. Kudson-Chanplafn and MetrcpoiHan Coastal
Comprehensive Water Pofitrtion Control Prelect
Metuete* Net lofty
PRELI MI NARY -SUBJECT TO REVISION
WATER QUALITY
AND
POLLUTION CONTROL STUDY
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN
FROM LAKE OTSEGO, NEW YORK
TO LACKAWANNA RIVER CONFLUENCE, PENNSYLVANIA
CB-SRBP Working Document No. 11
FWPCA
Middle Atlantic Region
April 1967
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
p&ge
I. INTRODUCTION ............... 1-1
A. Purpose and Scope 1-1
B. Acknowledgments ' 1-2
II. GENERAL II - 1
A. Source of Information II - 1
B. Determination of Needs II - 2
C. State Stream Classifications II - 5
D. Comprehensive Planning of Water Resources of
the Susquehanna River Basin ............ II - 7
E. Susquehanna River Basin Compact II - 7
III. SUMMARY Ill - 1
A. Water Quality Ill - 1
B. Immediate Pollution Control Needs Ill - 3
1. Waste Treatment Ill - 3
2. Comprehensive Evaluations Ill - 22
3. Special Studies Ill - 2h
1+. Institutional Practices Ill - 25
C. Recent Pollution Control Progress Ill - 26
1. New York 111-26
2. Pennsylvania Ill - 27
3. Federal and State Cooperative Agencies Ill - 27
D. Water Supply 111-28
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA IV - 1
Ao Location „ . . IV - 1
B. Climate IV - 1
C. Topography IV - 2
D. Geology IV - 2
E. Principal Communities and Industries IV - 2
V. WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND COSTS V - 1
A. Susquehanna River Upstream from Binghamton,
New York V-l
1. Oneonta Area V-l
2. Sidney Area V-3
B. Chenango River V - 7
1. Hamilton Area V-7
2. Norwich Area V-9
C. Tioughnioga River ............ V - 1^
1. Cortland Area V - 14
D. Susquehanna River Below Binghamton,
New York . V - 19
1. Binghamton Area V - 19
2. Owego Area V - 25
3. Waverly, New York - Sayre, Pennsylvania,
Area V - 28
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
E. Susquehanna River Between the Chemung
and Lackawanna Rivers V - 32
1. Towanda Area V - 32
2. Charmin Paper Company ............. V - 3^
3. Swanee Paper Company V - 36
F. Tioga River V - 37
1. Blossburg Area . V - 37
2. Mansfield Area V - 39
G. Cowanesque River V - h2
1. West field Area V - k2
2. Elkland Area V - 44
H. Canisteo River V - 1+7
1. Hornell Area V - 47
I. Cohocton River V - 51
1. Bath Area V - 51
J. Chemung River . V - 54
1. Corning Area ....... a V - 54
2. Elmira Area V - 59
-------
I - 1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and. Scope
Under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 USC et seq), Section 3(a), the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to make Joint investigations with other
Federal agencies, with State Water Pollution Control Agencies
and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities and indus-
tries involved, of the condition of any waters in any State or
States and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes,
or substance which may adversely affect these waters. These
investigations are for the purpose of preparing and developing
comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution
of interstate waters and tributaries thereof.
This Working Document reports the results of the water
quality and pollution control studies carried out by staff of the
Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basins Project in accordance
with the above provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
The primary purpose of this report is to focus attention
on existing and potential water pollution problem areas as the
basis for the initiation of immediate pollution control actions.
Specific objectives of this report are to:
1. Delineate present and potential water quality
problem areas.
-------
1-2
2. Indicate responsibility for the problems.
3. Indicate possible immediate actions and responsibility
to alleviate the problem.
U. Estimate costs of these actions.
The secondary purpose of this report is to present general
coverage of potential future water quality problem areas through
year 2020. Tentative corrective actions are given for considera-
tion in planning for future actions to insure continuing water
quality satisfactory for all desired beneficial uses. A general
coverage of water supply is also included for each area. Anti-
cipated water supply needs through 2020 are indicated with areas
delineated where future water shortages are anticipated.
This report covers that portion of the Susquehanna River
and tributaries upstream from the Lackawanna River at West
Pittston, Pennsylvania, including the headwater tributaries in
the State of New York. Principal tributaries include the
Unadilla, Chenango, Tioughnioga, Chemung, Cowanesque, Canisteo,
Cohocton, and Tioga Rivers. The drainage area encompasses ap-
proximately 6,270 square miles in the central portion of New
York and U,175 square miles in north central Pennsylvania.
B„ Acknowledgments
The cooperation and assistance of the following Federal,
State, and local agencies are gratefully acknowledged:
-------
1-3
U. So Army Engineer District, Baltimore, Maryland
U. So Soil Conservation Service, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
U. So Geological Survey, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and
Ithaca, New York
New York State Department of Health, Central Office,
Albany, New York, and Syracuse and Rochester
Regional Offices
Broome County Health Department, Binghamton, New York
Chemung County Health Department, Elmira, New York
Hornell District Office, New York State Department of
Health
Pennsylvania Department of Health, Central Office,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Region II, Williamsport,
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Mines and Mineral Industries,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
National Planning Association, Washington, D. C.
Local Municipal Officials
Local Industrial Representatives
-------
II - 1
II. GENERAL
A. Source of Information
Present water quality conditions covered in this report
were evaluated by staff of the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River
Basins Project, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
employing the following sources of information:
1. Industrial water and waste facilities inventories
gathered from questionnaires sent "by the New York
and Pennsylvania Departments of Health to industries
in the Susquehanna River Basin.
2. Municipal water and waste facilities inventories
obtained from the New York and Pennsylvania Depart-
ments of Health.
3. Existing data obtained from files of State, local,
and other Federal agencies.
U. Results of CB-SRBP stream sampling investigations.
5. Public meetings and personal communications with
Federal, State, and local planning agencies.
A biological study of the Susquehanna River and tributaries
by CB-SRBP comprised a special investigation to supplement water
quality sampling data of chemical, biochemical, and bacteriological
characteristics for streams throughout the study area. Brief sum-
maries of the biological studies are given along with summaries of
quality data for most of the areas covered in this report. For
-------
II - 2
more details of the biological conditions of streams throughout
the Susquehanna River Basin, findings are presented in two pre-
vious CB-SRBP reports (CB-SRBP Working Documents Nos. 1 and 2).
A mine drainage study was undertaken by CB-SRBP to
delineate areas, problems, and general corrective measures for
mine drainage pollution in the Susquehanna, Potomac, and Dela-
ware Basins. The findings of the mine drainage study are sum-
marized briefly in this report only to point out the effect of
mine drainage on water quality in the stream reaches under con-
sideration. Detailed findings are presented in the CB-SRBP Mine
Drainage Report.
For evaluations of future water supply and water quality
requirements, county population and industrial productivity pro-
jections developed by the National Planning Association were
employed. The i960 U. S. Census Report was"used as a base from
which individual community projections were made. Industrial
loadings were projected by type of industry on an individual
production increase basis. Modifications were made to industrial
projections when specific information was obtained regarding
changes in processing, techniques, or plant operation.
B. Determination of Needs
Water quality needs were evaluated in terms of treatment
required to upgrade and maintain stream conditions which are
generally recognized as being suitable for most beneficial uses;
-------
II - 3
the minimum use being warm-water fishery. The effects of residual
waste loadings to streams were evaluated with the degree of treat-
ment specified which was expected to maintain the desired water
quality for the immediate future. In most cases, secondary treat-
ment with 85 per cent removal of BOD was specified.
Beyond 1980, the degree of treatment and other alternatives
are indicated as possible solutions where water quality problems
are anticipated; however, except for secondary treatment facilities,
the methods proposed for future actions are only given for con-
sideration, since detailed evaluations of the alternatives and
comparisons of benefits would be necessary to select the most
likely alternative.
Cost estimates for upgrading present facilities to second-
ary treatment were obtained mostly from consulting engineers who
have completed studies of needed treatment facilities for many of
the municipalities. For communities not having engaged an engineer,
cost estimates were made of the plant proper, employing construc-
tion cost information from the Public Health Service Publication
No. 1229, "Modern Sewage Treatment Plants - How Much Do They Cost,"
and updating these costs with the Public Health Service - Sewage
Treatment Plant current cost index (PHS-STP llk.h). For some
communities, costs of treatment plants were estimated by the New
York and Pennsylvania Departments of Health in previous years and,
where these estimates were available, the costs were updated to
indicate current dollar values.
-------
II - u
Needs or abatement measures to control mine drainage
pollution are discussed separately in the CB-SRBP Mine Drainage
Report; cost estimates of reducing mine drainage pollution in
the study area are given for two methods, land reclamation and
lime neutralization. Since mine drainage pollution control needs
are discussed in greater detail in a separate document, only
general coverage is given in this report. However, in areas
where pollution problems result from mine drainage as well as
organic wastes, measures to upgrade stream quality for beneficial
uses must include consideration of both sources.
In evaluating the adequacy of waste treatment facilities
in areas affected by mine drainage, an assumption was made that
mine drainage would be reduced to such an extent that acidity
and heavy metals associated with mine drainage would not impair
the natural assimilative capacities of the stream. Although
initial steps to control mine drainage may not entirely eliminate
the toxic effects of acids and heavy metals during the immediate
years ahead, measures to control or reduce mine drainage should
not be prerequisites to the provision of adequate waste treat-
ment facilities. Therefore, in making waste assimilative evalua-
tions to determine the degree of waste treatment for both present
and future, the above assumption was made; otherwise, with mine
drainage present, stream biota would be inhibited or eliminated
so that waste assimilation could not readily be determined if
occurring at all.
-------
II - 5
C. State Stream Classifications
The New York State Department of Health classifies surface
waters on the basis of "best use." Although many streams may be
used for a number of purposes, water quality conditions must con-
form to a standard matching the use requiring the greatest purity.
The New York State Department of Health engineers have
surveyed the State's streams to determine what uses each is being
put to and their existing water quality. Upon completion of sur-
veillance, a public hearing is conducted for each body of water
prior to the assignment of a classification. Once the classifi-
cation has become legal, all communities and industries are
required to treat any wastes they discharge so as not to violate
the assigned purity standard of the stream.
The classifications prescribed by the New York State
Water Resources Commission are as follows:
*
Classification Best Use Required Treatment
AA Drinking supply Tertiary treatment
with chlorination
A & B Bathing Secondary treatment
with chlorination
C Fishing Secondary treatment
D Industrial,
agricultural,
and drainage Secondary treatment
#
Unless otherwise specified by Hew York State Department
of Health.
-------
II - 6
It should be noted that all streams in the New York
)
portion of the Susquehanna River Basin are presently classified
as requiring a minimum of secondary treatment (75 to 95 per cent
removal of BOD).
The Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board classifies State
streams in terms of degree of treatment required. The main stem
of the Susquehanna River is classified as a "primary," and the
tributaries thereof are classified as "secondary," requiring
primary treatment and secondary treatment facilities, respectively.
For streams impregnated with mine drainage, waste treatment has,
in most cases, not been require.d; however, as mine drainage is
eliminated or reduced substantially so that natural waste assimi-
lation may occur, the tributary streams formerly containing mine
drainage are reclassified to upgrade water quality. The stream
classifications presented in this report should not be interpreted
to be representative of the effects of future water quality
standards.
This report delineates specific stream classifications
and actions taken by State Water Pollution Control Agencies where
municipalities and industries have been given orders to upgrade
treatment facilities. Where water quality information and other
data indicated the required degree of treatment does not appear
adequate for the immediate future, the need for additional treat-
ment facilities is included.
-------
II - 7
D. Comprehensive Planning of Water Resources of the
Susquehanna River Basin
There exists within the Susquehanna River Basin a formal
interagency coordinating committee chaired by the Corps of
Engineers and on which the Project is an active participant.
Membership consists of governor-appointed State representatives
from New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, as well as water-
oriented Federal agencies. The purpose of the Committee is to
recommend a water resources development plan to Congress, based
on evaluating alternative solutions, including costs, to meet
Basin needs.
Since all aspepts of water resource development, includ-
ing water pollution control, are being considered, no attempt
has been made to prejudge the Cpramittee findings beyond defining
immediate waste treatment needs }.n this report. Evaluations
are presently underway by the agencies acting as a work group
and, upon completion, not only immediate water resource needs
and solutions, but also the long-range needs will be determined.
E. Susquehanna River Basin Compact
The conservation, utilization, development, management,
and control of the water resources of the Susquehanna River Basin
involve complex, technical, time-consuming efforts by a large
number of governmental agencies cooperating to formulate a basin-
wide program.
-------
II - 8
In order to avoid duplication, overlapping, and uncoor-
dinated efforts from this large number of cooperating agencies,
the Interstate Advisory Committee on the Susquehanna River Basin,
which was created by the action of the States of New York, Pennsyl-
vania, and Maryland, has, on the basis of its studies and delib-
erations, recommended that an intergovernmental compact with
Federal participation be formed. In an area as large as the
Susquehanna River Basin, where approximately three million people
live and work, comprehensive multi-purpose planning and adminis-
tration by a- basin-wide agency is necessary to bring the greatest
benefits and produce the most efficient service in the public
interest.
Comprehensive planning with basin-wide administration
will provide flood damage reduction; conservation and develop-
ment of surface and ground water supply for municipal, industrial,
and agricultural use; development of recreational facilities in
relation to reservoirs, lakes, and streams; propagation of fish
and game; promotion of land management, soil conservation, and
watershed projects; protection and aid to fisheries; development
of hydroelectric power potentialities; improved navigation;
control of movement of salt water; abatement and control of water
pollution; and regulation of stream flows toward the attainment
of these goals.
-------
II - 9
The Advisory Committee has prepared a draft of an inter-
governmental compact for the creation of a Basin agency. The
States of New York, Maryland, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and the United States of America, upon enactment of concurrent
legislation by the Congress and by the respective State legis-
latures, agree with each other to the Susquehanna River Basin
Compact. To date both the States of New York and Maryland have
passed legislation to adopt the Compact.
-------
Ill - 1
III. SUMMARY
A. Water Quality
This report covers pollution control needs for that
portion of the Susquehanna River Basin upstream from the Sus-
quehanna River-Lackawanna River confluence at West Pittston,
Pennsylvania. These needs were evaluated on the "basis of heavily
populated areas presently influencing the water quality within
the study area.
The principal cause of pollution within the study area
is inadequate treatment of municipal wastes. The Binghamton
Area, for example, is currently providing primary treatment and,
in some cases, no treatment prior to discharging wastes to the
Susquehanna River. This waste loading adversely affects water
quality of the River for approximately 20 miles. The downstream
beneficial uses are more limited in this reach than in any other
portion of the entire Susquehanna River, with the possible excep-
tion of the reach downstream from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Secondary treatment is needed as an immediate action, in order
to improve the water quality downstream from Binghamton. Present
planning is considering provision of secondary treatment facilities.
Other areas along the Susquehanna River causing localized
pollution due to inadequate treatment are Oneonta (primary treat-
ment), Sidney (none and primary treatment), Owego (primary treat-
ment), Waverly (no treatment), and Sayre (no treatment). These
-------
Ill - 2
areas are also in need of facilities to provide a greater degree
of treatment.
Aside from Binghamton, the second most serious pollution
problems occur in tributary watersheds where wastes receive inade-
quate treatment and where stream flows are insufficient to assimi-
late the resulting discharge. These areas and the receiving streams
include Hamilton (overloaded secondary treatment plant) and Nor-
wich (primary) on the Chenango River; Cortland (primary) on the
Tioughnioga River; Hornell (primary) on the Canisteo River; Bath
(primary) on the Cohocton River; Westfield (primary) on the
Cowanesque River; and Corning (primary) and Elmira (overloaded
secondary plant) on the Chemung River. Secondary treatment facili-
\
ties, providing a minimum of 85 per cent BOD removal, are needed
in these areas.
Nutrient enrichment, resulting in profuse algal growths,
creates a problem in the Chenango River downstream from Norwich.
The Norwich Pharmacal Company and the surrounding dairy farm are
presumably responsible for the nutrient contributions. The
Corning Area, which is highly industrialized, also contributes
excessive quantities of nutrients to the Chemung River, causing
heavy growths of algae in the downstream reaches. However, ad-
ditional studies are needed to determine the sources and extent
of the problems in these areas.
-------
Ill - 3
Mine drainage pollution is a major problem in the upper
reaches of the Tioga River. Morris Run, Bear Creek, and Coal
Creek drain the Bloss coal field in the vicinity of Blossburg,
Pennsylvania, and are primarily responsible for the mine drain-
age introduced into the Tioga River. Mine drainage adversely
affects the Tioga River over a 36-mile section from Blossburg,
Pennsylvania, to the confluence with the Canisteo River. The
biological sampling results in the fall of 1965 indicated that
this reach of stream was generally devoid of benthic organisms
and fish life. A contractual study indicates that treatment
and land reclamation to reduce the mine drainage may be feasible;
however, specific methods and costs have not been formulated at
this time.
B. Immediate Pollution Control Needs
1. Waste treatment
The most pressing need in the Basin is for the provision
of adequate treatment facilities to control pollution at its
source.
Current treatment practices, needs, and cost estimates
for municipalities and industries in the study area are given
in Table I. (Costs estimated include treatment plant facilities
and appurtenances unless otherwise noted.)
A general summary of immediate water treatment needs in
the study area is given below:
-------
Ill - k
a. Two existing secondary plants
to be expanded to increase the
level of efficiency: $3,085,000
t>. Six primary plants,^serving 16
communities, to be expanded to
provide secondary. Estimated
total project costs: $25,097,000
c. Eight primary plants, serving
11 communities, to be expanded
to provide secondary. Estimated
costs of plant expansion only: $1,681*,300
d. Three secondary treatment plants
to be constructed to serve five
communities presently having
septic tanks or no treatment.
Estimated costs with sewers and
appurtenances: $1*, 2^1,000
e. Two communities having septic
tanks or no treatment to provide
secondary treatment facilities.
Estimated cost of plant without
sewers and appurtenances: $72l+,000
-------
Ill T 5
f. Two communities having no
treatment to provide primary
treatment as an initial step
toward pollution abatement.
Estimated cost of plant without
pewers and appurtenances:
g. Thirteen industries now having
no treatment to provide second-
ary qr Join municipal sypten^:
h. Three industries now having
primary or intermediate treat-
ment to provide secondary or
Join municipal systems:
i. One industry to provide primary
treatment as an initial step
toward pollution abatement:
$U03,000
costs
^determined
costs
undetermined
costs
undetermined
Total estimated costs
(exclusive of g, h, and i) $35*23^,300
-------
TABLE I
Location
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(MUNICIPAL)
Immediate Estimated
Population Present Treatment Project
Served Treatment Action Needed Cost
State
or Other
Action
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
Cooperstown Village
Oneonta City
Sidney Village
Unadilla Village
Binghamton City
Johnson City Village
2,380 Primary
13,1+10 Primary
5,155
700
82,000
Primary
None
Primary
25,000 None
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Join Bingham-
ton System
$560,000
v/
$2,200,000
4 ^
$319,300
. . ^ **
$7^,000
$7,837,000
/
Included in
Binghamton
Under State orders to
abate pollution. Final
plans have been sub-
mitted and approved.
A Commissioner's Order
was issued in February
1967. Comprehensive
study completed.
Under State orders to
abate pollution. Final
plans approved for
secondary treatment.
Federal grant approved.
County-wide feasibility
study underway.
A Commissioner's Order
was issued January 1967
requiring secondary
treatment.
M
I
ON
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(MUNICIPAL) (Continued)
Location
Population Present
Served Treatment
Immediate
Treatment
Action Needed
Estimated
Project
Cost
State
or Other
Action
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER (Continued)
Endicott Village 25,000 Primary
Union Town-Endwell
Vestal Town
Sewerage District #6
Sewerage District #1
and #5
Sewerage District tik
and #7
Sewerage District #8
7,000 None
350 Primary
5,500 Primary
1,500 None
200 Primary
Secondary
Join Endicott
System
Join Endicott
System
Join Endicott
System
Join Endicott
System
Join Endicott
System
$10,233,000 \/
Included in
Endicott
Included in
Endicott
Included in
Endicott
Included in
Endicott
Included in
Endi cott
A Commissioner's Order
was issued February 1967
requiring secondary
treatment.
Under State orders to
abate pollution. Compre-
hensive study for Broome
County recently completed.
Connect to Endicott's
system - recommendation
of Comprehensive Sewer-
age Study.
Connect to Endicott's
system - recommendation
of Comprehensive Sewer-
age Study.
Connect to Endicott's
system - recommendation
of Comprehensive Sewer-
age Study.
M
Connect to Endicott's
system - recommendation
of Comprehensive Sewer-
age Study.
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(MUNICIPAL) (Continued)
Location
Population Present
Served Treatment
Immediate
Treatment
Action Needed
Estimated
Project
Cost
State
or Other
Action
SUSQUEHANNA' RIVER (Continued)
Vestal Town (Continued)
Sewerage District #9
Sewerage District #10
Fenton, Chenango, and
and Dickinson Towns
Owego Village
Owego Town ttl
Owego Town #2
250 Primary
100 Primary
Join Endicott
Sy s tem
Join Endicott
System
10,2^8 Septic Tanks Secondary
3,200 Primary
4,600 Primary
Secondary
Secondary
1,000 Primary
Secondary
Included in
Endicott
Included in
Endicott
$2,600,000
y
Connect to Endicott's
system - recommendation
of Comprehensive Sewer-
age Study.
Connect to Endicott's
system - recommendation
of Comprehensive Sewer-
age Study.
$223,000 v Under State orders to
abate pollution. Compre-
hensive sewerage study
underway.
Included in
Owego Village
Included in
Owego Village
A Commissioner's Order
was issued February 1967.
Comprehensive sewerage
study underway.
A Commissioner's Order
was issued February 1967.
Comprehensive sewerage
study underway.
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(MUNICIPAL) (Continued)
Immediate Estimated State
Population Present Treatment Project or Other
Location Served Treatment Action Needed Cost Action
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER (Continued)
Owego Town #3
Waverly, N. Y.
Sayre Borough
Athens Borough
Barton Town, N„ Y.
(Tioga County Hospital)
Towanda Borough
1,700 Primary
2,000 None
^,500 None
2,500 None
250 Primary
5,200 Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
(initial
action)
Primary
(initial
action)
Secondary
Secondary
Included in
Owego Village
A Commissioner's Order
was issued February 1967<
Comprehensive sewerage
study underway.
* /
$650,000 v A Commissioner's Order
was issued January 1966
requiring secondary
treatment.
$170,000
**
$233,000
**
Under SWB orders to abate
pollution. In violation
with unsatisfactory
progress.
Under SWB orders to abate
pollution. In violation
with satisfactory progress.
## /
$25,000 / None
**
$137,000 None
M
M
I
VO
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(MUNICIPAL) (Continued)
Location
Population Present
Served Treatment
Immediate
Treatment
Action Needed
Estimated
Project
Cost
State
or Other
Action
CHENANGO RIVER
Hamilton Village
Norwich City
TIOUGHNIOGA RIVER
Cortland City-
Homer Village
3,350 Secondary
600
Expansion
9,175 Primary
Secondary
20,000 Primary
Secondary
None
Secondary
$250,000
$180,000*1?
$1,1+36,500^
Included in
Cortland ^
Under State orders to
enlarge treatment plant
Final plans submitted
and approved. Applied
for Federal grant.
Under State orders to
provide secondary
treatment. Abatement
schedule pending.
Under State orders to
provide secondary treat-
ment. Comprehensive
severage study recently
completed.
TIOGA RIVER
Blossburg Borough
1,956 Individual Secondary
Septic Tanks
$1,000,000 Final plans being pre-
pared. FHA approved
grant for U8 per cent
of project cost.
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(MUNICIPAL) (Continued)
Location
Population
Served
Present
Treatment
Immediate
Treatment
Action Needed
Estimated
Project
Cost
State
or Other
Action
TIOGA RIVER (Continued)
Mansfield Borough
COWANESQUE RIVER
Westfield Borough
Elkland Borough
CANISTEO RIVER
Hornell City
Canisteo Village
COHOCTON RIVER
Bath Village
3,380 None
Secondary
1,200 Primary
2,150 Secondary
13,800 Primary
Secondary
Secondary
2,200 Primary
6,000 Primary-
Join Hornell
System
Secondary
$6Ul,000
$80,000
**
$2,1+22,500
/
Included in
Hornell
Under SWB orders to abate
pollution by June 196?•
Final plans submitted to
State.
None
None
A Commissioner's order was
issued requiring secondary
treatment. Final plans
submitted to State. Applied
for Federal grant.
None
$160,000
»«
7
Under State orders to abateM
pollution. Initial hear- 1
ings not yet held. £
None
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(MUNICIPAL) (Continued)
Location
Population Present
Served Treatment
Immediate
Treatment
Action Needed
Estimated
Project
Cost
State
or Other
Action
CHEMUNG RIVER
Corning City
Painted Post Village
Erwin Town
Elmira City
Elmira Town
Big Flats Town
Big Flats Town
NEWTOWN CREEK
Elmira City
(Chemung Sewer
District Hi)
17,085 Primary
5,765
550
200
Secondary
2,200 Secondary
1,000 Secondary
U6,500 Secondary
Expansion
Elmira
Sewers
Secondary
Secondary
$968,000'
$2,835,000
/
2,700 Secondary
A Commissioner's order
was issued requiring
secondary treatment.
Final plans approved.
Applied for Federal grant.
None
None
Under State orders to
enlarge plant. Initial
hearings held.
None
None
None
None
1
i-1
ro
Horseheads Town
98 Secondary
None
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(MUNICIPAL) (Continued)
Immediate Estimated State
Population Present Treatment Project or Other
Location Served Treatment Action Needed Cost Action
NEWTOWN CREEK (Continued)
Horseheads Town 391 Secondary None
*
Cost of treatment plant only, based on consulting engineers1 estimates.
#*
Cost of treatment plant only, based on current construction costs (PHS-STP Index llU.4).
i
H
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(INDUSTRIAL)
Immediate State
Type of Population Present Treatment or Other
Location Waste Equivalent Treatment Action Needed Action
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
Oneonta Area
Sheffield Chemical
Sidney Area
Scintilla Division
Bendix Corporation
Binghamton Area
Dairymens League
Co-op
Crowley's Milk
IBM Corporation
General Aniline
General Aniline
Sanitary
Inorganic
chemical
Sanitary
Acid,
cyanide,
chromium
Milk
Milk
Sanitary
Sanitary
Organic
Chemical
Sanitary
10 Septic Tank
Spray
Irrigation
2,000 Sidney Sewers
Under State orders to
abate pollution.
i.vto
15,290
1,500
1,250
88
2,000
Sidney Sewers
Binghamton
Sewers
Binghamton
Sewers
Binghamton
Sewers
Binghamton
Sewers
Binghamton
Sewers
Binghamton
Sewers
Under State orders to
abate pollution.
None
None
None
None
None
None
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(INDUSTRIAL) (Continued)
Location
Type of Population Present
Waste Equivalent Treatment
Immediate
Treatment
Action Needed
State
or Other
Action
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER (Continued)
Binghamton Area (Continued)
Cooperdale Dairy-
Specialty Foods
General Electric
New York State
Electric and Gas
Endicott-Johnson
General Aniline
Endi cott-Johns on
Owego Area
Highland Dairy
Milk
Sanitary
Sanitary
Leather
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Milk
Sanitary
1U7
90
38,700
2,820
2,210
1,980
1^7
30
None
Secondary or
join municipal
system
Food 9,000 Johnson City
Processing Sewers
110 Johnson City
Sewers
Johnson City
Sewers
Johnson City
Sewers
Johnson City
Sewers
Endicott
Sewers
None
Septic Tank
Secondary
or join
Owego System
Under State orders to
abate pollution.
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
VJ1
-------
Location
Type of
Waste
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(INDUSTRIAL) (Continued)
Immediate
Population Present Treatment
Equivalent Treatment Action Needed
State
or Other
Action
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER (Continued)
Owego Area (Continued)
IBM Corporation
Endi cott-Johnson
Sayre-Waverly Area
Ingersoll-Rand
Valley Creamery
Towanda Area
Sylvania Electric
CHENANGO RIVER
Norwich Area
Norwich Pharmacal
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Milk
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Acid
1,000
50
580
3UU
10
200
50
Owego Sewers
Owego Sewers
None
Waverly
Sewers
Towanda
Sewers
Settling,
chlorination
None
Primary or
Join municipal
system
Secondary or
join municipal
system
None
None
None
None
None
Under State orders to
abate pollution.
Enforcement action has
been taken.
CT\
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(INDUSTRIAL) (Continued)
Location
Type of Population Present
Waste Equivalent Treatment
Immediate
Treatment
Action Needed
State
or Other
Action
CHENANGO RIVER (Continued)
Norwich Area (Continued)
Sheffield Chemical
TIOUGHNIOGA RIVER
Cortland Area
Camp Packing
Hegeman Farms
Wickwire Brothers
Marathon Line
Whitos Milk and
Cream
Sealtest Foods
Milk 3,000 Trick-ling
Filter
Sanitary 10 Septic Tank
Meat Packing 9»000
Sanitary
Milk
Sanitary
Cortland
30 Sewers
1,960 None
10 Septic Tank
Sanitary
Bill Brothers Dairy Milk
Sanitary
Milk
Milk
50 Cortland
Sewers
196 None
10 None
UUo Septic Tank
U,^00 None
Secondary or
join Norwich
system
Secondary or
join municipal
system
Secondary or
Join municipal
system
Secondary or
join municipal
system
Secondary or
Join municipal
system
Under State orders to
abate pollution. Partial
abatement achieved.
None
Under State orders to
abate pollution.
None
None
Under State orders to
abate pollution.
None
None
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(INDUSTRIAL) (Continued)
Location
Type of Population Present
Waste Equivalent Treatment
Immediate
Treatment
Action Needed
State
or Other
Action
TIOUGHNIOGA RIVER (Continued)
Cortland Area (Continued)
Smith-Corona
Dairymen League
Co-op
Sanitary
Milk
P.A.L. Trinity Sanitary
Equipment Corporation
COWANESQUE RIVER
Westfield Area
Eberle Tanning
Elkland Area
Elkland Leather
Company
CANISTEP RIVER
Hornell Area
Erie-Lackawanna
Diesel Repair
Merrill Hosiery
Tanning
Tanning
Sanitary
Silt
I>ye
Sanitary
220
lU,300
50
10
30
Cortland
Sewers
Cortland
Sewers
Septic Tank
000 Lagoons
7,820 Spray
Irrigation
Hornell
Sewers
None
None
Hornell
Sewers
Secondary or
join municipal
system
None
None
None
None
None
A Commissioner's Order
issued to abate
excessive silt and oil.
None
oo
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(INDUSTRIAL) (Continued)
Location
Type of Population Present
Waste Equivalent Treatment
Immediate
Treatment
Action Needed
State
or Other
Action
CANISTEP RIVER (Continued)
Hornell Area (Continued)
Stern and Stern
Textiles
Elmhurst Dairy
COHOCTON RIVER
Bath Area
Westinghouse
Electric
Mobil Oil
CHEMUNG RIVER
Corning Area
Corning Glass Works
New York State
Electric and Gas
Dye
Sanitary
Sanitary
Sanitary
Process
Sanitary
Dan's All Star Dairy Milk
2,930
780
2,920
Hornell
Sewers
Hornell
Sewers
1,820 Bath Sewers
10 Cesspool
2,880 Corning
Sewers
None
10 Septic Tanks
None
Join Erwin
town system
None
None
None
None
Under State orders to
abate discharge of
untreated industrial
wastes.
None
A Commissioner's order \o
issued February 19^7•
Enforcement hearings
scheduled.
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(INDUSTRIAL) (Continued)
Location
Immediate
Type of Population Present Treatment
Waste Equivalent Treatment Action Needed
State
or Other
Act i on
CHEMUNG RIVER (Continued)
Corning Area (Continued)
Corning Packaging Sanitary-
Company
Polio and Fiorlat Milk
Dairy
Elmira Area
Ward La France Sanitary
Trucking
U. S. Steel Corpora- Sanitary
tion
Hankins Container Sanitary
Hygeia Refrigerator Sanitary
Schwezer Aircraft Sanitary
Corning Glass Sanitary
Sperry Rand Sanitary
Fawn Beverages Sanitary
UO
10,000
20
None
None
None
Secondary or
join Corning
system
Secondary or
Join municipal
system
Secondary or
join municipal
system
10 Septic Tank
20 Chemung Sewer
District #1
Elmira Sewers
70 Septic Tank
330 Big Flat
Sewers
U,320 Elmira Sewers
98 None
Secondary or
join municipal
system
None
Under State orders to
abate pollution. Abate-
ment schedule established.
None
None
None
None
None
None
ro
o
None
None
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES AND NEEDS
(INDUSTRIAL) (Continued)
Location
Type of
Waste
Population
Equivalent
Present
Treatment
Immediate
Treatment
Action Needed
State
or Other
Action
NEWTOWN ' CREEK
Elmira Area
Great Atlantic and Sanitary 1,200
Pacific Tea Company Canning 30,000
Chemung Sewer
District #1
None
Dairymen League
Co-op
Milk
Chemung Sewer
District #1
None
Westinghouse
Electric
Sanitary
Plating
130 Settling
Neutraliza-
tion
Secondary or
connect to
Chemung Sewer
District #1
None
Under State orders to
abate discharge of un-
treated industrial waste.
Bendix Corporation
Eclipse Division
Acid and
heavy metal
Sanitary
1,700
Chlorination
Chlorination
Secondary or
connect to
Chemung Sewer
District #1
Under State orders to
abate discharge of un-
treated industrial waste.
Thacker Glass
Process
Sanitary
Chemung Sewer
600 District ftl
None
ro
H
-------
Ill - 22
2. Comprehensive Evaluations
Investigations made by the FWPCA and other cooperating
Federal, State, and local agencies indicate a definite need in
some areas for pollution control action in addition to the pro-
vision of conventional waste treatment facilities. Minimum
stream flows in waste discharge receiving streams will not be
sufficient to assimilate the waste loads from certain municipal
areas in the near future, based on evaluations of projected popu-
lation and industrial growth. Alternative methods of protecting
and enhancing the water quality in the Susquehanna River Basin,
in the face of population and industrial growth, urbanization,
and technological change, are being evaluated during plan formu-r
lation workshop sessions by agencies cooperatively participating
on the Coordinating Committee discussed in Section II, Paragraph
D. Upon completion of the evaluations, findings will be submitted
to the Committee for final decisions on methods to be adopted.
While no attempt has been made in this report to prejudge the
Committee findings beyond defining immediate waste treatment
needs, the various alternatives to be evaluated, based on inves-
tigations of needs in the area, are suggested.
Three methods of providing supplemental pollution abate-
ment and control in areas requiring more than the protection pro-
vided by conventional waste treatment facilities are generally
considered and are as follows:
-------
Ill - 23
Flow Regulation
Areas having a need for
which potential reservoir sites
are listed as follows:
possible flow regulation and in
have been or will be evaluated
Location
Responsibility
and Site No.
Need
Norwich Area
Cortland Area
Binghamton Area
Mansfield
Hornell
Bath
Elmira
COE #114
SCS #50-2
COE #152
SCS #1+9-28
SCS #1+9-31
SCS #1+9-32
COE
SCS
COE #11+6
SCS #1+6-2
COE #100
COE #95
COE #96
COE #97
COE (Tioga-
Hammond and
Cowanesque
Projects)
Chenango River - Storage to pro-
vide supplemental flow for water
quality control.
Tioughnioga River - Storage to
provide supplemental flow for
water quality control.
Susquehanna River - Supplemental
flow needed for water quality.
Flow from storage on Chenango
and Tioughnioga will enhance
water quality in this reach.
Tioga River - Storage to provide
supplemental flow for water
quality control.
Canisteo River - Storage to pro-
vide supplemental flow for water
quality control:;-.
Cohocton River - Storage to pro-
vide supplemental flow for water
quality control.
Chemung River - Storage to pro-
vide supplemental flow for water
quality control.
-------
Ill - 2k
Waste Diversion
No potential reservoir sites exist in the following
areas, and diversion of waste effluents to less critically
degraded stream reaches is a possible alternative.
Location
Responsibility
Need
Hamilton Area Hamilton Village
Elmira Area
2.
3.
Elmira City
Chemung Sewer
District ft1
Horseheads Town
Bendix Corporation
Payne Brook - Reduce waste
loads in Payne Brook by
diverting treated waste ef-
fluents to the Chenango River,
Reduce the waste loads in
Newtown Creek by diverting
treated waste effluents to
the Chemung River.
Advanced Waste Treatment
Advanced waste treatment facilities designed to remove
greater than 85 per cent of the organic solids from waste dis-
charges will be considered as an alternative method of protect-
ing and enhancing water quality in all of the areas listed above.
3. Special Studies
Listed below are the areas in which a need for special
studies is indicated.
Location Responsibility
Norwich Area FWPCA and State
of New York
Need
Determine sources of nutrients,
bacterial and organic pollution
in the Chenango River upstream
from Norwich.
-------
Ill - 25
Location Responsibility
Blossburg Area FWPCA and State
(Tioga River) of Pennsylvania
Need
A mine drainage abatement program
for Morris Run, Bear Creek, and
Coal Creek.
Westfield Area
Hornell Area
Corning Area
Elmira
FWPCA and
Eberle Tanning
Company
FWPCA and State
of New York
FWPCA and State
of New York
City of Elmira
Development of biological proc-
esses for treating tannery wastes,
Determine source of pollution in
Canisteo River near Arkport.
Determine sources of nutrients in
the Chemung River near Corning.
Program for intercepting and
treating storm flow from combined
sewers.
Basin-wide
FWPCA
Utilize data compiled from various
studies conducted in the Basin in
mathematical simulations of the
river system.
k. Institutional Practices
A need for action on pollution control measures by vari-
ous Federal, State, and local institutions in the Susquehanna
River Basin is indicated by the findings of this study.
Pollution control programs would be enhanced and
strengthened by the following institutional practices:
Location Responsibility Need
Basin-wide State of Pennsylvania Prepare and adopt standards on
intrastate streams.
-------
Ill - 26
Location
Responsibility
Need
Basin-wide Congress of the
United States
Enact legislation which pro-
vides authority for Soil Con-
servation Service projects in
headwater areas to include
storage for flow regulation
for water quality control.
Basin-wide States of New York Consider expansion of water
and Pennsylvania quality control surveillance
program (including treatment
plant operation and maintenance).
Ba8in-w3.de Congress of the
United States and
State Legislatures
Enact legislation authorizing
the establishment of a pollu-
tion control authority for the
Susquehanna River Basin.
C. Recent Pollution Control Progress
1. New York
The State of New York has embarked on a mammoth pollution
control program involving an expenditure of 1.7 billion dollars.
Under the program the State will finance comprehensive sewerage
studies, assist in construction costs of new treatment plants,
and allow tax benefits to industries for waste treatment plant
expenditures. The comprehensive sewerage studies are an essential
preliminary to approval of a grant to aid the construction of
adequate treatment facilities; approximately $1,000,000 has been
spent on these comprehensive studies and general planning for
the New York portion of the Susquehanna River Basin alone.
-------
Ill - 27
2. Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania State Legislature, during the 1966
session, passed a $500,000,000 "bond issue which, if voted favor-
ably by the public, will provide $100,000,000 to the Pennsylvania
Department of Health for sewage treatment construction grant
purposes. In addition, $200,000,000 will be allocated to mine
drainage abatement measures, such as reclamation of areas dis-
turbed by mining activities. The other $200,000,000 will be
spent on construction and development of recreational areas.
The Pennsylvania Clean Stream Act, which became effective
in January 1966, is another step toward improvement of water
quality in areas affected by mine drainage. The Act prohibits
discharge of acid waters or other polluting discharges from
active coal mines. Enforcement actions are being taken by the
Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board under the new regulations for
cases not in compliance with the Act. In addition to the Clean
Streams Act, the Board has revised its regulations on the dis-
charges from coal washing operations. Previously, discharges
from these operations could contain as high as 1,000 mg/1 of
suspended solids such as coal 'fines and other inert material;
the revised regulations limit the discharges to 200 mg/1.
3. Federal and State Cooperative Agencies
Federal and State agencies, cooperatively conducting
comprehensive water resource surveys of the Susquehanna River
-------
Ill - 28
Basin, have met a number of times during Fiscal Year 1967 a"t Work-
shop Sessions called by the Corps of Engineers. These agencies
have prepared individual reports which delineate specific water
resource needs; this information serves as input to the multi-
purpose planning in the development of the comprehensive water
resource program. These meetings to date have resulted in initial
coverage of the entire Basin, merging tlje needs from each of the
participating agencies and indicating possible methods of meeting
the needs, such as potential reservoir sites to provide storage
for flood control, recreation, water supply, water quality control,
and agricultural irrigation purposes. Subsequent meetings will
involve detailed planning, including alternative methods of pro-
viding for the needs prior to formulation of the Basin program.
D. Water Supply
A preliminary study of the hydrological characteristics
of the study area indicates that adequate water supply sources
presently are available, but not fully developed, for all major
growth centers discussed in this report. The closeness of these
areas to relatively large streams and the availability of ground
water resources enhance the possibility of meeting future demands.
Most of the larger areas are currently utilizing both
surface and ground water sources. As future water supply needs
increase, these areas will probably resort to additional surface
water use. However, as natural stream flows appear to be
-------
Ill - 29
inadequate to meet 2020 needs of Hornell, Bath, Corning, and
Elmira, additional studies will be needed to evaluate the possi-
bilities of further ground water and/or reservoir development to
fully satisfy the projected demands.
As growth occurs in the smaller areas, either further
development of ground water sources or increased use of surface
water appears to be adequate to satisfy the projected needs.
Improvement in water quality where streams are now degraded is
expected to encourage greater use of surface water in these areas.
-------
IV - 1
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
A. Location
The Susquehanna River rises in Lake Otsego, New York,
and flows southwestward to Waverly, New York, and then southerly
into Pennsylvania. In the vicinity of Athens, Pennsylvania, the
Chemung River Joins to form the Upper Main Stem of the Susque-
hanna River, which then flows southeastward where the Lackawanna
River enters at West Pittston. This study covers only that por-
tion of the Susquehanna River and tributaries which is upstream
from West Pittston, Pennsylvania.
The study area discussed herein comprises approximately
38 per cent of the entire Susquehanna River Basin. Principal
tributaries are the Cowanesque, Canisteo, Cohocton, and Tioga
Rivers, which comprise the Chemung River Basin, and the Unadilla,
Chenango, Tioughnioga, and Susquehanna Rivers, which comprise
the New York portion of the Susquehanna River Basin.
The study area included in this report drains approxi-
mately 6,270 square miles in the central portion of New York
State and 4,175 square miles in north central Pennsylvania. (See
location map, Figure 1)
B. Climate
The climate is temperate., with four sharply defined seasons.
Mean temperatures vary from about 46° to 48° F. Summer maximums
of 90° F. and above and winter minimums of 25° F. below zero have
-------
IV - 2
been recorded in the study area. Average annual precipitation
varies from 30 to Uo inches. Approximately 20 per cent of this
precipitation occurs as snow.
C. Topography
Rolling, rather broken land characterizes the topography
of the study area. Swamps, lakes, and ponds of glacial origin
abpund; forests cover most of the higher ridges. The greatest
single land use is agricultural with dairy farming the principal
pursuit.
D. Geology
The study area lies within the Allegheny Plateau. Paleo-
zoic sediments of the Devonian, Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian
systems are encountered. The area is a typical dissected plateau
with rocks dipping gently southeastward with a few overhanging
cliffs. Shale and sandstone characterize most of the study area,
with some deposits of bituminous coal located within the Tioga
River Watershed known as the Blossburg and Gaines fields.
E. Principal Communities and Industries
Binghamton, New York, with a i960 population of 75,9^1,
is the largest City in the study area. Other significant com-
munities and I960 populations are: in New York; Elmira (U6,517),
Cortland (I9,l8l), Johnspn City (19,118), Endicott (18,775),
-------
IV - 3
Corning (17,085), Hornell (13,907), Oneonta (13,^12), and Norwich
(9,175); in Pennsylvania; Sayre (7,917).
Major industries of the area include the manufacture of
leather and leather products, pharmaceuticals, business machinery,
photographic supplies, chemicals, electronics, glass products, and
textiles; the production of bituminous coal, glass, sand, stone,
and dairy products. Some of the larger companies represented in
the area are: Westinghouse, General Electric, Bendix Aviation,
International Business Machine, Corning Glass, Sperry Rand, Norwich
Pharmacal, and Endicott-Johnson.
-------
V - 1
V. WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS, NEEDS, AND COSTS
A. Susquehanna River Upstream from Binghamton, New York
1. Oneonta Area
a. Current Water Quality
The City of Oneonta in Otsego County, New York, is situated
near the headwaters of the Susquehanna River. The principal pur-
suit in the Oneonta Area is dairy farming. Sheffield Chemical,
which processes milk, represents the largest industry. Wastes
emanating from the Area are as follows:
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Oneonta City Primary
Sheffield Chemical Septic Tank
*
Estimated population equivalent
13,UlO# 2.3 Susquehanna River
10 0.001 Sub-surface
The Susquehanna River upstream from Oneonta is relatively
free from pollution, the principal waste discharge being Coopers-
town approximately 28 miles upstream. Cooperstown provides pri-
mary treatment of wastes from approximately 2,380 persons and
discharges to the Susquehanna River.
Downstream from Oneonta, water quality is degraded but
soon recovers because of the rapid assimilative capability at-
tributable to relatively shallow and turbulent conditions of the
River. Stream survey results during the late summer months are
summarized below:
-------
V - 2
Susquehanna River at Oneonta
Indicator Upstream Downstream.
D.O. (mg/l) 5.3 - 8.1 2.5 - 6.1
Coliforms/100 ml 0 20,000 100 - 50,000
Oneonta is presently experiencing difficulties with
treatment plant operations, resulting in decreased treatment
efficiency. Sludge deposits and floating solids have, on occa-
sion, been observed below the outfall, indicating degraded condi-
tions. In order to improve water quality and maintain conditions
suitable for most beneficial uses, expansion of the present pri-
mary plants at both Cooperstown and Oneonta appears necessary.
A consulting engineer's cost estimate for expansion of the pri-
mary plant at Cooperstown is approximately $560,000.
A comprehensive sewerage study for the Oneonta Area has
been completed by the firm of Stern and Wheeler of Cazenovia,
New York. The study recommended that Oneonta City and Oneonta
Town be served by a joint secondary treatment facility. Prelimi-
nary costs for the treatment facility are estimated at $2,200,000.
b. Future Water Quality
The population served by sewerage facilities in the
Oneonta Area is expected to double by 1980, and to increase four-
fold by the year 2020. A future water quality problem is not
anticipated downstream from Oneonta, even with this increased
-------
V - 3
municipal and industrial growth, if secondary treatment facilities
are provided. Preliminary studies indicate that the provision
of an 85 per cent reduction in BOD by secondary treatment would
maintain satisfactory water quality with the projected increased
waste loadings of 2020.
c. Water Supply
A population of about 15,000 is presently served by the
municipal water system which obtains about 2.5 mgd from Oneonta
Creek. Future needs of about 12 mgd are anticipated by year
2020. It is expected that future needs will continue to be met
by surface water sources; flows of Oneonta Creek appear to be
more than adequate to satisfy the 2020 demand. In addition, the
Susquehanna River is an additional potential supply source.
Oneonta is fortunately situated in an area where adequate water
supply sources are readily available.
2. Sidney Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Villages of Unadilla and Sidney, in Delaware County,
New York, comprise the Sidney Area and are approximately 2h and
26 miles, respectively, downstream from Oneonta on the Susquehanna
River. The Scintilla Division of Bendix Corporation is the only
major industry in the Sidney Area. Wastes emanating from the
Area are as follows:
-------
v - k
Location
Treatment
Population
Served
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
Receiving Stream
Sidney Village
Primary
5,155
0.52
Susquehanna River
Scintilla
Equalization:
Division,
(acid-alkaline)
0.15
Sidney Sewers
Bendix
(cyanide)
0.10
Sidney Sewers
Corporation
(chromium)
0.05
Sidney Sewers
Discharge:
*
(sanitary)
2,000
0.20
Sidney Sewers
(heated)
0.1+5
Creek at Plant
Unadilla
Village
None
700
0.07
Susquehanna River
*
Estimated population equivalent
The water quality of the Susquehanna River upstream from
Sidney shows some evidence of recovery from the upstream conditions
at Oneonta prior to receiving primary and untreated effluents from
the Sidney Area.
Stream survey results reveal the following:
Susquehanna River at Unadilla-Sidney
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/l) 6.2 - 7.U 5-1 - S.k
Coliforms/100 ml 2,500 - 1+0,000 5,000 - 60,000
Biological Summary
Upstream - Abundant populations of clean-water associated organ-
isms, consisting of 22 kinds, indicated unpolluted "biological
conditions; numerous smallmouth bass were observed.
Downstream - This sampling station, located approximately eight
to nine miles downstream from Sidney, revealed the presence of
18 kinds of clean-water organisms; again, numerous smallmouth bass
were observed.
-------
V - 5
The relatively unchanged water quality, based on the
above sampling data, in this reach of the Susquehanna River might
be attributed partly to the added flow of the Unadilla River and
the rapid waste assimilation rate of the Susquehanna River. The
sampling stations, however, do not reflect the existing localized
pollution problem. Immediately downstream from the Sidney and
Unadilla outfalls, sludge deposits have been observed at times.
Moreover, floating solids have been observed at Unadilla which
provides no treatment. Secondary treatment facilities are needed
at both Sidney and Unadilla to alleviate the present degraded
conditions.
Sidney is in the process of initiating action for second-
ary treatment. Final plans have been submitted, and a Federal
grant under PL 660 has been approved. The facility is expected
to be under construction within a year. The estimated cost of
the project is $319,300.
The untreated sewage discharge by Unadilla into the Sus-
quehanna River represents a violation of the classification of
the River prescribed by the Hew York State Water Resources Com-
mission. A county-wide feasibility study is being conducted and
is expected to include recommendations for the provision of
secondary treatment facilities. However, an alternative to join
the Sidney system might be recommended as being more feasible
than providing a separate system. The cost of secondary treatment
-------
v - 6
facilities is estimated at $7^,000, exclusive of sewers and other
appurtenances. Costs for the alternative of joining the Sidney
system are undetermined at this time.
b. Future Water Quality
The population presently served by sewerage facilities
in the Sidney Area is expected to double by 1980 and to increase
tenfold by 2020. With secondary treatment of wastes from both
Sidney and Unadilla, stream flows of the Susquehanna River are
expected to be adequate to assimilate the residual waste loadings
from the projected population.
c. Water Supply
Present water needs for the Sidney Area of 2.2 mgd are
furnished by local springs, wells, Collar Brook, and Peckham
Brook. These sources serve a population of approximately 6,700.
Future needs of k3 mgd are anticipated by 2020. It is
likely that the Susquehanna River, as well as existing sources,
will be used as a future water source. The Sidney Area is,
fortunately, situated in an area where adequate water supply
sources are readily available for development.
-------
V - T
B. Chenango River
1. Hamilton Area
a. Current Water Quality
Hamilton Village, in Madison County, New York, is situated
on Payne Brook, a headwater tributary of the Chenango River. The
Area is practically void of industries; however, Colgate Univer-
sity is located in Hamilton and helps sustain the local economy.
Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
*
Hamilton Village Secondary 3,350 0.1+0 Payne Brook
*
Includes enrollment of Colgate University.
The Hamilton treatment plant experiences overloaded condi-
tions when the College is in session and, consequently, results
in reduced treatment efficiency. During the fall months when
natural stream flows are low, and the University commences classes,
water quality of Payne Brook downstream from Hamilton is signi-
ficantly degraded.
Stream survey results presented below reveal this marked
evidence in degradation:
Payne Brook at Hamilton
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/l) 6.8 li.O
*
New York State Department of Health sampling results
-------
V - 8
Biological Summary
Upstream - Fourteen kinds of clean-water associated organisms
were collected in the sample at this location. The physical
appearance and biological conditions were characteristic of
unpolluted streams.
Downstream - Ten kinds of bottom organisms, predominately pollu-
tion tolerant forms, were collected at this location. Water
quality degradation is indicated.
Plans for expansion of the existing secondary facilities
at Hamilton have been submitted to the State for approval. The
estimated cost of the project is $250,000. A Federal grant appli-
cation has also been submitted to help finance this project.
Assimilative studies by CB-SRBP indicate that expansion
of the secondary plant to provide a minimum of 85 per cent removal
of BOD will alleviate the immediate pollution conditions.
b. Future Water Quality
A future water quality problem is anticipated downstream
from the Hamilton Area by 1980 due to increased municipal growth
and College enrollment. Natural flows are relatively low in
Payne Brook and do not appear to be sufficient to assimilate
Hamilton's waste loadings beyond 1980 during the late summer and
fall months of the year. By the year 2020, a fivefold growth
increase is expected in the Hamilton Area, posing a serious water
quality problem, potential unless pollution control measures are
undertaken. Future solutions are complex. Studies conducted by
the Corps of Engineers and Soil Conservation Service have indicated
-------
V - 9
no potential reservoir sites upstream from Hamilton to provide
flow regulation for water quality control.
Methods to be evaluated in future planning include ad-
vanced waste treatment and/or waste flow diversion to the Chenango
River, which is about two miles downstream. Based on preliminary
evaluations, stream flows of the Chenango River appear to be ade-
quate to assimilate the waste loads from Hamilton after secondary
treatment providing 85 per cent BOD removal. However, additional
studies will be required to determine the most desirable alternative.
c. Water Supply
The municipal water system of Hamilton obtains 0.6 mgd
from Payne Brook and presently serves approximately 5,900 persons.
Future needs of about 5^ mgd are anticipated by 2020.
Hamilton is, fortunately, situated in an area where ground or
surface water sources are readily available for development and
are expected to adequately meet the projected needs.
2. Norwich Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Village of Norwich, in Chenango County, New York, is
situated on the Chenango River approximately 35 miles downstream
from Hamilton. Principal industries in the Norwich Area include
Sheffield Chemical Company and Norwich Pharmacal Company which
discharge industrial waste into the Chenango River about two
-------
V - 10
miles, upstream from the Norwich treatment plant. Wastes emanat-
ing from the Area are as follows:
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Norwich City
Primary
9,175
0.917
Chenango River
Norwich
None (process)
0.12
Chenango River
Pharmacal
None (heated)
0.20
Chenango River
Settling,
Chlorination
(sanitary)
50
0.005
Chenango River
Sheffield
None (heated)
0.262
Chenango River
Chemical
Trickling
*
Filter (milk)
3,000
0.061
Leaching Pits
Septic Tank
«
(sanitary)
10
0.001
Sub-surface
*
Estimated population equivalent
The Chenango River upstream from the Norwich Area is
somewhat impaired by organic pollution. The Towns of Sherborne
and North Norwich, with a combined i960 population of approxi-
mately U,000, are located in this reach and may be responsible
for septic tank discharges or seepages to the River. With the
additional waste loading from the Norwich Area, water quality
in the Chenango River becomes severely degraded.
Stream survey results collected during the late summer
months reveal the following evidence of degradation:
-------
V - 11
Chenango River at Norwich
Between Sheffield
Chemical and
Indicator Upstream Norwich Downstream
D.O. (mg/l) 6.U - 8.5 3.8 - 6.8 0.1 - 3.7
Coliforms/100 ml 0 - 3,000 0 - 1,000 0 - 7,000
B.O.D. (ult.)
(mg/l) average 6.68 1.6k 7«33
Biological Summary
Upstream - Ten kinds of bottom organisms were collected at this
location. Although three clean-water associated forms were found,
most of the organisms were intermediate to pollution-tolerant.
Downstream - Eight kinds of bottom organisms were observed in the
sample at this location, consisting of one clean-water associated
and seven intermediate to pollution-tolerant forms.
Organic pollution emanating from the Norwich Area ad-
versely affects about 30 miles of the Chenango River downstream.
Profuse algal growths blanket much of this reach, suggesting a
high nutrient concentration. The Norwich Pharmacal Company is
possibly one of the principal contributors of the nutrient. More-
over, the Chenango drainage area is characterized by numerous
small dairy farms which also exert heavy nutrient loads on the
stream due to fertilizers employed in modern farming techniques.
Algae, which have a short life span, thrive on the nutrients and
subsequently die, exerting an additional organic load on the
stream.
-------
V - 12
Recent modifications of the Norwich primary treatment
plant have been installed at a cost of $612,000; however, the
State of New York will require that secondary treatment be pro-
vided. Cost for this additional treatment is estimated at
$180,000. An abatement schedule by the State Department of Health
has not yet been set.
Sheffield Chemical is presently providing leaching lagoons
for treatment. A recent survey conducted by the State of New York
indicated that Sheffield Chemical is no longer discharging its
effluent, but rather is allowing it to leach into the earth. The
State Department of Health considers this method of disposal as
a partial abatement measure but will soon require additional facil-
ities to provide a degree of treatment equivalent to secondary.
Norwich Pharmacal has been cited by the State Commissioner
of Health as being in violation of the Public Health Law and ordered
to abate pollution. Enforcement action has been taken, and hear-
ings are being scheduled.
Preliminary studies by CB-SRBP indicate that the expected
stream flows of the Chenango River are adequate to assimilate the
present wastes from the Norwich Area, providing all organic wastes
receive secondary treatment with 85 per cent removal. Additional
studies are needed to validate the sources of nutrients in the
Area prior to recommending corrective action. Also, stream and
reconnaissance surveys are needed upstream from Norwich in the
-------
V - 13
vicinity of Sherborne and North Norwich in order to ascertain
sources of water quality degradation and to indicate pollution
control needs.
b. Future Water Quality
The present waste loadings of the Norwich Area are
expected to increase threefold by year 2020 as the result of
municipal and industrial growth. Waste assimilative evaluations
reveal that the required flows to assimilate the projected waste
loadings after secondary treatment will exceed the naturally
occurring flows (35 cfs or less) during the late summer or fall
months. Additional treatment facilities to provide greater than
85 per cent removal will be necessary unless other abatement
measures are undertaken. Flow regulation could be provided from
potential reservoir sites^ studied by the Corps of Engineers and
the Soil Conservation Service. The Corps of Engineers has located
a site (#llH) on Canasawacta Creek, a tributary of Chenango River,
which could provide a potential flow of 69 cfs at a cost of about
$5,910 per cfs. Site number 50-2, studied by the Soil Conserva-
tion Service, is indicated to have a potential yield of 27 cfs at
a cost of $5,500 per cfs. Future planning of the water resources
in the Chenango River Watershed will necessitate evaluation of the
flow regulation potential in addition to waste treatment needs.
-------
V - Ik
c. Water Supply
The municipal water system of Norwich serves a popula-
tion of about 9,000 and uses approximately 2 mgd obtained from
Chenango Lake and ground water sources.
Future needs of about 9 mgd are anticipated by year 2020.
However, existing and undeveloped available sources in the Area
are expected to be adequate to satisfy the projected needs.
C. Tioughnioga River
1. Cortland Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Cortland Area, in Cortland County, New York, is
situated near the headwaters of the Tioughnioga River, the prin-
cipal tributary of the Chenango River. The primary industrial
pursuit in the Cortland Area is dairy farming. Major companies
in the Area include Dairymen's League Co-op, Sealtest Foods,
Hegeman Farms (processors of dairy products), and Camp Picking
(meat processors). Wastes emanating from the Area are as
follows:
-------
V - 15
Est.
Population
Flow
Location
Treatment
Served
(mgd)
Receiving Stream
Cortland City
Primary
20,000
5.5
Tioughnioga River
Camp Packing
Settling:
*
(meat packing)
9,000
0.127
Cortland Sewers
Discharge:
(heated)
*
0.06
Cortland Sewers
(sanitary)
30
0.003
Cortland Sewers
Wickwire
Discharge:
Brothers
(silt)
0.005
Cortland Sewers
(heated)
*
1.1+89
Unknown
(sanitary)
50
0.005
Cortland Sewers
Leaching Beds:
(acid)
0.001
Sub-surface
Smith-Corona
Discharge:
(plating)
0.561
Cortland Sewers
(heated)
0.1+76
Cortland Sewers
(sanitary)
220
0.022
Cortland Sewers
Dairymen's
*
League Co-op
Discharge
1U.300
0.291
Cortland Sewers
Homer Village
None
600#
0.06
Tioughnioga River
Hegeman Farms
None (milk)
1,960
0.0U
Tioughnioga River
None
(vaporization)
0.002
Tioughnioga River
None (heated)
0.12
Tioughnioga River
Septic Tank
*
(sanitary)
0.001
Tioughnioga River
Sealtest Foods
None (milk)
Moo
0.09
Tioughnioga River
None (heated)
0.005
Tioughnioga River
None (heated)
0.001
Tioughnioga River
Bill Brothers
#
Dairy
Dry Wells
196.
0.00U
Sub-surface
Marathon Line
None
10
0.001
Tioughnioga River
Whitos Milk
*
and Cream
Septic Tank
kko
0.009
Sub-surface
P.A.L. Trinity
(acid)
*
0.013
Sub-surface
Equipment
(sanitary)
50
0.005
Sub-surface
Corporation
*
Estimated population equivalent
The Tioughnioga River upstream from Cortland is relatively
uninhabited and exhibits excellent water quality. However, the
-------
V - 16
addition of wastes from the Cortland Area produces marked degra-
dation in water quality. Stream survey results collected during
the late summer and fall months reveal the following:
Tioughnioga River at Cortland
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/l) 6.3 - 6.6 0.3 - 2.6
Coliforms/100 ml 0-800 0 - H,800
Biological Summary
Upstream - Twenty-one kinds of bottom organisms, with a large
diversification of clean-water associated forms, were collected
in the sample at this location. Numerous sport fishes were also
observed. Water quality characteristic of unpolluted streams
was indicated.
Downstream - Fourteen kinds of bottom organisms were observed at
this station, 13 kinds being intermediate to pollution-tolerant.
Sludgeworms were the dominant forms, suggesting a considerable
degree of organic pollution.
The residual waste loadings to the stream from the pri-
mary and untreated effluents from the Cortland Area amount to a
population equivalent of approximately 35,000 persons. Prelimi-
nary studies indicate that stream flows of approximately 80 cfs
are needed to assimilate the present loading during late summer
and fall months when natural stream flows of Uo cfs or less are
not uncommon. Adverse effects on the stream from the present
waste discharges can be evidenced for approximately 15 miles
downstream.
-------
v - 17
Based on the present water quality and the above evalua-
tions, the need for further reduction of wastes is obvious.
Secondary treatment of all wastes from the Cortland Area is
needed in order to alleviate the presently degraded conditions.
Industries not already connected to the municipal system should
make efforts to join the system or provide a similar degree of
treatment.
The Cortland Comprehensive Sewerage Study, financed by
the New York State Department of Health, has recommended the
formation of a regional sewerage district which would include
Cortland and surrounding communities. Moreover, the study con-
cluded that secondary treatment is presently needed and is
estimated to cost $1,H36,500. Enforcement hearings have been
scheduled for the City of Cortland and the Village of Homer.
b. Future Water Quality
A fivefold increase in the Cortland Area population is
expected by year 2020. Increased waste loadings from municipal
and industrial growth will exert additional demands on the receiv-
ing stream and, by 1980, are expected to pose potential water
quality problems even with the provision of secondary treatment
(85 per cent removal). Without additional pollution control
measures being taken in the near future, water quality degrada-
tion will get progressively worse. Required assimilative flows
by 2020, based on 85 per cent removal of the projected waste
-------
V - 18
loadings, will exceed natural stream flows for six months of the
year. During the months of July, August, and September, required
assimilative flows by 2020 are expected to exceed three to four
times the natural stream flows.
Future design of treatment plants should include provi-
sions for obtaining greater than 85 per cent removal of organic
material. Flow regulation may prove feasible and thus serve as
a supplemental measure to maintain satisfactory water quality
through the projected period of growth. Four potential reservoir
sites upstream from Cortland have been studied by the Soil Con-
servation Service and the Corps of Engineers. The potential
yields and costs are:
Potential Cost Per
Site Number Yield (cfs) cfs
SCS #1*9-28
50
$5,340
SCS #1+9-31
17.5
$8,900
SCS #49-32
39
$6,650
COE #152
96
$23,1+00
The comprehensive planning of future water resources in
the Tioughnioga Watershed will necessitate evaluation of addi-
tional treatment needs as well as flow regulation alternatives.
c. Water Supply
A population of about 30,000 is served by the Cortland
water system. Present needs of 7-8 mgd are obtained mostly from
drilled wells.
-------
V - 19
Future needs of approximately 51 mgd are anticipated by
year 2020. Additional ground and surface water sources are
available for development and are expected to be adequate to
satisfy the projected demand.
D. Susquehanna River Below Binghamton, New York
1. Binghamton Area
a. Current Water Quality
Binghamton City, the largest community in the study area,
is situated at the Susquehanna River-Chenango River confluence
in Broome County, New York. Binghamton City, Johnson City Village,
Endicott Village, and Vestal Town comprise a large urban, munici-
pal and industrial complex. The population currently served by
sewerage facilities in the Area is about 150,000.
Johnson, General Aniline, Line Division of General Precision,
General Electric, and IBM Corporation, all of which are connected
to municipal sewer systems. Wastes emanating from the Area are
as follows:
Principal industries in the Binghamton Area are Endicott-
Location
Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Binghamton City Primary
Dairymens League
Co-op
Crowley's Milk Discharge:
82,000 10.0 Susquehanna River
1,^70 0.03 Binghamton Sewers
(milk)
(heated)
(sanitary)
*
15,250 0.311 Binghamton Sewers
# O.898 Susquehanna River
U0 0.00^ Binghamton Sewers
-------
V - 20
Est.
Population
Flow
Location
Treatment
Served
(mgd)
Receiving Stream
H. Titchener
0.169
Binghamton Sewers
General Aniline
Discharge:
(heated)
0.375
Binghamton Sewers
(heated)
*
5.00
Binghamton Sewers
(sanitary)
1,250
0.125
Binghamton Sewers
General Aniline
Discharge:
(plating)
0.02
Binghamton Sewers
(organic
*
chemical)
88
0.006
Binghamton Sewers
(heated)
*
0.01
Binghamton Sewers
(sanitary)
2,000#
0.20
Binghamton Sewers
Cooper dale Dairy-
None
lVf.
0.003
Susquehanna River
Johnson City
Village
None
25,000
6.0
Susquehanna River
Endicott-Johnson
Discharge:
#
(leather)
38,700*
0.789
Johnson City Sewers
(sanitary)
2,820
0.282
Johnson City Sewers
. (heated)
*
0.106
Sub-surface (wells)
General Aniline
2,210#
0.15
Johnson City Sewers
Specialty Foods
9,000
0.16
Johnson City Sewers
Barney and
Dickinson
Settling
1.0
Susquehanna River
General Electric
Holding Tanks
(plating)
0.002
Sub-surface
None (chemical)
0.0U1
Little Choconut Creek
None (heated)
0.0^9
Little Choconut Creek
Discharge:
*
(sanitary)
110
0.011
Johnson City Sewers
New York State
None (heated)
0.005
Little Choconut Creek
Electric and Gas
None (inorganic
chemical)
0.019
Little Choconut Creek
Settling (ash)
0.152
Little Choconut Creek
None (heated)
kk.8
Little Choconut Creek
Septic Tank,
chlorination
*
(sanitary)
30
0.003
Little Choconut Creek
Discharge:
#
(sanitary)
90
0.009
Johnson City Sewers
Endicott Village
Primary
25,000
9-9
Susquehanna River
Endicott-Johnson
Discharge:
(heated)
#
0.UU6
Endicott Sewers
(sanitary)
1,980
0.198
Endicott Sewers
-------
V - 21
Location
Treatment
Population
Served
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
Receiving Stream
IBM Corporation
Union Town-Endwell
Vestal Town
Sewerage
Districts 1, 5,
6, 8, and 10
Sewerage
Districts 1+ and
7
Sewerage
District 9
Fenton Town
Chenango Town
Dickinson Town
Binghamton Sand
and Gravel
Neutralization
(plating)
Discharge:
(heated) t
(sanitary) 1,500
None 7,000
Primary 6,100
None 1,500
Primary 250
Septic Tanks 1^0
Septic Tanks 9,858
Septic Tanks 6,591
Settling
1.33 Susquehanna River
2.98 Endicott Sewers
0.15 Endicott Sewers
0.7 Susquehanna River
0.615 Susquehanna River
0.15 Susquehanna River
0.025 Choconut Creek
O.OlU Sub-surface
Sub-surface
Chenango River
1.0 Lagoons
Estimated population equivalent
The water quality of the Susquehanna River is greatly
impaired by the large quantities of primary and untreated efflu-
ents discharged from the Binghamton Area. Stream survey results
collected during the late summer and fall months reveal the
marked degree of degradation between upstream and downstream
reaches.
Susquehanna River at Binghamton
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.0. (mg/1) 5.0 - 7.^ 0.9 - 3.8
Coliforms/100 ml 200 - 10,000 1*,000 - 200,000 .
-------
V - 22
Biological Summary
Upstream - The entire sample consisted of only clean-water
associated forms (12 kinds).
Downstream - The entire sample consisted of pollution-tolerant
forms, most of which were sludgeworms. Heavy organic pollution
was evidenced at this station.
Sampling results indicated that the stream reach "below
the Binghamton Area is one of the most severely degraded in the
entire study area, about 23 miles of stream being adversely af-
fected. It should be noted, however, that the stream sampling
was performed prior to completion of Endicott's primary treatment
facility. This facility has been in operation only a very short
time at the writing of this report. Even with the new primary
plant, the total waste discharged from the Binghamton Area is
greatly in excess of the assimilative capabilities of the River
in this reach. Waste assimilative studies by CB-SRBP indicate
that the provision of secondary treatment is necessary for the
entire Binghamton Area to maintain a satisfactory water quality,
enhancing downstream beneficial uses of the Susquehanna River.
The New York State Department of Health has already
initiated action against Binghamton and Endicott to upgrade
their existing facilities to secondary treatment. An abatement
schedule is presently being prepared. The Binghamton Area
comprehensive study, recently completed, recommended that Johnson
City Village connect into the Binghamton treatment plant; this
-------
V - 23
recommendation is presently being implemented. Bids have "been
opened for construction of pumping stations, interceptor sewers,
and additional primary units at the Binghamton Plant to handle
Johnson City's wastes. This action is an initial step toward
pollution abatement; however, secondary treatment facilities are
scheduled for the near future. The total project cost to pro-
vide secondary treatment at Binghamton, including sewers to receive
Johnson City's wastes, is estimated at $7,837,000.
The comprehensive sewerage study also recommended that
Vestal Town Sewer Districts and Union Town jointly treat their
wastes with Endicott Village. The total project cost to provide
secondary facilities at Endicott, with the necessary interceptors,
is estimated at $10,233,000.
Union Town has completed interceptors at a cost of
$108,600. A Federal grant of $32,351 has been accepted by the
Community; final payment of the grant is pending hook-up to treat-
ment facilities. Final plans for additional interceptors are
being reviewed by FWPCA. The estimated cost for the additional
interceptors is $132,000. A Federal grant for $39,600 is
anticipated.
In the comprehensive study, a secondary waste treatment
plant is recommended to serve Chenango Town, Fenton Town, and a
portion of Dickinson Town. This facility is scheduled to dis-
charge to the Chenango River. The estimated cost for the second-
ary treatment plant, exclusive of sewers, is $2,600,000.
-------
V - 2k
The total cost for new construction to provide secondary
treatment for the entire Binghamton Area is estimated to be ap-
proximately $36,600,000. The treatment plant costs are estimated
at $12,800,000; interceptors necessary for the next 50 years are
estimated to cost $12,100,000, with laterals costing an estimated
$1L,700,000.
b. Future Water Quality
The population served by sewerage facilities in the Bing-
hamton Area is expected to increase fivefold by the year 2020.
A comparison of expected flows in this reach of the Susquehanna
River with those required to assimilate secondary treated waste
loadings indicates a potential water quality problem by 2000.
Methods to be evaluated in the future planning include advanced
waste treatment for the Binghamton complex and/or flow regula-
tion for water quality control. Flow regulation from either of
the potential reservoir sites in the Chenango or Tioughnioga
Watersheds will increase stream flows of the Susquehanna River
and should enhance water quality downstream from Binghamton.
Comprehensive planning of the water resources of the Susquehanna
River Basin will necessitate inclusion of upstream reservoir
development in order to evaluate the effects on water quality
downstream.
-------
V - 25
c. Water Supply
A population of approximately 175,*+00 is presently using
about k2 mgd, obtained from drilled wells and the Susquehanna
River.
Future needs of 217 mgd are expected by year 2020. The
available surface and ground water resources appear to be adequate
to satisfy the projected needs; however, the Susquehanna River
will probably supply the majority of the needs.
2. Owego Area
a. Current Water Quality
Owego Village is situated in Tioga County, New York, on
the Susquehanna River about 22 miles downstream from Binghamton.
The principal pursuit in the Area is dairy farming; however, a
few large industries help to diversify the economy. IBM Corpora-
tion has a large plant in Owego, employing ^,000 persons. Other
industries include Endicott-Johnson, employing 333 persons;
Stokmore Company, employing 122 persons; and the Tioga Foundry,
employing 108 persons. Wastes emanating from the Area are as
follows:
-------
V - 26
Location
Treatment
Population
Served
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
Receiving Stream
Owego Village
Primary
3,200
0o 32
Susquehanna River
Endicott-Johnson
Discharge:
(heated)
*
0.002
Owego Sewers
(sanitary)
50
0.005
Owego Sewers
IBM Corporation
Discharge:
(heated)
*
0.07
Owego Sewers
(sanitary)
1,000
0.10
Owego Sewers
Neutralization:
(inorganic
chemical)
0.06
Susquehanna River
Owego Town
Sewerage
District 1
Primary
U,600
0.35
Susquehanna River
Sewerage
District 2
Primary
1,000
0.10
Susquehanna River
Sewerage
District 3
Primary
1,700*
0.15
Susquehanna River
Highland Dairy
None (milk)
Ikl
0.003
Swamp
None (heated)
0.003
Swamp
Septic Tanks
*
(sanitary)
30*
0.003
Sub-surface
Stokmore Company
Septic Tanks
30*
0.003
Sub-surface
Tioga Foundry
Septic Tanks
30
0.023
Sub-surface
*
Estimated population equivalent
Water quality of the Susquehanna River downstream from
Owego is somewhat degraded by municipal and industrial waste
discharges, but stream degradation is relatively localized.
Sampling data collected during the late summer and fall months
are as follows:
Susquehanna River at Owego
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/l)
Coliforms/100 ml
5.5 - 11.0
500 - 7,500
-------
V - 27
Biological Summary
Upstream - Eight miles upstream, lit kinds of bottom organisms,
all intermediate to pollution-tolerant forms, were found,,
Downstream - Seventeen kinds of bottom organisms, composed of
an abundance of clean-water forms and a limited number of sludge-
worms, were observed.
Water quality samples were not collected immediately
upstream from Owego; however, the biological results suggest
recovery, from the degraded conditions at the previous sampling
location, is occurring in the vicinity of Owego. Although the
sampling data do not reveal serious impairment of water quality
downstream from Owego, assimilative studies by CB-SRBP indicate
the need for secondary treatment to avoid localized degradation
during late summer and fall months.
The New York State Commissioner of Health has issued am
order requiring Owego Town to upgrade its degree of treatment to
secondary. A comprehensive sewerage study for the Owego Area is
currently being conducted,, It is anticipated that recommenda-
tions will include a joint secondary treatment facility for the
entire Owego Area. An abatement schedule is pending completion
of the comprehensive report. Estimated cost of secondary treat-
ment for the Owego Area is $223,000, exclusive of sewers and
other appurtenances.
-------
V - 28
b. Future Water Quality
The present population of the Owego Area is expected to
increase tenfold by the year 2020. With provision of secondary
treatment (85 per cent BOD removal) for the Owego Area, stream
flows of the Susquehanna River are expected to be adequate to
assimilate the projected waste loads.
c. Water Supply
A population of about 10,1*00 is presently served by the
Owego system. The present needs of 1.22 mgd are obtained from
ground water sources.
Future needs of 26 mgd are anticipated. Ground water
will probably continue to be used but will be supplemented by
surface supplies, such as Owego Creek and possibly the Susque-
hanna River.
3. Waverly, New York - Sayre, Pennsylvania, Area
a. Current Water Quality
Waverly, Hew York, is situated in Tioga County on the
Susquehanna River immediately above the Pennsylvania-New York
State Line. Sayre is situated in Bradford County, Pennsylvania,
immediately below Waverly. Athens Borough, also incorporated
in this Area, is situated two miles south of Sayre, near the
Susquehanna-Chemung confluence. Principal industries in the
Area are the Ingersoll-Rand Corporation and Valley Creamery.
Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
-------
V - 29
Est.
Population
Flow
Location
Treatment
Served
(mgd)
Receiving Stream
Sayre Borough, Pa.
None
^,500
0.1*5
Susquehanna River
Athens Borough, Pa.
None
2,500
0.15
Chemung River
Ingersoll-Rand
None
*
(sanitary)
580
0.058
Susquehanna River
Settling
(alkaline)
0.6
Athens Sewers
Waverly, N. Y.
None
2,000
0.2
Cayuta Creek
Valley Creamery
Discharge:
«
(milk)
3^*
0.007
Waverly Sewers
(sanitary)
10
0.001
Waverly Sewers
None (wash)
0.030
Dry Brook
Tioga County
Hospital (Barton
Town, N. Y.)
Primary
250
0.025
Cayuta Creek
*
Estimated population equivalent
The water quality of the Susquehanna River below the
Sayre-Waverly Area shows some evidence of degradation by the
discharge of untreated municipal and industrial wastes, but
because of the large volumes of dilution flows (^30 cfs or more
during late summer months), the.degraded conditions are predomi-
nately localized at the sewage outfalls.
Stream survey results collected during the late summer
and fall months are shown below:
Susquehanna River at Sayre-Waverly
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/l)
Coliforms/100 ml
T.fc - 9.5
100 - 2,100
7.1 - 8.6
0 - 6,000
-------
V - 30
Biological Summary
Upstream - Twenty-two kinds of bottom organisms, predominately
clean-water associated forms, were collected at this sampling
location.
Downstream - Fourteen kinds of bottom organisms, consisting
mostly of clean-water associated forms, were observed.
Chemung River at Mouth - Twenty kinds of bottom organisms, con-
sisting of clean-water associated forms, were observed at this
location.
Waverly, New York, discharging untreated waste to the
Susquehanna River, is in violation of New York's Public Health
Law and is currently under orders to abate pollution. An engineer-
ing report recommending secondary treatment has been completed
recently and submitted to the State for approval. The treatment
facility is estimated to cost $650,000.
Both Athens and Sayre Boroughs in Pennsylvania are in
violation of the State Sanitary Water Board's orders to abate
pollution. The Board requires a minimum of primary treatment
for wastes discharged to the Susquehanna River. The Boroughs
are presently considered by the Board to be making unsatisfac-
tory progress toward initiating pollution control measures. The
provision of primary facilities is expected to be an initial step
toward pollution abatement; however, assimilative studies indi-
cate that secondary treatment will be needed in the future to
avoid potential water quality degradation. Estimated costs for
primary treatment for Sayre and Athens are $170,000 and $223,000,
respectively.
-------
V - 31
b. Future Water Quality
The population served by sewerage facilities in the Sayre-
Waverly Area is expected to double by 1980 and increase eightfold
by the year 2020.
No future water quality problem is anticipated below
Waverly if secondary treatment is provided and treatment capacity
keeps pace with municipal and industrial growth.
Since primary treatment is contemplated for Athens and
Sayre Boroughs, a future water quality problem is anticipated
before the year 2020. Studies indicate that, with primary treat-
ment, approximately TOO cfs of stream flow will be required by
the year 2020 during the late summer and fall months to maintain
satisfactory quality conditions. Natural stream flows within
this reach of the Susquehanna River of ^50 cfs or less occur
during these months. However, with the provision of an 85 per
cent reduction in BOD by a secondary treatment facility, approxi-
mately only 170 cfs will be required. Secondary treatment should
therefore be included in future planning for the Susquehanna River
Basin.
c. Water Supply
Present needs of 2.8 mgd are furnished by surface supplies.
Sayre and Athens share a common supply system which obtains its
water from the Susquehanna River. Waverly, New York, gets its
water from Dry Brook, a tributary to Cayuta Creek.
-------
V - 32
Future needs of approximately 12 mgd for the Sayre-
Waverly Area are anticipated by 2020. The Susquehanna River
should amply supply this future demand.
E. Susquehanna River Between the Chemung and Lackawanna
Rivers
1. Towanda Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Borough of Towanda, in Bradford County, Pennsylvania,
is situated on the Susquehanna River approximately 13 miles down-
stream from the confluence of the Chemung River. The Sylvania
Electric Company and Masonite Corporation are the principal indus-
tries represented in the Towanda Area. Wastes emanating from
the Area are as follows:
Location
Treatment
Est.
Population Flow
Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Towanda Borough
Sylvania
Electric
Primary
5,200 0.25 Susquehanna River
Neutralization
(inorganic
chemical)
None (process)
None (heated)
0.12 Susquehanna River
0.1*95 Susquehanna River
0.20 Susquehanna River
Discharge:
(sanitary)
200
0.02 Towanda Sewers
North Towanda
Township Secondary
1*3 0.002 Sugar Creek
Masonite
Corporation Land
application
No Discharge
*
Estimated population equivalent
-------
V - 33
Towanda is not presently creating a serious water quality
problem. Stream sampling data collected during the late summer
months are shown "below:
Susquehanna River at Towanda
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1) 7.1 - 7.9 7.7 - 8.6
Coliforms/100 ml 0 0
Biological Summary
Upstream - Fourteen kinds of bottom organisms, all clean-water
associated forms, indicated water quality characteristics of
unpolluted streams.
Downstream - Fourteen kinds of bottom organisms, consisting of
three clean-water associated forms, were collected at this
station. However, the predominant organisms were pollution-
tolerant and intermediate. Some degradation was apparent in
relation to the upstream station.
Towanda is in compliance with the Pennsylvania Sanitary
Water Board requirements of primary treatment prior to discharge
to the Susquehanna River. However, because of the downstream
uses, which include considerable recreation, consideration
should be given to providing additional treatment in the near
future. The cost of expansion of the primary plant to provide
secondary treatment is estimated at $137,000, exclusive of
sewers and appurtenances.
-------
V - 3k
b. Future Water Quality
The population served by sewerage facilities in the
Towanda Area is expected to double by 1980 and increase six-
fold by the year 2020. Should secondary treatment be realized,
the naturally occurring flows in the Susquehanna River would
be sufficient to assimilate the increased future loadings with-
out significantly impairing water quality.
c. Water Supply
Present needs of 1.7^ ragd are furnished by springs,
drilled wells, and Satterlee Run. A population of 6,000 is
served by the municipal system.
Future needs of 6 mgd are anticipated by 2020. It ap-
pears that Towanda should not have any trouble meeting this
demand since adequate water supply sources are readily available.
2. Charmin Paper Company
The Charmin Paper Company, division of Proctor and Gamble
Corporation, is situated on the Susquehanna River at Mehoopany,
Pennsylvania, Uo miles downstream from Towanda, Pennsylvania, and
32 miles upstream from the Lackawanna River confluence. The
Pulp and Paper manufacturing plant is scheduled to be constructed
in four stages. The first stage is presently under construction
and should be completed in the near future. It is anticipated
that all four stages will be operational by 1980.
-------
V - 35
The Company's industrial waste discharge permit, issued
by the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board, specified the following:
"The maximum allowable waste load after treatment for
the first stage is 1,500 pounds of BOD per day. For the second,
third, and fourth stages, the maximum allowable load is 30,000
pounds of BOD per day, except when stream flows during the fourth
stage operation exceed 1,500 cfs. Under this condition, ^5»000
pounds of BOD per day will be permitted.
"The minimum degree of treatment required in the second
and third stages is 75 per cent BOD removal. When the treated
waste loading is less than 30,000 pounds of BOD per day, in the
fourth stage, a 75 per cent BOD removal is required. However,
when the loading exceeds this, a 90 per cent BOD removal becomes
necessary.
"The Company must also maintain at least 5.5 mg/1 dissolved
oxygen downstream from their discharge, must not Increases the color
of the Susquehanna River by more than ten units, and must not in
any way affect the aquatic life in the River,"
Between 1980 and 2020 the maximum flow required to assimi-
late the Charmin Paper Company's waste loading, based on prelimi-
nary estimates, is 350 cfs. The expected stream flow during this
period is greater than 800 cfs. A future water quality problem
is not anticipated if the Paper Company adheres to permit
requirements.
-------
V - 36
3. Swanee Paper Company
The Swanee Paper Company is situated on the Susquehanna
River approximately five miles upstream from the Lackawanna
River confluence„ Wastes emanating from the Company are charac-
terized below:
Est, Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Equivalent (mgd) Receiving Stream
Swanee Paper Chemical floe
Company (paper) 10,300 1.5 Susquehanna River
None (heated) 1.0 Susquehanna River
Stream survey results collected from the Susquehanna
River during the late summer months reveal the following:
Susquehanna River at Swanee Paper Company
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/l) 6.36 - 9.68 6«08 - 8.35
BoO.D. (5-day) (mg/l) 1.25 - U.6 1.2 - h.k
Coliforms/100 ml 0 0-7,000
The large quantity of dilution flow minimizes the effects
of the Swanee Paper Company's waste loading. A downstream water
quality problem is not presently evident; however, with expansion
and growth of the Company, future waste treatment planning for
the Swanee Paper Company should encourage the provision of
secondary facilities.
-------
V - 37
Chemung River Sub-Basin
F0 Tioga River
1„ Blossburg Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Borough of Blossburg, Tioga County, Pennsylvania, is
located near the headwaters of the Tioga River downstream from
the confluence with Morris Run., The Borough is at the center of
the bituminous mining activity in the Bloss and Gaines coal fields.
Three foundries owned by the J. P. Ward Company support most of
the economy of the Borough and employ approximately 650 persons.
Blossburg, with a i960 population of 1,956, does not
presently have a sewer system. Many connections to storm sewers,
however, convey untreated waste to the Tioga River. Final plans
are being prepared for a complete sewer system with secondary
treatment facilities which will alleviate this situation The
Farmers Home Administration has approved a grant to the Community
for 1+8 per cent of the project cost, which is estimated at
$1,000,000.
The Tioga River downstream from Blossburg is greatly
impaired by mine drainage pollution. The Pennsylvania Sanitary
Water Board does not presently require treatment of wastes dis-
charged to acid impregnated streams unless degradation attribut-
able to organic pollution is evident. However, Blossburg has
taken the initiative to provide secondary treatment facilities
which should be operational by the summer of 1968.
-------
V - 38
Mine drainage pollution is contributed mainly from Morris
Run, Bear Creek, and Coal Creek, all of which are in close proxi-
mity of Blossburg and drain directly into the Tioga River. Morris
Run is considered to be the principal contributor of mine drain-
age pollution; its effects on the Tioga River can be seen readily
in the sampling results summarized below. (See CB-SRBP Mine
Drainage Report for detailed description of mine drainage in the
Tioga River Watershed.)
Upstream From Morris Run Downstream From
Indicator Morris Run at Mouth Morris Run
pH
6.8
- 7.5
2.It
3.0
2.7 -
3.3
Acidity (mg/l)
alkaline
1*03
- 1,019
76 -
200
Sulfates (mg/l)
15
- 82
653
- 1,652
2k0 -
363
Iron (mg/l)
0.03
- 0.5
10.9
- 101.3
3.0 -
56.0
Manganese (mg/l)
0
22.8
61.8
1.8 -
6.1
The CB-SRBP has contracted with Gannett Fleming Corddry
and Carpenter, Inc., an Engineering Firm in Harrisburg, Pennsyl-
vania, to make a feasibility study for mine drainage abatement
in the Tioga Watershed. The report including costs and recommen-
dations should be forthcoming by the end of 1967- A preliminary
appraisal indicates that abatement of mine drainage is contingent
upon treatment and/or land reclamation; however, specific alterna-
tives and related costs have not yet been formulated.
-------
V - 39
2. Mansfield Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Borough of Mansfield in Tioga County, Pennsylvania,
is situated on the Tioga River about ten miles upstream from the
proposed Tioga-Hammond Reservoir and nine miles downstream from
Blossburg. There are no industries in the Borough, but Mansfield
State Teachers College helps sustain the local economy. Wastes
emanating from the Area are as follows:
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
*
Mansfield Borough None 3,380 0.338 Tioga River
*
Includes enrollment at Mansfield State Treachers College
The water quality of the Tioga River below Mansfield is
impaired by mine drainage conveyed from the Blossburg area in
addition to Mansfield's untreated organic waste. Heavy iron com-
pounds noticeably coat rocks along the stream bed. Variation of
pH from 2.0 to 3-5 is indicative of highly acidic conditions.
Stream biota was found to be virtually devoid in this stream
reach. The mine drainage inhibits biological activity, thus
considerably reducing the natural assimilative capacity of the
stream. Alleviation of mine drainage appears eminent. Studies
presently being conducted indicate treatment and land surface
reclamation may be the most feasible abatement measures.
-------
V - Uo
Mansfield Borough, discharging untreated wastes to the
Tioga River, is in violation of the Pennsylvania Sanitary Water
Board orders to abate pollution. The Board has ordered the Com-
munity to construct secondary treatment facilities by June 1967.
Mansfield has submitted plans to the State Department of Health
and is number 2b on the State's 1967 priority list for a Federal
grant. The cost of secondary treatment is estimated at $6Ul,000.
A Corps of Engineers' flood control reservoir project,
the Tioga-Hammond, has been authorized for construction approxi-
mately six to eight miles downstream from Mansfield. The project
consists of two dams, one on the Tioga River creating the Tioga
Reservoir, and one on Crooked Creek creating the Hammond Reser-
voir. The two Reservoirs are connected by a cross-over channel
to allow flows to spill over into the adjacent pool during flood
stages. Both Reservoirs are to provide recreational use as well
as possible water supply and flow regulation for water quality
control. Because of the nearness of this Reservoir project to
the Borough of Mansfield, secondary treatment with chlorination
is necessary to maintain water quality in the Reservoir suitable
for recreation.
b. Future Water Quality
The Mansfield Area is expected to increase threefold in
population by the year 2020. Preliminary waste assimilative
studies indicate that by 2020 a water quality problem is
-------
V - Ul
anticipated during the late summer months, even with secondary-
treatment. Methods which might be considered to maintain a
satisfactory water quality in the Tioga River are advanced waste
treatment on the part of Mansfield or flow regulation. Two po-
tential reservoir sites have been located on the Tioga River
upstream from Mansfield. The Soil Conservation Service has indi-
cated a potential yield of 35 cfs from site #h6-2 at an estimated
cost of $10,000 per cfs. Similarly, the Corps of Engineers has
revealed that site fflhS may provide 51 cfs at an estimated cost
of $18,1*00 per cfs. Future planning will necessitate considera-
tion of any upstream reservoir development in formulating pollu-
tion control programs.
c. Water Supply
Present needs of 0.26 mgd are supplied by a public water
system, utilizing surface sources to serve approximately 1+,U00
persons.
Future needs of approximately 1.3 mgd are anticipated
by 2020. An evaluation of the hydrological characteristics of
the Area indicate that adequate surface and ground water resources
are available for development to meet the projected needs.
-------
V - h2
Go Cowanesque River
1. Westfield Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Borough of Westfield in Tioga County, Pennsylvania,
is situated near the headwaters of the Cowanesque River, one of
the principal tributaries to the Tioga River. The main industry
in the Area is the Eberle Tanning Company, manufacturers of
leather. Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
Location
Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Westfield Borough
Eberle Tanning
Primary 1,200
Lagoons ^
(tanning) U,000
(lime)
(sanitary)
0.205 Cowanesque River
0.09 No discharge
0.35 No discharge
No discharge
Estimated population equivalent
The Cowanesque River downstream from Westfield is seri-
ously impaired by organic pollution. Stream survey results con-
ducted during the late summer months reveal marked degradation,
as indicated in the table below:
Cowanesque River at Westfield
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/l) 5-2 - 8.0 1.6 - 2.6
Biological Summary
Upstream - A total of lU different kinds of bottom organisms,
all clean-water associated forms, indicate excellent water
quality conditions.
-------
V - U3
Downstream - Ten kinds of bottom organisms, predominately organic
pollution-tolerant forms, indicate degraded biological conditions
compared to the upstream station <»
Studies indicate that flows required to assimilate present
waste loadings and still maintain satisfactory water quality con-
ditions for the propagation of fish and aquatic life are approxi-
mately 5.6 cfs during the late summer months. Natural stream
flows of less than 2.8 cfs are not uncommon during this period.
It is evident, from these evaluations, that a need exists for
additional treatment, particularly since there are no potential
reservoir sites upstream from Westfield to provide flow regula-
tion for quality control. Immediate steps should be taken
toward the provision of secondary treatment to alleviate the
existing water quality problem. The estimated cost of secondary
treatment facilities, exclusive of sewers, is $80,000.
The Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board requires that
secondary treatment be provided prior to discharge into the
Cowanesque River. Westfield, however, provides only primary
treatment and is, therefore, in violation of the Board's require-
ments .
Eberle Tanning Company is presently lagooning its wastes
and provides for the evaporation of spent tanning liquors. In
addition, an application was submitted to FWPCA for a research
grant for the development of biological treatment facilities to
treat tannery wastes. The cost for these facilities'is estimated-
at $197,000.
-------
V - kk
b. Future Water Quality-
It is expected that the population presently served by
sewerage facilities in the Westfield Area will increase three-
fold by the year 2020. If secondary waste treatment is provided
by both Westfield Borough and Eberle Tanning, no future water
quality problem is anticipated.
c. Water Supply
Present needs of 0.6 mgd are furnished by drilled wells
and the Cowanesque River. A population of about 1,200 is served
by the municipal system. Eberle Tanning Company maintains a
separate supply, using the Cowanesque and wells for its process
water. Domestic water, however, is obtained from the Westfield
municipal system.
Future needs of 0.8 mgd are anticipated by 2020. The
existing sources are expected to meet future demands adequately.
2. Elkland Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Borough of Elkland in Tioga County, Pennsylvania, is
situated on the Cowanesque River approximately 13 miles down-
stream from Westfield. The principal industry in the Area is
the Elkland Leather Company, employing about 500 persons. Wastes
emanating from the Area are as follows:
-------
Location
Treatment
Population
Served
Est.
Flow
(mgd)
V - U5
Receiving Stream
Elkland Borough
Secondary
2,150
0.2
Cowanesque River
Elkland Leather
Spray Irrigation
Company
(lime)
2.1
No Discharge
(tanning)
7,820
No Discharge
*
Estimated population equivalent
Water quality upstream from Elkland still exhibits degra-
dation from the Westfield Area's waste loading. Moreover, addi-
tional degradation of the Cowanesque River occurs as the result
of the wastes discharged at Elkland. Although the degradation is
not as severe as that encountered upstream at Westfield, the waste
loadings from Elkland impose further oxygen demands on an already
overloaded stream. Stream sampling results are summarized below:
Cowanesque River near Elkland
Five Miles Eight Miles
Downstream Downstream
Indicator Upstream From Elkland From Elkland
D.O. (mg/1) 3.U - 6.7 3.1 - 5.6 3.8 - 5.3
B.O.D. (ult.)
(lbs/day) 233 291 222
Elkland Borough and Elkland Leather Company are both in
compliance with Pennsylvania Sanitary Water Board requirements.
Elkland Leather Company has completed facilities for spray irriga-
tion of wastes during the summer of 1966 and, allegedly, has not
been discharging tanning wastes to the Cowanesque River. It
should be noted that BOD sampling data at the two downstream
-------
V - U6
locations, when extrapolated back to Elkland, suggest that over
I
300 pounds of BOD were discharged from the Elkland Area—more
than appears reasonable from just Elkland Borough's waste. Ad-
ditional studies are needed in this stream reach to determine
the sources and magnitude of the pollution. However, with cessa-
tion of the tannery waste discharges, studies indicate that ade-
quate flows are available in the Cowanesque River to assimilate
the secondary effluents from Elkland, provided upstream conditions
are improved.
b. Future Water Quality
The population in the Elkland Area is expected to double
by the year 2020. Assimilative evaluations indicate that if water
quality upstream from Elkland is improved by pollution control
actions taken by Westfield, then secondary treatment (85 per cent
BOD removal) of Elkland's waste will be sufficient to maintain
water quality downstream through year 2020.
The Corps of Engineers has proposed a reservoir on the
Cowanesque River, approximately ten miles downstream from Elkland.
The reservoir project is being designed for flood control, recrea-
tion, water quality control, and conservation of fish and wildlife
environment. Because of the nearness of this reservoir project
to Elkland and Westfield, it is essential that necessary pollution
control measures are taken in the upstream reaches of the
-------
V - 1*7
Cowanesque Watershed in order to impound water suitable for
recreation as well as other beneficial uses.
c. Water Supply-
Present needs of 2.2 mgd are furnished by drilled wells
and the Cowanesque River. Potable water is obtained from wells;
whereas, process water used by the Elkland Leather Company is
furnished by the Cowanesque River.
Future needs of about 2.8 mgd are anticipated by 2020.
The existing as well as available surface and ground water sources
appear adequate to satisfy the projected needs.
H. Canisteo River
1. Hornell Area
a. Current Water Quality
Hornell City in Steuben County, New York, is situated
near the headwaters of the Canisteo River, a principal tributary
of the Tioga River. Canisteo Village is situated about three
miles downstream from Hornell. Principal industries within the
Hornell Area are the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad, employing 100
persons; Stern and Stern Textiles, employing lHO persons; and
Elmhurst Dairy, employing 65 persons. Wastes emanating from
the Area are as follows:
-------
V - 1+8
Est.
Population Flow
Location Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Canisteo Village
Primary
2,200
0.25
Canisteo River
Hornell City
Primary
13,800
2.0
Canisteo River
Erie-
None (silt)
0.025
Canisteo River
Lackawanna
None (silt)
0.025
Canisteo River
Diesel Repair
Discharge:
*
(sanitary)
10
0.001
Hornell Sewers
Merrill Hosiery
None (dye)
0.001
Canisteo River
None (heated)
0.012
Canisteo River
Discharge:
*
(sanitary)
30
0.003
Hornell Sewers
Stern and Stern
Discharge:
*
Textiles
(dye)
2,930
0.15
Hornell Sewers
(heated)
Hornell Sewers
(sanitary)
Hornell Sewers
Elmhurst Dairy
None
780
0.016
Hornell Sewers
*
Estimated population equivalent
The water quality of the Canisteo River below the Hornell
Area is greatly impaired by organic pollution. Stream sampling
surveys conducted during the late summer months are summarized
below:
Canisteo River at Hornell
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/l) 3.2 - k.6 0 (most of the
samples)
Biological Summary
Upstream - Although a few clean-water associated forms were
collected at this station, only five kinds of bottom organisms
could be found. Biological degradation is indicated compared
to the station about three miles upstream where 16 kinds of
clean-water organisms were collected.
-------
V - 1*9
Downstream - Only two kinds, but an abundant population of
pollution-tolerant organisms, were observed in the samples at
this station. Sludge deposits near the banks were literally
"alive" with sludgeworms.
Initial impairment of water quality may be attributed to
septic tank or untreated waste discharges from Arkport (i960
population of 837), approximately four miles upstream from Hornell.
Additional stream studies are needed to locate and identify the
actual sources.
Polluted conditions downstream from Hornell severely limit
the beneficial use of the Canisteo River over a ten-mile reach.
A comparison of required flows for assimilation of primary ef-
fluents and expected flows in this stream reach indicates that
dissolved oxygen concentrations may be critically depressed six
months of the year, with anaerobic conditions occurring during
the late summer. Based on the foregoing analysis, a definite
need exists for secondary treatment capabilities for the Hornell
Area.
The New York State Commissioner of Health has ordered
Hornell to provide a minimum of secondary treatment. The City
has responded by submitting final plans to the State for approval
and by applying for a Federal grant under PL 660. The project
is now nearing the construction stage. The estimated project
cost is $2,1+22,500.
-------
V - 50
b. Future Water Quality
A water quality problem is anticipated downstream from
Hornell in the very near future. Studies indicate that required
flows necessary to assimilate projected 1980 waste loadings,
even with secondary treatment, and maintain a desirable oxygen
level for the propagation of fish and aquatic life will be in
excess of the naturally occurring stream flows. The water quality
problem is expected to intensify with continued municipal and
industrial growth, unless corrective measures are undertaken.
Hornell*s 2020 waste loading, for example, is projected to more
than double the 1980 loading, based on preliminary estimates.
In order to improve and maintain satisfactory water
quality in the Canisteo River, additional methods to control
pollution will be necessary before year 1980. Treatment facili-
ties to provide greater than 85 per cent BOD removal should be
considered, as well as flow regulation, which may be a supple-
mental method or possibly an alternative. Further evaluations
are necessary to determine the feasibility of each alternative
and resulting water quality.
The Corps of Engineers has indicated two potential reser-
voir sites on tributaries to the Canisteo River; (l) site #100
is located on Bennett Creek and is expected to yield approximately
U0 cfs at a cost of $13,000 per cfs; (2) site #99 is located on
Tuscarora Creek and has a potential yield of j6 cfs at a cost of
$13,600 per cfs.
-------
V , 51
Bennett Creek discharges to the Canisteo River approxi-
mately six miles downstream from Hornell and, therefore, could
increase stream flows in the severely degraded reach of the
Canisteo River. Tuscarora Creek, however, discharges to the
Canisteo River approximately 23 miles further downstream and
about six miles upstream from the mouth and would, therefore,
not supplement stream flows in the reaches where flow is most
needed.
c o Water Supply
A population of 19,000 is served by the Hornell municipal
systems. These systems obtain nearly all of the present needs
(2.7 mgd) from an impoundment on Carrington Creek. By year 2020,
it is anticipated that the Hornell Area will need about 7 mgd,
which is expected to exceed the supply capability of the exist-
ing surface water source. Future utilization of the Canisteo
River, as well as further development of ground water sources,
appear to be necessary to satisfy the projected needs.
I. Cohocton River
1. Bath Area
a. Current Water Quality
The Village of Bath in Steuben County, New York, is
situated on the Cohocton River approximately 19 miles upstream
from its mouth. The principal industry within the Village is
-------
V - 52
Westinghouse
Corporation, employing 1,100 persons.
Waste sources
in the Area
are as follows:
Est.
Population
Flow
Location
Treatment
Served
(mgd)
Receiving Stream
Bath Village
Primary
2,000
0.20
Cohocton River
Veteran's
Administration
Hospital
Secondary
2,^50
0.199
Cohocton River
Westinghouse
None (heated)
0.008
Cohocton River
Electric
Limestone Pit
(acid)
0.001
Bath Sewers
None (heated)
0.060
Cohocton River
Discharge:
«
(sanitary)
130
0.013
Bath Sewers
Mobil Oil
None (process)
0.10
Sub-surface
Company
Cesspool
*
(sanitary)
10
0.001
Sub-surface
*
Estimated population equivalent
Limited data collected during the 1965 summer sampling
period indicated dissolved oxygen levels approach saturation,
possibly attributable to algal growths observed in the Area.
The results of the biological survey conducted in the fall of
1965 indicated the presence of 18 kinds of predominately clean-
water organisms. However, prior to the biological survey, a fish
kill occurred in August 1965 downstream from Bath. The cause
of the kill apparently did not adversely affect the biological
condition of the stream.
A survey conducted by the New York State Department of
Health indicated the effluent from the primary treatment plant
caused localized grayish discoloration of the stream, and sludge
-------
V - 53
deposits were observed along the small outfall ditch leading to
the stream. Consequently, the New York State Department of Health
is requiring the Village to upgrade the degree of treatment to
secondary. A comprehensive sewerage study for the Bath Area is
currently being conducted and is expected to recommend secondary
treatment facilities. The cost of the treatment plant, exclusive
of sewers, is estimated at $160,000.
Assimilative studies by CB-SRBP indicate that the expected
flows of the Cohocton River are adequate to assimilate the present
and near future waste loadings, after secondary treatment, with-
out appreciable impairment to water quality.
b. Future Water Quality
The population served by sewerage facilities in the Bath
Area is expected to double by 1980 and increase sevenfold by 2020.
Assimilative studies of the Cohocton River downstream from Bath
indicate that secondary waste treatment appears to be satisfac-
tory to maintain desirable oxygen levels through 2000. Beyond
the year 2000, advanced waste treatment or flow regulation ap-
pears necessary in order to assimilate adequately the increased
waste loadings due to municipal and industrial growth.
Flow regulation may prove to be feasible from either of
three sites located on Twelve Mile Creek, a tributary discharg-
ing to the Cohocton River upstream from Bath. The Corps of
Engineers has indicated the following three sites:
-------
V - 5^
Site Number Potential Yield Cost Per cfs
#95 17 $21,000
096 3U $39,700
#91 28 $18,900
Comprehensive planning to protect water quality in the
Cohocton River Watershed will necessitate evaluation of the
effects of any upstream reservoir development, in addition to
determination of future waste treatment needs.
c. Water Supply
Present needs of 0.7 mgd for the Bath Area are furnished
"by ground water sources. A population of 5,000 is served "by the
municipal system.
Future needs of approximately l6 mgd are anticipated "by
2020. A study will he required to locate additional water sup-
ply sources. It is anticipated that the Cohocton River will be
utilized to satisfy a large portion of the projected needs.
However, further development of ground water resources or reser-
voir storage will be necessary to fully meet the needs by 2020.
J. Chemung River
1. Corning Area
a. Current Water Quality
The City of Corning in Steuben County, New York, is
situated on the Chemung River immediately downstream from the
-------
V - 55
confluence of the Tioga and Cohocton Rivers, which form the
Chemung. Painted Post Village is located two miles west of
Corning. Principal industries within the Corning Area are the
Corning Glass Works, employing 7)500 persons; Ingersoll-Rand
Company, located in Painted Post and employing 3»500 persons;
and the Corning Packing Company, employing about 350 persons.
Wastes emanating from the Area are as follows:
Est.
Population Flow
Location
Treatment
Served
(mRd)
Receiving Stream
Corning City
Primary
17,085
3.0
Chemung River
Corning Glass
None (heated)
10.9
Chemung River
Works
Discharge:
*
(sanitary)
2,880
0.288
Corning Sewers
Painted Post
Village
Secondary
2,200
0.2
Cohocton River
Ingersoll-Rand
None (process)
Discharge:
0.002
Cohocton River
(heated)
*
0.2U
Painted Post
(sanitary)
2,730
0.273
Sewers
Gang Mills
Septic Tanks
Sub-surface
Erwin Town
Secondary
1,000
0.12
Cohocton River
Polio and Fiorlat
Dairy
None
10,000
0.227
Cohocton River
Corning Community
College
Secondary
500
0.05
Bailey Creek
Scuder and Sand
Dairy
None (milk)
980
0.02
Cohocton River
New York State
None (boiler ash)
0.27
Ash Pond
Electric and
None (heated)
1*3.3
Chemung River
Gas
Septic Tanks
*
(sanitary)
10
0.001
Sub-surface
Dan's All Star
None (milk)
150
0.003
Tioga River
Dairy
Septic Tank
(sanitary)
Sub-surface
Corning Packaging
None (heated)
0.001
Bill Smith Creek
Company
None (organic
chemical)
it
Unknown
None (sanitary)
1*0*
0.001+
Unknown
Rhinehart Sand
and Gravel
None
1.5
Filter Pond
*
Estimated population equivalent
-------
V - 56
Based on the 1965 summer sampling results, the above
waste discharges did not cause appreciable reductions in dis-
solved oxygen concentrations compared to dissolved oxygen levels
upstream from Corning. However, the profuse algal growths
observed in the downstream reaches are partially responsible
for maintaining relatively high dissolved oxygen levels during
daylight hours, even though biochemical oxygen demands are being
exerted on the stream by Coming's waste discharge. Conversely, in
the absence of sunlight, the algae exert additional oxygen demands
on the stream. The summer sampling, however, was conducted during
daylight and did not reflect possible minimum dissolved oxygen
concentrations during the hours of darkness. Stream survey results
are summarized below:
Chemung River at Corning
Indicator Upstream Downstream
D.O. (mg/1) 11.T - 6.2 11.2 - 6.6
B.O.D. (mg/l) (5-day) 3.0-^.2 U.6-8.J+
Biological Summary
Upstream - An abundant population of 11 kinds of clean-water as-
sociated bottom organisms was observed in the sample at this
location. Smallmouth bass were numerous in the area.
Downstream - Seven kinds of bottom organisms, predominately
pollution-tolerant and intermediate forms, dominated at this
station. Degradation of water quality from the upstream station
was indicated.
-------
V - 57
Coming's existing primary plant is antiquated and over-
loaded. A survey conducted by the New York State Department of
Health revealed that floating material and sludge deposits were
"being conveyed to the stream.
This condition will be remedied soon, as final plans for
a new secondary plant have been approved, and construction is
expected to be underway shortly. The cost of the project is esti-
mated at $968,000. An application for a Federal grant under PL
660 has been submitted to the FWPCA for approval.
Corning Glass Works discharges its sanitary wastes to
the City sewer system and discharges a portion of its industrial
wastes, such as acids, alkalies, brine, oil, etc., directly to
the Chemung River. Sludge deposits, oil slicks, and discolora-
tion in the receiving stream are caused by these waste discharges.
The Company is engaged in a study of plant operations and indus-
trial waste problems and is making "in-plant" modifications to
reduce these discharges. The New York State Department of Health
has ordered abatement of this industrial waste discharge by
October 1967.
Dan's All Star Dairy, located on the Tioga River immedi-
ately upstream from the Cohocton River confluence, is causing a
localized pollution problem. Domestic wastes are treated by
septic tanks; whereas, cooling and wash waters containing organic
material are discharged without treatment directly to the Tioga
-------
V - 58
River, causing discoloration of the receiving stream and deposi-
tion of sludge on the stream bed. Enforcement action to abate
pollution from Dan's Dairy has been taken by the State Department
of Health, and a hearing is currently scheduled. Dan's Dairy is
expected to connect to the Erwin Town sewerage system.
b. Future Water Quality
The Corning Area is expected to grow considerably in the
future; the population served by sewerage facilities is expected
to double by 1980 and to increase sevenfold by 2020. Preliminary
evaluations indicate that the expected stream flows of the Chemung
River will be adequate to assimilate the projected waste loads
after secondary treatment.
c. Water Supply
Present area needs of 17-8 mgd are furnished mainly by
ground water sources. Corning Glass Works, however, uses the
Chemung River for cooling purposes. The New York State Gas and
Electric Company presently uses approximately 1+3 mgd from the
Chemung River; however, this Company is being phased out of opera-
tion. A population of 19,300 is presently served by municipal
systems.
Future needs of 90 mgd, in the absence of the Electric
Company, are anticipated by 2020 for the Corning Area. A study
will be required to locate additional sources to meet this future
-------
V - 59
demand. The Chemung River is a potential water supply source
which could supplement existing sources; however, further develop-
ment of ground water resources or reservoir storage will be
required to fully satisfy the projected demands.
2. Elmira Area
a. Current Water Quality
The City of Elmira in Chemung County, New York, is situat-
ed on the Chemung River approximately 12 miles downstream from
Corning. Newtown Creek, which drains a portion of the Elmira
Area, joins the Chemung River within the City. Elmira is the
largest community in the Chemung River Basin and the second
largest in the New York portion of the Susquehanna River Basin.
The Elmira Area is a diversified industrial center. Municipal
and industrial waste sources in the Elmira Area are as follows:
Location
Est.
Population Flow
Treatment Served (mgd) Receiving Stream
Elmira City
Elmira Town
Hygeia Refrigerator
National Biscuit
Kennedy Valve
Manufacturing
Art Card Publishing
Secondary
Discharge
Discharge:
(rinse)
(heated)
(milk and fats)
(compressor)
(sanitary)
1*6,500
5,765
590
(No Data)
Discharge:
(testing)
(compressor)
(sanitary)
Discharge:
(sanitary)
5.5 Chemung River
0.5 Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
0.012 Elmira Sewers
0.U32 Chemung River
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
Elmira Sewers
-------
v - 60
Location
Treatment
Population
Served
Est.
Flow
Receiving Stream
Hardinge Brothers
Discharge:
(metal)
Elmira Sewers
(sanitary)
Elmira Sewers
None (organic
chemical)
Dry Well
None (heated)
0.25
Eldridge Lake
Sperry Rand
Pre-treatment
(acidic)
0.3
Elmira Sewers
(oil)
0.072
Elmira Sewers
(metal)
0.136
Elmira Sewers
(acid and
alkaline)
0.021+
Elmira Sewers
(heated)
0.036
Elmira Sewers
(sanitary)
320
0.U32
Elmira Sewers
Seven Bottling
Discharge:
Company-
(caustic)
Elmira Sewers
(silt)
0.001
Elmira Sewers
(heated)
0.001
Elmira Sewers
(sanitary)
Elmira Sewers
General Electric
Discharge:
(sanitary)
Elmira Sewers
None (heated)
0.3
Eldridge Lake
None (heated)
Storm Sewers
None (silica
sand)
Eldridge Lake
Pepsi Cola Bottling
None (caustic)
0.001
Newtown Creek
Elmira City
(Chemung Sewer
District til)
Secondary
2,700
2.0
Newtown Creek
Dairymen League
Discharge:
Chemung Sewer
Co-op
(condensing)
0.05
District #1
(cooling)
0.095
Chemung Sewer
(milk)
21+5
0.005
District #1
Hankins Container
Discharge:
(boiler)
Chemung Sewer
(paste and ink)
District til
The Great Atlantic
Discharge
and Pacific Tea
(process and
#
Chemung Sewer
Company, Ann Page
sanitary)
98,000
1.0
District til
Division
-------
v - 6i
Est.
Population Flow
Location
Treatment
Served
(mgd)
Receiving Stream
Thacker Glass
Discharge:
Chemung Sewer
(organic)
District ft1
(air wash)
0.001
Chemung Sewer
(heated)
*
0.1+7
District' #1
(sanitary)
600
0.06
Chemung Sewer-
District #1
Horseheads Town
Secondary
i+89
0.05
Newtown Creek
Big Flats Town
Secondary
550
0.059
Chemung River
Big Flats Town
Secondary
200
0.00U
Sing Sing Creek
Corning Glass
None (cleaning)
0.03
Chemung River
Neutralization
(etching)
Chemung River
None (compressor)
0.1U7
Chemung River
Discharge:
*
(sanitary)
330*
0.033
Big Flats Sewers
Fawn Beverages
None
98
0.005
Sub-surface
Schwezer Aircraft
None (alodine)
0.002
Dry Well
None (compressor)
0.015
Dry Well
Septic Tank
*
(sanitary)
70
0.007
Leach Fields
Ward La France
None (process)
0.002
Dry Wells
Trucking
None (heated)
#
0.002
Dry Wells
None (sanitary)
20
0.002
Dry Wells
U. S. Steel
None (heated)
o.oi*
Dry Wells
Corporation
Septic Tanks
*
(sanitary)
10
0.001
Sub-surface
Cesspool
*
(sanitary)
20
0.002
Westinghouse
Lime (plating)
Tributary to
Electric
Newtown Creek
None (air
Tributary to
conditioning)
Newtown Creek
Settling
«
(sanitary)
130
0.013
Lagoons
Bendix Corporation
Chlorination
Tributary to
Eclipse Division
(heavy metal)
0.85
Newtown Creek
Chlorination
Tributary to
(acid)
0.15
Newtown Creek
Chlorination
Tributary to
(heated)
0.15^
Newtown Creek
Tertiary
*
Tributary to
(sanitary)
1,700
0.17
Newtown Creek
Buckley-Nylok
Company
(No Data)
Corning Glass Lab
(No Data)
*
Estimated population equivalent
-------
V - 62
Stream sampling surveys conducted during late summer
and fall months reveal the following results:
Chemung River at Elmira
Indicator
Upstream
Downstream
D.0. (mg/l)
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/l)
9.3-12
1.7 - 3.3
6.7 - 9.0
8.0 - 8.2
No samples were collected upstream from pollutional
sources on Newtown Creek. Samples collected downstream from
treated waste effluents are as follows:
Newtown Creek
Indicator Range
B.O.D. (5-day) (mg/l) 10.3 - 116.0
Coliforms/100 ml 9,000 - 5,500,000
Biological Summary
Chemung River Upstream from Elmira - Eighteen kinds of bottom
organisms, consisting of an abundance of clean-water associated
formsj were collected in the sample at this location.
Newtown Creek at Mouth - Seven kinds of bottom organisms, pre-
dominately pollution-tolerant forms, were observed at this sta-
tion. Degraded water quality is evidently being contributed to
the Chemung River.
Chemung River Downstream from Elmira and Newtown Creek - Fourteen
kinds of bottom organisms, predominately pollution-tolerant and
intermediate forms, were collected at this location. Degraded
conditions are indicated in relation to the upstream station.
Elmira City is currently providing less than secondary
treatment, about 60 per cent removal of organic waste. The New
-------
V - 63
York State Department of Health requires that a minimum of 75
per cent BOD reduction be maintained. Present plans include
expansion of the existing secondary plant to provide a greater
degree of treatment. A consulting engineer's cost estimate of
the proposed expansion is $2,835,000.
In addition, Elmira, like many older Cities, has a com-
bined sewer system which is overloaded during periods of excessive
run-off. A moderate rain causes untreated sewage to overflow
directly into the Chemung River from at least three points of
discharge. A comprehensive sewerage study for Elmira and Environs
currently in progress disclosed the following existing overflows.
Location of Overflow Overflow From Overflow To
Grove Street
Columbia Street
College Avenue
Railroad Avenue
DeWitt Avenue
Lake Street
Sullivan Street
Luce Street
East Water Street
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Water Street Interceptor
Sewer
Luce Street Trunk Sewer
North Side Sewer System
Chemung River
Water Street Storm Relief
Sewer and Chemung River
Water Street Storm Relief
Sewer and Chemung River
Water Street Storm Relief
Sewer
Water Street Storm Relief
Sewer
Water Street Storm Relief
Sewer
New York State Pumping
Station
Chemung River
Chemung River
-------
V - 6U
Furthermore, the study recommended a three-stage remedial
plan which calls for expansion and modifications of the existing
treatment facility to adequately treat the dry weather flow. The
following relief sewers were also proposed in the study:
(l) Walnut Street (2) West Hudson Street
(3) Erie-Miller (M Railroad Avenue
Estimated cost for these sewers is not presently known. A report
has been prepared and submitted to the State but has not been
approved; evidently there is no anticipated construction. Unfor-
tunately, there is no inexpensive method of completely eliminating
the storm water problem.
The area surrounding Elmira, including Elmira Heights,
Horseheads Village, and portions of Horseheads Town, is served
by the Chemung County Sewer District #1, which discharges its
secondary treated effluent into Newtown Creek. The present treat-
ment facilities are currently overloaded and are providing only
approximately TO per cent BOD removal. Industrial parks located
in Horseheads and Big Flats provide separate secondary treatment
facilities.
Secondary waste treatment is provided for most sanitary
wastes discharged into Newtown Creek. Most industrial waste,
however, is conveyed to Newtown Creek with little or no treatment
at all. Westinghouse and Bendix Corporations allow oil and chemi-
cal wastes to be discharged directly into the Creek. Westinghouse
Corporation is contemplating connection to the Chemung County
-------
V - 65
Sewer District #1. These industries are in violation of stream
standards set by the New York State Department of Health. In-
plant modifications and additional treatment have been initiated
by the industries at the request of the Department of Health.
Because of the low flows in Newtown Creek, every effort should
be made to provide maximum treatment of municipal and industrial
wastes or Join the Elmira sewerage system which discharges to
the Chemung River where flows are considerably greater. However,
since the Elmifa treatment plant is already overloaded, expansion
of the plant Would necessitate provisions for additional capacity
to receive these outlying areas.
b. Future Water Quality
A severe water quality problem is anticipated in the
Chemung River downstream from the Elmira Area beyond the year
1980. Waste assimilative studies indicate that the expected
stream flows in the Chemung River are insufficient to assimilate
the 1980 projected waste loadings, after secondary treatment,
throughout most of the year.
The population presently served by sewerage facilities
in the Elmira Area is expected to double by 1980 and to increase
sevenfold by 2020. Industrial growth is expected to increase
accordingly. By the year 2020, flows of 600 cfs are expected
to be required during the summer months to assimilate secondary
treated waste (85 per cent removal) and maintain satisfactory
-------
v - 66
water quality in the Chemung River. Natural stream flows of less
than 85 cfs frequently occur during these months. Treatment in
excess of 85 per cent removal of organic material will be neces-
sary unless other pollution control measures are undertaken. One
alternative, which appears possible, is flow regulation from up-
stream reservoirs such as the proposed Tioga-Hammond and Cowanesque
projects. Other reservoir sites, in the Canisteo and Cohocton
Watersheds, if developed may also serve to increase stream flows
in the Chemung River during the low flow periods of late summer.
Newtown Creek, which is presently degraded, will become
progressively more degraded as growth is experienced in the Area.
Flows of approximately 92 cfs will be required during summer months
to assimilate the 2020 secondary treatment waste loads and maintain
satisfactory quality conditions. Natural stream flows of less
than 8 cfs are not uncommon in Newtown Creek. Since there appear
to be no potential reservoir sites upstream on Newtown Creek, con-
sideration should be given to providing the maximum degree of
treatment attainable. Alternatives to consider in future planning
include diverting treated waste effluents to the Chemung River
and/or portions of the outlying areas joining the Elmira municipal
system. Industry should make every effort to eliminate toxic
chemical and oil wastes discharged into streams in the Elmira
Area, either by practicing good housekeeping methods, making in-
plant modifications, or pre-treating wastes and then discharging
-------
V - 67
treated effluents into municipal sewer systems if at all
possible.
Comprehensive planning of the water resources in the
Chemung River Basin, involving sound engineering and economic
evaluations and judgments, is needed to formulate and implement
an effective pollution control program.
c. Water Supply-
Current water needs of 16.5 mgd are furnished mainly by
surface supplies for the Elmira Area; however, many of the sur-
rounding communities use ground water sources.
Future needs of 288 mgd are anticipated "by the year 2020.
The municipal supply, however, will require only 2h per cent of
the total demand. The remaining 76 per cent is attributed to
industrial water supply needs. The lack of water may curtail
industrial expansion in this respect. The Chemung River cannot
meet the projected demand for the Elmira Area without additional
storage reservoirs. Additional studies will be required to explore
the possibilities of ground water development as a means of further
supplementing surface water sources.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
------- |