DOCSLIB.ORG

Forest Cover Impacts on Drinking Water Utility Treatment Costs in a Large Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Forest Cover Impacts on Drinking Water Utility Treatment Costs in a Large Watershed PROJECT NO. 4651 Forest Cover Impacts on Drinking Water Utility Treatment Costs in a Large Watershed Where Water Matters Forest Cover Impacts on Drinking Water Utility Treatment Costs in a Large Watershed Prepared by: Heidi L. N. Moltz, Ross Mandel, Karin R. Bencala, James B. Palmer, Andrea Nagel, and Scott Kaiser Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin and Alexander S. Gorzalski Washington Aqueduct Co‐sponsored by: DC Water Fairfax Water U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities Washington Aqueduct Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission 2018 The Water Research Foundation (WRF) is a nonprofit (501c3) organization that provides a unified source for One Water research and a strong presence in relationships with partner organizations, government and regulatory agencies, and Congress. WRF conducts research in all areas of drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, and water reuse. The Water Research Foundation’s research portfolio is valued at over $700 million. WRF plays an important role in the translation and dissemination of applied research, technology demonstration, and education, through creation of research‐based educational tools and technology exchange opportunities. WRF serves as a leader and model for collaboration across the water industry and its materials are used to inform policymakers and the public on the science, economic value, and environmental benefits of using and recovering resources found in water, as well as the feasibility of implementing new technologies. For more information, contact: The Water Research Foundation Alexandria, VA Office Denver, CO Office 1199 North Fairfax Street, Suite 900 6666 West Quincy Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314‐1445 Denver, Colorado 80235‐3098 Tel: 571.384.2100 Tel: 303.347.6100 www.werf.org www.waterrf.org [email protected] [email protected] ©Copyright 2018 by The Water Research Foundation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy must be obtained from The Water Research Foundation. WRF ISBN: 978‐1‐60573‐376‐0 WRF Project Number: 4651 This report was prepared by the organization(s) named below as an account of work sponsored by The Water Research Foundation. Neither The Water Research Foundation, members of The Water Research Foundation, the organization(s) named below, nor any person acting on their behalf: (a) makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report or that such use may not infringe on privately owned rights; or (b) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report. Prepared by Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin and Washington Aqueduct. This document was reviewed by a panel of independent experts selected by The Water Research Foundation. Mention of trade names or commercial products or services does not constitute endorsement or recommendations for use. Similarly, omission of products or trade names indicates nothing concerning The Water Research Foundation's positions regarding product effectiveness or applicability. CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................xv ....................................................................................................1 Statement of Research Need ................................................................................................3 Building on Previous Efforts ...................................................................................3 Research Approach ..............................................................................................................5 ......................................................7 Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 5 Watershed Model .........................................................7 Modeled Land Use Scenarios ............................................................................................11 Scenario Development Method ..............................................................................11 Land Use Scenarios................................................................................................13 BMP Scenarios.......................................................................................................14 Results ................................................................................................................................15 Method to Translate Modeled Water Quality to Utility Intake Water Quality ..................16 Washington Aqueduct ............................................................................................16 Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission ........................................................18 Fairfax Water .........................................................................................................22 .............................................................................................................27 Relevant Studies.................................................................................................................27 Moore and McCarl 1987 ........................................................................................28 Elias et al. 2014 ......................................................................................................28 Heberling et al. 2015 ..............................................................................................28 Method ...............................................................................................................................29 Step 1. Analyze Observed Data to Develop Relationships between Water Quality and Chemical Dose .......................................................................30 Step 2. Estimate Future Withdrawals.....................................................................31 Step 3. Estimate Chemical Doses Using Simulated Water Quality Conditions for Each Scenario .......................................................................................31 Water Quality-Treatment Dose Relationships by Utility ...................................................31 Washington Aqueduct ............................................................................................32 Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission ........................................................37 Fairfax Water .........................................................................................................38 Treatment Chemical Dose by Utility and Scenario ...........................................................41 iii ...............................................................43 Water Treatment Chemical Cost Estimates by Utility and Land Use Scenario ................43 Step 1. Calculate Average Cost of Each Chemical at Each Utility by Summarizing Historic Cost Data ...............................................................43 Step 2. Calculate Daily Cost of Each Chemical ....................................................43 Step 3. Calculate Average Annual Costs of Each Chemical .................................44 Step 4. Calculate the Total Average Annual Cost of Chemicals Used for Each Model Scenario ..........................................................................................44 Historic Costs .........................................................................................................44 Sensitivity Analysis ...............................................................................................47 Treatment Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................50 Threshold-Based Approach for Relating Capital Improvement Costs to Watershed Development ........................................................................................51 Analysis Methods and Data ...................................................................................51 Analysis, Results, and Discussion .........................................................................54 Conclusions ............................................................................................................73 Changing Solids Handling Costs Due to Increased Chemical Doses and Source Water Loadings ......................................................................................................73 Washington Aqueduct ............................................................................................73 City of Hagerstown ................................................................................................75 Comparison of Utility Case Studies .......................................................................76 ...........77 Current Land Cover Conditions .........................................................................................77 Land Cover Characteristics ....................................................................................77 Forest Ownership and Easements ..........................................................................83
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bridging the Union. Arch
    ? .,,~' ml i " | j z- •" VOl~!:~i~:Nb. 11 SERVING THE PEOPLE OF CABIN JOHN AND BEYOND AUGUST 1975 i j ..... - FUTURE OF GLEN ECHO PARK UNCERTAIN By Shelly Keller Glen Echo- Park needs some help to realize its amazing potentiM as a national, cultural resource center, especially now that the Office of Manageirient and Bud- get seems serious about giving the Park to the Maryland National Capital:Park and Planning Commission or some other State or County agency. As of now, the Park is a "special pro- gram" of the NationalPark Service with the land title residing with GSA. The ,~ Park was to come.under the NPS admini-:~ii" ~. " strative jurisdiction through'the land transfer, but because OMB has not yet moved to finalize the transfer of the land title, there is no legislative description for ~ the Park• : - ~" Many people within the Park Service and especially people involved in the Park itself, fear that OMB might decide that: Glen Echo Park is too experimental, too .:,'. urban and too unlike other National Parks to be ~y_en_ to NPS. Some NPS people reeF f eh-T~-6:~ay; others, andmembers of Congress seem to support efforts to U.S. Con#essman Gilbert Gude and Administrative Aide Keith Schiszik at the July 24th •~ create more urban park situations. meeting abou~ .the .future of Union Arch Bridge. Pho'to by Linda Ford "" In a~i~'~er'~o-'Goti~essmanGude on ~ July 22, Paul O'Neill, Deputy Director of OMB, stated, "I don't think we're far a- BRIDGING THE UNION. ARCH GAP part regarding the future use ofthis pro- by Cat Feild perty and the undesirability of commer- cial development of this site• The issue Believe it or not, the Union Arch Bridge is not a dormant issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission – Video Streaming and Archiving Meetings and Late Payment Charges (MC/PG 100-21) (Charkoudian)
    DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DD43C77-6A9A-477D-A5DC-5CAFBC8C4614 COMMISSION SUMMARY AGENDA CATEGORY: Intergovernmental Relations Office ITEM NUMBER: 1 DATE: April 21, 2021 SUBJECT Legislative Update SUMMARY Updates on WSSC Water-related bills for the 2021 Legislative Session. The legislative update is current as of April 5, 2021, and will be updated SPECIAL COMMENTS as legislation is received and/or positions are taken. CONTRACT NO./ N/A REFERENCE NO. N/A COSTS AMENDMENT/ CHANGE ORDER NO. N/A AMOUNT MBE PARTICIPATION N/A PRIOR STAFF/ COMMITTEE REVIEW Carla A. Reid, General Manager/CEO Monica Johnson, Deputy General Manager, Strategy & Partnerships PRIOR STAFF/ Karyn A. Riley, Director, Intergovernmental Relations Office COMMITTEE APPROVALS RECOMMENDATION TO COMMISSION COMMISSION ACTION DocuSign Envelope ID: 8DD43C77-6A9A-477D-A5DC-5CAFBC8C4614 SESSION 2021 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE As of April 5, 2021 WSSC Water Sponsored Legislation Bill # Title (Sponsor)/Description Position Status/Notes Washington Suburban Sanitary Hearings: Commission – Board of Ethics - Financial Disclosure Statements - Late Senate Education, Health and Fees (MC/PG 102-21) Environmental Affairs 4/6/2021 Authorizes the WSSC Board of Ethics to impose a late fee on individuals who file House – Passed (136-0) late or fail to file required financial HB 501 SUPPORT 3/18/2021 (MC/PG 102-21) disclosure statements. (10/21/2020) Positions: PGHD – FAV (1/22/21) MCHD – FAV (1/29/21) MCCE – Support MCCC – Support PGCC – Support WSSC Water Related Legislation Bill # Title (Sponsor)/Description Position Status/Notes Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard – Wastewater, Thermal, and Other Renewable Sources (D.E. Davis) As amended, expands Tier 1 renewable Hearings: energy sources to include raw or treated wastewater used as a heat source or heat Senate Finance SUPPORT HB 561 sink for a heating or cooling system, 3/30/2021 (1/27/2021) subject to specified requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Mr
    Testimony of Mr. Thomas P. Jacobus General Manager, Washington Aqueduct Performance Oversight Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018 Before the Committee on Transportation and the Environment Council of the District of Columbia Friday, March 2, 2018 Chairperson Cheh and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me today to testify on the performance of Washington Aqueduct. I am Tom Jacobus, general manager of Washington Aqueduct. We have the responsibility to provide wholesale water service to DC Water for further distribution to the residents, businesses and other activities in the District of Columbia. Engagement with Wholesale Customers Washington Aqueduct has a highly-effective and valuable relationship with our largest wholesale customer: DC Water. There is daily interaction at the executive, manager and staff levels to address ongoing production operations to ensure DC Water is receiving the quality and quantity of water expected by its customers. Both DC Water and Washington Aqueduct have added individual expertise, engineering, and scientific capability, and we have shown ourselves to be very capable to respond to any unusual or unforeseen event. We share data and process information with DC Water, and we receive from them technical insight and innovative ideas. Washington Aqueduct also serves two wholesale customers in Northern Virginia: Arlington County and Fairfax Water. Our three wholesale customers, acting under the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding that established a Wholesale Customer Board, fund all operations and our capital improvements. Water Quality and Water Supply Risk Reduction Washington Aqueduct has approached our stewardship of the drinking water resource through the prism of risk reduction. Over ten years ago, the Wholesale Customer Board requested that we evaluate advanced treatment options, such as granular activated carbon adsorption, membrane treatment, ozone/biofiltration, and ultraviolet disinfection.
    [Show full text]
  • ALONG the TOWPATH a Quarterly Publication of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Association
    ALONG THE TOWPATH A quarterly publication of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Association An independent, non-profit, all-volunteer citizens association established in 1954 supporting the conservation of the natural and historical environment of the C&O Canal and the Potomac River Basin. VOLUME XLVI March 2014 Number 1 DOUGLAS MEMORIAL WEEKEND By Marjorie Richman, on behalf of the Program Committee Join us for a weekend of camaraderie, great food and canal hiking during April 25 through 27 as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of Justice William O. Douglas' memorable hike to save the C&O Canal. This year’s Douglas celebration will feature two nights of camping at a private campground in Williamsport and two days of bus- supported towpath hiking. For non-campers there is a choice of convenient nearby lodging options so you don’t have to miss the fun. The traditional Douglas dinner and program will be held on Saturday at the Potomac Fish and Game Club. We will be camping at the Hagerstown/Antietam KOA campground, located about four miles from the center of Williamsport at the end of a scenic country road. This site features campsites along the Conococheague Creek. A pavilion is available for our gatherings and happy hours. The campground is far enough from the interstate so that quiet nights are guaranteed. There are clean bathrooms, showers, a laundry room, plenty of parking, and electricity and water at each campsite. There are also accommodations at the campground for people who prefer to have a roof over their heads. Non-campers can reserve cabins located within yards of the tent sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Summary
    Potomac River Basin Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership 2013 Annual Meeting Summary November 13, 2013 Greenbrier State Park, Maryland Attendees Utilities State and Local Government Federal and Regional Agencies City of Rockville: DC Dept. of the Environment: EPA Region 3: Judy Ding Collin Burrell Vicky Binetti Shah Nawaz DC Water: ICPRB: Nicole Condon MD Dept. of the Environment: Karin Bencala Saeid Kasraei Carlton Haywood Fairfax Water: Robert Peoples Heidi Moltz Traci Kammer Goldberg Lyn Poorman Chuck Murray MWCOG: Greg Prelewicz PA Dept. of Env. Protection: Steve Bieber Niffy Saji Patrick Bowling Joel Thompson USGS: VA Department of Health: Joe Bell (MD-DE-DC) Loudoun Water: John Aulbach Cherie Miller (MD-DE-DC) Micah Vieux Curtis Schreffler (Pa.) WV Dept. of Health and Town of Leesburg, Va.: Human Resources: Russell Chambers Bill Toomey Other Water Research Foundation: Washington Aqueduct: Kim Linton Shabir Choudhary Tom Jacobus Anne Spiesman WSSC: Martin Chandler Plato Chen Mohammad Habibian Steve Nelson Priscilla To 2013 Annual Meeting Summary Page 1 of 17 Quick Links Looking forward to the next 10 years 2013 Accomplishments 2014 Priorities Discussion of forest and broader watershed issues Passing of the gavel Issue Update - Contaminants of Emerging Concern Information Session – Forests and Water Quality Financial Report Meeting Summary Looking forward to the next 10 years - Vicky Binetti, EPA Region III This meeting marks the kick-off of the Partnership’s ten-year anniversary and provides an opportunity to reflect on what we have accomplished and what we want to do going forward. Vicky Binetti reviewed our successes and challenged us to do more to protect the Potomac’s source waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Iii. Upper Potomac Historic Districts
    148 PLACES FROM THE PAST III. UPPER POTOMAC UPPER POTOMAC 149 III. UPPER POTOMAC HISTORIC DISTRICTS POOLESVILLE HISTORIC DISTRICT (c1793) NR Municipality John Poole II established the community of Poolesville about 1793, sell- ing half-acre lots from land he acquired from his father. The Poole family migrated here from Anne Arundel County. Poole built the John Poole R. Owens, M-NCPPC, 1974 House (1793), a one-room log store and opened a post office called Poole’s Richard Poole House, Poolesville Store, Maryland. The building is now a museum operated by Historic Medley District. Within the first few years, merchants opened a second store, a tailor shop, and a tavern. The Dr. Thomas Poole House (1830-5) is an outstanding Federal style brick house with a handsome doorway with fanlight and side- lights. Dr. Thomas Poole built the house in the 1830s and his daughter and son-in-law built ess the side addition for a doctor’s office in 1865. y of Congr By 1850, there were 25 , Librar families living in Poolesville. The majority of extant houses date from this era. Notable among them are the Frederick Poole House (c1819; Late Historic American Building Survey 1800s), Beeding-Poole House, Thomas Hall Building (1800); photo 1930s and Willard-Sellman House. The Thomas Hall Building is a row of brick town houses built in 1800. Several important community buildings are found in the Poolesville Historic District. Mid-nineteenth century churches are the Presbyterian Church (1848) and the Baptist Church (1865), with stepped gable façades, and St. Peter’s Episcopal Church (1847) with an 1890 brick steeple.
    [Show full text]
  • Seneca Sandstone: a Heritage Stone from the United States
    Seneca sandstone: A heritage stone from the United States C. Grissom1*, E. Aloiz2, E. Vicenzi1, and R. Livingston3 1Smithsonian Museum Conservation Institute, 4210 Silver Hill Rd., Suitland, MD 20746, U.S.A. 24047 Argyle Avenue, Erie, PA 16505, U.S.A. 3Material Science and Engineering Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, U.S.A. *Corresponding author (email: [email protected]) Abstract: Seneca sandstone is a fine-grained arkosic sandstone of dark-red coloration used primarily during the nineteenth century in Washington, DC. The quarries, which are not active, are located along the Potomac River 34 kilometers northwest of Washington near Poolesville, Maryland. Seneca sandstone is from the Poolesville Member of the Upper-Triassic Manassas Formation, which is in turn a Member of the Newark Supergroup that crops out in eastern North America. Its first major public use is associated with George Washington, the first president of the Potomac Company founded in 1785 to improve the navigability of the Potomac River, with the goal of opening transportation to the west for shipping. The subsequent Chesapeake and Ohio Canal parallel to the river made major use of Seneca sandstone in its construction and then facilitated the stone’s transport to the capital for the construction industry. The most significant building for which the stone was used is the Smithsonian Institution Building or ‘Castle’ (1847– 1855), the first building of the institution and still its administrative center. Many churches, school buildings, and homes in the city were built wholly or partially with the stone during the ‘brown decades’ of the latter half of the nineteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Aqueduct Final Draft Fact Sheet
    FACT SHEET UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 NPDES Permit No. DC0000019 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Proposed the Reissuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to Discharge Pollutants Pursuant to the Provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) For: Department of the Army Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers Washington Aqueduct Division APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Name Department of the Army, Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers, Washington Aqueduct Division Applicant Mailing 5900 MacArthur Boulevard, NW Address Washington, D.C. 20016-2514 PUBLIC COMMENT Public Comment Start Date: 8/1/2019 Public Comment Expiration Date: 8/31/2019 Persons wishing to comment on, or request a public hearing for, the draft permit for this facility may do so in writing by the expiration date of the public comment period. All public comments and/or requests for a public hearing must state the nature of the issues to be raised as well as the requester’s name, address, and telephone number. All public comments and requests for a public hearing must be in writing and submitted the following: Francisco Cruz U.S. EPA Region III NPDES Permits Section (3WD41) 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 814-5734 [email protected] Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 124.13, “[a]ll persons, including applicants, who believe any condition of a draft permit is inappropriate or that the [EPA]’s tentative decision to . prepare a draft permit is inappropriate, must raise all reasonably ascertainable issues and submit all reasonably available arguments supporting their position by the close of the public comment period (including any public hearing) under [40 C.F.R.] § 124.10.
    [Show full text]
  • The Washington Aqueduct ~.,~} Water Supply District of Columbia
    THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT ~.,~} WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PLATE I POTOMAC RIVER AT GREAT FALLS, MD. SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY FOR W~~~JNGTON. D. C. WAR UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. JUNE, 1939 PLATE 2 ~~-.GeoRGes ;z j.. DIS I' R OF Col~.l· '{" (} IIJ - '"' INE 'l- at I C I' .:> j.. Ill (/} .:> - O,t:- C/) 0 -..( \..­ ~ - " t>- ~--{ "'' (o 0 ~ ~ ""0,. "\ \ R G I N FAIRFAX COUNTY •w -</-? <I'\I c:;)' GREAT FALLS DAM CD 0'\1 @ OLD CONDUIT l @NEW CONDUIT ('0 @)CABIN JOHN BRIDGE )-)- @CABIN JOHN SIPHON ""' SECOND HIGH TUNNEL @ DALECARLIA RESERVOIR THIRD HIGH PIPE LINE EXTENSION I BOOSTER PUMPING STATION G) THIRD HIGH RESERVOIR NO. '2. @ DALEGARLIA PUMPING STATION THIRD HIGH RESERVOIR NO.I \. @ DALECARLIA FILTER PLANT FOURTH HIGH STANDPIPES --------- --"{-!!'~0). ___ __ ., @)HYDRO- ELECTRIC PLANT ~ BRYANT ST. PUMPING STATION @PIPE LINE TO ARLINGTON CO., VA. ANACOSTIA PUMPING STATION 6 •. @CONDUIT TO GEORGETOWN RESERVOIR ANACOSTIA SECOND HIGH TANK @)FIRST HIGH PIPE LINE ANACOSTIA FIRST HIGH RE:SER\/OIR @GEORGETOWN RESERVOIR SECOND HIGH PIPE LINE.* @)FIRST HIGH RESERVOIR GENERAL LOCATION OF STRUCTURES THIRD HIGH PIPE. LINE* @)SECOND HIGH RESERVOIR Seale of Feet 0 5000 IOPOO 20,000 @WASHINGTON CITY TUNNEL Structures controlled jointly by ==== * 1939 (@ROCK CREEK PUMPING STATION Washington Aqueduct&. D.C. Water Dlv. WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT TABLE OF CONTENTS == Section No. SubJect. Page No. Foreword 1 1. Source of Supply 1 2. Location 1 :;. History and Authorization 2 4. Service Areas 3 5. Description of Major Structures 3 S(a Diversion Dam 3 S(b Old Conduit 6 5(c Conduit Road 9 5~d New Conduit 9 5 e Raw Water Reservoirs 9 5 f The Washington City Tunnel 14 5(g Dalecarlia Filtration Plant 15 S(h) McMillan Filtration Plent 15 5(1) High Service Reservoirs and Transmission Mains 18 5(J) Federal Meters 19 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This
    STATE; Form 10-300 UNITED STAiS DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (July 1969) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE District of Columbia COUNTY- NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM FOR NPS USE ONLY E:NTRY NUMBER (Type all entries — complete applicable sections) 1, NAME COMMON Washington Aqueduct AND/OR HISTORIC! Aqueduct >, LOCATION STREET AND NUMBER: 5900 MacArthur Boulevard, N.W. CITY OR TOWN: Washington COUNTY: District of Columbia 3. CATEGORY ACCESSIBLE STATUS (Check One) TO THE PUBLIC G District Q] Building OS Public Public Acquisition: [X Occupied Yes: fair Restricted D Si *e Structure D Private [| In Process D Unoccupied G Unrestricted D Object D Both [ | Being Considered r-j pres<,rva , lOn work in progress a N° ( ] Agricultural G Government G Park Transportation G Comments [ | Commercial G Industrial G Private Residence Other (Specify) | | Educational XX Military | | Religious system for __ | | Entertainment G Museum [ | Scientific general population OWNER'S NAME: STATE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers STREET AND NUMBER: 5900 MacArthur Boulevard Cl TY OR TOWN: STATE: CODE Washington District of Columbia =;$•$^AljpO^itipAl DESCRIPTION • ; ; ' V;' ' •' • COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC: Montgomery County Courthouse and District of Columbia Courthouse COUYNT• STREET AND NUMBER: CITY OR TOWN: STATE CODE District of Columbia Rockville Maryland (f!.#&!^^ ' . • • ' . '•:>:; • •; ; TITLE OF SURVEY: Historic American Engineering Record NUMBERENTRY Tl O DATE OF SURVEY: 1Q72«1Q7^ "& Federal G State G County G Loca TO DEPOSITORY FOR
    [Show full text]
  • Decision Rationale for Approval of Washington Aqueduct Treatment
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REG'ION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 DEC 11 2009 SUBJECT: Decision Rationale for Approval ofWashington Aqueduct Treatment Changes FROM: Jennie pereY~, P~ttf'Lead Environmental Scientist, Drinking Water Branch (3 WP21) U;'V\ , TO: , File THRU: William S. Arfuto, Chief, Drinking Water Branch (3WP21) t~~ 1. Purpose The purpose ofthis memo is to document EPA Region Ill's review ofand rationale for approval of treatment changes at the Washington Aqueduct's two treatment plants. Several supporting documents are included as attachments to this memo. 2. Background The Washington Aqueduct is planning to replace its liquid/gas chlorine disinfection process with sodium hypochlorite at both ofits treatment plants. At the same time, the Aqueduct will be adding caustic soda capability for fine pH adjustment at the Dalecarlia Treatment Plant and for all pH adjustment at the McMillan Treatment Plant. The schedule for implementation ofthese treatment changes is as follows: Treatment Treatment Implementation timeframe Process Plant (approximate; as. of11/19/09) Hypochlorite Dalecarlia May 2010 McMillan January 2010 Caustic soda Dalecarlia April/May 2010 - McMillan May/June 2010 In June 2006, EPA Region III issued an optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) designation to the Washington Aqueduct and the DC Water and Sewer Authority (DCWASA). This designated orthophosphate as the OCCT for these two systems and included water quality parameters (WQPs) for entry point and distribution system monitoring. The WQP designations were final for all parameters except for pH at the Washington Aqueduct; that WQP designation was an interim designation (7.7 ± 0.3 units) until caustic soda treatment was in place.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Washington Aqueduct
    ~®~l WI lk!JJ []={] n~@ U© ~ ' [t1 ©L (UJ ~ [Q) (lJ ~ u HISTORY OF THE WASHING ON AQUEDUCT WASHINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1953 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Springs and Wells . • • • • . 1 Studies for Municipal Water Supply . • • • • • 5 The Old Conduit ••••...••••.• • • • 9 Cabin John Bridge • . • • o • • • • • • • • • • 15 Rock Creek Bridge o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 21 Other Works • • . • • . • • • • . 27 Period of Unfiltered Water 1863-1905 0 • • • • 35 City Water Tunnel • . • • • 0 • 41 McMillan Reservoir • • • . 45 Auxiliary Improvements 0 • • 0 • • • • • 0 47 McMillan Filter Plant • . • • • • • 0 49 Water Wastage • • • • • • • • . • . • • 53 Increase of Water Supply 1921-1928 • . • • 55 Program for Future Improvements . 57 Engineers in Charge . • . • . 59 Water Division of the District of Columbia • • 61 Funding . • . 61 ADDENDA How Jefferson Davis' Name Was Erased • 0 • • 0 63 Gold Mines . • • . • • • • • 0 65 INTRODUCTION Water systems develop with the growth of a city. Looking back over the 160 years since Vtfashington was founded, it is apparent that the history of its water system can be divided into three periods corresponding with the advance of population. · During the first period, from 1790 to 1863, the population was small for a long time and houses were far apart so springs and wells satisfied practically all water supply needs of the citizens. 'V'Vi th the more rapid increase in population, beginning about 1850, Congress realized that a municipal water system was essential and appropriated federal funds to construct the original works of the Washington Aqueduct which were placed in service in 1863. The second period in the history of the water system, from 1863 to 1905, was a time which might be described as one in which there was a supply of very muddy water which was far from being safe, satisfac­ tory, or ample.
    [Show full text]