|
May 27,
2004
Thomas P.
Jacobus
General Manager, Washington Aqueduct
5900 MacArthur Boulevard,
Washington, DC 20016-2514
Dear Tom:
I want to thank you for the informative public discussion last night on
"feasible
alternatives" for getting rid of the sediments when you are no longer
permitted to flush them into the Potomac. The meeting was conducted in the
good neighborly way that we have come to expect of the Aqueduct under your
leadership. I hope that spirit of neighborly cooperation can be maintained
as we approach in the next few months some important decisions on disposal
of the sediments in ways that could seriously affect the Palisades,
Brookmont and neighborhoods on major routes leading away from the
Aqueduct.
Speaking as an individual, my initial reaction is to support the proposal
to create a
"monofill" on Aqueduct property to the northwest of Dalecarlia Parkway. It
seems to me that on-site disposal would be the least expensive, least
intrusive and most direct way of getting rid of the sediments. Another
suggested alternative of trucking the dewatered sediments from a
multimillion-dollar centrifuge located on your pasture land to the west of
the Crescent Trail (you haven't heard from the Brookmont residents yet on
that one.) would result in trucks passing through the residential
neighborhoods of northwest Washington and Montgomery County, causing noise
and air pollution and lowering the quality of life in those neighborhoods.
I appreciate that you estimate that on average there would be 10 20-ton
trucks a days, five days a week carrying away the sediments. But you have
to double that number because the trucks have
to return. And you state that four or five trucks a day are coming to the
Dalecarlia plant delivering chemicals. Again that number must be doubled,
so Loughboro would be subjected, in addition to the buses, to constant,
heavy truck traffic.
In that connection, I would urge you, whether you choose the monofill or
trucking
alternative, to plan on using Little Falls Road, rather than the hill at
Loughboro, as the specified route for trucks leaving the Aqueduct. That
way you can get direct access to the Dalecarlia Parkway and then go out
Massachusetts Avenue to River Road, thus avoiding residential streets with
houses close to the roads. My memory is that in the sale of land to Sibley
Hospital, the Aqueduct Authority retained use of Little Falls for its own
purposes. If there to be an expense in such routing, it might be in
strengthening Little Falls Road to handle 20-ton trucks. But that would
provide a dividend to the community of routing Metro buses up Little Falls
Road instead of huffing and puffing up Loughboro.
One of the major appeals of the "monofill" approach, with its 20-year
lifetime, is that it
gives us time to study high-tech solutions to getting rid of the
sediments. Faced with a 2009 deadline from the EPA to get a new disposal
system in operation, I can appreciate why you turned to conventional,
proven methods. But technology is coming along, such as plasma reactors,
that might provide alternative ways for reducing the volume of the
sediments and turning them into useful byproducts. The problem of
disposing of polluted sediments (with 40 percent alum content, I would
call your sediments polluted if not hazardous) is not unique to you.
Harbors, for example, are faced with the problem of getting rid of
polluted bottom sediments as they dredge to accommodate larger cargo
ships. And communities–and EPA– are becoming increasingly resistant to
being the dumping ground for polluted, urban waste. So if our innovative
society still works, technology is going to come to our rescue in
providing alternative ways of
disposing of "residuals," as you euphemistically call them.
One disturbing aspect of last night's meeting, at least to me, was the
apparent lack of
coordinated research in what is a national problem on how to handle the
growing waste produced by our urban society. As in the case of lead in our
water pipes, we seem to be proceeding on a pragmatic basis rather than on
the basis of sound scientific knowledge. I don't blame the Army Engineers.
You are builders, not researchers. Nor do I blame WASA, which has enough
problems on its hands in getting lead out of our pipes and separating
storm water from sewage. I do in part blame EPA, which it seems to me is
intent on enforcing self-perceived principles of the Clean Water Act
without considering the economic, scientific and even environmental impact
of its actions.
One action that I hope would come out of your current endeavor would be
that water
processors regionally and across the nation demand much more research into
the chemistry of water treatment and the disposal of residues. And if EPA
won't step up to the plate, then let's make a concerted appeal to the
National Academy of Sciences and its National Research Council to give us
some scientific guidance. Water is becoming a priority issue for our
nation–indeed for the world– and it seems to me we know too little about
treating various kinds of water.
Again, I appreciate your willingness to speak with clarity and candor to
the public. I
would hope that this letter, also written in candor, would be made part of
the record in this case.
Sincerely yours,
John W. Finney
5275 Watson St. NW
Washington DC 20016
|
