x_ ______________ _x




:         THIRD SESSION          :




:          CONFERENCE            :




:       In the Matter of         :




:  Pollution of the Interstate   :




:   Waters of the Hudson River   :




:     and its Tributaries        :




:     Statler-Hilton Hotel       :




:      New York, New York




:     June 18 and 19, 1969       :



x_ ______________ _x

-------
                  I N D E X

STATEMENT OF                                        PAGE

HON. CARL L. KLEIN	  15
HON. NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER
  (Read By Dr. Hollis S. Ingraham)	  23
HON. WILLIAM F. RYAN
  (Read by Mrs . Jean Faust)		  31
LESTER M. KLASHMAN 	  65
ALBERT BROMBERG 	  67 & 560
EDWARD CONLEY	 157
COL. RIEL S. CRANDALL	 175
ROBERT WUESTEFELD 	 180
THOMAS A. SCHRODER	 222
MRS. FRANK ROONEY	 252
DR. NATALE COLOSI . . .	 257
GORDON K. CAMERON	 287
GUY GRIFFIN .,...	 294
FRED J. WURTEMBERGER	 302
MRS. CHARLES BEAN
  (Read by Mrs. Ann Maynard)	 317
PAUL W. EASTMAN	 321
MAURICE FELDMAN		388
MARTIN LANG 	 408 & 593
FREDERICK S . KENT ...	 420
MRS. FARRELL JONES	t	 432
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN	 447
SEYMOUR LUBETKIN	 528
GARDNER L. GRANT		 566
HON. WILLIAM J. FERRALL		 580
JESSE W. BRODEY	 600
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  	 611

-------
              Third Session of the Conference in the Matter




of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Hudson River




and its Tributaries, convened at 9:30 a.m., on Wednesday,




June 18, 1969, at the Statler Hilton Hotel, New York, New




York.






PRESIDING:




          Hon. Carl L. Klein, Assistant Secretary of




          the Interior for Water Quality and Research,




          Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,




          Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.






          Mr. Murray Stein, Assistant Commissioner for




          Enforcement, Federal Water Pollution Control




          Administration, Department of the Interior,




          Washington, D. C.






CONFEREES:




          Mr. Lester M. Klashman, Regional Director,




          Northeast Region, Federal Water Pollution




          Control Administration, Department of the




          Interior, Boston, Massachusetts.






          Mr. Dwight F. Metzler, Deputy Commissioner,




          New York State Health Department, Albany, New




          York.

-------
CONFEREES:  (Continued)




          Mr. Richard J. Sullivan, Director, Division of




          Clean Air & Water, New Jersey State Department




          of Health, Trenton, New Jersey.






          Mr. Thomas R. Glenn, Jr., Director and Chief




          Engineer, Interstate Sanitation Commission,




          10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York.






PARTICIPANTS:




          Dr. Hollis S. Ingraham, Commissioner, New York




          State Health Department, Albany, New York.






          Mrs. Jean Faust, Assistant, Environmental




          Pollution, representing Congressman William F,




          Ryan, 1040 St. Nicholas Avenue, New York, New




          York.






          Mr. Albert Bromberg, Chief of Operations,




          Hudson-Delaware Basins Office, Federal Water




          Pollution Control Administration, Department




          of the Interior, Edison, New Jersey.






          Mr. Edward Conley,  Federal Activity Coordinator,




          Northeast Region, Federal Water Pollution Control




          Administration, Department of the Interior,




           Boston,  Massachusetts.

-------
PARTICIPANTS:  (Continued)




          Colonel Riel S. Crandall, Engineer, United




          States Military Academy, West Point, New York.






          Mr. Robert H. Wuestefeld, Assistant Chief of




          Operations, New York District, Corps of




          Engineers, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New




          York.






          Mr. Thomas A. Schrader, Assistant Regional




          Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife,




          Post Office & Courthouse, Boston, Massachusetts,






          Dr. Merril Eisenbud, Administrator, Environ-




          mental Protection Administration, City of New




          York, Room 2350, Municipal Building, New York,




          New York.






          Mrs. Frank J. Rooney, Water Chairman, League of




          Women Voters, 400 Bloomfield Avenue, Montclair,




          New Jersey.






          Dr. Natale Colosi, Chairman, Interstate Sanita-




          tion Commission, 10 Columbus Circle, New York,




          New York.

-------
PARTICIPANTS:  (Continued)




          Mr. Gordon K. Cameron, Village Administrator,




          Croton-on-Hudson, Municipal Building, Croton-




          on-Hudson, New York.






          Mr. Guy E. Griffin, Deputy Commissioner, West-




          chester County Department of Public Works,




          County Office Building, White Plains, New York.






          Mr. Fred J. Wurtemberger, Administrative Execu-




          tive, Rensselaer County Sewer District, County




          Court House, Troy, New York.






          Mrs. Ann Maynard, representing Mrs. Charles




          Bean, Chairman Designate, New York State




          Citizens Tie-Line.






          Mr. Paul W. Eastman, Assistant Commissioner,




          New York State Health Department, Albany, New




          York.






          Mr. Maurice M. Feldman, Commissioner, New York




          City Department  of Water Resources, Room 2454,




          Municipal  Building, New York, New York.






          Mr. Martin Lang, Director,  Bureau of Water  Pollu-




          tion Control, New York City Department  of Water




           Resources, 40 Worth Street, New York.,  New York.

-------
PARTICIPANTS:  (Continued)




          Mr. Frederick S. Kent, Assistant Commissioner,




          Environmental Health Services, New York City




          Health Department, 125 Worth Street, New York,




          New York.






          Mrs. Farrell Jones, New York State Water Chair-




          man, League of Women Voters, 22 Driftwood Drive,




          Port Washington, New York.






          Mr. Seymour A. Lubetkin, Chief Engineer, Passaic




          Valley Sewerage Commissioners, 790 Broad Street,




          Newark, New Jersey.






          Mr. Gardner L. Grant, Vice-President, Theodore




          Gordon Fly-fishers, Inc.






          Hon. William J. Ferrall, State Senator, 22nd




          District-New York, 423 Ninth Street, Brooklyn,




          New York.






          Mr. Jesse W. Brodey, 20 Lenox Avenue, White




          Plains, New York.

-------
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:




          Mr. Charles F. Ahlers, Assistant Administrator,




          New York City Environmental Protection Adminis-




          tration, 2345 Municipal Building, New York,




          New York.






          Mr. Arthur Ashendorff, Civil Engineer, New York




          City Department of Health, 93 Worth Street,




          New York, New York.




          Mrs. Erik Barnouw, Water Committee, Tri-State




          League of Women Voters, 16 Center Avenue,




          Larchmont, New York.






          Mr. Howard Blum, System Analyst, Computer Appli-




          cations, 555 Madison Avenue, New York, New York.






          Mr. Francis M. Bradley, Superintendent,  Edge-




          water Sewage Treatment Plant, Edgewater, New




          Jersey.






          Mr. Richard B. Carey, Calgon Corporation, 271




          Madison  Avenue, New York,  New York.






          Mr. John Carlson,  Environment Controls,  Lever




          Bros.,  101 River Road, Edgewater, New  Jersey.






          Mr. George B.  Case,  Deputy Mayor,  Village of




           Tarrytown, Tarrytown, New York.

-------
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:  (Continued)




          Mr. Anthony J. Castronovo, Director, Utilities




          Division. U. S. Navy Headquarters, Commandant,




          Third Naval District, 90 Church Street, New York,




          New York.






          Mr. Don S. Cook, Teachers College, Columbia




          University, 245 West 107th Street, New York,




          New York.






          Mr. George T. Cowherd, Jr., Environmental




          Engineer, Con Edison, 4 Irving Place, New York,




          New York.






          Mr. Robert S. Cutler, Operations Research Analyst,




          National Bureau of Standards/TAD, Department of




          Commerce, Washington, D. C.






          Mr. Eugene M. Danilchick, Civil Engineer,




          Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, New Jersey.






          Mr. George A. Danskin, Biologist, New York State




          Conservation Department, 21 South Pott Corners




          Road, New Paltz, New York.






          Mr. G. Davis, President, Davis Company, 47




          Rue de la  Sinne, 68 Mulhouse, France.

-------
                                                      10
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:  (Continued)




          Mr. Stanley R. Davis, Regional Hydraulic Engineer,




          U. S. Federal Highway Administration., Region 1,




          4 Normanskill Boulevard, Elsmere, New York.






          Mr. Robert V. Day, Senior Engineer, Western




          Electric, 222 Broadway, New York, New York.






          Mr. John A. DeFilippi, Project Manager, Roy F.




          Weston, Inc., Lewis Lane, West Chester, Pennsyl-




          vania.






          Mr. J. DeMartino, Director, Jersey City Sewerage




          Authority, Route 440 & Culver Avenue, Jersey




          City, New Jersey.






          Mr. John DeZvane, Acting Director, Bureau  of




          Sanitary Engineering, New York City Health De-




          partment, 93 Worth Street, New York, New York.






          Mr. William M. Dunne, Sanitary Engineer, U. S.




          Military Academy, West Point, New York.






          Mr. F. Fahy, Counsel, Jersey City Sewerage




          Authority, Route 440 & Culver Avenue, Jersey




          City, New Jersey.

-------
                                                      11
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:  (Continued)




          Mr. Edward V. Fitzpatrick, Deputy Director,




          Hudson-Delaware Basins Office, Federal Water




          Pollution Control Administration, Department




          of the Interior, Edison, New Jersey.






          Mr. Paul Fitzgerald, Program Associate, New




          York State Department of Health, 901 North




          Broadway, White Plains, New York.






          Mr. Keith Fry, Assistant to the Vice-President,




          Air & Water Management, International Paper




          Company, 220 East 42nd Street, New York, New




          York.






          Mr. Harry W. Gehm, Technical Director, National




          Council for Air and Stream Improvement, 103 Park




          Avenue, New York, New York.






          Mr. I. Gellman, Assistant Technical Director,




          National Council for Air and Stream Improve-




          ment, 103 Park Avenue, New York, New York.






          Mr. Richard Goldsmith, Summer Intern, Office of




          Senator Jacob K. Javits, 110 East 45th Street,




          New York, New York.

-------
                                                      12
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:  (Continued)




          Mr. James A. Gouch, Ait; & Water Control,




          Allied Chemical Corp. P. 0. Box 70, Morristown,




          New Jersey.






       Mr. M- Grant Gross, Acting Director, State Univers-




          ity of New York, Marine Sciences Research  Center,




          Stony Brook, New York.






          Mr. James J. Gushaw, Principal Engineer, Sverdrup




          & Parcel, 1250 Broadway, New York, NJW York.






          Mr. Robert A. Hall, Highway Engineer,, U. S.




          Bureau of Public Roads, 12-14 Russell Road,




          Albany, New York.






          Mr. A. Handley, Director, Waste Management




          Services, New York  State Pure Waters Authority,




          41 State Street, Albany, New York.






          Mr. G. M. Hansler,  Regional Administrator, De-




          partment of Health, Education, and Welfare,




          CPEHS, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York.






          Mr. John E. Harrison, Regional Engineer, New




          York State Health Department, 901 North  Broad-




          way, White Plains,  New  York.

-------
                                                      13




OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:  (Continued)




          Mr. Kenneth B. Hauptman, Chief, Plant Operations,




          Castle Point Hospital, Castle Point, New York.






          Mr. Charles G. Herbermann, Glenwood Gardens,




          Yonkers, New York.






          Mr. Christian T. Hoffman, Jr., Supervising Public




          Health Engineer, New Jersey State Department of




          Health, Trenton, New Jersey.






          Mr. Richard Ince, Staff Worker for Senator




          Javits, 40 East 45th Street, New York, New York.






          Miss Dorothy Ingling, Associate Public Informa-




          tion Specialist, Interstate Sanitation Commission,




          10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York,






          Mr. Lawrence J. Kaitz, Assistant Manager,




          Engineering, Western Electric Co., 222 Broadway,




          New York, New York.






          Mr. William A. Keene, Senior Engineer, West-




          chester County Department of Public Works,




          County Office Building, White Plains, New York.






          Mr. Kevin J. Kehoe, Sales Engineer, Monsanto




          Biodize, 112-20 14th Avenue, College Point,




          New York.

-------
                                                      14
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:  (Continued)
          Mr. Edward J. Kendrick, Executive Director,
          Rockland County Sewer District #1, 18 New
          Hempstead Road, New City, New York.

          Mr. Alan G. Kirk II, Associate Solicitor, De-
          partment of the Interior, Washington, D. C.

          Miss Ellen Krieger, Senator Jacob Javits' Office,
          110 East 45th Street, New York, New York.

          Mr. Patrick J. Lawler, Project Engineer, Quirk,
          Lawler & Matusky, 505 Fifth Avenue, New  York,
          New York.

          Mr. John A. Lawrence, Assistant Engineer,
          Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, 890
          Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey.

          Mr. J. B. Lebo, Environmental Engineer,  Calgon
          Corp., 271 Madison Avenue, New York,  New York.

          Miss Maxine H. Lorang, Budget Analyst, Senate
          Finance Minority, Albany, New York.

          Mr. Albert Machlin, Assistant Director,  Environ-
          mental Health Services, New York  State Health
          Department,  270 Madison Avenue, New York,  New
          York.

-------
                                                      14-A
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:  (Continued)




          Mr. William Manley, Assistant Chief Engineer,




          Veterans Administration Hospital, Castle Point,




          New York.






          Mr. W. K. Mann, American Petroleum Institute,




          New York, New York.






          Mr. Lawrence Mansue, Hydraulic Engineer, U. S.




          Geological Survey, Water Resources Division,




          P. 0. Box 1238, Trenton, New Jersey.






          Mr. Stanley Marx, Assistant Division Engineer,




          Con Edison, 4 Irving Place, New York, New York.






          Mr. Charles A. Manganaro, Manganaro, Martin &




          Lincoln, 51 Madison Avenue, New York, New York.






          Mr. G. E. McLaughlin, Information Officer, New




          York State Pure Waters Authority, 41 State




          Street, Albany, New York.






          Mr. James E. McShane, Emergency Program Officer,




          Atlantic Coast District, Department of Commerce,




          26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York.

-------
                                                      14-B
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:  (Continued)




          Mr. Charles F. Miles, Jr., Associate Sanitary




          Engineer, New York State Health Department,




          270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York.






          Miss Esther Modell, 130 Morningside Drive, New




          York, New York.






          Mr. Joseph Monkoski, Civil Engineer, National




          Park Service, 143 S. Third Street, Philadelphia,




          Pennsylvania.






          Miss Irene L. Murphy, Legislative Specialist,




          Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,




          Department of the Interior, 6616 Millwood,




          Bethesda, Maryland.






          Dr. Alan I. Mytelka, Assistant Chief Engineer,




          Interstate Sanitation Commission, 10 Columbus




          Circle, New York, New York.






          Mr. Thomas Nanney, American Petroleum  Institute,




          New York, New York.






          Mr. Richard Newman, Senior Sanitary Engineer,




          New York State Department of Health, 2440




          E.  29th  Street,  Brooklyn,  New  York.

-------
                                                      14-C
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:  (Continued)




          Mr. Irwin Novick, Chief, Federal & State Aid,




          New York City Department of Water Resources,




          40 Worth Street, Room 1333, New York, New York.






          Mr. R. C. Palange, Federal Water Pollution Con-




          trol Administration, Department of the Interior,




          Washington, D. C.






          Mrs. N. H. Parsons, League of Women Voters,




          Tri-State Committee - New York Delegate, 420




          East 23rd Street, New York, New York,






          Mr. Emmitt Phillips, Sales Engineer, Dow Chemi-




          cal, Park 80 Plaza East, Saddlebrook, New Jersey.






          Mr. Paul Preus, President, Clean Water, Inc.,




          P. Oo Box 1002, Toms River, New Jersey.






          Mr. G. H. Rand, Vice-President, International




          Paper Co., 220 East 42nd Street, New York, New




          York.






          Mrs. E. S. Renman, 1528 East 53rd Street,




          Brooklyn, New York.

-------
                                                      14-D
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:  (Continued)




          Mr. Jerome Resnick, Environmental Engineering




          Specialist, Monsanto Biodize, 112-20 14th




          Avenue, College Point, New York.






          Mr. Robert J. Richmond, Planner, Tri-State




          Transportation Commission, 100 Church Street,




          New York, New York.






          Mr. Gilles Robert, Business Manager., Raytheon




          Co., 33 Union Street, New London, Connecticut,,






          Mr. Theodore Rogowski, Assistant Solicitor,




          Department of the  Interior, Washington, D0 C.






          Mr. Eugene Rosoff, Project Engineer, Standard




          Brands, Inc., Charles Point, Peekskill, New  York.






          MX. Charles Samowitz, Principal Engineer, New




          York City, 40 Worth Street, New York, New York.






          Miss Roxanna Sayre, Public  information  Office,




          National Audubon  Society, 1130 Fifth Avenue,




          New York,  New York.






          Mr. Arthur J. Schor,  Assistant Civil Engineer,




          New York City Health  Department, 93 Worth Street,




          New York,  New York.

-------
                                                      14-E
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:  (Continued)




          Mr. Mark Siegler, Sanitary Engineer, Department




          of the Navy, 90 Church Street, New York, New




          York.






          Mr. Robert G. Sobeck, Superintendent, Jersey




          City Sewerage Authority, Route 440 & Culver




          Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey.






          Dr. Emanuel V.  Sorge, President, Biological Con-




          sultants, Inc., 6087 Broadway, New York, New




          York.






          Mrs. Mary Spargo, Senior Public Information




          Specialist, New York State Health Department,




          84 Holland Avenue, Albany, New York.






          Mr. Donald B. Stevens, Director, Bureau of Water




          Quality Management, New York State Health De-




          partment, 84 Holland Avenue, Albany, New York.






          Mr. James J. Sutton, Chief of Engineering Bureau,




          Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, New Jersey.






          Mr. Ross F. Sweeny, Civil Engineer, National




          Park Service, 143 So. 3rd Street, Philadelphia,




          Pennsylvania.

-------
                                                      14-F
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:  (Continued)




          Mr. Max Vigil, Urban Planner, Department of




          Housing and Urban Development, 26 Federal Plaza,




          New York, New York.






          Mr. K. H. Walker, Director, Hudson-Delaware




          Basins Office, Federal Water Pollution Control




          Administration, Department of the Interior,




          Edison, New Jersey.






          Mr. Ian Walker, Geologist, Soil Conservation




          Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1370




          Hamilton Street, Somerset, New Jersey.






          Dr. M. S. Wecker, Technical Advisor, IBM, 59




          Maiden Lane, New York, New York.






          Dr. Mitchell Wendell, Counsel, Interstate Sani-




          tation Commission, 10 Columbus Circle, New York,




          New York.






          LCDR C. H. Wentworth, Sanitary Engineer, Third




          Coast Guard District, Building 107, Room 107,




          Governors  Island, New York.






          Mr. James  Wentz, District Ship Operations Officer,




          MARAD, 26  Federal Plaza,  New York,  New York.

-------
                                                      14-G
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:  (Continued)




          Mr. Kent A. Williams, Program Director, Environ-




          mental Systems, MDC Systems Corp., 250 Broadway,




          New York, New York.






          Mr. Albert T. Wurth, Chief Engineer, U. S. Public




          Health Service Hospital, Bay Street & Vanderbilt




          Avenue, Staten Island, New York.






          CDR John W. Yager, U. S. Coast Guard, Third Coast




          Guard District, Building 125, Governors Island,




          New York.






PRESS:




          Miss Mary Ansbro, Water in The News, Soap &




          Detergent Association.






          Mr. Dave Bird, The New York Times.






          Mr. Jesse Brodey, New York News,  P. 0. Box 115,




          North White Plains, New York.






          Mr. Thomas M. Donoghue, Associate Editor, Air &




          Water News, 330 West 42nd Street, New York, New




          York.






          Mr. Sam Gronner, Newark News, 215 Market Street,




          Newark, New Jersey.

-------
                                                      14-H
PRESS:  (Continued)




          Mr. Tom Hester, The Jersey Journal, Journal




          Square, Jersey City, New Jersey.






          Mr. Gladwyn Hill, The New York Times.






          Mr. Marion J. Klawonn, Associate Editor, Engineer-




          ing News Record, 330 West 42nd Street, New York,




          New York0






          Mr. Peter Kohler, Editorial Associate, WCBS-TV,




          51 West 52nd Street, New York, New  York.






          Mr. Robert A. Martin, Jr., Associated Press,




          Rockefeller Center., New York, New York.






          Mr. Kenn Moses, MCR Public Service, WNBC,  30




          Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York.






          Mr. Thomas Nanney, Editor, Air & Ws.ter Conserva-




          tion News, Time-Life  Building, New  York,  New York,






          Mr. John Palmer, WNBC-TV, New York, New  York.






          Mr. A. H. Parachini,  United Press  International,




          220 East 42nd  Street, New York, New York.






          Miss Ania Savage, The Record, Bergen  County,  New




          Jersey.

-------
                                                      14-1
PRESS: (Continued)




          Mr. Irvin Schwartz, Environment Editor, Chemical




          Week, 330 West 42nd Street, New York, New Yorko






          Miss Harriet Shapiro, Look Magazine, 488 Madison




          Avenue, New York, New York.






          Mrs. Mary Spargo, Managing Editor, New York




          State Waters, New York State Department of Health,




          84 Holland Avenue, Albany, New York.






          Miss Barbara Spector, Maritime Reporter, Newark




          News, 215 Market Street, Newark, New Jersey






          Mr. R. C. Taplin, The Record, 55 East Central




          Avenue, Pearl River, New York.

-------
                                                      15
                 OPENING STATEMENT




                        BY




              HONORABLE CARL L. KLEIN




        ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR




          FOR WATER QUALITY AND RESEARCH






               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Good morning.  My name




is Carl Klein.  I am the Assistant Secretary of the In-




terior for Water Quality and Research.  I shall be the




Chairman of the Conference this morning with Mr. Murray




Stein ably assisting me, and after this morning Mr. Stein




will be the Chairman of the Conference to its conclusion.




               The conference is npw open.




               The third session of the conference in




the matter of pollution of the interstate waters of the



Hudson River and its tributaries in the States of New York




and New Jersey is being held under the provisions of




Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,




as amended.  Under the provisions of the Act, the Secre-




tary of the Interior is authorized to initiate a confer-




ence of this type when requested to do so by a Governor




of a State and when on the basis of reports, surveys, or




studies, he has reason to believe that pollution subject

-------
                   C.  Klein                           16








to abatement under the Federal Act is  occurring.



               In 1965, in accordance  with requests  from



Nelson A. Rockefeller, Governor of New York,  and  Richard



J. Hughes, then Governor of New Jersey, and on the basis




of reports, surveys or studies, the first session of



this conference was initiated.  It was held on Septem-



ber 28-30, 1965.  The second session of the conference




was held on September 20, 1967, about  two years ago.



Not quite two years have passed and we are back again.



               Both the State and Federal governments



have responsibilities in dealing with  water pollution



control problems.  The Federal Water Pollution Control



Act declares that the States have primary rights and



responsibilities for taking action to  abate and control



pollution.  Consistent with this, we are charged by  law



to encourage the States in these activities.



               At the same time, however, the Secretary



of the Interior is charged by law with specific respon.



sibilities in the field of water pollution control in



connection with pollution of interstate and navigable



waters.  The Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides



that pollution of interstate or navigable waters which




endangers the health or welfare of any persons, shall be

-------
                   C. Klein                           17

 
subject to abatement.  This applies whether the matter

causing or contributing to the pollution is discharged

directly into such waters or reaches such waters after

discharged into a tributary.

               The purpose of this conference is to bring

together the State and interstate water pollution control

agencies, representatives of the U. S. Department of the

Interior, and other interested parties to review the

existing situation, and the progress which has been made,

to lay a basis for future action by all parties concerned,

and to give the States, localities and industries an

opportunity to take any indicated remedial action under

State and local law.

               At the last session of the conference in

1967, the conferees agreed that the interstate waters of

the Hudson River are polluted as a result of the dis-

charges of inadequately treated municipal and industrial

wastes.  They further agreed that considerable progress

has been made toward abating the pollution problem, and

the programs underway, when carried to their logical

conclusion, will abate and control this pollution.

               Certainly the progress which has been made

so far in cleaning up the Hudson River is due in large

part to the aggressive pollution control program of the

-------
                   C. Klein                           18








State of Hew York.   The application of New York's fi-



nancing program and its strict pollution control legis-



lation have resulted in real progress toward achieving




our common goal of clean water.




               Today the New York State Department of



Health will be represented by Mr. Dwight Metzler; the



New Jersey state Department of Health will be represented



by Mr. Richard Sullivan; and, the Interstate Sanitation



Commission will be represented by Mr. Thomas Glenn.



               The Federal conferee is Mr. Lester Klash-



man.



               The parties to this conference are the



official State and Interstate water pollution control



agencies and the U. S. Department of the Interior.



Participation in this conference will be open to repre-



sentatives and invitees of these agencies and such persons



as inform the Conference Chairman that they wish to



present statements.  However, only the representatives



of the Stata and interstate water pollution control agen-



cies and the U. S. Department of the Interior constitute



the conferees.



               Now, a word about the procedures govern-



ing the conduct of the conference.  The conferees will be

-------
                   C. Klein                           19








called upon to make statements.  The conferees, in addi-



tion, may call upon participants whom they have invited



to the conference to make statements.  In addition, other



interested individuals who wish to present statements



Will be called upon.  At the conclusion of each statement,



the conferees will be given an opportunity to comment or



ask questions, and the Chairman may ask a question or two.



This procedure has proven effective in the past in reach-



ing equitable solutions.



               At the end of all the statements, there



will be a discussion among the conferees and they will



try to arrive at a basis of agreement on the facts of



the situation.



               Under the Federal Law, the Secretary of



the Interior is required at the conclusion of the con-



ference to prepare a summary of it which will be sent



to the conferees.  The summary, according to law, must



include the following points:



               1.  Occurrence of pollution of interstate



waters subject to abatement under the Federal Act;



               2.  Adequacy of measures taken toward



abatement of pollution; and



               3.  Nature of delays, if any, being

-------
                   C.  Klein                           20








encountered in abating the pollution.




               The Secretary is also required to make




recommendations for remedial action if such recommenda-




tions are indicated.




               The Secretary is not without power when




abatement does not take place on interstate waters.




               Under the law, he can call a public hear-




ing if reasonable progress to abate pollution is not




being taken.  Then, if necessary, he can turn the matter




over to the Attorney-General for court action.



               Please rest assured that the Secretary




intends to enforce the law and take such recourse, if




necessary.



               Copies of the summary and transcript will




be made available to the official State and interstate



water pollution control agencies.  We have generally



found that, for the purpose of maintaining relationships



within the States, the people who wish summaries and



transcripts should request them  through their State or



interstate agency rather than come directly to the Feder-




al Government.  The reason for this is that, when the




conference has been concluded, we would prefer people who



are interested in the problem to follow their normal

-------
                   C. Klein                           21


 %
relations in dealing with the State agencies rather than

the Federal Government.

               To conclude my opening remarks,  I would

like to congratulate Governor Rockefeller for his vigor-

ous and unflagging support in the common effort to re-

store clean water to our citizens.  Under his leader-

ship, the people of the State of New York have embarked

on what is no doubt the largest single water pollution

control program in the world.

               I am told that New York's ambitious "Pure

Waters" program has now reached its halfway mark.  In

1965, some 1,098 private and public sources of pollution

from domestic wastes were identified.  Today, at the

halfway mark, 726 of these have been either corrected

or are actively in the process of being corrected.  This

means that some 62 per cent of the pollution from domes-

tic wastes has been reached*

               The story on industrial pollution is also

most encouraging.  Of the total 225 industries found to

be polluters, 131 appear to have fully complied with

abatement requirements and 51 more are making satisfac-

tory progress.  This would mean that some 83 per cent of

the industrial pollution sources has been reached, and I

-------
                   C. Klein                           22








am further told that the remaining polluters are facing



firm State action on abatement.




               I would also want to congratulate the




State of New Jersey for its thus far successful lawsuits




in its campaign to help clean up the Hudson, and I take




heart that this is a most gratifying picture, particularly




when we contemplate that a growing population, industrial




expansion, the needs for more power to meet population




demands, the trend toward more and larger nuclear plants,




the proliferation of solid wastesall combine to con-



tinuously confront the State with new water problems.




               Positive and vigorous State leadership,




coupled with effective local-State-Federal cooperation



and firmly supported by an enlightened public: opinion,




can indeed take us such a long step toward the common



goal of a cleaner environment, and, thus, a better life.



               If we now all pitch in together, the



Hudson, too, will soon run clean again.



               It has been our practice in the past to



hear from the Governor of the State where we are meeting




first.  As you know, New York State Governor Nelson A.



Rockefeller is not here.  Thereafter, we have asked



visiting dignitaries from the area for their comments

-------
         Hon.  Nelson  A.  Rockefeller                    23


<
before the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration

puts in   its  case.  Thereafter, other Federal agencies

will be heard and then we will go to the different States

and the interstate agency for their comments and the

people who are on their roster for speaking.

               Today, our first speaker for Governor

Nelson Rockefeller is Dr. Hollis Ingraham, the Commis-

sioner of Health of  the State of New York.

               Dr. Ingraham.


                 STATEMENT BY

            HON. NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER

                   GOVERNOR

               STATE OF NEW YORK

                     READ BY

            DR. HOLLIS S. INGRAHAM

                 COMMISSIONER

    NEW YORK  STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH


               DR. INGRAHAM:  Mr. Klein, Conferees, ladies

and gentlemen:

               As Mr. Klein said, the Governor is in

South America and is quite unable to be here.  Otherwise,

I am sure he would have been here since he has appeared

-------
        Hon. Nelson A. Rockefeller                    24








at the previous conferences,  and the control of water



pollution is one of his great interests,  so I am reading



his statement in his absence.




               The Governor asked me to say:




               It is a personal pleasure to have this




opportunity to welcome Assistant Secretary Carl L. Klein




of the U. S. Department of the Interior to New York




State on his first official appearance and to extend the



most cordial greetings to all participants at this third




session of the Conference and to wish them well in their




deliberations.



               The Goal and the Challenge.




               We in New York State government are well




aware that we cannot go it alone in controlling pollu-



tion of 70,000 miles of streams, more than three and-a-



half-million acres of inland lakes, and miles of ocean




front.



               The necessary investment of Federal, State



and local resources to halt water pollution must be made




now.




               It is essential that we move now to pro-




tect the health, both economic and personal, of our fami-




lies, our children and their childrenthe children who

-------
        Hon. Nelson A.  Rockefeller                    25


 
will enjoy the birthright of a clean and healthy America.

               We are confronted with a complex task to

conserve our waters even as we use them more and more

pollution, an indefensible exploitation, must be stopped.

               The New York State Response.

               The Federal Water Pollution Control Act,

which authorizes these enforcement conferences, makes it

clear, as Assistant Secretary Klein recently declared,

"that the initial responsibility for controlling pollu-

tion belongs to the States."

               New York State and its people willingly

have shouldered that responsibility.  The people of the

State of New York have endorsed, encouraged and supported

with their dollars and with dedicated voluntary efforts

one of the most innovative and imaginative programs of

water pollution abatement ever undertaken anywhere in the

world.

               The voters, in 1965, approved a $1 billion

bond issue for the construction of water pollution treat-

ment plants throughout the State by an overwhelming 4 to

1 margin.  A target date of 1972 was set for getting

construction underway.  Consequently, New York State

pioneered in offering State aid to local communities for

-------
        Hon. Nelson A. Rockefeller                    26








construction and in prefinancing the Federal share of the



cost.



               The continuing enthusiasm of New York



State citizens for the Pure Waters Program is clearly



shown in a recent report to me by the Director of the



Women's Unit.  The Women's Unit, which is part of the



Executive Chamber, directs a citizen's volunteer program



which has resulted in discussions on environmental pol-



lution control with over 30,000 interested citizens in



the last year alone.  The interest and enthusiasm of the



participants for the State's Pure Waters Program has been



described by Mrs. Evelyn Cunningham, the Women's Unit



director, as "overwhelming".



               The Women's Unit has been active in co-



ordinating programs to acquaint the State's citizens,



through field trips, forums, films, plays and analysis



of legislation, on the need to abate pollution.



               The New York State Pure Waters Program.



               The New York State Pure Waters Program



was devised as the most effective way to remove immed-



iately a serious and growing barrier to economic and



community growth, and to the full enjoyment by the people



of the State of New York of their vast water resources.

-------
        Hon.  Nelson A.  Rockefeller                    27


i
               We are pleased with the achievements we

have recorded at the midway point in the program.

               First, one hundred and sixty-four waste

treatment construction projects have been completed or

are under active construction at a cost of more than

$621 million.  These projects have received or will re-

ceive more than $331 million of State contributions.

               In addition, 49 projects are listed as

under final design and 126 are in the preliminary de-

sign state.  The program will provide over $300 million

in State funds to help municipalities meet construction

costs of more than $528 million for these projects.

               Second, of 1,100 private and public sources

of pollution from domestic wastes identified at the be-

ginning of the program, all major polluters are now

under orders from the State Health Commissioner to abate

pollution.

               Third, since many municipalities lack

sufficient resources to respond fully to the responsi-

bilities and challenges of the Pure Waters Program, no

matter how willing they might be, the State Pure Waters

Authority was created in 1967 in response to local needs.

               The Pure Waters Authority helps local

-------
       Hon. Nelson A. Rockefeller                     28








governments bear the financial and technical burdens nec-




essary in implementing the Pure Waters Program.  The Auth-




ority has the power to undertake planning, financing, con-



struction, maintenance and operation of sewage treatment




works and solid waste disposal facilities for and on be-




half of municipalities.




               In the comparatively short times since its




creation, the Authority is in official or contractual




relationships with municipalities in an amount totaling



more than $100 million.




               Fourth, 65 per cent of the State's muni-




cipalities have applied for operation and maintenance



grants that provide State aid for one-third of the cost




of ongoing local plant operations.  Thus far, nearly




$26.4 million have been reimbursed to municipalities



operating sewage treatment facilities in a manner ac-



ceptable to the State Health  Department.




               Fifth, the State's 100 per cent financed



comprehensive public  sewerage and water supply studies




are completed or underway in nearly all of the counties




in the State.



               Sixth, New York State is continuing its




research projects in  an effort to find new methods of




coping with pollution problems in the Hudson River Basin,

-------
        Hon.  Nelson A.  Rockefeller                     29








including the development of a mathematical model de-



picting physical, biological, hydrological and chemical



interrelationships of the Hudson River that will be



completed by the end of 1969.



               The Need for Federal Help.



               New York has and is continuing to pre-



finance much of the Federal share of these projects, on



the assumption that we will be repaid when the Congress



is able to appropriate the funds required for adequate



implementation of a basic national program of water pol-



lution control.



               Initially, the Federal-State partnership



on water pollution control contemplated what was known



as the 30-30-40 formula. The State was to supply 30 per



cent of the cost of new municipal and intermunicipal



plants; the Federal Government another 30 per cent, and



the local agency the balance of 40 per cent.  In 1966,



the Congress authorized prefinancing by the states.



Under this authorization and because adequate Federal funds



have not been appropriated, the State of New York has



prefinanced up to 29 per cent of the Federal share in



much of the treatment plant construction in the State.



I have called on numerous occasions for Congressional

-------
        Hon. Nelson A. Rockefeller                    30








action to appropriate adequate funds for water pollution




control.




               The maximum Federal share authorized in




1966 can reach 55 per cent if certain conditions are met.



Projects in New York State meet all these conditions and




thus are eligible for a full 55 per cent Federal grant.




               I urge the Administration to help states



obtain the resources they need to end water pollution.




               Conclusion.




               Again, I welcome you most cordially.  I



pledge the continuing efforts, the full cooperation and




good will of the State of New York in controlling and ul-




timately eradicating the pollution that has so criminally



blighted so much of our Nation's vast wealth of waters.



               Thank you, Mr. Chairman.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Thank you very much, Dr.



Ingraham.




               For Congressman William F. Ryan, we have



Mrs. Jean Faust.  Congressman Ryan was unexpectedly called



back to Washington.  We had expected the pleasure of his




personally being here, but he has asked Mrs. Faust to




present his statement.



               Mrs. Faust.

-------
               Hon.  W.  F.  Ryan                        31








               I might add that if any of you have copies




of the speeches, would you please let us have them, both




for the Court Reporter, the conferees and for the press.






                 STATEMENT BY




         CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM F. RYAN




   UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES




               WASHINGTON, D.C.




                   READ BY




                MRS. JEAN FAUST




    ASSISTANT ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION






               MRS.  FAUST:  Mr. Klein, Conferees, ladies




and gentlemen:




               My name is Jean Faust.  I am Assistant




on Environmental Pollution to Congressman William F.




Ryan.




               Mr. Ryan regrets he cannot be here in




person, but he had to return to Washington because of




a vote in which he was very interested coming up on the




Floor this morning.




               This is his statement:




               As a member of the House Committee on




Interior and Insular Affairs, I have long been seriously

-------
                Hon. W. F. Ryan                       32








concerned about the squandering of our resources of air



and water and the persistent, heedless fouling of these




two human necessities.




               The first two sessions of this Hudson




River Enforcement Conference, in 1965 and 1967, compiled




a record of shameful misuse of this once-mighty river,




now a sewer.



               Local industry, local public facilities,




State agencies and Federal facilitiesall flouting exist-




ing lawscontributed and are still contributing to the



degradation of a precious natural resource, one of our




Nation's greatest waterways.



               The magnitude of the problem mandates



Federal, State, local and interstate cooperation and this




conference method is a fine tool for restoring the river



but only if used with determination and forcefulness.



               On the Federal level, concern and deter-




mination to reverse the destruction of the Nation's water



resources have been demonstrated in the Water Pollution




Control Act of 1965 and the Clean Waters Restoration Act




of 1966.




               On the State level, the Pure Waters Program



constitutes a comprehensive plan for attacking pollution

-------
                 Hon. W.  F.  Ryan                       33








of the Hudson.



               New York City has long pursued a broad and



complex plan of water pollution control, but population



growth, increasing industrial uses and the demand of citi-



zens for recreational facilities has always exceeded the



financial and technological ability of the city to keep



pace with demand.



               Citizens have organized numerous conser-



vation groups and committees and their support of water



pollution control has been unmistakably expressed in their



four to one approval of the billion-dollar Pure Waters



Bond Issue in November  1965.



               Then, what is causing the delay in clean-



ing up the Hudson?  Why, in spite of the big push be-



ginning in 1965, are we still facing the possible death



of the Hudson?



               In the Ecological Survey of the Hudson



River, dated September 30, 1968, G. P. Howe11s of the



Department of Environmental Medicine of New York Univer-



sity Medical Center says "I would liketo put forward the



view that a large part of the lower Hudson River has the



characteristics of a eutrophic brackish lake; the hydro-



graphic conditions may prove critical in the biological

-------
                 Hon.  W.  K.  Ryan                      34








sense."



               And:  "The relatively high sulphate from



sea water intrusion and nitrate both from added sewage



and feeder tributaries in the Hudson River means that



anaerobic or near anaerobic conditions may tip the bal-



ance between a healthy river and a noxious one producing



hydrogen sulphide and ammoniacal gases."



               For the same study, coliform counts as



high as 18,000 per 100 milliliters were found in July-



August of 1967, and some of the highest counts were near



tne shore.  Though counts were lower in some instances



than those found by the Public Health Service in its



1965 study, the biological condition of the river was



still serious enough to warrant the statements quoted



above.



               In an attempt to place in the record some



of the possible explanations for delay in turning back



the tides of pollution, I would like to discuss in some



detail the variety of problems surrounding a project



which falls within my district, the North River Water



Pollution Control Project at 137th to 145th Streets on



the Upper West Side of Manhattan.



               In a long and involved, sometimes tedious,

-------
                Hon. W. F.  Ryan                       35








stream of meetings, correspondence, statements and testi-



mony dating back to the beginning of this decade, I have



on behalf of my constituents confronted problems con-



cerning this project on every level of activity.  To



Secretary Udall, Governor Rockefeller, Mayor Lindsay,



the Commissioner of Public Works, the New York City



Board of Estimate, and finally the Environmental Pro-



tection Administration, I took the objections of the



community as well as detailed analyses of my own concern-



ing the site of the plant and the obsolete design.  I



also met with local planning boards, community leaders



and local elected officials.  I prepared numerous state-



ments, detailing the community's objections as well as



my own objections to the site and to the design, which



did not meet either Federal or State standards when



originally approved.



               At this point, I am submitting copies of



Congressman's Ryan's testimony before the New York City



Board of Estimate on April 4, 1968 and his memo to Sec-



retary Udall of April 18, 1968.  These two statements



cover in detail the objections to the site and to the



project design.  However, since they are in the past, I



am not reading them today, but simply submitting them

-------
                 Hon. W.  F.  Ryan                       36








for the record.




               I consider it a betrayal of the public




trust and a failure of responsibility that New York City



offered, and Federal and State agencies  adopted,, a de-




sign that was clearly below standard, that would never




meet the growing need.



               Therefore, even after approval, I con-



tinued to advise Secretary Udall, Governor Rockefeller,




Mayor Lindsay and Environmental Protection Administrator



Eisenbud of my strenuous objections to the project.




               It is gratifying to report that, after




this history of contention between the various groups



that need to cooperate to overcome the blight of pollu-




tion, New York City officials began to move into dia-




logue with the community.  At the same time, further



studies were made and a design study indicated that,



after all, the plant could be designed to meet Federal



and State standards and recommendations of this Confer-



ence.  It is my present understanding that the new de-




sign will comply with these specifications.




               To compensate the community for placing



an unusually large pollution control project in a resi-




dential area despite the most vigorous opposition, New

-------
                Hon.  Wo F.  Ryan                        37









York City has brought together city and State Parks De-




partment .officials and has promised to develop the entire




area from 125th to 155th Streets as a parks and recrea-




tional area.  A feasibility study,  called RIVERBANK, has




been presented to the community and a community conference




will be held at the end of this month to give the community




an opportunity to register its reaction to the proposal.




          I here submit a copy of the RIVERBANK proposal.




          (The above mentioned document, marked Exhibit 1,




     is on file at Headquarters, FWPCA, Washington, D.  G.,




     the Northeast Regional Office, Boston, Massachusetts




     and the Hudson-Delaware Basin Office, Edison, N0 J.)




          Along with many other community leaders and




elected representatives, I support the use of this area




for parks and recreation.  Since the West Side Highway




is elevated at 125th Street, this is one of the few




places where there is direct access to the river.  The




community has pleaded for years for just such a parks




development.




          The community, in spite of disappointments




of the past, is accepting on good faith the commitment




of New York City and New York State to build this park.




          I would like this Conference to reinforce




that commitment by supporting the concept of developing




the area for parks and recreation within the shortest

-------
                 Hon.  W.  F.  Ryan                      38




possible time, both concurrent with and following con-

struction of the plant.  Lengthy delay or further dis-

appointment would be intolerable.

               Another apparent cause of delay in con-

trol of pollution is the tendency to be content with

doing more than was done last year or doing more than

another city or State has done.  If a city is more pol-

luted than any other city, it is meaningless to state
                               rf*
grandly, "This city has done more than any other city."

The same applies to a State.  The magnitude of an abate-

ment program must equal the magnitude of the particular

problem.  It is not enough that progress has been made,

that abatement programs have been initiated and improved.

The extent of pollution is extraordinarily grave; extra-

ordinary action is required.  Control agencies may not

congratulate themselves for improvements; they may con-

gratulate themselves only on what proportion of the job

has been accomplished.  The perception of a problem

affects the solution that is developed; if perception

permits pride in progress that is large by past standards,

but small in comparison to present and future need, then

solution of the problem of pollution will be slower than

society can tolerate and delay will lead to rivers that

-------
                   Hon. W0 F. Ryan                      39









continue to decay even after progress has been made in




an abatement program.




               Conferees on every level agree that lack




of funds is a major cause of delay.  It is only too well




known that the Federal Government has failed to carry its




share of the fiscal burden.  On the North River Project




alone, this failure is amply demonstrated; as of May,




1969, the percentages were New York State, 60 per cent;




New York City, 39 per cent; the Federal Government, 1 per




cent.




               A consideration of the larger picture is




just as depressing:




               1968:  Authorization, $450 million; New




York share would be $37,617,750; Appropriated, $203,000,000;




New York share, $15,492,710;




               1969:  Authorization, $700 million; New




York share would be $60,699,200; Appropriated, $214,000,000;




New York share, $15,828,000;




               1970:  Authorization, $1 billion; New York




share would be $88,39/,100; Appropriation has not been




decided.  However, President Nixon has asked for $214




million, the same as last year.




               Since the estimate for national require-




ments for costs of constructing municipal waste treatment

-------
                 Hon.  W.  F.  Ryan                      40








plants and interceptor sewers for FY 1969-1973 has been



placed at $8.0 billion (exclusive of land and associated




costs), lack of Federal funds is indeed a serious block




to abating pollution.



               I believe that Congress must find the money




to pay its promised share of pollution control and I shall




do my best to see that this is done.



               Another serious problem confronting con-




trol agencies is the polluting effect of combined sewers.




Since study of this problem is in the early stages, no



definite solution can be suggested.  However, I am in-




clined to believe that Auxiliary Pollution Control Plants




are merely a stop-gap measure.  The long-term answer will



probably be separate storm and sanitary sewers.  I think




this is the solution we must work towards and I plan to



work actively ,in the Congress to help states and locali-



ties solve this problem.



               Having promised twice in this statement



to try to obtain more Federal funds for New York State




water pollution control, I want to add this cautionary




note :  Just as I fought past what seemed the losing point



to make sure that any plant built in my district would be



of the most efficient possible design, so I would fight

-------
                  Hon.  W.  F.  Ryan                      41








in every case.  I will always insist that every project



meet not only standards of Federal, State and interstate




agencies, but also those of conferences like this one,




which would presumably have the advantage of latest data.




Further, I will always insist on most strict standards.




I believe we will find it necessary to continually up-




grade our efforts and in long-range projects, we should



aim for the highest efficiency.




               We can, and we must, restore the Hudson



River.  We must make it not only safe, but beautiful




again.




               Just as we condemn those who came before




us for being so careless and heedless and greedy as to




make our river a sewer, so those who come after us will




condemn us--unless we reverse the trend.




               New York has done well, but it must es-



calate its control efforts to meet the gravity of the



problem.  Progress must be faster and in higher ratio



to the extent of the problem.



               Thank you for this opportunity to express



my views.




               Mr. Chairman, I have only one copy of this



very fancy brochure on RIVERBANK to submit.

-------
                  Hon. W.  F.  Ryan                      42








               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Would you give it to the




Court Reporter, please,  and we will put all of your ex-



hibits into the record.




               MRS. FAUST:  Thank you.




               (The following statements were submitted



for inclusion in the record:)




STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM F. RYAN




1040 St. Nicholas Avenue



New York, New York 10032




212-UN-4-1106



Contact:  Jean Faust, UN 4-1106




Testimony before the New York City Board of Estimate




April 4, 1968




RE:  Capital Project P.  W. 164, North River Pollution



     Control Project



               The proposed location of the North River



Pollution Control Project on the Hudson River between



West 138th and West 145th Streets lies within my con-




gressional district; and the people who have been appearing



before you, not only today, but time after time in pre-



vious hearings, are my constituents.  On their behalf,




I wish to register in the strongest possible terms my



complete opposition to this project, to its location, to

-------
              Hon. w. F. Ryan                         43








its technical design, and to the attempt to camouflage



the stark ugliness it would bring to the shoreline.



               The residents of the community object



most strenuously to the location of the plant at their



front doors.  And, since the West Side Highway is ele-



vated at this point, one of the few places along the Hud-



son where there is direct access to the river bank would



be lost to the use of the residents.



               This is a racially and economically in-



tegrated neighborhood where widely different peoples



live together in harmony. The community has great as-



pirations for improvement; it has been pleading for parks



and playgrounds and other recreational facilities.  In-



stead, it is offered a sewage treatment plant, with



maybe some time in the future a playground park where



the children can get really closenot to the lovely



vistas of one of the most beautiful rivers of the world



but right up close to a sewage treatment plant.



               To assuage the feelings of the community,



the City proposes an architectural cosmetic treatment;



an overlay of reflecting pools and towering fountains.



No doubt these effects were intended to uplift.  However,



in reality, they would quite effectively destroy the

-------
              Hon. w. F, Ryan                         44








natural aesthetic feeling of the river view.  Instead



of allowing the eye to contemplate the horizontal length




of river and shoreline, thus enjoying the restful and




spiritually rewarding benefits of such contemplation, the



fountains would force the eye upwards, thus directly con-




flicting with the natural view.  The spectator would be




minimized, overwhelmed.



               These twenty-two acres of white concrete




would completely dominate the visual sweep of the shore-




line for miles.  It is difficult to imagine what it




would be like to get up in the morning and look out the




window to behold twenty-two acreseight city blocks




of white concrete and reflecting pools reposing in the



early morning sun.




               We can, of course, reassure ourselves on



this point:  knowing the concentrations of soot and fly



ash that are poured into the air of New York City each



year, we can relaxthe soot would reduce the glaring



white to a comfortable, light-absorbing, dirty grey in



a short time.  And the reflecting pools would be very




quickly covered with a thick layer of oily particulates




through which 1hey would have very little opportunity to




reflecteven if  there were anything to reflect except

-------
              Hon. W. F. Ryan                         45








towering fountains and sludge tanks.



               In the rapidly escalating de-humanization



of our urban environment, this is no doubt a landmark



achievement.



               Believing as I do that all the citizens



of our urban areas should be able to trust their city



planners, their administrators, and their governmental



officials to protect their interests and provide a



livable environment, I simply cannot reconcile this be-



lief with the attitude of the New York City administration



as expressed in the words of Mr. Martin Lang, of the



Department of Public Works, spoken before a Town Meeting



of the League of Women Voters on December 7, 1967.  While



enthusiastically describing the City's plans for reducing



water pollution, Mr. Lang assured his listenersin a hall



on East 35th Street, in an area where they could not know



the factsthat this plant is not only an important con-



tribution to pollution control, it's part of the City's



Urban Beautification Program!



               His audience on East 35th Street simply



could not appreciate his remarks; I have asked time and



again that the City hold a community meeting to allow



the residents to express their objections to this project.

-------
              Hon. W. F. Ryan                         46








It would be interesting, should such a meeting finally




be held, to see how the residents of West 138th Street



would appreciate Mr. Lang's remarks.



               Concerning the site, the Hazen and Sawyer




"Plant Site Review" dated March 19, 1968, stated that



"waterfront sites at 57th and 66th Streets appear to be




the most promising alternates from the standpoint of




cost, minimum interference with parks, and public accep-




tability."  In discussing these sites, Hazen and Sawyer



estimate that they would be cheaper than the proposed




site in construction cost of interceptor, construction




cost of pumping station and plant, as well as in other



costs.



               Sludge barging would be less costly as




the site moved further downtown; savings would amount



to between $15,000 and $100,000 per year, according to



Hazen and Sawyer.



               A study by Joseph S. Ward and Associates



indicated that foundation costs would also be substan-




tially lower at the downtown sites.




               At the proposed location, there would



also be additional millions in the architectural cosmetic



treatment of the plant itself, and the park, suggested as

-------
              Hon.  W. F. Ryan                         47








a sop to the community, neither of which has been in-



cluded in current estimates.



               Yet, in spite of the evidence of their own



figures, Hazen and Sawyer conclude the plant should not be



moved because it would cause a delay in the City's program



of pollution abatement.  But will this plant do the job



that needs to be done?



               With reference to standards of water qual-



ity, the Water Quality Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-234)



provided that "the appropriate State authority shall take



into consideration their use and value for public water



supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational



purposes and agricultural, industrial, and other legi-



timate uses."



               Following the September 20-21, 1967.Hudson



River Enforcement Conference, New York, New Jersey, the



Interstate Sanitation Commission, and Federal conferees



agreed and recommended that "All wastes prior to discharge



into the waters covered by the conference shall be treated



to provide a minimum of 80 per cent reduction of bio-



chemical oxygen at all times.  It is recognized that this



will require a design for an average removal of 90 per



cent of BOD..."

-------
             Hon.   w.  F. Ryan                         48








               Does the North River Pollution Control



Project design meet this standard?



               The North River plant is designed for



"short period aeration"this is modified aeration oper-



ated at unusually short detention time.



               In a study made by Quirk, Lawler & Matusky,




dated February  1967,  we find that "Analysis of short



period operating data available from the City and of



North River facilities indicates yearly average removal



of dissolved oxygen consuming organic material (BOD) may



be expected to range between 50 and 55%."



               The same engineers studied modified aera-



tion at the Owls Head plant with the following results:



"The foregoing analysis of existing short period per-



formance data shows short period aeration is an effective



means of intermediate treatment and can be expected to



remove roughly 50 per cent of influent sewage BOD."



               The same study compared activated sludge



plants with the modified aeration process and concluded



that, operated under prescribed conditions, sludge



plants may be expected to impart 85 to 95 per cent BOD



removals.  The study further commentedt  "Conventional



activated sludge imparts a high degree of treatment, but,

-------
              Hon. W. F. Ryan                         49








correspondingly, involves a relatively high dollar outlay



for construction and operation.  In the early 1940's,



Setter, then Principal Sanitation Chemist, Bureau of



Sewage Disposal Operation, New York City Department of



Public Works, developed a modification of the process



which yielded a stable degree of treatment in the inter-




mediate range, i.e. 60 to 80% removal of BOD. This pro-



cess is known as modified aeration and has found use



where a high degree of treatment (over 80%) is not needed



to meet quality standards in the receiving water body."



               We have already found in the same report



that only 55% removal of BOD is expected at North River.



And we know that the standards call for 80% removal.



               Has New York City chosen to follow plans



set into motion more than twenty years ago, without tak-



ing newer technology into consideration?  Has New York



City chosen, on the basis of costin the richest city in



the worldto settle for "intermediate treatment"?  Can



we afford to accept a process described by engineers



as being used where a high degree of treatment is not



necessary?




               Research, hearings and conferences of the



past several years indicate that, in order to combat



rising dangers from water pollution due to exploding

-------
              Hon. W. P. Ryan                         50








population and ever-increasing industrial wastes, sewage



must be treated at ever higher levels in order to pro-



duce the water quality specified by law.  Yet, in this



instance, New York City is determined to construct a plant



that is not even expectedin designto meet current



standards.  And the level of treatment actually maintained



in operation is not usually up to design standard.



               New York State Assemblyman Albert Blumen-



thal reports that, in discussions with the Health Com-



mittee, Mr. Dwight Metzler, Deputy Commissioner of the



New York State Department of Health, conceded that the



design for the North River Pollution Control Project will



not meet the State's standards.



               Both the City and the State are comprom-



ising standards rather than providing the level of treat-



ment that regulations specify.



               Besides the laws that set water quality



standards, another Federal law, Public Law 89-605, which



created the Hudson River Basin Compact, would be violated



by this project. The intent of this law is to promote



the restoration of the former beauty of the Hudson River.



This beauty was once the subject of poetry; now it is



likely to become the subject of bitter jokes featuring



vistas of sewage disposal plants.

-------
              Hon. W. F. Ryan                         51








               In its original design, the twenty-two-acre



plant would displace eight city blocks of shoreline (not



to mention the additional 2.8 acres and the 4.9 acres



which the City intends to acquire at some later datebut



has not yet so advised the community).  All this at one of



the few places in the City where there is direct access



to the river.



               Instead of building a sewage treatment



plant, with concomitant threat of odors, ozone problems,



and disruption of the shoreline, the City should be plan-



ning the restoration of the Hudson to its pre-industrial



era splendor, with green trees, grass and flowersinstead



of expanses of shock-white concrete.  In order to reduce



one problem, water pollution,should the City create



another; odor nuisance and pollution of the view for



boaters and area residents?



               The City claims there will be no problem



with ozone.  However, Dr. Gerald E. Gaull, of the Col-



lege of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University,



who has discussed ozone with Dr. Bernard Salesman, of



the Taft Center for Mr Pollution research in Cincinnati,



presents a different view:  the possibility of lung dam-



age, the threat of cancer, the danger of breakdown in

-------
              Hon.  W.  F.  Ryan                         52

chromosomes, representing one of mankind's greatest fears:
transmissable genetic defects.
               It is the  possibility of such dangers,
as well as the understandable psychological rejection  of
a front-yard sewage plant, that has produced the highly
emotional reaction of the community.  Perhaps feelings would
not have reached this pitch if the City Administration had
been receptive to the requests for a hearing in the com-
munity or if the Administration had communicated more  di-
rectly and frankly with the residents.
               I urge the Board of Estimate to insist  that
the City completely review this project, select the ap-
propriate site from every standpoint including cost,
efficiency of operation,  and public acceptability.  And
we must insist that the final design conform to Federal
and State standards for water quality.
                       * * *
April 18, 1968
MEMORANDUM CONCERNING THE NORTH RIVER WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL PLANT
TO:            The Honorable Stewart L. Udall, Secretary
               of the Interior
FROM:          William F. Ryan, Member of Congress, 20th
               District, New York

-------
              Hon. W. F. Ryan                         53








               The proposed North River Water Pollution



Control Plant should not be approved by the Secretary of



the Interior for the following reasons:



               1.  Community Objections



               The proposed location between 137th Street



and 145th Street on the Hudson River (in reality it is



between 135th Street and 145th Streetwhich has never been



told to the community) is adjacent to c. racially and econ-



omically integrated residential community*



               The community through its elected public



and party officials, leaders of community organizations,



and ad hoc committees has objected most strenuously to



the proposed site and the plan to deposit a sewage treat-



ment plant at its front door.



               There is also bitter resentment because



the project was originally to have been built at 70th



Street, and plans were drawn for that location.  Instead,



it has been "dumped" in West Harlem.



               Assistant Secretary of the Interior Max



Edwards met with local community leaders and elected



public officials on March 9, 1968.  He agreed to examine



the issues raised and to report back before any further



action would be taken by the Department of the Interior.

-------
              Hon. W. P. Ryan                         54








               The site is at a point where there is di-




rect access to the Hudson River bank, the West Side High-




way being elevated; and the community had looked forward



to the development of this area for recreational use.




               The 22-acre plant would displace eight




city blocks of shoreline (plus an additional 2.8 acres




and 4.9 acres which the City intends to acquire at some




later date).  Thus, the City is planning to create a 30~



acre blight on the Hudson River Shoreline.  And the ar-




chitectural treatment will destroy the natural aesthetic




feeling of the river view.  Whereas the natural effect




of a river shoreline is horizontal, presenting rolling



vistas to the eye, the artificial effect of the proposed



design is verticaltowering fountains and sludge tanks.



Residents using the projected park would be overwhelmed



and minimizedas they already are by living among tower-




ing buildings.  Thirty acres of white concrete, fountains



and reflecting pools will dominate the visual sweep of



the shoreline for miles, ruining the view.




               The odors which the plant may produce are




a potential nuisanceall the more so because they will




be carried into the community by the prevailing westerly




winds.



               In an effort to control the odor, the

-------
              Hon. W. F. Ryan                         55








exhaust air from the ventilating system is to be mixed with



ozone, which may create a health hazard.



               Dr. Gerald E. Gaull of the College of



Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, who has



discussed the question of ozone with Dr. Bernard Saltz-



man of the Taft Center for Air Pollution Research in Cin-



cinnati, has pointed out the possibility of lung damage,



the threat of cancer, the danger of breakdown in human



chromosonesrepresenting the fear of transmissible genetic



defects.



               The potential threat to health should be



thoroughly analyzed.



               2'  Alternate Sites



               Other sites would be less expensive to



build and operate.  The Hazen and Sawyer "Plant Site Re-



view" dated March 19, 1968, stated that "waterfront sites



at 57th and 66th Streets appear to be the most promising



alternates from the standpoint of cost, minimum inter-



ference with parks, and public acceptability."  In dis-



cussing these sites, Hazen and Sawyer estimate that



they would be cheaper than the proposed site in construc-



tion cost of interceptor, construction cost of pumping



station and plant, as well as in other costs.

-------
              Hon.  W. F. Ryan                         56








               Among other "other costs" Hazen and Saw-



yer did not consider are costs of the architectural



cosmetic treatment:  the fountain and pool treatment is



estimated to cost $12 to $15 million; the park is esti-



mated to cost $16 to $20 million. Thus, the additional



costsat this siteof initial construction could run



up to $35 million.



               Sludge barging would be less costly as



the site moved further downtown; savings could amount to



between $15,000 and $100,000 per year, according to Hazen



and Sawyer.



               A study by Joseph S. Ward and Associates



indicated that foundation costs would also be substan-



tially lower at the downtown sites.



               3.  Non-compliance with Federal and State



Standards.



               The plant design does not meet Federal and



State Standards.



               Following the September 20-21, 1967, Hudson



River Enforcement Conference, Hew York, New Jersey, the



Interstate Sanitation Commission and Federal Conferees



agreed and recommended that "All wastes prior to discharge



into the waters covered by the conference shall be treated

-------
              Hon. w. p. Ryan                         57

 *
to provide a minimum of 80% reduction of biochemical oxy-

gen demand at all times.  It is recognized that this will

require a design for an average removal of 90% of BOD...*

               Standards submitted by New York State and

approved by the Secretary of the Interior on August 7,

1967, require secondary treatment of municipal waste as

a minimum.  Secondary treatment is defined as a process

which removes BOD in the range of 75 to 95 per cent.

               Senator Robert F. Kennedy at the Conference

on September 20, 1967, pointed out that the design will

not provide secondary treatment, and he recommended that

the Federal Government reject the plan and work with New

York City to develop alternatives.

               A process design analysis and an evalua-

tion of the effect of the plant on pollution abatement
were presented to New York City on February 20, 1967, by

Quirk, Lawler and Hatusky, Engineers.  This study makes

it clear that the design is for a short period aeration

plant in which the "yearly average BOD removal may be

expected to range between 50 and 55%."  (p. C-8)

               the Quirk, Lawler and Matusky analysis

makes the point several times:

               "New York City Department of Public Works

-------
              Hon.  w.  F.  Ryan                         58








               projection indicates 53% removal of in-



               fluent five-day BOD after 33 minute aera-



               tion, at a Gould sludge age of 0.2 days."



               (p. 04)



               "At the design flow of 220 ragd, the aera-



               tion system at North River can be expected




               to effect a BOD removal comparable to Owls



               Head, e.g. 50 to 55% on a long term aver-



               age." (p,  C-ll)



               "...short period aeration is an effective



               means of intermediate treatment and can be



               expected to remove roughly 50% of influent



               sewage BOD." (p. 29)



               Although the Hudson River standards call



for a design of 90% BOD removal in order to achieve 80%



BOD removal at all times, Deputy Commissioner Dwight P.



Metzler said in a letter of January 19, 1968, to Assembly*



man Albert Blumenthal, Chairman, New York State Assembly



Committee on Health, "Because of present site limitations



it is impossible to design for 90% removal at this plant.



Consequently, the City has agreed to design for 70% re-



moval ..."



               In the same letter Deputy Commissioner

-------
              Hon. W. F. Ryan                         59








Metzler said that under the State pollution control pro-



gram, "Secondary treatment must be provided for all dis-



charges of sanitary waste.  We consider a secondary



treatment to be that needed to produce a removal of 75



to 95% BOD and suspended solids."



               It is apparent that the New York State



Department of Health has forwarded an application which



fails to meet the requirements of the Hudson River Enforce-



ment Conference and the State standards approved by the



Secretary of the Interior.



               The Federal Water Pollution Control Act



(Section 8
-------
              Hon.  w,  F.  Ryan                         60








Federal and State Water Quality standards and which ut-



terly fails to meet the required design for 90% BOD re-



moval in order to achieve 80% BOD removal at all times?



               An attempt has been made to justify a



grant for the project on the ground that in the future



New York City intends to make two additions to the plant.



               The first addition, for which no plans have



been drawn, is to be built on an additional 2.8 acres



which it is contended will permit an extension of the faci-



lities to provide a design capacity for 70% BOD removal.



               It is said that a second addition would



be built on another 4.9 acres, which has not been acquired



but which, it is contended, would provide a design capa-



city for 90% BOD removal.



               No engineering plans or blueprints have



been drawn for either addition.  There is no assurance



that either will be built or, if built, meet water quality



standards.



               As a matter of fact, the only reference to



an expansion of the facilities in the Quirk, Lawler and



Matusky study indicates that the BOD removal would be 65%:



               "A 65% 300 removal at North River, repre-



               senting expansion of the proposed aeration

-------
              Hon. W. P. Ryan                         61








               facilities, will bring the quarterly aver-



               age DO to 53% saturation." (p. C-17)



               It is interesting to note that 70% BOD



removal would be greater than the present average per



cent BOD removal in all the rest of New York City's



plants (63%) and greater than any of the plants but one



(Jamaica72%) based on an average of the years 1963-1965.



               As far as the second addition of 4.9 acres



is concerned, it is apparent that the City has no present



intention of building on it.  It is apparent from a letter



dated March 6, 1968, from Eugene E. Hult, Commissioner,



New York City Department of Public Works to Rocco Ricci,



Chief, Construction Grants Activities (New York, New



Jersey and Delaware), Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-



ministration, Metuchen, New Jersey, in which Commissioner



Hult said:



               "The administrative procedure for the



               eventual relocation of the existing Marine



               Transfer Station, south of the plant, has



               been initiated and will provide an addi-



               tional 212,000 square feet (4.9 acres).



               This will provide site potential if future



               upgradings of river standards require it."

-------
              Hon.  W. F. Ryan                         62








               (Parenthesis and emphasis added.)



               4.  AestheticsBeauty of the Hudson River



               The intent of Public Law 89-605, which



created the Hudson River Basin Compact to protect the



scenic beauty of the Hudson River, would be violated by



the construction of the proposed sewage treatment plant



on the shoreline and extending it into the river.  The



natural resources of the river should be restored and



preservednot desecrated.



               (I made this point in my letter of January



15,to Secretary of the Interior Udall and in my letter



of February 14,to Associate Director Lawrence N. Stevens



of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.)



               5.  The North River Pollution Control



Project has not received final approval from the New York



City Board of Estimate, the governing body.



               Regardless of the merits of design, location



and aesthetics, the Secretary of the Interior should not



act upon the application for Federal funds until all local



procedures have been completed.



               The matter has been pending before the New



York City Board of Estimate for some time.  A hearing was



started on April 4; no agreement was reached; and the hearing

-------
              Hon.  W. F. Ryan                         63

 
was continued until April 25.  The Board of Estimate set

up a special committee to study alternative sites.  In

view of this action, it may be some time before a final

decision on the site is made locally.

               6. Legislation pending before the New York

State Legislature would effectively bar construction.

               On March 25,the New York State Assembly

passed by a vote of 135 to 5 a bill to prohibit construc-

tion of a sewage treatment plant within 3500 feet of a

residential area.  This bill is applicable to the pro-

posed site.

               On April 9,the New York State Assembly

passed unanimously a bill which states that the Comp-

troller may not expend funds for, and the Commissioner of

Health may not approve, any municipal sewage or water

pollution treatment facility which does not meet Federal

water quality standards and is not designed for 90% BOD

removal.  This bill is applicable to the proposed North

River Hater Pollution Control Plant.

               In view of the fact that the Assembly has

passed two bills directly affecting the project, which

are now awaiting action in the Senate, the Secretary of

the Interior should certainly not act upon the application

-------
              Hon.  W.  F.  Ryan                         64

for Federal funds before the Senate takes action.
               Conclusion
               For the foregoing reasons it is respect-
fully submitted that the Secretary of the Interior should
not approve the application for Federal funds for the
North River Water Pollution Control Plant.
                     * * *
               (Brochure entitled "Riverbank" was received
as an exhibit and will be found in the files of the Feder-
al Water Pollution Control Administration.)
               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Thank you very much, Mrs.
Faust.
               We have with us today State Senator Samuel
Greenbarg.  Senator Greenberg?
               (No response)
               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Assemblyman Andrew Stein is
represented by his staff assistant.  Any remarks?
               (No response)
               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Assemblyman Peter Berle.
Is he here?
               (No response)
               SECRETARY KLEIN:  At this point, we will
then proceed with the Federal Government's presentation*

-------
                   L.  M.  Klashman                     65


*
               Mr.  Klashman.


                   STATEMENT BY

              MR. LESTER M. KLASHMAN

          CONFEREE AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR

                 NORTHEAST REGION

   FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

               BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS


               MR.  KLASHMAN:  Thank you, Mr.  Klein*

               As a result of the conference  held in

September of 1965,  on the Hudson River and its tributar-

ies, one of the conclusions and recommendations read as

follows:

               "The magnitude of the pollution problem

     caused by discharges from combined sewer overflows

     is recognized.  The Department of Health, Education

     and Welfare, in cooperation with the States of  New

     Jersey, New York and the Interstate Sanitation  Com-

     mission, will undertake a review of the  problem and

     develop a program for action for consideration  by

     the Federal Government, the States and the Inter-

     state Sanitation Commission by December  31, 1968.

               "The construction of combined  sewer systems

-------
                   L.  M.  Klashman                     66








     in newly developed or redeveloped urban areas shall



     be prohibited, and existing combined sewers shall



     be eliminated wherever feasible.



               "Programs  shall be established for sur-



     veillance of existing combined sewer systems and



     flow regulating structures to convey the maximum



     practicable amount of combined flows to and through



     treatment plants."



               I should like to now call on Mr. Albert



Bromberg, Chief, Operations Branch, Hudson-Delaware Basins



Office of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-



tion, Edison, New Jersey, to report on,  first,



the work we have done on the combined sewer overflows in



the Hudson, and follow this up with a brief statement



on some current observations which we made on the Passaic



Valley Sewer Authority.



               Mr. Bromberg.

-------
                   A. Bromberg                        7









                   STATEMENT BY




               MR. ALBERT BROMBERG



               CHIEF OF OPERATIONS



          HUDSON-DELAWARE BASINS OFFICE




  FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION




                EDISON, NEW JERSEY






               MR. BROMBERG:  Thank you, Mr. Klashman.




               Mr. Chairman, Conferees:



               My name is Albert Bromberg.  I am Chief



of Operations at the Hudson-Delaware Basins Office of




the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in




Edison, New Jersey.




               I would like to read for you most of



our report entitled, "An Evaluation of the Significance




of Combined Sewer Overflows in the Hudson River Confer-



ence Area."  However, I would like to enter the entire



report for the record.



               Mr. Klashman has already indicated the



purpose and reason for the preparing and giving of this



report.




      (The  above-mentioned  report  was  read and  follows.)

-------
                                        68
                                  CWT 10-11
    WATER
                      AN
                EVALUATION
                    OF THE
                SIGNIFICANCE
                      OF
       COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
                    IN THE
     HUDSON RIVER CONFERENCE AREA
                   JUNE 1969
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL A DMINISTRATION  U S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
       HUDSON-DELAWARE BASINS OFFICE, EDISON, NEW JERSEY

-------
                                                                69
     AN EVALUATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF

           COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS

                    IN THE



   HUDSON RIVER ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE AREA
       U. S- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
               NORTHEAST REGION
        HUDSON-DELAWARE BASINS OFFICE
                  June 1969

-------
                                                                         70
Excerpts from the Conference In the Matter of Pollution of the
Interstate Waters of the Hudson River and its Tributaries -
New York and New Jersey September 28, 29, and 30,  1965.
Item 13 - Conclusions and Recommendations


     The magnitude of the pollution problem caused by discharges

from combined sewer overflows is recognized.  The Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare, in cooperation with the States

of New Jersey, New York, and the Interstate Sanitation Commission,

will undertake a review of the problem and develop a program for

action for consideration by the Federal Government, the States

and the Interstate Sanitation Commission by December 31.  1968.

     The construction of combined sewer systems  in newly  developed

or redeveloped urban areas shall be prohibited,  and existing com-

bined sewers  shall be eliminated wherever feasible.

     Programs shall be established for surveillance of existing

combined sewer systems and flow regulating  structures to  convey

the maximum practicable amount of combined  flows to and through

treatment plants.

-------
Acknowledgement









We wish to thank the States of New York and New Jersey and the




Interstate Sanitation Commission for their assistance in gathering




data contained in this report.
                                 iii

-------
                                                                     72
                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary and Recommendations 	     vi

Introduction	      1

Methodology	,	,  .      5

Results	  .      12

Methods of Correction 	      20

Discussion	      25

Bibliography (References) 	  .      28

Appendix

     A.  Previous Studies 	      31

     B.  Discussion of Methodology	      39

     C.  List of FWPCA Grants and Contracts for
         the Investigation of Storm and Combined
         Sewer Overflows	      53
                             IV

-------
                                TABLES

Number                                                           Page

  1       Sections Established for the Evaluation of              8
          Combined Sewer Overflows

  2       Estimated BOD Load from Municipal Discharges            14
          and Combined Sewer Overflows in the Hudson
          River Conference Area

  3       Future Waste Loads as Discharged to Prescribed          18
          Water Use Areas

  A-l     Quality Characteristics of Combined Sewer Over-         37
          flows for Various Studies

  A-2     Quality Characteristics of Stormwater Runoff            38
          Collection Systems

  B-l     Estimated Load from Municipal Discharges                45
          Hudson River Conference Area

  B-2     Estimated Load from Combined Sewer Overflows            50
          Hudson River Conference Area

  C-l     Water Pollution Control, Storm and Combined             55
          Sewer Grants, Fiscal Year 1968.  Awarded Under
          Section 6 (a) 1 of the Federal Water Pollution
          Control Act, As Amended

  C-2     Water Pollution Control, Storm and Combined             60
          Sewer Contracts, Fiscal Year 1968.  Awarded Under
          Section 6 (a) 1 of the Federal Water Pollution
          Control Act, As Amended

                               FIGURES

  1       Hudson River Conference Area                            3

  2A      Collection Systems With Combined Sewer Overflows,       9
          Green Island to Kingston, Hudson River

  2B      Collection Systems With Combined Sewer Overflows,       10
          Kingston To Yonkers, Hudson River

  2C      Collection Systems With Combined Sewer Overflows,       11
          Tarrytown to Port Richmond, Hudson River

-------
                                                                              74
                     SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS









1.  The waters of the Hudson River Enforcement Conference Area




receive the discharge from 74 municipal sewerage systems, 43 of




which have collection systems which are totally or partially




combined.




2.  After implementation of the conference recommendations,




combined sewer overflows will contribute approximately 827o of




the estimated BOD from municipal discharges, or 61,000,000




pounds per year.




3.  Only 2.6%, or 1,600,000 pounds per year of the future combined




sewer overflow load will discharge to bodies of water classified




for water supply or bathing.  Significant quantities of combined




sewer overflow in the New York Metropolitan Area discharge immed-




iately adjacent to waters used for bathing (salt water beaches of




Staten Island, Coney Island and western Long Island Sound).  Bac-




terial contamination of these recreational areas is of particular




concern.




4.  Studies are needed  in the conference area to determine:  a)




the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of combined sewer




overflow resulting from differing land use areas; and b)  the effect




of combined sewer overflow  on the quality of the receiving water.




5.  When the above studies  are completed, consideration  should be




given for remedial action,  if indicated, to eliminate combined sewer




overflows in areas of highest proposed water use.
                                 VL

-------
                                                                             75


                                INTRODUCTION
 9
Purpose and Scope

     Overflows from combined sewer collection systems can create pollu-

tion problems.  The extent of these problems in the Hudson River Con-

ference area are not known.  Studies have been carried out in other areas

to evaluate the quality of combined sewer overflows, and to a lesser ex-

tent, their effect on the receiving water.  The purposes of this study

are to review briefly the work already done, assess the problem as it

relates to the Hudson River Conference Area and offer suggestions to the

conferees regarding a solution to the problem.

     The Hudson River Enforcement Conference Area, as shown in Figure 1,

is defined as the main stem of the Hudson River from the Federal Lock at

Troy, New York to the Battery in New York City, the Upper Bay of New York

Harbor, the East River from the Battery to Throgs Neck, the Harlem River,

Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay.

Background

     Because of the need for power, transportation and water supply, the

vast majority of American cities developed along waterways.  Even before

the installation of public water supplies, diversion of stormwater was of

concern in these communities.  To this end open ditches and later closed

piping systems were developed.  All discharges were made directly into the

nearest water course.

     As public water supplies were developed it became necessary to collect

and dispose of wastewater.  The most convenient and economic solution was

to utilize the existing storm sewers to carry the domestic wastewater.  As

municipalities became increasingly aware of the need to treat sanitary

wastewater, the many short sewers discharging untreated wastewater to the

nearest watercourses had to be intercepted and the collection system modified


                                     1

-------
                                                                             76
to deliver the wastewater to a single point - the treatment plant.




Because it was considered hydraulically and economically impractical




to deliver all wastewater and stormwater to a plant,  intercepting sewers




were constructed which diverted only the dry weather  flow to the treat-




ment plant.  All flows in excess of this were diverted directly to a




watercourse via diversion chambers.  Design of the intercepting sewer




was usually based on the acceptance of two to three times the average




dry weather flow.  It was not recognized until later  that these diverted




flows constituted a significant source of pollution.




     Since the overflow is a mixture of sanitary wastewater and stormwater,




such diversions result in the discharge of untreated  wastes to the stream.




Overflows also flush any organic matter which has accumulated in the col-




lection system during dry weather-low flow periods.  This phenomenon is




one of the many factors responsible for substantial organic loading of




streams during storms.




     The latest unpublished FWPCA inventory of municipal sewage facilities




in the United States lists more than 1300 jurisdictions which are served




in whole or part by combined sewers.  These systems,  serving a total pop-




ulation of 54 million    represent 43% of the total sewered population.




     There have been few studies conducted which provide information on




the quality and quantity of overflow from either combined sewer or  separate




stormwater systems.  These studies differ widely in their approach  to the




problem and presentation of the pertinent data.  The results of several




of these studies are summarized in Appendix A.




     These limited studies show that the quality of both combined sewer




overflows and stormwater runoff is highly variable and  dependent on the




particular characteristics ot  an individual drainage or catchment area.




Data collected  in one area are not generally  applicable to  other areas  of

-------
                                         77
HUDSON RIVER CONFERENCE AREA
                           N
          POU<3HKECTSIE
             Figure 1
                3

-------
                                                                            78
similar, let alone different,  characteristics.   Combined  sewer  overflow




data have not been collected for  systems  within  the  study area.  There-




fore, an evaluation of the problem necessitates  the  use of data  collected




in other areas;  namely,  that contained  in the  literature.

-------
                                                                                79
                                METHODOLOGY

     The procedure used to evaluate the significance of the pollutional

 load from combined sewer overflows in the Hudson River Conference Area

 involved developing estimates of:

    1.  The pollutional load resulting from combined sewer overflows.

    2.  The pollutional load from existing municipal systems.

    3.  The pollutional loads from municipal systems after implementation

of the conference recommendations.  One of these recommendations states,

"All wastes prior to discharge into the waters covered by the conference

(a) shall be treated to provide a minimum of 80 percent reduction of bio-

chemical oxygen demand at all times.  It is recognized that this will re-

quire a design for an average removal of 90 percent of biochemical oxygen

demand".

     These loadings were compared to assess the significance of combined

sewer overflows.  Urban runoff via separate collection systems and rural

surface runoff were not included in this evaluation since they do not con-

tribute to the combined sewer overflow problem as defined within the con-

text of this report.  Although some data are available on the magnitude of

industrial waste discharges, they are not considered sufficiently accurate

for inclusion in the waste load comparison.

     For purposes of evaluating the data, the waters in the conference area

were divided into eight sections which conform to those established by the

water quality standards.  The description of each section and its designa-

ted use under the Standards is summarized in Table 1.  Figures 2A, 2B and

2c illustrate these sections.

     The pollutional load from combined sewer overflows was estimated by
                                                               (2)
using a procedure similar to the analysis suggested by Stanley.   This tech-

-------
                                                                             80
nique involves the  computation  of  the  average volume discharged from each

combined sewer collection system and a calculation  of the  yearly average

BOD load contained  in the discharged volume.  Calculation  of  the volume

discharged was based upon the equation:

     Q0 = CIA + Qd  - Qp


          Where:

          Q  = volume of combined  sewer overflow per unit  time

          C  = runoff coefficient

          I  = average intensity of rainfall


          A  = drainage area served by combined sewers


          QJ = volume of average municipal dry-weather  flow per unit time


          Q  = capacity of waste treatment facility
           P

The overflow BOD load was determined by using the equation:

     LQ = 9o x  T  x Bn
               IT

          Where:

          Lo = the  BOD5 load from  combined sewer overflows

          Q0 = volume of combined  sewer overflow per  unit  time

          T  = time duration of storms which cause  combined sewer  overflow


          BQ = average concentration of 5-day BOD


     A detailed discussion of the  computational procedure  is  presented in

Appendix B.

     The two most significant variables in this computation are  the runoff

coefficient, "C", and the BOD concentration,  "B0".   Runoff coefficient

values for each area were chosen primarily on the basis of population   den-

sity.  Two values of BOD concentration were used:  150 mg/1 for  the highly

urbanized metropolitan area (Sections  VI - VIII) and  40 mg/1 for  the less

-------
                                                                            81
urbanized areas of the central and Upper Hudson River Valley (Sections  I  -




V).




     Present municipal waste discharge loads  were obtained from published




reports and documents or were computed using  the population served,  a fac-




tor of 0.17 pounds of BODj. per capita per day,  and a  percentage of  BOD




removal based on the existing waste treatment facilities  (see Appendix  B).




Future municipal loads were computed based on present municipal waste




loads treated to 90 percent BOD removal.

-------
                                                                                             82
                                        Table 1

           Sections  Established for the Evaluation of Combined Sewer Overflow
Section
Limits of Section
Water Quality
 Standards     Definition of Best Usage of Waters
  II
           Troy Locks to New Baltimore
New Baltimore to Esopus
NY - Class C   Fishing and any other usages ex-
                cept for bathing or as a source of
                water supply for drinking, culin-
                ary or food processing purposes.

NY - Class A   Source of water supply for drinking,
                culinary or food processing pur-
                poses and any other uses.
  Ill
  IV
  VI
  VII
Esopus to Chelsea
Chelsea to Bear Mountain
 Bridge
           Bear Mountain Bridge
            to N.  J.  State Line
NY-NJ State Line to The
 Narrows, including Upper
 New York Harbor
NY  - Class A
                                           NY - Class B
                                 NY - Class SB
NY  - Class I
Source of water supply for drinking
 culinary or food processing pur-
 poses and any other uses.

BathLng and any other usages, ex-
 cept as a source of water supply
 for drinking, culinary or food
 processing purposes.

Bathing and any other usages ex-
 cept shellfishing for market pur-
 poses.

Fishing and any other usages ex-
 cept bathing or shellfishing for
 market purposes.
The East River from the
 Battery to Throgs Neck,
 including the Harlem River
   VIII    Newark Bay and Kill  Van Kull
NJ  - Class TW-2 Tidal surface waters having limited
                 recreational value and ordinarily
                 not acceptable for bathing but
                 suitable for fish survival
                 although perhaps not suitable for
                 fish propagation.  These waters
                 shall not be an odor nuisance and
                 shall not cause damage to pleasure
                 craft having occasion to traverse
                 the waters.

NY  - Class II  All waters not primarily for rec-
                reational purposes, shellfish cul-
                ture or the development of fish
                life.

NY  - Class II   Al] waters not primarily for
                 recreational purposes, shellfish
                 culture or the development of
                 fish life.

NJ  - Class TW-3 Tidal surface waters used primarily
                 for navigation, not recreation.
                 These waters although not expected
                 to be used for fishing shall pro-
                 vide for fish survival.  These
                 waters shall not be an odor nuis-
                 ance and shall not cause damage
                 to pleasure craft traversing
                 them.
                                               8

-------
                                                83
                     Castleton-on- Hudson
        Coxsackie
       Catskill
Saugerties
Kingston
                                  H
                   Hudson
  COLLECTION  SYSTEMS WITH
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
 GREEN ISLAND TO KINGSTON
        HUDSON  RIVER
              Figure 2A

-------
                                                 84
Kingston
             Poughkeepsie
              COLLECTION SYSTEMS WITH
            COMBINED  SEWER OVERFLOWS
                KINGSTON TO YONKERS
                     HUDSON RIVER
                                   K
              Peekskill
                 Ossining

                  Braircliff Manor

                  No. Tarrytown
                  Tarrytown
                Yonkers
              Figure 2B
                  10

-------
                                                     85
                                     Tarrytown
  COLLECTION SYSTEMS WITH
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
TARRYTOWN TO PT. RICHMOND
        HUDSON  RIVER
     H
                                Wards
                                Island
                                   Hunts Point
                              9
                               Bowery Bay
                                  SECTION YE
                    Figure 2C
                        n

-------
                                                                             86
                               RESULTS




     The significance of the pollutional  load from combined sewer  overflow




can be evaluated by comparing them with municipal  waste discharges.   How-




ever, before making this comparison,  several  factors should be emphasized




concerning the methodology employed,  the  distribution of the combined sewer




overflow load and the validity of the estimated loads versus those which




exist in the real environment.




     1.  The discharges from municipal systems and combined-sewer  overflows




are unevenly distributed throughout the conference area.




     2.  The degree of treatment given municipal discharges at present




varies from no treatment (raw discharge)  to secondary treatment.   This sig-




nificantly affects the magnitude of the municipal  discharge load  to a given




section, but does net materially influence the load from combined  sewer overflows.




     3.  In the calculations for this report, municipalities with combined




sewers discharging untreated (raw) waste were not  considered to contribute to




the present combined sewer overflow load.  After implementation of the con-




ference recommendations, these systems would have combined sewer  overflows




which are then included in the waste load tabulation,




     4.  The occurrence of overflows from combined se.wers  is a random phenomenon




dependent on rainfall.  Computations for the overflow load were based on an




average rainfall intensity for an average precipitation year.  Actual overflow




conditions, however, depend upon the type of storm,  its intensity and duration.




Short duration, high intensity storms impose significant transient loads upon




a collection system and the receiving water.  Long duration, low  intensity




storms, can also produce high loadings which are spread over greater time




periods.  The  initial discharge  from a given storm can  contain a  large portion




of the total load because of flushing of solids accumulated  in the collection




                                       12

-------
                                                                              87



                                     (3) (4)
system during dry weather conditions.


     5.  It has been reported that as much as 95 percent of the untreated


wastewater can be discharged directly to the receiving water via combined

                                          (5)
sewer overflow during periods of rainfall.


     6.  It is recognized that untreated municipal discharges and combined


sewer outflows contain significant quantities of suspended solids and bac-


teria.  The large variability in the available data precluded a detailed


evaluation of these parameters,


Present Combined Sewer Overflow Load


     The combined sewer and municipal discharge loads to the conference


area are summarized in Table 2,  The location of the existing combined sewer


collection systems are shown in Figures 2A, 2B and 2C,  Within this area,


there are 74 municipal collection systems,  43 of which have combined sewers.


These combined systems serve an area of approximately 165,000 acres and a


population of approximately 7.5 million people.  The average annual load of


5-day BOD presently discharged to the waters of the conference area from


these combined sewer overflows is estimated at 48 million pounds per year


or approximately 11 percent of the 449 million pounds per year originating


from existing municipal systems.  Nearly all of this combined sewer overflow


pollutional load is discharged to Sections VI, VII and VIII, which includes


the highly urbanized New York Metropolitan Area.  The municipal collection


systems discharging to these sections serve a drainage area of 124,000 acres


and a population slightly in excess of 7.0 million people.


     In Sections I through V, Troy to the New York-New Jersey state lines,


the average combined sewer overflow load is 8 percent of the annual 27 million


pounds of BOD from municipal discharges.  The largest concentration of these


loads is in Section I, the Albany-Troy metropolitan area.  Combined sewer

-------
                                                                                                                                                                             88
1
                   CO
                   CJ
               T3  C
               C  0)
               CO  rJ
                   CO
               CO  1-1
               ai  c
               oo o
               rl  U
               tfl


               CJ  CO
               co  >
               rl  rl
               Q  Oi

               rH  C
               Cfl  O
               ft CO
                rl  T3
O   C
IJ  'rl
               T3
               CO

               O
               g
               TJ   I-l
               CO   CO
               4J   3
 co   co
W   C
     rl
    fs

     
    o











T3
CO
0
!_3

4-1
co
cO
S

CO
i-l
4-1
























T3
to
O
fj
P
CO
CO
EC

.p
C
CO
co
CO

Pl4






























TD
0)
C 3
H O r-H
Xi rH CO
8 U-l ft CO
O iH 'rl OO 4-1
O CO 0 U C
> -rl cfl CO
u-i O C JB CJ
O 3 CJ Sj
tj 2 co to
O CO -H OL4
H 3 o Q
4-1 CO 4-1
CO CO
oi
\
1  1 1

co
3
CO
co 3 
O 14
T3 r-t >,
CO  ,J
a o
o
o
r 1 CO
CO 00 
ft W t-t
rl CO >
cj xi X
rl CJ CO
C co XI
3 'H ,-1
2 Q
co
c 3
r-l O rH
X) r-H Cfl
B j ft a)
O tj -rl 004->
U 4) CJ I-i C
> -rl tO CO
uj O d , CJ
O D CJ U
u  co a)
O CO -rl PL,
'-I 3 0 Q
4-1 a) 4-1

X,
rH|
^4
a)
3

w 3 
O M

a)  > hJ
a o
o
o

rH CO
CO 00 
rl CO >>
CJ XJ X
rl CJ 03
CCA <^
UJ 4J
3 'H i-J

a
(H CO CO
co a u a
Xi CM -ri co co
0 0 Xi 3 -P
3 a CO co
a o w >,
CJ CrO
rH
co CO
IH ft CO
a) -ri cj
XI CJ tJ
8 -rl 3
aco
Z 3 CO

13
o

^J
CJ









00 r-H r-H ^1" CO
CT CO P^ ^ 00
r-H










O O O O O
O O 0 O 0
o o o o o
O CN *o cy i  i
rx ^^ CM CN ^o
>
r-H



O O O O O
o o o o o
O. O CN >O tx
oo in v> o in
rx. co co --J" r^
r>
1  1








*> ^T r-H i H^
r-H r-H r-H










O O O O
O O O O
O O O 1 O

00 CO *O rH
co m in co
00 CO CM ^O




o o o o o
o o o o o
o o o o o
in VO CM rH rH
in tTv in co co
ot ^r co co m
CO CM CN CO *
r-H




Px ^O CN r-H tx



r>. cj^ in oo in
rH r-H






H W r-l > >
r-l H H
r-l








CM
ON











O
O
O
00
CO

CO



O
O
0
H^
*o
^o
r.
CO








CO











0
o
o

CO
rx.
o
n
CN


O
o
0
in
vO
^
CN




CO
CN



j.
in


r-H
Cfl
O

1
^
3
OT








O -^ CJ
in rH V0
rH rH










O O O
O O O
o o a
oo o m
o\ o co
00 LTI rH
rs  r.
oo m to
r-H CO


o o o
o o o
o o o
r* r^ CN
oo r>. 'jo
^ O '^
n r. s
IX. 1  1 rH
CO CO







co m o
CO CO










o o o
000
o o o

oo o m
o .=t oo
VO CO rH
x * >
&\ CN CO
CO

O O O
000
o o o
ON O O
o o in
o\ oo m
t-H O\ rH
CO



o *o -&
rH



O v> H/
rH






H M H
> H H









CN
oo











o
o
o
CO
oo
in
r.
f^,
in


o
o
o
*&
CM
in
**
o
rx







rH
r-H










O
O
O

CO
CO

n
in


o
o
o
oT
in
CN
CM
CN
4'



O
CN



O
CN


rH
CO
O
H
1
XI

OT








CN
oo











o
o
o
rH
in
a\
r.
0
*JD


O
O
o
cp
ON
rH
V.
.H/
f^







rH
r-H










0
O
0

rH
r-H
p^
n
fv^
^J-

O
O
o
.rf1
CN
O>
S
^



3



j.
^




rH
Cfl

O
H
                                                                                                                                                                    00

                                                                                                                                                                   >rl
                                                                                                                                                                    00
                                                                                                                                                                    |H
                                                                                                                                                                    CtJ
                                                                                                                                                                   J3
                                                                                                                                                                    a
                                                                                                                                                                    co
                                                                                                                                                                   r<
                                                                                                                                                                   T3

                                                                                                                                                                    co

                                                                                                                                                                    co
                                                                                                                                                                    M
                                                                                                                                                                    CO
                                                                                                                                                                    CO

                                                                                                                                                                    r-l
                                                                                                                                                                    A
                                                                                                                                                                    S
                                                                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                                                                    CJ

                                                                                                                                                                    CO
                                                                                                                                                                    co
                                                                                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                                                                                     S
                                                                                                                                                                     o
                                                                                                                                                                     u
                                                                                                                                                                    y-t

                                                                                                                                                                    13
                                                                                                                                                                     ra
                                                                                                                                                                    rH
                                                                                                                                                                     CJ
                                                                                                                                                                     C
                                                                                                                                                                     O
                                                                                                                                                                     C
                                                                                                                                                                    a

                                                                                                                                                                    T3
                                                                                                                                                                     n)
                                                                                                                                                                     o
                                                                                                                                                                     CO

                                                                                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                                                                                     CO

                                                                                                                                                                    a   
                                                                                                                                                                     CO  CO
                                                                                                                                                                     C  4-1
                                                                                                                                                                    rl  CO
                                                                                                                                                                     a  73
                                                                                                                                                                         co
                                                                                                                                                                     4J  H-l
                                                                                                                                                                     c  co
                                                                                                                                                                     co  co
                                                                                                                                                                     CO  1-1
                                                                                                                                                                     CO  -P
                                                                                                                                                                     H  C
                                                                                                                                                                     P-i  S
                                                                                                                                                                    X

-------
                                                                             89
verflows in this section represent a very small portion of the total  mu-
nicipal load because, based upon the methodology used, four of the eight
combined systems discharging without treatment were not considered to
contribute to the present overflow load.
     The combined sewer overflow load in Sections VI, VII and VIII was es-
timated to be 11 percent of the total municipal load.  Wide discrepancies
between the overflow and municipal discharge loads were found among the
respective sections.  In Section VI, combined sewer overflows contributed
only 3 percent of the municipal load.  This results from the large raw dis-
charges from Manhattan with the assumption of no associated combined sewer
overflow and the municipal discharge from the Passaic Valley Sewerage  Com-
mission, which discharges its combined sewer overflow to waters outside the
conference area.  In contrast, the combined sewer overflow load in Sections
VII and VIII was approximately one-third the municipal load.  In both these
sections, the large metropolitan service areas are characterized by dense
urban development with generally high runoff coefficients which increase
combined sewer overflows, while there is a significant reduction of the mu-
nicipal discharge load through treatment.
Future Combined Sewer Overflow Load
     After implementation of the conference recommendations, the significance
of the pollutional load from combined sewer overflows becomes more apparent.
Overflow loads will then be greater than 80 percent of the municipal discharge
load, or 61,000,000 versus 74,200,000 pounds of BOD per year.  A significant
change occurs in Sections I" through V, where the load from combined systems
will be 92 percent of the municipal load or 3,400,000 versus 3,700.,000 pounds
of BOD per year.  In Sections VI through VIII, combined sewer overflows will
be 82 percent of the municipal discharge load, or 57,600,000 versus 70,500,000
pounds of BOD per year.
                                         15

-------
                                                                            90


     Although data are not available to include industrial waste discharge


loads in the overall comparison with combined sewer overflows, an estimate


was made to determine in which sections it will have the most significant


effect.  Large industrial discharges are known to exist in the Albany-Troy


area(Section I) and in the Tarrytown area (Section V).  When these indus-


trial waste loads are considered, combined sewer overflow would drop to


about 1.7 and 2.2 percent of the present load and 19.5 and 11.5 percent of


the future load, respectively, in Sections I and V.  The ratio of combined


sewer overflow to total discharge load for other sections of the study area


do not materially change.


     Although this report is concerned primarily with the BOD load contained


in combined sewer overflows, there are other pollutional characteristics


such as suspended solids and bacteria that add to the total problem.


Suspended Solids


     Overflows from combined sewers contain suspended solids normally found


in municipal sewage and accumulated solids that have settled in sewers and


are flushed out during periods of storm flow.  This material constitutes a


portion of the BOD contained in combined sewer overflows.  It increases the


turbidity of the receiving water and may settle to form oxygen demanding


benthic deposits.  The suspended solids concentrations found in combined


sewer overflows from previous studies are summarized in Appendix Table A-l.


Applying an average concentration for suspended solids to the estimated


volume of combined sewer overflow after implementation of the conference


recommendations indicates that approximately 150 million pounds per year


will be discharged to the water of the conference area.


Bacteria


     Combined sewer overflows have been found to contain densities of coli-

                                                                        (6)
form organisms in the order of magnitude of that presetnt in raw sewage.


                                   16

-------
                                                                             91
 Other studies have indicated that coliform densities  increased by a factor




 of ten in the vicinity of combined sewer overflows, and persisted for




 periods of several days.   It is reasonable to assume  that  similar conditions




 would occur in the conference area.




 Effect on Water Uses




      The conference recommendations  specify in part that all  wastes in the




 conference area "...require  a design for an average removal  of 90 percent




 of biochemical oxygen demand..." and "...effective disinfection of the




 effluents as  required to  protect water  uses...".   Combined sewer overflows




.will  continue to introduce to the receiving water constituents that may tempo-




 rarily violate the standards for the prescribed uses.  Overflows contribute




 organic material which decrease dissolved oxygen, introduce  floating,  sus-




 pended and settleable material which reduce the aesthetic  and recreational




 values of the water and increase bacterial densities  which can constitute




 a  danger to public health.




      The future combined  sewer overflow and municipal discharge loads  in




 relation to the primary water uses as defined by the  water quality standards




 are summarized in Table 3.




      Of the ^3 combined systems in the  conference area, 16 will discharge




 overflows representing 2  percent of  the total load, or 1,600,000 pounds of




 BOD per year,  to waters classified for  water supply and bathing.  Overflows




 from  27 combined systems  will discharge the remaining 59,000,000 pounds per




 year  to water classified  for fishing and navigation.   A large portion  of




 this  latter discharge,  however,  affects bathing waters which are immediately




 adjacent to New York Harbor  in the western end of Long Island Sound and the




 Lower Bay outside the Narrows.  Water quality and dye studies conducted by




 the FWPCA in  connection with the Conference on Pollution of  Raritan Bay and






                                    17

-------
 CO
 cfl
 a)
 a)
 CO
 CU
4-1
JS
H
 l-l
 CJ
 CO
 CU
 O
4-1

T)
 CU
DO
 U

J
 CJ
 CO
 r-l
Q
 CO
s
 o
 3
4-1
CU
a)
CO
5
o

C OT
3 co
S co "o
o cu
M iJ c;
a) 3 -r-i
l O J2
a co a
3 O
z o
1-H
cd co
t-i CL, 0>
cu -^ cj
Q O Li
a -" 3
3 C 0
a a co
c
0
i-4
1 \
4-1
CJ
0)
CO

0)
> CO
&-i C3
crt
i-l Q)
(-1 4-1
PM ct)






O O O O
O O 0 0
o o o o
oo o oo in
rH ON in 00
1^ 00 VD \O
* vt
O 00
CN CO













O O O O
0000
o o o o
CN CO *> CT\
i H vo r^ co
fx 1-H CN O
* M *
r-i CTl CO
CO CO






r^. o
00 00 r-l i-H









ct CO l* O
l-l CN CN r-l


M
M M
M M
M > H >
" > H
H > H
H H H >
r-l
ex o
3 -rl
co bO bO 4-1
C C aS
U T-l -r-t bO

Ctf Cd *rl Cd
JS BQ &4 3





O
O
O
i i
in
O"s
^
0
VO













O
O
o
o

r-l

^







CO










.J.
f^













1 1
ctf
4-1
o
H
                                                                                                                       92
                                                                                                            18

-------
                                                                              93
Adjacent Interstate Waters     showed that waste discharged to Upper




Bay of New York Harbor affected the waters off Coney Island and Staten




Island.
                                    19

-------
                                                                            94
                                                                               *




                                             (1) (5) (/*)
                        Methods of Correction



     Several alternatives are available for the elimination and/or treat-



ment of the overflow from combined sewers.  For the purpose of discussion,



these methods have been divided into the following categories:



     1.  Separation of sewers



     2.  Storage and return to the system for treatment



     3.  Treatment at the point of overflow



     4.  Miscellaneous



Separation of Sewers



                         Complete Separation



     New construction of waste collection systems favors a separation of



stormwater and sanitary waste.  One recommendation of the conferees in the



Hudson River Enforcement Conference, September 1965, was "the construction



of combined sewer systems in newly developed or redeveloped urban areas



shall be prohibited",.  This recommendation has been effected  for new con-



struction throughout the conference area.  The conferees also recommended



elimination of combined sewers wherever feasible.



     Complete separation of an existing combined system can be an enormous



structural and economic undertaking.   In many  instances, the  task is further



complicated by the presence of underground utility  lines (gas, electric,



telephone, steam, etc.) and subways, and  the traffic rerouting associated



with open-cut excavations.



     The American Public Works Association     has  estimated that  the cost



of complete  separation of sewers  on a  national  basis will  exceed  $49 billion.



These  studies indicate average per acre costs  of $13,000 and  $19,000 and



average per  capita costs of $1125 and  $700 for the Middle  Atlantic  and New



England areas, respectively.   It  is reasonable  to expect that  costs  for





                                    20

-------
                                                                             95
complete separation in the New York Metropolitan Area would be signi-


ficantly higher than these estimates.   Weighing these factors  with the


need for funds for other aspects of the pollution control program,


complete separation does not appear feasible in the conference area.


                          Partial Separation


     In lieu of complete separation, collection of either street runoff,


roof drains, air conditioner flow or foundation drains for diversion  to


a separate collection system can represent an alternative which would


partially alleviate the problem of combined sewer overflows.  Partial


separation has been calculated to reduce the total volume of runoff by


30-60 percent.  The cost can be from 10-50 percent of that required for

                    (4)
complete separation.


Storage and Return to the System for Treatment


     Methods for the storage of combined sewer overflow include: (1)  util-


ization of excess capacity of the combined sewer, (2) underground storage


facilities such as tunnels, (3) surface structures such as holding basins,


ponds or lagoons, and (4) inflatable underwater holding tanks.  The stored


wastewater would be returned to the system for treatment during low flow


periods.  Each of these methods has merit depending on the physical char-


acteristics of the area, geological structure and proximity to a water


body.  Among the storm and combined sewer grants and projects that have


been awarded by the FWPCA (see Appendix C), Minneapolis, Minn, is investi-


gating in-sewer storage, Chicago, 111. is constructing a tunnel for storage


and several areas are studying  inflatable tanks.  Surface  ponds and lagoons


are feasible only where sufficient  land is available near  the point of  over-


flow, i.e., in rural areas  or  close proximity to tidal or  flood  plain  flat-


lands.  When studies of these storage concepts are completed, the results


                                        21

-------
                                                                             96
will provide guidelines for recommending alternative solutions for other


areas.


     All methods which provide storage of combined sewer overflow will


effect some degree of treatment by the removal of grit and other settle-


able solids.  The need for collection and removal of this accumulated


matter will increase operation and maintenance costs.


Treatment at the Point of Overflow


     Various types and degrees of treatment may be effected at the point


of overflow.  Selection of the type of treatment should be dependent on


the projected use of the receiving water.  Treatment methods which can


be used include disinfection, screening, settling or any combination of


the three.  Disinfection alone can significantly reduce the bacterial


concentrations to levels required by the standards but will have  little


effect upon the solids and BOD concentrations present in the overflow.


Chlorination, when applied at the proper dosage, will require effective


contact time in terms of residence or flow time  in the sewer or holding


basin.  High solids concentrations tend to reduce the bacteriocidal ef-


fects of the disinfectants resulting in the need for larger and costlier


dosages.  It has been estimated that the chlorine needed to disinfect a


mixture of  stormwater and sanitary sewage would  be 20 percent greater than

                          (8)
for sanitary wastes alone.


     Screening or microstraining at points of discharge can effectively


reduce suspended solids and  associated  BOD, and  the  solids can  then be


returned to the  intercepting sewer for  transport to  the treatment plant.


This method is presently being investigated in the Philadelphia,  Pa.  area


 (see Appendix C),
                                          22

-------
                                                                            97
     The City of New York, with the aid of an FWPCA construction grant,




has completed design and initiated construction of its first prototype




"Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Plant" (see Appendix C).   This study




is supported by an FWPCA demonstration grant.  The facility  is designed




to settle and disinfect overflows and return the impounded water and




settled solids to the water pollution control plant.  This project, lo-




cated at Spring Creek in Jamaica Bay, also includes a study  of the effect




on water quality from the effluent.




Miscellaneous Methods




     By the addition of polyelectrolytes to combined sewers, their capa-




city to carry greater volumes is increased.  These polymers reduce friction




and increase the hydraulic capacity by a factor greater than two.  This




method is presently being investigated with the aid of an FWPCA grant  (see




Appendix C).




     Most combined sewers in the Hudson River Conference Area were built




over 50 years ago.  Interstate, state and local water pollution control




agencies are concerned that population densitifes have increased such that




the collection systems are overloaded, causing raw sewage to be by-passed




to the receiving stream via structures intended to divert stormwater flow




only.  Many of these diversion structures are presently under-designed or




mechanically inoperable without continuous maintenance.  Improved diversion




chambers with anti-fouling mechanisms or devices automatically controlled




in conjunction with flood routing of storm induced flows would result  in




improved sewer efficiency and a reduction in the number and frequency  of




combined sewer overflow.  An FWPCA grant has been given the City of New




York to construct and evaluate a new diversion structure- design which  is




intended to eliminate dry weather discharge and increase interceptor







                                   23

-------
                                                                            98
efficiency during storm flows (see Appendix C).




     Constant changes in zoning with resultant increases in population




densities, and change in land use patterns and surface characteristics




can impose conditions for which sewers were not designed.  Through




proper regional planning it may be possible to control land use and




maximize the capabilities of a collection system to reduce combined




sewer overflows.




     Infiltration is a major problem in many collection systems, both




old and new, and the increased flow often results in overflows even




without rainfall.  Rigid specifications should be adopted and enforced




regarding methods of joining pipe sections, including more stringent




construction inspection and testing.  The evaluation of infiltration




problems in old collection systems should be encouraged together with




the establishment of logical long-range programs to correct dificiencies




and replace or repair sewer lines as required.  For existing sewers,




recent innovations for television inspection and in-place sealing have




become available.

-------
                                                                            99
                                Discussion




     A conservative approach was taken in developing the data discussed in




this report.  For example, values for the runoff coefficient "C" were




reduced because an annual average rainfall intensity was utilized in com-




puting combined sewer overflow volumes.  The use of a lower runoff co-




efficient was substantiated by comparison with runoff coefficients compu-




ted from actual rainfall-runoff data collected by the Federal Water Pollu-




tion Control Administration, Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Study,  lower




values of BOD in combined sewer overflows were applied to the less urban-




ized communities as opposed to the large, densely populated Metropolitan




areas .




     Many factors complicate the solution of the combined sewer overflow




problem.  The foremost of these is the necessity of channeling presently




available funds into areas of more immediate need, namely the construction




of municipal waste treatment facilities.   Also, the construction of com-




bined sewer overflow treatment facilities will not completely eliminate




the problem because, at this time, it appears that technical and economic




problems preclude the design of a system which provides complete treatment




of overflows from all storms.  Systems can be designed, however, to pro-




vide minimum treatment for most overflows.




     Another factor affecting the solution to the problem is the existence




of combined sewer collection systems which have been designed and construc-




ted many years ago.  Hydraulic loads to intercepting sewers and diversion




structures in these systems often exceed design capacity.  This results




in more frequent overflows during storm periods and in some cases the




diversion of raw sewage during dry weather periods.  Many of the existing




diversion structures are mechanical devices which foul readily and func-




tion inefficiently.  Before a massive construction program of combined



                                     25

-------
                                                                           100







sewer overflow treatment facilities  is initiated,  a  program of  maintenance




and/or modernization of the diversion structures  should  be  undertaken.




     There is a lack of sufficient quantitative  information on  the  charac-




teristics of combined sewer overflows, particularly  in the  Hudson River




Conference Area.  It is known that land use and  developmental characteris-




tics of a given community or municipality greatly affect the quality and




quantity of combined sewer overflows.  Most previous studies have been




conducted in larger cities which have high runoff characteristics,  high




population densities and areas of commercial and/or  industrial  activities.




Very few studies have been conducted in less urbanized,  lower  population




density areas such as those located  in the middle Hudson River  Valley.




Few studies have been conducted which show the effect of combined  sewer




overflows on the receiving water body.  Studies  such as those  presently




being carried out by the City of New York in Jamaica Bay for the "Spring




Creek Auxilliary Water Pollution Control Program" will add significantly




to knowledge regarding these effects.  Additional comprehensive studies




should be conducted  in other water bodies (i.e.  fresh water and salt




water) classified for different water uses (i.e. water supply,  bathing,




fishing and shellfishing) which receive combined sewer overflows.   The




effect of various land use characteristics should be integrated into such




a program wherever possible.




     The method to treat combined sewer overflow is dependent on many




factors such as economics, a feasible treatment process and the availabil-




ity of space within  close proximity of the overflow point.  In the  rural




middle and Upper Hudson Valley,  land might be available for the construc-




tion of treatment facilities at  the point of overflow.  In the urbanized




New York Metropolitan area surrounding New York Harbor, where space  is




                                      26

-------
                                                                             101
at a premium and land costs are high,  a combination of methods  such as  in-




creased utilization of in-sewer storage through automated overflow regula-




tors, inflatable storage in the receiving water with return to  the system




for treatment or some method of treatment at the point of overflow might




prove feasible.  The City of New York is awaiting an evaluation of its




Spring Creek-Jamaica Bay prototype installation before recommending a




course of action for future auxilliary projects.




     To receive the maximum benefit from a combined sewer overflow abate-




ment program, remedial action should first be undertaken in high priority




water use areas.  These include Sections II, III, IV, and V in  the Hudson




River and the Sections in the New York Metropolitan Area which  affect  the




recreational waters immediately adjacent to the conference area.  The




health hazard resulting from the discharge of bacteria in the overflows




may be of prime concern with regard to the established water uses.  The




program may then be extended to areas of less critical water uses, or  to




sections where the water quality standards may be upgraded in the future.
                                     27

-------
                                                                              102
                           Bibliography (References)
 1.   Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U. S. Department of
      Interior,  "Problems  of Combined Sewer Facilities and Overflows, (1967).
      WP-20-11.

 2.   Stanley,  R. H., "How  to Analyze Combined Sewage-Storm Water Collection
      Systems",  Water and  Wastes Engineering, 3, 3, 58 (March 1966) and
      3,  4,  48 (April 1966).

 3.   Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U- S. Department of
      Interior,  Delaware Estuary Study, Chapter 4, Section F, Storm Water
      Overflow,  to be published July 1969.

 4.   Dunbar, D.  D., Henry, J. G- F., "Pollution Control Measures for Storm-
      waters and Combined  Sewer Overflows", Journal of the Water Pollution
      Control  Federation,  38, 1, 9  (January 1966).

 5.   U.  S.  Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Serv-
      ice,  "Pollutional Effects of  Stormwater and Overflows from Combined
      Sewer Systems", Public Health Service Publication No. 1246, (November
      1964).

 6.   Burm,  R.  J., "The Bacteriological  Effect of Combined Sewer Overflows
      on the Detroit River", Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federa-
      tion,  39,  3, 410 (March 1967).

 7.   U.S.  Department of the Interior,  Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
      istration, Northeast Region,  Raritan Bay Project, Edison, N- J-,
      "Report  for the Conference on Pollution of Raritan Bay and Adjacent
      Interstate Waters",  Third Session, May 1967.

 8.   Camp,  T.  R-, "Chlorination of  Mixed Sewage and Stormwater", Journal
      San.  Eng.  Div., Proc. Amer.  Soc.  Civil Engr. , 87, SA  1,  1 (1961).

 9.   Chanin, G. , "Summary  of Storm Water Studies at the East Bay Municipal
      Utility  District's Wastewater Treatment Plant" Oakland, California,
      (Undated memorandum).

10.   Riis-Carstensen, E.,  "Improving the Efficiency of Existing Intercep-
      tors", Journal  of  the Water  Pollution  Control Federation, 27,  10,
      1115  (October  1955).

11.   Burm,  R.  J., and Vaughan, R.  D., "Bacteriological Comparison between
      Combined and  Separate  Sewer  Discharges  in Southeastern Michigan",
      Journal  of the Water Pollution Control Federation,  38, 3, 400
      (March 1966).
                                       28

-------
                                                                             103
12.  Burm,  R. J.,  Krawczyk,  D.  F-,  and  Harlow,  G- L-, "Chemical and Physi-
      cal Comparison of  Combined  and  Separate  Sewer Discharges", Journal
      of the Water Pollution Control  Federation,  40,  1,  112  (January  1968).

13.  U.S.  Department of Health,  Education  and Welfare,  Public Health Serv-
      ice,  Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, Great Lakes  -
      Illinois River Basins  Project,  "Report  on the Illinois  River System -
      Water Quality Conditions",  Part I Text;  Chicago,  Illinois, (1963).

14.  Weibel, S. R., Anderson, R.  J.,  and Woodward, R. L-,  "Urban Land Run-
      off as a Factor of Stream Pollution", Journal of  the Water Pollution
      Control Federation,  36, 7,  914  (July  1964).

15.  American Public Works Association, "Interpretive Data,  Combined  Sewer
      Overflows",  Appendix B, Questionnaire,  1967.

16.  Benjes, H. H., Haney, P. D.,  Schmidt,  0.  J.  and  Yorabeck, R. R.,
      "Storm-Water Overflows from Combined  Sewers", Journal  of the Water
      Pollution Control  Federation, 33, 12, 1252, (December  1961).

17.  Benzie, W. J. and Courchaine,  R. J., "Discharges from Separate Storm
      Sewers and Combined Sewers",  Journal  of  the Water Pollution Control
      Federation,  38, 3, 410 (March 1966).

18.  Camp,  T. R.,  "The Problem of  Separation  in Planning Sewer Systems",
      Journal of the Water Pollution  Control  Federation,  38,  12, 1959
      (December 1966).

19.  Chow,  V. T.,  "Handbook  of Applied  Hydrology", McGraw-Hill Book Com-
      pany, 1964,  p!4-8.

20.  City of New York, Department of  Public Works, Bureau of Water Pollu-
      tion Control, "A Presentation on  the  New York City Water Pollution
      Program", September 1967.

21.  Evans, L- S.  Ill, Geldreich,  E.  E., Weibel,  S. R., and  Robeck, G.  G-,
      "Treatment of Urban Stormwater  Runoff",  Journal of the Water Pollu-
      tion Control Federation, 40, 5, R162  (May 1968).

22.  Federal Water Pollution Control  Administration,  U. S. Department of
      the Interior, "Inventory of Municipal Waste Facilities", (1968,  un-
      published) .

23.. Geldreich, E. E., Best, L. C., Kenner, B. A., and  Van Donsel,  D.  J.
      "The Bacteriological Aspects of Stormwater Pollution",  Journal  of
      the Water Pollution Control Federation,  40,  11,  1861 (November  1968).
                                       29

-------
                                                                             104
24.  Hess,  S. G.,  and  Manning,  F.  G.,  "A  Rational  Determination of Storm
      Overflows from Intercepting  Sewers", Journal of the Water Pollution
      Control Federation,  22,  2,  145  (February  1950).

25.  Johnson, C. Frank,  "Equipment, Methods, and Results from Washington,
      D. C., Combined  Sewer Overflow  Studies."  Journal of the Water Pollu-
      tion Control Federation,  33,  7,  721, (July 1961)..

26.  Moorehead, George J.,  "Overflows  from Combined Sewers in Washington,
      D. C." Journal of  the Water  Pollution Control Federation, 33, 7,
      711,  (July 1961).

27.  New York State Department  of  Health, "Existing Polluter Printout",
      April 1968.

28.  Palmer, C. L-, "Feasibility  of Combined Sewer Systems", Journal of
      the Water Pollution  Control  Federation, 35,  2,  162 (February 1963).

29.  Palmer, C. L-, "The Pollutional  Effects of Storm Water Overflows
      from Combined Sewers", Journal  of  the Water  Pollution Control Fed-
      eration, 22, 2,  154  (February  1950).

30.  Romer, H., and Klashman,  L.  M.,  "The Influence of Combined Sewers
      on Pollution Control", Public Works, March,  April, 1962.

31.  Weather Bureau, U-  S.  Department  of  Commerce, "Hourly Precipitation
      Data", New York, (1961).
                                       30

-------
                                               105
   APPENDIX A
PREVIOUS STUDIES
        31

-------
                                                                           106
Studies of Combined Sewer Systems

                                                                  (5)  (9)
          East Bay Metropolitan Utility District,  Oakland,  Calif.

          Of the six cities connected to the wastewater treatment  plant,

only Oakland retains combined sewers  which generate overflows  through  diver-

sion structures.  These structures permit stormwater-diluted wastewater to

pass through outfalls to San Francisco Bay.  In spite of the essentially

separate collection system, wastewater flows in the interceptors  increase

substantially during storms.  Because the treatment plant will not accommo-

date- the increased flow, it is necessary to bypass the plant during storms.

          Extensive sampling of the various features of the system indica-

ted that substantial pollutional loads as measured by organic  and  inorganic

standards are carried by the combined sewer overflows.  In  addition,  the

effect of overflows on the receiving streams was also examined.  The

effect was clearly shown by the increase in BOD concentration  from an  aver-

age of 6.8 mg/1 above to 25 mg/1 below the overflow discharge  and  the  in-

crease in coliform levels from an average of about 2,000/100 ml to

40,500/100 ml.

                        (5) (10)
          Buffalo, N. Y.

          In Buffalo, a number of methods were investigated with the  ob-

jective of reducing pollution from combined sewer overflows.  A special

term "Ch", or characteristic factor,  was introduced as a method of compen-

sating for variables in population density and runoff coefficient.  The

results of the study indicated that it was not possible to  calculate  a

favorable balancing of diversion factors for an actual combined sewer

system.
                                       32

-------
                                                                           107

                           (11) (12)
          Detroit, Michigan

          This investigation involved a sampling program of the  outfalls

of combined sewers in the Detroit area.  The Detroit-Connors Creek combined

sewer system, located in the northwest portion of the city, serves about

25 percent of the city population in an area of approximately 22,000 acres.

Total coliform concentrations were found to approach those in raw waste-

water .

                                    (3)
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

          An investigation was conducted to evaluate the significance of

combined sewer overflows in the Delaware Estuary at Philadelphia.  An auto-

matic instrumentation system was developed to record combined-sewer over-

flows and determine the quality of these overflows at six outfalls in

Philadelphia.  Data from two of the outfalls were generated continuously

for a period of two years.  A network of 21 rain gages was installed at

strategic locations in the city.

          It was found that on the average, combined-sewer overflows con-

tributed approximately 6 percent of the total carbonaceous oxygen demand-

ing material to the Delaware Estuary.  Since the investieation was conduc-

ted during an extended drought period, this was considered a conservative

estimate.

                               (5) (13)
          Illinois River System

          A 9-month study was carried out in Chicago, Illinois in an area

of about 8.6 square miles served by the Roscoe Street sewer.  During the

study period 31 storms occurred.  The total BOD load discharged to the

stream was computed at 278,000 Ibs.  These figures were used to estimate

the total BOD overflow load to the canal system.  Flow data from three

                                     33

-------
                                                                          108
major plants were used for the computation and  on  this  basis  the average

total BOD overflow load was calculated to be  46,900  Ibs/day.

                       (6)
          Detroit River

          The Detroit River was studied to determine  the  effects of  com-

bined sewer overflows on stream coliform densities.   The  effects of  the

discharges from combined sewers were evident  for several  days after  the

actual overflows had ceased.  The duration of adverse effects on the

river was directly proportional to the intensity of  the storm. After a

moderate rain, the relative increase in coliform density  was  greater than

a thousandfold within a few miles of the discharge points.   Patterns of

fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus densities were similar to those

of the total coliforms, but to a lower order  of magnitude.   Total  coliform

densities exceeded 100,000/100 ml in a large  volume  of the  receiving water

after a moderate rain, and exceeded 1,000,000/100  ml after  a severe  storm.


          Jamaica Bay

          In  1968, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,

with the cooperation of the City of New York, conducted a bacteriological

survey in Jamaica Bay to evaluate the significance of seasonal versus

year round chlorination of treatment plant effluents.  Results indicated

a reduction in the steady state coliform levels to approximately 3,000/100

ml near the point of discharge after the start of  chlorination.  During

periods of combined sewer overflow, coliform levels  increased by at  least

a factor of ten and persisted for a period of approximately three  days.


          Summary

          As  a result of these studies, there is little doubt that com-

bined sewer overflows are  important sources of water pollution.

                                     34

-------
                                                                         109
Table A-l is a compilation of data gathered from these  investigations  re

garding the quality of overflow discharges.
Studies of Separate Stormwater Systems
          Cincinnati, Ohio

          This study, conducted over a one-year period (July 1962  -

September 1963), investigated the' pollutional characteristics of urban

land runoff.  The study covered a 27 acre residential  and light  industrial

section of the city served by separate sewers.  The study area consisted

primarily of single family homes, apartments and commercial buildings.   The

population density was nine persons per acre.  The results indicated that

the BOD from surface runoff is about equal to that expected from the

effluent of a secondary sewage treatment plant, but suspended solids con-

centrations are equivalent to those found in raw domestic sewage.

                           (11) (12)
          Detroit, Michigan

          A study was conducted which included the sampling of the Ann

Arbor - Allen Creek Stormwater drain serving approximately 3,800 acres.

This area included residential, commercial and light industrial  sections

as well as some undeveloped area.  Results indicated that:

     1.  BOD in separate Stormwater discharges was generally about one-

fifth of that observed in combined sewer overflows.

     2.  Total coliform densities were approximately one-tenth of  those

in combined sewer overflows.

                           (5)
          Washington, D. G.

          A study was conducted to obtain data on street runoff.   Limi-

ted sampling at catch basins during storm periods indicated that the

                                      35

-------
                                                                              110
average BOD concentrations  in the  stormwater  runoff  from this urbanized

area was 126 mg/1.   The average concentration of  suspended solids was

found to be 2,100 mg/1.

                                                                (5) (9)
          East Bay  Metropolitan Utility  District, Oakland, Calif.

          Sampling  during storm periods  at  21 sampling  stations  located

throughout the East Bay Metropolitan  Area  indicate  that these flows con-

tained substantial  pollutional loads.  The  results,  as  reported, showed

that BOD concentrations ranged from 3  to over 700 mg/1  with  an average

concentration of 87 mg/1.  Coliform densities (MPN/100  ml) ranged from

4 to 70,000 and averaged 11,800.  The average concentration  of suspended

solids was 613 mg/1 with a range of 16 to  4,400 rag/1.

                                            (5)
          Los Angeles Flood Control District^

          A study,  by the Water Conservation Division  of  the Los Angeles

Flood Control District, determined the quality of stormwater for the  pur-

pose of investigating the feasibility of replenishment  of  groundwater

supplies.  Average BOD concentrations during the storm seasons of  1932-34,

1957-58 and 1962-63 were 6.9 mg/1, 8.2 mg/1 and 16.1 mg/1, respectively.

The results also indicated that in the early period of  storms BOD  concen-

trations were about 70 mg/1 and decreased  to around 10-20 mg/1 as  the

storm continued.


          Table A-2 is a summary of the  results of  studies conducted  on

stormwater runoff collection systems.
                                     36

-------
                                                                              Ill
                                     TABLE  A-l
                            Quality Characteristics  of
                   Combined Sewer Overflows  for Various Studies
Combined-Sewer
Overflow Study
Areas
Average
Total Coliform
per 100 ml
Average
Susp. Solids
(mg/1)
Average
5 -Day BOD
(mg/1
Oakland, California
     East Bay Met.  Utility
     Dist.
     Interceptor Flows                 293,000             128              180
     Plant Bypassed Flows            1,408,000             253              133
Detroit Michigan
     Corner Street Sewer
     System                         37,000,000             274              153
Buffalo, New York
     Bird Ave. Sewer                                    544              100
     Baily Ave. Sewer                                   436              121
Philadelphia, Pa.
     WIN - H St. & Ramon'a               --                330              145
     SUS - Wildey & Susquehanna         --                484              152
           Ave.
     BING - Garland & Bingham St.        --                373              192
     CHRIS - Water & Christian          --                573              243
             St.
                                        37

-------
                                                                                 112
                                     TABLE A-2
                            Quality  Characteristics  of
                       Stormwater Runoff  Collection  Systems


                                                           Average          Average
Stormwater Collection System   Average Total  Coliform   Suspended  Solids    5-Day BOD
	Study Areas	MPN/100 ml	(mg/l)	(mg/1)

Cincinnati, Ohio                         --                     208             21
Ann Arbor - Allen Creek
  (Detroit, Michigan)                    --                  2,080             28


Washington, D.C.                                           2,100            126


East Bay Met. Utility Dist.          11,800                    613             87


Los Angeles Flood Control Dist.                            2,909             16
  (1962-63)
                                         38

-------
                                                      113
        APPENDIX B
DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
              39

-------
                                                                              114
                              APPENDIX B



Discussion of Methodology



     A summary of data and results of discharge load computations for all



municipal waste systems which significantly affect the waters of the Hud-



son River Conference Area is presented in Table B-l .  Discharge loads were



computed on the basis of present conditions and estimates prepared which



represent conditions after implementation of the conference recommendations.



Assumptions used are described as footnotes in the Table.



     The data used in computing the combined sewer overflow loads and the



results of these computations are summarized in Table B-2.  The basic



equations employed were:



                       Q0 = CIA + Qd - Qp                       1)




                       Lo = Qox-JL*B0                        2)

                                24



     The methodology used in developing the entries in Table B-2 follow.



Column (1) - Combined Sewer Systems, (2) - Estimated Population Served, (3) -



Area Served, (4) - Population Density, (5) - Treatment Plant Capacity, (6) -



Average Dry Weather Flow



     All collection systems served by combined sewers are listed, including



raw discharges.  Data were obtained from FWPCA Municipal Waste Inventory,


     (22)                                           (27)
1968,     New York State Existing Polluter Printout,     a New York City
             (20)
Publication,      FWPCA Report WP-20-11     and correspondence with the



States of New York and New Jersey and the Interstate Sanitation Commission.



For certain selected communities with large tracts of undeveloped marginal



lands, the area served was derived by measurement from USGS quadrangle



topographic maps.  When actual data were not available, dry weather flow



was computed on the basis of the population served and a per capita flow



of 100 gallons per day.

-------
                                                                          115
Column (7) - Average Runoff Coefficient


     The runoff coefficient for a given area depends upon both natural


topography and patterns of land development.  Runoff coefficients used

                                                       (19)
for this report are based upon those published by Chow,     which were


originally formulated as the basis for (1) calculating runoff for storms


of high intensity and (2) calculating runoff at peak flow conditions.


     However, the coefficient of runoff to be used to calculate average


flow conditions is less than the coefficient for determining peak runoff


during any storm.  For the purposes of this investigation, the runoff

                                 (19)
coefficients as published in Chow     were reduced by one-third.  This


reduction was substantiated by comparing computed runoff coefficients


from prototype data collected by the FWPCA, Delaware Estuary Comprehensive


Study, with the values listed in Chow.  The computed values were found to


be approximately one-third less than those published.


     Exceptions to the above rationale were made for Manhattan and por-


tions of the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn.  These areas, which are unique in


terms of population density and land use characteristics, are served by


the Wards Island, Newtown Creek, Red Hook and Manhattan collection systems.


The runoff coefficients for these areas were not reduced as described above.

                                                               (19)
The coefficients used were the mean of the ranges given by Chow    for


areas characterized as (1) Business:  Downtown Areas and (2) Residential:


Apartment Dwellings.


Column (8) - Average Storm Intensity


     Rainfall data for the study area were obtained from the Environmental


Science Service Administration, Weather Bureau for stations located at


Albany-City, Poughkeepsie-1 N and New York-Central Park.  Data for 1961,


an average precipitation year, were used in the computations.

-------
                                                                             116
     All rainfall falling on a given area does not produce combined sewer



overflow.  To determine the minimum intensity which would produce overflow



in each of the systems, the following expression was used:




          Q  = Q  + QA ~ P.                                   3)
          xo   ^s    d    p


               Q  = combined sewer overflow



               0  = stormwater flow
                s


               Oj = average dry weather flow



               Q  = treatment plant capacity



At the time just before overflow begins, QQ = 0 and Q  = CIA.  Substituting



in equation 3) and solving for I,



               I    =Q_0
                Min     >    d
                        CA


     Example calculation - Bayonne, N. J,



               A =  1260 acres



               Op=    20 MGD



               Qd=     8 MGD



               C =    40%



               I .  = 20.0 MGD - 8.0 MGD

                Ma-n     .40 X 1260 acres X .645 MGD/CFS



               I,.  = 0.035 in/hr
                Mm


Of the combined systems in the conference area, only five could accept



rainfall intensities above the minimum (.01 in/hr) recorded by the Weather



Bureau without causing an overflow.  These five systems were the Owls Head



and Newtown Creek sections of New York City, and Jersey City, Bayonne and



Kearny , N . J .



     The average intensity of rainfall for each collection system was



computed by using the weighted average of all  storms with intensities



above the minimum required to produce overflow.  The general equation used



was:

                                      42

-------
                                                                           117
               I     =      I. X n
                avg.         x    i
                              nl
               where:
               I     = average rainfall intensity (in/hr)
                avg.


               I.    = unit storm intensity (in/hr)


               n.    = number of occurrences of unit storm intensity


     Example calculation - Bayonne, N. J.


               I     = 6.322 = 0.076 in/hr
                avg.   -gj



Column (9) - Combined Sewer Overflow


     The combined sewer overflow volume was calculated by using the data


from columns (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8) and equation (1),


               Qo = CIA + Qd - Qp


     For the systems which are presently discharging raw wastes, it was


assumed that the future treatment plant capacity would be equal to the


average dry weather flow (Column (6)).  Therefore, the future overflow



volume for these systems would be equal to QQ = CIA.


     Example calculation - Bayonne, N. J.


               C  = 40%


               I  = 0.076 in/hr


               A  = 1260 acres


               Qd = 8.0 MGD


               Op = 20.0 MGD


          QQ = 0.40 x 0,076 inAr x 1260 acres x 0.645 MGD/CFS


                +8.0 MGD - 20.0 MGD


          Q0 = 12.7 MGD

-------
                                                                              118
Columns (10) and (11) - Combined Sewer BOD Load,  Present  and Future


     The estimated BOD load was computed using equation (2),



               Lo = QO x JL x Bo
                         24

Two levels of BOD concentration were applied to combined  sewer overflows


in the study area.  A concentration of 150 mg/1 was applied to overflows


in the New York Metropolitan area.   This is approximately the mean of the


data reported in the literature, with particular emphasis on data collected


in large urban areas similar to those which exist in metropolitan New York,


(i.e., Philadelphia, Detroit, etc.).  A concentration of  40 mg/1 was used


for the less urbanized areas, namely those systems in Sections I through


V, and for Edgewater, N. J., Kearny, N, J. and Port Richmond, Staten


Island, N. Y.  This value was the average of data obtained by computing


the resultant BOD concentration for a mixture of raw sewage and storm-


water runoff for several communities in the study area.  As stated pre-


viously, collection systems presently discharging untreated wastes were


not credited with combined sewer overflow loads, and were omitted from the


listing of present loads, Column (10).  After construction of treatment


facilities, these systems would have overflow loads, and were therefore


included in the future load tabulation, Column (11).


     Example calculation - Bayonne, N. J.


          Qo = 12.7 MGD


          T  = 513 hrs/yr


          BQ = 150 mg/1


     L  = 12.7 MGD x 513 hrs/yr  x  150 mg/1 x 8.35 Ibs/MG
      o
                        hrs/day                     mg/1
     LQ = 340,000 Ibs/yr
                                      44

-------
                                                                                                    119

e c --- c
-P  o t
CO rI CO ,
O P-t CU^
    ^j
                                                                          I
                                                                          i
                                                          I
                                                                                              1*5

-------
                                                                                               120
  <
  to n
nlot
  >
O   O
O   O

O   r-t
8   8
                                                                    ^
                                                                    bO
                                                                                             1*6

-------
                                                                                                                                                        121
pq


3
                  3
                  Q
                   tiO-P t5
                   cfl CO S
                e  c -H c
                P  n) o r
                ffl H OJ !
                (D OH P,v
                   6 rH . .
                  H ^J 03
                  P P, CO
                      I
                           IP
8   S
\OO\r"iCMQOOOrHOOOC
OOOOXAHOKOOrHO
\J IA
O
                                                                                  OO
                                                                                  r^O
                                                                                                O
                                                                                                XA
                                                                                                                                                              1*7

-------
                                                                              122
 >;
C n)
05 T3
8
c--

O
                                                 &
                                                 

-------
     3
     s
                                                              123
881

-------
                                                                                                 124
a
0)
^
s
(Q

,3

0
PQ

1
TJ
5
i
o
o
TJ
CD
H CD
E CD
O CO
O
CD
M E
0) S
En O
CD -P
> CO






1









CD
3
"p
ft



g
CO
CD



O
rH
CD


-p
H


CD
-p
C
-P
S
H
0
H
=H
CD
O
O




^
CD
bO-P
0)





-P
CD -P

-p 53


f-l
EH

:
n)
u



cfl
CD


CD
-P

1
CO









rt
^
EH
Q



-P
H




U

:
r-
1



TJ

3 CD
P. CO











-P
CO
FH
1
CO

TJ
CD
3
O
8 8
O O
CO O
NO 0-
r-~



8 o
CO O
NO r-



SO
en
O CO
ON

NO NO
\r\ \r\
0 0

d d




XA XA





CD
O
E
-P

cfl
m
o o
3 NO -d'
o
-P

o
EH
'
O O


H O CM
-P 
o
EH
O

ON
m




[




s
_J



o

o




XA
CNI










XA
m
0














ON
NO


O
rH
XA





XA
en




1
rt
rH
H
G
CD
CD
C5
8
O
o
NO
CM
o
O
^j
ON
ON
H"



[



8
CO

CO


0
o






NO
XA
o

o








XA















0
o
CXJ























CM
CO




j
fn H
~1 a"


o
XA
ON
O\
H








to
CD
O
8

H

3






rH
a
-p
O
tf
I
                                                        NO

                                                        XA
                                                         O  XA   O  O   O  O
                                                         m  CM   m  m   CM  CM
                                                                o
                                                                XA
                                                                                            O

                                                                                            d
                                                                                        o   o
                                                                                        CM   o
                                                                                               I

-------
                                                                                                  125
  S-i rH "
  Q)  ^
C   >;
Q) -p 4J

  JC -H Q
  nj
    o rt
    rt S
      -

-------
                                                                                                                                                      126
                                         s;
                                         -P -
                                       E -H !H
                                       M ro_x:

                                       -p CD _
                                       co -P .H
                                     CD -P -P'

                                     E C -r Q
                                     +J ct o -"-


                                     CD P-. ft
                                                   o   o   o  o   o
                                                   O   t^-   lA  ^J   O
                                                   o^   OD   IA  r-   _u
                                                           O
                                                           IA

o
o
H
O
0
rH
O
0
0
H
O

O
o
H
\A
O
O
                                                                O   O   O
                                                                O   O   O
8   8
8   8
                                                    O
                                                    "LA
                                                                 a)

                                                                o
                                                            1
                                     M3

                                     q

                                     o
                                 q

                                 o
                                              o   o
                                              O   CM
S

-------
                                                                127
                    APPENDIX C
        LIST- OF FWPCA GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
                     FOR THE
INVESTIGATION OF STORM AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
                        53

-------
                                                                           128
     A listing of Federal Water Pollution Control  Administration spon-




sored grants and contracts for the investigation of  combined sewer  over-




flows and stormwater runoff is provided in Tables  G-l  and C-2.   These




grants and contract's are designed to assist projects which will  develop




or demonstrate a new or improved method of controlling the discharge




into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated wastes from sewers




which carry stormwater or both stormwater and sewage.

-------
                                                                            129
 i

u


H
rH-
    8

    a
    o
    *^




    g








    3









Q
W
Q
a
p[3
S

co
vO

^
i 1




rH
O
1
00
in
CN
i





i
j_i
d)
s
o

t_l
S
3

CO

'O
CU
c
r-J



u

CM
O

4-1
C

Q
4J
CO
CU
M
H






C
cfl
CO

O

4-1
C
3
O
O

'O
c

K -P
o ---i
b U
M
r-3
o
)<
m
f^
n

00
rH



O
O
0
r.
in
CN









CN
i
^
Q
H
1
CM
C
O 1
H cfl
^\ (j
cfl -P bO
4-1 rH C
O -r4 -r4
rH CH (I,
b ti 0
M 3
f [ A -
r4 M
< CU 0)
4-1 C
T3 cfl O
0) S N
>
rH -d >,
o c: xi
co 3
CO O CO
*r*4 Jj (^
Q O cu
3
cu CM cU
xl O co
4J
a o
>> 04.1
X) W 'r4 C
CO -P <-<
co cu y
So 3 C
O O 'O O
rH (-1 CU -r4
CM ft erf 4-i










c
.2
o -d
CJ -r4
CO M
O 'iH CU
y y S
co C C
-I cfl CM co
y f-i o -^
d b 'd
CO >-r4
M d 4-> n
b cfl -Mm
co o OS
ppt
^
M
K -K
O O
o o
0 0
rs *\
0 0
o J-
i i


o o
O vo
vo r*s
*^ rs
CT\ CO
oo .*
CO O

* CM
rH





VO -d"
1 1
rH1 j 1
rJ rH*
M M
1 1
rH j-
CO CN


(^
CU

CU
M CO
CU
S T3
CU CU
CO C
 r4
X1
s
rH 0
CM u
M
cu o
> 4J

I-*
cu y
3 cfl
d O
(U M
> ft

bO >
cfl X)
y rH
r-l CU
rd XI
O CO

CM O CM
O bO O
CD
CO >, o >
H 4J -i-l 4J
O "H X! -.-I
a o o o
H

r-l






































d
o
 r4
4-1
3
rH
rH
O
ft

fj
o
rH
CM

0)
^
Q

M
0)
4-* ^J
co d

0
ECU
4-1
5
CO <














CU

rH
i-l
>
>.

rH
CU

CO



*
0

in

^o
CO



o
.H^
rH
n
CTi

rH








rH
1
J.J
j_J
H
1
ro



d
d
o
ft

c
o
iH
4-1
Cfl
N
 iH
rH

r\
cfl

co

cd

CM
o

d
O
r-l
4J
Cfl
3
rH
I







>>
{_!
Cfl
4-1
r-l
d
CO
CO

-d
rH
0)

CM
bO
d
*i-J
(^
cx
CO








































J-l
cu
3
s
CO

d
cu
d

x>
Q
O


^4-1
o

4J
d
CU
s
4J
cfl
CU

EH
l-i
O
CM

















4-1
y
r-l
U

CO
iH
Q






























































CO

o
I 1
t!
cu
o














rrj
rH
CU
 iH
CM
bO
d
r4
M
ft
CO





































CO
M
CO
CU


CO
3
O
r4
>
cu

ft

d
r-l

d
CU
d
u
cfl

cfl

CO
-d
d

x>

73
CU
4-1
I-l
o
ft
ft
5

1
oo
Oi
rH

X


d
r-i

cu
>

4-J
y
^^

X
                                                                                  55

-------
130



cj Is
-U ^
s 


5;
i H
3 CO
H 0
O
Q
 H


O -n a
W) M 3
5 3 u

4J 04)
C O 4->
4) CX cd
B ^> ^E
Ij 2^
co a
CU -O l-l
rl CO
EH cd 4->
CO
0 C
too O T)
cd -H 4)
O 4-14-1
!d C rH
CJ -rl rH
U O
4-1 O CU
CO rH
C8 X!  4)
Xi O Xi bO rH
O -rl CJ Cd U
4J +J 4-1 Z 4)
<; co co co  rl 4-1
34) 4)
O 4-> O
B  rl
o a o
rl U 4->
 C
rH CO C O
o 3 a) *
fH 0 +J 4J
rH O 0
bO tu CVi 3
C rl rl
 H 4) 4) 4-1
rH > T3 CO
rH O O C
O (j O
|j (H 4J U
4-1 cj o
c 3  Cd
0 4J
CO 4^ -o .H
HOC rH
H cd 
rl -P
tw O 4J
0 -n
T) O
>. U rl
4-1 Cd 4-1
rl O 4)
CJ  Q


o
m
CN
cT
o
in




o
o
m
s
r^
vo
vO







CN
1
S!
O
M
S
1
CO


o
C
cd
C
O
l-l
4-1
o
4>
rH
rH
O
CJ
4)
bO >>
Cd 4J
tl -rl
4) rH
3 'rl
4) 0
co cd
T3
4) 4->
C C
rl 4)
x> a
a 4->
o cd
O 4)
M
< H








CO
c
SJ
a
4)
rH
CJ
 CO
s c
 

(S -^

(M rH
O Cd
C U
3 3
C4 W
1 T3
C
rH Cd
rH \-
cd

S p





c
cd
bO
rl
x;
4) O
X! -H
4-> S

1-1 .
C V*
4) CO
bO t-i 4-1
4) 41 -rl
DJ > 0
rl tl
a> d 4-1




































s
CO
cd
CO
3
0
 rl
0)
cx
C
rl
O

rl
cd


CO
c
3


X>
T3
4)
4J
Ul
0

o<
C?

1

oo
vo
ON
rH

rl
4)

rl
0

*
56

-------
                                  131




< EH
O 2
ft >rH
-H 3
CB CB
4-> ft
 r-l
d 
cB 4-1
CO CO





0
o
o
V
in
00
ro



O
o
o
~
o
00
co




i i
o
i
3

CN
S
g.
CU
bO
CB
>> 3
W cu
(B CO CO
r-l d
O T3 O
ft cu *r4
B d 4-1
CU -rH CB
EH .I*** a
S (-1
r-l 0 0
O O fa
cu
*& ""O
4-> d d
0 CB 3
cu o

in m
-H; in



o\ o
m o
rH 00
*x c*
in rH

00 O\




I 1
o
1
I 1 rH
rH 1
rH P3
i 2
Q I
04 o


3
a o
H rH
in tt-i
cu l-i
B cu
r^> t*
rH O
0
ft CU
bO
cu cB
0 3
CU
>> CO
a
0 d T3
CO CU
o -r-i d
O 4-1 T-l
W cB -O
o B
rrj .r-l O
C tu O
CB 'H

r^) CB 4-1
O rH t-l
d u o
cu 3
rl CU CO
cj bO t-i
rH CB CU
cu 3 a
cu CU O
W CO CO



rH
3
CB
ft rd
4-1
t-l
4-1 0
CO 3
rH CO
rd 3 U
4-> CB CU
3 ft B
0 0
co  w co
[ \ QJJ
cu CO i-l cu
o pa o
rd CO
>, 4-1 ft >>
4-13  4-1
rH O 
r^
co
VO






rH
1
h^
2




bO
d -o
H Q)
rH C
rW 'rl
o .9
rH a
l-l O
H U

cu 'u
4-1 0
cB
04 4-1
d
& CU
bO B
4-1 'H 4-1
0 pd CB
CU CU CO
r~i cu t-i 3
O OHO
tH rH
ft d t-< cu
0 O tJ
4-1 T-l cu CU
d 4-> >

0
tH
ft

3 cu
cu o
2 d
A cu
4-1 CU T)
iH 0 -rH
0 >
> jd o
to >H 00 IH
(H W 3 ft
a) co o
B 04 tn 3
O H O CU
CO r-) BQ 2

^
M
2
o
m
r-.
00
o
o
o
-K
O
in
CN
o
o
o
           CN
           CN
CN
1
2
I
vo
m
>
cB
 rH
r-H
 rH
r^
3
5

rM
cU
CU
(H
O

bO
d
rH
J_J
ft
CO

CU
o

d
o
rH
1 i
cB
3
rH
CB

H
















4-1
O
CU
r-)
O
(H
ft

rH
O
(H
4-1
d
0
u

d
o
rH
4J
3
r-H
rH
0
ft
rH
1
2
I
in
CN
rH
0
(H
4-1
d
0
o

d
o
rH
4J
3
t i
rH
O
ft
J_|
CU
4-1
CO


rrj
d
eg
rH
CO
M

CO
-a

CO
12






d
o
i-j
ft
rH
CO

bo
d
rH
4->
CB
r-H
3
bO

-------
                                                                              132



^J
CJ

fa
tJ

H
O
H
Q
W
H
g
S
CO
U



































































H
3
<*
CJ

H
CO
O
O
j_|
^
w
o
s








o
55

g
<)
o













p[Q
l_i]
H
M
H

H
CJ
PL]
*->

cw















U
w
EH
5
<*
CM
o

25
o
M
H
cS
3
CM

i 1
X
in
CN
CO


0
0
o
(-^
CO
o
1 1






o
1
.H;
CO
CN
1

&


1
j
o
CJ

be
rJ
r-l
1 \
cfl

4-1
CO
d
o
a
Q

t-j
o

a
cd
i-i

Q
rJ






-O
d
cfl
i I
CD
>
0)

r_p

H [
O

^J
^J
r-l
O
0
H
tti
O




































1-1
0
rJ
4J
d
o
CJ

U
o
1 1
(4-1
rJ
CU
^
Q

L^


CU
r-l
O






































r*^
4->
r-l
i 1
Cfl

0

(_|
cu

i

rJ
O
(4-1

co
d)
3
cr
r-l
d
-{
o

H





















































d
o
r-l
4-1
O
a)

o
L_I
P [

,d
O
cfl
CU
CQ
-a
d
cfl

4-1
d
cu
a
cu
>
o
tj
a
a
H






















O
o
r.
O
0
CO


cyi
i i
m
rH
CO
CN
i 1






rl
1
O
H
rti
O

CN



1 i
Q)
CU
U
4-1
CO

1-1
cU

4-1
4-1
r-l
r-]
s
4-1
O

d
0
 H
4-1
Cfl
U
 r-l
4-4
r-l
TJ
O
S




CO
3
*Q
a

i-i
o
o

(M
o

^
4-1
 r-l
CJ














































CQ
w^
d
5

r*V
O
1
13
d
cfl
4-1
CO

s
ffcj
o
4-1
CO












CO
3

a
3
i I
O
o


0

m
rs
vo




O
o
o
P-.
CO
i-H




00
vO
1
o
1
1 1
I 1
CN
1

&


CU
4-1
cfl


'O
d
3
o
il
o

(4-1
o

d
o
 r-l
4J
cfl
d
.-i
e
CU
4J

Q

CU
XI
H



^J
4-1
d
3
0
CJ

r*)
rJ


O

































(4-1
0

CQ

CJ
cu
(4-1
4-1
w

cu
f-j
4-1
rrj
d
cfl

d
o
r-l
4-1
cfl
rW
4-1
i 1
r-l
(4-1
d
H
1
a
O
CJ

!>
4-1
d
3
O
CJ

(4-1
0

bO-O
4-1
d
o


U
cfl
0
CQ

































1
r-l
d

CO

(4-1
o

bo
d
r-l
1 1
cfl
n)
00

r-l
CO
o
 rl
3
CU

CJ
1 1
cfl
d
u
cu
4-1
d
i-i









CO
(^
CU
d
o
1-1
CQ
CQ
r-l
a






















































CQ
U
cu

rt)
co

r*-'
M
cfl












bC
d
H
(-1
CU

4-1
&


O
in
c
CN|
00
o
o
o
  *N
m
o
in
CO
 o
 cfl
to
 Cfl
 cu
 (-1
H

 r-l
 cU
4-1
 cfl
 tJ
 o
 CO
 cfl
O  CO


>> iH

4-1  iH


CJ  Q
            CO
S
o
o
                    o
                    o
                    0\
                    00
                    CO


                    if
                    CO
                     B
                     1-1
                     o
                     4-1
                     CO
                     Cfl
                     CQ
                     o
                    H  a
                    r-l  CU
                    H  CQ
                     I   >>
                     l-i CO
                     > r-l
                    *4  O
                    Pi 4-1

                    .d  g
                     CO CJ
                    r-l
                     S  U
                     d
                     cfl
                     4J
                    r4
                    I-I
                     O
                     ex
                     o
                     tw
                    4J
 CO   CU
 & rH
r-l  +J

 CJ  4-
rj   cfl

 C   CU
3  co
                             cu
                            rH
                            P
                             CU
                            co
                                             3
                                             CO
                         3
                         m
                         I

                         o
                         CO
                         o
                         in
                                                                      cfl
                                                                      CU
                                                  CO
                                                  3
                                                  o
                                                 r-l


                                                  d)
                                                 T)

                                                 8
                                                  1-1
                                                  CO
                                                 I
                                                 (4-1
 d  >d
 o   o
rl   U

     3d)      CJ
     CO
 o   cu        
 o  erf      Q
 CO
 co   i   d   -

    S'rl   cfl  bO
    4J  -a  c
 o   d   d -)
rl   3   3 ^
4->   O   O  CO
 cfl  CJ  fa  co
                                                                     a
                                                                     3
                                                                     co

                                                                      i

                                                                     00

                                                                     CTi
 d
rl

 a)
                                                                              58

-------
                                      133



*r* t-j
3 Z
fe *
5 o
b C5
r-l
<
g
H O
_ O
Q
a H
EH 0
< W
2 '  '
H C
W~ fy
W5
CO AH
W


O
a
EH

S
o














tq
,-]
EH
w
EH
EH
O
M
t->
O
ftj
CM










rvi
1

[2
3
W
*e
a
o
H
EH
*
in
00
kO
CT>
00
CN


CO
00
0\

CO
r^
r^



CN
I
co
H
t^,
^
CN
CN
cn
>

r )
^3 U-l
4-1 tH
r-l 0)
S >
0
T3
C U
0 0)
CM ^
S
D CO
S)
cd T3
M 0)
O C
4J -r-l
CO ,0
s
cd o
0
(4-1
o u
o
d y-i
o
rH 4->
4-> C
cd a)
N S
rH 4.)
r-H CO
rH 0)
4-> I-l
P H
CO
1 1
rH
cd
b

3
0) ra
Qj rH
ft I (
rH CO
,C3 f|
O
cB
4-1 3
a  &
H >> ft
CO 4-> "-H
a -r-l X3
o o u
&
5
X
CTi
00
in
00
^S
5
rH

00
rH
rH
*s
00
rH
rH
CN


i 1
1
CO
H
(^
tS
1
O
1 1


c
o
 H
H-)
c
0)
4->
cH
I J
>>
3 4-1
O TH
r-H r-l
(4-1 -H
tJ 0
o> cd
> b
O
C
01 O
d -H
C H-l
o) cd
> d
< -i
p
H-> O
T3 rH
rH ,!
0 0
.0
0 T3
3 Cl
rs cd


0)
0)
jj
.-4
1
>
rH
rH
2 o)
0)
(4-1 M
0 3
CO
>> 
P rH
r-l -rH
0 2
 cd
 0)
 w

 
 ft
 c
 0)
T3
 cd

 03
t-i
 0)
 4J
 U
 O
 a,
 a,
 I


00
V>
Oi
 C
rH



I
4J
                                            59

-------
134




























r-H
0
erf
t |
2
0
u
CN a
1 0
CJ H
H
W P
 d
> -rH TJ
H-1 CU
rH d d
rH O -rH
rH 'rH XI
rl CB O
CO rH U
cB P
CU r-H S
fa -rl O
fa rH
CU (M
P O
cB -r-l co
IH d S
POO
CO CO rH CO
d cB CM In
O rH (H CU
E P cu 3
v I-H > cu
P p o co














CO
cu
p
CB
 iH
u
O
CO
CO
>
CO
d
o u
rH -rH
p d
CB O
CJ CO
rH CB
IH IH
^o 4-1
aj i i
fa P



ft
IH
0
0

P
d
a)
S
cu
r-l
rJ
CT1

CO
W
a)
CJ
o
rH CO
PM cu
rH
d cu
ca bO
cj d
r-l <|
CU CO
B 0
< rJ

-jc

ON
O
rH
CO







O"\
rH
1
CN
r 1
1
^
1 	 1




bO
bO d
d 'rH
rH -m
xl d
co CB
3 CU
rH rH
fa O

CJ rH
rH CU
TJ S
O CU
rH CO
rH
CO T)
PH CU
cB -rH
(M B
O O
U

P IH
rH O
r-l (4-1
1-1
rQ E
rH CU
03 P
CB CO
CU >.
fa CO


















d
o
rH
p
CB CB
O cB
ft rH
P O
o
u CB
p
o d
S cB
fa CO


00
CN
r-H








Cy\
I 1
1
CN
rH
1
=!
1-1




bO
bo d
d I(H
rH CO
X! d
co CB
3 CU
rH i-H
fa U

CJ IH
rH CU
TJ S
O CU
rH 00
IH
CU T>
PH CU
d
CB-rH
(4-1 S
O 0
u

P rH
rH 0
r-H (i-l
rH
XI B
rH CO
CO P
CB CO
CU >>
fa co


















d
o
 rH
CB cB
O cB
ft i  '
rH CJ
O
CO rt
u d
S cfl
fa CO


o
o
CO
CN
CO





vo

Hj-
1
CN
rH
1
=fr
i  1




bO
d
bO 'rH
d to
rH d
Xl CB
CO CO
3 rH
rH U
fa
rH
CJ CU
TJ CU
O CO
H
CO CU
PH d
rH
CB rQ
B
(M O
0 O

d M
o o
rH (M
p
CB S
3 CU
rH H-1
cB co


















d
0
rH
P
CB CB
P rH
O CB
ft r-i
rH CJ
O
CJ CB
4-1
CJ d
S CB
fa CO


o
o
CO
rH
J-
i 1





IV.
O
Hj-
1
CN
i 1
1
Cfr
1-1


P CU
CO Xl

PM
(M
co o /~^
p p d
CJ cB
CM -rH rH
O rj 1^
H-1 CB
d co o
0 -rH ^
rH P
P cB
cB >> CU
bO P w
rH 'H >
cu P is
> P PQ

M rH O
cB 0
bO ft co
d -rH -rH
rH O 0
rH -rH d
CU d CB
CU 3 l-i
d S fa
rH
bO >. d
d CB cB
w pq co




CO
rH
a)
cu
d
rH
bo
d
W


CJ
d
M
t
T?
S
oSJ O
p
(M rH
CJ O
P rH































CO

cB
CO
J>j
CO
3
0
rH
CU
IH
ft

d
rH

TJ
CU

cB

CB
CO
TJ
d
OH

r*1*
f

T3
CU
H-1
rH
O
ft
ft
3
CO

1
00
vO
r-l
fa
d
rH
CU
rH
P
CJ
*
    60

-------
135

H

P

0

 {

^
w
-1
3
o















H

H
=-"
^
 '
O
Oft
















Q
TION/CONTRACTO
.<
r_
o
0
00
CO
in
CM
CM CJ
0 0
in P
i
CM 4"
r-H CM
1 0
3T rH
r-H rH
^






O
r-l
P
3
!  |
II
o
pn

p
a)
P

^
S 4-1
P d
o a)
CO  0
E U
3 P
rH d
P 0
H U








,
u
d
H

 *s
'O r*"
O
P T3
c w
o
o  cfl
b S rH
| 1

O
vO
CO
rH
r-H
r-H r-4
O cq
in W
1
CM -3"
r-H CM
1 0
rH r-H
*-s





f-t
o

p
3

r t
O


p
a)
cd
^
rt I 1
o a)
4-1 S
co a>
bo
 cd
a) d
4-J Cfl
CO S
P
r4 r-H
> o
S r4
3 4-1
ri d
U 0
H U


O
d
H
co
a)
P*
A
bO
d
a

CO r-)
Water Resource
Walnut Creek
RICT OF COLUMB
EH
H
P
0
O
CO
r-H
r-H
00
r-H
|
CM
r-H
1
i I



0)
co C
P O
1 -rH
T3 4-1
d 3
CO rH
rJ rH
O
C P-<
a)
a)  at
a) P d
P PH -1




0
<
*
CX

o
u

CO
B
Economic Syste
Washington


S- r-x o
i  1 ^O ON
i\ O ON
 ~ ^
in rH
o> co >~)
CM CO O Cfl
ct i i in W
i i i
CM CM CM -3"
r-H r-H r-H CM
1 1 1 O
r-l rH rH rH
^

a)
bo
cd

o
o E p &
P P co 5 o
oo -<
>> 4-> P r4 r-H P
P co a) a) 

O u u o P< cd a) ^ a) [LI bO CU 'H P r4 cd d d a) a) CD O 43 cd cd co o d go o S B P >> -rl SH rJ C a) P co 4-1 o o a) T3 cd co P 4-1 B d g u co co a) POOP bO CX p co !H " cd a) E 14-4 d o a) d P CD O t4H 4-> Cd cd EH CO G cd S P U a) >> w P a) O P P 'rl r-H CO T3 r-H 'rH > O C -rl HJ P i-H B P 0 > P 0 -rl 3 4-1 E O CD r-H O -r-l d a) P > -ri cd P o p p^ O CM fa HO rrj rH d Cd cd -t-1 d o o S C d co d H r-t T3 t) O J-J Cd Cd N rH d I [ ( j [ _) [L| |-Z4 ^D CN 00 co CM 00 in ~r i CM rH 1 rH Cfl rH bO P 1 O 6 a) o c3 0 ** 0 4-1 _ d d Cd CO O r-H P > bO n-i rH O CO P 3 CO CO O a) B 'rt > a) > d rH CU H 43 p O O i bO p C; fX, d H rH a) a) "O a) S a) da) T3 rH CO P bo co W a) co d d 'r-4 CO 3j 43 ^ d 3 14H 43 a) P o CO PJ co 3 CD CO d CO 1 t3 rH 00 PT] y-) OOP _. "] p 4-1 Cfl (4-1 IP i rH CO CO S O O bO . ,2 d a) 13 ^ PC POd >,4J-rlrH O CM CDO CDCOO 4-lCPrH p 4_)4J P4J -rl Q) ci) "-I O d cflbO cflPbO wBo)> CO -H Sd said p4Jdi -P p.,-1 p>'r4 aJP'rlCl) ^4d 1) a)43 a)rH4d >cdbod oco > rrj CO 13 "H 03


-------
        136


r j
2
P

*

0
a

H
CJ

erf
-4
ry
O
CJ

















U
13
H
H

H

W
ID
0
erf
ft























erf
g

Si
H
z
0
CJ
\

o
M
H
?$
3

o
0
o
**
in
vO
**

"5
4-

CN
rH
1
^J-
rH









CO
CD

4_j
 rH
1 1
 rH
CJ
CB
Cn

SH
O
CO
r-H
rj
bO
CD
erf

f[ 1
o

CO
 r-l
CO

1  1
cB
d
d
o
r-l
i 1
cB
r4
U
0
CO
CO

ft

d
cB
y
rH
J.I
CD
1














































d
o
 r4
p
cB

p
rH
r-l
UJ
d
r-H

d
o
 rl
P
CB
rrj
d
P
0
fe
^;
y
p
cB
CD
CO
a)
erf
d
o
 i-4
4-1
Crt
rH O
y bo
O cB
co y
CO -i-l
< 0


-K
0
O
O
c*
_H/
0
T-H

CO
CN
1
VO
VO

<;
g






i
g
o
rl 0
CD
4_) r^
CTJ C
^ cti

bO rl
d CD
r4 ^
y CD
3 CO
^ _
CD a
erf P
0
IH 4-1
0 CO

^ a
CO O
T? rl
O tP
rJ
4J C
CD O
S *r~'
4J
^i 3
t) r-l
3 I"""
P O
00 ft
d
o
r4
4-1
2
y
o
co
W

co y
CD 'rl
bo 4-1
i-i y
cfl cij
j^cj j^t
O AJ
CO
*rH ^
C3 i^i
o
d t5
0
rl y

cB I-H
d 42
rl 3
^O Qj































O
O
O
X
o
in
CN

m
*o
i
CN
i 1
1
-H/
i-H

CO
CD
P
 H
I-H
rH
y
cB
fe
J_;
a)
3
a)
co

13
CD
d
rl
42
a
o
o

cp
O

co
e
CD

42
O
In
ft

CD
H
d
0
 rl
P
CB
r4
y
O
CO
CO
<
CO
k^
p
o
&

y
 rl
rH
42
ft

d
cB
y
 iH
^1
CD




















CO
a)
rl
P
r4
d
p

g
o
0
co
a)
P
cB

CO

T3
a)
P
rl
d
P

d


co
3
0
ii
IP

a)

o

""0
d
CO






















O
bO
cB
CJ P
rl Z
43 3
O p
erf
^

rH
CT\
00
*
00
in

^
oo O
~1" P
i
CN O
rH CN
1 0
4^ r-H
r-H i-H
\^s














$>)
"O
P
P
co
,_,
o
p
ft
a)
u
p
CD
4-1
d
M

y
rl
rrj
H
P
r-H
fo









ft
O
o

bO
d
rl
[^j
a)
d d
H -rl
bO IH
d ft


CO M
a) a)
rH >
3 rH
0 -rl
cq m



CO
C7\
CN
r*
00
o
r-H

C7\
ro
1
CM
i-H
1
.H/
i-H



O
1 1
rH
CB
cB IH
 r4
bO ft
d CO
 rl
N bO
-1 d
rH -rl
H 4-1
P Cfl
P P
1-1
cp 13
o <;
i
>> CJ-|
T) rH
3 a)
p co
co
~
rS tlO
4-1 d
r-4 -rl
rH d
rl CB
42 3)
H I-H
CO CJ M
nt i a)
a) IP 4-1
PL* i  l i  l
<; co &










T3
a)

Cjj
r4
O
ft
O
CJ
c
M T3
d
co cB
CD r-l
rH rl
3 CD
CJ 42
i-l a




^J*
CN
(^
^
1^
CT\
rH

O
CN
1
CN
1-4
1
Cj"
r-H



cp
O U-J
O
d
o a)
rl CO
P P
CB a)
P erf
r-H
cB rtd
> d


rfj 4-1
d d
cB 0)
a
d P
bO cB
rJ CD
CO I-i
CD t~l
fl
%
r. CD
>> bO
T3 CB
P rl
-P O
CO 4-1
CO
a
CD rH I-l
4-i cB CD
CQ y 4-1
>> O cfl
CO rH &













CO
CD
4J
CB
 rl
y
o
CO
CO
<; a)
f_|
d o
cB S

4J 4-1
4-> rH
rl CB
33 


o <:
CN ro
i-H CN
 I  O
=t rH
CO
d
CD
p

p
d
CD
u
3

43
bO
rl
P3

IP
O

r*>
4-1
rl
r-H
rl
42
rl
CO
CB
CD
EM










d
O
rH
4-1
CB
Jj
CD
d
a)
o

a
4-1
 r4
rl
O
1-4
43
y
o
ft
^
ffi






CO
I-l
cB
a)

co
P
O
 rl
h>
a)
i_i
ft

d
rH

n~J
CD

J_|
cB
^j
cfl

CO

d
p

13
CD
CB
rl
O
o
y
.CO
*f-(
r-H
prj
CO


o

CO
ti
d d
M 3
o
CO 4->
y t-i
rl CD
d 4-1
O cB
M IS


r-l
O
ft
ft
CO

1
00
vo
rH
!*
fe

d
 rl

a)

rl
4J
y

X
              62

-------
137

F i
a
Q
S

o
z
H
O
CO
H
Z
8














w
J_J
H
H

W
O
Crf
PH

























Prf
8
u
3
fcH
S
o
o
\
Q
H
H
^
J)
s
o d- o
o o o
O vO CN
O CN rH
O LTt O
ix n
O CN
ix o
1 1 1
CN CN CN
1 1 1
it 4- it
rH r-l rH


d
d o
1-1 1 TH Q
P P P
y > 4J 4-1
d 6 co co
u a) 4-1
H -.-1 P bo y (*-i
P y a) d a) o
CD 'i-l |J 'i-l T-}
B (4-1 a) ft o d
>> in co a P o co
r-l W P PW TH B
O 73 PH 4-1 a)
PL, 73 a) d CB rH
a) d P o to &
IH > T-I a) -r4 T-I o
O O XI > 4-1 4-1 P
P B TH eg CO PL,
a) o< o a! y '~N a)
co a u T-I  > P
p H 4! j o da)
(4-1 rH T-I US
o) P o -i-i p  a)
XJ O S ctJ P bO CO
4J CM -P rH d
d a) u " TH 73
a) co CD 43 d Pa)
4-)4->BP x o aid
CB d 4-1 a) -*-1 a) -i-i
pcBc84-i a)bO dXl
4-lrHa)CB P C TH B
co p p O '--l bO O
d y E- w x! d u
o y 15 ,M w ELI
B o a) o y  T3
a) I-H x! 1-1 o S dd
p En 4-1 U-l Olv-' 
d d
cB cB B
ft ft cfl
B S XI
OOP
o u b
1 1 I 1
cB cB *^
y y d
T-I -r4 O
B S co
l
1 1
CN CN
r~H rH
1 1
it it
rH rH



a)
bO
CB
P 3 S
o a) a)
P Z CO
 iH
d -i >> w
o 0 P B
S cB CD
P4-14-1
CO d '^ W
a a) d >,
TH B CB co
rH ft OT
o o a)
CO rH bO bO
a) d CB
73 > T-I P
a) a) P a)
T3 P cB 3
d Pa)
a) T3 cB CO
ft d ft
CO cB <1) T3
J3 co a)
co >, d
P (W *i-l
cB -i-l O XI
rH B
ft -< co O
0 XI T3 O
rH 'r4 O
a) co x! B
> cB P O
a) a) a) P
P En S 1-1





73
a)
4-1
CB
p
O rH
ft 'i-l
P >
0 T-I
y o
d
M (4-1
o

P >>
cB 4-1
73 a)
d M T4
CB y y
OT S CO CO
CO P
d d d d) ,14
cB p cB CU P
up y d o
r4 pq .H -r4 >H
a) a erf a) c! 3
S a) o a w a)
*^ z ^ ^ z
o

w ffi
z o
LO VO
VO i "I
vo vo
vO IX
OO 00
rH
i 1
O IX
it CN
1 1
CN CN
1 1

i-H rH
a) c
P ja
1 (ig 4-J
d ft) 1 -r4
a) -1-4 p a) a) 3
CO Crf JJ
p d >. cB cB
10 P d rJ a)
73 -iH CB O P
d 4-1 d ---I d >
a) CB P co co 4-1
pq a) co d d co co
CO 73 M O T-I p
d CB da) s P o
o a) CB I-H a) a) T-I
T-I P cB XI P P >
p u >> y a) a)
cfldP 73COOd)S P
i-t i ia) p i -p 43 a) ft
0) P 4-1 rH P CO
Crf 73 CB CO rH d d
d SE p -1-1 CD >> .H
42 P 4-1 cB P P 73
p co o '""f CB PQ a) a) a)
a) P rH CO 4-> 73
ftyco 'Hind co p
O---I XlOOOcB cB
rH P d T-I .r4 +J Ed S
a) y CB co d P CB
^> cB XI nj bO d 73 CD
CDPP CD-i-lcDdX! co
d
P
<4->

K*>
f-i
bO
d 73
^ a)
4-1 4-1
73 rH U
a) p o
4-1 CO fl,
iH C O.
a o p
i-l CO U CO
r-3 P
a) d i
> a) o
a) d co oo
rH -iH p VO
ft bo a) ON
r4 W Ed
bO 73 to Eu
=a d dp
H co CB a) d
CO 4-1 P CD T-I
CO rH 43 M d
a) p a c TH a)
bo o> p a) bo >
p d i-H > d -i-l
p o o CB w 4-1
D3 U CJ ffi y


-X
   63

-------
                                                                                  138


_l
3
p
5!
o

H
O
3
H
O
0


















_^
^
L-l

^H
^J
i

C
y.
i


















ctf
8
c

ft
E-

c

^x
J2
O
M
H

C
r-

00
H^
CN
00
3
rH
1
CN
rH
1
rH




rj
0
H
P

5-1
CJ
ft
O

13
d
cfl

^
d
o
r-l
4-1
CJ
D

P
CO
d
O
0

n

bO

CO
a


CO
CJ
p
cfl
rH
0
o
CO
CO
**
a)

43
'~N O

r3
- 
P 04
d
O rH
O r-
^ Cfl
O
| -1

0













a)
t^
o
r\
co
CM
CM
O

0)
H-l
Cfl
M
P
CO
d
o
a


0
4-1

r*>
4->
 rH
rH
rH
CJ
cfl


cfl

CM
0




















C
O

^
















a

0
p
co

CM
O

0)
bO
cfl

O
P
co

>>
cfl
M
O
ft
B
CJ


p
CJ
p
cfl


0)
T3
P















































V-l
a)
3
a)
CO

T3
a)
d
 H
n
a
0
u

CO

B
o
M
tw

'"f
0
rH
CM
rH
a)
o



























-X
o
0
0
o
0
CO

CN
1
r^.
i
12




o
d
cfl

d
o
rH
P
cfl
M
a)

o

r,
d
o
p
u
rJ
P
p
CO
d
o
u

V
d
bO

co
0)
Q
d
0
4-1
CO
P
o
ft
f_l
o
u
1)
d

ft
0
rH
a;
>
a)
Q

T3
d
S
















a)
rH
H
4-1
CO
rJ
C*>
a
o
CJ

Jj
o
1  1
fa
1
rrj
 rH
ft
CO


cfl

CM
o

d
o
rH
P
OJ
3
rH
cO

















T)
d
cfl
rH
a)
>
a)
i i
u















rH
a)
3
a)
co

T)
a)
d
rH
43
a
0
u

tj_l
o

4-1
d
aj
S
P
cfl
a)
P
H

U
0
f[ 1

J-J
0)
-1-1
1  1
fe




































































r^J
0
r i
tw
(_I
a)
o



























X
00
in
CN
                LH

                00

                CN
i
CN
rH
1
rH
CO
a)
CO
a) ca
ft 3-
>> 3
P P O
O CtJ rH
H-I a) (p
O rJ i-i
tj H a)
ft >
0 0
cfl P
P
CM T3 a)
o a) 3
d a)
H-i bO CO
o ---i
Q) CO rfj
-r-) a) 0)
0 O d
rH 'H
Qj J ("*>
c a
d Cfl O
0 rH CJ
rH P^
P cfl
cfl P
P d P
p CJ CO
co S
d P T3
o co d
a cj 3
a) s-i o
P H fa
i
CN
1
1  1
co
a)
p
CO
a) cfl
ft S
>> 3
P P O
O Cfl rH
H-I a) CM
O IH W
P H d)
("Lj ^
0 O
cfl P
p
CM T3 a)
o a) 3
d a)
4-1 bO CO
CJ 'i-H
CO co 13
r-) (0 >
p
rH
O

>
O P
ft-rl
P O
0
u g
CO O
aj 43
13 cfl
O rH
43 rM
Crf O


CO
CO
                                       OS
                                       CO
00
O
                                       00

                                       CN
                                         I
                                       CN
                                         i   a)
                                        P  P
                                        a)  cfl
                                        >  erf
                                        o
                                            43
                                        P  bo
                                        a)  -rH

                                        (0
                                        S
                                        P  co
                                        O  p
                                        p  a)
                                        co  
                                            a)
                                        CM  co
                                        O
                                            13
                                        p  a)  w
                                        d  d  d
                                        a)  -rH  a)
                                        E3  43  a)
                                        P  B  rH
                                        cB  O  O
                                        a)  u  co

                                        H  a  43
                                            O  CO
                                        >> p  a;
                                        P  CM  S


                                        f-H  O  d
                                        P  rH  'rH
                                        ft  CM  fa
                                         CO
                                         0)
                                         d -o
                                         CO r-l
                                         ii  a)
                                         3 TH
                                         O CM
                                                 CO
                                             P
                                          -  P
                                         rH  3)
                                         rH  S  rH
                                         a      ?
                                         G  'O  !-*
                                         P  d  P
                                         O  cfl  O
                                         o      u
                       CO
                       r-l

                         I

                       CM

                       r-l
                         to
                        P
                         CO

                        u

                        p
                         o
                        rH
                        rH
                        ft


                         d
                         rH
                         d
                         rH
                         cfl
                         p
                        p
                         co
                         O
                         p
                         o
                                                                CJ
                                                                C
                                                                H
                                                                 a)
                                                                 d

                                                                 a>
                 co
                 2
                 Z
                 Ed
                 ft
                         CM
                          d
                                                                O
                             2
                             CO
                             CO
                                                                    ft
                             CM
                              o
                              d
                ra
                P
                cfl
                a)
                CO
                3
                O
                r-l


                a)
                P
                ft

                d
                 rH
                 a)
                s
                 cfl
                                        CO
                                        I
                                        CM
                                         P
                                         O
                                         ft
                                         ft
                  I


                 00


                 CTl
                                         13
                                        rl
                  a)


                  p

-------
                                                                        139

EH
^5
p
Q
S

^
a)
P


^
13

4-1
d
o d
CJ 0
v-/ p
CO
 fa
rta^
PH 
co etf
&
w
CM
















6
O
p a!
cp a)
t_^
d <
0
-t d
s.s
r-H p
rH P
O
n i j
CB
/(,}
o d
r-l
4-1
CU tp
P O
X i
w d
p
cu cd
Xl
4J p
0)
bO 4-1
d CB
rl [3
CO
M g
CU P
CO O
CO 4-1

0

a)

a)
CO

'O
cu
d
Xl
6
o
o
d
cB

CO
cu
bO
(_j
cB
f-j
CJ
CO
 r-l
P







cd

r*
i-H P
a) 2;
"^ ^
Cd fH
rH CO
rl HH
r*.
Pn W
Q
K
cd
CO
CO

tN
CN
CO



rH
1
CN
r-H
1
r-H



bO
i d
CP !-!
rH d
CU CO
co cu
i-H
cd o
i
it i n i
O i  I
cu
d co
o
rJ CB

CB 13
bO d
rH CB

CO P
a) cu
> c
d -r-1
H cd
f^J
K*S 4-1
4-1 00
 r4
I-H bO
rH d
Xl -r4 P
>fH" d cu
co cd 4-1
CO CU rH
a) r 1 -r-l
fa U fa



d
o
r4
4-1
CB

O CU
ft CJ
P d
o cu
CJ 13
.rH
e >
cd O
p p




X
00
o
o
CO
               o
               o
               o
CO
 I
CN
r-l
 d
 CB
 o  d
CJ  O
    co
 d  -o
 S-i  iJ
 a>  cd
P  Xl
 CO  O
 a)  -i-i
5  a!
CO
 I
CN
d
CB
o  d
o  o
    CO
d  -a
P  P
a)  co

CO  O
ft)  -rH
               CN
               O
               ON
                                                 o
                                                 CO
 I

CN
lution
r 1
O


P
a)
P
cB


a)
rj
rjj
T3
a)
cd

o
p

CO

0

p
a)
S
Xl
bo
c
13

r-l
P
cu
S
a)
CO

P
ai
-P
CB


E
p
O
P
co

>>


T3
0)
CO
p
CB
CJ
educers
cd

d
o
r)
4_J
CJ
r-l
P
fa

S
0
rH
pT-|

13
r-i
P
rH
[~T |

bO
d
rH
co
p
lution
rH
O


t_j
a)
4->

J^

cu
o
P
13
a)


o
p

CO
13
O
X.
P
0)
S
Loading by
P
a)

a)
CO

P
a)
4-1
cd
&

S
P
0
P
CO

>>
Xl

13
CU
CO
p
$3
CJ
educers
cd

d
o
rH
p
o
r-l
P
fa

JJ
o
r-l
fa

13

p

fa

bO
d
 H
CO
P
O
d
0
rH
P
cB
p
P
co
d
o
e
a)
P

13
d
cB

4-1
d
Q)
S
ft
o
rH
a)
>
cu
P
inate Water
g
rH
r i
W

P
O

a)
0
P
TJ
0)
Cd

O
P

Cfl
rH
cd
r4
P
CU
P
CB
S


CU
bO
CB
p
a)
U
cu
CO

o
4_)
d
H

d
o
iH
P
cd
p
p
rH
rl
cp
d
rH
                              cd
o  e
O  o
    CO
d 13

a)  CB
4-1 X!
CO  CJ
CU -r4



























































^J
M
2
hH
o
cd
M
"*
Combined 14-12-200

> co a) K> *x co a) cB, 5^c e a) rH n 0 p JJ o r-H IP P 0) ^ o p a) 0) co cU ^ O d cB Cd CO CO r 1 1 CN r-H 1 r 1 1 0 1 o p ^ 4-1 rH i-H rl CJ cd cd IP O d o rH P CJ p p p CO d o CJ T) cu p cd P o ft p o o d M \ P cd ft r-H CU Temporary rt P CU 4-1 cB ^ p a) d j CO p 0 H > cu P ft d rH P 13 a) cu S 13 CU p CO cd S t) cd cu d CO rH rrj x> d P cp >> Xl o a) p P o ft ft 0? 1 00 VD O"* r-H ;* fa d r-l CU > r-l 4-1 O < * 65


-------
140 - 143

g
h-
]S

O
z
H
C
B

O
u
















pip
l-l

H
*-2
3
T

i|








3
-4
y
3
H
O
p
^
3
M
H
^J
8
,-}
\o
CN
in
00
00
ro

cf
I
CN
i
r-l



bO
t3 CU C
C 4J -r4
CtJ CO 4-J
cB cB
C S 4J
O 0
r4 d Qj
4-1 0
cB -H CU
^j 4-1 jd
a) co 4-1

O 4-1 TJ
CO CU
> c a ^
C 0 M 0
O B CU 4-i
r4 m H o
4-1 Q CB
o  O
co O i) u
O C r-i
U O 4-> CB
r-l C O
C CB B bO
bO 3 4-1 O
r-l r-l qj i 1
co cfl a) o
Q W H 


CO
_i
fl)
3
cB CU
JS CU
O ^. 0
4-1
i-l d
r-l O
r-l *r-l
XI 4-1
Ctf CB
CJ T3
'r4 !-!
r-l X CU
CX O bO
DH CB

-------
                   A.  Broroberg                       144
                      * * *




               That is the report on the Combined Sewer



Overflows.



               I will now read, as indicated by Mr. Klash-



raan, a report based on the operation of the treatment



facility of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners.



               On Jane 9, 1969, an inspection was made at



the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners Waste Treatment



Facility located on Newark Bay.  The subject waste treat-



ment facility receives waste from an estimated population



of 1,200,000 people and approximately 700 industries*



The facility consists of grit removal, course screening



and sedimentation with discharge of the effluent to upper



New York Harbor  near Robbies Reef,.



               Sludge generated in the treatment process



is thickened, stored, and discharged to barges for dis-



posal in the Atlantic Ocean.  Grit and screening are dis-



posed of in sanitary landfills at the plant site.



               The facility is designed for a flow of

-------
                   A. Bromberg                       145


w
225 million gallons per day.  Average flow to the facility

ranges from 240 to 250 million gallons per day, and during

periods of storm can be greater than 500 million gallons

per day.  Plant personnel collect data on the iiiflttent

to the plantf but have not collected data on the effluent

since January 1, 1969.   A program to continue the col-

lection of effluent data was recently instituted.

               At the time of the investigation, the

following conditions were observed)

                (1) The flow through the plant was ap-

proximately 240 million gallons per day.

                (2) Grit was being manually removed from

the grit chambers with a clam shell bucket.  Grit washing

equipment was not in operation.  Present grit volume ex-

ceeds the capacity of the washing equipment.



                (3) Twenty of the 64 existing sedimentation

basins were down for repairs.  In addition, the automatic

valves for withdrawing sludge from two additional basins

were inoperative and were being operated manually.

                (4) Although maintenance crews were working

on repairs in the 20 sedimentation basins which were down

for repairs, it was not apparent that maintenance was

-------
                   A. Bromberg                       146







being performed on the 44 operating basins.  This was



apparent from the buildup of scum bejhind the manually



operated scum troughs which were not functioning.  There



was also a buildup of scum and solids around the discharge



weirs of many of the basins.  The absence of personnel



providing routine cleaning of the sedimentation basins



indicates that these procedures may not be pursued on



a regular basis.  Many of the overflows weirs were not



properly adjusted.  Several were submerged at the time of



inspection.



               It could not be estimated when the 20 in-



active sedimentation basins would be returned to service.



Information was not available regarding the average



number of basins which might be inoperative at any given



time.



                (5)  Inspection of the plant operating



records for May 1969, which was the influent only, in-



dicated the following:



               BOD, 348 mg/1;



               COD, 750 mg/1?



               Total Solids, 1,913 mg/1;



               Suspended Solids, 414 mg/1;



               Settleable Solids, 19.7 mg/1.

-------
                   A. Bromberg                       147

  *
               (6)  Samples were collected for lahoff Cone
analysis during the inspection.  A sample was collected
from both the influent and the effluent.  The results
indicated that the influent contained approximately 25
ml/1 of solids and the effluent contained less than 1 ml/1
of solids.
               (7)  It is estimated that the treatment
facility at the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners is
presently removing approximately 10 per cent of its in-
coming biochemical oxygen demand load.
               During the inspection it was indicated
that there were operational difficulties at the treatment
facility*  The main difficulty was in inadequately designed
grit removal chambers.  Because of this problem, grit pro-
ceeds to the sedimentation basins and causes frequent break-
downs of mechanical equipment forcing the shutdown of
many basins for repair.  This was evidenced during the
time of inspection by the fact that 20 basins were down
for repairs.
               The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
has a report concerning the need for new grit removal
facilities.  It was understood that they were about to
contract for the design of these facilities.

-------
                   A. Bromberg                       148








SUMMARY



               It was indicated that to effectively treat



the average flow to the plant all existing basins should



be in operation.  At the time of the inspection, 20 of



these basins, or approximately one-third of then, were



down for repairs.  Settleable solids removal based on



Imhoff Cone analysis appeared satisfactory.  It appeared



that routine maintenance of the operating sedimentation



basins was not carried out on a regular basis.



               I would like to supplement this with a



survey which has been conducted in the Passaic River,



which is entirely within the confines of the service



area of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners. I am



talking here about that stretch of the Passaic River from



Newark Bay up to approximately Little Falls, New Jersey.



               The State of New Jersey has classified



the waters of the Passaic Basin.  The Passaic River above



Little Falls is classified as FW-2.  The River from



Little Falls to Dundee Dam is classified as FW-3.  The



stretch of river from Dundee Dam to the confluence with



Newark Bay has been  classified TW-3*  The water quality



criteria to meet these classifications are attached.



               The Passaic River is tidal for about 17

-------
                   A. Bromberg                       149







miles from Dundee Dam, located near the Garfield-East



Paterson Township lines, to Newark Bay.  The remaining



portion of the basin in nontidal.



               Dissolved oxygen (DO) in the nontidal



portion was generally above 6.0 mg/1, reaching a maximum



of 9.8 mg/1 at Dundee Dam.  DO in the nontidal portion



decreased rapidly to 0.0 mg/1 in the vicinity of Harrison.



It increased gradually to about 2.0 mg/1 in the upper



portions of Newark Bay.



               Total coliform concentrations in the non-



tidal portion increased from about 10,000/100 ml above



the PVSC service area to about 70,000/100 ml two and-a-half



miles above Dundee Dam (East Paterson).  Concentrations



dropped to about 20,000/100 ml just below Dundee Dam



and increased to 500,000/100 ml at the confluence of



the Passaic River with Newark Bay. Concentrations dropped



to 17,000/100 ml in the Bay.



               Fecal coliform concentrations followed the



same pattern as total coliform.  Concentrations were about



500/100 ml above the PVSC service area and increased to



about 4,000/100 ml at Dundee Dam.  Below the dam, concen-



trations were about 2,100/100 ml and increased to about



70,000/100 ml at the confluence with Newark Bay.  Concen-



trations dropped to about 2,000/100 ml in Newark Bay.

-------
                   A. Bromberg                       150








               There was no significant variation of tem-



perature or pH in the Passaic River within the PVSC service



area.



               A survey of the Passaic River within the



PVSC service area revealed outfall pipes at approximately



56 different locations.  At each location, at least one and



occasionally several outfall pipes were evident.  These



outfalls may discharge storm water runoff, combined sewer



overflow or discharges from industries located along the



banks of the river.  At 42 of these locations actual dis-



charges were observed.  The character of the discharges



varied from highly colored to relatively clear.  A prob-



able identification of the source of the outfall pipes



was made at 15 locations.



               The shoreline of the tidal portion of the



Passaic River is littered wiHi debris and there are many



dump sites.  These sites contribute debris and other



esthetically unpleasant material to the waters of the



Passaic River.



Summary



               Hater quality conditions in the Passaic



River within the PVSC service area were particularly de-



graded in  the tidal portion below Dundee Dam.  Dissolved

-------
                   A. Bromberg                       151







oxygen in the lower ten miles were less than the 2.5



mg/1 recommended by the standards for this area.  No



criteria exist in this area for total and fecal coliform.



               In the non-tidal portion between Little



Falls and Dundee Dam, the Total Coliform densities ex-



ceeded the recommended criteria.  It should be recog-



nized that this statement is based on one sample, while



the criteria indicate an average during any monthly



sampling period.  The DO criteria was not violated in this



stretch.



               Approximately 41 of the outfall pipe lo-



cations of the 56 that were found were located in the



tidal portion, and these may contribute material which



results in the poor quality of this section.



               Mr. Chairman, that is the end of my state-



ment.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Thank you.



               Are there any questions by the conferees?



               MR. SULLIVAN:  The plant that was just



discussed in terms of pollution is a bomb, and we will



talk about it ourselves in detail tomorrow, including



the Court action in which we are now engaged.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Thank you.



               Mr. Metzler?

-------
                   A.  Bromberg                       152








               MR. METZLER:   I would like to defer ray



questions about this until after I have heard all of the



testimony involving this.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  It might be well if we



deferred all questions until the State of New Jersey puts



in their statement, since it will be along the same lines.



               Mr. Klashman, could you have Mr. Bromberg



available at that time?



               MR. KLASHMAN:  Yes, he will be available.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Fine.



               MR. STEIN:  I have a question, if I may,



Mr. Chairman, on storm water, with respect to the first



part of the report.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Yes?



               MR, STEIN:  In your summary and conclusions,



you talk about the fact that studies are needed in the



conference area to determine several things:  The quan-



titative and qualitative characteristics of combined



sewer overflow, and the effect of combined sewer overflow



on the quality of the receiving water.  You say that



these studies are required before we can move to remedial



action.



               The question that I would like to ask you

-------
                   A.  Bromberg                       153


  v
is:  To what extent do you think these studies  should be,

and, Number Two, who do you think should do them if this

is cping to be a proposal for consideration by the con-

ferees?

               MR. BROMBERG:  As I have tried to indicate

during the reading of this report, the combined sewer

overflow problem in the conference area is quite signi-

ficant, just by virtue of the fact that there are 43

separate systems which discharge combined sewer overflows,

and any one of these systems may have more than one dis-

charge point.

               It would be quite a serious undertaking

or an intense undertaking to study, first of all, the

characteristics of the combined sewer overflow and its

effect on the receiving water.

               Within the conference area this has not

been done.  It has been done in other areas, but not

within the conference area.

               MR. STEINi  I understand that.

               What I am trying to get at, and the con-

ferees are going to have to go into this if we are, going

to consider your report on storm water overflow before

we adjourn this session of the conference, is what magnitude

-------
                   A. Bromberg                       154








of a study this entails, about how much money it is going



to require, and who is going to do it?  I think these are



the things that the conferees are going to have to con-



sider .



               Can you give us a judgment on that at all?



               MR. BROMBERG:  My judgment at this point



is that if a study is undertaken, it should be under-



taken with the states and with the Federal Water Pollution



Control Administration.



               At this point, I cannot estimate the cost



of such a study.



               MR. STEIN:  I wonder if you can get to-



gether on this with your colleagues in the states and



the interstate agency while we are here, because I think



the conferees are going to need all the help they can



get in trying to come to a recommendation on this to the



State agencies and the interstate agency, if we make it,



and to the Secretary of the Interior if we go back with



this.



               We are going to have to know  (1) what the



estimated resources are going to be that are needed; (2)



how long it is going to take; and  (3) approximately how



much it is going to cost.  Without knowing the answers

-------
                   A. Bromberg                       155

to those questions, I am not sure we will be able to
reach meaningful action.  I hope you give that considera-
tion in the next day or so.
               MR. KLASHMAN:  May we submit that for the
record?
               SECRETARY KLEIN:  If you will come up with
the facts and figures, put it in as part of the written
record, we would appreciate it, giving potential costs
and potential action on this study.
               I have several questions that I think
should be cleared up.  One is just a question of defini-
tions .
               Would you define for the audience the
Imhoff Cone analyses and what the "25 and less than 1 ml/1"
means?
               MR. BROMBERG:  Imhoff Cone analysis is
where a sample is taken from, in this particular case,
the influent to a treatment plant and the effluent of
a treatment plant.
               The sample is placed in a glass cone which
holds 1 liter.  It is allowed to stand for one hour.
After one hour's time, you measure the solids which have
settled in this cone.

-------
                   A. Bromberg                       156








               With reference to the sample which was



analyzed at the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners



facility, I believe I indicated that the concentrations



were approximately 25 ml/1 in the influent and less than



one ml/1 in the effluent.  This gives you an indication



of that plant's ability to remove settleable solids*



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  With reference to the



classifications you have mentioned, the FW-2, as I under-



stand it, is water which is potable for human use; is that



correct?



               MR. BROMBERG:  The definition is:



               "Fresh surface waters approved as sources



      of public potable water supply."



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  And FW-3?



               MR, BROMBERG:  FW-3:



               "Fresh water suitable for all purposes



      provided for under Class FW-2, except public potable



      water supply."



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Then you also have a



classification of TW-3.



               MR. BROMBERG:  Yes.  TW-3 is:



               "Tidal surface waters used primarily for



      navigation/'not recreation.

-------
                     E. Conley                           157









               SECRETARY KLEIN:  I have no further ques-




tions.  I just wanted to get the definitions.  We will let




the consequences of the report wait until later.




               Mr. Bromberg, if you will make yourself




available at the end of the New Jersey presentation, I




would appreciate it.




               MR. BROMBERG:  Thank you.




               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Thank you very much.




               MR. KLASHMAN:  I would now like to call on




Mr. Ed Conley, who is Chief of our Federal Activities




program in the Northeast Regional Office of the Federal




Water Pollution Control Administration, who will give us




a status report on Federal installations in the conference




area.






                      STATEMENT BY




                    MR. EDWARD CONLEY




              FEDERAL ACTIVITY COORDINATOR




                    NORTHEAST REGION




     FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION






               MR. CONLEY:  Mr. Chairman, conferees, ladies__




and gentlemen:

-------
                   E, Conley                         158







               I am Edward Conley, Federal Activity Co-



ordinator for the Northeast Region of the Federal Water



Pollution Control Administration.



               Die following is a status report on water



pollution control activities of Federal installations in



the Hudson River Enforcement Conference area.



               Executive Order 11288 requires heads of



Federal departments, agencies and establishments to pro-



vide leadership in the national effort to improve water



quality through the prevention, control, and abatement



of water pollution from Federal activities in the United



States.  The Order requires that the Secretary of the



Interior provide the necessary review, coordination,



and technical advice for all Federal departments, agencies,



and establishments.  The Federal installations, in turn,



are required to cooperate with the Secretary, State and



interstate agencies, and Municipalities insofar as prac-



ticable and consistent with the interests of the United



States and within available appropriations.  Water pollu-



tion control requirements must be considered and included



in the initial stages of planning for each new installa-



tion or project.  Phased and orderly plans for installing



water pollution abatement facilities at existing installations

-------
                    E.  Oonley                          159



must be developed  and  periodically revised  as  required.

Implementation of  the  Executive Order is  carried out by

the Federal  Activities Section of  the Federal  Water Pollu-

tion Control Administration.

                The Federal  installations  in the Hudson

River conference area  are listed in Table I.   Also in-

cluded in this table are the present sanitary  and in-

dustrial waste flows and their disposition  at  each in-

stallation.   A brief description of the waste  disposal

practices of the major sources of  sanitary  and industrial

wastes from  Federal installations  follows.

Military Ocean Terminal, Brooklyn, New York (P. 5. Army)

                All wastes generated at this facility ex-

cept for 500 gpd of sanitary wastes are discharged to

the New York sewer system.  The 500 gpd of  sanitary

wastes, which are  from the  gatehouse building, are dis-

charged to Hew York harbor  without treatment.   FWPCA

has recommended that by June 1970  plans be  developed

and implemented for this building  to be connected to

the base collection system  which discharges to the New

York sewer system.

                At  the  present  time the piers at this

installation are inactive.  If the piers  are used again,

-------
                   E.  Conley                         160








however, it is recommended that a system be installed to



collect the wastes from the piers and the berthed ships,



if possible, and transport them to the base sanitary



collection system.



Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, New Jersey (U.S. Army)



               The wastes from this facility presently



receive primary treatment.  Secondary treatment and chlor-



ination facilities are presently being designed.  A con*



struction contract for these facilities is scheduled to



be awarded in November 1969 and completed by November 1970.



U. S. Military Academy, Highland Falls, New York (U. S.



Army)



               The wastes from the main post area of this



facility are presently treated and chlorinated in two



primary treatment plants.  The design of a secondary



treatment plant to replace the two primary plants has



been completed.



               At Camp Buckner, a training camp area



used during the summer months only, an intermediate



treatment plant (chemical precipitation) is presently



being used to treat 240,000 gpd of wastes.  Secondary



treatment facilities have been designed for this facility.



               The funds for construction of the above

-------
                   E. Conley                         161
 *



 

facilities, originally appropriated for FY-1968, were



reassigned to other portions of the expansion program,



and the pollution control facilities were re-programmed



for FY-1971.



               The wastes from the Golf Clubhouse--



1,300 gpdare treated by a septic tank, subsurface sand



filter, and chlorination.  No improvements are necessary



at this facility.



Watervliet Arsenal, Watervliet, New York (U. S. Army)



               All sanitary wastes are discharged to the



municipal sewer system.  The industrial wastes from this



installation are now discharged untreated to the Hudson



River.  The quantities and compositions of these wastes



are subject to wide variations depending upon the levels



of production.  An industrial waste treatment plant is



being built to treat a total of 35,000 gpd of wastes.



This plant has been designed to treat cyanide wastes,


acid and metal-bearing wastes, and oil-bearing wastes.



               The treatment plant is about 95 per cent



completed and should be operating by November 1969.



When this plant is operating, there will be no discharge



of untreated wastes from this installation.



Governors Island Coast Guard Base, New York, New York



(U. S. Coast Guard)

-------
                   E. Conley                         162


               The wastes from this facility are now dis-
charged untreated to Hew York Harbor. Design plans of a
collection system, pumping station, and channel crossing
and tie-in to the Brooklyn sewer system are completed.
The construction contract for the channel crossing was
awarded on April 28, 1969.  Completion of construction
of the last phase of these facilities is scheduled for
July 1971,
               A sewage collection system now exists on
the piers atthis base.  When the onshore collection
system is completed, the collection system on the piers
will be connected to it, and the wastes from the berthed
vessels will be pumped to the collection system and then
discharged to the Brooklyn sewer system.
Coast Guard Base, St. George, Staten Island, New York
(n. S. Coast Guard)
               The installation is now used for Reserve
training activities which take place on Saturdays and
Sundays only.  Approximately 125 men attend the training
activities which are 8 hours per day.  There are also
two security officers on duty 24 hours per day, seven
days per week.
               A new training center is scheduled for

-------
                   E. Conley                         163








completion by January 1971 at Governors Island.  When



this facility is completed, all trainingactivities which



now take place at St. George will be moved to Governors



Island.  However, if the Coast Guard determines that it



will continue operations at this base after the training



center is operating at Governors Island, it is recommended



that facilities be completed to adequately treat the



wastes from this base by January 1972.



Throgs Neck Light Station, New York, New York  (U. S.



Coast Guard)



               The Coast Guard is investigating the possi-



bility of connecting this installation to the Port Schuyler



(Hew York State Maritime College) sewer system.  If this



connection is acceptable and feasible, then it will be



scheduled for completion in FY-1970.



               If the connection proposal is not feasible,



then an incinerator toilet or another acceptable treat**



raent method will be implemented in FY-1970.



Troy Lock and Para, Troy, New York (U. S. Army-Corps of



Engineers)



               Approximately 450 gpd of sanitary wastes



from this installation are discharged tothe Troy sewer



system.  An incinerator toilet is used in the lockhouse.

-------
                   E. Conley                         164








The tugboat, which is used sparingly, is equipped with



a macerator-chlorinator system.



               Approximately 260 gallons of untreated



sanitary wastes from the lockkeeper's house are dis-



charged daily to the Hudson River. Connection of this



discharge to the City of Troy's sewer system is scheduled



as soon as the City completes adequate sewage treatment



facilities which is expected to be by December 1972.



Medical Supply Agency, Brooklyn, New York  (General Ser-



vices Administration)



               This installation is now used as an office



building by the General Services Administration (GSA).



The GSA has completed plans to connect its waste dis-



charges to the proposed New York City sewer system. It



is expected that the City's facilities in  this area will



be completed by December 1973.



Hudson River Reserve Fleet, Jones Point, New York  (U. S.



Maritime Administration)



               A personnel barge is used for the adminis-



trative offices of this installation.  This barge is



equipped with a macerator-chlorinator, as  are the other



barges and tugboats which have toilet facilities on board,



Chemical toilets are used by maintenance workers while

-------
                   E. Conley                         165


to-
working on the ships,

               The Maritime Administration has deter-

mined that this fleet will be reduced to custodial status

during FY-1970 and phased out completely by 1974 or 1975.

Statue of Liberty, New York, Hew York (National Park Ser-

vice)

               The average daily sanitary sewage discharge

is 7,400 gallons, with an average peak daily flow of

18,000 gallons occurring in the summer months.  Partial

treatment is provided by a septic tank which discharges

directly to the harbor.

               Plans have been completed for a pumping

station and force sewer main to discharge the sewage

from this facility to the Jersey City, New Jersey, sewer

system.  The scheduled date to begin construction of

these facilities is August 1969 and completion estimated

to be February 1970.

U. S. Public Health Service Hospital, Staten Island, New

York (OSPHS)

               All the wastes generated at this hospital

except for 19,000 gpd of sanitary wastes are discharged

to the New York sewer system.

               The 19,000 gpd of sanitary wastes are now

discharged to a combined sewer system which discharges

-------
                   E. Conley                         166








to New York Harbor without treatment.  New York City has



agreed to build a regulator structure which will inter-



cept the sanitary sewer line from the hospital.  The



City's interceptor, which will pick up the 19,000 gpd



of sanitary wastes from the hospital, is scheduled for



start of construction in June 1970.  Completion of con-



struction of the interceptor and the sewage treatment



plant is scheduled for June 1973.



V. A. Hospital, Castle Point, New York (Veterans Admin-



istration)



               The wastes from this facility presently



receive primary treatment and chlorination.  Secondary



treatment facilities are under construction and are



scheduled for completion in April 1970.



V. A Hospital, Montrose, New York (Veterans Administra-



tion)



               The wastes from this facility presently



receive primary treatment and chlorination. Secondary



treatment facilities are under construction and are



scheduled for completion in June 1969.

-------
en


S
en

en
                                                                  o
                                                                  o
                                                                                             B1
                                                                                             in
                                                                                        167
o
B)
O,
(0
                                                                         n
9-


 3
 0.


 BJ
 h-*
 t
 in
I"
a.

^
P.
i
in

S!

K
01
o
o
o
o
                    H-
                   eg-
S!

K
Ol
o

"o
o
o
                                                            VO
                                                            O

                                                            "o
                                                            O
                                                            O
                              cd
                              H
                              o
                              S!

                              K
o
o
o
hj
O

O
i  >
O
1
r?
ft-
Intermediate treatment &
chlorination. Secondary
treatment facilities are
designed. Proposed con-
struction in FY-71.
a
c
CU
in

a
S

Primary treatment & chlor-
ination. Secondary treat-
ment facilities are designed.
Proposed construction in
FY-71.
a
c
Clj
in

a
S

Primary treatment & chlor-
ination. Secondary treat-
ment facilities are designed.
Proposed construction in
FY-71.
2
ro

"^
K
o
a
H
CT*
Primary treatment. Secon-
dary treatment facilities
are in the design phase .
Construction should be com-
pleted by November 1970.
y 2
<<: ro
in ^
rt ^
S K$
8.
i
n>




rt
4
O

i 
t-1
o
o
01
rt
r
2
K






Ul
0

en
1








2
(D

0
^
a

R
Industr
B'
d
in'
8
o

rt
M*
ft
<

O
ti
d
i  i
d
H-
in
n
3"
B
S
CU
M
d
M
M
^
F

1
>
g
H
O
2
en
2

W
a
d
o
2
a

7*j
0
o
hrj
rt
2
n
1

rt
>
rt
O

-------
O


g
in
rt

O
G.
en
sr
rt
           G

           en


           en
           rt

           8

           S-
y

F


8

r
                      3
                      ft>
                      rt
                                                                        ro

                                                                        ft
                                                                                   sr
                                                                                   ro
                                                                                   rt
                                                                                                     C|



                                                                                                     CD
                                                                                                     sr
                                                                                                     o
                                                                                                     B>

                                                                                                     8-

                                                                                                     3
                                                                                                                       168
o

g
tn
rt




I
       M  >

       3   H
                                              M  >
H

3
O


in

ti
in




I
GJ
o
o
o
      
a

K
                                        KJ

                                        O^

                                        O
o
v;



2


K
                                                   tn

                                                   O


TL
ro
sr
Oi
0"
><
< 1
e.
<
s
NJ
1-1



lyn sewer system complete
Construction should be com
i 


sign of connection to Brook
i
a
i
0
X
1
H
Discharged untreated. De-



H
<
3
F
o
R-

Cb
d



Abandoned-moved facility t
o


available.



expected date when adequati
treatment facilities will be
m


cember 1972 , which is the



o
t
16
1
H
%
in
rt
3
?



Should be connected to muni
i
Troy Sewer
System
Hudson River

Discharged untreated.

                                                          01

                                                          VO
                                                              ft)  O

                                                              ff. 8
                                                              o
                                                                        rt


                                                                        S
                                                                        t:
                                                                        (0
                                                                        rt
                                                                         O
                                                                         o
                                                                         o
                                                                     I
                                                                     in  o
                                                              g  f^ rt  rt
                                                              Si. JO  <0   g-


                                                             #P  ff  3
                                                                   ro   o


                                                              ?&


                                                              S  2  S   S
                                                              fi  sr

                                                                                   I
                                                                                   rt
                                                                                   (D

                                                                                   rt
                                                                                   2


                                                                                   K
                                                                                   O

                                                                                   K)
                                            O

                                            O
                                                                               v^  M.

                                                                                in  ro

                                                                                rt  rt
                                                                                                     |
                                                                                                                       M

                                                                                                                        d


                                                                                                                        id


                                                                                                                        -i



ro
B)
in
1






X

I
3
Cb
03
o
*
> tfl
fl) 3
iD f^*
IE
ro S"
ff-H
 
gH,
(D Q.

ft" o
O C
1 (^
K



J^
00
o

UJ
1
M-
rt
5





F
g-
in
rt
d
M*
tn
g-
S
o
c
rt
M
<
S'
tn
3
i  i
H
hj
s--
rl
S

rt"
o
d

1
ro
1
i
en
a
H
HH
M
c!
d
1

S
M
0
O
2
M
1

M
jtj
M
:>
fi-
o
en
ro

rt
n'
rt
rs
s
P
ro
rt
g, Ul
in
g-
Ul

c
l-h
ro

-------
HT! K
rTg,
S- |
S
$
hj

S
01
$
(B

B

t~t"
5"
(B


g-
<  1
(B
in
I'
f~t"
z
*
M
o\
o
o







a

a.
in
s
g)
<
JJ



Treatment provided by ma-
cerator-chlorinator
systems.












































New York sewer system
should be completed by De-
cember 1973.
Medical
ff
^
<^
TO
S
n
0
en

^





0)
o
<>
?
Z
H<

(->
M
c
"o
0
0







Z
ro


s

w
PJ

o
H!
Discharged untreated. Con-
struction of a connection to












































and leaching field or an in-
cinerator toilet scheduled
for FY-70.
en en
ft it
B) 0
H
3 rrj

rf
t"1
i'
ft


o
o
in
rt
O
g
Cb


en
g
^
o
5'
it
Z
K

Ul
o
o







a
c
a.
in
B
52

K



Discharged untreated. In-
stallation of a spetic tank,
en nq

I

o
g
in
it
tn

Or


Z M

it
cn
B
a.


Z
i
H<
8-
M
5-
o






















Station is automated. No
men stationed at facility.
S?
r &
in
CD 




2
fD
^

0

K
ID

g*
H!
Discharged untreated. Fa-
cility is scheduled to be
phased out by January 1971.












































phased out by January 1971.
in
tl
-i
Installa

00
&
K


n
o
in
it
>
ro
3
o
cn k
g
cL


en
it
&
it
ro
U)
ET
f1
8
ftj
ft
i_i.

3
a.
^
*

H->
0
0
|B
*"*" G*
 s
2 H
te
(B
?
It



Z
o
^

8
S4
ta
PJ

Ft
1 < <^
tn /->
^.
d
M'
n
f J_
f
S
Cb
ft
o
a"
o
i-i
Discharged untreated. Fa-
cility is scheduled to be
0
(B
It
U)

-------
                                                                       170
a.
sr
<
>

a
o
v>
                    
                    I
                    i-
                    en
                    sr
                           0 K
en c!
(D *
^
ro J?
W O"*
0 tl
tn o
H. 5
St 
      rt
                                         ft)
                                           8-
  Ul
  o
  o
                           en 2
                           2 W
-S
s s-
1







ff
8
*
i 
3

z
*





00
ISJ

o










n? "^
^ (0
(B *
ft
g

rt H
H V
?l

* hh
O
H
m
2





































g-sr B-
1 3 ?
w ' ^
" en 8
M rt in
Sfi^
"n 0
0 M.
SJT
S- 
ff 
S !
ft 4
o tn
3 *o
rt
s-
rt
1
h3
O
O
(0
rt
U)
(^
ro
in

rt
&

Ul
ID
O4


















d
M>
cn
i
"8

o
3
rt
ft
s-
o
a






Tl
w
d
M
5
f
z
3
H
>
f
5
O
z
cn
g

M

a
g
en
i
>d
^
M
0
O
^
M
M
Z
O
M
1












-------
                      E. Conley                          171






               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Thank you very much.




               Are there any questions?




               Mr. Sullivan.




               MR. SULLIVAN:  I have one short question:




               I wonder if you know what led the U. S.




Array to decide with regard to the terminal in Bayonne




to construct its own treatment facility rather than hook




in with the City of Bayonne in keeping with the State's




policy on regionalization?




               MR. CONLEY:  The Army was directed by the




Office of the Chief Engineer to continue a design for




a separate secondary treatment plant at the installation.




               The Army felt that it would cost more money




to tie into the municipal system than it would to operate




it on their own.  However, they have not completely elim-




inated the possibility of tying into the City of Bayonne,




which we have recommended them to do.




               MR. SULLIVAN:  Do you happen to know what




the cost discrepancy is?




               MR. CONLEY:  No, sir, I do not.




               SECRETARY KLEIN:  It may be that that might




be better answered by the District Engineer, Mr. Sullivan,




who would have absolute knowledge of it, rather than Mr.




Conley's, which is secondary, so if you would please defer




that, I believe we are going to have the engineer testify.

-------
                   E.  Conley                         172



               Mr. Metzler?

               MR. METZLER;  You may have the same ruling

on the question I was  about to ask,  but I was thinking

of the question of at  what point money was appropriated

to upgrade the sewage  treatment plant, at West Point, N.  Y.
in FY 1968.
               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Col. Grandall is here,

and when he testifies  I think it would be better to ask

hint, if you would reserve that, Mr.  Metzler, please.

               MR, METZLER:  There is one other point I

would like to make here, if I may.

               I notice with reference to the facilities

for disposing of sewage on barges you are using raacerator-

chlorinators.  It seems to me that that is a good interim

measure, and you folks who have done this should be

complimented on moving ahead towards legislation which

would require something better, which would be very clear

on the basis of studies which the Federal Water Pollution

Control Administration and others have made, but macer-

ator-chlorinators are not an acceptable way of disposing

of sewage from boats in waters that are used as a source

of public water supply, bathing, and other uses.

               MR. CONLEY:  Yes, sir.  We are no longer

recommending their use*

-------
                   E. Conley                         173

  *
               MR. METZLER:  The State of New York had

a rather complete review of this whole matter down to

the technical details at this last session of the Legis-

lature.  I just wanted to make that point there.

               MR. CONLEY:  These were installed   three,

four and five years ago.

               MR. STEIN:  You recollect, Mr. Metzler,

that we took the lead  IB  the Federal Government in

trying to get macerator-chlorinators installed on boats

when there was still a very real problem of what devices

would be appropriate for boats, and we did that as a

demonstration project.

               The conclusions we arrived at on Lake

Erie and Lake Michigan in New York and various other

places was as a result of the experience that we had with

the macerator-chlorinators as demonstrated, and I think

your remarks are very well taken.

               Thank you.

               SECRETARY KLEIN:  I may say in regard to

this legislation pending in Congressand I think everyone

here knows about itwith regard to Marine Sanitation

Devices that the standards will have to be developed if

that legislation becomes law.

-------
                   E.  Conley                         174








               Mr, Glenn?



               MR. GLENNi  No questions.



               SECRETARY KLEINs  No questions by Mr. Glenn,



Mr, Klashman?



               MR. KLASHMAN:  Mr. Conley, I wonder if



you could comment, to supplement Mr. Metzler's question,



on the Maritime Administration Hudson River Fleet.



               MR. CONLEY: Yes, sir.



               MR. KLASHMAN:  On the barges, have you had



any discussions with the Maritime Administration about



what is going to happen when New York State actually is



in a position to start enforcing a stricter regulation



in that area?  What will the barges do?



               MR. CONLEYr  if the barges are still there,



we will probably recommend some onshore disposal system



be worked out.  We think right now it is feasible to



pump from the barges onto shore.



               MR. KLASHMAN:  Could we say, instead of



"probably j"  that you will recommend it?



               MR. CONLEY:  We will recommend it.



               MR. KLASHMAN:  All right.  Thank you very



much.



               In other words, we will keep up with New

-------
                   R.  Crandall                       175


   fr
York State as far as the Federal Government is concerned.

We have discussed this with the Maritime Administration.

               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Mr. Klashman, anything

further?

               MR. KLASHMAN:  I have no further questions.

               SECRETARY KLEIN:  All right.  Thank you very

much, Mi. Conley.

               MR, KLASHMAN:  I would now like to call

on Col. Riel S. Crandall, 0. S. Military Academy, West

Point, New York.


                   STATEMENT BY

               COL. RIEL S. CRANDALL

           UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

               WEST POINT, NEW YORK


               COL, CRANDALL:  Mr. Secretary, conferees,

ladies and gentlemen:

               The United States Military Academy, in

keeping with the Federal Water Quality Act passed in 1965

and Executive Order 11288, dated 2 July 1966, programmed

construction of a secondary sewage treatment plant in

FY 1968.  Based on the design by Alexander Potter Asso-

ciates, project cost was estimated at $2,137,000. Congress

-------
                   R. Crandall                       176








subsequently authorized and funded the project for this



amount.  On 7 June 1968, the Federal Water Pollution Con-



trol Administration approved the design as being "con-



sistent with applicable Federal or State quality stan-



dards or other requirements."




               Prior to receiving this approval, a revised



project estimate was made placing the cost at $2,618,000



or more than 22 per cent above the amount funded.  Policy



specifically prohibits advertising any project for which



the Current Working Estimate exceeds authorized funding.



It was therefore necessary to reprogram this project



and this was subsequently done for FY 1971.



               On 23 May 1968 bids on four other pro-



jects at USMA were opened  (The Academic Building, Thayer



Road Bypass, the Cold Storage Plant, and the Expansion



of Camp Buckner).  The bids exceeded the estimated pro-



ject cost for three of the four projects.  It therefore



became apparent that all of the projects authorized



could not be constructed within the authorized funds.



The Secretary of the Army notified the appropriate con-




gressional committees and subsequently permission was




received from these committees to apply the $2,137,000



(Secondary Sewage Authorization) to two of these projects

-------
                   R. Crandall                       177



  it
and USMA was directed to reprogram or rejustify the

remaining three projects.

               At the present time, most of the nearby

communities provide primary treatment and some have be-

gun construction of secondary sewage treatment facilities.

We now provide primary treatment, and the removals we

obtain are roughly what we could expect from a well

functioning primary sewage treatment plant.  Construction

of our proposed secondary sewage treatment plafct could

begin as early as the Fall of 1970, and it should be

feasible to complete construction by the end of 1971.

With this program we will meet previous commitments.

               That is the end of the statement.

               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Fine.

               Any questions, Mr. Sullivan?

               MR. SULLIVAN:  No.

               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Mr. Metzler?

               MR. METZLER:  Yes, I have a couple of ques-

tions here.

               I am a little distressed.  I recall the

representation being made to Senator Javits" office, who

is personally interested, that this plant got early atten-

tion.  I am not in a position to evaluate the various

-------
                   R. Crandall                       178







priorities of projects, so we can only accept things the



way they are today.



               I don't understand why, if this was ready



to go at the earlier date, you are delaying construction



now until the Pall of 1S70,  Will you explain that?



               COL. CRANDALL:  Yes.



               MR. METZLER:  You said late 1970 or 1971.



That was the time you gave?



               COL* CRANDALL:  Correct.  As I stated, our



standard policy in the Army is made on commitments through



Congress.  I don't know whether it is law or not which



prohibits us from bidding if, at the time our final govern-



ment estimate is made, we exceed the amount authorized by



the Congress.



               This became apparent before we bid this



project, so we could not bid it.  We had already opened



bids on these other four,  we returned the entire problem



to Congress and got permission to go ahead with the



Academic Building and a small portion of the Thayer Road



Bypass, which is tied in physically with the Academic



Building and the rest of the projects we were instructed



to reprogram and resubmit to Congress, including the



sewage plant.

-------
                   R.  Crandall                       179

 
               By the time this decision was made and we

could implement it, we were already to Congress with the

1969 program.  The 1970 program had been prepared, and

the nearest program we could get the sewage plant back

into was the fiscal 1971 program, and this is where it

is  now, and the Department of the Army Review Board has

informed us this past week that it has a very high priority

right now.

               MR. METZLER: Well, my other question

then is we are aware of the escalation of costs for

sewage treatment works, and we have enough money in the

budget this time.

               COL. CRANDALL:  Yes, sir.  I don't want

to get caught this way again.

               MR. METZLER:  Thank you very much, Colonel.

               SECRETARY KLEIN:  All right.  Mr. Klashman?

               MR. KLASHMAN:   I would now like to call

on Mr. Robert Wuestefeld, Assistant Chief of Operations,

New York District, Corps of Engineers.

-------
                   R.  Wuestefeld                     180








                   STATEMENT BY




              MR. ROBERT WUESTEFELD



           ASSISTANT CHIEF OF OPERATIONS



                 NEW YORK DISTRICT




                CORPS OF ENGINEERS



                UNITED STATES ARMY






               MR. WUESTEFELD:  I am Robert Wuestefeld,



Assistant Chief of Operations of the New York District,



Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army.  The New York District



includes within its boundaries the watersheds of the



Hudson River and the streams draining into the New York




Harbor.



               There are three general functions of the



District which are pertinent to the problem of pollution



of the Hudson River.



               First, as you know, the Corps of Engi-



neers is designated by law as the Federal agency responsi-



ble for water resource planning and for construction and




operation of Federal works for navigation, flood protec*



tion and beach erosion purposes.  As a result of many




broad studies which the District has made of the water-



sheds of the Hudson and the New York Harbor, we have



developed and have available for your use considerable

-------
                R. Wuestefeld                        181
 f

water resource data.

               In connection with sedimentation studies

of the lower Hudson River, we have constructed a compre-

hensive model of the New York Harbor, including the Hud-

son River as far north as Hyde Park. The model has al-

ready been used for pollution distribution studies. The

model is available for resource studies of the Hudson

River and, if sufficient interest is generated by other

agencies, consideration could be given to extending the

model as far as the Federal dam at Troy, New York.

               There are a number of studies and pro-

jects of the District which are closely related to the

pollution problem.  These are being coordinated with

all local and Federal agencies who are working in the

water resource field.

               Under congressional authority, funds have

been made available to the District for the collection

and removal of drift.  Several Corps of Engineers'

vessels are used for this purpose.  Most of the collec-

tion activity is in the upper bay of the harbor where

drift collects front the contributing waterways.

               Pursuant to a congressional resolution,

the District has completed a study regarding the feasibility

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     182








of eliminating the sources of drift and debris.  The three



primary sources areloose material along the shores, di-



lapidated structures, and derelict vessels.  We estimate




there are about 29.2 million cubic feet of this material



in the New York Harbor area,



               A similar type of investigation is under




way to determine the feasibility of eliminating sources




of drift and debris from the entire Hudson River.  This



study is presently scheduled for completion in Fiscal



Year 1972.



               In addition, the North Atlantic Division,



Corps of Engineers (our next higher headquarters) is




currently conducting two studies of major significance



in the matter of water pollution.  The first of these



is the North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study



covering all river basins draining into the Atlantic



Ocean north of the Virginia-North Carolina state line,



portions of Lake Champlain and the St. Lawrence River.



This is one of the eighteen regions of the United States



delineated in the Water Resources Council program of



water resources studies covering the United States.  The



purpose of this study is to establish a framework, or



broad master plan,  to serve as a basis for the future

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     183








multi-purpose water resource development in the area.



This study, which is a joint effort of Federal agencies



involved, is scheduled for completion in 1971.



               As a result of the recent unprecedented



water drought over the northeastern seaboard of the



Nation and the resulting emergencies and restrictions



concerning water supply and use, Congress has authorized



the Corps of Engineers to cooperate with all Federal,



State and local agencies in preparing plans to meet the



long range water needs of the Northeastern United States.



These plans may include major reservoirs, conveyance



facilities to transfer water between river basins and



purification facilities to be constructed under Federal



auspices with non-Federal participation.  The area



covered by this study is generally similar to the area



covered by the previously mentioned framework study.



An interim report covering metropolitan New York area,



northern New Jersey and Western Connecticut will be



completed in calendar year 1971.



               A second function of the District which



relates to the water pollution problem is that of



military construction at Army and Air Force Bases in



the area.

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                    184








               At your conference of September 1965 you



will remember that there was considerable discussion of



pollution of the Hudson by Federal Installations.  1 am



pleased to report significant progress at all Army and



Air Force installations cited in your initial evaluation.




               a.  At the Troy Lock and Dam facility




electric toilets have been installed which now inciner-



ate waste material.



               b.  At the United States Military Academy



at West Point plans have been completed for construction



of secondary sewage treatment facilities at that location.




It is anticipated that the project will be funded in the



fall of 1970 and that a contract will be awarded for con-



struction shortly thereafter.  The estimated cost of



this additional complex is in excess of $3,000,000.



               c.  At Watervliet Arsenal the construction



of a complex industrial waste treatment facility has been



substantially completed and is currently undergoing



general tests for acceptance.  The facility provides a



treatment plant for highly toxic cyanide wastes so that



the effluent will be of such quality as to permit dis-



charge via the existing storm system into the Hudson



River.  In addition, the facility provides for a separate

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     185








treatment plant for the soluble oils and acid wastes.



Each of these wastes receives separate primary treat-



ment prior to a combined secondary treatment so as to



permit discharge into the Hudson River. The non-soluble



oils are now collected and disposed by local forces.



Sanitary wastes from this installation are disposed of



by the City of Watervliet.



               d.  An addition to the existing sewage



treatment plant at Stewart Air Force Base  is presently



under construction to provide additional secondary



treatment of sanitary waste.  Included in the project



are additional sludge drying beds, sludge digester,



and chlorine contact chamber addition.  The contract



was awarded 30 September 1968 in the amount of $188,800.



It is anticipated that the construction will be com-



pleted by summer of 1969.



               In addition, all self-propelled vessels



that are operated by the New York District have been



equipped with chlorinators, except one, which is being



retired shortly.



               The third function of the District perti..



nent to the water pollution problem is that of enforce-



ment of certain Federal statutes developed to assure



freedom of our waterways for navigation.

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     186








               The most general law associated with pol-



lution, enforced by the Corps of Engineers, is Section



13 of the River and Harbor Act of 3 March 1899, known as



the "Refuse Act" which states, in essence, that it is



unlawful to throw, discharge or deposit any refuse



matter of any kind or description into navigable waters



of the United States whereby navigation shall or may



be impeded.  In the broad sense water pollution is not



unlawful, under this statute, unless it is injurious to



navigation.



               The "Refuse Act" and other anti-pollution



laws is enforced in the Mew York Harbor area and in the



Hudson River by the District Engineer in his dual capa-



city of Supervisor of New York.  In this capacity the



District Engineer plays an active part in the prevention



of illegal deposit of materials in these waters and in



the disposal of wastes in navigable waters.



               The office of the Supervisor of New York



Harbor was established by an Act of Congress approved



June 29, 1888,to "prevent obstructive and injurious



deposits within the harbor and adjacent waters of New



York City, by dumping or otherwise, and to punish and



prevent such offenses."  To enforce the foregoing

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     187

  V
statutes the New York District maintains an inspection

force who regularly patrol the harbor.  The inspectors

travel around the harbor by patrol craft and visit shore

establishments on foot and by use of patrol cars.   In-

spectors are available day and night and are prepared to

investigate untoward incidents as well as being on routine

patrol.

               When a violation is observed or reported,

the violator is made aware of the law he has broken and

given an opportunity to correct the condition if it is

correctable.  If the warning is not heeded and the viola-

tion is continued or repeated or if it is a flagrant

violation in the first place, a complaint is filed with

the appropriate United States Attorney or in the case of

certain violators involving spills from vessels with

the 0. S. Department of Justice, Shipping and Admiralty

Section.

               Another phase of the Supervisor of Mew

York Harbor activities involves the establishment of

dumping grounds for the disposal of waste materials or-

iginating in or being transported over the waters under

the jurisdiction of the Supervisor of New York Harbor.

Disposal areas have been established in three major

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     188








localities;  Hudson River, Long Island Sound and the



Atlantic Ocean off the entrance to New York Harbor.



There have been nine areas established in past years in



Hudson River between Peekskill and Kingston, New York.



They have been used exclusively for the deposit of mater-



ial dredged from the channels in Hudson and the local



harbors along the river front north of Hastings-on-Hudson.



A total of 19 areas have been established in Long Island



Sound opposite the entrances to the many harbors along



both shores of the sound.  Although the areas are desig-



nated for the disposal of materials dredged from these



local harbors and waterways, the area off Eaton's Neck



has been used for the disposal of clean cellar dirt and



wrecks, the latter particularly when inclement weather



and rough seas made trips to sea too hazardous.



               There are six separate dumping grounds



designated in Atlantic Ocean from four to 106 nautical



miles offshore using Ambrose Light as a point of refer-



ence.  These areas provide for the disposal of mud and



one-man stone, cellar dirt, sewer sludge, waste acid,



wrecks and chemical  (toxic) wastes.



               While the principal criteria in the



original selection of these areas was to assure that  their

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     189




use would not be detrimental  to navigation, other factors

were  also considered*  The sewage sludge dumping ground,

in use  since 1924, was selected to avoid offensive dis-

coloration and  solids washing up on  the beaches.  The

waste acid dump was established in 1948 only after com-

petent  Federal  and State  agencies concurred that its use

would not be likely to cause  any injury or discoloration

of the  water along the beaches.  The offshore  chemical

disposal  area,  which is off the Continental Shelf, has

been  designated for use in the disposal of industrial

chemical  wastes which various State  and Federal agencies

felt  would be injurious if they were not carried beyond

the continental limits.

                Requests for permission to dispose of

industrial chemical wastes at sea have increased ever

since health authorities  have barred the use of upland

disposal  sites  or internal streams because of  possible

infiltration into potable ground water aquifers.  Each

such  request for approval is  carefully reviewed and the

views of  concerned Federal and State agencies  are secured,

including the New Jersey  and  New York State Conservation

and Health Departments, the Interstate Sanitation Com-

mission,  the U. S. Public Health Service, and  the Fish

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     190








and Wildlife Service and the Federal Water Pollution



Control Administration of the U. S. Department of the In-



terior .



               To assure that the waste materials are



disposed of in the approved dumping grounds, permits are



issued for the vessels transporting the materials to move



over the waters of New York Harbor and its adjacent and



tributary waters to the designated place of disposal.



Inspections are made by use of patrol boats patrolling



the dumping areas being used regularly and by inspectors



riding the vessels transporting the materials on indi-



vidual trips or occasions.  In addition, the. vessel



operators are required to return the permits with the



certification of the master of the vessel as to the



action taken in dumping the material.  As a result of



these efforts, the dumping of wastes or other material



is documented and regulated.



               With this increased activity and the



interest expressed by many agencies and organizations



concerned in water quality and pollution, the Corps of



Engineers has become increasingly concerned in the en-



vironmental impact of the dumping procedures being fol-



lowed.  Many of the dumping grounds have been used for

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     191
 *





many years, but there is little knowledge available as


to the effect of their use on the total environment.


Periodic surveys have been made which determined that


the dump areas have not shoaled appreciably.  On the


other hand, there have been no specific objections to


the dumping grounds or the procedures followed in using



them.


               The Corps of Engineers being charged with


the responsibility of establishing and maintaining waste


disposal areas in coastal waters has the concurrent duty


of determining what effect such disposal has on the


total environment.  The Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army,


directed that a study be made of dumping grounds in the


coastal areas receiving various types of waste so as to:


               1.  Determine the effects of such dumping;


               2.  Make changes in areas or procedures to


eliminate harmful effects or to enhance beneficial ef-


fects ; and,


               3.  Determine the effects which might be


expected from various types of waste materials.


               It was decided that the initial research


project should be undertaken in relation to the New York


Coastal area.  The work was assigned to the Coastal

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     192








Engineering Research Center (CERC)  of the Army Corps of



Engineers with headquarters at Washington, D.C.  This



organization was directed to supervise the project,



calling upon the New York District and other agencies




to perform much of the actual field work required for



the program.  It was determined that the field work would



be performed over a period of two years and that a final



report with recommendations would be completed not later



than one year thereafter.



               The Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory of the



U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife was com-



missioned to undertake studies of the mud, cellar dirt,



and sewer sludge dump grounds.



               The primary objectives of the field study




being undertaken by the Marine Laboratory, are to:



               1.  Determine the effects of past and



future deposition of dredge spoil



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Mr. Wuestefeld, the



Bureau of Fish and Wildlife are here to testify.  Would



you leave that for them, please?




               MR. WUESTEFELD:  Very well.  Of course,



you understand, Mr* Klein, this is a study that the



Corps is making.

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     193








               SECRETARY KLEIN:  I understand that, but



they are here to testify on it.



               MR. WUESTEFELD;   Very well.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Go ahead.  They can cut



that out of their statement then if you are prepared.



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  I would rather not have



duplication.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  You go ahead, and they



have time to do the cutting, so you go right ahead.



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  All right.  The primary



objectives of the field study being undertaken by the



Marine Laboratory are to:



               1.  Determine the effects of past and



future deposition of dredge spoil and other loose waste



sediment on the biology of benthic zooplankton and fish



population living in the designated dumping areas;



               2.  Determine the hydrography of water



masses which impinge upon or are over the dumping area;



and



               3.  Evaluate the effects of such water



movements on the disposal of solid wastes.



               The initial biological research program



will be concerned with determining the extent of



area in which sea life has been affected by dumping of

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     194








dredged materials and sewage wastes.



               In addition, the effects of solid and



toxic wastes on phyto- and zooplankton will be studied



in the field and in the laboratory.  Samples taken at



different depths and distances from dumping vessels



will be analyzed for immediate deleterious effects. Long-



term effects will be investigated at the Sandy Hook



Laboratory controlled environment aquarium facility.



               In addition to the foregoing studies on



the effects on plant and animal life, it is also planned



to conduct research on water transport and diffusion.



This would involve placing thermographs at strategic



locations between Fire Island, New York and Barnegat,



New Jersey.  Data from this equipment will be collected



periodically by divers, operating from Marine Laboratory



vessels.  These vessels will also determine vertical



stratification of such variables as temperature, salinity,



density and bottom currents.  Wind force and direction



data will also be collected from appropriate weather



stations.  From a correlation and analysis of these data,



it is anticipated that predictions will be made of water



movements along the bottom in the New York Bight.

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     195
 t

               An additional research program in the New

York Bight has been recently commenced by the newly es-

tablished Marine Sciences Research Center of the State

University of New York at Stony Brook, Long Island, New

York.  Under this program, the Marine Science Research

Center obtains bottom samples and biological data either

by their own efforts or from the organizations perform-

ing simultaneous studies for other purposes.  The analysis

of the samples would determine grain size, water content,

grain density, carbon contents and mineral composition

of the grain.  The wastes would then be compared with

natural sediments and characterized as to source and

as to the residual after dumping and deposition on the

ocean floor.  An ultimate goal of these studies is the

development of guidelines for solid waste management in

the marine waters so that there can be a beneficial use

of the wastes.

               The testing pfogram by the Sandy Hook

Marine Laboratory was commenced in August 1968.  Initial

testing is being limited to the Sewage Sludge Dumping

Ground.  Incomplete tests confirm results of previous

studies which revealed sludge deposits lying on the

bottom in an area 20 to 25 square miles in extent, roughly

-------
                   R.  wuestefeld                     196








centered on the designated dump site.   Analysis  of  cores



show that at the center of the deposit area,  sludges



have accumulated or have been worked into the sediments



to a depth of one to three feet.  Preliminary analysis of



sediments indicates a relatively high content of iron



and chromium in sediments of certain samples  from the



sludge disposal area.  Additional testing is  being under-



taken to determine if these metal deposits are distributed



throughout the area or are isolated or localized con-



ditions.  Further testing is required including  testing



of wastes collected at their source rather than  at the



disposal site, before any changes should be made in the



pattern of dumping of sludge containing industrial



wastes.



               It is believed that completion of these



testing programs will take the guesswork out of  the



question as to the effect of dumping on the environment.



Until such time as other means are found to dispose of



our wastes, which are within our economic means  and



are a better solution to dumping at sea, it appears



that such dumping will have to be continued.   Pull evalua-



tion of the results of the investigations should tell



whether ocean disposal is good, bad, or immaterial and

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     197








whether or not alternatives,  either in location or pro-



cedures should be adopted.



               Departing from what I said,  I just want to



add that only recently the Coastal Engineering Organiza-



tion in Washington has decided to convene a panel of



experts who are going to review completely the program



of work being done by the Marine Laboratory and determine



what further steps should be taken to make the study more



complete.



               Thank you.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  I have a series of ques-



tions on these dredgings.



               You said at one time, if I remember right,



that besides cellar items going in there, acid bearing



materials were being dumped four to six miles out?



               MR, WUESTEFELD:  No, sir.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  This was in your state-



ment.  I picked it up.  If I had been asleep, it would



have awakened me, but I wasn't asleep at the time.  You



said acid bearing materials four to six miles out.



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  It is 106, beyond the



Continental Shelf.  The chemical wastes go out off the



Continental Shelf where it is one thousand fathoms or more

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     198








deep.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Have you been making




any tests at all of what is on the barges or ships that



you take out there  as to what the chemical content is?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  No, we have not.  We



have taken chemical analyses furnished by the companies



disposing of the wastes*



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  You have no corrobora-



tive evidence whatsoever?



               MR. WUESTEPELD:  No, sir.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Now, I heard you say




that we are having chromium on the bottom 12 miles out



in the dumping grounds.



               MR. WUESTEPELD:  In the sewage disposal



areas there has been some indication of chromium in the



residue lying in the bottom of the sludge disposal area.



               There have not been sufficient samples



taken to be sure that it is widespread throughout the



entire area or whether it may just be isolated spots.



It is possible that the chromium and iron are from the



industrial wastes rather than ordinary sewage collec-



tion, because both industrial wastes and the sewage



sludge go to the same dumping ground at the present time,

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     199
 *



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  One of the things we have

done in Lake Michigan, of course, is require a coring

sample or several of them to be tested before anything


will be allowed to be dumped.

               Of course, we don't allow any dumping in

the Chicago area.


               It is possible here that maybe it would


be better to get some corroborative evidence, that per-

haps you are not getting a full factual statement as to


what is in the dredgings that you are dumping.      If

I may, I would recommend that at least helter-skelter

samples be taken so that nobody would know when you are


going to take one to make sure that these would be non-


toxics if you are going to dump them within the Continen-

tal Shelf twelve miles out.


               MR. WUESTEFELD:  We have discussed this


since we have discovered there is chromium in it, and

it is a feeling that they are possibly from the industrial


wastes, and while it may have been only a couple of

scattered loads, it may be throughout the area.

               There is additional sampling being taken.

These are actually core samples of the sediments which

are being analyzed right now for us by Stony Brook.

-------
                   R.  Wuestefeld                      200








               SECRETARY KLEIN:   I  see.




               MR. WUESTEFELD:   If  we  find that this  mater-



ial is scattered throughout the  entire area and it is not



just one of these rare things that  happen, we will then




expect that we are going to take samples from all of  the



sources of the sludge or industrial wastes to determine



which one is the one that is bringing  to us the metallic



wastes which we don't want.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:   Now,  we have been dump-



ing the sludge out there 12 miles out.  About how high




a mount have you made from the original sea bottom?



               MR, WUESTEFELD:  The soundings we have



taken have shown very little change in the bottom.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:   You mean you have not



decreased it by five or ten feet in that area?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  No, sir.



               If it is part of the sewer sludge, it does



not all stay there.  It is only a small portion that stays.



In fact, the core soundings indicate that there is only



one to three feet of material in the entire area.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  What does it do, get



taken up by the chlorides in the ocean?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  That's right.  A large

-------
                   R.  Wuestefeld                     201







part of it just completely burns itself out and disappears.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  I might say at this time



to the assemblage here that the Department of the Interior



has its own studyI think most people here know itgoing on



onthe disposal of wastes along the coastal areas of the



country, not just in this area, and is expected to come



up with a final answer at a later date.  There will be



some reference made to it later in the day.



               So the problem is being attacked on more



than one front.



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  Well, on the Pacific there



is also a study for the United States Department of Health,



and they have been in touch with us, so there are three



agencies.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Mr. Sullivan?



               MR. SULLIVAN:  I wonder if the effect of



sludge dumping 12 miles off the coast would include any



possible deleterious effects upon the beaches, and not



just limit itself to harmful effects on the marine bio-



logy.



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  The study we are making



is to determine whether any adverse effects cone up



on the beach.



               All the studies that have been made so far

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     202








have not shown that any of the sewer material dumped at



the dumping grounds have come up on the beaches.  The



most recent one was by the United States Public Health



Service, where they found no evidences of any of the pol-



lution, BOD demand or anything, more than five miles from



the center of the dumping ground, and since it is ten



miles offshore we don't think that anything that has been



reported coming on the beach has actually come from the



sewage dumping ground.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  Does the Corps have any



plans to make any evaluations of the possible harmful



effects of dumping a variety of industrial wastes at the



100 mile site?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  No, at the present time



we do not.  Material going out there off the Continental



Shelf that way is being permitted at the present time



after we have consulted all the State and Federal agen-



cies, and there is no contemplation right now of making



any study of that by us.



               Our studies have been confined to those



which are in reasonable proximity to the shoreline.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  Can I reasonably read your



testimony to say that you don't intend to change the

-------
                   R.  Wuestefeld                     203
*

conditions under which you now issue permits for barging
in the City pending whatever comes out of this 12-mile
study?
               MR. WUESTEFELD:  That is correct.
               MR. SULLIVAN:  I wonder if you could give
us an assessment of the prospects of this rather ambitious
debris clearing project?   The Corps held hearings on it
some months ago for waterways in general in this metropoli-
tan area.
               MR. WUESTEFELD:  Well, as a result of the
hearings we held in Newark and in New York, the report of
the District Engineer has been revised to incorporate
all the additional data, and the report is now completed
by the District Engineer.
               Assuming, for the moment, things will go
along and that it would be accepted favorably through
the Division office, the Chief Engineer and up into
Congress, it might take possibly eight or ten years ac-
tually before work would begin.  We don't think it would
be in the immediate future.
               MR. SULLIVAN: Is there any possibility
that the Corps would provide for the lower Passaic and
lower Hackensack the kind of routine cleaning that it

-------
                   R.  Wuestefeld                     204








does of the Hudson River?



               MR. WUESTEFELDt   Right now, as far as the



routine cleaning, we have two projects.  One is for the



collection and removal of drift in New York Harbor, and



that is the only one where we are working routinely on



it.



               If we are going to clean up in any of the



other waterways, it will have to be by special additional



authorizations.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, I distinguish be-



tween the junk that litters along the Passaic, and, from



the looks of it, has for many decades, and the material



that is floating around that might conceivably interfere



with navigation.



               Do you need the same kind of long time



consideration to handle the stuff that is drifting around



as well?



               MR, WUESTEFELDt  As a matter of fact,



when you come to New York Harbor, most of the material



originated either by trees falling in or debris from



piers, or just the material that is thrown over the bank



and is floating.



               It all seema to end up somewhere  off the

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     205
 +


 *

Narrows, so we don't have to go throughout the entire har-


bor to get the material.  By confining the available equip-


ment and by just working right there, we get almost all


of it.


               We have, as a matter of fact, gone up into


the Passaic River a number of times and cleaned up in


there, with the request to the local interests that they


would try to stop the material being dumped on the bank


once we have cleaned up the river.


               We have cleaned up the river several times,


but that is where it ends right now.  The material is


still there on the banks and it is growing.


               MR, SULLIVAN:  From the looks of the lower


Passaic now, in terms of sunken barges and trucks lying


ontheir backs with the wheels sticking out and so on,


it makes it appear that it is a river that really ought


to be dirty and that it would be inconsistent for the


water to be clean.  I am a bureaucrat, and I ask this


question from that point of view:


               I wonder if there is any possibility that


steps could be taken with relation to this aspect of


pollution in the less than eight or ten years?


               MR. WUESTEFELDt  Unfortunately, that is as

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     206








long as it will take.



               We only remove those things which are a




definite menace to navigation.  The other things disturb



the esthetics, which we are not authorized to do, even



those that are up in the shallow waters, unless they ac-



tually affect navigation.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Mr. Wuestefeld, if I



may interject, with reference to the Sanitary and Ship



Canal in the Chicago River and the Calumet River and the



like, the metropolitan district of Chicago does its own



cleanup unless it is a menace to navigation, in which




case it calls upon the Corps of Engineers there.




               I might then go to Mr. Sullivan and ask



him:  Isn't the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners



charged with the duty of removing these barges and trucks



and so on?  This is what they do in Chicago.  The Sanitary



District does this, and it would appear to me that the



same duty would apply to Passaic Valley over here, that



they can't pass their job over to the Corps of Engineers.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, do I understand your



first question is that this is within the scope of the



jurisdiction of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners?



               SECRETARY KLEINt  Yes, it is.

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     207
 



               MR. SULLIVANi  As I understand the project

that is being offered by the Corps, on which they held

public hearings, it would not be exclusively a Federal

project but would be funded by State and local governments

as well.


               I would like to think that our own State

government would contribute whatever resources are neces-

sary to make the project a reality.

               MR. WUESTEFELD:  As a matter of fact, the

State of New Jersey has offered its full cooperation in

the project to us*

               Of course, our project is a one-shot deal

of cleaning it up, and with the assurances then from the

States of New York and New Jersey that they would either

adopt sufficient legislation or ordinances to keep it

clean thereafter.

               MR. SULLIVAN:  Some of these things that

need to be cleaned were in the Passaic River when Charles

Dickens was alive.  I think if it could be cleaned up now,

we should keep it that way thereafter.

               I have just one additional question;  You

mentioned a policy committee that is being formed to

guide in this study.  I wonder if that policy committee

-------
                   R.  Wuestefeld                     208








includes people whose professional specialization is



water pollution control?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:   As a matter of fact, in



commencing our work, we had the Smithsonian Institute




call a meeting last year before we even started.  They




recommended people to help us to devise a program.



               Our present convening another board will



be with the Smithsonian Institute making the recommenda-



tions and getting the best experts in whatever agency



they are to help us in evaluating the program.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Yes.



               Mr. Metzler?




               MR. METZLER:  I have no additional ques-



tions.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Mr. Glenn?



               MR. GLENN:  Frankly, from what Mr. Sulli-



van said maybe the Smithsonian Institute is the proper



orc'wiization to look into this matter.



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  No comment.




               SECRETARY KLEIN:  I just think that if this



is in the jurisdiction of the Passaic  /alley Sewerage



Commissioners, they should go out and clean this up

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     209
 r






themselves instead of always trying to pass it off.



               What these local groups should do, instead



of passing it off to the State or Federal Government is



this.  As a matter of fact, in some of the areas I have



seen the citizenry go out and do this, but I see no



reason why the Passaic Valley doesn't get out and clean



up its own river if that is what they are supposed to do



and if they have the jurisdiction for it.



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  We have encouraged as



much as possible local authorities to help in the clean-*



up.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  If we try to clean up



all the rivers with the Corps of Engineers and FWPCA,



there is no need for having local governments, and I



think this is the wrong answer.  I think the local govern-



ments should do this themselves.



               This industrial waste item bothers me



terrificattv.     I know what Secretary Hickel thinks of



it.     I would like to know why there has to be dumping



of industrial wastes, and why we don't have the companies



take care of these items themselves, complete!/ taking



care of, first of all, water pollution abatement, and,



second, their own solid waste disposal?

-------
                   R.  Wuestefeld                     2X0








               MR. WUESTEPELD:   Well,  with reference to



the particular industrial wastes we are speaking of here



that we have found detrimental  in the  sewage sludge dump-



ing grounds, some of the sewage treatment authorities,



like, for example, the Middlesex County Sewage Treatment



Authority, take into their plant the effluent from indus-



try, so that they are getting industrial wastes into it.



There are others also.



               The City of New York, of course, is pri-



marily sanitary sewage, but there are certain industrial



wastes.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  They are not taking up



directly from industries and dumping out there with



stuff like our pickling liquors, cyanide and the like?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:   No,  The material they



are taking in at the plant has been assimilated.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  I mean even at the 106



mile dump.



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  The 106 mile dump is a



case of using that when probably all other efforts have



been used.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  But are you picking up



straight industrial wastes and dumping them at this point?

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     211
 v



 

               MR. WUESTEFELD:   That is correct.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  And they do have items


such as cyanide in them?


               MR. WUESTEFELD:   On occasion, yes.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Thank you.     Are there



any further questions?    Mr. Klashman?


               MR. KLASHMAN:    I would like to ask a



couple of questions, Mr. Klein.


               Mr. Wuestefeld,  I wonder if for the record


you could furnish us the exact locations of the six dump-



ing grounds.  I would like to get into the record the



exact locations, and also the tonnages and volumes that


have been dumped in the last couple of years.


               MR. WUESTBFELD:   I could make that readily


available.



               MR. KLASHMAN:  Could you give it to us


for the record, please?


               MR, WUESTEFELD:  I will have it prepared


and have it here tomorrow.


               SECRETARY KLEIN:  We will be glad to add



it to the record.


               MR. KLASHMAN:  There is one other question,



Mr. Wuestefeld.

-------
                   R.  Wuestefeld                     212








               Mr. Klein was asking some questions about



the disposal of solid  wastes.  We have had an inquiry from



the Philadelphia District about the dumping of solid



wastes from Philadelphia, and, more recently and formally,



we have had an inquiry from one of the New York City tug-



boat operators, which indicates that they are contemplat-



ing baling and taking solid wastes off the shore.



               Have you been approached on this?  Can you



give us any information on what this proposal involves?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  We have been approached.



I might start off by saying that.



               One of the towing companies, for example,



did obtain several samples of bales of wastes.  These



wastes were compressed so that the bale would have a speci-



fic weight of somewhere between 70 and 105 pounds per



cubic foot.   They would guarantee they would weigh that



much so that they would sink.



               The bales that we were furnished as samples



weighed in the neighborhood of close to two tons.  One was



kept in Kill Van Kull where they wanted to see what would



happen.  The other we furnished to the Sandy Hook Marine



Lab to test, and after a period of time they disappeared.



               However, that was due to a bad storm.  Before

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     213








it disappeared, it was found that there was fish life



apparently coming close to the one and possibly feeding




off it.



               The suggestion has been made, though,



that as an overall proposition, the waste material could




be baled that way and taken out to an offshore dump. In




fact, we have a request now from the State of New York



Pure WatersI have the wrong title, Mr. Metzler.



               MR, METZLER:  Pure Waters Authority.




               MR. WUESTEFELD: It is part of the State



agency, and they have asked us would we please call a




meeting of various interested agencies, and certainly



we will include the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-



ministration, to sit down and discuss the pros and cons



of using offshore dumping of baled wastes, rather than



using it as sanitary landfill or attempting to incinerate



it.



               MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Wuestefeld, do I under-



stand correctly, then, what^QU are talking about is a



possibility of all the solid wastes from all the coastal




cities and perhaps some of the inland cities being hauled,




being put in two thousand pound bales with a 70-pound



density, and being hauled out somewhere in the vicinity

-------
                   R.  Wuestefeld                     214








of the Continental Shelf?   Is that what is being proposed?




               MR. WUESTEFELD:  That is one of the thoughts



being proposed.  In other words, they have attempted, for



example, to bring us to the mines to fill in the mines,



or even strip mines or in the deep mines.  They have also



studied the incineration, and one of the possible ways of



doing it that they have come up with is the idea of bal-



ing it, and if it would not be harmful, it might be found



to be beneficial,



               MR. KLASHMAN:  Do we have any idea of what




tonnage we are talking about?



               Let's just stick to ray own region.  I mean,



what frightens me is if we start talking about New York



City, Boston, Providence, Philadelphia, the tonnages



must be tremendous.



               MR. WDESTEPELD:  They are.



               MR. KLASHMAN:  Do you have any estimate at



all of what tonnages we are talking about?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  I would hesitate to put




a number on it now.



               MR. KLASHMAN:  Do you have any way of



getting any of these figures, because if you do, I think



it would be very valuable for us to have.

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     215








               MR. WUESTEFELD:  I will have what I have



in the office on it.  I do have a copy of a proposal that



was made for Philadelphia.  I saw it just in passing in-



terest.



               MR. STEIN:  Let's see if I understand the




proposition correctly.



               The proposition is that solid wastes from



the big cities along the Atlantic Coast, or, at least,



the northeast, could be put in bales, that these could



be hauled to a dumping ground, and we have the notion



that it would not be harmful but it might be beneficial?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  It is conceivable it




could be beneficial, that's right.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Could we have the amount



of tonnages for Philadelphia, please?



               MR. WUESTEFELD: I don't have anything with



me.



               SECRETARY KLEINt  I thought maybe you could



give us this off the top of your head.



               MR. WOESTEFELD:  No.  It is just something



I received just as information in passing, and, being more



concerned with New York, I'm afraid I don't recall the



numbers.

-------
                   R, Wuestefeld                     216








               MR. STEIN:  May I ask you about Long Island?



What do you do with the material you get out of the harbors



in Long Island Sound that you mentioned?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  At the present time we



have several projects along the north shore of Long Is-




land, and, of course, there are projects along the north



on the mainland side.



               The material that is dredged from the chan-



nels is dumped in the deep areas which have been estab-



lished for many years in Long Island Sound.



               MR. STEIN:  Right in the Sound?



               What does the material consist of that you




are getting from the harbors?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  Mostly it is mud and silt.




               MR. STEIN:  But you have not had any cor a



analysis of that to see if you are getting any toxic



materials, and what you do is pick it up and dump it back



into the sound?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  Well, basically, it is



silt that is accumulated in the harbor, and we just move



it from there.




               MR. STEIN:  You know, we have been dumping



in Mr, Klein's region.

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     217








               Where you talk about the silt I remember



we had silt from one of the harbors in the Great Lakes,



and they said 80 per cent of the wastes was just silt



and they were putting it on the bottom.  When we analyzed



that, you would be shocked at what was in the other 20



per cent.



               It is almost like a fertilizer, you know.



The silt and the inert material is a carrier and it can



be very powerful.



               Again, as I understand the problem, what



we are doing is we are taking the material when we dredge



the harbors in Long Island Sound from the harbors and



putting it right out into tht. Sound?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  That is correct.



               MR. STEIN:  All right; thank you.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Mr. Sullivan?



               MR. SULLIVAN:  One minor addition to a



question asked by the Chairman.



               On the quantity we are talking about here,



on solid wastes our residents in New Jersey produce 35,000



tons a day.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Do you want to put all



of that in the ocean?



               MR. SULLIVAN:  I hope you are not addressing

-------
                   R.  Wuestefeld                     218








that question to me.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:   Yes.   Do you want to put



all of that in the ocean?



               MR. SULLIVAN:  We are not sure we want to



put even one bale in the ocean.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:   Thank you.  That's the




best answer I have had in a long time.



               You will probably get a complimentary



answer from Secretary Hickel  because he feels the same way



you do.



               MR. STEIN:  I would like to say just one



more thing.



               When we went out into the midwest, we



found all the cities, as Mr.  Metzler knows, putting their



trash and refuse into the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.



               As a matter of fact, let me give you the



figures with reference to St. Louis.  I still remember them.



They were putting 300 tons of garbage and refuse, after



grinding it up, into the Mississippi every day.



               We proceeded under the notion, at least



in that place, that it would not be beneficial and we



had this stopped.  This will give you an idea of the



magnitude of the problem in a City the size of St. Louis,



and what kind and quantity of material we are talking about.

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     219
*


               MR. WUESTEFELDt  I just want to point one

thing out about this ocean disposal of garbage and waste.

               I get this question asked of me quite fre-

quently.  In fact, this morning  coming to work  it was

mentioned about garbage coming in on the shore.

               It is true that in the early 1900's there

was actually a garbage disposal ground offshore, so that

from New York Citv they would load the material and take

it but to sea ana uump it, but that stopped in 1932.

There was a Supreme Court stipulation which prohibited

any more garbage being taken to sea.

               We discontinued the disposal area.  We

have not issued a permit for it since 1934, so that when-

ever people speax of garbage coming up on the Jersey

beaches, at least it is not coming up from any legal

disposal of it.

               Actually, once a ship has left New York

Harbor and gotten out into deep sea, we have no control

over what they are doing, and if it is a large ship there

can be a lot of wastes coming from that ship.

               However, at least as far as materials

coming from New York, there is no more going out to sea.

It is all going into either incinerators and then the

-------
                   R. Wuestefeld                     220








incinerated wastes are put into a landfill, or the raw



wastes are dumped in a landfill, but since 1934 no more



has legally gone to sea.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Pine.



               Thank you very much.   Mr. Klashman?



               MR. KLASHMAN:   Mr. Wuestefeld, in the



discussion of the Federal installations, there was this



discussion about the facility at Bayonne, and the ques-



tion came up about the secondary treatment being provided



by the Department of Defense installation or hooking



into the Bayonne plant, and both things were being



considered.



               Can you comment on this further?



               MR, WUESTEFELD:  I was hoping you wouldn't



remember that.



               I could not comment on it.



               MR. KLASHMAN:  Could you get any infor-



mation for us for the record?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:  I can get you information.



.1 am not sure whether it is in our office or whether it



is the Army transportation people handling it themselves.



I would have to verify that.



               MR. KLASHMAN:  can you get the information

-------
                   R.  Wuestefeld                     221








for us?



               MR. WUESTEFELD:   One way or the other/ I



will get it for you.



               MR. KLASHMAN:  If we could have that for



the record, we would appreciate it.



               SECRETARY KLEINt  It will be admitted into




the record when Mr. Wuestefeld furnishes it.



               MR. WUESTEFELD:   Fine.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  If I may say so, to cover



this we still have a statement by the Bureau of Sport



Fisheries.



               Do you have any idea how long that is, Mr.




Klashman, because Dr.  Eisenbud wants to speak because he




can't be here this afternoon.



               MR. KLASHMAN:  Mr. Schroder, do I understand



that you are just going to submit your report for the



record?



               MR. SCHRODER:  I can do it that way.



               MR. KLASHMAN:  It is up to you.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  I think we would rather



listen to it because it all ties in now with what has




been going on.



               I would just like to know how long it is.



               MR. SCHRODER:  I can complete it all in

-------
                   T. Schroder                       222








less than ten minutes.




               SECRETARY KLEIN:   If the assemblage would



stay with us on this, we will be able to complete at



just about 12:30 for lunch.




               In the interests  of continuity, I think



we should hear from the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and



then request Dr. Eisenbud to make his presentation, and




then break for lunch*   Mr. Klashman?



               MR. KLASHMAN:   Mr. Thomas A. Schroder,



Deputy Director of the Bureau of Sports Fisheries, North-



east Region.






                   STATEMENT BY



              MR. THOMAS A. SCHRODER



           ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR



                 NORTHEAST REGION



      BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE






               MR. SCHRODER:   My name is Thomas A.



Schroder.  I am Assistant Regional Director of the North-



east Region of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,



               Because of the previous speaker having



touched on some matters, I am going to delete from my



written presentation some items in this paper and touch

-------
                   T. Schroder                       223








only on what we consider to be some of the values which



would be associated with the cleaning up of the Hudson



River.



               This statement represents the views of both



the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the Bureau



of Commercial Fisheries, which together make up the Fish



and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior.



               We are pleased to have this opportunity to



speak at this conference*  Unfortunately, I cannot report



that the depressing effects of pollution upon the fish



and wildlife resources of the Hudson River have been



eliminated, or even reduced significantly.  We still have



a long way to go.  I am optimistic, though, because we,



supported by the general public, are now actively seek-



ing ways to reduce pollution.



               In 1965, Mr. Abelson mentioned that, "The



use of streams for waste disposal is a single-purpose



use.  We no longer can afford such luxury."  This state-



ment is still true.  Pollution in the Hudson River still



limits both commercial and sport fishing and other uses.



               In 1887 the commercial fish catch was



2,600,000 pounds.  I do not know if this yield is repre-



sentative of the potential commercial yield of the Hudson

-------
                   T. Schroder                       224








River or not, but I believe that the potential certainly



exceeds the commercial catch of the last few years.   In 1964,



the total commercial catch was 275,000 poundsthe poorest



ever recorded to that time.  The 1967 catch was only



163,000 pounds*



               In 1968, the commercial catch increased to



199,000 pounds.  Since the increase was due to a greater



catch of American shad, which is known to fluctuate nor-



mally, the' 1968 increase probably does not signify an en-



vironmental improvement.



               Unfortunately, I again have to report to



this conference that the striped bass, taken by sport and



commercial fishermen, still have an oily "tainted" flavor



due to pollution.  The Long Island price for striped bass



is 18-22 cents per pound; for Hudson River bass, only 7-8



cents per pound.  In 1968 there were only four full-



time commercial fishermen on the Hudson; in addition,



69 fished part time.



               Turning to the sport aspect, the capability



of the fishery to provide opportunities for recreational



fishing is far greater than the current utilization, even



though this use has expanded somewhat during the last



few years.  This expansion is probably due to  the increasing

-------
                   T.  Schroder                       225








public interest in the river rather than to a noticeable



decrease in pollution.  The psychological impact of pol-



lution limits sport fishing use even when habitat con-




ditions still permit survival of game fish in abundance.



               The potential of the river for sport fish-



ing is tremendous.  For example, there are about 35,000



acres of surface water between the southern boundary of




Westchester County and Poughkeepsie; this is only part



of the surface area of the River.  If we assume a con-



servative potential fishing pressure of 25 man-days per



acre per year, this reach should support 875,000 man-days



of sport fishing.  At a rate of $1.50/man-day, the




annual value would be $1.3 million.  If we can develop



this level of fishing use, it would make quite a contri-



bution towards satisfying recreational needs.  To achieve



this, pollution abatement and more public access will be



required.



               In fact, we hope that when we are success-



ful in restoring attractive sport fishing opportunities



in the tfiver, many people who are not now interested in



fishing will become encouraged to take up this wholesome,



leisure time activity.



               Early control of pollution will hasten

-------
                   T. Schroder                       226








full realization of the fish and wildlife potential of



the stream.  The river lies within easy reach of highly-



populated urban areas.  By the year 2000, we expect that




hundreds of thousands more fishermen and many thousands



more hunters will live in this area.  Fishing and hunting



places for these people will be in critically short supply.



Cleaning up pollution is the key to providing attrac-



tive fishing and hunting opportunities in areas now



offering no recreation.  The need for commercial fish



products will be more strongly felt in the future.  Pol-



lution abatement will certainly improve the Hudson River



commercial fishery which has ready access to a large mar-




ket.  The goal of the pollution abatement program should



be to restore the entire river to a quality level suit-



able for a wide range of uses including fishing and hunt-



ing.  We are convinced that the necessary control of



pollution will yield substantial benefits from sport



fishing and hunting, commercial fishing, and many other



uses.



               The continued reduction in our water-re-



lated resources, together with the commercial and recre-




ational values they support, can be reversed.  To ac-



complish this will require complete cooperation among



all levels of government and industry directed towards a

-------
                   T. Schroder                       227








cleaner Hudson River.



               Can we afford to wait until the fisherman



hangs up his rod or puts avay his net?  I think not.



Efforts to eliminate pollution in the Hudson should be



stepped up, now, to the level of an all-out campaign.



Success will not be inexpensivebut it will be worth



the cost.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Thank you.



               One of the things that both the Secretary



and I understand is that when we go into this question



of what things are worth, we should consider items such



as the ecological and social benefits of everything as



well as the actual industrial and municipal benefits.



               I have heard this figure of a dollar and-



a-half per man-day, and I think your figures are much too



low because I can't see any fishermen going out and just



spending a dollar and-a-half per fish.  It costs a great



deal more than that.



               I think maybe your Bureau  should go back



over and check that, because when we are talking about



this and you come up with a dollar and-a-half in these



days of inflation, you are not doing us much good on the



fight against pollution.

-------
                   T.  Schroder                       228








               MR. SCHRODER:   Well, I don't know that this



is the place to get into a discussion about this, but I



certainly agree with you that the values are much higher,



and if I can ad lib here for a minute or two with your



permission, I thought of this as I was sitting in the



audience.



               Our Bureau has this year been attempting



to inaugurate an urban fishing program for the disadvan-



taged groups in some of our large urban areas.



               Now, I know that when I go fishing, it



costs me perhaps$30 or $40 a day to do some fishing, and



I know that there are those who spend as much as several



hundreds of dollars a day for certain kindsof fishing,



and I doubt very much that even these people who are spend-



ing the hundreds of dollars a day for their fishing get



any more enjoyment than some small kid does out of going



down to the creek and catching a little fish.



               In New York City and in the other urban



cities, they could well use an urban fishing program to



give these kids some alternatives to hanging around on



the City streets.  If their rivers were cleaned up, they



would have a place for these kids to fish.



               I  think one of the tremendous advantages

-------
                   T, Schroder                       229

i
of  this pollution abatement program that we are embarked
on  is  that  it will make fishing available to people where

they are, and perhaps these kids could then go down and

do  it  for this dollar and-a-half.

               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Maybe they can, but the

rest of us  spend a great deal more than that.  You and

I know it.

               In Illinois last year  the Illinois Retail

Merchants Association, besides the general proposition of

supporting  their bond issue out there, came out on the

basis  that  it was well worth every sporting goods store

and fishing man to get out and support this because of

the increased impact on sales that it would have, besides

the general basis of it.     They were basing it on much

mocethan a  dollar and-a-half per man day.

               That is why I come back to you on it.
               MR. SCHRODER:  I appreciate the problems in-
volved .

               SECRETARY KLEIN:  We think that your item
is  worth much more than a dollar and-a-half.

               MR, SCHRODER:  We do, too.  We just can't

persuade economists of that fact.

               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Let's work on it.

-------
                   T. Schroder                       230








               Mr. Sullivan?



               MR. SULLIVAN:  No questions.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Mr.Metzler?



               MR. METZLERj  Well, I find myself in com-



plete agreement with the philosophy expressed here.



               I am wondering what kind of action kickers



you have to give us some support.  We are waging an all-



out war right now on the Hudson, and when you say this



ought to be stepped up, how can you help us*?



               MR* SCHRODER:  Well, the Bureau of Sport



Fisheries and Wildlife, of course, is not the agency that



is responsible for the financing of water pollution con-



trol.



               Our point in appearing here was to add



some evidence that there were some other values in this,



other than just the commonly accepted notion that clean



water is a good thing.



               We think there are some hard dollar-and-



cents values to the fishing that this would provide.



               MR. METZLER:  Certainly we would not have



any disagreement with that and we welcome this kind of



support. B>ut the experience, of course, is that moving



these projects requires a great deal of education of

-------
                   T. Schroder                       231







local officials, be they industrialists or public elected



officials.



               As I said, I think we have an all-out war



going here, but if there are any additional troops  you



can put into the battle, we are anxious to see it.



               MR. SCHRODER:  I think one of the reasons



that a good deal of the legislation and support for ap-



propriations has been evidenced in the past few years



has come from the vociferous support of the sport fisher-



men fraternity of the United states.



               They appear in great numbers at the polls



and are very effective in their lobbying for many of these



appropriation items.     I would hope that some of the



groups in the New York City area who have  are effective and



will lend their support to the appropriations for cleaning



up the Hudson River,



               I am not unmindful of the fact that one



of the activities that I have been involved in for the



past three or four years is the investigation of the ef-



fects of the Storm King Project on the bass in the Hudson



River, and the effects of the atomic Reactor at Indian



Point on the anadroroous fish in the Hudson River.



               These things aren't going to have any effect

-------
                   T, Schroder                       232








because if the pollution isn't cleaned up, there aren't



going to be any anadromous fish to get up the Hudson.



               I am sure the sport fishermen understand




this and they are supporting the pollution efforts,



               MR. METZLER:  I am fairly close to this,



and they are much more effective in supporting the efforts




at the congressional level and the State level.



               I think we need a great deal more influence



from these sportsmen in supporting the Mayors and the



local officials who have to take the criticism from their



constituents about taxes, and if there is any word you



can give them, it is to get a lot more active locally.




               MR. SCHRODER:  We are doing our best.



               MR. METZLER:  That is very good.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  I would just say to you,



Mr. Metzler, that the most vociferous voice I have found



in Illinois and anyplace else is the League of Women Voters



They are out all the time.  In 22 hearings I had all over




the State of Illinois a year ago, they only missed one,



and they had a presentation every time.



               MR. METZLERj  The Illinois League is very



effective, and I will put up the New York League against



it any time.

-------
                   T.  Schroder                       233








               SECRETARY KLEIN:   That is  true  all  over.




               Are there any other  questions?



               Mr. Klashman?




               MR. KLASHMAN:  No, sir.




               SECRETARY KLEIN;   Mr.  Stein?




               MR. STEIN:  No.




               SECRETARY KLEIN:   Mr.   Stein?




               MR. STEIN:  No.




               SECRETARY KLEIN:   Mr.  Glenn?




               MR. GLENN:  No.




               SECRETARY KLEIN:   Mr.  Sullivan?




               MR. SULLIVAN:  No.




               SECRETARY KLEIN:   Thank you very much.




               I would like to say at this time that the




Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife Parks is Dr.




Leslie Glasgow, and I  have had absolute cooperation from




him on pollution affairs.  Or. Glasgow is just as  inter-



ested in this as we are.




               At this time, Dr. Eisenbud.

-------
                                                     234
                   STATEMENT BY



                DR. MERRIL EISENBUD




       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADMINISTRATOR



                 CITY OF NEW YORK






               DR. EISENBUD:  Mr. Secretary, members of



the panel, ladies and gentlemen:



               I am Merril Eisenbud, New York City's



Environmental Protection Administrator.  I welcome the



opportunity to address this third session of the Confer-



ence on Pollution of the Hudson River and its Tributaries,



the first to be held since the Environmental Protection



Administration was created by Mayor Lindsay, and assigned




responsibility for the City's program of air and water



resources, and solid waste management.



               The New York City presentation this morning



and this afternoon will be given in several phases, in-



cluding a presentation of the status of their construc-



tion programs by Commissioner Feldman, Commissioner of




Water Resources, and Assistant Commissioner Martin Lang,



who is Director of the Bureau of Water Pollution Control.



               You will also hear a presentation by



Assistant Commissioner Kent of the Department of Health.

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                       235








               The principal business before this confer-



ence is the assessment of progress that has been made



throughout the interstate region towards cleaning up the




Hudson River and New York Harbor.  Before proceeding to



a description of the status of this program, which will



be presented by Commissioners Maurice M. Feldman of the




Department of Water Resources, and Lang, I would like to



discuss briefly its meaning in relation to the estuarine



environment generally.




               At this time in the history of our inter-



state urban area, and at this stage in the development



of environmental control technology, it is essential



that we look beyond the traditional techniques of sewage



treatment critically important as these may be, to a



system of environmental control that considers the totality



of the estuarine environment.  In New York City, we re-



gard our responsibility for clean water as going beyond



the construction of facilities designed to provide a



high degree of secondary treatment to our liquid wastes.



We think of our water pollution control responsibility



as one of estuarine management.



               The early stages of such a program have



already been undertaken at Jamaica Bay where extensive

-------
                   M.  Eisenbud                       236








ecological and hydrological studies are now in progress.



The study embraces a quantitative assessment of existing




marine life, water quality, measurement of wastewater



input, and the effectiveness of the tidal flushing action.



The ways in which these factors will be influenced by




the Spring Creek auxiliary water pollution control



plant which is now under construction are to be assessed,



and the knowledge gained from this study will govern the




design of future storm water treatment plants on the peri-



phery of Jamaica Bay.  Highly significant design charac-



teristics such as degree of treatment and location of out-



falls will be influenced by our findings.  Our immediate




goal at Jamaica Bay is restoration of its waters to a



quality suitable for recreational use.  The designation




of Jamaica Bay by the Department of Interior as a poten-



tial national seashore has underlined the importance of



proceeding with this program.



               There is even greater significance in the



extension of our ecological study to all the estuarine



waters of the City.  Although our present construction



program is almost uniformly designed for a very high



degree of secondary treatment, and although we are apply-



ing the latest treatment technology, our strategy is

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                      237


based on a Federal and State requirement for a stipulated

biochemical oxygen demand removal, a policy that is

excessively inflexible and is inconsistent with a rational

program of estuarine management.  In the future, the

criteria for adequate wast-awaeer  treatment should not

be expressed only in terms of the degree of treatment,

but rather in terms of the fitness of the receiving waters

for the uses to which they will be put.  In some cases,

it may be necessary to provide for the tertiary treat-

ment of waste water effluents.  In other cases, it may

be desirable to construct far-offshore submarine effluent

outfalls.  Varying degrees of secondary treatment should

be provided to meet the requirements of the various re-

ceiving waters and their varying uses.  All such es-

tuarine management strategies should be based on a thorough

understanding of the ecology and hydrology of the receiv-

ing waters as determined from studies of the type we

are now conducting at Jamaica Bay,

               My associates and I were happy to learn

this morning of the plans of the State of New York and

the Department of the Interior for additional studies of

the type that are now being financed by the Department of

the Interior and carried on by the Department of Water

-------
                   M.  Eisenbud                       238








Resources in Jamaica Bay.



               We accept the fact that the current genera-



tion of plants should be completed in accordance with the



plans already laid down because we cannot tolerate any



delay in eliminating the gross pollution that contaminates



our estuarine waters.  But in the decade ahead we will be



building additional plants that will cost additional hun-



dreds of millions of dollars, and we should begin immed-



iately to mount the scientific investigations and the



research and development that will be necessary in order



to design the water pollution treatment plants of the



future according to rational criteria established to



meet clear-cut rational objectives.



               We have applied all of the basic knowledge



of the past and the program of the future will rest on



basic scientific information that must be developed now.



More specifically, we must learn how to deal with es-



tuarine water pollution problems as a system of several



interrelated parameters.  We must re-examine the criteria



of estuarine water quality to meet modem sanitary needs



for any given combination of estuarine water uses.  We



must learn how to meet these criteria with maximum



utilization of the mixing and flushing characteristics

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                       239


 *
of the estuary with water pollution control plants that

must somehow be designed more compactly and more effi-

ciently using principles of treatment yet to be invented.

               The ecological studies on which intelli-

gent estuarine management must be based should be aug-

mented by a marine research program commensurate with the

scale of our water pollution control program, and I want

to emphasize that, in my opinion, the scale of research

has been completely incommensurate with the level of

expenditures for the plants we are now constructing

up to now, that is.

               Too little is known, for example, about

the epidemiology of water-borne disease.  Existing cri-

teria by which bathing beaches in the New York City area

are pronounced safe or unsafe rest on entirely inadequate

information.  Our bay and harbor waters are potentially

such a valuable recreational resource for the people of

the City that we should have high confidence in the cri-

teria that determine whether a beach can or cannot be

made available for bathing.

               Because the question of estuarine water

resource management has such great significance for the

entire Nation beyond the precincts of the Hudson River

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                       240








Valley/ it will be the subject of an important study



conference to be held next month under the sponsorship



of the National Academy of Science and the National Academy




of Engineering.  The report of the conference, which is



called "Coastal Wastes Management", will be presented



to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.



Perhaps this report will lead to Federal sponsorship of



the research that is needed.  Certainly the much appre-



ciated Federal grant that made the current ecological



study of Jamaica Bay possible will demonstrate the im-



mense practical value of such estuaries research projects.



               Incidentally, Assistant Commissioner Lang,



who has been instrumental from the beginning in the con-




cepts and the execution of the Jamaica Bay study, has



been invited to attend that conference.



               With particular respect   to the Hudson



River, it is altogether too plain that it has suffered



severe damage from the dumping of sanitary waste from the



communities that line its banks, but apart from these




gross ecological insults, there is a surprising dearth



of basic information about its physical and biological



features.  We have, tor example, no systematically

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                       241



developed information about the flora and fauna of the

river over any extended period of time.  Neither do we

have any long range temperature measurements even for

the estuarine portion of the river which has for centur-

ies been of vital importance to the economic and cul-

tural existence of our City and Nation.

               The important reference made this morning

by Congressman Ryan to the extraordinarily important

finding by my former associate at New York University,

Dr. Howells, that the Hudson River has ecologically speak-

ing the characteristics of a lake rather than of a river,

is of immense importance, and this is the kind of thing

that we have yet to learn about this important waterway.

               Although the existing water pollution con -

trol projects are, beyond any question, necessary steps

in the conservation of our great river, the water pollu-

tion control efforts of the future, which will cost

billions of dollars from the budgets of the two States

and the municipalities in the watershed, should be planned

on sound ecological evidence that they will restore the

river to a quality suitable for projected uses.  The

current arbitrary standard, a percentage of BOD removal,

will clearly be an inadequate standard for future control

efforts.

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                       242








               Let me now turn to New York City's current



program of water pollution control and its effect on the




lower Hudson.  I might say at the outset that when the



fiver arrives at our northernmost boundary it is already



in a very seriously polluted condition.  At this time,



it undergoes substantial further degradation from the dis-



charge of raw and inadequately treated sewage from New



Jersey communities and from the City of New York.  While




I can, of course, speak only of New York City's control



program, I assure you that all thoughtful citizens of



our City are very interested in hearing the reports at



this Conference of the control steps taken by upstate



communities in New York and by our westerly neighbors in



New Jersey.  Our hopes for the restoration of the quality



of New York City's surrounding waters depends as much



on the action of upstaters and New Jerseyans as they



do on our own New York City control program.  Thanks in



substantial measure to the wisdom of the people of New




York State in providing the Pure Waters Bond Issue, New



York City has embarked on the largest program of water



pollution control ever undertaken in its history.



               Our current water pollution control con-



struction program recommended by EPA will cost in excess

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                       243

 u
of one billion dollars, of which 589 million dollars is

being requested from New York State, thirteen million

dollars is being requested from the Federal Water Pollu-

tion Control Administration, and the taxpayers of New

York City will contribute 539 million dollars.  These

expenditures will permit the City of New York to provide

high level secondary treatment to virtually all of its

dry weather flow of wastewater.   This is our high priority

basic program, and I cannot help but note with pride-

not for all of us, because much of this was done by the

Administration before I came to it a year ago--that much

of this basic program was already completed at the time

of the passage of the State's bond issue.  That fact,

I hasten to add, does not make us less grateful for the

State aid now available to complete this basic program.

               Because all water pollution control con-

struction must commence by March 1972 to be eligible for

State and Federal aid, we have made substantial changes

of traditional procedures to streamline the design and

construction process, and the whole program is moving

forward at a much quickened pace.  Our construction sched-

ule was rigorously examined three months ago at a public

hearing conducted by our State Health Department.  I am

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                       244








happy to be able to report that, based on information



presented, the Hearing Examiner and the State Health Com-



missioner, concur with our conclusion that our construc-



tion schedule is feasible, and that it will be possible



for us to commence the entire construction program by



the deadline set in the bond issue legislation.  Com-



missioner Feldman will outline the steps that have been



taken to expedite our schedules this afternoon.



               At the completion of the last elements



of our construction program in 1975*1976, we shall have



the capacity to treat all of our basic flow to the year



2000 in 14 major water pollution control installations,



operating at an effectiveness in excess of 80 per cent



BOD removal throughout the system.  All of the final



effluents from these plants will be disinfected.  We



can then look forward to a considerable improvement in



the quality of Lower Hudson water and indeed an improve-



ment in the quality of all the surrounding waters of



the City.  When, at a later time, other communities in



the watershed approach equal performance in water pol-



lution control, much of our shorelines will be restored



for recreational purposes.



               When we are further along 'in the work al-



ready begun of treating the storm water flow, in an

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                       245








auxiliary system based on sound ecological data, we shall



recover for recreational use the Bay beaches with which



New York City is so wonderfully endowed by nature.



               I thank you for your attention, but more



particularly, I thank you for the stimulation that this



and previous conferences on the Hudson River have pro-



vided to all of us in this region who can benefit from the



restoration of this great natural resource.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Dr. Eisenbud, I thank



you for the statement.



               I would like to say to you that it is an



estuary, but at least it has a very good flow going



through it.  It does not have the same problems as the



Potomac has around Washington  where it just really does



slosh back and forth.



               I don't know if you realize what we did



at that conference.  He have gone a lot farther than



the 80 per cent that was just called for here because of



the fact that it does not have any flow, but we called



for a total load going into the Potomac River, regard-



less of whether the population stays at 3.3 million or



goes to five million or seven million.



               At 3.3 million the removal in the Potomac



today from the sewage treatment plants will require 96

-------
                   M,  Eisenbud                       246








per cent removal of suspended solids,  96  per cent removal




of dissolved solids, 95 per cent removal  of nitrogen and



95 per cent removal of phosphates.      This, if I may




put it to you, is exotic tertiary.      This is a result



of the conference, and the Secretary will promulgate it



and that is a landmark in sewage treatment for a large



metropolitan area.



               I don't think you need  it  here, because



of the fact that you have a good flow  in  the Hudson that




we do not have in the Potomac in Washington.



               DR. EISENBUD:  The flow, Mr. Secretary,



that you think you see in the Hudson is due to tidal




action.



               As a matter of fact, in the mid-Hudson,




which is the really important part because this is a part



of the river that is probably going to be used for drink-



ing water in the years ahead to an increasing degree,



it is also the part of the river that is  probably most




important from the point of view of long range recreational



uses for the upstate community.




               We have shown, and this I did before in a



paper about to be published which I can make available



to you, that the mean time of pollution introduced in the

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                       247








Hudson River, the mean resident time, if you can think of



it in that way, can be as long as 400 days.



               This is because the net flow is so small



relative to the tidal flow.



               SECRETARY KLEIN:  I would like to see that




document about this silt just staying and Just sloshing




around, because it was my understanding that you had a



pretty good flow here and that a good deal of it did go



out directly, even though you did have tidal action herein.



               Are there any questions?



               Mr. Sullivan?




               MR. SULLIVAN:  I have a number of questions




to ask, but I think I could more appropriately direct them



to Commissioner Feldman this afternoon, about the program



that has been outlined for us very briefly here.




               One specific question of Dr. Eisenbud:



               Is New York City under a legal mandate by



the State to proceed with its construction program?




               DR. EISENBUD:  The answer, I believe, is



yes.




               MR. SULLIVAN:  That is, the State of New




York is satisfied with the progress and has invoked the




sanctions of its remedial statutes against the City of

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                       248








New York?



               DR. EISENBUD:  Yes, we are required to



meet certain standards which have been established by



the State and Federal Government, and our plants are



being designed to those standards according to a sched-



ule which Commissioner Feldman will outline for you this



afternoon.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  I would like to talk about



the schedule at that time and reserve my questions,



               I was just wondering if the schedule that



you have referred to here is embodied in an enforceable



administrative order issued by the State Health Depart-



ment.



               DR. EISENBUD:  The schedule that we are



talking about refers to a schedule which I submitted to



the State Health Department in December 1968, and which



called for the upgrading of certain existing plants and



the construction of new plants on a schedule which will



be completed in mid-1970.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  But can this schedule best



be characterized as an unenforceable agreement between



the parties?



               DR. EISENBUDs  I think I would prefer to

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                       249








refer that question to the State Health Department.




               It is my understanding that this program



has a mandate on it.



               Now, as to the matter of enforcement, I



think that is irrelevant because the City is committed



to complete the program.



               MR. SULLIVANj  All right; thank you.




               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Mr, Metzler?



               MR. METZLER:  Well, I would like to compli-



ment Dr. Eisenbud on accepting the program which has been




set forth and saying we are going to move through, but



calling attention to the additional problems that we are



going to meet the next time around and the importance of




research to give us some answers before we start design-



ing for the tertiary or the long outfalls to the ocean



or whatever it may be.



               There is one question I would like to ask



you.  Most of the questions I too would like to reserve



until after we hear the testimony of this afternoon, but



there is one question I think could be asked now and I



hoped answered which relates to the progress which you



have made since the hearing which the New York State Health




Department held in March 1969.

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                       250








               At that time you projected a schedule which



was basically the schedule that is the official one sub-



mitted in December of 1968, and you said that you had a



system which indicated all of the critical points on this



schedule and that this system gives yon a monthly reading.




               Have you been meeting these critical points




since March of this year?



               DR. EISENBUD:  I think things have improved.



               You will recall that at the March hearing



there were a number of projects on which ground would have



been broken uncomfortably close to the March 1972 deadline,




but further streamlining procedures and with cooperation



of your office, Mr. Metzler, we have provided a little



broader margin of safety.     I think that again this is



something that Commissioner Feldman will discuss with the



aid of these charts which are on the other side of the



room after the luncheon break.



               MR, METZLER:  I would like to make one




statement rather than perhaps a question at this point.



               Your statement indicates that the New York




State Health Department, the Commissioner of Health, felt




that this was a possible schedule, and we all agreed that



it was a very tight one,     I just want to underline this



by saying that it is possible, but it requires the very

-------
                   M. Eisenbud                       251



close cooperation of the City Council and the Board of

Estimate and the other units of the City Government.

               Thus far, there seems to be evidence that

this will be forthcoming.

               DR. EISENBUD:  We have had excellent co-

cooperation from all branches of the City Government,

and the time that it has taken to negotiate contracts and

get consultants working on these jobs has been reduced

very, very significantly.  In some cases, we have cut

the time in half over what the situation was only a

year or two years ago.

               MR. METZLER:  Thank you.

               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Mr. Glenn?

               MR. GLENN:  No questions.

               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Mr. Klashman?

               MR. KLASHMAN:  No questions.

               SECRETARY KLEIN:  Mr. Stein?

               MR. STEIN:  No questions.

               SECRETARY KLEIN:  We are a little bit

later than we expected.  We will resume at 2:15.

               If any of you are from Federal installations

and would like to be heard as part of the Federal picture,

will you please contact Mr. Klashman during the recess,

-------
                   M.  Eisenbud                       251A








and if any of you have statements that you do not have



sufficient copies of,  would you see Mr. Klashman or his



staff in order that we may be able to make enough copies



of them for the conferees and the press?



               Thank you very much, until 2:15.



               (Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., a luncheon




recess was taken.)







                      * * *

-------
                                                     252
                    AFTERNOON SESSION




                        2:15 pm.








               MR, STEIN:  Let's reconvene.




               In order to expedite the schedule and to




accommodate the people who have to appear this afternoon,




we will call on Mr. Sullivan at this time.  Mr. Sullivan.




               MR. SULLIVAN:  I would like to invite to




testify the Water Chairman of the New Jersey League of




Women Voters, Mrs. Frank Rooney.






                   STATEMENT BY




                 MRS. PRANK ROONEY




                     DIRECTOR




              LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS




                   OF NEW JERSEY






               MRS. ROONEY:   I am Mrs. Frank Rooney,




Director of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey.




Our 92 local Leagues have long been concerned with matters




relating to the waters in and around our State. Our con-




cern over the pollution of these waters has intensified




over the years as  the problem has continued to increase




and solutions have been unable to keep pace with the

-------
                   Mrs. F. Rooney                    253








problem.  Since these hearings were lat held much has



been accomplished to stem the tide of this continually



expanding problem; water quality standards have been es-




tablished and approved; plans have been drawn by munici-



palities for improved treatment facilities; industry has



beeh working to reduce its pollution; and enforcement



proceedings have been directed toward offenders.  While



these are important accomplishments our members feel that



there is still much that should be done.



               The League believes that the establish-



ment of the Water Quality Standards was an important



step in the pollution abatement process, but we are con-




cerned by suggestions that the standards are unreason-



able, that they will adversely affect the economy, and



that they be lowered.  We are strongly against any such




move to lower the present standards.  It is true that



these standards will necessitate sizeable expenditures



by municipalities and industry, however we can no longer



afford to continue using our water resources indiscrim-



inately.



               This indiscriminate use of water is one



of the reasons we are faced with the vast water pollution



problems of today.  We no longer can live with the concept

-------
                   Mrs. F. Rooney                    254








of an open-ended environment where all wastes can be



absorbed.  The fact must be faced that our environment



must be considered as a closed circle and we roust learn



to reuse our water resources.  Industry and science with



its vast resources and advanced technology will, when



required, develop methods for the removal of wastes, and



in so doing develop efficient and economical pollution



abatement methods.  The League again emphasizes that Water



Quality Standards must not be lowered.



               Many New Jersey municipalities and indus-



tries have been improving the condition of the effluent



that flows into the Hudson River, and consequently the



discharge of raw sewage into the river has diminished



considerably.  However, in order to meet the Water Quality



Standards, secondary treatment must be accomplished by



their treatment plants.  Many have plans ready and ap-



proved by the State, but lack of funds prevents actual



construction, as the municipalities are too poor to



finance the construction themselves.  The League of



Women Voters feels that the Federal Government has an



important role to play in the financing of these pro-



jects, and that it should give this role priori ty:if the whole



water cleanup program is not to collapse.  The promise of

-------
                   Mrs. F. Rooney                    255








funds by the Congress has led many communities to wait



for financial help before starting construction on improved



treatment plants.  When the funds were not available, the




problem intensified and costs went up, presenting an



even more than difficult situation.  The League is



strongly urging that adequate funds be appropriated for



the cleanup program before the problem becomes even more



difficult and expensive.



               Standards and adequate funds are impor-




tant to a successful abatement program, however since



voluntary control of pollution cannot be expected, en-



forcement is a vital part of the process.



               This part of the process is probably the




slowest and seems to receive the smallest share of atten-



tion.  With the past and expected increases in popula-



tion and industry in the Hudson River area the pollu-



tion problem can only increase at an alarming rate, and



much emphasis must be placed on enforcement procedures.



The League then urges that this be considered one of the



most important parts of pollution abatement, that it is,



and that adequate funds and personnel be made avail-



able to accomplish the job.



               Problems of water pollution have too long

-------
                   Mrs. P. Rooney                    256








been put in second and third place for funds and atten-




tion.  Water is an absolute necessity to our health and



economy.  The League urges that it be given the priority



it deserves in the future.




               Thank you for this opportunity to testify



before your committee.



               MR. STEIN:  Thank you.




               Are there any comments or questions?



               (No response)



               MR. STEIN:  If not, thank you very much,



Mrs. Rooney.



               You know, we had a reference to this this



morning, and it shows you the strange ways everything



works.



               We were told about the meeting we were



going to have of the National Academy of Science and



Academy of  Engineers on the study of coastal waste dis-



posal to be held next month.  Well, we really didn't know



when Dr. Eisenbud mentioned it what this meeting was, or




where it was to be held.  You have to remember that this



is  on coastal waste disposal.  These guys aren't so dumb*



I don't think you will ever guess where they are going to




hold this meetingJackson Hole, Wyoming,   (laughter)

-------
                   N. Colosi                         257








               Let's call Mr. Glenn now for a presentation.



               Mr.  Glenn?



               MR.  GLENN:  I would like to call on Dr.




Natale Colosi, who  is Chairman of the Interstate Sanita-



tion Commission, to give our presentation.




               MR.  STEIN:  While Dr. Colosi is coining up,



let me tell you this:



               I know a lot of people have worked with him




a long time.  Dr. Colosi has worked in this field for 40




years, or 35 years  anyway, and has fought for cleaner



air and water in the interstate area around Metropolitan



New York.  I don't  know how many of you know he was awarded the



Gold Medal for merit in public health by the President



of Italy, Giuseppi  Saragat, on July 7th.  He and Dr. Jonas




Salk are the only two Americans who have received this



high award.



               Dr.  Colosi*



               (Applause)






                   STATEMENT BY



                DR. NATALE COLOSI



                     CHAIRMAN




         INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION






               DR.  COLOSI:  Thank you very much, Mr.

-------
                   N.  Colosi                          258








Chairman.



               Ladies  and gentlemen:



               My name is Natale Colosi.   I am Professor



of Bacteriology and Public Health at  Wagner College and



Dean of the graduate school at Polyclinic Hospital.



               I am speaking here today in my capacity



as Chairman of the Interstate Sanitation Commission.



               The present session of the conference has



been called to review the status of water pollution abate*



raent in the Hudson River and its tributaries.  Our state-



ment covers the water area which is the subject of this



Conference with the exception  of that portion of the



Hudson River that is north of the Bear Mountain Bridge--



the limit of the Interstate Sanitation District*  Since



the second conference on September 20, 1967, many im-



portant steps have been taken toward the abatement of



pollution:



               1)  The Newtown Creek Plant was placed



into operation during the latter part of 1967 and is



treating over 100 million gallons per day.  The quantity



treated will more than double this amount when the Man-



hattan pumping station is completed.




               2)  Chlorination facilities have been

-------
                   N. Colosi                         259








added to ten plants.



               3)  Many industrial wastes have been either



diverted to municipal treatment plants, eliminated by



in-plant changes, or have been barged to sea.



               4)  Pilot plant studies have been com-



pleted at three plants.



               5)  Raw wastes trom the Riverdale section



of the Bronx are intercepted and pumped to the Wards



Island Plant.



               6)  The Bear Mountain Plant has been up-



graded to secondary treatment.



               7)  Passaic Valley Sewerage Treatment



Plant has installed additional sludge storage tanks.



               8)  A ten million gallons a day secondary



treatment plant was completed for Rockland County Sewer



District #1.



               9)  Upgrading the F.D.R. Veterans Admin-



istration Hospital in New York to secondary treatment



is under construction and is expected to be completed



this year.



               10)  A new one million gallon a day Stony



Point District fl Plant in Rockland County is scheduled

-------
                   N. Colosi                         260








for completion this year.



               11)   In addition, many plants in the Dis-



trict have been completed or have a substantial portion



of their final design completed for upgrading from pri-



mary to secondary treatment.



               Despite these steps in abatement of pollu-



tion, we are not satisfied with the progress being made



in the construction of treatment plants.  In retrospect



to the 1970 and 1972 dates agreed to in our common desire



to clean up the waters, the Conferees were not realistic



about the time required to meet the political and legal



steps necessary to bring a large treatment plant to the



construction stage.  We admit that there have been



longer delays on some of the individual projects that



are not justifiable.  However, we believe that when ac-



count is taken of the size and complexity of the liquid



waste disposal problem in this area, the overall record



of the region is a reasonably good one. There are serious



delays in execution of some of the abatement programs



in the Lower Hudson.  It is necessary to identify them,



to examine the causes, and to offer some observations



on the probable course of events during the next few



years.

-------
                   N. Colosi                         261








               Because of the amounts of effluent in-



volved, it seems appropriate to consider the New York



City situation first.  As we have reported to earlier



sessions of this Conference, the Interstate Sanitation



Commission has a long-standing Consent Order against New



York City.  Under its terms, a specific construction pro-



gram was to have been completed by the end of 1967.  It was



for that reason that at the September 1967 session of



the Conference, the Commission was particularly anxious



to have the Conferees recognize the need for compliance



with earlier completion requirements, regardless of any



general recommendations concerning a date on which the



entire abatement program for the Hudson as a whole might



be finished.



               A number of the projects required by the



Consent Order were not completed and are certain to take



still furhter time before they become operational.  The



Interstate Sanitation Commission commented on this situa-



tion in testimony given to an investigative hearing held



by the New York State Health Department on March 25th



of this year.  A part of that statement is worth repeat-



ing here.



               Tor the past several years, the Federal



       Government and New York State have held conferences

-------
            N. Colosi                         262








and hearings with New York City as the entire



or partial object.  Several different time sched-



ules for construction have been embodied in these



several proceedings or have been the subject of



discussion.



        "In each case, the position of the Inter-



state Sanitation Commission has been that at an



appropriate time it might have to initiate legal



proceedings to enforce its consent Order.  But



it has also been clear that the fundamental objec-



tive is to abate pollution as rapidly as possible



and that the practical problem has been to secure



action by New York City according to a realistic



schedule, starting from whatever point in time



might be represented by a current discussion.



It is for this reason that the Commission has not



publicly objected when completion dates of 1970



and 1972 have been proposed for some projects.



On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly



apparent that even the more lenient proposals



for time schedules are not being met by the City,



and that still further delays may occur."



    It is clear that what the Interstate Sanitation

-------
                   N. Colosi                         263
 



Commission does will now depend on whether the City ac-

tually moves ahead expeditiously with construction and

operation of the needed additional facilities, and whether

it exercises reasonable effort to ameliorate the situa-

tion until such facilities can be completed, or whether

the recently expressed intentions to compress time sched-

ules are not borne out in practice.

               The plants discharging into the Hudson

River from Westchester and Rockland Counties are all

within the Interstate Sanitation District.  We are pleased

that New York State has worked out arrangements so that

many small plants will be eliminated by regionalization.

The Yonkers plant is being upgraded to secondary treat-

ment and will receive the flow which previously went to

the Irvington, Tarrytown, and North Tarrytown plants. A

new regional plant in Ossining willrepiace six old plants.

               The plants of Upper Nyack, Nyack, South

Nyack, and the Jewish Convalescent Home will be abandoned

and will be tied in by interceptor to the Orangetown

plant.  A new plant which will serve the village of West

Haverstraw and the town of Haverstraw will also take in

the flow from the New York State Rehabilitation Hospital

and Letchworth Village.  We believe this regionalization

-------
                   N. Colosi                         264








will bring about much more efficient operation for treat-



ment in these larger plants.  New York State will report



on the status of the upgrading of treatment plants in



Rockland and Westchester in more detail.



               At the last Conference, we reported that



New Jersey State Department of Health had already issued



orders in August 1966 requiring upgrading of treatment.



In March and April 1967, amended orders were sent in-



cluding a detailed timetable and requiring a removal



of not less than 80 per cent of the biochemical oxygen



demand.  New Jersey also issued orders requiring chlor-



ination of all the plants in the Upper Harbor area by the



summer of 1967.  When Passaic Valley did not chlorinate



by the summer of 1967 and made no plans to install such



equipment, the New Jersey Health Department turned the



problem over to the Attorney General's office for legal



action.  The State of New Jersey started proceedings



against Passaic Valley in order to obtain compliance.



When Passaic Valley failed  to meet the date on which,



according to a New Jersey Health Department order, it



was to have begun secondary treatment, this issue was



added to the litigation.  The Commission has cooperated



with the State of New Jersey by furnishing technical

-------
                   N. Colosi                         265








information relating to Passaic Valley over a period of



many years.  The Court has ordered Passaic Valley to



proceed with the necessary construction and to comply



with the New Jersey Health Department's orders.



               Passaic Valley appealed the decision and



recently the Appellate Division of the Superior Court



upheld the Lower Court's decision which in effect directs



the Commission to proceed with improvements to treat-



ment plants as directed by the State Health Department.



The Commission has advised the Attorney General that at



any stage of the litigation the Commission will assist,



if desired.



               Therefore, the Commission will not hesi-



tate to take independent legal action if necessary to



insure the upgrading of treatment so that it will meet



the state, interstate and Federal standards.  The other



New Jersey communities with the exception of Passaic



Valley are chlorinating this summer in compliance with



the New Jersey Administrative Order.



               It is impossible to assign a single,



simple cause of failure to get on with the improvement



of water quality at a rapid rate.  Undoubtedly, everyone



could do better.

-------
                   N.  Colosi                          266








               In this connection, it is appropriate to



remind the Conference of the  observation made by the



Conferees in 1967.  At that time, it was noted that the



failure of the Federal Government to appropriate any-



where near the amounts of money authorized by the Federal



Water Pollution Control Act for construction grants was



a serious brake on the pollution control program.  In



the past two years, this situation has gotten worse.



It would appear that at the Federal level, no less tnan



at the State, local and private levels, everyone is in



favor of clean water, but enthusiasm is greatest when



the finger can be put on someone else to perform and pay



the bill.



               In accordance with the plans we reported



at the Conf^rsT.o in September 1967, additional treat-



ment plants in the upper Harbor area started chlorina-



tion by the summer of 1968.  By this summer, all the



plants in New Jersey that discharge into the conference



area with the exception of the Passaic Valley Sewer



Plant will provide chlorination.



               As we stated previously, the Court has



now ordered Passaic Valley to provide chlorination and



to proceed to construct secondary treatment facilities.



This summer. New York City is expected to be providing

-------
                   N. Colosi                         267








chlorination at the Owls Head Plant, Newtown Creek, and



Port Richmond plants for the first time.   This should




offer some improvement in the bacteriological quality



of area waters but the big change will be made when:



               1)  The pumping station on Manhattan



to the Newtown Creek Plant is completed and removes




another 150 million gallons a day of raw waste for treat-



ment , and




               2)  The chlorination facilities have been



completed at the Passaic Valley Plant.



               The Interstate Sanitation Commission at




the previous Conferences on the Hudson River pointed out



that the magnitude of the pollution problem caused by



discharges from combined sewer overflows.



               Unfortunately, a large portion of the



New York Metropolitan Area has combined sewers and after



all the dry weather flow has been intercepted for treat-



ment over 800 million gallons of raw waste will be dis-



charged during times of rainfall in the Upper Harbor



area alone.  A large portion of this will pass through



the Narrows in less than one tidal cycle.  The report



presented by the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-



tration on combined sewers at this Conference clearly

-------
                   N. Colosi                         268








points out that there is not a ready solution to correct



this problem.



               In 1962, the New York City Department of



Health suggested that a dike extending from Fort Wads-



worth and connecting to Hoffman Island and then to



Swinburne Island might be desirable to deflect the flow




through the Narrows during rainy periods from South Beach



of Staten Island so as to improve the bacteriological



quality of the beaches.  A similar dike was suggested



to extend from Seagate out about 4300 feet to deflect



the flow from the beaches of Seagate and Coney Island,



               A joint pollution study on the Corps of




Engineers New York Harbor model at Vicksburg, Mississippi



included dye studies with and without these dikes for



comparison, and this preliminary investigation indi-



cated that they should improve the beach waters in these



areas.  This plan was not received with much enthusiasn



from several agencies  and we believe some of the oppo-



sition was that some felt that this was to be substi-



tuted for additional treatment for the wastes.  Now



that it has been agreed  that secondary treatment will




be required throughout the  area, some of the agencies are



reconsidering use of these  dikes.

-------
                   N. Colosi                         269








               The Environmental Protection Administra-



tion in New York City, under the direction of Dr. Eisen-



bud, has been studying the possibility of building cof-



ferdams between Hoffman and Swinburne Islands for the



dual purpose of the disposal of incinerated material and



to provide a new park.  We understand that New York



City has had some discussion with the Corps of Engineers



on this proposed project and the connection of this



enlarged island by dike to Fort Wadsworth.  We would



hope that this Conference as one of its recommendations



might endorse this as a worthy project to be considered



to further improve the beaches of the area.  We would



like the dike at Seagate to be considered for inclusion



in these studies.



               Another factor influencing the quality



of area waters, and indeed the entire process of waste



treatment/ is the disposal of sludge.  To date, the



Federal Water Pollution Control Administration has not



proceeded effectively to develop a firm policy on this



subject.  Since disposal at sea is one of the major



alternatives in the Conference area, and the Federal



Government is the only level with effective jurisdic-



tion to control disposal beyond territorial waters, it

-------
                   N.  Colosi                         270








behooves the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-



tion to produce a policy which is both certain and



reasonable in this field.



               For this reason/ we were disturbed when



a Federal contribution to the cost of a New York City



sludge barge was held up for months, until it was de-



cided whether digested or undigested sludge would be



barged.  Even now, it is not clear whether Federal Water



Pollution Control Administration policy would like to



restrict disposal of digested sludge or would consider



disposal of undigested sludge if barged farther to sea.



               Vacillation also is harmful in the area



of industrial waste disposal.  Increasingly, industries



in this area are considering the barging of waste to sea.



They, too, need to know what will be permitted and what



will not.



               In a discussion with Secretary Klein, we



mentioned that this problem would be brought up at this



Federal Conference.  He requested a letter pertaining



to this prior to the Conference.



               Attached to the record which I am read-



ing is a copy of that letter, and I would like to ask



you, Mr. Chairman, if you will please introduce a copy of

-------
                   N, Colosi                         271
*


the letter into the record.

               MR. STEIN:  The full letter will be made

part of the record.

               DR. COLOSI:  Thank you very much.

               Secretary Klein has responded that after

a study this summer, a policy would then be formulated.

The Commission then wrote and raised a question that we

should consider at this Conference.  We quote from the

letter:

               "We certainly agree that such a policy

       will have far-reaching effects and that the very

       best scientific information should be weighed

       before making such an important decision.  How-

       ever, it is unfortunate that decisions on the

       handling of sludge must be made now by many

       municipalities and authorities in this area if

       the implementation plans of the states to meet

       the Water Quality Standards are to be met as

       expeditiously as possible.

               "At the present time, the Federal Water

       Pollution Control Administration has made an ad-

       ministrative decision that all treatment plants to

       qualify for a Federal Construction Grant must

-------
                   N. ColOSl                          272








       include  facilities  for  digestion of  sludge  before



       barging  to sea.   At the Federal Conference  on



       the Lower Hudson on June 18th, we will  request



       that this administrative policy be rescinded



       until your study has been completed  and an  overall



       policy has been  set. Then,  if it is decided  that



       digestion will be required,  the plants  would  be



       required to provide the proper digestion facili-



       ties and the schedules  for the construction of



       treatment plants may proceed without waiting  for



       a final  policy decision."



               The Interstate  Sanitation Commission  has



felt for some time that its responsibility  was not only



to cooperate with the  States  in abatement of pollution



by securing the construction  of treatment plants,  but



also that completed plants are operated  as  efficiently



as possible.  For many  years,  the sampling  of treatment



plants has been one of  the major activities of the Com-



mission, since it is obligated to assure each of the



participating States that the treatment plants in the



District are meeting Compact requirements.   We believe



that we are the only interstate agency which samples on



a regular basis.  These investigations make it possible

-------
                   N. Colosi                         273
#

*
to detect plants which have become obsolete or overloaded,

so that corrective measures may be taken to insure con-

tinued compliance with effluent standards.  Our field-

men also make shoreline surveys to detect bypassing

by regulators and pump stations, or any other illegal

discharges*  There are now 143 treatment plants dis-

charging to our District waters with a total of well

over one and-a-half-billion gallons a day being treated.

Less than 280 million gallons received even the minimum

treatment in 1936.  The flow receiving secondary treat-

ment has increased from 2,250,000 gallons to the present

1,036,530,000 gallons per day*  The Commission is now

expanding its laboratory so that it can also sample

industrial effluents on a regular basis.  We have already

made an industrial survey of a large portion of our Dis-

trict so that the abatement of pollutants due to indus-

tries will move forward at the same time as the abate-

ment of pollution from domestic sources. The Commission

received delivery of a new mobile laboratory recently.

It will be used to aid in the instruction of plant oper-

ators at the plant site and on sampling and testing of

their own wastes.  Since all the plants will now be

required to have secondary treatment, a properly operated

-------
                   N. Colosi                         274







laboratory will be necessary for good operation of these



more complicated treatment plants.



               Since abatement of land sources of pollu-



tion should become a reality in the foreseeable future,



pollution from vessels of all types and sizes will con-



stitute one of the major remaining problems.  In recog-



nition of its importance, in April of last year, the



Commission sponsored an Interstate Conference on Boat



Pollution.  We have had many requests for copies of



the transcript from all over the United States.  The



Commission wishes to do its part in promoting uniform



regulations by the signatory States in the New York Met-



ropolitan area.



               The Commission will continue to cooperate



with the local, State and Federal authorities for an



active pollution abatement program.  We are sure that



the combined efforts will bring about the improvement .



in the quality of the waters which we all desire.  It



is clear that the fundamental objective of all of us is



to abate pollution as rapidly as possible.  Therefore,



we should insist on  realistic schedules from this point



in time and make it  clear that necessary legal  action



will be taken if they are not followed.

-------
                   N. Colosi                         275
t

               Thank you very much.
               (The following document was presented by
Dr. Colosi for inclusion in the record:)
May 23, 1969.
Mr. Carl L. Klein, Assistant Secretary
Water Quality and Research
U. S, Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. - 20242
Dear Mr. Secretary:
               It is of great and immediate importance
that the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
develop and announce a firm policy on the disposal of
sludge and industrial wastes at sea.  Because of its
crucial importance in the Greater New York Metropolitan
Area, the subject will be raised in the statement of
the Interstate Sanitation Commission at the Hudson River
Conference now scheduled for June 18-19, 1969.  However,
we believe that fruitful consideration of the matter at
that time will benefit from advance thought by you.
               The reason for urgency is that decisions
are being made now in connection with the upgrading of
domestic treatment plants.  The disposal of sludge must
be considered as a part of this decision.  Some industrial

-------
                   N. Colosi                         276








wastes are also not amendable to treatment and one solu-



tion is to barge these wastes to sea.  Whatever alter-



natives municipalities and industries select involve large




investments.  If the method chosen cannot be relied upon



for some years to come, millions of dollars will have



been wasted in the New York area alone, and the problem




will be no closer to solution at the end of the process



than it was before the expenditures were made.  The



costs include investments in digesters, barges, incin-



eration equipment, and plant design and construction.



               The disposal of sludge at sea appears,



at first glance, to be questionable, especially if the




sludge is undigested.  However, we believe that proper



analysis of the problem requires a consideration of



available alternatives, so that governing policy will



make distinctions that accord with the facts and will



encourage selection of the most appropriate disposal



methods,




               There are only a limited number of alter-



natives for dealing with sludge or industrial waste that



cannot be treated:




               1)  Disposal on land;



               2)  Disposal in underground wells;

-------
                   N. Colosi                          277
9

                3)  Disposal at sea on  the Continental
Shelf.
                The safety  and  cost elements  involved  for
each method  must be weighed,
                1)  Disposal on LandLand disposal of
sludge  would require either sludge drying beds or vacuum
filtration before placing  on the  land*   In the vicinity
of large metropolitan centers, the solid waste disposal
problem is already of stupendous  proportions and is even
further from being solved  than is the  water  pollution
problem.   Instead of placing on the  land, the sludge
may be  incinerated which may result  in air pollution.
While the  FWPCA is not  responsible for solid waste or
air pollution problems,  it should think very seriously
before  adopting a policy which would tend to intensify
environmental hazards of any sort.   Industrial wastes
would have the same type of problem  for discharge on
land but in  addition may be toxic.   Also, industrial
wastes  on  land could infiltrate and  contaminate the
ground  waters.
                2)  Deep Well DisposalThis  alternative
may remove the industrial  wastes  from  sight, but it well
may be  the most danerous of all methods of disposal.

-------
                   N.  Colosi                         278








There is already evidence that wastes disposed under-



ground have contaminated water supplies, polluted the



soil and, in one instance, possibly contributed to an




earthquake.  Moreover, deep well disposal is probably



the most irretrievable of the alternatives.  There is



no Known, means of cleaning up, once wastes have broken




out of the strata and immediate locations in which they



have been deposited and such disposal lacks tie dilution



afforded by sea.




               3)  Disposal over the Continental Shelf



Offshore discharge of sludge within a relatively few



miles of the coast is an expeditious means of disposal




at comparatively modest cost.  Digested and undigested




sludges have been discharged for years in waters adjacent



to Lower New York Bay with no known harmful results.



Unless studies show that it is harmful, there is every



reason for continuing the discharge of at least digested



sludge.  Digested sludge is stable and places little if



any demand on the oxygen supply of the water into which




it is discharged.  Industrial wastes should be banned



in this area.




               4)  Disposal beyond the Continental Shelf--



If it is decided that the risks or objectionable effects

-------
                   N. Colosi                         279


k
of  the discharge of undigested sludge over the Contin-

ental Shelf, even at considerable distances from  the

coast, are  too great, it  should be possible to permit

dumping of  sludge beyond  the Continental Shelf.   In the

New York  area, this would place the point of discharge

at  least  120 miles at sea.  The dilution that would take

place that  far at sea and the great distance from pop-

ulation centers should reduce or obvxate any reasonable

objections.

               However, in making such a decision,

careful note should be taken of the relatively little

difference  in effect between the discharge of undigested

and digested sludge so far from the coast.  The only

significant difference between digested and undigested

sludge is that the latter involves biochemical oxygen

demand.   Oxygen is no problem in the open sea.  Undigested

sludge would not be toxic to fish.  Over a period of time,

undigested  sludge is rendered stable and thus achieves

the same  results without  the costly digestion process.

               Finally, there is evidence that digestion

processes at treatment plants produce side effects that

could aggravate present difficulties.  The liquid cycled

back into treatment plants when sludge is digested is

high in nutrients.

-------
                   N. Colosi                         280








               These would be discharged in the treatment



plant effluent and would increase the growth of phytoplank-



ton in the receiving waters.  This can be a problem of



varying seriousness, depending on the point of dis-



charge and the characteristics of the receiving waters.



               Barging of industrial wastes to sea



should be decided for each case and should be restricted



to wastes that would be difficult to treat.  However,



it would be more desirable to use this alternative than



the more objectionable ones as previously stated. It



might be appropriate to require reasonable pretreatment



before disposal at sea, to whatever degree practicable,



such as neutralization of acidity.



               In conclusion, we wish to point out



that the problem of sludge and industrial wastes dis-



posal is not a simple one.  The question is not whether



we would prefer to forego sludge and industrial waste



dumping at sea, but rather whether such dumping under



reasonable restrictions is the best available alternative.



Also, of first importance is the need for a firm and a



prompt decision*  Only the Federal Government can make



the decision, because only that level of government has



authority over disposal beyond territorial waters.

-------
                   N. Colosi                         281


               Also, we would urge upon you that the decision

be made in consultation with all of the affected in-
terests.  The environmental programs of state and local
governments are materially affected, as are the plans

and operations of many industries.  It may not be possi-
ble to devise and implement a policy which fully satis-
fies everybody, but it is essential to strike the best

balance that can be obtained.
               If we can be of any further help in this
matter, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

Very truly yours,

Thomas R. Glenn, Jr.
Director & Chief Engineer
                       * * *

               MR.STEIN:  Thank youvery much. Dr. Colosi.
               Are there any comments or questions?
               MR. SULLIVAN:  Dr. Colosi,first, we are
fully in accord with the recommendations you have made
concerning the sludge and barging to sea and as to the
need for a temporary decision as to the requirement that
grants not be given unless sludge treatment be provided^
but I have a question.

               On page 2 of your testimony, at the bottom

-------
                   N.  Colosi                         282








of the page, you make  reference to a Consent Order



against New York City, and that under its terms,  a con-



struction program should have been completed by the end



of 1967.



               Then you go on to make reference to tihe



fact that the Commission was particularly anxious to have



the conferees recognize the need for compliance with



earlier completion requirements, regardless of any gener-



al recommendation concerned, etc., but on page 11, in



your concluding comments, the recommendation is made,



and I will paraphrase it, that "we should insist on



realistic schedules from this point on and then adhere



to those."



               Now, first, I am uncertain as to whether



there is any conflict between those two, and, second,



I wonder if you would consider consistent with what



you have recommended on page 11 the acceptance by your



commission of the extended schedule for completion that



was proposed by New York City in testimony this morning.



               DR. COLOSI:  Well, I cannot say whether



what was testified here this morning will be accepted



or not because it is a matter for the entire Commission



to discuss.  Perhaps Mr. Glenn can answer.

-------
                   N. Colosi                         283







               MR. GLENN: I think the main point on this,



Mr. Sullivan, is that we realize it is impossible for them



to start their plants now, construct them and complete



them three years ago, so from a practical standpoint, if



it is the desire of this conference to recognize this



and proceed from this point, we state that any dates that



are set or that are proposed should not be allowed to be



extended without legal action being taken, but we recog-



nize the fact that it will be impossible to do something



three years ago.



               We also make it clear that we have not



changed the dates on those, so that when legal action is



taken, it will be taken on the violation of our Consent



Order of the dates prescribed in the Consent Order and



not the new dates.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  If I respond your response,



it is not your intention that recognition of these prac-



ticalities nullifies the Consent Order?



               MR. GLENN:  No, because if it was found



that we would have to take this legal action, it would



be based on the dates that were not met, not on these



new dates.



               MR. STEIN:  Are there any further questions

-------
                   N. Colosi                        284








or comments?



               (Mo response)



               MR. STEIN;  I would just like to go into



one thing, Dr. Colosi, and I hope New York City will take



this up and I will defer comment until later.  This is



about the waste from Manhattan taken to Newtown Creek



and the kind of treatment given there.



               I think in any transshipment of wastes,



we want to see what happens before it gets out.



               I don't think I will make a comment on



that until we hear the full New York presentation, but



I think it behooves the conferees to follow the wastes



from wherever they originate to wherever they are trans-



ported to see that they are adequately treated before



being discharged,



               MR. METZLER:  I am not going to prejudge



this, but I think you will  find when the City makes its



presentation, that you can  follow those wastes all the



way from Manhattan Island to their ultimate disposal,



and you will find that the  plans are adequate.



               MR. GLENN:   Also, Mr. Chairman, it should



be pointed out, since you brought that point up, that



the treatment plant  for over 300 million gallons has been

-------
                    N. Colosi                         285
t

 completed.  It is only due to a construction problem that
 this pumping station was not completed on time.
                The facilities for it are all ready. It
 is just a case of completing the pumping station and
 physically getting to this new plant.
                MR, STEIN:  I am just dragging the ques-
 tion.  I don't have one now, but what I think the audience
 should realize is that we are not running a shell game.
 We are following the wastes to the place of discharge,
 and I am sure that the Interstate Sanitation Commission,
 New York State and New York City have a rational program.
                It is like a transbasin shipment of water.
 You have to follow that to where it goes.
                MR. GLENN:  It is clear across the East
 River.
                MR. STEIN:  Right, when you are taking it
 from Manhattan to another borough.
                You know, when I grew up in Brooklyn, we
 really hesitated before we would date a girl from the
 Bronx (laughter).
                DR. COLOSI:  How about in Staten Island?
                MR. STEIN:  Staten Island was in another
 world in  my

-------
                   N.  Colosi                         286








               Are there any further comments or questions?



               (No response)



               MR. STEIN:  If not, thank you very much,



Dr. Colosi.



               DR. COLOSI:  Thank you.



               MR. STEIN:  At this point, I think we will



turn the rest of the afternoon over to New York State.



               We have to give up this room at 5:00. We



will try to get as much completed as we can before then.



               Mr. Metzler?



               MR. METZLER:  Thank you very much, Chairman



Stein.



               I am anxious to extend the same courtesies



to those from New York as has already been extended to



those from New Jersey, who can only be here today.



               In doing this, I am going to remind them,



however, that it is important that some additional testi-



mony from both the State and the City go on yet  today



before 5:00.  This is not intended to rush you,  but rather



so that your statements may be concise, and I will warn



the conferees against asking you  too many questions.



               The first witness  from New York State  I  am



going to call upon has indicated  he can only be  here  this

-------
                    G. Cameron                        287
'afternoon.  That is Mr. Gordon Cameron, from Croton-on-



 Hudson,  Is Mr. Cameron here?



                (No response)



                MR. METZLER;  I get a signal back there



 that he has already left.



                Then we have Mr. Guy Griffin from West-




 Chester County.



                Incidentally,  Mr. Cameron's statement was



 written, and I ask that it be included in the record as




 though he had read it.



                MR. STEIN:  This will be done without



 objection.



                (The following is the statement of Mr.



 Gordon K. Cameron submitted for the record:)



         VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK



                    STATEMENT BY



                MR. GORDON K.  CAMERON



                VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR



            CROTON-ON-HUDSON,  NEW YORK






                The Board of Trustees of the Village of



 Croton-on-Hudson, appreciates the opportunity to appear



 before this year's session of the Conference on Pollution
                                    I

-------
                   6. Cameron                        288







of the Hudson River and its Tributaries.  It is hoped



that the observations made in this statement, while pri-



marily of a local nature, will tend to contribute to an



analysis of the over-all problem and to a final coordin-



ated multi-governmental solution to the problem.



               Let me begin by saying that Croton-on-



Hudson is probably a classic representative river-front



community.  The Hudson River dominates dominates the



environmental elements which determines the final shaping



of such a community.  The river is a featured element in



the industrial, recreational, and scenic planning.



               The Village of Croton-on-Hudson expends



many thousands of dollars annually in the planning function.



The Board of Trustees and the Planning Board have for



guidance a professional plannirgconsultant firm.  It is



interesting to quote from the recently issued and updated



Comprehensive Development Plan presented to the Board of



Trustees by the Planning Board and the Consultant for Vil-



lage Board action, and to note the impact that the Hudson



River has had on this document.



               Quoting from this document I'd like to make



several points stressed by the planners on the

-------
                    G. Cameron                        289
>

*  inter-relationship of the Hudson River to the Community's
  overall planning:
                 "The Comprehensive Development Plan for
        Croton-on-Hudson is based upon a series of broad
        general  abjectives which the Planning Board feels
        best respond to the specific environmental and
        developmental characteristics of the Village.
                 "Recommendation:  Preserve those natural
        features of the Village which give it a pleasant
        open setting and which serve as an attractive
        background.  Most importantly, preserve and re-
        habilitate Croton's waterfront lands on the Croton
        and Hudson Rivers"
  P.  3-  Comprehensive Development Plan, May 1969. Croton-
  on-Hudson, N. Y. - and other recommendations from the
  same report that stress the local concern for rehabilita-
  tion and  greater utilization of the Hudson River water-
  front
        "Croton's waterfront has long been considered a
        resource which has not been fully utilized.
        Within the context of the revised Plan, a substan-
        tial amount of effort has been addressed to the
        opening  up of the waterfront."
  P.  5,  Comprehensive Development Plan, May  1969.

-------
                   G. Cameron                        290








               Beyond the planning function the Village



of Croton-on-Hudson is currently working towards the



acquisition of more lands on the Hudson River waterfront



to add to an existing municipal park, i.e. Senasqua Park,



that offers the only local public access to the Hudson.



The Board of Trustees is also currently involved in ef-



forts to preserve the natural values found in the Croton



River that flows through the Village finally emptying



into the Hudson River.  The Village of Croton is also



cooperating in the establishment of a part-county sewage



districtthe proposed Ossining Sanitary Sewer District/



designed to meet State standards for treatment of muni-



cipal wastes.  This project has a projected completion



date of January 1972.



               I have made the preceding comments to



indicate to this conference the very real concern and



the attendant efforts that one local municipality is



undertaking to realize the full potential of the great



natural resource that flows by the front door of that



community.



               In this undertaking the Village  finds it-



self constantly confronting Hudson River problems that



go beyond the resources and jurisdictional limits of the

-------
                    G. Cameron                         291








"Village.   This  is particularly  true  in that  area of  the



 remedying of  the tragic past misuse  of the public waters



 of the Hudson.



                The  Penn Central Company, with  its repair



 works, a  large  commuter operation, and diesel  electric



 changeover point located  at Harmon within the  Village



 limits, has been cited  as one of the major polluters of



 the Hudson River in the Croton  area.



                This pollution takes  the form of dumping



 of large  quantities of  spilled  diesel  fuel directly



 into the  Hudson River at  the mouth of  the Croton River.



 The Company,  according  to recent newspaper accounts, has



 been cited on 14 different occasions in recent years



 for the same  offense by the Corps of Engineers.  Penn



 Central pollution of the  Hudson River  has been chronicled



 and featured  on national  TV as  well  as other media.   Yet



 the pollution continues unabated. During this past



 spring, Penn  Central oil  wastes coated the local shore-



 line and  indeed threatened the  operation of  the locally



 operated  municipal  Hudson River parkSenasqua Park.



                The  Village Board of  Trustees has filed



 notice of this  pollution  activity by Penn Central at



 every level of  government, including County, State and

-------
                   G. Cameron                        292







Federal jurisdictional agencies.  The notable lack of



response to local requests for relief from this con-



tinuing form of water pollution has left the Village with



a feeling of hopelessness.



               This is only one example of the incongru-



ities of Croton's attempts to more fully realize the



benefits of the Hudson for the local residents.  An even



more difficult to understand example is Westchester



County's continuing development of the amply blessed



Croton Point Park which in turn is the site of one of the



more horrible examples of garbage operations on the East



Coast, being located directly at the entrance to that



same County Park,  The question that occurs to the con-



cerned Crotonite is"Are certain areas doomed to be con-



signed as environmental dumpsites for the balance of



the region?1*



               On Monday, June 16, 1969, the New York



Times published an in-depth account of the national



crisis in disposal of solid wastes. A statement was made



by the writer that such problems were beyond the capa-



bilities of the local municipality to handle.  It has



been Croton'ssad experience to come to the cynical con-



clusion that after many years of effort, control of

-------
                   6. Cameron                        293








water pollution has failed at the regional level.  I note



from Doctor Ingraham's invitation to address this con-



ference that the Conference was originally convened in



September  1965.  Croton-on-Hudson has been addressing



itself to the problem of Penn Central oil pollution for



all of those years and if a solution to the basic prob-



lem of Penn Central's oil wastes being dumped directly



into the Hudson River is any closer to solution, than



four years ago, no one in Croton is aware of that fact.



               May I make the following suggestions to



your conference as means of dealing more effectively



with the loss of the Hudson River waters to the public



               1.  Establishment of informational ser-



vices to local jurisdictions by State, Federal and inter-



state agency activities on programs to abate pollution



problems in local areas.



               2.  Field service visits by all agencies



to local municipal bodies to review local pollution prob-



lems with local jurisdictions.



               3.  A review of the breakdown of existing



statutory controls over water pollution.  Legislative



remedies at the proper levels of government to check and



correct the current obvious erosion of existing Statutes



to the point of ineffectiveness.

-------
                   G,  Cameron                        294








               There is encouragement for all involved in



the water pollution battle in the success of the upgrad-



ing of local sewage operations under New York state's



cooperative "Pure Waters" program through State funding



of acceptable sewage operations.  Local government is



ready to cooperate in the same spirit in common areas of



water pollution control. It is hoped that there will be



a serious consideration given to Doctor Ingraham's




reference to the formulation of a plan for action parti-




cularly in the area of industrial pollution of the Hud-



son.  The time has come to end the denial of the full



use of the Hudson River waterway to the public at large.




               Thank you.








                   STATEMENT BY



                  MR. GUY GRIFFIN



       DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS



            FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL




                WESTCHESTER COUNTY



                 STATE OF NEW YORK






               MR. GRIFFIN:  Mr. Chairman, members of the



Conference, ladies and gentlemeni




               I am Guy Griffin, Deputy Commissioner of

-------
                     G.  Griffin                             295
>

 Public  Works  for Water Pollution  Control  in Westchester

  County.

                 At  the  present  time,  considerable  progress

  has  been  made to implement  the recommendations  of the

  County-wide Comprehensive Sewerage  Study,  as  recommended

  by and  financed by the New  York State  Department  of  Health.

  It should be  recognized that the  advent of the  Compre-

  hensive Sewerage Study has  imposed  a delay of about  one

  year to the County and other liable  municipalities on

  the  Hudson River in undertaking the  necessary work for

  the  expansion and  improvement  of  wastewater treatment

  facilities.

                 I want  to say,  however, in  spite of this

  delay,  the final results will  be  better because of the

  Comprehensive Study.   It has been shown how smaller  com-

  munities  can  be brought together  and combine  their efforts

  and  come  up with one plant  serving  several communities.

  A number  of smaller plants  will be replaced with  county

  operated  regional  facilities.

                 The Town of  Ossining, and the  Villages of

  Ossining,  Briarcliff Manor  and Croton-on-Hudson have pet-

  tioned  the County  Board of  Supervisors to  form  a  new

  county  sewer  district  to include  therein all  or parts of

  their municipalities,  and for  the County to assume

  responsibility  for carrying out the  recommendations  of

-------
                   G. Griffin                        296







the Comprehensive Report by the construction and opera-



tion of a regional wastewater treatment plant and trunk



sewer system.  Consulting engineers have been hired to



determine the bounds of the proposed district, to assist



in its formation, and to review the choice of a new



plant site.  The work has now progressed to the point



of holding a preliminary public hearing on the formation



of the new sewer district, as required by the County Ad-



ministrative Code, which is scheduled to be held this



coining Friday.  The next step will be for the Board of



Supervisors to hold its formal public hearing and then



to take action on setting up the district.  The way



will then be clear to request County funds in the name



of the new district and to authorize the engineers to



proceed with the preparation of the Wastewater Facili-



ties Report. Much has already been done in anticipation



of preparing that report.



               The City of Peekskill, the Town of Cort-



landt, and the Town of Yorktown have petitioned the County



to form a County sanitary sewer district to include all



or parts of their land areas.  These municipalities,



in order to expedite matters, have forwarded checks to



the County to pay the costs of establishing the district.

-------
                    G. Griffin                        297

r


*
 Once the district has been established by act of the


 County Board of Supervisors and funds have been appro-


 priated in its name, then the monies advanced become a


 responsibility of the new district.  The City of Peek-


 skill included in its contribution funds to cover pro-


 portionate costs to a major industry (standard Brands)


 wishing to be included in the new district.  It has been


 established by research at the expense of the industry


 that its wastes can be made amenable to treatment by a


 secondary aerobic treatment process.  It has indicated


 its willingness to share in construction and operating


 costs.  The project, as now envisioned, is in consonance


 with the recommended project of the Comprehensive Study.


                The Villages of Tarrytown and North Tarry-


 town have indicated their desires to be included in an


 extension of the County Saw Mill Valley Sanitary Sewer


 District and for the County to carry out the recommenda-


 tions of the Comprehensive Report calling for the dis-


 charge of their sewage to the existing County trunk


 sewer system.


                Similarly, the Village of Irvington has


 indicated its desire to be included in an expansion of


 the existing North Yonkers Sanitary Sewer District and

-------
                   G. Griffin                        298








to be served by an extension of the North Yonkers trunk



sewer system. Both of these proposed actions for the



Tarrytowns and Irvington will eliminate existing treat-



ment plants by the construction of pumping stations and



intercepting sewers.



               The consulting engineers, employed by



the County to prepare the required Wastewater Facilities



Report for expanding and upgrading the Joint Treatment



Plant at Yonkers, have just submitted for comment and



review the preliminary draft of the last section of



that report.  Soundirgs and borings already taken on the



site for the necessary expansion indicate a much greater



depth of unsuitable  foundation material than anticipated



from the information available from the construction of



the present plant site.  This situation calls for a



careful consideration of the type of construction to be



followed in the site preparation.  The increased size



of plant and secondary treatment call for an increase



from the present fourteen acres to a total of about



35 acres, which includes some allowance for future ex-



pansion.



               To date, the only Hudson River project



on which sufficient  detail work has been done to verify

-------
                    G.  Griffin                        299

t
 

*or adjust the estimated  costs set forth  in  the Compre-

 hensive Report is  the  Yonkers Project.   There the pre-

 liminary revised estimate of  project  cost indicates an

 increase from the  original estimate of about $40,000,000

 to as much as $52,000,000. Best  current estimates of

 costs on the  other projects are:

                Irvington,  $700,000;

                Tarrytown,  $2,700,000;

                Ossining,  $9,400,000;  and

                Peekskill,  $16,600,000.

                A total estimated  cost of $81,400,000.

                On  all  projects on which  the County of

 Westchester is presently  under Orders from the New York

 State Department of Health, it is the intention of the

 County to make every effort to meet the  established sched-

 ule for prosecution of its work,  and  to  meet the standards

 which have been set up by  the Health  Department.

                Thank you.

                MR.  STEIN:   Thank  you, sir.

                Are  there any  comments or questions?

                MR.  METZLER:   May  I ask one question?

                I have  been impressed by  the kind of sup-

 port that we  are getting  from the County Executives and

-------
                   G. Griffin                        300








the County officials.



               Do you see any major roadblocks in the



way of moving these projects according to the schedules



you now have with us?



               MR. GRIFFIN: The only things that we can



see, Mr. Metzler, are whether the engineers can meet the



schedules in getting out the plan, and, second, whether



there will be contractors available to do the work, and,



third, the time that maybe required to make and deliver



the equipment which is necessary.



               Those are facts which we can't do much



about except to expedite as we go along and to make every



effort to do that.



               MR. STEIN:  You know, there is a peculiar



bit of Americana here, and this is what we always have.



               We deal with a very dirty business, but



our language is most antiseptic when we talk about these



things.



               Then we look at these things and we find



Irvington, $700,000; Tarrytowns, $2,700,000; Ossining,



$9,400,000; and Peekskill, $16,600,000, and, you know,



Peekskill has  the big industry.



               What  do they talk about?   "The City of

-------
                    G.  Griffin                        301
 1
-

 Peekskill included  in  its  contribution funds  to  cover

 proportionate costs to a major industry (Standard Brands)

 wishing to be included in  the new district*   It  has been

 established by research at the expense of the  industry

 that its wastes can be made amenable to treatment by

 a secondary aerobic treatment process." That  is  Standard

 Brands.

                Now, Fleischman makes yeast but they also

 make another product.

                MR.  GRIFFINz  I understand it's pretty

 good.

                MR.  STEIN:   Right (laughter).

                You've  got  my testimony.  Mr.  Metzler?

                MR.  METZLER:   The next witness who has

 asked to be called  this afternoon is Mr. Fred Wurtemberger,

 who is here representing the Rensselaer County Sewer

 District.

                I might say that Mr, Wurtemberger is a

 representative of the  new  breed of new manager for regional

 sewer systems in New York  State, and another  example of

 how they raid the New  York State Health Department to get

 manpower for this operation.

                MR.  WURTEMBERGER:  Thank you.

-------
                   F. Wurtemberger                   302








               MR. METZLER:  You're welcome (laughter).






                   STATEMENT BY



             MR. FRED J. WURTEMBERGER, P.E.



               ADMINISTRATIVE EXECUTIVE



         RENSSELAER COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1






               MR. WURTEMBERGER:  In case you have for-



gotten, there is pollution 150 miles north of here in



the capital district area and I am here to talk about



what we are doing in Rensselaer County.



               The purpose of this statement is to in-



form you of the status of the Rensselaer County Sewer



District project and to request consideration of items



that affect the financing and operation of this project*




               A public hearing has been scheduled for



June 25, 1969, to expand the existing district, com-



prising the City of Troy and environs, to include the



City of Rensselaer with its several large wet industries.



The proposed expanded district is an outgrowth of the




State's comprehensive study program and represents an



excellent regional solution to water pollution abatement




for the more populated areas of Rensselaer County.



               I might add that this will include some

-------
                   P. Wurtemberger                   303
-
r

 90 per cent of the population in the  county.

                If the hearing on June 25th and  subsequent

 permissive referendum are favorable,  the project will

 be enlarged from a 16 mgd treatment plant served by

 80,600 feet of intercepting facilities to a  27  mgd treat*

 ment plant served by 118,000 feet of  intercepting  faci-

 lities.   The total project cost will  increase from approx-

 imately  $18,000,000  to  approximately  $32,000,000,  and

 this is  big bananas  upstate.   As far  as New  York City,

 it is just small potatoes*

                Bids  for the first construction  contract

 should be advertised during September 1970.  Completion

 of construction of all  facilities and commencement of

 operation of the treatment plant are  scheduled  for

 November 1972.

                The secondary treatment plant will  uti-

 lize a sophisticated and flexible activated  sludge pro-

 cess.  It will be designed to remove  a high  percentage

 of carbonace6us and  nitrogenous BOD to meet  stringent

 receiving water standards,  These stringent  standards

 are due  to, in part, the second stage nitrogenous  oxygen

 demands  emanating from  upstream discharges to the  upper

 Hudson and Mohawk Rivers.

-------
                   F.  Wurteniberger                  304







               We request that significant upstream dis-




charges be provided with a degree of treatment equally



as high as that required for Rensselaer County project.



               I know these discharges I speak of are



outside of the area involved in this enforcement con-




ference, but it is my understanding that coming over the



Troy Dam, it impounds a BOD equal to that discharged in



the capital district area.



               In addition/ we request that existing and



proposed thermal discharges upstream and downstream of



our project and sludge deposits behind impoundments up-




stream of our project particularly of the Mohawk and



the Hudson be given proper consideration as to their



effects on the oxygen and ecological resources of the




Hudson River.



               Our third request involves eligibility



for construction aid of sewage intercepting facilities.



The numerous streams and lakes within the interior sf



our district are being degraded from raw and septic



tank-leaching system effluents.  The excessive expense




of abating this pollution can be lessened appreciably




by extending aid eligibility to include sewerage facili-



ties which are parallel to streams and facilities  that  follow



the circumference  of  lakes.

-------
-                   F. Wurtemberg                     305


r
               I understand the House at the Federal

level has passed some legislation on research as far as

pollution of lakes is concerned.  I don't know what the

status is in the Senate but as far as these small lakes

are concerned, we don't need any research.  All we have

to do is get the sewage off of the watershed, and this

we can do very readily by putting in interceptor sewers.

               The only salvation of interior streams

and lakes is to divert discharges off watersheds.  The

Rensselaer County Sewer District would construct this

type of diversion and interception facility if provided

with sufficient State and Federal aid.

               The opportunity to present this statement

is appreciated.

               I have an additional explanation about the

Rensselaer County Sewer District in a promotional bro-

chure which I will now hand out to the conferees.

               Thank you.

               (The following document was presented by

Mr. Wurtemberger for inclusion in the record:

RENSSELAER COUNTY

EXPANDED SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1

JUNE 1969)

-------
                                                                  306
                   RENSSELAER  COUNTY
        EXPANDED  SEWER  DISTRICT  NO. 1
                             JUNE  1969
         4
        s
          AERATION
          BASINS
FINAL SEDIMENTATION
    ASIN3
CHLORINE CONTACT
   TANKS
                                                       PRIMARY
                                                     SEDIMENTATION
                                                       BASINS
                                         SLUDGE
                                    f\ THICKENIN8
                                    11 TANKS
              FILTRATION, INCINERATION
              ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
SLUDGE
HOLDING
TANKS
                                             w
                                             a.

-------
                                                                     \

                                                                  307^
                             RENSSELAER COUNTY AGENCY

                            FOR ABATEMENT AND CONTROL

                                  OF POLLUriON

                            COURT HOUSE, TROY, NEW YORK 12180
Supervisor Richard W. Keeler
  Chairman                           D[AL . 273-8825
^Professor . J. Kilcawley, P.E.
Dr. C. Fred Zlpprich. Ch.E.
James J. Burke, P.E.
Johi P. Buckley, Ch.E.
Eugene L. Halsey Jr., P.E.
Donald B. Crowther. P.E.
      Dear Resident:

            In 1968, Rensselaer County Sewer  District No. 1 was formed
      by  action of the Board of Supervisors  after a public hearing and
      approval by New York State Audit and Control.  At the time
      District No. 1 was formed, this agency recommended that other
      districts be formed as soon as engineering studies were completed
      and approved.  Subsequently, a request was received from East
      Greenbush and the City of Rensselaer for the agency to consider
      the feasibility of expanding District  No.  1 facilities to receive
      waste from the southern part of North  Greenbush, East Greenbush
      and the City of Rensselaer.

            Your Rensselaer County Sewer Agency has completed its study
      of  the pollution problems in this area.   Based on the completed
      engineering studies and meetings with  the municipalities and
      industries in the municipalities, we recommend the expansion of
      Sewer District No. 1 to include the entire Town of North Greenbush
      and the entire City of Rensselaer.  The Town of East Greenbush
      will provide its own sewerage facilities by enlarging and upgrading
      its existing treatment plant.

            Estimated costs to individual users are higher than estimated
      in  196? as the result of the current strong inflationary trend
      and higher interest rates.  However, individual costs for the
      expanded District are estimated to be  less than costs would be
      for the existing district.

            Additional information pertaining to the expanded sewer distr:
      is  included in this brochure.

            At the public hearing to be held  on the expansion of Renssela*
      County Sewer District No. 1, we urge each resident to support this
      important program.

                                        Very  truly yours,
                                                     iv /^ 4-
                                          RICHARD W. KEELER
                                          Chairman

-------
                                                                                          308
BACKGROUND
The  need for adequate treatment of sewage and  industrial  waste  discharges to  the  Hudson
River in the vicinity of Troy and  Rensselaer has been recognized  for many years.  The cities of
Troy and Rensselaer, the Towns  of  North Greenbush and  Brunswick and several  industries  in
these communities are under orders by the Commissioner  of the New York  State Department
of Health to conform to time schedules with respect to abatement of pollution.
Early in  1967 the Rensselaer County  Board of Supervisors created  a Rensselaer County  Sewer
Agency  to  prepare maps and  plans for the establishment of a County Sewer District. In  Octo-
ber  1968 Rensselaer County Sewer District  No. I  was created by action of the Board of Super-
visors. This  existing District includes the  City of Troy and portions of the Towns  of Schaghti-
coke, Brunswick, Sand Lake and North  Greenbush.
Subsequently, at the request of the local  municipalities and industries, a study was  made of the
feasibility of expanding the District to include the City of Rensselaer, the southern portion of
the Town of North  Greenbush and the western portion of the  Town of  East  Greenbush.  The
County Agency, with  the  assistance  of  Malcolm  Pirnie Engineers, has completed investigations,
studies,  and negotiations with the  local communities and now  recommends  to  the Board of
Supervisors  that the Rensselaer County Sewer District No.  I be expanded to include all of the
Town of North  Greenbush  and the  City of  Rensselaer. The Town of East Greenbush will not be
in the expanded District, but plan to enlarge and expand its existing treatment facilities.
The  current members of the Agency, each of whom is also a Commissioner of Sewer District
No.  I, are listed below, each with a brief biographic sketch.
RICHARD W. KEELER
Brunswick, N. Y.;
Siena 1950 BBA Acctg;
US Army. World War It;
Supervisor, Town of Brunswick;
Purchasing Agent, John A.
Manning Paper Co. Inc.
PROF. E. J. KILCAWLEY. PE
Troy. N. Y.;
RPI 1928 CE.
RPI 1937 Master CE;
Prof. & Division Head 1938-M,
Sanitary & Environmental
Engineering;
Prof. Emeritus 1944 to date
C. FRED ZIPPRICH, PhD, PE
Troy, N.Y.;
RPI 1958 B Ch E;
Univ. of Minn. I960 MPH;
RPI I9W PhD;
Dept. Chairman, HVCC, Dept.
Public Health
JAMES J BURKE, PE
Troy, N. Y.;
RPI 1937 B Ch E;
US Navy, World War II;
Chief Building  Mechanical
Engineer  NYS Office of
General Services
        JOHN P BUCKLEY
        Troy, N. Y.;
        RPI 1949 B Ch E;
        US Navy Air Corps. World War II,
        Korean War;
        Supt, Bureau of Water and Sewers,
        City of Troy, N. Y.
              EUGENE L. HALSEY, JR., PE
              No. Greenbush, N. Y.;
              RPI 1939 CE;
              US Army, World War II;
              NYS Office of General Services.
              Structural Design of Buildings
                 DONALD B. CROWTHER, PE
                 Sand Lake, N. Y.;
                 Northeastern Univ. 1932 IE,
                 NYS Thruway Authority,
                 Ass't Supt. Thruway
                 Maintenance  Buildings
DISTRICT  LIMITS
The  proposed  expanded Rensselaer County District includes all of the City of Troy, the Pleas-
antdale-Speigletown  section of  Schaghticoke, most of the developed and soon to be developed
areas in Brunswick and  Sand Lake, all of  North Greenbush and all of the City of Rensselaer.
The limits of the Sewer District (see map) have been  established  so that all properties will  ulti-
mately  be served by the interceptor  sewers and treatment facilities are included in the District.

FACILITIES TO  BE PROVIDED
Sewerage systems are made up of sewer collection systems, intercepting sewers, sewage pumping
stations, force  mains and treatment facilities. The proposed County Sewer District  will provide
only intercepting sewers, certain  pumping  stations and force mains and treatment facilities. The
individual communities  will  provide the sewer collection systems.
Much of the developed  portion  of the  proposed District  already has sewer collection systems.
When an unsewered  area requires public sewers and arranges to build a collection system com-
plete with lateral sewers and  house connections,  the appropriate District interceptor  will  be
constructed  to receive this  waste.  The locations of proposed  District interceptor sewers are
shown on the centerfold map.
All sewage in the  District will be  collected by the individual communities'  collection  systems and
conducted by  the proposed interceptor facilities to a treatment plant in a naturally isolated site
to North Greenbush about I '/2 miles south of Troy on the east bank of the Hudson River. As shown
on the map, District facilities will include  I 18,000 feet of interceptor sewers and force mains plus
several  pumping stations and pretreatment facilities.

-------
                        COLUMBIA STREET         FORBES AVE.
                        PUMPING STATION   ,/	PUMPING STATION
                                                              SEWAGE TREATMENT
                                                              	 PLANT
                                         WASHINGTON AVENUE
                                          PUMPING STATION
                                                                 CAMPBELLS HWY.
                                                                 PRE-TREATMENT
                                                                  FACILITIES
        RENSSELAER
    EAST
GREENBUSH
   NORTH

GREENBUSH
                                                               \   _ NORTH GREENBUSH
                                                               \  PUMPING STATION NO.  1
                                                                \
                                                                \
                                                                \
                                                                 \
                                                                 \
                                                                  \
                                                                  \
                                                                   \
SAND   LAKE
                                        \  POESTENKILL
                                                                             \	
         CROOKED    GLASS
                                                                      0246

                                                                  SCALE IN THOUSAND FEET

-------
                                                                              310
,th ST.
G STATION
                                  \ SCHAGHTICOKE
                                                          P.M.
    LEGEND

LIMITS OF PROPOSED RENSSELAER
COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1

EXISTING SEWERS

PROPOSED SEWERS


PROPOSED FORCE MAIN


PROPOSED FACILITY
                                        RENSSELAER  COUNTY  SEWER  AGENCY
                                            PROPOSED   FACILITIES
                              RENSSELAER COUNTY  SEWER   DISTRICT  No. I
                                                    MAY 1969

-------
                                                                                        311
PROJECT  SCHEDULE
It is planned to implement the District as soon as possible  in  accordance  with the  following
schedule:
       June  1969                            Public  hearing called  by Board  of
                                             Supervisors
       January  1970                         Start ad valorem assessment
       September 1970                       Advertise for bids  on first
                                             construction  contract

       November 1972                       Completion of construction,  start of
                                             operation
PROJECT COSTS AND  CHARGES
The total District project is estimated to cost $32,100,000. Based on this cost the Federal and
state grants are expected  to be  $18,360,000  leaving approximately  $13,740,000 to be  raised
by a bond issue.
Total annual costs including the Capital carrying cost for  a  $13,740,000 Bond issue, administra-
tion, operation and maintenance  are estimated to be about $1,763,000 in the first year of oper-
ation.
Annual costs will be supported by an  ad  valorem assessment on all property in the District plus
a user charge for all properties which are actually  using the District facilities. Wet  industries
will be charged in accordance with volume and characteristics of  waste.  It is planned  that the
first ad valorem assessment will be made in January 1970  and user  charges will  start on com-
pletion of construction.
 BENEFITS
 The benefits of a pollution control project are manifold. Dirty, contaminated water is a health
 hazard; its elimination is a necessity.  Experience in other communities has been that the increase
 in property values which accompanies the installation of adequate sewerage facilities has been
 greater than the cost of the  facilities. Real  Estate development and industrial and commercial
 growth tend to flourish where waters  are clean. In addition,  the recreational value of  cleaner
 water for fishing, boating and swimming is, in this age of greater leisure, a significant benefit.

-------
                             WHAT  IT  WILL COST YOU


                         ANNUAL AD VALOREM  ASSESSMENT
                              ALL PROPERTY IN DISTRICT
                                                                             312  -  316
Community



Rensselaer


Troy


Brunswick


North Greenbush


Sand Lake


Schaghticoke
Assessed Value
 Rate
  per
$1,000
                        $0.44

                         0.27


                         1.00

                         0.95

                         1.18

                         0.74
Annual Ad Valorem
    Assessment
                            ANNUAL CHARGES FOR USERS
Annual Ad Valorem Assessment
     (See Above)
User Charge*
Total  Payment to District
Local Sewer Charge
Total  Annual Charge
                                   $-
           *$32.50 per single family unit. Annual charge for multiple family, institutional, commercial, or industrial
            services will be $32.50 times the number of equivalent single family units. Charges to wet industries
            will be based on volume and characteristics of waste.

-------
                   Mrs, C. Bean                      317








                   STATEMENT BY




                 MRS, CHARLES BEAN




                CHAIRMAN DESIGNATE




         NEW YORK STATE CITIZENS TIE-LINE




                     READ BY




                 MRS. ANN MAYNARD






                   MRS. MAYNARD:  Mr. Stein, members of




the panel, ladies and gentlemen:




               I am very happy to make this statement




for Mrs, Bean, whom I have worked with very closely all




these past years.




               Mrs. Bean is Chairman Designate of New




York State Citizens Tie-Line, the volunteer arm of the




Women's Unit of the Executive Chamber, the Capitol.




               Tie-Line was created to encourage pri-




vate citizens and public officials to work together to-



wards solutions of State problems.



               As an outgrowth of this function, particu-




larly well-qualified members of Citizens Tie-Line partici-




pated in a four-part Seminar on Environmental Health which




emphasized problems of water pollution and progress to-




ward their solution.  The purpose of the Seminar was to

-------
                   Bean/Maynard                      318








enable the participants to function effectively as



speakers and resource people within their own communi-



ties.  The Seminar, which was taught by water, air and



solid waste experts from the New York State Department



of Health, and under the overall guidance of Mrs. Anna



Maynard and Mrs. Mary Armstrong, staff public health




educators, provided an intensive look at what has ac-



tually been accomplished and what is planned by the



New York State Pure Waters Program and other State




environmental health programs.  The Speakers can now



from their own knowledge and experience demonstrate to



all interested citizens and groups that real progress



has been made toward controlling pollution.  It is




their further purpose to educate the public at large



by creating public awareness about past accomplishments



and future plans.  They have also been prepared to and



have undertaken major conference planning functions*  They,



thus, serve not only as liaison between the Health Depart-



ment and the community at  large but also as an integral



part of an Environmental Health program.



               One example of what we have done will



serve to demonstrate the value of citizen participation



in water pollution control enforcement.

-------
                   Bean/Maynard                       319


               Our Albany  County Leader  (Mrs.  Raymond

 MarineHi),  a  Seminar  graduate, addressed  the  Delmar
 Progress  Club, as an advocate  of a  proposed  sewer dis-

 trict expansion.  The  referendum involved  a  $10,000,000

 expenditure  and was  one  of the first to  pass in the
 Albany  Region  which  was  remarkable  in light of expressed

 voter disapproval of many  types of  expenditure.
               Since the proposed district expansion
 area  involved several communities  under citation, the

 availability and participation  of a  lay expert  from a

 citizen's  organization to  speak to  local community
 groups  was a key factor  in educating the concerned tax-

 payers  to  the  need for a favorable  referendum  vote.

               This  experience demonstrates  that a well
 informed  and positively  motivated citizen  can  often be

 more  effectively persuasive  than the most  impressive
 technical  expert.
               We from Tie-Line have been  happy to co-
 operate with a Health  Educator who  recognizes  the im-
 portance  of  citizen  participation in community education
 programs,  particularly in  such critical  areas  as the
 recent  referendum.

               We have  also been very gratified to be

-------
                   Bean-Maynard                      320

able to provide staff help for major environmental health
conferences and to provide general background speakers
in the Pure Waters Program,  We recognize the importance
of creating a well-informed citizenry who may at a future
time be a constructive force not only in the passage of
referenda but also in forming a climate of opinion which
helps persuade private industry to cooperate with the
Pure Waters Program.
               Thank you.
               MR. STEIN:  Thank you.
               Are there any comments or questions?
               (No response)
               MR. STEIN:  If not, thank you very, very
much.
               MR. METZLER: This group of women has been
particularly helpful, certainly in New York State, and
we are very grateful for their leadership and for their
good statement.
               MR. STEIN:  I love it.  You know, there
is nothing like these seminar graduates.  Mostly I have
to depend on MIT graduates, like Lester  (laughter).
               MR. METZLER:  I have no comment.
               We would like, if it is possible then, to

-------
                   P. Eastman                        321








move ahead with the statement by the New York State Health




Department.



               Paul Eastman, who is the Assistant Com-



missioner, will make the presentation.






                   STATEMENT BY



                MR. PAUL W. EASTMAN




              ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER



             DIVISION OF PURE WATERS




        NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH






               MR. EASTMAN:  Mr. Stein, conferees and



ladies and gentlemen:



               I am Paul Eastman, the Assistant Com-



missioner for the Division of Pure Waters of the New



York State Department of Health.



               In addition, we have with us from the



Department the Chief Engineer for the office of New York



Affairs, Mr. Albert Machlin, and his associate, Mr. Charles



Miles.  We also have the regional engineer for the White



Plains Region, Mr. John E. Harrison, and we have from



Albany headquarters, Mr. Donald Stevens, the director of



the Bureau of Water Quality Management.



               This progress report summarizes the status

-------
                   P. Eastman                        322








of pollution abatement and control in the watersheds of



the Hudson River extending from the Battery to the



Federal Lock  at Troy, New York, and the interstate



tributaries comprising the waters of the Newark Bay,



the Arthur Kill, the East and Harlem Rivers and the Upper



Bay of New York Harbor.  The problems associated with the




pollution of interstate waters under consideration at this



conference pertain primarily to discharges of raw and



inadequately treated municipal and industrial wastes.




The following represents a brief summary of New York



State's water pollution control programs and activities;



detailed information as of May 15, 1969,is appended.



               MR. STEIN:  It will be included in the



record as if read without objection.



               MR. EASTMAN:  Enforcement



               A total of 50 orders or stipulations have



been issued by the Commissioner of Health containing a



time schedule for providing remedial works by 1972 for



all discharges violating quality standards and provisions



of the water pollution control law.  A total of six



polluters have been  notices for hearings to establish



Commissioner's orders and voluntary schedules have been



reached with respect to 101 sources of waste discharges.

-------
                    P. Eastman                         323
*
Details  regarding  individual polluters  are  summarized
in Appendix A.
               An  investigatory hearing was held  by the
State  Department of Health in  March 1969, to consider
whether  the City of New York would be able  to adhere to
the  construction schedule submitted to  the  Department
of Health in  December 1968.  Pertinent  correspondence
resulting from the hearing addressed to city officials
by the Commissioner of  Health  is  contained  in Appendix
A.   New York City representatives will discuss at this
conference the City's progress in the program outlined
in the December  1968 schedule.
Comprehens ive Sewerage  Studies
               Thirty-four area wide sewer  collection
and  treatment facility  studies have been  supported
by 100 per cent  State grants  to municipalities/ repre-
senting  a total  amount  of about $2,800,000.  Twenty
projects recommended by these  studies are either being
implemented or are being considered for implementation
by local officials. Details regarding  these studies
are  summarized in  Appendix B.
Permit Issuance  -  Municipal &  Industrial  Treatment Facili-
ties
               A total  of 44 municipal  and  industrial

-------
                   P. Eastman                        324








waste treatment proposals have either been approved or




are under review.  Approval of plans and permit issuance



are preconditions for State municipal construction grants.



Details regarding municipal proposals submitted since



1965 are listed in Appendix C; industrial proposals in




Appendix D.



Construction Grants



               A total of 37 municipal projects have been




completed, are under construction or will be placed under



construction within the year.  State grants are by far



the major assistance to municipalities because appropriations



have been far short of authorizations for the Federal



construction grants.  More than$400 million



construction works eligible for State and Federal assis-



tance are involved.



               New York will contribute nearly $220



million in grant funds whereas Federal grants will total



only approximately  $23 million.        Details regarding



individual projects  are contained in Appendix E.




Operation and Maintenance



               Municipalities operating sewage treatment



faciliites in a manner acceptable to the Commissioner



of Health are reimbursed to the extent of one-third  the

-------
                   P. Eastman                        325








cost of operating and maintaining these facilities;



approximately $9,460,200 of a total eligible cost of



$36,960,258 have been approved for payment.  Ten ap-




plications were denied because of failure to comply



with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Com-



missioner.  Further details are summarized in Appendix



F.



Standards and Surveillance



               State programs to control and abate pol-



lution of waters in the Hudson River recognize changing



conditions resulting from industrial and population



growth including the increased use of the river for




water supply.  At the recommendation of the Health De-



partment, the Water Resources Commission held a public



hearing and upgraded to Class A (water supply) a 44



mile stretch of river from the vicinity of Hyde Park



to Coeymans.



               The Commission, at the Health Depart-



ment's recommendation/ held a series of hearings to



obtain comments and suggestions regarding thermal cri-



teria developed by a Task Force of State representatives;



these criteria together with rules and regulations are



expected to be presented to the State Water Resources

-------
                   P. Eastman                        326








Commission for approval at a special meeting on July 2,



1969.



               In addition to the programs of standards



and classifications, the State maintains a monitoring



network to provide information regarding water quality.



A total of 12 Hudson River stations are sampled at a



weekly to monthly frequency; details regarding the pro-




gram are summarized in Appendix G.



Water Quality Evaluation



               A mathematical model depicting the physi-



cal, biological, hydrological and chemical inter-



relationships of the Hudson River from the Battery to



the lock at Troy will be completed by the end of 1969.




This engineering tool provides a capability to assess



effects of waste discharges upon water quality taking



into consideration projected population and industrial



growth.  Information provided by the consulting engi-



neers developing the model has been used in evaluating



proposed projects located in the Hudson watershed.




Research



               Projects carried on both in house and



under contract will be useful in coping with pollution




problems in the Hudson River Basin.  The  "Hudson River



Biological Monitoring System" which is nearing completion

-------
                   P. Eastman                        327








consists of four biological monitoring stations in



fresh water and marine environment.  The organisms



contained in these stations after filtering the surface



waters are subject to periodic sampling and quanti-



tative study of organic and inorganic contaminates such



as insecticides, radioactive substances and trace ele-




ments.  The results of this effort will provide another



tool to evaluate water quality.



Conclusion



               The Hudson River watershed represents




a major area of population and industrial development.



Water uses recognized by the classes assigned to these




waters include public water supply, bathing, fishing,



shellfishing and other uses.



               New York State's water pollution control




programs are directed to providing known methods of waste



treatment and to maintaining quality standards in the



receiving waters consistent with the classes assigned



to these waters by the State Water Resources Commission



taking cognizance of other standards applying to inter-



state and boundary waters.




               The State, its municipalities and indus-



tries have contributed and will continue to contribute

-------
                   P.  Eastman                        328








vast sums of money to  prevent and control pollution



in the Hudson River watershed.  An equivalent effort is



needed on the part of  the Congress and the Federal Execu-



tive Branch not only to fulfill their promises for fi-




nancial assistance for construction of municipal waste




treatment facilities but also to control pollution from



Federal sources.



               The abatement of pollution from the Water-



vliet Arsenal represents a step forward.  However, the



reported diversion to other uses of approved funds to




construct secondary treatment facilities at the U. S.



Military Academy is a step backward and a disconcerting



precedent.  Correction of this problem would set a good



example for other polluters to follow.  It along with




appropriation of the full amount authorized for Federal



construction grants would represent action comparable



to that expected of State and local governmental en-



tities.






APPENDIX A



ENFORCEMENT STATUS




May 15, 1969



HUDSON RIVER BASIN



Table Explanation

-------
                   P. Eastman                        329

*
               Location  - municipal subdivision location
of  non-municipal entities.   (T)  -  Town;  (V)  - Village;
 (c)  - City.
               Pop. or flow  -  1960 census population of
community  if  known/ residency  and  employment of insti-
tution,  or industrial waste  flow of corporation.
               Abatement Status
               A - Under Commissioner's  Orders
               B - Hearing noticed to established Com-
missioner's Order
               C - Hearing to  be noticed during 1969
               D - Under Department directive  (voluntary
compliance)

               E - Identified  as polluter
                   1. Identified
                   2. Initial  conference held
                   3. Schedule established
                   4. Solution established via preliminary
report approval  (including special study)
                   5. Final  plans  submitted  and approved
                   6. Under  construction
                   7. Completion of construction, in-
stallation of facilities or  internal modifications.
                   8. Abatement  partially achieved

-------
                   P. Eastman                        330








               9. Abatement achieved



Construction completion deadline



               (2)  No schedule established



               Compliance with Commissioner's Order or



Voluntary Schedule




               1. Compliance with schedule



               2. Technical non-compliance with schedule,



but progress deemed satisfactory



               3. Non-compliance with schedule, progress




unsatisfactory.







                     * * *

-------
                                                                                                     331
CMCMCM          CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
                                                                                                CM
J>    <   .>
>   <   >
                  -tOOOOO
                  c-    T~    t*    j-    c-    j-
                                                                  i-JO
                                                                  P-    r-
co    co
                                    *    *
                                     I     I
                                                it
                                                      co
                                                                   m    rl
                                                                   i    i
i   

                              vO
                                    co
                                      
                                    o
                                          CM
                                                      a
                                                            co
                                                       i-l    00
                                                                        
H



s








a.
K
5

H

2
D
O
O
OS
W
<
,J
w

CO

CO
2

til
as





Sanita



i








u
o
ID
1


ft
ID
H

                                                 in
                                                 in
                                    cS            3



2*
      I
      O.


      i
Renssela
Cohoe

-------
   .J
                        OJ
                                               CM
                                                                       OJ
                                                                                   OJ
                                                                                        332

o
H
w
=
ABATEMENT CC
CU OS
a o
a.

t-H
^
Ul
-;;)
t-3
U,
tt.
PJ

3^
< OS
OS O






g.
I-H

;_
HJ
o
UU
OS


























r-,
U!
0
to
t-"1
CO
o

UH



01
CU

-H

>*
-^
^
*H
OS
r- 1





as
LU
r-H

1
o
o
in
CN

^,
^
ro

H
C

>~
ro
6
 H
^j
O-.




as

j^
o
CO
13
T



x ^
f !
^s


H
CO
0)
.C
a



5
ro
DS




cs

c
0
CO
D
^
K
r-.
*^*f

-P
0)
H


rH
0)
-P
I








O
0

c
c

o
0
r-
o
o
OJ
r-

>

c?
p
H
C

>
ft.
E
H
^_l
cu

H

H
DS

C
O
J)
*o
D
K


>r ^
( t
s 	 

o
H
C
O
8







Q

CO

c
3

ro
O
r-
rH
1
r-

co
rH

>-

(0
_p
H
C
CO



r;
ro
os




DS

C
O
CO
a
"
X















o


^J
QJ
H
i  t
>
fH
P
.ro
vO
rH
vD
a
e
CO
o



Dl
C
-H
-P
ro
rH
CU



S
ro
OS




CS

C
o
CO
T3
3
:c
O


-p
a>
H


rH
ru
^3
^
ro
C
0)
CO
fH


-p
0)
 H
,*H
>
jLj
ai
p
i
O
^~
a
CT>
^.

1-1
c

PL,

rH
ro
-p
N
C
m
O^
rH
rH
O
r-
rH
3
CO
OJ

^,
r_,
ro
p
H
C.




3.
ro
as




os

c
o
CO
a
J
K

















^  ,
>
^ ^

CO
o
C
ro
1
O
rH
8
0
0

J>,
(H
(0
-P
H
C
ro
CO
fH
ro
e
H
fH
CU
.a
H
fH
H
OS

C
0
Ul
TS
3
a:


^i.
f__,
^_^

O
H
C
O
)
cS

Q



D
OS

*
rC
O
CO
1
j
rH
O
1
O
o
vD

>.
fH
to
-p
H
C
ro
CO



3;
CO
ffi
_^
H
fH

OS

c;
o
CO
c
^J
a:


s*~*.
f_Hj
** *

0)
 rH
C
o
r-H
3




Q

CO

^*
C
ro

rH
"^
s
O rH
r- ^~-
i 1 rH
Ol
o r-
O CT1
O OJ
rH rH

r** ^~
fH fH
ro ro
-p -p
H -H
c c
3 55
fH
o3 rrj

5 5 'fH
ro ro fn
DS DS CU
^
rH

H
os os

c c
0 0
CO CO
-O T3
5 5

^

T3
C
ro
rH
fH
0)
o
rH
H
5


d

CO


t  i  
rH O

p>
C >
S c
O ro
JJ rH
O
^ .
vf
1
a
01


o

o3
rj
C C
Ol-H
3 -^
ro o
rH 03
co a.



s
ro
CS
.Q
H
fH

as

c
o
0)
a
Z3
x



x~^
o



c
CD
<


Q

en
C
H
^i
0
ro
cu

c
rH
H
O
\
\
<
I
O
o
OJ


^
in
ro
-P
H
C
(S
M
ro

H
fH
CU

iH
fH
H
OS

C
o
CO
t3
3
*~*

"P
X^^"

e
0)
.e
a>
rH
f*
0)
ea
*
o

CO
OJ
fH
0)
e
CO
rH
W
1
fH
ro
6
Q

-------
 I
CO
 I







fl
S
Ol
ID
_l
0,
Oi
Ol















































POP.
NT OR ABATEMENT COMPLETION
FLOW STATUS DEADLINE COMPLIANCE
Ol Ol
D OH
r-1 >-.
0, P
0,
01
OJ
o
<
i-H
1-1
in
<
o
r-H
C
CM
>.
fn
CO
-p
H
C
55



>H
os
S OS <
< o s
OS n
DS
OH
>.
M
CO
E
H
CH
O,


XI
H
h
H

O
2
M OS
> 01
M H
Ol <
0 S
S

OS

C
o
cn
a
r>
E









2
O
rH
H
<














01
O
g
Q
W

Ol
t-H
CO
g


^


CO
c
CD
>
&
CM
O
<
1 t
i-H
tO
<
s
00

CO
-p
H
C
&






g
CO
OS

*
X!
H
(H
H


os

C
0
cn
-0
S





, v.
H


U)
C


?
CD
8







,  ..
X

(S)
C

g
^,
0)
8
i-H
O
vO
i-H
r-
00
&
o
cn
0
CM
>
(H
co
06 -P
H
.-H C
H CO
o co




1
c
0 >.
0 (H
CD CO
W T5








os

c
0
to
D
3





[-1


e
CD
x:
CD
i-H
x:
P
CD
m







rH
CO
IH
-P
C
d>
O

c
c
CD
OH
*
CM
t
W

<
3
cn
C
H
.X
O
CO
OH






g
CO
OS








os

c
o
cn
D
D
E








O


tn
CD
O
x:
8




*
8

01
c
iH
.X
O
CO
o.

(H
(H
3
*
CM
*^
si-
01
O
o
CM
rT
CO
P
H
C
S






g
cS


XI
H
IH
(-.


os

c
0
tn
D
5





H



CD
x;
CD
1 t
.c
-p
s








.  *,
S-

J^
^
H
A!
-H

*
Ol
S  '
*
Ol
T3
Cn
in
rH

o
CD
-H
 H
-p
X
s






g
CO
os








OS

c
o
cn
T3
D








O


tn
CD
O
x;
8








X
CD
H

(H
CO
-p
CO
>
i-|
2

3
0

u


Ol
2
01
01

OS

O










































CM
ON
<
-H
O
-H
<-
<
in
CM
00
in
2T
CO
-P
H
C
(S






g
CO
OS








os

c
0
U)
o
5






















,- >.
>^

I
rH
H
>;
V)
-P
3
CM
<5
<
r-H
iH
^J-
<


tn
C
CD
x;
p
<
i-H
CM
S
00
ro
<
o\
5t
CO
CM
>.
h
CO
-P
H
C
CO
CO






g
CO
os








os

c
o
cn
a
S





















^ *,
>

CD
H
,*
O
CO
to
X
8
>
!-H
2

3
O

O


<
M
pa
s.

:D

-I

O

O






































OJ
o
<
^H
>
vO
1
<
TD
C7l
CM
O
>-
fn
CD
C
c3






g
CO
o;


XI
H
fH
H


OS

c
0
to
D
5





> 	 *
[-


-p
C



CD
i-l
0





-P
H
D
t<
O,
-P
C
Q
g
H
CD
i-H
O
>
!-<
2

D
O

O


w
CO
01
E

o

H

S3

Q






































i-H
*
l~-
i-H
CO
CO
i
rH
r-
>,
(H
CO
H->
H
C
a



>
(H
CO
H
CH
OH








os

c
o
to
o
5

^^^
O
^-^

CD
H
cn
D.
CD
CD
^4
x:
Oi
0
OH





CD
p
CO
-p
CO

D: rH
CO
C -P
O -H
cn Q,
73 tn

r-l
^
<
>
5)-
t
pa
8
o

in
^t
rT
CO
P
H
C
CO
W



>,
h

H
rl
a,








os

c
o
in
TD
3



















X*>s
^J

0)
M
U)
D.
CD
CD
^
x;
cn
3
O
OH
333
CM
s_
i-H
>
^j-
<
o
o
o
o

CO
r-
^
> rH
fn
CO
-p
iH
C
55



>,
rl
CO
H
IH
PH








os

c
o
J)
T3
5
























o


c
o
O
CO
- X
c a>
CO
XI tU
-H x:
< -P
CD C
_C *iH
-P
T3
O CD
-P -D
3
P rH
CJ 0
CD C
C -H
C
O CD
0 X!

rH rH
i-H i-H
H H
s s

* *

-------





























fe
01
3
fe
01












<
M
_l
2
O
M Ol
H 2
Ol M
.-I 1-1
Q,, Q
o S
CJ Q

U
S CO
OJ D
H H
< <


$






X  .
CM





V
Ol

o
Ol
SSS
CX, 0,

rH


o3

UJ Ol
D cx,
1-1 >
LL| (-H
0)
Ol fH
C CO
H -P
P -H
CO C
rH (0
CX, CO
>
cn
s <
< en s
*
CX,

3
a
AS
0)
0)
f_(
O
o
2
rH EC
> 01
M H
01 <
CJ S

r_ (
rH
H
A!

in


rH



O

"V^
rH
*j-
-1



f
(^

73
Ol
e
CO

o3

fH
to

H
C
a
^
f_l
1
H
fH
CX,
AS
CU
01
fH
o

rH
rH
H
A:

I/)
                                                        *
                                                        CO
                                                                             CM
                                                                                           CM
vO

Q
       co     in
CO

Q

                                                               O
                                                                                    CM
                                                                                           0
                                                                                           f-
                                                                                                  0
                     Q


8
CN
CM
%
CO
p
H
C

CO

CO
E
'fH
CX

f^
tu
>
H
cn

c
o
CO
a


^

2


fH
tu
a
to
cx
ET
CO
E
'fH
rx

fH
tu
>
H
cn

c
o
CO
73


CM

CO
fc
(0
-P
H
C
CO
CO
fH
CO
E
'm
CX
AS


Ul
fH
tu
01
c
H
a.
a
o
01
E
t~-

0
fH
CO
-P
H
C


g.
(0
H

cx
"tu
tu
fH
o

( t
r-t
rH
_x
J~]
U?
00

pa
                                a
                                01
CO

m
                               o

                                i1

                               CO
                                           to
                                       03 -P
                                          H
                                       tu  c
                                       >> CO
                                       O CO
                                           fH
                                           CO
                                3
                                CO
                                cn
                                 cu
                                 0)
                                .C
                                 co
                                tu
                                0)
                                                 o

                                                 CJ
                  D

                  CX
                                       rt
                                    C
                                    o
                                    CO
                                u) "O
                                       UH
2
O
M
H
S
8

g
g
CO
fn   
tu >
Oi  '
C
rH (/)
Q.rH
G.'H
^0 (0
fH
to 01
P C
CO .H

tu
tu
fH

N
H
73
O

Fishkill ('
o
0
CO
X

ton S.D. Poughkeeps
01
c
H
rH
fH
hograph Co. Poughkeeps
.p
|H
i-J
3
CO

CO
fH
-x:
rH CO
73
C
tu
CO
fH
H
C
H
Oi
03
in
o
CM
CO
-p
H
c
(D
co


3
CO
K




a!
C
0
CO
T3














*'"""'
^>
IdSpring (
8
o
Ol
in
rH
fH
CO
-P
rH
C
fO
CO


3
CO
cn




cn
c
o
CO
o


"^
-- -
01
H
fH
CX
CO
o
f"H
o
o






*
9*
notone Coi
CO

H

2

0
O
en
01
H
CO
,_)
D























in
CO
CO
H-1
H
C
CO
CO

fH
H
fH
CX,



cn
rH
rH
H
^
rH
r-H















r~~*
N
-P
rH
CO
a
3
2
CM
1
Ol
fH
Or*
a
CO
cx,


3
cn


A!
CD

fn
C
O
o
CO
Sj
^H
T3
CO
to
in
o
. tU
ON (J
\O C
O tu
1 '"U
c">
H tU
c c
rH.H
O1CO
a> H->
rj j3
o
O
-P 0
C
o ai
H C
Being ref
Construct
* Attempti i
*
* ?

-------
                        CM    ~j
W        K
s        <
r-J  S    S
tin  < a n
UH  ce o as
w        a.
       S
       t-i  a,
       >  w
       M  H

       8  Si
       W
                 a
                  cn


                 in
                   
                 o
                 H
                  C

                 55
                        H
                         CD
                         CU
                        o
                         a.
                         o
                         in
                        W
                               Oi
                               CM
                               M
 ro
 g
-H
 fH
a.
                                      2:
o

o


cu

CD
                                      a:

                                      o
 c
 o
 U)
a

x


o
8
ro
CO
e-
ro
-P
H
C
ro
w


3
ro
OS

m

H


3
ro
a
.
CD
OJ
fH
U
ro
C
a
o
o


p


I 1
r-H
73
Dl

>O

CD


fH
-
fH
ro
-p
H
C


>-
fH
ro
E
rH
fH
a.
^
cu
cu
f-t
0
ro
C
o
o
q

P
fH
o
in
TD
C
                                                                                                        UJ
                                                                                                        o
                                                                             ro
                                                                            p
                                                                             fH
                                                                             ro

                                                                            H
                                                    H

                                                    4->
                                                     X

                                                     CU
                                              3
                                              re
                                              OS
                                                                                    CU
                                                                                    CD
                                                     ro
                                                     -p
                                                     H
                                                     c
 In
 ro

H
 fH
a.
                                                                                          a
        fH     fH

        ro     ro

       +>     -P
       H     .rH
        C     C
        ro     ro
                                       C
                                       o
                                       m
                                       13
                                                                                                  fH
                                                                                                 a,
                                                                                                 cc
                                                                                                 H

                                                                                                 .X
H

 fH
a,
                                                                                                        oe
                                                                                    o
                                                                                    in
                                                                                    O
                               a
                                >.
                                o
                                              g
                         01

                         cu
                        H
                        -p

                         fH
                         CD
                         Ol

                         3


                        S
                         "D


                         ro
                         r-H


                         Di
                         H
cr

x:
Dl
fH
3
Xl
1e
&
ai
H
>
ro

O
iH
-P
cn

cn
r-H
-H
ro
UH

TD
C
ro
i i
x:
Dl
H
E
8
-p
r-H
CD
OH

C
ro
o
H
fH
CD


>


c
cu
T3
rH

>f x
^>
>.
fH

3
O
Dl
-P
C
i
0
CO
cu o
.* -p
ro co
U 0
>H
fH C
cu ro
> x:
r-H 0
H CD
W g































>
H

3!

3


Q
2;
t
j

:*:
a

o
a!


































^ ^
CM
^






CO
1
01



Di

CM

r-H


O)
(P
ro
Di
cu
(H
51

!>v
C
ro

(0
K




cu
H
f.)
-P
01
-g
C
I-H

.M
O
O
a


1-1




* i
t--
\
rH
>
t-H





^f

<




vO
*H
vD
in


>-
fH
ro
P
H
c
c^

>,
fH
H
fH
a.




*
c;
c
o
in
D
5













>
3
ro
fH
-p
10
fH
CD
>
ro
sn


r-I





O
5>
>
<
in1





in
i
<




o
o
CO
vD


>.
fH
ro
-p
H
C
$

>,
fH
ro
H
fH
O,




.
os
c
o
Ol
D
3











^t

3
ro
fH
-p
in
fH
o
>
ro
K

4
S
^
*
*
*






,i-~^.
CM
v"'






*

PQ










c<3
>.
CU H
i ro
H 4J
P -H
X E
!?



3
ro
OS

X^
H
*^
H
.
CS
c
o
0)
-D
D
m


>


CD
-H
*iH
>
fH
CU
C
h
.3




CD
$
CD
0
CD
H
a, 01
,*
^ fH
r-H C>
w s
'_>
*
*
+






X---N,
CM







tf

m










o3
0)
rH
H
p
X
CD
H



3
ro
OS


A
-H
fn


ce
c
o
in
T3
5


>


0)
1 1
'E
CD
C
fH
3


8
rr
tj*
c
nH
01
H
C
H
OH

CO

03

W
C E
o cu
HH-t->
Dl to
cu >
fH Ul
c
^H
C
0
H
ro
a
H
U
-P
fH
1C
a.
tH
o
MH

O>
C
H
HP
ro
^H
p
0
D>
i
r^ ^
ro
fH
H->
&
ro 
p ,
^H ">
c"2
(^ ro 
T3O
c r-
ro o>
P i-H
Ul
^
E <0
roS
CD
fH >-
-P X!
cn
D
O CD
C -P
O
> 3
>. fH
-P H->
H in
rH C
^H 0
0 CJ
ro
M-I CD
XI
-p
C rH
CD -H
E .rH
-P 3
ra
CD -P
fn ro
PX:
. -p
rTfH
ro O
B -P
.rH O-
fH (U
a
T3 CU
0) -P
-P C
O -
go
+J -p
in
C -P
0 <->
U CL>
C
-* 
rH O
P 0
C

O rH
cu ^-*
CC r^

^c
i *

-------
ABATEMENT COMPLETION
STATUS DEADLINE COMPLIANCE

ol ce o
O O i-J
OH U~>



f-H
25
Ul
D Ul

p, ^
PL, H
U4


ce
1 0 S
ce
OH




> s
I-H H
W <










3
o

^;



ui
o
Ul
f-.
CO
^
i-H
i-H
1
73
i1
in
0



.-H
ro
o
H
e
01
g



i
FH




ce
c
o
CO
73




.^^
(1
^_^

*
-p
OH

C
CO



6
Ul
0)

1
U4

O
i-H



^,
fa
ro
-p
H
C
to
CO


FH
ro
FH
OH



ce
C
o
U)
73
















.X
O
ro
FH
CD
a
a
"CM"
i
LU

in
in



>
FH
ro
-p
H
c



>-
i
FH
OH



ce
c
0
tn
73
X
















0
ro
i


CO



>,
FH
ro
-p
H
C




i
FH
OH



ce
c
o
in
73
















o
1
p

i
CO
v>
r-H
in
73
i1
in





FH
01
a
ro
OH



to
^
OH



ce
c
o
tn
73





f~**
>
N  '

4J
C


01
H
OH

cS
C
5
i-H
ro
tinent
c
Q
i-H
i-H

O
o
in



*,
FH
ro
p
H
C
CO



e
FH
OH
.
iH
FH
H
ce
c
o
in
73



^_^
f-H


5
ro
FH
-p
Ul
FH
01
1


0
O
O
CO
x:
chwort
-P
01
i-H
i-H
i-H
Q
73
01
s
CM



,
FH
ro
H
C



>
ro
FH
OH



ce
c
o
CO
73

^_^
H

5
ro
FH
-p
Ul
FH
01
ro
K
3


a
Ul
o
ro
01
ce
CO
i-H
-H
1

j



^,
FH
ro
-p
iH
c
s


FH
i
FH
OH



JS
C
O
in
73
S







-p
OH

Ul
CO
ro
FH


Q
ow
13
CO
g.73
O ro
 0
r-H
CM
i-H
1
73
Ol
>"
H

22 r**
FH
-p
O -H
C
 &

ce
Ul FH
H i
co *FH
a,
w
a:
o
CO 
ce
c
S 0
Ul
73
S















"cj
i-H
i-H
Ul
111
01
OH
-H
O
rH
Q
73
Ol
g



Ul
01
c
H
r~^
Ul
i




ro
ce



ce
c
o
Ul
73
&



^ 	 x
O
^^

f-H
i-H
H
Ul
,X
01
(U
OH

^
01
c
o
p
CO
73
ro
i-H
p
FH
8
00
vQ
i-H
1
73 73

in o
0 
 i-H
c
OS -H
-p
>- ro
FH -P
ro C
-P 01
H 
C FH
CO f r i




ro
ce



ce
c
0
CO
73
3



f 	 ^
0


rH
i-H
H
Ul

01
01
OH

8
Brands
73
FH
ro
73
ro
&
CM
O
rH
- vO
JT
Q
73
Ol
in
o


Ul
01

H
CO
ro
FH
^




ro
ce



ce
c
o
in
73
S



t 	 ^
(_3
^^^

i-H
-H
H
10
.X
01
Ol
OH


Optical
01
p
H
i-H
ro
73
W
*
CO
rH
vD
73
01
CM
O

o2 Ol
^>
>- *rH Ul
FH -P Ol
to o C
-P  .H
rH O X!
C 0 Ul



>
ro
iH
FH
OH



ce
c
o
Ul
73
5:






*r N.
^^
^^f

O
-p



ce
ce
ro
FH
p
c
c
c
01
OH
CM
CO
i-H

O
O
CO
vO



>,
FH
ro
-p
H
C



>
i
rH
FH
a



ce
c
o
U)
73















">
-Hudson
c
o
c
o
-p
o
r-H
CO
I 1
00
a
o
o
o
in
r-t



^,
FH
ro
H
C
ro
CO


FH
to
rH
FH
OH



ce
c
0
Ul
73
S




^-^
^>
^^-*

01
C
H
-C
rH
Ul
Ul
O


CO
-P
CO
FH
-p
33
i-H
CO
i-H

CO



>,
H
ro
p
H
C.
&


%
i
FH
a,



ce
c
0
CO
73
S




rf~^
^>
. 	 ^

Ol
C
H
C
H
CO
Ul
O


a.
S
p
CO
p'
FH
X!
H
^
;; will connect to District Plant;
Company plant vs connection to
i being installed.
f" U]
O *[ | Ci
H O O
h H->
P C to
<" 0 FH
H .H ro
Q -P D.
0 01
w 3 w
3J FH
> -P i-H
Oi tn -H
CO c O
o
"*~* O rH
p-1 ro
^^ D) c
c -S S
S'-P '-p
0 ro 
ra PJ .
C3* 1
^
CO
73
73 O -p
3 vO c
0 rH 0
C _ 0
h-H C-
. *" O
X j_> "^*
fH -p
to o
~-P 0)
-P -*
"^ S $
C 0.*
0 E
H O
-p O -
o 6
01 tH 0)
C O HJ
0 C >.
o o u>
H
Ol-P --
coo
H 3 ^
FH FH
O -P r-H
73 Ul r-H
rH C .H
CO O Ji
C U 
-------
                                                                                                                                        337
                                                                                        CM
         I U]
         i 2:
                                                      CM
                                                             CM
                                                                   CM
                                                                   f-
                 Ctf
                        a
                              Of
CO"
                                                                                                 .00
tu
w
ABATEMEl
*
a. cc
o o
a.
H
W

^_]
U.
(1.
W

< 
ce


STATUS
5
s
CO


(i, CM


W
a
fc

1
s

OJ
a.
>,
re
-p
H
C
CO
>.
CO
H
FH
OH
1
o
o
o
rH
>-
CO
-p
H
C
f>
CO
fH

H

a.
Q

o
o
CM
>,
CO
-p
H
C
re
CO

i
H
fH
CU
Q
o
i1

m
o


p
c
rH
re
a

CO
tH
f^
a.






>.
re
fH
Q.
CO





                                               Q
                                                                   o
                                                                   o
                                                                   o
                                               00
                                                      o
                                                      .-H
                                                      re
                                                      p
                                                      H
                                                      C
                        z
                        re
                        -p
                        H
                                                      fH
                                                      (X
                        fH
                       ex.
 re
-p
H
 c
H

 FH
OH
                                     O
                                     o
                                     o
 FH
 re
-p
rH
 c
 re

H
 fH
a.
              o
              o
              o
              o
              i1
                                                                                       o
              re
              p
                                                                                 re
              fH

              PL,
                                                                                       o
                                                   FH
                                                   re

                                                  H
                                                             a    ^
                                     Dl
                                                                   CO

                                                                   o
                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                  fO
                                                             x:
                                                             a.
                                                                                                        od
                              fH
                              re
                              p  fn
                              -<  CO
                              C  Dl
                              CO  3
                              CO CO
                                                                                                        re
                                                                                                        e
                              fH
                              a,
                                                                                                  fH
                                                                                                  H
O
55
> jjj
M H
OJ <
0 S
W
K
*
cc
c
o
U)
o
3


ce
c
0

T3
13
CC

a
c
0
Ul
D
3
K

er
c
o
in
"0
^
cn


c
o
in
T!
3
K
*
cc
c
0
en
73
^3
DC

a
c
o
in
T>
-^j
K
%
a
c
o
in
"O
D

^
a
c
o
in
T3
3
K
,

o
o
p
fH
re
2

O
4-'
F=T
FH
CO
c
O
p
Dl
C
H
>
fH
M

Q
CO
-X
o
o
fH
m
c
H
i-H
Q
CO
in
fH
0)
c
o
>H
Q
CO
o
i-H
r-l
0)
o
<
s
s
c
iH
C
H
U]
in
O
o
0
H
S

o
in
TS
-3
3:
                                                                                                  Dl
                                                                                                  C
                                                                                                  re
                                                                                                  FH
                                                                                                  0)
                                                                                                        O
                                                                                                        to
                                                                                                        M
                                                                                                        CU

                                                                                                        c
                                                                                                        o
                                                                                                        in
                                                                                                        a.
                                                                                                        FH   
                                                                                                        > O
                                                                   T!
                                                                   CD
                                                                   C
                                                                                                        
-------
                   P. Eastman                        338








New York City Area




Discharge into Hudson River, Harlem River, East River,



Upper and Lower Bay and the Kill Van Kull



MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES



Wards Island - Manhattan



               SCH Stipulation calls for completion of



construction by April 1971.  Making satisfactory progress,



abatement partially achieved through construction of




treatment facilities.



North River - Manhattan



               SCH Stipulation calls for completion of



construction by February 1972.  Plant is presently being



redesigned for step aeration.



Newtown Creek - Brooklyn



               SCH Stipulation calls for completion of



construction by January 1969.  Making satisfactory pro-



gress, abatement partially achieved through construc-



tion of treatment facilities.



Red Hook - Brooklyn




               SCH Stipulation calls for completion of



construction by December 1971.  Wastewater Facilities



Report being prepared.



Owl's Head - Brooklyn

-------
                   P. Eastman                        339








               SCH Stipulation relates only to chlorina-




tion facilities with a completion deadline of May 1968.



Compliance with this due date is unknown. Wastewater



Facilities Report under review, making satisfactory



progress.



Port Richmond - Staten Island



               SCH Stipulation calls for completion of



construction by December 1970.  Wastewater Facilities



Report approved, making satisfactory progress.



Oakwood Beach_- Staten Island



               SCH Stipulation calls for completion of



construction by December 1971.  Making satisfactory




progress.  Awaiting submission of wastewater facilities



report.



Tottenville - Staten Island



               SCH Stipulation calls for completion of



construction by July 1970.  Making satisfactory progress



Awaiting submission of wastewater facilities report.








INDUSTRIAL POLLUTERS



Table Explanation




               Location - municipal subdivision



Priority       1.  Major importance - large polluter,

-------
                  p. Eastman
                                      340
Abatement
  Status
Compliance
key polluter, polluting substance highly

toxic, sensitive receiving stream flow or

quality-wise.

2.  Normal importance - polluters be-

tween Categories 1 and 3.

3.  Minor importance - small polluter, large

stream, low classification, minor pollu-

tional impact on stream,  i.e., small septic

tank discharge to large stream.


1.  Identified (Abatement Plan)

2.  Initial Conference held

3.  Schedule established

4.  Solution established via preliminary

report approval  (including special study)

b.  Final plans submitted and approved

6.  Under construction

7.  Completion of construction, installa-

tion of facilities of internal modifications

8.  Abatement partially achieved

9.  Abatement achieved

1.  Compliance with schedule

2.  Technical non-compliance with schedule,

but progress deemed satisfactory

3.  Non-compliance with schedule, progress

unsatisfactory

-------
                                                                                                                                        341
                PU


                <

                      CM
                                   CM
                                          CM    
 c
 ro
i-H
 U)
M

 c
 
H
(U
73

C
ro
p
-p
ro
JS
c


c
ro
g
8
ro
i-H
8

H
CO
Q.
CD
CX
C
ro
8
en
H
C
H

ro

o
CO

^

c3
fi,

O
c
M
O
CJ
D
C
ro
c
o
CO
E
ro
H
11
H
s


Q
Q

to
0)
CO
ro
-H
O


c
ro
o
H
fH
0)
1



TD
0
O

-P
3

^,
CO
CO
(X
D)
H
c
H

i-H
O
fH
P
O
a,
c
ro
-p
H
i-H
o
Q,
O

-p


0)
rH
O
fH
-P
(U
a,
c
ro

H
r-H
o
Q.
o
fH
-p

ro
T3
c
o
CO
H
13
PU
o
0)
-p
ro
T3
H
-H
O
CO
C
8
-p
c
a>
c
o
CO
H
W
TD
(U
-P
ro
"O
rH
rH
o
CO
rH
o
o

-------
                                                                                                             342
        1-1
        a.
                   CM    CM    CM   CM    CM    CM   CM
                                                             CM    CMfMCMCMCMCMCMCMOJ
                                                                                                                    CM
     W CO
     SB

     gg
                                          CM    CM    CM   CM
        I
        K
        OL.
CM
     CM
           CM
                CM
                     CM
                           CM
                                -)
CO
p
-p
CO
x:
c
S:
C
CO
-p
p
CO

c
CO
S
C
CO
P
-p
CO
x;
c
s


en
C
CD
0)
O"
C
CO
-p
p
CD
x;
c
s.
c
CO
-p
p
CO
x;
c
S

c
r-l
y
O
O
pa

c
r-H
^4
0
S
pa
                                                        in
                                                        C
                                                in
                                                C
                                                
C
o
o
Edison, 45th Avenue

73
CD
-p
CO
-a
H
r-H
o
in
C
o
o
Edison, 14th Avenue

73
CD
p
CO
T!
H
r-H
0

CJ>
c
H
>
rH
M
Corporation

CD
en

a
in
a.

o
x;
Or
verages
QJ
pa
^;
o
o
K

CD
-p
rH
i
Company
CD
c
H
-p
in
M
CD
TD
1 1

C
CO
& Chemical

r 1
H
0
in
in

-------
                                                                                                                                   343
                                        O)    (N
                                                                                 CMCMCNCMCNCMCMCN
      Ste
                                              CO
                                                                 CO
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                                   CO    CO
                                                                                                                CO
CO

 I
                C
                ro
                p
and


U)
c
 o
ao
e
o ro
. -H
H >
o
U) fn
CD D.
S .-i
ro o
>-> 0
c
ro
o
O
rH
0
c
ro
o
H
^
CD
4j
0
c
M
C
ro
1
cn
C
H
P
U7
(0
CJ
in
O
M

CD
H
K-I
a
fH
cn
H
C
HI
-H
O

-p
cn
ro
m
CD
H
in
ro
H

0
C
M
ro
a
6
cS
-o
c
ro
(0

C
o

cS

_***
o
a
1"
-1
a>
5
0)
CQ
any
                                                                       CD
                                                                       C
                                                                       O
                                                                       -P
                                                                       CO


                                                                       aii

                                                                       -o
                                                                       C
                                                                                    c
                                                                                    o
                                                                                   -H
                                                                                   s
                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                      c
             c
             c

            fi

             CD
             Q.
            H
             O
             C
            H
             (H
            a.
                                                                                               8
                                                                                                                            J3
                                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                                                             n)
                                                                                                                                             S
                                                     W


                                                     JS

                                                     a
                                                     rH
                                                     3
                                                     O

-------
                                                                                                                                 344
      CMCMCJCNOIOJCMCM
                                              CM
                                                     CM
g
t-t
at
a,
co     co
             CO
                    co    oo     co     co    co    co
X
C
                           en
CO

01
0)
                                        u>
                                        C
                                        cu
                                        0)
                                 &    5
                                        in
                                        C
                                        
-------
                   P. Eastman                        345








May 8, 1969



Dear Mayor Lindsay :



               Enclosed is a report of the hearing I



convened on the Water Pollution Abatement Program for



the City of New York on March 25 and 26.  Our conclusion



is that compliance with the construction start and com-




pletion dates in the schedule submitted by letter of



December 27, 1968,from Doctor Merril Eisenbud, Adminis-



trator of the Environmental Protection Administration,




is possible if extraordinary measures are taken for its



implementation by all entities of the City government.



               I am particularly concerned with the




conclusion of the hearing officer as set forth in Items



41, 42, 43 and 47.   The necessity for a firm financial



commitment to the program is obvious. In addition, a




resolution of the Common Council, setting forth a defin-



ite time schedule for the program of improvement to exist-



ing sewage treatment plants is required for continued



eligibility for state payments for the operation and main-



tenance of these plants (10 NYCRR, 44.55{e.



               In order to get these plants under



construction, certain measures will have to be imple-



mented in addition to the firm financial commitment.

-------
                   P.  Eastman                        346








These are:



               1.   Especially expeditious processing



               of  construction contracts, 102 awards



               of  which are scheduled for peak fiscal



               years of 1969-70 and 1970-71.  This is




               a significant increase ov^er the number of



               awards for comparable purposes in the



               past and will require additional re-




               sources and effort to handle,



               2.   Special arrangements to obtain con-



               tractors with sufficient skilled labor



               to perform a volume of construction far




               in excess of that normally required and



               easily available.




               3.   Action to assure that the consulting



               engineering firms which are preparing the



               preliminary and final designs for the



               treatment plants and allied facilities



               complete their work on schedule.



               4.  Provision for adequate supervision




               and inspection of the great volume of



               construction scheduled.   The required



               number of qualified inspectors is not

-------
                   P. Eastman                        347





               available in the staff of the Environ-


               mental Protection Administration nor


               from the consulting engineering firms


               retained by the City, nor are they other-


               wise readily obtainable.



               My staff and I would be glad to meet


with you if you have questions.  I look forward to


hearing from you.


               Sincerely yours,


               Hollis S. Ingraham, M.D.


               Commissioner of Health


Mayor John Lindsay


City of New York


City Hall


New York, New York 10007



cc:   Doctor Merril Eisenbud


      Doctor Matthew A. Vassallo
                      * * *

SAME LETTER SENT ALSO TO:


Presidents of Boroughs  (Mario J. Cariello, Abe Stark,


Herman Badillo, Robert T. Connor, Percy Sutton)


Comptroller Procaccino


May 8, 1969


Dear Mr. Smith:

-------
                   P. Eastman                        348








               Enclosed is a report of the hearing I



convened on the Water Pollution Abatement Program for




the City of New York on March 25 and 26.   Our conclusion



is that compliance with the construction start and com-



pletion dates in the schedule submitted by letter of



December 27, 1968, from Dr. Merril Eisenbud, Administrator




of the Environmental Protection Administration, is



possible if extraordinary measures are taken for its



implementation by all entities of the City government.



               I am particularly concerned with the



conclusions of the hearing officer as set forth in



Items 41, 42, 43 and 47.  The necessity for a firm fi-



nancial commitment to the program is obvious.  In addi-



tion, a resolution of the Common Council, setting forth



a definite time schedule for the program of improvement



to existing sewage treatment plants is required for



continued eligibility for state payments for the opera-



tion and maintenance of these plants  (10 NYCRR, 44.55(e.



               My staff and I would be glad to meet with



you if you have questions.  I look forward to hearing from



you.



               Sincerely yours,



               Hollis S. Ingraham, M.D.




               Commissioner of Health

-------
                   P. Eastman                        348A
The Hon. Francis X. Smith




President of the City Council



City Hall



New York, New York 10007






cc:    Dr. Matthew Vassallo




       Dr. Merril Eisenbud




       Mr. Albert Machlin



       Mr. Paul Eastman





                      * * *

-------
                                                in
                                             O C
                                                H

                                             -P in


                                                .
-


<
                                                                                                                      349
CD
E-
a
UH
o
o
 i
cc
.n
s

Sc
en
ABATEMENT COMPLET:
STATUS DEADLIN!
CM
r-H
Q
s- "
a os o
O O J
OH UH
r-
o
i!
-<


pH " "--
>-Jf
01 01
3 a,
-J ><
P lt f-H
UJ
r^~ r^*
fH
(1 CO
-P
2: T-f
c
3 o5
O
J-. 0

UJ

i
LL.

UJ
^>1
f-|
 ai
n H
01 <
o s
oi
cs

o as

c
O
in
o
3
-n









z.
o
M
f-<
e
8
_i

















tu
o
cs
3
8
U4
CO
S




o
c
o
in
K
CO
1
i
UJ

o
o
in



fH
CO
-P
H
C
CO


,
(H
CO
e
H
fH
OH



XI
H
fH
H


OS

c
o
in
TD
3
X







* x
0


C
0
in
D
as






01
c
 rH
C
rH
CO
m
H
C r-H
0 0
in o
c .c
3 0
ac co
CO
CJ
1
c
en

in
0

o



O)
>H r-H
H
f-i -P
X
2: a>
H

O

CJ

o
w c
o
o 2;

2

aS ^*
QJ
os 0
M
o o

0
H
CO
in
U)
CB

o*



"JIT
" X

f^
O
in
"D
c
H
^g

OJ






Cl)

Q

0)
CJ

rH
o,
o
Q- in
ct) y
il |
CN
r-
f-<
o
Q

8
0




(H
CO
-P
H
C
CO


^,
M
CD
g
H
J_j
cx


*-*^
0)
0>

^_J

co
a
c

2**
CD

CO
<



























>

0
H
3
S
CO
r-H
O
r-H
O
O
O
o
CM




tH
CO
p
H
c
CO
CO

rr
CO
T3
C
O
O
0)




_^
" 0)
0)

6

OS r-l
r-H
C -H
O ^A
in (H
"D CO
3 Q,
C C/)



^^
H


p
5
O
-p
(U
en
C
CO
M
0











c

O
-P CN
a) it
01
co Q
O CO
CO
~>
O
i-H
O
0
o
in




m
CO
-P
H
C
a


(Tj
TD
C
O
O
0)
CO








(
as

c
o
in
o

p-;



,  ,
\  i


C
3
O
p
o
ai
c
Z
O





*
Q

CO


a;

3
r-H
rH
CO
O
a,








"**
H

^2

^
o
o


Q

"Z.

*

,-j

^4

CJ

o

os








































CO
Q\
Q\
a

o
0
o
in



rH
CO
-P
H
C


tH
CO

C
O
o
0)









i
cs

c
o
in
TS

C




t^*.

s^x


^J
a.

?*
c
o
-p
CO







a>
*j


CO

S

CO tH
0) CO
m a.
CN
r-H
o

o
o
in




fj"
CO
-p
H
c
$


CO
"D
C
O
O

CO



44
0)
0)
fH
CJ

r-H
r-H
H
^f
^
CO
n,
CO



^^
f-<


p
S
o

4)

C
CO
rH
0







a>
-p
CO
-p


V -1
C co
CO -P

3 Q.
o in
C D?







>
(_

2

*^i
O

CJ

as

01

f-H

CO

w

K

o

H

CO

OJ

s



































r-H
o
Q

O
o

CM



rH
CO
-P
H
C


7
T3
TD
C
O
O
d)
CO


,
p
-H
fH
f-l

t
 Q^

C
O
in
T3
_3







H


T>
C
CO

-P
o
CJ











^
-p
H

8-
CO
O
r-H
in
1
73
0>

CO
o







in
a>



CO
~o
c
o
o

CO









OS

c
o
in
a

*n






^
^, f

c
CO
c
CD
.C
o
3







TD
0)
-P
CO
o
O

TD
CO
"O
CO
p
CO
ave stream standards
fH
-P
C
O
o
-p
o
c
in

t-l -p
OH C
0)

 H-'
-P CO
C O)
0) fH
E -P

CO >.
 fH
f-l Q.
CO
"cTJ
O  '
o
0) C
in o
in
tH "D
0 3


in o
H -P
C

C
TH CX
-t 3
U 1
CO -X
O O
a o

c ~
o -a
H 
-------
                                              350 .
             APPENDIX B




COMPREHENSIVE SEWERAGE STUDIES STATUS




            May 15, 1969

-------
tu
H
UJ
2












c
r-H

r~
E
UJ
f-J
a,
s
i i1








CO
1-
s
lo

^4
Q
^~1
H
cn









^
w
32

-p
3


CJ
CO
I-H
41
in
in
C
01
cc.

vC
CN
^X
i-H

73
01
-P
a

o
o







,
f*^
. H


,X
0
H
3
10
3
M
m

,
.--N
^_)
*--

>
O

H

0s
.-I































D


M
Q













^
x:
in
3
XI
C
Ol
01
M



2

tt
y 	 s
f-H
^~"
Ol

O

H
P
.-
01
CO
_(-*
O
CO








































r-

w
CO

73
Ol
-P
a
Ol
o
0

















 	 ,
H


Ol
_*s
CO
, ]

73
C

CO

CO
i-H










1
0
Ol

I-H
o
u

73
C
CO
a.
CO

3
Ol
73
Ol
in
0
a
o
rH
G,
1
if)
^j-
i-H
r-

-H
00

73
Ol
-P
a
Ol
o
0




ff^
I-


J^
o
CO
73
O

o
CO

s
^3,
^.x

c
o
-p
0)

-p
in

u

if)
r-H









o




h-1

O

P

C
iH
73
Ol
-p
CD
O
O
i-H
E

-P
U)
^,
in

C
O
H
P























































<+*
0

01
a>
CO
l-H
i-H
H
^>
HI
-p


o
-p
IH
O
c

^
0
CO
73
O
x;

























































i
M
0)

Ol
cc



c
0
01
73
D-
I
Ol
-p
I
c
o
1
c
0
-p
Ol
f-H
-p
in
CO
U






















































73
O
P
CO
O'

o
73

P
U
Ol
o
O
O.

Ol
o
rH
a
o.
CO

o
-p
*
e co
3 vO
73\
C r-H
O) i-H






















































                                                                    CM
73
 ai
+>
 a
 Ol
 u
 CJ
                                                                    If)
                                                                    vO
1
H
Ol
-P
C
rf

73
ro

p,
(4
CO

3
01
2
73
41
in
0
a.
o
J-t
a,
i

M
73
to
C
O|

1

8
(-.

(^
CO
o>
C

tJ
Ol
-p
CO
u
o
r-H

In
O
under

P
_l
o
a.
01
cc

en
c
H
rH
01
Ol
C
rH
Ol
C
at



01
en
oner'
H
'.n
U)
H
g
6
0

O)
p
CO
H-i
CO

H
0)
73
C
3

*\
3
01
-P 73 .rH
Q.-H >
01
U
rH
X!
O!
rH


|

a.

CO
3
01
2

73
0)

O
a.
s
a.



in
^
01
73
rH
O
O

C
o
H
in
C
ro
a
X
01

73
C
CO

0)
-p
H
10

0
i-H
rH
Ol
H-I
tn
55

C
01
H
in
O
73
IH
Ol

C
3

C
O
H
4-)
CO
-P
in

d
C
H
1
a





73
Ol
rH
O


Ol
C
rH
Ol
XI
m
Q

CO

J>,
-p
c
3
3
                                                                                                                                   351
                                                                           vO
                                                                           vO
                                                                           TD
                                                                            Ol
                                                                            a
                                                                            o
                                                                            o
a
ai
u
o
                                       \o
                                       \D
73

P
a
o>
u
u
73
 0)
.p
 a
 Ol
 o
 O
                   \O
                   vO
73
 a>
p
 a
 0)
 o
 u
                    00
                    vO
73
 0)

 a
 Ol
 u
 o




^>
^^*

3
CO
in
in
s
Bethlehem (l),
Colonie(T),
d (v), Guilderland
New Scotland (l),
Coeymans (l),
e (V), Watervliet
C - -H
*>  ro ^^ * i f

'cj'G' "ui ^^^ '>
  >  I-H -  in
in 01
>- in 01 73 ro 0)
c 01 c c c x:
CO O Ol CO Ol rH
xi x: 01 c > o
I-H O In Oi co O
< O io s cc >
73
3
p
in

01
73
.fH
3
i

-P
C
3
3
d, Bloomfield
c
o

f
o
H
at

p
rH
a


Ol
r-H
f-H
H
^
c
0)
-P
-P
,2

73
C
CO
r-H
in
r 1

in
73
rH
si


in
t-H
i-H
H
s^*

Xi
in
ai
IH
                                                                                                     If)
                                              r-H
                                              ro
                                                                                                            >-
                                                                                                            p
                                                                                                            H
                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                      fl3     t^A
                                                                                                     H     H
                                                                           CO
                                                                           XI
                                                                                                     |
                                                                                                            i

-------
 I

CM










z.
o
-H
IMPLEMENTAT




w
D
a;
H
r>
>
3
4
w








<
iLj
<
te
E2
if.




V:
1
1


Ul
s




 to as
<0 O iH
-i O.O..
H tt i-H
> (D
0> C
1 C TH
H U.
O. fH
C a,
to  .
S5(o
S  ->
S  -ow>
o --I
in  
O i-l -O tJ
D.i-1 fl>  >
.* O 0
0*  a. o.
M a a o.
MO  >
CN
> >
iH

jx T3 T>
BJ 0) Q)
S H-> H->
fi a a
O Q) QJ
a o o
S 3 S









,

5-
3
1

1 ~ ^
IBs
>. 3
p p M
C fi 10
3 -H -P

>


o
0>
p

u
3











^
O
^^>
0)
H
M
i
I

S
ft
ID
U)
5
S
S













0)
i



4
>
f-H
>


T3
0>
H->
&
U
o
M
0)
0)
fH
0
fH
0)
a
in
Q

to
1
H
&
JO
3B
i-H
i-H
H
S
V)
H
lid

O^
-
i-l


















0)
I



in
^
>
1-1
>
i-H

o
0)
H->
s-
u
o
<













^^
H
^J
fH
10
a,
8


$






U)
^H
(0
H
U
H
t-.
f<
0
i-l
10
D.
H
U
H
C
2
g
deration by
H

CM
>


o
o>
H->
&
U
u
<
p
4>
H
V)
&
0)
^

D>
O
Q.
k
"P
^^
J^
fH

0>
T>
^

(S

s










<-i 
O^N
c
ai o
P 4->
i-l U)
U) O1
P iH
<0 ^
s.^
0.
H -P
W c
s5
.go,
o

i .  i5
i-H H->
3 O
6 M
V Q.
. E
(558












9
p
U)

0)
o
,_4
1
|
1

H
r-
i-H


fH
!
p

fH
O
a
&
1"
H
fH
0)
a>
c
iH
D>
(U




C*>
iH
O>
H
fH
*






























^
O

o
rH
U)
a
8-


o
130-Propose
00
fH
r>-
H





































1
P
to
a (H
fH (U
+J -D
&
10 -P
O fH
C 0
o a
o 
o ce
U)
en
and Plant to
Engineerin
w.
H  O)
 H-> -H
Cr> C >
r4 (I) QJ
I 6 fH





































Cn
C
H O
p -p

X C
0) A)
i-H
*H D.
O
HJ
C O
O  -P
C 
IO H
&S
0) fH
oi
S!
ll
^5
oto>
2 =
^HIK


4>
i-l

to

to
0>
o
5














^-^
H
v-
rlboro
s

s
fH







cn
c
iM
fH
U)
g
H
?
u3
 
p $
c 
1>
Is
SfH
*> 
tl
(0
B +
C fH
O O
u a
0) 4)
in CC




































                                                                                                  352
                                                                                     E
                                                                                    c.   ^   
                                                                                     g   2   t
                                                                                     5   -S   ^
                                                                                         C   -P
                                                                                          J   c
                                                                                          U)   9
                                                                                            
-------
 i
oo
 i











2
O
i
g
z
LU
s
nj
i ]
^
^








CO
H
f-H
CO

SH
Q
^13
fe












 --H
IH -O
o s c >
dj ja ^3 *o
P 3 3
4-> CU -P
rl 'Z, .CO
 ^ r-J
3 0 ro -P
in 3 C
> C 3
-p -P C h O
h -H 0 0 O
0 O .-( U
a -P c
0) C O C -H

S C T>
en cu -p a. o a)
CO H <" H -H -P
H vO CO C CO -p ro
lH O O O fH
0> -( S U 33 O
O H> ID fn D
C r-i 'Z. rl IS -P f-i
H TH id) in O
Ol M tf "O C O
C Q, lO C O C
HI <  1 D OH
r*- CT^ r*~
\O vO ^O
o r~- in
-H Oi
"!> ~^T o

a T3 t3
0) 0) 0)
-p p -p
a a a
o a> ai
0 O 0
o o o






^-^
f  I
^^

o
c
n?

-p
f-i
>, o
a o

-p "
tn ^^
O

f i *j

5 rH
O! 1 -H

3 -P in
X! C y
33 * CN
o in co
.-) i-H
H
(D
in
0)
a> x:
01 o
C -P
to w

O ^

CO
t^
1 1

>,
T3
^
^j
CO

+->
c
3
O
o
c
H

o

4J
to
fn
O
O
O
C.
M

-i?
^>
OJ
^5"

o
0)
-p
a
0)
0
0

















a
0)

"in

o
-p

vO"

*)

T3
0)
-p
D.
O
o
o













s~**
^>
****

a
c
to

X 	 V
f-H
v^

a>
c
H
c
rJ
in
o


vO
CM











CO
f^
1-1

^,
T!
^3
J_J
CO

-P
C
3
0
C
r-f

-o
0)
4.)
fO
fH
o
Q.
h
O
O
C
M
00
vD
C--

CM

"D
0)
-P
a
01
o
o
c
in

C
o
o

-p

(0
a

c
O in
.H in
p o
01
o
0 f-I
tu a
00
vO
co"

r^

*o
0)
-p
a.

O
o

















T3
3
P
in


C
3
cS


CO
r-










































;>,
10
3
(H
(1)
c

















T3
3
4J
in

(V
a
|H
3
^**
P
C
3
8


CO
0


D
C
ro
i-H
pX
O
o
K
,
4_}
c
H
Hi O

ro
h .
inl 
vO
vO
^>
cw
^?

o

-p
a
0)
o
o










f.
f~^
^^
^^f

73

ro >
*h_x
^  s
H S
** < (0
fn
2 -P
ro 

d) ix;
>
Ss


CO
m
















0)


o
-p
-p
o
to
p 
C 0

C_} O*
f_{
c
0 >

P S
o
3 T>
M a>
-P T3
in M
C ro
O 3
O ro

























































o


-p
0
ro

p
c
o
o
ro
(D Q
> CO
3
in o
(D +J
H a)
-p 01
rl C
i i ro

rl
O h
rl 0)
C -P
3 C
S a>
vO
vO
O^

CO"

a
q>
-P
a.
0)
O
0






s
*~*+
^>
N*->

iii
(J
to
^,
S

 t
J'^'v*^-^
^ ^
^^* ^

^ 0)
P a.
cS S*


^~
iO






















































^-v
^
>*--


0
W
-o
^J
K

(U
^(~J
+j
1
C
O
1

0)
^
*^J
c
to
6














                                                                                   353

-------
                                                  354.
                APPENDIX C




MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS PROPOSAL




               May 15, 1969

-------
                   Municipal  Sewage Treatment Works  Proposals
                                 ( Albany Region )
                                                                               355
Approvals 1965 - 1969
              None
 Proposals Under Review
    NAME

Albany County

Menands (V)*
Albany (C)**
Coeymans  (T)
               STATUS
Engineering Report Under-Review
Engineering Report Under Review
Final Plans Being Reviewed by FWPCA
ANTICIPATED
MIN. DEGREE
OF TREATMENT
 Secondary
 Secondary
 Secondary
Greene County

Athens (v)
Catskill  (V)

Coxsackie  (V)
Engineering Report Approved 10/2/67       Secondary
Report Approved 3/27/69 - Final Plans
            Under Review                  Secondary
Engineering Report Under Review           Secondary
Rensselaer County

Co. Sewer District No. 1  Engineering Report Under Review
                                          Secondary
*  Albany County Sewer District - North Side Project

** Albany County Sewer District - South Side Project

-------
                               (White Plains Region)
Approvals 1965 - 1969
                                                                               356
      NAME

Putchess County

Rockingham Farms S.D.
Midpoint Pk. S.D. Corp.
Hudson Valley Corp.
Greenfield S.D. Corp.
Arlington S.D.
                                         LOCATION
                                       Wappinger (T)
                                       Wappinger (T)
                                       Flshkill (T)
                                       Hyde Park (T)
                                       Poughkeepsie (T)
                              DEGREE OF TREATMENT
                                    Secondary
                                    Tertiary
                                    Secondary
                                    Secondary
                                    Secondary
Orange County

Newburgh (T)
Newburgh (C)
Cornwall (T), (V)
New Windsor (T)
       Newburgh (T)
       Newburgh (T)
       Cornwall (T)
       New Windsor (T)
                                                                    Secondary
                                                                    Secondary
                                                                    Secondary
                                                                    Secondary
Putnam County

Cold Spring  (V)
                                    Secondary
Rockland County

Rockland Co. S.D. #1
Orangetown S.D. #2
Stony Point
Regional Facility

Haverstraw (V)
       Orangetown (T)
       Orangetown (T)
       Stony Point (T)
       Haverstraw (T) &
       W. Haverstraw (V)
       Haverstraw (V)
                                                                    Secondary
                                                                    Secondary
                                                                    Secondary

                                                                    Secondary
                                                                    Secondary
Proposals Under Review

      NAME


Dutchess County

Beacon (C)
Poughkeepsie (C)
Tivoli (V)
           STATUS
Final Plans Under Review
Awaiting Submission of Eng.
Eng. Report Approved
                                                            Report
                                                                    ANTICIPATED
                                                                    MIN. DEGREE
                                                                    OF TREATMENT
Secondary
Secondary
Tertiary

-------
                                                                              357
                             ( White Plains Region )
 Proposals  Under  Review
        NAME
               STATUS
ANTICIPATED
MIN. DEGREE
OF TREATMENT
Orange County

Newburgh (T)
Highland Falls (V)
Eng. Report Submitted
Awaiting Submission of Eng. Report
 Secondary
 Secondary
Ulster County

Lloyd (T)
Saugerties (V)
Kingston (C)
Eng. Report Under Review
Eng. Report Under Review
Eng. Report Under Review
 Secondary
 Secondary
 Secondary
Westchester County

Peekskill (C)
Ossining (T)
Yonker (C)
Awaiting Submission of Eng. Report
Awaiting Submission of Eng. Report
Awaiting Submission of Eng. Report
 Secondary
 Secondary
 Secondary

-------
                                   (New York City Area)
                                                                                    358
Approvals 1965 - 1969
     None
 Proposals Under  Review
               NAME
              STATUS
Anticipated
Min. Degree
Of Treatment
North River Project
Red Hook Project
Owls Head Reconstruction Project
Wards Island Extension Project
Bowery Bay Extension Project
Tallmans Island Improvement Project
Hunts Point Extension Project
Port Richmond Extension Project
Awaiting Submission of Eng. Report      Secondary
Awaiting Submission of Eng. Report      Secondary
Awaiting Submission of Eng. Report      Secondary
Eng. Report Under Review                Secondary
Awaiting Submission of Eng. Report      Secondary
Eng. Report Under Review                Secondary
Awaiting Submission of Eng. Report      Secondary
Awaiting Submission of Eng. Report      Secondary

-------
                                                 359
                APPENDIX D




INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT WORKS PROPOSALS




                May 15,1969

-------
                                                                               3-60
                              PROPOSALS UNDER. REVIEW
Name

Consolidated Edison
     (Indian Point)

Roundout Corp.

Sonotone Corporation

American Sugar Co.

Penn Central R.R.

Hudson Wire Co.


Name
Continental Can Co.

DMF Company

Proctor & Gamble

New York Plaza Building Co.

Humble Oil

General Aniline & Film Corp.

Orange 8, Rockland Utilities

Metropolitan  Oil  Co.

Mobil  Oil  Co.

General  Electric






APPROVALS 1965-1969
County
Rockland
Dutches s
New York
New York
Albany
Orange
Rockland
Albany
Albany
Albany
County
Westchester
Ulster
Putnam
Kings
Albany
Westchester
Date Approved
5/7/68
7/8/68
1/24/68
4/23/68
2/28/69
2/10/69
4/18/69
7/17/67
9/17/68
1/3/67

-------
              P. Eastman                        361
             APPENDIX E




CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROJECTS STATUS




            May 15, 1969

-------
                                                                                                                                    362
           S
    z.     o
    t-H     O
    cn
    a:     en
    m     H-
       Id C_>
    cr i ui
,-H  uj =t n
    > i- o
 CD  > i cn cr
.-i  cr     Q.
n     ^
 co  ^ o: to
i  o a H-
    cn ^ ~z.
    Q     =c
    r> 3 cr
    X LJ LD
cr
LJ
3
a
           o
           cr

           en
           o
           CJ
                       CO
                   CD  O
                   H CJ
                   .D
                   H 4->
                   cn  u
                   H  o
                   r-H "~
                   ui  o
                           o  i-,
                           CD  Q)
                          ^) n
                           o  E
                           fJ  D
                          CL  2f
                                         .H CN  CO  a


                                         i~H 0s-  *^"  *^D
                                          s   v   s  w

                                         O LO  CO  CM

                                         rH "C      O

                                         CO
                                         r-t co  a  in
                                         
                                                    CM
                                                       CM
a  en co CD
t>  o < a
CD  UD Cn CM
  #1  S   \   

CO  CO ^( CM
co  in co 
                                             CO  03  CD
                                                 cn 01
                                             CD   C  C  C

                                            TD   f-l  CD  CD

                                             D   O  f-i  f-4
                                            X  CJ  CD O
                                        03 ID  ^>
                                        in vo  r-
                                        CM CM  rH
                                                               vo
                                                               CM
                                                               CM
                                                               CO
                                                               cn
                                                               a\
                                                               cn

                                                               cn
                                                           in
                                                           00
                                                           in
                                                               in
                                                               CM
                                                               cn
                                                               VD
                                                           o

                                                           CM
                                                            CD
                                                           -P

                                                            o

-------


















2
i  j
il
h-
LJ
CC
1
m
P*
0
LJ
2
v-t CC
cn LJ.J
=E Q
CD 2
UJ CD
,-y 1 	
LL_ i^
uj cr LI
i-i > 1 i
I i n 01 LJ
cr uj
CD x-: n
rH S CC CD
_D 0 CD CC
CO 01 >- D.
1- Q
n 3 en
x u i
^ 2!
cr =r
LJ CC
3 CJ
CD
_J Z
O
j  1
r-
LJ
^
CC

Jl
^
r_*>
LJ

































03
J-3 -4J
C CO
Ij -P
D cn
-0 CO
C t-t
CO 0)
LJ  ~1
M <_J
rJj 03
L_




m
UJ
-P
CD
-J.J +1
CO LO
CD O
,-1 LJ
n
H -P
cn U
H 03 M
rH  CO
UJ O i-<
f_. Ql
c_ n
Cl
u.

















>.
.^j
c
3
n
r i

1

u
C
CD
Li
H
i-l
Q
a
cc















O fJ
il 03
"- i X)
0 E

a. 2
CN
CM
i 1
QD
CM
CO



CD
CN
.H
CD
CN
CO
~T
CD

O
co
cn
CD
i-H


^r

CD
XT
0
CO
cn
o
^



t&
















^
c
CO
-O
r 1
c^

V
s  s
I 	
	 '

01
>H
c
a
i i
a
u













^ 
r i
CO
o c; o
o CD r-
tn o CD
VC CD CN
cn CD tO
Lfi CC
V .
en cn
CO CN
rH
o a CD
O O cn
a o 01
0 CD CD
Ol O 'xT
CN CM
CM
CO CD CD
co CD a
0- CD Oi
CO O UD
CD CD CD
xT O rH
"xt CD
UD CN
CM


r-l CD CD
xt CD O
CD CD Cn
xt a '-a
CN CD CD
cn a i i
CN CD
UD .."N
rH CN









>,
.*_>
rJ >,
LJ -4-1 >-

' LJ -H
r-c LJ
C ^

C 1 i
3^0
03 >-
S 3
CD 3
~ f^l 1}
_^- T^
01 -
03 (- -
'r< 03 -D
LJ > CO
H 03
c cr x
^
CD 1 03
4~> 4-3 _
3 (-4 rH
CD Q 3
<2 21 CD













to co r-
co r- 01
rH CO
-~ CM
Cn CD
CM n
co o:
cn cr
in \N
*.
M

CJ O
o a
a '>
CD CM
CN cr.
CN CM

CM CD
Cn xT
^
4-J
^
-U
_\f >r-j
f-t LJ
O
>- _\x
t_,
3 a
03 >-
~'
3
- CD
-a E;

5 -
C
j: CD
o cc
-H
cr x

-i-3 CD
^4 3
O O
Q. CC













'XI UD
C Q
to -CT
XT CM CO
c to un
tn -H ~i
rH LO CD
CM CM CO
xT CO i  I



000
C xJ CD
CD ID O
CO 0 O
co tn 01
xT CO CM

r- LO UD
xj r- to
i  I r-- iQ
01 CO O
0 02 CO
xT O CM
rH rH




o tn cn
O C^- '  '
o r- co
a co CM
UD CO CO
*^J~ cj r*~
i-H rH -xf









_>
"H
>, >^L3
-4.3 -U
H T-) _X
LJ LJ M
^0

f-t ^-1
O O 3
>- >^ 01
^
3 3
CD CD -
s? s -g

N N CO
T3 -3 rH
c z cn
co co i  '
r  1 i  1
m cn cn
i  i i  i 
c;
uj cn M
  E:
"O ~CJ '  1
Li (-1 i  f
CO CO CD
^ ^3 ( 
* *












xT CO UD
r-l ID UD
CM CO i-H
to o c;
CD CN o
xT xT r-
'01 rH CD
p  1 UD "x"
ul i  i CO
* -
CN rH

CD O O
CD UD ^T
a 01 co
a r- -5T
CN [- f>
CN CM CO

ID O CO
CD O CM
CD -C cn
cn r-j in
LP t> CO
LO CO r-4.
^r co rH




tn o co
O O O4
o -c cn
cn rH tn
in r~ to
O! CO r-1
-C CO rH












>,
a-J CO
H cn
LJ 03
_I
^y O
f-) -J-3
G D QJ
>- o CP
c
3 - CO
1j . 	 . h-l
s i a
x^-
v *-
ID CD .
C -H ! 
CD CO -  -
rH a
CO G3 i  1
1 1 03 rH
-X. CD

03 O C
C 3 Li
Q C Q
LJ n (__j













Ol OD CO
xT Cs- UD
to co to
rH
rx_
CO
rH
r-~
cn
-
c-l

o
un
0
tn
CM
in

UD
CO
01
^y
cn
^
^




UD
CO
Jl
<
CTl
^
L~~



















03
CTl
Q;
CO
i_,
O

*-
^  -
l_j
-  '

r~
cn
(-1
3
n
3
03
^*













CO
Ol

LJ CD
UD CO

-
r-H

CD O
cn co
r- o
cn UD
[^ '^C
O rH

CM CD
O 0
0\1 \_T)
03 tO
"3" CO
CO LD
CM CO




CD 0
O O
a UD
CO CO
UD CO
Cl 01
CM CO















T3
CD C
01 CO
C r  1
CD ^
L-l CJ
O O
cr

f 	 N ^
1 	 s  -,
v 	 ^ 1 	
* ^
i-l
O C
01 3
~D O
C ~J
r-l 0
3 CTi
c
3 CD
GJ U
S C21













*s]" CD
UD Q>
CO CN
CJ CZ
r- ^t

[^_ ( 	 j
CD UD
i  I LD
.
CO

a o
c*~ o
CO CO
c- t-
CD rH
rH ^
O^
0 0
O O
cn co
r- CD
LT) CO
co in
CD
CN



CD O
O C3
en co
!> CO
i_n co
CO U~
co
CN












a
c
CD

"D >v/
c u
CD O
1  i CC
_^
u ~
O  !
rr" ~=^~~
a"

*  ^
2= O
-  LJ

-i-} ^j
C C
O ID
E i  1
L< _
03 LI
rl Q
n rr'













CTi Xj"
t>
CM
o cn ?~'
CO xT xT
CD U? O
UD CD 01
rH XJ 01
01



COO
CO Ol CD
l> UD CD
r> CM in
'-D 01 UD
01 rH

CD UD rH
O UD rH
rH r-l CD
Q CN Ol
Ol ID CD
O rH r-l
rH




O C CD
o a a
M in a
o 01 a
CN r-- in
C- rH 01
,_!













P
-n f-i CD
C 03 -"->
CD -^ cn
M cn CD
J* 03 _C
J JT CJ
a cj -P
cr -+-1 cn
CO 0>
- 03 3
x  v 3
1 	 v
 - ^ .  >
--- u
^-J ^3 X 	 '
z  
^t 1  1
O C rH
CL CD -rl
C JC
>, CD OT
Z r~ j
o a" CD
4J 3 03
LT CO Q.
* *












CD O CO
'-O -xT CD
CM CM
^
1D
i.D
(xT
UD
Ol
*.
a
rH
0
CN
CO
O
CO
o
rH

CD
CM
crT
CM
CO
UD
^
CO
a.

,  i
03
C
H
Q_

C|
0
C|_

rH -P
CD a.
*J 03
0 CJ
1 X
03
T3
03
03
D.
E
O
U
a
cr
*~ )
0
C-l
a.


*
363

-------
          tn
          e
          u.
          u_
          o
          CE
          CD
   n     U
   co     a
   t     3
   m     u.
       LJ
   cr  r- x
   UJ  ec t-
H ^>  I rH
 CD
   ^:  cn
2 or  H-
O O  CJ
CO >-  UJ
 CO Q
cr
LJ
    o
          n
          a
          cc
          a

          cn
          CC
          CJ
          r>
          cc

          CD
          2
          CD
          CJ
                           -P
                           C
                           E
                           er.
                           CD
                     CD  O
                    rH  U
                    JD
                    -H  -P
                     cn a
                     H  a
                    UJ
                               D
                               Q
                               ct
                            U
                            CD  0)
                           -> JD
                            O  E
                            ^
                           CX
CD
a
a
CD
03
rH
8^
o
CD
O
a
co
rH

a
a
a
a
o
uD

**
o
a
o
a
o
VD

t>
CO
CM
cn
cn
tO

o
CO
CM
cn
en
CO

cn
CO
c-
o
CO
CO
.
rH
en
CO
t>
o
to
to
.-H
CO
o
0
t--
03
rH

a
rH
O
r-
C3
rH

a
VO
CO
CO
CM
VD


O
-JD
to
CO
CM
VD

a

rH
C
*]


o
r-
-H
o
-sr


a
a
cn
CO
CO
rH


o
o
en
CO
CO
rH

a
CD
rH
cn
vo
CM

CD
rH
o
VD
cn
CM

a
a
CD
[^
cn
CO


a
a
o
r^.
cn
CO

CO
s3*
in
CM
rH
to

a
CCf
LO
CM
i  i
CO

0
H
00
rH
sT
CD
*
rH
C3
rH
CO
rH
-"J"
a
rH
a
,_^
VD
in
a
c--
CM
o
Ch
UT
CD
st


CD
CD
CD
r^
[ 
ID
UK
st
a
o
a
r-
C--
ID
C
O
ID
rH
CO
r-
CM

a
in
H
CO
r-
CN

0
a
!D
CD
rH
cn


o
a
ID
CD
t\
cn

co
rH
03
VO
VD
CO
sf
*
a
C3
i>
CO
CM
rH
cn
ID
to
,~t
VJ
rH
rH

a
rH
cn
ID
CO
^
rH
rH
O
rH
                                                                                                                             364

>,
c
ro
JD
rH
ec

,  ,
h-
^.  ^

CD
H
C
a
rH
o

cr
to
XI
rH
f^

*
h-
V  '

0}
C
CO
E
>s
CD
O


CD
C
cu
CD
f-l
CJ7
^
X 	 S
^
^ 	 '

CO
c
CD
r.
-p
to
co
CD
JZ
U
4J
U
Q
^
^ ^
"^3
N 	 ^

-H
rH
O
>
H
9, Putnam
~-fe
Q
cn

x- *
i

(^
a
cn
-rj
C
iH
3

3
CD
E
ro
+5
^j
Q.

K
x^v
^>
	
cn
c
H
f^
CD-
CO

-Q
rH
0
TJ
C
co
rH
\f
U
o
cr

>.
 ^
^

3
CO
tt
^3
cn
iL]
CD
^3
ro
M
CD
-P
co
rH


.
C"
^^.

N
-P
rH
CO
O.

3
CD
                                                                    to
                                                                    -p
                                                                    o
                                     r-coocnin-a-cncn

-------
          cc
          LJ
          Q.

          L_

          a

       cn ec
       I
       ^ X
       =C Q
       cr cn
   2  CD >-
   rH     2
   cn  2
   CC  O Ld
   CD  H X
       h- I
   cr  u
> Ld  ri >-
i-t >  a: CD
   rH  t
CD cr  cn Q
H     2 Ld
xi 2  o cn
co a  LJ cn
i- cn     Ld
   Q  Ld LJ
   Z3  r- O
   x  =c cr
          Q.

       cn
          LD
   a  cr
   _i  a
          m

       3  cn
       Ld  f-
       2  LJ
          Ld
          n
          o
          cr
          a.






















CD
rH
xi
H
cn
H
rH
Ld

















































-p
C
^j
O
E
"^
-P
C
CD
CJ








-p
CO
o
LJ

-P
O
CD
"~
O
M
Q.


































(-4
CD
B
D
-P
O
CO
*'  )
o
-1
a




CO
-p
cn


n
P
CD
a
L_




CD
-P
CD
-p
cn





i 
ct
f ,
t-
CD
T)
CD
^












>
-P
C
D
o
u

1

-p
C
CO
o
rH
rH
Q
Q
CC







t-l
CD
XI

3
2
O
CO
ID
cn
CD

,
rH
*fr
a
to
CO
o
to

0
a
rH
*
CO
CO
a

CO

*

a
a
rH
CO
CO
O
CO














>^
C
CD
_Q
M


*.
' 	 S
CJ
V, 	 f

>s
C
CD
_O
f_l
"







a
r--
LO
o
o
CN
to
CM
in
*
rH
CM
a
o
CO
^r
UD
cn
0
o
a

a
CO

^
UD
CO


a
o
a
o
CO
^
UD
CO











>^
C
CO
_D
,  [
cc

.
O
cn

o
LJ

>s,
C
CO
o
rH
<=c







CD
CD
CO
O
a
a
rH
CO
CM



a
a
a
rH
CO
CM
0
O
O
s
O
C-
[^





a
a
o
a
r-



c
CD
X)
cr
Q
cn

CD
, 	 ^
rH
rH

C
o
-p
3
CD
^

*
^  ^
1
^  '

CD
rH
C
D
,  |
O
LJ







rH
cn
in
a

s*
CO
r^_
f^.



O
UD
sj-
CO
[-^
o
0
o
CN
K
CD

in
v
CN



O
O
CM
00
0
LO
CM












CD
C
CD
CD
l-l
L3

*.
s~^
^5
N 	 s

rH
rH
H
V
CO
-p
CO
LJ







^3-
t  1
in
a
CM
U3
cn
,  {




a
CM
VO
cn
rH

o
o
*sf
.
in
VD






a
a
-sf
in
UD









03
CO
CD
x:
o
-P
3
Q

X
CO
CD
-p
CO
-p
CO
Ld

T)
C
CO
rH
CD
C-l
l  i







rH
rH
LO
a
rH
CO


10
CN
CTi

CM
^J-
4r%

O
a
r-
uT
CN
cn
CN
sT


























r^l
CO
-p
o
h-










                                                                                                                            365

-------
           P.  Eastman                        366 
          APPENDIX P



OPERATION & MAINTENANCE STATUS




         May 15, 1969

-------
c
ro
CO Q
2 U.
O >
M O
H ce
< a,
o a
M <
_1 CO
ex n
ex Q
CO
2 Q
O U-
MOW
H 2 CO
<^ M U-
O W O
M m o
-J a
ex ex
ex
H UJ H
Z H 2
:D < <
H a:
co o
020
002
1-1 <
J UJ h- 2
f-H CO CK H
O M ai 2
(- O IX M
H O <
> i s
04
CO
2
O Q
pd M uj
00 O-, < O
S O O K
5 M ex
2 i-j ex
ex <
ex
CO
ex 2
U4 <
ca a. o
  Hj
2 ex
ex
-U M H
n a, o 2
S3
2 3 ex


2










1 O O CM 1 1 CM 1 1









O O O O i 1 O I 1



O CO O 0s CO
O p- -H CO vO
o m f t~ f~
i Tf oo vo i i in i i co
H CM CM in .H
-i ^H CO
rH


O O *kO vO CO
i o r~ ^ i i in i i o
co in r^ -H c>
't CO 00 O CO
CO *t O
*





1 r-i vO vO 1 1 r-l 1 1 CO
-H ^





PU
2
O -! vO CO 1 1 CO 1 1 CO
2 ^H ^J-


LU UJ W UJ
cM.-icoin22f-22in
S g g g
fa c>
0) -p
ro ui ro "O C ui
H CO rH C TO 0)
^" _O QJ J!i-H-p-P
ja--H-Pro-PCo^Hcnu)
-IO_bM3a)O3^Hll)

                                                                                                 H
                                                                                                 Q

-------
368



B H B
55 B 13
D <; rf
O B K
2] co O

EH
O 55 P
O O fe
rl H rfj
< W B P 3
H rH* rfj fei 3
gen 3 < B
H W fe
O CM H
HO <

W





o
is

> K
H W
W B
U <
W 










S3
H
IH
ril
O
s














&q
S
S
p*

jg








_
*
0
CO
*
ro
m
ro
in
m
n
in
in
\Q
*
O^






M
(1)
>
H
P4

P
to
id







C
id
-p
4J
rd
f,
^
id
S



















a
c
m
CO
H

a

a

_
*
ro
m
ro
*
[^
ro
CN
rH
H
0>
^f
r-
00
CN

m






^i
0)

H
p^

4J
CO
id










X
C
o








TJ
C
id
rH
CO
H

en

CD

rl ^-*
p^ fj
P O
C Cn-H
H C -P
O -H Id
C4 *d -p
3 00
10 rH
p u a
c c g

K **^' 0-1

*
o
tn
^
H
CO
CN

CO
v>

CO
CN
H
in






j^
0)
^
r-1
On

4J
CO
id
W








CO
C
(U
Q)
a




















fl1
cq
K*1
^4
(U
*>
o
CQ
^
j
0^
in
-
PM
03
CO

cn
o
vo
ro
CO

CO






J_J
(U
>
H
C^

JJ
CO
id
W








to
C
0)
(U
3
a
















rQ
c
id
to
H
CO
C
ns
g
H
r-l
id
B


o
0
r-
*
VD
p*

0
O
i-H
0
ro
CN








^1
(U
>
H
p^

4-)
CO
id
W









X
C
o
en



















o
r3
H
CO
H

4J
(-4
id
K


0
ro
CO
*
CTt
CN
ro
O
CT\
^
CTi
CO
a\






rH
J3
]v^

c
id


i-H
r-l
rl
^H







13
a
0
g
,c
0
rl


















a
c
o
Jj
u
rl
rt

JL)
M
Q
dl

*
WD
CO
.
CM
^J*

cn
a*
f*+
CO
a^
r-

r-\







^i
nJ
CQ

>-i
(U
^
o
rl







t5
C
0
e
&
u
'


















rr]
O
Id
tt)
r(3
O
O
^
^

o
.
*
r-<
cn
o
Ok
f1"*
o
O3

r*
^*
CD
ro
00
*
*







^"1
10
a

rl
(U
Oi
a








c
rH
y
O
O





















a
id
(1)


to
H
$
0
*
*
cn
vo
*
ViD
rH
CO
ro
03
*&
CN
rH
cn
Ik
r-l
ro












1












1


















^
<
EH
g




















f^
CN
ro
^
CM
ro
VI-
O
in
VO
cn
H

rl
id

-------
             P. Eastman                        369
            APPENDIX G




WATER QUALITY SURVEILLANCE STATIONS




           May 15, 1969

-------
      The  water  quality  surveillance program en the estuary portion
  of Hudson  River  is:
                                                                        370

1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Station
Location
Yonkers
Piermont
Verplank **
Bear Mountain
Beacon
Newburgh
Chelsea
Poughkeepsie
(City Water Works)
Catskill
Coeymans
Glenmont *
Green Island
Danskaarr.er Point
Poughkeeps-J 
Date
Activated
1968
1969
1969
1968
1969
1957
1965
1964
1966
1966
1964
1966
1965
1918
Sampling
Frequency
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Bi-Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Weekly
Monthly
Deactivated 1967
Deactivated 1965
     (State Hospital)
15.  Rensselaer
                                       J.V.
Deactivated 1966
*    Automatic Monitor activated at this station 1967

**   Automatic Monitor to be installed at this station 1969

-------
                   P. Eastman                        371








               MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Eastman, for



an excellent and comprehensive report.



               Are there any comments?   Mr, Sullivan.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  I asked a question this



morning, Mr. Eastman, as to whether or not the schedule




that New York City has proposed for completion contains




an enforceable mandate by the State, or whether it is



a gentleman's agreement, and it was suggested that I



defer the question until the New York State representa-



tive testified.



               MR. EASTMAN: It is not included in any



administrative or Court order.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  Then my characterization as



a gentleman's agreement is a valid one?




               MR. EASTMAN:  I wouldn't use that term,



but you are at liberty to use whatever term you like.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  What I am really wondering



is if New York City goes ahead with its plans, and we



are going to hear about those in a moment, that is one



thing, but if New York City, for whatever reason, does



not, what processes are available to New York State to



require the City to move and meet the schedule.



               MR. EASTMAN:  Well, as I mentioned, we

-------
                   P. Eastman                        372








have authority not only to issue administrative orders,



but, of course, we have further authority to refer re-



calcitrants to the Attorney General's Office.




               MR. SULLIVAN:  In one of the appendices,



you classify these enforcement transactions and dis-



tinguish between a Commissioner's Orders and a depart-




ment directive.  Would this arrangement with the City



be characterized in your terminology as a department



directive?



               MR. EASTMAN:  Well, as I mentioned, we




had an investigatory hearing, and as a result of that,



the hearing officer, who was designated by the Com-



missioner, issued his report of the hearing and then



transmitted this to the City.




               We indicated that we saw this schedule



submitted in December 1968 by the City/ and discussed



in the investigatory hearing in March that it was a very



tight schedule and would require extraordinary effort



on the patt of the City, as well as a firm financial




commitment on the part of those who have authority to



make this commitment, in order to carry it out.



               I think the City's presentation will



indicate the extent to which they are carrying out these

-------
                   P. Eastman                        373








extraordinary measures and the extent to which there is



the firm financial commitment which we have specified




is necessary.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  I didn't read all the cor-



respondence in here, but my understanding is that the



State has accepted as valid and reasonable the schedule



put forth by New York City?



               MR. EASTMAN:  We have not incorporated it




in any official administrative action other than the



discussion included in the letters from the Commissioner



to the various officials of New York City.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  But the report of the




investigatory hearing recommended that favorable consider-



ation be given to the schedules.




               MR. EASTMAN:  Is this a question or a



statement?



               MR. SULLIVANt  Well, I don't seethe



report is not here.  There is reference to it, but I



wondered about it.



               I am uncertain as to the status of the



arrangement between New York State and New York City



with respect to its schedule of performance.



               MR. EASTMAN:  Are you referring to the

-------
                   P. Eastman                        374








legal arrangements?




               MR. SULLIVAN:  What standing the schedule




has.  Is it a proposal made by honest men to other honest



men, or does it have some legal significance?



               MR. EASTMAN:  Well, we wouldn't object to




your using that characterization of honest men to other




honest men (laughter).



               MR. SULLIVAN:  One other question along




that line:



               There is a page in here that is headed



"New York City Area," and there is a little paragraph




for each of the facilities.




               The wording indicates that there is a



stipulation or a consent order or somethingI don't



know what it wasthat heretofore imposed a date for



completion.



               Am I correct in understanding that this



arrangement now between the' State and the City is such



that it supersedes those previous stipulations?



               MR. EASTMAN:  Well, I think if you will




read the dates for completion in there, perhaps you can



draw your own conclusions.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  They appear to vary from

-------
                   P. Eastman                        375








1969 to 1972.



               MR. EASTMAN:  Well, I don't think the City




is likely to complete a billion dollars worth of construc-



tion by 1969.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  I wasn't merely addressing




my question as to the feasibility of the schedule, but




addressing it as to whether or not these stipulations



have now been nullified by a friendly arrangement be-




tween these two governments.



               MR. EASTMAN:  Well, as you have implied,



it might be rational to bring up to date the official




and legal understanding between the City and the State



Department of Health with regard to this schedule, and



this is under consideration.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  One other question that



concerns me, and I will talk about it further when I



have the opportunity of coming to the podium and then



the other people will talk about the other points.



               At the last session of  this conference,



the agreement was reached that all facilities would be



constructed by 1970, except one, which could not be



done until 1972.



               Now, I wonderif the new schedule which

-------
                   P. Eastman                        376








has been outlined very briefly for us is presented for



consideration here, and with a completion date of 1976,



we fear that by the past record  that the fourth session



of this conference in 1974 will decide, because it did



not work out as well as we thought, the new date is 1980.



               MR. EASTMAN:  Well, I think at the fourth



session we might be equally interested in the progress



that is being made or will have been made in New Jersey.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  You bet you should be, and



in New York, too.




               We suffer some of these same problems so



far as the schedule is concerned, but I am concerned that



the prediction of the completion date and the official



acquiescence to a schedule should be regarded as two



different transactions.  That is what I am really con-



cerned about, the state of this schedule.



               Deferring now the schedules, don't you



think that in terms of official acquiescence of a new



schedule, that it may create in the mind of the public



that it is more delay, and why should they believe  this



new schedule when the one we all agreed to in 1967  ob-



viously wasn't any good either?



               MR. EASTMAN:  Well, I think what we  are



interested in and I  think what the conferees are interested

-------
                   P. Eastman                        377








in is actually constructing waste treatment plants  and



operating in a manner which would protect the quality



of the receiving waters, and I think that after the




City has an opportunity to present not only its schedule



but their progress in connection with implementing  this



schedule, that you can draw your own conclusions as to



whether this will result in construction of waste treat-



ment plants, including treatment of what are now raw



discharges, and resulting in improvement of the re-



ceiving waters.




               This is nice, but the completion of



construction of waste treatment plants is even nicer,



and that is what we are looking forward to in connec-



tion with New York City.




               MR. SULLIVAN:  Would it be possible  for



your department as the enforcement agency to retain in-



tact the previous stipulations, but that New York City



move with haste on its new schedule, and to withhold



enforcement action against it?



               MR. EASTMAN:  I can't really answer  that



question.



               We can discuss it with our office of



counsel and put it in the record.

-------
                   P.  Eastman                        378








               MR. SULLIVAN:   Thank you.



               MR. STEIN:  Are there any  other comments




or questions?



               MR. METZLER:  I would like to comment.




               I think the questions raised by the con-



feree from New Jersey are questions that I would raise



if I was from there.



               I want to compliment Commissioner East-



man for the calm way in which he has responded to these,



as well as the factual way.



               It seems to me that there might be some-



thing which is escaping the view of our neighbor across




the river.



               There are various ways of going at the



job, but our success will be measured by what it is



that will abate pollution.



               The position that the New York State



Health Department has taken is that as far as legal



orders were concerned, those were issued by the Inter-




state Sanitation Commission and those orders  stand.



               As far as getting sewage treatment, we



doubt that Court orders  and Court actions are necessarily



the only way to get it done, and, as a result, we have

-------
                   P. Eastman                        379








brought other pressure to bear.



               Let me tell you three:



               1.  The Commissioner on his own order has



authority to issue large fines against the City for




failure to perform.



               2,  Then the Commissioner may also recom-



mend to the Attorney General enforcement action against



the City any day of the week or any week of the month



that the City fails to maintain a satisfactory rate of



progress.



               3.  This is the one that is the most



persuasive, it seems to me:  Unless the City gets nearly



a billion dollars' worth of construction under way by



the end of 1971, they are going to lose $500 million



worth of State guaranteed State financing.



               I say that these things will move the



City faster toward performance than Court orders or



legal actions following Court orders, although I com-



mend you upon the determination shown by New Jersey



with some of your polluters.



               I say this in an effort to clarify rather



than to stimulate the debate on this.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  The reason, Mr. Metzler,

-------
                   P. Eastman                        380








our responses are so dispassionate is because our differ-



ences are entirely intellectual (laughter).



               Can I comment  on Mr. Metzler's comments?



               MR. STEIN:  Surely.



               MR. SULLIVAN:   I would agree, and cer-




tainly I am not suggesting or not predicting that New



York City will fail to meet the schedule.



               Our own constituents were under orders,



and  I would like to report that other people are similarly



bound.  This keeps everybody happy, feeling that every-



body has been dealt with equitably, so when it comes to




a point of a failure to move on a satisfactory schedule,



as you have phrased it, what is the action?



               Is it an action taken for failure to ob-



serve a pre-existing order, or is it an action that would



have to be initiated entirely from scratch at that point?



               Could you measure progress here on out



in a legal sense on this schedule that we are discussing



for  the City?



               MR. METZLER:  I think as far as the



State of New York is concerned, there has been a change




in municipal administration.  They have set up a whole



new  agency to handle this matter.

-------
                   P. Eastman                        381








               That agency gave us its first schedule in




December of 1968.  That is the schedule we think of as



the official schedule.



               Any major change from that would bring



reprisals from the State of New York.  It does no  good



to go back and look and see that the City promised in




1949 or again in 1962 to do certain things.  It did part



of these.  It was not able to accomplish them all.



               As far as we are concerned, the total



package is the package that we got in December of 1968,



and that is the one that we are going to measure per-



formance by.




               If necessary, we can resort to legal



orders or court action or withholding of funds, which,



as I might point out, we have done in a limited way al-



ready in an effort to speed this up, and I might say



the City has responded, not without some cries of pain.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  Would this then replace



the pre-existing orders that called for a different            7)



schedule?



               MR. METZLER:  I am not sure what orders



you are talking about.




               MR. SULLIVAN:  Well, I am not exactly sure

-------
                   P.  Eastman                        382








               MR. METZLER:  May I say this:  As far as



the State of New York is concerned, the legal order



which exists is that by the Interstate Sanitation Com-



mission, and the New York State Health Department, in




addition to this , has what we consider an official sub-



mission from the City of New York as to the schedule that




it will maintain, and we expect to see that they meet



that schedule.



               I think, if you want to defer some of




this, once you have heard the presentation by the City




and see the resources and the ingenuity and the innova-



tions that they have brought to this, you might be able




to go back and tell your constituents  that they have



really got a going thing over there.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  They may very well have.



I am putting these questions before even looking at the



merits of the proposal.  I am concerned only with the



schedule and what the legality of it is.



               MR. STEIN:  Let me try  this:  You Know,




that was a very excellent statement by Mr. Eastman,



when you talk about gentlemen, Mr. Eastman was a gentle-




man when he worked with us years ago, when he had more



hair on top and less under his nose, and before he took

-------
                   P. Eastman                        383








that graduate degree at Harvard and was administrator



pleni-potentiary to Eastern Europe.  Now he is a really



balanced gentleman.



               I think I have known Dwight for over 20



years both in the midwest, in Kansas and here, and I



know the people from New York City who went to the same




college I did at about the same time, so, at least, it




is an agreement between gentlemen .Of that we are sure.



               But let us look at the facts of the situa-



tion.   Th6 conference, while we do this very nicely,



you will have to understand is the initial stage of an



enforcement procedure, and I would like to point this



out.  Whatever any of the States have done--and I think




the states and the interstate agency have cooperated



completely ^.we have set certain dates under the confer-



ence procedure.




               At the last session of the conference,



and there may be some modification of this, it says:



               "The conferees agree that all remedial



       facilities," and this applies to all here, "will



       be placed in operation by 1970 except the pro-



       posed North River facility  which cannot be



       completed and be in operation until 1972."




               Without wanting to anticipate the presentations

-------
                   P.  Eastman                        384

of both New York and New Jersey, I think we do have to
face these facts.  We did set very tight schedules.  I
think necessarily, when you set a tight schedule in
water pollution control, schools, roads, or in any kind
of construction, given the pressures and the vagueries
of American Federal-State-municipal political life, there
might be slippage and there may be some slippages in the
schedules.  Whether these are significant or not, I don't
know.  This is up to the conferees.
               As far as X understand, the New York sit-
uation is this:  When we were talking about this North
River facility plant originally, we were talking in terms
of a BOD reduction, the estimates varying from 60 to 70
per cent in BOD.  We are now talking 90 per cent.
               In addition to that, I have some 13 or
14 other plants which may be achieving an average of
an 80 per cent BOD reduction, and some of them were
operating between 60 and 80 per cent, and except for
Newtown Creek, which may present some construction dif-
ficulties  --  we hope to hear from them later on that  --
New York City is committed to a 90 per cent BOD reduc-
tion throughout its system.
               In working with New York City for years,

-------
                   P. Eastman                        385








when they are committed they are going to do this.  The



only question is when they are going to do it, and the




time factor may be a factor which, with all the best



intentions on all our parts, may be beyond our absolute



control as to the exact date or the exact month, but




we are going to come very close.



               However, they are committed tothis 90



per cent reduction and chlorination.



               We have yet to hear from one of the major



sources in New Jersey. I know what the State of New



Jersey does.  I don't think there is any State that has



had a more aggressive or progressive program.




               The question here is what we have to do



with the constituents in New Jersey to get this going.




There is no question that the State of New Jersey is



committed to this program, but I do think, Mr. Sullivan,



from whatever you say on the State side of it, each



State works differently.  New Jersey had orders, New



York has arrangements, but as far as the Federal Govern-



ment is concerned, we have initiated an enforcement pro-




cedure with specific dates.




               To my knowledge, the Secretary has not



modified the dates that I have read, 1970 for completion




of all facilities in this area except the North River,

-------
                   P. Eastman                        386








wnich is 1972.



               I might point out, for those of you in



the audience who do not know this, the North River



facility amounts to a $220 million job.  The total



Federal appropriation for construction grants in the



whole country is $214 million, and the reason for those




two years is I am not sure we have ever had anything



that big.




               Those interceptor sewers are as big or



bigger than subways going into the plant, and we just



have to face the physical facts in seeing what we can



do.



               Let me again try to put this in perspec-



tive for you.  All the wastes from Manhattan going into



the Hudson River today are going in raw.  New York City



is going to intercept all these wastes and treat these



wastes, and this is a tremendous job.  I think this is



what we have to look at.



               Again, let me give you an appraisal.



As I see this, we have a Federal enforcement action with




specific dates.  We have New Jersey working on its own



program that issues orders, which I think is a very valid



program and a reasonable way to do it, and if the orders

-------
                   P. Eastman                        387








are violated they go to Court.



               I think New York State has a little dif-



ferent approach in working with this operation.  We




have heard of the New York record before on the bond



issue and what they have done in the past several years.



The New York procedure is different from the New Jersey




procedure.  I would not say it is any less or any more



effective, as has been shown,     I think, as far as



we are concerned in the Federal Government, we would




consider  when we arrive at an agreement with New York



State on the dates of what they are going to do  and



New York City--at least from the legal point of view and




I hope  that we don't have any problem-*-   that they



are moving within the State law in negotiating with the



cities in the State, including New York City, in an en-



tirely valid and acceptable manner that would consti-



tute compliance with the Federal requirements.



               We have shown that plants have been built



this way, and I think we can demonstrate this record.



               Are there any other comments or questions



on this?




               (No response)



               MR. STEIN:  If not, thank you very much,



Mr. Eastman.

-------
                   M. Feldman                        388








               Since we are after 4:00,  I think we might



as well dispense with the recess and try to go right ahead.




I had hoped we could have a little break, but I think we



will be better off if we don't.



               Mr. Metzler?



               MR. METZLER:  Now the City of New York




will continue its interrupted presentation here which we



started before lunch.



               Commissioner Feldman.  If there is anyone



else you want to assist you with this presentation, why,



you can go right ahead and do it.






                   STATEMENT BY




                MR. MAURICE FELDMAN



        COMMISSIONER OF WATER RESOURCES



                 THE CITY OF NEW YORK






               MR. FELDMAN:  Thank you.



               I think many of you have seen pictures of



perhaps five men standing a round beating a horse, but,



of course, it was the horse that drew the wagon and not



the five men who were beating the horse, and sometimes



I feel like that horse.  We have had many whip licks



thrown at New York City for what we have or have not done,

-------
                   M. Feldman                        389








but I must emphasize that it is New York City that has




done and will do a lot, and ultimately the problem we



are talking about will be solved by the people in my




organization.



               So far as the commitment of New York City,



a point that has been made much of, I think the clearest




indication of that commitment has been standing on this



platform for the last two hours.  Not too many people



have looked at it.  I am referring to this map of New



York City.



               The areas shown in color have had their



plants designed and built virtually entirely by New York




City with New York City money, and I don't think any



more commitment is needed than that, and I think any



nit-picking about which stipulation was made will not




result in any great treatment of sewage.  There first



has to be the will and the ability, and both of these



things very definitely now reside within New York City.



               Much of the confusion arising with pre-



vious dates is that the dates of previous promise of



completion were for programs which do not resemble at



all the program that we have now.




               This was touched on by the Chairman of



the conference, in that our program has been extensively

-------
                   M.  Feldman                        390








revised because of new State and Federal  standards,  and



the most recent program submitted in 1968,  after con-



sultation with the State Health Department, our major



parent organizationparent in that it supplies what



parents are obligated to provide for their  children, the




moneyto that extent, the agreement by the State on this



program makes it the valid program that we  are moving on



now.




               So that some of this confusion about dates




of completion should be laid aside and we should consider



now that which lays before us--the immediate commitment



of New York City within the realm of the State bond issue



to convert virtually all of its plants to 90 per cent,



the full secondary treatment, step aeration, and the




commitment also on Newtown Creek, a plant which was men-



tioned earlier, to eventually get that to 90 per cent,



but a commitment which we cannot undertake within the



realm of the 1972 construction deadline, because much



investigatory work remains to be done on Newtown Creek



before we can physically effect this 90 per cent re-




moval.



               However, we will relieve the Newtown



Creek plant of a portion of its load by transferring 60

-------
                   M. Feldman                        391








million gallons per day from the drainage area to that



plant to the Red Hook plant, which is now under design




for the Brooklyn Navy Yard and which will provide the



90 per cent treatment.  So that it requires an inten-



sive investigation to know what goes on with this pro-



gram, and the commitment is now there and we will get




there.



               Much of the thrust of previous comments



has been that New York City has been remiss in meeting




its previous schedules.  I will not say that New York



City was remiss, but xt is true, it is a fact, that



previous schedules were not met.



               There is no good served by going into



detail as to the reasons for not meeting these sched-



ules, but what I will point out to you in a few minutes



is a device which we instituted about a half a year ago



to make certain that our future progress will be better



than that in the past.



               This is not by way of admitting that all



past delays were due to the administration of New York



City,  There were many factors, one of which in a




major plant (this quarter of a billion dollar North



River plant)was alluded to this morning in a statement

-------
                   M. Feldman                        392








by Congressman Ryan so ably presented by Mrs. Faust/



and this was the local community opposition to the lo-



cation and degree of treatment at the North River plant,




which had been agreed to at the previous meeting of



this conference  but was not locally acceptable either



by the people or their elected representatives and re-




quired a major change in that plant involving a com-



plete redesign,      Sb a plant which was ready to go



into construction in 1965 or 1966 could not so proceed




because of this local opposition and now faces a com-



plete redesign.



               If that plant had gone into construction,




it would be not far from completion by today and .that



would bring the fraction of New York City sewage treated



from the three-quarters which it is today, as shown by



these areas in color, to well over 90 per cent, and



certainly no one could quarrel with New York City then



having completed its 90 per cent of its program that



the remaining 10 per cent would drag on a little.



               I should also point out that the 3eiay



in the last remaining plant after North River, which



is the Red Hook plant, resulted directly from the fact



that the new treatment requirement was 90 per cent rather



than the high rate activated 60 or 65 per cent.

-------
                   M. Feldman                        393








               A site was in hand, actually in the owner-



ship of New York City for the Red Hook plant for a high



rate activated sludge treatment, but as a result of the




last conference and othermeetings the need for 90 per




cent removal came about, and from then on we could not



proceed on that site and had to find a new site.




               If any of you have ever tried to find a



small site in a small town for a treatment plant, just



imagine trying to find a site in the high densities of



New York City along the waterfront for such a program.



               Luckily, the Navy Yard came along.  This



is now well under way in design but, of course, this




necessitated a delay, so this is in partial answer to




the scheduling.



               Now, how will we prevent similar things



from occurring as they did in the past, and how will we



react more quickly to such occurrences?



               For this, we retained a firm of manage-



ment consultants called the Management Data Corporation,



a firm which had developed a considerable amount of



its experience on the NASA program, and they have pro-



grammed charts similar to the one I am about to show you,



which led to our men flying around the moon a few weeks

-------
                   M.  Feldman                        394








ago and stepping on the moon in a few months.



               Will you pull that first slide  down,  please?



               This (indicating)  is one of six charts




which are prepared by this firm of Management  Consultants,



which for each project shows its exact status  as of the




current time, and that is that vertical blue line about




one-quarter from the left of the chart.  This  is the



current date.  For each horizontal line which  represents




the progress of a project, there are circles,  these



circles being milestones.  They are what we have named



milestones on each project from the early preparation to




budget allocation, to site selection, to preliminary de-




sign, final design, awarding of contract, construction



and completion of construction.   All of these are mile-




stones.



               These estimated durations occurring be-



tween these milestones are provided not by our organiza-



tion but by our consultants in their judgment.



               Our aim is to not only stay on that, but



sometimes to beat it.



               The red horizontal lines you may find in-




dicate slippage, so that as soon as there is any slip-



page, there is an immediate indication of a red line, and

-------
                   M. Feldman                        395








corrective action has to be taken at the regular monthly



meetings, which are chaired by the management consultants,




and at which any individual responsible for slippage or



for advancement of the next item must move.



               As a result of the analysis of the first



set of projected dates on a set of charts such as this,




we found that certain of the projects were critical with



respect to commencement of construction in March of 1972.




               May I have the next chart?



               For those projects  we instituted an ac-



celeration program so as to bring them out more than




six months before the critical time of March 1972  for




start of construction, and by a combination of hand



expediting, accelerating the consultant's design time,



cutting down on the approval cycles, or "review cycles"



as they are called. We see the results in the diagonal



lines, which show by how much these projects have been



shortened in total duration.     Hence taking them



comfortably out of the six-month critical period which



we leave in as a factor of safety, so that to the ex-



tent that these have moved two, three or six months



before the critical period, our factor of safety has



increased from about two or three months up to six or

-------
                   M.  Feldman                        396








eight months, so that even allowing some slippage,  there



still is room.



               This material is fed monthly into a  com-



puter, which updates all of the information and provides



a monthly report, a copy of which I have for the month



of May, and further summarizes the total progress by




plotting the number of milestones scheduled and attained.



               For the month of May we have, for the



first time, as a result of this acceleration program,



been able to show that the attainment of milestones is



now at a rate which is equal to the scheduled rate, and



this, I think, provides the best credibility for our




approach to bringing these projects in on time.  This



I think will answer considerably the previous criticisms



of non-attainment in New York City.



               In this program  we have depended largely



upon consultants since the in-house capability-rwhich was



recruited during the depression and which built us  up,



I believe, into one of the finest engineering organiza-



tions in the world in sanitary engineering in the Bureau



of Water Pollution Controlhas now come to a point



where our in-house design capability is not adequate



for the rapid pace of getting almost ?1 billion worth

-------
                   M. Feldman                        397








of sewage treatment plants, both new design and upgrading,



in addition to existing plants, into completion of design,



within this time.



               Hence, we have gone virtually entirely



to consultant design, and are converting and have con-



verted our organization basically to supervisors of




design contracts, and this again is our wealth of po-



tential which we depend upon to bring us in on time.



               Now, rather than spending more time my-



self, I would like to have my Assistant Commissioner,



Martin Lang, who is also director of the Bureau of



Water Pollution Control and heads up the major design




and construction and operation effort in water pollution



control, give some thoughts that he may have on the ad-



vancement of this program and also on some of the newer




projects we are looking to for the future, involving at



least two items which have been mentioned here previously.



               One is the study of alternates of ocean



outfall as a perhaps possible substitute for the tertiary



treatment in Jamaica Bay, and other new treatment methods



that we look to, but I should emphasize that even though




we are looking to all of these future alternatives, this



will definitely not stop us from advancing our committed

-------
                   M.  Feldman                        398








program, which will go on schedule to the best of our



ability and our consultants and every effort we can put



into it.



               May I introduce Mr. Lang?




               MR. STEIN:  Mr. Feldman/ while Mr. Lang



is coming up, can we get copies of these charts for the




record?



               MR. FELDMAN:  Yes.  I can submit to you



the copy of our latest monthly report for the month of



May, which will have a summary of those which are in



progress and will have considerably more detail than is



shown.



               MR. STEIN:  You referred to these two




charts here, and I think if the transcript is going to



have any meaning, we either should have pictures of



this or duplicates of this so that we can put them into



the record.



               MR. FELDMAN:  We will provide photographs




of it.

-------
1
*7rnuwr~Fr
0
1

Q
z.
0
to
<
~3
-3
s
i
s
u.
-3
O
z
o
to
<
-0
-3
s
<
5
u_
-3
o
2:
0
V5
<
-3
UJ
0.
H
0
Z


.11 L IL - JVV - 	 *~*



:xXy'. u
:xx:xxXxxVx':x::x': $$$& ^ym^Cty- xj: I*: IS x::: X:X;x:::::X::::x::X:::::::: #.<$ ;X: ::X:xx 

','.' '.
"^  i ' ' '
n -J n: -rt
H fc  S
:i .\'.::;i-x.:::X::: $: <$$&
^^&mi W$s$&

\ ^
0 \
l\ \ <

\ \
^1 \ \


4







(0







<
pj


\ \ *
\ <
> \\n
\ \
\ V
\ \
\
\ ^
\
\
\
)



rft


)



)

(

1




 \ \ <
\ \ H
\ \lo
\ \
\ \
\ *
\
\ *
\
\
\
1


)
1


H



t

(
M
(



<
:;:;:;x:i

V .- ....-..-.'.

K)
\ IX
V 1 \
t
\ u,
\
\


(
\
\
\
1



>
\
\
\ *
\
\
\



l




|
H



(


1





00






d
ct
^

-

'0 K ^
'a c H 3
S*O *- ti> tH M W
^ M 4i  O   .
3tn M >P VJ ^ S -^
as S H S ol mo!
t n f-i n
10 o d n
O H 



1





1













t ^"X
>i-a
 Vt
o S
U D
03
d
599
rH
1
>-4
s
D
52
P-,

-------
400
OJ



* r
lt

z
CO
LJ

1
_J
Q.
0
Z
O
CO

Q
_!
O
cc
t
o

o
f
r?
^j
0

UJ
i
^




PROJECT
INFORMATION





-
2
0
i>








o
0>
1
en
(f








O

cb
en




i
i
(
i
<
(
(
i
-,
s.
<
s
U-
3
O
Z
o
CO

-3
2

S
I
s
u_
->
o
2
O
CO
<
->
Z
L UJ
J >"
/)(-
Jj
3
DC?
C2

















f






CO


CO
0

co


Wf 


^4 w j^ o /
00 03 o
0 Z! > C o
15 lit 1
 i CM c
CO CO <
If) to I


*

t-

<


V!



^



)
in





^
=
J





\
a


Manhattan PS
Newtown Creek
O '
0 c
r> i


)


t
)
t-

Ij

vo

>
^




in




b
-1
k 

*








Oi 4-
i* +-
~* c
"^* -wH
1 <
m
i 1
?* 
0 <
o





9



I




1









oo

>


\
2

t



Ext. & Upg.
Port Richmond
I !








c

t-

4


VD



4







in




t *



West Int.
Port Richmond
-i 
-i ,
3 <
-< .


6

t~



>
vo

C
>





in
i




^
	 -'
C





i



Cont. 3A Tunnel
Port Richmond Cont.
I \


?




<

>-

 


VO






IA


?



(







3B, Open Cut
Port Richmond Cont.
3
3 <

1-
^-<


"13^-
ui >-; ^~

t^ U- ti- *^ r

> Si
* K -
C2c.
o^-i^


allJ 
-------
400-A
w
o
C\J
0)
hi.
i-S
('<

*.'
to
LU
O

.Z


o
z
CO
^fc"
0

o:
I
z
o
z
o

 1
o
; d.

. UJ
i
Ss




PROJECT
INFORMATION '
*




~

o
o>








o
S2










o
10

CO

S

-3
5

!
i -
1
(
i :
* ' 1 ":


i




(t
1
t-

1

V.O


<








Ext. & Upg.,
Port Richmond -
sr
-H
O <
  
! 
;
{ !
1
j
i <
- i
)
1 t>-
| C
!
i
1
! ^>
! (


m

t

(
"O

(

1
|








Mersereau Ave. PS &
FM
f>
 <
3
-H
:  : ! !
! ! it
- - !  f
"!"-. '
i 1  S-
> : ; ; :
1 : t ! (
!  j
i .'
> t f i i vo
> , i ! i
i ! | 1
!1' ' t
\ i i ! ! 1
L - ^ i i-
i ;  : 1
' i i @
t J 1
| It- i "^
|


t-

f ^
, ^ 	
1
VO

in ^t

in
	 .. . ,/K . (



^ ? j: -^
2 ~ T" >- 
SI =
 - . "3S
:  sSII







	 0- . 	 	



CO


i
S3

3
CT)
T
t/5 ' J-, K
 |9
8 S-S-;
D>  Q, 
D, &. ZTjj
3 ^ Ti
w "o
o N
o ^5

-------
                   M. Feldman                        401








               MR, STEIN:  Thank you.



               Either you or Commissioner Lang I would



like to have devote yourselves to this statement some-



where along the line:  that is, the pumping station trora



Manhattan to the Newtown Creek plant is completed and



removes another 150 million gallons a day of raw waste




for treatment.



               This is supposed to be the big change,



and the Newtown Creek plant is the only plant in exis-



tence, and you say you are not going to get 90 per cent



treatment.



               I just raised that point.  I think it




needs explanation or comment before you get through,



               MR. FELDMAN:  I think the explanation is



basically that if there were no serious delay in the



construction of the intercepting sewers and pumping sta-



tion in Manhattan, this plant would be fully in operation



right now.



               It was the original concept that Newtown



Creek was to treat its immediate drainage area and also



the sewage from southern and southeastern Manhattan, and



that all started as a single project.  Itvas just by ac-



cident that the plant itself and its adjacent tributary

-------
                   M. Feldman                        402








area went into operation a year or two before the contri-



bution from Manhattan went into operation.



               This was not the addition of  a new concept



of pumping Manhattan sewage to the plant after the plant



was designed or built.  It was integral with the orig-




inal program for Newtown Creek.



               MR. STEIN:  I understand that, but let



me say this again.  Maybe I haw not made this question



clear.




               If we are going to improve the water qual-



ity and ifhow many plants do you have, 13 or 14?




               MR. FELDMAN:  Eventually 14.  12 major



plants.



               MR. STEIN:  12 major plants.  In 12 major



plants you are going to have 90 per cent BOD removal on



line.  We will talk about the dates later.



               The pbint is, and what disturbs me is that 150



million  gallons a day is going to that one plant in that



system that is not going to provide the 90  per cent treat-



ment.



               MR. GLENN:  Let me clarify one thing, Mr.



Chairman.



               The part of the statement you are reading



from in the Interstate Sanitation Commission statement

-------
                   M.  Feldman                        403








is talking about bacteriological quality and not how much



removal of BOD, and what we are saying is that that 150



million gallons goes to this treatment plant and it will



be properly disinfected. So the degree of treatment has



nothing to do with what we are talking about in this



report.



               MR. STEIN:  Again*-and I know you have




raised several assumptions--the effectiveness of dis-




infection with a less than 90 per cent treatment is going



to be as effective as treating any kind of waste, but




I think the issue still stands there.     It is just



passingly strange that the one plant in your system



which is not up to this is the plant that is going to




receive this waste from Manhattan.



               MR. FELDMAN:  Unfortunately, there is no



alternative to this at present, because avoiding that



would require the selection of a new site somewhere to



change this sewage.



               The tunnel under the East River is already




finished in construction,and the intercepting sewers to



this pumping station are finished, and the sewer in



Brooklyn from the end of the tunnel to the plant is



already in construction or completed in construction.

-------
                   M. Feldman                        404








               MR. STEIN:  All right.  I appreciate this,



and I take this with very good grace, knowing what the



problems are in New York in building a tunnel under the



river. But if this is the case, I think we have all the



more reason to see what we can do about upgrading New-



town Creek and getting this thing lined up so that we




can really turn out an adequate effluent.



               MR. FELDMAN:  Yes.  I did not go into



detail.  The problem with Newtown Creek is that there



is no land surrounding this accessible or available,



for expansion of this plant in that area> And investi-



gating other methods of improving the treatment there




would have cut into our available engineering forces



for moving this $1 billion program I spoke of.



               It may very well be that upgrading New-



town Creek from its high rate activated to full ac-



tivated sludge can develop into a several hundred mil-



lion dollar program by itself, And realizing the magni-



tude of that because of the size of the plant and the



additional tankage that will be required if we were



to even enter on the preliminary studies of such an item,




I'm afraid it would detract from our other efforts in



advancing this $1 billion program.

-------
                   M. Feldraan                        405








               But definitely, as soon as some of the heat



gets off and we see the success of our major program moving



now, and as soon as we can spare a man or two to have a



look at it, that will be the time that we will put our



major energies to work on it.-one of the items being a




new method of treatment for which there is a Federal



grant, which we have been graced by, providing the pilot




plant area for that, And Mr. Lang will talk about that.



               Should new methods of treatment develop



in the next few years, it may easily be the device of



choice for the Newtown Creek, especially because of the



difficulty and expense of providing the conventional



additional tankage that we would normally depend on to



raise this plant to the 90 per cent efficiency.



               MR. STEIN:  Just let me have one last



statement, and this is the last one because I want to



go ahead.



               Permit me to say this :  If we are going



to make the native of New York have the concept of New



York, we certainly can'-t dissolve in our own filth.



If we are not going to dissolve in our own filth, we have



to put a plant perhaps in certain places like Newtown



Creek, in a very high industrial district.

-------
                   M. Feldman                        406








               It does not seem to me to make sense that



we can't get another block or another area and say that




the land is not available for this all important purpose,




when we can find land in metropolitan areas to push



through highways and to put up high rise apartments.




               I lived here for years with the old Penn



Station across the street.  If you in this City can man-



age to keep the trains running and build that big sta-




dium and this high rise apartment building across the



street, then how can you come up with the notion that



land is not available near Newtown Creek because it is



so expensive?




               We have to have a question of priorities



of what is the importance of this operation.  I think if




you, Commissioner Feldman or Commissioner Lang, are to



succeed, at least the city people  --  I don't say New



York City particularly, but urban peoples-are going to



have to recognize that you must have a priority or a



right to acquire sites and lands, as they do for a high-



way, a new stadium, a new park, a new big building.



If they are not going to give you the land, there is



no way we can solve this problem.



               I don't see why we have to twist ourselves

-------
                   M. Feldman                        407








into pretzels to ask you to come up with an engineering



impossibility, when what the obvious solution is, it seems




to me, is    now about using the next two or three or



four square blocks?



               MR. FELDMAN:  Well, this is something we



will definitely look into, but, as I said, we have not




had the engineering force to even put anyone to work




looking at it, and as soon as we get a little breather,



we will, and we will come up with a series of alternates




and their cost estimates.



               On the record officially we are committed



both here and to the State Health Department at our pre-




vious hearing to upgrade the treatment at Newtown Creek




to 90 per cent.



               MR. STEIN:  Right.  Thank you.



               Are there any further comments or questions?



                (No response)



               MR. STEIN: If not, Mr. Lang.

-------
                   M. Lang                           408








                   STATEMENT BY



                  MR. MARTIN LANG



              ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER




 DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL




                 THE CITY OF NEW YORK






               MR. LANG:  Distinguished conferees and



ardent survivors of a long painful day:



               My name is Martin Lang.  I am Director of



the Bureau of Water Pollution Control.



               I don't have a sheaf of notes.  I don't




have a prepared address.  I have one little card here



with some undecipherable hieroglyphics on it.



               This may or may not be attributable to



the fact that Commissioner Feldman gave us a scholarly



dissertation on the Dead Sea Scrolls during lunch.



               It says, as far as I can make out, "Look



the audience in the eye, get it over with fast, don't



offend Commissioner Stein" (laughter).



               However, let me take advantage of the



fact that we have this map here to give you a brief



walk through the plants of New York City.



               You know, I have heard a lot here before

-------
                   M.  Lang                           409








about stipulations, consent decrees,  legal hair-splitting,



I always remind myself of the fellow who said,  "You come




up here for talk and you want a little action.   Here's



where the action is, right here in New York City."



               Look at those plants in the Bronx.   The



Hunts Point plant went on stream in 1952, designed for



step aeration, and is now being expanded.  It is in



final design right now.  The site has been acquired for



additional expansion.  It was designed for step aeration,



but we are going to beef up the facilities.



               We are sure that even the expanded plant



can routinely run step aeration the year round, and we



will have chlorination facilities provided.  In fact,



on a purely interim basis, right now we are putting in




hypercholorination facilities of effluent disinfection.



               Next to it you see the red area with the



Wards Island plant.



               Mr. Stein has been a little wrong. This



is not a unique thing, exporting Manhattan wastewater.



Since 1936, Manhattan wastewater from the Upper East



Side has been flowing to Wards Island.



               The plant went on stream in 1936,

-------
                   M. Lang                           410








Commissioner Feldman put it in operation thenI'm sorry



that dates youand it was designed for what was 1hen




the highest degree of treatment.  The concepts were not



thatwell defined in the late twenties when the designs




were created.



               However, at this time it is going to be



expanded to take in a greater flow and step aeration the




year round, with sludge thickening and effective disin-



fection.



               The green area we have been talking about



is the lower part of Manhattan for which the intercep-



tor is already built.  The tunnel is already built.



The plant is waiting there for it in Brooklyn, and all




we have to do is complete the construction of the pump-



ing station.  The cofferdam has already been created



and based,  we are pouring the bottom slab.  There has



been some delay, but we should move ahead now.



               The West side of Manhattan, the white



area, is the North River plant, and Commissioner Peld-



man told you how we are comparing apples and oranges



when we are talking about the 1964 or 1965 Compact.



We are talking about a moving target.  We are talking



about a plant that underwent a terrific transmutation

-------
                   M.  Lang                           411








and which, as Mrs.  Faust pointed out in behalf of Con-




gressman  Ryan, became the catalyst for upgrading the



West Side of Manhattan from 45th to 145th Street.



               Going to Queens, the Jamaica plant went



on stream in 1943.   I am very proud to tell you that in



the summer of 1968, for .the first time, it ran actually




on a step aeration process, producing a sparkling dis-



infected effluent.



               Next to it and north of it is the Tallman



Island area, being expanded and being upgraded in its



third successive expansion, and, again, it is in the



hands of the consultants now for final design and is




intended to create a plant with a capability of giving



the highest degree of secondary treatment the year round.



               Next to it we have the Bowery Bay plant



handling strong industrial wastes.  It went on stream



in 1957.  I well remember, because I helped put the plant



in operation.  Now we are expanding this plant, even



with the strong industrial wastes, to take care of their



step aeration the year round and to provide effluent



disinfection.



               Next to that, of course, is the Newtown




Creek, which is already flowing to the plant.

-------
                   M. Lang                           412








               The brown area is the 26th Ward plant



which went on stream in secondary treatment in 1951, and




is being expanded and upgraded to provide year round



step aeration.



               Then you have the Coney Island plant, which




has undergone a series of metamorphoses since the early



years of the century, and is now also in the hands of



the consultant for redesign to provide the best facili-



ties for step aeration, minimum community impact, exotic



facilities for sludge handling, digestion, thickening and



so on.




               The Owl's Head plant which only went




on stream in February 1952, is also being redesigned to



expand and to provide step aeration.




               In Staten Island the two small plants are



being converted to two super plants.



               Now, these are all commitments and are



under way now.  In order to do this, Commissioner Feldman



said we would have to use every means at our disposal,



and we did, because our pool of talent began to swing




in the City.  We reached to every best consultant talent



available in the United States, so, in some cases, this



is being done by New York City outfits, in another case



by out-of-state consultants.

-------
                   M. Lang                           413








               For example, Camp, Dresser & McKee of Boston



are doing Tallman Island.  Oreeley & Hansen in Chicago is



doing two of the plants, Oakwood Beach and Coney Island,



and Metcalf&Eddy of Boston are doing Rockaway.



               This is an era of prosperity and these



consultants are busy.  Nevertheless,  we didn't quit any



of our standards.  We sought the best talent wherever



we could find it.  We wanted to start these people on




letters of intent even before formal  contracts could be



drawn up.




               Now, you see, I come up here at the tail



end of the batting order for the City of New York,



Coming up at the tail end, sometimes  they come up there



with the bases loaded and two out, but I had a couple



of home runners that had cleared the  bases, so I will



just try to pick up a few items that were referred to



before and clear up some misapprehensions.



               As to alternate procedures, you all know



and have heard about this very exotic project in Jamaica




Bay, which we hope to be the prototype for the whole



New York Harbor area, with total hydraulics, total study



of all the biota, waste input, and creation of mathemati-



cal models.

-------
                   M. Lang                           414








               It is being done in Jamaica Bay now.  Now,



we could adopt an attitude like this:  We could say, Mr.



Stein, that since we are soaking up all our energy and




effort and manpower just to create those projects on




the chart, let's close the door to our proud tradition



of trying to devise new processes, trying to improve




existing processes.



               Well, we have not done that, so we are



moving ahead on both fronts, and, therefore, even while




building the plants around Jamaica Bay, we are neverthe-



less exploring the ultimate alternates which might have



to be an ideal combination of inshore or far*-off shore out-




falls, a combination of varying degrees of treatment,



not excluding tertiary treatment, if it is so indicated.



               In other words, New York City, in the late




1960's,does not want to be accused in the 1980's and 1990's,



               Now, I have to give you, and of course



your patience is exhausted by now, a brief account of



our stewardship at this Bureau, because at this point in



time we are treating, Mr. Sullivan, one billion gallons



a day, day in and day out, a massive project in itself,



even divorced from the necessity of all the expansion



programs.

-------
                   M.  Lang                           415








               While we are doing this,  the citizens  of



the City of New York are still putting their money where



their convictions are.




               Remember, Commissioner Feldman said that



long before any cornucopia opened up in Washington and



Albany, it was the taxpayers' own money that built the



system.




               Well, in an effort to give Mr. Colosi



the opportunity to state the proud achievements of the




Interstate Sanitation Commission area, we have done this



only recently, while the State of New York, under some



fiscal stringency, said, "Well, I'm going to take away




$300,000 of money from Owl's Head" and like a very



humble Uriah we responded by saying, "Fine.  Meanwhile,



we are going to bull through this contract," and we did



start the hyperchlorination at Owl's Head this summer.



               I wouldn't be a normal human being, Mr.



Stein, if I didn't stand on the dock of Owl's Head and




see our effluent streaming out there disinfected, second*



ary treatment, and going out to comingle with the ef-



fluent from some of our neighbors within sight, un-



disinfected, without secondary treatment.



               Again, the State of New York said, "I'll

-------
                   M.  Lang                           416








tell you what.  Newtown Creek plant,  we can't see fit



to give you any aid on it this year.   Things are a little



tough in Albany."



               We blithely responded, "Fine, we'll go




ahead and install all  the facilities," again, for the



first time in history, to practical hyperchlorination




on the East River.




               In a similar vein, propelled by the same



swift kick in the pants, we have put in andeven improvised



hyperchlorination at the Port Richmond plant, put in



hyperchlorination facilities at Bowery Bay, so you see



that even under the stringency and drive of the expansion




program, we are putting ahead and advancing our present




state of the treatment.



               I would like to point out one other thing,



gentlemen.



               Commissioner Stein alluded to his con-



cern about Newtown Creek.  It was our practice always



to come out with a new process after it had been tried



in plan, but there is, as Commissioner Peldman pointed



out, a very sophisticated pilot plant in operation now in



6urJamaica plant, looking toward a new technique speci-




fically aimed at Newtown Creek, and, given the time and

-------
                   M. Lang                           417








manpower/ why, we hope again to devise some techniques




which may bring the Newtown Creek up to the standards



of the other plants.



               I just want to make a few comments and



I will get off.



               I would like to reassure some of the




other speakers that talking about combined sewers, this



need was mentioned for a new policy about separation of



sewers.  Commissioner Feldman has developed this policy.



In all the new areas of the City we do separate the



sewers.



               However, many of the older portions of




the City are constrained to pre-existing combined sewers,



and we are attempting to cope with that with the proto-



type auxiliary control plant, the first of which is under



construction now.



               The same speaker alluded to the need for



surveillance of regulators and overflow points on com-



bined sewers,  we do have five crews steadily employed



in just such surveillance.  The need was responded to



for studying the impact of such overflows on the receiv-



ing waters in our Jamaica Bay study.



               We have probably the most exhaustive

-------
                   M. Lang                           418








documentation of a series of storms as to flows, concen-




tration, chlorine demand, bacterial input, and so on,



and we hope to add a great deal to the data in that bro-



chure which was distributed at the beginning of this



meeting.



               We are responsive to this phenomenon of




community impact, and in the creation of our new facili-



ties we try to blend them with the community.  For exam-



ple, in Port Richmond we are going to create an eight-



acre deck on the plant, which will be amenable for com-



munity use.  You know about the Riverbank development



on top of North River.




               Another speaker alluded to urban fishing.



We are the greatest exponents of this.  We are creating



a new combined recreational fishing dock and sludge



vessel dock in the deep waters off the 26th Ward plant,



and in the design of our auxiliary plants we are actually



trying to create windows on the water, create a flat



deck for recreational use, and access to the waterfront.



               I would like to state one other thing if



I am not imposing on you.



               In the course of this presentation, you



have heard this morning and afternoon a sort of dispersion

-------
                   M. Lang                           419








of effort with independent studies going on by the  New



York State Department of Health,  the Interstate Sanita-




tion Commission, the FWPCA, the Corps of Engineers, New




York City, the State University,  and many others.



               We would look to leadership from the Fed-




eral Government, Commissioner, to integrate all these



efforts to the best advantage of  all the municipalities



concerned.




               Thank you.



               MR. STEIN:  Thank  you.



               WeH, I'll tell you:  If New York City




kept Commissioner Lang down to 15 minutes, I believe it



can meet any time schedule you set out (laughter).



               One more thing, Marty:  I think you have




strayed from your birthright.  You grew up in Williams-



burgh, just like my wife, and if  you think shifting



something from Manhattan to Wards Island is export, we



never thought that back in Brooklyn.  We thought way



out it was bad when you gave it to them.



               MR. LANG:  Actually, it provided a very




persuasive argument when we were meeting with the North




River community to point out that Manhattan had been



especially favored in exporting of most of its wastewater,

-------
                   F, Kent                           420








               MR. STEIN:   Thank you.




               Are there any other presentations from




New York?




               MR. METZLER:  Mr, Kent.






                   STATEMENT BY




              MR. FREDERICK S. KENT




             ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER




          ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES




         NEW YORK CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT






               MR. KENT:  Mr. Chairman, distinguished




conferees/ ladies and gentlemen:




               I am Fred Kent, Assistant Health Commis-




sioner for Environmental Health Services in the New




York City Health Department.




               I wish to make a brief statement relative




to the policies of the New York City Health Department



with relation to the water pollution program in New Ydrk




City.




Health Department's Responsibilities in the City's Watey



Pollution Control Program




               The Department of Health was given its




present general powers when Article 145, Water Pollution



Control, of the New York City Health Code, was enacted.

-------
                   F. Kent                           421








The aim of this article is "to give the Department auth-




ority to control sources of pollution and to cooperate



with other governmental agencies, in the development



of pollution abatement programs."



The Introductory Notes to this article state:



               "In order that the Department of Health



       may carry out its obligations under Section 556(a)




       of the City Charter 'to regulate all matters



       affecting health in the city,'  the provisions of



       this article of the Code require the Department



       to pass on plans for all proposed pollution con-



       trol facilities.  It is hoped that this procedure



       will result in fruitful cooperation between the




       Department of Health and the Department of Public



       Works, as well as other departments, so that



       pollution control facilities, which represent a



       considerable capital expenditure on the part of



       the City, will prove of maximum benefit to the



       health of the people, in addition to meeting




       the necessary requirements of sound sanitary en-



       gineering.  The Health Department's unique con-



       tribution to pollution control is its long exper-



       ience in safeguarding health by controlling potential

-------
               F. Kent                               422








       sources of disease."



               The Health Department is thus responsible



for (a) the sampling and classification of all bathing



waters, (b) the review and approval of all sewage treat-



ment plants (either municipal or private) and drainage



plans/ (c) the surveillance of operations of all plants/



(d) the locating and disposing of all illegal direct



sewage discharges (whether private or industrial) and



(e) all other activities which affect either directly



or indirectly the quality of City waters.  This includes



the broad functions of research and planning.



               In order to carry out these programs and



others, on July 1, 1951, the Bureau of Sanitary Engineer-




ing was officially established.  The Health Department/



through the Bureau of Sanitary Engineering/ has con-



ducted and is still carrying out a comprehensive Water



Pollution Control Program.



               The various phases of this program are



listed below:




               A.  Beach and Harbor Water Sampling



               Each year/ the Bureau samples the beaches



of the City of New York/ in order to determine the cur-




rent status of the quality of the beach areas not covered

-------
                   F.  Kent                           423








under Article 165.05 of the Health Code which specifies




areas in which bathing is prohibited.  This activity is



dictated by the^policy to classify the beaches adopted by



the Board of Health in 1948 which states in part:



               "Whereas it is necessary in the public



       interest to institute standards for legal ad-




       ministrative guidance of the Commissioner of



       Health in relation to the pollution of waters



       at bathing beaches."



               In January 1968 the City Council passed



a law amending the Administrative Code which now re-



quires the posting of polluted public beaches.  Beaches




to be posted  "Polluted WatersNot Recommended for



Bathing" are selected by the Department of Health on



the basis of sampling results and sanitary surveys.



As a result, the public beaches in Coney Island from



West 29th Street to Sea Gate and in Staten Island from



South Beach to Graham Beach were so posted.



               B.  Sewage Treatment Plants  (Municipal)-



State Aid - $4,000,000 Annually



               The New York City Department of Health is




responsible for the inspection and evaluation of the



City's thirteen municipal sewage treatment plants under

-------
                   F. Kent                           424








two mandates; (1)  Article 145 of the Health Code, which



calls for general regulation, and (2) State of New York



requirements as part of its State aidOperation and




Maintenance Program.



               Under the provisions of the Pure Waters



Bond, the State enacted a law which provides grants to




compensate cities for one-third the cost of operation



and maintenance of their treatment facilities.  Sewage



treatment facilities are operated by the Department of




Water Resources.  The New York City Health Department,



as a result of its inspections and analyses, certifies



to the State Health Department that these facilities




are operated according to their design and/or capabili-




ties, comply with local, State and interstate regula-



tions, and are not affecting the receiving waters adversely,



The City Health Department is thus responsible for cer-



tain functions relating to this program, including the



review of all applications as well as the conduct of



inspections of all municipal sewage treatment plants.



               C.  Treatment Plant Plan Review



               Under Article 145 of the Health Code,



the Department of Health passes on plans for all pro-



posed pollution control facilities.  These include

-------
                   F.  Kent                           425








sewers and sewerage systems, treatment works,  disposal




systems and outlets, as well as municipal sewage dis-




posal systems.  By definition,  the latter include sani-




tary, storm and combined sewers, intercepting  sewers,




intercepting collector sewers,  sewage treatment or pol-



lution control facilities, drains and other facilities,




connections and equipment for the conveyance,  treatment




and disposal of sewage and drainage operated by depart-




ments and offices of the City.




               D.  Industrial Wastes Enforcement




               The Bureau of Sanitary Engineering is ac-




celerating its Industrial Wastes Enforcement Program.




The purpose of this program is to eliminate all sources




of industrial and institutional wastes.  It is estimated




that there are some one hundred (100) such polluters




presently discharging wastes into our waters.   The




program calls for elimination of these pollution sources



by 1972.




               The Bureau is presently working with the




industries, and the Department of Water Resources within




the framework of the State Health Department's compre-




hensive pollution abatement program.




               We are pleased to report that significant

-------
                   F. Kent                           426








progress is being made in this program.   A number of



our large polluters have either started  construction or



have submitted abatement schedules for our approval.




Two large industries Proctor & Gamble, Staten Island



and F & M Schaefer, Brooklyn, have initiated construction.



Both industries are faced with the large tasks of separ-




ating their clean (storm) and dirty (industrial and sani-



tary) lines so that City sewer hook-up can be achieved.



Complete abatement at Schaefer is expected shortly.



Abatement at Proctor & Gamble, however,  is dependent



upon the municipal interceptor schedule.



               Nassau Smelting, Staten Island and




Pepsico, Queens, have both submitted abatement schedules.




Both call for complete abatement by 1972.



               The American Sugar Company has submitted



plans for the abatement of pollution.  Final approval,



however/ has been delayed due to the questions raised



by their large thermal load.



               A number of other industrial polluters



have either hired a consulting engineering firm to eval-



uate their problem or are in the process of accepting



bids for construction. These include Irving Subway,



Chelsea Fibre Mills, D. D. Williamson and Manhattan

-------
                   F.  Kent                           427








Adhesives.




               These industries I have just mentioned ac-



count for over 90 per cent of the total industrial waste



load.



               E.  Private Sewage Treatment-Operations



Inves tigati on




               The Bureau conducts investigations of



operating procedures at private sewage treatment plants.



During such investigation, a general survey is made and



effluent samples are taken.  This function is outlined



in the Health Code Section 145.07 - Operations:



               "The owner or person in charge of dis-




       posal facilities shall maintain it in good order



       and repair. The disposal facility shall be oper-



       ated so as not to create a nuisance or health



       hazard, and it shall be operated in accordance



       with any terms contained in a permit or approval



       issued pursuant to Section 145.03 or in an order




       served pursuant to Section 145.05."



               The Bureau investigates the operation of



some 20 plants regularly.  It is anticipated that the




number of these plants will be substantially increased



in the future due to the extensive development of Staten

-------
                   P. Kent                           428








Island.  There are presently plans on the boards for




plants to serve community developments, schools and hos-



pitals .



               F.  Dr ainage Plans



               Under Section 683a4-1.0 of the Administra-




tive Code, the Department reviews and passes upon all



drainage plans with reference to the potential effect




upon receiving water.  Article 145 also provides authority



to the Department to pass upon plans for sewerage construc-



tion.



               In conclusion, we in the New York City




Department of Health, as representatives of the people



of the City, will continue in the future as we have in




the past, our task of protecting the health and well-



being of the public.  We will continue to cooperate with



all other water pollution control agencies  (State,



Interstate and Federal) to assure our citizens the im-



provements demanded by a public awareness for a cleaner



environment and made possible by modern technology.



               Thank you.



               MR. STEIN:  Thank you for an excellent



statement, Mr. Kent.

-------
                   F.  Kent                           429








               I am sure New York  feels  as  lucky as  I  do




to have you up here.   It's wonderful to see  you again.



               Are there any comments or questions?




               MR. METZLER:  Yes.  I would like to  first




compliment Fred Kent  on this excellent statement.



               I am interested in the matter with respect




to the bathing beaches in which you post the bathing  beach,



but our upstate triends have a situation where you  put



up signs saying "Bathing Prohibited" and another sign



out in front which invites people in, is there any  en-



forcement of the beach posting?



               MR. KENT:  No.  I  would say the beach




posting this year was carefully worked out with the



Department of Parks,  Recreation and Cultural Development,



to make sure we did not have a conflict.  They were all



placed together with  the full knowledge that what we  are



trying to do is certainly not to  cut out a recreational



facility which might still be used for some bathing and



other types of recreation, and minimize the exposure  of



the individual, and,  therefore, this is a program  that



has been actually enforced this year.



               MR. METZLER:  What you are saying is that



you post it?

-------
                   P. Kent                           430



               MR. KENT:  Yes.

               MR. METZLER:  But you don't prohibit people

from going in?   They go in at their own risk?

               MR. KENT:  Yes.

               MR. METZLER:  Do you provide lifeguards

there?

               MR. KENT:  The Department of Parks pro-

vides the lifeguards with the precaution that any muni-

cipality would that would be held liable in case an indi-

vidual was killed.

               If he takes his own risk, he is still pro-

tected by law.  I think the Department has the same type

of responsibility to provide the same coverage here.

               MR. STEIN:  Is there any other comment,

gentlemen?

               (No response)

               MR. STEIN:  If not, thank you very much.

               It is exactly 5:00 now.  We couldn't have

timed it more closely.

               We will stand recessed until 9:30 tomorrow,

when we will hear from New Jersey.  If there are any other

people who want to make a statement, we will hear them

after New Jersey.

               (Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m,, an adjournment was

taken until June 19, 1969 at 9:30 a.m.)
                        * * *

-------
                                                     431
                  JUNE 19, 1969




                    9:30 a.m.








               MR. STEIN:  May we reconvene?



               I am not quite sure that New York State




has completely finished with its testimony.




               Mr. Metzler, do you have any more?



               MR. METZLERi  Well, I remember, Mr. Chair-




man, that yesterday we deferred the testimony of Mrs.



Parrell Jones, who is Chairman of the Water Resources



Committee of the New York League of Women Voters, but




may I be permitted to check through this list to be sure




that there are not others?



               MR. STEIN:  Surely.



               MR. METZLER:  Why don't we go ahead with



Mrs. Jones, if we may, and by the time she is finished,



I will have checked the others.



               MR. STEIN:  Thank you.



               MR. METZLER:  I might say that the League



of Women Voters in New York State played a major role,



as they have in many other places in the United States,



in calling public attention to the need for water pollu-



tion abatement and toward supporting and organizing local

-------
                 Mrs. F. Jones                       432









officials to attack this problem,  so we are very grateful




because this is one of the most imporant witnesses we




have from New York State.






                   STATEMENT BY




                MRS. FARRELL JONES




             WATER RESOURCES CHAIRMAN




    LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NEW YORK STATE






               MRS. JONES:    Thank you very much.  I




am Mrs. Farrell Jones, Water Resources Chairman and a




member of the board of management of the League of Women




Voters of New York State.  The League of Women Voters




has been actively engaged since 1956, in studying, testi-




fying, educating our members and, to the best of our




ability, the public on the need for "comprehensive long-




range planning for conservation and development of




water resources and improvement of water quality."



The quotation is part of the national consensus of the




League of Women Voters reached in 1960.  The consensus




is as valid and the need is as great today as it was




nine years ago.




               Secretary Klein was kind enough yesterday




to commend the League for its steadfastness in appearing

-------
                   Mrs.  P.  Jones                     433








and testifying at hearings  around the country.   We only




hope that our fight for clean water will not have to




equal our 20-year record in fighting for permanent




personal registration.




               We heard testimony yesterday from Federal,




interstate, State and New York City officials and agen-




cies on what has been done  in abating the pollution of




the Hudson River and the interstate tributaries during




the past few years.  While  it is obvious that considerable




progress has been made, it is also obvious that the great




promise of 1965 of the Federal Water Pollution Control




Act and the New York State Pure Waters Program may not




be fully realized unless the missing ingredient is re-




infused into these promises.  The missing ingredient,




of course, is money.  Money to complete the construc-




tion and upgrading of treatment plants to prevent the




discharge of raw or partially treated sewage into these



waters; and money to investigate, evaluate and install




some of the imaginative remedial programs for combined




sewer overflows, storm water runoff pollution, perhaps



tertiary treatment for removal of nutrients, and alter-




natives to sea dumping of sludge and industrial waste.




               The League of Women Voters is firmly

-------
                   Mrs. F. Jones                     434








committed to the construction and upgrading to effective



secondary treatment of sewage treatment plants discharg-



ing into these estuaries.  All the voluminous standards



in the world will not improve the waters, unless the




effluents from these plants are free from bacterial and




viral contamination, suspended solids and nutrients



that promote algal growth, and a biochemical oxygen de-



mand that disturbs the natural ecological balance of the




receiving water.  We in the New York State League are



also aware that these waters lie in the region surveyed



as Basin 1 by the American Public Works Association for



FWPCA, and reported by them in 1967 to have the lowest



figure for secondary treatment plants in the Nation



ten per cent.




               Therefore, we realize that cost will be



high. We feel that the public and through them the



United States Congress must be made aware that the total



gap of one billion, 512 million dollars between the



amount authorized for sewage treatment plant construc-



tion in 1965, and the amount appropriated (if the



appropriation for fiscal 1970 is only $214 million out



of a possible $1 billion) is abominable.  If you read



the New York Times tomorrow maybe that may even be in

-------
                   Mrs.  F.  Jones                      435








jeopardy.  We feel that this is abominable.   Even if the




$1 billion were appropriated this year,  it is not nearly



enough, since the States reported on March 31 that pend-



ing applications for Federal sewage construction grants



totaled $2-1/4 billion.  Our national priorities must be




re-examined.



               If the pollution caused by inadequately




treated dry weather flow of sewage were to be abated




tomorrow, we would still be faced with the problem of



combined sewer overflows and urban storm water runoff.



The programs now being investigated under FWPCA grants




and contracts may provide the answer.  We are hopeful



that projects such as the Spring Creek Auxiliary Pollu-



tion Control Project will prove an effective solution



in areas of the city where land use allows for the



construction of these holding basins. We agree with the



report presented yesterday by Mr. Bromberg of FWPCA



that more research will have to be done to find solutions



for highly developed sections like Manhattan Island.




This research and subsequent construction will be costly.



Whatever the cost solutions must be found, so that more



and more beaches in our urban areas can be opened to



the public, rather than closed.  It is a factor in the

-------
                   Mrs. F. Jones                     436








survival of our cities.




               There is a great need for a massive ed-



ucational attack by all levels of government, the news



media, and organizations such as the League.  We must




convince the public and industry that solutions to the




problems of our vast potable water supply being diminished



by pollution, and our water based recreational areas




dwindling, even as our population increases and shorter



working hours allow more time to utilize these areas.



We cant wait for another drought to arouse our citizens.




               Thank you for the opportunity to testify



here today.




               MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mrs. Jones, for




an excellent statement.




               Are there any comments or questions?



               Yes, Mr. Metzler?




               MR. METZLER:  Well, there is a question



that I would like to ask about, because it seems to me



that as I view the overall program in New York probably



the area in which we are still putting less effort and



manpowerwe are so involved in the promoting of design



and approval of design and approval of construction, that



I think the effort perhaps is not as great as it needs to

-------
                   Mrs. P. Jones                     437








be in backing up local officials and in promoting pro-




jects where the local officials are moving but not rapidly



enough.



               Do you have any suggestions as far as the




New York State Health Department is concerned for bolster-




ing the effort and how we may work with the League in



bolstering these efforts of the local chapters, such as




yours?



               MRS. JONES:  I am answering the first part



of your statement.




               I don't believe that the problem lies with



the State.  I believe that it lies with the fact that



the Federal Government has promised and did promise a



certain amount of money to help in construction costs*



               The New York State communities for the



most part would be eligible for 55 per cent Federal



money.  That would leave 30 per cent for the state and



15 per cent for the local community to raise.



               Right now, the State is paying 59 per



cent, the Federal Government one per cent, leaving 40



per cent for the local governments.  They are not moving,



because they keep waiting and waiting for the reduction



to 15 per cent.

-------
                  Mrs.  F.  Jones                            438









                I don't know what the solution to this is.




 My only idea is that we have got to, as  I said in my final




 statement,  convince the public  that this  is  not a far




 off problem and that it is  with us  now.




                I feel  personally that we  have time to




 reach the moon.  I don't  know whether we  have time to save




 our cities.




                MR.METZLER:   Thank you.




                MR. STEIN:   Are  there any  further comments




 or questions?




                MR. KLASHMAN:  Mrs.  Jones,  I  just want to




 clarify the  record.




                The statement  that the Federal Government




 is only putting up one per  cent is  not completely true




 at the moment.   I mean,  it  has  changed a  little bit.




                As a matter  of fact,  in many  cases,  in




 the smaller  communities--that is,smaller  in  terms of




 New York Statethe Federal Government is  putting up  the




 full 30 per  cent.  On  the larger projects  what you say




 is true, but in many projects now the Federal Government




 is putting up 30 per cent.




                MRS. JONES:   Is  this  true  in  New York




 State?




                MR. KLASHMAN:  I am  talking about New

-------
                   Mrs.  F.  Jones                      439








York State.




               MRS. JONES:   Fine.   I'm glad to hear it.




               MR. STEIN:   Mrs.  Jones, before you leave,




I think that the statement that  you put forth is a very




sophisticated one, but let me give you a comment in




the sense that we see it.




               While there has been a Federal authoriza-




tion, obviously in the Federal Government or in the




States until the money is  appropriated the money is not




available.




               I know a lot of people not only in New




York State but in other States have talked about Federal




promises.  I speak as an old hand at Government.  I don't




know that any authorization is what I would call a




Federal promise.



               Mrs. Jones, if you totaled up the amount




of authorizations in basic legislation that the Congress



has made and you equated that with the budget, you would




find that this runs something many times exceeding that.




               As  I look at it, when you have an author-




ization, in effect, all you have is a hunting license.




Then you have to go out.  I don't know that that is an




appropriation.

-------
                   Mrs, F. Jones                     440

               Again, here is the problem as I see it
here:  I think we have a very acute problem in the metro-
politan area of New York and, as a matter of fact, in
dealing with the whole Hudson River in the area of this
conference from the Albany-Troy area down.
               I think the cities here and New York
State in particular have recognized the fiscal facts
of life.  I do think New York State has come up with a
program for treatment of the sewered communities.
               This does not mean that we are going to
take care of the stormwater problem. We do not have a
definitive answer right now as to sludge disposal, because
these are things we have to work out, but we do have a
time schedule to bring everything up to roughly secondary
treatment and chlorinate the effluent.
               New York has one, New Jersey has one, and
given the fiscal facts of the present time, they believe,
and here is what we are looking for within these facts,
we have the financial resources to meet this schedule.
               I do think again, to be realistic, that
we cari*t wait for extra money to come from places where
we do not have any assurances it is going to come.  We
have to get moving with this program if we are going to

-------
                   Mrs. F. Jones                     441








make particularly a metropolitan area such as New York a




living reality, so that people can just stay around there




and live there.




               The very fact that 50 per cent of the




potential beach area in the metropolitan areas is posted




as polluted is just the kind of thing that you have to




recognize we cannot live with.




               I appreciate your remarks generally about




money that has to be available, but the forum here is




really a forum of technical people who, given the finan-




cial limitations that we have, are trying to work out the




best kind of program we can and to see what kind of re-




sults we can achieve.




               I just have one more point, because I




know the League has come up with this again and again.



               Even with the best kind of financing you




would have from the Federal Government, I do think--and



Commissioner Lang is there and has recognized this here



for many, many years--with the kind of projects we have




in the big cities, unless we have a drastic change, they




very well may get a relatively small percentage of



Federal fundsr     I think the program was designed this




way from the beginning*

-------
                   Mrs. F. Jones                     442








               When you look at the 30 per cent grants




we had, or the 40 or the 50 per cent grants, if you would




look at a project such as we have in New York City, we




have the west side plant, $220 million.  The total Federal




appropriation is $214 million.



               With a $220 million project, how much can




you expect?




               I think if you would look at cities, such




as Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, Philadelphiayou name




themand try to think of the terms of the financial




participation of the Federal funds, you will find that



in all these cities it is always considerably less than




the 30 per cent.




               Now, I say this to the League because I




know your proposal in your statement is very sophisti-




cated.  It was never contemplated, even at the best, that




the Federal program as conceived would be the kind of



program which would necessarily be available for a 55




per cent grant, and that funds should be available for




these real large City projects.




               This may change, but I think the program




historically started with grants for Cities where the




limit was $250,000 at first, and then it went up to

-------
                     Mrs. Fo Jones                       443








$600,000.  Then we raised it.  It started out as a small




city project and was raised.




               I don't think that anyone has come up with




anything in the program yet that is going to result in




substantial participation in terms of percentage for these




tremendously large city projects.  This should be made




clear, because if we wait for the money to come we may be




living with pollution for a long time.




               We are trying within these limitations to




come up with a realistic time schedule and move forward




as best we can.




               Thank you.




               Mr. Metzler?




               MR. METZLER:  Your  extension of Mrs.




Jones' remarks leaves me in a position that I simply




can't refrain from further commenting.  There are two or




three points I think that are important.




               The first is that local officials and lay




organizations are not as sophisticated in interpreting




the difference between authorizations and appropriations,




arid that it is the local officials and lay people we are




working with.

-------
                   Mrs.  F. Jones                     444








               These folks see the offer of 55 per cent



aid from the Federal Government and they regard the com-



mitments which both the Congress and President Johnson



made as Federal promises.



               I can't speak for the League of Women



Voters, but I will speak for the officialdom of New York



in trying to convince our Congress, our representatives



of Congress, to do everything they can to make the Federal



contribution more meaningful.  That is our problem.




               What I want to say to you as a top of-



ficial of the Department of the Interior is that we want



your Department's support for these funds.




               I want to say also that as far as I know,



this year for the first time since the program has been



transferred from HEW to Interior you recommended a big



authorization, whereas previous administrations in In-



terior have said that the States could not spend it.



               But we also want your support on retain-



ing the prefinancing provisions that are in the Federal



legislation, because New York and some other States now,



about ten I think, have the prefinancing provisions, and



if these are knocked out, I can assure you that we will



regard this as reneging on a promise.

-------
                   Mrs. F. Jones                         445








               In other words, we want your support, and




we have gotten more of it in the last few months.  We want




this continued, and expect to put all the support we can




with Congress and place the priority high enough on en-




vironmental clean-up and specifically water pollution




abatement to get something meaningful in the way of con-




struction grants, rather than the niggardly $200 level that




we have been hung up on for several years.




               MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Metzler.




               Are there any other comments?




               (No response.)




               MR. STEIN:  Before we go on, I understand




Ellen Krieger of Senator Javits' office is here.  Miss




Krieger, do you want to make a statement?




               MISS KRIEGER:  No.




               MR. STEIN:  Thank you very much for coming.




               Mr. Metzler?




               MR. METZLER:  I have exhausted the list




of those of New York State who have advised us that they




wanted to appear.




               Unless  I see someone raise his hand or




stand up, I will assume this exhausts the witnesses from




New York, Mr. Chairman.

-------
                                                        446
               MR. STEIN:  Thank you.




               I have a letter addressed to me from the




New York State Society of Professional Engineers, dated




June 12, 1969, which at the Society's request should be




included in the record.




               (The above-mentioned letter follows.)

-------
                                                                446 A

THE NEW YORK STATE SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
                            INCORPORATED

                 METROPOLITAN CHAPTER PRESIDENTS' COUNCIL
                       500 FIFTH AVENUE
                         NEW YORK, N. Y. 10036
                              /NATIONALS
                              /SOCIETY Of \
                              J PROFESSIONS!.
                              "ENGINEERS ,
Bronx          Kings           New York          Queens           Richmond
                                       June 12,  1969

  Mr.  Murray Stein,  Assistant Commissioner
  Enforcement Department
  Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
  1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
  Arlington,  Virginia 22202

                                       Re:  Hudson River
                                       Conference, June 18-19, 1969

  Dear Mr. Stein:

  It has been brought to our attention that your administration
  will hold a conference in connection with the pollution of the
  interstate waters  of the Hudson River and its tributaries.
  Unfortunately,  the annual convention of our Society is held in
  Massena, N.Y. on the 18th through the 21st and consequently we
  cannot be present  at your conference.  Nevertheless, the subject
  is of such importance that we feel it necessary to submit our
  views in writing.   We hope that due consideration will be given
  to our statements.

  The New York State Society of Professional Engineers (NYSSPE) is
  the recognized spokesman for the engineering profession in the
  State of New York.  Its membership consists of professional engi-
  neers licensed by  the State Education Department for the specific
  purpose "to safeguard life, health and property".  In the Metro-
  politan area of New York City there are over 12,000 professional
  engineers so licensed.

  The Metropolitan Chapter Presidents' Council consists of the
  presidents of the  five county chapters in the City of New York.

-------
                                                               446 B
 Page  2
"Mr. Murray Stein
 June  12,  1969
 Since  water  pollution  directly affects  the  life,  health  and
 safety of  all  residents  of  this city, we  are deeply  concerned
 about  the  existing  conditions  and  lack  of any  tangible improve-
 ments  in the last several decades.

 It  appears that water  pollution is  universally considered  as
 detrimental  to the  ecology  of  the  entire  area.  Consequently,
 we  support any effort  and any  action which  will lead to  cleaning
 up  the pollution of the  Hudson River, the Upper Bay  and  Lower  Bay.

 The sources  of pollution have  been  known  for many years.   It is
 true that  some new  pollutants  have  been added  in  recent  years.
 It  is  also recognized  that  some of  the  effluent are  being  treated.
 However, the composition of effluents has changed and therefore,
 the amount of  pollution  has been steadily increasing in  the last
 decades.

 It  is  inconceivable that the richest country in the  world  cannot
 clean  up its waters while some of  the poorer countries have been
 doing  it for the last  50 years or more.

 We  do  not  believe that the  delay in eliminating this deplorable
 situation  is due to the  lack of funds.  The bond  issue approved
 by  the residents of New  York State  and  the  federal contributions
 are sufficient to develop treatment plants  for  processing  75 or
 80% of the major pollutants.   Unfortunately, some communities  and
 some industries are not  capable, for one  reason or another, of
 proceeding energetically with  the necessary projects.

 We  respectfully recommend that a time schedule  be established  in
 order  to purify the Lower Hudson within the next  ten (10)  years.

 We  also recommend that the  State and/or Federal agencies should
 take over  the  compliance with  the  schedule  whenever  a local com-
 munity or  industry  is  delinquent by one year or more.

 Should the above mentioned  take-over require special legislation,
 we  recommend that such a law or laws be passed  without delay.

-------
                                                                446C
Page 3
Mr. Murray Stein
June 12, 1969
We also respectfully recommend that consideration be given to
developing a system of fines.  Such a system should provide for
progressive increase of fines.  The first year the violator
should be penalized at the rate of not less than $10. per thousand
cubic feet of untreated water discharged into the Hudson or any
of its tributaries.  In any subsequent year, the fine should be
increased by $10. per thousand cubic feet.

We respectfially recommend that any commission, agency or authority
formed for the purpose of regulating and controlling water pol-
lution problems be headed by licensed Professional Engineers.

To summarize, we wholeheartedly support any action leading to
cleaning up the waters of the Hudson River.  We do recommend a
definite schedule for such a program and methods of enforcing
the schedule.

                                     Respectfully submitted,

                                     METROPOLITAN CHAPTER x
                                     PRESIDENTS1 COUNCIL  [
JDL/pbg
cc:  Bronx
     Kings
     New York
     Queens
     Richmond
     NYSSPE
     Comm. M.M. Feldman, P.E.
     Files

-------
                                                     446D
               Let me tell you the schedule, as I see it.



               We will call on New Jersey.  I suspect we



should be completed with the statements this morning.  At



that time the conferees, depending on when we finish, will



go into Executive Session, and we will give you an esti-



mate of when we will have an announcement, which we con-



fidently expect to be today before we adjourn the con-



ference .



               But I would suggest that anyone in the



audience believing that  he has   something to add or




wishing to make a statement should decide that he is



going to do that while the New Jersey testimony is being



given so that you can get your name up here and be called



on, if that is your desire.



               With that, we will call on Mr. Sullivan



of New Jersey.

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       447








                   STATEMENT BY




              MR. RICHARD J. SULLIVAN




               CONFEREE AND DIRECTOR




         DIVISION OF CLEAN AIR AND WATER




      NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH








               MR, SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr.  Chairman.




               My name is Richard Sullivan.  I am Director




of the Division of Clean Air and Water, and I am here at




the conference as the representative of the New Jersey




Department of Health.




               We consider ourselves to be guests at this




conference, not hosts, so we have not invited anyone to




appear to make a statement.  I would not like this fact/




however, to deprive any person representing himself or




any organization in New Jersey of the opportunity to




speak at this hearing.



               I have been informed earlier this morning



that a spokesman is here for an organization in New




Jersey and would like to testify, and I will call him in




a moment, but upon the completion of his testimony I will




ask if there is any other person from New Jersey who would




like to have his views made known, and I will be happy to




invite him to the podium to do so.

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       448








               Before  calling the  other witness,  there  is



a brief statement I would like to  make myself.



               I have  an official  statement,  which I  will



paraphrase somewhat in my own comments here.   The statement



says I am happy to be  here.  The truth is our Department



picnic is today (laughter), and is a much more convivial



occasion than this one is, and to recite the  language in




ray statement would be  hypocrisy.



               In our  view, if cleaner water  is to be



the measure of progress made since the last session of



this conference, then there hasn't been very much.  The



Hudson River is somewhat less polluted than it was in



September of 1967, but most of the progress that needs




to be made is still to be made.



               We have had a presentation by Thomas Glenn



of the Interstate Sanitation Commission of individual



improvements made that affect water quality in this area,



the additional treatment where none was provided, and the



provision of post-chlorination of effluent for the pur-




pose of disinfection.



               We still have substantial quantities of



inadequately treated wastes coming from treatment facili-



ties in New Jersey, and we still have substantial quantities

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                        449








of wastes receiving no treatment at all coming from the



City of New York.



               I was pleased to be able to witness the




presentation made by New York as to the steps it proposes



to take and a fixed time schedule to correct its problems.



I hope it meets this schedule and I hope that we are able



in New Jersey to make equivalent improvements.



               It seems to me that the most appropriate



focus of this session is not the progress that hasn't



been made yet, but the factors that will govern whether



or not satisfactory progress will be made hereafter, and



whether or not it will be made in a reasonable and pre-



dictable time.



               In our opinion, the two key elements here



are enforcement and costs.



               Throughout its territory, New Jersey has



attempted to construct an orderly systematic scientific



enforcement effort.  Water quality standards were drawn,



and so were our clean water objectives for all of our



nine thousand miles of streams, our inland waters, es-



tuaries, bays, tidal waters and coastal waters.   All of



the waterways of the State have been classified as to the



official objectives to be sought through this enforcement

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       450








effort.



               To make this achievement possible,  treat-



ment regulations have been promulgated, binding upon any



person who would put wastes of any kind into any waterway



in New Jersey.  Approximately 250 administrative orders




have been issued requiring conforming with these regula-



tions and setting forth a detailed time schedule for com-



pliance.



               These orders have been issued to municipal-



ities, joint meetings, authorities, industries, school



boards, shopping centers, and other entities that are now



causing wastewater to enter a stream either without ade-




quate treatment or without treatment at all, and,  in any



event, failing to meet the treatment requirements  of the



Department.



               Throughout New Jersey some of the industrial



or private recipients of these orders are not meeting the



time schedule.  Most are, but almost all of the governmental



entities are failing to meet the time schedules set forth



in these orders, not just in the region under considera-



tion, but throughout our State.



               I have presented as an appendix to this



statement, and I will not recite it here,which would be

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       451








inappropriate, a list of the entities that are located



within the scope of this Hudson River Conterence which



have received orders with an indication of the timetable




for compliance contained in those orders.



               Two industries have been added to the list



since the last session of this Conference.  For one of



these, the due date on his order has not arrived.  For



the other, we are in active discussion, and the prospect



of early compliance is very good.




               With respect to the governmental agencies,



all eight, except the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners,



have complied with our directive to provide effective post-




chlorination of the effluent in the period of 15 May to



15 September.



               So far as the other steps for compliance



that are contained in these orders is concerned, North



Bergen, in response to Step 3, has submitted preliminary



plans which are now under review by us. The Jersey City



Sewerage Authority and the City of Hoboken have submitted



reports of design as required by Step 2 of our adminis-



trative orders.  Bayonne, Edgewater, the Passaic Valley



Sewerage Commissioners, West New York and Kearny have not



met any of the steps contained in the orders.

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       452








               It is our policy as  the enforcement agency,




and that is, after all,  our essential function in the



administration of the remedial statutes,  to invoke the



sanctions provided by the statute against those who are



bound by administrative  orders and who failed to take the



steps reasonably necessary to comply with such orders.



               Three diligent and competent deputy at-




torneys general serve us in handling air and water pol-



lution cases for our division in the required court ac-



tions .



               Since the last session of this conference,



60 water pollution cases have been brought to the courts.



Where we have sought an injuctive order or penalties,




or both, for failure to observe the requirements of ad-



ministrative orders and the statutes that enable them,



the courts have been most responsive.  The State has not



lost an air or water pollution case in the two and-a-half



years the Division of Clean Air and Water has been in



existence.  In every case in which we sought an injunctive




order of our Superior Court, an injunction was obtained.




               It is a departure from the traditional



method of remedy seeking in the courts.  In New Jersey



this past year, in order to deal with what we considered

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       453








to be a drastic pollution problem, we sought an unpreceden-



ted drastic remedy.  The case involved nine communities




in the County of Morris whose wastes were being inadequately




treated before entering the Rockaway River, which is a




tributary of the Passaic.




               Because of the hazard to health created




by the pollution of this stream, we asked the court to




forbid all nine of these towns from the issuance of any




building permits until adequate measures are made to dis-




pose inoffensively of the wastes that the existing build-




ings are already producing.  That court order was issued




and became effective on the 8th of August of last year,




and it is still binding.   The disposition of wastes is




still inadequate.




               The court has publicly indicated its in-




tention to keep this order in effect until the necessary



steps are taken.  In effect, those nine towns have been




shut down because of the pollution condition they caused.




That is a drastic remedy, and it will be employed only




when the facts require it.




               Since the Morris County case, there has




also been employed in the City of Bridgeton, in the High




Ridge Sewer Company case, and most recently against the

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       454








Town of Beach Haven, in a case in which the State brought




15 ocean county communities to court for their similar




failure to observe the requirements of administrative




orders.




               I have included, just for general infor-




mation for those of you who may have an interest, the




identity of the 60 cases throughout New Jersey to which




I have just referred that have been brought before the




court since the September 1967 session of this conference,



               In the area of specific interest here,




court actions were initiated against the Town of West




New York, the Town of Kearny and the Passaic Valley Sewer-




age Commissioners.




               In the case of West New York, there was,




in addition to the failure to observe the administrative



order requirements, a substantial deterioration in the




treatment processes of the plant, to the point where the




court actually assumed trusteeship over the plant and



appointed one of our engineers as his representative to




operate the plant and make the necessary improvements.




This is also a first.




               The case of the Passaic Valley Sewerage




Commissioners is the most notable of the three, partly

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       455








because of the complexities of the issues,  including jur-




isdiction, and the fact that this treatment plant is the



largest in New Jersey, processing almost one-fourth of



the one billion gallons a day receiving treatment in our




State.



               In recapitulation here, it is our inten-



tion to seek court action in all cases where the recipients




of orders failed to take reasonable and timely action



toward compliance. We will move as quickly as we can



these cases throughout New Jersey, giving priority to



those instances where no action whatever has been taken,



and, hopefully, giving priority to those cases where the



result of inaction has the most immediate impact on the




public.



               It now appears likely to us that a con-



siderable number of additional court actions will be



entered before the end of 1969.



               I made reference in my printed statement



that an analysis of the proceedings in the Passaic Valley



Sewerage Commissioners case would be presented by Deputy



Attorney General Theodore Schwartz who served as our



counsel in that case.  Unfortunately, Mr. Schwartz was




not able to come until this afternoon, and, fortunately,

-------
                    R. Sullivan                          456






we won't all have to be here this afternoon, so that state-




ment will simply be provided for the record, with the per-




mission of the Chairman.




               MR. STEIN:  That will be done.  Isn't Mr.




Schwartz going to the picnic either?




          (The above-mentioned material, marked Exhibit #2,




is on file at Hq. FWPCA, Washington, D. C., the Regional




Office, Boston, Massachusetts, and the Hudson-Delaware Basin




Office, Edison, New Jersey.)




               MR. SULLIVAN:  In the separation  of activities




that we have, Mr. Schwartz works for the Attorney General




and they have their own picnic (laughter).




               ME.. STEIN:  New Jersey is going to rival the




Federal Government in its complexity.  We do the same thing.




               MR. SULLIVAN:  In the area of interest to this




conference, in the geographical area and in a number of other




places in New Jersey, it is not now physically possible to




construct the needed  and required treatment facilities in




timely compliance with the orders we have issued.  We have no




intention, however, of altering these schedules in any way.*




It seems to me very silly for a State agency or any other agency




of government to issue an enforceable order which allows, say,




four years for compliance, and then after three years of inac-




tion revise the schedules because all of the necessary work




cannot be done in the remaining twelve months.
                               I

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       457




                This  comes  under  the heading  of backsliding.



I don't think the public interest is protected by it.



               It is not our intention to relieve any of



the order recipients of the obligation imposed upon them



by the orders originally issued and now in effect.  Those



orders were necessary and proper at the time of their is-



suance.  If there was a challenge to be made for them or



a contention that they were unlawful or unnecessary, the




time to make that contention was within the period pre-



scribed in the statute--a time which has elapsed for vir-



tually all of the orders in question.



               Failure to conform with these order sched-



ules is the product of both inertia and high cost.  In



my own opinion, the high cost certainly contributes to




the inertia.



               Our statutes do not say that it is okay



to pollute if you are poor.  In the administration, again,




of this remedial statute that directs us to correct pol-



lution, we take the requirements of the statute at face



value and attempt to enforce them as best we can with



limited resources.  The assertion that it is not okay to



pollute if you are poor was affirmed in somewhat more



elegant language in the opinion of the court in the Passaic




Valley Sewerage Commissioners case.

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       458








               Nonetheless,  it is  absurd,  in my opinion,



for responsible government agencies operating in this



field not to consider and make appropriate recommenda-



tions concerning the capital funding of the very expensive



trunk lines and regional treatment facilities which are




required if our water quality standards are to be met.



               In the last 20 years in New Jersey we have



spent about $650 million for the construction of col-



lection and treatment facilities.   As a result, no com-



munity in New Jersey collects wastes and does not provide



treatment.   The treatment is painfully inadequate in



some cases.  There has been a proliferation of small in-



efficient plants, but we do not have sewered communities



in New Jersey putting their untreated wastes into the



nearest stream, and yet we have a patent inability to



conform to the water quality standards.



               Of the $650 million that has been spent



in this effort providing sewerage facilities for more



than 90 per cent of our population, three per cent of it



was Federal aid, one per cent State aid, and the other



96 per cent came out of the hide of the property taxpayer



either in the form of property taxes or in the form of



user assessments.



               Our current estimate of the costs of the

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       459








regional treatment facilities now needed in New Jersey to



serve our public to avoid the pollution of our waters,



hopefully to meet water quality standards, and to conform



with the treatment regulations and the administrative



orders that I referred to earlier, is $986 million.   That




estimate is in 1968 dollars, and it is already obsolete




because of the escalation of construction costs, but to



somehow circumscribe the issue we felt it necessary to



pin down at least the estimate with that degree of pre-



cision.



               This is the estimated cost of facilities




which are eligible for State and Federal aid.  Additional



collection systems which will be built to accompany some



of these new regional facilities to provide sewerage for



communities that now have individual disposal systems.



The cost of these collection systems that will be built



along with the $986 million is estimated to be $225



million.



               To put into place the facilities whose



need we can now identify without rebuttal, in my own




judgment, is about $1.2 billion.




               While I have worked with the Government



for a long time, I am still impressed with a number of
          r

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       460








that size.



               In New Jersey, and I suppose it is true



elsewhere as well, we cannot expect local governments to



continue to assume these enormous costs without non-local



assistance.  In order to deal with this problem, New



Jersey's Governor Hughes earlier this year recommended



that the Legislature adopt a clean water bond issue to



provide State grants to local governments of 25 per cent



of the costs.



               A copy of our report, which served as the



basis for this recommendation, is attached to my testi-



mony, and, with the permission of the Chair, will be made



a part of the record.



               MR. STEIN:  Without objection, that will



be done.



               MR. SULLIVAN:  Included in this report,



and copies are available to any of you who would like to



examine the costs and the basis for their arrival, we



have listed all of the projects whose need we can now



identify with an estimate of the cost of each and the



basis upon which that estimate was drawn.



               We have also, in a brief narrative, at-



tempted to set forth the reasons why we thought State

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       461








capital funding in this amount was a necessity.



               Those of you who will peruse the report



will find that our recommendation was that the State pick



up 50 per cent of the cost, half of that amount being its



25 per cent share and the other half being a prefinancing



of hoped for Federal funds/ but when the number got over



$400 million, it frightened some of our elected officials,




understandably following upon the heels of a million-dollar



bond issue for other purposes last fall, and it was felt



that the 25 per cent was a more rational figure.




               On the 15th of May, 1969, the Legislature



overwhelmingly voted to put this bond issue on the ballot



in the coming November.  The amount of the issue is $271



million, of which $242 million is allocated to State



grants for sewerage facilities and the other $29 million



set up for the acquisition of reservoir sites for water




supply purposes.



               We have attempted to convince all of those



who would listen, and we have attempted to convince quite



a few people over the last few months, you can be assured,



that we have three choices here:  either we are in favor



of water pollution, an unpalatable thought; or we are in




favor of the property taxpayer picking up the whole tab

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       462








for the required corrective measures; or we are in favor



of a bond issue.



               The Legislature apparently came to the con-



clusion that these were the three choices, and responsibly



acted in favor of the third.




               We have further explained that it would do



two things:  First, it would guarantee the local government



that at least 25 per cent of the cost of this project will



be in the State Treasurer's office ready for his use when



construction commences; and, under the provisions of the



Federal statute, by receiving this 25 per cent, he will



be eligible for the maximum amount of Federal aid that



does become available hereafter.



               We claim, as a result, there isn't anything



to be gained by waiting.  If we wait around for hoped for



additional Federal funds that may never come, we will



suffer the absence of these needed facilities in the mean-



time, and the costs will rise rapidly because of the es-



calation of costs in the construction industry.  If the




needed facilities are constructed now and Federal aid



becomes available later, if the reimbursability provisions



of Federal aid are kept intact, local government will be



reimbursed and responsible local officials can then move
                                           i

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       463








to construct and to impose expenses upon their constituents




with the knowledge that they have taken all the possible




steps to assure to their citizens the alleviation of non-




local assistance.




               In my own opinion, the electorate in New




Jersey is ready to make this kind of an investment, and




we hope and expect that they will reflect their readi-




ness in an affirmative vote in November.




               Interestingly to us, one factor that




threatened seriously the adoption of this bond issue in




the New Jersey Legislature was the contention made by




some in that body that the Federal Government is unable




or unwilling to provide its share of the matching funds,




and why, therefore, should New Jersey commit itself to




this effort when the Federal Government will not keep




its share of the bargain?




               We attempted to point out in our responses



to legislators that we really do not have a choice.  The



facilities have to be built.  They are a matter of public




necessity.   The question is:  how best can we finance




them?




               In our judgment, a minimum of 25 per cent




State aid and whatever we can get from the Congress is




the way we should go, but the choice of waiting is not

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       464








really available to us.



               It has, nevertheless,  been a curiosity to




me that when the Federal statute was  adopted,  it permitted



a maximum of 55 per cent Federal aid  for those eligible



projects which received 25 per cent State aid and met



other conditions of eligibility.



               The full four-year authorization in this



legislation, if it were all appropriated, would give the




State of New Jersey not 55 per cent but about 11 per cent




of its capital needs.   The separation between the 11 per



cent and the 55 per cent is so unrealistic that it has



raised expectations that cannot be met.  This circumstance,



of course, has been made even more difficult because of



the fact that at the current rate of appropriations, if



continued for the rest of the four-year period, will



provide Federal aid not in the amount of 11 per cent but



of less than three per cent.



               In my own opinion, the net effect today



of the Federal aid program for water pollution control



has been to slow down progress rather than hasten it.



In other words, as I have attempted to make clear in my



earlier comments, we will continue through court actions,



if necessary, to enforce all of  the requirements of  this

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       465








ambitious corrective program.  Unless, however, the Federal



Government will provide more than its current level of




miserlyin the text I said "niggardly" but that word was



already used by Mr. Metzlermiserly financial support



there will not be acceptable progress.



               I listened carefully to the comments that



the Chairman made earlier that an authorization is not a



promise, which is technically correct.  I think, never-



theless, having these percentage numbers in the statute



and recognizing the high costs of correction/ that it is



necessary, at least, to meet the authorization in the



statute in the form of appropriations.



               But, in any casethis is a point I would



like to make entirely clear, and it is made without ran-



cor and it is simply an expression of opinionit is



unconscionable, in my judgment, for the responsible



Federal officials to shout urgency in New York and whisper



low priority in Washington.  If it is the collective judg-



ment of our highest elected public officials that water



pollution control is in fact a low priority item in con-



trast with other problems, so be it.  They are elected



to make those decisions.  If they make that decision,



let's accept it and sit back until our wastes are over

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       466








our shoetops.




               If, as we believe, pollution control is a




high priority item, then all of the responsible public




officials, to avoid hypocrisy, must make the painful de-




cision to appropriate the funds  despite the competition




of other pressing needs.  You can't have it both ways.




               The responsible elected officials in New




Jersey this year have made precisely that painful decision-




in a year, I might add, when a new Governor will be elec-



ted and when half of our Legislature will be elected.




They have made a bipartisan agreement to put a clean




water bond issue before the voters.  We hope that our




Federal friends will be similarly responsible when they



are shortly called upon to make a similar decision.




               This concludes the basis of my own state-




ment.  I will be glad at this time to respond to questions



by the panelists or to proceed with other witnesses, at




the pleasure of the Chairman.




                (The following documents were submitted by




Mr. Sullivan for inclusion in the record:)




        WATER POLLUTION COURT ACTIONS INITIATED




           BY NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH




Potato Products, Inc.




Boro of Bay Head

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       467








Ship Bottom Sewerage Authority



Boro of Seaside Park



Boro of Surf City



Boro of Point Pleasant Beach



Beach Haven Sewerage Authority



Boro of Seaside Heights



Berkeley Township Sewerage Authority



Long Beach Township Municipal Utilities Authority



Tuckerton Municipal Utilities Authority



Brick Township



Jackson Township Municipal Utilities Authority




Boro of Lakehurst



Dover Township Sewerage Authority




Stafford Township Municipal Utilities Authority



Boro of Island Heights



Cedar Grove



Kearny



Keyport



Matawan



Keansburg



Town of West New York



Gamma Chemical Corporation



Tenneco Chemicals, Inc.




Boro of Washington

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       468








Sanco Piece Dye Works  & Town of Phillipsburg




Republic Wire Corporation



Columbian Carbon Co.



Boro of Longport



Philip Carey Manufacturing Co.



Berkeley Township Sewerage Authority



Allegheny Industrial Chemical Co.



Hatoo Chemical Division, W. R. Grace Co.








National Fruit Products Co.



U. S. Bronze Powders,  Inc.




Bridgeton



Anthony Pio Costa




Boro of Pennington



Central Railroad of New Jersey



Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners



City of Jersey City, Parsippany-Troy Hills



Paul's Diner



D. A. Stuart Oil Co.



City of Jersey City, Town of Boonton, et al



High Ridge Sewer Co.



S. B. Penick & Co., Inc.




Drew Chemical Corp.



Johanna Farms, Inc.

-------
  o c
  00
W   ^^

a55
  o
  O
8||

5^1
       I
       1
        OS
                   o

                   I
                   l-i
<-    \->


    

o
s
i
O
t>-
i
                         i

                             I
                                              os  o\  os
                                              OS  Ov  ^
                                   <*%    V\
                                                      00
                             00
                             I
                                        CO    GO



                                        1    1
                                  vO    CO

                                                  r>.  co
                                                  ^  \O
               !
                c(


                4>
                            X
            1
                                 S>|
                                 cl
                                                                     469
                                                                CM

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                        470




             ANTICIPATED  CAPITAL NEEDS

              FOR SEWERAGE FACILITIES

                   IN NEW JERSEY



       NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

         DIVISION OF CLEAN AIR AND WATER
              Roscoe P.  Kandle,  M.D.
           State Commissioner of Health
           Richard J. Sullivan, Director
          Division of Clean Air and Water

                 February 3, 1969
               A.  INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

Water Pollution

               To say that New Jersey has a serious

water pollution problem is to state the obvious.  We

state it nevertheless.

               It is not a problem caused by a small

number of indifferent polluters.  It is the result of

the growth of our communities having greatly outdis-

tanced our pollution control efforts.  Seven hundred

fifty treatment plants put more than one billion gallons

per day of inadequately treated sanitary and industrial

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       471








wastes into our waterways. This is the essence of the prob-



lem.  It is augmented by agricultural run-off, animal



wastes, the use of insecticides, storm water run-off and




transitory dumping, or pollution episodes.



               As a consequence many of our bayshore



beaches and the bays themselves have been lost to recrea-



tional uses, including inland waters bordering communi-




ties along the southern shore whose whole economy is water-



oriented.




               A number of our rivers, including the



Passaic and the Raritan, are the receiving waters for



inadequately treated wastes but must serve as well as




the sources of public drinking water supplies.



               Several of our largest lakes, whose en-



tire development has been based upon the use of the water



for recreational purposes, are now threatened with pol-



lution.



               Seventy-nine thousand nine hundred fif-



teen acres of bay waters in the Raritan Basin and along



our southern coast have been closed to the harvesting



of shellfish because the water has become so highly



contaminated.



               The use of private septic systems in some

-------
                  R. Sullivan                       472








areas of our State where sewers are not available not




only causes pollution of the ground and of nearby streams



but contaminates wells which would otherwise be usable



for drinking water supplies.



               The continued disposition of partially



treated wastes just off shore on our north Atlantic coast,



if permitted to go uncorrected, may threaten the use of




the surf waters themselves.



               Industry which considers locating in New



Jersey is surely influenced by the quality of our en-



vironment.  For a so-called "wet" industry the quality



of water available for use is often a crucial factor in



deciding upon a new location.



               In several places in our State in cases



referred to below the courts have ordered that growth



stop until adequate waste disposal facilities can be



made available.



               All of our major and most of our minor



waterways now fail to meet the water quality standards



established for them.



Remedies



               In any discussion of water pollution con-




trol in New Jersey the three key words are enforcement,

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       473








regionalization and costsin reverse order of importance.




Enforcement



               The Division of Clean Air and Water of the



State Department of Health is the agency in the State



which has primary enforcement responsibility for water



pollution control.  We are committed to an unremitting



enforcement program.  The years of 1967 and 1968 have



seen more enforcement activity than in any period in memory,



               Water quality standards were defined with



the aid and advice of the Division of Fish and Game and




promulgated as our definitions of water quality objec-



tives .  After public hearing, all of the streams, rivers,



bays, estuaries, and coastal waters of the State have




been classified as to the water quality to be achieved.



This means that the degree of water purity nas been es-



tablished for each waterway as an enforceable objective.



               To cause these objectives to be met the



State further promulgated regulations establishing the



required degree of treatment of all waste entering any



of these waterways.  To achieve compliance with these



regulations the Division has issued 236 administrative



orders.  These orders incorporate timetables for com-



pliance.  The recipients, which for the most part include

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       474








municipalities, authorities and industries, are subject




to the sanctions provided by statute if they fail to




perform the necessary work in accordance with the schedule




set forth.




               In a series of recent court cases the



State has demonstrated its willingness to litigate where




its requirements are violated.  In addition to Superior




Court injunctions directing compliance with our orders




the Division last year sought and obtained an unprecedented




remedy.  The State requested the court to order nine com-




munities in Morris County to cease the issuance of




building permits until adequate provisions can be made




for the disposal of liquid waste.  The same remedy was




applied in the High Ridge Sewer Company case, in Wash-



ington Township in Gloucester County, and in the City




of Bridgeton.




               The Water Policy and Supply Council has



augmented our enforcement policy by refusing to issue




permits for water diversion unless the applicant can




show that the ultimate disposition of the wastes gener-



ated will be in accordance with Health Department require-




ments .




               Because the compliance schedules contained

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       475








in extant administrative orders are not being met in



many cases, in 1969 we expect to initiate a greater num-



ber of court actions.



               While rigorous enforcement is surely neces-




sary to the effective administration of the statutes, to



press those who are reluctant to move, and to deal with



individual pollution problems it is not an adequate re-



sponse to the problem.  However unrelenting the enforce-



ment it cannot by itself cause the State's needs to be



met.



Regionali zation



               For many years in New Jersey the tradi-



tion was upheld that no community is complete without



its own sewage treatment plant.  Because sewage disposal



was provided as needed as any other municipal service,



treatment plants in New Jersey proliferated.  There are



now about 750 sewage treatment plants in this State.



The proliferation is graphically shown by the map of



our State presented as Plate No. 1.



               By statute treatment plants cannot be



constructed unless permits for them are approved by



the State Department of Health.  Until 1966 however the



Department had no statutory authority to disapprove a

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       476








treatment plant becuase it was non-regional.   In 1966



the Legislature established as public policy  the need




to require the construction of sewage disposal facili-



ties on the basis of drainage basins rather than muni-



cipal boundaries.  Even in the absence of that statute




several large regional facilities had already been con-



structed, such as the facility of the Passaic Valley



Sewerage Commissioners, the Bergen County Sewer Authority,




and the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority.   In those



cases logic prevailed over custom, in the absence of



statutory requirements for regionalization. For most of



the State, however, this has not been the case.



               All of the administrative orders issued



to local government require that the construction of new




facilities be in accordance with developed plans for



regionalization.  The Department's power to prohibit non-



regional facilities was upheld in 1968 in a court chal-



lenge by a municipality.




               In order to develop the engineering plans



for regional treatment facilities the Legislature in




1966 authorized the State Health Department to make grants



to cover the cost of engineering feasibility studies. At



a cost of $1.766 million the Department has funded such

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       477








feasibility studies for almost all of the State's drain-



age basins.  These studies are referred to in Table 4.



There is still considerable reluctance in some parts of



the State to accept regionalization.  The advantages,



however, are quite apparent:




               (a) As a rule, the larger the treatment




facility the less the cost of construction and operation



per capita;




               (b) More efficient and capable plant



operation is attainable in large facilities.  Such plants



are able to hire qualified supervisory and operating per-



sonnel as well as to provide adequate laboratory controls.



Many small plants are now operating without these neces-



sities;




               (c) In order to meet the needs of growing



New Jersey greater water re-use will be employed.  This



will require highly sophisticated treatment which cannot



be accomplished with anything less than the most capable



maintenance and operation;



               (d) Many of the existing treatment plants




are focal points of local blight.  Many of these were



conditionally approved when they were built as interim



facilities which must be abandoned when a regional system



is within reach;

-------
                    R.  Sullivan                        478








                (e)  There is  much more flexibility and



 stability in the operation of a large plant.   This makes



 the plant able to absorb sudden changes in the charac-




 teristics of the wastes being treated.  This  capability



 is most necessary in the handling of wastes derived from



 a wide variety of industrial processes.




                The map on Plate 2 shows the location of



 proposed regional treatment  facilities in accordance with



the plans developed by feasibility studies.  A glance also



 at Plate 1 will show the extent to which the  proposed



 regionalization will reduce  the number of small plants



 now operating.




 Costs



                The Federal Water Pollution Control Act



 (P.L. 84-660) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior



 to make grants to any authorized agency to assist in the



 construction of interceptor  sewers, wastewater treatment



 plants and outfall sewers.  The Clean Water Restoration



 Act of 1966  (P.L. 89-753) amended the basic act by in-



 creasing the amount of Federal  Grants if the states par-



 ticipate in the grant program.



                The New Jersey State Legislature enacted




 the "State Public Sanitary Sewerage Facilitites Assistance



 Act of 1965" which authorized State participation under

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       479








the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 and appropriated




State funds to assist in the construction of wastewater



treatment disposal facilities.  This legislation author-



ized the State Department of Health to award grants not



to exceed 30 per cent of the construction cost of water



pollution control projects which qualify for Federal aid




assistance under the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act".



               The State Legislature appropriated a total




of $5,798,200 for Fiscal Years 1968 and 1969 for State



Construction Grants.  These funds were apportioned in



accordance with priorities established by the Department



of Health to projects eligible for Federal aid.  Ten




projects were funded at a rate of 9.2 per cent of the



eligible construction cost from Fiscal Year 1968 funds



and it is anticipated that ten projects will be funded



at a rate of approximately 11 per cent from Fiscal Year



1969 funds.  (See Tables 1 and 2)



               Under the terms of the Federal statute



local government is eligible for 30 per cent of the cost



of construction of sewage treatment plants and trunk



lines.  This eligibility can be increased to 55 per cent




if the State provides the legal authority and the money



to fund 25 per cent of the cost of all such projects.

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       480








               The State does have such legal authority in



the 1965 Act listed above.   In fact, however, neither



the State nor the Federal Government has appropriated



funds in amounts representing more than a tiny fragment



of the needs.



               The four-year authorization contained in



the Federal funding statute would, in accordance with




statutory formula, provide New Jersey a total of about



$109 million in aid or 12 per cent of the costs described



below.  However, if the funds appropriated continue for




the next two years at the level of the last two years



Federal aid will amount to less than three per cent of



the total needs described below.



               To date Federal and State aid funds that



have actually been appropriated have been in such small



amount as to have no measurable impact on the pollution



control program.



               In last year's statement of capital needs



and again in this discussion the Department has made as




careful an assessment as the facts would allow of the




capital costs of constructing regional sewage treatment



plants and trunk lines needed to serve the public, to




correct pollution of our waterways, and to conform with

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       481








the treatment regulations and administrative orders



described above.  Last year's estimates were presented



in testimony before the Governor's Commission to Evaluate



the Capital Needs of New Jersey.  These estimates have



now been updated.




               The total estimated costs of all facili-



ties now needed is $906,000,000.  The cutoff date in




this estimate is 1 July 1967.  Any project for which



construction was begun prior to that date is not in-



cluded.  This total therefore includes approximately




$53 million of eligible facilities which were partially



funded by State grants in fiscal 1968 and 1969, almost



all of which are now under construction.  These projects



are presented on Tables 1 and 2.  It also includes an ad-



ditional $50 million of projects for which engineering



plans are completed and approved by the Department and



which have already been certified as eligible for Federal



and State aid.



               The main list of needed facilities with



a total cost of $803 million is presented as Table 4.




These projects have not advanced to construction plans;



most have not even begun the engineering work which



must precede construction.



               The $906 million total is the esti-




mated cost of treatment plants, trunk lines and outfalls

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       482








now needed in New Jersey and which are eligible under




law for Federal and State construction grants.   The total




does not include the cost of upgrading the treatment




plant and conveyance systems of the Passaic Valley Sewer-




age Commissioners.  No information of any kind is avail-




able to us as to the cost of that project.  The Com-




missioners contend that separate legislation must be




enacted to give them authority to raise construction funds.




It should be noted, however, that the treatment plant




in question is the largest in the State; it is under



administrative order to meet existing requirements, and




has been taken to court by the Department for its




failure to do so.  That case is still pending.  It is



our guess that the cost of bringing these facilities




into conformity with State law and Department require-



ments is in excess of $100 million.




               The total estimate in our 1968 statement




of anticipated needs was $762 million.  Several comments




should be made as to the reason for the increase of




this number to the present estimate of $906 million:




(1)  It is a year later and the list of needs is commen-




surately longer.  The starting point in time is the same




for last year's estimate, i.e. 1 July 1967.  This date

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       483








was selected because any project for which construction




commences after that date which receives 25 per cent




State aid is eligible for the maximum 55 per cent Feder-




al aid.  Projects starting construction before that date




are eligible for a maximum of 33 per cent Federal aid




no matter whether the State participates or not;




(2)  Projects have been added, such as sludge digesters




for Middlesex County, and the bayshore outfall for




Monmouth County which were not contemplated a year ago;




(3)  The estimates in this report are a refinement of




those presented last year.  The refinement has been made




possible by the completion of feasibility studies in




the interim.  The basis upon which all estimates are




made in this report is set forth in Section C;




(4)  Construction costs have risen at a remarkable rate




so as to make some of last year's estimates obsolete.



If the rise continues this year's estimate will prove




conservative in the light of next year's construction



costs.  All estimates presented are in 1968 dollars.




               As noted above the $906 million is the




assessment of the cost of eligible facilities.  It will




be necessary to accompany the construction of these




eligible facilities with the construction of an estimated




$225 million of sewage collection systems which are not

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                        484








eligible for Federal and State aid (there is some eligi-



bility for limited Federal aid for such collection systems




from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Develop-



ment and other Federal agencies.  There is no eligibility



for aid from the principal funding agency:  The Federal




Water Pollution Control Administration, Department of the




Interior.)



               In our judgment it is wholly unrealistic




to expect local government with the little Federal aid



now available to bear the enormous cost of constructing



sewage facilities now needed.




               To do so would place an unconscionable




additional burden upon the property owner in the form of



additional property taxes or use charges.  Furthermore,



in the concept of regional!zation discussed above an



area-wide problem is solved on an area basis.  In many



cases this means the construction of expensive trunk



lines with sufficient capacity to serve upstream users



when the need arises.  It is unreasonable to expect those



who now will use the system to pay all by themselves for




a waste disposal facility that will accommodate growth



and development that has not yet arrived.  The question,



it seems to us, revolves around the proper distribution

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       485








of the costs among local,  State and Federal Government.



               While the Federal aid appropriations have



been very small to date interest in water pollution con-



trol is high in the Congress and we have good reason to



believe that the Federal aid program will be extended



beyond the current law's expiration date, 30 June 1971.




               If the State funds all projects at a



level not less than 25 per cent it will assure its local



government of maximum eligibility for Federal funding now




and in the future.



               Furthermore, soon to be introduced in the



Congress is a revised version of last year's S3206 which




passed both Houses with some differences that could not



be resolved in the short time remaining at the end of



the session.  This bill would augment Federal grants with




mortgage contracts between the Federal Government and



local entities which construct eligible sewerage facili-



ties.  The form of the contract would be a guarantee that



the Federal Government would pay a share of the amorti-



zation cost over a period not to exceed thirty years.



This contract arrangement is designed to make up the




difference between cash appropriations and the Federal



law's authorization in the alternative form of long-term



payments of principal and interest.

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       486








               It is our understanding through discussion



with Federal officials that this year's bill will call



for the disposition of all such mortgage funds to the



States in accordance with the following formula:  50 per



cent of all the money to States on the basis of popula-



tion; the other 50 per cent would be distributed only




to those States that have the legal authority and the



money to fund at least 25 per cent of the costs of all



eligible sewerage construction. New Jersey has the law




but it does not have the money.  If such a bill is



enacted considerable sums of money will be lost to New



Jersey if it does not provide funds of its own to under-




write at least 25 per cent of eligible construction costs.



               Under present New Jersey law the Depart-



ment is authorized to lend to those responsible for the



construction of sewerage faciliites money to pay the



costs of the engineering work which must precede con-



struction.  As a rule of thumb the cost of this engineer-



ing work is about five to six per cent of the total cost



of the project.  The money is lent for three years without



interest.  If the loan extends beyond three years inter-




est is charged at the rate of two per cent per annum for the



entire period of the loan.  To date we have lent

-------
                     R. Sullivan                       487

f
  approximately $5.3 million.
                 If the State moves ahead with a construc-
  tion program of the proportion needed, additional engi-
  neering loan appropriations must be made.  Considering
  the likely timetable of construction, the amount of money
  involved and the likely rate of payback into the revolving
  fund it is our estimate that a $20 million fund should
  suffice.  The estimate is very difficult to make because
  of uncertainty as to how many of those responsible for
  the projects will actually make application for such
  loans.  The $20 million figure is therefore an imprecise
  estimate.
                 It is not known what the source of these
  funds can be, whether through direct appropriation from
  the general treasury or by some other means.  If the
  State were to provide capital funds for construction grants
  the possibility could be considered of using the estab-
  lished capital fund as a source of either loans or ad-
  vance grants for engineering costs.  An impediment to the
  advanced grant concept is that it would require the ini-
  tiation of a grant before the project has moved well enough
  along to qualify for a grant under present requirements.
                 Varying capital funding alternatives are

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       488








available for consideration involving varying degrees of




participation by the three levels of government.   The



alternatives as we see them are presented in Table 5,




discussed in Table 6,  and the costs to the State  of each




are summarized in Table 8.




               Our recommendation concerning State fund-




ing is on the following page.




               B.  RECOMMENDATIONS




               Almost as important as the amount  of non-




local aid for sewerage construction is the certainty of




its availability. Elected and appointed local officials




responsible for the construction of sewers and treat-




ment plants are under great pressure to exhaust all




possibilities of State and Federal aid before imposing




burdensome taxes or charges upon their constituents.



Such an official who moves too early or too late, or




without diligence, may find himself unemployed next time




around.  The current Federal aid program since its in-




ception has been filled with uncertainty.  Unless we




can somehow assure local government of a fixed amount




of aid, and eligibility for additional aid should it




become available later from the Federal Government,




our ambitious program may continue to stand around with

-------
                    R. Sullivan                       489
*
\
  its hands in its pockets waiting for better days ahead.
                Last year in our appearance before the
  Governor's Commission to Evaluate the Capital Needs of
  New Jersey, State Health Commissioner Roscoe P. Kandle
  and I recommended that the State finance 50 per cent of
  the cost of eligible and necessary sewage disposal faci-
  lities.  Under our recommendation half of this 50 per cent
  would be the State's share of the construction cost, the
  other half would be money with which the State would pre-
  finance hoped-for Federal assistance.  To the extent to
  which the Federal Government thereafter provided aid that
  money would reimburse the State's general treasury.  In
  this manner local government would proceed to construct
  with the assurance that at least 50 per cent aid would
  be available from the State, or the State and Federal
  Government in combination.
                This remains our recommendation.  It is
  presented as alternative funding plan number 5 in
  Table 5.  The cost to the State would be about $435
  million less whatever Federal grants may be appropriated.
                If the judgment is made that however logi-
  cal and equitable the 50 per cent aid program may be,
  the amount of State funds required is simply too large
  to be supportable we would offer an alternative

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       490








recommendation.  The best alternative in our judgment is




presented as number 4 in Table 5.   This plan calls for



25 per cent State aid.  This was the recommendation made



to the Governor by his Capital Needs Commission last year



and in turn made by the Governor to the Legislature.




This is the least percentage of State aid which can be



afforded local government and still assure it of maximum



eligibility for Federal grants.




               Under this proposal all eligible projects



would get 25 per cent State aid; eligible projects would



receive 30 per cent Federal aid as far as appropriations




would permit.  Local government would provide 45 per cent



of the cost and receive from the Federal Government an



unsigned I.O.U. for 25 per cent additional aid when and



if Federal appropriations will allow.



               Under this funding plan the cost to the



State would be about $222 million.  If even this amount



is considered to be too high we would ask:  Which of the



projects on the attached list of needs should be scratched



or deferred indefinitely?  Which of these projects will



we expect to proceed to construction without any State



aid, and with reduced eligibility for Federal aid?



               What would happen if, for example, the

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       491








Legislature decided to provide $100 million for State



sewerage aid?  In our opinion within eighteen months



this total amount would fully be committed to projects



with the greatest readiness to move ahead.  It would not



be spent in that period but it would be committed.   There



would be no aid funds for almost two-thirds of the  faci-



lities now needed.  As a result those projects would



not even move to do the engineering planning for con-



struction with no prospect of aid.  Eighteen months after




a referendum the Legislature would be back again faced




with the same question that it faces today.



               In our judgment all of these needed  facili-



ties will be built sooner or later. If it is later  they



will cost appreciably more and we will suffer the effects



of their absence in the meantime.



               If we are willing to make this substantial



commitment of our financial resources, New Jersey's



waterways can be made clean.  If we are not willing they



will continue to become more polluted; and all the legis-



lation, enforcement, planning, research, and hand-wringing



lamentation on the desecration of our environment,  won't



make any difference.



               S/Richard J. Sullivan, Director



               Division of Clean Air and Water

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       492








               C.  VALIDITY OF COST ESTIMATES




               The estimates provided in this statement




were derived from one of the following sources:




               (1)  Comprehensive regional sewerage feasi-




bility studies conducted by consulting engineering firms




and financed by the State Department of Health;




               (2)  Engineering studies conducted by




private or municipal engineers; and




               (3)  Engineering estimates by private or




municipal engineers based upon final and detailed engi-




neering plans.  These estimates are based on 1968 dollars




and no attempt was made to adjust the cost for normal




inflation, or inflation of construction cost because




of competition for services.  When developing these es-




timates the Department did not consider such factors as




the ability to pay or the time required to design and



construct these facilities.  The list represents the



best estimates available of the current costs of all




facilities now needed.




               The Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-




ministration's wastewater treatment plant construction




cost index  (Plate 3) for the New York area is made a part




of this statement.   It should be noted that the average

-------
                    R. Sullivan                       493

I
  construction cost index has risen sharply during the
  past year and particularly during the last six months.
  There  is no way of predicting the exact effect this con-
  tinuing rise will have on the estimates presented in
  this statement.  We can say that the costs will in fact
  be much higher than these estimates based on our best
  engineering judgment  at this point in time and that the
  longer construction is postponed the higher the cost
  will be.
                D.  BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES
  ATLANTIC COUNTY
                The cost estimates for Atlantic County
  were established by a regional  sewerage feasibility study
  financed by the State Department of Health.  The study
  report was completed  in April 1968 and was accepted by
  the  Department for payment on October 9, 1968.  The
  cost figures presented in the March 1, 1968,statement
  on "Anticipated Capital Needs"  were based on preliminary
  estimates before the  sewerage feasibility study was
  completed.  Much of the construction of sewerage facili-
  ties is necessary to  comply with orders issued by the
  Department.
  BERGEN COUNTY

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       494








               The cost estimates for Bergen County were




established by engineering studies completed by consult-




ing engineers for the Bergen County Sewer Authority,



Northwest Bergen County Sewer Authority and the Borough




of Edgewater.




               A portion of the construction estimate




presented in the 1968 "Anticipated Capital Needs" state-




ment for the Bergen County Sewer Authority appears in




Tables 1 and 2.  The remainder of the estimate has been




revised in accordance with completed engineering studies.




               Additional costs for the Northwest Bergen




County Sewer Authority appears on Table 1.




               The Borough of Edgewater has been ordered




by the Department to upgrade the wastewater treatment




process to meet the State water quality standards.



The estimate for the Borough of Edgewater is identified




as an individual project because at this time a more




accurate determination can be made of the cost of




needed facilities.  In the 1968 statement this project




was included in the estimate for unlisted projects.




BURLINGTON COUNTY




               The Burlington County estimate of the




cost of providing needed sewerage facilities was developed

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       495








as part of a regional sewerage feasibility study financed




by the Department which is presently in the final stage



of completion.



               No estimate was identified for Burlington



County in the 1968 statement because it was impossible



at that time to evaluate the needs and arrive at even a



preliminary estimate because of the lack of necessary




information.  The anticipated needs for Burlington County



were included in the broad estimate for unlisted projects.



CAMPEN COUNTY




               The cost estimates for Camden County were



established by a regional feasibility study financed by



the Department and reflects the cost of the sewerage



facilities to serve the immediate needs of the county



as outlined in the study report.  A large proportion of



the required construction is necessary to comply with




orders issued by the Department.  Date of Report:  Decem-



ber 1967.



CAPE MAY COUNTY



               A regional sewerage feasibility study



financed by the Department for Cape May County is presently



nearing completion.  Enough information is available at




this time to establish a firm estimate of the cost of



needed sewerage facilities.  This information was not

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       496








available when the 1968 statement was prepared.   The




comprehensive study revealed a much greater need for




sewerage facilities in Cape May County than was  previously




estimated due to the need to protect public health, the




extensive recreational and shellfish harvesting  areas




and the need to comply with Departmental Orders.




ESSEX COUNTY




               Almost all of the construction of sewer-




age facilities needed in Essex County will fall  under the




jurisdiction of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners




which will be covered separately in this statement.




However some construction is required in the Township




of Cedar Grove and the Borough of Fairfield.  These esti-




mates are identified separately whereas they were lumped




in the estimate for unlisted projects in last year's



statement.




GLOUCESTER COUNTY




               The cost estimates presented for Gloucester



County are based upon a regional sewerage feasibility




study financed by the Department and reflect the cost




of those facilities which the Department believes are




necessary at  this time.  Date of report:  July 1967.

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       497








HUDSON COUNTY



               The Hudson County estimates are broken




down into several specific projects, some of which ap-




peared in the 1968 statement.  Since that time more




definitive engineering estimates and studies have been




made. The estimate for the City of Hoboken in last year's




statement anticipated some construction which was later




determined to be ineligible for Federal and State grant




participation.  Therefore this estimate has been revised




downward to reflect this change.




               Projects for North Bergen Township,




West New York and the City of Bayonne have been more




clearly defined and these projects are listed as indi-




vidual items in this statement.  These projects were




included in the estimate of unlisted projects in the




1968 statement.



HUNTERDON COUNTY




               Engineering studies have been completed




by engineers for the Raritan Township Municipal Utilities




Authority which established the cost of regional facili-




ties to serve Raritan Township and the Borough of Fleming-




ton.  A regional feasibility study is presently being




financed by the Department for the remainder of Hunterdon

-------
                   R, Sullivan                       498








County. No costs are included here for the region under




study.




MERCER COUNTY




               The estimate for Mercer County comprises




an updating of the East Windsor Municipal Utilities




Authority estimate and the inclusion of the Ewing-Lawrence




Sewerage Authority and Hamilton Township.  These projects




were included in last year's estimate for unlisted pro-




jects.  However/ studies have been completed to develop




cost estimates since the preparation of the 1968 state-




ment.  Also included in the estimate for Mercer County




is an expanded Stony Brook-Mi11stone River region which




more than doubled the previous estimate for this region.



MIDDLESEX COUNTY




               The cost estimate for the Middlesex County



Sewerage Authority has been updated based on engineering




estimates and includes sludge digestion facilities which




will be required because of a recent decision of the




Federal Government.  The remainder of the estimate for




Middlesex County is based upon recently completed en-




gineering studies and estimates and are now listed as




individual projects.  The latter were included in the




estimate for unlisted projects in the 1968 estimate.

-------
                    R,  Sullivan                       499




c




MONMOUTH COUNTY




               The  cost  estimates  for  the  Northeast




Monmouth County  Regional Sewerage  Authority  and the




Middletown  Township Sewerage  Authority are listed on




Tables  2 and  3 and  do  not appear on the comprehensive




list.   The  Ocean Township Sewerage Authority project is




not listed  this  year since the project was started before




July I, 1967/ and is not  eligible for further Federal grant




participation.   The remainder of the Monmouth County es-




timate isbased upon  feasibility studies and engineering




estimates that have been completed for the specific




projects.   The Bayshore  Sewerage Authority project is




now included  in  the listing.




MORRIS  COUNTY




               The  Morris County comprehensive regional




sewerage feasibility study financed by the Department



was just completed  in  January 1969. This  study provided




the basis for establishing reliable cost estimates for




needed  sewerage  facilities in Morris County,



               The  present estimate is significantly higher




than that presented in the 1968 statement.  The major




portion of  this  increase has  been  caused by  developments




in the  Rockaway  valley involving the regional facilities

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       500








operated by the City of Jersey City.




OCEAN COUNTY




               The cost estimates for Ocean County are




based upon a regional sewerage feasibility study financed




by the Department and completed in December 1967. The




report reflects the cost of those facilities which the




Department feels are necessary at this time and to comply




with Departmental Orders.




PASSAIC COUNTY




               The southern portion of Passaic County




is served by the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners




facilities.  Cost estimates for needed construction for




this area are not available.  The "Comprehensive Report




on Sewerage Facilities" for the Wanaque Valley Regional




Sewerage Study Committee was completed in April 1968 and




was not available when the cost estimate was developed




for the 1968 statement.  The estimate presented in this



statement more realistically covers the needs of this




area.




               A regional sewerage feasibility study




has recently been initiated to study the needs for the




remaining portion (Mid-Passaic Basin) of Passaic County.




This study is being  financed by the Department and has

-------
                    R. Sullivan                       501
I
 progressed to the point where only a preliminary estimate
 has been developed,
 SALEM COUNTY
                The estimates for Salem County have been
 developed by engineering studies performed for Penns
 Grove, Pennsville, and Upper Penns Neck.
 SOMERSET COUNTY
                The estimates for Somerset County were
 derived from engineering estimates developed by con-
 sulting engineering firms retained by the municipalities
 shown on the list.
 SUSSEX COUNTY
                The estimate for Sussex County includes
 an updating of the estimate for the Wallkill Valley Region.
 Just after the submission of the 1968 statement, the Sus-
 sex County regional sewerage feasibility study was com-
 pleted and was used as the basis for the estimates for
 the remainder of Sussex County. This study was sponsored
 and paid for by the Department of Health.
 UNION COUNTY
                The estimates for Union County were
 derived from engineering studies and engineering esti-
 mates by consulting engineering firms employed by the

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       502








sewerage authorities.  The estimate for the Rahway Valley




Sewerage Authority appears on Table 3.




WARREN COUNTY




               The cost estimates for Warren County were




developed by a regional sewerage feasibility study fi-




nanced by the Department and completed in March 1968.




PASSAIC VALLEY SEWERAGE COMMISSIONERS




               At the time the 1968 statement was prepared




it was impossible to develop an estimate with any valid-




ity for the cost of constructing needed facilities in




the commissioners district.




               In March 1967 the State Department of




Health issued an order to the Passaic Valley Sewerage



Commissioners which contained work performance schedules




and included a requirement to complete studies and pre-




liminary engineering by a specified date.  The Passaic



Valley Sewerage Commissioners failed to meet these sched-




ules and were taken  to court by the Department.  In




this action the Department's jurisdiction was contested.




The court decision was favorable to the Department and




the Commissioners filed an appeal in the Appellate Divi-




sion of Superior Court.  The case is pending.




               It is still impossible to present a

-------
                   R. Sullivan                        503




%




 reliable estimate for these construction needs.  Our



 guess is that  the cost will be in excess of  $100 million.




               E.  EXPLANATION OF TABLES




 TABLE 1




               Table 1 is a listing of eligible projects




 that were certified for  Federal grants and were not under




 construction by  June 30, 1967.  These projects became




 eligible to participate  in the State Construction  Grant




 program which  was initiated for fiscal year  1968.




               There was sufficient funds in the State




 Construction Grant account to award grants of only 9.2




 per cent of the  eligible construction cost instead of




 grants  "not exceeding 30 per cent" allowable under the




 "State Public  Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Assistance




 Act of 1965" as  amended  February 1967.  It will require




 additional funds of $4,334,576 to raise these grants  up



 to  25 per cent as was originally intended.



 TABLE 2




               Table 2 is a listing of eligible projects



 which have been  certified for Federal grants and which




 can be funded  during the present fiscal year. The eli-




 gible cost figures for these projects are not firm at




 this time since  the Federal authorities have not completed

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       504








the review of the listed projects.   It is very likely




that some of these figures will change.  However, based




on the stated figures there are sufficient state funds




available to award State construction grants amounting




to approximately 11 per cent of the eligible cost.  Ad-




ditional funds amounting to $3,557,637 will be required




to raise these grants to 25 per cent of the eligible




construction costs.




TABLE 3




               Table 3 is a listing of all projects which




have been certified for Federal grants under the reim-




bursable provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control




Act as amended by the Clean Water Restoration Act of




1966.  Funds have not been obligated to any of these




projects and the eligible cost figures are engineering



estimates based upon final detailed engineering plans.




It will require funds amounting to approximately $12,700,000




to provide State grants of 25 per cent of the eligible




construction costs.  It is very likely the eligible costs




of these projects will increase when construction bids




are received.




               In summary the amount of money needed to




provide 25 per cent grants to all the projects listed on




Table 3 and to raise the grants of those projects listed

-------
                   R. Sullivan                        505
%
 on  Tables 1 and  2 to  25 per cent will require approximately
 $20,555,000.
 TABLE  4
               This Table  sets  forth estimates of  costs
 of  eligible needed facilities not including  those  listed
 in  Tables 1-3.
               FINANCE ALTERNATIVES
 TABLE  5
               There  are several alternatives for  provid-
 ing the  funds needed  for construction of  needed waste
 treatment and disposal facilities:
                (1)  Financing 33 per cent by the Federal
 Government and 67 per cent by the local agency with
 non-participation by  the State;
                (2)  If the State provides 30 per cent
 of  the project funds, the  Federal Government can pro-
 vide 44  per cent leaving the local agency to raise 26
 per cent of the  project funds;
                (3)  If the State provides 25 per cent
 of  the eligible  construction cost, the Federal Govern-
 ment can contribute 55 per cent leaving the  local  agen-
 cies to  raise 20 per  cent;
                (4)  If the State provides 25 per cent

-------
                   R.  Sullivan                       506








grants and prefinances an additional 25 per cent for




Federal Government's share leaving 30 per cent to be



financed by Federal grants and 20 per cent from the




local agency; and



               (5)   If the State contributes 25 per



cent construction grants and if all applicants agree



to accept 30 per cent Federal grants (instead of the 55



per cent for which they would be eligible) then this



will leave 45 per cent of the construction cost to be



raised by the local agencies.



               The allocation to each State of Federal




construction grant funds is based on a fixed statutory




formula and not based on the total needs of the State.



(See Table 6)  However, even if the Federal Government



provides New Jersey with its full allocation of funds



and with State participation it will be impossible to



generate enough construction activity to meet New



Jersey's needs for sewerage facilities.  It is therefore



necessary for the State to fund sewerage projects



independently of Federal grants or prefinance a portion



of the Federal Government   share of construction grants




with the possibility of being reimbursed by the Federal



Government in future years.

-------
                    R.  Sullivan                        507




t
 FINANCIAL SUMMARY


                It  is obvious  from Table 5  that without


 State  participation it will be  totally impossible for


 local  agencies  to  raise the money necessary to provide


 the needed sewerage facilities  even with Federal partici-


 pation.  Either  of  alternates  2  and 3 would >e feasible


 providing the Federal  Government appropriates suffi-


 cient  funds.  However  this is doubtful when a review


 is  made  of Table 7. There is no way of predicting at


 this time just  how much Federal grant money ivill be


 available in  future years.  If  the present trend con-


 tinues the Federal Government will appropriate only a


 small  percentage of the authorized funds.


                Alternates 3,  4  and 5 appear to be the


 only logical  alternatives at  this time. It may be


 possible to modify alternative  4 to fit the actual fi-


 nancial  situations by  prefinancing smaller Federal grants


 thus allowing greater  coverage  with the Federal money


 and requiring a larger contribution from the local agency


 Under  the provisions of the Federal Water  Pollution


 Control  Act as  amended an applicant receiving a 25 per


 cent State construction grant is automatically eligible


 to  receive a  55 per cent Federal construction grant

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       508








providing the State has water quality standards approved




by the Federal Government and the proposed facilities




are of a regional nature.  These two requirements are




met in New Jersey.




               Under alternative 5 it will be necessary




for the local agency to express its acceptance of a




30 per cent Federal construction grant and accept eli-




gibility for the additional 25 per cent which it may




receive in the future if Federal appropriations are




sufficient.  This arrangement would permit spreading




the limited Federal funds over a larger number of projects




TABLE 6




               This Table summarizes State funds needed




for construction of sewerage facilities eligible for




financial aid for alternative funding plans.




TABLE 7




               This Table sets forth the New Jersey share



of authorized and appropriated Federal funds.




TABLE 8




               This Table summarizes all cost estimates.





                       * * *

-------
                                                              509
                            TABLE 1

     Sewerage Projects Receiving State  Construction Grants
                   from 1968 Fiscal Year Funds

                                             Eligible
                                            Construction
                                                Cost
                                 Amount of
                                   State
                                   Grant+
Borough of Allentown

City of Plainfield

Township of Warren

Borough of Hillsdale

Town of Clinton

Middlesex County Sewerage Authority

Township of Hamilton

Borough of Fair Lawn

Borough of Caldwell

Northwest Bergen County Sewer Authority

               TOTAL

Total Eligible Cost

25% of Eligible Cost  =
$27,214,500

  6,803,625
*Amount of State
 Grants               =

Additional State Money
needed to raise grants
to 25%
  2,469,049
$ 4,334,576
                  $    339,100

                      586,400

                      482,200

                      620,300

                      881,500

                    5,458,400

                    4,132,000

                    1,583,200

                      471,400

                   12,660,000

                  $27,214,500
$   31,200

    53,948

    44,362

    57,067

    81,098

   502,172

   380,144

   145,654

    43,368

 1,130.036

$2,469,049*
+ Grants amount to 9.2% of the eligible construction cost.

* This figure does not include a grant of $427,758 to the Netcong-
  Musconetcong Sewerage Authority.
                              - 31 -

-------
                                                                       510

                              TABLE 2

         Sewerage Projects Due to Receive State Construction
                    Grants from Fiscal 1969 Funds

                                      Eligible Construction    Am't. of
                                      	Cost	    State Grants*

Bergen County Sewer Authority         $ 3,039,000              $  341,188

Montville Twp. Municipal. Utilities
       Authority                        1,327,000                 148,982

Bridgewater Twp. Sewerage Authority     1,934,000                 217,130

Township of Roxbury                     1,391,000                 156,167

Town of Phillipburg                        47,500                   5,333

Ewing-Lawrence Sewerage Authority         426,000                  47,827

Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting           2,450,000                 275,061

East Windsor Twp. Municipal
       Utilities Authority                249,000                  27,955

Pompton Lakes Municipal Utilities
       Authority                          475,000                  53,328

Northeast Monmouth County Regional
       Sewerage Authority              14,492,000               1,627,017

                TOTAL                 $25,830,500              $2,899,988


      Total Eligible Cost          =  $25,830,500

      25% of Eligible Cost         =    6,457,625

      State Funds to be obligated  =    2,899.988

      Additional State funds
      needed  to raise State grants
      to 25%                       =  $3,557,637


      *State  grants amount to  approximately  11% of  the  eligible
       construction cost  estimates.
                                 - 32  -

-------
                                                                 511
                            TABLE 3

      Projects Certified for Federal Grants (reimbursable)
          For Which No Grant Funds Have Been Obligated
                                                 Estimated  Eligible
                                                       Cost
Bergen County Sewer Authority                      $ 1,950,000

Dover Township Sewerage Authority                   14,433,000

Lower Township Municipal Utilities Authority         2,098,000

Bergen County Sewer Authority                        1,300,000

City of Millville                                    2,750,000

Carlstadt Sewerage Authority                           736,200

Middletown Township Sewerage Authority              11,113,000

Bergen County Sewer Authority                        1,355,000

City of Summit                                         216,700

Borough of Fair Lawn                                   100,500

Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority                    10,800,000

Hackettstown Municipal Utilities Authority           2,500,000

Borough of Fairfield                                   212,400

Borough of Allendale                                   283,100

               TOTAL                               $49,847,900


25% of Eligible Cost = $12,662,000
                             - 33 -

-------
                                                                   512
                            TABLE 4

          Itemized Costs of Needed Eligible Facilities

ATLANTIC COUNTY
  Atlantic Coastal Region
  Great Egg Harbor River Region
  Mullica River Region
BERGEN COUNTY
  Bergen County Sewer Authority Area
  Northwest Bergen Co. Sewer Authority
    Mahwah-Ramsey Area
    Oakland Borough
  Edgewater Borough
BURLINGTON COUNTY
C4MDEN COUNTY

  Camden County Sewerage Authority
    Cooper River Region
    Big Timber Creek Region
    Pennsauken Creek Region
    Delaware River Region
CAPE MAY COUNTY

  Lower  Region
  Middle Region
  Dennis Creek Region
  Tuckahoe River Region
  Upper Region
$ 29,350,000
   2,283,000
     947.000
$ 32,580,000
$ 39,200,000

   2,500,000
   4,000,000
   2,200,000
$ 47,900,000
  30,000,000
   7,400,000
  15,800,000
   1,600,000
  28,300,000
  53,100,000
                                                          $32,580,000
                                                           80,480,000
                                                         $110,480,000
                                                         $163,580,000
  20,800,000
  11,460,000
    1,350,000
     650,000
    9,140,000
  43,400,000
                                                         $206,980,000
                              - 34 -

-------
                                                                  513
ESSEX COUNTY

  Cedar Grove
  Fairfield
GLOUCESTER COUNTY

  Gloucester County Sewerage Authority
    Consolidated Region
    Maurice River Region
    Racoon Creek Region
HUDSON COUNTY

  City of Hoboken
  Jersey City Sewerage Authority
  Bayonne City
  North Bergen Township
  Town of Secaucus
  Town of West New York
HUNTERDON COUNTY

  Raritan Township Municipal Utilities
   Authority
MERCER COUNTY

  Ewing-Lawrence Sewerage Authority
  Hamilton Township
  Stony Brook-Mi11stone River Region
  East Windsor Township Municipal
   Utilities Authority
$
500,000
380,000
                                                 880,000
                                                         $207,860,000
  20,000,000
   2,100,000
     200,000
  22,300,000
                                                         $230,160,000
  10,500,000
  33,000,000
   7,000,000
   7,500,000
   5,700,000
   5.500,000
  69,200,000
   1,000,000
                                                         $299,360,000
                                                         $300,360,000
  10,000,000
  10,400,000
  27,000,000

   3,000,000
  50,400,000
                                                         $350,760,000
                              - 35 -

-------
                                                                     514
MIDDLESEX COUNTY

  Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
  City of Perth Amboy
  City of South Amboy
  Woodbridge Township
  Madison Township Sewerage Authority
  Borough of Carteret
  Borough of Sayreville
  Edison Township
MONMOUTH COUNTY

  Atlantic Highlands-Highlands Area
  Bayshore Ocean Outfall
  Borough of Union Beach
  Hazlet Township Sewerage Authority
  Neptune Township Region
  Long Branch Sewerage Authority
  Wall Township
    Northern Region
    Southern Region
    Manasquan Region
MORRIS COUNTY

  Whippany Watershed
  Rockaway Watershed
  Pompton-Pequannock Watershed
OCEAN COUNTY

  Metedeconk Region  (Inc. part of
    Monmouth County
  Toms River Region
  Forked River-Cedar Creek Region
  Mill Creek Region
  Southern Ocean County Region
$125,000,000
   3,500,000
   2,000,000
   6,500,000
   1,000,000
   3,000,000
   2,500,000
   6,000,000
$149,500,000
                                                          $500,260,000
$  2,100,000
  12,000,000
   3,500,000
   5,000,000
   3,500,000
   3,000,000

   4,100,000
   3,300,000
   7,500,000
  44,000,000
                                                          $544,260,000
   3,000,000
  30,000,000
   9,000,000
  42,000,000
                                                          $586,260,000
  25,200,000
  26,140,000
  13,970,000
  15,340,000
  11,850,000
  92,500,000
                                                          $678,760,000
                               -  36  -

-------
                                                                 515
PASSAIC COUNTY

  Mid-Passaic Basin
  Wanaque Valley Region
SALEM COUNTY

  Pennsgrove, Upper Penns Neck Township
   Pennsville Township
SOMERSET COUNTY

  Bridgewater Township Sewerage Authority
  Somerset-Raritan Valley Sewerage Authority
  Montgomery Township
  Manville Borough
  Warren Township
$ 15,600,000
  23,500,000
  39,100,000
SUSSEX COUNTY

  Wallkill Valley Region
  Musconetcong-Lake Hopatcong Region
    (incl. part of Morris County)
UNION COUNTY

  Linden-Roselle Sewerage Authority
  Elizabeth Joint Meeting (incl. part
   of Essex County)
WARREN COUNTY

  Belvidere Region
  Phillipsburg Complex
  Blairs town Area
  GRAND TOTAL
   1,000,000
     700,000
   1,700,000
   5,000,000
   3,000,000
     300,000
     300,000
   2,000,000
                                              10,600,000
  12,500,000

  30,000,000
  42,500,000
   6,500,000

  20,000,000
  26,500,000
   1,800,000
   1,200,000
   1,120,000
  $4,120,000
                                                          $717,860,000
                                                          $719,560,000
                                                          $730,160,000
                                                          $772,660,000
                                                          $799,160,000
                               - 37 -
              $803,280,000

-------
                                   Table 5
                      ALTERNATIVE FUNDING PLANS
                          Total Cost - $853.128.000
                                                              516
    Alternative #1
                                        Alternative #2
State not participating
    Alternative #3
                                        Alternative #4
                                Alternative #5
               Present
      $383.908.000
    5%
  Federal
$42.656.000
plus 25% State
 pre-financed
   Federal
             -  38  -
                          After Federal Reimbursement
                                                                     M6321

-------
                                                              517
                               TABLE 6

Summary of State  Funds  Needed  for  Construction  of  Sewerage  Facilities
     Eligible for Financial Aid for Alternative Fupding  Plans
   Alternative 1                                  $0.0


   Alternative 2                                  $255,938,000

             Table  1                                 4,335,000

             Table  2                                 3,558,000

                 TOTAL                            $263,831,000


   Alternative 3                                  $213,282,000

             Table  1                                 4,335,000

             Table  2                                 3,558,000

                 TOTAL                            $221,175,000


   Alternative 4                                  $213,282,000

             Table  1                                 4,335,000

             Table  2                                 3,558,000

                 TOTAL                            $221,175,000


   Alternative 5                                  $426,564,000

             Table  1                                 4,335,000

             Table  2                                 3,558,000

                 TOTAL                            $434,457,000
                                - 39 -

-------
                                                               518
                            TABLE 7
                Federal Construction Grant Funds
           Authorized and Appropriated  for New Jersey
Fiscal Year


1967 - 1968


1968 - 1969


1969 - 1970


1970 - 1971
Federal Funds
  Authorized
for New Jersey
 $14,040,400


  22,384,400


  32,397,200


  40,397,200
Federal Funds
 Appropriated
for New Jersey
 $5,790,000


  6,171,100
                              - 40 -

-------
                                                                 519

                            TABLE 8
              Summary of Cost Estimates,  Sewerage
                  Construction in New Jersey

     All estimates are based on 1968 construction dollars
1.   The cost of trunk lines and treatment plants eligible to
    receive federal and state aid and now required to conform
    with the statutes,  regulations and orders enforced by the
    State Department of Health.
    Facilities already partially funded -
    Tables 1 and 2                             $ 53,045,000
    Certified facilities,  not funded -
    Table 3                                      49,848,000
    All other needed facilities -
    Table 4                                     803,280,000

               TOTAL                           $906,173,000

    (Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners  needs not included)
2.  Local collection systems which will be built to accompany
    facilities described in Number 1 above and which are ineli-
    gible for state aid and for federal aid from Federal Water
    Pollution Control Administration.   These systems may be
    eligible for limited aid from Department of Housing and
    Urban Development and other Federal agencies.

                                               $225,000,000
                             - 41 -

-------
                                          Plate 3

                     FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION

                          Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction Index

                                    for the New York Area
                                                                                    522
a
z
O
U
                            ACTUAL
                  	AVERAGE
   120
   110
   100
    90
       M6325
                                          YEARS
- 44  -

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       523








               MR. STEIN:  Are there any questions or com-




ments?




               MR. METZLER:  Well, I would sort of like




to make a comment first.




               This is the kind of a statement we have




come to expect from the State of New Jersey in the last




two or two and-a-half years.  It is a very fine statement



and it as backed up by performance.  You have worked very




hard and fast.




               There is one question I would like to ask,




if you feel free to answer, in terms of the legal action




that the state of New Jersey has against Passaic Valley.




               Yesterday we did see projections that are




tight but realistic by New York City for its major sources




of pollution.




               Can you tell me when you actually expect



Passaic Valley to complete the treatment works so that




it will be treating its wastes?




               MR. SULLIVAN:  I cannot tell you when I



expect it.  I do not expect it by the fall of 1970, which




is called for by the order, that is for sure.




               A representative of Passaic Valley is here




and will testify in his own behalf shortly, and perhaps




you can address the question to him.

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       524








                In any event, if there is any alteration




made  in  the  schedule contained in our order against




Passaic  Valley,  it will be a product of the court  liti-




gation in which we are now engaged, and I would  like to




leave all possibilities available for negotiation  at that




time.




                MR. STEIN:  Are there any other comments?




                MR. GLENN:  No.




                MR. STEIN:  Or questions?




                MR. KLASHMAN:  No.




                MR, STEIN:  I would  like to make  just one,




and this is  really a  technical comment, Mr. Sullivan,




because  I think your  statement is a really excellent one.




                You raise  the point  here that has always




been a fascinating point  to people  who have spent most




of their lives in Federal-State  relations  and  in the




grants field when sou  say  that  even if we had all  the



 funds developed appropriated, you would just get eleven




 per cent.  I alluded  to  that  in  my  remarks  to  Mrs. Jones.




                To go  back in  history,  this  used  to be




 known as the Harold  Ickes      (a  former  Secretary of




 the  Interior) kind of rule of a  Federal grants program.




 Secretary Ickes used  to  say  that any bright young man

-------
                  R. Sullivan                           525








could develop a meaningful grants program, but unless you




cut that pie 50 ways, or 48 ways at that time, there is




no way to get it through the country.  The limiting




factor in our grants programs, and this is the thing that




everyone has to look at-- this does not deal with just




water pollution grants, but many grant programs  the




limiting factor on this program, whether we had the




30 per cent grant, the 50 per cent grant, $250,000 limi-




tations or $600,000 limitations, was not these limita-




tions in that part of the statute, but the provision




which provided for the allocation to the States.




               We get all kinds of flexibility, sliding




scales, how you can move up or down, whether you have




standards, an active program and get a little more money.




There is only one thing immovable in the statute, and




this is straight mathematics.  It is how much we allocate




when the funds are made available to each State, with




no discretion at all.




               You have pointed out with telling force




these figureswhy the percentage of Federal appropria-




tion over the years has been relatively low.   The limit-




ing factor was not that limiting factor of 30 or 50 per




cent in the statute, but that other provision which limited

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       526








your total Federal allocation for New Jersey.




               I am speaking to you people who are in




this field technically  because this is a technical dis-



cussion.  You have raised a very technical point.




               None of these provisions will reach the




fulfillment that anyone in any field who is working on




a grant program desires, unless you also pay careful at-




tention to that splitting of the pie 50 ways, and, after




all this is done, how much New York State, New Jersey or




Nebraska will have.




               I think this is a key point in grant legis-




lation.  You have made your point very clear as to what



the problem is, of course.




               MR. SULLIVAN:  Could I make one brief




response to your comment, Mr. Chairman?



               MR. STEIN:  Surely.




               MR. SULLIVAN:  I understand that these




are the limiting factors, in fact.  I can't help but



feel that those who dreamed up the 55 per cent were




sadly informed as to the financial dimensions of the




problem, or they could not have been that far off.




               Point Number 2:  I don't think 55 per




cent is necessary.  We have been operating in New Jersey,

-------
                   R. Sullivan                       527








as I pointed out here, for 20 years with a 96-3-1 formula,



               Well, that can use a little improvement



for sure, but I don't think it has to go to 55-25-20.



That is the other extreme.  If half of the costs were




non-local, it would seem to me to be equitable distribu-




tion.



               But the final point :  It infuriates me



to read engineering reports made to show what is feasible



in the way of regionalization, and we have had these all



over in New Jersey, almost invariably setting forth what



the costs will be to the householder if we get the 80



per cent aid provided by statute.  Of course, if you are



not that lucky, they will also put in small print what




the cost will be absent the 80 per cent aid, but the



absence of the 80 per cent aid is such an absurdity that



the presence of the numbers doesn't disturb us.



               MR. STEIN:  Are there any further comments



or questions?



               (No response)



               MR. STEIN:  If not, thank you, Mr. Sulli-



van.  Would you continue?



               MR, SULLIVAN:  Yes,  I would now like to



call Mr. Seymour Lubetkin, who is Chief Engineer of the




Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners.

-------
                                                      528
               Seymour Lubetkin
                 STATEMENT OF


             MRo SEYMOUR LUBETKIN


                CHIEF ENGINEER


     PASSAIC VALLEY SEWERAGE COMMISSIONERS



               MR. LUBETKIN:  Mr. Chairman,  members of


the audience:


               I did not originally expect to give a


statement before this board.  However, I made some notes


on the way here, enough to keep you on the edge of your


seat for four or five hours, but you look so nice I donTt


think I will bore you that long.


               One of the problems, of course, is the general


pollution control situation  Passaic Valley has been


called the greatest polluter in New Jersey,   We seem to


be Peck*s bad boy when it comes to anything involving


pollution in this area.  We are criticized on most items


that in any way relates to the Passaic River, even, inferen-


tially, beyond our jurisdiction.


               It has gotten to the point that if there


were a fire  in this hotel, I might expect to see a head-


line, "Fire  in the Statler-Hilton.  Passaic Valley speaking


on a hot item,,'1


                I know this sounds  facetious and  I understand

-------
                                                        529
"  2               Seymour  Lubetkin
  why a lot  of it  is  done,  and some  of it  is  justified.   It

  is  difficult to  move  a body as  large as  Passaic Valley

  suddenly in the  direction intended with  such drastic

  changes.

                 I thought  I would break this down into

  several  different sections.  First, I will  give our opinion

  as  to the  requirements; second,  I  will tell what we will

  do  in terms of solution;  and, third, some what  I hope  are

  corrective criticisms of  the program.

                Now, the word "pollution" is used by all,

  including  the newspapers, the lay  and the technical people,

  in  a very  broad  sense, and, unfortunately,  it connotes

  different  things to different people.

                 If I may,  I would like to give what  I gen-

  erally break down into three broad categories the pollution

  item.

                Number 1.   We have  items  like grease, oil,

  scum, floatable, those materials which are  unesthetic,

  those materials  which are displeasing to the eye, those

  items which, if   we touch them,  are displeasing to  our

  senses

                Number 2.   We have  disease producers, patho-

  genic organisms.

                Number 3.   We have  those  items that  contain

-------
                                                         530
                 Seymour Lubetkin
BOD or COD, those items which use the oxygen of a stream

in order to stabilize itself.

               I know there are many other categories,

such as radioactive material, thermal pollution, et cetera,

but those are not relevant to the particular topic at this

moment.

               I mention these three items because, generally

speaking, John Q Public, the man who pays the bill, and the

object of the newspaper reports, knows of only two of those

items -- that is 1 and 2 -- that which he sees with his eyes,

and that which he is afraid of because of disease.

               We have used the word "pollution" to cover

all three items, and, technically speaking, we are, of

course, correct.  Many a time we talk of Item 3, but John

Q Public pictures in his mind Items 1 and 2.

               This is a fact that I recognize, and I be-

lieve it is necessary, because the general apathy of the

public to Item 3 would be nil, particularly if we realize

the ratio of costs involved for producing the requirements

of Item 3 as compared to those of 1 and 2.

               Thus, when we show them discharges of high-

ly colored and offensive looking materials that may come

from Manhattan along the docks, and, incidentally, I am

not criticizing New York City -- I have a great respect

-------
                                                       531
               Seymour Lubetkin
for Marty Lang and his co-workers on what they are doing.

               We have equivalent areas in New Jersey,

and John Q is told we require X-X-X-millions of dollars

to clear this up.  We are not lying to him, but, in a

sense, we are not telling him the truth.

               John Q is not interested in the BOD,  He

is interested in the beaches being accessible for bathingo

He is interested in the appearance.

               I am leading up to a point, as you may

gather, and I do not wish to diminish the importance or

the effect of Item 3, BOD, but that item is a difference

in cost many times over the removal of che other two items,

And if we had unlimited funds, there is no question that,

in my opinion, this is the proper way to proceed.

               Also, there is no question in my opinion

that BOD removal is necessary.  I may question at this

point the amount of removal necessary to meet the criteria

as set up in the specific waters of the New York Harbor,

and I may question at this point the specific criteria

set up for those waters.

               For many, many years, 30 percent dissolved

oxygen was considered adequate.  Be that as it may, the

powers that be have decided 50 percent, and the powers

that be have  calculated  and  decided that  90 percent

-------
                                                       532
               Seymour Lubetkin
average removal or a minimum of 80 percent removal of the


BOD is necessary for wastes discharging into these waters


in order to achieve the results that they desire.


               I don*t doubt that they have projected for


the future.  I dontt doubt that eventually this type of


removal will be necessary.  The statement might be made


then, "Well, if it will be eventually necessary, why ob-


ject at this point?"


               For two reasons:  (1) The lack of immediate


funds; and (2) the science of sewage treatment.  The science


of sewage treatment today is in the dark ages.  We gener-


ally set up a system where we have biological organisms


literally feed on the sewage in what we consider a prime


habitat;, ideal conditions.  Analogously, it might be equiva-


lent to the disposal of garbage by having a large pig farm


and letting them eat it.


               This appears to be the best we have today.


Slight ramifications and modifications have been made to


improve the ideal conditions, but these plants are subject


to upset by toxic materials, by various wastes that may be


different for the climate  that is generally set up for


the bacteria; and it appears to me that when we consider


sewage an object of high energy level and the final efflu-


ent an object of low energy  level, that our science will

-------
                                                           533
                    Seymour Lubetkin
     shortly develop a method, either mechanical,  electrical

     or chemical, to go from the one step to the other and

     achieve the results we really want in a much more efficient

     manner that is known today,     I believe,  with the re-

     search going on, this will be very shortly.  If and when

     this happens, many of the millions of dollars spent to

     polish up plants for extremely high BOD may have been

     wastedo

                    I do not wish to imply that  all construction

     on this type of thing should stop.  There are many areas

     where it is critical, and this type of removal is abso-

     lutely essential at this time and we cannot wait.  I am

     merely saying that with the limited funds that are avail-

     able, perhaps the Water Pollution Control Administration

     might take another look as to the redistribution of funds

     to more treatment plants with a lesser degree of treatment

     than with fewer treatment plants and a higher degree of

     treatment.

                    Again, I am talking about BOD removal.  I

     am not talking about disinfection.  I am not talking about scum,

scimmings, oil or grease removal, which we all agree must be

     accomplished.

                    Gentlemen, Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis-

     sioners have been in operation since 1924o  We have  a

-------
                                                           534
                    Seymour Lubetkin
     primary treatment plant; that is to say, we do not remove

     much BOD.  There is no question about that  We attempt to re-

move screenings solids and we have attempted to improve our

     plant.  During the last 14 years we have expended approxi-

     mately $14 million to the end that our treatment plant be

     improved in efficiency.

                    In that expenditure of $14 million, we

     have received Federal aid and grants in the amount of

     $625,000.  The last grant of $375,000 was given to us

     after approximately a four to five year delay which held

     up this project, the original application being made in

     1962, approval in 1967, construction went into effect

     immediately, and we are just finishing this sludge handling

     facility.

                    I am just pointing this out to really re-

     affirm what Mr. Sullivan said, that this tantalizing mor-

     sel of Federal aid really held up a project that should

     have gone forward.

                    The fact that we disagree with the classi-

     fication  of the New York Harbor and the fact that we may

     disagree with the method of the allocation of finances

     and requirements of the Federal Administration does not

     mean  that we will not obey the directives and recommenda-

     tions of this conference.  It is  the  intent of Passaic

-------
                                                     535
8              Seymour Lubetkin
Valley Sewerage Commissioners to comply with the intent,

with the recommendations of not only this conference but

of the requirements issued by the State of New Jersey.

               Not only am I making the verbal statement

here, but I will summarize what we are doing in order to

comply.

               I told you that we are finishing the con-

struction of the sludge handling facilities.  We have

also hired a consulting engineering firm to do pilot plant

studies in order to bring the sewage treatment system up

to that required by the recommendations of this body.

               We have been told by our consultants that

this study will take two years, the wastes being extremely

complex and extremely variable, being, as Mr. Sullivan

told you, one quarter of the wastes of the State of New

Jersey.

               In the interim, our consulting engineers

have also been directed to prepare plans and specifica-

tions for head-in facilities; that is, for more efficient

grit, scum,  grease and screenings removal and handling.

               You may have heard of the talk recently of

the problems the Commissioners are having on plant break-

downs.  These are due primarily to the completely inade-

quate  grit system we have now.

-------
                                                         536
                 Seymour Lubetkin
               In order to operate properly,  as  a good primary

plant an absolute essential before we can go  to  a secondary

treatment is that we need new facilities  there.   These plans

and specifications will be ready for bid  probably February

1970, at a cost of approximately seven to eight  million

dollars.  This will give you an idea of the size of the

plant.  This is just one part of the plant.

               At this time we will make  application to

the Water Pollution Control Administration for a Federal

grant and we will make application to the State.

               Now, I have been informed, and it would be

a pleasure for me to hear a contradiction officially, that

under the present rules promulgated by the Administration

we would not be eligible for a grant for this phase of

the program, for two reasons:  Number 1,  at that time we

probably will not have had a complete time schedule and a

complete program of secondary treatment as we will still

be under a pilot plant study program; Number 2,  the

Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners at present do not

digest their sludge before barging it to sea.

               I will not go into details at this point

concerning the advisability or the unadvisability of di-

gesting sludge before barging to sea.  It is enough to

say  that for us to digest the sludge in the quantities

-------
                                                      537
10              Seymour  Lubetkin
 which will  be  required  after  a  secondary treatment  may run

 as  much as  $40 million,  and there  appears  to  be  no  evidence

 that  this is of any advantage over undigested sludge  in

 the ocean disposal.

                I have been told that  both of  these  points

 are under review by the  Water Pollution  Control  Adminis-

 tration, and it may be  that the rules  set  up  by  man may

 be  changed  by  man at the time when applied for Federal aid

 on  our  partial program.   This is important, and  I am  put-

 ting  it in  the record because possibly it  may have  an

 influence on the Federal people's  attitude, in that if

 Federal aid is not forthcoming  to  some extent, we would

 then  not be eligible for State  aid, as I understand it,

 because I believe the State bond issue is  tied in somewhat

 with  the Federal bond issue.

                If I am wrong, please  correct  me.  If  we

 are not the recipient of any  aid,  then the chances  are

 that  the actual construction  of these  much needed facili-

 ties  would  be  shelved,  and again the Water Pollution  Con-

 trol  Administration apple will  have been a reason for

 delay.

                Subsequent to  the implementation  of  the

 start of construction on the  grit  handling facilities, it

 is  the  intention of the  Commissioners  to proceed immediately

-------
                                                       538
11              Seymour Lubetkin
 on repairs  and  expansions  to  the basin.   This  would be


 concurrent  with the pilot  plant  studies.   As  soon as pilot


 plant  studies are  finished, it is the intention of the


 Commissioners,  assuming finances are available, to pro-


 ceed with the complete treatment to achieve the average


 90 percent  BOD  removal, minimum  80 percent.


                At  this time,  assuming finances are avail-


 able,  an estimated time schedule will be  approximately


 five years  from the time of the  completion of pilot plant


 studies  until the  end of construction.


                Incidentally,  I also wish  to mention that


 to the end  that the Commissioners are able to finance


 their  own part  of  this, legislation has been introduced


 which  will  enable  the Commissioners to float bonds.  The


 legislation has passed the New Jersey Senate and will


 come up in  the  Assembly at the next session,  and, as far


 as I can see,  there is no  objection and it is expected


 to be  easily passed.


                I hope that the Water Pollution Control


 Administration  would re-evaluate its position on partial


 aid and not insist upon a  complete program, as long as


 the recipient promises to  continue to improve his plants


 until  the standards are met.   I  think if  this is done in


 general, it will accelerate construction  and make it a

-------
                                                       539
 12             Seymour Lubetkin
shorter period of time before we reach the end result we

desire, and interim results may be very effective.

               Yesterday I was told the discussion was on

the Passaic River.  I see a chart and map showing the ex-

tent of interest of the Passaic River in our district.

Several statements were made, and I would like to comment

on some of them.

               Number 1.  There was a comment on the number

of outlets into the river.  Gentlemen, we handle the sew-

age of 29 municipalities.  Many of them contain combined

sewers, such as Paterson and Newark.  During the time of

a storm, neither the Commissioners* trunk sewer nor any

combined sewer is designed to hold the various floods that

can develop, and, therefore, you have emergencies in over-

flow outlets in many spots located throughout the river

which are not used except during times of storms.  However,

in many cases, clean water connections are allowed to

these storm outlets, such as cooling waters, and so forth.

               However, there are several definite pollu-

tion violations.  In the lower end of the Passaic River

there are several storm sewers, namely, Lockwood Street,

Blanchard Street, Roanoke Avenue, the Meadowbrook storm

sewer, all located in the City of Newark, which have il-

legal industrial connections to them.

-------
                                                      540
 13             Seymour Lubetkin
               We have notified and have been after the

City of Newark to remove these connections so that this

material should not go to the river.  The city has claimed

that it has hired testing laboratories and they have just

had a difficult time in locating the offenders.  This has

delayed it to the point where the Commissioners are taking

them to court to force them to remove this material from

the river.  Suit has been filed against the City of Newark

on these outlets.

               There was mention made concerning debris

along the banks of the river.  We have been informed by

our attorney that we have no jurisdiction over debris on

the banks.  We have many times informed the individual

municipalities that it is their responsibility to clean

up the banks within their municipality.  There were com-

mittees formed in Paterson, and so  forth, to  do this.

There was even a work corps formed, and along Paterson

they did  a wonderful job and removed  a considerable amount

of material; and shortly thereafter individuals have dumped

on the banks again because of  the lack of municipality and

police control..

               One problem is  that  when a man has something

to dump,  for some reason he is going  to dump  it, unless

you give  him a legal  place  to do it.   Unfortunately,  in

-------
                                                       541
14             Seymour Lubetkin
most cases this has not been done, but merely a ban has

been set up.

               I have tried to impress many municipal

officials with the idea of setting up a point where this

type of refuse or rubble could be brought, and then with

the proper propaganda and the proper newspaper reporting

maybe we can make everybody his brother*s keeper.  I have

been unsuccessful.

               In general, I think these conferences are

a good thing.  Again, I may not agree with some of the

conclusions, but I think we all are moving in the correct

direction.

               Thank you.

               MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Lubetkin, for a

comprehensive statement.

               I think one of the things the conference

does is provide the forum for a full expression of views,

and I am glad to have your views and philosophy on the

record.

               I think also what is a remarkable thing is

with the divergent philosophic or technical views that we

have in this field, that we can get so close together on

a case by case basis on the way we are going to move to-

ward a solution.  I think this speaks very well for the
                                    i

-------
                                                      542
15             Seymour Lubetkin
system.


               Are there any comments or questions?

               MR. METZLER:   I couldn't let that kind of

testimony go without asking  a question or two.

               MR. STEIN: All right.  Mr. Metzler.

               MR. METZLER:   My curiosity is piqued.


               First, Mr. Lubetkin, that was a very in-

formative statement as far as I am concerned.  I am inter-

ested in two or three points.

               First, do you have the tools available to

you to abate the pollution?   I am talking about the legal

and the fiscal, the engineering and financing tools that

are available and the land to put the facilities on, and

enough to let you acquire what you don*t have.

               MR. LUBETKIN:  I will have to break that

question down into several parts.

               We have the law which will allow us to ac-

quire the land.  We have powers of condemnation.  Quite

frankly, it is going to be expensive in some parts because

some oil companies have made extensive improvements in

the harbor area, and if sludge digestion is required we

will need land amounting to staggering figures.  The land

for the remaining type of secondary treatment is not pro-

hibitive.

-------
                                                      543
16             Seymour Lubetkin
               With respect to the financing, up to now



we have not had the tools for financing.  We have not had



the power to float bonds, except $900,000 which is a re-



sidual from a former $10 million bond issue allowed to us.



As you know, $900,000 is a drop in the bucket.  It would



cost more to float the bond than it is worth.



               As I said, we have introduced into the



Legislature legislation which will enable us to float the



bonds.  This has passed the Senate, and when it is passed



by the Assembly and signed by the Governor we will have



the financial tool.



                       The expected costs are not exactly



known at this point.  There are estimates all the way



from $100 million to $200 million, and although we may



have the financial tool, the actual implementation of



that may be hindered unless there is Federal aid forthcom-



ing of a reasonable amount, or unless we are allowed to



approach this on a piecemeal basis.



               As to the legal rights, the Commissioners



do have the legal rights.



               As to the technical ability to achieve a



90 percent removal, at this point we do not know.  Only



pilot plant studies will tell us.  We assume that it can



be scientifically accomplished, but if we absolutely knew,

-------
                                                     544
 17             Seymour Lubetkin
pilot plant studies would not be necessary.

               We feel it can be accomplished.  In fact,

we are negotiating with that type of treatment which

showed potential in the laboratory.

               Does that answer you?

               MR. METZLER:  That is very helpful.

               Incidentally, you deal with a very diffi-

cult waste there and I can understand your concern with

pilot plant studies.  How strong is this waste now as it

is released from the treatment plant?

               MR. LUBETKIN:  Well, the problem is not

necessarily the strength BOD-wise.

               MR, METZLER:  But it is a dissolved oxygen

problem?

               MR. LUBETKIN:  Right.  Well, you see, we

have had a tendency  and I guess  I should have mentioned

it in my discussion --to talk of BOD over and over again

where another parameter, COD, may be more of  a problem  in

the amount of oxygen required, the  difference being, of

course, biological demand as opposed to chemical demand,

both- requiring oxygen.

               Our wastes can vary.  This is  one of our

problems.  It varies all over the  lot because of the ex-

tensiveness  of the  system-   We may have 400  or  500  parts

-------
                                                      545
 18             Seymour Lubetkin
per million at times, or we may be lucky to go way down

to 300 parts per million at times.  We have had COD's up

to 700 parts per million.  Yet this seems to be a point

not covered in the enforcement regulations, perhaps be-

cause of the difficulty of the problem, but it is something

that we are cognizant of and we will attempt to solve it

in the pilot plant studies.

               MR. METZLER:  Now, on the question about

treatment processes being available, I understand that

you do think the treatment processes are available to get

90 percent removals now?

               MR. LUBETKIN:  I said only the pilot plant

studies will prove it.  We believe that there is a process

which has not been utilized as of this time, which, as I

said, appeared to be successful in the laboratory, which

will give us this removal.

               MR. METZLER:  You talked about new facili-

ties , and it reminded me of an experience I had with a

very well informed city council in 1948, and their engineers

wanted to wait because they were sure there was going to

be a new breakthrough in sewage treatment, but they did

go ahead and build the facilities and not wait for about

eighteen or nineteen years.  You aren't really serious

-------
                                                      546
19             Seymour Lubetkin
about waiting for a breakthrough, are you?

               MR. LUBETKIN:  Serious?  I know we can't

wait for it.

               MR. METZLER:  That's good enough.

               MR. LUBETKIN:  All right.

               MR. METZLER:  I have one other question, or

maybe two.

               You said that without aid there will be no

facilities.  Did you really mean that?

               MR. LUBETKIN:  Oh, I'm sorry; I didn't think

I said "no facilities."  I thought I corrected it and said

that unless they allow us to do it on a step by step basis.

We could not do it on a crash program without aid.

               MR. METZLER:  Well, I guess that leads to

my other question.  What is the earliest date at which you

see Passaic Valley turning treated sewage with 90 percent

of the oxygen demanding materials out, or 80 percent of

the oxygen demanding materials out into the river?

               MR. LUBETKIN:  1976 or 1977.

               MR. METZLER:  Thank you.

               MR. STEIN:  Are there any other questions

or comments?

               MR. GLENN:  I would like to ask one question,

Mr. Lubetkin.  If after it is already decided what treatment

-------
                                                      547
20             Seymour Lubetkin
you need, and also if the financing is arranged, is there


any action that the Commissioners have to receive from


the local communities before you proceed?  Is there some-


thing?  I think I remember that there are some legal steps


that have to be taken.


               MR. LUBETKIN:  Yes, there are legal steps.


               MR. GLENN:  And how long will this take?


               MR. LUBETKIN:  The legal steps are as


follows:   Even though the Legislature will pass it, in


order to issue a bond we will have to have a public hear-


ing and it must be passed by the municipalities.


               The actual time schedule of that is rela-


tively nominal.  We are talking in the order of magnitude


of months.


               MR. STEIN:  Before we go to the other side


of the table,--! know Dwight Metzler was with us on these


cases --but about fifteen years ago we decided that we had


a big problem with oil well pollution when brines were


coming up, and after  awhile they said, "Don't make us


collect these brines and build underground injection sys-


tems because we're expecting a breakthrough momentarily."


               We did go ahead.  The brines are being


collected with injection.  I think most of the oil fields


in most of the States are pretty free of pollution now.

-------
                                                      548
 21             Seymour Lubetkin
I am confidently waiting for that breakthrough.  It has

not come through yet.  That doesn't say that breakthroughs

don't take place.

               There is one other thing that occurred to

me.  With respect to the questions that you were asked

about BOD, COD and the nature of the wastes, on the other

side of the coin of this being a very difficult thing to

treat, what is the nature of that waste that is being put

out now if it is so difficult to handle?  What is going

out into the public waters?

               MR. LUBETKIN:  Well, there's no secret of

it.  I think everybody has been crying about it.  We are

releasing waste with a high BOD and a high COD.

               MR. STEIN:  Not just the BOD.  Presumably

there are loads of chemicals and other constituents in

there.

               MR. LUBETKIN:  Well, obviously there must

be some item that causes BOD.  For example, gentlemen,  I

could discharge the equivalent of a glass of water into

water with a tablespoon of sugar and this will have 100

times the BOD on a parts per million basis of the raw

s ewage.

                I don't think this is what the public thinks

of when they talk of  pollution,  although we know technically

-------
                                                      549
 22             Seymour Lubetkin
this will absorb considerable oxygen in stabilizing.


               MR. STEIN:  Are there any questions on this


side?


               Mr. Klashman.


               MR. KLASHMAN:  Yes, I have several questions,


               Mr. Lubetkin, do I understand correctly that


your plant currently produces somewhere in the neighborhood


of a 10 percent BOD and COD removal?


               MR. LUBETKIN:  Yes, 10 to 15 percent.


               MR. KLASHMAN:  The highest about 15?


               MR. LUBETKIN:  Right.  Yes, sir, you under-


stand correctly.


               MR. KLASHMAN:  The other question I wanted


to raise was, in the Passaic Valley authority area, could


you give us some idea of what the service charge is --


first for the average homeowner?  How much does it cost


him per year?


               MR. LUBETKIN:  Well, our present rate is


approximately $69 per million gallons.


               MR. KLASHMAN:  What does it come down to


though in terms of an average homeowner?


               MR. LUBETKIN:  I have never calculated it


before,,  I will have to do it right now.  If we assume


an average home discharge in the neighborhood of 200

-------
                                                      550
23             Seymour Lubetkin
gallons a day --


               MEL KLASHMAN:  Excuse me.  Is it based on


the water uses or the actual discharge?


               MR. LUBETKIN:  It is actually based on


metered flow.


               MRc KLASHMAN:  From the home?


               MR. LUBETKIN:  No, from the municipality.


We do not bill the homeowner.


               MR. KLASHMAN:  What is the cost to the home-


owner though?  That is what I want to know.


               MR. LUBETKIN:  I understand.


               MR. KLASHMAN:  Good.


               MR. LUBETKIN:  If we assume the average


homeowner discharges in the neighborhood of 200 gallons


per day, we have roughly 70,000 gallons a year, give or


take a little with industrial wastes, so you might say


100,000 for round figures, so it costs the average home-


owner about seven dollars a year.


               MR. KLASHMAN:  So the average homeowner


pays about seven dollars.  I think that is a very good


rate.


               The other question  I wanted to ask is, as


far as industry is concerned, is the charge to the indus-


trial user based simply on flow, or is it based on the

-------
                                                      551
24             Seymour Lubetkin
load that he is putting in?


               MR. LUBETKIN:  This is another problem.  I


didn't know the conference this morning wanted to go into


details such as this.


               By law and by contractual agreement, the


charge is based strictly on flow, regardless of concentra-


tion and demand.  This may have been satisfactory with a


primary plant, but it will be totally unsatisfactory as


we go into secondary treatment, and it appears that we


will have to go in for a completely new rate structure


which will entail the calculations of transfers of BOD


demands, and so forth.


               MR. KLASHMAN:  So at the present time, then,


the industrial user is charged only by flow and not by the


strength, but this will be changed?


               MRo LUBETKIN:  When you say "industrial


user," we in most cases, with one or two exceptions,


charge the municipality on the aggregate flow from the


municipality, which will include the industries, and it


is the municipality's discretion as to whether it wants


to charge its industry individually or whether the tax


structure is such that it is not necessary.


               There are two exceptions where industries


have direct contracts with Passaic Valley, and  that is

-------
                                                     552
25             Seymour Lubetkin
the Marcal Paper Mill in Fairlawn and a group of industries


called Fairlawn Industries, also in Fairlawn.  All others


pay through the municipality and we do not have individual


metering of the industries.


               MR0 KIASHMAN:  The two industries that you


do charge pay this $69 per year?


               MR. LUBETKIN:  No.  They pay that plus a


rental fee, which is not kept by Passaic Valley but is


returned to the other municipalities to reimburse them


for their portion of the original construction costs, be-


cause these industries did not participate in the original


construction.  It is a relatively nominal fee.


               We have been attempting to get a change


in the Legislature, and again have not succeeded.  This


is set by statute as $2500,


               MR. KIASHMAN:  How much, $2500?


               MR. LUBETKIN:  $2500 per million gallons


a day for one year.  That  is in addition to our operating


and maintenance cost.  It  amounts to roughly --


               MR0 KIASHMAN:  Say that again.


               MR. LUBETKIN:  The $2500 is a yearly rental


which allows them to discharge a million gallons each day.


               MR0 KIASHMAN:  I'm with you.  I was just


concerned by the $2500 divided by 365.

-------
                                                       553
 26            Seymour Lubetkin
               MR0 STEIN:  That's the advantage of an edu-

cation at M0IoTo  (laughter)

               Are there any other questions?

               MRo KLASHMAN:  I have a few more questions.,

               Are there any ordinances requiring pre-

treatment by industry?

               MR0 LUBETKIN:  Yes, but not worded in that

manner  The ordinance we have states that no industry or

municipality shall discharge into the sewer oil, grease or

any waste which is detrimental to the sewer or its opera-

tion.  Therefore, interpreting, we can imply that if a

waste is detrimental we can require its pre-treatment.

               MR. KIASHMAN:  On the cost per home --in

other words, if they are paying about seven dollars per

home, and my experience has been that the rates will go

somewhere between 40 to maybe $80 per home, there is quite

a bit of leeway there.,  In other words, you could increase

your rate perhaps 10 times and still be within the rates

that surrounding communities are paying; is that correct?

               MRo LUBETKIN:  I do not believe 10 times is

the correct figure.,

               MRo KIASHMAN:  I was thinking 10 times 7

is 70.

               MRo LUBETKIN:  I understand, but I am not

-------
                                                     554
 27             Seymour Lubetkin
familiar with the rates of surrounding communities   I


didn't believe it was as high as $70 a home,   I could be


corrected on thatc


               MR0 KLASHMAN:  Let me ask you this just to

clarify something else in my own mind.


               As I understood you, you indicated that


assuming the financing can be worked out, that your


schedule calls for completion of pilot plant studies

and first completion of the contract with the engineers


within a month, about?


               MR. LUBETKIN:  No, no,


               MR. KLASHMAN:  The contract?


               MR. LUBETKIN:  Oh, the signing.


               MR. KLASHMAN:  Will be about a month?

               MR. LUBETKIN:  Right.

               MR. KLASHMAN:  So that will be sometime in

the end of July or the 1st of August, and by June of 1971


the pilot plant studies will be done?

               MR. LUBETKIN:  Will have been completed.

               MR. KLASHMAN:  And then, by June of 1976,

assuming that other  financial arrangements can be worked


out,  the secondary treatment plant would be completed?


               MR0 LUBETKIN:  Yes.

               MR0 KLASHMAN:  And  in operation.   That's


all.

-------
28             Seymour Lubetkin
               MR0 STEIN:  Mr, Sullivan, do you have any




comments or questions?




               MRo SULLIVAN:  Well, the merits of our




official differences are being debated in another forum




and I am not going to bring them up here.  I have a




couple of brief comments, however.




               Number 1, and it is really a question, I




wonder if, in addition to the seven dollars per household,




you have any idea of the other fee charged by the muni-




cipality for the maintenance of the collection system?




               MRc LUBETKIN:  No, but in some cases I do




know there are such charges..  In other words, our charge




has nothing to do with the local sewers.  We maintain the




main trunk and the treatment plant, and it is up to the




municipality to maintain its local collection system and




make its connections




               I do know that in many cases there are




charges made to industries and such for this.  Some of




them are even appended onto their water fee, so it is




true that this seven dollars may not reflect the total




cost to the homeowner




               MR. SULLIVAN:  One other technical point




of information.,  It is correct, as you suggested earlier,




that the eligibility for Federal and State funds coincide.

-------
                                                     556
29             Seymour Lubetkin
What is eligible for one is eligible for the other, and


the converse is true.


               I think it is important to emphasize, and


this point was made by several people yesterday and made


again by Mr. Lubetkin, that the decision on whether sludge


digestion must be provided is a very important one in the


plans for the upgrading of this facility.,


               I think it is very helpful that Mr. Lubetkin


was here, and I think that the answers that he has given


us have made a very useful contribution to the record


               MRo STEIN:  Are there any other comments


or questions?


               MR0 KIASHMAN:  Mr. Lubetkin, I just wanted


to make one other comment for the record.  You raised two


questions about the  fact that under our present policy

we would not process a construction grantj first, unless


you had what we call acceptable treatment, which  includes


sludge digestion,* and, second, this question about unless


we knew that you had a firm schedule to meet the  Secretary


of the Interior's enforcement conference recommendations;


that unless you met  these two things we wouldn't  give a


grant.


               On the first item, the one about the sludge,


the Department and  the Administration  is very much concerned

-------
                                                      557
 30             Seymour Lubetkin
about this, and this is under review, so I can't comment

on that,


               On the second question, it has been our


policy that when a grant is submitted to us, if we don't

know what you are talking about -- in other words, if a


grant comes in for $5 million or 10 or 20, whatever it


is, and you tell us you are going to build a secondary


treatment plant but we have no idea what you are talking


aboutj we don't have the plans and specifications? we


don't have any preliminary reportrT.we don't feel that we


can obligate Federal funds because we don't even know


what the project is.


               This has been our policy in the past, and,


personally, I don't see any let-up on this  It seems to


me that before we can give a grant, we have to have some


idea of what you are talking about, and we can't just go

on the basis of fact of verbal -- you know, that you say

some day you plan to meet the objectives.

               MR0 LUBETKIN:  Mr, Klashman, I realize


that has been your policy0  I attempted to point out that


I didn1t think it was a good policy in order to get the


maximum for your dollar,,


               For example, not just Passaic Valley, but


there may be other places where they have sufficient money

-------
                                                     558
31             Seymour Lubetkin
to do a partial job,  maybe set up the primary part which
is preliminary for secondary treatment,  immediately getting
in a collection system,  but if they are  held up until they
have a whole project laid out, you, in my opinion, have
helped delay the elimination of pollution.
               Now, I realize this is a  point where we
just differ in opinion.   I did just want to get on the re-
cord that I felt that under certain circumstances, even
though a complete program may not be forthcoming,  if what
is presented in itself will help relieve a portion of
                                  >
pollution, it should be considered on its own merits.
               MR0 STEIN:  Are there any other comments
or questions?
               (No response.,)
               MR, STEIN:  You know, you have had some
very good statements here, and I think this has really
amplified the record, But it does bring to my mind as a
final comment something that Mr* Sullivan has in his
statement where he says, "Our statutes," and I guess the
Federal statute is the same in this regard, "do not say
it is okay to pollute if you are poor,,"
               The corollary of that would almost seem
self-evidento  The statutes do not say it is okay to
pollute if you are rich and you say  you are poor.

-------
                                                       559
32              Seymour  Lubetkin
                Now,  ostensibly,  I  see  in  the Passaic Valley

 the  potential  for  a  tax base with  some 700  industries  and

 millions  of  people that very many  of the  communities that

 Mr0  Metzler  and I  have been dealing with  in the midwest

 would  be  delighted to have if  they were ever going  to  as-

 sess costs,  and we also have a sewer service charge which

 seems  to  be  very attractive indeed, and it  probably ranks

 with the  lowest in the country,,

                I think the challenge to the Federal, the

 interstate agency  and your agency  is,  if  we are sitting

 on a situation like  that where we  have this tremendous in-

 dustrial  complex which appears to  be as rich as any, with

 as low a  charge as we appear to have,  and if we have a

 pollution problem, isn't there a way to really meet this

 and  get this going?  I don't know,,  That  may be rhetorical,

                MR0 LUBETKIN:   I will answer with  an opinion

 of mine.

                MR STEIN:  Go  ahead.

                MR0 LUBETKIN:   A lot of people  may not  like

 this.   If there was  no Federal grant program whatsoever, I

 think  more progress  might have been made  in New Jersey,

                MR. STEIN:  That's  a fair  enough statement.

 Maybe  we  ought to  proceed without  it.   Are  there  any other

 comments  or  questions?

                (No responsec)

-------
                   A. Bromberg
                                                     560
               MR.  STEIN:   Mr.  Sullivan.


               MR.  SULLIVAN:   I just wanted to state that


if there is anyone  from the State of New  Jersey who would


like to come forward and speak  on the subject of the


conference, the invitation is extended.


               MR.  STEIN:   Thank you very much/ Mr. Sulli-


van.


               Mr.  Klashman,  do you have  anything?


               MR.  KLASHMAN:   Mr. Stein,  yesterday Mr.


Bromberg, when he made his statement, was asked to fur-


nish a supplemental statement today, and  I would like to


call on him to make that statement now.


               Mr.  BromDerg.



             SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY


                MR. ALBERT BROMBERG


                CHIEF OF OPERATIONS


          HUDSON-DELAWARE BASINS OFFICE


FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION


                 EDISON, NEW JERSEY



               MR.  BROMBERG:   Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Klash-


man indicated, I would like to supplement my statement of


yesterday in answer to a question that you raised or the

-------
                   A.  Bromberg                       561








conference had raised.



               This question was in relation to Item No.



4 in our summary and conclusions of our combined sewer




overflow report, which stated, briefly, that studies are




needed in the conference area to, first, quantitatively




and qualitatively determine the characteristics of com-




bined sewer overflow,  and, secondly, the effect of com-




bined sewer overflow on quality in receiving waters.




               Your question was in relation to the type




of studies required and resources and costs and time




involved in carrying out these studies.




               A meeting was held last evening with repre-




sentatives of the States of New York, New Jersey and the




Interstate Sanitation Commission and the Federal Water



Pollution Control Administration.  An agreement was reached




between the representatives of these agencies, and the




following program has  been suggested:



               1.  That a detailed inventory be developed




of the 43 combined sewer collection systems existing in




the conference area.  This inventory would include a



complete analysis of each system, inventorying such items




as number of overflows, type of regulator, service area,




and so forth.




               We have estimated that to undertake this

-------
                   A.  Bromberg                       562








inventory would take approximately five men one year.   If




this work were to be undertaken by representatives of




the agencies who held this meeting, we estimate its cost




would be approximately $100,000.




               MR. STEIN:  Does that include the payroll




costs of the five men, or do you need additional men?




               MR. BROMBERG:  This is basically payroll




costs.




               MR. STEIN:  Thank you.  All right.




               MR. BROMBERG:  If such a program were to




be taken on an outside contract, we estimate the cost




could approach $200,000.




               We would like to further suggest that




the program be continued after the generation of this




inventory.  We would now have the basis for developing



a program for further work investigating the problem of



combined sewer overflow.  This might consist of the




selection of specific or certain combined sewer over-




flow systems or discharge points on which further study




might be conducted to gather detailed information regard-




ing the character of these overflows and their effect on




water quality.




               MR. STEIN:  Thank you.  Are there any

-------
                   A. Bromberg                       563








comments on that?




               MR. METZLER:  There is one comment.




               Your statement indicates that we agreed on




this, and we are, but I want to point out that in no way




do I want this to be regarded as diverting our attention




from the main goal immediately ahead of us, and that is




getting adequate secondary treatment throughout the con-




ference area.  This is not to serve as a basis for a



slowing down or delaying the cleanup that is within our




grasp or that is possible.




               MR. KLASHMAN:  Mr. Metzler, we certainly




concur with your statement.




               MR. STEIN:  May I make this clear about




the status of this statement?



               As I see it now, this is for the consider-




ation of the conferees.  It may have been a statement




made at the request of the Chairman for a technical staff



to get together.  This will be taken up by the conferees




subject to accepting or rejecting or modification as they




see fit.




               Are there any other comments or questions?




                (No response)




               MR, STEIN:  If not, thank you very much

-------
                                                     564
for your efforts.   It has been very helpful.



               Do  the conferees wish to say anything now,



or is there anyone in the audience who wishes to make a



statement at the present time?



               We  are going to recess and go into Execu-



tive Session at this time.  This will foreclose, at this



session of the conference at any rate, any more audience



participation, so  if there is anything anyone wants to



say, now is the time to say it.  If not, the conferees




will meet in Executive Session in the room that Mr. Klash-



man has, which you will get from him and which is very



close by.  We will hope to have an announcement at about



3:00 this afternoon.  I assume we are going to lunch first,



               The one thing we are certainly not going



to do is rush this in any way, because we are at the



real tough point of a very complicated problem, and we



certainly want to be sure of where we are going in all



these cases.



               I will give you the notion of what we




have.  While we deal with very, very important cases,



sometimes when you are just moving into a gross situa-




tion, as we did when we  first  came into this pollution



problem, all we wanted to do was make the conclusion that

-------
                                                     565
pollution was occurring and that adequate waste treat-




ment should take place by a certain date, and that we




should move rather rapidly.




               As the program develops, as this one has,




where we have to go point by point and problem by problem




with a scalpel, as it were, the case gets very very com-




plex.




               We are going to have to evaluate this and




come out and be as accurate as we can in our statements,




so we will be back at either 3:00 or have word at 3:00




as to when you might expect a statement from the confer-




ees and we will stand recessed until we reconvene.




               MR. ROGOWSKI:   Mr. Stein, one more witness




has arrived.




               MR. STEIN:  Who is he?




               MR. ROGOWSKI:  Mr. Grant has arrived.




               MR. STEIN:  Mr. Grant, will you come up?



               May we have your full name?

-------
                   G. Grant                         566
                   STATEMENT BY




               MR. GARDNER L. GRANT




                  VICE-PRESIDENT




         THEODORE GORDON FLYFISHERS, INC.








               MR. GRANT:  I am Gardner L. Grant.  I am




the vice-president of Theodore Gordon Flyfishers, Inc.,




and I have a statement I would like to make to you on




the subject of the Croton River which flows into the




Hudson.




               There's a popular song entitled "Who Can




I Turn To?"and that's the question we pose to you today




in telling you the 1969 story of the Croton River.  The




song is pretty. The story decidely is not.




               The people of the State of New York think



they have a law and a Water Resources Commission together




with an effective conservation department to implement




both and thus protect the streams and rivers of the State




from pollution and despoilation.  We have this illusion




of such protection, but in the following account, you




can see we certainly don't have the substance.



               The lower Croton River in Westchester




County, flows from Cornell Dam  (which impounds the Croton

-------
                   G. Grant                          567








Reservoir) to the Hudson, and it is fed, chiefly, by



the overflow of this dam.  It's a unique river ranging



from a brawling torrent in the spring to a virtually



dry watercourse in some reaches during the summer.  It



forms the water supply for the Village of Croton, pro-




vides two major swimming areas (one private and one



public),is the spring spawning ground for runs of striped




bass and herring, and is host to populations of trout,




bass, perch and other species.  This river is a unique



recreational assetjust a long cast from the Nation's



most populous region, where it is so vital to preserve



and, if possible, expand such resources.




               In 1964, a gravel mining operation in the



river bed created heavy damage through turbidity and



siltationshoaling and choking pools with silt, leaving



debris scattered downstream, and finally  depositing



concentrations of silt in the estuary where the Croton



joins the Hudson. Even then, there were New York State



laws intended to prevent this sort of damage, and through



the action of aroused citizens, the New York Conservation



Department was moved to act against the mining operator




who was dredging gravel without a permit.



               An article entitled "The New Stream

-------
                   G.  Grant                          568








Protection Law" appeared in the February-March 1966  is-



sue of "The Conservationist"the excellent magazine



published by the New York Conservation Department, discus-



sing the present day boom in construction of buildings,



airfields, highways and similar projects, the article




comments:



               "The needs of these projects often seem



       to require that a stream be dredged for gravel,




       filled with wastes, displaced from its bed or



       otherwise disturbed.  Too often, to meet these



       needs, another portion of good recreational water



       is destroyed unknowingly and unnecessarily.  A



       part of our dwindling resources is gone, perhaps



       never to return."



               A photograph included in this article



shows a bulldozer pushing gravel along the bank or bed



of a watercourse, and the caption beneath states:



               "The new law will help curb this culprit."



               Thus, in 1966, we, along with others,



concerned for the Croton and for pure water throughout




the State of New York,welcomed this law and the apparent



enthusiasm of the Conservation Department for its im-



plementation.  The article concludes with the words,

-------
                   G. Grant                          569








               "The goals of the law as they seek to




       protect a part of our most valuable resource are




       worthy of our best efforts.  We propose no less."




               Later, when Governor Rockefeller succeeded




in gaining approval of a billion dollar bond issue to




clean up pollution of New York's waters/ it seemed that




our State Government was inviolably committed to an all-




out effort to prevent and eliminate water pollution.



               On December 9, 1968, an application for




removal of gravel, by dredging, from the Croton River




was made to the Region 8 Conservation Department Office




in New Paltz, New Yorfy by the same party who was appre-




hended for the 1964 river damage.  Public notice of the




application was made in a manner which practically as-




sured that these citizens who had alerted the Department




to the 1964 gravel dredging violation, would not learn




about it in time to express an opinion to the Conservation



Department as provided for by law(The law, of course,




is the "Stream Protection Law" we have referred to).




Accordingly, there were no "objectors" to the applica-



tion on record, when the Local Permit Agent (a member




of the Conservation Department) found the proposed work




to be "in the public interest" and granted a permit for

-------
                   G. Grant                          570








the gravel dredging  on January 22, 1969.




               Despite our efforts to obtain an explana-




tion from the Conservation Department, which we shall




describe, we do not know how or why the proposal was




found to be "in the public interest" and thus qualified




for permit issuance.  The avowed purpose for the proposed




operation  referred to improvement of applicant's property




through the enlargement of an existing swimming area--




an area already large enough for any swimming use by




those using this private swim area  except possibly  the




training of cross-channel swimmers.




               We suspect that the applicant's true pur-




pose was the sale of dredged gravel to a contractor




working on a nearby State highway construction project.




We have been informed that the cost of Croton River gravel




delivered to the construction site is around $4.00 to



$6.00  less per cubic yard than gravel delivered from




an alternative source.  The permit covered removal of




20,000 cubic yards of gravelbut as of June 15, we




have reliable estimates that something like twice that




amount was actually removed, and at the stated cost dif-




ferential, it was certainly to someone's private interest



to remove and sell this gravel but certainly not in the

-------
                   G. Grant                          571








public interest.




               In addition to the twelve "conditions"




printed on the form  (some of which were subsequently




violated), the permit stipulated special condition No.




13:




               "The oermittee will take whatever measures




       are required to control turbidity and siltation




       resulting from this project."




               The permit became valid January 22, 1969




and was to expire June 30, 1969.  This time period is




vital because the normal period of the spring runoff




occurs right in the middle of it.  When the annual




spring overflow at the Cornell Dam is known as one of




Westchester's scenic wonderssending torrents of water




sweeping down the gorgeit seems incongruous that any-



one expected to avoid "turbidity and siltation" from a




downstream gravel dredging operation yet the Conservation




Department had to make just such an assumption in grant-




ing the permit.  Unfortunately, they were wrong.




               T.G.F. (Theodore Gordon Flyfishers, Inc.)




first learned of the issuance of this permit at the




beginning of March, and our President at that time, Joe




A. Pisarro, wrote to Conservation Department Commissioner

-------
                   G. Grant                          572








Kilborne expressing concern for the river and urging him




to stop the dredging and prevent anticipated damage. The




Commissioner responded on March 21 to the effect that




no action on his part was indicated.




               Subsequently, our members (along with




others concerned for the river) have made frequent




visits to the river to inspect and photograph developments.




Between March 4 and May 22, 1969, we held numerous dis-




cussions on the 'phone and in person with members of the




Conservation Department (primarily in Region 8), chiefly




to apprise them of our observations and to ascertain what




action, if any, they were taking in the evolving situation.




               On March 20, 1969, after discovering what



we considered a serious violation of the permit, our




president, Robert N. Johnson wrote to Mr. Terrence Curran,




Central Permit Agency, Albany, N. Y., presenting the



facts we had discovered together with a photograph of




the subject matter, and in the belief that damage to the




river was imminent, requested an immediate public hearing-




where we and other concerned parties could furnish  infor-




mation on the developing operations of  the permittee which,




in our opinion, made serious turbidity  and siltation in-




evitable.

-------
                   G.  Grant                          573








               On April 8, T. P. Curran, Central Permit




Agent, replied to our March 20 lettercompletely dis-




regarded the evidence we presented, completely disregarded




our request for a public hearingstated that:



               "There is no legal basis for action by me,"




and referred us back to the Local Permit Agent, New Paltz,




N. Y., Region 8, who had told me, just prior to our March




20 letter that the matter was now out of his hands and




must be referred to the Central Permit Agent.




               On April 10, 1969, W. Mason Lawrence,




Deputy Commissioner of the Conservation Department, wrote




the Town Clerk of Cortlandt, New York, in response to




a request for Conservation Department guidance, to the




effect that there would actually be ecological benefits




derived from the subject dredging operation"a sizeable




pool""to carry fishlife through the summer months"



that danger of turbidity and siltation had been taken




care of by a Department statement in the permit, re-




quiring the permittee to take measures to control tur-




bidity and siltation; that the "matter of a bridge




allegedly having been constructed over the river is




being investigated.  We appreciate your bringing this




to our attention."  He wrote this despite the fact

-------
                   G. Grant                          574








that Region 8 personnel had informed the Albany head-




quarters of the existence of the bridge early in March,




and the enclosure of a photograph of the bridge enclosed




with the T.G.F. letter of March 2Q.




               As we had warned, and pleaded with this




Department to recognize and prevent, the high water did




surge through the gravel excavation carrying downstream




with it untold amounts of silt, gravel, debris, uprooted




trees and the cuttings of the growth which once lived on




the banks stripped away by this "property improvement"




operation, which had been judged  "to be in the public in-




terest" .




               With the Croton turbid all the way from




the mining area, downstream, to its confluence with the




Hudson, and undoubtedly depositing tons of silt and




debris  from its ravaged bed and banksthe Conservation



Department on May 2, 1969, rescinded that permit of




January 22, 1969.  It  further ordered the dredging




operator to remove his equipment  from the river and gave




him a period of days in which to  dismantle and remove




the bridge "allegedly" constructed over the river.




               On May  14, 1969, days after the bridge




was to  have been removed per Department orders, I visited

-------
                   G. Grant                          b75








the site with other interested parties, observed and




photographed the bridge still in existencevehicles




passing over itequipment still dredging and hauling




gravel from the river bed and banks.




               Advised of our findings, a Region 8




Department officer was sent to the site on May 14, and




reported back that he had seen no violations or cause




for action^that since the river level had droppedand




a berm or cofferdam had been built by the gravel dredger




this without a permit, toothe equipment was no longer




in the river bed, and now the dredger didn't even need a




permit to continue the operation.  Strangely, the Depart-




ment officer saw no vehicles using the bridge, and still




more strangely, he gave this as the reason that no action by the




Department was called for, forgetting his Department's




order for removal of the structure, an oversight the



river was to pay dearly for one month later.



               On May 22, 1969, T.G.P. president Bob




Johnson and I went to Albany, met with Commissioner




Kilborne, Deputy Commissioner Lawrence and staff members.




We stated our position, in part, as follows:




               "We come to Albany today because a situa-




       tion has come to our attention which deeply shakes

-------
                   G.  Grant                           576








       our confidence  in the  Department's  intent and




       ability to protect and preserve  our environment




       under law, in the public interest.   We have  ex-




       amined this matter in  depth,  and will  look to




       the Department for clear and  forthright answers




       concerning the Department's role in this specific




       case.  We have only delved into  this one case,




       but fear that it might be only symptomatic of  many




       other similar or related occurrences."




              We showed tnotion pictures of the Croton




River excavation site taken  on our visit of May 14,




and requested answers to 27  specific questions on this




matter (as set forth in material we  shall leave here  for




your consideration).  Despite assurances to the contrary,




we did not receive then and have not received since,



an answer to a single one.




               Until the second week of June the gravel




dredger continued to dredge and haul gravel from the



Riverwithout interference from the Conservation Depart-




ment.  The excavation area, between May 15 and June 15




was sometimes covered by water, a part of the river




at times separated from the main body of the water by




narrow gravel banks, pushed one way or the other by the

-------
                   G. Grant                          577








dredger's equipment; from time to time sections extendino




above or dipping below the water as a result of water




level fluctuation.




               On May 28, public notice of a new permit




application by the dredger appeared.  This time, the




application was to build a new bridge crossing across




the River.  T.G.F., on June 3, 1969 wrote the Region 8




Local Permit Agentin opposition to the application.




The deadline for responses to the notice was June 6,




and no permit has been issued yet.  However, during the




first week of June, the dredger, without a permit, started




construction of a new bridge crossing and continued




without apparent interference until mother nature took




a hand this past weekend to write what may be the final




chapter in this sordid story.




               Over two and-a-half inches of rain fell



on the Croton watershed this past weekend and by Monday,



June 16, the pushed up gravel mounds and banks (or berm),




the remains of the "alleged" bridge previously referred




to, the partially constructed "new" bridge, and the




dredger's earthen reconstruction of an old bridge down-




stream from the excavationall had been washed down-




stream by the angry, swollen rivercoming to rest finally

-------
                   G. Grant                          578








somewhere in the Croton,  its estuary,  or far out in the




Hudson.  Where is the bed of the lovely Croton River




now?




               You'll be  riding over some of it around




the Hawthorne Circle reconstruction, but you would have




enjoyed it much more if it had been left where nature




intended.  Some of it rests downstream, shoaling pools




that once held fish, once were deep enough for swimming




while some of it is now in the Hudson, adding still




another burden to that most persecuted of rivers.




               The eight men from the Conservation De-




partment were shocked at what they saw on Monday, June




16, when they visited the Croton.  They shouldn't have




beenthey let it happen!




               In a State whose citizens have approved




a billion dollar obligation to clean up water pollution,



how can we reconcile this failure to act to prevent




ongoing pollution, action entailing no great expenditure,




except perhaps the dedicated and courageous effort of




those who are already charged with the responsibility




of implementing and enacting existing lawthose we




normally turn to for leadership in conserving our natural



resources.




               This Croton matter is a relatively simple

-------
                   G. Grant                          579








case.  There was no deep philosophical quandary on values.




or questions of human or ecological priorities here.  In



a situation where the public interest seems clearly on




one side, one must be appalled at the judgments made and




actions taken which apparently favor a private interest,




where intensive effort has failed to yield any answer




to the question "Why did this happen?"we find ourselves




facing a stone wall, and ask "Who can we turn to, now?"




               We hope that bringing this matter before




this Conference will stimulate others to help us find sonv>




earnest answers.  Thank you for giving us this opportunity,



               MR. STEIN:  Thank you.




               Are there any comments or questions?




                (No response)




               MR. STEIN:  Thank you very much for your




statement.



               A VOICE:  Yes, I would Ixke to ask



               MR. STEIN:  I am sorry; we do not take




statements from the floor.




               A VOICE:  You asked if there are any com-




ments .




               MR. STEIN:  I meant from the conferees.




That is assumed in every statement we make.

-------
                Hon.  W.  Ferrall                      530









               If we opened this up to the floor,  we would




be here for a very, very long time.  I hate to have this




kind of ending. It is like a Beethoven Symphonyyou




never know when it is over.




               But, thank you, Mr. Grant.




               We have the privilege of having State




Senator William J. Ferrall of the 22nd District here.




               Senator, do you wish to make a statement,




sir?



               SENATOR FERRALL:  Yes.




               MR. STEIN:  Will you come up, please?






                   STATEMENT BY




             HON. WILLIAM J. FERRALL




                   STATE SENATOR




               22ND DISTRICT-NEW YORK




                BROOKLYN, NEW YORK






               SENATOR FERRALL:  Mr. Chairman, members




of the Conference:




               Following the invitation extended to me




to attend this Conference, I hoped to prepare a state-




ment in connection with it that might be distributed




among the members of the Conference, but I found that

-------
               Hon. W. Perrail                        581








the deadline precluded that.



               However, basically, what I am going to



say today will be related generally in a statement which



I hope to submit to the Committee assemblage today.



               My name is William J. Ferrall.  I am a




State Senator from the 22nd Senatorial District in




Brooklyn.



               I have heard the expression used, "I




cover the waterfront," but geographically, within the



confines of my senatorial District, I cover more of the



Brooklyn waterfront than any other Senator from that area,



and I think more so than any other Senator within the



City of New York.



               I am deeply concerned about the pollution




which exists, particularly as it follows the waters



abounding my area and as far as the rest of the city is



concerned.



               Recently, about a month and-a-half ago,



I requested the Chairman of the State Committee on Con-



servation to come to the waterfront in Brooklyn, particu-



larly in reference to the Gowanus Canal.  This is in



a particularly heavy industrial area, and we have a very



serious pollution condition there.

-------
             Hon.  W. Perrall                        582








               I do know that the Department of the In-




terior of the United States a few years ago predicted




a program whereby interceptors were to be placed on and




in the vicinity of the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn so as




to take care of a huge amount of raw sewage which is




spilling into the canal and, of course, in addition to




the industrial wastes that went into the canal, we have




these huge sewers emptying in there also.




               The Committee came down and went over the




area and were shocked to see what was very evident there,




               We took photographs and I have just a few




of them here, indicating the pollution, the muck and




mire that exists in the canal and in the bulkheads that



abound the canal.




               I have here an Exhibit I, which I would




like to present to the committee, showing the area of



the Ninth Street Bridge in Brooklyn as it crosses the




Gowanus Canal.  This speaks for itself.




               I have another photograph here which I




would like to furnish as Exhibit 2, which shows  the




Gowanus Canal at the Hamilton Avenue Bridge.  There is




a sev;er outlet there which flows into the canal  itself.




It is approximately eight or ten feet wide and about




four or five feet high.

-------

-------
584

-------
              Hon.  T-7. Ferrall                        585








               The committee saw this, which was something




that offended the sensibilities of anyone who was in the




remote vicinity of this great sewer, which just throws




the raw sewage right into the canal.  This was shocking




to the committee, and it has been reported in tneir




annual report to the members of the State Legislature,




               I do hope that the program for placing




interceptors in the vicinity of Gowanus Canal, which was




programmed for 1970, will in fact be implemented at an




early date, because while there may oe certain pollutive




conditions in other areas of the State along the Hudson




River and its tributaries, I daresay that there isn't




any greater pollution area than exists as shown in those




exhibits 1 and 2.




               Abutting the Gowanus Canal in the vicnity




of Ninth Street, Fifth Street, Gowanus Canal and Smith




Street in Brooklyn, is an area which was formerly the



site of the Brooklyn Union Gas Company Works.  The Works




have been demolished, and there is just a wide open area




there of ten and-a-half acres.




               It has been projected that a high school,




which is desparately needed in that area, be erected to




take care of the tremendous school population in several

-------
              Hon.  w. Ferrall                        586




areas of Brooklyn.   But this would be an outlet into which

they would feed students from other areas-^the construc-

tion of a high school therebut you couldn't in fairness

to and in the interest of the public, in the interest of

the children, construct a high school there with the

malodorous conditions that emanate from the canal.  With


the interceptors there, this condition could be remedied.

               I happen to be a member of the Senate

Committee on Public Utilities.  We have had several hear-

ings in different parts of the State with representatives

from different organizations, and public utilities parti-

cularly.


               We were deeply concerned about the pollu-

tion resulting from the creation of nuclear energy.

               This particular meeting was held in the

Court of Appeals hearing room in Albany.
                               f
               Representatives there from the different

power industries spoke, and it seemed to  me that what

was testified to there by those representatives indi-

cated an opinion that there would be some pollution,

particularly in the operation of these plants, whereby

waters which were necessarily used in the production

of nuclear energy in certain plants and in connection

-------
              Hon. W. Ferrall
with the proposed plantone in particular in Cayuga Lake




which was a specific matter of interest at that time--




would compound already existing conditions in the Hudson




River and in other areas .




               You know, the people of the State of New




York validated a multi -billion-dollar bond issue  billions,




not millions  for clear air and clear water a few years




ago.  Certainly, the recommendation that this brought




to the attention of the people had a real foundation in




fact, because it was ridiculous to think otherwise. There




was substantial pollution of the waters of our State neces-




sitating this bond issue.




               The representatives of the power companies




admitted that there would be some element of pollution,




particularly in what they call the boiling waters  in



the waters used from, say, a landlocked lake, drawn from




the lake and used for the purpose of storing energy for



the overall operation of the plant, then turned back



into a lake, a landlocked water particularly.     It




would take approximately three to four months to cool




off.




               Now, if there is an already existing pol-




luting condition there, not only in the landlocked waters

-------
             Hon.  w. Ferrall                        588








but also in the Hudson and its tributaries, you are com-




pounding it.




               There were several representatives who




appeared there, and my inquiry was:  you are admitting




certainly there are pollutants which are seriously pol-




luting the Hudson and its tributaries and landlocked




lakes, which necessitated a billion-dollar bond issue,




and you are admitting too that there will be some ele-




ment of pollution.   Don't you think that this requires



further study before you project an intensive program




of creating further nuclear plants throughout the State




particularly those which are within the State of New




York?  And there was an intensive program in that direc-




tion.




               What happened to the boiling waters which




are put into, for example, a landlocked lake  such as




Cayuga, which is a substantial lake and a very beauti-




ful one, one of our great natural resources?  What hap-



pens to the marine life?  What happens to the small




animal life, and what happens to the fish which are




caught by sportsmen in the area?  What happens when they




catch the fish and bring them home and use them for




human consumption?    There must be some relaxing somewhere

-------
              Hon. W. Ferrall                        589








along the line.




               It has been the opinion of leading experts




in the Department of Conservation of the State of New




York and the Department of Health that there are serious




disturbances in the ecology of waters, in the marine




life, the fishlife, the whole gamut of the life that




exists in and about our waters.




               This presents a very serious problem,




and I do believe that the interest of the people of




the State of New York is vastly more important than a




stepup in the production of energy through nuclear power.




We can resort, as we have in the past, to production of




energy by a conventional method, but let's hold up a




bit on this.




               It has Deen brought to my attention from




authoritative sources in the area of the Indian Point




Nuclear Plant that there was shown to be a high inci-




dence of magnesium in the marine plant life in the near



vicinity.  It has been further brought to my attention




that this is not ascribable to any other agent that




might be causative of this high incidence of magnesium.




               I do hope that the committee or the




members of the conference will weigh the overall picture,

-------
              Hon.  W. Perrall                        590








particularly in the light of what the effect might be




insofar as the production of nuclear energy for con-




sumption throughout the State of New York.




               As bad as pollution exists from what we




have had prior to the production of nuclear energy/ it




is my opinion, after having received information from




authoritative sources, that it is far worse and more




dangerous to the people of the State of New York and,




of course, to the people who live within the area  than




there exists presently insofar as pollution from other




sources is concerned.




               I do not want to be repetitious, but I




hope to bring this in sharp perspective.




               We have validated that the people of




New York are willing to take on a tax burden.  They are




paying off over $2 billion of monies and interest on




it, which will necessarily have to flow over a long




period of timenot too longI think it is approximately




ten years that this program is projected for as far as




the State of New York is concerned, but they have in-




dicated overwhelmingly their interest in that direction.




They are willing to assume the financial burden.

-------
              Hon. W. Ferrall                        591








               I might bring further to your attention



that the necessity for this was approved by the voters




at that time, because in the general election a few years




ago there were 13 amendments and propositions, and every-




one except this multi-biilion-dollar bond issue for the




clear waters and clear air program went down to defeat.




               I think this brings in sharp perspective



the deep interest of the people of the State of New York




that they want clear waters and clear air,     I do hope




that the committee will bring my message, and I believe




the message of others who may have similarly spokenI




am not privy to what has taken place beforeto the end




that we will have a sharp curtailment of production of




nuclear energy, because, in my opinion, that is more




deleterious in its effect  to the people, to the health




of the people of the State of New York, than pollutants




that come from other sources.



               I want to thank the committee for your



kind permission to say a few words.  I was delayed in




my arrival here, but circumstances made it necessary that




I come at this late hour.




               Thank you.




               MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Senator, for a

-------
              Hon.  W.  Ferrall                         592








thorough and comprehensive statement.




               Do we have any comments or questions from




the conferees?




               MR.  METZLER:  I am Dwight Metzler from the




New York State Health Department.




               I would first like to commend Senator




Perrall  on his leadership in the New York Senate at this




time for having given some comprehensive attention to




this problem of thermal pollution from nuclear facili-




ties.




               And, as a matter of fact, sponsoring and




passing legislation which subsequently went on through




the Assembly and which the Governor signed, going into




this problem in a comprehensive fashion and, as a matter




of fact, the sites have already been chosen and money



invested.




               I want to call to your attention a matter




with which you are already familiar, but perhaps not




to this extent, and that is that the standards to pro-




vide the kind of protections against thermal pollution




which have been recommended by the Department of Health




after extensive public hearings are up for adoption July




2nd by  the Water Resources Commission,.     So you might




watch that date as, I think, a landmark in our efforts

-------
                    M.  Lang                          593









to protect the environment.




               These standards have not only been through




the public hearing process, out we have checked them




with the Department of the Interior at both the regional




and Washington levels, and have some very high level




assurance that they can also be adopted by the Federal




Government as the Federal standards.




               If I might, I think sometimes we can solve




individual problems, and if the conferees would permit




me, I would like to recall a witness to deal with this




specific problem which Senator Ferrall has mentioned




over in his district.




               May I call Mr. Lang?




               Can you give us a one-minute solution of




this?






             SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT BY




                  MR. MARTIN LANG




                     DIRECTOR




        BUREAU OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL




  NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES






               MR. LANG:  I am very pleased, Senator,




to inform you that we have been extremely conscious of

-------
                   M. Lang                           594








the situation of the Gowanus Canal.




               As recently as about four weeks ago, Com-




missioner Feldman and myself met with Assemblyman Cuite




and Borough President Stark to talk about specific action,



               You probably are aware of the fact that




there is a Douglas Street pumping station at the north




end and that alongside of that is that old Gowanus Canal




flushing station which introduced circulation at the




head of the canal.




               The problem has been integrated into the




interceptor program for the Red Hook pollution control




facilities which we are now going to call the East River




Environmental Control Facility.




               SENATOR FERRALL:  We feel better about




that.



               MR. LANG: But we have moved ahead on



several fronts.  One is a purely interim measure.




               In the past few years, from time to time




I have had bulk sodium nitrate applied at specified




sludge banks near Douglas Street, near the chain  link




fence, to at least amelibra te the stinking condition




which undeniably exists there now.




               I have, secondly, incorporated a series

-------
                   M. Lang                           595








of interceptors and sewers all around the periphery of




Gowanus Canal to convey that to the Red Hook plant for




the high degree of secondary treatment we are going to




provide.




               Third, I have even gone ahead to eliminate




the normal drainage procedures in the City to get out




a stripped drainage map for the northwest corner there




going up towards Ninth Street and Third Avenue to make




sure that that area will be brought in.




               And, in fact, as recently as last week,




we even met on a construction supervision contract,




which I know the State is interested in.




               You might be proud of the fact that, you




know, trying to save money for the State, I had a brain-




storm once, and the designers are adopting it, to put



the force mains from the pumping stations to bring these




wastes that now go to the Gowanus Canal, and lay that




force main right in that old huge tunnel with outlets



near Buttermilk Channel, to bring that into the inter-




ceptor, which then will go along Furman Street and up




to the plant site.




               But we have done something else.  You




know the problem is that pollution is there now and

-------
                   M. Lang                           596








we have existing sludge banks.  Well, in 1967  I pre-




pared elaborate documentation which stood about a foot




high and I brought it down to City Hall, including a




complete set of plans and specifications for dredging.




We already had a contract there if the Federal Govern-




ment would only adopt it, but somehow, Senator, we dont




seem to have the finesse to get in on this pork barrel




legislation, this River  and Harbor  Act, and as recently




as a week ago, the Deputy Commissioner of Ports and



Terminals testified at a congressional committee hearing




on this, and in his testimony again he referred to this




matter of the Gowanus Canal dredging.




               I have prepared all the documentation for




the dredging of both Gowanus and Newtown Creek of the




pre-existing sludge deposits, and we have a right to



go in and ask for this now because now we have plans




under* way, so we won't keep accumulating it by virtue




of the Red Hook plant.



               You know, doing a little research in




this, I was astonished to find out that they could spend




more money in a place like--I wouldn't make up a name




like this--Ace Hole Creek in Virginia,  than they could




for Gowanus and Newtown  Creek, but maybe Senator Byrne




had a little more leverage in Washington.

-------
                   M. Lang                           597








               So rest assured that on the three fronts




for immediate solution, for an ultimate solution and for




the dredging, we have been exerting our efforts and we




may call on your help to push this dredging.




               I say as far back as 1967 we had the




contract and specifications in hand doing the work for




the Federal Government.  All they had to do was adopt it,




               SENATOR FERRALL:  Is it proper for me to



inquire?




               MR.STEIN:  Go ahead.




               SENATOR FERRALL:  You are aware that the




Department of the Interior has indicated that in 1970




they would have interceptors there taking care of this




pollution?  Are you familiar with that program, sir?




               There was a statement about a year and-




a-half ago by a subordinate to the Secretary of the




Interior  who indicated that they had programmed inter-



ceptors to be placed in the area to take care of pollu-




tion, and this was set for 1970.




               Are you familiar with the specifics?




               MR. LANG:  Sir, it is not the Department




of the Interior.  It is we here in New York City who




are designing and building these interceptors.

-------
                   M. Lanq                           598








               SENATOR FERRALL:   All right.




               MR. LANG:  I know of no interceptors by




the Department of the Interior in this area.




               SENATOR FERRALL:   Well, I don't have it




with me, but it was brought to the attention of Congress-




man John J. Rooney from a man in that interior depart-




ment who was in charge of pollution, and so forth, that




they had programmed for 1970.




               Now, I was aware that the City of New York




had something in mind for 1972.  We tried to update the




program to 1970 to conform to the Federal program.




               MR. LANG:  I can give you a specific




timetable on each of the four contracts involved in this




area.  Some of them we have actually on a chart that




was displayed here yesterday, but I think that there




has been a breakdown in communications.  This sounds




like feedback from the Department of the Interior as  to



what the City of New York is going  to do for itself.




               SENATOR FERRALL:  As long as it is a




cooperative effort.




               Thank you very much.




               MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Senator Ferrall.




               I  think we have one  more statement.

-------
                   M. Lang                           599








               Before we call him, I have a little advice,




and it might be gratuitous advice, dealing with finesse




on how to get items in the omnibus Rivers and Harbors




Bill.  I have never heard anyone who has had much success




with that kind of appropriation who kept calling it "A




pork barrel bill" (laughter).




               At this point, I think we have our last




speaker.  May we call on Jesse W. Brodey of the editor-




ial staff of the Daily News.  I think Mr. Brodey is our




last speaker.




               I heard a story up here/ which is probably




apocryphal of the way old Jimmy Walker, who used to be




the Mayor, first came into prominence when he was put




on last for a speech in the old, old Madison Square




Garden which was at Herald Square/,     This was around




Washington's Birthday, and he said it reminded him, of



course, of the first President, and he said, "He was




first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of




his countrymen, but even he married a widow." (laughter)

-------
                    J.  Brodey                         600









                   STATEMENT BY




                MR. JESSE W. BRODEY




                  EDITORIAL STAFF




               NEW YORK DAILY NEWS






               MR. BRODEY:  I am not speaking as a member




of the staff of the Daily News. I am speaking as an




individual who, for the last thirteen years, happens to




have been working as a reporter covering the whole




Hudson Valley and the Hudson River and has done numerous




articles on conservation and the efforts to clean up the




rivers.




               I will admit that I have been quite frus-




trated over the years.




               I came down here with Gardner Grant be-




cause I wanted to get a story on his latest rap at the




State's handling of the Croton River situation.  I happened




to have been up there when photographs were taken, and I




did a feature story for the New York Sunday News and it




still did not stop  this firm from converting the Croton




River into the equivalent of a Colorado strip mining




operation.  If you went up there at the time I was there,




your heart would have  sunk.




               This is one of the best trout fishing

-------
                   J. Brodey                         601








streams closest to New York City, and the New York Daily




News has for years sent up photographers to take pic-




tures of the trout fishermen on the opening day of the




season standing three feet apart trying to catch trout,




and many of them catch trout.  You were always sure to




get a picture of a kid with trout there.




               I believe the Croton River is not within




the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.




It incidentally is not within the jurisdiction, I dis-




covered in researching this article, of the Hudson River




Valley Commission.




               Many of you people will be surprised to




learn that I got a very irritated letter from a member




of the staff of the Hudson River Valley Commission after




I wrote this article, for pointing out that the Hudson




River Valley Commission, as all of us had been led to




believe, was a protective agency for the Hudson River




I got this letter saying they had nothing to do with the




Croton River, or this part of the Croton River, because



this spot was two miles up the river.




               I then discovered that the Hudson River




Valley Commission by law doesn't have any control over




the river.  Its jurisdiction is restricted to one mile

-------
                   J.  Brodey                         602








of banks on either side of the river within the juris-



diction of New York state, and it cannot tell anything



about anything beyond one mile unless it happens to be



within site of the river.  At that point, it can make



recommendations and suggestions after holding public




hearings, and whoever wants to build a 20-story or



30-story building can go ahead and build it, because



the Hudson River Valley Commission has no enforcement



procedures.



               Now, when we went up and looked at the



Croton River and saw this devastation, I got on the  'phone,




naturally, to check out the story, and I called the



New Paltz office of the State Conservation Department,



which, incidentally, has enforcement powers delegated




to it by the Water Resources Commission, And if you



think the Water Resources Commission is going to protect



the Hudson River from thermal pollution, forget it,



because they are going to operate the same way as they



operated in the Croton River,



               They turn the jurisdiction of enforce-



ment over to the Department of Conservation, and depend-



ing on the political pressures on the Department of



Conservation, they are enforced or maybe they are not

-------
                   J. Brodey                         603








enforced.




               Now, in this instance I called the Depart-




ment of Conservation.  They sent a man down immediately



to inspect the site, and he told me this fellow doesn't




even need a permit to do this operation.  He had built




a dam across the river and diverted the river through




to six-foot concrete pipes, I guess you would call them,




and the dam had already been washed out a couple of times,




I understand it was washed out aqain.  It was nothing




more than an earthen dam across the river.




               Now, under the law, anybody who builds




a dam across a State stream  has to get a permit for




that, but the conservation officerand I have his name




any time anybody wants ittold me on the 'phone no




permit was needed.   He referred back to his office that



no permit was needed.  I called the office and they




confirmed it.




               He said, "They are not working in the



bed of the river.  They are working on dry land."




The dry land consisted of a dike or bridge built across




the bed of the river to divert it.



               When I went to the Town of Cortland  to




ask them if they were going to do anything about it, the

-------
                   J.  Brodey                         604








Town Supervisor told me he couldn't do anything about it



because his town had no jurisdiction over the bed of the




river, and they were working in the bed of the river




so they couldn't enforce the zoning laws against this




outfit.




               Now, in doing a little more research, it




is very interesting to note that the State Legislation




that created the Water Resources Commission gave it




jurisdiction over the beds and banks of the rivers, but




in promulgating its regulations, for some strange reason,




the Water Resources Commission conveniently left out any




reference to the banks of the streams.




               I say to you gentlemen in the Federal




Government that there has been too much buckpassing on




this for 13, or maybe 15 or 20 years.



               I grew up in New York City.  I have lived




in New York City or its suburbs for over 50 years. I




have watched streams that we could swim in once upon a




time completely deteriorated.




               I did a story about the New York Central




Railroad polluting the Hudson River with oil from its




docks at Harmon.  We took pictures of the oil flowing




into the river.  This was a couple of years ago.

-------
                   J. Brodey                         605








               I called the United States Attorney's




Office and got in touch with the Assistant United States




Attorney, who is now no longer with them since there was




a change in administration, and I sooke to this fellow




and asked him what he was doing about it.  He said he




needed evidence.



               I said, "Well, we have a photograph which




was taken.  We have three men who will swear to the date




it was taken, a photograph of oil coming out of that




pipe.  If you want to come up here, you can look at it."




               Well, I se nt him that evidence with a




signed affidavit on the back of it.  We ran the story




in the newspapers.  To this date, I think the oil is




still coming out of that pipe.




               I think it is time that if the Federal




Government or if we expect the Hudson River to be pro-




tected, that the Federal Government and the Department of




the Interior, which is interested in real conservation,




should get into the picture and stop letting State




politicians interfere in the operation.




               Gravel operations, for example, are a




multi-million-dollar operation.  When a fellow gets a




23 or $25 million contract to build an interchange at

-------
                   J. Brodey                         606








the Hawthornecircle, if he can save $200,000 or $300,000



on gravel that every other contractor thought they would



have to bring from Staten Island and this fellow has an



in to break the law and get it locally, or by stealing



it off county park land, I think it is time the Federal



Government stepped in and provided us with a real strong




conservation program.



               MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Brodey.



               Are there any comments or questions?



               MR. METZLER:  Well, I hesitate to let the



kind of charges stay on the record that have been made



here.




               I think I share the impatience of the



speaker with the slowness of the pollution abatement



efforts in the Hudson River Valley and in New York State.



I have that same kind of impatience.



               But when I go to the track and bet on a



horse, I try to pick one that has a track record.



 If you believe that the State of New York Pure Waters



Program doesn't have a good track record as it has moved



in the last two to two and-a-half years, then I don't




believe you are looking at the record.  What I would




like to do is offer you an opportunity to see what has

-------
                   J. Brodey                         607








actually happened.




               You mentioned going someplace, but you




didn't go to the right place.  If you had come to us in




the first place, it would have been abated and we would




handle it.     I would hope you might be reassured if




you sat with us and go over polluter by polluter the




progress which is being made under the program for which




the State Health Department has the responsibility, and




go over the progress that has been made.




               I would like that chance to go over it




with you.




               MR. BRODEY:  Well, I assure you I have




been in constant touch with your office in White Plains.




Your good aide over there is sitting in that corner.




He knows me personally for the last five or six years.




               I have done some very good stories about




your Department's efforts. But it so happens that on the




Croton River, your Department has no jurisdiction and



was not able to do anything about it, so nobody went




to the Health Department, or possibly they gx>ke to you




and they were told that the siltation was not a pollu-




tion situation, that it was something that the Conser-




vation Department had to deal with.

-------
                   J. Brodey                         608








               I assure you that the oil situation at the




Harmon yards, and the date on the pipe is, I think, 1929




that has been going on since 1929was called to your




Department's attention.




               It did come under the Federal laws about




polluting the rivers.  The Army engineers had jurisdic-




tion.  They did nothing about it.  It was repeatedly




called to their attention toy the Hudson River Fishermen's



Association, and those fellows were tearing their hair




out trying to get some action someplace.




               I assure you I have researched this thing




very thoroughly and  I have a very thick fileit is




much thicker than this  (indicating)with documents.




I have Xerox copies  of the State law that I just quoted




to you where they eliminated the banks from the regula-




tions in the Water Resources Commission regulations, and




I have a Xerox copy  of the State law.



               You fellows in the Health Department are




trying to clear up the sewage. You have done a pretty




good job in many places.  You haven't been able to get




New York City to quit dumping its raw sewage into  the




river from the Bronx yet.  If you would tell the people




here right now how many tons of  raw sewage are going into

-------
                   J. Brodey                         609








the Hudson River and the East River untreated from New




York City, their hair would stand up.




               You or the Federal Government have made




great efforts, but what the multi-billion-dollar or




million-dollar State bond issue for river pollution has




turned up to the present are mostly more and more studies




of what to do about eliminating sewage problems, and less




action in the actual construction of much needed plants.




               I think you ought to get moving on build-




ing these plants so that our grandchildren will be able




to swim in some of the places where I used to swim.



               MR. METZLER:  I agree with you completely




on that last statement, and while I have some difference




of opinion on your evaluation of the success of the




program until now, I want to compliment you for keeping




the heat on, because this is fine, and I encourage you




to do more of it.



               MR. STEIN:  Thank you, Mr. Brodey.




               MR. BRODEY:  This was all ad lib, and I




only spoke out this way because sitting here, watching




what was going on, I finally had to say something.




               MR. STEIN: That is why we are here.  Thank




you very much, because it is testimony like yours that

-------
                   J.  Brodey                         610








helps us.




               Aside from putting on the record the kind




of raw sewage going into the Hudson, this was the basis




of our conference here and the reason that the people are




sitting here.




               Mr. Glenn has mentioned that in his speeches




for years.




               You have to remember this, and I just




ask you to bear with us:  If you look at the records of




the first conference, you will find the problem laid out.




We are dealing with the heroic job of trying to pxit to-




gether our multi-million-dollar complex construction




problems in some of the most highly congested population




areas in the Western World, and we are dealing with




extensive properties. Everytime you move an inch, some-



thing has to give.



               I ask you not to be overwhelmed by tne




horrible detail that the officials and the bureaucrats



have to go into to put this program into place.  Our




objective is precisely to stop what you people have been




talking about, but this is the only way we know under




the law to do it.




               If there is nothing more, we will stand

-------
                                                     611
recessed, and we should make an announcement possibly




between four and five in this room.




                (Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the conferees




went into Executive Session.  At 4:20 p.m., the conferees




returned and the following ensued:)




               MR. STEIN:  Thank you for staying with us.




               Considering the group here, Joan, if you




can keep the duplicating machine running, I think we can




make a copy available to everyone who stayed with us all




this time so that they can read it, but let me read it




for those who do not have it now.  If you want one of




these, you can pick it up on the way back.




               We have had unanimous agreement among the




conferees.




               The conferees agreed upon the following



conclusions and recommendations:




               1.  The States and the interstate water



pollution control agencies, that is, the New Jersey




State Department of Health, the New York State Department




of Health and the Interstate Sanitation Commission, are




taking effective action to abate pollution in accordance




with the agreements arrived at    +-hG Conference on




Pollution of Interstate Waters of the Hudson River and its

-------
                                                     612
Tributaries held under the provisions of the Federal Water




Pollution Control Act.



               2.  An extensive pollution abatement pro-




gram is moving forward toward the attainment of water




quality agreed on by the conferees representing the States



of New Jersey, New York, the Interstate Sanitation Com-




mission and the Federal Government.




               3.  The treatment required from sources




discharging into the Hudson River and its tributaries




is consistent throughout the basin and mutually satis-




factory to all the regulatory agencies concerned.




               4.  In view of the complexities of the




problem, the conferees will plan to meet again in the




late fall or winter of 1970 to evaluate progress on a




case by case basis.



               5.  The activities of the Interstate




Sanitation Commission in analyzing combined sewer over-



flows in the Hudson River Conference Area is recognized.




The conferees will participate with and support the




Interstate Sanitation Commission in a detailed examina-




tion of storm water overflows as the first stage in the




development of a remedial program, as needed; the New




York State Department of Health will carry out that

-------
                                                     613
portion of this activity in the Hudson River Basin out-



side the jurisdiction of the Interstate Sanitation Com-



mission.  A joint report on this subject will be made



to the conferees at the next session.



               6.  The State and interstate conferees



agree that recent Federal action makes it appear that the




Fiscal Year 1970 appropriations will be about one-fifth



the authorization of $1 billion.  They urge that the



authorized amounts be appropriated if water pollution




control needs are to be met.  Further, the reimbursement



features of the present statute must be retained.



               That concludes this.



               I am sure many of the State and inter-



state agencies' representatives will be available and,



of course, we will be available to anyone who has any




questions after the Conference.



               Do any of the conferees have anything to



say at this point?



               (No response)



               MR. STEIN:  If not, I would like to thank



you all for staying and for your participation.




               In this hard stage of one of the most



extensive abatement programs, I really do think I can

-------
                                                     613A
see the light at the end of the tunnel.  Maybe it is more



dimly perceived by some than others, but I really do see



it and I think we are moving forward.  We just have to




pay attention to the detail and be sure that nothing



lags.  I see our way toward a clean Hudson River.



               This Conference stands adjourned.




               (Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Conference



was adjourned.)





                         * * *

-------
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                    NEW YORK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                             26 FEDERAL PLAZA
                            NEW YORK. N. Y. 1OOO7
IN REPLY REFER TO
   NANOP-E                                     1 July 1969
   Mr0 Lester M0 Klashman, Regional Director
   Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
   John F0 Kennedy Federal Building
   Boston, Massasschusetts            02203
   Dear Sir:

   Reference is made to the conference on pollution of the
   interstate waters of the Hudson River on 18 and 19 June 1969
   in New York, N. Y.

   At the conference on 18 June, additional information was re-
   guested to be furnished for the use of the conferees concern-
   ing the disposal areas in the Atlantic Ocean off the entrance
   to New York Harbor and the design of a sewage treatment
   facility at the Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, New Jersey.

   There is inclosed for the record of the conference, a supple-
   mental statement covering the points raised.,

                                    Sincerely yours,
   1 Incl                           R. H. WUESTE^ELD
   Supp0 Statement                  Assistant Chief, Operations
                                                     Division

-------
Supplemental Statement by Robert Wuestefeld, Assistant Chief of
Operations, New York District, Corps of Engineers for Inclusion
in the Record of the Third Conference on Pollution of the Inter-
state Waters of the Hudson River.
At the Military Ocean Terminal,  Bayonne,  New Jersey,  sewage
is now being given on-site primary treatment with the effluent
being discharged into Upper Baye  In order to upgrade the treat-
ment of sewage to comply with Section 4 of Executive Order 11288,
authority was granted by Public Law 90-408 to modify the existing
primary sewage treatment plant and facilities to provide secondary
sewage treatment and post chlorination facilities for treatment
of the sewage effluent.  An on-site plant was selected to accom-
plish this purpose on the basis of a feasibility study prepared
for the Navy Department indicating that this scheme would have
a lower annual operating cost than offsite discharge into the
City of Bayonne1s sewerage system.  Although the validity of this
study is now questioned, preliminary design for modification of
the on-site plant to provide secondary treatment, is proceedinge
It is expected to be completed about 22 July 1969.  In the mean-
time, the Military Ocean Terminal is working to secure a firm
estimate of the separate costs of fresh water supplied to the
terminal by the city and the price which would have to be paid
for sewage treatment.

The dumping grounds for the disposal of waste materials in the
Atlantic Ocean off the entrance to New York Harbor which have
been designated by the Supervisor of New York Harbor under the
provisions of the Act of Congress approved 12 June 1888,
 (33 U. S. Ce 44) are as follows:

!>  A Mud Dumping Ground is located not less than 4 nautical
miles bearing 198 True from Ambrose Light in not less than 60
feet of watero  Material dredged from vessel berths,  anchorage
grounds and channels, clean earth and steam ashes are dumped in
this area.

2.  A Cellar Dirt Dumping Ground is located not less than 47
nautical miles bearing 170 True from Ambrose Light in not less
than 90 feet of water.  Material excavated from cellars and
foundations consisting of broken concrete, blasted rock, and
rubble are dumped in this area.

-------
      3o  A  Sewer Sludge Dumping Ground  is  located  not  less  than
4.5 nautical miles 124 30' True from Ambrose Light*   Sewage
wastes in raw or treated  state are  disposed of  in  this dumping
ground by the City of New York, the cities of Glen Cove and
Long  Beach, the counties  of Nassau  and  Westchester, all in  the
State of New York, and by the Passaic Valley Sewerage  Commission,
the Linden-Roselle Sewerage Authority,  the Joint Meeting  Sewage
Disposal Commission and the Sewerage Authorities of Bergen  and
Middlesex Counties in the State of  New  Jersey*

      40  A Wreck Dumping  Ground is  located 14e3 nautical miles
168   30' True from Ambrose Light in not less than  200  feet  of
water,,

      5e  A Waste Acid Dumping Ground is located about  93
nautical miles 145 True  from Ambrose Light  This area is
south of latitude 40 20' and east  of longitude 73 40' during
the summer season and east of longitude 73 43* during the
winter season  Contributors to this dumping ground include
the National Lead Company, Sayreville,  New Jersey, the General
Chemical Company, Elizabeth, New Jersey; and several smaller
industries in the vicinity of South Amboy, New Jersey0

      60  A Waste Chemical Dumping Ground is located about 106
miles southeast of Ambrose Light on the edge of the Continental
Shelfe  This area is more particularly  described as lying south
of latitude 39 00'  North, west of  longitude 72  00'  west,  north
of latitude 38  30'  north, and east of  longitude 72 30' west
Contributors to this dumping ground have been the Tappan Tanker
Terminal at Hastings-on-Hudson,  New York which disposes of
chemicals from the Nepera Chemical  Company of Harriman, New York;
the American Cyanamid Company at Linden, New Jersey;  and
Chevion Oil Company of Perth Amboy, New Jersey.,

The volume of material has remained fairly constant over the
past few years,  although there has been an increase in the
sewage sludge dumped at sea during  19680  Our records  show  that
during the 12-month period ending on 30 June 1968, a total of
17,110,144 cubic yards of material was disposed of in  the dumping
grounds in the Atlantic Oceana  A breakdown of this operation is
as follows:
         Dumping Ground

           Mud
           Cellar Dirt
           Sewer Sludge
           Waste Acid
           Wreck
           Chemical (Toxic)
   Volume

8,784,200
  318,875
4,833,730
3,117,623
    3,000
   52,716
cubic yards
                                     17,110,144   cubic yards
                                      U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1969 O - 368-078

-------