OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000AOB\tiff\2000W96S.tif): Unspecified error
-------
-------
I
I
I
STATEMENT OF
DANIEL J. SNYDER, III-
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BEFORE THE
» HOUSE DISTRICT COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE BICENTENNIAL,
THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
• JUNE 18, 1976
I *
B I am very grateful to the House District Committee's Subcommittee on
_ the Bicentennial, the Environment and the International Community for giving
the Environmental Protection Agency this opportunity to discuss our activities
£ involving the preservation of the water supply and water quality aspects of the
m Potomac River. The Environmental Protection Agency has dedicated an immense
amount of manpower effort in the areas of planning, enforcement of standards,
• and interagency coordination, in the Potomac River Basin. We have complemented
• this effort with the expenditure of a great deal of federal funds in the form of
construction grants for municipalities, and program grants to fund various State
• and interagency planning and regulatory programs. Although EPA has a large
• pollution abatement task still ahead of us, especially related to the control of
nonpoint sources, I wish to use the opportunity provided by this hearing to
•
• publicly display what I feel is a very comprehensive and to date, successful
I program to clean up the Potomac River.
I
I
-------
I
I
•j To fully understand the current water quality and water supply problems
of the Potomac River, a short summary of the history of the Basin might prove
B helpful. When Captain John Smith explored the Potomac River in 1608, the
A waterway was virtually in a pristine state with abounding fish life. The crude
and limited agricultural activities of the indigenous Indian tribes had little
I»
impact on the aquatic environment. Even after colonial development, as late
ft as the 1790;s, it was reported that President Adams swam in the Potomac
Estuary near Washington, D. C. It was also about this time that canals were
• carved along the river and large scale commercial shipping activities commenced
• in the Estuary. As the population in the Washington Metropolitan Area grew,
so did water pollution problems in the Potomac Estuary. The dumping of
raw municipal wastes into the river became so extensive that by the early
• 1860's President Lincoln frequently was forced to leave the White House at
^ night due to objectionable sewage odors. Following the Civil War, the sewage
situation worsened to the point that President Harrison ordered a system to be
• devised to convey all sewage to a point in the river downstream of Washington,
m D. C.; thus collection and transfer of the problem became the first solution
to the municipal waste dilemma. It was not until 1938 that sewage treatment
I
I
I
measures were employed in the Estuary area, but by this time water quality
problems had become quite evident. Even though sewage treatment measures
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
: • -3-
I
were actively implemented, excessive population growth more than offset
™ pollution abatement efforts.
• Historically, and to this day, the primary cause of water pollution in the
Potomac Estuary is municipal waste. Additionally nonpoint sources of pollution,
including agricultural runoff, stormwater loadings, and acid mine drainage,
• t also contribute significant amounts of pollutants when the entire Potomac River
. Basin is considered.
The same water quality problems of the Potomac Estuary that are present in
JP varying degrees today , became acute in the 1950's and 19GO's. Because of a
£ rapidly expanding population in the Washington Metropolitan Area, the sewage
treatment facilities had become inadequate in size auci trctmuent efficiency.
• Furthermore, the facilities were also overburdened by large quantities of storm
• water which entered the sewage treatment plants through a combined sewer
system. The water quality problem of the Potomac River was compounded by the
•i fact that inadequately treated wastes were being discharged to a River with a
• relatively small flow during critical periods. Water quality problems were
further magnified during periods of low flow and warm weather when the nutrients
• added to the Estuary from the domestic wastes contributed to algal blooms and
a • a eutrophic condition, with a resulting secondary demand on the oxygen resources
of the Estuary. Table I indicates the Wastewater Loading trends in the Washington
Metropolitan Area.
I
1
-------
I
I
_ - On August 22, 1957, the Surgeon General of the U. S. Public Health
Service, who at that time was responsible for the Federal Water Pollution
• Control Program, called a conference on the pollution of interstate waters
(of the Potomac River in the Washington Metropolitan Area. A second session
of the Conference held on February 13, 1958 resulted in recommendations
I*
that called for 80% BOD removal and the disinfection of sewage, when necessary,
• at the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant, future installation of secondary
treatment facilities at Blue Plains, and construction of remedial facilities to
• handle storm water overflows. In April and May of 1969, the third session of
m the Potomac River Enforcement Conference convened. Major pollution sources
were identified at this conference and limitations were recommended for BOD-5,
• phosphorus and nitrogen. However, most of the sewage treatment facilities
ft were unable to attain the pollutant levels recommended by the Conference
within the time period specified. Although the Enforcement Conferences provided
™ a forum to lay the groundwork for an overall solution to the Metropolitan
• pollution problem, the Conference procedure was ineffective as an enforcement
^ measure to insure satisfactory compliance with the numerous recommendations
|
made by the Conferees.
I
1
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
-------
-5-
I
I
• On October 18, 1972 the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments (Act)
became law. This Act gave the Federal and State regulatory agencies the
enforcement tools needed to implement the many planning measures previously
M discussed but never pursued.
» Before discussing in detail the current status of EPA's and the State's
planning and enforcement programs under the Act, I would like to evaluate
the present water quality problems of the Potomac River. Table II lists
m the various reaches of the River and the general type and cause of the
water quality degradation in that reach. Although the acidic and high
• bacterial conditions of certain areas of the River are of great concern,
• probably the best known and most visible water quality problem is the
algal blooms which persist in the Estuary. As previously stated, the
increased wastewater loadings to the upper Potomac Estuary have resulted in
• excessive amounts of nutrients and consequently the occurrence of massive,
un desire able algal blooms.
• Under summer and fall conditions, large populations of blue-green algae
• (pollutant tolerant) , mainly Anacystis sp., are predominant in the freshwater
portion of the Estuary. These algae are not grazed by higher tropic forms
and are therefore useless in the food chain. When excessive mats of these
B blooms expend their life cycle and decay, dissolved oxygen in the water is
I
1
-------
I. - .
I
reduced below acceptable levels to sustain fish life. In the saline portion of
W the Estuary, growth of marine phytoplankton known as "red tides" proliferates,
— aggravated by the high nutrient content in the water. These have been known
to assume forms toxic to fish'life.
• The overall effect of increases in nutrient loadings since 1913 (Table I)
M on dominant plant forms in the upper estuary has been continuous and dramatic.
Figure III visualizes the successive domination of various plant forms leading
jj to the present state of persistent summer blooms of the blue-green algae,
• Anacystis, in nuisance concentrations of greater than 50 micrograms per liter
from the metropolitan area downstream as far as Maryland Point. This condition
m still persists and will probably increase in intensity unless the nutrient discharges
ft are significantly reduced.
EPA is actively pursuing programs to control both the point and nonpoint
!• sources of pollution which are presently degrading the Potomac River. I will
• discuss EPA's current effort concerning the nonpoint source problem later in
my testimony. At this time, I would like to expound upon Region Ill's compre-
™ hensive point source control program accomplished through implementation of
• the enforcement and grant mechanisms provided in the Federal Water Pollution
— Control Act Amendments of 1972, I feel that the point source pollution problem
in the Potomac River will be completely under control by 1983. By this I mean
I
I
-------
I
I
W that all point sources will be meeting the required effluent criteria needed to
4ft protect the water quality of the Potomac River.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of October 18, 1972
f
* established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
W program for regulating pollutant levels discharged. Under this program,
dischargers must obtain a permit in order to discharge to navigable waters.
f *
^ The permit requires the discharger to attain by July 1, 1977, pollutant levels
• consistent with the application of best practical control technology currently
, available (BPCTCA) and water quality standards, and by July 1, 1983,
* pollutant levels consistent with the application of best available technology
m economically achievable (BATEA). The technology required by these permits,
^ and the pollutant levels expected to be achieved through its use are described
in development documents, effluent guidelines for different industries, and other
• appropriate regulations.
^ The NPDES permit may also contain a compliance schedule specifying
dates when a discharger is expected to complete various phases of construction,
• eventually culminating in the completion of treatment facilities that will enable
A him to attain the final pollutant levels imposed by the permit. The discharger
must submit a progress report for each milestone date of the compliance
I
I
1
schedule. Of course if the discharger already has the appropriate treatment
technology installed at the time of permit issuance, BPCTCA limitations may
-------
I
-8-
I
be imposed from the effective date of the permit, and no compliance schedule
is needed for the first of this discharger's five year NPDES permits.
H The Potomac River Basin drainage area includes parts of Maryland, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments provide for the delegation of authority
• * related to the NPDES program from the Federal to the State level. Therefore
A the states may assume the primary responsibility of preventing, reducing, and
eliminating pollution within their respective territories. Over 95% of the
municipal and industrial dischargers in the Potomac River Basin are located in
§ Maryland and Virginia, two States which have been delegated the NPDES program,
.
Jereseniiy , there are 827 municipal u^d l^.Jublria! dischargers in th«~ r~-tor,-..ir
P1 River Basin. These have been classified as either major or minor dischargers
ft according to the significance and quantity of pollutants being discharged. Fifty-
five municipal dischargers and fifty-two industrial dischargers have been
I
identified as majors, and will have been issued NPDES permits by June 30, 1976.
tt Of the remaining 720 minor municipal and industrial dischargers, NPDES
permits have currently been issued to 431.
I
t
One of the main concerns of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency
is insuring that the discharger complies with the effluent limitations and the
compliance schedule dates specified in his NPDES permit. The permittee
is required to monitor his discharges and submit a detailed monitoring
I
t
-------
I
I
t
8
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
-------
i.
I
report quarterly. Any excursions from the allowable pollutant levels specified
• in the permit must be reported within 5 days from occurrence. Failure to
£ meet a milestone date in the compliance schedule must be reported within 14
days from that date. Failure to report violations makes the discharger subject
^j to legal action. Periodic inspections and discharge analyses are also conducted
If * by EPA and the States.
Thirty-two of the major industrial permits issued to dischargers in the
• Potomac River Basin have compliance schedules requiring, between now and
• July 1, 1977, the construction of treatment facilities capable of achieving BPCTCA
t
I
t
i
t
t
i
i
t
limitations. Only three dischargers have failed to meet some construction phase
of tbfir «5obf»dii]fi. Ten of the maior industrial permits issued have final BPCTCA
Limitations currently imposed. Four of the dischargers are not in compliance
with these limitations . EPA actions concerning these violations have ranged
from approving the need to revise certain portions of the permit, to issuing
an order requiring the discharger to comply with the provisions of the permit
as written. Table FV gives a status of permit issuance and compliance for all
major industrial dischargers in the Potomac River Basin.
A great many of the major municipal dischargers in the Potomac River
Basin presently provide secondary treatment, but as a result of the stringent
water quality standards in the basin, they will also be required to install
-------
I
1
i
I
I
-10-
I
I
^ advanced waste treatment (AWT) facilities. For most of the municipal
discharges, the installaton of AWT facilities and compliance with the stringent
V water quality standards will not be attained by July 1, 1977. Although there
M are a number of reasons for this, a major cause can be attributed to the delay
in awarding construction grants, the money for which has just been released
jf in the last few years. It is projected that the 55 major municipal dischargers
£ will be able to comply with the AWT limitations during the next seven years
as follows:
1
Year Number of Municipalities in Compliance
I With Final Effluent Limits
1976 11
1977 20
1978 40
1979 46
1980 51
1981 53
1982 55
Tables V (a-e) give, by State, the status of Major Municipal Dischargers
in the Potomac River Basin. As compliance by these sources depends so much
on EPA v "••-•"! -t^v.^cn ^:'Tit program, I would lih^ to pi:r ; •' rizc , at thir '-': •
-------
I
I
our present program outputs in this area. As you are aware, the EPA con-
P struction grant program is a cooperative Federal, State and local effort. The
§ Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 give the U.S. Environ-
'
mental Protection Agency the authority to make grants of 75% of the allowable
costs to municipalities for the construction of publicly owned wastewater
IB £ treatment works, including interceptor sewers and collection systems in
existing communities .
w Report VI gives a status of construction grant awards for all the major
if municipal dischargers in the Potomac River Basin. This report can be used
to supplement and document the compliance projection made in Table V.
' Table VII gives a summary of all complotecl ; active, and proposed 0'"Y 76)
• wastewater treatment grants in the Potomac River Basin. As can be discerned
^ from this table, EPA will be allocating over $750 million in Federal funds to
construct needed wastewater treatment facilities through the entire Basin.
• This chart shows a detailed map of the existing and proposed wastewater
^ treatment facilities in the Washington Metropolitan area. Table VIII gives the
status of the major construction grant awards in the B.C. area. I would like to
I point out that of the $502 million spent to date on projects in the River Basin,
j» $493 million has involved D.C. metro projects.
Of major importance in the development of any pollution abatement program,
| whether it be point or nonpoint, is the impact the pollution has on the multiple
I
1
-------
1
I
I
t
1
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
-------
I • .
-12-
I
uses of the river. With regard to the Potomac Basin, the importance of the
•™ River is magnified due to the critical nature of its uses, i.e., water supply,
W navigation, commercial fishing, industrial, waste assimilation and recreation,
I will discuss each of these uses separately and the impact EPA's pollution
™ control program has upon each individually.
• " The greatest industrial usage of the River is primarily for cooling water
t
f
and waste assimilation. The upper reaches of the River do contain many
industries which discharge process wastes, but as previously explained, by
July 1, 1977 their effluents must comply with the required water quality
protective limits established in their NPDES permits. Therefore these
I
induoii-ius will, in the- future, t? r^'^-v^rr t^crtod v;°st«v.rntor "'h^oh wi
0 not tax the assimilative capacity of the River.
• In the Washington Metropolitan Area, the amount of water used for
manufacturing is insignificant. The major industrial use is as cooling
I water. The following chart gives an indication of the magnitude of usage
A for cooling water purposes:
• Water
Facility Usage Receiving Water Remarks
ft (mgd)
PEPCO at Benning Rd. 568 Anacostia River Also Uses
• (Washington, B.C.) Cooling Towers
fi
I
-------
I
I
I
t
1
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
i
l
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-13-
PEPCO, Buzzard Point 570
(Washington, D.C.)
Virginia Heating
(Arlington, Va.)
40
PEPCO Generating Station 450
(Alexandria, Va.)
VEPCO, Possum Point 400
PEPCO, Morgantown 720
TOTAL 2,748
Anacostia River
Boundary Channel of
Potomac Estuary
Potomac Estuary
Potomac Estuary
Potomac Estuary
Ultimate Usage
Thermal pollution problems are primarily the responsibility of Region Ill's
Enforcement Division through implementation of the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit process under the Act. Most of the
attention on power plant discharges has focused on the facilities at Station Road
in Alexandria, Virginia and Buzzard Point and Benning Road Power Stations in
the District of Columbia. Of these three permits, the Station Road facility has
been issued an NPDES permit by EPA and permits for the other two plants were
issued recently by the State delegated agencies.
Power plant discharges are regulated by the effluent limitations promulgated
in response to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
(Power Plant Guidelines published in the October 8, 1974 Federal Register.)
-------
I
I
-14-
«
The permits impose by July 1, 1977, pollutant limitations consistent with the
application of best practical control technology currently available (BPCTCA)
In addition, the effluent limitations reflect the water quality standards of the
1
District of Columbia. Currently, the Buzzard Point and Station Road plants
£ meet the D.C. thermal Water Quality Standards. The Benning Road discharge
• * will be required to meet the thermal standard through the permit process,
or proof will have to be provided by the company that no adverse impacts
W result from its present discharge.
•[ The permit for the Station Road facility will shortly be the subject of
an adjudicatory hearing. The issue under appeal in the permit, concerns the
™ present thermal limitation. The hearing is presently scheduled for August,
M 1976, and the hearing process will result in either the present limitation
being upheld, or the incorporation into the permit of any revisions deemed
* necessary as a result of testimony presented at the hearing.
• Sand and gravel mining is also a water related industrial use of the
^ Estuary bed. Currently , dredging for this purpose is being conducted in
the Estuary below Indian Head, Maryland.
M Navigational use of the Potomac Estuary waters is primarily to provide
» commercial transport via river barges. Two commercial firms presently
transport various petroleum products from tank farms located in the lower
£ Potomac and in the Chesapeake Bay proper to the Washington Metropolitan
1
t
-------
I
I
Recreational facilities on or near the Potomac Estuary include a national
* park, three state parks, seven fish and game areas, and 226 county recreational
• sites. A study by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation indicated that the
^ recreation potential of the 637 miles of shoreline has barely been developed.
Of course, as EPA's pollution control programs begin to show further results,
• * the benefits of increased fish populations , a reduced number of nuisance
£ algal blooms, and a reduction in bacterial and virus contamination will be
enjoyed by recreational enthusiasts throughout the Potomac River Basin.
• The dockside value of fish, crabs, clams , and oysters taken from the
^ Potomac tidal system is about $5 million annually. Sport fishing contributes
more than $G.5 million per year. There are approximately 9"? marine facilities
£ in the tidal Potomac which accommodate over 5,200 recreational water craft.
A EPA Laboratories at Deluth, Minnesota, Narragansett, Rhode Island, and
Gulf Breeze, Florida along with the Fish and Wildlife Service conduct the
Q intensive biological research work needed to determine the impact of pollutant
jfr loadings on aquatic life. All biological data requires evaluation and correlation
with factors such as season, flows, bioaccumulative capacities, migratory habits
V of test species, lipid content of test species, and many other factors.
I
I
I
I
-------
I
1
I
I
I
-------
I
I
i
I
-16-
flf The use of the River for its assimilative capacity with respect to
pollutant loadings is a factor which is well researched by EPA's Annapolis
™ Field Office Laboratory. The Annapolis Field Office currently monitors the
• Potomac Estuary on a monthly basis. The sampling survey consists of 26
stations (Figure IX) from Point Lookout to Chain Bridge. Analyses are
1 *
conducted for pertinent chemical and biological parameters related to the
I hyper-eutrophic conditions existing in the Estuary. Various intensive
^ surveys dealing with specific problems in the Potomac, have been documented
in the past few years .
I The Annapolis Field Office began conducting monitoring studies in the
m Potomac River Basin as early as 1964. The surveys have varied in duration,
scope, and intensity but, collectively, have provided an essential data bank
jf for evaluation of the quality of the Potomac River system. Over 150 stations have
• been sampled over the years.
Surveys have been designed to assess chemical, bacteriological, and
P eutrophic conditions of the Potomac and to evaluate pollutant loadings from
• various sub-basins feeding to the mainstem of the Potomac. Monitoring
continued through the late 1960's , with the 1969-70 period being the time
*
frame of the most intense surveillance efforts. Since 1971, monitoring has
continued on a monthly basis even though our laboratory has an increased
comrr.ittrrrr.t of resources to various phases of EPA enforcement programs .
-------
.
I
« Monitoring continues today in cooperation with the State of Maryland's
Department of Natural Resources. This State agency aids EPA by sharing the
£ large monitoring workload.
•t In Calendar Year 1977 our monitoring efforts will be intensified in order
to evaluate the impact of the Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) process being
I*
installed at the Blue Plains waste treatment facility. These studies will
tt determine the response of the Potomac River to initiation of AWT practices
and will investigate the need for further expansion of treatment capabilities,
™ namely, denitrification facilities. The advanced waste treatment capabilities
• being installed at the Blue Plains facility are state-of-the-art treatment processes
and their impact on the water quality of the Potomac system has implications
of notional significance.
I Another important program conducted by the Annapolis Field Office is the
_ prediction of the assimilative capacity of the Potomac Estuary through a
mathematical model. Since its inception in 1964, mathematical modeling
M of estuarine systems has been an important and ongoing function of EPA
^ Region III. The Potomac Estuary is a notable case where models of
varying sophistication have been applied over the last decade. These
J| models have had a major impact on the wastewater treatment decision
• making process, especially these decisions involving the Federal Enforce-
ment Conferences. The major contribution of these models was the
1
I
-------
I . .
I
• • establishment of nitrogen, phosphorus , and oxygen demand loadings for
• the upper Potomac Estuary .
The Potomac model has continued to be an invaluable tool and has
* frequently provided vital inputs to activities concerned with water quality
• planning in the Basin. The original version of the Dissolved Oxygen model
^ has been moderately refined during the past year, and a complete reverification
has been performed utilizing better estimates of input data and reaction rates.
• . Since this model addresses an enforceable water quality standard, its use
|| has been widespread. During a series of runs performed in October 1974
in conjunction with the Blue Plains decision, the model demonstrated the
f need to maintain a high degree of removal of unoxidized nitrogen and ROD
• if the DO standard was to be met in the Potomac Estuary. The mode] was
then used to isolate the degree of sensitivity associated with various inputs,
9 which, given some hypothetical future situation, are almost impossible to
• define. More recently, this model was used to evaluate the effects of a
major discharge to the upper Estuary via Rock Creek (Montgomery County
IP STP) and another in the vicinity of Piscataway Creek (Piscataway STP).
fl Various consultants studying the Potomac Estuary have, over the past few
years, either used the DO model themselves, with some consultation, or
' have requested that EPA Region III personnel perform the runs for them.
I
I
I
-------
I
-19-
I
*
• The need for mathematical models having predictive reliability has not
tt lessened in the Potomac in the recent past; if anything, it has intensified.
This has stemmed from a recent EPA decision to defer denitrification at
™ Blue Plains for a two-year period.
V * The Washington Metropolitan Area is a rapidly growing region with an
^ ever increasing need for safe potable drinking water. The current demand
for drinking water is seriously taxing the present sources of supplier,. It is
• very possible that a drought could recur as in the mid 1960's when Metro-
« politan water supplies were seriously depleted. Such an occurrence could
prove the Metro water cupply tc bo Inadequate sir.co the i^ovimum do IT. and
f of record has exceeded the recorded minimum flow, though fortunately not
g| at the same time. As the Corp of Engineers has already testified on the water
supply issue, I would only like to add my endorsement of the proposed
I pilot water treatment plant in the Potomac Estuary. The proposed plant,
• which would be located in the Estuary opposite the Blue Plains Waste-
water Treatment Facility, would provide valuable data regarding the
V feasibility of treating Estuary water to a degree where it could be used
• for drinking water purposes.
f
I
I
-------
I
I
-20-
• I would now like to turn my discussion to the measures EPA is taking
to insure the safety of the water suppJy source for drinking water purposes.
* On December 24, 1975, EPA promulgated National Interim Primary Drinking
• Water Standards which denoted the maximum allowable limitations in
drinking water for nine elements (including selected heavy metals) and
I *
selected organic chemicals. Data obtained from EPA and State records
• . reveal that no heavy metals were found to be in excess of applicable drinking
_ water standards in the D.C. water supply. Data collected from the Washington
Aqueduct is part of our Interstate Carrier Water Supply sampling program.
I The WSSC is not an Interstate Carrier; therefore EPA does not have similar
gt data on this supply. However, the State monitors this source and confirms
that it is of comparable quality to the Washington Aqueduct source. With
|| regard to organics , the Washington Aqueduct's finished water was recently
• sampled for pesticides as part of a national pesticide survey. Although the
final results of this survey are not yet available, I am pleased to report that
9 the preliminary findings do not indicate any serious problems exist at this
• source.
From the available data, the Washington Metropolitan Area drinking
* water purveyors are producing drinking water which meets State and Federal
ft drinking water quality standards. This does not necessarily indicate that
I
I
-------
I
1
-21-
the point and nonpoint discharges in the Basin are not having any impact on the
drinking water supplies. 1 think the level of treatment and monitoring now
mt
necessary at the water treatment plants indicate just the opposite; that is,
| there is a significant impact on the V7MA drinkinp; water supplies by point
• to and nonpoint discharges in the Basin .
Nonpoint sources from agricultural runoff in the upper Basin contribute
• ' nutrients from the fertilizers, and chlorinated hydro-carbons from the pesti-
flf cides and herbicides. The nutrients in themselves do not significantly affect
the water supplies , but the algal blooms as a result of the nutrients can cause
™ severe taste and odor problems for the water treatment plr.nts. In addition,
• certain pesticides and herbicides when ingested in sufficient quantity coukl
create a possible health hazard.
^ Another area of nonpoint source pollution impacting the water supply
• of the WMA is urban runoff and stormwater discharges. This has been
^ a problem in the Basin for many years causing severe sedimentation in
the streams. With respect to water supply, the sedimentation causes severe
M turbidity problems at the water intakes. The high turbidity, in turn, causes
f treatment difficulties , due to shorter filter runs and decreased disinfection
efficiency. In addition, at times of high urban runoff, the bacterial counts
| increase significantly .
I
i
I
-------
-22-
I
I
*
M The municipal sanitary waste discharges, including combined sewer
overflows, contribute to the nutrient level of the streams which in turn can
| create taste and odor problems at the water intakes due to algal blooms. Of
• course, the most important and dangerous impact from municipal wastewater,
result from the addition of organics , bacteria and viruses. All three contam-
I*
inants significantly impact the quality of the water supply-in the Washington
B Metropolitan Area. In attempts to remove the viruses and bacteria by break-
point chlorination, it is suspected that the treatment facilities may create a
™ reaction between the chlorine and the organics to form chloroform. Modifi-
• cations in treatment methods at water treatment plants can lower the
possibility of this reacton occurring, but the ultimate solution is the
elimination of the organics from the raw water intakes.
• The water supply situation in the Washington Metropolitan Area has
^ been further complicated by the Montgomery County decision to construct
a municipal sewage treatment plant discharging to the Potomac River above
I the Metropolitan water intakes at Great Falls . Various decisions pertaining
M to this proposal are still undecided, namely siting, plant design/capacity,
degree of treatment required, and most important, its effects on the water
Q supply of metropolitan Washington.
• Although the WMA is not highly industrialized, industrial wastes
presently contribute to the total load of organics and heavy metals which
I
the water supply facilities must monitor and remove.
I
-------
I -23-
I
I would now like to'discuss EPA's effort in an area which is attracting
• much more concern in recent years, that of nonpoint source control. After
• a great deal of expenditures in both time and money, we are finally starting
to see the light at the end of the tunnel in our point source pollution control
• program. However the victory over pollution will be only partial unless
• * we can also plan and implement methods to control the large yet less defined
nonpoint source pollution problem.
The available information on nonpoint source pollution is concentrated
• in three general areas: (a) sediment and pesticides, (b) acid mine drainage,
^ and (c) storm water runoff.
a) Sediment and pesticides - An estimate based on analysis
• conducted in the 1960's was that 2.5 to 2.9 million tons of sediment annually
M reaches the Potomac Estuary as a result of upstream runoff. Various yields
of sediment per square mile are found along the Potomac River depending
| on the particular land use. This sediment runoff could contain absorbed
• particles of various materials , including pesticides. In a report done by
the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, four areas of the
I Potomac River were identified as having pesticide-related water quality
• problems. These were the Potomac mainstem, the Estuary, Conoccochcaque
Creek, and Antietam Creek. The study did not give any specific information
• . on any particular types of pesticides.
I
I
-------
I -24-
I
b) Acid Mine Drainage - The mine drainage problems of the North
™ Branch are identified as having direct effects on aquatic life until approxi-
• mately ten miles upstream of Cumberland, Maryland. Particular problem
concentrations of iron, aluminum, sulfate and calcium are present in addition
to the acidic condition of the River.
• * c) Storm water- Urban runoff is a major problem through both direct
_ runoff and combined sewer overflows. Table X gives an indication of how
serious this problem is by comparing the pollutant load from street runoff
I to the effluent of an efficient secondary treatment plant in a hypothetical city.
• EPA is attacking these sources of nonpoint solution on many different
fronts. EPA's general program fur nonponi buurce control places its emphasis
| on "Best Management Practices" . We are researching the techniques required
• to prevent nonpoint source (NPS) pollution rather than attempting to treat
them. EPA's philosophy is for the states to develop NPS programs, with EPA
m providing the needed technical input. As part of our overall NPS program,
• EPA is soliciting the involvement of organizations that have considerable
experience in sediment control such as the Department of Agriculture,
" Soil Conservation Service.
• A major problem impeding EPA's national effort in the NPS area is the
lack of regulatory power to control sources. Since a program to control
™ various sources would entail the establishment of land use measures and the
I
I
-------
I
I
_ federal government has no direct authority in this area, the regulatory
function falls within the jurisdiction of State and local governments. Another
• problem regarding the NPS program involves defining the magnitude of this
M type of pollution. This evaluation is further complicated by the lack of
sufficient existing data thereby preventing correlations between NPS
I.
pollution levels and expected water quality impacts. Thus far I have
• been referring to EPA's national NPS control program. This chart
lists EPA's past and current activities in the nonpoint source control
V effort in the Potomac River Basin. Of course EPA is involved with a
• study of this problem for the Metropolitan D.C. area through the current
Council of Government's 208 planning study. I plan to discuss this
P program in detail later in my presentation.
fl There has been a great deal of local and State progress in the control of
soil erosion. The Enforcement Conference included as one of its recommendations,
- that a soil erosion control program should be implemented by the Conferees.
• A listing of the programs adopted by certain State and local government entities
_ follows:
Maryland Sediment Control Law signed April 22, 1970 requiring the
I counties and municipalities to adopt grading and building ordinances and
g "before the land is cleared, graded, transported, or otherwise disturbed,
. . . the proposed earth chancres shall first be submitted to and approved by
I
I
-------
• -26-
I
the appropriate Soil Conservation District or the Department of Natural
* Resources". In April 1971, the Maryland Attorney General ruled that pro-
• tective storm water measures may also be imposed by the Soil Conservation
District under the 1970 Sediment Control Law.
Montgomery County , Maryland has been a leader in the adoption of
• * sediment control programs , beginning as early as 1965.
• Virginia passed an Erosion and Sediment Control Law in
March 1973. Local control programs consistent with State developed guide-
I lines, standards , and criteria are to be adopted and approved by the State.
• All of the Potomac Basin counties have approved programs except Arlington,
which is expecting final approval by June 30, 1976.
I Fairfax County has been a leader in the State for establishing sediment
• control programs , beginning as early as 1962.
EPA is also nationally researching possible solutions to the urban runoff
• problem through selected projects such as Chicago's underground tunnel
ft system, the New York City Spring Creek project, and the Seattle metro
computerized system. EPA is also researching some less sophisticated systems
" to control urban runoff in combined systems such as equalization basins and
• regulating flows within the existing sewerage system so as not to exceed the
treatment capacity of the plant.
I
-------
. -27-
I
The largest source of urban runoff to the Potomac River is from the
| Washington Metropolitan Area. This problem is compounded by the fact
• that the D.C. area is serviced by a combined sewer system. The District
published in March 1973, a reconnaissance study on the combined sewer
• problem. EPA will soon be awarding a Step I grant to fund a one year
•
-------
-------
• -28- t
I
_ permit system. The problem arises with the abandoned mines which were not
closed down and/or revegetated properly. The States are actively working
• on this problem, but due to the immense cosis of such a rehabilitation program
•I the lack of funding has caused the programs progress to be very slow .
EPA nationally sponsors a research and development program to fund
I*
certain acid mine drainage projects and has administered funds in the effected
• area. EPA is currently sponsoring the Deer Park daylighting project in
Garrett County , Maryland involving several abandoned deep mines that are
• heavy contributors of acid mine drainage to the Potomac River. These
• are mainly shallow mines, just below the surface of the ground and above
the water table . Mines of this kind are difficult to deal with using conven-
• tional control measures. This daylighting method being demonstrated
B requires the systematic and careful removal of all materials to a specified
depth with removal of the recoverable resources, thus offsetting, at least
1
— partially, the cost of the project. After each section of the mine is stripped,
• the latest reclamation methods are used to recontour the watershed,
_ ultimately eliminating mine drainage and restoring the land. The total cost
of this project is $858,000, of which EPA is funding $550,000.
• The Committee requested that I address the interagency efforts underway
to integrate effective management of air, water, and land resources in the
Basin.
I
I
g
-------
I -29-
I
The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for a wide range
I of program activities related to the planning and management of the water
m and land resources of the Potomac River Basin and the Washington Metro-
politan Area. More so than almost any other agency of the Fedral establish-
I ment, EPA's programs and authorities cover more interacting resource
• te areas, ranging from water supply and wastewater to solid wastes, air
quality, pesticides, radiation, noise, and the all encompassing involvement
• ' with the environmental, social, and economic impact assessment process of the
• National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, the Environmental Protection
Agency can and should be expected to exhibit a posture of leadership in
™ the sense that integration of its efforts should be of paramount concern and
• emphasis.
In the Basin and in the Metropolitan Area, Region III of EPA has
™ established means for continuing involvement and input to the governmental
• programs of state and local governments. The Regional Director is a
_ member of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin,
representing the Federal government. For some five years, the Regional
• Office has been represented in the Washington Metropolitan Area by a staff
M coordinator, located in Arlington. The office of the Washington Metro
Coordinator has established contacts with officials of state and local gover-
| mental agencies and citizens groups, as well, as other interest groups.
I
I
-------
* -30-
I
« Membership on technical committees and close working relationships with
efforts of the Council of Governments and its staff are also reflective of the
| intent to coordinate with and establish a degree of program integration.
• . Section 208 (j) of PL 92-500 directs EPA to enter into agreements with
the Secretary of Agriculture , the Secretary of the Army , and the Secretary
I*
of the Interior to provide for the maximum utilization of other agencies'
• authorities for the purpose of achieving and maintaining water quality
through appropriate implementation of plans approved under Section 208.
B Such an agreement was effected November 1973.
I . Specific interagency agreements for the coordination of planning have
also been signed between EPA and:
* 1. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
I 2. NOAA/Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
3.. National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD)
4. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
• 5. Corps of Engineers (CORPS)
— 6. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
7. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ACS)
M
I
I
8. U . S . Forest Service (USFS)
9. U. S. Geological Survey (USGS)
-------
' ' -31-
I
• Some specific examples of interagency cooperation in the B.C. Metro-
politan area involve the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of
I Agriculture, the National Park Service, Council of Governments, the Inter-
• State Commission on the Potomac River Basin, and the applicable State
and local pollution control agencies.
I-
I would like to take some time to expand upon our support of the
fl activities on the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB).
The ICPRB interacts with EPA primarily through their role as a
* coordinator of planning and monitoring activities of the five basin States
• (including D.C.) . ICPRB reviews and comments on basin plans, has
established a basin water quality trend analysis, and has been a contract
^ officer for basin wide EPA funded studies. Under separate contracts with
• the State of Maryland and D.C., ICPRB has prepared Section 305(b) Water
_ Quality Reports and Section 303(e) River Basin Plans. They currently have
I
a proposal before EPA to coordinate the monitoring of the Potomac Estuary
I in order to further evaluate the need for nutrient control.
• ICPRB is funded by EPA thru our Section 106 program grant. FY 1976
funding was approximately $114,000. In addition, ICPRB is supported by
| direct state funding and, until recently, direct congressional appropriation.
• They ore also funded by EPA for the administrative costs of being
project managers on specially funded EPA contracts. EPA Section 106
I
I
-------
• -32-
I
funds are used by ICPRB to coordinate the basin State's water quality
* monitoring programs and basin water quality management plans , to provide
• technical assistance to the States, and to develop a public information program
for basin residents .
Before leaving the area of interagency cooperation , I would like to
• * discuss a problem which will require the efforts of EPA, NFS , the Depart-
M ment of Agriculture, D.C. area Counties, and the State Agencies. I am
addressing the prevailing sludge deposition problem at the Blue Plains
P Sewage Treatment Plant. The majority of the sludge is currently being
• processed under a 1974 agreement between Montgomery and Prince George's
Counties through land disposal by the trenching method. However,
I selected Federal agencies are looking for supplemental alternatives to
• this practice by researching the use of composting at the Beltsville
Agricultural Research Lab. Additionally, EPA is investigating with the
• National Park Service the possible use of Oxon Cove for a sludge demon-
H stration project. Only through the cooperation of federal agencies, can
pilot projects such as this be demonstrated to the public, in hope that the .
• land disposal and composting of sludge will be accepted on a large scale
• basis in the future.
I would now like to address the concerted 208 planning effort now
ongoing in the Washington Metropolitan Area. On June 16, 1975, EPA awarded
I
I
-------
™ -33-
I
_ the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) a $3.55 million
' dollar grant for a 208 planning study in the defined area. Table XI '
• outlines the major outputs that can be expected from the COG 208 study.
H The progress of the study is slower than we optimistically would like,
but is not too far behind schedule. The major obstacles encountered to date
I' »
are the development and approvals of major contracts. However, this
• problem is being solved, and we expect all the major contracts to be
approved in the near future. EPA anticipates that the delays in commencing
I certain phases of the study will likely lead to future requests for extension
• of the expiration date beyond the mandated two year effort now planned to
end in 1978.
P The Metro Washington Council of Governments has been effective to
I date in formulating many interagency agreements to aid in their work.
By obtaining the cooperation of the involved States and Counties, the
™- Washington Area Association of Conservation Districts , the U.S . Soil
• Conservation Service, EPA, HUD, and the Department of Transportation. -
_ The COG has helped to insure that needed input and expertise will be
available to make the study a success.
• An interesting and welcomed facet of the Washington Metro 208 study
• is the established strong constituency and political involvement in this
I
I
-------
-------
I
I
-34-
process. As a result of the large citizen participation program, it is likely
I
that there will be a corresponding strong interest in implementing the
• recommendations of the 208 plan.
• EPA expects the final plan to be comprehensive and provide for effective
implementation in the areas of nonpoint source control, regional planning
I*
projections, projected wastewater treatment needs , and sludge disposal.
• A significant factor in COG's regional planning projection program is
the coordination with other regional comprehensive planning efforts. Air
quality maintenance area plans, transportation studies, and HUD's 201 housing
• program's are all being considered in the COG 208 study. The major basis
_ for the interagency coordination is the development of the cooperative
forecasting program. This program will develop regional planning projec-
• tions that in the future will be used in all comprehensive planning studies.
• This Comprehensive Forecasting Program, which was jointly funded by EPA,
DOT, and HUD, should be one of the major outputs of the 208 study.
| In the area of nonpoint source control, a major portion of the 208 study
• involves a major field data-gathering program in the Occoquan and Four
Mile Run Watersheds. Sediment problems will be analyzed from a construc-
I tion, agricultural, and residential perspective. The data gathered will be
• inputed to a model prepared for the Occoquan. This model will subse-
auently orovide an analysis of the water quality effects of changing land
I
I
-------
I
I
• uses in the area. The study for the monitoring work has already been
awarded. Additionally, the overall Occoquan comprehensive study will
f be forwarded to EPA for our review shortly. The projected time period for
• the entire program is eighteen months.
As an outgrowth of the Occoquan Study, Montgomery County is pro-
I' *
posing a Transferability Study in coordination with the Occoquan field
• investigations for nonpoint sources. Two Montgomery County watersheds,
Seneca and Watts Branches, will be analysed to evaluate the correlations
• developed from the Virginia field work. These Watersheds have been chosen
I because of the various land uses in their basins and the available data
base from recent hydrological modeling efforts. Also in the nonpoint source
>™ area, Montgomery County is expected to be awarded an on-site sediment
• control contract to conduct a field investigation of control measures needed
to reduce nonpoint source pollution loadings.
Although the 208 nonpoint source program is comprehensive in nature,
• it is not likely that the studies will lead to many definite enforcement
_ recommendations. However, it must be understood that as a prerequisite
to the development of an effective enforcement program, a sufficient data
P base is needed to support any enforcement actions that may be required.
• While COG's activities will greatly augment the amount of available data,
it is realistically felt that an essential 1£ year study may not yield
P
I
-------
i
I
• enough definite information to develop an effective nonpoint source enforce-
ment program. To reiterate, EPA expects that important recommendations
• will result from the COG study , but that an additional effort will be required
i
• to implement an effective enforcement program.
I would now like to address the Subcommittee's question on how EPA
§*
uses the provisions of NEPA in our mandated programs .
• NEPA is a very essential and integral part of EPA's Construction Grant
• Program. Final Regulations (CFR 40 Part 6) dated April 14, 1976, mandated
• EPA's procedures for compliance with NEPA and other environmental
V legislation for all EPA actions. Special attention is directed to the
Construction Grant and Facilities Management Programs as their
' corresponding regulations also reflect the importance of compliance with
• environmental legislation. These regulations require that an applicant
ffor construction grant funds make the Environmental Assessment Process (EAS)
: an integral part of any planning process and that an EAS be made part of
m his grant application. Of primary importance is that the applicant consider
M all feasible alternatives and identify and evaluate the resultant environ-
mental impacts - direct and secondary . Using this and other data, EPA
•
I
I
conducts an Environmental Review of the applicant's proposal to determine:
1) if the project is environmentally acceptable; and 2) if an EIS is required.
-------
-37-
.
EPA has initiated the EIS process on four major wastewater treatment
facilities in the Washington Metro Area: Blue Plains, Piscataway, •
• Montgomery County AWT, and Piscataway Regional. A Final EIS on Blue
_ Plains was issued in May , 1974; a supplement to that EIS is pending
concerning sludge disposal. A Final EIS on Piscataway was issued in
»*
November, 1974; a supplement to that EIS is also pending concerning
m sludge disposal. The Montgomery County AWT Draft EIS is under prep-
aration. A Notice of Intent was issued on the Piscataway Regional Facility
H in May, 1975. EPA has contracted an environmental consultant to prepare
£ this EIS and initiation of preparation is pending local agreements.
A primary result of EPA's EIS Involvement has been public partici-
V pation and disclosure of pending federal actions. Furthermore, substantial
A economic and environmental savings can be experienced from the EIS
process. For example, EPA anticipates substantial monetary savings in
9 both Federal and local dollars through the Montgomery County AWT EIS
A process.
I would now like to address the Subcommittee's request for EPA's
views on the impacts the recent economic and energy conditions have
V had on the effective implementation of our mandated programs . I firmly
_ believe that the energy crisis is the most significant event to occur in
^
the 200 year history of our country . We have now crossed the bridge
I
I
-------
• • -38-
I
• from being a country with Hmitless resources whose major problems
I dealt with the exploitation of those resources for the economic good
of the people to a nation which must live with a finite resource base.
™ Our problems are now the problems of resource conservation and the
m optimum use of these resources to provide the maximum national economic
benefit. Nowhere is this change more apparent that in implementation of
an approved wastewater management plan.
B The wastewater management philosophy that grew up during the 60's
_ called for the construction of large regional plants with miles of sewers
1
and numerous pumping stations. The wastes were treated with energy
E intensive mechanical processes, relying on enormous quantities of chemicals
_ to settle out wastes from the effluent streams. The settled-out waste
products were then incinerated with an additional substantial input of
V energy required to drive off the water from the sludge which is only a 20%
0 solid. Post-energy crisis economics require the re-evaluation of many of our
past decisions to insure that we are not saddling the public with expensive
jp dinosaurs under the guise of a wastewater management program. One
m example of this heightened concern for cost-effectiveness in light of post-
energy crisis economics can be seen in our recent re-evaluation of the
J| Proposed Dickerson Sewage Treatment Plant for Western Montgomery County.
I
t
-------
I
i
-39-
I
• In 1972, the cost of this plant was estimated at 124.5 million dollars.
By 1976, capital cost estimates have increased to a figure in excess of 435
w • million dollars. The high cost of this proposal is due to the need to pump
9 or transport sewage 25 miles uphill and to provide extremely high levels
of treatment (through the addition of massive doses of chlorine) because
«*
the plant discharges above the water supply intakes for the Metro Wash-
• ington area.
^ Our studies have indicated that it might be possible to save as much
as 200 million dollars by selecting a point of discharge below the water
A supply intakes and permitting the sewage to flow downhill through the
existing Potomac interceptor system. The energy differential between
Dickerson and a lower cost down-river alternate is 134.6 million kilowatt
V hours per year. This is enough energy to supply electricity for 16,298
ifc residences, based on the 1974 average annual usage of a typical Montgomery
County home. This figure is equivalent to approximately 9,912,000
jf gallons of fuel oil per year, enough fuel to operate 12,400 automobiles
« yearly at 12,000 miles per year and 15 miles per gallon average fuel con-
sumption. The State of Maryland and Montgomery County have challenged
£
• EPA's cost-effectiveness study of the Dickerson Sewage Treatment Plant.
M Administrator Train has promised a final decision on this matter after
rcviev.'ir^ the input from the Maryland jurisdictions and thoroughly eval-
• uating the other alternatives that provide the capacity needed by Montgomery
«*"
County to alleviate the crippling impact of a sewer moratorium.
-------
I
I
-40-
w, Considerable strides have also been made to more precisely define
water quality criteria and look at the cost-effectiveness of treatment processes
H
w designed to achieve these criteria. In February of 1975, EPA suggested
• the deferral of the 100 million dollar deriitrification process scheduled for
construction at Blue Plains pending a thorough evaluation by our Annapolis
I *
Field Station of the need for nitrogen removal. A considerable body of
•/ scientific opinion holds that phosphorous removal or mineral addition
^ alone may be sufficient to retard the growth of blue-green algae. If our
ongoing extensive data-gathering effort proves out this hypothesis, the
M dentrification system will not have to be built with a considerable savings ,
^ of capital and energy costs.
We also made major strides in looking at perhaps the key element of the
V wastewater management problem in the Metro area: sludge disposal. With
A considerable assistance from Maryland Environmental Services and the
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, composting has now been developed
as a process which promises a low energy - low cost alternative to old-
« fashioned sludge incineration. The compost is itself a product which can
be substituted for petroleum-based soil conditioners , thus realizing a further
energy saving. Experimental work is now going on at Blue Plains with a
J| Japanese filter press, which can produce a 40% solid sludge. At this solid
level, combustion can be generated with a minimum input of additional fuel
I
I
-------
I
I
• Our Wastewater Management Planning Program in the Metro area
has stressed the development of low-capital cost and low -energy usage
alternatives to more traditional treatment processes. The developments
I
of this program will yield substantial savings to the consumers of this
M area over the next fifty years.
M te Economic and energy conditions have also had a substantial impact on
our drinking water supply program. Since the New Orleans study performed
w by EPA's Cincinnati Research Laboratory disclosed high levels of
M chlorinated organics in the New Orleans water supply system, EPA has
become increasingly sensitive to the complexity of insuring safe drinking
™ water supplies. Drinking water surveys conducted since 1974 of major
H water supply systems, have disclosed the presence of pesticides, metals,
^ and rare chemical contaminants. A recent finding of polio virus in the
^ Fairfax County water supply at Occoquan is one local example of this type
W of discovery. A safe drinking water supply can be assured at a low cost,
^ only if we coordinate our waste water management and water supply
programs. If we insist upon using our rivers increasingly as conveyances
• for all types of waste, then a safe drinking water supply can be insured
£ only at a high capital and energy cost for the needed fail-safe water supply
systems. Prudence suggests that, wherever possible, sewage treatment
p plants should be located below water supply intakes.
I
i
-------
I • -,,
I
I would now like to discuss the effects of recent economic and energy
* considerations on other EPA programs. EPA has a very limited regulatory
role in both the noise and solid waste areas. Our agency is responsible
for setting noise standards for newly manufactured transportation and
* industrial equipment. Additionally , EPA has done noise monitoring and
W * has taken a strong position on noise pollution from the Concorde. Clearly,
£, the present high level of concern over the economic impact of all government
regulations has set back efforts to aggressively attack the noise problem.
m More information must be assembled on the medical and economic effects
jm of noise pollution. I am convinced that when we know the full extent of
economic loss due to noisi pollution, a ir.crc aggroscivc national program
I
will be enacted by Congress.
In the solid waste field, EPA has a limited technical assistance respon-
I
sibility. Through our Research and Development Program, we have funded
m. solid waste and energy conversion systems like the Union Electric demon-
M stration project in St. Louis and the pyrolysis plant recently completed in
Baltimore. These systems should demonstrate the capability of using our
waste products to generate energy and industrial gases. This concept both
• defers cost of solid waste disposal and provides a national energy benefit.
As the Chairman of the Federal Regional Council, I am constantly
™ brought into contact with local governmental leaders from city and county
• government, bu^u v, u^tc uiipobui is perhaps the most pressing- problem
t
-------
I
I
i
t
t
i
i
t
l
$
t
t
I
t
I
t
-------
I
confronting local units of government. One example of this is the difficulty
Montgomery County has had in establishing a landfill or setting up an
effective rail-haul program to transport solid waste to disposal sites in
Western Maryland or West Virginia. Communities are reluctant to invest in
f
* new solid-waste-to-energy-conversion technology because of the high
w * capital cost involved. An expanded program by the Energy Research and
^ Development Administration to provide for the development of solid-waste-
to-energy-conversion technology and a federal guarantee for local
K communities willing to move forward in this direction could do a great deal
M to conserve energy and eliminate our national solid waste problem .
I have suved one of your incst controversial quscticns until last, that
t>
of land use control. Land use and development are the critical factors
A behind almost all environmental problems in the Washington Metropolitan
area. Sprawl development in the Baltimore-Washington and Washington-
f
A< Richmond corridors has produced an automobile-related air pollution
• problem. The large population increase in the 50's and 60's was respon-
sible for the waste water management problems we are now trying to work
our way out of. There can be little doubt that land use decisions affect
either positively or adversely the quality of the environment.
EPA is a regulatory agency whose authority stems from specific Acts
of Congress, like the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Clean
Air Act. Implementation of the agency's programs have an impact on
•
-------
A -44-
M land use. This is particularly true with respect to decisions concerning
— the size and location of sewerage treatment facilities . EPA's regulatory
•F • •
functions under these two pieces of legislation cause us to deal with many
9 land-use related problems . In looking at nonpoint source problems under
£ the areawide planning requirements of Section 208 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, and in designing transportation control plans to deal
«»
with automobile emissions under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, EPA must
f interface with other federal agencies, as well as state and local agencies
who have responsibility for land-use related decisions. These Acts are
V not substitutes for some kind of comprehensive land use planning and
II decision-making framework. There are many parameters in addition to
air and water pollution effects that must be taken into consideration in
t~
making a land use decision. These parameters include transportation
• and economic considerations. Where the agency has approached critical
land use decisions through the regulatory framework of these two Acts,
f
~ we have encountered considerable resistance. In my view, there is
• great public resistance to federal land use legislation, because it is
conceived as being synonymous with federal control. Yet, federal
|
agencies, particularly in the transportation and other infra-structure
• fields, have a tremendous impact on land use patterns. The challenge is
^ to develop a land use decision-making framework which recognizes the
predominate position of local units of government in deciding what is best
f
I
-------
I
1
-45-
e
for.them, but which also prelacies some means of influencing" federal and
ft state infra- structure bureauacracies to make decisions in accordance
with local desires and sound land use planning principals .
£ •
w EPA Administrator Train has established the Office of Land Use
• Coordination within EPA to provide across-the-board coordination of
_ EPA's many programs . This coordination is essential since decisions made
I "
w in one environmental program area will often produce a definite impact in
1 another. The Office of Land Use Coordination reviews existing EPA
» policies in various programs and seeks to make them consistent with long-
*
range and effective land use planning goals.
I
We at Region III have had considerable eApeiieiice ai using Hie NEPA
^ process to surface future land use and environmental problems . The EIS
t process has been used to change the design of sewage treatment plants
to bring them into conformity with local land use plans and population
f
J| projections, where this was not initially the case. Another example of the
M effect of the EIS process was to require various units of local government,
which are part of the Valley Forge Sewer Authority, to adopt sedimentation
and flood plain control ordinances. These ordinances were developed
« during the Environmental Impact Study process and considered desireable
to avoid flooding and excess sedimentation problems due to the development
™ likely to be induced by the increased capacity of the sewerage treatment
• plant .
I
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
i
I
3
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
-------
1
I
The complexity of the intergovernmental relationships in the Metro
Washington area does not make it the most suitable area for the develop-
• ment of cooperative land-use-oriented strategies. The outstanding progress
^ that has been made so far is due largely to the efforts of the Metro
Washington Council of Governments. Two states with a variety of state
• agencies, the government of the District of Columbia, and numerous county
I governments must all approve an action before it can be pursued. It is
'
much easier to develop innovative strategies in areas where only a few
jg units of local government and a single responsible state agency are
1
I
t
t
I
t
t
I
I
1
involved.
-------
,rJ
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
1
i
5
I
i
•I
• * •
c- <: n
<< <* 0
r,- rr jr
Ca 1^ d.
« * *"* O
o o ti
•J O O
»-*• c* tl
.* >i r»
0 0 ?
o 11 t>
0 fc
300
O O O.
G a «
" q
O to 0
O O »1
U O
4- o
vn '7
-J J^ >J
v.-, q
^
P *""
5 v/» o
O 1 M
K p- C.
*-•• P M-
fj t3 M
0 O
P. O
3
£*
X
o
<» O <"> •• IJ ^ t-'
vn ^ ^- !--• Cj O VJ I-1 V> VJ
vo (>i t-' o f • o o • .r- -J rJ
v.-- o vi o o O O o v.i o
o O O 0 p O O Q P Q
f^tt^oQ"!^!?^'^
ooooOoooo o^
vo vj v.» ro ro ro i-' »-• n
rorJf'cr. io»-*ocr\->J^-«
ro o *-* v^ ro o vr* -NJ v» ro *^
•*--
^_^
^- j- .•>- t^ v-j vi ro ro t-1 »-•
cuvjroi-'-Jocavjov.icr
•r^oc-^Jov/iov»vjc3t>
OoooOQQQQQ0-
*J -O "O O ^1 VJ A> J*>
H'l-'OOOVJCOOOOVl
• • 1
!
*-•*-• »-'»-• h-rorof--*-1 !-•
j-r\>v.>ro>-'oo-f»ov,i5r
•-•OOVnO^OI-'VJO"
§§§§§§§§§§1
^-^
H1
roi-i-»-*H't-*i\>roi>5i-* c/
OCJO^^C^^^O-^ Ca"
**• CSClfVJO"^OVlvOJ^'1V
*~
fOIV>rj,--H'H*V-»H' p
vn ro fv> \D ~J »->» *N. o ^-** r\? "
-f^-foc\roovjv'»vvrovO'^
§!§§ §!§§ i §5
'
vOf-'OiVJV^VJMoPp
OS C3 -T- ^- O O Vn o *J VJ o
*Q Q *Q f^ *O *Q Q Q *Q Q £
*>_
•r-
O^V^VI^VJVJVJMM h
Ov*Ofu -Jvj»-'vj»->c\r
§000000000 f
OOOoOcjoOOJ
v.
t
•• o r ^ »- *
i^- 1J O C>O OiVWJs. Mt-* '
o
'*
"XJ
''"^ «
> (- *
f !-•
r.y- »••-
O
U
3
O
-1
»-•
h~r» ci
rp c*
C- «
• s
r-5 c*
O 0
,0 0.
(
i
KJ- !
rj o
P 3
[< O
pn" »J
0 & ?
H S
Vs «-i ^ ^5
7 ^ K
3 r, v- bo
"^5. fj ^*
^*- t-1 C?
^ n rf P
go- o c~]
s s
C a
*"•* M
f? 1^:
'3 " **
13^.
r ro :
V.s '
rf :
1 *-*
•PI
J?§~
'r+ s ft
-|^C r> »-•
-El
-r^
r* K-*- o
L-* ^f
x. [ ^ j— •
i ?
fi3 j^
p
SI-* fj f> o O ^ O O •-• '^
88888888 8 Ij
-------
I
t
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
-------
1
1
1
1
I
t
1
I
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
i
l
i
Reach
North Branch
Potomac
Williams port to Point
^ of Rocks, Md.
Point of Rocks to
Chain Bridge(D.C.)
Chain Bridge to
Mains Point
Hains Point to
Piscataway Creek
Piscataway Creek to
Maryland Point
Anacostia Tidal River
Lower Potomac Estuary
TABLE II
WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
Major Type of Pollution
Major Source of Pollution
(1) Acid mine drainage Active & abandoned mines
(2) Oxygen demanding wastes Municipal & industrial
facilities
Occasional high bacterial
densities
nonpoinb source
Generally good water quality; some nonpoint source
problems from runoff; few isolated bacteriological
problems
Frequently high bacterial
counts
Low-dissolved oxygen
concentrations
Nuisance algal growths
Frequently high bacterial
counts and low-dissolved
oxygen concentrations
Overloaded sanitary sewers
and combined sewer
overflows
Effluents from wastewater
treatment facilities
Nutrients in wastewater
discharges
Combined and sanitary
sewer overflows
Satisfactory water quality with occasional algal
blooms
-------
f
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
1
1
1
I
MV
-
Ci
"o
o
o
u
o
o
o
o
^1.
in
O
o
o
I
o
o •
o
o
o
1 .
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS at P
Ubs/c!cy}
o»
o
o
3 0
1 L
O
- 8
o
1
in
8
o
!
O
O
o
o
; ,
TOTAL NITROGEN a»
ORGANIC CAF.EOM ot C
n
I
>
n
o
>
<
n
3
n
Z
O
2;
n
z
o
n
o
o
n
n
O
-------
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
f
t
I
I
I
I
I
i
1
-------
I
1
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
t
•1.
o5
n
P
<
^ j
4
X
Z
ft
£
~
tt
•
»
•<
*„
g
M
i^j
10
^J
^1
5
K
O W
HI f*
"• 1
2 S-
f\ ^*
^ *
H- X
l> M-
O
**•
O
.
2 g
t-' CO
•
» It
o> *-*
o ^
***•. *J
^J
z z
gg Z
^ •-.
&
n
p*
o
o
»
K*
0
0
g
0
n
><
It)
CD
^j
>-»
^^
^i
Z
z
~^
g
a
i»
n
«>
»-*
•a
f
re
3
rt
g
KJ
u.
l»
B
•<
09
fl
B
VJ
>-•
•^
O^
*.
Z
*"
W Z "8
< < v
w c.. S
H« »-" O
0 0 X
M M O
a. a. n
3 3~ w
to tu 3
3 3 t
r> n o
» t» t,
E &
*
g 5 g
to U? K»
OCJ u* ^J
^> CO ^s
Z Z *4
o o n
B
z z •<
> ^ £
Z*^ wt
Z "I
> ^ 2
5C 5C v|
> > M
^j
« x as
55 3S SS
^ ^ >
MMS-V^MMCf
TO n ».- b re u o • n
*^n3C O-Wt-^rtOH*
o.nn^niQ1 >-•
ook(t•* o o. P >*•
»rnjCno»*- 3
ri kT M re u on
**0 01 M **1 ^3 "VJ O MI
rtO^O'CP t*
o •- -c tr «
t> n >— >u t->
P <» H» 0.
* t» ° g1
tt ft
*
ggggggggg
K> ro K3 K> H*
O"» ON **• ro *•»
coo^ocor-o*jc»u>u)
U> *Ni ** "^
rt
. t*
3
ts ^ ^ Z *^ *^ *^ O ^
(bfl>rooAAreH>it
BBB CD ID M f-- CO
it
o.
:
»< K •< Z »< Z •< •<
CD CD O ^ U B B
It A (t ""^ tt ^^ It (t
CD W O > CO > CO B
, *
^|v45Z!!a^«3e*J *J
•***-^.o%^»*^.o*^. *^.
.»-•.— <:>•*-<;»-• ,-•
^^ ^x» '^^ **^ *«^
**l "*J \j| ^J ^>4
*
zzzz>-«zz z
~~^>.O-^l»O~^ ^^
•
.
ZZplZZplZ Z
^.^>(t-^^»(»~^ •>.
>><>><> >
• •
9 fi"
P
o
a
(A
O
01
00
n
Z
"0
o
z
1
n
•tf
n
rt
(—4
CD
to
c
.PL
co n x
OOP
y 3 CA
a- i—
>-• to
A 3
n
it
*^— ^^
(/> fi U.
3"3ra
re -o rt
CX. J-1 H-
C r- 3
>- Cl 00
It 3
r>
it
3 H- l-s
3 3
PI M- 6J
>•*> rt *•"*
re o pi
fl ^ ^h
ft O t^\
3 M
10 C
n
a
rt
f M 3C
H- "< "
B m re
n c" t*
H IB 3
rt 3 w
fr* rt
O
P
H X
*- rt
It H-
(A
rt
M
rt
C
ta
O
M»
Tl
re
a
rt
0)
to
C
Ct>
3
n
IT
t>
3
O
i
H-*
t-*-
S
o
it
o
2C
6>
o"
l-t
3
a.
c
u
rt
H-
Cl
O
Ul
O
3-
Eu
r(
X'
ra
i
^_
3
rt
p-
2
T3
0
3
3
U
n
»
*,
<;
o
Cd
u
3
f
-------
1
I
t
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
1
I
I
t
I
f
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
t
i -
«. - :.<•- J'
V Q i* it o •> n (• t» c • Q «» w b g
rt* 13 TJ *•* wi w •«k-«vfCk-'t-«ir'
Sc o n k- :r • o k-« o • i» »» n rt rf
n o o k* i- o«o a t> u i» H-
M a i b a o ort o • x IB rt i i pC w
b rt n 8 H- a •o-oy n n Si II
•3 bk-.fi (A b H< 3 IB IB 1
»• 1 3 O ft *Q O P K" K1 r» **
k> a. e> -i v -0*05 i'™0
bO o • a M r» • z>rtc
• Ora n Btr< .t_rtk-
X'ft .Of Off> ' M H ft
« • £• R S §• ? £- q
* to V O. M- (; (•
•§ 6 " ? S
rt • f
•0*000000 £caj££ic*:£C
>Jk-ooooo <<<<«;<<<•«;
1^ ^O V/l Ul Ul K> Ul Ul \J\ \J\ Ul
Oi/lk^ Vlt^lUlOC^ONUlUlf^
IflMOO^Otln Klk-*OQ<^O£^U>U3
Ok->oo«>oooi-* ui^J^Sa>k-*cr>k->uui
w • >-
'
o
p
' a.
•4 K Vr< *<•<•< "2. ZZt, «aa> > e> BUM
' •
K Z «: i-< •< •< Z ZZ>• p» >• o p» aaB^-
•^ ~» -^. •«-. ~» ~- — » -~.' o — ^ -~» Q o •*, q
•"•»•••"•>->••»-•> > < M > < 3 k^ 2
"
<
» .
« Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z «4~-• a
a>
en o EC
o o IB
»• 3 IB
IB •O rt
D. v-> H-
C H- 3
• >-» ID 00
a p
o
0
M- f "fl
B" 5"
W H- fi>
5? rt PI
O H- Ml
ft O "I
3 k-
• C
a
ft
r M z
H» Ml IB
F "1 IB
k-. k— IT
SC k*
IB 3
ft O 00
r* rt
*
H >•
e» n
7? rt
B i
H
|
<
l
S
rt
-------
I
I
1
I
f
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
t
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. \
a is w
O A
1ft rt »~
gp
M
b n
i
r P
0
*^ c*
n **
o n
»
»
< < <
>• > >
*J fj fS>
*) O9 V/»
2J
'
Ml ,jf fcJl
35 *% *%
O A At
M A
55 ^ *Sfi
£ S °~
*
as «< «
9* " 5^"
as «j z
> ^ 2
*4
• .
X Z X
^ ^ 2
K Z X
^ ^ ^
nq*»a!i»c»ni»ooo
?«01Vrt3--OOOH
•otjoo oo>*«:ofP»CQ
K-*& M>OFC3 Q » O H>H>p
M »-*»^*^ »iK*deqoor>
>B'O (k> »-• » O 3* 9* I
•^•o -pc S.°'BKCT1
O*CO o *«tcr«iBno*
o»-*9* *XnfaC »-••
6.«»r • ficn0"i»WB
H B >^ 3* O n O
Hj 5rti>OC03
* C H n H> t> I
5 M C r> 0. 50
O • cr ft C H.
i» e vj • <
•i n «< B
••« i
I
<<<<<<<<•<<<<
KiroK>N>rofOK>roKIN>H«M
u*rororof-*»-it-'>--oo^5\o
t— >oa\o^g«-K)~it->o»u>
'
A O t A) (V (&AA(0(9A)O
Ift UWM»«Cttt«tO
f< 35 *^ *^ *^ ^ z ss; »< *4 > *^ m
*0 *^. fOR>AfOOOfDA(D "•»•».
.os^CAooia) • n to !>
35 Sti *4 ^4 ^ ^ 2 ^R ^J in* ^ 55
O ^^ ft (ft O ® *"^ "**» f& A 19 *""^
> W tt »>>««»>
Of>-S'*J*-JC\O^552S*^H»K>2;
uT^^^u*cj2 2 K- -^ ^ >"
o -^-^.00 ^^u>-^
O* "sj ffv vj
O^
»
ZZZZZZK«-«ZZZ°Z
>>>>>>» « > > > >
'
^ZZZO ZZ^ZZZZK
t->>?H-^>>^^;?>'
e> •
J 8
8 q i— f
O O it f
0 -a it o
r» o •-•
S1 § •- "i
3 c «/i o 0 *^» -^.
^
.
»< z z z
«B > >>• >
o> z z z
K* S >^ ?
•^^
^4
Z •< Z Z
><•>>•
z z z z
? > "> ~>
ff
o
o
n
3"
to
90
Z
O
.m
in
j.
c
Q
5-
n
•o
a
3
rr
M
0)
c
n
a.
W 0 X
O Q Z>
y a »
n -o
e. t-
C H-
^f C>
A 3
O
W O S
o o re
3" 3 n
C- )— f~
c >•** ~
i-- o oa
O 3
O
0
h^ f -1
E =
•-n rr h-
*-*» Qi
A rr r-T
O H- ".
rr o H.
3 t—
CO C
f
n
f t*1 5C
g- £| r
>— >-• rr
d ra 3
rr 3 O3
r^ ft
O
3
H >
fti n
o r^
' I
r>
c
3
-------
I
I
1
1
1
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
Marylan
1
1
f
I
f
t
w
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
Major Municipal
Potomac River IkisJhi Dischargers Table V (a)
NPDES Meeting Final Expected to Meet
Number Facility Name Limits Now?, Final Limits By:
MD0021598
MD0021687
MD0021831
MD0021865
MD0021580
MD0021610
MD0021822
MD0021121
MD002H91
toMD0021041
MD0021733
MD00217A1
MD0021725
MD0021539
MD0021059
MD0021776
MD0021008
MD0020877
MD0021300
MD0021296
Cumberland
Upper Potomac River Coinm.
Westminster
Mattawoman
Frederick County
Frederick City
Frederick County
Thurmont
Seneca
Montgomery Village
Horscpen
Western Branch
Parkway
Piscataway
Landover Mall
Hagerstown
Greenbrier
Fort Detrick
Andrews Air Force Base
Andrews Air Force Base
*
•
1
Yes
No
No
Future Discharge -
Future Discharge -
No
Future Discharge -
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
•
1977
1977
1977
1978
1981
1977
1978
1977
1978
1978
1978
1978'
1977
1981
«_.
1980
1976
-------
I
I
f
1
t
t
-------
I
t
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
f
1
1
1
1
V
1
I
Virginia
Major Municipal
Potomac River Basin Dischargers Table V (b)
ft
NPDES Meeting Fin'al Expected to Meet
Number Facility Name ' Limits Now? Final Limits By:
VA0025186
VA0025160
VA0025143
VA0024724
VA0024678
VA0025381
VA0025372
VA0025364
VA0025399
"VA0025119
VA0025321
VA0025224
VA0025151
VA0025135
VA0025089
VA0025074
VA0021377
VA0025071
VA0025062
VA0025097
YA.nQO^TI t
V AGO 2634 5
VA0025101
VAOO 24988
VA0060640
Ft. Belvoir
Alexandria
Arlington
Dale Service Corp //I
Dale Service Corp #2
Fairfax Co.-Dogue Cr.
Fairfax Co.-L. Hunting Cr.
Fairfax Co. -Lower Potomac
Fairfax Co.-Westgate
Harrisonburg
Prince William Co.
Staunton
Wayncsboro
Winchester
Neabsco
Front Royal
Lecsburg
Feathers tone
Belmont
Dumfries
Wogtgate
«- c>
Luray
Potomac Regional
Upper Occoquan
Harrisonburg -Rockingham
t
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Future Discharge -
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Future Discharge -
Future Discharge -
Future Discharge -
i
1978
1978
1979
1979
1979
1979
1978
1976
1978
1979
1980
1980
1978
1978
1978 •
1978
1978
1978
1977
1978
1978
1976
-------
I
t
I
1
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
-------
§.
West Virgin a
Major Mtinic u-il
1'otomac River Basin Dischargers Table V (c)
1
NPDES Meeting Final Expected to Meet
§ Number Facility Name Limits Now? Final Limits By:
WV0024970
_. WV0024392
M WOO 23 167
WOO 27 70 7
WV0021792
• W0024775
I *
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
t
I
1
1
Franklin
Keyser
Mar tinsburg
Warm Springs PSD
Petersburg
Shepherds town
•
No
No
No
No
No
No
«
1980
1978
1977
1977
1980
1978
-------
I
I
1
1
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
-------
» Pennsylvania
Major Municipal
; Potomac River Basin Dischargers Table V (d)
I
NPDES • Meeting Final Expected to Meet
Number Facility Name Limits Now? Final Limits By:
» PA0020621 Waynesboro No 1982
PA0021563 Gettysburg No 1982
• PA0026051 Chambersburg Yes
t
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
-------
1
_ Table V (e) *
™ Status of Permit Issuance and Compliance for Major Municipal Dischargers
in the Potomac River Basin
t Meeting Final Expected to Meet
NPDF.S Nunber Facility Name Limits Now? Final Limits Bv:
m DC0021199
t
1 "
1
1
1
1
t
I
1
1
1
t
1
1
Blue Plains STP
*
No
•
1979
•
-------
I
I
1
I
t
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
-------
Report VI
1'
|
* SUBJECT:
• FROM;
|TO:
t
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region III — Glli & Walnut Sts.
Philadelphia, Pa. 19106
o
June 18, 1976 House Oversight Hearings on the DATF- ^
T\ . r\ • t-i • Ur\ 1 t_ • «J UlTC* J. -1 •
Potomac River Basin
, ' ..' •'"• /""V
John Potosnak, Chief •'- •'' . . '
Delaware/Maryiand/D.C. Section
Facilities Management Branch
Joseph A. Galda, Chief
Facilities Management Branch
1976
Attached are the coded sheets for the status of major municipal
I '
1
1
1
.
1
1
1
1
1
dischargers in each section's area of responsibility. The attach-
ments contain the list of the municipal dischargers that are not
meeting final limits now and those that will have future discharges
The code scheme used is shown below:
Code Number Description
1 Discharge to terminate.
2 Active grant project (including in-house
applications) with an eligible project
cost of $ will result in
COInpl IculCt: .
•
3 FY'76 Priority list grant project with an
eligible cost of $ will result
in compliance.
4 Not an eligible grant applicant - status
unknown .
5 No project being developed.
6 Future Projects
1
I
EPA-III-013-73-T
-------
VIRGINIA
MAJOR >Yn:"lCT?AL
.
™. NPDES NO.
• VA0025186
VA0025160
VA0025143
VA0024724
^- w
• VA0024678
VA0025381
| VA0025381
1
VA0025364
I VA0025364
VA0025399
* VA0025119
8 VA0025321
8 VA0025224
m VA0025224
1
w VA0025135
• VA0025135
VA0025135
B VA0025089
f VA0025097
VA0025313
• VA0026345
I i^VvJ v_' ,"\ L 1 I , < 1. ' * 1 t i Vl-i
P GTOMAC R I \ L r-1 3 A S I N
FACILITY NAME
Ft. Belvoir
• Alexandria
Arlington
Dale Service Corp. //I
Dale Service Corp.//2
Fairfax-Dogue Creek
Fairfax-L. Hunting Cr.
Fairfax -Lower Potomac
Fairfax-Lower Potomac
Fairfax-Westgate.
Harrisonburg
Pr. Win. Co. -Old Centrevil
Staunton
Staunton
Winchester
Winchester
Winchester
Neabsco
Dumfries
Westgate
Luray
DISCHARGERS
CODE
1
2
2
4
4
1
1
6
2
6
1
1
le
1
2
6
2
3
6
1
1
1
2
ELIGIBLE PROJECT COST/REMAP"
To Lower Potomac STP
80,027,350 - does not incl
DeNit.
62,358,300 - does not incl
DeNit.- .
To Lower Potomac STP
To Lower Potomac STP
$14,000,000 Est.
$76,111,317
$30,600,000
To Alexandria STP
To Harrisonburg-RockinshL"
STP
TO UOSA STP
$128,400
$ 5,032,000
$146,000 Step 1
$1,800,000 Step 2
Step 3
To Potomac Regional STP
To Potomac Regional STP
To UOSA STP
$236,400 Step 2
-------
I
I
I
I
VA0026345
VA0026345
VA0025101
VA0024988
VA0060640
VA0025151
• VA0925151
VA0025074
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
VA0021377
VA0025071
VA0025062
Luray
Luray
,Potomac Regional
Upper Occoquan
Harrisonburg-Rockinghara 2
Waynesboro
Waynesboro
Front Royal
Alexandria Combine
Sewer Study
Leesburg
Featherstone
B^ 1 rr*^\--\ <-
«~.t-»ut^ .^ I.
3
6
2
2
2
2
6
2
6
2
2
1
1
$776,000
$735,800
$24,396,
$72,694,
j
i
$16,030,
$62,500
Step 3
Step 3
270
250
100
Step 1
$3,500,000
$251,300
$6,400,000
$181,500
$66,300 •
- Step 1
To Potomac Regional STP
TV- Pfl-rtmir1 T?e>ni* rtt-iol CTP
Code 6 - Future Projects Not on FY 76 Priority List. Estimated Cost is $_
-------
WEST VIRGINIA - MAJOR MUNICIPAL
POTOMAC RIVER KASIN DISCHARGES
I
V
I
PERMIT #
WV0024970
l
V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WV0027707
WV0021792
IWV0024775
NAME
Franklin
Keyser
CODE
2
3
2
3
Martinsburg 2
Warm Springs 3
Petersburg 2
Shepherdstown 2
ELIGIBLE PROJECT COST/REMARKS
$38,100 -
Step 2 in Progress
$810,000 - Est. cost of
construction.
$332,000 - Step 1 cost
$3,000,000 - Estimated construct
cost from Step 1.
$45,700 - Step 1 just awarded.
$2,200,000 - Priority List for
Collectors and STP
$20,000'- Step 1 in Progress.
$1,748,000 - Step 3 in progress
-------
I
I
I
I
I
Pennsylvania
Major Municipal
Potomac River Basin Dischargers
NPDES
limber
\002U621
Facility Name
Waynesboro
Meeting Final
Code Limits Now?
6 No
I
I
I1A0021563
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Gettysburg
Expected to Meet
Final Limits By;
1982
Step II grant application to
be submitted to Pcnna DER
shortly; 'proposed plan is fc:
abandonment of existing plan:
new plant is still planned £:
discharge to Rock Creek
Potomac River
1982
Plant recently expanded to 1,
Tngd. When it reaches hycir:-'-v
capacity sometime in the ftit:-.
the plant flow will be divert
to the Washington twp plant
(C-420865-01).
-------
1
1
1
KNPDES
umber
M5021687
MD0021831
*M)021865
*MM021580
?J|02]610
*HB>021822
•
MD0021121
*q§021041
? H^^O 2 15 39
:Mfio21776
»f 02 1300
MM021296
K*3021199
V Combined
MD021199
Mm)021598
1
•
Potomac
Facility Name
Upper Potomac River Comm
Westminster
Mattawoman
Frederick County
Frederick City
Frederick county
Thurmont
Montgomery Village
Piscataway
Hagerstown
Andrews Air Force Base
Andrews Air Force Base
Blue Plains
Sewer Studies
District of Columbia
Cumberland
Maryland
Major Municipal
*
River Basin Dischargers
Code
4
2,3
2,3
3
1
2
2
4
2
2
4,1
4,1
2
2
2
Frostburg (George's Creek) 3
Eligible Project Cost/Remarks
$240,000; $200,000
$18,000,000; $9,662,100
$1,300,000
June 1980, Completed Federal Projec
$4,782,600
$112,250
$29,499,000
$13,978,000
$482,000,000
$600,000
$187,500
$425,000
I
I
*i-uture Discharges
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
ft
VO VO VO • VO CO
ro to to to .t>
1 1 1 1 1
C/i Cn Cn Ct ON
O O O O ON
O O O O O
H CO CO N) M 25
H 2 « >"
-F 0
\+jf
u> p"**. o o o u>
25
o -^ o o o o
• y> •
*» *-
to |0 K> O O O
O O O O O O
O^ - Ot
*» |25 K> O »0 25
*• 25 *« o 0 25
CO > ^1 H >
M
«O |O *» O CO
In O C/l O O O
CO CO M *•
*
vO VO VO vO CC
1 1 1 1 1
t^i Ui tn CT (T>
O O O O ON
0 0 0 O O
H CO CO N> M 25
§ § ^
F o
Cn 25 Ui
VO "••• O O O VO
M 25 }-*
f> ^. o O O ^
N* M M
tA M H O M N>
MM ON
^J M O O to
ON ^5 t~* • •
CO H4 vO
ON. fO M NJ
00 25 vo K-> CO 25
to t->
Cn 25 ON vO vO 25
tn i> >-« K> -J
N> r-1 O H* vo M
IA) K>
N) M vj
Cn O CO vO VO 00
VO M CO ^ 00 CO
t
O
vO vo to vO 00
to K> to NJ i>
1 1 1 1 1
O O O O ON
' O 0 0 O O
H CO CO to H> 25
o -^
H 2J >
to 25 to
0 ^. 0 O O O
vO 2! O O O vo
to >• to
LH |O M 0 O .0
(-• I-1
J> O M O O to
* • •
to !-• H
to |25 M !-• H« 2!
^ >"
co t-> to
-~l 25 .0\ M p 25
tn > M O *» >
00 O »0 M M *»
O N) K> Cn
M O ~>l H> O fO
• « • • •
O IO; O *« *•
State
c
rt
Step**
2;
o
Complete
Amt.($M) «
25
o
*
' ??
rt
g
rt
Priority
No.
x- v
rt ~O
»-s ON
^ C
Cl
P.
CO
25 TO
O 00
• H-
o
rt O
• rt
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V
I
\
I
I
(
I
(. .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ji, )ft
u ^Xj
10 M
rt H-
(0 0
co rt
H ^
o *i
^ *- n«
ftl
O *-J
rt O^
ca
P p
0 0
rt
MO H
t~j
o ti
O (X
0 ft)
(0 (0
rt M
C ON VO
"rt ON
H-
0 CO
(X O •
(DM tO
(0
H- S3
OQ CO
P> O
rt —
ft) K
(X O
0
fo rt
CO PQ ON
o to
2 B
O M
O
0
C
0 en
rt O
•
»Tj vj
a
(D
0
rt-
O
to
M
^
t
CO
co
Vsl
Cn
O
*•
«
TO
t
M
M
M
U3 VO VO vO 00
si to to to «£•"•
i 1 1 1 1
Cn Cn • Cn Cn o\
O O O O O>
O O O O O
CO CO tO i M 21
Si Jfc*
^
1— 4
2; • *-
--. O O O NO
>
CO
25 O O O *-
"^v. •
> to
to " to
to O ^J ON ^J
CO f-4
ON CO
O ON tO O 4>-
• • • • •
*- Cn 10 CO CO
"
25 *- M CO 21
• — en vo co *--
> >
M
2; ON co »-«
-^ CO H« M 22
*> ON j> >"
^
M
ON to ^>» *^J
en K-*
CO CO H* ON
O J> CO fO VO
J> VO CO tO O
^
•
<3
to
•
VO VO VO »O CO
to to to to x>
1 1 t 1 1
Cn en en Cn ON
O O O O C*
o o o o o
H CO CO tO M 21
o ^-~
H K p»
ft- d
H o
.
-2S
Ln *^» O O O Ui
>
o 2; o o o o
• "^*s» •
co > co
to |o O O O to
M O O O O M
• •
0 0
M
M 2; ON CO to 25
> £
co 2; >-j o o 2:
O > CO ON "M >
-
*
CD |O ON CO to vj
VO O ^1 O O M
CO CO ON H> CO
<1
pi
i
vO vO* vO vO Co
to to to to *-•
1 1 1 1 1
Cn en en en cr»
O O O O ON
o o o o o
H CO CO KJ M 21
o ---
H 2 >
? 0
j
1
ON 25 ON
to --^ O O O to
vO 21 O O O vo
» "^^fc •
CO > CO
to
CO M ON »J en vo
M r-1
«-J 4> to
to O tO IO O ON
• •••••
ON CO vo to J> CO
M 21 21
ON -^. ^J 4N en ~~^
to to
ON 21 4?> O M 55
O > O ON -C- ->
''
M
O M M »-• ^4
ON M CO M O M
to M
O ON CO
CO O ON tO M ON
<(> CO ' VO CO CO ON
W
t
«
rt
r»
.^
2
rt
^f
•
l/i
rt
fB
%
*
21
0
f>
t^
rt
•
^^
a;
5
2:
o
Jf»
3
rt
•
<£
iS
21
O
'-»
^
21
O
1
i
-------
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
I
i
to
1
IVO vo VO vO CO
to to to to ' .».-
1 1 1 1 1
o o o o • CA
(o o o o o
IH U> U> K> H* t^
O *"•**
> § >
H o
r- •> K. to
M> 0 O O £•
%
2;
Kj ^- O O O -J
p >• • •
ko VO
1
k_.
k/i |M c/i to H* crx
•
H M
CD' O M H1 O 4>
• • • * • •
|^> i*> CO C^ H* O^
I*> la to to o 25
> >
M I M 25
CO 125 CO O 0 ^
« p-i • >•
u> |> co
U» *»
CO (_• ^J *• H* O
M M
CD CA tO
*• O VO M O to
Q\ U> CO VO H* Wl
G
VO vO vO vo CO
to to • to to i-
1 1 1 t 1
O O O O CA
o o o o o
H CO U> W M '5S
o . ^.
to
to a: o o o to
CTx !*5 O O O O"*
• "^**» •
to > to
i> O t/i O O vo
M M
Cn O t/i
O O Cn O O H"
CX> O-» tO
to M
O 25 Ln to CO 2J
M
O 22 vO
vo ^•» -t> CTx CO 22
*- M CO Ul >
*
ui 1 to co
»J JO O tO CO tO
tO M
vj vo Ln
to O vo ON Co **4
V* ^ 00 C* C«
0
•
t
VO VO VO VO^ CO
N> tO |O tO {>
1 1 1 1 t
O O O O ON
O O O O O
H W CO tO M 2J
o •-»
& % *
H 0
to 2; to
o --- o o o o
vo — O O O vo
to to
01 |0 M O 0 J>
M M
Cn M *~
** 0 h-1 O O to
to M M
to |2J M H» H« 25
1
CO l~» tO
•vj 2J ON (-• O 25
Cn >» M O *• Jt-
tO KJ
CO O to M H4 *»
tO M
o to to c/i
»-« O ^J H« O to
O to o ; *» *•
*•
in
rt
ta
rl
n> <_
> *'
-t
3
*•
* 0
o
CO
0* 0
• O H
O M
13 0
•o 2:
> 0 O
:3 rt 50
rf 0) '™* r
§ **
H1 fO
vo O
Ox M
»-3 H
O* \A
Ci M
> Ji
2" W
3 ON H
•-#• *+^ *TJ
b
x-x
15
E
5^ *^ *^
on o
• H- H
0 O
rt O
&1 '"^ P*
3 MI >•
rt 1-4 CO
• *>J M
-CO
^j^ ^*J
a
o.
CD
6* o
. 00
o
i
• o
'— » rt
X M
-------
-------
Jfr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
rt
o
•c
to
"T.1
f^
O
t_*.
0
O
rt
O
n
§
C^
f£>
0
O
w
rt
2
o
rt
H-
£3
cx
o
(A
t-*«
QQ
£}
W
0
CU
to
(0
*£
c^
O
f-*. •
O M
1 M
I ft. tai
r1* r*i
rt
.
^. VO VO VO voa 00
M ro ro to to *»
N| I I I I i
Cn Cn Cn Cn ON
••J . O O p O ON
ON O O O O O
O
o.
(C
N^- H co to ro H* as
• j, , f_3 JX Jl>
CJ t^ ^5
o Ho
c
co
«^ vj ss o o o ss
* * ^* *^
ON
»3*
H^ ro ^ to
O CJ -^ O O O U>
n • ^f •
Cn en
f^
to
CO
o
o
o
ft
09
O *- M M
0 Cn M H* ro M vo
(^
M
^
O
o ._-..„.
ft i> W M
*< ON Cn O
VO O CO M O CO
M *> CO Cn ON M VO
O
Ul.
(6-
O
rt
rt
h>
[»
*
t
•y
to
rt
3
*
*
'
53
O
O
a
> XI
3 H*
t Q
^~. rt
-w> (5
5
^-^ X
/
/•
^ -
o
t>
/f>
rt
M*
<
& •
3
rt
^
^/y
^
X
1
(-5
O
53
to
H
§
O
H
M
O
53
O
t^
*£>
^^ *^
t-i H
G to
r<
^S ^^
ft?
M O
*^ C-<
Cn M
ON O
H
£3
£o HI
C^ 53
5> w
^^ f3
log
^4 H
*~^ O
o
CO
O H-
O
M M
c^ ^ ro ro Co 25
V/» ***»*. OO OO • ""**••
• Ji> • • VO Jt*
ro ro M
M
co ro vo
CD M VD ^J Cn O\
ON *- M
Cn CD ro i CO
co o ON vo vo ro
• • t • •
M CO vj sj *.
o
rt
v;
^-^
i" 3
rf »-l
* ON
-CA >T3
PC c
^ O
0.
to
50
55 ft>
O 00
q
5- *""
0 *~\
rt O
• rt
/-N t»
V— '
O
H
o
2
0.
g
CO
M
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
1
1
1
1
I
1
STATUS OF
•
' Project
C-110022-01
C-110023-01
C*»110024-01
C-110025-01
C-110026-01
C-110027-01
C-110027-01
C-110030-01
C-110030-01
TABLE VIII
1 MAJOR C0\7 STRUCT] ON1 GRANT PROJECTS IN D.C. METROPOLITAN AREA
' DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Grant Amount Description
$ 6,579,000 Blue Plains Primary
12,955,000 Blue Plains Solids
14,794,000 Blue Plains Secondary
4,453,000 Portland Street
Outfall Relief Sewer
8,793,000 Blue Plains Excavation
111,056,000 Blue Plains AWT
• FUTURE PROJECTS
$ 9,365,000 Blue Plains AWT
(Future Amendments)
450,000 Combined Sewer Over-
flow Study (Step 1)
• 769,500,000 Combined Sewer and
Storm Sewer Deten-
tion Facilities
(Steps 2 fi 3 Work)
.
• . •• . 1
•
,
Status £ Con.n. Date
Virtually Complete
Solids Processing Bldg.
Complete. . .Incinerator
Postponed. Alternatives
being studied.
Scheduled for Completion
by June 76.
Grant Recently Awarded
Virtually Complete.
Scheduled for completion
by Jan. 79. . .Denitri-
fication postponed.
Complete by Jan. 79
Denitrif i cat ion
postponed.
Grant Application
under review.
Priority Questionable.
^
-------
1
.
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
Project
C— P/IOP^I —01
v £• * t \J £* \J J. \J •&•
G 02
C-240233-01
C-240283-01
C-240296-01
V
C-240297-01
C-240299-01
C-240304-01
C-240309-01
Cr. --• p T T; A i
— ^.*iL*oi-O — u^.
C-240329-01
C-240331-01
C-240332-01
C-240580-01
C-240231-01
C-240309-01
C-240341-01
Gr-ant Amount
$i ~i /HI 500
J. O • *i W J- * -. i
being studied.'
Virtually Complete.
Complete by June 76.
. Grant Recently Aware tc
Complete by Jari. 79
Denitrif ication Postri'-t
and not funded.
-
Scheduled f^r C'.^-3-.-. .: •
by 3/76.
Under construction.
Under construction.
Under construction.
Operation Begun
Application-Under
Revi ew
Complete by Jan. 79
Denitrification Postpone
and Not Funded.
Application ii. Regie/.,. ~
. Office. EIS Holdup
Capacity Question.
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
Project . Grant
C-240392-01 $ 5,
«
C-240397-OJ 2,
C-240366-01 8,
«r
Construct Piscataway
Regional
Construct Potomac FM
Balance of Anacostia FM
Construct Montgomery Co.
Construct Western Branch
C-240309 - Blue Plains -
Denitrification
MARYLAND
TCanT'd)
Amount Description
*
775,000 Design Pi£cata\s-ay
Regional (Step I)
625,000 Design Potomac F.M.
(Step I)
142,750 Western Branch -
Phase II
FUTURE PROJECTS - LONG RANGE
$106,275,000 & 65 (?) MGD
$28,575,000 ©65 (?) MGD
$14,817,000
AWT $97,674,000
AWT ?
$35,000,000
»
i
«
Status E Comn. Date
No Application
EIS Holdup - Capacity
Question.
No Application
'EIS Holdup - Capacity
Question.
Application Under Review
FY-77
FY-77
FY-77
FY-77 G Later
7
?
*
-------
Figure IX
.LEGEND
O MAJOR WASTE TREATMENT PLANTS
A CAGING STATION - WASHINGTON. OjC.
A DISTRICT OF COLUM3IA
B ARLINGTON COUNTY ,
C ALEXANDRIA SANITATION AUTHORITY
D FAIRFAX COUNTY — WESTGATE PLANT
FAIRFAX COUNTY - LITTLE HUNTING CRCEK PLANT
FAIRFAX COUNTY - DOGUi CREtK PLANT
WASHINGTON SUSUffSAN SANITARY COMMISSIOM - f-ISCATAWAY
H ANDREWS Al« FORCE BASE - PLANTS ONE. FOUR
I roar EELVOIR - PLANTS ONE. TWO
J PENTAGON
K FAIRFAX COUNTY -. LOWER POTOMAC PLANT •
POTOMAC ESTUARY
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE X
COMi'Ar.JSON OF rOLIUTlO.NAL LOADS
1 FROM HVPOTiuJTKYiL CJTY -
STHMKT lU'XOIT vs GOOD SL'COXLUUY KFFLUrlXT
Sclttraplc + (a)
SUSIT:K!U
Kjclria).l(d)
Phosp^iat c s ^ '
(a) Tspical rc-ov^.1 c
fo-fA-i «;v fovo i.n-i.n.xr MOM
ON KLCLIM:^ .',.:« ^.^MVT
sirarr «=• T,VE r -.rr? iKz.Ai.^x.n IL,\,-T KATIO
' land ust, ell cti'cn; from nur.ioi ii al neans.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
TABLE XI
Major Outputs Expected from 208 Program
1. Cooperative Forecasting Program «
a. Adoption of Regionwide Population, Employment Projections through
1995.
b. Adoption of Regionwide Wastewater Flow Projections
i
2. Water Supply Activities
a. Water Conservation Analysis I
b. Water Supply Construction Priorities Identified *
c. Adoption of Water Supply Emergency Plan *
* non-208 funded
3. Nonpoint Source Investigations
a. Detailed field monitoring in Occoquan and Four Mile Run Watersheds
b. Analysis of transferability of Virginia correlations to Maryland
watersheds
c. Creation of Stormwater Task Force
d. Coordination with District on combined sewer study
e. Field study of control measures for sediment control
A. Point Source Need Analysis
a. Analysis of short-term and long-range facility needs beyond cur-
rently programmed facilities
b. Analysis of alternatives to conventional treatment measures
c. Development of short-term and long-range sludge disposal needs.
5. Impact Assessment of Proposed Program
a. Socio-economic
b. Environmental
c. Institutional
------- |