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 gpd—are 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
t—i
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 Congress—and I think everyone
here knows about it—with 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 are—loose 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 study—I think most people here know it—going 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 Waters—I 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 pounds—the 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 inexpensive—but 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 p«m.
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 la£t 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 meeting—Jackson 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 Land—Land 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 Disposal—This 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
district—the 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 park—Senasqua 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
f—l
•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
^
c«3
fi,
•
O
c
M
O
CJ
•D
C
ro
c
o
CO
E
ro
•H
1—1
•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
i—l
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 see—the
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 something—I don't
know what it was—that 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 wonder—if 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 organization—parent in that it supplies what
parents are obligated to provide for their children, the
money—to 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 Control—has 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" >- —
S§I =
• - . "§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 if—how 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 then—I'm sorry
that dates you—and 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 Waters—Not 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 aid—Operation 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
manpower—we 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 State—the 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, Philadelphia—you name
them—and 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
miserly—in the text I said "niggardly" but that word was
already used by Mr. Metzler—miserly 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 case—this is a point I would
like to make entirely clear, and it is made without ran-
cor and it is simply an expression of opinion—it 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 costs—in 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 figures—why 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 asset—just 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
siltation—shoaling 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 gravel—but 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 wonders—sending torrents of water
sweeping down the gorge—it 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 letter—completely dis-
regarded the evidence we presented, completely disregarded
our request for a public hearing—stated 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 banks—the 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 existence—vehicles
passing over it—equipment 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 dropped—and
a berm or cofferdam had been built by the gravel dredger—
this without a permit, too—the 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
River—without 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 Agent—in 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 excavation—all had been washed down-
stream by the angry, swollen river—coming 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
been—they 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 law—those 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 Symphony—you
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 there—but 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 plant—one 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 time—not too long—I 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 spoken—I
am not privy to what has taken place before—to 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 officer—and I have his name
any time anybody wants it—told 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 1929—was 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 file—it 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 4«7
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 9»3
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
-------