NEW YORK
SECOND SESSION
September 2O-21, 1967
NEW
JERSEY
In the Matter off Pollution off the
Interstate Waters off the Hudson River
and its Tributaries -
New York and New Jersey
U. S. Department of the Interior • Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
-------
PAGE
Opening Statement
by Murray Stein
Hon. Nelson D. Rockefeller 11
Emil Frankel
representing Hon. Jacob K. Javits 35
Robert Green
representing Hon. Robert P. Kennedy 40
Paul De Falco 55
Col. R. T. Batson 64
L. McCarren ?4
James E. Me Shane 81
Dr. Roscoe P. Kandle 86
Eugene E. Hult 118
Arthur Handley 195
William K. Shaffer 28l
Dr. Natale Colosi 297
Hon. Whitney North Seymour, Jr. 3C4
Alan L. Blake 312
C. C. Johnson 315
Dr. John A. Lyons 325
Richard W. Keeler 331
Carl Stefanic
representing Dr. H. Jackson Davis 337
James Harding 3^2
William Lathrop Rich 3^9
-------
Second Session of the Conference in the Matter
of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Hudson River
and its Tributaries, held at the Statler-Hilton Hotel,
Broadway at 32nd Street, New York, New York, on September
20, 1967, at 9:30 a.m.
PRESIDING:
Mr. Murray Stein, Assistant Commissioner
for Enforcement, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, Department of the
Interior.
CONFEREES:
Lester M. Klashman, Regional Director, Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, North-
east Region, Boston, Massachusetts
Dwight F. Metzler, Deputy Commissioner, New
York State Health Department, Albany, New York
Dr. Roscoe P. Kandle, Commissioner, New Jersey
State Department of Health
Thomas R. Glenn, Jr., Director and Chief Engineer,
Interstate Sanitation Commission, New York, N. Y.
-------
PARTICIPANTS;
Hon. Nelson D. Rockefeller, Governor of the
State of New York
Emil Frankel, on behalf of the Honorable Jacob K.
Javits, United States Senator from the State of New York
Robert Green, on behalf of the Honorable Robert
F. Kennedy, United States Senator from the State of New York
Paul De Falco, Jr., Deputy Regional Director,
Northeast Region, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Department of the Interior, Metuchen, New Jersey
Colonel R. T. Batson, District Engineer, New York
District, Corps of Engineers, United States Army
L. McCarren, Region II, General Services Administra-
tion, New York, New York
James E. McShane, District Emergency Planning
Officer, Maritime Administration, United States Department
of Commerce, New York, New York
Dr. Roscoe P. Kandle, Conferee and Commissioner,
New Jersey State Department of Health, Trenton, New Jersey
Eugene E. Hult, Commissioner of Public Works of
the City of New York
Arthur Handley, Associate Director, Division of
Pure Water, New York State Health Department
William K. Shaffer, Chief, Construction Grants
Activities, Division of Pure Waters, State of New York
Department of Health, Albany, New York
-------
3
PARTICIPANTS (Continued);
Dr. Natale Colosi, Chairman, Interstate Sanita-
tion Commission, Professor of Bacteriology and Public Health
at Wagner College, Dean of Polyclinic Medical School
Hon. Whitney North Seymour, Jr., State Senator,
26th District, State of New York
Alan L.'Blake, Legislative Representative to
Assemblyman Joseph A. Pusco, 86th Assembly District, Bronx
County, New York
C. C. Johnson, Assistant Commissioner, Environmental
Health Services, New York City Health Department, New York,
New York
Dr. John A. Lyons, Jr., Commissioner of Health
of Albany County, Chairman of Albany County Sewer Agency
Richard W. Keeler,, Chairman of the Rensselaer
County Agency for Abatement and Control of Pollution, Troy,
New York
Carl Stefanic, on behalf of Dr. H. Jackson Davis,
Commissioner of Health, Rensselaer County, New York
James Harding, Commissioner for Division of Pure
Water, Westchester County, New York
William Lathrop Rich, Chairman of the Committee
for the New York-Montreal Seaway
James P. O'Donnell, on behalf of Hon. Frank D.
O'Connor, President of the City Council, City of New York
-------
3-A
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE;
Mark Abelson, Regional Coordinator, U. S.
Department of the Interior, Boston, Massachusetts
H. Mat Adams, Chairman, Middlesex Company Sewer
Authority, Sayreville, N. J.
Alexander Aldrich, Executive Director, Hudson
River Valley Commission, Tarrytown, N. Y.
Mary C. Ansbro, Editor, The Soap and Detergent
Association, N. Y. C.
George Apfel, Consulting Engineer, Nebolsine, Toth,
McPhee Association, Port Lee, N. J.
Arthur Ashendorff, Civil Engineer, New York City
Health Department, N. Y.
Richard P. Aulie, Yale University, New Haven,
Conn.
F. N. Bagley, Superintendent Plant Engineer,
Chevrolet Tarrytown, North Tarrytown, N. Y.
G. E. Balch, Manager, Air & Water Pollution
Control, Allied Chemical Corp., New York, N. Y.
Jeffrey M. Barrie, Graduate Student, New York
University, Flushing, N. Y.
Colonel R. T. Batson, District Engineer, New York
District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York, N. Y.
H. D. Beier, P. E., Associate, Tippetts-Abbett-
McCarthy-Stratton, N. Y. C.
-------
3-B
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE (Continued);
Quentin R. Bennett, New York State Conservation
Dept., Ronkonkoma, N. Y.
Donald S. Benson, Public Relations Director, New
Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, N. J.
Charles F. Bien, Supervisor, Pollution Control,
General Aniline & Film Corp., Linden, N. J.
David Bird, Reporter, New York Times
John A. Biros, Supervisor, Department Water &
Sewer, Village of North Tarrytown, North Tarrytown, N. Y.
Alan L. Blake, Legislative Assistant to Assembly-
man Joseph A. Fusco, N.Y.C.
Leonore A. Blitz, Secretary to Assemblyman William
Green, N. Y. C.
Ralph H. Bowers, Public Information Officer, Con
Edison, New York, N. Y.
E. Bradley Boyle, Health Publications Editor, New
York State Health Dept., Albany, N. Y.
Theodore Bramson, Davos Development Co., New York,
N. Y.
Alfred M. Buff, Supervisory Sanitary Engineer,
New York State Department of Health, New York, N. Y.
John B. Burt, Pollution Control Engineer, General
Aniline & Film Corp., Linden, N. J.
-------
3-c
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE (Continued):
Garrett J. Byrnes, Chief, Construction Operations
Division, North Atlantic Division Corps of Engineers, New
York, N. Y.
Gary G. Caplan, Budget Analyst, New York State
Assembly Ways & Means Committee, Albany, N. Y.
Paul R. Cardenas, Jr., Instructor, New York
University, Bronx, N. Y.
George B. Case, Chairman, Planning Board, Tarry-
town, N. Y.
T. R. Cooil, Associate, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade
& Douglas, New York, N. Y.
Robert E. Copeland, Engineer, O'Brien & Gere, Con-
sulting Engineer, Syracuse, New York
Edmund Couch, Jr., Chief, Water Supply-Pollution
Section, Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C.
Doris L. Clark, Senator Basil Paterson, N. Y. C.
Jim Collis, Reporter, NBC News, N. Y. C.
Kenneth Darmer, Engineer, U. S. Geological Survey,
Albany, N. Y.
Mrs. Edward M. Davis, Water Resources Chairman,
League of Women Voters of New York State, Poughkeepsie, N. Y.
Stanley R. Davis, Regional Hydraulic Engineer,
Federal Highway Administration, Dalmar, N. Y.
-------
3-D
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE (Continued);
Paul De Falco, Jr., Deputy Regional Director,
FWPCA, U. S. Department of the Interior, Metuchen, N. J.
Philip E. Dodge, Executive Director, Hudson River
Conservation Society, Cold Springs, N. Y.
Thomas Donoghue, Air & Water News, N. Y. C.
William G. Eckenberg, Sr., Engineer, Hercules,
Inc., Delaware
Richard Fanning, Associate, W. E. Coduliced Associ-
ates, Syosset, L. I., N. Y.
William J. Farrell, District Health Officer,
Westchester County Health Dept., New York
Jean Faust, Research Assistant, Congressman William
F. Ryan, New York, N. Y.
Maurice M. Feldman, Deputy Commission Engineer,
New York City Dept. Sanitation, New York, N. Y.
Thomas Ferry, Director, Division of Construction
Grants, FWPCA, U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D. C.
Robert Feuer, Project Engineer, New York City
Dept. of Public Works, New York, New York
Richard Field, Sanitary Engineer, Eastern Division,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, New York, N. Y.
Jerome C. Flato, Chemical Consultant, IBM Real
Estate & Construction Division, White Plains, New York
-------
3-E
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE (Continued);
Richard E. Foerster, Research Representative,
Greeley and Hansen, New York, N. Y.
Emil H. Prannel, Legislative Assistant to U. S.
Senator Jacob Javits, Washington, D. C.
Fillmore E. Garrison, Chief, Utilities Branch,
U. S. Military Academy, West Point, N. Y.
Isaiah Gellman, Assistant Technical Director,
National Council for Stream Improvement, New York City
Erick Gidlund, Assistant Professor, New York
Uhiversity, Bronx, N. Y.
Matt Gould, Director, Environmental Control,
Georgia-Pacific, Portland, Ore.
Robert Green, Associate of Senator Robert F.
Kennedy, New York, N. Y.
Guy E. Griffin, Deputy Commissioner, Department
of Public Works, County of Westchester, N. Y., White Plains,
N. Y.
Raymond Grob, Hydraulic Engineer, Federal Power
Commission, New York, N. Y.
Virginia B. Gross, Program Chairman of Water
Pollution, National Society for Constitutional Security,
Edgewater, N. J.
Thomas P. Halley, Engineer, VA Hospital, Castle
Point, N. Y.
-------
3-F
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE (Continued);
A. Handley, Associate Director, Division of Pure
Water, New York State Dept. of Health, New York
J. C. Harding, Commissioner, Public Works,
Westchester County, White Plains, N. Y.
John E. Harrison, Regional Engineer, New York
State Health Department, White Plains, N. Y.
Kenneth B. Hauptman, Plant Operator, Castle
Point VA Hospital, Castle Point, N. Y.
Marcia Hays, Reporter, The Record, Bergen County,
N. J.
Sheila E. Hermes, LeBoeuf Lamb & Leiby, New York,
N. Y.
H. Heukelekian, Killam Associates, Millburn, N. J,
William H. Honore, Supervisory Recreational
Planner, U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, Palls Church, Va.
Mary Hornaday, Staff Correspondent, The Christian
Science Monitor, N. Y. C.
John W. Horhey, Consultant, City of New York,
Bureau of Water Pollution Control, Department of Public
Works, N. Y. C.
Bruce Howlett, Associate Executive Director,
Hudson River Valley Commission, Tarrytown, N. Y.
-------
3-G
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE (Continued);
Thomas N. Hushower, Sanitary Engineer, U. S.
Public Health Service, New York, N. Y.
Frank K. Inzerillo, Environmental Engineer,
General Aniline & Film Corp., Linden, N. J.
Albert C. Jensen, Assistant Chief of Marine
Fishing, New York State Conservation Department, Ronkonkoma,
N. Y.
Roscoe P. Kandle, Commissioner, New Jersey Depart-
ment of Health, Trenton, N. J.
William A. Keane, Sr., Engineer, New York State
Health Department, White Plains, N. Y.
Richard W. Keeler, Supervisory, Town of Brunswick,
Troy, N. Y.
Francis W. Kelly, Assistant Chief, Construction
Grants, Division of Pure Waters, New York State Department of
Health, Albany, N. Y.
Murray Kempton, Correspondent, New York Post
Political Column, New York, N. Y.
E. J. Kilcawley, Professor of Environmental
Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N. Y.
F. W. Kittrell, Acting Chief, Technical Assistance
and Investigation, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
3-H
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE (Continued):
Marion J. Klawonn, Assistant Editor, Engineering
News Record, New York, N. Y.
Martin Lang, Director, Bureau of Water Pollution
Control, Department of Pure Waters, N. Y. C.
Howard J. Lampil, Chief, Harbor Supervision
Branch, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, N. Y.
David Laredo, Sanitary Engineer, Tippetts-Abbett-
McCarthy-Stratton, New York, N. Y.
Alfred C. Leonard, Partner, Malcolm Pirnie
Engineers, White Plains, N. Y.
Harvey Liebe, Assistant Professor, Rutgers, Uni-
versity, Newark, N. J.
Leonard Lipton, Division Engineers, Standard Brads,
Inc., N. Y. C.
John J. A. Lyons, M. D., Commissioner of Health,
Albany Co. Sewer Agency, Albany, N. Y.
John L. Maneini, Engineer, Hydroscience, Inc.,
Leonia, N. J.
James L. Marcus, Commissioner, Water Supply Gas
& Electric, New York, N. Y.
Carl J. Mays, Planning Director, Orange County,
Goshen, N. Y.
Edward H. Meiser, Investigator, Corps of Engineers,
Albany Field Office, Troy, N. Y.
-------
3-1
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE (Continued);
Charles P. Miles, Jr., Assistant Director, New
York City Health Department, New York, N. Y.
Otto Milgram, Associate, E. T. Killam Associates,
Inc., Millburn, N. J.
Dr. Alan H. Molof, Associate Professor of Civil
Engineering, New York University, Bronx, N. Y.
Joseph Monkoski, Civil Engineer, National Park
Service, Philadelphia, Pa.
J. I. Munson, Vice President, Hydronics Corp.,
Metuchen, N. J.
Lawrence Joseph McCarren, Mechanical Engineer
P.S.C., General Services Administration, N. Y. C.
James E. McShane, Emergency Planning Officer,
Maritime Administration, Department of Commerce, N. Y. C.
M. Newmark, President, Newmark & Co., N. Y. C.
Itorman H. Nosenchuck, P. E., Assistant for State
Contracts, Construction Grants Activities, New York State
Department of Health, Albany, N. Y.
Irwin W. Novick, Chief, Federal & State Aid Unit,
Department of Public Works, N. Y. C.
James F. O'Donnell, Assistant to City Council
President Frank D. O'Connor, New York, N. Y.
-------
3-J
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE (Continued);
Brian O'Neill, Recreation Resource Specialist,
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Washington, D. C.
John T. O'Neill, Consulting Engineer, Brooklyn,
N. Y.
Richard Paccione, P. E., Director, Division of
Environmental Health, Yonkers City, Yonkers, N. Y.
Prank L. Panuzio, Chief Engineering Division,
Department of the Army, New York District Corps of Engineer,
New York, N. Y.
Mrs. Norman H. Parsons, Water Commission, League
of Women Voters, State of N. Y.
A. S. Pearson, Division Engineer, Consolidated
Edison Co. of New York, Inc., New York, N. Y.
Lincoln Peschiera, Engineer Group Leader, National
Lead - Titanium Division, South Amboy, N. J.
James Pfafflin, Assistant Professor, Corps of
Engineers, Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Anthony J. Popowski, Executive Director, Middlesex
County Sewerage Authority, Sayreville, N. J.
Francis X. Popper, Captain, USESSA, Coast &
Geodetic Survey, Rockville, Md.
Robert A. Potts, Jr., Reporter, WCBS-TV News,
N. Y. C.
-------
3-K
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE (Continued);
Howard Quinn, Metropolitan District Director, New
York State Office of Planning Coordination, N. Y. C.
Thomas P. Quirk, Partner, Quirk, Lawler & Mansley,
Engineers, New York, N. Y.
John M. Rademacher, Director, Division of Technical
Services, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Washington, D. C.
Paul Resnick, Project Information Officer, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, Metuchen, N. J.
Rocco D. Ricci, Chief, Construction Grants Program
New York, New Jersey and Delaware, FWPCA, Metuchsn, N. J.
Colonel William L. Rich, Chairman, Commission
for the New York - Montreal Sewage, N. Y. C.
Anthony R. Ricigliano, Supervisory Public Health
Engineer, New Jersey State Department of Health, Trenton,
N. J.
F. R. Riley, Water Consultant, American Cyanamid.
Wayne, N. J.
B. P. Robinson, P. E., Chief, Engineering Branch
Region I, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
N. Y. C.
E. W. Rossell, Administrative Assistant, New York
State Health Department, Albany, N. Y.
-------
3-L
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE (Continued);
S. Sattler, Federal and State Aid, Assistant
Chief, Department of Public Works, New York, N. Y.
Harry Schlegel, Research Director, New York Joint
Legislative Committee of Interstate Coop., N. Y. C.
Arthur J. Schor, Assistant Civil Engineer, New
York City Health Department, New York, N. Y.
John Schubeck, Reporter, ABC News, New York, N. Y.
Fred J. Shumas, Chief Hydraulic Engineer, H. A.
Simons Int., Canada
Louis Schwartz, Chief Plant Design, Bureau of
Water Pollution Control, Dept. of Public Works, New York, N. Y,
Theodore A. Schwartz, Deputy Attorney General,
State of New Jersey, Trenton, N. J.
Sol Seid, Chief Engineer, Middlesex County
Sewerage Authority, Sayreville, N. J.
Whitney North Seymour, Jr., State Senator, New
York, N. Y.
William K. Shaffer, Chief, Construction Grants
Activities, New York State Department of Health, Albany, N. Y.
Steve Singer. Reporter, Nyack Journal - News,
Nyack, N. Y.
S. F. Singer, Department Assistant Secretary,
U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.
-------
3-M
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE (Continued);
R. Hobart Souther, Research Consultant, Greensboro,
N. C.
Anton E. Sparr, Principal Engineer, Alexander
Potter Associates, New York, N. Y.
Carl J. Stefanik, Director of Environmental
Health, Rensselaer County Health Department, Troy, N. Y.
Mrs. Claire Stern, Administrative Assistant
Ifessau County Planning Commission, County Executive E. H.
Nlckerson, Mineolo, N. Y.
Lester A. Sutton, Regional Construction Program
Director, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Metuchen, N. J.
Alfred Tayne, Assistant Chief Financial Assistance,
Small Business Administration, N. Y. C.
Leo Tobias, Engineer, Corps of Engineers, Office
of Chief Engineers, Washington, D. C.
Martin Tuman, Assistant U. S. Attorney, U. S.
Attorney District, New Jersey, Newark, N. J.
George R. Turner, Jr., Assistant Division
Engineer, U. S. Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of
Public Roads, Albany, N. Y.
Rod Vandivert, Scenic Hudson, N. Y. C.
-------
3-N
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE (Continued);
Kenneth H. Walker, Deputy Director, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Metuchen, N. J.
John H. Warden, Mayor, City of Rensselaer, N. Y.
C. H. Wentworth, Lieutenant Colonel Public Health
Service, Health & Sanitation Officer, U. S. Coast Guard 3rd
Coast Guard Dispensary, Governors Island, N. Y.
George F. Whyte, Assistant Civil Engineer, New
York City Department of Health, New York, N. Y.
John Geottscy Will, Assistant Regional Solicitor,
Department of the Interior, Philadelphia, Pa.
Robert L. Wilson, Director, Basic Planning
Studies, Department of City Planning, N. Y. C.
James F. Wolfe, Civil Engineer, National Park
Service, New York, N. Y.
Allan Wolper, Reporter, Associated Press, N. Y. C.
John F. Wrocklage, Chief. Plan Formulation Branch,
Planning Division, North Atlantic Division, Corps of
Engineers, New York, N. Y.
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
MR. MURRAY STEIN
MR. STEIN: The conference is open.
The second session of the conference in the matter
of pollution of the interstate waters of the Hudson River and
its tributaries is being held under the provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Under the provisions of the Act, the Secretary
of the Interior is authorized to call a conference of this
type when requested to do so by the Governor of a State, and
when on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies, he has
reason to believe that pollution of interstate waters subject
to abatement under the Federal Act is occurring.
The purpose of the conference is to bring together
the State and interstate water pollution control agencies,
representatives of the U. S. Department of the Interior, and
other interested parties to review the existing situation and
the progress which has been made, to lay a basis of future
-------
5
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
action by all parties concerned, and to give the States,
localities, and industries an opportunity to take any indi-
cated remedial action under State and local law.
As many of you know, the conference technique is
rather an old one. It is used informally by both States
here, certainly, in the conduct of their business, and by us
in our business.
As a matter of fact, the conference technique was
long ago suggested by a very famous case in 1921. The
Supreme Court, in considering the case of pollution involving
New York and New Jersey, said:
"We cannot withhold the suggestion,
inspired by the consideration of this case, that
the grave problem of sewage disposal by the large
and growing population living on the shores of
New York Bay is one more readily to be most wisely
solved by cooperative study and by conference and
mutual concession on the part of representatives of
the States so vitally interested in it than by pro-
ceedings in any court however constituted."
I think that these statements are as true today,
more than forty years later, as they were then.
We are still working on this problem, as this
conference indicates, but, hopefully, we are a little closer
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
towards the solution of it. While much water has gone under
the bridge since then, we do truly have the evidences of a
cooperative Federal-State-interstate-local program in this
area .
I think even with the differences in the Federal,
local, State and interstate agencies, it might be said, and
I hope not too loosely, that we are all working as one staff,
trying to get this basic problem solved.
The first session of this conference was held on
September 28-30, 1965* at the request of the Governors of
New York and New Jersey and on the basis of reports, surveys,
or studies.
At the first session, the conferees recommended a
remedial program that included the following:
1. All discharge sources to the Hudson River
and its tributaries, whether public, Federal
installations, or industrial, shall receive a
minimum of secondary treatment or its equivalent,
and effective disinfection of the effluents as
required to protect water uses.
2. Industrial plants shall improve practices for
the segregation and treatment of wastes to effect
the maximum reduction of the following:
a) Acids and alkalies;
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
b) Oil and tarry substances]
c) Phenolic compounds and organic compounds
that contribute to taste and odor problems;
d) Nutrient materials including ammonia and
nitrogenous phosphoric compounds;
e) Suspended material;
f) Toxic and highly colored wastes;
g) Oxygen requiring substances;
h) Heat;
i) Foam producing discharges;
J) Other wastes which detract from recrea-
tional uses, esthetic enjoyment or other bene-
ficial uses of the waters.
Subsequent to the conference, the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare recommended a time schedule for
implementation of the remedial program. This schedule is as
follows:
a) Designs for remedial facilities completed
by January 1, 1967;
b) Financing arrangements completed by April
1, 1967;
c) Construction started by July 1, 19&7;
d) Construction completed and plants placed
into operation by January 1, 1970;
-------
8
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
e) Commensurate schedules to be adopted
for the interception and treatment of industrial
wastes and wastes from Federal installations;
f) Existing schedules calling for earlier
completion dates are to be met.
This second session of the conference was called
for the purpose of reviewing compliance with the recommended
schedule of remedial action and for taking up any other prob-
lems which may be appropriate.
As specified in Section 10 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, the Secretary of the Interior has noti-
fied the official State water pollution control agencies of
New York and New Jersey, and the Interstate Sanitation Commis-
sion, of this conference. This conference is between the
official State and interstate agencies and the United States
Department of the Interior. The New York State Department of
Health will be represented by Mr. Dwight Metzler, who is
out of the room since, I guess, he might expect a distinguished
visitor shortly, and Mr. Handley is sitting in for him while
Mr. Metzler is out.
The New Jersey State Department of Health is being
represented by Dr. Roscoe P. Kandle.
The representative of the Interstate Sanitation
Commission is Mr. Thomas Glenn, Jr.
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
Mr. Lester Klashman, our Regional Program
Director, has been designated as conferee for the Federal
Government.
My name is Murray Stein. I am from Washington,
D. C., and the representative of Secretary Udall.
The parties to this conference are the representa-
tives of the State and interstate agencies and the United
States Department of the Interior. Participation in the
conference will be open to representatives and invitees of
these agencies and such persons as inform me that they wish
to present statements. However, only the representatives of
New York, New Jersey, the Interstate Sanitation Commission,
and the United States Department of the Interior constitute
the conferees.
Both the State and Federal governments have
responsibilities in dealing with water pollution control
problems. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act declares
that the States have primary rights and responsibilities for
taking action to abate and control pollution. Consistent
with this, we are charged by law to encourage the States in
these activities.
At the same time, the Secretary of the Interior
is charged by law with specific responsibilities in the
field of water pollution control in connection with pollution
-------
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein 10
of interstate and navigable waters. The Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act provides that pollution of interstate or
navigable waters, whether the matter causing or contributing
to the pollution is discharged directly into such waters, or
reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of such
waters, is subject to abatement.
We will have a transcript made of the conference
by Mr. Zimmer.
Now a word about the procedures governing the
conference.
All participants should come up to the lectern
and should make themselves known as to name and identifica-
tion for purposes of the record.
As in the past, we will make transcripts of the
record available to the States and interstate agency for
distribution. Mr. Ziramer is making a verbatim transcript of
this conference. He is a private reporter who has received
a contract from us as the low bidder. We generally make these
transcripts available in about four months. If you feel you want
it earlier, get in touch with Mr. Zimmer, and I am sure his rate
to you will be as reasonable as it is to us.
At this point, I would like to call on someone whom
I would like to refer to as my former boss, Under Secretary of
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1953-195^, and -a long
-------
11
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
fighter for water pollution control, the Governor of New
York, Mr. Rockefeller.
(Applause.)
STATEMENT OP THE HONORABLE NELSON D.
ROCKEFELLER, GOVERNOR OP THE STATE OF
NEW YORK
GOVERNOR ROCKEFELLER: Mr. Stein, Distinguished
Officials and Ladies and Gentlemen:
I appreciate tremendously this opportunity of
joining again with Mr. Stein, as we did two years ago, and
having an opportunity to make a. report on the progress that
has taken place in relation to this important problem of
pollution control of the Hudson River.
I have a prepared statement, which is available,
and, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I would prefer just to speak
informally for a few minutes and show four or five slides
which I think probably would tell the story better.
MR. STEIN: For the purpose of the record, may we
put your entire statement in as if read?
GOVERNOR ROCKEFELLER: Please do.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
-------
12
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
GOVERNOR ROCKEFELLER: Thank you.
The meeting that was held two years ago followed
the legislative session that spring in New York at which I
had proposed the Pure Waters Program.
This program received the almost unanimous support
of both houses and of both parties, so the efforts here in
New York State have been a bipartisan effort to restore the
waters of our lakes, rivers, streams and oceanfront for the
use of the people.
We are deeply grateful to the Federal Government
for their long-time interest, for their active participation
in focusing public attention on these problems through the
holding of these hearings, and for the cooperation both of
the Administration and of Congress in working with us on the
legislative aspects of our problems.
New York State, as you will remember, was faced
with a very serious large-scale problem which was beyond the
capacity of local government from a fiscal point of view,
which was really beyond the rate at which the Federal
assistance was being made available, and, particularly, in
view of the formula which did not help the large industrial
States where pollution has persisted into being, so that the
State action taken by the New York State Legislature was
designed to accomplish two things:
-------
13
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
1. To provide the funds for local government
that were essential if they were going to meet the problem;
and
2. To prefinance Federal assistance so that we
could move with speed for the purpose of getting our waters
restored to their original state, or close to it, and also to
avoid the rapidly increasing costs in construction.
I think it is fair to say these costs are going
up at the rate of 5 percent a year now. This represents, on
the basis of compound interest, a doubling of cost every 10
years, which is a very serious problem, particularly when New
»
York State's estimated costs for pollution control by
municipalities and governmental 'units throughout the State
were a total of $1,700,000,000, so that if we waited ten
years, it would easily have gone over $3,000,000,000. Then
the next ten years it would have been over $6,000,000,000 so the
situation was getting away from us.
Perhaps the most gratifying thing about the
program was the billion dollar bond issue which was authorized
by the legislature to assist local governments, along with
a very strict control legislation, which gave us the power
of enforcement.
This bond issue was approved four to one by the
voters of the State, evidencing the extraordinary interest
-------
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
ani concern on the part of the people of this State and their
willingness tp pay to get the Job done, so that I think the
voters have spoken in a way that is very significant, not
only for pur State, but, I am sure, this has greater real
implication nationwide.
The billion dollar bond issue was designed so that
$500,000,000 would be available as an outright grant to local
communities from the State, representing 30 percent of the
cost. The other 50 percent of the bond issue, another
$500,000,000, was to prefinance the 30 percent Federal aid.
The legislators and the voters of the State acted
on this concept prior tp the approval of the concept by
Congress, which was an evidence of faith on the part of the
voters and of the legislators.
I cannot say enough for the support of the
Administration and of the Congress in making it possible for
New York State to get the credit later through subsequent
allocations of funds for moneys we had spent on their behalf.
I think this really is the key to the program. I
have been meeting with various other governors who have been
talking to us here about the possibility of following a
similar course. This course makes it possible for the State
to move rapidly with local governments through enforcement
procedures, and then to advance the money, and then, over a
-------
15
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
period of years, depending on the funding by the Congress,
to get this money back over 25 years, or 50 years, or what-
ever it happens to be.
I was asked by the Chairman of the committee in
the House to testify because of the reduction in the amounts
requested by the Administration for this year's alloca".?on.
I think it was $650,000,000 or $600,000,000, and the Congress
reduced it to $200,000,000.
Now, that is very serious for the communities
which are dependent on Federal aid in proceeding with their
programs. If they have the programs in the works and the
aid is cut so that they do not get 30 percent, or whatever the
formula provides, then they find themselves in a very difficult
position. The project is held up. If there isn't any
financing, it can be tremendously expensive and very em-
barrassing.
However, with the prefinancing provision, while
we like to get the funds as rapidly as possible, the State
can proceed and sell our bonds, and then, over a period of
years, get the funds back.
I would like now to just briefly depict the situa-
tion in the Hudson River known as the Lower Hudson River,
from Albany south. That is the principal portion of that
river. I am not sure how the particular words "Lower Hudson"
-------
16
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
identify with this session.
First, I would like to show some slides, if you
will put the lights out.
This chart (indicating) shows the situation when
you were here, Mr. Stein, the last time. These were the
principal sources of pollution of the Hudson River, dumping
some 700,000,000 gallons a day of pollution into the river
at the points indicated on this chart, from Rensselaer or from
Albany south.
I would like to show you next what has taken place
since the meeting as the result of the approval by the voters
of the bond issue.
The Public Works Department has held enforcement
hearings with all of the polluters who were involved in this
Hudson River area. The principal polluters amount to in the
neighborhood of 100. Of the 97.1 percent of the total number
of cases, 96.5 percent have received stipulative orders so
that the corrective action will be taken. These have been
settled as a result of the hearings.
In addition, 2.9 percent agreed voluntarily to
proceed.
There are adversary orders out for 0.1 percent,
and 0.5 percent cases are pending, which will be cleared up
in short order.
-------
17
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
So that, as far as legal action by the State is
concerned, the action has been completed with this small
percentage of 0.5 percent, or one-half of one percent, which
will be completed in the not too distant future, so that the
legal action has been taken, and we now move to the effective
action as far as the actual building of sewage disposal
plants by the pollution communities.
The next chart I would like to show you has
the dates at which these sources of pollution will be corrected
through the development of the sewage disposal plants, and
there is an overlay for each one. The first is 1966-67* where
five units have been completed; 1968, there are a considerable
number more in the Lower Hudson here or down in Rockland and
Westchester Counties, the Bronx and Kings County; 1969, the red
dots show those that will come in that year, and then 1970,
1971, and 1972 is the final year for completion of the
cleaning up of all the pollution sources of the Hudson River,
and the orders, except for half of one percent already have
been agreed to and settled.
Now let us go to the question of the quantities
involved. I mentioned 757,000,000 gallons a day of pollution
when we met here before.
Already today, 19673 the total commitments by
State and local government, with Federal assistance, coming
to $407,000,000, have been submitted, and the pollution has
-------
18
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
been reduced to 447,000,000 gallons per day.
This is importantly affected by the Newtown Creek
project here in New York, in the Bronx, which is the largest
project in the country, which was started in the Wagner
administration in 1960, and which came into full operation
a month or so ago, and which is also the biggest single step
that has taken place.
The State has participated in that, in the construc-
tion which was still under way from the date the bond issue
went into effect, and we will invest a total of about
$38,000,000 in that project, which is a very expensive project.
In the next two years, 1968 and 1969, we are
getting into large plants which as yet have not advanced
sufficiently so that they will come on line and therefore be
effective, so the reduction for the next two years is rela-
tively small, and we go down to 418,000,000 gallons, 409,000,000
gallons, with smaller investment, and then, starting in
1970, we have the two large years as the big plants come
into effect that are now being put in the works, and the
reduction in 1970 will be 292,000,000 gallons with the ex-
penditure of $148,000,000 that year; in the next year It will
be reduced to 270, with an investment of $29,000,000; and
then the final year, 1972, is when the remaining big projects
will come on line with a total investment of $355,000,000,
-------
19
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
bringing down pollution from all of these sources to zero.
Of course, this does not include New Jersey. I
understand that Governor Hughes released a statement yester-
day indicating a schedule which is being worked on by New
Jersey, but I think that we ought to point out that New Jer-
sey's pollution related to New York's has been relatively
small, about 30,000,000 gallons a day, so that in relation to
what we have been doing, this is relatively minor, but I do
think again to this sophisticated audience I hardly need to
mention it, but the tides do distribute whatever is dumped
into the Lower Bay as far upstream as Poughkeepsie on the in-
flowing tides, so that it is an important matter to the use
of the Hudson River.
I would now like to just go into a review of the
financing, which I think further indicates the importance of
the method which is being used here to permit action rapidly.
This (indicating) shows the total financing of
projects which come to a little bit over $1,000,000,000 for
the cleaning up of the lower Hudson River, as has been
described from Albany south.
Of this financing, the red indicates the portion
which the State has given as an outright grant, or will have,
when 1972 is reached, which represents 30 percent.
The blue represents the money we are advancing
-------
20
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
against future State payments. That total of our State out-
right grant and the advance of Federal funds comes to
$584,000,000.
The next column, the light green, shows the 40
percent being financed by local government, with a total of
$402,000,000.
Then this small black line indicates what we
anticipate, on the basis of present Congressional appropria-
tions, to be the Federal share, which is $17,000,000, or
1.76 percent of the total cost.
I think if Congress needs a dramatic illustration
as to why more funds are needed from the Federal Government
to get these projects in the works, this chart will be
pretty useful, because, frankly, if it were not for this pre-
financing and the leadership taken by the State in getting the
job done, we would not be able to get off the ground if we
depended on the Federal money.
I recognize all the problems Congress is faced
with, and I recognize the President has recommended larger
sums. This is not stated critically; this is simply stated
analytically; but I think that from the point of view of the
citizens of the State, that there is a role that the State
should take, that funding through bonds is a very convenient
and a very effective way of getting the job done and permits
-------
21
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
action now, which in the long run is very much in the
interest of the citizens, because it is a lot cheaper, even
paying whatever interest is involved in these bonds, than
spreading it out over the next thirty years, and then finding
yourself faced with these fantastic costs which are ahead
of us.
I would now like to show you two other programs
we have. These (indicating) are some of the plans that are
being developed by municipalities along the Hudson for
marinas, which shows that our citizens and communities are
already anticipating 1972 and are making their plans for the
use of the waterfront.
This is a master plan from the capital city of
Albany for the use of the Hudson there, and for those of you
who have ever been to Albany, this is quite a change
(Laughter).
I would like to show you another marina. This
(indicating) is a proposed marina that Poughkeepsie is
working on, but I think it gives a little feel of the tre-
mendous potential for development, for enjoyment, for use of
the river which will be restored as a result of this program.
I would like to say, Mr. Stein, that your presence
here, your calling of this second conference, is deeply
appreciated by the State.
-------
22
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
The tremendous drive which you and your associates
have put into this program has been a source of stimulus, of
interest, and a focus of public attention to help those of us
on the lower level get the job done.
We thank you very much indeed.
MR. STEIN: Well, thank you, Governor, very much.
(Applause.)
(The following is the statement submitted by
the Honorable Nelson D. Rockefeller:)
REVISED COPY
P.M., WEDNESDAY
SEPTEMBER 20, 196?
EXCERPTS OP REMARKS BY GOVERNOR ROCKEFELLER
PREPARED FOR DELIVERY BEFORE THE U. S. DE-
PARTMENT OF INTERIOR HUDSON RIVER CONFER-
ENCE, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1967, 9:30
A.M., STATLER HILTON HOTEL, NEW YORK CITY.
In December 1964, I announced the Pure Waters
Program and subsequently in 1965 I proposed to the New York
State Legislature a comprehensive program to eliminate the
pollution of the lakes, rivers, streams, and oceanfronts in
New York State in six years.
The Legislature passed the plan almost unanimously
in both houses and six months later the voters endorsed the
-------
23
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
$1,000,000,000 Pure Waters Bond issue by an overwhelming
4-1 vote.
At that time, not one of the 28 major polluters
between the Troy locks and the Brooklyn estuary had a com-
pletely effective sewage treatment program.
Almost all of the approximately 80 smaller
polluters along this stretch of water were discharging raw
sewage and untreated industrial wastes into the Hudson.
Altogether, 757,000,000 gallons of raw and inade-
quately treated sewage were polluting this river every day.
The majestic river that Hendrik Hudson exulted
over was rapidly becoming an open sewer.
That, very briefly, was the situation in September
of 1965.
Since that date, we have achieved dramatic progress
under the New York State Pure Waters program, using both a
carrot and a stick.
The carrot we hold before our communities is State
aid for the construction of sewage treatment facilities.
The State pays 30 percent, prefinances a Federal
share of 30 percent, and only the remaining 40 percent is borne
by the municipality.
We also created a Pure Waters Authority which, at
a community's request, will make loans for the construction
-------
24
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
of sewage treatment systems, help to plan these systems and
even contract to build and operate the plants for the
community.
The stick has been streamlined enforcement
machinery that requires every polluter to plan, finance, build
and operate sewage treatment facilities by a specified date.
These facilities must meet established State
standards for water quality.
Between the carrot and the stick, we have moved
swiftly.
Within two years, 99-5 percent of the New York
State polluters along the Hudson from Troy to New York City
have been brought under order or have agreed to a construction
timetable with the result that by 1972 all pollution of the
Hudson River from New York State sources will have been ter-
minated .
The conclusions and recommendations of the first
conference on the Hudson made note of the fact that the clean-
up of the river was a task that was to be shared by the States
of New York and New Jersey, the Interstate Sanitation Commis-
sion, and the Federal Government.
I would like to commend the cooperating govern-
mental agencies for their work since then.
-------
25
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
Several months ago, for instance, the Federal
arsenal at Watervliet began construction of a facility that
will treat 150,000 gallons of waste a day.
However, there are unresolved problems in Federal
financing.
Federal water pollution control legislation has
established the Federal share of sewage plant construction
aid at a minimum of 30 percent.
A maximum of 55 percent can be given, if certain
conditions are met.
Projects in New York State will meet all these
conditions, and thus be eligible for the full 55 percent
Federal grant, plus the 30 percent State grant.
Unfortunately, the Federal program has not been
funded at a level that will provide even a small fraction of
the full 55 percent Federal aid.
The facts are that under existing trends New York
State will be spending nearly $600 million to clean up New
York sources of pollution, the local government about $400
million and the Federal Government less than $20 million.
Although the U. S. Clean Waters Restoration Act
of 1966 authorizes $4-50,000,000 for this purpose in the 1968
fiscal year, the proposed Federal budget would actually
appropriate less than half of this amount — about $200,000,000,
Let me make clear to you that the antipollution
-------
26
Hon. N. D. Rockefeller
schedule for the Lower Hudson that New York State has adopted
will be met — regardless of what funding action the Federal
Government takes
Nonetheless, the supporting level of the proposed
Federal appropriation for fiscal 1968 makes it apparent that
the Federal Government will be providing less than 2 percent
as opposed to a full 55 percent Federal share of project
costs.
New York State will terminate all its sources of
pollution of the Hudson by 1972.
It is essential that New Jersey take prompt
action on a scale and schedule similar to New York's.
The States of New Jersey and New York and the
Federal Government must each do its share to meet the prob-
lems confronting them.
-------
IERKIMER
r-
\
/ ^
MONTGOMERY /> ^'1
SCHENECTADY " '^
1
27
'ELAWARE
\
ULSTER
Xl_
0
°0°
-T^V-1
hoDUTCHEss
o
h
I 3
Sources of Pollution
Lower Hudson River
Drainage Basin
as of 1965
I U
LONG ISLAND SOUND
ATLANTIC OCE
RICHMOND
-------
28
STATE-LOCAL-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN TOTAL PROJECTS COSTS
OF PURE WATERS PROGRAM-
LOWER HUDSON RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
600
OL
o
oc
g
U.
O
o
500
400
300
200
100
$284,711,522
28.3%
en
eo
O
Z
U
UJ
Q£
O.
Ill
.$301,816,160
30%
z
oe
o
UJ
6?
Ml
co
TOTAL
$ $
$402,421,547
STATE
$586,527,682
$17.703,090
1.76% ACTUAL FINDING
LOCAL
$402,421,547
FEDERAL
$17,703,090
-------
i u
Construction Grants
as of
Sept. 15,1967
(Applications Approved
and Forwarded to FWPCAj
TOTAL COST (28 PROJECTS)
$413,038,792
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS TOTAL
STATE (93.6%)
5173,987,601
FEDERAL (6.4°;)
511,877,325
LONG ISLAND SOUND
ATLANTIC
12
RICHMOND
-------
30
SARATOGA (
HERKIMER
MONTGOMERY
SON f—
.xr-^-a!
66-67
1968
O 1969
O 1970
1971
O 1972
LONG ISLAND SOU
CONSTRUCTION
COMPLETION DATE
Pure Waters Program
Hudson River
19661972
(Major Polluters Under Order)
-------
31
WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT
(AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL POLLUTION)
100 r
80
Of
§>
o Q
2
»- o
U. H
O o
H- Z
z 5
UJ nj
U <
Of i
Ul rt
0. «/>
60
40
20
97.1%
96.5%
ui
">.
U
o
Of
Ul
CD
K
O
IU
O
O
UJ
>
I-
<
IX)
oe
IU
o
Of
o
>-
oe
IO
K
III
O
0.1%
o
z
S
UJ
a.
«/>
IU
U
0.5%
2.9%
Y/////A
FORMAL ABATEMENT ORDERS
VOLUNTARY
ABATEMENT
PROGRAM
-------
32
REDUCTION OF WASTES - EXPENDITURE BY YEAR
(LOWER HUDSON RIVER BASIN)
$407
800 _
$355
ij-
400
350
300
ui
250 Q
200
150 ^
100
1965-66
-
-
69
YEAR
71
-------
FRONTAGE HOAD
irfrrmf'^V1"'
'FLOAT** nt**-( |
h '3r^=:a^%)
BOAT MAR,NA[ Llfl I I I 1.1 I I T
IERHEAD' a BULKHEATTTN~E
HUDSON
" '
ER
_u.3. JM/
too aoo
CAPITAL CITV AREA
MASTER PLAN
NEW YORK STATE-CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT
PLATE NO 9
Ul
KJ
SB
-------
PROPOSED MARINA
POUGHKEEPSIE N V
-------
33
MR. STEIN: Whenever we speak of a Federal-State
program or a State-Federal program and its being creative,
I think we should be talking about creativeness as being in
the States. In New York we certainly have it.
We have an audience of experts here, and I think
you have Just heard one of the most sophisticated talks by a
governor of a State that you will probably ever hear, who
has really mastered the situation.
As the Governor pointed out, I think the evidence
here is very, very true. What he says is true* One large
midwestern city which was fooling around with State auditors
found that in a little less than ten years, frankly, it had
a bill which cost double what it would have otherwise. This
was in about ten years. So you can see the issue is to not
delay but really do it now.
There are three essential points, and the Governor
really brought them out. The first is to do the prerequisite
legal action; the second is to handle the financing; and the
third is to keep your eye on the cleanup of pollution. These
are the three key points we have before us.
The Governor has stated that to handle the first,
it takes appropriate legislation and when I grew up what we
called "intestinal fortitude." I think we now call it
"guts." That point is demonstrated in New York. Your
-------
program has it. The financing took a little push and
imagination. With both of these working, I am sure we are
going to see a cleanup of pollution.
This program in New York State has added impetus
to the other programs throughout the country.
For ourselves, one of the dreams we have had has
been a State-Federal program. As I pointed out before you
came in, Governor, as far as I can see, in the areas in which
we are working here we practically, in water pollution
control, are working as one staff with the people in the
States. We do not see any difference. We all have the
vagaries of our legislatures, and I suppose we have to over-
come such things.
There is another first which I don't believe has
been highlighted. We have had several technical committees
in other than the Hudson area, where we have had a Federal
responsibility. For the first time, in dealing with the New
York State people, we have been able, and with full confi-
dence, to have a State employee as the chairman of the com-
mittee, although this is really a Federal responsibility.
If the report didn't pan out or work out, the Federal
Government would nevertheless have been responsible for It.
This indeed shows how far we may
-------
35
have come in this area of State-Federal relationships.
I know the Governor has many commitments and may
want to leave, and I know what happens when he does leave,
as we have had this before.
We will recess for ten minutes, because for the
next ten minutes the most interesting part of the day will
probably be going on outside of this room.
Thank you very much for coming, Governor.
(Whereupon a recess was had.)
MR. STEIN: May we reconvene?
Before we go on, I should indicate that all the
charts you have will be reproduced in black and white. I
know we get some pretty colored charts. If anyone uses a
chart or any diagram and refers to it, try not to refer to
colors, because when someone reads the transcript, it won't
have too much meaning.
At this point we would like to call on Mr. Emil
Prankel, who is representing Senator Jacob Javits.
STATEMENT OF EMIL FRANKEL, ON BEHALF OF
THE HONORABLE JACOB K. JAVITS, UNITED
STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
MR. FRANKEL: Mr. Stein, distinguished Conferees,
-------
36
E. Prankel
and Guests:
I want to thank you for this opportunity to
appear here to speak on behalf of Senator Jacob Javits of
New York.
The Senator, as you all know, has been for a long
time deeply interested and concerned about the problem and
the challenge of water pollution and pollution abatement in
the Hudson River.
The Hudson, of course, is the overwhelming environ-
mental feature of New York State, a portion of New Jersey,
and certainly is one of the largest metropolitan areas, or is
the largest metropolitan area in the country.
The Hudson can be and has been a source of many
great problems, but it also holds out a tremendous promise.
It holds out the promise of a very rich commercial recreational
and esthetic contribution to this area of the country.
Senator Javits has been deeply impressed by the
initiative shown by the States, and is very proud of the
initiative shown by his own State of New York, and he is con-
cerned that the Federal Government now meet its promises to
the States and to local agencies in this area of water pollu-
tion abatement.
It is time now for the Federal Government to make
good on the promises which were implicit in the authorizing
-------
37
E. Frankel
legislation, more particularly most recently the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
As you know, there is now pending in the Senate ap-
propriations for water pollution abatement. It is the
opinion of Senator Javits that this appropriation is not
adequate, and he regards it the obligation of Congress to make
this appropriation adequate.
Accordingly, Senator Javits, a few days ago, sent
a letter to all the members of the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Public Works, and I am going to read some
excerpts from that letter. I think that will probably be
the best thing to give you some indication of his feeling
about this appropriation.
"Appropriations recently passed by the House
of Representatives for the construction of treat-
ment facilities under the 1966 Clean Waters
Restoration Act and earlier related laws are
clearly inadequate to meet the urgent and growing
problem of water pollution.
"Approximately $^50,000,000 was authorized
under the various water pollution programs. The
Administration requested an appropriation of
$200,000,000,"
which is the figure that was approved by the House of
-------
38
E. Frankel
Representatives, and the figure is now pending before the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
"I believe that the Senate needs substantially
to increase this appropriation for water treatment
facilities. The gravity of this problem demands
a more adequate response on the part of the
Congress, a response that cannot be further delayed.
"In particular, it must be emphasized that an
appropriation of the present size would be grossly
unfair to those States which have in good faith
undertaken programs of pollution abatement. The
State of New York has Just initiated a pollution
abatement program of enormous proportions. Recently,
calculations indicate that New York would be en-
titled to $575j000,000 based on maximum Federal
participation under existing legislation. However,
New York's share of the proposed $200,000,000 passed
by the House of Representatives would be less than
$20,000,000.
"Such an appropriation will increase tremendously
New York's responsibility for prefinancing the
Federal share."
Which I believe Governor Rockefeller so clearly pointed out
and was so graphically displayed by the charts he showed.
-------
39
E. Prankel
"The effect of the passage of the present
appropriation without increase can only be to cause
a slowdown of pollution abatement efforts on the
State and local levels.
"Water pollution is a critical problem, a
problem which requires an expensive answer. Many
States, including my own of New York, have shown the
determination to do their share. I believe the
Federal Government must now show its willingness to
assume some of the burden.
"I know of no way in which the Congress can more
effectively illustrate that determination than by
increasing the appropriation for water pollution
abatement facilities contained in the bill pending
before you."
Senator Javits intends to fight as hard as he can
for an increase in this appropriation for a determination to
make sure that the Federal Government and the Congress meet
its share of the tremendous burden of pollution abatement of
the Hudson River and other rivers and waters in New York and
this area of the country.
I can assure you of his continuing effort and his
continuing determination to be of assistance to all of you
in your efforts.
-------
40
E. Prankel
Thank you very much.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Now may we hear from Mr. Robert Green, the
representative of Senator Robert P. Kennedy?
STATEMENT OP ROBERT GREEN ON BEHALF OP THE
HONORABLE ROBERT F. KENNEDY, UNITED STATES
SENATOR PROM THE STATE OP NEW YORK
MR. GREEN: Mr. Stein, Conferees, Ladies and
Gentlemen:
Let me first express Senator Kennedy's regrets and
apologies for not being here. He had fully intended to come,
and it was not until early this morning that he found he had
to be on the Floor of the Senate today for a vote.
I was asked at the last minute to read this to you
so that you would have the benefit of his thoughts.
I will now, if I may, read you his statement.
More than 370 years ago this month, Henry Hudson
and his crew sailed his ship the Half Moon through the Narrows
and up the Hudson River to Albany. Hudson's first mate,
Robert Juet, wrote in his log, "This is a very good land to
fall with and a pleasant land to see." Standing off what is
now Riverside Drive, "they brought (a) great store of very
-------
41
R. Green
good oysters aboard," something that has not been done since
at least 1921, when the shellfish areas of the Hudson up to
Tarrytown were condemned.
Hudson continued up the river as far as Albany,
commenting on the abundance of fish, fir, timberland, culti-
vatable land, game and fruit. The Hudson River Valley was
rich beyond comparison.
Today, the Hudson River is still rich beyond
comparison. More than 12.3 million people now live on its
banks. The sinews of industry are found in the New York
Metropolitan area, on the Jersey shore, and in the cities
that stretch along its banks. Great centers of learning such
as Columbia University, Vassar College, and branches of the
State University of New York are within sight of its waters.
And hundreds of parks and recreation facilities — Riverside.
Park, Port Washington Park, Palisades Interstate Park and
Nyack Beach Park -- are located on its banks and provide
recreation for its cities and towns. Hudson and Juet would
surely be awed by these changes.
One change they would not welcome and would be
unable to explain or understand is the contamination of the
water in the river. Instead of being greeted by the sweet
smell drifting out from the land, they would smell the un-
treated sewage from millions of people that is discharged
-------
42
R. Green
into the Hudson. They would find few fish and fewer shell-
fish as they mounted the river. For industrial civiliza-
tion as we know it has taken its toll of our waterways.
Two years ago, at the First Conference on the
Pollution of the Hudson, I described the Hudson River as an
open sewer. That description, unfortunately, still stands,
even though we agreed at the first session of this conference
on certain solutions that should be instituted according to
a schedule. Both New York State and New Jersey agreed that
all municipalities and industries would provide secondary
treatment for their wastes. And they agreed that they would
start construction of their treatment facilities by July 1,
1967 — two months ago. At this time I would like to review
the progress that we have made in meeting this schedule.
Since ihe first session of this conference major
new State and Federal Water Pollution Assistance Programs
have been enacted. The citizens of New York ratified the
Clean Waters Bond Amendment authorizing the expenditure of
$1.7 billion for the construction of water pollution treatment
facilities. Under this program, New York will pay 30 percent
of the cost of constructing new facilities. New Jersey might
take notice.
And since the first session, Congress has passed
a strengthened Water Pollution Control Program that will
-------
43
R. Green
provide $6 billion to States for the construction of water
pollution treatment facilities. Under this program, the
Federal Government can provide up to 55 percent of the cost
of new treatment facilities. Both of these programs are
designed to reduce the high cost of pollution control to
municipalities struggling with this problem — local communi-
ties in New York will only have to pay 15 percent of the cost
of new treatment facilities.
But despite the great strides made in State and
Federal assistance, the timetable established at the first
conference is not being met. The new treatment facilities
agreed upon two years ago were not all under construction by
July 1 of this year, and the date when the river will again
be usable for recreation and other purposes has been post-
poned accordingly.
A number of cities — Newburgh, Poughkeepsie, and
Peekskill — have filed construction plans with the State
Department of Health, but they have not yet begun construction,
Others, such as Bayonne, Hoboken and North Bergen, have taken
the intermediate steps of installing chlorination devices,
a useful step, but one which is inadequate for the long run.
Still other areas, such as the Passaic Valley Sewage Commis-
sion, have filed statements of their intent to comply with
the standard, but have not begun to comply in any respect as
-------
44
R. Green
of yet.
Similarly, a number of industrial plants have
taken steps to insure that their wastes receive the necessary
secondary treatment. For example, the American Pelt Company
at New Windsor, New York, employs 425 people, and discharges
the color from its fabric processing and human wastes into
the Hudson. It has made an arrangement with the New Windsor
Municipal Plant to have these wastes treated. And the
Chevrolet Division of General Motors at Tarrytown will send
its wastes to the Tarrytown Municipal Treatment Plant.
But other plants have not yet made provisions to
treat their pollution. Their discharges continue to foul
the waters of the Hudson. Clearly, then, the response of our
cities and some of our industry has not been adequate. The
political leaders, the business and industrial leaders, and
the interested citizens of communities bordering on the
Hudson must now show that they can meet the challenge of 20th
Century life — I urge them to do so.
No single city has a greater impact on pollution
in the Hudson than New York. The wastes of more than 1.5
million people on Manhattan's West Side now pass directly
into the Hudson — a solution acceptable in the 19th Century,
but not today. New York City has agreed to provide treatment
facilities that will handle 310 million gallons of waste
-------
R. Green
coming from downtown Manhattan, the Lower East Side, and
Brooklyn. The opening of the plant is a major step in
cleaning up the Hudson and New York Harbor — it is tangible
proof of our resolve to get the job done.
Unfortunately, New York City is not as far along
with its plans to treat wastes from Upper Manhattan am. -he
Bronx. New York has designed a North River plant to be
located on the East Shore of the Hudson at l45th Street. This
plant is designed to process 220 million gallons of wastes per
day, the product of over one million people. It will cost a
total of $198 million to construct this plant and its inter-
ceptor sewer. But it will not provide secondary treatment —
only intermediate treatment. The design now calls for the
removal of only 60 to 65 percent of the wastes. The commonly
accepted standard for secondary treatment is 90 to 95 percent.
Even more disturbing is the fact that the proposed
North River plant is not designed to facilitate further ex-
pansion so that the prescribed level of treatment can be
reached at a later date. Instead, New York City is redefining
the secondary treatment level previously recommended by this
conference as removal of 60 to 65 percent of the wastes It
processes. If this standard were applied to all communities
along the Hudson, we would have to deal with the equivalent of
raw wastes of 5 million people rather than half a million
-------
46
R. Green
people. This is not an acceptable solution.
I therefore recommend that New York State and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration reject New York
City's plan for the North River plant and work with the city
in developing alternatives.
Perhaps the design of the proposed plan can be
changed, and several decks added so that a second stage of
construction would raise the level to the required 90 percent.
Or perhaps two plants are needed, one at l45th Street and one
at the railroad yard at 65th Street or elsewhere> If design
problems are believed to be especially difficult or time-
consuming, engineering assistance can be provided by the
Federal Government. The main point is that we need secondary
treatment for Manhattan's West Side, and there are ways in
which it can be provided.
The difficulties which have arisen in New York are
mirrored in New Jersey. The Passaic Valley Sewage Commission,
serving a population of 1 million, is still in the process of
developing primary treatment facilities for the wastes in its
area. And New Jersey's water quality standards for the
Hudson and Raritan Rivers have yet to be approved by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration — a step
necessary in order to qualify for 55 percent instead of 30
percent Federal assistance.
-------
R. Green
Nor is the Federal Government without fault in
regard to the present situation.
The biggest problem is that of appropriations
for the Federal Water Pollution Control Program. Although
last year's water pollution control bill authorized a total
of $6 billion over five years, this year's proposed budget
is short of the authorized total by almost half. The Executive
Budget contained a total of $250 million against an authorized
total of $450 million and the House committee has accepted
this level. I do not think we can afford to be short-changed
in this manner. Local plans are based on the level of Federal
assistance authorized last year. Municipalities and States
have been called upon to take action and many of them have
responded. I think it is only fair that the Federal Govern-
ment live up to its share of the bargain.
Another problem on which I believe the Federal
Government should take action is that of the construction of
collection sewers. Current Federal and State assistance
grants cover part of the cost of interceptor sewers and
treatment plants. But the cost of collection sewers — the
capillaries of a sewage system — as opposed to the arterial
interceptor sewers are borne almost solely by the local
community. And collection sewers often cost 50 percent of a
total system — a heavy load for a community to bear. The
-------
48
R. Green
Department of Housing and Urban Development does have a
small program under which it can pay up to half of the cost
of a collection sewer system, but there is a backlog of over
$1 billion in applications for this assistance.
This situation has a direct effect on the Hudson.
Rockland County has designed a comprehensive sewage treatment
plan by which secondary treatment will be provided. A local
bond issue has been passed, and a treatment plant has been
started. But while two communities in the county have been
designated for Federal assistance to help construction collec-
tion sewers, another, Stoney Point, has not, and probably will
not be in the future because of the shortage of Federal funds.
This situation is unfair. It is one we can correct by either
appropriating more funds for HUD or by transferring the
program to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
so that other funds will be available.
In assessing the results of the first session of
the conference, I think it is fair to say that we have made
progress since we first concentrated on the Hudson River in
September 1965. We have established our goals and we are
beginning to take the necessary steps to realize them. Now
that we meet again, let us remind ourselves of the importance
of the task. Perhaps our most important goal is to improve
recreation along the river and related ocean beaches.
-------
R. Green
The last beaches along the Hudson were closed
before the Second World War, and the Atlantic beaches of
Staten Island and Brooklyn are partially polluted by wastes
from the Hudson. Those who boat on the Hudson and those
attracted to its banks from the hot streets of Manhattan or
Jersey City find a sewer. We have vowed to change that and
we will change it by the early 1970's. Our standards of
civilization demand nothing less.
The struggle to clean up the Hudson is an example
to other communities plagued by pollution on rivers and lakes
throughout the country. These communities want proof that
inadequate standards of pollution control can be workably
replaced with standards in keeping with our modern urban
society. We can give them that proof here on the Hudson. Let
us again make this waterway the path of opportunity.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Green.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR. METZLER: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that he has
just read the statement and that Senator Kennedy was not able
to be here today.
I wonder, however, if I might supplement the state-
ment and then ask two or three questions, which I hope you
\
\
might want to transmit to the Senator.
-------
50
R. Green
First, did I understand that Senator Kennedy
supports the funding of the full authorization under the 1966
Clean Waters Act as requested by the Governor and announced
in Senator Javits' letter, if you will?
MR. GREEN: I wish I could give you an answer to
some of these questions. What I will do, if I may, is take
»
these questions down and take them up with the Senator right
after this.
I am sure I can give them to him some time during
the day, and try to get back to you with these answers.
MR. METZLER: It would be very helpful.
I hope you won't mind my asking this next question.
It is not intended to be critical, but merely because the
Federal funding is such a major problem, I think it is impor-
tant that we all operate from the same basic figures.
The way I read the Water Pollution Control Act of
1966, there is quite a difference between the $6 billion
which he says is authorized over a five-year period and that
in the Act. I believe the amount in the Act is $3-1/2 billion
rather than $6 billion, and I would suggest, at least recalling
the Senate's version, which certainly is better than the two
bills from the standpoint of New York State in its construc-
tion grants, but I believe that figure is $3-1/2 billion
instead of $6 billion.
-------
51
R. Green
Thirdly, I would be interested in the availability
of this engineering assistance from the Federal Government,
because certainly one of the great shortages in getting a
big program like this moving is an adequate amount of
engineers.
The New York State Pure Waters Program, since the
1st of May, has added, on the basis of a nationwide recruiting
effort, 43 new engineers, but still we do not have what we
need.
I doubt if there are enough engineers or con-
sultants in the City of Hew York or elsewhere to move as fast
as we would like, so if there is assistance from the Federal
Government, I would appreciate some further details on this a
little later.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments.or
questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: With both Senators from New York, we
have always had strong supporters of this program. Both
Senators have been very, very familiar with it.
I know Senator Kennedy in the past has been to
numerous conferences of this kind, and has assiduously, as
-------
52
R. Green
far as I can see, done his homework, as have the Governor
and Senator Javits. They are all very sophisticated in this
area.
I do think that money question of yours has been
kind of taken care of. We can all agree that $3-1/2 billion
was the figure, and not 6. Six was the figure proposed by
the Senate committee and by the Senate as being the amount
needed to do the job, and that was changed.
Dr. Handle?
DR. KANDLE: I would just like to have the record
show that with regard to the matter of New Jersey's approval,
the New Jersey plan I think is one that is going through the
bureaucratic mill.
We are in no substantial difference with the
Federal agency, but much more important is this matter of
money, the implication being that it might make a difference
if we were eligible for 55 percent; but the fact of the matter
is that this year we may get 5-6 million dollars of Federal
aid against $60 million, so when you distribute that around,
I don't see what difference it makes whether it is 33 or 55.
It only makes a difference whether one or two people get more
money, but from an overall point of view, the fact of the
matter is that the Federal help is of the order of $5.6
million out of 60 million, which the people are putting up
-------
53
R. Green
under bond issue, less what the State is contributing, which
in our State is, we think, a substantial contribution.
MR. STEIN: You know, I think the Governor and
both Senators all agreed on one point, and that was the
financing) but I wonder with relation to the financing, and
particularly the Federal contribution to the financing, if we
often lose sight of who the Congress is, just thinking that
the Congress is something back in Washington.
I remember once dealing with an old professional in
this business, whom Dwight will remember very well, Milt
Adams in Michigan. In the early days we were talking about
bringing a Federal lawsuit or his bringing a lawsuit against
us, because Milt and Nick Olds, the Assistant Attorney General
who handled this, loved to litigate and always litigated.
Milt said, "You know, we don't have to litigate this. We
have seventeen Congressmen and two Senators from Michigan,
and," he said, "as long as we have those people in Washington,
I think we can resolve the issue with the Federal Government."
When you begin talking in terms of the Congress,
and who is the Congress or where do they come from, if you
start adding up the New York and New Jersey delegations and
then relate that to the availability of Federal funds, I
think you are talking about one and the same people.
DR. KANDLE: One more comment, Mr. Chairman, if
-------
R. Green 5
I may.
I agree, of course, with what Chairman Murray
Stein says, but I think, Murray^ that the propaganda mill is
a little bit different story, and I think the problem that we
have is that the propaganda mill sounds like the Federal
Government is trying to do a lot, whereas, in fact, they are
not.
MR. STEIN: I don't know what group you are talking
about in terms of "the propaganda mill." I will say, however,
I think our program is doing a lot, although this seems to be
contrary to public opinion. At least some people seem to
think that they see me too often. The reason they see me is
that on my desk all I get is material saying that we are not
doing enough. On the other hand, if anyone thinks as I do
and is saying we are doing a lot, I wish it would come to my
attention.
Thank you very much for these statements.
With this, we will go on to the presentation of the
States, the interstate agency and the Federal Government. We
will allow the conferees to manage their own time on this.
First, we would like to call on Mr. Klashman for
the Federal Government. Mr. Klashman?
MR. KLASHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stein. I would like
to first call Mr. Paul De Falco, Deputy Regional Director for
the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in the
-------
55
P. De Falco
Northeast Region.
Mr. De Palco.
STATEMENT OF PAUL DE PALCO, JR., DEPUTY
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST REGION,
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRA-
TION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, METUCHEN,
NEW JERSEY
MR. DE FALCO: Mr. Chairman, Conferees, Ladies
and Gentlemen:
I am Paul De Falco, Jr., Deputy Regional Director
of the Northeast Region, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration of the United States Department of the Interior.
At the first session of the conference, held on
September 28, 29 and 30, 1965, the conferees recommended,
unanimously, that "all discharge sources to the Hudson River
*
and its tributaries, whether public, Federal installations,
or industrial, shall receive a minimum of secondary treatment
or its equivalent and effective disinfection of the effluents
as required to protect water uses," And the Federal conferee
recommended a time schedule for the remedial program, requiring
that designs for remedial facilities be completed by January
1, 1967, financing arrangements be completed by April 1,
-------
56
P. De Falco
construction started by July 1, 1967, construction be com-
pleted and plants placed into operation by January 1, 1970,
with commensurate schedules for the interception and treat-
ment of industrial wastes and wastes from Federal installa-
tions, with the proviso that existing schedules calling for
earlier completion dates were to be met. Subsequently, the
Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, approved the conference recommendations and requested
the conferees to "take appropriate action" under their water
pollution control programs and State local laws to assure that
the recommendations of the conference were carried out in
accordance with the timetable recommended by the Federal
conferee.
Chi June 13 and 14 of this year a third session
of the Raritan Bay conference was convened. In view of the
close interrelationship of the waters of the Hudson area and
the Raritan Bay area, I would like to summarize some of the
pertinent agreements reached at that conference:
1. Pollution of the interstate waters of Raritan
Bay and adjacent waters is occurring due to the
discharge of inadequately treated municipal and
industrial wastes.
2. Considerable progress has been made toward
abating this pollution problem.
-------
57
P. De Palco
3. Progress has not been more rapid because of the
complexity of the discharges and the difficul-
ties in dealing with controlling pollution in
an estuarine system of waters such as exists
in Raritan Bay.
4. Still more has to be done to abate pollution of
the Raritan Bay area, even though most wastes in
the area are now receiving treatment.
5. All wastes prior to discharge into waters covered
by the conference, including the Raritan Bay,
Arthur Kill, and the Raritan River System, shall
be treated to a degree providing a minimum 80
percent reduction of biochemical oxygen demand
at all times, including any four-hour period of a
day when the strength of the wastes to be treated
might be expected to exceed average conditions.
It is recognized that this will require a design
of an average removal of 90 percent of biochemical
oxygen demand.
6. Effective year-round effluent disinfection shall
be provided at all municipal plants and all
industrial plants with bacterial discharges.
7. Industrial treatment facilities to accomplish such
reductions shall provide removals at least the
-------
58
P. De Palco
equivalent of those required for municipal
treatment plants.
And lastly, a schedule for remedial action was agreed to with
all of the improvements to be in operation between 1967 and
1970, with the exception of the expansion of one plant which
will be in operation in 1971 and one interceptor which will
be completed in 1972.
Under the provisions of the Water Quality Act of
1965, the States of New York and New Jersey have submitted
to the Secretary of the Interior water quality standards for
the Hudson River and its tidal tributaries and a plan for the
implementation of this program. The New York State submission
was made by letter of June 7, 1967, to the Secretary, with
supplemental material being submitted in the latter part of
June. The standards were reviewed by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration and accepted by the Secretary
of the Interior on August 7, 1967. The New Jersey submission
was received by the Regional Office in the latter part of
June and is currently under review by the Administration.
I will refrain from reviewing the status of com-
pliance with the provisions of the previous conference because
I presume the State representatives will cover this in their
presentations. However, I would like to review the status of
the abatement program for Federal installations discharging
-------
59
P. De Falco
into the conference area:
1. The Army Corps of Engineers installation at
Troy Lock and Dam has installed electric incinera-
tion devices.
2. The Coast Guard installation at St. George Base
is to be vacated during July 1968.
3. The Coast Guard Robins Reef Lighthouse Station
has been automated.
4. The Public Health Service, Staten Island Marine
Hospital is scheduled to connect to an inter-
ceptor to be built by New York City during 1970.
5. The Maritime Administration installation, Hudson
Reserve Fleet, is preparing to install chemical
toilets for use aboard ships.
6. The Navy installation at the shipyard in Brooklyn
has closed a major portion of the base, with the
east portion now going to the New York City system,
7. The General Services Administration Medical Supply
Agency is completing an interceptor to the New
York City system.
8. The U. S. Army Brooklyn Army Terminal has been
closed.
9. The Coast Guard Governors Island Base is drawing
up-preliminary plans, due in December, for a force
-------
60
P. De Palco
main to the New York City system to be completed
in 1969.
10. The National Park Service installation, the
Statue of Liberty, is scheduled to complete a
force main to the Jersey City treatment plant in
1969.
11. The Coast Guard Governors Island Light is no
longer manned.
12. The U. S. Army Military Academy at West Point has
plans completed for secondary treatment for the
entire base and is scheduled to advertise for bids
in January 1968.
13. The Army Corps of Engineers Storehouse in Albany
has been closed.
l4. The Army Watervliet Arsenal has commenced construc-
tion of an industrial wastes treatment plant.
15. The Coast Guard North Brothers Highland Light is
to be automated by January 1, 1969.
16. The Veterans Administration Hospital at Castle
Point, is completing final designs and the hospital
at Montrose is also completing final design.
17. The U. S. Army Military Ocean Terminal at Bayonne
now has studies under way to determine whether to
join with the city or to build a new secondary
-------
61
P. De Palco
treatment plant.
Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: I have some questions on the Federal
installations. I think I have to ask these, because if one
of the States gave these to us we would ask the questions.
I don't know if we are specific enough, Paul.
First, let's go down to No. 5-
"The Maritime Administration installation,
Hudson Reserve Fleet, is preparing to install chemical
toilets for use aboard ships."
The question I have is when?
MR. DE FALCO: I understand that this is under way
in the current fiscal year.
MR. STEIN: Largely, my questions are going to be
directed to the same subject, and I would like to hold the
record open for this detailed information, because I don't
think that the States and the cities can be expected to come
up with these plans and specifications, or a time schedule
that we can check on if we do not provide the same thing for
Federal installations. It is just inequitable, so I think we
should do that.
The same comment applies to No. 6. I am not sure
-------
62
P. De Falco
that is precise enough. It reads:
"The Navy installation at the shipyard in
Brooklyn has closed a major portion of the base, with
the east portion now going to the New York City system."
Does this assume that all the wastes from the Navy
installation in Brooklyn are going into the city system and
none are being discharged directly?
MR. DE FALCO: This is our understanding, sir.
MR. STEIN: Well, I think this should be put down.
I don't want to get into the legal matter of
handling the waste in a municipal city system, but it is a
question of whether this is going to prevent pollution or we
are adding a waste load that is not being treated. We should
get that indicated.
Now, going to No. 9» I think that is all right.
There will be a force main for New York in 1967.
That will include all the wastes from Governor's
Island?
MR. DE FALCO: Yes.
MR. STEIN: In other words, there are going to be
no wastes that are going to be discharged directly once that
force main is completed?
MR. DE FALCO: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: All right.
-------
63
P. De Palco
When will the West Point plans be in operation
and completed?
MR. DE PALCO: I don't have the detailed dates,
but I would assume somewhere around early 1970, but I will
provide the details.
MR. STEIN: I think that has to be put into the
record.
MR. DE PALCO: Right.
MR. STEIN: The same thing applies to the Army
Watervliet Arsenal.
MR. DE PALCO: Right.
MR. STEIN: The question here is, will this take
care of all the wastes in the water at the Watervliet Arsenal?
How about the domestic wastes? Is this adequate?
You should have the details on that.
MR. DE PALCO: Right.
MR. STEIN: The same type of question applies to
the Veterans Administration Hospital at Castle Point. You say:
"The Veterans Administration Hospital at Castle
Point is completing final designs and the Veterans
Administration Hospital at Montrose is also complet-
ing final designs."
When are they going to advertise for bids? When
are the plants going to be in operation?
-------
64
P. De Falco
Then Paragraph 17 reads:
"The U. S. Army Military Ocean Terminal at
Bayonne now has studies under way to determine
whether to join with the city or to build a new
secondary treatment plant."
First, when are they going to make this judgment?
Second, if they go it alone, we want a specific schedule.
MR. DE FALCO: All right.
MR. STEIN: Or we want a specific schedule now,
even if they decide to go it alone, and all specifics.
May we have that within the next week or so?
MR. DE FALCO: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any other comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very much.
MR. KLASHMAN: Thank you, Mr. De Falco.
I would like now to call on other Federal agencies.
First, I will call on Colonel R. T. Batson, District
Engineer, United States Corps of Engineers, New York District.
Colonel Batson.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL R. T. BATSON, DISTRICT
ENGINEER, NEW YORK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
UNITED STATES ARMY
-------
Additional Data on Status of Abatement Programs of Federal Installations
Discharging into the Lower Hudson River
Instruction
Agency
Pollution Abatement Status
l!;i , .! River Reserve Fleet
£> NavcO < '•ipyp.rc!, Bvc,' ?-.-
"7 Medical Supply Agency
Watervliet Arssi.f 'i
Throgs Keck 1 x, ,r:.'.5ou
V.A. Hospital, Csstle Point
V. A. 1 ;.•;:; pit £1, Montrose
Bayonne Supply Depot
'! 5. Oil
Maritics Ada.
Ifevy
GSA
Array
Coast Guard
V.A.
V.A.
Amy
Rose;
Installing a waste water treatment device aboard tugs
and headquarters barge servicing the installation.
Eastern portion tied into New York system (to Kawtown
Creek Plant). Western portion tentatively scheduled
to tie into Red Hook Plant of Kew York City system.
Scheduled to complete interceptor to New York. City.
No firm date available.
Scheduled to coaplete connection for sanitary wastes
to city by August, 1968.
Ix.cij ic/:> vlidther to automate will be made in the near
f:otvuc . No firm date available.
Impact construction to commence during 1968 Fiscal
Year.
!• .p: c or;, i.toction to commence during 1968 Fiscal
\; " - ,
.';.>.'• L iVvis with city are not more favorable, the
vvji build its own secondary treatment plant.
j c" ';;,-i should ba completed during 1968 Fiscal
Construction should coanance in 1969 Fiscal
; :'i:c.n for connections cannot ba obtained froia
York City. City is now considering revision of
•sent plans because of recent severe storm.
-------
65
R. T. Batson
COLONEL BATSON: Mr. Stein and Gentlemen:
I am Colonel R. T. Batson, District Engineer
of the New York District of the Corps of Engineers, United
States Army. The 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. I wish to acquaint you with our activities in these
three functional areas.
First, as you know, the Corps of Engineers of the
Department of the Army is designated by law as the Federal
agency responsible for water resources planning and for con-
struction and operation of Federal works for navigation,
flood protection 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 much data.
In connection with sedimentation studies of the
lower Hudson River, we have constructed a comprehensive model
of the New York Harbor, including the Hudson River as far
north as Hyde Park. This model has already been used for
pollution distribution studies. Consideration is now being
given to extending the model as far as the Federal navigation
-------
66
R. T. Batson
dam at Troy, New York, so that it may be made available for
use by any agency in connection with water resource studies of
the Hudson River. Considerable interest has been expressed
by both State and Federal agencies in this extension.
There are a number of studies and projects 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 resources 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 to
collect and dispose of floatable material and debris. Most
of the collection activity is in the upper bay of the harbor
where drift collects from the contributing waterways.
Pursuant to a Congressional resolution, the
District is completing a study to determine the feasibility
of eliminating the sources of drift and debris by removal
and disposal of dilapidated structures and derelicts, estimated
at about 10,000,000 cubic feet of material, along the shores
of New York Harbor and its immediate tributary waters.
Removal of the dilapidated structures and derelicts would
eliminate a source of organic pollution from the harbor
waters and the Lower Hudson River. A similar type of in-
vestigation is being inlt iated this fiscal year to determine
-------
67
R. T. Batson
the feasibility of eliminating sources of drift and debris
from the entire Hudson River.
In addition, the Division Engineer, North Atlantic
Division, Corps of Engineers, is currently conducting two
studies of major significance in the matter of water pollu-
tion. 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 future multipurpose water resource
development in the area. This study is a joint effort of
Federal agencies involved in the water resource development
and those States whose interests are involved.
As a result of the recent unprecedented water
drought over the northeastern seaboard of the Nation,
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
-------
68
R. T. Batson
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.
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.
At this time, I was going to cite pretty much
what Mr. De Falco was stating.
We do have some of this information I can give you.
We will give you the complete information on the
completion date at West Point, probably 1970.
Next, the answer to your question as to Watervllet:
It does take care of all the treatment.
We have recently, and only recently, taken over
the construction activities at Bayonne from the Navy. I do
not have this information to give to you now.
In addition, all vessels that are operated by the
New York District have been or are being equipped with
chlorinators except those which are being retired this fiscal
year.
The third function of the District pertinent to
your water pollution problem is that of enforcement of certain
Federal statutes developed to assure freedom of our waterways
-------
69
R. T. Batson
for navigation.
The moat general law associated with pollution,
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 descrip-
tion into navigable waters of the United States. In the
broad sense under this statute water pollution is not unlaw-
ful unless it is injurious to navigation.
Since 1952, by an Act of Congress of 1888, as
amended, I, as Supervisor of New York Harbor, seek to prevent
obstructive and injurious deposits in the tidal water of New
York Harbor and Long Island Sound of refuse such as dirt,
ashes, cinders, mud, sand, dredgings, sludge, acid, or any
other material of any kind other than that flowing from
streets, sewers, and passing therefrom in liquid state.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1924, as amended by the
Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, prohibits the discharge
of oil from any boat or vessel into or upon the navigable
waters of the United States. The Clean Water Restoration
Act contains four significant differences from the Act of
1924: (1) It transfers jurisdiction from the Secretary of
the Army to the Secretary of the Interior (this was in turn
delegated to the FWPCA); (2) in order to prosecute violators,
-------
70
R. T. Batson
it must be proved that the oil spill was caused by gross
negligence or willful spilling; (3) it extends the 1924 Act
from tidal waters to all navigable waters; (4) it requires
that the violator clean up oil spills. Since it is difficult
to prove "gross negligence" or "willful spilling," there are
presently before the Congress bills which would remove the
requirements that gross negligence or willful spilling be
shown. In the meantime, oil pollution violations originating
from boats or vessels are processed by the Secretary of the
Army, in coordination with the FWPCA and the U. S. Coast
Guard, under authority derived from Section 13 of the Act of
3 March 1899 which I previously mentioned.
To enforce these statutes, the New York District
operates four patrol vessels and nine patrol cars. When a
violation is observed or reported, it is present policy that
we inform the violator of the statute that he is violating
and for a first offense solicit compliance. If correction
is not effected within a reasonable time, a report is for-
warded to the appropriate U. S. Attorney or the Admiralty
and Shipping Section of the U. S. Department of Justice
with a request that legal action be taken against the offender.
Since 1963, the Supervisor of New York Harbor has conducted
323 pollution investigations in its area of Jurisdiction along
the Hudson River, and has forwarded 142 requests for
-------
71
R. T. Batson
prosecution to the appropriate United States Attorney.
Since 1965 the U. S. Attorneys have levied fines
totaling $4-5,450 and various offenders have spent an esti-
mated $2,067,050 in correcting violations that the Supervisor
of the Harbor has found.
As a part of the preventive program, we distribute
notices of court fines to newspapers.
Again, under statutes originally enacted by
Congress for the protection and preservation of navigable
waters of the United States, the District, after appropriate
public notice, investigation and study, issues permits
authorizing work or construction, in, across and under
navigable waterways. While formerly we concerned ourselves
primarily with assuring the public rights of navigation and
that no unreasonable obstruction to navigation would be cre-
ated, we now seek to assure that recent statutes for the
preservation of fish and wildlife resources and water quality
control are also satisfied by exercising close coordination
with local, State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction
in these matters. Applications for permits for work in the
Hudson River are also coordinated with the United States
Department of the Interior under Public Law 89-605, and with
the Hudson River Valley Commission.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the
-------
72
R. T. Batson
Corps of Engineers fully understands the effort of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in this en-
deavor to restore the Hudson River to a high quality water
resource, and within my authorities, full support will be
furnished as necessary to accomplish this objective.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Colonel.
Are there any comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much for your statement,
The Corps of Engineers, as you can appreciate, is
our sister Federal agency in the field of water pollution
control and water quality. As a matter of fact, we both
go before the same committees in the Congress for our legis-
lation, which is the Public Works Committee in both the
House and the Senate. While we coordinate finally, I think
we have a lot of committee members who ask us questions
frequently to see that we do.
The Corps of Engineers and ourselves work, as you
can appreciate, very closely on this matter. We are a
specialty agency and they are largely a construction agency,
and they have in their area, I would say, competence second
to none.
Mr. Klashman?
MR. KLASHMAN: Thank you, Colonel Batson.
-------
73
Next I will call on the United States Army Corps
of Engineers Headquarters in Washington.
Are they represented, and, if so, do they wish
to make a statement?
COLONEL BATSON: I represent them. No statement.
MR. KLASHMAN: What about the North Atlantic
Division?
COLONEL BATSON: I represent them also.
MR. KLASHMAN: We would now like to call upon
the National Park Service. Is either Mr. Schmidt or Mr. J.
Monkoski here? If so, do you wish to make a statement?
MR. MONKOSKI: The National Park Service doesn't
have a statement.
MR. KLASHMAN: All right.
Next I will call on the Geological Survey Albany
office, Mr. Darmer.
MR. DARMER: We have no statement.
MR. KLASHMAN: Next I will call on the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation, Philadelphia office, Mr. B. O'Neill.
MR. O'NEILL: We have no statement.
MR. KLASHMAN: The General Services Administration,
Mr. L. McCarren.
MR. MC CARREN: I do not have any statement, but
I did have some questions I would like to ask a little bit
-------
74
L. McCarren
later, when the question period comes.
MR. STEIN: There is no question period, so if you
have your questions, unless you want to get on later, why
don't you get up now and put them into the record? This
would be a good time to do it.
MR. MC CARREN: I could mention a few things.
MR. STEIN: Why don't you come up and make your
statement.
Let me again point out the procedure. Everyone
will be heard, but we are not open to comments or questions
from the floor. If we gave one person the privilege, we
would have to do it for everyone. We would be here for
perhaps a month. We try to give everyone an opportunity to
come to the rostrum, make his comments and ask his questions
and say anything he wishes.
STATEMENT OF L. MC CARREN, ON BEHALF OF
REGION II, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
MR. MC CARREN: I represent Region II, New York
City, General Services Administration.
I do not have a presentation at this time, but I
have a few questions.
-------
75
L. McCarren
The first question I have has reference to the
talk about secondary treatment. Is there any real definition
of secondary treatment that we can apply to construct equip-
ment for that type of treatment?
We have a few Federal depots. One is at Binghamton,
New York, and they have a problem up there which was brought
to our attention.
They have what years ago in the Corps of Engineers
— I used to be with them myself — they had Imhoff tanks for
different military bases that did not have what you would call
secondary treatment. It also had chlorinating equipment
attached to it. This Binghamton depot has a similar type of
plant.
The discharge or effluent from the plant is
carried out about three-quarters of a mile from the depot and
then comes into the river.
Now, I would like to find out if anybody has any
good design or piece of equipment that we could use there.
Up there, in certain areas, the Health Department
and industry have mentioned installing septic tanks. If you
install a septic tank with a dousing chamber, it could be of
some help, but the effluent would still have to be checked to
find out how close we come to cutting out the pollution or,
putting it another way, cutting down the pollution.
-------
76
L. McCarren
Then we have a big problem, which Mr. De Falco
knows about; at Staten Island. He mentioned that.
We have a new building going up, the Social
Security Building, in Watertown, New York, and we were
approached on that also.
There is one thing I would like to bring up about
new construction. When you start new construction, I would
suggest — I may be wrong, but I am going to suggest it any-
how — that your sanitary lines and your storm drain lines,
area drains, are brought out separately outside of the
building to the property line.
When you come into some of these towns or cities
or villages, whatever you want to call them, they have com-
bined sewers. In some of these areas, they are also changing
that sewer system where they have sanitary sewers and storm
sewers, when they put these new sewer systems in.
The engineer up in Watertown told me that under
a certain type of regulation up there, he would tie in the
separate sewer systems as they come in. I thought that was a
good thing, and we put that in our new standards for speci-
fications from the General Services Administration, regardless
of how small or large a project is.
I think that is about as far as we can go.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
-------
77
L. McCarren
MR. MC CARREN: I am sorry I have no presentation.
MR. STEIN: Will you wait for comments or questions,
far. McCarren?
What we are getting here is the face of water
pollution control, and I am going to throw this open to these
people for comments and answers and questions with you soon.
I do think that you asked some very pertinent questions.
You know, sometimes I go to these long-haired
think sessions, research meetings. They keep raising the
question of what do we mean by tertiary treatment, and I tell
those professionals we still have a problem of what do we mean
by secondary treatment.
You are talking about tertiary, and what do we do
right now.
1 do agree with you on this separation business.
We have suggested that in many, many places.
As a matter of fact, this was not your agency,
but we had a big public battle in a midwestern city, where the
Federal Government was cleaning a big area for urban renewal.
This was a university we were helping install. We did not
make provision for separation of the sewers while we were
doing it, or, at least, our other agency didn't, and there
was a big public controversy, but we took the position, the
same one that you did, and I am very glad to see that you have
-------
78
L. McCarren
that because we move ahead as we can.
This was supported by the Government Operations
Committee, which got interested in this problem, because
this was an interdepartmental operation, and HUD has now
adopted that policy for all urban renewal operations.
I don't know how far this goes, but, at least,
the questions that you have asked are really the hard
questions in pollution control, and your suggestion about
separation when we have new buildings is one we sure have to
go along with. By the way, this is a technical question.
Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. McCarren, first, carrying out
the Executive Order. 11-288, I thought we had been in touch
with you to discuss this matter. We very definitely were
talking, when we were, about secondary treatment, about 90
percent removal.
Mr. Sutton, who is chief of our Facilities Program
in the region and under whom the Federal installations program
lies in the region, is here. Mr. Sutton, will you stand up?
(Mr. Sutton arose.)
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Sutton will be very happy to
discuss the details of this with you, Mr. McCarren.
MR. MC CARREN: Good. Thank you, sir.
-------
79
L. McCarren
MR. KLASHMAN: And work with you in helping solve
these problems.
MR. MC CARREN: Thank you, sir.
MR. KLASHMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very much.
Mr. Klashman?
MR. KLASHMAN: Is Mr. G. Pillmore of the Military
Academy at West Point here?
MR. PILLMORE: Yes. We have no prepared statement.
MR. KLASHMAN: The Coast and Geodetic Survey,
New York. Captain Popper?
CAPTAIN POPPER: I have no statement.
MR. KLASHMAN: The Third Naval District of New
York, Mr. Field?
MR. FIELD: We have no statement.
MR. KLASHMAN: The Public Health Service, New York,
T. Hushower?
MR. HUSHOWER: We had presented a formal statement
at the first conference, but have no subsequent information.
MR. KLASHMAN: The.Bureau of Public Roads, Trenton?
-------
80
(No response.)
MR. KLASHMAN: The Small Business Administration,
Mr. A. Tayne?
MR. TAYNE: We have no statement.
MR. KLASHMAN: The Federal Highway Administration,
Delmar, New York, Mr. Davis?
MR. DAVIS: I have no statement. I also represent
the Bureau of Public Roads.
MR. KLASHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Davis.
The Housing and Urban Development, New York, Mr.
B. P. Robinson?
MR. ROBINSON: No statement.
MR. KLASHMAN: The Coast Guard, New York, Lieutenant
Commander H. C. Wentworth?
COMMANDER WENTWORTH: No statement.
MR. KLASHMAN: The Federal Power Commission, New
York, Mr. Monaco?
MR. GROBE: I am Raymond Grobe. I represent Mr.
Monaco, and we have no statement.
MR. KLASHMAN: The Veterans Administration
Hospital, Castle Point, Mr. Halley?
MR. HALLEY: No comments.
MR. KLASHMAN: Are there any other Federal agencies
here who wish to be recognized or wish to make a statement?
-------
81
J. E. McShane
MR. MC SHANE: Yes.
MR. KLASHMAN: Will you come up, please?
STATEMENT OP JAMES E. MC SHANE, DISTRICT
EMERGENCY PLANNING OFFICER, MARITIME AD-
MINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
MR. MC SHANE: I am Jim McShane, the Emergency
Planning Office for the Maritime Administration, Department of
Commerce.
There is one type of pollution, which may or may
not fit into this picture, oil spillage, coming back to the
situation such as the Torrey Canyon in Europe, where they are
building and constructing large tankers, and it is always
possible.
Obviously, we do not anticipate anybody spilling
oil purposely on the water on a major spillage, but it is
possible, and also it is possible that such a spillage would
cause an emergency plan for the ports to be activated, which
comes under the Maritime Administration, Emergency Port
Planning.
This does not come in the vein of the normal con-
tamination of water, but, at least, in design now, they have
-------
82
J. £. McShane
one ship that is half a million tons. Such a ship, if it
were foundered, would really create havoc along the Atlantic
Seaboard if it foundered in the wrong place.
I Just bring this up so that it is entered in the
record that the Maritime Administration has a primary
interest in emergency planning if such a thing did happen.
Obviously, it does not come within the normal, every-day
pollution problem.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: This is a concern of ours. As a
matter of fact, I Just saw Mr. Rademacher come in — I guess
our oil man Just left — but he has been working with the
Maritime Administration before and since the Torrey Canyon
case, where there were problems like this.
We heard Colonel Batson talk about the Oil Pollution
Act. We are still governed by the Act. Like most of the
engineers, he speaks very quietly and competently.
His indication of what we would have to do now
to move under the Oil Pollution Act is clearly an understate-
ment, but if there are any lawyers in the house, you know how
many cases we could win when the test is either gross neg-
ligence or willful discharge. There are not very many.
The problem that we have is if we keep letting
-------
83
J. E. McShane
these tankers get any bigger, and I don't know if many of
you have seen any of these new oil tankers, when one of them
goes you are bound to have a major catastrophe.
How big are these big tankers now?
MR. MC SHAKE: Well, they have just about reached
their peak, with few exceptions.
There is one mammoth ship to be built in Japan for
half a million tons. That will be the biggest ship in the
world, actually, as far as I know.
I am not quoting statistics on this, except that
it is under design, it fa to be built in Japan, and if it is
built, that will very definitely be the largest cargo-type
ship or bulk carrier, but if such a ship were foundered, it
would create a catastrophe.
I would like to make one point clear on this.
Colonel Batson was talking about the Corps of Engineers and
the law which makes them responsible for oil spillages.
There is an Executive Order of the President,
10-999, which authorizes the Maritime Administration, or re-
quires the Maritime Administration, to prepare emergency plans
for all of the ports on the seaboards of the East, West, and
so on.
Now, if they are responsible for emergency planning
and the activation of. emergency planning for the ports, a
-------
84
J. E. McShane
major spillage could be considered an emergency, which would
activate some of these plans.
This is different than what Colonel Batson was
talking about. While he is a part of it, again, emergency
planning in a port is a responsibility of the Department of
Commerce Maritime Administration, and not Just alone for the
Corps of Engineers.
MR. STEIN: Yes'. I think that is understood.
As a matter of fact, I know Mr. Rademacher has
been working on the report to the President on that.
Mr. Rademacher, haven't you been working on the
report to the President on that? Do you want to come up, or
can't you talk about it?
MR. RADEMACHER: I cannot talk about it at this
point.
MR. STEIN: All right, but I do know we were pre-
paring a report on that.
Once you get one of these big spillages, you have
to recognize that we are going to need all the resources of
government, of the Corps of Engineers, the Maritime Administra-
tion, the State if we can get them, and the Federal Government
in all departments, to work this out. What we are trying to
do is design a procedure that can work.
The notion was that after the Torrey Canyon broke
-------
85
J. E. McShane
up, it was not a question so much of jurisdiction, but who
in the world had an answer or a feasible solution they
could put into effect, and who was going to make that deter-
mination.
I am pretty sure of the people we have working on
this, the Maritime Administration is one of the key, if not
the key, Federal agencies in working this out with the other
departments.
MR. KLASHMAN: Thank you very much.
We can assure you that we in the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration are anxious to work very
closely with you in this area.
Are there any other Federal agencies here that
want to be recognized?
(No response.)
MR. KLASHMAN: If not, Mr. Stein, this completes
the presentation by the Federal Government.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
If this completes the Federal presentation, I think
we are just about at the right time. If we move fast, we
probably can beat the crowds for lunch. We will reconvene
at about 1:20 or 1:25.
We stand recessed for lunch.
(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., a luncheon recess was
taken.)
-------
86
R. P. Kandle
AFTERNOON SESSION
(1:30 p.m.)
MR. STEIN: May we reconvene?
Mr. Klashman, are the Federal presentations
completed?
MR. KLASHMAN: Yes, Mr. Stein, the Federal presenta-
tions are completed.
MR. STEIN: I will now call on New Jersey. Dr.
Kandle.
STATEMENT OF ROSCOE P. KANDLE, M. D.,
CONFEREE AND COMMISSIONER, NEW JERSEY
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, TRENTON,
NEW JERSEY
DR. KANDLE: Good afternoon, friends.
My name is Roscoe P. Kandle. I am the Commissioner
of the New Jersey State Department of Health and I present
this statement as the New Jersey conferee at this conference.
We are pleased to report the substantial progress
in New York — in New Jersey (Laughter). That's a bad be-
ginning, isn't it? I was complaining because they destroyed
the old oyster .house to which I had been addicted.
-------
87
R. P. Handle
We are glad also to participate in this constructive
examination of progress and problems in avoiding pollution of
the interstate waters of the Hudson River and its tributaries.
It is the policy of the administration of New Jersey and of
Governor Richard J. Hughes to pursue the abatement and control
of water pollution with all possible vigor and all the re-
sources at our command. It is my responsibility and my in-
tention as the State Commissioner of Health to fulfill this
policy.
A number of things have happened in New Jersey
recently which reflect the seriousness of our intention. New
Jersey has enacted statutes which provide, No. 1, for State
grants for the study of the feasibility of regional — and
this is the thing we are stressing most -- collection and
treatment systems; No. 2, loans essentially interest-free to
defray the engineering costs of system design; and, thirdly,
the granting of authority to the Department of Health to
disapprove any waste treatment facility which is not a part
of a logical regional system. We think that is a very great
advancement. In the current session of the legislature
two additional new statutes affecting water pollution have
been adopted and signed into law. One provides that equipment
and facilities whose primary purpose is water pollution
control are exempt from real and personal property tax. The
-------
88
R. P. Kandle
other, hopefully, will add to the available supply of pro-
fessional staff in water pollution control by offering fully
funded undergraduate and graduate scholarships, dealing with
recruitment of young men and women into this field who will
come into water pollution control.
Most significant, however, the latter statute also
puts New Jersey in the construction grant business in a
program compatible with the Federal grant system and appropri-
ates funds to match this year's Federal appropriations.
If there should be larger amounts, I think New
Jersey will be responsible and appropriate additional amounts,
but we went this year on the amount of Federal moneys which we
thought were likely to be available, and so far, unfortunately,
we were right.
Our Department is remarkably increasing the size
of its water pollution control staff in order to carry out its
many responsibilities capably and without delay.
In February 1967 by my administrative order a new
Division of Clean Air and Water was established. This
Division is responsible for administering the Air Pollution
Control Program, Solid Waste Disposal Program and the Water
Pollution Control Program. We believe these three are
inseparable. This reorganization increases our Department's
administrative capability dealing effectively with these
interconnected environmental pollution control functions,
-------
89
R. P. Kandle
with integrated standards.
In the fiscal year beginning July 1, 19&7,
were appropriated to permit us to augment our current staff
of 42 with 24 additional positions. In the year beginning
July 1, 1968, we expect funds which will permit the develop-
ment of a staff of 100 in the State's Water Pollution
Control Program.
In the same year we hopefully anticipate an
appropriation of substantial funds to permit New Jersey to
establish a network of continuous monitoring of the water
quality of its streams. This system, if installed, would tie
in to the data handling facility already in operation as a
part of New Jersey's air pollution monitoring control network.
As a part of New Jersey's total enforcement
activity, water quality standards have been defined and
established; and all of our streams and all our drainage
basins have been classified in accordance with these standards.
To assure that these standards are, in fact, being
achieved, the Department has, since April of this year, issued
113 orders to municipalities and other entities operating
treatment plants which are now substandard by these new
standards. In the next 60 days we expect to issue another 70
orders of the same type. It is our intention to see to it
that the receipients. of these orders comply with their
-------
90
R. P. Kandle
requirements. A number of recent court actions, including
several within the scope of today's conference, testify to
our willingness to litigate when no other course of action
will achieve compliance.
With regard to the specific area under considera-
tion today:
A public hearing was held in Trenton on February
15, 1966, at which time the proposed classification regulations
for the Hudson River were discussed by the public and
representatives of industry and other interested persons.
The hearing was conducted in conformity with the laws of New
Jersey. Effective May 16, 1966, the Department promulgated
regulations entitled "Classification of the Surface Waters of
the Hudson River - Arthur Kill and Tributaries," the classi-
fication for the entire reach of the Hudson River bordering
New Jersey was specified as TWr2. The definition of TW-?
waters is as follows: "Tidal surface waters having limited
recreational value and accordingly not acceptable for fishing
and bathing but suitable for fish survival although perhaps
not suitable for fish propagation. These waters shall not
be an odor nuisance and shall not cause damage to pleasure
craft having occasion to traverse the waters."
The same public hearing process was utilized in
establishing the surface water classification for Newark Bay
-------
91
R. P. Kandle
at TW-3. This classification is defined as: "Tidal surface
waters used primarily for navigation, not recreation. These
waters, although not expected to be used for fishing, shall
provide for fish survival. These waters shall not be an odor
nuisance and shall not cause damage to pleasure craft travers-
ing them."
Implementation of the classification program to
meet the standards of water quality established as outlined
herewith is a very simple and direct procedure. Employing
the regulations establishing classifications and the procedures
established by law, legal orders were issued in August 1966
against all of the municipal waste water treatment facilities
discharging effluents into the Hudson River. These orders
took the form of recognition of the long-standing situations
and contained no detailed timetable for compliance. They
carried an effective date generally of approximately 100
days after the date of issue. This had the effect of bringing
the defendants to the conference table to establish a reason-
able timetable for actions.
These orders recently have been supplanted by
"Amended Orders" in April 1967 establishing timetables for
appropriate interim action including a work performance
schedule leading to the completion of indicated construction.
The amended orders require that the treatment facilities be
-------
92
R. P. Kandle
designed to provide at all times — at all times — a
minimum of 80 percent reduction in biochemical oxygen demand
of the waste water received at the said treatment facilities.
A typical amended order is attached to this statement along
with a tabulation listing the identity of those against whom
orders incorporating timetables have been issued, and this,
Mr. Chairman, is part of the record.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, this will be entered
at this point, as if read.
(The typical Amended Order is as follows:
WHEREAS, the State Department of Health of the
State of New Jersey, on April 27, 1965, addressed a letter to
the Mayor and Board of Commissioners of the Town of West New
York, in the County of Hudson and the State of New Jersey,
stating "TAKE NOTICE, that the New Jersey State Department of
Health in cooperation with the Interstate Sanitation Commission
has determined, as a further step in the promotion of the
quality of the surface waters of this State, effective post-
chlorination of the effluents of all sewage treatment plants
discharging directly into the waters of the Interstate Sanita-
tion Commission District must be effected on or before May 15%
1967. Thereafter, effective chlorination is to be required
continuously each year from May 15 to September 15- Control
over the chlorination operation will be effected primarily by
-------
93
R. P. Handle
the maintenance of a positive chlorine residual of not less
than 1.0 part per million. The requirements will be intensi-
fied as found necessary in order to maintain receiving water
quality criteria deemed necessary by the New Jersey State
Department of Health and the Interstate Sanitation Commission,"
and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Health of the
State of New Jersey, on August 9> 19^6, issued an Order to
the Town of West New York, in the County of Hudson and the
State of New Jersey, requiring that the said Town, prior to
December 1, 1966, cease the discharge of improperly, inade-
quately and insufficiently treated sewage into the waters of
the Hudson River, being waters of this State, and alter, add
to or improve the sewage treatment plant operated by the Town
of West New York in order that the sewage received therein
shall be cared for, treated and disposed of, and the effluent
discharged into the said waters in a manner approved by the
State Department of Health of the State of New Jersey, and in
order that the treatment and disposal of said effluent shall
meet the applicable standards of water quality prescribed by
regulations of the State Department of Health entitled "Classi-
fication of the Surface Waters of the Hudson River, Arthur
Kill and Tributaries," effective May 16, 1966, and
WHEREAS, the Federal Water Pollution Control
-------
R. P. Kandle
Administration of the United States Department of the Interior
requires that Orders issued as aforesaid under the Water
Pollution Control Plan of the State of New Jersey, which Plan
is subject to review by and approval of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, include a timetable of sig-
nificant events including the contemplated date for the com-
pletion of construction of sewage treatment projects, and
WHEREAS, it is incumbent upon the State Department
of Health of the State of New Jersey in conformity with the
nationwide water pollution control program of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration to be specific as to
the minimum degree of sewage treatment meeting the approval of
the said State Department of Health,
THEREFORE, the State Department of Health of the
State of New Jersey amends, in part, its Order of August 9,
1966, addressed to the Town of West New York, in the County
of Hudson and the State of New Jersey, by deleting the
following paragraph:
"NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, by the State
Department of Health of the State of New Jersey,
pursuant to R. S. 58:12-2, to the Town of West
New York, in the County of Hudson and State of
New Jersey, requiring that the said Town of West
New York must and shall, prior to December 1,
-------
95
R. P. Kandle
1966, cease the discharge of improperly, inade-
quately and insufficiently treated sewage into
the waters of the Hudson River, being waters of
this State, and must alter, add to or improve the
sewage treatment plant operated by the said Town
of West New York in order that the sewage received
therein shall be cared for, treated and disposed
of and the effluent discharged into the said waters
in a manner approved by the State Department of
Health of the State of New Jersey, and in order that
the treatment and disposal of said effluent shall
meet the applicable standards of water quality pre-
scribed by regulations of the State Department of
Health entitled "Classification of the Surface
Waters of the Hudson River, Arthur Kill and
Tributaries," effective May 16, 1966."
and substituting in lieu thereof the following language:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, by the State Department of
Health of the State of New Jersey, pursuant to R. S. 58:12-2, to
•
the Town of West New York, in the County of Hudson and the State
of New Jersey, requiring that the said Town of West New York,
must and shall, prior to October 30, 1970, cease the discharge
of improperly, inadequately and insufficiently treated sewage
into the waters of the Hudson River, being waters of this State,
-------
96
R. P. Kandle
and must alter, add to or improve the sewage treatment plant
operated by the Town of West New York, including sewage
treatment units designed to provide at all times a minimum of
80 percent reduction in biochemical oxygen demand of the
sewage received at the said sewage treatment plant, in order
that the sewage received therein shall be cared for, treated
and disposed of, and the effluent discharged into the said
waters in a manner approved by the State Department of Health
of the State of New Jersey, and in order that the treatment
and disposal of said effluent shall meet the applicable
standards of water quality prescribed by regulations of the
State Department of Health entitled "Classification of the
Surface Waters of the Hudson River, Arthur Kill and Tributaries,"
effective May 16, 1966, and in effecting abatement of pollution
of the waters of this State within the time hereinabove pro-
vided, shall execute the following work performance schedule:
(1) Place in operation effective postchlorina-
tion equipment on or before May 15, 1967, and hence-
forth maintain continuously each year, from May 15
to September 15, a positive chlorine residual of not
less than one part per million in the effluent dis-
charged to the River;
(2) Complete a report upon the proposed basis
of design of additions and alterations with review
-------
97
R. P. Kandle
and approval of the same by the State Department
of Health on or before October 1, 196?;
(3) Complete preparation of and secure review
and approval of preliminary plans on or before
April 1, 19685
(4) Complete preparation of and secure review
and approval of detailed contract plans and speci-
fications on or before March 1, 1969;
(5) Award construction contracts on or before
June 1, 1969;
(6) Complete construction on or before October
30, 1970.
STATE DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH OP THE STATE OF
NEW JERSEY
/s/ Richard J. Sullivan
Richard J. Sullivan, Director
Division of Clean Air and Water
Dated: April 4, 196?
* # *
Service of an Amended Order, of
which the within is a copy, is herewith
admitted this 10th day of April, A.D., 1967
/s/ Raymond F. Gabriel
TOWN CLERK
* * *
-------
98
R. P. Handle
DR. KANDLE: This tabulation shows the dates of
important stages of development in each case. The list in-
cludes every municipal waste treatment plant which presently
discharges into the Hudson River and Newark Bay.
The initial step in the work performance schedule
required that chlorination be initiated by May 15, 1967, in
accordance with a departmental directive dated April 27, 1965.
Follow-up investigations by the Department indicated
that four of the seven waste water treatment facilities have
initiated postchlorination. The three remaining waste water
treatment plants are those of the Jersey City Sewerage
Authority, Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners and the Town
of West New York.
With respect to these three: Information which has
been received indicates that postchlorination will be in
operation at the Jersey City facility before May 15, 1968.
The Department has already obtained a court order directing
West New York to proceed with postchlorination.
We are appending, Mr. Chairman, another record
which shows that we have instituted injunctive proceedings
in the Superior Court to require the Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners to comply with our order.
May I offer to make that part of the record?
MR. STEIN: Yes, certainly. Without objection,
-------
99
R. P. Kandle
that will be entered at this point.
(News release dated September 20, 1967, reads as
follows:
TRENTON, SEPTEMBER 20...Superior Court Judge Nelson
K. Mintz, Chancery Division, Essex County, sitting in Newark,
yesterday, September 19, ordered the Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commission to appear before him on October 13 to show cause
why relief from pollution of State waters sought by the State
Department of Health should not be granted.
The State Department of Health on April 27, 1965
placed the Commission on Notice to provide effective post
chlorination of its effluent between May 15 and September 15
each year before being discharged into waters of the Interstate
Sanitation Commission District, Upper New York Bay. This
post chlorination was to be inaugurated by May 15, 1967.
On September 22, 1965, the State Department of
Health gave a grant of $20,000 to the Commission under the
State Public Sanitary Sewerage Assistance Act of 1965 for a
feasibility study of providing chlorination of sewage effluent
from the Commission's treatment plant by May 15, 1967.
In a supplemental order dated March 31., 1967 the
Commission was again ordered to place in operation effective
post chlorination equipment on or before May 15, 1967 and hence-
forth to maintain continually each year from May 15 to September
-------
100
R. P. Kandle
15 a positive chlorine residual of not less than one part per
million in the effluent discharged into Upper New York Bay.
In the action brought by Deputy Attorney General
Theodore Schwartz, the State Department of Health is now
asking for immediate purchase and installation of the neces-
sary post chlorination equipment so that such equipment can
be placed in operation beginning May 15, 1968.
A recent inspection disclosed that the post
chlorination has not yet been installed.)
* * »
MR. STEIN: While we are at this point, about how
much chlorine will Passaic Valley have to have in order to
have effective chlorination with their present kind of
treatment?
DR. KANDLE: Do you want to answer that?
MR. ANTHONY RICIGLIANO: It is estimated at about
20 tons per day.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
DR. KANDLE: Attached is a tabulation indicating
the present status of postchlorination at all of the plants
d ischarging into the Hudson River.
(The tabulation referred to is as follows:)
-------
Bayonne City
Sdgewater Borough
Koboken City
Jersey City Sewerage
Authority (two plants)
North Bergen Township
(Woodcliff Section)
Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners
West New York Town
Xcsrny
NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF H3ALTH
HUDSON RIVER BASIN
PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE UNDER CURRENT ORDERS
Place in operation
effective Report on Preliminary Final
Award
Construction
Complete
postchlorination
5A5/67
5/15/67
5/15/67
5/15/67
*
5A5/67
5A5/67
•SHt-
Design
10A/67
.10A/67
10/1/67
10A/67
2A/68
10/1/67
10A/67
lj/30/68
Plan
UA/68
Vl/68
UA/68
VV68
7/1/68
Vl/68
W68
10/30/68
Plans
3A/69
3A/69
3A/69
3A/69
5A/69
3A/69
3A/69
6/1/6?
Contracts
6/1/69
6/V69
6/1/69
6/V69
8/1/69
6A/69
6/1/69
9A/69
Construction Remarks
10/30/70
10/30/7P
10/30/70
10/30/70
10/30/70
10/30/70
10/30/70
10/30/70
Postchlorination was initiated in accordance with a Departmental directive dated April 27, 1965*
Order will be amended .to require effective postchlorination by May 15, 1968.
CO
-------
101-A
R. P. Kandle
DR. KANDLE: The State Department of Health,
after making an investigation of the operation of the West
New York treatment facilities, filed a complaint in the
Superior Court of New Jersey in the County of Hudson on July
7, 1967, charging that the treatment plant was being operated
ineffectively and improperly, in violation of the permit
issued by this Department. The complaint also charged that
the town had not complied with the first step in the amended
order which required effective postchlorination by May 15,
1967. In its complaint the Department asked the court to
order the town to repair all of the defective facilities in
the waste water treatment plant, to remove all sludge in the
plant and to continue to remove all of the sludge until the
d efective equipment is repaired. The Department also demanded
that the town immediately eliminate noxious odors emanating
from the plant and to install immediately the necessary post-
chlorination equipment.
The Superior Court Judge ordered the Town of West
New York to appear before him on July 13 to show cause why
demands for relief in the Department's complaint shouM not
be granted.
The court reacted favorably to the Department's
demands with an unprecedented action in water pollution
control in New Jersey.
-------
102
R. P. Kandle
The Superior Court Judge placed the treatment
plant under the jurisdiction of the court and appointed an
engineer from the State Department of Health as the receiver
to make sure that orders of the court and injunctive relief
demands by the Department of Health in its complaint are
carried out.
A copy of the order handed down by the court is
attached.
May I make that also part of the record?
MR. STEIN: Without objection, that will be
entered as if read.
(The Order of the Superior Court of New Jersey
reads as follows:
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CHANCERY DIVISION, HUDSON COUNTY
DOCKET NO. C-2862-66
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, )
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs. Civil Action
)
TOWN OF WEST NEW YORK, a ORDER
municipal corporation of )
the State of New Jersey,
)
Defendant.
-------
103
R. P. Kandle
This matter being opened to the Court by Arthur
J. .Sills, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey,
attprney for plaintiffs, Theodore A. Schwartz, Deputy
Attorney General, appearing, in the presence of Samuel L.
Hirschberg, Esq., attorney for defendant, and it appearing
to the Court from the duly verified complaint and affidavits
annexed thereto that the sewage treatment plant operated by
the defendant is being operated improperly and ineffectively
for the treatment of domestic sewage and industrial wastes
and that the said improper operation of the said sewage
treatment plant is violative of a permit issued by the plain-
tiffs to the defendant on April 17, 1950 and N.J.S.A. 58:12-3,
in that sewage and industrial wastes are bypassing the processes
comprising the said sewage treatment plant; and it further
appearing that the improper operation of the said sewage treat-
ment plant is causing noxious odors to be emitted from the
said plant which has created a source of foulness in violation
of N.J.S.A. 26:lA-27; and it further appearing that the
defendant is violating N.J.S.A. 58:12-2 in that the defendant
has failed to comply with an order of the plaintiffs issued
on April 4, 1967 pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A.
58:12-2 requiring the defendant to place in operation effective
postchlorination equipment on or before May 15, 1967 and
-------
104
R. P. Kandle
henceforth maintain continuously each year from May 15 to
September 15 a positive chlorine residual of not less than
one part per million in the effluent discharged to the Hudson
River, and the Court having considered the evidence and argu-
ments presented by both parties; and it further appearing
that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought, and
for good cause shown;
IT IS on this 3rd day of August, 19^7, ORDERED
that the defendant Town of West New York, hereinafter referred
to as the "Town", its agents, servants and officials, take
the following steps to abate the discharge of improperly,
inadequately and insufficiently treated sewage and other
polluting matter into the waters of the Hudson River, to cease
the improper and ineffective operation of the said sewage
treatment plant, to cease creating noxious odors and sources
of foulness, and to install effective postchlorination equip-
ment in compliance with the plaintiffs' order of April 4, 1967.
1. The Town shall forthwith engage the services
of such persons to remove by proper disposal service, either
by truck, tank car or barge, in a manner which will not affect
the health of the citizens of this State, all of the scum and
sludge that has accumulated in the treatment works of the
said sewage treatment plant, namely the two sedimentation or
settling tanks.
-------
105
R. P. Handle
2. The Town shall forthwith remove all sludge
and scum in the two sedimentation or settling tanks in order
that the same may be cleaned out, repaired and put into proper
and effective operation.
3. The Town shall forthwith make preparations and
engage the services of such persons to remove daily by proper
disposal service either by truck, tank car or barge, in a
manner which will not affect the health of the citizens of
this State, all of the scum and sludge being deposited in the
treatment works at the said sewage treatment plant from the
sewerage system until such time as all of the plant facilities
are in proper and effective operation.
4. The Town shall forthwith take such steps and
necessary actions to insure that the said coarse bar screen
located at 60th Street remains clean and unclogged at all
times to prevent the flow of raw sewage and industrial wastes
during dry weather flow into the Hudson River.
5. The Town shall forthwith take such steps to
insure that no sludge is placed in the incinerator located
and used at the said sewage treatment plant until such time as
the collection mechanisms and the vacuum filters are operating
effectively and efficiently to dewater and chemically treat
the sludge in order that the incinerator may properly and
effectively burn the sludge material without causing any
-------
106
R. P. Kandle
noxious odors or objectionable smoke.
6. The Town shall forthwith repair and have in
proper and effective operation all of the treatment works at
the said sewage treatment plant including but not limited to
the collection mechanism on the two sedimentation or settling
tanks and the two vacuum filters for dewatering and chemically
treating the sludge materials.
7. The Town shall forthwith comply with all of the
provisions and conditions contained in the permit issued by
the Department on April 17, 1950 to the Town for the operation
of the said sewage treatment plant.
8. The Town shall employ adequate operating per-
sonnel to insure that the said treatment works are maintained
and operated properly and effectively at all times.
9. The Town shall forthwith take such steps and
measures to permanently eliminate the said noxious odors and
sources of foulness at the said sewage treatment plant.
10. The Town shall forthwith take such steps to
insure that the said incinerator is operated properly in
accordance with its design so as not to permit any discharge
of noxious odors or objectionable smoke.
11. The Town shall forthwith purchase and install
and have in operation effective postchlorination equipment
and have the same in operation continuously each year from
-------
107
R. P. Kandle
May 15 to September 15 in order to provide a positive chlorine
residual of not less than one part per million in the effluent
discharged to the Hudson River.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the said sewage treat-
ment plant shall remain within the Jurisdiction of this
Court until further order of this court in order that all of
the provisions of this Order are complied with.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Anthony R. Ricigliano,
Supervising Public Health Engineer of the Water Pollution
Control Program in the Division of Clean Air and Water of the
State Health Department, shall be this Court's representative
at the said sewage treatment plant to insure that all of the
provisions of this Order are carried out by the Town forthwith,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the furtherance of
the above paragraph Anthony R. Ricigliano shall perform the
following acts until such time as the said sewage treatment
plant is operating in compliance with all of the provisions
of this Order:
1. Supervise the entire operation of the said
sewage treatment plant including the activities of the plant
operator, Mr. Frank O'Leari, Jr., and the men employed at the
said sewage treatment plant;
2. Take all necessary steps, measures and actions,
including the obtaining of proposals for necessary services
-------
108
R. P. Handle
and repairs in order to carry out all of the provisions of
this Order; and
3. Make such suggestions and recommendations to
the Town as are necessary to comply with any of the provisions
of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any expenditures required
to be made by the Town, as a result of any steps, measures
or actions required to be taken by Anthony R. Ricigliano or
to carry out any of his suggestions or recommendations, shall
be made only with the approval of the Town.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Town shall cooperate
fully with Anthony R. Ricigliano and take such steps, measures
and actions as are necessary to carry out his instructions,
recommendations and suggestions until all of the provisions
of this Order are complied with.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs may make
application to this Court at any time by telephone for appro-
priate judicial relief to insure compliance with the terms of
this Order and such notice may also be given to the Town by
telephone.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that nothing herein shall be
construed as creating any liability on behalf of the plain-
tiffs or the State of New Jersey for any acts, occurrences
or omissions which result in injury and property damage to
-------
109
R. P. Handle
the Town or others arising out of the activities of the
plaintiffs or the State of New Jersey in carrying out any of
the provisions of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon completion of the
steps required to be taken pursuant to this Order that the
Town, its agents, servants and officials, shall be permanently
enjoined from operating the said sewage treatment plant im-
properly and ineffectively in violation of the said permit
and N.J.S.A. 58:12-3.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon completion of the
steps required to be taken pursuant to this Order that the
Town, its agents, servants and officials, shall be permanently
enjoined from permitting any noxious odors to be emitted from
the said sewage treatment plant or creating any sources of
foulness.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon completion of the
steps required to be taken pursuant to this Order that the
Town, its agents, servants and officials, shall be permanently
enjoined from violating the said Order of the plaintiffs
dated April 4, 1967 requiring postchlorination of effluents
discharged from the said sewage treatment plant to the Hudson
River.
/S/ James Rosen
d «S «C .
-------
110
R. P. Kandle
I hereby consent to the form of this Order.
/s/ Samuel L. Hirschberg
Samuel L. Hirschberg
Attorney for Defendant
* * *
SUPERIOR COURT OP NEW JERSEY
CHANCERY DIVISION, HUDSON COUNTY
DOCKET NO. C-2862-66
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
STATE OP NEW JERSEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TOWN OP WEST NEW YORK,, a
municipal corporation of
the State of New Jersey,
Defendant.
Civil Action
ORDER
ARTHUR J. SILLS
Attorney General of New Jersey
Attorney for Plaintiffs
State House Annex
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
By: Theodore A. Schwartz
Deputy Attorney General)
# * *
-------
Ill
R. P. Kandle
DR. KANDLE: Under the direction of the engineer
appointed by the court, all of the accumulated sludge was
removed, equipment and treatment units were repaired and
rehabilitated, and the town engineer was authorized to prepare
plans and specifications for the purchase and installation of
postchlorination equipment.
The Department of Health recently requested the
State Attorney General to take the necessary legal measures
to gain compliance with its order against the Passaid Valley
Sewerage Commissioners requiring the installation of post-
chlorination by May 15, 1967. An order was issued by the
Superior Court of New Jersey on September 19, 1967 demanding
that the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners appear to show
cause why the Department's demands should not be granted.
A copy of this is appended, and I would like to
make it part of the record.
MR. STEIN: Without objection, that will be done,.
and entered as if read.
(The Status of Order to Disinfect reads as follows:)
-------
112
R. P. Kandle
STATUS OP ORDER TO DISINFECT
BY MAY 15, 1967, AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
IN I.S.C. WATERSHED
Plant
Bayonne City
Postchlorination
Edgewater Borough
Hoboken City
Yes
Yes
Yes
Remarks
Chlorine solution is
being applied to efflu-
ent from primary sedi-
mentation units. Con-
tact time is flow time
in outfall pipe.
Chlorine solution is
being applied to efflu-
ent from primary sedi-
mentation units. Con-
tact time is flow time
in outfall pipe.
Chlorine solution is
being applied to efflu-
ent from primary sedi-
mentation units. Con-
tact time is flow time
in outfall pipe.
-------
113
Plant
R. P. Kandle
Postchlorination
Jersey City Sewerage
Authority (East side
and west side plants) No
North Bergen Township
Woodclift Section Plant
Yes
*Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners, Newark No
Remarks
Solicited bids on two
occasions. The bids were
considered excessive and
rejected. The 1967 budget
includes money for the
purchase and installation
of postchlorination equip-
ment. It is anticipated
that these facilities will
be in operation by May 15,
1968.
Chlorine solution being
applied to influent to
primary sedimentation
units.
Commissioners submitted on
June 6, 1967, a report
entitled "Report on Pro-
posed Chlorination Facili-
ties," dated April 1967,
to the New Jersey State
Department of Health. The
-------
114
R. P. Kandle
Plant Poatchlorlnation Remarks
Commissioners have taken
no further action.*
West New York Town No Under court order dated
August 3, 1967.
*The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners were
ordered by the Superior Court of New Jersey on
September 19, 1967, to show cause why the Depart-
ment's demands for postchlorination should not
be granted.
* * #
DR. KANDLE: The Jersey City Sewerage Authority
is in the final stages of completing extensive additions
and alterations to the present primary treatment facilities.
These improvements include new grit removal facilities, grease
collection, new comminutors, and a new sludge incinerator.
These improvements have been accomplished at an expenditure
in excess of $3 million.
The Jersey City Sewerage Authority submitted a
report on preliminary.plans for secondary treatment at the
East Side and West Side waste water treatment plants.
The City of Newark completed the southside inter-
deptor on October 24, 1966. The raw sewage and industrial
-------
115
R. P. Kandle
waste formerly discharged into Peddie's Ditch is now inter-
cepted and conveyed to the treatment facilities of the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners. This improvement removed
approximately 30 mgd of waste water from the waters of Newark
Bay.
New Jersey submits this record as a creditable
achievement consonant with the aims of this conference.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes New Jersey's presenta-
tion, although I should like to reserve the option of reopening.
MR. STEIN: That will be done.
That is an excellent statement and a very active
program.
Do we have any comments or questions?
MR. METZLER: I don't have a question, Mr. Chair-
man, but I know how difficult it is to get a program speeded
up at the rate at which this one is going, and I think no one
will overlook the real efforts that have gone into this, the
imagination and leadership, that is making this sort of a
program possible.
It is very heartening to know that we are really
partners in this effort to get cleaned up together.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Metzler.
I think what we have from New Jersey in this
report is a real evidence of a program that is moving. Many
-------
116
R. P. Kandle
of us who have been around the country have listened to
programs, and I think New Jersey has to take second .place to
none with a program of this kind.
Doctor, you know, when you went on the word
"comminutor," you may have bypassed it. You know what you
got in proving that pill. The comminutor may be obsolete in
a few years. (Laughter)
Are there any other comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: Does that conclude New Jersey's
presentation?
DR. KANDLE: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: May we hear from the Interstate
Commission, Mr. Glenn?
MR. GLENN: I would prefer that New York State go
ahead.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to take it up at this
point, Dwight?
MR. METZLER: I would be glad to proceed. As a
matter of fact, we have some people who want to testify, and
it probably would be a convenience to them if we could move
right ahead.
MR. STEIN: All right. Let's move ahead.
Let me give you the plans we have. I don't like
-------
117
to stay much after five o'clock. If we have some people
after five, we will reconvene in the morning.
We have several reasons for that. First, you get
a little tired and maybe you get testy and say things you
don't like to say.
Secondly, I think the critical man is the reporter,
and experience has shown that after five o'clock it becomes
cruel and inhuman punishment. The reporters always tell us
that after five o'clock they get tireder and the people begin
talking faster. (Laughter)
We will take as many as we can until about five
o'clock, and then we will consider it.
Mr. Metzler, will you go on with the New York
presentation?
MR. METZLER: The first representative from New
York then for this portion is Commissioner Hult, Commissioner
of Public Works for the City of New York, who will make a
progress report, and will do this with any assistance from his
staff which he may want.
So, Mr. Hult, will you come forward? If you want
to involve some of your staff, you can go right ahead and do
that.
I might say I think you will find that New York
City has some very imaginative leadership also, and we are
proud to go ahead with Commissioner Hult and his staff.
-------
118
E. E. Hult
STATEMENT OP EUGENE E. HULT, COMMISSIONER
OP PUBLIC WORKS OP THE CITY OP NEW YORK
COMMISSIONER HULT: Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am really wearing two hats. The one I have on
my left side represents Mayor Lindsay, who asked me to
represent him here today. He is kind of tied up in a little
school problem we have, which is a major crisis.
I do know that he would have liked to have been
here to solidify the city's efforts in cleaning up the
problems we have with pollution in all areas, and particularly
water pollution.
As most of you know, he is very interested in water
and water pollution. When he became Mayor in 1966, the reser-
voirs were half empty or less. Today they are overflowing.
We have great confidence in our Mayor. (Laughter)
I am only sorry that Commissioner Marcus, who was
here with me this morning and who is Administrator of
Environmental Protection, had to leave to take up another
assignment, because, with the Mayor out of action, those of
us in the administration are doing double duty.
Yesterday I had the privilege of turning on, or,
-------
119
E. E. Hult
I guess you would call it, actually opening the sluice gate
at Newtown Creek. It was an exciting experience to open the
sewer, and allow all this to run, instead of into the Newtown
Creek, into the East River to a full-fledged operating plant.
The Governor this morning mentioned that a month
ago he participated, and I was there to help to accept a
$10 million check. We had been running water through the
plant. Today we are running sewage. It takes care of two and
a half million people in the Greenpoint and lower New York
area ultimately, and this has been a gigantic undertaking for
the City of New York.
This only illustrates the magnitude of our program.
A $310 million plant makes an impact on whatever we have to
do. It is a giant step forward in our pledge to this con-
ference two years ago, to New York State, to the Interstate
Sanitation Commission, in which we have pledged effective
biological treatment of 100 percent of dry weather waste water
flow by 1972.
The city's plants we have in operation now treat
900 million gallons per day out of a daily flow of 1.3 billion
gallons.
Actually, this conference focuses properly on the
Hudson River, but in New York City, with its complex of
waterfront tributaries, we have to consider everything. It
-------
120
E. E. Hult
is all interrelated.
This necessitates a review of the entire concept
of our program to meaningfully concern ourselves with the
Hudson River.
We hope this conference will hasten programs in
other communities who share our waterways, so that their
treatment facilities will be completed concurrently with ours.
At that time, the end of 1972, our water will be free of
nuisance conditions and the rigorous State stream standards
will be met.
The second phase of our continuing efforts here in
New York City is to take care of that troublesome combination
sewer. The inevitable overflows, particularly this year when
we have had the exceptional amount of rainfall, stormwater
contaminated with diluted sewage all over the city and in
our waterways, has been a real headache.
We have taken the first step in resolving this
problem. As the first of a number, we have completed design
of the Spring Creek auxiliary water pollution control plant,
which will be located out in Janaica Bay, at a cost of $12
million. This is a highly instrumented facility designed to
impound, settle and disinfect stormwater flow. It has been
approved by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
and Nfcw York State. The plans are finished, we are ready to
-------
121
E. E. Hult
go, and all we are waiting for right now to go out for bids
is for the Federal approval for the advertisement of the
structure bids.
Broad Channel, that you perhaps have read about,
in Jamaica Bay, is a small unsewered community in the bay.
The city has undertaken drainage studies to improve the con-
ditions in this area.
As part of this, our staff in Public Works has
the support of the New York State Department of Health for
an in-depth study of all factors involved in the quality of
bathing waters. Initially, the area affected will be in the
Spring Creek project and its outfall. We hope for Federal
support under the demonstration grant program, and we have had
a number of conferences in this area. This study should pro-
ceed concurrently with the Spring Creek construction of the
auxiliary plant.
The third phase of our program is upgrading the
treatment potential of our existing plants, twelve of which
are in operation. We are constantly aware of the changing
technology of environmental protection. The Bureau of Water
Pollution Control in the New York City Department of Public
Works has made major contributions to more effective, more
economical treatment of sewage in the metropolitan area, such
as we have. This includes separation, modified aeration,
-------
122
E. E. Hult
sludge thickening, and high rate digestion. We have been
pioneers in this for a good number of years.
In this area, we are going to give priority to
upgrading the Coney Island and Owls Head plants, and pre-
liminary feasibility studies are under way.
Just to give you a brief look at the detail of the
three phases that we are involved in — and bear in mind that
the completion of the basic program in 1972 dictates that we
must be moving today to accomplish this in the major facili-
ties — the first step of the auxiliary treatment plant, such
as Spring Creek, should be under way by the end of this year,
196?) and the initial design of the third phase, the upgrading
of the present plants, by next year, 1968.
The basic program is, of course, the prime concern
of this conference. We started in 1931 with a construction
program. One of our people who is here today was here in
1931, and they were the pioneers in the New York City treat-
ment plant extension program.
Prom 1931 to 19^5, we completed 500 million gallons
per day of treatment capacity, totaling $6? million.
From 19^8 to 1957, we had completed another 400
million gallons per day of treatment capacity, at a cost of
$117 million.
In 1958, we shifted to improved plant capacity and
-------
123
E. E. Hult
treatment at the existing plants due to population shifts,
who were moving from the centers of the city out to the
rivers and the waterfronts.
The remaining major project that we have before
us is Staten Island, a last frontier, popularly known as the
garden spot of New York, which has two plants, Port Richmond
and Oakwood Beach. We have decided to move immediately with
the upgrading of these plants, both in capacity and effective
treatment. In effect, they will become super-plants fed by
an economical system, by pumping stations and force mains.
I have just about completed design negotiations
with two engineering firms, each of whom will handle the ex-
pansion and change-over of these two plants. There will be
considerable emphasis on effluent dispersion patterns at
Oakwood Beach to insure compatibility with restoration of the
Staten Island beaches.
The Red Hook plant in Brooklyn: We are looking
at the present time for property on the Brooklyn shorefront
as this will tighten up the bottom of the lower end of
Manhattan and a small piece of Brooklyn, and pick up the
effluent or the raw sewage that is now being dumped into the
lower East River, and with a very definite possibility we are
going to tie this into a major facility of the Department of
Sanitation, where there will be an incinerator and a marine
-------
124
E. E. Hult
transfer station along with the sewage disposal plant.
As I said, the sites are now being examined, and
we hope to have a decision before the end of the year, so
that we can be under way with the engineers who are presently
working in the very preliminary stages of a study. The
interceptor design is on schedule, and we assume we will be
ready for contract on the interceptors.
North River: The designs are complete for the
plant and most of the interceptors.
Mayor Lindsay, some months ago, before I came on
the scene, ordered an independent engineering and architectural
study of this $200 million project. The purpose was to make
sure that the design as proposed would meet the New York State
Class I standard for the Hudson River, and to insure esthetic
compatibility with the neighborhood community and the other
areas of the Hudson River.
The engineering report has been submitted to the
Department of Public Works. Philip Johnson, an eminent
architect in New York City, has submitted his design layout,
which I have in my office, and which I have reviewed with
Mayor Lindsay. The adoption of the design layout concept
proposed by Mr. Johnson will delay start for changes in the
plans until mid-1968, but with that clearance, we see no
i
problem in finishing this 220 million capacity plant in the
-------
125
E. E. Hult
Hudson River in time for 1972.
MR. STEIN: That is 220 million gallons?
COMMISSIONER HULT: Right. The gallons and the
dollars are getting very close together. (Laughter)
As for the second phase that I mentioned, the
auxiliary treatment storm overflow plant, we think that the
scientific study of the effect of this particular plant,
Spring Creek, on coliform population is very important, and
it is very appropriate to do this at this time.
This conference — and I say this very strongly
from the city administration — is earnestly requested to ask
Federal approval to give us some help in this study, along
with the State. We need a before and after evaluation of
Jamaica Bay in the area of the Spring Creek plant.
Finally, and most appropriate, with representatives -
MR. STEIN: Mr. Hult, before you go on there, do you
have an estimate of the cost of that?
COMMISSIONER HULT: You mean of the study?
MR. STEIN: The study.
COMMISSIONER HULT: No, I don't know,
MR. LANG: $1 million.
MR. STEIN: For how long? Over how many years?
MR. LANG: It is phased over a three-year period,
sir.
-------
126
E. E. Hult
MR. STEIN: In other words, you will need about
$330,000 a year?
MR. LANG: In that order.
MR. STEIN: Of Federal funds?
MR. LANG: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. LANG: With substantial city participation as
well.
MR. STEIN: Yes, but this is what you need?
MR. LANG: Yes.
MR. STEIN: I thought we might be able to handle
it, but I'm afraid you are getting a little high.
COMMISSIONER HULT: Whatever you can give will be
appreciated. (Laughter)
MR. STEIN: We may be able to talk about that. We
are getting a little close.
COMMISSIONER HULT: All right.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HULT: Finally, and most appropriate
with representatives of the Federal and State agencies here,
is to consider the impact of their aid programs on the big
construction program that we have in New York City.
In 1965, when Mayor Wagner was here, he pointed
out that between- 1957 and 1965, $223,000/X>0 had been spent
-------
127
E. E. Hult
by New York City. We received help from the State of New
York in the sum of $3.4 million for design and borings,
$2.3 million from the Federal Government for construction.
Since 1965, under the New York State Pure Waters
Bond Act, $65 million of the Newtown Creek construction was
declared eligible for aid up to 60 percent, or $39 million.
We have received already $31 million from the State of New
York. Federal aid amounted to 0.15 percent, the maximum
allowed, or $250,000 under existing Federal legislation.
We have filed current construction projects of
$225 million. The allotments, as we see it, amount to State
aid of $131 million and Federal aid of $4 million, a total
of $135 million. There is a possibility of Federal aid up to
55 percent of the eligible cost, if they appropriate money.
The conference here and this group of conferees is
requested to convey to the Federal authorities the urgency
for appropriations realistically related to the actual needs.
I am turning over a position paper which we have
written as a guide to your group. We hope you won't nit-pick
it. It is there for background material on our program. It
contains a revised schedule ind a detailed timetable for the
next five years, and I will file it with a copy of my state-
ment that I have Just made.
Thank you very much.
-------
128
E. E. Hult
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
How long is that statement?
COMMISSIONER HULT: How long is what?
MR. STEIN: That statement you are filing?
COMMISSIONER HULT: Just what I said.
MR. STEIN: I want to know how long it is, whether
we want it in the record as if read, or as an exhibit.
May I see that, Mr. Lang?
MR. LANG: Yes (handing same to Mr. Stein). This
is the statement and this is the detailed exhibit.
MR. STEIN: I am looking at this. I think this is
a key document and I would like the views of the conferees on
this.
Without objection, I think we will put this posi-
tion paper in the record as if read.
COMMISSIONER HULT: That is perfectly all right
with me.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
(The position paper referred to is as follows:)
-------
129
E. E. Hult
CITY OP NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
A PRESENTATION
on
THE NEW YORK CITY
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
September 1967
NEW YORK CITY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of New York is intensively engaged in
two programs to abate pollution in harbor waters. These are
(1) The Basic Water Pollution Control Program and (2) The
Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Program.
The Basic Water Pollution Control Program is
directed towards the treatment of the city's wastewater in
modern plants, in general of the activated sludge type.
The Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Program is
directed toward the retention and disinfection, by means of
sodium hypochlorite, of all combined overflows in times of
rainfall at locations where the waters are to be used for
-------
130
E. E. Hult
recreational purposes, especially at locations of planned
bathing beaches.
Over thirty years ago, the people of New York City
voted to approve a charter change which consolidated efforts
toward control of pollution in harbor waters into a single
city-wide agency. The consolidated function was first
assigned to the Department of Sanitation, and subsequently,
by 1938 Charter change, to the then newly formed Department
of Public Works. The direct responsibility for the design,
construction, maintenance and operation of the city's waste-
water treatment plants and intercepting sewer system lies in
the Bureau of Water Pollution Control of the Department of
Public Works.
On January 1, 19&3, by Charter Amendment, juris-
diction over the sewer systems in the five boroughs of the
city was vested in the Department of Public Works, and added
to the responsibilities of the Bureau of Water Pollution
Control. The Bureau now has a personnel of over 2,000.
II BASIC WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
The City of New York is rapidly bringing to comple-
tion a program started some forty years ago to treat the
city's wastewater. A major depression and wars were factors
in retarding this program. Availability of Federal and State
-------
131
E. E. Hult
construction aid in recent years has added momentum to bring
this program to its conclusion. The city is committed to
complete all phases of the program by 1972.
The modern program for water pollution control
started on its construction phase in 1931 with the beginning
of work at Wards Island. At present, the entire program
envisions 18 treatment plants and intercepting sewer systems
located about the waterfront areas of the city. The number of
plants and the type of treatment may be modified by consolida-
tion of plants and upgrading of treatment if more intensified
studies warrant such changes. Such studies are currently
under way and definitive answers should be available in the
near future. Figure 1 - "Plan for Pollution Control," shows
the number, locations and design capacities of the treatment
plants involved in the basic program. (See following page.)
Twelve of the 18 plans are presently in operation;
number 13, the Newton Creek plant, largest in the program,
will be in operation during the summer of 19^7. Not all
parts of the tributary areas of these plants, however, are
contributing flow, either because the areas are not completely
sewered, or because not all the intercepting sewers and
pumping stations necessary to convey the wastewater to the
treatment plants have been built.
-------
L32
POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS
.;/'
4.0CAIOA, CA>AC.I» ;«CM
PnEStNT U.TMAT'
MANHATTAN
»»OW MANHATTAN 100
I *0*T« «yf» {JO JJO
1 NUKTS
4 CITT
fV'ff .-..- ••J' ; . / 3Wi ~J^ •» * '<•
A/^^r^^^f^X5^ ^,1 ^
*1k\
. y S /. .•/•' A. s:i~ <
° © S?^JAW*
-------
133
E. E. Hult
The criterion used to measure the efficacy of
elimination of organic pollution is the conventionally
accepted percentage of removal of five-day Biochemical
Oxygen Demand.
In 1966 the Water Pollution Control Program had
twelve plants completed and in operation, treating two-thirds
of the city's wastewater. Ten major biological treatment
plants give secondary treatment to about 800 million gallons
per day. Only about 8 million gallons per day, in two small
plants, receive just primary treatment. Only three of the
secondary treatment plants are now operated continually or
seasonally on the "step aeration" process to yield BOD re-
movals of about 9O#. However, six major plants are equipped
to do so, and eventually will be so operated, of course. In
this interim period, seven plants are utilizing "modified"
or "high rate" aeration to achieve BOD removals above 6o#.
Based on the five-year (1961-1965) plant averages
for flow, influent BOD, and effluent BOD, of all twelve of
the existing plants, the raw load of the treated wastewater
is 991,800 Ibs. of BOD per day, and the BOD in the treated
effluent is 307,800 Ibs. per day as per the following break-
down in Table I.
-------
E. E. Hult
TABLE I
CURRENT OPERATION OP TREATMENT
PLANTS NOW EXISTING
Plow
Plant M.G.D.
Wards Island
Hunts Point
26th Ward
Coney Island
Owls Head
Jamaica
Tallman Island
Bowery Bay
Rockaway
Oakwood Beach
Hart Island
Port Richmond
210
120
53
85
92
72
42
100
17
9
1
10
Influent BOD
Lbs./Day
263,500
124,000
47,000
85,000
100,000
80,000
75,000
174,000
13,500
7,800
5,000
17,000
Effluent BOD
Lbs./Day
57,000
33,500
10,000
37,000
52,000
31,000
21,500
52,000
5,000
2,800
1,000
5,000
991,800
307,800
Therefore in the present interim phase, with the
plants not operated to the full design intent, removal in the
treated wastewater is :
99,900 - 307,800 =
991,800
-------
135
E. E. Hult
The presently untreated wastewater load has been
computed on the basis of the population of the untreated
drainage areas with normal New York City wastewater strength,
except for the Newtown Creek drainage area, with its industri-
al load. (See Table II, next page.) This untreated load is
421,610 Ibs. of BOD per day.
Therefore the 1966 city-wide BOD removal,
accounting for direct raw discharges, was:
1,413,410 - 729,410 =
which means that with twelve plants presently providing
less than full design treatment to two- thirds of New York
City's wastewater, the overall pollutant removal for the city
was 48#.
The City of New York has committed itself to the
construction of five additional plants in the near future,
one of which, the Newtown Creek, will open during the summer
of 1967. Five of the existing plants will be extended. This
program will be completed by 1972. At that time a total
treatment capacity of 1.8 billion gallons per day will be
provided, capable of accommodating almost a 40$ growth in
New York City. Twelve of these plants will provide for re-
moval of 92# of the BOD, based on the weighted average per-
formance over the past five years with the complete Gould
-------
136
TABLE II
CURRENT UNTREATED NEtf YORK CITY BOD DISCHARGES
I UPPER HUDSON LOADS
Marble Hill - 8200 x UiO QPCD - 1.15 MOD x 132 PPM x 8.3U • 1270 I/Day
II LOWER HUDSON
Man - N.R.* - 66lliOO x 1UO - 92.5 x 132 x 8.3U "102000
Man - N.C. - 150000 x lliO - 213$ x 132 x 8.3U • 23000
HI HARLEM RIVER
Bronx & Man. - 95000 x 1UO • 13.3 x " x » *- 1U600
TV LOWER EAST
Manhattan - 291UOO x 11*0 - la x " x " . • 'J£$00
Bklyn & Qns - 763600 x lliO • TO x 139 x 8.3U - 170000
Red Hook - 130000 x lUO - 1872 x 132 x 8.3U " "2£gg5
V UPPER BAY
Red Hook - 100000 xlljO-lU X » x"" 15UOO
VI RARITAN BAY
Bltinprillfl - 10000 xlUO-lJi x" X "-
VH ARTHUR KILL
22000 xlliO-3.1 x" x "- 3UOO
ProotoP & Gamble •
VIH KILL VAN KULL
35000 x lliO - U.9 x " x "
Total 1*217515 'Lbs ./Day
l&n. - 2T.R. - North River Drainage Area-xof IJanhattan
Man. - N.C. - Newtown Creek Drainage Area of Manhattan
- 6 -
-------
137
E. E. Hult
step aeration1 process. The remaining five plants will
provide 'modified aeration1 treatment to conservatively yield
a 63$ BOD removal, based on the plant experience for the past
five years as per the following breakdown in Table III.
(See following page.)
-------
TABLE in
SUMMARY OP OPERATING DATA AT NEW TORK CITT
MODIFIED AERATION PLANTS OPERATED WITHOUT PRE-SEDIMENTATION
Plant
Kama
Coney 'island
Average
1965
196U
1963
Rockavray
Average
1965
1961,
1963
1962
Jamaica
Average
I960
1959
1958
1957
Oalruood
Average
1965
1961,
1963
1962
Owls Head
Average
1957
1958
1959
I960
Average of All
Percent
BOD
Removal
66
65
71
61
62
65
60
59
63
72
65
71
75
78
63
56
5U
70
71
55
58
Sli
56
63
Sludge
Ago
Days
.19
.19
.16
.21,
.23
.29
.27
.22
.15
.67
.57
.65
.78
.70
.37
.35
.36
.147
.32
!26
.21
.23
.23
.314
Influent
SS BOD
163
170
171
1147
121,
U45
112
112
126
192
175
179
199
213
165
168
166
171
155
156
155
11,9
155
163
160
iia
150
1147
125
87
100
92
81
73
1314
130
12U
135
11,6
•98
109
83
113
87
151
163
161,
1514
121
121
Flow
MOD
77.33
69.U
76.U
86.2
15.52
lh.2
UuO
H4.7
19.2
5U.15
57.3
53
5U.6
51.7
9.6
:9.~3
10
8.9
10.2
93.52
87,'8
93
96
97.3
MM«*
, Aerator
! S.S. Time Air
, PPM Hours Ft^/0*!
1460
390
580
363
380
310
300
1,60
919
889
827
1,029
930
1AO
390
2420
1480
350
5W4
630
510
533
510
5143
1.6
1.8
1.6
l.fe
1.90
2.3
2.1
2
1.2
2.57
2.1
2.6
2.7
2.9
3.02
3.0
2.9
3.3
2.9
1.145
1.1,
1.5
1.5
1.14
2.13
.25
.2U
.29
.23
.a
.143
.1,6
.114
.32
.52
.Uo
.52
.57
.62
.36
.U,
.36
.35
.32
.30
.31
.28
.30
.314
.37
Overflow
Oal/Ft2 /Day
1,297
1,170
1,230
960
620
160
580
690
750
697
7fc5
715
669
660
660
600
7140
600
700
857
810
81,7
880
891
7145
00
-------
139
E. E. Hult
New York City has a static, even shrinking,
population. A fantastic growth to a population of 11 million
would be required, at present per capita flows, to deliver
/
the full design contribution to the plants. The expected re-
movals for this extreme condition have been computed by three
different methods as follows:
METHOD 1.
PROJECTION OP CITY-WIDE DEGREE OP BOD REMOVAL,
WITH ALL PLANTS TREATING FULL DESIGN PLOW.
A. Determination of Ultimate Load, with 1.8 Billion Gallons
per Day flow, by extrapolation of present load, computed
on per capita contribution.
Residents
7.9 Million Persons at 0.18 #/Day/Cap
7.9 x 106 x 0.18 = 1,421,000 #/Day
Trans ients
500,000 Persons at 0.06 #/Day/Cap
0.5 x 106 x 0.06 = 30,000 #/Day
-------
140
E. E. Hult
Industrial
In Newtown Creek and Bowery Bay Area
Bowery Bay 110 MGD x 8.34 x (189-132) = 32,000 #/Day
Newtown Creek 2-1/2 (Flow of Bowery Bay)
2-1/2 x 52,000 = 182,000 #/Day
Procter & Gamble, Staten Island = 10,000 #/Day
Total 1,653,000 #/Day
1,653,000 #/Day x 1.8 Billion Gal/Day =2,290,000 #/Day
1.3 Billion Gal/Day Ultimate Load
B. Determination of Ultimate Load, with 1.8 Billion Gallons
per day flow, by use of known strengths of sanitary and
industrial flows.
BOD strength of normal wastewater in those plants in
primarily non-industrial areas (See Figure 2, Page 12)
is 132 ppm, or 1100 Ibs/MGD.
BOD strength of wastewater in plants treating residen-
tial and industrial areas (Bowery Bay) is 189 ppm.
1500 MGD at 1100 Ibs/MGD = 1,650,000 Ibs.
300 MGD (Industrial) x 189 x 8.34 = 473,000 Ibs.
2,123,000 Ibs./day
ULTIMATE LOAD
-------
E. E. Hult
C. Determination of BOD to be discharged ultimately.
1) Degree of Treatment at Modified Aeration Plants.
Average of all such plants, without primary sedi-
mentation tanks, based on most recent operation
experience is 63$ BOD Removal. (See Table III,
Page 8)
2) Degree of treatment at Step Aeration Plants, using
all available experience of past five years is 92$
BOD removal.
% Rem. Months
Wards Island
Hunts Point
Bowery Bay
95
(86
(89
(95
(82
84
60
12
1
5
7
2
Weighted
Average
92*
3) By attributing the above average to future plants,
but rating existing plants at their actual per-
i
formances, the consultant firm of Quirk, Lawler
and Matusky, project the following BOD loadings from
treated plant effluents:
-------
142
E. E. Hult
Upper Hudson
Lower Hudson
Harlem River
Upper East River
Lower East River
Kill Van Kull
Arthur Kill
Raritan Bay
Ocean, Jamaica Bay and
Upper Bay
0 #/Day
110,000 #/Day
0 #/Day
52,500 #/Day
176,000 #/Day
4,000 #/Day
5,600 #/Day
2,000 #/Day
91,000 #/Day
Total Load from
New York City 441,000 #/Day
D. Removal
Influent Load, average of A. and B.,
Effluent Discharge
2,200,000 - 441,000
2,200,000
2,200,000 Ibs/Day
441,000 Ibs/fcay
-------
o
o
01
1300
1200
2 noo
H
w
O 1000
o
o
o
8 90°
01
r>
LL
2
800
7OO
NEW YORK CITY
POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE
OF UNIT INFLUENT BOD LOAD
5 YEAR AVERAGE, 1961-1965
rb"
- S3
? Pf
^?
x
CONE>
/
HUNTS POIN
C ISLAND O
^
/
1 v/Anc
T Q,
WAF
/
JP
^ \:
/
JAN
iLANI
/
OOVi
IAICA
) 0
/
/
S
US HJ
/
/,
.AU
/
r ALL MA
NS ISU
\ND
SOURCE OF DATA:
PLANT EFFICIENCY SUMMARIES
N.Y.C.D.P.V7. POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS
-
O.I O.2 O.5 I
10
00
90 95
20 30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT OF TIME INFLUENT BOD CONCENTRATION
IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE STATED VALUE
90 99
99.0995
99.99
U)
-------
144
E. E. Hult
METHOD 2.
PROJECTION OP CITY-WIDE DEGREE OP BOD
REMOVAL, WITH ALL PLANTS TREATING FULL
DESIGN FLOW.
With all plants constructed, there will be:
830 MGD of Modified Aeration Capacity
970 MGD of Step Aeration Capacity
830 x .63 = 523
970 x .92 = 893
1800 /I,4l6 = 79
Weighted average removal =
METHOD 3.
PROJECTION OF CITY-WIDE DEGREE OF BOD
REMOVAL, WITH ALL PLANTS TREATING FULL
DESIGN FLOW.
Present Flow = 1.3 B.G.D,
Design Flow = 1.8 B.G.D,
Increase in Flow - 500 MGD
Present Plant Capacity = 1,037 MGD
Additional Plant Capacity to be
Constructed = 758 MGD
How will the additional 500 MGD be distributed
-------
145
E. E. Hult
between the two types of treatment?
Pull design flow postulates a 38$ increase in
New York City flows and load. At least two-thirds of this
should be attributed to those areas of the city with a poten-
tial for population growth. At most, one- third can be
attributed to such areas as Manhattan, and the industrial
complexes like Long Island City, Erie Basin and Bush Terminal,
which happen to be served exclusively or mainly by modified
aeration plants.
At presently known flows, with all plants built,
the distribution of treatment would be:
600 MOD by Modified Treatment
700 MGD by Step Aeration
By logically prorating the additional 500 MGD,
the eventual allocation would be:
(600 + 167) = 767 MGD by Modified Treatment
(700 + 333) = 1,033 MGD by Step Aeration
767 x .63 = 483
1033 x .92 - 951
1800 /1,434 = 80
Weighted average removal =
Summary of three methods of computation: Method 1
-------
146
E. E. Hult
was based on known wastewater strengths, industrial loads,
and existing plant performances. Method 2 was based on
weighted average removals, if all plants received flow exactly
as designed. Method 3 was based on weighted average removals,
with any increase beyond the now known flows rationally
allocated to the two degrees of treatment.
The results are:
Method 1 -
Method 2 -
Method 3 -
By 1972, with eighteen plants treating New York
City's wastewater to full design intent, the overall pollutant
removal will be
The auxiliary water pollution control program,
with the auxiliary plants impounding storm overflows in
Jamaica Bay, Eastchester Bay, and the Upper East River, will
be completed by 1980. Estimates of the proportion of normal
dry weather BOD contribution that is spilled over during
storm overflows have been cited from 5 to 10 percent. A
further annual reduction of BOD in these drainage areas by
the detention, settling, degritting, and effluent disinfection
in these facilities of at least 2 percent is conservative.
The firm of Quirk, Lawler and Matusky, Engineers,
was retained by the city to analyze the effect of pollution
-------
14?
E. E. Hult
and treatment processes on water quality in the Hudson River.
This report, titled "Analysis of the Process Design of the
North River Pollution Control Project and of its Effect on
Water Quality in the Hudson River" and dated February 19&7,
separately bound, is made a part of this presentation.
In addition to the twelve treatment plants presently
in operation, the completion of the basic water pollution
control program will require the following projects:
NEWTOWN CREEK
The construction of this treatment plant is
nearing completion. Initial operation, accepting wastewater
from most of the Brooklyn and Queens tributary areas, will
commence in the summer of 1967. The flow from Manhattan will
be added in 1968 when the large pumping station at Avenue D
and East 13th Street and the remaining portions of the inter-
ceptors have been completed. The new sludge vessel, now under
construction, is scheduled for completion early in 1968.
NORTH RIVER
A large project under design is the North River
W.P.C. Plant and its system of intercepting sewers which will
treat the raw sewage from Manhattan now entering the Hudson
and Harlem Rivers from Bank Street north to and including the
-------
148
E. E. Hult
northernmost part of the island and around the Harlem River
as far south as East l89th Street. The plant will be situ-
ated between West 137th Street and West l45th Street on the
North River. The preliminary plant design was completed by
private consultants during the year 1964 and final design is
nearing completion. The intercepting sewers will be built
under five sections, one of which was placed under contract
in 1966. Design of three more is well advanced and will be
completed in 1967. The final and fifth section will be ready
for contract in early 1968. The project will have a capacity
\ i
of 220 MOD.
The location, technical design and esthetic
features of this plant have been undergoing independent
critical review. The technical plans have been given
clearance in a report by sanitary engineering consultants,
Quirk, Lawler and Matusky. The esthetic features are under
study by an outstanding architect, Philip Johnson. It is
hoped that when his report has been received we will be able
to complete the final design including whatever revisions
are recommended, and advance the construction of this impor-
tant plant.
WARDS ISLAND EXTENSION
The construction of 3 pumping stations, force
-------
149
E. E. Hult
mains and intercepting sewers serving the Riverdale area
in the Bronx, started in 1965, was 95$ complete by the end of
1966.
The preliminary designs for expansion of the Wards
Island plant from 220 MGD to 290 MOD were completed by con-
sultants. Detail design is being processed, in part, by
DPW personnel starting with rehabilitation of the Manhattan
and Bronx Grit Chambers, construction of which will start in
1967. Plant expansion is several years away.
RED HOOK
The site for the Red Hook plant in Brooklyn was
adopted during 19^5. Unfortunately this site, selected for
a high rate activated sludge plant, will be inadequate to
accommodate an upgraded treatment facility using the Gould
'step-aeration' process as now proposed to meet newly fixed
State and Federal requirements. Hence it will be necessary
to augment or shift this site. In the meantime the inter-
ceptor designs are advancing. At the end of 1966, final
design of the north branch intercepting sewer was about 50#
completed and the south branch 25$.
Completion of Riverdale, Newtown Creek, North
River and Red Hook projects will eliminate the last major
discharges of raw sewage into the harbor from the four most
-------
150
E. E. Hult
populous boroughs.
Realization of this interim goal will reduce the
pollutional load on the Hudson, Harlem and East Rivers,
and Newtown Creek by an equivalent population of over 3,000,000
persons. This will significantly improve the sanitary quality
of the waters in the inner harbor.
STATEN ISLAM) PROJECTS
There is a small plant providing primary treatment
at Port Richmond, Staten Island. In 1964 consultants began a
comprehensive study under the State Aid Program for the ex-
pansion of this project from primary treatment for 10 MOD to
secondary treatment for 60 MGD. At the end of 1966 this study
was substantially complete.
The final design, which will commence in 1967, will
be based on upgrading treatment of the Gould 'step-aeration1
process in order to meet increased requirements of the regu-
latory agencies. The design of the west branch interceptor
was completed in 1966 and construction will start shortly.
Preliminary design of the east branch intercepting sewer was
started during the year and will be completed in 1967.
Present studies indicate that we will not construct
a plant in the Bloomfield area within the next three decades,
if at all. Inasmuch as the waters of the Arthur Kill are in
a degraded condition, we prefer to pump Bloomfield wastewater
-------
151
E. E. Hult *
over to the Port Richmond plant for treatment there.
Whether we ever build a plant on the Arthur Kill will depend
upon the population growth in the two areas and the turn of
industrial development.
The other facility presently in operation on
Staten Island is known as the Oakwood Beach Plant located in
the Great Kills Park. Preliminary for the west branch inter-
ceptor has been completed by consultants. Construction of
this long branch will make possible the conveyance of sewage
to the plant from the entire south shore of Staten Island
from Great Kills Park to Prince's Bay. A pumping station will
be built to include the Eltingville area in this project.
The plant will be expanded from 15 to 30 MGD capacity in the
near future.
The Tottenville area is of great concern because
of the tentative classification of the waters of Raritan Bay
for shellfishing. Consultants have completed the compre-
hensive study for a small plant.
The Fresh Kills area is the last remaining region
to be considered in our plans to provide treatment facilities
for Staten Island sewage. A State-aided comprehensive study
by consultants is 45# complete.
In conclusion, Section II of this presentation
indicates that in a matter of five or six years the basic
-------
152
E. E. Hult
water pollution control program for the entire city, as
originally planned, should be completed, and should result
in an overall removal of better than 8o# of the total BOD
in the city's wastewater.
Ill - CONSOLIDATION OP TREATMENT PLANTS -
BASIC WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
A reduction in the total number of treatment plants
as originally proposed under the Basic Program is highly
desirable. Fewer plants are less costly to construct, main-
tain, and operate. A larger plant requires only a few more
men for operation than a smaller one. Rising labor costs can
be expected over a long period of time. It is thus apparent
that substantial savings can be achieved by reducing the
number of plants required to treat the city's total waste-
water. Improved operation and treatment is also indicated by
having fewer and larger plants.
This concept of consolidation of plants and re-
ducing the total number of plants required under the Basic
Program is applicable to the Borough of Richmond. To complete
the Basic Program as originally planned would require in addi-
tion to the two presently existing plants and proposed ex-
tensions to these two plants, the following new projects:
-------
153
E. E. Hult
Project Ultimate Capacity
Bloomfield 10 MGD
Fresh Kills 10 MGD
Tottenville 12 MGD
We are now planning to deliver the Bloomf ield flow,
by pumping stations and force mains, to the Port Richmond
Extension up to the time the 60 MGD planned design capacity
of this plant is exceeded, which we expect will not be
reached until the early part of the next century, if at( all.
\
If and when it appears that the design capacity of the Port
Richmond Extension will be exceeded, consideration will be
given to providing a separate treatment plant for the Bloom-
field drainage area. The sewage pumping stations, force
mains and intercepting sewer system are so designed as to
provide for this eventuality. The Port Richmond Extension
will be designed for the 'step-aeration1 activated sludge
process.
Studies are under way to eliminate the presently
proposed Tottenville and Fresh Kills Treatment Plants. Wider
this new proposal, the present Oakwood Beach plant will be
enlarged and will, in addition to the flow from its drainage
area, receive the added flows from the Tottenville and Fresh
Kills drainage areas. The Oakwood Beach Extension will be
-------
E. E. Hult
designed for the 'step-aeration' activated sludge process.
The planned ultimate design capacity of the Oakwood Beach
Extension, to accommodate the projected increased flow from
its drainage area as well as the additional flows from
Tottenville and Fresh Kills drainage areas will be 60 MGD.
However, this full capacity will not be required for a long
time and the expansion program will be phased in two stages,
with Stage 1 entailing a design capacity of 30 MGD, or twice
the presently provided Oakwood Beach capacity, and Stage 2
providing the additional capacity of 30 MGD for a total ulti-
mate design capacity of 60 MGD. In any case, flexibility
will be provided in the pumping stations, force mains and
intercepting sewers which will permit construction of addi-
tional plants if the ultimate design capacity of the Oakwood
Beach Extension is exceeded in the future. Sites for this
eventuality are being reserved.
The Borough of Richmond will then have only two
major 'step-aeration' activated sludge treatment plants
capable of removing upwards of 90$ of the BOD from the waste-
water of the Borough.
Consolidation of treatment plants in other boroughs
of the city is not deemed feasible due to cost, site limita-
tions and intercepting sewer complications.
In conclusion, Section III of this presentation
-------
E. E. Hult 155
indicates that the 18 plants as originally proposed under the
Basic Program can be reduced to 15 by consolidation.
IV. UPGRADING OF TREATMENT AT EXISTING OR PROPOSED MODIFIED
'AERATION PLANTS - BASIC WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM.
This section will explore the overall feasibility
of upgrading the treatment potential at existing or proposed
modified or short-period aeration plants under the Basic
Program.
The plants involved3 design capacities, and the
type of treatment designed for are as follows:
Ultimate Design Type
Plant Capacity, MGD Treatment
North River 220 Short Period Aeration
City Island-Hart Island 3 Primary Sedimentation
Newtown Creek 310 Modified Aeration
Coney Island 110 Modified Aeration
Owls Head 160 Modified Aeration
Rockaway 30 Modified Aeration
Port Richmond* 60 Modified Aeration
Oakwood Beach 30 Modified Aeration
Fresh Kills 10 Modified Aeration
Red Hook 50 Modified Aeration
*Includes Bloomfield
-------
156
E. E. Hult
Feasibility studies directed towards the overall
objective of upgrading the treatment potential at the above
listed plants, in part, or in total, will be conducted.
Site limitations, cost, and other problems may impose ob-
stacles towards the entire fulfillment of this objective.
RICHMOND Conditions in the Borough of Richmond
offer the least difficulty to the stated objective. As dis-
cussed in Section III, Richmond will by consolidation have
only two large treatment plants to handle the entire borough's
wastewater, namely the Port Richmond Plant and the Oakwood
Beach Plant. Both the existing plants will be altered and
expanded by Extensions to provide capacity to accommodate the
entire borough's wastewater flow to at least the early part
of the next century. As presently proposed, both Extensions
will be designed for the 'step-aeration1 activated sludge
process. This process insures consistent BOD removals in
excess of 90#. This will result in the substantial abatement
of pollution from the Borough of Richmond in the waterways
abutting the State of New Jersey.
BROOKLYN By comparison, the Borough of Brooklyn
being more highly developed than the Borough of Richmond,
offers considerably more difficulties. The physical limita-
tions of available area for enlargement of existing sites for
Extensions and the nature of the reconstruction of existing
-------
157
E. E. Hult
facilities to upgrade treatment complicates the problem and
severely hinders accomplishing the desired objective of
providing treatment by the 'step-aeration1 process.
CONEY ISLAND
This plant presents few difficulties in regard
to conversion. Sufficient land is available to fully
accommodate a plant using the 'step-aeration' process. The
conversion would require alterations to existing structures
and the following new structures: 1) primary settling
tanks, 2) additional aeration tanks along with increased
blower capacity, and 3) additional sludge thickeners. The
present digestor capacity is considered adequate for 'step'
sludge operation. At the time a decision is made to convert
to'step-aeration' treatment, a complimentary decision will be
made to abandon power generation and operate the plant on
purchased utility power, if such proves economically feasible.
OWLS HEAD
A study is presently under way to provide addi-
tional site area at this plant by filling the offshore por-
tion of the plant property on the south side of the existing
site. It is expected that this will provide sufficient land
for the structures required for conversion to the 'step-
-------
158
E. E. Hult
aeration' process. The conversion would require alterations
to the existing structures and the following new structures:
1) primary settling tanks, 2) additional aeration tanks with
increased blower capacity, and 3) sludge thickening tanks.
The present digestor capacity is considered adequate for
•step1 sludge operations. A decision to abandon power genera-
tion similar to Coney Island, will be made.
RED HOOK
This plant as originally proposed under the Basic
Program was to be designed for the 'raodified-aeration'
process. A site for this type of plant was selected under
the Manhattan Bridge. Conversion of the design to 'step-
aeration1 at this site presents tremendous difficulties in
view of the limited area available. However, it may be
possible for the City of New York to acquire a suitable site
for a 'step-aeration' plant at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, which
is scheduled to be abandoned. The Red Hook plant will be
designed for a capcity of 50 MGD based on average sewage flow,
NEVfTOWN CREEK
The conversion of the Newtown Creek Plant from
'modified1 to 'step-aeration' presents the most difficulties
of all the plants in the city system. This plant designed
-------
159
E. E. Hult
for a capacity of 310 MGD based on an average sewage flow is
on a 32-acre site practically all of which is occupied by
structures. Hence, the possibility of converting this plant
to 'step-aeration1 is extremely doubtful. The area surround-
s
ing this site is presently fully occupied by industrial
establishments or residential structures. Acquisition of
additional site area by the City of New York would require
condemnation at great expense. This possibility is there-
fore considered only as a last resort. If it is deemed neces-
sary to convert the Newtown Creek Plant to 'step-aeration1,
it will be necessary to make changes to the present plant by
modifications to the aeration and final tanks to permit addi-
tion of primary sedimentation tanks, aeration tanks and final
tanks, as required by 'step-aeration1 and limit the capacity
of the altered plant to permit handling of only the Brooklyn
and Queens flows, or for a capacity of 140 MGD based on an
average sewage flow. The Manhattan flow would then essen-
tially require the construction of a new 'step-aeration'
plant, on a new site abutting the 'step-aeration1 plant
handling the Brooklyn and Queens flows. This additional
plant required to handle the Manhattan flow will then have a
design capacity of 170 MGD based on an average sewage flow
for a total combined flow of the two plants of 310 MGD.
Abandoning of power generation at the plant and converting
-------
160
E. E. Hult
to purchased utility power would also be indicated.
The conversion of existing structures and the ex-
pansion required for this proposal is of such great extent
that enormous capital costs would be required. A decision
of such great importance is involved that considerable 'in
depth* study would have to be made to obtain a viable solution
to the problem.
QUEENS-ROCKAWAY The Borough of Queens offers the
least problem toward the objectives of achieving conversion
of 'modified-aeration1 plants to the 'step-aeration' process.
The only project involved is the Rockaway plant. Sufficient
area is available at the site of the Rockaway plant to con-
vert from 'modified-aeration1 to 'step-aeration. ' The con-
version requires the following:
1. New preliminary sedimentation tanks.
2. Additional aeration tanks as well as addi-
tional process air blower capacity.
3. Additional sludge thickening tanks.
BRONX The Borough of the Bronx is not involved.
The drainage area is presently receiving 'step-aeration'
treatment at 2 plants, namely, Wards Island and Hunts Point.
The only exception is the small flow receiving primary treat-
ment at the City Island-Hart Island plant.
-------
161
E. E. Hult
MANHATTAN-NORTH RIVER In the Borough of
Manhattan only the North River Plant is involved since the
remaining portions of the Manhattan drainage areas receive
treatment at the Wards Island and Nevrbown Creek Plants.
The North River Plant presently designed for
'short-period aeration' activated sludge treatment has site
limitations which preclude full conversion to 'step-aeration'
treatment. However, there is an area available to the south
of the present site that can be prepared for site expansion.
This will permit conversion of the North River plant from
its present design 'short-period1 to 'modified-aeration'
with treatment potential of achieving about 70$ BOD removal
in the wastewater from this drainage area. This would pro-
vide an increase of about 20# from the presently designed
potential of about 50#. This in essence is the maximum
treatment potential possible at the existing and expanded
site.
There are no possible sites on the west side of
the Borough of Manhattan for relocation of the North River
Plant to provide for 'step-aeration' treatment. Any departure
from the expressed concepts, will, in essence, mean the
complete abandonment of a plant in Manhattan. The only re-
maining alternative would be to convey the flow from the
North River drainage area to a new prepared site for a
-------
162
E. E. Hult
•step-aeration1 plant at Wards Island. A pumping station
and a deep force main tunnel through rock would be required
to convey the flow to Wards Island. This proposal would be
very costly and would mean a postponement in starting con-
struction of this very vital public improvement and a delay
in the abatement of pollution in the Hudson River for at
least five years. The design for a 'short-period aeration1
plant is practically completed and the start of construction
of the treatment plant for this project is scheduled for 1968.
With a four-year construction period, start of operation is
scheduled for 1972. This will Just about meet New York
City's commitment to the New York State Department of Health
and the Interstate Sanitation Commission to complete all
projects involved in the Basic Program by 1972. Any interrup-
tions to this stated objective and the completion of the
North River Project would mean not meeting this city*s
commitment with the attending criticism that this entails.
"Holding-the-Line" on the present design for
'short-period1 aeration treatment at North River with possible
future conversion to 'modified-aeration' treatment by plant
extension south of the present site is in the best interest
of all involved agencies.
Water quality has been discussed in general in
Section II of this presentation. It is the avowed intention
-------
163
E. E. Hult
of the City of New York to pursue studies and research
directed towards improvement in treatment and operating
techniques in an overall endeavor to upgrade treatment poten-
tial and reduce costs.
In conclusion, Section IV of this presentation
indicates that if the treatment processes at all 'raodified-
aeration1 plants, except for the North River plant, are
converted to 'step-aeration* and that when treatment at the
North River plant is converted from 'short-period aeration'
to 'modified-aeration,' then the combined potential of all
New York City's plants will result in an average overall BOD
removal of about 90$ for the total wastewater of the City of
New York. This objective is, of course, a far-reaching
departure from the objective of the original Basic Program
developed for the treatment of the city's wastewater. It
involves considerable reconstruction and expansion of exist-
ing facilities at huge capital costs extending over a con-
siderable length of time.
V. AUXILIARY (MARGINAL) WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
PROGRAM
The basic water pollution control program is
designed to cope with gross sewage pollution and has been dis-
cussed in some detail in the preceding sections of this
-------
164
E. E. Hult
presentation. The auxiliary water pollution control program
is designed to provide the additional protection needed to
insure safe bathing at New York City's beaches.
In general, the sewer system in New York City is
of the combined type. During periods of rainfall, the flow
through the sewers is a mixture of raw sewage and rain water,
in varying proportions depending on the rainfall. The sewage
treatment plants and intercepting sewer systems are designed
for about twice the mean dry weather flow. During storms,
combined flows in excess of this amount are discharged direct-
ly into the receiving waters. It is estimated that during
severe storms as much as 98$ of the dry weather flow reaches
the receiving waterways.
The Auxiliary Program consists of a series of
plants which would impound, disinfect, settle and degrit
combined overflows in the vicinity of proposed bathing
beaches. The program covers mainly the areas of Jamaica Bay,
Eastchester Bay, and the Upper East River, with new beaches
proposed at select locations on the shores of Jamaica Bay
and the Upper East River. The problem of pollution due to
combined overflows and its solution was studied by the con-
sultant engineering firm of Greeley and Hansen. Their
findings and recommendations are contained in two reports:
(1) "Report on Elimination of Marginal Pollution - Jamaica
-------
165
E. E. Hult
Bay - March 1959" and (2) "Report on Elimination of Marginal
Pollution - Upper East River - July 1959." These two reports,
separately bound, are part of this presentation.
The stated objectives of these studies were defined
in part as follows: "The objective...is to study what steps
should be taken by the City to obtain water of safe quality
so that safe bathing will be possible in the areas outlined
herein..." The studies suggested remedial measures to the
sewerage system and recommended the construction of storm
water treatment works to retain and chlorinate overflows.
The reports further state:
"A. The records of analyses indicate that the waters
at the proposed beach locations generally can be ex-
pected to be within the quality limitations, during
long dry periods.
"B. Immediately following heavy rainstorms, the
sanitary quality of the water at the proposed beach
locations, deteriorates to a condition with counts
above present standards.
"These studies have demonstrated the general
relationship between beach water quality and overflows
of mingled sewage and 'storm water. The periodic
deterioration of quality must be eliminated by treat-
ment of storm water overflows."
-------
166
E. E. Hult
The reference to quality limitations is to the
New York City Health Department standard of a B-coli count
not to exceed 2400 per 100 ml. for safe bathing waters.
On the basis of the data available at that time,
the consultants rightly concluded that safe bathing water
quality could be achieved by retaining and chlorinating
combined overflows in storm water treatment works. This is,
of course, in addition to the treatment of all dry weather
flow in sewage treatment plants as proposed under the Basic
Program.
On the basis of these two reports, the City of
New York engaged Greeley and Hansen to prepare reports on
preliminary designs for: (1) The Spring Creek Marginal
Pollution Control Project, (2) The Brooklyn Marginal Pollu-
tion Control Project and (3) The Eastchester Bay Marginal
Pollution Control Project. Report (1) dated December 1962
covers the studies and the preliminary plans for the Spring
Creek Plant. Report (2) dated January 1963 covers the studies
and the preliminary plans for the Throgs Neck, Boston Road,
Conner Street and Bushnell Avenue Plants in the Eastchester
Bay area of the Upper East River.
These reports and preliminary plans are based on
conference agreements between the involved personnel of the
Department of Public Works and the consultants. They include
-------
167
E. E. Hult
considerable departures from the original concepts of the 1959
reports by the consultants. The changes include the use of
sodium hypochlorite for disinfection, covered basins for odor
control and appearance, and mechanical means of cleaning the
basins.
The Spring Creek preliminary design, after
approval by the city, was followed by a contract for the
preparation of final plans and specifications for the construc-
tion of this project. These plans and specifications are now
completed and start of construction of this project is pending
determination of eligibility for Federal and State aid.
The city was committed to the program described to
insure safe bathing waters at the location of proposed
beaches. Unfortunately, however, continued sampling of the
involved waters disclosed a problem concerning the persistent
apparent high level of dry weather coliform counts. Since
1946 there has been observed a steady rise in the coliform
count in the New York City Harbor, despite the fact that New
York City has steadily increased its sewage treatment facili-
ties under the Basic Program over this same period of time.
The apparent rise in coliform counts is as yet unexplainable
in terms of concomitant population growth or other more readily
perceived factors. One recognized source of coliform bacteria
has been combined overflows. Of pertinent interest with
-------
168
E. E. Hult
regard to conforms from this source is the fact that during
a period of drought during the summer of 1964, when storm
waters could not be blamed as a significant source of coliform
bacteria, no appreciable reduction in coliform occurred,
despite that previous die-away studies of coliforras predicted
a decrease in coliform density.
Inasmuch as it was expected that the proposed
construction of combined overflow treatment plants would re-
move a major source of coliform bacteria and hence make
possible new bathing beaches at proposed locations in Jamaica
Bay and the Upper East River, the Department of Public Works
felt that prior to undertaking construction of the storm over-
flow plants it would be prudent to seek more definite informa-
tion with regards to coliform densities and survival in the
New York harbor over the past 20 years.
New York University was engaged to study and
evaluate the New York harbor coliform density problem with
the objective of determining from the available data for the
period of time in question, whether the apparent rise in
coliform bacteria density has in effect occurred, and if data
analysis so indicated, the study would then be shifted to
determine the possible cause or causes of the increased
coliform density in the New York Harbor. The New York
University study was completed and a report^entitled "New
-------
169
E. E. Hult
York Harbor Coliform Density Pollution Study," dated December
1966, was submitted to the city.
The study based on an extensive analysis of coli-
form data collected by the New York City Department of Public
Works (New York Harbor Pollution Survey) is summarized in
part as follows:
"(1) The apparent rise in coliform densities
is real, meaningful and significant.
(2) The coliform die-away rates in the harbor
waters have not changed significantly.
(3) A definitive explanation for the coliform
rise is not apparent."
Part of the summary indicates that "there is an
obvious lack of basic information regarding the ecology of
the harbor."
The report recommends that,
"(1) The harbor survey program conducted by
the City of New York be continued and extended to
include improved data processing methods and
electronic calculations;
(2) A program to determine the effectiveness
of coliform removal by biological, physical, or
chemical treatment processes be initiated;
(3) The installation of effective coliform
-------
170
E. E. Hult
reduction facilities at wastewater treatment plants
discharging to New York harbor waters be included
in pollution abatement planning;
(4) An ecological base line for the New York
harbor waters be established;
(5) further investigation of harbor pollution
should not be solely concerned with any one individu-
al parameter, but rather should be conducted on the
basis that the harbor is a single unified ecological
system."
In essence, the New York University study validated the
harbor survey data collected by the Department of Public Works
The "New York Harbor Pollution Survey" and the
"New York University Report" are separately bound and made a
part of this presentation.
In view of the foregoing, the Department of Public
Works did not deem it prudent to commit large sums of New
York City's money to the "Auxiliary Water Pollution Control
Program" until more definitive answers are obtained regarding
the problem of -increased coliform densities and estuarine
pollution, in general, and, in particular, as the problem
applies to the pollution of the New York harbor waters, and
with special emphasis placed on the problem of pollution in
Jamaica Bay.
-------
171
E. E. Hult
It is the established policy of the City of New
York to develp Jamaica Bay as a recreational area. The
Department of Parks of the City of New York has expended
large sums of money to promote the development of parks,
X
marinas, and other recreational facilities in the Jamaica Bay
area. This department has a huge program for beach develop-
ment in this area which has been deferred pending the resolu-
tion by the Department of Public Works of the necessary
"Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Program" to insure safe
bathing water quality in Jamaica Bay.
The Department of Public Works intends to construct
the Spring Creek Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Project
as a prototype installation and start of the construction of
this project is pending declaration of eligibility for Federal
and State aid. This aid should be shortly forthcoming.
Together with the construction of the Spring Creek project,
the Department of Public Works has applied for Federal aid
under the "Demonstration Grant" and "research and development"
programs to explore "in-depth" all phenomena involved in the
problem of estuarine pollution, as it applies, in general,
and it applies, in particular, to the New York Harbor complex.
Special emphasis will be placed on the Jamaica Bay area with
a detailed "before" and "after" surveillance of the waters
of Spring Creek and Jamaica Bay to determine the influence
-------
172
E. E. Hult
of combined overflow treatment at the Spring Creek Auxiliary
Water Pollution Control Project on the immediate environment
of Spring Creek, together with its influence on Jamaica Bay
in regards to water quality.
The evaluation of the Spring Creek Plant as a
prototype installation will serve as a basis for all future
"auxiliary" plants.
We seek the answers to problems which are national
in scope. We can determine at least some of the answers here.
A fundamental knowledge of the specific factors contributing
to estuarine pollution and the ecological forces affecting
the New York harbor complex, as well as the Jamaica Bay area,
is necessary for any reliable water resources planning. All
of these factors must be explored "in depth" and will be made
part of the proposed study.
The objectives of the proposed study can be
summarized as follows: (1) to evaluate the operation of
the Spring Creek Water Pollution Control Project as a proto-
type installation, as a means of solving the problems of
combined overflow discharges; (2) to evaluate the effect of
the Spring Creek Projects on the water quality and biota of
Spring Creek, considering Spring Creek as a tidal basin;
(3) to evaluate the effect of the Spring Creek Project on the
water quality and biota of Jamaica Bay, considering Jamaica
-------
173
E. E. Hult
Bay is an entity; (4) to make an "in-depth" study of the
interactions of various sources of pollution such as treat-
ment plant outfalls, sanitary landfills, combined sewage
disqharges, etc., considering the entire New York City
estuarine system; (5) to relate increase of dry weather coli-
forra densities, evidenced in the last decade to specific
causes. The material submittd for Federal aid in connection
with this study is separately bound and made a part of this
presentation.
In conclusion, Section V of this presentation
indicates that an "in-depth" study of all factors involved
in estuarine pollution is required before definitive steps
are taken to progress the "Auxiliary Water Pollution Control
Program" to insure waters of safe quality and to permit
construction of new beaches on the shores of Jamaica Bay and
the Upper East River.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
Section II of this presentation indicates an over-
all BOD reduction of better than 80# in the city's wastewater
can be achieved under the Basic Program as originally proposed,
Section III of this presentation indicates that
by consolidation of plants in the Borough of Richmond it is
possible to reduce the total number of plants required under
-------
174
E. E. Hult
the Basic Program from 18 to 15.
Section IV of this presentation indicates a
possible overall BOD removal of approximately 9°# in the
city's total wastewater can be achieved with the North River
Project designed as a 'modified-aeration' plant and all other
plants in the city's system designed for 'step-aeration1
treatment. This, of course, can only be possible at con-
siderable cost. If the cost involved in making an overall
BOD removal of 90# proves to be excessive, an interim program,
say to achieve an overall BOD removal of 85#, may be possible
at a more reasonable cost. Ultimate decisions on such pro-
posals must be deferred until the program to treat all the
city's wastewater is consummated as originally planned under
the Basic Program. The City of New York is committed to
complete this Basic Program by 1972. Significant departures
from this program will be costly and time-consuming and will
interfere with meeting this commitment and must, of necessity,
be deferred to a period past 1972. In the meantime, the
city will pursue feasibility studies to consolidate treatment
plants and to upgrade treatment potential.
Section V of this presentation indicates that an
"in-depth" study of all facets of estuarine pollution is re-
quired before committing large sums of money to progress the
'Auxiliary Water Pollution Program' to treat combined overflows
at locations of proposed bathing beaches on the shores of
Jamaica Bay and the Upper East River.
-------
DRAINAGE AREA.
Creek
SCHEDULE A - Revision No. 2 - October, 196?
SHOWING COMPLETION SCHEDULE FOR NEW YORK CITT-
BASIC WATER POLLUTION PROGRAM
PHASE
Ormipl.ol.n oonnl,ruol,:lon of Flint
Drooklyn 'Jiiburcaptorn Completed
Except Contract 1A -
Johnson Ave. Interceptor
Complete construction of
Manhattan Pumping Station
Interceptors - Manhattan
175
forth River-Intercept or a
Plant
Oakwood Beach-Interceptor
Plant Extension
Oils Head (Chlorination)
tort Richmond-Bloomfield
Interceptors
Plant Alterations
and Additions
Start construction
Complete construction
Submit final plans
Start construction
Complete construction
Prelim, plans - complete
Submit final plans
Start construction
Complete construction
Prelim, plans
Submit final plans
Start construction
Complete construction
Phase 1 - Submit final plans
Start construction
Complete construction
Phase 2 - Submit final plans
Start construction
Complete construction
Submit prelim, plans E. Br.
Submit final plans
Submit final plans
Submit final plans
Start construction
Start construction
Start construction
Complete construction W,Br«
Complete construction E.Br* Cont.
Complete construction E.Br, Cont.
Submit prelim, plans
Submit final plans
Start construction
Complete construction
w.
E.
E.
•W.
E.
E.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Cont.
Cont*
Cont.
Cont.
1
2
1
2
1
2
Oct. 1969
Jan. 1969
June 196?
Aug. 1966
Dec. 1971
June 1968
Dec. 1968
Dec. 1972
Oct. 1968
Feb. 1969
Feb. 1971
Apr. 1968
May 1969
Sept.1969
Dec. 1971
Jan. 196?
Oct. 1967
Mar. 1968
Nov. 1967
Feb. 1968
June 1968
Apr. 1967
Oct. 1966
Dec. 1968
Dec. 1969
Nov. 196?
Mar. 1969
Mar. 1970
Nov. 1969
Mar. 1971
Mar. 1972
Sept.1967
Apr. 1969
Oct. 1969
Dec. 1971
-------
SCHEDULE A - Revision No. 2 - October, 1967
Page 2
176
DRAINAGE-AREA
Red Hook Interceptors
Plant
Tottenville
Wards Island
Welfare Island
Fresh Kills
PHASE
Submit final plans for N. Br.
Submit final plans for S. Br.
Start construction N. Br.
Start construction S. Br.
Complete construction N. Br.
Complete construction S. Br.
Submit prelim, plans
Submit final plans
Start construction
Complete construction
Submit prelim, plans
Submit final plans
Start construction
Complete constraction
Complete construction of
Riverdale-Karble Hill project
Submit final plans for rehabilitation
of Bronx and Manhattan Grit Chambers
Start construction
Complete construction
All other contracts
Submit final plans for expansion
of Wards Island Sewage Treatment Plant
Start construction of plant expansion
Complete construction
Submit prelim, plans
Submit final plans
Start construction
Complete construction
Submit prelim, plans
Submit final plans
Start construction
Complete construction
DATE
Kay 1968
Jan. 1969
Sept.1968
May 1969
Mar. 1971
May 1972
July 1968
Oct. 1969
Jan. 1971
Dec. 1972
Jan. 1967
Oct. 1968
Feb. 1969
Feb. 1971
June 1967
Oct. 1967
Feb. 1968
Feb. 1969
July 1968
Nov. 1968
Apr. 1971
Dec. 1968
Mar. 1969
Sept.1969
Dec. 1971
Dec. 1967
Dec. 1968
June 1969
May 1971
-------
177
E. E. Hult
(The prepared statement of Commissioner Hult
is as follows:
The magnitude of the New York City Water Pollution
Control Program can be demonstrated by this simple statement
— yesterday flow was started through the newest of our
thirteen modern plants — Newtown Creek — a single plant
with the capability of affording secondary treatment for the
wastewater of 2,500,000 people.
Placing the Newtown Creek Plant "on stream"
moves the City another giant step toward the fulfillment of
our pledge to this Conference, to the State of New York, and
to the Interstate Sanitation Commission — effective biological
treatment of 100$ of the dry weather wastewater flow of New
York City by 1972, The City's plants are now treating 900
million gallons per day of the daily wastewater flow of 1.3
billion gallons.
The focus of attention of this Conference is
properly on the Hudson River. However, the entire estuarine
complex of the City is so interrelated, with each main water-
way affecting each other and with the Upper Bay serving as
a mixing and distribution body, that it is necessary to review
the entire concept of New York City's program in order to
meaningfully concern ourselves with the Hudson River.
The City of New York hopes that this Conference
-------
178
E. E. Hult
will hasten programs similar to ours in the other communi-
ties which share our waterways, so that their treatment
facilities will be completed concurrently with the completion
of our basic program. At that time our waters will be free
of nuisance conditions, the dissolved oxygen levels will rise,
marine life will thrive, and the rigorous State stream
standards will be met. I look beyond that, however, to a new
second phase of our continuing effort.
As in many cities, most of our sewers are of the
11 combined"type, with the same pipes which convey the dry
weather sanitary flows also handling the huge volumes of
storm water. In such systems, during rainfall there are in-
evitable overflows into the surrounding waters — storm water
contaminated with diluted sewage. Such overflows in recrea-
tional waters deter the upgrading of existing beaches, the
restoration of condemned beaches, and the creation of new
beaches.
The administration of this City has already taken
the first step to become the leader in creating new beaches
in the heart of a sprawling metropolis. We have completed the
design of the first prototype "Auxiliary Water Pollution
Control Plant," to be constructed at Spring Creek on Jamaica
Bay at a cost of 12 million dollars. It is the forerunner
of a series of- sophisticated, highly instrumented facilities
-------
179
E. E. Hult
designed to impound, settle and disinfect storm flows. These
will ring selected sites of high recreational potential such
as Jamaica Bay and Eastchester Bay. This prototype has been
approved by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion and the New York State Department of Health for construc-
tion aid, and we can proceed immediately to construction as
soon as Federal approval to advertise the construction con-
tracts is received. To further set the stage for the imple-
mentation of this program, the City administration has already
undertaken drainage studies to eliminate pollution from the
presently unsewered community of Broad Channel in Jamaica Bay.
The second phase is no timid, halting undertaking.
My staff has won enthusiastic support from the New York State
Department of Health for an accompanying "in depth" scientific
study of all factors which bear upon the quality of bathing
waters. This study will utilize a selected team of chemists,
bacteriologists and marine biologists, initially concentrating
on the area affected by the Spring Creek project. Indeed, the
State has voluntarily offered to contribute to this study*
Fruitful conferences on this have been held with the Federal
Water Pollution Control Demonstration Grant Program, and the
Federal approval is awaited, so that this study can proceed
concurrently with the Spring Creek prototype evaluation.
There is now even a third phase of the City program.
-------
180
E. E. Hult
New York City remains constantly attuned to the fluid, changing
technology of environmental protection. The Bureau of Water
Pollution Control of the Department of Public Works, the arm
of the City which Implements the water pollution control
program, has actually made many of the major contributions to
the new techniques for more effective or more economical
treatment, such as step aeration, modified aeration, mixed
sludge thickening, and high rate digestion. As a matter of
fact, the current Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Association features the fact that New York City is the first
major metropolis to Introduce the effective use of safe sodium
hypochlorite for effluent disinfection to protect the dense
population from the hazards of the transportation, storage,
and use of liquid chlorine. Because we are leaders and
innovators, we have already begun the third phase of our
effort, namely, the upgrading of the treatment potential of
some of our existing plants. The basic program provides for
an overall city-wide average removal of over 8o# of the
Biochemical Oxygen Demand of the treated wastewater. Pre-
liminary work is proceeding now on feasibility studies for
such upgrading, with priority given to such plants as Coney
Island and Owls Head, affecting the Coney Island and Sea Gate
area. Such upgrading will enhance BOD removals to above 90#.
Thus the City is preparing to do, in the future, what it has
-------
181
E. E. Hult
always done in the past, to go beyond the minimum requirements
of all the regulatory agencies.
Let us now consider each of these three phases in
some detail. Please bear in mind that even before the comple-
tion of the basic program in 1972, the first step of the
auxiliary program will take place in 1967, and the initial
designs of the third phase will be under way in 1968. The
City will not rest on its laurels in the early 1970's, but
will be moving toward the goals of the 1980's.
The basic program is, of course, the prime concern
of this conference. In 1931, long before Federal participa-
tion was envisaged, this City, with its wastewater discharging
not into a potable watershed, but into a salt water estuarine
complex, began its construction program, Despite the stringen-
cies of the Depression, the City taxpayers built 500 million
gallons per day of treatment capacity between 1931 and 19^5
at a cost of 67 million dollars. In the post-war resumption,
between 1948 and 1957, another 400 million gallons per day
capacity was added for 117 million dollars. At this point,
post-war massive population shifts to the periphery of the
City compelled us to give precedence to increasing the
capacity and improving the treatment at existing plants. A
classic instance is the Rockaway Plant, completed in the fall
of 1952, which was doubled in capacity by 1961. Between 1958
-------
182
E. E. Hult
and up to this week when the influent sluice gates open at
Newtown Creek, a further 450 million gallons per day capacity
was added at a cost of 223 million dollars.
The already existing facilities, with a treatment
potential of 1.35 billion gallons per day, would cost three-
quarters of a billion dollars at current cost indices.
Of course, the facilities are designed for the
projected flows in their respective drainage areas for the
next twenty to thirty years, and provision must also be made
for areas not yet completely sewered. But already 900 million
gallons per day are now being treated, of which 892 million
gallons per day are receiving biological secondary treatment.
Of the thirteen plants, six are designed for the
step aeration process, which New York City experience shows
has consistently yielded 9296 removal of the raw Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD). These plants are Wards Island, Hunts
Point, 26th Ward, Jamaica, Tallman Island, and Bowery Bay,
with a combined capacity of 600 MOD. Although some of these
plants are now operated only seasonally to their full design
intent, in 1966 we committed ourselves to operate them to full
removal potential the year round within the next two years.
The other seven plants are virtually all presently
designed for the "modified aeration" process to yield removals
in the 70# range. We will go beyond this in our third phase,
-------
183
E. E. Hult
as I will soon explain.
With the additional plants to be built by 1972,
as set forth to this Conference in 1965 and as committed in
1966 to the New York State Department of Health, the overall
pollutant removal of New York City's wastewater in 1972 will
initially be 80#. Although complete documentation on all
projected facilities is being submitted to this Conference,
I would like to describe the status of the remaining major
plants to be built.
The "last frontier" of New York City — Staten
Island — already has the Port Richmond and Oakwood Beach
Plants, both in their "first stage." The City's original
Master Plan envisaged four other small plants in still lightly
populated areas, Bloomfield, Tottenville, Fresh Kills and
Eltingville. We now find it feasible to immediately proceed
with the interception and treatment of flows from these areas
by an economical system of pumping stations and force mains
to the two "super plants." Port Richmond will be expanded
from a 10 MGD primary plant to a 60 MGD step aeration plant,
embodying the most modern facilities for effective effluent
hypochlorination. The Oakwood Beach Plant will be doubled in
capacity up to 30 MGD, and ultimately to 60 MGD with complete
facilities for step aeration. Negotiations for design work
for both of these are in active progress right now. Particular
-------
184
E. E. Hult
emphasis is being placed on effluent dispersion patterns
of Oakwood Beach to insure complete corapatability with all
future plans for the restoration and upgrading of the Staten
Island beaches.
The Red Hook Plant will be built as a step aera-
tion facility on the Brooklyn shorefront on the Lower East
River. This upgrading of the original design will, of course,
require greater site area, even with our design goals of com-
pact, fully-utilized sites. Searching scrutiny is now being
given to the maximum utilization of precious Brooklyn shore-
front area by erecting this plant as a contiguous facility
with a Department of Sanitation Incinerator and Marine Trans-
fer Station. Firm decisions will be made by the end of this
year. Meanwhile, the interceptor design for this plant is
well on schedule, with some portions ready for contract.
When the designs of the North River Plant and much
of its interceptors were virtually complete, Mayor Lindsay
ordered an independent engineering and architectural appraisal
of this 200 million dollar project. This was done to insure
that this "short-period" aeration plant — an extremely com-
pact design — would be not only compatible with the then
proposed, but not yet promulgated, new New York State Class
I standard, but also to insure its complete esthetic com-
patibility with the neighboring community and to insure
-------
185
E. E. Hult
making a positive contribution to the offshore vista of the
Hudson shoreline. The engineering analysis affirmed the
adequacy of the design and even predicated that this plant,
by itself, would raise the Hudson, within the City line, to
the State standard. The eminent Architect, Philip Johnson,
was retained and the Mayor ordered a new bold exterior treat-
ment consistent with his position of improved architecture on
all public projects. We are now ready to proceed with State
approval. The changes in design to incorporate this urban
beautification will delay initial plant construction only
until the summer of 1968, but one section of the interceptor
is already under contract and designs on other sections are
well in hand.
For the basic program as a whole, New York City
entered into a stipulation in November 1965, with the State of
New York incorporating a timetable for completion of all com-
ponents. Since then, certain changes became appropriate. The
necessary lead time for the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration review of projects, a prerequisite before even
advertising contracts, had to be built into this schedule.
In addition, the new commitments of the City for step aeration
at Port Richmond, Oakwood Beach, and particularly Red Hook,
called for revisions of target dates. Also, the City acceded
to recent State requests for the provision of effluent
-------
186
E. E. Hult
hypochlorination facilities in all plants, even those not
directly affecting recreational waters. All of these changes
have been incorporated in a revised stipulation, to be signed
within a week or so.
The second phase of our effort to cope with com-
bined sewer overflows will serve the country as a whole be-
cause of the close scientific scrutiny of the prototype
Spring Creek Plant. New York City conducts harbor surveys
each summer, with data going back to 1909. This continuous
compilation of data enabled our process control engineers to
discern an abnormal Increase in coliform population in the
last ten years. An exhaustive statistical study by New York
University confirmed the validity of our observations. Since
this is of significance to all coastal cities, and since this
phenomenon manifested itself at a time when the eutrophication
of inland waters became apparent, Federal aid was sought to
investigate all factors related to estuarine coliform popula-
tions. This would include the effects of synthetic detergents,
the need for phosphate and other nutrient enrichment, non-fecal
coliform sources, the possible role of algae in a symbiotic
relationship with bacterial flora, a quantitative assessment
of all marine biota in the zone of influence of the Spring
Creek Plant, before and after construction. Other parameters,
such as the effect of leaching from sanitary landfills and
-------
18?
E. E. Hult
the effect of dredging and filling on tidal exchanges in
Jamaica Bay will be included. All this, of course, is in
addition to the basic monitoring of the Auxiliary Plant in
its effective reduction of coliform contributions from im-
pounded and treated combined storm overflow.
This Conference is most earnestly requested to
expedite the Federal approval for this study, since data
derived in 1968 will be invaluable in the "before and after"
evaluation of the Spring Creek Auxiliary Plant.
The foresight of the City engineers has made
possible the new third phase. At a time when all regulatory
agencies, including the Interstate Sanitation Commission and
the New York State Department of Health, approved plain sedi-
mentation plants, our designers, like the fellow in the poker
game who said, "I'll see you, and raise you," insisted on
providing secondary biological treatment. In many instances,
back in the 1930's and 1940's, they also fought for and ob-
tained sites with the capability of expansion to treat more
flows, and treat to a higher degree.
Their foresight made it possible to not only
increase the Jamaica Plant from 65 MGD to 100 MOD, but to add
primary tanks and additional aerators and upgrade its treat-
ment capacity from modified aeration to full step aeration
removal. They made it possible to convert Coney Island from
-------
188
E. E. Hult
a primary treatment plant with chemical coagulation to a
biological modified aeration plant, and they made possible the
second stage of Wards Island, now under design, increasing
its step-aeration capacity from 220 MGD to 290 MOD, at the
same time adding to this old plant modern thickening and
digestion facilities. Similar extensions were made to Bowery
Bay, tripling its capacity, as well as Hunts Point, Tallman
Island and Rockaway.
The 160 MGD Owls Head and the 110 MGD Coney Island
Plants will be converted to step aeration, by maximum utiliza-
tion of existing sites, even though our original commitment
to this Conference did not call for this at all. Although
the first phase construction takes priority over this, we are
already starting the feasibility studies for this new wave
of construction, scheduled for the early 1970's. In 1968 we
will also begin a vigorous development and pilot program to
improve the modified aeration removal efficiency in the
Newtown Creek Plant. The pilot studies will be conducted
in the Rockaway Plant and money has already been authorized
to initiate this. Thus, we are now preparing for the undoubted-
ly more rigorous requirements that will come in the future.
I think it appropriate, in the presence of both
Federal and State representatives, to consider the impact of
their respective aid programs. In 1965, the Mayor of New York
-------
189
E. E. Hult
City pointed out to your first session that in the years from
1957 to 1965, 223 million dollars were spent by the City of
New York with reimbursements of 3-^ million dollars from the
State of New York, limited to design and borings. Approxi-
mately 2.3 million dollars in Federal aid was obtained for
construction, under such limited authorizations as existed
prior to the Water Quality Act of 1965.
Since 1965 under the New York State Pure Water
Bond Act 65 million dollars of the Newtown Creek construction
was declared eligible for aid to the amount of 60$, or 39
million dollars* Of this the City has already received 31
million dollars from the State of New York. Direct Federal
aid constituted 0.15#, the maximum then allowed of $250,000
under existing Federal legislation.
Reimbursement for the remainder of the Basic and
Auxiliary Water Pollution Abatement Programs will be under
the New York State Pure Water Bond Act of 1965 and the
Federal Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966. It is antici-
pated that eligible design and construction costs will be
approximately one billion dollars by 1972. Under the New York
State Act, 30# of the eligible cost of construction and design
is reimbursible, with provisions for pre-financing up to an
additional 30# of the Federal share, in the event that
Federal funds for this program are unavailable. It is
-------
190
E. E. Hult
anticipated that under a reimbursement clause in the Federal
Act this money will be returned to New York State. On
current projects filed, total costs amount to approximately
225 million dollars, of which allotments of State aid are
approximately 131 million dollars and Federal aid approximately
4 million dollars, for a total of 135 million dollars, or 60#
of the total cost. However, it should be mentioned that
under the Federal Act, up to 55# of the eligible costs of a
project are potentially reimbursible, which, when added to the
State share of 30#, would total 8556. These Federal funds are
not presently available. This Conference is requested to con-
vey to the Federal authorities the urgency for appropriations
commensurate with the intent of the authorizations and
realistically related to the actual needs.
I am now turning over to this Conference a posi-
tion paper on the scope of our program, the Revised "Schedule
A" stipulation for our basic program, and a detailed timetable
for the sequence of all construction for the next five years
which involves State and Federal approval and participation.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our New York City
story.)
* * #
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions?
MR. METZLER: I would like to compliment you,
-------
191
E. E. Hult
Commissioner, on this kind of a statenent. There has been no
place in the country that has seen this kind or this size of
program put together before. This is a first.
I want to ask this: This timetable also appears
to be a realistic one, and it is very complicated as you
think of all of the factors that are involved here.
I have been concerned in the past about whether we
actually have the contracting and the engineering capability
to move this much construction this fast.
Would you mind commenting on that? Do you think
there is enough?
COMMISSIONER HULT: I see no problem with the
engineering. We have plenty of large qualified engineering
firms here in the City of New York that we can draw on. They
have all been involved in the preliminary studies of the
projects that we have under way. As I said, the North River
Plant is already finished by those engineers.
The question of available construction forces is
a problem perhaps, but it is going to be necessary and part
of my job to wine and dine some of the general contractors
and large contractors who will be finishing these big buildings
around town to convince them that there is money in the water,
or around the water.
MR. METZLER: Well, my only other comment is to
-------
192
E. E. Hult
say this would not have been possible, I know, and I know
you recognize this, without the fine professional staff that
New York City has built up over the years, and I hope that
you can expand the staff which you will need for the treat-
ment side of the maintenance and operation of the plants.
COMMISSIONER HULT: If I can comment on that, if
you people don't stop taking ray people away, I'm going to be
out of business. (Laughter)
We are finding that public works is a great train-
ing ground for engineers, particularly in this area of water
pollution, and more and more inquiries are coming in, and I
am going to have to turn them down with a threat of civil
service excommunication, or something. (Laughter)
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions ?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: I think, Mr. Hult, that you probably
do know that in this field, your group in design and main-
tenance and operation is regarded as high as any in the
country, and I think it is a compliment that these people are
taken.
You know, in many areas of this business, when someone
talks about a 90 percent plant, if we begin examining what they
get, we find they are getting in the 80's or maybe three or
-------
193
E. E. Hult
four 90's in the course of the year. When they talk about
an 80 percent plant, they are getting in the 70's and 60's.
When your people design for an 80 percent capacity,
for example, and they maintain that rate, they get as close
to 80 or the design capacity as anyone in the country, and I
think this is indeed a compliment for New York and something
that is not often recognized.
It is not Just what you put down on paper that
counts, although the design group is excellent here as well,
but it is the way it is built and the way it is run.
I think the openness of your records and what you
do is something that the rest of the country can look to and
emulate.
COMMISSIONER HULT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
your very kind comments. I am sure that tomorrow morning I
will have all the fellows sitting in the audience outside my
door asking for a raise. (Laughter)
MR. STEIN: If I have done that, I will repeat what
I Just said.
COMMISSIONER HULT: But, seriously, what we do is
a team effort. It can only be done with the engineers from
the New York State Department of Health and the Federal people,
and your office, as well as the regional offices around.
I know the value of this kind of operation. They
-------
E. E. Hult
can make it tough for us, and we can make it tough for them.
If we work together, we are all going to come out in 1972
with a clean river.
MR. STEIN: Right.
Now, I am very sympathetic to your project in
Jamaica Bay. As a matter of fact, this is one of the great
water pollution metropolitan projects that we can put into
effect and see the result.
Here we have a potential beach, swimming and
recreational area right near a city, within subway distance
of most of the metropolitan area, that cannot be used. Un-
less we get some research to handle the stormwater problem,
I am not sure, even putting in the kind of waste treatment
facilities we are considering now, whether we can use it; but
if we can reclaim this tremendous potential swimming area,
we will probably be able to demonstrate that we have been
able to give New York one of the greatest gifts possible.
I grew up here. I know Spring Creek very well.
COMMISSIONER HULT: Well, thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
MR. METZLER: At this point, Mr. Chairman, the
presentation of the New York State Health Department will have
-------
195
A. Handley
two persons speaking for New York.
First, we will have Mr. Arthur Handley, who will
make a report on the progress in the two-year period, supple-
menting the remarks which Governor Rockefeller made, and
then, following that, Mr. Shaffer, to give some further
dimensions of the financing problem.
Mr. Handley.
STATEMENT OP ARTHUR HANDLEY, ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OP PURE WATER, NEW
YORK STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MR. HANDLEY: Chairman Stein, Conferees, Ladies
and Gentlemen:
New York State has prepared a report on its
progress. We would like to enter this into the record, if
possible.
MR. STEIN: Yes. This report will be entered
into the record, without objection, as if read.
(The following is the Progress Report of Water
Pollution Control of New York State:)
-------
196
A. Handley
PROGRESS REPORT
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
NEW YORK STATE
SEPT. 1965 - SEPT. 1967
THE LOWER HUDSON RIVER
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
DIVISION OP PURE WATERS
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
SEPTEMBER 196?
PREFACE
The first federal enforcement conference on pollu-
tion of the Lower Hudson River and its tributaries was con-
vened in New York City on September 28, 1965. This report
reviews New York State water pollution control activities in
the two year period from September 1965 to date.
Many developments in the administratives, legis-
lative and financial portions of the State's water pollution
control program, which were proposals at the time of the
original conference, have now become working realities. Key
changes include voter approval in November 1965 of the $1
billion construction grant program, implementation of a
-------
197
A. Handley
strengthened enforcement program, organization of a Division
of Pure Waters in the State Health Department, passage of
outlet registration and boat pollution control legislation,
and the organization of the State Pure Waters Authority.
Accelerated water pollution control activity and
the implementation of new programs during the past two years
have served to further establish the State's leadership in
the federal-state-local municipal effort required to abate
water pollution. This report to the conferees briefly reviews
New York State water pollution control activities in the
Lower Hudson River drainage basin.
Albany, New York
September 20, 196?
ACTIVITY SUMMARY
Since September 1965, the State has initiated the
following activity:
1. Executed 9 construction grant contracts with
municipalities to construct wastewater treatment facilities.
Applications approved and being processed total 28, with State
grants estimated at $186 million, as compared to $12 million
in federal grants (see Table 1, page 4).
2. Completed 53 actions resulting in formal pollu-
tion abatement orders (see Table 2, page 6). All major
-------
198
A. Handley
polluters are under order.
3. Accelerated utility planning by (a) coordinat-
ing programs with the Hudson River Valley Commission which
has a total planning responsibility for the Hudson Valley;
(b) completed, under the auspices of the State Conservation
Department, a multi-purpose water resources survey of the
entire state; (c) have 8 public water supply studies completed
or under way for areas including a population of 9-3 million;
(d) have 38 sewerage need studies completed or under way for
areas with a population of 3 million. The State investment
for water supply and sewerage studies totals $3.2 million.
(See Table 3, page 18.)
4. Submitted Water Quality Standards. The State
prepared and submitted water quality standard reports as
required by the 1965 Water Pollution Control Act for the en-
tire state, including the Lower Hudson River. These standards
have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Approval
of the standards makes the municipalities of the state
eligible for an additional 10 percent construction grant.
(Note this additional eligibility is discussed in the construc-
tion grant portion of this report. )
5. Water Quality Surveillance. An automatic
water quality monitor nas been installed at Glenmont, New
York. A second is planned for installation in the vicinity
-------
199
A. Handley
of Bear Mountain this year. Manual sampling stations are
operated at 5 locations on the river.
6. Issued 55 operating permits to municipalities
and/or industries operating new or expanded collection and
treatment facilities. These facilities serve 2.8 million
people and construction costs total $166 million. (See
Table 4, page 19.)
7. Organized a Division of Pure Waters within
the New York State Health Department. The Division of Pure
Waters consists of sanitary and construction engineers,
scientists, administrators, engineering technicians and
supporting clerical services. The Central Office staff totals
148 persons. Increased staffing at the Department's New York
City and White Plains Regional Offices was effected.
8. Implemented the sewage treatment plant main-
tenance and operation grant program. This incentive program
has spurred improved treatment plant operation with resultant
water quality improvement. In the lower Hudson River basin,
exclusive of New York City, 46 municipalities qualified in
1965 for grants totaling $490,000. To date, 36 applications
have been approved totaling $381,500 for 1966. There are
6 New York City plants in the area of conference concern.
These have been approved, receiving grants of approximately
$2.3 million in 1965 and 1966.
-------
200
A. Handley
9. Proceeded with the second year of a three-
year intensive study of the water quality and assimilative
capacity of the Hudson River. The study will provide the
State with a flexible, computerized, analytical model of the
response of the Hudson River to the discharge of any organic,
thermal, toxic or other waste effluent. The computerized
River representation developed will provide the State with
a powerful tool for the rapid evaluation of alternative abate-
ment programs. To date, both steady state and time dependent
models for conservative and non-conservative pollutants and
water quality characteristics have been constructed, pro-
grammed, de-bugged and verified for BOD and DO.
-------
Table i
LOWER HUDSON RIVER BASIN
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROJECTS
September 15, 1967
Project
Number
317
377
258
86
178
357
166
214
363
378
340
265
368
352
208
53
364
362
294
282
244
Eligible
Project Cost
Applicant - County
Colonie (T), Albany
Colonie (T), Albany
Hudson (C), Columbia
Newt own Creek, N.Y.C.
North River, N.Y.C.
Owl's Head, N.Y.C.
Tallmans Island, N.Y.C.
Wards Island, N.Y.C.
Wards Island, N.Y.C.
Arlington SD, Dutchess
Wappinger (T), Dutchess
Cornwall (T), Orange
Cornwall (T), (V), Orange
Goshen (V), Orange
Montgomery (V), Orange
Newburgh (C), Orange
New Windsor (T), Orange
Walden (V), Orange
Washingtonville (V), Orange
Carmel (T), Putnam
Cold Spring (v), Putnam
Federal
200,000
600,000
1,105,170
162,924,041
220,000,000
123,000
6,427,000
1,460,000
1,031,500
2,400,000
88,000
157,805
954,800
750,000
320,000
5,683,000
1,650,000
300,000
512,000
442,000
500,000
State
200,000
600,000
1,105,170
64,488,733
220,000,000
123,000
304,114
1,405,147
1,031,500
2,400,000
88,000
157,805
954,800
750,000
8,300
5,683,000
1,650,000
300,000
512,000
442,000
500,000
Grant
Federal
60,000
6,000
331,550
250,000
2,000,000
36,900
250,000
438,000
100,000
24,000
3,520
47,340
38,192
40,000
160,000
477,320
66,000
99,000
168,960
132,600
144,300
Amount
State
60,000
354,000
331,550
38,596,507
130,000,000
36,900
170,638
421 , 544
518,947
1,416,000
47 , 280
47,342
534,688
410,000
2,500
2,932,480
924,000
90,000
153,600
132,600
155,700
N?
O
-------
Table 1 (cont'd)
LOWER HUDSON RIVER BASIN
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROJECTS
September 15, 1967
o>
Project
Number
176
275
290
9
274
268
232
388*
389
Eligible
Project Cost
Applicant - County
Orangetown (T), Rockland
Orangetown (T), Rockland
Orangetown (T), Rockland
Piermont (V), Rockland
Rockland Co. SD#1, Rockland
Stony Point (T), Rockland
Ellenville, Ulster
Total
Albany Co. SD, Albany
Rensselaer Co. SD, Rensselaer
Federal
633,800
242,200
3,533,600
357,900
22,521,000
1,619,200
315,776
433,938,792
38,253,000
18.000,000
State
29,000
242,200
3,533,600
357,900
22,521,000
1,619,200
145,427
328,228,896
38,253,000
18,000,000
Grant
Federal
183,810
79,920
1,166,080
107,370
5,087,313
421,740
94,730
11,787,325
382,530
180,000
Amount
State
9,000
72,660
1,060,080
107,370
8,425,287
549,780
43,628
186,077,601
22,569,270
10.620,000
Sub-Total
56,253,000 56,253,000
562,530 33,189,270
GRAND TOTAL
490,191,792 384,481,896
12,349,855 219,266,871
Application being prepared
o
to
-------
ENFORCEMENT STATUS, Sept. 1, 1967
HUDSON RIVER BASIN
Table Explanation
Location - municipal subdivision location of non-municipal entities. (l) - Town, (V) - Village, (c) - City
Ownership: Individual - multiple private discharges; no sanitary sewers; community not legally responsible.
If the community fails to install a municipal system, individuals must abate pollu-
tion individually or collectively.
Pop. or Flow - 1960 census population of community if known, residency and employment of institution, or
industrial waste flow of corporation.
Abatement Status
A - Under Commissioner's Orders
B - Hearing noticed to establish Commissioner's Order
C - Hearing to be noticed during 1967
D - Under Department directive (voluntary compliance)
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, installation of. facilities or internal modifications
8 - Abatement partially achieved
9 - Abatement achieved
Ordered construction completion - completion date of needed construction, established by Commissioner's Order
Voluntary construction completion - completion date of needed construction, established by Department direc-
tive 4/1/72 (expiration date of State grant program) indicates latest
possible date; negotiations under way to establish finite schedule.
-------
Bast* Source
Location
Lower Hudson River Drainage Basin
Northslde & S. D. #2
Mohawk Paper Mill*
Cluett-Peabody
Cohoes City
Mohawk Paper Mills
Troy City
Green Island Village
Manning Paper Co.
Maplewood Sewer District
Behr Manning (Norton)
Latham Sewer District
Watervllet City
Hatervliet Arsenal
Allegheny Ludlum Steel
Menands Village
Albany-Scheneetady Rd. S.D.
West Albany S. 0.
Water ford (T)
Water ford (T)
Waterford (T)
Co ho* 9 (C)
Green Island (V)
Colonie (T)
Watervliet (C)
Colonie (T)
Watervllet (C)
Colonie (T)
Colonie (T)
Colonie (T)
County
Saratoga
Saratoga
Saratoga
Albany
Albany
Rensselaer
Albany
Albany
Albany
Albany
Albany
Albany
Albany
Albany
Albany
Albany
Albany
Receiving
Haters
Mohawk
Mohawk
Mohawk
Mohawk
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
River
River
River
River
River Trib.
River
River
River
River
River
River Trib.
River
River
River Trlb.
River
River Trib.
River Trlb.
Effluentt
Raw or
Primary
Raw
ijaw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Primary
Raw
Primary
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Primary
Raw
Effluent
Type
Sanitary
Paper
Textile
Sanitary
Paper
Sanitary
Sanitary
Pulp & Paper
Sanitary
Adhesives
Sanitary
Sanitary
Plating
Metal Fin.
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Ownership*
Corp., Inft.,
Hun, or Ind.
Municipal
Corporate
Corporate
Municipal
Corporate
Municipal
Municipal
Corporate
Municipal
Corporate
Municipal
Municipal
Institutional
Corporate
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Pop.
or
Flow
2000
Imgd
l.Sragd
20129
1.2mgd
67492
3533
7.4mgd
2500
,4mgd
7200
13917
,03mgd
1 .4mgd
2314
9000
600
Abate- Ordered Volunt.
ment Constr. Constr.
Status Complet. Coraolet. .
A-4
A- 3
A- 3
A-4
A-3
A-4
A-4
A-3
A-4
A-4
A-4
A-4
D-5
A-4
A-4
A-4
A-4
11/1/69
7/1/69
11/1/69
1/1/71
1/1/69
1/1/71
1/1/70
4/1/70
7/1/69
9/1/69
7/1/69
1/1/70
1/1/69
4/1/70
1/1/70
1/1/70
1/1/70
to
-------
Waste Source
Location County
Receiving
Waters
Effluent*
Raw or
Primary
Effluent
Type
Ownerships Pop. n Abate- Ordered
Corp., Inst., or ment Constr.
Mun. or Ind. Flow Status Complet.
Volunt.
Constr.
, Complet.
Lower Hudson River Drainage Basin
McKownville S. D.
Tobln Packing Co-
Albany City
Rensselaer City
Huyck Corp.
Sterling Drug
General Aniline
Del mar - Elsmere S. D.
Brown Co. (Ft. Orange)
Castleton Village
Ravena Village
Coeymans Town
New Baltimore Hamlet
West Coxsackle Hamlet
Coxsackle Village
Gullderland (T) Albany
Albany (C) Albany
Albany
Rensselaer
Rensselaer (C) Rensselaer
Rensselaer (C) Rensselaer
Rensselaer (C) Rensselaer
Bethlehem (T) Albany
Schodack (T) Rensselaer
Rensselaer
Albany
Albany
New Baltimore (T) Greene
Coxsackie (T) Greene
Greene
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
River Trib.
ftlver Trib.
River
River
River
River
River
River Trib.
River Trib.
River
River Trib.
River Trib.
River Trib.
River Trib.
River
Raw
Raw
Haw
Raw
Haw
Raw
rtaw
Primary
Raw
Raw
Primary
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Sanitary
Slaugh. &
Packing
Sanitary
Sanitary
Felt
Pharmac.
Dyes
Sanitary
Paper
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Municipal
Corporate
Municipal
Municipal
Corporate
Corporate
Corporate
Municipal
Corporate
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Individuals
Individuals
Municipal
1000
.7mgd
129726
10506
.3mgd
2.4mgd
4.4mgd
12000
1.4mgd
1752
2410
800
400
500
2849
A-4
A-3
A-4
A-4
A-4
A-3
A-3
A-4
A-3
A-3
A-4
A-4
D-4
D-3
A-4
1/1/70
7/1/70
1/1/71
2/1/70
2/1/70
1/1/70
1/1/70
9/1/70
7/1/70
2/1/70
1/1/70
1/1/70
11/1/70
1/1/69
11/1/70
Kinderhook Creek
Hudson City
Columbia
Hudson
River
Primary
Sanitary
Municipal
11075
D-3
4/1/72
O
Ul
-------
Haste Source Location
^cxer Hudson River- Drainage Basin
New York Training School Hudson (C)
Athens Village
Catskill Village
County
Columbia
Greene
Greene
Receiving
Waters
Hudson River Trlb.
Hudson River
Hudson River
Effluenti
Raw or
Primary
Primary
Raw
Raw
Effluent
Type
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Ownership!
Corp., Inst.,
Mun. or Ind.
Institutional
Municipal
Municipal
Pop.
or
Flow
500
1754
5825
Abate- Ordered
ment Constr.
Status Comolet.
D-5
A-4 1/1/69
A-4 10/1/69
Volunt.
Constr.
Complet.
1/1/68
Roellff-Jansen Kill
German town Hamlet Gennantown (T)
Cementon Hamlet Catskill (T)
Valatie Village
Clermont Fruit Packers Clermont (T)
Klmberly Clark Ancram (T)
Columbia
Greene
Columbia
Columbia
Columbia
Hudson River
Hudson River Trlb.
Kinderhook Creek
Roellff-Jansen
Kill Trlb.
Roellff-Jansen
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Cannery
Paper
Individuals
Individuals
Individuals
Corporate
Corporate
400
700
1237
,02mgd
.2mgd
D-3
P-3
D-3
B-3
C-3
7/1/70
7/1/70
7/1/70
1/1/69
Kill
M
O
-------
Waste Source
Location
County
Receiving
Waters
Effluents
Raw, Prim.
or Sec.
Effluent
Type
Ownerships
Corp. , Inst. ,
Mun. or Ind.
Pop. Abate- Ordered
or raent Oonstr.
Flow Status Completed
Volun.
Constr.
Complet.
Lower Hudson River Drainage Basin
Saugertles Village
Tlvoll Village
Highland Sewer District
Hudson River State Hospital
Poughkeepsie City
Poughkeepsle Town
General Builders Supply Corp.
Beacon City
Three Star Anodizing
Texaco
Newburgh City
Majestic Weaving
New Windsor Sewer District #2
Cornwall Paper Co.
Cold Spring Village
Lloyd (T)
Poughkeepsie(T)
Denning Pt.
Wapplngers
Falls (V)
Fishkill (T)
Firthcliffe(V)
New Windsor(T)
New Windsor(T)
Ulster
Dutchess
ulster
Dutchess
Dutchess
Dutchess
Dutchess
Dutchess
Dutchess
Dutchess
Orange
Orange
Orange
Orange
Putnam
Esopus Creek
Hudson River
Rondout River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Fishkill
Fishkill
Hudson River
Moodna Creek
Moodna Creek
Moodna Creek
Hudson River
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Raw
Primary
Primary
Raw
Primary
Raw
Primary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Plating &
Sanitary
Sanitary &
oil
Sanitary
Textile
Sanitary
Paper
Sanitary
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Institutional
Municipal
Municipal
Corporate
Municipal
Corporate
Corporate
Municipal
Corporate
Municipal
Corporate
Municipal
O.Smgd D-3
750 C-2
.2mgd D-3
7100 D-3
45,000 C-3
0.4mgd D-4
80 D-4
6,000 C-3
. Imgd C-2
.3mgd C-2
33,000 A-3 12/68
l.Omgd A-4 6/68
2,000 D-4
0.6mgd C-2
2,000 A-4 5/69
10/69
3/69
3/70
3/70
10/68
7/68
5/69
10/68
N)
O
-J
-------
Wast* Source
Lower Hudson River Drainage
Sonotone Corp.
U.S. Mil.ita£v_ Academy
Highland Falls Village
Palisades Interstate Park
Bear Mountain STP
Camp Smith
Peeksklll City
Cbrtland Stone Oo.
Standard Brands Inc.
Endallte Optical Oo.
Std. Coated Products
F.O.R. V.A. Hospital
Rock Industries (l)
Location
Basin
Cold Springs (V)
West Point
Stony Pt.
Cortland
Peeksklll
Peeksklll
Peeksklll
Buchanen
Cortland
(T)
(T)
(c>
(c)
(C)
(V)
(T)
Stony Point (T)
County
Putnam
Orange
Orange
Rockland
Westchester
Westchester
Westchester
Westchester
Westchester
Westchester
Westchester
Rockland
Receiving
Watei 3
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Trib.
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Trib.
Hudson
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
Effluent*
Raw, Prim. Effluent
or Sec. Type
Raw
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Primary
B-imary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Stone
washings
Fermenta-
tion &
sanitary
Abrasives
Dyes
Sanitary
Aggregate
washings
Ownershipi Pop. Abate- Ordered
Corp.,Inst., or ment Constr.
Mun. or Ind. Flow Status Complet.
Corporate
Institu-
tional
Municipal
Institu-
tional
Institu-
tional
Municipal
Corporate
Corporate
Corporate
Corporate
Institu-
tional
Corporate
5,000
4,000
5,000
2,400
4mgd
.02mgd
l.Omgd
.OSmgd
.05mgd
.OSmgd
3,000
1.2mgd
A-3 9/69
D-3
D-3
D-5
D-8
B-3
C-3
A-3 5/68
0-3
A-6 5/67
D-5
D-4
Voluntary
Construct.
Completed
1/70
1/70
9/68
7/67
6/68
6/68
Haverstraw Village
Rockland
Croton River
Hudson River Primary
Sanitary Municipal 5,818 D-4
6/68
tO
O
00
-------
Waste Source
Lower Hudson River Drainage
Nest Haver straw Village
Garnerville Holding Corp.
Kay Fries Chemical
Rock Industries (2)
N.Y. Central R.R.
Croton-on-Hudson Village
Water St. STP
Sing Sing Prison
Liberty St. STP
Scarborough STP
River Road STP
Chevrolet & Fisher Body
tfcper Nyack Village
Location
Basin
Haverstraw (T)
Stony Pt.
Haverstraw (T)
Croton (V)
Ossining (V)
Ossining (v)
Ossining (V)
Briarcliff
Manor (V)
Briarcliff
Manor (V)
Tarry town (V)
County
Rock land
Rockland
Rockland
Rockland
Westchester
Westchester
West.iiester
Westchester
Westchester
Westchester
Westchester
Westchester
Rockland
Receiving
Waters
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
Hudson
River
River
RiVer
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
Effluenti
Raw, Prim. Effluent
or Sec. Tvoe
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Sanitary
Textile
& Metal
finish.
Chemical
Ownerships Pop.
Corp., Ins t., or
Mun. or Ind. Flow
Municipal
Corporate
Corporate
Aggregate Corporate
Washings
Locomo- Corporate
tive wash.
& sanitary
Sanitary Municipal
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Paint
Spray
Sanitary
Municipal
Institu-
tional
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Corporate
Municipal
6,800
l.Smgd
O.Olmgd
1.2mgd
0.2mgd
6,800
15,000
2,000
3,000
1,000
200
O.Smgd
2010
Abate- Ordered
ment Constr.
Status Comolet.
D~4
D-4
A-4 12/67
D-4
A-4 .2/70
B-4
D-3
D-8
D-4
D-4
D-4
C-3
C-4
Voluntary
Construct
Completed
10/68
10/68
2/70
2/70
1/70
12/63
12/68
1/70
10/68
N>
O
to
-------
Waste Source
Location County
Receiving
Waters
Effluent!
Raw, Prim.
or Sec.
Lower Hudson River Drainage Basin
N. Tarrytown Village
Tarrytown Village
Nyack Village
South Nyack Village
Jewish Home for Convalescents
Ptarl River Sewer District
Sewer District #2
Irving ton Village
Continental Can Co., Inc.
Nestchester STP
Refined Syrups & Sugars, Inc.
American Felt Co.
National Gypsum Co.
Nestchester
Westchester
Rockland
Rockland
Orangetown (T) Rockland
Orangetown (T) Rockland
Orangetown (T) Rockland
Westchester
Piermont (V) Rockland
Yonkers (C) Westchester
Yonkers (C) Westchester
New Windsor (T) Orange
New Windsor (T) Orange
Hudson River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Sparkill Creek
Hudson River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Hudson River
Quassalc Creek
Quassaic Creek
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary-
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Raw
Raw
ftaw
Ownerships "Pop. Abate-
Ef fluent Corp.,Inst., or ment
Type Mun. or Ind. Flow Status
Sanitary Municipal
Sanitary Municipal
Sanitary Municipal
Sanitary Municipal
Sanitary Institu-
tional
Sanitary Municipal
Sanitary Municipal
Sanitary Municipal
Paper Corporate
Sanitary Municipal
Sanitary Corporate
& Sugar
Textile Corporate
Sanitary Corporate
& Paper
8,900 B-3
11,100 B-3
5,195 C-4
3,400 C-4
80 D-4
15,000 A-6
12,000 A-6
.7mgd B-2
3.5mgd A-4
410,000 D-2
0.8ms,d A-4
0.3mgd A- 3
0.5mgd A-3
Ordered Voluntary
Constr. Construct.
Completed Completed
1/70
1/70
10/68
10/68
10/68
10/68
10/68
i/vp
10/68
10/70
4/69
4/69
Ramapo Piece Dye Works
New Windsor (T) Orange
Quassaic Creek Raw
Textile Corporate 0.05mgd A-3
12/68
K)
H
O
-------
Wast* Source
Location
County
Receiving
Waters
Effluenti
Raw,Prim. Effluent
or Sec. Type
Ownershipi Pop. Abate-. ** Ordered Voluntary
Corp.,Inst., or merit Cbnstr. Construct.
Mun. or Ind. Flow Status Oomplet. Completed
Lower Hudson River Drainage Basin
Kingston City
New Paltz Village
Wallkill Village
Walden Village
Warwick Village
Rockland State Hospital
New York City
New York City
New York City
New York City
Consolidated Edison Co.
Hoffman School
Hebrew Home for the Aged
Ulster
Ulster
Ulster
Orange
Orange
Orangetown (T) Rockland
Rondout River Primary Sanitary
Wallkill River Primary Sanitary
Wallkill River Primary Sanitary
Wallkill River Primary Sanitary
Wawayanda Creek Primary Sanitary
Sparkill Creek Secondary Sanitary
Battery to West New York
llth St.
Hudson River Raw
Canal St.plant New York Hudson River Raw
Hudson River Raw
West llth St. New York
to Harlem River
Dyckman St.PIant New York
New York (C) New York
New York (.C)
New York (C)
Bronx
Bronx
Hudson River .Raw
Hudson River Raw
Hudson River Raw
Hudson River
Raw
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Municipal 3.5mgd D-3
Municipal 3,000 D-3
Municipal 1,215 D-3
Municipal 4,851 D-4
Municipal 4,000 D-3
Institu- 1,500 D-4
tional
Municipal 79,000 A-6
Municipal 50,000 A-6
Municipal 710,000 A-5
Sanitary -Municipal 39,000 A-5
Corporate C-i
Sanitary
& thermal
Sanitary
Sanitary
Institu-
tional
Institu-
tional
125 C-l
550 D-8
9/68
9/68
10/70
10/70
1/69
3/69
10/69
4/69
7/69
4/72
4/72
-------
Table 3
COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE STUDIES
OCTOBER 1965-SEPTEMBER 1967
COUNTY
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL-COMPREHENSIVE SEWERAGE
COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
UQ.
AREA
COMMENT
NO.
AREA
COMMENT
Albany
37
CJl
i
Columbia
Dutchess
*151
22
*59
*119
Albany (C) Study Report Approved
5/15/67
Bethlehem (T)
Cohoes (C)
Colonie (V)
Colonie (T)
Green Island (V)
Guilderland (T)
Menands (V)
New Scotland (T)
Rayena (V)
Coeymans (T)
Voorheesville (V)
Watervliet (C)
*43 Albany (C)
Entire County
Completion date
6/5/68
Hyde Park (T) Report Approved
3/15/67
South Hyde Pk (T)
Poughkeepsie (T)
Orangetown (T)
Fishkill
Wappinger
Casper
*Study stc
rted after Oct. 1, 1965
Completion Date
5/1/68
Cohoes (C)
Watervliet (C>
Colonie (V)
Green Island (V)
Menands (V)
Rayena (V)
Bethlehem (T)
Coeymans (T)
Colonie (T)
Guilderland (T)
Knox (T)
New Scotland .(T)
Berne (T)
Westerlo (T)
Rensselaerville (T)
*32 Entire County
Urban Areas
Previously
Studied
IV)
H
ro
-------
Table 3
COUNTY
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL-COMPREHENSIVE SEWERAGE
COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
NO.
AREA
COMMENT
NO.
AREA
COMMENT
Greene
Orange
Putnam
Rensselae
* Study s
*77 Catskill (T)
*80 Cairo (T)
*189 Entire County
*27 Monroe (T)
*102
*154
Monroe (V)
Harrington (V)
Newburg (T)
Report Accepted
2/8/67
Report Accepted
3/30/66
Report Accepted
1/10/66
Entire County Completion
2/14/68
18 Sand Lake Report Accepted
3/29/67
19 Troy (C) Report Accepted
1/26/66
Brunswick (T)
Schaticoke (T)
North Greenbush
*65 Nassau (V)
Nassau (T)
*109 Rensselaer (C)
E. Greenbush
rted after Oct. 1, 1965
*25 Entire County
*4
Entire County
*16 Entire County
Report Approved
Completion
2/1/68
Previously studied
by Rensselaer County
Health Department
10
H
UJ
-------
Table 3
COUNTY
Rensselaei
Rockland
Schoharie
Ulster
*Study st
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL-COMPREHENSIVE SEWERAGE
NO.
*145
*53
54
*66
*184
13
44
*130
*131
*136
*171
rted
AREA
Castleton (V)
Schodak (T)
Haverstraw (T)
Haverstraw (V)
W. Haverstraw (V)
S. Nyack (V)
Nyack (V)
Upper Nyack (V)
Grand-View-On-
Hudson
Middleburg (V)'
Middleburg (T)
Entire County
Ulster (T)
Esopus (T)
Marlboro (T)
Woodstock (T)
Rosendale (T)
Rosendale (V)
Entire Co.
after Oct. 1, 1965
COMMENT
Report Accepted
6/12/67
Report Accepted
Report Accepted
10/4/66
Report Approved
2/8/67
Report Accepted
6/13/67
COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
NO. AREA COMMENT
No Study
Application
Submitted
*15 Entire Co. Completion
2/22/68
N>
-------
TaBle 3
CD
i
COUNTY
Westchester
NYC
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL-COMPREHENSIVE SEWERAGE
NO. AREA
5 Croton Watershed
26 Ossining (T)
Ossining (v)
32 Peekskill (C)
Cortlandt (T)
47 Briarcliff
Manor (V)
*110 Peekskill (T)
Hollow Brook (T)
*173 Entire County
7 Wards Island
COMMENT
Report Approved
Report Approved
3/20/67
Report Approved
5/15/67
Report Approved
COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
NO. AREA COMMENT
*10 N. West. Co.
*11 Portchester
Rye
*27 Westchester Co.
NYC Watershed
See CPWS-27
Westchester Co.
* Study started after Oct. 1, 1965
tsj
l-«
en
-------
Table 4
Plan Review Activity
September 1965 - 1967
Albany Co.
Municipality Project
Altamont (V) Altamont
Bethlehem (T) Bethlehem
' Colonie (T) Leisureville Apt&.
i — "
vO
Voorheesville (V) Salem Hills
Colonie (v) Holiday Inn
Colonie (T) Alb.-Sch'dy Road
Design
Population Cost Comments
2,200 $ 113,000 Imhoff tank, standard rate trickling
filter, continuous chlorination
additions and alterations.
1,717 15,000 Additions to existing plant, addition
al chlorination
300 75,000 Continuous chlorinatipn, tert.
ment
400 78,000 Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
250 9,400 Extended aeration, sand filter,
tinuous chlorination
treat-
con-
Colonie (T)
Columbia County
Claverack (T)
Sewer District 15,000
Newton Street Plant
Lake Shore Park 40,000
Pine Haven County Home 270
65,000 Plain settling tank, standard rate
trickling filter, continuous
chlorinatipn, add. & alt.
80,000 Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
32,000 Septic Tank, standard rate
trickling filter
K)
-------
I
o
Dutchess County
Municipality Project
Rhir ,eck (T) Vanderburgh Cove
Subd.
E. Fishkill (T) Beekman County Club
Wappinger (T) Oak Ridge Manor
Table 4
Design
Population Cost
160 $ 83,000
200 $ 60,000
280 $ 62,000
Fishkill (T) Hudson View Filt. Corporation 2,252 $335,000
Hyde Park (T) Greenfield Development
1,596 $210,000
Beekman (T) Nieun Village Garden Apartments 1,860 $100,000
Beekman (T) Austin Development
Fishkill (T) Mountain View Apartments
Hyde Park (T) Wedgewood Hills Apartment
La Grange (T) Scenic Hills
La Grange (T) Deerfield Est.
500 $ 70,000
508 $ 60,000
1,000 $ 50,000
612 $ 60,000
576 $ 72,000
Comments
Septic tank, sand filter, con-
tinuous chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
Contact stabilization, continuous
chlorination
Contact stabilization, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
Contact stabilization, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
N>
H1
•J
-------
Dutchess County (cont'd)
Municipality
Wappinger (T)
Project
Les Chateauz Apts,
Wappinger (T) Mid Point Park Sub,
Wappinger (T)
Wappinger (l)
Chelsea Ridge Apts.
Summit Garden Apts.
Table 4
Design
Population Cost
1,036 $ 90,000
620 $ 80,000
616 $ 40,000
1,100 $100,000
Poughkeepsie (T) Country Club Estates S.D. 40 $400,000
Wappinger (T) Rockingham Farms
Poughkeepsie (T) Arlington Sewer District
Wappinger (l) Spook Hill Estates
50 $200,000
Wappinger (T)
Ye Old Apple Orchard
E. Fishkill (T) John Jay High School
Comments
Contact stablization, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter, con-
tinuous chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter, con-
tinuous chlorination
Contact stabilization, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter, con-
tinuous chlorination
Contact stabilization, sand filtei,
continuous chlorination
Engineering Report accepted 5/29/67
Sewage Corporation - legal action
pending
Engineering report submitted - pending
reply from engineer
Report accepted on 8/4/67
ro
H«
00
-------
ro
ro
Greene County
Municipality Project
N. Baltimore (l) N. Baltimore
Table 4
Greenville (T)
Greenville (T)
i Catskill (V)
Pleasant View Lodge
Design
Population
1,900
310
Pine Springs Vacation
Resort 400
Catskill
Coxsackie (T&V) Coxsackie
Cost Comments
103,000 Plain settling tank, continuous
chlorination
30,250 Septic tank, sand filter, continuous
chlorination
6,000 Septic tank, lagoon, seasonal
chlorination
Engineering Report accepted 5/2/67
Preliminary Report accepted 3/27/67
VD
-------
New York City
Municipality Project
Manhattan North River
Design
Population
Table 4
Cost
$ 125,400,000
Comments
Activated sludge, in design stage,
Preliminary Engineering Report approved
November 1963. Final plans due
September 1967.
Brooklyn
New York City Newtown Creek 2,500,000 $ 165,200,000
ro
CO
New York City Spring Creek
$ 10,917,000
Activated sludge, under construction,
to be in operation by September 1967
Engineering Report accepted by NYSDH
now being reviewed by FWPCA
Stormwater overflow treatment basin
to
10
o
-------
Orange County
Table 4
Municipality
Newburgh (T)
Wallkill (T)
Chester (T)
Newburgh (T)
Goshen (V)
Monroe (V)
Cornwall (T)
Woodbury (T)
Wallkill (T)
Project
Gidney Sewer District
Silver Lake Mechanics-
town Sewer District
Surrey Meadows
Meadow Hill North
Goshen
Maple Knolls S. D. #1
Design
Population Cost
2,950 $155,000
12,000 $300,000
1,200 $120,000
1,500 $100,000
15,000 $750,000
900 $100,000
Firthcliff Sewer District 1,200 $159,000
Woodbury Sewer District
360 $186,000
Scotswood Sewer District 1,000 $ 50,000
Blooming Grove (T) Merywood
Newburgh (T)
Meadow Hill
4,250 $100,000
500 $270,000
Comments
Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
High rate trickling filter,
continuous chlorination
High rate trickling filter,
sand filter
Contact stabilization, sand
filter, continuous chlorination
High rate trickling filter;
lagoon, continuous chlorination
Activated sludge, sand filter.
continuous chlorination
Extended aeration, continuous
chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
High rate trickling filter,
sand filter, continuous
chlorination
Plain settling tank, high rate
trickling filter, continuous
chlorination
Contact stabilization, continu-
ous chlorination
N>
-------
Table 4
Orange County
Municipality
Goshen (T)
Woodbury (T)
Newburgh (C)
New Windsor (T)
Washingtonville (V)
Cornwall (T&V)
Maybrook (V)
Walden (V)
Cornwall (V&T)
Project
Orange Farms
Woodbury
Newburgh
New Windsor
Washingtonville
Cornwall
Maybrook
Walden
Cornwall S. D.
Design
Population
Cost Comments
Report accepted 4/25/67
Engineering report accepted 3/31/67
Engineering report accepted 4/7/67
Plastic Filter media, final plans
being prepared by engineer
Returned to engineer for revision
Report accepted 7/24/67
Engineering report submitted - pending
reply from engineer
at FWPCA
at FWPCA
to
10
to
-------
Table 4
Putnam County
Design
Municipality Project Population Cost Comment
Cold Spring (V) Cold Spring
Engineering Report submitted - pending
reply from engineer
N)
ro
-------
Rockland County
Table 4
Municipality
Stony Point (T)
Project
Bear Mt. State Park
Design
Population
2,943
Clarkstown (T) Princess Ann Apts.
ro
-j
Clarkstown (T)
Ramapo (T)
Reyville Est.
Orchard Hills
Stony Point (T) Stony Point
Orangetown (T) Orangetown
Clarkstown (T) Sewer District
Clarkstown (T) Sewer District #13
Clarkstown (T) Sewer District #8
Cost
$106,790
560 $64,000
Clarkstown (T) Buckingham Manor Apts. 350 $60,000
276 $59,000
624 $50,000
9,410 $102,000
52,000 $2,130,000
100,000 $4,000,000
950 $26,500
Comments
High rate trickling filter, continuous
chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
Extended aeration, sand filter
Extended aeration, sand filter,
continuous chlorination
Plain settling tank, activated sludge,
continuous chlorination
High rate trickling filter, continuous
chlorination
Plain settling tank, activated sludge,
continuous chlorination
Activated sludge, sand filter, con-
tinuous chlorination
1,400 $50,000 Lagoon, continuous chlorination
ro
to
-------
Table 4
Ulster County
Design
Municipality Project Population Cost
Rochester (T) Granit Hotel 1,500 $45,000 Plain settling tank, standard rate
trickling filter, continuous chlorination
New Paltz (V) New Paltz Report approved 1/16/67
CO
00
K>
ro
in
-------
Westchester County
Municipality
Yorktown (l)
Cortland (l)
Ossining (V)
Table 4
Project
Osceola Sewer Dist,
Baltic Estates
Water Street
Design
Population
Cost Comments
$160,000 Contact stabilization, sand filter
continuous chlorination
Report approved 1/13/67
Report accepted 2/2/67
to
\o
to
ro
-------
Table 5
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GRANT PROGRAM
SUMMARY REPORT — Activities 1965
County
1963
Albany*
Columbia
Dut chess*
Orange*
Putnam
Rensselaer
Rockland
Sullivan*
Ulster
Westchester*
TOTAL
1965
Number
of
Municipal
Plants*
12
3
Ik
15
3
l
16
2
11
18
95
Number
of
Applicants
2
2
2
6
2
1
13
2
7
16
53
Number
of
Communities
Approved
2
2
2
3
2
1
11
1
7
15
1*6
Total Cost
Operation &
Maintenance
$ 23,490
29,100
104,667
76,288
75,709
15,178
274,477
15,013
107,59^
713,567
$1,435,083
Amount
State
Grant
$ 7,829
9,700
34,889
25,1*28
25,235
4,98U
102,692
5,004
35,862
238,393
$ 490,016
Applications
Disapproved
or
Withdrawn
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
1
0
1
7
co
o
* Lower Hudson Drainage Basin Only
to
NJ
-------
Table 5
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GRANT PROGRAM
SUMMARY REPORT — Activities 1966
County
1966
Albany*
Columbia
Dut chess*
Orange*
Putnam
Rensselaer
Rockland
Sullivan*
Ulster
Westchester*
TOTAL
1966
TOTAL
1965-66
Number
of
Municipal
Plants*
12
3
Ik
15
3
1
16
2
11
18
95
95
Number
of
Applicants
2
1
k
12
2
1
12
1
8
l^
57
110**
Number
of
Communities
Approved
2
1
k
7
0
0
5
0
6
11
36
82***
Total Cost
Operation &
Maintenance
$ 28,108
5,167
136,612
7^,068
162,509
77,277
661,136
$1,1^,877
2,579,960
Amount
State
Grant
$ 9,369
1,670
^5,538
2^,689
5^,169
25,7^7
220,377
381,559
871,575
Applications
Disapproved
or
Withdrawn
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
9
to
I—1
I
* Lower Hudson Drainage Basin Only
** 110 Applications Received From 68 Different Communities
*** 82 Approvals were Granted for 57 Different Communities
to
N)
00
-------
Table 5
NEW YORK CITY — FISCAL YEARS 1965-1966
PLANT NAME
1965 Fiscal Year
LOCATION
RECEIVING
WATERS
PRESENT
FLOW
MGD
TOTAL COST
OPERATION &
MAINTENANCE
AMOUNT
STATE
GRANT
Bowery Bay
Hunts Point
Owls Head
Tallmans Island
Wards Island
Total 1965
1966 Fiscal Year
Bowery Bay
Hunts Point
Owls Head
Tallmans Island
Wards Island
Queens
Bronx
Brooklyn
Queens
Manhattan
Queens
Bronx
Brooklyn
Queens
Manhattan
East River
East River
Upper Harbor
East River
East River
East River
East River
Upper Harbor
East River
East River
102
108
85
46
200
541
102
108
85
46
200
$1,222,378
1,052,650
974,172
879,741
2,175,677
$6,304,618
$1,221,877
1,216,966
1,052,372
911,218
2,381,039
$407,459
350,883
324,724
293,247
725,226
$2,101,539
$407,293
405,655
350,791
303,739
793,680
CO
ro
Total 1966
541
6,783,472 2,261,158
Totals 1965-1966
541
$13,088,090 $4,362,697
10
N>
vO
-------
230
A. Handley
PURE WATER CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
This discussion concerns the status and progress
of construction grants activities for the construction of
sewage treatment plants under the Pure Waters Progran of the
State of New York since the signing of the first five State
contracts by Governor Rockefeller on September 1, 1966.
Passage of the State legislation on May 12, 1965
and the State referendum of the voters in November 1965
resulted in the means of accomplishing a practical Construc-
tion Grants program by the State of New York which would
guarantee municipalities 6o# of the cost of construction of
municipal sewage treatment plants. This 60# consists of the
basic 3056 State grant, plus up to 30# pre-financing of the
Federal share. While this program is confined to municipali-
ties, industry is not precluded from using properly designed
municipal waste treatment plants — subject to mutually
agreeable arrangements, sewer use charges, and waste pre-
treatment in some instances. Thus, the State of New York has
a practical, workable, financially sound incentive which has
materially influenced the initiation and continued accelera-
tion of the Pure Waters Program across the state.
On September 1, 1966, the first five State con-
tracts were executed by Governor Rockefeller and the officials
of the concerned municipalities. A total of 4? State con-
-------
231
A. Handley
tracts have now been formally executed. One hundred twenty-
nine more projects have been found acceptable and State con-
tracts will be executed when construction is ready to commence
in the next few months. As Governor Rockefeller stated,
these involve State grants totaling some $357 million. The
extent of New York's progress is shown in that during the
first 11 months of the State program, New York obligated more
funds than the Federal government had for projects in the
State of New York in the 11 prior years.
Projects in New York State for construction of
municipal sewage treatment works are eligible for Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA) construction
grants under the Federal Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966,
or are eligible under prior legislation'.
FWPCA funds allocated for New York State projects
are not sufficient to provide for the authorized funding,
i.e., 50 or 55# under the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966,
or generally 30# under prior legislation.
The amount of this insufficiency for projects
approved and in process totals $693,755,35^ as follows:
a. Table 6: $238,057,871 for projects already
approved by the FWPCA and those in FWPCA awaiting approval.
b. Table 7: $140,156,079 for projects currently
being processed by the municipality and the New York State
-------
232
A. Handley
Department of Health (NYSDH). Project identification numbers
utilized by both the FWPCA and the NYSDH have been assigned
to these projects.
c. Table 8: $315,541,^64 for projects in
process of preparation by the municipality; i.e., in the
planning and preliminary design stage and for which formal
Federal and State applications will be submitted when an
engineering report can be submitted to the NYSDH. As the
State of New York regional comprehensive planning program
progresses further, this will result in additional proposed
projects, which will be added to the listing in Table 8 when
eligible project costs become firm.
The Water Pollution Control Program of the City
of New York has a total eligible cost currently of $1.29
billion. Based upon the current allocation of Federal funds
at \% of the eligible project cost for proposed projects,
the Federal participation for the entire program is approxi-
mately $13 million or 1.04# of the total eligible project
cost. This compares with State grant participation of
approximately $568 million or 44* of total eligible project
cost, summary details concerning the Federal and State
participation in proposed projects, those underway, those
completed with grant aid, and those completed without grant
aid are included as Table 9. Recognition should be given to
-------
233
A. Handley
the outstanding progress of the City of New York in the
accomplishment of their overall Water Pollution Control
Program, particularly in view of the fact that the City has
proceeded at a remarkable rate of progress in advance of sub-
stantial Federal and State construction grants. The State
also desires to recognize the^ technical excellence and dedi-
cation of the personnel of the New York City Department of
Public Works Bureau of Water Pollution Control.
The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 authorized
Federal funds for the Pure Waters Program. For FY '68, $450
million was authorized nationally with an allocation for
New York State of approximately $37.6 million. The Federal
administration proposed to the Congress an appropriation
nationally of only $203 million, which reduces the New York
State allocation to $14.5 million. This reduction of $23
million seriously affects the New York State Program. At
the present time, until the Congress passes its appropriation,
the New York State allocation has been the same as the last
fiscal year, '6?, or $9.8 million. This $9.8 million has all
been allocated against current New York State projects with
the exception of a few thousand dollars. This means that
for the balance of the fiscal year '68, New York State pro-
jects can be funded with Federal funds probably only for an
additional $4.7 million. Comparison of this probably available
-------
234
A. Handley
$4.7 million versus the many millions of dollars outlined
previously as requirements needs no emphasis. Another com-
parison of interest is the $3.35 billion total authorizations
under the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, as compared
to the $1.7 billion estimated to eliminate pollution in the
State of New York, The authorizations nationally are only
twice those of the New York State total project costs. If
Congress is to finance the Federal Clean Water Program at
the 55# figure authorized in the Clean Water Restoration
Act of 1966, additional funds must be authorized. For record
purposes, the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 authorized
Federal funds for various years as follows:
Fiscal
Year
1968
1969
1970
1971
Author i zat ions
Nationally
$450 Million
700 Million
1 Billion
1.25 Billion
$3.35 Billion
Allocations
New York State
$37,588,750
60,670,250
88,368,050
111,449,550
$298,076,600
Proposed
Allocation
$14,530,900
-
-
_
A monthly status report of Federal and State grants
for construction .of sewage treatment facilities is prepared
and is included as Table 10. The report includes a statistical
-------
235
A. Handley
summary for active construction grants projects. Analysis
of the actual and proposed State grant amounts figures indi-
cate that, for active projects, over $357 million in State
funds will be needed in the reasonably near future for the
176 proposed and actual State grant contracts. Since this
report is as of August 31, 1967, it is based on State par-
ticipation of 56$, rather than the 59$ now being utilized.
These figures will be adjusted accordingly at the time of
publication of the September 30 monthly report. This monthly
report shows whether individual proje cts are eligible for
Federal participation under the Clean Water Restoration Act
of 1966, or are eligible under previous legislation; whether
they have Accelerated Public Works or Appalachia additional
/
grants; and whether they have been given the 10$ additional
grant for compliance with regional comprehensive planning.
The report also shows the various dollar amounts of eligible
project cost, Federal grant, State grant, Federal payments,
and State payments, percent completed, and status comment.
As has been stated, the State of New York and its
municipalities are much interested in the reimbursement
features of the FWPCA grant program. Municipalities realize
that the State of New York accepts each Pure Waters Program
project as they arrive, treating each with equal priority,
and recommending equivalent Federal participation when the
-------
236
A. Handley
project is approved by the FWPCA. Currently, this program
is a \% FWPCA participation and 5956 State participation,
composed of the 30# basic State grant and 29# pre-financing
of the Federal share. This leaves some 54# of the Federal
share to be furnished later by the Federal government, either
before the completion of construction of the project, or as
reimbursement after completion of the project. It is
apparent that the lack of Federal funds preclude the
financing of the full 55# of Federal participation, and that
this situation causes problems administratively for the
FWPCA, the State of New York and the municipalities concerned
As Governor Rockefeller has stated, full participation to
the limit of existing authorizations is the first step in
the solution of these problems. Future consideration of
Federal legislation should include review of the necessity
for increasing the existing authorization nationally.
The Construction Grants personnel of the FWPCA
Region and Sub-Region, specifically Messrs. Lester Sutton and
Rocco Ricci, have been outstanding in their assistance,
cooperation and coordination with the State of New York and
its municipalities, and the efficient operation of their
construction grants organization reflects great credit on
them and on the FWPCA. The fine support given them by Mr.
Thomas Ferry, from his Washington Construction Grants office,
-------
237
A. Handley
deserves special mention also.
It is desired also to give recognition to the
excellent assistance in water pollution control measures
provided by another Federal agency -- the United States Army
Corps of Engineers. Three areas deserve special attention:
first, the completion of the deepening of the Hudson River
navigation channel to Albany, with the Corps of Engineers
utilizing State of New York-furnished spoil disposal areas
on shore (as opposed to disposal in the River); their
cooperation in the proposed solution for the Moriches Bay
area in Long Island (by dredging and spoil disposal to the
ocean); and finally, their enforcement activities in New York
Harbor and upriver. The Corps does not seem to publicize
its New York Harbor enforcement activities involving oil
pollution, pollution from ships, debris incineration activi-
ties, disposal at sea activities, issuance of disposal permits
and the supervision thereof, and other related activities.
The State commends the Corps for the excellence of its liai-
son and coordination, the efficiency of their operations,
and its results and accomplishments, which have and are
materially aiding in abating and controlling water pollution,
the objective of Governor Rockefeller's Pure Waters Program.
The State Pure Waters Construction Grant Program
is fully implemented, adequately funded, and is progressirg
-------
238
A. Handley
in excess of expectations. Further assistance through
appropriations for increased Federal construction grants
would undoubtedly provide further impetus to this rate of
progress and reduce the load on New York for pre-financing
large portions of the federal share.
-------
TABLE 6
STATED APPROVED PROJECTS WITH
FWPCA APPROVAL OR AWAITING
FWPCA APPROVAL
September 15. 1967
239
PKOJECt
298
317
377
353
256
108
338
339
255
369
316
320
291
149
£38
370
324
359
350
345
357
346
347
363
178
356
354
297
314
326
281
327
315
152
151
310
287
261
APPLICANT
Altamont (V), Albany County
Colonie (T), Albany County
Colonie (T), Albany County
Keesevtlle (V), Clinton County
Sidney (V), Delaware County
Canajoharie (V), Montgomery County
Cooperstown (V), Otsego County
Milford (V), Otsego County
Hoosick Falls (V), Rensselaer County
Canton (V), St. Lawrence County
Edwards (V), St. Lawrence County
Potsdam (V), St. Lawrence County
Schenectady (C), Schenectady County
Amherst (T), Erie County
Erie County S.D. #3, Erie County
Erie County Home & Penitentiary
Tonawanda (T)., Erie County
Lockport (C), Niagara County
Youngstown (V), Niagara County
Coney Island, New York City
Owl's Head, New York City
Port Richmond, New York City
Spring Creek, New York City
Wards Island, New York City
North River Interceptor Plant, NYC
Caneadea '(T) , Allegany County
Friendship (V), Allegany County
Elmira (C), Chemung County
Avon (V), Livingston County
Nunda (V), Livingston County
Brighton (T), Monroe County
Brighton S.D. #3, Monroe County
Gates-Chili-Ogden (T), Monroe County
Greece (T), Monroe County
Greece (T), Monroe County
Greece (T), Monroe County
Penfield (T), Monroe County
Pittsford (V), Monroe County
-38-
FWPCA FUNDS
ALLOCATED
$ 5,000
60,000
6,000
35S000
91,350
223,125
316,416
10,890
194,880
72,200
50,550
825,000
5,000
600,000
1,084,300
11,880
57,000
253,360
11,350
220,000
36,900
200,000
1,200,000
100,000
2,200,000
19,700
97,890
58,740
25,132
118,000
221,920
220,000
140,790
117,844
31,347
56,820
5,100
43,350
ADDITIONAL
FWPCA FUNDS
REQUIRED
$ 43,750
50,000
324,000
328,143
76,125
43,834
23,484
17,340
162,400
920,550
42,125
687,500
40,480
8,297
48,180
136,620
570,000
3,104,880
7,570
2,016,630
30,750
1,745,900
4,567,850
467,325
119,000,000
215,315
82,075
39,160
320,433
98,700
8,280
1,979,450
117,325
16,352
30,903
724,405
21,690
36,125
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
240
PROJECT
NUMBER APPLICANT
375 Rochester (0), Monroe County
293 Scottsvillc (V), Monroe County
299 Webster (T), Monroe County
330 Hopewell (T)5 Ontario County
273 Victor (V), Ontario County
372 Seneca Falls (V), Seneca County
331 Corning (C), Steuben County
280 Hornell (C), Steuben County
367 Newark (V), Wayne County
312 Dundee (V), Yates County
332 Jerusalem (T), Yates County
306 Dickinson (T), Sroome County
228 Endicott (V), Broome County
223 Johnson City (V)> Broome County
226 Kirkwood S.D.#1, Broome County
295 Vestal (T), Broome County
263 Port Byron (V), Cayuga County
300 Green (V), Chenango County
292 Watertown (C), Jefferson County
301 Castorland (V), Lewis County
360 Hamilton (V), Madison County
371 Oneida County S.D., Oneida County
303 Camden (V), Oneida County
302 Kirkland (T), Oneida County
234 Camillas (T), Onondaga County
319 Camillus (V), Onondaga County
358 Ley Creek Modification STP, Onondaga
308 Manlius S.D.(V), Onondaga County
266 Onondaga County DPW, Onondaga County
296 Onondaga County Jail, Onondaga County
313 Onondaga County, Onondaga County
340 Wappinger (T), Dutchess County
53 Newburgh (C), Orange County
167 Trumansburg (V), Tompkins County
318 Cedarhurst (V), Nassau County
236 Glen Cove (V), Nassau County
341 Great Neck (V), Nassau County
250 Lawrence (V), Nassau County
305 Long Beach (C), Nassau County
342 Roslyn (V), Nassau County
351 Port Washington S.B,, Nassau County
361 Nassau County S.D, #3, Nassau County
368 Cornwall (T), Orange County
352 Goshen (V), Orange County
FWPCA FUKDS
ALLOCATED
$ 2,000,000
20,400
128,312
34,800
66,300
600,480
250,712
96,900
77,500
165,000
91,200
13,590
857,070
600,000
110,190
40,450
70,000
118,710
190,000
5,000
29,000
801,160
9,960
96,690
116,910
21,350
County220,000
39,630
1,278,090
26,400
623,700
3,520
447,320
137,100
270,000
36,000
87,450
427,350
85,800
19,270
21,000
3,742,180
38,192
40,000
ADDITIONAL
FWPCA FUNDS
•REQUIRED
$ 25 , 500,QOO
260,100
833,928
29,000
55,800
775-.620
493,680
1,235,475
775,000
110,000
131,550
11,325
295,740
133,320
70S
16,980
37,100
98,925
210,323
52,310
195,600
10,214,790
6,650
64,460
88,567
14,235
1,594,527
33,025
189,810
26,015
415,800
47,520
2,625,650
8,971
13,290
1,107
58,547
69,122
57,200
12,850
267,750
47,712,795
486,948
372,500
-------
TABLE 6 (continued)
241
PROJECT
NUMBER
364
362
294
244
274
268
343
237
28
322
378
APPLICANT
New Windsor (T), Orange County
Walden (V), Orange County
Washingtonville (V), Orange County
Cold Spring (V), Putnam County
Rockland County S.D.#1, Rockland County
Stony Point (T), Rockland County
Huntington S.D., Suffolk County
North Port (V), Suffolk County
Southhampton (T), Suffolk County
Rockland (!), Sullivan County
Arlington S,D., Dutchess County
FWPCA FUNDS
ALLOCATED
$ 66,000
99,000
168,960
144,300
5,087,313
421,740
10,000
8., 580
7,350
80,070
96,000
ADDITONAL
FWPCA FUNDS
REQUIRED
$ 841,500
66,000
112,640
130,700
1,668,987
64,020
91,530
1,740
1,470
66,725
1,224,000
SUB-TOTAL: PROJECT ELIGIBLE FOR 55% - GRANT UNDER
THE CLEAN WATER RESTORATION ACT OF 1966
SUB-TOTAL: PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR 30% GRANT OR LESS
UNDER PREVIOUS FEDERAL LEGISLATION
TOTAL: ADDITIONAL FWPCA FUNDS; TO BRING ELIGIBLE
PROJECTS UP TO AUTHORIZED AMOUNTS
$235,694,844
2,363,027
$238,057,871
-40-
-------
242
TABLE 7
PROJECT APPLICATIONS CURRENTLY BEING PROCESSED
TO BE SUBMITTED TO FWPCA FOR APPROVAL
SEPTEMBER 15. 1967
PROJECT
NUMBER APPLICANT
388 Albany Co. S.D., Albany County
387 Coeymans (T), Albany County
366 Stamford (V), Delaware County
389 Rensselaer Co.SD, Rensselaer Co.
279 Salamanca (V), Cattaraugus Co.
379 Dunkirk (C) , Chatauqua County
323 Cheektowaga (T), Erie County
385 Erie Co. SD #3, Erie County
391 Tonawanda (T), Erie County
390 Lancaster-Depew-Alden, Erie Co.
376 Oakfield (V), Genesee County
382 Middieport (V), Niagara County
392 Oakwood Beach, New York City
393 Owl's Head, New York City
394 Red Hook, New York City
395 Ward's Island, New York City
396 Coney Island, New York City
397 Hunts Point, New York City
348 Camp LaGuardia, New York City
398 Bowery Bay, New York City
399 Hunt's Point, New York City
400 Jamaica, New York City
401 Oakwood Beach, New York City
402 Owl's Head, New York City
403 Rockaway, New York City
404 Tallmans Island, New York City
405 26th Ward, New York City
406 Riker's Island, New York City
325 Chemung Co. SD #1, Chemung County
374 Churchville (V), Monroe County
384 Marion (T), Monroe County
381 Penfield (T), Monroe County
328 Perinton (T), Monroe County
373 Erwin (T), Steuben County
380 Sodus (V), Wayne County
ELIGIBLE
PROJECT COST
FWPCA
GRANT ?UNDS
BEQUE5TED (557.")
$ 38,253,000
825,600
699,250
18,000,000
1,795,000
8,735,000
1,833,000
246,530
5,500,000
11,864,407
345,000
703,900
33,000,000
17,000,000
53,000,000
24,000,000
14,000,000
5,500,000
200,000
1,900,000
1,600,000
600,000
100,000
600,000
800,000
1,200,000
100,000
500,000
1,100,000
500,000
420,000
813,560
468,243
918,000
589,700
$ 21,039,150
454,080
384,587
9,900,000
987,250
4,804,250
1,008,150
135,591
3,025,000
6,525,423
189,750
387,145
18,150,000
9,350,000
29,150,000
13,200,000
7,700,000
3,025,000
110,000
1,045,000
880,000
330,000
55,000
330,000
440,000
660,000
55,000
275,000
605,000
275,000
231,000
447,458
257,533
504,900
324,335
-41-
-------
243
TABLE 7 (continued)
FWPCA
PROJECT ELIGIBLE GRANT FUNDS
NUMBER APPLICANT PROJECT COST REQUESTED (55%)
349 Moravia (V) , Cayuga County $ 610,000 $ 335,500
335 DeWitt (T), Onondaga County 80,000 44,000
386 Oswego (C) , Oswego County 4,254,000 2,339,700
336 Pulaski (V), Oswego County 566,000 311,300
355 Suffolk Co. Comm. Coll., Suffolk Co. 279,550 153,752
365 South Fallsburg SD, Sullivan County 1.329.500 731.225
$254,829,240 $140,156,079
-42-
-------
TABLE 8
PROJECT APPLICATIONS BEING
PREPARED BY MUNICIPALITIES
SEPTEMBER 15. 1967
244
APPLICANT
Cliazy (T), Clinton County
Greenport (T), S.D.#1, Columbia County
Delhi (V), Delaware County
Franklin (V), Delaware County
Jay (T), Ausable Forks, Essex County
Black Brook (T), Essex County
Moriah (T), Essex County
Willsboro (T), Essex County
Lake Placid (V), Essex County
Fort Covington (V), Franklin County
Saranac Lake (V), Franklin County
Johnstown (C), Gloversville (C),Fulton Co.
Coxsackie (V), Greene County
Catskill (V), Greene County
Nelliston (V), Montgomery County
St. Johnsville (V), Montgomery County
DeKalb Junction (H), St. Lawrence County
Fine (T), St. Lawrence County
Heuvelton (V), St. Lawrence County
Norfolk (T), St. Lawrence County
Norwood (V), St. Lawrence County
Esperance (V), Schoharie County
Schoharie (V), Schoharie County
Luzerne (T), Warren County
Little Valley (V), Cattaraugus County
Olean (C), Cattaraugus County
Brocton (V), Chautauqua County
Fredonia (V), Chautauqua County
Jamestown (C), Chautauqua County
Westfield (V), Chautauqua County
Leroy (V), Genesee County
Elba (V), Genesee County
Wheatfield (V), Niagara County
Buffalo (C), Erie County
Buffalo-Gansen St. (C), Erie County
Fresh Kills, New York City
Port Richmond, New .York City
Bowery Bay, New York City
Tottenville, New York City
Welfare Island, New York City
Hendrix St, New York City
-43-
ELIGIBLE PROJECT
COST
FWPCA
GRSHT FUNDS
REQUIRED(557.)
$ 305,000
747,458
918,644
310,000
70,000
380,000
153,000
325,000
1,150,000
1,250,000
1,750,000
6,000,000
766,100
2,034,000
150,000
800,000
252,000
200,000
305,000
176,000
830,500
183,000
327,000
810,200
479,700
4,500,000
437,000
840,000
2,600,000
1,783,600
1,017,000
158,700
600,000
11,000,000
1,000,000
16,500,000
57,000,000
13,200,000
7,300,000
2,200,000
2,900,000
$ 167,750
411,102
505,254
170,500
38,500
209,000
84,150
178,750
632,500
687,500
962,500
3,300,000
421,355
1,118,700
82,500
440,000
138,600
110,000
167,750
96,800
456,775
100,650
179,850
445,610
263,835
2,475,000
240,350
462,000
1,430,000
980,980
559,350
87,285
330,000
6,050,000
550,000
9,075,000
31,350,000
7,260,000
4,015,000
1,210,OOC
1,595,000
-------
245
TABLE 8 (continued)
APPLICANT
Paerdegat Basin, New York City
Fresh Creek, New York City
Throgs Neck, New York City
Boston Road, New York City
Conner Street, New York City
Bushnell Avenue, New York City
Bergen Basin, New York City
Thurston Basin, New York City
Marine Park, New York City
Upper East River-Tallman Island Area,
Upper East River-Bowery Bay Area, NYC
Upper East River-Bronx East River Area,
Coney Island STP Improvement, New York
STP Improvements, New York City
26th Ward, New York City
ELIGIBLE PROJECT
COST
$20,000,000
10,000,000
27,000,000
6,800,000
2,900,000
5,400,000
57,000,000
34,000,000
13,000,000
62,000,000
83,000,000
NYC 52,000,000
City 200,000
15,000,000
16,000,000
Waterloo (V), Seneca County 743,000
Churchville (V), Monroe County 1,600,000
Perinton (T)-Westside, Monroe County 650,000
Perinton (T)-Thomas Creek, Monroe County 500,000
Perinton (T)-Bushnell Basin, Monroe County 280,000
Spencerport (V),Monroe County 550,000
Wayland (V), Steuben County 500,000
Deposit (V), Broome County 360,000
Union (T), Broome County 139,000
Sherburne (V), Chenango County 365,884
Dolgeville (V), Herkimer County 40,000
Herkimer (V), Herkimer County 1,313,000
Little Falls (C), Herkimer County 2,938,250
Alexandria Bay (V), Jefferson County 1,000,000
LaFargeville (H), Jefferson County 400,000
Clayton (V), Jefferson County 454,000
Morrisville (V), Madison County 250,000
Altrnar (V), Oswego County 100,000
Marcy (T), Oneida County 255,000
Paris (T), Oneida County 50,000
Oriskany Falls (V), Oneida County 275,000
Vernon (T), Oneida County 265,000
Waterville (V), Oneida County 450,000
Cicero (T), Onondaga County 19,000
Clay (T), Onondaga County 34,000
Geddes S,D. Onondaga Co.DPW, Onondaga County 435,000
Parish (V), Oswego County 215,000
iWaverly (V), Tioga County 450,000
Oryden (T)-Varna'S.D., Tompkins County 130,500
?WPCA
GRANT FUNDS
REQUIRED(55%)
$11,000,000
5,500,000
14,850,000
3,740,000
1,595,000
2,970,000
31,350,000
18,700,000
7,150,000
34,100,000
45,650,000
28,600,000
110,000
8,250,000
8,800,000
408,650
880,000
357,500
275,000
154,000
302,500
275,000
198,000
76,450
201,236
22,000
722,150
1,616,037
550,000
220,000
249,700
137,500
55,000
140,250
27,500
151,250
145,750
247,500
10,450
18,700
239,250
118,250
247,500
71,775
-44-
-------
246
TABLE 8 (continued)
APPLICANT
ELIGIBLE PROJECT
COST
2,
Newburgh (C), Orange County
Warwick (T), S.D. #1, Orange County
Woodbury (T), Orange County
Tuston (V), Sullivan County
Fallsburg (T), Sullivan County
Ulster (T), Ulster County
Cortland (T), Montrose, Westchester County 2,
Ossining (T), Grotonville, Westchester County
Briar Cliff Manor (V), Westchester County
Haverstraw (V), Rockland County 2,
Otisville (V), Orange County
Cortland (T)-Fawn Bridge; Westchester County
760,000
50,000
730,110
135,000
390,000
600,000
000,000
151,000
775,000
800,000
250,000
300.000
FWPCA
GRANT FUNDS
REQUIRED(55%)
$ 1,518,000
27,500
401,560
74,250
214,500
330,000
1,100,000
83,050
426,250
1,540,000
137,500
165,000
$ 573,711,646 $315,541,464
-45-
-------
TABLE 9
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
CITY OF NEW YORK
September 15, 1967
(Amounts are in Thousands)
I
II
III
IV
V
CATEGORIES
Proposed Projects
Sewage and Storm Water
Treatment Facilities
Projects Underway
Sewage and Storm Water
Treatment Facilities
Projects Completed
with Grant Aid-
Sewage Treatment Facilities
Projects Completed
without Grant Aid-
Sewage Treatment Facilities
TOTALS
ELIGIBLE
PROJECT
COSTS
$ 877,500
$ 208,513
$ 14,763
$ 185,850
$1,286,626
PROPOSED OR ACTUAL
GRANTS
FEDERAL
$ 482,625 (557,)
$ 8,775 (17o)
$ 3,248 (1.6%)
$ 1,343 (9.1%)
None
$ 13,366 (1.04)*
STATE
$ 263,250 (3070)
$ 517,725 (59%)
$ 49,712 (23.8%)
$ 128 (0.9%)
None
$ 567,585 (44.1)*
* Based upon allocation of Federal funds at 1% of eligible project cost for Proposed Projects.
to
-------
TABLE 10
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DIVISION OF PURE WATERS
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS ACTIVITIES UNIT
STATUS OF FEDERAL AND STATE GRANTS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES
August 31, 1967
DISTRIBUTION:
Municipalities listed (1)
Consulting Engineers for projects listed (1)
Federal Agencies:
FWPCA, CGA, Washington (1)
FWPCA, CGA, Boston (1)
FWPCA, CGA, Metuchen (2)
FWPCA, Field Office, Susquehanna (1)
JPWPCA, Lake Ontario, Field Station
FWPCA, Lake Erie, Program Office
EDC-T.DC, Portland (1)
FHA-DA, Syracuse (1)
HUD, New York City (2)
ARC, (NYS) (1)
Delaware River Basin Commission (2)
Interstate Sanitation Commission (3)
State of Connecticut - Department of Agriculture
and Natural Resources (3)
State of New Jersey - Department of Health (3)
State of Pennsylvania - Department of Health (3)
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission (2)
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (2)
International Joint Commission (2)
Interstate Commission on the Lake Champlain Basin (2)
Great Lakes States-Upper Mississippi River Board of
Sanitary Engineers (2)
State of New York:
Executive Chamber'- Messrs Garrison, McManus and Persico (1 ea
Senate Finance Committee - Mr Mason (1)
Assembly Ways and Means Committee - Dr Miller (1)
Pure Waters Authority - Messrs Dudley, Hayduk, and
Saddlemire (2 ea)
Conference of Mayors - Mr Walsh (1)
Association of Towns - Mr Sanford (1)
Hudson River Valley Commission (2)
Water Resources Commission Members (1 ea)
Office of Planning Coordination (1)
Budget - Messrs Collins and Russo (1 ea)
Audit and Control - Messrs Meek, Lanahan and Ippolite (1'ea)
Conservation - Mr Montanari (2)
Labor - Mr Capuana (1)
Local Government - Messrs Redmond and Kyle (1 ea)
NYSDH Central Office - Drs Ingraham, Larimore, Fleck, Baker,
Quinlivan; Messrs Metzler, Haberer, Hennigan, Handley,
Stevens, Grossman, Garvey, Bogedain, Bumstead,
Russelmann, MacHarg, Henry, Hill, J. Coffey, Hoffman
Burns, Burke, Longood, Boyle, Mrs Spargo and
Mrs Armstrong (1 ea)
BED-6: BWWUM-3
NYSDH NYC Office - Dr. Dickson (l)
RHD (3 ea); Dist Engrs (l ea)| County Engrs (l ea); City
Engrs (l ea)
-------
This report of the status of Federal and State grants for construction of sewage treatment facilities includes
all active projects on which an application (Federal and/or State) has been received. Projects are included on this
report until final payments are made, and are then listed on a separate Inactive Project Report which is published
semiannually in March and September.
The data contained herein represents the latest status information available as of the date of the report.
Sources of the data are the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA), the New York State Department of
Health (NYSDH), the Regional Health Engineers, the City (C)9 Town (T), Village (V), or County (Co) involved (or their
Sewer Agency or District), and their Consulting Engineers and Construction Contractors.
State of New York Grant Contracts are executed with the Applicants only after the following actions have been
completed: Drawings and specifications have been approved by both NYSDH and FWPCA, NYSDH has issued construction
permit, FWPCA has issued joint FWPCA-NYSDH authority to advertise, construction bids have been reviewed by NYSDH and
FWPCA, real estate is clear, FWPCA has issued the joint FWPCA-NYSDH authority to award construction contracts, and
FWPCA has issued their Part B.
Comments and questions regarding projects, and the reporting of inaccuracies in this report, should be directed
to the following Construction Grants Activities Program Engineer (CGAPE) personnel:
For Projects In;
Buffalo Health Region
Rochester Health Region
Syracuse Health Region
Albany^Health Region
White Plains Health Region
New York City
Engineer
Mr. William C. LaRow, Jr.
Mr. Rocci R. Grimaldi
Mr. George D. Freeman
Mr. Virgil L. Gillham, Jr.
Mr. Robert J. Alpher
Mr. Francis W. Kelly
Telephone Number
518-474-5052 or 5048
518-474-5052 or 5048
518-474-5048
518-474-5020
518-474-5045 or 5043
518-474-5047 or 5046
Responsible supervisory personnel, other than CGAPE's, are:
Title Name
Program Management Administrator
Assistant Program Management Administrator
Assistant for State Contracts
Assistant Chief, Construction Grants Activities
Chief, Construction Grants Activities
Mr. Felix H. Heilpern
Mr. George W. Wallace
Mr. Norman H. Nosenchuck
Mr. Francis W. Kelly
Mr. William K. Shaffer
Alternate
Mr. James B. McNally
Mr. James B. McNally
Mr. Ernest F. Trad
Mr. Ernest F. Trad
Mr. Francis W. Kelly
Mr. William K. Shaffer
Telephone Number
518-474-5052 or 5043
518-474=5052 or 5048
518-474-5043 or 5045
518-474-5047 or 5046
518-474-5046 or 5047
vo
-------
STATISTICAL SUMMARY FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROJECTS LISTED ON STATUS REPORT
New York State
Projects
Federal Grants
Proposed:
Actual:
Total:
Number of
Active Projects
(36)
155
191
Eligible
Project Cost
($487,808,873)
326.856.776
$814,665,649
Grant
Amounts
($19,203,746)**
34.516.055
$53,719,801
Payments
To Date
None
$18.145.276
$18,145,276
State Grants;
Proposed:
Actual:
Total:
($558,639,137)
98.264.459
$657,527,636
($307,873,045)***
49.393.980
/$357,267,025
None
$35.288.382
$35,288,382
**Recommended Federal grants are based upon the availability of Federal (FWPCA) funds for New York State projects.
Based upon the proposed appropriation of the Federal Administration, this will result in Congressional appropriation
of only $203,000,000 nationally for FY68 instead of the $450,000,006 authorized in the Clean Water Restoration Act
of 1966. This action will result in only $14,530,900 to be allocated for New York State projects, instead of
$37,588,750. .Governor Rockefeller has advised the appropriate committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives
of the requirement for Federal funds for FY68 to provide for the authorized maximum percentages (55% under the Clean
Water Restoration Act of 1966, and generally 30% under prior legislation), and strongly recommended Congressional
appropriation of $450,000,000 nationally for FY68. The FWPCA has also been furnished State of New York program
requirements. Congress has not yet acted upon the Federal Administration proposal.
Since April 1967, new projects have been programmed at 47. FWPCA participation and 567, State participation. Unless
the Congress appropriates the authorized $450,000,000 nationally (with $37,588,750 instead of $14,530,900 for New
York State projects), the 4% FWPCA participation will have to be reduced to 1% FWPCA participation (with 597» State
participation).
***Proposed State grants are programmed on basis of State guaranteeing 607o (currently 47« Federal and 567« State).
ro
en
o
-------
STA.TISTICAX SUMMARY BY REGIOH
FEDESAL GRANTS
Proposed:
Actual:
TOTAL
STATE GRANTS:
Proposed:
Actual:
TOTAL:
FEDERAL GRANTS
Proposed:
'Actual:
TOTAL:
STATE GRANTS:
Proposed:
Actual:
TOTAL:
FEDERAL GRANTS
Proposed:
Actual:
TOTALi
STATE GRANTS:
Proposed:
Actual:
TOTAL:
Number of
Active Projects
(5)
20
25
(19)
6
25
»
(7)
14
21
(13)
2
15
(1)
14
15
(10)
3
13
Eligible
Protect Cost _
ALBANY REGION
($58,377,850)
15,811,920
$74,189,770
($65,957,697)
2,898,970
$68,856,667
BUFFALO REGION
($19,992,430)
18,543,448
$38,535,878
($24,362,491)
2,984,200
$27,346,691
NEW YORK CITY
($200,000,000)
201^127,681
$409,127,^81
($219,093,306)
66,344,580
$285 ,437, -6e6
Grant
Amounts
($2,334,970)
5,237,007
$7,571,977
($35,622,641)
913,440
$36,536,081
($1,165,724)
6,293,381
7,459,105
($12,893,164)
895,260
$13,788,424
($2,000,000)
3,432,382
.$5,432,382
($128,602,436)
39,153,261
$167,755,697
Payments
To Date
None
$3,188,410
$3,188,410
None
$ 489,029
$ 489,029
None
$4,863,111
$4,863,111
None
$ 452; 970
$ 452,970
None
$ 802,000
$ 802,000
None
$30,674,250
$30,6-74,250
ro
m
-------
STATISTICAL SUMMARY BY REGION (continued)
FEDERAL GRANTS:
Proposed:
Actual:
TOTAL:
STATE GRANTS:
Proposed:
Actual:
TOTAL:
FEDERAL GRANTS
Proposed:
Actual:
TOTAL:
STATE GRANTS:
Proposed:
Actual:
TOTAL:
FEDERAL GRANTS
Proposed:
Actual:
TOTAL:
STATE' GRANTS:
Proposed:
Actual:
TOTAL:
Number
Active Prelects
i:
(10)
38
48
(33)
12
45
i ,
(5)
36
41
(26)
13
39
1:
(8)
33
41
(28)
11
39
Eligible
Project Cost
ROCHESTER REGION
($58,089,243)
28,007,813
$86,097,056
($75,010,278)
5,294,913
$0,305,191
SYRACUSE REGION
($25,539,000)
29,569,427
$55,108,427
($39,4958,304)
12,060,991
$51,559,395
WHITE PLAINS REGION
($126,810,350)
25.796,497
$152,606,837
($134,7i7,Gfrl)
8^660,805
$143,397,866
Grant
Amounts
($3,294,922)
5,304,541
8,599,463
($40,810,544)
1,638,408
42,448,952
($1,021,560)
7,374.144
$8,395,704
($19-,942,D81)
4,105,278
$24,047,339
($9,386,570)
6,874,600
$16,261,170
(?70,002,179)
2 f 688, 333
72,678,512
Payments
To Date
None
$2,843,374
$2,843,374
None
$ 798,996
798,996
None
$3,415,741
$3,415,741
None
$2,299,164
$2,299,164
None
$3,032,640
$3,032,640
None
$ 573,973
573,973
to
in
N>
-------
( ) Amounts In parenth*
+ Plus sign next to j
comprehensive regii
* Asterisk indicates
addition to the re|
OOP Line under project
Restoration Act of
Project Applicant
Number Countv
388
298
387
317
377
258
353
256
Albany Co. S. D.
Albany
Altamont (V)
Albany
Coeymans (T)
Albany
Colonie (T)
Albany
Colonie (T)
Albany
Hudson (C)
Columbia
Keeseville (V)
Clinton
Sidney (V)
Delaware
sole are propose*
jroject indicate*
raal planning.
the project has
jular 30% FWPCA s
number indicate!
1966.
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
(38,253,000)
(38,253,000)
162,500
162,500
(825,600)
(825,600)
200,000
(200,000)
(600,000)
(600,000)
1,105,170
1,105,170
660,260
(660,260)
304,500
(304,500)
1 projects costs and grant amounts.
i that project has received an additional FWPCA 10% for compliance with
received an additional 20% grant from Accelerated Public Works Program in
;rant .
5 that project will be compensated under the conditions of the Clean Water
Grant Payments
Amount
Federal
State
ALBANY
(1,530,000)
(21,421,700)
5,000
92,500
(33,000)
(462,300)
60,000
(60,000)
(24,000)
(336,000)
331,550
331,550
35,000
(361,150)
91,350
(91,350)
Percent
Federal
State
REGION
(4)
(56)
3.08
56.92
(4)
(56)
30
(30)
(4)
(56)
30
30
5.30
(54.70)
30
(30.)
To Date
Federal
State
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
269,500
242,550
None
None
None
None
Percent
Completed Pro 1e6t -Status Comment
0 Awaiting establishment of
Sewer District, and submission
of application and elngrg rpt
15 Under construction
0 Awaiting application and
engineering report
0 Bids taken joint NYSDH-FWPCA
approval to award held in
abeyance until easements are
acquired
0 Additional application infor-
mation to be supplied by
Applicant
99 Awaiting request for final
inspection
0 Authorized to advertise for
bidsjheld in abeyance for
inclusion of additional
interceptors
10
0 Additional information to be "J
supplied by Applicant
-------
Project Applicant
Number County
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
Percent
Federal
State
ALBANY REGION
366
180
108
338
339
389
255
283
369
Stamford (V)
Delaware
Port Henry (V)
Essex
Franklin County:
Fulton County:
Greene County:
Hamilton County:
Canajoharie (V)
Montgomery
Cooperstown (V)
Otsego
Milford (V)
Otsego
Rensselaer Co.S.D
Rensselaer
Hoosick Falls (V)
Rensselaer
Canton (V)
St . Lawrence
Canton (V)
St. Lawrence
(699,250)
(699,250)
343,600
(74,349)
(27,970)
(391,580)
162,500
(22,304)
(4)
(56)
50*
(30)
Payments
To Date
Federal Percent
State Cot
(continued)
None
None
146,200
None
noleted Project Status Comment
0 Grant application to be returned to
Applicant for amendment
99 Completed; final payment not made
technical deficiencies being corrected
by Applicant; State pick-up contract
being reviewed by Audit and Control
No Active Projects
No Active Projects
No Active Projects
No Active Projects
889,864
(133,470)
618,000
(618,000)
51,328
(51,328)
.(18,000,000)
(18,000,000)
649,600
(649,600)
77,500
77,500
1,805,000
(1,805,000)
223,125
(40,040)
316,416
(185,400)
10,890
(19,900)
(720,000)
(10,080,000)
194,880
(194,880)
23,250
23,250
72,200
(1,010,800)
29.43
(30)
51.2**
(30)
21.22
(38.78)
4
56
30
(30)
30
30
4
(56)
194,600
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
99 Additional information to be submitted
by Applicant for request of final
inspection
0 ARC grant approved
0 New application and engineering report
to be submitted by Applicant
0 Awaiting establishment of Sewer
District, and submission of application
and engrg rpt
0 Engineering report jmd plans & specs.
under review by FWPCA
99 Payments will not be made until sheet.
of construction of STP under Project 369
0 Grant offer forwarded to applicant
NJ
Ul
* Percent includes 21.2 ARC grant
-------
Project Applicant
Number County
316
196
320
203
291
195
194
284
Edwards (V)
St . Lawrence
Ogdensburg (C)
St. Lawrence
Potsdam (V)
St . Lawrence
Saratoga County
Niskayuna (T)
Schenectady
Schenectady (C)
Schenectady
Sharon Springs
Schoharie
Lake George (V)
Warren
Lake George (T)
Warren
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
168,500
(168,500)
3,372,620
(75,975)
2,750,000
(2,750,000)
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
ALBANY
50,550
(50,550)
1,686,310
(22,790)
825,000
(825,000)
: No Active Projects
1,501,793 750,896
900,000 270,000
82,690
(82,690)
(V) 150,000
(6,175)
328,695
63,500
590, 100
590,300
5,000
(44,614)
70,500
(2,283)
145,500
19,050
177,090
177,090
Percent
Federal
State
Payments
To Date
Federal
State
Percent
Completed
Project Status
Comment
REGION (continued)
30
(30)
50*
(30)
30
(30)
50*
30
6.04
(53.96)
50*
(30)
50*
30
30
30
None
None
1,686,310
None
None
None
675,800
229,919
None
None
70,500
None
145,500
16,560
None
None
0
99
0
99
15
99
99
25
Under construction. State contract
being prepared.
Completed; State pick-up contract to
be prepared
Plans & specs under review by
FWPCA
Completed; final audit being processed
Under construction; definite location
of easement to be obtained by Applicant
State pick-up contract sent to
Applicant
Completed; awaiting final State audit
Under construction
Washington County: No Active Projects
to
m
en
-------
Project Applicant
Number County
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
Percent
Federal
State
Payments
_ To Date
Federal
State
Percent
Completed Project Status Comment
BUFFALO REGION
279
379
245
191
149
175
197
323
193
238
385
370+
Salamanca (V)
Cattaraugus
Dunkirk (C)
Chautauqua
Silver Creek (V)
Chautauqua
Akron (V)
Erie
Amherst (T)
Erie
Amherst (T)SD#16
Erie
Cheektowaga (T)
Erie
Cheektowaga (T)
Erie
Erie County SD#2
Erie
Erie County SD#3
Erie
Erie County SD#3
Erie
Erie Co. Home &
Penitentiary-Erie
(1,795,000)
(1,795,000)
(8,735,000)
(8,735,000)
1,543,600
1,543,600
(71,800)
(1,005,200)
(349,400)
(4,891,600)
763,156
463,080
405,900 202,950
None; completed prior to
2,027,659 600,000
None; completed prior to
1,565,228 469,568
None; completed prior to
853,440
(166,000)
(1,833,000)
(1,833,000)
2,406,725
(3,864)
3,774,936
(2,420,674)
(246,530)
(246,530)
270,000
(270,000)
422,000
(50,000)
(73,320)
(1,026,480)
1,203,362
(1,159)
1,084,300
(757,187)
(9,860)
(138,057)
11,880
(151,200)
(4)
(56)
(4)
(56)
None
None
None
None
49.44** 530,300
30 294,300
50
May 12,
29.59
May 12,
30
May 12,
49.45
(30)
(4)
(56)
50*
(30)
177,750
1965
413,800
1965
398,400
1965
288,100
None
None
None
1,203,362
None
28.72 792,500
(31.28) None
(4)
(56)
4.4
(56)
None
None
None
None
0
0
95
99
99
99
99
0
99
95
0
0
0
Application and Engrg rpt revisions
required from Applicant
Awaiting completed application and
approved engineering report
Under construction
Completed; final payment not made;
operational difficulties not resolved
by Applicant
Completed; final payment being
processed
Completed; awaiting final audit
Completed; State pick-up contract to
be prepared
Application returned to Applicant
for revision
Completed; State pick-up contract to
be prepared
Under construction; State pick-up
contract being executed; multi-municipal
project
Application under review by NYSDH
FWPCA grant offer accepted by Applicant
** Percent includes FWPCA 30% Appal 19.44%
-------
Project Applicant
Number County
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
Percent
Payments
: To Date
Federal Federal
State
State
Percent
Completed
Prolect Status Comment
BUFFALO REGION (continued)
123
164
257
324
199
376
359
382
350+
217
Hamburg (T)
Erie
Hamburg (T)
Erie
Lackawanna (C)
Erie
Tonawanda (T)
Erie
Batavia (C)
Genesee
Oakfield (V)
Genesee
Lockport (C)
Niagara
Middleport (V)
Niagara
Youngstown (V)
Niagara
Medina (V)
Orleans
1,000,871 250,000
None; completed prior to
1,094,786 328,436
None; completed prior to
1,440,600
1,440,600
1,140,000
(1,140,000)
1,429,430
369,523
(345,000)
(345,000)
(6,334,000)
(6,334,000)
(703,900)
(703,900)
34,400
(34,400)
556,744
78,927
432,180
432,180
57,000
(627,000)
428,829
110,857
(13,800)
(193,200)
(253,360)
(3,547,040)
(28,156)
(394,184)
11,350
(10,320)
278,370
23,678
24.98
May 12,
30
May 12,
30
30
5
(55)
30
30
(4)
(56)
(4)
(56)
(4)
(56)
33
(30)
50*
30
183,900
1965
175,400
1965
176,300
158,670
None
None
428,829
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
278,370
None
99
99
75
0
99
0
0
0
0
0
99
Completed; final payment being
processed
Completed; final payment not made;
deficiency to be resolved by Applicant
Under construction
FWPCA grant offer accepted by
Applicant
State pick-up contract executed
Awaiting receipt of approved
Engineering Report
FWPCA grant offer forwarded to
Applicant
Application undef review by NYSDH
FWPCA grant -offer accepted by
Applicant
Completed; awaiting final audit
Wyoming County - No Active Projects
10
m
-------
11
Eligible
Project Applicant
Number County
348
345+
229
109
321
230
158
86
178
357+
346
Camp LaGuardia
New York City
Coney Island
New York City
Hillcrest Center
Westchester
Jamaica
New York City
Jamaica
New York City
Mt. Kisco
New York City
Mt. Kisco SPS
New York City
Newtown Creek
New York City
North River
New York City
Owl's Head
New York City
Port Richmond
New York City
p^«ja^«. Grant
cnai- Amount Percent
Federal Federal Federal
State State State
NEW YORK CITY
144,000 43,200 30
(144,000) (43,200) (30)
4,066,600 220,000 5.41
(4, 066, 600) (2, 239, 883) (55.08)
213,527 64,058 30
(211,172) (63,351) (30)
18,289,687 250 » 000 1:37
(254,563) (232,819) (58.63)
450,700 135,210 30
450,700 135,210 30
335,800 100,740 30
None; completed prior to May 12
470,615 141,184 30
None; completed prior to May 12
162,924,041 250,000 0.15
64,488,733 38,596,507 59.85 30
(200, 000, 000) (2, 000, 000) (1)
(200,000,000)018,000,000) (59)
123,000 39,990 33
(123,000) (36,900) (30)
3,538,000 200,000 5.65
(3, 538, 000) (1,985, 256) (54.35)
Payments
To Date
Federal Percent
State Completed
REGION
None 0
None
None 0
None
None 99
None
225jOOO 99
None
None 34
None
None 99
, 1965
127,000 100
, 1965
225,000 93
,357,630
None 0
None
None 0
None
None 0
None
Proiect Status Comment
NYSDH processing of application held
in abeyance at Applicant's request
FWPCA grant offer accepted by
Applicant
FWPCA and State made final inspec-
tion. FWPCA final payment and State
pick-up contract being prepared.
Final audit for final Federal pay-
ment awaits Applicants submission
of several change orders for ap-
proval; State pick-up contract
being prepared.-
Under construction
FWPCA final inspection awaiting data
requested of Applicant
Completed
Under construction
Application under review by NYSDH
FWPCA grant offer accepted by
Applicant
FWPCA grant offer forwarded to
Applicant
ro
ui
m
-------
Project
Number
Applicant
County
Bligibi*
Project
Cost
Federal
State
Amount
Federal
State
Grant Payments
Percent To Date
Federal Federal
State
State
Percent
Completed
Project Status Comment
347 Spring Creek
New York City
166 Tallmans Island
New York City
214 Wards Island
New York City
363 Wards Island
New York City
NEW YORK CITY REGION (continued)
10,487,000 1,200,000 11.44
(10,487,000)^,350,323) (48.56)
5,593,211 250,000 4.47
(237,271) (131,757) (55.53)
1,460,000
1,405,147
438,000
421,544
30
30
1,031,500 100,000 9.69
(1,031,500) (518,947) (50.31)
None
None
225,000
None
None
316,620
None
None
99
95
FWPCA grant offer accepted by
Applicant
FWPCA final inspection will be sche-
duled soon; • State pick-up contract
being prepared
Under construction. FWPCA withholding
payment of $327,430, pending NYC
documentation of auto public
liability insurance
FWPCA grant offer forwarded to
Applicant
01
vo
-------
Project Applicant
Number County
311
356
182
354
325
297+
314
260
326
137
281+
327+
Belmont (V)
Allegany
Caneadea (T)
Allegany
Cuba (V)
Allegany
Friendship (V)
Allegany
Chemung Co. SD#1
Chemung
Elmira (C)
Chemung
Avon (V)
Livingston
Lima (V)
Livingston
Nunda (V)
Livingston
Brighton (T) SD#2
Monroe
Brighton (T)
Monroe
Brighton SD #2
Monroe
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
427,300
(427,300)
492,700
(483,000)
302,500
44,600
326,300
(326,300)
(1,100,000)
(1,100,000)
178,000
(178,000)
(628,300)
(628,300)
407,400
407,400
394,000
(394,400)
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
229,460
(128,190)
19,700
(270,480)
151,250
13,380
97,890
(97,890)
(44,000)
(616,000)
58,740
(53,400)
(25,132)
(351,848)
122,220
122,220
118,000
(118,000)
151,638 45,490
None completed prior
767,333
767,333
3,999,000
(3,999,000)
221,920
258,650
220,000
(2,199,450)
Percent
Federal
State
ROCHESTER
53.7**
(30)
4
(56)
50*
30
30
(30)
(4)
(56)
33
(30)
(4)
(56)
30
30
30
(30)
30
to 5/12/65
29.29
33.71
5.5
(55)
Payments
To Date
Federal
State
REGION
None
None
None
None
151,250
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
71,600
64,470
None
None
38,600
153,000
None
None
None
Percent
Completed
0
0
99
0
0
0
0
99
0
99
99
0
1J
Prolect Status Comment
Increase in grant accepted by
Applicant
Grant offer accepted by Applicant
State pick-up contract executed
Authorized to advertise for bids
FWPCA grant application being
processed by NYSDH
Applicant will request increase
in grant
FWPCA reviewing plans & specs.
Awaiting request for final
inspection
Authorized to advertise for bids
Completed; final payment not made;
addtl info requested by FWPCA
Awaiting request for final inspection
FWPCA reviewing changes in plans
**Percent includes FWPCA - 307. and ARC - 23.7%
(o
O»
o
-------
Project Applicant
Number County
240
315+
147
152
151
310+
202
231
246
264
288
287
Brockport (V)
Monroe
Gates-Chili-Ogden
Monroe (T)
East Rochester (V)
Monroe
Greece (T)
Monroe
Greece (T)
Monroe
Greece (T)
Monroe
Henrietta (T)
Monroe
Henrietta (T)
Monroe
Hilton (V)
Monroe
Irondequoit (T)
Monroe
Irondequoit (T)
Monroe
Penfield (T)
Monroe
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
940,000
940,000
469,300
(469,300)
829,000
(9,000)
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
282,000
282,000
140,790
(140,790)
248,700
(2,700)
447,320 117,844
None; completed prior
207,500 31,347
None; completed prior
1,420,500
(1,420,500)
543,800
(150,000)
592,992
(300,000)
238,000
238 j 000
623,400
624,400
280,000
280,000
89,300
89,280
56,820
(795,480)
163,140
(5,000)
177,897
(90,000)
71,400
71;400
187,000
187,000
92,400
84,000
5,100
48,468
Percent
Federal
State
ROCHESTER
30
30
33
(30)
30
30
26.34
to 5/12/65
15.11
to 5/12/65
4
(56)
30
(30)
30
(30)
30
30
30
30
33
30
5.72
54.28
Payments
To Date
Federal
State
Percent
Completed
REGION (continued)
227,700
204,930
None
None
248,700
None
105,700
28,200
None
None
143,000
None
177,897
None
41,300
37,170
63,000
147,690
63,000
None
3,700
42,120
99
0
99
99
99
0
99
99
99
99
85
99
14
Prolect 'Status Comment
Final inspection made
Authorized to advertise for bids
State pick-up contract being
prepared
Awaiting correction of operational
difficulties by Applicant
Awaiting correction of operational
difficulties by Applicant
Authorized to advertise for bids
State pick-up contract being
prepared
State pick-up contract being
prepared
Final inspection made
Final inspection requested by
Applicant
Under construction
Federal participation to be increa;
to 30% prior to effecting final
payment
-------
15
Project Applicant
Number County
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
Percent
Payments
t To Date
Federal Federal
State
ROCHESTER
233
328
270+
243
261
192
3?_5_
293
299+
249
272
330
157
Penfield SD#3
Monroe
Ferinton (T)
Monroe
Perinton (T)
Monroe
Pittsford (T)
Monroe
Pittsford (V)
Monroe
Rochester (C)
Monroe
Rochester (C)
Monroe
Scottsville (V)
Monroe
Webster (T)
Monroe
Webster (V)
Monroe
Farmington (T)
Ontario
Hopewell (T)
Ontario
Phelps (V)
Ontario
472,530
(250,000)
(468,243)
(468,243)
220,000
(220,000)
186,800
186,800
144,500
(144,500)
1,992,608
(69,671)
(50,000,000)
(50,000,000)
510,000
(510,000)
3,207,800
(3,207,800)
747,000
747,000
805,000
813,500
116,000
(116,000)
626,100
42,264
141,759
(75,000)
(18,730)
(262,216)
73,200
(66,000)
56,040
56,040
43,350
(43,350)
597,780
(20,001)
(2,000,000)
(28,000,000)
20,400
V 285, 600)
128,312
(1,796,368)
224,100
224,100
241,500
244,050
34,800
(34,800)
313,050
12,679
30
(30)
(4)
(56)
33
(30)
30
30
30
(30)
30
(30)
(4)
(56)
4
(56)
4
(56)
30
30
30
30
30
(30)
50*
30
State
Percent
Completed
REGION (continued)
127,500
None
None
None
40,800
None
50,300
51,300
None
None
318,700
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
145,200
130,716
134,000
120,600
None
None
313,050
None
99
0
95
99
0
99
0
0
20
99
99
0
99
Jb^
Proiect Status Comment
State contract being prepared
FWPCA Applic and oigrg rpt under
review by NYSDH
Town to resubmit request for grant
increase
Awaiting request for final
inspection
Will start construction when con-
tractor receives special pump
State contract sent to Applicant
for signature
Application to be revised by
Applicant
Under construction
Under construction; Town to ask for
increase in grant
Awaiting request for final
inspection by Applicant
Awaiting correction of construction
deficiencies
Authorized to advertise for bids
Completed; State payment being
processed
fO
-------
Project Applicant
Number County
Kliglble
Project
Cost
Federal
State
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
Percent
Federal
State
Payments
To Date
Federal
State
Percent
Completed
J.O
Proiect Status Comnent
ROCHESTER REGION (continued)
273
372
331
373
280
252
380
m
312 +
332
145
Victor (V)
Ontario
Schuyler County:
Seneca Falls (V)
Seneca
Corning (C)
Steuben
Erwin (T)
Steuben
Home 11 (C)
Steuben
Newark (V)
Wayne
Sodus (V)
Wayne
Newark (V)
Wayne
Dundee (V)
Yates
Keuka Park SD
Yates
Penn Yan (V)
Yates
222,000
(222,000)
66,300
(66,300)
30
(30)
None
None
5
Under construction
No Active Projects
(2,502,000)
(2,502,000)
(968,000)
(968,000)
(918,000)
(918,000)
2,422,500
(2,422,500)
157,000
157,000
(589,700)
(589,700)
1,550,000
(1,550,000)
500,000
(500,000)
405,000
(405,000)
510,692
(19,500)
(600,480)
(1,401,120)
(250,712)
(542,080)
(220,320)
(514,080)
82,365
(1,356,600)
47,100
47,100
(23,948)
(335,272)
77,500
(852,500)
165,000
(150,000)
91,200
(121,500)
153,277
(5,850)
(24)*
(56)
(25.9)**
(56)
(24)*
(56)
34***
(56)
30
30
(4)
(56)
5
(55)
33
(30)
22.52
(30)
30
(30)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
33,900
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
153,277
None
0
0
0
0
99
0
0
5
0
99
Grant application being reviewed
by FWPCA
Grant application cannot be
by FWPCA until ARC approval
received
Application under review by
Authorized to advertise for
Final inspection nade rState
being processed
Application under review by
issued
is
NYSDH
bids
payment
NYSDH
Grant offer forwarded to Applicant
Under construction
Awaiting furtber information
Applicant
from
State payment being processed
to
**
Percent includes
Percent includes
FWPCA 4% and ARC - 21.9%
FWPCA 4% and ARC - 30%
-------
17
Project Applicant
Number County
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
Percent
Federal
State
Payments
To Date
Federal
State
Percent
Completed
Project Status Comment
SYRACUSE REGION
306
228
223
226
295+
242
271+
211
349
263
96
285+
Dickinson (T)
Broome
Endicott (V)
Broome
Johnson City (V)
Broome
Kirkwood SD#1
Broome
Vestal (T)
Broome
Vestal (T) SD#1
Broome
Auburn (C)
Cayuga
Gayuga;
-------
Project Applicant
Number County
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
Percent
Federal
State
Payments
To Date
Federal
State
J.O
Percent
Completed Prolect Status Comment
SYRACUSE REGION (continued)
277
300
113
292
301
254
259
360
303+
302+
371
234
Bainbridge (V)
Chenango
Greene (V)
Chenango
Norwich (C)
Chenango
Water town (C)
Jefferson
Castorland (V)
Lewis
Canastota (V)
Madison
Chittenango (V)
Madison
Hamilton (V)
Madison
Camden (V)
Oneida
Kirkland (T)
Oneida
Oneida Co. SD
Oneida
DPW Camillus (T)
Onondaga
640,300
640,300
395,700
(395,700)
612,100
(3,821)
1,334,410
(1,334,410)
104,200
(104,200)
1,015,280
1,015,280
491,300
491,300
392,000
(392,000)
30,200
(30,200)
293,000
(293,000)
(20,029,000)
(20,029,000)
684,925
(684,925)
336,500
192,106
217,239
(118,710)
183,630
(1,146)
190,000
(610,646)
5,000
(57,518)
304,584
304,584
147,390
147,390
20,000
(215,208)
9,960
(9,060)
96,690
(87,900)
(801,160)
(11,216,240)
116,910
(294,039)
52.55**
30
114,500
59,490
54.90**** None
(30) None
30
(30)
14.2
45.8
4.80
(55.20)
30
30
30
30
5.10
(54.90)
33
(30)
33
(30)
(4)
(56)
17.07
(42.93)
165,200
None
None
None
None
None
274,100
274,125
132,600
128,610
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
55
0
99
31
0
99
99
0
5
0
0
85
Under construction
Bids exceeded authorized amount; new
referendum required; ARC grant approved
Final audit completed; State pick-up
contract to be executed
Percent completed revised to reflect
increase in scope of project
Authorized to advertise for bids
Final audit completed; final payment
awaiting resolution of operational
deficiencies
Final inspection awaits correction of
operational deficiencies
Authorized to advertise for bids
Construction started
Authorized to award contract
Application under review by NYSDH
Under construction; State contract
being prepared iO
**
Percent includes FWPCA - 7.45% - ARC -45.10%
APW Piro^Gct
**** Percent includes FWPCA - 30% - ARC - 24.90%
Ul
-------
Project
Number
319+
335
358+
308
266+
296+
313+
251
225
132
386
336
239
Applicant
County
Camillus (V)
Onondaga
DeWitt (T)
Onondaga
Ley Creek
Modification to
STP, Onondaga
Manlius (V) SD
Onondaga
DPW Onondaga Co.
Onondaga
Onondaga Co. Jail
Onondaga
Onondaga (Co)
Onondaga
Salina (T)
Onondaga
Central Square
Oswego
Fulton (C)
Oswego
Oswego (C)
Oswego
Pulaski (V)
Oswego
Owego (V)
Tioga
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
Percent
Federal
State
Payments
To Date
Federal
State
SYRACUSE REGION (continued)
64,700
(64,700)
(80,000)
(80,000)
3,299,140
(3,299,140)
132,100
(132,100)
4,893,000
4,893,000
95,300
(95,300)
1,890,000
(1,890.000)
476,100
476,100
368,607
290,000
1,432,201
1,432,201
(4,254,000)
(4,254,000)
(566,000)
(566,000)
675,400
653,100
21,350
(19,410)
(3,200)
(44,800)
220,000
(1,779,556)
39,630
(39,630)
1,278,090
1,773,718
26,400
(33,183)
623,700
(567,000)
142,830
142,830
110,582
87,000
250,000
609,320
(170,160)
(2,382,240)
(22,640)
(316,960)
202,620
195,930
33
(30)
(4)
(56)
6.67
(53.94)
30
(30)
26.12
36.25
27.70
(34,82)
33
(30)
30
30
30
30
17,46
42.54
(4)
(56)
(4)
(56)
30
30
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
993,500
1,031,670
None
None
None
None
142,830
None
110,582
76,451
169,200
298,275
None
None
None
None
125,700
149,633
Percent
Completed
0
0
0
5
90
0
0
99
99
95
0
0
99
19
Prelect Status Comment
Authorized to award contract
Application under review by NYSDH
FWPCA grant offer accepted by
Applicant
Under construction
Under construction; a multi-municipal
project
Under construction
Applicant revising plans & specs
State payment being prepared
Final State audit requested
Plant in operation; awaiting Applicants
request for final inspection
Grant application under review by NYSDH
FWPCA grant application being held by
NYSDH pending receipt of revised engr rpt
Applicant has submitted additional ^
information in preparation for final y\
-------
20
Project Applicant
Number County
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
Percent
Federal
State
Payments
To Date
Federal
State
Percent
Completed Project Status Comment
SYRACUSE REGION (continued)
278
224
267
167
Dryden (V)
Tompkins
Ithaca (C)
Tompkins
Ithaca (C)
Tompkins
Trumansburg (V)
757,000
757,000
154,800
(20,000)
327,000
327,000
486,905
401,520
227,100
46,400
(6,000)
98,100
98,100
137,100
53.04**
30
30
(30)
30
30
28.15
150,900
78,860
46,400
None
84,700
63,990
113,000
60 Under construction
99 State pick-up contract being
processed
98 Awaiting Applicant's request for
final inspection
99 Completed; final payment not made;
Tompkins
None; completed prior to May 12, 1965
awaiting Applicant'resolution
of difficulties
** Federal Aid under PL 660 - 307. and ARC 214 - 23.04%
-------
21
Project
Number
378
340
318
236
289+
341+
250
305+
361
190
130
351
342+
Applicant
County
Arlington SD
Dutchess
Wappinger (T)
Dutchess
Cedarhurst (V)
Nassau
Glen Cove (C)
Nassau
Great Neck SD#1
Nassau
Great Neck (V)
Nassau
Lawrence (V)
Nassau
Long Beach (C)
Nassau
Nassau Co. SDD#3
Nassau
No. Hemps tead (T)
Nassau
Oyster Bay SD#1
Nassau
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
Percent
Federal
State
Payments
To Date
Federal
State
WHITE PLAINS REGION
(2,400,000)
(2,400,000)
(88,000)
(88,000)
944,300
944,300
123,691
(48,000)
1,115,900
1,115,900
265,000
(265,000)
1,654,907
1,654,907
260,000
(260,000)
(93,554,500)
(93,554,500)
400,000
(90,000)
1,161,300
(136,000)
Port Washington SD 525,000
Nassau (525,000)
Roslyn (V) 58,400
Nassau (58,400)
(96,000)
(1,344,000)
(3,520)
(49,280)
270,000
296,580
36,000
(14,832)
368,240
334,770
87,450
(79,500)
427,350
565,594
85,800
(78,000)
(3,742,180)
(52,390,520)
120,000
(27,000)
348,390
(41,000)
21,000
(294,000)
19,270
(17,520)
(4)
(56)
(4)
(56)
28.59
31.41
29.10
(30.9)
33
30
33
(30)
25.82
34.18
33
(30)
(4)
(56)
30
(30)
30
(30)
4
(56)
33
(30)
None
None
None
None
None
None
36,000
None
None
None
None
None
384,600
430,665
None
None
None
None
120,000
None
287,900
None
None
None
None
None
Percent
Completed Prelect Status Comment
0
0
0
99
60
0
99
0
0
99
99
0
0
FWPCA application under review by NYSDH
Applicant securing title to necessary
property
Construction started; State contract
executed
State contract to be prepared
Under construction; State contract
executed
Bids to be received by Applicant on
Sept. 26, 1967
Awaiting final FWPCA audit
State contract being prepared
Grant application being processed by
FWPCA
State pick-up contract being prepared
State pick-up contract being prepared
FWPCA grant offer forwarded to Applicant
Authorized to advertise for bids $
00
-------
22
Project
Number
265
368
352
208
53
364
362+
294+
282
244
176
275+
Applicant
County
Cornwall (T)
Orange
Cornwall (T)&(V)
Orange
Goshen (V)
Orange
Montgomery (V)
Orange
Newburgh (C)
Orange
New Windsor (T)
Orange
Walden (V)
Orange
Washingtonville
Orange
Carmel (T)
Putnam
Cold Spring (V)
Putnam
Orange town (T)
Rockland
Orangetown (T)
Rockland
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
157,805
157,805
(954,800)
(954,800)
750,000
(75.0,000)
320,000
(8,300)
(5,683,000)
(5,683,000)
1,650,000
(1,650,000)
300,000
v(300,000)
(V) 512,000
(512,000)
442,000
(442,000)
500-,,000
(500,000)
633,800
(29,000)
242,200
242,200
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
47,340
47,342
(38,192)
(534,688)
40,000
(410,000)
160,000
(2,500)
(227,320)
(3,182,480)
66,000
(924,000)
99,000
(90,000)
168,960
(153,600)
132,600
(132,600)
144,300
(155,700)
183,810
(9,000)
79,920
72,650
Percent
Federal
State
WHITE PLAINS
30
30
(4)
(56)
5.33
(54.67)
50*
(30)
(4)
(56)
4
(56)
33
(30)
33
(30)
30
(30)
28.86
(31.14)
29
(31)
33
30
Payments
To Date
Federal Percent
State
REGION
41,400
41,493
None
None
None
None
160,000
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
183,810
None
67,500
62,550
Completed
(continued)
99
0
0
99
0
0
0
0
99
0
99
99
Project Status Comment
Final FWPCA & State audit completed
Grant application being processed
by FWPCA.
Bids received by Applicant Aug. 28, 1967
State pick-up contract forwarded to
Applicant for signature
Application being reviewed by NYSDH
FWPCA grant offer accepted by Applicant
Applicant supplying additional info
to FWPCA
Awaiting FWPCA approval of revised
plans and specifications
State pick-up contract being prepared
Redesign of treatment plant under
review by NYSDH
State pick-up contract being prepared
Awaiting final audit ^
U3
-------
23
Project Applicant
Number County
290+
9
274+
268+
343+
237
28
355
253
322
365
232
247
Orangetown (T)
Rockland
Piermont (V)
Rockland
Rockland Co.SD#l
Rockland
Stony Point (T)
Rockland
Huntington SD
Suffolk
Northport (V)
Suffolk
Southampton (T)
Suffolk
Suffolk Co.Comm.
College-Suffolk
Libetty (V)
Sullivan
Rockland (T)
Sullivan
South Fallsburg SD
Sullivan
Ellenville
Ulster
Buchanan (V)
Westchester
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
Grant
Amount' I
Fedtral I
Stile1
•ercent
'ederal
State
Payments
To Date
Federal
State
WHITE PLAINS REGION
3,533,600
3,533,600
357,900
357,900
(22,521,000)
(22,521,000)
1>619,200
(1,619,200)
184,600
184,600
34,400
34,400
1» 166, 080
1,060,080
107,370
107,370
(5,087,313)
(8,425,287)
421,740
(549,780)
10,000
(100,754)
8,580
12,060
29,400 7,350
None, completed prior
(279,550)
(279,550)
332,200
332,200
266,900
(266,900)
(1,329,500)
(1,329,500)
315,776
145,427
175,500
162,166
(83,865)
(83,865)
99,600
99,600
80,070
(80,070)
(53,180)
(744,520)
94,730
43,628
52,650
48,649
33
30
30
30
(22.59)
(37.41)
26.05
(33.95)
5.42
54.58
24.94
35.06
25.00
to May
(30)
(30)
30
30
30
(30)
(4)
(56)
30
30
30
30
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
5,000
12, 1965
None
9,900
None
None
None
None
None
94,730
39,265
32,900
None
Percent
Completed
(continued)
40
95
15
25
0
60
99
0
95
0
0
99
99
Prolect Status Comment
Under cpnstruction
Under constructionJnegotations for
tie-in with adjacent Village under way
Execution of State contract awaiting
clear title for outfall real estate
Bids for plant rejected; plant being
redesigned
Final plans under review by NYSDH
Under construction
Completed; final payment dependent on
resolution of deficiencies by Applicant
FWPCA applic being held by NYSDH
pending submission of additional
information
Construction near completion and
plant under test
Applicant to receive new bids on
Sept. 21, 1967
FWPCA grant applic being reviewed by
NYSDH
Awaiting final State audit
K)
•vj
State payment being processed
-------
Project Applicant
Number County
88 Peekskill (C)
Westchester
67 Port Chester (V)
Westchester
Eligible
Project
Cost
Federal
State
550,000
(185,811)
1,360,708
(77,000)
Grant
Amount
Federal
State
165,000
(55,743)
250,000
(32,000)
Percent
Federal
State
WHITE PLAINS
30
(30)
1.8.37
(41,63)
Payments
To Date
Federal Percent
State
REGION
109,500
None
250,000
None
Completed
(continued)
99
99
Project Status Comment
State pick-up contract sent to
Applicant
State pick-up contract being prepared
218 Westchester Co,
Westchester
5,020,000 1,506,000 30 1,249,400
None; Completed prior to May 12, 1965
99 Completed;final FWPCA payment not made)
FWPCA awaiting additional information
from Applicant
to
•j
i-
-------
272
A. Handley
MR. HANDLEY: My comments generally follow this
report.
I would like the record to show that we brought
200 copies of this down here. I understand that we are all
out of them, despite the fact that there are 150 people in
the room (laughter), so if anyone is hoarding them, please
free them up now.
When we met in September of 1965» many elements
of our Pure Waters Program were still proposals and not yet
hard facts. In November of that year, the voters of the
State issued a mandate to implement the program when they
approved the $1 billion construction bond issue.
With that mandate in 19&5, New York's program
accelerated — got into high gear, if you will. Since that
time, we have organized a Division of Pure Waters in the
State Health Department. We have progressed with a strengthened
enforcement program which started immediately to get many
legislative improvements, and continued to make more.
Most recently, we have instituted a State Pure
Waters Authority.
These are but a few things that have occurred since
we first met in September of 1965.
All of this, however, serves to further establish
the Federal-interstate — the ISC -- and the State in a local
-------
273
A. Handley
partnership, which is so vital to the success of any water
pollution control effort.
The objective of our presentation now is to
briefly* review this scarce report with you and hit the high-
lights, so that you will have some additional perspective
as to what we have been up to in the past two years.
As Mr. Metzler mentioned, William Shaffer will
discuss in greater detail the construction grant portion of
our report.
Let me go on now with the report of our activi-
ties since 1965.
I mentioned that we have organized a Division
of Pure Waters within the New York State Health Department.
This Division consists of sanitary and construction engineers
scientists, administrators, engineering technicians, and
supporting clerical staff. The central office staff, as of
today, numbers 148 persons. In addition to this, we have
increased the staffing of our White Plains regional office
and of our New York City office.
We have accelerated our utility planning effort
in New York State. First of all, all of our programs are
coordinated with the Hudson River Valley Commission, which
has a total planning responsibility. We have completed,
under the auspices of the State Conservation Department, a
-------
274
A. Handley
multipurpose water resources survey for the entire State,
including, of course, the lower Hudson River Basin. Also,
we have currently eight public water supply studies com-
pleted or under way in this particular basin. This covers
an area with a population of 9-3 million.
In addition, in our comprehensive sewage utility
study program, we have 38 sewerage need studies completed or
under way for areas with a population of three million.
The State investment since 1965 in these two
programs totals $3-2 million.
Our comprehensive utility study programs have
always been directed towards a regional solution, a single
plant to avoid three or four, a centralized facility which
can be better operated and supervised.
We are especially fortunate to have with us today
two gentlemen, one from Albany County and one from Rensselaer
County, who will describe to you later the progress being
made in these two counties towards regional solutions.
These represent the total New York State program,
starting with the very logical area-wide comprehensive study,
following through to complete planning, final planning, and
going on to the construction grant phase, and finally the
sewage treatment plant operation and maintenance grant phase.
While we are speaking of money and study, I think
-------
275
A. Handley
the conferees and you people here today should know that New
York State has earmarked a fund of $20,000 as an initial
start to assist with the Spring Creek study in New York City.
I discussed this with representatives of the city
some time ago. We anticipated a rather slow start, or an
easy start would be a better word, and, therefore, we ear-
marked the fund of $20,000 to assist in this study.
If the study jells and is finalized, we will make
further plans for the second and third year of assistance.
Those of you who have the report might want to
look on Page 15, which itemizes our progress for compre-
hensive water supply and sewerage studies. Look at Table
3 on Page 15. I draw your attention to the first example,
Albany County.
Specifically, what we have here is a study of
13 individual municipalities and their needs for sewage
collection and treatment. This will end up in a situation
in which we will have two centralized treatment facilities
rather than the 13 individual smaller facilities, which were
typical prior to our study effort.
We are especially pleased with the progress being
made, and we are in the middle of the second year of a three-
year intensive study of water quality and assimilative
capacity of the Hudson River.
-------
2?6
A. Handley
The study will provide the State with a flexible,
computerized, analytical model of the response of the Hudson
River to the discharge of any organic, thermal, toxic or
other waste effluent. The computerized river representation
developed will provide the State with a powerful tool for
the rapid evaluation of alternative abatement programs.
To date, both steady State and time-dependent
models for conservative and non-conservative pollutants and
water quality characteristics have been constructed, pro-
grammed, and most important of all, debugged. This has been
completed for BOD and DO determination.
In the area of water quality surveillance, we
have an automatic water quality monitor which has been in-
stalled at Glenmont on the Hudson River. We have plans to
install a second station this year in the vicinity of Bear
Mountain.
In addition, we are collecting at five key loca-
tions on the Hudson manual samples, at varying frequencies
of a week to a month, and maintain a record of water quality
in these two ways on the Hudson River.
Since we met last, the State has issued 55
operating, permits for new or enlarged facilities in the
lower Hudson River drainage basin. These are treatment
facilities to handle subdivisions in the cities, industries,
-------
277
A. Handley
and so on. These facilities serve 2.8 million people at a
total construction cost of $166 million.
This information, incidentally, is outlined in
Table 4 dn Page 19 of the report.
I think it is important to realize that once one
gets just above — not very far above — New York City, that
we do have some open spots in the landscape, and you will
notice that rather than going into individual septic tank
systems, we have approved and promoted several small
centralized facilities.
Since the start of the program in construction
grants, we have executed many construction grant contracts
with municipalities in this particular basin for waste-
water treatment facilities.
Applications approved and being processed total
28, with State grants estimated at $186 million, as compared
to the $12 million of Federal grants.
This information will be elaborated on by Mr.
Shaffer. The information appears at Table 1 on Page 4 of
the report.
Again, I would direct your attention to Page 5>
which indicates New York State's stake in the Albany County
Sewer District and the Rensselaer County Sewer District.
These will be commented on further by the local representatives
-------
278
A. Handley
We are especially proud of the fact that we have
tremendous local leadership. This is the key, you know, to
getting any facility constructed. Without it, the Federal
Government and the State government are lost, and we see
this demonstrated here today.
Now, the State, without too much difficulty, pre-
pared and submitted water quality standards to the Federal
Government in accordance with the 1965 Water Pollution
Control Act. I say "without too much difficulty" because we
have been in business since 19^9, and it was a matter more
of assembling details rather than initiating action.
In the area of enforcement, we have completed 53
actions resulting in formal pollution abatement orders.
This activity is summarized in Table 2 at Page 6. All major
polluters in the lower Hudson River drainage basin are under
order at this time.
Those of you who were here this morning saw the
chart Governor Rockefeller displayed in his talk, and I must
say that I was quite envious.
I have said that we have all the major polluters
under formal order, and he very clearly showed that this
represented, I think, 97 percent of the pollution to the
Hudson River. I had never been able to figure out a chart
like that before. It may account for why he is Governor and
-------
279
A. Handley
I am a sanitary engineer, but it did show very clearly that
we have 53 under order. This accounts for 97 percent of the
pollution going into the river.
In addition, we have 43 more who are under a
voluntary abatement program, and this accounts for about 3
percent of the pollution.
Finally, I would like to report on our sewage
treatment plant maintenance and operation program. This is
an incentive program by which municipalities which properly
operate sewage treatment facilities are awarded a grant
equal to one- third of their operation and maintenance costs.
If one operates their treatment facility in
accordance with our minimum requirements, the year after
they have finished this, they are eligible for the one-third
We have had two years of experience in this
particular program, and I would say it has been most success-
ful. It has resulted in water quality improvement, because
we have gotten improved operation of treatment facilities.
In the lower Hudson River Basin, exclusive of New
York City, 46 municipalities qualified under this program
in 1965 for grants totaling $490,000.
To date, 36 applications have been approved
totaling $381,500 for this year. There are six New York City
-------
280
A. Handley
plants in the area of this conference concern. These have
been approved, and have received grants of approximately
$2.3 million each year.
This concludes the hasty review of our activities,
other than those of construction grants.
Mr. Metzler and Chairman Stein, if you want to
proceed?
MR. STEIN: Yes. Are there any questions or
comments ?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: This is again a very excellent and
comprehensive report.
As you Know, Dwight Metzler has been with me from
time to time throughout the country. Sometimes when we come
into programs, we perhaps feel critical or maybe the people
feel critical, and I think the record shows it. But I think
in a situation like this, it looks to me that we have a
State-Federal-local interstate program, where we are all
pretty much moving together, and if there are any problems,
they are problems on the specifics which can be adjusted.
I am very encouraged by the reports we have heard
so far, and I think this is moving along famously.
MR. METZLER: I would like Mr. Shaffer then to
add some dimensions to the remarks that have already been
-------
281
V. K. Shaffer
made about financing. It is not that I think we probably
need to be convinced that the Federal participation or
financing is a problem, but it is rather that I would like
to demonstrate the extent to which we have analyzed this
problem, and his presentation will show the kind of imposi-
tion that will be placed upon New York's taxpayers for pre-
financing and the more difficult roles that we will have in
pushing communities forward on schedule, unless some major
change is made in the attitude of the Congress toward
financing the program that they have authorized.
Bill Shaffer.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM K. SHAFFER, CHIEF,
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS ACTIVITIES, DIVISION
OF PURE WATERS, STATE OF NEW YORK DEPART-
MENT OF HEALTH, ALBANY, NEW YORK
MR, SHAFFER: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:
My presentation is included in detail in the
pamphlet which has been presented. My purpose here is to
emphasize or explain certain items, which we feel should be
covered a little bit more than have been covered thus far.
The State of New York Pure Waters Construction
Grants Program is a practical, workable, financially sound
-------
282
W. K. Shaffer
incentive program which is producing results faster than we
expected in the beginning. It has materially influenced the
initiation of the projects, and it is continuing to do so
at a rapid rate.
It was on September 1, 1966, that we signed our
first five State contracts. The Governor had municipal
officials in, and we signed those roughly a year and a few
days ago.
Since that time, we have formally executed some
47 contracts, and we have another 129 which are due to be
executed when construction starts.
As you may or may not realize, we don't execute
a formal contract until construction starts, but this does
mean that the State has made a commitment as regards the
furnishing of the grant. So that we at the present time then
are to the state of committing $357 million in State grants.
Projects in New York State for construction of
municipal sewage treatment works are eligible for Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration construction grants
under the Federal Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966, and
under previous legislation, depending on when the project
started.
At the present time, New York State water quality
standards have been approved by the Federal Water Pollution
-------
283
W. K. Shaffer
Control Administration, and we are then eligible in New York
State for either 50 or 55 percent Federal participation.
One of the questions that then arises, as the
GoVernor mentioned this morning, is the question of how much
money is involved in this Federal program, and how much are
we eligible for under the 55 percent figure.
We have assembled the statistics on that and we
have prepared them, and in Table 6 of our presentation we
show you that we have roughly $238 million due the State of
New York on projects at the 55 percent figure, for projects
which are already approved or are in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration awaiting approval. That is $238
million.
Table 7 indicates that we will need $1^0 million
for projects currently being proposed by the municipalities
and the New York State Department of Health. These projects
are projects which are so firm and the estimates are so firm
that project identification numbers utilized by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration and the State Depart-
ment of Health have already been assigned to these projects.
Next, in Table 8, we show the projects one by one
which total approximately $316 million, new projects across
the State of New York, at the 55 percent figure for projects
which are in process of preparation at the municipality level,
-------
284
W. K. Shaffer
Now, the preparation has gone so far that we have
an actual figure which represents a firm estimate at this
time.
So what these three tables boil down to is that
the total amount is roughly $69^ million that projects across
the State of New York would be due if the Congress decides to
fund these projects at the authorized 55 percent figure.
Another subject is the water pollution control
program of the City of New York. Commissioner Hult mentioned
that they had an enormous program which has been going on
since 1931. That program totals $1.29 billion.
We have shown in Table 9 the various participation
by the Federal Government, by the State government and by
the city.
The city is to be commended for the outstanding
rate of progress that they have made in that program in the
past few years in advance of any substantial grants from
either the State or the Federal Government.
They are to be commended also, of course, for the
excellence of their technical supervision and the dedication
of the many people who have been in this program for many
years. It certainly has made it much easier for the State
and Federal Government to work with them, because of these
people.
-------
285
W. K. Shaffer
Next, we talked a little bit about the require-
ments there. We will talk a little further about them in
terms of the Federal Clean Waters Restoration Act of 1966,
which* authorizes a total of $3.5 billion through the year
1971.
In the State program, as the Governor indicated,
it was estimated when our legislation was passed two years
ago at $1.7 billion. In a quick comparison, it is one-half
of the Federal authorization.
The problem that concerns New .York State this
fiscal year is that it appears that the Congress is going
to pass an appropriation of $203 million instead of the
authorized $450 million. The State's share for New York
State projects of that $203 million is only $14.5 million.
As you can see from the listing of those projects,
this is a very small amount of money.
At the present time, it appears that there will be
one percent participation by the Federal Government in the
State of New York projects for the balance of this fiscal
year. Since the first of April, participation in New York
State projects has been 4 percent. As you know, this State
guarantees State and Federal participation up to the 60
percent, our basic State grant of 30 percent, then 1 percent
Federal participation, which makes the State's pre-financing
-------
286
W. K. Shaffer
29 percent, and it appears that that will be the figure that
we will have to use for the balance of the current fiscal
year.
We have found in New York State it extremely desir-
able to furnish, on a monthly basis, a status report to our
municipalities and to our consulting engineers. We take the
approach that they are entitled to know the action or lack
of action by the State and by the Federal Government in the
processing procedure in regard to projects.
In other Federal programs, you all are aware that
there are various processing problems. We solved that prob-
lem here by publication of this monthly status report, and
we have included in our presentation in the pamphlet the
August 31st monthly status report to indicate to you how we
furnish that information to the municipalities and to the
consulting engineers.
The State and its municipalities are much
interested in the reimbursement features of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration grant program. This
is where we are going to get the 55 percent back eventually
if the Congress appropriates the money.
The municipalities realize that the State of New
York accepts each pure water program project as it arises, treat-
ing each with equal priority and recommending equivalent Federal
-------
28?
W. K. Shaffer
participation when the project is approved by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration.
Currently, this program is a 1 percent Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration participation and
59 percent State participation, composed of the 30 percent
basic State grant and 29 percent prefinancing of the Federal
share. This leaves some 54 percent of the Federal share to
be furnished later by the Federal Government, either before
the completion of construction of the project, or as reim-
bursement after the completion of construction.
It is apparent that the lack of Federal funds
precludes financing to the full 55 percent. The situation
will not get better soon, and it does cause problems
administratively with the municipalities, the State and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
In our construction grants activities, we have had
a very excellent relationship with the construction grants per-
sonnel of the regional office.
We would like to commend Mr. Lester Sutton and Mr.
Ricci for the efficiency of their organization, and for their
personal effectiveness. They have also received excellent
support from Mr. Thomas Ferry of Construction Grants in
Washington.
Without this excellent relationship, the State of
-------
288
W. K. Shaffer
New York construction grants program would not have been
able to progress as far and as fast as it has thus far.
We would also like to give recognition to the
Corps of Engineers, another Federal agency, for their pollu-
tion control abatement activities, particularly their enforce-
ment and operations activities in the harbor and on the
Hudson.
The State Pure Waters Construction Grant Program
is fully implemented at the present time, it is adequately
funded, and, as I said, it is progressing in excess of
expectations.
Further assistance in the form of material in-
creases in the availability of Federal funds would undoubtedly
provide further impetus to municipalities across the State
of New York to this greater progress.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Shaffer.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Shaffer, thank you very much
first for the very kind words you had to say for our staff,
Mr. Sutton, Mr. Ricci and our Washington colleague, Mr. Ferry.
I noticed that in the figures you gave on the
needs that you were talking about the entire State program,
but what we are talking about here today is the Hudson River.
-------
289
W. K. Shaffer
Do you have any figures broken down, or can't you
give us figures for the record for the Hudson River? You
have* done it by regions.
MR. SHAFFER: If you will turn to Table 1, you
will find that those are the construction grants projects
which are either already approved by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, or are in the hands of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration awaiting
approval at this time for the Hudson River, of course, from
Albany or Troy south, and excluding the lower harbor. In
other words, those are the construction grants projects for
the conference area.
The reason that we presented the other figures
to you later is, as Commissioner Hult can't separate his over-
all city program into the lower harbor and the Hudson River
area, we can't really separate our financing problems into
just the Hudson River without considering the rest of the
State, so we have given it to you both ways.
MR. KLASHMAN: This table gives the projects that
you have. Does it give all of them? In other words, when
you have accomplished all these projects, you will have
accomplished the entire Hudson River area?
MR. HANDLEY: That is the table to date. There
will be additional projects in the lower Hudson River.
-------
290
W. K. Shaffer
MR. KLASHMAN: Right. Thank you very much.
MR. SHAFFER: You can say that another way for
the construction grants people. Those are the projects on
which identification numbers have been assigned. They in-
clude all projects which are either approved or are in the
hands of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
for approval, except for the Albany County project and the
Rensselaer County project. Those are the only two on that
list which are not in your hands which have been approved
by you.
MR. STEIN: Are there any further comments or
questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: That is a very excellent report
I would just like to say one thing for the record.
I think your points are well taken. I have always wondered
why more States didn't get the cities and the money outlined
the way you have done here. This is.what I have always said
was a prerequisite to point up the problem. The fact that
you have done this shows that you mean business, that you are
far ahead, and it gives everyone in every portion of the
country, in the Congress and everywhere else, a notion of
the magnitude of the problem and what you intend to do with
the money.
-------
291
W. K. Shaffer
This program has advanced through the years.
We have to look at everything in the historical light. I
know you have had the bond issue in the State of New York.
Originally we started with $60 million. The maximum grant
was $250,000. This was for the small cities.
We finally got that raised to $100 million a year,
and we got the grant raised to $600,000.
This was the genesis of the program. We have
to recognize this.
Now, maybe the reimbursement feature gives us
another angle to go at this, but I don't think the Congress
intended that.
Again, when you look at the program, one of the
overriding considerations, whether you talk about 50 percent
grants, 55 percent grants, or 30 percent grants, is the dollar
limitation that Congress puts on and your allocation.
For example, what did you say you were getting
under the $200 million, $17 million?
MR. METZLER: $l4 million dollars.
MR. STEIN: Let's suppose we got the full amount.
If it doubled, what would that be, 1 percent, or 2 percent?
Let me make the point again. Go to your Table 1.
I am not arguing with the table, because I think the table
points up the issue.
-------
292
W. K. Shaffer
The table shows the North River plant, and it gives
the eligible project costs as $220 million. That is one
project in New York City which is more than the total national
appropriation or the likelihood of the national appropria-
tion for 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands, that are eligible too.
In other words, realistically we must recognize
that to have clean waters in the United States we are going
to have to get along with the authorized money that the
Congress is talking about. If we are going to have this in
the fairly near future, places such as New York City are
going to have to figure on getting these funds somewhere else.
I don't think there is any argument about that.
Now, perhaps, we may work out this reimbursement
feature. I think New York has taken on that program
realistically, but I don't think we should delude ourselves
about the magnitude of the Federal grants authorized.
I just want to make one more point. We do have
Federal funds authorized. For example, as you said, this
year $^50 million was authorized. It looks like less than
half of it, or $203 million, is going to go through.
We always like to talk about money being authorized,
but if you would just stop and think that if your Federal
budget this year equaled the amount of projects authorized
-------
293
W. K. Shaffer
by the Congress, what that would mean to your tax program.
Again, I am saying that we should not hope for
that in our program, but is it really realistic to believe
when we have that authorization that we have more than that?
There are a lot of national obligations in com-
peting for the Federal dollar. You also have your obligations
here to have clean water.
What I am saying to you is, let us recognize the
limitations. We recognize we have a difficult program to go
through. You have talked with Mr. Ferry and his group. They
are trying to do all they can under the limitations of the
program.
I think the sooner we look at the realistic opera-
tions of the programs of New York and New Jersey and realis-
tically are appreciative about this, the better off we are.
Dr. Kandle spoke about the propaganda mill. If
you want to say that the Federal Government has "an obliga-
tion" and is not coming through with the obligation, that is
all right. Legally, the obligation we have is just the money
that Congress appropriates, and you know how much they are
appropriating.
These are the facts we have to keep in mind if we
are dealing realistically with the program that we are going
to have to face for the next five years in the dealings we
-------
294
W. K. Shaffer
are going to have with each other.
We are always open to charges and jibes and such
as that.
Thank you.
MR. METZLER: Murray, I think in view of this, I
am going to have to make a little historical remark here.
You recall that in the spring of 1965, Governor
Rockefeller went down and challenged the Congress to put up
30 percent of the construction grants, because he recognized
what many of the others, including yourself, had, that the
construction grants program up to that point was merely
aimed at the small community, that it wasn't really aimed
at the metropolitan centers, that it wasn't of much help
and certainly a little help to communities the size of New
York City or some of the other metropolitan areas.
Congress accepted that challenge. It waited a
year. Instead of accepting it in 1965, you will recall that
there was some proposed legislation going in 1965, the
challenge was accepted in 1966, but in addition to accepting
the challenge they added another 25 percent on, and the
representatives of the Federal Government in both the legis-
lative and the executive branches have been talking about
this, so that every public official in New York knows about
it.
-------
295
W. K. Shaffer
It seems to me that we either ought to take some
of the authorizing legislation off the books, or else .we
want to make darned clear that we have got some sound
engineering facts, that we have got costs that are based upon
actual engineering estimates, and not something that was done
by a survey, and that if Congress really means what it
is talking about, about helping the cities, it is going to
have to put up some real money.
Now, I am sympathetic with the problems of the
President and the Congress in trying to finance a major war
and finance the domestic programs. I have also watched
appropriations, and I have noticed that all of the domestic
programs have been cut, except a few in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, but, nevertheless, we have
got to quit talking about having this kind of help available
at the Federal level unless — and this is a crude expression
-- you put your money where your mouth is.
MR. STEIN: Dwight, I think you are right. You
recognize that in most States, the Federal Government is
putting up more money than the States.
You are talking about one or two States where the
situation obtains, but it looks a little different when you
get to New York State.
I just have one footnote when you say either put
-------
296
W. K. Shaffer
up the money or take the legislation off the books. Mr.
Metzler, if any grant authorizing legislation is ever taken
off the books, you would be reversing a trend in modern
history.
MR. METZLER: There are two .additional witnesses
that we would like to call for New York State before you may
want to take a break.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. METZLER: Is Senator Whitney North Seymour
here?
(No response.)
MR. METZLER: We will wait for his return.
Is Mr. Alan Blake here, representing Assemblyman
James Pusco?
(No response, )
MR. METZLER: All right.
MR. STEIN: All right. Why don't we hear from the
Interstate Commission?
MR. LANG: Mr. Stein, may I make a comment, sir?
MR. STEIN: Why don't you see me during the
recess?
MR. LANG: All right.
MR. GLENN: Mr. Stein, I would like to call on
our Chairman of the Interstate Sanitation Commission, Dr.
Colosi.
-------
297
N. Golosi
STATEMENT OP DR. NATALE COLOSI, CHAIRMAN,
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION, PROFESSOR
OF BACTERIOLOGY AND PUBLIC HEALTH AT WAGNER
COLLEGE, DEAN OF POLYCLINIC MEDICAL SCHOOL
DR. COLOSI: Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Con-
ferees, Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is Natale Colosi. I am Professor of
Bacteriology and Public Health at Wagner College, and the
Dean of the New York Polyclinic Medical School. I speak here
today in my capacity as Chairman of the Interstate Sanitation
Commission.
The present session of the conference has been
called to review progress made in implementing the agreements
reached at the first session which was held two years ago.
Partly because of the nature of such an undertaking, and
partly because new Federal statutes have made the processes
for revising standards in interstate waters different than
they were in 1965, it seems inappropriate to do more in the
present context than summarize the actual events of the past
two years in securing better facilities for water pollution
control in the Hudson River area. We believe that progress
has been good.
-------
298
N. Colosi
At the conference on the Hudson River held on
September 28, 1965, the conferees agreed that all wastes
discharged to the Hudson River should receive a minimum of
secondary treatment. We reported at the conference that all
of the sanitary wastes originating in the New Jersey portion
of the conference area were receiving primary treatment at one
of nine sewage treatment plants with the exception of approxi-
mately 30 million gallons a day. This waste was discharged
through Peddie Ditch into Newark Bay but was intercepted
during 1966 and diverted to the Passaic Valley Sewage Treat-
ment Plant for treatment. The primary plants received orders
from the New Jersey State Health Department in August 1966
requiring an upgrading of treatment and then in March and
April 196? they received amended orders requiring a removal
of not less than 80 percent of the biochemical oxygen demand
and included a detailed timetable. The date for completion
of construction is October 10, 1970.
At the time of the previous conference, we stated
that practically all sanitary wastes from the Roc kland and
Westchester County area were receiving at least primary
treatment and chlorination during the recreational season.
Also, we reported that the State of New York and the Commis-
sion had agreed that secondary treatment was needed and steps
were being taken to accomplish this. Since then, the Village
-------
299
N. Colosi
of Piermont has completed the pumping station and force main
which diverts its flow to the Orangetown Treatment Plant.
This latter plant is under construction for the addition of
secondary treatment facilities. The New York State Health
Department has also issued orders on the remaining primary
treatment plants and the completion of construction is
scheduled from 1968 through 1970, depending on each individu-
al situation.
In the New York City portion of the conference
area the Commission has had a Consent Order against the City
of New York since 1957 and all of the projects are either
completed, under construction, or under design.
The largest project under the Consent Order is
the Newtown Creek Pollution Control Project, which will pro-
vide secondary treatment for approximately 300 million
gallons a day of raw waste and will improve considerably
the water quality of the Upper New York Harbor area and the
waters passing through the Narrows and also water carried by
tides up the Hudson River. This project is scheduled to be
completed this month at a total cost of 165 million dollars.
We had planned to have chlorination of all sewage discharges
in the Upper Harbor, Kill Van Kull, Lower East River and
Hudson Fiver by this summer. The summer or bathing season
of 1967 was selected as the starting time of chlorination
-------
300
N. Colosi
in this area as it was to have been the first bathing season
following the scheduled completion of the large Newtown
Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. Although this plant was not
completed as scheduled, some of the existing treatment
plants started chlorinating. Others have chlorination facili-
ties under construction and will be chlorinating prior to the
bathing season of 1968.
The interceptors for the North River Pollution
Control Plant are now under construction. This plant is
designed to treat 220 MGD, will be located between West l4oth
Street and West l4^th Street, and most of the plant will be
built on reinforced concrete platforms supported on long
piles and caissons in the Hudson River. The North River
Project is scheduled for completion by 1972. Construction
will begin this year on interceptors to the Port Richmond
Plant and design is under way for full secondary treatment
with a design capacity from 10 to 60 million gallons a day.
This construction should be completed in 1971- Design continues
on the Red Hook Pollution Control Project, which will provide
treatment for the remaining raw wastes from Brooklyn. This
plant is scheduled for completion in 1972.
The combined sewers are always a real problem and
a majority of the metropolitan area unfortunately has this
type of sewer Due to the heavy rainfall this summer, this
-------
301
N. Colosi
problem caused a very high coliform count In the New York
City beach areas and lower dissolved oxygen values in many
areas.
In judging the likelihood of continued satisfactory
progress in bringing the waters of the conference area under
control, it is appropriate to note what the first session of
the conference found:
"5. The States of New Jersey and New York
and the Interstate Sanitation Commission are em-
powered to abate pollution and have active programs
to accomplish this result. These programs include:
establishment of water quality requirements:
enforcement actions to abate waste Discharges:
development of comprehensive water pollution control
programs: and fiscal incentives."
This conclusion of the conference in 1Q65 is just
as apt today as it was then. At the time, the conferees
also found that the problems of the Hudson River are large
and complex, owing to the heavily populated and industrialized
character of the region. It may be understood, then, that a
great deal of continuous effort on the part of all concerned
is necessary for successful pollution control.
This proposition^ could be illustrated in many ways
As previously mentioned, the Interstate Sanitation CommissJon
-------
302
N. Colosi
has a consent order against New York City under which that
municipality's vast program of treatment plant and related
construction is being carried out. The order dates from
1Q57, but the achievement of totally satisfactory results
was recognized to involve a multistage construction program.
New York City activities reported for the two-year period,
since the first session of this conference, have constituted
the most recent phases of work toward full compliance with
the Interstate Sanitation Commission's consent order.
We believe the opportunity for the abatement of
water pollution was never more favorable than at the present
time. The people of the area have never before shown such
solidarity in expressing their desire for cleaner waters
for best usage. This has been shown in many ways such as
the New York Bond Issue in 1965 and the new legislation
passed in New Jersey and Connecticut during the early part of
this year which provides State matching funds so that projects
will be eligible for the maximum Federal matching funds. This
has lead to communities under orders to construct secondary
treatment facilities to make financial plans based on re-
ceiving from 60 percent up to 85 percent of total construc-
tion cost from State and Federal sources Our real concern
is that we now have the sentiment of the public to get the
job done and th,e lack of Federal funds at this time will
-------
303
N. Colosi
provide such an obstacle that the construction of abatement
projects may be brought to a standstill. For instance, some
of the larger projects are being pre-financed by New York
State to the extent of 26 percent or more of the Federal
share of 30 percent. This does not include another 25 per-
cent of promised Federal matching funds as "bonuses" which
the communities were expecting and which they may now only
hope to receive at some time in the future. New York may
reclaim some of their pre-financing funds if Federal money is
ever appropriated for this purpose at a later date. It
might prove quite difficult to achieve the current level of
public support again if Federal funds are not made available
for the projects to proceed as now scheduled.
We look forward to a steady improvement of waste
treatment in that portion of the Hudson River Basin lying
within the Interstate Sanitation District. To this end we
count on the continuing cooperation of the States of New
Jersey and New York, the Federal Government and the Inter-
state Sanitation Commission,
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Professor Colosi.
Are there any comments or questions?
(No response. )
DR. COLOSI: This is like in some of my classes,
-------
304
N. Colosi
no questions asked.
MR. STEIN: You know, the Commission always puts
out a very clear statement.
As I was telling Mr. Klashman up here while this
was going on, we always get from the Commission some of the
best technical writing. Sometimes I wonder why we can't
have writers like this ourselves.
I would just like to call attention to one phrase
which I pick out, and this is at the top of Page 6. You
say, "This does not include another 25 percent of promised" •
and I emphasize that word, "promised" — "Federal matching
funds as bonuses."
As long as we keep using "authorized" and
"promised" as citizens, we may run into trouble.
Thank you.
Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: A few minutes ago we called for
Senator Seymour. He has since arrived.
I will now call on Senator Whitney North Seymour,
who is State Senator from the 26th District of New York.
STATEMENT OF STATE SENATOR WHITNEY NORTH
SEYMOUR, JR., 26TH DISTRICT, STATE OF NEW YORK
-------
305
W. N. Seymour
MR. SEYMOUR: Mr. Chairman, although I was delayed
getting back this afternoon, I was here this morning when I
heard you speak of the burden we all carry with the vagaries
of our legislatures, and I sort of had my ears turned around,
and will say I am not in agreement with you completely.
I have been in our State Legislature for all of
two years, and that service has generally persuaded me to
accept Will Rogers' statement, when he said, "it is better
to have termites in your house than have the legislature in
session." (Laughter)
You will be pleased to know that the New York
State Legislature is not in session. We are in recess, and
we do not convene again until January, so you are relatively
safe, but I do want to prove the value of your thesis about
vagaries by going off on a little bit of a tangent from the
main subject matter of your conference, because I think it is
important to keep your eye on the overall objective to which
we are all working.
I really think the achievements so far in water
pollution control are terribly exciting. I think it is time
for us to start looking around as to why we are doing it, and
where we are going with it.
New York, with approximately 578 miles of water-
front, has probably the most extensive and varied shoreline
-------
306
W. N. Seymour
of any city in the world. The marshes, rocky highlands, sandy
shores and the great port itself offer a scenic and recrea-
tional potential that is unmatched anywhere. It is tragic
that we have failed to realize the tremendous opportunity of
this waterfront to serve the citizens of the metropolitan
region. The same can be said of large stretches of the
Hudson River that should be a major recreation resource for
the entire region.
Those concerned with the region's development are
heartened by the progress in eliminating water pollution,
but this is only a small portion of the real job that needs
to be done. Coordination between all levels of government
is necessary to take full advantage of the river and what it
has to offer.
I would like to suggest that the time has come for
major governmental planning on the proper and effective use
of this waterfront, including the development of recreational
areas and access thereto, controls of other land uses, and
elimination of visual pollution. In terms of recreational
planning, we should be anticipating the growth of the region
to the year 2000. The Regional Plan Association has found
that while demand for recreational space is soaring, its
availability is rapidly diminishing: in the New York metro-
politan area, as much raw land was covered with homes,
-------
307
W. N. Seymour
factories, roadways and other urban structures in the 30
years prior to 19&0 as was turned to urban purposes in the
previous 300 years, and present development trends would
result in a doubling in the region's urbanized land area by
1985, Whole sections of the river such as the Hudson High-
lands should be preserved now for future recreation needs,
and nearer to the city, new parks and other facilities includ-
ing marinas, recreational piers, restaurants, floating
swimming pools and many other exciting concepts suggested
by responsible civic groups should be developed. The Regional
Plan Association and the Park Association of New York have
contributed a number of excellent ideas.
A perfect example of the type of recreational
needs which can be served by the waterfront are bicycle
paths. The Central Park experiment shows the tremendous,
unexpected demand for this wholesome activity — so much so
that we have bicycle Jams in the Park when it is open to
cyclists. There is no better opportunity to expand this
interest than a waterfront bicycle path, and several stretches
of the river are natural locations.
The clearest evidence of the need for coordinated
planning is the lack of access to existing recreational areas.
Any day on the West Side Highway you can see people darting
through the traffic to reach the water's edge. The
-------
308
W. N. Seymour
announcement made several months ago about the proposed
Hudson River Parkway indicated that some kind of a Chinese
wall is to be constructed north of Peekskill, thereby de-
priving people even further of access to the river. Some-
one must not only protect access, but also develop modes of
transportation to get people to the waterfront.
As the Regional Plan Association has effectively
pointed out, the need for land use controls has never been
more evident. Indiscriminate construction of high rise
apartments on the New Jersey side of the river is already
destroying that beautiful vista. It has been long since
apparent that the nineteenth century dock system in Manhattan
is obsolete for modern shipping purposes. Some docks should
be destroyed to open the waterfront for enjoyment by the
city's residents, others converted to recreational uses, and
others replaced by modern passenger terminals. The experience
of visitors coming to New York by ship is an unjustified
ordeal. Cargo shipping operations obviously require much
more modern equipment and a location such as Staten Island
with a minimum of traffic problems.
Pending proposals for high rise structures along
the Manhattan waterfront preview the time when the inner
city may be walled off from the river. It is clear that we
need controls over the height and design of buildings along
-------
309
W. N. Seymour
the New York and New Jersey shores before we have completely
lost all light, air, and vistas.
In addition to attacking water pollution, we must
strike at visual pollution. Rotting piers, neon signs,
billboards and other affronts to the eye prohibit any enjoy-
ment of the magnificent natural resources.
Finally, our paramount objective must be coor-
dinated planning of water resources. One evident fact is
that the States have taken a back seat in dealing with such
regional problems, and it is time they resolved their
differences and worked together. In New York, the Office of
Planning Coordination is only a faltering step in this
direction. We must establish machinery to insure that no
future capital project be instituted without proper considera-
tion of related land use, conservation, transportation and
further development of the areas affected, and that such a
project does not conflict with the comprehensive development
plans of the particular region. One aspect of planning must
include the services of a naturalist or ecologist with full
professional understanding of the balance of nature with
which we are tampering.
I might say in an aside that I am very pleased
that our Hudson River Valley Commission has now on the staff
a full-time ecologist.
-------
310
W. N. Seymour
If we could only figure out a way to do some
real coordination between the levels of government, we would
really make some progress.
Metropolitan centers have been growing at such a
fast rate that many formerly local planning functions can no
longer cope with present needs. Economic development,
housing, recreation planning, transportation and pollution
control along the waterfront have impact far beyond the
geographical limits of counties, cities and towns. The State
government must assume a growing responsibility to provide
planning coordination in these areas in order to fill the
significant vacuum in the lower Hudson River Valley.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Senator.
I would like to assure you that Secretary Udall is
very, very much interested in this, and, as a matter of fact,
he particularly is interested in the Hudson Valley.
I am sure he will be most interested to get your
feelings and views on this matter, because this is the
hind of proposal that I am pretty sure he likes to take on a
total planning and regional basis.
MR. SEYMOUR: I am fully aware of the Secretary's
past observations on the subject, Mr. Stein.
One of the problems obviously is that somehow we
-------
311
W. N. Seymour
have come up against a loggerhead here, where the Federal
Government and the two States are really not riding along on
the same rail, and that is what I hope we can get accomplished
very soon.
MR. STEIN: I am sure we all hope that. Thank
you.
Are there any further comments or questions?
MR. METZLER: Before the Senator sits down, I
particularly want to pay tribute to you and your colleagues
in both the Senate and the Assembly for having provided your
communities in New York and the New York State Health Depart-
ment with the kind of tools that are required for this
massive effort in this clean-up, and which has attracted
attention throughout the country and around the world.
I just want you to know that as one of the workers,
I appreciate this very much.
MR. SEYMOUR: It is only fair to observe that if
the program weren't carried out with such competence, it
would have been a waste of effort.
DR. HANDLE: Senator, with that remark about we
are riding on the rails, did that have any particular sig-
nificance?
SENATOR SEYMOUR: No, no. (Laughter)
MR. STEIN: We will stand recessed for ten minutes.
-------
312
A. L. Blake
(Whereupon a recess was had.)
MR. STEIN: May we reconvene?
Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: Before proceeding with the remaining
witness list for New York State, I would like to say if there
were some who did not get the copy of the progress report and
do want it, if you will just write on your own stationery
to Pure Waters, New York State Health Department, Albany, we
will see that a copy is sent to you. The address is Pure
Waters, New York State Health Department, Albany. I imagine
if you left out the "New York State Health Department," even
then it might get to the right place.
Next is Mr. Alan Blake, who is now here, represent-
ing Assemblyman James Pusco.
Mr. Blake.
STATEMENT OP ALAN L. BLAKE, LEGISLATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE TO ASSEMBLYMAN JOSEPH A.
PUSCO, 86TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT, BRONX
COUNTY, NEW YORK
MR. BLAKE: I have been asked by Assemblyman Pusco
to read his statement.
Gentlemen:
-------
313
A. L. Blake
As a member of the Republican Assembly Subcommittee
on Pollution, I wish to take this opportunity to thank you
for affording me the time to make a brief statement.
Over a period of years, we have allowed air and
water pollution to become a part of our everyday life. It
is now evident that the health hazards are created because of
inadequacies in enforcing legislative action. City, State
and Federal agencies continue to play Russian roulette with
citizens' lives. Until uniform laws are enacted, our efforts
will be for naught. There is an immediacy of need for review
of existing problems, and an immediacy of need for a plan of
action. I trust that the conference will bring forth a uni-
form program that will be accepted by all city; State and
Federal agencies.
Thank you.
To Assemblyman Fusco's statement I would like to
add a few comments concerning areas of pollution which affect
those of us who live along the waterfront of the northeast
Bronx. We share the concern of all New Yorkers with the
pollution of the air we breathe, but we are equally concerned
with the unnecessary pollution of our recreational waters by
our own city. Those city officials who should be most con-
cerned with protection of our citizens are frequently those
most guilty of callous disregard for our health, and they
-------
314
A. L. Blake
are the most difficult to control because of the relative
immunity vested in their positions.
At the present time, the City of New York is pushing
ahead with plans to dump raw garbage into, and adjacent to,
the wetlands and navigable waters of Pelham Bay Park. Perhaps
such a method of garbage disposal will reduce air pollution
caused by incineration, but of what value is this when a new
area of water pollution is introduced by the alternate method
of disposal. Surely pollution control programs must be
developed in such a way that the end product is of genuine
benefit to all the communities involved. And most certainly,
the public agencies themselves must accept equal responsi-
bility with private enterprises to control their activities
in such a way that contamination of our surroundings is held
to an absolute minimum.
I thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Blake. Are there any
comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: If not, Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: I have nothing other than to say
that it is a very constructive, helpful statement, and we hope
you will convey to Assemblyman Fusco our appreciation for
his interest and the kind of support he has given to this
-------
315
C. C. Johnson
program in the New York State Legislature.
The next witness, Mr. Chairman, is C. C. Johnson,
who was recently appointed Assistant Commissioner of Environ-
mental Health Services of the New York City Health Department.
Mr. Johnson.
MR. STEIN: I don't hear any complaints with
C. C. Johnson coming up here, about whom you stole from us.
(Laughter)
STATEMENT OP C. C. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH DEPART-
MENT, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Stein, to be formal about this,
and Members of the Committee:
I do not have a prepared statement, primarily
because at the time I heard about the conference, which was
perhaps yesterday, it did not give me time, with all my
other duties, to be able to come here with the kind of pre-
pared statement I would like to give you.
I do understand, however, this is not the fault
of anybody at the table. It is one of those things that
happen in communication channels, and I guess the paper just
-------
316
C. C. Johnson
did not get down to me.
I think it is very important, however, for a
city the size of New York, which represents somewhere pretty
close to 50 percent of the population of the State, since
we do have a large share in the tax base and we do have a
very active and live and, I hope, viable Health Department.
I am sure that the State would be the last to say that people
in the preventive public health field don't have a real
interest and a concern in water pollution control, and I
want to make sure that the record of this conference shows
that New York City does have this concern.
We do have a very real program, both in cooperating
with the State and cooperating with the other departments in
New York City in attempting to achieve the same objectives
and aims that this conference is trying to carry out.
More than that, if, under any conditions, an
organization that has this kind of concern loses its
visibility in that area in which these concerns are expressed,
they soon lose their identity and their capability to do a
program. I think this is very important for the conferees
and the people who are participating here to understand.
More than that, we also have a legal responsi-
bility in the City of New York that has some power to express
itself through the regulations and standards and restraints.
-------
317
C. C. Johnson
and this legal responsibility in terms of water pollution
control rests with the New York City Health Department.
We do carry out this responsibility, as I said,
in cooperation with the State, recognizing and never for-
getting that the State is a higher authority, and much of
what we carry out is within the aegis that they give us.
Having this joint responsibility, we also have
some activities that we carry out, and these activities,
in no small measure, contribute to the status report that
this conference is attempting to develop, and, at the same
time, give some major progress that obtains in New York City
as a result of these activities.
We have heard some very glowing reports in terms
of the progress that has been made by the State of New York,
and certainly our Department of Public Works in the City of
New York, and no one can argue with these statements. On
the other hand, it might be questioned whether they cover
the entire field of water pollution control that we certain-
ly at the State level and in the Health Department of the
city are concerned with.
For instance, a primary concern at the moment is
to build sewage treatment plants to contain and to treat the
city's sewage. This of itself does not speak about the
industrial waste problem in the City of New York. This is
-------
318
C. C. Johnson
finished sewerage, and right now, except as the State and
the city Health Departments mandate, industrial concerns are
not necessarily compelled by the Department of Public Works
to tie into the city sewerage system.
On the other hand, it is the policy of the City
of New York to tie all of these people into the city's
sewerage system so that we can reduce the number of outlets
that empty into our waterways around the city.
We think that there is very good reason for this,
and we are cooperating with the Department of Public Works
and with the State to carry out the enforcement powers that
prevail, so that we can compel these industrial waste
polluters to tie into our city sewer systems.
i
We were doing this before the actual legal enforce-
ment powers prevailed, and up to this time we have been suc-
cessful in getting some of the industrial polluters, with
their own moneys, to carry out the construction of sewers
that were necessary to make the tie-ins that are required
under our policy.
We continue to work with these industrial polluters,
and we have quite a number of them in New York City, many of
them small, but I can say as large as some of the largest
ones in some of the communities outside of New York State, to
-------
319
C. C. Johnson
tie into our community sewerage system.
So, with this kind of a policy, we are not in a
position to ^carry out the legal requirements and mandatory
court actions that you might take if you did not have to tie
into the city's sewerage system.
Why is that so? We can't tie into systems that
don't exist, so we have to cooperate and stimulate the further
acceleration of the construction of our city systems.
I think Commissioner Hult would be the first to
say that we have had some influence in this regard. I give,
as an example, the problems that we have on Staten Island.
Many of these problems are health problems. Water pollution
is not just an economic problem. It does have health implica-
tions, and because we point out these health problems, we are
able to change some of the priorities that prevail in the
construction of sewers that we need throughout New York City.
I might say, when we talk about the kind of progress
that is being made, many people forget over the years that it
is sometimes a stimulation from an outside source that causes
this progress to become a reality, and I give as an example,
not because I am Assistant Commissioner for Environmental
Health, but these things came about before I came to the
Department last March, Broad Channel, which is a situation
that existed for some 20 or 30 years, I understand.
-------
320
C. C. Johnson
People in New York City knew that this was out
there, and it was not until the Health Department brought
to the public the kind of nuisance and potential hazards
that existed there, that we got some real activity in trying
to get the kind of correction that we need to have to bring
in the kind of sewage treatment facilities and practices to
eliminate the conditions in Broad Channel.
They talk about Jamaica Bay. I understand that
some seven or ten years ago, the Health Department was
pushing and perhaps laid some of the basic groundwork for the
studies that will be conducted in the terms of pollution in
Jamaica Bay.
If we talk about combined sewers in New York City,
our own Harold Homer, now with the Department of Air Pollu-
tion, was one of the pioneers that brought to the fore the
kind of problems that combined sewers cause in terms of
pollution of our waters.
So let's don't, under any circumstances, ignore
or forget that the local people, as well as the State and
the Federal people, are also in this fight to clean up our
waters, and we do have something to contribute, and we only
want to become part of the team so that we can also be cited
for the successes that you are talking about here.
Thank you.
-------
321
C. C. Johnson
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Are there any comments or questions?
Charlie, do you want to wait a second, if you will?
MR. JOHNSON: Sure.
MR. STEIN: I have a question about the extent of
the industrial problem. This is a new facet. I had assumed
that within the city, these plants we were talking about were
going to pick up industrial as well as municipal waste.
MR. JOHNSON: What you assume is correct, and it
is because this is a policy that we have accepted and decided
upon amongst our inner departmental sewerage council here in
the city.
Now, as I understand it, we have various kinds of
industrial polluters. Many of these are located outside of
the regions of our existing sewerage system. Some of them
are within the regions, and they are being compelled at this
time to tie into our sewerage systems. In those instances
in which this is completely economically unfeasible, we will
look for alternative ways to combat this source of pollution.
Now, just to put it in its proper perspective,
this is a very small percentage of the total pollutional load
that was developed by New York City.
On the other hand, if we look at it in the
objective way, there is a law that says that you must give
-------
322
C. C. Johnson
treatment to all wastes, whether it is a small percentage or
a large percentage, and some attention has been given to
this part of the problem.
MR. STEIN: You can appreciate this, and Mr.
Metzler has dealt with this in the past. If you are going
to deal with the pollution problem, there is no way of cutting
it. You have to deal with small and large places.
I remember we faced this problem in the 1950*s
in some of the Missouri cities, where we had run into industri-
al firms employing ten people, four people, having one water-
closet. The question was where you cut, and after much
cogitation and work on this we decided you could not cut any-
where. If you put Swift and Armour on, you had to go to the
smallest.
Another thing we have found out is that in dealing
with pollution problems, very often in a city of this kind,
or in most large cities where you have an industrial-
municipal problem, industrial pollutants are often masked in
this municipal-industrial complex.
True, compared to your major problem it is rela-
tively small, but once you do clean up, these things really
stick out like a sore thumb, so it seems to me that the
program should be designed to get them out.
Don't you have authority in New York City to make
-------
323
C. C. Johnson
a man hook up to a sewer system?
MR. JOHNSON: We have authority both at the local
and at the*State level to compel the abatement of pollution
from whatever source it exists.
We can also, through this authority, compel the
tie-in to our local sewerage system.
MR. STEIN: You know, I wish you would give my
regards to Harold Romer, whom you mentioned. I have read his
material on combined sewers.
As a matter of fact, the co-author of Mr. Romer's
articles is the conferee on my right.
MR. KLASHMAN: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: Lest there be any confusion either
in my mind or anyone else's about how the industrial waste
situation is handled here in New York City for those not now
tied into the municipal system, am I correct in saying that
the New York City Health Department and the New York State
Health Department have an agreement about how we deal with
these, that in general the New York State Health Department
will handle the bigger polluters, and that the smaller ones
will be handled by the New York City Health Department, un-
less there is some special reason that you think we can be
helpful, and that the Department of Public Works cooperates
-------
C. C. Johnson
as a member of this team by doing a complete industrial waste
survey so that we know where all these sources are?
Is that about a correct summary?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, let's say that we certainly
agree that we will cooperatively handle the problem.
I am not sure it is my understanding that the
ultimate responsibility for locating the polluters rests with
the Department of Public Works. I would, for my own opinion,
say that this is a New York City Health Department responsi-
bility. We have it by charter. We have it by the program
that we have set up to carry out the responsibilities under
our charter, and I would like to believe and would continue
to push for this as our responsibility.
MR. METZLER: Well, if we have identified an area
here in which we need to clarify this between the two city
departments involved and the State of New York, I can assure
the conferees that it will be, and we will report back next
time.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for some very
helpful comments.
You know, for years Mr. Johnson was the mainstay
of the Federal program until New York lured him away.
MR. METZLER: Pardon?
MR. STEIN: For years Mr. Johnson was the mainstay
-------
325
J. A. Lyons
of the Federal program until you New Yorkers lured him away.
MR. METZLER: You've just got to admit that Uew
York has got whatever it takes. (Laughter)
Now, with the concurrence of the Chairman, I would
like to start in on the upper end of the Hudson and move
downstream with the rest of the witnesses that we have today,
cleaning up the Hudson as we go, starting both alphabetically
and with my old local Commissioner of Health, Dr. John Lyons,
who is. Commissioner of Health for Albany County and the
Chairman of the Albany County Sewer Agency, who will give you
a report on what it is actually like on the firing line, when
you are trying to organize twelve or thirteen different
governmental groups into a single authority here.
STATEMENT OP JOHN A. LYONS, M.D., COMMIS-
SIONER OP HEALTH OP ALBANY COUNTY, CHAIR-
MAN OF ALBANY COUNTY SEWER AGENCY
DR. LYONS: Thank you, Mr. Metzler.
Mr. Chairman and Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am speaking as the Chairman of the Albany County
Sewer Agency, and I want to thank Mr. Metzler for those kind
words.
Albany County has been working on its water
-------
326
J. A. Lyons
pollution control program for over four years. In 1963
thirteen communities in Albany County banded together to
form the Joint Municipal Survey Committee, which received
funds from the State Health Department for a comprehensive
sewage study. The study area included approximately 95 per-
cent of the population of Albany County. A contract for the
study was signed June 26, 1964, with Malcolm Pirnie Engineers
of White Plains, New Yorfc. This study was completed and
approved by all participants in November of 1966. It con-
tained two major alternatives.
In Alternate A, each community would provide one or
more of its own sewage treatment plants, which would result
in approximately twenty-two sewage treatment plants throughout
Albany County. Alternate B called for combining eight communi-
ties with two major treatment plants serving them.
On January 16, 1967, the Albany County Board of
Supervisors created the Albany County Sewer Agency, naming
four other members besides myself. The agency was charged with
the responsibility of determining if a county sewer district
could be established and what its boundaries should be.
Shortly after, Malcolm Pirnie Engineers again was
retained to prepare maps and plans to show the proposed
boundaries of the district and the proposed locations of all
facilities in accordance with Section 253 of the County Law.
-------
327
J. A. Lyons
This report was completed and presented to the County Sewer
Agency on July 25, 1967. The agency reviewed the report and
recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the County
Sewer District be formed in accordance with Alternate B to
serve eight communities with two treatment plants. This report
estimates a total construction cost of 38 million dollars,
with 16 million dollars of local money and 22 million dollars
of State and Federal aid and will service about 80 percent of
the population of Albany County,or 220,000 citizens.
At the August meeting of the Board of Supervisors,
this proposal was presented and a date for a public hearing
on the Sewer District was established. The public hearing
was held on September 11, 19&7. At this hearing there was no
opposition to the proposal. It received the full support of
the Board of Supervisors and the attending public.
The Board of Supervisors will take action before
the end of September. After they take this action, there
are many delays required by the County Law. Mandatory waiting
periods of seventy days are included. Approval of the New
York State Department of Audit and Control is necessary before
creation of the Sewer District. With all these built-in
delays, it is anticipated that the County District will be
formed by the end of 1967. All of the communities involved
-------
328
J. A. Lyons
in the County Sewer District, except the Village of Colonie,
are presently under orders by the New York State Department
of Health which requires that final plans will be submitted
by January 1, 1968. In view of the legal delays for the
formation of the County District, we realize that we will not
have final plans by this date. We will, however, have them
early in 1968.
In creating the County Sewer District with multi-
municipal cooperation, we feel that we have moved as fast ajs
possible towards the overall aim of water pollution abatement
in Albany County. If we don't run into more delays than we
have presently anticipated, we will be under construction
with some of our facilities in the fall of 1968. We feel we
have developed the best possible proposal for water pollution
control in Albany County. Eight different communities, with
varying political faiths, have Joined together 100 percent
in a common goal to fight water pollution in the Albany County
area of the Hudson River.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Dr. Lyons.
Are there any comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: Sir, I want to commend you on that
effort. This is really water pollution at work, and I think
-------
329
J. A. Lyons
this is one of the areas that we often overlook.
Sometimes we get to one city, one town or two
cities, twp towns, and we have only one part of the spectrum.
Here where New York City looms not only in size, but also
with its pollution problem, it is close to the problem. This
is unique. It has to be. We get every phase of the program.
However, the problem that you are facing is one
that can be solved, but it takes a lot of effort and a lot of
work.
I hope you are as successful as St. Louis was.
They had the combined City of St. Louis and St. Louis County
with about 127 different towns, but the thing is working.
Other than some of these New York projects that
are going on, the St. Louis job was the biggest pollution
control job in the country. As a matter of fact, their
interceptor is so big it is like one of your subway lines,
and you can drive a train through. This was what was needed
in order to do the work in St. Louis and make the job easy.
Now, in contrast to this, and this is no criticism
of anyone, on the east side of the river in Illinois we have
some 21 separate communities and 10 or 12 different indus-
tries. The State had to tackle all of those one at a time,
and in dealing with all of these, I think we achieved, hope-
fully, the same results.
-------
330
J. A. Lyons
There is a good deal to be said for this regional
approach and the regional plan in getting together. I think
it is probably more economical once you get the thing done
for all concerned.
In St. Louis, for example, I think we are going
to wind up with two or three plants, and on the east side
of the river we have at least 30, so that is the difference.
Thank you very much.
MR. METZLER: I want to pay tribute.
I don't know of another example — there may be
others — where a local health department, a county health
department, has exercised not only the kind of leadership,
but the quality and the balance between some pretty complex
political forces in order to weld this kind of a thing to-
gether.
This is one of the most exciting things in inter-
governmental relations that I have observed in a long time,
and you and your staff deserve a lot of credit for that.
DR. LYONS: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Let me go off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. STEIN: Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: We will now move right across to
the opposite side of the river, still on the capital side of
-------
331
R. W. Keeler
the river, to Mr. Keeler. Mr. Keeler is the Chairman of
the Rensselaer County Sewer Agency. For those of you who
know the geography down this end of the State better than up
on the other end of the Hudson, they are our neighbors off
the east end of the Hudson.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. KEELER, CHAIRMAN
OF THE RENSSELAER COUNTY AGENCY FOR ABATE-
MENT AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION, TROY, NEW YORK
MR. KEELER: Chairman Stein, Members of the
Conference, Ladies and Gentlemen:
My appearance here today was brought about by a
sincere desire to be of assistance to you and your conference,
as well as to the various-sized municipal governments in New
York State that are involved in water pollution and, particu-
larly those municipalities between New York City and the
Federal dam in Troy, and by the excellent cooperation of the
Commissioner of Health of the State of New York Pure Water
Department.
My entrance into local politics came about rather
abruptly in March of 1966 when I was appointed Supervisor
of the Town of Brunswick, Rensselaer County, to fill an un-
expired term. After a brief reading of a comprehensive
-------
332
R. W. Keeler
sewage study, WPC-CS-19, of Troy and environs, completed in
September of 1965 and accepted lay the New York State Health
Department in January of 1966, I wrote to the Commissioner
requesting that the Health Department initiate the necessary
steps to bring about a Joint community effort that would
eliminate the pollution of the Hudson River in the vicinity
of Troy and at the least possible cost to each of the
offending communities.
The realization that Governor Rockefeller's one
billion dollar sewer bond proposal, voted overwhelmingly
by the people of the State of New York, would not in itself,
nor would the State of New York undertake to correct the
situation by itself, came to me during the public hearings
held by the Health Department to establish a timetable for
our area to solve the pollution problem. The local municipal
official is one of the keys to the implementation of this
program. The success of the entire Federal program, as well
as the success of the State program, rests at the local level
of government. The local official, therefore, needs education
and support from both the Federal and State level in order
to bring this about.
My understanding of State and Federal aid is that
New York State, out of the one billion dollar sewer bond,
will provide 30- percent of the total cost of the approved
-------
333
R. W. Keeler
facilities and this money is available. The Federal Govern-
ment will supply 55 percent of the total cost of the
approved Tacilities and this money is not available. There-
fore, in our State, the State government will prepay approxi-
mately 30 percent of the total cost for the Federal Govern-
ment, thereby making a guarantee to the local official of
60 percent State and Federal aid. The second key to success,
therefore, is the 25 percent of Federal aid in various forms;
regardless of how well planned, prepared, approved, etc.,
there is not sufficient funds available from the Federal
Government to cover the demands of regional pollution abate-
ment programs.
The local municipal official, therefore, is the
one who must go to his neighbor, sell him on a pollution
abatement program, raise his taxes to pay for this program,
tell him that he may or may not receive additional Federal
aid (like the carrot in front of the donkey), and after it's
all moving along quite well, and the additional aid does not
come, still say "Good morning," still smile and hope that he
smiles back, still expect him to vote for you at the next
election, and still try to explain why the Federal Government
in Washington is willing to take his tax dollar and send it
all over the world, except to send a small portion back home
to help alleviate one of the major problems of conservation
-------
334
R. W. Keeler
existing in the United States today. The implementation of
this sewage pollution solution, with a guarantee of 85 per-
cent combined Federal and State aid, would be much easier to
sell and would enable all communities to meet the established
timetables as stipulated by the Commissioner of Health of the
State of New York.
As Chairman of the Rensselaer County Sewer Agency,
it has been my privilege to serve with a blue-ribbon agency
of professional engineers who have given many days and hours
of voluntary service to bring the agency to a point where,
for the City of Troy and the towns of North Greenbush,
Schaghticoke, Brunswick and Sand Lake, the agency is now
preparing a brochure for mailing to all prospective members
of Rensselaer County Sewer District #1 as a preliminary to the
holding of a public hearing by the Rensselaer County Board of
Supervisors. The meeting of the timetable for our area as
established by the Health Commissioner is moving along on
schedule. The agency has hired an engineering firm and,
after the formation of the Sewer District, will hire the
necessary financial and legal advisers and instruct the en-
gineers to submit the final comprehensive plans to the Health
Commissioner in time to meet the schedule. Our area should
complete its share of the control of pollution of the Hudson
River by 1Q?1 and the arranging for sufficient funds by you
-------
335
R. W. Keeler
to cover the 25 percent of total cost, for all areas that
qialify, will speed up and Implement the entire program.
*I fully realize that the demands on our Federal
Government for funds to operate the multitude of needed
programs throughout the United States, as well as our
foreign commitments, both military and otherwise, place an
enormous burden on the proper and judicious allocation of
funds, but I also fully realize that if we as a Nation do not
take care of ourselves first and then take care of our neigh-
bors as best we can, there will eventually be no Nation to
take care of, and it is at this point in our future history
when we as a Nation will find out that we are standing alone
to face our judgment while our neighbors stand by and watch.
Thank you for listening, Chairman Stein, to one
of 200 million Americans who happens to be a local public
official trying to do his best for the citizens of his
community.
I would like to add one little point, if I may.
Please help us a little more as far as HUD moneys
are concerned for the local small sewers, not just the big
treatment plants or the interceptors.
Thank you very much.
MR. STEIN: Thank you for an excellent statement.
I am going to stay away from international remarks,
-------
R. W. Keeler 336
but I do agree that the local municipal official is one of
the keys to the implementation of this program. The
success of the entire Federal program, as well as the success
of the State program, rests at the local level of government.
I don't think there is any doubt about that. I would
suspect that my colleague, who works at the level of govern-
ment in the State, would agree.
I have noticed one thing about our democratic
system of government in going around on pollution cases in
various parts of the country. What solves a municipal pollu-
tJbn problem is a state of mind by a particular group of
local officials to really get moving in an efficient way, not
to drag along and not to waste any more time, because if you
do you are going to run into what Governor Rockefeller said
you were going to run into, mounting costs. I don't think
that procrastination pays off.
Unless the local official comes to that realiza-
tion and comes to that conclusion, no one in the State, no
one in the Federal Government, and no one, I might say, in
an interstate agency, is going to do this. You are the
prime movers. You have to make the decision.
All we do is sit around and perhaps push and
heckle so that you wish we would get out of the way sometimes.
The key to the problem is the local official. I
-------
337
R. W. Keeler
don't care whether this is New York City, or Rensselaer, or
anywhere else, because the story is the same. You are the
ones who bu|ld and operate pollution plants, and you are the
ones who are going to clean up the pollution.
Thank you very much for your work. I am delighted
to see that you are baptized, and welcome to the fold.
MR. KEELER: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
MR. METZLER: We have one other representative
from Rensselaer County, Mr. Carl Stefanic, who is here for
the local Health Department of Rensselaer County.
The local Health Department in Rensselaer County,
as in Albany County, has played a very major role in bringing
about this cooperative county-wide effort.
STATEMENT OF CARL STEFANIC, ON BEHALF OF
DR. H. JACKSON DAVIS, COMMISSIONER OF
HEALTH, RENSSELAER COUNTY, NEW YORK
MR. STEFANIC: I am here representing Dr. Davis.
He couldn't be here because he is preparing for a hearing
on the 1Q68 budget, and he asked me to appear in his behalf.
Dr. Davis has this statement:
Two years ago New York State-financed comprehensive
-------
338
C. Stefanic
sewerage studies were underway for those municipalities
in Rensselaer County bordering on the Hudson River even
before the citizens of New York State overwhelmingly voted
for our two billion dollar pure waters program It has been
stated that it is the purpose of this reconvened conference
on pollution of the Hudson River and its tributaries to
review existing problems, evaluate the progress being made,
and to plan future action.
Today, these studies are either completed or are
awaiting approval by the New York State Department of Health.
A plan then has been formulated to provide sewers and sewage
treatment for the Cities of Troy and Rensselaer, the Village of
Gastieton, and the Towns of Brunswick, North Greenbush, Sand
Lake, Schaghticoke, East Greenbush, and Schodack, comprising
over 85 percent of the population of Rensselaer County.
The Village of Hoosick Falls on the Hoosic River,
a major tributary to the Hudson, is proceeding to construct
sewage treatment facilities in the hear future. The Village
of Valley Falls, independent of State financial assistance,
has completed its own comprehensive sewerage study.
To date, all major polluters of the Hudson River,
both municipal and industrial, within Rensselaer County have
been cited with a State Health Commissioner's Order to cease
and abate pollution of the Hudson River immediately or to
-------
339
C. Stefanic
submit to a reasonable timetable of corrective action.
Such remedial action is necessary to make the Federal program
and the State's Pure Waters Program effective.
A major accomplishment in Rensselaer County is
the formation of a comprehensive County Agency whose immedi-
ate goal is to solve our water pollution problem. We have
two members of the agency in the audience today: Mr. Richard
Keeler, Supervisor of the Town of Brunswick, who is Chairman
of the County Agency, and Professor Edward J. Kilcawley of
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Through the efforts of
the Rensselaer County Board of Supervisors and these men
seated here today, with a prod from the State Health Depart-
ment, Rensselaer County Sewer District #1, comprising the
City of Troy and four neighboring towns which contribute
sewage from approximately 80,000 people, will be brought
to the public during the fall of 196? for their acceptance.
Similar situations are near occurrence in some of our smaller
municipalities.
So far it appears that the water pollution prob-
lems in Rensselaer County are to be solved and that con-
struction of all water pollution control plants will be
completed in accordance with the schedule recommended by the
original conference. As usual, however, there is the standard
-------
3^0
C. Stefanic
drawback, money. M-0-N-E-Y. The guaranteed 60 percent State
and Federal aid for construction costs of eligible treatment
plants and interceptor sewers is a great asset in many cases.
However, in many other cases 60 percent aid on eligible
items is not enough. Additional aid is necessary for treatment
facilities and guaranteed State and Federal aid is a must
for the collection system.
Presently, the municipalities are being teased
with a dream of 85 percent State and Federal aid for treat-
ment and interceptor facilities. For the basic 60 percent,
where is this other 25 percent? Rensselaer County is eligible
for all of it. 10 percent is available if New York State
matches the Federal Government's 30 percent. Another 10
percent is available if enforceable water quality standards
have been established for the receiving waters in New York
State. Another 10 percent of the Federal grant amount, say
5 percent of the total eligible costs, is available if the
project is certified by a regional planning agency. We
qualify for all three. Where is the money?
HUD grants are supposedly available to cover 50
percent of the collection system, a major cost in the un-
sewered housing areas. No one appears to be getting such a
grant.
The problem then appears to be this: the cost
-------
C. Stefanic
to the average homeowner is prohibitive without additional
aid. Municipalities and projects subject to permissive
referendum may wait until the additional 25 percent aid for
treatment costs and 50 percent aid for collection systems
is available. A significant delay in meeting the abatement
timetable can be expected. Guarantee these monies now and
the goal of this conference will be realized.
On behalf of the Rensselaer County Board of
Supervisors and the Rensselaer County Department of Health,
I wish to express my wholehearted support of the goals of
this conference -- to review, evaluate, and present a plan
for action in our part of the Hudson River Basin.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR. METZLER: Will you wait just a minute, please?
Responding to your last remarks there that the
costs to the homeowners are higher, are you talking about
homeowners who are already on the sanitary sewers?
MR. STEFANIC: We have many unsewered areas, and
this is where the problem lies.
MR. METZLER: Actually, from the standpoint of
pollution of the Hudson River or its tributaries, this does
not have much effect. Am I correct in saying this? This is
-------
C. Stefanic
a public health problem in that this represents pollution
in the backyards. This isn't really stream pollution, is
it?
MR. STEFANIC: No. They are polluting small
tributaries to the Hudson.
MR. METZLER: And you are saying that you think
this has enough pollution potential so that it does have
some effect on the Hudson?
MR. STEFANIC: Yes, sir.
MR. METZLER: All right.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any further comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: If not, Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: The next speaker is Mr. James
Hardin, who is Commissioner of the Division of Pure Water
in Westchester County.
Mr. Harding is recognized as one of the leaders
in this business of local government in New York State, and
we are glad to have you here today.
STATEMENT OF JAMES HARDING, COMMISSIONER
FOR DIVISION OF PURE WATER, WESTCHESTER
COUNTY, NEW YORK
-------
343
J. Harding
MR. HARDING: Thank you.
Mr. Stein, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I do not have any prepared statement. I came here
to learn, and not to teach.
With respect to programs, we have submitted
several programs. First, we started with a program several
years ago, confined to the one plant that the county operates
at the Hudson River, the Yonkers Joint Treatment Plant.
At the same time that we submitted a program,
various municipalities in Westchester County along the
Hudson River — I believe there are seven that have treatment
plants — also submitted a program.
The State Health Department decided that they did
not want to accept any of these programs, or, rather, that
they did not want to allocate funds for an engineering study
to the seven separate municipalities and to the county, and
that they wanted a county-wide study taking not only the
Hudson River Basin in, but the entire area of Westchester
County.
That has delayed things and it will continue to
delay things. It poses a lot of very complicated procedural
and engineering problems.
After this meeting, we will get together and try
to arrive at a more realistic program.
-------
J. Harding
I believe that your Department asked the con-
sulting engineers, who were only hired a month or so ago, to
get in a preliminary report in three months. Well, that's
nonsense. We will be lucky if they do it in a year.
I am a little bit worried about these new efflu-
ent standards about which I have heard rumors. I don't know
what it is proposed to establish, but when we designed the
Yonkers plant, it was designed by a prominent firm of
engineers, and after consultation with your Department, Mr.
Metzler, secondary treatment was provided for to accomplish
removals that at that time they thought reasonable.
Land was built out into the Hudson River, made
land, based on what the requirements were thought to be at
that time.
If you come up with any standards like I have
heard today, we are really going to -be up against it, and 1
think we are going to be faced with further delays and
greatly increased costs.
Frankly, I am afraid of regulatory agencies, such
as are represented at your table right now. You are very
prone and you are often accused of being prone, anyway, and
I really agree with the accusation, to set high standards
without worrying too much about the cost, and I think you
should give the cost very great consideration before you fix
-------
J. Harding
the standards.
I was shocked when I heard on the radio this
morning that Senator Kennedy was going to present a statement
here calling for 90 percent removal. If a standard like that
goes into effect on the Hudson River and similarly around
the rest of the State, and if the Federal Government con-
tinues to put up the magnificent sums of peanut-size that
they have put up to date, the billion dollar bond issue is
going to be Worn out awfully fast, and by the time we get
our plans out and are ready to let construction contracts,
you won't have any money to give us.
Westchester County people, of course, are very
conservation-minded, very pure-waters-minded, but they are
also tax-conscious. If something comes along that is going
to raise their tax rate tremendously, I think your pure
waters program is going to get a setback.
I heard Commissioner Hurt's talk. There was one
thing I did not agree with him about. You asked him the
question — I think it was Mr. Stein's question -- whether
he thought the program would be slowed down by lack of
competent engineers, contractors, equipment, and so forth,
and Mr. Hult said he didn't think it would be.
I think it will be. The consulting engineers
that I know, and I know most of the high-grade ones in the
-------
J. Harding
waste business, all have as much work as they can handle.
A lot of them continue to take more, but after a few drinks,
they'll tell you they don't know how they are going to get
it done. (Laughter)
They are pirating men from each other, just the
way you pirated from New York City. There is a lack of
skilled contractors, we find, when we are taking bids now
on pumping stations, filter plants, and so forth, and the
delays in obtaining equipment are getting to be fantastic,
especially if it is special.
So I would say it will slow down your program. I
don't mean to imply that you can't meet your 1972 dead-
line, but in order to meet that, all of us are going to
really have to put out superior performance.
I think the State Health Department has got to be
the leader, and has got to really put the heat on the local
municipalities, local taxpayers' organizations, and so forth.
We will, of course, be glad to cooperate.
Thank you for this opportunity.
MR. STEIN: Thank you for a very complete and
frank statement of your views, Mr. Harding.
Are there any questions or comments?
(No response.)
MR.- STEIN: By the way, how much removal do you
-------
347
J. Hard ing
have in the plant now?
MR. HARDING: I will have to ask Mr. Griffin.
MR. GRIFFIN: At the Yonkers plant, they are
removing about 62 or 63 percent of suspended solids, and just
under 60 percent BOD. The plant was designed on a 60 percent
removal of suspended solids, and with chlorination.
MR. HARDING: I might add one thing, that years
ago we were told by your Department that we should provide
for secondary treatment.
Well, of course, secondary treatment has been
very poorly and very awkwardly defined in the past, but with
this talk of 90 percent now, you talk about what we used to
/
call final treatment, tertiary treatment.
MR. STEIN: That's right. I don't think there is
any question about that.
MR. METZLER: Mr. Harding, if I might comment
here to compliment you on the statement, it is this kind of
frank evaluation and knowledge of the local officials that
help guide the program with respect to the degree of treatment
and the standards that are set.
There isn't any doubt but that the same standards
which New York State set up for the Hudson are going to re-
quire a high degree of treatment, and we need to work with
you on the details as to what this is.
-------
348
J. Harding
We have defined secondary treatment in New York
State officially, but it is still really getting down to
what kind of treatment do we need to make the kind of a
stream out of the Hudson with the stream standards which
the State submitted requires? I agree with you.
MR. HARDING: You ought to put a paragraph at
the end perhaps, and say that the local municipalities can
collect the samples. (Laughter)
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klashman?
MR. KLASHMAN: What type of a plant are your
engineers planning to design, and what type of removals do
you anticipate?
MR. HARDING: Well, we haven't gotten that far
yet.
MR. KLASHMAN: I mean, you are talking about
activated sludge, aren't you?
MR. HARDING: We originally figured on high-rate
aeration, but it looks as if you are talking now about
activated sludge.
MR; KLASHMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. STEIN: One thing: I do think that in the
last analysis the local officials have to collect the
information.
In New York State and in New Jersey, I think it
-------
J. Harding
is fair to say here that once you collect it, you get full
information. I don't think there is any question about who
*
should collect or be the original source of collecting this,
and I think on a day-to-day basis you are going to have to
deal with Mr. Metzler for some checks. That is going to
have to continue, and when they recognize that they are
suspicious, they will go to agencies like us.
We only come around once in a while, but you are
going to have to work with Dwight every day.
MR. METZLER: May I say something off the record?
MR. STEIN: Surely.
(Discussion off the record.)
/
MR. STEIN: Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: We have one other witness, Mr.
William Lathrop Rich.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LATHROP RICH, CHAIRMAN
OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE NEW YORK - MONTREAL
SEAWAY
MR. RICH: My name is William Lathrop Rich, and
I am called that because there are other William Rich's in
New York, and we have had plenty of complications in the
past.
-------
350
W. L. Rich
I am going to indulge in a little variance in
some of the comments. Mr. Seymour sort of set the standards
for me, so I am not a bit ashamed to go ahead with what I
have to say.
Mr. Chairman, Honored Guests, Ladies and
Gentlemen:
The Committee for the New York-Montreal Seaway,
of which I am the Chairman, drifted into the problem of the
pollution of the Hudson River as a result of its more than
ten years of research related to the proposed seaway between
New York City and Montreal, Canada.
The function of that proposed seaway was to pro-
vide a shortcut for ocean vessels to traverse between the
ports of the South Atlantic and of the Far East and the
ports on the Great Lakes, because it would afford the
shippers, between those ports, a means of reducing their
delivery costs through the reduction of their freight charge,
made possible by this shortcut, which use would afford a
reduction of shipping time between the ports.
The International Joint Commission has recently
released a survey report which reached an erroneous conclu-
sion because the survey was conducted under a false premise
because dimensional restrictions were introduced into the
survey, which were not in accordance with the survey
-------
351
W. L. Rich
authorization, which our committee was instrumental in
securing, with the result tnat the survey was based upon con-
ditions that existed in 1935 and not upon the requirements
of today — 1967.
One of the basic requirements for such a seaway
is that it must have a constantly maintained depth and water
level.
That requirement being axiomatic, it soon became
obvious to us that the only practical means by which a
constant water level and depth of the seaway at the docks
at Albany, New York, could be maintained, was by the construc-
tion of a dam, having appropriate locks for the traversing of
vessels, across the Hudson River below Albany.
When the polluted condition of the Hudson River
became so obvious that it drew recognition, we released a
statement to the press on May 20, 1965, which stated in
effect that by locating that dam, which we had found our
project required, down the river a short distance above
Yonkers, opposite Graystone, New York, the Hudson River could
eventually be converted into a fresh water lake, one hundred
and fifty miles long, provided that the pollutants, entering
the river upstream, were eliminated.
This use of a dam, to maintain a constant water
level, is not new or without precedent and I believe that
-------
352
W. L. Rich
most of you are aware of two conspicuous examples of a dam
used to secure that result. They are the one maintaining
the lagoon in the New York World's Fair and the other one
maintaining the Charles River Basin in Boston, Massachusetts.
The length of time that will be needed to convert
the waters of the Hudson River into fresh water will depend
on how fast President Johnson's Water Quality Act of 1965
and Governor Rockefeller's $1 billion plan to combat water
pollution are made to function.
Now you ask, why that dam?
The dam's basic function is to prohibit the move-
ment of the polluted salt waters that surround the City of
New York and the brackish contaminated waters of the bay,
from moving up the Hudson River with the tides.
Gentlemen, that is the point. I was talking to
Governor Rockefeller this morning about what was evidently
eliminated from all consideration, stopping the movement of the
salt brackish water up the Hudson.
That principle of the use of a dam to exclude
salt water has been recommended for the treatment of the
harbor of San Francisco, to accomplish that same purpose.
If that dam is properly designed, having locks
for the traversing of vessels, it will present no bar to the
bass, the shad, the sturgeon or any other fish from moving
up the river for spawning.
-------
353
W. L. Rich
When the waters of the Hudson River are once
again returned to their former fresh state, they will again
be safe for swimming, without fear, as at present, of con-
tracting typhoid fever. Other marine sports and rehabilitated
fishing can again be enjoyed and other marine life will
prosper.
Do not overlook the fact that that proposed
constant river water level, which will be equal to and no
higher than the present flood tides, which now prevail on
the Hudson River, will permit the building of permanent
docking facilities, eliminate the damage to shore installa-
tions done by the ice in the winter, which is caused by the
fluctuations of the tides, and permit the maintenance of
clean shore lines.
The resultant fresh water, above that dam, will
also be available for use by the cities up the Hudson River,
the State of New Jersey, to refill its reservoirs and, with
the cooperation of the Consolidated Edison Company, the
City of New York, then also refill its reservoirs by making
use of the pumping station that the consolidated Edison
Company is to build at Cornwall, on the Hudson.
Let us now bear in mind that the waters of the
Hudson Fiver at Chelsea, 56 miles upstream from Midtown
-------
354
W. L. Rich
Manhattan, as reported by Ian Rae, Staff Writer for the
Journal-American, June 27, 1965, "are dangerously polluted
but also taste horrible — more horrible than the castor oil
my mother gave me as a child," and Paul Hofman reports in
the New York Times, August 29, 1967, that the report by
the Geological Survey of the Department of the Interior
that the sea water front is moving further upstxe am in the
Hudson River, and that the intrusion of sea water was caused
by the siphoning off of more and more fresh water from the
Hudson River estuary by communities and industries north of
New York City.
In conclusion, may we state and remind you that
this proposed conversion of the presently polluted Hudson
River into a fresh water lake, one hundred and fifty miles
long, is only one of the numerous bonus benefits that will
accrue to the State of New York and to the other regions
along its route, when our proposed New York-Montreal Seaway
is built, that the siphoning off of fresh water from the
Hudson River by the communities and industries will increase
yearly more and more, that the starting up of the Consolidated
Edison Company's pumping station at Cornwall, will hasten the
movement of the sea salt water front up the Hudson River and
that even.if all the pollutants are eliminated from all the
waters flowing down the Hudson, the result will be futile
-------
355
W. L. Rich
and fresh water will become less and less available, due to
the increasing intrusion of the contaminated salt water from
the bay, unless that dam, which we have recommended and have
found essential to our proposed New York-Montreal Seaway,
is constructed across the Hudson River and thus stop the
ever-increasing intrusion of that contaminated salty bay
water up the Hudson River.
We recognize that what we are recommending will
cost large amounts of money but because the fresh water
situation has become so critical that drastic action has now
to be taken to correct it and that, not only the State of
New York but the rest of our Nation has reached such a
fresh water crisis that now a decision has to be made as
to whether it wants to have fresh water or to hang on to its
money, in spite of the ever-growing fresh water shortage.
We thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Rich, for your
complete statement.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR. METZLER: No.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: Are there any others here from New
York State who would like to speak, who have not made their
-------
356
names known?
(No response.)
MR. METZLER: With that, Mr. Stein, this concludes
the list of New York witnesses.
MR. STEIN: All right. Fine.
I will now try to give you the program for
tomorrow, as best we can. There may be one or so more wit-
nesses who want to be heard.
We will convene here at 9-30 in the morning. At
that time, if there are any more public witnesses, they will
be heard. If not, we will recess and have an executive
session.
At the present time, depending on the length of
time for the witnesses, and the complexities of the matters
in the executive session, we would hope to have an announce-
ment at about 11:30 in the morning.
Now, as things develop, and I hope the staff comes
up with some ideas overnight, we may be able to give you
another judgment in the morning of how long it will take,
but I think we pretty much have a feel of how this is going
and I am pretty optimistic that we can come up with an agree-
ment among the conferees.
I will say this: We have had some pretty tough
cases in the past, but our record has been unanimous all the
-------
357
time, and we have not had many dissents. I hope after we
have worked this case over, we will be able to come up with
unanimous conclusions and recommendations.
I would like to point out that a month or two
ago we did that with relation to the waters below here on
the Raritan. We are upstream now. I hope we can continue
this record.
We will stand recessed until 9:30 tomorrow
morning in this room. We will have our public session,
recess again, and then the announcement will be made. It
will probably be made here about 11:30 tomorrow morning,
unless we announce a different time tomorrow.
We stand recessed until 9:30. Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., an adjournment was
taken unt il Thursday, September 21, 196?, at 9:30 a.m.)
-------
358
Second Session of the Conference in the Matter
of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Hudson River
and its Tributaries, held at the Statler-Hilton Hotel,
Broadway at 32nd Street, New York, New York, on September
21, 1967, at 9:30 a.m.
PRESIDING:
Mr. Murray Stein, Assistant Commissioner
for Enforcement, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, Department of the
Interior.
CONFEREES:
(As heretofore noted.)
-------
CONTENTS.
PAGE
James P. O'Donnell
representing Frank D. O'Connor 359
-------
359
J. P. O'Donnell
MR. STEIN: May we reconvene?
I believe we may have one or two more statements
from New York.
Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: It is my understanding that Mr.
O'Donnell is here to present a statement for Prank O'Connor,
President of the New York City Council.
STATEMENT OF JAMES P. O'DONNELL, ON BEHALF
OP HON. PRANK D. O'CONNOR, PRESIDENT OP
THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF NEW YORK
s
MR. O'DONNELL: Mr. O'Connor is sorry he was un-
able to accept your gracious invitation to speak here this
morning. He happens to be up in Hamilton, New York, with the
American Management Association, and probably, after he reads
an account of the speech here this morning, he will have to
assume ambassadorial robes in that connection. (Laughter)
Imagine, if you will, a man somewhat shorter than
myself, a lot more personable, and a lot more kind, and you
get some picture of Mr. O'Connor, so if you will accept the
perpendicular pronoun here, we will get to the short speech.
I am happy to have been invited here this morning.
-------
360
J. F. O'Donnell
Pollution has long been a concern of mine, since I served as
District Attorney of Queens.
For those of you who don't know where Queens is,
it is a borough across the river here. There are two million
people here, and perhaps a graphic way to describe it is
that it is a suburb of Newtown Creek. (Laughter)
I saw graphic examples there of the damage and in-
Jury done to one-family housing and its occupants by the
vapors from highly polluted areas. Paint peeling off the
walls, suffocating nauseous odors and smells which made
living unbearable in areas already harassed by a noise pollu-
tion second to none in the country.
Last year I saw first-hand the extent of water
pollution throughout our State from Lake Erie to Lake
Onondaga, to the Mohawk River and Lake Champlain; along our
own once gorgeous Hudson, to the lower bay of New York, to
the East River and Newtown Creek, and, yes, even to the Long
Island shore.
This summer on trips around the city itself, I saw
samples taken of our waters which underscored the fact that
there are more marginal and unsafe waters for swimming than
actually safe waters. Surveys conducted by the city's Health
Department and a joint team of city, State and Federal
authorities confirm these conditions with new findings.
-------
361
J. P. O'Donnell
Shellfishing for clams was forbidden and the State posted
fishing areas on Staten Island off-limits. But city people
continued to swim this summer in waters that were far in
violation of the State's own standard of 2400 coliforms per
milliliter of water and they swam without first being informed
of the facts.
Just parenthetically, surveys taken at certain
beaches on Staten Island, for example, showed that at a given
sample there were 240,000 coliform per milliliter of water,
which is well in excess of 100 times what the State limit
gives. On an average, it was 70,000 coliform per milliter
of water.
As a result, we urged the city's Health Department
to post the beaches and waters of the city as to their condi-
tion — either as safe, marginal or unsafe.
Unfortunately, this was not done in time this
year for some unexplained reason, although there is an indica-
tion that posting may take place next year. In the interim,
we have submitted legislation making it mandatory on the city
to post beaches and their waters.
I begin my remarks by this account for several
reasons. One to thank the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, the Corps of Army Engineers and the City's
Health Department for conducting that joint survey at our
-------
362
J. F. O'Donnell
request.
Two, to remind all of us that unless municipal
authorities like the city take the lead not only in pollu-
tion control but in actual pollution information, education
and planning, then how can we expect private enterprise to
take seriously governmental demands for greater observance
of the various pollution laws.
Parenthetically, on today's Board of Estimate
calendar in City Hall, there are several items being put
forward by the city administration for the establishment of
pollution control facilities in the metropolitan area, and
they are probably all going to be favorably received by the
Board of Estimate.
And while investigation and enforcement and control
have been stepped up considerably on every level, especially
over the last five or six years, progress against pollution,
especially its oldest version of water pollution, has been
minimal at best.
There are many examples of conditions getting worse
instead of better. Parts of Rarltan Bay are in the words of
one of today's panel a biological desert. The wake in New-
town Creek, experienced observers tell me, is actually black.
And I saw first-hand myself that the wake in waters around
Staten Island was during our summer survey a dull red.
-------
363
J. F. O'Donnell
To recount statistic after statistic of industri-
al and municipal pollution by dumping raw or just primarily
treated sewage into our metropolitan waters would be a boring
litany for so sophisticated a group as this. But perhaps
this is the trouble in a sense. We have all been inured to
the tiresome, deadly list of polluters, and to the fact that
deadlines for change have become schedules not to make but
to break, and that higher standards are criteria to
wink at rather than to observe. True, we are making some
progress in New York City with reference to Newtown Creek
and the items on the Board of Estimate today, and to some
areas in Staten Island, but that progress is obviously not
enough, not nearly enough. And this is true of every other
city along the river, and of almost every business. Every-
body knows it in and out of government and in and out of
business. The twain meets occasionally only to twang out
of tune and contact as soon as business pays a small fine for
an infraction that may be its tenth, not its first.
If we punished traffic violators like we
punish water polluters, we would have all died of the con-
gestion and the combustion and the cacophony a long time ago.
The fines we levy on industrial polluters in this
country are nothing more than licenses to pollute, Stirely,
we can speak of a growing body of cases and fines, but these
-------
364
J. P. O'Donnell
are but grains of sand that we in government and industry
move around more to give the impression of action and
progress than anything else.
Let us in government stop playing at pollution
and get down to the hard business of enforcement, not only
with ourselves, but with our industrial giants, who have
taken our slaps on the wrist for almost seventy years for
just what they were — a gentle reminder that they enjoyed
a rather inexpensive impunity to pollute.
Now, I noticed in today's Times, again paren-
thetically, that there was a certain clash here yesterday
between two high government officials, and a rumor to the
effect that we didn't want to be part of that clash because
we are still suffering from last year's debacle is not true,
but the idea ~ and I don't say this in partisanship — that
we are going to have clean waters by 1972 by the wave of
some magic wand is kind of hard to believe.
There are many reasons why we in the city govern-
ment, especially on the Council side, look upon these
promises as strictly paper promises.
There is a clash, for example, between the
Senator and the Governor as to whether we need two facilities
on the Hudson River, or one. There are other people in the
Regional Planning Association who feel that the facilities
-------
365
J. F. O'Donnell
should be placed somewhere else.
A deadline of July 1st for a lot of municipal
action for this area, which was set here last year, cer-
tainly is not being observed by our city. I don't say that
in a partisan comment.
The items that are passing on the Board of
Estimate, hopefully, today will not probably be undertaken
until maybe July 1st of next year, much less completed, so
we are already behind time, and a projection of one of the
think tanks, the Hudson, Inc., that was reported in the Wall
Street Journal yesterday indicates that they have plans for
Welfare Island that involve 250,000 people in a housing
development, and if this takes place between 1972 and 1980,
what are our facilities, or are there specs in our present
programs and plans that will allow for such expans ion?
I have my doubts, and I am sure that we are not
alone.
We have the laws although there may be one or two
recent amendments which should revert to their old statutory
language and intent. I am speaking here specifically of
Section 433 of the Federal Code. We have the organization
on every level, public and private -- city, State, inter-
state and Federal.
What we have to do now is put the jigsaw pieces
-------
366
J. F. O'Donnell
together and come up with a total picture that means some-
thing positive and progressive to everyone concerned.
Let us make it abundantly clear to everyone that
water pollution just does not affect the swimmer, but the
ship and the shipper, the port and the landlubber. It
affects everyone and its threat is growing and will continue
even when we have achieved a progressive and creative program
to combat pollution.
The example of the tanker, which ran aground in
England this year and burst open with its 114,000 tons of
oil, can in the very near future be doubled and even tripled
here. The Japanese are building tankers that will carry
almost a quarter of a billion tons of oil. And yet as grave
a problem as one of these tankers accidentally breaking up
in the New York Harbor represents, the day-to-day pollution
which takes place in this area year after year makes that
possible threat pale into insignificance.
How can we clean up a river that has been
polluted over 300 years in five years is beyond comprehension,
I respectfully suggest that the following steps
be initiated or more completely implemented if already on the
drafting board.
1. Identify and publicize industries and cities
responsible for pollution violations.
-------
367
J. P. O'Donnell
I know this is a touchy subject. I know from
talking to other people on the law enforcement end, that
there is very little publicity given to court cases against
industrial polluters, and the fines are laughable.
2. Develop industry-wide pollution committees
in each industry and/or geographical area to set forth
industry and area plans for Joint action in conjunction with
our various governmental agencies.
3. Schedule and meet imminent dates for pollution
abatement and termination with emphasis not on the euphemism
of "realism" but on the reality of emergency, for that is
what we are facing in terms of pollution. After seventy
/•
years of laws -- seventy, that is, not seven, but seventy —
"realism" means only gradualism and gradualism means con-
venience. We cannot attack our present pollution problem
conveniently.
4. Grant tax abatement and credit to industries
cooperating with pollution laws and objectives and stiffer
fines for those who are not.
5. Set up a special unit in the Attorney
General's Office of the United States for enforcement and
prosecution.
Pollution enforcement will never be as dramatic
and appealing an enforcement as the Mafia is, but it certainly
-------
368
J. F. O'Donnell
is important.
6. End the perennial war of paper promises and
paper stipulations between private polluters and the govern-
ment which has resulted in so much deadly delay in this area
since 18P/9-
7. End the "pollution play-off" of one agency or
subdivision against another, which is more a prospect today
than a reality, by synchronizing from top to bottom the whole
panoply of pollution fighters, so that we achieve the maximum
impact of our various efforts and plans. I know there are
some educational steps being taken this week along some of
those lines, to bring home to certain people in certain
governmental agencies the importance of law enforcement in
this area.
8. Establish a government and industry team to
study the Rhine River Valley Program which is an exemplar
of what government and business leadership and initiative can
accomplish.
In short, let us reward industry and municipal
leadership in the war on pollution and rap the laggards with
stiffer and stiffer penalties.
Even if the Governor's projection is true in 1972,
we are still five years away from there, and in that interim
we can make our pollution program a serious program or a
-------
369
J. F. O'Donnell
laughable one.
Let us help educate business and the public to
the fact that there is no long-range profit in pollution
for anyone. Delay is deadly.
Let us remind them that if government has to do
it alone, industry will pay two or three times in time,
trouble and in that all-important profit picture some still
think cannot now justify action against pollution.
I believe the smart industries know better. They
know that a timely effort will save them years of turmoil
and embarrassment.
American Cyanamid, for example, is doing a lot of
research. There are some can and paper companies that
actually have in their present and specs 'of expansion,
pollution control equipment.
We in government must together with those far-
seeing examples in industry provide the leadership now, to cut
through the smog of misunderstanding and laxity, to get us
all moving together toward that great day when clean water —
pure water — will be a reality, and not just a glib slogan.
Thank you very much.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR. METZLER: Mr. O'Donnell, I am Dwight Metzler
-------
370
J. F. O'Donnell
from New York.
MR. O'DONNELL: Yes.
MR. METZLER: First, I hope you will convey to
Mr. O'Connor my personal delight at the forthright position
that he has taken, of course, on this, and the aggressiveness
which he urges.
There are two or three bits of information that,
if you will permit me at this time, I would like you to
carry back to him, because I think they are important in
this situation.
There isn't any doubt but what the northeastern
part of the United States particularly, and New York speci-
fically, have been doing this slapping on the wrist, having
paper promises, and so forth, but that ballgame changed
really, I think, in 1Q65, when the New York voters put up a
big bond issue to help subsidize the needed treatment works.
The two major changes really that have occurred
are that people are determined to clean up, and that these.
grants are now available.
New York, as you know, is participating in $39
million in Newtown Creek, and we are talking about $110
million up on North River, and with this kind of assistance,
I think this provides some tools for the city governing body
here which you have never had before, and which will, I
-------
371
J. F. O'Donnell
think, help us get the job done.
Yesterday we heard a presentation by Commissioner
Hult which gave us an outline of the city's program with time
schedules. This is a result of pressure we have been putting
on to get a realistic schedule that can be phased into a big
construction program and get it done.
We have been working on this for about eight
months, so it wasn't something arrived at hurriedly, and from
the standpoint of the conference, I think it was probably the
highlight of yesterday.
If New York City is moving with this speed, with
this kind of leadership, we believe that they are going to
get the job done.
Now, you referred to the need for law enforcement.
We hope we never have to come to this situation with New York
City, but as far as New York State is concerned, a depart-
ment has been set up in the Office of the Attorney General
to enforce pollution, and we have those cases referred to
them, and they are moving very aggressively on about twelve
thus far, and twelve out of more than 300 major polluters
with whom we are working is not a bad percentage. Most of
them are moving along, and thus far, on a schedule which
looks like a realistic one and which looks like we are going
to have the majr>r part of this job done by the end of 1972.
-------
372
J. F. O'Donnell
MR. O'DONNELL: Let's hope so.
MR. METZLER: We appreciate the kind of leadership
that Prank O'Connor can give this, and we are delighted for
this bipartisan approach so far as the city is concerned.
MR. O'DONNELL: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Any further comments or questions?
DR. KANDLE: Yes. I would like to make a comment
about one part of Mr. O'Connor's report. On Page 2 he makes
the allegation:"Parts of Raritan Bay are in the words of one of
today's panel - a biological desert."
I don't know who said that. I didn't hear it, and
President O'Connor apparently doesn't take responsibility.
I presume, however, that if he were to take
responsibility, it would have reference to the part of the
Raritan Bay which is part of New York State, because I can
assure you it is absolutely not so with regard to the New
Jersey parts of the Raritan Bay.
MR. O'DONNELL: Thank you very much.
DR. KANDLE: This is a dynamic area, and I take
considerable exception to this sort of thing, which I think
is an irresponsible, glib slogan, to quote President O'Connor.
MR. O'DONNELL: Well, I think you answered your
own question.
-------
373
J. P. O'Donnell
I don't know the gentleman's name. I think you
answered your own question by saying that it is an area that
involves New York State.
DR. KANDLE: It refers to the tail end of Staten
Island, and as an old resident of Staten Island, I even take
exception to that.
MR. O'DONNELL: I should have known better. You
probably live in Jersey City. (Laughter)
DR. KANDLE: Now you're in deep water. (Laughter)
MR, O'DONNELL: Well, I will try to get beyond
that, but I would think, speaking for myself or for Mr.
O'Connor, that we didn't mean to insult the State of New
Jersey or New York.
MR. STEIN: Are there any further questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: I would like to thank Mr. O'Donnell
for making Mr. O'Connor's statement.
When we get perceptive, meaningful and sophisticated
statements from the political leaders, such as we have gotten
from Mr. O'Connor, the Governor, Senator Kennedy and Senator
Javits -- once we have this Kind of knowledge and awareness —
we know that we are going to have clean waters and pollution
control started.
This was the key that one of the speakers
-------
374
J. F. O'Donnell
indicated when he was here yesterday. The gentleman from
Rensselaer said that after coming to all these meetings with
officials like us, he finally recognized that they were the
people, and that the local municipal official was the one
who was going to have to make the decision.
I have always had a feeling about this, and I have
watched this a long time. In our society, the key political
power either rests with the Federal Government, the States,
counties, or cities. Uhtil the oeople who are politically
responsible in those areas make up their minds that they are
going to have pollution control and clean waters, you don't
have it, no matter how fine the planners are, and how fine
the technicians are.
We can keep this alive and push it. But I think
that on all levels — on the Federal level Senator Kennedy
and Senator Javits, on the State level the Governor, and on
the city level the President of the City Council — when we
see all those people making such a sophisticated analysis of
the problem to have this going down from Albany to New York
on both sides of the river, to me, this is an indication that
we are on our way to pollution control.
I want to thank you and President O'Connor for
his message.
MR. O'DONNELL: Thank you.
-------
375
MR. STEIN: Are there any further questions or
comments?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: Are there any further people?
MR. METZLER: I have no record of anyone else.
MR. STEIN: If we recess now and we do our work
diligently, I think, we may be able to have an announcement
by 11:30, or not later than 12:00.
If we run into problems, we will send word out.
The conference will recess to have an executive
session. We will meet here again at 11:30. We stand in
recess.
(Whereupon, at 10:05 a.m., a recess was taken
until 11:30 a.m. )
MR. STEIN: May we reconvene?
The conference in the matter of pollution of the
interstate waters of the Hudson River and its tributaries
involving the Department of the Interior, the States of New
s
York and New Jersey, and the Interstate Sanitation Commission,
met on September 2O and 21, 1967, with the conferees unani-
mously agreeing upon the following conclusions and recommenda-
tions .
I am happy to report that we have maintained our
record of unanimity. Considering the diverse interests of
-------
376
New York, New Jersey, the Interstate Commission and the
Federal Government, I think there is something to be said for
this.
Here are the conclusions and recommendations:
1. Pollution of the interstate waters of the
Hudson River and its tributaries is occurring due to the
discharge of inadequately treated municipal and industrial
wastes.
2. Considerable progress has been made toward
abating this pollution problem and the programs under way,
when carried to their logical conclusion, will abate and
control this pollution.
3. All wastes prior to discharge into the waters
covered by the conference (a) shall be treated to provide a
minimum of 80 percent reduction of biochemical oxygen demand
at all times. It is recognized that this will require a
design for an average removal of 90 percent of biochemical
oxygen demand. Or (b) shall be treated, as approved by the
State Water Pollution Control Agency, to the degree necessary
to meet the water quality standards approved by the Secretary
of the Interior under the Water Quality Act of 1965.
4. All the waters covered by the conference shall
receive effective disinfection of the effluents as required
to protect water uses.
-------
377
5. The conferees accept the schedule that all
remedial facilities be placed in operation by 1972.
6. The State and interstate conferees agree that
recent actions in Congress make it appear that the fiscal
year 1968 appropriations will be less than one-half the in-
adequate authorization of $450 million. It is destructive
of pollution control efforts to continue a system in which
actual appropriations are far below statutory authorizations.
It should be understood that congressionally authorized
amounts constitute a serious moral obligation on which States
and municipalities should be able to rely in planning their
projects for water quality improvement. Unless congressional
appropriations are reasonably consistent with the authoriza-
tions enacted by Congress, it is obviously impossible for
any municipality to receive the 55 percent of construction
cost in Federal aid clearly provided in the Clean Waters
Restoriation Act of 1966. If the Congress intends to fund
projects at 55 percent, then increases in the existing
authorizations, as well as increases in the appropriations,
are needed.
7. Periodic progress meetings shall be called by
the Chairman after consultation with the conferees.
This concludes the findings and recommendations of
the conference.
Do any of the conferees have anything to say at
-------
378
this point?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: If not, I would like to thank you all
for coining and staying with us.
I think this has been a very progressive
conference and for the lower Hudson and the Raritan River
we have mapped out what I hope will be the Federal-State-
interstate program for the clean-up of these waters and the
maintenance of the water quality for the maximum number of
water uses. We have time schedules for its completion in
the very early 1970's.
I think we have set \p a realistic program, a
program where you can watch the results. With public agen-
cies, you can always check up.
We will be back from time to time to give you
progress reports.
With that, we stand adjourned.
Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the conference was
adjourned.)
-------
379
(The following was submitted after the close
of the record:)
STATEMENT TO BE MADE AT THE HUDSON RIVER ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE,
RECONVENING SEPT. 20-21, 196? - NEW YORK, N. Y.
New York Harbor Coliform Density Pollution Study
New York University
Alan H. Molof and Erick R. Gidlund
Over the past few decades it has been observed --
but never confirmed — that coliform levels in the New York
Harbor waters have increased. Concern by the Department of
Public Works, City of New York, over -£he validity of these
observations, as well as an attempt to explain this disturbing
phenomena, resulted in a study, only recently completed, by
the Water Resources Group, Department of Civil Engineering,
at New York University. In an. effort to disseminate this
knowledge to others in the estuarine pollution area, the
results of this study titled "New York Harbor Coliform Density
Pollution Study" were presented jointly by New York University
and the City of New York at the recently held National Sym-
posium on Estuarine Pollution this past August in Palo Alto,
California.
It is fortunate that the City of New York has
collected harbor coliform data over these many years inasmuch
-------
380
as these are the only long-term coliform data available for
New York waters. Without these efforts, there would have been
no continuous record and henceforth these observations on
the coliform status of the New York Harbor waters would, by
necessity remain unknown.
Employing data collected by the Department of
Public Works for the periods 1946-1964, studies conducted at
New York University indicate that the observed coliform rise
is real, meaningful and significant. In addition, laboratory
observations indicate that die-away rates for coliform
bacteria in New York Harbor have remained essentially un-
changed. These studies included a review of the interrelated
physical, chemical and biological factors which might affect
coliform bacteria in general as well as specifically related
to New York Harbor waters. No single factor or cause can
be implicated with any assurance as the direct cause of
coliform increase.
Although it was found that all of the physical,
chemical and biological factors will show some influence on
coliform growth, the primary reason for the rise appears
to originate outside the harbor waters per se. In general
it appears that areas near sewage discharge points show the
highest coliform densities. The coliform increases might
be attributed to changes in coliform removal efficiency
due to modifications in treatment plant processes and/or
-------
381
modifications in the sewer system discharging to the treat-
ment plants.
Although secondary reasons for a coliform rise
might be attributed to the harbor waters proper, there is
an obvious lack of basic information regarding the ecology
of the harbor. In general, this question cannot be resolved
until more definite information regarding ecological factors
can be determined.
* if -it
(The following was submitted by Mr. Metzler for
inclusion in the record.)
The City of Rensselaer, in conjunction with the
Town of East Greenbush, have completed a Comprehensive
Sewerage Study. This Study provides several alternate pro-
jects for the local abatement of pollution of the Hudson
River.
One of the alternates provides for the treatment
of all wastes from the City of Rensselaer and the majority
of the Town of East Greenbush by a single joint waste water
treatment facility located in the City of Rensselaer.
Another alternate provides for the collection of
all wastes at a common point in the City of Rensselaer and
the pumping of these wastes across the Hudson River to the
-------
382
proposed multi-municipal waste water treatment facility in
the City of Albany.
All projects indicate that it would be advan-
tageous to the City of Rensselaer and the Town of East
Greenbush if industrial wastes were treated jointly with
the domestic wastes.
It is the intent of the City of Rensselaer, after
evaluation of the Study, in cooperation with its industries,
to select the project which would be most advantageous to
the participants and to progress the construction as rapidly
as possible.
/s/ John H. Warden
Mayor
Rensselaer, N. Y.
* * *
(The following telegram was submitted for
inclusion in the record.)
Honorable Stewart Udall
Care Paul Resnick
Care Conference on Hudson River
Statler Hilton Hotel, NYK
Call to your attention shocking reversal of H.R.Cc in endors-
ing defacement of Hudson River by allowing refuse dump on
Yonkers shoreline. This action by H.R.V.C. violates prin-
ciples and goals of your Department. Suggest you review
overwhelming testimony in opposition to project, as presented
-------
383
at H.R.V.C. public hearing of September 7, 1967. Urge you
take immediate action to restore and protect the Hudson
Valley at Yonkers.
Respectfully yours
Edwin S. Shapiro
Alfred F. McAvoy
Stewart M. Ogilvy
Albert Levitt
Paul Skokan
Sara Dustin
* * *
(The following chart was presented by Mr.
DeFalco for inclusion in the record.)
-------
Additional Data on Status of Abatement Programs of Federal Installations
Discharging into the Lower Hudson River
Installation
Agency
Pollution Abatement Status
Hudson River Reserve Fleet
Naval Shipyard, Brooklyn
Medical Supply Agency
Watervliet Arsenal
Throgs Neck Light Station
V.A. Hospital, Castle Point
V.A. Hospital, Montrose
Bayonne Supply Depot
Maritime Adra.
Navy
GSA
Army
Coast Guard
V.A.
V.A.
Army
Quarantine Station
Rosebank, S.I.
GSA
Installing a waste water treatment device aboard tugs
and headquarters barge servicing the installation.
Eastern portion tied into New York system (to Newtown
Creek Plant), Western portion tentatively scheduled
to tie into Red Hook Plant of New York City system,
Scheduled to complete interceptor to New York City.
No firm date available.
Scheduled to complete connection for sanitary wastes
to city by August, 1968.
Decision whether to automate will be made in the near
future. No firm date available.
Expect construction to commence during 1968 Fiscal
Year.
Expect construction to commence during 1968 Fiscal
Year.
If negotiations with city are not more favorable, the
depot will build its own secondary treatment plant.
Final design should be completed during 1968 Fiscal
Year. Construction should commence in 1969 Fiscal
Year.
Firm dates for connections cannot be obtained from
New York City. City is now considering revision of
present plans because of recent severe storm.
u>
CO
-------
385
(The following statement was submitted for
inclusion in the record.)
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN G. DOW, M.C.
to the Water Pollution Conference
New York City, September 20 & 21
Mr. Chairman:
I appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement
to this Conference. It is my feeling that more and more
Members of Congress are interested in the general problems of
pollution and its control which are being discussed here.
It is my earnest desire that they become concerned
in expanding the water and sewer grant programs which mean
so much to the control of water pollution. At the Conference
in 1965 I stated that the Federal Government wasn't doing
enough in this area. I have introduced two bills in this
Session which are designed to help alleviate the problems.
The public is more aware each day of the dangers of
pollution created by governmental inaction in our urban society,
When the water can't be used for drinking or swimming, and
even boat traffic is slowed because of debris, then all of us
must address ourselves to the legacy of nonconcern which has
been handed us.
The problem, as I see it, begins with treatment of
-------
386
the raw sewage generated by our society. Proper treatment is
the key because, unless the waste is treated, no solution
will be found. I would like to take a little time to explain
my two bills, H. R. 3645 and H. R. 3584, which will help in
this goal.
•Hie first bill, H. R. 3645, will increase the
authorization for the 1968 fiscal year and subsequent years
to $500,000,000 annually. I arrived at this figure after
being informed by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment that the dollars applied for under the law providing for
lateral sewers and basic water systems totaled 26 times the
number of dollars appropriated for fiscal year 1967.
There is no magic in the figure of $500 million
annually. It seems to me a more generous figure than $200
million yet not extravagant in these times when the Nation is
tightening its belt. It recognizes that some of the applica-
tions for grants are not as needful as others and that some
might properly be turned back. Below I will give you relevant
figures:
Annual authorization, 196? and 1968 $200,000,000
Appropriation, 196? 100,000,000
Amount allotted HUD, 196? 90,000,000
Budget, 1968 165,000,000
-------
387
Since the demand is running at the rate of 26 times the
'67 appropriation, that would be 13 times the authorization in the
legislation. It is not difficult to see from the above figures that
the need flies in the face of the allotted monies. There is no
justification for such a meager sum when there has been a demonstrated
need in the expansion of water and sewer facilities.
A number of communities in my District are suffering
painfully in their anti-pollution programs as a result of the small
amount of money available in Federal grants for lateral sewers. This
is also true of grants for basic water facilities which are allotted
under the same housing legislation.
In addition, there is a possible legal device which I
have introduced as an amendment to section 702 of HUD Act of 1965,
It will relieve the present situation somewhat with what is known as
"prepayment." It is the clause offered in my bill, H. R. 3584. It
will authorize communities, with such State help as they can secure,
to prepay the costs for needed facilities without losing eligibility
for securing a later grant from the Secretary of HUD.
At the present time, a community may be able to
commence part of a lateral sewer or water system with local or State
funds. However, no Federal grant-in-aid will be forth-
coming if a sewer facilities system is commenced before
-------
388
approval from the Federal Government for Federal funding.
H. R. 3584 would make possible local or State initiative in
speeding construction of the lateral sewer or water system in
those communities where critical conditions are faced.
It would be necessary, of course, and this is
provided in my bill, for the Secretary to approve the project,
in advance of the construction, as meeting the requirements of
the law in all other respacts. At that time, the project, pre-
paid by the community and/or the State, would be eligible to
receive a Federal grant at a later date. However, my bill
further states that this eligibility shall not "be construed
to constitute a commitment or obligation of the United States."
The bill would apply to any construction initiated
after December 31, 1966. It would, then, permit a community
to start construction without jeopardizing chances of obtaining
Federal assistance. Under present legislation there is a very
definite delay built into the system since no construction can
get under way before final approval.
The most effective way to clean up our Nation's
rivers and streams is to provide adequate treatment for sewage.
At the 1965 conference, I learned that New York City itself
dumped a minimum of 500 million gallons of raw sewage into New
York Harbor every day. 175 million gallons were said to be
dumped by the west side of Manhattan into the Hudson.
Congress has begun to realize the importance of
-------
389
sewage treatment. For its own military installations the
House recently passed a $35 million construction bill for
sewage and water treatment. The bill is now in the Senate,
which may cut it back somewhat.
This Conference is considering a progress report
and a plan for action. I hope that my contribution has not
been too one-sided. I feel very strongly that the Federal
Government has not been doing its fair share in this area and
certainly the present budgetary strain makes increased effort
difficult. But we cannot wait around for better times and I
am sure all those present at the Conference are in agreement.
If we now recognize the problems then we must join
together to overcome them, for in this instance it takes the
full cooperation of all levels of government, local, State
and Federal. I hope that as a Congressman I can do something
which will provide others the tools with which to work.
# # *
(The following was submitted for inclusion in the
record.)
IRVING YOUNGER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
40 WASHINGTON SQUARE SOUTH
NEW YORK CITY 10003
-------
390
Telephone 228-3080
September 21, 1967
Mr. Murray Stein
Assistant Commissioner-Enforcement
Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration
633 Indiana Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20242
Dear Mr. Stein:
Pursuant to a suggestion made by your Mr. Resnick
today over the telephone, I enclose a statement on behalf of
the Hudson River Fishermen's Association, which I ask to be
included in the record of the hearings held yesterday and today
at the Statler-Hilton Hotel in New York City.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Irving Younger
lY/cs
enc.
# * *
STATEMENT OF IRVING YOUNGER, ESQ., ON BEHALF
OF THE HUDSON RIVER FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
-------
391
Mr. Chairman, members of the Conference: My name is
Irving Younger. I am an attorney and a director of the Hudson
Kiver Fishermen's Association (Post Office Box 725, Ossining,
New York). The Association, a non-profit corporation organized
in 1966 by a dozen fishermen and marine scientists in New York,
now has more than 250 members. Its purposes, to quote from
the charter of incorporation, are "to encourage rational use
of the aquatic resources of the river and its tributaries . . .
gather, study and disseminate information about the ecology
of the Hudson watershed, particularly in regard to the life
histories and needs of fishes; endeavor to protect the spawning
and nursery grounds of desirable sports and commercial fishes;
and assist in efforts to abate pollution."
Two years ago, the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare called a conference on pollution in the Hudson and
its tributaries. Many statements were made. Now it is the
turn of the Secretary of the Interior to call this Conference.
Doubtless many more statements will be made. Gentlemen,
haven't we had enough statements? Isn't it time for action?
Let me describe our experience with pollution enforcement
authorities.
A great deal of the pollution of the Hudson River
and of New York harbor and adjacent waterways has been illegal
under a Federal statute since June 29, 1888. Here is the law,
the New York Harbor Act of 1888, as amended (Title 33, United
-------
392
States Code, section 44l):
"The placing, discharging, or depositing, by
any process or in any manner, of refuse, dirt,
ashes, cinders, mud, sand, dredgings, sludge, acid,
or any other matters of any kind,, other than that
flowing from streets, sewers, and passing therefrom
in a liquid state, in the waters of any harbor subject
to sections 44l-^51b of this title (which includes
New York harbor), within the limits which shall be
prescribed by the Supervisor of the Harbor, is hereby
strictly forbidden, and every such act is made a mis-
demeanor, and every person engaged in or who shall
aid, abet, authorize or instigate a violation of
this section, shall, upon conviction, be punishable
by fine or imprisonment, or both, such fine to be
not less than $250 nor more than $2,500, and the
imprisonment to be not less than 30 days nor more than
1 year, either or both united, as the judge before
whom conviction is obtained shall decide, one half
of said fine to be paid to the person or persons
giving information which shall lead to conviction of
this misdemeanor."
This is a strong law. Try to get it enforced! If
you did enforce it, in a month you would clean up much of the
mess in the Hudson and the harbor.
-------
393
Last winter, the Hudson River Fishermen's Associ-
ation started trying to get this law enforced against polluters
who were releasing acids and oils into the river. After much
phoning around, a director of the Association tracked down
the Federal Water Pollution Control office in charge of the
Hudson and Lake Charaplain. It happens to be in Metuchen, New
Jersey, not exactly the best site from which to police the
Hudson or Lake Champlain. The official who answered the phone
said his office would be interested in having records of
pollution violations. "Will you take action?" he was asked.
He said, no, but he wanted the records for the office files so
that when the next conference on the Hudson was called, he
could take them out and show where there were problems. This
is bureaucratic lunacy. His reason for not taking action was
that the Federal Water Pollution Control office had not yet
been assigned authority. What is the purpose of the authority
if not to act, if not to enforce Federal law?
Despite this, the Association persevered. The same
director called the Harbor Supervision Branch of the Corps of
Engineers' office in Jersey City. The Corps investigators
said they would act. One of the offenders reported was the
New York Central Diesel and Electric Shops at Harmon. For
years, the Central has discharged oil wastes directly into the
Hudson from a mammoth pipe that thrusts its backside into the
water near the mouth of the Croton River. Oil discharges in
-------
this area have been so heavy that ducks have drowned and fish
are inedible. Two years ago, at the time of the first
conference on Hudson pollution, there was an oil slick three
or four miles long and a half to a mile wide.
After reporting the Central to the Corps, the
Association heard nothing. Finally, we inquired and were told
that the Central had been "cited" and given until mid-March
to stop. Early in May, a director of the Association checked
the area, and there was an oil slick all over the area. Another
complaint was made. Again we heard nothing. This summer, a
director of the Association visited Corps headquarters in
Manhattan. When he asked why the Federal law was not enforced
and polluters punished for violations, a Corps official said,
"We're dealing with top officials in industry, and you just
don't go around treating these people like that."
The Hudson River Fishermen's Association, however,
is persevering. It has had pre-paid postcards printed noting
the 1888 law. These cards are being distributed free to the
public. There are blanks where a fisherman can note the who,
what, when, and where of suspected violations, and on the card
is the shameful notice, "The government agencies have not done
their job protecting the river -- NOW IT'S UP TO YOU."
We hope that this Conference will take steps towards
assuring effective enforcement of what Congress mandated 79
years ago.
* * *-
-------
394a
REPORT OF PHOTO: CALL
In X Out File 35.18
Date 2/1/67 Time Routing Hohman
Person Contacted Robert Boyle Phone No. (914) CR1-8242
Location Finney Farm, Croton-On-Hudson, N.Y. 10520
Subject of Call Oil pollution in Hudson River at Croton Point
Summary of Call Mr. Boyle is associated with "Sports Illustrated" and
a member of the Hudson River Fisherman's Association. He was referred to
us by Murray Stein.
The N.Y. Central R.R. diesel yards at Harmon discharge oil to the river
through an outfall on the south side of Croton Point. (Listed on p. 122
of the S.H.D. Report #9 on the Lower Hudson River)
Previous complaints to ISC and NYSHD have produced no results.
—Phoned Major Ulrich - He will check it out.
—Ulrich phoned back - C/E has been involved since July 1966.
N.Y. Central is fabricating units to correct problem. Will follow
through to correction.
---Phoned Boyle to advise of C/E action.
Action Required N'one
K. H. Walker
Signature
-------
395
(The following was submitted for inclusion in the
record. )
NANSL 24 October 1967
Mr. Dwight F. Metzler
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Health
State of New York
Albany, New York 12208
Dear Mr. Metzler:
This letter is in reply to your recent inquiry
requesting supplemental information on certain District
/•
activities for inclusion in the record of the conference on
pollution of the Hudson River and its tributaries, held in New
York City on 20 September 1967.
Inclosure 1 contains data on selection and utiliza-
tion of Atlantic Ocean disposal areas, and the issuance of
dumping permits. Statistics on investigations conducted in the
conference area (Hudson River from Troy, N. Y. through the upper
bay of New York Harbor) and other than the conference area are
listed in Inclosure 2.
Sincerely yours,
2 Incl R. T. BATSON
as Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
-------
396
Copy furnished, w/incl:
OCS, ENGCW-ON
NAD, NADCO
Mr. Murray Stein
* * *
Supplemental Statement by Colonel R. T. Batson
for Inclusion in the Record of the Conference
on Pollution of the Hudson River and its
Tributaries in New York City on 20 September 196?
Disposal areas for the disposal of waste materials
in navigable waters in the New York area are established by the
District Engineer in his dual capacity as Supervisor of New
York Harbor, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of the Act
of Congress approved 29 June 1888 (33 U.S.C. 441).
There are three major localities in which disposal
«
areas have been established: the Atlantic Ocean off the
entrance to New York Harbor, Long Island Sound and Hudson River.
The areas which have been established in Atlantic Ocean provide
for the disposal of mud, cellar dirt, stone, wrecks, sewer sludge,
waste acid, chemicals and radio-active wastes. The areas in
Long Island Sound provide for the disposal of dredged materials,
-------
397
although occasionally they are utilized for the disposal of
clean cellar dirt and wrecks. The areas in Hudson River have
been established between Peekskill and Kingston, New York, and
have been used exclusively for the deposit of material
dredged from the channels and harbors along Hudson River,
north of Hastings-on-Hudson, New York.
The principal criteria in the selection of the
disposal areas is to assure that their use would not be detri-
mental to navigation. The sewage sludge dumping ground in
Atlantic Ocean which has been in use since 1924, was also
selected so as to avoid offensive discoloration and solids
washing up on the beaches. The waste acid dump which has been
in use since 1948 was selected to avoid possible damage and
discoloration on the beaches. The offshore chemical disposal
area was selected to avoid possible adverse effect on food fish
and public health.
Before the sewage sludge site was designated, its
selection was discussed with State Conservation and Health
Departments. The waste acid disposal area was established only
after it was discussed in detail with the Interstate Sanitation
Commission, the New Jersey State Department of Conservation,
Health, and Pish and Game, the New York State Departments of
Conservation and Health, the Commercial and Sport Fishing Bureau
of the Pish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the
-------
398
Interior, the Food and Drugs Administration of the U. S.
Department of Health and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission.
With the recent closure by health authorities
of upland disposal sites to toxic chemicals and metallic wastes
because of possible infiltration into potable water supplies,
industry has been seeking approval to dispose of these
wastes into the ocean. Each request for such approval is
carefully reviewed and before making a final decision the views
of State and Federal agencies and departments are secured,
including the New Jersey and New York State Departments of
Conservation and Health Service, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
If it is determined that the wastes are innocuous,
approval is granted to dispose of them about 16 miles offshore
in the Waste Acid Dump and if they are toxic, approval is
granted for their disposal about 120 miles southeast of New York
in the Chemical Dumping Ground.
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
-------
399
on individual trips or occasions. In addition, the vessel
operators are required to return the permits with the certi-
fication of the master of the vessel as to the action taken in
dumping the material.
* * *
-------
STARMKNT Off ACTIVITIES
Pi*cal Year
«. Total Ca*e Investigation*:
Initial I«v.
gupplaBeotal lav.
»*
-------
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NEW YORK STATE
131 East 23rd Street, New York, N. Y. 10010
212 ORegon 7-5050
Mrs. George J. Ames, President
September 28, iq6?
Mr. Murray Stein
Assistant Commissioner - Enforcement
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Stein:
Mr. Resnick indicated at the close of the Hudson
River enforcement conference last week that I might submit a
written statement on behalf of the League of Women Voters of
New York State for inclusion in the conference record. As I
listened to the conference statements and realized that no
citizens' group spoke, I recognized that it might indeed be
useful to the conferees to hear the views of one citizens group.
In the two year period since the original conference, local
Leagues in New York State have continued their work in the
field of water resources and the enclosed statement is based on
their studies.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mrs. Edward M. Davis
Chairman, Water Resources
-------
402
copy to:
Mr. Paul Resnick
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Metuchen, New Jersey
* * *
League of Women Voters of New York State
131 East 23rd Street, New York, N. Y. 10010
September 28, 1967
STATEMENT ON HUDSON RIVER POLLUTION CONFERENCE
At the original conference dealing with pollution
of the Hudson (Sept. 1965), spokesmen for 10 citizens groups
presented their organization's views. It is significant that
no citizens group was heard from at the recent conference held
to review progress in pollution abatement. Perhaps this indi-
cates that most groups feel real progress is being made; perhaps
it only indicates that the immediate crisis, the drought of the
past 5 years, is at an end.
In the interim between the conferences of 1965 and
196? the League of Women Voters of New York State has continued
its interest in and study of water resources including those
of the Hudson River Basin, ^ince the passage of New York's
-------
403
"Pure Waters" bond issue in 19^5, local Leagues in New York
have urged their own communities to utilize the funds provided
by this bond issue and to begin needed pollution abatement
programs.
In addition, local Leagues in the Hudson-Mohawk
basin undertook last year a study of that basin's water resources.
A questionnaire sent out last spring, as part of this study,
elicited several responses that may be pertinent to this
conference:
1) In almost all communities, Leagues indicate
that there are new plans for use of the waterfront
for recreation or residences. This indicates a very
real faith that we will indeed be able to clean up
our waters.
2) At the same time many Leagues expressed
concern that we are not meeting the time schedule as
set up by New York State, arid several comments indi-
cate that the 1972 deadline for pollution abatement
is unrealistic, considering progress made to date.
3) Leagues in the Hudson Basin continue to
find a general lack of cooperation and coordination
between various levels of government. While there
are some notable exceptions, cooperation, especially
horizontal cooperation between local units of govern-
ment, is less than might be hoped for.
-------
404
4) Most Leagues indicate that public interest
in the "Pure Waters" programs has abated considerably
in the past two years. Often local Leagues find they
are nearly alone in their communities in continuing
their surveillance of the progress in pollution
abatement.
In essence, what local Leagues in the Hudson Basin
have indicated is that there has been progress made toward
pollution abatement but that much remains to be done and that
citizens' groups such as the League must continue their
interest in this area in order to accomplish the goals that have
been established.
* * *
* u.s. covnmmiT p«mri»« orrici: ifM o—ZM-M*
------- |