Skip to main content


The full text article is not available for purchase.

The publisher only permits individual articles to be downloaded by subscribers.

or click here to sign up for a free trial


The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) owns and operates five water treatment plants, which collectively supply 60 percent of the drinking water distributed throughout the Southern California region. One of these plants is the Joseph Jensen Filtration Plant (Jensen Plant) located in Granada Hills, California. Water is normally supplied to the Jensen Plant from Northern California via the State Water Project's California Aqueduct. This Aqueduct is connected to the head of the plant via a 20-foot diameter section of underground line, known as the Newhall Tunnel. The Jensen Plant is also connected to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) Aqueduct which can provide a secondary water source if needed. The LADWP Aqueduct carries water from the Eastern Sierra Nevada mountain range to a nearby DWP plant. Naturally occurring arsenic is found in both water sources. However, arsenic levels in the LADWP source are significantly higher than those found in the State Water Project source.

In early 1995, the Newhall Tunnel was closed for 2-1/2 months to repair previous earthquake damage. During this period, the Jensen Plant received water from the LADWP Aqueduct, which contained the higher arsenic levels. As a result, the alum residue, generated during this time frame, contained higher levels of arsenic than expected. These arsenic levels exceeded the allowable sewer discharge limit and were approaching California regulatory levels as the residue settled and thickened. Consequently, the Jensen Plant was faced with an acute residuals management issue that it had not previously encountered.

The issue for the Jensen Plant was how to properly remove and dispose of the arsenic affected alum residue that they had generated. In order of priority, the principal concerns, which guided the resolution of this issue, were; a) regulatory compliance, b) time, c) environmental liability and d) cost.

This paper will examine the decision-making process and summarize the operational method used to dispose of the arsenic affected alum residue, with the stated concerns in mind.

Document Type: Research Article


Publication date: January 1, 2001

More about this publication?
  • Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation is an archive of papers published in the proceedings of the annual Water Environment Federation® Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC® ) and specialty conferences held since the year 2000. These proceedings are not peer reviewed.

    WEF Members: Sign in (right panel) with your IngentaConnect user name and password to receive complimentary access.
  • Subscribe to this Title
  • Membership Information
  • About WEF Proceedings
  • WEFTEC Conference Information
  • Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more