EPA-600/5-76-005
September 1976
Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series
RESTORING THE WILLAMETTE RIVER:
Costs and Impacts of
Water Quality Control
Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Athens, Georgia 30601
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields,
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES series. This series includes research on environmental management,
economic analysis, ecological impacts, comprehensive planning and forecast-
ing, and analysis methodologies. Included are tools for determining varying
impacts of alternative policies; analyses of environmental planning techniques at
the regional, state, and local levels; arid approaches to measuring environmental
quality perceptions, as well as analysis ot ecological and economic impacts of
environmental protection measures. Such topics as urban form, industrial mix,
growth policies, control, and organizational structure are discussed in terms of
optimal environmental performance. These interdisciplinary studies and systems
analyses are presented in forms varying from quantitative relational analyses to
management and policy-oriented reports.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield. Virginia 22161,
-------
EPA-600/5-76-005
September 1976
RESTORING THE WILLAMETTE RIVER:
COSTS AND IMPACTS OF WATER QUALITY CONTROL
by
E. Scott Huff
Peter C. Klingeman
Herbert H. Stoevener
Howard F. Horton
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
Contract No. 68-01-2671
Project Officers
Harold V. Kibby
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Robert 6. Courson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
Seattle, Washington 98101
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30601
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
The means by which the water quality of the Willamette River has
been upgraded over the past four decades are documented. Two strategies
--point-source wastewater treatment and flow augmentation from a network
of federal reservoirs—have been responsible for this improvement in
water quality. The series of tactics employed in gradually reducing
point-source waste discharges are documented. Coincident water quality
benefits which have resulted from flow augmentation for other purposes
are also discussed.
The economic and energetic costs of constructing, operating, and
maintaining the facilities which have significantly contributed to the
improvement of water quality in the Willamette River and its tributaries
over the last half century are examined. Data are presented regarding
the construction and operation of municipal collection and treatment
systems, industrial water pollution abatement facilities, and reservoirs.
Input-Output economics and a methodology for converting dollar costs to
direct and total energy requirements are used to deal with construction
and operational costs. Operation and maintenance expenditures are also
dealt with on the basis of direct at-site requirements. Energy needs
for operating water quality control facilities are about one-tenth of
one percent of total basin energy utilization. Substantial savings of
this energy are possible, however.
Historic and current status of the fishery and wildlife resources
of the Willamette River Basin are reviewed in relation to changing water
quality of the River. Recent improvements in water quality have stimu-
lated State and Federal agencies to embark on a nine-year program to
fully develop the fishery resources of the Basin. The potential biolo-
gic, economic, and social values of the program are presented along with
related adverse effects attributed to water quality improvement proce-
dures.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract Number 68-01-
2671 by Oregon State University, Water Resources Research Institute,
under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency. Work was
completed as of December 1975.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Sections Page
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introduction 5
Background 5
Purpose of Study 7
Scope 8
Study Approach 9
IV The Willamette Basin Study Area 11
Geographical Features 11
Basin Climate 11
River Hydrology 13
Natural Resource Use and Development 13
Storage Reservoirs 18
Demographic Features 19
Water Supply Development 21
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 21
V The Strategy Used to Clean Up the Willamette 26
Definition of Terms 26
The Search for an Approach to Pollution Control 27
A State Agency for Water Quality Control 28
A State Policy on Water Pollution 29
A Pollution Control Strategy: Standard of Water
Quality and At-Source Waste Treatment 30
Pollution Control Tactics: Action Under the Strategy 32
Related Federal Strategies and Tactics 37
An Old Strategy Updated: Waste Dilution by Flow
Augmentation 39
Reliance on Two Strategies 42
VI Environmental Impacts 43
Scope of Impacts 43
Historical 44
Current Status of the Willamette Fishery 46
Environmental Impacts 53
-------
VII Capital Expenditures 67
Introduction 67
Inventory of Facilities 68
Economic Expenditures 82
Energetic Expenditures 87
VIII Operation and Maintenance Expenditures 101
Municipal Systems 1°1
Industrial Systems 117
Federal Reservoirs ]]**
Total Energetic Expenditures 119
IX Discussion ]^\
General '23
Expenditures
1 po
X References Cited
XI Glossary 136
XII Appendices 138
vi
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Willamette River Basin 12
2 Typical Patterns for Climatic and Hydrologic Variables
at Salem, Oregon 14
3 Principal Willamette Basin Reservoirs 15
4 Population Centers in Willamette Basin 22
5 Principal Willamette Basin Municipal and Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Facilities in 1974 25
6 Average August Streamflows at Salem, Oregon and Up-
stream Federal Reservoirs 41
7 Calculated Escapement of Spring Chinook Salmon into
the Clackamas River Compared to the Total Migration
of Spring Chinook Salmon over Willamette Falls:
1946-1974 55
8 Calculated Migration of Coho and Fall Chinook Salmon
over Willamette Falls: 1954-1974 56
9 Calculated Migration of Winter and Summer Steel head
over Willamette Falls: 1950-1974 57
10 Estimated Total Sport Catch of Salmon in Oregon Compared
to the Estimated Sport Catch of Salmon from Principal
Willamette River Tributaries: 1955-1973 58
11 Estimated Total Sport Catch of Steel head in Oregon Com-
pared to the Estimated Sport Catch of Steel head from
Principal Willamette River Tributaries: 1955-1973 59
12 Mean Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations for Summer Months
in the Willamette River at Selected Locations and Years 60
13 Mean Flow, Dissolved Oxygen Concentration, and 5-Day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand of the Lower Willamette River
at the Spokane, Portland, and Seattle Railroad Bridge
During August 1950-1974 61
14 Capital Expenditures for Municipal Sewage Collection
and Treatment: 1915-1945 84
15 Capital Expenditures for Municipal Sewage Collection
and Treatment: 1946-1974 85
16 Capital Expenditures for the Control of Industrial
Wastewaters, 1949-1974 (by the firms listed in Table 15) 86
vii
-------
No. Page
17 Input-Output-Energy Model Energy Flows 94
18 Electrical Unit Cost vs. Daily Consumption 102
19 Electrical Use vs. Wastewater Flow 103
20 Electrical Use vs. BODg Removal 104
21 Electrical Use vs. Suspended Solids Removal 105
22 Labor Cost vs. Flow 111
23 Maintenance Cost vs. Flow 112
24 Total Operation and Maintenance Cost vs. Flow 113
viii
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Average Annual Runoff for the Willamette River and
Principal Tributaries 16
2 Storage Reservoirs in the Willamette Basin with 1
Million Cubic Meters or More of Usable Storage 20
3 Population Centers in the Willamette Basin 23
4 Principal Willamette Basin Municipal and Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Facilities in 1974 24
5 Fishes of the Willamette Basin 47
6 Distribution of Principal Salmonids Inhabiting Lakes,
Reservoirs, Sloughs, or Ponds in the Willamette Basin 50
7 Distribution of Principal Anadromous Salmonids
Inhabiting Rivers and Streams in the Willamette Basin 51
8 Distribution of Certain Warm-water Game Fish Inhabiting
Rivers and Streams in the Willamette Basin 52
9 Estimated User-days for Certain Fish and Wildlife
Species in the Willamette Basin: 1965 54
10 Benefits to Oregon of Full Development of the Poten-
tial in the Willamette River for Self-sustained Natural
Production of Fall Chinook and Coho Salmon and Summer
and Winter Steel head 63
11 Selected Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxic Effects of
Residual Chlorine on Aquatic Life 66
12 Operating Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants 69
13 Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants with Major Industrial
Loads 74
14 Sewage Treatment Plants No Longer Operating 75
15 Major Operating Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plants 79
16 Federal Reservoirs in the Willamette Valley 83
17 Financing Information for Existing Federal Reservoirs,
Willamette Basin 88
18 Coefficients Used in Converting Construction Dollars
to Energy Values 95
ix
-------
19 Energy Costs of Constructing the Water Pollution
Control Facilities of the Willamette Basin 96
20 Comparison of Direct Construction Energy Requirements
of Three Projects 98
21 Comparison of Direct Construction Energy Requirements
of Wastewater Treatment Plants 99
22 Energy Consumption in Chlorine Manufacture 109
23 Assumed Sludge Production Quantities 115
24 Coefficients Used in Converting Operation and Main-
tenance Dollars to Energy Values 120
25 Costs of Operating and Maintaining the Water Pollu-
tion Control Facilities of the Willamette Basin 121
26 Summary of Expenditures for Water Pollution Control
in the Willamette Basin 124
27 Operation and Maintenance Costs of Wastewater Collec-
tion and Treatment in Five Selected Cities 126
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Authors wish to acknowledge the considerable efforts of the
following people who worked directly in the preparation of material in-
cluded in this report: Kenneth A. Hanson, graduate research assistant
in Agricultural and Resource Economics; Charles B. McConnell and Darrel
G. Gray, graduate students in Fisheries; Frank D. Schaumburg, Associate
Professor of Civil Engineering; R. E. Dimick, Professor Emeritus of
Fisheries; Richard J. Heggen, Instructor in Civil Engineering; and
Eugene A. Gravel, student in Civil Engineering Technology. The authors
also wish to thank Cathy A. Sams for her technical assistance in report
preparation.
In addition, contributions of time and information were made by
many individuals in federal and state agencies, local governments and
private industry. Principal among these were several people in the
Oregon Departments of Environmental Quality and Transportation, the Fish
Commission of Oregon and the Oregon Wildlife Commission. Extensive
assistance also came from persons in the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, the U. S.
Geological Survey, Portland District Office, the Biology Department of
Portland State University, the several municipalities of the Willamette
Valley, the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, several
other private industries and utilities, CH2M/Hill, Consulting Engineers,
and Environmental Associates, Inc.
xi
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. Two pollution control strategies are essential to maintain the
water quality of the Willamette River. First, at-source wastewater
treatment must be required at a level sufficient to keep the absolute
pollutant loading of the river within limits that will allow the meeting
of water quality standards. Second, flow augmentation is required to
provide a sufficient volume and depth of water to maintain desirable
waste dilution, stream temperatures, and dissolved oxygen concentrations.
2. Future population growth and/or industrial expansion that gen-
erate additional wastes will unbalance the present water quality status.
Thus, higher levels of wastewater treatment, greater augmentation flows
from upstream reservoirs, or some combination of these measures will be
required. Many possibilities for altering wastewater treatment levels
are available as many of the industries which have contributed the
largest pollution loads (e.g., pulp-and-paper mills) have independent
wastewater treatment facilities and several others (e.g.. food proces-
sors) could provide various measures of pre-treatment or could separately
treat and dispose of wastes which now enter municipal systems (as already
done to a limited extent). The possibility also exists for greater flow
augmentation from existing impoundments (at the cost of reducing other
reservoir benefits) or from impoundments constructed in the future.
3. Very few data exist regarding the energy costs of goods and
services. The ability to accurately evaluate the total energy commit-
ment associated with the improvement of water quality in the Willamette
Basin is therefore limited.
4. Capital energetic costs are important factors in the consider-
ation of total annual project costs. The total capital energies (at-
site construction energy requirements plus the energy required to pro-
duce the materials and equipment incorporated in the finished product) of
a treatment facility can exceed the facility's lifetime operational
energy requirements.
-------
5. In estimating the energy costs of constructing water pollution
control facilities in the Willamette Basin, less than 10 percent of the
total is reflected in the direct on-site needs of a constructor. Much
energy is embodied in the materials and process equipment which are re-
quired for any project. This is particularly true of wastewater treat-
ment facilities. Thus an estimate of the direct construction energy
requirements is not a sufficient measure upon which to judge the total
energy impact of building a facility.
6. Electricity used in operating and maintaining water quality
control facilities represents about 480 Tera Joules (TJ) (140 x 10& kilo-
Watt- hours (kW.hr)), or nearly seven-tenths of one percent of the total
electrical needs of the Willamette Basin. Large energy savings could be
made by properly designing collection and treatment systems or by rely-
ing more heavily upon nature's assimilative capacities.
7. Wastewater lift station costs, particularly energy expenditures,
are important considerations in municipal wastewater control. Pumping
of municipal wastewaters in the Willamette Basin consumes about 25 per-
cent of the energy used in collecting and treating these flows. Some
Willamette Valley cities use more energy pumping flows than in treating
them.
8. Post chlorination of municipal wastewater requires large inputs
of energy. The energy required to produce the chlorine used for this
purpose is equal to between 40 and 50 percent of the electrical require-
ments of operating all the municipal treatment facilities in the Willam-
ette Basin. However, over-application accounts for a large portion of
this value and a large savings of resources could be realized by proper
surveillance of this practice.
9. Low flow augmentation by the federal reservoir system plays an
important part in the water quality management picture of the Willamette
Basin. The water quality control portion of the reservoir costs, briefly
estimated, is equal to less than 10 percent of the capital and one per-
cent of the operational investments made by municipalities and industries
combined.
10. In the past, poor water quality has impeded full development of
the fishery and recreational resources of the Willamette River Basin.
Maintenance or continued improvement of current water quality standards
are a necessary element in the goal of producing an additional 180,900
salmon and steelhead worth in excess of $2,398,000 annually. Other
recreational and aesthetic resources of the River benefit from water
quality improvements. The aesthetic and biologic costs of wastewater
treatment activities seem minor compared with overall benefits.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Due to the overlapping of tactics, it was not possible to sep-
arately assess the impact of each pollution control technology applied
to wastewater treatment using actual water quality data obtained for the
Willamette River. The separate influences of different wastewater
treatment technologies can be estimated by use of the recently developed
U. S. Geological Survey's Willamette River water quality simulation
model. The water quality associated with each tactic and its corres-
ponding pollutant loadings should be evaluated using this model.
2. Flow augmentation was found to have a highly significant in-
fluence over summer-autumn water quality in the Willamette River. How-
ever, the actual augmented flows varied irregularly and were generally
greater than target flows at control points along the Willamette.
The effects of flow augmentation need to be investigated in a more sys-
tematic manner than from historic data alone. By use of the U. S.
Geological Survey's water quality simulation model, various levels of
flow augmentation can be studied for their influence on river water
quality. This should be done in conjunction with the simulation of
different wastewater treatment tactics in order to more fully explore
alternative means of pollution control.
3. Energy analysis, the association of energy values with various
goods and services, requires a definite commitment of research effort
in the future. In the construction industry this might include close
surveillance of on-site energy needs for various activities.
4. Increased investigation of wastewater treatment operational
parameters should be undertaken. This work should focus on other than
mainline treatment. For example, sludge handling and disposal are be-
coming increasingly important; but relatively little, other than pilot
plant and demonstration facility data, is known about the costs and
benefits of this treatment.
5. Chlorine application should be researched in depth and closely
monitored by regulatory agencies. Chlorine production is highly energy
intensive and a substantial reduction in its use would yield significant
energy savings. This fact, along with chlorine's counter-productive in-
stream biological effects and possible carcinogenicity, clearly shows
the need for further research. This work should include evaluating the
need for bacterial reduction as well as evaluating alternative means by
which this reduction might occur.
-------
6. A comprehensive look at wastewater collection and treatment,
as they relate to each other and as they relate to other factors such
as transportation, land use, and air quality, is needed. For example,
large regional treatment facilities requiring long interceptor lines
and pumping of flows should be carefully evaluated. While economies of
scale may be realized in the treatment end of this work, the resource
allocation for the total system could be greater than that required for
an alternative system of several smaller, local plants.
7. Further research of cost allocation in multi-purpose projects
such as reservoirs is needed. This work should include the evaluation
of negative impacts as well as normally considered benefits and should
not be limited to solely economic considerations.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The Willamette River during the first half of the twentieth century
was described as a "stinking", "ugly" and "filthy" river—an "open
sewer" of untreated sewage and wastes. At times the condition of the
Willamette was so "intolerable" that workmen even refused to work on
river-side construction near sewer outfalls.1 Portland citizens spear-
headed efforts to bring the deplorable state of the river to the atten-
tion of city, county and state officials. But little or no response re-
sulted. The worsening situation, documented by water quality tests
conducted by the Oregon State Board of Health and concern expressed by
the U. S. Public Health Service, only slowly made inroads on legislative
inertia. Additional support from public groups and the League of Muni-
cipalities, backed with further data from surveys by the Engineering
Experiment Station (Oregon State University (OSU)—then Oregon Agricul-
tural College), Oregon State Board of Health (OSBH), and Oregon Fish
and Game Commission, drew administrative response from the Governor's
office, but still no effective legislative action. Finally, in the face
of continued inertia from the State Legislature, the citizens of Oregon
passed an initiative measure in November, 1938, by a resounding majority
vote, to create the Oregon State Sanitary Authority (OSSA).
The period from 1939, and especially since the end of World War II,
until the end of the 1960's is one of increasing determination and ac-
complishment in abating the pollution of the Willamette River.
Today, because of an aroused citizenry and concerted efforts by
local, state and federal groups, the Willamette River meets demanding
water quality standards throughout its length. It stands out nationally
as an example of a "river returned", a "new river". Although not pris-
tine, the Willamette River has been restored to a cleanliness unknown
since the last century—probably close to that encountered by early
white settlers.
The Willamette River of today offers a broader spectrum of recrea-
tional and scenic opportunities for the people of Oregon than it has
known for several decades. Granted that technological development makes
possible many types of recreation unknown to our forefathers, the fact
remains that for over half a century the river was too badly polluted
along many parts of its length to encourage swimming, boating, hunting,
-------
fishing, or even viewing—all of which are today enjoyable in those same
locations. Plans and programs for river-related activities, such as
the Willamette Greenway concept throughout the Willamette Valley or the
Johns Landing urban redevelopment near downtown Portland, can at last be
predicated upon the high water quality of the Willamette River.
There have been significant benefits of cleaning up the Willamette
River to both Oregonians and the nation. The example offered by the
Willamette may be repeatable elsewhere in similar basins in efforts to
provide "quality" environments. But the costs of retrieving a "nearly
lost" river are also great and these too must be considered and evalu-
ated. Expenditures of large magnitude had to be made in money, manpower,
materials and energy in order to return the river to its present desir-
able condition. Such expenditures continue year after year so that the
quality of the river may be maintained and improved. The benefits of
pollution abatement have been described in many ways to the public;
hence programs of pollution control have strong citizen support. The
direct, obvious costs of water quality protection, such as the costs of
pollution control facilities, are generally known. But pollution con-
trol has less-direct, less-obvious costs which must also be known. For
example, a network of flood control reservoirs provide substantial water
quality benefits through the conservation releases made during the non-
flood season; these benefits are not really free but are inherent in the
costs of constructing, operating and maintaining these facilities.
Similarly, the removal of wastes from municipal and industrial sewage
treatment systems before effluents enter the Willamette River or its
tributaries is accomplished at the cost of producing equipment and chem-
icals (and pollution) elsewhere for use in these treatment systems and
at the cost of producing pollutants at these treatment systems that are
disposed of onto land or into the atmosphere. Realistic evaluation of
water pollution abatement must include benefits and costs which extend
beyond the waters of the Willamette River and its tributaries and the
waste treatment plants which line their banks. From a broader perspec-
tive, a clearer picture emerges of the true benefits, costs and impacts
of water quality improvement for a river basin.
The 1970's have fast become an "energy-conscious" decade. Energy
problems faced by the nation have led us, as never before, to evaluate
the energy costs of doing things. Pollution control facilities of all
types require considerable expenditures of energy for their construction,
operation, maintenance, expansion, and modernization. The Willamette
River "clean-up", therefore, has required the use of a gread deal of
energy. But, hithertofore, no study has been made of the magnitude of
such an energy expenditure to abate pollution in the Willamette River
Basin, or, for that matter, any other river basin.
This report addresses the question of energy expenditures required
to restore the water quality of the Willamette River. The energy costs
are described and documented to that extent possible during the study
period with available information and the analyses made therefrom.
Hopefully, the results reported and conclusions drawn will help fill a
-------
significant gap in the broad-perspective picture needed for water qual-
ity improvement in a river basin.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of the study reported here has been to describe and
document, insofar as possible, the energy costs of the pollution control
techniques that have been used to restore the water quality of a river
basin. The Willamette River is used because it is one of the largest
rivers in the United States (ranking 12th in size) where a highly signi-
ficant restoration of water quality has been accomplished. Documenta-
tion of the clean-up is excellent and thus a meaningful analysis can be
attempted. The energy requirements of an undertaking such as cleaning
up a river can in many respects be determined from study of the economic
costs of the required facilities. Coupled with economic costs and
energy expenditures are a variety of environmental impacts. Further,
the accomplishment of pollution control itself produces many environmen-
tal impacts. Therefore, in treating the subject of energy costs of pol-
lution control, it is necessary to determine economic costs. Further-
more, it is important to address the environmental impacts in order to
provide a measure for the justification of economic and energy expendi-
tures in river clean up.
Four objectives have been pursued to fulfill the study goal. These
objectives are:
1. To document the pollution control strategy that has been em-
ployed to date in improving the water quality of the Willamette
River and to determine the contribution each control technology
has made to the improvement of water quality,
2. To determine the total costs and annualized costs of construc-
tion and operation and maintenance for the pollution control
facilities that have been employed in the Willamette Valley;
3. To determine the total energy consumed by all of the pollution
control facilities that have contributed to the improvement of
water quality in the Willamette River, including energy costs
of constructing and operating dams (where appropriate) as well
as treatment facilities and control devices; and
4. To determine the cumulative environmental impact of utilizing
the pollution control strategy employed in tne Willamette Basin.
-------
SCOPE
The study included and was limited geographically to the Willamette
River Basin. The time frame for the study extended from the early
1900's through 1974. During this time, the Willamette River experienced
first a period of declining river quality accompanied by no attempts at
pollution abatement, then a period of organization to confront the pol-
lution problem, and finally a period of restoration of river quality.
By 1972, the present degree of restoration of river quality had been
virtually achieved. In the following two years the principal efforts
have been aimed more at the maintenance of river quality, through im-
proved monitoring, surveillance and enforcement, than at greater degrees
of restoration. However, future strategies to fulfill stated national
water quality goals appear to be in the offering, and the present thus
provides a benchmark for surveying what has been accomplished and the
cost of accomplishment in anticipation and preparation for the future.
The choice of the Willamette Basin for such a study is important
for several reasons. First, the river exhibits a history of decline and
near-total restoration of water quality. Second, there exists support
documentation regarding input pollution loads, river flow conditions,
and river quality over a long period of time. Third, the basin is large
and complex, yet manageable, so that lessons learned from it will find
applications to many other basins. Fourth, no one has documented in an
integrated manner the economic, energetic and environmental costs of the
water quality improvement program. Fifth, the Willamette is one of the
largest rivers in the United States where such a dramatic increase in
water quality has occurred throughout the river system. Sixth, because
of the successful clean-up of the river, much national interest and at-
tention has been focused on the Willamette Basin in recent years. And,
finally, Oregonians collectively appear at the forefront as regards many
environmental concerns; therefore, the measures, costs and benefits
which the people have demanded or accepted to abate water pollution are
instructional in considering similar efforts elsewhere.
In fulfilling the objectives stated above, limitations were set as
to what types of facilities would be investigated as well as the kinds
of expenditures for each facility. The economic and energetic costs of
designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining portions of munici-
pal wastewater collection and treatment systems, selected industrial
water pollution abatement facilities, and federal reservoirs were re-
searched. Municipal collection was limited to that portion of the sys-
tem designated as interceptor. The research of industrial expenditures
was limited to larger companies having self-operated treatment facili-
ties. Reservoir research excluded those operated by private industry
and utilities.
-------
STUDY APPROACH
The nature of this study has demanded considerable knowledge of the
behavior of the Willamette River, including its hydrology, its quality,
and the aquatic life it supports. In some respects, the river serves
primarily as a transportation and conveyance system. Yet the river sys-
tem is a habitat for an abundant aquatic life and serves as a recrea-
tional playground for many of the 1.4 million Oregonians who reside in
the basin. Consequently, the study had to be approached from several
perspectives.
The study team included three faculty members and a research engi-
neer supported by graduate and undergraduate research assistants. Peter
C. Klingeman, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, a water re-
sources engineer with a background in hydrology and hydraulic engineer-
ing, led the study. Working with him was E. Scott Huff, a research
civil engineer with a Master of Science in Sanitary Engineering.
Herbert H. Stoevener, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
and Howard F. Horton, Professor of Fisheries, both participated in the
study from their broad backgrounds in environmental impacts of human
activities on water resource systems and their specific, extensive back-
grounds in natural resource economics and aquatic ecosystems, respec-
tively. Support was provided by Kenneth A. Hanson, graduate research
assistant in Agricultural and Resource Economics, and Charles B.
McConnell and Darrel Gray, graduate students in Fisheries. Frank D.
Schaumburg, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, was a consultant
to the study, contributing from an extensive background in sanitary and
environmental engineering. Richard J. Heggen, Instructor in Civil Engi-
neering, provided considerable technical assistance to the project in
data evaluation and computer services, including the evaluation of water
management computer programs for the Willamette River. Eugene A.
Gravel, undergraduate student in Civil Engineering Technology with
several years of construction experience, contributed in the evaluation
of resource expenditures involved in construction activities.
The work conducted under objective 1 was based on examination and
analysis of historical descriptive material and data contained in sev-
eral reports and agency documents. Responsibility for this phase of the
study was held by Klingeman and Huff.
The study activities necessary to meet objectives 2 and 3 involved
extensive analysis and interpretation of construction, operation, and
maintenance records for wastewater control facilities and dams. Methods
had to be devised in many instances in order to extend data from such
records into forms usable to describe dollar costs and energy costs.
Responsibility for the work was held by Huff, Stoevener, and Klingeman.
The direct environmental impacts resulting from pollution control
in the Willamette River were determined under objective 4 with greatest
-------
attention given to the impact of changed water quality caused by waste
treatment facilities and supporting attention given to the impact of
changed hydrologic regimen of the river due to regulation by upstream
reservoirs. Horton bore principal responsibility for documenting most
of the work carried out under this objective, with support from Huff and
Klingeman.
10
-------
SECTION IV
THE WILLAMETTE BASIN STUDY AREA
GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES
The Willamette "River Basin, shown in Figure 1, encompasses an area
of Western Oregon of 29,676 square kilometers (km2) (11,463 square miles
(mi2)).2 The basin is approximately rectangular, but in the shape of an
arrowhead 240 kilometers (km) (150 miles (mi)) long by 120 km (75 mi)
wide. The valley lies between the Coast Range, to the west, and the
Cascade Range, to the east. The two ranges extend southward to converge
at the Calapooya Mountains and extend northward to the Columbia River.
The Willamette Valley may be described in geological terms as a struc-
tural depression or downwarp with hills of moderate relief in places
separating broad alluvial flats.3 The valley floor consists of lake
deposits and other consolidated and unconsolidated alluvium and covers
about 9100 km2 (3500 mi2) with limiting dimensions of 200 km (125 mi) by
50 km (30 mi). Alluvial fans along the edges of the valley extend from
the volcanic and sedimentary formations which comprise the surrounding
mountains. Basin elevations range from 3 meters (m) (10 ft (ft)) mean
sea level (msl), along the Columbia River to 120 m (400 ft) on the val-
ley floor at Eugene to 1200 m (4000 ft) in the Coast Range and above
3000 m (10,000 ft) in the Cascade Range,
The Willamette River drainage system is shown in Figure 1. Formed
by the confluence of the Middle and Coast Forks near Eugene, the river
has a general northward course. Numerous tributaries enter from both
the Coast Range and the Cascade Range. The streams from the west side
of the basin have considerably smaller drainage areas and less-sustained
summer flows than those originating in the Cascade Range. The Willa-
mette River and its main tributaries (in their lower reaches) have broad
floodplains and meander belts. Meandering diminishes in the northern
part of the basin where the rivers are somewhat more confined by adja-
cent topography. The main stem includes short riffles, long deep pools,
the falls at Oregon City, and a tidal reach between the falls and the
mouth.
BASIN CLIMATE
The Willamette Basin climate is characterized by warm, dry summers
and mild, wet winters. The nearby Pacific Ocean dominates the weather
pattern whereas the Coast Range, Columbia River Gorge and Cascade Range
11
-------
N
LOCATION MAP
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION:
WILLAMETTE
Figure 1. Willamette River Basin
12
-------
have modifying influences. Annual precipitation varies from 0.9 m (35
inches (in)) on the valley floor to well over 3.3 m (130 in) in portions
of the mountain ranges, with a basin average of 1.6 m (63 in).
Approximately 70% of the precipitation occurs between November and March.
Temperatures on the valley floor range from a monthly mean of about 4°C
(40°F) in January to about 20°C (70°F) in July. Daily temperatures sel-
dom drop below -20°C (0°F) or rise above 40°C (100°F).4
Typical monthly values of air temperature and precipitation at
Salem, together with Willamette River streamflow and water temperature
there are shown in Figure 2. Salem is centrally located on the valley
floor (see Figure 1), its climatic and runoff features are representa-
tive for the valley, and the climatic and hydrologic records are of com-
paratively long duration.
RIVER HYDROLOGY
Runoff closely follows the annual precipitation pattern of the
basin. Streamflows usually peak in December, January or February and
normally reach minimum levels in late summer (see Figure 2). A lesser
spring runoff peak corresponds to gradual snowmelt from the higher ele-
vations of the Cascade Range. Stream temperatures generally reflect
the pattern for air temperature, as modified by snowmelt runoff (Figure
2).
The main stem originates at the confluence of the Coast and Middle
Forks 301 km (187 mi) from its mouth and at an elevation of about 130 m
(430 ft), msl. Major tributaries are the McKenzie, Santiam, and
Clackamas Rivers, all draining the Cascade Range and foothills, and the
Yamhill River, draining Coast Range slopes (see Figure 3). Tributaries
from the east have higher base flows in summer months than those from
the west, due to melting snow and groundwater storage.
The average annual runoff at successive points along the main-stem
Willamette River and from principal tributaries is shown in Table 1.
U. S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations provide the reference
points for data.
The total Willamette Basin runoff, averaging 30 billion m3/yr
(G m3/yr) (24 million acre-feet per year), places the river as 12th
largest in the United States.
NATURAL RESOURCE USE AND DEVELOPMENT
Almost two-thirds of the Willamette Basin is forested. These
lands are predominantly in upland areas. The valley floor and adjacent
lands are predominantly devoted to agricultural and grazing uses—about
one-third of the basin area. Urban zones and local areas of forest are
13
-------
o
o
«»
o:
UJ
.WILLAMETTE
RIVER.
o:
o
UJ
-------
N
ALBANY
CORVALLIS
\QREGON
LOCATION MAP
SCALE
20 40
kilometers
Figure 3. Principal Willamette Basin Reservoirs.
15
-------
Table 1. AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF FOR THE WILLAMETTE RIVER AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES3
Stream and locations
Tributaries
Coast Fork Will. R. nr. Goshen
Middle Fork Will. R. at Jasper
McKenzie R. nr. Coburg
Long Tom R. at Monroe
Marys R. nr. Philomath
Calapooia R. at Albany
Santiam R. at Jefferson
Luckiamute R. nr. Suves
Yamhill R. at Lafayette
Pudding R. at Aurora
Molalla R. nr. Canby
Tualatin R. at West Linn
Clackamas R. nr. Clackamas
Main Stem
Willamette R. at Springfield
Willamette R. at Harrisburg
Willamette R. at Albany
Willamette R. at Salem
Willamette R. at Wilsonville
Willamette R. at Portland
. _, Drainatre-area
km?
1,660
3,470
3,461
1,010
412
963
4,630
620
1,900
1,240
836
1,840
2,420
5,260
8,850
12,500
18,800
21,700
28,700
mi 2
642
1,340
1,337
391
159
372
1,790
240
735
479
323
710
936
2,030
3,420
4,840
7,280
8,400
11,100
Averaq
Rate
m-Vs
48
112
153
22
13
26
232
25
64
35
32
42
105
164
328
408
665
739
934
ftj/s
1,680
3,970
5,400
780
460
910
8,200
880
2,250
1,220
1,130
1,490
3,700
5,780
11,600
14,400
23,500
26,100
33,000
e annual runoff
Vol
10b m3/yr
1,500
3,540
4,820
700
410
810
7,330
790
2,010
1,090
1,010
1,330
3,310
5,160
10,400
12,800
21,000
23,300
29,500
ume
acre-foot/yr
1,220,000
2,870,000
3,910,000
565,000
333,000
659,000
5,940,000
637,000
1,630,000
883,000
818,000
1,080,000
2,680,000
4,180,000
8,400,000
10,400,000
17,000,000
18,900,000
23,900,000
Data are for the period 1928-1963 from reference 2. For tributaries, gaging stations nearest
the Willamette River are used. Some reported values are approximate.
-------
interspersed with farming on the valley floor and foothills. Almost
half of the basin land area is in public ownership (federal, state,
county, municipal).
The economic development of the Willamette Basin is oriented to its
natural resources. The basin is a major center for agriculture, timber
production, food processing industries, including canneries, and forest
products industries, including pulp and paper mills. Business, commerce,
government, and learning are significant to the basin economy. Recrea-
tional activities are a major facet of basin life and are oriented to
fish and wildlife, water sports and out-of-doors activities in the for-
ests and mountains.
Extensive forests cover the majority of the Willamette Basin except
on the valley floor. Elevation is the principal determinant of vegeta-
tion zones. The valley zone below the 300 m (1,000 ft) elevation level
has been extensively converted to agricultural and urban uses. However,
scattered forest stands of softwoods and hardwoods occur, including
Douglas-fir, cottonwood, alder, Oregon ash, bigleaf maple and white
oak.4 The principal forest zone lies between 300 m (1,000 ft) and 1200
m (4,000 ft) elevations, where much of the timber resource is harvested.
Extensive pure stands of Douglas-fir predominate over western hemlock,
western red cedar and the true firs. The upper slope forest zone, be-
tween 900 m (3,000 ft) and 1,800 m (6,000 ft) elevations and marked by
precipitation ranging from 2.3 m (90 in) to 3.6 m (140 in) annually, is
primarily commercial forest. The predominant stands are true firs and
mountain hemlocks.4 Meadows, lakes, and rock outcrops are frequent in
this zone. The subalpine forest zone above 1,500 m (5,000 ft) of eleva-
tion has a very short growing season (30 days). Subalpine firs, moun-
tain hemlock, white-bark pine, and ground juniper are the principal tree
species. Tree stands are scattered and mixed with meadows, barren areas
and lakes.
Timber-based industries in the Willamette Basin are oriented to the
unique character of Douglas-fir stands found in western Oregon and west-
ern Washington.4 Climatic influences have provided an environment which
allows a Douglas-fir vegetative system to provide large growth of rela-
tively uniform size and age in particular stands. To sustain this tim-
ber resource, a harvesting pattern of patchcutting and clearcutting has
been adopted which is highly efficient for commercial extraction.
The temperate, climate, abundant water, and fertile soil with broad
capabilities have made agriculture the second most important use of land
resources in the Willamette Basin after timber harvesting. On the val-
ley floor, timber stands were removed by early habitants to provide
needed space for farming. About 11,000 km2 (4,400 mi2) are suitable for
cultivation, with 8,800 km2 (3,400 mi'2) presently used and the remainder
forested or in urban use.4 Soil capabilities to produce crops over long
17
-------
periods vary. About half of the suitable land exhibits excessive wet-
ness due to high water tables, poor internal drainage characteristics of
the soil, inadequate drainage outlets, or overflow conditions. This has
required crop adaptation and limits productive yields.
Principal crops include grass seed crops, the growth of which is
well adapted to land wetness problems. A substantial livestock industry
is supported by improved hay and pasture lands. Grain crops, chiefly
wheat and barley are grown. The grain and grass crops support the live-
stock industry during winter months. Fruit and vegetable crops are
quite important, among these snap beans, sweet corn and filberts supply
a significant fraction of the nation's needs.
Mineral production in the Willamette Basin is not extensive, about
$20 million annually.4 Most of the production focuses on sand, gravel,
stone and cement for the construction industry. A great deal of the
sand-and-gravel needs have been met from streambeds and adjacent former
channels of the valley streams. Production of metallic minerals has
been mainly limited to mercury, gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc.
The total value of all such production is relatively small ($3 million
since 1900).
Fish and wildlife resources in the Willamette Basin take on a sig-
nificance far beyond economic importance. This has been attributed to
"the pioneer heritage, which orients the Willamette resident to his
natural environment" and "has remained as a part of the regional charac-
ter" with fish and wildlife resources "one of the threads of the total
environment that makes the Willamette Basin a desirable place to live".4
Resident fish abound in the streams, lakes and reservoirs of the
basin. The Willamette main-stem is a migration route for a growing
anadromous fish population. Wildlife species are numerous in the basin,
both in lowland and upland zones. The Pacific Flyway, a major route for
migratory birds, depends upon the Willamette Basin both for migrating
and for wintering populations. Lowland streams, lakes, reservoirs, and
wetlands are essential for resting and feeding areas.4
STORAGE RESERVOIRS
Thirty nine reservoirs in the Willamette Basin have usable storage
capacities of 370,000 m3 (300 acre-feet) or more. The larger reservoirs
tend to be federal and the smaller ones privately or municipally owned.
The present federal development of Willamette Basin water resources
includes 13 Corps of Engineers (C of E) dams and reservoirs. Ten of
these function as storage projects and three serve as reregulating sys-
tems to dampen out the streamflow fluctuations caused by hydroelectric
18
-------
power production at dams immediately upstream. The 10 storage reser-
voirs are (from north to south in the basin): Detroit, Green Peter,
Blue River, Cougar, Fern Ridge, Fall Creek, Lookout Point, Hills Creek,
Dorena, and Cottage Grove. The 3 reregulating reservoirs--Big Cliff,
Foster, and Dexter--are just downstream of Detroit, Green Peter, and
Lookout Point, respectively.
The locations of these reservoirs and several private and municipal
reservoirs for industrial and power storage in the Willamette Basin are
shown in Figure 3. The reservoirs are numbered by order of size
(largest = 1) and are described in Table 2. Most are situated in foot-
hill portions of the Cascade Range. Fern Ridge Reservoir is the only
"valley floor" project. All reservoirs have similar hydrologic and cli-
matic settings. The watersheds have differing soils and geologic forma-
tions.
The hydrologic characteristics of the basin allow most of the flood
control storage allocation at reservoirs to be used, outside of the win-
ter flood season, for conservation storage and use. Storing normally
occurs between February and May. Storage releases for navigation are
designed to provide adequate water for the deep-draft navigation channel
from the mouth of the Willamette upstream through Portland, for the
shallow-draft navigation lock at Willamette Falls (first built in 1873),
and for a shallow-draft channel from the falls upstream to the Albany-
Corvallis area. Storage releases for irrigation occur throughout the
growing season. Separate storage allocations for exclusive power use
are included at several reservoirs. The basin power requirements exceed
tn-basin generating capacity and hydroelectric generation is required
year-around. In late autumn of dry years, additional drafting of some
federal reservoirs may be required to supplement hydroelectric genera-
tion on the Columbia River. While recreation is not an authorized pur-
pose for most storage projects in the Willamette Basin, it is in fact a
significant summer activity and reservoirs are operated to accommodate
recreational interests as much as possible. Municipal and industrial
storage reservoirs are commonly smaller than 1,000,000 m3 (1,000 acre-
ft) and divert water into pipeline transmission systems for delivery to
the user areas.
DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES
Principal urban centers are Metropolitan Portland, Salem, Corvallis-
Albany, and Eugene-Springfield. These and smaller towns and communities
are surrounded by agricultural and forested lands so as to maintain ves-
tiges of rural setting. Transportation corridors for highways and rail-
roads provide essential links and weave the communities together.
Three-fourths of the basin residents live in urban areas; most live
within 20 km of the Willamette River.4
19
-------
Table 2.
to
o
STORAGE RESERVOIRS IN THE WILLAMETTE BASIN WITH 1 MILLION CUBIC
METERS OR MORE OF USABLE STORAGEa
Rank Reservoir name
1 Lookout Point
2 Detroit
3 Green Peter
4 Hills Creek
5 Cougar
6 Fall Creek
7 Fern Ridge
8 Blue River
9 Dorena
10 Timothy Lake
11 Foster
12 Cottage Grove
13 Smith
14 North Fork
1 5 Dexter
16 Trail Bridge
17 Big Cliff
18 Dallas
Stream
Mid Fork Willamette R.
N. Santiam R.
Mid Santiam R.
Mid Fork Willamette R.
S. Fork McKenzie R.
Fall Cr.
Long Tom R.
Blue R.
Row R.
Oak Grove Fork
S. Santiam R.
Coast Fk Willamette R.
Smith R.
Clackamas R.
Mid Fork Willamette R.
McKenzie R.
N. Santiam R.
Rickreall Cr.
Operator
C of E
C of E
C of E
C of E
C of E
C of E
C of E
C of E
C of E
PG^
C of E
C of E
EWEB
PGE
C of E
EWEB
C of E
Dallas
Year
placed in
operation
1954
1953
1966
1961
1963
1965
1941
1968
1949
1956
1966
1942
1963
1958
1954
1963
1953
1960
Usable storage
106m3
431
420
411
307
204
142
136
105
87
76
41
38
12
7
6
3
3
1
Acre ft
349,400
340,000
333,000
249,000
165,100
115,000
110,000
85,000
70,500
61 ,650
33,600
30,600
9,900
6,000
4,800
2,750
2,430
1,200
Authorized
purposes0
FC, N, I, P
FC, N, I, P
FC, N, I, P
FC, N, I, P
FC, N, I, P
FC, N, I
FC, N, I
FC, N, I
FC, N, I
P, R
FC, P
FC, N, I
P
P, R
P
P
P
MSI
a Data Sources: References 2, 4, and 5.
!? C of E=Corps of Engineers; PGE-Portland General Electric; EWEB=Eugene Water & Electric Board;
Dallas=City of Dallas.
c FC*f1ood control; ^navigation; I=irrigation; P-power; R
All existing Federal reservoirs are used for recreation,
recreation; M&I=mun1cipal & Industrial,
even though not so authorized.
-------
The 1970 population of the Willamette Basin is estimated to be 1.4
million.6 Its distribution within the basin among population centers is
shown in Figure 4 and in Table 3. The overall population density in the
central and southern part of the basin is about 25 persons per square
kilometer, with maximums of about 1,200 persons per square kilometer in
the largest urban centers. The overall population density in the
northern quarter of the basin is about 120 persons per square kilometer
(adapted from reference 4).
WATER SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT
Municipal water in the basin was provided by 78 developments in
1965. About half of these systems, serving 10% of the basin population,
were based on ground water sources.4 About 80% of the municipally-
served population obtained their water from the Portland, Eugene, Salem
and Coryallis surface water systems. Of these four areas, only Corval-
lis relies heavily on Willamette River water for the large summer de-
mands; the others obtaining all or most of their supplies from water-
sheds or large tributaries of the Willamette (Bull Run Watershed,
McKenzie River, Santiam River, for Portland, Eugene, and Salem, respec-
tively). Con/all is obtains part of its supply from a municipal water-
shed also.
Rural domestic water supplies are primarily obtained from ground
water sources.
Industrial water demands are met both from municipal systems and
from independent sources. Food processing and pulp-and-paper manufac-
turing represent the most significant industrial water demands in the
valley; the former industry is mainly supplied by municipal systems
while the latter industry is almost entirely self-supplied.4 indepen-
dent industrial systems rely both on surface water and ground water for
their supply.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
As of 1974 there were 130 municipal and 72 industrial wastewater
dischargers operating in the Willamette Basin. While many of the
smaller facilities are located on tributaries, the majority of the
wastewater effluent, after treatment, is released to the main-stem
Willamette River.
The principal operating municipal and industrial wastewater treat-
ment facilities are listed in Table 4. Their locations are shown in
Figure 5.
21
-------
1965 POPULATION,
NUMBER OF PEOPLE
500 •
10,000
50,000
Figure 4. Population centers in the
Willamette Basin.
22
-------
Table 3. POPULATION CENTERS IN THE WILLAMETTE BASIN3
_
Population center population
Portland 379,967
Eugene 79,028
Salem 68,480
Corvallis 35,056
Springfield 26,874
Beaverton 18»577
Albany 18,181
Milwaukie 16,444
Hillsboro 15,372
Lake Oswego 14,615
Estimated basin population 1,400,000
a Source: reference 6.
23
-------
Table 4. PRINCIPAL WILLAMETTE BASIN MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN 1974.
Municipal facilities
1. Portland-Columbia Boulevard
2. St. Helens
3 . Sal em
4. Eugene
5. Albany
6. Corvallis
7. Springfield
8. Portland - Tryon Creek
9. Fanno Creek
10. Oak lodge
11. Hillsboro - West
12. Oregon City
13. Milwaukie
14. Beaverton
15. Gresham
16. Metzger
17. Forest Grove
18. McMinnville
19. Sunset Valley
20. Lebanon
Industrial facilities
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
0.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
Wan Chang, Albany
Rhodia, Portland
Pennwalt, Portland
Evans Products, Corvallis
Boise Cascade, Salem
Publishers Paper, Oregon City
Publishers Paper, Newberg
Crown Zellerbach, Lebanon
Weyerhauser, Springfield
Western Kraft, Albany
Crown Zellerbach, West Linn
American Can, Halsey
Kaiser Gypsum, St. Helens
Stimson Timber, Forest Grove
Boise Cascade, St. Helens
Oregon Metallurgical, Albany
Union Carbide, Portland
General Foods, Woodburn
Tektronix, Beaverton
Pacific Carbide & Alloys,
Portland
24
-------
N
LOCATION MAP
SCALE
0 20 40
kilometers
MUNICIPAL FACILITY
DA INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
Figure 5. Principal Willamette Basin municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment facilities in 1974.
25
-------
SECTION V
THE STRATEGY USED TO CLEAN UP THE WILLAMETTE
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The term "strategy" finds relatively little use in legislation
establishing and regulating the functions of agencies which serve the
public. Its use is equally scarce in agency statements of mission,
program, and goals. However, the word is becoming more common in
present-day environmental planning. To describe the "clean-up" strategy
used for the Willamette River, several terms must first be defined.
Strategies for water quality planning and decision-making are here
considered to be the concepts and procedures followed in the comprehen-
sive employment of available resources to accomplish set goals. Tactics
are here considered to be the processes, methods, and maneuvers followed
for the immediate or local employment of resources to accomplish ele-
ments of the set goals. Tactical plans and actions are subordinate to
strategic plans and strategic plans are limited by tactical capabilities.
A mission is here considered to be the business with which an
agency is charged or the orientation that provides focus for the agen-
cy's efforts. Thus an agency may have a developmental, regulatory, or
protective mission. A goal is construed to be a statement of purpose,
aim, or aspiration describing the end that the agency strives to attain;
the end toward which agency effort is directed. A goal is describable
at various levels of generality; its attainment is therefore often
difficult to judge. An objective is a translation of a goal into a more
specific, operational statement with a definite target, the attainment
of which is much more readily judged. In translating a broader goal
into more specific terms it may be necessary to describe several objec-
tives so that essential, unexpressed elements of the goal are retained
(i.e., several objectives may be consistent with a single goal). Ob-
jectives are associated with goals. Guidelines are here considered to
be an agency's stated suggestions and recommendations for ways in which
objectives can be met. Guidelines are normally expected to be followed
unless deviations from the guidelines are justifiable. Principles are
the ethics and rules that dictate how an agency will act and conduct
itself on particular matters. Policies are guiding principles on which
an agency is assumed to base a course of action that will lead toward
achieving a goal or objective. Therefore, principles, particularly
guiding principles (policies) must be consistent with established goals
and objectives.
26
-------
Tactics, then, are the actions taken by an agency in order to meet
its functional objectives. Strategies, on the other hand, are more
closely related to the translation of agency mission into accomplishable
goals. Strategies derive from the formulation of approaches by which
the goals (and hence the mission) of the agency can be met. Policies
and principles express the conduct that the agency itself expects to
follow in carrying out its strategies and tactics to fulfill goals and
objectives. Guidelines express the non-compulsory conduct that the
agency expects others to follow in order to assist the agency in carry-
ing out its strategies and tactics to fulfill goals and objectives.
THE SEARCH FOR AN APPROACH TO POLLUTION CONTROL
The history of efforts to improve water quality in the Willamette
River is given an excellent, detailed review by Gleeson7 in "The Return
of a River". Much of this work was given broad national exposure in
"The Fourth Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality".8 A
few salient points are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Awareness of the deplorable water quality in the Willamette River
and an outcry to do something about the problem came early in the 1900's,
principally from aroused citizens, the Oregon State Board of Health
(created in 1903), and the U. S. Public Health Service. Chemical analy-
ses of Willamette River water were first made in 1910. Laws related to
pollution were adopted by the State as early as 1919 but were ineffec-
tual in dealing with the pollution problems of the Willamette River.
The 1920's and 1930's provided the first extensive field surveys and
tests to determine the sources and severity of river pollution, with
numerous reports presented. The number of advocates of pollution abate-
ment grew during this period. The period ended with the passage of an
initiative measure by the people in 1938, creating the Oregon State
Sanitary Authority (OSSA). This Authority initiated its pollution
abatement efforts in 1939. However, the program was delayed by World
War II. Further detailed studies of river pollution were conducted by
OSSA from 1944 onward and documented the worsening condition of the
river through the 1950's. The absolute pollution load of the Willamette
River probably was greatest by the late 1950's and early 1960's, accord-
ing to indirect measures such as dissolved oxygen level (DO) and biolo-
gical oxygen demand (BOD) of the river water.
Until 1935, there was nothing approaching a pollution control
strategy for the Willamette River. In that year, a Stream Purification
Committee under the Oregon State Planning Board was created to study,
among other topics, the Oregon Law dealing with stream pollution.7 It
was found that existing laws were unrelated, uncoordinated, lacking in
direct responsibility for enforcement, overlapping and duplicating, too
drastic in their penal sections, probably unconstitutional in some
sections, impractical of enforcement, lacking in proper delegation of
administrative powers, lacking in direct control over municipalities,
and impossible as regards progressive, amelioratory regulation. From a
27
-------
subsequent review of statutes known to be effective elsewhere, 17 "prin-
ciples" were set out that should be embodied in effective anti-pollution
legislation.
Thus, by 1938 a framework for an approach to pollution control
existed on paper.
Meanwhile, the press of events led to the initiative measure
creating the OSSA. With passage, an agency was born that was to lead
the way in abating the pollution of the Willamette River.
A STATE AGENCY FOR WATER QUALITY CONTROL
Passage of the "Water Purification and Prevention of Pollution Bill"
in the 1938 election created the State Sanitary Authority as a division
within the Oregon State Board of Health. OSSA consisted of six members:
the State Health Officer, the State Engineer, the Chairman of the Fish
Commission, and three members appointed by the Governor, one from each
of Oregon's three Congressional districts.
OSSA was organized in February 1939. However, funding was insuf-
ficient at first to allow the employment of adequate staff personnel to
carry out fully the program specified by the 1938 act. With time the
engineering staff grew, although initially considerable reliance had to
be placed on voluntary cooperation with others in order to develop the
Authority's program. OSSA's administration functions were enlarged in
1959 to include the State's air quality control program.
Over the years, OSSA evolved the standards of quality for the pub-
lic waters of the State from the base established in 1938. During this
period, numerous changes in the laws were made to update and strengthen
the State program of water quality control.
The Oregon Legislature, on July 1, 1969, replaced the then-existing
State Sanitary Authority with the newly created Department of Environ-
mental Quality (DEQ), separate from the OSBH. The DEQ consists of an
Environmental Quality Commission, a Director, and professional and sup-
port staff. The five lay Commission members are appointed by the
Governor, subject to confirmation by the State Senate. The Commission
"establishes policy for guidance of the director and staff, reviews and
confirms or modified staff actions, adopts rules and regulations, issues
orders and authorizes and directs legal enforcement actions".'
28
-------
A STATE POLICY ON WATER POLLUTION
Oregon's first comprehensive pollution control policy was expressed
by the water quality control laws passed in 1938. These laws were sub-
stantially modified by the State Legislature in 1961 and further changed
at each succeeding legislative session. In 1967 these laws were comp-
letely rewritten and greatly strengthened. In addition, the standards
and programs of the OSSA and DEQ have likewise been dynamic (rather than
static) in the sense of changing to meet the altered conditions encoun-
tered over the years.
The present policy of the State,10 as embodied in Oregon Revised
Statutes (ORS) Chapter 449 Section 077, first recognizes that "the
pollution of the waters of this state constitutes a menace to public
health and welfare, creates public nuisances, is harmful to wildlife,
fish and aquatic life and impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial,
recreational and other legitimate beneficial uses of water" and that
"the problem of water pollution in this state is closely related to the
problem of water pollution in adjoining states." It is then "declared
to be the public policy of the state to:
- conserve the waters of the state;
- protect, maintain, and- improve the quality thereof for public
water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and
aquatic life and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, muni-
cipal, recreational and other legitimate beneficial uses;
- to provide that no waste be discharged into any waters of this
state without first receiving the necessary treatment or other
corrective action to protect the legitimate beneficial uses of
such waters;
- to provide for the prevention, abatement, and control of new or
existing water pollution;
- to cooperate with other agencies of the state, agencies of
other states and the Federal Government in carrying out those
objectives."
The original state policy, established in ORS 449.077 in 1938 and
only slightly revised 23 years later by action of the state legislature
in 1961, was a considerably more general statement. It reflected the
concern of the state and the need for standards of purity but did not
mention the specific strategy which later evolved. This strategy is
referred to in the present policy with the words "first receiving the
necessary treatment or corrective action". The original policy, with
slight revision in 1961,11 was to:
"(a) Maintain reasonable standards of purity of the water of all
rivers, streams, lakes, watersheds and the coastal areas of
the state consistent with the protection and conservation of
the public health, recreational enjoyment of the people,
the economic and industrial development of the state,
29
-------
and for the protection of human life and property and con-
servation of plant, aquatic, and animal life.
(b) Foster and encourage the cooperation of the people, indus-
tries, incorporated cities and towns and counties in pre-
venting and controlling the pollution of those waters."
Most significantly, the original 1938 act provided a flexible
framework to implement the expressed state policy, a framework which
could be modified and updated over time to assure reasonable water
purity as conditions in the Willamette Basin changed over the years.
This framework to carry out the goals and objectives was embodied in
ORS 449.086, which gave the Commission of the OSSA the authority to
establish standards of water quality and purity. Hearing procedures
were established and responsibility for compliance with standards was
clearly stated.
The standards of water quality which the OSSA (and later the DEQ)
was to establish, maintain and upgrade thus became the mechanism for the
state to achieve pollution abatement. The standards provided a frame-
work against which to judge if pollution abatement was in fact being
achieved. They could therefore be used as the means of supporting a
pollution control strategy and giving guidance as to the necessary
tactics to undertake in order to assure the success of that strategy.
A POLLUTION CONTROL STRATEGY: STANDARDS OF WATER QUALITY AND AT-SOURCE
WASTE TREATMENT
The translation of state policy and OSSA mission into accomplish-
able goals required some type of strategy or guiding course of action.
The nature of the strategy had been expressed in the original 1938 act:
"...maintain reasonable standards of purity of the water..."
In effect, the water pollution control strategy used by the State
of Oregon has been to establish and maintain effective standards of
quality and purity for the waters of the state and to require appropri-
ate measures of at-source wastewater treatment so that these standards
will be met.
The statutory authority of ORS 449.086 permitted OSSA (later DEQ)
to issue Administrative Orders concerning these water quality standards.
In 1947 OSSA adopted regulation I entitled "Standards of Purity for
Waters of the State of Oregon and General Requirements for the Disposal
Therein of Sewage and Industrial Waste". These standards were published
under Chapter 340, Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). In addition to the
"Standards" in OAR, Subdivisions of Chapter 340 now include consideration
of sewage and waste treatment plant operation, disposal of industrial
30
-------
wastes, construction and use of waste disposal wells, regulations per-
taining to waste discharge permits, and state financial assistance to
public agencies for construction of pollution control facilities.12
The essence of the current water quality standards is to: (a) re-
quire the highest and best practicable treatment and control of waste-
water; (b) place restrictions on the discharge of sewage and industrial
wastes and human activities that affect water quality; (c) maintain the
standards of water quality; (d) implement treatment requirements; (e)
specify general water quality standards that apply to all State waters;
and (f) delineate special water quality standards designed to protect
beneficial water uses in specifically designated waters.
The general water quality standards prohibit the discharge of
wastes or the conduct of activities which either alone or in combination
with other wastes or activities cause effects which deviate from the
established criteria. The criteria applicable to surface waters address:
dissolved oxygen concentrations; hydrogen ion concentrations; liberation
of dissolved gases; fungi and other growths; creation of tastes, odors,
toxic or other undesirable conditions; formation of bottom deposits,
sludge deposits or other organic or inorganic deposits; objectionable
discolorations, turbidity, scum, oily slicks or floating solids; bacter-
ial pollution; temperature increases; offensive aesthetic conditions;
and radioisotope concentrations.
Special water quality standards that go beyond the general stan-
dards have been applied to several rivers, including the Willamette and
some of its tributaries. These set more stringent criteria for measur-
ing dissolved oxygen, Coliform organisms, turbidity, temperature, and
dissolved chemical substances.
The water pollution control strategy required that compliance be
made with the established standards by appropriate means of controlling
waste discharges and related activities at their sources. However, in
order to determine what those means might be (i.e., to evolve the tac-
tics that would allow accomplishment of the strategy) it was necessary
to measure the condition of the river in comparison with the criteria
for desirable water quality. Therefore, the irregular river sampling,
carried out in the early 1900's to determine the poor condition of the
river, had to be changed in emphasis. Problem areas had to be better
pinpointed along the river and the relative influences of various types
of waste discharges upon the river condition better understood. This
called for routine river sampling. More recently, continuous monitoring
was instituted by means of which compliance with the water quality stan-
dards could be checked, verification could be made that waste discharges
complied with permits regulating those discharges, and violations of the
standards could be recognized for enforcement purposes.
31
-------
Determination of the appropriate measures to accomplish at-source
wastewater treatment required an evolutionary period of almost three
decades. In effect, this part of the pollution control strategy consis-
ted of a sequence of try-and-see tactics, each going one step further in
at-source wastewater treatment, followed by a period of observation of
the river condition in order to discover the degree of water quality
improvement brought about by the particular tactic. Unfortunately, as
far as such an approach was concerned, the Basin population, industrial
base and wastewater characteristics did not remain static during the
intervening years. Thus, tactics overlapped whenever it became clear
that those currently being tried were not closing the "pollution gap"
rapidly enough. Consequently, the effectiveness of individual tactics
was not always directly measurable.
POLLUTION CONTROL TACTICS: ACTION UNDER THE STRATEGY
The early river sampling surveys had shown water pollution to be
severe downstream from the effluent discharges of municipalities along
the mainstem Willamette River. Consequently, as the newly formed OSSA
began to gather better data on the river's waste loads and water quality
there was already enough factual information to form the basis for some
immediate actions. Thus, in 1939 the first of over a half-dozen dis-
tinct, overlapping tactics was initiated as the OSSA began the "game of
catchrup" on Willamette River water quality which was to last for over
three decades, until the early 1970's.
Tactic 1: Primary Wastewater Treatment for Mainstem Municipalities
One of OSSA's first actions when its program was started in 1939
was to notify all municipalities and industries of their responsibility
under the new law to install adequate sewage and waste treatment facil-
ities.11 OSSA adopted a regulation which included provision for a mini-
mum dissolved oxygen content of 5 parts per million (PPM) or milligrams/
liter (mg/1). It was thought that the early standards of water quality
adopted by OSSA could be met if most of the municipalities on the main
stem of the Willamette River undertook primary treatment of wastes,
followed by effluent chlorination. Primary treatment was considered to
mean the removal of not less than 35% of the average 5-day BOD and at
least 55% of the suspended solids. Therefore, Tactic 1 was to require
mainstem Willamette municipalities to install primary treatment of
wastes.
In response to instructions from OSSA, municipalities began in the
1940's to plan for the installation of the necessary treatment facili-
ties. The first compliance with this tactic was in 1949, when primary
treatment plants were completed at two cities. By 1957 all municipalities
32
-------
on the main stem of the Willamette River except Portland had complied
with the original directive. Portland, with its numerous outfalls for
raw wastes, had intercepted most of these outfalls and was providing
primary treatment of the intercepted wastes before discharging them
directly to the Columbia River, where much greater dilution flows were
available.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of this tactic was facilitated when
OSSA began routine river sampling in 1950. Periodic surveys were also
conducted on a more comprehensive scale. The first comprehensive OSSA
survey, in the summer and fall of 1957, showed that the degree of treat-
ment in effect at that time was still insufficient to meet the water
quality standards.11
Tactic 2: Sulfite Waste Liquor Control by Pulp-and-Paper Mills on the
Willamette.
The second tactic was directed toward control of industrial waste-
water discharges from the sizeable pulp-and-paper firms located on the
Willamette River. Prior to a public hearing in early 1950, little had
been accomplished toward abating pollution from such sources. Sulfite
waste liquors entering the river from pulp-and-paper mills between Salem
and Portland were reportedly responsible for about 84% of the total pol-
lution load in the river (based on oxygen demand), exclusive of pollu-
tant loads from tributary streams and the city of Portland.H
An order was issued by OSSA in May 1950 that the pulp-and-paper
mills, by May 1952, cease discharging concentrated sulfite waste
liquor into the main Willamette River during July, August, September,
and October of each year and at all other times when the Willamette
River flow at Salem was less than 200m3/s (7,000 cfs). An analogous
directive applied to a mill responsible for about 91% of the oxygen de-
mand on the South Santiam River.
Therefore, Tactic 2 was to require that particular pulp-and-paper
industry wastes that exerted a large oxygen demand be held from the
river during those low-flow periods when such a demand could be most
deleterious to the river.
In response to this order, the several mills developed plans for
special treatment and disposal facilities. The facilities developed
included evaporative concentration followed by either burning or spray
drying for by-product recovery, impoundment for later release during
periods of higher streamflow, and barging of concentrated spent sulfite
liquor to the Columbia River for disposal.
33
-------
The 1957 comprehensive survey of river pollution sources showed
that wastes from the sulfite pulp-and-paper mills still represented
about 64% of the total oxygen demand of all pollution loads discharged
to the Willamette and its major tributaries.
Tactic 3; Selective Secondary Treatment and Accelerated Progress in
Primary Treatment
Considerable progress in primary treatment had been made by 1957.
In spite of this, certain stretches of the Willamette River fell far
short of desirable water quality. The continued increase of population
and expansion of industry, together with urban growth that outstripped
efforts to provide adequate sewerage facilities, all contributed to the
continuation of pollution problems.
The unsatisfactory condition of the Willamette River shown by the
1957 survey led to decisions by OSSA in 1958 which are here represented
as tactic 3. These included instructions to the cities of Eugene,
Salem and Newberg (each with high industrial waste loadings) to install
secondary sewage treatment facilities, the city of Portland to accel-
erate its program for intercepting and treating raw wastes, and the
pulp-and-paper mills to further reduce their pollution loads.
Eugene was able to comply by 1961. Progress for the other cities
was slower. Public hearings had to be held, the outcome of which was
to set deadlines for compliance with the directive in some instances and
a court complaint against Portland which was only dropped after an
election vote in 1960 to finance new construction.11
Tactic 4: Secondary Treatment for All Lower-Willamette Municipalities
Close on the heels of tactic 3, tactic 4 was implemented in 1960
following a public hearing. The new directive was that all municipal-
ities along the lower Willamette River from Salem downstream were to
construct secondary treatment facilities.
The momentum favoring construction of wastewater treatment facil-
ities was showing results. By 1965 compliance with this tactic was
essentially complete except for the lower river in Portland, where some
raw waste outfalls had not yet been intercepted.
Assessment in 1964
The pollutant load imposed upon the Willamette River appears to
have reached its peak in the late 1950's and early 1960's, dependent
34
-------
upon which data are used and location along the river. The 1964 OSSA
report on water quality and waste treatment needs for the Willamette
utilized prediction curves and procedures developed by Velz for the
pulp-and-paper industry to calculate waste treatment requirements to
meet the established water quality standards. The OSSA concluded from
Velz's work that minimum removals of 85% BODs and settleable solids were
required so as to prevent oxygen depletion and sludge deposits in the
river. Effluent chlorination continued to be essential. Further, it
was determined that any significant increases in waste loads would re-
quire even greater reductions of oxygen demanding substances and
settleable solids if acceptable water quality in the Willamette River
was to be achieved and maintained. In spite of all the municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment facilities installed by 1963, the water
quality of the Willamette River "was still considerably below the
standards set by the Sanitary Authority".H
Tactic 5: General Secondary Treatment and Year-Around Primary Treat-
ment at Pulp Mills
The assessment of Willamette water quality in 1964 by OSSA resulted
in tactic 5. This required: (a) year-around primary sedimentation or
equivalent treatment for removal of settleable solids for all industrial
wastes from each pulp-and-paper mill; (b) the additional requirement at
each sulfite pulp-and-paper billjduring the period of critical river
flow from June to October, inclusive, for an overall reduction of 85% in
BOD loadings of effluents from the entire mill; (c) a minimum of secon-
dary treatment, or equivalent, from all other sewage or waste effluents
to provide not less than 85% BOD removal and to include chlorination for
sewage effluents; (d) an even higher degree of sewage and industrial
waste treatment in some cases (depending on size and nature of waste
load and receiving stream); and (e) a deadline of December 1, 1966, to
install the needed treatment facilities.
Although the December 1966 deadline was not met by all of the
affected companies, sufficient progress was made so that in 1967 a sig-
nificant change in Oregon's water quality control laws was made which
changed the emphasis from pollution abatement to pollution prevention
and water quality enhancement.9 The signs pointed to successful
achievement of the pollution control strategy within the near future.
There remained, however, several measures or tactics to implement in
order to assure the success of this strategy.
35
-------
Tactic 6: Secondary Treatment Established as Minimum Level
As a modification of tactic 5, tactic 6 was established in 1967
requiring all wastewater discharged into any of Oregon's public waters
to receive a minimum of secondary treatment. Provision was made that
levels higher than conventional secondary treatment might be required,
in which case the standards would include specific treatment require-
ments and effluent limits. Year-around secondary treatment for Willam-
ette Basin dischargers was scheduled to be in effect prior to the 1972
low-flow season.9
Tactic 7: Specific Waste Discharge Permits
Another significant tactic to promote and protect the pollution
control strategy was the introduction in 1968 of the waste discharge
permit, required for any wastes discharged into the public waters of the
state. The permits contain definite limitations on quantities and
strengths of wastes that could be discharged. Characteristically,
numerical limits are included on pounds of BOD and suspended solids, pH,
bacteria, temperature, color, turbidity, and toxic elements. In cases
where treatment or control is inadequate at the time of permit applica-
tion, a specific, detailed program and timetable to achieve fully ade-
quate treatment is included in the permit.9
By 1968, all major and many minor point-source waste discharges had
been identified. The permits provided OSSA (and now DEQ) with an effec-
tive mechanism to inventory al]_ waste discharges to state waters. These
permits also provide an effective means of regulation of the waste load
entering these waters over time.
Supporting Tactics
While seven specific actions to achieve the pollution control
strategy have been identified and even given a chronological number,
many supporting actions and tactics have also been used by OSSA and,
since July 1969, by DEQ to achieve water quality control.9 These in-
clude:
-promotion of the idea of water pollution control;
-promotion of the installation of public sewer systems and waste-
water treatment and control facilities;
-review and approval of plans and specifications for all wastewater
treatment and disposal projects;
-stream monitoring for pollution control;
-comprehensive stream surveys to study pollution problems;
-inspection and efficiency tests of wastewater treatment plants;
36
-------
-training of wastewater treatment plant operators and staff;
-separation of storm and sanitary sewer waters to reduce treatment
plant loads and prevent bypassing of sewage flows at times of
high runoff;
-basic data collection on water quality;
-investigation of complaints and holding of public hearings;
-enforcement of the pollution control laws, regulations, and per-
mit conditions;
-processing of applications for Federal and State sewage works
construction grants;
-State construction grants program for sewage works;
-certification of industrial waste control facilities for tax
credits; and
-a tax relief program.
Results of the Strategy and Tactics
The pollution control strategy of establishing standards of water
quality and requiring appropriate measures of at-source wastewater treat-
ment to meet these standards was supported by numerous tactics and
related actions. By 1970 it was apparent that the strategy was
achieving success, even though the full effects of some then-ongoing
tactics were not yet evident. The municipal and industrial waste loads
entering the Willamette River had been drastically cut in terms of ab-
solute amounts. While waste concentrations tended to be influenced by
the degree of summer augmentation of river flow from reservoir storage,
the absolute loading directly demonstrated that river pollution had been
controlled and reduced. Municipal waste discharges (including indus-
trial waste components) during the 1970 low river flow season were re-
duced 89% on an overall basis and industrial waste discharges were re-
duced 86% overall.9 Both the municipalities and the industries of the
Willamette Basin have been assigned essentially fixed limits of BOD dis-
charges by the DEQ, so that future growth and development must be accom-
panied by increased treatment efficiency with no increase of the waste
load entering the river.
RELATED FEDERAL STRATEGIES AND TACTICS
Passage of PL 80-845, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, by
the U. S. Congress in 1948 drew the Federal government into post-war
pollution control planning in the Willamette Basin. The Federal stra-
tegy at that time appears to have been one of stimulating cooperative
action among Federal, state, local and private groups to formulate com-
prehensive programs for water pollution control that would conserve a
broad range of beneficial uses on interstate waters and their tribu-
taries. One result of this act was a report by the U. S. Public Health
37
-------
Service, in cooperation with OSSA, on water pollution control in the
Willamette Basin. This report, based on data available in 1950, was
intended as a reference point for measuring future progress in pollution
control and as a basis for developing comprehensive plans and financial
assistance programs.14
A critical constraint upon the rate of progress in solving the
pollution problems in the Willamette River was the limitation of ade-
quate financing for sewerage and sewage treatment facilities. Voter
approval was required to finance the majority of such community projects.
Financing came from borrowed money obtained through the sale of general
obligation bonds, direct property assessments, and sinking funds accumu-
lated by special tax levies or sewer rental charges. Private industry
financed its waste control from internally derived funds. Prior to
1956, no Federal assistance programs were available to influence the
pace of water pollution control for the Willamette River.
In July 1956 Congress passed Public Law 84-660, the 1956 Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, which included a ten-year program of
financial assistance to communities for construction of sewage treat-
ment works. This covered only a portion of the total costs, but en-
couraged and extended the effectiveness of state and local funding. In
Oregon, the OSSA had responsibility for reviewing and approving appli-
cations for grants and for assigning project priorities based on
financial and water pollution control needs. The 1956 act was amended
in 1961 and 1965 to increase the appropriations for construction of
wastewater treatment facilities and to extend the period of the program.
During the 1960's, other Federal grant programs came into being to
finance the construction of sewer systems and sewage treatment facili-
ties. These required cost-sharing by state and local participants. As
with the Water Pollution Control Act, these programs significantly aided
in spreading the financial burden and stimulating new construction.
The 1956 Federal Water Pollution Control Act and its subsequent
amendments provided for comprehensive water pollution control programs,
including a review of the water quality control benefits of proposed
Federal reservoirs. As had the earlier 1948 act, the 1956 act and
amendments served to encourage the ongoing efforts of OSSA to control
water pollution in the Willamette River.
On a more sweeping basis, the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965
(PL 89-234), added vitality to pollution control efforts in the Willam-
ette Basin. This Federal legislation required that states adopt water
quality standards and enforceable implementation plans to assure waste
treatment measures that would control sources of water pollution. The
Federal government also took a more active role in the Basin's water
quality management, joining forces with the State to develop a
38
-------
wide-ranging pollution control program in 1967.15 Oregon already had
water quality standards and implementation programs to provide waste
treatment facilities. The 1965 amendments to previous Federal water
pollution control legislation led Oregon to revise and update its
general and special water quality standards in 1967. These new stan-
dards were among the first approved by the Federal government, thereby
becoming also Federal standards subject to Federal enforcement.
In retrospect, Federal activities aimed at pollution control by
means of at-site waste treatment have been significant in the Willamette
Basin for their support rather than guidance of State policy. The State
and its electorate made its commitment to pollution control in 1938 and
provided leadership for guiding state policy by creation of the State
Sanitary Authority. But the road to success was difficult and the
financial burdens heavy. The Federal grants for waste control facili-
ties brought financial support during critical years of population and
industrial growth when a slower-paced program would have made it very
difficult to make gains against water pollution. Beyond financial sup-
port, the Federal concern over State water pollution problems exerted
its influence over State water policy in other ways, among these being
the stimulus for new water quality standards in 1967 and the beneficial
effects of cooperative programs. The U. S. Public Health Service, for
example, was an active cooperator with the State in data gathering and
other ways early in the century and has remained so over the years,
along with newer Federal organizations.
AN OLD STRATEGY UPDATED: WASTE DILUTION BY FLOW AUGMENTATION
The traditional method of waste disposal practiced over centuries
by riverbank communities was to release untreated wastes directly to
streams, thereby diluting the strengths of such wastes and, hopefully,
allowing them to be assimilated by the receiving waters. This approach
was used by communities and industries along the Willamette River well
into the 1950's, even though adverse pollutional effects had been evi-
dent for decades. The waste dilution method was even refined in the
lower river to the extent that certain industrial wastes were being
barged to the Columbia River for dumping, where the diluting flow
available was more than an ordeY of magnitude greater than in the
Willamette. Even Portland, after giving primary treatment to sewage
flows, was releasing these wastes to the Columbia River rather than
applying secondary treatment before releasing effluent to the Willam-
ette River. But the old standby method of waste dilution failed in the
face of population and industrial growth in the Willamette Basin.
The same growth of population and the industrial base that aggrava-
ted the severe water pollution problems brought with it other needs,
such as flood control. Measures taken to alleviate flood control led to
39
-------
construction and operation of Federal storage reservoirs by the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers. These became the means for a new strategy in
the battle against water pollution—waste pollution control by means of
flow augmentation and the resulting dilution of wastewaters.
Over the years, the OSSA and DEQ, in their biennial and annual
reports, have cited the pollution control benefits gained in the
Willamette River because of summer streamflow regulation by release of
impounded waters from upstream storage reservoirs. For instance, the
1960 report recognized that maintaining a reasonable degree of purity
in the Willamette River along with future population and industrial
growth make it absolutely essential that flows be augmented considerably
in the lower Willamette during the critical summer and fall months.
Such augmentation was considered to be a "supplement to and not as a
substitute for sewage and waste treatment."13
The reservoirs were not constructed for water quality enhancement;
their authorized purposes were flood control, navigation, irrigation,
and hydroelectric power generation (see Table 2). However, because of
the hydrologic conditions in the Willamette Basin, the same influences
that caused low-flow problems in the summer months also minimized the
risk of summer floods and required significant releases of stored water
for irrigation and navigation. This compatability between the author-
ized purposes, particularly navigation, and the need for more water in
the river to enhance water quality has made possible an effective pol-
lution control strategy—flow augmentation for waste dilution.
The plan for multi-purpose Federal storage reservoirs on the major
tributaries of the Willamette River was conceived in the early 1930's.
In the reports recommending authorization of individual projects, "water
quality flow needs were recognized, and it was stated that the naviga-
tion flows of 6,000 cubic feet per second at Salem would provide for the
water quality needs. Since that time, water quality management of the
basin has been based upon the continued availability of those flows to
meet navigation needs."9 However, the Federal agencies involved in
Willamette Basin water planning recognized, as had OSSA, that "the basic
element of the water pollution control program is a high level of at-
source waste treatment by all municipalities and industries."
The early Federal storage reservoirs in the Willamette Basin were
comparatively small and had little effect on summer low-flow water
quality. However, larger impoundments were completed starting in the
early 1950's (see Figure 6) and the amount of storage water released to
augment low natural flows began to have a noticeable effect thereafter.
By 1968, 13 Federal projects were complete and providing flow augmenta-
tion benefits.
40
-------
YEARS RESERVOIRS OPERATIONAL
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970
a:
Ul _l
_) <
m en
< Ul
CO O
= £
„ 250
ox
E
jT
g
^j
i,
s 20°
UJ
tr
fc
h-
CO
g 150
rs
^
UJ
o
(£
^ 100
^
«%r>
| | | | | f'/y/i/F/?! '
Iwraw'
j^£»
r/it cffff/cf
| COUGAR
HILLS
CREEK
DEXTER/
LOOKOUT POINT
BIG CLIFF/
DETROIT
COTTAGE GROVE, ' - -PGREJiA
1 FERN RIDGE
—
O
~~ CD
O
O
0
0 ~
0 o
o O
O r, 0 _
(P O^O o
rt fl
00° °
^^ ^J ^-^
Q^
O
DO O O
rt
o o ,P "~
o o
o o
O o
Q) —
o
1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 ~
t-
s °
UJ "^
o: 2
U I
a. •*•
U- ^*
o
UJ >
:D uj
Ij to
U-~
^T
) ^
< Q
tO LJ
10,000
9,000
v>
o
8,000 -
s
U-
7,000 2
Ul
cc
6,000
i-
co
CO
5,000 3
<
Ul
ID
4,000 <
Ul
*l
3,000
2,000
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970
WATER YEAR
Figure 6. Average August streamflows at Salem and
upstream federal reservoirs.
41
-------
Using the dry month of August as a basis for comparison, average
monthly discharge at Salem is shown in Figure 6 over the period of years
of record. Allowing for year-to-year climatic variability, it is quite
clear that impoundment releases in recent years have had a dramatic
effect in increasing the amount of water in the river and in diluting
wastes. In some years more than half of the August streamflow in the
Willamette River has been from impoundment releases.
RELIANCE ON TWO STRATEGIES
The strategy adopted by the State of Oregon to set water quality
standards and require compliance by means of at-source waste treatment
was absolutely essential and has been proven effective. The absolute
load of pollutants entering the Willamette River has been reduced and
brought under control. This has also achieved a substantial change in
the concentrations (i.e., relative amounts) of the various indicators of
water quality, such as dissolved oxygen.
But during critical summer-autumn months of low natural streamflow,
the measures taken to date to achieve at-source pollution control would
not have been sufficient alone. The water quality standards have been
met during some critical low-flow periods only because the river flow
was substantially augmented from storage releases. In recent years,
this augmented flow has been well above the target flows (e.g., above
the 170m3/s (6,000cfs) minimum flow at Salem). Therefore, it is evi-
dent that without more stringent requirements controlling the treatment
of at-source pollution, the flow augmentation strategy is also essential.
Data from recent years show that it has been an effective strategy.
In effect, there must presently be a reliance upon two pollution
control strategies for the Willamette River: the first, guided and
enforced by the State, requiring at-source waste treatment to reduce
the absolute pollutant loadings; the second, under the control of the
Federal government, requiring flow augmentation during critical low-flow
months to reduce the concentration and strength of pollutant loadings.
Jointly, these strategies allow the water quality standards of the State
to be met. Without the first, at-source treatment, no practical amount
of flow augmentation from existing multi-purpose reservoirs would be
sufficient to allow the standards to be met. Without the second, flow
augmentation, the degree of at-source waste removal would have to be
greatly increased and new technologies beyond secondary treatment would
be required.
42
-------
SECTION VI
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
SCOPE OF IMPACTS
The cumulative environmental impacts of the pollution control
strategies used for the Willamette River are broad and difficult to
quantify. They touch human activities in a number of ways, some of
which are describable collectively as altered quality of life, insofar
as the Willamette River has an influence on an individual's interests
and activities. For example, a recent studyl& showed that the substan-
tial improvement of the Willamette River water quality led to increases
in values for urban residential property as far as 1200 m (4000 ft) away
from the water's edge. Interestingly, the wildlife support capacity of
water bodies was valued more by residential property owners than were
aesthetics, boating, or swimming. The measurable water quality para-
meters reported to have the greatest influence on property values were
dissolved oxygen, fecal coliforms, clarity, trash and debris, toxic
chemicals, and pH.
Some of the cumulative environmental impacts of at-source waste
treatment are of a "trade-off" nature. The benefits gained by removal
of contaminants from the water phase of the environment are offset by
their disposal in some other phase of the environment. This can result
in air pollution (through combustion of sludge or gases) and land pollu-
tion (through landfill ing of residual sludges) which in turn can lead to
water pollution. In-process changes made by some industries to reduce
pollutant loads in effluents, such as the conversion of sulfite pulp-
and-paper mills from one base to another to facilitate chemical recovery,
have resulted in increased stack emissions from recovery boilers. Addi-
tional environmental contamination results from the production, trans-
portation/transmission, and utilization of energy needed to drive all of
the wastewater treatment processes and to produce the chemicals used in
wastewater treatment. Such secondary impacts can cause significant en-
vironmental effects at locations distant from the treatment plants,
often outside the Willamette Basin.
Wastewater treatment requires large tracts of land for the facili-
ties themselves and for solid residue disposal; for municipalities this
land represents a reduction in the tax base. In addition to odors and
noise associated with the plant operation, some facilities are aesthe-
tically displeasing. Adverse impacts such as those mentioned here must
43
-------
be weighed against the substantial benefits to river water quality evi-
denced by restored high oxygen levels and reductions in bacterial con-
tamination, suspended solids, floating matter, and toxic chemicals.
Flow augmentation also has associated with it a number of trade-off
environmental impacts. In downstream reaches below impoundments, the
majority of impacts are regarded as beneficial, although the reduced
summer temperatures of some releases and the diminished variability of
flows can present adverse impacts such as less desirable swimming tem-
peratures and less natural control over some aquatic vegetation and in-
sects by periodic flooding. Improved navigation conditions can result
in associated increases of boat-related forms of pollution. Greater
flood control protection of the floodplain can lead to greater flood-
plain encroachment.
At the reservoirs and along adjacent reaches of the river, there
may be additional environmental tradeoffs. Creation of a slack-water
fishery and lake recreation is done at a loss of free-flowing fishery
and stream recreation. Loss of one type of wildlife habitat is replaced
by creation of a different type of habitat. Release of impounded water
in the summer for flow augmentation represents a loss of impounded water
needed for autumn hydroelectric power generation to supplement power
produced elsewhere in the Columbia River Basin. This trade-off is
partly offset by heavier reliance on non-power producing reservoirs such
as Blue River and Fall Creek for summer flow augmentation. But impound-
ment releases for flow augmentation during the summer from additional
non-power projects such as Dorena and Cottage Grove meets with greater
resistance from recreationists using those reservoirs.
The "health" of a water body and extent of pollutional effects are
often best reflected and measured by the performance of the bio-system.
For the Willamette River, the part of the bio-system about which the
most is known historically is the fishery, particularly the salmonid
fishery. This anadromous fishery happens to be a particularly sensitive
indicator of water quality conditions. Therefore, to document the cumu-
lative environmental impacts of the pollution control strategies used
for the Willamette River, detailed examination has been made of the
Willamette River fishery.
HISTORICAL
The Willamette Basin undoubtedly was rich in certain natural re-
sources prior to the 19th Century. Craig and Hackerl' estimate that the
Columbia Basin supported a population of 50,000 Indians who annually
harvested 8 million kg (18 million Ib) of salmon. Willamette Falls was
identified as one of the historically famous Indian fishing sites.'8
Other wildlife forms such as cougar, river otter, muskrat, beaver, and
migrating ducks and geese were thought to be more abundant before the
year 1800 than at any subsequent time.
Commercial fishing for salmon began in the lower Columbia River
region in the early 1800's. By 1830, several dealers were salt-curing
44
-------
salmon on the lower Willamette River for export.19 Commercial canning
of salmon began on the lower Columbia River in 1866 and increased rapid-
ly to a record pack of 634,696 cases in 1895.20 The record catch of
salmon and steelhead occurred in 1911 when 21,117,000 kg (46,663,000 Ib)
were landed.21
In addition to salmon and steelhead, other Willamette fish harves-
ted commercially were shad, sturgeon, eulachon (smelt) and lamprey. Of
equal importance to the Willamette Basin were the recreational species
and fisheries. Trout, primarily rainbow and cutthroat, were so abundant
that the early bag limit was 125 fish per day. Warm-water game fishes
such as largemouth and smallmouth bass, black and white crappie, blue-
gill, and pumpkinseed were introduced around the turn of the 19th Cen-
tury and prospered in the sloughs and ponds of the Willamette Basin."
During the 1800's, several wildlife species were affected by the
activities of the early settlers. Logging and land-clearing benefitted
the blacktailed deer, while mourning dove, band-tailed pigeon, ducks,
and geese found the development of agriculture to their liking. Pheas-
ants, valley quail, and bobwhite quail were introduced and increased
rapidly. Other species were not so fortunate as the impact of unrestric-
ted hunting and trapping severely reduced populations of beaver, river
otter, and cougar.
Recognition of serious pollution in the lower Willamette River was
a matter of public record as early as 1910 when Morse et al.23 stated in
their Fourth Biennial Report of the State Board of Health"ERat: "...
they become a conduit into which in increasing quantities in direct pro-
portion to the increasing density of the population, along their banks
is cast offal and filth until nearly all of the streams of the State
have become mere sewers, the water from which is not only dangerous to
drink but too filthy in many places to bathe in. Even the very fish
which have no means of escape are largely becoming infected and unfit
for food. This condition is rapidly growing worse and has become a
peril of no mean import, and is a grave reflection upon the intelligence
and degree of civilization of the entire community and should be stopped
at once and forever."
Subsequently, the so-called oxygen blockage in the lower Willamette
River has been documented and studied repeatedly, as described earlier
in this report. In particular, the reports by Gleeson7 and Willis et,
al^.24 are informative. The presence of water with oxygen levels below
5 mg/1 for prolonged periods during July, August, and September, coupled
with inadequate fish passage facilities at Willamette Falls, were be-
lieved to be important reasons why few coho salmon and fall chinook sal-
mon occurred beyond the reaches of the lower Willamette River area™»25
45
-------
CURRENT STATUS OF THE WILLAMETTE FISHERY
The Willamette Basin contains from 14,000 to 16,000 km (9,000 to
10,000 mi) of streams, at least 565 named lakes, and approximately 130
mega square meters (Mm2) (33,000 acres) of reservoirs.'9 Of this total,
most production in fluvial habitats occurs in 6788 km (4219 mi) of
streams comprising 196 Mm2 (48,600 acres) of water. Stream widths
greater than 100m (300 ft) comprise 10 percent of the length and 57 per-
cent of the total surface area; whereas, streams less than 1 m (4 ft) in
width comprise 27 percent of the length but only 1.1 percent of the sur-
face area.26
Some 51 species belonging to 14 families comprise the fish fauna
of the Willamette Basin. At least 28 species are of recreational or
commercial importance. Almost one-half of the species (23) have been
introduced into the basin during the past 100 years (see Table 5). Dis-
tributions of the salmonids and some of the warm-water game fishes with-
in their principal habitats in the Willamette Basin are provided in
Tables 6, 7, and 8.
Several recent reports give detailed descriptions of the current
status of the fishery and wildlife resources of the Willamette Basin.
One of the most extensive and detailed surveys of the Willamette River
and its tributaries was conducted by Willis et^ al_._24 Their report in-
cludes the following information on each river system: a brief intro-
duction; descriptive information concerning the basin, stream, bottom
material, obstructions, diversions, and pollution problems; impoundment
and hatchery sites; temperature and flow data; anadromous fish popula-
tions; and major proposed dams. A summary of recommendations was pre-
sented for the entire Willamette River system wherein the proposed pro-
jects were listed in order of priority or importance without reference
to costs or estimates or responsibility.
More recently details of the middle Willamette Basin were provided
by the Oregon State Game Commission; those of the lower Willamette Basin
were provided by Hutchison and Aney28; while those of the upper Willa-
mette Basin were detailed by Hutchison et_ a_K_29 Thompson e_t al.27 com-
bined much of the information on fishery resources from the aBoVe three
reports into "Fish Resources of the Willamette Basin", which was sub-
mitted to the Willamette Basin Task Force. In turn, the information
provided by the above four sources was combined and published as Appen-
dix D, Fish and Wildlife, to the Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study of
Water and Related Land Resources.19
A more generalized review of the fish and wildlife resources of
the Willamette River watershed, including the Sandy River watershed, was
published as Appendix XIV, Fish and Wildlife, to the Comprehensive
Framework Study of Water and Related Lands.30 This latter report con-
tains useful information on fish and wildlife Angler-Days and Hunter-Days
46
-------
Table 5. FISHES OF THE WILLAMETTE BASIN3
Scientific name
ommon name
Abundance
Petromyzontidae
Entosphenus tridentata
Lampetva riohardsoni
Acipenseridae
Aaipenser transmontanus
Clupeidae
Alosa aapidiBsima '
Salmonidae
Oncorhynchus keta L
Oncorhynehus kisutah
Onoorhynahus
Onaorhynahus tehawytactu
Pposopium
Salmo aguabonitcfi »c
Sdlmo
Salmo
Salmo
Salmo
SalveHnue fontinalis '
Salvelinus malma" ^
Salvelinus namaycush '
Pacific lamprey
Western brook lamprey
White sturgeon
American shad
Chum salmon
Coho salmon
Sockeye salmon or
kokanee
Spring chinook and
Fall chinook salmon
Mountain whitefish
Golden trout
Cutthroat trout
Rainbow (steelhead)
trout
Atlantic salmon
Brown trout
Brook trout
Dolly Varden
Lake trout
High
High
Moderate
High below
Willamette Falls;
low above falls
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate to high
Moderate
Low to moderate
Low
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
47
-------
Table 5 (continued). FISHES OF THE WILLAMETTE BASIN*
Scientific name
Common name
Abundance
Cyprinidae
AcvooheiluB alutaaeus
Caraaaiua ouratusC
Cypvinua oorpioc
Hybopaia cvomeri
Mylooheilua occufinus
Ptyohooheilua
oregonenaia
Rhinichthya oataractae
Rhinichthya falcatus
Rhinichthya oaculus
Richordaoniua
Tinea
Catostomidae
Catostomus
Cato storms
platyrhynchus
Ictaluridae
lotalwcus melas
b.c
natdlis '
lotalurua
lataltuma punctatus" »c
Percopsidae
Pevoopeis tranamontana
Poeciliidae
p
Garribueia affinia
Chiselmouth
Goldfish
Carp
Oregon chub
Peamouth
Northern squawfish
Longnose dace
Leopard dace
Speckled dace
Redside shiner
Tench
Largescale sucker
Mountain sucker
Black bullhead
Yellow bullhead
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Sand roller
High
Low
High
Low
Moderate
High
High
High
High
High
Low
High
High above Corvallis;
low in downstream
areas
(Unauthenticated
reports)
Moderate
Moderate
Low to moderate
Low to moderate
Mosquitofish
Low to moderate
48
-------
Table 5 (continued). FISHES OF THE WILLAMETTE BASINa
Scientific name
•>onnton name
Abundance
Gasterosteidae
Gasterosteua aauleatus
Centrarchidae
Lepomis
Lepomis
Lepomis
M-ioropterus
Pomoaie
Pomoxie
»C
fr >c
»c
>c
Percidae
Peroa flaveeaens® »c
Cottidae
Cottus aepey
Cottus bairdi
Cottus beldingi
Cottus perplesaue
Cottue rhotheue
Threespine stickle-
back
Pumpkinseed
Wannouth
Bluegill
Smallmouth bass
Largemouth bass
White crappie
Black crappie
Yellow perch
Prickly sculpin
Mottled sculpin
Piute sculpin
Reticulate sculpin
Torrent sculpin
High
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
a Modified from reference 27.
Species defined as "game fish" in the 1965-66 Oregon Game Code.
c Introduced species, all others are indigenous to the Willamette Basin.
49
-------
01
o
Table 6. DISTRIBUTION OF PRINCIPAL SALMONIDS INHABITING LAKES, RESERVOIRS, SLOUGHS, OR
PONDS IN THE WILLAMETTE BASINa
Species
Brook trout
Cutthroat trout
Dolly Varden trout
Kokanee
Lake trout
Rainbow trout
Chinook salmon (L)^
Coho salmon (L)f
Steel head (i)f
Number of lakes
inhabitedb
34
37
8
13
0
48
13
8
9
Surface area, 1000 m2,c
inhabitedd
15,870
68,696
8,101
14,090
0
70,177
34,864
11,600
10,170
Hatchery contribution,8
percent
50
11
0
77
0
92
62
100
33
Data from reference 26.
78 lakes available.
c 1000m2 =0.247 acres.
d 78,489,000 m2 available.
e Percent of lakes in which any portion of species are of hatchery origin.
L indicates Landlocked populations only.
-------
Table 7. DISTRIBUTION OF PRINCIPAL ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS INHABITING RIVERS
AND STREAMS IN THE WILLAMETTE BASIN3
Species
Fall chinook salmon
Spring chinook salmon
Co ho salmon
Summer steel head
Winter steel head
Sockeye salmon
Sea-run cutthroat trout
Streams
inhabitedb
41
64
147
33
127
17
31
Stream length, km,c
inhabited^
1,150
2,016
3,313
1,130
3,181
553
677
Estimated
population
7,600
34,000
17,000
660
16,000
200
68
Data from reference 26.
290 streams available.
1 km = 0.621 mi.
6,668 km available.
-------
Table 8. DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN WARM-WATER GAME FISH INHABITING RIVERS
AND STREAMS IN THE WILLAMETTE BASINa
01
to
Species
Black crappie
White crappie
Largemouth bass
Small mouth bass
Streams inhabited1*
12
36
39
2
Stream length, km,c
inhabited^
351
938
912
61
Abundance
Common
Few
Few/ rare
Rare
Data from reference 26.
290 streams available.
1 km = 0.621 mi.
6,668 km available.
-------
which are summarized in Table 9. Information is also provided on non-
game wildlife along with projections of future needs to satisfy the de-
mand for use of fish and wildlife resources within the Willamette Basin.
In summarizing the current status of the resource, it appears that
stocks of spring chinook salmon have stabilized at 30,000 to 40,000
escapements over Willamette Falls. Stocks of spring chinook salmon re-
turning to the Clackamas River appear to have decreased in recent times
from about 3,000 to 2,000 fish per year (Figure 7). Based on an average
fecundity of 5,000 eggs and a 50:50 sex ratio, the Clackamas River run
must have contained a minimum of 6,000 fish around the turn of the cen-
tury. The runs of spring chinook salmon are heavily supported with re-
leases from hatcheries.
Escapements of coho salmon past Willamette Falls have decreased
markedly in the past four years (Figure 8). On the other hand, escape-
ments of fall chinook salmon (Figure 8) and summer and winter steelhead
(Figure 9) are all on the increase. Overall, the sport catch of'salmon
and steelhead in the Willamette Basin is on the increase as well as in
the State as a whole (Figures 10,11).
Overall, stocks of resident trout appear to be greatly reduced
from earlier years, but liberal supplements with hatchery fish help
maintain heavy angler use (Table 9). Virtually no stocking of warm-
water game fish is carried out as natural stocks seem sufficient for
substantial angler use (Table 9).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Benefi ts
Anadromous fish resources are obvious beneficiaries of water
quality improvements in the lower Willamette River. Waters with less
than 5 mg/1 of dissolved oxygen are generally thought to block or delay
the passage of migrating salmonids.7 Sams and Conover25 presented data
indicating that runs of coho and fall chinook salmon did not attempt to
pass over Willamette Falls until dissolved oxygen levels exceeded 4 mg/1.
Based on data depicted in Figures 12 and 13, the lower 50 miles of the
Willamette River apparently served as an oxygen blockage to migrating
salmon during much of Ouly, August, and September from the 1920's to
1968. From 1968 to present, the mean dissolved oxygen concentration
during the critical month of August was never below 5 mg/1 at the Spo-
kane, Portland and Seattle Railroad bridge—an area thought to be one of
the most seriously polluted sections of the River. Whether the increase
in dissolved oxygen was due to municipal and industrial waste treatment
or to augmented flow of the River is a matter of conjecture (Figure 13).
53
-------
Table 9. ESTIMATED USER-DAYS FOR CERTAIN FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
JN THE WILLAMETTE BASIN: 1965a.
Resource
Fish
Big game
Upland game
Waterfowl
TOTAL
Species
Stream fish
Lake and pond fish
Reservoir fish
Deer
Elk
Black bear
Mountain lion
Pheasant
Quail
Grouse
Mourning dove
Band- tailed pigeon
Rabbit
Squirrel
Ducks
Geese
User-days
735,300
19,900
238,500
310,000
8,000
6,000
2,000
182,500
55,000
16,600
35,600
25,900
15,000
6,400
84,800
26,400
1,767,900
Value of
resource, dollars
5,000,000
3,000,000
1,500,000
700,000
10,260,000b
a Estimates based on Oregon State Game Commission data and adapted
from reference 30.
k Includes $60,000 as value of pelts from furbearing animals.
54
-------
en
cn
I\CLACKAMAS RIVER
WILLAMETTE FALLS
cn
YEAR
Figure 7. Calculated escapement of spring chinook salmon into the Clackamas River
compared to the total migration of spring chinook salmon over Willamette
Falls: 1946-1974.31,32
-------
en
05
CO
u_
o
o:
LU
00
40,000
30,000
20,000
2 io,ooo
FALL .
CHINOOK/
in
oo
in
en
cvi
CD
0>
CD
(O
0)
YEAR
Figure 8. Calculated migration of coho and fall chinook salmon over
Willamette Falls: 1954-1974.31,32
-------
30,000
01
IE
CO
o
or
UJ
20,000 -
10,000-
SUMMER*^
i i v
YEAR
Figure 9. Calculated migration of winter and summer steel head over Willamette Falls:
1950-1974.31,32
-------
OI
oo
500,000
400,000
I
w1
£K 300,000
u_o
0:0
See
200,000
100,000
SALMON
ko-=<
I
i
i i
I
I
I i
50,000
40,000
15
30,000 <2
u_
20,000 gg
M
10,000
1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973
YEAR
Figure 10. Estimated total sport catch of salmon in Oregon compared to the estimated
sport catch of salmon from principal Willamette River tributaries: 1955-
1973. 33
-------
en
CO
200,000
I
I
150,000-
100,000 -
LU
CD
O
U4
3S
50,000 f-
20,000
5,000 | x
r 10,000
u
CD
5,000 g^
1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973
YEAR
Figure 11. Estimated total sport catch of steel head in Oregon compared to the estimated sport
catch of steelhead from principal Willamette River tributaries: 1955-1973.33
-------
0>
o
12
50
RIVER MILE
100
150
200
I
10
o>
E
LJ
e>
X
o
Q
UJ
>
O
(O
Q 4
UJ
Septl972
Aug 1929
Aug. Sept 1944
July, Sept 1953
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
STANDARD
\
50 100 150 200
RIVER KILOMETER
250
300
Figure 12.
Mean dissolved oxygen concentrations for summer months
in the Willamette River at selected locations and years
-------
12,000 -
1974
Figure 13. Mean flow, dissolved oxygen concentration, and 5-day biochemical
oxygen demand of the lower Willamette River at the Spokane,
Portland, and Seattle Railroad bridge during August 1950-1974.J4
-------
Undoubtedly both activities were instrumental in helping to improve the
oxygen concentration.
With the prospects of continued improvement in water quality and
the completion of vastly improved fish passage facilities at Willamette
Falls, the Fish Commission of Oregon initiated a 9-year plan to fully
develop the salmon and steelhead potential of the Willamette River. The
plan was first made public in 196935 and was formally developed in
197035. The individual and combined annual benefits to Oregon from full
development of the potential in the Willamette River for self-sustained
natural production of fall Chinook and coho salmon and summer and winter
steelhead are presented in Table 10. In fiscal 1971, the plan was im-
plemented and jointly funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service
and the Fish Commission of Oregon.36,37 Data contained in Figures 8 and
9 indicate that the fall chinook salmon and summer steelhead programs
have been highly successful to date. Winter steelhead show definite
increases over the past ten years, while coho salmon decreased in abun-
dance during the past two years. The decreases in coho are not surpris-
ing in view of similar drops in production throughout the northwest,
indicating a problem in the oceanic environment rather than in their
nursery and rearing areas.
Values for temperature and pH have been little affected by water
pollution control, and apparently have had little influence on the
migratory patterns of anadromous salmonids. Sams and Conover25 reported
that temperatures as high as 23°C (73°F) did not prevent salmon from
entering the Willamette River from cooler water in the Columbia River.
Not since 1958 has the August mean temperature been higher than 23°C
(73°F) at the Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railroad bridge. Also, the
increased flow pattern since 1968 does not appear to be associated with
any general change in temperature at the same location. Likewise, pH
has remained at 6.7 - 6.9 during the last 20 years.
Recreational use of the Willamette River and its immediate environ-
ment has been increasing, and based on data collected in 1970 is predic-
ted to double in 20 years (by 1990). For example, in 1970 anglers
participated in 603,000 recreational-days while catching 759,000 fish.
By 1990, the number of recreational-days devoted to angling in the
Willamette Basin is predicted to increase to 1,410,000.26 Personnel of
the Oregon State Highway Division estimated that swimming, water skiing,
boating, and other water-related activities accounted for 8,000,000
activity-days in the Willamette River during 1970. This number is pro-
jected to increase to 16,000,000 by the year 1990.38 Use of State parks
on the Willamette River has increased from 398,000 to 627,000 visitor-
days during the period 1969-70 to 1973-74, respectively.37 Certainly
all the increased use of the Willamette River and its related environ-
ments cannot directly be attributed to aquatic pollution abatement. It
would equally be unjust to maintain that quality of the River has no
effect on recreational use.
62
-------
Table 10. BENEFITS TO OREGON OF FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE POTENTIAL IN THE
WILLAMETTE RIVER FOR SELF-SUSTAINED NATURAL PRODUCTION OF FALL
CHINOOK AND COHO SALMON AND SUMMER AND WINTER STEELHEAD^
Species
Fall
Chinook
salmon
Coho
salmon
Summer
steel head
Winter
steel head
Fishery
Commercial
Sportd
Cotnnerclal
Sport
Commercial
Sport
Commercial
Sport
Benefit13
Number of fish
Processed valuec
Number of fish
Gross economic value
Number of angler-days
Number of fish
Processed value
Number of fish
Gross economic value
Number of angler-days
Number of fish
Processed value
Number of fish
Gross economic value
Number of angler-days
Number of fish
Processed value
Number of fish
Gross economic value
Number of angler-days
Present
status
3,000
$ 28,000
600
$ 6,000
600
20,000
$ 80,000
7,000
$ 90,000
9,000
1,000
$ 6,000
3,200
$125,000
12,500
Potential for
increase
72,000
$ 675,000
15,000
$ 150,000
15,000
45,000
$ 180,000
15,000
$ 200,000
20,000
3,000
$ 10,000
25,000
$1,000,000
100,000
1,500
$ 8,000
4,400
$ 175,000
17,500
Total
potential
75,000
$ 703,000
15,600
$ 156,000
15,600
65,000
$ 260,000
22,000
$ 290,000
29,000
3,000
$ 10,000
25,000
$1,000,000
100,000
2,500
$ 14,000
7,600
$ 300,000
30,000
Total potential increase in numbers '.SO.gOO
Total potential increase in value $2,398,000
Total potential increase in angler-days 152,500
a Modified from reference 35.
This does not include hatchery production or potential production in reservoirs or
in streams above impassable dams, falls, or other barriers to upstream migrant
adults.
c Based on 1968 prices.
Total expenditures by sport fishermen, but excluding the cost of fishing licenses
and salmon steel head punch cards. Based on 1962 dollars.
63
-------
Augmented summer flows have been beneficial to resident trout
populations. The increased flows provide greater feeding and breeding
areas, as well as help maintain stream temperatures at a more favorable
level. Another benefit of cooler water has been the reduction in pro-
duction of so-called "trash fish". In addition, control of flooding has
decreased entrapment of salmonids in flood plain potholes.
A particularly significant demonstration of the cumulative bene-
ficial environmental impacts of pollution control and water quality res-
toration is the so-called Willamette Greenway plan. The plan was con-
ceived in 1966, at a time when the recovery of Willamette River water
quality could be seen to be attainable in the near future, and called
for a Willamette River Park System. A law was enacted in 1967 "to pro-
tect and preserve for present and future generations...the natural
scenic and recreational value of the Willamette River" by establishing
riverbank parks along the Willamette. Recreational use of the River has
greatly increased since 1966, particularly by kayak, canoe and waterski
enthusiasts. The Greenway plan represents a sizeable financial commit-
ment by the State (with some Federal matching funds) to protect the re-
established recreational, fishery and wildlife values which have resul-
ted from the pollution control strategies utilized to date. The Green-
way is both a commitment and a statement of faith to the future protec-
tion of the recovered water quality in the Willamette River.
Adverse Effects
At least 190 km (120 mi) of free-flowing streams have been inunda-
ted by reservoirs whose naked and muddy banks are regularly exposed by
annual draw-downs.40 The aesthetic loss of such natural habitats on
principal tributaries to the Willamette River cannot adequately be re-
placed by any type of mitigation. Coomber and Biswas41 quoting Starker
Leopold point out that, "For things society judges to be desirable,
relative scarcity or uniqueness increases value to society."
"In Western Oregon, water impoundments are detrimental to big game.
Key winter ranges and migration routes normally coincide with reservoir
sites. Game population densities relying on these lowland stream bottom
areas commonly are several times the densities occurring elsewhere. The
seasonal, altitudinal migrations of deer and elk along streams have been
blocked by the construction of impoundments and has caused them to re-
main at high elevations during the winter.29 Populations of furbearing
animals which normally thrive in the flood plain have adversely been
effected by flood control. Likewise, populations of ducks which formerly
nested in flood plain potholes have been effected.
Turbidity, especially in Hills Creek Reservoir, has been identified
as a biological, aesthetic and economic problem involving problems with
fish and wildlife, recreation, and other uses of the impoundment.42
64
-------
These authors speculated that low quantities of organic matter, which
adversely effect basic productivity, may indeed be related indirectly to
the turbidity of the water.
Chlorination of municipal wastewaters is the cheapest and most
effective general method of wastewater disinfection in the United States.
Generally recommended concentrations for residual chlorine are between
0.5 and 1.0 mg/1.43 Chlorine, however, is an extremely powerful biocide
and a major toxicant in sewage which eliminates pathogens but also
damages fish and other aquatic organisms. The presence of chlorine be-
low sewage outfalls is often noticeable by odor and by degradation of
living stream bed organisms.*4
Although fish are repelled by low levels of chlorine in water and
frequently can escape in time, other aquatic organisms in the food chain
may be eliminated. Brungs,43 in Table 11, shows acute and chronic ef-
fects of residual chlorine on aquatic life.
The Oregon DEQ requires residual chlorine levels of 1 mg/1 to en-
sure that fecal coliforms levels are maintained below 200 organisms/100
milliliters (ml). Many wastewater treatment plant operators, probably
operating on the assumption that if a little chlorine is good a lot is
great, overchlorinate. Monthly averages of residual chlorine in treat-
ment plant effluents as high as 9 mg/1 have been recorded. Proper sur-
veillance of disinfection practices and increased operator education
regarding both the positive and negative aspects of chlorination could
mitigate this problem.
Summary
The net environmental impacts of the Willamette River cleanup are
wide ranging. The effects of the restoration on some fish and wildlife
species have been briefly described here; but obviously many other ef-
fects—biological , physical, aesthetic—which deny quantification have
not been dealt with.
The impacts of water quality control programs extend far beyond
the water phase of our environment. Many aspects, such as transporta-
tion, land use, and air quality, are involved in water quality manage-
ment and these parameters must also be considered so that the net impact
of environmental protection plans is a positive one.
65
-------
Table 11. SELECTED SUMMARY OF ACUTE AND CHRONIC TOXIC EFFECTS OF
RESIDUAL CHLORINE ON AQUATIC LIFE*
Species
Effect endpoint
Measured
residual
chlorine
concentration,
(mg/1)
Coho salmon
Pink salmon
Coho salmon
Pink salmon
Coho salmon
Brook trout
Brook trout
Brown trout
Brook trout
Brook trout
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Rainbow trout
Trout fry
Yellow perch
Largemouth bass
Smallmouth bass
White sucker
Walleye
Black bullhead
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Golden shiner
Fish species diversity
Scud
Scud
Daphnia magna
Protozoa
7-day TL50b
100% kill (1-2 days)
100% kill (1-2 days)
Maximum nonlethal
Maximum nonlethal
7-day TLsob
Absent in streams
Absent in streams
67% lethality (4 days)
Depressed activity
96-hour TLij0b
7-day TL50B
Lethal (TZ days)
Lethal (2 days)
7-day TL5Qb
7-day f\-^Qb
Absent in streams
7-day TL50b
7-day TL50b
96-hour TL5Qb
96-hour TLgob
7-day TLsoB
Safe concentration
96-hour TL§ob
50% reduction
Safe concentration
Safe concentration
Safe concentration
Lethal
0.083
0.08-0.10
0.13-0.20
0.05
0.05
0.083
0.015
0.015
0.01
0.005
0.14-0.29
0.08
0.01
0.06
0.205
0.261
0.1
0.132
0.15
0.099
0.05-0.16
0.082-0.115
0.0165
0.19
0.01
0.0034
0.012
0.003
0.01
a
Adapted from reference 43.
b TL5Q = median tolerance limit (50 percent survival).
66
-------
SECTION VII
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
INTRODUCTION
The objectives of this research contract included documenting the
dollar and energy costs of constructing the pollution control facilities
that have contributed to the cleanup of the Willamette River. In the
early stages of the investigation, limitations were established on
facilities and expenditures to be researched. Investigation of three
major subject areas was undertaken.
One subject area was municipal wastewater collection, treatment,
and release dealing mainly with domestic wastes but also including large
quantities of industrial wastes handled by municipal systems. It was
agreed among project members and EPA representatives to limit "collec-
tion" to those portions of sewerage systems designated as "interceptors".
This was done for a number of reasons. Interceptors make up that por-
tion of the system which prevents flows from the sewers, laterals, and
trunks from passing untreated into the receiving water and generally
convey the flows "downstream" to the treatment plant. The Federal gov-
ernment's financial participation in water pollution abatement is gen-
erally limited to interceptors, treatment works, and outfalls and ex-
cludes portions above or "upstream" of interceptors. Also, reported
expenditure data generally followed the above definitions. Municipal
wastewater "treatment" included treatment works as well as the treating
and disposing of associated sludges. "Release" covered outfall and dif-
fuser works at the plant and at upstream overflow points.
The second subject area involved industrial water pollution abate-
ment. This included the collection, treatment, and disposal of various
waste streams, as well as in-process modifications reducing, concentra-
ting, or eliminating certain wastewaters.
The final subject area investigated was reservoirs. This part of
the research was confined to the thirteen Corps of Engineers' impound-
ments as it was felt that smaller, private industry or utility dams had
relatively negligible downstream water quality impacts.
Limitations were also set as to what type of expenditures at these
facilities would be investigated. Construction costs (economic and
energetic) were researched in depth. Design costs of municipal systems
were estimated; these figures are included in the capital cost table
67
-------
appended to this report. Lands costs were not considered. All cost ad-
justments were made using the Construction Cost Index published in the
"Engineering News Record".
At this point it would be well to mention certain types of expen-
ditures which have been omitted from analysis. First, under municipal
systems, no portions of the collection system above interceptors have
been investigated (although some parts may have entered the picture
either by a misunderstanding by municipal officials of the definition of
the word "interceptor" or in those cases where a reported construction
award amount was for a joint project, e.g., interceptors and trunks).
Second, for industrial activities, many small firms were eliminated from
the research. The reasons for that are discussed in subsequent para-
graphs. A third omission is that of the energy costs of engineering
services. Finally, the costs of administrative actions by federal,
state, and local regulatory agencies have not been taken into account.
INVENTORY OF FACILITIES
Table 12 is a list of municipal wastewater treatment plants oper-
ating in the Willamette Valley. The table includes information regard-
ing plant type, the year each was put in operation or underwent its last
major expansion or addition, design capacity in terms of population
equivalents and flow, and location of discharge point. Table 13 is a
compilation of those plants from Table 12 having significant industrial
or commercial flow contributions.
Table 14 presents information similar to that in Table 12 for dom-
estic sewage treatment plants which have been abandoned. Most of these
plants were abandoned in favor of larger regional plants and the new
receiving plant is named if known. Several points should be made here.
First, while the approximately seventy abandoned plants seem significant
when compared to the one-hundred thirty or so currently operating plants,
their capital costs represent less than two percent of all treatment
plant capital costs. Secondly, the short period of operation at many of
these plants should be noted. Most operated less than ten years and
many for less than five. While these plants represent a small portion
of the total, they do represent a lack of full lifetime utilization.
Finally, it should also be made clear that these lists are by no means
firm. New plants are under construction and many existing plants will
be phased out within the next decade.
Table 15 is a list of the twenty largest industries having
their own treatment works. Thirteen have waste streams which are organic
in nature (e.g., the pulp and/or paper manufacturers) while seven have
inorganic wastes (e.g., the metal producers). The reader should be
aware that many more industries are located in the Willamette Valley.
These include companies having their own treatment facilities and out-
falls (e.g., many sawmills and plywood and veneer operations) as well as
those firms which discharge to municipal systems (e.g., many food pro-
cessors), possibly following some degree of pretreatment. The
68
-------
Table 12. OPERATING MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
Plant
Adair
Albany
Aloha
American Can Co.
Amity
AP Industrial Park
Aumsville
Banks
Beaverton
Brownsville
Burright Subdivision
Canby
Carl ton
Cedar Hills
Central Linn H.S.
Century Meadows
Chatnicka Heights
Chemewa Indian School
Columbia Way Court
Cornelius
Corvallis
Corvallis Airport
Corvallis Mobile Park
Cottage Grove
Country Squire Motel
Creswel 1
Dallas
Damrcasch Hospital
Type3
TF
AS
AL-EF
AL
L
EA-L
L
EA
TF-EF
L
EA
AS
TF
TF
EA.
EA
EA
AL
EA
TF
TF
L
EA
TF
EA-L
L
AS
TF
Year
built
1959
1969
1973
1969
1968
1969
1971
1936
1967
1963
1965
1964
1971
1955
1962
1958
1972
1964
1965
1971
1959
1966
1962
1959
1967
1964
1962
1969
1960
Design
domestic
population
equivalent
750
40,700
40,000
310
1,000
75
1,660
1,050
14,000
1,290
90
6,000
1,500
13,000
100
400
•
400
1,450
175
2,500
52,440
100
250
10,000
650
1.750
15,400
2,500
n.3/dayb
760
33,000
15,000
120
380
30
630
530
6,100
490
34
3,200
1,100
4,900
30
150
150
550
66
950
27,000
38
49
5,700
250
660
7,600
1,100
Receiving stream
river kilometer3 *c
SI to Willamette
Willaraette-191.5
Beaverton Cr.-5.3
Willaraette-238.8
Ash Swale Cr.-2.4
Columbia SI
Beaver Cr.-4.0
W. Fk. Dairy Ck.-
16.1
Beaverton Cr.-12.9
Calapooia-50.8
Mitchell Cr.
Willamette-53.1
N Yamhill-9.7
Beaverton Cr.-12.1
Spoon Cr.-7.T
Willamette-67.6
Glenn Cr. to
Winslow Cr.-7.2
Labisch Ditch
Ditch to Columbia
SI
Tualatin- 84.2
Willamette-210-B
Cr to Willamette-
222.0
Oak Cr-2.6
Coast Fork
Willamette- 35 .4
Muddy Cr.-77.2
Camas Sw.-8.0
Rickreall Cr-16.9
Corral Cr.-1.6
69
-------
Table 12 (continued). OPERATING MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
Plant
Dayton
Dike Side Moorage
Diamond Hill
Dundee
Eola Village
Estacada
Eugene
Eugene Airport
Fanno Creek
Fir Cove
Forest Grove
Gaston
Gervais
Goshen School
Gresham
Halsey
Harrisburg
Hayden Island Mobile Home
Hemlock Subdivision
Hillsboro-West
HWsboro-Rock Cr.
Hubbard
Illahee Hills
Independence
Inverness
Jefferson
Jubitz Truck Stop
Junction City
Typea
L
EA
L
L
TF
TF
TF
L
AS
P
TF-L
EA
L
L
AS
L
TF
EA
EA
AS
AS
TF
L
L
EA
L
EA
L
year
built
1965
1973
1966
1971
1941
1963
1965
1964
1969
1957
1965
1974
1964
1965
1966
1973
1969
1967
1972
1966
1971
1974
1968
1962
1967
1969
1969
1964
1967
Desian
domestic
population
equivalent
1,000
60
135
1,350
1,300
2,500
106,500
150
30,000
300
30,000
500
650
70
30,000
800
2,000
6,000
300
20,000
30,000
2,000
500
3,850
20,000
1,080
50
3,500
m3/dayb
380
23
53
510
250
1,400
65,000
57
1 1 ,000
57
19,000
230
250
26
23,000
360
950
2,300
110
7,600
11,000
760
230
1,500
7,600
410
19
4,100
Receiving stream
river kilometer a »c
Yamhi 11-8.0
Multhomah Ch-19.3
Little Muddy Cr.
Willamette-83.7
S Yamhil 1-24.1
Clackamas-38.0
Willamette-286.4
Clear Lake Cr.
Fanno Cr.-13.4
Coast Fork
Willamette-1.6
Tualatin-91.6
Tualatin-103.8
Ditch to Pudding-
48.3
Wild Hog Cr-1 .1
Columbia R-189.1
Muddy Cr.-37.0
Willamette-259.0
Oregon SI to
Columbia-170.6
M Fork Willamette
Tualatin-59.5
Rock Cr.-0.8
Mill Cr.-8.5
Cr to Willamette-
138.4
Ash Cr.-2.1
Columbia-182.6
Santiam-11.3
Columbia SI
Flat Cr. to Crow
Cr,-7.2
70
-------
Table 12 (continued). OPERATING MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
Plant
King City
Lafayette
Lafayette Trappist Fndn.
Lane Community College
Laurelwood Academy
Lebanon
Lowell
Lowell Park
Ma ryl hurst
McMinnvllle
Metzger
Millersburg School
Milwaukie
Molalla
Momouth
Monroe
Mntn. St. I nv. -Airport Pk
Mt. Angel
Newberg
Oak Acres Trailer Park
Oak Hills
Oak Lodge San. Dist.
Oakridge
Oregon City
Oregon Primate Res. Ctr.
Panavista Subdivision
Philomath
Pineway Apartments
Type3
EA
L
TF
L
TF
TF
TF
EA
TF
AS
AS
L
AS
TF
L
L
EA-EF
TF
AS
EA
EA-L
AS
AS
AS
EA-L
EA
AS
EA-L
Year
built
1970
1964
1956
1967
1967
1958
1949
1960
1962
1970
1966
1966
1962
1955
1964
1968
1969
1955
1963
1962
1965
1969
1973
1969
1964
1964
1966
1972
1964
Desiq
domestic
population
equivalent
2,300
1,000
150
1,420
400
7,500
3,200
120
1,100
21 ,600
25,000
90
14,000
3,000
7,000
520
500
2,000
10,000
300
2,000
15,000
4,200
10,000
600
100
3,500
50
n
m3/dayb
1,000
380
42
540
190
7,200
980
30
420
15,000
9,500
34
7,600
1,500
2,600
200
190
1,400
7,600
no
760
15,000
1,600
11,000
230
3f
1,300
19
Receiving stream
river kilometer a«c
Tualatin R.
Yamhill-12.9
Cr to Yamhill
Russell Cr.
Hill Cr.-9.7
S Santiam-28.0
Mid Fork Willa-
mette-29.8
Mid Fork Willa-
mette-27.2
Willamette-35.2
S Fork Yamhill-
fi.4
Fanno Cr.-7.9
Crooks Cr.-lO.O
Willamette-29.0
Bear Cr.-0.8
Ash Cr.- 4.2
Long Tom-10.5
Columbia SI
Pudding-55.8
Willamette-80.9
Subsurface
Willow Cr.-4.3
Willamette-32.3
Mid Fork Willa-
mette-64.0
Willamette-40.5
Bronson Cr.-l .6
Cr to Cedar Mill
Cr
Mary's R-18.5
S Santiam
71
-------
Table 12 (continued). OPERATING MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
Plant
Pioneer Villa
Pleasant Valley School
Port 1 and -Co 1 umb i a
Port! and -Tryon Creek
Portland Mobile Home Ct.
Propco
Raraada Inn
River Bend Mobile Park
Riverview Heights
Riverview Mobile Ranch
River Village Mobile Park
Royal Highlands
St. Helens
St. Helens
Salera-Millow Lake
Salem-Uest
Sandy
Sauvie Island Moorage
Scappose
Sc1o
Sheridan
Sheridan Novitiate
Sfeervnod
Silver ton
Skyline West S. D.
Somerset West
Southwoqd Park S. 0.
Springfield
Stay ton
Type3
EA
EA
P
AS
TF
EA
EA-L
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
P
AL
TF
EA
AS
EA
AS-L
L
L
TF
TF
TF
L
EA-L
TF
TF
EA-EF
Year
built
1963
1963
1974
1965
1972
1968
1965
1970
1960
1971
1963
1961
1959
1971
1964
1969
1972
1971
1973
1969
1973
1956
1965
1969
1968
1964
1974
1962
1962
1964
1973
Desiqn
domestic
population
eq|Ji valpnt
75
130
1,100,000
31 ,000
620
150
280
500
400
500
60
75
10,000
340,000
73,900
4,000
5,000
75
5,000
600
5,250
200
1,000
4,000
310
1,600
1,000
36,000
13,500
ra3/dayb
30
49
378,000
19,000
230
57
68
190
190
190
30
30
11,000
110,000
66,000
1,500
1,900
28
1,900
230
2,000
57
2,200
2,600
91
1,200
380
26,000
5,100
Receiving stream
river kilometer
Courtney Cr.
Mitchell Cr.
Columbia -169. 7
Hillamette-32.7
Columbia SI
Columbia SI
Tualatin-12.9
Clackamas-11 .3
Dr to Willamette-
185.0
Clackanas-12.1
Willamette-64.4
Small Cr.
Aerated Lagoon
Col umbia-1 38.1
Uillamette-125.8
Willamette-128.7
Trickl.e Cr.-2.1
Multnomah Cr-30.6'
Multnomah Cr-16.9
Thomas Cr.-12.9
S Fork Yamhill-
59.5
S Fork Yamhill
Cedar Cr.-1.8
Silver Cr.-5.6
Oak Cr.
Beavcrton Cr-12.1
Ball Cr.- 1.9
Willamette- 296.5
N Santiam- 24.1
72
-------
Table 12 (continued). OPERATING MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
Plant
Stephenson School
Stuckey's Pecan
Sunset Valley
Sweet Home
Tangent School
Tektronix
Tigard
Timber-lakes Job Corps
Tualatin
Tualatin Valley Devel . Co.
Twin Oaks School
Veneta
West Hills San. Dist.
West Linn-Bolton
West Linn-Willamette
West Tualatin View School
Willamette Lutheran Homes
Mil lamina
Willow Island Mobile Est.
Wilsonville
Woodburn
Yamhill '
Type3
EA
L
AS
AS-EF
EA
EA
TF-AS
EA-L
EA-EF
EA
TF
L
EA
TF
TF
TF
L
L
EA-L
EA
TF-L
EA
Year
built
1965
1969
1965
1974
1965
1963
1970
1969
1970
1965
1958
1971
1961
1963
'1963
1968
1962
1966
1973
1972
1973
1964
Desiqn
domestic
population
eauivalent
60
70
10,900
12,000
36
4,000
11,400
300
3,500
2,000
120
300
300
7,000
2,500
100
175
2,000
300
5,000
9,560
750
m3/dayb
19
26
5,700
30
980
5,700
190
1,100
760
34
38
110
4,900
1,400
38
76
760
no
1,900
4,000
380
Receiving stream
river kilometer3 «c
Tryon Cr.
Courtney Cr.
Cedar Mill Cr-4.8
S Santiam-54.1
Cr to Lake Cr.
Beaverton Cr-11 .3
Fanno Cr.-6.0
Clackamas R.
Tualatin-13.8
Tualatin-17.7
Subsurface
Spencer Cr.-7.7
Long Tom- 48. 3
Squaw Cr.
Willamette- 38.8
Willamette- 45.1
Subsurface
Clear Lake
Wil lamina Cr-0.8
Willamette
Willamette- 62. 8
Pudding- 13.7
Yamhill Cr. J .4
Abbreviations: AL - Aerated Lagoon
AS - Activated Sludge
Cr - Creek
EA - Extended Aeration
EF - Effluent Filtration
L - Lagoon
P - Primary
SI - Slough
Sw - Swale
TF - Trickling Filter
b 1 m3/day = 264 gpd.
c 1 kilometer = 0.622 miles.
73
-------
Table 13. MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS WITH MAJOR INDUSTRIAL LOADS3
Plant
Albany
Corvallis
Dallas
Eugene
Forest Grove
Gresham
Junction City
McMinnville
Mt. Angel
Newberg
Oregon City
Portland
St. Helens
Salem
Sherwood
Silverton
Springfield
Tigard
Tualatin
Design population equivalent
Domestic
40,700
52,440
15,400
106,500
11,400
30,000
3,500
21,600
2,000
12,500
10,000
b
10,000
73,900
1,000
4,000
36,000
11,400
2,455
Industrial
187,300
95,300
20,000
222,000
129,600
10,000
4,200
25,400
3,000
3,500
46,000
b
330,000
381,100
4,500
16,000
4,000
1,400
1,240
1974 loadings
Domestic
21,000
37,900
7,000
90,100
9,670
23,800
2,600
12,500
2,200
7,000
20,000
385,000
6,000
100,000
2,850
4,550
33,000
12,200
2,650
Industrial
199,000
80,100
—
404,900
22,330
16,200
—
4,900
—
5,000
5,000
235,000
381,000
500,000
1,150
2,150
2,500
800
3,600
Data from reference 9 with updates provided by cities and DEQ.
Designed hydraulically for 378,000 m3/day (100 mgd).
-------
Table 14-. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS NO LONGER OPERATING
en
Plant
Aloha-Huber
Bailey Hill School
Baker Bay
Beaver Acres School
Bel-Aire Subdivision
BOMARC (Corvallis)
Broadmoor
Brookford
Cal Young School
Camp Adair
Cedar Mill Park
Columbia Sanitary District
Country Club Homes
Detroit Dam
Dorena Dam
Fannoe Park
Furlong
Grande Ronde Housing
Years
operational
'55- '67
'63- '67
'64- '70
'56- '57
'58- '63
'59- '61
'48- '61
'55- '61
'57- '66
'42- '49
'47- '57
'57- '66
'58- '61
'48- '53
'47- '53
'57- '61
•60- '64
'43- '59
Design
m3/daya
38
30
30
38
170
57
260
380
42
5,100
330
380
30
1,200
95
30
450
57
PE
500
300
1,000
100
450
150
1,000
1,000
580
35,000
1,370
1,000
80
3,150
500
60
1,200
300
Type of
Plant b
TF
EA
EA
TF
TF-L
EA
AS
AS
ST
P
TF
AS
L
TF
ST-ISF
EA
TF
ST
Original
•eceiving stream
Beaverton Creek
Ditch
Dorena Reservoir
Beaverton Creek
Fanno Creek
Willamette
Beaverton Creek
Fanno Creek
Willamette
Willamette
Cedar Mill Creek
Fanno Creek
Beaverton Creek
North Santiam
Ground
Fanno Creek
Cedar Mill Creek
Rock Creek
Flows to now
Aloha
Eugene
Ground
Aloha
Beaverton
None
Fanno Creek
Fanno Creek
Eugene
None
Sunset Valley
Fanno Creek
Fanno Creek
Nonec
None0
Fanno Creek
Sunset Valley
Subsurface
-------
Table 14 (continued). SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS NO LONGER OPERATING
OS
Plant
Green Peter Dam
Hillsboro Junior High School
Indian Hills
Jesuit High School
Judson School
Lewis & Clark College
MacLaren School
Manor in Gardens
Markham School
McGlassen Village
Meadow Lark School
Oak Grove School
Orchid
Orient Grade School
Peerless Truck
Pinebrook Sanitary District
Pioneer Trailer Park
Port of Portland
Raleigh Sanitary District
Years
operational
'64- '74
'63- '73
'63- '65
'55- '61
'58- '64
'52- '66
'53-'72
'47- '68
'51-'68
'62- '65
'60- '66
'55- '62
'58- '65
'54- '73
'65- '73
'65- '68
'56- '67
'41- '74
'57- '64
Design
m3/daya
7.6
68
57
30
57
450
380
260
38
30
25
76
30
33
30
230
30
1,900
530
PE
20
900
150
500
500
1.200
500
1,000
700
75
280
1,000
100
600
75
580
120
3,000
1,400
Type of
Plant b
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
P
TF
P
TF
EA
L
TF
EA
TF
EA
EA
EA
P
TF
Original
receiving stream
M Fk S Santiam
Beaverton Creek
Ditch
Beaverton Creek
Small Creek
Willamette
Pudding P..
Willamette
Fanno Creek
Creek to Rock Cr
Ditch to Willa-
mette
Creek to Willa-
mette
Fanno Creek
Creek to John-
son Creek
Tualatin R
Fanno Creek
Beaverton Creek
Columbia
Fanno Creek
Flows to now
Sweet Home0"
Hillsboro-Rock
Portland-Tryon
Fanno Creek
Sal en
Portland-Tryon
Woodburn
Salem
Portland-Tryon
Aloha
Eugene
Oak Lodge
Metzger
Greshanid
Tualah'n
Fanno Creek
Beaverton
Inverness
Fanno Creek
-------
Table 14 (continued). SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS NO LONGER OPERATING
Plant
Raleighwood Sanitary District
Rilco Corp.
Salemtowne
Salem
Wulfer's Trailer
Alumina Plant
Hill crest
State Farm
Penet. Annex
TB Hospital
Fairview
Sugar Plum Sanitary District
Sunset Heights
Sweet Home Housing
Sylvan Heights
Tahiti an Terrace
Thunderbird Trailer Park
Tualatin Hills
Tualatin Slopes
Years
operational
'56- '61
'61-'72
'67- '73
'59- '67
e
f
f
f
f
f
'62- '67
'57- '67
'43- '49
'64- '66
'60- '63
'62- '72
'54- '66
'52- '55
Design
m3/da>a
38
38
380
57
57
19
76
30
34
57
450
PE
100
200
1.000
250
200
150
500
350
75
120
285
1,000
100
Type of
Plant b
L
TF
EA
EA
TF
TF
TF
EA
EA
EA-L
TF
ST
Original
receiving stream
Fanno Creek
Coast Fk Willa-
mette
Wins low Creek
Little Pudding
Ground
Pringle Creek
Ditch
Mill Creek
Mill Creek
Pringle Creek
Butternut Creek
Beaverton Creek
Creek to Santlam
Fanno Creek
Creek to Fanno C
Creek to Willa-
mette
Fanno Creek
Subsurface
Flows to now
Fanno Creek
Cottage Grove
West Salem
Salem
Sal era
Salem
Salem
Salem
Salem
Salem
Aloha
West Slope SO
Sweet Home
Fanno Creek
Fanno Creek
Wilsonville
Metzger
Uplands
-------
-q
00
Table 14 (continued). SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS NO LONGER OPERATING
Plant
Uplands
Vermont Hills Sanitary Dist.
West Hills Convalescent Home
West Tualatin View School
Westmont
Weyerhauser
Whitford-McKay
Wilark Park
Willamette Manor
Mood Village
Years
operational
'60- '68
'48- '57
'64-'70
'56- '73
•60- '64
'49- '64
'57-'64
'65- '68
'55- '63
'43- '74
Design
m3/daya
570
38
57
380
68
230
420
130
530
760
PE
1,500
140
150
1,000
175
600
1,100
350
1,000
1,500
Type of
Plant b
TF9
ST-ISF
EA
TF
L
P
TF
EA
P
TF
Original
receiving stream
Johnson Creek
Fanno Creek
Fanno Creek
Beaverton Cr.
Cedar Mill Cr.
McKenzie
Fanno Creek
Labisch Creek
Willamette
Small Creek
Flows to now
Sunset Valley
Portland-Columbia
Portland-Columbia
Subsurface
Sunset Valley
Springfield
Fanno Creek
Salem
Oak Lodge
Gresham
a 1 m3/day - 264 gpd.
b Type of Plant:
TF
EA
L
AS
ST
P
Trickling Filter
Extended Aeration
Lagoon
Activated Sludge
Septic Tank
Primary Treatment
c Temporary Plant
d Via Truck
e 1942-1945 to 1951
f Before 1939 to 1949
9 Original Plant: EA (1957)
ISF - Intermittent Sand Filter
-------
Table 15. MAJOR OPERATING INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
to
Plant and
location
American Can,
Halsey
Boise Cascade,
St. Helens
Boise Cascade,
Salem
Crown Zellerbach,
Lebanon
Crown Zellerbach,
West Linn
Evans Products,
Con/all is
General Foods -
Birds Eye,
Woodburn'
Kaiser Gypsum,
St. Helens
Oregon Metallur-
gical , Albany
Type of process
Bleached Kraft pulping
and tissue wastes
Bleached Kraft pulping
wastes
Bleached sulfite pulping
and fine paper wastes
Sulfite pulping and
linerboard wastes
Bleached groundwood
pulping and fine paper
wastes
Wet process hardboard
wastes; battery separator
plant wastes
Fruit and vegetable pro-
cessing wastes
Groundwood pulp and
hardboard wastes
Titanium processing
wastes
Receiving stream
river kilometer*
Willamette - 238.8
St. Helens STP to
Columbia - 138.4
Willamette - 135.5
S. Santiam - 26.5
Willamette - 42.5
Willamette - 212.7
Pudding - 43.4
Scappoose Bay -1.1
Oak Creek to Wil-
lamette - 192.6
Allowable Discharges'* , kg/dayc
BOD5/Suspended Solids
1,100/3,200
Discharge to St. Helens
3,600/3,200
1 ,400/1 ,800
1,800/3,600
900/1 ,600
no/no
410/910
0/70
Otherd
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Chlorides - 4,500
Fluorides - 9,000
-------
Table 15 (continued). MAJOR OPERATING INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
00
o
Plant and
location
Pacific Carbide &
Alloys, Port! an
Pennwalt,
Portland
Publishers Paper,
Newberg
Publishers Paper,
Oregon City
Rhodia,
Portland
Stimson Timber,
Forest Grove
Tektronix,
Beaverton
Type of process
Calcium carbide electric
furnace scrubber wastes
and contaminated storm
waters
Contaminated cooling
water from chlor-alkali
process
Bleached sulfite, un-
bleached groundwood
pulping, and paper-mill
wastes
Bleached sulfite and
bleached groundwood
pulping wastes
Process waste from in-
secticide production
Groundwood pulping and
hardboard wastes
Electroplating wastes
Receiving stream
river kilometer*
Columbia Slough
Willamette - 11.9
Willamette - 80.4
Willamette - 44.2
Willamette -11.3
Scoggins Cr - 6.4 to
Tualatin - 101.0
Beaverton Cr - 1.0.8
to Rock Cr. to
Tualatin - 61.9
Allowable Dischargesb, k9/dayc
BOD5/Suspended Solids
o/e
0/0
2,700/3,400
3,600/3,400
0/120
No discharge
0/110
Otherd
None
Chlorine - 45
Chromium - 45
Ammonia - 70
None
None
CODf - 680
Dissolved
solids - 21,000
None
Ammonium Ion - 4.5
Fluoride Ion - 3.4
-------
Table 15 (continued). MAJOR OPERATING INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
oo
Plant and
location
Union Carbide,
Portland
Wah Chang,
Al bany
Western Kraft,
Albany
Weyerhauser,
Springfield
Type of process
Ferro alloys - electro
furnace scrubber wastes
Process waste from exotic
metals production
Unbleached Kraft, neutral
sulfite semi -chemical
pulping and linerboard
wastes
Unbleached Kraft pulping
and linerboard wastes
Receiving stream
river kilometer*
Columbia Slough
Truax Cr - 3.2 to
Willamette - 185.8
Willamette - 187.4
McKenzie - 23.7
Allowable Discharges^, kg/dayc
BOD5/Suspended Solids
0/62
0/320
1.1.00/2.300
1,400/4,500
Otherd
Manganese - 5.7
Cyanide - none
detectable
CODe - 450
Dissolved solids-
22,000
Ammonium ion -1,400
None
None
3 1 kilometer = 0.622 miles
During low flow period; higher levels during winter.
c 1 kg * 2.20 Ib.
Inorganic waste streams have many other components.
e 50 mg/1 suspended solids.
f COD - Chemical Oxygen Demand
-------
investigation was limited to the twenty listed firms mainly because of
the lack of information regarding expenditures for most other companies.
This lack of data is not critical, however, to the objectives of this
study. Of all industries having organic wastes—pulp and paper, wood
products, food processing—and having their own outfalls, the pulp and
paper related firms listed in Table 15 account for about 85 percent of
the raw BODc produced and 95 percent of that released to the Willamette
River and its tributaries. Also, a check of capital expenditures for
industrial pretreatment facilities showed these costs to be extremely
low in comparison to the capital costs of the municipal systems to
which discharge was made.
Table 16 summarizes pertinent information for existing and author-
ized federal reservoirs in the Willamette Valley. The existing reser-
voirs, all operated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, are the ones
of concern to this report. Reservoirs belonging to private industry and
utilities (e.g., the Eugene Water and Electric Board) have been excluded
from this study because they were felt to have a negligible flow aug-
mentation impact when compared to the federal reservoir system. The
Scoggins Creek reservoir presently under construction by the Bureau of
Reclamation was not considered because this report dealt with the years
prior to 1975.
ECONOMIC EXPENDITURES
Figures 14 and 15 represent the capital expenditures made for water
pollution control by municipalities during the periods 1914-1945 and
1946-1974, respectively. The expenditures shown are total project costs
and no attempt has been made to separate public and private "shares" in
those cities where significant amounts of industrial wastes are handled
by the municipal system. Municipal cost data was gathered from OSSA and
the DEQ annual45-5l and biennial52-64 reports, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's (EPA) Project Register of Construction Grants65-66, and
the results of a Water Resources Research Institute (WRRI) municipal
survey.
Figure 16 shows the capital expenditures for in-plant modifications
and end-of-the-line treatment facilities made by industry since 1949.
The total costs of industrial expenditures which aided water quality and
also reduced operational costs (e.g., base conversions and chemical re-
covery systems at pulping companies) are included in this figure. No
allocation of expenditures between these purposes was made. Thus, the
industrial expenditures shown may be high. Industrial information came
from the OSSA and DEQ reports, a review of DEQ's tax credit files, and a
WRRI industrial questionnaire.
82
-------
Table 16. FEDERAL RESERVOIRS IN THE WILLAMETTE VALLEY
Subbasin
reservoir
Tualatin e
Scoggins Cr.f
McKay Cr.g
Rock Cr.9
Santiam
Detroit
Big Cliff
Foster
Green Peter
Cascadia9
Calapooia
Holleyg
McKenzie
Cougar
StrubeQ
Blue River "
Gate Cr.g
Long Tom
Fern Ridge
Mid Fork
Look Out Point
Dexter
Hills Creek
Fall Creek
Coast Fork
Cottage Grove
Dorena
Stream
kilometer3
Scoggins Cr. 8.2
McKay Cr.
Rock Cr.
N Santiam 79.3
N Santiam 74.7
S Santiam 60.7
M Santiam 9.2
S Santiam 77.2
Calapooia 73.2
S Fk McKenzie 7.2
S Fk McKenzie 4.0
Blue R. 2.7
Gate Cr. 0.6
Long Tom 41 .4
M Fk Willam. 32.0
M Fk Willam. 27.0
M Fk Willam. 72.2
Fall Cr. 11.6
C Fk Willam. 47.8
Row R. 12.2
Drainage
area
km2b
1130
1170
1280
717
539
230
707
2570
2590
1010
477
269
686
Capacity, I000m3c
total
75,000
561 ,000
7,310
75,000
530,000
271 ,000
110,000
124,800
562,000
30,000
439,000
154,000
41 ,000
95,600
usable
65,000
23,800
4,700
419,000
2,960
41 ,400
411,000
179,000
110,000
204,000
3,700
104,000
62,000
136,000
431 ,000
5,900
307,000
142,000
37,100
87,000
Authorized
purposes d
WQC) FC, I,
>R. M&I,
J F&W
FC, N, I, P
P, RR
FC, P, RR
FC, N, I, P
FC, N, I
FC, N. I
FC, N, I, P
P, RR
FC, N, I
FC, N, I
FC, N, I
FC, N, I. P
P, RR
FC, N, I, P
FC, N, I
FC. N, I
FC, N, I
Type of dam
Concrete
Concrete
Rock Fill
Concrete
Rock Fill
Rock/Gravel
Earth
Earth/Concrete
Earth/Concrete
Earth/Gravel
Rock Fill
Earth/Gravel
Earth
Year
opera-
tional
1975
1953
1953
1966
1966
1963
1968
1941
1954
1954
1961
1965
1942
1949
Generating
capacity, kW
None
None
None
100,000
18,000
20,000
80,000
None
None
25,000
39,500
None
None
None
120,000
15,000
30,000
None
None
None
al Kilometer = 0.622 mile.
bl km2 = 0.386 miles2.
cl ,000m3 = 0.811 acre feet.
dFC-Flood Control; N-Navigation; I-Irrigation; P-Power; R-Recreation; Mil-Municipal and Industrial
F&W-Fish and Wildlife; WQC-Water Quality Control; RR-Reregulating.
^Tualatin Reservoirs: Bureau of Reclamation; all others: Corps of Engineers.
fUnder construction.
9Authorized.
"Two dams involved: a main dam and an auxiliary dam.
-------
120,000
•*»• 100,000
••
LJ
cr
jB 80,000
Q
z
LJ
x 60,000
LJ
_l
§ 40,000
z
z
<
20,000
0
—
—
1 ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
_ —^ CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURES
__
—
—
—
U-W
1
.
J^
— '
,1
_
r .
1
/I
/
/
/I
^
/
—
—
1
1 1
600,000
•*»•
500,000 u"
o:
D
H
400,000 g
LJ
Q.
X
300,000 u
LJ
>
^^
200,000 3
D
2
D
100,000 °
0
1915 1925 1935 1945
YEAR
Figure 14. Capital expenditures for municipal sewage collection and treatment: 1915-1945.
-------
00
en
c
o
1 1.0
**-
Uj" o
or 8
jB
Q
2 6
UJ
QL
X
UJ
^ 4
g
i 2
0
>I50
^IP/-» _
ANNUAL EXPENDITURES /
^*S CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURES
/i 66
... CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURES- /I
1963 DOLLARS /I
J 1*
—
—
"™ ^
—
,«*"
r^
1945
^
k
.
••*
1
..••'
*i
^ "
I
1
1955
.•
L/
i**
.•
/
/
.«•
•*
y
^
^
•[*
••''/
/y
/
•
/
/
^^
yf
r**
1
'
—
—
•••
—
1
120
0
•|
100 ^.
u"
or
80 ?
Q
UJ
60 J
UJ
LJ
40 1
^
20 §
o
0
1965 1975
YEAR
Figure 15. Capital expenditures for municipal sewage collection and treatment:
1946-1974.
-------
o 50
oo
LJ
o:
ID
LU
Q_
X
LU
LU
>
5
_l
ID
5
O
O
ALL INDUSTRIES
PULP ft PAPER INDUSTRY
ALL INDUSTRIES -
1963 DOLLARS
1955 1965
YEAR
1975
Figure 16. Capital expenditures for the control of industrial wastewaters:
1949-1974 (by the firms listed in Table 8 ).
-------
Table 17 is a compilation of capital cost and financing informa-
tion relating to the existing federal reservoirs. To date, slightly
more than 400 million dollars have been spent for their construction.
In terms of 1963 dollars the figure is about 520 million. But what
portion of this can be "allocated" to water quality control? The Defi-
nite Project Reports or General Design Memoranda for nine of the thir-
teen reservoirs included annual water quality control (WQC) benefits as
part of the benefit-cost analyses (see Table 17).67-79 The WQC benefit
allowed ranged from 1.2 to 5.5 percent of the total benefits. Assuming
an average value of 3.0 percent, the WQC portion of the capital cost is
about 12 million dollars (15 million 1963-dollars).
Such a cost allocation can be justified only on the basis of the
limited time and resources available to address this issue. Any system
to allocate costs which are "joint" in the economic sense is arbitrary
to some degree. However, an allocation system sensitive to the real
water quality benefits generated by the reservoirs would have been more
defensible. It is likely that the method employed in this study only
sets a lower bound on water quality improvement costs.
ENERGETIC EXPENDITURES
Methodology
The documentation of energy expenditures involved in constructing
the facilities listed in Tables 12 through 16 presented problems in that
there existed no clearcut, standard methods of evaluating such costs.
A direct approach is a difficult one. It depends upon breaking up
the construction of each facility into a number of components (e.g.,
earthwork, reinforced concrete, equipment), following as closely as pos-
sible the engineer's estimates of direct costs. The same steps would
then be taken again for each component to evaluate the energies required
to manufacture the various materials, shape them into specific products,
transport them, and incorporate them into the component.
This approach could be directed to some very specific projects and
hence has the advantage of realism. It is obvious, of course, that with
about 200 municipal treatment systems, the 20 chosen industrial systems,
and the 13 Corps of Engineer reservoirs constructed over a 30-year
period, the task of handling the large amount of detailed information is
a formidable one. Nor is all the necessary information readily avail-
able. The breakdown of the construction elements is possible only for
large, aggregated classes. Direct and indirect energy requirements for
these components are difficult to ascertain. An alternative approach
had to be found.
87
-------
Table 17. FINANCING INFORMATION FOR EXISTING FEDERAL RESERVOIRS, WILLAMETTE BASIN.
oo
oo
Subbasin
reservoir
SANTIAM
DETROIT
BIG CLIFF
FOSTER
GREEN PETER
McKENZIE
COUGAR
BLUE RIVER
LONG TOM
FERN RIDGE
HID FORK
LOOKOUT POINT
DEXTER
HILLS CREEK
FALL CREEK
COAST FORK
COTTAGE GROVE
DORENA
Estimated costs, charges, and benefits*
Base year
1951
1951
1962
1959
1956
1963
1939
1940
1951
1955
1961
1939
1940
Amortization
period, years
50
50
100
50
50
100
50
50
50
50
Interest
rate, X
3
3
2 1/2
2 1/2
2 1/2
2 5/8
3
3
2 1/2
2 5/8
Total
costb,
106 dollars
62.2
9.2
29. 6n
68. 29-
41.5
33.6
2.6
34.8
13.1
34.8
28.8
2.3
4.4
Annual
charges?-,
06 dollars
2.67
0.45
0.98,,
3.279
1.86
1.02
1.48
0.65
1.47
1.12
pnnual water
Annual (quality
benefits, benefits,
106 dollars 1Q6 dollars
} 3.82f
6.38
4.139
2.91
2.38
1.62
2.93
2.38
0.044f
0.152n
0.1 299.
0.070
0.028
0.041
0.120
0.131
Total
construction
costd,
10° dollars
} O.l'
26.0
57.0
54.3
28.9
6.0
} 87.9f
45.7
21.1
2.7
14.1
Annual
0 & H
cost6,
106 dollars
[ 0.587f
V 0.615f
0.211
0.052
0.166
| 0.673f
0.164
0.091
0.162
0.136
a Data from appropriate Definite Project Reports or General Design Memoranda written prior to construction.
Total investment, including recreation facilities.
c Includes interest, amortization, operation and maintenance, replacements, and taxes foregone.
Source: "Hater Resources Development by the Army Corps of Engineers in Oregon*, 1973. Excludes recreation facilities.
e Source: "Extract: Report on the Improvements 1n the Portland, Oregon, District", Fiscal Year 1972.81
Combined benefits and costs of principal and reregulating dam.
9 Includes the then planned White Bridge Reregulating Reservoir with estimated cost of $11.3 million.
-------
Fortunately, economic analysis provides an analog which is useful
In this context. Specifically, input-output (1-0) analysis is applied
in this study to estimate total (direct and indirect) energy require-
ments. Before addressing the subject of estimating energy requirements
through the input-output technique, a brief description of the nature
and use of this technique in economics is necessary.
The study of the interdependency of the economics system has long
been an important aspect of economic studies; but during the 1930's
this study focused for the first time on the empirical relationships
underlying the structure of the American economy. 82 This structure was
studied by dividing the economy into a number of relatively homogeneous
industrial sectors and observing the flows of goods and services among
them. It is, perhaps, easiest to describe this framework by use of a
simple example.
Assume a simple economy with four sectors: Agriculture (I),
Manufacturing (II), Construction (III), and Energy (IV). The fundamen-
tal input-output relationships are presented below.
Final Demand Total Output
I II III IV (yi)
x12 x13
X22 X23 X2»t Y2
III x31 x32 x33 x34 y3
IV
The crucial elements in this table are the X-jj's on the left side. They
represent the dollar value of the flow of goods and services from the
sector listed on the left of a particular cell to that listed as the
column heading. Thus Xi2 represents the value of goods and services
flowing from the agricultural to the manufacturing sector. These ele-
ments are referred to as "interindustry demands" because they reflect
the requirements which one sector places on the production of other
sectors in order to meet its own production goals.
The elements y-j are "final demands". They reflect largely house-
hold consumption, exports, investments, and government purchases.
Interindustry demands plus final demands must equal a sector's total
output (X). Thus, the following equation can be written for sector I,
for example:
xn + x12 + x13
Or, in general terms, the equation is:
I Xij + y1 = X1 (1)
89
-------
There are two ways of obtaining the numerical estimates of the x-fj's.
First, one can observe the transactions in dollar terms of the goods
and services flowing from one sector to another to determine the inter-
industry demands. Secondly, one can make use of the assumption that
input requirements of a sector are directly proportional to that sec-
tor's output. These input requirements are technologically fixed and
can be derived from knowledge of technical production relationships.
Equation (2) can be written as:
xij ' aij XJ W
The terms of our example, x12 (the value of goods and services flowing
from the agricultural to the manufacturing sector) is a function of the
level of output of the manufacturing sector (X2) and the technical coef-
ficient, a12.
It should be noted here that 1-0 analysis uses linear approxima-
tions to describe economic interactions. Thus large changes in one or
more sectors could significantly alter the coefficients employed. Other
shortcomings of using the input-output technique in this application are
those generally attributable to the use of this mode of analysis. These
are discussed elsewhere and are well -known. 83 They are not especially
limiting in this application. The reader is cautioned, however, that
the fixity in technology assumption, which this analysis employs, would
become especially troublesome when predictions about energy use are
made in a situation when energy price relationships are expected to
change. In contrast, Energy prices were relatively stable during the
period of this analysis.
Equation (2) can be substituted into equation (1) to obtain:
Xj + yi = XT (3)
Returning briefly to the subject of the interdependent nature of
the economic system, it is apparent from the transactions table and from
equation (1) that a change in output of any sector will cause the output
of other sectors to change. This is because the interindustry demands
faced by these sectors will be altered. These output changes will again
cause outputs to respond in other sectors. What will be the extent of
these output changes? Solving equation (3) for output provides the
answer.
In matrix notation equation (3) is written as
AX + Y = X
where, for this example,
90
-------
a!2
a21 a22 a23
a31 a32 a33
X =
X - AX = Y and
X = (I-A)"1 Y
where I is an identity matrix.
(4)
-1
exampl
Designating the elements of (I-A)" as c^-, the matrix
le can be written as:
for this
(I -A)
-1
Ci2 Ci3
C21 C22 C23
C31 C32 C33
Ci*3
In this example, the interpretation of the c-y's is very important.
Where ai2 yielded the direct output requirement from sector I as the
output of sector II changed by one unit, c12 yields the total (direct
and indirect) output requirement from sector I as the output from sector
II changes by one unit. The latter accounts for all interindustry re-
lationships in the economy.
This brings us almost to the solution of the problem. Postulating
that, because of increased water quality requirements in the Willamette
River System, the output of the construction sector (III) increases by
one dollar, then the coefficient c^ will yield the estimate of the out-
put response required from the energy sector (IV).
Only one problem remains. The predicted output response of sector
IV is in value terms (dollars); the interest here is in predicting the
response in terms of physical units (Joules). It would be a simple
matter of dividing the value estimate by the price of energy to obtain
the response in physical units. It is known, however, that energy is
sold to various sectors at different prices. (This point and the prices
actually used in the calculations are taken from Herendeen.84) TO esti-
mate the number of physical units of energy required to serve a change
in the final demand of the construction sector, Ay3, a more complicated
procedure must be employed.
Equation (4) allows us to write
AX
(I - A)'1 AY
(5)
91
-------
Equation (5) can be written as
C21
C31
C22
c13
C23
C33
Ci+2
AVI
Ay2
AX2
AX3
(6)
As we assumed the final demand to change in the construction sector only,
Ayi = Ay2 = Ay4 = 0. According to equation (6) output changes in the
economy then become
AX2 =
AX3 = c33Ay3
These AXj's represent the total value of output change associated with
Ay3 (a change in the final demand of the construction sector).
Of primary interest is the output change of the energy producing
sector (AXiJ. AXi, represents the change in the value of output of the
energy producing sector. Assuming that prices vary according to the
sector to which Sector IV sells its output, then it becomes necessary
to know how AXi, is composed. In other words, the changes in the values
of output flowing from sector IV to each of the sectors of the economy
must be known. To estimate these flows equation (2) is utilized to
wri te:
(7)
AXj
The right side of equation (7) is the matrix:
an
AX2
a22, AX2
a32 AX2
AX2
a23 AX3
933
The technical coefficients and the AXj in the above matrix are
known. Its bottom row represents the dollar values of deliveries from
the energy sector to each of the other sectors of the economy to satisfy
the change in final demand faced by the construction sector (AY3). If
P«ti» P«+2» Pif3> a™* Pitit are the prices at which energy is sold to sectors
I, II, III, and IV, respectively, then the total output change in physi-
cal units required from the energy sector (AEiJ to meet the change in
final demand of the construction sector (AY3) can be obtained using
equation (8):
92
-------
AXj ^42 AA2 ^43 ^"3 ^'t't AAij
+ + — - + — - (8)
The 1-0 model employed broke the economy up into 362 sectors, five
of which were energy suppliers (coal, crude oil and gas, refined pet-
roleum, electricity, and natural gas). 84
The use of the 1-0 energy model allowed the researchers to calcu-
late the "direct" energy requirement per dollar of sales in a particu-
lar sector and the "indirect" energy needs of all the other sectors com-
bined required to support a dollar of sales in the first industry.
Figure 17 will help clarify the differences between "direct" and "in-
direct" requirements.
As can be seen from the figure, "direct" energy sales included only
those made directly by the five energy sectors to another sector (con-
struction in this case). "Indirect" energy sales were those made by the
five energy sectors to any other for its support of the industry in
question. It should be noted that the "indirect" energies included only
operational energies and excluded capital energies. Referring to Figure
17, this means the energy required to build the steel mill is excluded;
only the energy required to make the steel is included. It is felt that
negligible error results from this practice. 85
A problem involved with using this method is the exclusion of
energy costs of imports to the economy, which introduced about a ten
percent error. The entire procedure yielded answers that were felt to
be within fifty percent of the actual value.85
Results
The I-0-energy model approach to converting dollar costs of con-
struction to energy costs was employed on the expenditures discussed
earlier in this chapter. Table 18 lists the values of the coefficients
used in the conversion process. The coefficients are energy conver-
sions for the particular category of construction which includes dams
and sewerage works.
Table 19 presents the results of applying the coefficients to the
construction costs of the facilities previously discussed.
93
-------
INDIRECT
REQUIREMENTS
INDIRECT
REQUIREMENTS
INDIRECT
REQUIREMENTS
DIRECT
REQUIREMENTS
FINAL 4
[DEMAND
»
\
\
111,
J
FIVE
ENERGY
SECTORS
•INDIRECT* ENERGY DEMAND
•DIRECT' ENERGY DEMAND
*E.O., CONSTRUCTION OF RESERVOIR OR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Figure 17. Input-output-energy model energy flows.
94
-------
Table 18. COEFFICIENTS USED IN CONVERTING CONSTRUCTION
DOLLARS TO ENERGY VALUES*
Energy
Type
Coal
Crude oil and gas
Refined petroleum
Electricity
Natural gas
Total
Coefficients, Mega Joules (MJ)/dollarb
Direct
0.000
0,000
8.560
0.211
0.410
9.181
Total
25.996
47.008
26.644
3.631
21.258
124.537
Source: reference 84, construction sector 11.05; based on
1963 dollars.
1 MJ = 948 British Thermal Units (BTU).
95
-------
CO
os
Table 19. ENERGY COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES
OF THE WILLAMETTE BASIN
Facility
classification
Municipal facilities
Treatment plants
Interceptors
All facilities
Industrial facilities
Reservoirs
Total
3% - WQCC
Construction costs,
1963 dollars
74,000,000
41,000,000
120,000,000
34,000,000
520,000,000
15,000,000
Direct energy
requirement,
Tera Joules (TJ)b
680
380
1,100
310
4,800
140
Total energy
requirement, TJ
9,200
5,100
15,000
4,200
65,000
1,900
As defined; see text for full description of facility classification.
b 1 TJ = 948 x 106 BTU.
0 3% allocated for water quality control.
-------
Verification
A verification of the results of applying the I-0-energy model con-
cept to the construction of the water pollution control facilities was
carried out and the procedure is outlined here. The direct construction
energy requirements for one recently completed activated sludge waste-
water treatment plant and for two reservoirs, Green Peter Lake, having
a concrete dam and power production facilities, and Blue River Lake,
having two earth filled dams and no power producing facilities, were
investigated in detail. The results of the earthwork energy (i.e.,
energy per unit of excavation and backfill) calculations for the acti-
vated sludge plant were then applied to ten other treatment facility
construction projects in an effort to expand the verification.
The appropriate findings of the report "Energy Use in the Contract
Construction Industry"86 were also used as a means of checking the
direct construction energy requirements estimated by the I-0-energy
methodology. The results of this report are based upon estimated
energy requirements in different construction categories (e.g., heavy
construction, sewerage works) as a function of a project's monetary
value. The report also allows the user to estimate the energy needs
for various items (e.g., earthwork) within each category. It should be
noted that this report is hot for contract estimating purposes but
rather for evaluating the effects of various energy supply situations
on different construction sectors.
Table 20 presents comparisons of the I-0-energy methodology results,
the values arrived at using the report86 mentioned above, and the esti-
mates made by the researchers for the three projects investigated in de-
tail. Also included 1n Table 20 is the energy required to manufacture
just the cement and the reinforcing steel that went into the projects.
Table 21 is a comparison of direct construction energies of 10
treatment plants utilizing the three methods discussed above. Also in-
cluded is the energy required to manufacture the cement and reinforcing
steel that went into the facilities.
Several important notes should be made regarding the comparisons
which Tables 20 and 21 present. One, the energy need estimated using
the I-0-energy model approach is consistently lower than the requirement
estimated using the construction energy study.86 This may be true for
several reasons including: 1), the report is based upon 1973 costs
while the I-0-energy methodology is founded upon a 1963 transactions
table of the economy—construction has, in general, become more energy
intensive with time; 2) the energy pricing portion of the I-0-energy
method work, based upon national data, may have priced energy supplied
to the construction sector too high for use in the Willamette Basin—
97
-------
Table 20. COMPARISON OF DIRECT CONSTRUCTION ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
OF THREE PROJECTS
CO
oo
Project
Energy type
Green Peter Lake
Refined petroleum
Electricity
Natural gas
Total
Blue River Lake
Refined petroleum
Electricity
Natural gas
Total
Activated sludge plant
Refined petroleum
Electricity
Natural gas
Total
Direct energy requirement, TJa
Via I-0-energy
methodology
488
12
23
523
247
6
12
265
15
0.3
0.7
16
Via reference 86
Total
779
41
0
820
534
28
0
562
35
2
0
37
Appropriate
i temsb
430
0
0
430
290
0
0
290
12
0
0
U
Via direct
calculation0
236
71
0
307
396
1
0
397
7.3
0
0
7.3
Materials'1
energy,
TJg
780
90
35
a 1 TJ = 948 x 106 BTU.
Appropriate items selected to facilitate comparison with direct calculation: earthwork
and concreting for Green Peter and Blue River Lakes; earthwork only for activated sludge
plant.
c For earthwork and concreting at Green Peter and Blue River Lakes; earthwork only for
activated sludge plant.
Energy required to manufacture just cement and reinforcing steel included in project.
-------
to
CO
Table 21. COMPARISON OF DIRECT CONSTRUCTION ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Plant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Direct enerav reauirement. TJa
Via I-0-energy
methodology
5.1
14.0
4.5
7.2
11.0
8.6
10.0
7.7
25.0
5.0
Via reference 86
Total
12
29
11
17
24
13
23
17
52
12
Earthwork
3.7
9.1
3.3
5.2
7.4
4.1
7.1
5.4
16.
3.7
Earthwork via
direct calculation
0.36
1.1
0.09
0.19
0.36
0.13
0.83
0.45
0.93
0.29
Materials5
energy,
Tja
5.7
27.
5.3
6.5
12.
5.5
16.
14.
c
5.5
a 1 TJ = 948 x 106 BTU.
Energy required to manufacture just cement and reinforcing steel included
in project.
c Not available.
-------
thus the energy/dollar conversion coefficient might be low; and 3) the
construction energy report^ is based upon estimating energy needs in
construction--!'t is possible that overestimating may have occurred.
Two, note how the direct calculations compare with the values of
the first two methods. For the two reservoirs in Table 20 the major
energy uses—excavation and concrete work—were considered. For the
activated sludge plant, all the major earthwork items were considered,
but concreting was excluded. The direct calculations for these three
jobs show fairly good correlation with the other methods. For the 10
treatment plants in Table 21, however, it can be seen that the directly
calculated earthwork energy values are quite low compared with the
values of the other methods. This is because only the excavation and
backfill earthwork items were checked. (The inclusion of energy re-
quired to make concrete, i.e., transport of aggregate from borrow to
batch plant, batch plant operation, and ready-mix transport, would not
significantly increase the reported values.) This poor verification
may have occurred for several reasons including: 1) general excavation
and backfill require quite low energy inputs per unit of work compared
to other earthwork items (e.g., riprap work, offsite disposal of mater-
ials); 2) an energy requirement per unit of estimated excavation and
backfill was applied only once, while it is not uncommon to move the
same earth several times (e.g., opening up a trench more than once to
put in various utilities); and 3) efficiencies may have been much lower
than that assumed in the calculation, i.e., idling equipment may utilize
much more fuel than reckoned.
Finally, note the large amount of energy required to produce just
the cement and reinforcing steel that goes into the facilities in Tables
20 and 21. Considering the many products and pieces of process equip-
ment that make up these water pollution control facilities, it is not
difficult to see why the total energy coefficients of Table 18 are so
much larger than the direct coefficients.
Direct energy requirements for interceptor construction were not
investigated, but a relatively high portion of contract amounts in this
type of building would be for earthwork. Thus, direct energy require-
ments would be relatively high.
100
-------
SECTION VIII
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES
MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS
0 & M costs of municipal wastewater treatment systems as well as
those of private sewage systems for the period 1973-74 were investigated.
Municipal data was gathered from a survey of monthly reports submitted
to the DEQ by plant operators, a review of recent EPA 0 & M audits, and
the results of a WRRI treatment plant survey. Most of the information
gained is tabulated in the Appendix.
To arrive at the total annual dollar and energy expenditures re-
quired to operate and maintain municipal treatment works in the Willa-
mette Valley, considerable estimating was required. Different methods
of estimating were used in various areas and the appropriate discussions
are to be found in the sections below. Regression analyses were carried
out where statistical significance existed.
0 & M costs were researched for the interceptor portion of munici-
pal collection systems. Operational costs are mainly restricted to
those of running pump stations and depend significantly upon topography
and flow variation. Maintenance costs for cleaning, inspection, and
normal repair are low; most collection system maintenance needs are for
the smaller sewers "upstream" of the interceptors. More detail is given
in subsequent paragraphs.
Treatment Fac i1i ti es
Electrical Requirements — Large amounts of electrical energy are used
in the treatment of sewage, mainly for pumping and aeration, where
employed. Information relating to periodic electrical usage was gath-
ered. In those instances where a periodic dollar expenditure was known
but an energy consumption figure was lacking, the "National Electric
Rate Book"87 was employed to estimate the missing figure.
Figure 18 is a plot of unit cost as a function of daily usage.
Figure 19 relates consumption to average flow; the variation on energy
intensiveness for differing processes is very noticeable. Figures 20
and 21 present electrical unit requirements as a function of total pol-
lutant removal per day for i-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs) and
suspended solids, respectively. The variation between processes is also
noticeable here.
101
-------
o
to
AVERAGE USE, kW-hr/day
1C
2.0
1.0
~3
^ 0.5
-e-
« 0-2
O
O _ ,
O.I
0.05
r 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 1C
1 111 III III III 1
_ 00
"o *-•—*<» 0 Q
— ° ^~^°~~~^~~—~ A*i » ~~
® "^^"•-c^_«
• **>°»i- 0 _
_ • GO — * —
• REPORTED VALUES
0 POINTS ESTIMATED WITH NATIONAL
- ELECTRIC RATE BOOK KNOWING
COST PER UNIT OF FLOW
— 4/MJ = 1.72 (MJ/day)~J81 (P<.OOI) ~
III III III III III
J
10.0
5 O
-------
o
CO
O
o
o
u
(O
o
or
H
O
LU
_J
UJ
I0'2 2
5 10
AVERAGE FLOW, mgd
™ I o c i /\» o
10'
10*
20.000
1 0,000
5,000
2,000
1,000
500
200
too
50
9n
1 1 ° | III III
D
~ ° D
D °
- A AS-*O. °
A TFA"^-.^.i a"^*a°°
' A ' ^ -1
A A
0
- AS: MJ/IOOOm3 * 1670 (I000m3/doyf '2I3 (.IO< P<.25)
TF:MJ/IOOOm3= 796 (I000m3/day)">225 (.OKP<.025)
II III III II
III 1
0 ACTIVATED SLUDGE
0 EXTENDED AERATION ~
• TRICKLING FILTER
A LAGOON _
A AERATED LAGOON
• SECONDARY W/
EFFLUENT FILTRATION—
• PRIMARY
^
-^2.
o """"***••••»
•
—
—
1 III*
20,000
IO.OOO
5,000
2,000
1,000
500
200
100
50
9C\
CO
O
a:
10"2 2
10"
10
io2 2
AVERAGE FLOW, lOOOmVday
Figure 19. Electrical use vs. wastewater -R-ow.
-------
AVERAGE REMOVAL, Ib BODg/day
o *-
£§
_J o>
u\
gl
ID
100
50
20
10
5
2
1
2 5 10* 2 5 10"
1 III II
n
DD
n A 5 O
- TF-"-.^ •oj" - - .
- - • ""^>'
- AS: MJ/kg = 47.1 (kg/day)"'249
TF: MJ/kg = 35.4 (kg/day)"'323
~l 1 III 1
2 5 IOH 2 5 1C
1 1 1 1 1
0 ACTIVATED SLUDGE —
D EXTENDED AERATION
• TRICKLING FILTER
• SECONDARY W/ —
EFFLUENT FILTRATION
• PRIMARY _
O —
*"*O» — op _
I m° A0^*^*^.
""^-. ° ~
(.05
o
CD
LJ
-------
O
01
AVERAGE REMOVAL, Ib suspended solids/day
2 5 IO2 2 5 IO3 2 5 IO4 2 5
co
w co
a: -o
o "a
y 5
LJ co"
3
100
50
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
1 III III III 1
0 0 ACTIVATED SLUDGE
D EXTENDED AERATION —
• TRICKLING FILTER
• SECONDARY W/
EFFLUENT FILTRATION-
AC n • PRIMARY
AS^ g U
~~ C^*'x. O
«N» ° —
TF"^*-^ D° ^^0°
n • ""*"-•• -N. °^ —
"•"•**. (5^n***>5D
^°"o^.^
^'"^
u
AS: MJ/kg = 105 (kg/day)"'378 (P<. 001) ~
- TF: MJ/kg = 30.6 (kg/dayp276 (.005
CO >-
ID co
-I 2
< o
o w
E "°
"- 0)
I- -o
O c.
s
UJ
CO
.0
Figure 21. Electrical use vs. suspended solids removal.
-------
The work of Smith88 was utilized to check the results. His calcu-
lations range from 10 to 40 percent below the values presented in Figure
19. Smith's work is based upon summing the calculated electrical re-
quirements for the motors which operate the various pieces of plant
equipment, where as Figure 19 presents total requirements without
looking at individual machinery. The different methodologies may, in
part, explain the differences.
Another use of Smith's work lies in apportioning energy costs
between different levels of treatment. At a conventional trickling
filter plant the primary treatment units, including capacity for sludge
processing accounts for approximately 70 percent of the total energy
requirements. At a conventional activated sludge plant, because of the
aeration requirements and increased sludge handling capacity, primary
treatment accounts for about 35 percent of the total energy use. Ef-
fluent filtration, which is employed at several treatment facilities in
the valley, adds 25 and 12 percent for trickling filter and activated
sludge plants, respectively.
Using Figures 18 and 19 to estimate missing unit cost and energy
requirements, respectively, the total annual energy expenditure for
wastewater treatment in the Basin was about 180 tera Joules (TO)
(51 x 106 kilo-Watt-hours (kW-hr)), an average of 0.50 TJ/day (140,000
kW-hr/day). This amounts to approximately one quarter of one percent
of the total Willamette Valley electrical use. Reported dollar costs
varied from $0.13/1000m3 ($0.51/million gallons (mg)) at a large primary
treatment plant to $60/1000m3 ($230/mg) at a small package extended
aeration plant. Secondary treatment plants with flows of 3,800 to
110,000m3/day (1.0 to 30 mgd) generally had electrical costs on the
order of $0.80 to $6.60/1000m3 ($3 - $25/mg). The total annual elec-
trical cost for municipal wastewater treatment for the Willamette
Valley was about $600,000 for the 1973-74 period.
Before leaving this section on electricity it would be well to ask
two questions. First, what are the direct electrical energy require-
ments of primary treatment, or, said another way, whdt savings could be
realized if secondary treatment was not employed? Allowing lagoons and
extended aeration plants to remain unchanged, a "return" to primary
treatment at all trickling filter and activated plants would allow a
savings of approximately 0.22 TJ/day (62,000 kW-hr/day) or nearly 45
percent. Second, what would be the direct energy impact if all activa-
ted sludge systems were replaced by trickling filtration systems? This
"change" would bring about savings of about 0.15 TJ/day (41,000 kW«hr/
day) or nearly 30 percent. Of course, the environmental impacts of the
effluents would be altered in either case but it is clear that secondary
treatment requires a significant resource allocation, the environmental
impact of which is not normally considered.
106
-------
Chemicals— Chlorine is the major chemical employed in wastewater
treatment in the Willamette Valley. All domestic sewage treatment
plants employ chlorine as a disinfectant, as does one pulp and paper
mill where coliform growth is a problem. A variety of other chemicals,
such as settling aids or sludge dewatering agents, are occasionally used.
The major thrust of investigation in this area (especially energy costs)
was aimed at chlorine. Thus, most of the following discussion concerns
its manufacture and use.
Chlorine production —- Chlorine is produced in conjunction with caustic
soda and hydrogen by electrolytic action on a solution of sodium chlo-
ride:
2H20 + 2NaCl + C12 + 2NaOH + H2 .
For each part of chlorine, 1.14 parts, by weight, of sodium hydroxide
and 0.028 parts of hydrogen are produced.
The two main types of electrolytic cells used commercially are the
diaphragm and mercury cells. The past two decades saw a rapid growth in
the use of the mercury cell which is capable of producing a higher
quality caustic soda than is the diaphragm type. However, the present
stringent environmental controls required for mercury have brought this
cell's future growth to a standstill; all new plants being planned in
this country are of the diaphragm type and technological improvements
for it are being intensively sought.89
Generally, the diaphragm cell consists of alternating graphite
anode plates and asbestos-impregnated steel screen cathodes. The asbes-
tos acts as a membrane, allowing the salt brine to flow to the cathode
and preventing back migration of the sodium and hydroxyl ions. Hot, wet
chlorine gas is generated at the anode, taken off the top of the cells,
cooled with water in counter current packed towers, dried with sulfuric
acid, and then compressed and sometimes liquified. A solution ten to
fifteen percent in caustic and salt is continuously withdrawn from the
bottom of the cell. The solution is concentrated to 50 percent or
higher in caustic while most of the salt is precipitated out and used
to recharge the cell.89,90,91
In the mercury cell chlorine is again formed at the anode; however,
a sheet of flowing mercury serves as the cathode. The sodium ions from
the brine form an amalgam with the mercury, which is pumped to a sepa-
rate tank containing water. Here the sodium reacts with the water to
form the sodium hydroxide and hydrogen. The caustic solution is much
purer than that from the diaphragm cell and much more concentrated, thus
requiring less evaporation equipment.89,90,91
107
-------
Energy consumption in chlorine production — Due to the electrical re-
quirement for cell operation and heat needed in the concentration of
the caustic solution, the production of chlorine and caustic is highly
energy intensive. Table 22 gives two estimates for energy requirements
for their production.
Chemical usage in the Willamette Valley — A 1967 Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) study^' estimated chlorine usage for wastewater
disinfection in the Pacific Northwest at 1.5 kilograms (kg) (3.2 pounds
(Ibs)) per person per year. Assuming 0.38m3 (100 gallons) of sewage per
person per day, this works out to about 10 kg/ 1000m3 (85 Ib/mg). The
results of the OSU WRRI sewage treatment plant questionnaire showed that
more reasonable figures for the Willamette Valley are 5.3 kg/1000m3 (44
Ib/mg) and 7.9 kg/1000m3 (66 Ib/mg) for plants treating more or less
than 3,800m3/day (1 mgd), respectively. These figures put average
chlorine use at 5 to 8 mg/1 of raw sewage.
Using the actual values reported in the WRRI questionnaire and
estimating missing figures employing the 5.3 kg/1000rt)3, 7.9 kg/1000m3,
and 0.38m3 sewage/capita/day values stated above, chlorine consumption
for wastewater treatment was approximately 1,800,000 kg (2,000 tons) in
1973. The energy requirement for this amount of chlorine, based on the
data in Table 22, could range from 69 to 85 TJ (7.6 to 9.3 x 106 kW-hr)
depending on the method of production. This amount is equal to between
40 and 45 percent of the electrical needs of all the municipal treatment
plants! The cost of chlorine ranged from about $0.02/kg ($0.05/lb) to
over $0.09/kg ($0.20/lb). Unit costs varied from $0.50 to $10/1000m3
($2 to $40/mg), excluding a few plants with very high costs. The total
annual chlorine expenditure in the 1973-74 period was about $260,000.
It should be noted that reported (WRRI questionnaire) residual
chlorine values in plant effluents range to over ten times the 1.0 mg/1
(after 60 minutes detention) requirement of the DEQ. Obviously sub-
stantial savings could be realized in this area. Also, some of the
ecological problems associated with chlorination (e.g..toxicity) could
be reduced if chlorine application were more closely monitored.
As stated above chlorine is the main chemical used for municipal
wastewater treatment. At an individual plant, however, chlorine may
account for as little as 10 percent of total chemical costs, although
for most plants the figure is in the 70 to 100 percent area. As esti-
mated range for total annual chemical costs is $300,000 to $350,000.
108
-------
Table 22. ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN CHLORINE MANUFACTURE
a
Input
Process Steam
kg
(Ibs)
Equivalent GJ
(Equivalent BTU)b
Electricity
GOC
(kW-hr)
Total
GJ
(kW-hr)
(BTU)
Requirements/1 ,000 kg (2,204.6 Ibs)
Diaphragm Cell
5,250
(11,600)
16.4
(15.5 x 106)
30.5
(3,350)
46.9
(5,150)
(44.4 x 106)
Mercury Cell
245
(540)
0.77
(0.73 x 106)
37.3
(4,100)
38.1
(4,180)
(36.0 x 106)
a Data from reference 89.
Based on 2950 British Thermal Units (BTU)/kg steam and 1,054.8 J/BTU.
c Based on 50% self generated electricity: overall 9.08 x 106 J/kW'hr.
109
-------
Auxiliary Fuels — The use of gaseous and liquid fuels in municipal
wastewater treatment was researched, but very few data exist on this
subject. Fuel use is primarily limited to the heating of anaerobic di-
gesters during periods of low methane production. Usable information
on digester gas production was reported by only seven plants. A corre-
lation of gas production to flow and 8005 and suspended solids removals
was computed and the results are summarized as follows: 22-90m3 gas/
1000m3 sewage (2,900-12,000 ft3/mg); 0.14-0.61m3 gas/kg BOD5 removed
(2.3-8.5 ft3/lb); and 0.14-0.70m3 gas/kg suspended solids removed
(2.3-9.7 ft3/lb).
Information existed about auxiliary fuel use at six of these seven
plants. Assuming a heat value of 22 MJ/m3 of gas (600 BTU/ft3), the
methane gas produced at these six plants accounted for 81 - 99 percent
of the heat requirement. Auxiliary requirements at these six plants
ranged from 4.5 - 160 MJ/1000m3 wastewater (0.016 - 0.58 x 106 BTU/mg).
A dozen other plants, where digester performance data was lacking, had
requirements from 28 - 2,800 MJ/lOOOnP wastewater (0.10 - 10 x 106
BTU/mg).
It is difficult to put a figure on the total basin auxiliary fuel
requirement; but, assuming a value of 100 MJ/1000m3 wastewater (0.36 x
10° BTU/mg) to estimate missing figures, the needs of those plants
having anaerobic digesters (some have aerobic digestion and at least
one employs vacuum filtration on its waste activated sludge) would be
approximately 33 TJ/year (31 x 109 BTU/year), less than one-tenth of one
percent of the gas supplied to the Willamette Valley.
Labor and Maintenance — Labor and maintenance costs were correlated
to flow and plant type and the results are presented in Figures 22 and
23. Labor accounted for approximately 60 percent of total 0 & M costs;
maintenance ranged from 5 to 15 percent of the total.
Total Operation and Maintenance — Figure 24 is a presentation of total
0 & M costs for municipal wastewater treatment as related to average
daily flow and type of treatment system. Reported unit costs varied
from $6.1/1000m3 ($23/mg) to $340/1000m3 ($l,300/mg). Total annual
costs for the 1973-74 period amounted to approximately $6,400,000.
Other Considerations — Before leaving this section on municipal waste-
water treatment, two other aspects, the costs of which are included
under total 0 & M, will be discussed.
110
-------
"e
o
O
O
CO
O
O
or
o
oo
5 IO"2 2
5 10
AVERAGE FLOW, mgd
-i „ e
10° 2
10'
10'
200
IOO
50
20
10
ALL
I I I I
O ACTIVATED SLUDGE
D EXTENDED AERATION
B TRICKLING FILTER
A LAGOON
O PRIMARY
ALL-'$/IOOOnr?= 29.5 (I000m3/day)~347 (P<.OOI)
AS:$/IOOOm3 =49.5 (I000m3/day)"-471 (.025
-------
to
E
O
o
O
10
,-3
ID"2 2
AVERAGE FLOW, mgd
5 IO"1 2 5 10° 2 5
10
in
o
o
O
2
<
Z
UJ
H
ID
200
100
50
20
10
5
2
I
.5
T
,--492
ALL: $/IOOOrrr « 5.16 (lOOOmVday) ^ (P<.OOI)
ALL
IO"2 2
I I I I I
O ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Q EXTENDED AERATION
• TRICKLING FILTER
A LAGOON
II III
5 10'
-I
t 5 10" 2 5 IO1
AVERAGE FLOW, I000m3/doy
IO2 2
2
1,000
500
200
100 h-
CO
O
50 O
LL)
O
20 ^
10 Ld
•z.
5 <
2 ^
5
I
Figure 23. Maintenance cost vs. flow.
-------
co
ro
O
O
O
icf2 2
AVERAGE FLOW, mgd
C I f^* /% C
10"' 2
10
10*
O
O
(0
O
O
500
200
100
50
20
10
5
I I
T I I I I I I I I |
O ACTIVATED SLUDGE
D EXTENDED AERATION
• TRICKLING FILTER
A LAGOON
A AERATED LAGOON
• PRIMARY
"ALL: $/IOOOm3* 49.5 OOOOm3/doyP347 (P<.OOI) •
. AS:$/IOOOm3«89.4 (I000m3/dayp418 (.05
-------
Energy cost of transportation — The cost of transporting materials
whicn support plant operation is reflected in the materials' purchase
price, and this purchase price includes the direct energy needs of
transportation. As an example, the energy requirement for chlorine
supply was estimated. Using a unit energy figure of 2.490 J/kg-m
(3,450 BTU/ton-mile)92 and assuming that chlorine is produced in Port-
land and transported an average of 80 km (50 miles), the direct energy
required to deliver the 1,800,000 kg of chlorine annually is about 360
MJ, many times less than that required to produce it. For this reason,
transport energy costs were not investigated further.
Treatment plant sludge quantities -— The OSU WRRI survey did not in-
clude any questions about treatment plant sludges. Except for some
spotty information regarding sludge digester operation that is reported
monthly to the DEQ, few data exist in this area. Therefore,a textbook93
approach to this problem was used. Table 23 summarizes the assumptions
used. Using these assumptions, which checked fairly well with actual
figures at six plants investigated, total municipal sludge production
averaged about 130,000 kg (300,000 Ibs) per day and amounted to approxi-
mately 800,000m3/year (650 acre ft/year). The majority of this material
was applied to open fields; the remainder was landfilled.
Interceptor Systems
Engineers and public works personnel at several communities were
contacted in an effort to gain an understanding of the cost of operating
and maintaining interceptor lines. The general opinion on maintenance
was that interceptor costs represented a relatively small portion of
the total costs of maintaining an entire collection system. Most of the
problems that arise occur in the smaller sewers and, therefore, most
cleaning, inspection, and reconstruction activities are concentrated far
"upstream" of the interceptor. Also the majority of the interceptors in
the Basin are less than 25 years old and, in general, have required less
attention than the older parts of the system. Normal 0 & M expenditures
for interceptors are generally for the running of lift stations and thus
depend considerably on topography and flow variation.
Interceptor maintenance — Due to a near total lack of compiled infor-
mation regarding existing sewer system parameters (length, diameter,
number of lift stations, etc.), it was desired to relate maintenance
cost to capital cost. An estimate of 0.4 percent of initial construc-
tion cost as an annual maintenance cost for interceptor work was ven-
tured by one city utility representative.94 Employing this figure on
the total construction costs (adjusted to 1973-74 dollars) of the
114
-------
Table 23. ASSUMED SLUDGE PRODUCTION QUANTITIES'
Type of sludge
Primary-undigested
Primary-digested
Primary & trickling filter
undigested
Primary & trickling filter
digested
Primary & activated sludge
undigested
Primary & activated sludge
digested
Lagoons-undigested
Lagoons-digested
Extended aeration
Average specific gravity
Average moisture content
kg/ 1000m3
140
90
200
140
280
170
240
170
120
(lb/mg)
(1200)
( 750)
(1700)
(1200)
(2300)
(1400)
(2000)
(1400)
(1000)
1.02
94%
a Source: reference 93.
115
-------
interceptor works listed in Table Al (see Appendix) resulted in an
annual cost of about $360,000.
As a verification, the same calculation was performed on the City
of Portland's system, yielding a cost of $180,000 per year. (Portland's
interceptor capital costs account for one half that of the total basin.)
Multiplying Portland's total collection system maintenance budget of
3.5 million dollars by the ratio of interceptor length to total system
length yielded a value of $140,000 per year as compared with the $80,000
above, a reasonable check. As the total interceptor maintenance cost of
$360,000 per year estimated previously equaled only 5 1/2 percent of
total treatment plant 0 & M, further refinement of the procedure was not
attempted.
Lift station 0 & M — Just as the pumping of raw wastewater at treat-
ment facilities requires a large amount of electrical energy, so does
the operation of lift stations on collection systems. The main differ-
ence is that pump stations are much more energy intensive (less labor
intensive) than treatment facilities. For example, the four lift sta-
tions which comprise Portland's interceptor pumping facilities cost
approximately $200,000 per year to operate and maintain, nearly 30 per-
cent of which was for the electrical consumption of about 14 TJ
(4.0 x 106 kW'hr). (Portland has a total of 38 pump stations which re-
quired approximately 33 TJ (9.2 x 106 kW.hr) of electrical energy for a
12 month period.)
The city's two treatment plants, on the other hand, cost about
$1.33 million for 0 & M and utilized an estimated 11 TJ (3.1 x 106 kW-hr).
Thus, it can be seen that truly significant amounts of energy are re-
quired to convey waste flows to treatment facilities. It should be
noted that Portland is not a "typical" Willamette Basin community. It
is large, topography is varied, and most wastewaters are conveyed long
distances to the city's larger treatment facility. More "typical"
cities are Eugene, where pump station electrical expense, 80 percent of
which is for the interceptor portion, is equal to about two-thirds that
of the treatment plant, and Salem, which has no pump stations on its
interceptor system.
A survey of 15 major sewerage systems, discharging to 27 treatment
plants, was carried out in an effort to tie down pumping energy costs.
While many cities require varied amounts of pumping in low spots in
their systems, only a half dozen municipalities have large interceptor
lift stations. Approximately 20 TJ (5.6 x 106 kW-hr) of electricity
were utilized operating interceptor lift stations. An estimated 25 to
30 TJ (6.9 to 8.3 x 10° kW-hr) were required for the operation of all
other pump stations located on the upper portions of collection systems.
The sum of these two figures represents about one-tenth of a percent of
116
-------
the total electrical use in the Willamette Basin. Due to the difficulty
of separating collection system maintenance costs, no estimate was made
of lift station 0 & M expenditures.
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
As stated previously, the investigation of industrial expenditures
was limited to the twenty firms listed in Table 15. Information regard-
ing 0 & M costs came from an industrial survey conducted by the OSU WRRI
and personal contact with company representatives. Additional informa-
tion was gathered from the EPA's Development Documents for Effluent
Limitation Guidelines. As the pulp and paper industry's share of both
waste discharges and expenditures is such a large portion of the total
industrial contributions, a section on this industry's costs is presen-
ted below.
Pulp and Paper Industry
In each of the following categories, missing expenditure figures
for specific firms were estimated using data from other companies
having similar processes and waste streams.
Electricity — Electricity accounts for nearly all of the direct energy
use for end-of-the-line wastewater treatment by this industry. Consump-
tion was analyzed and correlated to flow and pollutant removal. The
following summarizes the results: 570 - 3,400 M0/1000m3 wastewater
(600 - 3,600 kW'hr/mg); 4.4 - 11 MJ/kg BODs removed (0.55 - 1.4 kW-hr/lb);
and 1.7 - 7.4 MJ/kg suspended solids removed (0.22 - 0.93 kW-hr/lb).
Total annual use for the period was about 270 TJ (75 x 10^ kW-hr), an
average of 0.74 TJ/day (210,000 kW-hr/day), These figures represent
slightly less than four-tenths of one percent of the total electrical
consumption for the Willamette Valley. Total annual electrical costs
were about $340,000.
Chemicals — The pulp and paper industry uses a variety of chemicals,
mainly for neutralization and nutrient addition; only one mill, where
coliform growth is a problem, chlorinates. Chemical costs totalled
approximately $560,000 for the annual period.
Labor and Maintenance — Salaries and wages were the single most ex-
pensive portion of the industry's treatment costs. The annual costs
amounted to about $1,100,000, accounting for slightly more than
117
-------
one-third of total 0 & M costs. Maintenance costs totalled approxi-
mately $440,000 for the annual period.
Total Operation and Maintenance --- Total 0 & M costs for waste stream
treatment by the pulp and paper industry amount to $3,000,000 ranging
from $1.8 to $ll/1000m3 of wastewater ($7.0 - $40/mg). On the basis of
removals, reported costs varied from 0.55tf to 1.4
-------
reservoirs. Assuming that water quality control CWQC) "accounts" for 3
percent of the total, as was done in Section VII for capital costs, the
WQC benefit "cost" approximately $86,000, a small amount when compared
to municipal and industrial 0 & M expenditures.
Energy Expenditures
The direct energy required to operate and maintain the Corps of
Engineers' reservoirs for calendar year 1974 amounts to about 30 TJ
(6.9 x 106 kW-hr of electricity plus 4,4 x 109 BTU of refined petroleum
products).95 The 3 percent of this value attributed to WQC amounts to
approximately 0.9 TJ. At the same time the eight dams with power facil-
ities delivered approximately 7700 TJ (2.1 x 109 kW-hr) to the Bonne-
ville Power Administration for sale to utilities.
TOTAL ENERGETIC EXPENDITURES
Just as the energy associated with the capital cost figures dis-
cussed in Section VII was evaluated employing the I-0-energy method-
ology, the energy embodied in operational expenditures discussed in this
section was estimated in the same manner. Table 24 presents the coef-
ficients used in evaluating the energy costs of electricity, chemicals,
and maintenance items. Table 25 presents the results of applying these
coefficients to municipal and industrial pollution control activities;
this table also summarizes the economic and energetic expenditures dis-
cussed in this section on 0 & M.
One item which has been deleted from Table 25 is labor. It is
questionable if the energy associated with labor expenditures should be
included in the energy analyses. It can be reasoned that energy expen-
ditures associated with labor would occur whether or not the workers
were employed in water pollution control activities (or employed at all).
For this reason labor energy has been deleted from this report.
Several points should be noted in reference to Table 25. One, it
can be seen that industry gets more electrical energy per dollar spent
than does local government. This fact points out one of the weaknesses
of the I-0-energy methodology: the problem of energy pricing. In this
case the model has overestimated direct electrical use by municipalities
and underestimated use by industry. A second point is that the method-
ology has underestimated the direct energy required to make the chemi-
cals. This is most likely because the I-0-energy model lumps many chemv
cals of varying energy intensiveness together in one sector; chlorine,
however, requires large inputs of energy in its manufacture. A third
point to be stressed is that, just as with capital expenditures, much
119
-------
Table 24. COEFFICIENTS USED IN CONVERTING
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DOLLARS
TO ENERGY VALUES3
0 & M Category
Electricity
Chemicals
Maintenance and repair
Coefficients, MJ/dollarb
Direct
585.315
189.518
26.905
Total
832.560
573.160
131.321
Source: Reference 84.
electricity - sector 68.01;
chemicals - sector 27.01;
maintenance and repair - sector 12.02;
based upon 1963 dollars.
1 MJ - 948 BTU.
120
-------
Table 25. COSTS OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE MATER POLLUTION
CONTROL FACILITIES OF THE WILLAMETTE BASIN
Facility classification3
Municipal facilities
Treatment plants
Electricity
Auxiliary fuel
Chemicals
Maintenance and
repair
Interceptors,
total 0 & M
Interceptor
lift stations
Electricity
Industrial facilities
Treatment plants
Electricity
Chemicals
Maintenance and
repair
Reservoirs
Total
Electricity
Petroleum
Total 0 & M
3% WQC
Electricity
Petrol eum
Total 0 & M
0 & M cost,
1963 dollars
450,000
c
240,000
1 ,200,000
270,000
f
250,000
420,000
740,000
f
f
2,400,000
f
f
71,000
Energy requir
via I-0-ener
direct
260
c
46
33
c
c
150
79
20
c
c
c
c
c
c
•e«ent, TjJ»
•QV Mdel
total
370
c
140
160
c
c
210
240
97
c
c
c
c
c
c
Direct energy b
requl recent, TJ?
via calculation
180
33 .
69-85°
e
c
20
300
c
e
25.0
4.6
29.6
0.75
0.14
0.89
a As defined; see text for full description.
b 1 TJ « 948 x 106 BTU = 278 x 103 kW-hr.
c Not estimated.
Energy to produce chlorine only.
e Does not apply.
f Not available-
121
-------
energy is embodied or sequestered in materials. This fact is shown in
comparing the direct and total energy coefficients listed in Table 24.
122
-------
SECTION IX
DISCUSSION
GENERAL
The costs of water quality control facilities are generally mea-
sured in economic terms alone. The uses of natural resources, such as
energy, and the net impact of treatment technologies on the total physi-
cal environment (i.e., the land, air, and water) are rarely evaluated.
As a consequence of this approach to environmental management, some
problems have been and are being created in pursuit of water quality
objectives.
The research previously discussed dealt with identifying those
facilities that are primarily responsible for maintaining high quality
in the waters of the Willamette Basin, evaluating the environmental im-
pact of the restoration of water quality, and estimating the economic
and energetic costs of the cleanup.
Two major reasons for the restoration are identified in investiga-
ting the Basin's water quality control facilities. One is the reduction
of oxygen demanding substances released in the river and its tributaries.
A series of point-source wastewater treatment tactics, that culminated
in 1972 with all dischargers employing secondary or higher levels of
treatment, is responsible for this reduction. The second is flow aug-
mentation from a network of reservoirs operated by the Corps of Engi-
neers. Average summer flows are now more than twice the levels that
occurred prior to the construction of the first impoundment.
The many environmental effects of the restoration are wide ranging.
The improvement in water quality is beneficial to river organisms such
as fish and is also aesthetically pleasing to both recreationalists and
persons residing near the river. There are also negative impacts asso-
ciated with the cleanup; one example being the loss of free flowing
streams when reservoirs are constructed. Such impacts and the "trade-
offs" inherent in environmental protection programs are discussed in
Section VI.
EXPENDITURES
The results of the sections regarding capital and operation and
maintenance expenditures are summarized in Table 26. Capital costs have
been adjusted to 1974 dollars so that a comparison with 0 & M costs is
123
-------
Table 26. SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL IN THE WILLAMETTE BASIN.
Facility
classification
Municipal facilities
Treatment works
Interceptors
Interceptor Lift
Stations
All facilities
Industrial facilities
Reservoirs
Total
3%-WQC9
Capital expenditures
Construction
cost,
1974 dollars
160,000,000
88,000,000
e
260,000,000
73,000,000
1,100,000,000
32,000,000
Energy requirements, TJ°, vie
I-0-energy model approach
Direct Total
680
380
e
1,100
310
4,800
140
9,200
5,100
e
15,000
4,200
65,000
1,900
Operation and maintenance
expenditures, 1973-1974
O&M cost,
1974 dollars
6,400,000
360,000
e
e
3,500,000
2,900,000*
86,000f
Energy requ1rements,TJD,via
I-0-enerov model approach
Direct
260C
e
e
e
15QC
e
e
Total
370C
e
e
e
21 OC
e
e
Calculated
direct energy
requirement, TJD
21 od
e
20
e
300
30
3.9
a As defined; see previous sections for full description of facility classification.
b. 1 TJ = 948 x 106 BTU « 278 x Ifl3 kW-hr.
c Electrical energy only; see Table 18.
d 85X electricity and 15X auxiliary fuels.
e Not estimated; see text for discussion.
f Fiscal Year 1972.
9 3% allocated for water quality control.
Note: Energy values via I-0-energy methodology are based upon 1963 dollars.
-------
possible. The reader should use caution, however, in comparing the
capital and 0 & M costs of municipal treatment facilities. First, as
stated in Section VII, a portion of the capital costs, accounting for
about two percent of all treatment plant capital costs, are for plants
which are no longer operating. Secondly, many cities have wholely or
partially replaced treatment works at some point in time. No estimate
of the importance of this problem was made. These two considerations
are very minor in municipal collection and industrial abatement and non-
existent in regards to reservoirs.
It can be deduced from Table 26 that if the direct'construction
energy requirements of municipal and industrial treatment facilities are
amortized over a ten to twenty year life span, the resulting values are
relatively small when compared to the yearly 0 & M needs. Amortizing
the total capital energy needs of treatment works over the same period
yields figures which are large in comparison to the same annual 0 & M
needs. Thus, two conclusions are reached. First, direct energy require-
ments are not sufficient data on which to base the energy impact of
constructing a project. Second, efforts to reduce the energy impact of
these facilities could be aimed at both the construction and operational
phases.
Due to their capital intensive nature, even the direct construction
energy requirements of reservoirs, when amortized over a minimum life of
100 years, are important.
This research project did not address itself to evaluating total
sewerage system costs. To give the reader some perspective on this sub-
ject, Table 27 presents a breakdown of sewerage costs for five munici-
palities. It is evident that pumping costs, particularly energetic costs,
are important factors to be considered in any wastewater management plan.
It can also be seen that the upper portions of collection systems
require significant maintenance expenditures. However, very little re-
search was done on these "upstream" portions for two reasons. First, the
gathering of capital cost data would have been extremely difficult due to
the extremely long time span over which sewerage systems have been built.
Secondly, it can be argued that the collection system above interceptors
was built primarily for public health reasons and would exist whether or
not interceptors and treatment works, built primarily for water pollution
abatement, were constructed.
The energy costs of the water pollution abatement facilities of the
Willamette Basin should be compared to total Basin energy use. In 1973,
approximately 150,000 TJ of energy in the form of electricity and natural
gas (petroleum excluded) were used in the Valley. Comparing this figure
to the direct energy figures in Table 26 indicates that water quality
control has required relatively small investments in energy resources.
This is true for both capital costs, considering that the facilities
have befen built over a 30 to 40 year period, and operating costs. Total
125
-------
Table 27. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION
AND TREATMENT IN FIVE SELECTED CITIES.
City
Portland5
Salemb
Eugene
Al bany
Corvallis
Annual treatment costs
Dollars
1 ,330,000
520,000
280,000
280,000
130,000
Electrical
energy, TO
llc
14c
5.4
9.7
5.0C
Auxiliary
Fuel energy,
TO*
d
1.3
0.12
1.1
0.18
All
collection
1 i nes
maintenance
cost, dollars
3,500,000
350,000e
d
100,000
120,000
Al 1 pump
station O&M
cost, dollars
470,000e
80,000e
d
d
23,000
Lift station electrical
energy requirements, TJ
All lift
stations
33
d'
3.6
0.47
0.61
Interceptor
lift stations
14
none
3.1
0.27
0.47
to
CTJ
a 1 TJ = 948 x 106 BTU = 278 x 103 kWhr,
Two plants.
c Estimated, knowing unit cost.
d Not available.
e Estimated.
-------
operational electricity, the major energy need, amounts to 0.7 percent
of that used in the Basin.
This is not to say, however, that pollution control plans should be
made without regard to the resource allocation required for the plan's
various facilities. On the contrary, the increasingly stricter effluent
guidelines proposed by regulatory agencies for all dischargers will
greatly increase the energy and material requirements for water quality
control. Advanced treatment processes (i.e., post-secondary treatment)
are, in general, highly energy intensive. According to Hirst,96 high
level advanced waste treatment processes can more than double the elec-
trical requirements of typical activated sludge systems. On top of this
must be added large increases in chemicals and other fuels.97 For this
and other reasons, the resource implications of future environmental
protection actions must be carefully considered.
It is increasingly important, in this day of awareness regarding
resource limitations, that environmental protection programs yield a net
improvement to our land, air, and water surroundings, while having a
minimum depleting impact upon our stores of natural resources.
127
-------
SECTION X
REFERENCES CITED
1. Public Health Section of the City Club of Portland, Oregon. Stream
Pollution in Oregon. The Pacific Engineer. VI: 3-7, May 1927.
2. Willamette Basin Task Force. Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study
of Water and Related Land Resources: Appendix B: Hydrology.
Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Vancouver, WA. 1969.
3. Baldwin, E. M. Geology of Oregon. Ann Arbor, Edwards Bros., 1964.
165 p.
4. Willamette Basin Task Force. Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study
of Water and Related Land Resources: Main Report. Pacific North-
west River Basins Commission. Vancouver, WA. 1969.
5. U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Oregon: Part 1:
Surface Water Records. U. S. Department of the Interior. Portland,
OR. 1973. p. 183-286.
6. Oregon Blue Book: 1973-1974. Secretary of State. Salem, OR. 1973.
p. 208-212.
7. Gleeson, G. W. The Return of a River: The Willamette River,
Oregon. Water Resources Research Institute. Corvallis, OR.
WRRI-13. Oregon State University. 1972. 103 pages.
8. Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality: Fourth
Annual Report. Washington, DC. December 1973. p. 43-71.
9. Water Quality Control in Oregon. Department of Environmental
Quality. Portland, OR. 1970. 28 p.
10. Legislative Council Committee. Oregon Revised Statutes. Oregon
Legislative Assembly. Salem, OR. 1969. Chapter 449.
11. Water Quality and Waste Treatment Needs for the Willamette River.
Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland,.OR. 1964. 74 p.
12. Regulations Relating to Water Quality in Oregon: Sections from
Oregon Administrative Rules: Chapter 340. Department of Environ-
mental Quality. Portland, OR. 1974.
128
-------
13. Water Pollution Control in Oregon: Annual Report. Oregon State
Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR. 1960. 32 p.
14. Britton, J. E. A History of Water Pollution Control in the
Willamette Basin, Oregon. U. S. Public Health Service. Portland,
OR. Working Paper No. 56. 1965. 56 p.
15. Quigley, J. M. Willamette River Basin Water Quality Control and
Management. Federal Water Quality Control Administration. Port-
land, OR. NTIS PB-215 923. January 1967. 94 p.
16. Benefits of Water Pollution Control on Property Values. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/5-73-005. October 1973.
17. Craig, J. A. and R. L. Hacker. The History and Development of the
Fisheries of the Columbia River. U. S. Bureau of Fisheries.
Bulletin 32. 1940. p. 133-216.
18. Netboy, A. Salmon of the Pacific Northwest: Fish vs. Dams.
Portland, Blnfords and Mort, 1958. 122 p.
19. Willamette Basin Task Force. Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study
of Fish and Related Resources: Appendix D: Fish and Wildlife.
Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Vancouver, WA. 1969.
20. Veatch, J. C., R. L. Jones, E. H. Hill, and A. J. Suomela. Bien-
nial Report of the Fish Commission of the State of Oregon to the
Governor and the Forty-fifth Legislative Assembly: 1949. Fish
Commission of Oregon. Portland, OR. 1948. 36 p.
21. Tollefson, R, A Summary of Fishery Statistics of the Pacific
Coast. Northwest Pulp and Paper Association. Tacoma, WA. 1959.
182 p.
22. Lampman, B. H. The Coming of the Pond Fishes. Portland, Binfords
and Mort, 1946. 177 p.
23. Morse, W. B., A. C. Smith, E. A. Pierce, A. Kinney, C. J. Smith,
E. B. Pickel, E. F. Pernot, and C. S. White. Fourth Biennial
Report of the State Board of Health. State Board of Health. Salem,
OR. 1910. 11 p.
24. Willis, R. A., M. D. Collins, and R. E. Sams. Environmental Survey
Report Pertaining to Salmon and Steel head in Certain Rivers of
Eastern Oregon and the Willamette River and Its Tributaries. Fish
Commission of Oregon. Portland, OR. 1960. 544 p.
25. Sams, R. E. and K. R. Conover. Water Quality and the Migration of
Fall Salmon in the Lower Willamette River. Fish Commission of
Oregon. Portland, OR. 1969. 58 p.
129
-------
26. STORE! Retrieval. Oregon State Game Commission. Portland, OR.
April, 1975.
27. Thompson, K. E., J. M. Hutchison, J. D. Fortune, Jr., and R. W.
Phillips. Fish Resources of the Willamette Basin. Oregon State
Game Commission. Portland, OR. 1966. 161 p.
28. Hutchison, J. M. and W. W. Aney. The Fish and Wildlife Resources
of the Upper Willamette Basin, Oregon, and Their Water Requirements.
Oregon State Game Commission. Portland, OR. 1966. 76 p.
29. Hutchison, J. M., K. E. Thompson, and J. D. Fortune, Jr. The Fish
and Wildlife Resources of the Upper Willamette Basin, Oregon, and
Their Water Requirements. Oregon State Game Commission. Portland,
OR. 1966. 44 p.
30. Columbia-North Pacific Region. Comprehensive Framework Study of
Water and Related Lands: Appendix XIV: Fish and Wildlife. Paci-
fic Northwest River Basins Commission. Vancouver, WA. 1971.
p. 335-359.
31. Collins, M. D. Escapement of Salmon and Steel head Over Willamette
Falls, Winter and Spring 1973. Fish Commission of Oregon. Clacka-
mas, OR. April,1974. 21 p.
32. Sams, R. E. Fish Commission of Oregon. Personal Communication.
April 28, 1975.
33. Koski, R. 0. Salmon and Steelhead Catch Data: 1955-1964. Oregon
State Game Commission. Portland, OR. 1965. 5 p.
34. STORET Retrieval. Oregon State Game Commission. Portland, OR.
April, 1975.
35. Informational Report on the Potential for Increased Natural Produc-
tion of Willamette River Salmon and Steelhead. Fish Commission of
Oregon. Portland, OR. 1969. 8 p.
36. Sams, R. E. Willamette River Development Program: Annual Progress
Report. Fish Commission of Oregon. Clackamas, OR. 1973. 42 p.
37. Sams, R. E. Willamette River Development Program: Annual Progress
Report. Fish Commission of Oregon. Clackamas, OR. 1974. 23 p.
38. Marges, E. Oregon State Parks and Recreation Section. Personal
Communication. October 29, 1974.
130
-------
39. Dennis, S. L. Oregon State Parks and Recreation Section. Personal
Communication. May 27, 1975.
40. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Environmental Statement. Cascadia
Lake, Santiam River Basin, Oregon. U. S. Army Engineering District.
Portland, OR. 1971. 23 p.
41. Coomber, N. H. and A. K. Biswas. Evaluation of Environmental In-
tangibles. Bronxvllle, Genera Press, 1973. 77 p.
42. Youngberg, C. T., P. C. Klingeman, M. E. Harward, D. W. Larson,
6. H. Simonson, H. K. Phinney, D. Rai, and J. R. Bell. Hills Creek
Reservoir Turbidity Study. Water Resources Research Institute.
Corvallis, OR. WRRI-14. Oregon State University. 1971. 252 p.
43. Brungs, W. A. Effects of Residual Chlorine on Aquatic Life.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 45: 2180-2193,
October 1973.
44. Tsai, Chu-fa. Water Quality and Fish Life Below Sewage Outfalls.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 102:281-292, 1973.
45. Water Pollution Control in Oregon: Annual Report. Oregon State
Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR. 1957. 13 p.
46. Water Pollution Control in Oregon: Annual Report. Oregon State
Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR. 1960. 32 p.
47. Water Pollution Control in Oregon: Annual Report. Oregon State
Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR. 1961. 38 p.
48. Water Pollution Control in Oregon: Annual Report. Oregon State
Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR. 1962. 48 p.
49. Water Pollution Control in Oregon: Annual Report. Oregon State
Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR. 1963. 66 p.
SO. Water Pollution Control in Oregon: Annual Report. Oregon State
Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR. 1964-1965. 105 p.
51. Water Quality Control 1n Oregon; Annual Report. Oregon State
Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR. 1966-1967. 113 p.
52. Biennial Report. Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR.
Number 1. 1940. 7 p.
53. Biennial Report. Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR.
Number 2. 1942. 12 p.
131
-------
54. Biennial Report. Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR.
Number 3. 1944. 13 p.
55. Biennial Report. Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR.
Number 4. 1946. 12 p.
56. Biennial Report, Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR.
Number 5. 1948. 20 p.
57. Biennial Report. Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR.
Number 6. 1950. 21 p.
58. Biennial Report. Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR,
Number 7. 1952. 27 p.
59. Biennial Report. Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR.
Number 8. 1954. 27 p.
60. Biennial Report. Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR.
Number 9. 1956. 48 p.
61. Biennial Report. Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR.
Number 10. 1958. 49 p.
62. Biennial Report. Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR.
Number 11. 1960. 32 p.
63. Biennial Report. Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR.
Number 12. 1962. 60 p.
64. Biennial Report. Oregon State Sanitary Authority. Portland, OR.
Number 13. 1964. 18 p.
65. Project Register: Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1972. p. i-iv,
109-111.
66. Project Register: Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants: Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 1973. p. 112-114.
67. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Brief Definite Project Report on
Detroit Project, Big Cliff Reregulating Dam, North Santiam River,
Oregon. U. S. Army Engineer District. Portland, OR. August 1,
1949 (Revised June 1950). p. 39-40+.
68. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Design Memorandum No. 3, Blue River
Reservoir, Blue River, Oregon. U. S. Army Engineer District.
Portland, OR. July 1963. p. 57+.
132
-------
69. U. S. Engineer Office. Definite Project Report on Cottage Grove
Dam and Reservoir, Coast Fork of Willamette River, Oregon. War
Department. Portland, OR. December 1, 1939. p. 12-16+.
70. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Design Memorandum No. 8, Cougar
Reservoir, South Fork McKenzie River, Oregon. U.S. Army Engineer
District. Portland, OR. August 1956.
71. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Revised Definite Project Report on
Detroit Dam, Santiam River, Main Report. U. S. Army Engineer
District. Portland, OR. p. 75-80+.
72. U. S. Engineer Office. Definite Project Report on Dorena Dam and
Reservoir, Row River, Willamette River Basin, Oregon, War Depart-
ment. Portland, OR. April 1, 1940, p. 12-15+.
73. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Design Memorandum No. 3, Fall
Creek Reservoir, Fall Creek, Oregon. U. S. Army Engineer District.
Portland, OR. May 1961.
74. U. S. Engineer Office. Definite Project Report on Fern Ridge Dam
and Reservoir, Long Tom River, Oregon. War Department. Portland,
OR. September 1, 1939. p. 12-15+.
75. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Design Memorandum No. 4, Foster
Reservoir, Santiam River, Oregon. U. S. Army Engineer District.
Portland, OR. October 1962.
76. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Design Memorandum No. 3, Green
Peter Reservoir, Middle Santiam River, Oregon. U. S. Army Engineer
District. Portland, OR. May 1959. p. 45, 58-59+.
77. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Design Memorandum No. 2, Hills
Creek Reservoir, Hills Creek, OR. U. S. Army Engineer District.
Portland, OR. March 1955.
78. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Definite Project Report on Lookout
Point Project, Dexter Reregulating Dam, Middle Fork Willamette
River, Oregon. U. S. Army Engineer District. Portland, OR. Nov-
ember 1, 1951 (Revised July 15, 1953). p. 32-34+.
79. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Definite Project Report on Willa-
mette Basin Project, Oregon: Lookout Point Dam (Meridan Site),
Middle Fork Willamette River. U. S. Army Engineer District. Port-
land, OR. June 10, 1946. p. 65-80+.
133
-------
80. U. S. Array Corps of Engineers. Water Resources Development by the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers in Oregon. U. S. Army Engineer Dis-
trict. Portland, OR. 1973. 125 p.
81. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Extract: Report on the Improve-
ments in the Portland, Oregon District. U. S. Army Engineer Dis-
trict. Portland, OR. 1972. 54 p.
82. Leontiet, W. W. The Structure of the American Economy, 1919-1939.
Oxford University Press, 1951. 264 p.
83. Chenery, H. B. and P. 6. Clark. Interindustry Economics. Wiley.
1959. 345 p.
84. Herendeen, R. A. An Energy Input-Output Matrix for the United
States, 1963: A User's Guide. Center for Advanced Computation.
Document Number 69. University of Illinois. March 1973. 99 p.
85. Herendeen, R. A. Center for Advanced Computation. University of
Illinois. Personal Communication. February 1975.
86. Tetra Tech, Inc. Energy Use in the Contract Construction Industry.
Federal Energy Administration. February 1975.
87. National Electric Rate Book, Oregon. Federal Power Commission.
January 1974. 11 p.
88. Smith R. Electrical Power Consumption for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment. National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati.
EPA-R2-73-281. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1973. 89 p.
89. Energy and Environmental Analysis. Discussion Paper on Chemicals
and Allied Products. Federal Energy Administration. 1974. p 1-7
114-134.
90. Sconce, J. W., Editor. Chlorine: Its Manufacture, Properties, and
Uses. Rheinhold Publishing Co. 1962. 901 p.
91. Morey, D. J. Chlorine: Pacific Northwest Economic Study for Power
Markets. Bonneville Power Administration. Portland, OR. VII,
Part 13C. U. S. Department of the Interior. 1967. p. 5-51.
92. Transition: A Report to the Oregon Energy Council. Oregon Office
of Energy Research and Planning. January 1, 1975. 188+ p.
93. Metcalf and Eddy. Design of Facilities for Treatment and Disposal
of Sludge. In: Wastewater Engineering. New York, McGraw Hill
Book Company, 1972. p. 575-632.
134
-------
94. Sims, R. E. Sewer Design Section, Public Works Department, City of
Portland, Oregon. Personal Communication. March 1975.
95. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Statistical Data. U. S. Army
Engineer District. Portland, OR. 1975.
96. Hirst, E. Energy Implications of Several Environmental Quality
Strategies. NTIS ORNL-NSF-EP-53. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
July 1973. 34 p.
97. Antonucci, D. C. Environmental Effects of Advanced Wastewater
Treatment at South Lake Tahoe, California. Department of Civil
Engineering, Oregon State University. September 1973. 83 p.
135
-------
BOD
BOD5
BTU
C
C of
DEQ
DO
EPA
EWEB
F
ft
ft3
G
g
gpd
hr
in
1-0
J
k
km
km2
1
Ib
m
m2
m3
- Biochemical Oxygen
- Biochemical Oxygen
- British Thermal Uni
- Celsius
E - Corps of Engineers
SECTION XI
GLOSSARY
Demand
Demand, 5 day
t
- Department of Environmental Quality
- Dissolved Oxygen
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Eugene Water and Electric Board
- Fahrenheit
- feet
- cubit feet
- giga, 10
- gram
- gallons per day
- hour
- inch
- Input-Output
- Joule
- kilo, 103
- kilometer
- square kilometer
- liter
- pound
- meter
- square meter
- cubic meter
136
-------
M - Mega, 106
mi - mile
o
mi - square mile
mg - million gallons
mgd - million gallons per day
mg/1 - milligrams per liter
ml - milliliter
O&M - operation and maintenance
OSBH - Oregon State Board of Health
OSSA - Oregon State Sanitary Authority
OSU - Oregon State University
PGE - Portland General Electric
ppm - parts per million
s - second
T - tera, 1012
WQC - Water Quality Control
WRRI - Water Resources Research Institute
yr - year
137
-------
SECTION XII
APPENDICES
Page
A Capital Cost Data - Municipal Water Pollution Control 139
B Municipal Treatment Plant Data 158
C Water Treatment Plant Location 161
138
-------
APPENDIX A
CAPITAL COST DATA -
MUNICIPAL MATER POLLUTION CONTROL
See table Al.
139
-------
Table Al• CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Year
1915
1917
1920
1922
1923
1924
1925
1923
1929
1936
System
Ht. Angel
Hubbard
WCTU (Farm) Home (Corvallis)
Grande Ronde
Sherwood
Dallas
Woodburn
Forest Grove
MonMouth
Carl ton
Chemawa Indian School
Woodburn Boy's Training (MacLaren)
School c
Banks
Estacada
Gas ton
Gresham
Hlllsboro
Type of
project a
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
STP
Septic Tank
STP
STP
Sentic Tank
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
Septic Tank
STP
Septic Tank
STP
STP
Costs, dollars
Treatment
plantb
10,000
3,000
5,000 d
5,000
5,000
15,000
10,000
25,000
25,000
11,000
35,000
3,000
10,000
2,000
T2TOOO
5,000
7,500
5.0CO
22,000
54.000
93,500
Interceptor,
out fall, or
11ft stat1orJ>
Eng1 neerf ng c
2,000
3,000
1 .000
4,000
1,000
3,000
6,000
10,000
-------
Table Al (continuedl. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Costs, dollars
Year
1939
1941
1942
1943
1944
1947
System
Silver-ton
Clackamas Heights6
Portland Alrbase (Port of Port-
Tand)e
Yamhlll County Camp (Eola Village)
Camp Adair e
CorvalUs Airport
Grand Ronde Houslnge
Sweet Home Housing
Hood Villagee
Veneta Housing (School)
Cedar Hills
Cedar M111 Parke
Dorena Dame
Eugene
Eugene
Eugene
Gresham
Manbrln Gardens e
Portland
Portland
Portland
Portland
Type of
project a
STP
Septic Tank
STP
STP
STP
Imhoff Tanks
Septic Tank
STP
STP
Septic Tank
STP
STP
STP
Amazon Int 1
Amazon Int 2
Franklin B. Int
STP 1mpr
STP
Columbia B. Int
Columbia SI Int
Lombard Int
St. John's Int
Treatment
pi ant b
29,000d
5,000d
30,000d
15,000
50,000
118,000
10,000d
10,000
10,000d
29,000
59,000
5,000d
79,100
45,000
36,000
13,388
35,000
208,488
Interceptor,
out fall , or
11ft stat1or^>
82,286
84,909
60,041
671,600
459,218
54,087
387,849
1 ,799,990
Engineering c
4,000
4,000
2,000
6,000
9,000
2,000
4,000
6JKJO
8,500
5,600
4,800
8,800
9,000
6,900
2,000
4,700
48,000
35,000
6,500
31.000
170,000
-------
Table Al (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAQE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
to
Year
1948
1949
1950
System
Broadmoore
Detroit Dam «
Junction City
Junction City
Merldan Darn*
Salem
Sweet Home
Vermont Hi Use
Beaverton
Beaverton
Eugene
Lowell
Mill City
Mllwaukle
Mllwaukle
Nonmouth
Newberg
Portland
Portland
Portland
Portland
Portland
Weyerhauser*
Eugene
Eugene
Sclo
Sherwood
Sherwood
Type of
project a
STP
STP
STP, LS
Out
STP
Int
STP
STP
STP 'equip
STP
STP, sewers
STP
Septic Tank
Int
STP
Out
STP
Peninsula
TUnnel Int
Out 11
Guson-Greeley
Int
STP
Out 12
STP
Out Material
Out
STP
STP
Int
Costs, dollars
Treatment
plant"
31 ,000
93,800
82,683
80,000
105,000
5,000
397,483
16,378
95,527
108,351
80,000J
S.OOO11
160,000
77,600
980,620
10,000
1,500,000
j
5,0000
70,000
75,000
Interceptor,
out fall, or
11ft statlor^
47,135
366,974
414,105
35,276
46,697
2,589,133
647,748
983,950
761 ,833
5,064,637
180,687
174,373
15.000
370,060
Engineering c
4,200
9,700
8,900
5,700
9,400
30,000
11,000
1.000
80,566
} 11,000
11,000
8,600
4,700
15,000
5,700
8,400
160,000
47.000
66,000
66,000
53,000
1.500
460,000
J 29,000
7,800
2.200
3d, 000
-------
Table Al (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAQE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Year
195
1952
System
Cedar Hills
CorvalUs
CorvalHs
CorvalUs
Independence - Monmouth
Markham School e
PhllomatH
Portland
Portland
Portland
Salem
Sandy
West Linn
West Linn
Cottage Grove
Cottage Grove
Dallas
Dallas
Forest Grove
Gladstone
Hemlock Subdivision
Lewis & Clark College6
HcMinnville
Oak Ridge
Oregon City
Oregon City
Oswego (Lake)
Tualatin Slopes6
food burn
foodburn
Type of
project*
STP add
Int Materials
Int
Int, Out
STP
STP
STP
Grand Av. Int
Out Riprap
Willamette
R. X-ing
STP
STP
Int, LS
STP
Int, Trunk
STP
STP equip
STP
STP
Int
Septic Tank
STP
STP
STP
Int
STP equip
STP equip
Septic Tank
Int
STP
Costs, dollars
Treatment
pi ant b
66,000
84,199
30,000
99,449
666,500
46,816
46,438
1 ,039,401
149,130
40,451
147,766
199,630
n.oood
30,000
254,831
57,270
39,000
27,793
2,500
79,000
1,000,000
Interceptor,
out fall, or
11ft station11
22,500
145,635
60,995
1 ,701 ,845
14,100
682,725
93.579
2,721.379
24,450
9,747
193,000
45,633
272,836
Engineering0
7,400
} 16,000
7,000
8,900
4.100
10,000
110.000
2.100
49,000
48,000
6,000
9,600
5.900
280,000
3,700
11,000
} 13,000
15,000
1,500
4,100
17,000
6,700
17,000
5,000
3,900
5,600
8.600
Tl 0,000
-------
Table Al (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Year
1953
1954
System
Albany
Albany
Albany
CorvalUs
Eugene
Hillsboro
Lebanon
Lebanon
MacLaren School
Oregon City
Aloha-Huber School e
Carl ton
Eugene
Gladstone
Gresham
Laurelwood Academy
Maryl hurst
Mt. Angel
Mt. Angel
Orient School e
Oswego (Lake)
Sheridan
Springfield
Tualatin Hills e
Type of
project a
STP
Int
Int, LS
STP
STP
STP impr
STP
STP impr
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP impr
Out, LS
STP
STP
STP
STP equip
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP
Costs, dollars
Treatment
pi ant b
354,309
304,000
735,320
65,000
219,569
44,991
37,473
116,500
1,877,162
10,000
102,947
12,500
186,212
33,000
33, 000 d
9,497
92,864
10,000
123,095
79,143
257,874
51,576
1 ,000,000
Interceptor,
out fall, or
lift stationb
326,006
41 ,477
367,483
57,751
57775T
Engineering c
29,000
27,000
5,200
25,000
60,870 f
7,300
19,000
5,500
4,900
12,000
'200,000
1,500
11,000
1.800
6,700
17,000
4,500
4,500
j 11,000
1,500
12,000
8,500
22,000
6.200
110,000
-------
Table M (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Year
1955
1956
System
Brookford*
Canby
Chemawa Indian School
Forest Grov<
MoTalla
Oak Grove School *
Southwood 'Park
West Unn
West L1nn
Willamette Manor6
Albany
Beaver Acres School e
Columbia S.D. *
Harrlsburg
Jesuit H.S.e
Lafayette Trad. Fnd.
Lebanon
Mill City
Pioneer Trailer Park6
Raleigh S.O. «
Ralelghwood S.D. «
Sheridan Novitiate
West Tualatfn View School e
Type of
project a
STP
STP
STP
Outfall
STP
STP
STP
STP equip
STP
STP
Int, Sewer
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP levee
Disposal Field
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP
Costs, dollars
Treatment
planto
49,500
39,308 .
20,000 d
101,289
6,565
46,500
4,600
53,364
34b|ooo
20, 000 d
55,000
52,113
17,000
f WHW
30, 000 d
5,965
4,490
10,000
53, 572 J
4,000d
30 ,000 <|
60.000 d
340,000
Interceptor,
out fall, or
11ft station b
31 ,863
31,163
119,702
119,762
Engineering c
6,000
5,000
3,000
4.400
10,000
1,000
4,200
} 7,100
3.300
44OT
12,000
3,000
6,500
6,200
2,500
4,100
1,000
1,500
6,300
1,000
4,100
6.900
55,000
-------
Table A1 (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION TREATMENT
Year
1957
1958
System
Albany
Cal Young School e
Fannoe Park*
F1r Cove
Lebanon
Portland
Salem
Sunset Heights e
Tlgard
Uplands e
Whltford-McKaye
Beaverton
Be1-A1re Subdivision e
Central Linn H.S.
Connie Acres
Cornelius
Country Club Homes6
Falrvlew
Hlllsboro
HUlsboro
Judson School e
Orchid e
St. Helens
St. Helens
Sunset Valley
Twin Oaks School
West Salem
Type of
project a
STP impr
STP
STP
STP
STP add
West Cent. Int
Cross St. Int
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP
Septic Tank
STP
Lagoon
Out
Int, Out, LS
STP
STP
STP
Int
STP
STP
STP
Septic Tank
Costs, dollars
Treatment
pi ant b
11,920
20,640
5,000<1
7,900
37,892
53, 000 d
94,000
S.OOQd
54.025
290,000
59,087
60, 000 d
9,000
16,000«i
117,129j
3,500
-------
Table Al (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Year
1959
1960
System
BOMARC (Corvallis)6
Corvallis T. P.
Exposition Center (Multnomah Co.)
Furlonge
Jesuit H.S.e
Oswego (Lake)
Portland
Raleighwood S.D.e
R1verv1ew Hts.
SAGE (Adair Village)
Salem
Salem
Wulfers Trailer Park*
Oamnasch State Hospital
Fanno Creek
Fanno Creek
Fanno Creek
Lowell Park
Meadowlark School*
Newberg
North Shore Park «
Oak Lodge S.D.
Oak Lodge S.D.
Portland
Rllco Corp.e
Royal Highlands
Tahltlan Terrace *
Uplands e
West Slope
Westmont e
Type of
project *
STP
STP
STP
STP
STP add
Int, Out, LS
Int. Out, LS
STP add
STP
STP
Int, Out, LS
STP add
STP
STP
STP
Fanno Cr. Int
Fanno Cr. Int
STP
Lagoon
Out
STP
Int, Out. LS
STP, LS
Balch Gulch Out
STP
STP
STP
STP
Int-
Lagoon
Costs, dollars
Treatment
pi ant b
S.OOOd
14,000
150,000
41,000
18,000
6,50Qd
31 ,900
72 .DOO0"
9
15.000
360,000
115.000
569,100
7,500^
S.SOOd
11,222
375,797
25.00011
5,000
13,600
35,000
e.ooc?1
1,200,000
Interceptor,
out fall , or
11ft stationb
11,990
218.312
38,361
268,663
330,354
29,748
9.267
86,475
221 .816
739.183
1.416,843
Eng1neer1ngc
1,200
2,100
11,000
5,200
2,700
1,800
19,000
1,000
4,300
7,900
5.000
2.300
64 ,660
12,000
42,000
27,000
4,500
1,100
800
1,400
1,700
9,100
24,000
20,000
3,800
700
2,000
4,700
52,000
900
210,000
-------
Table Al (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
00
Year
1961
System
Beaverton
Cal Young School e
Con/all is Airport
Country Squire Inn
Creswell
Creswell
Creswel 1
Estacada
Eugene
Fanno Creek
Fanno Creek
Nllwaukie
Newberg
Oak Acres Trailer Park
Oak Lodge S.O.
Oregon City
Oregon Primate Center
Oswego (Lake)
Oswego (Lake)
Portland
Portland
Springfield
Springfield
Tualatin H1tlsa
West Hills
West Linn
Type of
project a
Int, Out, LS
STP add
Lagoon
STP
Out, Pressure Mn
Lagoon
Int, Out, LS
Septic Tank
STP add
Fanno Cr. Int
Fanno Cr. Int-
Sylvan Trunk
Int, Out, LS
Int, Out, LS
STP
Int, Out, LS
LS
STP
Int, pipe
Int
STP 1mpr
Int, Out, LS
Int, Trunks
STP add
STP add
STP
Int, Out, LS
Treatment
plantb
IB.OOfld
12,081
22,000
19,648
3,000
582,000
15,000
25',000
89,428
480,670
4,375
21 ,000
1 ,300,000
Costs, dollars
Interceptor,
out fall, or
11ft station1*
143,546
21 ,920
10,800
91 ,770
474,417
12,773
44.643
72,500
24,201
161,857
574,105
244,640
1,635,918
3,198
3,516,288
Engineering c
14,000
2,200
1,800
3,300
3,300
2,900
1,600
400.
50,000f
9,500
37,000
1,900
5,500
2,200
8,000
3,600^
2,500f
) 52,000
9,300
21,000
100,000
36,000
700
3,200
500
376,006
-------
Table Al (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Year
1962
System
Beaverton
Canby
Cedar Hills
Dayton
Estacada
Estacada
Eugene
Illahee Hills
Ma ryl hurst
McSlaison Villages
M11wauk1e
Newbtrg
Oswego (Lake)
Oswego (Lake)
Portland-Tryon Creek
Portland-Tryon Creek
Sc1o
Silver ton
Sugar Plume
Thunder bird Trailer Park*
Willamette Lutheran Homes
Type of
project a
STP add
STP add
STP add
STP
Out
STP
LS, River Xing
Lagoon
STP
STP
STP add
STP add
Int. pipe
Int
Tryon Cr Int 12
Tryon Cr Int 11
Lagoon, LS
STP 1mpr
STP
STP
STP
Costs, dollars
Treatment
pi ant b
129,819
35,000
58,000
2,530
138,231
J
12,000d
30.000
10,000
169,950
2,688
21,118
171,178.,
13,000d
26.000
e.pppd
830,000
Interceptor,
out fall, or
11ft statlonb
36,517
370,000
84,125
110,000
218.870
267,797
1,087,309
Engineering c
9,900
4,600
6,700
400
) 16,000
30,000f
1,800
4,100
1,500
16,000
400
] 18,000
19,000
22,000
3,200
12,000
2,000
3,900
900
170,006"
-------
Table Al (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Year
1963
System
Aloha S.D.
Bailey Hill School*
Coeval 11s
Gas ton
Gas ton
Hlllsboro Jr. H.S.«
Indian Hills e
Honmouth
Oregon City
Oswego (Lake)
Pioneer Villa
Pleasant Valley School
Portland
Portland
Portland Trailer4 Park
Pugh's Motel6
Salem
Salem
Salem
Stayton
Tektronix
West Linn
West L1nn
West L1nn
Woodburn
Type of
project *
STP
STP
Mary's R. Int
Int
STP
STP
STP
Int
STP add
Int
STP
STP
Int
NU 9th Int
STP
STP
STP equip
Int
STP
Lagoon
STP
STP irnpr
STP equip
STP add
STP add
Costs, dollars
Treatment
flantb
29,936
6,987
56,512
23,643
9,000d
256,368
S.OOOd
15,000
66,0004
5,000d
369,814
2,715,577
25,602
60,000
119,990
5,059
47,954
227.212
4,000,000
Interceptor,
out fal 1 , or
11ft station b
120,046
28,685
31 ,339
330,459
50,481
100,120
1,492,758
2,153,888
Engineering^
4,100
1,000
12,000
4,300
6,600
3.500
1,400
4,300
22,000
27,000
700
2,200
6,100
10,000
7,400
700
48,000
96,000
160,000
3,800
6,900
)
} 16,000
j
16.000
460,600
-------
Table Al (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Year
1964
1
System
Aloha S.D.
Aloha S.O.
Baker Bay (Dorena)e
Brownsville
Bin-right Subdivision
Chatnlck* Heights
Country Squire Inn
Country Squire Inn
Eugene Airport
Fanno Cr.
Forest Grove
Green Peter Dam e
Jubltz Truck Stop
Lafayette
HcMlnnvllle
Ho mouth
Oak H1 1 1
Oak Lodge S.D.
Oregon Primate Research Center
Plnebrook S.O. •
Plneway Apartments
Portland
Portland
Portland-Tryon Creek
Portland-Tryon Creek
Salem
Sheridan
Sherwood
Somerset West
Sunset Valley
Sylvan Heights e
Tlgard
Uplands *
West Hills Convalescent Home«
Yamhlll
Type of
project a
Int
STP.LS
STP
Lagoon
STP
STP
Lagoon
STP
Lagoon
Whltford Int
STP 1mpr
STP
STP
Lagoon
STP add
Lagoon
STP
Lab, Garage
STP add
STP
STP
Willamette Int
Willamette LS
Tryon Cr Int #3
STP
S. Salem Int
STP
STP add
STP
STP Impr
STP
Int
STP add
STP
STP
Treatment
pi ant b
655,000
59,000
-------
Table AT (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
en
Year
1965
System
Aloha S.D.
Chanawa Indian School
Dayton
Diamond H111
Eujene
Fanno Creek
Ge'rvals
Haydsn Island Mobile Home
Klny City
MacLaren School e
Metzger S.D.
Metzger S.D.
Panavfsta
Peerless Truck Stop6
Portland
Ramada Inn
Salem
Sandy
Stephenson School
Sweet Home
Tangent School
Tlgard
Tlmberlakes Job Corps
Wllark Park6
Type of
project a
Boaverton Cr Int
STP
Lagoon, LS
STP
STP add
Sylvan Int
Lagoon, etc.
STP
STP
STP aJd
STP
Int. Ext
STP
STP
Willamette Int 12
STP
Pen. Annex -
Fairvlew Lagoon
STP add
STP
STP add
STP
.STP add
STP
STP
Costs, dollars
Treatment
pi ant b
66,000d
40,272
B.OOOd
1,250, COO
57,731
22, OOOd
40,000
8, £96
452,481
1 1 ,000^
5,000°
la.ooo*1
25,064
11,200
46,0003
30,450J
12,000^
181,870
30,000.
25.00CP
2,300,000
Interceptor,
out fall, or
11ft station^
545,057
98,115
330,635
267,341
1,241,148
Engineering c
40,000
7,400
5,100
700
40,000
10,000
6,800
3,300
5,100
1,200
35,000
27,000
1,600
700
23,000
2,700
3,800
1,700
5,600
4,200
1,800
17,000
6,000
3.800
250,000
-------
TaBle A1 (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
8
Year
1966
1967
System
Banks
CorvalUs
Cottage Grove
Cottage Grove
Fanno Creek
Goshen School
Harrisburg
Hayden Island Mobile Homes
Hemlock Subdivision
Independence
Millersburg School
Portland
Salem
Timber lakes Job Corps
Wil lamina
Amity
Eugene
Eugene Airport
Fanno Creek
Hubbard
Junction City
Lane C.C.
Laurelwood Academy
Lebanon
Millersburg School
Monroe
Portland
Salemtowne6
Type of
project8
STP
STP add
STP add
Int, LS
Sylvan Int. Ext
Lagoon
STP add
STP add
STP
Lagoon, LS
Lagoon
Guilds Lake Int
Int, Trunk
STP add
Lagoon
Lagoon
STP add
STP impr
STP add
STP
Lagoon, LS
Lagoon
STP Impr
West Side Int
STP Impr
Lagoon
S.E. Division Int
STP
Costs, dollars
Treatment
plantb
71 ,228
1 ,060,000
166,214
9,980
53,611
22,000°
20,000°
112,135
16,902
24,000
72,800
1,600,000
48,423
9,000
1,800
297,100
133,495
75,300.
26,000°
3
2,450
61 ,745
63,000d
720,000
Interceptor,
out fall , or
11ft station*
52,557
65,641
935,528
759,280
1 ,813,006
164,592
98,085
262,677
Engineering0
7,800
70,000
15,000
6,200
7,400.
698 T
1,500
3,300
3,000
11,000.
198f
64,000
54,000
3,600
8.000
260.000
5,900
1,400
300
25.000
20.000
8,300
3,900
16,000
400
7,400
10,000
7.600
110,000
-------
Table Al (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Year
1968
1969
System
Albany
Amity
Dallas
Oakridge
Portland
Propco
River Village T.P.
Skyline West
A. P. Industrial Park
American Can Co.
Halsey
Hlllsboro
Inverness
Jefferson
Mountain States Investment
Portland
Stuckey's Pecan
Tigard
Timber lakes Job Corps
West Salem
Dallas
Type of
project a
STP add
Lagoon
Int. Ext
STP add, Int. Ext
Int. Int. Ext
STP
STP
Lagoon
STP
STP
Lagoon
STP-new
STP
Lagoon
STP
STP add
Lagoon
Int. Ext.
LS, Sewers
STP, Int
New STP
Costs, dollars
Treatment
plantb
2,103,000
48,423
294,342
12,000d
5,000d
10,000d
2,500,000
6,500d
ll,500d
104,615
1,433,721
400,000
139,183
16, OOO11
2,664,364.
3.000P
729,105
1.000,000
6,500,000
Interceptor,
out fall, or
11ft station^
338,412
2,632,171
2,970,583
61 ,587
46.000
107,587
Engineering^
130,000
5,900
28,000
25,000
160,000
1,800
700
1.500
350,000
1,000
1,700
11,000
99,000
32,000
14,000
2,400
160,000
400
7,100
51 ,'ODO
68.000
450,006
-------
Table Al (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
01
01
Year
1970
1971
System
Aumsville
Dundee
Eugene
Gresham
take Oswego
Lebanon
McMlnnvllle
Newberg
Oak Lodge S.D.
Portl and
Portland
River Bend Mobile Park
Silver ton
Tualatin
Veneta
West Linn
Washington Co.
Albany
Clackamas Co. (TM-C1ty)
Columbia Way Crt.
F1r Cove
Hlllsboro
Oak Lodge S.D.
Philomath
Rlvervlew Mobile Ranch
St. Helens
Sauvle Island Moorage
Scappoose
Type of
project a
Lagoon
Lagoon
STP add
Int. Ext.
Int. Ext.
Int. Ext.
STP add, Int. Ext
STP add
STP add
Int. Ext.
Int. Ext.
STP
STP add
STP
Lagoon
Int. Ext.
Beaverton Int. Ext
Int. Ext.
New STP, Int. Ext
STP
Lagoon
Int. Ext.
STP add
STP add
STP
STP add
STP
STP, Int., Out
Costs, dollars
Treatment
pi ant b
169,829
266,427
1,156,795
1,250,000
761 ,038
27.864
49,000
-------
Table Al (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
Year
1972
1973
System
Canby
Century Meadows
Cottage Grove
Fanno Creek
Lake Oswego
Sandy
Timber! akes Job Corps
Wilsonville
Dikes ide Moorage
Gresham
Ma ryl hurst
Multnomah Co.
Oak Lodge S.D.
Portland
Stayton
Willow Island Mobile Estates
Woodburn
Type of
project a
STP add, Int. Ext
STP
Int. Ext.
Int. Ext.
Int. Ext.
STP
Lab
STP, Int. Out
STP
STP, Out
STP impr
Int. Ext.
STP add
Int. Ext.
STP add
STP
Lagoon
Costs, dollars
Treatment
pi ant b
302, 756 .
53, 000 d
416,000
12,000
773,000
1,600,000
8,000d
2,831,414
1,032
833,371
453,200.
45,000d
9
4,200,000
Interceptor,
out fall , or
lift station^
77,144
2,035,400
102,670
2,215,214
1,908,125
2,231,510
4,139,635
Engineering c
25,000
6,300
8,300
130,000
10,000
37,000f
2,000f
54.000
270,000
1,200
170,000
120,000
91 ,886^
140,000
35,000
5,500
560,000
-------
Table Al (continued). CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR MUNICIPAL SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
en
-q
Year
1974
System
Central Linn H.S.
Hlllsboro
Kellog (Clackamas)
Lafayette
McMinnville
Milwaukie
Oregon Private Research Center
Portland
Portland
Sweet Home
Timber! akes Job Corps
Washington Co.
Cedar Hill
Durham
Fanno Creek
Forest Grove - Cornelius
Forest Grove
Sherwood
Wood Village
Type of
project a
Halsey hookun
STP add
Int, STP
STP add
Int. Ext.
Int. Ext.
STP impr
STP add
STP inpr
STP add
STP add
Int. Ext.
STP
Int. Ext.
Int. Ext.
STP add
STP impr
Int. Ext.
Costs, dollars
Treatment
pi ant b
1,285,000
8,647,101
165,000
82,422
21,398,600
1,679,000
1,152,000
24,700,000
2,798,000
550,000
62,000,000
Interceptor,
out fall , or
lift station!*
39,000
243,000
900,100
569,000
1 ,961 ,000
305,000
231 ,990
4,249,090
Engineering c
5,000
120,000
480,000
15,000
21 ,000
61,000
10,155 f
1,100,000
100,000
75,000
25,000 f
42,000
1,300,000
120,000
25,000
170,000
40.000
20,000
3,700,000
8 Abbreviations: add. - addition; equip, -.equipment; exp. - expansion; ext. - extension; Impr. - Improvement;
Int. - Interceptor; LS - lift station; Out. - outfall; STP - sewage treatment plant.
k Figures from state and federal reports or OSU WRRI survey results except as noted by d.
c Estimated except as noted by f.
d Estimated.
6 Treatment works no longer operating. Excludes plants which have been replaced at site. Includes only those
which have abandoned in favor of a regional plant.
f Reported by owner.
9 Figure not available.
-------
APPENDIX B
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANT DATA
See table Bl.
158
-------
Table Bl. 1973-74 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA;
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS3
(O
Type o;
plant b
P
P
AL
TF
TF
AS
TF
TF
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
TF-EF
AS
AS
TF-L
AS
AS
TF
TF-AS
AS
TF
TF-L
TF
AS
AL-EF
EA
EA
AS
AS
Average
flow, mgd
92.0
2.2
29.4
23.7
18.67
6.80
7.14
8.7
5.07
3.95
2.71
1.9
3.64
1.48
2.0
5.95
2.63
2.87
4.08
1.63
3.0
1.54
2.15
1.7
.64
1.87
1.28
4.01
.25
.329
.40
2.0
Influent
BOD/SS,
mg/1
162/118
81 /
212/152
288/202
174/169
151/142
103/134
133/
150/315
191/470
250/250
181/221
231 /
149/119
231 /
410/221
117/137
132/
100/
183/
115/115
203/
182/162
114/78
223/104
140/198
21 7/
173/170
80/100
Effluent
BOD/SS,
mg/1
138/51
49/76
36/39
32/32
19/16
47/45
28/24
7/11
17/30
21/9
22/22
12/18
15/14
21/22
27/24
25/
9/67
13/8
59/44
27/
24/28
30/30
2V
17/17
25/21
18/31
19/21
40/
16/16
8/8
Staffing,
$/mg
11.60
40.20
21.72
24.10
77.50
30.74
17.35
104.00
148.00
48.53
182.00
63.97
47.20
18.22
148.00
137.00
220.00
12.61
Chlorine
Residual,
mg/1
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.7
1.0
1.5
2.7
1.9
1.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.0
2.3
3.0
2.0
2.2
1.5
1.8
0.8
Applied
Ib/mg
39.4
55.8
52.5
38.7
44.9
23.6
25.8
49.4
72.7
60.9
33.8
77.0
74.7
33.3
49.8
73.2
60.1
30.1
79.2
60.9
32.4
59.9
40.2
59.1
62.3
80.0
37.8
86.3
29.5
tost,
$/mg
2.68
2.73
2.76
1.97
2.51
1.42
2.72
4.45
2.13
6.85
5.98
2.00
2.36
3.43
2.83
2.29
3.76
8.56
2.84
Electricity
Used,
kwh/mg
82.5
628.0
227.0
1070.0
1204.0
2211.0
717.0
1364.0
510.0
1352.0
1760.0
1120.0
Cost,
$/mg
0.5
1.90
6.28
2.95
3.41
10.40
5.88
13.24
24.77
8.32
8.07
15.01
4.39
16.90
6.10
15.61
10.70
16.20
17.12
13.26
Maintenance,
$/mg
7.87
9.10
4.06
5.67
14.68
4.72
3.18
1.34
2.05
23.11
1.24
Total O&M,
Vmg
30.50
61.88
23.18
58.34
41.10
114.00
49.38
23.56
164.00
193.00
188.00
93.40
277.00
88.16
69.57
31.74
188.00
230.00
40.66
-------
Table Bl (continued). 1973-74 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA: MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
Type of
plant b
TF
TF
TF
EA
TF
AS
EA
EA
TF
TF
AS
TF
AL
L
L
TF
EA-EF
TF
L
EA
EA
EA
EA-L
EA-L
EA
EA-L
EA
EA-L
L
TF
EA
EA-L
EA
Average
flow, mgd
.64
.323
.36
.5
.211
.44
.153
.85
.12
.10
.2
.61
.19
.149
.074
.112
.257
.005
.034
.069
.107
.008
.045
.059
.06
.015
.0148
.03
.079
.057
.066
.073
.22
Influent
BOD/SS,
mg/1
101/152
150/145
152/
247/208
50/48
200/175
150/150
362/397
350/450
196/161
107/73
Effluent
BOD/SS,
mg/1
9/27
10/11
18/
9/8
6/15
10/10
10/12
8/10
20/20
38/55
56/
21/30
10/14
Staffing,
$/mg
681 .00
205.00
24.65
266.00
63.00
355.00
186.00
591.00
207.00
952.00
230.00
438.00
Chlorine
Residual,
mg/1
2.0
3.4
1.4
1.9
1.6
2.7
3.0
1.5
2.0
2.7
2.3
2.0
2.5
1.5
Applied,
lb/mg
31.0
54.2
58.3
131.6
76.9
29.2
40.0
*
54.8
25.0
32.0
53.8
88.0
79.0
620.0
48. Z
71.7
45.5
219.0
130.0
90.0
390.0
78.8
106.0
160.0
Cost,
$/rog
9.21
2.77
7.67
4.09
9.90
11.37
4,50
4.16
13.16
7.40
2.09
38.00
48.71
16.90
152.00
140.00
14.90
13.90
Electricity
Used,
kwh/rag
77.2
968.0
583.0
1973.0
838.0
1325.0
5666.0
Cost,
J/rog
1.90
16.00
118.00
12.67
31.17
15.90
8.90
9.20
6.77
23.26
47.89
73.37
230.00
62.37
71.00
680. 00
219.00
34.68
Maintenance,
$/mg
41.76
32.88
8.60
4.79
2.74
57.00
91.32
31.84
24.17
91.32
1.63
146.00
128.00
Total O&M,
$/mg
67.45
314.00
43.76
338.00
129.00
463.00
361.00
937.00
412.00
1,300.00
819.00
830.00
a Information from OSU WRRI questionnaire and survey of monthly reports submitted to the Department of Environ-
mental Quality.
bType: AL - Aerated Lagoon; AS - Activated Sludge; EA - Extended Aeration; EF - Effluent Filtration; L - Lagoon
P - Primary; TF - Trickling Filter
-------
APPENDIX C
WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOCATION
To date only one city - Corvallis - has constructed a water treat-
ment facility that uses the Willamette River as a source. The other
river communities generally employ tributaries as supplies while a few
have ground water sources. In many instances where the engineering
knowledge existed to purify Willamette River water for drinking and
where the economics favored using the river, political and public pres-
sure was applied to opt for alternative sources. This was done for
aesthetic reasons and fear of using water which carried wastes from up-
stream.
A survey of the chemical application records at the H. D. Taylor
Water Treatment plant in Corvallis for the period 1955-1973 revealed
that economies have been realized in recent years. Whether or not
these savings are even partially the result of improved river quality is
open to speculation. Figure Cl presents a history of chemical use for
the nineteen year period. Note particularly the drop in chlorine, the
plant disinfectant, and carbon, used for taste and odor control. There
has been a definite drop in coliform organisms in the river during the
past decade, which could possibly explain the reduction in chlorine use.
Little historical data regarding taste and odor problems exist but the
reduction in carbon use roughly corresponds to the installation of
secondary treatment at an upstream pulp mill.
161
-------
"e 2
O 2
o»
je
uT
DC.
z 30
O
§ 25
Q.
^ 20
15
10
5 -
FLUORINE
CHLORINE
• •
/\ A
.
— — CARBON
——— LIME
— — — ALUM
I
50
40
30
20
o>
.0 *
uT
z
O
u
Q.
200 a.
100
1955
I960
1965
YEAR
1970
1975
Figure Cl. Chemical application history at the H. D. Taylor
Water Treatment Plant, Corvallis.
162
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600/5-76-005
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
RESTORING THE WILLAMETTE RIVER: COSTS AND IMPACTS OF
WATER QUALITY CONTROL
7. AUTHOR(S)
E. Scott Huff, Peter C. Klingeman, Herbert H. Stoevener
1 and Howard F. Horton
|g. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Water Resources Research Institute
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Athens, Georgia 30601
. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
6. REPORT DATE
September 1976 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
,
NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BA030
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-2671
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Fi nal Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The means by which the water quality of the Willamette River has been upgraded over the past four
decades are documented. Two strategies—point-source wastewater treatment and flow augmentation from
a network of federal reservoirs—have been responsible for this Improvement In water quality. The
series of tactics employed 1n gradually reducing point-source waste discharges are documented. Coinci-
dent water quality benefits which have resulted from flow augmentation for other purposes are also dis-
cussed. The economic and energetic costs of constructing, operating, and maintaining the facilities
which have significantly contributed to the Improvement of water quality in the Willamette River and
Us tributaries over the last half century are examined. Data are presented regarding the construction
and operation of municipal collection .and treatment systems, Industrial water pollution abatement
facilities, and reservoirs. Input-Output economics and a methodology for converting dollar costs to
direct and total energy requirements are used to deal with construction and operational costs. Opera-
tion and maintenance expenditures are also dealt with on the basis of direct at-s1te requirements.
Energy needs for operating water quality control facilities are about one-tenth of one percent of total
basin energy utilization. Substantial savings of this energy are possible however. Historic and
current status of the fishery and wildlife resources of the Willamette River Basin are reviewed 1n re-
lation to changing water quality of the River. Recent Improvements 1n water quality have stimulated
State and Federal agencies to embark on a nine-year program to fully develop the fishery resources of
the Basin. The potential biologic, economic, and social values of the program are presented along
with related adverse effects attributed to water quality Improvement procedures.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Energy
Economics
Waste water
Water treatment
Reservoirs
Fishes
Wildlife
Wastewater treatment
plants
Flow augmentation
Environmental effects
Energy analysis
Water quality control
Willamette River (Oregon
2B
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)'
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
175
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
163
OUSGPO: 1976 — 657-695/6110 R«glon 5-11
------- |