59

sorte ene ‘wins wavanon
oa: tom iuseaing wrens was aLscravnasa sovcuiEsT éxp0oN INNO xH00 <40z0SVTIIOA
ca trae Iiweaua rood whos exsevoswica ZonsuNsST SrvoorvTausO 2000 Sa0z0svTII0N
ese wo ‘neve rao pred 50k age Toa naaoa
aod serezy ‘ios. wancron
sors, seus Jumiai0d went WEA LZSENOFMIS sBOBMANET KstEOMNTIGHD To00 OyezOSYTION
wat oust ios wataean
wast wast dena Ve sorcvonencss —«EELEST oxwoTTaGIO ToOD Z40TOSYTIOOA|
cormeesr —moeester wias xaHanca
eoreeneet On eeNET e109 staan TWorUsaa WHET evssovenssy —EITEE S09TO9rT3GND ToGo 948Z05VT7204
ad os-seven Win US¥ROA
ascees, pried auco Mledte TWORUSTIA WaOT senGHeNANOEE —««SEET ETACEHTIOWO. TOOO saozOSTTIION
op ast east W104 waHaNGA
ast wast KL METI SUEY UssovNasa —TEMT® ZOvOONFTIDNO TODD bAOZDSYTEION
were ‘geron rio WaKonOA
sear wa ‘ont sonuisay wavoze 2010 Tot
Cie’ wore ‘Wwia w3Ho00A
roerd serene eo as ae ano 1000
sere sezaiter you RHINO
to sees ascauwed 4003 ¥ ETAL ST VONNTOSE (SIYSENTALND TO80 SaGs49NTIOR,
mo" gerusz ‘Soemcauea soma 3 Waka ét9ssaveTOSS 009 297¥sa¥VIND 2000 946668717204
jorzeest | SuraTaG TMRUNYE head # dWwoLwd TaesevenosO code yEVSgWAING OOO 4GE6ONTIIOA
wrens srroeesz ‘Two waonon
wrens Soros aeuseauwd iowa 8 ATRL etsspoNNNISA TERY aze'4 ZeZVIETIAIND TODD Sai66n"T320K
ie eens Weipa waar
a Waar poacecmenns A003 8 FTOIRE 113640¥sNDO Agzesavvaina £000 24646913208
oo rere Tisupued iaca § await Zissovmosd isresortains 2500 Tasesertazon
Wee aretee Guvsapunwed loa ¥ 2133 Ltscsoyenosd sooerery'4 Z9zWICTIIND ToOa ZaLKeHT3z0N
sorters wee yea wows
oe 956 doaceaunned sna ¥ sTeause sT9soNsNGSE sa02 s9rysavtaing 2000 TasssevTaOn
rr a Goesaaunvd inca ¥ Wait St9ssosenssa t800 esb's ZOENsOVIAIND TOOD TabsEMTTIION
sovectsy — seyaitey wo aoc
seeeess = aaveart ‘2Nr*20 40 OMTAVA TOLLAND fOP6HeHINOGE — 9TH 24 AsNOTEYTAIND TODD LageETIION
woresarzet —— oovzsotssT ‘W104. asavanos
wrest consort geo SATUISNOME StHWG FOREGONANIT EOD ZT'4 FOOETEYIRIND 1000 44MK6OYTIIOA
nd amas mua Cd ae
Bry smn searener GUS ORD some aHor0On
posner aas 49 @uaTHAaE wane nes n uses
sensu shiva anest 2030 sere Tava ne
verano 10% iw0sse (ame saoriaa> saaey exciweroTNe af ssa Ses 40 ONTISTY ATIVO

aid DOSE 1 sota3amy ns a


123

®

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

James S. Gilmore, 111 of he 00 Gast tain ur00¢
‘Micenay Ganares | Richmond 23219 enone Yuan FERN

Jannary 16, 1996 soe Sr novo 109

BY CERTIFIED MAIL

Marion Barry, Jr., Mayor
clo Charles F.C. Ruff
Corporation Counsel
District of Columbia

441 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 2000)

RE: Notice pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A)

Dear Mayor Barry:

‘The District of Columbia ("District") owns and operates the Blue Plains
sewage treatment plant ("Blue Plains"). The sewage discharges from Blue Plains
and elsewhere in the District to the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, Rock Creek,
and Little Falls Branch are governed by NPDES permit number DC0021199 (the
Permit"). The District has violated effluent limitations imposed by the Permit
from time to time since November, 1994, particularly the minimum pH limita-
tion.

As set out in a report by the Environmental Protection Agency’s National
Enforcement Investigations Center, dated November, 1995, the District’s inability
to maintain adequate inventories of treanment chemicals has led to these permit
violations, as well as to high solids inventories in aeration basins and to reduced
solids dewatering capacity.

In addition, the District essentially has halted preventive maintenance; it
now conducts maintenance operations on an emergency basis. The District
further relies on contract personnel for many of the high-skill repairs at Blue
Plains; unpaid bills threaten the continued availability of this work force.


25

-B-

result, as well as analyze the original sample for E.Coli or fecal coliform. One of the
three repeat samples must be taken at the tap where the positive sample was found,
and the other two must be taken upstream and downstream of the original sample.

, if any of these repeat samples are pasitive, and the original sample tested positive
for fecal coliform or E.Coli, this constitutes an acute violation of the MCL for the
Total Coliform Rule (TCR).

Let me now turn to some of the specific problems that we have encountered over

the last several years with the drinking water system.

OGY TI MEN’ IN

Washington Aqueduct Division, Army Corps of Engineers:

In 1988 registered a chronic, or monthly monitoring violation of the Volatile
Organic Chemicals (VOC) Rule; a public notice was issued by Region 3.

Recorded a Monthly maximum contaminant level (MCL) violation of the
Surface Water Treatment Rute (SWTR) at the McMillan Water Treatment
Plant (WTP) for July 1993.

Recorded an Acute MCL violatian of the TCR on October 29, 1993 affecting
‘one section of the Dalecarlia WTP only.

Recorded another Monthly maximum contaminant level (MCL) violation of the
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) on December 7, 1993; A system-
wide boil water notice was issued as required by Region 3.

District of Columbia:

Recorded an Acute MCL violation of the TCR for September 1993. A limited
boil water notice was issued by Region 3, EPA.

Recorded a Monthly MCL violation of the TCR for September 1993; an
emergency Administrative Order (AO) was issued by EPA on September 29,
1993,

Recorded an Acute MCL violation of the TCR for June 1995; No boil water
notice was issued, but EPA did require a Sanitary Survey, which is an on-site
review of the water source, facilities, equipment, operation and maintenance
of the system. The subsequent Sanitary Survey was completed by June 30


154

| hope the foregoing has put in perspective the problems we are attempting to
address. | am confident that on the basis of an unemotional review of all of the audited
data regarding the University's financial status, these matters will be resolved

Thank you for your continued understanding and support of the City in these trying
fiscal times.

Sincerely,

Tilden J. LeMelle
President

ec: Andrew F. Brimmer
Marion Barry
Michele Hagans
Carrie Thornhill
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton


COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004

March 19, 1996

Representative Thomas M. Davis, Chairman
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
415 Canon Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: oversight hearing on the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance
Authority Act of 1995

Dear Congressman Davis

I attended your hearing and listened with interest to both the comments made by those
‘who testified and those from Congress who asked questions. I am writing to address some
concerns which I believe should be taken into account regarding the possibility of structural
changes to the Authority Act rather than informal, albeit important, working arrangements. | am
writing as well about federal action regarding retirement of the accumulating deficit.

STRUCTUAL IMPROVEMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY
BOARD

1, Representation of the "Rescue" entity on the board: the Federal government in
this instance

In my view, the Authority Act should be strengthened to provide for features in common
to contro} board setups in other cities which have had to go through this process. First, in all
instances that I know of, the entity which is ultimately responsible for financing a multi-year
plan to pay out a deficit (while at the same time exacting changes from the city in its
management and expenditures) is represented directly on the board. In other words, there is state
representation on all these boards. Since the federal government must substitute for the state in
the case of the District, then it would follow that it should be represented directly on the board. 1
believe this would make a major difference in securing agreement in Congress on decisions made
by the Authority and would assist the city in better dealing with its options in a time of fiscal

1


COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
WILLIAM F. CLINGER, Jr., Pennsylvania, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico - EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina
WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, Jr., New Hampshire © LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, New
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
PETER BLUTE, Massachusetts COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JON D. FOX, Pennsylvania THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
RANDY TATE, Washington GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
DICK CHRYSLER, Michigan BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana Columbia
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, New Jersey JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida GENE GREEN, Texas
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois ‘CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire BILL BREWSTER, Oklahoma
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Obio TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South

Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland (Independent)

JAMES L. CLARKE, Staff Director
KEVIN SABO, General Counsel
Juptr McCoy, Chief Clerk

Bup MYERS, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York Columbia
STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan

MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

EX OFFICIO

WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania © CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois
Ron Hamm, Staff Director
Howarp Denis, Counsel
ANNE MACK, Professional Staff Member
ELLEN BROWN, Clerk
CepRic HENDRICKS, Minority Professional Staff


119

think there should be an active waterborne disease surveillance
program, and there is not.

Mr. Davis. OK. Thanks. .

In your comments about lead in the drinking water, this seemed
to be lumped into the District of Columbia water system. But my
understanding is that lead is more a problem inside buildings than
in the water system itself, and while the District of Columbia gov-
ernment and EPA have a strong interest in lead abatement, wher-
ever it is found, that this basically would not be a problem with
the system or a problem that the aqueduct or the Department of
Public Works could do anything about.

Any reaction to that? Am I missing something on this?

Mr. OLSON. Well, let’s talk about where lead comes from. It
comes either from the so-called service lines that are between the
water main and the house or apartment building which is con-
trolled by the District. That’s part of the distribution system. Or it
comes from the—inside of the household plumbing, including the

raucet.

What EPA’s rules require is that you replace a lead service line
that’s continuing to contribute to a problem after you have tried to
reduce how corrosive the water is.

So it is the aqueduct’s responsibility to treat the water so it
doesn’t take a lot of that lead out of the pipes, and although the
aqueduct has proposed a plan, as I mentioned, that has been sit-
ting on EPA’s desk, as far as I know, for 18 months without action.
And then the real problem is that we are not going out and testin;
for lead so we don’t know anymore where the problems are ant
where they are not.

Mr. Davis. Let me just follow up with Dr. Hawley.

Lead is not the major concern to your patients as much as some
of the other areas?

Dr. HAWLEY. I don’t know of any association between lead levels
and change in status of HIV disease.

Mr. Davis. All right. Thank you.

Let me ask Ms. Norton if she has any questions.

Thank you both.

Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of
questions.

For Dr. Hawley, I believe you were here when Mr. McCabe testi-
fied that a person with an immune deficiency disease should con-
sult her physician rather than assume, particularly if she is able-
bodied, that she cannot drink the water. For an able-bodied person,
is that bad advice? Let’s say somebody who is HIV positive but
does not have AIDS, for example.

Dr. HAWLEY. Well, you know, I think that that should be an
issue between the physician and the patient for any HIV-infected
person, whether they are severely immunocompromised at that
time or not.

We would usually recommend taking more extraordinary meas-
ures like boiling the water to those who were more severely
immunocompromised late in their disease.

Ms. Norton. Could I have a clarification on boiling water? I un-
derstand you are supposed to boil water for 1 minute. Aren’t there
problems that occur if you boil water too long?


went Asuaow

rwio1 wanna

sont Sune. BOS FACE ZzzTSONINING 000 sooannvia9¥0 cooa TeeTeorTED0R

INT SBOTAUaS ere 92ztSoHIMNG —«—HESS_EFOOSYTANUO LO

ONT SaSLAES era SETTSONMONT

sauve Ce ar
Anausanesto GUS 9OIO IMONIG
weston wasn 49 e3e0TaAsa INRA 11S
serzzre salva snsst 02

Case saan) Acxan SME LTTHO AU SIND SE 40 SATASTT ATT
“

otonaing sar aD
os 30va deOaTe


152

APR: i 1995

University of the District of Columbia

‘Qe,
"e
Si

Office of the President
4200 Connecticut Avenue, NW,
‘Washington, D.C. 20008

8%
&

Telephone (202) 274-5100

March 22, 1996

The Honorable Thomas M. Davis, III
U.S. House of Representatives

415 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Representative Davis

During your Committee hearing with the Authority on March 19, 1996 you asked
if there was any credence to UDC's claim that the recommended decrease in District
appropriation to the University would cause UDC to have to cease operations. In his
response, Dr. Brimmer indicated that the independent chief financial officer had proposed
an additional 10% reduction in our appropriation because UDC had overspent its FY '95
budget.

Mr. Davis, UDC has never in its entire history overspent its approved budget and
did not do so in FY '95 as claimed by the CFO. For reasons still unknown to us,
unbudgeted non-cash contingencies are expensed against the University's non-
appropriated and unrestricted fund balance and have been publicly represented by District
financial officials as budgeted cash obligations incurred by the University in a given fiscal
year. The error obviously results from confusing the financial entries in the District's
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) with the fiscal year operating budget
report. This confusing of the two reports and public misstatements by District finance
officials have plagued the University for several years.

In the present instance, the above distinction is very critical. The CFO's office
made it very clear that the proposed 10% withholding of gross revenues would be based
on historical patterns of overspending. That office misinterpreted the CAFR
$9,304,000 decrease in UDC's fund balance as a $9.304 overspending of FY '95
budget appropriation.


79

some concern in the city about what that means. When we break
it down, the city is almost or will shortly be at 5,000. I understand
that included—and I am asking this question to see if I am right
in this—included in the 10,000 would be privatization of the em-
ployees of Blue Plains, which would take a large number off, there-
by leaving a fairly small number——

Mr. Kina. Not necessarily privatization. We are not excluding
that, but when they go to the authority, then they, those employees
are transferred to the authority and off the District payroll.

Ms. Norton. So whether it would be privatization or independ-
ent authority, it would be off the District’s? Of course, the District
will still have to pay its fair share of whatever it costs, but they
would not be carried on District payroll?

Mr. KING. No. I do not understand the fair cost.

Mr. Davis. The city would still have to pay; the city still has
sewer bills they have to pay.

Mr. KING. Yes, yes.

Ms. Norton. That is all I am saying.

Mr. Davis. But in terms of actually talking about downsizing city
government, if it is really an enterprise fund, and not part of your
general fund budget, that is the part that is fiscally impacted, are
not these enterprise zones?

Mr. KiNG. But all employees, all FTE’s are counted against our
total.

Mr. Davis. I would just opine from here, having run a govern-
ment not quite as large as the city, but the second largest county
budget in the country, that it is apples and oranges when you start
going into enterprise zones and cutting people.

Mr. KING. You are absolutely right.

Mr. Davis. I am not sure it is the smart thing to do.

Mr. Kina. It does not help your general fund cause.

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. You have been very forthcom-
ing, and we look forward to hearing from you again. Thank you.

Our next panel is Tom Jacobus, who is chief of the Washington
aqueduct for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I especially appre-
ciate your willingness to work with this subcommittee in such a co-
operative way.

It is the policy of this committee to swear in.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. Davis. Try to keep your statement under 10 minutes, and
then we will move right to the questions.

STATEMENT OF TOM JACOBUS, CHIEF OF THE WASHINGTON
AQUEDUCT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Mr. Jacosus. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee
today to discuss the operation of the Washington aqueduct.

I am Tom Jacobus, chief of the Washington aqueduct division.
The Washington aqueduct is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Its name is taken from the aqueduct structure com-
pleted in 1863 from Great Falls to Georgetown. The Army designed

and built the original system as a result of congressional action in


15

authority typically associated with a public drinking-water system.
All construction costs, indeed all costs, must be paid on a pay-as-
you-go basis. The Secretary of the Army has recommended that
ownership and operation of the Washington aqueduct be trans-
ferred to a non-Federal public entity which has the ability to raise
the necessary capital.

The District has similar constraints. Although it can borrow
money, the city’s bond ratings are so low that the cost of such bor-
rowing is probative at a time when the District can least afford to
incur additional costs.

Similarly, the city has extraordinary costs associated with mod-
ernizing its distribution system, removing very old cast iron piping,
removing biofilm from distribution lines, modernizing its under-
ground reservoir and so on.

Let me now turn to the wastewater facilities located at Blue
Plains. This facility has been in operation since 1934, and pres-
ently—its most recent expansion was in 1972 and completed in
stages by 1983. Presently, the plant has an average daily design
capacity of 309 million gallons per day and a peak design capacity
of 650 million gallons a day, plus primary treatment capacity for
an additional 289 million gallons er day storm flow.

EPA funding for this facility Began in 1973. In 1984, a Blue
Plains feasibility study evaluated various alternatives for meeting
the waste water treatment needs of the service area through the
year 2010. The most cost-effective and environmentally sound al-
ternative was determined to be an upgrade and expansion of Blue
Plains to 370 MGD and a peak flow of 740 MGD. This upgrade and
expansion is currently underway. The collection system consists of
approximately 1,275 miles of sewers, nine wastewater pump sta-
tions and 15 stormwater pump stations.

Since 1973, EPA has awarded the District of Columbia over $360
million in construction grants for Blue Plains. In addition, the EPA
has awarded the Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions an additional
$287 million to support Blue Plains construction. The total Federal
construction grant, then, is approximately $600 million. In my
written testimony, it says $500, and it is really actually closer to
$600 million.

The plant serves about 2 million people. The interim allocation
of the plant’s 309 MGD capacity, b: on the Blue Plains inter-
municipal agreement, is as follows, and it is reflected in the pie
chart that has just been put up.

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, which serves Mont-
gomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland, is allocated just
over 150 million gallons a day; the District of Columbia is allocated
132 million gallons a day; Fairfax County’s share, 19 million gal-
lons a day; Loudoun County Sanitary Authority, 3 million; town of
Vienna, just under 1 million.

Dulles International Airport is allocated 400,000 gallons a day;
the Department of Navy, 85,000 gallons a day; and the National
Park Service, 11,000 gallons a day.

The wastewater infrastructure and its supervision is a little less
complicated than the drinking water side. Because the Blue Plains
plant is located within the District, region III, EPA has primary
oversight responsibility for its operation. WASUA, the District’s


128

DURING FISCAL YEAR 1994, OVER $80 MILLION DOLLARS WAS
TRANSFERRED FROM THE DISTRICT’S WATER AND SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND.
THE BLUE PLAINS BUDGET FALLS WITHIN THIS FUND. THIS SUBSTANTIAL
LOSS OF FUNDS HAS LED TO SERIOUS MAINTENANCE AND PLANT OPERATIONS
PROBLEMS AT THE FACILITY.

ACCORDING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WHICH
INSPECTED THE FACILITY APRIL 1995, THE PLANT IS SHORT OF STAFF,
MAINTENANCE AND CHEMICALS. THESE SHORTAGES COULD POTENTIALLY
LEAD TO A REAL THREAT OF SEWAGE FLOWING INTO THE POTOMAC RIVER.
THIS CAN CAUSE A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE RATEPAYERS AND SUBURBAN
JURISDICTIONS AND HAVE A DEVASTATING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON THE
REGION.

DURING ITS INSPECTION, EPA FOUND THE FAILURE TO PAY VENDORS
AND CONTRACTORS IN A TIMELY MANNER HAS RESULTED IN CONTRACTORS
WALKING OFF THEIR JOBS AT BLUE PLAINS AND VENDORS FAILING TO MAKE
DELIVERIES OF CHEMICALS OR SUPPLY SPARE PARTS. THIS FURTHER
HAMPERS THE PLANT’S ABILITY TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN PLANT
EQUIPMENT. MOREOVER, LACK OF PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE AND
REPLACEMENT PARTS FOR ESSENTIAL TREATMENT PROCESS UNITS RESULTED
IN MANY UNITS BECOMING INOPERABLE AND/OR INACCURATE.

ACCORDING TO EPA, THE STAFFING LEVELS HAD A DELETERIOUS
EFFECT ON PLANT OPERATIONS: SHORTAGES IN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF
ENGINEERS HAS RESTRICTED USE OF THE PLANTS ABILITY TO MONITOR THE
LARGE NUMBER OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE PROCESSES, PLAN FOR

NECESSARY MAINTENANCE, AND OVERSEE ONGOING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.


134

For dire emergencies, such as a boil water alert, the local Ryan White CARE consortium
has developed a plan of action that includes agencies such as Food and Friends delivering
bottled water. Food and Frends distributes meals to more than four hundred people living
with HIV disease in the Metro area each day. However, when there is an emergency, Food
and Friends must first find a source for bottled water, and then delivery must be made

This can include up to two extra round trips per volunteer driver. The result is a risk that
food will not arrive at the right temperature, posing another health threat as well as a
significant burden on the volunteer and staff base of the organization.

Food and Friends must make their own decision regarding the delivery of bottled water,
because they have yet to ever receive direct communication from the water utilities or the
health departments on the issue of water safety. Lastly, Food and Friends must deliver
water to the whole area, because they lack the information to make a decisions as to
whether or not a breech in water safety affects just one area of the region, or whether it
affects the entire metropolitan area.

The problem of communication raises many of the broader public health issues involved
with the water safety questions in the region. There is no documented or explicit plan to
speak directly with AIDS service organizations and many of the care providers that have
daily communication with people who are severely immune compromised and who are
most at risk. Phone calls made to a few physicians who are then expected to contact all
their at risk patients cannot possibly get the word out to the people who most need to know
if they should to boil their water.

‘Again, groups like Food and Friends and other meal delivery services for a wide variety of
populations need to know about a water borne risk, if for no other reason than to assess
the safety of the water they would use in food preparation. The same is true for
institutions such as hospitals and nursing homes.

One of the fundamental questions that must be addressed is: When should a boil water
alert be sounded, or when should precautions be urged for at risk populations? This
question has not been answered. The reluctance of issuing a boil water alert is
understandable. There are considerable liability and economic impacts to these decisions.
However, often, when a boil water alert has been ordered, the public has been drinking
contaminated water for at least 48 hours. A suspected problem in the drinking water must
be confirmed through lab tests, which may take up to three days to do the required tests.
This is a deadly time lapse for people living with HIV disease.

Another series of vital questions that must be asked are: What is the level of risk for
vulnerable populations. What are the potential microbial contaminants, their affects, and
how much is there in the water? Is there enough to cause disease? These questions have
not been answered. Water borne microbial illnesses such as cryptosporidiosis, giardia and
shigella are not reportable illnesses, so there is no hard epidemiological data available to
answer questions. Often, physicians do not even order tests to find the “source” of a
diarrheal illness. In order to base a risk analysis on good public health policy, water borne


14

seve272 Shiva anssr y039

Cama S90 73K) AR@ON BAELNESTID AS HOME Sis 40 ONTASTT ATIVE
vy ootasuw


32

-as-
SUMMARY

In conclusion, the drinking water and waste water systems in the region need
attention. The problems are long-standing, and any solutions that have been tried have not
succeeded in bringing either the drinking water or waste water treatment systems into long-
term compliance. EPA Region 3 is working overtime to stay on top of these problems, and
we have utilized virtually every avenue available to us, including technical assistance,
administrative orders, court-filed consent orders, unannounced inspections and audits,
substantial fines, and jaw-boning, but we have bean unable to bring about the kind of
systemic improvements that are needed to ensure long-term protection of human health
and the environment. This situation is not sustainable over time. While | can not comment
specifically at this time, | can say generally that EPA and the Department of Justice are
currently working with the City in an attempt to resolve at least the more short-term
immediate problems that plague the Blue Plains facility

We recognize that the Subcommittee today will not be looking at specific legislative
solutions to the problems we have outlined; however, | would respectfully suggest that the
Congress give serious consideration to new financing systems for both the water and
wastewater treatment systems, including the establishment of separate accounts for the
collection and disbursement of grant payments and revenues for operation and
maintenance. In addition, some form of regional water and sewer authority that represents.
the interests of all jurisdictions served by these facilities is crucial so that the systems can
make the major capital improvements that are critical to the health and safety of the peopie

tiving in this region and protection of the focal environment.


103

5

According to Corps data, we are hovering at an average of
about 97 to 99 parts per billion for these chemicals, with the
enforceable standard at 100 parts per billion. EPA in 1994
formally proposed to cut the standard in two steps to 80 and later
40 parts per billion. Our recent nationwide study of large U.S.
water systems, TROUBLE ON TAP (1995), found that D.C. "has: awong the
highest levels of TTHMs of any big water system in the nation.
These chemicals, created when inadequately pre-treated water is
heavily chlorinated for disinfection, can be reduced or eliminated
through the use of so-called precursor removal technologies (like
granular activated carbon), or a shift to an alternative
disinfectant. The heavy chlorination of our water also causes the
excessive chlorine taste and smell that has driven so many area
residents to complain and to drink bottled water.

In addition, historicaily many areas of the District have had
elevated ievels of lead in the drinking water, generally from
leaching of lead from the city’s lead service lines, or in some
canes leaching from household plumbing, While the Corps has
propose? a lead reduction program through the use of corrosion
inhabiters, EPA has sat on this plan for about 18 months without
approving it, and in the mean time it. appears that the District has
suspended all lead testing of tap water. This is a particularly
S€r.ous issue in households witn young children and bottle-fed
infants, the population at greatest risk.

The Corps’ consultants’ 1994 CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR MODERNIZATION

recommended several hundred million dollars in investment to enable


39

to the finance capability of the city, because the same water, as we
have mentioned, is going over to Arlington and Falls Church. And
they are not seeing the same problems we are seeing in the city
in terms of low grades of bacterial contamination that we have
been picking up this summer. .

Mr. Davis. So as opposed to the distribution system itself—I am
talking about the physical pipes and infrastructure—it is really a
question of maintenance?

Mr. Morris. Maintenance of the system itself and the reservoirs
that feed it. .

Mr. Davis. It is my understanding that turbidity is cloudiness in
water that can reflect poor filtration, as well as indicate the pres
ence of parasitic or other microorganisms such as cryptosporidium.
Was it the turbidity problem that caused EPA to issue its boiled
water alert in 1993?

Mr. Morris. Yes. It was a breakthrough on the filters in
Dalecarlia, and they have since been upgraded and there has been
extremely good filtration since then. The levels of finished water
have been well within EPA limits.

Mr. Davis. So the current activity and monitoring regimen for
the system is going well; is that reasonable?

Mr. Morris. The system itself, we are picking up, have picked
up over the summer low-grade contamination which concerns us.
And that was the part of the administrative order or proposed ad-
ministrative order that was issued. The other contamination at the
plant, primarily from the cryptosporidium concerns and the filtra-
tion, seems to be under control.

Mr. Davis. OK. How would you rate the status of the Washing-
ton aqueduct as far as being a modern plant, operating efficiently,
and meeting all required standards?

Mr. Morris. It needs to be modernized. It needs some substan-
tial changes in modernization, and they need some money to do
that. They have been meeting their requirements to do intensive
care by the corps since the 1993 concern we had with the boiled
water notice. .

Mr. Davis. But the long-term solution to modernize the plant is
going to be substantial infrastructure——

Mr. Morris. We understand, yes, it is many tens of millions of
dollars to bring it up to where it should be.

Mr. Davis. Going back to the water distribution system in the
city itself, which is very old—you talked about the need for mainte-
nance and flushing, do you think there is a need for extensive up-
grading and repairs, or do you think it can be handled with proper
maintenance?

Mr. Morris. There are some requirements there, but it is usually
at the reservoirs. There is a study that has gone on which details
that more precisely, and that is what we are working on with the
city at this point.

r. Davis. You hear anecdotally about all these pipes going
through the city and how they have been there for many, many
years and are going to need wholesale replacement. You don't see
a problem of that magnitude?

Mr. Morris. Not a wholesale one. There will be individual places
where that needs to be done. That will be part of the evaluation


64

sion Ama0v

wie. anan0n

vaso kas wens ROLLINS suxeavensea —— LATBE TOOWTYTALND 7000 42640413308
ereprrind fetes Toomayaine tooe Tazceor3304
‘wap asuanon

ualvan t vorta zescyorenase 92061009 coEsaNYTAIND 7000 P4LeEYTTEIOA
‘Senetons oofsoavTaiNd Toad 442866¥13200

‘want, wancnon

A912 ed00ssvTRCHO ToOD vEFOEOFTEION
‘iol satanon

20-12 sooeomvrsana toon 8d6Z6e"TII08

2S WsLUG GMT sSseveNIROSE

‘am aos ewe TOLL HITeerLA z2SbHONNTOTO

ae ex amenaa7e ar war
anaesenessa Gus som soem = UaKINOK
hoor) wasn a8 eaa3AvE HOON NHS ced
serra have ansst 23 sere 3a we
(aan sana) ican eELeSTIO Ae SWING 40 SHTISTT ATS
wate 3es s¥0s wna


148

‘The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton 3 March 26, 1996

‘Second: History belies any suggestion that the Authority is engaged in “regional
imperialism." ‘The Authority has long been in the forefront of regional cooperation in the best
interests of providing an adequate supply of potable water for everyone in the region.

‘The Authority is an original member party of the Potomac River Low Flow Allocation
Agreement, signed January 11, 1978, along with the District of Columbia; the United States of
‘America, the States of Virginia and Maryland and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.
‘This agreement will allocate water in the Potomac River in times of low flow and the Authority is
proud to have played a leading role in its development.

Subsequently, in 1982 the Authority signed a number of other agreements with the District of
Columbia and other bodies to assure that water supply would be coordinated and shared fairly

throughout the region. Development of these agreements in which the Authority was a leader, is a
model of regional cooperation which stands in stark contrast to the disputes over water which have
raged in other places across the country. The Authority is proud of its role in regional cooperation

‘The Authority has stated that any relationship that it establishes with new wholesale customers
should be consistent with the contractual agreements with its existing wholesale customers. The
present wholesale customers do not have voting representation on the Authority's governing board.
However, the largest customers have appointed non-voting representatives who attend every meeting
and express their views. The Authority can not under Virginia law add voting representatives to its
governing board from wholesale customers, and it does not desire to do so.

‘The Authority has spent a significant amount of resources in the spirit of regional cooperation
and stands ready to discuss the future of the Aqueduct with the District and the other wholesale
customers.

Sincerely,
Poad Cleon

Fred C, Morin
‘Chairman

ce: The Honorable Thomas M. Davis


35

Mr. McCase. I want to emphasize that they are overworked,
understaffed, and they have Kept that plant together under ex-
treme conditions. The Corps of Engineers operates there as well,
and we certainly support their effort. They are under contract to

8.

But as far as the continued.concerns with the plant, there need
to be improvements and those improvements range from more
staffing to proper supply of chemicals to rehabilitating some of the
sedimentary basins. We have a list of priority items that the plant
needs to address and we have been working with the District to try
to get them to address those priorities.

Ms. Norton. There’s increasing—because of the news stories
about both the aqueduct and Blue Plains, there is concern in the
public about—particularly drinking water, about raw sewage. I am
wondering where EPA stands on the request of environmental
groups for a public hearing on drinking water quality.

Mr. McCabe. We are planning to have a public hearing on April
9, and we think it is important to address some of the issues that
have been raised. It is crucial to our proposed administrative order,
which would—which was issued on the drinking water system. So
that will be April 9.

Ms. Norton. I appreciate hearing that because I think once the
Public does get that opportunity, some of the concern will be
erased.

I would like to ask you about a continuing problem that is of spe-
cial concern in this region. That is, that in this region, particularly
in Maryland and Virginia, interestingly enough, there are the high-
est cancer rates in the United States, and no one has ever been
able to come to grips with the cause, but it is thought to go well
beyond the usual concerns. And one of the concerns surely would
be whether water contamination or water treatment contributes to
these high rates. :

I wonder if the corps testing indicates that TTHM’s are found at
high levels in District of Columbia water? As I understand it, your
current standard for TTHM’s is 100 parts per billion, but that our
current levels actually average around 97 to 99 parts per billion.
Are we that close to the edge?

Mr. McCask. You are very close to that limit. It does not exceed
the limit, but it does come very close. That is part of our concern.
The reason that you have the trihalomethanes at that level is be-
cause of the concern about the quality of the water and the safety
of the water, and you are basically flushing a lot of that chlorine
through the system in order to ensure its safety.

Ms. Norton. How do we compare with other jurisdictions around
the country with those levels?

Mr. McCaBE. I don’t know that I have that information.

Mr. Morris. I would have to get it for you. We don’t have it.

Ms. Norton. It would be very hard to evaluate because if in fact
we have these high levels and yet other water systems have these
averages, that would obviously raise other questions. I wonder if
you will provide for the record-

Mr. Morris. I do not think that concern is unique to the District
of Columbia, but we will get that information for you.

Ms. NorTon. One last question, Mr. Chairman.



67

ereentesstz saree ‘sins Tents
aa Pico’ move or ania awn
om anon JNRARNESTO GUS IO see vwaxdas

sen Wan As eqwovae wane Tas

A 11 aor
Maar Suva mest 8919 sertere "Fauve we
soraagm sar sxo4sy (ame sama) Awaey siniwaTO Aa SOM SU Zo eNLASTT A1T¥e

1. sotasene ayes vara
8


104

6

the system to become state-of-the-art today. Among the most
important major upgrades needed are a shift to alternative
disinfectants such as ozone and/or choramines, and the installation
of granular activated carbon. However, far from adequate funding
has been dedicated to implement this plan. ‘This problem simply
cannot be solved until the Corps is relieved of the “pay as you go"
requirement that all system capital. investments must be paid for by
customers when they’ are performed. Imagine the quality of home
most of us could buy if we had to pay for it in full in cash when
we bought it.

In addition, a June, 1995 “sanitary survey" of the District's
water distribution system found numerous serious problems with the
operation and maintenance of these pipes and reservoirs. For
exanple, a much more aggressive water flushing program, which some
anajogize to brushing your teeth, is necessary, as is an improved
overall preventative maintenance and lead and corroded pipe
replacement program, and a dead end looping program to avoid
stagnant water that breeds potentially dangerous microbes. These

problems are in serious need of immediate solution.

Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant

When it was built, Blue Plains was widely touted as a national

wn jewel, an example of state-of-the-art sewage treatment.
While some of these claims may have been exaggerated, it is clear
that what once was a system that could comply with basic standards

has been neglected and allowed to deteriorate to the point that it


126

Marion Barry, Jr.
January 16, 1996
Page 4

ec: Carol M. Browner, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460

W. Michael McCabe, Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency

Region IT

841 Chestnut Building

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-4431

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Main Justice Building, Room 5111
Tenth and Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530

James R. Collier, Program Manager
Water Resources Management Division
Environmental Regulation Division

c/o Charles F.C. Ruff

Corporation Counsel

District of Columbia

441 Fourth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

E:UREAWPUIABPNOTICE


45

4

MODEL FOR THIS FACILITY, THE LEGACY OF BLUE PLAINS WILL BE ONE

OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE.

WHAT ARE THE CURRENT CHALLENGES?

IN RECENT WEEKS, WE HAVE WITNESSED A FLURRY OF MEDIA REPORTS
ON THE CONDITION OF BLUE PLAINS AND THE DISTRICT’S WATER
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. MOREOVER, THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY HAS IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC PROBLEM AREAS THE
DISTRICT MUST ADDRESS IMMEDIATELY OR FACE LEGAL RETRIBUTION

OR COURT ACTION.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WERE IT NOT FOR OUR ACUTE FISCAL
CONDITION AND A VERY UNWISE DECISION MADE DURING THE PRIOR
ADMINISTRATION TO TRANSFER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM WASUA’S
CASH RESERVES TO THE GENERAL FUND, WE WOULD NOT BE FACING

MANY OF THE CHALLENGES WE READ AND HEAR ABOUT TODAY.

WHETHER WE WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT, THESE ISSUES HAVE HAD A.

DIRECT IMPACT ON OUR OPERATING ABILITY, YET WE ARE TRYING


87

Mr. Davis. OK. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being
here. I will go first with a few questions. .

First of all, let me ask you: Is the city up to date on its pay-
ments? And what has been the payment history, the payment re-
view?

Mr. Jacosus. Currently, we send payment requests monthly to
the city. Our current request—the city is overdue $3.1 million in
operating funds and $7.6 million in requests for capital funds.

Mr. Davis. How far overdue does that go? Is that 30 days, 60
days, or 90 days?

Mr. Jacosus. Those are requests that were made in the months
of January and February, sir.

Mr. Davis. OK. Have they paid everything through December,
for example, as far as you know?

Mr. Jacosus. They made a payment to bring up to date through
that period of time. We work with them very closely on that.

Mr. Davis. Have they traditionally been a little slow on pay-
ments?

Mr. Jacosus. Their payment record was absolutely immaculate
until December 1994 with the current financial difficulties, and it’s
been sporadic since then.

Mr. Davis. Thank you.

What is the corps’ understanding of the present water quality at
the aqueduct, both in the raw water entering the plant and the
treated water leaving the plant?

Mr. Jacosus. Sir, the quality of the drinking water leaving the
Washington aqueduct meets all drinking water standards. The
quality of the water taken from the Potomac varies seasonally, but
our plant manager and the treatment process can react to those
changes in a way to produce a uniformly excellent quality of water
regardless of those seasonal variations.

Mr. Davis. Do you think the water quality is improving, or is it
deteriorating both from the incoming and the treated water?

Mr. Jacobus. I noted that there is a seasonal change in the qual-
ity of the water coming into the plant. However, I can say without
qualification that the quality of the finished water is improving,
due to changes in the treatment techniques and continuing empha-
sis on operations and increasing management control.

Mr. Davis. Let me ask a question. The estimation of improve-
ments that are needed to the aqueduct—and I understand you are
under some pressure from the EPA on some of those improve-
ments—do you have an estimation of the improvements needed and
the cost of improvements at the aqueduct to try to bring it up to
standard?

Mr. JAcoBus. I would like to categorize it. We have three cat-
egories of necessary improvements. The first category is renovation
of existing facilities to assure their continued reliable operation.
The second would be construction of new facilities which will be
needed to incorporate advanced water treatment methods to meet
known or expected future regulatory requirements. And the third
category would be planning for facilities which may be needed to
meet presently unobserved conditions in the raw water or, as yet,
unspecified regulatory requirements.


8

Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The chairman has indicated that he has called this hearing on
water and sewer systems located in the District of Columbia for in-
formational purposes. Both systems, the Washington aqueduct and
the Blue Plains wastewater treatment and disposal system, are
troubled, and oversight is certainly appropriate. However, these are
two different systems which have little in common except the need
for substantial structural renovation and management reforms and
their location wholly within the boundaries of the District.

For me, both raise critical environmental concerns involving
clean water, the Potomac and the Anacostia that together have
been a working priority for me ever since I came to Congress in
1991.

The aqueduct is owned by the Federal Government and operated
by the Army Corps of Engineers. Blue Plains is owned and oper-
ated by the District of Columbia. To arrive at workable solutions
and to avoid needless conflict, it will be necessary to avoid taking
actions that simply lump the two facilities together without ac-
counting for their unique problems, structure, and ownership.

The Washington aqueduct, which supplies 75 percent of the
water treated into the District, 16 percent to Arlington County, and
9 percent to the city of Falls Church, is in the jurisdiction of the
Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the Transpor-
tation and Infrastructure Committee. As a member of that sub-
committee, I have taken an active interest in the aqueduct ever
since the boil water alert of December 19, 1993.

Although we were gratified that this incident turned out to be a
false alarm, the 1993 incident raised the level of our concern. I re-
quested an investigation of the incident and a hearing.

Chairman Doug Applegate, who then was chairman of Water Re-
sources, granted my request and the issues were thoroughly ex-
plored. The hearing uncovered. many problems requiring capital im-
provements in the old treatment plants, Dalecarlia and McMillan,
and in the distribution system.

As a result, Representative Jim Moran, Senator John Warner,
and I succeeded in passing a legislative provision requiring the Sec-
retary of the Army to produce a study of options for financing cap-
ital improvements and alternative ownership arrangements.

We were particularly concerned that the pay-as-you-go restraints
and the requirement of paying the costs of capital improvements up
front from customer payments would make the expense involved
prohibitive and thus impossible to undertake.

Initially, after consulting with the Army Corps of Engineers,
Representative Moran and I worked on a provision that would have
allowed the corps to borrow from the Treasury to finance capital
improvements with loans paid by the aqueduct’s customers. The
only reason this remedy was not immediately effective was a dis-

ute over scoring which has since been cleared up. Consequently,
Benator John Warner has already succeeded in having such a pro-
vision passed in the Senate. It has been scored at zero by CBO, and
I have an identical bill pending here in the House.

All of the parties—the District, Arlington County, and the city of
Falls Chureh—have expressed a strong preference for continued
Federal ownership of the aqueduct. Accordingly, I have met with


WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1996

House OF REPRESENTATIVES,
District OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:40 a.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas M. Davis
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Davis and Norton.

Staff present: Ron Hamm, staff director; Howard Denis, counsel;
Ellen Brown, clerk; Anne Mack, professional staff member; and
Cedric Hendricks, minority professional staff.

Mr. Davis. Good morning. I wanted to welcome you to this over-
sight hearing on the water and sewer systems in the District of Co-
lumbia.

The safe and efficient operation of each of these systems is of
vital importance not only to the residents of the District and those
who are employed here but to everyone who lives within the water-
shed of either the Potomac or the Chesapeake Bay. The environ-
mental concerns associated with the Blue Plains facility are enor-
mous and growing. The safety and future of the Chesapeake Bay,
the Potomac River, and other vital wetlands, as well as the safety
and health of millions of people are directly affected by these sys-
tems.

In addition to the environmental concerns, there is also an unde-
niable Federal interest in this matter as well. We can’t afford to
lose sight of the fact that the majority of Federal facilities in the
Washington region are served directly by both the water and sewer
systems of the District of Columbia. For example, the water in this
very building is delivered by the local water system. The Washing-
ton aqueduct also provides some suburban jurisdictions with their
drinking water. My family and our neighbors all get their water
from this treatment facility.

There is a broad community of interests among the residents of
the District, the Federal Government, and the suburban jurisdic-
tions. An amicable solution to these problems is possible because
we all share the same goal. We all need abundant, clean water at
the lowest price, and efficient, environmentally sensitive
wastewater treatment. The area residents are not at all concerned
with the technical and complex intergovernmental, public-private
partnerships that may be necessary to achieve this reasonable goal.

@M


150

crisis,

2. Representation of the District of Colum
financial representative on the board

government's executive or his

Secondly, the head of the city--Mayors--are either represented or their budget director (a
person directly responsible to the Mayor) is a participating member, either in a voting capacity or
in an ex-officio, non-voting capacity. Mr. Williams’ function, albeit important, is different trom
that of a chief financial officer who is knowledgeable about the municipal budget and at the same
time reflects the Mayor's views and priorities. The board would be strengthened if it had such
representation,

The fact that the Mayor does not sit on the board gives our Mayor the luxury of seeming
to be outside and makes him able to stand aloof from decisions of the Board. Witness the
Mayor's role in the 10% recision and the U.D.C. protests. Additionally, I believe that when the
Mayor is lefi on the outside, the Board will always be suspicious of numbers generated by the
Mayor and his staff. This situation has required the Authority to hire expensive staff to duplicate
the Mayor's budget machinery. including finance and audit positions, because of distrust of his
motives and/or figures. There would be more cooperation, fewer errors and misunderstandings
and misinterpretation of policies, and less conflict if the city’s Mayor were a member of the
Authority.

3. Other cities

To illustrate the above points, in Philadelphia, the Intergovernmental Cooperation
Authority (PICA) was set up with 7 members: 5 non-governmental private citizens plus the
Finance Director of the City of Philadelphia and the Secretary of the Budget of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, both of whom serve as ex-officio, non-voting members. New
York City's Emergency Financial Control board (EFCB). a 10 member board, includes the
Governor (Chairman), the Mayor, Comptroller of the State, Comptroller of the City, 3 private
citizens and 3 labor organization members. Cleveland's Financial Planning and Supervision
Commission included both local and state representatives.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Crucial to the success of these control board ventures has been the infusion of loans and
bonds at the outset or close to the outset to be paid out over a period of time to cover the deficit
while work proceeds to bring costs and revenues into balance. Certainly Washington, D.C., the
nation's capital, is as deserving of such assistance from the federal government as New York City
was. It will be remembered that New York City received a $3.6 billion loan from Congress, with
interest to be paid out over 6 years. State bonding has been the primary tool in dealing with
deficit in the affected cities, and Mr. Walsh has stated that the Congress is, in effect, the District's
state. In these other cities, it was recognized as an obvious fact that a deficit would grow unless

2


42

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FEBRUARY 23, 1996

THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS WATER AND
SEWER SYSTEMS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 1 AM MICHAEL C.
ROGERS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. | AM
JOINED BY MR. LARRY KING, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS WHO WILL
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AT THE CONCLUSION OF MY

TESTIMONY.

THIS IS, BY FAR, AN ISSUE WE HERE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HAVE TAKEN SERIOUSLY FOR QUITE A WHILE, BEGINNING WITH OUR
COMMITMENT IN 1987 TO HELP CLEAN UP THE CHESAPEAKE BAY. AT
THAT TIME, MAYOR BARRY, ALONG WITH THE GOVERNORS OF
MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA AND VIRGINIA, SIGNED A COMPACT TO
IMPROVE THE WATER QUALITY OF THE BAY. TOWARD THIS END, ONE
OF THE PRIMARY COMMITMENTS OF THE DISTRICT AND BLUE PLAINS IS.
TO REDUCE NITROGEN LEVELS IN THE BAY BY 40 PERCENT. 1 AM

PLEASED TO JNDICATE THAT THE DISTRICT IS POISED AND RIGHT ON


73

ao-208 eoz9r

eaz oti ALM wor zsxzsoHOO

Deed seme

eet aed J20v mesewa/09 WSTITHE svEzsob9nava

serserez Parise!

pers Sees? paea seroma eaLTIN eens “ary TeEZSeHMOVE

eet worst

Tost ost man “a anew oTtssovenove

rosa eset

seer eset Taam Kauaar 40 BTL NL avesDNANOTO

eee eet

wart oEt MraWo weuwy ocz9soenae

caveez oa-acz

oaraez ooresz AaBEADA waLzHNSD Kez

wus wus

wus wus EncamUNNE oma WOH LsEzEENIRIG

serveur sees

soart Se-vett owe sarrzosse 2 suennon crave evezsesence

Pad ated

wes raed ‘tua OU wosTOMY ETrysopenOFE

eo-os0'2 eorgorz

0-o60's coreeoz TaN IwGL JTUMTAN Zzzas0venOWS

aorssz ayrsse

oe oars Junea0d WeoN eased ZaVesONINOE

nese eoroet 200 ALLEYS

rsa wersea

oo" terezt deraing ‘woos wRLSYs Tossse~snOE

Torso bores. eraino sas tenuisva Tovesesonava

yeu vous

0" emt dueraina Wen WOLISTS cOvesONINONE

wu eovae oeaina WveON MALIN CavssoNCNE

ose eos

we rer on Areas swam aM

es'mort os: ecore

oo rent feo Kaine TUT SEU {seceeneE
weeses aneae ava a


82

COMPLETE STATEMENT OF
THOMAS P. JACOBUS
CHIEF, WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT DIVISION
BALTIMORE DISTRICT
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON THE OPERATION OF THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT

ROOM 2154, RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C.
FEBRUARY 23, 1996, 10:30 AM

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today to discuss the background,
operation and status of the Washington Aqueduct.

The Washington Aqueduct is operated by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. It is assigned to the Baltimore District. Daily operations of the
Washington Aqueduct Division are conducted by the Baltimore District. The
Division takes its name from the aqueduct structure completed in 1863 from
Great Falls to Georgetown. The Army designed and built the original system as
a result of Congressional action in 1853. Over the last 142 years, the water
treatment system has been expanded and improved. Today, there are two major
treatment plants (Dalecarlia and McMillan), several reservoirs, and one large
pumping station as well as two intakes on the Potomac River -- one at Great Falls
and one at Little Falls.

In addition to providing potable water to the District of Columbia
distribution system, the Washington Aqueduct Division supplies water to
Arlington County and the city of Falls Church, Virginia. The District of
Columbia receives about 75 percent of the daily production. A portion of the
water supplied to the District of Columbia is delivered outside of the District to
Arlington Cemetery, the Pentagon, and National Airport. The federally-owned
water mains in Virginia serving those retail customers and three of the eight

1


WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 23, 1996

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

Ee

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
37-294 WASHINGTON : 1997

For sale by the U.S. Government i Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-054096-8

0 7


108

THE TROUBLED D.C, DRINKING WATER SUPPLY:
‘A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PROBLEMS
DECEMBER 1995

‘The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), through a series of Freedom of
Information Act requests and other information gathering, -has discovered a chronic and
longstanding series of problems with the District of Columbia's! drinking water supply that pose
very real threats to public health. We are awaiting additional information and public hearings
to allow the painting of a more complete picture of these problems.

Our tap water quality problems are not limited to the now-familiar history of frequent
“boil water" advisories. There have also been repeated serious violations and "near misses” of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) health standards for bacteria and for
“turbidity” (a measure of cloudiness that indicates the possible presence of pathogens and which
interferes with effective disinfection). In addition, pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and
Giardia have been found in our raw water; with the treatment problems we have experienced,
the adequacy of removal is open to debate. Contributing to the problems are eels and dead fish
parts that routinely are found in the treatment plants’ filters. Moreover, serious questions have
arisen about the presence of chemical contaminants, including lead and cancer-causing
trihalomethanes in our tap water. Many of these problems have not been made public by the
government

Official reassurances about the safety of the water supply should be viewed with
skepticism. Additional information must be gathered and analyzed, however, before a full

accounting of the threats {0 our tap water is possible. A preliminary outline of the problems
follows:

Boil Water Advisories, Bacterial Violations, and Turbidity Problems

1. Boil Water Advisories. There have been at least three recent “boil water” advisories
issued These include:

© A November 1995 boil water advisory issued for part of $.W. Washington, D.C..
triggered by fecal coliform bacteria

‘When we speak of the "District of Columbia” water supply, we are discussing the water
supplied by the Army Corps of Engineers’ Dalecarlia and McMillan water treatment plants,
which serve not only D.C., but also Arlington County, the City of Falls Church, National
Airport, the Pentagon, and pants of Fairfax County and Maryland, via each of these locations’
distribution systems. The District’s government owns and operates the D.C. water distribution
system of underground pipes, for example


131

5
I HOPE THAT THIS CAN BE CORRECTED AND I KNOW, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT
YOU SHARE THOSE CONCERNS FOR YOUR VIRGINIA CONSTITUENTS. LET ME
ALSO SAY THAT I AM ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO HAVING MY CONSTITUENTS
HELP MAKE UP AN $80 MILLION DOLLAR SHORTFALL AS A RESULT OF THE
DISTRICT’S ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL. THEY SHOULD FIND THE FUNDS

AND MUST FIND THE FUNDS, IT IS THE NEIGHBORLY THING TO DO.




109

3

treatment plants), fecal coliform was found, and a repeat sample also found fecal
coliform--an "acute" violation. It is unclear why no "boil water" alert was
issued. (FOIA)

© October 1993: an “acute” bacteria violation occurred in D.C., according to an
internal EPA report. It is unclear why no boil water alert was issued. (FOIA)

o September 1993: in D.C. an “acute” bacteria violation and maximum .
contaminant level violation occurred in D.C., according to intemal EPA report.
It is unclear why no boil water alert was issued. (FOIA)

° August 1993: in Arlington, a violation of the Maximum Contaminant Level for
coliform bacteria, according to internal EPA report. (FOIA)

May-June 1993: an “acute” fecal coliform bacteria violation in Washington,
according to internal EPA report: It is unclear why no boil water alert was
issued. (FOIA)

3 Chronic Problems With “Turbidity.”

As noted above, turbidity is cloudiness in water that shows the ineffectiveness of water
filtration and can indicate the presence of parasitic or other microorganisms such as
Cryptosporidium. Turbidity also interferes with the effectiveness of disinfection. In Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, for example. high turbidity levels were the only indication of a problem that water
plant operators had at the time the outbreak of Cryptosporidium occurred.

In D.C., there have been chronic problems with turbidity in the water filtered by the
Corps. The December 1993 city-wide boil water advisory was caused by extremely high
turbidity. On numerous other occasions, the turbidity in our water has exceeded now-allowed
levels established in EPA rules and water industry recommendations. The Corps’ outside
contractor reviewing the Corps’ water treatment plants’ performance found, in a 1994 report
NRDC obtained under FOIA, numerous and repeated turbidity problems from 1990-1993. At
times, turbidity levels were found at levels well in excess of EPA’s allowable levels (EPA's
current turbidity rule came into effect in mid-1993, so most or all of these apparently were not
violations).

Since the December 1993 boil water alert, there still has been excessive turbidity in
D.C.’s water, although apparently EPA's new but still lax turbidity standard has not been
violated. Still, according to 1994-1995 data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
the D.C. water routinely exceeds the industry-recommended standard (urged by the industry
trade association the American Water Works Association, in order to reduce the risk of a
Cryptosporidium or similar disease outbreak) of 0.1 NTU of turbidity. At times in 1994-1995,
the D.C. water reached 10 times higher than that standard or worse.


30

- 33 -

an end to violations, payment of the stipulated penalties owed from the prior lawsuit,
and an up-front penalty for violations since 1989.

In 1991 an agreement was reached on $1.5 million penalty to settle both cases with
decree to be negotiated.

It was not until fate 1994 that we finally were able to reach an agreement with the
City on the terms of the Consent Decree settling the litigation. The Decree was filed
with the Court in January, 1995, and officially entered by the Court in June. The
Consent Decree required the City to pay a civil penalty of $500,000 and to pay an
additional $1 million toward the cost of the second component of the decree, the
Biological Nitrogen Removal (BNR) project. The Decree also required the City to
develop and operate a BNR process on a 12-month trial basis designed to test the
feasibility of adopting this technology on a permanent, full-plant basis. In addition,
the City agreed to undertake a periodic “Operational Capability Review’ designed
to evaluate whether the plant's actual performance meets specified operational
standards, To date, the City has paid the $500,000 penalty, has completed the first
quarter of its “Operational Capability Review,” and is, to our knowledge, on schedule
with the planned start-up of the BNR project for April of this year.

Because of continuing concerns about the operation of the plant, EPA's National
Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) and Region 3 staff conducted an
investigation into Biue Plains during the week of April 24, 1995. We received
excellent cooperation from the staff there while we focused on both administration
and the operation/maintenance of the facility. The subsequent report, which was
issued last July, found that there were very serious problems continuing at the plant,
stemming chiefly from the District's financial difficulties. The report detailed
shortages of necessary treatment chemicals, parts shortages, contractor walkouts
because of lack of payment, and some pre-existing and chronic problems relating
to staff shortages and slow procurement processes. The NEIC report noted that
‘over $80 million deposited into the City’s water and sewer Enterprise Fund was not

available for use at the plant because the funds had been diverted to other City
functions.

On August 31, 1995, Region 3 issued an Administrative Order to the District of
Columbia's Public Works Department, to correct maintenance and operational
problems at the plant. The City was given 30 days to develop a six-month plan to
address the most immediate problems and 60 days to develop a long-term strategy

to restore long-term funding. After being given a short extension, the City
responded in mid-October.

On November 15-17, 1995, Region 3 conducted another joint inspection of Blue
Plains with the NEIC. The objectives were to follow-up the April inspection and
determine if there were critical financial and/or operation and maintenance issues
needing immediate attention by EPA. The report, which was not completed until last


89

selves from the experience of others so that, if necessary, we will
be able to deal with their presence.

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jacobus, I am a little perplexed. I read in your testimony,
in addition to providing potable water to the District of Columbia
distribution system, the Washington aqueduct division supplies
water to Arlington County and the city of Falls Church, VA, and
then you brought a map which has Fairfax County on it.

Mr. JACOBUS. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. Norton. You don’t provide water to Fairfax County, do you?

Mr. Davis. I would be happy to answer that. Fairfax County, the
parts that are shown on that map, and the town of Vienna, buy
from Falls Church City. Falls Church has the relationship directly
with the Corps of Engineers, and then they sell it, some would say,
at a markup, to Fairfax County and Vienna water users. That’s the
way it works. It’s about 200,000 people, I think.

Mr. Jacosus. The law that established the operation of the
Washington aqueduct provided for the Corps of Engineers to pro-
vide water to the citizens of the Capital City. In 1927 when the
Dalecarlia plant was built, the capacity of that plant was placed to
ensure the growth of the city of Washington. However, it was noted
that there was additional capacity and the citizens of Arlington
could be serviced lines were placed across—the Potomac River. Leg-
islation was passed in 1927 to allow the Army to sell water from
the aqueduct to Arlington County. In 1946, additional legislation
was passed to allow the city of Falls Church. All that legislation
was always restricted to the fact that the priority for the plant was
to the city of Washington, of course.

Now, that was a very residential—I mean a very rural area in
1946 in that area of Fairfax County, and so those water lines at
Falls Church extended out there were done under the appropriate
legislative arrangements that allowed the water to be delivered to
Falls Church.

So Mr. Davis is, of course, correct, that we have three customers,
and when we bill Falls Church, they are paying for water that is
subsequently delivered by them to Fairfax County.

Ms. Norton. I see.

May I ask you about fecal coliform in our water. Is it true that
the corps has stopped testing for fecal coliform in our water?

Mr. Jacobus. We test for total coliforms, and then if we get a
total coliform positive, we run through a process to test for the
presence or absence of E. coli, because E. coli is the most severe
and dangerous form of the coliform bacteria that could affect
human health. So we do not specifically test for all species of fecal
coliform, but the E. coli bacteria is a subclass of fecal, and we do
test for that any time we get a coliform positive.

Ms. NorTON. What was the reason for this change?

Mr. Jacosus. Because it gives us the ability to look at the most
dangerous potential of human damaging organism, and there are
other—there are many kinds of fecal coliforms which are not harm-
ful to humans that come from other sources, and you can end up
with false positive readings, and you can get to a point of unneces-



84

being produced at the plant and its ability to consistently produce safe water.

Several internal and external performance evaluations were conducted that
looked at both operating procedures and the water treatment process. Where
shortcomings in procedures were found, improvements were implemented. Over
the last two years, those procedural changes have measurably improved the
quality of the water. In terms of turbidity, the treatment plants are consistently
producing water to a standard five times more stringent than EPA standards ~
even during the remarkable Potomac River flooding in January. The quality of
the water being produced at the treatment plants is excellent and more than meets
all EPA standards.

There are improvements and changes in the treatment process on the
horizon. Many of those improvements were under study and were programmed
before the December 1993 incident. Several of the projects are being undertaken
to comply with expected, future EPA regulations. The external assessment of the
treatment process validated the on-going work while suggesting that additional
process enhancements be evaluated for implementation.

We have installed sophisticated digital supervisory control and data
acquisition systems at the Dalecarlia plant. Design of a similar, modern system
to replace the aging equipment at the McMillan plant is comptete and is ready for
procurement, This enhancement will allow operators and supervisors to quickly
spot trends and take corrective action. Where previously only aggregate filter
performance was assessed, now at both plants every filter has a turbidity meter, a
flow rate meter, and a head loss meter to allow operators and supervisors to
evaluate individual filter performance. We have also purchased a particle counter
system to add further detail to our knowledge of what is passing through the
filters.

Many of the projects are designed to ensure that both the devices and
machinery that make up the treatment, pumping, and storage process and the
structures in which they are housed are appropriately maintained to ensure their
continued reliable operation.

Some of the projects will add a new capability or process. Regulations
often drive both the schedule and the design of these projects. Both plants use
chlorine as the disinfection agent. This process is effective at killing bacteria, but
the dosages required for safe operation of the distribution system produce
significant amounts of a class of chemicals referred to as disinfection by-
products, While these disinfection by-products are currently within the maximum
limit allowed by EPA, we are moving to alter the disinfection process by

3


12

Both the wastewater and drinking water systems have seen recent
and serious violations. Both have been issued administrative or-
ders. One is a proposed administrative order by region III, because
of problems with their operations. Both present potential threats to
the health and safety of their customers. And Joth are being se-
verely hampered by some serious financial problems.

I want to stress from the beginning that we at EPA view these
problems as very serious and we are taking actions in accordance
with that level of concern. Comprehensive monitoring systems are
in place, and we are devoting extraordinary resources to make sure
that the systems remain operational.

Let me take a few minutes to discuss the history of these oper-
ations and to highlight some of the critical problems we are facing
on both of these issues.

The Washington aqueduct of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
runs a number of facilities designed to withdraw raw water from
the Potomac River, adequately treat this water in accordance with
the national primary drinking water regulations, and to deliver po-
table water to the aqueduct’s customers. I have listed these facili-
ties for the record.

The Washington aqueduct is a wholesale public water system. All
of the water produced is sold to three wholesale customers: The
District of Columbia, Arlington County, and the city of Falls
Church. The aqueduct establishes its wholesale water rates with
each of these customers.

ne have got a pie chart here to help explain that a little bit fur-
ther.

The District meters the water distributed to Arlington and Falls
Church. Arlington and Falls Church pay for this water by payment
to the water and sewer enterprise fund. The District receives pay-
ment for water distributed to its retail customers and deposits
these payments to the fund. At 2-week intervals, the District is
supposed to transfer moneys from the fund to the Corps of Engi-
neers.

The drinking water infrastructure and its supervision is a some-
what complicated one. Over the years, the roles and relationships
have changed, but today we have the following arrangement:

The Corps of Engineers is responsible for the ownership and op-
eration of the Washington aqueduct. The corps collects and treats
raw water and stores potable water in several reservoirs. This is
the only drinking water system in the Nation currently operated by
the Army Corps of Engineers. As a service to the District, the corps
conducts all water sampling, except in connection with the lead and
copper regulations, required by the Safe Drinking Water Act, and
analyzes the samples in an EPA-certified laboratory facility owned
and operated by the corps.

The District’s Department of Public Works is responsible for the
storage of potable water in its reservoirs and for the distribution
of this water to its retail customers.

EPA region III is responsible for the direct implementation of the
public water system supervision program in the District. This sys-
tem is designed to regulate and ensure the safety of drinking
water. The Arlington and Falls Church drinking water distribution
systems are regulated by the Commonwealth of Virginia.


54

This concludes my testimony, and obviously I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you may have.

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.

I want to say on Blue Plains, we don’t have complete closure
with all of the users and everything, but the city clearly has made
some changes in the policy. I wanted to applaud you on doing that.
It may not contain everything at this point that I am comfortable
with, but I want to get everybody’s remarks before we make a deci-
sion, and to assure you that we will continue to try to work to-
gether on these issues before it is all finished. I do want to note
that you have made progress and to congratulate you.

I am going to let Ms. Norton start the questioning again. Ms.
Norton.

Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. King, I appreciate your testimony and the candor in the tes-
timony. Let me ask you first about the purported large increase in
water and sewer bills, and why increases have not occurred incre-
mentally all along, and whether that increase simply makes up for
the failure to raise, to increase the bill to consumers?

Mr. KiNG. Well, I really can’t speak about why it has not been
raised. We are very suspicious that a political body would have to
make those decisions. That might be a part of the issue.

Ms. Norton. How many has it been?

Mr. KING. Ten years since we had a rate increase.

Mr. Davis. Spoken like a good staff man on that. That was a
good answer.

Mr. Kinc. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I try.

I did bring along the—a survey that talks about households’
water-sewer charges over a 10-year period. The base year is 1985,
which is just about 1 year before us. It has been about a 100-per-
cent increase for most people’s bills in that period of time. So this
70 percent is less than what the average would have been if we
had been making those increases all along.

I just would like to just say that the average tends to be around
5, 6 percent a year, as I look at this chart, from 1985 to 1995.

Ms. Norton. Thank you. I am concerned about the fact that Vir-
ginia would feel it had to go to court against the District on the
Blue Plains matter. Its concern is largely one that the District has
conceded and is trying to correct. You have got a 60-day notice, and
that, of course, is the kind of notice that is intended to give a juris-
diction time to bring itself within compliance. I would think that
it was also the kind of notice that would help people to sit down
and figure out a solution short of a court suit.

I wonder if you are having any discussions with Virginia that
might satisfy and keep that jurisdiction and its concerns, many of
them legitimate, so that we did not have one regional jurisdiction
suing another regional jurisdiction at a time when we are trying
to work together to find a solution to both aqueduct and Blue
Plains, and where a straight-out lawsuit might poison the atmos-
phere for the entire matter involving these two plants.

Mr. KiNG. Well, I can’t speak directly to that since the corpora-
tion counsel of the District of Columbia is working personally on
that issue. I do know that he has contacted the attorney general
and is awaiting some response from that.


96

There are so many repeated and documented problems with
water quality and many vulnerable people who are being told by
their physicians that they should boil their water. Our water sup-
ply and sewer systems should be a shining example to the rest of
the Nation and the world of how to do things right.

Unfortunately, instead, they are examples of how to barely
squeak along doing the minimum possible in constant threat of vio-
lating basic public health and environmental standards. If we con-
tinue to procrastinate, we are concerned that the already tenuous
situation will deteriorate into a series of boil-water alerts, burst
water mains, violations of chemical contamination standards, raw
and partially treated sewage discharges and overflows, and sub-
stantial health threats. We are not there yet, but if we don’t act
we will be.

While the official line continues to be that the drinking water is
safe, there is limited and decreasing public trust in these reassur-
ances. Many area residents use bottled water, and immune-com-
promised people have been advised by medical professionals to al-
ways boil their water before consuming it. This creates very real
hardships for low-income people and also for those who are frail
and find it difficult to lug around the heavy water jugs.

Public concern about the District’s water supply is well justified.
The Washington aqueduct’s two main treatment plants in the
water distribution system are outdated and in serious need of re-
pair, as well as improved operation and maintenance.

The basic water treatment technology of the corps and in some
cases more than century-old water distribution system may have
been state-of-the-art during Woodrow Wilson’s time, but today the
are in serious need of modernization. There have been modest ef-
forts to upgrade the corps plants in recent years.

In addition, the corps’s new management that was installed after
the 1993 boiled-water alert has clearly made some strides in im-
proving management and getting the most out of the existing
plants. In addition, the city’s new public works director, Larry
King, has been more forthcoming about some of the problems with
the District’s distribution system. But much more needs to be done.

Modernization efforts that have been done so far are much like
putting halogen headlights on a horse-drawn carriage. They may
have made it a little safer and more modern, but they don’t solve
the basic underlying problems.

In addition, the failure of the corps and other local jurisdictions
to inform and involve the public in decisionmaking have got to be
remedied. Drinking water quality problems are persistent. The
most publicized of these are the repeated findings of coliform, fecal
coliform, and even E. coli bacteria.

No convincing explanation has been offered as to why fecal coli-
form and E. coli are found in our water. These findings are all the
more troubling in light of repeated presumptive findings of
cryptosporidium and giardia in the incoming raw, untreated water.
If there’s ever a breakdown in treatment, we could have a very se-
rious health crisis on our hands indeed.

T would like to add that in Las Vegas, NV, today there was re-
cently a cryptosporidium outbreak in a situation where they were
repeatedly testing the water for cryptosporidium and they couldn’t


15

Mr. Davis. What is the status of the upgrade of Blue Plains to
a 370-million-gallon-per-day capacity?

Mr. KING. We are on schedule. We think we will be completed
with that on July 31st of this year.

Mr. Davis. What would you consider the condition and status of
the Blue Plains facility? Do you believe it could be better main-
tained and that part of the shortfall in the number of employees
you have has hindered that? Do you have any strategies to improve
maintenance?

Mr. Kine. Yes. We believe that certain capital improvements and
certain additional maintenance programs and preventive mainte-
nance programs would aid in keeping the plant operating as it
should, as the crown jewel of the District of Columbia. And we
have begun a number of emergency procurements to get services,
as well as parts, to get some of the facilities up and running. I
know that I have made a personal effort to monitor that. We meet
every morning at 8:15 and we decide what we—what happened
yesterday and what we will be able to do today.

I think we had about 27 sedimentation basins down last week.
At the end of the day, we had about 10 down. Those are the kinds
of things that we have been able to do. We will be doing some pro-
curements here in the next couple of weeks that will allow us to
get some additional parts and other contractors, to get all our sedi-
mentation basins up and running.

Mr. Davis. Do you have enough chemicals on hand?

Mr. Kine. Enough chemicals on hand. In fact, last night I signed
a pebble lime contract, so that would be our long-term contract for
that. That was the main one I was having problems with during
last winter and spring. So we are in good shape on that.

Mr. Davis. Was the replacement of the Blue Plains manager part
of your improvement program?

Mr. Kinc. We decided that we needed a change in leadership,
and so we made those decisions.

Mr. Davis. I will take that as a yes. What is the condition and
status of the sewer collectors?

Mr. KiNG. We think and agree with the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency that they are in pretty good shape. As with anything
that has been in the ground as long as some of our sewer collectors,
there are some areas that need some work and we are, we have
a consultant now on board to develop a plan for us to survey those.

Mr. Davis. We would be interested in what your ballpark cost
would be when you get that in.

Mr. Kine. We will, once we get that, we will let you know.

Mr. Davis. Let me turn to the water system. Why are so many
users exempt from paying water bills? Do you have an estimate of
the revenue forgone from such exemptions, and is there any will-
ingness to examine whether some or all of these exemptions should
be done away with in light of the tremendous need of the District
for more revenue?

Mr. Kine. There are three classes of institutions that either get
free or reduced water-sewer. One is some churches and charitable
organizations, they have an allowance, and that is 33 accounts.
And in 1995, that was $1.5 million.


36

I would be interested in your evaluation of the call of some doc-
tors that people suffering from depressed immune systems should
boil their District of Columbia water. Is that good advice? We really
think that, given that, we ought to tell the public all we know.
Would that be a reasonable precaution to take?

Mr. McCaBeE. We joined with the Centers for Disease Control last
year in June to issue a statement on this, which basically says that
for people with immune system problems, that they should consult
with their doctor to decide what the best course of action is for
them, given their condition. So we do advise that those individuals
consult with their doctor.

Ms. Norton. That is as far as you are willing to go?

Mr. McCaBE. Yes.

Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. You took some of my ques-
tions, so that makes it move a little faster.

What is the status of the administrative order affecting Blue
Plains at this time? I am aware that the attorney general of Vir-
ginia—we have an assistant attorney general here today watching
these hearings—has notified the District that he may file legal ac-
tion to enforce the Blue Plains permit. Can you explain how that
process works and what effect that notice has had on your efforts
to reach agreement with the District?

Mr. McCasBe. Well, we~—as I mentioned, we are in discussions
with the District, we, along with the Department of Justice. We are
well aware of the effort by the attorney general of the Common-
wealth of Virginia to notify them, notify the District that they may
sue under the Clean Water Act. And to tell you the truth, if our
negotiations with the District of Columbia do not result in a fruit-
ful resolution of the concerns that we have about Blue Plains, we
may beat the attorney general to court.

‘hat certainly is something that we would like to avoid. It is
frankly a waste of the District's and EPA’s money to go to court.
We hope it can be avoided.

Mr. Davis. It is my understanding that user charges currently
paid to the city by suburban customers of Blue Plains go into an
enterprise fund for the exclusive use of Blue Plains. It is my fur-
ther understanding that it was this fund that the District of Co-
lumbia raided for other purposes. Further, I note in your proposed
order that because of this diversion of funds, critical functions have
not been maintained, including chemical inventories, contract sup-
port, preventive maintenance, replacement parts, and competent
staffing. Regarding the EPA mandate to restore up to $100 million,
is it the EPA’s position that the action by the District was a viola-
tion of law, and if so, would this be a law that could be prosecuted
and would prosecution be recommended, and if prosecution is bein
recommended, what officials or former officials would be targeted?

Mr. McCabe. As far as whether it is a violation of law, it appears
that the diversion of funds from the enterprise fund may not actu-
ally violate the District of Columbia’s law, because the District of
Columbia did set up the water and sewer enterprise fund, which
is what collects those funds. ;

However, as part of EPA’s contract grant agreement with the
District, we require that the funds be used, that the funds that are


48

WITH OUR LAWYERS. AGAIN, MOST OF THESE ISSUES ARE DRIVEN BY
OUR ABILITY TO PAY VENDORS IN A TIMELY MANNER AND PROCURE

EQUIPMENT, GOODS AND SERVICES.

THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN EXTREMELY RESPONSIVE TO EPA AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THE MAYOR HAS MADE A MANAGEMENT
CHANGE IN THE LEADERSHIP OF THE PLANT, AND WE HAVE
ESTABLISHED AN IN-HOUSE MONITORING TEAM TO EXPEDITE
PAYMENTS AND PROCUREMENT-RELATED DOCUMENTS. J PERSONALLY
HAVE MET WITH THE FINANCIAL AUTHORITY AND THE CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER TO ENSURE THEIR SUPPORT AND COOPERATION ON
THIS ISSUE. AND, I HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY ACCESSIBLE TO EPA AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HAVING MET WITH THEM ON A REGULAR

BASIS TO ASSESS NEEDS AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AS WE MOVE AHEAD.

ADDITIONALLY, THE MAYOR HAS PERSONALLY MET WITH BLUE PLAINS
STAFF TO INFORM THEM OF THIS ISSUE AND ENSURE THEIR TOTAL
COMMITMENT TO BLUE PLAINS’ SUCCESS DURING AND BEYOND THIS
INTERIM PERIOD. WE ARE DETERMINED TO REMOVE FISCAL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPEDIMENTS SO THAT BLUE PLAINS CAN


7

Mr. Davis. You are welcome.

Thank you both for your very thoughtful statements. I had a cou-
ple questions for each of you. Let me start with Dr. Hawley.

In November 1995, you recommended that all
immunocompromised people in the District use filtered bottled
water or boil tap water for 1 minute before drinking it or using it
in cooking.

You were quoted as saying that you were unmoved to lift the
warning until you received assurances from the District and Fed-
eral authorities that the city’s water is absolutely safe.

I guess my question is—and judging from your testimony, I know
what your answer is going to be—is your warning still in effect?

Dr. HAWLEY. Yes, it is.

Mr. Davis. OK. Do you feel that they are making progress in re-
sponse to your warning?

Dr. HAWLEY. Well, I was pleased by some of the testimony today
as far as planned improvements, but I think we are a long ways
away from seeing those improvements taking effect and being as-
sured that the monitoring systems are continually working.

Remember that when, as happened in December 1993, I am
called and told that there was a boil-water emergency and asked
if there was any way we could contact our patients to notify them.
That was essentially an impossibility.

No. 1, that water has already been distributed that’s been found
to be unsafe, and, No. 2, I have 1,500 patients, many of whom who
don’t have telephones. There isn’t any way that I could effectively
reach all of those patients in a short period of time.

Mr. Davis. Sure.

Can you compare—and I am going to ask both of you this ques-
tion—the water here from the aqueduct to water in other cities?

I will let you both answer it.

Mr. OLsON. I can answer it. We have done a series of surveys
of cities across the country. I would have to say for
trihalomethanes, which is these cancer-causing chemicals, the Dis-
trict has among the highest levels of trihalomethanes of any large
water supply in the country.

For microbial contamination, again, the District has had a lot
more violations of the total coliform rule, the surface water treat-
ment rule, and the—the other regulations that are intended to pro-
tect us from microbial contamination than most other large water
systems.

I wouldn’t say that it’s the worst in the country, but I would
say——

Mr. Davis. There are thousands of systems, aren’t there?

Mr. OLSON. There are thousands. But I would say that it’s one
of the systems—one of the large systems in the country that I’m
most concerned about, and it’s simply—it’s a shame that it’s the
Nation’s Capital and we can’t be basically proud of state-of-the-art
treatment for the water here.

Mr. Davis. I will ask each of you whether the distribution system
on the Virginia side is a different distribution system than the
city’s? Are you seeing a different quality of water on each side? In
other words, is a main part of the problem of the city the distribu-
tion system, or does it relate to the aqueduct, or is it both?


53

In regard to drinking water, the problems recently experienced
in the District of Columbia, the cause of these violations cannot be
pinpointed. It is a very, very complex issue that requires further
study. The District has engaged consulting firms to help pursue ap-
propriate and effective remedial action. These violations are not re-
lated to anything the District has done or failed to do.

One of the keys to improving the District’s water distribution
system is identifying adequate funding to pay for the necess:
capital operating and maintenance improvements. And to that end,
it is important to note that the Mayor has recognized the need to
restore the approximately $83 million that was transferred from
the water-sewer utility operating reserves and has made such pro-
visions in the District’s multiyear plan. Specifically beginning in
the 1997 budget, the District will make annual contributions of
$21.7 million as repayment of those transferred reserves.

We believe that we will find the resources necessary to upgrade
the District’s water distribution system through the District of Co-
lumbia Water and Sewer Authority establishment and DPW Reor-
ganization Act of 1996. This legislation currently being reviewed,
or on its way to Congress, will create a separate water and sewer
authority with capital budget authority and operating and mainte-
nance funding separate from the District.of Columbia government.
This legislation provides a framework for improvements to the
water distribution system which will enable the District to meet
the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Let me talk a couple of minutes about the wastewater treatment.
Wastewater treatment is provided by the Blue Plains advanced
wastewater treatment plant. Blue Plains is the largest advanced
wastewater treatment plant in the world. It serves over 2 million
people in the Washington metropolitan area, and over the past 20
years, its performance has been responsible for the cleanup of the
Potomac River. For this achievement, the District has received nu-
merous awards.

Plant performance continues to be excellent with long-term efflu-
ent quality well within permit limits. Some short-term excursions
have occurred occasionally, and a lot of this is primarily due to the
impact of severe storms. Blue Plains is operated efficiently. Its cost
for treatment, at less than $1,000 per million gallons, is well below
that of other advanced facilities both in the area and nationally.

As reported to EPA, there are some equipment problems at Blue
Plains that need to be addressed if our record of achievement is to
continue. We have begun an accelerated program of repairing
equipment, and we have been working with the Environmental
Protection Agency to develop a program to address these mainte-
nance issues. This program has the support of top District officials,
including Mayor Barry, Mr. Rogers, the city administrator, and Mr.
Williams, chief financial officer.

We have briefed and received support from the financial author-
ity to assist in implementation of this ambitious program. How-
ever, we believe, as with the water side, a new independent author-
ity structure for the water-sewer utility will facilitate better man-
agement systems, availability of needed funding and timely facility
improvements and maintenance.


188

Written Testimony of
Robert E. Boone
The Anacostia Watershed Society

Despite the efforts of the Anacostia Watershed Society, other concemed citizens and
public agencies, the Anacostia River continues to face many serious environmental threats. In
fact, the Anacostia River has been identified by American Rivers, the Nation's principle river

conservation organization, as one of the ten most polluted and endangered rivers in this country.

Studies conducted by the Metropolitan Washington Area Council of Governments
indicate that the primary source of contamination in the Anacostia River is "combined sewer

overflows

e., the discharge of raw, untreated sewage into the Anacostia River during periods
of heavy rainfall. The cause of this combined sewer overflow (CSO) problem is the District's
antiquated sewer system. which relies in part on combined sewer lines (sewer lines that carry
both storm water and raw sewage to Blue Plains). In periods of heavy rainfall, the combined
sewers cannot handle the increased flow and discharge raw sewage through overflow points or
“outfalls” into the Anacostia River, Potomac River, Tidal Basin and Rock Creek. The District
government admits that millions of gallons of raw or untreated sewage foul D.C. waters in this

way nearly every time it rains

Studies performed for the District demonstrate that the Anacostia River receives the lion's
share of CSO pollution. ‘This problem is aggravated by the fact that the Anacostia River is a
slow-moving, tidal river. Thus, the sewage deposited in the Anacostia River remains longer and
is more harmful than on the Potomac River (which has a greater volume flow) or in Rock Creek

(which travels faster and thus flushes rapidly),

‘The sewage-fouled waters of the Anacostia River threaten public health in the District.
Sewage discharged into the Anacostia contains unsafe levels of fecal coliform bacteria.
Discharge Monitoring Reports submitted by the D.C. Department of Public Works last year
indicate that waste emanating from one large outfall on the Anacostia River routinely contains

fecal coliform levels at 100,000/100 ml -- 500 times the maximum safe level for swimming and

-2-


49

EFFECTIVELY FUNCTION AND OPERATE DURING THIS CRITICAL

TRANSITION PERIOD.

WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RECEIVES TREATED DRINKING WATER
FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THE DELIVERY OF
TREATED WATER IS THE DISTRICT’S RESPONSIBILITY. NOT UNLIKE
MANY OF THE NATION’S OLDER CITIES, THE DISTRICT’S WATER
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IS OLD AND IN NEED OF REPAIR. THIS IS NO
SECRET, BUT A WELL PUBLICIZED AND DOCUMENTED FACT. ONE THAT

THE DISTRICT ITSELF READILY ADMITS.

IN SPITE OF OUR FISCAL DIFFICULTIES, AND THE COSTLY
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED THROUGHOUT OUR SYSTEM,
THE DISTRICT HAS SOUGHT TO IMPROVE WATER DISTRIBUTION CITY
WIDE. WE HAVE INCREASED FLUSHING AND AS WELL AS OUR
CLEANING SCHEDULE FOR RESERVOIRS. WE HAVE ALSO HIRED A
CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP A LONG-TERM STRATEGY TO IMPROVE OUR

WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. WE WILL BE DEVELOPING AN ACTION


78

Mr. Davis. Anything else you would like to add?

Mr. KING. No, we are at your disposal. Any other questions you
might have, let us know.

Mr. Davis. Ms. Norton has a question.

Ms. Norton. I would just like more information on parties who
are exempt from paying water bills. You indicated that there were
80 nonprofits.

Let me ask my first question first. Under what authority have
these exemptions occurred, congressional authority or District of
Columbia law?

Mr. KING. District of Columbia law.

Ms. Norton. District of Columbia law provides that some or all
nonprofits and churches shall be exempt?

Mr. Kinc. I think that they have to apply for that and I don’t
have that whole process in my head right now. I can get you the
specifics on that.

Ms. Norton. Is that typical of other jurisdictions?

Mr. Kin. I am trying to remember. Other jurisdictions do either
discount or write off in certain instances. I don’t know if it is ex-
actly the same. But other jurisdictions do write off certain, or dis-
count certain accounts, depending on what they do.

Ms. NorToNn. You said——

Mr. Kinc. Again, we are looking at 80 accounts that total
$400,000. I dare say there are a number of nonprofits in the Dis-
trict of Columbia that the Congress exempts from paying property
tax to the District of Columbia. So I assume this kind of falls in
the same kind of category.

Ms. Norton. That is why I asked you if it was District of Colum-
bia law or if it was congressionally mandated.

Mr. KinG. Let me research—OK, I am told that it is both. Per-
haps it is both because Howard University and Soldiers Home ex-
emptions are provided by congressional approval.

Mr. Davis. We will let Ms. Norton sponsor a bill to make Howard
University pay for the water.

Ms. NorTON. Let me go on the record, even as to churches, it is
one thing to have your land exempt and especially when there are
so many churches; it is quite another thing to say that I won’t even
pay for water I drink. I will make no contribution whatsoever, even
when a city is down and out, to what resources I use and must use.

I know it is not a lot of money, but I am impressed that 33
churches have this. I want to know why 33 churches would have
it and not other churches.

Mr. Kine. I will get that information for you. This is a standard
process.

Mr. Davis. You are here to answer questions. We appreciate your
being forthcoming. I would just note that once you get an enter-
prise fund going, everybody has to pay in.

Mr. KING. It would be a problem with bondholders if we kept this
practice——

Ms. Norton. I understand in the good old days—when the city
was in a better position, I am sure that is when it came into law.

One more notation for the record, Mr. Chairman. That is that,
as I understand it, the Mayor's most recent budget plan calling for
10,000, a reduction of 10,000 jobs over the 4-year period, there was


88

Now, the first two categories, we have plans for facilities that
would be constructed between now and the year 2002, and we
value those improvements at about $315 million. Over the next few
years, engineering studies and analysis will continue to define
those future requirements so that we can sustain a delivery of a
highquality drinking water product. The current estimate of that
category 3 is about $119 million.

Mr. Davis. What does it take to run it annually with the fees
coming in?

Mr. JAcoBus. Our operations and maintenance budget for this
year is $23 million.

Mr. Davis. OK. I know you are aware of some of the criticisms
that various environmental groups have leveled against the aque-
duct, and I would like you to respond to those charges. In particu-
lar, I note their concern that cryptosporidium is present in the raw
water. Is that a concern to you?

Is there anything you or anyone else can do about it? As to eels
and fish parts in the filters, is that an unusual occurrence here or
in any other water system?

And although I know that it would be the same type of problem
as zebra mussels, is this a factor worse than zebra mussels?

Mr. Jacopus. We have never found cryptosporidium. And, I
would like to also add to your question giardia, which is another
organism. Neither cryptosporidium nor giardia have been found in
our tests of the finished water. Never.

Mr. Davis. I had that down. I couldn’t pronounce it so I didn’t
bring it up.

Mr. JAcopus. Giardia and cryptosporidium are likely to be
present in the raw water due to runoff in the watershed.

The laboratory techniques are often unable to determine pre-
cisely the amount and the viability of the organisms,
cryptosporidium or giardia, that we take from the water samples.
Certainly any potential health-threatening organisms in the raw or
finished water, are of great concern to us.

Our strategy to deal with the threat of giardia and
cryptosporidium is to manage the sedimentation and filtration in
order to get the turbidity as low as we possibly can. We presently
are five times better than the EPA standard on finished water tur-
bidity.

As part of our continuing program to improve the water treat-
ment process, we will be evaluating the effects of ozone as a dis-
infectant. Studies in other water systems have shown that ozone
can be effective in the killing of giardia and cryptosporidium cysts.

We have screens to take the large debris out of the water at the
inlets. Small fish or eels may get into the raw water reservoirs. Oc-
casionally we find eels or fish parts on the upstream side of the fil-
ter media. This is not alarming nor remarkable. They are removed
and disposed of. No pieces can physically pass through the filters,
and any bacteria that may have been in their flesh is in the raw
water anyway and will be killed in the disinfection process.

Zebra mussels are an operational concern as their presence could
clog the intakes and restrict the flow of water. To date we do not
have this problem. We are watching the river and educating our-


43

SCHEDULE TO BEGIN THE AGREED UPON PILOT PROJECT THIS SPRING.
IF SUCCESSFUL, THIS PROJECT COULD REDUCE NITROGEN LEVELS BY AS

MUCH AS 35 TO 40 PERCENT.

WHILE THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE LIMITED, IF ANY BENEFIT TO WATER
QUALITY IN THE POTOMAC RIVER, THIS REDUCTION IN NITROGEN WILL
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE WATER QUALITY IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY--
REPRESENTING A CLEAR DEMONSTRATION OF THE DISTRICT’S
COMMITMENT TO BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR BY IMPROVING REGIONAL

WATER QUALITY.

IN ADDITION, BLUE PLAINS HAS HISTORICALLY PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT
ROLE IN IMPROVING THE POTOMAC RIVER--BEGINNING IN THE LATE
1980'S WHEN THE DISTRICT INSTALLED MORE ADVANCED TREATMENT
MECHANISMS AT THE PLANT. BEFORE THESE IMPROVEMENTS AT BLUE
PLAINS, THE POTOMAC RIVER WAS IN TERRIBLE CONDITION. IN FACT,
FISHING WAS ACTUALLY BANNED IN PORTIONS OF THE RIVER DUE TO
CONTAMINATION. IN ADDITION, SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
HAD ALL BUT DISAPPEARED. TODAY, LARGELY AS A RESULT OF THE

TREATMENT CAPACITY AND ABILITY OF BLUE PLAINS, THE POTOMAC


129

IN TURN, EPA REQUIRED THE DISTRICT TO SUBMIT A SHORT AND
LONG ACTION PLAN DEMONSTRATING THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ADDRESS
CURRENT PROBLEMS AND HOW THE CITY PLANS TO MEET ITS LONG TERM
OBLIGATIONS.

THE DISTRICT SUBMITTED ITS PLAN TO EPA ON OCTOBER 13, 1995.
AFTER A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE PLAN, EARLY INDICATIONS ARE THAT THE
PLANS LAY OUT PROPER ACTIVITIES, YET IT IS STILL UNCERTAIN HOW
THE DISTRICT WILL BE ABLE TO FINANCE THESE ACTIVITIES AND HOW THE
TRANSFERRED FUNDS WILL BE RETURNED IN A TIMELY FASHION.

IN NOVEMBER 1995, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AGAIN
INSPECTED BLUE PLAINS. THEIR NEW INSPECTION FOUND THAT THERE HAS
BEEN NO IMPROVEMENT OF THE SITUATIONS. IN FACT, THEY FOUND
MATTERS ARE GETTING WORSE. THE EPA FOUND REVENUE RESERVES, WHICH
HAVE BEEN GENERATED FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND SUBURBAN
WATER AND SEWER BILLS, ARE STILL NOT AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE FOR THE
NEEDS OF BLUE PLAINS. THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET IS EXPECTED
TO RUN OUT OF MONEY THIS MONTH. THE CONTRACTORS AND EQUIPMENT
SUPPLIERS ARE NOT BEING PAID. THERE CONTINUES TO BE STAFFING
SHORTAGES AND MORE ARE EXPECTED.

CHANGES ARE NEEDED IMMEDIATELY TO OVERCOME THESE NUMEROUS
AND SERIOUS PROBLEMS PLAGUING THE BLUE PLAINS TREATMENT FACILITY.
I BELIEVE ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION AT BLUE
PLAINS IS TO TRANSFER BACK THE FUNDS TAKEN FROM THE BLUE PLAINS
ACCOUNT AND PROHIBIT THE FURTHER TRANSFER OF ANY ADDITIONAL

FUNDS.


113

Some groups say the solution to the problem is easy: Tell all peo-
ple living with immunocompromising illnesses to drink only bottled
water, or distilled water if they can afford it—if they can’t afford
that, to have them boil water that they intend for consuming. Un-
fortunately, it’s not that easy.

First, it’s not just the water you drink but it’s the water you cook
in, the water you brush your teeth with, the water you use for your
ice maker and ice—to make ice cubes, the water you use to take
your medications, and the water you use to make concentrated
juices or powdered beverages.

The populations that are most susceptible to waterborne illnesses
are already under tremendous stress attempting to stay healthy.
Many are so Physically disabled and weak that they are simply not
able to carry home from the grocery store a gallon of water or even
to carry a pot of water to be boiled from their sink to the stove.

Remembering to boil tap water for every use is inconvenient and
probably will be sporadic under the best of circumstances. Every
citizen in this community and every community across the country
has a right to clean, safe drinking water without fear of illness.

The District of Columbia is at a crucial point where action must
be taken to assure the continued and reliable safety of its water
supply and delivery systems. We should heed the warning signs we
have observed in the last several years and act now to ensure that
we don’t have a situation where contaminated drinking water does,
in fact, cause a major public health crisis.

As a health care provider specifically to a population that is se-
verely impacted by these concerns, I cannot stress enough how im-
portant it is to have modern, reliable water treatment facilities—
water treatment and delivery systems, a foolproof system for mon-
itoring and maintaining the safety of the drinking water in the Dis-
trict. .

Thank you.
(The prepared statement of Dr. Hawley follows:]


122

Mr. Davis. Thank you both very much. We appreciate it.

Mr. OLSON. Thank you.

Mr. Davis. Without objection, I am going to hold the record open
for 2 weeks. The subcommittee has received a number of unsolic-
ited statements on this issue before this hearing.

Ms. Norton, I think you would want to join me in thanking those
individuals and groups, and, without objection, 1 would like to put
their statements and have them entered into the record.

Ms. Norton. OK.

(The prepared statements referred to follow:]


127

REMARKS BY
THE HONORABLE STENY H. HOYER

I WANT TO THANK CHAIRMAN DAVIS AND MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE FOR ALLOWING ME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS AND THOSE OF MY CONSTITUENTS
IN THE FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF MARYLAND REGARDING THE
ONGOING PROBLEMS AT THE BLUE PLAINS TREATMENT PLANT.

I REMAIN QUITE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DISTRICT’S DECISION TO
SIPHON FUNDS FROM BLUE PLAINS AND TRANSFER THEM TO OTHER ACCOUNTS
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BUDGET. THIS PRACTICE, COUPLED WITH
SERIOUS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS AT THE PLANT CAN SOON
LEAD TO A MAJOR DISASTER AT THE PLANT. MOREOVER, THERE REMAINS A
THREAT TO THE SEWAGE RATE PAYERS AND RESIDENTS OF THE
METROPOLITAN AREA FOR HAVING UNTREATED SEWAGE FLOWING DOWN THE
POTOMAC RIVER. THERE IS ALSO A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE FRAGILE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OF THESE WATERWAYS AND THE WATER LIFE.

MY TOP PRIORITY CONTINUES TO BE ENSURING PROPER CLEAN UP AND
PRESERVATION OF THE WATERWAYS AND WILDLIFE IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
BASIN INCLUDING THE POTOMAC, ANACOSTIA, AND PATUXENT RIVERS. AS
YOU KNOW, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE VIEWSHED OF MOUNT VERNON ALONG THE
POTOMAC RIVER HAS BEEN PRESERVED THROUGH OUR EFFORTS. IN
ADDITION, BICYCLE TRAILS ALONG THE VIRGINIA SIDE OF THE POTOMAC,
UTILIZED BY THOUSANDS OF AREA RESIDENTS, PARALLEL THE POTOMAC
SHORELINE. IT WOULD BE A DISASTER TO SEE SEWAGE DISCHARGE ON
THAT SHORELINE IF AN UNFORTUNATE ACCIDENT OCCUR, NOT TO MENTION
THE HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS TO THE RESIDENTS DOWNSTREAM FROM BLUE

PLAINS.


1

action were taken quickly to begin paying it off while other operational and cost changes
required by the funding authorities, the control boards and the city officials themselves began to
take effect over a period of several or more years

While I regret that the financial aid afforded Mayor Dixon during her tenure was not
accompanied by a "big stick" to require major changes in budgeting for the District, that is not
the case now. You set up the "big stick” in 1995. The frustration | and others feel is that the
mounting deficit in the District could be avoided altogether if we had the kind of support from
the federal government which has been given other cities by their states, and in one instance, by
the federal government itself. In fact, there in all probability would not be a deficit--or least a
large one-if the federal government had paid its share of the pension liability. The pension
requirements are an unfunded mandate, put together by Congress. For Fiscal Year 96, the
pension payments for policemen, firemen, and judges were budgeted at $35,500,000, a
substantial increase over FY95. The pension liability has risen to some $4.2 billion dollars. 1
respectfully request that you put forward legislation to take care of this problem as part of the
long-term solution to generate additional revenue through cost avoidance.

‘Thank you for your interest in reviewing the functioning of the Authority.
Sinceyely,
ff 1. it

OF Smith, Jr.
‘Cquncilmember, Ward 1



155

Mr. Davis. The subcommittee will continue to work with all in-
terested parties in an ongoing effort to resolve the issues raised by
this hearing. These proceedings are closed.

{Note.—Due to high printing costs, the reports entitled, “Facili-
ties Evaluation, Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant, Wash-
ington, D.C.” EPA-330/2-95-014, July 1995, and EPA-330/2-96-
006, can be found in subcommittee files.]

[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

ie)


CONTENTS

Hearing held on February 23, 1996 ...
Statement of:
Jacobus, Tom, chief of the Washington Aqueduct, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
King, Larry, director, District of Columbia Department of Public Works,
accompanied by Michael C. Rogers, city administrator, District of Co-
lumbia
McCabe, Michael, Director of region III, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, accompanied by Alvin R. Morris, Director, Water Management
Division; Janet Williams, regional counsel; and’David Arent, water

specialist
Olson, Erik, senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council; a
Peter Hawley, M.D., medical director, Whitman-Walker Clinic
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Davis, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Virginia:
Prepared statement of ....
Statements of James Gilmore,
Robert Boone, Dawn Hamilton, Troy Petenbrink, Fred Morin,
Frank Smith, and Tilden LeMelle .
prepared

Hawley, Peter, M.D., medical director, Whitman-Walker Clinic,
Jacobus, Tom, chief of the Washington Aqueduct, U.S" “Army Corps of

statement of

Engin
"ead and copper rule .
Prepared statement of
King, Larry, director, District of Columbia Department of Public Works,

District of Columbia Contract Report...

McCabe, Michael, Director of region Ill, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, prepared statement of ..
Olson, Erik, senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, pre-
pared statement of
Rogers, Michael C., city administrator, District of Columbia, prepared
statement of ...

(ID,

79

41

10
95.

123
114
92
82
57
18
99
42


NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
OF PEOPLE
WITH AIDS

IALBK Soe, NW
Waachgeon DC 2005
Monn (202) 180114
TAN (2ODNERROESS

145

For immediate Release Contact: Troy Petenbrink
December 18, 1995 202/898-0414 x124
202/043-8111 pager

STATEMENT ON NEED FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON DC WATER SAFETY

‘Washington, DC ~ The Nationa! Association of People with AIDS (NAPWA) continues
to be concerned about the tack of information regarding the safety of the water
in the District of Columbia. The citizens of the District have a right to know
about violations and continuing problems with their drinking water supply. For
who are immune compromised; people living with HIV, on chemotherapy, the
frail elderly or newborns, contaminated water in the District is a life or death
issue.

Just over a month ago, NAPWA along with Whitman-Walker Clinic issued an
alert for people with compromised immune systems to boll their water or drink
alternative sources of water due to the boil water alert In Southwest DC, and
continued concems from the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) about the
health threat posed by District tap water. These concems have not been
addressed by the District government. EPA sponsored public hearings are the
‘only means of beginning an open dialogue about the endemic problems in the
OC water supply.

Without EPA hearings, people who are immune compromised will have their
quality of life further eroded, by having to boil their water, or buy a safe
alternative. Unfortunately, many of the people most at risk for chronic illness
and death from tap water are those least able to afford bottled water or filters.

NAPWA will continue to advocate on behalf of people with AIDS and will
demand that appropriate procedures are enacted to protect our vulnerable
citizens. Drinking water contamination is a nation wide concern for people with
compromised immune systems. NAPWA calls on the District, and Metropolitan.
Council of Governments to become models for the rest of the nation on how
to come to terms with this life-threatening issue.

ad


106

6. Fair Water Rates. Lifeline rates for low income consumers and
progressive rate structure requiring large users and large -
polluters to pay their fair share.

7. Protect the Health of All Metro Residents. The health of all
communities, rich and poor, regardless of race or ethnicity,
and of all people, including infants, children, pregnant
women, elderly, HIV/AIDS patients, and other vulnerable
people, must be protected and actively monitored.: :

8. Assure the Equitable Allocation of water Rights to Area
Jurisdictions, and respect the sovereignty and environment of
all of the metropolitan area.

Proposed Institutional solutions
Proposals have been advanced to help solve the water and sewer

problems, including District-passed legislation to create a

separate water and sewer authority in D.C. to control Blue Plains

and the D.c. water distribution system, and a proposal for Fairfax
county Water Authority to take over the Corps’ Washington Aqueduct.

We believe that any solution must take ensure the
implementation cf the principles laid out above. our first

anclination, without taking a firm position, is that we favor a

solution to this problem that embodies the principles

es above and respects all local governments’ sovereignty,
ang that includes fuli public participation in decision making,
including appointed public members on the board from local
consumers, and/or a formal Citizen Utility Board, similar to those
used in some states for electric utilities that are formally
established to represent citizen interests and to give input into
the decision making process. Only with such active participation
can government officials be assured of public credibility and

support for modernization plans and for the clearly necessary water


mio. A200

vase 0-ase't
oo-asyr 00-0601 viol waN>n0
carasyr 20°05 aerTiao waKnus ye0sovenaa sEKOTNH Koon LagetowasiA
aura Prcord ava ar aamaase or anya
saan meron anmasinesta Gnis 103" soxmuaNNNa won
sosrvny aan 2@ aaUoAaa Aue 3180s, uses
Meare tuve asst O39 wera “ayes en
erase sar swore (ama G20NISKE) ARGON SATLOTOTIO AB SAD Ss 40 OMEASTY AYTO
WD sores H1yos nn

odo Los


52

Mr. KiNG. I am pleased to appear before the Subcommittee of the
District of Columbia to report on the quality of drinking water and
wastewater treatment in the District of Columbia. First, I would
like to state that the drinking water in the District of Columbia is
safe. Also the District of Columbia government is in harmony with
the Federal officials who are responsible for regulating drinking
water and the treatment of wastewater. In fact, we are committed
to exceeding the compliance levels set in the regulations, and we
have charted a course to achieve that goal.

As you are no doubt aware, the District of Columbia purchases
its water, drinking water, from the U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington aqueduct division. The Dis-
trict of Columbia receives approximately 75 percent of the water
produced by the Washington aqueduct; the remainder is delivered
to Arlington County and Falls Church, VA.

The delivery of potable water within the District of Columbia is
the responsibility of the Department of Public Works, Water and
Sewer Utility Administration. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Department of Public Works monitor the quality of treated
water on a daily basis.

Let me emphasize that bacteria is in all water systems, and the
monitoring program identifies when bacteria exceeds the tolerance
levels established in the Federal regulations. The Washington aq-
ueduct takes samples daily according to Federal regulations, and a
minimum of 210 is required for a community of our size.

As with many other urban utilities, the District’s water distribu-
tion system has been in service for generations, with some compo-
nents predating the Civil War. These systems are now in need of
substantial rehabilitation to maintain the required levels of service
in the coming years. The District has responded to these needs by
developing a request for proposal to address infrastructure im-
provements for the water distribution system, and that is not all
we are doing.

Since the July 1995 release of the sanitary survey of the District
drinking water system, we have taken the following actions as our
initial response to the approximately 170 recommendations con-
tained in the document. We have increased the flushing of the dis-
tribution system. We have begun to inspect and clean all of our un-
derground reservoirs and elevated tanks. Currently, four reservoirs
and four elevated tanks have been cleaned and inspected. And we
have hired the well-respected consulting firm of Camp, Dresser &
McKee to prepare a study of the water distribution system for the
purpose of making additional recommendations on water distribu-
tion system improvements.

Their study will be completed next month. And the expected
products from this effort include revised standard operating proce-
dures, a review of our sampling plan and the setting-up of a cross-
connection control program that will help ensure water quality.
Through the spring we will be working with the Environmental
Protection Agency, our consultants and the Washington aqueduct
to finalize a long-term strategy based on our consultants’ findings
to improve the quality of our water distribution system. This strat-
egy will include a priority list of projects with specific deadlines
and funding requirements to implement the action.


101

a
water is well justified. The Corps of Engineers’ Washington
Aqueduct ‘s two water treatment plants, its reservoirs, and the
water distribution system owned by the District all are outdated
and in serious need of upgrading, and improved operation and
maintenance. The basic water treatment technology used by the
Corps (coagulation and sedimentation, sand and crushed coal
filtration, and chlorination), and our in some places more than
century old distribution system, may have been state-of-the-art in
Woodrow Wilson’s time, but today they are in serious need of
modernization.

it should be noted that there have been modest efforts to
upgrade the Corps plants in the 70 or more years since they were
built. In addition, the Corps’ new management at the plant
anstalled after the 1993 boil water alert has clearly made some
strides in improving management and in getting the most out of the

existing plants, with demonstrably better control of turbidity

for example. Moreover, the city’s new public works
ditector, Larry King, refreshingly has been more forthcoming about
soze of the problems with the district’s distribution system than
some of his predecessors.

But clearly much more must be done. The modernization efforts
for tne water treatment plants so far are much like putting halogen
headlights on a horse-drawn carriage: they may make things a little
sater and more modern, but they don’t solve many of the underlying
proviems.

In addition, the failure of the Corps and the local


26

-9-

and recommended corrosion control, a flushing program, storage facitities,
distribution system maintenance, a sampling plan, and system management.

» Recorded a Monthly MCL violation of the TCR for October 1995;
. Acute MCL violations of the TCR for November 1995 in one neighborhood
in South East Washington and a separate MCL violation at the Soldiers’ and
Airmen’s Home in North East Washington. A limited boil water notice was
issued for SE; no boil water notice was issued to Soldiers’ Home. A
Proposed AO was issued from Region 3 on the same day.
It is important to note that during this period there have been no drinking water
problems confined to the Aqueduct’s customers in Virginia as there have been in the
District of Columbia The District's relatively older, less aggressively maintained distribution

system is probably to blame for this difference.

EINANCES.

Many of the issues of non-compliance for both the Army Corps of Engineers and for
the District of Columbia are related to inadequate financial support. The Aqueduct is in
serious need of major capital improvements, but the Corps lacks the borrowing/ bonding
authority typically associated with a public drinking water system. All construction costs,
indeed all costs, must be paid for on a pay-as-you-go basis. The Secretary of the Army
has recommended that the ownership and operation of the Washingion Aqueduct be
transferred to a non-federal public entity which has the ability to raise the necessary capital

The District has similar constraints. Although it can borrow money, the City’s bond

ratings are so low that the cost of such borrowing is prohibitive at a time when the District

can least afford to incur additional costs.


22

-5-

» In 1959, a second intake for the Aqueduct system was constructed at Little Falls,
> In the early 1960s, the Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant was expanded.

» In 1961, Falls Church became a customer.

, In 1985, the original slow-sand filter facilities at the McMillan Plant were replaced by
a modern rapid-sand filtration facility.

TOME!

The Washington Aqueduct is 2 wholesale public water system. All of the water
produced is sold to its three wholesale customers: the District of Columbia, Arlington
County, and the City of Falls Church. The Aqueduct has no retail customers.

The Aqueduct establishes its wholesale water rates with each of the customers. The
District meters the water distributed to Arlington and Falls Church, Arlington and Falls
Church pay for this water by payment to the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund. The
District receives payment for water distributed to its retail customers and deposits these
payments to the Fund. At two-week intervals, the District transfers monies from the Fund

to the Corps.

ROLES OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, THE DISTRICT, AND EPA
The drinking water infrastructure and its supervision is a somewhat complicated one.
Over the years the roles and relationships have changed, but today we have the following
arrangement:
> The Corps of Engineers is responsible for the ownership and operation of the
Washington Aqueduct. The Corps collects and treats raw water, and stores potable

water in several reservoirs, some of which are owned and operated by the Corps,
and the remainder are owned and operated by the District. This is the only drinking


105

7
poses real environmental and potential health risks. Inadequately
treated sewage can not only release microbes and parasites in to
the Potomac that may pose a serious health risk, but aleo can kill
fish and ruin the local ecology.

In August, 1995, EPA warned that the troubled Blué Plains
plant was in real danger of discharging essentially raw or
seriously under-treated sewage into the river. ‘The plant had
deferred maintenance, failed to pay. for important contract upkeep,
run out of treatment chemicals, and experienced partial shutdowns.
EPA ordered a series of actions to bring the Blue Plains plant back
up to snuff, and said the District should restore the $80 million
in water and sewer fees collected but deposited into the District’s
General Fund. We remain concerned that the deferred maintenance at
the plant, and the failure to adequate address problems such as.

combined sewer overflow.

Goals for Our Water and Sewer Systems
The D.C Area Water COPs have identified the following goals

for our water and sewer systems:

1. Pollution Prevention. Prevent pollution at the source
(upstream) in order to protect public health and the
environment, and save taxpayers money.

Water Treatment Plant Modernization. Upgrade and maintain the

o.

+ Retro area drinking water and sewage treatment plants to
provide state-of-the-art water treatment.

3. Pix and Maintain Water and Sewer Pipes, and Reservoirs, and
Assure Lead Service Pipe Removal.

4. Public Accountability, Representation, and Right to Know.
Citizens should be informed and fully involved in decision
making about the sewage and drinking water systems.


34

Mr. Davis. Not at all, and we appreciate the thoroughness with
which you have prepared in putting this before us.

I am going to let Ms. Norton start the questioning and then we
will proceed. Thank you.

The delegate from the District of Columbia.

Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I know you will recall our great concern with the
cryptosporidium alert, the boil-water alert, and I would be con-
cerned to know how many times since the 1993 December boil-
water alert, the false alarm alert, have there been presumptive
findings of cryptosporidium in the water, in the water from the aq-
ueduct?

Mr. McCaBe. Congresswoman Norton, currently there is no prob-
lem with cryptosporidium in the system. I will let Dr. Morris re-
spond more fully to that question about the inspection.

Mr. Morris. My understanding is there have been three pre-
sumptive cryptosporidium found in the raw water, none in the fin-
ished water supply.

Ms. Norton. What’s the degree of risk then if—I mean, are you
concerned that we might have a problem any time soon in the
water supply?

Mr. Morris. Since the December 1993 concern, the corps has
substantially changed the filtration system and upgraded it, so we
don’t believe there is any concern at all for that in the finished
water.

Ms. Norton. There’s great concern among those of us who have
been working on environmental issues at talk of the possibility of
raw sewage flowing into the Potomac. How do you assess the de-
gree of that risk?

Mr. McCaBE. Well, that is—that is one of our concerns with the
Blue Plains facility. If it is not properly maintained and operated,
we fear that, in fact, that is a problem that could occur. We don’t
know when it could occur. We know that if the trend of operation
and lack of maintenance continues, that it’s a very real concern.

At this time of year, because of the temperature, if it were to
occur it would have less of an environmental impact on the envi-
ronment, both upstream and downstream.

| want to remind people that because of the tidal nature of the
Potomac, this effluent could flow up to the Chain Bridge. It is not
something that just flows downstream to the Chesapeake Bay.

But this is a concern and that’s part of the reason why we have
been seeking a resolution of the maintenance and operation prob-
lems that we find at the plant.

Ms. Norton. Let me try to divide the structural problems that
will take money to repair from effort, and ask you what is your
view of the effort of the corps and the District to come into compli-
ance?

Mr. McCase. Of the effort—the Corps of Engineers, with the
Blue Plains Plant—that’s the facility that we are talking about—
has been doing a great job, as have the people who work at the
plant. I want to emphasize that they are understaffed.

Ms. Norton. But that work in the—

Mr. McCaBE. In the Blue Plains facility.

Ms. Norton [continuing]. Blue Plains plant?


115

These parasitic infections cause severe symptoms including abdominal cramps, diarrhea,

nausea and fever. Extreme dehydration can also occur.

But, in D.C., the problem is not only at our water treatment facility. Many parts of the
City’s water delivery system are 100 years old or more, Also, as the EPA has documented,
the Department of Public Works has neglected to “backwash” the water pipes to prevent
life-threatening bacteria from growing in stagnant areas within the system. This is a simple
process, but, as of late, has not been done regularly, creating situations in which the health

and lives of the citizens of D.C. have been put in jeopardy.

I'm sure many of you remember in 1993 when the 110 people died in Milwaukee because
of Cryptosporidum infection, The majority of those people were living with HIV disease.
An additional 403,000 people were made sick by the contaminated water. More recently,
in 1994, 37 people died from Cryptosporidum infections contracted from drinking water in
Las Vegas. Again, most of them were people with AIDS.

Some groups say the solution to this problem is easy: Tell all people living with immuno-
compromising illnesses to drink only bottled, distilled water—if they can afford it— or
have them boil any water intended for consumption. Well, it’s not that easy. First, it’s
not just the water you drink, but the water you cook in, the water you use to brush your
teeth, water used for ice cubes and the water used for concentrated juices or powdered
beverages. The populations that are most susceptible to water-borne illnesses are already
under tremendous stress attempting to stay healthy. Many are physically disabled or are
weakened by their illnesses. Carrying gallons of bottled water home from the grocery store
or community FoodBank is physically taxing. Remembering to boil tap water for every

use is inconvenient and maybe sporadic. Every citizen of this community, and every


ws

Cinmttcnt sre SWE
suite "00
ibonten
20009

ue 1445

C1

136

For information contact:
Beth Jones, 202-986-1300, Ext. 3050

AIDS ACTION CALLS FOR EPA HEARINGS
ON SAFETY OF DISTRICT’S DRINKING WATER SUPPLY

Statement of Gary Rose
Legislative Representative, AIDS Action Council
December 18, 1995

AIDS Action Couneil joins our coalition partners in the AIDS and environmental
communities today in demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
hold open hearings on the safety of the District of Columbia's drinking water
supply.

tis ironic that on the same day we are calling for stricter oversight of the District's
drinking water, FPA employces are being sent home because they are considered
“non-essential federal personnel.” This action further underscores the skewed
priorities of this Congress. It readily appropriates billions of dollars to the military
for unrequested weapons systems, while it threatens programs such as the Sufe
Water Drinking Act and Medicaid, which benefit all Americans, especially the most
vulnerable.

Twice now, in 1993 and in 1995, District residents have been ordered to boil their
drinking water due to the threat of widespread contamination. For people with
compromised immune systems, this threat led to a reasonable fear that there were
microorganisms in their drinking water that could cause infections like
cryptosporidiosis. In people with AIDS and other severely immuno-compromising
conditions, crypto is incurable and causes chronic diarchea, wasting, and finally,
death. As a result, the National Association of Peopie With AIDS and Whitman-
Walker Clinic issued a city-wide recommendation that all immuno-compromised
District residents boil their drinking water. Unfortunately, the people most
vulnerable to this infection are also the same people who may be too sick to boil
their own water and too poor to buy bottled water

‘The District scems incapable of coping with this immediate threat to the public
health. Therefore, the EPA must step in to ensure that thousands of District
residents have access to safe drinking water.

wae


‘at 69
3a 03

et sxpuzmisins IaH sre ;oVeNISG
Bar Solaris. Im st9ssavenI0

Of 94st00r
Nr 09 WM UESSOTIES 2zN4voNINIA
amerts-mon_sosssownnca

‘nr s2uvTagser § AREDTiON azAWa Loresovenaca
a Wns Ow ay su 12%6S0~INISO

crate ow O18 SLINY 1 SwOr st96sorIO2ES

sw 0 ONE Sz0INS 3D ZONESEVINTES

As uaTeE aaa tZ96seNeNESD
fs aA Gwin E296N0N9nTSI

emt 40 ONE §3034026 989 TorEsoreTDSE
NoMa EEWIE sa%6s0VIRDEE
wauvan ¥ VIE SeNEsavENdEA

veuvan 2 ove veresovenses

wouvan # 0"TE sosesavenosa
WOIVGA ¥ JowTe Sesceoyen260

so-stsror
So-eteeat

[ar See, ATION S9e¥eNINIEO
me

ar
anacsanesro

annouty
sone

western 290 4a o7aoTH30 wnTReE Tas

cotaoen sor 1H0dm4
aes ee)

sesue tive asst 2039
(amo s2amza) waa SNELNESTAO AG SORAD Sd JO OTASTT ATE

‘yin swans
zeny a7102er13IND 7000 S40s6H"TEION
‘aro bra GzTAZEVIIND {000 SemseOYTAOOA

‘ant aesanok
‘ema zs00rewTaiNa 2000 pdog4H¥TTOON
vorwa Prd “S0eT6¥THIND ToDd Su0KeSYTIOCA

‘yusn uatanon
sorwo of"¢ wooserIaIND Tone TapeGHTzION
yw1ot ssuanad
sa03 £9°4 GEZVEITIEWND TODO Z4OK6HETEION
‘pean ators
‘oo 24 seeysOr IRIN Toca TapeeeVIZINN

wot ¥atan0n
‘Paceaserra308

‘Twit uatcnok
raLeaewtacn

amoo2i-40 rno00s3080 000

revortt too0eerTaN to00
‘want wars

2U-LTTEEd Goo;erTTARIO TOO SdTOSNTEIA

‘wins wamaros
s92s4 soomveviamo 2000 SuTEsevTzION
sreste9tEy GoooseyTaNWO 1200 $4T669¥TA208

‘wiat warn
STE-£TS4a GooDoRVTINWO TOO FATEEOTTEION

‘ywiou warn
asertaee oossorIaiN> Te00 Z4cB6eYT3I0N

“want. atignon
fevecto0s eOEsGTLaIND O00 HALSEOYTIION

“Twn aaionon
e2ecrons onsszqruaNs 000 r4LBeurtzI0K

Wind xax2r04
‘sseenoos sesuzavi2iia 000 2aL86e¥13204
Seoctous oerdzartaines Toos ZaLesbv1a20A

‘io avons
1X Etteymriacyo 000 Tazoeeviza0n

ax
verona

saan art
fuse awends

vi uaase
seca alva

A otonand Ms ane


112

Mr. Davis. Mr. Olson, thank you very much for being here.

Now, Dr. Hawley.

Dr. HAWwLey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman
Norton and your staffs, for inviting me here today.

My name is Peter Hawley. I am a physician. I am the medical
director of Whitman-Walker Clinic, the largest provider of AIDS
and HIV services in the District of Columbia area. I am here to
relay the concerns of myself and those of my colleagues about the
tens of thousands of people who face a very real health threat be-
cause of potential water contamination.

Water contamination caused by parasites such as
cryptosporidium, giardia, isospora, and microsporidium may only
result in a case of self-limiting diarrhea in most people. However,
people who are immunocompromised can get a deadly illness which
is—which can be absolutely debilitating.

I would like to point out, that this does not only include people
with AIDS, but it also includes many other groups of people includ-
ing the debilitated elderly, newborns, individuals undergoing chem-
otherapy treatment, and those with severe autoimmune diseases
requiring immunocompromising treatments.

For several years, various neighborhoods within the District of
Columbia have been placed under periodic boil-water alerts issued
by the FDA. The frequencies with which these alerts are issued in-
dicate a fundamental public health problem associated with the
most basic of human needs, clean water.

And I would like to again emphasize that we are not talking
about a sophisticated, expensive drug that people need, that this is
the most basic of human needs: Water, food, lodging. And people
with AIDS rely on this as much as any of the rest of us do.

Furthermore, these alerts and today’s testimony bring into ques-
tion the ongoing integrity of the water treatment and supply sys-
tem in the District.

Many parts of the city’s water system are a hundred years old
or more, and, as the EPA has documented, the Department of Pub-
lic Works has often neglected to flush the water pipes to prevent
life-threatening bacteria from growing within stagnant areas of
this system. This is a simple process but as of late has not been
done regularly, creating situations in which the health and lives of
the citizens of the District of Columbia have been put into jeop-
ardy.

The last boil-water alert in southeast occurred only a few blocks
from our Max Robinson Center in which we treat many people in-
fected with HIV.

Ym sure that you all remember in 1993 when at least 110 people
died in Milwaukee because of cryptosporidium infection from the
water supply. The majority of these people were living with HIV
disease. An additional and staggering 403,000 people were made
sick by contaminated water. Imagine the resulting huge medical
costs and costs associated with loss of productivity of such an out-
break.

More recently, as Erik has said, in 1994, 37 people died from
cryptosporidium infections contracted from drinking water in Las
Vegas. Again, most of those people who died were people with
AIDS.


76

Nonprofits get a 50-percent writeoff; that is 80 accounts, and
that was $404,000 in 1995.

And of course we write off 100 percent of the District’s municipal
buildings, and that was $17.7 million, 981 accounts.

Mr. Davis. So that is a transfer that would otherwise be a gen-
eral fund expense?

Mr. Kine. Exactly.

Mr. Davis. Is it a separate water fund that is transferred from
your water fund? Is it a change in accounts basically?

Mr. KING. Yes.

Mr. Davis. Are these moneys put into a separate enterprise
fund? I don’t understand what the $17 million is.

Mr. KiNG. When the new authority is established, they will be

able to—they will be able to create policies as to this area that they
would like. This is a policy ——

Mr. Davis. It is a snapshot today?

Mr. KING. Yes.

Mr. Davis. And you are flexible in terms of how we work these
issues out in the future?

Mr. KING. There is provision in the legislation for dealing with
this.

Mr. Davis. Who sets the water rates for the aqueduct and how
are they determined?

Mr. Kinc. Actually the head of the Corps of Engineers makes
recommendations to the Mayor, and the Mayor either approves or
disapproves. Basically that is the number we put in our budget.

Mr. Davis. Generally does the Mayor approve the recommenda-
tions?

Mr. Kin. My understanding is the Mayor generally approves the
recommendations.

Mr. Davis. Are there in fact constant violations of environmental
standards being found in the District, talking about the water now?
Can you describe the nature and extent of these violations? They
were testified to earlier. 1 wondered if you could characterize them.

Mr. Kina. No. I can agree with the Environmental Protection
Agency on that, too. There have been—several instances have been
noted. Any time we violate any of the standards, EPA is notified
and if it is a violation that requires public notification, the public
is notified.

The September 1993, the December 1993, we have talked about;
last November, there was the one in southwest Washington. There
haven’t been many. We do, as I say, about 212 samples daily. So
there are not widespread violations on the water side.

Mr. Davis. Let me ask a question about that. 1 think you are
aware there are many environmental groups that charge more vio-
lations would be found in the District, but that you deliberately
overtest to bring the exceedance rate below the standard. Do you
agree with that?

Mr. KiNG. No. Because I think, from statistics, if 1 sampled more,
I might find more violations, I would think. On the other side, the
sample—actually, the aqueduct does the samples for us and they
sample the amount that is required for the population that we
have. When we have tests which show we have higher levels, obvi-


28

-a-
approaching completion, and water quality improvements are currently expected to be
completed by approximately July 1998. After the planned expansion of Blue Plains to 370
mgd, assuming District compliance with capacity limitation provisions contained in the Blue
Plains Intermunicipal Agreement of 1985, the plant should have adequate capacity to
handle projected service area flows through the year 2010

The collection system consists of approximately 1,275 miles of sewers, 9 wastewater

pump stations, and 15 storm water pump stations.

EPA CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

Since 1973 the EPA has awarded the District of Columbia over $360 million in
construction grants for Blue Plains. In addition, the EPA has awarded the Maryland and
Virginia jurisdictions an additional $187 million to support Blue Plains construction. The total

federal construction grants in the plant, then, is approximately $550 million.

CUSTOMERS
The plant serves about 2,000,000 people. The interim allocation of the plant's 309
mgd capacity, based on the Blue Plains Intermunicipal Agreement is as follows’
>» The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), which serves
Montgomery and Prince Georges counties in Maryland, is allocated just over
150 million gallons a day;
. The District of Columbia is allocated 132 million gallons a day;
. Fairfax County's share is 19 mgd;
» Loudoun County Sanitation Authority: 3 mgd;

* Town of Vienna’ just under 4 mgd;


94

Mr. JAcosus. But the procedure was that during this period of
time, you go out and you make a series of tests, and if the levels
of those tests average to a certain amount, then you could suspend
your testing because it costs a lot of money to make the tests. If
you are not getting a result that is above the threshold for concern
for health, then there’s no requirement to continue the testing. I
do not know if the Department of Public Works made any formal
announcement of that program or not.

Ms. Norton. If you bought water, as many people now do, would
that water have been tested for lead?

Mr. JACOBUS. The bottled water, ma’am?

Ms. Norton. Yes, boiled water, bottled water.

Mr. JAcoBus. If you were to buy bottled water—the source of
lead is usually from the solder in the connections of the pipes.

Ms. Norton. In the pipes themselves?

Mr. Jacosus. In the pipes themselves. The amount of lead,
which might be in the raw water, in the river or the well or wher-
ever that water might be coming from that was to be bottled and
drunk, lead content would be monitored, I am sure, as part of the
quality control at the water bottling plant.

But at the household faucet the source of the lead and the copper
in the water is the action of the corrosiveness of the water in the
pipes that would then pull those elements out of the pipe or out
of the solder.

Ms. NorTon. Your answer, of course, explains why many people
feel they have to buy water today, precisely because the water you
get out of the spigot has to come through those pipes and no one
can guarantee what in the world it is picking up from the pipes.
Is that true?

Mr. Jacopus. Our monitoring program—we have 70 sites
throughout the city where we do biological tests—evaluates the city
owned water mains, not the residential pipes.

Ms. Norton. Who chooses those sites?

Mr. Jacosus. Those—the particular ones we are using right now
were done cooperatively with the District of Columbia, the water
and sewer utility administration. Our people made some rec-
ommendations. Even though it’s clearly the District of Columbia’s
distribution system, we made some recommendations, and we ran
all that by EPA region III, and that became the testing pattern for
the District.

The way we do it is, there are about 70 of them. There are three
routes. Three times a week we go out, and we save a day in case
something weathered away or something happened. We go out and
get additional samples for the repeat samples that might be re-

juired.

a In addition to those biological sites, there are a series of chemical
analysis sites which are positioned out of the distribution system
to look—to be as representative as possible. It is at those sites
where we would take water samples and test them for a whole
range of chemicals, as required by the Code of Federal Regulations,
of things that we have to report to EPA.

Ms. Norton. So sites are approved by EPA? Are they rotated?

Mr. Jacosus. No, they are not rotated, because what we are
looking for is sites that are out toward the ends of the dendritie


9

Secretary of the Army Togo West and have informed the White
House.

It bears mentioning that in a jurisdiction that is not an affected
party in this matter nor a customer of the aqueduct, the Fairfax
County Water Authority has indicated a desire to obtain the aque-
duct without compensation to the present customers who have in-
vested millions of dollars in capital improvements over many years.
The goal of the Fairfax Authority would be to expand its capacity
to meet its own growth needs and to perform the services for the
three customer jurisdictions now performed by the Corps.

The uniqueness of the Fairfax Authority proposal does not stop
there. Fairfax County Water Authority has proposed, apparently
with a straight jurisdictional face, that the three customers of the
aqueduct not be permitted representation on a board that would
have sole authority over their drinking water supply.

In negotiating parlance, this proposal would be described as a
nonstarter. More seriously, it violates the standard of bipartisan
and regional corporation that at least the chairman and I have es-
tablished on this subcommittee. I know that both he and I would
want the collegiality of the subcommittee to also be reflected in
how the jurisdictions resolve this issue. In any case, regional impe-
rialism by one jurisdiction should be rejected by all in the quest for
a solution.

A solution to the problems of the Blue Plains wastewater treat-
ment plant is further along. For the record, the sins of the District
over a number of years are conceded, and all the affected jurisdic-
tions have every right to be concerned. Consequently, the mayor
has signed Council-passed legislation, District of Columbia Act 11—
201, establishing the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Au-
thority as an independent agency. The bil] addresses the problems
of improper diversion of millions of dollars from the Enterprise
Fund for other District of Columbia governmental purposes and se-
rious operational deficiencies and personnel problems.

Among the devices the bill uses are complete severance from the
District of Columbia personnel and procurement systems and inde-
pendent budgetary process and determination—I’m almost
through—of water rates by the District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority.

The District of Columbia Financial Authority, after considering
the legislation, passed a resolution recommending that the District
present it with a plan to repay the funds diverted from the enter-
prise fund and to maintain complete separation of water and sewer
revenues from the general fund. No action involving joint use can
be taken by the District alone, and a super majority of seven votes
is required for budget issues and for hiring a general manager.

Both the aqueduct and the Blue Plains matter are quintessential
regional matters involving the most local of concerns. The appro-
priate role of this subcommittee in a Congress committed to devolv-
ing power to local jurisdictions is to insist that the parties nego-
tiate until they get it right.

No fix is in at the Federal level. Any bill passed in this Con,
must get the signature of the President of the United States. If the
suburban jurisdictions believe that Chairman Davis can fix it here
and if the District believes that I can fix it at the Presidential level,


17

ously we have to go back and retest to ensure that those samples,
that those tests were accurate.

But, no, we have not been oversampling. I believe in 1993 there
were more samples taken than were required, and I believe the aq-
ueduct has stopped that.

Mr. Davis. Could you describe to me the differences, between
what you are exceeding versus actual violations?

Mr. KING. What happens, you have a standard that you are held
to and you take your samples. If you come up above that, then you
have to take some remedial action. In some cases, it is flushing. In
some cases, it is boiled water alerts and what have you. But there
have not been widespread problems. We have isolated problems.

Again, one of the things that we are doing with our consultants,
Camp, Dresser & McKee, is looking at a better sampling plan be-
cause I firmly believe what we are doing is testing the internal in-
tegrity of people’s plumbing. We are not testing our water system.

Mr. Davis. That is fine. Let me ask, on the flushing, are you now
following the standard procedure on flushing the system?

Mr. KING. Yes, we are flushing the whole system at least once
a year. Obviously, we flush more in warm weather than we do
when it is cold. We have got crews dedicated to that.

Mr. Davis. What about the biofilm problem? What are you doing
about that problem? Is it caused by some of the past practices?

Mr. KING. The flushing program is what we have been using
that. Also, again, our consultant will be coming with a plan of ac-
tion for that.

Mr. Davis. Do you have a price tag on what it would take to
make the Washington aqueduct a modern facility?

Mr. KiNG. I am going to leave that up to the aqueduct. That is
their facility. They know more about it than I do.

Mr. Davis. We talked before about the water distribution system.
I had asked the EPA the question about the distribution system in
the city, what problems it has, how much it costs to fix it. Do you
have any kind of fixation on the costs it would take?

Mr. Kinc. When we look at the water distribution system, as I
said, a lot of it is old. Some of it predates the Civil War. Only about
120 miles of it is, was put in after 1960. So as we can tell, a lot
of it is old. But all of it is not bad even when it is old; it is isolated
parts of it. And in some areas where we have unlined cast iron
pipe, we are getting a lot of buildup there. Those need to be——

ir. Davis. Do the neighbors in those areas know where they are
having problems versus the ones that do not? Do you have any
kind of a map that shows you where you have a weaker distribu-
tion system or an older distribution system versus——

Mr. KING. Yes, we have maps, but just because it is older or
newer doesn’t mean it is good or bad.

Mr. Davis. You can’t tell really until a problem occurs in some
cases?

Mr. KiNG. Yes. And in some cases, when we have identified prob-
lems, we have gone in with capital programs to replace those lines.
In fact, a recent line we just replaced was T Street, Northwest, an
older line, and we just completed that replacement. And we are
working on North Capitol Street now. We tend to do these as we
can in conjunction with major transportation projects.


83

finished water storage reservoirs in the District of Columbia are the only parts of
the distribution system that the Corps of Engineers is responsible to maintain.

Washington Aqueduct Division currently employs 245 people. They are
all federal civil service employees. This is a dedicated highly motivated
workforce that takes great pride in its responsibility to contribute to producing
safe drinking water for the citizens of the District of Columbia and Northern
Virginia, As an example of this dedication and commitment, operators and
maintenance personnel stayed at the plants, rotating on duty, during the recent
blizzard and flood periods to make sure that no gaps in shift coverage occurred.
The quality and quantity of the finished water produced during this trying period
did not deviate from high standards we have set for our operations. Operations
and maintenance activities undertaken by Washington Aqueduct Division are
essentially all conducted in-house. Architectural and engineering support is a
combination of in-house and contract work. Other overhead support such as
contracting, legal, and human resources is provided by the Baltimore District.

Washington Aqueduct Division operates an in-house chemical and
biological laboratory which is certified by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency. This laboratory supports the treatment plants and under an
agreement with the District of Columbia collects and analyzes water samples
from their distribution system, There are approximately 70 sites throughout the
city which are tested weekly for bacteria. Additionally, there are other sites from
which samples for periodic chemical analyses are drawn. This laboratory also
analyzes water samples from the Arlington County distributions system and the
federally-owned water mains in Virginia.

Funding for operations and improvements at Washington Aqueduct comes
from revenues generated by the sale of water. The annual operating budget and
capital improvement plan are submitted as a part of the District of Columbia
Appropriation Bill. When Congress approves that bill, that authorizes execution
of the Washington Aqueduct Division budget. The District of Columbia payment
is made to the Washington Aqueduct Division from the District’s Water and
Sewer Enterprise Fund. No public funds support Washington Aqueduct Division.

Intense public attention was focused on Washington Aqueduct Division in
December 1993 when EPA determined that an increase in turbidity at the
Dalecarlia plant posed a potential health risk. Fortunately, this turbidity violation
did not place the public in danger. We know the public was greatly
inconvenienced by the precautionary boil water advisory, and we regret that. As
a result of this incident, many issues were raised about the safety of the water

2


proposed new District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority legislation and the future of the
‘Aqueduct are not the subject of today’s hearing, I want to make clear that I am only interested in
ensuring the best water and sewer service at the lowest rate possible for everyone who depends
on these services.

‘The District's legislation to establish a new Water and Sewer Authority has passed the City
council and undergone its review by the Authority. In due course it will undergo its
Congressional review period. But, apart from the normal congressional review period, this
Subcommittee must act to amend the Home Rule Act to give borrowing power to the proposed
Water and Sewer Authority. Without borrowing authority, the proposed Water and Sewer
Authority would not be able to act.

‘The furure of the Aqueduct is not under the jurisdiction of the D.C. Subcommittee. It is
in the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and that Committee. It is
‘my understanding that they will begin addressing the issue in a timely manner. Nothing that we
do here today should be construed to be an effort to move beyond the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee.

It is my intention to act in each of these matters objectively and in the best interests of all
of the consumers. I do not intend to engage in, or participate in, counter productive power
games. I plan to work together with all of the interested parties to develop and implement the
most effective solution for everyone. I expect others to act in this way as well. These are very
serious issues, they involve great sums of money, and the health and safety of our resources and
‘our people is at stake. We cannot afford to let either our narrow, parochial interests or our egos
stand in the way of the best solution we can devise for these problems.

In this country we have worked hard and spent a lot of money to achieve our unmatched
record for clean, abundant drinking water at reasonable prices and the best wastewater treatment
inthe world. But more and more we find that our ability to maintain these standards are being
brought into question. In few places around our country is this more true than here in the
Washington Metropolitan Area.

Water discharges from municipal sewage treatment plants are a significant source of water
quality concerns throughout the country. The Clean Water Act prescribes performance levels to
be attained by local sewage treatment plants in order to prevent the discharge of harmful quantities
of waste water into surface waters and to prevent contamination of sewage sludge. Sludge is the
‘major residual of the treatment process. Pollutants in sludge may include nutrients which can
stimulate growth of algae that deplete dissolved oxygen in surface water. They may also include
bacteria and other pathogens which may impair the water in terms of drinking and recreation.
Sadly, this is the potential crisis that we now face in the Washington Region.

I want to make a point of the true regional impact of these issues. Although the District
of Columbia receives all of its water and sewer services from these systems, others are dependent

2


+ aa:

ll

"D.C. AREA WATER COPs"~

Requesting Public Hearings

Erik Olson
Natural Resources Defense Council

Joe Schwartz
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Dr. Pat Hawkins
Whitman- Walker Clinic

Paul Schwartz
‘Clean Water Action

Diana Neidle
Consumer Federation of America

Lisa Ragain
National Association of People with AIDs

Danie! Rosenberg
US Public Interest Research Group

Robert Boone
Anacostia Watershed Society

Dawn Hamilton
Aurora Consulting

Respectfully

Rabbi Lynne Landsberg
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

Gary Rose
AIDs Action Council

Victor P. McMahan
American Rivers

Linda S. Golodner
National Consumers League

Velma Smith
Friends of the Earth

Ted Morton
‘American Oceans Campaign

Kenneth Cook
Environmental Working Group

Leigh Hauter
“From the Ground Up" Washington, D.C.

Margaret Morgan-Hubbard
Environmental Action

Gwyn Jones, Chair
Sierra Club New Columbia (D.C.) Chapter

se

Erk D. Olson —~

for D.C. Area Water COPs


81

produce significant quantities of disinfection byproducts. We are
designing a new disinfection Process which will lower the quantity
of disinfection byproducts while maintaining active disinfection.

The chloramination process, a combination of ammonia and chlo-
rine, will also assist in the inactivation of biofilms in the distribu-
tion system. Many of the projects under design or under study will
be very expensive to construct and will significantly increase the
operating costs. Our continuing objective is to provide a safe, reli-
able supply of water meeting all standards at reasonable cost.

Under the current pay-as-you-go concept for capital improve-
ments, the wholesale customers are concerned about how they will
fund these necessary improvements. Washington aqueduct division
is working with EPA region III and our wholesale customers to de-
termine how to dispose of the solids generated in the sedimentation
basins. The discharge of these solids into the Potomac River is per-
mitted under our national—under our current National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit, which has been administra-
tively extended since May 1994 at its former limits. The proposed
limits would essentially prohibit discharge of these solids into the
river.

Our wholesale customers have asked EPA to postpone issuance
of a new permit until further engineering evaluation of possible al-
ternatives can be accomplished. While this issue is being resolved,
we are confident that the plants can continue to produce high qual-
ity, safe water.

The staff at Washington aqueduct division works very closely
with the District of Columbia Department of Public Works. There
is daily contact between our chief of water operations and the
water operations managers and the Water and Sewer Utility Ad-
ministration.

Recently, EPA region III contracted for a sanitary survey of the
entire District system, including the Washington aqueduct divi-
sion’s production and storage facilities. We are working with the
District of Columbia to implement the recommendations that apply
to us.

Operations at Washington aqueduct are affected by the financial
difficulties of our largest wholesale customer, the District of Colum-
bia. Our status as a Federal entity means that the money we re-
ceive from our customers is treated as if it were public funds.

All of our contracting is in accordance with Federal acquisition
regulations. Therefore, we are subject to the antideficiency statutes
and cannot obligate funds we do not have. Further, we are statu-
torily restricted from mixing even temporarily other appropriations
which may be made available to the Army to pay our employees
or our suppliers.

This concludes the summary of my statement. I will be happy to
respond to your questions.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobus follows:]


107

rate increases.

National Legislative Implications

It is also critical to recognize the importance of pending
national legislation to the local water problems. The gutting of
the Clean Water Act adopted last year by the House (H.R. 961) would
only make matters worse by weakening federal water protections. in
addition, water industry and other proposals to weaken the federal
safe Drinking Water Act health protection requirements, though not
yet introduced in the House, may be taken up by the House Commerce
committee as early as next month. These bills could seriously
erode federal standards and support that would help to improve the
local drinking water and sewer systems. We urge all members of
this Committee to reject efforts to relax these fundamental health

and environmental protections.

Gonclusion

ke believe that the nation’s capital can and must have the
best, state-of-the-art drinking water, sewer, and pollution
Prevention systems, built and maintained with full public
participation and support, that can serve as a model for the rest

of the nation and the world.


92

Office of Water EPA 5708-91-40
4609 January 1985

&EPA Lead and Copper Rule

‘The Lead and Copper Rule was published in the Federal Register on June 7,
1991. Tt became effective on December 7, 1992, This rule requires treatment when
“Lead may _| lead and/or copper in drinking water exceed certain levels.

i | Lead enters drinking water mainly from the corrosion of lead-containing house-
leach into the | ,.i/'flumbing, Since Iead and copper contamination generally occurs after water

water from has left the water system, the best way for the water system operator to find out if

2 customer water is contaminated is to test water that has come from a household

some kinds _| faucet. This type of contamination can be prevented by controlling the corrosive-

| ness ofthe water supply. If corrosion contra is not sufficient, lead-containing

of home | materials within the control of the water system (such as lead service lines) may

plumbing.” "ve !bereplaced. Ato time will system have to replace a homeowner’ pipes

|
\ Action Levels
i

Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLG): Water systems
should try to supply water with no lead and with no more than 1.3 milli-
grams of copper per liter (mg/L), These are non-enforceable health goals.

MCLG Action Level
my (mg)

wa 0.015 | _ Action Levels: When the concentration of lead or copper reaches the
action level in ten percent or more of the required samples, the water
Copper 1.3 1.3 | system is required to carry out the water treatment requirements of the

rule. These enforceable treatment requirements are described below.

| Monitoring Requirements

| Lead/copper monitoring at high-risk homes,

Water systems must complete a materials evaluation of their distribution
| system andlor review other information to target homes that are at high risk of
| lead/copper (Pb/Cu) contamination. Monitoring is to be conducted at the tap in
| these homes, with the number of tap-sampling sites based on the population
| served. One sample is required at each site.

Additional monitoring for other water quality parameters
(WQPs) affecting corrosion is required to optimize treatment and
determine compliance with Stats ead/eopper standards. Two types of
systems must perform this monitoring under the following conditions:

+ Number of Initial Sampling Sites es ems serving mare than 30,000 persons, regardless of

#atnome a witin the leadleopper levels in tap samples.
System taps tor lst tor |, Smaller systems serving less than 0,000 persons, if ether
ste ___ Peta action level is exceeded in tap samples
100,000 300 35 :
o,001100,000 60 15 | two types of sampling sites are specified for this purpose:
3,301-10,000 40 2 | * Within the distribution system, with the number of sites
| 501330020 based on population served (sites may be same as for col
| yoxso0 tri sampling). Two samples are required from each ste.
L__si00 ‘« Two samples at each entry point to the distribution system.


aa a8
ae

fe dg ad fe

SPEED 22 2a GE A

Be Ge se Af 4M ag as s3

A R888 BR eB RR
§
aa ag

at Rea a ee

il

‘win, sHanon

worse
ose ‘Smee area rrscsovsnaa a00 ZaveoseTaHLA
sorsse ‘wink xamanok
wer wocrwos escamUM sze4vovInoWE 00s Tabeosv aKa
or
oe ALIRRAIN mLRENES <osCsoveraST
oi
ue WemeaTinN SARONAL ANAS ¥ 2 DeRGcONINEST
0°902'94
avery ‘stnsamumed 003 2 sTwaLsi ezscseeanase 209 eorviavae
ined Uneumiava Aged # 4Walad Sascsevennso 809 OFN'd Z9ZVAVTRLAD
stesso
svaner maar3s seawaNA sosversneso ed ertanane
aeaersy
wort e109 naan WarMlssTa WaT éesesowenoes = GESET. syseoTyTzMVO
wrarseat
west ae 142 osmesovenase sett 6zs00ntIID
terszeer ‘ios scans
wert aero 452 euserownrase SIE EzsnomTI@ To°e saTTOSTTIION
rerszgert was eszn08
weet a1c2 442 evnenoweraca ‘acit s2ssopvizaN0 000 suttosvT320n
assez ‘want wxio004
tess ast we goreret Toe satz0sv17308
seuss win, wzn0n
wee deamon sacys siveverncsa «OST. TetDOMTTIOND 2000 Y1205¥13204
co-oet fnwana GN Smive scrsterwicca ——-STOSK Tef009¥T30 1000 SstEOSTTI20N
0-12 ‘yw1pn mann
orate SHI 09 TIEN F THRE GéséeevonnEE —L696TES FeTONNYTIGVO Too” sAtTOSTTIION
ox-sa0 ‘yeint waianon
cores (09 a1v38 Ava unéensonnse —«GEZLT_goTDOyVTIGVO 1000 24T2OSYTION
corset 5 wae ive serceuvmnasa —«GOELL_SUEOOPFTIIWO 2000 24(20SVTI0N
erat $3 ars ave Sezevovenasd ——ONzC1. SeoesyT3uWo 1000 Z4C2@s¥13300
rorya ‘wias svanon
Teor saz NE RDM BOE T ARAM oTNSHONeNICE ‘6000 voosovrzaye tho T4T20SVIEI04
wea mre a axa oo wn
= dpesenesia Gus 880 swe ‘amis00n
NoeIYT) wen ad exaninan urea Tas usa
U2 the sect MD serve atva A

‘oreo +2405 Nw
s


56

to facilitate communication and ultimate agreement among the
parties.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davis. Ms. Norton, thank you.

Let me get, for the record, a few questions on Blue Plains and
then I will move into the issue of water.

How many employees are there at Blue Plains now, and how
many do you think there should be, approximately? I know you are
under oath. I will not hold you to the exact person——

Mr. KinG. I think there are 1,259 employees in the water-sewer
utility and about—let me get my numbers together here.

Mr. Davis. That is all of them combined?

Mr. Kinc. That is all of it combined. There should be around
1,700. That includes the water side, too.

Mr. Davis. I understand. I will take that for now.

Mr. KinG. I can get you the specific breakdown of Blue Plains.

Mr. Davis. That would be fine.

Mr. Kin. I have a couple of notes here.

Mr. Davis. That is fine.

Mr. Kinc. We are understaffed in certain areas; in certain of
those areas we have brought on contractors to help get some of
that work done. So in terms of the actual staff power to get it done,
we are using a combination of employees and——

Mr. Davis. In theory, these positions should not impact the gen-
eral fund; these are enterprise fund employees?

Mr. Kine. That is correct. The problem is that in years past, with
furloughs, with reduction in forces and that kind of thing, they
have. That is why we have gotten into the fix that we are in now.

Also early easy-outs affected employees there, and it really
should not have. This last round of early easy-outs, we were able
to specify, and also what employees could use it and could not use

it.

Mr. Davis. Maybe that is part of the problem. If they had kept
it separate, we may not have been in this problem, but it has got-
ten put into the whole ball of wax.

Mr. Kin. I think that is why moving toward an independent au-
thority helps also.

Mr. Davis. Do you agree that the status of vendor payments for
Blue Plains is getting better?

Mr. KiNG. Yes. We are, as of this morning; I checked with the
utility controller, and we have caught up with our vendor payments
of all the vendors we had had proper contracts or had funding for
those contracts. As you know, in the past, there were some people
doing work without benefit of contract. So we are still working
those through.

But the ones with proper contracts, my understanding from the
chief financial officer and our utility controller are up to date. We
have a report which shows that.

Mr. Davis. Without objection, we will put that in the record. We
are trying to establish a record here. It is really a fact-gathering
day. We will be arguing policy at later dates, and you will certainly
be involved.

[The information referred to follows:]


18

TESTIMONY OF
W. MICHAEL McCABE
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 3
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM & OVERSIGHT
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 23, 1996

Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Norton, and Members of the Committee, my name.
is W. Michael McCabe and | am the Regional Administrator for the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 3. With me is Dr. Alvin R. Morris who is
the Director of the Water Management Division in Region 3.

| want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee
this morning. The related issues of the drinking water supply and the waste water
treatment in the District of Columbia are of great importance to us in Region 3, and | know
that they are of equally great importance to the Members of this Subcommittee.

For the purposes of today's hearing, | would like to offer a few comments as an
overview on both of these issues. Then | would like to like to take a few minutes to discuss
in more detail the background and recent history of the Washington Aqueduct and the

drinking water supply as well as the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant


AT

SEPARATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE, FISCAL AND OPERATING
PROCESSES AND CONTROLS OF THE DISTRICT GOVERNMENT IS THE
LOGICAL SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. DURING MY FIRST MONTH AS
CITY ADMINISTRATOR, THE MAYOR ASKED ME TO ADVANCE THIS
PROPOSAL TO THE REGION. AS YOU WELL KNOW, THE LEGISLATION
WAS RECENTLY APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT’S FINANCIAL AUTHORITY
AND WILL, OF COURSE, REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF CONGRESS. WE
ARE CONFIDENT THAT CONGRESS WILL SEE THE WISDOM OF THIS
LEGISLATION IN ITS CURRENT FORM AND MOVE FAVORABLY AND

EXPEDITIOUSLY TO ENSURE ITS IMPLEMENTATION THIS FISCAL YEAR.

WHAT ABOUT THE INTERIM PERIOD?

I MADE MENTIONED EARLIER, OF EPA’S IDENTIFICATION OF SEVEN
PRIORITY AREAS IN WHICH THE DISTRICT MUST CONCENTRATE ITS
EFFORTS DURING THE INTERIM PERIOD PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF AN INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY. ON JANUARY 26TH, THE DISTRICT
SUBMITTED AN ACTION PLAN TO EPA OUTLINING OUR RESPONSE TO
THESE ISSUES. BOTH EPA AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAVE.

BEEN NEGOTIATING THE FINER POINTS OF THIS PLAN ON A DAILY BASIS


51

10
CONCERNS AND ARE CONFIDENT THAT WE ARE MAKING MEASURABLE
PROGRESS ON THEIR ISSUES. THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY. ASI
INDICATED EARLIER, OUR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS HAS COMMENTS
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, AFTER WHICH WE ARE AVAILABLE TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.


80

Over the last 143 years, the water treatment system has been ex-
panded and improved. I have brought a chart showing in blue the
present service area of the Washington aqueduct. Shown in red is
the location of our facilities. Today there are two major treatment
plants, Dalecarlia and McMillan, several reservoirs and one large
pumping station, as well as two intakes on the Potomac River, one
at Great Falls and one at Little Falls.

In addition to providing potable water to the District of Columbia
distribution system, the Washington aqueduct division supplies
water to Arlington County and to the city of Falls Church, VA.

The District of Columbia receives about 75 percent of the daily
production. Arlington National Cemetery, the Pentagon, and Na-
tional Airport also receive water from the Washington aqueduct Di-
vision.

The Washington aqueduct division currently employees 245 peo-
ple. They are all Federal civil service employees. Operations and
maintenance activities undertaken by Washington aqueduct are es-
sentially all conducted in house. Architectural engineering support
is a combination of in-house and contract work.

Washington aqueduct division operates an in-house chemical and
biological laboratory which is certified by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This laboratory supports the treatment plants
and, under an agreement with the District of Columbia, collects
and analyzes water samples from their distribution system.

There are approximately 70 sites throughout the city which are
tested weekly for bacteria. Additionally, there are other sites from
which samples for periodic chemical analyses are drawn. Our lab-
oratory also analyzes water samples from Arlington County dis-
tribution system.

Funding for operations and improvement at Washington’s aque-
duct comes from revenues generated by the sale of water. No public
funds support Washington aqueduct division.

Intense public attention was focused on the Washington aque-
duct division in December 1993 when EPA determined that an in-
crease in turbidity at the Dalecarlia plant posed a potential health
risk. Fortunately, this turbidity violation did not place the public
in danger. We know the public was greatly inconvenienced by the
precautionary boil-water advisory, and we regret that.

As a result of this incident, many issues were raised about the
safety of the water being produced at the plant. Internal and exter-
nal performance evaluations looked at both operating procedures
and the water treatment process. Where shortcomings in proce-
dures were found, we made improvements. Over the last 2 years,
those procedural changes have measurably improved the quality of
the water.

We have installed sophisticated digital supervisory control and
data acquisition systems at the Dalecarlia plant. Design of a simi-
lar modern system for the McMillan plant is complete and ready
for procurement. This enhancement will allow operators and super-
visors to quickly spot trends and take corrective action.

Other improvements will add new capabilities to the process.
Disinfection is an example. Both plants now use chlorine as a dis-
infectant agent. This process is effective at killing bacteria, but the
dosages required for safe operation of the distribution system


142

Written Testimony of
Robert E. Boone
The Anacostia Watershed Society

water quality standards for the Anacostia River. The words and deeds of officials at the DPW

communicate clearly the message that the agency simply does not care about Anacostia River.

‘The DPW's contempt for the Anacostia River was most recently illustrated during
negotiations with the EPA regarding the CSO problem, In 1994, the EPA attempted to address
the CSO problem with the District by proposing amendments to Blue Plains’ discharge permit
which would have forced the District to take specific action to abate CSOs in “sensitive areas,”
such as the Anacostia River. On November 10, 1994, Ferial A. Bishop, former Administrator of
the D.C, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), responded enthusiastically to
EPA's proposed amendment and even recommended that "Restoration of the Anacostia River"

become an expressed term of the Blue Plains discharge permit.

‘The DPW has aggressively attacked the permit amendment and expressly rejected the
Anacostia-friendly language proposed by its sister agency, the DCRA. On July 27, 1995, the
EPA issued an administrative order to force the DPW to implement minimum controls for CSO
abatement. The DPW nevertheless continued to challenge the permit amendment by expending
District funds to retain a private counsel to file a challenge to the CSO-related amendments to the
discharge permit. On August 28, 1995, the DPW filed a seventeen-page "Request for
Evidentiary Hearing." which contested the validity of the CSO abatement provisions in the
permit amendment and specifically rejects EPA's (and DCRA’s) assertion that the Anacostia
River should be considered a "sensitive area." Minutes from a September 29, 1995 meeting
between DPW, DCRA and EPA finally disclosed DPW's true position regarding the water
quality of the Anacostia River. Len Benson, a DPW official. warned that the "designated use of
fishable and swimable [for the Anacostia River] is not appropriate and DPW plans to conduct a

study and it may prove that it is not possible to achieve."


185

diseases must have a surveillance mechanism in place. Without such a mechanism,
crucial life and death health decisions are made on the basis of speculation

Water safety issues are becoming increasingly complex, in a time when available
resources are shrinking. However, those most at risk for catastrophic illness and death
from their drinking water represent ever increasing populations in the region. Answering
these questions will require honest examinations of the many systems involved, charged
with not only with assuring safe and affordable drinking water for our citizenry, but also
communicating concems to the public that respects their right to know and protecting the
public health

The problems faced by the District of Columbia and the metropolitan area are by no means
unique. Large and small cities, rural areas and towns all face the challenge of providing
safe and affordable drinking water for all of their citizens. The charge to this committee,
Congress, and ultimately to the entire area is to lead the way in creatively resolving the
complex issues around drinking water safety. Until all of these issues are examined, too
many questions will remain, and lives will be at risk

People should not die from drinking a glass of tap water.


13

This operational dichotomy is an important one. Any problems
with the raw water intakes on the Potomac or at the Dalecarlia
complex are the responsibility of the corps, and any problems at
these points could potentially affect all aqueduct customers. Prob-
lems at the District-owned reservoirs, pumping stations, or dis-
tribution lines are the city’s responsibility. Because the city’s oper-
ational functions are varied, problems could affect much of the sys-
tem or be limited perhaps to a single drinking line. As I will note
in a moment, all of these problems have arisen in recent years, and
depending on the nature of the problem, we have turned to the
Corps of Engineers or to the city to seek remedies.

Withdrawing millions of gallons of water from the Potomac,
treating it and distributing it to 1 million customers is a major op-
eration. I have already noted that the drinking water program is
not delegated to the city and EPA region III is directly responsible
for overseeing the aqueduct’s operations under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. EPA is also responsible for issuing and enforcing the
Clean Water Act discharge permit necessary to operate this facility.

Think of this NPDES permit, as it is called, as you would think
of any permit written for a factory or a similar industry. Under
current. operating procedures, treatment residuals from the
Dalecarlia water treatment plant are discharged into the Potomac
during high water-flow periods. We do not think that this is a good
idea for the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. It doesn’t cre-
ate a healthy environment. Nor is it good for the safe operation of
the drinking water treatment system. So in the new NPDES per-
mit that we have drafted, we are proposing the Corps of Engineers
implement an alternative.

Drinking-water standards include both biological and non-
biological contaminants ranging from bacteria to heavy metals.
Drinking-water system operators must look for specific contami-
nants, and standards are established based on human health con-
siderations, as well as technology. Testing programs are designed
to capture both acute problems, as well as chronic ones. That
means that if a specific contaminant that causes an immediate
health threat is found, the facility would register an acute viola-
tion.

We also establish standards to control chronic, low-level contami-
nants that could cause problems over time.

The EPA also requires drinking water operators to adhere to cer-
tain treatment techniques to ensure that the safety of the drinking
water is consistently maintained. Let me use a specific example of
how this system works. .

We have established a maximum contaminant level for total coli-
form bacteria. As a service to the city, the corps collects at least
210 samples per month for total coliform bacteria at sampling sites
which are representative of water throughout the distribution sys-
tem. If more than 5 percent of the samples collected during a
month are total coliform-positive, the public water system is in
monthly violation for the maximum contaminant level of total coli-
forms.

When a routine sample is analyzed as being total coliform-posi-
tive, the Corps must collect at least three repeat samples within 24
hours of being notified of the positive result, as well as analyze the


137

Written Testimony of
ROBERT E. BOONE,

Director
The Anacostia Watershed Society
5110 Roanoke Place, Suite 101
College Park, Maryland 20740
301/513-0316

Before the
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
U.S. House of Representatives

Friday, February 23, 1996

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, | am Robert E. Boone, Executive Director
of the Anacostia Watershed Society. The purpose of my statement today is to call to your
attention the unquestionable link between bureaucratic inaction and financial irresponsibility on
the part of the District government, specifically the Department of Public Works (DPW), and the

serious environmental problems threatening the Anacostia River.

The Anacostia Watershed Society is a nonprofit conservation organization with about 400
members in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The Society has a long-standing, non-
commercial interest in cleaning the water, recovering the shores, and honoring the heritage of the
Anacostia River watershed. To advance this interest, the Anacostia Watershed Society has
mobilized over 7,700 volunteers, planted 5,800 trees and removed over 114 tons of debris from
the shoreline of the Anacostia River in Montgomery County, Prince George's County and the
District of Columbia. The Society has directly introduced over 1300 children and adults to the
Anacostia River through sponsored canoe trips, and has lectured to an additional 5,500 people

with a slide show about the river.


55

Ms. NorTON. Are those settlement discussions?

Mr. Kina. No, just in response to his letter of intent. We are
not—it is my understanding the corporation counsel is trying to ar-
range discussions with him about it up front.

Ms. Norton. I would like to encourage those discussions. Many
of us in the District have seen, and I wish you would carry this
back to corporation counsel from this Member, I don’t know how
many times I have seen the District go into court on matters it will
inevitably lose, spend our money fighting suits where we could not
possibly succeed. Then when we lose, we incur greater cost than we
would have had we engaged in rational discussions.

Part of what this suit would be about is already conceded in the
record. Obviously, the District is trying its best to comply; Virginia
must surely see that. I cannot believe that if the parties sat down,
some kind of solution to a court suit, which seems otherwise inevi-
table, could not be worked out. I hope that—.

Mr. Kina. Mr. Ruff is awaiting the attorney general’s response
to an invitation to meet. So we want——.

Ms. Norton. That is an invitation to meet then?

Mr. KiNG. To meet.

Mr. Davis. We will be happy to help facilitate that.

Mr. Kinc. We appreciate that.

In terms of the compliance issues, as I stated in my testimony,
we are in harmony with Federal officials in this matter, EPA and
the Department of. Justice, and have been working very hard to de-
velop a plan that we all can agree to in order to resolve some of
these issues.

I personally have taken on the task of not only heading up a
monitoring team on those actions; I personally have taken charge
of the water-sewer utility, and I have managed that myself ee
rectly, in addition to the rest of the public works. We want to show
that we want to do the right thing. We intend to operate a safe
plant. We intend to deliver clean and safe drinking water to our
customers.

Ms. Norton. You certainly have already be; to do the right
thing, Mr. King, with the bill that the Mayor has recently signed
to set up an independent authority. Yet there is some continuing
disagreement and concern. I would like to know whether there are
discussions with the other jurisdictions over their continuing con-
cerns and what the prospect is for reaching agreement with the
other jurisdictions.

Mr. KING. As you know, this legislation and the whole idea was
developed in consultation with suburban jurisdiction partners on
the Council of Governments CAO committee for Blue Plains. And
subsequent to that, in addition to that, I should say, we have had
discussion with elected officials in the other jurisdictions and will
continue to have those discussions. We believe that we all need to
work together on this.

Ms. Norton. Well, I want to close simply by associating myself
with the chairman’s remarks that the District has clearly shown
good faith in moving very substantially forward. As I look at the
matter there, I think this thing could be—I think this thing could
be wrapped up with a little more movement on each side. | know
that the chairman and I would be pleased to do whatever we could


2

While I want to reiterate at the outset that the proposed new
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority legislation and
the future of the aqueduct are not the subject of today’s hearing,
I want to make clear that I am only interested in ensuring the best
water and sewer service at the lowest rate possible to everyone who
depends on these services.

The District’s legislation to establish a new water and sewer au-
thority has passed the city council and undergone its review by the
authority. In due course it will undergo its congressional review pe-
riod. But apart from the normal congressional review period, this
subcommittee must act to amend the Home Rule Act to give bor-
rowing power to the proposed water and sewer authority. Without
borrowing authority, the proposed water and sewer authority
would not be able to act.

The future of the aqueduct is not under the jurisdiction of the
District of Columbia Subcommittee, it is in the jurisdiction of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. In that committee,
it is my understanding that they are going to begin addressing this
issue in a timely manner. Nothing that we do here today should
be construed to be an effort to move beyond the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee.

Now, it is my intention to act in each of these matters objectively
in the best interests of all the consumers. I don’t intend to engage
in, or barticipate in, counterproductive power games. I plan to work
together with all of the interested parties to develop and imple-
ment the most effective solutions for everyone, and I know that
others will act this way as well. These are very serious issues. They
involve great sums of money, and the health and safety of our re-
sources and our people are at stake. We can’t afford to let either
our narrow parochial interests or our egos stand in the way of the
best solution we can devise for these problems.

In this country we have worked hard to spend a lot of money to
achieve our unmatched record for clean, abundant drinking water
at reasonable prices and the best wastewater treatment in the
world, but more and more we find that our ability to maintain
these standards are being brought into question. In few places
around our country is this more true than here in the Washington
metropolitan area.

Water discharges from municipal sewage treatment plants are a
significant source of water quality concerns throughout the country.
The Clean Water Act prescribes the performance levels to be at-
tained by local sewage treatment plants in order to prevent the dis-
charge of harmful quantities of wastewater into surface waters and
to prevent contamination of sewage sludge.

sludge is the major residual of the treatment process. Pollutants
in sludge may include nutrients which can stimulate growth of
algae that deplete dissolved oxygen in surface water. They may
also include bacteria and other pathogens which may impair the
water in terms of drinking and recreation. Sadly, this is the poten-
tial crisis that we now face in the Washington region.

I want to make a point of the true regional impact of these is-
sues. Although the District of Columbia receives all of its water
and sewer services from these systems, others are dependent on
them as well. These other users also pay for these services and


72

jaf df 9g °F aN Ge

ater

882 88 882 gg te On £84 aR BE
i mad

ig

an 8
i

Prrnel

aug 28 29 a8
etre

erg"

wie 22812008

‘oer swouarmisson ra ysrzsovencca —«TTS02 WHTOTEY'RIND £000 S4PvOsYT3200
Ber Gumusrauses Io Vsuzs0eeraso sO GEEUTOYIRIND 2000 baT¥O5¥13904
Sar Swaiarmisos Low yatezovenesd O10 H2"4 STORTEYTRINS TOD SuEbaaVT2200
‘wos waHo004

x120 40 OetANA THLTEND SHEZSONNDSE “STO fe SvOTsYTAMD O00 SereUsvTIONA
-wiot wmianOA

a 09 WM NBSBOTNIS S9ETEOVONIGO —MIVIOTA eSTEBEYTRIND 1900 Z4PESYTEION
ios wana

aaron WM aSsTKDS sseTSONINOKG esteserraina 2800. Lursas¥320%
Shi oa wm aaseotios esezsovencea © WTd'd ESTEBOYIBIAD TOO TasbasyTII0N
‘yeio., warono’

[MT Syme AmUTE ToERHOVMNG —_IS¥BLT erEGDMTIENO TODD SaszOSVTIION

cvs01 wxeo00

‘Mr Setar stezsovmeaed SaLesvert s2s009vTI2090 7090 LePEEEVTIOON

cessor ow Tono £49205 13008

04 waKonOA

Xr Tenuisnen Oni cevsseHAnONE —TéetsD¥ez Ez¥00RNTIMD TODD —F49TDSYTIION

‘Tio. amanon
aa usm urwrae ZopzsovNG —sasOFD SoTRORYTZGWD TOON SéPTOSVTIION
Der Same AmULTe LsvISUOOROND — 6LEEZE 9THORTTRNWD TOON Ss8EOSYTIION
“wr0t_wHanok
ax ‘00 wees “s'¥ zveRSDVenGSE —_—_LETBOD wOOREYI3IKG 2000 T42505¥13200
Jar <-o3 views “S"¥ zvezsuvanoca 9TH Cu'd OBOOROYIAIND 1000 C42SOH¥1300"
‘ion wsHon0A
aut Sa.vEaassy aw 93 MOBHIOE —SSEZSOVINDVD £800 Z°d SFSTOOYTRIND To0o Td¥ZOSVIII04
‘ion waH2008
saremomont sunuars viva zsbesovenwo —«-gvs6zE_LEeBONT3mO 2000 $42705N13204
SHSeeEaL sMLavD vivo 2ecesoNING — GPSGTE LENMONTTIMID [OOR SazzOSVTIION
a Ce aot
weasinsts GUS IO zANENI wrens
1 sagan
a


27

-10-
Similarly, the City has extraordinary costs associated with modernizing its
distribution system, removing very old cast iron piping, removing biofilm from distribution

lines, modernizing its underground reservoir system and so on.

BLUE PLAINS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

Let me turn, now, to the waste water facilities.
HISTORY OF THE PLANT —

In 1934, the first wastewater treatment facilities were constructed at the present site
of the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) along the Potomac River in South
East Washington just below Bolling Air Force Base. The original facilities treated 130 mgd
with a service population of over 650,000 and provided primary treatment only.
Subsequently, there have been several expansions and upgrades. In 1949 Blue Plains
was expanded and chlorination was added. Secondary (biological) treatment was added,
and the plant was expanded again in 1959. The most recent expansion and upgrade was
initiated in 1972 and completed in stages by 1983. Presently, the plant has an average
daily design capacity of 309 mgd, a peak design capacity of 650 mgd, plus primary
treatment capacity for an additional 289 mgd of storm flow. EPA funding began in 1973.

A 1984 Blue Plains Feasibility Study evaluated various alternatives for meeting the
wastewater treatment needs of the service area through the year 2010. The most cost-
effective and environmentally sound altemative was determined to be an upgrade and
expansion of Blue Plains to 370 mgd with a peak flow of 740 mgd. This upgrade and

expansion is currently underway. Improvements to process peak flow requirements are


10

it

TRE LECLCEE LEE
i
Sites na ea
' REE ‘ x i

A LEE
man
AMET
pil pibbabbaaias
a med



146

FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AuTHorityAPR 11996
8560 ARLINGTON BOULEVARD - P.O: BOX 1500
MERRIFIELD, VIRGINIA 22116-0815

Mievroncret ana cama caowoen
area March 26, 1996 TELESWone oe ott BX 409
male na TRON ene Be

‘The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton
United States House of Representatives

Longworth House Office Building, 1415
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Norton:

In your remarks on February 23, 1996, at a hearing. of the Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia concerning water and sewer systems in the District, the following paragraph
appears:

It bears mentioning that a jurisdiction that is not an affected party in this matter
nor a customer of the Aqueduct, the Fairfax County Water Authority, has indicated a
desire to obtain the Aqueduct without compensation to the present customers, who have
invested millions of dollars in capital improvements over many years. The goal of the
Fairfax Authority would be to expand its capacity to meet its own growth needs and to
perform the services for the three customer jurisdictions now performed by the Corps.
‘The uniqueness of the Fairfax Authority proposal does not stop there. ‘The Fairfax
County Water Authority has proposed, apparently with a straight jurisdictional face, that
the three customers of the Aqueduct not be permitted representation on a board that
would have sole authority over their drinking water supply. In negotiating parlance, this
proposal would be described as a non-starter. More seriously, it violates the standard of
bipartisan and regional cooperation that at least the chairman and I have established on
this subcommittee. I know that both he and I would want the collegiality of the
subcommittee to also be reflected in how the jurisdictions resolve this issue. In any
case, regional imperialism by one jurisdiction should be rejected by all in the quest for a
solution.

We did not have the opportunity to discuss this with you prior to your statement, but we have
met with Me. Lary King ci one occasion and with Mr. King and Mr. Michael Rogers on anotia.
‘One meeting called by Mayor Barry was canceled immediately after it was called and has not been
rescheduled. We have offered to meet with District of Columbia representatives on a number of
occasions, and we would be pleased to meet privately with you.


63

‘W101 waKanon

GevA3E OuD OIE STLMY ¥ SOF SevevoveNIS —KTOWOETT Toaongw13mI0 Te00 2ubLGu¥TII0"

semen ames
SPOT SE SRE'SZ aun mJ RIE TWOLIMN METAMUE FzSGRONMIGD —«EO-TT StOOESYTIOND 1800 /46LEO¥THIOA,
seer ester

or co a ey vrvemut

seestz | seeusttz

Breese SECGSTE aun Bod ewe TwOTEM xrTEM KIssNOVeNDED

sersenter — seestater

Se'EGOOT «| S4-SEOST aan wOd MeeYE TOI AITENMAL ersévaysrOsa

sorezare corszote w101 ¥awanon
repens So-eroe an od Wa THeMTAM MIEN ZTSGHONONISG —«TO-ET_SeOOEA¥TAQWD 1000 <4ELEO¥TIIOA
os-ésptee —anestoue ‘Pe104 ssono4

‘101 wenn
NI TOS any OY HK s4NESONINIGD —_AeDOTT-¥0 zDOD9HFIANHD TooE _T4ELEHYTION

8809 Anddns WoRKITTa WoEr Sesseopensse

2 kndens WORLD WHET sossvonerase

OME svounenusta 43 6 26s6vereeI6a

‘mr SumunETUUSTE Xt F Térceavendse

2ME svoineruiste 42 osessooenasa

ALTerases eunigaNea WOnGHD eavesosenose

Wow 40 21 S2SINNS 389. LONGbONANDCE

awa asnanon
[ME swuinanuista 19 ¢ sonsvovenIsA eS-LSHLOT ESKONNVTIIGID TooD EINTEOYTIIOA

4201 waknan

araunson aay 50371 vescsovenasa solve avozeyTEIND 2000 TasOZA¥TII0N.

SMMUNEN Gav SaaT1 Vevesnverasd —0L09D NpOOTENTAIND Ta00 TasOZAvTaIOA

ave a ase aon
Jemasunesto Gus 3932 seAWONONG emsnon

Wn umaer
sezuA thea snssx 39302 sere: “ave nem

(Gaia sma) kaaoy sMtlWCODO AG SIO SU JO OST AVG
WL coro2amy «00s en

8



20

-3-
Duiles International Airport, ail in Virginia, as well as the Pentagon and the National Park
Service.

The contrasts, then, are fairly dramatic. On the one hand you have a complex
drinking water infrastructure that is old and run by a federal entity, with its customer base
concentrated in the City. On the other hand you have a single wastewater facility that has
been periodically modernized, located in and operated by the District, and with a user base
slightly skewed toward the Maryland suburbs.

in spite of these differences, however, there are some very important similarities,

similarities that are both striking and disturbing:

» Both the waste water and drinking water systems have seen recent and serious
violations,
, both have been issued Administrative Orders (one is a Proposed Administrative

Order) by Region 3 because of problems with their operations,
> both present potential threats to the health and safety of their customers, and
. both are being severely hampered by serious financial problems.

| want to stress from the beginning that we at the EPA view these problems as very
serious, and we are taking actions in accordance with that level of concern.
Comprehensive monitoring systems are in place, and we are devoting extraordinary
resources to make sure that the systems remain operational.

Let me take a few minutes to discuss the history of these operations and to highlight

some of the critical problems we are facing with both of these issues.


37

coming in for sewer use be used for the operation and maintenance
of the facility. Clearly, those funds have not been used for that pur-
pose at the level that we feel is adequate to maintain the facility.
And we are, in effect, trying to assess whether there has been a
violation there.

Mr. Davis. So you are still looking. A contract violation is dif-
ferent from a legal violation, and that is what you are looking at?

Mr. McCase. It would be a legal violation.

Mr. Davis. Are conditions better or worse at Blue Plains since
the EPA issued its proposed order last year?

Mr. McCaBE. You are going to put me on the spot. I think that
they are slightly better, and part of that may not be so much a re-
sult of issuing the order as the discussions that we have had re-
cently with the Department of Justice which clearly will move us
toward a court resolution of this, if we can’t agree to a negotiated
settlement on this.

Mr. Davis. Thank you. I understand the city has been catching
up on vendor payments; is that correct?

Mr. McCaBE. They have been.

Mr. Davis. OK.

Mr. McCase. I want to emphasize that even though things may
be slightly better than they were when the NEIC reports were con-
ducted—and I would like to submit those reports for the record, if
I might—those were the reports which really provided us with sub-
stantial information on the problems at the Blue Plains facility.
Even though they are better, they still are not at a level that we
feel is adequate to maintain and operate that plant and ultimately
protect the public health.

Mr. Davis. Could you explain your current regimen of activities
in monitoring of Blue Plains and comment on the current operating
status of the plant?

Mr. McCaBéE. I will let Dr. Morris go over that.

Mr. Morris. We have got several monitorings going on at this
point. One is a special one in terms of looking at the situation that
is ongoing at the present time. There is also the monitoring re-
quired by the District, and that is a monthly requirement of infor-
mation that is sent to us.

The problem we have seen over the last 6 months is that there
are two requirements on Blue Plains. One is for continued oper-
ation and maintenance, and that is all a permit requirement. That
is the one that we feel is substantially violated. Over the last 6
months we have also seen that the effluent from the plant, which
had never been in violation over the last couple of years, has now
been deteriorating.

So starting last July we have seen minor violations which do not
cause an environmental problem for us, but they are further indica-
tion that the plant is declining and that we have a serious problem
there. So it is more of an indicator that we are seeing as opposed
to a serious environmental or health problem.

Mr. Davis. How often are we getting EPA employees over there
observing?

Mr. Morris. We have almost continual discussions on a weekly,
two-to-three-times-a-week basis with the people at the plant; and


57

00-9566 tor ssete
Dovseers corsee's aaaane we
seresere sees
0" S202 Toxmno aspera eM ss96s0rR2TE
Sereeers cous JouInND ISSAALDANLL MEMAINM SsPLbONINISY — $6 930 LFOHDWIBEYD TODO Saynut¥TaSOA
cover cares ‘Wiot_ xatianoa
ooree oarer inser WoSSRais ¥ MDLONTESN SWoEvoVenISE —OTEEET e900 I3DNO Te00 GaNsE~NTIION
ove ore ‘Win. win
ones on ive wosssusina ¥ MLENINSMN SosEsoNNISS —FOEMIT eLSoBpYTERED TaD SuD%6orTIION
eertez ard ‘wiot wanan04
ois waist we ¥ posoenrene sesest jacwo 1000 ra2o8
esate esa ‘int xmtan0k
orate sean wie wossauasion ¥ MALENTNSMN ZHRGHONNNISS —-SESEET soBEETIZEYO ToOD HubseHNTEIGN
on-onr coro ‘Teint wationon
eoroet toon ‘Teasmnrne XILATHULDIES aLsGsopINIEL —_TZH0O000 szfoDETEMD T0090 Zaese¥TIOOA
9-008 soroee “Tips. xaHanOA
9-008 terond va woo rassesyi3008,
00-0069 20°00 ‘wins avons
ro0c's Pred ORAL Ud $756 DOM SrRKNOWNNIED —_TOLERLSY TORTOSYIEGYO ToOR LaZ%EeNTEION
woreese west ‘want asnanon
wun wuss “De MOLENINER 40 WOTEL —vEREWORINDED —_—«GKEDT_LOOROHTAELD OOD SUZ TEIEA
oreert — or-ssuser
Or-geot | Orswcter +276 MaLONTASA 40 NOOTLL sE96¥O¥N2SO
seraeey stone's
pansy senes +276 salam 40 wooTLL wENGsONINIEE
aerocs'er oaks te
oa serosres ‘ur sananms s2sssovsncce
Sorocsree eo O80SE Set Sauanns sascsosersE
onset osrsst
one OSE wT ween ¥ NnJEKMIEM TyPGsONINISE
cacoetey an -o8t09 ‘aos. saveanon
oaem'es ot ‘mu ‘MaraveOBIOD TH 2196 8 yaINa Yoo0 Sy0gsz¥ T3308
a ‘Win xan
oa rey mm ar saaZD sIsesovmIs £02498 mPONTEYTAIND 000 Zas8zATTADOA
feasees | tb-aze ay. ‘Fmunel Ger Saas Stsssowmnasd — 202698 GRONTEYTAIND C000 EasNZA¥TAOOA
weoue snow aura or sosuasae amar
Eo) saan ANpaswesta MUS GH swe ‘oaanon
eerery wasn Aa qaaovaA3a maine TSS user

serve Mauve anoer om

sere "Tava wa
(ama semaay sxae eeiwesnO Me HeAn GY 2 OCIsT IVE

Te teva doesn A apta3asy 140s How

uodoy joenuog eiqunjog Jo INSIG s


23

-6-
water system in the nation currently operated by the Corps. As a service to the
District, the Corps conducts all water sampling, except in connection with the lead
and copper regulations, required by the SDWA, and analyzes the samples in an
EPA.cetified laboratory facility owned and operated by the Corps.

The District's Department of Public Works is responsible for the storage of potable
water in its reservoirs and for the distribution of this water to its retail customers.

» EPA Region 3 is responsible for the direct implementation of the Public Water
System Supervision Program in the District. The Arlington and Falls Church
drinking water distribution systems are regulated by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
This operational dichotomy is important to note. Any problems with the raw water

intakes on the Potomac or at the Dalecarlia complex are the responsibility of the Corps, and

any problems at these points could potentially affect all Aqueduct customers. Problems at
the District-owned reservoirs, pumping stations or distribution lines are the City's
responsibility. Because the City’s operational functions are varied, problems could affect

much of the system or be limited, perhaps to a single distribution line. As | will note in a

moment, all of these problems have arisen in recent years and, depending on the nature

of the problem, we have tumed to the Corps of Engineers or to the City to seek remedies.

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT
Withdrawing millions of gallons of water from the Potomas, treating it, and
distributing it to one million customers is a major operation. | have already noted that the
drinking water program is not delegated, and EPA Region 3 is directly responsible for
overseeing the Aqueduct's operations under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA is also
responsible for issuing and enforcing the Clean Water Act discharge permit necessary to
operate this facility. Think of this NPDES permit as you would think of any written for a

factory or similar industrial facility. Under current operating procedures, treatment residuals


144

AMERICAN OCEANS CAMPAIGN

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE = CONTACT: DAWN HAMILTON
DECEMBER 18, 1995 202-543-1360

AQC URGES EPA TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR D.C,
RESIDENTS ABOUT DRINKING WATER VIOLATIONS.

Amencaa Oceans Campaign (AOC), 2 national environmental orgamzation working to
protect ocean and coastal resources such as estuaries, and an active partnor inthe
Campaiga for Safe & Affordable Drinking Water, joined with othor national and ‘oeal
oups today 10 urge the Envircrmental Protecticn Agency’ to hold public hewingt on the
Dperation and maintenance of the Washington, D.C water system. AOC expresiad foe
concern that continning vielations of the Sate Drinking Water Act may jeopardize public ‘ft SP"
health, expecially endangering people with vulnerable immune systems. AOC is proud to
join the D.C, Weer C.0.P.s and calls upon EPA to give D.C. residents a chance to hold
‘their govemment accountable

AOC acknowledges the District's fiscal eis, but questions the wisdom of tans
‘overue from a water and sewer maintenance fund (paid for by resident’ water bills) 10
general revenue. The intent of ie program was to maintain the integrity of the city's
dcinking waler system, which also serves paris of Norther Virginia. “Why do people get

foe their water each mont, if the money does not go where its supposed 102,”
uettioned AOC spokesperson Dawn Hamilton, a resident of Capiol Hil.

‘AOC believes the DC, problem itlueraes the danger of relaxing the feral roke in
providing safe drirking water fa citizens must maiain affcient enforcement
stuthonty t oversce municipalities that ful to provide this escrtal scrvce to axpaners,”
said Hamulion. The EPA conducted a federal wudit several mont ogo, andthe city sil
thas not eorucied problems with tbe drinking water systema, “Hore ia DC. we ace dat the
money trom ratepayers was there to fix the problema, yet t was siphonad off to mest other
rneods.” Hamilton conunued. AOC is concerned that without tedoral oversight other
Sinancially strapped cities ray Se ‘erated to do the sume and forego drinking water
‘maintenance wand faced with a crsis.

Ms. Hanalton represents AOC on the Steering Commits for the Campaign tor Sara &
Affordable Drinking Water, an alliance of over 300 groups nationwide.
wie

ora Aveog So "Suna en Coloma TEA BUG? F203
neve AEA NE GeO d Wacky OE bee



90

conditions where you—where the public can be alerted to a
problem that really is not a public health threat.

That decision was made at the aqueduct about a year ago as we
worked through our laboratory procedures. The Environmental
Protection Agency is aware of those changes, and they are in com-
pliance with the Code of Federal Regulations as pertains to coli-
form testing.

Ms. Norton. I see. I had thought that the EPA had issued an
acute violation notice based on the limited testing. Is that not the
case? Does EPA approve of the decision that has been made?

Mr. JACOBUS. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. Norton. Well, what does the acute violation notice pertain
to?
Mr. Jacosus. Acute violation is a combination of two successive
positive findings, one of which has to be an E. coli, which is a sub-
class of a fecal coliform. So if you go out and make a test of the
water and you test this sample today and you get a total coliform
positive sample, that’s an indication of something going on in the
distribution system. But if it’s total coliform positive you would
then go out and test within 24 hours that sample, an upstream
sample and a downstream sample, so you take three repeat tests.

If one of those three repeat tests comes back with a positive fecal
E, coli, the combination of the original total coliform and the repeat
sample E. coli finding will result in an acute violation and would
be reported immediately to the EPA, and public health officials
would make a determination of what action would be taken.

Ms. Norton. I understand.

Is anybody testing for lead in—lead contamination in the dis-
tribution system?

Mr. JACOBUS. The District of Columbia, under the lead and cop-
per rule, completed a test about a year ago, and I do not believe
they are currently testing. We would have to ask somebody from
the Department of Public Works.

But that testing was done by the—by the water and sewer utility
administration under the provisions of the water—of the lead and
copper rule. Washington aqueduct is not testing for lead in the dis-
tribution system.

Ms. Norton. Should it be?

Mr. JacoBus. I don’t believe so, ma’am.

Ms. Norton. Why not?

Mr. JACOBUS. It is because we as a wholesaler of the water don’t
do things we are not asked to do. The reason we test the water in
the District of Columbia distribution system for bacteria is because
we have a contractual arrangement with the District of Columbia.
When they had to exercise their responsibilities as a distribution
system manager for the lead and copper rule, they went out and
made those tests.

The tests came back over a period of time. The findings were
such that they could suspend the testing, and they did. The conclu-
sion was that there is not a significant problem throughout the dis-
tribution system that would require continued monitoring of that.

Now, let me just add one other thing. We are sensitive to how
lead and copper can get into the water of the consumer at the point
of service, and we are constantly evaluating the temperature and


44

SUPPORTS A MORE HEALTHY FISHERY. WILDFOWL NEST AND FEED
ALONG THE FRESHWATER PORTION OF THE RIVER AND WE HAVE SEEN

THE RETURN OF AQUATIC VEGETATION.

WHILE MEMORIES OF OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE WATER QUALITY OF
THE POTOMAC RIVER MAY BE SHORT-LIVED FOR SOME OF US, THE
REALITY IS THAT THE DISTRICT HAS, BY VIRTUE OF ITS EFFORTS AT
BLUE PLAINS, PLAYED A MAJOR, CONTRIBUTING ROLE IN MAKING THE
POTOMAC RIVER THE NATURAL RESOURCE WE KNOW AND APPRECIATE.

TODAY.

THESE ISSUES COMPEL ME TO MAKE THIS CRITICAL POINT FOR THE
RECORD, AND THAT IS, FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS--A FULL HALF OF A
CENTURY, BLUE PLAINS HAS PROVIDED THE DISTRICT AND THE REGION
WITH RELIABLE, LOW COST WASTEWATER TREATMENT SERVICES. UP
UNTIL THE LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS, THE STAFF AT BLUE PLAINS
HAVE OPERATED IN RELATIVE OBSCURITY, QUIETLY AND EFFECTIVELY
CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT. LET ME
EMPHATICALLY STATE THAT WHEN IT IS ALL SAID AND DONE, AS WE

MOVE TOWARD THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW STRUCTURE AND


85

switching to a combination of ammonia and chlorine. This will lower the
quantity of disinfection by-products while maintaining effective disinfection.

This process has proved to work well in plants similar to ours. This
chloramination process, as it is called, will also assist in inactivation of biofilm in.
the distribution systems.

Many of the projects under design or under study will be very expensive to
construct and will significantly increase current operating costs. Our continuing
objective is to provide a safe, reliable supply of water meeting, or more than
meeting all standards at a reasonable cost. Under the current pay-as-you-go
concept for capital improvements, the wholesale customers are concerned about
how they will fund these necessary improvements.

Washington Aqueduct Division is working with EPA Region III and its
wholesale customers to determine what the best near and Jong term solutions are
to the disposal of the solids generated in the sedimentation basins. The discharge
of these solids to the Potomac River is permitted under our current National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. This permit has been
administratively extended since May 1994 at its former limits. The proposed
permit would essentially prohibit discharge of these solids into the river. Our
wholesale customers, who would have to pay for the construction and operation
of the facilities required to process the solids and transport them off site, have
asked EPA to postpone issuance of a new permit until further engineering
evaluation of possible alternatives can be accomplished. While this issue is being
tesolved, we are keeping very close watch on the accumulation of these solids
and are cleaning the basins frequently to ensure that the water getting to the
filters has a very low turbidity. This practice increases the effectiveness of the
filters and allows us to consistently stay substantially under the EPA standard for
filtered water turbidity.

The staff at Washington Aqueduct Division works very closely with the
District of Columbia Department of Public Works. There is daily contact
between our chief of water operations and the water operations managers in the
Water and Sewer Utility Administration. We provide the overnight results from
the bacteriological sampling program and suggest where they should conduct
flushing operations to combat biofilm in the distribution system. We make slight
adjustments to the water chemistry as needed to account for temperature changes
and biological activity in the distribution system. This is a dynamic process.

Washington Aqueduct Division owns and operates three of the storage
reservoirs in the District of Columbia and operates one of the two large pumping

4


62

oe z06'2 002 mio1 sso"
oorzoere 6 20682 on waiona
berrces 262068 oer TINK-veresK oTLENeN—COVE 000 bacvaywa0%A
aecsee Prd uve CE oat
ae ane ammngwesia Sue OMS sEeNOND ron
fOsIvE) wasn 49 cueoTuAae LINEN Tans M1 aoe
serve bauva anes 0349 eee ive NO
soteoa sar swosm (ama s20eax2) ARON ORELMIDTNO AN SHRKD BAL MO TASTY ATG
" ad ANOS Han

cen)


86

stations. Again, there is constant coordination to make sure the water is managed
well.

Recently, EPA Region III contracted for a sanitary survey of the entire
distribution system -- including the Washington Aqueduct Division's production
and storage facilities. On the basis of that survey, the District of Columbia
selected a contractor to assist in evaluating those recommendations for
implementations. We are working with the contractor selected by the District of
Columbia to implement the recommendations that apply to us.

Operations at Washington Aqueduct are affected by the financial
difficulties of our largest wholesale customer -- the District of Columbia. Our
status as a federal entity means that the money we receive in payment from the
customers in exchange for water delivered is treated as if it were public funds.
All of our contracting is in accordance with federal acquisition regulations.
Therefore, we are subject to the anti-deficiency statutes and cannot obligate funds
we do not have. Further, we are statutorily restricted from mixing -- even
temporarily -- other appropriations which may be available to the Army to pay
our employees or our suppliers.

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to respond to your
questions.

42pm Fabvey 221008


121

we would like to see that remedied in a way that’s fair so that low-
income people in particular aren’t severely impacted by that.

Ms. Norton. Of course, I mean, I had assumed—I do not have
the law before me, but I have to assume that there would have to
be a hearing in any case. Do you mean something beyond a hear-
ing?

Mr. Otson. Absolutely. I think that a public hearing isn’t nec-
essarily going to solve the problem. There needs to be an edu-
cational process and a full public involvement process so that the
public feels —

Ms. Norton. Now I understand what you mean. If you are going
to raise people’s rates and you have to do it and you have a hear-
ing, what, beyond that, are you suggesting?

Mr. OLSON. Well, I am suggesting that there have been a lot of
backroom negotiations over what’s going to happen between the
various jurisdictions and that it would make a lot more sense to
have this much more public with public involvement in that deci-
sionmaking.

The past experience, again, has been that if suddenly there is an
announcement of a 75- or 100- or 150-percent rate increase and the
only out—the only way that the public has a way to talk about that
is in a public hearing, that that public hearing is going to be pretty
contentious. So it’s important to do some groundwork before you
get to that point.

Ms. Norton. I am not sure I understand what the groundwork
should be, but I do agree that if you take the time—I don’t know
what you can do beyond have people come in and explain, and per-
haps that should happen over a period of time.

But if—it is like regulation in general. If you take the time to
make people understand what they are paying for, you have a
much better chance of getting consent and agreement.

I fear that when water rates go up at one time like this, no
amount of explanation is going to make people feel good about it.
How do you—of course, governments are damned if you do and
damned if you don’t. The reason they don’t increase the rates every
year is because then you get it every year, and so what they do is
to wait, as the District has, for a period of time when they get
pushed into it.

What do you suggest as the way jurisdictions ought to go about
handling necessary increases in water rates?

Mr. OLSON. Many jurisdictions will go for an annual rate in-
crease.

Ms. Norton. And let everybody know up front that that’s what’s
going to happen?

Mr. OLSON. Right. They will explain, this is our capital plan;
these are the health threats we are trying to address.

You know, the real problem is that in some jurisdictions they will
say there’s absolutely no health problem, there’s nothing you
should be worried about, but we are going to increase your rates
75 percent. And those two just don’t go together.

Ms. Norton. Why would anybody do that? say that?

Mr. OLSON. Because they don’t want to create panic in the public
about the threats to the water supply. So it’s a delicate balance.

Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.


124

Marion Barry, Jr.
January 16, 1996
Page 2

As a result, the Blue Plains plant is in a critical condition. The violations
in recent months foreshadow major failures at the plant. Such failures inevitably
will cause major violations of the permit requirements for, inter alia, carbona-
ceous biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, total phosphorous,
ammonia nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, total chlorine residual, pH, zinc, mercury,
fecal coliform, enterococci, and toxicity.

The accounting records of the District show that the District's Water and
Sewer Utility Administration, which operates Blue Plains, has an operating
budget reserve in its Water and Sewer Fund of $96,060,208 as of November 1,
1995. The District, however, is able to redirect these funds and has done so.
The management at Blue Plains has told EPA that it is not able to use these funds
to correct the operational and maintenance problems at the plant. Moreover,
according to a letter of December 4, 1995 from EPA’s Region III Administrator,
the capital improvement fund will be exhausted by the end of the present month,
further decreasing the reliability of the plant and leaving the District unable to
comply with a July 1, 1996 permit deadline for increasing treatment capacity."

At Part Il, Section B, the Permit provides:

The permittee shall at all times properly operate,
inspect and maintain all facilities and systems of
treatment and control . . . which are installed or used
by the permittee to achieve compliance with the
conditions of this permit. Proper operation and main-
tenance includes effective performance, adequate
funding, adequate operator staffing and training, and
adequate laboratory and process controls... .

(Emphasis added). Part III, Section 6 of the Permit further requires the District
to "maintain the level of staff personne! to the level necessary to fully implement
the system." Through its self-induced financial crisis, the District is violating
these requirements.

“fy fact, the permit will expire on February 3, 1996; it could not and does not contain a
July, 1996 deadline. ‘The Regional Administrator appears to be referring to a July, 1994
deadline that, I am advised, has been extended by consent.


31

-14-
month because of the government shut-down, basically reiterates the problems
detailed last Spring and again points to financing as a key obstacle to solving the
problems at the facility. As of November 1, 1995, the Water and Sewer Enterprise
Fund carried a paper balance of just over $96 million, but those funds, in actuality,

were not available to WASUA. In addition, the report found that the capital
improvement budget for Blue Plains would be $20 million short for FY ‘96.

Bi VAL IT T

Before | conclude, | would like to take just one more minute to focus on the
importance of the BNR pilot project to nutrient reduction in the Bay.

The Blue Plains Nitrogen Removal Pilot will provide nitrogen removal for about 180
million gallons per day of the Blue Plains effluent (1% of the total plant flow). This will result
in a nitrogen loading reduction of 3.3 million pounds per year. This reduction represents:

» a 22% reduction in the Blue Plain nitrogen discharge levels. This is a very large
reduction.

. Approximately the same reduction would be abtained by applying BNR to all other
major municipal discharges in the Potomac Basin in Maryland or Virginia.

‘The pilot project's total cost is estimated to be $22,200,000, which includes about
$16 million for operating the demonstration phase. EPA construction grant participation
equals $5,220,00. Maryland's grant equals $5,100,000. The Fairfax County share of about
$1,200,000 is not yet funded, but construction is underway nevertheless.

Region 3 places a high priority on this project, and we hope that if the Congress
decides to take some action on the Blue Plains facility in the coming months, that you take
‘special care to assure the continuation of this vital project. We believe it is a most
Promising technology and the potential value to the health of the Potomac River and the

Chesapeake Bay is considerable.


as well to our distinguished witnesses who will shortly address the Subcommittee: Michael
McCabe, Director of Region INI for the EPA; Larry King, Director of the Department of Public
Works for the District of Columbia; Tom Jacobus, Chief of the Washington Aqueduct for the
Army Corps of Engineers; Eric Olsen, Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council; and
Dr. Peter Hawley, Medical Director of the Whitman-Walker Clinic. These people are the experts
‘we need to hear from in building a base of facts and knowledge. Only when we have that base
can we proceed to intelligently deal with these issues.

The current difficulties with the water and sewer systems provide the stakeholders with
an opportunity to work together not only to solve the immediate problems but also to forge new
bonds of cooperation and mutual trust. Over the past year, much progress has been made in
solving the problems of these systems. But, much remains to be done. By working together, we
can devise a solution that brings out the best in all the leaders in our region.


139

Written Testimony of
Robert E. Boone
The Anacostia Watershed Society

100 times the maximum safe level for incidental wading. A recent water quality assessment of
the lower tidal Anacostia River submitted to the EPA confirmed the threat posed to recreational
users of the Anacostia; ninety-six percent of all random samples for fecal coliform violated the
swimming standard, and half were in violation for secondary contact recreation. Additionally.
one-sixth of the readings for dissolved oxygen showed the river unable to support aquatic life
Similar measures were recorded for the upper Anacostia River.

In addition to bacterial pollution emanating from the District's sewer system, the
Anacostia River contains toxic concentrations of chemicals such as chlordane, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals like cadmium, mercury and lead, which also threaten public
health. The chlordane and PCBs in the Anacostia River enter the food chain and are absorbed by
bottom-feeding fish such as eel, carp and channel catfish. In response to this problem, the D.C.
Commissioner of Public Health last year issued a public health advisory warning D.C. citizens
not to eat these types of fish taken from the Anacostia River. and to limit consumption of other
fish from these waters. The public health advisory acknowledges that "combined sewage

overflow outfalls” contribute to the pollution contaminating the fish.

Despite the urgency of the problem, the District government has failed to address CSO
pollution. Initial efforts in the 1980's by the District government to study the CSO problem
culminated in a series of federally funded construction projects, including the Northeast
Boundary Swirl Facility -- the “swirl concentrator," which was designed to treat CSO discharges
from a large CSO outfall near RFK Stadium on the Anacostia, These projects were supposed to
dramatically reduce the CSO discharges to the Anacostia; however, the projects instead have
dramatically failed. Recent studies by the District concluded that original approximations of the
CSO volume were underestimated by 40 to 50 percent. Conversely, the efficiency of the "swirl

concentrator” was overestimated. Thus, in the wake of the only significant capital improvement


147

‘The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton 2 March 26, 1996

It is not our intention to engage in public exchanges. However, we would like to comment
privately to you about some aspects of your statement. We are sending a copy also to Congressman
Davis since he is referred to in your statement.

‘The Authority is not a “jurisdiction” in the usual sense. While its governing body is appointed
for staggered terms by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, it operates its water system
independently of the County in terms of rate setting, budgeting, and capital funding. The Authority
does not engage in politics; it simply produces and sells water.

‘The Authority has not "indicated a desire to obtain the Aqueduct." The Authority did not
initiate any activity in this regard. It simply responded to a request to consider taking the
Aqueduct’s facilities from the Army, which owns them and wishes to dispose of them.

Acquiring the Aqueduct's facilities, which are in need of major renovation, and its
responsibilities would be a very large undertaking by the Authority. In order to determine whether
it would consider accepting these facilities and the concomitant responsibilities, the Authority
committed funds of $300,000 and commissioned a study by Greeley & Hansen, a nationally
recognized engineering firm. Greeley’s study shows a combination of the systems, properly funded
and managed, produces a more reliable water system and can save money for all water users in the
D.C.-Virginia area. Based on these conclusions, the Authority decided to consider the matter
further.

By no means has the Authority yet decided whether it should undertake this project, which is
fraught with difficulties because of the improvements required and the District’s financial condition
and which entails very serious responsibilities. However, because of the possible regional benefits,
the Authority is willing to continue considering the project in dialogue with the present wholesale
‘customers, the Army and Congress.

Under the circumstances, our governing body does not feel that it is accurate or constructive
to refer to the Authority's possible interest in this project as *regional imperialism."

First: ‘The Authority has no desire to obtain any new wholesale customers who do not want to
be its customers. Any new arrangement would require mutually agreeable, long-term contracts.

The District of Columbia is already a willing wholesale customer of the Authority. We
furnish treated water to the Lorton Reformatory and have had a good working relationship with the
District. During the District's financial problems, during which bills to the Authority have at times
gone unpaid for long periods of time, the Authority has not complained to the press or threatened to
cut off the water supply to Lorton. We continue to work quietly and responsibly with the District
during its period of financial difficulties.

‘The Authority presently has many other public and private wholesale customers, including the
federal government, other authorities, neighboring jurisdictions and a major private water company.
We have excellent relationships with all of these customers.


158

2
For FY '95 the plain and documented audited facts are:

1. Memorandum of February 6, 1996 from DC Controller Robert N. Reid to
Agency Directors and Controllers entitled Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriated
Budget Analysis of the CAFR General Fund documents the fact that UDC
did not overspend its 1995 appropriated budget. A copy of this report was
sent to the CFO.

2. The 1995 CAFR reconciliation of the government's financial entries with the
University’s National Association of College and University Business Officers
(NACUBO) formatted entries identify a $9.34 million decrease in the
University's fund balance. The decrease in the fund balance is being
misrepresented as deficit spending in the appropriated operating budget.
The fund balance, needless to say, includes such non-cash entries such as
plant fund depreciation allowances, write-offs of accounts receivable
determined to be uncollectible, deferred revenue changes and/or
adjustments, etc., in addition to non-budgeted cash.

The threat to the continued operations of the University through the end of FY ‘96
(which includes the mid-August '96 beginning of our '96-'97 academic year) is, indeed,
real. That threat derives partly from the District's now acknowledged miscalculation
(sustained by the CFO's office and forwarded to Congress) of the University's obligated
"96 FTE funding base by 159 FTE positions. Except for the request made by the City
Administrator to the Control Board staff to adjust UDC's funding base in recognition of the
error, all of our efforts to have the acknowledged error corrected and an adjustment made
have been unsuccessful. We shall continue our efforts with the CFO and with the
Authority. The threat also derives from the cumulative and continued reduction of our
appropriation in mid academic year after contractual academic obligations have been
fixed. It was the threat of a further 10% reduction of appropriation on the basis of the
misrepresented decrease in the fund balance that led to the student demonstration.

Having reduced expenditures and absorbed continuing costs in the amount of
$33,663,000 (43.8% reduction from FY ‘92 appropriation) since FY ‘92 through
progressive rightsizing, the University has no way of absorbing the CFO's currently
recommended FY '96 $7,727,000 reduction in appropriation except through massive
furloughing beginning April 1. Such furloughing would bring the University to a halt and
also would result in the loss of $27.533 million of non-appropriated revenue generated
through University programs.

Itis our hope that in the upcoming meetings with the CFO and with the members
of the Authority, we shall be able to discuss these matters of higher education financing.
Pursuant to the 1990 Rivlin Commission Report, we have prepared a cost/unding formula
for discussion and adoption by the District, the Authority and the U.S. Congress to
restore fiscal stability and predictability to the University.


46

WITH ALL OF OUR MIGHT TO MANAGE THROUGH THE FISCAL
INDISCRETIONS OF THE PAST. TO THIS END, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT THE MAYOR HAS RECOGNIZED THE NEED TO RESTORE THE
APPROXIMATELY $83 MILLION THAT WAS TRANSFERRED FROM WASUA
OPERATING RESERVES AND HAS MADE SUCH PROVISIONS IN THE
DISTRICT'S MULTI-YEAR PLAN. SPECIFICALLY, BEGINNING IN FY97, THE
DISTRICT WILL MAKE ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF $21.7 MILLION AS
REPAYMENT OF THE TRANSFERRED RESERVES. I SHOULD ALSO ADD,
HOWEVER, THAT RECENT PROBLEMS AT BLUE PLAINS DO NOT RESIDE
WITH THE ON-SITE TECHNICIANS AND MANAGEMENT TEAM AT THE
PLANT. RATHER, THE PROBLEMS STEM FROM THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE AND FISCAL ENCUMBRANCES THAT NOT ONLY
IMPACT BLUE PLAINS BUT OTHER DISTRICT AGENCIES AS WELL. AS
SUCH, TIMELY PAYMENT OF VENDORS AND OUR PERPETUAL CASH
FLOW DIFFICULTIES HAVE UNNECESSARILY IMPACTED PLANT

OPERATIONS AND CONSTRAINED ITS ABILITY TO PERFORM.

WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?

OBVIOUSLY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY


on them as well. These other users also pay for these services and have a stakeholder's interest
in their efficient operation and management. Washington uses less than 50% of the capacity of
Blue Plains. Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland account for 50% of the
capacity while Fairfax County, Virginia uses 7%. For the Aqueduct, the District uses
approximately 75% of the water, but that includes all of the federal facilities served by the system
including the Pentagon and National Airport. Arlington County and the City of Falls Church in
Virginia buy the rest of the water. It is easy to see that the whole region is involved though the
Jurisdictions are different for each system.

‘The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant serves around two-thirds of the residents in
the Washington Region. The facility opened in 1934 and has expanded over the years as suburban
users have increased. Amazingly, it is now the country’s largest single wastewater plant. It is
Jong overdue for overhaul and expansion. Serious problems in operation, maintenance, personnel,
and procurement practices have been noted over the years and may have been dealt with
inadequately. We will explore that issue today.

On August 31, 1995 the Environmental Protection Agency issued an Administrative Order
requiring the District of Columbia to restore Blue Plains sufficiently to protect the Potomac River
and the Chesapeake Bay. The EPA was very candid in warning of sewage possibly flowing into
the Potomac, and noted that there had been partial shutdowns due to a lack of chemicals. Also,
and this is most important, the EPA ordered the District to restore $80 million to $100 million
improperly taken from Blue Plains and placed in the District's General Fund budget. This
transfer of money, perhaps more than anything else, has helped to weaken confidence in the
District's capacity to run Blue Plains.

(On the issue of drinking water, as recently as November, 1995 the EPA was compelled
to issue a neighborhood “boil water” alert following the discovery at two schools of coliform and
E. coli bacteria which can be fatal to the elderly and those with weakened immune systems. I well
recall a similar system-wide alert in December, 1993, when residents in Northern Virginia and
the District were ordered to boil water due to concerns about crypto-sporidium possibly being in
the water supply derived from the Dalecarlia Aqueduct plant. Delegate Norton was instrumental
in having the Corps of Engineers conduct a study because of that emergency, which could prove
instrumental in efforts to find a way to update the Washington Aqueduct.

‘The Washington Aqueduct, at Dalecarlia on MacArthur Boulevard on the border between
the District and Montgomery County, dates back to 1905. Along with the McMillan Plant near
rd University, it serves almost a million people in the District and parts of Virginia. These
facilities are also unique in the United States in that they are the only public water treatment
facilities operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. Both of these plants need significant
upgrades.

1 want to thank the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
for working so closely with me in pursuing these vital issues on a bi-partisan basis. I am grateful

3


40

that needs to be done as ongoing maintenance of a good water sys-
tem.

Mr. Davis. I am sure you are familiar with the criticisms leveled
against both the corps and the Department of Public Works on the
water system by environmental groups. Could you respond to any
of those criticisms; as to whether they are valid on both an individ-
ual and comprehensive basis, or whether they tend to lump to-
gether actual violations, such as concerns about EPA standards,
and issues like lead solder in houses, over which DPW has no con-
trol. Do they paint a picture that is really worse than reality? Do
you have any reaction to that?

Mr. McCaskE. I think that some of the concerns that have been
raised are legitimate, and we share some of those concerns; I have
outlined them in the testimony. We hope that the public hearing
on April 9 will allow us to address those issues and also hear more
from the public.

Mr. Davis. The last question is, could you explain the EPA’s posi-
tion on the call from some doctors that all people suffering from
suppressed immune systems should boil District of Columbia
water? Is this necessary in your judgment? If so, is this a District
of Columbia problem, or would the same hold true for all public
water systems? Do EPA standards call for water pure enough to
protect every single person in the country, and is it possible and
reasonable to set or implement such standards?

Mr. McCase. Again, we worked with the Centers for Disease
Control to develop the advisory that was issued last year, and that
was specifically directed at individuals with immunosuppressed
diseases. And it was advised that the individuals consult with their
individual doctor.

Mr. Davis. Nationwide or just in the District of Columbia?

Mr. McCaBE. That was for the District of Columbia, but in con-
sultation with CDC, it is similar to other advisories that have been
issued elsewhere.

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. That is all the questions I
have.

Ms. Norton, any other questions?

Ms. Norton. No further questions.

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being
here, and we will probably be talking to you again as we move
through.

We will ask Larry King of the Department of Public Works to
step forward.

T welcome Mr. Larry King, director of the District of Columbia
Department of Public Works. As the director of the Department of
Public Works, Mr. King is responsible for a wide range of highly
visible municipal services. I appreciate your cooperation with our
hearing today. . .

‘As you have been advised, it is the policy of this committee that
all witnesses be sworn before you testify.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. Davis. The subcommittee will carefully review any written
statements you care to submit; and again, if you could try to stay
within 10 minutes, it would be great. Ms. Norton and I will be


120

Dr. HAWLEY. Well, there shouldn’t be any problems as far as—
there shouldn’t be any problems as far as communicable diseases
by boiling water too long. You couldn’t boil it too long. When you
boil water for—for a longer period of time, it is possible—it does
change some of the chemicals that may be in it and it may cause
some other problems.

Ms. Norton. Such as?

Dr. HAWLEY. I’m not an expert in water—in that—in that compo-
nent of water treatment.

Mr. OLSON. The one thing that I know has been spoken of is that
you concentrate heavy metals such as lead. So the more you boil
it down, the more concentrated lead would get, for example.

Ms. Norton. Thank you.

I am concerned, I think, Dr. Hawley, when I heard you mention
not only drinking water but problems that could come from bathing
or even brushing one’s teeth.

Dr. Hawtey. I didn’t say bathing, but I did say brushing teeth.

Ms. Norton. I am sorry, brushing one’s teeth. That, of course,
we associate with developing countries.

Under what circumstances should a person be concerned even
with brushing her teeth in these waters?

Dr. HAWLEY. If it’s decided that a person should be using bottled
or boiled water for drinking, then that should be extended to
brushing your teeth because, after all that’s that same water that’s
going into your mouth and entering your gastrointestinal tract, and
so it can carry the exact same organisms in and has, in fact, been
associated with particularly a lot of what’s called traveler's diar-
rhea.

When people go to other countries, they will often remember to
drink bottled water and to insist on food being properly prepared
but then forget to brush their teeth with bottled water and, there-
fore, end up with the exact same diseases that they would have
gotten by drinking the water.

Ms. NorTon. That suggests that even very small amounts of con-
taminates can have a serious effect.

Dr. HAWLEY. Sure.

Ms. Norton. One question for Mr. Olson.

l appreciate your work in monitoring the District of Columbia’s
water supply, well known in this town.

You spoke of rate shock. I assume that if there is going to be an
increase in the water rates that there would automatically be pub-
lic hearings. | do not—do I take it that you would oppose a rate
increase?

Mr. OLSON. No. What I am saying is that if you don’t—the past
experience is that if you spring a huge rate increase on the public
without having done the groundwork first of involving people in the
discussions, explaining to the public why it’s necessary, explaining
what the health risks are and what you are trying to fix, that
that’s where you get the real rate shock. Some utilities have made
the mistake of not doing that and suddenly increasing a large—you
know, substantially increasing their rates, and that’s when you get
rate shock.

I think, frankly, it’s quite clear that the District hasn’t increased
its rates for 10 years, and that’s going to have to be remedied. But


19

-2-
OVERVIEW

In several respects the problems facing the drinking water supply are very different
from those on the waste water treatment side.

The Washington Aqueduct is in need of major modernization to meet future
drinking water requirements. The drinking water treatment operation consists of a number
of facilities designed to withdraw raw water from the Potomac River, adequately treat this
water, and deliver potable water to the Aqueduct’s customers: the District of Columbia
(where almost all of the water-users reside); Arlington County, Virginia; and, the City of
Falls Church, Virginia. The “Aqueduct” is run by the Washington Aqueduct Division of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which is responsible for collecting and treating the raw water
from the Potomac and some storage of treated water. The District owns and operates
some storage reservoirs and is responsible for distributing this drinking water to its retail
customers in the District and to the Aqueduct's wholesale customers in Virginia. A
significant majority of the customer base is comprised of District users.

{In contrast, the Blue Plains facility has had major and on-going up-grades over the
years. For example, an important and innovative Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) pilot
project is currently under construction at the plant. The facility is located in the District of

; Columbia and is operated by the City's Department of Public Works’ Water and Sewer
Utility Administration, or WASUA. Its customer base is diverse: just under half of the plant's
allocated capacity is reserved for users in Montgomery and Prince Georges County,
Maryland, The District of Columbia uses a little over 40% of the facility's capacity; while

the remaining 7% is allocated for Fairfax County, Loudoun County, the Town of Vienna and


14

original sample for the E. Coli or fecal coliform. One of the three
repeat samples must be taken at the tap where the positive sample
was found and the other two must be taken upstream and down-
stream of the original sample. If any of these repeat samples are
positive or the original sample tested positive for fecal coliform or
E. Coli, this constitutes an acute violation for the MCL for the total
coliform rule.

Let me now turn to some of the specific roblems that we have
encountered over the last years with the drinking water system.
This is a chronology of violations and enforcement actions for the
Washington aqueduct division, Army Corps of Engineers, and then
for the District of Columbia.

In 1988, the aqueduct registered a chronic or monthly monitoring
violation of the volatile organic chemicals rule; a public notice was
issued by region III. In July 1993, they recorded a monthly maxi-
mum contaminant level violation of the surface water treatment
rule at McMillan water treatment plant.

On October 29, 1993, we recorded an acute MCL violation of the
total coliform rule affecting one section of the Dalecarlia water
treatment plant.

On December 7, 1993, we recorded another monthly maximum
contaminant level, a violation of the surface water treatment rule,
and a system-wide boil-water notice was issued as required by re-
gion III. That was for, again, the Washington aqueduct.

For the District of Columbia, on September—in September 1993,
we recorded an acute MCL violation of the TCR and a limited boil-
water notice was issued by region III.

In September 1993, we recorded a monthly MCL violation of the
TCR, and an emergency administrative order was issued by EPA
on September 29, 1993.

For June 1995, we recorded an acute MCL violation of the TCR.
No boil-water notice was issued, but EPA did require a sanitary
survey, which is an onsite review of the water source, facilities,
equipment, operation and maintenance of the system. The subse-
quent sanitary survey was completed by June 30 and recommended
corrosion control, a flushing program, storage facilities, distribution
system, maintenance, a sampling plan, and system management.

In October 1995, we recorded a monthly MCL violation for the
TCR. Again, this is the District. Acute MCL violations of the TCR
for November 1995 were recorded in one neighborhood in southeast
Washington and a separate MCL violation at the Soldiers and Air-
men’s Home in northeast Washington. A limited boil-water notice
was listed for southeast Washington. No boil-water notice was
given to the Soldier’s Home. A proposed administrative order was
issued from region IIT on the same day.

It is important to note that during this period there have been
no drinking water problems confined to the aqueduct’s customers
in Virginia, as there have been in the District of Columbia. The
District’s relatively older, less aggressively maintained distribution
system is probably to blame for the difference.

Many of the issues of noncompliance for both the Army Corps of
Engineers and for the District of Columbia are related to inad-
equate financial support. The aqueduct is in serious need of major
capital improvements, but the corps lacks the borrowing/bonding


3

have a stakeholder’s interest in their efficient operation and man-
agement.

The city uses less than 50 percent of the capacity of Blue Plains.
Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland account for
over half of the capacity while Fairfax County uses 7 percent. For
the aqueduct, the District uses approximately 75 percent of the
water, but that includes all of the Federal facilities served by the
system, including the Pentagon and National Airport. Arlin;
County and the city of Falls Church in Virginia buy the rest of the
water. It is easy to see that the whole region is involved, though
the jurisdictions are different for each system.

e Blue Plains wastewater treatment plant serves around two-
thirds of the residents in the Washington region. The facility
opened in 1934 and has expanded over the years as suburban users
have increased. Amazingl , it is now the country’s largest single
wastewater plant. It is long overdue for overhaul and expansion.
Serious problems in operation, maintenance, personnel, and pro-
curement practices have been noted over the years and may well
have been dealt with inadequately. We will explore these issues
today.

I have got further parts of this statement I would like to put into
the record at this point. I want to yield to our ranking minority
member, Ms. Norton, so she can make her remarks, and then I am
going to have to break briefly to go reside on the House floor for
a brief session, report back here about 11:10, 11:15.

At this point, I would ask unanimous consent to insert the rest
of my statement in the record and recognize the delegate from the
District of Columbia.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas M. Davis follows:]


132

QUESTIONS CONGRESSMAN HOYER WOULD LIKE THE CHAIRMAN TO ASK DURING
THE HEARING

THE FOLLOWING ARE FOR MICHAEL ROGERS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND
LARRY KING, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

1. HOW DOES THE DISTRICT PLAN TO RESTORE THE FUNDS TRANSFERRED
FROM THE WATER AND SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND?

2. WHAT IS THE TIMING FOR THAT RESTORATION?

3. WHY IS THE BLUE PLAINS MANAGEMENT UNABLE TO ACCESS THE
RESERVES IN ITS WATER AND SEWER FUND TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS AT
BLUE PLAINS?


110

5

include "fish remains that settle in the [filter] basins and are allowed to remain in the sludge for
several months will decay and contribute to prefiltration chlorine demand and perhaps
disinfection byproducts.” In addition, "fish remains that are removed... will be return to the
reservoirs. This process compounds potential problems” including attracting birds that defecate
into the reservoirs. Ultimately, the Corps' contractor found, the "the presence of dead fish, fish
fragments” and eels "will negatively affect the viewing pu

Chemical Contaminants

Several cancer-causing and other toxic chemicals have been found in our drinking water
supply. Among those found are:

© Lead, found at levels ranging up to 68.7 parts per billion, or ppb. The EPA
action level” for lead is 15 ppb. Technically, however, it appears that since
EPA allows up to 10 percent of the homes tested to exceed 15 ppb. there is now
no violation. Reportedly, D.C “terminated” its lead testing in December 1994
We have sought additional information under FOIA.

© Cancer-Causing Trihalomethanes, found at levels of up to more than 200 ppb,
have been found across Washington. These chemicals are a byproduct of chlorine
disinfection of water containing lots of dirt, silt, or other organic matter; with the
elevated rate of chlorine treatment used lately by the Corps, the levels likely have
increased. The average levels reportedly fall below the EPA average standard of
100 ppb, due to lower levels in cold weather. We have sought more detailed
records under FOIA to determine the extent of the problem.

© Prhalates and Adipates, families of toxic synthetic organic chemicals, have been
found, including Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate at 7-20 ppb, and Di (2-ethylhexyl)
pthalate at 0.6 to 3.5 ppb. The health implications and more detailed occurrence
data are being sought

Conclusioy Need for Major Sy: ade:

The District's water supply is in urgent need of major upgrades. The Corps’ contractor
identified what it gently referred to as a “comparison of existing facilities to state-of-the-art,”
and listed needed system capital improvements totalling $176 million to $336 million, of which
just $66 million had been budgeted. In addition, there is a serious need for improved operation
and maintenance of both the Corps’ water treatment plants and of the D.C. distribution system,
including routine flushing. The Corps’ contractor estimated that improved operating and
maintenance associated with the upgraded plants would cost $4.5 million to $8.5 million a year


69

sestvn wen 48 qaeo430 Jae Tas

1

a8 a

He aS ae ag
HELE

‘oteseny sor sme

H
ae
He

an gg ee g

BY gS Re RE

a9 g8 3

viet anor

aia wsuan0n

109 mernai “sma scessovsnov 2000 Tavsovianes

"09 SNINAOL “H “Smo senssorenING ooo Tap9ev RMA

‘W101 xatano4

WaIEMS-7I09 rovssovInONG $409 99° LZVAOTAIND ToOO susLEMvTION

iat wansnon

‘JoNUNOD ASaerELNANaL URMIMIM Le00KOVIRISD — Sk NWT LzKCONVIIGUD ToOD auENWTIION

‘wios ¥avanon

TOME sun SES F ARN 2906V0VeNK 2000 see0osv13aH0 1800 HeeTeyeTIION

win. amianaa

SN 918 evecvevenava — TeTe0M zIs0ONTIMIO Teo0 TuLESOvIEEN

‘wien aevonok

NE SUNTLTISNND WABd WRKbOLITONE SITOTHT“4 GossDONIAIND to90 ZeSOENTISON

Te1o1 saranon

ur SMILIES WIRd E¥BSvOVINOWG LORE SI's sovoOrTAIN? rood —TesUGHTISON

ave ar aomasay ar wn ar

anaaenesTa Mus Oa NENT wnaOA,

- v1 uae

sere laiva snest 2080 esa “taava ne

(ama soentaa) sovper enTTeTeTIO Ae 90a Std 20 EIST. ATV
1 covosaan +1s08 ne

8


24

-7-

from the Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant are discharged into the Potomac during high
water flow periods. We do not think that is a good idea for the Potomac River and the
Chesapeake Bay, nor is it good for the safe operation of the drinking water treatment

system, so in the new NPDES permit that we have drafted, we are proposing that the

Corps implement an alternative”

DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Drinking water standards include both biological and non-biological contaminants

ranging from bacteria to heavy metals. Drinking water system operators must look for

specific contaminants, and standards are established based on human health
considerations as well as technology. Testing programs are designed to capture both
acute probiems as well as chronic ones. That means that if a specific contaminant that
(Causes an immediate health threat is found, the facility would ragister an acute violation.

We also establish standards to control chronic, low level contaminants that could cause

problems over time. The EPA also requires drinking water operators to adhere to certain

treatment techniques to ensure that the safety of the drinking water is consistently
maintained.
Let me use a specific example to illustrate how the system works.

, We have established a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for total coliform bacteria
Asa service to the City, the Corps collects at least 210 samples per month for total
coliform bacteria at sampling sites which are representative of water throughout the
distribution system. If more than 5% of the samples collected during a month are
total coliform-positive, the public water system is in monthly violation for the MCL

for total coliforms.

When a routine sample is analyzed as being total coliform positive, the Corps must
collect at least three repeat samples within 24 hours,.of being notified of the positive


148

Written Testimony of
Robert E. Boone
‘The Anacostia Watershed Society

‘The fact that the DPW is willing and able to spend a significant amount of scarce District
money on private attomeys and consultants to fight having to effectively address the problems of
CSOs and poor water quality on the Anacostia River is truly disheartening. As you may expect, I
spend many hours canoeing on the Anacostia River. When I am on the river, | am proud of what
the Anacostia Watershed Society, and other concemed groups and citizens, have accomplished.
Yet, when Iam on the river I am also constantly reminded that until the CSO problem is
addressed the Anacostia River will continue to die. | firmly believe that the District’s CSO
problem will never be addressed if the current policies and financial practices of the DPW are
allowed to continue. It is my sincere desire, and the desire of the Anacostia Watershed Society,
that this Subcommittee take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the District's wastewater
‘management system is operated in a manner which effectively addresses the CSO problem and

thus truly benefits the people and environment of the District of Columbia


10

they are both right. But that is the wrong way to resolve critical
regional issues.

_ The chairman and I have consistently sought bipartisan resolu-
tions to even tougher issues than those before us today. I know
that he and I will continue to work together in that spirit, and
thereby, to lead by example in the same spirit, I ask all the parties
to continue to work together to reach agreement with whatever ap-
propriate assistance this subcommittee can offer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davis. Ms. Norton, thank you very much.

Iam going to now recess the meeting very briefly while I run
oven t ¢ ‘ouse floor. We should reconvene at about 11:15.
cess.

Mr. Davis. We will bring the meeting back to order. We are right
on time.

For a couple of minutes there, there was just Ms. Norton and
myself on the floor. We could have done anything, cut the deal. But
we still have some differences that we are going to work out and
hear from our individuals testifying today, which I think will shed
some light on the seriousness of the problem.

Mr. Davis. I want to now introduce and welcome our first wit-
nesses, Mr. Larry King, the director of the District of Columbia—
I am sorry, wrong script here. Hon. Michael McCabe, who is the
Director of region III of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
I would like to thank Mr. McCabe and his colleagues at the EPA
for having been so forthcoming.

Mr. McCabe, as you know, it is the policy of this committee that
all witnesses be sworn before they testify. Please rise with me and
raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. Davis. You can be seated. The subcommittee will carefully
review any written statements you care to submit, and we would
ask that your oral testimony try to be limited to about 10 minutes
or less. We are happy to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL McCABE, DIRECTOR OF REGION III,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOM-
PANIED BY ALVIN R. MORRIS, DIRECTOR, WATER MANAGE-
MENT DIVISION; JANET WILLIAMS, REGIONAL COUNSEL;
AND DAVID ARENT, WATER SPECIALIST

Mr. McCaseE. Mr. Chairman, I hope that I can limit this testi-
mony somewhat, but because of the nature of the issue and the
complexity of the issues involved, I am afraid it is going to be a
little bit more lengthy than I would have liked. I have tried to cut
it down, and I do request that the full testimony be submitted for
the record.

Mr. Davis. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. McCase. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Norton, and the committee itself,
my name is Mike McCabe, and I am the regional administrator for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, region III. With me is
Dr. Alvin R. Morris, who is-the Director of Water Management Di-
vision in region III. I am also accompanied by Janet Williams, who
is our regional counsel, and David Arent, who is one of our water


141

Written Testimony of
Robert E. Boone
The Anacostia Watershed Society :

Subcommittee is aware, the DPW has an "enterprise fund" which is generated from user fees
charged to the various jurisdictions serviced by Blue Plains and by District appropriations. This
fund, which is intended to be used only for the operation and maintenance of the District's
wastewater treatment system, was the subject of recent notoriety when an audit disclosed that the
Kelly administration had siphoned off over $80 million dollars to help the City cover other
unrelated expenses. As a result, current maintenance improvements to the District's wastewater
system which would help prevent CSO pollution are not being accomplished due to lack of

available funds.

For example, the DPW recently entered a contract to repair and/or replace large pumps
which transfer sanitary and combined sewer flows to Blue Plains. If these pumps are working
efficiently, more combined sewer flow can be transferred to Blue Plains for treatment. If these
pumps are inefficient, or worse inoperative, the level of CSO pollution in the District waters can
greatly increase. The District has failed to pay over $160,000 owed to contractors on this project
and, as a result, contractors are currently withholding replacement parts and repairs. 1 was
informed by one contractor that as a result of the dispute some of the District's back-up pumps,
those intended to function in case a primary pump fails, are inoperative. If a primary pump fails,
particularly during the heavy precipitation this winter, tens of millions of gallons of raw sewage
could easily pour into District waters. This critical situation is the direct result of financial

irresponsibility on the part of the District in managing the "enterprise fund.”

Let me conclude with a description of our greatest concen regarding CSO pollution and
the future of water quality on the Anacostia River. The greatest concer for members of the
Anacostia Watershed Society is not simply the District's financial irresponsibility; rather, itis the

complete lack of commitment on the part of District officials to attain and maintain established



29

-12-

Dulles International Airport is allotted 400,000 gallons a day;
> Department of the Navy: 85,000 ga;

. National Park Service: 11,000 gd.

ROLES OF EPA. SUBURBAN USERS. AND THE DISTRICT

The waste water infrastructure and its supervision is a little less complicated than

the drinking water side.

Because the Blue Plains piant is located inside the District, Region 3 EPA has
primary oversight responsibility for its operation.

WASIUA, the District's Department of Public Works’ utility, is responsible for the day-
to-day operation of the sewer system and operation of the Blue Plains facility.

CHRONOLOGY OF VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

Region 3 has had a long and sometimes difficult, unpleasant and frustrating history

in our oversight role with Blue Plains.

In the 1970's there were a number of problems with the plant staying within its
permit levels, and we also had an on-going dispute over the proper handling of
sludge. Because we were unable to arrive at a mutually-acceptable solution to
these problems, the EPA filed suit in 1984 against the City for numerous alleged
problems with the operation of the facility.

A formal Consent Decree was entered in 1985 as a result of this first suit. tt called
for the District to take steps to put an end to permit violations and stipulated
considerable penalties if the District did not comply. The consent Decree was for
five years.

Periodically throughout the period of the Consent Decree violations continued, and
a considerable amount of stipulated penalties were owed.

In 1990 we filed a second lawsuit for effluent violations, unauthorized bypasses,
construction delays and inadequate maintenance of treatment equipment. It sought


98

should be prevented rather than cleaned up after the fact. The sec-
ond is that water treatment plants must be modernized. We must
fix and maintain water and sewer pipes and reservoirs to assure
lead service line replacement. We must have public accountability
representation and the right to know about our water supplies. We
urge fair water rates, including lifeline rates for low-income con-
sumers and a progressive rate structure for large users of water,
and polluters to pay their fair share.

We urge the protection of the health of all metro residents re-
gardless of whether they are rich or poor and regardless of their
race, ethnicity, or their health status.

In addition, we urge that we assure equitable allocation of water
rights to area jurisdictions and respect for the sovereignty and the
environment of all the metropolitan area.

We believe that any solution must ensure the implementation of
these principles. Without taking a firm position, we believe that a
regional solution to the problem that embodies the principles
above, as well as the local government’s sovereignty, and that in-
cludes full public participation and decisionmaking, is necessary.

We urge that there be public members appointed to any board
that oversees the water supply and the sewage plant and/or that
a formal citizen utility board similar to that that’s adopted in many
States for electric utilities be established to formally represent citi-
zen interests.

Only with active public participation can government officials be
assured of public credibility and support for modernization plans
for the clearly necessary water rate increases.

I might ‘add that many cities that try to very substantially in-
crease water rates very quickly result in rate shock because they
haven’t described the problems to the constituency. It’s very impor-
tant to have public participation in the process or I think we can
be assured that there will be serious rate shock.

There are also national legislative implications. The gutting of
the Clean Water Act adopted by the House last year and some of
the proposals to weaken Federal Safe Drinking Water Act health
protection requirements that may come up as early as next month
in the House Commerce Committee could make—set us back seri-
ously. We urge all members of this committee to reject efforts to
relax fundamental health and environmental protections.

In sum, we believe that the Nation’s Capital can and must have
the best state-of-the-art water, sewer, and pollution prevention pro-
grams built and maintained with full public participation and sup-
port that can serve as a model for the rest of the Nation and the
world.

Thank you.

{The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]


140

Written Testimony of
Robert E. Boone
The Anacostia Watershed Society

project to address the CSO problem, District officials admit that an estimated 1.2 billion gallons

of CSO discharges still enter the waters of the District of Columbia every year.

In recent years, the District government has largely ignored the CSO problem. From
1989 to 1994, over $32 million dollars in federal wastewater construction grant funds were spent
by the District (specifically by the DPW) for modifications to the Blue Plains plant to improve
the effluent to the Potomac River. During that same period, only $150,000 of the same grant
funds were spent to address CSOs on the Anacostia. In the past year, no significant CSO
abatement projects were undertaken by the DPW. It appears that millions of dollars in federal
construction grant funding available to the District for such projects remained unspent by the

DPW and, thus, were diverted to other projects at the end of the fiscal year.

One explanation for the DPW's lack of interest in spending federal grant funds on the
CSO problem appears to be the agency's bureaucratic goal of spending federal money in a
manner which will keep water utility rates low and thus reduce the pressure to seek unpopular
rate increases. The District, unlike other cities, does not have to compete for EPA wastewater
construction grant funding and thus does not have to worry about losing grant money to
competing environmental projects. This, according to District officials, has allowed the DPW to
approach EPA grant money as a revenue source to help reduce operating costs at Blue Plains so
as to keep water utility rates low. In short, the disparity between $32 million spent on Blue
Plains, and $150,000 spent on CSOs, indicates that DPW chooses to spend grant money on
projects that will reduce expenditures from its appropriated budget and utility receipts. From this
“bureaucratic perspective," itis clear that CSO improvements, even if made with federal funds,

do not financially benefit the District and are thus ignored by DPW.

As with the spending of federal grants, recent actions by the DPW with respect to its own

financial resources have contributed to the threat of CSO pollution. As | am sure this

-4-


91

the chemical composition, the pH and the corrosive nature of the
water, so that as the water goes into the pipes it tends to plate out
any material that is in the water on the pipes rather than aggres-
sively scour the pipes.

So while we don’t specifically test for it, our laboratory is mon-
itoring the chemical composition of the water in such a way to en-
sure that we do not cause a leaching or a chemical aggressiveness
in the pipes.

Ms. NorTON. Do you know whether the public is aware of the
suspension of lead testing? Has anybody made the public aware of
that?

Mr. JACOBUS. I don’t want to propose to be an expert in the lead
and copper rule. I will have to get you more information for the
record on how that worked.

[The information referred to follows:]


ll

specialists. These three individuals have forgotten more than I will
ever know about these issues, and they are here to answer any
question that you might have and address the concerns of the sub-
committee.

I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear be-
fore the subcommittee this morning. The related issues of the
drinking water supply and the wastewater treatment in the Dis-
trict of Columbia are of great importance to us in region III, and
I know that they are of equally great importance to the members
of this subcommittee, as was expressed in your opening statements.

For the purposes of today’s hearing, I would like to offer a few
comments as an overview on both of these issues. Then I would like
to take a few minutes to discuss in more detail the background and
recent history of the Washington aqueduct and the drinking water
supply as well as the Blue Plains wastewater treatment plant.

in several respects, the problems facing the drinking water sup-
ply are very different from those on the wastewater treatment side.
(ongresswoman Norton mentioned the unique differences between
the two. .

The Washington aqueduct is in need of major modernization to
meet future drinking water requirements. The drinking water
treatment operation consists of a number of facilities designed to
withdraw raw water from the Potomac River, adequately treat this
water, and deliver potable water to the aqueduct’s customers: the
District of Columbia, Arlington County, VA, and the city of Falls
Church, VA.

The aqueduct is run by the Washington aqueduct division of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for collecting
and treating the raw water from the Potomac and some storage of
treated water. The District owns and operates some storage res-
ervoirs and is responsible for distributing this drinking water to its
retail customers.

In contrast, the Blue Plains facility has had major and ongoing
ppgrades over the years. For example, an important and innovative
biological nutrient removal pilot project is currently under con-
struction at the plant. The facility is located in the District of Co-
lumbia and is operated by the city’s Department of Public Works’
Water and Sewer Utility Administration, or WASUA. Its customer
base is diverse. Just under half of the plant’s allocated capacity is
reserved for users in Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties,
MD. The District of Columbia uses a little over 40 percent of the
facility’s capacity, while the remaining 7 percent is allocated for
Fairfax County, Loudoun County, the town of Vienna, and Dulles
International Airport, all in Virginia, as well as the Pentagon, and
the National Park Service.

The contrasts, then, are fairly dramatic. On the one hand, you
have a complex drinking water infrastructure that is old and run
by a Federal entity, with its customer base concentrated in the city.
On the other hand, you have a single wastewater facility that has
been periodically modernized, located in and operated by the Dis-
trict, and with a user base slightly skewed toward the Maryland
suburbs.

In spite of these differences, however, there are some very impor-
tant similarities, similarities that are both striking and disturbing:


97

find it. So it’s not always an indication that you are not going to
have a cryptosporidium outbreak just because you are not finding
it in the water. ;

In addition, the chemical quality of the water is problematic. As
has been noted earlier, the trihalomethane levels—these are chemi-
cals that are linked to rectal, bladder, and other cancers and also
to serious birth defects—are quite high in the District. In fact, they
are hovering around an average of almost 100 parts per billion,
which is the Federal standard. EPA has proposed to drop that
standard to 80 and later to 40 parts per billion. We will not be able
to meet that standard, either the 80 or the 40, without very sub-
stantial investment.

Our recent nationwide survey, in which we looked at about 150
water supplies across the country, found that the District was right
at the top of the list in terms of trihalomethane contamination on
average. These chemicals, created when inadequately pretreated
waters, heavily chlorinated, can be very easily reduced with ad-
vanced treatment technologies. Also, the water tastes and smells
better if you use these advanced technologies.

In addition, there have been elevated levels of lead in the Dis-
trict’s water. This city’s service lines that often are made out of
lead contribute to the problem. The Corps of Engineers has a lead
reduction program that’s been proposed which has been sitting
around at EPA for 18 months without approval or denial, and the
suspension of lead testing is of grave concern. In fact, some of the
early testing that was done that was the basis of the suspension
suggests that in some areas of the city there are very high levels
of lead. This is a particularly serious issue when there are young
children and bottle-fed infants.

The corps consultants’ 1994 conceptual plan for modernization
suggested that several hundred million dollars in investments must
be made to bring us up to state of the art or even to comply with
future standards. However, far from adequate funding has been
dedicated. It is because of this pay-as-you-go requirement that all
system capital investments must be paid for by the customers as
they are performed.

Imagine the quality of a house that you could buy if you had to
pay cash for the home and couldn’t borrow any money for it.

In addition, the June 1995 sanitary survey of the District's water
system found numerous serious problems. Only some of them have
begun to be addressed.

The Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant is also a serious con-
cern of ours. Blue Plains was once widely touted as a national
crown jewel, an example of state-of-the-art treatment. What once
was a system that could comply with basic standards has been ne-
glected and allowed to deteriorate. It poses real environmental and
potential health risks.

Inadequately treated sewage can not only release microbes and
parasites but it can also cause serious health risks and kill fish and
ruin the local ecology. We remain quite concerned about deferred
maintenance at the plant and the failure to adequately address
problems such as combined sewer overflow.

We have adopted, as the District of Columbia Water COP’s, eight
principles for resolving these problems. One is that pollution


102

4
jurisdictions to inform and involve the public in decision making
about our drinking water and sewer systems must be remedied. ‘The
public hearing on area drinking water that D.C. Area Water COPs has
asked EPA to hold, and which we have informally learned has been
granted by EPA (apparently to be on April 9, 1996), is only a
beginning of this process.

Drinking water quality problems are persistent. The most
publicized of these problems is the repeated findings of total
coliform, fecal coliform, and sometimes E£. Coli bacteria. While
some officials have characterized these problems as merely
lccalized and innocuous, the record demonstrates (see attached
report) a pattern of system-wide coliform problems in customer taps
and in treated water reservoirs. No convincing explanation has
been offered as to why fecal coliform and E, Coli are found in the
water.

These findings are all the more troubling in light of repeated
presumptive findings of parasites like Cryptosporidium and Giardia
in Gur raw untreated water, which suggest that if there is ever a
breakdown in treatment, we could have a very serious health crisis
on our hands.

In addition, the chemical quality of our water is problematic.
we have a serious problem with high levels of Total Trihalomethanes
(TTHMs), chemicals which have been linked in over a dozen studies
of exposed people at various locations around the world to rectal,
bladder, and other cancers, and which recent more preliminary

studies have linked to serious birth defects.


118

I know Whitman-Walker has clinics both in Arlington and in the
city.

Mr. OLSON. Well, I think you have to distinguish between the
contaminates. The distribution system certainly contributes signifi-
cantly to the bacteria in the water. If you don’t flush the system
enough, if you don’t maintain it adequately, then you can get a lot
more bacteria building up in the system. And what we have seen
is many years of neglect of the District’s water pipes, and I think
Larry King has been retty forthright about that fact. But there
have been instances where bacteria have been found on the Arling-
ton side; in fact, as recently as last year.

So we are not completely out of the woods on the Virginia side
of the border, and in terms of the cancer-causing trihalomethanes,
those levels, to my knowledge, are at least as high on the other
side of the river as they are here. So clearly, we have got some
problems on both sides of the river.

Mr. Davis. OK.

Dr. Hawley.

Dr. Hawley. It would be hard for me to state one way or the
other. We see cryptosporidium periodically in our patients, which
can come from a lot of different reasons. 1 am not aware that
there’s any differences in the rates on either side of the river.

Also, we do not, even though we have—we have facilities provid-
ing services in northern Virginia, we are not providing medical
services in northern Virginia. So those Virginia patients we are
seeing are coming to the District for care.

Mr. Davis. Thanks.

As you have heard, Mr. Olson, the EPA scheduled a public hear-
ing in Washington for April 9 in connection with their proposed ad-
ministrative order that was issued last year. Do you believe that
there is any further action that the EPA should be taking at this
time under the Safe Drinking Water Act or any other statute in
connection with water quality in the Washington region? And will
this hearing address the issues mentioned in your December 1995
report?

Mr. OLSON. Well, I think we are sort of in an information-gather-
ing process right now on those issues.

Clearly, the budget cuts that EPA has suffered in travel and in
inspection resources I think has hurt their effort to oversee what’s
going on in the District as well as a lot of other places, and it’s only
going to get worse if they don’t get a decent budget.

I think there is—there are two needs I would identify that have
not been fulfilled yet. One is, I think it’s clear there needs to be
an audit of how the water is—the drinking water money is being
spent. What they have looked at so far is the sewage money, and
it’s not clear exactly what’s happening with the money that’s being
paid for drinking water.

The second is that the Centers for Disease Control offered in a
meeting last year to pay for active waterborne surveillance service
in the District and in the region. That is an unusual situation
where a Federal agency volunteers to pay for something. Yet, to my
knowledge, no one locally has—has decided to go forward and ask
for that money. It’s the kind of thing that really has to be done.
If we are going to document whether or not there’s a problem, I


neremaeteta  esrsrorere‘e

arose nou muva Cae ar
somo aaioen, aemasenesta Gis 23H2 zaNeonIND

NesTerT Yasn aN GBeOTHAIG AARNE STN
sere Miva snser 039

cormany sar soasy (aia saamoKa) ANG BALLET Ag SRN SM JO eNLASTY ATEO

ree es) "



1

0-380 Pena wiat eaianon
forrest Dor eet amo 1M munINs —TEzSSOOFE —ePOHT_OFMODNTTIIO 002 —SaEZOSTIION
Seared ws"06 ‘mi01 wan
povrd reer avaw2 SIICINTIIG NBNSTA sOTEEEYIRDWE — 616ENG_Z9EDONTTIAGND OOD ~f4z70SvITION
0b oorove yuo wsu2004
00-byE 00°o¥E ‘sarvaans ¥ SASEAEES TATED eHEESDONONE — KATHI SeEDOSWTZGND o0D _242205YTIIOA
gerset geryee Taso4 waronon
pruerd sesee aoa ean woes eosssa roe saat
seczeeet penet ‘wie rewon0s
Seeae't Set ama UAT NEIII4 cosesOeeNOWG —9#ESEA_SEEDOMWTEND C09 EZZTOSYTIOOA
sus sums 101 wayonon
sre sree ana wars NDEIMe Geszsoenw —awarN SZEDOSNTERID {DOD 2uzTOSYTIION
porsuett covet ‘10k wxianon
oo: on-oat et Saas AButd ssvesovenowa —T9eTHE trEDOYIRIO 2000 LatTOAVTIION
Somer Ones SMI Gaoa ABUTG Sayssoverawd © OETTee GT EDOWTINMD {009 EdLLOSVTIOOA
wove caus, wiot waxon08
o-ous ores SNE ‘GMISAS SSaNISNE 320 cAsssO¥ONDVG —-EOOMETT LtSBORIAME Toco ~BAtTOSNTIIUA
Eisod 20°49
peed Eaeed
easeetact roand
oo" 7
oo"
8° 2
Serstets
0" 2
oa" ‘9002
ee ssa"
oa" ae
a" se-o0a't
oe cezezer
oo erecoee
err 3
ovzectzez —ab'zoetzez
eeereorze: Gy poeta
spree sees ot wsttonon
sore see Nemuange> WanaHD NEON TweYSORIND —«TDIOTvaszHVIZENO Tooe SarsGurTION
Pred ed ‘W101 won04
Perr ord ‘ME coud AnainODG ME/ETON vEBSSONIRWE —«ONLSI_sTHCONTIITIG rOGe ~LaEsEWTIION

meas Pend auye or asus or wt.
‘a0 cay anaasunesta Gals 10343 saWWENOND waenon
sostynt wen 19 q3401sA30 AWITeeT News : v1 usner
sera ‘uve anssx 10% eee "fawea Wo
corasén ser umes (aaa eames saaey SLES GRD Su 40 ORLISTAT
oe ove DOs VU cotazaand Sms ns

NN


16

Department of Public Works’ utility, is responsible for the day-to-
day operation of the sewer system and the operation of the Blue
Plains facility.

Region III has a long and sometimes difficult, unpleasant and
frustrating history in our oversight roles—role with Blue Plains. In
the 1970's, there were a number of problems with the plant staying
within its permit levels, and we also had an ongoing dispute over
the proper handling of sludge. Because we were unable to arrive
at a mutually acceptable solution to these problems, the EPA filed
suit in 1984 against the city for numerous alleged problems with
the operation of the facility.

A formal consent decree was entered into in 1985 as a result of
this first suit. It called for the District to take steps to put an end
to permit violations and stipulated considerable penalties if the
District did not comply. The consent decree was for 5 years.

Periodically, throughout the period, consent decree violations
continued and a considerable amount of stipulated penalties were
owed. In 1990, we filed a second lawsuit for effluent violations, un-
authorized bypasses, construction delays, and inadequate mainte-
nance of the treatment equipment. It sought an end to violations,
payment of the stipulated penalties owed from the prior lawsuit,
and an up-front penalty for violations since 1989. In 1991, an
agreement was reached on $1.5 million penalty to settle both cases
and a decree to be negotiated.

It was not until late 1994 that we were finally able to reach an
agreement with the city on the terms of the consent decree settling
the litigation. The decree was filed with the court in January 1995
and officially entered by the court in June. The consent decree re-
quired the city to pay a civil penalty of $500,000 and to pay an ad-
ditional $1 million toward the removal—toward the cost of the sec-
ond component of the decree, the biological nitrogen removal
project. The decree also required the city to develop and operate a
BNR process on a 12-month trial basis, designed to test the fea-
sibility of adopting this technology on a permanent full-plant basis.
In addition, the city agreed to undertake a periodic operational ca-

ability review designed to evaluate whether the plant’s actual per-
Pormance meets specified operational standards.

Mr. Davis. Mr. McCabe, we have been reading ahead of you. I
wonder if you could sum this up so we can get right to the ques-
tions. It’s a very good and thorough statement. Ms. Norton and I
both read it, and we read faster than you are speaking.

Mr. McCaBEz. I will then summarize, if I may.

Mr. Davis. Without objection, the whole comments are in the

record.

Mr. McCaBeE. That’s fine. If I could just go through the summary
then.

In conclusion, the drinking water and wastewater systems in the
region need attention. The problems are long-standing and any so-
lutions that have been tried have not succeeded in bringing either
the drinking water or wastewater treatment systems into long-
term compliance. EPA region III is working overtime to stay on top
of these problems, and we have utilized virtually every avenue
available to us, including technical assistance, administrative or-
ders, court-filed consent orders, unannounced inspections and au-


99

STATEMENT OF ERIK D. OLSON
SENIOR ATTORNEY,
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
AND

COORDINATOR,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AREA
WATER CONSUMERS ORGANIZED FOR PROTECTION
("D.C. AREA WATER COPS")

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a non-profit

public interest organization with over 170,000 members dedicated to

protection of public health and the environment. T am a Senior
Attorney with NRDC, and the Coordinator of the District of Columbia
Area Water Consumers Organized for Protection ("0.C. area Water
coPs"), an alliance of over 20 local and national public health,
citizen, consumer, environmental, religious, environmental justize,
HIV/AIDS, and other organizations who have joined forces to seek
stronger and nore efficient protection of drinking and source water
for the Washington metropolitan area. A list of the organizations
participating in D.C. Area Water COPs is attached to this
testimony. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to

testify today on the D.C. water and sewer systems.

Drinking Water Quality
There is a crisis of public confidence in the D.c. area’s
drinking water. This has gradually resulted from series of

cidents, beginning with the two 1993 boil water orders, and

continuing with a string of violations, near violations, and
reports of serious deficiencies in the construction, operation and
maintenance of the Corps of Engineers and the District’s water
treatment and distribution systems. Many of these problems are
outlined in the attached NRDC report entitled THE TROUBLED D.C.
DRINKING WATER SUPPLY: A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PROBLEMS (December,
1995).

We must ask ourselves, why is it that in the national capital

of the last Superpower of the world, so many city residents have


21

-4-

THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT

HISTORY

The Washington Aqueduct Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers runs a

number of facilities designed to withdraw raw water from the Potomac River, adequately

treat this water in accordance with the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, and

to deliver potable water to the Aqueduct's customers. These facilities are:

Great Falls Dam and Intake on the Potomac at Great Falls, Maryland
Little Falls Dam and Intake Pumping Station at Little Falls, Maryland.

Dalecarlia Raw Water Reservoir and Water Treatment Plant, which straddles the
Washington, DC, Montgomery County, Maryland, border.

Georgetown Reservoir in Washington, DC.
McMillan Water Treatment Plant in Washington, DC.

Construction of the Washington Aqueduct began in 1853, The original facility

consisted of the Great Falls Dam and Intake. the Dalecarlia Raw Water Reservoir, and the

Georgetown Reservoir, No treatment was provided other than the settling of solids while

the water was stored in the reservoirs. Over the next century, the Aqueduct was expanded

and improved

A cross-town tunnel was constructed to transfer raw water from the Georgetown
Reservoir to the McMillan slow-sand filter plant constructed in 1905.

In 1916, Congress created the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Enterprise
Fund to collect water rates and charges and disburse water revenues to operate
both the Aqueduct and the District's water distribution system. This fund also serves
the District's sewer system.

In 1927, Arlington County began to use Aqueduct water.

In 1928, the Dalecarlia rapid-sand filter plant began operations


9
PLAN FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF OUR SYSTEM FOLLOWING THIS STUDY

(SCHEDULED FOR THIS SPRING) AND WILL INCLUDE TIMETABLES AND

FUNDING NEEDS.

WHAT ABOUT FINANCING?

WITHOUT A DOUBT, FINANCING THESE IMPROVEMENTS IS A MAJOR
HURDLE. THE INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY AS PROPOSED, HAS THE
ABILITY TO FINANCE ITS CAPITAL NEEDS AND ESTABLISH WATER AND.
SEWER RATES. CLEARLY THESE LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS WILL PLAY A
CRITICAL ROLE IN THE DISTRICT'S ABILITY TO IMPROVE OUR WATER

DISTRIBUTION AND SEWER SYSTEMS.

CONCLUSION

IN CONCLUDING, I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE DRINKING
WATER IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS SAFE AND THAT THE
DISTRICT’S HISTORY OF PROVIDING SAFE, RELIABLE WATER
TREATMENT SERVICES WILL CONTINUE. WE ARE COMMITTED TO

WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH EPA TO ADDRESS OUR MUTUAL


95

pattern or we are looking for representatives of conditions of high-
speed water flow through very large mains and then out to sort of
assess dead areas of the system where the water kind of ends up.

So we are trying to take a very evenhanded look at not only the
worst possible but at what is really truly representative of what’s
going on out there in the distribution system.

And specifically, are they approved by EPA? I don’t know. I know
they were—EPA was—provided a copy, and whether they wrote a
letter back saying this is an approved plan, I don’t know.

Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.

I see Erik Olson has been waiting patiently.

I would now like to call our final panel: Mr. Erik Olson, the sen-
ior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, a leading
environmental organization and Dr. Peter Hawley, the medical di-
rector of the Whitman-Walker Clinic here in Washin;

Mr. Olson, we initially misspelled your name on the witness list
and gave you a different title. I hope it was a promotion, but please
accept our apology and gratitude for your presence and expert tes-
timony.

Dr. Hawley, we are very familiar with the outstanding work
being done by the Whitman-Walker Clinic, and I very much appre-
ciate your willingness to share your knowledge and perspective
with us.

As you have heard, it is the policy of this committee to swear any
witnesses, so please rise with me and raise your hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. Davis. Any written statement that you have will be made a
part of the record.

Mr. Olson, if you could please proceed first with your statement,
followed by Dr. Hawley. We would like it 10 minutes max, if pos-
sible. Everything will go into the record for this.

STATEMENTS OF ERIK OLSON, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; AND PETER HAWLEY, M.D.,
MEDICAL DIRECTOR, WHITMAN-WALKER CLINIC

Mr. OLson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Delegate Norton.

I am senior attorney with NRDC and the coordinator of the Dis-
trict of Columbia Area Water COP’s, an alliance of over 20 local
and national public health citizen, consumer, and other organiza-
tions.

There is a crisis of public confidence in the District of Columbia
water supply. Many of you may have seen the city paper that just
appeared that has this as a cover story about the water supply and
some of the other problems with the District.

This has gradually resulted from a series of problems that have
developed over the last several years, beginning in 1993 with the
boil-water alerts, several strings of violations, near violations, and
reports of serious deficiencies.

We have to ask ourselves why it is that in the Nation’s Capital,
the last—the last superpower of the world, so many residents Thave
little or no confidence in the safety of the water.


33

- 16 -

1 want to thank you for your patience this morning. This has been a lengthy
presentation, and | appreciate your attention and concern. | would be happy to answer any
questions, either now or at the Chairman's convenience.

iE


133

Written Testimony of
Lisa Ragain Lovett, MAT
of the National Association of People with AIDS

The National Association of People with AIDS (NAPWA) believes that safe and affordabie
drinking water is a right. A right which all people deserve, regardless of their sero-status
or the state of their immune system. NAPWA has been at the forefront of working on the
issue of safe drinking water for people living with HIV disease for several years. Through
this work, on the national and local level, NAPWA has developed a sense of how the threat
of drinking water can be mitigated for people with HIV disease, and what role people can
play in working to assure their own water safety.

NAPWA has been monitoring problems in both the District of Columbia and our regional
drinking water. The boil water alert in December, 1993 sent a wave of fear and panic
through the HIV and AIDS community. There was a decided lack of communication as to
the real risk associated with the water in the metropolitan area as well as ways to address
these risks practically and logically. For example, people were not told if it was safe to
shower or wash their food, and there were many conflicting reports on how long to boil
water. There were no specific communications to vulnerable populations, not only people
living with HIV, but also the elderly, those on chemo therapy and others with compromised
immune systems.

That particular boil water alert erred on the side of safety; there were no microbes found
in the water. However, this has not always been the case.

People living with HIV in the District, and indeed throughout the region, have been
concerned over several reports on the water supply for the region. Though this committee
is specifically charged with the District of Columbia, the water distribution system demands
that when water safety is discussed, it must be discussed in terms of the entire region.

The final call to action for NAPWA's local constituency came with the boil water alert issued
for four blocks of the District in November, 1995. Accompanying the alert were statements
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that implied that the problems with
regional water could pose a significant health risk. At that time, NAPWA, along with the
Whitman-Walker Clinic, felt that people living with HIV disease required a serious warning
about the drinking water supply in the area, and that this message could not be effectively
conveyed through local governments or health departments. This supposition was based
on the continuing lack of communication to the HIV/AIDS community during other periods
when the safety of the water supply was in question, as well as a continual denial as to any
problem or health risk associated ‘with the water supply. Since that time, both
organizations have urged people living with HIV to boil their water or use an alternative
source.

This decision was not made lightly. Boiling all the drinking water that one will use in a day
is a difficult and time consuming task at best. For someone who is sick, or neurologically
impaired, the task can be overwhelming and potentially dangerous. Alternative sources
of water are a potential solution, but are problematic because the majority of people most

at risk for water borne diseases cannot afford food, let alone a water filter or delivered
bottled water.


17

dits, substantial fines and jaw-boning. But we have been unable to
bring about the kind of systematic improvements that are needed
to ensure long-term protection of human health and the environ-
ment.

This situation is not sustainable over time. While I cannot com-
ment specifically at this time, I can say generally that EPA and the
Department of Justice are currently working with the city in an at-
tempt to resolve, at least, the more short-term, immediate prob-
lems that plague the Blue Plains facility.

We recognize that the subcommittee today will not be looking at
specific legislative solutions to the problems we have outlined.
However, I would respectfully suggest that Congress give serious
consideration to new financing systems for both the water and
wastewater treatment systems, including the establishment of sep-
arate accounts for the collection and disbursement of grant pay-
ments and revenues for operation and maintenance.

In addition, some form of regional water and sewer authority
that represents the interests of all jurisdictions served by these fa-
cilities is crucial so that the systems can make the major capital
improvements that are critical to the health and safety of the peo-
ple living in this region and protection of the local environment.

Again, I want to thank you again for your patience this morning.
I know that it was a lengthy presentation, and we would be glad
to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCabe follows:]


61

wo Amnev
Wot astsnoa
sur xasu STITN s2nHeHMEVE Toe rassoseimain
aauva or eee own
anensanesto aus x03 aaMeNHT Kon
1 ona

MTA uve anes 0319 wrta “anv
(Gama SIMIC) Aaeer exLiNESTO Ad DONG Sd so SHEESTT ATIVE
1 soresem was nn


130

IN LIGHT OF THIS BELIEF, I HAD REPORT LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS BILL WHICH REQUESTS THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT
ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS IN ITS MARCH 1996 FINANCIAL
REPORT AND PLAN, 1) HOW THE DISTRICT PLANS TO RESTORE FUNDS
REMOVED FROM THE BLUE PLAINS BUDGET AND 2) THE TIMING FOR THAT
RESTORATION. I KNOW THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND THE
CITY ADMINISTRATOR WILL BE ADDRESSING THE COMMITTEE TODAY AND I
WOULD LIKE THEM TO ADDRESS HOW AND WHEN THE MONEY WILL BE
RESTORED.

CURRENT CONDITIONS AT BLUE PLAINS POSE A HEALTH AND SAFETY
THREAT TO THE SEWAGE RATER PAYERS AND RESIDENTS OF THE
METROPOLITAN AREA WHO LIVE DOWNSTREAM FROM THE FLOW OF UNTREATED
SEWAGE. IT POSES A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE FRAGILE ENVIRONMENT OF
THE POTOMAC, CHESAPEAKE BAY, ANACOSTIA, AND PATUXENT RIVERS AND
THE WATER LIFE THEY SUPPORT. IN ORDER TO PREVENT DANGER TO LIFE
OR ENVIRONMENT, USE OF THE FUNDS FROM THE RESERVE ACCOUNT IS
NECESSARY SO THAT THE BLUE PLAINS FACILITY CAN RETURN TO SAFE AND
EFFICIENT OPERATION.

IN CLOSING, LET ME REPEAT MY CONCERNS FOR THE HEALTH AND
SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS DOWNSTREAM. NOT ONE DISTRICT TAXPAYER
LIVES DOWNSTREAM OF THE PLANT. I BELIEVE THERE HAS NOT BEEN A
CONCERTED EFFORT BY DISTRICT OFFICIALS TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT
RESIDENTS WHO LIVE DOWNSTREAM FROM THE POTENTIAL THREAT OF A

MAJOR DISCHARGE.


114

Testimony of Peter Hawley, M.D.
Medical Director, Whitman-Walker Clinic Inc
February 23, 1996

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As Medical Director of Whitman-Walker Clinic, the largest provider of HIV/AIDS services
in the D.C. area, I am the only representative of public health interests here today. I am.
here to relay my concerns and those of my colleagues about the tens of thousands of
people who face a very real health threat because of potential water contamination. Water
contamination, caused by parasites such as Cryptosporidum, Giardia, Isospora and Micro-
sporidium, may only result in a case of self-limiting diarrhea for most people. However,
these parasites can be deadly to people who are HIV infected, the debilitated elderly,
newboms, individuals undergoing chemotherapy treatments, and those who have

theumatoid arthritis or other immunocompromising illnesses.

For several years, various neighborhoods within the District of Columbia have been placed
under periodic “boil water alerts” issued by the EPA. The frequency with which the alerts
are issued indicates a fundamental public health problem associated with the most basic of
human needs—clean water. Furthermore, these alerts bring into question the integrity of

the water treatment and supply systems in the District

The water treatment facility operated by the Army Corps of Engineers, frequently operates
at the highest acceptable level of turbidity--or level of suspended particles in drinking
water. It is known that if turbidity levels surpass the acceptable limits established by the
EPA, parasitic contamination is likely. Then, water containing Cryptosporidium, Giardia,

Isospora and Microsporidium, may be passed on to an unsuspecting public and consumed.


116

community across the country have a right to clean, safe drinking water, without fear of

illness,

The District of Columbia is at a crucial point where action must be taken to ensure the
continued and reliable safety of its water supply and delivery systems. We should heed the
warning signs we have observed in the last several years and act now to ensure we don't

have a situation where contaminated drinking water causes a public health crisis

As a health care provider, specifically to a population that is severely impacted by these
concerns, | cannot stress enough how important it is to have a fool-proof system for

monitoring and maintaining the safety of the drinking water in the District.

Thank you.


ie Congress of the United States
Reet sone Bouse of Representatives

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
Seve rox caren 2157 RaYBURN HOUSE OFFice BUILONG
‘Seactowery, Mowetars Wastunaton, DC 20515-6143

OPENING STATEMENT
REPRESENTATIVE TOM DAVIS
CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SUBCOMMITTEE

FEBRUARY 23, 1996
OVERSIGHT HEARING
WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Good morning, I want to welcome you to this Oversight Hearing on the water and sewer
systems in the District of Columbia. ‘The safe and efficient operation of each of these systems is
of vital importance not only to the residents of the District and those who are employed here but
to everyone who lives within the watershed of either the Potomac or the Chesapeake Bay. The
envisonmental concerns associated with the Blue Plains facility are enormous and growing. The
safety and future of the Chesapeake Bay, the Potomac River and other vital wetlands as well as
the safety and health of millions of people are directly affected by these systems.

In addition to the environmental concerns, there is also an undeniable federal interest in
this matter as well: We cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that the majority of federal facilities
and employees in the Washington Region are served directly by both the water and sewer systems
of the District of Columbia. For example, the water in this very building is delivered by the local
water system. ‘The Washington Aqueduct also provides some suburban jurisdictions with their
drinking water. My family and our neighbors all get their water from this treatment facility

There is a broad community of interests among the residents of the District, the federal
government, and the suburban jurisdictions. An amicable solution to these problems is possible
because we ail share the same goal: We ali need abundant, clean water at the lowest price, and
efficient, environmentally sensitive wastewater treatment. The area residents are not at all
concerned with the technical and complex inter-governmental and public-private partnerships that
may be necessary to achieve this reasonable goal. While I want to reiterate at the outset that the


93

Monitoring Frequencies. Monitoring Requirements

Initially, systems must collect home ‘ap samples for lead and TM _
copper analysis and samples for other water quality parameters Frequency of Sampling

(WQPs) every six months. In systems that are required to install
corrosion control treatment, follow-up samples for other WQPs Monitoring Home | within at entry
must be taken from within the distribution system every six Perlod taps | dist._todist

months, and from entry points to the distribution system every Titi) Smo} mo” 6 mo
two weeks. Both the number of sampling sites and the frequency
may be reduced if the action level is met or the system maintains After corrosion 6 mo. | 6mo. 2 wk.

y treatment
‘optimal treatment, teeatmen

~Conditional Lye. | Smo. 2wk
Water Treatment Requirements Final Sy | ayn 2wk

Four t3 of action are required to remedy high lead levels, and two are
required for high levels of copper. Once a system finds that more than 10 percent of
all tap monitoring results exeeed the action levels, the system must begin to carry
out the first three actions.
© Corrosion control treatment. Systems are required to first monitor, and
depending on its size, conduct corrosion control studies and recommend a
corrosion control treatment method to the State, Upon the approval of the
State, treatment is to be installed and demonstrated to be effective according
to criteria set by the State. Treatment options are pH and alkalinity adjust-
ment, calcium adjustment and silica or phosphate-based corrosion inhibition.

© Source Water Treatment. Systems must first monitor their source water for
the presence of lead/copper, and, if necessary, recommend a treatment method
to the State. Treatment options are ion exchange, lime softening, reverse
‘osmosis and coagulation/filtration, Once the State approves a treatment,
systems will have 2 years to instail it and 1 more year to conduct follow-up
monitoring. If treatment is not required, or if the treated water does not
exceed the maximum lead/copper levels permitted by the State, source water Temperature
monitoring willbe synchronized with the system's other monitoring schedules. | |b

© Public Education. Public education materials developed by EPA will inform |” prufaphosphite

customers about the health effects of lead, and explain what they ean do at | ++Oniyifasiicacbased
ited

Analytical
Requirements

‘Top Samples
Lead

Copper
waors ad

pH
Alkalinity
Caléum
Conductivity

Orthophosphate*
Silica **

home to reduce their exposure. The system must begin delivering the inhibitor is.
materials within 60 days of the lead action level i
exceedance. The materials include public service ‘Compliance Deadlines

announcements to be submitted periodically to televi-

and radio stations, and other pamphlets to be
delivered directly to customers, newspapers, hospitals,
etc. This step is not required if the water system

mes action levels exceeded in initial monitoring

exceeds only the copper action level Large Medi
IF a system continues to exceed the lead action level 250K _3:901-50K £3,300
after installing optimal corrosion control and source water | Begin monitoring Jon Jul92 Jul93

‘treatment, the fourth action must be taken: Complete treatment study Jul04  Jul95  Ju96

© Lend Service Line Replacement. Lead service lines | ifraity si
at contribute more than 0.015 mg/L to tap water
lead levels must be replaced. A system must replace | Reommend weatmenttoSiays
seven percent of its lead lines each year, and must indy required. Jul9t Jul Jul9e
replace all lines within 15 years, aa

Complete treatment installation

‘study sotrequired) NYA Jul96 Jan

For More Information + study required. Jan? Jan98 Jan99
Complete fllow-up monitoring

+ study notrequired: N/A Jul? Jan

# stady required. Jan98__Jan9_Jan2000

Call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at: 1-800-426-4791.



38

the Corps of Engineers is there every day, so we are in constant
contact with them.

Mr. McCaBE. We have seven Corps of Engineers people there
every day under contract to EPA.

Mr. Davis. If EPA is involved with the sewer collector system,
could you tell us what its condition is, what, if any, significant
problems these seem to be and whether these problems are being
addressed?

Mr. Morris. I do not believe there is a problem with the collec-
tion system at this point. The problems we are seeing are in the
plant itself and the operation of that plant.

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.

I understand that there was an EPA Inspector General investiga-
tion and report on Blue Plains a few years ago. Could you explain
what that investigation was about, what its findings were and if
any recommendations were made, and if they have been imple-
mented?

Mr. Morris. That was a fairly limited investigation. It had to do
with grants issued to the plant and the correct use of funds by the
city for expenditures at the plant. Several million dollars were
questioned in terms of the grant usage and some of those are still
being assessed in terms of an appeal by the city. No determination
has been made on that, final determination, by the Inspector Gen-
eral.

Mr. Davis. Last question on Blue Plains: Will the EPA keep this
subcommittee fully informed of developments surrounding the pro-
posed administrative order regarding Blue Plains and make itself
available for further testimony on proposed solutions?

Mr. McCaBE. We certainly will. We will be glad to help in any
way.

Mr. Davis. Just a few questions on the water system. What is
the status of the administrative order directed against the city’s
water facility? I understand that a hearing is scheduled in Wash-
ington for April 9. What is the nature of this hearing and are there
ongoing efforts to arrive at the equivalent of a consent decree? And
do you intend to address the issues raised by the natural resources
defense group and other concerned groups or not?

Mr. McCaBE. There are ongoing efforts. In fact, just as recently
as yesterday we sent a letter to the District to try to move them
forward further on this.

Mr. Morris. We have had discussions, starting in last fall, that
seemed to satisfy us and the District in terms of what needs to be
done. We have asked that the District finalize those in terms of a
written response to us so that we have it prior to the hearing. But
it looks like we will be able to go forward and achieve a consent
agreement.

Mr. Davis. Is the corps involved in this or is just the —

Mr. Morris. This one is the District.

Mr. Davis. How bad are the pipes that run through the city right
now which are not part of the aqueduct, but the distribution sys-
tem? Is the distribution system very old at this point and could you
describe its condition? _

Mr. Morris. They are old, but the concern we have is in the
flushing and maintenance of those. That seems to be again related


125

Marion Barry, Jr.
January 16, 1996
Page 3

The District’s diversion of funds and its improper operation and mainte-
nance of the plant pose an unacceptable and unlawful threat to public health and
water quality in the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. The Common-
wealth of Virginia and its citizens are affected by this threat. The Maryland
waters of the Potomac abut Virginia, and the affected Potomac embayments on
the south bank are Virginia waters. The Northern Virginia jurisdictions have
‘spent and are spending millions of dollars to protect and improve the quality of
these waters.

In effect, the District has diverted income from ratepayers, including the
Virginia residents of portions of Arlington, Fairfax, and Loudoun Counties who
are customers of Blue Plains, and has squandered the funds upon other programs,
while leaving the Blue Plains facilities to deteriorate. Moreover, the decay of the
Blue Plains facilities has led to increased operational costs that impose higher
sewage rates on all the Blue Plains ratepayers.

Accordingly, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE as provided by 33 U.S.C.
§ 1365()(1)(A) and 40 C.F.R. § 135.2 that the District of Columbia is subject
toa civil action by the Commonweaith of Virginia under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1),
sixty days from the date of mailing of this notice, to compel the District to
comply with its NPDES permit and to impose civil penalties for the District’s
violations of that Permit.

Please call my Assistant John Butcher at (804) 786-4073 if you have any
questions regarding this notice.

With kindest regards, | am

Sincerely,

0 James S. Gilmore, IIT

Attorney General


100

2

little or no confidence in the water's

fety, there are repeated
and documented problens with water quality, and many vulnerable
people are being told by their physicians that they should boil
their water before they drink it?

The nation’s capital’s water supply and sewer system should be
a shining. example to the rest of the nation and the world of how to
do things right. Instead, they are examples of how to barely
squeak by doing the minimum possible, in constant threat of
violating basic health and environmental standards. If we continue
to procrastinate, and to defer maintenance and water and sewer
system upgrades, we are concerned that the present already tenuous
situation will deteriorate into a series of boil water alerts,
burst water mains, violations of chemical contamination standards,
raw and partially treated sewage discharges and overflows, and
substantial health threats. We are not there yet, but if we don’t
act, we will be.

Wnile the official line continues to be that our drinking
water 18 "sare," there is limited and decreasing public trust in
these reassurances. Many area residents use bottled water, and
immune compromised people have been advised by medical
professionals to always boil their water before consuming it. This
creates very real hardship for many low-income people who have
difficulty affording bottled water, and for already frail people
who have to lug around heavy water jugs or suffer the inconvenience
and problems associated with boiling their tap water.

Unfortunately, the public's lack of confidence in our drinking


41

reading everything you have written and will move to the questions
when you are finished.

STATEMENT OF LARRY KING, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF CO-
LUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, ACCOMPANIED
BY MICHAEL C. ROGERS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA

Mr. KING. Good morning, Congressman Davis and Congress-
woman Norton and members of the subcommittee. My name is
tarry King, and I am the director of the Department of Public

forks.

Before I get started, I would like to give Michael Rogers’ apolo-
gies for having to leave the hearing. Something important came up,
and he had to leave, so I want to give those apologies.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:,