I
TRANSCRIPT OF CONFERENCE
on
POLLUTION OF THE INTERSTATE WATERS OF THE
RARITAN BAY AND ADJACENT WATERS
First Session
The Public Health Service
>¦
U. S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare
The Interstate Sanitation Commission and the
Water Pollution Control Agencies of the States
of New Jersey and New York
New York
/-
August 22, 1961
-------
TRANSCRIPT OF CONFERENCE
Conference on Pollution of the Interstate Waters
of the
Raritan Bay and Adjacent Waters, First Session
Called by the Surgeon General, Public Health Service,
Under the' Federal Water Pollution Control Act
The Public Health Service, U. S. Dept„ of Health, Education, and Welfare,
the Interstate Sanitation Commission and the
State Water Pollution Control Agencies of
New Jersey and New York
New York,
New York
August 22, 1961
-------
CONTENTS
Page
List of Conferees ............ ix
List of Other Participants . x
Summary of Conference . . » xv
Introduction by Chairman ..e.o .. 1
Introduction of Invitees:
U. S. Public Health Service * ....... . ?
Official Federal Observers . . ......... 5
Other Federal Agencies . . 5
Interstate Sanitation Commission ............ 5
New Jersey State Department of Health .............. 6
New York State Department of Health 6
U. So Public Health Service Statements?
Mr. Murray Stein, Chairman ............ 1
Mr. Lester M« Klashman ................. 6
Mr. Harold F. Clark .......... 8
Dr. Donald A. Henderson U9
Dr. Alexander D. Langmuir ............ 98
Interstate Sanitation Commission Statements:
Dr. Mitchell Wendell, Counsel . ^ 60
Mr. William C„ Cope, Chairman ............ 62
New Jersey State Department of Health Statements:
Dr. Roscoe P* Kandle . 6?
New York State Department of Health Statementss
Dr. Hollis Ingraham ................... i .... .» 77
iii
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
New York Statements: (Continued.)
Mr. Harold F. Udell . . 8U
Mr. Stanley Pinel ........a............... 8|?
Mr. William T. Ingram » . . .................. . 95
Dr. Harold To Fuerst ....................... 96
Other Statements:
Mr. R. H. Wuesterfeld . $6
Mr. James B.- Engle o . . . . . $9
Mr. William Wechter . .......... 59
Summary by Chairman . 119
Bibliography 123
Summary of Sewage Treatment Plant Performance From
Interstate Sanitation Commission Records Government Appendix A
Sewage Treatment Plants Tributary to the Raritan-
Lower Bay and Arthur Kill Study Area . Government Appendix B
Evaluation of Pollution Conditions in the Arthur
Kill ....................... New York Appendix A
iv
-------
EXHIBITS
GOVT. EXHIBIT TITLE AFTER PAGE
NUJ4BER
X Map, Raritan Bay Study Area 8
2
Map, Float Studies, August 1958* MY State Dept
of Health
12
3
Map, Float Studies, September 1950s ^ State
Dept of Health
12
U
Map, Float Studies 195L, NY State Conservation
Dept
12
Table
1
1959 Study Area Data
1*
5
Map, Water Uses
li*
Table
2
Staten Island Beach Facilities, Table 2
Ui
Table
3
Clam Receipts from Raritan Bay in New York Market
16
Table
a
Sewage Treatment Plants Tributary to the Raritan-
Lower Bay and Arthur Kill Study Area
10
Table
5
Summary of Sources of Wastes
18
6
Map, Wastes Sources, Raritan Bay and Arthur Kill
18
7
Map, Suspended Solids Loadings, Population
Equivalents
20
8
Map, BOD Loadings, Population Equivalents
20
Table
6
Industries Discharging to Arthur Kill
22
9
Map, Geometric -Mean Coliform, Profile of Arthur
Kill
26
10
Map, Weighted Mean % Saturation of Dissolved
Oxygen, 1957# Arthur Kill Survey
26
Table
7
Coliform Density Per 100 ML Geometric Means For a
Tidal Cycle at the Narrows
28
11
Geometric Mean Coliform, Profile of Staten Island
Shore Line Waters
28
v
-------
EXHIBITS (Continued)
GOVT. EXHIBIT TITLE AFTER PAGE
NPMEER
12 Hap, Geometric Mean Coliform, Profile Along New
York - New Jersey Channel 30
13 Map, Geometric Mean Coliform, Profile Along New
York - New Jersey State Line 30
ll; Chart, Median Coliforms in Waters Overlying
Shellfish Beds 32
15" Map, Geometric Wean Coliform Per 100 ML, 19$8~196l 3k
16 Chart, Dissolved Oxygen Profile, Sandy Hook-The
Marrows, I960 36
17 Chart, Dissolved Oxygen Profile, Offshore Staten
Island 36
16 Chart, Dissolved Oxygen Profile, New York Waters
North of State Line, I960 36
19 Headquarters Fort Ivadsworfch 30
20 Status of Swimming Areas on Staten Island, 1961 30
Table 8 History of Consumption of Raw Clams Within 120 Days
of Interview Among Various Population Samples in
New Jersey £0
Table 9 Cases of Hepatitis in Adults, US - 1961, Reported
to Hepatitis Surveillance Unit through June 30,
1961 (2 sheets) 5-2
21 Map, Incidence of Infectious Hepatitis (Adult
Cases), Northeastern States', January-June, 1961
Non-Consumers of Raw Clams £2
22 Map, Incidence of Infectious Hepatitis (Adult
Cases), Northeastern States, January-June, 1961
Consumers of Raw Clams $2
vi
-------
NEW JERSEY EXHIBIT
EXHIBITS (Continued)
TITLE
NUMBER
1 Graph, Graph of Coliform Analyses
2 Table, Summary of Operating Results - I960
3 Graph, Graph of Suspended Solids Removal
AFTER PAGE
7U
7U
7U
NEW YORK CITY
EXHIBIT NUMBER
TITLE
Map, City of New York, Department of Public Works,
Plan for Pollution Control
Graph, Staten Island
AFTER PAGE
86
86
vii
-------
Conference on Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Raritan Bay and
Adjacent Waters
First Session
August 22, 1961
U„ S0 Courthouse
Foley Square
New York, New York
Chairman: Mr. Murray Stein
Chief, Enforcement Branch
U. Sb Public Health Service
Washington, Do C9.
Conferees: Mr. Lester M„ Klashman
Regional Program Director
Region II
Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control
U6 S» Public Health Service
New York, N. Y»
Mr0 Thomas R. Glenn, Jr„
Director and Chief Engineer
Interstate Sanitation Commission
New York, N. Y.
Dr« Roscoe Po Kandie
Commissioner, New Jersey State
Department of Health
Trenton, New Jersey
Dr. Hollis So Ingraham
First Deputy Commissioner
State Department of Health
Albany, New York
ix
-------
OTHER APPEARANCES
U. S. Public Health Service
Mr. Harold Clark
Bacteriologist
Robert Ac Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
Cincinnatij Ohio
Drc Donald A, Henderson
Chief, Surveillance Section
Epidemiology Branchy Communicable Disease Center
Atlanta, Georgia
Dr o Alexander D* Langmuir
Chiefj Epidemiology Branch
Communicable Disease Center
Atlanta, Georgia
Mr. Sylvan C<, Martin
Regional Engineer
"Region II
Sanitary Engineering
New York,, N 0 To
Mr« Paul De Falco, Jr»
Chief, Water Resources Development Section
Region II
Division of Water Supply & Pollution Control
New Yorks H. I.
Department of the Army
Mr. R. Ho Wuesterfeld
Chief, Permits Branch
Corps of Engineers
New York District Engineer
New York, I.
Mrc William Wechter
Sanitary Engineer
Headquartersj First Army
New York t N. Y0
Treasury Department
Commander George Hardy
Third District, U„ S. Coast Guard
YorkIff. Y0
x
-------
OTHER APPEARANCES (Continued)
Department of the Interior
Mr„ James B. Engle
Director, Biological Laboratory-
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau, of Commercial Fisheries
Annapolis, Maryland
Interstate Sanitation Gomissiorv
Dr. William C, Cope
Chaiman
New York, N. Y.
Dr. Natale Colosi
Vice Chairman
New York, N. Y.-
Dr0 Mitchell Wendell
Counsel
New York, N. Y.
State of New Jersey-
Mr. E. Powers Mincher
Counsel -
New Jersey State Department of Health
Trenton, New Jersey
Mr. Mat Adams
Acting Commissioner
N. J. Dept. of Conservation and Economic Development
Trentonj New Jersey
Mr. Ariel A. Thomas
Met calf & Eddy
Consulting Engineers
for Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
Sayreville, New Jersey
State- of New York
Mr-. Harold F. Udel'l
Chief, Sanitation "Jr.it
New. York State Conservation Department
Freeport, New York
xi
-------
OTHER APPEARANCES (Continued)
State of New York (Continued)
Mr.. George Burdick
Senior Aquatic. Biologist
New York State Conservation Department
Albany, New York
Prof, William To Ingram
Engineering Consultant
New York City Department of Health
New York, N. Y,
Dr. Harold To Fuerst
DirectQr, gureau of Preventable Diseases
New York City Department of Health
New York, N. Y<>
Mr. William A. O'Leary
Director, Division of Sewage Disposal
New York City Department of Public Works
New YorHj N. Y»
Mr. Stanley Pinel
Chief Engineer
City Administrator's Office
New York, N» Y«
xii
-------
SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE
(FIRST SESSION)
POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE MATERS
of the
RARITAN BAY
AND ADJACENT WATERS
(NEW YORK - NEW JERSEY)
-------
SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE
(FIRST SESSION)
POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE WATERS
ef the
RARITAN BAY
AND ADJACENT WATERS
('NEW YORK - NEW JERSEY)
The Raritan Bay and adjacent waters which are the subject of the
conference include a portion of ths Narrows, the Lower Bay, and Sandy Hook
Bay, the Raritan Bay. the tidal portions of the Raritan River} the Arthur
Killj and the other smaller tributaries to the named Bays.,
The Lower Bay and Raritan Bays along with Sandy Hook Bay,, .combine to
form a triangular body of tidal water that extends inland.for about 10 miles
between Staten Island., New York, to the northwest, and the New Jersey shore-
line to the south. The boundary between the two States passes approximately
from east to west through the middle of the Lower Bay and Raritan Bay to the
western end of Raritan Bay where it swings to a northerly direction and con-
tinues up the middle of the Arthur Kill» The Arthur Kill is a narrow body
of water connecting Raritan Bay, at- its southern end, with Newark Bay at its
northern end. The Arthur Kill forms the western border of Staten Island and
the eastern border of the adjacent sector of New Jersey.. The water area in
question comprises approximately 30 square miles, which is about equally
divided between the two States,, These waters form a substantial part of the
New York Harbor complexo
On the basis of reports, surveys, and studies, the Surgeon -General,
having reason to believe that pollution of the interstate waters of Raritan
Bay and adjacent waters, caused by discharges of untreated and inadequately
treated sewage and industrial wastes by municipalities and industries in New
Jersey and New York was endangering the health and welfare of persons in
these two States, called a conference on the pollution of these waters» The
first session of the Conference was held on August 22, 1961, in Room 1105>,
Uo So Court House3 Foley Square, New York, New York, and commenced at 9:30
aoTTio The following conferees representing the water pollution control agen-
cies of the State of New Jersey, the State of Nevr York, the Interstate Sani-
tation Commission, and the Public Health Service, attended the conference:
Drc Roscoe P0 Kandle New Jersey State Department of Health
Drd> Hollis S0 Ingraham New York State Department of -Health
xv
-------
Thomas R. Glenn, Jr.
Lester M» Klashman
Murray Stein, Chairman
The following also participated in
Eo Powers Mincher
Ho Mat Adams
Ariel A« Thomas
A. Fo Dappert
Harold F. Udell
William 0'Leary
William Tc Ingram
Stanley Pinel
Drc Harold To Fuerst
Dr, William C® Cope
Mitchell Wendell
Dr» Nataie Colosi
R„ Ho Wuesterfeld
William Wechter
Commander George Hardy, USCG
James Engle
Dr» Alexander De Langmuir
Interstate Sanitation Commission
Public Health Service, New York, K, I,
Public Health Services Washington, D. C»
the Conference:
New Jersey State Department of Health
New Jersey State Department of Conserva-
tion and Economic Development
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
New York State Department of Health
New York State Department of Conservation
New York City Department of Public Works
New York City Department of Health
Administrator's Office
New York City
New York City Department of*Health
Interstate Sanitation Commission
Interstate Sanitation Commission
Interstate Sanitation Commission
Corps of Engineers
U0 So Army - New York, N. Y«
Headquarters, First Army
U. So Army - New York, N. Y0
Third District - U0 S» Coast Guard
New York, N0 Y.
Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
New York, N. Ye
Public Health Service
Atlanta, Georgia.
xvi
-------
Dr0 Donald A0. Henderson
Public Health Service
Atlanta* Georgia
Harold S» Clark
Public Health Service
Cincinnati., Ohio
Paul De'FalcQ
public Health Service
Hjle.w York, N. I
Sylvan Co Martin
Public Health Service
Mew York. JJC I»
W, Wo B runs on
Public Health Service
Washington, D. Co
The chairman of the Conference pointed out that?
lo Unde-r .ih$ Jfe^erel Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 660 -
8Uth Congress), aa amended;, pollution of interstate waters which endangers
the health or welfare of persons in a State other than the one in which the
discharges originate is subject to abatement under procedures described in
section 8 of the Federal Aci^o
2o The first step of this procedure is the calling of a conference®
3« The purpose of the conference is to bring the States, the Inter-
state Agency9 and the Public Health Service together to lay a basis for
future action by all parties concerned and to give the States, the Interstate
Agency,, and the local governmental agencies an opportunity to take remedial
action which may be indicated under State and local law„
Conferees representing the New Jersey State Department of Healthy the
New York State Department of Health, the Interstate Sanitation Commission,
and' the Public Health Service, were present throughout the conference¦>
In the light of the conference statements and discussions, the con-
ferees unanimously agreed to the following conclusions and recommendations
lo The Raritan Bay and adjacent waters which are the subject of the
conference are interstate waters within the meaning of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act«
2o There is pollution of these waters«
3<> Scientific data, taking into account a wide range of factors and
technological problems, including health, conservation, water policy and
uses, and industrial processes are urgently needed, and are the critical
issue in further control of pollution of these waters0
xvii
-------
Ho The Public Health Service, in collaboration with the Hew Jersey
State Department of Health, the New York State Department of Healths and the
Interstate Sanitation Commission^ will undertake an investigation and study
of these waters to accumulate this datap
3>. Cognisance is taker, of the programs and . the administrative
machinery of the agencies of the c^te af Hew Tcrk and the Sta-^e of Uew
Jersey* and the Interstate Sanitation Corajiiissicn to control pollution of
these watersfl
6z there has been., and ecr.tinaes to be., progress under plan, in
abatement of the pollution of these waters =.
7» -he conferees velcome and appreciate the interest support and
collaboration of the Public Health Service in the collective efforts to pre-
serve the Raritan Bay and particularly in solving the scientific problems®
8. The conferees are willing tp report to the IPublic Health Service
at appropriate intervals and the Public Health Service will report to the
other conferees periodically*
9* The conference will be reconvened on the call of the Chairman one
year from the present date in order to evaluate the progress made by the
study and investigation and to receive the recommendations of the conferees
as to further action®
jcviii
-------
TRANSCRIPT. OF CONFERENCE
Pollution of the Interstate Waters
of the
Raritan Bay and Adjacent Waters, First Session
August 22, 1961
-------
The conference rcetj pursuant to notice, at 9s2£ A, M03 August 22s
196l3 in the U„ S° Courthouses Foley Square,, New 2orks Mru Murray Stein5
Chairmana presiding,,
MR„ STEIN; The conference is open.
This conference in the matter of pollution of the interstate waters
of the Raritan Bay and its tributaries. involving the States of New Jersey.,
New York, the Interstate Sanitation Commission and the Public Health Ser-
vice , is being held under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Acto Under the provisions of that Act the Surgeon General of the
United States Public Health Service is required to call a conference of
this type when., on the basis of reportss surveys, or studiess he has reason
to believe that pollution of interstate- waters subject to abatement under
the Federal Act is occurring.. The Surgeon General has called such a con-
ference covering the Raritan Bay ani i'cs tributaries.
The purpose of the conference is to bring together the State water
pollution control agencies^ interstate agencies 3 the Public Health Service,
and the other interested parties9 to review the existing situation and
progress which has been raade5 to lay a basis for future action by all par-
ties concerned^ and to give the Statess localities and industries an oppor-
tunity to take any remedial action which nay- be indicated under State and
local lawo
The conference mechanism is &. time-tested and proved technique <> It
is used by many States infernally iii the normal conduct of business in the
field of water pollution control* It is indeed prophetic., I think., that as
long ago as 1921 the United States Supreme Court,, in the famous Interstate
Pollution Case of New York against Mew Jersey, said?
"We cannot withhold the suggestion inspired by the
consideration of this case that the grave problem of sewage
disposal presented by the large and growing population liv-
ing on the shores of' New York Bay is one more likely to be.
wisely solved by cooperative study and by conference and
mutual concession on the part of representatives of the
States so vitally interested in it than by proceedings in
any court9 however constituted,,
I think the wheel has long turned now and made its revolution.) The
words of the Supreme Court have been taken into account when the legisla-
tion was passed, and now in fact we are having a conference in the same area
that they spoke of back in 19210
Under Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the
Surgeon General has notified the official State Water Pollution Control
Agencies and the interstate agency having jurisdiction in this area, of this
- 1 -
-------
conference0 These agencies are the New York State Department of Health,
who "Hill be represented, we understand, by Dr» Hollis Ingrahairio Dr„
Ingraham has not yet arrived, but as soon as he comes in we would expect
him to take his place around the conference table*
Dr0 Ingraham -«¦ welcome indeed, Dr- Ingrahanu ¥e were just getting
started with our opening remarks, explaining the purpose of the conference?
The New Jersey State Department of Health will be represented by Dr0
Roscoe Kandie| the Interstate Sanitation Commission by Hr<, Thomas Glennj
the Public Health Service by Mr0 Lester Klashroan, the Regional Program
Director, Water Supply and Pollution Control^ and my name is Murray Stein,
and I am from headquarters of the Public Health Service,
Representatives of these official agencies are, of course, privileged
to bring whoever they wish tp the conference and navy them participate in
it. However, representative? of these official State agencies and the
Public Health Service constitute the conference, and under the law this is
a conference between these State representatives and the interstate agencies
and the Public Health Service®
The States, the interstate agencies, and the Federal Government, have
responsibilities in dealing with interstate water pollution control problemso
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act declares that the States have pri-
mary rights and responsibilities for taking action to abate and control
interstate pollution In addition* the Federal Act provides that we are to
encourage action of interstate agencies®
It has always been the policy of the Public Health Service to give
full recognition to this traditional role of the States^ and the role of the
interstate agencieso The function of the Public Health. Service is to en-
courage the States in these activitieso Howevers the Public Health Service
is charged by lam with specific responsibility in connection with interstate
pollution control problemsThe Federal Water Pollution Control Act pro-
vides that pollution of interstate waters, "whether the natter causing or
contributing to such pollution is discharged directly into such waters5 or
reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of such waters, which
endangers the public health or welfare of persons in a State other than that
in which the discharge originates, Is subject to abatemant0
The procedures for abatement are carefully set forth in the Federal
Water Pollution Control Acta
The conference will be useful in providing a clear picture of the
problem, and in delineating accomplishments, and in indicating what still
needs to be done, if anything, to correct the problem of pollution of the
interstate watery of the Raritan Bay*
<= g •»
-------
Under the Federal Act the Surgeon General is required at the conclu-
sion of the conference to prepare a summary of it« This summary will be
sent to all conferees® The summary^ according to law, must include the
followings
1. Occurrence of pollution of interstate waters sub-
ject to abatement under the Federal Act#
2. Adequacy of measures taken toward abatement of
the pollution.
3. Nature of delays, if any, being encountered in
abating the pollution.
"Where a situation does not lend itself to the covering of all these
points at one session, we have held conferences in several sessions.
Succeeding sessions are held on the c^ll of the Chairman after a reasonable
opportunity has been given tp develop additional information. If such
proves to be the ewe here, it is suggested that consideration might be
given to designating today's proceedings as the first session of the confer-
ence, and scheduling a second session in the future.
Some time subsequent to the holding of the conference the Surgeon
General is required to make recommendations for remedial action if such
recommendations are indicated to the conferees. This will have to be done
upon the conclusion of the conference, depending upon when this conference
is concluded. If the conference is concluded today or tomorrow, the Surgeon
General will then have to make recommendations, but if it is recessed and
continued, the Surgeon General can wait until the conclusion of the last
session of the conference before he makes his recommendations. In the past,
the Surgeon General, where pollution was found, has always made recommenda-
tions in terms of a construction time schedule for remedial action. This
time schedule, in almost all cases, has been followed throughout the
country. As a matter of fact, I think that as some of you may well know,
we measure our success by the number of pollution cases solved by the con-
ference technique rather than by the cases we have to go to court on.
A word about the procedures governing the conduct of the conference.
A record and a verbatim transcript will be made of the conference. Mr. Jack
Rund is making this verbatim report, for the purpose of aiding us in pre-
paring a summary, and also providing a record of what is being said and done
here. We will make copies of the summary and verbatim transcript of the
conference available to the State representatives.
For the purposes of maintaining relationships within a region and a
State we have found that this is the best way to handle distribution. All
others who want copies of this will, we would expect, get in touch with
their State representatives. The reason for this is that we would prefer
- 3 -
-------
that people who are interested in this problem follow their normal relation-
ships in dealing with the State agencies, rather than dealing with or coming
to the Federal Government on these matters. This has worked successfully in
the past and we would be happy to make this material available to the States.
All the conferees will be called upon to make statements. The con-
ferees, in addition, may call upon participants they have invited to the
conference to make statements also. At the conclusion of such statements
the conferees will be given an opportunity to comment or ask questions, and
at the conclusion of the other conferees' comments or questions, I may ask
a question or so too„ In the past this has proved effective in developing
a clear statement of the problem and in reaching agreements on equitable
solutionso
At the end of all the statements and the questioning, we will have a
discussion among the conferees and try to arrive at at least a factual basis
of agreement, and then I will attempt to summarize the conference orally,
and we will of course give the conferees an opportunity right here to amend
or suggest modifications to the summary# After that the summary will be
sent out<»
Mr* Minchere
MR. MIKCHERs With respect to questions, Mr0 Stein, do I assume that
the questioning is restricted to the conferees and their designees only?
MRo STEINs Yeso Generally speaking, the conferees are the only ones
who can make comments or ask questions<, As you can see, this is a quasi-
formal proceeding only, and if a conferee would want to designate any one of
their staff member's to direct questions, we would be happy to entertain that»
I should indicate that these questions are, we would hope, asked to
bring forth the facts» None of the statements here are made under oath. I
want to make it clear that no one is obliged to answer any question he does
not want to, or if he does not wish to« We hope that the questioning will
not be made in a manner analogous to a cross examination, but this is en-
tirely up to the conferees®
Before we turn this over to Mr® Klashman for the Public Health Ser-
vice statement, we would like to, if you wish, to have the conferees intro-
duce their associates here and other people in the audience,, if they wish0
I would just like to make one introduction„ I think we are very,
very fortunate today to have with us Dr« Alec Langmuir, who is universally
recognized as one of the world's outstanding epidemiologists<> Dr. Langmuir
will be available for consultation and may participate in any fashion that
the conferees may wish to avail themselves ofe
With that I would like to turn this over to Mr0 Lester Klashman<>
- u -
-------
Do you have any people you would like to introduce before you begin?
STATEMENT OF LESTER KLASHMAN, REGIONAL PROGRAM
DIRECTOR .FOR WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL,
REGION 2j DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHq EDUCATION, AND
WELFARE
MRo KLASHMANs Yes, I doc
First I would like to introduce Mr. George O'Brien, Deputy Regional
Director for the Department of Healthy Education,, .and Welfare,,
George, would you,, mind standing?
Mrs e Bernstein, who is our. Regional Attorney*.
Mr® Sylvan Co Martin, our Associate Director for Environmental Health
Serviceso
Mr, Richard Mark5 who is the Regional Program Director for Envi-
ronmental Engineering and Food Protection.,
Mr* Frank DeMarfcini, Chief, Field Operations {Section, and Deputy
Chief of our Technical Services Branch, and
Mrc Ralph Porges, Deputy Chief of Field Operations, both from our
Public Health Service Sanitary Engineering Center in Cincinnati, Ohio0
Mr, Paul-De Falco,-* Chief of our Water Resources Section in thf
Region| and three Federal people representing Federal agencies?
Mr0 James Erigle, Bureau of Commercial 'Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife
Service0
Commander George Hardy, Third Coast Guard District#
Mr» Robert Wuesterfeld, Assistant to the Supervisor of New York
Harbor, representing the District Engineer.
Also Mr, Woodrow Bx'unson., from our Washington office, the Enforcement
Branch, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control,,
Are there any ether Federal agencies represented here that I have
missed?
That i^ all3 Mro Chairmano
MRo STEIN % Mr o Glenn, do you have any people you would 'like to
introduce at this point?
-------
MR. GLENNs At my Immediate right is the Chairman of the Interstate
Sanitation Commission,, Mr. Copes and on his right is Dr« Colosi3 the Vice
Chairman from New York State.
On my left is Dr. Wendell.,, whc is counsel 0
Across the table is Dr„ Kandle3 who can speak for himselfs who is
also on our Commission from Kew Jersey«
MR. STEIN: Thank yor.is sire We were just going to call on Dr„
Kandle 0
Do you have any introductions?
DRo KANDLE s Commissioner- H„ Mat Adams is our Commissioner of the
Department. oX Conservation and Economic Development 9 and Mr0 Ed Mincher,
who-, sits as counsel to the Department- of Health0
MR„ STEINs Dru Ingraham.
DR. INGRAHAMs I am here representing Dr« Hilleboe with two members
of the Department staff3 Mr„ Dappert at my left and Dr<> Thompson^ who came
down with me this morning <>
In addition to that5 we have invited participation from the New York
State Conservation Department, and I understand Mro Udell and Mr0 Burdick
are here 0
We have al.sc invited as participants Mr. Maxwell Lehman, the New York
City Assistant Administrator» I am not sure whether he will be able to get
here or not„
We also, invited representation from the New York City Health Depart-
ment« I believe Professor Ingram is here representing the City Health
Departmento
Also represented will be participation from the New York City Depart-
ment of Public Works in the form of Mr<> 0(Leary3 I believe <>
MR. STEIN: Thank you,, sirc
With that we will call on Mr„ Klashman to make ths Public Health
Service presentation <,
Mr0 Klashman0
MR. KLASHMAN; For the record, my name is Lester Alashmana Regional
Program Director of Water Supply and Pollution Control,,
-------
Mr* Chairman and members of the conferences In carrying out. our
duties under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act;, we have evaluated the
pollution situations of all interstate waters in our region« Among these
is the Raritan Bay and its tributaries.
Several months ago our Public Health Service Communicable Disease
Center reported that a substantial number of eases of infectious hepatitis
were traced to clams taken from Raritan Bay« As a result of thiss and in
carrying out our obligations under the Federal Water Pollution Control Acts
our office made a preliminary field investigation of the sources of pollu-
tion discharging to the Raritan Bay Study area0 We also reviewed various
reports, studies and surveys that had been made by various city and State
agencies concerned and the Interstate Sanitation Commission*
On the basis of these reports, surveys and studies indicating that a
water pollution problem existed in the interstate waters of Raritan Bay, on
June 29, 1961,, the Surgeon General pf the Public Health Service called this
conference under Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Acto The
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control asked their staff at the
Public Health Service Sanitary Engineering Center to prepare a report on
this mattero Mr0 Harold Clark, who is at my rights and Mr0 F0 W0 Kittrell^
who unfortunately could not be heye, of the Sanitary Engineering Center.,
directed the preparation of this report* and our regional staff assisted
themc We want to thank the personnel of the New York State Health Depart-
ment,, New York State Conservation Departments New York City Healthy Public
Works $ and Parks Departments! New Jersey Health Department, Middlesex County
Sewerage Authorities and the Interstate Sanitation Commission for making
data available to us and cooperating in every way<, We have tried to work in
a glass house arid have offered to let you look at the various drafts of this
report as they were prepared- At your request we have discussed specific
phase? of the report with some of you® Some of your staff members' have
visited our office^ reviewed the entire draft report and are aware of its
contentso
X should like to emphasize that our purpose is to cany out our
statutory obligations go that any pollution of the interstate waters of the
Raritan Bay may be abated and3 in so doing, to assist State,, interstate and
local regulatory and construction agencies to abate pollution0
X should now like to call on Mr0 Harold Clark to summarize the report
that he has preparedo
W-o STEIN s Before you begin, Mr0 Clark3 will Mr0 Clark and all of
the others who make statements, if they do, make available a typed copy of
their statement to the reporter? This will facilitate the taking of the
record, because at the end of the day I am sure it gets exceedingly dif-
ficulty and if we can see that the reporter has copies of this we would be
in much better shape0 I do think he has a copy of Hre Clark's statement0
ifco Clarko
- 7 -
-------
STATEMENT OF HAROLD F* CLARK,, DIVISION OF WATER SUPPLY
AND 'POLLUTION CONTROL,, SANITARY ENGINEERING CE$ITER.S
' CINCINNATI, OHIO
MR,, CLARK s I m Harold F, CI ark s Division of Water Supply and Pollu-
tion Controls, Sanitary Engineering Center^ Cincinnati^, Ohio0
The background of this study's
The Lower Bay and Raritan Bays along with Sandy Hook 3ayv combine to
form a triangular boc(y of tidal watero It extends inland for about 10 miles
between Staten Island., New York, to the northwest, anc an east-west shoulder
of New Jersey to the south,,
I would like to present Government3s Exhibit Uo0 1 at this time0
MRc. STEIN? Would you mark tfesej, if you can, Governments Exhibit- 1 =
or G„ Eo No., lo
A VOICES Mrc Chairaana it is >rery difficult to hear back here« I
wonder if Mr» Clark will snake an effort to speak louder?
MR* STEBh leej will you try to"?
MR* CLARKs Iesu If I don"t mates myself heard,* interrupt againa
(The document referred tcs a. map entitled !iRaritan
Bay Study Area10 was marked for identification
Government's Exhibit Noe 1„)
MR„ CLARK; The boundary between the two States passes approximately
from east to west through the middle of the bay area to the western end5
where it swings to a northerly direction and continues up the Arthur Killo
The Arthur Kill is a relatively narrow body of water connecting Raritan Bay,
at its southern end;, with. Newark Bay, at its northern end0 Arthur Kill
forms the western border of Stater: Island and the Eastern border of this
portion of New Jerseya
The bay area and Arthur Kill constitute an extremely important mter
resource to the one and one-half million persons residing in the four adja-
cent counties® About one and one-quarter million live in the three New
Jersey counties3 and another one-quarter million 'Live in the Hew York
county* Tremendous quantities of cargo e.re transported on these watersc
They provide recreation in the form of bathing., pleasure boatings fishing^
picnicking and scenic enjoymentu Industries withdraw large quantities of
water for cooling processes^ These waters support commercial fishing and
claaimingo The Bay area receives for final disposal the waste waters from
the human population and the industries that occupy the adjacent land area0
•" 8 °
-------
oti'tteiL1.
EIJZABEZM
Steffi
:;f;
Mir/fax
:
Government Exhibit 1
-------
The value of these waters and the need for maintaining good water
quality to protect those who use them has long been recognized. Evidence
of this is reflected by the construction of sewage treatment plants during
the past 30 to 35 yearss at a rate of nearly one per year. Information on
the efforts of industry to control their wastes was not available for this
report.
The water quality of both Arthur Kill and the Bay area has become
degraded despite the continued activities to control pollution,, This fact
is documented by a number of reports and records of agencies dealing with
the pollution problem in the area,, One of the several effects of water
quality degradation was demonstrated dramatically when,, in early 1961, a
number of cases of hepatitis resulted from consumption of clams taken from
Raritan Bay«
Several reports have dealt with water quality and others have dealt
specifically with the effscts of pollution, on shellfish growing areas» The
following is a partial listing and brief summary of the more recent of these
reports s
Southern Arthur Kill Survey ° 1955
From 1955 to 1957 the Interstate Sanitation Commission conducted
three studies on the water quality of Arthur Killo The first of these
studies took place during September and October of 1955 *> The report pointed
out that the pollution in the vicinity of Tottenville was from three main
sourcess Tottenvilles Woodbridge Creekj, and the effluent from the Woodbridge
sewage treatment plant* It was concluded that "pollution conditions are
generally worse as one proceeds northward up Arthur Kill especially as re-
gards dissolved oxygen concentrations o!S
2° Study of Pollution in Arthur Kill ¦=> 1956
The second study conducted in 1955 and 1956 stated that more than 80
percent of the biochemical oxygen demand load in Arthur Kill originated in
the northern thirdo It also mentioned that "the use of the Kill as a source
as well as a recipient of « „ o cooling waters tends to increase the tem-
perature of the Kill above that nomally encountered in tidal waters in this
area," The report went on to mention that at the lower end of the Kill (a
class "A" water)a Arthur Kill failed to come up to the Tristate Compact
standards for dissolved oxygen 30 percent of the time.
3o Interstate Sanitation Commission Annual Report - 1958
The third study was conducted in June and July of 1957 to determine
conditions existing throughout the Kill0 Samples were collected and an-
alyzed for dissolved oxygen <, chlorides., pHa and temperatureso The results
obtained indicated that the Interstate Sanitation Commission Compact re-
quirements for dissolved oxygen in class KB" waters were not being met for
- 9 -
-------
60 percent of the Kill's total length. The greatest pollution occurred at
a point 8.3 miles above Raritan Bayo It was also stated that a "slug" of
pollution approximately 6oh miles in length "was located in the Kill. This
slug moves "to and fro with the ebb and flood of the tide."
1;. Review Copy of New York City Water Survey Series, Report
No. 3 - Arthur Kill-Kill Van Kull - June I960
This report was prepared by Hazen and Sawyer for the classification
of Arthur Kill and Kill Van Kull by the New York State Water Pollution
Control Board. The report summarizes; the condition of the waters of Arthur
Kill as ". o ogenerally grossly polluted,,'5 Furthermore, the report states
that "the quality of waters in Arthur Kill and Kill Van Kull at present is
almost wholly a function of the sewage, and industrial waste load imposed
from New Jersey."
5. Recommended Classification of Surface Waters in the Area
of and Including West and Lower Bay and Raritan Bay -
June 195o
This report was prepared by the New York State Conservation Depart-
ment - Shellfisheries Management Unit for the New York State Water Pollution
Control Board. The report reviewed present conditions in Raritan and Lower
Bays and found the following areas to be pollutedt
The waters lying east of a line running in a
north-south direction from Great Kills harbor
to the New York-New Jersey State line; also
those waters of New York State lying west of
Princess Bay.
Numerous other reports, listed in the bibliography — which I submit
for the record as Government Exhibit, Bibliography I — have been written
by local, State and Federal agencies on Raritan Bay and the surrounding
waters. In general, it may be stated that the conclusions reached by the
various authors of these reports have shown that pollution of the waters of
Raritan Bay and associated water courses has resulted from discharges of
domestic and industrial wastes from New York and New Jersey.
THE AREA,
The land area of the region considered in this conference involves
Richmond County in New York, and the counties of Middlesex, Monmouth, and
Union in New Jersey. The area is outlined by a line in Government's Exhibit
No. 1, extending'from Elizabeth, New Jersey, across Arthur Kill and Staten
Island to Fort Wadsworth, then on across the Narrows to Fort Hamilton in
Brooklyn, turning south to Fort Hancock on Sandy Hook, and finally swinging
in an elongated arc from Highlands through New Brunswick and Highland Park,
New Jersey, back to Elizabeth.
- 10 -
-------
The water area under consideration is an important part of the New
York Harbor complex, the largest seaport in the world® Much of the seaport
navigation traverses these waters®
The lo5 million population, living within an hour's drive of the Bay,
has ready access to its waters for both recreation and commercial pursuits.
As a consequence, the water uses include every category applicable to saline
waterso Most of the large industries of the area are situated along the
Arthur Kill,, principally on the Hew Jersey side0
The water area under consideration includes the Marrows, the Arthur
Kill, the tidal portions of Raritan River and other smaller tributaries to
the Bay, and Raritan, lower and Sandy Hook Bays0 The Bay area receives
drainage directly from Arthur Kill and its tributaries, the Raritan River,
and several smaller streams on. Staten Island and on the New Jersey coast
from the Highlands to South Amboy0
The area of the Bay, west of a line from the center of the Marrows
to Sandy Hook, is approximately 30 square miles, which is about equally
divided between the. two States<> The depth of water varies from 7 to 25
feet, with the exception of the navigation channels, which have depths up
to 35 feet0 The mean tidal range is h*9 feet* The ebb and flow of the
tides and the physical boundaries of the Bay area.lead to a generally cir-
cular clockwise pattern of water flow throughout much of the Bay. Many
current studies have led to the conclusion that water, and incidentally
pollution, entering the Bay at almost any point ultimately may travel to
almost all other points in the Bay„
HYDROGRAPHY
In an effort to more clearly define and demonstrate the combined
effects of the fresh water flow, the ebb and flow of the tide, and the loca-
tion and direction of the various channels, several agencies have performed
studies including model tracer and float studies® Mixing and dispersion
characteristics were studied in the New York Harbor model of the U0 S. Army
Corps of Engineers, located.at Vicksburg, Mississippi. Tracers were intro-
duced into the model at six locations in the New York area. Of particular
interest were studies to determine mixing and dispersion when tracers were
added to s
1. the confluence of the Rahway River, and the Arthur
Kill;
2» a point just north of the Narrows; and,
3o a point approximately" 15,000 feet southeast of the
Narrows.
In each instance^ the tracer was found throughout the rest of the
harbor at various concentrations after 15 tidal cycles«
11
-------
Prototype float studies were also performed by several agencies?
Float studies give evidence of the existence of tidal patterns at the time
and depth covered by the observations which may influence the dispersion of
pollutants# One investigation indicated that pollutants- from the Owls Head
and Passaic Valley Plants can reach the Staten Island beaches in one tidal
cycle.
I now submit Government's Exhibits 2 and 3*
(The document referred toj, a map entitled "Float
Studiess August 1958> New York State Department of
Healthy" was marked for identification Governments
Exhibit Noo 2„)
(The document referred to, a map entitled "Float
Studies 5 September 195'% New York State Department
of Health,," was marked for identification Gov-
ernment's Exhibit No. 3.)
MR. CLARK: Government's Exhibit 2 indicates that three pairs of
floats released around ebb current passed through the Narrows, turned in a
clockwise manner and swirled back towards the beaches along the Staten
Island shoreo One of these floats went aground at South Beach within five
and one^half hours after being released.
Government's Exhibit 3 shows the path of two pairs cf floats released
under similar current conditions..
Studies in the vicinity of West Bank Light were performed by the New
York State Conservation Department to determine the direction of tidal
transport of mixed Upper Bay and Atlantic Ocean waters curing flood tide.
I submit Governments Exhibit U©
(The document referred to, a map entitled "Float
Studies, 1951j New York State Conservation Depart-*
ment," was marked for identification Government's
Exhibit No. h»)
MR. CLARK: These float studies appear to confirm the model study
and indicate that waters leaving the Narrows can be transported across the
State line, deep into Lower Bay.
Floats were also released in the western portion of Raritan Bay to
determine the ebb tide drift of waters from Raritan Bay and the Arthur Kill.
These floats "...indicated that fresh water from the Raritan River flows
seaward and along the channel area to approximately Bell #13 (the point
where the channel turns north) and then continues south of the main channel.
It also indicated that very little fresh water entering the embayment from
- 12 -
-------
AUGUST, 1956
New York State Department of Heoltt
i#
Government Exhibit 2
-------
Government Exhibit 3
-------
Mimm
IgMiim
:
;
llllll
-------
the Raritan River returns to the river on the flood tide."— This and the
following footnotes refer to the numbered entries in the bibliography.
The next point is discussion of water uses* The importance of the
water area, under consideration to the surrounding population is reflected
by their extensive use of these waters.. The many and diverse uses reflect
both the potential for pollution of the waters through some of these activ-
ities, and the potential damages and hazards of use where the resulting
pollution is not adequately controlled.,
SHIPPING
New York has long been recognized as the nation's leading port in
tonnage handled and passengers carried. In 1959 the port of New York han-
dled about 100,000,000 short tons of waterborne commerce entering and leav-
ing through the lower entrance channels, that is, The Narrows, Raritan
River, Arthur Kill,, . There were over 36,000 vessel trips recorded and about
1,000,000 passengers transported., The Arthur Kill handled approximately
18,000,000 tons of this total with 2,000 vessel trips#
I submit Table 1 as Government's Exhibit Table 10
(The document referred to, a table entitled "1959
Study Area Data," was marked for identification
Government's Exhibit Table 1.)
MR, CLARKs But, total tonnage entering and leaving the harbor area
is only one part of the broader picture. There is a great deal of activity
generated by intraport shipping,,
Further expansion of the Arthur Kill's facilities is contemplated.
A recent newspaper article described future improvements including "the
widening of the Arthur Kill channel to a minimum width of 800 feet, instead
of U00 feet and 500 feet now in certain areas, and a deepening throughout
the channel of forty and forty-five feets"- The Linden-Rahway-Woodbridge
area of New Jersey,, which the Arthur Kill.serves, is the largest oil refin-
ing and oil storage center on the eastern seaboardo
Smaller, but still very significant amounts of tonnage, are regularly
handled by the New Jersey shore ports located from Sandy Hook Bay to Raritan
Bayc Sandy Hook Bay handled nearly 60,000 tons of inedible fish and petro-
leum products in 1959.
I submit Government's Exhibit 5«
(The map referred to, entitled "Water Uses," was
marked for identification Government's Exhibit
No0 5c)
« 13 10
-------
MR„ CIARKs Government Exhibit 5 presents the existing and proposed
public parks and bathing beaches, and the marinas (boat mooring facilities)
along the Mew York and New Jersey shores surrounding the Bay area,,
At present,, about one-fourth of New York City's total public bathing
beach frontage is represented by South Beach, Great Kills Park, and Wolfe's
Pond Park along the southeastern Staten Island shore® Average park attend-
ance during 1959 and I960 was 720,000 per year* The three parks were built
at a cost of 10,6 million dollars., and are estimated to have a present prop-
erty value of more than lli million dollars, as explained in Table 2, which
I submit at this time.
(The document referred to, entitled "Staten Island
Beach Facilities, Table 2," was marked for identi-
fication as Government's Exhibit Table 2,)
MR. CIARKs Maintenance and operation costs for the past two years
were over $700,000, with an income to the city of $93,000. In addition to
the public bathing beaches, there are many private beaches, and substantial
bathing occurs along the remaining shore line surrounding the Bay.
There are 11* New Jersey beaches, which are fairly equally spaced
from Highlands to South Amboy. There is considerable boating along the New
Jersey shore..
The next subject is boating. Pleasure boating has increased more
rapidly than any other type of aquatic recreation in recent yearse Between
1951 and I960 national expenditures for pleasure boating quadrupled, to
more than 2.5 billion dollars by I960. In 1959 New York and New Jersey
ranked fxrst and fourth, respectively, in pleasure boats registered. The
two States combined registered nearly 50,000 of the national total of about
5^0,000 boats. It is estimated that about 1,000,000 persons in the metro-
politan area use pleasure boats9 exclusive of sailing craft, and that a
minimum of 10 percent, or 100,000 persons, boat on the water area under
consideration.
Recent Corps of Engineers8 statistics show that more than 1+00,000
passenger trips were attributed to boats sailing out of Sandy Hook Bay,
Cheesquake Creek., Matawan Creek, and Shrewsbury River in New Jersey.
With the increase in pleasure boating, water skiing has also become
increasingly popular. The hazard of ingesting contaminated water in a
polluted area is even greater for the skier than it is for the boater.
In the Bay area there are about 1+5 recognized marinas, as will be
pointed out on Government's Exhibit 5, providing over 2,500 berths for
pleasure and commercial craft. At an average cost of |2,500 per pleasure
boat this would amount to an investment of $6,250,000.
- 11+ -
-------
TAB IE 1
1959 STUDY AREA.. DATA
Vessel
Area Tons Handled Trips Passengers
New York and New
Jersey Channels 80,80$s095> 1U9,3U6 1j75>0,1$3
Thru Traffic 2558U6a5£6
Raritan River 7*l63i>897 30^U92 3^6,123
Thru Traffic 82,36£
Shoal Harbor and
Compton Creeks New
Jersey ££,068 25U28
Cheesequake Creeks
New Jersey lli^iiOO 2$s2%0
Great Kills Harbor,
Staten Island 116,960 123,136
Shrewsbury River,
New Jersey 22,320 188,1±80
Sandy Hook Bay$
New Jersey 6,3U6
-------
USES
Ml
BkQC<1rm
: i
.v'i-i-Si-ivi-ivi::
:
mmSm
psglMg
%
.
I
; ...
mm$. ¦ :
—i
1MB
. :
¦ r:
mMm
.:>.M s.
"-¦J
:»»P
¦Kil
,<¦; j.
t$iA*&\
:
ii
r%
Mi
Legefsd
oif^s
f8*" Marinas
HfH Shellfish Beds
«1. ;;
,/ iP i
r
:!!
Government Exhibit 5
-------
TABLE 2
STATEN ISLAND BEACH FACILITIES
Acreage Beaches and Facilities
Picnic Facilities
Great Kills
Wolfe's Pond
South Beach
Total
12U6.00
22U.365
6380^
2108.865
Tables
Ilk
33
Ihl
Benches
228
66
2 9k
Fireplaces
32
32
Capital Expenditures for Construction
Great Kills $ 1,700,000
100,000
8978U,000
$10,631,000
Wolfe's Pond
South Beach
Total
Approximate Property Value
I 3,935,500'
1,029,600
9,372,U50
$lii,337,550
Maintenance and Operation
Costs per year 1.2 years)
Great Kills
Wolfe's Pond
South Beach
Total
w
$106,56U
U7,798
198,865
$353,227
"i960
$105,18U
U9,531
200,735
$355,^50
2-Year Total -
,677
Gross Receipts from Refreshment
Stands and Related Concessions
19^9 T9S0
$18,521 $l8,U00
10,000 12,000
25,150 37,000
$53,671 $67,U00
(The City's revenue is
about 10$ of.the gross receipts.)
Income from Parking, Bathhouse, Beach Admissions, etc*
1959
Great Kills
Wolfe's Pond
South Beach
1960
Great Kills
South Beach
Wolfe's Pond
Parking
$16,13U.00
8,728.00
U,158.50
17,175=00
7,693.00
7,981.50
Bathhouse
$2,712.50
1,006.90
2,UU3 ®20
1,597.90
Admissions
$ 8,196.20
13,896.U0
2-Year Total of all income - $91,756.10
-------
The recent growth in pleasure boating in this area is illustrated by
the experience of New York City's new public marina on Staten Island. In
1959, when the marina opened, it berthed 70 boats for gross receipts of
$3,275o In I960 the marina berthed 198 boats representing a threefold in-
crease for gross receipts of $9,075«
The increase in private pleasure boating, and better highway facil-
ities may partially account for a reduced interest in excursion boating.
Before World War II many steamboats, often filled to their 2,000 passenger
capacities, made regular trips from the Batteiy at the tip of Manhattan to
Keansburg, New Jersey0 Now one boat makes this trip two or three times
daily, with less than 500 passengers per trip.
The next subject is fishing. Some of the most popular fishing
grounds in the United States are in the waters of the Metropolitan New York
Harbor Area. The New Jersey Fish and Game Department reported a total com-
mercial and game fish catch of 28.7 million pounds in 1956 in the Sandy
Hook-Raritan Bay area0
In 1952 the New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic
Development reported the following conditions relative to fishing on
Raritan, Sandy Hook and Lower Bayss
"Although there is considerable pollution in Raritan
Bay, porgies, fluke, flounders, weakfish and some bluefish
are taken there. Lower New York Bay and Sandy Hook Bay are
heavily fished by boats of all descriptions. Among the
species taken are flounders, porgies, fluke, bluefish,
snapper blues, striped bass, weakfish, croakers and crabs.
"Twenty-nine rowboat and U-drive liveries are scat-
tered throughout this area, and party and charter boats
leave from Morgan, Leonardo, Highlands, and Atlantic
Heights. The area also is fished by boats sailing from
Staten Island, The Battery, and Long Island Ports."!'
WILDLIFE
Wild ducks are the principal wildlife game species of the Bay. In
February 1957, two accidental oil spills, one at Perth Amboy, and the other
at Carteret, New Jersey, wiped out an estimated 12,500 ducks of the esti-
mated 75,000 duck population in the area.
SHELLFISH
The shellfish beds in the Raritan Bay area constituted an important
commercial source of clams prior to 1925. As shown on Government's Exhibit
5, one bed occupied much of the western end of the Bay area under considera-
tion, and straddled the New York-New Jersey State line. A smaller bed
- 15 -
-------
occupied Sandy Hook Bay in the angle formed by the northern shoulder of New
Jersey and Sandy Hook peninsula.
In the past years the Bay area has been an important source of clams.
Contamination of the waters by raw sewage had become so great that health
authorities closed the Bay to shellfishing in 1925» As sewage treatment
plants were placed in operation and the levels of contamination were appar-
ently reduced, the New Jersey authorities permitted reopening of a portion
of the New Jersey beds in 193J4• Subsequently, a portion of the New York
beds was reopened in 191^1 with an estimated 175,000 bushels of clams being
taken from the Bay that year« Based on 1961 prices, it is estimated that
the 19ij0 yield of clams would have a current value of approximately one
million dollars.
From 1950 the receipts in the New York market of clams taken from
the beds decreased, with the i960 receipts estimated at 29,000 bushels,
worth about $175,000. I ask you to examine Table 3 at this time.
(The document referred to, entitled "Table 3, Clam
Receipts from Raritan Bay in N. Y. Market," was
marked for identification Government's Exhibit
Table No. 3.)
MR. CLARK: These beds represented the last approved locations
available, in the immediate New York area for the taking of clams.
Clams characteristically feed by pumping water in which they are
submerged to their gills from a siphon, or opening, through their shells.
Particulate materials and minute living organisms in the water, including
plankton, bacteria, and viruses, are passed through the gills to the mouth,
and thence into the digestive system. Some of this food material is con-
centrated on the surfaces of the gills and on the membrane lining the
shells, and consequently is present in the shell liquor. If enteric patho-
genic organisms or viral agents from, sewage are present in the water over-
lying a clam bed they may become concentrated in the iniestines and shell
liquor of the clams. Persons eating such clams raw may be infected by any
disease organisms present.
During early 1961 substantial numbers of cases of hepatitis were
traced to clams taken from Raritan Bay. A press release issued by the New
Jersey State Department of Health on May 1, 1961, stated that,
"Dr. Roscoe P. Kandle, State Commissioner of Health,
today closed the New Jersey controlled portions of Raritan
Bay and Sandy Hook Bay and also the Navesink and Shrewsbury
Rivers to the taking of shellfish.
"Dr. Kandle said of 186 hepatitis cases who had a
history of eating raw clams in one or two restaurants, 85
- 16 -
-------
TABLE 3
CLAM RECEIPTS FROM RARITAN BAT IN M. Y. MARKET
Year Hunriber of Bushels Value (Eased on 1961 prices)
1913 15?OCO $ 90,000
19U9 UOfCOO 2UC?C00
1950 50j0C0 300,000
1951 - 38,000 228,000
1952 26,COO 168,000
19$3 26,000 150,000
195k 26,000 150,000
1955 22,000 132,000
1956 20,000 120,000
1957 22,000 132,000
1958 23,000 138,000
1959 25,000 150,000
1960 29,000 1?U,000
Conversion factors published by the U» S.
Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries show that one bushel of hard clams
is equal to 11 pounds average weight. Also
the price range for April, 1961 showed a
13 1/2 to 5 chowder hard clams, $7 1/2 -
8 1/2 for cherrystones and $10-13 for little
necks, (per bushel). An average price of $6
per bushel was used in computing the values
in the above-list.
On the basis of $6 per bushel and
using the 175*000 bushels given previously
for 191|0 the revenue derived from shell-
fishing then (19i|0) was about $1,050,000.
-------
are known to have eaten raw clams traced to Raritan Bay.
"'In the face of this and other evidence, I have no
alternative except to close the indicated areas to the tak-
ing of shellfish until further noticeo'"
Subsequently, on June 2, 1961, the Sandy Hook Bay bed was reopened.
A representative of the New York State Conservation Department in-
formed a Public Health Service investigator that as a result of studies
indicating pollution of the growing beds in the New York portion of Raritan
Bay, they also closed these shellfish beds on May 1, 1961.
SOURCES OF WASTES
The Narrows, Arthur Kill, Raritan River, Raritan Bay and Lower Bay
water area receive raw and treated sewage and industrial wastes from the
adjacent land area in both New York and New Jersey. The approximate land
area involved includes 36 square miles in New York and 200 square miles in
New Jersey*
The combined waste discharged directly to the water area from both
States has an estimated biochemical oxygen demand population equivalent of
2,100,000.
SEWAGE
One borough in New York and 70 communities in New Jersey discharge
their sewage and industrial wastes to the waters under consideration. An
estimated total of 1,282,000 persons contribute sewage to the 30 sewerage
systems involved. Of these 1,190,000, or 93 percent, live in New Jersey,
and 92,000, or 7 percent, in New York.
I submit at this point as Government's exhibits, Tables 1; and $,
(The document referred to, entitled "Table h> Sewage
Treatment Plants Tributary to The Raritan-Lower Bay
and Arthur Kill Study Area" was marked for identi-
fication Government's Exhibit Table No. 1;.)
(The document referred to, entitled "Table 5, Summary
of Sources of Wastes," was marked for identification
Government's Exhibit Table No. $.)
MR. CLARK; Tables U and £ incorporate available information on the
sewerage systems, including sewered populations, sewage flow, types of
treatment facilities, receiving waters, arid results of inspections of treat-
ment plant operations.
- 17 -
-------
I submit. Government' s Exhibit 6, which shows the locations of the
points of sewage discharge, and I would like the Appendix detailing plant
performance and the Appendix showing the treatment symbols submitted as
Government Exhibits Appendices A and Bo
(The map referred to, entitled "Wastes Sources,
Raritan Bay and Arthur Kill," was marked for iden-
tification Government's Exhibit No, 6.)
MR. CLARK: Government's Exhibit 6 shows the locations of the points
of sewage discharge,, I need Exhibit 6 and Tables k and 5. Would you list
these, Mr0 De Falco?
MR. DE FALCO: We have Fort Hancock, Atlantic Highlands, Leonardo
Naval Depot, Keansburg, Keyport, Matawan Township. Matawan Township here
also. Sayreville, Middlesex County,
I'm sorry, this is South Amboy, Sayreville-Morgan, and Sayreville-
Melrose, Raritan Arsenal, Camp Kilmer,
MR. STEIN; Let the record show that when Mr0 De Falco named these
locations he pointed them out on the chart, Government's Exhibit 6, and any
subsequent locations will be similarly pointed out on the chart by Mr. De
Falco.
MR. DE FALCO: Woodbridge, Perth Amboy, Woodbridge again, Carteret,
Rahway Valley, Linden-Roselle, Elizabeth Joint Meeting, Willowbrook State
Hospital.
MR. GLENN: Wait a minute. That should be corrected, Willowbrook
is up by Pryor's Island* It's up there a little bit further than you
pointed. Right there it comes in,
MR. DE FALCO: No, We were informed by your staff it was at Fresh
Kills Junction, The Tottenville area0 Mount Loretto, Richmond Memorial,
So So White, Oakwood Beach,
MR. CLARK: Thank you.
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
The Interstate Sanitation Commission Compact contains standards of
performance and of effluent quality for treatment plants under its
jurisdiction. For plants discharging into Class A waters the coliform bac-
teria shall not exceed 1 per milliliter in more than $0 percent of the sam-
ples and suspended solids shall be reduced by 60 percento For plants dis-
charging into Class B waters there are no coliform bacterial limits and
suspended solids shall be reduced by 10 percent. Most of the Bay waters
are classified as Class A while those of Arthur Kill above Outerbridge
Crossing and the Upper New York Bay above the Narrows are Class B.
- 18 -
-------
TABLE U
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS TRIBUTARY
TO THE RARITAN-LOWER BAY
AND ARTHUR KILL STUDY AREA'
Municipality
Sewered
Average Design
Date
Treatment
Stream
or Industry
Pop,
Flow
Flow
Built
New Jersey
Highlands
3,000 ¥
o.U
1.2
1928
SCEB
Shrewsbury River
12,000 S
Atlantic Highlands
3,100 W
o.U
0.6
1928
CEB
Sandy Hook Bay
6,000 S
Leonardo Naval Depot
130
-
-
19U0
CEB
Raritan Bay
Keansburg
5,600 W
l.u
2.0
19U9
SKCEDV
Raritan Bay
15,000 S
Keyport
5,900 ¥
0.8
0.U
1936
SCEDB
Raritan Bay
17,000 s
Matawan
2,700
— ¦
CEB
Matawan Creek
Matawan Township
1,000
0.13
Oo25
CAEDB
Matawan Creek
Knollcroft
850
_
0.2
I960
SCE
Raritan Bay
S ayreville-Morgan
2,000
0.1
0.3
1951
SCDE
Raritan Bay
South Amboy
8,U00
0.7
1.0
19U0
SCEDB
Raritan Bay
S ayreville -Melr os e
1,000
0.05
0.1
19U9
SCEDB
Raritan River
Middlesex County
300,000
Uo.oo
52.0
1957
SGCKEX
Raritan Bay
Sewerage Authority
Camp Kilmer
1,000
1.0
6.0
CFCE
Tributary to
Raritan River
Raritan Arsenal
2,700
0.3U
—
CFE
Raritan River
Woodbridge-Keasby
8,000
0.15
1.35
SGCFEDB
Kinsey's Creek to
Raritan River
Perth Amboy
11,300
7.0
10.0
19 3U
SKCFEZV
Raritan River
Woo dbridg e-S ewaren
21,000
2.2
10.0
195U
SGCKEV
Arthur Kill
Cartaret
13,000
2.U
3.0
1953
SGKCFEZV
Arthur Kill
Rahway Valley
170,000
22.5
16.7
1928
SGECDB
Arthur Kill
Linden Roselle
120,000
12.2
12.5
1952
SGCXH
Arthur Kill
Elizabeth Joint
U75,000
52.0
100.0
1937
SGCTHX
Arthur Kill
Meeting
New York
Willowbrook
ll,000
0.6
0.6
191*1
C
Fresh Kills
Mt. Loretto Home #1
1,200
0.09
0.1
1937
CE
Raritan Bay
Mt. Loretto Home §2
350
0.03
0.0U5
1937
C
Raritan Bay
Marist Fathers
35
-
-
C
(Continued)
-------
TABLE k (Continued)
SBHAGE TREATMENT PLANTS TRIBUTARY
TO THE RARITAN-LOWER BAY
AND ARTHUR KILL STUDY AREA
Municipality Sewered Average Design Date Treatment Stream
or Industry Pop, Flow Flow Built '
Richmond Memorial 300 0.010 0.010 1936 CE Raritan Bay
Hospital
Saint Joseph's Home kO ¥ O.OOU - C Raritan Bay
200 S
Oakwood Beach 85,000 9.90 l£.0 1956 SGACETDI Lower N.Y. Bay
W - winter, S - summer. Key to Treatment Code in Appendix F.
-------
TABLE 5
STM*ARY OF SOURCES OF WASTES
Community
Population
Equivalent
Discharged
Failures to
Meet ISC.
Standards
SS
BOD
SS
Coli
Overflow Overload
or or Near
By-Pass Capacity
New Jersey
Highlands
Atlantic Highlands
Leonardo N. D.
Keansburg
Keyport
Matawan
Matawan Township
Knollcroft
Sayreville-Morgan
South Amboy
Sayreville-Melrose
Middlesex County
Sewerage Authority
Camp Kilmer
Raritan Arsenal
Woodbridge-Keasby
Perth Amboy
Woodbridge-Sewaren
Carteret
Rahway Valley
Linden-Roselle
Elizabeth Joint
Meeting
New York
Willowbrook Hospital
Tottenville
Mount Loretto Home
Richmond Memorial
Hospital
S.S. White Dental Co.
St. Joseph's Home
Oakwood Beach
During summer months
1,231
1,955
7/lii
1,136
2,U62
9/lii
7
12
0/2
9,822
14,736
11/13
2,319
5,156
9/13
NA
NA
-
NA
NA
-
No Samples Taken
-
3J+3
900
0/2
1,505
U,277
1/13
102
185
1/2
171,125
838,222
2/lii
NA
NA
NA
NA
—
NA
NA
_
111,91*9
3k,k69
U/lU
3,573
5,122
0/12
9,111
12,715
1/13
51,102
117,332
0/6
UU,762
176,305
0/12
U5,027
328,870
0/11
1,903
9,85U
0/12
!|.,000
U3000
-
No Samples Taken
--
No Samples Taken
-
NA
NA
_
No Samples Taken
-
11,019
9,9h9
2/lk
NA-No data
o/ih
No
Yes-*
3/13
No
Yes-*
2/3
No
No
9/13
Yes
Yes
9/12
Yes
Yes
1/1
No
No
0/8
No
No
0/13
Yes
No
0/8
No
No
0/1U
Yes
Yes
3/lii
Yes
Yes
-
No
No
—
No
No
No
No
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
—
No
Yes
6/6
No
Yes
5/5
No
Yes
1/1
No
No
2/Ui
No
No
available
-------
'
; : . :
x.: :
: :
:
I
I E H
:
industrial
Government Exhibit 6
-------
UNTREATED SEWAGE
Raw sewage is discharged to Raritan Bay from two areas« Tottenville,
New York, on the southwestern tip of Staten Is land <, discharges raw sewage
from an estimated population of 11,000. The pier facilities of the U0 So
Naval Ammunition Depot at Leonardo, New Jersey^ are equipped with privies
installed directly over the water and discharge wastes from a population of
100 to 2^0 persons. The S« S. White Dental Company on Staten Island dis-
charges the sewage from 700 persons with only chlorination by HTH„
Incomplete records indicate that at least seven of the sewerage
systems providing treatment have by-pass or overflow devices which permit
raw sewage to discharge directly to the receiving waters on occasions.
Would you point those out., Mr0 De Falco?
MR. DE FALCO; Keansburg, Keyport, Perth Amboy, Linden-Roselle, South
Amboy, Middlesex County Sewerage Authority, and Elizabeth Joint Meeting«
MR. CLARK; Thank youc
Several of the systems have combined sewers0 The by-passing of raw
sewage discharges usually occurs during periods of rainfall when excessive
quantities of water enter the sewers. No estimate of the pollution poten-
tial of this overflow is available <,
Many commercial ships and pleasure boats discharge untreated sewage
during their passage through these waters„ No records are available, but a.
conservative estimate indicates that such discharges may be equivalent to
the sewage from at least 1,000 persons dailye
TREATED SEWAGE
Most of the sewage discharged to the water area under consideration
receives some treatment<, The six treatment plants discharging to the Class
B waters of Arthur Kill serve 803,000 persons or 63 percent of the total
sewered population,, generally with primary treatment only.
Would you point those out, Mr0 De Falco?
MR. DE FALCOs Woodbridge, Carteret, Rahway Valley, Linden-Roselle,
Elizabeth Joint Meeting and Willowbrook.
MR. CLARK; Thank you„
A few of the plants have chlorination equipment on a stand-by basis,
but are not required to operate it. The other treatment plants, discharging
to the tidal portion of Raritan River and to the Bay area generally provide
the equivalent of primary treatment and chlorination.
- I? -
-------
Would you point those out, Mr. De Falco?
MR. DE FALCO? It is the area generally surrounding that.
MR. CLARKs Thank you.
Five small septic tank plants, serving a total of 2,000 persons, do
not have chlorination equipmento At three of them, chlorination with HTH is
attempted. It has been my experience that disinfection by this method has
usually given poor results in many locations, or it is done by the batch
methods in other locations <> All of these plants are on Staten Island east
of Tottenville#
MR. STEIN; Where are those septic tanks? In New York?
MR. CLARK: Yes. Will you please point out those places? The septic
tanks are located in Staten Island, New Yorkc All of those plants are lo-
cated on Staten Island east of Tottenville.
I submit Government's Exhibits 7 and 8.
(The map referred to, entitled "Suspended Solids
Loadings, Population Equivalents," was marked for
identification Government's Exhibit No® 7«)
(The map referred to, entitled "BOD Loadings, Popula-
tion Equivalents," was marked for identification
Government's Exhibit No. 8.)
A VOICE: Mr. Chairman, will you check that statement again? He
mentioned Oakwood Beach as being primary. Oakwood Beach is secondary.
MR. STEIN s Is that correct? It iss I understand, an intermediary
treatment. Is that secondary? It is a secondary treatment.
MR. DE FALCOj It is marked accordingly on the table0
A. VOICE: If you are going to make corrections I think you should
make corrections that the county has a storm water overflow., because that
is not correcto
MR. STEIN; I would appreciate it if you would correct it when your
chance comes to make a statement. Otherwise we will have trouble getting
through here. But you will be given a full opportunity to make a statement.
While these are coming up, I think that the corrections which can be made
are the ones which are obvious in the reading. Where someone has a second-
ary treatment on the chart and it is read as primary, I think those are
easily made; but other types of corrections I think should await the state-
ments made by the various participants.
- 20 -
-------
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
LOADINGS
Population Equivalents
i
;
/ • w
vi • •
#
"% n
5f4 ?T,¥
ISLAND
c
%s
£ r
\
Untreated
Primory 5yw>
Intermediate
I 1 Secondary £;-coo~
.r-&.
Government Exhibit 7
-------
BOD
Population Equivalents
" vV,
x.-x/x:
?WAV
4
m
m
M
¦&.
S TA T £
: '.'aVV-; j
#
*
%i
jE*'
3-~~
050.000 ¦
Untreated
i Primary
i Intermediate wwo-
j Secondary
M..
Government Exhibit 8
Oato- iiiC
-------
MR-. CLARKs Government's Exhibits 7 and 8 indicate the quantities of
suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand discharged to the waters of
the area, in the form of population equivalents.
On those bars they are in a logarithmic scale, so do not compare
them.
MR. KLASHMANg These are linear scales.
MR. CLARK? Oh, these are linear scales#
The bars permit ready identification of those areas where the major
loads are discharged..
Government's Exhibit Table 5 and Government's Exhibit 7 indicate
that the total suspended solids population equivalent from all sources of
sewage is U73 <>000. Of this total,, 1j56<,0Q0 population equivalent or 96 per-
cent, originates from New Jersey, and 17,000 population or h percent orig-
inates from New York.
Table 5 and Government's Exhibit 8 indicate that the total biochemi-
cal oxygen demand population equivalent from all sources of sewage is
1,550,000 with about 1,000,000 or 98 percent originating from New Jersey,
and 2^,000 or 2 percent originating from. New Tork. It is significant to
note that the total 155>E>0<,000 biochemical oxygen demand population equiva-
lent of the wastes discharged from the sewerage systems is 20 percent
greater than the total population of ls280s000 served by the systems. This
indicates that considerable quantities of industrial wastes are received by
these sewerage systems.
RECORDS OF INSPECTION
Inspection of 17 of the 28 sewage treatment plants is made three to
four times annually by the Interstate Sanitation Commission and the follow-
ing discussion is based principally on the records made available by the
Commission.
The records of inspection sine© 1958 have been reviewed. Performance
of many of the plants have been checked between 11 and 15 times during this
three-year period. Some of the smaller plants have been checked from one to
five times. These records include checks for suspended solids removals on
17 plants, and for coliform bacteria on 15 plants. Effluents discharged in
Class B waters are not checked for coliform densities by the Interstate
Sanitation Commission.
Suspended solids removal efficiencies were examined 181 times with
the plants failing to meet the required removals 1|7 times, or 26 percent of
the times tested. The record shows no failures for 7 plants, 3 plants
failed 9 to 11 times each, and five of the remaining seven plants failed to
meet standards 50 percent or more of the time.
- 21 -
-------
The coliform limit on the effluents was checked 139 times o There
were Ul failures to meet this requirements or 29 percent of the total checks
made. Five plants had no failures at alio Two failed.9 times each out of
12 and 13 checks# Seven of the 8 remaining plants failed £0 percent of the
time to meet the standards.
Ten of the plants are overloaded,. Two of these are overloaded during
the summer because of the large increases in populations during the vacation
period. However, this is a problem common to many seashore towns®
The discharge of the Perth Amboys New Jersey sewage treatment plant
deserves special comment,, This effluent discharges about 200 feet offshore
at approximately the center of the bathing area of a Perth Amboy public bath-
ing beach« The resulting boil is readily apparent from the beach. The
coliform content of the effluent failed to meet the Interstate Sanitation
Commission standard on three occasions during fifteen inspections. It
failed to meet the suspended solids removal requirements on four occasions.
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
The detailed information available on sewerage systems is not matched
by similarly detailed information on industrial wastes„
I submit Government's Exhibit Table 6„
(The document referred to, entitled "Table 6, Indus-
tries Discharging to Arthur Kill/' was marked for
identification as Government's Exhibit Table Noc 6.)
MRo CLARK; The only information available for this report is a list
of plants, Government's Exhibit Table 6, discharging wastes to the Arthur
Kill, and an estimate that the combined wastes from all these plants dis-
charging directly to the Kill has a biochemical oxygen demand of 100,000
pounds per day5 or a population equivalent of about 600^000«
"TABLE 6
INDUSTRIES DISCHARGING TO ARTHUR KILL
New Jersey
"1. Phelps Dodge Copper Product Corporation
2. Archer Daniels Midland Company
3. Cities Service Oil Company
Uo National Lead Company
Koppers Company, Inc., Wood Preserving Division
6• Vulcan Detinning Co., Div. of Vulcan Materials Co.
7« Westvaco Mineral Products Division of EMC
8. General American Tank Storage Terminals
22 -
-------
"9» American Cyanamid
10. General Aniline & Film Corp®
11o E. I. duFont de Nemours & Company
12. Esso Bayway Refinery
13e California Oil Company
New York
lo Nassau Smelting and Refining Co« lnc«
2o Socony Mobil Oil Co0j Inc0
3o Gulf Oil Corp.
I4.0 Onyx Chemical Co
The Interstate Sanitation Commission reported on Page 13 of their
1959 Annual Report that,
"... the industrial wastes still discharging raw must receive
attention0 The Arthur Kill is such an area and has a larger
concentration of industry than any other portion of our
District,, 00"
"Since the majority of industry is on the New Jersey
side of the Arthur Kill5 the Commission has worked very
closely with the New Jersey State Department' of Health in
the study of the problem,, A joint .meeting was held with the
industries which contribute the greatest volume of untreated
industrial wastes into the Arthur Kill and acquainted them
with the problem,, It was decided that other meetings should
be held with each industry so that its individual problems
could be discussed in more detail. A number of such meetings
have already been held between representatives of industry
and the control agencies® These meetings have indicated that
the industries are aware of the magnitude of this problem and
are anxious to cooperate in reducing the amount of pollution
being discharged,, After a complete picture is obtained, the
Commission and the New Jersey State Department of Health will
determine the action that will be required to correct this
condition
Additional information on waste treatment or other measures to reduce
industrial wastes was not available from the various regulatory agencies at
the time this report was prepared0
EFFECTS OF POLLUTION
ON WATER' QUALITY AND USES
Two principal indicators of water quality are used in this discussion
of the effects of pollution,, These are;
- 23
-------
10 Densities of coliform bacteria,, which indicate the
fecal pollution and the potential of waterborne disease from
sewage contamination^ and3
20 concentrations of dissolved oxygen which reflect
the effects of organic pollution by both sewage and indus-
trial wastess indicating the potential damage to or destruc-
tion of aquatic life5 including fish„
STANDARDS OF WATER QUALITY
There are several water quality standards used by the various
regulatory agencies for the waters under consideration.,
In addition to its standards of effluent quality the Interstate
Sanitation Commission requires that the dissolved oxygen of Class A waters
shall not be less than $0 percent of saturation^ and. of Class B waters not
less than 30 percent^
The New York City Department of Health approves as safe bathing
waters those having an average coliform bacteria concentration not in ex-
cess of 1,000 per 100 milliliters0 It classes as approved but subject to
reclassification waters having average coliform concentrations between 1,000
and 2,i|00 per 100 milliliters0 It recommends against bathing in waters hav-
ing average coliform concentrations :in excess of 2,k00 for 100 milliliters «>
New Jersey State Department of Health recommends for surf bathing
waters that the content of coliform organisms is tentatively established as
2,U00 per 100 milliliters as the maximum, limit recognized as being
satisfactory,.
Both New York and New Jersey authorities adhere to the U„ So Public
Health Service recommended standard for shellfish waters® This standard re-
quires that the median coliform bacterial concentration shall not exceed 70
per 100 milliliters9 and that not more than 10 percent of the values in a
series of samples shall exceed 2.30 coliform, bacteria per 100 milliliters o
No standard has been adopted for the waters used for boating in this
area,, Many State pollution control agencies recommend ^hat the mean coli-
form concentration of such waters should not exceed 5*000 per 100
milliliters„
These various standards have been developed with a variety of dif-
ferent objectives <> In the case of the Raritan Bay area, there is no assur-
ance thatj even if these standards were attained,, all potential danger to
health and welfare would be elimina.ted0 Consideration nust be given to the
attainment of a water quality compatible with the existing and projected
water uses of the areac
There is considerable data on coliform bacteria and dissolved oxygen
- 2k -
-------
concentrations on most of the waters involved,, These data have been used
to document the pollution in this area. Requirements for inclusion of
these data were?
lo Sample collection and laboratory procedures used
were considered acceptable!
2o numbers of samples from an individual location
were sufficient to yield statistically significant data)
3„ no indeterminate -values were usedj and,
U0 the period covered by sample collection was
recent enough to represent present conditions„
ARTHUR KILL
The Arthur Kill has been designated as Glass A water, south of Guter~
bridge Crossing, and Class B water north of Outerbridges by the Interstate
Sanitation Commission,, The Kill receives large quantities of both sewage
containing fecal excreta and industrial wastes s
I would like to have Government's Exhibit 9 submitted at this point.
(The map referred to, entitled "Geometric Mean Con-
form, Profile of Arthur Kill," was marked for iden-
tification as Government's Exhibit Ko= 9»)
MR. CLARKs The next subject is Coliform. Bacteria^
COLIFOKM BACTERIA
Geometric means of data on coliform bacteria procured at three
stations on the Arthur Kill by the New York City Department of Public
during 1958 to 1961 are. presented in Government's Exhibit 9o
MR. STEIN; Just a moment. I would like to point out this facts
Does this chart have those logarithmic scales? I know this always confuses
me and for the people in the audience I would like you to note that each
one of these are ten times the other. In other words, this is 15000 and
this is 10s000 and this is 100,000o The reason why they do this is that
the lines won't shoot up off the paper. You have to visualize then that
small differences here., if they were to follow the scale at the bottom,
would be tremendous, and the differences that are visual to the eye appear
very tiny as you go toward the top of the scale, but they are very, very
large differences indeed,
MR„ CLARKs This exhibit would be much more striking if it were
plotted against a linear scale*
- 25 -
-------
The three stations are about equally spaced along the length of the
Kill, with Station K3 near the northern end, KU about midway, and K5 near
the southern end, which have been pointed out by Mr. De Falco.
The mean values at K3 and KU indicate gross bacterial contamination
of the Kill north of Outerbridge. The lowest mean annual density of coli-
form bacteria at the two stations was 13*500 per 100 milliliters at KJU in
1959 with the other mean values between lj.7,000 and 110,000 per 100 milli-
liters o These data show that contamination'was greater at the northern end
of the Kill than at midpoint„ That is true, although the logarithmic scales
do not show it as strikingly as they should,.
The coliforms at the southern end of the Kill were lower with annual
means at Station K5 ranging from 1,800 to 6,1;00 per 100 milliliters.
Station K5, at the confluence of Arthur Kill and Raritan Bay, if you will
point that out, is subject to greater dillution through tidal exchange.
Any uses of the Arthur Kill and its tidal tributaries which might
result in the ingestion of even small quantities of this highly contaminated
water involve a potential hazard of contracting a water-borne disease.
DISSOLVED 0XTGEN
Data obtained by the Interstate Sanitation Commission in 1957 on
dissolved oxygen in Arthur Kill at 18 stations are presented in Government's
Exhibit 10. I would like to submit Government's Exhibit 10.
(The map referred to, entitled "Weighted Sean %
Saturation of Dissolved Oxygen, 1957 Arthur Kill
Survey," was marked for identification Government's
Exhibit No. 10.)
MR, CLARKs A representative of the Interstate Sanitation Commission
informed a Public Health Service investigator that the present conditions
were essentially the same as indicated by the 1957 data supplied by the
Interstate Sanitation Commission.
At ten of the sixteen stations above Outerbridge, representing 6.1;
miles of the Kill, the dissolved oxygen was less than the Commission's
standard. The dissolved oxygen saturation at Station 7, near Tremley Point,
was about 7 percent representing the low point in the Kill. At the northern
end of the Kill, the dissolved oxygen saturation was just above 30 percent.
In the lower portion of the Kill the dissolved oxygen rose to above 50 per-
cent saturation in the vicinity of Outerbridge Crossing, and to about 65
percent at Station 18 near the southern end of the Kill,
The very low dissolved oxygen at Station 7 approached the condition
of total oxygen depletion which creates odor nuisances. The dissolved
oxygen for some distance in both directions from this station was low enough
to be deleterious to aquatic life, including fish.
- 26 -
-------
liill -:r Arthur Mill
; n'ii
1111111
-------
195? Arthur Kill Survey:
y-x
:SiOlurafia?5
CLASS A
5G1> Saturation
CLASS 8
301 Saturation
COMPACT EEQUIREMEMTS
STATION
>\nr-
-------
THE NARROWS
The ebb and flow of the tides cause water in the Narrows to fluctuate
back and forth, with the over-all preponderance of movement outward toward
the Lower Bay and the Atlantic Ocean.. The quality of the water in the
Narrows .is influenced by wastes discharged either north or south of the
Narrows. Undoubtedly, the major influence on water quality in this area is
exerted by treated and untreated wastes discharged by 10 million people to
Upper Harbor, north of the Narroire.
Coliform Bacteria
The New York City Department of Public Works annually collects sam-
ples over a tidal cycle in the Narrows® Samples are collected at both top
and bottom from three points across the Narrows# Geometric means of the
MFN data for 1959 through 1961 are given in Table 7»
I submit Government's Table 7 as an exhibit„
(The document referred to, entitled "Table 7, Coliform
Density Per 100 ML. Geometric Means for A Tidal Cycle
at The Narrox^s" was marked for identification Gov-
ernment's Exhibit Table No„ 7»)
MR. CLARKj The range of the means was 11,000 to 6U,000 per 100
milliliters with one additional value of 5j300o
Will you point that out -- the 5*300?
In general the higher means occurred at the surface of the three
sampling points and of the total of eighteen means involved, twelve were in
excess of 20,000 per 100 milliliters. Thus, the waters flowing through the
Narrows generally carried coliform bacteria in excess of 20,000 per 100
milliliters with half of the means in excess of 30,000 coliforms per 100
milliliters®
Dissolved Oxygen
A 1959 report of The Interstate Sanitation Commission indicates that
the weighted mean dissolved oxygen saturation of the water at the Narrows
was 52 percento
TIDAL PORTION OF RARITAN RIVER.
Previous to 1958 much of the sewage and industrial wastes from Middle-
sex County, New Jersey, was discharged into the Raritan River. In 1957, the
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority completed a sewage treatment plant with
an outfall discharging into Raritan Bay south of Tottenville, New York. In
March, I960, M. C. Rand and E. R. Segesser, Chief Chemist, Middlesex County
Sewage Authority, and Principal Engineer, New Jersey State Health Department,
respectively, made a study of the river to determine what improvement had
been achieved,,
- 27 -
-------
Coliform Bacteria
They reported coliform data for dry weather periods only in Raritan
Bay at the junction of Raritan Bay and the Arthur Killo The geometric means
were 1,U00 per 100 milliliters for 1958? and 1,800. per 100 milliliters for
19$9S and with, 10 percent of the values in excess of 10,000 per 100
Dissolved Oxygen
They reported further that during 1958 the dissolved oxygen satura-
tion of the Raritan River at Victory Bridge, one-half mile above Raritan Bay,
was 62 percent® This represented a marked improvement over the 2 percent
dissolved oxygen saturation this point in 1957, prior to completion
THE BAY AREA
The waters of the Bay area have been designated as Class A waters by
The Interstate Sanitation Commission. The City Health Department of New York
and the State Health Department of New Jersey have responsibilities for .
surveillance of water quality of their respective bathing beaches surround-
ing the Bay„
The New Jersey State Health Department and the New York State Conser-
vation Department are responsible for the surveillance of these waters in
regard to their use as a shellfish production and harvesting area.
The data available on water quality indicate that pollution reaches
the Bay from three principal sources® These are the communities which dis-
charge wastes directly to the Bay, the outflow from Arthur Kill, and that
portion of the flow through the Narrows which enters the Bay,
Coliform Bacteria
All data on coliform bacteria yield the same general pattern of bac-
terial contamination of the Bay area. This pattern reveals high levels of
contamination at both the northeastern and western ends of the Bay, with
lower densities in the middle and southeastern portions of the Bay area.
Geometric annual means of coliform data collected between 1958 and
1961 by the New York City Health Department along the bathing beaches of
southeastern Staten Island are shown in Government's Exhibit 11, which I
would like to present at this time.
milliliters
of the new sewage treatment
(The document referred to, entitled "Geometric Mean
Coliform, Profile of Staten Island Shore Line Waters,"
was marked for identification Government's Exhibit
No. llo)
- 28 -
-------
TABLE 7
COLIFOBM DENSITY PER. 100 ML.
GEOMETRIC MEANS FOR A TIDAL CYCLE
AT THE NARROWS
Year N8 West N8 M8 East
19$9 Top 1^,000 IU,000 26,000
Bottom 12,000 11,000 5,300
1960 Top 55,000 33,000 15,000
Bottom 3U,000 6U,000 32,000
1961 Top 3U,000 30,000 37,000
Bottom 27,000 21^,000 3U,000
-------
Profile of Stolen Island Shore Line Waters
'SB -ss^c.'si
WWiW'*: >rsf
'•>8'» '59 '53'3 r«8'6:
PB-2 EM-! P0-2A
Government Exhibit 11
-------
MR. STEIN: Is this a logarithmic scale again?
MR. CLARK: I would like the record to show it ise It has a dotted
line across at the 1,000 level and a heavy line across at the 2,U00 level.
On Government's Exhibit 11 at three stations between Tottenville and
Seguine Point seven of the twelve annual means exceeded 1,000 coliforms per
100 milliliters. The highest of the four annual means at Tottenville was
bj700 per 100 milliliters, or twice the standard, in I960, and near Seguine
Point the highest was 2,100 per 100 milliliters in 1961« The high value at
Tottenville exceeds the maximum of 2,Ij.OO per 100 milliliters considered
acceptable for bathing waters by the New York City Health Department, and
the other six values in excess of 1,000 place all of the waters in this
reach in the group subject to reclassification., Data for six of the seven
stations in'the reach between Seguine Point and the eastern end of Great
Kills Park were limited to data for single years0 A maximum value of 860
per 100 milliliters was reported at CP-1 at Great Kills Park in 1961e For
the reach between Great Kills Park and the Narrows, there are 21 annual
means for the nine sampling stations® Nineteen of these twenty-one annual
means exceeded 1,000 per 100 milliliters, and ten exceeded 2,1*00 per 100
milliliters <, The general trend along this reach is upward from Great Kills
Park to the Narrows, with an annual mean of 11,500 per 100 milliliters below
the Narrows, five times the standard, at the upper end of South Beach,
Thus, most of the Staten Island shore line has waters of questionable to
hazardous bacterial quality for bathing0
The Commanding Officer of Fort Wadsworth in complying with Array
directives found that the quality of the waters along all of the beaches on
Staten Island did not meet the bathing standards acceptable to the U. So
Army0 Accordingly, he placed certain areas off limits0
I would like to submit Government's Exhibits 19 and 20 at this time<>
(The document referred to, entitled "Headquarters
Fort Wadsworth," dated 23 June 1961, was marked
for identification Government's Exhibit No. 19.)
(The document referred to, entitled "Status of
Swimming Areas on Staten Island, 1961," was marked
for identification as Government's Exhibit No. 20.)
MR. CLARK: In addition, he has advised his command that other
beaches were unsatisfactory by United States Army standards. They are de-
tailed in Government's Exhibits 19 and 20,which are shown here.
Comparable data for the evaluation of the New Jersey beaches were
not available.
A profile of annual geometric means along the New York-New Jersey
- 29 -
-------
Ship Channel is presented in Government's Exhibit 12 j which I w'ould like to
submit at this time.
(The map referred to, entitled "Geometric Mean Coli-
form, Profile Along New York-New Jersey Channel,"
was marked for identification as Government's Ex-
hibit No. 12.)
I®. CLARK: Also one along the Nex-ir York-New Jersey State line is
shown in Government's Exhibit 13« Would you submit Government's Exhibit 13>
please?
(The map referred to, entitled "Geometric Kean Coli-
form, Profile Along New York-New Jersey State Line,"
was marked for identification as Government's Ex-
hibit Ho. 13.)
MR. CLARK: Both of these profiles exhibit trends similar, to that of
the Staten Island beach stations, with the higher values at the ends and the
lower values near the middles. The three western stations of the Ship Chan-
nel profile have generally higher mean annual densities, in the range of
2,1|00 to 6,1*00 per 100 milliliters, than the comparable bathing beach
stations. The remaining stations of this profile, on the other hand, have
lower densities than the beach stations, ranging between 82 and 360 per 100
milliliters in the iaiddle area, and between 300 and 790 at the eastern end.
The State Line profile is somewhat similar to the Ship Channel profile, but
with lower densities in the western end and middle area, but higher values
for the eastern stations.
DR. KANDLE: Could we inquire as to the source of these data?
MR. STEIN: Yes. Do you have the source of these data?
MR. DE FALCO: They are all indicated on the chart,,
NR. STEIN: Would you read it off the chart?
MR. DE FALCO: It is a composite of the values from the New York
State Conservation Department, the New Jersey State Health Department, the
New York City Health Department, and the New York City Department of Public
Works.
MR. STEIN: And the other chart is the same?
MR. DE FALCO: The data on this is New York State Conservation De-
partment, New Jersey State Health Department, and New York City Health
Department.
MR. STEIN: The second chart you are pointing to is the chart
called —
- 30 -
-------
headquarters fort wadsvdrth
Staten Island 5, New York
23 June 1961
SUBJECT: Off Limits Swimming Areas
TO:
President
Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Board
Governors Island
New York It, New York
1. Reference Circular 385-6, Headquarters First United States
Array, 1? May 1961, Subject:"Operation of Swimming Pools and Natural
Bathing and Eathing Areas",
2* In compliance with paragraph 2, referenced Circular, attached
is a sketch of off-limits swimming areas on this installation, Miller
Army Airfield and surrounding areas. Also included on the sketch are
swimming areas which have been approved by local health authorities.
3. Because of the great variance in bacteriological sitandards
for salt water swimming areas, acceptable to local health authorities
and the Anny Medical Service, all personnel assigned, attached, or
living on this installation have been urged through Post published media,
to refrain from swimming at all beaches on Staten Island even though
rated Class A by local authorities.
[1. The following indicates the variance of acceptable standards
mentioned in paragraph 3 above:
LOCALLY ACCEPTABLE
Class - Average MPW/lOOcc
ARMY ACCEPTABLE
Class - Average MPW/lOOcc
A 1
A 1 0 - 1000
A 2 1000 - 2Ji00
A 0-23
B 2k - 2U0
Over 2bO-Unsatisfactory
A
B
Over 2)400 - Unsatisfactory
FOR THE COMMANDER:
1 Incl
DANIEL A. VENOR
Capt, AGC
Adjutant
WIS IS A TRUE COPY
Government Exhibit 19
-------
5 TATUS
of
SVinfAINQ AREAS
STAT EN ISLAND
1 9 4»1
0 N
\ WadBvorl
.ham
Midl^tfid Beach
liep^Arnqr Airfiel
Beach
Dorp Beach
- >b>
\f&r
Government Exhibit 20
-------
Profile Along New York-New Jersey Choonel
tW59'i» I958l5&%t j ¦ mteW '« «S'59'S0'6;
Government Exhibit 12
-------
Government Exhibit 13
-------
MR. DE FALCOs This is No„ 12 and this is No. 13 o
MR. STEINs They are No® 12 and No« 13o
MR. CLARK? The eastern stations of both profiles generally indicate
a trend of increasing densities from 1959 to 1961. While the geometric mean
values used for these profiles are not exactly comparable to the median
values used as a basis for evaluating water quality over the shellfish beds,
it is obvious from these data that much of the water of the Bay area would
have median coliform values well in excess of the 70 per 100 milliliters
which is the recommended standard for shellfish areas»
Data from two sampling stations are evaluated to illustrate the water
quality over the shellfish beds at these points„ These represent data from
the same sample points collected over a four-year period,
I would like to enter Government's Exhibit Hi at this time#
(Chart entitled "Median Coliforms in Waters Overlying
Shellfish Beds".was marked for identification as
Government's Exhibit No. liu)
DR. KANDLEs Is this the New York State report — the New York State
Conservation report?
MR. DE FALCOg No® This is New York City Health Department.,
DR. KANDLEs So it is only New York waters®
MR. DE FALCOs Yesa sir0
MR. CLAEKs Six to twelve top and bottom samples have been taken over
a tidal cycle on thirteen occasionso These points were sampled during the
months of April through October, for the years 1958s i960 and 1961. The
median coliform densities of these samples for each sampling period at Sta-
tions A and B are given in Government's Exhibit Hu At Station A the medians
on eleven of the thirteen sampling dates exceeded the permissible limit of
70 per 100 milliliters for both top and bottom sampleso At Station B, ten
of the thirteen top sample medians exceeded the permissible limit, and twelve
of the bottom sample medians exceeded the limite At Station A on six of the
thirteen days more than 10 percent of the bottom samples exceeded the permis-
sible 230 per 100 milliliters limito For the top samples at this station
and for both top and bottom samples at.Station B more than 10 percent exceed-
ed 230 per 100 milliliters on nine of thirteen sampling days. At both sta-
tions there were days on which all samples from both top and bottom exceeded
230 per'100 milliliterso
These data are supported by the evidence of the previously discussed
coliform profiles throughout the Bay„ Bacterial contamination of much of
- 31 -
-------
the water of the Bay area presents the hazard of contracting disease to
those who eat clams taken from the contaminated areas.
DR. KANDLEs Are we to presume that these Stations A and B are some
areas which were then currently approved for the taking of shellfish?
MR. STEINs Is the answer to that yes?
MR. CLARK? Yes.
DR. KANDLEs Could we have entered into the record where these sta-
tions are, and could we note for the record that these data do not appear
to have come from the regulatory agencies which are responsible for the
taking of shellfish?
MR. DE FALCOs Do you want me to detail it on the nap?
MR. STEIN; Yes,
MR. DE FALCOs These come from areas located approximately in here.
DR. KANDLEs They are not an approved area at all £nd are not even
near it.
MR. DE FALCOs Then let me give you the one on the shellfish. One in
here and one in here.
DR. KANDLEs All right.
MR. STEINs Would you want to indicate it orally? I don't think the
record would show where you are pointing to, Mr. De Falco. Could you gen-
erally indicate, that is, in the Raritan Bay north of the State line divid-
ing New York and New Jersey in New York waters.
MR. DE FALCOs Right. It about divides the area into roughly thirds
on a central line running east-west through the shellfish area in New York
Bay. Does that answer your question?
MR. STEINs Does that answer your question?
DR. KANDLEs Yes,
MR. STEIN; I think I should make one remark here. I think that we
should indicate these did not come from the regulatory agencies themselves.
However, what we are measuring here are physical conditions. The record
should also show that presumably the traditional standard methods are. used
to measure these physical conditions.
MR. CLARK; They were made by standard methods.
- 32 -
-------
STATIQM &-TOP
SWIOMS-W
mm
STATION k-BQTTQM
STATION 8-BOTTOM
4m 4M? 4/sa 4/w ssi
!9Si
C. l
s*
...
1
VK'M
11 1
866g'llSll Jig JM|
|i
¦ >%.
0% J!
yc> ^;V^4
B 1
1
1
Government Exhibit 14
-------
MR. STEINt Righto
MR. CLARKs And they did not come from regulatory agencies.
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. CLARK: A large amount of KPN data has been collected during the
past four years by the five agencies that are principally responsible for
investigating the water quality of the Bay area. From these data a single
geometric mean for each sampling station where data were adequate has been
developed#
I would like to enter Government's Exhibit 15.
(The map referred to, entitled "Geometric Mean Coli-
form Per 100 ml, 1958-1961," was marked for identi-
fication as Government's Exhibit No. 15°)
MR. CLARKs Based on these means Government Exhibit 15 presents lines
of equal coliform density throughout the Bay area. The density lines for
the eastern end of the area illustrate clearly the Increase of the contami-
nation from the Marrows into Lower Bay. Starting with coliform densities
greater than 20,000 per 100 milliliters at the Narrows there was a continu-
ing decrease in density in a southwesterly direction along the Staten Island
shore to 200 per 100 milliliters in the vicinity of Great Kills Park. There
was a similar decrease from the Harrows in a southerly direction to 200 per
100 milliliters near the tip of Sandy Hook. The 200 density line was not
straight across between Sandy Hook and Great Kills Park, but swung in an arc
starting in a westerly direction from Sandy Hook and turning toward the
north as it approached Great Kills Park.
The density lines for the western end of the Bay area showed high
coliform densities in the vicinity of the mouth of the Raritan River, the
southern end of Arthur Kill, and the area of the Middlesex County Sewerage
Authority treatment plant outfall. In the Raritan River the coliform den-
sity decreased downstream from 1},000 per 100 milliliters near Sandy Point
to 2,000 per 100 milliliters near Ferry Point. The density near the south-
ern end of Arthur Kill also was 2,000 per 100 milliliters. As the waters
from these two tributaries entered Raritan Bay the density rose to 3,000
per 100 milliliters and continued to increase to more than U,000 per 100
milliliters in an area in the vicinity of the Middlesex County outfall. In
the immediate area of the outfall a peak of 10,000 was recorded.
DR. KANDLEj Could I make one point?
MR. STEINs Yes, sir.
DR. KANDLEs I would like to say to Mr. Clark I think he puts infer-
ences into these and I would appreciate it if we would note the inferences
as contrasted with the facts. For example, he just said where the waters,
- 33 -
-------
where these two waters or where the two tributaries empty into the Bay, and
X think we should merely deal with what the data are, because the inference
as to where they come from is an entirely different matter and I should not
like to have it presumed that that data indicates we are necessarily assum-
ing that they are coming from the Raritan or the Arthur Killo All we know
is that the counts are whatever he says.
MR. STEIN: I think that point is well taken. As I looked at this I
thought what he was doing was just naming a location to locate a place where
the data is coming from and where it enters into the Bay. I don't draw any
inference from that that it came from the Raritan or anywhere else. That is
the point where the physical conditions show that. There may be another
descriptive way of doing this. I think at all these points, and correct me
if I am wrong on this, Mr. Clark, I think you refer to places just to locate
the point where you describe the physical conditions. Is that correct?
MR. CLARK: Let the record show I am only describing these specific-
ally to locate the area. I have drawn no inference in my own mind and
didn't realize anybody else would, that these were forming places.
DR. KANDLE: Very good„
MR. CLARK; The point of specifically locating the coliform density
at that point is the only thing I had in mind. It is difficult to describe
the map in writing.
DR. KANDLE s Surely.
MR. CLARKs General, ly, the density of the coliforms decrease as you
move eastward to the center of the Baye The New York-New Jersey State line
in a general way bisects longitudinally the elliptical lines centering
around the area of the Middlesex County outfall. Much of the central por-
tion of the Bay had mean coliform densities less than 200 per 100 milli-
liters. The combined evidence of the coliform data indicate the health
hazards involved in the use of the waters of portions of the Bay area.
The bacterial contamination of the waters of the western end of
Raritan Bay and of the northeastern end of Lower Bay in the vicinity of the
Staten Island shore presents a health hazard in the recreational use of
these waters for boating, water skiing, fishing, etc.
Much of the waters of the Bay area are unsuitable for the taking of
shellfish for human consumption. This is demonstrated by the closing of
the Bay to shellfishing by the New York and New Jersey authorities on May 1,
1961. The health hazard involved in human consumption of raw clams taken
from Raritan Bay was converted to a reality in early 1961 when a substantial
number of cases of hepatitis resulted from eating raw clams taken from these
waters.
- 3k -
-------
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
COLIFORM
PER 100 ml
• ''.".77.:
Government Exhibit 15
-------
Dissolved.Oxygen
During the last half of May, I960, the New York State Conservation
Department collected samples for dissolved oxygen determinations along three
profiles in the Bay area# One profile* involving five stations, extended
in a southerly direction from the Narrows perpendicular to the State line.
I would like to enter Government's Exhibit 16 here0
(The chart referred to, entitled "Dissolved Oxygen
Profile, Sandy Hook-The Narrows, I960," mas marked
for identification as Government's Exhibit No. 16.)
MR. CLARKs The results, presented in Government's Exhibit 16, of
four sets of samples show that the dissolved oxygen in this area generally
exceeded $0 percent saturation, although three of the eighteen values were
approximately f>0 percent and one value was below $0 percent. Maximum dis-
solved oxygen saturation was about 70 percent.,'
I would like to enter Government's Exhibit 17o
(The chart referred to, entitled "Dissolved Oxygen
Profile, Offshore Staten Island," was marked Gov-
ernments Exhibit No. 17 for identification.)
MR* CLArKs Government's Exhibit 1? presents the results of samples-
eolleeted at eight stations, starting at Arthur Kill and extending along the
southeastern shore of Staten Island® Nine of the thirty-two samples had
dissolved ojQfgen saturation Values of less than 50 percent, with two of
these below 30 percent* At five stations on a profile about one mile off
the staten Island shore, nine of the twenty-one samples had dissolved oxygen
saturations of less than f>0 percent, as shown in Exhibit 18«
I would like to enter4 Government's Exhibit 18 at this point*
(The chart referred to, entitled "Dissolved Oxygen
Profile, New Ifork Waters North of State X&ne,
was marked for identification as Governments Exhibit
NOs 180
MS a SMrK§ Two of these samples had saturations of approximately 3f0
perc6nt« Most of the lower values occurred along the Western ends of the
two profiles in Raritan Bay»
Mft» GLENNf It should be pointed out that Interstate Sanitation C«aft-
mission standards are averages for a week. So by sampling at certain times
as to t&leranOesj it can be infrueneing data like this %uite a bit* It is
not an instantaneous standard, but a particular area of water f«r a week's
time*
- 31 -
-------
MRo CLARK? Very goodo Thank you. That will give us a better set
of data.
Thus., Bay waters along the Staten Island shore line and one mile off-
shore had dissolved oxygen saturation values below the $C percent saturation
required for Interstate Sanitation Commission Class A waters. Comparable
dissolved oxygen data in New Jersey waters of the Bay were not available for
this report.
A VOICE? What was the source of this data,, please?
MRo DE FALCOs This was a study by the New York State Conservation
Departmento
MR, CLARK? Let the record so show.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The waters of the Arthur Killj the tidal portion cf the Raritan River
and its tributaryj and of the Raritan Bay, the Lower Bay,, and Sandy Hook
Bayj are extensively used by, and are very valuable to, the 1$ million in-
habitants in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area.
Water uses includes navigation] recreation,, including bathings ski-
ing,, boating, and fishingj commercial fishing! industrial process cooling!
and shellfishingo
The combined sewage and industrial wastes discharged to the waters
under consideration have an estimated total biochemical oxygen demand popu-
lation-equivalent of 2,100,000. Of this total 29 percent is attributed to
direct.waste discharges from industrial plants, mostly on Arthur" Kill. An
estimated 1,282,000 people are served by the 30 sewerage systems discharging
to these waters# Of this population 93 percent resides in New Jersey, and 7
percent in New York. About 63 percent of the sewered population is tributary
to systems discharging to Arthur Kill.
The biochemical oxygen demand population equivalent of effluents dis-
charged from all the sewerage systems is estimated to be ls5£0,000,, of which
98 percent originates from New Jersey and 2 percent from New York. Popula-
tion equivalents of suspended solids are estimated at li73sOOOs of which 96
percent originates from New Jersey and k percent from New York.
During the period 1908 to 1961 there have been at least 181 inspec-
tions of suspended solids removal at 17 sewage treatment plants, and at
least 139 inspections of the coliform content of V~> plant'effluents. Of
these, 26 percent of the-suspended solids tests indicated inadequate removal
efficiency and 29 percent of the. coliform tests-indicated inadequate 'disin-
fection. Ten of "the treatment plants are reported''-to ¥© overloaded.
In addition to the direct discharges from sewerage systems ana
- 36 -
-------
5/18/60
MZWm
5/24/80;
iSO.StsnsisMfc!
Station
Government Exhibit 16
-------
Dafa-Hrnco
Government Exhibit 17
-------
Government Exhibit 18
-------
industrial plants the waters receive untreated sewage from large numbers of
ships and boats# Lower Bay receives a portion of the residual pollution,
from the 10 million people tributary to the Upper Harbor area. These wastes
pass through the Narrows and affect the water quality of Raritan and Lower
Bay.
Gross pollution of Arthur Kill is evidenced by high coliform densities
and low dissolved oxygen values#
In. Raritan Bay the greatest bacterial contamination is in the western
portion.of Raritan Bay, in the vicinity of the southern end of the Arthur
Kill, the mouth of .the Raritan River, and the outfall from the Middlesex
County Sewage Treatment Plant. In Lower Bay the greatest bacterial contam-
ination is in the"northeast area of the Bay, generally along the Staten
Island shore. Bacterial contamination decreases from these opposite ends of
the Bay area toward Sandy Hook Bay and toward the central portion of the Bay
area.
Oxygen depletion is excessive in the extreme western end of the Bay
area and along a portion of the Staten Island shore. There is improvement
towards the central and eastern end of the Bay area.
The excessive bacterial contamination of Arthur Kill renders its
water potentially hazardous to the"health of those who use it for any pur-
pose that might permit ingestion of even small quantities of the water. The
low dissolved oxygen content of several miles of the Kill is damaging to
aquatic life.
The waters of the beaches along both the upper and lower ends of
Staten Island's southeastern shore, and along the New Jersey shore in the
vicinity of the mouth of Raritan River and the southern end of Arthur Kill,
have bacterial contamination in excess of that considered safe for bathing.
The offshore waters of these same areas present a health hazard to those who
use them for boating, skiing, or fishing.
All clam beds in the Bay area were closed by New York and New Jersey
authorities on May 1, 1961, but subsequently New Jersey reopened Sandy Hook
Bay for clamming. An epidemiological survey established the fact that a
substantial number of cases of hepatitis resulted in early 1961 from the
consumption of raw clams taken from Raritan Bay.
It is evident that pollution of waters of the Bay area and its
tributaries by sewage and industrial wastes discharged from adjacent areas
in New York and New Jersey constitutes pollution of interstate waters sub-
ject to abatement under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as such
pollution endangers the health and welfare of persons in a State other than
that in which the discharges contributing to such pollution originate.
MR. STEINs Thank you, Mr. Clark, for a very thorough and comprehen-
sive statement.
- 37 -
-------
Are there any comments or questions by the Interstate Commission?
DR. KANDLEs I would just like to make a note that portions of the
Navesink River have also been reopened, for shellfish taking,,
DR. WENDELL? Mr. Chairman, there are several questions that I would
Tike to ask of Mr. Clark. Before I do, or before we do, will Mr® Clark also
be available for questioning this afternoon on the summary?
MR. STEUJ; Mr. Clark will be available throughout the conference.
DR. "WENDELL; Then is this an appropriate time at least to ask
several questions on what we have just heard?
MR. STEINs You may want to wait until your presentation, or you may
want to ask him the questions now,
DR. 'WENDELL; May we do both? May we ask some at this time?
There is a good deal in what Mr. Clark has said that frankly I am not
competent to comment on, and perhaps individually we may not, without dis-
cussing it first.
MR. STEIN; We would certainly want to give you an opportunity to
discuss this and then ask your questions later, if that is what you would
prefer to do.
DR. WENDELL; Then in that case I have only two questions I would
like to ask at this particular time, with the understanding that we may wish
to discuss Mr. Clark's statement further this afternoon. One of them, per-
haps, Mr. Stein, might be addressed to you, if that is appropriate.
In your opening statement and in the notice that we received for the
conference, we understood in the language of the statute that this confer-
ence was being called on the basis of the statutory language — surveys, re-
ports, and so on. Was there any request made of the Public Health Service
to hold a conference such as this, or is this a conference being held at the
instance of the Public Health Service?
MR. STEINs This is being held at the instance of the Public Health
Service.
DR. WENDELL; The only other question I have in this, and this is
perhaps only a preliminary one, is this; I understand, Mr. Clark, that your
statement is a survey of conditions as you gather them to be from the several
sources that you used in making your presentation. There is no inference,
or, you would not contend, would you, that waste disposal is not one of the
very legitimate and normal uses of bodies of water?
- 38 -
-------
MR. CLARK; I do not consider waste disposal a legitimate use for a
body of water where it might endanger health or welfare.
DR. WENDELL; That may be true* but in determining the use to which
water is to be put, one of the considerations is use for waste disposals
Isn't that right? That may make other uses inappropriate, or it may be you
would prefer not to use it for waste disposal,, but waste disposal is one
such purposej isn't it?
MR* CLARK? I do not consider waste disposal such a purpose unless
the waste is adequately treated and will not interfer with the other legit-
imate water uses it should be put to.
BR, 'WENDELLj In other words* your view is that waste disposal is the
least in priority of the uses of water0 Is that the position you take?
MR = CLARKs That is my personal opinion. It does not necessarily
reflect the opinion of the Surgeon General*,
MR* STEINi Does the Interstate Sanitation Commission, Mr. Glenn, or
any of the other people with you, wish to ask any questions?
MR. C-IENN: Ho.
MR„ STEINs Hew Jersey?
DR'. KANDLEj Mr. Chairman, we have had presented here a good deal of
data,, some of it from a large number of samples, and some from exceedingly
small numbers of samples, in which the numbers game gets pretty important
in regard to this percentage businesse It would take quite a while to study
Mr. Clark's report and to be able to comment.,
For examples one of the things that occurred to us is the statement
that ten of the plants are overloadedo Such a statement at least in one
case is in error, and in others one must deal with definitions and percent-
age of risk of overloadingj, and all such dataa So I do not think we cafl
dispose of this matter quite so easily as to indicate that all of our ques-
tions might be asked right nowa
.HEL STEHIs We can understand thato I think the purpose of ~r.
Clark's report vs.s ~.c taks the available information and to try to put it
together xn the best way he could0 I think it is obvious from, the report
that there are certain gaps and certain material was based on more data than
some otherss
I "have a couple of questions to ask him about some of the data too,
but that point Is ve.ll taken.. I think in .the preparation of this j s-s in
ether reports we dc3 that our working plans are, of course, available to the
States and the interstate agencies to shew how we are doing this, and any
- 39 -
-------
improvement we can make in refining the data is something we are very much
interested in.
MR. CLARK: We attempted not to use any data where; they were not
statistically significant, or at least were not indicating a trend. The
data was tried to be presented in a straight-forward manner, without bias.
I may not have achieved that purpose, but that was the intent, at least.
DR. KANDLEs May I say for the record and for Mr. Clark that X have
only tremendous admiration for the way he presented the data, but the fact
remains that the data may not necessarily have been correct.
MR. KLASHMAUs Dr. Kandle, may I clarify a point cn this question of
overloading of plants, and Mr. Clark, will you correct me if I am wrong?
I believe that comes from inspections made by the Interstate Sanita-
tion Commission, of which you are a member., These are the facts which they
presentedo So if these facts are incorrect, it is their baby.
MR, GLENN; We were never asked about any plants and whether they
were overloaded or not, by anybody prior to this meeting0 It is something
you draw on my data about, but not from us. No such thing was ever said.
The only one that was ever mentioned was maybe one plant which was under
court order because it was —
MR. KLASHMAN: My understanding, Mre Clark, is that it is based on
the design flow, and the flows going into the plants® This is where the
conclusion comes from.
MR. CLARK: That is righto That is my impression, of course. This
is a consensus of a great many people and not my report alone.
MR. STEIN: I think again the data, as I understand it, was selected
where it was thought it was made by a competent agency in accordance with
standard methods, and was reasonably representative to indicate that it may
have some validity. Obviously a lot of this data was not gathered by us.
It was done by other people.
I think at a conference stage«, particularly in a complex situation
like this, you have to get started somewhere and tiy to get a general
agreement. I do not know any of the specifics there. I think we may con-
sider by and large what Mr. Clark indicates gives a reasonably accurate
pictureo I would suspect if this has to be changed it would be on the basis .
of conditions that may prevail.
Are there any other questions from New York or New Jersey?
DR. KANDLE: We have many questions. I don't mean to imply we have
none. But I would prefer not to ask them right at this minute.
- UO -
-------
MR. STEIN: Righto How about New York? Do you have any questions or
comments now, Dr. Ingraham?.
DR. INGRAHAM: You mentioned the kvmy standards for bathingo Do you
have any fair inkling on what they are based?
MR. CLARK: Yes, sir. I can get it for you. It will take me just a
second to get them for you0 The Army standards for bathing are theses A
Class A water' contains between zero and 23 coliforms per 100 milliliters <>
A Class B water varies from 2k to 2I4O per 100 milliliters. Over 2l;0 is
classified as unsatisfactory®
I would like to add that you have to consider the way those are
calculatede They are calculated on the basis of ten samples. It is a re-
sult of ten sampleso That classification is in a., technical bulletin.,
Medical No. 1635 Department of the Army Technical Bulletin Service.
DR. INGRAHAMi Is there any indication of the rationale for this?
MR. CLARKs Well, the Army doesn't very often explain itself0
DR. INGRAHAM: I believe Mr. Dappert has a question.
MR. DAPPERT: I think the record should show,, not going into detail,,
but there should be some explanation of what is a geometric mean and what is
a weighted mean.
MR. STEIN: I think that is a very good point. May I get in on your
question, because I have the same thing in mind?
I notice in your report you kept referring to geometric mean. We
have in other reports not run across that term too frequently. Why was that
used?
MR. CLARK: In most reports we use an arithmetic mean. Geometric
means were used mainly because much of our data was supplied or calculated
originally as a geometric mean, and it seems that the geometric mean is the
locally adopted method of calculating in New York and perhaps in New Jersey.
Correct me if I am wrong on that.
DR. KANDLE: You are wrong.
MR. STEIN: Is there any significant difference in the kind of figures
you get from the geometric mean and arithmetic mean?
MR. CLARK: Yes, there is this difference, and I would like for the
record to show it. The geometric mean is the product of all of the terms
multiplied together and extracting the nth root of that product. That be-
comes the geometric mean.
- ui -
-------
A VOICES Mr<> Chairmans I can throw a little more light on ito
MR. STEIN? Pardon me. I think we have to follow procedure here.
Otherwise we will be here for a week. I think we will have to ask Mr. Clark
to answer the question. Then at the appropriate time we will be happy to
call on you, sirc
A VOICE? Thank you.
MR. CLARKj The geometric mean is usually much lower than the ordin-
ary average. The geometric mean and the median value on a large number of
terms is usually pretty close together, with the arithmetic average being
much higher0
MR. STEIN: You would say if your computations were done by the usual
arithmetic mean that the figures you gave would be higher than the geometric
mean you used here?
MR. CLARK: I would say that my figures represent.the lowest value
you could get by any accepted method of calculation.
MR. DAPPERT: Now, what is the weighted mean?
MR. STEIN: Do you know what that weighted mean is?
MR. CLARKg I am sorry. I will have to refer that to some statistician.
MR. STEIN: As I remember thiss you used it once. I think you talked
about the weighted mean percent saturation for dissolved oxygen data. Was
that coming through the Narrows?
MR. CLARK; That was a quote taken from a report, I believe of the'
Interstate Sanitation Commission„
MR. GLENN? That is taken over a tidal cycle. The data is taken over
a tidal cycle, and since you don't take it equally over a tidal cycle it is
out of proportion. It is weighted according to its position.
MR. STEIN: In other words, it would indicate some readings in that
mean are possibly below the SO percent saturation?
MR. GLENN: It is possible. What you do is get quite a variation.
It might be 20 percent, or 30 percent, during one tidal cycle.
MR. STEIN: That's right. I confess I know we have a causal relation-
ship to work here, but as we go through these pollution cases I always have
trouble with the mean concept anyway, because what you may do is work with
geometric means, for example, and you may get some kind of curve, but if
there are 10 or 15 or 20 percent of the cases where you have pollution, and
that is significant, and people use water 10 or 15 or 20 percent of the time,
- It2 -
-------
this may be something we want to know,
and particularly with "weighted mean."
of it is.
I have the same problem with "mean"
I do not know what the significance
MR. GLENN; If you take a sine curve and have a lot of data on the
high point of the curve, and more data taken there than down below, if you
took it by itself it would give too much weight to it. So it takes more
into account where you took the data during a tidal cycle«
MR. CLARK; The geometric mean was recommended for use by Mr. Sham-
berger of the Maryland State Health Department as representing the nearest
true value of average pollution that would occur in a body of water provid-
ing a sufficient amount of data was available. It does this; The geometric
mean minimizes the high value and minimizes the effect of the low values,
and tends to measure the centralized tendency of the series of terms to the
best figure available. Howevers it is usually lower than the arithmetic
average, and if you have a sufficient amount of data the geometric mean and
the median value usually do not have any significant difference between
them. But that has to be analyzed on each set of data.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions or comments?
DR. INGRAHAM: Mr. O'Leary of the New York City Department of Public
Works would like to comment briefly on Mr. Clark's report.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
¦MR. O'LEARY; I noted in the summary of your report you were quoting
other studies on the Arthur Kill,, and no mention was made of the study made,
by the engineers of the Department of Public Workso It may be you did not
know that study was made<> I thought we might be permitted to submit that
and reference made to it in your report*
MR. STEIN: Did you put the bibliography into the record, or take
that study into account, Mr. Clark? Do you have that study in account?
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. O'Leary, which year is this?
MR. O'LEARY; This was made about the year 1957 o
MR. CLARKg: We did not try to take into account every report.
MR'. O'LEARY; I will be glad to submit it and have it included with
the others.
MR. STEIN: We would be happy to have it included in -the bibliography
and included in the report as New York Exhibit Appendix A.
MR. O'LEARY: I would like also to note that I don't know whether
that was mentioned before, about not having the sewage treated* Minor
- 1*3 -
-------
though it may be, I think it should be mentioned also that it is being done
at Fort Wadsworth„
MR. STEIN? Do you have any information in the report on Fort
Wadsworth?
MR„ KLASHMAN; Mr,, O'Leary, from my discussions with the Commanding
Officer of Fort Wadsworth it is our understanding that they are tied into
the New York City system,, and it is their understanding when you put treat-
ment into that area they will be tied into it„ Fort Wadsworth have not been
treated because they tie into our city sewer system,,
MR. O'LEARIs They are taken care of by the Oakwood Beach Sanitary
Sewer, but Fort Wadsworth is at the northern terminus® It seems to me it is
a very simple matter if you are pumping sewage, to put a pumping station in
to pump it into the Oakwood Beach sewage treatment planto
MRo KLASHMAN g We have had discussions with the Commanding Officer of
Fort Wadsworth and the First Army Engineer,, I can assure you if this is so
we will discuss it. Mr„ Wechter, do you have anything to say on that? Mr„
Wechter is from the First Army.
MR. WECHTERs Yes„ It is connected with the New York City sewage
system at two points — on Bay Street and on Conference Street,, All the
sewage is contributed to the New York City sewage system®
MR. O'LEARY? The fact remains that is untreated, though,,
MR0 STEINs Yes<> The rule we do follow in pollution control cases is
this: Where an installation or an industry goes into a municipal sewer, the
municipality is legally and technically responsible for the treatment of
that wasteo In other words, if a plant is on a municipal system we do not
list those plants individually, or those installations individually„ It is
only where plants generally have an outfall going into waterso
On this I would like to ask Mr„ Clark a question® You listed certain
industries here,, Have you in your investigations found any other industries
which might go into the waters in question?
MR. CLARK; I would like for the record to show I do not know whether
these go into the Arthur Kill or not, but I have personally surveyed the
Arthur Kill and I have noted that the following industries were in a loca-
tion where it would be possible, if they wished, to dump their wastes into
the Arthur Kill.
MR. STEINs Would you care to give us that list?
MR. CLARK? Yes, sir« This is the lists
- Ui
-------
»lc
Borne Chemical
2.
U0FC0 (new plant-under construction)
3°
Sinclair (storage)
Uo
Monsanto Chemical
5o
Foster Wheeler (metal welding)
6.
Atlantic Sulphur
7°
American Agriculture and Chemical
8.
U. S. Metal & Refining
9.
Reichold
10 0
Armour
11.
Blaw-Knox
12.
Hess Oil Refinery
13.
Public Service Utilities
liio
Modern Solvent & Chemical
15.
American Smelting & Refinery
16.
Union Carbide (plastics)"
DR. WENDELL; Did I understand, Mr. Clark, that this is a list of
installations that could dump into Arthur Kill if they wanted to, but that
were not now doing it? Is that correct?
MR, CLARKs Ify statement was I do not know where they dump the sewage.
I do not have the information available, but they are located on the Arthur
Kill in such a proximity that they could dump into it®
DR. WENDELLg But you don't know what happens to that waste?
MR. CLARKs I stated thato
MR. STEIN8 That's right. If we could get some information on that
it would be helpful0 The first problem we have is locating all of the
sources•
A>re there any further questions of Mr. Clark?
DR. COLOSIs My name is Natale Colosi. The statement was made that
portions of Raritan Bay were opened for shellfish in 19U1® I think that was
based on a joint survey made by the Public Health Service, the City of New
York Health Department, and State of New York Health Department, and State
Conservation .Department, and the New Jersey State Health Department; and I
participated in that survey for Wagner College and the Staten Island
Assemblyo I wondered how the present bacteriological findings of sanitary
surveys compare with the findings that authorized the reopening of the Bay
at that time.
MR. STEINs Are you familiar with that, Mr. Clark?
MR. CLARK; I am not familiar with the original work authorizing the
reopening of the Bay at that time®
- Il5 -
-------
DR. COLOSI: I think I have the figures in my files. Mr. Adams, who
was your Chief Engineer at that time, cooperated in this survey.
MR. STEIN: We would be very happy to have those. If anyone else is
familiar with that, we would be very happy to have those and make the
comparison.
DR. KANDLE: May I say there wa/3 one practical tes;to I do not have
those data because I have never seen feie 19U1 data entirely, but there is
one practical test, and that is that the waters shall meet Public Health
Service standards.
DR. COLOSI: Yes.
DR. KANDLE: And they wer^e closed because of hepatitis.
MR. STEIN: Are there ar/y other comments or questions? If not, I
have a few questions, Mr. Clarli.
One, I noted in many of your reports that you use a fecal streptococci
test. How is it that was «6t used in this one?
MR. CLARK: The reason that the fecal streptococci test was not used
in this report was because I was unable to find any information on fecal
streptococci density in these waters. The same is true that I frequently use
fecal coliform tests, or a test for coliform of fecal origin, as contrasted
with those of non-fecal origin. That was not used in this report for the
same reason.
I could find no information available and I have no personal data of
my own to submit.
MR. STEIN: Do you think that will be useful?
MR. CLARK: If I were doing the survey, I would recommend it highly.
Both tests.
MR. STEIN: There is another question that maybe one of you can
answer about fish kills. Have there ever been any fish kills in the area
recently? Do you know that, Mr. Klashman?
MR. KLASHMAN: We had a report of one fish kill in the Raritan River
that we understand is due to the discharge of some wastes from a barge which
was supposed to be discharged out to sea. This is the only recent fish kill
we have any knowledge of.
MR. STEIN: Were they wastes taken by barge out to sea?
MR. KLASHMAN: As I understand it, this barge is a barge which barges
wastes from the Peter Schweitzer Paper Company, and the wastes are barged
- U6 -
-------
out into the outer harbor.
MR. STEINs Are there any other wastes in this area barged out to
sea? Is this a pretty extensive practice?
MR. KLASHMANs The Supervisor of New York Harbor issues permits for
the barging of sludge from municipal sewage treatment plants and various
industries, and other wastes, to specific disposal areas at sea. We do not
have any detailed knowledge of the extent of the surveillance program to
insure that these wastes are always discharged into the specific disposal
area*
MR. STEIN: Normally barge disposal is somewhat controversial„ I
always ask the question, what happens in the case of strikes and what hap-
pens in the case of storms, when they can't go. Do you have sufficient
storage area to take care of the wastes? .Do you know that the answer to
that question is in New York Harbor?
MR. KLASHMANs We have no knowledge of the provisions for handling
wastes during foul weather or labor strikes.
Mr. Wuesterfeld, who is the Assistant to the Supervisor of New York
Harbor, is here and may discuss this latero
MR. STEINt We will wait until his presentation. I have another
question or two.
I do not know but what it may be appropriate for the Interstate
Sanitation Commission to answer these questions, or you may want to wait
till after lunch®
1. If you do have any information on these additional plants that
Mr0 Clark gave to us, we would like to have it, because if we find they are
going into a municipal system, and that is where they are connected into, it
would seem to me this would, simplify our problem„ You may want to attempt
to provide it now or later#
Now, in Mr0 Clark's report he made reference to your 1959 annual
report where you discuss holding meetings with various industries. I think
it might be indicated what has happened as a result of these meetings with
the industries, and whether any plants will put in treatment, and possibly
we have similar information0
MR. GLENN: It will be covered partly in our statement, and then if
there are any additional questions you can ask them at that time.
MR. STEINs All right. That is covered in your statement. Because
I did. not want to let this go, since it is in his report.
I also had another one, and this you may want to cover in your
- U7. -
-------
statement too. Mr. Clark indicated that on a number of occasions in his
report, when you check the plant there is a failure to meet requirements of
your Commission. The question naturally comes up what happened after they
failed to meet the requirementss inasmuch as 50 percent of them do. Was the
plant notified, and was the State notified^ and what action was taken?
Ml. GLENN s It was a combination. A. little bit of each, and different
types of things done for each planto In some cases you notify the operator
to see if he can control it. In some cases — in extreme cases — in two or
three cases, which you had on the chart,, where it failed,, they got these
court orders against them nowc So action is being taken on all those cases.
But it varies with each case on how you handle it.
Also you reschedule it many times to be siire that the improvement is
taking place„
MR. STEINs Thank you.
Are there any further questions of Mr. Clark?
DR. KANDLE: There is one basic issue I think we ought to get some
clarification on. You are including the Arthur Kill as part of the Raritan
Bay. Is that right?
MR. STEIN; We are including Arthur Kill as a tributary of Raritan
Bay.
DR. XAJIDLEs But it didn't seem to me that the Government made any
case for the influence of the Arthur Kill on the Raritan Bay, so one may
raise a question to say whether the Arthur Kill is pertinent to this
conference.
MR* STEIN; No, I don't think we are making a case against anything
at this stage, but we are trying to adduce some facts we can agree on. As
I understood from. Mr. Clark's statement —- and again let me see if I under-
stood it correctly — he said the movement in Arthur Kill was back and forth
and any bit of water in there, and consequently any pollution in there,
could reach any portion of Raritan Bay0
DR. KANDLE; We would be interested in seeing any such data to
support that.
MR. STEINs This was the statement made in his report, as I recall
it.
DRo KANDLEs I challenge itc
MR. STEINt Do you want to comment, Mr. Clark?
MR, CLARK: I would prefer to wait to comment on that.
- U8 -
-------
MR'. STEINi All right. Are there any further questions?
DR. INGRAHAM: Dr. Colosi raised a question about the oystering
closing and then being reopened in Raritan Bay. I think perhaps Mr. Udell
of the State Conservation Department might throw some light on that.
MR. STEINj Could we wait on that?
DR. INGRAHAM; Surely.
MR. STEIN; Because Dr. Henderson is going to talk about oysters and
in the New York presentation it might be more appropriate to have that come
out at that timec
DR. INGRAHAMs Surely.
MR. STEINi If we have no further questions of Mr. Clark at this
time, perhaps we can call on Dr. Henderson to continue with the Public
Health Service presentation.
Dr. Henderson.
What we intend to do is to have Dr. Henderson's presentation and then
have a break for lunch.
How long do you think your presentation will take, Dr„ Henderson?
DR. HENDERSON? It should not take more than fifteen minutes.
MR. STEIN; All right. It will not take more than about that time,
and then we can break for lunch.
STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD A. HENDERSON, SENIOR SURGEON,
CHIEF SURVEILLANCE SECTION, EPIDEMIOLOGY BRANCH, COM-
MUNICABLE DISEASE CENTER, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, U. S.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, ATLANTA,
GEORGIA
DR. HENDERSON?. I will stand and perhaps I can be heard best that
way.
My name is D. A.. Henderson, Chief, Surveillance Section, Epidemiology
Branch of the Communicable Disease Center of the Public Health Service.
The report I present is a preliminaiy one. Data is still being
collected. It is a brief discussion of the relationship of infectious hepa-
titis to the consumption of raw clams taken from Raritan Bay«
An epidemic of infectious hepatitis traceable to the consumption of
raw clams from the Raritan Bay occurred this year in the Northern Atlantic
- U9 -
-------
Coastal States which led, on May 1, to the closing of the Bay to the harvest-
ing of clams• Investigations leading to these developments "were prompted by
the occurrence in New Jersey during the winter and spring of this year of an
unusually large number of cases of hepatitis among adults. The State of New
Jersey and the Communicable Disease Center initiated studies to determine
the causeo Early studies revealed that the patients were predominantly males
in their late twenties and thirties and that they commonly were in the higher
socioeconomic brackets. Approximately £0 percent of the adults gave a his-
tory of having eaten raw clams during the preceding ten to sixty-day period.
Because this appeared to be a notable correlation, careful control
studies to determine the clam eating habits of others residing in the same
neighborhoods as the cases were carried out by the New Jersey State Health
Department® In each of the surveys,, the residence of the case was first
identified then families a block away were interviewed®
This will be Table 8„
(The tabulation referred to, entitled "History of Con-
sumption of Raw Clams Within 120 Days of Interview
Among Various Population Samples in New Jersey,« was
marked for identification Government's Exhibit Table
8.)
DRo HENDERSONS Table 8 shows that the percentage of controls who had
eaten raw clams within the preceding 120 days was Uc8 percent in Woodbridge
Township^ 15 „1 percent in Monmouth County and 8«1 percent in Newark City*
Each asterisk denotes a person who stated he had eaten raw clams within this
time interval and who, at the time o.f interview, was found to have symptoms
consistent with those seen early in hepatitis * One man, in fact, was noted
to be overtly jaundiced. Thus, among the controls, there was one definite
and three questionable cases of hepatitis uncovered0
As shown in this Table 8, the frequency of raw clam consumption within
the preceding 120 days among adults in the different areas showed an overall
figure of 9.7 percent.
As noted previously, £0 percent of the adults with hepatitis gave a
history of raw clam consumption in the preceding 10 to 60 days.
To determine the source of the clams and to define the extent of the
problem, an intensive investigation was initiated which by its complexity
and extent involved the participation of a great many individuals from State
and local health departments, various divisions of the Public Health Service
and other Federal and Stats agencies, including the Food and Drug Administra-
tion, Conservation Departments, and others. The cooperation of those in
the clam industry was excellent. On April 26, a central field headquarters
to correlate and compile the information was established in Trenton, New
Jersey, and later in May transferred to Atlanta,. This was and is under my
- 50 -
-------
TABLE 3
HISTORY OF CONSUMPTION OF HAW CLAMS WITHIN 120 DAYS OF
INTERVIEW AMONG VARIOUS POPULATION SAMPLES IN NEW JERSEY
Adults
Locale vrtiere
Wurr.ber of Persons
Survey done
Questioned
Ate Clams
Percent
Woodbridge Township
k2
2*
i;«8
Monmouth County
126
19#
1^.1
Newark City
1 ^
CO
\ji
23*#
8.1
Total
US3
Wi
9.7
Sach (*) demotes an individual irho Tjas fcund at the time of the intervlsrr to
be suffering from. definite or suspect hepatitis.
-------
direction.. Intensive studies revealed the primary source of the incriminated
clams to be the Raritan Bay„
On May 1, Dr. Roscoe P. Kandle, New Jersey State Commissioner of
Health, closed the New Jersey controlled portions of Raritan Bay„ Almost
immediately thereafter,, New York State officials acted to close the New York
waters of Raritan Bay and officials of New York City acted to restrict the
sale of Raritan Bay clams in the major wholesale market* the Fulton Fish
Markets A summary of information collected as of that date was published in
two Public Health Service publications. Hepatitis Surveillance Report Number
5) dated May 1961 and, in summary form, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report of May I96I (Vol. 10, No. 17).
Since that date, continuing studies relating specifically to this
problem have been pursued in New Jersey, New York,, Connecticut and in other
States in the vicinity of Raritan Bay,
More detailed information on the occurrence of adult hepatitis cases
in other States throughout the country has si so become available as a result
of the initiation of an Adult Hepatitis Surveillance program, modeled, in
part, after the National Poliomyelitis Surveillance program., In mid-April
each State was requested to participate in this program by submitting to the
Hepatitis Surveillance Unit for analysis., individual epidemiologic case forms
for each reported case of hepatitis in an adult occurring since March 1„
Through June 30, 1961, almost 1*,000 reports from 37 States had been received.
Information obtained through the Adult Hepatitis Surveillance Program
which is pertinent to the Raritan Bay has been analyzed and is presented
along with data obtained through the variety of special studies carried out.
Frequency of Clam Consumption Among Adult Hepatitis Cases
The number of individual hepa.titis case reports received from each
State and the number and percent of these etHo were reported to have consumed
raw clams during the preceding ten to sixty days is shown in Table 9=
I am afraid that this is a bit small to read*
MR. STEINj Would you label one of those Table 9 and the second one
Table 9-A?
(The table referred to, entitled "Cases of Hepatitis
in Adults, U0 S0 - 1961, Reported to Hepatitis
Surveillance Unit Through June 30, 1961," consisting
of two sheets, was marked respectively for identifi-
cation as Government's Exhibits Table 9 a^d Table 9-A,)
DR. HENDERSOKs The total number of cases listed here is 3*883e This
is for the entire United States» 631 of these people had consumed clams,
- 51 -
-------
for an overall percentage of 16»3 percent..
The percentages by States run from 50,U percent in New Jersey and
30o2 percent in Connecticut, and on down from there.
It may be observed that the greatest frequency of raw clam consumers
among hepatitis cases centers in those States on or near Raritan Bay, As I
mentioned, in New Jersey,, of 7^2 hepatitis cases reported,, 37U or 50<,b% con-
sumed raw clams during this period# Other States in which over 10 percent
of the cases had eaten, raw clams in the appropriate period before onset are
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and
Delaware, Atlantic Coastal States more distant from Raritan Bay (Mainej
New Hampshire, Maryland and Virginia) show frequencies ranging from zero to
It,3 percent.
Hepatitis case rates by county for raw clam consumers and non-
consumers for the Atlantic Coastal States from Maine to Maryland are depic-
ted in Exhibit 21, The highest incidence rates by county of residence for
the groups of raw clam consumers is seen to concentrate sharply a round the
Raritan Bay area. Incidence rates for non-clam consumers assume a more dif-
fuse pattern without such notable geographic concentration,
I would like to offer Exhibits 21 and 22,
(The map referred to, entitled "Incidence of Infectious
Hepatitis (Adult Cases)., Northeastern States, January-
June, 1961, Non-Consumers of Raw Clams," was marked for
identification as Government's Exhibit No. 21.)
(The map referred to, entitled "Incidence of Infectious
Hepatitis (Adult Cases)) Northeastern States, January-
June, 1961, Consumers of Raw Clams," was marked for
identification as Government's Exhibit No.. 22.)
DR. HENDERSON? In these exhibits are presented separately the attack
rates for adults by county for those who had and who had not consumed raw
clams during the preceding 10 to 60 days.
Exhibit 21 shows the attack rates for adults by county for non-raw
clam consumers. As you see, the higher rates are dispersed throughout the
States, There are counties in all different parts of the State showing high
rates. However, if you take the rates for the consumers of raw clams, that
is, hepatitis cases among consumers of raw clams, we see high attack rates
concentrated immediately around Raritan Bay, which fall cff rapidly as we
move away from the Bay and into more peripheral areas. These rates are veiy
low going down to zero. It is simply taken on the basis of eating or not
eating raw clams. The source or origin of the clams is r.ot considered
here.
- 52 -
-------
TABLE 9
CASES OF HEPATITIS IN ADULTS , U. S. - 1961
REPORTED TO HEPATITIS SURVEILLANCE UNIT
THROUGH JUNE 30, 1961
Raritan Bay
State Clara Cases Con-
and Total con- Per- Trace- Exclu- sistent Other Not
Region Cases*- sumption . cent able sive with Source traced
UNITED STATES
3,883
631
16.3
73
298
66
117
NEW ENGLAND
Maine
18
0
0.0
New Hampshire
18
0
0.0
Vermont
Massachusetts
8?
12
m.o
8
1
3
—
h
Rhode Island
33
6
18.2
h
—
2
-
2
Connecticut
106
32
30.2
27
1
h
13
9
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
New York
U98
103
20.7
76
8
26
2
UO
New Jersey
7it2
37U
50.U
35>8
63
225
39
31
Pennsylvania
396
72
18.2
&
-
30
8
16
EAST NORTH CENTRAL
Ohio
Indiana
133
0
0.0
Illinois
92
6
6.5
6
—
2
-
h
Michigan
223
3
1.3
2
-
-
-
2
Wisconsin
WEST NORTH CENTRAL
Minnesota
12U
1
0.8
Iowa
Missouri
Uo
0
0.0
North Dakota
15
0
0.0
South Dakota
2
0
0.0
Nebraska
12
0
OoO
Kansas
116
0
0.0
-------
TABUS 9 (Continued)
CASES' OF HEPATITIS IN ADULTS, U. S. - 1961
REPORTED TO HEPATITIS SURVEILLANCE UNIT
THROUGH JUNE 30, 1961
State
and
Region
SOUTH ATLANTIC
Delaware
Maryland
D. C.
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Mississippi
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
MOUNTAIN
Montana
. Idaho
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Utah
Nevada
PACIFIC
Washington
Oregon
California
Alaska
Hawaii
Total
Cases#
Clam
con-
sumption
Per-
cent
Raritan Bay
Cases Con-
Trace- Exclu- sistent Other Not
able sive with Source traced
2ii
6
25.0
5
h6
2
h.3
1
Hi
1
7a
1
12h
k
3.2
3
109
0
0.0
62
1
1.6
1
89
2
2.2
2
SO
0
0.0
227
0
0.0
108
2
1.9
2
75
0
0.0
56
0
OoO
8
0
0.0
105
1
1.0
0
15
1
6o7
1
6
0
0.0
1
0
0.0
1U
0
0.0
5
0
0.0
80
2
2.5
2
3
0
0.0
3
1
1
1
-^Excluding serum hepatitis and not viral hepatitis
-------
INCIDENCE OF INFECTIOUS HEPATITIS (ADULT CASES)
NORTHEASTERN STATES
JANUARY-JUNE, 1961
CONSUMERS OF RAW CLAMS
ATTACK RATE
PER 100,000 POPULATION
0.0
0.1-1.9
2.0-4.9
5.0-8.9
9.0+
*CASES REPORTED TO HEPATITIS SURVEILLANCE UNIT
THROUGH JUNE 30, 1961.
Government Exhibit 21
-------
INCIDENCE OF INFECTIOUS HEPATITIS (ADULT CASES)
NORTHEASTERN STATES
JANUARY - JUNE, 1961*
NON - CONSUMERS OF RAW CLAMS
ATTACK RATE
PER 100,000 POPULATION
0.0
0.1-1.9
2.0-4.9
5.0-8.9
9.0+
*CASES REPORTED TO HEPATITIS SURVEILLANCE UNIT
THROUGH JUNE 30, 1961
Government Exhibit 22
-------
Tracing of Clam Sources
Of the 63I cases who reported consigning raw clams in the ten to
sixty-day period prior to onset of illness, 55U were able to identify
specifically the establishment where the clams were obtained. For these
cases the source was considered potentially "traceable" (Table 8). Of this
number, 39U had consumed raw clams from one retail source only.
The majority ate them in restaurants; relatively few purchased them
for consumption at home0 When purchased for home consumption, they were
commonly obtained from seafood markets or groceries, rarely from the clam-
mers themselves or from shippers near clam beds«
The restaurants, markets and other retailers mentioned by the cases
proved to be nearly as numerous as the cases themselves» The establishments
were each visited and invoices examined., Restaurants and small retail mar-
kets were found commonly to be supplied by one distributor only. However.,
when the distributors were similarly queried, it was found that they not
infrequently were supplied by more than one source and these sources some-
times by two or more additional sources« In all, the names of over 1,100
restaurants, distributors and other suppliers have been mentioned during
the course of the "investigation,, It was apparent, therefore, that clams
served on any given day in many of the restaurants or sold in many of the
markets might have derived from several clamming areas.
Several establishments, however, were discovered which, through their
channel of supply, received clams originating only from the Raritan Bay»
Approximately 100 patients had eaten raw clams sold at these establishments.
Of this group, 73 noted these,retail outlets to have been their only source
for raw clams during the previous ten to sixty-day period. Since, so far as
can be determined, these 73 individuals consumed raw clams from the Raritan
Bay only during the incubation period, they are designated as "exclusively ->
Raritan Bay" in Table 80
In addition to these 73 patients, the source of the clams consumed
has been traced for 36I4. other cases. Many obtained clams at more than one
retail outlet and many of the retail outlets received clams through distribu-
tion channels in which clams from several harvesting areas were present.
Identification specifically of which clams the patients might have eaten on
any particular day was not possible* Careful checking of the supply patterns
did show that for 298 of the 36I1., Raritan Bay clams were in the distribution
channels reaching the retail outlets where they obtained their clams. These
illnesses may be considered only to be "consistent with" (Table 9 and 9-A)
exposure to Raritan Bay clams.
For .66 of the cases traced to date, it would appear from available
records, that raw.clams which had been consumed during the 60 days preceding
illness specifically could not have included Raritan Bay clams (listed as
"other" in Table 9 and 9-A)<, Twelve of these cases, all from Connecticut,
had eaten clams dug by themselves or friends in a single area near Greenwich,
- 53 -
-------
Connecticut, which is restricted and specifically posted as being for "bait
clamming" only. The other'sources for these clams are scattered geographic-
ally „ They may represent cases resulting from contact spread of infection,,
the consumption of clams being only incidental, or, since we know that rec-
ords from some of the distributors are not complete, it is possible that
they also may have consumed Raritan Bay clams.
As of June 30* sources for 117 cases had not been tracedo The
investigation, however, is still in progresso
Two Restaurants of Particular Interest
Two restaurants have been mentioned unusually frequently by patients
as places where they ate raw clams» One is located approximately 15 miles
northwest of the western end of Raritan Bay| the other is situated on the
Bay0 At the former restaurant, 1U persons from three States and seven coun-
ties had eaten raw clams ten to sixty days previously,, For thirteen of the
fourteen, this is the only recorded exposures This restaurant receives
clams from a fish market in Flainfield, New Jersey, whose only recorded sup-
plier is a shipper who buys from clammers operating on the Raritan Bay and
its appendages, Sandy Hook Bay and the Navesink Riverc The second restaur-
ant was also mentioned by fourteen persons, eight of whom gave this as
their only source of clams» This restaurant received several shipments of
clams weekly, all except two of which were from a relative who operates a
local fishery« The fishery is supplied by two clammers who are stated to
operate on the western end of the Bay„
Summary
Of 3,883 cases of hepatitis among adults which have been appraised
thus far, 63I or 16 percent reported consuming raw clams during the preced-
ing ten to sixty days« Those with hepatitis who had consumed raw clams con-
centrate in the Atlantic.Coastal States from Massachusetts to Delaware, with
a particular concentration in New Jersey, Within these States, there.is a
further notable concentration of cases in those counties adjacent or proximal
to the Raritan Bay0 Of SSh cases who were able to provide sufficient infor-
mation to permit tracing of the clam sources, U37 have been traced to date0
From available records, 73 of these consumed raw clams deriving only from the
Raritan Bay0 An additional 298 consumed raw clams obtained from an estab-
lishment whose channels of supply, included Raritan Bay clams as well as clams
from other sources0 Sixty-six cases reported eating clams from sources which
presumably could not have had Raritan Bay clams in their supply channels,,
Twelve of these relate to a single, restricted area on the Connecticut shore«
From the epidemiological evidence collected, it may be concluded that
contaminated clams harvested from Raritan Bay were responsible for signifi-
cant numbers of hepatitis cases among adults in the Northeastern States.
MRo STEINs Thank you, Dr. Henderson.
- 5k -
-------
Are there any comments or questions? New Jersey?
DR. KANDLEs No questionso
I©. STEIN j New York?
DR. INGRAHAM: No„
MR. STEIN; The Interstate Sanitation Commission?
DR. WENDELL: Yes, I have a couple of questions I would like to ask»
From the information that you have given us, Dr„ Henderson, is it a
reasonable construction of your findings to say that apparently in those
areas, that is, if hepatitis is connected with polluted waters in which
clams and other shellfish are found, is it reasonable to say that those
shellfish that are taken from, areas farther away from population concentra-
tions and industrial concentrations, are the safer ones? Is that a proper
interpretation of your data?
DR. HENDERSON: I don't think that we can go so far as to say specif-
ically where, for instance, on the Bay the clams were derivedo
DR. WENDELL; No. I was not asking thato I was asking a broader
question.
Raritan Bay is right in a heavily populated metropolitan center —
the largest one that we have in the country, for that matter0 When you say
that the clams taken from areas farther up north, up maybe as far as New
Hampshire and Maine, maybe, and then down as far as Delaware, are less, or
seem to be less of a source, aren't you also really saying in view of the
geography of the situation, that Raritan. Bay happens to be a center of the
most heavily populated and most heavily industrialized area we are talking
about?
DR. HENDERSON: I think it is a fact that it is a heavily indus-
trialized and populated area, and to date we have been able to implicate
only two areas — one in the middle of this heavily populated area and one
up in Connecticut, somewhat away from ito Beyond that I do not know what
more we can say„
If you are getting at the question, is it possible for clams, we will
say, to be polluted in New Hampshire or Maine, I think the answer would have
to be yeso
DR. WENDELL: It is possible, but it is apparently less likely. Is
that it?
DR. HENDERSON: All we have is the information on this study,. As we
go along we may find out that it is possible elsewhereD
- 55 -
-------
DR. WENDELL: I have only one other question that occurs to me at the
moment and it is this; Apparently most of the hepatitis cases that you re-
port and that you have information on are not from clam eaters at all5 or,
at least, not from Raritan Bay clam eaters, or perhaps clam eaters along the
coast here0 This means apparently there is a much larger hepatitis problem
than either clam eating, if that is connected with it5 is responsible for,
or certainly Raritan Bay clams. Isn't that right? It comes from other
places too?
DR. HENDERSON: Oh, indeed* I think there is no question about this
at all.
DR. WENDELL! All righto
MR. STEIN: Are there any further questions or comments with respect
to Dr. Henderson's statement?
If not, we "want to thank Dr. Henderson for a very excellent presenta-
tion.
We are thinking of adjourning or recessing for lur.ch. Does anyone
have a compelling statement he wants to make first?
If not, I understand that Room 2803 provides meals and anyone who
knows his way around New York downtown can risk ito
Will we be able to get back in an hour3 do you think? Is that
reasonable, let's allow an hour and fifteen minutes frorr: now. We should
be back at one-thirty,, Is that agreeable?
We stand in recess then until one-thirty 0
(Whereupon, at 12.20 p.m., the conference was recessed' for lunch
until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
MR. STEIN: The conference is reopened. Mr. Klashman, will you
continue?
MR, KLASHMAN: We would like to call for a very brief statement from
a couple of the Federal agencies that are represented here., Mr. Wuesterfeld,
would you like to make a statement for the Supervisor of Hew York Harbor?
STATEMENT OF R„ H„ WUESTERFELD, ASSISTANT TO SUPERVISOR
OF NEW YORK HARBOR
MR. WUESTERFELD: Yes, I would. Just to be sure of some of my facts
I have some of them written down and if there are any questions I will be
- $6 -
-------
glad to answer any questions. My name is Robert Wuesterfeld. I am the
Assistant to the Supervisor of New York Harbor, United States Army,, I would
like to describe briefly the role of the. Department of the Army in the prob-
lem of pollution of" navigable waters of the United States; and from that
describe more specifically our role with respect to the interstate waters of
the Port of New York with particular reference to Raritan Bay.
The New York District of the Corps of Engineers., United States Array,
embraces the waters of the Atlantic Ocean and its tributaries from the New
York - Connecticut State Line to but not including Manasquan River and Inlet,
New Jersey. Some of the principal waterways included within the limits of
the district are, Shrewsbury River, Sandy Hook and Raritan Bays, Raritan
River, Newark Bay, Hackensack and Passaic River, all the waters of Upper and
Lower Bays, Hudson River, East River and Long Island Soundo
The most general law enforced by the Corps of Engineers with respect
to pollution, is Section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899.
This law in essence states that it is unlawful to throw, discharge or deposit
any refuse matter of any kind or description whatsoever other than that flow-
ing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid state, whereby
navigation shall or may be impeded. You will note from the last phrase, that
pollution in its broadest interpretation is not unlawful under the statute
enforced by the Corps of Engineers but only the deposit of refuse material
which is injurious to navigation. This distinction limits the role of the
Corps of Engineers in the prevention of pollution0
As a dual function, the District Engineer is also designated as
Supervisor of New York Harbor. An Act of Congress adopted on June 29, 1888,
established the office of the Supervisor of New York Harbor for the purpose
of preventing obstructive and injurious deposits in the tidal waters of the
Harbor of New York or its adjacent or tributary waters or those of Long
Island Sound within the limits which shall be prescribed by the supervisor
of the harbor. Prior to 1952, this office operated separately from the of-
fice of the District Engineer. However, by Act of Congress adopted 12 July
1952, the assignment of these functions to an office of the Corps of Engi-
neers was approvedo The District Engineer at New York was designated as
Supervisor of New York Harbor on July 30, 1952.
A third Federal statute which we enforce as well as the Coast Guard
and about every Federal agency in New York, functioning on the waters of the
Port of New York, is the Oil Pollution Act of 192l|.o This Act specifically
prohibits the discharge of oil into navigable waters from vessels.
It is interesting to note that the Supervisory Act of 1888 does also
permit us to bring the offenders to account, but the Act of 1921* was actually
passed to cover pollution of oil in all of the coastal waters of the United
States.
The Supervisor of New York Harbor is charged with the responsibility
of designating dumping grounds to which the forbidden material may be
- 57 -
-------
transported and deposited^ For example^ one area for the dumping of mud and
small stone is located in Atlantic Ocean off the entrance to New York Har-
bor, L miles in a southeast by south, direction from Scotland Light ship ,
another for dumping rock and cellar dirt six and one-quarter miles southeast
of Scotland Lightship. Sewage sludge is authorised to be transported to a
point not less than eight miles southeast of Scotland Lightship* Waste acid
and ferrous wastes are authorized to be dumped not less than 11-1/2 miles in
a southeasterly direction from Scotland Lightship, In recent months this
latter dumping area has also been designated for the disposal of waste mate-
rials originating in the Peter J, Schweitzer Company plant at Spotswood, New
Jersey®
In addition to these dumping grounds in the Atlantic Ocean other
dumping grounds have been established in Long Island Sounds These areas are
in the deeper parts of the Sound and are generally opposite the rivers and
harbors along the shore# Areas have also been designated in Hudson River
at intervals between Peekskill and Hudson^ New York^ to take care of mate-
rial dredged from the harbors and waterways along the section of the Hudson
River# Since this hearing is on Raritan Bay, I will not speak on those.
There is a tremendous amount of waste material of every kind and
description generated within the Port of New York, During the fiscal year
which ended June 30j> 1961,, more than 31 million cubic yards of material were
transported and deposited under permits issued by the Supervisor of New York
Harbor« Over 2,250^000 cubic yards of material dredged by use of United
States Government equipment, and under contract in improving the waterways
of the port were deposited at sea* Material from other than Federal opera-
tions amounting to 9s7£0,000 cubic yards were also deposited at sea.
Material deposited on shore, in the Hudson River and Long Island Sound, am-
ounted to about 19 million cubic yards» Of the 9,7^0,000 cubic yards of
non-Federal material which were deposited at sea5 ,UOO<,000 cubic yards were
sewage sludge from the City of New York, the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis-
sion, the Joint Meeting Sewage Disposal Commission,, the Linden-Rose lie Sew-
erage Authority and the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority? 2=800,000 cubic
yards were the total acid and chemical wastes} and the balance was other
wastes including mud and ether dredged material excavated Crcr. vessel berths
and slips,¦cellar dirt and miscellaneous refuse*,
Possibly that number of 31 million cubic yards of material might not
be significant to you0 As an indication of the magnitude of this disposal
problem, it has been estimated that all of the material which has been dis-
posed of under permits issued by this office since 1888 would cover Manhat-
tan Island to a depth of 73 feet, or at an average rate of one foot per year.
In addition to issuing the permits for transportation and disposing
of waste materials at designated dumping areas, the Supervisor of Mew York
Harbor also patrols the waterways with a staff of inspectors to assure that
the materials are disposed of in the authorized dumping areas. Round-the-
clock, seven days per week, inspection is made of the dumping grounds and
- 58 -
-------
daily inspections are made of the harbor waters and the shorefrorit. There
are shore inspectors and other inspectors in small boats operating five days
a week during the normal, working day making inspection of the waterfront
facilities•
While this office is primarily concerned with the effects of this
tremendous disposal operation on navigation, it has always been cognizant of
the interest in this matter by other agencies on behalf of the general
public. Consequently, this office has always endeavored to secure the ad-
vice and approval of all agencies which are likely to have an interest in
the matter prior to the issuance of permits <> This policy will be continued,
in order that no material detrimental in any way will be lawfully permitted
to be disposed of in the New York Harbor area0
If you gentlemen- have any questions I will be glad to answer them
now, I noticed particularly something was said about this this morningo
MR. STEINt New Jersey.
DR. KANDLEs No questionso
MR. STEINs New York.
DR. INGRAHAMs No questions«
MEt. STEINs The Interstate Sanitation Commission..
MR. GLENN; No questions#
MR. WUESTERFELDs Thank you very mucho
MR. KLASHMANs Commander Hardy of the Third Coast Guard District
asked for the record that we indicate that they had no statement to make
and he just wished his presence would be notede Mr# James Engle of the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Department of the Interior<» Do you have
any statement you wish to make?
STATEMENT OF JAMES ENGLE, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE*
BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
MR. ENGLEt We have no formal statement,, but I am certainly in
cahoots with all of those who are going to clean up the bay„
MRs KLASHMANs Thank you, Mr„ Engle® Mr. Wechter from the first Army
Engineers Office» Do you have a statement to make, Mr. Wechter?.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM, WECHTER, SANITARY ENGINEER,
HEADQUARTERS, FIRST ARMY, UNITED STATES ARMY
- 59 -
-------
MR. WECHTER: I would like to make a very simple statement. We in
the First Army have been and are very happy and willing to cooperate with
all State and local agencies, and do our part in keeping the waters clear
according to Section 9 of the Water Pollution Control Act.
MR. KLASHMANs Thank you very much, Mr# Wechter. Are there any other
Federal agencies that have not been called on that are here and wish to make
a statement? If not, Mr. Stein, that completes our presentation.
MR. STEIN: We can proceed in alphabetical order now with the agen-
cies represented., I understand that New York may have Mr. Lehman, who is
the Administrative Assistant to the Mayor, coming in. Is he here, or will
he be here later?
MR. PINEL: I believe he is not here but he will attempt to be here
later. It is understood we will be talking later in the afternoon, after
the other two organizations have spoken.
MR. STEM: If it fits his schedule and he comes in before, we may
ask" the indulgence of the conferees to put him on out of order. I do not
think in a proceeding of this kind that makes very much difference. We
would like to call now on the Interstate Commission, Mr. Glenn.
MR. GLENN: Our chairman, Commissioner Cope, will speak.
DR. COPE: For the record I am William C. Cope, Chairman of the
Interstate Sanitation Commission. I would like to have our counsel, Dr.
Wendell, preface this statement I wish to make today, with your permission,
Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF DR. MITCHELL WENDELL, COUNSEL,
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION
DR. WENDELL: In order that the scope of the statement to be made
here now by the Interstate Sanitation Commission and also by the two States
which are going to follow us, may be understood, I think it is desirable
that we say a little something about the events leading up to the calling
of the conference, and also about the nature of the reports that we heard
during the morning session of this conference.
As you know, Chairman Stein, on June 29th there was given the notice
of this particular conference. That notice was very brief in character.
All it did was to announce the time and place, and to say that it was a\ con-
ference on all aspects of the pollution of Raritan Bay — of interstate as-
pects of pollution of Raritan Bay. Since Raritan Bay is almost 2£0 square
miles in extent, and since "all aspects" covers quite a "bit of territory, we,
in the preparation for this conference attempted to find out something more
as to what exactly was going to be discussed here at this conference. So we
inquired of the Surgeon General as to whether he could not be a little bit
more informative as to just what was going to be discussed here.
- 60 -
-------
Me received a letter signed "by Chairman Stein of this conference a
couple of weeks back, in "which Chairman Stein simply enumerated once again,
although in several paragraphs this time rather than the one, that indeed
it was all aspects of pollution — of the Interstate pollution of Raritan
Bay that the conference was going to be concerned with0 We were assured
that we would have an opportunity anywhere from five to too days before the.
conference met to see at least a draft of the materials that the Public
Health Service was going to present here this morning.
I understand that one or two of the participants in this conference,
either as conferees or by invitation, had some opportunity very recently to
examine a draft which may or may not have been changed in presentation of
it here this morning. As for the Interstate Sanitation Commission, we had
an appointment for last Thursday morning to talk wi-th the local representa-
tives of the Public Health Service, which, I am sure for very good reason,
it was necessary for the Public Health Service representatives to cancel on
the explanation that there was further or other business that made it impos-
sible for them to see us® In view of the shortness of time, however, I
don't know as the situation really would have been much different if we had
had.an opportunity to examine the proposed draft statement last Thursday or
not.
What has in fact happened is that a statement, very lengthy, very
involved, containing much data, in most instances each time computed on a
somewhat different sampling basis, and on the basis of different figures,
was presented covering a large area, and indeed covering an area much larger
even than Raritan Bay, As a result, in all frankness, we must say to this
conference that we could not possibly respond in any systematic fashion and
comment with any real degree of intelligence concerning many of the things
that are contained in that report.
We would have wished that since there was this much time given in
advance of the conference by the notice, and that time could have been
longer if necessary, that a conference such as this, called to explore and
actually to get at the facts — we would have thought it to be much better
procedure if the information that the Public Health Service proposed to use,
and from which presumably this conference is supposed to draw some kind of
interpretations or conclusions, would have been presented so that the data --
which admittedly in many cases is fragmentary and gathered on one basis one
time and on another basis another time — could have been properly assessed
there so that we would all be proceeding on the same agenda and same record,
and so that all of us would have known just what the subject for discussion
here would be this morning.
As it turns out, the Public Health Service apparently has this infor-
mation, but we have had much shorter notice concerning it, and so it would
not'really be possible for us at this stage of the proceedings, and just
having heard all of this involved material, to make such a commento It
seems to us as though there are two courses conceivably open at this
- 61 -
-------
particular moment,. In preparing our statement we have emphasized the things
that are presently being done in the Raritan Bay area* We believe that we
present as the solid record of accomplishment in this particular area, and
what the two States present also will be presenting, shows such a record of
accomplishment as would justify the conclusion of this conference at the end
of its present stage with the recognition that it is an active program being
carried on by two States and an interstate commission together with local-
ities in the area, that is really taking care of the problem in satisfactory
shape, and that that program should be permitted to continue,,
If this is the conclusion to which this conference comes at the end
of the day, or tomorrow if it goes into tomorrow, why then, I don't know
that anything more need be said except to hope that in any future confer-
ences, recognizing that this, according to the statute, is supposed to be a
stage at which the facts are brought together and the conferees in full
knowledge go over them and see what they mean — we would hope if another
time this may be done, that information concerning the nature and exact ex-
tent, and materials contained in the proceedings would be made available, so
that this could actually be a full conference on what has been presented or
what should be presented as the purpose of the statute would indicate.
If, however, that is not the conclusion to which this conference
comes, then all we can say is that the nature of our statements here today
are necessarily limited in scope» We would have to have an opportunity,
after proper study of the statements presented here this morning, to evalu-
ate them and to determine what in the way of comment on them would be most
appropriateo I say that because as I understand it we are all here inter-
ested, or should be interested in examining the factual situation, which
cannot be done on the basis of the. complete report compiled on the basis of
an admittedly inaccurate, or insufficient at least, set of data on this
brief notice„
We hope that what is presented here this afternoon will convince the
conferees that a program is already in .existence and that its continuance is
what is necessary to maintain these waters in good condition« If, however,
that should not be the conclusion, as I have indicated here, our response
at this time can only be a limited one, for the reasons I have just outlined.
Chairman Cope has the statement of the Interstate Sanitation
Commissiono
STATEMENT OF INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION
BY WILLIAM C. COPE, CHAIRMAN
DR. COPE: The Interstate Sanitation Commission is an agency of the
States of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut, created for the purpose of
the abatement and control of water pollution in the Interstate Sanitation
District* The waters of the District are roughly coincident with those of
the Greater New York Metropolitan Area and include the waters announced as
- 62 -
-------
the subject of this conference. We are here today pursuant to a notice
under date of June 29S 1961, signed by Arnold B. Kurlander, M0 D., Acting
Surgeon General0
This conference is a preliminary stage of proceedings under Section
8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. As with all procedures con-
taining several steps, we recognize that the initiation of proceedings does
not of itself mean that the subsequent actions authorized by the statute will
be pursued# Nevertheless, the intervention of the Public Health Service,
even to the extent of summoning this conference, is justified only if there
is plausible reason to believe that serious pollution, subject to abatement,
is occurring« It is necessary to bear in mind that in the practical admin-
istration of our Federal system, and under the terms of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act itself, the States have primary jurisdiction and
responsibility for pollution control,,
The Act further encourages the formation of interstate compacts for
pollution abatement and control, but in spite of this, the Commission was
not contacted to determine the necessity of a conference on pollution of
Raritan Bay. New York and New Jersey have designated the Interstate Sanita-
tion Commission as their joint agency to deal with the waters here involved.
Together with the New York and New Jersey Departments of Health, the Inter-
state Sanitation Commission has exercised and continues to exercise that
jurisdiction in a vigorous fashion0
There are many bodies of water throughout the nation which receive
discharges of untreated sewage and other polluting materials in such heavy
quantities as seriously to impair their usefulness and safety. If there
were any reasonable ground for the technical.personnel of the Public Health
Service to believe that the waters of Raritan Bay are in such a condition,
it would be easier to consider these proceedings as a proper application of
the Federal statute. But the waters of Raritan Bay belong to no such class.
Surveys by State and city agencies indicate that they are now, and for some
time past have been, in very good condition for virtually every use that can
be made of them, including those uses requiring a high degree of purity such
as fishing and bathing. The only possible use for which Raritan Bay water
may be inappropriate is the maintenance of a small shellfish industry. The
requisite scientific information to support a conclusion on this point sim-
ply does not exist, as there are no quality standards for the treatment of
domestic sewage to eliminate hepatitiso
However, even the fate of the Raritan Bay shellfish "beds hardly
presents the "national interest" that would justify enforcement action by
the Public Health Service. Water can be used for many purposes, some of
them incompatible. It is reasonable for the people of the region itself to
decide whether Raritan Bay should be used for municipal, industrial and
recreational purposes requiring the water quality now present or whether'
they wish to restrict or increase the cost of other water uses to ensure
the best possible conditions for shellfish culture. This is not a decision
- 63 -
-------
for the Interstate Sanitation Commission to make ° It should be made, and is
being made., by the two States and the people of the metropolitan area.
While we have found it necessary to express these reservations con-
cerning this conference^ we would like to take this opportunity to make
certain comments relating to the activities of the Interstate Sanitation
Commission and the status of pollution control in the area under discussion.
In making these remarks, we should point out that failure to emphasize the
work which other agencies of the two State governments and of those who may
be here pursuant to their invitation merely reflects the knowledge that
these other agencies are making their own statementso
The Raritan Bay area receives the direct discharge of the effluents
from the treatment plants in Monmouth and Middlesex Counties of New Jersey,
and from Staten Island in Mew York State.
There are seven plants in Mew Jerseys and five plants in Staten
Island, which serve this area, and these plants range from small septic
tanks to large plants. In general, the treatment plants in New Jersey have
met the compact requirements of this Commission,, There is one plant that
has been in violation of compact standards, but the borough, in which this
plant is located, is tinder a court order and has completed plans for cor-
recting the problems within this plant, and should award the contract within
a few weeks*
In Staten Island, New York, the small septic tanks along with the
discharge of raw sewage from the Tottenville area do not meet the standards
of this Commission. Howevers this area is to be intercepted under the terms
of the consent order which the Commission has against the City of New York.
The Arthur Kill joins the Raritan Bay area and there are six domestic
sewage treatment plants located throughout its length. These treatment,
plants intercept the domestic and some industrial wastes, and have an excel-
lent record in meeting the standards of the Interstate Sanitation Commission
for Class B waters o The nearest industrial waste to the Raritan Bay area
that does not receive treatment is along the Arthur Kill where there is an
estimated 100,000 pounds of BOD discharged a day. The domestic waste from
these industrial installations is intercepted and sent to existing treatment
plants- So this is strictly industrial and is not a source for diseases
from bacteria or viruses. Since most of the industries are located along
the New Jersey shore, the Interstate Sanitation Commission has cooperated
very closely with the New Jersey State Department of Health in working with
the industries on this industrial waste problem.
Many industries are conducting surveys of their own and plans are
being prepared. Some of these plans have been completed for the initial
phase in removing some of these wastes. It should be pointed out that 90
percent of this industrial pollution is north of the Rahway River, so it is
rather remote to the Raritan Bay area. It is considered very doubtful,
- 6h -
-------
therefore, that the upper portion of the Arthur Kill would exert any effect
on the Raritan Bay area.
The waters of the Raritan River were in poor condition and heavily-
polluted from the mouth up to Bound Brook, New Jersey, approximately 20
miles, until the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority completed its trunk
sewer and treatment plant in 19£8, at a cost of over 131,000,000* This sys-
tem intercepts and treats approximately 36 million gallons per day of sewage.
This not only brought about a remarkable improvement in the Raritan River
for many miles upstream, but also improved the quality of the water flowing
into Raritan Bay.
In the past ten years, there have been other new plants that have
been constructed in the Raritan Bay area# In 1953a Carteret, New Jersey,
constructed a plant at approximately four and one-half million dollars,
which at the present tine intercepts and treats about 1.9 million gallons
per day0 In l?5h> Woodbridge, New Jersey, constructed a plant at a cost of
approximately three and one-half million dollars, and removed 2«9 million
gallons per day0
Since the Commission is obligated to assure each of the States that
the treatment plants within its district are meeting compact requirements,
the sampling at treatment plants is one of our activities. The laboratory
determinations indicate the effectiveness of the plants and assure that the
treatment of wastes meets the standards agreed upon by the three member
States. These investigations make it possible to detect plants that have
become obsolete or overloaded so that corrective measure may be taken to
insure continued compliance with our effluent standards# The Commission
cooperates so closely with the States that such action as may be necessary
to place waters in such condition as to meet compact standards is sometimes
taken under the separate pollution laws of the individual States or the
Interstate Sanitation Commission, according to which is the more
advantageouso
Water area evaluation surveys are required to determine the effective-
ness of the pollution abatement program in different parts of our district.
They furnish the information on minimum treatment required to maintain condi-
tions for the best usage of the water. We have been conducting such water
area surveys and we selected the more heavily polluted areas for our first
studies. In 19£7> we made an intensive survey of the Arthur Kill and deter-
mined that there was a slug of pollution oscillating back and forth and that
portions of the slug sloughed off through the northern end of the Arthur
Kill, However, the water that moved out into Raritan Bay was found to meet
the dissolved oxygen standards of the Commission.
In the summer of 1958, a study of the Upper Harbor was made, and in
1959, one was made of the East River and out into the Long Island Sound.
During the summer of I960, a combined study of the Upper Harbor, Kill Van
Kull, Newark Bay and the upper portion of the Arthur Kill was made. This
- 6$ -
-------
.work is for the purpose of determining the assimilative capacities of the
waters of this area. The report of this study has not been completed.
The surveys and study programs of the Commission are now conducted
on a regular basis. They are designed to furnish periodic examinations of
the several areas within the Interstate Sanitation Districts
The Commission has been planning to make a study of the Raritan Bay
area during the summer of 1962. Since the Raritan Bay is a wide, open area,
it presents problems in sampling not encountered in narrow waterways. The
information expected from a proposed Model Study should aid in planning for
this study.
The Model Study, mentioned above, is a cooperative effort between
the New Jersey State Department of Health, the New York State Water Pollu-
tion' Control Board, the New York City Department of Health, and this Commis-
sion, and would make use of the U» So Army Corps of Engineers' model in
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
For over twenty years, the Commission has had shoreline maps showing
all the outfalls throughout the 1,5>00 miles of the district, and we have an
active program continually bringing these outfall maps up-to-date by field
men walking the shorelines, not only to detect illegal outfalls, but dis-
charges from regulators which are not working properly.
We submit that this is a strong and active program and that, together
with the activities of other States and local agencies in the area, effec-
tive control of pollution will continue in Raritan Bay area waters.
Thank you, sir.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Glenn, do you have any further statement?
MR. GLENN: No.
MR. STEINr New Jersey?
DR. KANDLE: No questions.
MR. STEIN: New York?
DR. INGRAHAM: Nothing.
MR. STEIN: For the record I would like to read the letter that was
referred to in the beginning, or at least part of it. I do not think that
this is being read out of context. It says:
"The Government's presentation at the conference is
presently being prepared. If you desire to see any of this
- 66 -
-------
material in preparation, this may be done at the Public
Health Service Regional Office, Room 1200, lj.2 Broadway,
New York, New York."
It was ray information that this office was and is open at all times
during business hours» This is the ordinary and usual type of information
to be made available by Government officeso
On the second point, as to why the Surgeon General called the confer-
ence, I think some of the people who are here were down before the Congress
when this law was being prepared by the Congress and enacted by the Congress,
and I think they know this law as well as I do® It says:
"When the Surgeon General on the basis of reports,
surveys and studies has reason to believe that any pollution
referred to in Section 8 is apparent, that is, pollution
from one State which endangers the health or welfare of per-
sons in other States, he shall promptly call a conference."
That is mandatory. You have heard the reports this morning. You
have heard Dr. Henderson's report on the infectious hepatitis# You have
heard Mrc Clark's report-dealing with the state of water development at
parks, bathing beaches, pleasure boat marinas, commercial fishing, fish and
wildlife, etc. I think that the Surgeon General under the law was. doing
his duty.
DR. WENDELL: Mr« Chairman, I think you have certainly — I know you
have accurately quoted from the letter informing us that we could examine
the materials in preparation. I think though that the record ought to show
the date of that letter from you to us. Would you please put that in the
record as well.
KR. STEIN: I think we have already put it in.
DR. WENDELL: We have a copy here in our file. Do you have it?
MR. STEIN: Ho, I do not have it. I thought you had put that in
when you said you would.
DR. WENDELL: No. I think we referred to it, but we haven't#
MR. STEIN: I see.
MR. GLENN: This is dated August 8th.
DR. WENDELL: On August 8th„ In other words, we received in in our
office on the lOthj and for a report of this scope the point I was making
was that even at that particular time the maximum, we could possibly have
had was less than two weeks. We didn't even have that much as it turned
- 67 -
-------
out because the appointment we did have, I am sure for good reason, but the
appointment we did have was cancelled by the Public Health Service personnel.
MR. STEIN: Did you want to say something, Mr« Martin?
MR. MARTIN: I would like to give an explanation for thato About two
weeks after the letter from the Surgeon General went out I called Mr. Glenn
and asked him if he would like to discuss with us policies and procedures to
be followed at the conference, and what we were doing in preparing the re-
port with the help of Cincinnati> Ohio* Because of some conflicts he had,
and because he was going on vacation, the earliest date we could arrange was
the week of the llith of August, and we arranged for a meeting on the 17 th of
Augusto I had to be in Toronto on the 15th and 16th, and Mr. Glenn was not
getting back until that time. When I was in Toronto I was delayed in getting
a plane back, and I called my secretary and asked her on the 16th to advise
Mr. Glenn that I couldn't make it on the 17th, and I would be available all
day the 18th, but unfortunately on Friday Mr. Glenn was busy and had commit-
ments all day long, and we were not able to get together.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Glenn, I believe I spoke to you also. As a matter
of fact3 I believe I spoke to each of the technical people representing the
agencies here, and indicated that you were perfectly welcome to come to our
office and see what we were doing at any time in the preparation of the
reporto
MR. GLENN: That is right, and you said it would be ready about the
17th or 18th.
MR. KLASHMAN: Correct, but I also said you could come up and see
what we were doing as we were going along. The New York Health Department
did take advantage of this, and several people from the Department came up.
I believe I indicated this to you, Mr. Fletcher, and to you, Mr. Mincher,
that it was available, and I think I mentioned it to you too, Mr. Dappert.
That is all.
DR. WENDELL: We would not have had an opportunity to see the report
in the form as here presented.
MR. KLASHMAN: That is correct.
DR. WENDELL: Until, at the very earliest, the end of last week,
MR. KLASHMAN: That is correct, but the point I want to make is, we
tried to make everything we were doing available to whoever wanted to look
at it, because we were not working behind closed doors, but working in the
open. As a matter of fact, as I said, the New York City Health Department
came up and actually read the draft of the report before it had even been
prepared in final form.
- 68 -
-------
MBU STEIN: If there are no further comments we would like to call on
New Jersey,,
STATEMENT OF 3R. ROSCOE P. KANDIE, M.D., COMMISSIONER
OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEAl'TH
DH „ KJJ-ELEt 1 ar. going to go through this report not exactly verfcs.-
tir.j £nd I will try to indicate the parts which I am. omitting* but I have
submitted, Mr» Stein, copies for the record of the entire report.
It is the understanding of the State of New Jersey that this confer-
ence is called under the provisions of Section 8 of the Water Pollution Act*
We presume that the basic purpose is to help maintain the Raritan Bay and
its associated waters in a state whereby it can serve the people best^ and
in this context to seek scientific and practical ways of prevention and
abatement of possible pollution of these waters# In an open body of water
serving a great many purposes the term pollution is a relative one.
This conference is concerned with a major ecological problem. In its
simplest terms it must deal with a vital body of water, the Raritan Bay,
some eight miles long and two to three miles across, associated closely with
Lower Bay^ the Sandy Hook Bay and, of coarse, with the tributaries, and with
the relationship of these bodies of water to many millions of people in a
crucially important industrial complexc Disease control is an old and essen-
tial dimension, now re emphasised by all the complexities of the transmission
of viral infections„ The Raritan Bay serves many functions exquisitely re-
lated to the total biology and economy of the area, and to the well-being
and culture of the people of this vast metropolitan area, as well as the na-
tion and the world* The Bay serves international shipping, local and inter-
state water transportation and a vast amount of recreational boating. It
supports heavy industry by supplying water and helping to dispose of its
wastes. It supports the economy of the whole State, metropolitan area
thrcugh its biological functions of marine ecology including fishing and
shellfishing, and support of wildlife® Its recreational uses are manifold
and vital. Such complex problems present a wide range of value systems, of
appraisal of results of any action on all the dimensions involved, and of
many, sometimes almost incompatible standards. These issues require the
best of scientific study and practical broad-scale planning and fiscal
responsibility> Whether the conference method is the best technique to
deal with these problems is an issue also to be considered.,
New Jersey, New York State and New York City have been working
assiduously on the improvement of the Raritan Bay for years and the record
is creditables These efforts have indeed been assisted, coordinated and
reinforced by the 26-year-old, effective and experienced Interstate Sanita-
tion Commissions The Commissioners of Health of all three States serve on
the Commission. This system of interlocking responsibility and cooperative
stoojy and action results in constant pressures to achieve the prevention and
abatement of pollution. There is deep concerns There is no complacency*
- 69 -
-------
One index of status of the Bay is its extensive use for bathingo
Surveillance of bathing waters is a regular, continuing function of the New
Jersey State Health Department. Regular sanitary surveys and. tidal cycle
samples have demonstrated the safety and appropriateness of these waters
for bathing consistently over the past several yearso
On the other hand, the issue of hepatitis stressed at this conference
now raises a number of new issues which only careful, broad, ecological
study can resolve or even reliably correlate with current standards and con-
cepts about pollution,, It must be clearly recognized first that this recent
outbreak was related primarily to a huge nation-wide outbreak and that the
whole population and its personal environment as well as its bodies of water
have had an exposure to this virus not experienced previously for many years.
Secondly, scientific data concerning the control of viruses in sewage are
urgently needed. Thirdly, the relationships and complexities of the biology
of the clams and of these viruses are not yet adequately explored# The ex>«
perience with hepatitis this year suggests to us that there may have been
fundamental aspects of the "biology of the clam and its relationship to tem-
perature and other environmental factors not previously appreciated.
Fourthly, the foodborne outbreak which was connected with the Raritan Bay
was dealt with promptly and effectively by New Jersey and New York using the
classical public health methods. The Bay was closed and is now being re-
opened for shellfishing as data of the safety of this practice are available.
Another basic issue which requires consideration on a generic basis
with respect to the Raritan Bay is the Arthur Kill. This body of water now
classified as Class B requires further study, particularly with respect to
its influence on the Raritan Bay. The commendable work of the Interstate
Sanitation Commission is the basis for much of the knowledge of this body of
water. Data have indicated that the Arthur Kill is not a major contributor
of pollution to the Raritan Bay, but that it discharges primarily northward.
This basic assumption has determined policy and actions by all the
agencies concerned. The further testing of this assumption, and the measure-
ment of the current effect on the Raritan are difficult scientific problems
in which we might all appropriately join forces. It cannot be settled at
this meeting. We do not believe that the issues of the potential sources of
pollution in the Arthur Kill can be dealt with individually with respect to
any major change of standards until the basic decisions about the Arthur
Kill are made.
There are 2k major sources of potential pollution of the Raritan Bay
area. Twenty are municipal or industrial, four are military. The arith-
metic of volume puts the problems in perspective. Some Ii5 million gallons
per day of treated effluent is discharged into the Raritan Bay directly from
eight treatment plants. Of this hS million, I4O million gallons per day
originates with the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority» All except one
small Federal installation chlorinate the effluent. About one million gal-
lons per day of chlorinated effluents is discharged into the Bay through
- 70 -
-------
various tributaries. Approximately 9 million gallons per day of chlorinated
and unchlorinated industrial and sanitary wastes are discharged into the
Arthur Kill, but as previously stated there are few data which indicate that
these effluents have an appreciable effect on the quality of the Raritan
Bay.
Evidence'from sanitary surveys, laboratory and fish life, indicates
that the previous pollution of the Raritan River has been removed to the
extent that the Raritan River per se does not now pollute the Raritan Bay.
Indeed, the River is being stocked with shad. All of the complex issues of
water use, water volume and disposal of industrial wastes have not yet been
solved for the River itself, but the fact that it no longer pollutes the
Bay and is making a good recovery as a multiple-use river is encouraging.
I direct your attention now to the statement of the Middlesex County
Authority. I move to that statement for the Middlesex County Sewerage
Authority, which is appended as part of this statement.
The Middlesex County Sewerage Authority was created by the Board of
Chosen Freeholders of Middlesex County in August 1950. The reason for its
creation was the intolerable condition of pollution existing in the waters
within its district and its specific task was to find a solution to this
problem. Among other analyses the valley's waters had been termed by the
Surgeon General of the United States as "among the most polluted in the
nation." A solution was planned, prosecuted vigorously and on January ll±,
195>8, became a reality.
The Middlesex County Sewerage Authority is a separate corporate
entity, a body politic with perpetual succession as a governmental instru-
mentality for the purpose, among others, of the protection of the public
safety, health and welfare, with power to sue and be sued, to adopt and use
a corporate seal, to borrow money or contract debt, to issue negotiable
bonds, and to provide for the rights of the holders thereof, and with the
right, power and authority to acquire, use and hold and dispose of all
property, real and personal, and to make and perform all contracts and do
all.acts and things and with all other powers proper or necessary to design,
finance, construct, acquire and operate such a system of trunk, intercepting
and outlet sewers, pumping stations, treatment plants and other plants, and
construct as in its judgment will provide the most effectual and advantageous
plan or method for relieving any river, its tributaries and other streams,
within its sewer district, from pollution and for preventing pollution of the
same#
The objectives of the Authority have been to collect sewage and indus-
trial wastes; .to eliminate pollution in the Raritan River, South River, and
their tributaries; and to treat this mixture of sewage and industrial waste
so that the effluent meets the New Jersey Department of Health and the
Interstate Sanitation Commission standards for disposal into the Class A
waters of Raritan Bay.
- 71 -
-------
The Middlesex County Sewerage Authority has collected and treated
many millions of gallons of sewage and industrial wastes since we went into
operation from the following municipalities and industries whose estimated
1961 flows are indicated below.
Participant M.G.D.-Estimated 1961 Flow
Borough of Bound Brook 1.00
Borough of South Bound Brook 0.37
Borough of Middlesex 1.32
Plainfield Joint Meeting (Made up of) 6o70
Borough of Worth Plainfield
City of Plainfield
Borough of Dunelien
Borough of Highland Park 1.60
The Township of Piscataway 0.2i±
South Plainfield 0*1; 5
The Township of Edison I1..IO
Borough of Metuchen 2-.00
City of New Brunswick 9-09
Township of North Brunswick 2*09
Borough of South River l.lij.
Borough of Sayreville 1.01
The Township of Madison 0*65
Union Carbide Plastics Co. (Bakelite) 0«lj.6
Benzol Products Co. 0.28
Heyden-Newport Chemical Co. 0.66
Anheuser-Busch, Inc« 0.33
Peter Jo Schweitzer, Inc. i^.iiO
Hercules Powder Go* 1.53
National Lead Company 0.1+8
Catalin Corporation of America 0.08
TOTAL 39,?2 M.G.D,
There are still small amounts of pollution being discharged to the
Raritan, South River and their tributaries, but the Middlesex County Sewer-
age Authority in cooperation with the New Jersey State Department of Health
and the Fish and Wild Life Division of the Department of Conservation and
Economic Development are actively and aggressively searching for pollutors
and requiring that they cease pollution, generally by discharging their
wastes to the Middlesex Sewerage Authority.
We wish to emphasise that the Authority will have spent from 1958
through 1961 approxiinately $3$7.,000 for chlorine to assure that the plant
effluent always meets the requirements of the Interstate Sanitation Commis-
sion and the New Jersey Department of Health for coliform kill. This chlor-
ine cost averages approximately 20 percent of the operating budget. The
Authority has one man on duty 2k hours a day, 365 days a year, whose chief
- 72 -
-------
duty is to take a chlorine residual every half hour and to adjust the
chlorine feed, if required, to maintain 'a constant residual which will give
the required coliform killo This additional cost of labor brings the total
expenditure since 1958 to almost one million dollars for this phase alone«
Herewith follows two graphs showing monthly coliform results and
monthly suspended solids removal. In addition, a composite table of plant
results for I960, by month, with yearly averages for 195>8 and 1959 *
(The graph referred tos entitled "Graph of Coliform
Analyses," was marked for identification New Jersey
Exhibit Noo lo)
(The table referred to, entitled "Surmary of Operat-
ing Results - I960," was marked for identification
New Jersey Exhibit No. 2„)
(The graph referred to, entitled at the bottom "Graph
of suspended solids removal," was marked for iden-
tification New Jersey Exhibit Noa 3«)
DR0 KANDIEs The bacterial quality of the effluent has consistently
complied with the requirement of the New Jersey State Department of Health,
in that at least eighty percent of the samples tested shall shoitf a coliform
density of 0o2 coliform organisms or less per milliliter,. During the
greater part of the year, the established chlorination procedure resulted
in over ninety percent of the samples being under the specified colifonn
density,, It would therefore be possible to reduce the chlorination and
still meet standards® However, the amount of chlorine which could be saved
in this way is deemed insignificant and the Authority considered it prefer-
able to maintain a margin of safety,,
Since the beginning of operation in 1958 through June of 1961, the
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority has barged to sea 733aOOO wet tons of
sludgeo
It is the purpose of this Authority at all times to cooperate with
all the regulatory agencies0 The Middlesex County Sewerage Authority in
cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Health have spent much time
each year since 1957 making surveys on the Raritan, South River and in the
Raritan Bay#
The Middlesex County Sewerage Authority proposes to continue to be
vigilant in seeking out anyone responsible for polluting the Raritan and
South Rivers and to see that they cease pollution Since we have begun
operation a number of new participants have joined this authority, which
means elimination of additional pollution„ The Township of Franklin has
signed a contract within the last few months0 The Boroughs of South Bruns-
wick, Spotswood and Monroe Township are in the process of negotiating
contractso
- 73 -
-------
The Commissioners and staff of this Authority have dedicated themselves
to the clean-up of the River and its tributaries in our districts The re-
sults indicate this is being accomplishedo
We propose to carry out to its fruition the policy and program to
protect public health, safety and welfare as originally established by this
Authority in 1950 <>
I would like to move back now to Page l; of the Commissioners1 of the
New Jersey State Department of Health statement.
Four municipalities along the southern border which require improve-
ments in the treatment facilities are under order by both the New Jersey
State Department of Health and the courts and are moving to correct their
inadequate conditionso
I direct your attention now to the last part of this report, which
is the report of Commissioner Adams» Commissioner Adams is sitting here,
but to show the way we operate, we will have the conferee read the report.
Following is document entitled
"STATEMENT BY H. HAT ADAMS, COMMISSIONER, NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE HEAR-
ING ON RARITAN BAY, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK, 22-23
AUGUST 1961"
as read by Drc Kandle:
"Your invitation to Dr. Kandle, Commissioner of New Jersey's Health
Department, to participate in these hearings permits me to illustrate a pro-
cedure of which we in New Jersey are extremely proudQ The complexities of
government in this, the most densely populated State in the Union, are such
that the right hand must always know what the left is doing. In all phases
of State government, we seek to coordinate diverse interests and programs.
While State responsibility for pollution control and abatement rests pri-
marily with the Department of Health, there are many aspects of the problem
which come within the scope of- the Department of Conservation and Economic
Development. For many years these two departments have been combining their
efforts and talents, so Drc Kandle's request that I present a. statement here
may be considered S.O.Pc for New Jersey0
"Many varied functions of the Department of Conservation and Economic
Development integrate in Raritan Bay. The Division of State and Regional
Planning is vitally concerned with both the industrial and the recreational
development of this great estuaryo Its wise use and development figure mate-
rially in our State plans« The Division of Water Policy and Supply is cur-
rently engaged in a gigantic project to develop the water resources of the
- 7)4 -
-------
GRAPH OF COLIFORM ANALYSES
— Total number of analyses.
— Number of analyses with less than 0.2 Coliforms per milliliter.*
— Number of analyses with mare than 0.2 Coliforms per milliliter.
200
90.3% 96.696 93.5% 96.7% 90.3%
90.0% 90.3%
90.3%
150
100
50
I
JAN.
1
1
I
I
t
l(
1
I
I
90.0% 87.1% 100.0% 100.0%
FEB. MAR. APRIL MAY JUNE JULY
AUG.
* State Department of Health of New Jersey requires 0.2 Coliforms or less in 80.0% of samples.
19
-------
SUMMARY OF OPERATING RESULTS - 1960
mfiimiimninw
B. O. D.
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
SiETTLlEAiBLE
SCUDS
SLUDGE HiAjNIDOjNXj
Average.
Daily
Clilarine
Ghdifarm Tirf.
Bwiwiia P-P-M.
% of Awe.
Ell.
P.P.M.
Avgr.
From Clarifiers
To . Thickeners
Prom Thickeners
To Storage
From Storage
To Barge
MONTH
1860
Flaw
M. G.
iaw
lb. Id.
PJJL
Are.
IT MljllWI
loi Xba
M/BL
Reduction
%
Inf. EH.
P.P.M.P.P.M.
Avg. Avgr.
Reduction
%
Inf.
M l/il
Avf.
Eff.
Mll/1
Avg".
Reduction
%
1000 Cu. %
Ft. Per Solids
Day, Aver. Avg\
1000 Cu.
Ft. Per
Day. Avg.
%
Solids
A vg.
Wet Tons
Per Month
Solide
Ave.
%
Jan
. 41.68
12.8
38
0.72
90
414
354
14
276
100
64
13.7
0.2
99
286
0.60
17.7
6.0
25134
6.6
Feb
. 39.37
12.3
39
0.69
97
433
371
15
259
99
62
12.2
0.2
98
317
0.60
15.4
6.6
9389
6.3
Mar
.. 34.43
11.3
39
0.70
94
478
396
17
315
111
65
12.8
0.1
99
308
0.55
18.5
5.5
20676
7.2
Apr
„ 39.63
11.7
37
0.68
97
420
365
13
311
103
67
12.7
0.2
98
319
0.47
18.6
6.9
16900
4.4
May
.. 42.32
12.7
36
0.72
90
460
363
21
339
120
64
15.2
1.0
93
279
0.61
19.0
6.6
22518
4.8
June
.. 41.10
15.3
45
0.70
90
423
352
17
321
104
68
15.9
0.2
99
303
0.98
21.3
6.6
20335
6.2
July
.. 39.59
14.7
45
0.74
90
388
326
16
259
68
74
11.1
0.1
99
246
0.54
19.1
6.7
19837
6.3
Aug
.. 41.71
16.9
49
0.75
90
362
322
11
250
77
69
11.8
0.1
99
242
0.44
18.9
5.7
27574
5.9
Sept
.. 46.56
16.3
45
0.70
90
330
289
12
219
76
65
10.5
0.1
99
268
0.43
20.2
6.2
16034
4.9
Oct
.. 39.41
33.3
40
0.70
87
430
384
11
262
86
67
13.0
0.1
99
268
0.41
21.4
5.4
21218
3.9
Nov
.. 40.56
12.5
37
0.70
100
420
360
14
260
82
69
12.8
0.1
99
266
0.53
20.0
6.0
20223
4.7
Dec .
.. 40.39
13.5
41
0.70
190
422
368
13
279
105
62
12.6
0.1
99
279
0.59
20.3
6.0
20400
4.9
Average ~
... 40.56
13.6
41
0.71
93
415
354
14
279
94
66
12.8
0.2
98
281
0.56
19.2
6.2
20020
5.5
1959
Average ..
.. 37.26
16.4
54
0.74
96
449
364
19
316
102
68
15.2
0.2
98
299
0.60
18.4
5.8
18989
4.8
1958
Averages
May 1st
To
Dec. 31st
35.19 15.9 55 230 91 447 382 14 285 82 71 16.4 0.3 98 259 0.68 16.8 6:4 15282
4.7
-------
— Tons of suspended solids in raw sewage.
,X — Tons of suspended solids removed.
2000 63.8% 61.9% 64.2% 65.8% 64.3%
1500
V)
¦TJ
"o
OO
©
"D
C
2.1000
o.
V)
3
OO
o
«/)
c
o
500
S!
<
I
S?
*
U>
t
MAY
Graph of suspended solids removal.
-------
Raritan River basin. Fresh, usable water is the backbone of sound develop-
ment. The elimination of flood danger is equally important. Our Division
of Shell Fisheries is concerned with the preservation of our great clam and
oyster resource and its annual contribution to both our food and our economy.
Our Division of Resource Development, through its Bureau of Navigation and
Bureau of Parks and Recreation, recognizes this Bay as a water course and
playground vital to the State and the whole metropolitan area. In addition,
it is the center of a region of great industrial development. The Division
of Fish and Game, too, has much concern for this body of water. In fall and
winter, it is the home of hundreds of thousands of migratory waterfowl. It
supports one of the most intensive sport fisheries in the world, and the
harvest of menhaden and food fishes represents a multi-million-dollar
business. Our position has been and still is that no type of pollution can
be permitted to detract from the value of these waters#
"The Division of Fish and Game is charged by law with the prosecution
of anyone who discharges wastes or other substances into the waters of the
State in quantities that kill fish or wildlife or destroy their habitat.
From time to time in the Bay, it has been necessary to take action under this
law. In recent years, all such cases have been caused by accident or care-
lessness, and the offenders have been industrial concerns. With continued
vigilance, we are confident that this type of pollution can be prevented from
harming the great fish and wildlife resources of the Bay. Continuing studies
by this Division show no evidence of the destruction of fish or wildlife
values in the Bay. It is one of our most productive and fertile estuaries.
"In certain parts of the Bay, shellfish have been found unsafe for
human consumption. We are currently working with the Department of Health
and other authorities to pinpoint the source of this contamination and to
take steps to eliminate it. We are determined to preserve the clam and
oyster resources of this bay which have been justly famous since colonial
times o
"We are also concerned that the trunk sewer concept be applied wisely.
Under certain circumstances, this is the only practical approach to pollution
abatement. This was the case in the lower Raritan basin. However, water in
its natural channels can be used and reused for industry, recreation, and a
host of other purposes. A river flowing through sewer pipes has lost its
usefulness.
"Raritan Bay and the Raritan River Basin are vital to New Jersey in
a multitude of ways. We do not intend to permit pollution to jeopardize
these values. There are certain problems in the disposal of both industrial
and domestic wastes which must be solved, but we believe we are on the way
to solving them. We recognize that pollution abatement here as elsewhere is
more than a health problem. We intend to see that this great body of water
continues to serve our citizens in all ways unhindered by careless disposal
of wastes."
- 75 -
-------
I move now to Page E> of the Commissioner's of the New Jersey State
Department of Health report.
New Jersey suggests that this conference could properly conclude
that?
(1) There is experienced, effective machinery to deal
with prevention and abatement of pollution of the Raritan Bay,
(2) There has been and continues to be clear progress,
under plan, and under the surveillance of a variety of agen-
cies and forces relating to health, conservation and the econ-
omy of the area.
(3) That scientific data taking into account a wide
range of factors and technological problems, including health,
conservation, water policy and uses.and industrial processes
are urgently needed, and are the critical issue in. further
control, of pollution in the Raritan Bay0
(I4.) The Conferees welcome and appreciate the interest,
support and collaboration of the Public Health Service in the
collective efforts to preserve the Raritan Bay and particularly
in solving the scientific problems»
(5) The Conferees are willing to report to the Public
Health Service at appropriate intervals®
Now may I just say, Hr« Chairman, one or two things about the data
this morning.
I fully appreciate the cooperation we got from your office, and
certainly the cooperation we got from the district office. We had many
telephone calls and. the fullest cooperation in sharing the data which were
available, but I agree with Dr. Mitchell Wendell that being faced with a
report such as we had this morning puts us at a considerable disadvantage,
since these were data selected out. To try to deal with them in the con-
text of our own data and the overall situation is very difficult.
I point out one or two things and I point these out as examples and
not to try to get at the report, because we can't deal with that. But Mr.
Clark picked out two bits of bacteriological data from the Rand Report.
This report is quite a document and the report itself seemed to me to come
to a conclusion different from that which I interpreted Mr. Clark's data as.
I merely cite this as an example of where a batch of data picked out
of the report, which is very basic because it deals with the degree to which
the Middlesex Authority cleaned up the Raritan and its effect on the Raritan
Bay. Also I would like to reiterate the data which were used with respect
- 76 -
-------
to the shellfish waters, because while I sun not quarreling with the data per
se I do not think they reliably measure the situation with regard to the
shellfish waters«
There are very extensive data from both of the regulatory agencies in
which this picture is pretty clearly portrayed, and it is difficult to deal
with one little fact or limited data from two stations. Actually there are
about fifty stations, or something of that sort, about which there are con-
tinuous data running over a good many years«
Also, as another example, we find it hard to deal with Chart That
is the chart which points out data relative to the status of the plants.
Those comments about which are overloaded and the degree of suspended solids
of B.O.D. and so forth, are really much more complex than one can get at.
I respect Mrc Clark and his conferees' opinions, but we might not
come to the same conclusion even from the same data, looking at the same
data — and I am sure we all would be looking at the same data since most
of it came from the records of the conferees.
MR, STEIN: Thank you, sir. Does New York have any comments or ques-
tions of the New Jersey State Commission?
DR. INGRAHAM: No.
MR. STEIN; Mr. Klashman?
MRo KLASHMANt I have no questions.
MR. STEIN: Thank you. May we at this point call on New York. Do
you have anything else first, Dr. Kandle?
DR. KANDLE: No.
MR. STEINs Dr. Ingraham.
STATEMENT OF NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ON
BEHALF OF HERMAN E. HILLEBOE, M.D., COMMISSIONER OF
HEALTH, PRESENTED BY DR. HOLLIS INGRAHAM, FIRST DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH, NEW YORK STATE
DR. INGRAHAM: I want to read a statement on behalf of Dr. Herman E.
Hilleboe, Commissioner of Health of the New York State Department of Health*
This meeting is concerned primarily with the pollution of Raritan Bay
and particularly with the effect of such pollution on shellfish which are
grown in the bay. This particular problem, however, is one part of the
total complex problem involving pollution of waters within the whole New
York Metropolitan Area.
- 77 -
-------
The State department of Health has "ceerv much concerned with these
problemso More than 25 years ago the Department worked closely with many-
persons and agencies in developing what later became the Interstate Compact
for control of pollution in the tidal waters of the Mew York Metropolitan
Area. Since the creation of the Interstate Sanitation Commission, the State
Commissioner of Health has served as a member of such Commission.
The State -Commissioner of Health has also served as Chairman of the
New York State Water Pollution Control Board, which has specific responsi-
bilities in relation to these problems.
The Water Pollution Control Board will cease to exist on January 1$
1962. Its present functions and duties will be divided between the State
Commissioner of Health and the Water Resources Commission of the New York
State Conservation Department, of which he is a member. The Water Resources
Commission will have the authority for classifying waters and establishing
standards0 The State Commissioner of Health will assume the duties of en-
forcing the law and bringing existing pollutional discharges into compliance
with the established standards.
Over the years, much progress has been made in the abatement of pollu-
tion within the Interstate Sanitation District. New York City has been en-
gaged on a progressive, excellently engineered program for many years. The
accomplishments have been noteworthy and this progress is continuing toward
completion of the city's presently planned pollution abatement program within
the next few years. However, some problems of great magnitude will still
remain. Most of the area is plagued with the problems of so-called
"marginal" pollution.
The major sources of this "marginal" pollution are the numerous com-
bined sewer relief overflows which occur during rains and spill a mixture of
sewage and storm water into the adjacent waterways.
Most of the sewers in the various boroughs of the city have been
built on the combined plan —> designed to handle both sanitary sewage and
storm water. The city's program of pollution abatement has provided for
construction of many intercepting sewers and sewage treatment plants. The
interceptors pick up from two to two and a half times the dry-weather flows
and deliver these to the treatment plants for treatment* During rains the
flows in excess of interceptor capacities are discharged without treatment
through numerous relief overflows. When the city has completed all of its
presently planned program, it is estimated that from 3 to £ percent of all
sewage produced within the city will continue to be discharged into the var-
ious waterways through these relief outlets.
The city has given much consideration to ways and means of reducing
this so-called "marginal'* pollution and has had engineering studies made in
relation to the problem as it affects certain areas in the Upper East River
and Jamaica Bay0
— 78 »»
-------
We have not determined to what extent this "marginal" pollution is
involved with.the pollution of Raritan Bay, However, the New York City De-
partment of Public Works and the Interstate Sanitation Commission'have de-
tailed information as to sources of pollution throughout the area, and would
be competent to make some appraisal as to how important "marginal" pollution
is in relation to the quality of water in Raritan Bay.
In this presentation no attempt will be made to present any inventory
of the various sources of pollution affecting Raritan Say, The City Depart-
ment of Public Wforks and the Interstate Sanitation Commission are the base
source for this kind of detailed information. They can provide information
concerning the status of the various existing and planned pollution abatement
works.
There are., however, some other matters of importance which should be
reported to this conferenceo
The Interstate Sanitation Commission, New York City, State of New
Jersey, and the New York State Water Pollution Control Board have cooperated
in the financing of a study of the patterns of flow and the other factors,
in the waters of New York City a This will be carried out by the Corps of
Engineers using the New York Harbor model located at Vicksburg, Mississippi.
It is expected that this study will get under way this month. It is the
consensus of all the.participating agencies that the results of this study
will be of great value in appraising the travel and other effects of pollu-
tion discharged at aiy specific point on any waters of the area. The results
will undoubtedly be of value in the Raritan Bay problem.
The Water Pollution Control Board is presently engaged in work that
will lead to classification and assignment of quali-ty standards for all
waters within the City of New Yorko Engineering studies for classification
purposes have been made of several drainage basins within the city. These
are the Arthur Kill and Kill Van Kull, West Lower Bay and Raritan Bay, Upper
Bay and East lower Bay, Hudson River below Westchester-Rockland County Lines,
Harlem River, Lower. East. River, Atlantic Ocean opposite New York City. The
reports on these studies have been drafted„ Some are now being printed and
the others will soon be offered for printing„
After printed copies of these reports become available, public hear-
ings as required by law will be arranged preliminary to adoption of official
classifications and assignment of quality standards.
In classifying these waters, all of which are within the area of the
Interstate Sanitation District, the standards as assigned by the Water Pollu-
tion Control Board or the Water Resources Commission, after January 1962,
will have to be compatible with the classes and standards of the Interstate
Sanitation Commission„ They may be higher, but cannot be lower than the
Interstate Sanitation Commission standards.
- 19 -
-------
It seems probable that some special classes will need to "be developed
for application to these waters which will be compatible and consistent with
the present Interstate Sanitation Commission standards and which will be
capable of being attained* It is fairly apparent now that in some areas the
dissolved oxygen requirement of "not less than $ parts per million" as appli-
cable to the presently established Water Pollution Control Board Classes Sit,
SB and SC, cannot be achieved even T?ihen the city's presently planned pollu-
tion abatement program is completed,, Hence, some special classes will need
to be established relative to the dissolved oxygen standard® It is probable}
therefore, that when the classification hearings are helds the matter of
special classes will also be considered®
The classification studies and report covering West Lower Bay and
Raritan Bay and their tributaries were made by Mr» H. F» Udell of the New
York State Conservation Department, Shellfish Management Unit, This report
is in process of being printed. Although published copies are not yet
available5 some of the highlights are presented as foilows =
The areas covered by the studies include that portion of Lower Bay
west of a line extending southeasterly from the northeast end of South Beach
at Fort Wadsworth .Government Reservation through West Eank. Light to the Hew
York State Boundary; north of the New York-New Jersey 5tats Eoundary line
through Lower Bay and Raritan Bay; and that part- of Raritan 3ay north and
east of the Sta^e boundary line at the westerly extremity of Raritan Bay and
the Arthur Hi11c
Raritan Bay may be considered to be that body of water west of a line
drawn fror. Crookes Point at Great itillsj Staten Island? southerly to Point
Ccnfort- at Keansburg^ New Jersey* The Bay is triangular in shape and Raritan
River and Arthur Kill discharge at its apex0 Lower Bay lies between Staten
Island and the DIew Jersey shore, east of Raritan Bay and west of Ambrose
Channel0
The report makes reference to past studies carried on during 1909-
1912, 1927-28, 1937-38* 19li0-ljl, 1951 and 19520 In general, the conclusions
reached by the authors of these reports indicated that discharge of domestic
and industrial wastes into watercourses tributary to Raritan Bay resulted in
excessive pollution into these waters.
For purposes of water classifications the bays were divided into three
areasj delineated as follows!
Area I (S
-------
The drainage area of Staten Island adjacent to the Raritan and Lower
Bays comprises about 18 square miles<. No large streams drain into these
bays between Fort Wadsworth at the Narrows and Ward Point at Tottenville0
However, there are two small embayments which receive some drainage from
marsh areas and which are also used as boat basins — known as Great Kills
and Princess Bay„ Lemon Creek discharges into Princess Bay.
The area from Wadsworth Point to Crookes Point (designated as Sol. 1)
is residential. The shore section of this area is being developed by the
New York City Department of Parks for bathing and recreation,, It is expected
that undeveloped land adjacent to the proposed recreational area will be
utilized for housing in the immediate future, A sewerage system serves the
New Dorp Section carrying sewage to Oakwood Beach Sewage Treatment plant«
This plant provides secondary type treatment and the effluent discharges
through an outfall terminating 2,700 feet offshore in Lower Bay,
Waters from the area extending from Crookes Point to Red Bank (desig-
nated as Solo 2) drain into the area previously open to shellfishing and
into areas which would possibly be considered for shellfishing in the future
when pollution is further abated. The northeastern part of this area is
residential, while the remaining section is wooded with some small industry
and institutional facilities which contribute pollution to Bay waters.
Lemon Creek is the only sizable stream flowing into the Bay from this area.
Its fresh water contribution is small^ but polluted? The other small drain-
age streams carry some incidental pollution from the cesspools in the local
area.
From Red Bank to the southwesterly tip of Staten Island the waters
drain into that portion of Raritan Bay (designated as S.I. 3)« Tottenville
is an industrial community of about 9,000 population. Sewage and industrial
wastes are discharged untreated into waters of Raritan Bay.
The report points out that the City of New York plans recreational
facilities along the entire Staten Island shore and that the city's pollu-
tion abatement program is aimed at preventing further pollution of the Bay
areas. For these reasons, it is to be expected that the quality of the
stream and outfall waters will be improvedo
The report contains some discussion of the hydrology of the surface
waters of the area and the results of certain float and other studies carried
on during past years. One of these developed some correlation between the
salinity and the coliform MPN for the Raritan Bay area. It was noted that
there appears to be some relationship between, salinity and MPN in sections
of Raritan Bay along the shipping channels. This would indicate that the
large amounts of fresh water entering the Bay are accompanied by pollution.
The float studies have indicated that the net tidal drift is about
l.£ miles. At this rate, it is estimated that it would take at least four
days for a slug of pollution from Great Beds Light to flow past a north-south
- 81 -
-------
line through Crookes Point, Staten Island.,, and Point Comfort, on the New
Jersey shore. Proceeding easterly into Lower Bay, the net seaward drift
decreases.
The northern section of Lower Bay has a rotary type tidal pattern
causing the water to follow a clockwise pattern. Float studies indicate
that water flowing past Fort Wadsworth through the Narrows on an ebbing tide
reach West Bank Light and then circle west and north towards South Beach.
The results of a bacteriological study made by the New York State
Conservation Department Shellfisheries Management Unit in May 1955 are
discussed. These showed the Raritan River to be the major source of pollu-
tion in Raritan Bay. Although 'raw sewage from Tottenville is discharged
into the Arthur Kill, this source of pollution was minor when compared with
that of the Raritan River.
The report contains a chart on which lines of equal density show the
geometric mean of bacterial pollution expressed as most probable numbers in
100 milliliters of sample. The contours indicate the degree of bacterial
pollution throughout the area studied. The pollutional influence of Raritan
and Hudson Rivers is clearly indicated.
The results of another bacteriological survey during the period March
to June 1958, after the Middlesex County Sewage Treatment plant was placed
in operation, are discussed in this report. These showed higher bacterial
concentrations in New York State waters in 1958 than in 1955s with the
exception of Arthur Kill. A definite extension of polluted water toward
Princess Bay was indicated by this study.
The report discusses data compiled in May I960 which indicate an
increase in bacterial pollution in both Raritan and Lower Bays during that
month.
The report also discusses the results of a chemical study carried on
in 1958 with particular reference to dissolved oxygen contents of the water.
The report describes the area previously certified, until recently,
for the taking of shellfish for market purposes, in effect since 19Ul« The
report also points out that it had been anticipated that Raritan Bay pollu-
tion, resulting from Raritan River flow, would be measurably reduced by the
Middlesex County Sewage Treatment Plant and that such reduction would permit
enlargement of the present certified area, all of which recently has been
closed because of the hepatitis occurrence0
The report states that evaluation of analytical results of recent
samples of Bay water collected from Raritan indicates pollutional encroach-
ment on the shellfish area. However, the report points out that more effec-
tive sewage treatment and pollution abatement should improve pollution condi-
tions in the present shellfish harvest area, and, accordingly, it suggests
- 82 -
-------
that the area, as previously certified by the Conservation Department, be
classified so as to recognize this usage,
A list of sources of pollution affecting the waters of Raritan and
Lower Bays is presented in the report.
From what has been outlined above, it seems that a fair picture has
been developed as to the sources of pollution and their effects on Raritan
Bay. The picture implies a need for construction of additional pollution
abatement projects to abate pollution caused by continued discharge of un-
treated sewage from certain areas tributary to the Bay. So far as New York
City is concerned, it is our impression that this need is recognized and
will be considered in its program. The picture also implies that there may
be a need for improved operation of existing sewage treatment plants to the
extent at least of obtaining more effective disinfection of present effluents.
However, there would seem to be some areas of the problem in need of
more precise evaluation. To what extent will the problem of so-called
"marginal" pollution affect the quality of waters in Raritan Bay? To what
extent is pollution from boats involved in the pollution of shellfish-
rearing areas of Raritan Bay? And assuming a future condition when all un-
treated sewage still tributary to the Bay is brought under treatment, except
perhaps from the so-called "marginal" sources, what are the problems related
to viral contamination of these waters? It is known that modern sewage
treatment processes are not capable of -complete destruction or removal of
all viruses from effluents — they can only effect a reduction„
In the consideration of these and interrelated problems, the State
Commissioner of Health assures the Surgeon General that he will cooperate
and assist in every possible manner. The problem is of great concern to the
people of New York State, and the objective should be to devise a solution
if it is practicable and possible to do so® Certainly it will be possible
to effect improvements, but whether or not these will be sufficient to permit
reopening of certain areas of the Bay to shellfishing is a question. Shells
fish beds located so close to a great metropolitan complex, such as that of
the New York Metropolitan Area, present a unique problem that in all of its
aspects, from a practical and economical standpoint, may be incapable of
total solution.
I would like to observe that the United States Public Health Service
and the New York State Department of Health have had a long history of cor-
dial and cooperative effort in improving public health in many areas of
endeavor. In view of this I cannot help but note that the manner in which
this meeting was called, through the newspapers, was not calculated to have
a beneficial effect on that relationship.
I would like to say in closing that the State Health Department con-
curs very largely with the conclusions reached by Dr. Kandleo Since I did
quote rather largely from Dr. Udell, I should like to ask him to make a
brief statement to complement the remarks I have made.
- 83 -
-------
MRo STEIN: Thank you, sir. That was a very excellent statement.
May I say — and I stand to be corrected on this — but as a matter of policy
the Public Health.Service in its long continuing relationships with the
States to my knowledge has never sent out a notice on a conference, or any
other action in the enforcement field, without first having our field people
get in touch with their counterparts at the State agencies, and it is my
understanding that this was done in this casej and phone calls were made to
New York State by our regional officeo Our Bureau Director, I understand,
was in touch with Dr. Hilleboe, the head of the New York State Department,
and similar calls were made to New Jersey,, I know I made one myself to Mr.
Mincher and, as I understand it, the regional office did make calls to the
Interstate Commission,, They did this on our instructions„
As a matter of fact, the conference notice was held up for about a
week in order that this could be done, and I am very much disturbed to think
that there was any other impression created,, If any other impression was
given it was inadvertent. It is certainly not the way we like to do business,
and it is not our policy.
DR. INGRAHAM: We are very glad to hear thato
MR. STEIN; That is righto
DR„ INGRAHAM: I wanted to call to your attention that it was not
the policy in the past and we would not like to see it the policy in the
future o
MR. STEIN: That is correct.
DR. INGRAHAM: Might I call upon Mr. Udell to supplement the
statement?
MR. STEIN: Yes, if you would. Do you want to come up here, Mr.
Udellc
STATEMENT OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSERVATION DEPART-
MENT, PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF COMMISSIONER OF CONSER-
VATION HAROID WILM, BY HAROLD F. UDELL, NEW YORK
STATE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, SHELLFISH SANITATION
AND MANAGEMENT UNIT, FREEPORT, NEW YORK
MR. UDELL: I would like to read a statement by Dr. Wilm, the Conser-
vation Commissioner, which may be an addition or appendix to the statement
just.read by the Deputy Commissioner of Health for the New York State Depart-
ment of Health.
The State of New York Conservation Department sponsors the statement
by the State of New York Health Commissioner., We feel that the statement as
presented appears to present a true appraisal of the situation. The conclud-
ing paragraphs of the statement lead to the following comments:
- 8U -
-------
1, If domestic and industrial waste pollution could be eliminated
through full utilization of modern sewage and industrial waste treatment
processes, -would the quality of waters in Raritan Bay be substantially
improved?
2o Would the attained improvement be of sufficient magnitude to
permit harvest of shellfish for market purposes from any portion of these
waters?
3. Recognizing the complexity of the situation relative to domestic
and industrial needs of the New York Metropolitan Area, would abatement of
pollution to a level which would permit utilization of natural resources of
this area be so difficult as to outbalance the recreational or other personal
benefits that might result from such action?
We feel that practical and economic factors affecting solution of the
pollution problem not favorable to utilisation of natural resources should
receive serious consideration before making a final conclusion,,
MR- STEINs Thank you. Do you have anything further?
MR. UDELL: Wo, sir«
MR* STEINs Are there any questions of Mr, Udell, or any comments?
Dr. Ingraharm
DR. INGRAHAM2 I would like now to present a statement from New York
Cityo It is a combined statement from the Department of Public Works and
the City Health Department and the Assistant Coordinator of the City, and
the statement will be read by Mr„ Pinel.
MR. STEINs Mr» Pinel, we will be happy to hear from you at this time.
STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, PRESENTED ON
BEHALF OF MR. MAXWELL LEHMAN, DEPUTY CITY ADMINIS-
TRATOR, BY STANLEY PINEL, CHIEF ENGINEER, CITY
ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE, CITY OF NEW YORK
MR. PINELj Mr. Maxwell Lehman, who is the Deputy City Administrator,
sends his regrets« He has lost his voice today® He'just broke down. He is
very interested in the whole subject of water pollution both from the city
standpoint and from that of the metropolitan area. He undertook to coordin-
ate the statement of the several city agencies involved that have already
been mentioned, except that besides the Department of Health and the Depart-
ment of Public Worksj they also include the Department of Parks, the Bureau
of the Budget, the City Planning Commission, the Board of Estimate and the
Borough President's Office of the Borough of Richmond* A combined statement
has been developed and a table and map which I believe certainly should be
made a part of the record of this proceedingo
- 8* -
-------
MR* STEIN: They- -will<, There is no objection to that, is there?
(Map entitled City of New York, Dept. of Public Works,
Plan for Pollution Control, was marked for identifi-
cation New York City Exhibit No. 1.)
(Graph entitled Staten Island, was marked for iden-
tification New York City Exhibit No. 2.)
MR. PINEL: The subject matter of the conference is concerned with
pollution of Raritan Bay. However, the City of New York has been concerned
with the problems of harbor pollution for many years and has in both long-
range planning and current activity progressed steadily toward goals of
safeguarding water quality throughout the harbor area lying within the
city^ boundaries*
Development of a Protection Program for Raritan Bay Shoreline
of Staten Island
In 191U the Board of Health of the citj^ proscribed bathing in polluted
waters in the City of New York® These waters included the Hudson, Harlem
and East Rivers, Upper Bay and Jamaica Bay. In the Borough of Richmond the
proscribed areas were designated as those along Raritan Bay, Arthur Kill,
and Kill Van Kull from Page Avenue east of Tottenville to New Brighton; or
along the Upper New York Bay and the Narrows from New Brighton to the north-
erly boundary of Fort Wadsworth Reservation.
In 19U8, the Board of Health issued a declaration of policy relative
to the classification and approval of waters for bathing beach purposes.
With the exception of South and Graham beaches and a short distance along
Midland Beach, all open waters along Raritan Bay shoreline now meet the
requirements for apprcval of waters for bathing beach purposes established
under that policy•
The results of averages on sair-pies over an eleven-year period, 1951-
1961, show that there has been no adverse change in the quality of the
waters, and show further that there have been improvements in water quality
in once limited areas extending from Fox Lane southerly to the northeast
quarter of Great Kill Beach, and the waters from Holton Avenue easterly to
Page Avenue. A chart is appended to the statement showing this.
Raritan Bay is the only source of shellfish (clams) taken from waters
in the City of New York. Most of the shellfish offered in New York City
comes from waters in other parts of New York State and other States on the
eastern seaboard. The New York Raritan B^y area was opened for shellfish
digging by the New York City Board of Health and the New York State Conser-
vation Department in March, 191*2. Another area in Raritan Bay contiguous to
this old area was approved by the New York State Department of Conservation
in June 1955, and subsequently by the Board of Health. Samples of the waters
- 86 -
-------
"HJ- ^ ATLANTIC OCEAN
c?AS. TAN BAY
LEGEND OF SYMBOLS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
PLANTS
IN OPERATION W
UNOER CONSTRUCTION ¦
UNDER DESIGN B
FUTURE O
EXPANSION UNDER CONST SB
EXPANSION UNDER 0E3JGN Q
PUMPING INTERCEPTING DRAINAGE
STATIONS SEWERS AREAS
DRAINAGE AREAS
IN ONE KMOUGM @
IN MORE THAN ONE BO«OU©H <0)
LIMITS Of 0*AtNAOE AACAS
CITY OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PLAN
POLLUTION CONTROL
' NeV York Ex. 1.
jj_ POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS
**4 LOCATION CAPACITY (MGO)
. HCL PRESENT ULTIMATE
MANHATTAN
1 WARDS iSLANO
MUMTUN l00:,_o uol...
r»o«« bro** t20 J 2 170/
2 NORTH RIVER 2?0 220
BRONX
3 HUNTS POINT 120 ISO
* CITY ISLAND MAHT ISlANO I 3 3
BROOKLYN
CREEK
nm*Man i TO 1 i to 1
'RON ••OOHLTK \,.J HO 310
fnom auczws )l4°> • *<>)
6 26 fh WARO eo 60
r CONEY ISLANO 70 110
8 REO HOOK 40 40
» OWLS HEAD 160 160
QUEENS
IOTALLMANS ISLAND 40 80
M JAMAICA 65 ,oo
12 BOWERY BAY |gQ |20
I 3 ROCKAWAY is 30
RICHMOND
4 PORT RICH MONO 10 50
/O
;l _
11 1 5 BLOOMFIELO
I 6 OAK WOOD BEACH 13 25l xft
FWOM ELTWCViLLE «r OU
I T FRESH KILLS
'« TOTTENVtLE
TOTAL
If)
i
-------
Bureau of
Sanitary Engineering
NY. CITY
HEALTH DEPARTEMANT
1 POLLUTION CONTROL
STATE* ISLAND BEACHES
TOTAL AVERAGE D-DRY
RAIN AVERAGE R-RAJN'
- DRT AVARAOE
SAMPLING PER: 1931 — 1961
DATt:Juty (961
GPO 961932
-------
of the Bay taken since that time have been satisfactory, and samples of
clams taken from these waters are the equivalent bacteriologically of shell-
fish taken from other areas throughout the country.
When an outbreak of infectious hepatitis involving clams from the New
Jersey side of Raritan Bay was reported by the New Jersey State health author-
ities, the New Jersey authorities closed their portion of the Raritan Bay
waters for the taking of shellfish,. Action to close the New York City por-
tion of Raritan Bay for the taking of shellfish as a preventive measure was
immediately taken by the New York State Conservation Department. These
waters have remained closed. At all times during which the New York Raritan
Bay area was opened for clam-taking, the dealers handling such clams were
certified on the U. S. Public Health Service List of Approved Shippers.
Staten Island's localized sources of pollution that may affect
Raritan Bay are few and with the exception of Tottenville, all sources have
some degree of sewage treatmento The effluents have little, if any, effect
on the waters of the Bay* However, the Department of Health, acting under
the recently adopted (1959) Health Code, is proceeding with measures to se-
cure improvement of the degree of treatment provided at Richmond Memorial
Hospital, Mount Loretto Home for Children, S. S. White Co., and St. Joseph's
Home. The Oakwood Beach sewage treatment plant provides secondary treat-
ment, and operation of this plant has been a factor in the improvement of
water quality in the Oakwood Beach area.
At present there are in the Tottenville area approximately 33,000
linear feet of existing sanitary sewers. These sewers, constructed thirty
to fifty years ago, outlet directly through nine outlets into Raritan Bay,
six on the Arthur Kill shore and three on the Lower Shore„ There are
approximately 650 houses which feed into these existing sewers with an esti-
mated population of 2,600 people. These sewers empty approximately 0.3 ifigd
of sewage into the waters of Arthur Kill or Raritan Bay. About 10 percent
of Tottenville is now served by sewers.
It is estimated that there are approximately 1,220 houses, or U,900
people, who empty their sewage through cesspools and/or septic tanks. The
subsoil in this area is largely sand and therefore there is little trouble
with the septic tanks«
While the office of the Borough President of Richmond does not yet
have drainage plans adopted for this area, approximately 20 percent of the
area has been mappedo
The entire Tottenville area will be sewered by a separate system, the
sanitary sewers emptying into a treatment plant will be built by the Depart-
ment of Public Works. It is estimated that in order to complete the sewers
in this area the following costs will be incurred based on 1965-1966 prices:
Sanitary Sewers
Storm Sewers
Total:
$10,i|00,000
13,100,000
$23,500,000
- 87 -
-------
The Department of Parks is acquiring 150 acres in the southern
section of the Tottenville area, thus reducing future population growth of
that area,,
Contamination from the existing sewers in the Tottenville area will
be eliminated when existing sanitary sewers are intercepted by the Department
of Public Works and the sewage diverted to the treatment plant that is ex-
pected to be constructed in 1965-1966,,
Plans for future sewerage in southern sections of the Borough of
Richmond have not been completed as yeto It is contemplated that the south-
ern portion will be served by a separate sanitary sewer system,, Hence, when
sanitary flows are fully intercepted there will be no discharge of raw sew-
age into local waters along the Staten Island shoreline of Raritan Baye
Plans of the Department of Parks reinforce the position with respect
to rather rigid control of water quality along the shoreline® Plans are now
in process for the development of an arterial highway extending from Miller
Field and New Dorp southerly along the shore to Tottenville and Outerbridge
crossing# Augmented recreational facilities and an increase of use of shore
water for recreational purposes are future possibilities<>
Thus it is clear that the city has been well aware of the need for
protecting the Raritan Bay shoreline of Staten Island and has taken a number
of measures directed to the execution of long-range plans for the mainten-
ance of water quality along those shoreso
The Total Mew York City Program of Pollution Control
Staten Island is only one of five boroughs of the city® Each has
borders along the harbor and each has great needs for protection of water
qualityo
The construction program for water pollution control facilities
evolved from the planning stage and engineering studies conducted before and
after World War I« The sewage treatment and intercepting sewer facilities
presently in service.were built in two major stages., The first wave of con-
struction occurred prior to World War II from about 1929 to 19Ulo During
this period the following projects were designed, built and put into
operations
Project
Capacity
MOD
Cost
in Dollars
Wards Island
220
$32,000,000
Coney Island
(a) 1st Stage
35
35
Uo
2,100,000
U,000,000
5a700,000
(b) 2nd Stage
Tallmans Island
- 88 -
-------
Capacity Cost
Project MGD in Dollars
Bowery Bay lj.0 5sU00,000
City Island-Harts Island lo5 700,000
Jamaica 65 7$000,000
26th Ward 60
1st Stage (Primary) 3S000,000
2nd Stage (Secondary) ____ 6s60Q.,000
TOTAL U96„5 $66,500,000
During the lull in construction incident to the last war, designs
were prepared for the second wave of construction which began in 191*8«, This
effort produced the following facilities?
Capacity Cost
Project MGD in Dollars
Hunts Point 120 $ 26,100,000
Owls Head 160 21,500,000
Rockaway 15 7 .,000,000
Port Richmond 10 3^200,000
Bowery Bay Ext, 80 1^6,750,000
Oakwood Beach 15 7^800,000
Whitestone Interceptor
Collector - Tallmans Island 2,500,000
Wards Island «=> East Bronx Inter,, l,ii00,000
Hunts Point - 2 Pumping Stations _ _ 600,000
I4.OO $116,850,000
Shortly after World War II and before the above pollution control
construction began, the Interstate Sanitation Commission began pressing the
city for an acceleration of sewage plant construction«, In late 19 U8, during
the administration of Mayor O'Dwyer, the city agreed to a consent order of
the Interstate Sanitation Commission under which it was agreed that the Hunts
Point. Owls Head, Rockaway, Port Richmond (First Stage), Bowery Bay (Second
State), and Oakwood Beach projects would be completed and placed in operation
by the end of 1953 and the balance of the complete program would be construc-
ted and in operation by the end of 1959« The order left an escape clause by
which the city could reapply to the Commission for a change in the time limit
if circumstances warranted such reconsideration0
The advent of the Korean War upset the time schedule considerably,,
Construction proceeded rapidly until this conflict, but due to heavy cost
increases and shortage of engineering personnel the program slowedo As a
result, the first commitment to the Interstate Commission was not completed
until the end of 1957«
- 89 -
-------
The city applied to the Interstate Sanitation Commission in 1956 for
an extension of the program called for in the Consent Order of 19U8, and in
1957 a modified Consent Order was agreed upon between the city and the Com-
mission, under which the final clean-up was to be committed to contract by
the end of 1965, subject to a one-year delay provision if final estimates of
cost exceed preliminary appropriations« This latter order mentioned a mini-
mum yearly commitment of $22,000,000 for the pollution control program. The
actual costs, however, are increasing at the rate of 5 percent to 7 percent
per year above earlier estimated costs®
Completion of the programs originally planned was slowed by a need
to expand existing plants before construction of certain new plants was
starteda The population of the city, according to the i960 census, fell
from 7,795,U71 in 1950 to 7,681,021 in I960® There was, however, a vast
shifting of the population around the city and in general the drift was to
the periphery, as shown in the following tabulations?
Population Tributary to Jamaica Bay
Project 19I4O 1950 I960
Coney Island 527,156 579,588 60^,11*7
26th Ward 3^7,596 319,9U2 316,232
Rockaway 38,793 51,103 66,719
Jamaica h$Ssl$9 517,197 582,335
Total 1,369,7014 1,1467,8U0 1,569,U63
Population Tributary to Inner Harbor
Wards Island
Bronx
7Ul,2li3
7l;8,200
695,007
Manhattan
627,183
6k6s6k3
5U2,ii06
Marble Hill
U,568
14,8142
8,135
1,372,99U
1,399,685
1,2145,51+8
Hunts Point
638,77U
688,718
703,188
Tallmans Island
159,790
251,660
390,6714
Bowery Bay
502,708
596,187
633,063
Owls Head
870,916
882,659
797,719
Newton Creek
1,351,188
1,360,000
1,2014,000
Red Hook
21+2,931
2149,615
23U,5U5
North River
733,332
776,611
66l,33h
Port Richmond
117,355
127,806
131,183
Population Tributary to
Other Plants
Oakwood Beach
3UA51
39,965
59,390
City-Hart Island
M63
3,869
5,595
- 90 -
-------
In order to keep abreast of this movement, the city prepared plans
and awarded contracts to expand existing plants, as follows; — Although the
population decreased, a shift in population brought about the need to in-
crease some of the other treatment plants «>
Capacity MGD
Estimated Cost
Project
Existing
Expanded
of Expansion
Coney Island
TO
110
$1H,000,000
Rockaway
15
30
6,000,000
Jamaica
65
100
17,2^0,000
Hunts Point
120
150
7a000,000
Tallmans Island
ho
60
6,500,000
Total
310
H5o
$50,750,000
Some $51,000,000 of scarce capital funds had to be diverted from con-
trolling pollution in unintercepted areas in order to prevent sewage over-
flows in areas already under control*
The city is now in the third and final stage of construction and by
1965 or shortly thereafter, plans call for completion of the following
projectsi
Amount
Est. Cost in
Commited
%
Capacity
Dollars
To Date
Com-
Project
MGD
1962 Prices
In Dollars
plete
Newtown Creek-(Brooklyn)
310
Ilt0,000,000*
Ul,770,519
80
Coney Island -
(3rd Stage) "
ho
1I4.,000,000**
12,705,216
85
Red Hook "
ho
17,250,000
Rockaway (2nd Stage) (Queens)
15
6,000,000a*
l;,95U,14+8
98
Jamaica " "
35
17j250,000**
16,113,225
• 5
Tallmans Island(2nd Stage)1'
ho
6,500,000****
North River (Manhattan)
220
87,000,000****
Wards Island (2nd Stage) -
Manhattan and Bronx
60
29,000,000***
Hunts Point (2nd Stage)(Bronx)
30
7,000,000**
6,250,000
0
City Island-Hart Island
(2nd Stage) w
1.5
500,000
Port Richmond Ext„ (Richmond)
ho
29,000,000
Tottenville "
6
hi 000,000
Fresh Kills "
10
7,000,000
Bloomfield "
10
5,000,000
Oakwood Beach
(2nd Stage) »
15
11;,250,000
- 91 -
-------
Project
Amount
Esto Cost in Commited' %
Capacity Dollars To Date Com-
MGD 1962 Prices In Dollars plete
Alterations and Additions to
Sewage Treatment Plants
Hi,000,000
Totals
872.5 397,750,000 81,793*U08
Notes
* Under Construction and Design
¦** Under Construction
¦sBBf- Under Design - Department Forces
Under Design - Private Engineers
The pollution control picture in New York City along the south shore
of Staten Island, Raritan Bay and the Arthur Kill is the brightest of all
areas in the city simply because the areas are largely undeveloped and be-
cause it is the intention of the city to construct separate storm and sani-
tary sewers in these areas„ No work is under way as yet but preliminary
studies are being made for the Tottenville area# Under the modified consent
order of the Interstate Sanitation Commission agreed to by the city in 1957,
the Tottenville, Fresh Kills and Bloomfield plants (areas 18, 17 and V? on
attached map) were to be undertaken after 1965„ However, because of the ex-
pected population increase due to the construction of the Narrows-Verazzano
Bridge, planning and design of these projects has been advanced# Tottenville
Treatment Works will be designed to give secondary treatment and effluent
chlorination# The Fresh Kills and Bloomfield Works will be designed for
primary treatment initially with space reserved for secondary treatment later
because it is the judgment of our engineers that all sewage entering the
Arthur Kill will have to receive secondaiy treatment in order to maintain a
minimum, dissolved oxygen content of 30 percent«
Because the city's sewerage system is largely of the combined type in.
which the same conduit conveys storm run-off and dry weather sanitary flow,
there is a certain amount of unavoidable pollution which escapes to the har-
bor when the combined storm run-off and sanitary flow exceeds the capacity
of the intercepting sewers. In general, the interceptors are designed to
convey twice the average dry weather flow to the treatment works« This
capacity is considered the most economical compromise and results in a loss
of sanitary sewage to the tributary waters of about 3 percent of the total
annual sanitary flow. While this appears to be a small amount in volume,
its sanitary significance is important because in the summer months when
bathing is popular, the bacterial pollution of the waters may exceed the
allowable standards of the Department of Health,, Past records show that, on
the average, we may expect rainfall twice a week in the summer of sufficient
- 92
-------
intensity to cause overflow of combined, sewers0 During these periods of
overflow up to 90 percent of the sanitary flow may escape® Coliform organ-
isms, which are indicators of possible disease-bearing organisms, die off at
a rapid rate in salt or brackish waters, but the residual population is- suf-
ficient to preclude safe public bathing in Jamaica Bay, the Upper East River
and in general, everywhere in the inner harbor0
In order to cope with this pollution problem, created by combined
sewer overflow, the Mayor's Committee on the Elimination of Sources of Mar-
ginal Pollution was formed under the charimanship of the Commissioner of
Public Works. This committee consists of the five borough presidents and
the Commissioners of Health and Parks <, with the Commissioner of Public Works
as chairman® Private consulting engineers were retained to study the prob-
lem in cooperation with our own engineers« Reports have been submitted
which propose solutions involving the construction of storm water treatment
plants and supplementary conduitss etc.9 which if successful would enable
the creation of additional bathing facilities in Jamaica Bay, at Marine Park
and Plum Beach in Brooklyn; and at Ferry Point- Park, Bronx; Clearview,
Queens; and other locations in Eastchester and Little Meek Bays. The costs
involved are estimated at ^175,000,000. This program is about to start with
an engineer's contract for the design of the first storm water treatment
plant at Spring Creek in Brooklyn® This will be a test installation.
The total pollution control program of the city may be summarized.
The overall pollution control program provides for treatment plants in
eighteen areas covering the five boroughs of the City of New York. The
ultimate goal is the treatment of about 1,700 million gallons of sewage per
day, the estimated ultimate sewage flow in the year 2000. With the comple-
tion of the first stage in 1959, about 50 percent of the ultimate goal was
reached. Capital funds expended for the first stage and prior construction
totals about $185,000,000. The city is now embarked on the second stage of
the work estimated to cost up to $1*155000,000 when completed. In addition,
a program for correction of pollution in beach areas caused by rainfall,
known as the Marginal Pollution Control Program, is estimated in the amount
of $175*000,000. This represents a total of about $775*000,000 for the
overall program.
The Tottenville areas and other areas of Staten Island contiguous to
Raritan Bay have been the last areas scheduled for pollution correction
(1966) due to their remoteness from the concentrated areas of pollution.
However, due to recent Federal interest in Raritan Bay because of certain
critical contamination of its waterss the pollution problem of the south
part of Staten Island has come into focus.
The city would be hard pressed to find funds for pollution control
construction at this time in this area because of the heavy commitments for
seven plants now in the process of expansion and the construction of its
largest plant, the Newton Greek plant, which will clear up to 320 MGD in
Lower Manhattan and large sections of Queens and Brooklyn. Further, planning
-93 -
-------
is under way for the 220 MG-D North River Plant which is scheduled for con-
struction in 1962*
The 1961 Capital Budget has an allotment cf $lil,380a000 for pollution
controlj including $500^000 Federal funds and $2j725sOOO State funds. While
this amount is far above the $22aCOO3000 rate pledged to the Interstate
Sanitation Commission,, it is below the needs of -the Department of Public
Works as stated in their 1962 capital budget request* The Department re-
quests- an amount of f99j260,000 of additional funds for 1962, |3£3OOOjOOO
for 1963, and $61,000,000 for 1961.
The estimated cost of the public works construction for the four
projects in- south Staten Island is about $3lj120,000. Planning for this
work is scheduled in 1966. Advancing the. work in Staten Island earlier than
1966 would aggravate the capital budget picture for 1962, 1963 and 196k
still more*
It is the considered opinion of Sew York City officials that protec-
tive measures for Raritan Bay waters are necessary? and such measures have
been fitted into an overall construction time schedule.. If Federal and
State government agencies concur on the need of a more urgent time schedule
of studies and improvements3 it does not seem unreasonable to anticipate
that these agencies would also be willing to furnish grants of funds per-
mitting both the city and the State of Mew York to proceed at an earlier
time#-
MR. STEIN: Dr. Kandle, does Hew Jersey have any comments or
questions?
DR. KANDLE: Mo*
MR. STEIN: Mr. Glenn, do you have any coTnment or questions'?
MR. GLENN; No.
1©. STEIN: Mr. Pinelj I have one question® I am a little puzzled by
your last statements If the Federal and State agencies concur, you say^ that
these agencies would also be willing to furnish grants of funds permitting
both the City and the State of New York to proceed at an earlier timeo By
that I assume you mean that the State should furnish you some funds?
MR. PINEL: That is the idea*
MR. STEIN: I just welcomed New York State aboard, Generally people
ask us* It is indeed refreshing to have you ask the State.
MR0 PINEL: Mr* Ingram is here from the Health Department if you wish
to ask any technical questions on this program*
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions?
- 9U -
-------
DR. INGRAHAM: I would like to call on Professor Ingram to speak
briefly, and also Dr. Fuerst from the New York City Health Department, and
Mr. O'Leary from the Department of Public Works.
MR. STEIN J What would your pleasure be before we go on with this?
I think if we push through, unless there are some unanticipated developments,
I think we may be able to complete this this afternoon. With that in mind,
do you think it would be appropriate to recess for 10 or 15 minutes now and
continue on through and try to complete this whole conference, if that is
agreeable? We stand in recess then for 10 minutes sharp.
(Whereupon, a recess was had.)
MR. STEIN; May we reconvene, please. Dr. Ingraham, would you
resume, sir.
DR. INGRAHAM: Yes. I would like to call on Professor Ingram, who
is consultant to the New York City Health Department, to make a few remarks.
MR. STEIN: Thank yon.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM T. INGRAM, ENGINEERING
CONSULTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER. OF HEALTH,
NEW YORK CITY
PROF. INGRAM: Maybe I can stand over here.. I. would like to comment
just a little bit more. My name is William T. Ingrame I am engineering
consultant to the Commissioner of Health, New York City. I would like to
comment a little bit further on one of the charts that is incorporated in
the statement of the City of New York, because it has some bearing on mate-
rial presented this morning by the Public Health Service with respect to the
degree of pollution of the Staten Island shore. They presented the informa-
tion which indicated the count showed.an increase in trend from 1958 to 1961.
There was also something he said about the shoreline of Staten Island being
of questionable water quality, and not acceptable by United States Army
standards. Of course, those are for drinking water and not for bathing in
naturally constituted waters. They have not been tried in the same way that
the New York City Health Department standards have been triedo
Many, tests have been carried out by the New York City Department of
Health, and studies have been conducted of coliform counts and viable patho-
gen manifestationso We find that these begin to appear when the 2,U00 coli-
form. occurs in the water with a great deal of reliability. So this is one
of the reasons why in 1958 the Department of Health and Board of Health
adopted as part of its declaration a standard of 2,U00 MP, per 100 milli-
liters .
Referring to the map — and I am sorry I do not have a beautiful
chart like the one that was demonstrated this morning to point to, but I
- 95 =
-------
think I can make this point rather clear with this — on an eleven-year
average basis the waters from about midway of the Midland Beach area, all
the way to Tottenville, are well within the New York City standards for.
bathing water quality of 2,1±00 MPN„ And the waters between Oakwood Beach
and Wolfe's Pond Park are below the 1,000 level, which from our point of
view takes them completely out of the questionable class altogether. These
waters, in other words, are good waters for bathing according to the New
York City Health Department standards.
I would like at this time to ask Dr„ Fuerst to make a further comment
concerning the remarks that were made in the New York City statement with
respect to the epidemiology of infectious hepatitis in New York City,
MR. STEIN; Before you leave, Prof. Ingram, I know the Army is not
here, and I think we are all working for the same kind of record, but the
Army does put out bulletins -- I think they call them T/B, which means tech-
nical bulletin, and not tuberculosis — and it says MED 163. Then when they
get into the appendix they talk about inland fresh waters and tidal salt
waterso I do think a fair interpretation or reading of the Army standards
will indicate that they do have a standard for salt water bathing when they
say over 2l;0 is unsatisfactory® I am not talking about the validity or lack
of validity, or the basis for their standards, but for the record I think
they purport to cover tidal salt water..
FROFo INGRAM; All righto I won't argue with you. Dr. Fuerst, could
you add some words?
STATEMENT OF DR. HAROLD T. FUERST, DIRECTOR OF
THE BUREAU OF PREVENTABLE DISEASES, NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DR. FUERST? Dr. Harold To Fuersts Director of the Bureau of Prevent-
able Diseases, New York City Department of Health® I would like to comment
on our investigations into the relationship of shellfish and hepatitis in
New York City in 1961# The situation came to our attention first of all
through Dr. Robert Korns of the State Health Department, who informed us in
a preliminary way of the findings of New Jersey<> This occurred about the
middle of April — April 12th or 13th, as nearly as I can remember. We were
informed that suspicion was aroused because of a difference in the age and
sex ratio in cases of hepatitis in. 1961 as compared with those of previous
years»
In looking over our records of current and previous years in New York
City we have found no such difference in the age or sex ratio« We always
had and continue to have a predominance of cases among males as compared to
females in a ratio of about 106 to 10 We also had, in reported cases at
least, a high share of adults, persons over 20. to 60 percent of our
reported cases being persons over 20.
-------
On receipt of this information we went ahead with a preliminary
investigation of our own along epidemiological lines, and the first type of
investigation that was done at that time, because it appeared most expedi-
tious , was an investigation of hepatitis cases then in hospitals. This was
carried out within a few days, as soon as this verbal report had been re-
ceived, and in the investigations that followed a series of controls was
investigated at the same time* Hepatitis cases then in hospitals were
visited and were questioned according to their prescribed questionnaire,
which had to do with shellfish eating habits in general, both cooked and raw
shellfish, and had to do specifically with the ingestion of raw shellfish
during the six-weeks' period prior to the onset of illness. The controls in
this investigation were persons hospitalized who did not have hepatitis, and
they were matched according to age and sex, and by proximity in the same
institution, in the same unit, and classified as to whether they were pri-
vate patients or service patients in these hospitals.
In this first group of individuals investigated there were 102 cases
of hepatitis and 97 controls» Among the 102 cases of hepatitis, 12.7 or al-
most 13 percent had eaten clams during a six^weeks' period prior to onset#
Among the 97 controls, matched in the way I have mentioned, percent, or
about 9 percent had eaten shellfish prior to the onset of their illness.
The differences obtained between the two groups were not significant in this
particular instance.
The second investigation that was carried on was a retrospective one
in which cases of hepatitis reported during the month previous to the origi-
nal observation mentioned, were reinvestigated and a series of controls
included herein, matched by place of residence and according to age, and
some rough estimate of economic status. In this second group we had 75
cases and 71 controls . Among the 75 cases in this group, 16 percent had had
raw shellfish prior to the onset of illness. Among the 71 controls, 7 per-
cent had raw shellfish prior to the onset of illness0
The third type of investigation, or the third series of cases inves-
tigated were those newly reported, following the original observations
reported to us about the middle of April. This group consisted of 268 cases
reported from the period April liith to June. 30th. With this group there
were 125 controls. The overall result in this third group indicate that
there were 268 hepatitis'cases of whom li;.9 percent, or 15 percent, had
shellfish prior to onset, while among the 125 controls 7 percent had such a
shellfish history.
Analyzing it statistically,, the differences in these groups did not
prove significant, but when all three groups were combined it has an overall
total of UU5 cases. The difference between hepatitis cases 'and controls
with regard to shellfish ingestion proved to be of borderline significance.
The grand total was UU5 cases of hepatitis, of whom 11;.6 percent had a
shellfish eating history. Among 293 controls J08 percent had the histoiy of
eating shellfish.
- 97 -
-------
We were interested in going into the differences bstween the results
obtained in New York City and those obtained in New Jersey, and I think part
of the answer here was furnished by an investigation of shellfish sources of
New"York City cases0 This investigation of shellfish sources was going on
concurrently with our investigation and with cur epidemiological investiga-
tions through the agency of the Shellfish Division of the Bureau of Food and
Drugs in the Department of Health0
I shall not go into the intensive tracing of shellfish sources
through retail outlets and wholesalers, and so on, but it appeared quite
obvious that there was no very predominant source for shellfish in New York
City; that the shellfish supply csr.e from all up and down the eastern sea-
boardj ar.d in particular it was estimated that no more than 5> percent of
the supply of raw shellfish sold and consumed in Mew York City came from
Raritan Bay waters. In conference with Dr. William Dougherty of the New
Jersey State Health Department., I find that his estimate is that about 70
percent, if I am not mistaken — about 70 percent of their shellfish supply
had come from the waters of Raritan Bay#
In going a little further into this situation we analysed a number of
cases of hepatitis and a number of cases, or a number of control individuals
in regard to the source of the shellfish consumed by them, and in this group
we found only two of 32 hepatitis cases that has a possible association or a
correlation with the Raritan Bay shellfish. Again quoting Dr» Dougherty as
the New Jersey State Health Department^ in their cases 89 percent — 8? per-
cent of their cases of hepatitis had an association or possible association
with clams taken from the Raritan Bay area*
So that in conclusion I would say that our results differed quantita-
tively in a very marked way from those of New Jersey, and it has been our
opinion that the difference reflects the difference in proportion of shell-
fish supply from Raritan Bey and the City of New York as compared with the
shellfish supply of the Raritan Bay in New Jersey*
MR. STEIN; Thank you. Let us see if there are any comments or
questions,, Are there any? Dr0 I r. graham 5
DR. DJGRAHM:- May I make one final statement? Kay I just note in
conclusion at this time then we have noted a number of items in the "report
that was presented this morning that we would like to investigate further
after a thorough and complete reading of the report as written, so we are
certain that we understand what was intended; and, we trust that through
the conferee, Dr0 Hilleboe, we will have an opportunity to place these com-
ments we may have on record in writing„
MR. STEIN: Yes, you will. Thank you. I would like, if we may, to
call on Dr. Langmuir to see if he has any comment.
STATEMENT OF DR. ALEXANDER LANGMUIRj CHIEF OF THE
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL BRANCH, COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CENTER
- 98 -
-------
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
EDUCATION AND WELFARE
DR. LANGMUIR; I am Dr. Alexander D. Langmuir, Chief, Epidemiology-
Branch of the Communicable Disease Center of the Public Health Service.
We are really in a very primitive stages in our understanding of the
relation of the eating of shellfish and hepatitis. It was only in March of
this year that the first epidemic known in the western hemisphere was
recorded. There had been one or two earlier suggestions, but the only well
recorded epidemic of hepatitis traceable to shellfish occurred this year,
and this was at Pascagoula, Mississippi. It is not pertinent to the clams
in Raritan Bay except that it illustrates the dynamic nature of our field of
epidemiology, and how an old-time disease like hepatitis takes on a completely
new emphasis in 1961.
Before this, to my knowledge, there was one epidemic in Sweden in
1955 traceable to oysters that were kept in a float in a certain harbor
where pollution came along, channeled in an unappreciated way. Here cases
occurred particularly among doctors and other professional groups in widely
separated parts of the country traceable to oysters which had been in one
float 0
At Pascagoula the evidence also is open and incontrovertibly clear
that the oysters that caused the outbreak came from a very small area near
the mouth of the Pascagoula River. It is a classic picture for which there
is no equal to my knowledge.
In the Raritan Bay situation I am reasonably familiar with the evi-
dence, I think, and to me the problem gets to be more muddied because of the
extraordinary shipment and trans-shipment and interchange of the clams in
the process of their merchandising, so that it is impossible to trace specif-
ically the clam that appears on a certain plate, to its origin. The impres-
sive thing to me is that there are as many as $0 to 100 clear-cut cases where
tiio only source was Raritan Bay, and then the possible sources covers a very
large portion of other cases.
As I watched and lived this with Dr. Henderson and the whole group of
people working with Dr. Kandle and Dr. Dougherty, the more detailed the
investigation, the more clear the picture became. This to me is perhaps not
crucia.1 in a sense of how many total cases are ascribable to the Raritan Bay
source, but certainly the entire picture in all of its details justifies the
conclusion that has been reached, which I think is an interpretative conclu-
sion that a substantial or a significant number of cases are traceable to
Raritan Bay.
Now, where in Raritan Bay they are traceable to is another problem
wholly different. This means getting eyewitness accounts in great detail
from the people who dig up the clams at various times of the day, and
~ 99 -
-------
sometimes at night I gather. This would seem to be a much more difficult
process»
I would say from the general background that I would predict that
there were probable relatively limited areas, rather than a whole area being
the source — the whole Raritan Bay. It is probably limited areas such as
at Pascagoula, and such as one float in Swederu But let us say we have only
these three incidents to go on» There is an enormous amount of additional
study and background necessary before we even begin to define these conditions.
To the question that you asked this morning about pollution and clams,
I would say with confidence that in waters that are polluted the risk of the
shellfish from those waters producing disease would be pretty much in direct
relation to the amount of pollution? and in a heavily polluted area I would
think that all of our knowledge points to this being a more hazardous place
to take clams or other shellfish„
With regard to Dr. Fuerst's comments, we have been very much inter-
ested in it and very much concerned because we anticipated that there would
be more shellfish-related hapatitis in New York because there is around this
metropolitan area this strong presumption, growing into solid evidence, I
am much impressed when he has gone into group after group, he has gotten
evidence that a small proportion of the hepatitis cases in New York seem to
be related^ I think his explanation is very sound that the source of shell-
fish in the city is probably to a very large degree other than from Raritan
Bay* Also I would urge that he separate his cases by socio-economic groups
and other kinds of circumstances because the cases in Mew Jersey and Nassau
seem to be among the more prosperous persons and traveling salesmen, and
those who go to some of the better restaurants. If you could separate out
the' cases in housing projects and other groups where we knew the disease
spreads by contact like measles — if you could eliminate those by some kind
of grouping, I wonder if your proportions in a smaller number of cases would
not show up more clearly that seme of your cases were related as w shell-
fish.
MR. STE-ISTs Thank you0
DR. INGRAHAMi• This concludes the presentation of the New York State
Department of Health, since Mr. O'Leary has not returned from his budget
hearing. I would like to say in closing, we in the State Health Department
are quite convinced, on the evidence presented, that clams from Raritan Bay
did in fact carry hepatitisj and in order that some of my earlier remarks
about procedural matters be not misconstrued, I should like to reaffirm for
the record that the New York State Health Department welcomes the interest
of the United States Public Health Service in efforts to abate pollution of
New York Harbor, and to assure you again we will join wholeheartedly in any
reasonable and cooperative endeavor to improve the situation.,
We are thoroughly convinced, on the basis of our past dealing with
- 100 -
-------
many members of the Public Health Service that nothing but good will come
of these cooperative efforts0
MR. STEIN: Thank you very mucho Dr „ In graham,, I would like to point
out this situation on procedural matterss and I think that the Interstate
Commission probably had a problem with that too0 It often arises in a cases
and we have to recognize that this is a very delicate area of operation —
State, Federal and interstate agency relationships — where the Federal Gov-
ernment, on its own initiative institutes an action® This was not done in
response to a formal request by a State agency<, This necessarily puts this
in a different posture«,
I do not want this analogy misconstrued,, but let us take the case of
a man parking his car ~ and I have been in this situation myself — where
I have parked my automobile in front of a fire hydrant and I come back and
find there is a ticket on it. I am a little irritated at the man who put
the ticket there0 No matter how we soften this we did send you a formal
notice, and we recognize this and recognize the problems« I think I would
like to regard this, and I know that the Surgeon General and the Public
Health Service regard this as part of our traditional Federal-State relation-
ships, working with the State health agencies„
We do have a statutory duty to perform under the law0 We believe
that this duty can be carried out within the framework of our traditional
relationships. We have had situations like this with more than half of the
States now and I do not think that we have done violence to the Public
Health Service - State Health Department relationships® I still go into
those States and we still call each other by our first names, and I hope
affectionately,,
I wonder, does anyone else have anything at this point? We called
for a discussion, but does anyone else in the audience or someone feel that
they have some compelling information that the conferees do not have before
them? If not we will go on to a discussion* I want to throw this open to
the conferees, if you wish, to discuss any of these aspects, or else we will
try to come up with a statement and. see how much we can reconcileo
DR. KANDLEs I think the conferees3 Mr. Chairman, if I may speak for
the conferees on this side of the table., feel as we stated earlier, that the
conference could properly be concluded by your summary, and we have tried to
indicate some of the things we might hope would be in the summary.,
MRe STEIN; Yes.
DR. KANDLEj We think we agree that our long-standing relationships
with the Public Health Service assure us of all good intent, and our purpose
is to maintain the Raritan in as good a state as it is possible for it to
be®
MR. STEIN: That is righto I think we might use that Chart No. 1 as
101 -
-------
something to talk to in general,, for the purposes of a sutimary0 I am sorry
that Mr. O'Leary is not here® I might ask some of the people who prepared
that. Why was the Passaic Valley Outfall put in that chart? Does that have
any relation to the Raritan Bay,, or does it just have some relation to what
comes through the Narrows?
MR. CLARK J Everything that comes down through the Narrows comes down
and makes a swirl down there.
MR. STEINj That is right. It is one of the areas I would like to
throw open for discussion. This was not much discussed and maybe we can
just hit on it right away, but as I see this, it is clear that the Raritan
Bay waters are interstate waters within the meaning of the Federal Act since
part of the boundary is across two or more States. The same thing is true
for the Arthur Kill« Aside from the question of whether the waters from
that materially affect the Raritan Bay or not then, they are interstate
waters within the meaning of the Federal Act.
In addition, we do have this upper bay situation. There may be all
the points theoretically at least, or all the possible sources of pollution
are the ones which were pointed out here, which may or may not be Arthur
Kill, depending on the flow patterns and what happened; and there may be
stuff coming out of the Narrows and swirling down in there« I do not know
whether we can get at all of the sources unless at least we take some cogniz-
ance of the upper bay, and this is where we may be left. This is an unknown
avenue which we have not gotten into, and it has not been covered because it
is outside of the scope.
DR. KANDLE: Could I make one other point?
MR. STEIN: Surely.
DR. KANDLE; In Mr0 Clark's statement, and in some of the discussion
that has come up here today, there has been also the point of run-off water.
I think we cannot ignore run-off water with the large land area we have
around here. This does raise, I think, some basic scientific problems with
which we are not dealing very adequately. I mean all of us collectively.
MR. STEIN: Right.
DR. KANDLE: Because it has been the presumption in years gone by that
run-off water was largely non-fecal in origine Now we are beginning to bring
these counts into these kinds of discussions,, A. number cf the counts which
were prepared today deal also with the problem of run-off water, so this is
not quite as simple as it used to be.
MR. STEIN: Right.
DR. KANDLE: And as he said there are a number of points that are
incident as to whether these were B. coli, or some other bug, and that sort
- 102 -
-------
of thing, We have this great big source,, and if we take it into accoxmt and
are going to use those numbers we were using then we have to argue about
that point too. and also the rainwater,, in the combined scope,,
KR» STEIHRighto I air. very hap^y yo" brought that up and I agree
with you» Xou may rsce.ll that at the close of Kr0 GLarkes statement 1 asked
him why the streptococci testing was not done in this area;, and evidently it
is a method not being used0 I have been impressed., in situations analagous
to this in. other parts of the country > where Mr» Clark and his group have
gone into streptococci testing., and they are able to tell or at least to
predict to the satisfaction of all the conferees there, and all the scien-
tific personnel on the staff} whether the germs car,e frc^v a hunan source,
and even trote it dcim to sheth.gr it cajr.e frozi a human or -warm-blooded ani-
sal, or whether it carae from rim-off off the land. These are very signifi-
cant things which may have to be looked into,,
I was impressed,, aside from the procedural arguments -» and I don't
know that we want to let these stand in our way in proceeding with a relation-
ship — but I was impressed with the fact that I do not think we are very far
apart either in seeking for knowledge on the pollution situation, or the
situation dealing with hepatitis° I think that the differences probably come
about because of the defective state of the art —= the lack of knowledge per-
haps — and the fact that.we have not had continuous exchange of views of
our professional staff over a period of time,, As I look at one of these
situations, it seems to me that after the professional staff works with it
we should be able to come to a unanimous statement on the physical conditions^
and the c&usal relationships of discharges cf waste into the Raritan Bay area
and the tributaries here» I don't knot? that we have not achieved that in.
many of the other cases that we have been involved in„
I think that the agreement on a factual statement — on a factual
statement that all parties can agree with — practically down to the last
figure| has been the most important thing in getting an equitable solution
of these cases "both frota the State s interstate and Federal levels> and by
the acceptance cf it by ths people® If you look at the history of these
cases, this is what has happened» I trill "take ss an example what happened
at my own backdoor^ the Potomac River*. There we did not call the stcrm
water overflows marginal pollution became that was what was messing up the
river. That river had been studied nore than any other body of water to my
knowledgej and yet until we could get everyone to agree on facts ve were not
moving toward a solution where all of the different jurisdictions would agree
on a solutiona This was done^ and I think that problem is on its way to
being solveda
Then we can say that these are interstate waters within the meaning
of the Act« The point of the Surgeon General in the calling of this confer-
ence — and here is where we may ccise to a difference — is an indication
that the discharges frorn. "both Mew York, and TSew Jersey are causing conditions
of pollution in these waters which endanger health or welfarej or^ which he
believes endangers health or welfare„ The conclusions of both the major
- 103
-------
investigators from Public Health Service and the facts presented in the
particular statement, and the facts presented by Dr. Henderson, indicate
that they concur in this belief„
DR. KANDLE: Dr. Henderson was in past tense.
MR. STEIN: That is righto It was in past tense* However, this is
what we point out: That shellfish beds are closedo Now the fact that shell-
fish beds are closed -- and I think on this we are all agreed —* the Inter-
state Commission said or indicated that it was because of the conditions
that arose that shellfish beds are closedo
DR. KANDLE: No„ Let us be clear about this,,
MR. STEIN: All righto
DR. KANDLE; Those beds were closed because of the hepatitis»
EE. INGRAHM: I think that is very clear»
MR. STEIN: That is right, but there were other beds closed to the
taking of shellfish in the Raritan Bay area, and they have been closed over
a period of long standing. .
DR. KANDLE: Sure0
MR. STEIN: What I am pointing out is under the conditions of the
waters you closed those beds in New York and New Jersey. It is a valid
reasono The very fact that we have a certain quality of water and we have
shellfish there* And but for that quality of water people would be happy
to use and harvest the shellfish; and the Departments of Health in both
States I assume would not prohibit anyone taking shellfish from water if
shellfish were there and they wanted to take it, if there was not a valid
reason. The fact that these beds are closed indicates there is a condition
of water quality which makes you close the'shellfish beds<>
DR. INGRAHAM: That, of course, gets into the larger question of
what is the best use of those waters.
MR. STEIN: That I know0
DR. INGRAHAMs That has to be decided before it can be said they are
a detriment to health„
MR. STEIN: That is right.
DR. INGRAHAMs That is right.
MR. STEIN: You might say a detriment to health or welfare of the
community, or the people gathering the shellfish. This may be a pointo
- ioU -
-------
This is a point., and these are the various points where we may differ® I
think the Surgeon General's belief is — and this is the point — I do not
want to single out shellfish —
DR. INGRAHAi"!t Fe are talking about this], so let us pursue the shell-
fish problem,,
MR. STEIN; All right. But I think the fact that the beds were
closed, one; and two, the fact that there was hepatitis, I think caused the
Surgeon General to say in his belief that health or welfare was endangered.
That word "endanger" we have been over now* It means to put in peril® It
does not mean that someone is acutely getting sick right now<,
DR. INGRAHAM: Has there been a determination by the Surgeon General
that this is so., or was this conference called to investigate this?
MR« STEINs That is right, but he called this on the belief® That is
why I want,to get down to these elementso I think that the Surgeon General
called this conference because he had this belief that health or welfare was
being endangered on the basis of all these factors„ One was the shellfish
situation, with both the closed beds and the outbreak of hepatitiso Two,
was the fact that you do have parks and recreation facilities, and people
go there and come into contact with waterj and, three, the waters are used
for bathings pleasure boating., water skiing and. fishing.. The fishing we are
not talking about, as I understand it, in terns of deleterious effects on
fish life, except possibly in the center of the Arthur Kill where the oxygen
has dropped way lowj but people do handle fishing equipment, and fish, and
so fortho
MR. GLEMs But that was not classified as being for recreational
purposes up there at the Arthur Kill*
MR, STEIN s That may be0
MR. GLENN; Which was said after having a public hearingo
MR. STEHs That well may be, and this raises another philosophical
question — the question of the best uses of the water,. I dc not think we
have to get into this here, and I certainly hope we can come to a solution
without getting into these ultimate philosophical questions, because there
are many questions that the courts have not solved for 150 years0
DR. KANDLE; I would like to make one point, Mr0 Chairman: That the
hepatitis episode is unique, and I don't think one can say that because there
are some portions of the bay which are-not available for shellfish, that the
public health is endangered® Because the facts are we have been in this
business for fifty years and we have not endangered the public health, but
have been regulating this industry as we have to regulate the milk industiy,
and almost all of the food industries0 There is not any liberty just to go
- 105 -
-------
and come as you like, whether it is in bathing, or whatever. The facts are
that we have inter-regulation and we and the industry have been working
together and have been in this shellfish business for all of these years
without endangering the public health«
This year we had something that had not happened.. There had not been
an outbreak in the country like this for maybe seven years, and maybe not
before thato I cannot go back into the exact influence of this but this is
a unique episode<> We havg. to admit thato The facts are that the outbreak
is over, according to the data in New Jersey, and I do not think there is
evidence at the current time that there is danger to the public health.
MR. STEIN: That may be. What we are doing is exploring the possi-
bilities o I do not want to blur over differences that we have. I am not
certain that there would be unanimity of opinion that this necessarily is a
unique episode» Some people may have the view that this may be a recurring
type of episode which just was not analyzed before this . That is a
possibility,, I do not know-®- These are theoretical possibilities. Again,
I think in this whole business dealing with the Surgeon General's position —¦
and this is what I hoped we would not get into, and I hoped to hit the other
point here — the question here is thiss Our statute says, "endanger health
or-wel£sre of persons in another State." The question here is, whether by
the setting of- a.st^pdard by a State agency, or certainly a water using
standard, whether for Federal purposes this is considered to endanger health
or not» At least with respect tp bathing beaches the Army seems to have a
different view than you do here.
DR. KANDLE:: They certainly doc A unique view®
MR. STEIN2 I don't know whether it is unique because it seems to be
the general view of the people of the State agencies of the Pacific North-
west. I am not judging either way on it, but as a matter of fact the best
judgment is to get a 2J4P coliform count in all of the waters of the Columbia
River, in the( Pacific Northwest; and the people who know the technical dif-
ficulties of achieving that have to swallow pretty hard. But it is the point
they make?
These things, I think, have to be taken into account and resolved,
but let me give you the composite of what the Surgeon General thought. He
thought that'there was a danger to health and welfare because of the effects
on shellfishj that the water was used for commercial fishing and sport fish-
ing, pleasure boating and water skiing, and so forth. I think the report
also talked in terms of the kills affecting wildlife.
DR. WENDELL: I want to make sure I understand, Mr» Chairman.
Neither you nor the Surgeon General, as you understand his position, would
contend, would you, that there was a danger to public health unless all of
the waters of Raritan Bay were suitable for shellfish, would you?
MR, STEIN: I don1t understand your question and I donTt think it is
- 106 -
-------
my function here to contend anything* I am just trying to get a factual
picture. I certainly can't speak for the Surgeon General, Dr. Wendello
DR. WENDELL: In your own view, in explaining your interpretation of
the statutory language with respect to conditions endangering public health
or welfare, as part of your own explanation you wouldn't contend, or would
you, that there was within the meaning of this statute a danger to public
health or welfare unless all of the waters of Raritan Bay were suitable for
shellfish"?
MR. STEIN; I do not think I am capable of making a judgment on that
on the basis of the information I have at this time.
DR. WENDELL: In other words3 you certainly, in your interpretation
of this statute, have not determined any such thing?
MR. STEIN: I have made no judgment on that basis.
DR. WENDELL: All right®
MR. STEIN: I think in view of these epidemiological studies from New
York, and Dr. Henderson, and Dr. Langmuir, I would have to know a lot more
about this before I would presume to make a judgment, and I would hope that
through this process we would get the conferees to make a unanimous judgment.
I do not think it would be helpful to the whole conference process if we
would stake ourselves out, or at least if I would, on any individual area of
judgment at this time»
DR. WENDELL: Right.
DR. LANGMUIR: May I speak to this point as to whether or not the
Raritan Bay hepatitis is unique? I hope it is unique, Dr. Kandle, but I
think we ought to have a little more time to observe it. Until March of
this year we didn't know of any such event, that is, shellfish leading to
hepatitis. We were not aware, and I am relatively close to it. We have
not had a single outbreak of diarrhea relating to shellfish — certainly
not a proved one — in more than twelve years.
From the time that the Pascagoula outbreak occurred, it brought atten-
tion on the problem, and it was as a result of joint conferences with you and
Dr. Dougherty that the whole problem was uncovered. If there had not been
a good deal of push here, it will would not have been uncovered. In the
process of this a small outbreak traceable to the digging of bait clams off
the point of Greenwich, Connecticut, has been uncovered. Clams were being
taken in an illegal area but the association was found.
On top of this, not too widely publicized, but a matter of clear
record, three separate studies have been made among the members of the Fed-
erated scientific societies meeting in Atlantic City, where diarrhea was
- 107 -
-------
traceable to the consumption of clams during the middle of April. I feel
th/is is a little ominous to have four distinct episodes: Pascagoula, Rari-
t&n Bay, Atlantic City and Greenwich, all come up within a matter of three
©r four months#
I question whether we can call it now an unique thing, and 1 would
think we have every reason to feel we will have more outbreaks associated
with shellfish during the coming years®
MR. STEIN: I think we have to say on the basis of the reports3 and
at least on the conclusions of the Public Health Service staff investigators 3
that there is pollution of the Raritan Bay area and waters covered by this
conference« I want to make this clears That the only reason that the Rari-
tan River was included in New Jersey was as a tributary0 I do not know
whether that is within the jurisdiction at least of the Federal agency,
other than as a tributary which might be contributing to pollution. We have
to cover all tributaries. But there was pollution caused by discharges from
both States which endangered health or welfare. That was the conclusion of
the Public Health Service investigators„ I don't know whether we can say at
this time that we have agreement from the State agencies that this is the
case, although the State agencies speak more or less in terms of certain
areas of pollution. Is this correct, or do any of you want to associate
yourselves with the motion that there is pollution of the interstate waters
of the Raritan Bay area caused by discharges from both States?
DR. KANDLE: If you define pollution broadly, of course it is so. I
think we will have to talk about intolerable pollution.
MR. STEIN: That is right0 I do not think we are talking about the
extento I think there is a pollution situation in the interstate waters of
the Bay. As I say, I don't think we are very far apart? I think New York
City, of course, is much farther along, at least in the material they pre-
sented here, than some of the others we have seen® That is, they have a
construction schedule. They are moving along with the construction schedule.
Presumably this is the ultimate goal that we may be facing, but in order to
take up your points —¦
DR. KANDLE: Mr. Chairman, may I say I am a little surprised at that
with all due credit to New York City. We do have a plan. We didn't outline
it in that sort of specificity but the fact is that we are quite well ahead
in a sense, we know. I spoke about the four places which we are working on
hard now, and we are working jointly under a plan as the Interstate Commis-
sion said with respect to the Kill, under a set of ground rules as we under-
stand them. We certainly got a long ways ahead when we got to Middlesex,
and straightened that out0 So we surely have a plan, and I think while we
are not complacent and are not satisfied, that the record of the fact that
there is a plan and it is proceeding well> and we are working hard at it,
seems to be to be incontrovertible.
MR. STEIN; I would agree with that« I was talking in terms of the
- 108 -
-------
presentation of the New York group. I think if we possibly take up your
points we can take it from the beginning or we cari take the main one -- or
the ones you or I consider such — and the others might fall into place® If
we take your point 3j would you object to taking that first?
DR. KANDLEs No.
MR. STEIN: "That scientific data taking into account a wide range of
factors and technological problems, including health, conservation, water
policy and uses and industrial processes are urgently needed, and are the
critical issue in further control of pollution in the Raritan Bay."
I think this assumes that there is pollution in the Raritan Bay —
"o.in further control of pollution«" Is that correct?
DR. KANDLE: Sure.
MR. STEIN: Okay. I would suggest in looking at the state of the
data as we presented it, we were as acutely aware of the gaps and deficien-
cies as you were, but what we did was we checked around with every available
source to see what we could find. I do not think we were trying to develop
anything at the last minute. The difficulty was, in presenting the data on
the basis of available.sources. I think we ail recognize the need. What I
would propose is that in order to get this scientific data, and since the
Surgeon General is required to make a recommendation on the conclusions of
the conference, I don't know that I for one — and I don't know about you as
colleagues of the Surgeon General — can go back and say we can make a firm
recommendation to him on the basis of the data we have now.
What I am suggesting is that the Public Health Service, in its
traditional role of cooperating with the States, institute a study, or in-
stitute an investigation to take into account the factors that you had in
No. 3? in cooperation with the State and interstate agencies,,
DR. KANDLE: May I suggest a different verb?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
DR. KANDLE: May I suggest you join us in our work?
MR. STEIN: We would be happy to do that. We have a statutory .respon-
sibility for developing something. This is something that always comes up.
We have no objection to putting it this way. The point is, when we join with
you we all have budgetary and administrative problems * We have a statutory
obligation to follow this through. What I am saying is, what we would sug-
gest is that because of our statutory responsibility that we, from an admin-
istrative and financial standpoint, underwrite this and be sure it goes
through to completion; and we would do this in the traditional way that the
Public Health Service does, hopefully, when we produce a report. And as far
- 109 -
-------
as I can see we are dealing with physical facts and should be able to come
to a complete agreement on the presentation of those facts» Is that agree-
able or not?
DR. KANDLEs I will react firsto I think that I have no great point
of difference of opinion, except that I do not think that it is simply facts
that we need, in the sense of our questions <> I think those are pretty well
knowno If we collected all the data we all know about —¦ ours and yours —
and after all most of the data you presented was ours —
MR. STEIN: That is correct,,
DR» KANDLE: We can compile that and we know it pretty well. The
problems are technological and very difficult problems of what to do within
the scope of the purpose of the waters, and what we can afford, and all the
things that go along with it„ Those are the sort of things we need to join
forces abouto
MR. STEIN: You said that in No, 3„ I think we can at least identify
the ideaso I don't know that we necessarily have to assume we are going to
come up with a different view on water policy9 on water uses, industrial
processes, and so forthc In dealing with water quality problems throughout
the country, and the problems you have worked with in CEC, there is no dif-
ference in viewpoint, I think, in what we want to do and what we are trying
to get ato I think we should try to proceed with this and put in whatever
has to be done to do it0
In this we would ask or try to ascertain what the State and inter-
state agencies were going to do or planning to do, and we would, in consul-
tation with them, indicate to them what we were going to do, for example®
I would suggest that we set ourselves — so we can have this work out -- a
date of not later than a year from today to reconvene the conference and see
what we have come up with in this investigation, and see if we can proceed
with thato
In addition, I think to get the first point you make about taking
cognizance of State agencies and the experience of the State and interstate
agencies in dealing with and preventing the pollution of Raritan Bay, I
think that we all have to recognize we have a situation here which is very
"much different than we have in certain other areas of the country., By and
large the wastes here are getting some sort of treatment,. We do not have
the situation where we have these tremendous cities just dumping their'wastes
in raw. I think you have had effective agencies operating for many years in
going programs®
Under Point No„ 2, I am not sure at this stage, and I have no objec-
tion to that, but I am not sure that this would not be better to be a conclu-
sion possibly of this investigation rather than a statement now, because we
may say we prejudge thato Again I am looking at this on the basis not so
- 110 -
-------
much th&t I do not think that has not been so, but on the basis of our data,
that w& have presented here today I would hesitate to make any firm state-
ments of this kind^ which we may have to pull back possibly in some areas
later on.
So if that is agreeable maybe we can allow that to be a task of the
study groupo
DR. KANDLE; I think it is the feeling of the conferees that the
statement is so.
MR, STEIN? I think we can indicate that.
DR. WENDELL; Is there any disagreement among the conferees as to
whether that is so?
MRo STEIN2 I don't say that there is disagreement.
DRo WENDELL? Then it is & conclusion of the conferees.
MR. STEIN? I think we have many other conferees. We can say that
this is an agreement of the State and interstate agencies. On the basis of
the dat.a that we have, I think we are going to have to evaluate this a
little more«
DRi WENDELL? Under the statute these are the only conferees, aren't
they?
MR. STEIN?; No. The Public Health Service is a conferee. Isn't
that correct?
DR. WENDELL? In other words, this is a unanimous conclusion of the
confer§|,s other than the Public Health Service, and the Public Health Ser-
vice presently has no position. Is that it?
MRi STEIN? When you say, "unanimous conclusion other than® I am a
little puzzled. I think it is a conclusion of the conferees representing
both States and the interstate agency, and I think we can come to an agree-
ment on that.
DR. INGRARAM: Would you agree, Mr. Stein, that there is progress.
It is a question of how far and how much.
MR. STEIN? Yes.
DR. INGRAHAM? This statement says there has been a continuous up-
grade,, of course. That statement is pretty much incontrovertible on the
basis of evidence presented here todays isn't it?
MR, STEIN? Yes.
- Ill -
-------
DR. INGRAHAM: Whether the progress is fast enough or goes far enough,
there may be some area for discussion as to that, but the statement as it
stands I find very difficult to quarrel with.
MR. STEINs Do you want to stop on that? What you have said here is
this; Let's read this0 I have no objection to stopping with this clear
statement that there has been and continues to be progress under a plan, and
what you are dealing with is healthy conservation and the economy of the
area. I haven't heard very much in the record about the economy of the area,
and this is where we get into specifics. This is the problem,,
DR. INGRAHAM? It was certainly touched on in the New York City
reporto
MR. STEIN; Yes.
DR. INGRAHAM; The economy and money that has been raised, and some
relationship to resources0
MR. STEIN; All I am saying, being here as a representative of the
Surgeon General, is that I do not think we have sufficient data to be able
to say this. We have no objection to this, and by not joining in we are not
in any way disagreeing with this. All we are saying is that the data pre-
sented at this conference does not hit all of these points,, I don't see
that there is any objection to saying that the conferees representing the
States were in agreement that there has been and continues to be progress
under State and interstate agencies <, Can't we say that in summaiy?
DR. INGRAHAM; I think we would be inclined to think we presented
evidence today to indicate that there is a plan and there is progress.
MR. STEINg 0h5 do you want to say that?
DR. INGRAHAMs And much has been accomplished®
MR. STEIN; I would agree with that. If you want to work out a
sentence on the first line of it, "There has been and continues to be pro-
gress, under plan," that is fine<> That I think we can certainly say.
However, as you recognize, I am going to have problems relating this on the
basis of this record, to the economy of the area.
DR. INGRAHAM; That is something I think we will all have to agree
could be looked into.
MR. STEIN; That is right. But could we arrive at an agreement —
DR. INGRAHAM; Whether each area is stretching itself to its economic
utmost.
MR. STEIN; This may or may not be the case. Could we agree that we
- 112 -
-------
will all agree that there has been and continues to be progress under a
plan?
DR. KAKDLE; I agree to that,
DR. INGRAHAMi Okay*
DR« KANDLE; I want to say with regard to the economy matter, there
are many other aspects in addition to the one Hollis has spoken about, ob-
viously, again going back to the use of the -water; because if one or another
State elects to invite in and maintain, for example, the petroleum industry,
one makes certain basic decisions and lives with them.
Ml. STEIN: That is correct. It is the kind of stuff that we at this
point I don't think have considered* Speaking individually, I my -want to
go out and make a judgment,. but speaking for the Public Health Service, we
can'tfr It is a problem which you people have been living -with intimately-
all the time, and I don't think we can go back to Washington and snow the
Surgeon General on the basis of the record' that this was a conclusion that
we had the kind of evidence, or that we looked into it sufficiently to come
to this conclusion at this point, that this is not entirely so? or that this
is so important,.
The next two points —
MR. MINCHER: Mr. Stein_, can I ask a question? Does that mean Item
2 is taken in toto as it stands in Br. Kandle's statement?
MR. STEIN.* No. Item 2 we will take the first line of, which is the
statement that there has been and continues to be progress under a plan to
abate pollution of the waters of Raritan Bay and its tributaries. It is
something we can all agree on* Is that right?
DRo KANDlEs I do not have any quarrel with that. The fact that it
is under the surveillance of a variety of agencies seems to rae te be a very
clear point of views but I don't know that it is a world-shaking observation.
MR. STEHi: Again we have a question here. I don't know whether this
is the place to discuss it„ I would rather -not raise points of difference
at' this s-fcaggo Cn t-he mavter of surveillance the question here is whether
they have -done it cften enough, which is a question we cad not get into, and
there may very well be differences of opinion on ita I don1t have any judg-
ment on that at the present time, and it might be at the next session of this
conference before we come up with a judgment of the surveillance question.
It is an area ..which I would hope ve possibly would not raise, since we are
in such close agreement:
As to the last two points you have in your statement, I do not know ,
whether it is appropriate for the summary, but as far as we are concerned we j
- 113 -
-------
would certainly be an agreeable bunch of fellows if the other conferees want
them in.
DR. KANDLE: I think they were looking forward, Mr. Chairman, to the
fact that the Public Health Service and the Surgeon General, as a result of
this day's endeavor and all the work that went before it — that you were
going to present a summary, and as I understood it, you would negotiate that
with us,
MR. STEIN: Yes.
DR. KANDLE: And then if we were in agreement that would in fact be
a conclusion, and we would not be having a recessed conference but we would
finish the conferenceo
MR. STEIN: I don't know, and here is the point. I don't think at
this stage that we can, unless we go through this scientific study, come to
a conclusion and report back to the Surgeon General that we are prepared on
the basis of the record that we have made today, gathered from all sources
— that we are prepared to conclude this conference.
DR. KANDLE: The conferees agree. The other conferees agree.
MR. STEIN: This is one we can differ on, but I personally don't
think on the basis of what we have — and as a matter of fact, Dr. Kandle,
you yourself pointed out the inadequacy of some of the data, and the gaps in
the conclusions. We recognized this when we put it forward. As I pointed
out, there are, I think, very, very substantial questions here that I think
need a little further elaboration. For example, what is coming down from
the Narrows; whether there is pollution endangering health and welfare in
fact from Arthur Kill, and how the water from the Arthur Kill comes out;
whether the Army is correct in saying that those beaches are off-limits and
should not be used. After all, this is the official publication of another
Federal agency. It is the kind of stuff we would try to work out in the
next year with you.
MR. GLENN: You are out of the Raritan Bay area now when you are
talking about considering the Arthur Kill and the upper harbor. I thought
our summary should be on the Raritan Bay area.
MR. STEIN: Arthur Kill was included in the notices#
MR. GLENN:: No.
DR. WENDELL: Only to the extent that it may be a tributary and it
may affect the Raritan Bay waters.
MR. GLENN: Yes,
MR. STEIN: That is correct. Let us read the notice of the conference.
- Ill; -
-------
We have no knowledge at the present time that the Arthur Kill does not go
into the Raritan Bay or put wastes into the Raritan Bay® It is one of the
problems we have to consider® As I understood Mr. Clark's report it was
indicated that water or pollution in the Arthur Kill could under certain
circumstances get to all portions of Raritan Bay., There was some informa-
tion given to the contrary. This is one of the areas we are going to have
to look into.
DR. WENDELL: It is just what we find so difficult to understand, Mr.
Chairman, What you are now saying, when we talk of today's proceedings is
that the Surgeon General has called a conference on the basis of inadequate
information^ that he has presented here today in his statement no informa-
tion or inadequate information with respect to these points we are now talk-
ing aboutj and that on the basis of this inadequate information, both exist-
ing and presented here, the fact that the Surgeon General who called the
conference has for some reason not presented the information is a reason
why we should have another conference®
MR. STEIN: Just a moment now, Mr® Wendell. Just wait* The Surgeon
General presented this conference on the basis of information he had avail-
able to him.
DR. WENDELL: Which was inadequate#
MR. STEIN: Wait a minute. One of the things he had as a reason for
the conference was that, what was the number? 73 people had infectious
hepatitis® But for sewage pollution these people would not have had infec-
tious hepatitis from the oysters or clams in Raritan Bay. Another bit of
information he had was that the Army had declared the beaches of Staten
Island off-limits for soldiers® And as far as I am concerned, I never dis-
obeyed that when I was in the Army. When they told me it was off-limits
because of pollution I didn't go swimming theree
Another bit of information he had was that waters were extensively
used for bathing and water skiing, for pleasure boating, etc0 The informa-
tion we had from our chief investigator and his staff indicated that contact
with and ingestion of these waters was endangering health® The information
we had from our group indicated pollution from all of these sources could
reach every other part of Raritan Bay®
What we are saying here is that on the basis of information you have
given, or the other -conferees have given, that there is not unanimity of
opinion on this, and we recognize that. What we are suggesting is, in order
to resolve this in a positive way, instead of going at this, to use the sug-
gestion that Dr. Kandle made, namely, "That scientific data taking into
account a wide range of factors and technological problems, including health,
conservation, water policy and uses and industrial processes are urgently
needed, and are the critical issue in further control of pollution in the
Raritan Bay®" There it is® This we could all agree on and go forward with.
- 11^ -
-------
I don't see the point in emphasizing differences if we want to go forward
and provide something useful as a result of this conferenceo
MR. GLENN: Would you say these waters are good maybe for everything
with the exception of shellfish?
MR. STEIN: I don't think we can say this at this time*
MR. GLENN: What I am getting at is, a year from now will the Public
Health Service or anyone else know how much treatment will be required to
remove infectious hepatitis?
MR. STEIN: A year from now we will know whether we can make that
judgment, or whether we are in sight of the answer to the problem,. We close
these things out, and we don't expect to stay here forever, but certainly at
this point it is our job, and I think these people who have watched this
throughout the country have recognized that our job is to turn this over to
the State and local authorities and the interstate agencies and get out of
this as fast as possible. Gne of our hard jobs, and something you at this
stage might not realize, is terminating the case and getting out# This is
something that sometimes is difficult to do.
DR. KANDLE: It is suggested by the dollars.
DRo WENDELL; We are offering you the opportunity to do just thato
MR. STEIN: I suspect, Dr. Wendell, that you would have offered this
opportunity before we called the conference.
DR. INGRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I hope you are not equating the two
bases on which you said the Surgeon General considered there was a question
of pollution, that is, the Army declaring bathing beaches off-limits —¦
which is a fallacy based on what we know not; and the careful study that
indicated cases of hepatitis did come from clams in Raritan Bay.
MR. STEIN: No, I am not equating it. I think at this stage what we
would like to do is just put out a laundry list of all the factors without
equating one against the other, because again I do not think we are in a
position to equate or jointly come up with an opinion on this. I think
after this investigation we would.
DR. INGRAHAM: Everyone concedes that there is pollution in Raritan
Bay. There is no question about that by any definition you try to draw up„
There is certainly human feces in Raritan Bay, and there is evidence of it®
On the other hand, the question of what the best use of Raritan Bay is, is
a very serious and difficult problem.
MR. STEIN? We agree.
DR. INGRAHAMs: And I think we always have to bear in mind that point,
- 116 -
-------
and not merely say that there is pollution and, therefore, something must be
done about it# We have to decide how much needs to be done.
MR. STEINj I think we are in perfect agreement on that, and I hope
that the other conferees ar.e.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Stein, I do not want to prolong this, but there is
something I would like to get clarified. Mr, Dappert, the New York State
Health Department has certain bacteriological standards for classifying
swimming water. It is my understanding that these standards call for the
following; I am reading from what I think are those standards. It says:
"(a) Satisfactory sanitary survey.
"(b) Average content of coliform organisms not in
excess of 2I4.OO per 100 ml. of water for any given series of
10 or more samples from a beach except when the results of
a sanitary survey may justify the use of the lower average
of 2U0 per 100 ml. of water for any given series of 10 or
more samples collected from a beach."
Then it gives an explanation of what you mean when you talk about not
going by the 2l;00, and then it says:
"For instance, high coliform content as a result of
drainage from manured fields would have little sanitary
significance, thus permitting the acceptance of the water
for bathing purposes. On the other hand, low average values
may be associated with high maximum value shown by the sani-
tary survey to be due to fluctuating pollution of public
health significance."
MR. DAPPERT: What are you reading from?
MR. KLASHMAN: I am reading from an extract of your classification
for bathing waters. Am I taking it out of context?
MR. DAPPERT: I would like to see that one, because I am quite sure
it has nothing in the record with reference to standards we set up from the
standpoint of the Water Pollution Control Board.
MR. STEIN: This is going to be a problem. I do not know that we
should at this point continue particularly to get into a discussion of the
validity of any particular standards. I appreciate your point of view on
the standards. You have to recognize our point of view. They are a sister
agency — a Federal agency — and they did put this out. We would like to
explore it, but we do not know whether we can resolve it here.
DR, KANDLE: Can I point out that through the American Public Health
Service as long as I can remember, and I was associated with it intimately
- 117 -
-------
— which dates back to 19U6 — that the Public Health Service and the APHA
and the Association of State Sanitary Engineers, etc., have been wrestling
with this problem of bathing standards, and I don't think there is any
agreement about ito
MR0 KLASHMNs That is true.
DR. KAMDLE; So could you be able to say that the United States Army
is finally solving this great problem?
MR. STEIN: I don't think we have said that and I don't think this is
the place or the forum in which to do it. That is why the Public Health
Service has always come to a substantial agreement with the State Health
Department on the applicability of bathing standards to that State. There
has been no controversy about it, and 1 don't look for controversy in that
area here. I don't know. This is something which we have a traditional way
of working out.
MR. KLASHMAN: I just meant that the Army standards are not capricious.
MR. DAPPERT: For the record I would like to straighten this out. I
think Mr. Klashman is getting something confused which does not apply for the
standards of Class A or Class B waters as specified in the standards estab-
lished by the Water Pollution Control Board. We have no bacteriological
standards in those specifications 0 The only standard that has been made is
the one In connection with sewage.
MR. KLASHMAN % No. This is out of the Sanitation Manual, Interpretive
Material.
MR. DAJFPERTs It is a guide and not actually a standard.
DR, COLCSIs Mr. Chairman,, I have been acquainted with the waters
surrounding Staten Island and Raritan Bay since 193$° I am a bacteriologist
and I have"made dozens of surveys. I know since 1935 there has been a tre-
mendous improvement in the bacteriological quality of water. We accepted
here the recommendations of Dr. Kandle that clear progress has been made and
is being made0 Do we understand that the intervention of the Public Health
Service would hasten or accelerate this progress? This is one question I
have in my mind. These agencies we are accepting nox-/ are producing satis-
factory results.
MR. STEIN; There are several conclusions in that. One is, I don't
know whether I would use the word "intervention,," Secondly, whether it
would hasten progress or not-is difficult to say at this stage. I think that
the record shows in other areas progress has been hastened, but the point is
this: We dos sir, have a statutory charge and a statutory obligation to do
this® This is an Act that the Congress of the United States passed. This
is something we are bound to. I am here as an administrator, administering
- 118 -
-------
the Act. If it is demonstrated over a period of time that this kind of
process does not hasten progress and as a matter of fact impedes it --
although I don't think that that is the conclusion of the Congress, because
they just extended this provision and liberalized it, and they thought that
this provision did expedite progress and it has been one of the few items
in our budget which has not been cut over a period of years as it went
through, and in addition these are judgments that are made by the Congress
and not us» So I would ask you again in that spirit to see if we can corae
to an agreement here because I recognise from the interests you represent
that you have to understand the spirit I am here in, in carrying out and
administering the Federal law.
DR. WENDELLs Mr. Stein, is it the policy of the Public Health Service
as you know it in administering this statute, to go into areas where there
is steady and continuing progress being made without such a conference
technique?
MR» STEIN: I don't know that there is any such policy® AH I know
is that the law is clear. When the Surgeon General has reason to believe
that certain conditions exist, it says he shall call the conference.® He
arrived at that belief and the law was clear. He was required under the
law to do this. This law says, "when the Surgeon General has reason to
believe." This places a discretionary duty in the Surgeon General.
DR. WENDELL: If it is discretionary then it is up to him to decide
whether he goes in or not*
MR. STEINr No. As one of the lawyers in our office said, he is the
only one in the world who knows what,he believes, and I am sure that the
Surgeon General is the only one in the world who knows what he believes; and
if the Surgeon General has reason to believe this, he has to do this® I
don't think this is done by the Surgeon General or anyone else in any kind
of antagonistic fashion. It is recognized as a continuing program of work-
ing with- the State and interstate agencies.
Is there anything more, or are there any other comments, or are we
in substantial agreement on the basis of the summary.
DR. WENDELL; Agreement? What does the summary now state?
MR. STEIN: The summary now states — and if you want me to go through
all of thisj the whole summary, I will dc it. The summary will say that the
waters of the Raritan Bay and the waters of the Arthur Kill are interstate
waters within the meaning ox the Federal Act. The summary shall say that
there is pollution .of the Raritan Bay emanating from some sources around the
bayj the summary will say that scientific data, taking into account — and
I don't know whether I should read it for the fourth time —¦ taking into
account a wide range of factors and technological problems, including health,
conservation, water policy and uses and industrial processes are urgently
- 119 -
-------
needed, and are the critical issue in further control of pollution in the
Raritan Bay.
To do this the Public Health Service will undertake a study in co-
operation and collaboration with the State and interstate agencies to try-
to obtain this data; and another session of the conference will be called a
year from this date; that cognizance was taken of the programs and the admin-
istrative machinery of the State and interstate agencies to control pollution
of the Raritan Bay area0 There has been and there continues to be progress
under plans to abate this pollution .
Then you have the last two points, and I don't know if you want these
continued, that the conferees welcome and appreciate the interest, support
and collaboration of the Public Health Service in the collective efforts to
preserve the Raritan Bay and particularly in solving the scientific problems.
The conferees are willing to .report to the Public Health Service at appro-
priate intervalso I might add that the Public Health Service is willing to
report to the confereeso
MR. MINCHER: Were all of those items as you recited them, purportedly
the agreement of the conferees?
MR. STEIN: That is correct.
DR. INGRAHAM: I would agree with what was said on this last occasion.
DR. KAN DUE: Mr., Stein, do I understand correctly that you used the
verb "that the Public Health Service will undertake"?
MR. STEIN: Yes,
DR. KANDLE: Under some legal obligation of the Act?
MR. STEIN: No, I didn't think I said that. If you would want that?
Is that your feeling?
DR. KANDLE: I think one point that bothers me in our discussions —
and I only speak for myself and let the other conferees speak for themselves
— we believe very sincerely that No. 3 as it is stated, is a critical issue,
but the kind of data we would need are problem-solving data; not a definition
of the problem.per se, because we do know a great deal about this. I don't
say we know all we need to know, or all that is needed, but we need to have
problem-solving data. For example, the study that is going to start next
week down at Vicksburg, which will give us an enormous amount of new data
about the hydrographies of the Arthur Kill.
MR. STEIN: I don't think we have a difference there. Perhaps both
kinds of data are needed to round this out. Nor do we have to delay on the
basis of past relationships. I don't think we have ever had any problem
- 120 -
-------
between the Public Health Service and the States in working out a satis-
factory program of study and investigation0 I think necessarily this will
have to be left to that. I certainly think what you have just mentioned is
very appropriate0
HE. MINCHEE: Mr. Stein,, you mentioned in your recitation of items,
Items 2, 3, U and 5 of Dr. Kandle's statement on Page
ME. STEIN: Yes.
ME. MINCHEE; No. 1 was omitted» Was that inadvertent?
MR. STEIN: No, I didn't omit that but just changed that. I took
out some of the adjectives because this summary has to be set down by the
Surgeon General. What I did say was,, cognizance was taken of the existence
of the administrative machinery.
MR. MINCHEE; "Experienced, effective."
MR. STEIN: Yes. That is what I took out. Because again this is
something that the Surgeon General has to say. I think we have accomplished
the same result by just laying this out in a kind of deadpan without using
those adjectives.
DR. KINDLE: We agree.
ER. INGRAHAM: Do we get to say anything about studying further the
most effective uses of the bay, and balancing those with questions of pollu-
tion abatement?
MR. STEIN: Yes. I thought Dr. Kandle's No. 3 said that when he
talked about water policy and uses.
DR. INGRAHAM: Yes. I guess he does.
MR. STEIN: All right.
DE. WENDELL: Mr. Stein, in respect of that point there is a remark
in the statement of the Interstate Sanitation Commission that I wonder
whether, in the light of the Federal Pollution Control Act, could not also'
receive agreement here as amplification of that statement. These value
judgments with respect to the uses of the water are the primary responsi-
bility of the States to determine, are they not?
ME. STEIN: I am not prepared to state that at this time, and I don't
know that we should get into it.
DE. WENDELL:: Isn't that what the Act says? That the States are
primarily responsible?
- 121 -
-------
MR. STEIN: The Act says that the States are primarily responsible#
DR. WENDELL; That is all I am saying nowe
MR. STEIN: No. You talk about value judgments,. I don't know that
we want to emphasize areas where we might have differences, and some of
these areas, as you well know, in the law, the Supreme Court has not touched
for 150 years. I don't know that it is going to be effective in getting
that out, or that we can expect an agreement, or that I am authorized to
make a statement like that# I imagine any judgment of that kind would have
to come from the Secretary of the Department in consultation with the
Attorney General. It would be presumptuous indeed for me to attempt to
come to an agreement on that here®
Are we ready to adjourn, or does anyone in the audience, or anyone
else, want to say anything now? If not, we stand adjourned until call next
year.
Thank you very much for coming«
(Whereupon, at p.m0, the conference was adjourned subject to
call of the Chair.)
- 122 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Summary Report on the Quality of Waters in Raritan and Lower
Bays, Harold F. Udell, New York State Conservation' De-
partment, Shellfish Sanitation and Management Unit,
Freeport, New York, 1958. Page J.
Footnote l/
2. New York Times, March 12, i960, "Arthur Kill Free of Last
Obstacle", John P. Callahan
Footnote 2/
3. Federal Aid for Fisheries, Report of Project F-2-R-1, Inventory
of New Jersey's Salt Water Sport Fishery, Department of
Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Fish
and Game, Trenton, New Jersey, 1952. Page 5-
Footnote 3/
4. Raritan River - Raritan Bay Survey, Summary Report, March i960,
Myrton C. Rand, Ernest R. Segesser. Page 3«
Footnote bj
5. Annual Report of the Division of Fish and Game,'Fiscal Year
Commencing July 1, 1956 and Ending June 30, 1957, New
Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic
Development.
6. Bacterial Pollution of Raritan and Lower Bays and Its
Relation to Shellfish, "by Harold Udell, Shellfish
Sanitation Consultant, Federal Security Agency, Public
Health Service, May 1952.
7. Contamination Dispersion in Estuaries, New York Harbor,
Hydraulic Model Investigation, Miscellaneous Paper No.
2-332, Report 3) U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Corps of Engineers, Viclcsburg, Mississippi,
January 1961.
8. Great Kills, A New Beach for New York. The City of New York,
Department of Parks, 1959.
9. The Improvement of Coney Island, Rockaway and South Beaches,
Department of Parks, City of New York, November 30, 1937•
ID. Interstate Sanitation Commission 1955-1960 Annual Reports.
11. Middlesex County Sewerage Authority, First through Seventh
Annual Reports. '
12. New York City Beaches, the City of New York, Department of
Parks, 19^6.
123
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
13. New York City Department of Public Works 1955-1960 Annual
Reports.
14. New York City Waterfront, Reprinted from The New York
Times Magazine.
15. New York City Waters Survey Series, Report No. 1, Upper Bay-
East Lower Bay, Water Pollution Control Board. New York
State Department of Health, i960.
16. New York City Waters Survey Series, Report No. 3; Arthur Kill
and Kill Van Kull, Water Pollution Control Board, New
York State Department" of Health, i960.
17. Quality of the Waters of Raritan Bay; Effect of Middlesex
County Sewage Treatment Plant, Bureau of Sanitary
Engineering, Department of Health, City of Netr York,
June 23, 1958.
18. Recommended Classification of Surface Waters in the Area of
and Including West and Lower Bay and Raritan 3ay, New York
Conservation Department, Shellfisheries Management Unit,
Freeport, New York, June i960.
19. Recreational Facilities for New Yorkers, Dept. of Parks, 1961-62.
20. Remarks of Robert Moses at the Celebration of the 75th Anniv. of
the Staten Island Inst, of Arts and Sciences, April 13 > 1957*
21. A Report on the Public Health Aspects of Clamming in Raritan Bay,
Federal Security Agency, US Public Health Service, 19^-1 •
22. Second Annual Report of the Commissioner of Conservation for the
Period July 1, 19^+6 to June 30, 19^7> State of New Jersey,
January 15, 1958.
23. Sewage Pollution - Report Relative to'Shellfish Industry in New
York Harbor, Federal Works Agency, WPA for the City of New
York, The Interstate Sanitation Commission, January 1939•
24. Southern Arthur Kill Surveys, Interstate Sanitation Comm., 1955-
25. Staten Island, South Beach Ocean Front Improvement, City of
New York, May 1953*
26. Study of Pollution in Arthur Kill, Technical Report 56-3 >
Interstate Sanitation Commission, June 1956.
27. A Study of the Pollution of a Shellfish Producing Area, Arthur
P. Miller, Public Health News, February 193T-
28. Tides and Currents in New York Harbor, H.A. Manner, US Dept. of
Commerce, C&GS, Special Publication No. Ill, 1935»
29. Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 1959>
Part 1, Waterways and Harbors Atlantic Coast, Department of
the Army, Corps of Engineers, New York, N.Y.
12k
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT PERFORMANCE
FROM INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
-------
FORT HANCOCK, NEW JERSEY
Fort Hancock is located on Sandy Hook„ The treatment
facilities provided at this base consist of primary treatment
and chlorination with a capacity of .5 mgd. The discharge
line from this facility discharges to the ocean off the east
shore of Sandy Hook and does not enter the waters of Sandv
Hook or Lower Bays.
A-l
-------
HIGHLANDS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE
FLOW
SUSPENDED !
SOLIDS
B.
• O.D. (5. day)
COLIFORM
Eff.
Percent
Eff.
Eff.
Percent
Eff.
"jo over
Mgd.
PPM
Removed
P.E.*
PPM
Removed
P.E.*
l/ml
4/30/58
0.452
66
57
1242
.60
hi
1356
0
6/18/58
0.370
82
66
1264
93
62
1720
0
10/21/58
0.4*
69
74
1151
97
46
1940
0
5/ 6/59
0.4*
58
75
967
100
5^
2000
0
6/ 7/59
0.4*
48
82
801
152
50
3040.
50
8/25/59
0.4*
87
58
1451
138
35
2760
0
10/28/59
0.4*
68
46
113^
86
38
1720
0
12/15/59
0.4*
63
63
1051
62
59
1240
0
5/17/60
0.4*
73
65
1217
113
31
2260
25
8/ 1/60
0.4*
53
73
.884
117
49
2340
25
8/22/60
0.4*
90
its
1501
No
Samples Taken
0
9/ 2/60
0.4*
84
42
1401
63
36
1260
0
3/28/61
0„4*
87
47
1451
78
36
1560
25
6/ 5/61
0.4*
103.
55
1718
HI
38
2220
0
Average
1231
1955
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - 7/l^ visits
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Coliform removal - 0/l4 visits
* Estimated
A-fi
-------
HIGHLANDS-, NEW JERSET
The Highlands treatment plant was "built in 1928 to
accommodate a design flow of 1<,2 mgdD The treatment consists
of sedimentation plus chlorination. The treatment units are
a "bar rack, sedimentation tank, chlorination with a contact
tank, and glass-covered sludge "beds. The original outfall
line traversed the Shrewsbury River and the neck of land
connecting Sandy Hook to the mainland, and entered the
Atlantic Ocean „ This outfall line was reported to "be "broken
sometime in the past and, according to the records of the
Interstate Sanitation Commission, the effluent is presently
"being discharged to the Shrewsbury River „ The estimated
population served is approximately 3..000 persons during the
winter and upwards of 6 to 12,000 during the peak summer'
months o This is approaching the designed capacity of the
existing plant„ The i960 Census population for this area
is 3,536. Average flow during the winter months is approx-
imately 0o4 mgdo
Inspections "by the ISC, since 1958, have shown that
the plant failed to comply with the Compact suspended solids
removal requirement on 7 occasions out of the 1^ visits made
"by the Commission staff,, Removals ranged from a low of b2$
on September 20, i960 to a high of 82$ on June 71 3-959° Th-e
coliform requirements of the Commission were met on every
occasion. The Interstate Sanitation Commission records also
indicate that the flow meter and totalizer have "been out of
order since prior to their April 30, 1958 visit„ The records
of the ISC indicate that the system is a separate system with
no known by-pass„
A-3
-------
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
PROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE FLOW SUSPENDED SOLIDS B..O.D. (5 day) COLIFORM
EfT. Percent Eff. Eff. Percent- Eff. $ over
Mgd. PPM Removed P„ E. * PPM Removed P.E.* l/ml
4/30/58
48
hi
61
33
0
6/17/58
0.510
57
33
1212
105
0
2680
0
10/ 7/58
0.277
39
69
450
118
7
2678
0
5/ 7/59
0.300*
75
19
938
112
0
1680
0
7/ 1/59
0.369
107
ii
1646
184
0
3395
25
8/26/59
0.355
107
16
1585
154
6
2735
75
11/ 4/59
0.226
130
11
1226
102
27
H55
25
5/18/60
0.667
38
69
1061
83
34
2768
0
8/ 1/60
0.502
33
75
688
120
10
3012
0
8/22/60
0.5*
in
61
854
No Samples Taken
.9/21/60
0„5*
1211
0
2522
100
0
2500
100
9/27/60
0.5*
65
54
1355
113
7
2825
15
3/2^/61
0.5*
4o
30
834
67
16
1675
0
5/ 9/61
0„74l
19
77
396
66
35
2445
0
Average
1136
2462
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - 9/l4 visits
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Coliform removal - 3/l3 visits
* Estimated
-------
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS} NEW JERSEY
Atlantic Highlands treatment plant was built in. 1928 for
a design flow of 0*6 mg&, providing sedimentation and chlorination.
The treatment units consist of a sedimentation tank, chlorination
in the wet well on the effluent line, and glass-covered sludge
beds, The outfall from this plant enters Sandy Hook. Bay next
to a private marina dock and discharges approximately 1,000 feet
off shore, The i960 estimated population served is approxi-
mately 3,000 persons during the winter months with approximately
double this number served during the peak summer months. The
i960 Census for Atlantic Highlands shows a population of It-,119.
The average flow during the winter months is estimated at OoU'mgd.
Inspections by the ISC since 1958 show the plant failed
to meet the Compact Standard for suspended solids removal during
9 of the lit- visits that the Commission staff ma.de o The removals
ranged from a low of a negative removal on September 1, i960, to
a high of 77 $ on May 9* 1961. The plant has failed to meet the
coliform requirements of the Commission on 3 occasions during the
14 visits 0 The plant is operated by a part time operator, and
according to the Interstate Sanitation Commission records, the
operator was not present during 2 of the lk- visits made by the
Commission staff,, On various occasions the Commission staff
has reported that no operation records were available at the
planto The tide backs the flow of the treated effluent into
the wet-wall necessitating pumpage during periods of high tide.
The pump on the effluent line was out of operation from Decem-
ber 12, i960 through. March 28, I96I0 During that time a
portable pump was used to pump the effluent during periods of
high tide„ Records of the ISC indicate that this is a .separ-
ate system with no known by-passes, A by-pass at the" plant is
located in a manhole in the street opposite the plant„ This
manhole has been well sealed with an accumulation of paving
material over the years, indicating that this by-pass has not
been used,, This plant is operating at or near its design
capacity during the peak summer season.
A-5
-------
LEONARDO SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE sanitation commission records
DATE FLOW SUSPENDED" SOLIDS B.Q.D, (5 day) COLIFORM
Eff „ Percent Eff „ Eff. Percent Eff. $ over
. Mgd. PPM. Removed P.E.* PPM Removed P.E.* l/ml
.7/ 8/58 0.015* II 71 6.9 16 36 12 75
6/30/59 0.015* 13 92 8.1 15 92 11 25
6/30/60 0.015 -No Samples Taken 100
1961 No visits so far
Average 7-5 12
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - 0/2 visits
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for -Coliform removal - ,2/3 visits
* Estimated
A-6
-------
U. S. MAVAL AMMUNITION DEPOT, LEONARDO, NEW JERSEY
The Leonardo Naval Depot sewage treatment plant was con-
structed during the 19^0's and consists of sedimentation, fil-
tration, and chlorination with a design flow of 0<.08 mgd„ The
treatment units are pre-chlorination facilities, TmTioff tank,
intermittent sand filters (out of operation since I9U9), and
sludge beds* The effluent from the treatment plant discharges
to Ware Creek at its confluence with Raritan Bay* The esti-
mated population served at the present time is approximately
130 persons. The ISC has made 3 visits to this plant since
19580 The plant has met the suspended solids requirement of
the Compact on each occasion tested, hut has failed to meet
the coUform requirement on 2 of the 3 visits.
There are 3 pier facilities on this "base with privies
located on each of the piers. These facilities discharge over
pierside without treatment. The approximate population using
these facilities is 100 persons, with a maximum of 250. Dis-
cussions are "being held with the Naval District in charge to
obtain compliance with local regulations.
A-7
-------
KEANSBURG SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE FLOW SUSPENDED SOLIDS B.O..D. (5 day) COLIFORM
Eff.
Percent
Eff.
Eff.
Percent
Eff.
$ over
Mgd.
PPM
Removed
P.E„*
PPM
Removed
P.E.*
l/ml
4/23/58
1.57
115
0
7351
36
18
2825
100
6/24/58
1-53
116
21
7401
56
59
4285
75
10/28/58
1,84
104
18.
7980
44
19
4050
100
5/ 6/59
1.37
79
24-
4512
4l
46
2809
50
6/24/59
1,44
831
70
49000
93
57
6695
75
8/25/59
1.66
77
64
5329
110'
39
9130
0
11/17/59
1.27
71
21
3757
38
40
2413
67
5/25/60
1.19
92
22
4.566
55
27
3272
75
8/ 1/60
3-11
81
39.
10504
78
44
12129
75
8/23/60
2.74
117
12
13368
Nc
) Samples
Taken
75
10/. 4/60
1.38
66
45
3798
26
62
1794
50
3/21/61
1.82
56
19
4250
4l
27
3731
100
5/10/61
1.45
97
0
5865
51
25
3697
50
Average
9822
4736
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - ll/l3 visits
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Coliform removal - 9/l3 visits
* Estimated
A-8
-------
KEAUSBURG, NEW JERSEY
The Keansburg treatment plant was rebuilt in 19^9
to accommodate a design flow of 2.0 mgd providing
sedimentation plus chlorination facilities. The treat-
ment units consist of screens, mechanically-equipped
sedimentation tanks, post-chlorination facilities,
chemical flocculation and sludge digester with vacuum
filtration,, The outfall line discharges into Raritan
Bay, approximately 1500 feet offshore from the city of
Keansburg. The estimated population served is approximately
56OO persons during the winter months, with a summer
population reaching 3 to h times this total during the peak months.
The average flow during the winter months is approximately l.k
mgd. Flows as high as 3.1 mgd have been noted in the ISC records.
The i960 Census population for this community is 6,85^.
Inspections by the Interstate Sanitation Commission
staff, since 1958> have shown that this plant has failed
to meet the Compact requirements for suspended solids
removal on 11 of 13 plant visits. The suspended solids
removals have ranged from a low of negative removals on
2 occasions to a high of 70$ on June 2.hy 1959• With
respect to the coliform standard of the Commission, the
plant has failed to meet the standard on 9 of "the 13
plant visitso Of the 4 visits on which the requirements
were met, 3 of these had borderline performances. The
records of the Commission note that; on May 6, 1959 sludge
stored'in the digester was hauled away after 2 years of
storageo On the occasion of the ISC visit of June 2h, 1959
iron wastes were being dumped into the treatment plant at
so great a rate that the pumps in the'plant could not
handle the flow and the plant was observed to be over-
flowing during the morning sampling period„ On that
occasion the influent suspended solids was recorded at
2 j 737 PF31 3,11 <3- "the effluent at 831 ppnu There is no State
licensed operator at this plant, although there is a full
time employee designated as the Chief Operator. The records
of the Interstate Sanitation Commission indicate that this
is a separate gravity system having no known by-passes. This
plant is operating over its design capacity during the summer
months.
A-9
-------
KEANSBURGj NEW JERSEY
The Keansburg treatment plant -was rebuilt in 19^9 "to
accommodate a design flow of 2.0 mgd providing sedimentation plus
chlorination facilities. The treatment units consist of screens,
mechanically-equipped sedimentation tanks,, post^chlorination facili-
ties chemical flocculation and sludge digester with vacuum filtra-
tion. The outfall line discharges into Raritan Bay, approximately
1500 feet offshore from the city of Keansburg. The estimated popu-
lation served is 5600 persons during the. winter months, with a
summer population reaching 3 "to 4 times this total during the
peak months. The average flow during the winter months is approxi-
mately lob mgd. Flows as high as 3°1 mgd have been noted in the
ISC records. The i960 Census population for this community is
6,85^-0
Inspections "by the Interstate Sanitation Commission staff,
since 1958 , have shown that this plant has failed to meet the
Compact requirements for suspended, solids removal on 11 of 13
plant visits. The suspended solids removals have ranged from
a low of negative removals on 2 occasions to a high of 70$ on
June 2h, 1959o With respect to the coliform-standard of the
Commission,, the plant has failed to- meet the standard on 9 of
13 plant visitso Of the 4 visits on which the requirements were
met, 3 of these had borderline performances. The records of the
Commission.note that on May 6, 1959 sludge stored in the digester
was hauled away after 2 years of storage. On the occasion of the
ISC visit of June 2k} 1959 iron wastes were being dumped into the
treatment plant at so great a rate that the pumps in the plant
could not handle the flow and the plant was observed to be
overflowing during the morning sampling period. On that occasion
the influent suspended solids was recorded at 2,737 PI™ and the
effluent at 83I ppm. There is no State licensed operator at
this plant, although there is a full time employee designated
as the Chief Operator. The records of the Interstate Sanitation
Commission indicate that this is a separate gravity system having
no known by-passes0 This plant is operating over its design capaci-
ty during the summer months.
A-ll
-------
KE'fPOET SEWAGE TREATMENT FLAHT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
PROM
INTERSTATE SAII'MTIOII COMMISSION REC.CRDS
DATE FLOW SUSPENDED SOLIDS BoO,D„ (5 day) COLIFORM
Eff „
Percent
Eff „
Eff 0
Percent
Eff.
¥> oi
Mgd„
PPM
Removed
P.E.*
PPM
Removed
P.'Ei'*
V1
4/23/58
0.800
68
2268
111
8
444o
6/25/58
0,9
104
25
3903
173
i4
7785.
25
10/22/58
0„8*
103
43
3%6
184
16
7360
75
5/13/59
0.8
53
73
1768
121
27
4840
100
6/30/59
0.8
61
61
2035
165
34
6600
50
8/26/59
0,8*
104
38
3469
176
25
7050
75
11/18/59
0.„8*
68
76
2268
103
53
4120
67
6/ 1/60
0=8*
77
55
2568
157
22
6280
100
8/ 2/60
o„8*
27
63
900
106
29
4240
25
8/23/60
0,8*
71
31
2368
No Samples
Taken
75
9/28/60
0.8*
53
51
1768
104
20
4l6o
100
3/15/61
0.8*
51
•!4l
1701
93
18
3720
100
5/10/61
0.8*
51
46
1701
122
23
488o
100
Average
2319
5456
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids remoyal - 9/i3 visits
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Coliform. removal - 9/12 visits
* Estimated
A-12
-------
KEYPORT, HEW JERSEY
Hie Keyport treatment plant was rebuilt in 1936
to accommodate a design flow of OA mgd providing sedimentation
plus chlorination, Treatment units consist of a "bar rack, sedi-
mentation tank, chlorination facilities including a contact tank,
sludge digestion facilities, glass-covered sludge drying "beds.
The outfall line discharges approximately 25 feet offshore into
Raritan Bay. The estimated population served is approximately
7,000 persons during the winter months and upwards to 3 times
this figure during the summer months. The i960 Census for this
area gives a population of 6}bk0 persons„ Average flow during
the winter months is approximately ,8 mgd. The population served
during the winter months is 100$ in excess of the designed pop-
ulation of this plant and the flow is 300$ in excess of the de-
signed flow during the peak summer months„
Inspections of the Interstate Sanitation Commission have
shown that this plant failed to meet the suspended solids require-
ment of the Commission on 9 of 13 plant visits„ Suspended solids
removal have ranged from a low of 25 $ on June 25f 1958> to a high
of 76$ on November 18, 1959° The plant has failed to meet the
Commission coliform standards on 9 of 12 occasions. Records of
the Commission indicate that the plant is in very poor condition
and is subject to flooding by tidal action. The digesters have
been completely out of operation for some time and the sludge
beds have not been used for a period of 2 or more years. The
greenhouse is in poor repair with much of the glass broken. During
the Commission visit of May 10, 1961 the bar screen was under water
during the entire visit and the records indicated that raw sewage
had been by-passed through an outfall line on Front Street for
a period from May 2 through May 9« The south Keyport pump station
was noted as by-passing on April 26. Both of these by-passes
were made with the permission of the Hew Jersey State Health
Department„ During a visit on April 28, 1961 by the staff of
the Interstate Sanitation Commission it was noted that the flow
meter was out of operation„ The flights for the sedimentation
tank had been out of operation since April 13<> A septic tank
scavenger was removing sludge ftrom the tanks during the period
of the visit, the sludge digestion tanks were under water, the
chlorine contact tank contained a large quantity of sludge and
A-13
-------
gas bulking was observed* The grit chamber-bar rack was surcharged
with a flow of water approximately 6" above the tops of the bar rack,,
The plant was being operated by an inexperienced man from the City
Highway Department„ The operator was attempting to do the best he
could, but was unprepared for the situation that faced him„
An examination of the sewage system .records of the Interstate
Sanitation Commission indicates that this is a separate system having
3 pumping stations. One pumping station is equipped with a by-pass
overflow arrangement. This is the pump station previously reported
as by-passing.
The State has this plant under orders and it is proposed to
completely rebuild this plant, A project has been submitted under
the Construction Grants Program—PL 87-88 for a grant for the con-
struction of a sewage treatment plant. Additions and improvements
estimated at $363,500 are proposed. A Federal grant of 0108,600
has been accepted. The bids were received in May 196I0
A-15
-------
MATAWAN TOWNSHIP (RIVER GARDENS SECTION) SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANT, NEW JERSEY
The Matawan Township sewage treatment plant was designed
to accommodate a flow of 0„25 mgd, providing contact aeration
and chlorination, The treatment units consist of a sedimentation
tank with contact aeration and post-chlorination facilities with
a .contact tank, sludge digester and sludge "beds. The effluent
is discharged to Matawan Creek approximately l/2 mile upstream
from the confluence oj£ Matawan Creek with Raritan Bay. The
estimated populations served is approximately 280 families
or about 1,000 persons with an average flow of approximately
0.13 mgd„
During a visit by the State Health Department
representative on April 20, 1961 it was noted that the flow
meter was out of order and-tfesecond stage aeration tank was
not functioning properly, ,The operator is a part-time man
putting in approximately two hours per day and the plant
has suffered in the pfist from vandalism. It is our
understanding tha.t the Township plant is under orders of
the State and that the matter has been referred to the
New Jersey Attorney General's office. No information
was available on the current performance of this plant .nor
was any information available on the sewer system as to
whether there are any known by-passes.
A-17
-------
KNOLLCROFT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY" OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE FLOW SUSPENDED SOLIDS B.O.D. (5 day) COLIFORM
Eff. Percent Eff. Eff „ Percent Eff. $ over
Mgd. PPM Removed P. E „ * PPM Removed P.E.* l/ml
6/12/61 --No Samples Taken-'—^ 100
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Coliform removal - l/l visits
* Estimated
A-18
-------
MATAWAN TOWNSHIP (KNOLLCROFT SECTION) SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT,
HEW JERSEY
The Knollcxoft treatment plant was completed early in i960
to acconnnodate a design flow estimated at 0„2 mgd providing sedi-
mentation plus ehlorination„ Tb.e treatment units consist of a
tar rack, sedimentation tank and chlorination facilities including
a .contact chamber„ The discharge is to an outfall line running
1,000* off the shore into Raritan Bay„ The present population
served is estimated at about 850 persons in the housing develop-
ment called Knollcroft„
The Interstate Sanitation Commission made its first
visit to this plant on June 12, I96I and at that time found the
coliform removal to he in violation of the Compact standard. This
has "been the only sampling of this plant and only one coliform
series was tested. No information was available as to known
"by-passes.
A-19
-------
SAYREVILLE-MORGAW SEWAGE TREATMENT PIAITT
SUMMARY" OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE
FLOW SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Eff. Percent Eff.
Mgd. PPM Removed P. E. *
B.OoD. (5.day) COLIFORM
Eff.
PPM
Percent
Removed
Eff.
P.E.*
P ¦ over
l/ml
4/2 4/58
9/23/58
6/18/59
9/17/59
12/ 3/59
6/30/60
8/24/60
6/12/61
0,100
0.074
0.113
0.094
O.I56
0.110
Average
75
^3
78
86
-No Samples Taken-
II M
488 No Samples Taken
197 164 38 <300
343 900
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - 0/2 visits
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Coliform removal - 0/8 visits
* Estimated
A-20
-------
SAYREVTLTiF1, (MORGAN SECTION) SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, NEW JERSEY
The Morgan sewage treatment plant was "built in 1951
to accommodate a design flow of 0*3 mgd- providing sedimentation
plus chlorination. The treatment units consist of a "bar rack,
mechanically-operated sedimentation tank, sludge digesters, and
chlorination facilities including a contact tank. The outfall
line discharges into Raritan Bay approximately 6001 offshore
at the confluence of Cheesequake Creek and Raritan Bay. The
estimated population served is approximately 2,000 and the average
flow is estimated at approximately 0.1 mgd*
The inspections of the Interstate Sanitation Commission
have shown that this plant has consistently met the coliform
requirements of the Commission on all occasions. The plant
has been sampled eight times in the last four years. During
i960 and 6l the plant was sampled once each year to determine
Compact requirements on suspended solids* On "both occasions
the plant met the Compact requirements with removals of 78
and 86 per cent respectively in i960 and 6l. No information
was available as to known by-passes.
A-21
-------
SOUTH AMBOY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE
FLOW
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
B„O.D. (5 day)
COLIFORM
Eff.
Percent
Eff.
Eff.
Percent
Eff.
°p over
Mgd„
PEM
Removed
F.E.*
PBt
Removed
P.E.*
l/ml
5/ 6/58
0.735
56
66
1716
81
38
2975
0
6/30/58
0.595
67
74
1664
114
52
3390
25
10/21/58
o„6oo*
62
65
1551
1V7
4o
44io
0
5/ 5/59
0-575
69
69
1655
180
35
5175
0
6/23/59
0, 600*
66
70
1651
140
44
4200
0
9/ i/5?
0.600*
91
55
2277
156
11
4680,
25
11/ i/59
o„6oo*
65
69
1626
136
26
4080
25
6/ T/60
0.56*
62
7^
1W7
178
39
4984
25
8/ 2/60
0.6*
46
75
1150
143
24
4290
25
8/24/60
O06*
67
66
1676
Wp
Samples
Taken
0
10/19/60
o„6*
53
72
1326
147
23
4410
25
5/ 8/61
o„6*
23
87
575
137
28
4110
25
6/13/61
o„6*
50
69
1251
154
25
4620
25
Average
1505
4277
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - l/l3 visits
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Coliform removal - 0/13 visits
* Estijsated
A-22
-------
SOUTH AMBOY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, NEW JERSEY
The South Amboy sewage treatment plant was built in 19^0
to accommodate a design flow of 1.0 mgd providing sedimentation
plus chlorination. The treatment units consist of a "bar rack,
two mechanically equipped circular sedimentation basins, chlorina-
tion facilities including contact tank, sludge digester and
glass-covered sludge beds. The outfall line discharges off-
shore into Raritan Bay* The estimated population served is
8,400 persons with an average floy of 0*7 mgd0 The i960 Census
population for South Amboy was 8,422 persons»
Inspections by the Interstate Sanitation Commission
since 195^ have shown that the South Amboy plant has met
suspended solids removal requirements on 12 of the 13
occasions of a plant visit. The only failure to meet
Compact requirements was on September 1, 1959) a"t which
time the removal efficiency was 55$® Th.e removals over
the past 4 years have ranged from a low of 55$ "to a high
of 87$ during the visit of May 8, 1961. The South Amboy
plant has met the coliform requirements of the Commission
on every visit "by the Commission staff during this past it-
years „ The records of the Commission also noted that the
South Amboy plant had by-passed for a period of time on or
about June 30> 3-958 while the clarifiers were undergoing
repair. Again, in May of 1960, on or a"bout May l6 to May 20,
the' plant "by-passed to allow for the repair of the chlorine
detention chamber. Again, on May 8, 19^1, the Commission noted
that the plant was by-passing for a period from March 6, 1961
to April 17, 1961 while repairs ,to the pumps and piping as
well as cleaning of the settling tanks were under way. The
Interstate Sanitation Commission records indicate that the
South Amboy sewer system is a separate system with 5 pumping
stations, none having "built-in by-passes„
A-23
-------
SAYWTTT.F~MELR.OSE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE FLOW SUSPENDED SOLIDS B.O.D. (5 day) COLIFORM
Eff. Percent Eff. Eff. Percent Eff. $ over
Mfid. PPM Removed P.E.* PPM Removed P.E.* l/ml
4/24/58
0.038*
—No Samples Taken
0
9/23/58
0,0^5
tr tt ii
0
6/18/59
0.030
n m 11
0
9/17/59
0.019
11 11 11
0
12/ 3/59
0.017
n 11 ti
0
6/30/60
it rt n
0
8/24/60
0.042
58
68
100 No Samples Taken
0
4/ 4/6i
0.0^5
56
31
104 74 48 185
0
Average
102 185
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - l/2 visits
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Coliform removal
- 0/8 visits
* Estimated
A-24
-------
SAYEEVILLE (MELROSE SECTION) TREATMENT PLANT, NEW JERSEY
The Melrose treatment plant was "built in 19^9 "to
accommodate a design flow of 0,1 mgd, providing sedimentation
plus chlorination, The treatment units consist of a "bar rack,
mechanically-equipped sedimentation tank^, chlorination facil-
ities with a contact tank, sludge digester, and glass-covered
sludge "beds. The outfall discharges to the Raritan River up-
stream of the Garden State Parkway Bridge,, The estimated
population served is a thousand persons with an average flow
of approximately 0„05 mgd„
Inspections "by the Interstate Sanitation Commission
since 1958 have shown that the plant has failed to meet the
suspended solids removal requirements of the Compact on 1 of
the 2 occasions during which the plant was sampled for sus-
pended solidso This was a removal of 33$ recorded on April k,
1961o On August 2h} i960 the removal was recorded at 68$. The
plant has met the Commission standards for coliform removal on
every occasion during the last 4 years - a total of 7 plant
visits. No information was available as to known by-passes.
A-25
-------
MIDDLESEX COUNTY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE
FLOW
SUSPENDED 1
SOLIDS
B.O.D. (5 day)
COLIFORM
Eff.
Percent
Eff.
Eff.
Percent
Eff.
io over
Mgd.
PPM
Removed
P.E„*
PPM
Removed
P.E.*
l/ml
.6/30/58
29 -77
50
84
62070
385
0
573073
0
IO/8/58
34.1
62
80
88162
387
7
659835
' 0
4/22/59
3619
106
64
163105
367
17
677115
25
6/16/59
39-9
107
62
178030
412
6
821940
25
8/25/59
4o..o*
165
81
275220
503
26
1006000
.0
10/28/59
J+6.71
110
67
214258
444
16
1036962
25
12/16/59
43.21
77
71
138736
369
18
797224
0
5/11/60
42.87
95
74
169829
475
13
1018163
0
8/ 2/60
52.08
36
77
78182
355
11
924420
25
8/23/60
50.37
172
19
361273
No
Sample's
Taken
0
10/15/60
41.83
74
75'
129079
375
16
784312
0
12/ 6/60
37-8
155
58
244320
493
10
931770
0
3/22/61
55.4
72
68
166332
291
21
806070
25
6/ 7/61
50.0*
63
76
131355
344
10
860000
0
Average
171425
838222
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - 2/l4 visits
Failure to meet Compact requirements'
for Coliform removal - 0/l4 visits
* Estimated
A-26
-------
MIDDLESEX COUNT! SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, NEW JERSEY
The Middlesex County sewage treatment plant was built
in 1957 to accommodate a design flow of 52<>0 mgd, The treat-
ment consists of sedimentation., chemical treatment and chlor-
ination. The treatment units are a bar rack, a grit chamber,
chemical distribution chamber, clarriflocculators and chlor-
ination facilities including a contact chamber with sludge
storage and sludge digestion with disposal of sludge to the
sea. The outfall line discharges to Raritan Bay approximately
7500' offshore through a series of U dispersion nozzles. The
estimated population-served by this plant is 2served by
trunk sewers. This includes 13 municipalities and 8 industries
in the"area. Average daily flow for i960 was approximately
4l mgd.
Inspections by the Interstate Sanitation Commission
staff since the beginning of operation, 1958, have shown the
plant failed to meet Compact suspended solids requirements on
2 occasions during a total of 1^ visits. The suspended solids
removal has ranged from a low of 19$ on August 23, 1960 to a
high of Qkio on June 30,> 195^° The plant has met the ISC coli-
form requirements on every occasion during the last 1^ visits.
The records also indicate that for a period of 2 weeks, from
February 1^ to February 28, 1961, it was necessary to by-pass
approximately 2 mgd for a total of 23 mgd at the Heyden Pumping
Station because of a broken valve at this station„
Although the system is a combined system in that it takes
both sewage and storm water flow, the plant is equipped to take
the full storm discharge without necessity for by-passing of
treatment facilities„ By-passing of the treatment plant is
possible from the grit chamber directly to the post-chlorination
chambero Records of the ISC indicate 3 pumping stations, 2 small
ones with no known by-passes3 and the main pump station with 2
by-passes„ This plant is operating at its designed capacity and
during times of storm it has operated at flows considerably in
excess of design.
A-27
-------
CAMP KILMER, NEW JERSEY
Camp Kilmer is located oil the Raritan River near New
Brunswick, N. J. The treatment facilities at this plant con-
sist of high rate filtration, sludge digestion, and chlorin-
ation. The average flow is 1.0 mgd and the capacity of the
plant is rated at 6.0 mgd. The discharge from this plant goes
to the Raritan River.
Inspection by the State Health Department has shown the
effluent to be satisfactory with the exception of coliform or-
ganisms. Discussions are being held with the federal agency
concerned by the Public Health Service Regional office to
remedy this problem.
A-29
-------
RARITM ARSENAL, NEW JERSEY
Raritan Arsenal is located in Edison Township.. The
sewage treatment facility for this p.ost provides primary
settling, standard rate trickling filters, and sludge di-
gestion and drying, A dry chlorinator is available hut not
in use. The capacity of the plant is 0«.5 xngd., and the
average flow is 0,25 mgd.
The State Health Department has found this plant to
he satisfactory with the exception of the lack of chlorination.
Discussions are "being held with the federal agency responsible
for this plant to see that there is compliance with the State
requirements„
A-31
-------
WOODERIDGE (KEASBY SECTION) SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT,- NEW JERSEY
The Woodbridge-Keasby sewage treatment plant was built
to accommodate a design flow of 1»35 providing sedimentation,
and chlorination. The treatment units consist of a bar rack, grit
chamber, mechanically equipped sedimentation tanks, chlorination
with a contact tank, sludge digestion and sludge drying beds. The
outfall discharges to Kinsey Creek which flows into the Raritan
River upstream from Perth Amboy„ The estimated population served
is 2,000 persons.
No information is available as to the performance of this
plant, at the time of the preparation of this report.
A-33
-------
PERTH AMBOY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE
FLOW
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
B.O.D. (5 day)
COLIFORM
Eff.
Percent
. Eff.
Eff.
Percent
Eff <
$ over
Mgd.
PPM
Removed
P.E.*
PPM
Removed
P.E.*
l/nl
4/22/58
5-75
113
36
27094
114
20
32775
100
7/ 1/58
5.7
27
87
6422
99
24
28200
25
10/ 4/58
5.32
49
76
IO87O
82
51
21800
0
4/21/59
5,79
56
67
13511
132
62
38215
50
6/17/59
4.12
39
69
6700
97
4l
19982
0
7/ 9h9
4.58
79
63
15095
86
39
19700
11
8/26/59
6.43
61
62
16346
122
32
39225
0
12/ 8/59
60 64
53
58
14678
156
0
51800
25
5/10/60
7.60
85
46
26938
145
7
55100
0
8/ 2/60
6=91
9
92
2594
185
26
63918
0
8/22/60
5.46
62
61
14115
No
Samples
Taken
50
q/i
«TVTr»
?! -LP/ vv
Oallip-LGS J-3J£c.ri"a— ¦
12/ 7/60
5.22
52
75
11319
126
25
32885
50
3/14/61
5.88
138
0
33831
55
0
16170
100
5/ 9761
5.45
43
69
9772
104
66
28340
25
Average
14949
34469
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - 4/l4 visits
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Coliform removal - 3/14 visits
* Estimated
A-34
-------
PERTH AMBOY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, HEW JERSEY
The Perth Amboy sewage treatment plant was "built in 193^
to accommodate a design flow of 10=0 mgd providing sedimentation,
chemical flocculation and ehlorination, The treatment units con-
sist of a "bar rack, chemical flocculation chamber, mechanically-
equipped settling tanks with magnetite filters, chlorination
facilities including a contact tank, and vacuum filtration of the
raw sludge after sludge conditioning. The outfall line discharges
approximately 200' offshore of the treatment plant site into the
Raritan River at approximately the center of the bathing area of
a public "bathing beach of the city of Perth Amboy, The estimated
population served is 42,000 persons with an average flow of
approximately 7,0 mgd.
Inspections by the Interstate Sanitation Commission staff
since 1958 have shown that the plant has failed to meet compact
requirements on suspended solids removal on k occasions during
the 15 visits of the Commission, The suspended solids removals
have ranged from a low of a negative removal recorded on March ~Lb}
19.61 to a high of 92$ recorded on August 2, I960, The plant has
also failed to meet the Compact requirements on coliform removal
on 3 occasions during the last 15 visits of the Commission staff.
Records of the Interstate Sanitation Commission show that
the plant was by-passed for a period of one week from September 21
to September 28, 1958 while the pumps were being repaired. During
a visit of August 2, i960 the Commission staff noted that bubbles
were rising in the center portion of both claxifiers indicating a
septic condition. It was also noted on this report that in the
beginning of July a State inspector had reported recommending an
extension of the outfall pipe, .Furthermore, a lifeguard on the
beach had said that several samples had recently been taken at
the beach by the State inspectors. During a visit of May 9, I96I
the Commission staff said that the filters had started spilling
over through the emergency relief passes recently built into the
filters. During a.visit on April 21, 1961 by the State inspector
it was noted that one filter was out of operation due to clogging
by industrial waste from a local paper company. It was also noted
that this filter had been out of operation since April 5® These
filters are by-passed by a series of relief pipes inserted in the
A-35
-------
circumference of the filter to allow the.liquid-to escape
through the pipe rather than up-flow through the filter as
the plant was designed.
The sewer system in Perth Amboy is a combined system
with 18 leaping weir devices. These devices are set to "by-
pass all flows over 9 million gallons per day. By-passins
has occurred from time to time during periods of storm,,.
A-3T
-------
WOODBRIDGE"SEWAREN SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE FLOW SUSPENDED SOLIDS B.O.D. (5 day) COLIFORM
Eff.
Percent
Eff.
Eff.
Percent
Eff . io over
Mgd.
PPM
Removed
P.E.*
PPM
Removed
P.E..* l/xnl
V 9/58
5-9
35
78
8611
25
62
7375
6/26/58
1.04
3^
74
1^76
82
3^
4264
10 /pp/sft
—TVTfv QqtT1T\1 AG n^Q 1rQr>
J.v/ CLC-f JKj
Xi U QcuIL_px c D x jJj." 1X
4/22/59
2.28
^5
T5
^278
59
56
$726'
T/ 2/59
1.25
in
60
2137
No Samples Taken
8/27/59
1.11
38
79
1759
82
53
4551
10/14/59
0 „ 566
80
60
1888
76
19
2151
12/10/59
0.903
42
68
1580
36
63
1625
6/23/60
1.01
23
89
968
81
40
4091
7/28/60
2.19
38
36
3^70
56
23
6132
8/25/60
3.91
27
71
4402
No Samples Taken
10/20/60
3.66
63
79
9615
58
52
106l4
5/18/61
4.34
15
81
2714
17
71
3689
Average
3573
5122
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - 0/l2 visits
* Estimates
A-38
-------
WOODBRIDGE (SEWERAN SECTION) SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, NEW JERSEY
The Woodbridge (Seweran) sewage treatment plant was
"built in 195^ to accommodate a design flow of 10.0 mgd. The
treatment consists of sedimentation. The treatment units in-
clude a grit chamber, "bar screens, aerated flocculation tanks,
mechanically-equipped settling tanks, mechanical filters, chlor-
ination equipment including cHorine contact tanks and vacuum
filtration for sludge. The outfall discharges to Arthur Kill.
The estimated population served is 21,000 persons. The plant
serves a portion of Woodbridge Township. The remainder of the
Township is sewered to the Rahway Valley Sewage Treatment Works
or to the Woodbridge Township Sewage Treatment Plant at Keasby,
New Jersey. Average flow for the plant is estimated at 2.2 mgd.
Inspections "by the Interstate Sanitation Commission staff
since 1958 have shown the plant to meet the Compact requirements
for suspended solids removal. The plant is in the ISC Class "B,r
waters. Suspended solids removal of only 10$ is required and no
coliform removal is required. No chlorination was practiced during
i960 according to the ISC records. Woodbridge Township has a
separate system with 6 pumping stations. None of the pumping
stations have "built-in "by-passes.
A-39
-------
CARTERET SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE
FLOW
SUSPENDED !
SOLIDS
B„0oD„ (5 day) (
Eff „
Percent
Eff.
Eff.
Percent Eff.
Mgd„
PPM
Removed
P.E. *
PPM
Removed P.E.*
5/29/58
2,18
82
86
7^56
No Samples Taken
7/28/58
1.63
110
66
7477
50
24 4080
10/15/58
1.93
53
77
4266
50
62 4825
4/22/59
2.17
172
79
15562
202
57 21915
7/ 2/59
1.85
205
71
15638
No Samples Taken
8/27/59
1.91
98
67
7798
292
54 27885
H/lO/59
1-93
91
59
7323
No Samples Taken
6/23/60
lo72
69
50
^950
117
13 10062
7/28/60
3.15
92
0
12093.
69
3 10867
8/25/60
3"0*
99
70
12384
No Samples Taken
9/29/60
2.55
115
71
12228
114
8 14535
3/30/61
3.12
51
53
6635
52
53 8112
6/ 8/61
3-0*
37
83
4628
81
46 12150
Average
9111
12715
COLIFOEM
io over
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal
l/l3 visits
* Estimated
A-40
-------
THE CARTERET SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, NEW JERSEY
The Carteret sewage treatment plant was built in 1953
to accommodate a design flow of 3-0 mgd. The treatment consists
of sedimentation. The treatment units include a bar rack, grit
chambers, chemical flocculation tanks, mechanically-equipped
settling tanks, sand filters and chlorination facilities, in-
cluding a chlorine contact tank, with vacuum filtration after
sludge conditioning. The outfall discharges to the Arthur Kill.
The estimated population served by this plant is 13,000 persons.
The i960 Census for Carteret shows a population of 1^,603° The
average flow is 2,k- mgd.
Inspections by the Interstate Sanitation Commission since
1958 have shown the plant has failed to meet Compact requirements
for suspended solids removal on only 1 occasion in a total of 13
visits. The plant discharges to Class "B" waters of the Inter-
state Sanitation Commission,, The standards for these waters axe
10$ removal of suspended solids and no chlorination is required.
The sewer system is a .combined system with 3 pumping stations.
The 3 stations do not have built-in by-passes. The system, how-,
ever, has 7 regulating chambers, 6 with outfalls to the Arthur
Kill and the 7"th with an outfall to the Rahway River. All regu-
lators are controlled by float valves.
k-bl
-------
RAHWAY VALLEY" SEWAGE TREATMENT PLAJVT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE FLOW .SUSPENDED SOLIDS B.O.D. (5 day) COLIFQRM
Eff„ Percent Eff. Eff. Percent EfT. over
Mgd.
PPM
Removed
P.E.*
PPM
Removed
P.E.:
12/ 8/59
28.76
56
56
67160
104
19
149552
6/23/60
20.J+5
44
72
37521
100
29
102250
T/18/6O
17.13
66
58
47145
84
53
71946
8/IO/6O
16.92
lb
60
52211
108
33
91368
10/15/60
26.70
4l
70
45640
135
4
180225
V 5/61
27.86
49
72
36926
78
.35
108654
Average
51102
117332
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - 0/6 visits
* Estimated
A-42
-------
RAHWAY VALLEY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT- NEW .JERSEY
The Rahway Valley sewage treatment plant was constructed
in 1928 to accommodate a design flow of 16.7 mgd„ The treat-
ment consists of sedimentation. Treatment units include bar
racks, grit chamber, mechanically-equipped sedimentation "basin
sludge digestion with vacuum filtration and glass-covered
sludge beds. The outfall of this treatment plant was recently
extended to discharge to the Arthur Kill. The treatment plant
serves an estimated population of 170,000 persons.
Inspections by the Interstate Sanitation Commission
since the plant came within their jurisdiction in 1959 have
shown that the plant has. met Compact requirements for sus-
pended solids removal on each of the 6 visits made by the
Commission staff. The plant is located in Class"B" waters
and, therefore, no chlorination is practiced except for
odor control. The sludge is discharged to the Linden-Roselle
plant for disposal by barging to sea. No information was
available as to known by-passes.
A-43
-------
LINDEN-ROSELLE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE
FLOW
SUSPENDED !
SOLIDS
B.O.D. (5 day) COLIFORM
Eff.
Percent
Eff.
Eff.
Percent Eff. $ over
Mgd.
PPM
Removed
P.E.*
PPM
Removed P.E** l/ml
4/17/58
13.77
102
65
58568
247
27 170050
6/19/58
11.94
96
64
47788
331
22 197600
10/ T/58
9.6
65
73
26021
363
14 174250
5/ 5/59
11.41
90
62
42826
244
43 139200
7/ 2/59
9.96
93
70
38614
No Samples Taken
8/27/59
10.38
117
92
50642
4li
37 213300
12/ 2/59
11.65
101
75
49066
352
38 205000
6/ 9/60
10.65
96
69
42634
473
5 251872
7/18/60
9.0-3
92
63
34642
284
17 .128.226
8/29/60
8.70
105
72
38092
No Samples' Taken
9/22/60
19.47
48
69
38971
83
32 80800
4/16/61
14.08
118
55
69282
288
16 202752
Average
44762
176305
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - 0/l2 visits
* Estimated
A-44
-------
LINDEN-ROSELLE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
The Linden-Roselle sewage treatment plant was "built in
1952 to accommodate a design flow of 12.5 mgd. Treatment con-
sists of sedimentation. treatment units consist of bar screens,
grit chamber, mechanically-equipped settling tanks and sludge
storage tanks with sludge disposal "by "barging to sea. The out-
fall line discharges to Arthur Kill. • The estimated population
served by this plant is 120,000. The average flow is 12.2 mgd.
The plaint influent includes a large tributary loading of in-
dustrial waste.
Inspections by the Interstate Sanitation Commission
since 1958 have shown this plant to meet the Compact require-
ments for suspended solids removal on each of the 12 visits by
the Commission staff. The plant is located in Class "IS" waters
and no chlorination is required. The Commission staff, how-
ever, has noted that this plant has by-passed on numerous
occasions in the past. A record of these by-passes is as
follows:
April 17, 1958
June 19, 1959
June 23, 2b, 25, I960
September 12, i960
Becember 21, i960
January 1, 1961
partial by-passing during
rains
by-passing
by-passing due to power
failure
by-passing due to hurri-
cane for 8 hrso
by-passing for 16 hrs
by-passed for 2b hrs due
to high flow over 30 mgd
Linden-Roselle is, for the most part, a separate system with 2
pump stations and one regulator. Both pump stations contain
emergency by-pass provisions, A regulator located on Morse's
Mill Hoad .contains emergency by-pass provisions. A regulator
located on Morse' s Mill Road contains a 1+8" outfall to Morse' s
Creek as of 1959. This, plant is operating at or over its de-
signed capacity as indicated by the frequency of its by-passes.
A-U
-------
ELIZABETH JOINT MEETING SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE
FLOW
Mgd.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
B.Q.D. C5 day)
Eff „
PPM
Percent
Removed
Eff.
P.E.*
Eff.
PPM
Percent
Removed
Eff.
P.E.*
COLIFORM
$ over
l/ml
kfl6/58
6/16/58
IO/16/58
3/19/59
6/25/59
9/ 2/59
11/12/58
5/26/60
7/ 7/60
7/18/60
8/17/60
5/11/61
63.24
36.6
35.8
54.4
44.0
90.8
43.5
50.6
40.2
34.42
37.39
61.8
Average
81
94
85
65
83
41
82
57
43
85
148
151
187
139
147
85
117
106
151
142
—, _ Sample Lost-
75 57 193279 n4
145027
47
50
57
61
65
71
54
68
71
62
213605
143448
126893.
147451
152288
155240
148744
120271
72082
122001
26
0
16
24
27
49
30
43
7
38
4o
467976
276350
330050
378I00
323400
385900
254500
268200
303510
244380
352260
325870
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - O/ll visits
* Estimated
A-45
-------
ELIZABETH JOINT MEETING SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, NEW JERSEY
The Elizabeth Joint meeting treatment plant was built in
1937 to accommodate a design flow of 100 mgd. Treatment units
include screens, grit chamber, mechanically-equipped sedimen-
tation, and sludge storage with sludge disposed of by barging
to sea. The outfall discharges to the Arthur Kill, The esti-
mated population served is 475>000 persons. The average flow
is approximately 52 mgd.
Inspections by the Interstate Sanitation Commission
since 1958 have shown the plant to meet the Compact require-
ments for suspended solids removal on each of the 11 visits
by the Commission staff. The plant discharges to Class "B'r
waters, and no chlorination Is required. The Joint meeting
plant serves 12 communities. With the exception of Elizabeth,
the communities have separate systems with gravity flow.
Elizabeth has 1 pump station and 8 regulating chambers. In
case of surcharging, the pump station backs the flow up the
main and out through the regulators which discharge to Arthur
Kill at various locations.
A-U6
-------
WILLOWBROOK HOSPITAL.SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE FLOW SUSPENDED SOLIDS B.O.D. (5 day) COLIFORM
Eff. Percent Eff. Eff. Percert Eff. $ over
Mgd. PPM Removed P.E.* PPM Removed . P.E.* l/ml
.5/1/58
0.480
68
65
1361
266
13
6384
8/25/58
0.524
71
72
1540
244
.11
64oo
10/ 8/58
O.591
61
68
1501
250
2
7390
3/31/59
75
65
3^6
0
6/29/59
0.713
79
66
2348
283
20
10091
9/ 8/59
0.650
77
75
2085
258
36
8385
11/24/59
0.632
70
55
222
0
7000
5/ 5/60
0.710
72
66
2131
315
21
11182
7/28/60
0.672
87
42
2430
335
5
11252
8/11/60
' 0.64
71
74
1894
29^
6
9408
9/ 6/60
0.63
66
73
1733
321
24
10111
6/ 1/61
0.647
74
65
2006
297
10
9607
Average
1903
9854
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - 0/l2 visits
* Estimated
A-k-J
-------
WILLOWEROOK STATE SCHOOL, STATEN ISLAND
Willowbrook State School is served by a primary treatment
plant built in 19^1. The plant was designed to accommodate a flow
of 0.6 mgd. Treatment consists of sedimentation. Discharge is
through an outfall to Hresh Kills, at the junction of Etesh Kill
with the Arthur Kill. The population served is estimated at 4,000
persons. Average flow is estimated at 0.6 mgd equal to the de-
signed capacity of the plant.
The plant met the Compact requirements for suspended
solids removal on all occasions. Since the plant discharges to
Class ,rB" waters, chlorination is not required.
A-kQ
-------
TOTTENVILLE SECTION OF SIATEN ISLAND
Tottenville Section of Staten Island, comprising a drainage
area of approximately 2600 acres, drains to both Arthur Kill and
Raritan Bay„ Ih i960 the estimated population for this area was
8,250 persons. The New York City Department of Public Works esti-
mates that at least half of this group discharge their wastes to
individual sub-surface disposal systemsThe wastes from the re-
mainder, or about 4,000 persons, drains directly to the Arthur Kill
and Raritan Bay through sewers without treatment. This raw sewage
reaches Raritan Bay and Arthur Kill through several different sewer
outlets„
A-50
-------
MOUNT LORETTO HOME SEWAGE. TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE FLOW SUSPENDED SOLIDS B..O.D. C5 day), CQLIFORM
Eff„ Percent Eff. Eff. Percent Iiff. $ over
Mgd. PPM Removed P. E. * PPM Removed P,E„* l/ml
3/22/58***- No Samples Taken— • 100
5/22/58** " " " 100
9/16/58** " " " 100
5/28/59** " " " 100
12/_3/52** " " " 100
8/ 3/60** " " " 100
1961 No visits so far
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Cpliform removal -6/6 visits
* Estimated
** New
*** Old
A-51
-------
MT„, LQRETTO HOME, STATEN ISLMD, N. Y.
Mt, Loretto Home has 2 sewage treatment facilities, built
around 1937° These facilities were designed to accommodate a flow
of Ool mgd, Both of these facilities consist of septic tanks„ Dis-
charge is to Raritan Bay* The system serves a population of approxi-
mately 1,000 children and 200 adults. There are k separate septic
tanks, each with a capacity of 22,500 gallons, HTH solution is
applied to the effluent of 3 of these tanks. The Vth tank is not
chlorinated. Average flow is estimated at ,09 mgd.
Inspections by the Interstate Sanitation Commission indicate
that the plant has failed to meet Compact requirements for coliform
removals on every occasion during the 6 visits made by the Commission
staff.
A-52
-------
MARIST NOVITIATE, STATEN ISLAND
The home of the Marist Novitiate on Bayview Avenue in
Staten Island is served by two small septic tanks which dis-
charge to Lemon Creek a small tributary to Raritan Bay. The
plant serves an estimated 35 persons in the home. No other
information is available.
k-5k
-------
RICHMOND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OP PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE
FLOW
J&.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
B.O.D. (5 day)
Eff.
PPM
Percent
Removed
Eff, .
P„E„*
Eff.
PPM
Percent
Removed
Eff.
P.E.*
COLIFORM
io over
l/ml
5/22/58
9/16/58
5/28/59
12/ 3/59
.8/ 3/60
1961
-No Samples Taken-
No visits so far
100
100
100
100
100
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Coliform removal - 5/5 visits
* Estimated
A-55
-------
RICHMOND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, STATEN ISLAND
Richmond Memorial Hospital is served "by a septic tank
built in 1936 with a capacity of 10,000 gallons. . There is, in
addition, a 500 gallon baffled contact tank. HTH is added once
daily to the chlorine contact tank. The hospital has 160 "beds
and approximately 100 workers. In addition, 6 to 8 houses are
also tied into these systems to give a population served of
approximately 300.
Inspections by the Interstate Sanitation Commission have
indicated that this plant failed to meet Compact coliform require-
ments on each of the 5 visits made by the Commission staff.
A-56'
-------
S. S. WHITE DENTAL COMPMY, STATEN ISLAND
The S. S. White Dental Company Is served by a chlorination
contact tank. Population served Is approximately 700 persons.
Discharge is to Raritan Bay. HTH is used for chlorination. In-
dustrial wastes containing chromates and cyanide are also dis-
charged to the "bay. No information is available as to •performance
of this plant.
A-58
-------
SAINT JOSEPH'S HOME SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE FLOW SUSPENDED SOLIDS B.O.D. (5 day) COLIFORM
Eff. Percent Eff. Eff. Percent Eff. over
Mgd. PPM Removed P.E.* PPM Removed P.E.* l/ml
5/22/58 No samples Taken
7/ 2/59 " " " 100
8/ 3/60
1961 No visits so far
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Coliform removal - l/l visits
* Estimated
A-59
-------
ST. JOSEPH'S HOME, STATEN ISLAND
St. Joseph's Home has 5 septic tanks and serves approximately
40 persons in the winter and 200 during the summer months. The plant
failed to meet the Commission coliform requirements on the one visit
recorded by the Commission staff during the past 4 years. The efflu-
ent is discharged to Raritan Bay.
A-6o
-------
OAKWOOD BEACH SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
FROM
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION RECORDS
DATE
FLOW
SUSPENDED !
30LIDS
B.O.D. (5 day)
COLIFOKI
Eff.
Percent
Eff.
Eff.
Percent
Eff.
% over
Mgd.
PPM
Removed
P.E.*
PPM
Removed
P.E.*
l/ml
5/7/58
16.80
26
77
18214
12
69
10080
75
7/9/58
11.00
35
71
16054
10
88
5500
0
8/20/58
7.63
13
87
4136
10
83
3815
25
11/19/58
8.56
71
34
253^5
10
89
4280
100
3/18/59
IO.38
36
59
15583
28
64
14530
25
6/17/59
8.0*
29
W
9674
22
74
8800
25
7/14/59
8.0*
22
84
7339
25
79
10000
0
9/30/59
8.15
22
85
7477
27
85
11000
0
5/ 3/60
9-70
26
72
10516
29
61
14065
0
6/ 2/60
8.00
22
87
7339
25
80
10000
0
7/19/60
8.04
8
95
2682
26
72
10452
0
8/10/60
10.16
Samples Lost
25
11/15/60
8.93
16
84
5958
18
75
8037
25
4/11/61
ik.J
23
73
14098
23
79
16905
50
5/16/61
13.9
17
78
9853
17
67
11815
50
Average
11019
99^-9
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Suspended Solids removal - 2/l4 visits
Failure to meet Compact requirements
for Coliform removal - 2/lk visits
*Estimated
A-6l
-------
OAKWOOD BEACH SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, STATEN ISLAND
The Oakwood Beach sewage treatment plant was "built in
1956 to accommodate a design flow of 15.0 mgd„ Treatment con-
sists. of high rate activated sludge, and chlorination. Treat-
ment, units are a "bar rack, grit chamber/ aeration tanksf mech-
anically-equipped, secondary tanks, chlorination, sludge thick-
ening, sludge digestion with sludge disposal by "barging to-sea.
The estimated population served "by this plant is 85,000 persons.
The average flow is approximately 10 mgd.
Inspections "by the Interstate Sanitation Commission since
1958 have shown that the plant failed to-meet Compact standards
for suspended solids removal on 2 occasions during the 14 visits
to this plant. Similarly, on 2 occasions the plant, failed to
meet the collform removal requirements of the Commission on a
total of 15 visits to the plant. Suspended solids.removal have
ranged from a iow. of 3^$ on -November 19, 19^8 "to a high of 95$
removal on July 19, 1960. The system is reported to be a sepa-
rate system „
A-62
-------
APPENDIX B
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS TRIBUTARY
TO THE RARITAN-LOWER BAY
AND ARTHUR KILL STUDY AREA
KEY TO TREATMENT CODE
-------
KEY TO TREATMENT CODE
A -
• Aeration
B -
¦ Sludge bed
C -
¦ Settling tank
D -
¦ Digester (separate sludge)
E -
¦ Chlorination
F -
- Filters
G -
Grit chamber
H -
- Sludge storage tank (not second
stage digestions units)
K -
- Chemical treatment
S -
¦ Screens
T -
- Sludge thickener
V -
- Mechanical sludge dewatering
X -
- Sludge disposal
Z -
- Sludge conditioning
Brl
-------
NEW YORK APPENDIX A
EVALUATION OF POLLUTION CONDITIONS
IN THE ARTHUR KILL
-------
APPENDIX NEW YORK - A
EVALUATION OF POLLUTION CONDITIONS IN THE ARTHUR KILL
The Arthur Kill is a tidal strait, 13 miles in length, connecting
Newark Bay at Elizabethport with Raritan Bay at Tottenville. It separates
Union and Middlesex Counties of New Jersey from the western shore of Staten
Island. Because of its use for navigation by fairly large vessels, such as
oil tankers, a channel 30 to 35> feet deep and from i;00 to 800 feet wide has
been dredged throughout the length of the Kill,
In considering the tidal and pollutional characteristics of the Kill,
it has been found convenient to separate it into two zones, the dividing
line being the southern end of the Fresh Kills Reach (Chart 286, U.S.C. &
G.S.)« The northern zone is comparatively narrow, connects with the pollu-
ted waters of Newark Bay and receives the major portion of the pollution
discharging directly into the Arthur Kill. The southern zone is fairly wide,
receives a lower pollutional load and terminates in the less polluted Rari-
tan Bay.
A consideration in such separation is that the Fresh Kills area
represents the limits of the tidal excursions from Newark Bay and Raritan
Bay waters into the Arthur Kill. Pollution discharging into the Fresh Kills
area therefore experiences difficulty in being carried out of the Kill
through either the northern or southern route, and so a greater portion of
its ultimate oxygen demand is exerted in the Kill.
The dimensional and tidal characteristics of the Kill are presented
in Table 1. It is significant that the more highly polluted northern zone
possesses only one-third of the total water surface in contact with the
atmosphere for reaeratione Furthermore, the northern zone has greater aver-
age depth, hence tidal circulation is less effective in removing pollution.
It should be noted that there is little fresh water drainage into the
Kill to aid in its circulation. Net flow oat of the Kill, therefore, is
comprised substantially qf the flows associated with waste discharges.
The Interstate Sanitation Commission has classified the Arthur Kill
as Class B waters except for the small portion of the Kill south of Outer-
bridge which is Class A.
History of Arthur Kill
The annual Harbor Pollution Survey of the City of New York has
regularly included sampling the waters of the Arthur Kill since 1926.
Samples for analysis are taken from near the water surface and several feet
above the bottom during the summer, usually from mid-June to mid-September.
N.Y. A - 1
-------
Table 1
DIMENSIONS AND TIDAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ARTHUR KILL
Characteristic
Arthur Kill
Tottenville to Fresh Kills
Fresh Kills to Elizabeth
Length, miles
Area, sq. ft.
Volume, cu. ft.,
13
124,000,000
2,170,000,000
6
80,000,000
1,230,000,000
7
44,000,000
940,000,000
low water
Volume, cu. ft.,
2,790,000,000
1,640,000,000 1,150,000,000
high water
Tidal prism, cu. ft.
Tidal range, ft.
Duration of flood, hrs.
Duration of ebb, hrs.
Tidal circulation, days
620,000,000
4.9
6.5
5-9
410,000,000
1.80
5.1
210,000,000
4.8
2.57
Tidal lag at Elizabeth 0.7 hours after Tottenville.
The sampling points, from south to north, are as follovs:
1. Tottenville, near the southern end of the Kill.
2. Fresh Kills, near the mid-point of the Kill.
3. B&0 Drawbridge, near the northern end of the Kill
in the vicinity of the outfall of the Elizabeth-Joint Meeting
plant.
4. Shooters Island, just outside the Kill in Newark
Bay, which is useful in evaluating the waters at the northern
end.
Individual survey records for dissolved oxygen are available since
1930. The average dissolved oxygen saturation for the respective sampling
points is shown in Figure 1. A 3-year moving average was used in order to
better illustrate trends and minimize the effect of variations in tidal
and weather conditions.
This figure shows that the Arthur Kill at Tottenville is not as yet
a serious sanitary problem. However, the trend in dissolved oxygen has been
downward there since the early 1940's, and caution is indicated in regard to
further increasing the pollutional load, if it is desired to maintain an
N.Y. A - 2
-------
Figure 1
PER CENT D.Oo SATURATIONS AT SAMPLING POINTS
IN ARTHUR KILL, 1930-1955
3-Tear Moving Averages
70
Per Cent
D.O. Sat.
60
50
l+o
30
20
10
Tottenvi'lle
ters Island
Class "B"
Fresh Kills
1930
19U0
Year
N.Y. A - 3
1950.
-------
average oxygen saturation above 50 per cento (Tottenville is in Class A
waters.)
At Fresh Kills pollution conditions xjere not serious through the
1930'So However, in 19^1 a sharp downward trend in the dissolved oxygen
began which culminated in the waters of the Fresh Kills area becoming a
nuisance 0 This trend coincided with the increased, industrial activity dur-
ing and after the war years.
The Arthur Kill at the B&O Bridge has been seriously polluted for
decades by the discharge of large quantities of sewage in that immediate
area. As a result of sharply increased industrial wastes loads superimposed
on a gradually increasing sewage load, the waters of this area have so
deteriorated as to now possess the unenviable distinction of being the most
degraded of New York Harbor in regard to dissolved oxygen, as indicated in
the Harbor Pollution Survey.
Sanitary conditions just outside the northern entrance to the Arthur
Kill may be judged by the data for Shooters Island. These data show a down-
ward trend of dissolved oxygen starting at about the sane period as the
other stations. However, the rate of decrease is significantly less at
Shooters Island, the average dissolved oxygen not yet having been lowered
to 30 per cent of saturation,, This apparently results from the high rate of
interchange between the waters of Upper New York Bay and Newark Bay through
the relatively short Kill Van Kull.
Pollutional.Load on Arthur Kill
The extreme conditions in the Arthur Kill, which became apparent dur-
ing the war, are evidently the result of a large and growing pollutional
loado The magnitude of this load may be evaluated in a number of ways.
Since the major problem is that of abating a nuisance, the pertinent char-
acteristic of the load is its biochemical oxygen demand.
The- records of the Interstate Sanitation Commission were consulted
for information as to the direct loads imposed on the Arthur Kill. These
loads consist of raw domestic sewage, effluents from municipal sewage plants,
and large quantities of industrial wastes discharged in or near the Arthur
Killo Of the total Bo0oDo discharged, not all can be considered as directly
applied load because some is carried out of the Kill immediately and does
not reappear® Thus for Perth Amboy, situated at the southern end of the
Kill, only one-half of the discharged load is considered to appiy directly,
the other half being carried away into Raritan Bay on the ebb tide.
The pollutional load on the Arthur Kill is shown in Table 2. This
indicates that the industrial waste load comprises about one-half of the
entire biochemical oxygen demand on the Arthur Kill. The Interstate Sanita-
tion Commission Industrial Wastes Inventory also shows quantities of acids,
N.Yo A - U
-------
Table 2
POLLUTIONAL LOAD ON ARTHUR KILL
Source
Population
(Thousands)
Flow
M.G.D.
Total 5-Day
B.O.D. Discharged
Lbs/Day
Total 5-Day
B.O.D. Applied
Lbs /Day
Port Richmond
35
5
3 3 000
1,000
Industrial, East
-
7
18,000
9,000
Shore (6 plants)
Elizabeth Joint
350
38
38,000
26,000
Meeting
Elizabeth (untreated)
50
5
10,000
5,000
Linden-Roselle
53
13
8,000
8,000
Rahway Valley
60
9
U,000
U,ooo
Industrial, West
—
218
UUjOOO
UU,ooo
Shore (23 plants)
Staten Island,
10
-
2,000
2,000
sewered (est.)
Carteret
13
3
2,000
2,000
Woodbridge
21
3
3,000
3 a 000
Perth Amboy
U1
7
9,000
It, 000
Total
108,000
Industrial
533ooo
Municipal
55,000
East Side
12,000
West Side
96,000
oils, greases and toxic substances contributing to the degradation of these
waters, the main sources arising from Union County, New Jersey„
The other-single large source of pollution is the discharge of settled
sewage from the Elizabeth-Joint Meeting plapt. Inasmuch as the outfall is
situated about one-and-one-quarter miles inside the northern entrance to the
Arthur Kill, two-thirds of the load was estimated to apply directly to the
Kill,
With the addition of the other smaller sources of pollution, a total
N.Y. A - 0
-------
applied load of some 108,000 lbs per day of 5-day 20°C B.O.D. is exerting
its influence in the Arthur Kill, as compared to a total of 1U1,000 lbs per
day dischargedo
Another way of computing the B.O.D. load on the Arthur Kill is from
the B.O.D. analyses made by the Harbor Survey,, Such figures are available
continuously from 1939o FVom.these figures a profile cf the average 5-day
20°C B.O.D. in the'Kill may be drawn. This profile, in conjunction with
the corresponding mean volumes of water^, may be used to calculate the total
biochemical oxygen demand present in the Kill, regardless of origin. Of
this total B.O.D. present, some is brought into the Kill from the Raritan
and Newark Bay ends by tidal circulation. The wastes directly discharged
into the Kill superimpose their demand on this base level of pollution. If
this base level is determined by obtaining the average B.O.D. of the waters
entering the Kill, then the direct load can be evaluated.
A formula has been derived to show the relationship between total
load present and the daily addition. Assuming perfect mixing and a uniform
rate of addition and displacement, the following formula may be useds
Essentially, the formula states that, under equilibrium conditions,
the total accumulated load present will be biochemically oxidized and dis-
placed at individual rates whose sum equals the rate of daily application
of load.
The B.O.D. of the waters of the Arthur Kill are shown in Figure 2
for two periods, namely, 1939-19Uls depicting pre-war conditions, and 19U5-
19$h3 showing post-war conditions»
For the post-war period the average B.O.D. of waters entering the
Kill was found to be about 1.75 PP-Ho B.O.D. values above this level there-
fore indicate direct shore line loa,d additions, while 1o75 ppm was brought
in from external sources o The corresponding pre-i\rar datum was about 1.25
ppm0
For purposes of calculation, the northern and southern zones of the
Kill were considered separately, inasmuch as different detention periods
Daily Load
where p = the proportion of the total carbonaceous
B.O.D. present that is satisfied per day
and D = The theoretical detention period in days3
1
so that p represents ths daily displace-
ment o
Nolo A - 6
-------
Figure 2
SUMMER B.O.D. PRESENT IN ARTHUR KILL
5-Day
B .O.D.
ville Kills Rridgq bethpor1
N.Y. A - 7
-------
and densities of loading are known to existo The total 5-day 20°C BoO.D.
present was computed, reach by reach, by finding the average concentration
and the respective volume for each reach# The datum could then be sub-
tracted from the total present to furnish the values of B.O.D. accumulated
from direct shore line additions«
The totals obtained for each zone during the pre-war and post-war
periods are shown below?
Table 3
POUNDS OF 5-DAY 20°C B.O.D. PRESENT IN ARTHUR KILL
Due to direct
shore line
Due to external
Total
Zone
addition
sources
present
Pre-War
Northern
81,000
82,000
163,000
Southern
UOjOOO
112,000
152,000
Total
121,000
19U,000
315,000
Post-Mar
Northern
125,000
111;, 000
239,000
Southern
63,000
157,000
220,000
Total
188,000
271,000
1+59,000
For the summer temperatures encountered in the Kill, 0«2U of the
total carbonaceous B.O.D. is satisfied daily,, The northern zone detention
of 2o3b days (including the effect of some fresh water runoff) accounts for
a displacement of 0<,1;3 per day, giving a total ratio of O067 per day. For
the'southern zone, with a detention of 1„8 days, the corresponding ratio is
0»80o These ratios times the quantity of B.O.D. present is equal to the
daily load application,, Thus, the northern zone stores one-and-one-half
times the daily load addition, while the southern zone holds one-and-one-
quarter days load0
The direct shore line additions to provide the computed quantities
of B.O.D. present above the datum levels are shown below:
N.Yo A - 8
-------
Table h
COMPUTED DAILY APPLIED LOAD (SHORE LINE), 5-DAY 20°C B.O.D.
Zone
Pre-War
Post-War
Per Cent
Difference
(of Post-War)
Northern
55,000
8U,000
35
Southern
32,000
51,000
37
Total
87,000
135,000
36
Also included is the percentage difference between pre- and post-war
loads based on the post-war value. As such,, it is the proportion of present
direct load to be removed to return to pre-war direct load.
The table finds an average applied shore line load of 135,000 lbs of
5-day 20°C B.O.D. per day for the period 19b$-^-9$k<> The daily applied load,
from Table 2, was found to be- 108,000 lbs per day. The total applied loads,
as derived in these different manners, are thus -in reasonable agreement.
However, the computed daily B.O.D. load (from Table k) in the southern zone
is higher than can be accounted for by shore line sources, as given in Table
2. This clearly indicates that a significant portion of the direct load on
the northern zone finds its way southward by tidal interchange, thus appear-
ing as a direct load on the southern zone.
Returning to Table 3, it is apparent that a major portion of the
B.O.D. burden on the Arthur Kill results from external sources, especially
so in the southern zone. For the pre-war period this accounted for 62 per
cent of the total B.O.D. present, while the corresponding figure for the
post-war period was 5? P®** cento Furthermore, there was a large increase
in total load between the. two periods. To restore the load from external
sources to the pre-war magnitude, the post-war load must be reduced bv 28
per cent.
In connection with the effects on the Arthur Kill of the loads
previously discussed, it ..is .interesting, to examine , the observed dissolved
oxygen profiles for these periodso These are shown in Figure 3«
The Interstate Sanitation Commission requires that for Class B waters
the dissolved oxygen should not be depressed below 30 per cent saturation
during any week. For pre-war conditions this criterion was substantially
met, except for the area in the vicinity of the B&O Bridge. On the other
hand, as a result of the previously demonstrated increases in internal and
N.Y.-A-, - 9
-------
Figure 3
SUMMER SATURATION PROFILE ALONG ARTHUR KILL
100 _
Per Cent
D.Oo Sat.
80 _
60
UO -
20
0
This reach now consist-,
ently substandard to
Class "B" waters.
Totten-
ville
\
Fresh
Kills
B&O Shooters
Bridge Island
N.Y. A - 10
-------
external load, the oxygen was so depressed that, for the post-war period,
over one-half of the length of the Arthur Kill averaged less than 30 per
cent dissolved,oxygen saturation for the entire summer. In order to restore
the Arthur Kill to reasonable compliance with the standards of the Inter-
state Sanitation Commission, it appears necessary to at least reduce the
load to that prevailing prior to the ware The previous computations have
indicated that this would be accomplished by reducing the present direct
shore line load by 36 per cent and the load from external sources by 28 per
cento If there is any future increase of load, a greater proportion of that
total future load would have to be removed to restore pre-war conditions.
It might be pointed out that the effect of application of a given
load on the dissolved oxygen in the Kill will vary according to location.
Such relationships have been plotted, on Figure k for Fresh Kills, B&0 Bridge
and Shooters Islando It can be seen that a given B.O.D. concentration at
Shooters Island depresses the dissolved oxygen less than the same B.O.D. at
B&0 Bridgeo This is to be expected inasmuch as the waters at Shooters
Island freely interchange with those in Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay. The
large volumes of water interchanging with Shooters Island waters reduces the
response to loade-
Fresh Kills, when lightly loaded, had acceptable dissolved oxygen
conditions because of some contact with the relatively clean waters to the
south. As load on Fresh Kills increased., a sharp-reduction in dissolved
oxygen occurred. This sensitivity to load application reaffirms that pollu-
tion in this area is not readily remove,d by tidal currents. Caution should
be exercised when considering safe loading conditions in the vicinity of
Fresh Killso
N.Y.„ A. -
11
-------
Figure.U
RELATION OF PER CENT SATURATION D*0, TO 5-DAY 3«0,D.,
BASED ON GROUPED AVERAGES OF 1939-195H- DATA
0 1 2 3 li: 5
5-Day B«0J).« pypoJn,
N.Yo' A * 12
------- |