by David Jonas Bardin
Ten years ago, when I served on its board of directors, DC Water started focusing on aging, gravity-flow sanitary sewers laid in beds of creeks. DC Water gave sewers in Soapstone Creek a high priority.
To inspect those sewers and assess their condition, DC Water turned to a pair of engineering firms it often consulted (Delon, Hampton & Associates and Greeley and Hansen). In March 2011, DC Water issued their assessment.
The cover of the March 2011 report.
DC Water gave me a copy in 2013 when they met with ANC commissioners and other neighbors to discuss the information. It is a rich, thoughtful document with data, context and analysis. And it is quite unlike the environmental assessment (EA) for the Soapstone Valley sewer rehabilitation project. DC Water prepared the EA for the National Park Service to issue to the public on June 4th this year.
The 2011 report said a subcontractor had inspected the insides of 4,519 linear feet of pipe using closed-circuit television. It gives a wealth of backup detail to check out. For example, adding up details one can learn that 2,468 linear feet of inspected pipe are on NPS land.
Not so this 2019 EA. It swells up DC Water’s project to “approximately 6,200 LF” and gives you no way to check or analyze that mysterious, much-repeated number.
The 2011 report described each of six stream crossings separately, carefully. This 2019 EA lumps them together. It puts on its cover our worst situation: Crossing #1 where a once-buried, concrete-encased pipe was entirely exposed by erosion to the point that creek water flows underneath. It withholds any facts about five other crossings, which the 2011 report taught are still buried or have only their casing top exposed.
Exposed Soapstone manhole, from the cover of the June 2019 Soapstone Valley Park Sewer Rehabilitation Environmental Assessment
EAs are supposed to provide information which decision-makers later use. If this EA won’t disclose that an encased pipe is still buried at a stream crossing, how do we strike an informed balance? How does anyone weigh whether it is appropriate to cut down more trees so heavy equipment can move in with rocks and soil to bury that pipe a little deeper?
Both the 2011 report and EA recommend lining the old sewer pipe trenchlessly, using cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) technology, but with quite a difference. The 2011 report recommended: “Rehabilitate approximately 4,000 ft of the buried 18” sanitary sewers … with UV CIPP or similar trenchless method.”
This 2019 EA supports rehabilitation of approximately 6,200 feet with CIPP – but it only supports hot water or steam curing technology. It never mentions UV, or ultraviolet, curing technology which may have environmental advantages and not need heavy equipment. UV was at the head of the line in DC Water’s 2011 report. Yet this 2019 EA hides it as a possibility to consider. Why?
The caption on this slide from DC Water’s June 26th presentation on the EA reads: “This map shows proposed CIPP rehabilitation pipes in orange and yellow. In addition, two proposed MS4 outfall repairs are shown.”
Because some 955 linear feet of sewer are already lined, DC Water has at least six separate and possibly unconnected lining sub-projects for which it seeks EA blessing. For example, with details available only from the 2011 report one can see that DC Water will separately line 1,391 linear feet of 10-inch and 15-inch pipe under Audubon Terrace NW, which emergency CIPP lining in 2015 isolated, so to speak, from DC Water’s backbone 18-inch system. Here UV curing, akin to what my dentist uses for resin fillings, might be superior to hot water or steam for some or all.
This EA doesn’t even list DC Water’s 2011 assessment report in its bibliography. In my formal comments to NPS, I call that a serious mistake.
I’ve given them the text only of DC Water’s 2011 assessment report and ask that DC Water post it online in full – including graphics, tables and appendices – and that NPS add a link to its EA Documents list.
I also ask NPS to modify the EA to reflect that 2011 report and face up to discrepancies.
Public comments raising the issue of these discrepancies and asking for modifications in the EA could push DC Water and NPS to do just that.
NPS is accepting public comments on the Soapstone Valley Park Sewer Rehabilitation Environment Assessment through August 2nd.
David Jonas Bardin is a retired member of Arent Fox LLP. He served on DC Water’s Board of Directors from 2001 to 2011 and as an ANC Commissioner from 1999-2004. From 1974-1977 he led New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection. He did active duty in the U.S. Army from 1956-1958.
Joyce Stern says
Count on David Bardin to give a thoughtful and informed analysis of the EA report. Now what can we as citizens do to get a better quality report to guide decision makers?
Bob Spann says
David Bardin raises several serious and important issues. This project should not go forward until these issues are addressed. His analysis shows that there are alternatives that might be less invasive and better environmentally. These alternatives should be given careful consideration.
Green Eyeshades says
Thank you very much to David Bardin for augmenting the public record at the NPS. The fact that DC Water ignored its own prior work on this same stretch of sewer is fairly stunning. It is proof of arbitrary, capricious and whimsical behavior by DC Water, which violates the DC Administrative Procedure Act (essentially identical to the federal APA). It is noteworthy that ANC 3F included much of Mr. Bardin’s historical context in its draft resolution being considered at tonight’s ANC meeting.
David Jonas Bardin says
DC Water wants you to have access to their excellent 2011 Sewer Assessment report in its entirety. So they have posted following link where you can download.
https://www.dcwater.com/sites/default/files/project/documents/soapstone_delivered.pdf
David Jonas Bardin says
I believe following (mailed to NPS this morning) will interest FHC readers:
Dear Superintendent,
Please accept this letter and its three enclosed documents as a COMMENT on the SVP Sewer Rehabilitation EA. These documents are:
FURTHER COMMENTS SV SEWER PROJECT by David Jonas Bardin (October 23, 2013, nine pages, tables and maps)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iyjxpx7bfe7dfc0/Further%20Comments%20for%20Sewers%20-%20Oct.%202013.pdf?dl=0
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS AS TO SOAPSTONE VALLEY (SV) SEWER PROJECT by David Jonas Bardin (August 2013, six pages, maps)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h1dsxaq4fgx0qs3/PRELIMINARY%20COMMENTS%20SV%20SEWER%20PROJECT.pdf?dl=0
BIO-RETENTION BUMP-OUTS – DOEE ideas for storm water slowing projects near Soapstone Valley Park (2014, one page, map)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nigy3mn6od2bhn1/Soapstone%20Bioretention%20bumpouts.jpg?dl=0
My purpose is to make these documents, in full, part of the record for reference and discussion in online submittals to PEPC (which would not accept their tables and maps).
David Jonas Bardin says
On August 1, 2019, I submitted a comment to NPS, which may interest readers, “CALLING FOR RENEWED EFFORTS TO REDUCE RUNOFF FROM CITY STREETS NEAR SOAPSTONE VALLEY PARK”. I wrote that a more balanced program would MODIFY this EA to add measures (such as “green Infrastructure” bump-outs) that, among other things, slow down stormwater flows from City streets into Soapstone Creek, pointing out:
— This EA relies exclusively on measures to be taken by DC Water in Soapstone Creek and its flood plain.
— Stormwater from City streets, piped by DC Water through its storm sewers to several Outfalls, accounts for a large part of average Creek flows and probably for most of peak flows. (Metrics, omitted by this EA, would be welcome. City-wide, streets account for 47 percent of impervious area.)
— Ironically, DC Water itself delivers much (probably most) of that erosive storm water power which exposes and threatens its assets (as well as NPS’s and DDOT’s forest assets).
— It would be fitting for DC Water to help reduce those storm water flows into its pipes.
In the context of a MODIFIED EA, DC Water, DDOT, and DOEE (consulting with ANC 3F and NPS) should renew discussion of how best to divide responsibility.
— In 2014, DOEE shared with the community rough ideas for BIO-RETENTION BUMP-OUTS near Soapstone Valley Park which could be considered. See https://www.dropbox.com/s/nigy3mn6od2bhn1/Soapstone%20Bioretention%20bumpouts.jpg?dl=0.
Green Eyeshades says
The EPA issued a permit to DC’s Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (“MSSSS” or “MS4”) in or about November 2012. The EPA issued an updated MS4 permit to the DC government and DC Water in May 2018 which became effective June 22, 2018 and will expire June 22, 2023. I linked to the sources of the 2012 & 2018 MS4 permits in this comment on a related post last week:
https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/green-infrastructure-can-be-used-to-restore-the-districts-waters/#comment-670300
Today I finally read all 52 pages of the November 2012 MS4 permit. On its face, it does not seem to address the issues that we are concerned about in the Soapstone Valley sewer rehab project.
However, pages 32-38 of the 2012 MS4 permit require a “Revised monitoring program” and “Interim Monitoring” of the stormwater outfalls covered by the MS4 permit, and Table 5 of the MS4 permit (p.34) specifically lists one of the two outfalls in Soapstone Valley as one of the key monitoring locations in the “Rock Creek subwatershed:”
“B. Rock Creek Subwatershed Monitoring Sites
“1. Walter Reed — Fort Stevens Drive — 16th Street and Fort Stevens Road, N.W. at an outfall (MS-6)
“2. Soapstone Creek — Connecticut Avenue and Ablemarle Street N.W. at an outfall (MS-5)”
I am not able to explain the numerical designation “MS-5” referring to Soapstone Creek, because that label is not defined in the MS4 permit as far as I could determine.
If I recall correctly, DC Water has not explained in any of its multiple publications and presentations whether it is complying with its obligation to monitor that “Soapstone Creek” outfall for the many pollutants listed in the MS4 permit, or whether or how the sewer rehab project may interfere with its duties to monitor that outfall for those pollutants.
The November 2012 MS4 permit requires monitoring for these eight pollutants plus “Trash” (Table 4, p.32):
E. coli
Total nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Total Suspended Solids
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
The 2018 MS4 permit, on page 33 (PDF p.34) includes an identical list of the eight pollutants, in slightly different order, that must be monitored during “wet weather” monitoring of outfalls and retains the “Soapstone Creek” outfall as one of the mandatory monitoring locations. Table 7 of the 2018 MS4 permit is labeled “TABLE 7 Wet Weather Discharge Sample Parameters and Collection Methods” and lists the same “parameters” as in the 2012 MS permit except for “Trash.”
On the same page of the MS4 permit effective in June 2018, Table 8 is labeled as follows:
“TABLE8 Sampling Locations for Wet Weather Discharge Monitoring”
The third “Sampling Location” in Table 8 is this one:
“Soapstone Creek – Connecticut Avenue and Albemarle Street NW”
The “Watershed” for that monitoring location is “Rock Creek” and the “Type of Site” for that location is “Continuous Record.”
Section 4.2.3 of the 2018 MS4 permit begins as follows:
“4.2.3 Sampling Locations The Permittee shall conduct wet weather discharge monitoring at all continuous record sites and all stratified random sites as specified in Table 8 below….”
David Jonas Bardin says
Why do you think DC Water has an “obligation to monitor that “Soapstone Creek” outfall for the many pollutants listed in the MS4 permit”? EPA issued that permit to the City (the District of Columbia) and DOEE is the City’s agent for compliance. DOEE does monitor Soapstone water quality for those listed pollutants. DOEE reports results to EPA and posts them online.
Green Eyeshades says
I would be grateful for a link to the monitoring reports posted by DOEE.
The MS4 permits (2012 & 2018) both were issued to the DC government and DC Water. The permits do allow those two entities to reassign duties within the DC government, and DOEE is mentioned in various places as one of the agencies that carries out responsibilities under the MS4 permits. But the permits impose the legal duties on the DC government generally, and on DC Water specifically.
Consistent with your description of DOEE as “the City’s agent,” the 2018 MS4 permit states the following in section 2.1:
“1.2 Permittee
“The ‘Permittee’ is the Government ofthe District ofColumbia. The Permittee has designated the District Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) as the agency responsible for managing the MS4 Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). If the Permittee designates a different responsible agency, it must notify EPA in writing within one week.”
The pollutant monitoring requirements of the 2018 MS4 permit are contained in Part 4 of the permit, which is labeled “Part 4. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT” (p.31). That “water quality assessment” responsibility lies on the shoulders of the DC government. DOEE was not “designated” to manage the water quality assessment program, at least not on the face of the 2018 MS4 permit. The DOEE’s responsibilities as the “agency responsible” for the “Stormwater Management Program” are covered in Parts 2 & 3 of the 2018 MS4 permit, which do not include the water quality assessment duties under Part 4.
However, one subsection in Part 4 does refer to “DOEE’s Dry Weather Outfall Inspection .Form” (section 4.4.1.1, p.36), which implies that DOEE is involved in some way in some aspects of water quality assessment at the outfalls.
In any case, a 20-minute search of DOEE’s website on DC government servers yielded a few links to pollutant monitoring reports. The DOEE home page for such reports appears to be at this link:
https://doee.dc.gov/publication/ms4-discharge-monitoring-and-annual-reports
The top PDF in the list of monitoring reports at that link is for 2017. It appears that reports are only published annually. The 2017 report appears to show that only three “wet weather” samples (December 2016, May 2017, June 2017) and only two “dry weather” samples (May 2017, July 2017) were taken from the Soapstone Creek outfall in the period covered by that report. See Tables 29 & 30 of the 2017 MS4 report at this link (pp.96 & 98):
https://doee.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddoe/publication/attachments/00%20MS4%20Annual%20Report%20FY%202017.pdf
It is difficult to understand how the taking of only three samples constitutes a “continuous record” of wet weather discharges as required by the MS4 permit.
In any case, if sampling that outfall only three times a year in wet weather and twice in dry weather is considered in compliance with the MS4 permit, the rehabilitation of the Soapstone sewer might be irrelevant to the DOEE experts who take the samples.
David Jonas Bardin says
A good way to find links to DOEE monitoring reports is to enlist DOEE’s help. A good place to start is with Jeffrey Seltzer (who authored a recent FHC piece). He is Deputy Director for the Natural Resources Administration at the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE), Jeff Seltzer is responsible for programs that conserve, protect, and improve the water, soil, and living resources of the District of Columbia.
David Jonas Bardin says
On August 2, 2019, I submitted a Comment to NPS which may particularly interest people who live on or near Audubon Terrace NW. I discussed “OPPORTUNITIES PRESENTED BY CIPP PROGRAM FOR AUDUBON TERRACE NW” as follows:
1. This EA blesses DC Water’s proposal to line 1,391 linear feet (LF) under two paved blocks of Audubon Terrace NW using a hot water or steam-cured Cured-In-Place-Pipe (CIPP) technique — even though all of that pipe is outside the Park and National Park Service (NPS) can’t give DC Water permission.
1.1. DC Water has opportunities to improve its plan, consult with the community and ANC 3F, get permits it does need, and achieve its goals — without waiting for NPS any longer.
1.2. DC Water lumped together its lining program to rehabilitate older, 18-inch diameter pipes which are in (or partially in) the Park with its program to line more recent Audubon Terrace pipes which are smaller diameter (10 and 15 inches) and connect to DC Water’s backbone 18-inch system.
2. DC Water should weigh unbundling its Audubon 10 and 15-inch pipe lining program and discuss pros and cons with the community as soon as possible.
2.1. DC Water should calculate and disclose hydraulic capacity of its Audubon 10 and 15-inch pipes, estimate their average and peak flows, promptly install a flow meter (to prove up estimates), reach reasonable judgments as to now-unused capacity and explain same to the community.
2.2. DC Water should advise the community whether any actual capacity constraints preclude (in its judgment) consideration of inserting High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) or of using one of the Ultra Violet (UV) CIPP curing technologies (which might take less time and have fewer bad side effects).
2.3. DC Water should review [results if] its 2010 Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) inspection of some or all of its Audubon 10 and 15-inch pipes and recommendations for them in its 2011 Sewer Assessment report, refreshing its recollections of how severe were issues discovered.
2.4. DC Water should determine and advise the community whether any options (such as HDPE or UV CIPP) would let DC Water avoid use of Heavy Equipment for (a) Sanitary sewer line cleaning (“which requires access for a truck to clean the line, a vacuum truck to remove debris, and a CCTV truck to confirm the pipe is clear of debris”) and (b) Installation and sealing of CIPP liner (“which requires access with a refrigerated delivery truck, boiler truck and CCTV truck”)? See EA page 4.
2,5. DC Water should advise the community whether any options will require digging pits (as DC Water did in 2015 at the east end of Audubon Terrace).
3. DC Water should advise the community how many days or weeks of construction time to anticipate and whether sanitary sewage service might be interrupted (and if so, how)?
4. DC Water should advise the community of benefits we should expect.