perience in working with contractors engaged in rock tunneling throughout the United States and elsewhere. These conferences and studies were a continuation of similar conferences and inspection trips, participated in by the Bureau of Engineering, as well as the Metropolitan Sanitary District and their consultants. Unit cost of rock excavation varied with the size of the tunnels and the number of simultaneously worked tunnel headings. Prices per cubic yard vary from $60.00 for a 10-foot diameter single tunnel with two headings to $5.65 per cubic yard for cavern (room and pillar) excavation with multiple headings. The principal governing factor appears to be the size or face area of the headings. For the combined Underflow-Storage tunnels, with 26-foot wide by 50-foot high tunnel faces, the estimates are $8.81 per cubic yard for single tunnels and $8.03 per cubic yard for twin tunnels. Table 7 shows the quantities of rock excavation required for the various tunnel sizes and locations. Table 8 shows the overall contract cost of the tunnels required, classified as to size, location and construction phase. Table 9 is a summary of Total Project Cost, including contingencies, and engineering and supervision. TABLE 7.—QUANTITIES OF ROCK EXCAVATION (MAIN TUNNELS ONLY) (ROCK "IN SITU", OR SOLID ROCK) Note: Loose rock to be handled is estimated at 140 percent of volume shown of approximately 42 million cubic yards. TABLE 8.-ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST OF TUNNELS, PHASES 1 AND 2 Tunnels (see table 8). Pumping stations__ Table 9.-Summary of project cost Pump discharge conduits_. Drop shafts from combined sewer outlets to tunnels__ Drop shafts from river to tunnels--- Tunnel outflow controlling works at Lockport... Subsurface exploration--- Total contract cost.. Miscellaneous work (use 5 percent). Engineering & Supervision, 10 percent_-_. Total project cost.... Cost as of May, 1970, E.N.R. construction cost index__ V-SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS $453, 038. 00 50,000.00 3,000.00 65, 000. 00 6, 000. 00 5, 000. 00 5,000.00 $587, 038. 00 29, 352.00 $616, 390.00 58,610.00 $675,000.00 $1, 417. 41 Having outlined some of the major problems associated with flooding of basements and underpasses and the inadequancy of present rivers and canals to carry off flood flows, it becomes apparent that major flood control facilities, at great expenditures of monies, are required. The polluted condition of these open watercourses must also be eliminated to meet the standards established by the State and Federal pollution control agencies. A primary source of pollution, namely, the spillages of polluted water from combined sewers in time of storms, has been the subject of this study and report. Three separate schemes have been described for solving these flooding and pollution problems in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. These are the Underflow Storage Plan, the Deep Tunnel Plan and the Chicago Drainage Plan. A large relief sewer system proposed in the City's Capital Improvement Program has been redesigned as an Underflow Sewer along the conceptual plan of the metropolitan areawide Underflow-Storage Plan. This Underflow Sewer in Lawrence Avenue is now being constructed with the aid of a FWQA demonstration grant for $1,500,000. Since the time this project was started, two other Underflow Sewers were placed under construction by the Metropolitan Sanitary District. The contruction of these sewers has already demonstrated the anticipated quality of the dense dolomitic limestone rock which is prevalent throughout the Chicagoland area, and the structural ability of such rock to adequately support the propsed large tunnels. A complete description of the Underflow-Storage Plan has been presented which will reduce the spillage of pollutants to the surface waterways by over 98.5 percent and provide the necessary flood control to handle the 100-year frequency storm. Preliminary runs with a mathematical computer water quality model indicate that the Underflow-Storage Plan, together with improved sewage treatment plants, will clean up the waterways so that they will be in compliance with the State and Federal Standards. It is recommended that the First Phase of the Underflow-Storage Plan, which would include the construction of tunnels along the North Shore Channel, Chicago River System and Sanitary and Ship Canal between Wilmette Controlling Works and Harlem Avenue be started immediately. Also, the First Phase should include tunnels along the Sag Channel, Little Calumet and Calumet Rivers between Crawford Avenue and the 95th Street Pumping Station. Drop shaft connections and pumping facilities would be constructed along the route of the tunnels under the First Phase work. It is estimated that the First Phase would cost approximately $322,000,000 and would provide a direct benefit to a 240 square mile tributary combined sewer area. Pollution quantities which now overflow to the waterways in time of storm form that area, would be reduced by 95 percent. The First Phase work can be expanded in the Second Phase along the lines of either the Underflow-Storage Plan, the Deep Tunnel Plan, or the Chicago Drainage Plan. It is further recommended that a complete conceptual study of the Second Phase work be done concurrently with design and construction of the First Phase. VI-BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Report on the Illinois River System, "Water Quality Conditions", Part 1 Text, by the U.S. Public Health Service, Great Lakes-Illinois River Basins Project, January 1963. 2. "Illinois Sanitary Water Board, Rules and Regulations SWB-15”, Water Quality Standards, Adopted June 28, 1967 and Reapproved March 5, 1968. 3. "Illinois Sanitary Water Board, Rules and Regulations SWB-9", Illinois River and Lower Section of DesPlaines River, December 15, 1966. 4. "Combined Underflow-Storage Plan for Pollution and Flood Control in the Chicago Metropolitan Area" by the City of Chicago, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, September 1969. 5. "Flood and Pollution Control, A Deep Tunnel Plan for the Chicagoland Area" by Harza Engineering Company and Bauer Engineering, Inc., May 1966. 6. "Chicago Drainage Plan" by the State of Illinois Department of Public Works and Buildings, November 1968. 7. "The Chicago Underflow Plan for Flood and Pollution Control", by the City of Chicago, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering. 8. A Report to the Technical Advisory Committee on Flood Control, "Composite Drainage Plan for the Chicago Area", by the City of Chicago, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, September 1968. 9. "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff" by the U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Contro! Administration, January 1969. 10. "Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities and Overflows", by the U.S. Depart ment of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, December 1967. CONFERENCE OF STATE SANITARY ENGINEERS BY WESLEY E. GILBERTSON, Chairman-elect I am pleased to submit this statement on behalf of the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, an organization of the chief environmental program officials of the fifty States. We, at the state level, share your concern about the effectiveness of present water pollution control efforts and the need for a more effective attack on the nation's pollution problems. We believe that every American is entitled to an adequate supply of good quality water for his daily use, whether it be residential, industrial or agricultural, and for recreation and general enjoyment. Effective water pollution control and water quality management are necessary to meet this goal. The comments are primarily concerned with Senate Bill 523 and five administration bills to implement the President's February 8, 1971 environmental message. Three of the five administration bills would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, one would create an Environmental Financing Authority and the other bill is the Marine Protection Act of 1971. Our comments on these bills are grouped under three major elements of an effective water quality management program-planning, financing and enforcement. PLANNING One of the ways in which man learns is by experience. State water pollution control agencies have utilized various approaches and techniques in programs to prevent and abate water pollution over the years. Some approaches and techniques have been found to be more effective than others. The effectiveness of many legislatively sound programs has been hampered by a lack of funds and people to fully implement the programs. Speaking from rather extensive Pennsylvania water pollution control experience, we have found that effective water pollution control cannot be achieved by tackling the sources solely on an individual case-by-case basis. What is needed now both at the state and federal level is an effective water quality management effort in which adequate and effective planning, as well as the implementation of planning is utilized. Along with these elements, a strong regulatory program supported by an adequate governmental financial commitment to meet the priorities and goals of the nation is needed. The lack of effective planning and positive pollution prevention has been one of the most serious weaknesses in pollution control efforts thus far. Steps have been taken to improve the planning aspects of the Federal program. Changes have been made in sewage treatment plant construction grant regulations to require regional, metropolitan and basin planning. A water quality standards program has been implemented for interstate waters. An anti-degradation concept has been initiated. There is an urgent need to do more in the planning area to prevent pollution. In the legislation that is being considered, there are provisions to allow the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the discharge of toxic materials. There are provisions to regulate and in some instances ban the dumping of wastes into the ocean environment. These regulatory provisions are undoubtedly needed but in themselves are not the total solution to the problem. We have found that regulations to ban a discharge without effective planning to provide an environmentally safe alternate means of disposal can create other environmental problems. Again using a Pennsylvania example-our state like many others has had relatively stringent pollution control laws for a number of years. Pennsylvania law, as written in 1937, banned the discharge of pollutional materials to the state's waters. Many industries had materials that, if discharged to state waters, would cause pollution and many of these materials were difficult to treat or to dispose of. To comply with State requirements some industries, instead of treating and directly discharging wastes, stored wastes, treated or (1237) 59-068 0-71—pt. 3— -6 untreated, in impoundments or "lagoons." These walls of these impoundments have failed in some instances causing serious pollution incidents. Some leach pollution to underground waters. The use of such impoundments was not forbidden because technically they did not discharge. Our most recent amendments to our legislation in Pennsylvania make it clear that potential pollution as well as activities that might cause pollution are to be regulated. This concept is important. It prevents situations in which the implementation of one phase of a pollution control program results in the creation of another pollution problemnamely waste impoundments. The proposed Marine Dumping Act of 1971 could create problems in many parts of the nation. Bans on discharging harmful substances will call for some other means of disposal of complex materials. Planning must be conducted to provide some sort of state operated waste acceptance service for difficult-to-treat wastes so that they can be disposed without creating environmental hazards. Such an acceptance and treatment service could provide the facilities and technology needed to do the job. Individual waste producers do not seem to be able to do this. Private efforts to solve this problem have largely failed. The legislation should be amended to provide grant funds for the development of regional or state waste acceptance agencies to accept and treat difficult-tohandle wastes so that dumping bans do not create another problem at another location. The costs of treating wastes at these installations should be borne by the waste producer. Further, we believe that the legislation should clearly delegate to the Adminis trator of EPA the responsibility for designating acceptable ocean dumping sites for noninjurious wastes. In addition to implementing a waste acceptance service which would be geared to handling existing problems, there should be a clearly defined policy to require evaluation of new waste products before commercial production begins. Using this approach, which is one kind of planning, some of the serious pollution and waste disposal problems that the nation faces today could be prevented. The Administration bill and Senate Bill 523 both include an anti-degradation provision to insure that high quality waters are protected. The anti-degradation concept is one which is noble in concept, but difficult in administration. We be lieve that the anti-degradation concept can be effectively implemented only if it is a part of the definitive plan for a region, state or the nation. The anti-degradation concept cannot be truly implemented in isolation from effective land use control. Unless carefully and thoughtfully administered, the anti-degradation principle will force population and industrial concentrations into urban areas where existing water quality levels are lower, thus compounding all environmental problems in these areas. ENFORCEMENT Water Quality standards incorporate both planning and enforcement elements because they represent an effective planning device and serve as the basis for enforcement of effluent control requirements. Both the Administration bill and Senate Bill 523 extend coverage of water quality standards beyond interstate waters. Because of the national concern with the environment, it seems to be a logical step to extend the federal standards for water quality to all waters of the nation. We believe that ground waters are a very significant resource and should be subject to effective water quality standards and favor the administration proposal to applying water quality standards to both surface and ground waters We have found that in establishing effective water quality standards that it is relatively easy to propose water quality criteria or goals for surface water. The task of designing an effective and meaningful implementation plan, taking into account future growth and the specific waste discharges on a watershed and their effect on water quality, requires substantial staff time by state agencies. We can understand the urgency of setting specific time limits by which water quality standards ought to be established. However, we have found that waters are not effectively managed and pollution not abated in many instances when standards are established and some sort of minimum blanket treatment requirements are set as the implementation mechanism. This type of standard setting procedure is like attempting to paint a masterpiece with a wall brush. We tried this blanket requirement approach to managing water quality almost 25 years ago and found that we have very frequently underestimated the treatment needs. It is far better to use mathematical modeling and simulation techniques to predict the effects of |