IH
       ANNAPOLiS FIELD  OFFICE
                      SITUATION REPORT

                       POTOMAC RIVER
       WORKING  FOR A BETTER  ENVIRONMENT
         : ENVIHONMENTAL  PROTECTION
U.S. EPA ANNAPOLIS FIELD OFFICE, ANNAPOLIS SCIENCE CENTER, Amnpolit, IW. 21401

-------
          9O3R769Q3
SITUATION REPORT



 POTOMAC RIVER
            May 25, 1976

-------
I.  HISTORY
    When Captain John Smith explored the Potomac River in 1608 the waterway
was virtually in a pristine state with abounding fish life.  The crude and
limited agricultural activities of the indigenous Indian tribes had little
impact on the aquatic environment.  In the late 1790's it was reported
that President Adams swam in the Potomac Estuary near Washington, D.C.
It was about this time that canals were carved along the river and com-
mercial shipping activities took place 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 fre-
quently 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, D.C.—thus collec-
                                                      i
tion and transfer of the problem became the first solution to the municipal
waste dilemma.  It was not until 1938 that sewage treatment measures were
employed in the estuary area, and by this time water quality problems had
become quite evident.  Even though sewage treatment measures were em-
ployed pervasively, 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.  Nonpoint
sources of pollution, including agricultural runoff and  stormwater loadings,
also contribute significant amounts of  pollutants to the Potomac.
II.  CURRENT STATUS
    The current problem facing the Potomac River and Estuary is an inter-
related one consisting of a marginally  sufficient water  supply, variable

-------
water quality in the upper reaches of the estuary due to advanced
eutrophication (over fertilization of nutrients), and problems of as yet
undetermined magnitude as regards toxic metals and organohalogens and
their effects on living organisms in the Potomac.
    The Washington Metropolitan Area is a rapidly growing region with
about 2.8 million people.  Present municipal water use is 370 mgd with
72 percent  (265 mgd) supplied from the Potomac River above Washington
(Great Falls).  Projected population and water supply needs are shown
in Table  I.  Present resources are insufficient to supply peak needs
during sustained low flows.   (See Table  II.)  It is very possible that
a drought could recur as in  1966 and 1969 where the metropolitan water
supply would be seriously depleted, if not  inadequate to meet water
supply needs since  the maximum demand of record has exceeded the
minimum flow,  though fortunately not at  the same time.  The concurrence
of these  adverse conditions  is not hypothetical and a number of alter-
natives are being considered to alleviate this situation.  The U.S.
Army Corps  of  Engineers  has  proposed three  alternative  impoundment
systems for water supply augmentation.   (See Table  III.)  Use of the
freshwater  portion  of  the  estuary  for  emergency water supply during
sustained low  flow  periods would meet  any  immediate crisis since the
lead time for  construction of impoundments  is approximately 10 years
after approval.
     The water  supply situation has been  further  complicated by  the
Montgomery County decision to construct  a  municipal  sewage treatment

-------
                          TABLE'I
                                     Water Supply Needs
Year

1969
.1980
2000
2020
Population
2,700,000
k, 000, 000
6,700,000
9,300,000
Yearly avg.
(mgd)
370
570
1010
1570
Maximum Month
(mgd)
.1*7°
. 720
1310
20l;0
Maximum Daily
(mgd)
660
1000
1820 ,
2820
                          TABLE II
Low-Flow Characteristics Before
	Water Supply Diversion
                                   Withdrawal from the Potomac Estuary
                                          or from Direct Reuse*-
Recurrence.
 Interval
  (years)
   20

   50
Minimum Monthly
 Fresh Inflow
     (mgd)

     1300

     1170

      910
                                      1900
                                   For a 720
                                   mgd Need
                                     (mgd).

                                     none

                                     none

                                     none
                                                  2000
                                               For a 1310
                                               mgd "Need
                                                 (mgd)

                                                  210
   2020
For a 20ljO
mgd Need
  (mgd)
                                                  600
  1070

  1330
Withdrawal based on minimum 30-day low flow concurrently with a
 maximum 30-day water supply withdrawal and a 200 mgd minimum base
 flow over Great Falls into the estuary
                          TABLE  III



                    Bloomington

                    Bloomington, Verona, and Sixes Bridge

                    Bloomington, Verona, Sixes Bridge, Town Creek,
                    North Mountain, Sideling Hill, and Little
                    Cacapon
System

   I

  II

 III

-------
plant discharging to the Potomac River above the metropolitan water

intakes at Great Falls.  Various alternatives pertaining to this
                                       *
plant are still undecided, namely siting, plant design/capacity and

degree of treatment required and most important its effects on the

water supply of Metropolitan Washington.

     The wastewater disposal problem in the upper reach of the

estuary from Great Falls to Indian Head, Maryland, results from the

discharge of 325 mgd of municipal sewage from 18 facilities, of which

the Blue Plains plant of the District of Columbia is the largest

(Fig. I).  Of  the 325 mgd, 45.5, 23.1, and 35.4 percent, respectively,.

come from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.  Since

1913 wastewater volumes have increased eightfold, from 42 to 325 mgd.

Similar trends have occurred for total nitrogen and phosphorus with

10-fold and 24-fold increases,  respectively.  Table IV shows waste-

water loading  trends of the Washington Metropolitan Area.  Increased

wastewater loadings to the upper Potomac Estuary have resulted in

increased  amounts of nutrients  and  consequently the wore frequent

occurrence of  nassive, -undesirable  algal blooms.

     Under summer and fall conditions large populations of blue-green

algae  (pollution tolerant), mainly  Anacystis sp., are predominant  in

the freshwater portion of the  estuary.  These algae are not grazed by

higher trophic forms and are therefore useless in the food chain.

When excessive mats  of these blooms expend their  life cycle and  decay,

 dissolved oxygen in the v/ater  is  reduced below acceptable  levels to

 sustain fish life.

-------
                 POTOMAC  RIVER  ESTUARY
               \YASTEWATER  TREATMENT  PLANTS
                   ANNAPOLIS FICLD  OFFICE  EPA
                                   ;97I
     N
      \
                              WASHINGTON D.C.
PENTAGON  Q
   (I.Omgd.)  '
                                                    RIVER  MILES FROM CHAIN SR'DGE-'0
                       ARLINGTON
                         I40mgd.)
                   WootJrow Wilson
                   Memoriol
                                                                         ZONE
  VIRGINIA
                      ALEXANDRIA   SSS
                         (Si mgd.)
                         V.'ESTGATE
               LITTLE  HUNTING Cr.JZI
                              'V

          DOGUE Cr.	y^L.       A-—'
   FORT BELVOiR

LOV.'ER  POTOMAC
     (SGroodl.)
                 PISCATAWAY Cr.
                    (90 rr.
                  ^/DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                         (3O9mgd.)
                                                  RIVER MILES FROM CHAIN BRIDGE = 15
                                              BROAD CREEK
                                         ANDREWS
                                             A.F.B.
ZONE
                                                MARYLAND
                                                  RIVER MILES FROM CHAIN BSiOGf. = 3Or
                                     EXISTING WASTEV.'ATER TREATMEN'T  PLANTS
                                     (PROJECTED FULL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY)

                                  D  EXISTING'PLANTS TO EC ABANDONED

-------
                                                                    TABLE IV
WASTEWTER LOADING TR3IES
VASHE&TOtf MUTKOPOLITA:? AREA
Year
1913
1932
1544
1954
1957
19&0
196;
1063
1969
17/0
Population
_ S?rvod

320,000
575,000
1,149,000
1,350,000
l,6eO;000
1,360,000
2,100,000
2,415,000
2,450,000
2,535,000
Flovfl
"toed) .
42
75
167
195
210
222
265
31?
320
322
• Untreated
' 5-Pr,y_DOD
(Ibo/day)
58,000
103,000
235,000
280,000
305,000
370,000.
417,000
4245,000
439,000
484,000
Rejnovnl
5-Ctvy BOD
•*
0
0
40
28
33
70
70
70
71
1-
71
Treated
5-Dnv y30D
(Ibo/day)
58,000 .
103,000
141,000
200,000
204,000
110,000
125,000
130,000
129,000
141,000
Ultisatefa
Car, 7JOD
(Iba/doy;
84,000
149,000
205,000
290,000
297,000
160,000
182,000
188,000
185,000
aC4,000
Ultimate f 4
NU. POD
.(ibb/cfcy)
29,000
52,000
105,000
145,000
153,000
170,000
192,000
226,000
222,000
254,000
Total1
Ultimate 300
( r\nr* + >Mt \
ll T 111 ' •* " * L
(Ibo/doy)
n3,oco
201,000
310, 000
435,000
450,000
330,000 . .
;S4,CCO
, 414,000
408,000
456,000
Total
ItiliSSTJ!!
(Ita/cU^)
6,400
11,400
23,000
31,700
33,500 „
37,200
42,000*
50,000
55,000
cO,COO
Total ?io3.
—f'?—?
(Ifej/day)
X,1CO
2,000
4.0CO
5,500
8,600
10,000
ie,3co
20,100
21,100
24, COO
1,  Includes estimated sewer overflow loadings



2.  Ultirato carboriflccoras EOD « l,/,5 x 5-day SOD   •     -



3.  Ultlratc nitrccono'JS  BOD " 4.57  x unoxidizcd nitrogen

-------
     In the saline portion of the estuary, growth of marine phyto-



. plankton known as "red tides" proliferates, aggravated by the high



nutrient content in the water.  These have teen known to assume forms



toxic to fish life.



     The overall effect of increases in nutrient loadings since 1913



(Table IV) on dominant plant forms in the upper estuary has been



continuous and dramatic.  Figure II visualizes the successive



domination of various plant forms leading to the present state of



persistent massive summer blooms of the blue-green alga Anacystis



in nuisance concentrations of greater than 50 micrograms per liter



from the metropolitan area downstream as far as Maryland Point.  This



condition still persists and will probably increase in intensity



unless the nutrient discharges are significantly reduced.



     The major detrimental effects of the wastes being discharged to



the  Potomac are:



     (1)  An abundance of nutrients which causes over-enrichment



          of the estuary;



     (2)  Depletion of dissolved oxygen creating zones of depressed



          oxygen levels;




     (3)  High bacterial densities which preclude use of the river



          for any contact recreational activities and as a potable




          water supply source.



     Approximately 50 million tons of sediment are deposited into the



river each year, with 39 percent of it generated in the Washington



Metropolitan Area.  Stringent regulation is needed to

-------
                                      WASTEWATER NUTRIENT  ENRICHMENT  TRENDS AND ECOLOGICAL  EFFECTS


                                                         UPPER POTOMAC TIDAL  RIVER SYSTEM
       20.000
       15.000
   «~
   O o
       10.000-
   O
        5,000-
O

33
m
                              NO MAJOR PLANT
                                NUISANCES
WATER CHESTNUT INVASION
V/ATER
MILFOIL
INVASION
LOCAL
BLUE-GREEN
ALGAL BLOOMS
MASSIVE
PERSISTENT
DUIE-GHEEN
ALGAL  BLOOM
                                  NITROGEN

                                  ^^~-~
                                  PHOSPHORUS
                                                                                                                  r250.000
                                                               • 200.000
                                                               • 150.000
                                                                                                                            to -a
                                                                                                                            u: >»
                                                                                                                            < S
                                                                                                                            u
                                                                                                                            2
                                                               • loo.ooo  3
                                                                         K
                                                                       •  o
                                                                50.000

-------
control this obvious pollutant and minimize its harmful potential.

Maryland and the District have specific sediment control ordin-

ances in effect.                               . :

     In the Washington Metropolitan Area, the amount of water used

for manufacturing is insignificant.  The major industrial use is

as cooling water.

     There are currently six major cooling water users in the

Potomac River tidal system with another being proposed near Sandy

Point.  The total cooling water use is 2,71*8 mgd as follows:
     Facility .
PEPCO at Benning Rd.
(Washington, B.C.)

PEPCO, Buzzard Point
(Washington, B.C.)

Virginia Heating
(Arlington, Va.)

PEPCO Generating Station
(Alexandria, Va.)

VEPCO, Possum Point
(Quantico, Va.)

PEPCO, Sandy Point
PEPCO, Morgantown
(Charles Co., Md.)
Water
Usage   Receiving Water
(mgd J
 568


 570


  ho
Anacostia River


Anacostia River
                    Remarks
Also Uses
Cooling Towers
 Uoo
 720
Boundary Channel of
Potomac Estuary

Potomac Estuary


Potomac Estuary


Potomac Estuary


Potomac Estuary
  Proposed
  Facility

  Ultimate Usage
  to be llUiO mgd
TOTAL

-------
     Navigational use of the Potomac Estuary waters is primarily




to provide commercial transport via ^-iver barges.  Two commercial




firms presently transport various petroleum products from .tank




farms located in the lower Potomac and in the Chesapeake Bay pro-




per to the Washington Metropolitan Area.




     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.




   *  Recreational facilities on or near the Potomac estuary in-




clude a national park, three state parks, seven fish and game




areas of 226 county recreational  sites.  A study by the Bureau




of Outdoor Recreation  indicated that the recreational potential




of the 63? miles of shoreline has barely been developed.   Few




public beaches have been opened primarily because  of poor  water




quality  (in  the upper  reaches) and to  some degree  the unwelcome




presence of  stinging jellyfish.                 .    .




     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 $0.6 million per  year.   There are




approximately  95 marina  facilities in  the tidal Potomac which




accomodate  over 5,200  recreational watercraft.




Ill  PRESENT ANNAPOLIS FIELD OFFICE EFFORTS .




     The Annapolis Field Office currently monitors the  Potomac




estuary  on  a monthly basis.  The  sampling survey  consists  of 26

-------
stations (Fig. Ill) from Point Lookout to Chain Bridge and analyses




are conducted for pertinent chemical and biological parameters re-



lated to the hyper-eutrophic conditions existing in the estuary.



Various intensive surveys have been conducted and documented in the



past few years dealing with specific problems in the Potomac.  These



studies provide insight by focusing attention on one aspect of the



pollution problem.   .






IV.  CURRENT STATUS OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM



     In 1969 the Potomac Metropolitan Area Enforcement Conference,



initiated in 1957 as a means of bringing about cooperative action



among the political jurisdictions, was reconvened.  A memorandum of



understanding was agreed upon which established a program for con-



struction of sewage treatment facilities in accordance with the treat-



ment requirements established in an AFO report.  Construction is in



progress at the B.C. treatment plant, Virginia treatment facilities



are being upgraded, and Maryland has not as yet selected the sites



for additional treatment plants.




     The Interstate Task Force has been set up to implement the program



adopted by the Conference for the metropolitan Washington area.



Upstream problems, with exception of the need to control nutrients




reaching the estuary, are receiving the attention of the specific



states involved.

-------
           /V
   OCCOOUA* txr
PO31UM POINT-
        LEGEND
©  MAJOR WASTE TREATMENT PLANTS
A  CAGING STATION - WASHINGTON. DjC.
A   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
6   ARLINGTON COUNTY i
C   ALEXANDRIA SANITATION AUTHORITY
D   FAIRFAX COUNTY - WESTGATE PLANT
E   FAIRFAX COUNTY - LITTLE HUNTING CREEK PLANT
F   FAIRFAX COUNTY - DOGUE CREEK PLANT
G   WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION - PISCATAWAY
H   ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE - PLANTS ONE. FOUR
I   FORT BELVOIR -PLANTS  ONE. TWO.   *
J   PENTAGON
K   FAIRFAX COUNTY - LOWER POTOMAC PLANT •
                                POTOMAC      ESTUARY
                                                                                             Figure  III

-------