CWT 10-15
WATER
REPORT ON THE
QUALITY OF THE INTERSTATE WATERS
OF THE
LOWER PASSAIC RIVER AND UPPER AND LOWER BAYS
OF NEW YORK HARBOR
NOVEMBER 1969
«AL WATER POUUTIf. • PARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
HUDSON-DELAWARi II ;
-------
REPORT ON THE
QUALITY OF THE INTERSTATE WATERS
OF THE
LOWER PASSAIC RIVER AND UPPER AND LOWER BAYS
OF NEW YORK HARBOR
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
NORTHEAST REGION
HUDSON DELAWARE BASINS OFFICE
Edison, New Jersey
November 1969
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations vi
Introduction 1
Description of the Passaic River Basin 5 .
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
Background , g
Description of Waste Treatment Facilities U
Recent Developments, 20
Study of Passage Valley Sewerage Commissioners' Waste
Treatment Facility 24
Water Quality Studies
Water Movement and Dispersion 27
Water Quality - New York Harbor 29
Bacteriological Studies 33
Water Quality - Passaic River 35
Outfall Survey - Passaic River 38
Bibliography 41
Appendices
Appendix A - Conclusions and Recommendations of the Septem-
ber, 1965, September, 1967 and June, 1969
Conference, "In the Matter of Pollution of the
Interstate Waters of the Hudson River and Its
Tributaries."
-------
Appendix B - New York and New Jersey Stream Classi-
fication and Water Quality Criteria.
Appendix C - New Jersey Pollution Abatement Orders
to the Passaic Valley Sewerage Com-
missioners dated April, 1965 and
August, 1966.
Appendix1 D - Data, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration Study of Upper Bay of
New York Harbor.
Appendix E - Report, Survival Study - Passaic Valley
Sewage Treatment Plant Outfall
111
-------
TABLES
Number
6
7
D-l
Municipalities Served by the Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commissioners
Data, Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration Study of Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners' Waste Treatment Facility
Performance Summary, Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners' Waste Treatment Facility
Sampling Stations, Federal Water pollution
Control Administration Survey of Passaic
River, June 5, 1969
Data, Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration Survey of Passaic River, June 5, 1969
Direct Waste Discharges, Passaic River
Direct Waste Discharges by Type and Municipality,
Passaic River
Data, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion Study of Upper Bay-New York Harbor,
August 19, 20, 1969
Following
Page
10
24
24
37
37
39
39
Appendix
FIGURES
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, Map Showing 10
Extent of Interests Under the Revised Statutes
Dye Study, Edge of Dye Mass at Various Slack Tide 28
(Hours After Release), September, 1964
Dissolved Oxygen (Percent Saturation) Average Values, 32
Upper Bay-New York Harbor, Surface Stations,
August 19, 20, 1969
Total Coliform, Geometric Mean, Upper Bay-New York 32
Harbor, Surface Stations, August 19, 20, 1969
Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean, Upper Bay-New York 32
Harbor, Surface Stations, August 19, 20, 1969
-------
Following
Number page
6 Dissolved Oxygen (Percent Saturation) Average 32
Values, Upper Bay-New York Harbor, Deep Sta-
tions, August 19, 20, 1969
7 Total Col if orm, Geometric Mean, Upper Bay-New York 32
Harbor, Deep Stations, August 19, 20, 1969
8 Fecal Col iform, Geometric Mean, Upper Bay-New 32
York Harbor, Deep Stations, August 19, 20, 1969
9 Dissolved Oxygen (Percent Saturation), Upper 32
Bay-New York Harbor, Station 20, August 19, 20,
'1969
10 Dissolved Oxygen, Passaic River Profile, Newark 37
Bay to Little Falls, June 5, 1969
11 Total Col iform, Passaic River Profile, Newark 37
Bay to Little Falls, June 5, 1969
12 Fecal Coliform, Passaic River Profile, Newark 37
Bay to Little Falls, June 5, 1969
13 Passaic River, Direct Waste Discharges, Municipal 39
and Industrial
-------
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
1. Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to call a conference regarding
the pollution of interstate waters if requested to do so by the Governor
of a State, or when, on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies, the
Secretary has reason to believe that pollution of interstate waters is
endangering the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in
which the discharge or discharges originate.
2. The first session of the Hudson River conference was held in
September, 1965, at the request of the Governors of New York and New Jersey.
Subsequent sessions, to review compliance with initial conference, recommenda-
tions and discuss new problems, were held in September 1967 and June, 1969.
Recommendations of the conference as approved by the Secretary state in part
that "...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. All the waters covered
by the conference shall receive effective disinfection of the effluents as
required to protect water uses..." and "...the following time schedule for the
foregoing remedial program: a) designs for remedial facilities completed by
January 1, 1967; b) financing arrangements completed by April 1, 1967;
VI
-------
c) construction started by July 1, 1967; d) construction completed and
plants placed into operation by January 1, 1970...". The complete recom-
mendations of the Secretary for the first and second sessions and the
recommendations to the Secretary by the conferees for the third session
are contained in the Appendix of this report.
3. At the June, 1969 session, preliminary reports were presented by
the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration regarding the operation
of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' waste treatment facility,
direct discharges to the Lower Fassaic River and the effect of the direct
discharges on water quality in the Lower Passaic River. Since that session,
additional studies have been conducted by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration to evaluate the operational efficiency of the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners' waste treatment facility and the effect of
its'effluent on the water quality of the Upper and Lower Bays of Mew York
Harbor. Studies were also conducted by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration and the New Jersey State Department of Health to identify
waste discharges to and evaluate the water quality of the Lower Passaic
River.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The quality of the interstate waters of the Upper and Lower Bays of
New York Harbor and the Passaic River is below that required by the approved
Federal-State Water Quality Standards. In the interstate waters of New
Jersey, the present standards prescribe the highest use as follows: in the
Upper Bay — limited recreation and fish survival and in the Passaic River
VJ.1
-------
upstream to the head of tide-fish survival. In the interstate waters
of New York, the present standards prescribe the highest use as follows:
in the Lower Bay-bathing and in the Upper Bay-fishing.
2. The quality of water in the Upper and Lower Bays of New York
Harbor is affected by the discharge of inadequately treated waste from
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners and other discharges originating
in the New Jersey-New York City Metropolitan area.
3. As a result of inadequately treated wastes originating in Upper
Bay of New York Harbor, a public health hazard exists in the waters of
Lower Bay which are classified for recreational purposes. Pathogenic
organisms have been isolated in the effluent of the Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners, in the waters of Upper Bay of New York Harbor, in the
vicinity of Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' dispersal field and in
the waters off the bathing beaches of the Lower Bay of New York Harbor.
4. Most of the municipalities and industries in the conference area
are moving to meet the conference recommendations.
5. The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners have not initiated
adequate action to comply with the conference recommendations for needed
treatment facilities.
6. Court action against the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
for not complying with New Jersey treatment requirements was initiated in
1967 by the New Jersey State Department of Health. The Chancery Division
of the Superior Court and the Appellate Division of the Superior Court
upheld the Department's orders in dealing with the quality of effluent
discharges from the Commissioners' facility.
Vlll
-------
7. The enforcement responsibilities of Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners to maintain the quality of the Passaic River as prescribed
by the enabling legislation are not being carried out.
8. Industrial and untreated municipal waste discharges are degrading
the quality of water in the Passaic River.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners take necessary action
without further delay to comply with the administrative order dated
August 9, 1966, issued by the State of New Jersey and with the previous
recommendations of this conference.
2. The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners take necessary steps
to insure that present and future pollutional sources in the service area
of the Commissioners utilize the regional treatment facilities completely
for final disposal of wastes.
3. The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners provide a minimum of
80% reduction of biochemical oxygen demand for all wastewater in accordance
with the schedule established by the conference. This requires a design
for an average reduction of 90% of biochemical oxygen demand as required
by the recommendations of the Hudson River Conference. As an immediate
measure, effective chlorination, in accordance with State requirements, be
provided to reduce the health hazards from the Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners' effluent in the Lower Bay of New York Harbor.
4. Municipalities in the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners'
service area initiate remedial action to eliminate illegal connections to
storm sewers.
LX
-------
5. The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners improve the present
method of controlling combined sewer overflows in its intercepting
sewer system. Existing manually operated by-pass valves be replaced
by an automatic regulating system.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to call a conference on the
pollution of interstate waters if requested to do so by the Governor
of a State, or when, on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies, the
Secretary has reason to believe that pollution of interstate or navi-
gable waters is endangering the health or welfare of persons in a state
other than that in which the discharge or discharges originate.
The first session of the Hudson River Conference was held in Sep-
tember, 1965 at the request of the Governors of New York and New Jersey
and on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies. This conference
brought together interested Federal, State, Interstate and local agencies
to discuss the pollution problems of the interstate waters of the Hudson
River and the New York Metropolitan Area.
During the conference the New Jersey conferee delivered a statement
from the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners. The statement dealt with
the area and population serviced by the Commissioners and the policing
duties performed in connection with water pollution control regulation
of the Passaic River and its tributaries below Great Falls. The Commis-
sioners reported that through their efforts, pollution emanating within
their jurisdiction had been effectively controlled. Some of the problems
faced by the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' primary treatment
plant were presented as well as the actions planned for correcting them.
-------
The second session of the Hudson River Conference was convened in
September, 1967 to review compliance with initial conference recommenda-
tions and to discuss new problems. The New Jersey conferee reported on
recent legal actions taken against polluters with particular reference
to the State's injunctive proceeding to require the Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commissioners to comply with the requirement for post chlori-
nation.
A third session of the conference was held in June, 1969. The con-
ferees reviewed progress of pollution abatement programs established by
the States of New York and New Jersey and the Interstate Sanitation
Commission. Special attention was focused on the significance of com-
bined sewer overflows in the conference area.
A report on an inspection of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis-
sioners' waste treatment facility conducted in June, 1969 was presented
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. This report
indicated that to improve the effectiveness of treating the average flow
into the plant, all existing sedimentation basins should be in operation.
At the time of the inspection 20 of the 60 basins were out of operation.
It appeared that routine maintenance of the operating basins was not
adequate to insure their proper operation. Additional statements were
also made regarding the number of direct discharges into the Passaic
River and the resulting degradation of water quality.
The State of New Jersey reported that all governmental agencies
within the conference area, except Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners,
had complied with directives to provide effective post-chlorination of
-------
the effluent every year during the period of May 15 to September 15.
The New Jersey conferee further stated that court actions had been
initiated against the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners for: (a)
failing to meet the requirement for chlorination and (b) for not
acting toward compliance of a previous order to provide adequate treat-
ment as required by the approved standards.
Appendix A contains the conclusions and recommendations of these
three conference sessions. The major conference recommendations require
that "... All wastes prior to discharge into the waters covered by the
conference 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. All the waters covered by the conference shall receive
effective disinfection of the effluents as required to protect water
uses..." The conferees agreed that all remedial facilities be placed
in operation by 1970 except the proposed North River facility which can-
not be completed and in operation until 1972.
Subsequent to the third session, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration conducted additional studies to evaluate the operational
efficiency of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' waste treatment
facility and the effect of its effluent on the quality of the interstate
waters of Upper and Lower Bays of New York Harbor. Surveys were also
initiated along the Passaic River to identify the direct discharges to
the River and define the quality of water resulting from these discharges.
Similar studies had been carried out in May, 1967 at the Passaic Valley
-------
Sewerage Commissioners' treatment facilities and in August, 1968 along
the Passale River. This report has been prepared to present the results
of these studies and to recommend improvements to the Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commissioners' waste treatment facilities.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE PASSAIC RIVER BASIN
The Passaic River Basin, situated in northeastern New Jersey and
southeastern New York, drains an area of approximately 935 square miles.
The Basin is roughly elliptical in shape with a northeasterly length of
about 56 miles and a maximum width of 28 miles. It spans across eight
counties in New Jersey (Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, Somerset,
Sussex and Union) and two counties in southeastern New York (Rockland and
Orange).
The headwaters of the Passaic River are located north of Millington,
New Jersey. From Millington, the River flows northeast for about 32 miles
to the Great Piece Meadows above Caldwell, New Jersey, and continues east
for 16 miles to Great Falls near Paterson, New Jersey. At Paterson, the
river turns due south for 24 miles to its confluence with Newark Bay. The
last 17 miles of the Passaic River from Dundee Dam to Newark Bay are tidal.
The Basin can be divided into three distinctly separate physiographical
regions: The Highland Area in the northwest part of the Basin, comprising
about 55 percent of the total watershed area; the Central Basin located in
the southerly portion of the watershed and representing a little over 25
percent of the total area; and the Lower Valley comprising only about 20
percent of the watershed area and located in the eastern fringe of the Basin.
The Highland area is characterized by broad ridges and narrow valleys
with terrain that is rugged and wooded. It contains many natural and man-
made lakes. The area is sparsely settled and supports minor industrial
activity.
-------
The Central Basin consists of small hills, flat meadows and extensive
areas of fresh water swamps. The major part of this Basin is rapidly
undergoing residential and commercial development.
The Lower Valley is similar in physiographic characteristics to the
Central Basin. It is essentially a flat, wide, flood plain with abutting
low rolling hillsides. The area is densely populated and contains some of
the most highly developed land in New Jersey. Extensive industrial activi-
ties are concentrated in the Valley.
The population of the Basin in 1968 totaled about 2,000,000 persons,
the majority of which are located in the highly urbanized Lower Valley.
Population densities varied from a low of about 130 persons per square
mile in Sussex County to a high of 7,140 persons per square mile in Essex
County.
At least 155 municipal and 23 industrial facilities discharge treated
wastewaters into the Passaic River Basin. The majority of the municipal
facilities, all generally located in the Highland and Central Basin areas,
provide secondary treatment with chlorination to a total flow of approxi-
mately 50 mgd. The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, the largest
wastewater collection and treatment facility in the Basin, handles the
domestic and industrial wastes primarily within the Lower Valley. The
Commissioners' plant, serving 1,200,000 people, nearly three-f if'ths. .of.
the total sewered population in the Basin, discharges primary treated
effluent without disinfection into the interstate waters of Upper Bay of
New York Harbor.
-------
The main stem of the Passaic River below the confluence with the
Pompton River is considered interstate water under Section 10 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. The classifications
established for these interstate waters are given below. Detailed
definitions of these classes and their criteria are provided in Appendix
B.
WATER CLASSIFICATION
Newark Bay TW-3
Passaic River (main stem from TW-3
mouth to head ,of tide at
Dundee Lake Dam)
Passaic River (main stem and FW-3
tributaries between Dundee
Lake Dam and Little Falls)
Passaic River (main stem be- FW-2
tween Little Falls and its
confluence with the Pompton
River)
HIGHEST USE
Navigation not recrea-
tion
Navigation not recrea-
tion
All recreational pur-
poses but not for public
potable water supply
Public potable water
supply after treatment
and all recreational
purposes
-------
PASSAIC VALLEY SEWERAGE COMMISSIONERS
Background
The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners were established by three
acts of the New Jersey legislature: 1) New Jersey Public Law 1902, Chapter
48, which outlined the boundaries of the Passaic Valley Sewerage District
to include almost the entire watershed of the Passaic River; 2) New Jersey
Public Law 1907, Chapter 10, which provided for the purification of the
waters of the Passaic River within the District from any polluting matter,
made provision for the treatment of sewage, and authorized the Commissioners
to sell bonds if necessary to raise funds for the construction of sewage
treatment facilities; and 3) New Jersey Public Law 1907 New Jersey Statutes
Annotated (NJSA) 58:14-1 to 14-34 (1907) which created an authority to
coordinate the planning and financing of sewage disposal and water pollution
control within the Passaic Valley Sewerage District and authorized participa-
ting municipalities, through the sale of bonds or borrowing of money, to
raise funds needed to pay the Commissioner's charges and/or the cost of
constructing connecting sewer lines.
The Governor of the State of New Jersey appoints the five commissioners
of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners who each serve a five year^term
in office. Appointments are made so that, as far as practicable, each section
of the District is represented.
A 1910 stipulation between the Federal government, represented by the
Secretary of War, and the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners outlined
requirements and results which the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners had
-------
to meet'in the construction and operation of its treatment facilities.
Among the conditions of the stipulation were: "...1) there will be absence
in the New York Bay of visible particles coming from the Passaic Valley
sewage; 2) there will be absence of deposits objectionable to the .Secretary
of War of the United States in the New York Bay coming from the Passaic Valley
sewage; 3) there will be absence in the New York Bay and its vicinity of
odors due to the putrefaction of organic matters contained in the Passaic
Valley sewage thus discharged; 4) there will be a practical absence on the
surface of New York Bay of any grease or color due to the discharge of the
Passaic Valley sewage at the dispersion area or elsewhere; 5) there will be no
injury to the public health which will be occasioned by the discharge from the
said sewer into the Bay of New York in the manner proposed and no public or
private nuisance will be created thereby; 6) there will be absence of injurious
effect from said sewage discharge, upon the property of the United States
situated in the Harbor of New York; and 7) there will be absence of reduction
in the dissolved oxygen contents of the wateis of New York Bay resulting from
the discharge of Passaic Valley sewage, to such an extent as to interfere with
major fish life....11
The original Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' contract with munici-
palities within the District was dated May 15, 1911. This contract was
revised on September 20, 1911, and was signed by 15 participating municipalities.
The contract: 1) determined the specifications for construction of the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners intercepting sewer or sewers, the'treatment-plant
and a suitable discharge point; 2) estimated the probable cost for construction,
operation, and maintenance; 3) authorized expenditures by the Commissioners of
-------
$11,250,000 for the construction of sewers, plant and disposal facilities;
4) authorized the contracting municipalities to sell bonds; 5) provided for
obtaining the necessary property rights to construct a sewer system and
treatment plant; 6) stated that the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
shall without restriction exercise the powers granted to them under the pro-
visions of State law; and 7) established a method for determining municipal
costs for sewage treatment based on estimated flow and sewer line capacity.
Subsequent contracts, between 1911 and 1925, authorized increased funds
for the construction of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' sewer lines
and treatment plant. Municipal shares of construction costs and interest
rates were to be apportioned according to original contract provisions. The
last two contracts, between Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners and partici-
pating municipalities, dated October, 1926 and October, 19U2, outlined the
procedures that a municipality must follow to receive the benefits of increased
capacity of the Commissioners system.
As of January, 1925, 20 municipalities were under contract with the
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners. Over the course of time, other muni-
cipalities in the four county area (Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Passaic) of northern
New Jersey contracted for sewage treatment, bringing the number of municipali-
ties totally or partially served to 29. Table 1 identifies these municipalities
and Figure 1 outlines the service area. Out of the eight municipalities
partially served by the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners system, two
(Glen Rock, Fairlawn) discharge the remainder of their waste as treated effluent
into tributary waters of the Passaic River. The remaining six municipalities
(Lyndhurst, North Arlington, Rutherford, Kearny, East Orange, and Newark) dis-
10
-------
TABLE 1
MUNICIPALITIES SERVED BY THE
PASSAIC VALLEY SEWERAGE COMMISSIONERS
Bergen County
East Rutherford (Discharge
Garfield
Lyndhurst (70%)
North Arlington (76%)
Rutherford (54%)
Wellington
Glen Rock (Partial)
Fairlawn (Partial)
East Paterson
Lodi
Saddle Brook Twp.
Hudson County
East Newark
Harrison
Kearny (Partial)
Essex County
Belleville
Bloomfield
East Orange (Partial)
Glen Ridge
Montelair
Newark (72%) (Discharge #2)
South Newark
Nut ley
Orange
Passaic County
Clifton
Haled on
Passaic
Paterson
Prospect Park
Hawthorne
Note: Percentages in parenthesis indicate portion of municipality
served by PVSC.
Source: PVSC Report on Proposed Head End Facilities, December, 1968.
-------
LEGEND
PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITIES COMPOSING THE
PASSAIC VALLEY SEWERAGE DISTRICT, PREVIOUS TO 1942
PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITIES INCLUDED IN THE
EXTENSION OF THE DISTRICT IN 1942 UNDER
SECTION 58:14 1 1 AND 1964 UNDER SECTION 58:14-1
PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITIES - BY PURCHASE
FROM ADJACENT MUNICIPALITIES OR BY LEASE
OUTLINE OF PASSAIC RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN
BETWEEN GREAT FALLS AND NEWARK BAY
PARTICIPATING OWNERS 1 LESSEES
1994
ORANGE
VNDHURST
EWARK
ORTH AftilNGTON
UUEY
PASSAIC
PATERSON
•UTHEIFOID
WAUINGTON
•IOOMFIELD
GLEN RIDGE
PROSPfCT PARK
AST OtANGt ' •• "••-*
HALtDON
MQNtCLAIt
SALESIAN SISTERS i
EAST PATERSON
ion
WBIGHT AEtO CORP -
SADDLE UOOK
GlEN HOCK
HAWTHO*NE
1*4S
FA« 1AWN
MARC Al PAPER MJLLS
-.-.. NEWARK SO
PASSAIC VALLEY SEWERAGE COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
JAMES J McMAHON
DOMINIC W CUCCINELLO
DENNIS F CAREY • CARMINE T PERRAPATO
JULIUS J, CINAMON
THOMAS E DURKIN. J«.
MAP SHOWING EXTENT OF INTERESTS
UNDER THE REVISED STATUTES
Figure 1
-------
charge the remainder of their waste as treated effluent outside the Passaic
River Basin.
An important provision of the operation of the Commissioners' system
allows the leasing of sewage capacity to any new participant if this does
not conflict with the original flow and capacity allotted to the contracting
municipalities. However, the Commissioners cannot lease such sewage capacity
if municipalities representing more than 75% of the allotted capacity, object
to such leasing of sewage capacity.
The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, under the requirements of the
several acts of the New Jersey legislature and the contracts with the munici-
palities of the District, are empowered to establish the annual costs for
maintenance, repair and operation of their system. These costs are allocated
to each of the participating municipalities, based on flow and capacity.
Statements made at a previous conference session indicate that the charges
assessed by the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners to contracting munici-
palities are below those of sewerage authorities and municipalities providing
similar services in the area.
Description of Waste Treatment Facilities
The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners operate an extensive water
pollution control system which collects and treats the wastes from approximately
1,200,000 persons in 29 municipalities and over 700 industries located within
the four North Jersey counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson and Passaic. The system
consists of interceptor sewers, treatment facilities, outfall works and sludge
handling facilities.
11
-------
There have been a number of reports prepared by consultants to the
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners which evaluate and recommend measures
required to improve the operation and effectiveness of the system. These
reports include:
Consultant
Bogert-Childs Engineering
Associat,es<
Bogert-Childs Engineering
Associates
Bogert-Childs Engineering
Associates
Metcalf & Eddy Engineers
Manganaro, Martin & Lincoln
Manganaro, Martin & Lincoln
Title of Report
Report on Improving Sedimenta-
tion and Dispersal Facilities
at Newark Bay Pumping Station
Critical Situation as to Steam
Powers Newark Bay Pumping
Station
Report on Repairs, Replacement
and Improvements at Newark
Bay Pumping Station
Reports on Improvements to
Sewage Treatment Facilities
at the Newark Bay Pumping
Station
Report on Proposed Chlorina-
tion Facilities
Report on Proposed Head-End
Facilities
Date
May, 1951
March, 1952
May, 1954
1960, 1962
April, 1967
December, 1968
The implementation of the recommendations resulting from the above studies
primarily included:
(1) Expansion of pumping capacity
(2) Mechanization of sedimentation basins
(3) Improvement of sludge storage and processing facilities.
12
-------
Recommendations regarding the installation of new grit and screening
facilities which date back to 1954 have not been implemented although modi-
fications to the existing equipment were made. These modifications however,
have not eliminated the problems at the treatment plant resulting from poor
grit removal.
The installation of chlorination facilities as required by New Jersey
State Order has not been implemented. This project is reportedly being
delayed pending evaluation of new grit and screen facilities and the effect
on chlorination facilities after secondary treatment has been provided.
Intercepting Sewers
Two intercepting sewers, the Main Interceptor and the South Newark
Interceptor, collect and transport wastewater to the treatment facilities on
Newark Bay in the vicinity of Port Newark (see Figure 1). The Main Inter-
ceptor which originates within the City of Paterson below Great Falls and
parallels the Passaic River for about 27 miles, receives the flow from most
of the participating municipal sewer collection systems including the larger
industries. Its diameter ranges from four feet at its origin to 13.5 feet
at the Newark Bay Pumping Station. Several of the municipal collection systems
receive excessive flow during storm periods since storm water and sanitary
waste are all or partially combined. Considerable infiltration is also ex-
perienced since many of the separate sanitary collection facilities are old
and subject to ground water seepage. Since the Main Interceptor was not
originally designed to accommodate all flows during storm periods, about 50
by-passes were provided to discharge combined sewer overflows to the Passaic
13
-------
River. These by-passes are regulated by manually operated valves. In the
past, maintenance crews, on 24-hour alert, were sent out to open the by-
passes whenever Elows were expected to exceed the safe pumping station opera-
ting load of 225 mgd. This operational practice, which was necessary to pro-
tect the Newark Pumping Station from flooding, often resulted in the opening
of the by-passes during non-rainfall periods. For example, during the period
January-September, 1953, by-passes were open approximately 60 percent of the
time. Pump replacement projects in 1953, 1954, and 1964 increased the maxi-
mum pumping capacity to 660 mgd. No data are available to indicate the
present frequency of by-pass to the Passaic River of raw sewage during periods
of wet weather or high infiltration. Many of the participating municipal
collection systems also have their own overflow by-passes which discharge un-
treated wastewater to the Passaic River during periods of rainfall and high
infiltration.
In 1966, the South Newark Interceptor was installed. This interceptor
collects the wastes from 100,000 people and several industries located in the
South Newark area. This waste was previously discharged untreated to Petty
Ditch near Newark Airport. In April, 1969 a faulty valve at the pumping
station made it necessary to discharge about 30 mgd of raw wastewater to Petty
Ditch rather than into the interceptor line. This condition existed until
October, 1969 when temporary repairs were made.
-------
Treatment Facilities
The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' waste treatment faci-
lity is located in Newark, New Jersey adjacent to the New Jersey Tu'rh-
pike Bridge over. Newark Bay. Their primary treatment facilities consist of
screens,: grit chambers, pumps, sedimentation basins and sludge handling
facilities.
The original screening facilities consisted of three sets, of coarse
bar-screens,located at the effluent end of the grit chamber and three sets
of fine screens located in the screen hou'se at the Main Pumping Station.
These screens, which remove the larger particles of suspended and -floating
solids, were cleaned manually by raking and scraping the solids away into
containers .or trucks for final disposal. The study by Bogert-Childs
Engineering 'Associates in 1954 recommended replacing the original facili-
ties with mechanically cleaned coarse screens and hydraulically cleaned
fine screens before and after four new grit chambers. This recommendation
was -not implemented but, in 1961, improvements to the screening facilities
were made by the. installation in each existing grit channel of bar screens
with mechanically operated cleaning rakes. The study of December, 1968
by Manganaro, Martin and Lincoln recommended that new screening facilities
of adequate capacity be provided.
The existing grit-chambers, which are the original facilities installed
in 1924., consist .of .three channels each approximately 35 feet long, 16'feet
wide and 44.5 feet deep with overhead grit removal facilities. The study of
1954 found these facilities to be obsolete and ineffective, and indicated
15
-------
that large quantities of inorganic solids were being carried through the
main pumping station to the sedimentation basins causing numerous mechani-
cal breakdowns. It was recommended that four new grit chambers equipped
with mechanical grit collection facilities replace these obsolete facilities.
Another study in 1960 by Metcalf & Eddy Engineers indicated that, based upon
operating experience, grit removal was seldom a problem, although the unequal
distribution of grit between the three channels during high flow conditions
did result in carry over of grit into the sedimentation basins. The study
recommended certain improvements to the existing grit removal facilities along
with new grit washing equipment. The study in 1968 again investigated the
most effective means for removing and disposing of grit, screenings, grease
and oil and recommended new grit removal and screening facilities.
The original pumping facilities at the treatment plant consisted of four
steam-driven centrifugal pumps rated at 100 mgd each. During the period 1953-
1956, two of these units were replaced with electric-driven constant speed
centrifugal pumps, each with a rated capacity of 130 mgd. The two remaining
pumps were replaced in December, 1964 by two diesel-driven, variable speed
centrifugal pumps each with 200 mgd maximum capacity. These facilities pro-
vide a pumping capacity of 660 mgd which appear to be sufficient to handle
the peak sewage flow into the plant. It should also eliminate the need for
by-passing raw sewage directly into the Passale River from the interceptors
except during periods of intense storm water runoff and infiltration. The
pumping capacity exceeds the present treatment facilities design capacity of
225 mgd.
16
-------
The Gate House, also known as the valve chamber or Venturi meter
chamber, contains the control devices which divert flow into the effluent
conduit leading to the sedimentation'basins or to a by-pass conduit leading
directly to Newark Bay.
The 1954 report revealed that one of the Gate House sluice gates was
inoperable and remained open serving as a constant drain of raw sewage through
the by-pass conduit to Newark Bay. It is not known what, if any, correc-
tions or improvements have been made on these facilities. In addition, no
information is available to indicate how extensively this by-pass conduit
is used.
The sedimentation basins, which are forty years old, are grouped into
three units: Unit 1 has 24 tanks, each approximately 25 feet by 104 feet;
Unit 2 has 20 tanks, each approximately 25 feet by 72 feet; Unit 3 has 16
tanks, each approximately 22 feet wide by 84 feet long. These basins are
designed for a flow of 225 mgd. Mechanical sludge scrapers operate the
length of each tank and cross collectors scrape collected sludge from
groups of tanks into hoppers at the influent end. Sludge is withdrawn from
the basins through automatic valves and two 20 inch cast iron sludge pipes
to the sludge pumping station. During a Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration inspection in June, 1969, several of the automatic sludge
valves were inoperative and were being manually controlled. The report on
Proposed Head End Facilities, 1968, indicated that the overflow rates based
on average annual flows for these sedimentation basins, exceed the nominal
allowable rates established by the New Jersey State Department of Health
Rules and Regulations for plants with secondary treatment. The report states
17
-------
that "...To meet this accepted norm, more than a doubling of present basin
area is required (in addition to secondary treatment)..."
Although some improvements have been made over the years, namely the
mechanization of the basins, performance has been plagued by operational
problems which result in frequent shut-down of these basins for repair.
Major difficulties are caused by the inadequately designed grit-removal and
screening facilities which allow grit to enter the sedimentation basins.
These inorganic materials cause mechanical equipment failures, interfering
with mechanical collection and removal facilities. The inadequate basin
capacity and a nominal maintenance program also cause inefficient operation
of these basins.
The head house contains eight cylinder-operated cast iron sluice gates.
Two gates, normally left open, convey treated effluents to the outfall shaft.
The remaining six gates are on the by-pass conduit to Newark Bay.
The sludge pumping station contains four sludge recirculating pumps and
four raw sludge pumps. Sludge from the sedimentation basin hoppers flows to
the station wet well, where it is normally pumped to thickeners, storage tanks
and finally barges for disposal at sea. Withdrawn sludge can also flow
directly to the barging facilities by means of the old sludge line. The
Corps of Engineers, New York District has reported that for the period of
July, 1968 through June, 1969, 92 sludge trips were made to dump 706,800
cubic yards of sludge in the sludge disposal area in the New York Bight.
The Commissioners recently converted the two original 100 foot diameter
by 25 foot high sludge storage tanks to sludge thickening tanks and construc-
ted two new 80 foot diameter by 40 foot high sludge storage tanks and a
18
-------
sludge storage building with sludge pumps, boiler and instrumentation for
sludge equipment and piping. The construction of these new facilities
provides capacity for better sludge thickening and dewatering as well as
reduces the necessity for sludge recirculation back to the sedimentation
bas ins.
Three sludge lagoons have been constructed adjacent to the sludge
tanks to receive scum and supernatent from the thickeners, thickened sludge
from the storage tanks and for emergency storage purposes. At the time of
an inspection by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in
June, 1969 it appeared that these beds were not being operated as intended.
Weeds were observed growing in the beds.
The outfall works consist of the conduits, shafts, tunnels and disper-
sal facilities from the head house to Robbins Reef in Upper New York Bay.
The 14-foot diameter Newark Shaft descends nearly 250 feet to a 10.5-foot
by 12.5-foot tunnel which extends about 9,000 feet under Newark Bay to the
12-foot diameter Bayonne Shaft, where the flow rises 70 feet to a second
segment of the outfall tunnel. The second segment, a 12.0-foot diameter
tunnel, extends about 17,000 feet past the Jersey City Shaft to the 12.0-foot
diameter Terminal Shaft where the flow rises 60 feet to the Terminal Chamber.
Two 96-inch diameter pipes carry the flow from the Terminal Chamber to the
3.5 acre dispersal field off Robbins Reef where the waste is discharged
through 150 diffusion nozzles spaced at 10-foot centers.
19
-------
Estimates of Flow
Information contained in the 1968 report shows that during the period
1961 to 1967 flows into the Passaic Valley Newark Bay Plant varied con-
siderably with an annual average daily flow ranging from about 182 mgd to
232 mgd. Peak hourly flows were estimated at 136 percent of the daily flow.
The report also showed that major industrial activities contribute over 57
mgd or about one-third of the tributary flow into the Passaic Valley Sewer-
age Commissioners' collection system.
Recent information from Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners indicates
that the average flows into the Newark Bay facility range from 240-250 mgd.
Using 136 percent of the daily flow and 240 mgd as an average flow, the peak
hourly flows are estimated at 326 mgd. In addition hourly flows reaching the
treatment facilities during periods of storm are reported to exceed 500 mgd.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration study in 1967 found an
hourly flow rate approaching 420 mgd. Based upon these flow conditions and
the capacities previously discussed for the existing facilities, it is
apparent that present average daily flows exceed the design capacity of the
primary treatment facilities.
Recent Developments
In April, 1965 New Jersey State Department of Health advised the
Commissioners that chlorination of the effluent would be required from
May 15 and September 15 beginning in 1967. The State Health Department
(under the Public Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Act of 1965) assisted the
Commissioners by providing a $20,000 grant for a feasibility study of the
20
-------
required chlorination facilities.
On August 9, 1966, the New Jersey State Department of Health pursuant
to R. S. 58:12-2 ordered that the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
"...must and shall, prior to December 1, 1966, cease the discharge of improper-
ly , inadequately and insufficiently treated sewage into the waters of Upper
New York Bay, being waters of this State, and must alter, add to or improve
the sewage treatment plant operated by the said Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis-
sioners in order that the sewage received therein1 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..." Copies
of the orders of April, 1965 and August, 1966 are contained in Appendix C.
The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners did not comply with the Health
Department's requirement for chlorination, and in March, 1967 the Department
reaffirmed its order. Since the Commissioners did not noticeably improve the
quality of its effluent entering the Upper Bay of New York Harbor, the
Department brought suit against the Commissioners in October, 1967.
The Commissioners, in presenting their case in November, 1967 stated
that their facilities were not subject to State regulatory authority because
of the stipulation between the Commissioners and the Federal Government.
The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners further stated that more time was
needed to construct the chlorination facilities which would improve the
quality of the effluent.
21
-------
The Health Department contended in its suit that it had the authority
to regulate the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' facilities under
its broad jurisdiction over any pollution which may pose a threat to, or
may injure any inhabitants of, the State of New Jersey.
The Chancery Division of Superior Court supported the State Health
Department's authority in this matter, and ruled in April, 1968 that the
State Health Department orders "...deal with the intensity of effluent
treatment afforded by defendant's facility which at this time discharges
inadequately treated wastes into waters outside the defendant's juris-
diction...", and, "...the Legislature did not delegate to the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners and the contracting municipalities absolute
discretion over the determinations of treatment plant1'unit design1..."
Furthermore, the court stated, "...scientific progress and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 and its amendments have
brought such radical changes in national water pollution control policy
that the direct working arrangement between the defendant (Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commissioners) and the United States embodied in the 58 year old
stipulation now appears anachronistic...".
With reference to Section 10(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, regarding the authority of State Governors or their
designated water pollution control agencies to develop water quality
criteria, the court ruled that the New Jersey State Department of Health
did have the authority to issue pollution abatement directives to the
Commissioners.
The court also found that the time given the Commissioners to chlorinate
and to clean up the treatment plant effluent by the Health Department was
within reason.
22
-------
About 15 years ago, the highway pavement over the Main 'interceptor
at McCarter Highway and Governeur Avenue ir. Newark settled. On November
20, 1967 an examination was conducted and it was determined that there was
a break in the sewer. Consultants were engaged to evaluate the problem
and in June, 1969 five proposed alternative methods of repairing the damaged
section of the trunk sewer were suggested. The method selected by the
Fassaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners proposed an internal repair of the
sewer with a resulting diversion of about 115 mgd of-raw sewage to the
Passaic River during an estimated six week repair period. Since the by-
passing of raw sewage to the Passaic River could repre'sent a health hazard,
the State Department of Health ruled this solution to be unacceptable. In
July, 1969 a State Legislative Committee held a hearing to review the
imminent danger to public safety created by the break and the public health
hazard that can result from the proposed by-pass of raw sewage to the
Passaic River. The Committee heard testimony and recommended that Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners avoid any repair scheme that involved the by-
passing of raw sewage. The Committee suggested that pumping sewage through
pipes around the section of sewer to be repaired be considered as the pre-
ferred solution to the problem.
The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners have recently initiated a
bill (#719) in the state legislature that would authorize an increase in
the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' bonding limits. This bill has
been passed by the Senate but not the Assembly. With the passing of this
bill, the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners could be assured of increased
bonding authority for future construction.
23
-------
STUDY OF PASSAIC VALLEY SEWERAGE COMMISSIONERS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
On May 14-15, 17-18, and 19-20, 1967 and August 19-20, 1969, 24-hour
studies were conducted by the Hudson-Delaware Basins Office, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration at the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners'
waste treatment facility. Plant influent (every two hours) and effluent
(every hour) were sampled during each survey. Total and fecal coliform den-
sities were determined on the basis of samples taken every four hours during
each 24-hour sampling period. The results of each survey are summarized in
Table 2. The data generally compare with values reported by the Passaic
12/
Valley Sewerage Commissioners. High values for flow, BOD, COD, TOG and total
suspended solids show the effects of runoff caused by a storm that occurred
during the May 17-18, 1967 sampling period.
Primary treatment facilities which receive only typical domestic sewage
can be expected to provide 25-40 percent removal of five day BOD, 40-70 per-
cent removal of suspended solids, 75-100 percent removal of settleable solids
IV
and 25-75 percent reduction of bacterial concentrations.
Table 3 presents a performance summary for the four 24-hour surveys con-
ducted by Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. The BOD loading
discharged from the plant during the 1969 study was 467,000 pounds per day.
Percent BOD removal was about 13 percent. During the 1967 surveys the per-
cent removal ranged from 0 to 13 and the daily BOD loading discharged aver-
aged 589,000 pounds. Total suspended solids discharged in the 1969 survey
was 269,000 pounds per day with a percent removal of 60. Percent removals
during the 1967 studies ranged from 22 to 69 and the estimated amount of
total suspended solids discharged averaged 415,000 pounds per day. The per-
24
-------
TABLE 2
DATA, FEDERAL HATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
STUDY OF PASSAIC VALLEY SEWERAGE COMMISSIONERS
WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY I/
Study Date
Aug. 19-20, 1969
Tue.-Wed.
May 19-20, 1967
Fri.-Sat.
May 17-18, 1967
Wed.-Thurs.
May lli-15, 1967
Sun. -Hon.
Aug. 19-20, 1969
Tue.-Wed.
May 19-20, 1967
Fri.-Sat.
May 17-18, 1967
Wed. -Thurs.
May 1U-15, 1967
Flow
ragd
231.
21i6
258
210
231
2U6
258
210
BOD "
mgA
263^
297
3Bh
2hl
231^
295
331i
252
mg/1
266
289
336
192
209
222
251
151
COD -
mg/1
689
986
1,122
576
593
769
900
Ii8l
Total
Settleable
Solids
ml/1
7. h
22.0
23.0
23.8
1.8
2.1
S.b
11.7
Total
Suspended
Solids
mg/1
INFLUENT
3U6
3*
UT7
281
EFFLUENT
138
177
230
219
Total
Volatile
Suspended
Solids
mgA
21)8
282
319
210
98
120
152
161
pH mg/1
6. ft 1|8
5.8 38
5.8 30
7.8 28
6.8 U3
6.8 35
6.5 35
7 9 25
Total
Collform
Oeonetric Mean
Million/100 ml
230.0
6.6
5.9
11. y
270.0
lli. 3
16.1
16.0
Fecal
Coliform
Geometric Mean
Million/100 ml
lli.O
1.3
1.1)
0.6
11.0
2.0
2.2
0.82
Sun.-Hon.
I/ Data represents an average of all analysis made on samples taken over the 2li-hour period of sampling
2/ BOD: 5-Day 20°C Biochemical Oxygen Demand
3/ TOC: Total Organic Carbon
h/ COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand
5/ TKN: Total KJeldahl Nitrogen
6/ Based upon U.5 day BOD determined In the Laboratory
-------
TABLE 3
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
PASSAIC VALLEY SEWERAGE COMMISSIONERS
WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
Date of Survey
Aug. 19-20, 1969
Tue.-Wed.
May 19-20, 1967
Frl.-Sat.
May 17-18, 1967
Wed.-Thurs.
May Ili-l5, 1967
5-Day BOD
Flow ma/1
mgd Inf. EM. % Ran.
I/ V
23ij 27Ii - 239 - 12.8
2W 297 295 0.7
258 381 33h 13.0
210 21il 252 0.0
Eat. BOD Total Suspended Solids
Disc me/1
#/Dav 3M. Erf. % Rem.
Ii67,000 3li6 138 60.0
606,000 371i 177 69.0
719,000 137 230 17.0
U12.000 2fl] 219 22.0
Est. Total
Suspended Total Settleable Solids
Solids Disc. ml/1
#/Dav InT. Err. X Hem.
269,000 7.1i 1.8 76.0
36li,000 22.0 2.1 90.0
1196,000 23 0 S.lt 77.0
3Bli,000 23.8 11.7 51.0
Sun.-Hon.
\f Based upon h.5 day BOD determined xn Laboratorv and adjusted to 5-Dav BOD assuming a \ivjReA k_j3te- value for raw and settled sewage using: I - L (1-e )
-------
cent removal of settleable solids in 1969 was 76, in 1967 these ranged from
51-90 percent. These results indicate that the percent removals achieved
by the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' treatment plant are generally
below the acceptable efficiency ranges indicated for typical municipal waste
treatment facilities.
A comparison of the BOD removal based upon settling rates (gallons per
day per square foot) contained in the "Recommended Standards for Sewage
Works", 1968 Edition, with the indicated overflow rates of the existing sedi-
mentation basin reported in the 1968 report on Proposed Head End Facilities
also suggests that BOD removals during the four studies were lower than might
be expected. For example, using an average annual flow of 235 mgd and an
overflow rate of 1830 gpd per sq. ft. the BOD removal based on the Recommended
Standards should be approximately 20 percent.
Much of the inefficiency of the settling tanks can be attributed to the
poorly operated and inadequately sized grit chambers. These chambers, as
discussed earlier, allow large quantities of inorganic solids to reach the
sedimentation basins. Inorganic materials have continually interfered with
the mechanical sludge collection systems. Shear pin failures, flight break-
age, grit and grease accumulations and rag interference with chains and
overflow weirs have been reported in studies regarding the plant operations
made by consultants to Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners. These break-
downs create appreciable overload to the operating basins which are handling
more flow than designed for.
A comparison of influent characteristics found during the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration surveys of Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission-
25
-------
ers with studies of waste treatment facilities handling wastes primarily
from residential and commercial service areas indicate the high strength
and complexity of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners wastewater.
In the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' influent, BOD, suspended
solids and settleable solids concentrations were generally 50 percent
greater and values of COD were two to three times greater than those found
in typical domestic collection systems, indicating the effect of the indus-
trial load. The high concentrations of soluble oxygen demanding materials,
which are not readily removed by sedimentation, may be another factor in
the low BOD removals of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' waste
treatment facility.
An inadequate maintenance program may also reduce the efficiency of the
primary units. During a June, 1969 inspection, it was observed that scum
and solids were built up around the discharge weirs of many of the sedimen-
tation basins. Many of the overflow weirs were not properly adjusted and
several were completely submerged.
26
-------
WATER QUALITY STUDIES
Water Movement and Dispersion
New York Harbor, which is the receiving body for the inadequately
treated wastewaters of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, forms
part of an hydraulically complex tidal water system with interconnections
between Raritan Bay through the Arthur Kill-Kill Van Kull, Long Island
Sound through the East River, the Atlantic Ocean through the Narrows and
the Hudson River. An examination of the movement of water through the
Harbor indicates the probable paths of flow of the wastewater discharge at
16_/
Robbins Reef. Dye studiess carried out in September, 1964 and August,
1969, provided some information regarding water movement and dispersion
characteristics in the Harbor.
In September, 1964, 1,000 pounds of Rhodamine B dye were released at
high water slack over the, Passaic Valley Waste Treatment Plant Outfall
near Robbins Reef. This dye release showed the following results:
(1) Pollutants introduced at Robbins Reef affect a broad area of - the
Lower Bay of New York Harbor, and,are found on the. Staten Island shore from.
Midland Beach to the Narrows within 6 hours of release;
(2) Within 32 hours of release, such material affects a, large area of.
Raritan Bay and is found on the Staten Island shore from the Narrows to
Great Kills, as well as on the .Coney Island shore of Brooklyn;
(3) On an ebb current there was little lateral mixing across the
Narrows, but lateral mixing does occur on the first flood current following
release;
27
-------
(4) Pollutants moving from the release point on the first ebb pass
along the western edge of the channel and the Staten Island shore before
passing through the Narrows.
The limits of the 1964 dye mass at various stages of time following
release are shown in Figure 2.
On August 14, 1969, 1,600 pounds of dye were placed in the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners Outfall Works and discharged to the Upper
Bay at Robbins Reef at high water slack. The results, which confirm the
dispersion pattern found during the 1964 study are:
(1) At high water slack, the dye diffuses across the Harbor channel
arid slightly north and south of the dispersal field;
(2) The bulk of the dye remains below the water surface and does
not initially disperse rapidly;
(3) Within three hours of release through the dispersal field, dye
was carried outside the Narrows and was well dispersed across the main
channel;
(4) Within six hours of the initial release, dye reached the South
Beach, Staten Island and the Coney Island bathing beaches in Brooklyn.
The results of the two dye studies indicate that pollution materials,
such as bacteria discharged at Robbins Reef from the Passaic Valley Sewer-
age Commissioners' waste treatment facilities, can reach the recreational
bathing beaches of Staten Island and Coney Island within six hours after
release. Pathogenic organisms, which are likely to be present in an
unchlorinated wastewater discharge, are a definite health hazard to persons
utilizing the waters of Lower Bay for recreational purposes.
28
-------
X RELEASE POINT
NEW YORK HARBOR
EDGE OF DYE MASS AT
VARIOUS SLACK TIDE
(HOURS AFTER RELEASE)
SEPT. 1964
BROOKLYN
STATEN ISLAND
NEW JERSEY
Figure 2
-------
Water Quality - New York Harbor
The waters of the Upper Bay of New York Harbor receive the discharges
of raw and treated wastewaters from sources in New York and New Jersey,
including the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners. These wastes affect
the quality of water throughout .the Harbor. Details regarding these dis-
charges have been presented in previous courerence reports. Wast^'iter dis-
charged from Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners at Robbins Reef account
for about one-fifth of the 'total estimated flow and nearly one-half of the
total organic load entering thesi. waters daily. The data also show that
present treatment reduces the total organic load from all New York sources
by approximately 56 percent; from all New Jersey sources by approximately
35 percent; and from the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners by approximately
10 percent. Most of the municipalities and industries in the conference area
except the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners are moving ahead to meet the
conference recommendations.
Water quality in Upper Bay of New York Harbor has been investigated
throughout the years by the States of New Jersey and New York, the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, the Interstate Sanitation .Commission
and New York City. These studies show that the waters of the Harbor have been
and are degraded. Dissolved oxygen levels fall to values less than 3.0 mg/1
and mean total coliform densities are in the tens of thousands. Bi-monthly
surveillance surveys of New York Harbor by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration show that water quality for these waters does not meet the
approved water quality standards for either New York or New Jersey
29
-------
Data for dissolved oxygen for the period January through December
1968 obtained from three automatic monitoring stations operated by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration illustrate the degraded
quality of water in the Harbor. These data are summarized below.
% Time % Time
Less Than Less Than
Station 3 mg/1 4 mg/1
U. S. Gypsum 54 60
Kill Van Kull
New Brighton, S.I., N.Y.
Outerbridge Crossing 39 49
Arthur Kill
Quarantine Station 25 38
Narrows
Rosebank, S.I., N.Y.
A 24-hour study of the Upper Bay of New York Harbor was conducted
on August 19-20, 1969 to determine the quality of these waters in rela-
tion to the approved standards. Six (6) stations located around the
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioner' dispersal field were sampled, 5 feet
from the surfage and 5 feet from the bottom, every one-and-one half (1%)
hours. Parameters analyzed included temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH,
conductivity and total and fecal coliform.
The results of the survey are presented in Appendix D. Figures 3, 4
and 5 show the averages for dissolved oxygen (percent saturation) and
geometric means for total and fecal coliform concentrations for the surface
stations. Figures 6, 7, and 8 show the profiles for deep stations.
The survey results show that 84 percent of all the samples examined
contained dissolved oxygen levels less than the 50 percent saturation
30
-------
established by the water quality standards of New York and New Jersey.
In the majority of cases, values were below the minimum of 3.0 mg/1
established by the New York standards.
Average dissolved oxygen levels in both surface and deep samples
fell below the 50 percent saturation limit. The lowest average value
of 31 (surface) and 39 (deep) percent saturation was found at the most
northern station (Station 18-closest to Battery) while the highest of
39 and 47 percent saturation occurred at the most southern station
(Station 21-closest'to the Narrows).
Variation of dissolved oxygen, as shown by the typical percent
saturation profile for station 20 (Figure 9), is primarily attributed
to tidal influences. Values for percent saturation at deep stations
reached high levels during high tidal stages and low levels during low
tidal stages. At each surface station, the profile indicates that dis-
solved' oxygen during evening hours did not increase with the high tide
and generally remained at the lower levels. Respiration by phytoplank-
ton may account for this lack of improved oxygen regardless of tidal
stage, during evening hours.
Total coliform densities, which also appear to be affected by tidal
conditions, ranged from'31,000 to over 1,000,000 per 100 ml Cor surface
stations, and from 7,300 to 4,000,000 per 100 ml for deep stations. The
highest counts during the survey period were found in deep water at
station 18, the" most northern station; at station 19, just north of the
dispersal field; and at station 20, just south of the dispersal field.
An analysis based on geometric mean total coliform densities shows higher
31
-------
mean values for the surface stations occurring at Kill Van Kull, station
22, and just north (Station 19) and south (Station 20) of the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners' effluent dispersal field; for the deep
stations the higher values were at the northern most station (Station 18)
and just north (Station 19) of the dispersal field.
The fecal coliform densities exhibited the same general pattern as
total coliform. Fecal coliform counts varied from 1,300 to 130,000 per
100 ml and 1,000 to over 760,000 per 100 ml, respectively, for surface and
deep stations. The geometric mean fecal coliform levels show that the
higher mean levels at the surface occurred at Kill Van Kull (Station 22) and
at the surface and bottom just north of the dispersal field (Station 19).
These high fecal coliform levels strongly suggest gross contamination of
the majority of the waters in New York Harbor by the discharge of human
wastes .
Two other 24-hour water quality studies of the Harbor were conducted
on July 10-11, and 16-17, 1969. Seventeen stations were sampled shallow
and deep every four hours for the 24-hour period. These stations centered
around the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' dispersal field and were
arranged in three concentric circles. Data collected during these surveys
indicated similar water quality conditions as those found during the
August 19-20, 1969 survey. In nearly all cases dissolved oxygen was less
than 50 percent saturation. Total coliform levels ranged from 6,000 to
2,000,000 organisms per 100 ml and fecal levels ranged from 400 to
1,000,000 per 100 ml. Again, variations in parameters were observed to
coincide with tidal conditions. Highest values for dissolved oxygen and
32
-------
(O
C
20 21
STATION NUMBERS
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
AVERAGE VALUES
UPPER BAY-NEW YORK HARBOR
SURFACE STATIONS
19 & 20 AUGUST 1969
50% SATURATION LEVEL
22 23
PVSC DISPOSAL FIELD
STA 23
St. George
Staten Island
STA 21
Brooklyn
THE NARROWS
Scale in miles
-------
100,000
(fl
C
o 1
5 1,000
TOTAL COLIFORM
GEOMETRIC MEAN
UPPER BAY-NEW YORK HARBOR
SURFACE STATIONS
19 & 20 AUGUST 1969
19 20 21
STATION NUMBERS
22 23
STA. 23
THE NARROWS
Brooklyn
Scale in miles
-------
(Q
c
FECAL COLIFORM
GEOMETRIC MEAN
UPPER BAY-NEW YORK HARBOR
SURFACE STATIONS
19 & 20 AUGUST 1969
H
20 21
STATION NUMBERS
PVSC DISPOSAL FIELD
STA 23
THE NARROWS
Brooklyn
-------
IT
<£>
C
(B
o
20 21
STATION NUMBERS
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
AVERAGE VALUES
UPPER BAY-NEW YORK HARBOR
DEEP STATIONS
19 & 20 AUGUST 1969
507. SATURATION LEVEL
22 23
H
PVSC DISPOSAL FIELD
STA. 23
THE NARROWS
-------
ID
C
20 21
STATION NUMBERS
TOTAL COLIFORM
GEOMETRIC MEAN
UPPER BAY-NEW YORK HARBOR
DEEP STATIONS
19 & 20 AUGUST 1969
H
PVSC DISPOSAL FIELD
STA. 23
St. George
Stolen Island
STA. 21
THE NARROWS
Seal* in milci
B rook ly n
-------
ID
C
-i
ID
OD
S I 000
FECAL COLIFORM
GEOMETRIC MEAN
UPPER BAY-NEW YORK HARBOR
DEEP STATIONS
19 & 20 AUGUST 1969
K
STA. 18
PVSC DISPOSAL FIELD
STA. 23
Stolen Island
STA 21
20 21
STATION NUMBERS
THE NARROWS
Brooklyn
-------
CO
z! > T m
O £ O
•^ C) _,
^ So O
O j-H ?0 V^
m
O
50
TIME
-------
lower densities of coliform organisms were found at the station nearest
the Narrows. Poorest quality conditions existed at the most northern
station closest to the Battery in Manhattan.
Bacteriological Studies
Coliform Bacteria
Bacteriological examinations were concurrently conducted in the waters
adjacent to the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' dispersal field and
the effluent of the waste treatment facility. The purpose of the simul-
taneous sampling and analysis was to demonstrate the presence of high
densities raf intestinal bacteria in the plant effluent and in the waters
surrounding the dispersal field.
Since the time required for transit of material discharged at Robbins
Reef to South Beach and Midland Beach on Staten Island is approximately
six hours, studies were conducted to obtain data on the survival character-
istics of the coliform bacteria during a six hour exposure period. These
studies were conducted at four stations located at Robbins Reef, Buoy 22 and
at Quarantine Station in the Narrows; and at South Beach on Staten Island.
Details of this study are included in Appendix E. Results indicated that
a minimum of 20,000 organisms per 100 ml survived the six hour exposure
for passage of sewage from the outfall at Robbins Reef to South Beach and
Midland Beach on Staten Island. From 58 to 95 percent of the coliforms at
all stations survived the six hour exposure period and exceeded the New
York State coliform standard for bathing beach water.
33
-------
Pathogenic Bacteria
The presence of high levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners' waste effluent and the receiving water are
indicative of dangerous fecal contamination from warm-blooded animals.
Samples of the effluent contained enteric pathogenic bacteria. Four dif-
ferent Salmonella serotypes were isolated. Samples at the sewage dispersal
field at Robbins Reef yielded five Salmonella serotypes. The occurrence of
such pathogens, which cause gastroenteritis in man, pose an initial hazard to
water users in the Upper Bay.
Although it is known that seawater manifests a bactericidal effect on
intestinal bacteria, it cannot be relied upon to completely dispose of
pathogens emanating from inadequately treated sewage. Previous studies
16/
conducted in Raritan Bay (1967) indicate that the salmonellae may persist
in estuary water for various periods of time. Studies were undertaken to
demonstrate that these enteric pathogenic bacteria may survive the six
hour exposure period required for travel from the Robbins Reef dispersal
area to beaches on Staten Island. Water was collected at the dispersal
area, placed in sterile dialysis tubing and immersed for six hours in the
Upper Bay water. The dialyzer tubing used is permeable to water and allows
the passage of low molecular weight compounds in aqueous solution, while
retaining materials with molecular weights of 12,000 and higher, such as
proteins. Bacteria, as a result, will be retained by the membrane;
however, viruses and bacteriophage will be allowed passage along with low
molecular weight materials in aqueous solution. 'Details of this study
-------
are included in Appendix E. Salmonellae were detected in the outfall
receiving water prior to iji situ immersion of the dialysis chambers.
After six hours exposure in the Upper Bay receiving water, salmonellae
could still be isolated from the sample water. The fact that a similar
serotype in addition to other serotypes could still be isolated after
six hours exposure to the bay water establishes a potential effect on the
beaches below the Narrows. Reliability of these data are reinforced by
the routine isolations of salmonellae made in previous studies at South
Beach and Midland Beach on Staten Island and by the isolation of
S_. enter it id is er. san diego at South Beach on September 4, 1969.
The significance of the presence of these salmonellae in the effluent,
receiving water and at South Beach can be assessed in light of the
Salmonella Surveillance Reports of the U. S. Public Health Service
(From January to July 1969). Two of the salmonella serotypes isolated
from the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' effluent and two serotypes
isolated at the outfall receiving water are among the top ten serotypes
infecting man in the United States. They are S_. typhimurium, S_. heidelberg,
J3. thompson and S_. derby which rank one, three, six and ten, respectively.
Water Quality - Passaic River
A survey was conducted on June 5, 1969 by the'Federal Water PO!!UT
tion Control Administration to determine whether water .quality in the
Passaic River meets the approved water quality standards. The study area
extended from the confluence of Passaic River with Newark Bay to the
Route 46 Bridge near Little Falls. This stretch is within the service area
of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners. The State of New Jersey has
35
-------
classified these 32 miles of river as: Class FW-2 above Little Falls;
Class FW-3 from Little Falls to Dundee Dam; and Class TW-3 in the tidal
section from Dundee Dam to the Newark Bay confluence. The water quality
criteria to meet these classifications are contained in Appendix B.
Water samples were collected at 15 stations of which 10 were located
in the tidal portion below Dundee Dam. Table 4 describes each station
and its river mileage from Newark Bay. Parameters measured at each sta-
tion were: temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, total organic carbon
(TOG), and total and fecal coliform. Table 5 summarizes the results of the
survey.
Figure 10 presents the DO profile of the Passaic River from near Little
Falls to Newark Bay. Dissolved oxygen in the fresh water portion was
generally above 6.0 mg/1, reaching a maximum of 9.8 mg/1 at Dundee Dam.
In the tidal section dissolved oxygen showed a significant decrease, in
most instances to levels below the minimum 2.5 mg/1 established by the
standards. A complete depletion of DO occurred at mile 4.7 in the vicinity
of Harrison. Similar DO conditions were observed during a July, 1968 survey,
when a low of 0.2 mg/1 occurred at mile 1.1 near Kearny Point.
Total coliform densities ranged from 9,700 organisms per 100 ml above
the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners' service area near Two Bridges
to 500,000 organisms per 100 ml in the tidal section near Newark Bay.
Figure 11 presents the profile for total coliform levels for the area
studied. Total coliform levels in all samples in the fresh water portion
exceeded the 1,000 organisms per 100 ml monthly average suggested by the
standards. Levels increased from 9,700 per 100 ml near Little Falls to
36
-------
68,000 per 100 ml about 2.5 miles above Dundee Dam near East Paterson. In
the tidal section, densities showed an increasing trend from about 20,000
per 100 ml just below Dundee Dam to 500,000 per 100 ml at the confluence of
the Passaic with Newark Bay. Levels dropped to about 17,000 per 100 ml in
the Bay. The results of the 1968 survey showed a similar distribution of
total coliform densities with an increase in levels from 4-4,000 per 100 ml
below Dundee Dam to 160,000 per 100 ml near Harrison.
Fecal coliform densities, which represent an indication of recent
contamination with the feces of warm-blooded animals such as man, were
found to be high throughout the study area. Figure 12 shows the fecal
coliform profile found during the June 5, 1969 survey. Fecal coliform
levels were less than 1,000 organisms per 100 ml upstream of the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners' service area but increased sharply to levels
in excess of 5,000 per 100 ml within the service area. Fecal coliform
levels in the tidal section followed the same upward trend as for total
coliform, increasing from 4,000 per 100 ml below Dundee Dam to 68,000
at the confluence with Newark Bay. In Newark Bay, fecal coliform counts
dropped to 2,100 per 100 ml.
During the 1968 survey, fecal coliform levels at all stations were
high, particularly in the tidal section. Below Dundee Dam, the fecal
coliform count increased from 5,000 to 24,000 per 100 ml near Harrison.
Levels decreased to 3,900 at Newark Bay.
Although the water quality standards contain no criteria for fecal
coliform, the survey data indicate that the Passaic River throughout
the 32 miles of study is contaminated by wastes from warm-blooded animals.
This contamination is a potential health hazard for persons who come into
contact with these waters •
37
-------
TABLE k
SAMPLING STATIONS
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
SURVEY OF PASSAIC RIVER
JUNE 5, 1969
Station No.
Mileage
TW-0
TW-1
TW-2
TW-3
TW-4
TW-5
TW-^A
TW-6
TW-7
TW-8
FW-1
TW-2
FW-2A
FW-3
FW-4
0.0
1.1
2.8
4.7
6.3
8.8
10.7
13.2
15.2
17.1
17.5
20.2
23.7
27.0
32.4
Station Description
In channel off buoy N-2.*f
(Newark Bay)
South of Central R.R. of N.J.
Bridge
North of Overhead Power Cable
& South of D.L. & W.R.R.
Jackson St. Bridge
Clay St. Bridge
Rutgers St. Bridge
Kingsland Ave. Bridge
Union Ave. Bridge
Eighth St. Bridge
Below Dundee Dam at Cutwater
Lane Bridge
Above Dundee Dam
Route k Bridge
6^ Ave. Bridge (Paterson)
Hillary St. Bridge
Route k6 Bridge (Little Falls)
-------
TABLE 5
DATA, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
SURVEY OF PASSAIC RIVER
JUNE 5, 1969
Station
TW-0
TW-1
Tw-2
TW-3
TW-4
TW-5
TW-5A
TW-6
TW-7
TW-8
FW-1
FW-2
FW-2A
FW-3
FW-4
Water
Temp. °C
21.8
22.2
24.5
23.0
23.0
23.0
22.1
24.0
21.5
21.5
22.0
21.0
22.0
21.5
21.0
pH
Std. Units
7.3
7-1
7.2
7.2
7-3
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.4
7-2
7.4
7.3
6.8
6.8
DO
mg/l
1.4
1.0
2.4
0.0
0.8
1.3
2.7
6.7
2.7
8.2
9.8
6.3
8.6
6.2
5.8
TOG -/
rag/1
12
10
9
14
13
13
14
16
14
15
15
16
14
21
12
Total
Coliform
Org./lOO ml
17,000
500,000
400,000
340,000
300,000
42,000
50,000
21,000
26,000
21,000
14,000
68,000
4o,ooo
15,000
9,700
Fecal
Coliform
Org./lOO ml
2,100
68,OOO
40,000
52,000
38,000
5,100
7,100
5,700
2,1QO
4,000
3,800
5,800
4,700
44o
640
I/ TOC: Total Organic Carbon
-------
ID
C
1
IB
O
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
PASSAIC RIVER PROFILE
NEWARK BAY TO LITTLE FALLS
5 JUNE 1969
IW-O TW-1 TW-2 TW 3 TW-4 TW 5 TW 5A TW 6 TW 7 T
STATION NUMBERS
W-8 FW-1 FW 2 FW 2A FW 3 FW 4
-------
(Q
C
1 000
TOTAL CONFORM
PASSAIC RIVER PROFILE
NEWARK BAY TO LITTLE FALLS
5 JUNE 1969
IW-O IW-1 TW-2 TW-3 TW-4 TW-5 TW-5A TW-6 TW-7 TW-8 FW-] FW-2 FW 2A FW 3 FW-4
STATION NUMBERS
-------
(Q
c
E
s
FECAL COLIFORM
PASSAIC RIVER PROFILE
NEWARK BAY TO LITTLE FALLS
5 JUNE 1969
TW-4H .^. 3!>.TW-2
Newark TW-3
IW-O IW.l TW-2 IW-3 IW-4 TW-5 TW-5A IW-6 TW-7 TW 8 FW-I FW 2 FW 2A FW-3 FW-4
-------
Outfall Study - Passaic River
To determine the cause of poor water quality'in the Passaic River,
surveys were conducted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration and the New Jersey State Department of Health during June-
November, 1969'to locate'wastewater discharges to the Passaic River
between Little Falls1 and Newark Bay. The'Passaic Valley Sewerage Com-
missioners have also conducted surveys in-an effort to identify outfall
pipes discharging within their service area. The results of their study
were not available for inclusion in this report.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration-New Jersey
State Department of Health surveys were carried out by boat and car.
Boat surveys 'were conducted at or near low tide and discharge pipes
were located, measured, sampled (if flowing) and identified as ac'curat'ely
as possible with prominent land marks, municipalities, streets or industrial'
plant names. Supplemental surveys were-'conducted by car in areas inaccessible
by boat'and also to substantiate and/or further clarify the boat observations.
Visits were made to industrial plants and municipal city engineers' offices
to verify1'field" .observations, particularly in complex urban and industrial
park areas where identification of a discharge or pipe with a single' source
was difficult'.. Attempts were made to identify all outfall pipes," whether
discharging >an e'ffluent or not, and regardless of the pollutional character-
istics of the'discharge.
Table 6 .summarizes the identification, observations and analytical
results of samples' taken-during the surveys.' Figure '13 shows the general
location of each site where outfalls were foundu?'
38
-------
At least 182 outfalls were found at 76 site locations. Of this number,
120 pipes at 58 sites were observed discharging some quantity of waste-
water during dry weather periods. Sampling and/or observations indicate
that some of these flowing outfalls discharge effluents of high tempera-
ture or high color, and contain appreciable BOD, suspended solids and
bacteria. Based upon sampling, the BOD loading discharged is estimated to
be 17,000 pounds per day representing the raw discharge of an equivalent
population of 100,000 persons. The suspended solids loading is estimated
at 47,000 pounds per day.
It should be recognized that these organic and suspended solids
loadings are for the time of sampling only and do not represent the
total load that may be discharged from all the pipes observed. The
total discharge load can only be determined by a thorough study includ-
ing detailed visits to all industries and municipalities involved and a
comprehensive sampling and analytical program.
Table 7 summarizes the Passaic River outfalls by type and municipal
location. Of the 182 outfalls observed, 133 have been identified with
industrial operations, 11 have been identified as major municipalT-combined
sewer.-or storm .water overflows and 38 identified as miscellaneous storm
and surface runoff outlets. The larger industrial plants identified carry
out chemical, metals, paint and rubber processing operations. The major
combined storm sewers, located in Newark and Paterson, New Jersey, are
*,
suspected of receiving industrial wastewater flows. Efforts are contin-
uing by the State of New Jersey and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration to identify the sources of these flows.
39
-------
TABLE 6
DIRECT WASTE DISCHARGES
PASSAIC RIVER I/
Map
Ident.
No.
1
2
3
1.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
11,
15
16
17
18
Source
Municipality
Passaic Valley Sewerage Comm. a Sf
Newark
Vulcan Materials 2/ !t/
Newark
Ashland Chemical Co. k/
Newark
Revere Smelting & Refining Co.-' -
Newark
Celanese Chemical Co. - —
Newark
Essex Chemical Corp. -
Newark
Roanoke Ave. Storm Sewer -
Nevark
Western Electric
Kearny
Surface Runoff
Keamy
Surface Runoff
Keamy
Alcan Aluminum Corp. of America -'
Kearny
*t
Storm Sewer -
Newark
Kramer Chemical Co.-'
Keamy
Monsanto Chemical Co.
Keamy
Public Service Essex Gen. Station
Newark
Hudson County Mosquito Control
Kearny
Connerclal Solvents -
Newark
Blanchard Street Storm Sewer - -
River y
Mile
0.1
0.6
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1.
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.1
2 2
2.5
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.2
r
Pipe Size
undetermined
36", 6", 8"
3"
21."
Open ditch
6"
18", 18", 11'",
15"
60"
IP", IB", IP",
21" other 10"
1.8", 6", Ifl"
12"
1.", 2", several
other pipes
3"
10", 18"
Flow through 8"
hole In bulkhead
27" with V notched
weir
28", very large
outlet with gate
12"
2"
_
Est.
Flow Temp.
mgd °C
_
_
_
-
_
0.1 25.0
1.90 27.0
IB" • .01 25.0
tf"»slignt
-
_
!<" - .01 Ii2.0
2" - .02 lili.O
-
-
0.001 22.0
0.20 1.3.5
very large 33.0
28"-vervr Ig. 38.5
large -under 19.0
pressure
_
.
Total
Suspended Total Fecal
BOD Solids Coliform Coliform
mgA mg/1 pH Org.AOO ml Org./lOO ml
_
.
....
.
_ - _
nil 352 6.5 32x10 b 28x10 3
71.0 1,230 6.7 150.0^ 31xl03
nil 27P 6.7 26xl03 22xl02
-
....
....
2 Ii2 7.7 10 li
7.U 60 7.6 10 li
....
- - - .
nil 580 12.0 10 1.
nil 68 8.8 26xl03 71x10 2
nil 8 7.0 38x10^ 60x10 i?
7.U 236 8.7 21xl03 liOxlO2
nil 312 1.5xl03 liO
....
. .
Remarks
BOD-- 21.1 mgA
yellow color, odor
High BOD, pH - 9.6 -
13.li
Temp. >70°C
Q - 0.05 mgd
BOD - > 1.21 mgA
Ether sol. - 11. mgA
yellow color, pH •
2.7 Q • 0.25 mgd
BOD - > U30 mgA
Q - 0.25 mgd
BOD • <8.0, mgA,
pH - O.iW
Oil & chemical odor
BOD • 382 mgA, pH -
8.8 Ether sol. -.228 <°gA
Phenol -1.5 ppmSf
Cr • 122 ppm .,
Cn » 70 ppm pH • U.3-
pH - 6.U
Newark
-------
TABLE 6 (Cont'd.)
Hap
Went.
No.
19
20
21
22
23
'&
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Source
Municipality
Interstate Soap Co. - -
Newark
Lockwood Street Storm Sewer -
Newark
3/
Benjamin Moore Paint -
Newark
Sherwin-Williams
Newark
Earth Smelting & Refining Co. -
Newark
Storm Sewer 3/
Newark
Mott Street Storm Sewer -
Newark
Storm Sewer from Ind. Area
Harrison
Public Service *
Harrison
3/
Otis Elevator -
Harrison
NOPCO
Harrison
Storm Sewer
Harrison
Hillside Metal Products
Newark
a/
Congoleum-Halm, Inc. -
Kearny
Pittsburgh Plate Olass Co.
Newark
River?/
Mile Pipe Size
3-3 Flow from under
building
3. a Undetermined size
3.a 60", 10"
3.6 a»
12"
6"
B"xlO" opening
7"
3"
16"
Several others
a.O 10"
a. a 36"
a.s ai"
U.6 6>x6>
a. 8 72"
5.2 18", 8", 6",
small pipes
5.6 t"
a»
12"
6"
6"
6.1 15"
6.a 8"
8"
6", other pipes
7.1 a°
7.3 2-36"
several other pipes
Est.
Flow
mgd
;
60" • slight
10" - .01
0.05
0.25
0.60
0.12
0.01
-
-
-
.
.
0.7P
_
Small
_
0.02
0.003
0.09
0.20
0.88
Large
0.08
.
0.01
0.05
-
0.3
-
-
Temp.
oc
~
21,. 5
21.5
30.2
25.0
25.0
36.0
25.0
-
-
-
_
_
20 5
_
27-0
_
19.0
20.5
25.0
37.0
2a.S
2li.O
37.0
.
21.0
37.0
-
_
-
-
Total
Suspended
BOD Solids
mgA meA PH
~
IP. 2
nil
nil
nil
nil
63-5
ai.a
-
.
-
_
_
nil
_
nil
_
nil
71.0
nil
92.8
nil
nil
nil
.
3.8
5.8
_
.
-
~
178
62
132 6.7
92 7. a
132 7.0
120 7.0
ia 3.3
-
-
-
_
.
2R 6.0
.
16a 6.R
_
a
8
132
72
200
isa
_
50 6.0
60 3.5
-
„ _
-
-
Total
Collform
Org.AOO ml
-
asxiob
73X102
60x10?
21x10^
86x10 3
10
-
.
-
_
_
iSxioli
_
62X103
_
2UX102
10
99xlo3
10xlo{>
20x10"
79x103
_
30x10?
39x103
-
_
.
-
Fecal
Collform
OrK.AOO ml
~
38xl02
loxlO1
90X102
UlxlOJ
90x10 2
33x10 2
a
-
_
-
_
_
70xl02
_
27xl02
_
12X101
a
75x102
SlxlO2
11x103
17x103
65x102
_
56x101
35x10?
_
-
-
Remarks
BOD ->U20 mgA,
Ether sol. - ia5 mg/1,
pH - 5.8 suspended
solids - 1101» mgA
60" - BOD - 61 mgA
pH - 7.7 if/
10" - BOD, - 183 mgA
pH • 7.2 W
Colored discharge
pH - 7.3, Ether sol. -
2.0 mgA
pH - 6.S, Ether sol. -
160 mgA y
y
Ether sol. - 363 mgA ~
Pipes flowing samples
could not be taken
8": Ether sol. = 699 mgA
pH - 6.0 W
Colored discharge
Pipes flowing samples
could not be taken
-------
TABLE 6 (Cont'd.)
Map
Ident.
No.
3k
35
36
37
38
39
ItO
111
Ii2
U3
UU
US
U6
Ii7
U8
1>9
50
51
52
Source
Municipality
Pettlt Marine Paint (T)
BeUeviUe
Storm Sewer
BeUeviUe
Storm Sewer
BeUeviUe
Storm Sewer
Belleville
Walter Kidde (T)
BeUeviUe
Walter Kidde (T)
Belleville
Storm Sever fro-r. Belleville
Ind. Center
Belleville
Storm Sever
Nutley
Storm Sewer (T)
Clifton
Storm Sever
Passaic
PVSC Combined Overflow
Passaic
Uniroyal, Inc.
Passaic
Storm Sever
Wellington
Parra Print Shop
Passaic
J. L. Prescott
Passaic
Ind. Disc, to Dundee Canal (T)
Passaic
Storm Sever
Passaic
Storm Sever
Garfleld
Storm Sever
Passaic
River -
Mile Pipe Size
9.8
9.8
9.9
9.9
10.0
10.1
10.3
11.1
12.9
lli.l
1U.U
111. 6
111. 9
15.1
15.1
lli.li/0.2S
15.3
15.9
16.0
21,..
2U "
18"
21,"
36"
12"
12"
12"
UB"
36"
21,"
U8»
36"
1,8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
2U»
6"
U"
Several pipes
Undetermined size
21i"
Undetermined size
Undetermined size
Est.
Flow
mgd
0.06
O.OU
0.03
0.03
O.OU
0.06
Large
O.OU
0.12
O.U2
Large
0.16
0.26
0.97
0.25
0.31
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.OU
7.82
_
0.01
_
-
_
_
_
Temp.
°C
19.6
19.3
19.0
19.0
22.0
22.5
19.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
29.0
23.0
17.0
27.0
18.0
25.0
69.0
21.0
21.5
29.5
2U.O
_
Ul.O
_
.
_
_
_
Total
Suspended
BOD Solids
mgA mgA pH
5.U
3.8
U.8
3.U
nil
nil
5-2
nil
12
15.2
11. U
nil
nil
2.2
2.2
5-U
10. U
nil
nil
nil
3.1
_
10.2
_
_
_
,
_
28
26
2U
26
396
78U
60
U28
320
U6U
270
16
26
8
72
192
2PO
1P6
1U
88
_
358
_
_
_
_
_
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.U
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.0
.
a.o
7.2
7.U
7.0
10.5
7!o
7.5
7.1
_
10. U
_
_
_
_
_
Total
Conform
Org./lOO ml
83x103
73x1%
2Qxl
-------
TABLE 6 (Cont'd.)
Total
Hap
tdent.
No.
S3
ft
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
6U
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Source
Municipality
Storm Sewer
Passaic
Storm Sewer
Passaic
Tenneco Chemicals
Heyden Division
Qarfield
Storm Drain
Oarfield
Whippany Paper-Clifton Hills
Clifton
Route 60 Storm Sewer
Qarfield
19th Street Storm Sewer
Peterson
Eastern Machine Co.
Peterson
Storm Sewer
Fair Lawn
Bergen County Storm Sewer
Fair Lawn
3rd Avenue Overflow
Pater son
Bergen County Storm Sewer
Fair Lawn
1st Avenue Storm Sewer
Peterson
Storm Sewer from Fair Lawn Ind.
Fair Lawn
Storm Sewer
Fair Lawn
Continental Piece Dyeing &
Finishing Co.
Pater son
Storm Sewer
Prospect Park
Storm Sewer
Prospect Park
Associated Dye & Print. Co.
Pater son
River y
Mile
16.0
16.2
16.2
16.5
17.1
19.1
19.7
21.0
21.8
21.8
22.0
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.5
22.5
23.7
23.7
23.7
r
Pipe Size
27"
18"
12"
13"
22"
21,"
2"
12", outfall
v/gate
30" corregated
steel outfall
8"
21,"
2k"
10"
36"
21,", 30"
li'xli' opening
3 pipes of
Undetermined size
2-2"
2-36"
18"
6"
3"
Undetermined size
Est.
Flow
mgd
Medium
Small
Large
0.01
Large
Large
0.01
0.02
a 32
-
a 08
-
-
-
0.002
-
-
0.03
very large
.21,
Temp.
°C
2li.O
32.0
22.0
36.0
36.0
26.0
21.0
19.0
-
29.0
-
-
-
>50.0
-
-
>5o.o
>50.0
Suspended
BOD Solids
mg/1 mg/1 pH
120 150
151, 276
9.2 231,
103 191,
29.5 198
2.P 106
li-3 10 7.5
nil 10 T.h
.
nil 36 7.1,
-
-
.
1.1, 30
-
-
1.6 16
9.7 101,
92.0 270 7.8
Total
Collform
Org.AOO ml
>80xlu*
17xlo|
Uoxio;
60x10?.
33x10*
ISxlO5
6UX101
80xlOU
-
U6X101
-
-
-
10
-
-
20
28xl03
Fecal
Collform
Org.AOO ml Remarks
)30xlO Sewage appearing
effluent
Sample could not be
taken
17x10]' Kay contain detergent,
35xlOj* Dead fish in outfalls
22X1D11
ISxlO1
30xl03
-
Colored discharge
U,
White material in discharge
-
-
h Oil on b«n
-------
TABLE 6 (Cont'd )
Hap
Ident.
No.
72
73
7U
75
76
Source
Municipality
Witco Chemical Co.
Pater son
Leon Street Storm Sewer
(PVSC Overflows)
Pater son
Public Service
Peterson
Storm Sewer
Pater son
Storm Sewer
West Paterson
River*/
Mile
214.0
214.0
2U.2
26.6
27.0
Est.
Flow
Pipe Size mgd
2-U"
18" 0.01
8 pipes of
varying sizes
30"
36", 12", liB"
Total
Suspended
Temp. BOD Solids
°C mg/1 mgA
30.5 98.7 1.50
-
-
-
Total Fecal
Colifom Collform
pH Org./lOO ml Org./lOO ml Remarks
-
7.7 llxlO1' 29xlO3
- - - Pipes flowing,
samples could not
be taken
-
.
I/ Data contained in this Table have been obtained from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and New Jersey State Department of Health surveys
~ conducted during June-November, 1969.
2/ River mile measured from mouth of River at Newark Bay (Buov RN 21i).
V Waste source under pollution abatement orders Issued by the New Jersey State Department of Health.
h/ New Jersey State Department of Health data.
(T) Tentatively Identified sources.
-------
PASSAIC RIVER
DIRECT WASTE DISCHARGE
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
I
Figure 13
-------
NUTLEY
Avondal. Bridge
NORTH ARLINGTON
NEWARK
Map 1
-------
PROSPECT PARK
SADDLE RIVER
RUTHERFORD
Rulh.rford Av«.
DL S. W R R.
NUTLEY
LYNDHURST
Avondole Bridgs
Map 2
-------
TABLE 7
DIRECT WASTE DISCHARGES BY
TYPE AND MUNICIPALITY
PASSAIC RIVER
Municipality
Newark
Kearny
Belleville
Harrison
Nutley
Wallington
Passaic
Clifton
Garfield
Paterson
Fair: Lawn
West Paterson
Prospect Park
Total
No. of
Sites
20
8
7
5
1
1
10
2
k
10
5
1
2_
76
Total
No. of
Pipes
^9
38
12
18
l
l
16
3
8
22
8
3
3_
182
No. of
Sites
with
Flowing
Pipes
16
7
7
4
1
-
10
2
2
7
2
-
^^..^^
58
Number of Number of
Pipes from Major Storm
Industry Sewers or Overflows
M 5
33
9
17
-
-
10 1
2
if
16 5
1
-
— ^ _ , ^ ^^^^_
133 11
Number of Miscellaneous
Storm Sewers and Surface Drains
3
5
3
1
1
1
5
1
^
1
7
3
3_
38
-------
Of the discharges listed in Table 6, the New Jersey State Department
of Health, based on the results of sampling and surveillance activities,
has issued pollution abatement orders to the following:
Passale Valley Sewerage Commissioners, Newark, N. J.
Vulcan Materials, Newark, N. J.
Revere Smelting & Refining Company, Newark, N. J.
Celanese Chemical Company, Newark, N. J.
Essex Chemical Corporation, Newark, N. J.
City of Newark
Alcan Aluminum Corporation of America, Kearny, N. J.
Kramer Chemical Company, Kearny, N. J.
Interstate Soap Company, Newark, N. J.
Benjamin Moore Paint, Newark, N. J.
Public Service, Harrison, N. J.
Otis Elevator, Harrison, N. J.
Continued surveillance and sampling by the New Jersey State Depart-
ment of Health could result in the issuance of additional orders to
municipalities and industries who are not conforming to State standards
and regulations.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 58, Chapter 14, Sections 1 to 34,
pertaining to the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners (1907).
2. New York vs New Jersey, Chapter 217 United States Supreme Court reports,
page 606, Federal stipulation between the Secretary o£ War and the
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners (October, 1909).
3. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners - Contracts with Municipalities
(May 15, 1911, September 20, 1911, June 1, 1917, March 27, 1918,
July 29, 1921, February 23, 1922, November 19, 1924, January 13, 1925,
October 26, 1926, October 21, 1942).
4. New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 26, Chapter 2E, Section 1. Public
Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Act (1965).
5. Revised Statutes, Title 58, Chapter 12, Section 2. Pertaining to the
regulatory power of the New Jersey State Health Department.
6. New Jersey vs Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, Chapter 100 New
Jersey Superior Court Reports, page 540 (May, 1968).
7. Testimony from a hearing conducted by the Legislative Committee on Air
Pollution, Water Pollution and Public Health (July, 1969).
8. Report on Improving Sedimentation and Dispersal Facilities, Bogert-
Childs Engineering Associates, New York, New York (1951).
9. Critical Situation as to Steam Power Newark Bay Pumping Station, Bogert-
Childs Engineering Associates, New York, New York (March 12, 1952).
10. Report on Repairs, Replacement and Improvements at New Bay Pumping
Station, Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, Bogert-Childs Engineering
Associates, New York, New York, Appendix B and Page 17 (1954).
11. Report on Improvements to Sewage Treatment Facilities at the Newark Bay
Pumping Station, Phases I, II, and III, Metcalf and Eddy Engineers,
Boston, Massachusetts (1960).
12. Report on Proposed Chlorination Facilities, Manganaro, Martin and Lincoln,
Consulting Engineers, New York, New York (April, 1967).
13. Report on Proposed Head-End Facilities, Manganaro, Martin and Lincoln,
New York, New York (December, 1968).
14. Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal, Fair and Geyer, Eighth Printing
(1967).
15. Recommended Standards for Sewage Works, Great Lakes - Upper Mississippi
River Board of State Sanitary Engineers (1968 Edition).
16. Report for the Conference on Pollution of Raritan Bay and Adjacent Inter-
state Waters, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Northeast
Region-Raritan Bay Project May, 1967)
41
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE
(First Session)
POLLUTION OF THE INTERSTATE WAFERS
OF THE
HUDSON RIVER
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
(NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY)
September 28-30, 1963
In accordance with requests from Nelson A. Rockefeller, Governor
of New York, and Richard J. Hughes, Governor of New Jersey, and on the
basis of reports, surveys, or studies, the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare on September 1, 196$, called a conference under the pro-
visions of section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1*66 et seq.) in the matter of pollution of the interstate waters of the
Hudson River and its tributaries. The conference was held September 28
through 30, 196$, at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel, N«v York, New York.
The 158 mile reach of the Hudson River considered at the confer-
ence encompasses the Upper Bay of New York Harbor, including Newark
Bay, the Kill Van Kull, the East and Harlem Rivers, and the main stem
of the Hudson River from the Battery to the head of navigation at the
Federal Lock at Troy, New York.
The following conferees representing the State water pollution
control agencies of New YOTK and New Jersey, the Interstate Sanitation
-------
- 2 -
Commission, and the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
participated in the conference:
Robert D. Hennigon
Roscoe P. Kandle, M.D.
Alfred Fletcher
E. Powers Mincher
Thomas R. Glenn, Jr.
Earl J. Anderson
Murray Stein, Chairman
Director, Bureau of Water Resources Services
New York State Department of Health
Albany, New York
State Commissioner of Health
New Jersey State Department of Health
Trenton, New Jersey
Chief Engineer
New Jersey State Department of Health
Trenton, New Jersey
Counsel
New Jersey State Department of Health
Trenton, New Jersey
Director and Chief Engineer
Interstate Sanitation Commission
New York, New York
U. S. Department of Health, Education,
& Welfare
New York, New York
U. S. Department of Health, Education,
& Welfare
Washington, D. C.
The Honorable John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, presented a statement concerning Federal-State responsibilities
and programs for abatement of pollution of the Hudson River.
The following also participated in the conference:
Mark Abelson Northeast Regional Coordinator
U. S. Department of the Interior
Boston, Massachusetts
-------
- 3 -
Colonel Richard T. Batson
Lester Blaschke
Russell D. Butcher
Honorable Clifford P. Case
(by Gar Kaganowich)
Dr. Natale Colosi
H. Jackson Davis, M.D.
Paul DeFalco, Jr.
Stephen G. Doig, Jr.
Honorable John Dow
Mrs. Kenneth Greenavalt
Alan Gussov
District Engineer
U. S. Army Engineer District
New York, New York
Chief, Office of Estuarine Surveillance
& Sanitary Control
Division of Environmental Engineering and
Food Protection
U. S. Public Health Service
Washington, D. C.
Conservation Specialist
National Audubon Society
New York, New York
United States Senate
Washington, D. C.
Chairman, Interstate Sanitation Commission
New York, New York
Commissioner of Health
Renssalaer County
Troy, Wew York
Director, Hudson-Champlain and Metropolitan
Coastal Water Pollution Control Project
U. S. Department of Health, Education,
& Welfare
Metuchen, New Jersey
County Attorney
Rockland County
New York, New York
Congressman, 27th District, New York
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
President, League of Women Voters
New York, New York
Citizens Committee for the Hudson River
Congress, New York
-------
-1».
Richard M. Greening
Hollis S. Ingraham, M.D.
Honorable Jacob K. Javits
(by Miss Patricia Connell)
Honorable Robert F. Kennedy
Honorable John V. Lindsay
(by Murray Stein)
Donald E. Lynch
Honorable Edwin G. Michaelian
Olin T. Mirteenes
Eugene H. Nickerson
William Henry Osborn
Honorable Richard L. Ottinger
Brigadier General David S.
Parker
Regional Hydrologist, Weather Bureau
Environmental Science Services
Administration
New York, Hew York
Commissioner of Health
New York State Department of Health
Albany, New York
United States Senate
Washington, D. C.
United States Senate
Washington, D. C.
Congressman 17th District, New York
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Executive Director
Citizens Committee for Clean Water
New York, New York
County Executive
Westchester County
White Plains, New York
District Ship Custody Officer
Maritime Administration
U. S. Department of Commerce
New York, New York
Nassau County Executive
Nassau County, New York
President, Hudson River Conservation
Society
New York, New York
Congressman, 25th District, New York
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Division Engineer, North Atlantic
Division
Corps of Engineers
New York, New York
-------
Mrs. Helen Putnam
Honorable Ogden R. Reid
Honorable Joseph Y. Resnick
(by John W. Logan)
Honorable Nelson A. Rockefeller
Ronald V. Spevack
Dr. Clarence M. Tarswell
Gwyn Thomas
Honorable Robert F. Wagner
Mrs. John Wallace
Dr. Harold G. Kilm
Rod Vandivert
Friends of the Hudson
Mew York, New York
Congressman, 26th District, New York
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Congressman, 28th District, New York
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Governor, State of New York
State Capitol
Albany, New York
Assistant State Chairman
New Jersey State Jaycees
Director, National Marine Quality
Laboratory
U, S. Public Health Service
Wakefield, Rhode Island
Executive Assistant to the President
Associated Industries of Hew York
State, Inc.
Albany, Hew York
Mayor, City of New York
New York, New York
New York State Congress of Parents
and Teachers, Inc.
Garden City, Now York
Conservation Commissioner
Chairman, New York State Water
Resources Commission
Albany, New York
Scenic Hudson Preservation Council
New York, New York
-------
- 6 -
The Chairman of the conference pointed out that:
1. Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1)66 et
seq.), pollution of interstate waters which endangers the health or
welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the discharges
originate is subject to abatement under procedures described in
section 8 of the Federal Act.
2. The first step of this procedure is the calling of a conference.
3* The purpose of this conference is to bring together representatives
of the State and interstate water pollution control agencies and
the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, to review
the existing situation and the progress which has been made, to lay
a basis for future action by all parties concerned, and to give
the States, localities, and industries an opportunity to take any
indicated remedial action under State and local law.
Conferees representing the New York State Department of Health, the
New Jersey State Department of Health, the Interstate Sanitation Commis-
sion, and the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare were
present throughout the conference.
Representatives of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
presented a report on the Hudson River and its tributaries which covered
sources of pollution, types of wastes discharged, and interferences
with water uses.
-------
- 7 -
Representatives of the New York State Department of Health, the
New Jersey State Department of Health, and the Interstate Sanitation
Commission presented statements concerning water quality in the Hudson
River and its tributaries.
The conferees agreed upon the following conclusions and recommenda-
tions :
1. The Hudson River and its tributaries, considered by this conference,
are interstate waters within the meaning of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act.-
2. There is interstate pollution of these waters. This pollution is
subject-to*abatement under • the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
3. Such pollution is caused by many factors including sewage- and indus-
trial waste discharges, oil, silt, sediment, heat, floating etolids,
nutrients, sludge deposits, and combined sewer overflows.- Sources
of pollution are in both New Jersey and New York.
b. This pollution interferes with recreation, commercial fishing, sport
fishing, navigation, domestic and industrial water supplies, and
esthetic values.
5. The States of New Jersey .and New York and the Interstate Sanitation
Commission are empowered-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.
-------
- 8 -
6. Delays in abating pollution are caused by the lack of adequate
treatment facilities and the complex technical and financial
problems presented by the use of a waterway serving the largest
metropolitan area in the country.
7. Cognizance is taken of the activities of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Coast Guard in abating pollution resulting from
oil, sludge, silt and floating debris, as well as the program of
the Federal Government to abate pollution from all Federal installa-
tions .
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare shall advise and
consult with other Federal Agencies in the area covered by the con-
ference to see that all Federal installations install, construct and
operate adequate pollution control facilities which will meet the
requirements of the States and the Interstate agency concerned, as
well as the Federal Government.
The States and Interstate agency recognize that the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare is the Federal agency primarily
charged with abatement of pollution of interstate or navigable waters,
They recommend that the Department take the lead in coordinating the
activities of all Federal agencies concerned with water quality in
the Hudson River and its tributaries so that the Federal Government
may have a unified approach in dealing with the States and Interstate
agencies.
-------
- 9 -
8. The benefits which would result from increased State water pollution
control activities under such programs as the proposed $1 billion
"Pure Water" Bond Issue in New York State are acknowledged.
9. All discharge sources to the Hudson River and its tributaries, whether
public, Federal installations, or industrial, shall receive a minimum
of secondary treatment or its equivalent, and effective disinfection
of the effluents as required to protect water uses.
10. Industrial plants shall improve practices for the segregation and
treatment of wastes to effect the maximum reduction of the following:
a) Acids and alkalies;
b) Oil and tarry substances;
c) Phenolic compounds and organic compounds that contribute
to taste and odor problems;
d) Nutrient materials including ammonia and nitrogenous
phosphoric compounds;
e) Suspended material;
f) Toxic and highly colored wastes;
g) Oxygen requiring substances;
h) Heat;
i) Foam producing discharges;
j) Other wastes which detract from recreational uses, esthetic
enjoyment or other beneficial uses of the waters.
11. Surveillance and monitoring of the operation and maintenance of sewage
-------
- 10 -
and waste treatment facilities in the conference area shall "be conducted
by the States of Mew Jersey and Mew York, the Interstate Sanitation
Commission, and the Department- of Health, Education, and Welfare at
locations and frequencies to yield reliable values of waste outputs
and resulting receiving water quality, and to show their variations.
12. The Federal conferee recommends the following time schedule for the
foregoing remedial program:
a) Designs for remedial facilities completed by January 1, 1967;
b) Financing arrangements completed by April 1, 1967;
c) Construction started by July 1, 1967;
d) Construction completed and plants placed into operation by
January 1, 1970$
e) Commensurate schedules to be adopted for the interception and
treatment of industrial wastes and wastes from Federal installa-
tions ;
f) Existing schedules calling for earlier completion dates are to
be met.
13. The magnitude of the pollution problem caused by discharges from
combined sewer overflows is recognized. The Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, in cooperation with the States of New Jersey,
New York, and the Interstate Sanitation Commission, will undertake a
review of the problem and develop a program for action for considera-
tion by the Federal Government, the States and the Interstate Sanita-
tion Commission by December 31, 196§,
-------
- 11 -
The construction of combined sever systems in newly developed or
redeveloped urban areas shall be prohibited, and existing combined
severs shall be eliminated wherever feasible.
Programs shall be established for surveillance of existing combined
sever systems and flow regulating structures to convey the maximum
practicable amount of combined flows to and through treatment plants.
The conferees representing New Jersey, New York and the Interstate
Sanitation Commission call attention to the fact that financing is
the key to sewage treatment plant construction. In the past, the
financial burden for construction of sewage treatment facilities has
been borne by municipalities and industry. This method of financing
must be changed if the progress visualized in this conference is to
be achieved.
Regional planning is often the most logical and economical approach
towards meeting water pollution problems. The water pollution control
agencies of New Jersey, New York, and the Interstate Sanitation Com-
mission, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, will
encourage such regional planning activities.
-------
SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE
(SECOND SESSION)
POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE WATERS
OF THE
-HUDSON RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
(NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY)
September 20, 1967
The second session of the conference in the matter of pollution
of the interstate waters of the Hudson River and its tributaries
(New York-New Jersey) was held on September 20, 1967, at New York,
New York, under the provisions of section 10 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.)- The
first session of the conference was held on September 28-30, 1965,
at New York City.
The 158 mile reach of the Hudson River considered at the
conference encompasses the Upper Bay of New York Harbor, including
Newark Bay, the Kill Van Kull, the East and Harlem Rivers, and the
main stem of the Hudson River from the Battery to the head of naviga-
tion at the Federal Lock at Troy, New York.
The following conferees representing the State water pollution
control agencies of New York and New Jersey, the Interstate Sanitation
Commission, and the U. S. Department of the Interior, participated
in the conference:
Dwight F. Metzler Deputy Commissioner
New York State Department of
Health
Albany, New York
-------
-2-
Roscoe P. Kondle, M.D.
Thomas R. Glenn, Jr.
Lester M. Klashman
Murray Stein, Chairman
Commissioner
New Jersey State Department of
Health
Trenton, New Jersey
Director and Chief Engineer
Interstate Sanitation Commission
New York, New York
U. S. Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration
Bostoii, Massachusetts
U. S. Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration
Washington, D. C.
Also participating in the conference were the following:
Colonel R. T. Batson
Dr. Natale Colosi
Dr. H. Jackson Davis
District Engineer
U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers
New York, New York
Chairman, Interstate Sanitation
Commission
New York, New York
Commissioner of Health
(Represented by Carl Stefanic) Rensselaer County
Troy, New York
Paul DeFalco, Jr.
Honorable Joseph A. Fusco
(Represented by Alan Blake)
Arthur Handley
James Harding
U. S. Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration
Metuchen, New Jersey
Assemblyman, 86th Assembly District
Bronx County, New York
Division of Pure Water
New York State Department of
Health
Albany, New York
Division of Pure Water
WestChester County, New York
-------
-3-
Eugene E. Hult
Honorable Jacob K. Javits
(Represented by Eiail Frankel)
C. C. Johnson
Richard W. Keeler
Honorable Robert F. Kennedy
(Represented by Robert Green)
Dr.. John A. Lyons
Lawrence J. McCarren
James E. McShane
Honorable Frank D. O'Connor
(Represented by
James F. 0'Donne11)
William Lathrop Rich
Honorable Nelson A. Rockefeller
Honorable Whitney North
Seymour, Jr.
William K. Shaffer
Honorable John H. Warden
Commissioner of Pu&Lic Works
New York, New York
United States Senate
Washington, D. C.
Environmental Health Services
New York City Health Department
New York, New York
Rensselaer County Agency for
Abatement and Control of Pollution
Troy, New York
United States Senate
Washington, D. C.
Albany County Sewer Agency
Albany County, New York
General Services Administration
New York, New York
Maritime Administration
U. S. Department of Commerce
New York, New York
President, New York City Council
New York, New York
Committee for the New York-Montreal
Seaway
New York, New York
Governor, State of New York
State Capitol
Albany, New York
State Senator, 26th District
State of New York
Division of Pure Waters .
New York State Department of
Health
Albany, New York
Mayor, City of Rensselaer
Rensselaer, New York
-------
-4-
The Chairman of the conference pointed out that:
1. Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), pollution of interstate or navigable waters
which endangers the health or welfare of any persons is subject to
abatement under procedures described in section 10 of the Federal Act.
2. The first step of these procedures is the calling of a con-
ference .
3. The purpose of the conference is to bring together represen-
tatives of the States, the interstate agency, and the U. S. Department
of the Interior to review the existing situation and the progress
which has been made, to lay a basis for future action by all parties
concerned, and to give the States, localities, and industries an
opportunity to take any remedial action which may be indicated,
under State and local law.
4. The first session of the conference was held on September 28-30,
1965, in accordance with requests from the Honorable Nelson A.
Rockefeller, Governor of New York, and the Honorable Richard J. Hughes,
Governor of New Jersey, and on the basis of reports, surveys, or
studies under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. At the first session, the conferees recommended a remedial
program for pollution abatement. Subsequent to the conference, the
Secretary recommended a time schedule for implementation of the
remedial program.
5. The second session of the conference was called for the pur-
pose of reviewing compliance with the recommended schedule of
remedial action.
-------
-5-
At the second session the conferees agreed upon the following .
conclusions end 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 underway, 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% reduction
of biochemical oxygen demand at all times. It is recognized that
this will require a design for an average removal of 90% 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.
5. The conferees agree that all remedial facilities will be
placed in operation by 1970 except the proposed North River facility
which cannot be completed and in operation until 1972.
6. The State and interstate conferees agree that recent actions
in Congress make it appeat that the Fiscal Year 1968 appropriations
will be less than one-half the inadequate authorization of $450
million. It is destructive of pollution control efforts to continue
-------
-6-
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 authorizations
enacted by Congress, it is obviously impossible for any municipality
to receive the 55% of construction cost in Federal aid clearly pro-
vided in the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966. If the Congress
intends to fund projects 55%, 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.
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE
CONFEREES
(THIRD SESSION)
POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE WATERS
OF THE
HUDSON RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
(NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY)
June 18, 19, 1969
The conferees agreed upon the following conclusions and recommenda-
t ions :
1. The States and the interstate water pollution control agencies,
that is, the New Jersey State Department of Health, the New York State
Department of Health and the Interstate Sanitation Commission, are taking
effective action to abate pollution in accordance with the agreements
arrived at at the Conference on Pollution of Interstate Waters of the
Hudson River and its Tributaties held under the provisions of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
2. An extensive pollution abatement program is moving forward toward
the attainment of water quality agreed on by the conferees representing
the States of New Jersey, New York, the Interstate Sanitation Commission
and the Federal Government.
3. The treatment required from sources discharging into the Hudson
River and its tributaries is consistent throughout the Basin and mutually
satisfactory to all the regulatory agencies concerned.
4. In view of the complexities of the problem, the conferees will
plan to meet again in the late fall or winter of 1970 to evaluate progress
on a case by case basis.
5. The activities of the Interstate Sanitation Commission in analyz-
ing combined sewer overflows in the Hudson River Conference Area is
-------
recognized. The conferees will participate with and support the Inter-
state Sanitation Commission in a detailed examination of storm water
overflows as the first stage in the development of a remedial program,
as needed; the New York State Department of Health will carry out that
portion of this activity in the Hudson River Basin outside the juris-
diction of the Interstate Sanitation Commission. A joint report on
this subject will be made to the conferees at the next session.
6. The State and interstate conferees agree that recent Federal
action makes it appear that the Fiscal Year 1970 appropriations will
be about one-fifth the authorization of $1 billion. They urge that
the authorized amounts be appropriated if water pollution control needs
are to be met. Further, the reimbursement features of the present
statute must be retained.
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
STATE OF NEW YORK
CLASS I
DEFINITION OR BEST USAGE: Fishing and any other usages except bathing or shell-
fishing for market purposes.
FLOW CONDITIONS:
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
Floating
Solids
Settleable
Solids
Sludge
Deposits
Solid Refuse, Gar-
bage, Cinders,
Ashes , Oils , Sludge
or Other Refuse
Sewage or
Other Effluent
Oil, Grease, Oil
Slicks, or Scum
Coliform
Density
pH
Dissolved
Oxygen
Color
Turbidity
Taste,
Odor
None which are readily visible and attributable to sewage,
industrial wastes, or other wastes or which deleteriously
increase the amounts of these constituents in receiving
waters after opportunity for reasonable dilution and mix-
ture with the wastes discharged thereto.
See Number 1.
See Number 1.
Garbage, Cinders, Ashes, Oils, Sludge or Other Refuse:
None in any waters of the "Marine District" as defined
by State Conservation Law. (See Remarks)
Effective disinfection if required by Interstate Sanita-
tion Commission.
Oil: See Number 13.
Not Specified.
Not Specified.
An average of not less than 5095 saturation during any
week of the year, but not less than 3.0 ppm at any time.
See Number 13.
Not Specified.
Not Specified.
Toxic Wastes, Deleterious Substances: See over.
Heated Effluents and Temperature Criteria: See over.
REMARKS: "The Marine District shall include the waters of the Atlantic Ocean
within three nautical miles from the coastline and all other tidal waters within
the State except the Hudson River northerly of the south end of (Cont'd.)
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA STATE OF NEW YORK
CLASS I (Cont'd.)
13 Toxic Wastes, Deleterious Substances:
None alone or in combination with other substances or wastes in
sufficient amounts to be injurious to edible fish and shellfish, or the
culture or propagation thereof, or which shall in any manner affect the
flavor, color, odor, or sanitary condition of such fish or shellfish so as
to injuriously affect the sale thereof, or which shall cause any injury to
the public and private shellfisheries of this State; and otherwise none in
sufficient amounts to impair the waters for any other best usage as determined
for the specific waters which are assigned to this class.
Heated Effluents;
See Number 13.
(b) Temperature Criteria;
Within the mixing zone, water temperature shall not exceed 90°F.
Outside the mixing zone, water temperature shall not exceed 86°F
after mixing; no permanent change in excess of 5 F° above normal will be
permitted; discharges shall not raise monthly means of maximum daily
temperatures more than 4 F° from September through May, nor more than
1.5 F° during June, July, and August; rate of temperature change shall
be limited to 1 F° per hour, not to exceed 7 F° in any 2^-hour period at
maximum, except when natural phenomena cause these limits to be exceeded.
REMARKS (Cont'd.);
Manhattan Island.11 ~ from Paragraph 301, Part IX, New York State Fish and Game
Law.
-------
WATEH QUALITY CRITERIA
(NOTE: Except where noted by an asterisk
(*), these criteria have been approved by the
Secretary of the Interior).
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
CLASS FW-2
DEFINITION OR BEST USAGE: Fresh surface waters approved as sources of public
potable water supply. These waters are to be suitable for public potable water
supply after such treatment as shall be required by the State Department of
Health. These waters shall be suitable also for all (Cont'd. under Remarks)
FLOW CONDITIONS:Minimum consecutive 7-day flow with 10 year recurrence
interval.
1
iL
5
k
5
6
7
*9
10
11
1^
1>
ik
HEM
Floating
Solids
Settleable
Solids
Sludge
Deposits
Solid Refuse, Gar-
bage, Cinders,
Ashes, Oils, Sludge
or Other Refuse
Sewage or
Other Effluents
Oil, Grease, Oil
Slicks, or Scum
Coliform
Density
pH
Dissolved
Oxygen
Color
Turbidity
Taste,
Odor
None of which are noticeable in the water or are deposited
along the shore or on the aquatic substrata in quantities
detrimental to the natural biota.
See Number 1.
Harmful sludge deposits are not permitted.
Not Specified.
Effective disinfection if required by the State Department
of Health.
Oil, Grease: See Number 1.
Not to exceed an average MPN value of 1000/lOOml. during any
monthly sampling period nor 2^tOO/100ml. in more than 20% of
samples examined during such period.
Between 6.5 and 5.5 unless naturally outside thereof.
For trout waters, not less than 5.0 ppm. Otherwise 4.0 ppm.
Artificial coloring matter: See Number 1.
See Number 1.
Odor and taste producing substances: None which are offen-
sive to humans, detrimental to the aquatic biota or capable
of producing offensive tastes and/or odors in water supplies
and fauna used for human consumption.
Toxic Wastes, Deleterious Substanc.es: See over.
Heated Effluents and Temperature Criteria: See over.
^RKS: (Definition Cont'd.) recreational purposes including fishing, the
propagation and migration of native fish species desired for angling and other
fish and aquatic life necessary thereto as well as any other reasonable uses.
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
CLASS FW-2 (Conf'd.),
Toxic Wastes, Deleterious Substances:
None which would affect humans or be detrimental to the natural aquatic
biota.
l*f(a) Heated Effluents;
No thermal discharges which detrimentally affect the natural aquatic
biota, or reasonably anticipated reuse of the waters.
(b) Temperature Criteria - Allowable Temperature Increase;
*(i)Trout waters:
None that will exceed 5 F° rise above natural temperature
until stream temperature reaches 70°F; natural temperature will
prevail above 70°F.
(ii) Non-trout waters:
None that will exceed 5 F° rise above natural temperature
until stream temperature reaches 87°F, except in designated
heat dissipation areas; natural temperature will prevail above
87°F except in designated heat dissipation areas.
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
(NOTE: Except where noted by an asterisk
(*), these criteria have been approved by the
Secretary of the Interior).
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
CLASS FW-3
DEFINITION OR BEST USAGE: Fresh waters suitable for all purposes provided for
under Class FW-2, except public potable water supply.
FLOW CONDITIONS: Minimum consecutive 7-day flow with 10 year recurrence
interval.
1
2
}
k
5
b
7
8
*9
10
11
L<>
13
14
Floating
Solids
Settleable
Solids
Sludge
Deposits
Solid Refuse, Gar-
bage, Cinders,
Ashes , Oils , Sludge
or Other Refuse
Sewage or
Other Effluent
Oil, Grease, Oil
Slicks, or Scum
Coliform
Density
pH
Dissolved
Oxygen
Color
Turbidity
Taste,
Odor
Toxic Wastes, Dele
Heated Effluents s
None which are noticeable in the water or are deposited
along the shore or on the aquatic substrata in quantities
detrimental to the natural biota.
See Number 1.
Harmful sludge deposits are not permitted.
Not Specified.
Effective disinfection if required by the State Department
of Health.
Oil, Grease: See Number 1.
Not to exceed an average MPN value of 1000/lOOml. during any
monthly sampling period nor 2400/lOOml. in more than 20$ of
samples examined during such period.
Between 6.5 and 8.5 unless naturally outside thereof.
For trout waters, not less than 5-0 ppm. Otherwise 4.0 ppm.
Color producing substances: See Number 12.
See Number 1.
Odor and taste producing substances: None which are offen-
sive to humans, detrimental to the aquatic biota or capable
of producing offensive tastes and/or odors in fauna used
for human consumption.
Jterious Substances: See over.
ind Temperature Criteria: See over.
REMARKS:
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA STATE OF NEW JERSEY
CLASS FW-3 (Cont'd.)
13 Toxic Wastes, Deleterious Substances:
None which would affect humans or be detrimental to the natural aquatic
biota.
l*f(a) Heated Effluents;
No thermal discharges which detrimentally affect the natural aquatic
biota, or reasonably anticipated reuse of the v/aters.
(b) Temperature Criteria - Allowable Temperature Increase:
*(i)Trout waters:
None that will exceed 5 F° rise above natural temperature
until stream temperature reaches 70°F; natural temperature will
prevail above ?0°F.
(ii) Non-trout waters:
None that will exceed 5 F° rise above natural temperature
until stream temperature reaches 87°F except in designated
heat dissipation areas; natural temperature will prevail above
87°F except in designated heat dissipation areas.
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
(NOTE: Except where noted by an asterisk
{*), these criteria have been approved by the
Secretary of the Interior)
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
CLASS TW-2
DEFINITION OR BEST USAGE?: Tidal surface waters having limited recreational-value
and ordinarily not acceptable for bathing but suitable for fish survival although
perhaps not suitable for fish propagation. These waters shall not be an odor
nuisance and shall not cause damage to pleasure craft having occasion to traverse
the waters. ^____
FLOW CONDITIONS:
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
y
10
11
12
i>
jik
Floating'
Solids
Settleable
Solids
Sludge
Deposits
Solid Refuse, Gar-
bage , Cinders ,
Ashes, Oils, Sludge
or Other Refuse
Sewage or
Other Effluent
Oil, Grease, Oil
Slicks, or Scum
Coliform
Density
PH
Dissolved
Oxygen
Color
Turbidity
Taste ,
Odor
None which are noticeable in the water or contribute to the
formation of sludge deposits along the shores.
Not Specified.
Harmful sludge deposits are not permitted.
Not Specified.
Effective disinfection if required by the State Department
of Health.
Oil, Grease: See Number 1.
None in such concentrations that would impair the waters
assigned uses.
for
Between 6.5 and 8.5 unless naturally outside thereof.
Not less than 50$ saturation.
Not Specified.
Not Specified.
Taste and Odor producing substances: None, either alone or
in combination, which are offensive or that would produce
offensive tastes and/or odors in fauna used for human con-
sumption.
Toxic Wastes, Deleterious Substances: See Over.
Heated Effluents and Temperature Criteria: See Over.
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA STATE OF NEW JERSEY
CLASS TW-2 . (Cont'dj)
13 Toxic Wastes, Deleterious Substances;
None in such concentrations as to cause fish mortality or inhibit their
natural migration.
Heated Effluents;
No thermal discharges which detrimentally affect reasonably antici-
pated reuse of the waters.
*(b) Temperature Criteria - Allowable Temperature Increase;
None that will have a detrimental effect upon the natural aquatic
biota or reasonably anticipated reuse of the waters.
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
(NOTE: Except where noted by an asterisk
(*), these criteria have been approved by the
Secretary of .the Interior).
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
CLASS TW-3
DEFINITION OR BEST USAGE: 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 traversing them.
FLOW CONDITIONS:
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
LI
1>
l4
Floating
Solids
Settleable
Solids
Sludge
Deposits
Solid Refuse, Gar-
bage, Cinders,
Ashes , Oils , Sludge
or Other Refuse
Sewage or
Other Effluent
Oil, Grease, Oil
Slicks, or Scum
Coliform
Density
pH
Dissolved
Oxygen
Color
Turbidity
Taste,
Odor
Toxic Wastes^ Del<
Heated Effluents £
None which are noticeable in the water or contribute to the
formation of sludge deposits along the shores.
See Number 1.
Harmful sludge deposits are not permitted.
Not Specified.
Effective disinfection if required by the State Department
of Health.
Oil, Grease: See Number 1.
None in such concentration that would impair the waters for
assigned uses.
Between 6.5 and 8.5 unless naturally outside thereof.
Not less than 30% of saturation, if such value is greater
than 2.5 ppm. Otherwise, not less than 2.5 ppm.
Not Specified.
Not Specified.
Taste and odor producing substances: None which shall be
offensive or that would detrimentally affect finfish, shell-
fish, or other aquatic life in higher quality waters.
Jterious Substances: See over.
md Temperature Criteria: See over.
REMARKS:
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA STATE OF NEW JERSEY
CLASS TW-3 (Cont'd.)
13 Toxic Wastes, Deleterious Substances:
None in such concentrations as to cause fish mortality or inhibit their
natural migration.
l*f(a) Heated Effluents:
Not Specified.
*(b) Temperature Criteria - Allowable Temperature Increase;
None that will have a detrimental effect upon the natural aquatic
biota or reasonably anticipated reuse of the waters.
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
P.O. BOX 1540, TRENTON, N.J. 08625
CERTIFIED MAIL April 27, 1965
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
790 Broad Street
Newark, New Jersey
Gentlemen:
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 postchlorination of the effluents of all sewage treatment plants
discharging directly into the'waters of the Interstate Sanitation 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 the maintenance of a positive chlorine residual of not less
than 1.0 part per million. The requirements will be intensified 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.
These requirements in relation to chlorination are in addition to the
requirement' of "the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners to provide in
the immediate future adequate sludge storage facilities.
Your cooperation in this important stream pollution control effort is
solicited. The staff of the Stream Pollution Control Program of this
Department will make itself available to cooperate with you.
Very truly yours,
Roscoe P. Kandie, M. D.
State Commissioner of Health
COPY
-------
COPY
ORDER
WHEREAS, The State Department of Health of the State of New Jersey did
promulgate "Regulations Establishing Certain Classifications to
be Assigned to the Waters of this State and Standards of Quality
to be Maintained in Water so Classified," effective September 1,
1964, and
WHEREAS, The State Department of Health of the State of New Jersey did,
after a public hearing conducted by the said Department on February
15, 1966, promulgate regulations entitled "Classification of the
Surface Waters of the Hudson River, Arthur Kill and Tributaries,"
which became effective May 16, 1966, and
WHEREAS, The State Department of Health of the State of New Jersey has found,
through investigations made by its representatives, that the sewage
treatment plant owned and operated by the Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners, in the City of Newark, in the County of Essex and
State of New Jersey, is inadequate in capacity or unit design to
properly care for, treat and dispose of the sewage received therein
before an effluent from the said sewage treatment plant is dis-
charged into the waters of Upper New York Bay, being waters of this
State, thereby causing or threatening injury to the inhabitants of
this State either in their health, comfort or property, and
WHEREAS, The State Department of Health of the State of New Jersey in
consideration of the aforesaid, is of the opinion that, in order
for-the sewage to be properly, adequately or sufficiently treated
at the said sewage treatment plant before an effluent is discharged
into the said waters of this State, the said sewage treatment plant
must be altered, added to or improved in a manner approved by the
said Department of Health, therefore
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 Passaic Valley Sew-
erage Commissioners, in the City of Newark, in the County of Essex
and State of New Jersey, requiring that the said Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commissioners must and shall, prior to December 1, 1966,
cease the discharge of improperly, inadequately and insufficiently
treated sewage into the waters of Upper New York Bay, being waters
of this State, and must alter, add to or improve the sewage treatment
plant operated by the said Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners 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 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.
Dated: August 9, 1966
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Roscoe P. Kandle, M. D.
State Commissioner of Health
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
TABLE 0-1
DATA, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADMINISTRATION STUDY OF UPPER BAY OF NEW YORK HARBOR
AUGUST 19, 20, 1969
Station
185
19S
20S
215
225
235
18D
19D
20D
21D
22D
23D
20M
IBS
19S
20S
215
22S
235
Tine
(DST)
0910
0900
0850
081(0
0630
0815
0910
0900
0650
0810
0830
0815
-
1005
1000
0950
09liO
0935
0925
Water
Temp. °C
23.8
23.6
23.5
23. h
23.6
23-5
22.li
22.1
22.1
22.9
23.1
22.5
-
23.8
23.6
23. li
23.8
23.5
23.6
PH
7.25
6.98
7.35
7.25
7.25
7.15
7.30
7.20
7 35
7.1(0
7.30
7.30
-
7.30
7.30
7.35
7.30
7.28
7.20
Oonductlvltv
(umhos/cn)
30,700
30,350
31,200
31,1(00
31,700
32,100
35,700
37,600
36,500
3U.8SO
33,700
36,100
-
31,1*00
30,1(50
31,300
31,300
32,300
31,800
Chloride
Cmg/11
RUN l»l
lli, 350
1U, 175
111, 590
lli, 681
lli, 818
15,000
16.650
17,51.5
17,015
16,250
15,750
16.P50
-
RUN If?
U..6P1
111, 205
U.636
lli, 636
15,100
lli,861.
DO
2.3
2.1
1.6
2.2
2.5
l.P
2.2
2.8
2.6
2 0
2.3
2.0
-
1.6
2.1
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.5
DO
«S8t.)
32
29
22
30
3U
25
30
39
36
28
32
28
-
22
29
23
26
25
21
Total Collform
W/100 ml)
1(1,000
U7.000
220,000
280,000
liliO,000
33,000
560,000
67,000
390,000
220,000
320,000
7,300
-
31(,000
1(6,000
Ii5,ooo
110,000
1,000,000
33,000
Fecal Conform
f#AOO ml)
6,500
7,000
16,000
17,000
21,000
3,200
50,000
13,000
37,000
26,000
58,000
1,100
-
5,700
15,000
12,000
19,000
130,000
,ll(,000
-------
TABLE D-l (Conf d.)
Station
Number
18D
19D
ZOD
21D
22D
23D
20M
18S
19S
20S
21S
22S
235
18D
19D
20D
21D
220
23D
Tine
(DST)
1005
1000
0950
091(0
0935
0925
0950
1105
1120
1130
111.5
1155
1205
1105
1120
1130
111:5
1155
1205
Water
Temp. °C
22.8
22.5
22.6
21.7
22.9
22.6
23.2
23 7
23.6
23.8
23-9
23.8
23. It
22.5
21.7
21.5
21.8
22.1
21.5
PH
7.1.0
7.1iO
7.LO
7. 55
7.35
7.20
7 30
7.35
7.30
7.27
7 35
7.30
7.35
7.30
7.50
7.51
7.1i5
7. US
7.50
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
RUN
35,700
36,150
36,200
38,500
31i,200
3li,000
33,800
31.560
31.M.O
31.900
32,500
32,000
33,360
36,970
38,lilO
38,800
36,330
37,180
38,500
Chloride
(me/1)
li>2 (Cont'd.)
16,650
16.875
16,900
17,955
15.958
15,875
15.792
RUN #)
11,, 755
Ui,6P6
U.,909
IS 200
lli ,955
15.608
17,259
17,913
18,100
16,965
17,355
17,955
DO
(mgA)
3-1
2.5
2.5
3.P
2.1
1 P
1.9
l.i
2 1
2 1
3 6
2.1
2.7
1 7
3.U
3.5
3-5
3.2
3 5
DO
(* Sat )
13
35
35
53
29
25
26
23
29
29
50
33
37
21,
1.7
1,8
1.8
lib
1.8
Total ColTform
(#/100 ml)
1)8,000
1.10,000
2HO,000
51. 000
610,000
22,000
58,000
1|7,OOO
520,000
350.000
39,000
230,000
230,000
1,000,000
290,000
36,000
1.6,000
96,000
55,000
Fecal Conform
(#/lOO ml)
5,700
36,000
16,000
12,000
96,000
It, 900
5,600
12,000
62,000
21,000
20,000
20,000
19,000
110,000
13,000
2,1.00
5,1.00
13,000
2,900
19H
1120
22 0
7.25
37.530
17,511.
2.1
29
1.7,000
17,000
-------
TABLE D-l (Cont'd )
Station
Number
18s
19S
20S
21S
225
235
18D
19D
200
21D
22D
23D
19M
IBS
195
20S
215
225
235
Time
(DST)
1220
1235
121.7
1255
1305
1315
1220
1235
121.7
1255
1305
1315
1235
11.13
11.20
11.36
1UU5
11.58
1505
Water
Temp. °C
23.6
23.1.
21.0
23.1
23.3
23-1
22.1
22.1
21.8
21.1.
22.0
23.0
22.1
23.2
23.2
23.1,
23.3
23.5
23-5
pH
7 20
7.20
7.50
7.1.5
7.1.5
7. ho
7.1.0
7.1.5
7.50
7.55
7.60
7.1.5
7.50
7.60
7.59
7.58
7.60
7.1.2
7.50
Conductivity
(umhoa/cin)
32,330
33,900
33,720
35,500
31., 950
35,260
37.530
3*. 300
3P.200
38,710
37,1.10
37,600
37.700
35,650
35,850
35,120
36,01.0
3U.300
35,250
Chloride
fire/l)
RUN ffk
15,115
15,833
15,751.
16,550
16,295
16,136
17,511.
17.P61.
17.81P
1",055
17,1.59
17,515
11,591
RUN #5
16,625
16,250
16,373
16,830
16,000
16.1.31
DO
(mg/1)
2.5
3.0
3.?
3.6
3 7
3.1.
3 1
3 5
3 5
3 9
3 8
3.1.
3.1.
3.6
a.i
1..0
ii.i.
2.9
1..5
DO
MSat.)
31.
1.2
53
50
51.
17
U3
W
1.9
51
52
1.8
1.7
50
57
56
62
ho
63
Total Collform
(#AOO ml)
390,000
230,000
63,000
31,000
SU.OOO
260,000
760,000
1.5,000
31i,000
230,000
68,000
32,000
23,000
73,000
Sl.,000
1.7,000
500,000
270,000
67,000
Fecal Collform
30.000
70.000
17,000
1,300
20,000
17,000
70,000
2,600
5,300
16.000
8,500
1,900
2.200
13,000
U.600
5,800
3,300
19,000
6,300
-------
TABLE D-l (Cont'd.)
Station
Number
18D
19D
20D
21D
22D
23D
19M
18S
19S
20S
21S
22S
23S
18D
19D
20D
21D
22D
23D
Tlee
(DST)
1M.3
liiZO
11.36
1UW
ii.58
1505
11.20
1520
1530
151.0
1550
1600
1610
1520
1530
151.0
1550
1600
1610
Water
Tamp. °C
22.1
22.1
21.8
21 6
22.0
21.7
23.0
23.li
23.5
23. U
22.6
23.1
23.3
22.2
21.8
22.2
21.7
22.0
22.1
PH
7.60
7.59
7.60
7.60
7.50
7.50
7.59
7.1.5
7.1.5
7.20
7. US
7.30
7.35
7.1.5
7. 1.5
7.1.7
7.52
7.35
7.50
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
RUN
37,800
37,800
38,1.50
38,730
38,000
38,180
36,1.00
35,670
3U.900
3U.2UO
36,100
3i.,seo
3b,91iO
37,670
38,130
37,320
38,61.0
37,600
31., 600
Chloride
(mg/1)
#5 (Cont'd.)
17 .636
17,636
17,932
18,065
17,727
17.P09
17,000
RUN #6
16,635
16,273
15,975
16,850
16,127
16,291
17,573
17,766
17,1.18
18,002
17,51.5
16,136
DO
(mgA)
3.3
k.O
3.9
1..0
3.U
3.P
ll.O
1. 2
li.l.
3.1
h.6
2.1.
3.7
3.1.
3-6
3.9
U.3
3.3
3-7
DO
(XSat.)
L6
56
51.
55
1.7
52
56
59
62
1.3
6k
33
52
1.7
50
51.
60
1.6
50
Total Coliform
(#/100ml)
220,000
1.90,000
38,000
3l>,000
70,000
7,600
27.000
320,000
200,000
160,000
53,000
510,000
1,000,000
210,000
22,000
31,000
28,000
68,000
28,000
Fecal Collform
(S/100 ml)
8,000
28,000
3,100
1,600
13,000
1,000
3,800
16,000
11,000
13,000
2,800
10,000
110.000
iS.ooo
1,700
2,600
2,800
13,000
2,500
-------
TABLE D-l (Cont'd.)
Station
Number
18S
19S
20S
21S
22S
23S
180
19D
200
210
22D
23D
20M
IBS
19S
20S
21S
22S
23S
Tlire
(DST)
iSOlt
1755
171.5
1737
1727
1717
1801.
1755
171.5
1737
1727
1717
171.5
1911
1905
1855
181.2
1835
1815
Water
Temp. °C
23.2
23.6
23.5
23.5
Zli.l
23.3
22.0
21.7
23.3
21.9
22.7
22.1
23 3
23.8
23.3
23.1.
23.3
21.. 1
23.6
PH
7.30
7.1.5
7.30
7.35
7.30
7 60
7 39
7.1.0
7.25
7.50
7. 1.0
7. SB
7.1.0
7.30
7.30
7.31
7.1.0
7.30
7 la
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
33,71.0
31,020
33,61.0
31i,170
31.9PO
35,370
36,900
3P.060
3l,,eOO
37.680
31..SFO
37.P10
31., 620
32,200
33,100
33,500
33,600
31,1.20
31.. 000
Chloride
fmp/l 1
RUN #7
15,750
15,883
15,725
15,91.6
11, 91.5
16.LP6
17 227
17,755
16,227
17.5R2
16,127
17,61.1
16.11.5
RUN #P
15,050
15,500
15,667
15.70P
11., 691
15,875
DO
2 5
I..1
3.1
2.8
2.5
li.O
3 3
3 2
3 3
3 5
3.1
3 It
37
2.6
2.7
2.8
3 0
2 6
3P.
DO
USat.)
A
57
1.7
39
35
56
1*
Ul.
1.6
1.8
1.3
1,7
52
36
37
39
1.2
36
53
Total Collform
(#/100 nl)
62,000
1.00,000
250,000
33,000
150,000
260,000
1.50,000
760,000
1,000,000
P3.0OO
230,000
35,000
730,000
U.0,000
76,000
1.20,000
230,000
31.0,000
1.000,000
Fecal Collform
W/100 ml)
12,000
50,000
16,000
25,000
15,000
10,000
23,000
88,000
200,000
6,600
13,000
2,500
33,000
27,000
11,000
22,000
6,800
21,000
5,200
-------
TABLE D-l (Cont'd.)
Station
Number
18D
190
20D
210
220
230
20H
18s
19S
20S
21S
22S
23S
180
190
20D
210
220
230
Time
(DST)
1911
1905
1855
181.2
1835
1615
1855
2105
2050
2030
1955
2015
20kO
2105
2050
2030
1955
2015
201.0
Water
Temp. °C
22.3
22.5
23.1.
22.0
22.8
22.2
23.1.
23.6
23.7
21.. 0
22.7
23.9
23.9
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.7
23.2
22. 1.
PH
7.1.0
7.05
7.30
7.1.2
7.1.0
7.1,5
7.30
7.1.0
7.1.0
7.20
7.1.0
7.1.0
7.1.0
7.1iO
7.1.0
7.1.0
7.UO
7.30
7.1.0
Conductivity
(unhos/cm)
RUN
37,100
36,510
3L.700
37,300
35,1.60
37,260
31.. 200
31.300
32. LOO
32,600
35,600
32,600
32.100
36,000
36,300
36,300
35,700
26,900
37, "00
Chloride
(meA)
#P (Cont'd.)
17,318
17,061.
16,182
16,000
16,503
17,1.00
15,95?
vm #9
11.. 636
15,150
15,250
16,600
15,250
15,000
16.800
16,950
16,950
16,650
12.5L5
IP, 591
DO
(mgA)
2.6
2.8
2 9
3-5
3.2
3-6
2 P
2 0
2.2
2.3
2.6
3 1
l.P
2 L
2.3
2.5
2 8
3 2
1 P
DO
MSst.)
36
39
ho
he
uk
so
3P
27
30
32
36
1.3
25
33
32
35
39
1.3
25
Total Conform
\(#AOO ml)
92,000
390,000
31.0,000
1,000,000
93,000
250,000
330,000
60,000
170,000
190,000
650,000
290,000
80,000
210,000
180,000
150,000
1,100,000
330,000
110,000
Fecal Coliform
(#AOO ml)
7,500
18,000
19,000
200,000
20,000
7,300
19,000
1.1,000
15,000
13,000
27,000
1.0,000
18,000
13,000
3U.OOO
12,000
92,000
26,000
2U,000
-------
TABLE D-l (Cont'd.)
StaUon
Number
US
19S
20S
21S
225
23S
18D
19D
20D
210
220
23D
20H
18S
US
20S
as
22S
23S
Time
(DST)
2220
2210
2150
2125
ZihO
2200
2220
2210
2150
2125
211iO
2200
2150
2320
2330
231(0
23li5
2355
0010
Water
Temp. °C
23.6
23.5
23.7
23.9
23.7
23.9
22.8
22.li
22.0
23 li
22.7
22.3
23.3
23.1,
23-5
23.5
23.6
23. li
23.8
PH
7.1.0
7.iiO
7.10
7. hO
7.1iO
7.UO
7.10
7.50
7.1iO
7.1*0
7 liO
7.1iO
7.1iO
7.50
7.UO
7.1iO
7.UO
7.UO
7.50
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
30,800
31,200
32,500
31,500
33,100
32,300
35,000
36,500
36.500
31,100
35,700
36,800
3U.OOO
30,100
31,100
32,800
32,300
32,700
33,800
Chloride
(mgA)
RUN #10
lli.liOO
lli, 590
15.200
111, 727
15,500
15,100
I6,31f>
17,0li5
17.0U5
15,917
16,650
17,162
I5,e75
RUN #11
111, 200
lU.SliS
15,350
15,100
15,300
15,792
DO
(ngA)
i.e
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.7
2.3
2 5
2.5
2.O
2.7
2.5
2.1
2.3
2.0
1.8
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.0
DO
(% Sat. )
25
29
29
29
38
32
31i
35
2P
3P
35
29
32
27
25
30
28
29
28
Total Conform
(#AOO ml)
71,000
70,000
210,000
110,000
500,000
57,000
310,000
250,000
200,000
3PO.OOO
1,500,000
210,000
1,700.000
66.000
Ii30,000
310,000
80,000
330,000
UiO,000
Fecal Coliform
(#/100 ml)
17,000
lit, 000
15,000
18,000
50,000
lli.OOO
12,000
12,000
111 ,000
50,000
130,000
16,000
130,000
111, 000
U2,000
22,000
19,000
37,000
17,000
-------
TABLE D-l (Cont'd.)
Station
Number
180
190
20D
21D
220
230
H
18S
19S
20S
21S
22S
23S
180
190
200
210
220
230
Tine
(DST)
2320
2330
2310
231,5
2355
0010
-
0020
0030
001,0
0050
0100
0110
0020
0030
001,0
0050
0100
0110
Water
22.1,
23.0
22.6
21.8
21.7
22.0
-
23-5
23.3
23.5
23.1,
23.5
23.3
22.1
22.3
22.0
22.1,
21.6
21.6
BH
7.50
7. la
7.UO
7.60
7.1,0
7.60
-
7 30
7.1,0
7. IK)
7.UO
7.1,0
7.1,0
7.50
7.50
7 50
7.50
7.60
7.60
Conductivity
(radios/cm)
RU1
36,500
3U.8CO
36,300
36,200
37,800
36,1,00
-
32,100
33,300
32.900
32,800
33,200
33,200
37,100
36,200
36,800
36,900
37,700
38.000
Chloride
(me/1)
1 #11 (Cont'd.)
17,01,5
16,227
16,950
16,900
17,636
17,000
.
RUN #12
15.000
1S.5P3
15,^00
15,350
15.512
15,51,2
17,318
16,900
17,182
17,227
17,591
17.727
DO
2.6
2.2
2 0
3-6
3.3
3.a
.
i.p
2.2
2.1
2.5
2.2
2.3
3.3
2 7
2.9
3.1
3.6
3 7
DO
(% Sat. )
36
30
28
1,9
1,5
1,7
.
25
30
29
31,
30
32
1,6
37
ho
U3
50
51
Total Coliform
(#/100ml)
2UO.OOO
2,500,000
90,000
60,000
1UO, 000
80,000
.
560,000
680,000
280,000
21,0,000
280,000
230,000
1,90,000
1,2,000
310,000
200,000
52,000
27,000
Fecal Conform
(#/100 ml)
12,000
UkO.OOO
19,000
ll.UOO
11,000
6,300
.
50,000
66,000
19,000
18,000
30,000
11,000
21,, 000
27,000
19,000
11,000
3,000
2,100
-------
TABLE D-l (Cont'd.)
Station
IBS
195
205
21S
22S
23S
18D
19D
20D
21D
22D
23D
23M
18s
19S
20S
215
225
235
Time
(DST)
0310
0300
0250
021.0
0230
0215
0310
0300
0250
021iO
0230
0215
0215
OU20
01.05
0355
03US
0335
0320
Water
Temp. °C
23.1
23.1
23.3
23.0
23.3
23.2
21.5
21. ti
21.5
22.5
21.7
21.9
22.9
23.2
23.2
23.0
22.9
23.1
23.2
PH
7.10
7. hO
7. 10
7.UO
7.10
7.50
7 60
7 60
7.50
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.50
7 ItO
7 liO
-
7.liO
7.1.0
7.l«0
Conductivity
(mhos/cm)
33,900
33,900
32,liOO
35,500
33.100
33.900
31 000
3C,000
31*, 100
37.200
37, POO
37, POO
35.200
32,600
33,600
23,100
31i,500
33,900
33,000
Chloride
(me/It
RUN |>13
15,?33
15,833
15,150
16,550
15,500
15.P33
17 72?
IV. 7 27
17 773
17,361.
17.636
17 636
16,1.09
RUN iflli
15,250
15,708
11,050
16,091
15.833
15,1.50
DO
(n*A)
2.2
2.P
2.2
2.5
2.3
2. a
3.6
3.6
3-6
1..1
3.5
3 6
3.1
i.n
2.3
2.1
2.8
2 1
2.5
DO
($Sat.)
30
39
30
35
32
33
50
W
SO
57
W»
50
U3
25
32
27
39
29
3U
Total Coltfom
(#AOO ml)
670,000
1.20,000
1.20,000
160,000
310,000
370,000
1.6.000
590,000
3U,000
52,000
50,000
30,000
56,000
760,000
260,000
390,000
7li,000
3UO.OOO
360,000
Fecal Collform
(#AOO ml)
56,000
15,000
17,000
10,000
17,000
15,000
1,100
23,000
2,700
It, 100
2,500
2,300
12,000
60,000
19,000
17,000
k.foo
23,000
19,000
-------
TABU D-l (Cont'd.)
Station
Number
180
190
200
ZLD
220
230
23M
18s
19S
20S
21S
22S
23S
1BD
190
200
210
220
230
Tine
(D5T)
01.20
OhOS
0355
03W
0335
0320
0320
0615
0600
0550
0535
0525
0510
0615
0600
0550
0535
0525
0510
Water
Temp. °C
21.2
21.5
22.2
21.0
22 1
21.7
22.6
23.1
23.3
23.2
23.2
23.7
23.0
21.8
21.9
21.9
22.6
23.2
22.2
PH
7.60
7.60
7.60
7.50
7.60
7.50
-
7.UO
7 30
7 tiO
7.50
7.1.0
7.60
7 60
7 60
7.1iO
7.50
7. bo
7.60
Conductivity
( mhos/cm)
RUN #11.
38,200
38,000
37,200
36,500
37,100
37,800
36,000
RUN
31..000
33,100
32,100
33,100
31.100
32,800
37,600
37,liOO
36,300
35,000
32,300
37,000
Chloride
(mit/1)
(Cont'd.)
17,818
17,727
17,361.
17,955
17,318
17,636
16,800
#15
1S.P75
15.500
15,000
15,500
lli. 51*5
15,350
17,515
17,li55
16.950
16,318
15,100
17,272
DO
(mR/1)
3.6
3-7
3.6
3.8
3.5
3.5
-
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.9
3.6
2.9
3.1.
2.5
3.7
DO
(% Sat. )
Ii9
51
50
52
w
1.8
-
28
30
27
30
31.
31.
UO
50
hO
Ii7
31.
51
Total Collform
(#/100 ml)
71. ,000
36,000
1.0,000
200,000
73,000
68,000
110,000
170,000
160,000
1.60,000
1.80,000
270,000
300,000
1,1.00.000
170,000
li.OOO.OOO
1.90,000
330,000
1.3,000
Fecal Collform
(0/1OO ml)
9,000
2,300
2,200
11,000
11.000
l»,l»00
6,700
Ib.OOO
15,000
21t,000
26,000
22,000
15,000
60,000
10,000
760.000
28,000
2i.,oon
2,900
23M
0510
23.1
7.60
33,800
15,792
2.6
36
360,000
25,000
-------
TABLE D-l (Cont'd.)
StaUon
Number
IBS
19S
20S
21S
22S
23S
18D
19D
20D
21D
22D
23D
Tine
(DST)
0720
0710
0655
06U5
0630
0625
0720
0710
0655
061,5
0630
0625
Water
Temp. °C
23.li
23 3
23.0
23.3
21.2
23.3
22.9
22.9
23.0
22.5
23.1
22.6
PH
7.90
7.30
7.30
7.30
7.30
7.1tO
7.30
7.50
7.30
7.1.0
7.1.0
7.30
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
30,900
32,300
31,600
32.1.00
30,100
33,liOO
31 liOO
35.000
33.000
35.200
33,500
35,900
Chloride
RUN #16
11,, USD
15,100
lli,773
15,150
lli.OSO
15,625
16,01.5
16.31'
15.1.50
16.1,09
15,66V
16,750
DO
(mgA)
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.5
l.P
3.1,
2.0
2.6
2.1.
3.5
DO
(it Sat.)
25
28
30
31.
32
31,
25
1.7
27
36
33
lift
Total Colif orm ,
WAOO ml) 7
53,000
70,000
hOO.OOO
300,000
290,000
96,000
320,000
1.50,000
560,000
220.000
270,000
72,000
Fecal Collform
(ifAOO ml)
13,000
11,000
9,000
21,000
30,000
12,000
15,000
16,000
2U.OOO
9,000
U.,000
11,000
20H
0655
23.2
7.30
32,1.00
15,150
2 0
27
590,000
1.6,000
DST - Daylight Standard Time
5 - Surface Stations - taken five feet from water surface
N - Hid Stations - taken at mid depth
D - Deep Stations - taken five feet from bottom
-------
APPENDIX E
-------
Survival Study - Passaic Valley Sewage Treatment Plant Outfall
Background;
On September 14, 1964, approximately 1,000 Ibs. of Rhodamine B dye
was released over the Passaic Valley Sewage Treatment outfall near
Robbins Reef in the Upper Bay during high water slack. From the dye
results it can be extrapolated that material discharged in the north-
west sector of the Upper Bay passes through the Narrows and exerts
an effect on water quality in a broad area of the Lower Bay (Raritan
Bay). Transit time to Staten Island beaches (Midland Beach and South
Beach) is approximately 6 hours. Within 32 hours of release, effects
can be detected as far west as Great Kills Harbor and east to the
Coney Island shore of Brooklyn. Subsequent studies have shown dye
detection at Staten Island beaches as early as 4 hours after release.
If one accepts the basic premise that the dispersion pattern of sewage
discharged at Robbins Reef is similar to that produced by the Rhodamine
B dye, then several assumptions can be made concerning the role of the
outfall discharge in contributing to the overall degradation of water
quality at the Staten Island beaches.
Previous work1 '*' nag snown that densities of indicator bacteria and
the pattern of Salmonellae isolation generally followed the movement
patterns of sewage as indicated by the dye. The effective use of dye
to indicate sewage affected areas in a river has also been substanti-
ated^). it follows then, that dye introduced at the outfall at Robbins
Reef provides information on time of passage of the discharge from the
Passaic Valley Sewage treatment plant outfall.
Sewage discharged at Robbins Reef can therefore be expected to reach
South Beach and Midland Beach on Staten Island in 4 to 6 hours. Since
sewage discharged by the Passaic Valley Sewage Treatment Plant only
receives primary treatment and no disinfection, large quantities of coli-
form bacteria are discharged through outfall at Robbins Reef. For August
19-20, 1969, the effluent at the sewage treatment plant had a minimum
coliform value of 90 x 10& per 100 ml, while the maximum value was 10 x
108/100 ml. Station 19, just north of the outfall at Robbins Reef, had
the following coliform and fecal coliform values for that same period:
-------
Coliform
Shallow samples (5 ft. from surface)
Deep samples (5 ft. from bottom)
Minimum
43 x 103
22 x 103
Maximum
52 x
25 x 10=
Fecal Coliform
Shallow samples
Deep samples
46 x 102
17 x 102
70 x 103
44 x
In addition to the high densities of indicator bacteria in the sewage
treatment plant effluent and at the outfall, salmonellae were isolated
at both these points. The salmonellae isolated are enteric pathogenic
bacteria which cause gastroenteritis in man.
With the establishment of the above facts, one needs to know whether
the intestinal bacteria discharged at the outfall survive the effects
of salt water and transit time in sufficient numbers so as to exceed
current New York State bacteriological standards for recreational waters
at Staten Island.
A typical die-off curve of coliforms in seawater shows an initial lag
phase followed by a mortality of up to 90% in 3 to 5 days. Orlob
(1956)^ reported typical curves for coliforms which included the initial
lag phase, followed by a phase of rapid decline, a phase in which
resistant cells developed and finally a phase in which the coliforms grew
back again. Ketchum, et al^5) evaluated the effects of dilution and the
bactericidal action of seawater on the survival of coliforms in estuarine
waters. Most of the decline in numbers of coliforms was attributed to
the bactericidal action of the water, while dilution appeared to play a
small part in the kill. Initially, most of the evidence presented to
explain the mechanism involved in the killing process was physico-chemical
in nature. More recently, a number of workers have attempted to implicate
the marine microflora as agents responsible for the killing effect.
Mitchell, et al^6) (1967) found that the rate of kill of coliforms was
proportional to the size of the marine microflora present. If the rate of
kill of coliforms in seawater is directly related to the numbers and activ-
ities of the native marine microflora present, then the rate of decline of
coliforms becomes variable. It is clear then, that a variety of parameters
- 2 -
-------
are associated with the destruction and disappearance of coliforms in
estuaries. The bactericidal action of seawater, therefore, varies with
the location, sampling time, seawater concentration, concentrations of
carbon and energy sources plus a variety of other factors. Processes
even implicated in tropical waters may have no relevance to temperate
waters(7).
Since the die-off rates of coliforms are dependent upon the conditions
present in the receiving estuary, it was necessary then to determine
the longevity of coliforms under the conditions present in the Upper Bay.
Since transit time of sewage from the outfall to South Beach and Midland
Beach on Staten Island was found to be 4 to 6 hours — changes in coli-
form populations were studied over the 6 hour period. Coliforms present
in the outfall receiving water and at selected points along the travel
route through the Narrows were used in the study since it has been shown
that laboratory-propagated strains have a greater resistance than the
naturally occurring bacteria*8)(9)t
During the study period, the temperature of the Upper Bay receiving water
was 23°C. Several investigators(4)(10) have noted that the bactericidal
action of seawater is more pronounced during the summer months than during
the winter months. Others^*!' noted that 41.4% of the original concentra-
tion of coliforms inoculated in seawater remained after 48 hours at 5°C,
11.3% remained at 20°C while only 2.3% remained in the"water stored at
30°C. According to these results, the most adverse temperature conditions
were being exerted on the survival of the coliform bacteria during the
study period.
Experimental;
Several approaches have been used to demonstrate quantitative changes
the coliform flora undergoes in contaminated waters. Each method, how-
ever, poses some type of limitation. Water collected and stored in
flasks in the laboratory is not similar to the conditions found in the
main body of water and survival data obtained from such a system will not
be representative. If the flasks are immersed in the body of water,
actual water temperatures may be duplicated, however, the system still
does not allow for interaction with receiving water constituents. This
objection may be overcome by using a dye tracer, such as Rhodamine B, a
continuous flow-through fluorometer and recording graph to obtain changes
in dye concentration. Therefore, it is now possible to follow a sample
of water and to determine quantitative changes in coliform density with
respect to time and distance from the sewage outfall. This, however,
presupposes that the receiving water is a fairly closed system with a
- 3 -
-------
single point discharge and has a net movement in only one direction.
Unfortunately, the Upper Bay experiences a tidal excursion every 12
hours and has many sources of raw or inadequately treated sewage so as
to render the method useless.
In order to simulate natural conditions, a number of investigators em-
ployed bacterial suspensions placed in cells or sacks made of a semi-
permeable membrane. These were then suspended in the water for various
periods of time. This technique was used by Beard and Meadowcroft in
their studies on the survival of typhoid and coliform bacteria in sea-
water'12). Similar techniques were also used to study the survival of
fecal streptococci in seawater(13). One of the main objections involved
in a dialysis chamber, is that the dilution effect is not completely
expressed and passage of higher molecular weight compounds will be
restricted. Protozoa and other bacterial scavengers will be eliminated
unless introduced with the sample water. Some have also objected to the
use of small sample volumes of water (in the order of 25-50 ml) that have
been used in the dialyzing chambers.
Since dye tracer techniques in conjunction with coliform die-offs,
could not be employed in the Upper Bay study, the next most feasible
method of simulating the natural environment was used. Dialysis chambers
containing 1 liter of sample water were used in the study. The larger
volume of sample water would allow for a greater number of predators and
natural microflora present to exert possible effects on the longevity of
the coliform bacteria. By collecting water at a series of points along
the transit route from the outfall followed by suspension in dialysis
chambers at the collection site, dilution effects at these points may be
incorporated into the system.
Dialyzer tubing used is permeable to water and permits passage of low
molecular weight compounds in aqueous solution while retaining materials
with molecular weights of 12,000 and higher, such as proteins. Bacteria
will be retained by the membrane, however, viruses and bacteriophage will
be allowed passage.
Results:
One liter of sample water was collected at the sewage discharge field
(Buoy Qk Fl G "27", Robbins Reef); in the Narrows at Buoy Fl R "22" Gong;
off the Quarantine Station at Staten Island in the Narrows and at South
Beach at Navigational Aid - "23" Bell. Total coliform bacteria were
assayed by the MF (membrane filter) procedure at the time of sample
collection and the water was then placed in sterile dialysis chambers,
-------
sealed and suspended 5 feet from the surface. Salmonella assays were
only performed on water from the outfall station (QK Fl 6 "27") before
suspension and then again 6 hours later upon retrieval of the dialysis
chamber. Total coliform assays were again performed on all waters held
in dialysis chambers after 6 hours. The following table shows coliform
densities at the time of collection and after 6 hours exposure in the
dialysis 'chambers.
- 5 -
-------
Sample vol.
Station ml
Robbins Reef
Nav. Aid
(G "27") 1,000
Narrows
Nav. Aid
Fl R "22" 1,000
Narrows
Quarant ine
Station 1,000
South Beach
Nav . Aid
Bell "23" 1,000
*Total Coliform/100 ml
0 hr.
42,000
24,000
58,000
21,000
6 hrs.
40,000
20,000
34,000
20,000
% Survival
95.2
83.3
58.6
95.2
Salmonella Isolations
0 hr.
S. enter it idis ser. siegburg
S. enteritidis ser. derby
S. enteritidis ser. oranienburg
6 hrs.
S. enteritidis ser. siegburg
S. enteritidis ser. bredeney
S. enteritidis ser. thompson
*Averages based on triplicate plate analyses.
- 6 -
-------
Above results indicate that considerable numbers of coliforms survive
the 6 hour exposure period that is required for passage of sewage from
the outfall to South Beach and Midland Beach on Staten Island. At the
four points studied, from 58 to 95% of the coliforms survived the 6
hour exposure and remaining indicator densities exceeded the New York
State bacteriological standard for bathing beach water (2400 coliforms
per 100 ml). At the outfall, 42,000 coliforms/100 ml were observed.
At the end of the 6 hour exposure period, 95% of these bacteria were
still viable. Salmonellae were concurrently isolated from the outfall
receiving water at Robbins Reef before the sample was placed in the
dialysis chamber for immersion. Salmonella enter It idis ser. siegburg,
£. enteritidis ser. derby and J3. enter it idis ser. oranienburg were
detected in the sample prior to immersion. S. enteritidis ser. siegburg,
J3. enteritidis ser. bredeney and £3. enter it id is ser. thompson were
isolated from the dialysis chamber after the 6 hour immersion period in
the bay water. The occurrence of such pathogens in the outfall receiving
waters at Robbins Reef poses an initial hazard to water users in the
Upper Bay. The fact that a similar serotype (S3. enteritidis ser. sieg-
burg) plus other species could still be isolated after 6 hours exposure
to bay water, establishes a potential, secondary effect on the beaches
located below the Narrows. Credibility of these data are enhanced by the
routine isolations of salmonellae made in previous studies at South
Beach and Midland Beach on Staten Island'^) and by the isolation of
J3. enteritidis ser. san diego at South Beach on September 4, 1969.
On September 2 and 4, 1969 effluent of the Passale Valley Sewage Treat-
ment Plant was analyzed for the presence of salmonella. The following
organisms were isolated:
Salmonella Serotypes Date Isolated
J3. enteritidis ser. alachua September 2, 1969
^5. enteritidis ser. manhattan September 2, 1969
J3. enteritidis ser. typhimurium September 2, 1969
£3. enteritidis ser. heidelberg September 4, 1969
In the (Jan. - July 1969) Salmonella Surveillance Reports of the 1). S.
Public Health Service, ten of the most frequent Salmonella serotypes
infecting man in the United States are ranked.
Two serotypes isolated from the Passaic Valley Sewage Treatment Plant
effluent and two serotypes isolated at the outfall receiving water are
among the top ten. They are £3. typhimurium, S>. heidelberg, J3. thompson
and S. derby which rank one, three, six and ten respectively.
- 7 -
-------
Ten Most Common Serotypes Infecting Man in the United States
(January to July
Rank Salmonella serotypes
1 J3. typhimurium
2 J>. enter it id is
3 S. heidelberg
4 ^. newport
5 £3. infant is
6 J3. thompson
7 ^. st. pau 1
8 £3. typhi
9 S. blockley
10 S. derby
Conclusions;
1. Large densities of coliform bacteria are being discharged in the
Upper Bay by the Passaic Valley Sewage Treatment Plant effluent.
2. Salmonellae are also being discharged by the treatment plant
effluent. These pathogens are capable of infecting man, causing
gastroenteritis.
3. Dye dispersion studies show that sewage discharged at the Robbins
Reef will reach South Beach and Midland Beach on Staten Island in
6 hours.
4. Coliforms and salmonellae discharged at Robbins Reef survive the
6 hour transit time required to reach the beaches on Staten Island.
Remaining coliform densities exceed New York State bacteriological
standards established for bathing waters.
- 8 -
-------
References.
1. Proc. Conf. Poll, of Raritan Bay and Adjacent Interstate Waters,
Vol. 1, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (1967).
2. Brezenski, F. T. and Russomanno, R. 1969 The Detection and Use
of Salmonellae in Studying Polluted Tidal Estuaries. Jour. WPCF
5:41, 725-737.
3. Deaner, D. G. and Karri, K. D. 1969 Regrowth of Fecal Coliforms.
Jour. AWWA, 465-468.
4. Orlob, G. T. 1956 Viability of Sewage Bacteria in Seawater. Sew.
Ind. Wastes 28, 1147-1167.
5. Ketchum, B. H., Ayres, J. C. and Vaccaro, R. F. 1952 Processes
Contributing to the Decrease of Coliform Bacteria in a Tidal
Estuary. Ecology 33, 247-258.
6. Mitchell, R., Yankofsky, S. and Jannasch, H. W. 1967 Lysis of
Escherichia coli by Marine Microorganisms. Nature, Lond. 215,
891-893.
7. Mitchell, R. 1968 Factors Affecting the Decline of Non-Marine
Microorganisms in Seawater. Water Research, Pergamon Press, Vol.
2, 535-543.
8. Moore, B. 1954 Sewage Contamination of Coastal Bathing Waters.
Bull. Hyg. 29, 689-704.
9. Zobell, C. E. 1936 Bactericidal Action of Sea Water. Proc. Soc.
Exper. Biol. and Mad. 34, 113-116.
10. Vaccaro, R. F., Briggs, M. P., Carey, C. L. and Ketchum, B. H.
1950 Viability of Escherichia coli in Seawater. Am. J. Pub. Hlth.
40, 1257-1266.
11. Carlucei, A. F. and Pramer, D. 1960 An Evaluation of Factors
Affecting the Survival of E. coli in Seawater. Applied Micro. 8,
243-260.
12. Beard, P. J. and Meadowcroft, N. F. 1935 Survival and Rate of
Death of Intestinal Bacteria in Seawater. Am. J. Pub. Hlth., 25,
1023.
- 9 -
-------
13. Slanetz, L. W. and Hartley, Clara H. 1965 Survival of Fecal
Streptococci in Seawater. Hlth. Lab. Science, Am. J. Pub. Hlth.
2, 3:142.
14. U. S. Department of Health, Education- and Welfare, U. S. Public
Health Service. National Communicable Disease Center, Salmonella
Surveillance Reports, 82-88, 1969.
-10 -
------- |