Wastewater Planning Strategy Report      

Comprehensive wastewater planning and management is critical to protecting public health and the environment, maintaining a high quality of life, and promoting a sustainable economy. With the population in northeastern Illinois expected to grow to an estimated 10.9 million by 2040, there is an increasing demand for homes, schools, roads, and other infrastructure improvements to serve the population, including wastewater services. Expanding the sewer service area or the capacity of wastewater treatment plants will impact land use patterns which, in turn, degrades the region’s water quality (both surface waters and groundwater).

This report addresses the issue of wastewater planning and management in northeastern Illinois. The first section of the report defines wastewater planning while the second portion addresses its environmental, public health, and economic impacts. The final section outlines strategies currently utilized by wastewater management agencies to mitigate adverse impacts of wastewater and includes some local case studies.

CMAP’s goal is to encourage dialogue among counties, municipalities, designated management agencies (DMAs), and advocacy groups engaging the region in developing comprehensive recommendations to guide the development of the GO TO 2040 plan.

Introduction

There are two key reasons why wastewater management should be evaluated in the context of a regional comprehensive plan. First, good water quality is necessary for protecting public health and sustaining a growing economy. Maintaining and improving the quality of our nation’s waterways has long been a national priority. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act) calls for all waterways to ultimately be “fishable and swimmable.” Its principal goal is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” which “provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title I).”

Second, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) plays a unique role in this process as the areawide water quality management planning agency for the region which includes the counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will. As such, it provides leadership to local communities, integrating their needs and goals into a comprehensive regional framework. Therefore, it is essential that CMAP participate in wastewater planning efforts at the earliest possible opportunity.

Comments (0)

Defining Wastewater Treatment

This report defines “wastewater” as more than just sewage from municipal sewage systems. It also includes water discharged from our homes (showers, washing machines, kitchen sinks, etc.), businesses (commercial and industrial manufacturing processes), and storm drains. Each of these sources contains various waste products and is ultimately either discharged into surface waters or infiltrates back into the ground. 

To understand the relation between wastewater management and water quality, it is important to understand the process of wastewater treatment. Wastewater treatment processes rely on different processes to remove contaminants from wastewater so that it can be returned to the environment with minimal adverse impacts.  In general, wastewater treatment at Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) may utilize three stages of wastewater treatment: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Treatment processes usually produce sludge, which also must be treated and disposed of properly. In most urban and urbanizing areas, wastewater is generally conveyed to a central WWTF for treatment and discharged into nearby surface waters. Other treatment systems include on-site septic systems (anaerobic treatment)* and land application systems.        

Figure 1. Wastewater Treatment Plant     Source:  http://www.durhamcountync.gov

On-site septic systems are more commonly used in low density areas. This process involves low levels of treatment in an on-site underground vault, with discharge into the ground. A suitable soil treatment area is necessary for efficient operation of these systems.**   In general, wastewater treated in a septic system percolates downward to replenish the groundwater, which many communities rely on for drinking water.

On-site treatment systems  are gaining popularity. These systems utilize aerated lagoons and/or other various levels of treatment followed by spray or subsurface irrigation of the treated wastewater. These systems often provide good treatment of wastewater before it is used to irrigate golf courses, open fields or municipal landscaping. On-site treatment systems can improve water quality and quantity in the area. These systems protect water quality by not discharging into surface waters. The treated wastewater infiltrates into the ground aiding in aquifer recharge.

Septic System vs. Land Application Systems

*Operating in the absence of air (anaerobic treatment), solids settle out in the septic treatment tank and bacteria breaks down waste effluent) into simpler molecules. The wastewater produced drains into elongated, perforated pipes attached to the septic treatment tank which release the wastewater into the soil.

**Suitable soils will remove nutrients and slowly filter the water as it percolates to the subsurface aquifers.

Comments (0)

Existing Conditions in the Region

Comprehensive wastewater treatment planning is an integral part of maintaining the quality of our region’s waters.  Although significant accomplishments in wastewater planning have improved the quality of our surface waters, many of the region’s urban streams and rivers and many of its lakes still do not meet the goals of the Clean Water Act” (NIPC, 34) requiring fishable and swimmable” conditions” (NIPC 2000). This is due to numerous causes, from both point source and nonpoint source pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to help achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act. The NPDES program was designed to control “water pollution sources by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States” USEPA, Office of Wastewater Management).

Point Source Pollution

The USEPA has delegated authority to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency [IEPA] to administer the NPDES permit system program in our state. As of 2003, Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) records indicate that there were 108 NPDES permits from public wastewater treatment plants in northeastern Illinois, with an additional 379 NPDES permits from other sources. Despite these efforts to control point sources, most of the region’s surface waters are still degraded and incapable of attaining primary contact status.*    Because they are degraded, “urban waterways are unable to dilute even highly treated discharges, resulting in problems like low dissolved oxygen levels that are damaging to aquatic life” (NIPC 2000, 61). Small treatment plants that discharge into low flow and/or high quality streams are of particular concern as they may not provide consistent levels of treatment. Please refer to the Conservation Design and Stormwater Best Management Practice strategy paper (coming soon) for a more thorough discussion.

Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows

Exacerbating the impacts of point source pollution, overflows from combined sewers (CSOs) and sanitary sewers (SSOs) further degrade our region’s waterbodies by discharging untreated or poorly treated wastewater and stormwater into area surface waters. Many older communities throughout northeastern Illinois have combined sewers for both sanitary wastewater and stormwater runoff. While there are no isolated figures for northeastern Illinois, the USEPA estimates that the volume of combined sewer overflows nationwide is 850 billion gallons per year (American Society of Civil Engineers).

Combined sewer overflows, which occur after wet weather events, are as much a result of poor stormwater management as they are insufficient treatment capacity at the wastewater treatment facility. CSOs can be prevented through improving infrastructure such as separating stormwater and sewer lines. However, these solutions can be very costly. Better stormwater management, which keeps stormwater onsite and construction of sufficient retention capacity, can alleviate CSOs, making it more cost effective.

Sanitary sewer overflows often result from insufficient sewer capacity, infiltration of stormwater, inflow from unknown connections, blockage or other infrastructure problems. Infrastructure planning and maintenance can prevent many SSOs.

Non-point Source Pollution

While impacts from point sources are significant, nonpoint sources of pollution also adversely impact water quality throughout northeastern Illinois. Primary causes of nonpoint source pollution include stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces and construction sites, channel modification, urban runoff, and draining and filling of wetlands. Effective control of such sources is an indispensable component of a comprehensive strategy for preventing impairment of the region’s waterways.

*Primary contact status, according to Illinois Water Quality Standards, means “any recreational or other water use in which there is prolonged and intimate contact with the water involving considerable risk of ingesting water in quantities sufficient to pose a significant health hazard such as swimming and water skiing” (35 Ill. Adm. Code 301.355). 

Comments (0)

Northeastern Illinois’ Facility Planning Area Process

The State of Illinois uses the Facility Planning Area (FPA) to aid in evaluating plans for providing wastewater treatment services. A “facility planning area” is where a Designated Management Agency (DMA) may provide wastewater treatment services and can plan for such services over a 20-year planning period. The map below illustrates growth within FPA boundaries planning within Northeastern Illinois from the Year 2001 to the Year 2007.  

CMAP is the areawide planning agency [1] for northeastern Illinois, providing a preliminary review of wastewater treatment plans and making a recommendation to the IEPA, through its Wastewater Committee, of whether it should deny or approve the request. Traditionally, this review has been very comprehensive. It not only examined the level of treatment at a specific wastewater treatment plant, but also evaluated numerous inextricably related issues such as the quality of local surface waters, nonpoint sources of pollution, the sufficiency of ordinances to control, prevent, and mitigate impacts of such pollution, proposed control measures, wastewater treatment alternatives, cost effectiveness of treatment alternatives, jurisdictional boundaries, agricultural preservation, and municipal planning.

The FPA process promotes progressive wastewater and land use planning by evaluating the impact of different wastewater treatment alternatives on water quality and aquatic life, as well as the justification and consequence of expanding FPA service areas. For example, the City of Woodstock, in anticipation of requesting approval of expanding the capacity and service area of its southern WWTF, has tentatively agreed to reduce its requested service area from 8,935 to 3,874 acres. This reduction of 5,061 acres will promote compact growth and development, protecting both water quality and agricultural uses in the area. The City of Woodstock, after analyzing the impacts of discharging greater volumes and concentrations and flow of effluent into the Kishwaukee River, is also considering more stringent effluent limits to protect this valuable natural resource. These include nitrogen removal and construction of an enhancement wetland. In addition, as part of a pilot watershed planning effort, it has agreed to conduct a stream characterization (monitoring) study and dedicate funding for river restoration projects. These early efforts at the planning stages are exemplary illustrations of how the FPA process can make a tremendous difference in developing and enhancing proactive solutions to safeguard our waterways and guiding smart growth in the region. CMAP can continue to play a leadership role in this comprehensive approach by using its staff expertise to perform critical reviews of FPA expansion proposals and provide recommendations, through its Wastewater Committee, to DMAs and the IEPA on the steps needed to protect and improve the quality of our region’s waters.

To understand the significance of monitoring point source and nonpoint source controls, the environmental, economic, and health impacts from these sources must be closely examined. By grasping a thorough understanding of these impacts and implementing a comprehensive approach to watershed management, the region can strive to accomplish the goals of the Clean Water Act by the year 2040.

[1] Pursuant to Section 208(a) of the Clean Water Act, Governor Walker designated the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) as the areawide planning agency for water quality management planning activities in the six-county northeastern Illinois region. (Governor Walker Executive Order, May 13, 1975) As the designated areawide planning agency, NIPC assumed certain responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. Section 208(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act states that “[n]ot later than one year after the date of designation … [NIPC] shall have in operation a continuing areawide waste treatment management planning process consistent with section 201 of this Act.” Effective July 1, 2007, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) assumed NIPC's former responsibility for water quality management planning activities as outlined in SB 1201.

Comments (0)

Impacts of Wastewater Planning

Environmental Impacts

Water Quality Impacts

To determine the quality of surface waters in our State, the IEPA established a biological stream characterization rating system. Under this system, the IEPA assesses water quality of streams on a 5-year rotating schedule. Those waterbodies with sufficient water quality to meet the Clean Water Act goal of “fishable and swimmable” are classified as “fully supporting (good)” by the Agency. Streams not meeting this goal are classified as either “not supporting (fair)” or “not supporting (poor)” (IEPA Bureau of Water 2006, 1). The stream classifications are identified in the state’s Water Quality Report and the 303(d) List of Impaired Waterways.

In 2006, “15,424 stream miles, or 21.6 percent of the total 71,394 steam miles in Illinois, were assessed for attainment of at least one designated use” (IEPA Bureau of Water 2006, 1). The IEPA’s 2006 Statewide Report illustrates the findings of this assessment.

Table 1. Percent of IL Stream Miles Assessed

Note:  Numbers and percentages may not add up due to slight rounding errors.

1. Assessment guidelines are not yet fully developed; see section C-2 Assessment Methodology.
2. Percentages of “Good, Fair, and Poor” indicate the percent of miles assessed.
3. By definition, Secondary Contact Use is “Fully Supporting” in all water in which Primary Contact Use is “Fully Supporting”; otherwise, assessment guidelines are not yet developed for determining the level of use attainment.

Based on this Report for the State of Illinois’ streams, only “53.6 percent were rated as fully supporting aquatic life” meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act (IEPA Bureau of Water 2006, 2).  The map below illustrates streams in northeastern Illinois that are included in the state’s 2006 303(d) List.

There are various sources of impairment impacting Illinois’ streams, including “high concentrations of metals, low dissolved oxygen, high polychlorinated biphenyls (in fish tissue or sediments), high nutrients, excessive siltation, high pathogens (fecal coliform bacteria), physical-habitat alteration (other than flow alterations), and high suspended solids” (IEPA Bureau of Water 2006, 1).   Potential impairment sources within the region include those related to “agriculture, hydromodification, municipal point sources, resource extraction, habitat modification (other than hydromodification), and urban runoff/storm sewers” (IEPA Bureau of Water 2006, 1).

The above table and maps represent the widespread problem of impaired water quality throughout northeastern Illinois. One of the most endemic problems facing our waterways is the release of excessive nutrients from both point sources and nonpoint sources, which stimulate excessive aquatic plant growth such as algae blooms. These plants can lower dissolved oxygen levels, which can have adverse impacts on stream biota. Elevated or excessive algal growth can lead to eutrophication, decreased species diversity, increased turbidity, adverse impacts to fish, and increased sedimentation. The most dramatic example of this effect is Gulf Hypoxia, or a large area of low oxygen where the Mississippi River meets the Gulf of Mexico, caused by accumulated nutrients from Midwestern cities, farms, and industries. The hypoxic zone in the Gulf, measured at 7,900 square miles in 2007, is still expanding. It is absent of most marine life, and could be permanently altered if the trend is not reversed.

Usually, a combination of nutrients creates a compound effect on our waterways. Phosphorus is one of the most common nutrients found in excessive amounts, and is a key contributor to algal growth, which often occurs in “slow moving rivers and streams” (NIPC 2000). In an effort to mitigate these impacts, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) recently issued regulations limiting the discharge of phosphorus into receiving streams to a monthly average of 1 milligram per liter for expanding or new treatment facilities with a capacity of 1.0 million gallons per day or greater.

Currently, the IEPA does not limit the discharge of nitrogen into a receiving stream, but the USEPA has ruled that all states were required to enact nutrient standards by 2004. In an effort to implement this ruling, the IEPA formed a stakeholder group to provide guidance in formulating water quality standards for nitrogen to mitigate impacts from discharging excessive levels into waterbodies. The IEPA ultimately presents findings from this group to the IPCB as support for proposed nitrogen standards.

Development and land use changes within wastewater planning areas are also associated with increased nonpoint source pollutants (both volume/quantity and rate) and impaired water quality. Impairments related to human activity not only degrade water quality, but also decrease aesthetic values, natural flows, navigation, and, at times, can lead to the extinction of oxygen-dependent organisms or animals (Fabrizi).

Comments (0)

Alteration of Environmental Features

Providing homes for the ever-growing population of northeastern Illinois often involves the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, increasing impervious surfaces. New impervious surfaces generate runoff at a greater volume and velocity, which can intensify adverse impacts on water quality. Runoff from these sites include accumulated pollutants such as oil and grease from automobiles, deicing materials from roads and fertilizers from lawns, which can further degrade water quality. Impervious surfaces can also increase flooding, cause channel erosion and siltation, and damage habitat. Development activities also often destroy wetlands and channelize streams, which disrupt the hydrologic balance of the developed site and surrounding area. While the impact of a single site may be insignificant by itself, when placed in context within the northeastern Illinois region, the cumulative impacts are dramatic.

Wetlands and waterbodies are important components in “storing and conveying floodwater” (NIPC 2000, 44). In many cases, expansions of WWTFs and increased development within FPAs’, lead to the alteration or destruction of natural functioning wetlands. “Currently, over half (53) of the counties in Illinois have less than two percent of their land area occupied by natural wetlands” (the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)). Physical modifications to or destruction of natural wetlands to accommodate wastewater needs of developments within facility planning boundaries can “greatly reduce…the ability of aquatic systems to provide habitat for fish and aquatic organisms” (NIPC 2002, 34).

While the federal and state governments regulate some physical disturbances of wetlands such as filling, many other disturbances are not well controlled (IDNR). These physical disturbances, including draining, buffer destruction or excavation, can reduce or destroy the wetland’s ability to hold or filter stormwater runoff. This increases the rate and volume of runoff and can impair the quality of nearby surface waters. 

Photo Credit:  http://www.dnr.state.il.us/Wetlands/images/l_volo.jpg

Comments (0)

Air Quality

Although wastewater treatment plants cause some air pollution, the major impacts are related to development in need of wastewater treatment service. The “deposition of particles and pollutants into the air” as a result of such development is a significant source of water pollution (IDNR).   Air pollution can result in toxic contamination of aquatic life when it is deposited into surface waters. Air pollution reaches waterbodies either directly (from air onto the surface of the water) or indirectly (deposited onto land and carried to the waterbodies through runoff) (IDNR).

Development patterns are important to air pollution.  Because development patterns tend to occur in a random or scattered fashion throughout the northeastern Illinois region, more impervious surfaces, less vegetative cover, erosion of exposed soil, and an increase in vehicle miles driven occur.  While each of these factors contribute to increased air pollution, the later one, in particular, leads to greater vehicle emissions and significantly more air pollution than the others.

While state and federal regulations help minimize human health impacts of vehicle emissions, these regulations often do not address water quality impacts. “Airborne pollutants from human and natural sources can deposit onto land and water bodies, sometimes at great distances from the source, and can be an important contributor to declining water quality” (IDNR). Some additional contributors of atmospheric pollution to waterbodies are “nitrogen compounds, mercury compounds” and “other heavy metals” which may be contributed by “waste lagoons”  (EPA Atmospheric Deposition).

Comments (0)

Health Impacts

Many communities are faced with CSO and SSO impacts. Although CMAP does not have specific epidemiological data that provides examples of negative health impacts as a result of wastewater treatment plant discharges, the USEPA has reported that untreated sewage from these sources can “contaminate our waters, causing serious water quality problems and threaten drinking water supplies” (USEPA 2001, 2). Both combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows carry “bacteria, viruses, protozoa”[1] and many other diseases (USEPA 2001).

Combined sewer systems carry a combination of sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff in a single pipe for treatment at the WWTFs; however, during wet weather events, the hydraulic capacity of the pipes and wastewater treatment facility can be overloaded, causing these systems to discharge untreated wastewater and contaminated stormwater directly into receiving waters. This overflow may or may not be disinfected (chlorinated) before being discharged into drinking water supplies for downstream communities. Some examples of CSO occurrences include the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) which reported overflows (CSOs) once every 7.44 days on average in 2007. In an effort to abate these occurrences, the MWRDGC has undertaken a Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP), also known as the Deep Tunnel system, to “capture and store combined sewer overflow until it can be pumped to existing plants for treatment and released to local waterways” [2] (Landis 2008, 15). To further address this problem, the USEPA adopted a CSO Control Policy in 1997. This Policy includes Nine Minimum Controls, including public notification by the wastewater treatment plant whenever there is an overflow event (EPA 1995).

Sanitary Sewer Overflows are the result of an “unintentional release of sewage from a collection system before it reaches the treatment plant” (USEPA, Office of Water). SSOs are often caused by aging infrastructure and can result in the discharge of raw sewage into surface waters or groundwater. SSOs, like CSOs, can cause adverse water quality impacts and threaten drinking water supplies. In addition, SSOs can have negative impacts on both public and private property when sewage backs up into nearby households. On average, “homeowners and/or sewer authorities have incurred cleanup and repair costs that typically can range between $700 and $4,000 per home for damages that are rarely covered by insurance.” (USEPA, Office of Water)

Recently, researchers have focused their attention on Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDC).[3] While toxicologists have determined that EDCs are capable of and have had detrimental effects on wildlife, their effects on humans are still controversial.[4] Exposure to contaminants through direct contact or through drinking contaminated water can have serious health consequences. Such exposure can occur in areas of high public access, basements, lawns, streets or waterbodies used for public recreation.

Effective wastewater planning can reduce EDC contamination that can adversely affect wildlife and public health impacts. As treatment plants plan for capital replacement they should consider technologies that are more effective at treating EDCs such as ozonation, ultraviolet advanced oxidation, and activated carbon (Bolles, 2008). Municipalities, that are generally designated management agencies of wastewater treatment plants, can also educate their residents on pesticide and herbicide use and medication disposal when doing wastewater planning. Municipalities and townships can establish medication collection programs to reduce the amount of EDCs discharged to sewage treatment plants, and ultimately released into our waterways.

[1] USEPA Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin.

[2] To date, the Deep Tunnel project has captured and treated “more than 950 billion gal of CSOs” which would have otherwise “overflowed into area waterways.” Though construction of the entire TARP is still underway, potential negative impacts to public and private property has been realized. It is evident that water quality has also improved as a result of the project since “rivers are once again abundant with many species of aquatic life, and riverfronts have been reclaimed as natural resources for recreation and development” (Landis 2008, 17).

[3] The USEPA has identified EDCs as exogenous agents that interfere with the synthesis, secretion, transport, binding action or elimination of natural hormones in the body that are responsible for the maintenance of homeostasis, reproduction, development and/or behavior. Cited in: Lanyon, Richard. Transmittal Letter for Board Meeting. “Agenda Summary: Endocrine Disrupting Compounds, Antibiotics, and Other Pharmaceuticals in the Water Environment.” Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. April 7, 2006. EDCs include steroid compounds, surfactants, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, polyaromatic compounds (such as PCBs) and organic oxygen compounds.

[4] The federal government has recommended EDC concentrations, which should be addressed in a proactive manner.

Comments (0)

Economic Impacts

Experts agree that the economic impacts from CSOs and the financial burdens of maintaining and upgrading wastewater infrastructure are major concerns. In Illinois, wastewater treatment plants are required to submit sanitary sewer system inflow and infiltration surveys to the IEPA when seeking treatment plant capacity expansions. This process aids communities in identifying infrastructure problems, sometimes before they manifest themselves. However, many communities are unaware of infrastructure-related problems until they literally bubble to the surface. Therefore, the true extent of wastewater infrastructure capital needs in the northeastern Illinois region is unknown. Nonetheless, figures show that, over the next twenty years, a national investment of nearly 390 billion dollars will be required for sanitary sewer infrastructure maintenance and upgrades (USEPA, 2002). Assuming that the northeastern Illinois region is “average,” this amounts to $10.67 billion for Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will counties combined.[1] A U.S. House of Representatives Minority Staff Report issued in 2004 declared that “without increased investments in wastewater infrastructure, in less than a generation, the U.S. could lose much of the gains it made thus far in improving water quality and wind up with dirtier water than existed prior to the enactment of the 1972 Clean Water Act” (U.S. House of Representatives, 2004).

Interviews with wastewater treatment experts suggest that capital funding needs in the region are greatest in older municipalities, which frequently have lower tax bases from which to draw revenues. Many of the aging facilities, both treatment plants and sanitary sewers, in the region were constructed during the economic boom following World War II and are approaching the reasonable horizons of their useful lives. Funding constraints in the older communities with limited options may result in neglecting maintenance and/or replacement of older infrastructure beyond industry standards.

The economic impacts of stormwater runoff can also be considerable. Increased runoff volumes and rates — caused by destroying wetlands, altering an area’s hydrologic functions, and increasing impervious surfaces—lead to more frequent and more severe flooding. For example, allowing development to occur in the floodplain diminishes its capacity to handle floodwater and can result in a wider area inundated with water.

The cost of property damage resulting from these floods is significant. Stormwater control is less expensive than typical flood prevention and flood cleanup, especially when done onsite. Good planning by the communities prior to development could result in lower costs for prevention than clean up. Please refer to the Conservation Design and Stormwater Best Management Practice strategy paper for a more thorough discussion.

Comments (1)

Recommended Approaches

This section of the report will highlight potential strategies to mitigate point source and nonpoint source impacts to meet the goal of the Clean Water Act to provide “fishable and swimmable” (NIPC 2000) waters using several case studies as examples.

Regional Treatment

A regional wastewater treatment approach may significantly minimize wastewater impacts. This approach involves constructing one wastewater treatment facility to serve multiple communities, where two or more plants may otherwise have been built. This approach discourages small conventional treatment plant discharges which often experience failure. These facilities “commonly have little redundancy in their treatment units making them more prone to failure if a single unit or pump malfunctions” (NIPC 2002, 46). Such malfunctions yield low-quality effluent that negatively impacts aquatic life and water quality. In contrast, regional treatment facilities commonly have multiple units operating in parallel yielding more “reliable high quality effluent. This benefits aquatic life and water quality” (NIPC 2000, 62).

There are many examples of regional treatment including sanitary districts and County public works departments. Some individual communities have also adopted this approach including Lombard and Tinley Park. More recently Will County has begun exploring a regional alternative through its Eastern Will County Wastewater Planning Study. Such efforts are applauded and regionalization may be a very effective technique to reduce point source impacts.

Comments (0)

Wastewater Treatment Technology

Incorporating new and innovative advancements in wastewater treatment technology could help the region “meet the challenge of keeping progress in wastewater pollution abatement ahead of population growth” (EPA 2008, 1-1) and reduce negative environmental impacts. In general, “innovative” technology has been tested as a full-scale demonstration and has been available and implemented in the U.S. for less than five years. It also has some degree of initial use or is already an established technology. (USEPA 2008, 1-3).

Some examples of innovative technology include the Membrane BioReactor (MBR) which falls under the category of biological treatment processes, “systems that use microorganisms to degrade organic contaminants from wastewater” (USEPA 2008, 3-1). MBR systems offer capital and operational cost savings due in part to reduced energy consumption, smaller footprints, and better effluent quality. In conjunction with Biological Nutrient Removal systems, MBRs have proven to reach nitrogen levels below 4.0 mg/L and phosphorus levels under .5 mg/L (USEPA 2008, 3-25).

As an example, the Village of Pingree Grove conducted a pilot study to evaluate utilizing an MBR system in its wastewater treatment process. The study revealed significant improvement in the effluent water quality. The Village will utilize this system during the second phase of its wastewater treatment plant expansion. 

 Another example of effective wastewater treatment technology is nanofiltration. This process is used by many municipalities to remove organic pollutants, remove total suspended solids (TSS) and total dissolved solids (TDS), and to disinfect and soften wastewater for reuse (USEPA 2008, 2-7). Though nanofiltration consumes relatively more energy than other processes, it is more effective than ultrafiltration in the removal of TSS, TDS, and other pathogens. This system has a small footprint and is convenient for retrofitting wastewater treatment facilities (USEPA 2008, 2-3).

Comments (0)

Sludge Disposal

Many wastewater treatment facilities have struggled with how to handle residuals from the treatment process. Wastewater treatment can result in different classes (or quality) of residual material. Some residual (or sludge) must be disposed of in certified landfills. Land disposal of lower class sludge can lead to runoff of excessive pollutants. Higher quality sludge can be applied to land as a natural fertilizer.

Although this has become common practice, composting lower grade residuals to generate Class A biosolids has become a new alternative. Composting breaks down the organic fraction of the wastewater sludge by approximately twenty-five (25) percent. The heat created by this decomposition causes moisture levels to decrease, stabilizing the residual and converting it to harmless biosolids. This allows the treatment facility to use the end product in a much more socially and economically beneficial way. (Turovskiy, 2002).

Since legislation is currently under review that may require treatment plants to produce Class A biosolids to enhance environmental protection, designated management agencies in the region should seriously consider this practice. As an example, the Village of Itasca’s November 2007 Facilities Plan included provisions to use an “Auto-thermal Thermophillic Aerobic Digestion (ATAD)” system which produces a Class A product in the digestion process with no further treatment to achieve Class A sludge” (Baxter Woodman Consulting Engineers 2007, 6-7).

Comments (1)

Land Treatment (Land Application) 

Land treatment is another recommended strategy to minimize negative impacts derived from wastewater treatment. [1] The IEPA requires that systems which do not discharge to receiving waters be among the wastewater alternatives considered. This process eliminates direct discharge to surface waterbodies and yields many benefits. It reduces alterations to physical-habitat and flow alterations improving low dissolved oxygen levels in surface waterbodies. This system also aids the groundwater aquifer recharge process and replenishes drinking water sources for many local communities. Land application systems can accomplish additional objectives including “recreation, habitat, and stormwater management” (Chicago Wilderness, 65) since the systems require large tracts of open space.

In many instances, land treatment systems can significantly reduce infrastructure costs (NIPC Chicago Wilderness, 66) since they eliminate the need for sludge management which “can be a third of a traditional plant’s wastewater treatment costs” (Hinch Interview). It should be noted, that on-site land treatment systems may have limited applicability, since they require appropriate soils, adequate land, and water storage capacity before implementing the strategy. However, the environmental benefits associated with such systems should not be undervalued and should be utilized whenever feasible.

Several communities, including the Town of Cortland, have successfully improved water quality by installing such systems. Currently, the town irrigates farmland and openspace with reclaimed wastewater and is the recipient of the 2007 Illinois Municipal League’s (IML) Innovation Award. 

[1] The Illinois EPA requires that “systems which do not discharge should be considered and must be deemed not feasible before a discharging system can be considered. Examples of non-discharging systems are golf course, agricultural land, and other types of spray irrigation, seepage fields, and other types of subsurface discharges.” (McSwiggen, 2002))

Comments (0)

Water Reuse

Some communities are beginning to explore the benefits of water recycling. This process recognizes  water as a finite resource. It reuses “treated wastewater for beneficial purposes such as agricultural and landscape irrigation, industrial processes, toilet flushing, and replenishing a ground water basin (referred to as ground water recharge)” (USEPA, Region 9 Water Program). 

The Village of Richmond recently developed a water reuse ordinance to “encourage the preservation of groundwater supplies when other sources of water exist for specific uses (Richmond).”  The Village’s application of this strategy could save a substantial amount of water through water-efficiency programs reducing the demand for potable water and wastewater discharge.

Comments (0)

Watershed Planning

One preemptive water resource management tool is watershed planning. A watershed is often defined as all of the land area that drains into a particular lake, river, or ocean. A watershed planning process complements wastewater planning and assesses both point sources and nonpoint sources of pollution. Stakeholders may then develop a plan of action to prevent and combat water quality problems. Comprehensive watershed planning can be effective because it is “supported by sound science and appropriate technology” (USEPA) and addresses issues related to “flooding and stormwater management, water quality, and protection of natural resources”  (NIPC 2002, 212).

Although watershed planning is often performed at the grassroots level, experts suggest that regional watershed coordination should guide these efforts. The State is currently undertaking basinwide planning, which could potentially serve as a useful tool for future studies throughout the northeastern Illinois region. Currently, CMAP is conducting watershed planning processes in three subwatersheds of the Kishwaukee River basin. The plan may incorporate the subwatershed plans into the Illinois Water Quality Management Plan, after which IEPA actions, including NPDES permits and FPA amendments, must be consistent with the subwatershed plans.  Findings from this planning effort are forthcoming.

Comments (0)

Non-Point Source Management Tools – County and Local Level

Adoption and enforcement of nonpoint source management ordinances are important tools to combat nonpoint source water quality impacts. As part of an FPA amendment request, applicants are required to disclose whether ordinances in the amendment area meet the standards of comparable CMAP model ordinances. The CMAP Wastewater Committee can deny support of a request if it concludes that the governing ordinances will cause affected waterbodies to become degraded.

While many units of government adopt effective floodplain and stormwater management ordinances, they often fail to adequately protect important environmental features such as isolated wetlands and riparian zones. They may also have inadequate mitigation ratios to compensate for lost wetlands, fail to provide adequate vegetative buffers to waterways or allow numerous types of conflicting development in floodplains. Other governmental units, such as Lake and DuPage County, have adopted stormwater ordinances that are progressive in this respect.

Governing bodies should develop and implement ordinances prohibiting both wetland and stream disturbances. Protecting wetlands and providing vegetative buffers slows and filters stormwater runoff, allowing it to infiltrate back into the ground rather than flowing directly into surface waters. Reducing the volume of pollutants can dramatically affect stream quality, while curbing flow can prevent soil erosion and sedimentation. Extending protections to isolated wetlands is deemed progressive since they are not protected by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Some communities, such as the Village of Frankfort, have taken a proactive approach to protect its  environmental features. The Village’s principal tool is its water resource management plan. The plan covers all land uses and development within the Frankfort community and supports controlled, smart, and sensible development. It is a policy document that is enforceable through Village ordinances. The plan identifies and maps all environmental features within the Village of Frankfort. This map is a valuable tool for developers when submitting their development plans to the Village for review.

 The Village of Frankfort utilizes “smart growth” as a primary means to protect its natural resources.   As an example, all streams, creeks, lakes, ponds, wetlands, floodplain areas, main drainage ways, and woodlands are categorized as environmentally sensitive areas. Any development of five acres or more is required to perform an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to determine potential impacts to these areas. 

Comments (0)

Facility Planning Area Amendment Review

The FPA amendment review which CMAP performs as part of its service as the regional planning agency for northeastern Illinois will continue to be an ideal time for CMAP to provide leadership in the area of wastewater planning. Because FPA amendments occur early in the development process, it is the appropriate time for alternative point source treatments to be considered and evaluated. It is also an ideal time for consistency with watershed plans and agricultural protection goals to be evaluated and for green infrastructure, wastewater reuse, stormwater BMPs, and the latest in community design innovation to be recommended by CMAP and its Wastewater Committee for incorporation into FPA expansion plans as part of CMAP’s responsibility to advise the IEPA on whether FPA amendment requests are consistent with the Illinois and Areawide Water Quality Management Plans.

As an example, the Village of Frankfort sought an expansion of its existing Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant from 0.75 mgd to 3.0 mgd through the FPA amendment process. The Village, at the urging of the former Water Resources Committee, conducted an anti-degradation study of Hickory Creek. The results of the study provided more definitive information on the actual anticipated impacts from increased pollutant loadings on the receiving stream. Based on the results of this study, Frankfort took the step of committing to effluent limits that exceed current minimum Illinois EPA requirements.

Comments (0)

Tertiary Treatment

Tertiary Treatment, also referred to as “effluent polishing” is another strategy that wastewater agencies can utilize wherever feasible due to its ability to finely filter water, reduce environmental impacts from wastewater treatment, and ultimately improve the quality of our region’s waters.

Tertiary Treatment is the final step in the wastewater treatment plant process. It attempts to raise the effluent quality of treated wastewater before it is discharged into a receiving stream.  There are a number of different functions and methods of tertiary treatments (outlined briefly below), many of which can be utilized in unison to improve effluent (Wikipedia).

• Filtration – The primary function removes a majority of suspended matter and toxins.

• Lagooning – The process provides settlement and removes fine particulates by storing wastewater in large man-made ponds or lagoons.

• Constructed Wetlands – The process Involves engineered methods to clean wastewater; which may be used under certain circumstances in place of secondary treatment.

• Nutrient Removal – This process removes nutrients so as to prevent eutrophication which causes the overgrowth and eventual death of weeds and algae. The deterioration of these plants reduces oxygen levels that aquatic animals need to survive.

• Disinfection – The process reduces the number of microorganisms in the water. Some methods include: Chlorination which is the most common in North America; due to its toxicity, treated water must also be dechlorinated; Ultraviolet (UV) Light which uses no chemicals. The UV light stops pathogens from reproducing; and Ozone which passes O2 through a high voltage potential which produces a third oxygen atom forming O3 which oxidizes much of the organic material and destroys pathogens.
  

Comments (0)

Green Infrastructure

Green infrastructure offers another strategy that may be used to reduce negative environmental impacts. The USEPA defines green infrastructure as “management approaches and technologies that utilize, enhance and/or mimic the natural hydrologic cycle processes of infiltration, evapotranspiration and reuse” (USEPA, 2008, Managing…). This management approach attempts to keep stormwater onsite. It incorporates vegetation and natural resources as much as possible in development and redevelopment.  Green Infrastructure has a number of benefits, including reduced runoff, groundwater recharge, higher air quality, better aesthetics, reduces costs, lowers impacts on climate change, and provides environmental benefits that surpass improved water quality. Some methods include green roofs to reduce runoff from a site and bioswales within parking lots. The following method may also be identified as green infrastructure:

Comments (0)

Wetland Polishing Lagoon

When feasible, wastewater management systems should consider utilizing wetland polishing lagoons. This system, also known as a non-discharging wetland system, is efficient, simple to maintain, and has low cost and energy requirements. The system also offers environmental benefits beyond wastewater treatment such as a habitat for wildlife, an aesthetic view for the community, and potential for recreation.

The lagoon is a “completely mixed aerated cell and is designed as the primary unit for most of the organic loading removal” (Li, 2001). The wetlands component of the system includes marsh-like ponds that decomposes numerous types of pollutants, provides a place for discharged, treated wastewater, and provides ancillary storage for wastewater during peak flows. The lagoon enhances BOD and contaminant removal, oxygen transferal, transpiration, and improves the quality of habitat life.

Comments (0)

Cluster Wastewater Treatment Systems

Clustering of homes on a development site provides many benefits, including more open space than conventional developments. For these types of projects, on-site septic systems are often difficult to construct and maintain; an alternative is a community wastewater system with an engineered wetland. Engineered wetlands replicate natural processes by utilizing vegetation as part of the treatment process. They are often considered affordable due to their low construction cost and low maintenance and can improve water quality.

There are many different types of engineered wetlands which fall into two categories: free water surface and subsurface systems of vertical or horizontal flow. Subsurface flow wetlands are particularly suitable for residential development, either vertical or horizontal. Because no water is exposed, the wetland does not produce any mosquitoes or foul odors. Recently, vertical flow subsurface wetlands have proven to be the most efficient for sites with limited space. In climates where temperatures often are too cold to operate wetlands, a new innovative way to use subsurface wetlands is to cover them with an “insulating mulch layer to prevent freezing and hydraulic failure” (Sparks, 2002).

Aerated wetlands contain a system that incorporates oxygen into the treatment process by aerated reactors such as an oscillating level of water or distributed aeration. These reactors aid in the reduction of residential wastewater pollutants and are capable of both nitrification and denitrification.

Comments (0)

Energy Efficient Technology

When feasible, WWTPs should retrofit their operations to be more energy efficient. In the United States, there are 15,000 wastewater systems and 60,000 community drinking water systems. They account for approximately 75 billion kWh of electricity and expenditures totaling approximately $4 billion a year of daily usage. With a projected 20 percent increase in loads by 2013, those demands can increase by 15 billion kWh and $800 million. Therefore, energy efficiency should be a priority in the field of wastewater treatment since it is costly and overuse of energy decreases air and water quality, depletes natural resources, and contributes to global climate change.

There are many products on the market today that improve energy efficiency for wastewater treatment plants. Some products are technological machinery used in the treatment process while others simply enhance environmental efforts. Both high efficiency motors and pumps should be utilized and be well maintained in wastewater facilities to reduce energy consumption.

It should be noted that aeration systems use the single most amount of energy in the treatment process. Blowers, aeration systems themselves, and controls all contribute to the amount of energy that the aeration system uses. Blowers should be multi-staged single-speed, properly sized, and use digester gas in order to reach maximum efficiency. It is important that aeration systems are two-speed for mechanical aeration and contain fine bubble diffusers for diffusion aeration. Controls should monitor the dissolved oxygen content and manage variable air flow. These practices together will reduce energy consumption.

Other factors to be addressed are the lighting and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems within the treatment plant. WWTFs can reduce energy consumption by installing energy efficient light controls and installing fluorescent bulbs which offer high quality lighting at lower costs. Methods for enhancing HVAC include improving insulation, sealing leaks, and proper selection of systems. When used in unison, these practices will result in a more highly efficient wastewater management facility (USEPA, 2008, Ensuring…).

Comments (0)

Conclusion

Comprehensive wastewater planning can minimize negative impacts of development and associated wastewater treatment while lowering costs of providing services, reducing flood potential, and improving environmental quality thereby achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act.

Comments (0)

Bibliography

American Society of Civil Engineers. 2005. Report Card for America’s Infrastructure 2005. American Society of Civil Engineers, http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=35. 

Baxter Woodman Consulting Engineers. 2007. Village of Itasca, Illinois WWTP Relocation Facility Plan Amendment.

Bolles, D. “EDC Treatments Put to the Test: Study compares different methods’ effectiveness at removing endocrine disrupting compounds, drugs and personal-care products.” Water and Wastewater News, (March 18, 2008), http://www.wwn-online.com/articles/59957/ 

Covelli, Denise. 2004. “Securing the Nation’s Wastewater Infrastructure.” Water and Wastes Digest. http://www.wwdmag.com/Securing-the-Nations-Wastewater-Infrastructure-article5469 

Durham County, North Dakota County Engineering Department Images. http://www.durhamcountync.gov

Fabrizi, Lara. Lenntech. http://www.lenntech.com/eutrophication-water-bodies/introduction.htm 

Hinch, Nathan. Interview with Dawn Thomson. Via telephone, 17 March 2008.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), Bureau of Water. 2006. Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List-2006, Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(d), and 314, Water Resource Assessment Information and Listing of Impaired Waters. Printed by the Authority of the State of Illinois.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Wetlands, History. Illinois Department of Natural Resources.http://dnr.state.il.us/Wetlands/ch3b.htm & http://www.dnr.state.il.us/Wetlands/gallery.htm 

Landis, Marcella V, 2008. “One Deep Tunnel, Three Reservoirs… Cleaner Water.” In Storm Water Solutions March/April 2008, 15-17. www.estormwater.com

Li, William. “Non-Discharge Lagoon/ET Wetland Technology for Small Wastewater Treatment Facilities.” Water and Wastes Digest. 2001. http://www.wwdmag.com/Non-Discharge-Lagoon-ET-Wetland-Technology-for-Small-Wastewater-Treatmnet-Facilities-article2550 

McSwiggin, Thomas 2002. “Revisions in the Permitting Procedures for All New and Expanded Sewage Treatment Plants.” Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC). 2008. CSO Main Page. MWRDGC. http://www.mwrd.org/mo/csoapp/default.htm.

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC). 2000. Protecting Nature in Your Community, A Guidebook for Preserving and Enhancing Biodiversity. 

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC). 2002. Strategic Plan for Water Resource Management. 34, 212.

Sheafer and Roland. Image from Technology Report.

Sparks, Curtis. “Sensible Land Use & Sustainable Development.” Water and Wastes Digest. 2006. http://www.wwdmag.com/Sensible-Land-Use-Sustainable-Development-article6637 

Town of Cortland, Illinois. “Wastewater System.” Town of Cortland, Illinois. http://www.cortlandil.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B5F374F8-75C7-4B0A-81A0-3E73698E3CDC}

The Village of Richmond. Ordinance Chapter 6B, Water Reuse. McHenry County, Illinois. http://www.co.mchenry.il.us/common/CountyDpt/WaterRes/PDFDocs/RichmondChapter6bWaterReuse.pdf 

Turovskiy, D. Sc. Izrail S. and Jeffrey D. Westbrook, P.E. 2002. “Recent Advancements in Wastewater Sludge Composting.” Water Engineering and Management. http://www.wwdmag.com/Recent-Advancements-in-Wastewater-Sludge-Composting-article3369 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Wastewater Management. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Overview. United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/ 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 9 Water Program. Water Recycling and Reuse: The Environmental Benefits. The United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/recycling/index.html 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Watershed Planning, Basic Information. United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://iaspub.epa.gov/watershedplan/basicInformation.do?pageId=49&navId=36 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Water. Benefits of Protecting Your Community From Sanitary Sewer Overflows. United States Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.gov/owm/wet.htm 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Water. 1995. Combined Sewer Overflows, Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Water. 2001. Managing Sanitary Sewer Overflows and Combined Sewer Overflows to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/pubs/fs_swpp_ssocso.pdf 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Emerging Technologies for Wastewater Treatment and In-Plant Wet Weather Management. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Ensuring a Sustainable Future: 

An Energy Management Guidebook for Wastewater and Water Utilities. http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/pdfs/guidebook_si_energymanagement.pdf 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure Action Strategy 2008. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/gi_action_strategy.pdf 

U.S. House of Representatives, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 2004. Progress Made, Progress Lost, Minority Staff Report.

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. “Sewage Treatment.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewage_treatment#Tertiary_treatment 

Woodstock Conservation Commission. Image from “Septic Systems.”

Acknowledgements

The following people also contributed to the content of this paper. Their time and responses were very informative and greatly appreciated. 

Geof Andres from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Larry Cox from the Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies
Joe Schuessler from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Howard Sloan, Assistant Village Administrator for the Village of Frankfort
Cindy Skrukrud from the Sierra Club
Stacy Meyers-Glen from Openlands Project
Jeremy Lin, Engineer from Lintech Engineering
Bill Eyring from the Center for Neighborhood Technology

Comments (0)