

final

decision

on

a

supplemental

aeration

technology.

Also,

pilot

and/or

laboratory

scale

testing

is

recommended

to

determine

the

design

parameters

for

supplemental

aeration

stations.

This

information

along

with

a

site-specific

analysis

should

be

used

to

determine

the

most

cost-effective

supplemental

aeration

technology

for

each

of

the

three

sites.

TABLE

6.3

SUMMARY

OF

COSTS

FOR

SUPPLEMENTAL

AERATION

AND

FLOW

AUGMENTATION

OF

BUBBLY

CREEK

Item

Capital

Cost

1

Total

Annual

Total

Present

Worth

Supplemental

Aeration

U-Tubes

$31,000,000

$540,000

$41,800,000

SEPA

$73,000,000

$1,600,000

$105,000,000

Ceramic

Diffusers

$30,400,000

$932,000

$49,000,000

Jet

Aeration

$46,000,000

$2,300,000

$92,000,000

Flow

Augmentation

$29,966,000

$509,000

$40,146,000

(1)

Includes

land

acquisition

cost—3

x

$1,200,000

=

$3,600,000.

In

summary

the

cost

for

flow

augmentation

and

supplemental

aeration

of

Bubby

Creek

would

be

approximately:

Capital

Cost:

$60.4

Million

-

$102.9

Million

Total

Annual

Costs:

$1.0

Million

-

$2.8

Million

Total

Present

Worth

$81.9

Million

-$145

Million

6-17

---

FINAL

01/12/07

This

Technical

Memorandum is to include

an examination

of

the Environmental

and Human

Health Impacts of: The energy required to

operate the facilities; the energy required

for

processing

and

production

of

process

chemicals;

and the

conversion

and degradation

of

process

chemicals.

TM-6WQ,

at the

District’s direction,

does

not

make any technology

recommendations but rather prepares cost

estimates (capital and operation and maintenance)

for the

short listed technologies. There are

no chemicals used

in these

technologies

and

therefore the impact

of

chemicals is non-existent.

The energy requirements and costs

for the

shortlisted alternatives have been calculated

and are presented in

this

report. Since the report

only concludes with

a

shortlist of technologies,

it is appropriate to evaluate the

environmental

and public health impacts of the energy for

these technologies in any future studies of the

water

quality

management options in TM-6WQ.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A study was conducted to determine the technology

and

costs for

flow augmentation

and

supplemental aeration of Bubbly Creek. This study

was conducted

at the

request of the

IEPA

who is óurrently exploring methods to improve the DO

of the CAWs as part of their UM.

Simulations

were undertaken

using

a

water

quality model developed for the MWRDGC

by

Marquette University to determine the amount

of

flow augmentation

and supplemental

aeration

to achieve

a DO

target of

5

mg/I in Bubbly

Creek, 90% of the time.

This

target was a

consensus

decision with the MWRDGC

and may

not represent the target chosen by IEPA for the

CAWs.

The IEPA has not as yet

‘chosen

a water quality DO target for the

CAWs. Thus, it

was

necessary to choose a

target

so

that

a cost estimate for flow augmentation and

supplemental

aeration could

be

prepared.

Three water quality management

options

were studied:

1)

Flow Augmentation without aeration

of the transferred amount

2)

Flow Augmentation with aeration of the transferred

amount

3)

Supplemental aeration in combination

with flow augmentation without aeration

of

the transferred

amount

Based upon

simulations conducted by Marquette University (shown

in Appendix B), it

was

found

that bringing

up

to 550 mgd of unaerated flow from the SBCR to

Bubbly Creek would

not

significantly

raise

the DO of Bubbly Creek. This is mainly

due

to the relatively

low levels

of DO

present

in the

SBCR at Throop Street during summer conditions.

Based upon

Marquette

Model simulations (See Appendix B) bringing 550 mgd of aerated

flow

from SBCR

to the headwaters for Bubbly Creek will improve the DO of Bubbly

Creek but

will

not

achieve the DO target level at the end of this waterway near the mouth

of its junction

with

the SBCR. It is

not practical to bring more than

550 mgd

from the SBCR

since

flows in the

SBCR are generally lower than

this

amount during, the summer months.

A

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

for aeration.

This method of

force-main

aeration was chosen for cost estimation purposes since

it

is

commonly

used

for controlling odors at sewage pump stations.

The

capital

cost for

this

alternative was

$268

million and

the

annual 0 & M costs were

$2.9

million. If this

alternative

is

found to have

merit in

the

future,,

a

study

of

other

methods of force main aeration

should

be

undertaken before

proceeding to final design.

Since

flow augmentation did not achieve the DO target chosen for this study,

a combination

of

flow

augmentation (no aeration of the augmented flow) and supplemental aeration

was studied.

6-18

---

FINAL

01/12107

The

MWRDGC’s

R&D

Department

conducted

various

model

runs

testing

various

combinations

of

flow

augmentation

and

supplemental

aeration

to

achieve

the

DO

target.

It

was

found

that

flow

augmentation

of

50

mgd

from

the

SBCR

and

the

following

locations

and

sizes

of

supplemental

aeration

stations

would

achieve

the

DO

target

for

Bubbly

Creek:

Station

Oxygen

Delivery

Location

Capacity

1

80

g/sec

(15,200

lbs/day)

Mouth

of

Bubbly

Creek

2

50

g/sec

(9,500

lbs/day)

Approximate

midpoint

of

Bubbly

Creek

3

lOg/sec

(1,900

lbs/day)

Headwaters

of Bubbly

Creek

The

total

capital

cost

for

the

4

supplemental

aeration

technologies

chosen

for

this

cost

estimate

(U-Tubes,

SEPA,

Ceramic

Diffusers

and

Jet

Aeration)

in

combination

with

flow

augmentation

ranged

from

$60.4

Million

to

$102.9

Million.

The

total

annual

O&M

costs

ranged

from

$1.0

Million

to

$2.8

Million.

A final

decision

as

to

the

supplemental

aeration

technology

that

is

most

appropriate

for

implementation

in

Bubbly

Creek

would

require

additional

study.

The

study

did

show

that

the

combination

of

flow

augmentation

(50

mgd)

and

three

supplemental

aeration

stations

achieved

the

DO

target

while

aerated

flow

augmentation

alone

did

not.

Also

the

combination

of

flow

augmentation

and

supplemental

aeration

was

considerably

lower

in

cost

than

aerated

flow

augmentation.

Thus

it

would

appear

that

the

combination

of

flow

augmentation

and

supplementation

aeration

would

be

the

most

cost

effective

for

the

DO

control

alternatives

studied

here

for

Bubbly

Creek.

However,

it

should

be

stated

that

it

is

not

possible

to

determine

whether

any

water

quality

management

options

suggested

by

the

IEPA

in

the

UAA

should

be

implemented

until

all

these

alternatives

are

studied

in

an

integrated

analysis

to

compare

and

analyze

their

relative

benefits

and

cost.

Table

6.4

shows

a

summary

of

the

costs

for

flow

augmentation

with

aeration

and

supplemental

aeration

in

combination

with

flow

augmentation

without

aeration.

TABLE

6.4

SUMMARY

OF

COSTS

FOR

FLOW

AUGMENTATION

WITH

AERATION

OF

TRANSFERRED

FLOW

AND

SUPPLEMENTAL

AERATION

AND

FLOW

AUGMENTATION

WITHOUT

AERATION

OF

BUBBLY

CREEK

Option

Capital

Cost

Annual

Costs

Total

Present

Worth

Flow

Augmentation

with

$

268:000,000

$

2,900,000

$

326,000,000

Aeration

Supplemental

Aeration

$

60,400,000—

$

1,000,000—

$

81,900,000—

with

Flow

Augmentation

$

102,900,000

$

2,800,000

$

145,000,000

without

Aeration

6-19

---

FINAL

01/12/07

APPENDIX

A

Unit Costs for Cost

Estimates

A-i

---

FINAL

01112107

UNIT

COSTS

FOR

COST

ESTIMATES

Life

cycle

cost

(LCC)

analysis

requires

the

development

of

certain

constants

that

will

be

used

throughout

the

evaluation

of

alternatives.

Values

used

for

constants

are

presented

below.

These

values

have

been

developed

in

consultation

with

District

staff

and

represent

actual

values

or

agreed

upon

assumptions.

1.

Present

Worth

Factors

for

Life-Cycle

Costs

•

Years

20

o

Annual

interest

rate

3%

•

Annual

inflation

rate

.

3%

•

Annuity

Present

Worth

Factor

(with

inflation)

19.42

2.

Design

Life

•

Structural

Facilities

20

•

Mechanical

Facilities

V

20

3.

Electrical

Cost

$0.075/kW-hr

4.

Labpr

Rates

Per

Hour

Including

Benefits

(1)

•

Electrician

$159.50/hr

o

Operations

$90.00/hr

•

Maintenance

$90.00/hr

5.

Parts

and

Supplies

5

percent

6.

Contractor

Overhead

and

Profit

(2)

15%

7.

Planning

Level

Contingency

(3)

30%

8.

Engineering

Fees

including

Construction

Management

(4)

20%

(1)

A

multiplier

of

2.9

was

used

to reflect

benefits

as

provided

by the

District.

(2)

Percent

of

Total

Construction

Cost

(3)

Percent

of Total

Construction

Cost

plus

Contractor

Overhead

and

Profit

(4)

Percent

of

Total

Construction

Cost,

Contractor

Overhead

and

Profit

plus Contingency

A-2

---

FINAL

01/12/07

APPENDIX

B.

Report Authored by

Marquette University

“Progress

on Flow Augmentation

Simulations

for

Bubbly Creek”

B-i

---

FINAL

01112/07

APPENDIX

C

Land Availability

for Three

Supplemental

Aeration Stations

on Bubbly Creek

c-I

---

Direction

of

Flow

I

—

FINAL

01/12/07

Land

Availability

for 80

gls

Station at

1-55

and Bubbly

CreekLand

Availability

for

80

gls Station

at

1-55

and

C-2

1

---

FINAL

01/12/07

Land

Availability

for

50 gls station at

S.

Throop Street

and

Bubbly Creek

C-3

---

FINAL

01112/07

Land Availability for

lOg/s Station near Racine Ave.

P.S. and Bubbly

Creek

C-4

---

FINAL

01/12/07

APPENDIX

D

Capital Costs for

Flow

Augmentation with Aeration

of

the Transferred Flow

D-1

---

FINAL

01112/07

APPENDIXE

Operation and Maintenance

Costs for Flow Augmentation

with Aeration

of

the

Transferred Flow

E-1

---

FINAL

01112107

APPENDIX F

Capital

Costs for

Supplemental Aeration

Technologies

F-I

---

FINAL

01/12107

APPENDIX

G

Operation and

Maintenance Costs

for Supplemental

Aeration Technologies

G1

---

FINAL

01/12107

APPENDIX

H

Capital

Costs for Flow

Augmentation

— No Aeration

(In Combination

with Supplemental

Aeration)

H-i

---

FINAL

01/12107

APPENDIX

I

Operation &

Maintenance

Costs

for Flow Augmentation

— No Aeration

(In Combination

with Supplemental

Aeration)

I—I

---

FINAL

01112107

APPENDIX

B

Report

Authored

by

Marquette

University

“Progress

on Flow

Augmentation

Simulations

for

Bubbly

Creek”

B-i

---

Septeniler22,

2005

:

DR1T1ORT

•

PROGRESS

QLOWAUGNTATIONàIMUJATh)NS

FOR

BUBBLY

CREEK

Two

sets

of

simulations

considering

diverting

a

portion

of

the

South

Branch

Chicago

•

flow

to

the

upstreani

end

of

the

Bubbly

Quek

bave

been

completed.

.The

&ut

set

of

‘ininThtldns

considers

transferred

flow

‘without

aeratiOn

and

the

seóond

set

of

•

sinmlations

considers

aerated

transimred

flow.

Six

different

(50,100,200,400,450,

and

550

mgd)

fixed

amounts

of

flow

transfer

have

been

evaluatedfor

the

pedods

July

•

12.-

September

14,

2001,

September

15

-

November

10,2001,

6ay

1-Angut

11,2002

and

August

12-September

23,2002.

lire

withdrawal

point

for

flow

atignientation.for

Bubbly

Creek

is

the

Intersection

of

the

SBCR

and

linoop

Street.

This

point

Is

slightly

upstream

(-.0.4

mile).of

the

intersection

of

Bubbly

Creek

and

the

SBCR.

j.

Plots

of.simulated

(baseline)

discharge

at

Threop

Street

are

given

in

Figure

L

Average

•

discharges

fbrluly

l2io

November

IQ,

2001

andMay

1

to

September23,

2002

are

1,136

efs

(767

mgd)

and

984

afa

(636

mg4)

respectively.

Six

different

auguieritalion

flow

transfcr

values

(50,

100,

200,

400

450,

and

550

ingd)

hav&beèa

evaluated

and

-the

•

niaXimnin

transferred

flow

was

kept

around

the

average

discharge

at

Throop

Street

For

•periocla

wheh

the

simulated

discharge

was

less

than.

(ha

transfer

am

un

the

flow

In

the

•

SBCR

was

shtto

zero

andthe.flxed

amowits

of

flow

still

was

transfeerect

even

though

the

availablo

flow

was

not

suc1ctiL

proaoh.did

not

result

in

hydrarilic

problems

hr

the

oinputations.

lii

the

actual

design

of

the

augmentation

scheme,

more

precise

flow

transfers

(Le.

(hue

series

of

flow

for

the

periods

when

th9

simulated

discharge

Is

less

than

transfer

amount

and

the

total

simulated

discharge

is

transferred)

should

be

used

In

the

simulation

to

IcnIate

percentage

cd

liancesesjec1a11y

If

the

desired

trtinsfenud

flow

:-

Isniuchiarger

than

the

avzagennlate4

discharge

ätmrodp

Street

at

asec1flctimc

The

percentage

of

hours

that

target

dissolved

oxygen

(DO)concentration

f

3,

4,5,

and

6

ingareëqualed

orexeded

for

the

total

pedod

of

July

12—November

10,

2001

are

listed.

in

Tables

1-3for

Jc1rson

Bnulevaz4

(SBCR),

1-55

(Bubbly

Creek),

and

Cicero

Avenue

(Chicago

Sanitaq

mid

Ship

Caiia1CSSC),

reèpectively.

The

wet

periods

listed

in

these

tables

correspond

to

tlmoshen

floWs

at

Rorneoville

were

lIgher

than

typia1

dry

weather

flows

CLe.

typically

greater

than

100

m%=

3530

cfs

for

usttihied

periods).

I

B-

2

---

i

0

I

Throop

SImOLSBCR,

511-9123,2002

(Model

output)

I.

I

17QQU

. 1000

1300.

11000

G000

I

lime

Figure

.1.

lmuIated

discharges

atTbmop

Street

for

July

12

to

November

10,

2001 and.

MayltoSeptember23,2002

I

.

Thioop

Street...SBCR,

7112-11!1O,2001

(Model

output)

I.

100O•

E

lime

I

I

I

I

I.

I.

I..

I.

8-3

---

Scenario

3

mgaL

4mglL

5mglL

6 mg/i.

Jackson-SECR.

dry

wet

dry

wet

ty

wet

Dry

wet

Measured

982

92:9

91.4

82.5

67.6

54.0 41.9

16$

Calibrated

.

91.3

94.3

78.6

870

64.7

72.1

43.1

362

, 50 mgd

1.3

94.3

78.6 .87.0

64.7

72.1

43.1.

36.3

40 uigd

913

943

78.7

87.0

64.8

72.1

432

36.3

t

Scenario

3 niglL

4mg/L

.Sn2gLL

nigfL

1-55-Bubbly Creek

dry..,

wet i3 wet -

Measur&l

.

-.

-

-

-

- —— —— — -

Calibráed

712

66.1

566

41.0 41.8

31.6 . 25.9

20.3

50

mgrI

662 56.6 4L0 V 3L6

400rnsd.

3

Table 3.

Peiventage

of

time

that

disolved

oxygen

concentrations are higher

than the

target coztcentrationn

at

Clcu,

4venue (Chicago

Sanitary

and

Ship Canal)

for July

12—

tTovember

10,2001 ft

diffir nt wth iraw1 n1u fr r f1ñw. wm8nt flnn

ScenarIo

3 x

4 mg/L

5 mg/i.

6

xng/L

•cjc&ocsc

dry .wat dry.

Measwnd

.

83.8

71.5 . 54.9. 46.8

27.6

15.9

22.8

0.1

.Calibmted.

85.4

70.4’ 58.7 . 40.0

43.6.

28.9 . 27.6

19.4

.S0mgd

85.4- 70.4

58.7

40.0

43.6

2.8.9

27.7

400nigd .

85.5

70.7 58.7 •4(.5

436

2L9

27.8

19.6

Even

though simulations have

been

completed for nfl 6 different

flow, transfer

values

for

2001

and. 2002, results

of

only

50

and 400 ingd

flow transfer

simulations

for

2001

are

freaented

here since simulation results show that different levels of

augmentation

without

•aexation

do

not

affect the DO concentration

at 1-55.

feasured

DO

concentrations

at Jackson Boulevard

can get as Iovi

as 1.1

mg/L and

mostly

fluctuate between

4 and

6

rug/i.

Qgure

2). Môasured DO

Ooncentrations

at

1-55

(Bubbly

Creek) are always lower than Jackson Boulevard

DO concentratins

and

get as

‘Tow

as 0 ngL at

certain periods.

Simulated

DO

concentrations

at Throop

Street are

• usually

lorthan Jackson

Boulevard

DO

concentrations.

Table LPezcéntage

of

time that dissolved óygenconcentraticsns

are greater

than

the

target

concentrations

at Jackson Boulevarti (South Branch Chicago River)

for3ulyl2-

.Noyen

10,2001

fordiff twlthdnLwal

values

for

flow

entation

Table

2.

Percentage

of time

that dissolved oxygen concentrations

are gtaterthan

the

target

concentrations

at 1-55

(Bubbly

Creek) for

3uly

12-November10, 2001

for

lifferent

withdrawal v

dues fc i

flow a

iginent Ltlon

I

I

I.

I

.1

‘No

asddtrsorvc1 cygcad

aavaIJa

Fefor2Ol

I

I

4

1’

I.

1•

I

—4

8-4.

---

I.

Dtesohred

Oxygea

ConeehcbaUantDIfterefltLocaUons:

Jacon

Uou1eva-d4-S-Throop

Street- SftS,2002

1

——

-•54bwe

40

t•

ii

P’

J:)

8

g 2U

Date

DissoEved

Oxygen

ConcenctraUànsat

DEtterent

Locations:

Jàdcson BouIévard.Thröog

Street,

7112-11110,2001

—J001csonHoudy

measured

—11wzp

StrooW-toudy

eKmuated

(

I

I

I

.1

(

1

1.•

I

I.

I.

I

1-

Piguré2 Dissolved

oxygen (DO)

conàeatratlons

measured at Jackson

Boulevard

on the

-South Branch aitcago-fliver

and 1-55

on Bubbly

Creek

and simulated

at Thnop

Skeet

on

the South Branch

Chlcsgo River

for July

IZ to

loveinbei

10, 2001

and

May

1

to

• September

23,.

2002 (no

measured DO

available for

the 2001

perIod,

at 1-55

(Bubbly

IC))

(ntyg

9)

cion

tsation easured

.

cksonRQuIevard--{1etaL1i

the

-South Branch .Chiciago

River and

1-55 on

Bubly Créelc

au4

simulated

at

Throop

Street

on the

South

BranchCbicago

Rivet

for July 12 to

November10,

2001

and

May 1.

to September 23.2002

(no

measured

DO

available for the

2001

period at

I55

(Bubbly

Qek))

-.

-

B-5

---

Comparison

of

nfeasnre4

hourly DO

concentration, plots for

Jackson

Boulevard

and

Cicero

Avenue

for

2001 and

2002

snzulatiompedods are given

In

Pigiue

3.

Conparison

of

the

simulated

(baseline) DO

concentration

at

Throop.Street

and

1-55 for

the 2001

and

•

2002 simulation

periods

are

given in P1guiu

4.

lgures 3 and

4

show

that DO

cncenIrattons

at

Cicero

Avenue are always

lower

than Jackson

Boulevard

DO

concentrations

and

slinulated

DO oncentrations

at

‘Throop

&reet and 1-55 are almost

Identichi

The

agtuoment

between

Throop Street

and 1-55

results hecause during

periods

ofnoflow!nflubblyCreekthcambieutwaterqualityintheSBCRandCSSCdominates

• the downstream

reaches.

of

Bubbly

Creek, whereas when

the Racine

Avenue

Pumping

•

“.Stationis.operating

watet quality at

the

downstçeanrend of

Bubbly Creekhas

alargè

effect

on water quality In

the

nearby portions

of the SBCR.

and

CSSC.

FIgures

3

and 4

also show that thnu1atcd1IO

concentrations at Throop

Street show a very similar

trend

• with Cicero

Avenue DO

concentrations. Since Simulated

.DO•coucentrations

just at the

upstream

and downstream

of

the

junction of the SBCL

audi3nbbly Creek

are

very

similar

to

Bubbly

CreelcDO concentrations

1

Bubbly Creek

augnicatation without aeration

did nt

•

reprove DO

concentrations in Bubbly

Creek.

••

‘1

•.

•

1: •

B—6

---

I

•1

I.

-O

0

1:

I

Dissolved

Oxygen

Concenc1raUansatDEffeient

Locations:

Jackson

Boulevard-Cicero

Avenue,

7I12411i0

2001

Jackson-Howly

measured

Clceh-Houdy

measured

1.1

Dissolved

Oxyien

öoncencirattons

at

Different

Locations:

Jackson

Dutovard-C(coro

Avenue.

fI-0P23.

2002

I

a

Dite

Figure

3.

domparison

of measurectDO

concentrations

at

Jackson

Boulevani

and Cicern

Avenue

for

July12

to

November10,

2001

and

May

1 to September23,

2002

1

S.

1

I

B—7

---

I

Dissolved

Oxygen

Coftcenctrattanset

Dflterent

LaaUons:

Thraop

Street,

t.5,

7112-11110,2001

-

Dtotved

t)qen

ConoenctraUana

at

Pifforant

Locations:

.5ti-Throvp

Streot-

6(1-01*2002

1:

i

I

I.

F1gur

4.

Comparison

of

simulated

DO

concentrations

at

1-55

and

Thmáp

Street

for

baseline,

conditions

(no

tmnsfer)

for

Itziy

12

t

November

10,

2001

and

May

1

to

8ptember

23

2002.

I

1•

1’

I

I

I

I.

I

Data

LbasaUno)

1hop

Street-

Slmdated

(basslina)

-S

Date

8-8

---

1.

•

•

PLOWAUGMENTA.TION

wrnl

AERkTION.FORJiUBBLY

CREEK

In

this

section,

results

of

shreilations

of

scenarios

of

Bubbly

Qeek

flow

augmentation

with

aeration

are

presented. In

these

lninThtions,

saturation

DO

concentrations

were

assigned

to

the

augmented flow.

The

rest

of

the

water

quality

variables

were

kept

the

same

as

the

sinlulated

Throop

Street

concentrations.

3aclcson

Boulevard

water

temperatures

were

used

to

calculate

saturation

concentrations

(Figures

5

and

6).

This

makes

the

following

simulation

results

somewhat

optimistic

because

the

Midwest’

Generation

Flak

Power

Plant

sits

between

Saclraon

Boulevard

and

Throop

Street

and

onarison

of

monthly

sample

data

at

Madison

Street

and

Damen

Avenue

indicate

about

al°C

temperature

Inereasepriniarily

due

te

the

Fisk

Power

Plant

Because

only

monthly

data

are

ayallableto

estimate

the

temperature

Inerease

and

this

is

a

preThninmy,

planning

level

analysis

no

attempt

was

made

to

account

for

the

empeauture

Inerease.

In

the

actual

design

of

a

flow

transfer

atheme,

th

temperature

increase

resulting

from

the

ElskPower

Plant

should

be

considered.

Jackson

Uoutevard,7It2$1ltO

2001

Jackson

Dvanf7I1241!l020O1

:

..

w

a

..•

0

0

C

a

a

C

C

F

1’

I

j..

Dab

Figure

5.

Temperture

(°C

and

calculated

saturation

dissolved

oxygen

(DO)

concentrations

at

Jackson

Boulevard

for

July12

to

November10,

2001’

JactcsonEoukvard

1

Wt.3,20O2

ac

:

Is

I•

Jackson

aoulcvai

I-W23

1002

C

.‘....

Data

Figur6

6.

Temperature

(°C)

and

calculated

saturation

dissolved

oxygen

(DO)

concentrations

at

Jackson

Boulevard

for

May

1

to

September23,

2002

Dab

•

.

.

••

I

I.

8—9

---

I.

I

ISUL1

OF

TUE

AERATEI)

AUGMENTATION

SIMULATIONS

The

percentage

of

houts

that

target

DO

concentrations

of

3,4,5.

and

6

mgIL

are

equaled

•

or

exceeded

for

July

12

-

Noeinhar

10,

2001

are

listed

In

Tables

44

for.

Jackson

Boulevan

(SBCR),

I-55(BubblyCiu4),

and

Cicero-Avenue

(C$SC),

respectively.

•Tablc

4.

Ecreentage

of

time

that

dIssolved

oxygen

concentrations

arc

greater

than

the

target

concentrations

at

Jackson

Boulevani

(South

Branch

Chicago

Purer)

for

July

12-

•

..

November10.

2001

fo

fferentwithdrawnl

values

for

aerated

flow

augmentation

-1

1:

I

cenario

3mg/L

4mgIL

6gIL

Jackson-2001

dry

wet

.diy

wet

dry

wet

dry

W

Measured

98.2

92.9

91.4

825

67.6

54.0

41.9

16.9

Calibrated

91.3

943

78.6

87.0

..

64.7.

72.1

43.1

362

5Gmgd

91.5

94.4

19.0

87.6

65.9

72.4

433

-36.4

1QO

xugd

92.0

94.7

79.3

87.9

66.4

7.5

44.1

363

200

ugd

93.2

95.2

79.7

88.5

67.7

72.9

45.3

36.7

400

rngd

95.1

•

95.9

81.6

8:92

68.6

73.6

46.9

373

4SOmgd

95.4

T

82.0W

7

68.7

ZF

47.1

•

550mgd

962

96.1

822

89.4

.

68.9

74.7

472

37.7

•

Table

5.

Percentage

of

time

that

dissolved

oxygen

conceiktrations.

are

greater

than

the

target

concentrations

at

1-55

(Bubbly

Creek)

for

July

12

—

November

10,

20)1

for

•

different

withdrawal

values

for

wrated

flow

augmentation

:Sc6nario

3uig/L

4ing!L

5mg(L

6ing/L

l-55-2001

wet

&T

Measured

-

-.

-

-••

Calibrated

71.2

66.1

564

41.0

41.8

31.6.

25.9

20.3

50

zugcl

83.0

73.0

60.4

44.6

45.5

33.7

.

97

lOGmgd

873

81.4

6.5

3.

200mgd

:.

913

915

84.3

72.8

60.1

40.9

443

287

400

mgd

100.0

962

.92.

912

862

72.8

56.0

363

450

uigd

100.0

97.0

96.6

93i

87.8

75.8

60.6

39.6

550

wgd

100.0

100.0

99.7

5.4

.90.5

81.9

702

49.5

1•

I.

I

•1

I.

.

.

.

I

B—iD

---

Scenario

3mglL

4mg/I.

5nig/L

6nigJL

Cicem-2001

dry

wet

dry

wet

dry

wet

dri

wet

•Measàred

83.8

71.5

54.9

46.8

27.6

15.9

22.8

0.1

CalIbrated

85.4

70.4

58.7

40.0

43.6

289

27.6

19.4

50 nigd

88.4

753

60.8

45:7.

453

29.4 302

21.0

100 xngd

89.5

79.7

67.9

50.8

470 29.8

32.6

21.8

200mgd

913

82.4

81.8

66

55.1

30.6.

36.4

25.0

400mgd

960. 90.9

89.0

. 723

67.4

41.0 44.8

26.8

450

wgd

963

91.7 . 893

753 72.5

44.5.

453

26.9

550 nigd

98.7

93.7

. 91.3

77.8

813

52.9

48.4

27.3

Results of the

aerated flow

augmentation

thimlations

show

that aeration of the transferred

flow

Improves

the DO

conditions

in

Bubbly. Creek. It can

he

seen that the

transfer

of

550

.rngdof aerated flow results

in•attalthnent

of

DO

concentrations

In

excess

of

3 mgIL

ati

.55 during

dry

and wet weather

100

percent

of

the tIrne

Whereas 3 uigL DO

concentrations

are achieved

100

perce.nt

of the time during

just dry

weather for 400 and

450

n)gd

transfer

simulations.’

More

than

95% of

the

time the.4

usgIL

DO target level Is

ch1eved

with

a transfer

of 550 mgd

both

for wetand dry

periods. Results also show

that

aerated flow

augmentation Influences

the DO onôentrations

at locations

downstream

from the

Junction

of

Bubbly

Creek and the

SBCR Table

6). At Cicero Avenue the

• percentage

compliance

with

tbe.3

ing/L DO

target

level increased from 85.4

%

an4

70.4

• %

for wet and dry

jeriods, reapcctlvely,

d9rlng

calibration

to 98.7%

and 93.7%

for

Wet

• and

dry erlods,,

resective1y. for

a

transfer of 550

rngd

of

aerated

SBCR ‘water.

Even

though aerated

augmentation

sitiinlatiotis

have

little

effect

on DO

concentrations

at

Iaelrson Bonlevani

CTabl6

4) it

in possible

to

see

the effect

of

a&ated

augmentation

operations

along

the

CSSC

until

the

downstream boundary

(Römeovllle) of the

modeled

section

of

theriversystein (rable

7)

The percentage of

houts

that

targétDO

concentrations

of

34,5, and

6 mg/I. are

equaled

or

exceeded

foithe lotal

period

of May

1-September

23,2002

are

listed

In Tables 8-10

for Jackson

Boulevard (SBCR), 1-55

(Bubbly Ofeek),

and Cicero

Avenue (CSSC),

tery.

•

Table

6. Peaucatage of time

jhat dissolved

oxygen

colicentrations

are greater than the

target concentrations at

Cicero Avenue

(Chicago Sanitary

and

Ship

Cattal)

for

Iuly 12-

Roveniber 10. 2001

for

dlfferentwithdrawal

values

for

aerated.flow

aunmentation

I

•1

1•

I.

I

B—il

---

I

I

[

1

Scenario

-

3 mgIL

4

nigfL

-

5

mgiL

6

mgIL

Romo’vlile-2001

dry

wet

dry

wet

Dry

wet

dry

wet

Measured

93.5

67.7

74.0

3&.0

30.7

12.0

21.5

02

Calibrated

79.5

i

63.960.942.4

332

i

50

ingd

80.3

86.5

66.1

62.4

45.5

34.9

29.6

22.3

100

ingd

81.3

87.2.

68.7

642

46.7

35.4

30.7

22.9

200mgd

82.8

87.8

71.6.

70.7

512

38.4

322

24

.400

mgd

84.8

90.1

72.9

73.7

57.1

43.2

.

33.5

263

450

mgd.

853

Z

.

Zi

E

442

j3

26.6

550

ingd

86.1

91.1

73.7

753

59.7

46.6.

34.7

22.0

TableS.

Percentage

of

time

that

dissolved

oxygen

concentrations

arc

greater

than

the

target

concentrations

at

Jackson

Boulevani

(South

Branch

Ciicago

Ever)

for

May

1-

eotember

23.2002

for

different

withdrawal

values

for

aerated

flow

I.

Scen.do

4f[,

.

SmWl,

.

6xnga..

Jackson-2002

øjy

w

cIty

•vet

dry

wet

dry

Wet

Measured

.

97.3

922

85.9

81.5

5.6

60.7

15.8

239

Calibrated

12

.

33

.-Th-

202

33

50ngd

993

.

93$

.3

1i

55.0

100

nigd.

99.5

93.6

64.4

82.6

47.4

74.4

56.

24J0

nigd

.

99.8

.

94.3

69.1

842

48.7

75.3.

.

23.8

58.6

400

mgd.

100.0

95.4

74.5

87.2

5O

78.4

26.7

.61.6

450

rngd

•.

[00.0

95.7.

76.6

87.7

52.Q