ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
 REGARDING R82-3: A SITE 
 SPECIFIC EXEMPTION FOR THE 
 ALTON WATER COMPANY 
 
 Document No. 83/03 
 
 GSR 
 
 Illinois Department of 
 
 Energy and Natural Resources 
 
 James R. Thompson, Governor 
 Michael B. Witte, Director 
 
 Printed by the Authority of the State of Illinois 
 
 ^^^ 81984 
 
OAi: ST "^'^P 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF 
 
 ILLINOIS LIBRARY 
 
 AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 STACKS 
 
Doc. No. 83/03 
 January, 1983 
 
 ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGARDING R82-3, 
 A SITE SPECIFIC EXEMPTION FOR THE ALTON WATER COMPANY 
 
 Submitted by 
 
 Linda L. Huff 
 Thomas D. Straits 
 HUFF & HUFF, INC. 
 
 Project SO. 280 
 
 James R. Thompson, Governor Michael B, Witte, Director 
 
 State of Illinois Illinois Department of Energy 
 
 end Natural .Resources 
 
 Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources 
 325 W. Adams, Suite 300 
 Springfield, Illinois 62706 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2013 
 
 http://archive.org/details/economicimpactas8303huff 
 

 NOTE 
 
 This report has been reviewed by the Department of Energy and Natural 
 Resources and approved for publication. Views expressed are those of 
 the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the position of DENR. 
 
 Printed by the Authority of the State of Illinois 
 Date Printed: March, 1984 
 Quantity Printed: 120 
 
 One of a series of research publications published since 1975. This 
 series includes the following categories and are color coded as follows 
 
 
 Prior to 
 
 After 
 
 
 July. 1982 
 
 July, 1982 
 
 Air Quality 
 
 - Green 
 
 Green 
 
 Water 
 
 - Blue 
 
 Blue 
 
 Environmental Health 
 
 - White 
 
 Grey 
 
 Solid and Hazardous Waste 
 
 - White 
 
 Olive 
 
 Economic Impact Study 
 
 - Buff 
 
 Brown 
 
 Noise Management 
 
 - Buff 
 
 Orange 
 
 Energy 
 
 - Cherry 
 
 Red 
 
 Information Services 
 
 - Canary 
 
 Yellow 
 
 Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources 
 
 325 West Adams Street 
 
 Springfield, Illinois 62706 
 
 (217) 785-2800 
 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 
 €CONOMIC TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
 Opinion 
 
 The Economic Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC) of the Illinois Department 
 of Energy and Natural Resources (IDENR) has reviewed and approved a study entitled: 
 Economic Impact Assessment of Proposed Regulation R82-3: A Site Specific Exemption 
 for the Alton Water Company . The committee finds that this study is responsive to 
 the provisions of Section 4 of Public Act 80-1218. 
 
 Proposed regulation R82-3 was filed by the Alton Water Company (AWC) for an 
 exemption from the 15mg/l suspended solids effluent limitation of Rule 408, of 
 Chapter 3, Illinois Pollution Board Water Pollution Regulations. 
 
 In order to determine the cost and benefits of this regulation, the IDENR 
 consultant evaluated three scenarios: 1) Existing conditions; 2) Partial treatment 
 of the discharges and 3) full treatment of the discharges. 
 
 The benefits and costs of option (1) are 0. The cost of option (2) is 
 estimated at a low of $116,000 to a high of $242,000. The benefits range from 
 to $3,500 per annum. The annual cost of option (3) is estimated at $517,000. The 
 benefits lie within a range of to $5,200, The partial or total cost to the Alton 
 Water Co. exceeds the corresponding benefits. 
 
 The benefits of enforcing the suspended solids and iron limitations accrue 
 to the downstream water users. The consultant found four user categories for the 
 benefit analysis. There are:l)Environmental impact on benefits communities, fish 
 and other aquatic organisms; 2) Recreational users and others who reside near the 
 stream; 3)Downstream public water supplies who use the Mississippi River; 4) Effects 
 on navigational cost, such as dredging. Each of these benefit categories are 
 reviewed in detail in Chapter 4. These benefits are associated with the total 
 elimination of the Alton Water Company discharge. The consultant generally concludes 
 that there is no deleterious effect on habitat. 
 
In reviewing the foregoing benefit categories, the reduced cost to public 
 water supplies range from $0 to $1,200 per year, while the beneficial savings 
 to dredging operations varied between $0 to $4,000 per year. Thus, the 
 quantifiable benefits, as referenced above, range between $0 and $5,200 per 
 year. The actual benefits would fall into this range. Unfortunately, dollar 
 values could not be assigned to aesthetic improvements. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Figures iii 
 
 Tables iv 
 
 Executive Summary 1 
 
 1. Introduction 2 
 
 2. Background to the Problem 4 
 
 Description of Wastewater Discharge 4 
 
 Available Water Quality Information 8 
 
 Stream Use 10 
 
 3. Costs of Regulation 13 
 
 Disposal Practices of Water Treatment Plants .... 13 
 
 Alternatives for Disposal of Water Treatment Residue 17 
 
 Treatment Costs 20 
 
 Environmental Costs of Regulation 25 
 
 4. Benefits of Regulation 37 
 
 Environmental Impacts 37 
 
 Public Water Supplies 47 
 
 Benefits to Navigation 50 
 
 Aesthetics 52 
 
 Summary of Benefits 53 
 
 5. Comparison of Costs and Benefits 54 
 
 Elimination of Alton Water Company Discharge .... 54 
 
 Alternative Treatment Level Benefits 54 
 
 Alternative Treatment Level Costs ' . . . 59 
 
Incremental Treatment Level Costs 59 
 
 6. Economic Impact Upon Alton Water Company 62 
 
 Financial Characteristics of Company 62 
 
 Economic Effects on Pollution Control Investment ... 67 
 
 References 69 
 
FIGURES 
 
 Number Page 
 
 2-1 Water Treatment Units at Alton 5 
 
 3-1 Sampling Stations 26 
 
 3-2 Average Sediment Composition 29 
 
 3-3 Tolerance .Status of Total Individuals and by Percentage 
 
 Basis Per Stream Station 35 
 
TABLES 
 
 Number Page 
 
 2-1 Daily and Annual Estimated Mass Balance of Solids to the 
 
 Alton Water Treatment Plant by Treatment Unit 7 
 
 2-2 Comparison of Iron and Aluminum Concentrations in Sludge, 
 
 Soil, and Sediments 9 
 
 2-3 Historical Sulfate Water Quality Values on the Mississippi 
 
 River 11 
 
 2-4 Historical Water Quality Values for Iron and Specific 
 
 Conductance on Mississippi River 12 
 
 3-1 Disposal Techniques for Basin Sludge in 1970 in Illinois. . 15 
 
 3-2 Disposal Techniques for Filter Backwash in Illinois in 1970 16 
 
 3-3 Economic Analysis of Dewatering Equipment 19 
 
 3-4 Capital Investment for Treatment Alternatives 21 
 
 3-5 Annual Costs of Treatment Options for Alton Water Company . 24 
 
 3-6 Mississippi River Sediment Sampling Stations Near Alton 
 
 Water Company Discharge 27 
 
 3-7 Comparison of Average Values Obtained from Chemical and 
 Physical Testing On Sediment Samples In and Out of the 
 Zone of Influence 30 
 
 4-1 Chemical Characteristics of Water Treatment Sludge .... 39 
 
 4-2 Summary of Inlake Pumpage for Public Water Supplies 
 
 Utilizing the Mississippi River Water 48 
 
 5-1 Comparison of Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Alton 
 Water Company Complying with the Illinois Effluent 
 Limitations 55 
 
 5-2 Comparison of Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Alton 
 
 Water Company Treating Only the Clarifier Blowdown Stream 60 
 
 6-1 1981 Statement of Income for Alton Water Company 64 
 
 6-2 Long-Term Debt of Alton Water Company 65 
 
 V 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
 The Alton Water Company petitioned for exemption from the 15 mg/£ 
 suspended solids effluent limitation of Rule 408, Chapter 3 Water Pollution 
 Regulations, This petition was based upon the high costs of the control 
 alternatives and the minimal environmental impacts. The Illinois State Water 
 Survey conducted a site study to evaluate environmental changes attributed 
 to the discharge. 
 
 To determine the costs and benefits of regulation, three scenarios 
 were evaluated. Existing conditions, partial treatment of the discharge, 
 and full treatment of the discharge described the potential alternatives 
 available. In assessing benefits to downstream uses the environmental biota, 
 public water supplies, navigation, and aesthetics were the four areas of 
 concern. Small quantifiable benefits were estimated for downstream water 
 supplies and dredging operations. The aesthetic values for users and non- 
 users could not be quantified because of lack of information regarding 
 attitudes toward water quality. The environment effects appeared to 
 be negligible or zero based upon the State Water Survey analysis. 
 
 The benefits and costs of regulation can be summarized as follows: 
 
 Annual Costs to Annual Benefits to 
 Scenario Alton Water Company, Downstream Uses 
 $/year $/year 
 
 Existing Conditions 
 
 Partial Compliance 116,000-242,000 - 3,500 
 
 Complete Compliance 517,000 - 5,200 
 
 It is evident that the costs to the Alton Water Company on a total cost or 
 incremental cost basis far exceed the corresponding benefits which have been 
 quantified. 
 
Chapter I 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 The Alton Water Company has requested a site specific rule change 
 (R82-3) to the effluent standards for total suspended solids and iron. 
 This site specific exemption is deemed necessary by the public utility 
 because the waste from the water purification process is discharged to the 
 Mississippi River, and this waste contains high concentrations of iron and 
 suspended solids. 
 
 The analysis of incremental benefits and costs depends upon the magnitude 
 
 of the treatment costs versus the environmental effects of water treatment plant 
 
 discharges. There are three regulatory- alternatives which are used to evaluate 
 
 the relative costs and benefits: 
 
 (1.) Full compliance with Rule 408(a) regarding suspended solids and 
 total iron limitations. There are several on-site treatment 
 options as well as off-site disposal. 
 
 (2.) Partial compliance with Rule 408(a). Alton has four waste streams 
 contributing suspended solids. The treatment of one or a combina- 
 tion of these streams would reduce the potential load. 
 
 (3.) Exemption of the Alton Water Company from Rule 408(a) for suspended 
 solids and iron would allow continuation of existing practices with 
 no additional treatment. 
 
 This range of options provides an indication of the tradeoffs between water qualitj 
 and treatment costs. Also, the economic burden upon the utility and its customers 
 is described. 
 
 Chapter II presents the background information concerning Alton Water 
 Company, pollutant loading discharged, and water quality.. Chapter III describes 
 the treatment options, their relative cost, and reduction in pollutant loading 
 to the river. The environmental study evaluating existing water quality impacts 
 
is summarized in Chapter IV. Chapter IV also contains the projected effects of 
 the regulatory alternatives upon water quality. In Chapter V the incremental 
 benefits and costs of each regulatory alternative are compared. The final 
 Chapter, VI, considers the economic impact upon the Alton Water Company, of the 
 various levels of treatment control strategies and their associated costs. 
 
Chapter II 
 BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM 
 
 The Alton Water Company presently discharges to the Mississippi River 
 wastewater from its 13.3 MGD water treatment facility. Since this practice 
 has been the only method of disposal at the site, existing environmental 
 conditions provide some indication of the impact of these wastewater effluents. 
 The quantity and quality of the pollutants discharged is first described. 
 Then, historical water quality data are reviewed for the pollutants of concern. 
 Description of Wastewater Discharge 
 
 The Alton Water Company provides public water supplies for Alton, Godfrey, 
 Elsah, and other water districts. The residential population served is approxi- 
 mately 16,900 including industrial and commercial customers. The water treatment 
 plant presently has a rated filter capacity of 13.3 MGD. 
 
 Water drawn from the Mississippi River is treated by coagulation, settling, 
 and filtration. Figure 2-1 depicts the treatment sequence prior to transmission 
 to water customers. The raw water is dosed with alum and polymer at the pump 
 intake. The water then flows to two mixers followed by a clarifier. Some lime 
 may be added in the clarifier for pH adjustment. After an average detention 
 time of 75 minutes in the clarifier, the water proceeds to two sedimentation 
 basins followed by 14 filters. The units which produce wastes include the 
 mixers, clarifiers, sedimentation basins, and filters. 
 
 The Illinois State Water Survey conducted a detailed study of the 
 quantities and chemical characteristics of the wastewater, an analysis of bottom 
 sediments in the river, and an analysis of benthic organisms in the river sedi- 
 ment. Evans, Hill, Schnepper, and Hullinger^ estimated the total pollutant 
 
 II 
 
» f 
 
 Sifuctur* 
 
 Filter 
 Housing 
 
 WATER TREATMENT UNITS AT ALTON 
 
 o 
 
 Sedimentation tsasin 
 
 Sedimentation basin 
 
 Clear Well 
 
 Figure 2-1. Water Treatment Units at Alton 
 
 SOURCE: Evans, R., Hill, T., Schnepper, D., and Hullinger, D., 
 Waste from the Water Treatment Plant at Alton and Its Impact On 
 the Mississippi River , Illinois State Water Survey, Contract 
 Report 275, July 1981 
 
loading from the process units for two periods of the year. The different 
 
 process units discharge waste material at varying frequencies throughout the 
 
 year. To determine a "daily volume" of waste produced, the following flushing 
 
 schedule was utilized: 
 
 (1.) Mixers and sedimentation basins dewatered twice a year 
 
 (2.) Discharging blowdown from clarifiers at 200 gpm for 
 60 minutes once every three days 
 
 (3.) Flushing the mixers and sedimentation basins at 200 gpm 
 for 4 hours, twice a year 
 
 (4.) Assuming filter backwash for 24 filters per day at daily 
 volumes observed 
 
 Evans et aU estimated the average generation of wastewater was 602,000 gpd 
 
 or 4.8% of the raw water volume pumped daily. 
 
 Because the amount of solids discharged to the river is a function of the 
 river quality, Evans et al divided the year into two intervals. During the 
 winter months the river turbidity is significantly lower than during the spring 
 and summer months. In Period 1 (April 1980 through November 1980), the suspended 
 solids in the raw intake water averaged 128 mg/£, and this resulted in 13,214 
 pounds per day of solids plus 126 pounds of alum being removed. The suspended 
 solids concentration in the Mississippi River only averaged 23 mg/s, during Period 
 2. Thus, daily solids generation in Period 2 was 2,679 pounds (221 pounds of 
 alum plus 2,458 pounds of solids). 
 
 Table 2-1 summarizes the sources of solids generation according to 
 Period 1 and Period 2 contribution. Period 1 represents 88% of the annual solids 
 generation because of the quality of intake water. Although the values in Table 
 2-1 are based upon measured conditions, Evans et al did not consider the clarifier 
 blowdown data reliable. Consequently, blowdown quantities represent the difference] 
 
I/) 
 
 c 
 
 ■o 
 
 => 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 p— 
 
 ■«-> 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 UO 
 
 (U 
 
 
 c 
 
 ^- 
 
 ■•-> 
 
 o 
 
 «o 
 
 
 01 
 
 (U 
 
 ^ 
 
 u 
 
 h- 
 
 c 
 
 
 (O 
 
 >> 
 
 !-■• 
 
 ^ 
 
 « 
 
 
 CO 
 
 -«-> 
 
 
 c 
 
 (/> 
 
 (T3 
 
 </) 
 
 ^— 
 
 rt3 
 
 Q. 
 
 z: 
 
 
 
 4J 
 
 ■a 
 
 C 
 
 <D 
 
 <u 
 
 •M 
 
 E 
 
 (O 
 
 •M 
 
 E 
 
 (O 
 
 
 (U 
 
 •M 
 
 &. 
 
 to J— 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 
 s. 
 
 r— 
 
 <u 
 
 fO 
 
 4-> 
 
 3 
 
 TS 
 
 C 3 
 
 C 
 
 
 <: 
 
 c 
 
 
 o 
 
 -a 
 
 •M 
 
 c 
 
 ^- 
 
 ITS 
 
 cC 
 
 
 CJ3 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 l>0 
 
 >^ 0) 
 
 a o 
 
 I 
 
 (U 
 
 to 
 
 CM 
 
 ■o 
 
 O 
 
 s- 
 
 O) 
 
 a. 
 
 o s- 
 
 •^ t—t fO 
 
 ■^ <v 
 
 p- <TJ T3 >i 
 (O I— O ~^ 
 -t-> 3 -f- tn 
 O E 4- J3 
 1— 3 (U r— 
 U O. 
 U 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 fl 1 — J/) 
 ■*-> 3 J3 
 O E .— 
 )— 3 
 U 
 U 
 
 >> C (TJ 
 f— -r- T3 
 
 •r- -a -^ 
 
 (O ro (/) 
 O O X3 
 
 o 
 
 •r- 
 
 i- 
 O) 
 
 O- 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 4-> 
 
 
 1— 
 
 fO 
 
 
 « 
 ■«-> 
 
 3 
 
 </1 
 
 o 
 
 E JH 
 
 H- 
 
 3 
 U 
 
 <: 
 
 T3 
 1/1 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^" 
 
 
 
 •P" 
 
 A 
 
 
 <T3 
 
 cn 
 
 
 O 
 
 c 
 
 <T3 
 O 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 U3 
 
 ro 
 
 O 
 O 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 UO 
 
 00 
 
 A 
 
 o 
 **• 
 cn 
 
 m 
 
 O 
 O 
 O 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 «3- 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 «:3- 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CM 
 CM 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 O 
 CO 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 IT) 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 CM 
 
 c 
 
 M 
 
 <T3 
 
 Lf) 
 
 r*~ 
 
 rv. 
 
 Q_ 
 
 CM 
 
 4-> 
 
 4J 
 
 c 
 
 S- 
 
 a; 
 
 o 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 ■P 
 
 0) 
 
 TS 
 
 q: 
 
 Ol 
 
 
 U 
 
 4.J 
 
 1— 
 
 o 
 
 
 TJ 
 
 ;- 
 
 S_ 
 
 OJ 
 
 4-) 
 
 ■M 
 
 c 
 
 la 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 C_3 
 
 <U 
 
 M 
 
 ^ 
 
 >> 
 
 ■M 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 > 
 
 E 
 
 s- 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 i- 
 
 on 
 
 <*~ 
 
 
 
 S- 
 
 O) 
 
 <u 
 
 4-) 
 
 4-> 
 
 CO 
 
 <a 
 
 TS 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 
 •M 
 
 « 
 
 rO 
 
 Q 
 
 •t-> 
 
 
 (/I 
 
 M 
 
 
 S- 
 
 (/) 
 
 0) 
 
 • (-> 
 
 ai 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 3 >-• 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 LO 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 ICi 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 ID 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 CM 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 "a- 
 
 CM 
 
 CSJ 
 
 CM 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 Lf) 
 
 00 
 CM 
 
 O 
 
 cn 
 
 •a 
 
 s_ 
 
 c 
 
 OJ 
 
 (T3 
 
 > 
 
 
 -r— 
 
 • 
 
 cc 
 
 Q 
 
 .,- 
 
 
 a. 
 
 m 
 
 a. 
 
 S- 
 
 • r* 
 
 cu 
 
 in 
 
 Q. 
 
 </» 
 
 CL 
 
 •r— 
 
 (U 
 
 U1 
 
 c 
 
 00 
 
 J= 
 
 • p- 
 
 u 
 
 2 
 
 CO 
 
 
 (U 
 
 ■o 
 
 
 •r- 
 
 ■ r- 
 
 
 &. 
 
 
 ■M 
 
 
 
 
 <u 
 
 
 3 
 
 ■o 
 
 T3 
 
 E </i 
 
 E -r- 
 
 
 Ql 
 
 a; </> 
 
 (U t/l 
 
 O i- 
 
 O i^ 
 
 CO 
 
 C 
 
 ■l-> L. 
 
 ■t-» C 
 
 i- OJ 
 
 S_ -r- 
 
 ^. 
 
 ►— * 
 
 « 0) 
 
 fO -f- 
 
 tf- -M 
 
 ^- L. 
 
 <o 
 
 
 1— X 
 
 ^- CO 
 
 r^ 
 
 lO 
 
 ■M 
 
 (/) 
 
 3 -r- 
 
 3 ITJ 
 
 CO -1- 
 
 CO 1— 
 
 o 
 
 ■o 
 
 E z: 
 
 E CO 
 
 -a u. 
 
 ■o o 
 
 I— 
 
 •^ 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 •^» 
 
 
 
 p^ 
 
 O 
 
 U 
 
 P*- 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 o 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 OO 
 
 P <: 
 
 <C 
 
 cn 
 
 OO 
 
 
 ■ — -t-) 
 
 Q. 
 
 CO 
 
 " -(-> 
 
 CO ►— 
 
 c 
 
 (T3 "O 
 > C 
 UJ n3 
 
 c 
 
 .. o 
 UJ •)-> 
 
 o >— 
 ce < 
 
 o 
 oo 
 
 03 
 
 CO 
 
 cr> 
 
 3 
 
between daily loads and measured solids from the mixers, basins, and filters. 
 Still in Period 1 the clarifiers accounted for 78.5% of the solids removal while 
 in Period 2 there was essentially no removal by this unit. In Period 2 the filter 
 backwash was the most efficient unit removing 49.2% of the solids. 
 
 The 3.27 million pounds per year of solids flushed to the river consist 
 primarily of concentrated materials already present in the river with additional 
 chemicals from water treatment. Evans et al measured the iron and aluminum 
 concentrations in the water treatment sludges since these two parameters have 
 historically occurred in other water treatment discharges.^ The measured iron 
 and aluminum concentrations in the Alton waste is compared to other sediments 
 in Table 2-2. The iron concentration of 32,300 ppm to 44,000 ppm in the water 
 treatment plant sludges is higher than is normally found in the sediments of the 
 streams or soils in Southern Illinois. The aluminum values of 20,000 ppm to 
 55,000 ppm are similar to the lake sediments and dry soil analysis. The value 
 reported for the Mississippi River sediments was 27,000 ppm, which is comparable 
 to the mixer sludge but less than the basin sludge concentration. 
 
 In previous work, Evans et al reported increases in sulfate, turbidity, 
 and aluminum immediately downstream of the Pontiac water treatment pi ant. ^ No 
 changes were detected in suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, silica, or other 
 chemical characteristics. In reviewing the existing water quality data base, 
 as described in the following section, these parameters were all considered. 
 Available Water Quality Information 
 
 The present discharge of the Alton Water Company occurs at Mississippi 
 River mile 204.2, just 1.32 miles upstream of Lock and Dam No. 26. There are 
 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (lEPA) monitoring stations located at 
 
Table 2-2. Comparison of Iron and Aluminum Concentrations 
 
 in Sludge., Soil, and Sediments 
 
 
 
 Iron 
 
 Aluminum 
 
 Source 
 
 Concentration, 
 
 Concentration, 
 
 
 ppm 
 
 ppm 
 
 Alton mixers 
 
 32,300 - 44,000 
 
 20,000 - 26,300 
 
 Alton basins 
 
 32,950 - 41,000 
 
 39,250 - 55,000 
 
 Soils in So. Illinois 
 
 9,000 - 20,000 
 
 
 Stream sediments 
 
 10,500 - 15,000 
 
 
 Lake sediments 
 
 9,300 - 36,000 
 
 
 Lake Michigan Sediments 
 
 
 4,200 - 40,000 
 
 Dry Soil 
 
 
 10,000 -300,000 
 
 Great Lakes sediments 
 
 
 50,000 - 81,000 
 
 Horseshoe Lake sediments 
 
 
 48,900 - 52,100 
 
 Mississippi River sediments^/ 
 
 
 27,400 
 
 Note: a/ References for Mississippi River sediments are 1,2,3,4,5, and 6, 
 as contained within the Evans report. 
 
 Source: Evans, R. , Hill, T., Schnepper, D., and Hul linger, D., Waste from 
 the Water Treatment Plant at Alton and Its Impact on the Mississi- 
 ppi River , SWS Report 275, July, 1981 
 
10 
 
 the Alton water intake (J 03) and at the East St. Louis water intake (J 02), 
 which is 20 miles downstream. There are no monitoring points located 
 immediately downstream of the Alton Water Company. 
 
 Tables 2-3 and 2-4 summarize the available sulfate, iron, and specific 
 conductance information for these two water quality stations. The concentra- 
 tions do not demonstrate any consistent trend or pattern historically 
 between stations. The two stations are separated by the Lock and Dam No 26 and 
 approximately 20 miles. Thus, any effects of the Alton discharge would be 
 dissipated before the East St. Louis sampling point. The iron concentration 
 in the Mississippi River actually exceed the water quality standard in several 
 samples both upstream and downstream of Alton. This is a natural phenomenon 
 attributed to geologic conditions in Illinois. 
 Stream Use 
 
 The Mississippi River is a general use river which accommodates many uses, 
 such as navigation, commerce, recreation, and drinking water supplies. The 
 actual shoreline use downstream of the Alton Water Company is important not only 
 for depicting immediate downstream uses but also land availability. Next to the 
 Alton Water Company are two commercial /industrial facilities. A grain dock, 
 petroleum dock, and sand operation are all immediately downstream and adjacent 
 to the shoreline. These facilities are located within 3000 feet of the Alton 
 Water Company discharge. 
 
11 
 
 Table 2-3. Historical Sulfate Water Quality 
 Values on the Mississippi River 
 
 East St. Louis Water Intake (J02) 
 
 Alton Water Intake (J03) 
 
 Year 
 
 No. of Min. Ave. Max. 
 Samples Value Value Value 
 
 No. of Min. Avg. Max. 
 Samples Value Value Value 
 
 
 
 
 Sulfate 
 
 1 Concentrat 
 
 ions, mg/i 
 
 
 
 1968 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 15 
 
 23 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 17 
 
 25 
 
 1969 
 
 10 
 
 9 . 
 
 24 
 
 48 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 39 
 
 1970 
 
 10 
 
 31 
 
 91 
 
 85 
 
 11 
 
 16 
 
 57 
 
 86 
 
 1971 
 
 12 
 
 30 
 
 . 63 
 
 104 
 
 11 
 
 24 
 
 63 
 
 140 
 
 1972 
 
 6 
 
 55 
 
 66 
 
 76 
 
 2 
 
 75 
 
 78 
 
 80 
 
 1973 
 
 3 
 
 35 
 
 43 
 
 48 
 
 5 
 
 35 
 
 53 
 
 62 
 
 1974 
 
 1 
 
 70 
 
 70 
 
 70 
 
 3 
 
 25 
 
 52 
 
 79 
 
 1975 
 
 2 
 
 45 
 
 50 
 
 55 
 
 3 
 
 50 
 
 53 
 
 60 
 
 1976 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 80 
 
 80 
 
 80 
 
 1977 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 40 
 
 53 
 
 65 
 
 1978 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 10 
 
 32 
 
 41 
 
 54 
 
 1979 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 11 
 
 32 
 
 53 
 
 78 
 
 1980 
 
 Avg. 
 
 35.5 
 
 53 
 
 64 
 
 11 
 
 31 
 34.5 
 
 49 
 
 73 
 
 Total 
 
 51.5 
 
 71 
 
 SOURCE: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and USGS, Water Resources Data 
 for Illinois, 1968-1980. 
 
12 
 
 Table 2-4. Historical Water Quality Values for Iron and 
 Specific Conductance on Mississippi River 
 
 Year 
 
 East St. Louis Water Intake (J02) 
 (river mile - 180) 
 
 Alton Water Intake (J03) 
 (river mile - 200) 
 
 No. of 
 Samples 
 
 Min. 
 Value 
 
 Avg. 
 Value 
 
 Max. 
 Value 
 
 No. of 
 Samples 
 
 Min. 
 Value 
 
 Avg. 
 Value 
 
 Max. 
 Value 
 
 Total Iron Concentration, mg/J, 
 
 1972 
 
 5 
 
 0.5 
 
 2.4 
 
 4.4 
 
 1973 
 
 3 
 
 ■2.0 
 
 4.5 
 
 8.0 
 
 1974 
 
 1 
 
 0.7 
 
 0.7 
 
 0.7 
 
 1975 
 
 2 
 
 1.0 
 
 3.4 
 
 4.7 
 
 1976 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 1977 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 1978 
 
 3 
 
 0.5 
 
 3.2 
 
 7.5 
 
 1979 
 
 3 
 
 0.5 
 
 1.9 
 
 4.0 
 
 1980 
 
 5 
 
 Avg. 
 
 0.004 
 
 6.0 
 3.16 
 
 27.0 
 
 Total 
 
 0.74 
 
 8.0- 
 
 1 
 
 1.5 
 
 1.5 
 
 1.5 
 
 5 
 
 0.4 
 
 5.1 
 
 9.5 
 
 3 
 
 5.5 
 
 6.8 
 
 9.2 
 
 3 
 
 0.3 
 
 1.5 
 
 3.5 
 
 1. 
 
 3.1 
 
 3.1 
 
 3.1 
 
 2 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.2 
 
 1.3 
 
 1.92 
 
 3.2 
 
 9.68 
 
 Specific Conductance, uMhos/cm 
 
 1972 
 
 11 
 
 1973 
 
 9 
 
 1974 
 
 5 
 
 1975 
 
 3 
 
 1976 
 
 1 
 
 1977 
 
 — 
 
 1978 
 
 — 
 
 1979 
 
 — 
 
 1980 
 
 — 
 
 Total 
 
 Avg. 
 
 433 
 
 480 
 
 617 
 
 383 
 
 443 
 
 500 
 
 350 
 
 480 
 
 550 
 
 517 
 
 545 
 
 567 
 
 950 
 
 950 
 
 950 
 
 527 
 
 580 
 
 637 
 
 12 
 
 437 
 
 547 
 
 633 
 
 11 
 
 417 
 
 502 
 
 600 
 
 7 
 
 333 
 
 481 
 
 617 
 
 10 
 
 417 
 
 559 
 
 767 
 
 10 
 
 467 
 
 553 
 
 650 
 
 3 
 
 383 
 
 489 
 
 583 
 
 10 
 
 360 
 
 438 
 
 580 
 
 11 
 
 336 
 
 499 
 
 630 
 
 11 
 
 330 
 387 
 
 473 
 
 660 
 
 
 504.5 
 
 635.5 
 
 SOURCE: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and USGS, Water Resources Data 
 for Illinois, 1968-1980 
 
13 
 
 Chapter III 
 COSTS OF REGULATION 
 
 The costs of enforcing pollution regulations generally accrue to 
 the discharger who must pay for additional wastewater treatment facilities. 
 Typically the environment and water users benefit from the reduced pollu- 
 tant loadings resulting from regulatory enforcement. There are instances, 
 however, where some beneficial environmental effects may accrue because of 
 the uncontrolled discharge. In the case of the Alton Water Company the 
 costs of regulation may include not only treatment expenses but some environ- 
 mental losses with the cessation of the discharge. Both are considered 
 within this chapter. 
 
 The magnitude of treatment costs for Alton Water Company varies with 
 the regulatory scenario considered. Three regulatory scenarios were evalu- 
 ated for the Alton Water Company. These three scenarios consisted of: 
 1.) complete treatment of discharge 
 2.) partial treatment of discharge 
 3.) no treatment of the discharge 
 Before describing the specific costs for Alton Water Company, some general 
 information regarding disposal practices of water treatment plants is first 
 presented. 
 Disposal Practices of Water Treatment Plants 
 
 Water treatment plants remove suspended and dissolved materials in 
 raw water supplies to purify the water for public consumption. The disposal 
 practices for the residues or sludges accumulated through the removal processes 
 
14 
 
 was surveyed in 1953 and 1968 on a national level and in 1970 in Illinois. 
 The 1953 survey results indicated 92.5% of water treatment plants dis- 
 charged to streams or lakes; only 0.3% to sanitary sewers; 4.3% to storm 
 sewers, ditches, city reservoirs, and impounding basins; and, 3.1% to 
 
 3 
 
 sludge beds. By 1968 the percentage of plants discharging to sanitary 
 sewers increased to 8.3% nationally. 
 
 In Illinois the responses from 114 water treatment plants were 
 
 5 
 
 tabulated in 1970. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 summarize the disposal techniques 
 for basin sludge and filter backwash in Illinois for 114 plants. Direct 
 discharge to streams and lakes accounted for 43% of plants disposing 
 of basin sludge. This compared to the 92.5% value nationwide. In Table 
 3-2, however, only one plant reported a discharge to sanitary sewers. The 
 percent discharging basin sludge to impounding basins, storm sewers, dry 
 creeks, and reservoirs was 32% of the plants. Fifteen plants re- 
 ported treatment via sludge drying beds for this sludge. 
 
 Disposal techniques for filter backwash, described in Table 3-2, 
 showed similar usage as for basin sludge disposal. Backwash streams were 
 discharged directly to lakes and streams, in 53% of the Illinois plants 
 in 1970. The aggregation of sewers and ditches accounted for 31% of the 
 discharge sites for backwash. Treatment of filter backwash for 17 plants 
 consisted of recycling (5 plants), lagooning (9 plants), and sanitary sewer 
 discharge (3 plants) . 
 
 This Illinois survey represented 1970 practices, and there probably 
 has been an increase in treatment techniques for the two waste streams, 
 filter backwash and basin sludge. The predominant disposal technique of 
 
15 
 
 Table 3-1. Disposal Techniques for Basin Sludge in 1970 in Illinois 
 
 Discharge to 
 
 Number of 
 Surface Water 
 Plants 
 
 Number of 
 Ground Water 
 Plants 
 
 Total 
 Number 
 
 Per Cent 
 of Total 
 
 Stream 
 
 41 
 
 
 1 
 
 42 
 
 36.84 
 
 Lake 
 
 7 
 
 
 - 
 
 7 
 
 6.14 
 
 Storm Sewer 
 
 7 
 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 8.77 
 
 Sanitary Sewer 
 
 1 
 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 0.88 
 
 Reservoir 
 
 - 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 0.88 
 
 Dry Creek 
 
 16 
 
 
 2 
 
 18 
 
 15.79 
 
 Sludge Beds 
 
 11 
 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 13.16 
 
 Low Ground 
 
 6 
 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 10.53 
 
 Impounding 
 
 Basins 
 
 2 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 7.01 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 91 
 
 
 23 
 
 114 
 
 100.00 
 
 Source: Water Resources Quality Control Committee, 
 
 Illinois AWWA, "Wastes from Water Treatment Plants," 
 March 10, 1970 
 
16 
 
 Table 3-2. Disposal Techniques for Filter Backwash in Illinois 
 in 1970 
 
 Discharge to 
 
 Number of 
 Surface Water 
 Plants 
 
 Number of 
 Ground Water 
 Plants 
 
 Total 
 Number 
 
 Per Cent 
 . of Total 
 
 Stream 
 
 47 
 
 
 5 
 
 52 
 
 45.61 
 
 Lake 
 
 8 
 
 
 - 
 
 8 
 
 7.02 
 
 Storm Sewer 
 
 6 
 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 8.77 
 
 Surface Drain 
 
 - 
 
 
 • 1 
 
 1 
 
 0.88 
 
 Sanitary Sewer 
 
 1 
 
 
 2 . 
 
 3 
 
 2.64 
 
 Lagoons 
 
 5 
 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 7.89 
 
 Recycle 
 
 2 
 
 
 ■ 3 
 
 5 
 
 4.39 
 
 Reservoir 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 0.00 
 
 Roadside Ditch 
 
 4 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 5.26 
 
 Dry Creek 
 
 17 
 
 
 1 
 
 18 
 
 15.79 
 
 Other 
 
 1 
 91 
 
 
 1 
 23 
 
 2 
 114 
 
 1.75 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 100.00 
 
 Source: Water Resources Quality Control Committee, 
 
 Illinois AWWA, "Wastes from Water Treatment Plants," 
 March 10, 1970 
 
17 
 
 discharge to streams and lakes may be replaced by treatment options, such 
 as lagooning, sanitary sewer discharges, or mechanical dewatering and 
 solids disposal. In Illinois the 15 mg/£ suspended solids limitation is 
 applicable to discharges from water treatment plants and has been in- 
 cluded as a NPDES permit limitation. Thus, the number of direct discharge 
 plants without treatment is assumed to have decreased since 1970. 
 Alternatives for Disposal of Water Treatment Residues 
 
 There exist several alternative treatment methods for basins sludge 
 and filter backwash. These options are described briefly in terms of equip- 
 ment requirements, land needs, and existing operations. 
 Sanitary Sewer Discharge 
 
 Discharge to a sanitary system of sludges would require adequate 
 hydraulic and solids handling capacity at the sanitary wastewater treatment 
 plant. There could be surges from the filter backwash operation which could 
 affect the WWTP's clarifier performance. If sanitary sewer discharge is 
 used, there are no additional land requirements or equipment needs except for 
 sewer connection lines. A user charge for the high solids loading, however, 
 would be paid by the water treatment plant. 
 Lagoons 
 
 A common method for sludge disposal is lagooning, according to Gulp and 
 
 h 
 
 Gulp. Although this technique has a low operating cost, land requirements 
 
 1+ 
 are substantial. Lagoon depths are usually 3 to 10 feet. The Ten State 
 
 Standards recommend a minimum lagoon depth of four to five feet and a capacity 
 
 of three to five years solids storage. 
 
18 
 
 Sand Drying Beds 
 
 According to Gulp and Gulp, the use of sand beds has the disadvantages 
 of requiring extensive space, long dewatering times, poor performance in cold/ 
 wet weather, and high labor costs for removal of sludge. With these operating 
 deficiencies the use of sand drying beds was only reported in California. 
 Mechanical dewatering devices were considered a more practical method of 
 dewatering sludges. 
 Mechanical Dewatering Devices 
 
 There are several processes which can provide dewatering sludges. 
 Vacuum filtration, centrifugation, and filter presses all can increase the 
 amount of solids in the sludge so that the material can be handled for 
 ultimate disposal. Vacuum filtration of alum sludges, however, appeared to 
 have difficulties, according to Gulp and Gulp. The three methods were pilot 
 tested for a 40 MGD plant, and cost estimates prepared for these processes. 
 Table 3-3 summarizes the cost data for the 40 MGD plant example. The values 
 in Table 3-3 are in 1974 dollars, and if updated using the PPI index,* the 
 annual costs increase to approximately $100 per ton of solids removed. The 
 costs of the various devices are similar on an annual basis. One of the 
 largest components of the annual cost is disposal of the solids after dewater- 
 ing. For these examples, the solids were assumed to be disposed of in a sani- 
 tary landfill. Disposal costs represented 41% to 66% of the total annual costs 
 which include capital recovery. The interest rate used for equipment invest- 
 ment was 5%, and in today's economic climate a 12% interest rate would be 
 appropriate. However, disposal of solids is still an important problem. 
 
 * PPI - Producers (Finished Goods) Price Index 
 
19 
 
 Table 3-3. Economic Analysis of Dewatering Equipment 
 
 Parameters 
 
 Scroll 
 Centrifuge 
 
 Pressure 
 Filter 
 
 Basket 
 Centrifuge 
 
 Vacuum 
 Filter 
 
 19,000 
 
 Solids Loading, 
 
 lb/day 
 Solids Output 
 
 Weight % 16 
 
 Machine Cost,$ 80,000 
 
 Annual Cost (for 1,700 T/yr) 
 
 Machine Capital 
 
 Recovery, $ 6,420 
 
 & M, $ 4,800 
 
 Power, $ 3,850 
 
 Polyelectrolyte,$ 6,840 
 
 Disposal, $ 
 
 ($5/cu.yd.) 56,100 
 
 Labor, $ 
 
 9,450 
 
 Total Annual Cost 87,460 
 1974 Unit Cost,$/Ton 51 
 1981 Unit Cost,$/Tond/ 98 
 
 19,000 
 
 30 
 400,000 
 
 26,020 
 4,000 
 1,190 
 9,100 
 
 34,400 
 9,450 
 
 84,160 
 50 
 94 
 
 19,000 
 
 19,000 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 135,000 
 
 104,000 
 
 10,830 
 
 7,380 
 
 1,500 
 
 3,000 
 
 3,210 
 
 10,900 
 
 10,300 
 
 3,420 
 
 68,700 
 
 68,700 
 
 9,450 
 
 9,450 
 
 103,990 
 
 102,850 
 
 61 
 
 60 
 
 116 
 
 115 
 
 * Updated with the Producer (Finished Goods) Price Index, 1974 - 143, 
 1981 = 272. 
 
 Source: Culp, R. and Culp, G. New Concepts in Water Purification, 
 Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1974, P. 164 
 
20 
 
 Treatment Costs for Alton Water Company 
 
 Alton Water Company evaluated numerous alternatives for the disposal 
 of its water treatment sludges. One alternative, discharge to the sanitary 
 sewer, was not feasible. The City of Alton refused to handle this waste 
 stream, as this stream would have used up all of the remaining capacity 
 of the sewage treatment plant. Available land on site is insufficient 
 for on-site disposal; however, it is presumably adequate for mechanical 
 dewatering facilities. 
 
 Five alternatives were evaluated economically, all included off-site 
 disposal. The capital cost estimates submitted by the Alton Water Company 
 are presented in Table 3-4. The lowest capital cost was $3,000,000, for 
 pumping to a lagoon. Three other alternatives: filter press plus disposal, 
 centrifuge plus disposal, and barging to a disposal site in Missouri, were 
 all within 10% of the lowest capital cost. 
 
 The capital costs prepared by the Petitioner can be compared to the 
 Capital Costs presented in Table 3-3, as shown below: 
 
 Capital Cost Comparison 
 
 Table 3-3 Table 3-4 
 
 Alton's Estimate 
 
 
 Culp & Culp 
 
 Pressure Filters 
 
 
 Capacity, lb/day 
 
 19,000 
 
 Capital Cost, 
 
 1981 dollars 
 
 760,000 
 
 Basket Centrifuge 
 
 
 Capacity, lb/day 
 
 19,000 
 
 Capital Cost, 
 
 1981 dollars 
 
 260,000 
 
 Average during period 
 1 - 13,340 
 
 $3,300,000 
 
 Average during period 
 1 - 13,340 
 
 $3,120,000 
 
21 
 
 Table 3-4. Capital Investment for Treatment 
 Alternatives 
 
 Alternative 
 
 Capital Investment, $ 
 
 Complete Treatment 
 
 Pump to Lagoon Site 
 Filter Press + Disposal 
 Centrifuge + Disposal 
 Barge to Disposal - Illinois 
 Barge to Disposal - Missouri 
 
 3,000,000 
 3,300,000 
 3,120,000 
 4,140,000 
 3,270,000 
 
 Partial Treatment - Clarifier Slowdown 
 Filter Press + Disposal 
 Centrifuge + Disposal 
 
 260,000-1,000,000 
 760,000-1,500,000 
 
 Note: Complete treatment costs provided by Petitioner. Partial Treatment 
 costs estimated by Huff & Huff, Inc. 
 
22 
 
 The Petitioner's capital costs are significantly higher than anticipated, 
 based upon the comparisons shown. 
 
 This difference is attributed to several site specific considera- 
 tions and assumptions for Alton. The company assumed a separate land site 
 would be purchased at a cost of $1.1 million. This land cost did not vary 
 for any scenario whether dewatering or pumping a slurry and lagooning. 
 This implies 1" of dewatered solids are applied annually to the land.* 
 Additional capital costs for the pipeline and trucks would also account for 
 higher investment. 
 
 Another reason for the disparity in costs may be in the sizing of 
 the dewatering units. The mixing basins and sedimentation basins are 
 currently cleaned out only twice per year. Thus, if the dewatering 
 facilities were sized to handle these streams over a short interval of 
 time, the required size of the facilities would be substantially larger than 
 one sized based upon the "average load." No information was presented re- 
 garding the basis behind the cost estimates by the Petitioner. Information 
 regarding the cost estimates was formally requested from the Petitioner; 
 however, only incomplete information was received in time for inclusion in 
 this report. 
 
 One approach not evaluated by the Petitioner is to provide dewater- 
 ing and disposal for only the clarifier blowdown stream. This stream repre- 
 sents 2,241,000 lb/year, or 68% of the total solids discharged, based on 
 Table 2-1. During period 1, this stream generates 10,472 lb/day of solids, 
 on average. 
 
 * Solids Accumulation 
 Rate if Applied to = 
 11 Acres 
 
 3,272,000 lb 
 
 1 inch/year 
 
 ft' 
 
 80 lb 
 
 acre 
 
 43,560 ft' 
 
 12 in 
 
 ft 
 
 11 acres 
 
23 
 
 According to the Company, the clarifier blowdown amounts to 12,000 gallons 
 every three days, or 4,000 gal/day.* Based upon the disparity in capital 
 costs presented above, it is difficult to estimate the capital cost for 
 this alternative without more detailed information. A range in values from 
 $260,000 to $1,000,000 was assumed for a centrifuge, and $760,000 to 
 $1,500,000 was assumed for the pressure filter. These values are also 
 included in Table 3-4. 
 
 Table 3-5 summarizes the operating and maintenance costs, the 
 annualized capital costs, and the total annual costs for each alternative. 
 For Alton to fully comply with the Illinois regulations will cost $517,000 
 per year assuming the least cost alternative is selected and based upon the 
 Company's cost estimates. Partial treatment, which will remove 2,241,000 
 lb/year of solids, or 68% of all of the solids, based on Table 2-1, will 
 have an annual cost associated with it of between $116,000 to $242,000 per 
 year. 
 
 * The blowdown rate is 200 gpm for 60 minutes, once ewery three days. The 
 average solids content in the clarifier blowdown is 6,140 lb/day, based upon 
 Table 2-1 and 365 days/year, or 18,420 lb every three days. Based upon the 
 pumping rate, the percent solids in the clarifier blowdown is 18%. This value 
 appears high and suggests either the pumping rate is higher than the 200 gpm, 
 or that the material balance in the Evans Report overstates the solids cap- 
 tured in the clarifier. 
 
24 
 
 Table 3-5. Annual Costs of Treatment Options 
 for Alton Water Company 
 
 Alternative 
 
 Operating 
 Maintenance, 
 & Hauling 
 Cost, $/year 
 
 Amortized Capital , 
 $/year 
 
 Total 
 Cost, 
 $/year 
 
 Complete Treatment 
 
 
 
 
 Pump to Lagoon 
 
 16,850 
 
 500,000 
 
 517,000 
 
 Filter Press + Disposal 
 
 116,950 
 
 550,000 
 
 667,000 
 
 Centrifuge + Disposal 
 
 172,200 
 
 520,000 
 
 692,000 
 
 Barge to Disposal - 
 
 Illinois 
 
 25,850 
 
 700,000 
 
 725,000 
 
 Barge to Disposal - 
 
 Missouri 
 
 23,150 
 
 550,000 
 
 573,000 
 
 Partial Treatment - Clarifier 
 
 Slowdown 
 
 
 
 Filter Press + Disposal^/ 73,000 43,000-169,000 116,000-242,000 
 Centrifuge + Disposal ^^ 110,000 126,000-250,000 265,000-390,000 
 
 a/ Assumed X^t interest and 20 year life. 
 
 b/ Based on Table 3-3, subtracting out the annualized capital costs. 
 
 I 
 
25 
 
 Environmental Costs of Regulation 
 
 The Illinois State Water Survey examined the sediment and the 
 benthic communities near the Alton Water Company discharge to determine 
 any environmental effects.^ This study included analysis of the physical, 
 chemical and biological characteristics of bottom sediment at sampling 
 stations both upstream and downstream of the discharge point. These 
 analyses indicate that changes to the bottom sediments have occurred as a 
 result of the waste stream from the Alton Water Company. These changes 
 and the impact on the aquatic community are described in the sections that 
 follow. 
 Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Bottom Sediments 
 
 Twelve sampling stations were selected for physical and chemical 
 testing of sediments. Station locations, the water treatment plant discharge, 
 and other structures residing along the rivers edge are depicted in Figure 3-1, 
 Table 3-6 pinpoints the location of each station in terms of distance from 
 discharge, distance from shore, and water depth. The station numbers, as 
 they originally appeared in the Illinois State Water Survey report, have been 
 changed to facilitate an easier understanding of their relative location on 
 the river. Table 3-6 presents these new station numbers and the corresponding 
 station numbers from the ISWS report. Figure 3-1 and all references to sta- 
 tion numbers made in this report make use of the new identification numbers. 
 
 The composition of dredged bottom samples were analyzed for sand, 
 silt, and clay content. The results obtained from stations 7, 8, and 12 were 
 significantly different from data obtained at all other stations. Stations 7, 
 8, and 12 are all within 130 feet of shore and are 250, 500, and 1000 feet 
 
26 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 o' 
 
 .J 
 
 (/» 
 
 (U 
 
 c 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 •f— 
 
 (U 
 
 •M 
 
 13 
 
 «o 
 
 r— 
 
 +-> 
 
 ^- 
 
 on 
 
 c 
 
 
 •r" 
 
 a> 
 
 
 c 
 
 •+- 
 
 •r— 
 
 o 
 
 r— 
 
 
 a 
 
 O) 
 
 E 
 
 c 
 
 IT3 
 
 o 
 
 OO 
 
 N 
 
 CO 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 4-> 
 lO 
 -M 
 
 en 
 
 a. 
 E 
 
 ^01 X urid 
 
27 
 
 Table 3-6. Mississippi River Sediment Sampling Stations 
 Near Alton Water Company Discharge 
 
 Revised 
 
 Station No. 
 
 for this report 
 
 Station No. 
 ISWS Report 
 
 Water 
 Depth, ft 
 
 Distance 
 
 from 
 Shore, ft 
 
 Distance 
 Upstream 
 from Alton 
 Water, ft 
 
 Distance 
 Downstream 
 from Alton 
 Water, ft 
 
 
 1 
 
 • 
 
 9 
 
 
 28 
 
 125 
 
 1500 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 28 
 
 250 
 
 1500 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 33 
 
 500 
 
 1500 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 36 
 
 900 
 
 1500 
 
 
 "5 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 17 
 
 50 
 
 500 
 
 i 
 
 6 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 15 
 
 50 
 
 250 
 
 Upstream 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Downstream 
 
 7 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 12 
 
 130 
 
 
 T 
 
 250 
 
 8 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 14 
 
 125 
 
 
 500. 
 
 9 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 21 
 
 250 
 
 
 500 
 
 10 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 23 
 
 500 
 
 
 500 
 
 11 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 21 
 
 900 
 
 
 500 
 
 12 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 20 
 
 125 
 
 
 1000 
 
 13 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 24 
 
 500 
 
 
 1000 
 
 14 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 22 
 
 150 
 
 
 2000 
 
28 
 
 downstream of the plant's outfall, respectively. The average values from 
 samples taken at stations 7, 8, and 12, in terms of percent sand, silt 
 and clay content, are graphically compared to the average values obtained 
 at all other stations in Figure 3-2. The samples, on an average, contained 
 twelve times more silt, nine times more clay and had approximately a third 
 of the sand content as the bottom samples collected at other stations. The 
 change in composition is the result of the reintroduction of river silt that 
 had been captured during the treatment process.^ Thus the discharge has pro- 
 duced a shift from the natural bottom consisting primarily of sand to a sandy 
 silt bottom. 
 
 The high percentages of clay and silt found at stations 7, 8, and 12 
 demonstrate that the waste discharged from the Alton Water plant are 
 detectable. However, Evans, et al . , points out that the extent of the plant's 
 influence is limited: "Based upon the locations of the stations and the 
 analysis of the characteristics of the sediments, the areal influence is 
 confined to .200 feet offshore and within 2000 feet downstream of the waste 
 outfall."^ This impacted area is referred to as the "zone of influence." 
 
 Data obtained from the chemical analyses further support the find- 
 ings of the physical examination of river sediments. Results from tests 
 for iron, aluminum, percent moisture and percent volatile matter were all higher 
 within the zone of influence than in the outlying areas. Table 3-7 and Figure 3-1 
 shows the averages of the values obtained from each of the three stations • ■ 
 (No.'s 7, 8, and 12) included within the zone and compares them to results 
 obtained from stations outside.* The ratio of values obtained from 
 
 * As the values obtained from sediment samples collected upstream of the 
 discharge did not differ, and in some instances were higher than samples 
 collected outside the zone of influence, all values obtained outside the 
 zone were used to estimate the average background levels. 
 
29 
 
 100. 
 90.. 
 
 80.. 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 Z 70. . 
 
 O 
 
 £ 60_|. 
 o 
 
 50-. 
 
 4J 
 
 u 
 
 I 40J. 
 
 30-. 
 20-- 
 10-. 
 
 X \ N N 
 S\\ S 
 VSXS 
 VNS\ 
 NN SS 
 \S \N 
 WSS 
 V V\ S 
 WSN 
 VSV\ 
 \ NX V 
 VSV \ 
 S\SS 
 NNSN 
 N NN \ 
 X\NN 
 >NS \ 
 \NNN 
 WSS 
 N SNV 
 NWV 
 \ NVV 
 SN \N 
 SVNS 
 SSSS 
 \S\X 
 VSS V 
 SSNV 
 NSNS 
 
 . l ^ltVi^^ ' V ' 
 
 \N \\N 
 
 \SNSN 
 NWS \ 
 NWNS 
 N N S N \ 
 NS SS \ 
 
 NNSNX 
 \ \ \ SS 
 N N X\ \ 
 \ NNSS 
 \N \ \ \ 
 S S. \\\ 
 VN \N\ 
 NVSNX 
 S\\\\ 
 \ \ NX \ 
 \\SN\ 
 
 •wvvs 
 
 \\S\ N 
 WNVN 
 V \N\S 
 N \ NSN 
 NNNNN 
 > \ \ \ \ 
 \ \ \N \ 
 
 I ■ . . , ...J. ;^ ...J 
 
 NS\SN\\NS\S 
 SWWSNWSN 
 VWVWNNNW 
 SVNWSWWS 
 
 t- 
 
 :::.M 
 
 Sand 
 
 Silt 
 
 Clay 
 
 
 "M'^iWWW 
 
 Stations 
 7,8, and 12 
 
 All Other 
 Stations 
 
 Figure 3-2 Average Sediment Composition 
 
30 
 
 Table 3-7. Comparison of Average Values Obtained from Chemical and 
 Physical Testing On Sediment Samples In and Out of the 
 Zone of Influence 
 
 t 
 
 Percent 
 Iron, Aluminum, Percent Volatile 
 ppm ppm Moisture Solids 
 
 (1.) Inside Zone of Influence 
 
 (Stations 7, 8, and 12) 31,358 16,393 41.1 5.8 
 
 (2.) Outside Zone of Influence 8,542 2,903 16.3 1.0 
 
 Ratio of Average Values 
 
 (1) : (2) 3.7:1 5.6:1 2.5:1 5.8:1 
 
 Source: Evans, R., Hill, T., Schnepper, D., and Hullinger, D., Wastes from 
 the Water Treatment Plant at Alton and Its Impact on the Mississippi 
 River, SWS Report 275, July, 1981. 
 
31 
 
 stations 7, 8, and 12 to background levels are also presented. Within the 
 zone of influence iron and aluminum concentrations were nearly 4 and 6 times 
 higher than background levels, respectively. Evans et al., observed that 
 the concentrations of iron within the impacted area were not unlike those 
 levels found in the plant's sludges, and attributed the elevated concen- 
 trations of iron to the silt and clay removed during treatment and discharged 
 back to the river in waste flows.-"- 
 
 Sediment concentrations of aluminum within the zone, however, were 
 considerably less than the concentrations occurring in the plant's sludges. 
 It was suggested that the flocculent nature of the alum sludge permits it to 
 be easily scoured or dispersed by streamflow, thereby lessening the accumula- 
 tion of alum in the bottom sediments. ■'■ Similarly, the percent moisture and 
 volatile content of the bottom sediment followed the same distribution 
 patterns as the analyses for iron and aluminum; i.e., higher percentages of 
 both constituents were found at stations 7, 8, and 12. Percent moisture was 
 2.5 times higher inside the affected area and percent volatile material 
 was 5.8 times higher within the impacted area as was outside. 
 
 From the chemical and physical evaluation performed at Alton, it is 
 apparent that the water treatment plant has changed the character of the 
 bottom sediments below the outfall. The affected area amounts to 9.2 acres, 
 which is less than the maximum mixing zone area of 26 acres allowed under 
 Chapter 3 regulations.* 
 
 * The allowable mixing zone shall not exceed the area of a circle having a 
 radius of 600 feet, or 26 acres. 
 
32 
 
 Biological Evaluation of Bottom Sediments 
 
 The biological characterization of the river sediments was 
 accomplished by identifying types and computing population densities of 
 macroinvertebrates. Different species have varying tolerances to environ- 
 mental contaminants and once bottom dwelling or benthic invertebrates are 
 identified and quantified, the information obtained can be used to assess 
 the quality of the aquatic environment. Evans et al., used the same classi 
 fi cation system employed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
 (lEPA) to assess stream conditions. The classification system is based on 
 the abundance of organisms found in streams which are intolerant to pollu- 
 tion. The four tolerance categories for aquatic macroinvertebrates found 
 in Illinois waters are defined as: 
 
 Intolerant: Organisms whose life cycle is dependent upon a narrow 
 range of environmental conditions. They are rarely found in areas 
 of organic enrichment and are replaced by more tolerant species upon 
 degradation of their environment. 
 
 Moderate: Organisms which lack the extreme sensitivity to environ- 
 mental stress displayed by intolerant species but which cannot adapt 
 to severe environmental degradation. Such organisms normally increase 
 in abundance with slight to moderate levels of organic enrichment. 
 
 Facultative: Organisms which display the ability to survive over a 
 wide range of environmental conditions and which possess a greater 
 degree of tolerance to adverse conditions than either intolerant or 
 moderate species. The facultative tolerance status also includes 
 all organisms which depend upon surface air for respiration. 
 
 Tolerant: Organisms which not only have the ability to survive over 
 a wide range of environmental extremes but which are generally capable 
 of thriving in water of extremely poor quality and even anaerobic 
 conditions. Such organisms are often found in great abundance in 
 areas of organic pollution. 
 
 Depending on the types, i.e., intolerant, moderate, facultative or tolerant, 
 and quantity of benthic organisms collected, the stream can be further cate- 
 gorized as follows: 
 
 * 
 
33 
 
 Balanced: The number and specie of pollution intolerant organ- 
 isms are greater than or equal to 50% of the total 
 organism collected. 
 
 Unbalanced: Intolerant organisms are fewer in number than other 
 forms combined, but combined with moderate forms, 
 they usually outnumber tolerant forms. 
 
 Semi -polluted: Intolerant organisms are few or may not be present. 
 Moderate, facultative and pollution tolerant organ- 
 isms usually make up 90% or more of the organisms 
 collected. 
 
 Polluted: Pollution intolerant organisms are absent. Only 
 pollution tolerant organisms or no organisms are 
 present. 
 
 Natural or 
 
 artificial No organisms present. 
 
 bare area: 
 
 The predominant organisms from bottom sediments, their classification, 
 and the percent of the total population is shown for all sampling stations 
 below. The organisms listed account for 96% of all organisms collected; of 
 these, 83% are described as being pollution tolerant. 
 
 Predominant Organisms Recovered from River Sediments At All Sampling Stations 
 
 Organism 
 
 aquatic worms (Tubificidae) 
 midge fly larvae (Chironomidae) 
 burrowing mayflies (Hexagenia) 
 caddisflies (Cheumatopsyche) 
 fingernail clams (Sphaerium) 
 
 Population densities were significantly different between stations 
 that were closer than 130 feet from shore and those stations which were 
 greater than 250 feet from shore. As a group, densities for macroinvertebrates 
 collected close to shore ranged from 378 individuals per square meter (ind/m^) 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 Population, % 
 
 CI 
 
 assification 
 
 69 
 
 
 Tolerant 
 
 14 
 
 
 Tolerant 
 
 5 
 
 
 Facultative 
 
 4 
 
 
 Moderate 
 
 4 
 
 
 Moderate 
 
34 
 
 to 3036 (ind/m^). The group of stations found 250 feet or greater from 
 shore ranged from 25 to 880 ind/m^. (Refer to Figure 3-1 for the location 
 of the sampling stations. 
 
 The pollution tolerance status for all stations were determined in 
 accordance with lEPA guidelines. All stations except 2 and 10 were classi- 
 fied as semi -polluted. Stations 2 and 10 were classified as polluted and 
 were both located greater than 250 feet from shore. Station 2, however, 
 was upstream of the outfall, whereas station 10 was downstream. 
 
 The only station capable of sustaining a pollution intolerant species 
 was found in the zone of influence at station 8. The condition at station 8 - 
 was believed due more to the characteristics of the bottom sediment than to 
 the overlying v/ater quality.^ The bottom at this location consisted mainly 
 of silt with exposed rock and gravel. The favorable habitat found at station 
 8 is presented graphically in Figure 3-3, which shows a comparison of the 
 pollution tolerance status between the near-shore, upstream (No.'s 13 and 14), 
 and downstream stations (No.'s 7. 8. and 12). The only station not dominated 
 by pollution tolerant organisms was number 8. 
 
 The abundance and diversity of benthic macroinverteb rates which are 
 found nearer the shore in bottom sediments composed of higher silt and clay 
 fractions, support the contention that organism abundance is related to 
 the stability of the habitat. The shifting nature of the river's natural 
 sand bottom is caused by changing flow velocities and navigation traffic. 
 This does not encourage colonization by burrowing or clinging organisms. 
 
35 
 
 i_ 
 
 o 
 
 Ol 
 ■*-> 
 fO 
 
 Ol 
 U 
 
 c 
 
 Ol 
 
 _ __170ZI/-C 
 
 902T 
 
 ■«-> 
 
 
 (U 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 IT3 
 
 d) 
 
 •^« 
 
 +J 
 
 S- 
 
 ■M 
 
 •t-J 
 
 c 
 
 Ol 
 
 (O 
 
 IT3 
 
 re 
 
 
 s_ 
 
 r— 
 
 S- 
 
 o 
 
 Ol 
 
 •J 
 
 O) 
 
 4-> 
 
 T3 
 
 o 
 
 r— 
 
 c 
 
 O 
 
 fO 
 
 o 
 
 
 «/) 
 
 
 (/I 
 
 r— 
 
 
 <u 
 
 (O 
 
 >, 
 
 4-J 
 
 3 
 
 s_ 
 
 (TJ 
 
 ■o 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 •r— 
 
 CD 
 
 •r— 
 
 > 
 
 0) 
 
 TD 
 
 'f— 
 
 -t-> 
 
 C 
 
 T3 
 
 ns 
 
 ••" 
 
 C 
 
 O 
 
 s- 
 
 
 (U 
 
 re 
 
 <+- 
 
 O 
 
 ^ 
 
 O 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 1. 
 
 i_ 
 
 > 
 
 OJ 
 
 OJ 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 j3 
 
 E 
 
 o 
 
 IT3 
 
 3 
 
 -M 
 
 s. 
 
 
 c 
 
 O) 
 
 ^— 
 
 • ^ 
 
 XJ 
 
 fO 
 
 .c 
 
 E 
 
 -t-> 
 
 4J 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 • f* 
 
 Z 
 
 -M 
 
 2 
 
 
 MMlMaiMMMHhiMa 
 
 9frl 
 
 - 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 (N 
 
 09^ z 
 
 68ZZ 
 
 I #fiBKHni»'^'«wft# 
 
 »* ■« %»■'«»>»■»•*«;•». i#«r ^ 
 
 0- 
 
 LoZc l~|^^„|^,„t,^,Mgiaa,aHajjaaMMiiHiaa 
 
 fi- l - " 
 
 201 
 
 -- 
 
 i 
 
 c*«o 
 
 oiP 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 00 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 lD 
 
 0* 
 
 OP 
 
 afi 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 VX) 
 
 ^ 
 
 fN 
 
 O 
 
 to 
 
 C 
 
 o 
 
 Q. 
 
 C 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 cn 
 
 sxpnpTATpui x^oj, JO t^uaojBd 
 
36 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 Sediments composed of higher percentages of silt, clay and organic matter, 
 
 however, are more resistant to fluctuating currents and thus form a more 
 
 stable benthic habitat. 
 
 Evans et al., summarized his findings on the environmental impact 
 
 of Alton's Water Treatment Plant's discharge as follows:^ 
 
 The main point is that the impact of waste flows on the benthic macro- J 
 invertebrates of the river at Alton is not an adverse one. Nor can it 
 be considered solely beneficial. The waste' flow contribution appears 
 to maintain an aquatic habitat more desirable from the standpoint of 
 macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity than found in those stations 
 more offshore. 
 
 The maintenance of silty-sand bottom sediments in the Mississippi River, 
 in contrast to a natural sandy bottom, is conducive to increasing the 
 benthic population. The waste flows fromtiie water treatment plant at 
 Alton contribute to that maintenance scheme. 
 
 Lastly, in the absence of unnatural sludge deposits and without evidence 
 that the iron and aluminum concentrations observed in the bottom sedi- 
 ments are toxic to aquatic organisms, it would not appear that the 
 types of changes in the chemical and physical composition of the 
 sediments in the limited impacted area are a mark of environmental 
 degradation. 
 
 Based on the report by Evans et al., the Alton discharge appears bene- 
 ficial to the maintenance of benthic macroinvertebrate communities by forming 
 diverse, more stable downstream habitat. Thus, it appears that the impact f 
 of the waste stream, as measured by benthic macroinvertebrates, is a positive 
 one. Other possible environmental effects of the discharge, which may or may 
 not act to lessen this positive impact, are discussed in the following chapter. 
 
 I 
 
37 
 
 Chapter IV 
 BENEFITS OF REGULATION 
 
 The benefits of enforcing the suspended solids and iron limitations 
 for Alton Water Company accrue primarily to downstream water uses. There 
 are four distinct user categories which are considered in the benefit 
 analysis. The environmental impacts upon benthic communities, fish, and 
 other aquatic organisms represent an important area of concern. The recrea- 
 tional users and others who reside near the stream represent a second 
 category, and they could be adversely affected by aesthetic changes in the 
 river due to periodic discharges. The third category of users who could 
 potentially benefit from reduced solids discharges are the downstream public 
 water supplies who also use the Mississippi River. Since the Mississippi 
 River is a major navigation channel, any effects on navigational costs such 
 as dredging should also be considered. Each of these uses represents 
 areas of potential impact, and each is described within this chapter as to 
 the magnitude of the expected benefit. 
 Environmental Impacts 
 
 There are several potential aspects of the aquatic environment 
 which could be altered by the Alton Water Company discharge. The infor- 
 mation provided by Alton Water Company is utilized with general information 
 in the literature to delineate the probable magnitude of the four impacts. The 
 particular areas of concern consist of four generally identified by the 
 American Water Works Association (AWWA) as well as several additional poten- 
 tial impacts: 
 
 (a) buildup of deposits forming sludge banks^ 
 
 (b) aesthetic effects due to turbidity and color or 
 receiving water^ 
 
38 
 
 (c) oxygen demand of residues^ 
 
 (d) bacterial contamination^ 
 
 (e) toxicity of sludges to benthic organisms 
 
 (f) adverse effects of iron concentrations and high 
 turbidity in water to fish populations 
 
 The actual magnitude of the Alton Water Company environmental impact was 
 based upon the Evans et al., study. Using existing information each type 
 of environmental change was reviewed. 
 
 Sediment Deposits 
 The buildup of deposits was a concern to AWWA "because the deposits 
 could cover over and thereby retard growth of benthic organisms. Spawning 
 and breeding of fish may be impaired by such deposits."^ In Chapter 3, the 
 environmental study conducted by Evans et al . , indicated there was no degra- 
 dation of the benthic community. Thus, the buildup of deposits did not occur 
 to any substantial level and the change in sediment quality did appear to be 
 beneficial. The change from a sandy bottom to a silty sand bottom provided 
 an improved habitat for benthic organisms. There was no analysis regarding 
 fish or spawning provided in the Evans et al . , study. This ommission may be 
 attributed to the following possibilities: 
 
 (1.) The general area is not considered appropriate for spawning 
 or breeding. 
 
 (2.) The river environment is too large to monitor for fish activity 
 in a meaningful way, e.g., fish are mobile and the avoidance of 
 an area could only be determined after long term studies - if 
 at all. 
 
 Oxygen Demand of Residue 
 
 The oxygen demand of water treatmen-t plant sludges was considered 
 
 to be small and exerted at a low rate, according to AWWA.^ The nature of 
 
 the water treatment plant sludges was reviewed to determine the potential 
 
39 
 
 range of oxygen demand of water treatment sludges. Table 4-1 presents 
 pH, BOD, COD, total solids, and volatile suspended solids for an aluminum 
 coagulation sludge. 
 
 Table 4-1. 
 Chemical Characteristics of Water Treatment Sludge 
 
 
 BOD, 
 mg/ji 
 
 COD, 
 
 mg/£ 
 
 pH 
 
 Total 
 Solids, 
 
 mg/£ 
 
 Volatile 
 Solids. 
 
 mg/£ 
 
 Plant A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 -day 
 
 7-day 
 
 27-day 
 
 41 
 72 
 
 144 
 
 540 
 
 7.1 
 
 1,159 
 
 571 
 
 Plant B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5-day 
 
 90 
 
 2,100 
 
 7.1 
 
 10,015 
 
 3,656 
 
 Plant C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 -day 
 
 44 
 
 --- 
 
 6.0 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Source: American Water Works Association, Water Quality and Treatment 
 1971, p. 635. ^ ^ !^-HJJi' 
 
 The BOD 5 of the sludges does not adequately indicate the low rate of 
 biodegradability or stability of the sludge. However, the BOD5 value for 
 a 5-day, 7-day, and 27-day sample show the low rate of oxidation of 
 materials in the sludge.^ 
 
 The volatile solids, although representing 56% of the total solids, 
 do not reflect the fraction of organic matter as much as the loss on igni- 
 tion of water bound to hydrated aluminum oxide, according to AWWA.^ Thus, 
 the impact on sediment oxygen demand could not be measured by the volatile 
 suspended solids component. 
 
40 
 
 The effects of water treatment sludges upon the dissolved oxygen 
 levels of a stream were investigated in Pontiac, Illinois. Evans, Schnepper, 
 and Hill monitored dissolved oxygen levels upstream and downstream of Pontiac 
 over a 20 week period.^ The mean concentrations of dissolved oxygen did not 
 statistically vary. The upstream value of 9.2 did decrease 3,720 feet down- 
 stream to 8.5 mg/i, but the decrease was attributed to "deoxygenation of 
 supersaturated dissolved oxygen water during turbulence at the foot of the 
 dam." Thus, in the smaller study stream, the Vermilion River, no dissolved 
 
 oxygen changes were observed. No data were provided regarding this parameter 
 in the Mississippi River analysis. 
 
 Bacterial Composition In Water Treatment Plant Wastewater 
 The wastes accumulated in various treatment processes within water 
 treatment plants have been observed to support growth of micro-organisms." 
 Some processes apparently provide a more favorable environment than others. 
 For example, wastewater from aluminum coagulation and filter backwash are 
 reported to contain high bacteria counts, whereas, wastewater from lime- 
 soda softening processes contain low bacteria populations. Sediment from 
 settling tanks have been found to have bacteria counts in excess of 1,000 
 colonies per mill igram of solid. Filter backwash from a municipal water 
 treatment plant which utilizes aluminum sulfate as their coagulant, revealed 
 bacteria counts of 230 colonies per milliliter (ml). Converting this number 
 to the more commonly reported form of colonies per 100 mis, the value becomes 
 23,000 colonies per 100 mis. Microbiological analyses are not routinely made 
 on wastes from clarifier blowdown, mixing tanks, sedimentation basins or filters 
 as it is generally assumed that the prechlorination of the raw water will improve 
 the quality of the plant's waste stream. 
 
41 
 
 Little information was available regarding the general importance 
 of bacterial growth or bacterial types associated with water treatment plant , 
 discharges. Since this factor was considered by the AWWA in their publica- 
 tion, bacterial growth was included for completeness. The possible environ- 
 mental effects of the discharge cannot even be discussed. It should be noted 
 that the previous Evans study of the Pontiac water treatment plant did not 
 survey or analyze for bacteria in the discharges or the stream. 
 Toxicity of Aluminum to Aquatic Life 
 
 There is a limited amount of data available on the toxic effects 
 of aluminum. Aluminum concentrations are of concern in irrigation waters 
 and have been reported to be toxic to plants under both acid and alkaline 
 conditions, but is probably of little consequence at near-neutral pH. One 
 milligram per liter is taken as the tolerance limit, even though several 
 reports of toxic effects have been observed at 0.5 mg/z, for plants. 
 
 In the aquatic environment the water flea, Daphnia magna , was 
 immobilized after 64 hours of exposure to aluminum chloride at a concentra- 
 tion of <6.7 mg/2,.^ Aluminum chloride proved lethal to half of the mosquito- 
 fish, Gambusia affinis , tested at concentrations of 135 mg/z and under condi- 
 tions of high turbidity.^ The highest concentration which would just fail to 
 immobilize Daphnia magna under prolonged exposure to aluminum sulfate was 
 reported to be 136 mg/iJ Bluegills, Lepomis macrochirus , are reported to be 
 able to survive indefinitely at aluminum sulfate levels of 100 mg/z.^ 
 
 The effects of elevated aluminum levels was described by Evans et al., 
 in a 1979 Illinois State Water Report entitled Impact of Wastes from a Water 
 Treatment Plant: Evaluative Procedures and Results. ^ Evans et al., found 
 
42 
 that the average number of organisms on artificial substrates as well as 
 
 from the bottom sediments was less in the area of elevated aluminum than 
 
 at other stations. Aluminum levels were seven times higher than background 
 
 levels, averaging 1465 ppm.^ The effects on macroinvertebrates of high 
 
 aluminum levels in bottom sediments are not thoroughly understood or 
 
 defined. However, the use of macroinvertebrates as monitoring indicators 
 
 suggest that they may be intolerant to elevated aluminum concentrations;^ 
 
 Toxicity of Iron to Aquatic Life 
 
 The toxicity of iron is dependent upon the form of iron under 
 
 consideration and other environmental conditions, such as pH. The two 
 
 primary forms of iron are the ferrous, or bivalent (Fe"*"^), and the ferric, 
 
 or trivalent (Fe"*"^) iron. The solubility of the ferrous and ferric forms 
 
 are indicative of the factors which must be considered in assessing toxic 
 
 levels. In a 1978 study, Muchmore presented the following conclusions 
 
 concerning the significance of the ferrous and ferric forms of iron in water. ^ 
 
 Iron in the ferric form is extremely insoluble. Only the pH 
 values below 3.7 should result in dissolved iron concentra- 
 tions in excess of 0.5 mg/z. 
 
 Iron in the ferrous form is more soluble. Dissolved iron 
 values above 0.5 mg/j, could exist at pH values below 9.6. 
 
 • Soluble ferrous iron at neutral pH and in the presence of 
 oxygen is rapidly oxidized to the insoluble ferric form. 
 
 Iron in the ferric form at neutral pH, which is the most common 
 occurrence, does not appear to be deleterious to aquatic life. However, under 
 conditions of low pH and in the presence of dissolved oxygen, iron can precipi- 
 tate as a hydroxide and form floes or gels. These floes eventially settle to 
 the stream bottom, smothering bottom dwelling invertebrates, plants, and 
 incubating fish eggs. Ferric hydroxide floes have been observed to coat the 
 gills of white perch, minnows, and silversides.^ 
 
43 
 
 There is much variability in the data concerning toxic levels of iron 
 in aquatic systems. Oftentimes results are given and the form in which iron . 
 is introduced is unclear. Failure to report pH also accounts for the varia- 
 tion in the literature. Iron in test systems is normally added as the 
 
 chloride, sulfate or nitrate salt. If the system is not strongly buffered, 
 the precipitation of the iron as ferrous or ferric hydroxide can reduce 
 
 the pH to low levels which, by itself, has demonstrated toxic effects 
 
 toward fish. ^ 
 
 Brandt found iron toxic to carp at concentrations of 0.9 mg/ i 
 when the pH was 5.5. Pike and trout died at concentrations of 1 to 2 mg/ 4 
 iron? Other investigators report a killing dose to be a week of exposure 
 at 10,000 parts per million.® Many investigators indicate toxicity effects 
 in the 1.0 mg/J, range, and this level is the recomended criteria in the 
 U.S. EPA Water Quality Criteria document.' 
 
 The acute toxicity of iron to different species of aquatic insects 
 were studied by Warnick and Bell.^ Three species of insects were used— 
 a stonefly, Acroneuria lycorias , a mayfly, Ephemerella subraria , and a 
 caddisfly, Hydropsyche letteni . These were chosen because they are wide- 
 spread, easily collected and maintained in the laboratory, and important 
 fish food organisms. The bioassays technique was performed at 18.5" C and 
 dissolved oxygen was maintained at 8.0 mg/2, throughout the test. The dilu- 
 tion water had a pH of 7.25, alkalinity of 40.0 mg/n and hardness of 
 44.0 mq/i. Ephamerella proved to be the most sensitive to iron with a 
 
 96 hr TL of 0.32 mg/z.^ The tests for iron utilizing Acroneuria and 
 m 
 
 Hydropsyche gave 50% survival at 16.0 mg/i after 9 days and 7 days, respec- 
 tively. 
 
44 
 
 Given that iron in the ferric form is extremely insoluble, and 
 that ferrous iron at neutral pH and in the presence of dissolved oxygen 
 is rapidly oxidized to the insoluble ferric form, only limited amounts of 
 soluble iron are expected to occur in the Mississippi River. Volume 1 of 
 Water Resources Data for Illinois - Water Year 1980 included data on 
 dissolved iron tests performed on Mississippi River water below Alton. ^° 
 The average of the four values obtained was less than 0.02 mg/£. No 
 dissolved iron would be expected in the Alton Water Company's discharge. 
 Therefore, dissolved iron concentrations are not considered as a factor 
 in the impact. 
 
 The total iron concentrations in the sediment did not appear to 
 affect benthic organisms to any measurable extent. This statement is 
 based upon Evans' analysis of the number and type of benthic organisms down- 
 stream of the discharge compared to upstream of the discharge, since there 
 was no decline in species or number of organisms. 
 
 Effects of Turbidity on Fish Communities 
 
 Turbidity is an optical property that causes light to be scattered 
 and absorbed rather than transmitted in straight lines. It is well known 
 that increases in suspended solids will result in greater turbidity. High 
 turbidity reduces the photosynthetic zone within a body of water by de- 
 creasing the depth of light penetration. A reduction of the photosynthetic 
 zone will in turn reduce the amount of primary production. Primary produc- 
 tivity is defined as the rate at which energy from light is absorbed and 
 utilized in the production of organic matter in photosynthesis. The organic 
 matter produced becomes an important food source for aquatic organisms. 
 
45 
 
 particularly in lake systems. In river systems, however, primary production 
 plays a lesser role as principle energy inputs are in the form of deposited ■ 
 organic material, such as leaf litter. 
 
 The effect on fisheries of varying concentrations of inert solids 
 concentrations were reviewed by the European Inland Fisheries Advisory 
 Cormiission in 1965. •'■^ Their conclusions regarding suspended solids concentra- 
 tions and satisfactory water quality for fish are presented below: ^^ 
 
 There is no evidence that concentrations of suspended solids less 
 than 25 mg/2, have any harmful effects on fisheries. 
 
 It should usually be possible to maintain good or moderate fisheries 
 in waters which normally contain 25 to 80 mg/i suspended solids. 
 
 Waters normally containing 80-400 mg/i suspended solids are unlikely 
 to support good freshwater fisheries, although fisheries may some- 
 times be found at the lower concentrations within this range. 
 
 At best, only poor fisheries are likely to be found at the higher 
 concentrations within this range. 
 
 The Commission report also stated that exposure to several thousand 
 mg/x, of suspended solids for several hours or days may not kill fish and that 
 other inert or organic solids may be substantially more toxic. 
 
 The Evans et al . , study elected to omit measurements of instream 
 water quality due to the fact th^t chemical analysis performed in an earlier 
 study at the water treatment plant in Pontiac, Illinois failed to detect any 
 difference between stream and downstream measurements for suspended solids, 
 dissolved oxygen, and silica in a smaller river. Increases in sulfate, 
 turbidity, and aluminum concentrations were perceptible but were considered 
 transitory. ^ 
 
 To provide a measure of the possible impact, Evans et al.,^ estimated 
 the change in suspended solids concentration for the Mississippi River under 
 
46 
 
 worse case conditions. The waste load applied to the river was that quantity 
 released by 1) decanting and flushing of mixer and basin sludge residue 
 representative of six months accumulation, 2) the daily discharge of the 
 clarifier at a solids capture rate of 78% of the solids applied, and 3) 
 the backwashing of 24 filters - all to occur within 24 hours. 
 
 Utilizing this scenario determining solids loading would clearly 
 represent a worst case event, as it assumes that the filters which are 
 backwashed once every 16 hours, the clarifiers which are blown down every 
 three days, and the decanting and flushing of the mixers and sedimentation 
 which occur twice a year (and require 2 to 3 days to complete) are all 
 contributing their accumulated wastes to the river in a 24 hour period. 
 
 The seven-day, 10 year low flow of the Mississippi River at Alton 
 is 21,740 cubic feet per second (cfs).^ Evans et al . , assumed a 10% mixing 
 of the waste stream with the stream flow. In other words, the calculated 
 suspended solids in the stream are based upon the dispersion of the waste 
 load through only 10% of the stream flow. During the low flow period utilized 
 in the computation it was considered probable that the instream suspended 
 solids levels were minimal, for this reason a concentration of 10 mg/£ was 
 assumed for comparative purposes. 
 
 Utilizing these conditions for waste discharge and streamflow, in 
 which about 278,200 pounds of solids will be applied in a volume of about 
 5.4 cfs to a streamflow of 2174 cfs (10% mixing at low flow conditions) at 
 a background suspended solids concentration of 10 mg/£ , the resultant sus- 
 pended solids in the river are estimated to be 34 mg/g, . In effect, the 
 increase in suspended solids levels above background levels and under worst 
 conditions would be 24 mg/2, . The probable frequency of occurrence of all 
 
47 
 
 water treatment units contributing their accumulated wastes within the 
 same 24 hour period would be two days in 365 days. 
 
 To obtain an estimate of the increase in suspended solids above 
 background levels that are likely to occur on a daily basis, a solids 
 loading of 12,500 pound per day and the average annual flow of the 
 Mississippi River at Alton (97,338 cfs) was utilized. The increase in 
 suspended solids concentrations above background levels was calculated to 
 be 0.24 mg/£.* The associated increase in turbidity for this incremental 
 change in suspended solids is thus considered minimal and the benefits 
 associated with reduction are negligible. 
 Public Water Supplies 
 
 Another important water use relates to the impact upon downstream 
 water supplies. Several Illinois communities on the Mississippi River 
 utilize the river as their major potable water source. Table 4-2 depicts 
 the location of major water supplies as well as their waste disposal method. 
 According to Table 4-2, there are three communities, Moline, Rock Island, 
 and Quincy, who provide treatment for their wastes. The remainder discharge 
 directly to the river. 
 
 Since the operating costs of water treatment are affected to some 
 extent by the water quality, there may be potential benefits to those 
 downstream of the water company (if the Alton Water Company is required to 
 comply with the Illinois effluent standards. As was mentioned in the Evans 
 study, the 
 
 Assuming the same 10% of the stream for a mixing zone 
 
48 
 
 Table 4-2. Summary of Intake Pumpage for Public Water Supplies 
 Utilizing the Mississippi River Water 
 
 
 Da' 
 
 Average 
 ily Pumpage, 
 MGD 
 
 Waste 
 Treatment 
 Provided 
 
 Wastes 
 
 Discharged 
 
 To River 
 
 X 
 
 Year of 
 Pumpage 
 Data 
 
 Alton 
 
 
 12.7 
 
 1981 
 
 Chester 
 
 
 0.561 
 
 
 X 
 
 1981 
 
 Dallas City 
 
 
 0.01 
 
 
 X 
 
 1980 
 
 East Moline 
 
 
 4.2 
 
 
 X 
 
 1979 
 
 Hamilton 
 
 
 0.30 
 
 
 X 
 
 1980 
 
 Illinois State 
 
 Pen. 
 
 0.825 
 
 ,, 
 
 X 
 
 1982 
 
 Moline 
 
 
 7.5 
 
 X 
 
 
 1979 
 
 Nauvoo 
 
 
 0.145 
 
 
 X 
 
 1980 
 
 Rock Island 
 
 
 7.3 
 
 X 
 
 
 1982 
 
 Quincy 
 
 
 7.0 
 
 X 
 
 
 1980 
 
 Warsaw 
 
 
 0.15 
 
 
 X 
 
 1981 
 
 East St. Louis 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 Source: lEPA Communication, Roger Selberg, August 17, 1982 
 
49 
 
 quantity of suspended solids has a direct affect upon the interval between 
 filter backwashing and flushing of solids in other basins. Evans et al . , 
 estimated that Alton Water Company removed on average 12,500 pounds per day 
 of solids. This represents 4.56 million pounds per year of material removed 
 from the river. If this material was not reintroduced, it could be assumed 
 that the ultimate pounds of river solids would be reduced. This reduction 
 could be translated into a decrease in suspended solids concentration, which 
 ultimately benefitted downstream water supplies. 
 
 Evans et al.,^ calculated the relative magnitude of the water 
 treatment plant solids removal to the average load carried in the Missi- 
 ssippi River. The solids discharged represent .018% of the average 
 load in the Mississippi River. Thus, to downstream water users the 
 expected change in suspended solids concentration and loading would not 
 be greater than 0.018%. In fact, as additional sources, such as tribu- 
 taries and land runoff, are accumulated, the percent removal associated with 
 the dischargers will decrease. 
 
50 
 
 The downstream users of East St. Louis, Chester, and Menard 
 Correctional Center withdraw 41.5 MGD from the Mississippi River. 
 Assuming Alton's operating cost of $0.44 per 1000 gallons* is represen- 
 tative, then the total annual cost of downstream water treatment is $6.7 
 million. The maximum benefit expected from reduced solids loadings would 
 be 0.018% or $1,200 per year. 
 
 Benefits to Navigation 
 
 Navigation is an important use of the Mississippi River, and the 
 St. Louis District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) maintains 
 the navigability of the Mississippi River. One important factor in main- 
 taining the navigation channels is the deposition of sediment above Lock 
 and Dam No. 26. According to the St. Louis COE, there are dredging opera- 
 tions scheduled annually for the center area (between the lock and dam) of 
 the river. -"-^ Also, every four years there is maintenance dredging in the 
 upper reach above the locks to improve the maneuverability of barges in their 
 approach to the locks. ^^ The U.S. COE dredges approximately 30,000 to 40,000 
 cubic yards of material annually at a cost of $0.90 to $1.00 per cubic yard. 
 Ultimate disposal of this dredged material is the river since the Corps of 
 Engineers practice "open water disposal." The dredged material is released 
 above the dam but at a proximity which should insure that the material goes 
 over the dam. 
 
 Considering the need for constant dredging of the Mississippi River, 
 the solids disposal practice at Alton Water Company can be evaluated. If 
 the Alton Water Company treats and disposes of the river solids on land, 
 
 * $2.0 million per year is operating and maintenance costs for treating 
 flow rates of 12.5 MGD. 
 
 Cost per 1000 gal = $2,000,000/[(12.5)(365){1000)] 
 
 = $0.44. 
 
51 
 
 then the total amount of solids in the river has been reduced by 12,500 
 
 pounds per day. The important question becomes how much of the material 
 
 removed by the company would have deposited in the upper reach or center 
 
 of Lock and Dam No. 26 or the next dredging point in the river. Evans 
 
 et al.,^ did not find large depositions immediately downstream of the 
 
 plant, although the character of the bottom sediment was obviously modified. 
 
 Any material which would have deposited would increase the incremental costs 
 
 of dredging. Therefore, a potential benefit of the Alton Water Company 
 
 disposing of solids on land is reduced dredging cost. 
 
 The maximum benefit which could be obtained can be calculated, 
 
 assuming 100% of the solids settle and must be dredged. The following 
 
 calculations summarize the maximum possible annual benefit: 
 
 Maximum Annual _ rc^i,-^^ w-:..^w^v.r,«^/>,v<irUnit disposal*^ 
 Savings in Dredging " f^^°^^^' discharged/yr]^^^^ for solids^ 
 
 = 12,500 lb 
 
 365 days 
 
 $.00087 
 
 day 
 = $4,000 
 
 yr 
 
 lb solids 
 
 The actual benefits are lower than $4,000 per year; however, it 
 would be impossible to predict the fraction which is appropriate. Removal 
 of river solids would incrementally reduce the dredging costs between $0 and 
 $4,000 per year. 
 
 1 TTTT 1 I $1.00 
 
 * Umt disposal cost = 
 
 yd- 
 
 TF" 
 
 73 lb 
 
 ydj 
 
 lb dredged mat'l 
 
 27 ft^ 1.58 lb solids 
 
 = $.00087/lb solids 
 
52 
 
 Aesthetics 
 
 Aesthetics relate to the visual appearance or changes in other 
 sensory experiences, such as smell, which impact the level of enjoyment 
 of activity. The magnitude of aesthetic values depends to some extent upon 
 the number of recreational users of a site. In addition, there are intrinsic 
 values associated with clean water which are shared by users and non-users. 
 These intrinsic values relate to willingness to pay for improved water 
 quality because of preservation motives or option values. Thus, in 
 addressing aesthetic changes, there must be consideration not only of the 
 accessibility and recreational characteristics of downstream locations but 
 also knowledge regarding the general population located near a particular 
 river and their value of water quality. 
 
 The aesthetics associated with the Alton Water Company discharge 
 pertain to visual changes in the river during the time of flushing or 
 discharge. Chapter II described the immediate downstream land uses as 
 commercial and industrial followed by Lock and Dam No. 26. Below the dam is 
 the City of Alton. Aesthetics associated with recreational uses would be 
 limited to only the boating activities on the river since no sites appear 
 to be located near Alton. 
 
 The question of intrinsic aesthetic benefits is much more difficult 
 to define and to ascertain a value. The visual change in the Mississippi 
 River has not been delineated in the technical documents. Realizing that 
 the Mississippi River does carry high sediment loads at times and that the 
 clarity of the water varies between eight and 337 JTU units, the incremental 
 change in visual appearance cannot be described. If the visual change in 
 river color or clarity were "noticeable" or clearly evident to those near 
 
53 
 
 the river, then intrinsic values of users and non-users would become an 
 important factor. The magnitude, however, cannot be assigned without 
 detailed information regarding the population characteristics and values. 
 Summary of Benefits 
 
 The benefits associated with total elimination of the Alton Water 
 Company discharge have'been described for various water uses. The environ- 
 mental benefits associated with fish, benthic communities, and dissolved 
 oxygen levels downstream of Alton appear to be negligible from the avail- 
 able data. The present discharge does not appear to have deleterious 
 effects on habitat. Therefore, there are no direct benefits from eliminating 
 this discharge. 
 
 The two uses which could be enhanced relate to downstream public water 
 supplies and dredging operations for maintaining navigation. The reduced costs 
 to public water supplies ranged from $0 to $1200 per year, and the beneficial 
 savings to dredging operations varied between $0 to $4,000 per year. Thus, 
 the quantifiable benefits of total elimination of the Alton Water Company 
 discharge ranges between $0 and $5,200 per year. The actual benefit would 
 occur within this range. Benefits which are not quantifiable consist 
 primarily of aesthetic improvements. The magnitude of the visual changes and 
 the attitudes and characteristics of the population near the river would 
 determine the relative importance of the aesthetic benefits. 
 
54 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 
 
 In Chapters III and IV the costs of compliance and anticipated 
 benefits of treating the Alton Water Company discharge have been 
 described. The relative magnitude of these total costs and benefits 
 must be considered as well as the incremental values associated with 
 a partial treatment scenario. 
 Elimination of Alton Water Company Discharge 
 
 To comply with the existing 15 mg/j, suspended solids effluent 
 limitation requires complete treatment of the discharge. Alton Water 
 Company investigated several ways of treating the discharge. The capital 
 investment estimates ranged from $3.0 million to $4.1 million, and the 
 associated total annual costs were over $500,000. 
 
 Chapter IV described the potential benefits associated with the 
 elimination of the Alton Water Company discharge. Table 5-1 summarizes 
 the four areas, aesthetics environmental impacts, public water supplies, 
 and navigation, to which benefits may accrue. The maximum measurable 
 benefits were associated with reduced costs to public water supplies and 
 dredging operations. Total benefits consisted of $0 to $5,200 per year 
 plus aesthetic improvement in the river. The magnitude of the aesthetic 
 values would have to be quite large if benefits were to be comparable to 
 the costs imposed of $517,000 per year. 
 Alternative Treatment Levels Benefits 
 
 The possibility of treating only one of three waste streams based 
 upon cost-effective removal was discussed in Chapter 3. Treatment of the 
 
55 
 
 0) 3 
 
 -!-> If- 
 
 o 
 
 
 iA 
 
 
 to •<— 
 
 
 4-> O 
 
 
 •r- C 
 
 
 «4- •!- 
 
 
 (U r- 
 
 
 C r— 
 
 
 0) « 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 (U 
 
 
 "O ^ 
 
 
 c •»-> 
 
 
 (O 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 v> -t-> 
 
 
 4-> -i- 
 
 
 00 S 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 o en 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 ^■^ •(-• 
 
 
 (T3 >, 
 
 
 -M .— 
 
 
 C Q. 
 
 
 <U E 
 
 
 E O 
 
 
 C (_) 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 s- >, 
 
 
 •1- c 
 
 
 > (O 
 
 
 C Q. 
 
 
 LU E 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 ^- CJ 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 s- 
 
 «/) 
 
 C 0) 
 
 c 
 
 O 4J 
 
 o 
 
 «/) lO 
 
 •r— 
 
 •1- 3 
 
 4-> 
 
 s- 
 
 fO 
 
 rtS c 
 
 -M 
 
 Q. O 
 
 • r- 
 
 E -M 
 
 E 
 
 O r- 
 
 'f~ 
 
 o «a: 
 
 —J 
 
 I 
 
 0} 
 
 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 o 
 to 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 4-> 
 
 to 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 (T3 
 
 3 
 C 
 
 >> 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 to 
 
 o 
 
 0) 
 +-> 
 
 <T3 
 O 
 
 ■M 
 O 
 (O 
 
 Q. 
 
 O C^•. 
 
 <U 
 
 
 C 
 (O 
 
 3 
 
 or 
 
 ■M 
 
 O 
 
 -M 
 
 c: 
 (U 
 E 
 (U 
 O) > 
 
 r— O 
 
 to 
 to 
 
 <u o 
 
 U •!- 
 
 O r— 
 
 3 
 O) Q. 
 C 
 •I- s_ 
 
 U 3 
 fO to 
 
 Q. (O 
 
 o o 
 
 S- E C r— O 
 
 3 (U 
 
 o s- 
 
 c o 
 
 to 
 
 o o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 4a<»- 
 I 
 
 O 
 E 
 ns 
 <U 
 
 s- 
 
 ■M 
 
 to 
 
 sz 
 to 2 
 
 -o o 
 •.- -o 
 
 'o,c 
 
 to o 
 
 T3 C7> 
 O) C 
 O ••— to 
 
 3 -a s- 
 -a to <v 
 
 O) o </) 
 
 Qi _l 3 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 01 
 T3 to 
 
 S- to 
 
 ■o O 
 
 U 
 
 ■o 
 
 OJ 
 
 3 
 
 -o 
 
 OJ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 in 
 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 o 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 O 
 
 s_ to 
 
 -M CU 
 
 c s_ 
 
 O 3 
 
 C_) -M 
 
 C T3 
 
 O C 
 
 •t- 0) 
 
 -M a. 
 
 3 X 
 
 O 
 
 Q. 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 •be- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •t— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >1 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 «/» 
 
 
 +-> 
 
 E 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 •M 
 
 
 •1— 
 
 IB 
 
 
 0) 
 
 >1 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 C 
 
 -M 
 
 
 •r— 
 
 cz 
 
 
 (O 
 
 
 3 
 
 C 
 
 
 r» 
 
 (O 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 Q- 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 E 
 
 o 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 E 
 
 
 1— t 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 to 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 C_3 
 
 r^ 
 
 u 
 
 t/) 
 
 (_3 
 
 
 r— 
 
 
 
 fO 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 
 fC 
 
 
 O 
 
 • ^- 
 
 ■M 
 
 S- 
 
 i. 
 
 
 -(-> 
 
 
 • r— 
 
 'S- 
 
 O) 
 
 o; 
 
 O) 
 
 to 
 
 c 
 
 
 -C 
 
 O) 
 
 .E 
 
 4J 
 
 •M 
 
 o 
 
 CD 
 
 .C 
 
 +-> 
 
 -»-> 
 
 4-> 
 
 <o 
 
 »a 
 
 
 E 
 
 to 
 
 c 
 
 u 
 
 to 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 4J 
 
 c 
 
 •r- 
 
 a> 
 
 (T3 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 <U 
 
 o 
 
 Li- 
 
 CO 
 
 CO ca: 
 
 O 
 
 C 
 
 J= 
 
 s- 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 o 
 
 -M 
 
 •r- 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 p— 
 
 +-> 
 
 to 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 J3 
 
 ,^ 
 
 O) 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 LU 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 C 
 
 r— 
 
 o 
 
 (O 
 
 ^» 
 
 4-> 
 
 4J 
 
 o 
 
 IT3 
 
 1— 
 
 CT 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 na 
 
 
56 
 
 clarifier blowdown appeared to be the only alternative to analyze based 
 upon the relative loading and volume of the waste stream. 
 
 The waste stream originating from clarifier blowdown is a seasonal 
 phenomenon, occurring from April to November. This is attributed to the 
 poor solids removals across the clarifier in cold weather. Evans et al.,^ 
 estimated that from April through November the solids accumulated at a rate 
 of 13,340 lb/day in the plant. The clarifiers were effective in removing 
 an estimated 79% or 10,472 pounds of solids each day during this seven 
 month period. 
 
 The remaining waste streams, consisting of the filter backwash and 
 basin/mixer blowdown, would continue to discharge to the river. From April 
 through November the discharge would be greatly reduced; however, from 
 December through March, the present discharge volume would continue. Re- 
 moving and treating this seasonal discharge would reduce the total annual 
 solids loading to the Mississippi River by 68%. The incremental environmental 
 benefits of removing and treating the clarifier blowdown are based upon the 
 analyses of Chapter IV and are summarized in the following sections. 
 
 Sediment Deposition 
 
 The Evans et al . , study indicated that there was no degradation of 
 the benthic community with the existing discharge.^ For the area within 
 the zone of influence, the Alton discharge produced a change from the 
 natural sandy bottom to a silty sand bottom, which in turn provided an 
 improved habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. The importance of the 
 clarifier blowdown in maintaining the silty sand bottom downstream of the 
 Alton Water plant cannot be determined with existing information. It is 
 possible that spring flow velocities are high enough to scour the improved 
 
57 
 
 habitat, in which case the loadings associated with clarifier blowdown 
 may help to some extent in re-establishing the favorable habitat. Little 
 is known concerning the dynamics of the improved habitat within the zone 
 of influence; however, the expected benefits of a possible reduction in 
 sediment deposition are considered to be "zero" based upon the results of 
 Chapter III and Chapter IV. 
 
 Oxygen Demand of Residue 
 
 As discussed in Chapter IV, the oxygen demand of water treatment 
 plant sludges are considered small and exerted at a low rate.^ An investi- 
 gation into the dissolved oxygen levels above and below a water treatment 
 plant located on the Vermilion River failed to show statistically signifi- 
 cant differences between average dissolved oxygen levels between up and 
 downstream locations.^ 
 
 Reducing the daily load of solids from the Alton Water plant by 
 79% from April to November would not provide any additional environmental 
 benefit in terms of increased downstream dissolved oxygen levels. This 
 conclusion is based upon available information regarding the oxygen- 
 demanding characteristics of the sludges. 
 
 Reduction of Bacterial Contamination 
 
 Reducing the solids loading to the river by 68% via treatment of 
 clarifier blowdown would similarly reduce the amount of bacteria which 
 enters the river in the discharge. The previous Evans study of the Pontiac 
 Water Treatment Plant did not analyze for bacteria in the discharge, nor was 
 it considered in the environmental impact assessment at Alton. As a result, 
 the importance of bacterial growth associated with the plants' discharge and 
 the possible environmental effects of reducing the bacteria contribution to 
 
58 
 
 the river cannot be quantified. 
 
 Changes in Aluminum and Iron Concentrations 
 
 Evans et al . , failed to find evidence that aluminum and iron 
 concentrations in the bottom sediments below the Alton discharge were 
 present at levels toxic to aquatic organisms. ■'■ Aluminum and iron 
 accumulation rates were not determined in the Evans et al., study nor is 
 the data based on sediment aluminum and iron toxicity levels adequate to 
 predict lethal limits. Since existing conditions cannot be ascribed as 
 toxic, a reduction in aluminum and iron loadings does not have any estimated 
 incremental benefit. 
 
 Turbidity Impacts 
 
 Since the expected effect of the present discharge upon suspended 
 solids was only 24 mg/a under worst case conditions and this had no quanti- 
 fiable impact, incremental reductions had "zero" benefits. 
 
 Public Water Supply Benefits 
 
 The incremental changes in public water supply costs are a direct 
 function of the solids loading to the river. If the clarifier blowdown is 
 removed, then approximately 2800 pounds per day or 1 million pounds per 
 year of solids would be discharged to the Mississippi River. Thus, the 
 total pounds to the river are reduced from 4.56 million to 1.0 million 
 per year. 
 
 If the Chapter IV methodology is used for estimating reduced 
 costs to water supplies, the following calculation is appropriate: 
 
 PWS Savings = |^ x $6.7 x 10' x 0.00018* 
 
 = $940/year 
 
 * where $6.7 million is the annual cost of downstream water treatment and 
 0.018% is reduction in cost for complete elimination of discharge. 
 
59 
 
 Thus, the benefits associated with treatment of the clarifier blowdown 
 
 are between $0 and $940 per year for water supplies. 
 
 Navigational Benefits 
 
 The change in dredging costs is also a direct function of the 
 
 solids deposited in the river. If the clarifier blowdown is removed, 
 
 then the 58% reduction in solids to the river occurs. If the unit cost 
 
 of disposing of solids is $0.00087/1 b solids (as calculated in Chapter IV), 
 
 then the following calculations summarize the maximum possible benefit: 
 
 Maximum Annual = Present Cost - Future Cost of Solids 
 Savings in Dredging 
 
 ^ 2800 lb I 365 days I $0.00087 
 day I year I lb solids 
 
 ,= $4000 - $900 = $3100/yr 
 
 Aesthetic Benefits 
 
 The aesthetic benefits of a reduced discharge cannot be properly 
 addressed without a projection of visual changes and knowledge regarding 
 the intrinsic values of the user and non-user population. Therefore, 
 aesthetic benefits are not measurable at the incremental level. 
 Alternative Treatment Level Costs 
 
 The treatment costs associated with control of only the clarifier 
 blowdown were described in Chapter III as ranging between $116,000 and 
 $242,000 per year. Table 5-2 compares the magnitude of costs and benefits 
 of partial compliance for the Alton Water Company. There are benefits which 
 have not been quantified; however, there remains two orders of magnitude 
 between the expected costs and benefits of this alternative. 
 Incremental Costs and Benefits 
 
 If the relative change in costs and benefits is examined between 
 Tables 5-1 and 5-2, the partial level of compliance appears to be a more 
 
60 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 (T5 
 
 c 
 
 OJ 
 
 o 
 
 i- 
 
 •M 
 
 •M 
 
 r^ 
 
 C/1 
 
 <c 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 4- 
 
 3 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 
 ■a 
 
 (/J 
 
 s 
 
 4-) 
 
 o 
 
 •r" 
 
 r— ' 
 
 M- 
 
 CO 
 
 O) 
 
 
 C 
 
 s_ 
 
 O) 
 
 a 
 
 CQ 
 
 • r— 
 
 
 M- 
 
 T3 
 
 • r— 
 
 C 
 
 S- 
 
 <T3 
 
 <TJ 
 
 
 1— 
 
 l/l 
 
 O 
 
 4J 
 
 
 (/J 
 
 o; 
 
 o x: 
 
 (_) 
 
 4J 
 
 r- 
 
 >. 
 
 (T3 
 
 r^ 
 
 -)-> 
 
 C 
 
 C 
 
 o 
 
 dJ 
 
 
 E 
 
 cn 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 •r— 
 
 s- 
 
 ■M 
 
 •r- 
 
 TJ 
 
 > 
 
 <U 
 
 C 
 
 S- 
 
 LU 
 
 1— 
 
 M- 
 
 >> 
 
 O 
 
 c 
 
 
 (O 
 
 C 
 
 a. 
 
 o 
 
 E 
 
 (/) 
 
 o 
 
 • r- 
 
 o 
 
 S- 
 
 
 (O 
 
 S- 
 
 Q. 
 
 O) 
 
 E 
 
 4J 
 
 O 
 
 <a 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 CM 
 
 
 LO 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 J3 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 r«-. 
 
 LO 
 
 
 S- 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 •k 
 
 «t 
 
 
 >> 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 CM 
 
 m 
 
 U) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 ^^=>- 
 
 ■«><^ 
 
 ■!-> 
 
 ■be- 
 
 
 
 
 O O C^- o 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 »4- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 to 
 
 "O 
 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■*-> to 
 
 "3 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 (0 
 
 
 O) u -1- 
 
 O E 
 1— ra 
 
 CD 
 
 
 ^— 
 
 
 
 •^^ 
 
 
 E O r- 
 
 OJ 
 
 C 
 
 
 (O 
 
 C 
 
 
 (»- 
 
 
 0) ro ja 
 
 to s_ 
 
 »1— 
 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 
 •i~ 
 
 
 O) > 3 
 
 T3 ■»-> 
 
 cn 
 
 
 C 
 
 •f— 
 
 
 4J 
 
 
 ■— O O) Q. 
 
 •r- to 
 
 T3 to 
 
 
 C 
 
 4J 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 J2 %. C 
 
 1— C 
 
 OJ 4J 
 
 
 <C 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 (O 
 
 
 fO Q- -r- S_ 
 
 O 2 
 
 s- to 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 •t-> i- E C .— O 
 
 </J o . 
 
 ■o o 
 
 
 
 S- 
 
 
 cr 
 
 
 U 3 -t- 2 OJ »4- 
 
 ■o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 (O to O i- 
 
 •a 
 
 ■o 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 ■M 
 
 
 Q. (T3 CO 
 
 O) c 
 
 a> 
 
 
 
 (U 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 E <u -s<: x: 
 
 o O to 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 •r- E to 
 
 o o o o 
 
 Z Z 2= 2 
 
 Redu 
 
 ing 
 
 user 
 
 3 
 T3 
 0) 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 t O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 O " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 #t 
 
 
 
 O CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 •>«!3- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '::f 
 
 
 &. 
 
 <X) CM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 >> 
 
 r-t -t/^- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 in 
 
 
 1—1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ■M 
 
 •(>«>■ 
 
 ■b«>- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0t 
 
 O 
 
 
 'o 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 T-l 
 
 r— 
 
 
 1. VI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t— 1 
 
 (O 
 
 
 +J 0) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■<y=>- 
 
 3 
 
 c: 
 
 C i. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 o 
 
 O 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 •r— 
 
 O 4-) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <X. 
 
 4-> 
 Q. 
 
 o 
 m 
 
 o 
 
 Pollution 
 Expendi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'r* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <TJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >> *:: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 4-> E 
 
 «/> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4-> 
 
 •I- (TJ 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 
 
 >> 
 
 
 O 
 
 C +J 
 
 •r- 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 (O 
 
 3 C 
 
 r-^ 
 
 
 
 
 >, 
 
 n3 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 E O 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 
 s- 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 E 
 
 E C_3 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 E 
 
 
 1— ^ 
 
 O to 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 cn 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 O .— O 
 
 cn 
 
 
 
 
 (V 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^— ' 
 
 (O -1- 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■M 
 
 
 
 <o 
 
 U -r- +-> 
 
 s- 
 
 
 
 
 (O 
 
 i- 
 
 
 ■M 
 
 •.- S_ OJ 
 
 (U 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 C_3 
 
 (U 
 
 to 
 
 C 
 
 ^ <u x: 
 
 ■M 
 
 c 
 
 r— 
 
 
 
 +-> 
 
 o 
 
 0) 
 
 .C 4-> ■«-> -M 
 
 fO 
 
 o 
 
 (O 
 
 
 +J 
 
 fO 
 
 
 E 
 
 to c o to 
 
 3 
 
 •I— 
 
 4-> 
 
 
 u 
 
 3 
 
 ■M 
 
 c 
 
 •r- OJ fT3 O) 
 
 
 +-> 
 
 O 
 
 
 rt3 
 
 
 O) 
 
 o 
 
 U_ CQ CO cI 
 
 u 
 
 nj 
 
 1— 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 E 
 
 C 
 
 o 
 
 
 i_ 
 
 
 ••- 
 
 C71 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •r~* 
 
 
 
 
 +J 
 
 to 
 
 > 
 
 
 J3 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 ^— 
 
 CU 
 
 c 
 
 
 3 
 
 fO 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 Q- 
 
 z: 
 
 
61 
 
 efficient solution. The annual costs and benefits of regulation can be 
 
 summarized as follows: 
 
 Condition Annual Cost, $/year Annual Benefits to 
 to Alton Water Company Environment, $/year 
 
 Baseline (Existing Con- ^ ^ 
 
 ditions) 
 
 Partial Compliance $116,000-$242,000 ' 0-$3,500 
 
 Complete Compliance - $517,000 0-$5,200 
 
 The incremental costs increase associated with the change between 
 partial and complete compliance is $275,000 to $401,000 per year. The 
 corresponding incremental increase in benefits is $0 to $1,700 per year. 
 Thus, the costs increase by 100% while the benefits rise by only 49°^ be- 
 tween the two levels of control. The incremental benefits and costs in- 
 dicate that the net costs far exceed net benefits for the Alton Water Company. 
 There appears to be no other possible level of control which would have lower 
 costs and still yield positive benefits to the environment. 
 
62 
 
 Chapter VI 
 ECONOMIC IMPACT UPON ALTON WATER COMPANY 
 
 Enforcement of the suspended solids and iron limitation would 
 result in Alton Water Company incurring additional capital investment 
 and operating expenses for pollution control equipment. These incremental 
 costs would be passed on to customers of the company. Alton Water Company 
 serves 16,968 residential, commercial, industrial, and miscellaneous water 
 users. Thus, increased costs are passed on to the commercial, industrial, 
 and residential sectors of the communities served. 
 Financial Characteristics of Company 
 
 Alton Water Company is an Illinois corporation, and the primary 
 business of the company is operation of a water purification plant. The 
 following classification of water users and their associated usage volume 
 indicates that although residential users are the greatest in number, the 
 industrial customers require the greatest water volume: 
 
 
 Number of 
 Customers 
 
 1981 Usage in 
 1,000 gallons 
 
 Percent of 
 Total, % 
 
 Residential 
 
 15,140 
 
 875,502 
 
 28.93 
 
 Commercial 
 
 1,625 
 
 448,631 
 
 14,83 
 
 Industrial 
 
 45 
 
 1,106,796 
 
 38.36 
 
 Fire Service 
 
 70 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Other 
 
 88 
 
 541,209 
 
 17.88 
 
 Total . . . 
 
 16,968 
 
 3,026,138 
 
 100.00 
 
 Over 3 billion gallons of water are treated and sold on an annual basis by 
 Alton Water Company. 
 
63 
 
 Revenue is generated primarily from water sales. A typical 
 residential customer would pay $188 per year if the December 4, 1981 
 proposed rate increase occurs. This increase is needed to cover the 
 higher costs of operation and expansion. Table 6-1 summarizes the 1981 
 income statement for Alton Water Company. The 1981 revenue totalled 
 $3,436,600; however, after operating expenses, taxes and interest charges 
 the net income was $338,943 or 9.9% of -total revenue. Net income has- 
 fluctuated over the last four years from $275,379 in 1978 to $338,945 in 
 1981 as shown below: 
 
 1978 1979 1980 1981 
 Net Income $275,379 $355,110 $413,554 $338,945 
 
 Current long-term debt outstanding consists of six series of bonds 
 issued at various intervals over the last 23 years. Table 6-2 presents the 
 existing long-term debt commitments issued through 1980. Presently the 
 company has $5.01 million in debt outstanding, and the payments extend through 
 the year 2003. 
 
 To eliminate the discharge of solids would require an additional 
 $3 million in capital investment. This increase would be funded through a 
 combination of long-term debt and equity. In estimating the cost of 
 compliance, Alton Water Company assumed $1.9 million of long-term debt and 
 $1.1 million of common stock would provide the necessary funds. Utilizing 
 an interest rate of 16% for the debt portion, Alton Water Company estimated 
 annual interest costs of $710,000. In addition to interest charges, $17,000 
 in operating and maintenance cost increases would also be expected. 
 
64 
 
 Table 6-1. 1981 Statement of Income for Alton Water Company 
 
 Account 
 
 Value for 1981, $ 
 
 Operating Revenue 3 
 
 ,436,600 
 
 Operating Expenses 2 
 
 ,602,789 
 
 Operation 
 
 1,747,521 
 
 Maintenance 
 
 272,168 
 
 Depreciation 
 
 237,542 
 
 Amortization of Limited-Term 
 Utility Plant 
 
 247 
 
 Amortization of Investment 
 Credit 
 
 (7,108) 
 
 Taxes other than Income Taxes 
 
 189,647 
 
 Income Taxes Federal - Net of 
 Investment Credit 
 
 (3,534) 
 
 State Income Tax 
 
 17.630 
 
 Provision for Deferred Income 
 Tax 
 
 45,646 
 
 Income Taxes Deferred 
 
 103,030 
 
 Net Operating Revenue 
 
 833,811 
 
 Other Income 
 
 71,973 
 
 Total Income 
 
 905,784 
 
 Total Interest Charges 
 
 566,652 
 
 Net Income 
 
 338,943 
 
65 
 
 Table 6-2. Long-Term Debt of Alton Water Company 
 
 
 
 
 Date of 
 
 Outstanding 
 
 Interest 
 
 Bond Description 
 
 Date of Issue 
 
 Maturity 
 
 Amount, $ 
 
 Rate, % 
 
 
 Series D 
 
 1959 
 
 1984 
 
 1,200,000 
 
 5.25 
 
 
 Series E 
 
 1966 
 
 1991 
 
 1,200,000 
 
 5.10 
 
 Series 
 
 Commission 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Auth. #4572 
 
 1968 
 
 1993 
 
 800,000 
 
 7.38 
 
 Series 
 
 Commission 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Auth. #56310 
 
 1971 
 
 1996 
 
 200,000 
 
 9.25 
 
 
 Series F 
 
 1973 
 
 2003 
 
 700,000 
 
 7.75 
 
 Series 
 
 Commission 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Auth. #5220 
 Total 
 
 1980 
 
 1995 
 
 910,000 
 
 8.00 
 
 
 
 
 Long-Term Debt Outstanding 
 
 
 
 . 5,010,000 
 
 
 Source: Correspondence with Alton Water Company, August 25, 1982 
 
66 
 
 The current rates of the Alton Water Company can be compared to 
 those of other water suppliers on the Mississippi River. Alton's existing 
 rate charges occur on a sliding scale as shown below: 
 
 1000 gallons 1000 gallons Rate per 1000 
 per month per quarter gallons 
 
 For the first 24.75 74.25 $2,040 
 
 For the next 225.00 575.00 1.520 
 
 For the next 11,250.00 33,750.00 0.489 
 
 For all over 11,499.75 34,499.25 0.400 
 
 The average residential user is charged $188 per year or $47 per quarter. 
 
 The average residential bill on a quarterly basis for three other cities 
 
 Rate 
 is listed below: ■ ^iq^q g^i 
 
 Quincy 2.44 
 Rock Island 1.37 
 East St. Louis 1.66 
 
 The Alton Water Company rates are lower than Quincy (which does have a sliding 
 scale charge structure); however, the cities of Rock Island and East St. Louis 
 appear to have lower rates. There are service charges which also are added 
 V. to quarterly bills of customers. 
 
 Pollution costs would increase Alton's rates as compared to East 
 St. Louis and Rock Island. These costs when passed on affect the water 
 users, and this is discussed in the following section. 
 
67 
 
 Economic Effects of Pollution Control Investment 
 
 The increased pollution control cost of $727,000 per year would 
 represent approximately 21% of the total revenue generated by the company 
 through water sales. To maintain an economically viable operation, Alton 
 Water Company would request a rate hike to pass on the higher costs to 
 their customers. To generate the necessary revenue a rate increase of 12% 
 is expected, according to the Company.^ This implied that an additional 
 $23 per year would be paid by a residential user compared to the $188 per 
 year now paid. 
 
 Higher costs are also anticipated for the industrial and commercial 
 water users as well. If the 15,140 residential customers pay an additional 
 $23 per year, this accounts for $348,220. The remainder, or $378,780, would 
 be generated from the commercial, industrial, and other customers. If the 
 industrial component accounts for 75% of the remaining water use and revenue 
 generated (after the residential sector is deleted), then industry is ex- 
 pected to pay approximately $284,000 of the pollution control cost per year, 
 and the commercial and other establishments would contribute $95,000 in higher 
 water payments. 
 
 Thus, in considering the economic impact by sector, the 1,625 com- 
 mercial businesses of the Alton area would incur an additional $95,000 in 
 costs. The 45 industrial facilities would be expected to incur approximately 
 $284,000 per year. The average increase per facility is estimated at $6,300 
 per year. 
 
68 
 
 The residential component of the Alton area would, in effect, have 
 reduced incomes or purchasing power by $23 per year. This implies that con- 
 sumers would buy $23 less of goods and services in the Alton area because of 
 increased payments for water. If a multiplier is used to predict the indirect 
 effect on business activity in the Alton area, then the total effect of 
 $348,220 in lost income is $752,160 per year.* 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 * Secondary income multiplier of 2.16 for St. Clair County obtained from 
 "Assessment of Future Economic Tradeoffs Between Coal Mining and 
 Agriculture," Illinois Dept. of Energy and Natural Resources, Project 
 No. 80.214, July, 1982. 
 
69 
 
 REFERENCES 
 
 1. Evans, R., Hill, T., Schnepper, D., and Hullinger, D., "Waste from 
 the Water Treatment Plant at Alton and Its Impact On the Mississippi 
 River," Illinois State Water Survey, Contract Report 275, July 1981. 
 
 2. Evans, R., Schepper, D., and Hill, T.E., "Impact of Wastes from 
 a Water Treatment Plant: Evaluative Procedures and Results." Illinois 
 State Water Survey Circular 135, P. 39. 
 
 3. American Water Works Association, Inc., "Water Quality and Treatment," 
 McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1971, P. 633. 
 
 4. Culp, G.L. and Culp, R.L., New Concepts in Water Purification , Van 
 Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1974. 
 
 5. Water Resources Quality Control Committee, Illinois Section, AWWA, 
 "Wastes from Water Treatment Plants." March 10, 1970. 
 
 6. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Report of the Committee 
 On Water Quality Criteria , 1972 p. 152. 
 
 7. Water Quality Criteria Data Book - Vol 3 Effects of Chemical On Aquatic 
 Life , EPA Contract No. 68-01-0007, May 1971, p. A-7. 
 
 8. Muchmore, Charles B., "Economic Impact of a Proposed Regulation Deleting 
 the Dissolved Iron Standard," R76-21 IIEQ DOC. No. 78/02, June, 1978. 
 
 9. U.S. EPA, 1976. Quality Criteria for Water , Washington, D.C. p. 79. 
 
 10. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report 11-80-1, Water Resources 
 
 Data for Illinois , Volume 1 . Illinois Except Illinois River Basin , USGS/WRD/ 
 HD-81/049, p. 374. 
 
 11. Personal Communication, Don Huston, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
 St. Louis District, August 30, 1982. 
 
 12. U.S. EPA, "1978 Needs Survey — Cost Methodology for Control of Combined 
 Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Discharges," EPA Report No. 430/9-79-003, 
 February 10, 1979. 
 
o;7? -101 
 
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION 
 PAGE 
 
 l._REPORT NO. 
 
 IL ENR RE 83/03 
 
 «. Till* and Subtltl* 
 
 Economic Impact Assessment Regarding R82-3, A Site 
 Specific Exemption for the Alton Water Company 
 
 r. Aufhor(t) Linda Huff, Thomas Straits 
 
 3. RscipUnft Acccttlon No. 
 
 
 5. Report Date 
 
 March 1984 
 
 &. Performing Orsanlzatlon Rapt. No. 
 
 9. Performing Oixanlzation Name and Address 
 
 Huff and Huff, Inc. 
 
 140 N. LaGrange Rd, Suite 18 
 
 LaGrange, IL 60527 
 
 10. Pro(ect/Ta»k/Work Unit No. 
 
 80.280 
 
 U. ContracttC) or Grant(C) No. 
 
 (O 
 
 (G) 
 
 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 
 
 IL Dept of Energy and Natural Resources 
 325 W. Adams 
 Springfield, IL 62706 
 
 13. Type of Report & Period Covered 
 
 Final 
 
 14. 
 
 IS. Supplementary Notes 
 
 18. Ab«tract (Limit 200 words) 
 
 The study examines the potential costs and benefits associated with proposed 
 regulation R82-3 which concerns a site specific exemption for the Alton Water 
 Company from the suspended solids effluent standard. To determine the costs 
 and benefits, three scenarios were evaluated: 1) existing conditions; 
 2) partial treatment of discharge; and 3) full treatment. Costs ranged 
 from $0 to $517,000 and benefits ranged from $0 to $5,200. 
 
 17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors 
 
 Regulations 
 Water pollution 
 
 b. Identlfieri/OpenEnded Terms 
 
 Benefit/ cost analysis 
 Illinois 
 
 c. COSATI rield/Greup 
 
 05-C 
 
 IS. Availability statement ^q feStriCtiOn and distribution. | is. security. a..sCThi. Report) 
 
 Available from the IL Depository Libraries or fvnrti Unclassified 
 
 National Technical Information Services (NTIS) 1 20. security a.ssfThis Page) 
 
 ^ ' ! Unclassified 
 
 21. No. of Pages 
 
 81 • 
 
 22. Price 
 
 iee ANSl-239.18) 
 
 Se:' Inslructioni on Reverse 
 
 OPTIONAL FORM 272 C*- 
 (Formerly NTIS-35) 
 Department of Commerce 
 
 77) 
 
'JN.VEfiS.TyoF,u,N0.8 
 
 <Jne*KA 
 
 3 0112 067657475