Evening star., 1935-01-09
|CKES MAY JUDGE
DISPOSAL PLANT
IN NEW DISPUTE
McCarI Attack on Partial
Treatment of Sewage
Made Public.
FULL MONEY VALUE
FOR CITIZEN ASKED
Protest Brings Issue to Acute
Stage, Commissioners Having
Signed for Plans.

Public Works Administrator Ickes
may be called upon to settle q fresh
dispute that has arisen between Con-
troller General J. r. McCarl and the
District Commissioners over the cost
and efficiency of the sewage disposal
plant at Blue Plains, to be financed
by a 100000 P. w. A. loan ana
grant.
McCarl attacked the proposal of the
Commissioners to build q partial
treatment plant in a four-page letter
made public today, protesting that
"the citizens Of the District are not
getting full value for their money"
If the Commissioners insist on going
ahead with plans for a primary plant
which will give only 80 per cent treat
ment. The Commissioners already
have signed an agreement with Met
calf & Eddy, Boston architects, to
design such a plant within the limit
Of funds.
Kings Argument Similar.
The protest of McCarl brought t.
issue to an acute stage, since Senat,
King, chairman of the Senate Distril
Committee, recently advanced similc
arguments in opposition to the Com
missioners' proposed plans.
Secretary Ickes was keeping "han6s
of" the controversy today, P. w. A.
officials claiming that the Commis-
sioners must settle the question them
selves. Indicating, however, that he
may be forced to take hand in the
matter eventually, Secretary Ickes
said his chief concern Is to see that
the District gets its moneys worth"
p. w. A. engineering officials are
fully informed about all matter con-
nected with the dispute and Mr.. Ickes
Is watching developments closely.
While the matter is considered one
for the Commissioners to determine,
it was pointed out that the public
works administrator must approve
any contract before work Is to be
done.
Controller General McCarl contend
ed that other cities have built full
treatment plants of similar size for the
same price. and that a full treat
ment plant could be built for $4,000
900 and operated at approximately
$4,000 year cheaper than that de-
signed by the Boston architects.
Basis Of Allegation.
His allegation was based mainly on
facts submitted to him for a full treat
ment plant by M. X Wilberdilg,
chairman of the Sewage Committee of
the Washington Board of Trade and
member also Of the local archi-
tectural firm of Wilberding. Dorsey &
Norcross.
To this claim Commissioner Melvin
c. Hazen made a sharp rejoinder, de-
claring that "the District of Columbia
does not care to gamble $4,o00,O00
upon a treatment process which has
not demonstrated its efficiency in
plants of similar size, but which at
present represents nearly a hope or
possibility of success"
The determined stand taken By the
Commissioners apparently puts the
@<~As AA4OvV ~ W 04CN1IL
The dispute over the sewage plant
again centers on the contrasting
methods Of treatment-the Commits
stoners, with the approval of the
p. w. A., basing theirs on an &C
tivated sludge plant designed for
future development, whereas the
local architects propose using the S.
called chemical process treatment.
Local Architects Plan.
The local firm of architects quot
by McCarl has made q thorough stu.
Of the sewage disposal plant Wa
supposedly expert assistance, and h.
submitted to Secretary Ickes and a..
the District Commissioners the.
plans for a full treatment plant t.
cost 100000. They claim, an.
likewise McCarl, that the design pre-
pared by the Boston firm would cos.
$8,000,000 to give eventual full treat
ment Of sewage at an operating c.
OF $685., 900 per year.