628.3 H872ex i ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW REGULATIONS ON EAST ST. LOUIS, R81-12 DOCUMENT NO. 82/08 DEPOSITOKY JUL 2 7 1982 UNIVERSITY Or IU.MXUI& AT URBANA-CHAMPA/GN inois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Printed by Authority of the State of Illinois UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URS ANA-CHAMPAIGN DOC. NO. 82/08 APRIL, 1982 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW REGULATIONS ON EAST ST. LOUIS, R81-12 by Linda L. Huff James E. Huff Huff & Huff, Inc Project No. 80.264 Michael B. Witte, Director State of II 1 inois Department of Energy and Natural Resources 309 West Washington Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 NOTE This report has been reviewed by the Department of Energy and Natural Resources and approved for publication. With the ex- ception of the Opinion of the Department's Economic Technical Advisory Committee, views expressed are those of the contrac- tor and do not necessarily reflect the position of the IDENR. Printed by Authority of the State of Illinois Date Printed: April , 1982 Quantity Printed: 150 Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources 309 West Washington Street Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 793-3870 n ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES Economic Technical Advisory Committee Opinion The Economic Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC) has reviewed and ap- proved a study entitled Economic Impact Analysis of Combined Sewer Overflow Regulations on East St. Louis, R81-12 . This document has also been subject to internal review by the Department's project manager and approved for publication. The Committee and the IDENR unanimously concur that this study meets the letter and intent of Section 4 of Public Act 80-1218 (formerly PA 79-790). The analysis of costs and benefits of the proposed regulation R81-12 will provide the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) with an accurate portrayal / of the economics of the proposed regulation. The ETAC notes that this study addresses a site-specific case, which is part of the larger economic issue relating to the economics of combined sewer overflow (CSO) control addressed in IDENR Document Number 81/18 entitled Economic Impact of Combined Sewer Overflow Regulation, Rule 602, in Illinois . Within this context, the economic study on proposed regulation R81-12 is a microcosm of the economics of the statewide issue relating to existing Rule 602. In order to provide the IPCB with complete technical information and a basis upon which to consider economically efficient alternatives, this study includes a section on the cost-effectiveness of CSO treatment strategies. The IDENR and ETAC specifically included such an analysis in order to provide the Board with additional information that it needs to resolve the ongoing issues engendered by the ETAC recommendation contained in Document Number 81/16 111 and proposed regulation R81-17. The IDENR and ETAC recommend that public hearings be scheduled on the merits of the economic study as required by the Illinois statutes. IV CONTENTS Figures vii Tables viii Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 7 2. Background to Problem 9 East St. Louis-Sauget Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations 9 Water Quality of the Mississippi River 11 Stream Uses of the Mississippi River 17 3. Costs of Regulation 20 Review of CSO Regulations and Policies 20 Results of East St. Louis' Combined Sewer Overflow Study 21 Design Approach to Comply with Rule 602(c) and Other Alternatives 25 Pollutant Reduction for Alternative Designs ... 30 4. Analysis of Benefits and Costs 39 Environmental Effects of CSO 39 Heavy Metals Contribution 39 Bacterial Contribution 44 Deoxygenating Wastes 48 Cost-Effectiveness of CSO Treatment Strategies . . 52 5. Economic Impact Analysis 62 Historical Economic Trends in East St. Louis ... 62 Present Financial Characteristics of East St. Louis 68 Economic Impact of Waste Treatment Expendi- tures upon East St. Louis 71 References 76 Appendix to Chapter 4 77 VI FIGURES Number Page 1 Removal costs for reduced probability of dissolved oxygen water quality violations 4 2-1 Characteristics of Mississippi River near East St. Louis 13 3-1 Event of 2/22/79 - East St. Louis wastewater treatment plant 22 3-2 Event of 10/22/79 - East St. Louis wastewater treatment plant 23 4-1 Removal costs for reduced probability of dissolved oxygen water quality violations 59 vn TABLES Number Page 1 Alternatives for controlling combined sewer overflows 2 2-1 Wastewater characteristics of Sauget, East St. Louis and Cahokia 12 2-2 Mississippi River water quality at East St. Louis and St. Louis 15 2-3 Mississippi River water quality at East St. Louis and St. Louis 16 2-4 Water quality at Chester water intake (1-01) 18 2-5 Downstream uses of Mississippi River on Illinois side . 19 3-1 Alternatives for controlling combined sewer overflows . 29 3-2 American Bottoms Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant design criteria 33 3-3 Pollutants removed and discharged from the four alternatives 35 3-4 Pollutants removed and discharged from the four stormwater management alternatives, taking into account loss of three industrial dischargers in E. St. Louis 38 4-1 Industrial waste survey for East St. Louis 41 4-2 Enteric microorganism reduction by conventional treatment 45 4-3 Mississippi River dissolved oxygen levels at Chester & East St. Louis 51 4-4 Projected wastewater loadings 54 4-5 Contribution of East St. Louis to water quality conditions 56 4-6 Cost efficiency comparison of alternatives 58 5-1 Historical trends in assessed valuation for East St. Louis 64 vni Number Page 5-2 Property tax rate trends for East St. Louis 65 5-3 Historical patterns of sales tax revenue 67 5-4 1979 balance sheet for East St. Louis general purposes fund 70 5-5 Indebtedness due to utility payments 72 IX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Village of Sauget and East St. Louis have jointly petitioned the Pollution Control Board to exempt East St. Louis from Rule 602 requirements, which pertain to combined sewer overflows. East St. Louis is a city with all sewers combined which presently transmit wastes to a primary treatment plant with two overflow points. East St. Louis dis- charges to the Mississippi River, a primary effluent as well as combined sewer overflow (CSO). A regional treatment plant is under construction to provide secondary treatment of East St. Louis' effluents. Several combined sewer overflow treatment strategies were analyzed to determine the cost efficiency of CSO removal as well as the associated environmental impact. Four control alternatives were considered which had been described during the technical hearings. Table 1 summarizes these alternatives and the associated investment and annual cost. Com- pliance with Rule 602 would require a $20.9 million investment and an annual cost of $3.19 million . Treatment of first flush only would still require $14.3 million in total investment. Alternatives III and IV represent offers made by East St. Louis to provide some treatment for CSO. The environmental effects of CSO discharges were categorized according to heavy metals, bacterial concerns, and deoxygenating waste characteristics. Iron and fluorides were the only conservative pollutants which appeared as potential problems. Iron concentrations in the Mississ- ippi River do exceed the water quality standard; however, this phenomenon occurs throughout a large portion of the state. If indeed East St. Louis 1) M •r— S_ i — >- CO i — o T3 CJ 4-> O to 3 o I — 4- S_ CD > o S- cd 3 CD oo CD o C_) CD c o s- +-> e o o s- o <4- 00 cd > •I — 4-> 03 c: s- cd +-> oO o S_ >- -o ~^ cu fa"* 4-> 03 »» E 4-> •I— CO 4-J O 00 C_) 03 4-> •i — CL 03 C_) eo- "O „ cu 4-> -M t/1 03 O E c_> o o o o en CO CD o o CD LO O O o o CO LO O O O cr> «^- C\J cd JO fO o *r— 4-> O- S_ CJ to cu Q CU > m c: s_ cu 4-> o O o o CO o CM O O O CD CM co o o o LO CO o o o CNJ 00 CO o o o CO CO CNJ o o o CO o o o o CO o o o o 1^ en CD CD c CD jQ CD JD 03 cn-r- 03 00 C CJ>-r- 03 CO -4-J 4-> 3 to o 3 oo 03 03 CD O CD O • CD CD to Q- c: to Q. 3 J_ S- o o 4-> 4-> "O 00 ■r— "O 00 , — CD 03 +J CD 03 M- ■a X3 c: 03 C i_ c C ■r- 4-> c •i- +J cu E 03 i_ E 03 o CD CD O r— O o <— S_ S_ U D_ i — O Q- c o o -C o +J U_ 4-> 4- 4-> u 4- 4-> oo ^ oo O C O c >> o CD "O CD 1 1 .c: E c jC E c X a 4-> 03 O 4-J o .c JZ 13 03 3 03 to o to E CD c E CD c =3 r—i Z3 s_ CD • J- O) i— i — 00 I— CD 3 oo t— CD <4- CD Lj- 03 1_ O o3 i_ TO 3 O f— 3 c_) 4-> •i— -t-> -t-> CD 00 s- +-> CD CO 00 > CO o3 2: s_ 03 2: i_ O J- CD s_ CD CD i- •1 — i- • i — 5- C 03 > S- C 03 Li_ CL Li- 1— "r- CO o 1— -f- CO CO i- 03 O ■o O CO CTi 03 Z3 c: 03 •"J O CD 03 CO CD l_ CD 03 03 CD i_ 03 CD >^ O CM 03 -a CD CO 03 CO 03 meets all applicable water quality standards, as claimed, there will be no detrimental environmental effects associated with metals in the overflows. Bacterial levels in the Mississippi River may be important according to downstream water uses. There is poor access for 30 miles downstream of East St. Louis to the Mississippi River based on the number of roads and docks. The nearest water supply is Chester, which is 70 miles down- stream of East St. Louis. The bacterial levels in the Mississippi River are associated with unchlorinated effluents from St. Louis, East St. Louis, other communities, and non-point sources. Depending upon the philosophy adopted by the IPCB in R77-12, the need. for disinfection of CSO and STP effluents can be determined on a regional basis. The deoxygenating wastes attributed to CSO from East St. Louis were considered to be the primary environmental factor in determining the level of CSO control. The present CSO loading is estimated as 67,000 pounds of BOD,- per event or 0.81 million pounds per year. The treatment plant presently discharges 16,700 pounds of BODr per day or, on an annual basis, 6.1 million pounds per year. Other point and non- point sources also contribute to the dissolved oxygen water quality in the Mississippi River. Therefore, East St. Louis must be considered as one factor in the overall goals of maintaining water quality. Figure 1 depicts the relative improvement expected in dissolved oxygen levels as a function of removal costs. For each incremental improvement the unit costs increase accordingly. With existing conditions the maximum violation rate for D.0. is estimated as 1.1 days per year. This decreases to 0.9 days per year with the regional plant at a cost of $0.28 per pound of B0D 5 and TSS removed. First CD CD *— O CO k. CO CO -o c 9 co Q. ,"ti CL. u co o. co S a m o c C*> o S CJ> t-» CD c o ■o V5 CD CO II = w > © Q ^ o o 5 > >-o *. sz _ © w r i) »- o ra S » ■ - _Q S >- — O - i_ = £ I s. o cn "• <■> .■= x Si en co O co c q a 00 cz o o 5 £ M co c o CO cu c o a o CO O o c / / ,/ / / / / / UL. CM CO UP S CO en 3 c oc o -C Cn •J V £ ce a> JZ E co £ 0) a. 1— i— S 3 __ U_ CO c GO o w en lu CO ce / / / / = / 2 •- / H 1 1 1 1 1 \ o CO o o LO CM O o o CM o o in o o o o in o o 1 — fO 3 r— cy s- a; +-> to 3 £Z CD a> cn co >> X O ■a CD > i— o CO 00 r-. •r— • Q o 4- O >> -t-> ■r— r— •i — in X) in fO • _Q CD O S- Q_ -a CD o 3 T3 CO CD CO a: o s- o 4- 00 +-> 00 O c_> oo , — CO o > o E CD ce co cn o co o co CO LO O CO o CM CJ CD (psAoujga ssi' aoa 'qi/$) sjsoo leAoiuag flush treatment could reduce dissolved oxygen violation rate to 0.33 days per year; however, the unit removal costs triple. Full compliance with Rule 602 and regional treatment will reduce the D.O. violation rate to 0.26 days per year. These changes in probable dissolved oxygen vio- lations should be viewed as maximum values because non-point sources would minimize expected water quality improvement. In comparing the environmental benefits of CSO control, the benefits can be summarized as simply a "possible" reduction in dissolved oxygen violations from 0.9 days per year to 0.26 days per year. The cost of this improvement is $20 million in capital investment and an incremental annual cost of $3.2 million. There are no expected changes in aquatic communities or downstream uses associated with CSO control. The economic impact upon East St. Louis, if forced to comply, is very real and severe. The cost of secondary treatment will increase East St. Louis' present sewerage expenses by 3 to 4i times, depending upon the allocation formula utilized. The projected cost of treating sewage and CSO has the following components: Interest charges on existing debt $ 87,000 Annual costs of regional plant $3,000,000-$4,200,000 Annual costs of Rule 602 $1,300,000 TOTAL $4,400,000-$5,600,000 East St. Louis has been reducing municipal expenditures in an attempt to reach fiscal stability. The cost of CSO control plus region- al ization will increase by 4i to 6 times the cost of sewage treatment for this city. The 1981 budget goal of $7.5 million represents the cost of general city services. Future sewage treatment costs represent 59% to 75% if CSO control is included, and 41% to 57% without CSO control of any future budget. With city taxes the highest in the state, con- tinued loss of industry and commerce, and existing budget deficits, East St. Louis will be hard pressed to generate $3 million to $4 million of additional annual revenue without CSO control. The added burden of up to $5.2 million capital investment by East St. Louis for the local share of CSO control plus $1.3 million annual cost is substantial. Higher sewerage rates may supply the necessary funds; however, with current deficits in many operating funds it is likely that city services will be adversely affected. The economic impact of the site specific rule change does not impact the general sectors of the Illinois economy. No changes in price, output, or employment will occur in agriculture, commerce, or industry on a statewide basis. The effects upon the municipal government of East St. Louis of added capital investment and annual expenditure are deleterious. Compliance with Rule 602 would cause such a large increase in financial obligations that operation of other municipal services is questionable. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Village of Sauget and City of East St. Louis jointly petitioned the Pollution Control Board for a site specific regulation regarding the treatment of combined sewer overflow. The petitioners have designed and are in the process of constructing a regional wastewater treatment facility. As part of the upgrading of the facility, combined sewer overflows (CSO) must be treated to comply with the following Rule 602(c) of Chapter 3, Water Pollution Regulations: 1. All "first flush" flows shall meet effluent standards (secondary treatment required) 2. Additional flows of not less than 10 times the dry weather flow must receive primary treatment and disinfection. 3. Flows in excess of (a) and (b) may require treatment to prevent sludge deposits or depression of oxygen levels. The existing Rule 602 is being scrutinized by the Pollution Control Board for possible revision due to the economic impact on a statewide basis and the uncertainty as to the level of environmental benefits. Because of its site specific characteristics, East St. Louis has petitioned for the following regulatory revision: The combined sewer overflows from East St. Louis shall be exempt from the existing first flush and primary treatment requirements (Rule 602c). The petitioners are, however, planning for some measure of CSO treatment. The present design provides a range of 11.5 MGD to 18 MGD capacity for stormwater flow at the plant, and a bar screen will be installed to handle all flows in excess of 30 MGD. To determine the benefit/cost factors and economic impact upon East St. Louis, the following four regulatory scenarios are considered: Scenario A - Compliance with the existing Rule 602 for East St. Louis. This requires full treatment of first flush and primary treatment of ten times the dry weather flow. Scenario B - Compliance with only the first flush treatment requirement of Rule 602. Scenario C - Exemption of East St. Louis from Rule 602 treatment requirements. Scenario D - Partial treatment of first flush and other flows according to present design criteria. This range of options provides an indication of the tradeoffs between water quality and treatment costs. Also, the economic burden upon East St. Louis with increasing costs can be readily described. Chapter II presents the background information on the East St. Louis-Sauget wastewater treatment strategy as well as water quality data on the Mississippi River. Chapter III describes the first flush analysis and associated treatment costs for the four regulatory scenarios, The anticipated changes in water quality and water use are analyzed in Chapter IV for each option. Then, in Chapter IV, the benefits and costs of CSO treatment are compared. The economic condition of East St. Louis, which is a major component of the regulatory petition, is described in detail in Chapter V as well as the expected impact of CSO costs on the City's finances. CHAPTER II BACKGROUND TO PROBLEM The existing quality of effluent from East St. Louis and histor- ical water quality data describe the data base available for water quality analyses. Downstream uses of the Mississippi River are also important in ascertaining environmental impacts. An interesting aspect of the pollutant loading evaluation is the improvement anticipated by construc- tion of a regional wastewater treatment plant. In the following sections the existing treatment facilities and pollutant loadings are depicted as well as water quality conditions and stream use. East St. Louis-Sauget Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations East St. Louis and Sauget each have an existing treatment plant to handle wastes prior to discharge to the Mississippi River. A regional facility is planned to upgrade wastewater treatment. The present system at East St. Louis is a primary treatment plant, which has had serious malfunctions in the last two years. The facilities consist of bar screens and primary clarifiers with no disinfection installed at this time. The average wastewater flow of 18.5 MiGD from East St. Louis has influent BODr values of 255 mg/£ and suspended solids of 658 mg/£ according to the 1979 sampling by Russell and Axon. In March through December of 1980 the average effluent BOD. concentration was 180 mg/£ and suspended solids concentration was reported as 260 mg/£. Unfor- tunately, during this six month period only a portion of the wastewater flow was treated, and the remainder bypassed the plant due to equipment 10 breakdowns. Although Russell and Axon utilized an average flow of 18.5 MGD, the "treated" flow from March through December of 1980 was 10.4 MGD. In 1981 there were serious equipment malfunctions which resulted in complete bypass of the primary plant for February, March, June, and the remainder of 1981. The East St. Louis pollutant loading to the river was calculated based on primary treatment of the entire daily flow, 60% of the daily flow, and complete bypass. The Idaily and annual loadings for these three treatment conditions are estimated as the following: Daily lb Loadir s/day ig, Annual mill ion Loe lbs iding, i/year B0D 5 ss B0D 5 SS 27,800 40,100 10.1 14.6 32,400 64,700 11.8 23.6 39,300 101,500 14.3 37.0 Complete Flow Receiving Primary Treatment 60% Flow Receiving Primary Treatment Complete Bypass Presently, there are no facilities for treatment of combined sewer overflows. The Sauget treatment facility consists of primary treatment and a physical/chemical treatment process for industrial wastes. The average flow at this plant is 9.7 MGD, and the effluent quality was estimated as a B0D 5 concentration of 210 mg/£ with suspended solids of 35 mg/JL 1 The third wastewater source which will be incorporated into 11 the regional plant is the Metropolitan East Sanitary District's Cahokia primary treatment facility. The Cahokia flow is approximately 2.9 MGD with an average effluent quality of 99 mg/l BODr and 99 mg/Z of suspended sol ids. All three plants are to be combined into a regional plant, American Bottoms Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, and this plant will contain secondary treatment facilities. Table 2-1 summarizes the existing discharges to the Mississippi River of the individual treatment plants as well as the expected effluent loading of the regional facility. Only screens will be utilized at the Cahokia and East St. Louis pump stations, and then the effluents will be pumped to Sauget where they will receive primary treatment, be combined with Sauget' s wastewater, and then treated with an air activated sludge/powdered activated carbon process. The resulting effluent quality will thus be in compliance with the applicable standards of 20 mg/£ for BODr and 25 mg/£ for suspended solids. Table 2-1 depicts the expected reduction in BODr and suspended solids loadings associated with the new plant. Approximately 90% of the B0D 5 and suspended solids discharged by the three existing plants should be removed when the American Bottoms plant is on-line. Water Quality of the Mississippi River The present discharges to the Mississippi River occur at River Mile 178.7 below the confluence of the Illinois River and Mississippi River as well as below the Missouri River and Mississippi River confluence. Figure 2-1 depicts the location of the East St. Louis wastewater plant with respect to its upstream potable water supply intake and discharges 12 Table 2-1. Wastewater Characteristics of Sauget. East St. Louis, and Cahokia Average B0D 5 Effluent TSS Effluent Facility Wastewater Loaaing, lb/day Loading, lb/day Volume, MGD 40,10(7* 2,400 b 2,800 c East St. Louis 18.5 27,800 s MESD-Cahokia 2.9 2,400 b Sauget 9.7 17,000 c Total 31.1 47,200 American Bottoms Regional Plant 27 4,500 45,300 Reduction in Loading to River 5,600 90% 88% Note: a) Calculated using BODr concentration of 180 mg/i and TSS of 260 mg/il from DMR data. b) Loading with 99 mg/l effluent level of BOD, and SS and 2.9 MGD flow. c) Loading based on flow of 9.7 MGD and B0D 5 of 210 mg/l and SS of 35 mg/£ in effluent. 13 -Sewage Treatment Plant ' EAST **• -r. - - •.ST. LOUIS >..l""" : . ^ bauget "*•*"* Cahokia ublic Water Supply / Marsh or Swampland Scale: 1"= 4 miles Harrisonville Figure 2-1. Characteristics of Mississippi River near East St. Louis 14 J 03 J 02 J 82 I 01 in close proximity. Water quality monitoring stations on the Mississippi River have been reduced on the last two years due to a consolidation of the network. Available water quality data are thus limited to the stations and years identified below. Station Location Data Collection Below Alton - River Mile 200 1975 - present East St. Louis Intake - River Mile 180 1968 - 1976 St. Louis side - River Mile 1968 - 1976 Chester Water Intake River Mile 110 1968 - 1977 I 84 Thebes, IL - River Mile 35 1973 - present Water quality parameters which are reported for these stations include fecal coliform, metals, dissolved oxygen, and others. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 present historical water quality information for the Mississippi River. It is interesting to compare the St. Louis and East St. Louis water quality values for fecal coliform. The sampling points are on opposite sides of the river a few miles apart. The St. Louis fecal coliform values are consistently higher than those reported for the East St. Louis station, and means exceed the water quality standard. The arithmetic and geometric mean were calculated for the samples col- lected. The geometric annual mean was lower than that arithmetically derived because of the occurrence of high maximum values. Iron is the only other parameter exceeding the water quality standard, and this phenomenon is attributed to non-point sources, such as general runoff and ground water seepage. 15 o CO -o c 03 =3 O +-> CO +-> CO 03 03 03 13 O" S- eu 4-> 03 s- cu > a: Q. CO CO CO CO CM C\J 03 C\J 00 a) .a 03 a; 4-> 03 CO o o S- Cl) a. CO O) +-> •r— CO sz cu Q S- O <+- O O 03 O cu x 03 +-> c CU 03 E O 0) • •r- CD S- > O r— Q. • E O 03 SI CO CM o I ■"3 cu 03 +-> c CO +-> CO 03 O o •I-" co CD a o o 03 U CU X 03 CU 03 CU o CU f-fl 4-> • •r- CD S- > - o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1 — 1 o CO «=*- o n ft n »N ** #» CO LO LO CO r» CO o CO o i— i r^. CO r^ O Cn CO CM CO r-» CM O LO en LO en «tf- "^- O LO «sj" O CO CT> o o 00 LO LO CO LO o o <* *d- «=i- oo o r^ o o o o o o i oo LO CM LO 00 O O CD O CO CO o o CO «3" «-H "3" 5j- m en o m w o o o o o o o o LO o o o CO o o o o o o CM CO Cn LO Cn «=3- cn co en CM en »-* en oo r-v co co en en en -o cu +J o s_ cu "O i- 03 1 — CU 03 CU r— 4-> cu >> o U >> u a> CU r— cu c CO r— E o cu o o 3 u c 1 — c: •1 — 03 CO *r— > CU "O 3 -a CU M- r— cu •4-> O 03 +j s- > s- o CU o a. en M- Q. cu 03 O CU S- S- s- CU c: cu > 03 cu 3 03 CU 3 1 — E r— 03 O 03 > • i— <_> > +-> *r— E CU S- E Zi E +-> 3 E -C cu E •r— 4-> E •i — c •i — o X •1— 5- cu 03 s: O U 16 Year Table 2.3. Mississippi River Water Quality at East St. Louis and St. Louis East St. Louis (J-02) St. Louis (J-82) No. of No. of Samples Min. Avg. Max. Samples Min. Avg. Max, Zinc Concentrations, mg/£ 1976 1 _ 0.1 - 1975 2 2 1974 1 2 0.05 0.1 1973 3 0.3 0.1 5 0.06 0.1 1972 4 0.03 0.1 2 Copper Concentrations , mg/£ 1976 1 0.08 1975 2 0.05 0.1 2 1974 1 0.02 2 0.03 0.05 1973 3 0. 27 0.42 0.55 5 0.018 0.05 1972 4 0. 05 0.24 0.64 2 0.01 0.02 Iron Conci sntrations, mg/£ 1976 1 - 17.0 - 1975 2 1. 2.85 4.7 2 2. 6 3.1 3.6 1974 1 - 0.7 - 2 0. 6 10.3 20 1973 3 2. 4.5 8.0 5 4. 2 9.44 17.0 1972 5 0. 5 2.38 4.4 2 2. 7 3.35 4.0 1969 1 - 0.0 - 1968 1 - 0.0 - 17 The only public water intake downstream of East St. Louis is at Chester which is located at river mile 110. Table 2-4 summarizes the iron and fecal coliform values for this intake station from 1971 through 1977. The high fecal coliform values may be attributed to non- point sources as well as the St. Louis STP discharge of 250 MGD, which is primary* unchlorinated effluent. Stream Uses of the Mississippi River The downstream uses of the Mississippi River are based upon shoreline characteristics as well as general river uses. In addition to navigational purposes, there are several boating clubs located on the Missouri side of the river, indicating the possibility of recreational boating and/or skiing. The actual shoreline use and accessibility is extremely limited on the Illinois side by the levee system in p^lace. Utilizing Army Corps of Engineers navigational maps, USGS topographical maps, and stream descriptions in a Southwestern Illinois Planning Commission report, a description of shoreline activities was developed. Table 2-5 sum- marizes the shoreline characteristics downstream of East St. Louis. Residential development is limited and only occurs on the other side of the levee. Road access is limited and there are no state or local recreational sites, including boating facilities located between river mile 179 and 149. The only public water intake is located at Chester, which is approximately river mile 110. It is possible that hunting or fishing occurs between the levee and the river but direct contact is 1 i mi ted. 18 o i CU .*: (0 +-> c S- cu +-> 1X3 i- qj oo a; o +-> O O 5- fO o +-> c CU fO E QJ o s: C£S <4- O to S- i— -Q E E c oo QJ QJ •i— o OO c cu o E c s- •1 — o s: M- •i — r— o O ^ I— O oo - CT> C\J «3" o CO en o CM oo o CO en oo oo 00 oo CTi *3- uo CM CM 00 O CM CM kO OO OO O0 O o o o o o oo o o o yo CM o o o <£> CM o o o in CM o o o o o o o o *— 1 ID lO o OO OO Cn LT) e£> OO VO oo oo O0 00 CM CT> o o o o O *3- CM Lf) r^. o LO . — 1 CM f— 1 CO OO en oo oo o o CO CM CM CM OO CT> uo r-. en ao r--. en *3- en oo en CM en en 19 cd T3 tO co o e e o s- CD > a; Q. CL CO CO CO CO CO CD co E rO CD S- -t-> CO E o O Lf) CO CD -Q rO rO CO co CO CD O (J co CD O rO e o fO cd s_ o (1) CO CD •r™ O r— O -r- Q O rO i— +J rO E •r- CD +-> E E Q. CD O ■O i— •i- CD CO > CD CD Cd Q ro CD ■r- E O Q. S- O CD i— E CD E > O CD CJ> Q CD T3 ■o ro (O O O S- S- • E CD CD CD CD o -o i— O S- CD "O a cd +■> o CO > e ro +-> >> xz CO CD ro •r— -O r— co CD - E ro O CD CO •!- co S- s- (_> e o -o i— -O CD CD ro +-> rO ro rO > > 1 — ^~ O CO O CD •r - O 3 Q. S- T- a: oo s- ZZ. or e o ro CD 1 CD ^ CO c .*: +-> co CD a» +j x: CD O CD CD S- CO CO • S- CO S- _J u •■- CD o +J o 4- CD sz ■1 — o • ro -t-> -t-> -o • 1 — +-> CO CD E e •<- e E -Q CD E •l— o 2 ro O zz >> a> ro ro • Q. • i — a. PT3 O) S- -^ ro -E +-> •1— •!— 1 ■o E 3 CD CO ro r- S- C ro Q S- 3 4-> • •r- _Q O E -Q ro S- CD CD -Q e rO CD jD CD O •r- "O JZ) E •r— CO CD rO co ro 4- S- O s- e -o > i — co o O ZZ •r™ •r- CD a. CD S- CD rO rO S- S- CJ CD "D E S- S- CD o e O 4-> CO E o Q_ T3 4-> 4- •1— rO ro 3 ro zzz CD CD 2 -t-> J^ CD E -O ro -Q "O E ■a (O E <— ro a. CD E CD rO > 2 CD CO i — CD E O cn E ■i— -a E ro CD E O CD rO O o Q_ I— co CO •i — o +-> CO +J CO ro ro E ■r- CD O I— CD E O E ro i_ CD CD E O +J CD Id ■a E O s_ rO C_> E ro +-> O CO i — ro 3 CD E O 1 -^ S- o -i^ CD O u E -a o E ■a O i— CD O rO E CD •i — O E i—i O ^ O CD E O CD E O CD E O CD > E O CO •p™ S- S- (O CD E O CT> 00 C\J r m r^ r~~. r^ s: . — i r-l i — i S- i 1 i CD > CO CO CD i — r^ r^ r^ CD E O CD CO CXJ CD CD CD E E E O O O o CO CO CO LD LO o CO CT^ LD 20 CHAPTER III COSTS OF REGULATION The potential treatment costs of combined sewer overflow vary depending upon the extent of treatment required. There are four regula- tory scenarios which have been defined as options for the East St. Louis system. These options and their associated costs are based upon the first flush analysis submitted in June, 1980, by Russell & Axon, the consulting engineers. Combined sewer overflow requirements and the engineer's analysis are briefly reviewed to provide background knowledge. Then, the capital and operating costs of the four treatment levels are described as well as the expected pollutant reduction. Review of CSO Regulations and Policies Rule 602(c) requires that any combined sewer overflow (CSO) not result! in violations of the water quality standards. The "first flush" of storm flows must meet the applicable effluent standards and additional flows, but not less than ten times the average dry weather flow from the combined sewers must received primary treatment and disin- fection. The Illinois Environmental' Protection Agency (IEPA) issued, on May 12, 1977, a guidance document entitled, "Procedures for determining compliance with Rule 602(c) of Chapter 3. Water Pollution Regulations 2 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board." This document provides the criteria and procedures for carrying out a combined sewer overflow study. The Agency defines "first flush" as follows: 21 that volume of water needed to carry solids or BOD concentrations in excess of the normal dry weather level. (emphasis added) Unlike first flush, which is a volume term, the 10 times dry weather flow is a rate term. The Agency's Procedure Statement specifies that the storm chosen must have a minimum recurrent interval of one year. Results of East St. Louis's Combined Sewer Overflow Study The results of the combined sewer overflow monitoring program for East St. Louis depict the variability and complexity of CSO problems, Two storm events were analyzed as part of the CSO study for East St. St. Louis. The first event, on February 22, 1972 had a peak intensity 3 of 0.35 inches/hour. The second event, on October 22, 1979 had a peak rainfall intensity of 0.34 inches/hr.* East St. Louis has two overflow points, one at 14th and Gay and the second at the wastewater treatment plant. During the storms both overflow points were monitored. The monitoring point at the treat- ment plant represented the total flow except for the combined sewage that overflows at 14th & Gay. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 depict the results at the treatment plant for the two storm events. For the first storm event the engineers determined that first flush ended when the flow rate peaked at approximately 260,000 gpm and then began to decrease. For the second storm event, first flush was aparently ended when the total suspended solids (TSS) dropped below the "base TSS" of 669 mg/£ for one sample. A comparison of the two 'Computed from rainfall data in Figure 3-2. 22 (OOOIxWdO) MOIJ o o CM o o o o o 00 o o o o o o CSJ o CM m O in o b i. O ! o 1 o 1 (l/6w ) NOI1VU1N30NO0 SNIIAIQI/ Nl llVdNlVd 23 (000l*Wd9) M01J »- z UJ 2 h- < a> UJ k in 1 H CM tr OJ UJ 7 1 H CO Q 1 UJ u_ UJ Ko h- 3 (/) u. z 1 LJ > CO UJ Z) o _J H CO \- UJ S- -Q U_ ^ u. cr o co z> o CO o X z >> z r~~ z to UJ o UJ H- CD sz CO 3 4-> CO S- •r- U_ CO -t-> OO +J CO to E O X ( l/Bui ) NOIlVyiN3DNO0 o CO in m "J. ~ q o o o o I I I 1 'SNIWSI/'NI TlVdNIVU Q) to CO 3 o a: o oo 24 storm events is presented below: Parameter Storm Event of: 2/22/79 10/22/79 Peak hourly rainfall intensity, in/hr Measured volume of first flush at treatment plant,* gal Duration of flush wave, hr Peak flow rate measured, gpm Peak B0D 5 , mg/£ Ending BODr, mg/£ Peak COD, mg/5. Ending COD, mg/£ Peak TSS, mg/£ Ending TSS, mg/£ 0.35 0.34 19,380,000 5,256,000 %2.;5 ^ 2.8 260,000 58,000 380 520 200 230 840 870** 470 650 1180 ^ 1350 840 670 *Excludes combined sewage that overflowed at 14th & Gay. **A COD value of 900 mg/£ was recorded after the flush wave was considered over. There is more than a three-fold difference in the measured first flush volume for these two storms, yet the peak hourly rainfall inten- sities were very similar. The peak flow rates reached for the two events are quite different, 260,000 gpm for the first event and only 58,000 gpm for the second event. This difference is attributed to the higher storm- water runoff coefficient during the first storm when the ground was 4 already saturated with moisture. In examining Figure 3-2, there is greater uncertainty in defining first flush because of the pattern of 25 rainfall. The BOD^, COD, and TSS values ill increased after the time chosen as the ending point for first flush because of increased intensity in rainfall. If first flush for the second storm event is deemed over when both the TSS and B0D 5 fall below the "base" values, first flush would continue for another 3i hours, and the volume of first flush would be closer to that measured for the first storm event. It should be noted that defining the end of the flush wave is somewhat subjective. The engineer chose the first storm event as more representative of first flush, although the storm intensity was well below the one year recurring frequency. The computed first flush included 1.5 million gallons that over- flowed at 14th and Gay plus 19.4 million gallons measured at the treatment, or 20.9 million gallons. This first flush volume was assumed to remain constant with varying storm intensities. Design Approach to Comply with Rule 602(c) and Other Alternatives Once the flow rate for a given storm intensity has been determined, the flow rate for other storms can be predicteid. One method of estimation is the rational method. For rainstorms where the duration is greater 5 than the time of concentration, the peak rate can be computed as follows: where Qp ■ "A Q = discharge rate in cfs C = runoff coefficient I = rainfall intensity, in/hr A = drainage area, acres 26 For the same drainage basin, the area and runoff coefficient can be assumed to remain constant, thus Q is proportional to the rain- storm intensity: %i h For the February 22, 1979 rain event Q was 260,000 gpm at the plant for an intensity of 0.35 inches/hour. The engineer utilized a 1 inch/hour storm intensity, which using the rational method would yield: v - ° P i • h h 260,000 gpm • 1 in/hr 0.35 in/hr = 740,000 gpm In addition some adjustment for the overflow at 14th & Gay would have to be made. The engineer projected a peak flow rate of 236,000 gpm at the treatment plant for the 1 inch per hour storm. This level is lower than the rate measured for the 0.35 inch per hour rate on February 22, 1981. Adding to this peak rate in the design is 38,000 gpm for the flow lost at 14th and Gay, bringing the peak flush rate to 274,000 gpm for the design storm. The lower design flow rate of 274,000 gpm is based somewhat upon the carrying capacity of the sewers and engineering judgment. Above this flow rate any additional water was assumed to pond on the surface. Thus, the duration of first flush remains constant for storms greater than 0.35 inches per hour, as computed below: 27 n . . r r ■ . n , Volume of First Flush, gal Duration of First Flush = . ,„„ c -. ,, D ,, — -r- 2 — Average Flow Rate, gpm 20,900,000 gal 274,000 gpm = 76 minutes For compliance with the first flush requirements of Rule 602(c), four alternatives were evaluated. The cheapest, feasible alternative was installing larger influent pumps to handle the peak rate (274,000 gpm) and installing a 21 million gallon concrete lined earthen basin with 840 HP surface aerators. The total capital cost for first flush com- pliance was $12,120,000, with an operating & maintenance cost of $249,000 4 per year. In addition, the design average flow rate through the treat-) ment plant was used to process the stored volume at an average rate of 1 MGD. Pro-rating the treatment cost on a gallon treated results in $2.2 million capital cost in the treatment plant attributed to first flush treatment. The construction grant program specifies an interest rate of 6-7/8% in evaluating projects. This /value, however, is not representative of present economic conditions. Therefore, in evaluating the true annual cost of this design, an interest rate of 11% will be utilized. At 11% and 20 years life, the annualized capital cost for store and treat is $1,800,000. Adding to this the operating and maintenance costs yields a total annual cost of $2,050,000.* To comply with the primary treatment requirement of Rule 602(c), the engineer first computed the population equivalents (PEs) based on 2 BOD,, and TSS, as specified by the IEPA Procedures. *No 0&M costs were assigned from the treatment plant to first flush 28 Utilizing the IEPA procedure, the primary clarifiers would have to be sized for a flow rate of 440,000 gpm, greater than the carrying capacity of the sewers. The engineer felt this design rate was excessive, and utilized 10 times the dry weather flow rate (12 MGD x 10 = 120 MGD) less first flush volume (21 MG) and the dry weather flow rate (12 MGD) to yield a flow rate requiring primary treatment of 87 MGD, or 60,000 gpm. The capital cost required to provide primary treatment and disinfection facilities is $6,550,000, and the annual 0&M cost of $312,000. Again annualizing the capital cost at 11% interest over twenty years yields an annualized capital cost of $812,000. Thus, the total annual cost for compliance with the primary treatment plus disinfection is $1,120,000 per year. As an alternative to full compliance with Rule 602(C), the engineer recommended that the treatment plant still be capable of treating an average rate of first flush of 1 MGD, with a peak rate of 3 MGD. As described previously, this adds approximately $2,200,000 to the capital cost of the treatment plant, assuming the costs are equitably distributed based on the design average flows from various sources. In addition, the engineer proposed installing a bar screen on the overflow points at a cost of $769,000 and an 0&M cost of $8,000 per year. This yields an annualized cost of $382,000 per year using the 11% interest and 20 year-life. Chlorination facilities could be added at an additional annual cost of $472,000. A summary of the alternative methods evaluated for combined sewer overflow control is presented in Table 3-1. The annual costs vary from $382,000 per year to $3,190,000 for full compliance with Rule 602(c). 29 ~o CD N •i— S- i — >■ ro ^»» =J to c: C r0„ < +J 00 i — O o S- CD 2 cd oo CD O o CD o fc. +-> c o o s- o 4- 00 0) > +J s- CD CD rO oO o S- >- •u ~\ CD &* +J ro *> E ■M •i — oo +J o 00 CJ ro +J • ^ Q. (O C_) OO ■o m CD +J +-> to fO o E c_> *r— +-> 00 o s_ o oo CD Q CD > r0 c S- CD -4-> O O o o oo o o o o o o o o sl- ur) co o o o LO LO o o o r« CT> sj- C\J o o o o r^ co o o o o o CNJ CO o o o LO LO O o o o lo CD o o o CXI 00 oo o o o CO o o o o CXi r« CM CD T3 i — i — C CD -Q CD j3 03 CD ■1— cn •r- ro 00 c ro 00 +J 4-> 3 OO o 3 oo fD ro CD O a> o • CD CD 00 CL c 00 Q. 3 S- S- o O ■P +J "O 00 • 1 — -a oo r— CD ro +J a> ro <+- T3 "O C ro c S- C c •r— ■P C •i — 4-> CD fT3 ro -O C •i — -Q C > E ro i_ E ro o CD CD o i — O O i — i- S- a Q. i — <_) Q- c O o JZ o 4-> Li_ +-> 4- 4-> u <+- +-> CO 3: oo o C o C >> o CD ■o a> 1 1 _c E E -C E c X o 4-> ro u -!-> o x: -C 3 ro 3 ro 00 o 00 E CD C E cu cz 3 1 — 1 3 i_ CD • S- CD 1 — 1 — O0 r- CD 3 00 r- CD «t- CD <+- r0 <»- O ro S- x> 3 U ^~ 3 u +J •r— +-> -t-> CD 00 M- 4-> CD O0 00 > O0 ro Z S- ro 2H 5- o s_ CD i- CD a> s- • i — S- •r— i. c .-a > i- cz ro u_ Q. u_ 1— ■1— CD O (— ■«— CO oo S- ro O "O O 00 CT> >> S- fO ro ^5 CD +-> O0 CD s- CD ro "O C ro CD ro CD >^ O CVI CD 00 CQ ro 30 Pollutant Reduction for Alternative Designs Based upon the first flush study, the volume of first flush was determined to be 20.9 million gallons. The engineer then used a novel approach to compute the annual volume and pollutant loading from first flush using the following assumptions: 1. First flush pollutant loading is calculated based upon the concentration of pollutants above the baseline concentrations That is the baseline concentrations (TSS of 387 mg/£ and BODf- 150 mg/£) were subtracted from the measured values prior to computing total pounds. 2. One month is the minimum length of time which will allow significant deposits to accumulate on the streets and in sewers. Therefore, a maximum of 12 rain events per year will occur, and the measured first flush quantities for the February 22, 1979 event were multiplied by twelve to yield the annual quantity of pollutants associated with first flush. With these two assumptions, the following annual quantities of first flush were estimated by the engineer: Annual Quantity Volume 251 million gallons B0D c 412,000 pounds b COD 1,190,000 pounds TSS 2,190,000 pounds 31 If first flush is captured and treated, the pollutant reduction will be greater than the numbers presented above because of assumption #1 The first flush loading is adjusted below to include the baseline concen- trations, assuming the effluent after full treatment contains 30 mg/£ TSS and 30 mq/l B0D 5 . Adjusted Annual First Flush Loadings Volume 251 million gallons B0D 5 660,000 pounds TSS 2,940,000 pounds No estimate of the quantity of pollutants associated with treating 10 times the dry weather flow was provided for an annual basis. However, the engineer did provide the following estimates on a per event basis , assuming the design flow rate of 60,400 gpm for the 10 times dry weather flow occurs for 24 hours each event, and contains the daily average pollutant loadings. Pollutants Associated with Treating 10 Times the DWF* Per Event Flow 87 million gallons B0D 5 39,000 pounds COD 104,000 pounds TSS 102,000 pounds Using the engineer's 12 events per year yields the following annual quantities: r DWF = dry weather flow. 32 Annual Pollutant Loading Associated with Treating 10 times the DWF Flow 1,044 million gallons B0D 5 468,000 pounds COD 1,248,000 pounds TSS 1,224,000 pounds The pollutant reduction associated with each alternative can now be estimated. For the full compliance alternative, the first flush pollutant loading will be completely eliminated.* Primary treatment of ten times the dry weather flow will remove 25% of the BOD and 30% of the TSS. In Alternative II, requiring treatment of only first flush, the pollutants discharged will be that associated with the ten times the dry weather flow, or 468,000 pounds per year BOD,- and 1,224,000 pounds TSS per year, less whatever can be treated through the treatment plant, which will be discussed momentarily. Alternatives III and IV are basically the same, except that disinfection facilities are included in Alternative III. These two alternatives basically allow the new regional plant to handle as much of the stormwater as it can. While the design average flow rate included 1 MGD for treatment of stormwater from East St. Louis, this additional capacity provides only a minimal increment of treatment. During a rain event, the plant will reach its design maximum flow before any overflow should occur. Table 3-2 presents the design basis for the new Regional Plant from East St. Louis, that is, a Sustained Pumping Rate of 20.9 MGD, *The adjusted first flush loadings were computed assuming an effluent of 30 mg/£. 33 Table 3-2. American Bottoms Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Design Criteria East St, Cahokia Sauget Louis Total 65,400 37,600 200 103,200 Flow (MGD) Average Sustained Peak East St. Louis Cahokia Sauget To Primary Treatment To Secondary Treatment BOD5 East St. Louis Cahokia Sauget To Primary Treatment To Secondary Treatment COD 13.0 20.9 3.1 4.4 10.7 14.5 16.1 25.3 26.8 39.8 mg/1 LBS/DAY 377 40,900 225 5,800 210 18,700 333 46,700 220 49,100 East St. Louis 1,004 Cahokia 560 Sauget 454 To Primary Treatment 918 To Secondary Treatment 485 Suspended Sol ids East St. Louis 1,015 Cahokia 200 Sauget 35 To Primary Treatment 859 To Secondary Treatment 195 108,800 14,500 40,500 123,300 108,300 110,100 5,200 3,100 115,300 43,500 NOTE: East St. Louis flow and characteristics include an allowance for first flush. 34 or 14,500 gpm. The instantaneous peak pumping rate from East St. Louis is designed to be 30.0 MGD, or approximately 21,000 gpm. For estimating purposes, it is assumed that the treatment authority will pump at the peak instantaneous rate during the initial part of a storm event (first flush), and at the sustained pumping rate during the remainder of each storm event. As presented previously, Russell and Axon estimated that each of the twelve rain events would reach a peak flush rate of 274,000 gpm Thus, under Alternatives III and IV, 7.7%* of first flush would receive full treatment and the remainder would overflow. Thus, the pollutant loading from first flush would be reduced 7.7%. After the flush wave passes, the combined sewage continues for at least the duration of the storm. The engineer assumed a 24-hour dura- tion, generating 87 million gallons over the next 24 hours. The East St. Louis lift station could continue to pump this combined sewage at its sustained peak rate of 20.9 MGD, or 14,500 gpm for the next 24 hours. This would reduce the pollutant loading approximately 90% on 20.9 million gallons out of the 87 million gallons. This additional treatment would occur in all four alternatives. Table 3-3 presents a summary of the pollutants removed and dis- charged under the four alternatives. According to Table 3-3, compliance with Rule 602 provides the greatest removal of BOD. and suspended solids, as expected. First flush represents 89% of the BOD^ loading and 92% (-21,000 gpm/274,000 gpm) x 100. 35 oo CD > 4-> CO e S- <1J o CD .e 4-> O CD C7> S- fD u OO CD > o E CD CC 00 +J E 03 o co i CO CD -Q +-> CO e CO 03 I— +-> 00 Z3 -O r— i i o « Q_ -O CD i— > 03 O ID =3 E Q C CD O E C£ CO < O o o o o O o o o o 00 O o o o o +-> oo CO #N •> #\ ^ *> e -Q CO "vf "5f «* <3- ^ 03 t— I— iX) 00 CO r~-~ r~- -t-> . — 1 CO en CO co 3 •» r> 9i o r— "O *& co CO i— CD o en a. s- O o o o o f0 O o o o o i— JE O o o o o o3 U LT> o n « *\ #N ITS 00 Q CO CO CO CO CO E T- O CNJ r-> CO rx. r»« E Q CO i — 1 CNJ CO en cr> < " e o +-> Q_ u 00 CD Q CD > 03 e s_ CD +-> o o o o 00 CO o o o CNJ en co o o o o o CNJ CO o o o o CO o o o o CTi o o o o LT) O o o o CT) O O O O LD i~ s_ e ro • rt3 ■ r ~ CQ 2 o £Z CQ "D CD ,^ E en • M- CD • 03 03 CD C C7) CD 2 i — CD 03 i — +-> +-> CD -O > 2 -Q 03 03 00 •r — O CD •i — CD CD CO O0 00 i_ s- TD 00 c 00 1— +J CD E O o -a CD o a. • -a "O •r— c c s e e .a cO o •1 — oo O 03 03 E o fcS +-) E 05 r— <4- CD CD o +J fC o +-> S- S- c e c o E CD o o 4- ra •c— fO > +-> La- 4-> o 1 — i. M- i— o CO rs Q CO _E D_ o O Q_ E 1 1 CJ 4-> x: jE -t-> O X ZS C o u E -E .e E CD 3 CD >, 00 o 00 E ■a E E .— 3 1 — 1 3 00 ■M c •+-> E 1 — ■ — 03 ro n3 oo 03 O U- CD M- CD (t3 CD XJ « 5- c: i- E -l-> •i— +-> -t-> h- CD +-> h- CD 00 > 00 (t! CD fO CD i_ o S- CD 3 S_ CD 2 s- en •r— s_ •i — S- CD o c CD O E U_ Q. U_ h- 21 O0 h- •Zl 00 4-> OO • • ■ • •1 — t— * i — l K— < > X i — l 1 1 p — 1 LU 1 1 36 of the suspended solids loading on an annual basis. In Alternatives III and IV the pollutant reduction represents 18% removal of the CSO loading on an annual basis . Depending upon the characteristics of each wet weather event, the actual treatment could vary from a few percent to 100% for any particular event. The values of Table 3-3 were based upon the results of a first flush study conducted in 1979. Since the completion of that study, two major industries, Certainteed and Hunter Packing, are no longer in East St. Louis. In addition, Pfizer is petitioning to remove 2 MGD of cooling water from the East St. Louis system. These changes in hydraulic and organic loading certainly alter projected CSO loadings in the future. Hunter Packing and Certaineed represented 53% of the BODc and 28% of the suspended solids contribution to East St. Louis' treatment plant. Including Pfizer, a flow reduction of 35% is anticipated in the East St. Louis sewage volume. Solids accumulation in the sewers is determined by velocity as well as suspended solids loading. In a sewer flushing research project conducted by Pisano for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, several variables were identified as affecting the sewer deposition rate. Important parameters are per capita waste rate, pipe length, pipe slope, and average diameter. In developing several models, one assumption utilized for the simplest model was that "deposition loads predicted by the model are a linear function of the per capita solid waste rate." Although changes in flow rates may alter this direct relationship, for projecting changes in East St. Louis' CSO loadings a direct relationship was assumed. Thus, the 28% reduction in daily suspended solids loading was assumed 37 to result in a similar decrease in BODr and suspended solids for any overflows. Table 3-4 presents revised estimates of CSO loadings based on a 28% reduction in pollutant loading while the volume of first flush remained the same. The only difference between Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 is the decrease in annual pollutant loadings expected from East St. Louis' sewer overflows. The relative removal efficiencies of the four alternatives remains constant even though the loadings declined. The net result of industry closures is a constant treatment cost, as shown in Table 3-1, with reduced pollutant loadings. Thus, the cost per pound of pollutant removed has increased for East St. Louis. In the next chapter, the incre- mental CSO removal costs are compared to the incremental gains in environ- mental protection for the four scenarios described. 38 CO CU > •i — +-> S- a> +-> 03 i — CO +-> o C _J (1) E • cu +-> cnoo 03 c • 03 UJ s- •i— a> •+J CO 03 i- 2 cu E en S- S- o fO +-> sz OO o CO s- •I— 3 Q o Li- i — rc dJ ■i— -C s- 4-> ■(-> co E 3 o -o i. c 4- »— 1 "O a) CU cu CT> &- s- sz ra h- .c a 4- CO o •T— Q CO CO ■o o C _l 03 +-> "O c cu 3 > o o o E o CD +-> c: c •i— 03 +-> CD 3 C i — •i — e— -^ O (O O- 1— | CO OJ r— -Q 03 CO +-> CO c JO 03 i — +-> ZZ * i— "O i^ a> o en Q- s- 03 ^~ x: 03 o 13 CO C • r— c: Q i — o 03 E =3 CU C OH c < OO OO Q O CO o cj CO a> a OJ > S- OJ o o o o CTi o o o o CTi <3- o o o o co CO o o o CO o o o o o o cr> o en o o o o o o o o LO OO o o o CNJ CTi CNJ CNJ o o o CO cr> CO o o o o co oo o o o CNJ cr> CNJ CNJ o O O CO CT> CO o o o o CO OO o o o o o o o o o OO o o o VI OO CO CNJ to OJ cu -o en en e 03 (O 03 2 OJ CU o +-> +-> CO to rt3 03 >> OJ CU ■o l/l -o to ( — S- s_ CU (0 ■a OJ 03 c -t-> -t-> •r— +-> c 03 c +J o oS o3 JO c JO C c E 03 C C0 E 03 cu OJ OJ o i — OJ S o i — cu s- s_ CJ Cl cu O CJ Q. S- o o 5- ■ — CJ +-> -t-> 4- 4-> U 4- 4- +J CO to U_ 3: CO O C l/l oj O s- 1 Q 1 SZ E 5- > _c E 03 o +-> 03 a o *J CO sz X -C 3 03 -Q 3 rD to o to E OJ OJ E CU 3 . — 1 3 s- ** -(-> S- • i — , — CO +-> OJ 03 to +-> cu 2 4- OJ 4- 03 i — c 03 r— o ■o 2 -c •1— 2 j: +-> •r - +-> 4-> O) ■r™ s_ +-> OJ •<- 4- CO > CO 03 c 00 o 03 c to t_ S- O i_ OJ 00 r— CU CO CU • i — c_ ■ 1 — S- c O SZ i_ c O > en Ll_ O- u_ h- •f— o_ o 1— •t— a. o c i ^ 1 1 1 1 •1— ' CO 03 03 03 03 i — i — i i — i i — i >■ X >— t i — i i—i -a OJ +-> 03 CU i. cu N o oj en s- ra x: cj co CU +J 03 en o o CJ 03 CU CU -t-> 03 4-> i- QJ O en o 03 Q_ I S- CU 4-> c 3 CO OJ +-> O 39 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS AND COSTS The environmental costs and benefits of combined sewer overflow control for East St. Louis are directly related to the magnitude of the pollution problem and receiving stream characteristics. The sewer system associated with the East St. Louis wastewater treatment plant consists of 100% combined sewers. There are only two overflow points, and the sewer system capacity was assumed by Russell & Axon to handle all but 12 rainstorms per year without overflow. The BOD,- and suspended solids loadings associated with CSO were estimated in Chapter 3 on an event and on an annual basis. In assessing the magnitude of environmental impacts, three specific pollutant categories, deoxygenating material , bacteria, and heavy metals, all deserve consideration as they affect water use and water quality. The costs for controlling these pollutants can then be compared to the probable change in water quality and/or water use. The following sections describe the anticipated environmental and economic tradeoffs in CSO treatment strategies at East St. Louis. Environmental Effects of CSO Heavy Metals Contribution East St. Louis is an urban area forming a section of the metro- politan St. Louis area. Industry is limited in East St. Louis to six major facilities covered in the industrial waste survey. The concentrations of heavy metals discharged to the East St. Louis system were reported o by Russell and Axon. 40 To determine the probable effect of heavy metal discharges upon CSO quality, first the pounds of metals discharged per day were calculated for East St. Louis' industry. Table 4-1 summarizes the results of these calculations for parameters of interest. The effect of these metal loadings on the effluent and CSO concentrations is a function of total flow and deposited material. Discharge Monitoring Reports submitted by East St. Louis do not include heavy metal analysis. Thus, the only source available for effluent analysis of the East St. Louis discharge is the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. According to the 1979 and 1980 IEPA sampling the following range of iron concentrations persisted in the WWTP effluent: Total Iron Concentration, mg/l 1980 18 to 230 1979 28 to 97 Effluent Standard 2.0 No analyses were performed for fluoride, which could also exceed existing effluent standard at the discharge point. Other metals, such as copper, nickel, lead, and chromium all persisted at concentrations below applicable effluent limits in the East St. Louis WWTP discharge, according to IEPA data. In evaluating the level of heavy metals in combined sewer overflows from East St. Louis, the only parameters which may violate Rule 408 effluent standards are total iron and fluoride. Calculated fluoride concentrations in the WWTP effluent of 33 mg/£ (based upon 18 MGD flow and 5,000 pounds per day discharge) may not be realized if precipitation of the fluoride occurs prior to discharge. The overflows would be expected to have iron 41 Table 4-1. Industrial Waste Survey for East St. Louis Industry Average Flow, MGD Parameter I Average Concentration, 3 mg/£ Average, Loading, lbs/day Beck Vanilla Products 0.042 Chromium (total ) 0.12 Copper 0.55 Iron 6.4 0.04 0.19 2.24 Chem Tech Fluoride 0.155 Copper Iron Nickel Arsenic Fluoride ', 0.55 1.75 0.99 20 3,850 0.44 2.5 0.61 26 5,000 Holten Wholesale Meats, Inc. 0.0049 Copper Iron 0.8 5.5 0.03 0.22 Musick Plating 0.056 #1 stream Cadmium 1.3 0. Chromium (total) 1.5 160. Copper 3.25 2. Iron 2.85 14. Nickel 10.7 12. #2 .02 ,0 ,65 .7 .6 0.08 67 1.45 6.5 5.9 Pfizer, Inc. A - 2.5 Iron (total) Iron (dissolved) 330 330 C - 0.45 Iron (total) 66 - L9,980 D - 1.0 Iron (total) Iron (dissolved) 1500 490 Note: a) Values averaged for two sampling days. b) Pounds per day were calculated based on average flow and average concentration by Huff & Huff. c) Three sampling periods averaged together. SOURCE: Russell & Axon, "Industrial Waste Survey." 42 and fluoride quantities similar to the effluent quantity. This is based on the hypothesis that the industrial flow remains constant as rainwater becomes an increasing fraction of the flow. Deposited materials which have organic characteristic may contain some iron particles, although the dissolved iron level is quite high, and dissolved iron would not deposit in the sewers. Fluorides may also be in the dissolved and parti- culate form when discharged by industry into the sewer system. There are several factors which are important in evaluating the quality of any CSO. The applicability of Rule 408 versus water quality standards must be decided as it pertains to CSO discharges. If only water quality standards are applicable, there is the question of total iron violations because the Mississippi l^iver is already high (average of 2.0 mg/£) in iron. Thus, the present total iron water quality standard of 1.0 mg/£ is frequently violated. In fact, high background iron con- centrations are a statewide phenomenon due to geologic conditions and nonpoint sources. In R79-6 the IEPA indicated that approximately 90% of all water quality stations violated the total iron water quality standard between 1975 and 1977. This ubiquitous problem should be recognized in considering high iron concentrations in the East St. Louis discharge and possible concentrations in the overflow. There are no dissolved iron water quality or effluent standards applicable to the Mississippi River. Another important factor in the analysis is East St. Louis' inten- tions to meet all "applicable effluent and water quality standards" during overflow. If this statement means that the Rule 408 limits will not be exceeded in the CSOs, then there will be no detrimental environmental 43 effect associated with metal concentrations in the CSO discharges. Similarly, if water quality standards are maintained, then no adverse effects are expected. The level of pollutants discharged by Pfizer (which is the source of high iron and low pH) may be reduced or altered when the federal pre- treatment standards are enforced. According to 40CFR403.5, General Pre- treatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources, the following prohibition appl ies: 2) Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, but in no case Discharges with pH lower than 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to accommodate such Discharges; Since Pfizer discharges 3.5 MGD with a pH of 3.5, the dissolved iron is high. Also, the pH at the treatment plant, which varies between 6.0 and 7.0, is not sufficiently high to induce a change in the oxidation state of the iron. If Pfizer pretreats the wastewater, providing only pH neutralization, increased particulate iron will collect in the sewers. If iron removal is also installed at Pfizer, there would be a proportion- ate decrease in iron discharged from the STP, as well as from CSOs. The environmental effect of discharging 18 MGD of effluent from the East St. Louis treatment plant with iron concentrations from 18 to 230 mg/£ is minimized because of the large available dilution ratio in the Mississippi River. At a dilution ratio of 1400 to 1 available in 25% of the River, the iron concentrations in the river will be increased less than 0.16 mg/£. Total iron is not a toxic metal until concentrations of 32 mg/£ to 10,000 mg/£ are reached, depending upon pH and other factors. The toxicity mechanism described is the deposition of iron hydroxides 44 on the gills of fish. Soluble iron levels of 40 mg/£ were not harmful 11 to fingerling channel catfish during a 96 hour bioassay. A more detailed discussion of iron toxicity is included in the U.S. EPA's Water Qual ity Criteria and Muchmore's economic study regarding the dissolved iron effluent standard. In each the critical iron level was variable according to pH and species; however, so long as the pH exceeded 7.25, high iron levels were tolerable. In the CSO discharge an incremental water quality change of 0.16 mg/£, which is that associated with the WWTP effluent, is expected. Thus, the environmental effect of heavy metal discharges in CSO is not different from the WWTP discharge, and if the CSO is in compliance with Chapter 3, the environmental impact is in fact "zero." Bacterial Contributions Bacterial levels in streams have been thought to be indicators of fecal pollution in a stream. Fecal coliform may be attributed to sewage discharges or animal wastes or other non-point sources. This fecal coliform value, however, does not have any specific correlation with pathogen density. For each level of treatment, a percentage of bacteria and viruses may be removed. Table 4-2 summarizes bacterial removal efficiencies 12 reported in another ecis. Combined sewer overflows vary in bacterial quality, and recent studies have invesitgated disinfection techniques for CSOs. Some of 13 the following conclusions of an EPA pilot study of CSO disinfection are pertinent to East St. Louis: 45 to <: UJ a: t— _i to >> CO ^ c « 1 — > rO O _J E O) E □ 3 E ■»" X <0 C O) E +-> rO > > S- (O E T3 oj C oi O O QJ OO QJ ■»-> &« rO OJ •> S- r— h- ft) > >> c J- E rC O) E OC •P-" i- a_ E CO •r— c <0 en s_ o o S-. u en en en en o O a) CL to cn( oo ex to oo x: o O) jz: o to to =3 to -O •r— to -C O c rO ■1 — JO cn O) 3 S- E a> T3 rO -t-> c . LU Q-l o CU 4- c to ■r— T3 +-> O -t-> to O) 23 O) CD to to to ro CD 3Z • CO en r^. c: •r- ■a J- c fC rO Q. E LT) O CO O s_ CL Cl <4- *\ XI CTi a O c O «t OO «d- #* • »> UJ ftJ en . •1- go ro • ZD -a c « ro to CD • > DC -r- 4-> « ro to c CU i_ 4-> CU ■r- 4-> S_ 1— O < o a: ro o 00 46 1. Application of high rate disinfection processes can result in significant reduction of bacterial populations in CSO. 2. Chlorine (Cl 2 ) dosages of 12 to 24 mg/£ during initial stages of overflow were able to achieve 3 to 4 log reductions of fecal col iform (FC) . 3. Chlorine dosages of 12 mg/£ achieved similar log reductions of FC after the first 30 to 45 minutes of the overflow event. 4. The population of wild viruses in CSO is generally at a low level, with high sample variation. It appears questionable whether a meaningful measure of disinfection effectiveness can be made on the basis of observed reductions in wild viruses found in CSO. 5. Simultaneous reductions in bacterial and viral titers were common but there was no direct proportional relationship between them. In the U.S. EPA pilot study the geometric mean fecal col iform densities varied between 1.2 and 4xl0 5 with values up to 10 9 . High rate disinfection of overflows resulted in fecal col iform densities of 200 per 100 ml. Thus, the technology for reducing bacterial levels seems adequate although viral kill efficiency fluctuates considerably. In addressing the effects of unchlorinated CSO to the Mississippi River, two factors are of utmost significance: (1) Downstream uses of the Mississippi River, and (2) Other sources contributing to water quality In Chapter 2 the downstream uses of the Mississippi River were identified. Access, to the river is limited, and until Harrisonville, which is 30 miles downstream, there is no docking facility. There are no beach areas, and, in fact, boating access is predominantly on the Missouri side. The public water supply intake at Chester, which is 70 miles downstream, is probably the most important water use. According to Chapter 2, fecal col iform levels have been reported averaging between 2,000 and 13,000 47 at Chester in 1972 through 1977. Since 1977 there are no available data although no significant changes in treatment have occurred which would alter expected present values. Rule 307 of Chapter 6 pertains to the quality of acceptable raw water intake. A 12 month geometric mean of 2,000 fecal col iform per 100 ml is specified as an acceptable level for raw water intake. Since 1976, insufficient data exist to determine compliance with Rule 307; however, conversations with IEPA field personnel indicate that Chester has no "unusual" treatment problems or treatment require- ments in order to produce an acceptable quality of finished water. In considering the importance of chlorinating and/or treating East St. Louis' overflows, the total bacterial inputs should be examined, The following sources of bacterial contamination all have some effect upon the downstream water quality: a) East St. Louis STP b) East St. Louis CS0 c) St. Louis STP d) St. Louis CS0 e) Other communities f) non-point sources (other tributaries, i.e., Missouri and Kaskaskia Rivers) g) wildlife contributions The bacterial level and content of discharged raw sewage vary from that of primary or secondary treated effluents. As Table 4-2 indicated, 48 various coliforms and pathogens are removed during the treatment processes. Presently St. Louis discharges 250 MGD of primary, unchlorinated effluents although a 110 MGD secondary treatment facility is under construction. CSO discharges from St. Louis, East St. Louis, and other communities such as Alton, Wood River, and Hartford are all untreated. Thus, existing water quality conditions represent "worst case" conditions and with instal- lation of secondary facilities, the bacterial levels may decrease. The American Bottoms Regional Plant has included chlorination facilities as presently required in Illinois. Depending upon the rule change adopted in R77-12, chlorination at this facility may be deleted. The philosophy adopted by the Pollution Control Board in R77-12 is probably the most important factor regarding justification of chlorinating CSO discharges. If point sources on the Mississippi River are required to chlorinate, then the combined sewer overflows would also seem to warrant chlorination. If, however, the point sources in the St. Louis area will not disinfect because of the results of R77-12, then the CSO discharges must be judged as they affect water uses and health risks. The contri- bution of St. Louis and non-point sources must also be taken into account in assessing the value of CSO disinfection at East St. Louis. Deoxygenating Wastes The present BODr loading from CSO discharges was estimated in Chapter 3 as 0.81 million lbs per year or 67,600 lbs per event. The treatment plant presently discharges 16,700 pounds per day of B0D 5 , or on an annual basis this amounts to 6.1 million pounds. It appears that the CSO contribution on an event basis adds approximately four times 49 as much BOD^ loading to the river as the sewage treatment plant; however, on an annual basis the treatment plant is the primary contributor to the river loading. In assessing the environmental impact of East St. Louis' discharge on the Mississippi River, the consulting engineering firm Russell & Axon presented two mathematical assessments. First, in testimony presented at the technical hearing in June 1981, a mixing zone analysis was delineated, This analysis consisted of utilizing 25% of the mean daily flow of the Mississippi River, which is 32,860 MGD, to determine the increase in BODr and TSS in the Mississippi River. The incremental increase calculated was 0.01 mg/£ for BODr and 0.7 mg/£ for TSS in the mixing zone. The second calculation presented by the engineers (Russell & Axon) consisted of a Streeter-Phelps estimation of the change in dissolved oxygen in the Mississippi River attributed to CSO. This procedure, which was attached to Variance Petition PCB81-147, had the following results: Conditions: River at 10 yr 7 day low flow BODc in Mississippi River = 9.9 mg/£ Initial D.O. in Mississippi River = 5.95 mg/£ Results Scenario No combined sewer overflow First flush loading discharged First flush and "10 times DWF" loadings discharged Minimum Location of D.O. Minimum D. 0., mg/i Miles Downstream 4.19 22, .5 4.13 22, .5 4.07 22, .5 50 According to the engineer's model, violations of the water qua! ity dissolved oxygen standard (Rule 203(d)) occur during low flow periods. The combined sewer overflows contribute to these violations, according to the engineer's model. It should be noted that the engineer's model utilized an initial BOD^ in the river of 9.9 mg/Z (no source provided for this value), and the impact of combined sewer overflows was estimated at low flow conditions. Since overflows are wet weather events it seems highly unlikely that such a combination of events as described by the calculations would occur. Dissolved oxygen levels reported at East St. Louis and Chester by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency are the only analytical data available. Table 4-3 summarizes the sample values collected at East St. Louis and Chester from 1971 to 1977. Chester is approximately 70 miles downstream of East St. Louis and the St. Louis metropolitan area. The dissolved oxygen levels are similar at East St. Louis and Chester even though Chester is downstream of the metropolitan St. Louis. It is possible that the river has recovered 70 miles downstream or that the impact occurs further downstream. The flow rate used by Russell & Axon of 1 foot per second is a low flow velocity and resulted in an impact 22 miles downstream. The maximum velocity at the 10 year low flow indicated by Russell & Axon of 1.8 feet per second would increase the distance downstream at which minimum dissolved oxygen levels occur to 40 miles. Higher flows would increase the distance at which the minimum dissolved oxygen level occurs. Available dissolved oxygen data at Chester and East St. Louis provide some indication of water quality 51 3 o 00 CO S- O) 4-> CO 0J _c o +-> ro CU > CU CD CD >> X o > 'o CO CO O) > Or2 CO CO CO CO ro i co rO 4-> rO CO O) cn (O oo E 3 cu E 13 X A3 rO > CU CJ> CU > E 3 CU E 13 £Z rO C|_ CO O CU OO s- i — co LT) <=f ro C\J i— i rO r-~ i — r»- i--. r--» I s -. I s -. CU cn en CT> CT) CT> cr> en >- cu CO CU CO +J CO CU cn E oo 3 CU E 3 X rO A3 > CU cn cu 03 3 S- i— CD ro > > 3 CU E Z3 c: 03 <+- CO O CU o E 03 oo 03 CU co I s -. CTl C\i CNJ 00 CTl <3" CO vo CNJ r-» <3- r-. o CO CO I s -- CO 1-^ CNJ CO CO CO oo «3- I s — CO ^j- ro «— l CNJ o o cn oo oo CO oo 00 CO CNJ CO co o oo CO cn r-- oo o oo CO r-- cr> CNJ CO cn cn cn I s -. cn oo r-. cn C\J r— I I s -. r-- a- cn ro fO Q CT) S- o c o UJ O o oo 52 degradation due to East St. Louis or the combination of sources upstream. Five dissolved oxygen samples' col lected between 1972 and 1977 were below the 5.0 mg/£ minimum at Chester. Since 1975, however, the dissolved oxygen samples have remained above the water quality standard. In the following section the expected change in dissolved oxygen levels is utilized to determine the relative efficiency of various CSO control strategies. Even though the water quality impact of East St. Louis' CSO is considered very small as demonstrated by calculations and monitoring data, it is this incremental improvement which would necessitate any CSO control strategy. Cost-Effectiveness of CSO Treatment Strategies In considering the level of CSO control which is necessary at East St. Louis, there are two important variables. Control strategies can be ranked according to the costs of removal as well as to the level of removal or protection desired. For East St. Louis the question is not only what level of CSO control must be provided to protect water quality but also what is the most cost-effective method of achieving that goal ? Because East St. Louis discharges to the Mississippi River, there are a variety of factors which contribute to water quality. The large flow in the river provides dilution which reduces the impact of sewer overflows as well as primary effluents. The regional treatment plant will reduce pollutant loadings to the river by over 40,000 pounds of BODr per day while combined sewer control reduces intermittent storm loadings, which could be as much as 68,000 pounds for each of twelve 53 events. Other point sources and non-point sources contribute to the water quality in the river. Therefore, East St. Louis must be considered as one factor in the overall goals for maintaining water quality. To describe the relative importance of reductions in wastewater loadings from East St. Louis, the following scenarios have been compiled. These scenarios in Table 4-4 describe expected loadings for present conditions as well as various control strategies. These projected wastewater loadings are combined with existing point source contributions in the area of East St. Louis to determine the change in probability of a dissolved oxygen water quality violation. East St. Louis is one of several communities which discharge to the Mississippi River. In the appendix to Chapter 4 the communities are listed as well as the discharge size and quality. This list may not be comprehensive in that only St. Louis' three plants are included on the Missouri side, and there are other smaller discharges in the vicinity not listed. Based on present wastewater loadings from 11 municipal plants, East St. Louis represents 6.7% of the dry weather loading. After St. Louis installs secondary treatment at one plant and the American Bottoms regional plant is on-line, East St. Louis will represent 1.2% of the total dry weather loading. During storm events there may be combined sewer overflows from East St. Louis, Wood River, Alton, Sauget, Hartford, Granite City, and St. Louis. Thus, the change in water quality is affected by the contri- bution of all these sources. From 1972 through 1974 there were five of 35 samples with dissolved oxygen levels below the water quality standard. In 1975, 1976, and 1977 no dissolved oxygen violations were reported at 54 Table 4-4. Projected Wastewater Loadings Scenario Source Raw Waste Load, #/ Day Probable Removal B0D 5 Loading Discharged, #/ Day a WWTP (1971-1980) 39,000 0.10 35,100 b WWTP - after industry closure 18,600 0.10 16,700 c Regional plant 18,600 0.90 1,900 d CSO (1971-1980) 94,000 94,000 e CSO - after industry closure 1981 67,600 67,600 f CSO - 1 MGD capacity at regional plant 67,600 0.10 60,800 g CSO - first flush treatment 67,600 0.64 24,200 h CSO - firt flush treatment and primary treatment of 10 x DWF 67,600 0.76 16,400 55 Chester, which is the nearest water quality station. After 1977 no samples were collected at the Chester station. To describe the impact of CSO control in East St. Louis, Table 4-5 was constructed from the data in Table 4-4 and utilized the expected ratio of East St. Louis loadings to total point source contributions. Expected wastewater loadings from East St. Louis are calculated for wet weather events resulting in complete first flush overflows. If the 1972 through 1977 dissolved oxygen samples are analyzed, approximately 1% of the samples were below water quality standards. Column 3 of Table 4-5 shows the change in probability of DO violations assuming that any reduction in East St. Louis would result in a similar reduction in viola- tions. This is a simplistic single source assumption which is one step in assessing expected changes in dissolved oxygen violations. The fourth column adjusts the expected probabilities to account for other point source contributions. The values of column 4 are maximum changes in probabilities of violation. There are several factors to consider in reviewing the values of Table 4-5. First, the expected effect of reduction in East St. Louis' wastewater loading is based solely on point sources with no consideration of the magnitude of non-point source contributions. The addition of non-point sources would decrease the change in probabilities. Secondly, the ratio of East St. Louis' loading to that of other point sources is expected to remain the same, even in wet weather. This is justifiable since most of the comunities also have combined sewers and would have increased loadings during wet weather. The probable rate of dissolved oxygen violations of 7% may be high, based upon the 1975, 1976, and 1977 56 Table 4-5. Contribution of East St. Louis to Water Quality Conditions Adjusted Probability Probability of D.O. violation Waste Load ; (a) of D.O. considering all point Scenario #/day violations(b) sources (c) East St. Louis in 1971-1980 a + d = 129,000 0.07 0.0047 East St. Louis with closure of 2 industries STP b + e = 84,300 0.046 0.0030 East S. Louis with industry closure and regional plant c + e = 69,500 0.038 0.0025 East St. Louis with closure, regional plant & CS0 treat- ment with 1 MGD capacity c + f = 62,700 0.034 0.0023 Regional plant and first flush treat- ment c + g = 26,100 0.014 0.0009 Regional plant and Rule 602 treatment c + h = 18,300 0.010 0.0007 a) Waste loads represent wet weather waste loadings to river based on first flush study plus daily STP loading* and the scenarios listed in Table 4- b) Probability of water quality violations assumed to be directly related to reduction in East St. Louis' loading. c) Probability of water quality violation adjusted according to the impact of East St. Louis as one component (6.7%) of the overall loading to river. 57 field sampling results. Without additional river sampling this violation rate of 7% was assumed to be a conservative estimate. It is important to examine not only the magnitude of probabilities calculated in Table 4-5 but also the relative change with increased con- trols. The loss of industry and operation of the regional plant decreases the rate of water quality violation by 50% from 0.47% to 0.25%. The probability of 0.25% can be translated as 0.9 days per year a DO violation may occur due to East St. Louis' contribution. The extra regional plant capacity of 1 MGD slightly decreases the probability of violation. Treat- ment of first flush would reduce the level of violation due to East St. Louis to 0.33 days per year or 1 day e^jery 3.0 years. The relative cost for such a reduction in water quality violation provides some indication of the economic efficiency of CS0 strategies. Table 4-6 depicts the costs of removal for the regional plant versus CS0 control strategies. The regional plant or secondary treatment is the cheapest, which is to be expected. First flush treatment and reserving 1 MGD plant capacity are similar in cost efficiency because it is relatively expensive to reserve plant capacity for intermittent events and does not allow for treatment of a large fraction of first flush. Rule 602, of course, is the most expensive treatment proposal because of the large volumes of primary treatment overflows. If these removal costs are compared to the probable reduction in dissolved oxygen water quality violations, the curve has the expected shape. As Figure 4-1 illustrates, for each incremental increase in water quality protection, the incremental costs of removal go up. With existing conditions the maximum violation rate is estimated as 1.1 days per year. 58 Table 4-6. Cost Efficiency Comparison of Alternatives $/pound of B0D 5 + TSS Scenario Removed- Regional Treatment Plant .28 Alternative I - First Flush Plus 10 x DWF, Store and Treat 1.02 Alternative II - First Flush, Store and Treat 0.72 Alternative IV - Treat as much of combined sewage possible in Regional Plant. Bar screen on CSO points 0.81 a Based on January 1980 dollars. Values reflect loss of Hunter Packing, Certainteed, and Pfizer 1 s cooling water discharge. 59 o o T3 ~ CO re > O s> . '*- • — >» m Q ~ O o S > >-0 M_ V a> ». o CO *- ca 00 ■a s !fl >- a. *i Q- u 03 Q. 03 £ a 03 a C o o s en t - 0) ee 1*1 03 O en TO 09 Q. (A >» (O O 5 e oo TO C o O CO O / O O CM O O o" o o LA o CD CO O O O CO o CL) CD >) X o > o OO 00 O >> +-> fO ja o S- Q- -o CD 00 o c 3 o -a -r~ CD +-> ct: 03 s- o o •<- M- > oo >, +-> +-> 00 »r- O r— O rO r— cr to > s- o QJ E +-> CD (O i CD en o en oo o C£> CD LO O o (paAoiuaa ssi' Q0a *qi/$) sjsoo |eAouiay 60 This decreases to 0.9 days per year with the regional plant at a cost of $0.28 per pound of B0D 5 and TSS removed. First flush treatment could reduce the dissolved oxygen violation rate to 0.33 days per year; however, the removal costs triple on a per pound basis. These changes in probable dissolved oxygen violations should be viewed as maximum values because non-point source contributions would minimize expected water quality improvement. The total BODr wastewater loadings from point sources listed in Table A-l of the appendix are 248,000 pounds per day. If this loading is distributed in the Mississippi River at low flow of 29,100 MGD, this would result in 1 mg/£ of B0D 5 in the river. Russell & Axon utilized a background B0D 5 concentration in the river of 9 mg/£, which, if accurate, indicates a much higher river loading due to upstream non-point and point sources. Such a background loading would also imply a much smaller increase in water quality protection than estimated in Table 4-5. The factors affecting the accuracy of the values in Table 4-5 have been mentioned previously as existing rate of dissolved oxygen vio- lations, contribution of non-point sources, and the ratio of wet weather contributions versus dry weather contributions for East St. Louis compared to other point sources. The measurable improvement in water quality protection is expected to be smaller than the values shown in Table 4-5 because of these factors. To reduce the maximum number of days per year that East St. Louis contributes to a dissolved oxygen violation from 0.9 to 0.33 would cost $14 million in capital investment and $2,050,000 per year in annualized costs. This is the cost of treating first flush from East St. Louis. Full compliance with Rule 602 is estimated at a capital 61 investment of $20 million and annualized cost of $3.2 million for a maximum reduction from 0.9 days to 0.26 days per year in water quality violations attributable to East St. Louis. Although a simplistic approach for estimating the water quality impact, the methodology does show a relative small improvement in water quality (0.64 days reduction in D.O. violations) for $20 million for CS0 control. No change in the downstream aquatic community can be associated with this level of change in water qual ity. 62 CHAPTER V ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The economic impact of increased capital investment for East St. Louis is a function of current financial conditions as well as the prospects of future stability. The historical trends for East St. Louis of dwindling business and industry, growing unemployment, and poor fiscal policy have resulted in a financial crisis for East St. Louis. To describe the anticipated effect of additional debt and operating costs requires an understanding of the existing financial situation. First, a brief economic history of East St. Louis is provided. Then, the existing fiscal crisis is described as well as the estimated impact upon municipal services of increased costs due to CSO treatment alternatives. Historical Economic Trends in East St. Louis The economic condition of East St. Louis has been one of deterior- ating finances and increasing unemployment since 1970. The population of East St. Louis has decreased approximately 20% to 55,000 since 1970 because of industrial plant closings and loss of business establish- ments. The unemployment rate in 1981 was between 20 and 25% for the city's population. Several financial factors describe the magnitude of the economic problems with East St. Louis' municipal operations. Two important revenue sources for a municipal operation are property taxes and sales tax receipts. Property tax revenues are based upon the tax rate and equalized assessed value of property in the city. An "assessment" is the value placed on property for tax purposes and is a specific percentage of 63 the property's market value. Equalization adjusts the assessed values to a single, average level of actual value. Table 5-1 depicts the his- torical trend for East St. Louis in terms of total assessments and equalized assessments. Between 1970 and 1979 the total property assessments in East St. Louis decreased by 66.5%. This is unique considering the general inflation in property values over time and the statewide increase in assessed valuation. With the use of an equalization factor, which has increased since 1970, the equalized valuation in East St. Louis still has been reduced by 50%. To maintain a steady level of property tax revenue, East St. Louis has raised the city tax rate until it is now the highest in Illinois. Table 5-2 presents the trend in city tax rates and total tax rates for East St. Louis. The city tax rate has more than doubled in the last ten years to offset the loss in assessed value of property in the city. The 1979 city tax rate of 5.86% was the highest city rate in Illinois. The total aggregate property tax rate of 12.6% is one of the highest in the state as well. If the equalized assessed values of Table 5-1 are multiplied by the city tax rates of Table 5-2, then the following total tax revenue from property can be estimated: Year City Revenue from Property Taxes, $ 1970 3,818,000 1971 3,765,000 1972 3,415,000 1973 3,308,000 1974 3,393,000 1975 2,762,000 1976 3,460,000 1977 3,955,000 1978 4,177,000 1979 4,706,000 64 Year Table 5-1. Historical Trends in Assessed Valuation for East St. Louis Total Assessments, Equalized Valuation, $ (millions) $ (millions) 1970 156.2 161.1 1971 156.8 161.6 1972 137.4 141.7 1973 135.4 139.6 1974 130.1 134.1 1975 108.7 126.1 1976 94.2 113.8 1977 88.3 100.9 1978 72.5 95.4 1979 52.3 80.3 SOURCE: Bert H. Allison and Company, City of East St. Louis Illinois Financial Statements with Supplementary Information, December 31, 1979. 65 Table 5-2. Property Tax Rate Trends for East St. Louis Year Total a Tax Rate, % City Rate, % St. Clair County Rate, % School District, % 1970 7.28 2.38 0.60 3.27 1971 7.34 2.33 0.75 3.34 1972 7.86 2.41 0.92 3.62 1973 7.76 2.37 0.97 3.40 1974 8.44 2.53 0.99 3.81 1975 7.55 2.19 0.92 3.43 1976 8.48 3.04 0.73 3.58 1977 10.02 3.92 0.78 3.93 1978 10.53 4.38 0.91 3.99 1979 12.60 5.86 1.01 4.33 Note: a) Total tax rate includes city, county, school district, township, sanitary district, health district, park district and tax rates. SOURCE: Bert H. Allison and Company, City of East St. Louis, Illinois Financial Statements with Supplementary Information, December 31, 1979. 66 It should be noted that although the 1979 computed property tax extension was $4.7 million, only 82 to 86% of that money would be col- lected by the city. The remainder has been uncollectible, and therefore, the actual tax revenue received by the city is less than the above estimated values. The revenue from property taxes has increased from 1970 through the present; however, this increase is solely due to the doubling of the tax rate. The 20% increase in revenue is small compared to the inflationary increases in municipal government operations over the same period, which have increased by 94%. The fraction of the total tax rate associated with the Metro East Levee and Sanitary District rate has declined over time. In 1979 the Sanitary District rate was 0.34 cents per hundred dollars of the assessed valuation, which represented 2.7% of the aggregate tax rate. This sanitary district rate is not exceptionally high compared to the rates of other districts in the state. Another historically important source of municipal revenue has been the collection of sales taxes. East St. Louis has been afflicted with a problem common to urban areas--the loss of commercial establish- ments. According to Table 5-3, East St. Louis has lost over half of the commercial establishments in the city limits since 1966. There is no chain grocery store or daily newspaper in the town and only one theater. Sales tax receipts to the city have maintained a fairly steady level at $1.2 million; however, when compared to changes in the Consumer *The Municipal Price Index between 1971 and 1979 is 1.94. 67 Table 5-3. Historical Patterns of Sales Tax Revenue Number of Total Tax Receipts Tax Receipts City Tax Receipts Year Taxpayers to State, b to City, c in 1980 dollars* $ million $ million $ million 1966 1,129 4.312 1.08 2.51 1968 961 5.381 1.27 2.95 1969 785 5.179 1.22 1970 731 4.756 1.19 2.36 1971 711 4.633 1.16 2.22 1972 677 4.589 1.15 2.12 1973 649 4.473 1.12 1.95 1974 622 4.677 1.17 1.85 1976 557 4.415 1.10 1.58 1977 535 4.492 1.12 1.56 1979 505 4.900 1.22 1.22 Note: a) Taxpayers are defined as general merchandise stores, grocery and food related stores, drinking and eating places apparel, furniture, hardware, gasoline stations, retail - wholesale stores, manufacturers, and miscellaneous enterprises. b) Total sales tax receipts to state are equivalent to 4% of sales except for 1969 and 1968 when 4.25% was the tax rate. c) Tax receipt to city assume as \% of total receipts. d) City tax receipts in constant 1980 dollars are derived using the Consumer Price Index from 1966 through 1979. SOURCE: 111. Dept. of Commerce and Community Affairs, "Business Reports," 1966-1979 68 Price Index, the value of tax receipts in 1980 dollars have been cut in half. Thus, the economic base of East St. Louis in terms of property valuation and commercial business has been dwindling through time. To maintain municipal services at a constant level, it became a policy to utilize deficit financing. East St. Louis thus borrowed against future revenues by tax anticipation warrants to pay current operating expenses. The decline in real value of property tax and sales tax revenue exacerbated the continual deficit policy, resulting in a fiscal crisis in the fall of 1980. When East St. Louis was not able to make tax anti- cipation payments, employee payrolls, and other operating expense, severe cutbacks in municipal operations occurred. The historical trends in municipal revenue and fiscal policy thus hinder the city in terms of major capital development or absorbing increases in the municipal budget. In the following section the present state of municipal finances is described. These historical trends become even more important in assessing the viability of the East St. Louis municipal operations. Present Financial Characteristics of East St. Louis The financial statement presented as Exhibit II at the Pollution Control Board Hearings in June, 1981 as well as testimony by Mr. Ross, corporate counsel for the city of East St. Louis, indicate that East St. Louis will require substantial shrinkage of its municipal budget in order to balance expenses with income. In 1979 the difference between total revenue and total expenditures was a municipal deficit of 69 $3.28 million. Total 1979 expenditures, including outlays of capital, were $14.58 million for East St. Louis. The general purposes fund, which accounts for operating expenses of the municipal government, spent $9.26 million although only $7.14 million in revenue was available. This resulted in a $2. 12 mill ion deficit in this fund. Table 5-4 presents a 1979 financial summary of East St. Louis.. The three major areas of city expense were general government, public safety (fire and police), and public works. These three items represented 89% of the general operations expense. The major sources of revenue were property taxes, sales taxes, income tax, and utility franchise taxes. These taxes provided $4.5 million or 62% of the city revenue. Revenue sharing funds accounted for 17% of the total revenue while the remainder was attributed to other miscel- laneous sources. In 1980 the city cut employees and services to reduce the budget to $8.7 million, and in 1981 the budget goal was $7.5 million. Thus, the present income and expenses are more nearly equilibrated than in 1979. The problem with East St. Louis, however, is the repayment of debts and funds which have been unpaid in the last few years. These repayments consist of judgment bonds, tax anticipation warrants, and long term debt accumulations plus contributions to pension funds, injury claims, and other funds. For the last ten years East St. Louis has not paid utility bills, which includes telephone, water, and energy. These payments are ordered by judgments against the city. The city then issues bonds and pays off the utility bills through installment 70 Table 5-4. 1979 Balance Sheet for East General Purposes Fund St. Louis General Purposes Fund c REVENUE Property taxes Other taxes Fines Licenses and permits Charges for services Interest Other Anti -recession transfer General revenue sharing $ 383,000 4,090,000 188,000 428,000 525,000 7,200 267,000 3,000 1,245,000 Total revenue 7,136,000 EXPENDITURES General government Public safety Publ ic works Public health and welfare Interest Transfers to other funds Other Installment purchases of equipment Total Expenditures DEFICIT 1,796,000 4,587,000 1,838,000 575,000 85,200 94,700 35,300 247,000 9,258,000 (2,122,000) Note: General purposes fund represents general operating budget of city. Values have been rounded off from those listed in Exhibit I -A of 1979 Financial Statements with Supplementary Information 71 payments plus interest. Table 5-5 shows the following utility indebted- ness has been incurred. Presently, East St. Louis has $2.46 million in outstanding bonds for utility payments. Additional debt incurred by East St. Louis includes the following: Source Amount, $ mill ion General obligation bonds from motor fuel fund 1.76 Unpaid principal and interest 1974-78 for Dr. Martin Luther King Bridge 2.3 Dr. Martin Luther King Bridge bonds 7.2 " interest 1.6 Sewerage bonds 2.3 Total bonds plus interest 15.2 The bonds for the Dr. Martin Luther King Bridge are a major component of outstanding debt. Additional bonds for sewerage and roads make up the general indebtedness of East St. Louis. Economic Impact of Waste Treatment Expenditures Upon East St. Louis An increase in operating cost for sewage treatment is presently anticipated even without CSO control. East St. Louis is sharing in the capital cost and operating cost of the American Bottoms Regional Treatment Plant. To finance the local share of this plant the Village of Sauget recently sold $20 million of revenue bonds at 13.5% interest over 20 years. East St. Louis is expected to pay an allocated share of the operating costs based upon a formula currently being developed by a consulting firm. The 1983 0&M cost of the American Bottoms plant originally projected 72 Table 5-5. Indebtedness Due to Utility Payments Year Issued Date Payments Completed Total Amount Outstanding, $ 110,300 122,700 25,800 556,300 815,100 705,200 116,200 748,000 1964 1983 1965 1984 1968 1981 8/1979 1982 Total Issued 11/1979 3 a 9/1979 a a 7/1980 b b Total Amount 1979 Outstanding $2,458,000 Note: a) Judgment just awarded and value includes amount of bond issue—no payment schedule available. b) Complaint filed in court by utilities in July, 1980 for unpaid bills. SOURCE: Bert H. Allison and Company, City of East St. Louis, Illinois Financial Statements with Supplementary Information, December 31, 1979. 73 by Russell & Axon was $4.1 million. This value is currently being revised based on better cost information. The 1983 dollar share of East St. Louis could vary from $1.8 to $2.5 million, depending upon the formula developed.* The 1979 operating expense of the sewerage fund-water pollu- tion was $762,000 for East St. Louis. Thus, the operating cost asso- ciated with secondary sewage treatment will increase 240% to 330%, depending upon the allocation. East St. Louis' capital investment share of the regional plant will represent several million dollars in additional debt for the city, and bond interest as well must be paid in addition to operating costs. The annual debt payment for the $20 million bonds is $2.93 million, and this must be shared by East St. Louis, and Cahokia. The cost of CS0 treatment would be an additional expense incurred solely by East St. Louis. The capital investment for compliance with Rule 602 is approximately $21 million and first flush treatment only would be $14 million. The local share for such projects is assumed to be 25% or $5.25 million for Rule 602 or $3.5 million for first flush only. Recently, East St. Louis did sell $2 million of general obliga- tion bonds; however, specific insurances of city revenue sources had to be provided for this sale. An additional $3.5 to $5.25 million in bonds may be possible; however, the remaining city services would probably be severely restricted in terms of improvement projects. Even if the capital investment can be secured, the economic *The cost to East St. Louis depends on how the excess capacity due to the loss of 3 industrial discharges is allocated, along with the 1 MGD capacity for first flush treatment. 74 impact upon city finances will be substantial. The 1979 total water pollution expense for East St. Louis was $930,000. The probable share of sewage treatment costs after construction of the regional plant for East St. Louis is $3.0 to $4.2 million per year. This range represents 43% to 60% of the total plant operating costs plus debt payments. A draft allocation study which better defines the allocated costs should be completed in Spring, 1982. The additional annual cost of Rule 602 compliance to East St. Louis would be $1.3 million, and if only first flush is treated, the incremental annual cost is $0.76 million.* Thus, the projected annual cost of treating sewage for East St. Louis has the following components: Interest charges on existing debt $87,000 Annual costs of regional plant $3,000,000-$4,200,000 Annual costs of Rule 602 $1,300,000 Total annual cost $4,400,000-$5,600,000 East St. Louis has been reducing municipal expenditures in attempts to reach fiscal stability. The cost of CSO control plus regional ization will increase by 4i to 6 times the cost of sewage treatment for this city. For the homeowner in East St. Louis, this means that the annual sewer bill will go from $24 to $120 to $144. As 20% of the homeowners in East St. Louis presently are delinquent in paying their sewer bills, a much higher rate can be expected when the expansion is completed. Even without the combined sewer overflow costs, the sewer rates will *Assumes 20 year life and interest rate of 13.5% for local share of capital plus 0&M cost from Table 3-1. 75 increase 3 to 5 times the present level which will place severe hard- ship on East St. Louis. The 1981 budget goal for East St. Louis was $7.5 million for general city services. Sewage treatment costs will represent 59% to 75% if CSO control is included, and 41% to 57% without CSO control, of any future budget which maintained other services at the same level. It is difficult to see how East St. Louis will finance the added sewage treatment costs, even without CSO control, unless further cuts in other municipal services are made, or without subsidies from the other communi- ties in the regional plant. The added debt retirement for the capital required for storm water control ($3.5 million for first flush or $5.25 million for full compliance with Rule 602) will require further municipal service cuts in other areas. With city taxes at the highest rate in the state, continued loss of industry and commerce, and existing deficits, it is unlikely that East St. Louis could ever finance such increased expenditures. The economic impact on East St. Louis from Rule 602 compliance is real and severe. Simply cutting services and raising taxes may well be inadequate to supply the funds necessary to maintain a city and meet Rule 602. 76 References 1. Russell and Axon, "Engineering Design Report for the American Bottoms Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility," February 1980. 2. IEPA. "Procedures for Determining Compliance with Rule 602(C) of Chapter 3: Water Pollution Regulations of the Illinois Pollution Control Board," May 12, 1977. 3. Suddarth, J. M. Written statement presented before the Illinois Pollution Control Board in R81-12, 4. Russell & Axon. "Final Draft East St. Louis First Flush Analysis for the American Bottoms Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility," June 27, 1980. 5. Wanielista, M. P. Stormwater Management, Quantity and Quality , Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979. 6. Huff, L. Economic Impact of CSO Regulation [Rule 602] in Illinois, IINR Document 81/18, April, 1981. 7. Pisano, W. C, Aronson, G. L., Queiroz, C. S., "Dry Weather Deposition and Flushing for Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution Control," U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency. EPA-600/2-79-133, August, 1979. 8. Russell and Axon. "Industrial Sampling Program for The American Bottoms Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility," February 1980. 9. Regulatory Petition R81-12. East St. Louis and Sauget regarding R602. Sept. 1980. 10. Water Quality Criteria , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976, p. 79. 11. Muchmore, Charles B. Economic Impact of a Proposed Regulation Deleting the Dissolved Iron Standard, R76-21, Institute of Natural Resources, Doc. No. 78/02, June, 1978, pp. 17-18. 12. Huff, L. L. Economic Analysis of Health Risks and the Environmental Assessment of Revised Fecal Coliform Effluent and Water Quality Standards, IINR Doc. No. 81/15, 1982. 13. Drehwing, F. J., Oliver, A. J., MacArthur, D. A. and Moffa, P. E. "Disinfection/Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA-600/2-79-134. August, 1979. 14. Baker, Harold J. Testimony at Illinois Pollution Control Board Hearing R81-12, June 23, 1981. 77 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 4 78 Table Al . Point Source Loadings in East St. Louis Area Community MGD B0D 5 , mg/£ Present Loading # / day Future (1985) Loading # / day Combined Sewers East St. Louis 14 166 16,700 1,900 / Wood River 1.3 99 1,040 1,040 / Alton 5.7 14 666 666 / Sauget 8.0 99 6,600 600 / Hartford 0.3 99 250 250 / Granite City 6.3 20 1,100 1,100 / MESD Cahokia 4.5 99 3,700 400 MESD Lansdowne 6.0 99 5,000 5,000 St. Louis 25 20 4,200 4,200 140 100 117,000 117,000 / 110 100 91,700 248,000 27,500 160,000 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 3 0112 000724796