You are on page 1of 226

MORRIS.

COUNTY PLANNING BOARD


WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT
II II
Prepared By
Camp Dresser & Me Kee
MORRIS COUNTY
MASTER PLAN
WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT
PREPARED BY
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC.
DECEMBER 1985
MORRIS COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS
Patrie J. Hyland, Director
Alex DeCroce
Frederick W. Knox, Jr.
Walter J. Luger
Carol J. Murphy
Carol J. Rufener
Alfonse W. Scerbo
MORRIS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
Dorothy Jurgel, Chairman
William J. Mathews, Vice-Chairman
A. Secretary
Joyce Brown
George E. Burke
Melverne E. Cooke
Patrie J. Hyland
Carol J. Murphy
Robert N. Zakarian
Dudley H. Woodbridge, Planning Director
STAFF FOR THIS ELEMENT
Raymond Zabihach
Heywood Sommers
Christine Fuertges
Carol Morgan
CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . .
LIST OF TABLES . . . .

. . . . .
ERRATA . . . . . . . . . .
ADDENDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.0 INTRODUCTION

. . . . . . . . .
2.0 PLANNING BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 SANITARY SEWERAGE FACILITIES ELEMENT . . . . . . . .
2.3 208 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS . . . . . . . .
2.4 201 FACILITIES PLANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS . . . . . . . .
2.6 STATEWIDE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . .
2.7 MORRIS COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . .
2.8 NEW JERSEY STATE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE PLAN . . . .
3. 0 REGULATIONS . .
3.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS
a e e
3.1.1 Water Quality Regulations .
3.1.2 Related Environmental Regulations
3.2 STATE REGULATIONS .....
3.3 LOCAL ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS
4.0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY, AND WATERSHEDS
CLIMATE . .
GEOLOGY
SOILS .
HYDROLOGY .
4.5.1 Surface Water- Extent & Quality
4.5.2 Groundwater- Extent & ~ u a l i t y . . . . . . . .
4.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
4.6.1 Wetlands ....
4.6.2 Flood Hazard Areas . - ...
4.6.3 Sole Source Aquifer Recharge Zones .......
4.6.4 Environmentally Significant Agricultural land
i
i
v
vi
vii
ix
1
3
3
4
6
10
12
14
15
15
18
18 -
18
20
21
26
29
29
30
32
33
39
39
48
50
51
51
52
54
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....
2.0 PLANNING BACKGROUND
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . .
SANITARY SEWERAGE FACILITIES ELEMENT
208 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
201 FACILITIES PLANS . . . . . . . .
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS . . . . . . .
STATEWIDE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . .
MORRIS COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
NEW JERSEY STATE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE PLAN ..
3.0 REGULATIONS ......
3.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS .
3.1.1 Water Quality Regulations ...
3.1.2. Related Environmental Regulations
3.2 STATE REGULATIONS ...... .
3.3 LOCAL ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS
4.0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ..
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY, AND WATERSHEDS
CLIMATE . .
GEOLOGY . .
SOILS . . .
HYDROLOGY .
4.5.1 Surface Water- Extent & Quality .
4.5.2 Groundwater - Extent & Quality
4.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
4.6.1 Wetlands ........... '
4.6.2 Flood Hazard Areas . . . . . . ..
4.6.3 Sole Source Aquifer Recharge Zones .....
4.6.4 Environmentally Significant Agricultural Land
i
1
r ; ~
3
<{
3
4
6
10
12
14
15
15
18
18
18
20
21
26
29
29
30
32
33
39
39
48
50
51
51
52
54
5.0 EXISTING FACILITIES
CONTENTS
(continued)
5.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT
IN MORRIS COUNTY ...........
5.1.1 Municipal and Regional Systems
5.1.2 Non-Municipal Systems ....
5.1.3 Onsite Systems
5.2 PASSAIC RIVER BASIN ..... .
5.2.1 Municipal and Regional Systems ...
5.2.2 Non-Municipal Systems
5.2.3 Onsite Systems
5.3 RARITAN RIVERBASIN ..... .
5.3.1 Municipal and Regional Systems .
5.3.2 Non-Municipal Systems
5.3.3 Onsite Systems .
5.4 MUSCONETCONG RIVER BASIN ...
5.4.1 Municipal and Regional Systems
5.4.2 Non-Municipal Systems ....
5.4.3 Onsite Systems ...
5.5 SLUDGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
5.6 SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT
6.0 DEMOGRAPHICS ....
6.1 RESIDENTIAL/NON RESIDENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS ..
6.1.1 Population Distribution ....... .
6.1.2 Sewered/Unsewered Housing ......... .
6.1.3 Industrial/Commercial Development .
6.1.4 Projected Future Population
7.0 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT NEEDS ..
58
58
59
64
65
66
67
78
78
80
80
83
83
85
85
87
87
89
92
96
96
96
96
96
99
102
7.1 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS 102
7.1.1 Limited Action Scenario Flow Projections . . . . 104
7.1.2 Environmental Action Scenario Flow Projections 108
ii
8.0
7.2
7.3
CONTENTS
(continued)
WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS .
FINANCIAL FACTORS . . . .
7.3.1 Federar Funding . . .
7.3.2 State Funding . . .
7.3.3 Local Funding . .
7.3.4 Privatization . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
.
ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
8.1 ALTERNATIVE ONSITE SYSTEMS . . . . . .
8.1.1 Modified Dosing Tanks
8.1.2 Alternate Fields . . . . . . .
8.1.3 Mound Systems . . . . . . . . . .
8.1.4 Combined Septic Systems . . . . . . .
8 .1.5 Dual Systems: Blackwater and Graywater .
8.1.6 Evapotranspiration Beds . . . . . . .
8.1. 7 Holding Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1.8 Application of Environmental Criteri-a to
Evaluation of Onsite Systems . . .
"
8.2 ALTERNATIVE SEWERAGE SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . .
8.2.1 Small Diameter Gravity Sewers
8.2.2 Pressure Sewers . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2.3 Vacuum Sewers . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. .
. .
the
. .
8.3 OTHER ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER STRATEGIES
8.3.1 Spray Irrigation {Land Application)
8.3.2 Aerobic Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.3.3 Sand Filter, Disinfection and Discharge
8.4 PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANTS . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. .
. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
8.5 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES
iii
112
113
. 114
115
116
118
120
120
. 121

122
. 123
123
124
. 125
. 126
. 126
131
131
132
135
136
. 136
137
137
138
. 140
CONTENTS
(continued)
9.0 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
9.1 GENRAL RECOMMENDATIONS .. .
9.1.1 Passaic River Basin
9.1.2 Raritan River Basin
9.1.3 Musconetcong River Basin
9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS BY MUNICIPALITY ..
3 RECOMMENDED PLAN
10.0 REFERENCES ...
11.0 GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
APPENDICES
A Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities Serving
MOrris County . .......... e
A-1 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Serving Morris
.
142
142
142
143
144
145
154
156
160
173
County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . 17 4
B
c
0
A-2 Improvement Plans of Morris County Wastewater
Treatment Plants ....
Municipality Questionnaire Data
B-1 Municipality Questionnaires
Sample Wastewater Questionnaires
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Questionnaire
Municipal Health Department Questionnaire
Municipal Questionnaire ........ .
New Jersey Surface Quality Rating System and Criteria
Explanation of Surface Water Quality Rating System .
New Jersey Surface Water Quality Criteria ...
iv
175
177
178
179
180
187
192
197
198
200
FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
5-1
9-1
State Development Guide Plan - 1980 .....
Major Basins and Subbasins in Morris County
Soils with Severe limitations for Septic Tank
Absorption Fields . . .....
Surface Water Quality and Use Classifications .
Sole Source Aquifer Systems .
Wastewater Management Facilities and Sewered Areas
Wastewater Management Element Recommendations .....
17
31
36
41
55
60
155
Table
3-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
5-1
5-2
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
8-1
8-2
TABLES
Sewer Bans in Morris County ..
Limitations of Soils for Septic Tank Absorption Fields ..
Drainage Basins in Morris County
Morris County Municipalities Entirely or Partially
within the Sole Source Aquifer Recharge Zones
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Serving Morris
County e a G e e 0 e e 0
Soil and Site Limitations for Land
of Sludge or Septage ....
Population Distribution by Municipality
Sewered and Unsewered Housing Units by Municipality
Projected Future Population by Municipality-
1990 and 2000 .
Revisions to Population Projections
Limited Action Scenario Wastewater Flow Projections -
Future Sewering Assumptions ........... .
Limited Action Scenario Wastewater Flow Projections
Environmental Action Scenario Wastewater Flow
Projections ............. .
Moody's Ratings for Municipalities and
Authorities in Morris County - 1984
Soil Limitations Matrix ...... .
Alternative Wastewater Technologies Recommended for
Consideration .............
vi
Page
28
35
40
53
61
91
97
98
100
101
109
110
111
117
128
141
ERRATA
Page 40, Figure 4-3, Wastewater Facilities List:
#2 Pequannock Township should read Pequannock
Township - Laurel
#3 Fairfax should read Fairfield
#5 Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewerage Authority should
read Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewerage Utility
#8 Chatham Township Sewerage Authority should read
Chatham Township Pollution Control Plant. Flow
for the plant is .90 not .75 as indicated. [In
addition, please note Addenda for an additional
treatment plant.]
#10 Montville Board of Education should read Montville
Board of Education - Cedar Hill School. The plant
location is wrong and should be located on Pine
Brook Road in Towaco.
#17 Morristown Sewerage Authority should read Morristown
Sewerage Department
#26 PicatinnyArsenalshould read Picatinny Arsenal
#31 Mount Olive Township should read Mount Olive
Township - Clover Hill.
#38 Thermal American should r ~ a d Thermal American
Fused Quartz Company
#41 Fritzche Dodge should read Fritzche Dodge & Olcott
#49 Allied Chemical should read Allied-Signal, Inc.
#64 Action Tech Company should read Action Technology
Company
#67 Advanced Environmental Technology Corporation
should read Advance Environmental Technology
Corporation
#69 Litton Industries should read Airtron Division,
Litton Industries
#94 Chester Shopping Center plant location is wrong and
should be located west of Route 206 and south of
Route 24.
#99 Amerace-Esna Coproration should read Amerace
Corporation
#100 Randolph Township-Board of Education is listed
as #102 in the facility identification box
Page 60, Figure 5-l, Wastewater Facilities List:
See Figure 4-3, above.
vii
Page 110, Table 7-1:
East Hanover - PTHSU should be substituted for PTHSA
Montville - PTHSU should be substituted for PTHSA
Parsippany-Troy Hills - PTHSU should be substituted for PTHSA
Page 111, Table 7-2:
Facility Section - Parsippany-Troy Hills SA should read
Parsippany-Troy Hills SU.
Page 112, Table 7-3:
Page 156,
Page 174,
Facility Section - Parsippany-Troy Hills SA should read
Parsippany-Troy Hills SU.
Figure 9-1. Wastewater Facilities List:
See Figure 4-3. above.
Table A-1:
fflO Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewer Authority should read
Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewer U:tility.
viii
ADDENnA
Page 17, Figure 2-1:
Parsippany-Troy Hills Township - Most of the area south of
Route 46 from the Denville line and Route 53 to
Route 202 should be shown in the "Sewer Service Area."
In addition, the Prudential Campus at Routes 202 and
10 as well as across Route 10 along Johnson Road
are sewered.
Passaic Township - The Meyersville area, along Meyersville
Road in both directions from New Vernon Road, was
sewered in the Fall of 1985.
Page 35, Figure 4-2:
Parsippany-Troy Hills Township - The same as described above
for Figure 2-1.
Passaic Township - The same as described above for
Figure 2-1.
Page 40, Figure 4-3:
Chatham Township PCP - A second treatment plant was constructed
in 1984 tc serve the Chat"ham Glen residential development on
River Road in. the eastern tip of the Township. It has a current
capacity of 120,000 gpd. (see Errata sheet for main plant flow
correction.}
Chatham Township - Park Central package treatment plant
Cardinal Hill Apartments on River Road is missing.
a current capacity of 30,000 gpd.
serving
It has
Chester Borough - Chester Springs Shopping Center treatment
facility on Route 206 is missing. The facility design
capacity is 30,000 gpd.
Harding Township - NJ DOT package treatment facility at Route 287
Rest Stop with 25,000 gpd design capacity is missing.
Morris Plains Borough - The Tenco industrial pre-treatment facility
is missing on East Hanover Avenue.
Morris Township - The Diamond Shamrock industrial pre-treatment
facility is missing on Mt. Kemble Avenue. '
Mount Olive Township - Mt. Olive Complex treatment facility on
Wolfe Road is missing. The facility design capacity is
250,000 gpd.
Mount Olive Township - Mt. Olive High School on Corey Road has its
own package treatment facility. Capacity not available at
this time.
Mount Olive Township - Package
on Route 206 is missing.
with a 250,000 gpd design
treatment plant for Oakwood Village
Current discharge is 90,000 gpd
capacity.
ix
Passaic Township SA - The capacity of the treatment plant was
increased from 650,000 gpd to 850,000 gpd in 1985. For
new service area see Figure 2-1, above.
Roxbury Township - Holiday Inn STP on Route 46 in the Landing
area is missing. The facility design capacity is
30,000 gpd.
Page 60, Figure 5-l:
See description for Figure 4-3, above.
Page 61, Table 5-l:
Chatham Township PCP - A second treatment plant was constructed
in 1984 to serve the Chatham Glen residential development
in the eastern tip of the Township. It has a capacity of
120,000 gpd to serve 700 housing units, and may be expanded
in the future to 150,000 gpd to serve 900 units.
Passaic Township SA - The treatment capacity was increased from
650,000 gpd to 850,000 gpd in 1985.
Page 111, Table 7-2, in the Facility section:
Chatham Township PCP - The wastewater flow projections do not
include the Chatham Glen treatment facility or the new
population sewered. [See Table 5-l, above.]
Passaic Township SA - The wastewater flow projections do not
include the treatment plant's 200,000 gpd increased
capacity completed in 1985.
Page 112, Table 7-3, in the Facility section:
Chatham Township PCP - See description for Table 7-2, above.
Passaic Township SA- See description for Table 7-2, above.
Page 152, Passaic Township: The capacity of the treatment plant was
increased from 650,000 gpd to 850,000 gpd in 1985 .. This
should provide sufficient capacity through the.year 2000.
Page 156, Figure 9-1:
Chatham Township PCP - See description for Figure 4-3, above.
Chatham Township - Park Central, see description for Figure 4-3,
above.
Chester Borough - See description for Figure 4-3, above.
X
Harding Township - See description for Figure 4-3, above.
Morris Plains Borough - See description for Figure 4-3, above.
Morris Township - See description for Figure 4-3, above.
Mount Olive Township - Mt. Olive Complex, see description for
Figure 4-3, above.
Mount Olive Township - Mt. Olive High School, see description
for Figure 4-3, above.
Mount Olive Township - Oakwood Village treatment plant, see
description for Figure 4-3, above.
Parsippany-Troy Hills Township - See description for
Figure 2.1, above.
Passaic Township SA - Due to the 1985 treatment plant expansion,
the color designation should be green (sufficient capacity
to the year 2000) rather than pink. For service area and
treatment plant changes, see Figure 4-3, above.
Roxbury Township - See description for Figure 4-3, above.
xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Wastewater Management Element is a part of the Morris County Master
Plan, a compilation of policies concerning many essential physical,
environmental, social and economic concerns of the county. The aim of
these policies is to guide Morris County's growth and development in an
orderly and manner. The ultimate purpose of the Wastewater
Management Element is to form, along with other elements of the master
plan, the basis for the future land use element. Because of the present
growth pressures and the state of development in Morris County, this
element represents an important facet of the overall Master Plan.
The New Jersey County and Regional Planning Enabling Act contains the basic
guidance for county master plans and sets forth the elements of a master
plan. One of these elements is the "Sanitary Facilities" element. The
enab1 ing act states: "The county planning board shall encourage the co-
operation of the local municipalities within the county in any matters
whatsoever which may concern the integrity of the county master plan and to
advise the board of chosen freeholders with respect to the formulation of
development programs and budgets for capttal expendituresu (L. 1935, c.
251, 40:27-2).
The current wastewater management element of the Morris County Master Plan
was pub 1 i shed in 1971 as the
11
Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Element" with a
supplement entitled
11
Sanitary Sewerage Facilities for Northwest Morris
published in 1974. Many changes have occurred in rv1orris County
since both these plans were prepared. The most significant, however, is
that the national and state regulatory frameworks have changed from
1
relatively little regulation to high regulation. In the same period,
federal funding for sewerage systems dramatically increased and then was
dramatically reduced while the awareness of the relationship of growth to
environmental quality has been enhanced. In response to these changes, the
Morris County Planning Board is in the process of updating the County
Comprehensive Master Plan, of which this plan forms a part. In conjunction
with the water supply element, completed in 1982, the wastewater management
element will form a major input to the future land use element.
2
2.0 PLANNING BACKGROUND
Since the completion of the 1971 Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Element of
the Morris County Master Plan, a great deal of wastewater planning has
~ ~
occurred at a11 levels of government. This section summadzes and explains
the history and scope of this previous planning.
2.1 HISTORY
Until the late 1960s, little legislative activity occurred at the federal
level to protect the water resources of the Nation. On the state level,
legislation focused on protection of the public health. It became clear to
Congress in the late 1960s and early 1970s that the goal of public health
protection did not meet the broader goal of a clean environment. The
Morris County 1971 Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Element represents a
transitional phase between these two philosophies.
Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1972 (PL
92-500). This act provided, for the first time, substantial feaera1 grant
assistance for the planning, design, and construction of new sewerage
facilities. Under this act all municipal sewage treatment plants were to
achieve the level of secondary treatment (see glossary). The Clean Water
Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) amended PL 92-500. It continued or strengthened
the programs initiated by PL 92-500, established more comprehensive plan-
ning provisions, and initiated the industrial pretreatment program (see
section 2.5) on a national basis.
The infusion of federal monies in the 1970s made it possible for many
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) to upgrade and/or expand their
treatment processes. In addition, many other POTWs were able to identify
their respective wastewater management needs through the federally funded
wastewater facilities planning process. The Federal Water Pollution
3
Control Act was further amended in December 1981. This latest amendment is
having a significant impact on meeting the goals of the Act, largely as a
result of reduced funding for new sewerage facilities.
2.2 SANITARY SEWERAGE FACILITIES ELEMENT
The 1971 Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Element of the Morris County Master
Plan reflected an earlier effort in wastewater facilities planning prior to
the passage of the federal Water Pollution Control Act. At that time, all
the wastewater treatment facilities that served the county were, by defini-
tion, 'secondary treatment facilities' in that they provided biological
treatment after primary treatment by sedimentation. Nonetheless, this plan
element recognized that improvements in treatment would be required:
'
1
Increased treatment efficiency, additional supplemental treatment
processes, and the consideration of stream flow augmentation
during critical dry weather periods may become exceedingly import-
ant in the foreseeable future in Morris County as the volume of
treated effluent discharged constantly increases and the flows in
the receiving streams decrease.
11
(Morris County Planning Board,
1971)
Therefore, just as the later 201 and 208 plans (discussed later) recognized
the need for high levels of treatment, so too did this 1971 element.
The 1971 element called for the elimination of many smaller package and
conventional treatment plants in favor of larger regional sewage treatment
plants. The plan recommended that every effort be made to expand and up-
grade existing plants to regional status rather than to construct new
treatment plants.
4
A supplemental report to the 1971 element, concentrating solely on the
Northwest area of the County, was issued in September 1974. The area stud-
ied is situated in three subbasins - the Pequannock River watershed with
the Pequannock River forming the northern boundary of Morris County, the
Rockaway River watershed which lies south of the Pequannock River water-
shed, and the Musconetcong River watershed which lies to the west of the
Rockaway River watershed. This study dealt with the individual drainage
basins as separate planning areas.
The study was prepared in response to indications that extensive develop-
ment would occur in that area in the following ten years. The study
focused on the relative merits of the use of conveyance systems (including
pump stations) to distribute wastewater flows among the various existing
treatment plants versus the construction of new wastewater plants
in close proximity to the sources of the wastewater. Approximate costs of
various alternatives to treat the ultimate (year 2020) flow were presented.
Because the report emphasized strong developmental pressures, it implied
that the plan be implemented as soon as practicable. The plan also recom-

mended that of treatment be upgraded where the technology was avail-
able, though the discussion concerning levels of treatment was not exten-
sive. It was noted in the report that where effluent may threaten drinking
water supplies, higher treatment levels than secondary are required. It
was also noted that the technology of advanced wastewater treatment was at
that time relatively unproven.
Apparently, few of the recommendations of this document have been imple-
mented. Population growth has occurred since this report was prepared and
is expected to continue. If these new populations use onsite wastewater
disposal systems, the possibility of septic groundwater con-
tamination is increased.
5
2.3 -208 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Under Section 208 of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended by
the Clean Water Act of 1977, Congress called for the development of area-
wide water quality management plans. These "208 plans", as they are
called, recommend where and when sewage treatment facilities should be
built, and recommend measures for the prevention and control of pollution
from non-point sources.
Morris County is covered by four 208 plans: (1) the Northeast New Jersey
Water Quality Management Plan, (2) the Upper Raritan Water Quality
Management Plan, (3) the Upper Delaware Water Quality Management Plan (all
prepared by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP),
and (4) the Sussex County 208 Water Quality Management Plan prepared by
Sussex County.
The policy of NJDEP, as outlined in the three 208 plans it authored, was
that the Department would seek the highest level of treatment it could
obtain at publicly owned treatment works, as this is the most effective way
to control an obvious point source of pollution load. All three documents
contain the identical two paragraphs stating these goals:
11
0ne of the major functions of Water Quality Management Planning
is to establish waste load allocations for point sources of pol-
lution. A waste load allocation is an assignment of the amount
of waste that a point source will be permitted to discharge into
a water body and still meet the water quality goals of the State.
Though non-point sources of pollution have received a great deal
of attention in the 208 planning process throughout the United
States. point sources are still major contributors of pollution
to our waters. In contrast to non-point sources, point sources
can be easily identified, the technology exists to treat them,
and the regulatory authority for their control has beem firmly
established. The question then is, how much control is
to meet the 1983 goals of fishable and swimmab.l e waters?
11
6
11
The answer to this question is not an easy one, considering the
number of technical and policy questions which affect the answer.
The water quality data and analytical tools are not always avail-
able to develop effluent limits. The relative impact of non-
point sources of pollution compared to point sources of pollution
has not been well established. Water quality standards have not
been developed for a number of water quality parameters including
possible carcinogens. In addi on, state policies which would
protect the various stream uses throughout the State are
limited." (NJOEP, 1979)
The 208 plans recognize that in many cases the wasteloads coming from point
sources fa11 into two broad categories: either they exceed the waste1oads
generated by non-point sources or they are considerably less.
In particular. the Northeast 208 plan documents this situation by calculat-
ing the ratio of loadings for point sources versus non-point sources {see
glossary} for four parameters: 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (B00
5
), sus-
pended solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus (see glossary). In the cases of
BOD
5
and suspended solids loadings, both point sources and non-point
sources show parity in that the pollutant contribution comes substantially
from both sets of sources. In the cases of nitrogen and phosphorous load-
ings, these wasteloads come predominantly from point sources.
The Northeast 208 plan is specific in its recommendations for ultimate
treatment plant efficiencies. The 208 plan recommended that by the year
2000, all the plants within Morris County addressed in the Northeast 208
plan would achieve a treatment level in excess of what is defined as
secondary treatment.
7
The NJDEP Upper Raritan and Upper Delaware 208 plans are more general in
their analysis and recommendations for point source control. However, all
three NJDEP 208 plans contain the effluent quality guidelines included in
the New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 7, Chapter 9, Subchapter 5.
These regulations require that all discharges that are classified as either
freshwater (FW) or tidal waters (TW) in Morris County
11
Sha11 be treated to
a degree providing, as a minimum, 90 percent of reduction of biochemical
oxygen demand .... it is the objective of this subsection that the bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD) of effluents discharged shall not exceed 25
parts per million.
11
(NJAC 7:9-5.10} These 208 plans also note that the
regulations provide NJDEP with the prerogative of implementing more strin-
gent BOD regulations or other regulations not applying exclusively to BOD,
where needed to comply with water quality standards. These plans also cite
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments which set the goal for
a11 municipal facilities of 85 percent BOD and suspended solids removals to
be achieved by 1 July 1977. (This date has been amended to 1 July 1988.)
Basically, all three NJDEP 208 plans covering Morris County take a compar-
able approach, with the exception that the Northeast 208 plan contains a
greater level of detail.
As for alternative wastewater treatment systems, the three NJDEP 208 plans
suggest the following basic technological approaches be considered when
formulating a facilities plan:
o Septic tank with leaching field trench system
o Septic tank with subsurface disposal beds
o Septic tank with mound absorption area
o Small aerobic treatment units
o Composting toilets
o Spray irrigation
o Decentralized treatment plants
o Lagoons
o Wastewater separation and recycle systems
8
Also included in the 208 plans ar& the "Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Alternatives to Regional Treatment Systems in 201 Facilities Plans.
11
These
guidelines. are instructive as to proper practice for the recommendation and
imo1ementation of alternative wastewater systems and those criteria that
must be considered before using an alternative system.
The Sussex County 208 p1 an takes a different approach than the NJDEP docu-
ments. The NJDEP 208 plans attempt to focus on municipal treatment works
by recommending advanced treatment where it is needed. The Sussex County
Plan recommends advanced treatment as the alternative of last resort. This
plan makes specific recommendations as to treatment alternatives that
should be considered before advanced treatment, including:
o Flow reduction
o On-land disposal
- Spray irrigation of:
Crop 1 and
Wetland {swamps-both artificial and natural)
Forested areas
Gal f courses
- Over! and flow
- Infiltration/percolation
o Storage and metered discharge to stream
The Sussex County 208 plan recommended that every attempt be made to u.se
existing facilities. New facilities should not be established unless
direct evidence of existing pollution of the ground or surface waters as a
result of present wastewater disposal practices is shown.
All four 208 plans attempt to find methods to reduce. the load of pollutants
into the waters of the State. The NJDEP 208 plans attempt to do this
through advanced wastewater treatment facilities. Through this method
capital costs and treatment 1eve1 determinations are confined to particular
9
point sources. The Sussex County 208 plan attempts to spread these costs
out by finding alternative methods to reduce wasteloads, with advanced
wastewater treatment being the alternative of last consideration. The
Sussex County 208 plan appears to have more relevance to the 1980s, given
the reduced funding for wastewater facility construction grants.
2.4 201 FACILITIES PLANS
Under Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, a program for the planning and
implementation of state and national water quality management goals was
formulated. This program focused-on the.national need to upgrade, expand,
and modernize publicly owned sewage treatment plants.
Section 202 of the Clean Water Act provided for a federal grant of up to 75
percent of the cost of construction 9f new treatment facilities. A prere-
quisite for receiving a grant for construction is for the applying agency
to prepare an acceptable plan. This plan is refered to as a
11
201 Facili-
ties plan.
11
When this program was initially implemented, qualifying agen-
cies could be reimbursed for up to 75 percent of the planning costs. As a
result, many sewerage authorities prepared 201 facilities plans to assess
their future wastewater management needs and to propose construction to
meet these needs. Meanwhile, state and regional agencies were preparing
208 water quality management plans to support the 201 planning process.
The final result of the initiation of these planning programs under the
Clean Water Act is that an excellent overall assessment of wastewater
management needs was created in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
In 1981, the Clean Water Act was amended (1) to delete the provisions for
direct reimbursement for costs incurred during the 201 planning process and
(2) to reduce the grants for construction costs to 55 percent. Nonethe-
less, all of Morris County has been addressed in 201 facilities plans
10
except for Chester Township, Chester Borough, and portions of Randolph
Township and Mendham Township. These plans were all prepared during the
1977-1981 period when federal regulations still provided for direct
reimbursement for 75 percent of planning costs.
Provisions for assessment of wastewater management needs, sludge management
planning, sewer system assessment and planning, and impacts of recommended
plans on the environment were included in these documents.
In Morris County, the 201 facilities plans prepared and the year of
preparation are as follows. Note that some of the 201 plans addressed
specific authorities and their service areas (which may include several
municipalities) while other 201 plans address river basin areas (with
possibly more than one treatment authority) or individual communities.
Passaic River Watershed
livingston-Florham Park - 1980 (accepted 1981)
Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewerage Authority- pre-1977 (septage management
1983)
Pequannock, lincoln Park, and Fairfield Sewerage Authority - 1981
Pequannock River Basin Regional Sewerage Authority - 1984
Randolph Township Municipal Utilities Authority-1977 (accepted 1984)
Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority (includes the following
municipalities: Boonton Town. Boonton Township, Denville, Dover,
Randolph, Rockaway Borough, Rockaway Townshjp, Victory Gardens and
Wharton)-1977 (accepted 1984)
Upper Passaic River Basin (a portion includes the following Morris
County sewer systems: Chatham Township, Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting,
Mendham Borough, Morris-Woodland and Passaic Township}-1977
11
WhippanyRiver Basin (includes the following municipal sewer systems:
Hanover Sewerage Authority, Marris-Butterworth, Morristown)-1977 (por-
tions accepted 1979)
Raritan River Watershed
Washington Township Municipal Utilities Authority (for the Townships of
Washington, Mt. Olive and Roxbury)-1978
Musconetcong River Watershed
Upper Musconetcong River Basin (includes Netcong and portions of Mt.
Olive and Roxbury Townships in Morris County)-1978
An aspect of a11 these plans that has changed since their issuance is the
funding levels and availability. When these plans were formulated, not
only was there an anticipated 75 percent federal funding level for all
associated costs for planning and but in any given fiscal
year, many more projects' could expect to be funded than are funded now.
Therefore, the plans recommended technologies that were preferable from an
environmental point of view rather than having recommendations based
largely on economics. In today's period of reduced funding, consideration
of the cost-effectiveness of various wastewater management alternatives is
even more important. The cost of new wastewater facilities is, in some
cases, too high for local authorities to bear alone.
2.5 INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS
Though Morris County does have industry, as evidencerl by the five indust-
rial pretreatment programs (IPP) designated by NJDEP, this industry is not
as extensive as is found in Essex or Hudson counties. NJDEP designates a
municipal treatment plant for the development of an industrial pretreatment
program when, in the opinion of the Department, the concentration of in-
dustry in the plant's drainage area warrants it.
12
A key aspect of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 is the requirement
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgate regula-
tions establishing standards to prevent the discharge of industrial waste-
waters to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) that would (1) interfere
with the operation of the POTW, including interference with the beneficial
use or the disposal of municipal sludge; (2) pass through the treatment
works or otherwise be incompatible with such works; or (3) inhibit the
POTW
1
S opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial waste-
waters and sludge.
Any POTW which has a total design flow of 5 million gallons per day (mgd)
or more, and which receives wastes from industrial users that are subject
to categorical pretreatment standards, is required to develop an industrial
pretreatment program. In Morris County the older, more developed eastern
part of the county is where the IPP areas are located. The following
authorities qualified under these IPP criteria:
o Florham Park Sewerage Authority (see also section 5.2.1)

o Hanover Sewerage Authority
o Morris Township (Butterworth and Woodland)
o Pequannock, Lincoln Park and Fairfield Sewerage Authority
o Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority
Also. NJDEP is currently preparing a statewide pretreatment management pro-
gram. Its objective is to locate and regulate the major industries that
are not included within designated sewerage authorities
1
service areas, but
nonetheless do discharge into a POTW that receives some industrial waste
flows. NJDEP has developed a list of POTWs that were initially not desig-
nated for an IPP or de-designated in the.case of Florham Park Sewerage
Authority (see section 5.2.1), but are now for a NJDEP-sponsored
program. In Morris County these authorities are:
13
o Butler-Bloomingdale Joint Meeting
o Florham Park Sewerage
o Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting
o Morristown Sewage Treatment Plant
o Musconetcong Sewerage Authority
o Parsippany - Troy Hills Sewer Utility
o Passaic Township Sewage Treatment Plant
o Roxbury Ajax Sewage Treatment Plant
2.6 STATEWIDE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The state's policy over the last several years has been to discourage land-
filling of sewage sludge and to encourage reuse and resource recovery waste
disposal modes wherever possible. Particular attention has been paid to
the beneficial reuse of
11
C1ean" domestic sewage sludges. By
11
Clean
11
is
meant sludges with no or low levels of industrial contribution.
A statewide sludge management plan is being prepared by NJDEP as a com-
ponent of the State Solid Waste Management Plan. According to a pre-draft
.
summary outline of the plan, the plan will address the status of sludge
disposal in New Jersey county by county. The plan will analyze existing
and future sludge management problems, disposal alternatives, and financial
alternatives and will establish the framework for developing district
sludge management plans. Morris County is one such solid waste district.
It was the intent of this wastewater management element to address sludge
management- present and future- in Morris County in some detail. How-
ever, because the draft State plan has not been officially released, it is
recommended that discussion of the details of sludge management in Morris
County in this element be deferred until the state plan has been completed
and adopted. This is expected to occur in 1985. Existing sludge disposal
methods are described, however, in section 5.5.
14
2.7 MORRIS COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In response to the New Jersey Solid Waste Management Act of 1976 (see
section 3), a county wide solid waste management plan was prepared in 1979
and updated in 1982 and 1985. This plan addressed solid waste, sludge, and
septage management. The sludge and septage management planning proposals
were not as detailed as the solid waste planning. Nonetheless, an
excellent description of the existing conditions for sludge and septage
management was developed. For sludge management, it was noted in 1979 that
most sludge in Morris County was land disposed either onsite or at a
sanitary landfill. The remainder was incinerated at the Parsippany-Troy
Hills Sewerage Authority. Since 1979, the Two Bridges Sewerage Authority
has constructed an incinerator and NJDEP has prohibited onsite disposal of
sludge. In Morris County, sludge is now either incinerated or disposed of
at a sanitary landfill outside the county (see table 5-l). As for septage
management, the situation documented in this plan has not changed
substantially. Septage hauling and disposal is still largely performed by
private contractors and most septage is hauled to out-of-county wastewater
treatment plants.
2.8 NEW JERSEY STATE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE PLAN
In recognition of the sprawling suburbanization of the State, the Depart-
ment of Community Affairs prepared in 1980 a plan to guide the State's
future development so as not to overextend the State's infrastructure,
natural resources, or institutions. Recommendations were formulated to
guide the various agencies and government units within the state in this
regard. The plan suggests that in performing their respective planning
functions, these agencies adjust and detail the general framework laid out
in the plan.
The recommendations of particular applicability to both Morris County in
general and this wastewater management element in particular are the
following:
15
o Investment in facilities (both existing and new) will be
n e e d ~ d to accommodate the expected growth. This investment
includes water and sewerage facilities.
o Critical natural and man-made resources can be jeopardized
without proper planning.
o Planning for future development should include a determina-
tion of places in the State where development would and would
not be appropriate.
o In the Interstate Highway 80 corridor in particular, develop-
ment should be restricted on steeply sloped terrain.
o Potential development impacts on the Rockaway watershed
should be minimized because of its use as a drinking water
source.
The Plan maps o ~ t the areas of Morris County it assessed as growth area,
limited growth areas, areas for open space preservation, and agricultural
areas (see figure 2-1). The plan recognizes that the single most limiting
factor to development in Morris County is the need for additional waste-
water treatment capacity. Therefore, there is a strong relationship bet-
ween availability of sewers and the recommended growth areas in Morris
County.
16
OLIVE
------
LEGEND:
SEWER SERVICE AREA
1QQ&:;
/
........ ../
/
)
/
i
JEFF RSON
_ .. .. -
\
\
i
j

'''" . .......-
! _...-
_v
NOTE; SINCE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP, THE MCPB HAS
RECEIVED NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL MAP CHANGES
WHICH ARE NOTED IN THE MASTER PLAN TEXT.
TWP.
/
I
' I
' )
-'
ROCKAWAY WP.
Sp/11

-...
.......
.......
4000 0 4000 8 000 12.000
Iiiii-? ---j
SCAl. E l h FELT-
Morris County Planning Board
Morris County, New Jersey
STATE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE PLAN
1980
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Edison, New Jersey
Figure 21
3.0 REGULATIONS
Because of the technical nature of wastewater treatment and disposal, many
of the laws enacted by the federal and state governments must be imple-
mented by the promulgation of regulations. The regulations make it pos-
sible to enforce the various laws on specific parties. The major laws and
regulations affecting wastewater management are listed below. For a
specific project, it is recommended that the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection be consulted.
3.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS
3.1.1 Water Quality Regulations
Clean Water Act
The Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500) and its amendment, the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pl 95-217), authorizes federal funding of eligible
costs involved in the construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants
and their associated facilities. In addition, it authorized USEPA to issue
comprehensive sewage sludge management guidelines and regulations. Another
notable feature of this act is the authorization of the NPDES (National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) for point source discharges and the
develnpment of areawide waste treatment or water quality management plans
for non-point source pollution. In New Jersey the NPDES function has been
d e l ~ g a t e d to the State, which has promulgated its own version Of these acts
and regulations. The discharge permits in New Jersey are therefore refer-
red to as New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) per-
mits. The NJPDES permit program supersedes the federal program. It must
be at least as stringent as the federal program. The Clean Water Act has
been in effect without formal authority since it officially expired in
1982.
18
New water quality standards, as promulgated by the USEPA under Section
303(c) of the Clean Water Act, require that the water quality standard of
any water body, once designated, not be allowed to degrade from its
designated water quality standard, except for possibly seasonal variations.
Ocean Disposal Regulations
The significant federal law governing ocean disposal of sewage sludge is
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act {MPRSA) of 1972 (Pl
92-532) and its amendments of 1977 (Pl 95-153). These acts, and in parti-
cular the 1977 amendments, required the complete cessation of ocean dumping
after December 31, 1981. However, a federal court ruled that ocean dis-
posal of sewage sludge could be permitted beyond the December 31, 1981
deadlirle (City of New York vs. Environmental Protection Agency). Ocean
dumping permits have been granted in accordance with Chapters 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 220-230 and under the authority of sec-
tion 102(a} of the MPRSA. The EPA has recommended redesignating the ocean
dufl.lping location from 12 miles offshore to 106 miles offshore. No final
determination has been made. In addition, bills banning ocean dumping have
been introduced into both houses of Congress. Final resolution of this
issue will depend on further actions of the EPA, the Department of Justice,
the Congress and the President.
Construction Grants Regulations
Under the Clean Water Act of 1977 and the Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grant Amendments of 1981, the deadline for all municipalities
to achieve secondary treatment was extended from July 1, 1983 to July 1,
1988. The definition of secondary treatment was enlarged to include oxida-
tion ponds, lagoons, and trickling filters. USEPA promulgated regulations
under these acts in early 1983 that reduced the Federal share of funding
for new sewerage construction. On October 1, 1984 the state and local
share of project costs increased from 25 to 45 percent. In addition, the
total funding level for this program was reduced in the early 1980s. As
19
for the mechanism for reimbursement to localities, the Construction Grant
Amendments require local financing of Step 1 (planning) and Step 2 (design)
stages of projects, with USEPA adding an allowance to the grant for the
first two steps when the Step 3 (construction) grant is approved.
3.1.2 Related Environmental Regulations
NEPA EIS Review
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 sets forth guidelines
for the preparation and review of environmental impact statements (EIS).
Actions that involve federal funds and/or regulatory approval by federal
agencies may require preparation of a federal EIS. This requirement is
determined by the federal government on a case-by-case basis.
Environmental Protection Agency - Air Permits
Planning for the incineration or composting of sludge at a treatment
facility must take air pollution permit regulations into account. The
federa1 air quality program administered by the USEPA and authorized by the
Clean Air Act of 1970 and-subsequent amendments requires a permit for
pollutant emissions to the atmosphere. Proposed actions may have to be
evaluated to determine applicability of the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSO} program. The components of the emissions to the air
may be subject to detailed air quality analysis. The program requires a
review of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to be applied in con-
trolling the emission of area criteria pollutants. A review of air quality
related values is also required. Air quality monitoring to determine base-
line air quality at the site of the proposed construction as well as hot
spot locations may also be required as part of the PSD permit application.
This program has been delegated to the State of New Jersey and is
administered by NJDEP.
20
Safe Drinking Water Act
The purpose of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 is to assure that
water-supply systems meet minimum standards for the protection of public
health. This law permits the EPA to establish federal standards to control
levels of all harmful contaminants in the drinking water supplied by all
public water systems. Delegation of these standards for State enforcement
is also included. In New Jersey, NJDEP has enacted its own Safe Drinking
Water Act regulations to implement this law and carry out its provisions.
Solid Waste Regulations
The Federal Criteria for the Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Faci-
lities and Practices (40 CFR, ~ a r t 257, September, 1979) are the signifi-
cant federal regulations concerning land application and landfilling of
sewage sludge with regard to surface water, wetlands, groundwater. disease,
endangered species, safety, floodplains, air quality, and food chain crops.
Significant requirements are that the sludge be stabilized {see glossary)
before land application and that by January 1986 all landfills, existing
and new, must meet-specified minimum standards in operation and design.
3.2 STATE REGULATIONS
Sewerage Authorities Law
Passed in 1946, the Sewerage Authorities Law (NJSA 40:14A- et seq.) and
its amendments concern the authorization, acquisition, financing, and
operation of sewage disposal systems. This statute empowers municipalities
to create sewerage authorities either to serve any portion of the municipal
territory or to serve more than one municipality, in conjunction with other
municipalities. It also permits the establishment of a sewerage authority
by a county government.
21
Solid Waste Management
The New Jersey Solid Waste Management Act of 1976 (NJSA 13:1E-1 et seq.)
provides for the preparation of countywide solid waste management plans.
Its amendment of 1980 (NJSA 13:1E-42) prohibits the disposal of liquid
sewage sludge in a landfill after 15 March 1985, unless the landfill is
lined and has an approved leachate collection system. It also requires
that all waste flows be documented in the Solid Waste Management Plan and
that amendments to the plan be sought whenever waste flows change. Morris
County has implemented the Solid Waste Management Act by appointing a solid
waste planning staff to see that the Solid Waste Management Plan is imple-
mented and kept up-to-date. As the main intent of this act is the control
of solid waste, sludge disposal aspects of the plan take a lower priority
to the solid waste planning activities.
New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards
These regulations, adopted originally in 1974 and amended since, classify
all major water bodies within and around the State as to their use and
their water quality standards. Three broad classifications are used.
1. FW - Fresh Surface Waters
2. TW - Tidal Surface Waters
3. CW - Coastal Surface Waters
All waters in Morris County fall within the FW classification; none of its
surface waters are considered coastal or tidal. In turn, the FW classifi-
cation is broken down into three broad classifications:
1. FW-1 - Protected natural waters that are to be preserved in
their natural state.
2. FW-2- Various waters that can support certain levels of pol-
lutant loads according to their subcategory:
22
(a) Trout Production
(b) Trout Maintenance
(c) Non-trout
3. FW-3 - Waters that are relatively polluted where additional
pollutant loads would make little difference to the condition
of the water body.
Morris County surface waters fall entirely within the FW-2 category except
surface waters in the City of Newark Watershed in the far northern part of
Jefferson, which are classified FW-1. Under new state rules, FW-2 waters
are to be regulated for 14 water quality criteria (see Appendix D):
1. Floatables 9. Radi oacti vi ty
2. Turbidity 10. Dissolved solids
3. Taste and odor 11. Chloride
4. Suspended solids 12. Sulfate
5. pH 13. Phosphorus
6. Dissolved oxygen 14. Toxic .or hazardous sub-
7. Temperature stances
8. Col iforms
FW-2 Trout Production waters and their tributaries and FW-2 Trout
Maintenance or FW-2 Non-Trout waters that are upstream of FW-2 Trout
Production waters are identified as High Quality Waters-Category One if
their biological, chemical or physical characteristics are better than
water quality standards and are critical to the maintenance of existing
instream uses. These waters are protected under State antidegradation
policy from any measurable or calculable changes. High Quality Waters-
Category Two are also waters having biological, chemical or physical
characteristics better than water quality standards.
23
Uses of these high quality waters are also sensitive to changes in chemical
or physical characteristics but the uses may be capable of being maintained
with some change to instream chemical or physical characteristics.
Water quality degradation to Category Two waters is only allowed if it is
not critical to the maintenance of existing uses of the water body and is a
result of necessary and justifiable economic or social development.
Sludge Management
Perhaps the single most extensive set of sludge management standards is the
NJDEP'S "Guidelines for the Preparation of Sludge Management Plans" issued
in 1979. These guidelines deal with virtually every aspect of implementing
a long-term sludge disposal option. This document reflects NJDEP policy to
discourage 1andfi11ing of sludge and encourage its beneficial reuse in land
application projects. Of particular importance are soil pH and groundwater
level requirements, proper design of site monitoring wells, heavy metals
concentrations as they relate t6 overall application loads, and nitrogen
concentrations as they relate to yearly application rates. These guide-
lines were developed in conjunction with the 201 facility planning process.
See also section 2.6 for a discussion of sludge management planning in the
state.
New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Permitting
Process
As part of the Clean Water Act (see section 3.1), every major discharger of
waste into the surface or groundwaters of the United States is required to
obtain a permit stating what pollutant parameters may be discharged and. at
what loadings and/or concentrations. Also included is a limit on the total
flow that may be discharged.
As discussed in section 3.1.1, EPA.has delegated the pollutant discharge
permit function in New Jersey to the State. The State promulgated its own
discharge permit regulations in 1981.
24
Discharge permits are granted after a review by the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection of pertinent information to it. Some
of the critical information to be included for each proposed outfall must
be reported quantitatively in the permit application. Among the items to
be included, and eermitted, are:
o Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD
5
)
o Chemical oxygen demand
o Total organic carbon
o Total suspended solids
o Total dissolved solids
o Ammonia nitrogen
o Temperature
o pH
o Any other expected pollutants
In addition, a detailed Engineer's Report must be included with this
application. It must jnclude calculations and parameters used in the
design of the treatment system. The plans and specifications and the
operation and maintenance manual for the treatment facility must be
submitted for approval prior to the promulgation of the final permit.
The actual parameter limitations are based only partially on the data
submitted by the discharger. Surface water quality standards also come
into play.
Once a permit is issued, it has the force of law. Periodic monitoring
reports must be filed with the NJDEP. Frequent violation of a permit's
provisions can bring about an enforcement action that can result in either
a fine or an imposed rectification of the problem.
25
3.3 LOCAL ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS
Dry Sewer Lines
Some municipalities and authorities in Morris County have regulations re-
quiring the installation of dry sewer lines in major subdivisions that
will, at least initially, use onsite treatment systems. This provision
makes it more feasible to provide treatment plant sewage disposal to a
neighborhood after an interceptor sewer is installed. This provision
should be included in all municipal ordinances, particularly in those
communities lying above sole source aquifers. According to the municipal
questionnaires received, municipalities in Morris County with dry sewer
ordinances include:
o Butler Borough
o Montville Township
o Morris Plains Borough
o Morris Township
o Mount Olive Township
o Passaic Township
o Pequannock Township
o Randolph Township
o Rockaway Township
Sewer Bans
A sewer ban is a type of enforcement action imposed by the NJDEP on a
municipality or authority. When NJDEP determines that a treatment plant is
not consistently meeting its discharge permit because it is overloaded,
NJDEP may choose this type of enforcement. Under these circumstances, no
new connections ~ a n be made to the sewerage system unless NJDEP determines
that there is an offsetting loss of flow or pollutant load elsewhere in the
service area. (This offsetting loss comes from such changes as the loss of
a major commercial or industrial discharger or the widespread use of water
saving devices). With proper justification, a new connection to the
26
system, without an offset, will be permitted. If a sewer ban is imposed,
the treatment authority is expected to rectify the situation with either an
expansion or upgrading. Table 3-1 summarizes the current sewer bans in
Morris County.
27
TABLE 3-1
SEWER BANS IN MORRIS COUNTY
Authority Year Imposed
or Municipality
Rockaway Valley Regional
Sewerage Authority
Butler-Bloomingdale
Joint Meeting
1968
1973
Mount Olive Township 1973
(Flanders)
Passaic Township 1973
Chatham Township
Florham Park
Sewerage Authority
Modified 1976
1978
1979
Source: NJDEP, Division of Water Resources
28
Comments
Sewer ban imposed by
court order. New 12-
mgd plant under
construction
Study presently underway
to determine feasibility
of trunk sewer to Two
Bridges Sewerage
Authority
No action initiated
Expansion planned for
1985. NJPDES permit
application received at
NJDEP
No a c ~ i o n initiated
Design of improvements
complete; Design of up-
grading and expansion
underway
4.0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.1 LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY, AND RIVER BASINS
Morris County is located in north-central New Jersey. It is bordered by
Essex and Union Counties on the east, Passaic County on the northeast,
Sussex County on the northwest, Warren County on the west, and Somerset and
Hunterdon Counties on the south. It is one of only two New Jersey counties
that does not share a boundary with the perimeter of the state.
Most of Morris County north and west of a line approximating Interstate
Highway 287 through Harding, Morristown, Boonton, and Riverdale is in the
(Appalachian) Highlands Province. As the name suggests, this part of the
county is typically mountainous. It has broad, rounded or flat-topped
ridges with an average elevation of 1000 feet above mean sea level (msl).
The valleys are 300 to 600 feet below the ridges. The rest of the county
is in the Piedmont Province.
Morris County has been subject to repeated periods of glaciation. The
glaciers have scoured the northern part of the county to bare rock in many
places, depositing material over much of the county, and altering the
drainage patterns. The southern extension of ice during the most recent
stage is marked by a great terminal moraine which crosses Morris County at
Madison, Morristown, Dover, and Netcong. These glacial actions have
affected soil suitabilities for septic tanks. Soils that are rocky,
steeply sloped, or with high water tables are generally unsuitable. These
are the predominant types of soils in Morris County.
29
Three major river basins drain Morris County.
the Raritan River and the Musconetcong River.
These are the Passaic River,
The Passaic River basin
covers nearly two-thirds of Morris County and also includes portions of
Passaic, Bergen, Essex, U ~ i o n , and Somerset Counties in New Jersey and
Orange and Rockland Counties in New York. Four tributaries of the Passaic
lie at least partly in Morris County: from north to south they are (1) the
Pequannock and Pompton tributary, (2) the Rockaway tributary (3) the
Whippany tributary and (4) the Upper Passaic tributary. Conceptual
wastewater management planning for the Passaic River basin has been
addressed in the Northeast New Jersey 208 Water Quality Management Plan and
its Supplement and Addendum. (See section 2.3 for a discussion of 208
Water Quality Management Planning.)
The Raritan River basin, which occupies the southern and western portions
of the County, has three tributaries: (1) the North Branch, (2) the
Lamington (Black) River, and (3) the South Branch. This basin has been
addressed in the Upper Raritan 208 Plan. The third major basin is the
Musconetcong River basin which is a tributary of the larger Delaware River
basin. It has been addressed in the Upper Delaware 208 Plan and in the
Sussex County 208 Plan . F1gure 4-1 provides a detailed map of the drainage
basins and subbasins in Morris County.
4.2 CLIMATE
Morris County has a continental climate characterized by cold winters with
northwesterly winds and hot summers with southwesterly winds. Winter
temperatures average in the low 40s on the Fahrenheit scale while summer
temperatures average in the low 70s. The average length of the growing
season is about 165 days per year.
The precipitation in Morris County is generally spread evenly throughout
the year with less rainfall in the winter months than in the summer and
fall. The average annual precipitation is roughly 48 inches.
30
L
r
sou
! .
[
r.
1985
LEGEND:
---
MAJOR BASIN
SUBBASIN
r- ---.
'
TWP.
Splft R;,ck
ResHvofr
0 APSHAWA
Q
4 000
tooo--
4 000
SCALE I N FEET
Morris County Planning Board
Morris County, New Jersey
MAJOR BASINS
AND
SUBBASINS IN MORRIS COUNTY
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE I NC.
Edison, Neo.v Jersey
8000
Figure 4-1
Rainfall in the fall coupled with moderate temperatures can contribute to
subsurface saturation, higher groundwater table levels, and expanded aqui-
fers. These conditions contribute to higher infiltration and inflow in
sewage collection systems resulting in higher peak flows at wastewater
treatment plants and saturation of soils in use for septic system leaching
fields.
Temperatures in winter are rarely low enough to keep the ground frozen
throughout the season. This circumstance should be taken into account when
formulating disposal practices for sludge and for the installation of new
septic systems. Winter temperatures are low enough, however, to preclude
year-round land application methods of wastewater treatment and sludge
disposal.
4.3 GEOLOGY
The Highlands Province in the northwest area of the County is underlain by
Precambrian gneissic bedrock. The valleys in this area are mostly related
to faulting and are underlain by limestone, sandstone, or shale bedrock.
The mineralogy of this area is largely oligoclase, quartz, and some
orthoclase, hornblende, and biotite. The Piedmont Province is underlain by
soft red shale or sandstone bedrock. The Brunswick shale formation is a
soft red shale or siltstone that is interbedded with sandstone.
The County has been glaciated a number of times, with deposits of at least
three different ages evident today. Califon, Annandale, and Cokesbury
soils on top of Schooley's Mountain are among the soils formed from the
oldest glaciation. Intermediate-aged glacial deposits are more sandy, less
clayed and less weathered than the older deposits. The newest and largest
area of glacial deposits is in the northern and eastern half of the County.
32
During the most recent glaciation, 10 to 40 thousand years ago, a large
lake existed where the Passaic River basin drainage area now occupies
Morris County. This lake has been aptly named Lake Passaic by geologists.
Its southern boundary was the Watchung Mountains and its northern boundary
was roughly the same as the present locations of Interstate Highways 80 and
287. The remnants of this lake are still evidenced by the Great Swamp area
of southeastern Morris County.
Of special consideration are those areas where shallow depths to seasonal
high water table exist. Under these conditions, limitations are likely to
be more severe than percolation tests indicate if percolation tests are
made in dry seasons. Also, in a general sense, geologic formations of more
recent geological periods are less likely to be suitable for onsite systems
or for land treatment of sludge, wastewater or septage. The terminal
moraine is an exception to this general rule.
4.4 SOILS
.
Soil characteristics must be taken into account when planning for installa-
tions of onsite wastewater systems, such as septic tank absorption fields.
The Soil Survey of Morris County, prepared by the Soil Conservation Service
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station, Cook College, Rutgers University and the
New Jersey Department of Agriculture, State Soil Conservation Committee,
identifies and rates the soils of Morris County as to their suitability for
septic tank absorption fields. Three ratings, slight, moderate and severe
limitations, are used. A rating of slight means soil properties are favor-
able for the rated use. Minor limitations may exist but they are easily
overcome. A rating of moderate means that some soil properties are un-
favorable thereby requiring careful planning. designand proper management.
A severe rating indicates highly unfavorable properties extremely difficult
to correct. Soil reclamation, special d ~ s i g n , or intensive maintenance may
be required. Some characteristics are so unfavorable for a septic system
that overcoming the limitations is difficult, costly and commonly not
practical for the rated use.
33
Table 4-1 lists the soil suitability ratings for septic tank absorption
fields in Morris County. Figure 4-2 is a map showing all the areas of
Morris County where the soils have severe limitations for septic tank
absorption fields.
Many technical criteria are used to rate soil suitability. The criteria
are:
0 Depth of bedrock
0 Depth to seasonal high water table
0 Frequent flooding
0 Groundwater pollution hazard
0 Permeability
0 Rocks and stones
0 Slope
An explanation of these criteria follows:
Depth to Bedrock - Depth to bedrock is the vertical distancefrom the
surface of the soil to the upper surface of a rock layer. Shallow bedrock
depths may cause difficulties in excavation and impose space limitations.
Soils with slight limitations usually provide enough depth for subsurface
systems. Low density development areas can be adequately served by larger
leaching fields if needed. For moderate limitation soils, shallow excava-
tion may be necessary as well as a larger field area. -Severe limitation
soils are so shallow that they are generally unsuitable for onsite systems.
Depth to Seasonal High Water Table - Depth to seasonal high water table is
the least distance from the surface of the soil to the ~ a t e r table in years
of normal precipitation. Low density development may be suitable for
onsite systems provided there are no significant system siting limitations.
Slight limitation and moderate limitation soils require site investigation.
Severe limitation soils are generally too shallow for onsite systems.
34
TABLE 4-1
LIMITATIONS OF SOILS FOR SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION FIELDS
Slight
Edneyville-slight slope
Neshaminy-slight slope
Netcong-slight slope
Otisville-slight slope
Parker-slight slope
Pattenburg-slight slope
Riverhead-slight slope
Urban-slight slope
Washington-slight slope
Moderate
Annandale
Boonton
Edneyville-moderate slope
Neshaminy-moderate slope
Netcong-moderate slope
Otisville-moderate slope
Parker-moderate slope
Pattenburg-moderate slope
Riverhead-moderate slope
Rockaway-moderate slope
Urban-moderate slope
' '
Severe
Adrian
All uvi a1
Bartley
Biddeford
Califon
Carlisle
Cokesbury
Ellington
Haledon
Hibernia
Holyoke
Kl i nesvi11 e
Made Land
Minoa
Muck
Park.er - steep slope
Parsippany
Penn
Pompton
Preakness
Reaville
Ri dgebury
Rockaway - steep slope
Turbotvi 11 e
Urban - steep slope
Whippany
Source: Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Morris County
35
- SEWER SERVICE AREA
1985
NOTE: SINCE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP, THE MCPB HAS
RECEIVED NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL MAP CHANGES
WHICH ARE NOTED IN THE MASTER PLAN TEXT.
.0 APSHAWA
/,::J R E S ~ R V O I R
4001') 0
IM-w
4000 eooo
SCALE IN fEET
SOURCE: SOIL SURVEY OF MORRIS COUNTY, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, 1976
Morris County Planning Board
Morris County, New Jersey
SOILS WITH SEVERE LIMITATIONS
FOR
SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION FIELDS
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Edison, New Jersey
Figure 42
Frequent Flooding - Floodplains are the nearly level lands that border a
stream or other water body. Unless artificially protected, they will be
subject to short-term inundation with water, i.e . flooding. Other areas
also subject to periodic flooding are wetlands (e.g., bogs, marshes,
swamps, etc.). Where the groundwater table is high, flooding will also
sometimes occur. Areas subject to frequent flooding are found in severe
limitation soils only.
Groundwater Pollution Hazard - Percolation of wastewater through soil is a
natural process of groundwater recharge. Depending on the intended use of
the water, there is the possibility of water quality degradation from
nitrate pollution. Nitrates move rapidly through the soil and may not be
fully treated before entering the groundwater zone of recharge. Nitrate
pollution poses a water quality threat to the major drinking water supply
of Morris Countys sole source aquifer areas as explained in section 4.5.2.
The mechanisms of decay, sorption and dilution reduce the severity of con-
taminants to harmless or innocuous levels at a distance from an area using
onsite systems.
.
The rapid permeability in areas zoned for low density populations can be
overcome by excavation and backfill with less permeable soils or using
larger or double leaching fields. Larger or double fields may not be prac-
tical in high density areas where space limitations exist. Medium-density
areas usually require further investigation. In Morris County, since a
large portion of drinking water supplies depend on underground sources,
each site should be approached on a case-by-case basis.
Permeability- Permeability is that quality of a soil that enables it to
transmit water or air. It is estimated on the basis of those soil charact-
eristics observed in the field, particularly structure and texture. Perme-
ability is measured in terms of rate of flow through a unit cross-section
of saturated soil in unit time. Terms used to describe permeability are:
slow, moderately slow, moderate, moderately rapid, and rapid. Very perme-
able soils have less treatment capacity. Slight limitation soils with
rapid permeability present a hazard of groundwater pollution. Providing
37
adequate ground cover {grasses, trees, etc.) to reduce infiltration may be
an effective mitigation measure for low density development on soils with
rapid permeability. The limitations of high density development on slight
limitation soils and low density development on moderate limitation soils,
of both slow and rapid permeability, may be overcome by excavation and
backfill with suitable soil (see Chapter 8). High density development on
severe limitation soils may require construction of deep trenches to
prevent oonding because of inadequate permeability.
Rocks and Stones - T ~ i s designation indicates high content of stone, coarse
fragments and boulders.
excavation and grading.
densely populated areas
Construction constraints are expected to occur in
Removal of boulders and stones may be required in
with slight and moderate limitation soils.
Slope- Slope is the deviation of a plane surface from the horizontal. It
provides an indication of what surface drainage problems may be expected .
. Severity of slope is defined as follows:
0 - 3% nearly level
3 - 8% gently sloping
8 - 15% strongly sloping
15 - 25% moderately steep
> 25% steep to very steep
Slight limitation soils are nearly level or gently sloping. Moderate and
severe limitation soils in low development densities need greater care in
earthwork and excavation to avoid compaction and water pending. Deep beds
and trenches may be indicated.
38
~
4.5 HYDROLOGY
4.5.1 Surface Water - Extent and Quality
There are three major drainage basins in Morris County: the Raritan, the
":'"P;o
Passaic and the Delaware. In Morris County, the River basin
is actually a subbasin of the Delaware. The Raritan and Passaic Rivers
drain eastward to the Atlantic Ocean; the Musconetcong River drains to the
southwest to the Delaware River.
There are a number of subbasins of the Raritan and Passaic basins in Morris
County. The subbasins of the Raritan are the south and north branches of
the Raritan River and the Lamington River. In the Passaic River basin, the
major subbasins are the upper Passaic, upper and lower Rockaway, Whippany,
upper Pequannock and Pompton-Pequannock (see figure 4-1). The areas
drained by each basin, and the corresponding percentages of the total
Morris County area, are shown in table 4-2. Figure 4-3 shows the water
quality rating (as reported in the 1982 State Water Quality Inventory
Report, see Appendix D) and State surface water use classification (see
section 3.2, New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards) for the major
surface waters in Morris County.
Surface Water Quality - Passaic River Basin
Upper Passaic River - The Upper Passaic River originates in Mendham Town-
ship and Morristown National Historical Park and flows south through the
Great Swamp. The river bends northeast toward Chatham Township after the
confluence with the Dead River through low density suburban lands. From
Chatham Township the river travels north through marsh areas to its con-
fluence with the Whippany and Rockaway Rivers at Hatfield Swamp. From the
source to the confluence with the Whippany and Rockaway Rivers it drains
69.9 square miles of Morris County in addition to a larger area outside
Morris County.
39
..
TABLE 4-2
DRAINAGE BASINS IN MORRIS COUNTY
Basin
Passaic
Rockaway
Upper Passaic
Whippany
Pompton and Pequannock
County
Raritan
South Branch of Raritan
Lamington River
North Branch of Raritan
County
Delaware
Musconetcong
Drainage Area
(Sq. Miles)
129.5
69.9
68.7
46.8
Subtotal 314.9
53.8
38.2
29.0
Subtotal 121.0
County Tota 1
41.9
477:8
40
Percentage
Of County
27.1
14.6
14.3
9.8
ti"5":1f
11.3
8.0
6.1
25.4
8.8
100.0
Municipal/Institutional
1. Butler- Bloomingdale Joint Meeting
2. Pequannock Township
3. Pequannock, Lincoln Park and Fairfax
Sewerage Authority
4. Montville Township- Forest Park
5. Parsippany- Troy Hills Sewerage Authority
6. Florham Park Sewerage Authority
7. Madison - Chatham Joint Meeting
8. Chatham Township Sewerage Authority
9. Hanover Sewerage Authority
1 0. Montville Board of Education
11. Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority
12. Montville Township- Brook Valley
13. Montville Township- Norland
14. Butler Water Department
15. Kinnelon Board of Education (Pearl Miller
SchooQ
16. Kinnelon Board of Education (High SchooQ
17. Morristown Sewerage Authority
18. Morris Township- Woodland
19. Passaic Township Sewerage Authority
20. Morris Township- Butterworth
21. Engineering Department- Greystone Park
22. Jefferson Township Municipal Utilities Authority
23. Jefferson Township Board of Education
24. JeffersonTownshipBoardofEducation(Stanlick
SchooQ
25. Jefferson Township Board of Education
(Consolidated SchooQ
26. Picatinny Asernal
27. Mendham Borough Sewer Department
28. Roxbury Township- Ajax
29. Roxbury Township- Skyview
30. Musconetcong Sewerage Authority
31. Mount Olive Township
32. Washington Township Municipal Utilities
Authority
.33. Hackettstown Municipal Utilities Authority
I ndustriai/Private
34. Comar Products
35. Hess Brothers Incorporated
36. Riverdale Plastics
37. Plains Plaza
38. Thermal American
39. Chemservices Incorporated
40. Royal Lubricants
41. Fritzche Dodge
42. Automatic Switch
43. Sun Valley Swim Club
44. Orange Products
45. Chatham Plastics
46. Culligan Soft Water
47. National Manufacturing Company
48. Exxon Research
49. Allied Chemical
50. Sisters of Charity
51. Amax Specialty Metals
52. Sandoz Incorporated
53. Campbell - Pratt Oil Company
54. Rowe International of Canada
55. Asco Electrical
56. Leslie Company
57. Pfizer Incorporated
58. Narda Incorporated
59. Scerbo Brothers
60. RFL Industries
61. Our Lady of the Magnificat
62. Hewlett Packard
63. lvex
64. Action Tech Company
65. Keuffel & Esser
66. W P Realty Company
67. Advance Pressure Castings
68. Parke-Davis
69. Litton Industries
70. Champion International- Dairypa Division
71. Magullian Fuel
72. Colloid Chemical
73. Fabricated Plastics
7 4. Mennen Company
75. Tech Art Plastics
76. St Mary's Abbey
77. Howmet Turbine Components C rporation
78. McWilliams Forge Company
79. White Meadow Lake Property OWners
80. Mt Hope Rock Products
81. Rockaway Town Square Mall
82. Air Products and Chemicals
83. Carpenter, LE & Company
84. lnterpace Corporation
85. Thatcher Glass
86. Green Hammer Metal Products
87. Jim Salerno Pontiac
88. County Concrete Company
89. Hercules Incorporated
90. Mount Arlington Sanitation r.nrnrr<>tinn
91. Our Lady of the Lake School
/
92. Roxbury Motel /.
93. Bell Laboratories /.
94. Chester Shopping Center
95. Advanced Environmental Technology /
Corporation /./ -?
96. Equity Shopping Plaza
97. Welsh Farms
98. USR Optonix Incorporated ;
99. Amerace - Esna Coproration
100. Randolph Township- Board of Education
./. r=='<'-'1
./
LEGEND:
CAPACITY OF PLANT (MGD)
EXISTING SURFACE WATER
QUALITY RATING BY NJ DEP
USE CLASSIFICATIONS
1985
WASTEWATER
FACILITY
OWNERs INDEX NUMBER
1983 AVERAGE FLOW (MGD)
J.L--t----'---- RIVER BASIN (PASSAIC, RARITAN,
MUSCONETCONG)
EFFLUENT (DOMESTIC, INDUSTRIAL,
COOLING WATER, WATER PLANT)
NOTE: SINCE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP, THE MCPB HAS
RECEIVED NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL MAP CHANGES
WHICH ARE NOTED IN THE MASTER PLAN TEXT.
GOOD
FAIR
POOR/FAIR
POOR
FW SURFACE WATER
USE CLASSIFICATION
I
CHANGE IN SURFACE
WATER USE .
CLASSIFICATION
4001'} 0 4000 8000 12000
lOW--- ---1
E FEET
Morris County Planning Board
Morris County, New Jersey
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
AND
USE CLASSIFICATIONS
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Edison, NewJersey
Figure 4-3
Approximately 40 point sources of wastewater discharge contribute over 19.1
mgd of effluent to the subbasin. The Upper Passaic River is classified as
FW-2 Non-trout according to the New Jersey Water Quality Standards, (FW-2
indicates water use goals of potable supply, fish propagation. and swim-
ming) with parts of the headwaters additionally classified as trout main-
tenance (waters that support trout throughout the year or which have high
potential for such use pending correction of short-term environmental
alterations). Potable water supply is the highest priority use.
Water quality in the Upper Passaic waters near Millington and Chatham has
shown some improvement in recent years concerning fecal coliform levels.
However, high nutrient and low dissolved oxygen 1eve1s continue to prevent
most reaches from comp1yingwith State and Federal standards.
In particular, the two sampling stations maintained by NJDEP on the Upper
Passaic River indicate that violationsof the total phosphorus standards
occured over 50 percent of the time during the period 1977-1981 (NJDEP,
1982). These stations, at Millington and Chatham Borough, report violat-
. .
ions frequencies of 67 percent and 87 percent, respectively. The phos-
phorus concentrations are attributed to municipal wastewater treatment
plant effluents. They can be reduced by advanced levels of treatment at
municipal wastewater management facilities.
Whippany River - The Whippany River is located entirely within Morris
County and has a drainage area of 68.7 square miles. The headwater reaches
consist of rapids with small pools and eddies. Above Morristown, the river
is interrupted by two small lakes: Speedwell and Pocahontas. Marshlands,
including the Troy Meadows and Black Meadows, border the lower reaches in
Hanover, East Hanover, and Parsippany-Troy Hills.
There are four major municipal dischargers and 22 minor dischargers on the
Whippany River. Located in the headwaters is the Clyde Potts Reservoir
which until October, 1984 served as a potable water source for Morristown.
Industrial and commercial facilities use the Whippany River as a source of
process and/or cooling water. This basin has been designated FW-2 Nontrout
except for some upstream waters which are classified FW-2 Trout Production.
42
The Whippany Rivers high quality headwaters begin to degrade above Speed-
well and Pocahontas Lakes from point sources. The urban areas of Morris-
town and Parsippany-Troy Hills as we11 as five major wastewater treatment
facilities and urban runoff continue to degrade the water quality for the
remainder of its length.
Rockaway River - Located almost entirely in Morris County, the Rockaway
River drains an area of 129.5 square miles in Morris County plus a small
area in Sussex County. The river flows to the east to its confluence with
the Whippany River at Pine Brook. The drainage area is primarily
undeveloped
developed.
period 1970
but portions along the stem of the river are substantially
The population of the basin generally held stable over the
to 1980 with most municipalities showing either small increases
or decreases. Of the 34 permitted dischargers the major ones include the
Picatinny Arsenal, Jefferson Township Municipal Utilities Authority, and
the Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority (RVRSA).
The Rockaway basin is an important source of drinking water for portions of
northern New Jersey. The Split Rock and Jersey City Reservoirs supply
w a t ~ r for Jersey City.
The headwaters of the Rockaway River are degraded by the effects of septic
system nutrient loadings. The lower segment has nutrient and dissolved
oxygen problems as a result of point sources. Water quality is poor in the
last segment before it meets with the Whippany River because of non-muni-
cipal point sources and RVRSA treatment plant discharge. Phosphorus load-
ings exceeded the state standard 79 percent of the time from 1977 to 1981
(NJDEP, 1982).
Pequannock River - Originating in Sussex County, the.Pequannock River flows
east forming the Morris-Passaic County border before turning south to first
a confluence with the Wanaque River and then a confluence with the Ramapo
River, where it becomes known as the Pompton River. The drainage area of
the Pompton and Pequannock Rivers combined is 46.8 square miles.
43
The headwaters have numerous lakes, ponds and reservoirs scattered through-
out the highlands region. A large portion of the area is a forested and
protected watershed owned by Newark for water supply purposes and park-
lands. The heaviest area of development occurs along the river in the
Boroughs of Butler in Morris County and Bloomingdale in Passaic County.
The Butler-Bloomingdale treatment plant is the only major wastewater
treatment facility along the river. Fourteen other dischargers use the
river for cooling water and sanitary waste disposal.
The river's major use is for potable water supply and is classified as FW-2
Trout Production. FW-2 Trout Maintenance, and FW-2 Non-trout. Waters
within the City of Newark Watershed are classified as FW-1.
Upper segments of the Pequannock River are well protected watersheds of
high quality potable water. In the lower basin, the Butler-Bloomingdale
sewage treatment plant is in need of upgrading and enlargement. This point
source is a major contribution to the degradation of the Pequannock River.
Pompton River - The Pompton River originates at the confluence of the
Ramapo and Pequannock Rivers and flows through a relatively flat, suburban
area to the Passaic River. Sixty-seven percent of the drainage area is
undeveloped and consists of open land, woods, marshes and limited truck
farming.
The Two Bridges Sewerage Authority and the Pompton Lakes Borough Municipal
Utilities Authority are the two major sewage treatment plants on the Pomp-
ton River. Four smaller treatment plants and two cooling water dischargers
use the river for disposal.
The Pompton River is used by the Passaic Valley Water Commission as a
potable water supply and is designated as FW-2 Non-trout according to the
New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards.
44
.
The overall quality of the Pompton River meets state standards but could be
improved with the upgrading of treatment facilities. This is particularly
true for phosphorus levels.
Lakes - There are a number of lakes and reservoirs within the Passaic River
basin that are utilized for a variety of purposes.
Potable water supplies include the Split Rock and Boonton Reservoirs which
supply water for Jersey City. The Taylortown Reservoir provides drinking
water for the town of Boonton. A large portion of the Pequannock River
basin area is a forested and protected watershed owned by Newark for water
supply purposes.
Surface Water Quality- Raritan River Basin
South Branch of the Raritan River - The headwaters of the South Branch of
the Raritan River originate at Budd Lake in Mount Olive and Drake's Brook
in Roxbury. The river flows in a southwesterly direction through predomi-
nantly rural agricultural lands and drains an area of 53.8 square miles.
Cropland is greatest in Washington Township while the raising of livestock
is heaviest in Washington and Mt. Olive. Development is increasing, how-
ever, as new housing developments are built in the area. Washington and
Mt. Olive are the areas of highest population growth.
Waters in the South Branch basin are classified as FW-2 Trout Production,
FW-2 Trout Maintenance and FW-2 Non-trout.
Water quality is generally good. However, high fecal coliform levels at
the outlet of Budd Lake in Mount Olive and at the M i ~ d l e Valley sampling
station in Washington Township are evidence of contamination of human
or1g1n. Furthermore, septic system problems (resulting from unsuitable
soils) contribute to the high nitrate concentrations at the Middle Valley
Station (NJOEP, 1979).
45
North Branch of the Raritan River/Lamington River - The North Branch of the
Raritan River and the Lamington River both originate in west central Morris
County and flow in a southerly direction with drainage areas of 29 square
miles and 38.2 square miles, respectively. The majority of their lengths
is outside of Morris County.
Land is primarily rural and wooded. Development is occurring mainly along
major road corridors {NJ Route 24 and U.S. Route 206). The major popula-
tion centers are Chester Borough and Mendham Borough.
Two municipal and six non-municipal point source dischargers are in the
basin. The major industrial discharger, as reported in the Upper Raritan
Water Quality Management Plan, is a construction materials plant near the
headwaters of the Lamington River. Major portions of the area are served
by onsite systems. A number of small package treatment plants serve busi-
nesses and housing developments.
The NJ Standards have classified-waters in the North Branch
Raritan River basin as FW-2 Trout Production, FW-2 Trout Maintenance; and
FW-2 Non-trout.
Generally good water quality 1s characteristic of this segment in Morris
County. However, the North Branch and the Lamington River do not meet the
standards of swimmable water quality. The North Branch near Mendham Town-
ship has increasing fecal coliform and BOO levels. The Lamington has high
BOD and coliform levels as well. Both rivers show evidence of higher than
acceptable levels of phosphorus. Water quality in the basin will face
additional pollution loads as a result of the development occurring in many
parts of the
Lakes - The Raritan basin contains several natural and man-made lakes. The
major impoundment in the Raritan basin of Morris County is Budd Lake.
46
As reported in the Upper Raritan Water Quality Management Plan, eutrophic
conditions exist in Budd Lake. Essentially, this means that increased
algal growth and other undesirable characteristics are induced by excessive
nutrient levels. Non-point pollution is considered as the source of nu-
trient and sediment loadings into the lake. Reported non-point sources in-
clude such sources as runoff, groundwater originating from residential
areas, and a small percentage from failing septic tanks. Without correc-
tive measures to control man-made activities, Budd Lake will continue to
degrade.
Surface Water Quality- Musconetcong River Basin
The Musconetcong River originates at Lake Hopatcong and flows in a south-
westerly direction between the Pohatcong and the Musconetcong Mountains to
a confluence with the Delaware River at Riegelsville, on the border of
Warren and Hunterdon Counties. For the first 20 miles or so from Lake
Hopatcong, the river forms the western of Morris County. The
drainage area in Morris County is approximately 42 square The
Musconetcong River basin has areas of significant development, especially
in the headwater areas. The remaining sections are largely undeveloped,
but the potential for development is high. Only minor portions of the
area are currently sewered, including Netcong and sections of Mt. Olive,
Roxbury and Washington Township.
The surface water quality classification by NJDEP for the river is FW-2,
Trout Maintenance. It was reported in the Water Quality Management Plan for
the Upper Delaware Area that the waters of the Musconetcong River basin
generally achieve fishable quality but fail to meet the swimmable waters
goal because of bacterial contamination. The common. use of onsite septic
systems is an important source of bacterial and nutrient river
contamination and represents the basic problem.
47
The two major municipal dischargers in the basin are the Musconetcong
Sewerage Authority, which discharges effluent to Wills Brook at Stanhope
above Waterloo Lake and the Hackettstown Municipal Utilities Authority in
Washington Township, which discharges to the Musconetcong River. Overall,
there are ten permitted dischargers in this portion of the basin.
lakes- The Sussex County Water Quality Management Plan cited
eutrophication of Lakes Hopatcong and Musconetcong and septic system
problems in Jefferson, Mount Arlington and Roxbury (in Morris County) as
major water quality problems in the Upper Musconetcong basin.
The Lake Hopatcong Clean lakes Study showed that a substantial proportion
of the annual total nitrogen and phosphorus load to the lake comes from
septic systems within about 500 feet of the shoreline. The 1982 New Jersey
Water Quality Inventory also reported water quality problems, especially
phosphorus levels.
According to the l982 State Water Quality Inventory Report, the accumula-
tion of nutrients and organic matter in Waterloo Lake has resulted in
conditions. The discharge of the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority
has been shown, through an intensive survey, to be a major source of
organic loading to Wills Brook, Waterloo Lake and the Musconetcong River.
Improvements in the treatment system should result in improved stream con-
ditions because of higher discharge quality.
4.5.2 Groundwater- Extent and Quality
The reliance of Morris County on groundwater as a source of drinking water
has been documented in the Water Supply Element of the Master Plan. Fur-
,
ther support of this reliance is found in the determinations by the USEPA
that the buried valley and bedrock aquifer system underlying the Central
Basin of the Passaic River in southeastern Morris County and western Essex
County (designated as the Buried Valley Sole Source Aquifer) and the uncon-
solidated Quaternary Wisconsin aquifer in the Rockaway River Basin area
(designated as the Rockaway Valley Sole Source Aquifer) are the principal
48
sources of drinking water for approximately 700,000 people in these
counties and that if these aquifer systems were contaminated, it would
create a significant hazard to public health. A key finding for this
wastewater management plan that served as a basis for these determinations
is that these aquifer systems are susceptible to contamination through
their recharge zones from a number of sources, including septic tanks.
Aquifers in Morris County
The groundwater aquifers in Morris County were described in the Water
Supply Element of the Master Plan. A summary of the features of that dis-
cussion that pertain to wastewater management is presented here.
PreCambrian Rocks - Rock of the PreCambrian age are used predominantly as
aquifers in Western Morris County but also in Montville Township, Morris
Township, Town of Morristown, Morris Plains Borough and Parsippany-Troy
Hills Township. Groundwater supP.lY from PreCambrian rocks usually occurs
in rock fractures. Because tend to be wider near the surface,
weil yield is likely to be poor below 300 feet in depth (Passaic River
Coalition, 1983). Natural water quality is generally good. The Water
Supply Element recommended good land use practices and controls rather than
attempting to delineate specific recharge zones as a means of protecting
water quality.
Newark Group: Brunswick Formation - The Brunswick Formation serves as an
aquifer in the following Morris County communities: Chatham Borough, East
Hanover Township, Florham Park Borough, Hanover Township, Harding Town-
ship, Lincoln Park Borough, Montville Township, Morris Township, Town of
Morristown, Parsippany-Troy Hills'Township and Passaic Township. This
approximately one mile-thick formation is composed of shale with local
occurrences of sandy and pebbly consolidated beds. Wells of greatest yield
are usually those between 200 and 500 feet deep. Water is generally hard
from this source (Passaic River Coalition, 1983).
49
Newark Group: Watchung Basalt- Florham Park and Lincoln Park Boroughs and
Montville Township are the only communities in Morris County that use this
aquifer. Well yields of 30 to 53 gpm from depths of less than 300 feet
have been reported in Morris County. Water from the Watchung formation is
usually hard (Passaic Rjver Coalition, 1983).
Pleistocene Deposits - Stratified glacial deposits produce the largest
source of groundwater in Morris County (77 percent) {Passaic River Coali-
tion, 1983}. Good quality water is pumped from these so-called buried
valley or valley-fill aquifers. In ~ 1 o r r i s County, Chatham Borough, East
Hanover Township, Florham Park Borough, Hanover Township, Madison Borough,
Morris Township and Parsippany-Troy Hills Township use the "Buried Va 11 ey
11
aquifer and Boonton, Boonton Township, Denville, Dover, Jefferson Township,
Mine Hill, Mountain Lakes, Randolph Township, Rockaway Borough, Rockaway
Township, Roxbury, Victory Gardens and Wharton have as their principal
source of drinking water the Quarternary Wisconsin stratified drift
deposits.
From the standpoint of vulnerability to contamination from wastewater
discharged directly above, the confined conditions of these drift deposits
is an advantage. Drift deposits in unconfined or water table aquifers
recharge through soils directly above. This produces greater recharge
potential and, correspondingly, greater vulnerability to direct contami-
nation from wastewater. Confined aquifers (see glossary) recharge from
outcrop areas (surface recharge zones located some distance away horizon-
tally through which water is added to an aquifer) and from adjacent aqui-
fers through confining layers that are not totally impermeable.
4.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
Certain areas of Morris County possess natural resources of great import-
ance and/or have physical and hydrological factors that impose substantial
development constraints. These areas have been designated for special
50
attention in the evaluation of wastewater management strategies (chapter 8)
and development of recommendations (chapter 9). In this section, the
important environmentally sensitive areas are described and defined.
4.6.1 Wetlands
Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems and
are frequently inundated by surface water or groundwater and normally sup-
port a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life typically adapted to life
in saturated soil conditions. Swamps, marshes and bogs are examples of
such areas.
Wetlands are vital natural resources and provide natural flood control,
aquifer recharge, natural purification of waters, stabilization of stream
flow and habitat for a diversity of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.
State and federal regulations require avoidance as much as possible of
destruction or loss of wetlands from construction of sewer lines in
wetlands or by financially supporting development in wetlands.
Wetlands within Morris County have been recorded by the National Wetlands
Inventory of t ~ e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Tidal wetlands have been
mapped in the state by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec-
tion. Morris County does not have any tidal wetlands.
4.6.2 Flood Hazard Areas
These waterway areas consist of the floodway and additional portions of the
floodplain inundated during flood periods when the ~ o w exceeds channel
capacity. Development in flood hazard areas can lead to increased extent
and frequency of flooding, stream bank erosion and downstream sedimentation
and water pollution from debris and litter. Wastewater disposal facilities
in flood hazard areas may result in serious water pollution problems.
51
Floodplain management measures have been developed by the Federal Emergency
Management Association (FEMA) using the flood as the base flood.
The 100-year flood is defined as an event which has a 1 percent chance of
being equalled or exceeded in any given year. The 500-year flood (0.2 per-
eent chance of annual is also used to indicate additional flood
risk areas in a community.
The NJDEP has also adopted rules, regulations and minimum standards con-
cerning development and use of land within the floodway. The floodway is
the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be
kept free of encroachment for the 100-year flood discharge to be carried
without substantial increases in flood heights. FEMA limits the flood
height increase to 1 foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not
produced. The State is stricter, limiting the height increase to 0.2 foot.
4.6.3 Sole Source Aquifer Recharge Zones
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1975 (PL 93-523f defines a sole source
aquifer as an aquifer that is sole or principal drinking water source
for that area and if this aquifer were contaminated, it would create a
significant hazard to public health.
As discussed in section 4.5.2, major portions of Morris County are recharge
zones for two aquifer systems in the county that have received the USEPA
sole source aquifer determination. These systems are known as the Buried
Valley aquifer system and the Rockaway Valley Sole Source aquifer system.
A listing of municipalities entirely or partially within the sole source
aquifer areas is provided in Table 4-3. Such aquifer recharge zones are
considered environmentally sensitive areas owing to the fact that surficial
contamination can move relatively quickly and with minimal attenuation to
groundwater serving as a source of potable water. It is crucial that
development in such areas, especially that relying on non-sewered waste-
water management approaches, be sensitive to the issue of potential ground-
water contamination.
52
TABLE 4-3
MORRIS COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES ENTIRELY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE SOLE
SOURCE AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONES
Buried Valley Aquifer
Recharge Zone
Chatham
Chatham Township
East Hanover
Florham Park
Hanover
Harding
Madison
Montville
Morris Plains
Morristown
Morris Township
Parsippany-Troy Hills
Passaic
Rockaway Valley Aquifer
Recharge Zone
Boonton
Boonton Tovmshi p
Denville
Dover
Jefferson
Mine Hill
Mountain lakes
Randol ph
Rockaway
Rockaway Township
Roxbury
Victory Gardens
Wharton
NOTE: In addition, Kinnelon, Mendham Borough and Mendham
Township are partially in the Buried Valley Aquifer
system streamflow source zone.
53
In the case of the Buried Valley aquifer, the surface boundary of the re-
charge zone (that through which water enters into the aquifer system)
is identical with the boundary of the aquifer. For the Rockaway Valley
sole source aquifer the recharge zone is delineated by the flood plain
areas of the Rockaway River Basin and a portion of the Lamington River
Basin. These two aquifer systems, which are mapped on Figure 4-4, cover
approximately the eastern two-thirds of Morris County.
4.6.4 Environmentally Significant Agricultural Land
The Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture main-
tains a current inventory of environmentally significant agricultural lands
pursuant to federal law (7 Environmentally significant agricul-
tural lands include the following types:
1. Prime Farmland is land that has the best combination of physical
and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage,
fiber and oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses (the
land can be cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land or other
land, but not developed land or land under water). It must have
the soil quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to
economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated
and managed.
2. Unique Farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for
the production of specific high value food and fiber crops. It
has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing
season and moisture supply needed to economically produce sus-
tained high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when
treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods.
54
1985
OLIVE
LEGEND:
BURIED VALLEY AQUIFER
- AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE
VALLEY-FILL DEPOSITS
? BOUNDARY INFERRED
--- STREAMFLOW SOURCE ZONE
SOURCE: PASSAIC RIVER COALITION, 1983
/
(
ROXBU RY
ROCKAWAY VALLEY AQUIFER
- AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE
--STREAMFLOW SOURCE ZONE
TWP.
Spill R.Jc k

_0 APSHAWA
&-1 RESERVOIR
4000 0 4000 8000 12.000
1000--- --j
SCALE IN FEET
Morris County Planning Board
Morris County, New Jersey
SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER SYSTEMS
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Edison, New Jersey
Figure 4-4
3. Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance is farmland determined
to be important for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage,
ornamental and oilseed crops. Criteria for defining and delineat-
ing this land is determined by the appropriate State agency or
agencies.
4. Additional Farmland of Local Importance is not identified as
having national or statewide importance. In some local areas,
however, it is economically important and environmentally sound
that certain additional farmlands be preserved for the production
of food, feed, forage, ornamental and oilseed crops. Where
appropriate, these lands may be identified by the local agencies
concerned.
5. Farmlands in or Contiguous with Environmentally Sensitive
Areas (ESA) include such features as floodplains, wetlands, aqui-
fer recharge zones or natural scientific study areas. These farm-
lands play a crucial environmental buffer role .in ,preventing
development from encroaching on ESAs, thereby protecting their
capability to remain environmentally productive and stable.
6. Farmlands of Waste Utilization Importance which may serve in the
land treatment process, be used for composting activities, or for
controlled beneficial application of sewage sludge or other
wastes.
7. Farmlands with Significant Capital Investments in Best Management
Practices (BMP), which serve as elements of an area's (or state's)
soil erosion and nonpoint source pollution.control pians.
Environmentally significant agricultural land types defined in 1, 2, 3, and
4 above are those set forth by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 7 CFR
Part 657. Their environmental significance is based on their capacity for
56
production as well as their value as a general environmental resource.
Agricultural land types defined in 5, 6, and 7 are those identified for
their specific environmental vafue. Their envi ronmenta1 significance is
based on their role in an environmental plan or management strategy. Under
these definitions. prime farmlands are considered to have the greatest en-
vironmental significance.
The State Development Guide Plan depicts agricultural areas meeting the
following criteria:
o generally low-density development with little or no public
water supply or sewer services.
o relatively poor accessibility to existing commuter rail and
major highway facilities,
o large blocks of land classified as prime agricultural soils
by_ the Soil Conservation Service,
o accessibility to rural centers, agricultural support services
and markets.
One such area has been mapped in Morris County as shown in figure 2-1.
The relevance of agricultural lands to wastewater management centers on
land treatment of municipal wastewater. A variety of agricultural lands in
proximity to urbanized areas is necessary to maintain land application as a
wastewater management option. Land treatment can enhance agricultural
productivity and the availability of agricultural lands in urban areas can
support land treatment as a possible waste management approach. Of course,
there are many other factors {such as specific soil types, climate and
population) to consider besides availability of nearby agricultural land.
57
5.0 EXISTING FACILITIES
5.1 GENERAL INTROOUCTION TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN MORRIS COUNTY
This chapter presents a comprehensive description of the existing waste-
water collection, treatment and disposal facilities in Morris County.
An important element in the process of inventorying the state of wastewater
management in Morris County was the development of a series of question-
naires. Three questionnaires were developed. One was directed to the
municipal wastewater treatment plants whose service areas include Morris
County. The focus of this questionnaire was on treatment plant operational
characteristics, processes employed, conditions, future
plans, etc. The other two questionnaires were directed to the municipal
health department and planning board of each of the 39 municipalities in
Morris County. The focus of these questionnaires was on onsite wastewater
treatment systems in non-sewered areas of the community: number of systems,
current problems and solutions, septage management, future growth, and the
sewage collection systems in-place.
As with any questionnaire survey, less than 100 percent response was
achieved, both in terms of questionnaires returned and responses to all the
questions posed. The questionnaire response rate was as follows:
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants - 76 percent
Municipal Health Departments 69 percent
Municipal Planning Boards - 64_percent
A sample of each of the three questionnaires is contained in Appendix c.
58
The information received in response to the survey proved valuable in
forming a data base on wastewater tr.eatment facilities and needs in Morris
County. 1ab1es A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A and B-1 in Appendix B tabulate
the information received. This information was also used to generate
tables 5-l and 6-2 in the main body of this report.
5.1.1 Municipal and Regional Systems
Municipal and regional wastewater collection and treatment systems are
characterized by two major infrastructure elements: the sewer system and
the wastewater treatment p1ant. See figure 5-l for a map of i1orris County's
sewerage systems. A summary of information on the municipal and regional
wastewater treatment plants in Morris County is given in table 5-l. A
complete description of the treatment plants can be found in Appendix A.
The sanitary sewer system consists of the conduits and pipelines that
generally run under the streets of a municipality and collect and convey
the wastewater to the treatment plant. The sewers are designed so that
they are isolated from the potable water distribution system, the storm
water drainage system, and the electrical and telecommunications systems.
They are also designed so that gravity flow can be used to the largest
extent possible to transport the wastewater. This keeps energy costs low.
Certain areas are less suitable for conventional gravity sewers and require
construction of pumping stations to convey the wastewater.
Sewer systems require routine maintenance to protect against groundwater
infiltration and inflow. Infiltration consists of the water entering a
sewer system, including sewer service connections, from the ground through
such means as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections or manhole walls.
Inflow is defined as the water discharged into a sewer system including
service connections, from such sources as, but not limited to, roof
leaders, cellar, yard and area drains, foundation drains, drains from
springs and swampy areas, manhole covers, cross connections from storm
drains and combined sewers, catch basins, storm waters, etc.
59
Figure 5-l
Sewered Areas & Treatment Facilities
60
I
r
f
[
L
f
I
1
Municipal/Institutional
1. Butler- Bloomingdale Joint Meeting
2. Pequannock Township
3. Pequannock, Lincoln Park and Fairfax
Sewerage Authority
4. Montville Township- Forest Park
5. Parsippany- Troy Hills Sewerage Authority
6. Florham Park Sewerage Authority
7. Madison - Chatham Joint Meeting
8. Chatham Township Sewerage Authority
9. Hanover Sewerage Authority
1 0. Montville Board of Education
11. Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority
12. Montville Township- Brook Valley
13. Montville Township- Norland
14. Butler Water Department
15. Kinnelon Board of Education (Pearl Miller
SchooO
16. Kinnelon Board of Education (High SchooO
17. Morristown Sewerage Authority
18. Morris Township- Woodland
19. Passaic Township Sewerage Authority
20. Morris Township- Butterworth
21. Engineering Department - Greystone Park
22. Jefferson Township Municipal Utilities Authority
23. Jefferson Township Board of Education
24. Jefferson Township Board of Education (Stan lick
SchooO
25. Jefferson Township Board of Education
(Consolidated SchooO
26. Picatinny Asernal
27. Mendham Borough Sewer Department
28. Roxbury Township- Ajax
29. Roxbury Township- Skyview
30. Musconetcong Sewerage Authority
31. Mount Olive Township
32. Washington Township Municipal Utilities
Authority
33. Hackettstown Municipal Utilities Authority
I ndustriai/Private
34. Comar Products
35. Hess Brothers Incorporated
36. Riverdale Plastics
37. Plains Plaza
38. Thermal American
39. Chemservices Incorporated
40. Royal Lubricants
41 . Frltzche Dodge
42. Automatic Switch
43. Sun Valley Swim Club
44. Orange Products
45. Chatham Plastics
46. Culligan Soft Water
47. National Manufacturing Company
48. Exxon Research
49. Allied Chemical
50. Sisters of Charity
51 . Amax Specialty Metals
52. Sandoz Incorporated
---.
----
53. Campbell - Pratt Oil Company
54. Rowe International of Canada
55. Asco Electrical
56. Leslie Company
57. Pfizer Incorporated
58. Norda Incorporated
59. Scerbo Brothers
60. RFL Industries
61. Our Lady of the Magnificat
62. Hewlett Packard
63. lvex
64. Action Tech Company
65. Keuffel & Esser
66. W P Realty Company
67. Advance Pressure Castings
68. Parke-Davis
69. Litton Industries
70. Champion International- Dairypak Division
71. Magullian Fuel
72. Colloid Chemical
73. Fabricated Plastics
7 4. Mennen Company
75. Tech Art Plastics
76. St Mary's Abbey
77. Howmet Turbine Components Corporat io
78. McWilliams Forge Company 1
79. White Meadow Lake Property Owners !
80. Mt Hope Rock Products
81. Rockaway Town Square Mall
82. Air Products and Chemicals
83. Carpenter, LE & Company
84. lnterpace Corporation
85. Thatcher Glass
86. Green Hammer Metal Products
87. Jim Salerno Pontiac
88. County Concrete Company
89. Hercules Incorporated i
90. Mount Arlington Sanitation Corporation
91. Our Lady of the Lake School
OLIVE
LEGEND
CAPACITY OF PLANT (MGD)
WASTEWATER
FACILITY 1983 AVERAGE FLOW (MGD)
RIVER BASIN (PASSAIC, RARITAN,
MUSCONETCONG)
OWNER'S INDEX NUMBER EFFLUENT (DOMESTIC, INDUSTRIAL,
COOLING WATER, WATER PLANT)
92. Roxbury Motel
93. Bell Laboratories
94. Chester Shopping Center
95. Advanced Environmental Technology
Corporation
96. Equity Shopping Plaza
97. Welsh Farms
98. USR Optonix Incorporated
99. Amerace - Esna Coproration
1 00. Randolph Township - Board of Education
I
\
j \
'
I
I --- ....J-
' --- . ..J-
!Ail SEWER SERVICE AREA
1985
NOTE: SINCE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP, THE MCPB HAS
RECEIVED NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL MAP CHANGES
WHICH ARE NOTED IN THE MASTER PLAN TEXT.
TWP.
Spill R"c lc
R ut .. olr
.0 4PSHAW.O.
CJ RESERVOIR
4000 0 4000 60 00 12000
LJW-- ;j
S CALE IN F EET.
Morris County Planning Board
Morris County, New Jersey
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILmES
AND
SEWERED AREAS
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Edison, New Jersey
Figure 51
Borough Borough
Depill"tllliel'lt


Pusai c River
Crootli!d Brook
Brook
Orilkes !!rook
ver
Secondary w/
.'%dvanced
Secondilry
Secondary
Secondary
1
of
,:us
2,721
4,321 3.0
.129 252 .ll9
3.32
0 1,857 0
1.63 3,924 2.0
.5 1,857
--------------------
9. .o
.65
.4 1 4
65 12.0
1,485
.37 1,025 .7
------------
.26 3,050 LO
-----------------------------
2,503
.98 ,000
76
.6
85 .H
>95 2-3.9
92.2 .5
.3
L13
90
85
----------------------------------
97.5 .3
90
92 87 .5
89
90
It was intended to evaluate the sewers in Morris County based on sewer
system evaluation surveys prepared for the 201 Facilities Plans. The
purpose of reviewing the surveys was to see which areas of Morris County
are facing substantial expenditures to rehabilitate or renew their sewer
systems. Because few Authorities responding to the questionnaire included
sewer system evaluation survey reports with their response, a general
evaluation of the condition of sewers in Morris County is presented here.
Overall. the sewers in Morris County are in good condition and should not
experience excessive infiltration or inflow. This is principally because
most sewers in Morris County are relatively young, having been installed
after World War II. It is in the areas with older sewers, such as Morris-
town, where problems are known to occur. For example, in Morristown in
December 1983, NJDEP granted an emergency permit to allow the discharge of
apProximately 1.5 MGD of wastewater (after primary treatment and disinfec-
tion) from two manholes. In other cases, overflows caused by heavy rains
and rising of the Whippany River have occurred, according to records on
file with NJDEP.
The sewage treatment plant consists of several distinct processes. These
processes can be classified into three broad categories representing level
of treatment: primary, secondary, and advanced.
Primary treatment consists of the removal of solids by both screening or
settling. Screening removes relatively large solids such as rags, sand,
seeds, etc. Settling removes the finer solids in the wastewater. These
settled solids are called primary sludge, or more generally, sludge.
Secondary treatment occurs after settling and is primarily a biological
process. Microorganisms, in combination with aeration, are allowed to
digest the pollutants in the wastewater. Secondary treatment usually
includes a secondary clarifier after the biological process where
additional sludge accumulates.
62
Most sewage treatment plant process sequences end with secondary treatment.
Prior to ultimate disposal of the wastewater in a surface water body
{usually a river), the wastewater is disinfected with chlorine. If addi-
tional processes are included after secondary, disinfection may occur
later.
Advanced or tertiary treatment is a physical and/or chemical process and
can take many forms depending on the characteristics of the wastewater and
the discharge permit requirements. Various processes are used in advanced
treatment, but they tend to concentrate on the following treatment goals:
o Nitrogen removal
o Phosphorus removal
~
o Organic chemical removal
o Additional suspended solids removal
All the wastewater treatment plants in Morris County are either secondary
or advanced systems.
In addition, there is a forth major category of treatment common to all
systems: sludge treatment and disposal. Sludge, when first collected from
the clarifiers, can be classified as a semiliquid, volatile material. Two
major processes are performed on it: stabilization and dewatering. The
purpose of stabilization is the biological breakdown of the pathogens in
the sludge. Dewatering processes remove some of the water portion of the
sludge so that the sludge is easier to transport and handle. All sludge in
Morris County is either landfilled or incinerated, depending on the parti-
cular treatment plant (see table 5-l).
63
5.1.2 Non-Municipal Systems
The treatment technologies for small institutional dischargers such as
schools, hospitals, and commercial establishments are not much different
than those used for large municipal systems. "Package plants" are more
likely to be used for smaller dischargers than for large municipal systems.
These package plants are basically manufactured, prefabricated sewage
treatment plants that can be constructed and operated at relatively low
cost. They are also almost universally small, i.e., less than 1 mgd and
oftentimes less than 100,000 gallons per day in capacity.
The policy of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is to
reject any application from a private entity for a discharge (NJPDES)
permit for a package plant serving a largely residential area.
Effectively, this policy requires a municipality to cosign any NJPDES
~ -
permit application, making the municipality legally responsible for the
package plant
1
s operation and maintenance.
Industrial wastewaters present unique problems that cannot always be
addressed with traditional treatment technologies. Treatment technologies
used for industrial wastewater include, but are not limited to, the follow-
ing:
0 Charcoal or carbon adsorption
0 lime softening
0 Precipitation with various chemicals
0 Settling
0 Distillation
0 Ion exchange
These technologies can be used for discharges to the municipal treatment
plant in conjunction with compliance with an industrial pretreatment pro-
gram (see section 2.5}. They are also used to treat NJPDES-permitted
discharges to surface or groundwater. These technologies are highly
specialized and should only be implemented after careful consideration of
an industry's treatment needs.
64
5.1.3 Onsite Systems
The most common onsite disposal systems are septic tank systems. Septic
tank systems are soil absorption systems which transport effluent to
groundwater by means of subsurface percolation and filtration. They are
relatively inexpensive and simple to operate and maintain. A septic tank
requires anaerobic conditions to properly function. There are two major
components to a septic system, the settling tank and its leaching field.
The tank is a chamber where the residence time of the wastewater is long
enough for solids to settle out and for some anaerobic digestion to occur.
The leaching field consists of a network of perforated pipes over a sub-
surface area. Removal of solids (septage) from the settling tank is re-
quired every 3 to 5 years.
There are several criteria to be used to determine whether an area is suit-
~
able for septic systems. Chief among these is that the soils in the area
should be suitable for septic systems as rated in the Morris County Soil
Survey. Every soil type in Morris County is rated as having slight,
moderate and severe limitations for use for septic tank absorption fields.
See Section 4.4.
These ratings are for normal residential lot sizes, not for public build-
ings or trailer parks. Before the construction of any new onsite system, a
site-specific percolation test should be performed. (If percolation tests
are performed in dry seasons, limitations may actually be more severe than
indicated.)
State policies, as outlined in the three NJDEP-formulated 208 water quality
management plans that cover most of Morris County, consider septic systems
acceptable only where the household density/zoning is one-half acre or
more, unless other factors preclude their use. Even so, one-half acre
should be considered the minimum; recommended practice is about three
quarters acre per septic system.
65
Nitrogen compounds leaving a septic system are converted to nitrates. The
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1975 established an upper limit of 10
mg/1 of nitrate nitrogen in public water supplies. The only way to
decrease the concentration of nitrates within aquifers is from dilution
during movement in the groundwater flow system. The Sussex County 208 plan
more fu11y includes this consideration than the NJDEP-prepared 208 plans.
Therefore, in addition to soil suitability, another limitation to the use
of septic systems is the relative contaminant levels of an area's
groundwater.
Septic systems should be used only for the disposal of normal organic
household and commercial wastes. Wastes that are not biodegradable should
not be discharged into a septic system. In areas where populations use
groundwater for water supply and also use onsite systems for wastewater
cross-contamination between wells and nearby onsite systems can
occur. Residential use of toxic organic chemicals when disposed in onsite
systems can aggravate this situation. Users of onsite systems should be
careful to only use these systems to dispose of materials the systems are
capable of handling.
Incidences of septic tank failure can be reduced by proper site evaluation
to determine soil and geological suitability, proper design and construc-
tion, and educating homeowners on recommended maintenance practice.
5.2 PASSAIC RIVER BASIN
The developed areas of the Passaic River basin are largely sewered.
Several of the sewage treatment facilities in this area were constructed
before 1940. In addition, expansions have generally kept pace with the
growing population. Of the twenty major wastewater treatment plants
identified in this document, twelve or 60 percent, are located in the
Passaic basin. When one compares the permitted capacities of these
facilities, fully 90 percent of all wastewater treatment capacity of Morris
County is in the Passaic Basin.
66
All the wastewater treatment plants in the Passaic River basin in Morris
County meet or exceed the standards for secondary treatment. In terms of
pollutant removal, all the facilities in the Passaic basin, with the
exception of one plant, achieve excellent levels of BOD and suspended
solids removals. Furthermore. the exception, the Florham Park Sewerage
Authority, is under design for upgrading. There appear to be some problems
in the Passaic River with nutrient buildup, particularly phosphorus.
Typically, phosphorus enters the wastewater from human body wastes, from
food wastes discharges to the sewers from kitchen grinders, and from con-
densed inorganic phosphate compounds used in various household cleaners.
Commercial washing and cleaning compounds are also a source of phosphates.
Nearly 90 percent of the phosphorus, in all forms, that enters a wastewater
treatment plant, is not removed. Only with specialized operations and
p r ~ c e s s e s can a treatment plant achieve phosphorus removal.
The removal of phosphorus is usually achieved through the addition of
various chemicals. This chemical addition usually entails new facilities.
Depending on the level of removal desired, these facilities can be quite
costly. Therefore, an investment in additional facilities would have to be
made at a substantial number of facilities to mitigate the nutrient buildup
in the Passaic River basin. These monetary resources are not readily
available, so without greater financial assistance from the federal and
state government it is unlikely this problem will be significantly miti-
gated in the near future.
5.2.1 Municipal and Regional Systems
Chatham Township Pollution Control Plant
The Chatham Township Pollution Control Plant has a design capacity of 0.75
mgd. It presently receives 0.9 mgd, so it is above its design capacity.
Effluent is discharged to Black Brook (Great Swamp). Because there remains
a potential for growth and new sewering in the service area, plans for ex-
pansion should be implemented. The Upper Passaic 201 facilities plan call
67
for an expansion to 1.9 mgd by the year 2000. The present single trickling
filter plant is recommended to be expanded to three trickling filters with
subsequent filtration and nitrification. Subsequent to the original 201
plan, the final draft of the Environmental Impact Statement for the 201
plan recommended a reduced level of expansion to 1.0 mgd only. As of 1985,
a stabilization pond has been added increasing BOD and suspended solids
removal efficiency.
Secondary sludge is presently recirculated to the raw sewage wetwe11 and is
eventually recaptured in the primary clarifier. Combined sludge is pumped
to a single stage digester prior to sand bed drying and landfi11ing.
Florham Park Sewerage Authority
The Florham Park Sewerage Authority (FPSA) wastewater treatment plant was
in 1967 and was designed to treat an average flow of 1.0 mgd and
a peak flow of 3.0 mgd. It is currently receiving an average daily flow of
0.86 mgd. The plant is a secondary facility using the activated sludge
process and post-chlorination along with anaerobic digestion for sludge
stabilization. FPSA serves the entire Borough of Florham Park and one
residential section of East Hanover. A small percentage of wastewater
generators still remain on septic sytems or maintain their own treatment
facilities. Total population of the Borough is about 9,600 people.
The Authority discharges directly into the Passaic River in the area where
the river forms the boundary between Morris and Essex Counties. NJDEP ori-
ginally designated FPSA for the preparation of a industrial pretreatment
program (IPP). The Phase 18 report of the IPP concluded that "present
pollutant loadings to the treatment facilities do not interfere with the
operation of the treatment facilities or current sludge disposal prac-
tices." NJDEP agreed with this conclusion and de-designated FPSA as a
sewerage authority required to prepare an IPP. Nonetheless, because of
heavy metal levels in the digested sludge, NJDEP agreed with the report
recommendation that land application and/or composting may not be
practical.
68
As a result of some occasional difficulties in meeting their discharge
permit requirements, an administrative consent order was executed with
NJDEP. The provisions are that FPSA make the necessary plant modifications
to not only consistently meet their present permit requirements of 45 mg/1
BOD and 45 mg/1 suspended solids (45/45), but in the future meet a 30/30
permit requirement. These improvements include the addition of dissolved
air flotation for activated sludge thickening, variable speed drives for
the main influent pumps, modifications to improve the secondary clarifiers
efficiency, scum collection facilities, and new chlorination equipment.
These modifications should enable the plant to meet the 30/30 permit
requirement.
Based on current population projections, the FPSA should have enough capa-
city for at least the immediate future. However, there appears to be a
n e ~ d for expansion before the year 2000 if the Northeast 208 Water Quality
Management Plan population projections prove accurate or if expected higher
than average commercial and industrial growth occurs. For this reason,
FPSA has initiated design for upgrading and expansion of the plant to 1.4
mgd. This work will also enable the plant to achieve level 4 (advanced)
treatment.
Hanover Sewerage Authority
The Hanover Sewerage Authority plant in Whippany began operating in 1961.
As a result of a 1973 State order that additional sewer extensions and
sewer connections would not be allowed, the plant was expanded and upgraded
in 1978 from 1.5 mgd to 3.0 mgd. Average daily flow is currently 1.8 mgd,
new capacity is not expected to be required until after 2000. Discharge is
to the Whippany River. The major processes emp]oyed are trickling filters
for secondary biological treatment and two stabilization ponds arranged in
series for advanced biological treatment.
The wastewater received at the Authority's facilities is from both domestic
and industrial sources. NJDEP has designated the Hanover Sewerage Author-
ity for the development of an industrial pretreatment program. At this
writing, the IPP findings are not available. Sludge is transported for
disposal to the Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewerage Authority
1
s incineration
facilities for ultimate disposal.
69
Jefferson Township Municipal Utilities Authority
Jefferson Township operates a small (0.129 mgd) treatment plant in the
northern portion of the township (the extreme northern area of the County).
This plant, installed in 1962, was originally owned by the High Ridge Sewer
Company, a package plant installed and operated by a private developer.
Jefferson Township inherited the facility when the developer went bankrupt.
Tertiary treatment facilities were installed in 1973, but are not operated.
In 1983 the facility was modernized: new sand filters and a chlorine con-
tact chamber were constructed. The plant has only 252 residential cus-
tomers and is at capacity. Should additional customers be added, this
facility will have to be expanded. Sludge is stored in a 10,000 gallon
holding tank, which is periodically emptied for incineration at the Par-
sippany-Troy Hills Sewerage Authority. The recently completed 201 Facili-
ties Plan for Jefferson Township recommends expansion and upgrading of the
Wh\te Rock Lake treatment plant (the former High Ridge plant) to .250 mgd
capacity and the installation of sewers to serve the Cozy lake and Lake
Swannanoa areas. The 201 plan also recommends connecting part of the
township to the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority plant in Mount Olive (see
section 5.4.1).
Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting
The Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting (MCJM) Treatment Plant serves the
Boroughs of Madison and Chatham, and a few areas of the Township of
Chatham. The MCJM serves a population of approximately 24,000. The MCJM
was established as a small primary treatment_plant in 1910. It has been
expanded and upgraded several times over the years. The most recent expan-
sion and upgrading was performed in 1971. This resulted in an advanced
treatment plant with a design capacity of 4.0 mgd. The average daily flow
is 3.64 mgd. The present chief operator, Mr. Clyde Molitor is the grandson
and son of former operators assigned to the plant. Because of this histor-
ical connection, the plant has been officially named the "Molitor Pollution
Control Plant."
70
The plant serves a largely developed area which only has relatively limited
potential for growth. Because this plant does not appear to need expansion
and because of the State's low priority for achieving upgrades, it does not
appear that there will be a need for any major modification in the foresee-
able future. In 1982, this facility attempted to start a composting facil-
ity. Because the composting operation
1
S interior operating temperature was
not anticipated to reach the 55C required by State regulations, NJDEP did
not consider this a "true" compost. Also, the MCJM did not have an appro-
priate disposal site for the compost. As a result, in 1983 NJDEP cited
MCJM for
11
Storage of sludge onsite," a violation of New Jersey regulations.
In order to comply with this enforcement action, MCJM abandoned the com-
posting operation and began out-of-county hauling of sludge to a municipal
1 andfi n.
Montville Township Municipal Utiliti.es Authority
The Montville Township Municipal Utilities Authority operates three small
{package) treatment plants that serve residents in the Brook Valley, Forest
Park, and Norrland areas.
The Brook Valley and Norr1and treatment plants are located in the northern
Montville area near Lake Valhalla. The Norr1and plant discharges to
Crooked Brook, the outlet of Lake Valhalla. Its average daily flow is 5700
gpd while its rated capacity is 3000 gpd. The Brook Valley plant dis-
charges effluent to a leaching field within the drainage area of Crooked
Brook, downstream of Lake Valhalla. Its average daily flow is 4000 gpd
while its rated capacity is 3000 gpd. The Forest Park treatment plant
serves part of eastern Montville and discharges to the Passaic River. This
plant averages 35,000 gpd and its capacity is 37,500 gpd. Because of their
small size and current flow, these plants could not take on any additional
flows.
71
Morristown Sewage Treatment Plant
The Morristown Sewer Department first put the Morristown Sewage Treatment
Plant on-line in 1911. It was originally designed as a 1.0 mgd primary
treatment facility. Since that time the plant has undergone a series of
expansions and upgradings. The most recent was completed in 1979 when the
plant was expanded from a 1.8 mgd facility to a 3.45 mgd facility. Both
before and after the expansion the plant was considered secondary, though a
moderate increase in BOD and suspended solids removal efficiencies was
achieved. The average daily flow to the plant is 2.6 mgd. Since the ser-
vice area is largely developed and the plant is operating below capacity,
it appears that there is enough capacity through the year 2000. However,
as previously mentioned, problems with the sewerage system in Morristown
exist. The problem is serious enough to jeopardize state permission to
make additional connections to the system.
Sludge from the plant is transported to the Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewerage
Authority where it is incinerated. This disposal method is considered
temporary pending the completion and implementation of a sludge
management plan.
Morris Township
Morris Township operates two treatment facilities: (1) the Woodland Sewage
Treatment Plant and (2) the Butterworth Sewage Treatment Plant.
The Woodland facility provides secondary treatment and has a capacity of
2.0 mgd. This plant discharges to Loantaka Brook which discharges to the
Great Swamp and eventually the Passaic River. The plant was originally
constructed in 1960 with a design capacity of 0.50 mgd and was expanded in
1967 to its present capacity of 2.0 mgd. The average daily flow is 1.2
mgd. Secondary treatment is presently provided using a modified activated
sludge process. Barring a requirement for upgrading by NJDEP, this plant
appears to have sufficient treatment capacity through the year 2000.
72
The existing Butterworth wastewater treatment facility was originally con-
structed in 1963 to handle 0.5 mgd of flow. In 1967, the design capacity
was increased to the present 2.0 mgd. Its average daily flow is 1.6 mgd.
Secondary treatment is provided by contact stabilization. Discharge is to
the Whippany River. The Whippany River Basin 201 Facilities plan projects
an average daily flow in the year 2000 of 3.30 mgd. Therefore, it appears
that in the short-term there is sufficient capacity, but the long-term
outlook may possibly require a plant expansion. Sludge from both plants is
hauled to the Two Bridges Sewerage Authority where it is incinerated.
Plans to replace the presently obsolete sludge handling facilities at the
Woodland Plant are to be implemented. At the Butterworth plant, coarse
bubble air diffusers will be replaced with fine bubble diffusers, improving
the removal efficiency of the plant.
B o ~ h plants were collectively addressed in an industrial pretreatment pro-
gram. The Diamond Shamrock Corporation and the Allied Corporation dis-
charges were described as moderate and significant dischargers, respec-
tively, of industrial waste to the Woodland Plant. Warner Lambert Company
and Tenco of Morris Plains are both considered significant industrial
discharges to the Butterworth plant. The IPP study concludes, in the case
of the Woodland plant, that the
11
COntribution of metals to the plant by
identified dischargers is not large.
11
The contribution of metals to the
Butterworth plant is considered manageable. Both plants show relatively
small loads of various metals in the influent, effluent, and sludge.
Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewer Utility
The Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewer Utility serves its own municipality and
Mountain Lakes, most of East Hanover, and parts of Montville. The receiv-
ing water body is the Whippany River. The township itself is a sprawling,
developing area with substantial areas of apartments, large-lot one-family
development, small-lot developments, and some industry. Present average
daily flow is 9.7 mgd with an installed capacity of 16.0 mgd.
73
The plant, originally constructed as a 4 mgd secondary facility in 1964,
was expanded to the present 16 mgd capacity in 1975. Though the plant has
facilities for denitrification this process is not presently being used
because of a contract dispute between the contractor and the consulting
engineer. The Northeast 208 plan projects a flow of 16 mgd for the year
2000, so it appears the plant has sufficient capacity through the year
2000.
Sludge incineration is used for the disposal of 90 tons a day of
Parsippany-Troy Hills sludge along with the approximately 60 tons a day
transported to the plant from other plants for ultimate disposal. In
addition, the plant accepts about 60,000 gallons a day of septage.
During 1983 the Sewer Utility applied for funding to modernize its sludge
septage treatment facilities. The application was denied by the State
because of a lack of funds. Improved sludge facilities would have allowed
better and more consistent dewatering of sludge, in turn increasing incin-
eration capacity. A septage holding tank and injection point were to be
established for the effective treatment of septage. The Sewer Utility
reapplied for funding in 1984.
Passaic Township
The Passaic Township sewage treatment plant is a relatively small facility
with a design capacity of 0.650 mgd. Current daily flow is equal to the
The plant was first put on-line in the 1940s as a 0.450 mgd
primary treatment facility. A moderate expansion including the addition of
a lagoon was performed in 1974. Growth is expected in the service area.
An expansion and upgrading is scheduled for 1985.
The Upper Passaic River Basin 201 Facilities Plan recommends that the Pas-
saic Township Sewage Treatment Plant be expanded so that it could accommo-
date not only its own service area, but also the two small plants in Warren
Township in Somerset County. These plants have a combined capacity of 0.5
mgd. This would require that the plant be expanded to 1.7 mgd. It appears
that Passaic Township is not planning to include Warren Township in its
long-term plans.
74
Sludge is shipped to the Pequannock, Lincoln Park, and Fairfield Sewerage
Authority for incineration. It is dewatered, but not digested before ship-
ment. The plant has no plans to change its sludge disposal system.
Pequannock, Lincoln Park, and Fairfield Sewerage Authority
The Pequannock, Lincoln Park, and Fairfield Sewerage Authority is commonly
referred to as the Two Bridges Sewerage Authority (TBSA). Lincoln Park and
Pequannock are in Morris County, Fairfield in Essex County. The authority
was established in 1970 by simultaneous ordinances of the three municipali-
ties. A 7.5 mgd capacity plant was completed in 1978; average flow to the
plant is only about 2.47 mgd. In July 1982, an advanced stage was added to
the plant's processes, so that nitrogen removal could be performed. There
appears to be sufficient capacity until at least the year 2000.
T h ~ TBSA operates a sludge incinerator which produces 50 tons per month of
ash. This corresponds to 65 dry tons per day of sludge. The Authority has
agreements with nine communities for sludge disposal. Ash is combined with
some sludge from other treatment plants and is then landfilled onsite.
Pequannock River Basin Regional Sewerage Authority
The Pequannock River Basin Regional Sewerage Authority is a new institution
established to replace the Butler-Bloomingdale Joint Meeting. The plant
operates high-rate trickling filters for secondary biological treatment.
The design capacity is 1.4 mgd. Currently, average daily flow exceeds 2.5
mgd.
The New Jersey State Water Quality Inventory Report has recommended this
plant for upgrading to level 4 (advanced treatment} because of seasonal low
flows in the receiving waters, the number of existing dischargers, and the
amount of water used for potable purposes; it is also recommended for ex-
pansion to alleviate sewer bans in effect. Presently, this plant has the
lowest treatment level of any facility in the Passaic basin.
75
In addition, a study commissioned by the Pequannock River Basin Regional
Sewerage Authority concluded that wastewater flows should be diverted via a
new interceptor to the Two Bridges Sewerage Authority treatment plant. The
Butler-Bloomingdale plant will continue to have capacity problems if no
action is taken. The availability of further information about this plant
was hindered by the lack of a returned questionnaire.
Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority
In 1903, private interests constructed the Boonton Reservoir, largely in
Parsippany-Troy Hills, for use as a water supply. The City of Jersey City
took over the reservoir in 1910. In 1923, an interceptor line was in-
stalled by Jersey City along the Rockaway River above the reservoir in
order to carry wastewater generated above the reservoir to a treatment
plant constructed by Jersey City below the dam in Parsippany-Troy Hills.
Thts treatment plant was the original precursor of the Rockaway Valley
Regional Sewerage Authority (RVRSA). This was done to safeguard the qual-
ity of the water in the reservoir. In the years since 1923, the sewage
flow to the plant increased, the interceptor line became subject to exces-
sive groundwater infiltration, and the water demands of Jersey City in-
creased. Flow increases to the plant resulted in an inefficient treatment
operation which in turn resulted in a relatively poor quality effluent.
Increased Jersey City water demands resulted in flows over the Boonton
Reservoir dam virtually ceasing in the summer months. Therefore, at times
the only flow in the Rockaway River was the effluent from the plant. This
created a public nuisance. A sewer ban was imposed by Court order in 1968.
The plant was modestly upgraded and expanded in 1970.
The state court order requires Jersey City to maintain a letdown of water
from the reservoir during times when no natural flow occurs in the Rockavvay
River. The letdown must provide dilution water for the discharged effluent
in a ratio of one-to-one. Also, the court allocates any excess capacity
which develops due to decreases in wastewater flows or loads anywhere in
the service area. It was during this period that it was recognized that
the plant should be locally controlled; thus the RVRSA was established in
1971.
76
In conjunction with its industrial pretreatment program, RVRSA determined
that only one industry, Howmet Turbine Components Corporation in Dover, in
its service area can be described as contributing significant industrial
waste flows. The sludge analysis for this plant does not show any heavy
metal parameter above the median value for all New Jersey treatment plants.
These median values are lower than the values established by regulations.
Therefore, the industrial flow contribution does not appear to impede
RVRSA's ability to safely dispose of the sludge generated.
It is estimated that 3 mgd of additional capacity is required to meet pres-
ent treatment needs. The plant currently receives a daily flow of 8.2 mgd.
The nominal design capacity is 9.0 mgd. The plant manages to keep flows
below the design capacity only because of the limited sewer ban. In order
to relieve this impediment to development, a new 12 MGD plant consisting of
primary treatment, secondary treatment using an oxidation ditch process in
~ -
conjunction with chlorination, dechlorination and postaeration is being
constructed on a site adjacent to the existing plant. It is anticipated
that the limited sewer connection ban will be lifted after completion of
the new plant. Because development has been suppressed for the past few
years, the additional capacity created by the new plant may not be suffi-
cient in the long term.
Long-term plans include the elimination of landfilling of sludge, according
to the 1983 Rockaway Valley Sewerage Authority Sludge Management Plan. It
is likely that the new sludge disposal method, being in closer consonance
with state policy, will be onsite composting and bulk disposal for land
application. There is likely to be some extra capacity to accept sludge
from other treatment plants. These sludge disposal plans are contingent on
receipt of federal funding, currently projected for fiscal year 1987.
77
5.2.2 Non-Municipal Systems
Compared to the large municipal wastewater treatment plants, other dis-
chargers to surface water are both smaller and more numerous. The largest
single non-municipal discharger is Picatinny Arsenal which has discharge
permits for a total of 3.441 mgd from 13 separate discharge points. Average
daily flow for 1983 was 4.144 mgd.
Water quality regulations applying to municipal treatment plant effluents
also apply to non-municipal discharges. Many non-municipal dischargers
have the choice of either treating their wastewater to meet surface water
quality standards or discharging to the sewer by pretreating their waste-
water to a level acceptable to the local municipal treatment plant. Many
dischargers find the second option more acceptable, when it is available.
~
The majority of the non-municipal dischargers are not discharging indust-
rial process waste, but are discharging either relatively clean cooling
water or treated domestic wastes. It appears that as long as the non-
municipal dischargers remain in compliance with regulations, no significant
problems should occur. Because these dischargers receive permits from
NJOEP, NJOEP is responsible for enforcing compliance with water quality
regulations.
5.2.3 Onsite Systems
A major groundwater recharge area exists under Morris Plains, Morristown
and much of the areas directly between these two municipalities. This re-
charge area is located within the Whippany River subbasin. Fortunately,
nearly all of this recharge area is sewered, so that the threat of nitrate
buildup and other contaminants from septic systems is essentially
eliminated.
78
In Harding Township, some wells have been closed because of problems with
contamination by septic systems. Harding is substantially unsewered, with
only a small portion in the north being sewered. Growth could exacerbate
groundwater contamination problems if onsite systems are used to accommo-
date its growth. A major portion of Harding will remain undeveloped
because of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. Since the Township
anticipates growth to be accommodated with septic systems, the sole source
aquifer underlying this area should be carefully considered in the land use
decision-making process.
East Hanover is currently 50 percent sewered, of which about 240 homes are
served by the Florham Park Sewerage Authority. The remainder of the Town-
ship will be connected in the near future to the Parsippany-Troy Hills
Sewerage Authority treatment plant. Though there are a few septic systems
i n ~ t h i s drainage basin, this sewering removes one of the few remaining
sources of nitrate contamination in this area of the sole source aquifer.
Similar problems could occur in Pequannock Township, though there it is
anticipated that growth will be accommodated with new sewers. This should
help mitigate the potential for groundwater contamination. Also Riverdale,
Montville and Boonton Township all have substantial unsewered areas. Areas
of Montville and Boonton Township are above a sole source aquifer
(Montville-Rockaway Valley, Boonton Township-Buried Valley), so heavy
reliance on septic systems could be detrimental to drinking water quality.
Also, because the surface-waters of this area of the Passaic River already
show high phosphorus and nitrate levels, according to the State Water
Quality Inventory Report, septic systems may not be desirable because of
the groundwater flows into the Passaic. The phosphorus and nitrate
observed in the groundwater may be a result of onsite system use.
79
Some of the Passaic River basin is served by onsite systems and several
major regional sewage treatment plants are located at key locations in the
watershed. If funding became available, it might be feasible to sewer some
of the areas currently served by onsite systems. The long-term impacts of
nitrates on groundwater supplies can be mitigated in this area by further
sewering.
5.3 RARITAN RIVER BASIN
In the Raritan River basin there are a few wastewater treatment plants. but
for the most part the area depends on onsite wastewater disposal systems.
Much of the area has soils that are considered relatively unsuitable for
septic tanks.
Raritan River basin has two major branches in Morris County: the North
Branch and the South Branch. The Lamington River is considered a subbranch
of the North Branch. The 1982 State Water Quality Inventory Report gives
both branches of the Raritan River an overall water quality evaluation of
good. Nevertheless, it has been documented that the North Branch and
Lamington River both have a serious phosphorus buildup problem. The 1982
State Water Quality Inventory Report that 37 to 82 percent of the
total phosphorus loading is from non-point sources. Septic systems are
considered a major non-point source. Therefore, control of onsite systems
would be a step towards reduction of water quality problems. Greater
levels of nutrient removal by the treatment plants in the basin do not
appear warranted because they do not appear to be the major contributors of
nutrients to surface waters.
5.3.1 Municipal and Regional Systems
Mendham Borough Sewer Department
The Borough Sewer Department has operated a small sewage treatment
plant on Ironia Road since 1966. The plant currently receives an average
80
daily flow of 0.360 mgd. The plant's present design flow, which is the
same as its original design, is 0.400 mgd. The facility achieves very good
removals: 97.5 percent removal of BOD and 94.0 percent removal of sus-
oended solids. Mendham and its environs was not included within any 201
facility plan, therefore no long-term plan was formulated for this faci-
lity.
Sludge is presently landfilled at the Landfill Development Company landfill
in Gloucester County. The Sewer Department is presently preparing an
alternate disposal plan.
Mount Olive Township
The Mount Olive Township sewage treatment plant was first put on-line in
the early 1960's as a small 0.200 mgd plant. The secondary process has
b e ~ n expanded to bring the plant capacity to 0.280 mgd. Average daily
flows presently exceed this design capacity by about 0.1 mgd.
To remedy this situation, the Township is financing through its own funds
the construction of a 0.500 mgd expansion to bring total plant capacity to
nearly 0.800 mgd. This new capacity should provide for some growth.
Long-term ability to treat additional flows is undetermined.
Roxbury Township
Roxbury Township operates two treatment facilities: the Ajax Terrace
sewage treatment plant and the Skyview sewage treatment plant.
The Ajax Terrace facility serves the southern area of Roxbury Township.
Its current daily flow is 1.26 mgd while its design capacity is only 1.0
mgd. As a result, it does not consistently meet its NJPDES permit require-
ments, particularly for suspended solids. Engineering design to rectify
this situation is in progress. Sludge is hauled to either of the incinera-
tors in Morris County.
81
The Skyview facility serves a neighborhood of about 200 residential connec-
tions amounting to a flow of about 94,000 gpd. The design capacity of this
plant is only 80,000 gpd. As a result, this plant also does not consist-
ently meet its NJPDES requirement for suspended solids effluent concentra-
tion. Construction will begin soon on a design to rectify this situation.
Sludge has been disposed of at either of the county's incineration facili-
ties.
Washington Township Municipal Utilities Authority
The Washington Township Municipal Utilities Authority operates a 0.5 mgd
facility at Schooley's Mountain off Naughright Road. The plant's original
treatment process was contact stabilization, but it was expanded in 1976
and converted to a rotating biological contactor (RBC) system. As a re-
sult, a new NPDES permit for this plant was issued in May 1976. Also
during the mid-1970s the outfall point was moved from the Stony Brook to
~
the South Branch of the Raritan River because of the South Branch's greater
assimilative capacities.
The plant serves several developments centered around Schooley's Mountain.
In order to effectively serve the residents of this hilly terrain, five
pumping stations are used at a high energy cost. To expand the service
area would likely entail more pumping stations with associated energy
costs. In 1982, the plant
1
S capacity was increased from 0.3 mgd to its
present 0.5 mgd through the addition of three more shafts of RBCs to the
original three shafts of RBCs. The present average daily flow is 0.265 mgd
which means that the plant has an additional 47 percent of capacity re-
maining. Given the present capacity and flow and the projected population
growth, there should be enough capacity until the year 2000.
In addition, the potential service area for this treatment plant is hilly.
Extension of the sewer system infrastructure would probably entail the use
of pumping stations. Both the capital and operation costs for pumping sta-
tions are high compared to simple gravity sewers. Therefore, there could
82
be an economic disincentive to extending the sewerage system. Ultimately,
this could result in the long-term continued use of environmentally unde-
sirable septic systems. Much of the Township either has soils unsuitable
for septic systems or already has a potential groundwater contamination
problem. Sludge is currenty hauled to the Two Bridges Sewerage Authority
where it is incinerated.
5.3.2 Non-Municipal Systems
There are nine permitted non-municipal dischargers in the Raritan River
basin. The total discharge of all nine dischargers is less than 7 mgd.
Only one discharge is from what can be described as a significant industry,
i.e., Hercules Inc. Most of this company's 4.95 mgd flow (which represents
about 70 percent of the non-municipal flow in the basin) is a relatively
clean cooling water discharge.
~
The remaining discharges in this basin are
largely cooling water or domestic waste discharges. Because there is
little industry in this area, the potential for a substantial increase in
non-municipal discharges is limited.
5.3.3 Onsite Systems
The Raritan River basin is served by onsite systems in most areas. Sani-
tary sewers are provided only in some limited areas of Roxbury, Mount
Olive, Washington Township, and the town center of Mendham Borough. Be-
cause this area is not densely populated. pollution from septic systems has
not become excessive or uncontrollable.
The 1982 Water Supply Element of the Morris County Master Plan warned that
heavy reliance on septic systems for wastewater disposal has some potential
for creating unacceptable drinking water parameters in potable groundwater
supplies. This element reported a nitrate level in one Raritan basin pur-
veyor's supply of 22.1 ppm, a violation of the primary standard of 10 ppm.
The most probable source of this contamination is local septic systems
83
because other sources of possible nitrate contamination are not signifi-
cant. Although this represents the only major documented violation of this
standard in the basin, it does call attention to the potential for nitrate
contamination of the basin groundwaters.
The New Jersey 1982 State Water Quality Inventory Report states that the
water quality in the North Branch and the Lamington Rivers is generally
good, with some areas of only marginal quality. Those areas of marginal
quality have been contaminated largely by non-point sources, particularly
septic systems. This report provides recommendations for mitigation of
septic system problems:
11
Development in this watershed will piace increasing demands for main-
taining water quality, especially in headwaters. In order to protect
~ s t r e a m quality, it is recommended that there be an education program to
alert residents of the need to provide proper maintenance for septic
tanks. (Emphasis added) ..... Water quality in the (North Branch)
basin will face additional pollution loads from the development which
is occurring in many parts of the region. Current municipal treatment
plants still need to be upgraded to provide for advanced removal so
that good water quality in the basin can be protected ....
11
(NJDEP, 1982)
Very few of the soils in this area can adequately accommodate septic sys-
tems because of high groundwater 1eve1s, permeability, steep slopes, and
bedrock characteristics. Satisfactory soils, i.e., soils rated as having
11
Slight
11
limitations by the Soil Conservation Service, are scattered
throughout the area in small areas. Some areas that are rated acceptable
for septic systems are designated as agricultural lands according to the
New Jersey State Development Guide Plan. There are also significant areas
of acceptable soils in locations that are in agricultural use, though not
designated as such in the State Development Guide Plan. (Morris County's
official comments to the State on this plan were to redesignate these lands
as agricultural lands.)
84
The County Agricultural Development Board is also in the process of iden-
tifying
11
Agricultural Development Areas
11
(areas where agriculture has the
best opportunity for sustained profitable operations).
As a result of the double-edged problem of reliance on septic systems and
lack of suitable soils, several critical problem areas are evident in the
Raritan Basin. In Mount Olive, the lack of suitable soils has caused over-
flowing of septic systems in a11 parts of the Township. The Township
1
S
Director of Health, Welfare, and Sanitation asserts that some areas of
Mount Olive
11
have some of the worst problems of malfunctioning septic sys-
tems of any community in New Jersey.'' In Chester Borough, septic poll uti on
has been detected in the stormwater sewers. Tests were performed by the
Madison Board of Health to determine the location of the pollution source.
The source was not pinpointed. The local authorities have concluded that
t h ~ ground is relatively saturated with septic tank effluent, partly
because the soils of this area are relatively unsuitable. Though the
potential for nitrate pollution is manageable in this basin, septic tank
failures present problems.
5.4 MUSCONETCONG RIVER BASIN
The dominant feature of the Musconetcong River basin is Lake Hopatcong.
This lake, at the headwaters of the Musconetcong River, is surrounded by
communities that nearly exclusively depend on onsite systems for wastewater
disposal. Aside from the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority's service area,
there are few major areas of sev1eri ng.
5.4.1 Municipal and Regional Systems
Hackettstown Municipal Utilities Authority
The Hackettstown Municipal Utilities Authority (HMUA) in Washington Town-
ship was established in 1971 with a design flow capacity of 1.650 mgd. The
plant uses both primary and secondary trickling filters with clarifiers and
85
low-rate aerobic stabilization for effluent polishing. This plant achieves
very good removals. The facility has never been upgraded or expanded so
its design flow remains 1.65 mgd. Average flow to the plant in 1983 was
1.477 mgd.
There are definite plans to double the design capacity of this plant within
the next five years. Financing for this project will be provided through
the HMUA Construction Aid Fund contributions required from all new connec-
tions to the sanitary collection system. No state or federal funds will be
needed. The new plant would have a design capacity of 3.3 mgd, which would
meet the needs of the area until 2000.
Sludge is hauled by a private contractor to the Parsippany-Troy Hills
Sewerage Authority for incineration. No dewatering is performed; approxi-
m a ~ e l y 1600 gallons a day of sludge are produced.
Musconetcong Sewerage Authority
The Musconetcong Sewerage Authority (MSA) serving Netcong, Stanhope and
Port Morris was established in 1969 as a 0.5 mgd package plant in Mount
Olive. In 1976, another 0.5 mgd package plant was added to bring total
capacity to 1.0 mgd. Present estimates indicate that the plant is operat-
ing at or marginally above capacity. By 2000, it is estimated that as much
as 4 mgd of additional wastewater capacity will be needed.
The 201 facilities plan for the area calls for the construction of a new
interceptor sewer for existing and future growth in conjunction with the
proposed expansion to 4 mgd. This area of the County appears subject to
development pressures and dependency on onsite disposal systems. In addi-
tion, the "Foreign Trade Zone" lies within the service area and should be
eventually connected to a sewage treatment plant. To protect future water
quality, it appears wastewater treatment capacity requires expansion.
86
The recently completed 201 facilities plan for Jefferson Township recom-
mends conveyance of wastewater from the Musconetcong basin portion of the
township to an expanded MSA treatment plant. The projected flow is .680
mgd in the year 2000.
Despite the shutdown of the Sussex County Municipal Utilities Authority
composting facility, MSA disposes of its sludge with SCMUA in compliance
with a long-term contract MSA and SCMUA signed in 1983. SCMUA in turn
disposes of the combined sludge at an appropriate location. The composting
operation is scheduled to be reestablished in the spring of 1986. Either
the incineration or composting alternative is considered acceptable by
NJOEP.
5.4.2 Non-Municipal Systems
~ "
In the Musconetcong River basin there are only eight permitted non-muni-
cipal dischargers to surface water. All but one have an average daily flow
of less than 200,000 gpd. None of them is discharging industrial process
waste. Five are discharging treated domestic wastewater. The one dis-
charger over 200,000 gpd, the Amerace-Esna Company, exceeds this level only
intermittently. During some quarters it reports flows considerably below
this level.
5.4.3 Onsite Systems
Only a minor part of the Musconetcong River basin is sewered. Most of the
residences in this area use septic systems for onsite treatment. Higher
nitrate-nitrogen groundwater pollution can be found in well established
communities such as Roxbury, Mt. Arlington, and the developed areas around
Lake Hopatcong. An exception to this is the Borough of Netcong which was
substantially sewered in the middle 1960s.
In the Musconetcong basin reported concentrations of nitrates approach or
exceed the 5 mg/1 level. This level suggests groundwater pollution by
non-point sources. These concentrations were tabulated in the late 1970s
by NJDEP and incorporated in the Sussex County 208 Plan:
87
NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS IN MUSCONETCONG BASIN GROUNDWATER
Community Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/1}
Max. Min. Avg.
Jefferson Twp:
Lake Shawnee 1.5 0 0.7
Prospect Point 0.9
East Shore Water Co. 4.5 0 2.3
Mt. Arlington 3.5 2.0 2.8
Netcong 0
Ro\bury - Shore Hi 11 s 6.5
Source: Sussex County 208 Water Quality Management Plan, 1979
It should also be noted that significant development occurred in this area
in recent years. As an example, Mt. Arlington Borough experienced a 19
percent increase in population over the 10 year period of 1970 to 1980.
This new population, as well as the existing population, is served by
onsite systems. Even greater development occurred on the Sussex County
side of the basin, where increases approached 75 percent over the 1970 to
1980 period. As a result, the 1982 New Jersey State Water Quality Inven-
tory Report documented many septic tank pollution problems in this area and
directly linked these problems with water quality problems in the Musconet-
cong River and Lake Hopatcong. The 1982 Water Quality Inventory Report
states: "Since the population centers, such as Belvidere, Hackettstown and
the areas around Lake Hopatcong and Lake Musconetcong, are scattered
throughtout these watersheds, water quality is highly influenced by non-
point sources and septic systems. Septic system problems occur in the Lake
88
Hopatcong area as well as in the municipalities of Jefferson, Mount
Arlington, Roxbury, and Byram in the Musconetcong watershed; and Mountain
lake, Hope and Oxford in the Pequest watershed. Septic system problems can
be especially troublesome in some of these areas, because the terrain un-
derlying these areas consists of fractured rock which is not favorable for
sewage disposal with the current septic system density.
11
(NJDEP, 1982)
5.5 SLUDGE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
The major sludge disposal facilities in Morris County are the sludge inci-
nerators at the Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewer Utility and the Pequannock,
Lincoln Park and Fairfield Sewerage Authority (TBSA). At Parsippany-Troy
Hills, approximately 60 dewatered tons of sludge a day is accepted from
other sewerage authorities, mostly from within Morris County. In addition,
t h ~ Parisippany-Troy Hills plant incinerates approximately 90 dewatered
tons a day of its own sludge. With better dewatering, either at the source
treatment plants or at the Parisippany-Troy Hills plant itself, it appears
possible that this incinerator could handle up to 180 tons a day of addi-
tional sludge. The TBSA accepts about 96 dewatered tons a day at 25 per-
cent solids at its incinerator. Of this 96-ton total, a little more than
half is from other wastewater treatment plants. The remainder is TBSA's
own sludge. Several treatment plants outside of Morris County have their
sludge incinerated at TBSA.
The TBSA incinerator is designed to receive 260 tons per day of dewatered
sludge at 25 percent solids. The Authority has installed new sludge feed
pumps so that this design capacity can be achieved.
With proper sludge planning and with greater dewatering of all of Morris
County's various sludges, it appears possible that the Parsippany-Troy
Hi1ls incinerator and the Two Bridges incinerator could accommodate nearly
the entire sludge production of Morris County. Proper sludge planning
would entail that the treatment plants in Morris County would have (1) a
89
higher priority at the two incinerator facilities and (2) be granted longer
term disposal contracts with the Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewer Utility and
TBSA. Greater dewatering would require investment in new facilities either
at the source treatment plants or at the two incinerators. Solids contents
in excess of 20 percent would be desirable.
It is estimated that the total amount of sludge generated in Morris County
is about 51 dry tons a day. Of this amount, only about 10 to 15 tons is
incinerated, the remainder is landfilled. Most sludge that is landfilled
is disposed of outside Morris County.
Since State policy is to discourage landfilling as a long term disposal
option, out-of-county hauling of sludge will eventually have to be sup-
planted by either incineration or land application. It appears that with
T B ~ ' s increased present sludge feed pumping capacity, a substantial amount
of Morris County sludge can be disposed of at that facility.
State policy encourages use of sludge for environmentally beneficial uses
such as land application to croplands or grasslands. Before attempting to
land apply sludge or septage, a disposer must comply with the specific pro-
visions of the NJDEP Guidelines for the Preparation of Sludge Management
Plans. Soil suitability ratings
11
Slight
11
,
11
moderate" and
11
Severe" are also
employed for land application uses of sludge. Unlike the ratings for
septic tank absorption fields, these ratings are not defined according to
soil type. Instead, nine engineering criteria are established and each
criterion is defined according to which soil characteristics are considered
to represent slight, moderate or severe limitations (see table 5-2).
As discussed in section 2.6, detailed discussion of future sludge manage-
ment in Morris County has been deferred until the State Sludge t,1anagement
Plan has been completed and adopted {expected in 1985).
90
TABLE 5-2
SOIL AND SITE LIMITATIONS FOR LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE OR SEPTAGE
Item Affecting Use
1. Permeability of
most restricting
layer between 60
inches and the Ap
or similar surface
horizon
2. Infiltration Rate
3. Soil Drainage
Class
...
4. Runoff Class
5. Flooding
6. Available Water
Holding Capacity
from 0 to 60
inches or a
1 imi ti ng 1 ayer
a) Temporary
Installation
b) Permanent
Install at ion
7. Slope
8. Depth to seasonal
water table
9. Depth to bedrock
Degree of Lim1tat1on
Slight
Moderately rapid
and moderate 0.6 -
6.0 in/hr
Very rapid, ra-
pid, moderately
rapid, and moder-
ate: greater than
0.6 i n/hr
Well drained and
moderately well
drained
None, very slow
and slow
None
Greater than
7.8 inches
Greater than
3 inches
Less than 6%
Greater than
4 feet
Greater than
4 feet
Moderate
Rapid and mode-
rately slow:
6-20 and 0.2-
0.6 in/hr
Moderately slow:
0.2-0.6 in/hr
Somewhat exces-
sively drained
and somewhat
poorly drained
Medium
Soils flooded.
only during non-
growing season
3-7.8 inches
6-12%
2-4 feet
2-4 feet
Severe
Very rapid, slow
and very slml:
greater than 20
and less than 0.2
in/hr
Slow and very slow:
less than 0.2 in/hr
Excessively drained,
poorly drained and
very poorly drained
Rapid and very rapid
Soils flooded during
during growing season
less than 3 inches
Less than 3 inches
Greater than 12%
less than 2 feet
less than 2 feet
Source: NJDEP Guidelines for the Preparation of Sludge Management Plans
91
5.6 SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT
State regulations require septage management (see glossary) planning to be
performed by both the solid waste management district and the 201 facili-
ties planning districts. Because the main missions of both solid waste
planning and 201 facilities planning are not septage management planning,
the level of septage planning performed by the lead agencies involved in
these studies bears a relationship to level of funding available. Gener-
ally, septage planning has been performed haphazardly in the past or when
it has been fully addressed, not been implemented. This analysis applies
to Morris County as well as the State as a whole. Further study of septage
management in Morris County would be appropriate.
In Morris County, most septage is transported for disposal out of the
C o ~ n t y . In 1977 it was estimated that nearly 4.4 million gallons of
septage was generated. Of this quantity, nearly 3.5 million gallons was
disposed of outside the County at much larger wastewater treatment plants,
such as the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission plant in Newark. More
recent data on septage management is unavailable.
In order to properly treat septage, wastewater treatment plants should have
the proper septage handling facilities. Without these facilities, the
plants can accept some septage, but in smaller quantities than with the
appropriate facilities.
Septage handling facilities take two forms, with one being more common and
generally more advantageous than the other. The more common method is to
construct holding tanks for septage so that the septage can be bled into
the headworks of the treatment plant a little at a time. This allows much
of the septage to settle out in the primary clarifiers and minimizes
organic loading shocks on the biological/secondary treatment process.
(Septage typically has a strength about 40 times the strength of typical
sanitary sewage). The less common method is to add the septage to the
sludge treatment process. This is typically done in plants that do not
have secondary treatment. Since all of Morris Countys treatment plants
are secondary plants or better, this method is not recommended.
92
Even with appropriate septage handling facilities a careful evaluation of
the plant's ability to accept the extra organic load should be performed.
During the 201 facility planning process, two wastewater plants in Morris
County were planned to accept septage. These two plants are the Two
Bridges Sewerage Authority and the Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewer Utility. An
engineering design has been performed only for the Two Bridges plant.
Construction of the necessary facilities has not begun for either plant.
Nonetheless, both plants are receiving septage without treatment plant
modifications. Because of this, these plants can accept only limited
amounts of septage. Of the other treatment plants in the County, only the
Washington Township Municipal Utilities Authority plant accepts septage.
As a result, most septage is shipped out of the County to either larger or
better equipped wastewater treatment plants or to ocean disposal

When considering the disposal of septage at a wastewater treatment plant,
it should be recognized that septage places both an organic and hydraulic
load on a treatment plant. Therefore, plant capacity used to treat septage
becomes unavailable to treat wastewater generated within the plant's ser-
vice area.
A key consideration in septage management is the maintenance and institu-
tional support of new and existing septic systems in Morris County. Two
key related considerations in formulating an institutional strategy for
onsite wastewater systems are:
o Allocation of costs between the system owner and the various
levels and divisions of government.
o Allocation of responsibilities for routine maintenance, corrective
maintenance, installation and inspection.
93
Presently, septic systems are largely regulated at the local and state
levels. Middle levels of government (i.e., counties and sewerage authori-
ties) are not extensively involved in this area.
The State regulates private septage haulers who make individual agreements
with those using septic systems. Each hauler is required by the State to
obtain an annual operating permit. When applying for this permit, a list-
ing of sources, quantities and disposal locations collected by the hauler
during the previous year must be supplied. The State then incorporates
this data into an annual report. Municipal collection of septic tank
clean-out wastes is not provided by any of the 39 Morris County municipali-
ties.
In addition, the State has promulgated
11
Standards for the Construction of
Individual Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems
11
(NJAC 7:9-2.1 et. seq.)
"' --
These regulations provide detailed requirements for the design and in-
stallation of septic systems. These requirements are enforceable by the
local health department. In addition, some municipalities (Montville,
Chester borough) have added septic tank requirements to their municipal
ordinances.
It appears there are two major deficiencies in this regulatory approach:
o After installation, problems with septic systems will not be
identified until years later when a failure occurs. Oftentimes,
system failure is an indication that the problems are beyond
remediation.
o No overall planning approach is included. Haulers contract
directly with each individual homeowner. Regional contracting
would provide a more comprehensive and cost-effective approach.
94
A regional septage planning and management authority could be empowered to
address these deficiencies. This agency could possibly be established
under existing New Jersey law providing for the establishment of municipal
utilities authorities (MUAs). This authority could inspect sytems on a
periodic basis and order that problems be corrected. The authority could
also contract with septage haulers to provide a more comprehensive approach
to septage disposal. This authority could also be given the power to tax
or assess user fees either on the individual homeowner or through the tax
structure of the member municipality(ies). With an independent source of
revenue, the septage management authority could act more freely to address
potential public health problems and to provide for long-term and contin-
gency planning.
95
6.0 DEMOGRAPHICS
6.1 RESIDENTIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS
6.1.1 Population Distribution
The population of Morris County is concentrated in its eastern, north-cen-
tral, and southeastern regions. The 1980 population was 407,630. The
county is characterized by its large undeveloped areas and densely popu-
lated towns and boroughs. Table 6-1 provides a breakdown of 1980 popula-
tion by municipality.
~
In the undeveloped areas, the population is more likely to be served by
onsite wastewater systems, predominantly septic systems. Because of the
completion of Interstate Highway 80 and the anticipated completion of
Interstates Highway 287 and 78, outlying areas of Morris County have become
more convenient to the area's regional centers. This has resulted in
continued pressure for development in the currently undeveloped areas.
6.1.2 Sewered/Unsewered Housing
Based on 1980 U.S. Census data an estimate of the sewered and unsewered
housing in the County by municipality has been made. Table 6-2 provides
this information. The U.S. Census figures are based on a survey of 20
percent of the dwelling units in the County.
6.1.3 Industrial/Commercial Development
Commercial development in Morris County is dominated by the downtown areas
of the larger municipalities, a few shopping centers along the major high-
ways, and strip development along the older major highways of Routes 10,
23, and 46.
96
TABLE 6-1
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY
Population Area Density
t4unici pal i ty (1980) ( sq mi) ( persons/sg mi)
Boonton Town 8,620 2.5 3448
Boonton Township 3,273 8.7 376
Butler Borough 7,616 2.1 3627
Chatham Borough 8,537 2.4 3557
Chatham Township 8,883 9.4 945
Chester Borough 1,433 1.5 955
Chester Township 5,198 29.6 176
Denville Township 14,380 12.6 1141
Dover Town 14,681 2.5 5872
East Hanover Township 9,319 8.2 1136
Florham Park Borough 9,359 7.5 1248
Hanover Township 11,846 10.8 1097
Harding Township 3,236 20.5 158
Jefferson Township 16,413 42.9 383
Kinnelon Boorough 7,770 19.2 405
Lincoln Park Borough 8,806 7.0 1258
Madison Borough 15,357 4.1 3746
Mendham Borough 4,899 6.0 817
Mendham Township 4,488 17.6 255
Mine Hill Township 3,325 3.0 ll08
Montville Township 14,290 18.9 756
Morris Plains Borough 5,305 2.6 2040
Morris Township 18,486 15.7 1178
Morristown Town 16,614 3.0 5538
Mountain lakes Borough 4,153 2.9 1432
Mount Arlington Borough 4,257 2.9 1468
Mount Olive Township 18,748 29.0 647
Netcong 3,557 0.8 4446
Parsippany-Troy Hills Township 49,868 25.2 1979
Passaic Township 7,275 12.2 596
Pequannock Township 13,776 7.2 1913
Randolph Township 17,828 21.1 845
Riverdale Borough 2,530 2.1 1205
Rockaway Borough 6,852 2.1 3263
Rockaway Township 19,850 45.6 435
Roxbury Township 18,878 21.8 866
Victory Gardens Borough 1,043 0.2 5215
Washington Township 11,402 44.4 257
Wharton Borough 5,485 2.2 2493
Morris County, Total 407 ,630 478.0 836
Compi1 ed from: The New Jersey Municipal Data Book, New Jersey Associates.
1983 Edition
97
TABLE 6-2
SEWERED AND UNSEWERED HOUSING UNITS BY MUNICIPALITY
Muni ci pa 1 i ty
Boonton Town
Boonton Township
Butler Borough
Chatham Borough
Chatham Township
Chester Borough
Chester Township
Denville Township
Dover Town
East Hanover Township
Florham Park Borough
Hanover Township
Harding Township
Jefferson ..,Township
Kinnelon Borough
Lincoln Park Borough
Madison Borough
Mendham Borough
Mendham Township
Mine Hill Township
Montville Township
Morris Plains Borough
Morris Township
t ~ o r r i stown Town
Mountain Lakes Borough
Mount Arlington Borough
Mount Olive Township
Netcong Borough
Parsippa-ny-Troy Hills Twp
Passaic Township
Pequannock Township
Randolph Township
Riverdale Borough
Rockaway Borough
Rockaway Township
Roxbury Township
Victory Gardens Borough
Washington Township
Wharton Borough
Public
Sewer
(1980 Census)
2,443
156
2,429
3,176
2,734
34
44
2,763
4,953
324
2,306
3,511
64
580
95
846
4,963
1,358
74
65
1,543
1,815
4,805
6,732
917
298
3,702
1,324
16,688
1,767
1,012
2,911
31
2,294
3,162
3,009
407
981
1,895
88,211
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980
Septic
Tank or
Cesspool Units
(1980 Census)
683
921
197
49
314
457
1,528
1,891
116
2,272
93
95
1,057
5,033
2,253
1,802
34
231
1,369
1,059
2,558
28
1,331
18
279
1,170
3,058
38
989
610
3,191
3,257
828
83
3,329
2,780
8
2,566
115
47,690
Other Means*
4
0
6
0
0
0
14
24
24
18
0
0
13
60
14
16
0
0
7
5
28
0
6
18
5
18
18
0
14
12
6
9
0
9
24
22
0
7
0
401
*Includes an individual sewer line running to a creek, lake, swamp, etc.;
units with a privy; and other arrangements.
98
In the central and western regions of the county, particularly near the
Interstate 80 and 287 corridors, light industry and campus-like office
complexes (dominated by service-oriented companies such as insurance and
communications) have developed and can be expected to continue to develop.
These campus developments, along with infill development, represent a major
area of recent commercial growth in the county. This type of development
will add additional domestic wastewater flows that pose little change from
a treatability perspective to the operation of a publicly owned treatment
works (POTW).
6.1.4 Projected Future Population
Projected future population by municipality for 1990 and 2000 is shown in
Table 6-3. The 1980 population figures are repeated from Table 6-1 for
reference. For consistency, the future population figures are the same as
~
used in the water supply element of the master plan, except for seven muni-
cipalities as explained below.
The Morris County Planning Board (MCPB) does population estimates by muni-
cipality on a yearly basis as soon as the prior year's Real Property Added
Assessments are available at the County Tax Board. With the completion of
the 1984 estimates by the MCPB, it became obvious that five municipalities
were estimated to have already exceeded the 1990 projections which were
used in the Water Supply Element. In addition, the projections for Mount
Olive Township and Randolph Township appeared excessively high compared to
the 1984 estimates.
Pending completion of new 1990 and 2000 municipal population projections by
the MCPB, it was felt that an adjustment was necessary for the five munici-
palities with undercounted projections as well as for the two municipali-
ties with excessively high projects for both 1990 and 2000.
Table 6-4 shows the population projection adjustments deemed necessary for
a more realistic projection of wastewater flows for 1990 and 2000 for each
of the seven affected municipalities.
99
TABLE 6-3
PROJECTED FUTURE POPULATION BY MUNICIPALITY - 1990 AND 2000
Municipality
Boonton Town
Boonton Township
Butler Borough
Chatham Borough
Chatham Township
Chester Borough
Chester Township
Denville Township
Dover Town
East Hanover Township
Florham Park Borough
Hanover._Townshi p
Harding Township
Jefferson Township
Kinnelon Borough
Lincoln Park Borough
Madison Borough
Mendham Borough
Mendham Township
Mine Hill Township
Montville Township
Morris Plains Borough
Morris Township
Morristown Town
Mountain Lakes Borough
Mount Arlington Borough
Mount Olive Township
Netcong
Parsippany-Troy Hills Twsp
Passaic Township
Pequannock Township
Randolph Township
Riverdale Borough
Rockaway Borough
Rockaway Township
Roxbury Township
Victory Gardens Borough
Washington Township
Wharton Borough
Morris County. Total
1980
Population
8,620
3,273
7,616
8,537
8,883
1,433
5,198
14,380
14,681
9,319
9,359
11,846
3,236
16,413
7. 770
8,806
15,357
4,899
4,488
3,325
14,290
5,305
18,486
16,614
4,153
4,257
18,748
3,557
49,868
7,275
13,776
17,828
2,530
6,852
19,850
18,878
1,043
11,402
5,485
487,630
100
Projected 1990
Population
8,840
3, 720
7,950
8, 770
10,440
1,860
5,880
16' 110
13,460
11,470
11,757
14,080
3,970
17,960
8,560
9,613
15,740
6,510
6,240
3,870
17,650
6,438
21,350
15,240
4,560
4,270
21,896
3, 720
54,980
8,210
14,500
21,434
2,680
7,790
22,300
23,360
1,410
16,534
6,558
461,680
Projected 2000
Population
9,605
4,241
8,640
9,880
11,960
2,080
6,360
18,043
14,537
13,108
13,840
15,600
4,680
20,280
9,820
10,414
16,054
7,332
7,280
4,489
21,709
7,407
24,552
17,160
5,015
4,680
27,010
4,060
57,280
9,360
15,225
24,542
2,840
8,801
24,976
26,941
1,560
21' 134
7 ,505
520,000
Water Supply Element
1990 Projection
Florham Park 9,810
1-'
0
1-'
Lincoln Park 8,770
Morris Plains 5,750
Mt. 01 ive 25,820
Randol ph 24,050
Washington 14,410
Wharton 5,620
Source: MCPB 2/85
TABLE 6-4
REVISIONS TO POPULATION
(Incorporated into Table 6-3)
1990
Revised Water Supply Element
Adjustments Projection 2000 Projection
+ 1, 947 11,757 10,302
+843 9,613 8,980
+688 6,438 6,210
-3,924 21,896 33,210
-2,616 21,434 29,820
+2124 16,534 17,120
+938 6,558 6,210
m
--
Revised
Adjustment Projection
+3,538 13,840
+1 ,434 10,414
+ 1' 197 7,407
-6,200 27,U10
-5,278 24,542
+4,014 21,134
+ 1 '295 7,505
7.0 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT NEEDS
7.1 WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
To accurately assess the wastewater infrastructure needs of Morris County,
a projection of future wastewater flows based on population projections was
performed. Population estimates for the 1983 baseline year were subtracted
from the current official Morris County Planning Board projected population
figures for 1990 and 2000. In this way, the projected new population in-
crements for 1990 and 2000 were determined.
In order to assess treatment plant capacity needs, a standard wastewater
~
flow per capita was developed. The New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) uses a wastewater generation standard of 100 gallons per
capita per day {gpcd). According to the water supply element of the Morris
County Master Plan average consumption of water in Morris County is 113
gpcd. This is a water consumption value and thus includes water uses that
do not enter the sewerage system, such as water distribution system leak-
age, lawn sprinkling and car washing. Therefore, 113 gpcd is not a good
basis for detailed wastewater flow projections. However, it should be
noted that there is a relationship, particularly during the cooler months
of the year, between potable water consumed in a household and the waste-
water generated by the same household.
The NJDEP standard wastewater generation of 100 gpcd is comprised of two
separate components: 65 gpcd actual per capita use and 35 gpcd for nonex-
cessive infiltration and inflow (I/I) (see glossary). The NJDEP standard
per capita figure includes non-residential uses as a proportion of
residential use. The water use figure of 113 gpcd determined in the water
102
supply element, if used in conjunction with the NJDEP assumption of 65 gpcd
actual wastewater flow generation, appears to indicate that water use that
ultimately does not enter the sewerage system amounts to 48 gpcd. This
value is somewhat high.
Based on the socioeconomic characteristics of Morris County, it is
reasonable to assume that per capita wastewater generation is higher than
the State average of 65 gpcd. Therefore a value of 70 gpcd was used for
the 1990 projections and 75 gpcd for the 2000 flow projections. The in-
crease of 5 gpcd from 1990 to 2000 was included to account for the
historical trend of increasing per capita water use. The State uses a
standard figure of 35 gpcd for nonexcessive III. A slightly lower III
figure of 30 gpcd was used for the 1990 wastewater projections. This is
because much of the County's growth has occurred since 1940 and thus much
o f ~ t h e sewerage system is relatively young and, therefore, in relatively
good condition. For the year 2000 projections, an additional 5 gpcd was
added to the III component to account for aging of the sewerage system.
These figures are all in consonance with federal policy for wastewater flow
projections. That policy is that actual wastewater generation is 60-80
gpcd and that a factor of 20-40 gpcd nonexcessive III shall be used (40
CFR, Part 35, Subpart E, App. A). It is appropriate to use the high end ~ f
the federal range given the age and socioeconomic makeup of Morris County's
service areas.
Therefore, the wastewater flow projections for the years 1990 and 2000 are
based on total wastewater flow rates to the treatment plants of 100 gpcd
and 110 gpcd, respectively. Where municipalities have declining popula-
tions, only the actual wastewater generation has been subtracted from the
wastewater quantities. The III component was not reduced for population
loss because the sewerage system remains the same length in feet despite a
reduction of customers.
103
7.1.1. limited Action Scenario Wastewater Flow Projections
The limited action scenario wastewater flow projections were based on the
premise that there will be no fundamental change in the methods of waste-
water management in the County. That is, new sewering will occur only
where it is feasible and cost effective or required by a program currently
underway. Where sewers are not available, future growth will predominantly
occur on individual onsite systems. In short, the limited action flow
projections are based on a continuation of the traditional patterns of
wastewater service in the County. The assumption is that no widespread
action will be taken to mitigate the environmental impact of inappropriate
use of onsite systems.
The limited action scenario wastewater flow projections were computed by
and by treatment facility. The projections were based on:
1. Expectations of municipal officials ( as expressed in the
questionnaires) of where growth will occur in their municipalities.
2. 201 Facilities Plan and 208 Water Quality Management Plan discus-
sions of where sewering would occur were considered, but municipal
officials' expectations were given precedence.
3. Present wastewater service areas were considered in determining
probable new sewering areas.
Tables 7-1 and 7-2 present the sewering assumptions used and the wastewater
flow and sewage treatment plant needs projections. The projections do not
include population growth outside of Morris County that may be accommodated
with Morris County sewerage facilities. These projections assume that most
new sewering wi11 occur where new development occurs. Sewering of existing
populations currently using onsite systems occurs to a minimal extent in
this scenario.
104
The sewering assumptions were used only to estimate new wastewater flows.
Existing (1983) average wastewater flows are accurately known; new flow
estimates were added to this baseline. The proportion of new population
that would be sewered was assigned five basic percentages by municipality:
0, 33, 50, 67, or 90 to 100 percent (table 7-1, columns 1 and 2). The
proportions of flow from new sewering was assigned to the various treatment
plants based on the probable extensions of present service areas and on
present wastewater flow directions (see table 7-1. column 3).
Each of the basic new sewering percentages has a general meaning that
relates to availability and desirability of new sewering:
o 0 percent. Applies to those municipalities where virtually the
entire municipality is at present entirely unsewered and is not
~ readily accessible to an existing sewerage service area. It also
applies to municipalities where essentially all future growth is
expected to be accommodated with onsite systems.
Chester Borough and Township, Harding, Jefferson, Mendham Borough
and Township, Mine Hill, Mt. Arlington, and Riverdale are the
municipalities that fall into this category.
o 33 percent. This percentage applies to municipalities where a
relatively sma11 area or small proportion of the population is
accessible to an existing sewerage system. It also applies to
municipalities where most future growth is expected to occur in
areas relatively remote from sewerage service.
Boonton Township, Kinnelon, Mendham Borough, Mine Hill, Mount
Olive, Randolph, Roxbury, and Washington fall into this category.
105
o 50 percent. Applies to those municipalities which have both major
areas of the municipality accessible to sewerage service and large
relatively undeveloped areas that are isolated from sewerage
service and have historically been served by onsite systems.
About half of the future growth is expected to occur in areas
readily accessible to sewer service.
Municipalities that can be categorized in this way are Montville,
Passaic, Pequannock, and Rockaway Township.
o 67 percent. Applies to municipalities where the majority of the
expected growth is likely to be served by sewers. There are areas
in the municipality isolated from sewerage service, but growth in
these areas is expected to be less than that near the sewered
areas.
The municipalities in this category are Boonton Town and Denville.
o 90 to 100 percent. These municipalities are currently largely
sewered and nearly all the municipality is accessible to the
sewerage system. However, even in the more completely sewered
municipalities there remain individual lots or small areas that
are still isolated from sewerage service. A figure of 95 percent
was used for the flow projection computations.
Municipalities in this category are Butler, Chatham, Chatham
Township, Dover, East Hanover, Florham Park, Lincoln Park,
Madison, Morris Plains, Morristown, Mountain Lakes, Netcong,
Parsipanny-Troy Hills, Rockaway Borough, Victory Gardens and
Wharton.
106
Examole Use of Tables 7-1 and 7-2
For example, consider the case of Boonton Town. It is estimated that the
proportion of new population expected to use sewers is 67 percent. This
factor is applied to the expected population growth, i.e., the difference
between the projected 1990 population and the 1983 baseline population.
This is how the the column labeled
11
Sewered Proportion 1990
11
in Table 7-2
is derived. Next, the result of this column is multiplied by the approp-
riate per capita wastewater flow of 100 gpd. In the case of Boonton Town:
(8840 persons in 1990 - 8540 persons in 1983) = 300 persons
300 persons x 0.67 = 201 persons
2 0 ~ persons x 100 gal./cap./day = 20,100 gpd
This flow, along with the flows from the other municipalities, for which
flows will be received at the RVRSA treatment plant (table 7-1, column 3),
are then added to the 1983 average daily flow to derive the projected 1990
flow at the affected treatment plant. The difference between this number
and the 1983 permit flow is the projected needs of the treatment plant. If
the number is negative, the table shows zero. Returning to the example of
Boonton Town, 100 percent of this municipa1ity
1
S wastewater flows to the
Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority Plant. These new wastewater
flows of Boonton Town and other municipalities using this facility boosts
the total flow of 495,742 gpd over 1983 to a total of 8,495,742 gpd in
1990. A similar methodology can be followed for year 2000 projections.
107
7.1.2 Environmental Action Scenario Wastewater Flow Projections
These projections show the effects on wastewater treatment needs if a con-
certed effort were made to address water quality problems caused by onsite
systems by reducing the number of onsite systems through sewering. The
purpose of these projections is to show the effect such a scenario would
have on the treatment plants in the county. The flow projections are shown
in table 7-3.
The development of these wastewater projections is based largely on the
methodology developed for the limited-action wastewater projections. Where
the municipal sewering assumptions and expectations developed for the
limited action scenario did not portend excessive nutrient buildup in sur-
face and groundwaters and an excessive level of onsite system failures, the
s a ~ e assumptions were used for these projections. Where the limited action
scenario did not address water quality problems in a municipality, a
different set of sewering assumptions were used, as described in the
following two paragraphs.
In municipalities that are contributing to surface water pollution in
significant quantities, it was assumed that 25 percent of the total 1990
population would be sewered and that 35 percent of the year 2000 population
would be sewered. The three municipalities included in this category are
Harding, Jefferson and Mt. Arlington. This methodology assumes that an
interceptor sewer is constructed from Mt. Arlington to the existing
Musconetcong Sewerage Authority Plant as recommended in the 1974
Supplemental Report to the Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Element of the
County Master Plan. The 25 percent sewered 1990 population was selected
because that percentage would reduce the population using onsite systems to
a level close to that which existed at the time of the 1970 census. It was
in the early 1970s that it was recognized (e.g., the 1974 Supplemental
Report) that continued use of onsite systems could create a future pollu-
tion problem, though no major problem existed then. By sewering 35
108
TABLE 7-1
LIMITED ACTION SCENARIO WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
FUTURE SEWERING ASSUMPTIONS
Municipality
Boonton Town
Boonton Twp
Butler
Chatham Boro
Chatham Twp
Chester Boro
Chester Twp
Denville
Dover
East Hanover
Hanover
Harding
Jefferson
A,
Kinnelon
Lincoln Park
Madison
Mendham Boro
Mendham Twp
Mine Hill
Montville
Morris Plains
Morris Twp
Morristown
Mount Arlington
Mountain Lakes
Mount 01 ive
Netcong
Parsippany-Troy Hills
Passaic Twp
Pequannock
Randolph
Riverdale
Rockaway Boro
Rockaway Twp
Roxbury
Victory Gardens
Washington Twp
Wharton
(326/4)
Proportion of
New Population
With Sewers
67 percent
33 percent
90-100 percent
90-100 percent
90-100 percent
0 percent
0 percent
67 percent
90-100 percent
90-100 percent
90-100 percent
0 percent
0 percent
33 percent
90-100 percent
90-100 percent
33 percent
0 percent
0 percent
50 percent
90-100 percent
67 percent
90-100 percent
0 percent
90-100 percent
33 percent
90-100 percent
90-100 percent
50 percent
50 percent
33 percent
0 percent
90-100 percent
50 percent
33 percent
90-100 percent
33 percent
90-100 percent
109
Proportion of
New Seweri ng-
Receiving Treatment Plant
100 percent RVRSA
100 percent RVRSA
100 percent Butler-
Bloomindale JM
100 percent MCJM
25 percent MCJM
75 percent Chatham Twp
100 percent RVRSA
100 percent RVRSA
100 percent PTHSA
100 percent Hanover SA
100 percent Butler-Bloomingdale
100 percent TBSA
100 percent MCJM
100 percent Mendham STP
100 percent PTHSA
100 percent Marris-Butterworth
5 percent Morristown
5 percent Hanover
40 percent Morris-Woodland
50 percent Marris-Butterworth
100 percent Morristown
100 percent PTHSA
33 percent Mt. Olive
67 percent Musconetcong SA
100 percent Musconetcong SA
100 percent PTHSA
100 percent Passaic Twp
100 percent TBSA
100 percent RVRSA
100 percent RVRSA
100 percent RVRSA
100 percent Roxbury-Ajax & Skyview
100 percent RVRSA
90 percent Washington Twp MUA
10 percent Hackettstown MUA
100 percent RVRSA

BOONTON TOWN
BOONTON TOWNSHIP
BUTLER
CHATHAM BOROUGH
CHATHAM TOWNSHIP
CHESTER BOROUGH
CHESTER TOWNSHIP
DENVILLE
DOVER
EAST HANOVER
FLORHAM PARK
HANOVER
HARDING
JEFFERSON
KINNELON
LINCOLN PARK
MADISON
MENDHAM BOROUGH
MENDHAM TOWNSHIP
MINE HILL
MONTVILLE
MORRIS PLAINS .,
MORRIS TOWNSHIP
MORRISTOWN
MOUNTAIN LAKES
MOUNT ARLINGTON
MOUNT OLIVE
NETCONG
PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS
PASSAIC
PEQUANNOCK
RANDOLPH
RIVERDALE
ROCKAWAY BOROUGH
ROCI<AWAY TOWNSHIP
ROXBURY
VICTORY GARDENS
WASHINGTON
WHARTON
TOTALS
FACILITY
PASSAIC TWP SA
CHATHAM TWP PCP
MADISON-CHATHAM ._IM
FLORHAM SA
MORRIS-WOODLAND
MORRIS-BUTTERWORTH
MORRISTOWN STP
HANOVER SA
PARSIPF'ANY-TROY HILLS SA
ROO:AWAY VALLEY RSA
TWO BRIDGES SA
BUTLER-BLOOMINGDALE
ROXBURY-AJAX
ROXBURY-SKYVIEW
MT. OLIVE TOWNSHIP
WASHINGTON TWP MUA
MENDHAM BOROUGH
MUSCONETCONG SA
HACKETT!3TOWN MUA
._IEFFER!O:ON TWP MUA
TOTALS
TABLE 7-2
LIMITED ACTION SCENARIO
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
BASELINE
POPULATION
198:::
(Pel"'sonsl
8.540
3.370
7.450
8.390
8.880
1.430
5.290

14.760
9.680
10.550
11.970
3.460
16.380
7,900
8.670
15.280
5.090
4.580
3.330
14.620
5.730
19.550
16.320
4,130
4.200
19.380
3.420
50.760
7.350
13.530
18.390
2.480
6.790
19,570
19,440
1.050
12.890
5.950
414.770
AVERAGE
FLOW
1983
(SPd)
650,000
900.000
3 .. 3201000
:360.000
1.500,(100
1.630,000
2.600.000
1.860.000
9.700.000
s.ooo.ooo
2.250.000
1.400.000
1.260.000
78.000
370.000
270.000
360.000
980.000
1.480.000
129.000
39.597.000
PRO.JECTED
POPULATION
1990
(Per-sons)
S,840
3,720
7.950
8.770
10,440
1.860
5.880
16.110
13.460
11.470
11.757
14.080
3.970
17,960
8.560
9.613
15.740
6.510
C,,240
3.870
17.650
6.438
21.350
15.24(1
4.560
4.270
21.896
3.720
54.980
8.210
14.500
21.434
2.680
7.790
22.,300
23.360
1.410
16.534
6.558
461.680
PERMIT
FLOW
1983
(SPd)
650.000
750.000
4,ooo,ooo
t.ooo.ooo
2.000.000
2.ooo.ooo
3.450.000
3.ooo.ooo
tc..ooo,ooo
12.000,000
7.500.000
1.400.000
1.000,000
80,000
700.000
500.00(1
400.000
t.ooo.ooo
1.650.000
129.000
59.209,000
SEWERED
PROPORTION
1990
( Pel"'sors l
201
115
475
361
1.482
0
0
1 .2bb
-1,235
1.701
1.147
2.005
0
0
218
896
437
469
0
0
1.515
b73
1, 206
-1.026
409
0
830
285
4.009
430
485
1.005
0
950
1.365
1,294
342
1.203
578
25.087
PRO..JECTED
FLOW
1990
(!!Pd)
69:;:,ooo
1.011.150
3.436.850
974.6b5
1.548.240
1.690.300
2.534.210
2.066.480
11.044.100
8.495.742
2.388.085
1.469.280
1 '376, 424
90.936
397.399
378.227
406.860
1 .064.129
1.492.025
129.000
42.b87.102
110
NEW
FLOWS
1990
(SPd)
20, 100
11.550
47.500
36.100
148.200
0
0
126.630
-86.450
750.850
114.665
200.450
0
0
21.780
99.,585
43.700
4b.860
0
0
151' 500
67.260
120.600
-71' 820
40.850
0
83.028
28.500
400.900
43.000
48.500
100.452
0
95,(100
136.500
129.360
34.200
120.252
57.700
PROJECTED
NEEDS
1990
(Spd)
43.000
261.150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69.280
376.424
10.936
0
0
6.860
64.129
0
0
831.779
PROJECTED
F'OPULA TI ON
2000
<Pel"'sonsl
9.606
4.241
8.640
9.880
11,960
2.080
6.36(l
18.043
14.537
13.108
13.840
15.600
4.b80
20.280
9.820
10.414
16.054
7.332
7.280
4.489
21.709
7.407
24.552
17.160
5.015
4.680
27.010
4.060
57.279
9.360
15.225
24.542
2.840
8.801
24.976
26.941
1.560
21.134
7.505
520.000
SEWERED
PROPORTION
2000
<Personsl
714
287
1.131
1.415
2.926
0
(l
2.561
-212
3?257
3.125
3,448
0
0
b34
1.657
735
740
0
(l
3,545
1,593

79:3
841
(l
2.518
608
6,193
1.005
847
2.030
0
1.910
2,703
2.475
484
2.721
1.555
57,598
PRO.JECTED
FLOW
2000
(Spd)
760.550
1' 141,395
3.637,053
1.203.805
1.647.459
1.814.324
2.706.212
2.257.767
11.860.719
9.423.672
2,525,473
1.594.051
1.505.058
105,229
461.400
539.331
441' 385
1.232,449
1,509,926
129,000
46.496,258
NEW
FLOW!O;
2000
(!lPd)
78.564
31.617
124'1355
155,705
321,860
0
(l
281,755
-15.889
997.106
343,805
379,335
0
0
69,696
182,248
80,883
81' 3:35
0
(l
389,895
175.246
368,647
87,780
92,482
0
276.969
66,880
681,235
110,550
93,225
223.318
(l
210,149
297,330
272.286
53.295
299,257
171,050
PRO.JECTED
NEEDS
2000
(SPd)
110,550
391,395
0
203,805
(l
0
0
0
0
0
0
194.051
505,058
25,229
0
39'1331
41,385
232,449
(l
0
1.743.253
MUNICIPALITY
BOONTON TOWN
BOONTON TOWNSHIP
BUTLER
CHATHAM BOROUGH
CHATHAM TOWNSHIP
CHESTER BOROUGH
CHESTER TOWNSHIP
DENVILLE
DOVER
EAST HANOVER
FLORHAM PARK
HANOVER
HARD INC<
.JEFFERSON
KINNELON
LINCOLN PARK
MADISON
MENDHAM BOROUGH
MENDHAM TOWNSHIP
MINE HILL
MONTVILLE
MORRIS PLAINS
MORRIS TOWNSHIP
MORRISTOWN
MOUNTAIN LAKES
MOUNT ARLINGTON
MOUNT OLIVE
NETCONG
PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS
PASSAIC
PEQUANNOCK
RANDOLPH
RIVERDALE
ROCKAWAY BOROUGH
ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP
ROXBURY
VICTORY GARDENS
WASHINGTON
WHARTON
TOTALS
FACILITY
PASS:A I C TWP SA
CHATHAM TWP PCP
MADISON-CHATHAM ,JM
FLORHAM SA
MORRIS-WOODLAND
MORRIS-BUTTERWORTH
MORRISTOWN STP
HANOVER SA
PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS SA
ROCKAWAY VALLEY RSA
TWO BRIDGES SA
BUTLER-BLOOMINGDALE .JM
ROXBURY-A.JAX
ROXBURY-SKYVIEW
MT. OLIVE TOWNSHIP
WASHINGTON TWP MUA
MENDHAM BOROUGH
MUSCONETCONG SA
HACKETTSTOWN MUA
TWP
TOTALS
TABLE 7-3
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION SCENARIO
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
BASELINE
POPULATION
1983
<Pers-ons)
8.540
3.370
7.450
8,390
8.880
1.430
5.290
14.220
14.760
9.680
10.550
11.970
3.460
16.380
7.900
8.670
15,280
5.090
4.580
3.330
14.620
5.730
19.550
16.320
4.130
4.200
19.380
3.420
50.760
7.350
13.530
18.390
2.480
6.790
19.570
19.440
1.050
12.890
5.950
414.770
AVERAGE
FLOW
1983
(!!pd)
650.000
900,000
3.320.000
860.000
1.500.000
1, 630.000
2.600.000
1.860,000
9.700.000
8.ooo.ooo
2.250.000
1,400.000
1.260.000
78.000
370.000
270,000
360.000
980.000
1.480.000
129.000
39.597.000
PROJECTED
POPULATION
1990
<Persons)
8.840
3.720
7.950
8.770
10.440
1.860
5 .. 880
16.110
13.460
11 '470
11.757
14.080
3.970
17.960
8.560
9.613
15.740
6.510
6.240
3.870
17.650
6.438
21.350
15,240
4.560
4.270
21.896
3.720
54.980
8.210
14.500
21.434
2.680
7.790
22.300
23.360
1.410
16.534
6.558
461.680
PERMIT
FLOW
1983
(!!pd)
650.000
750,000
4.000.000
1.000.000
2.000.000
2.ooo.ooo
3.450.000
3.000.000
16.000.000
12.000.000
7.500.000
1.400.000
1.000.000
80.000
700.000
500,000
400.000
1.000.000
1.650.000
129,000
59.209.000
SEWERED
PROPORTION
1990
<Persons)
201
115
475
361
1.482
0
0
1.266
-1 .. 235
1.701
1.147
2.005
993
4,490
218
896
437
469
0
0
1.515
673
1.206
-1' 026
409
1.067
2.516
285
4.009
430
485
1' 005
0
950
1,365
3.920
342
3.644
578
38.391
PROJECTED
FLOW
1990
(!!Pd)
693.000
1.011.150
3.436.850
974.665
1.647.490
110789,550
2 .. 534,210
2.066.480
11' 044. 100
8.495.742
2.388.085
1.469,280
1.612.800
117.200
453.028
597.960
406.860
1.177.072
1.516.440
241,250
111
NEW
FLOWS
1990
(!!Pd}
20. 100
11.550
47.500
36. 100
148,200
0
0
126.630
-86.450
750.850
114.665
200,450
99.250
449.000
21.780
89.585
43.700
46.860
0
0
151.500
67.260
120.600
-71.820
40.850
106.750
251.600
28.500
400,900
43.000
48.500
100.452
0
95.000
136.500
392.000
34.200
364.400
57.760
4.487.722
PROJECTED
NEEDS
1990
(!!Pd}
43.000
261.150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69.280
612.800
37.200
0
97.960
6.860
177,072
0
112.250
1.417.572
PRO.JECTED
POPULATION
2000
<Per-sonsl
9.606
4,241
8.640
9.880
11.960
2,080
6.360
18.043
14.537
13. 108
13,840
15.600
4.680
20.280
9.820
10.414
16.054
7,332
7.280
4,489
21,709
7.407
24.552
17.160
5.015
4.680
27.010
4.060
57.279
9.360
15.225
24.542
2.840
8.801
24.976
26,941
1, 560
21.134
7.505
520.000
SEWERED
PROPORTION
2000
<Persons)
714
287
1. 131
1.415
2.92(:.
0
(I
2,561
-212
3,257
3., 125
3.44<::
1.,638
7.098
634
1.657
735
740
0
0
3,545
1, 59:3
79E:
841
1.638
7.630
608
6,193
1.005
847
2.030
(l
1.910
2.703
7.501
484
8,244
1.,555
83.632:

FLOW
2000
(!!pd)
760,550
1 ._141, 395
3.637.053
1.203.805
1.827.639
1.994.504
2,706,212
2.257,767
11,860.719
9.423.672
2,525,473
1 '594, 051
2.002.599
160,511
646.969
1, 086, 156
441.385
1.609,211
1.570,684
324,195
48,774.550
NEW
FLOWS
20C>O
(!!Pd)
78.564
31.617
124.355
155,705
321,860
0
(l
281,755
-15,889
997, 106

379,335
180. 180
780,780
69.696
182,24:3
80.883
81,385
0
0
389,895
175.246
368.647
87,780
92.482
180.180
839.300
66.880
681.235
110.550
93,225
223, 31E:
0
210.149
297.330
825.110
53,295
906.840
171.050

NEEDS
2000
(!!Pd)
110.550
::.::91.395
(l
203,S05
(l
0
0
0
(l
(l
0
194.051
1.,002.,599
80,511
0
586.156
41,385
609.211
0
195,195
3,414,858
percent of the year 2000 population, the population using onsite systems
would be set at the 1970 level. The concept is that by returning the pop-
ulation using onsite systems to a level prior to documented environmental
degradation, the eutrophic status of the Musconetcong basin
1
s surface
waters may improve.
In municipalities that are experiencing septic tank failure because of un-
suitable soils or overly high housing densities, it was assumed that an
equivalent of the additional population would be sewered in the future.
The municipalities in this category are Roxbury, Mt. Olive and Washington
townships. Most of the soils in these municipalities are rated as having
severe limitations for septic systems. Thus, it was assumed that new
development, particularly where situated on severe soils, would use some
type of wastewater collection and treatment systems. It was also assumed
that some existing onsite systems would be phased out in favor of collec-
tion and treatment. But this conversion from onsite systems would be off-
set by new development which, with proper design and location, would use
onsite systems. Therefore, the net effect is that the equivalent of all
new population growth would be sewered.
7.2 Wastewater Infrastructure Needs
The wastewater projections developed for the two scenarios give an indica-
tion of the future wastewater treatment needs of Morris County. For each
of the milestone years (1990 and 2000), the projected new flows were added
to the 1983 average daily flow of the existing facilities and then compared
to the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permitted
flow. If the projected flow exceeded the 1983 permit flow for 1990 and
2000, the difference is shown as treatment capacity needs. By looking at
the columns labeled "Needs 1990
11
and "Needs 2000
11
one can draw some basic
conclusions about sewerage needs in Morris County:
o Given the projected population growth of Morris County,
sewage treatment plant needs are greatest in the western and
southern portions of the County.
112
o Treatment plant capacities in the developed central and
eastern areas of Morris County appear adequate through the
year 2000.
o There are large differences between the needs estimates when
water quality concerns are seriously addressed (environmental
action scenario) and when the traditional pattern of sewering
and onsite systems prevails (limited action scenario).
The limited action scenario wastewater projections show the effects of
providing wastewater treatment only to those types of areas that
traditionally have been sewered to provide for growth. In areas where the
treatment needs exceed permit capacities, growth may have to be constrained
(e.g. by a state-imposed sewer construction ban). In the case of the
environmental action scenario the treatment plant constraints are exhibited
to an even greater degree.
It must be stressed that the needs assessments included in this chapter a r ~
only an estimate and that use of any of these flow projections for design
purposes is not recommended. The projections are useful as a guide to
which treatment plants in the county will need additional facilities to
handle projected growth in their service area.
7.3 FINANCIAL FACTORS
Because of decreased federal funding for sewerage construction, along with
the high interest rates of recent years, the capital required to meet
sewerage needs has been difficult to obtain. The following sections are
meant to serve as a guide for wastewater planners interested in knowing
what sources of capital to pursue.
113
7.3.1 Federal Funding
Under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 and its amendments of 1981
federal grants are provided for 55 percent of the cost to construct a
wastewater treatment facility project plus an allowance for planning and
design based upon a percentage of the construction cost. For plans which
involve what is certified as an
11
innovative
11
or "alternative
11
project, an
additional 20 percent funding is available. Projects are eligible for
funding on a priority basis based upon criteria of demonstrated need in-
cluding: affected population, water quality impacts, water body uses, etc.
There are separate priority lists for conventional and innovative and
alternative projects. The present authorizations in New Jersey are at an
average annual rate of less than half the funding levels previous to the
11
Municipa1 Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Amendments of 1981
11
:
Fiscal year 1982 - $85 million
Fiscal year 1983- $100 million
Fiscal year 1984 - $100 million
Fiscal year 1985- $100 million
NJDEP estimates that less than one-fifth of the needed projects can be
constructed with the monies that have been authorized for the State
1
S
Construction Grants Program. Because of both the reduced federal share
percentages and reduced overall funding of the federal Wastewater Con-
struction Grants program, few projects can be funded in any given year;
this limitation is particularly acute in New Jersey. No applications for
funding were granted for any project in Morris County in fiscal 1984.
NJDEP policy is to give existing facilities priority over the construction
of new facilities.
114
7.3.2 State Funding
In conjunction with the federal construction grants program, NJDEP tradi-
tionally supplements the federal grant with a grant for an additional 8
percent of the project costs. The monies for these grants come from funds
authorized through the Water Conservation Bond Act of 1969 and the Natural
Resources Bond Act of 1980. A loan program may be instituted to conserve
the remaining funds in these bond issues.
It is possible that in the future the State Legislature and the Governor
1
S
Office will reach an agreement on the proposed New Jersey Infrastructure
Bank (NJIB). The NJIB will likely include an aid program for sewerage pro-
jects, in addition to proposed highway, bridge and mass transportation
provisions. The present proposal being considered for the NJIB would
establish low or no interest loans instead of grants for some share of pro-
ject costs. The NJIB would be funded by setting aside a small portion of
the federal grants to be given to the State over the next several years for
these loans. As the loans are repaid, these funds cGuld, therefore, be re-
used.
Another possible future source of regional funding is the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey's (PA) proposed Bank for Regional Development. As
proposed at this writing, this fund would provide monies to the greater New
York region in the form of grants and loans for sewers, roads and bridges.
The Governors of New York and New Jersey would each prepare a priority list
of those infrastructure projects that they deem qualified for funding. The
Port Authority, for planning purposes, considers all of Morris County under
its area of Therefore, any municipality in Morris County would
likely be considered for funding from this Bank.
115
7.3.3 Local Funding
The predominant method by which authorities and municipalities raise capi-
tal funds to either fund that portion of a project not covered by outside
monies or to fund an entire project independently is through interest bear-
ing tax-exempt bonds. The interest rate issued on a municipal bond is re-
lated roughly to the level of risk involved in the holding of the bond.
The risk is a measure of a municipality's ability to take on additional
debt without experiencing cash-flow, solvency or other financial problems.
Moody's is a firm that contracts with various public and private institu-
tions to perform a sophisticated rating of the entity's ability to take on
debt.
Moody's listings are rated by letters which correspond to the following
descriptions:
Rating
Aaa to Aa
A to Baa
Ba to B
Caa to D
Description
High Quality
Investment Grade
Substandard
Speculative
The 1984 Moody's listings for those municipalities and authorities in
Morris County that contracted with Moody's are listed in table 7-4.
As for sources of operating revenue, authorities and municipalities collect
these monies via a sewer use tax or a user charge system. These funds are
applied toward the retirement of debt, the maintenance costs of sewerage
systems, and toward operations and administrative personnel. They are
usually assessed on a per user basis, i.e., each home, industry, or com-
mercial establishment pays for use of sewage collection and treatment
facilities. These taxes are are assessed by various methods. The ad
116
TABLE 7-4
MOODY'S RATINGS FOR MUNICIPALITIES AND AUTHORITIES
IN MORRIS COUNTY
Entity
County of Morris
Town of Boonton
But1 er Borough
Chatham Borough
Chatham Township
Denville Township
Dover Town
Florham Park Borough
Florham Park Sewerage Authority
Hanover Sewerage Authority
Morris Plains
Morris Township
Morristown
Mount Olive Township
Netcong
Parsipanny-Troy Hills Township
Randolph Township
Rockaway Township
1984
Rockaway Valley Sewerage Authority
Roxbury Township
Washington Township
Wharton
Source: Moody's Bond Record, November 1984
117
Rating
Aaa
A
A
A a
Aal
Al
Aaa
Aal
Baa
A
A a
Aal
A a
A
Baa
Al
Al
A
Aaa
A
A
A
valorem tax is based on actual flow from an establishment to the treatment
plant. A per fixture charge assesses a fee for each sink, shower, commode
or other drain. There are also flat tax systems that simply charge the
same amount for each house and/or apartment in a sewerage district.
Whatever sewer use tax system is used in New Jersey, it must receive the
approval of NJDEP. As part of the 201 process, sewer use taxes are to be
separated from the local property taxes to facilitate sewerage costs
accounting.
Another strategy for raising the necessary revenue for sewage treatment
plant construction is through the use of connection charges. A sewage
authority's regulations can include the requirement that any new connec-
tions to the sewerage system pay a fee into an escrow account. This
account could then be used at a later time to help finance capital costs
for the expansion or upgrading of the treatment facilities, as required.
7.3.4 Privatization
The financial resources of municipalities and authorities to meet their
capital needs from traditional public sources has been decreasing in part
because of the changes in the USEPA construction grants regulations and its
level of funding. Therefore, many organizations are taking advantage of
the private sector's financial leverage to meet the public need for waste-
water treatment.
The processes by which these institutional relationships can be achieved is
called, generally, privatization. Privatization can take several forms.
Private firms can be engaged to finance, design, and construct wastewater
facilities with some type of purchase or leaseback arrangement with the
municipality, following construction completion. Another approach can
involve private firms operating facilities in exchange for a service fee.
These firms can implement the entire set of activities involved:
financing, design, construction and operation. In the absence of grant
118
funding, a properly structured privatization scheme may be the most cost-
effective alternative available to a community. During construction, it is
estimated that approximately 20 percent savings can be realized, along with
a tighter project schedule, because State and federal construction and
procurement regulations are avoided. By bringing private sector tax bene-
fits to bear, approaches can be structured in a cost-effective fashion.
Though privatization may not be best for every municipality, it does offer
benefits in certain cases. In New Jersey, a number of municipalities are
attempting to implement privatization plans. Two municipalities of note
are Camden and Bayonne. Also, legislation has been signed by the Governor
(1985) establishing a comprehensive state procedure for authorizing local
government units to execute long-term contracts with private-sector firms
for the financing, design, construction and operation of wastewater treat-
ment systems.
119
8.0 ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
This chapter identifies and evaluates wastewater management alternatives to
conventional onsite septic systems for the areas of Morris County that are
not currently sewered to a conventional centralized wastewater treatment
plant nor are expected to be in the next ten to fifteen years. The dis-
cussion relates appropriate wastewater system alternatives to such key
elements as soil conditions, groundwater quality, surface water quality and
residential density. The intent is to provide a basis for incorporating
wastewater management opportunities and constraints in land use development
policies.
Section 8.1 discusses onsite treatment and disposal alternatives to conven-
tional septic systems and their relationship to soil conditions and other
criteria. Section 8.2 addresses sewage collection and conveyance alterna-
tives to conventional gravity sewers. Alternative wastewater management
strategies that do not fit the categories in sections 8.1 and 8.2 are
covered in section 8.3, while section 8.4 is devoted to package treatment
plants. Finally, section 8.5 provides a summary of the alternative
wastewater technologies and their applicability to Morris County's
municipalities.
8.1 ALTERNATIVE ONSITE SYSTEMS
Alternative onsite systems use technologies that, though well-proven, are
not widely used. The reasons they are not used but should be used are
many. Generally, the reasons stem from a lack of awareness on the part of
involved parties when planning for wastewater disposal.
120
Each alternative system presented below represents a greater investment
over conventional septic systems. However, alternative onsite systems can
be cost-effective treatment options in areas where centralized collection
and treatment are not feasible. When soil suitability, housing density or
the threat of groundwater pollution make conventional septic systems en-
vironmentally undesirable, some special engineering may be required to
implement an alternative system.
Possible engineering technologies may include the following: excavation
and backfill with suitable soil, which regulates the percolation rate to
achieve adequate filtration; oversize or double leaching fields to increase
treatment surface area and therefore treatment capability; and adjusting
the depth of beds and trenches.
It should be kept in mind that in areas experiencing groundwater pollution
related to the use of septic systems, continued reliance on onsite systems
may not be desirable. Though specially engineered onsite systems do
pollute less, their most notable aspect is that their effluent is dis-
charged to groundwater. Therefore, when groundwater pollution induced by
onsite systems is already severe, the use of alternative onsite systems may
not be recommended. No matter how well designed an onsite system is, it
will contribute some pollution to groundwater.
8.1.1 Modified Dosing Tanks
This alternative septic system involves a pump or siphon which forces
liquid by pressure to the perforated pipes in controlled doses. The liquid
is spread more evenly over time and gives the leaching field a chance to
dry out between dosings. This results in more effective treatment. Sludge
must be periodically pumped and disposed of.
121
This type of system is advantageous in areas where soils are marginally
suitable or where there is a low level of septic system-associated ground-
water pollution. Municipalities where use of this system may be considered
are:
Jefferson Township
Kinnelon Borough
Mount Olive Township
Rockaway Township
Roxbury Township
Washington Township
8.1.2 Alternate Fields
Under this type of system two separate leaching fields are constructed.
One field is in operation and the other functions as a standby field in
case of oversaturation. This system includes a valve box to direct sewage
to the operating field. The alternative field method is effective if
fields are switched every 6 to 12 months allowing a field to renew itself
and thereby extending its useful life.
The implementation of a second field results in higher construction costs
and greater space requirements. Routine maintenance is necessary, as with
traditional septic systems.
This type of system is best suited to areas with moderate soil limitations
for onsite systems. Municipalities that could benefit from use of this
technology are those where onsite system failures due to unsuitable soils
are prevalent. Mount Olive, Roxbury and Washington Townships fall under
this category.
122
8.1.3 Mound Systems
Adequate filtration of wastewater may not be possible in areas where soils
are tight or rocky or where there is a high water table. To achieve
adequate treatment of the wastewater, additional soil of greater
suitability is formed into a mound for greater vertical and lateral
filtration. Wastewater is pumped from the septic tank to an absorption
field inside the mound.
This method can be adjusted to fit the needs of the site by varying the
amount and type of soil filtering the wastewater. The construction costs
of mound systems are high because of sand fill and topsoil requirements as
well as additional pump capacity (if a gravity system is not possible), but
they have been demonstrated to be effective.
Mound systems are more suited to areas where soil limitations border on the
severe. Because mound system construction costs are high, this system
should be considered only when other systems are not-practical. Municipal-
ities where soils are generally of poor suitability for onsite systems are
the best candidates for this alternative. These include Mount Olive,
Roxbury, and Washington Townships.
8.1.4 Combined Septic Systems
Combined or cluster septic systems provide one large disposal system for
several homes. Wastewater is collected in a large, common septic tank,
then distributed into the soil through a common absorption field.
Alternatively, homes can have individual onsite septic tanks leading to a
common absorption field.
A system of this type should be designed specifically for individual sites
because the soil conditions, dwelling unit density, and absorption field
size required may vary among sites. They are effective for areas where
only portions of the site are suitable for onsite systems or where
centralized treatment and disposal is not available.
123
This system is best suited where soil limitations are variable. Wastewater
system capital costs per dwelling unit in a development can be controlled
by use of combined septic systems. In a typical application, a combined
septic system could be installed on an isolated portion of a site with
suitable soils. Municipalities where combined systems may be appropriate
for use include:
Boonton Township
Chester Borough
Chester Township
Jefferson Township
Mendham Township
Randolph Township
Rockaway Township
These municipalities generally do not currently have widespread onsite
system problems, either from septic system failures or groundwater po11u-
tfon, and also are relatively inaccessible to traditional sewerage systems.
8.1.5 Dual Systems: Blackwater and Graywater
Household waste can be categorized as graywater (laundry, showers, kitchen)
and blackwater (toilet). Separate treatment of black and graywater may
alleviate treatment problems in areas where, because of unsuitable soils or
insufficient area, conventional septic systems cannot be used. The area
required for final disposal is reduced significantly by separate treatment.
Graywater is treated by a septic tank and leaching field. The reduced
volume and solids content requires a system as much as 50 percent smaller
than that required for a system handling graywater and blackwater combined.
124
The blackwater can be treated by several techniques including incinerator
toilets, chemical toilets, recycle toilets and composting toilets. The
purpose of these systems is to dispose of household wastes with little or
no water being used. Proper maintenance of these systems is essential.
The waste solids are contained in a limited area and should be disposed of
separately. Although this alternative strategy is effective, it has not
gained full public support.
Dual systems are not suitable for year-round homes because of their
relative inconvenience compared to more traditional systems and their
inability to handle large volumes of wastewater with high solids content.
Generally, large volumes of low solids content wastewater or small volumes
of high solids content wastewater can be accommodated. The typical summer
home near Lake Hopatcong, for example, would be a logical candidate for
this technology.
8.1.6 Evapotranspiration Beds
Evapotranspiration beds are used along with septic or aerobic tanks to
transport effluent to the air by the processes of evaporation and trans-
piration. Evapotranspiration (ET) disposal systems are primarily used
where geological limitations do not permit subsurface disposal or where
discharge to surface waters is neither permitted nor feasible.
Favorable geological conditions for ET systems include very shallow soil
mantle, high groundwater, relatively impermeable soils, or fractured
bedrock. Onsite ET disposal consists of a sand bed with a liner of plastic
or other waterproof material and wastewater distribution piping. The
surface of the bed may be planted with vegetation such as grasses, alfalfa,
broad-leaf trees and evergreens.
An evapotranspiration bed functions by ra1s1ng the wastewater to the upper
portion of the sand bed by capillary action, and then evaporating it to the
atmosphere. Vegetation also transports water from the root zone to the
leaves, where it is transpired.
125
This type of system, coupled with the use of a fill material. can be
effective where soils are quite marginal for onsite systems. ET systems
are generally used where slowly permeable soils are encountered. The
system is considered useful for year-round homes in arid or semi-arid
regions of the country. In temperate climates such as Morris County,
precipitation tends to saturate the ET bed. Nonetheless, ET systems may be
feasible for some of the summer homes near Lake Hopatcong, for example.
8.1.7 Holding Tank
In a holding tank system, household wastewater flows to a large, under-
ground, watertight storage tank. The tank is pumped regularly and the
sewage is hauled away in trucks for treatment and disposal.
Although this method is well demonstrated and effective, pumping and
hauling costs are high and a treatment plant or land application site must
be available. Hauling as a transport alternative is best suited for
isolated or remote areas with no onsite disposal alternatives. Although a
holding tank may be appropriate for a summer home, year-round residences
are better served by longer term, less costly methods.
8.1.8 Application of Environmental Criteria to the Evaluation of Onsite
Systems
Important to the evaluation of suitability for conventional onsite septic
systems and the need for alternative onsite systems such as those described
in the preceding sections are such criteria as soil conditions, surface
water quality (and State surface water classifications), residential den-
sity, and environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, floodplains, aquifer
recharge zones). Some criteria (wetlands, for example) are so restrictive
that no onsite systems can be considered suitable. Thus, this section
focuses on the critical criteria of soil condition, water quality and
housing density in order to evaluate the suitability of the identified
onsite wastewater management alternatives.
126
8.1.8.1 Soil Limitations Matrix
Land planners, municipal officials, developers, and owners and users of
land must be aware of the limitations of various soil types for use as
conventional septic tank absorption fields.
As discussed in section 4.4, the Soil Conservation Service uses three
criteria in rating soil limitations for septic tank absorption fields:
slight, moderate, and severe. Slight rated soils are those with char-
acteristics that are favorable for the rated use with only minor limita-
tions. Soils rated moderate exhibit some unfavorable characteristics.
These unfavorable characteristics impose requirements of careful planning,
design, construction, and management. A severe rating indicates highly
unfavorable characteristics. These unfavorable characteristics are
extremely difficult to correct without extensive engineering.
Table 8-1 relates soil limitations and residential lot size with suitable
alternative onsite systems. As can be seen from the matrix, the smaller
the lot size, the more likely a potential problem identified by the Soil
Conservation Service will be a constraint. The physical constraints
identified under the overall headings slight, moderate and severe in table
8-1 are those identified by the Soil Conservation Service for that rating.
It is unlikely that other constraints will occur in a soil with the stated
rating. The constraints are explained in section 4.4.
For each limitation listed under the overall headings of slight, moderate,
and severe, a listing of technologies that can be implemented to overcome
the particular limitation is given. These technologies can be used in
situations where the Soil Conservation Service recommends that standard
onsite systems not be used without additional planning or engineering.
Where there is more than one of these limitations. then only the techno-
logies that are suggested for both particular limitations should be con-
sidered. For example, consider a case involving a home on a 1 1/2 acre
127
Soil Conservation Service Rating
SLIGHT LIMITATIONS
1-Depth To Bedrock, 6 Feet
or Greater
Technologies: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8
2-Rocks & Stones
Technologies: 2, 4, 6, 8
3-Hazard of Groundwater Pollution
Technologies: 1, 5, 6, 7, 8
MODERATE LIMITATIONS
1-Sl ope
Technologies: 3, 4, 8
2-Depth to Bedrock, 4 Feet
or Greater
Technologies: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8
3-Rocks & Stones
Technologies: 2, 3, 4, 6, 8
4-Slow Permeabii1ty
Technologies: 2, 3, 4, 6, 8
5-Hazard of Groundwater Pollution
Technologies: 1, 5, 6, 7, 8
6-Seasonal H1gh Water Table
Perched Over Fragipan
Technologies: 5, 7, 8
Technologies
1. Modified Dosing Tanks
2. Alternate Fields
3. Mound Systems
4. Combined Septic Systems
5. Dua 1 Sys terns
6. Evapotranspiration Beds
7. Holding Tanks
8. Alternative Sewerage Systems
TABLE 8-1
SOIL LIMITATIONS MATRIX
Residential Lot Size
20,000- Below Over
80,000 ft
2
80,000 ft
2
20,000 ft
2
Multi-family
A A A/B B
A A A/B B
A B A/B B
A B B B
B B B B
A/B B B B
A B B/C B/C
A A/B A/B B/C
A AlB B B/C
Explanation Of Soil Limitation Matrix Ratings
A Situations that do not require special engineering.
Standard onsite systems with few modifications
effective.
B Situations that require some special engineering,
tests, contact with local authorities, soil survey
information. A high degree of engineering probably not
required. Examples of possible technologies to be
utilized include oversize leaching fields, doubling
leaching fields, adjusting depth of beds and trenches,
installing curtain walls or underdrains to artificially
lower the water table, or excavation and backfill with
suitable soil.
C Situations that require considerable engineering. The
use of onsite systems may be inappropriate.
128
Soil Conservation Service Rating
SEVERE LIMITATIONS
1-Steep Slopes
Technologies: 3, 4, 6, 8
2-Depth Bedrock 1 1/2 - 5 Feet
Technologies: 3, 5, 6, 8
3-Rocks & Stones
Technologies: 2, 3, 4, 6, 8
4-Slow To Moderately
Slow Permeability
Technolgoies: 2, 3, 4, 6, 8
5-Hazard Of Groundwater Pollution
Technologies: 1, 5, 6, 7, 8
6-Seasonal High Water
Table Depth 0-4 Feet
Technologies: 5, 7, 8
?-Frequent Flooding
Technologies: 5, 7, 8
Technologies
1. Modified Dosing Tanks
2. Alternate Fields
3. Mound Systems
4. Combined Septic Systems
5. Dual Systems
6. Evapotranspiration Beds
7. Holding Tanks
8. Alternative Sewerage Systems
TABLE 8-1 (continued)
SOIL LIMITATIONS MATRIX
Residential Lot Size
20,000- Below Over
80,000 ft
2
80,000 ft
2
20,000 ft
2
Multi-family
B B/C c c
B B/C c c
B B/C c c
A/B B B/C B/C
B B B/C B/C
B/C c c c
B B B/C B/C
Explanation Of Soil limitation Matrix Ratings
A Situations that do not require special engineering.
Standard onsite systems with few modifications
effective.
B Situations that require some special engineering,
tests, contact with local authorities, soil survey
information. A high degree of engineering probably not
required. Examples of possible technologies to be
utilized include oversize leaching fields, doubling
leaching fields, adjusting depth of beds and trenches,
installing curtain walls or underdrains to artificially
lower the water table, or excavation and backfill with
suitable soil.
C Situations that require considerable engineering. The
use of onsite systems may be inappropriate.
129
lot where the soil is rocky and the depth to bedrock is 8 feet. The Soil
Conservation
limitations.
Limitations
11
Service rates this soil overlaying the site as having moderate
Therefore, use the section of table 8-1 labelled
11
Moderate
and the column labelled "20,000 - 80,000 ft
2
." Since in this
example each criterion is rated
11
8
11
, it is recommended that standard onsite
systems not be considered. The two criteria have technologies 3, 6, and 8
in common. These technologies are mound systems, evapotranspiration beds,
and alternative sewerage systems. Since evapotranspiration beds are
impractical for year-round homes, the alternatives left are mound systems
or a sewerage system. Which of these two is more practical or cost
effective is then largely the builders decision.
This methodology applies to criterion rating
11
8
11
Where the criteria are
rated
11
A
11
, the criteria should be taken into account, but they do not
recommend against using a standard onsite system. Where the criteria are
rated
11
C the use of onsite systems is strongly discouraged. This
Wastewater Management Element, coupled with the Soil Survey of Morris
County and the proper percolation tests and soil investigations, can be a
very useful tool in the determination of appropriate wastewater management
technologies.
8.1.8.2 Surface Water Quality
Figure 4-3 shows the water quality condition and State surface water use
classification for the major surface waters in the County. The water
quality assessment is based on the 1982 State Water Quality Inventory
Report. The importance of these water quality and use designations to the
evaluation of onsite wastewater management alternatives is mainly a
function of distance to the watercourse or tributary thereof.
Wastewater-related pollutants may reach a stream either by overland runoff
or through groundwater discharge to the stream. Thus, in evaluating onsite
alternatives for a particular site near a stream, it is not sufficient to
130
simply discourage use of alternative systems that employ surface discharge
of effluent. A particular set of soil and hydrologic conditions may allow
as much groundwater discharge of wastewater-associated pollutants to the
stream from a subsurface disposal system as a surface disposal system
would.
For example, when near a water body the steep slope constraint would be
particularly detrimental for any alternative system involving surface
application of wastewater. A high seasonal high water table would be of
particular concern near a watercourse for onsite systems because of the
increased potential for groundwater discharge to the stream.
8.2 ALTERNATIVE SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
Alternative sewerage systems are wastewater collection and conveyance
technologies that can be used where traditional gravity sewers are either
impractical or too expensive. Generally, alternative sewerage systems are
best used in places where a limited number of residences are to be
connected to the sewer system and/or where conditions are unfavorable for
gravity sewers. Though not as yet widely used, these technologies are
proven and can be supplied by more than one qualified vendor. They are
also useful for situations where neighborhoods that have been using onsite
systems need to be converted to a centralized wastewater treatment system.
8.2.1 Small Diameter Gravity Sewers
Small diameter gravity sewers conveying septic tank effluent are considered
an alternative technology. Small diameter is defined as a 4- to 6-inch
pipe. They are constructed and operated almost the same as conventional
gravity sewers except that a septic tank is still required at each home
served. The septic tank settles the wastewater so that the smaller dia-
meter pipe can be used. The small diameter pipe is sloped so liquid flows
from the septic tank through the pipe to treatment and disposal. Treatment
and disposal systems can be conventional or can use soil absorption fields
or other alternatives.
131
Physical constraints to construction of small diameter gravity systems
include topography, depth to bedrock and depth to groundwater. Operational
constraints include infiltration, septic tank maintenance and the possible
need for pump stations.
Construction, operation and maintenance costs are lowered by using pipe of
smaller diameter because lower scouring velocities, and a potentially less
stringent requirement for manholes, result. However, since each connection
to the sewerage system requires a septic tank, maintenance of the tank must
be considered in any cost-effectiveness analysis.
Small diameter sewers can be advantageous in areas already served by onsite
systems. The smaller diameter pipe also allows for lower fabrication and
installation requirements. They are especially advantageous in areas where
a group of residences are isolated from centralized wastewater treatment.
This group can be connected to a communal treatment system or communal
leaching field.
This system is best suited for areas that are less densely populated and
are relatively flat or have topography that generally slopes in one
direction. Morris County areas in this category are isolated areas of the
Upper Passaic River basin such as Harding and Passaic Township and in the
Rockaway River Basin, Rockaway Township. In the Raritan and Musconetcong
River basins the northern area of Chester Township, the southern areas of
Mt. Olive, and the southern area of Randolph appear suitable.
8.2.2 Pressure Sewers
In a pressure sewer collection system wastewater is pumped under pressure
from one or several homes into a pressurized main which conveys it to an
existing collection system or directly to centralized treatment and
disposal. Pressure sewer collection systems consist of two basic types:
grinder pump and septic tank effluent pump (STEP) systems.
132
The concept and design of grinder pump pressure sewers has been clearly
demonstrated. Unlike conventional systems, construction of pressure
systems have fewer restrictions because of subsurface conditions. The
small diameter PVC plastic pipe is placed in a much shallower trench than
with conventional sewers. The bottom of the trench does not have to be
graded as critically as with conventional sewers. This is because the
wastewater flows by pressure, not gravity, so bends or turns in the pipe
are not problems. Because the plastic pipe is a sealed system, a high
groundwater table or flooding will not affect the wastewater flow. Con-
struction costs are less dependent on site constraints. Small diameter PVC
plastic pipe is installed near existing grade reducing infiltration and
inflow entering the system. Also, construction costs are additionally
reduced because trenching and backfilling of streets is less extensive.
Construction of grinder pump pressure sewers requires a grinder pump and
holding tank for each connection to the main. These systems may be used
for one or several homes. Operational constraints include the need for a
power source, and its associated energy costs, at each main connection.
Equipment and hardware costs, in addition to requirements for routine pump
and tank maintenance, considerably increase the construction, operation and
maintenance costs of these systems compared to conventional gravity sewers.
Typically, lateral connections are no larger than 2 inches in diameter.
The pressure main is typically a 6-inch line.
STEP pressure sewers are similar to grinder pump pressure sewers in opera-
tion and effectiveness. The distinguishing characteristic of STEP systems
is the incorporation of a septic tank preceding the pumping unit. The STEP
system pumps are less costly and easier to maintain than grinder pumps.
The concept and design of STEP systems are well demonstrated; however, as
with grinder pump pressure sewers, they present additional needs for hard-
ware, maintenance of pump and septic tank, and possibly effluent treatment
and odor control .
133
To implement one of these alternatives systems there is a need for some
sort of supporting institutional framework. Typically, the local Public
Works Department or the local Health Department maintains an inventory of
spare grinders, pumps and various parts. Personnel from the supporting
institution are trained by the vendor of the system to make all routine
repairs and to replace a failed system. There are several established
vendors of this equipment that offer communities warranties and technical
support. By spreading the costs over the entire community using the
system, per capita operation and maintenance costs are minimized.
Most of the western and southern parts of Morris County that are unsewered
and relatively isolated from conventional sewer service could be appro-
priate for pressure sewers. Groups of up to several hundred houses located
near each other but also relatively isolated from sewerage service can use
these systems.
In Morris County, portions of most of the western and southern municipal-
ities would be candidates for pressure sewers, particularly those experi-
encing onsite system problems in the Raritan and Musconetcong watersheds.
The following is a listing of the municipalities referred to:
Boonton Township
Chester Borough
Chester Township
Denville Township
Jefferson Township
Mendham Township
Montville Township
Mount Arlington Borough
Mount Olive Township
Randolph Township
Rockaway Township
Roxbury Township
Washington Township
134
8.2.3 Vacuum Sewers
In a vacuum sewer system, sewage is transported by an air pressure differ-
ential from dwellings to central collector pipes. A check valve opens when
sewage presses against it. The sewage, followed by a plug of air, enters
the central collector pipes and is transported to a collection tank where
it is then pumped further to treatment and disposal. Vacuum sewers are
suitable for use with cluster development projects.
Compared to conventional gravity sewers, vacuum systems reduce infiltration
and inflow. A vacuum valve at each connection to the main, central vacuum
pump, and standby electric power and failure alarm system are required for
operation. Maintenance requirements include hardware and periodic pump
service. Institutional support requirements for these ~ s t e m s would be
similar to that for pressure sewer systems.
A vacuum pumping station must be maintained at the central collection or
treatment point. Adequate negative air pressure must be maintaind
throughout the system. Because it is undesirable to have the negative
pressure attenuate over a long distance, higher density cluster housing on
sites that have both severe topography and are relatively isolated from
traditional sewer service are the best candidates for this type of system.
This type of system may be especially suited for high density development
constructed in compliance with the Mt. Laurel II decision.
The major difference between pressure sewers and vacuum sewers is that
pressure sewers have a pump at each home to provide a positive pressure or
push, while vacuum sewers use a centralized vacuum pump station which
provides a negative pressure or pull.
135
Municipalities in Morris County that are relatively good candidates for
vacuum sewers, where conditions are appropriate, include:
Boonton Township
Chester Borough
Chester Township
Denville Township
Jefferson Township
Mendham Township
Montville Township
Mount Arlington Borough
Mount Olive Township
Rockaway Township
Roxbury Township
Washington Township
8.3 OTHER ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
As stated previously, these strategies have been separated out because they
are highly site-specific.
8.3.1 Spray Irrigation (Land Application)
Spray irrigation is an alternative to in-stream disposal of treated waste-
water. The sewage is pretreated to a minimum of 85 percent removal of BOO
and suspended solids. After chlorine disinfection, the treated effluent is
applied to the land by relatively simple discharge outlets. Spray irriga-
tion is advantageous because more complete removal of nitrogen, phosphorus
and organic particles is possible owing to the nutrient uptake by cover
vegetation and microorganisms. Spray irrigation also benefits cover crops.
Higher yields have been obtained on crops spray-irrigated with treated
effluent.
136
Soil characteristics are the limiting factors in siting spray irrigation
fields. Another important design factor to be taken into account is the
choice of cover vegetation. Some crops have greater capacities for nitro-
gen uptake than others, though generally those with higher uptakes are also
more costly to cultivate. Typical crops used are various grasses. Ex-
amples of high nitrogen uptake crops are corn and alfalfa.
8.3.2 Aerobic Units
Aerobic units can vary considerably in design. Some are simply tanks with
air bubblers while others are constructed to function as small activated
sludge treatment plants. In a typical onsite individual aerobic unit,
oxygen is circulated through the wastewater by forcing compressed air into
the settling chamber. Mechanical stirring devices may also be used to
provide further aeration.
Under proper conditions, aerobic systems are capable of achieving higher
levels of treatment (greater BOD and suspended solids removal, higher
dissolved oxygen concentrations) than septic systems. Although aerobic
units are more costly than basic septic systems, they are more suitable in
certain cases. Areas of higher density zoning (more than 1 dwelling
unit/acre) and marginal soils are well suited to aerobic units because the
soil absorption system of an aerobic unit need not be as large or as effi-
cient as that of a septic system. Aerobic units have high operation and
maintenance and process control requirements. Periodic sludge removal is
required.
8.3.3 Sand Filter, Disinfection and Discharge
This method is used where leaching fields are not feasible. Operation is
similar to a centralized wastewater treatment plant only on a smaller
scale. A sand filter follows the septic tank at ground-level or buried in
a sand pit. Septic effluent enters a perforated pipe at the top and
137
filters through sand and gravel to a bottom pipe which leads to a disin-
fection tank. Following disinfection, the liquid is discharged to a stream
or drainage ditch. It is important to check with the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection before installing this system. Depending on
the volume, strength and chemical makeup of the discharge, the use of this
type of system may fall within the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) regulations.
8.4 PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
Package treatment plants are small. commercially available conventional
sewage plants. They are sold as prefabricated or easily assembled com-
ponents. Most package plants employ a biological treatment process (the
most popular being the activated sludge process). Package treatment plants
provide an acceptable alternative to subsurface disposal options in unsuit-
able locations, i.e., where soils are limited in their capacity to accept
large quantities of wastewater, zoned densities are too high or where con-
struction of an interceptor sewer is undesirable. Package plants have
found application in a number of locations in Morris County. Overall, the
experience of these plants in Morris County has not been substantially
different than elsewhere.
Package treatment plants offer several advantages. They can serve emer-
gency or temporary treatment needs quickly at low cost. One of the main
advantages of package plants is that they can serve small relatively
isolated communities. Therefore, capital costs for construction of large
interceptors to regional wastewater treatment plants, or expansion of
existing overloaded or fully loaded treatment plants, is reduced.
Although high treatment capabilities are possible with small plants, they
require regular attention by skilled operators as well as routine mainten-
ance. Initial capital costs are low. However high power and operation
costs present long-term cost disadvantages.
138
Before installing a package treatment system for a neighborhood, a
financial analysis of who will pay for the operation and maintenance should
be performed. There are three main alternatives for a long-term support of
package plants:
o The municipality can assume ownership of the package plant
and pay for its operation out of revenues collected from all
sewerage users in the municipality, regardless of whether
they are connected to the particular package plant or not.
o The municipality can assume ownership of the package plant
and pay for its operation out of the general property taxes
of the entire municipality.
o The users of the package treatment plant assume the cost of
its operation and maintenance solely.
In all three cases it is appropriate for the owners of the package plant to
insure that the manpower and expertise is available to properly maintain
the plant.
Package treatment plants can provide satisfactory treatment for small
wastewater flows if properly designed, operated and maintained. Housing
developments, businesses and other institutions in outlying or remote areas
that generate normal domestic wastewaters are situations where package
plant treatment has found widespread applicability.
139
8.5 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES
The preceding sections have discussed the major features, advantages, and
constraints of alternative onsite wastewater systems and alternative
sewerage systems. This section summarizes the discussions by presenting a
chart of alternative wastewater technologies recommended for consideration
in each municipality. Because each municipality possesses varying environ-
mental characteristics, the chart should not be interpreted as being all
inclusive, as appropriate wastewater systems are best evaluated on a site-
specific basis. Table 8-2 shows the alternative wastewater technologies
recommended for consideration. The first column in table 8-2, labeled
11
Centralized standard sewerage systems", includes package treatment plants.
Other alternative management strategies (section 8.3) are not included in
table 8-2 because they are highly site-specific.
140
TABLE 8-2
ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGIES
RECOMMENDED FOR CONSIDERATION
"0
s..
""
"0
"'"'

'- C"> u
Q) "'
"'
V>.., +-''- V1 ...,
"'
Q) Q) V1
E 0.
"' -o> E 3: 0 Cll Cll E
C!IV1 "'Cll Cl
Q)
...,
Vl "-'
N
-- Vl
V1
....,
-- Cll
Cl Cll "0
..... >,
""'
Vl

>, s.. Cll
"'
V1 <!IV>
>,
"'"'
+-'
"'"'
E "'
c: "' c E
Vl
1--S..
"' '-
:::> '-
.,_.,
s..-o
"0
-- QJ
+-'Q)
"' QJ
:::> Cll --"' c .0 +-'
';;
"' 3:
"' "'
Cll 3: u 3: --oc:: +-'Q)
:::>
E"'
Cll"'
E '-
'- "'
"' "'
0"' 0 O>, :::>
u V1
VlL':) "- V1 > Vl :EJ-
"""--
:;:
u Vl
Cl
Goonton Town Ill
Boonton Township Ill Ill Ill
Butler Borough Ill
Chatham Borough Ill
Chatham Township
Ill Ill
Chester Borough
Ill Ill Ill
Chester Township
Ill Ill Ill
Denville Township
Ill
Dover Town Ill
East Hanover Township
IIIII
Florham Park Borough
Ill
Hanover Township IIIII
Harding Township
Ill
Jefferson Township
Ill IIIII IIIII IIIII
Kinnelon Borough
IIIII IIIII
Lincoln Park Borough
IIIII
Madison Borough
Ill
Mendham Borough
IIIII
Mendham Township
Ill IIIII IIIII
Mine Hill Township
IIIII
Montville Township
Ill
!Morris Plains Borough
Ill
Morris Township IIIII
Morristown Town
II
Mountain Lakes Borough II
Mount Arlington Borough
Ill IIIII IIIII
Mount Olive Township
Ill Ill II Ill IIIII Ill i
Netcong Borough
Ill
Parsippany-Troy Hills Township II
Passaic Township
II
Pequannock Township
Ill
Randolph Township
II II II II
Riverdale Borough
II
Rockaway Borough
II
Rockaway Township
Ill II II II II
Roxbury Township
II II II Ill II
Victory Gardens Borough
II
Washington Township
Ill IIIII IIIII II IIIII
Wharton Borough
IIIII
Summer Homes Only IIIII
141
"'
0

....,
"'
s..
--
-"""
0.
"'
V1
"'
c f-
"' '-
""
...,
c:
0
-- O.V> .,
.,.,
I
0 ><ll
wco ::c
!
I
i
l
II Ill
9.0 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the findings and recommendations of the wastewater
management element. Section 9.1 presents the overall findings concerning
wastewater management in the three major drainage basins of Morris County.
Section 9.2 discusses specific recommendations for each municipality in the
County.
9.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
A summary of the findings of this Wastewater Management Element in each of
the three major drainage basins of Morris County is presented below. It
must be kept in mind that the problems described in a particular drainage
basin are not strictly confined to that basin, but are simply more acute
there.
9.1.1 Passaic River Basin
Wastewater management in most of this area is characterized by the problems
of extensive sewered development. Although most treatment plants appear to
have enough capacity for the present, a few of the plants may have long-
term problems. Isolated areas the basin that are now using
onsite wastewater disposal systems will require careful planning to avoid
long-term problems. New onsite systems may require the use of alternative
technologies to conventional septic systems.
Although nearly all the wastewater treatment plants meet or exceed the
federal government's definition of secondary treatment, the population
density and finite assimilative capacity of the Passaic River point to a
definite need for increases in the levels of treatment. This is parti-
cularly true for phosphorous concentrations which exceed NJDEP warning
levels in many reaches of the Passaic River.
142
Based on the wastewater flow projections, it is recommended that the
Chatham Township Sewerage Authority and the Passaic Township Sewerage
Authority facilities be expanded. Because of the relatively lower level of
treatment and the sewer ban at the Butler-Bloomingdale Joint Meeting, it is
also recommended that the proposed interconnection between this plant and
the Two Bridges Sewerage Authority be constructed. In the unsewered areas,
problems are manageable and should remain that way with proper planning and
engineering.
9.1.2 Raritan River Basin
Although this basin has a few smaller wastewater treatment plants, its
major problems are caused by the widespread use of onsite systems, many
without proper engineering or maintenance. Septic tank system failures,
for various reasons, are higher than normal in the basin.
One reason is that it appears that many onsite systems were designed and
installed without a strong regard for soil suitability. Despite the high
incidence of septic system failures, there does not appear to be a ground-
water pollution problem yet from overreliance on septic systems. This does
not mean that such a problem will not occur, since the potential for one
exists.
Efforts should be directed toward increasing the wastewater collection and
treatment ~ a p a c i t y of the area. At present, capacity is below expected
need based on 1990 and 2000 population projections. Every treatment plant
in the basin, except the Mendham plant, should be expanded. Although the
needs appear great when compared to current in-place treatment capacity,
these capacity needs are small enough in absolute terms that, given
creative local planning and financial management, they could be met.
143
Because of this basin's remoteness from suitable wastewater treatment
plants with excess capacity. it appears that the installation of any new
interceptor sewers could occur only at great cost. In addition, the State
Development Guide Plan does not envision this area as appropriate for
growth. An interceptor sewer would be an inappropriate catalyst to growth
for this low-growth area.
Since this basin does not lend itself well to standard sewerage systems, it
is recommended that first consideration in this drainage basin be given to
alternative sewerage systems.
9.1.3 Musconetcong River Basin
In the Musconetcong River basin, there is evidence that overreliance on
onsite systems is causing a surface water pollution problem. The use of
onsite systems in areas of high-density zoning is causing nitrates,
phosphorus, and other nutrients to accumulate in Lakes Hopatcong and
Musconetcong. Lake Hopatcong's value as a recreational resource is
threatened by this eutrophic situation.
In order to remedy this situation, and accommodate projected population
growth, major expansion of wastewater treatment capacity would be needed at
all the existing treatment plants along with construction of thousands of
feet of new interceptor and collector sewers.
The lack of appropriate wastewater management facilities in this area is a
severe constraint to growth. Of all the wastewater management problems in
Morris County, the rectification of the pollution problem in Lake Hopatcong
appears to be the most urgent. Given the predicted growth of the lakeshore
communities and the present condition of the lake, the long-term viability
of the lake as a recreational resource will be threatened.
144
9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS BY MUNICIPALITY
Boonton Town - The sewered areas of Boonton discharge to the Rockaway
Valley Regional Sewerage Authority (RVRSA) treatment plant, a plant that
does not appear to have long-term capacity problems. Since this
municipality is mostly sewered, all new populations should be served by
sewers. No major onsite system problems, either now or in the future,
appear evident.
Boonton Township - Only a small area of Boonton Township is presently
sewered. There appears to be a good potential for additional areas to be
sewered, particularly in the southern area of the municipality. Wastewater
flows to the RVRSA for treatment. At present, there are few problems with
the use of onsite systems. Since much of Boonton Township is classified as
having soils unsuitable for conventional septic systems, long-term planning
should include consideration of alternative wastewater systems.
Butler- Butler is virtually 100 percent sewered. The Butler-Bloomingdale
Joint Meeting plant is expected to experience capacity problems in the
future. Planning is underway for the elimination of this facility and its
replacement with an interconnection to the Two Bridges Sewerage Authority.
If the financial resources exist to complete this project, it is
recommended that it be constructed. The sewer ban imposed on this service
area in 1973 has h i n d e r ~ d growth. Since much of the municipality is
situated on soils suitable for septic systems. a modest amount of carefully
planned growth may be appropriate using conventional onsite systems.
Provision should be made through this municipality's dry sewer ordinance to
insure that when treatment capacity becomes available, housing units using
onsite systems switch to centralized wastewater treatment.
145
Chatham Borough - Nearly all of Chatham Borough is sewered. The Madison-
Chatham Joint Meeting is not projected to experience any capacity problems
by the year 2000. All future growth should be accommodated with sewering.
Chatham Township- A majority of Chatham Township's population and develop-
ment is served by the Township's sewage treatment plant. Much of the un-
sewered areas have soils rated unsuitable for onsite wastewater disposal
systems. The treatment plant is likely to experience capacity problems in
the future.
A state sewer ban is currently in effect. Action to rectify the sewer ban
should be formulated and implemented. Onsite systems should only be used
with careful planning and engineering. Alternative wastewater management
systems should be considered.
Chester Borough- This municipality is entirely dependent on onsite waste-
water disposal systems. Significant areas of the borough have soils rated
unsuitable for conventional onsite systems. Currently, no major problems
are occurring from the reliance on onsite systems. Nonetheless, careful
planning, engineering, and the consideration of alternative wastewater
disposal systems should be considered for future growth.
Chester Township - The situation in Chester Township is virtually the same
as in Chester Borough. The only significant difference is that the inci-
dence of septic tank failures is higher here, making it even more important
that careful planning occur concerning the design and construction of on-
site and alternative wastewater systems.
Denville - A significant portion of Denville is served by the RVRSA.
Opportunities for additional sewering exist throughout the municipality.
There is currently no widespread onsite system problem in this municipa-
lity. Denville is located in an area of high expected growth, and sewering
should be encouraged to minimize potential long-term onsite septic system
problems.
146
Dover - Dover is almost entirely sewered and is served by the RVRSA.
Future growth should be accommodated by sewering.
East Hanover- Since this municipality will be almost entirely sewered by
the summer of 1985, future growth should be accommodated by sewers.
Florham Park -This municipality is also nearly a11 sewered. The municipal
treatment plant is undergoing improvements and is under design for up-
grading and expansion. Therefore, any growth should be served by sewers.
Hanover - Most of Hanover is sewered. All growth should be accommodated
with sewers, particularly because the unsewered areas have soils unsuitable
for septic systems.
Harding - A major portion of Harding is located in the Great Swamp National
Wildlife Refuge where no development can take place. The remaining
portions of the municipality are inaccessible to sewerage. Most of the
soils in the unprotected areas are considered suitable for properly de-
signed and installed onsite systems.
Jefferson - The use of onsite wastewater systems in the southern porti0n of
Jefferson is a contributing factor to the eutrophic condition of Lake
Hopatcong. Continued reliance on onsite disposal systems will worsen this
situation. Since the installation of traditional gravity sewerage would be
both difficult and expensive, the use of alternative sewerage systems is
recommended.
Kinnelon - A small portion of Kinnelon is currently sewered. Because many
of the soils in Kinnelon are considered unsuitable for conventional onsite
systems, the use of alternative wastewater systems should be seriously
considered.
147
Lincoln Park- Most of Lincoln Park is served by sewers connected to the
Two Bridges Sewerage Authority. It is recommended that future growth in
Lincoln Park be served by sewers.
Madison - Nearly all of Madison is served by the Madison-Chatham Joint
Meeting wastewater treatment plant. It is recommended that future growth
be served by this plant.
Mendham Borough - The Borough is served by its own wastewater treatment
plant. Future growth in the densely settled northern portion of the
municipality should be served by sewers. Though many of the soils in the
southern portion are considered suitable for onsite systems, care should be
taken during design and installation.
Mendham Township- This township is entirely unsewered. Substantial areas
of the township have soils rated unsuitable for conventional onsite waste-
water disposal systems. Because of this, proper planning and engineering
and the possible use of alternative onsite systems is warranted.
Mine Hill -This municipality is currently unsewered. Onsite system
problems are not prevalent, though there are areas with unsuitable soils.
In addition, the existing service area of the Rockaway Valley Regional
Sewerage Authority extends nearly to Mine Hi11
1
S eastern boundary line with
Wharton, Dover, and Victory Gardens. To avoid long-term problems proper
onsite system planning and engineering along with the implementation of a
sewering program should be initiated.
Montville- This municipality operates three small package wastewater
treatment plants. A11 three are either at or over capacity, therefore they
are not able to accept new flows from population increases. The southern
portion is served by the Parsipanny-Troy Hills Sewer Utility. Many of the
soils in the northern area are unsuitable for onsite systems. Therefore,
proper onsite system planning and engineering should be instituted along
with a sewering program to the Parsippany-Troy Hills Plant. In the
northern area, alter.native technologies may also be appropriate.
148
Morris Plains -This municipality is totally sewered. New growth should be
accommodated by sewering.
Morris Township- This municipality has major areas that are exclusively
sewered and major areas that are exclusively served by onsite systems. In
the sewered areas, the municipal treatments plants have sufficient long-
term capacity. Many of the unsewered areas have soils unsuitable for
onsite systems. Since many of these areas are accessible to the sewered
area serving the Woodland plant, a sewering program represents an effective
alternative. Otherwise, careful planning and engineering is required when
using onsite systems.
Morristown - Morristown is entirely sewered. Projected growth should be
accommodated by sewers and directed to the municipal sewage treatment
plant.
Mountain Lakes - Mountain Lakes is nearly all sewered and is served by the
Parsippany-Troy Hills Sewer Utility. Since sewers are available throughout
the municipality, future growth should be accommodated by sewers.
Mount Arlington- This municipality is almost e ~ t i r e l y served by onsite
systems. The population density is relatively high: nearly 1900 persons in
a square mile. In addition, this municipality is in close proximity to
Lake Hopatcong. The widespread use of onsite wastewater systems is a con-
tributing factor to Lake Hopatcong's eutrophic state. Although no centra-
lized sewerage system now exists, it is recommended that one be considered.
Barring the creation of a traditional gravity system, an alternative sewer-
age system is recommended. Continued development using onsite systems in
this community will contribute to further degradation of Lake Hopatcong.
149
Mount Olive- Mount Olive is projected to have one of the largest popula-
tion increases of any municipality by the year 2000: about 7,600 new
residents. This represents a population increase of nearly 40 percent.
Most of the municipality is served by septic systems. It appears that
these systems were designed and installed without a strong regard for soil
suitability. As a result, the incidence of septic tank failure is higher
than normal. The municipal health officials for Mount Olive have described
these failures as
11
acute" and
11
Widespread".
Except for a small sewered area in the southern area of the township and
the area in proximity to Netcong, most of Mount Olive is not accessible to
centralized wastewater treatment.
There does not, as of yet, appear to be a major groundwater pollution
problem from overreliance on septic systems. This does not mean that such
a problem will not occur, since the potential for one exists. Efforts
should be directed toward increasing the wastewater collection and treat-
ment capacity of the area. Many areas of the municipality could not be
effectively served by traditional gravity sewers. Therefore, the alterna-
tive sewerage systems described in section 8.1 are appropriate for Mt.
Olive, either to accommodate new growth or to replace existing problematic
septic systems. Where soils are rated as having moderate limitations or
better by the Morris County Soil Survey, the alternative onsite systems
suggested in section 8.2 may be appropriate.
Because of the widespread onsite system failures and the potential for
groundwater contamination, Mt. Olive appears to be an appropriate community
for recommending the establishment of a septage management authority as
described in section 5.6.
150
Netcong- This municipality is almost entirely sewered to the Musconetcong
Sewerage Authority. The wastewater flow projections in Section 7.0 indi-
cate that unless an expansion is undertaken, this treatment facility will
be over capacity within the next several years. Moreover the use of onsite
systems in this municipality would only exacerbate existing onsite system
problems in this area of the county. The State Development Guide Plan in-
dicates that this area is intended for growth and one of the most promising
alternatives for the relief of the eutrophic situation in Lake Musconetcong
is to increase the sewering around the entire lake to the Musconetcong
Sewerage Authority. In Netcong, despite the possibility that the receiving
wastewater treatment plant will experience capacity problems, it is still
preferable to sewer new populations than to allow the installation of new
onsite systems. There appears to be a possibility that a state imposed
sewer ban will be necessary at the Musconetcong Sewerage Authority.
Parsippany-Troy Hills -This municipality is the most populous in Morris
County. Nearly all the population is served by sewers. Though expected
population growth through the year 2000 is only about 15 percent, this
percentage represents 7400 people. Therefore, planning should be struc-
tured to insure that these populations are located in areas accessible to
sewers so as to avoid the use of onsite systems. If onsite systems are
used, they should only be used with proper planning and engineering.
Passaic Township - The municipal wastewater treatment plant for Passaic
Township is presently subject to a New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection sewer construction ban. Expansion of the plant is proposed for
1985. If the expansion occurs, capacity would increase from 650,000 gpd to
900,000 gpd. This capacity should be sufficient for the next several
years. This would be a recommended step since any onsite system use should
be avoided in this area. The township is almost entirely characterized by
soils unsuitable for conventional onsite systems.
151
Pequannock - Most of Pequannock Township still uses onsite systems for
wastewater disposal. A few areas of the township are sewered. The areas
where soils are suitable for onsite systems generally coincide with areas
that are currently sewered. Areas with soils unsuitable for onsite systems
are generally the unsewered areas of the Township. If the Butler-
Bloomingdale plant is eliminated, it is likely that an interceptor sewer
will have to be constructed through Pequannock to the Two Bridges Sewerage
Authority plant. If this occurs, Pequannock should be sewered and
connected to the new interceptor sewer wherever possible. Because much of
the unsewered areas have unsuitable soils, careful planning, engineering,
and consideration of alternative systems should occur.
Randolph- This municipality is projected to experience dramatic growth in
the next few years. By the year 2000, the population may be 33 percent
larger than it is now: a net gain of about 6,000 people. Though many of
the soils are considered suitable for conventional onsite systems, a level
of growth this large using onsite sytems would likely invite problems. The
Randolph Township Municipal Utilities Authority was established to own,
maintain, and where necessary to construct sewerage facilities. In rela-
tively remote areas, builders are required to either install dry sewer
lines or contribute to a capital fund for sewerage construction. This
course of action should effectively mitigate long-term problems.
Riverdale - Despite its proximity to sewered areas, Riverdale is entirely
unsewered and relies on onsite systems. No major onsite system problems
have been reported; there are many areas where the soils are rated as
suitable for onsite systems. It is recommended that if opportunities exist
for sewering, they should be taken advantage of. Otherwise, careful plan-
ning and engineering of conventional onsite systems should be sufficient.
Rockaway Borough- This municipality is substantially sewered to the
Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority. Since the entire municipality
is accessible to sewers, new growth should be accommodated by sewering.
152
Rockaway Township - The southern, relatively densely populated area of this
township is sewered to the RVRSA. As this area of urbanization expands,
sewering should be expanded with it. This is particularly relevant to the
White Meadow Lake, Lake Telemark, and Richard Mine Village areas where the
incidence of onsite system failure is higher than normal. In the northern
areas of the township, no problems are currently evident. This does not
mean that problems could not develop in the future as much of the area has
soils considered unsuitable for onsite systems. Consideration of
alternative systems in areas of poor soils should be implemented.
Roxbury- Roxbury Township shares many of the same problems as Mt. Olive
Township. The few sewered areas of Roxbury drain to small treatment plants
that are over capacity. Onsite system failures are fairly widespread. In
the Landing area of the township, problems are similar to those of Mt.
Arlington. In this area use of onsite systems is contributing to the
nutrient loadings in Lake Hopatcong. Roxbury should consider the
establishment of a septage management program possibly in cooperation with
Mt. Olive. An additional factor compounding this situation is that the
areas where various problems are evident are also designated for growth
under the State Development Guide Plan (SDGP). This SDGP-recommended
growth should not occur unless centralized wastewater treatment, either by
traditional or alternative sewerage systems, can be provided.
Victory Gardens - This municipality is the smallest in Morris County in
both area and population. It is entirely sewered and should remain that
way in the future.
Washington- This municipality has had a higher than normal incidence of
onsite system failures in the areas of the Raritan River watershed, due
largely to unsuitable soils. Also, surface water pollution induced by the
use of onsite systems is evident in many areas of the municipality.
153
A large area of Washington is an agricultural preservation area.
Therefore, traditional sewering of this area to alleviate onsite system
problems may be an inappropriate catalyst to growth. The use of
alternative systems is recommended.
Wharton - Wharton is almost entirely sewered. New growth should be accom-
modated with traditional gravity sewers.
9.3 RECOMMENDED PLAN
Figure 9-1 summarizes the recommendations of this wastewater management
element of the Morris County Master Plan. In the sewered areas, sewerage
service areas that are likely to require increased capacity at the treat-
ment facility by the year 2000 and those that have sufficient plant
capacity for projected growth to the year 2000 are indicated. These
recommendations are based on the information presented in Chapter 7.
In the unsewered areas two types of recommendations for action are made.
The first type of recommendation applies to the municipalities in the
western half of the County. In addition to the planning programs
suggested, an active program of sewering or the use of alternative sewerage
or onsite systems is recommended. In addition, steps toward mitigation of
existing problems are also recommended.
The second type is a general recommendation that proper planning procedures
be implemented. This should include site specific municipal procedures for
the design, review, and construction of onsite disposal systems. The
establishment of better septage management planning is also recommended.
Consideration of alternative systems under the necessary circumstances
should also be included. An important long-term wastewater management tool
would be stronger enforcement of existing septic system codes.
154
Figure 9-1
Wastewater Management Recommendations
155
10.0 REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers. 1970. Design and Construction of
Sanitary and Storm Sewers. Headquarters of the New York.
Clark, John W., Viessman, Warren Jr., and Hammer, Mark J. 1977. Water
Supply and Pollution Control. 3rd Edition. Harper & Row Publishers,
New York.
Feth, J.H., U.S. Department of the Interior. September 1973. Water Facts
and Figures for Planners and Managers. Washington, D.C.
Garwood, Alfred N. 1983. The New Jersey Municipal Data Book. New Jersey
Associates. Montclair, New Jersey.
Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc. and the Environmental Assessment Council,
Inc. June 1977. Facilities Plan for the Rockaway Valley Regional
Sewerage Authority Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Morris County, New

Lan Associates, Inc. August 1976. (201) Facilities Plan Section 3 Report.
Alternatives for the Washington Township Municipal Utilities Authority.
Hawthorne, New Jersey.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1981. Wastewater Engineering, Collection and Pumping
of Wastewater. McGraw Hill Inc., New York.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1979. Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Disposal,
Reuse. 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.
Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders. December 1979. Morris County
Solid Waste Management Plan. Prepared by: Reutter, Anderson, Schoor
Associates.
Morris County Chamber of Commerce. 1983 Facts and Figures.
Morris County Planning Board. 1966. land and Its Use - Part 1: Physical
Characteristics. Morristown, New Jersey.
Morris County Planning Board. 1971. Morris County Master Plan. Sanitary
Sewerage Facilities Element. Prepared by: Elson T. Killam Associates,
Inc. Denville, New Jersey
Morris County Planning Board. September 1974. Morris County Master Plan,
Supplemental Report. Report on Sanitary Sewerage Facilities for North-
west Morris County. Prepared by: Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc.
Denville, New Jersey.
Morris County Planning Board. April 1975. Morris County Master Plan.
Future Land Use Element. Morristown, New Jersey.
156
County Planning Board. October 1982. County Master Plan.
Water Supply Element. Prepared by: Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc.
Denville, New Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. Division of Planning. State
Development Guide Plan, Revised Draft. 1980. Trenton, New Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. October 1976.
Northeast New Jersey Water Quality Study. Prepared by:
Ralph M. Field and Associates (Westport, CT) and The Planning Associa-
tion of North Jersey (Clifton, NJ}.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. December 1976.
Freshwater Passaic River Basin, Section 303(e), Water Quality Manage-
ment Basin Plan. Prepared by: Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., and
Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. December 1976. North-
east New Jersey Urban Area, Section 303(e), Water Quality Management
Basin Plan. Prepared by: Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., and Betz
Environmental Engineers, Inc.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. March 1979. Upper
Delaware Area, Water Quality Management Plan, Draft. Trenton, New
Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. April 1979. Northeast
New Jersey (208) Water Quality Management Plan, Draft. Trenton, New
Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Environment in the Planning Area Environmental
Upper Passaic River Basin 201 Facilities Plan;
County and Union County, New Jersey. Trenton,
May 1979. Existing
Impact Statement on the
Somerset County,
New Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. May 1979. Upper Raritan
Water Quality Management Plan, Draft. Trenton, New Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. July 1979. Upper
Raritan (208) Water Quality Management Plan, Addendum. Reference:
Supplement to the Upper Raritan Water Quality Plan. Trenton,
New Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. August 1979.
Delaware Area (208) Water Quality Management Plan, Addendum.
New Jersey.
Upper
Trenton,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. September 1979.
Guidelines for the Preparation of Sludge Management Plans. Trenton,
New Jersey.
157
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Water
Resources. June 1983. New Jersey 1982 State Water Quality Inventory
Report, Water Resources Report 39-A. Trenton, New Jersey.
New Jersey Deoartment of Envir9nmental Protection. Division of Water
Resources. June 1983. New Jersey 1982 State Water Quality Inventory
Report, Water Resources Report 39-B. Trenton, New Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Water
Resources. June 1983. New Jersey 1982 State Water Quality Inventory
Report, Appendix - Northeast New Jersey Waters. Water Resources Report
39-C:1.D. Trenton, New Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Division of Water
Resources. June 1983. New Jersey 1982 State Water Quality Inventory
Report, Appendix - Raritan River Basin. Water Resources Report
39-C:1.C. Trenton, New Jersey.
New Jersey Statutes Annotated. 1982. Municipalities and Counties, NJSA
40:1 to 40:34. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn.
Passaic River Coalition. 1983. The Hydrogeology of the Buried Valley
Aquifer System. Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
Petersen, Gary W. and Fritton, Daniel D. December 1979. Evaluation of
Mound Systems for Renovation of Septic Tank Effluent. Department of
Agronomy, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. September 1971. The Pequannock, Lincoln Park and
Fairfield Sewerage Authority. Project Report on Sanitary Sewerage
Facilities. Paramus, New Jersey.
Princeton Aqua Science. March 1983. Upper Musconetcong River Basin Waste-
water Facilities Planning Addendum Study, Mailing No. 5. New Bruns-
wick, New Jersey.
Randolph Township Municipal Utilities Authority. June 1977. Wastewater
Facilities Plan. Rockaway River and Whippany River Drainage Basins.
Wastewater Facilities Plan. Elam & Popoff Professional Association.
Glen Rock, New Jersey.
U.S. Department of Agriculture and Agencies of the States. 1976. Soil
Survey of Morris County, New Jersey.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Onsite Wastewater Treatment
and Disposal Systems, Design t ~ a n u a l . Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 1981. Environmental Impact
Statement on the Upper Rockaway River Basin 201 Facility Plan Morris
County, New Jersey. New York, New York.
158
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 1981. Environmental Impact
Statement on the Upper Passaic River Basin 201 Facilities Plan, Somer-
set, Morris and Union Counties, New Jersey. New York, New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory. August 1980. Septage Management. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Sussex County Board of Chosen
Freeholders. April 1979. Sussex County (208) Water Quality Management
Plan. Newtown, New Jersey.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S.
Department of Agriculture. October 1977. Process Design Manual for
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.
Upper Passaic River Basin Wastewater Management Committee. March 1977.
Final Draft 201 Facilities Plan. Prepared by: Elson T. Killam Asso-
ciates, Inc. (Millburn, NJ) and Dames and Moore (Cranford, NJ).
Wapora, Inc. 1979. Draft Chapter III, Existing Environmental and Environ-
mental Constraint in the Planning Area. Environmental Impact Statement
of the Upper Rockaway River Basin, 201 Facility Plan.
159
11.0 GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
Activated Sludge - Sludge that has been aerated and subjected to bacterial
action, used to remove organic matter in raw sewage during secondary waste
treatment.
Activated Sludge Process - A biological waste treatment process in which a
mixture of sewage and activated sludge is agitated and aerated in a tank to
oxidize the organic matter in the sewage. The activated sludge, which
consists of a mixed growth of small organisms, is subsequently separated
from the treated sewage by sedimentation and returned to the process as
needed.
Advanced Waste Treatment - Treatment beyond secondary or biological stage
required to meet strict quality standards. Depending on the process
selected, advanced or tertiary treatment can provide additional removal of
standard organic pollutants, suspended solids, inorganic ions or nutrients
such as phosphorous and nitrogen. Advanced treatment is the
11
polishing
stagen of wastewater treatment and generally produces a high quality
effluent.
Agricultural Land- Land used primarily for the production of farm com-
modities. This includes orchards, groves, vineyards, apiaries, horticul-
tural areas, and land used for feed operations, floriculture, animal and
poultry husbandry, and packing, processing, treatment, and storage produce.
Ambient Water Quality- Quality of the receiving waters into which effluent
is discharged.
160
Aquifer - An underground, saturated permeable geologic unit capable of
yielding significant quantities of water to wells and springs to be con-
sidered as a source of water supplies.
Average Flow - The average quantity of effluent which leaves the treatment
system over a given time period. Usually expressed as average daily flow.
Bacteria - Small living organisms which often consume the organic
constituents of sewage.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD} - The quantity of oxygen used in the
aerobic decomposition of organic matter, usually expressed in parts per
million. The degree of BOD removal is used as a measure in determining the
efficiency of a sewage treatment plant as well as in measuring stream water
quality.
BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand
COM - Camp Dresser and McKee Inc.
Cesspool - Large porous cistern into which residential wastewater flows.
Solids remain in the cistern while the effluent, a liquid portion, seeps
out through the walls into surrounding ground. Because little biological
action takes place in the cesspool, the solids must be removed by frequent
pumping.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) - A measure of the amount of oxygen required
to oxidize organic and oxidizable inorganic compounds in water. The COD
test, like the BOD test, is used to determine the degree of pollution in an
effluent.
COD - Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chlorination -The application of chlorine to drinking water, sewage, or
industrial waste for disinfection or oxidation of undesirable compounds.
161
Coliform Bacteria- A class of bacteria that live in the human intestines.
They are always present in raw sewage. Their presence provides positive
evidence of pollution and the possible presence of pathogenic bacteria.
Confined Aquifer - An aquifer bounded above and below by formations with
significantly less permeability than its own.
CWA - The Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500) passed in 1972 is the major
legislative authorization for many of EPA's water quality initiatives,
including the Construction Grants Program. It was amended again in 1977.
Collectors - Collectors are the part of the sewer system designed to trans-
port wastewater from individual buildings to the main interceptor sewerage
lines which carry wastewater directly to the treatment plant.
DEP - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Oesign Flow- The average quantity of wastewater which a treatment facility
is designed to handle, usually expressed in millions of gallons per day
(mgd).
Design Period- Time span over which wastewater treatment facilities are
expected to be operating; period over which facility costs are amortized.
Dewatering -The removal of additional liquid so that thickened sludge
attains properties of a solid--that is, it can be shoveled, conveyed on a
sloping belt, and handled by typical solids handling methods. Such de-
watered sludge is usually in the form of a ucake'', such as that produced by
a centrifuge, vacuum filter, or filter press.
162
Digestion, Aerobic - Decomposition of organic matter or stabilization in
the presence of elemental oxygen.
Digestion, Anaerobic - Decomposition of organic matter or stabilization
resulting in gasification, liquification, and mineralization through the
action of microorganisms in the absence of elemental oxygen.
DMR - Discharge Monitoring Report is a quarterly report filed by all
treatment plants to the state or other authority giving the results of
effluent quality tests performed during the testing period. The DMR is the
method through which compliance with NPDES permits is ascertained.
Effluent- (1) A liquid which flows out of a containing space. (2) Sewage,
water or other liquid, partially or completely treated, or in its natural
state, flowing out of a reservoir, basin or treatment plant or part
thereof.
Effluent Limitations- The maximum amount ofa pollutant that a point
source may discharge into a water body. Some or no discharge at all may be
allowed, depending on the specific pollutant to be controlled and the water
quality standards established for the receiving waters.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - A detailed analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of a proposed project required when the EPA Regional
Administrator determines that a project is highly controversial or may have
significant adverse environmental effects.
Facility Plan- Preliminary plan developed during the first step {Step 1)
of the Three Step Construction Program. The plan, based on an evaulation
of various treatment alternatives, must be both cost-effective and
politically acceptable.
163
Federal Register- Document published daily by the United States government
which gives notice of all actions taken by the federal bureaucracy.
Flood - General and temporary conditions of partial or complete inundation
of normally dry land areas from the overflow of inland and/or tidal waters
and/or the unusual rapid accumulation of runoff or surface water.
Floodplain - Relatively flat areas or lowlands adjoining the channel of a
river, stream or water course which has been or may be covered by flood
water.
Floodway -The channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that
must be kept free of encroachment in order for the 100-year flood discharge
to be carried without substantial increases in flood heights.
Force Mains - Pipes used to remove wastewater under pressure against the
force of gravity, allowing for the transfer of sewage between natural
drainage basins or for conveyance of wastewater at minimal slopes over
relatively long distances.
Hazardous Waste - Any waste or combination of wastes which poses a sub-
stantial present or potential hazard to human health or living organisms
because such wastes are non-degradable or persistent in nature or because
they may otherwise cause or .tend to cause detrimental cumulative effects.
It shall include waste material that is toxic, carcinogenic, corrosive,
irritating or sensitizing, explosive or flammable. The following are not
considered hazardous wastes: (1) municipal waste originating in a community
and consisting of household waste from private residences, (2) commercial
waste which originates in wholesale, retail or service establishments, (3)
dry sewage sludge, (4) bulky waste, (5) dry nonhazardous chemical waste,
(6) vegetative waste, (7) animal or food processing waste, (8) non-chemical
industrial waste, {9) septic tank clean-out waste, and (10) liquid sewage
sludge.
164
House Connection (or house laterals) -The point of contact between the
user and the treatment system.
Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) - Infiltration is groundwater entering a sewer
system through defective sewer pipes, joints, connections, or manhole
walls. Inflow is caused by cross connections from storm sewers and com-
bined sewers, manhole covers, and yard, cellar and foundation drains.
Because of III problems, flows greater than the capacity of the treatment
plant can result in wastes bypassing the treatment process.
Innovative or Alternative (I/A) - Innovative project designs are those that
incorporate new technologies in the treatment process. Alternative project
designs, on the other hand, step away from the conventional treatment
methods for wastewater and utilize site-specific characteristics which
produce new methods of waste treatment; usually alternative projects are
most feasible in low density areas.
Interceptor - Any pipe, regardless of size, that carries wastewater
directly to the treatment plant. Generally, they are the largest pipes in
the collection system.
mgd- Millions of gallons per day.
mg/1 - Milligrams per liter.
NEPA- The National Environmental Policy Act dictates that federal agencies
must take into consideration the environmental effects of any proposed
actions when making decisions. Its most conspicuous requirement is the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for projects with a
potential to cause significant environmental impact.
165
Nitrogen - An element that provides nutrients essential to plant growth.
The amount of nitrogen present in a wastewater will determine its
treatability by biological processes. To make the waste treatable,
nitrogen may have to be added. Where control of algae growths in the
receiving water is necessary for beneficial use protection, removal or
reduction of nitrogen in wastewaters prior to discharge may be desirable.
NJOEP - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
NJPOES - New Jersey Administered NPDES Program.
NPOES- The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is a national
permit program designed to control the discharge of pollutants into water-
ways from all specific point sources including industrial and municipal
treatment facilities and commercial activities. It is administered by EPA
or an EPA-approved state agency. The permits are enforceable and must be
renewed at least every five years.
Non-Point Source -Contributing factor to water pollution that cannot be
traced to a specific discernable confined and discrete conveyance.
Non-Point Source Pollutants - Pollutants which do not enter the water from
any discernable, confined or discrete conveyance but rather from wash off,
runoff or seep from broad areas of land.
Non-Point Source Programs - Non-point source programs are attempts to
control pollutants from areawide sources, such as runoff from agricultural
and forest lands, runoff from mining and construction, and storm runoff
from urban areas.
Nutrients- Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for organism
growth and development; for example, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and
phosphorus.
166
Onsite Disposal System - Any means of wastewater disposal that does not
involve the use of sewerage and functions primarily through a process of
filtering through soil layers to groundwater.
O&M - Operations and Maintenance.
Peak Flow - The maximum volume of effluent expected to enter a treatment
system over a given time period. Treatment systems are designed based on
an estimate of the rate of peak flow to average flow for different segments
of the system.
Phosphorus - A nutrient essential to the growth of algae and other bio-
logical organisms. Controlling the amount of phosphorus compounds that
enter surface waters from domestic and industrial waste dischargers and
natural runoff is important in controlling noxious algal blooms.
Point Source - Any discernable, discrete discharge source which may be
attributable to a given discharger.
Point Source Pollutants - Those that enter the water from any discernable,
confined or discrete conveyance such as a sewer pipe, culvert, tunnel or
other channel or conduit.
Pollution - The presence in the environment of conditions or contaminants
in quantities or characteristics which are or may be injurious to human,
plant, or marine life; wildlife or other animal life; or property; or which
unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property
throughout such areas as it may affect.
Pretreatment - In wastewater treatment, any process used to reduce pollu-
tant load before the wastewater is introduced into a main sewer system or
delivered to a treatment plant for substantial reduction of the pollutant
load.
167
Pressure Main- Sewerage system which relies entirely on force pumping (as
opposed to gravity flow) of sewage, to enable use of smaller pipes and
simplify design and construction in difficult terrain.
Primary Treatment - The first stage in wastewater treatment in which sub-
stantially all floating or settleable solids are mechanically re.moved by
screening and sedimentation. The process generally removes 30-35 percent
of total organic pollutants.
Process Train - The order in which wastewater is treated as it flows
through a treatment plant.
POTWs- Publicly owned treatment works is the general term used to refer to
all treatment facilities owned by municipal corporations.
Public Health -.The general level of health and disease within a given
population.
Pl- Public Law, i.e., any act passed by Congress or the New Jersey Legis-
1 ature.
Recharge Areas - An area in which water is absorbed and eventually reaches
one or more aquifers.
Reserve Capacity - Treatment system capacity which exceeds that required to
meet projected community needs for a given time period. The law requires
that treatment facilities be designed to include "sufficient" reserve
capacity, but will not allow funding of excessive reserve capacity. The
actual amount of reserve capacity funded by the Federal grant must be
approved by the Regional Administrator.
Right-of-Way - Easement requirement for the passage of sewers through an
area.
168
Sanitary Sewers - Sewers that carry only domestic or commercial sewage.
Storm water runoff is carried in a separate system. See sewer.
Secondary Treatment - Wastewater treatment beyond the primary stage, using
bacteria to consume organic pollutants. A number of processes may be used
to achieve what EPA defines as an acceptable secondary treatment standard,
which is an 85 to 90 percent removal of total organic pollutants and
suspended solids.
Septage- The volatile solids removed from a septic tank on a periodic
basis.
Service Area - The area which will be served by a wastewater treatment
system.
Sewage - Sewage refers to the wastewater flow from residential, commercial,
and industrial establishments transported through pipes to a treatment
plant.
Sewage Treatment Plant - Arrangement of devices and structures for treating
sewage in order to remove or alter its objectionable constituents and thus
render it less offensive or dangerous (also known as Water Pollution
Control Plant or Wastewater Treatment Plant).
Sewer- Sewer refers to the pipe, conduit, or other physical facility used
to carry off wastewater.
Sewerage- Sewerage refers to the system of sewers and physical facilities
employed to transport, treat, and discharge sewage.
Sewerage Authority - A special governmental unit whose purpose is the
provision of sewerage to one or more municipalities.
169
Sludge- An aqueous suspension of residual solids generated through the
treatment of municipal or industrial wastewater and of such nature and con-
centration as to require special consideration for disposal. Industrial
residuals having economic value without significant processing are not in-
cluded under this definition.
Sludge Management - Sludge management is the management of the disposal of
solid waste products from a wastewater treatment plant.
Stabilization of sludge - process(es) used to reduce pathogens, eliminate
offensive odors, and inhibit, reduce, or eliminate the potential for
putrefaction. The success in achieving these objectives is related to the
effectiveness of the stabilization operation.
Step 1- Step 1 of the Construction Grants Program, (CGP), initiates the
planning and engineering of a POTW. Often Step 1 is a combination of what
has come to be known as a pre-Step 1 and Step 1. Pre-Step 1 planning in-
cludes expected costs, work schedules, and project compatability with
regional plans. Step 1 itself produces a facility plan which defines the
problem, examines alternative solutions, and selects one solution for
implementation.
Step 2 - Step 2 of a CGP develops the detailed plans for a treatment plant
based on the facilities plan produced in Step 1. Both technical and
administrative requirements must be addressed in the plans along with cost
estimates from which bids for construction can be judged.
Step 3 - Step 3 of a CGP is actually the combination of Step 3 and
post-Step 3. In Step 3 the plant is actually constructed and put into
operation. Post-Step 3 involves the final project reviews, reports, and
financial audits.
170
Suspended Solids (SS) -The suspended solids fraction of total solids
consists of particles with a minimum diameter of one micron that will
settle to the bottom of an Imhoff cone in a 60-minute period. The
examination of suspended solids and the BOD test constitute the two main
determinations for water quality performed as wastewater treatment.
Total Solids -All matter that remains as residue upon evaporation of
wastewater at 103 to 105 C. Total solids include suspended solids and
settleable solids.
Toxic Wastes - Wastes that may cause sickness or death if ingested and
retained in the body.
Unsewered Area - A region that does not depend on sewerage for its waste-
water disposal.
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency.
User Charges - Fees levied upon users of a wastewater treatment system
based usually upon the volume and characteristics of the waste.
Waste Load Allocations- Distribution of the total "pollutant load"
permitted on a particular water body among the various discharges to that
water body (required by section 303 of the Clean Water Act}. The
11
po1lu-
tant load
11
for a particular water body is determined by the water quality
standards established for that water body. Waste load allocations are
applied in situations where stream segments are classified as water quality
limited. They will generally result in imposition of stricter effluent
limitations on discharges to a particular stream segment than secondary
treatment.
Water Quality Criteria- The levels of pollutants that affect the suit-
ability of water for a given use. Generally, water use classification
includes: public water supply; recreation; propagation of fish and other
aquatic life; agricultural use and industrial use.
171
201 Facilities Plan - A plan for projected sewerage needs in an area
prepared in accordance with Section 201 of the Clean Water Act.
208 Study - A comprehensive waste management plan generally covering
several counties prepared in accordance with Section 208 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
172
APPENDIX A
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES SERVING MORRIS COUNTY
173
Fan li t.y
Year
Estit'Dli-stHH1
Avg. Oaily
Flow fmgal
Present
Oes l gn Flow

Griginol level of
tles i gn now l rea t!"M?"rtt



Percent
$.u;per1de-ii Sc1 ills
Re!IIOal
TABLE A-1
MUNICIPAl WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS SERVING MORRIS COUNTY
Fecal Co'liforn:s (mg/1}
Effluent
Dily Sludge

Dry !lons l
Averagf! Perl;-ent
Totol Sol 1ds
After Oewateri ng
(SJUQ!je )
Percent Vo1 ati le
So1i1Js
Stab11 tzat1on
(Sluogel
Ultimate Sl udge
C1sposa 1 Foci 1It)'
Year S)ur:Jge Dtsposal
Contract Er.Os
Plans to Cont Inue
Slud9" lhsposal
Contract
Number of Cust....,rs (Esti,..te l
-.T7ot""":-;l--""t0ll!llle . rcial 1ndustr11 Resict>ntlal
ls Your Copaci ty Sufficient For :
(If no, h""' JIOich capacity is oee<ied)
kow 5 Years lO Years
i--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
___ Rl
1 Chatham TownstHp
To.;nsnlp Pollution
Control Plant
0.90 o. 15 9Z 95
1-------------------------------------------------------------
2 florham Pti<

Avthoray
1966 . 660 !.0 Secondary 13 173 38 a.o

.12 l.O 22 51 Landft l 1 Pendi tHJ Renewa i 1es
2,J3<1
2, 7Zl 77 6
Z, JUO
2.636 No: Currentl y
Under
.No; Current1y
Under Study
J----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
llanovf.!r 1960 L85 J . O l.S 247 15. 8 245 13.3 6.9 0
Sewdge .lu t ttcr1 ty
l.O 1.6 2. 5 lnc1nerator Open End!!(j Yes 4,321 Ll8 3,991 Yes Yes
t--4-J._e_H_e_r_s_o_n_________ l9_6_2______ ___ S_e_c_o_n_d- - r-y____ 8_5_____ 8_5__________ 9_i.--20 ____ 9_;_oo --------;7:2o-------;:40--------;;:4o------o-.0-2_______ o ___________ _____ _Ho_CQ_fl_tr_o_c_t________ V_e_s____________ 2_5_2 ______ o____ ___ o______ 2_5_2___ Y_e_s______ M_o _ (_fo- r-.-d-dl_t_i_c_n_a_ I __ No-l-f-<>- r --d- t!-i -t1-l>ll -a-1-l
fowO>hlp custoeoers) cust-rs )
Mtwtc1pdl
Vti 11tl t$ Aut hority
l------....::....---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------1
2-3.9 landfil l 5 Marl i
JoinL T;etiny
19!0 3. 32 1.6 >95 >95 219 224 12 0.1
t--tJ---M -o-nt__i_l_1_e_T_o-.,-n-,n-,,-.P----------O-.-U-,4-5 _____ 0_.-04-4------------,e-c_o_n_a-.;;- . ---------9-4-.5------------------ ----- ---------------- --------------------- - -------.0-1---------------- --------l-n<-_i_o_e-r-a-to-r-------------------------------------\:857------1- 6l-------------
Mu>t-icip:1!l lit l1tttt!s
92
'
2 1
'
690
Au ty ( 3 pic!t:age
p-lants t

7 Morr"ls-Buttenworth
Sew11gt; T f"E:d'bfient
Plnt
l9bJ l.oJ 0.5 SecondiH'y 92.6 99.3 l9t 14 . 31 1. 30 Trace 2.67 1.80 4.04 56 . 74 lnclnerator 1.984 'Yes {conditional} 3, 924 45 3,877 Yes
-------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- - --------------------------------------------------- ----- - ---------- ---- -------------------1
8 f4orrts-Wood1a nj l9c6?: 1.5 l .O 0 , 5 St>con(tdry 93.,8 99 . 4 11. 42 2'01. 12 1..18 9 . 53 1. 73 l. 73 4.2 55.54 l nci nerator 1984 Yes {cor.dit ianal l 1,657 30 l,SlS Ves Mo
Treat.flent
P'ia:nt
,__-------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ - -- --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -------------------1
1 own of s town
Sewer Departtaent
1911 2.6 3. 45 1.0 Secondary
t------------------------------------------- - -----
10 P4rs1ppany
t toy Hl l Is S.ewer-
Au.thorit.t
7 !6.0 4.U
9() !10 3ll J&.s 70
95 85 160 160
il.9 5.! 0 84.8 4.14 4-5 Incinerator 1985 Yes Yes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
!40 1.5 2CO 8. 25 lS Incinerator N.A. H.A. 16, 322 Yes Yes Yes
t--------------------------------------------- ------------------- ----------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ----------------- - --------------------------- ------------------------------------
ll Pasu.1c Townstnp
Sewage 1 re#tMnt
Phnt
l'l40s 0.6S 0. 65 .45 85 lLl
12
L Hlcoln Park and
Fa1rfiel d
St'Werage AutncrHy
13
Joint Meetl r. g
!.4 1.4 lr-iciding
F; f tee
I S 75
!--- ------------------------------------------- ----------
14 Rock"ay
Val ley Regtc>nd!
ty
1 Snrou9h:
Sewer Oepart MAt
)923 s.o 12.0
19&6 0.400
3.&
. 4()0
S-ec<mdary
Secondary

82 85
9?.5 94
101 19
j(;J 8. ) <.1 0. 57 l nc t nsrat<:Or 1985 1, 775 56 19 1,700 Ye-s
-:,-,2-J------,-.-()--------l3----------N-o_t________ 5_0______________ 9_ .6 __ , ___________ 1_9_.7:----
Detectab1e
67. 8 lncin<rotor H.A. 5,ll9 250 28(1 Yes Yes Yes
0.41 Compost :!1500
129 18 3.2 .12 <33 14 1984 Yes 65,000 500 25 64,47S llo : 3.0 agd
13 Trace .3 14.1 landfl ll 1985 Ho 1,485 111. 1,374 ko llo
1-------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- --------------------------------------- ---- ---------------------------------
2Mvur.t0l l .e
Townsh1 p

irf:'dtment
Plant
0.37 o.
1.26 LO
.200 27 tB5 20 15 1.0 0 0. 1 inc i ne.rator 1984 Yes ! ,025 35 910 Ho: .no 1119<1
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
0.5 3,05()
t------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i
Roxbury-S:kyvi n
Sewage T reqtaent
l'laot
5 Washington
Utilities
i\uthQr ity
Hacketts t""n
l!uoic lpa! Ut 1 1 i ties
Autoorlty
1966
l91l
0.018 1}.08
0.26!> 0.500 . JOO
!.477 1.&50 i.6SQ
94 b9
Secorldilry 148 30.1 ! 39,6 !7.2
Secondary 90 !51.5 16.4 147.5 9. ?
0.03 Colllpos t ZOJ
5.1 0 5.3 .107 lnCiMNtor Yes 915 0 0 Yes llo: Undete,.i ned
13.0 0 0.015 ,44 6. 7 locI nerator Yes ? ,5()3 314 l ,l!W

'l Mus<;onetcong
Sewerage Authort ty
J.%9 0.977 1.0 .500 Secoooary 90 210 2() !89 11.9 143. 8 . 25 8,9 Unt i 1 i s
i n operation
No lio: 175,000
!Wd
Hackettstown MUA
Marris-Butterworth
Sewage Treatment Plant
Morris-Woodland Sewage
~ Treatment Plant
U1
Mount Olive Township
Musconetcong Sewerage
Authority
Parsippany roy Hills
Sewer Utility
TABLE A-2
IMPROVEMENT PLANS OF MORRIS COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Planned Improvement
Expand
Upgrade
Modernize
Expand
Expand
Upgrade
Modernize
Expand Plant to.
3.3 mgd
Install more effi-
cient, fine bubble
air diffusers in
aeration tank
Install new pumping
station
Replace obsolete
sludge handling
facilities
0.5 mgd plant
expansion under
construction
Expand plant to 4
mgd
Install interceptor
sewer
Chemical addition
Add solids sludoe
handling system-
Add brickmaking
facility for ash
disposal
Anticipated Funding Amount ($1,000s)
Year Federal State Own Other
1986
1984-85 200
1983-84 $1,250
1984 X
1990 $12,300 $9,650
1984 $10
1984
Passaic Township Sewage
Treatment Plant
Rockaway Valley Regional
Sewerage Authority
TABLE A-2 (continued)
IMPROVEMENT PLANS OF MORRIS COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Planned Improvement
Expand
Modernize,
Expand,
Upgrade
Add two new settling
tanks
Expand chlorine
contact chamber
Construction of new
12 mgd plant
Construction of new
sludge treatment
and disposal facili-
ties
Year
1983-85
1986-87
Anticipated Funding Amount ($1,000s)
Federal State Own Other
$27,126
$10,000
Application
for expansion
with state
$17,296
$8,400
APPENDIX B
MUNICIPALITY QUESTIONNAIRE DATA
177

l!u t ler !loroogll
Chatha'" lloroogll
Chatha"'
thestl!r llorwgll
tllestl!r TllWnsllip
East Hanover
Township
lla nove r T 0>1nsll i p
!larding TO>tnshlp
0
4
5
35
Hl
0
17
defferson Twnslllp 160
Kinnelon lloroogll
Uncoln Part
lloroogh
Mine Hi 1 i Township 36
Monhllle Township
Morris Plal ns Boroogh 0
l'!oontaln lakes
Borough
l'!oont Arlington
Borough
l'!oont 01 he
Township
lletcong
Ill nrda 1 e Borough
l!oda.,ay liorough
T!l>insMp
Roxbury Township
Gllnkns
50
0
100
35
Hl
250
30
(87)
0
15
0
0
0
Hl
0
10
0
60
()
0
2
10
20
5
0
1000
25-30
33
1417
50
25-50
!500
60
1050
6000
95
1099
25()1
0
900
12
3000
200
3217
840
31
4000+
3000
2000
15-20
4
0
10
90
35
0
160
0
0
50
100
0
0
0
156
25
0
Improper systm she or deslgn- 201.; Poor sol1, slope, lot size - 20%
6
0
0
8
0
10
0
0
0
10
60
0
0
10
0
1!es1dent!a1
----
1000
450
357
1477
40
6000
95
0
125
900
11
3800
!00
200-250
3217
765
0
I
0
50
80
1!0
20
33
30
10
0
0
25
30
0
90
!0
0
()
0
20*
40
0
75
50
50
10
40
20
50
67
zo
15
20
!00
5
80
65
33
20*
40
60
100
ll!lproper

----
23
50
15
l!l
40
33
50
40
33
ao
60
50
0
5
20
35
67
20*
20
0
0
30
50
80
0
Hl
0
0
0
30
90
0
10
0
25
0
so
50
20
5
0
50
67
0
75
20
0
0
80
50
50
0
20
15
0
40
33
0
25
50
0
0
10
20
25
0
Interest in
No
No
Need More
Information
No
Heed More
Information
Yes
No
lio
Yes
No
Possibly
No
Undeci <led
Yes
llo
lio
No
Yes
No
No
No
15
9
18
39
0
13
20
139
0
31
32
0
7
0
59
13
126
19
59
82
27
0
12
10
!0
36
0
10
19
145
29
21
0
11
0
52
18
110
17
58
6?
27
0
12
13
30
0
16
16
2
26
27
0
10
2
52
16
93
79
30
0
11
17
45
0
19
. 0
20
154.
0
.24
22
0
Hl
100
47
60
30
0
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE WASTEWATER QUESTIONNAIRES
179
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES QUESTIONNAIRE
TO UPDATE THE WASTEWATER ELEMENT OF THE MORRIS COUNTY MASTER PLAN
Prepared By: The Morris County Planning Board and
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
1. THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND CONCERNS THE WASTE-
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY.
A. What is the official/legal name of the Authority?
B. Address:
----------------------------
, NJ Zip
C. What is the name and telephone number of the Executive Director?
D. What is the name, title, and telephone number of the person filling
out this questionnaire?
E. What is the address of the treatment facility?
----------------------------------- NJ Zip ______ _
F. What year was the plant first put on-line?
2. THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS CONCERNS THE FLOW TO THE FACILITY AND THE TYPE
OF TREATMENT PROVIDED.
A. What is the average daily flow to the treatment facility?
. MGD
----
B. What is the present design flow of the treatment facility?
. MGD
----
c. What wa.s the original design flow (if different from above)?
. MGD
----
180
p.2-Questionnaire
D. What level of treatment does your plant provide?
Primary
Secondary
Advanced
BOD Removal %
Suspended Solids Removal %
E. If the original plant design has changed please indicate the year
of change, any increase in flow or treatment, and the type of
change (e.g., modernization= replacement of original facilities,
expansion= increase in capacity, and upgrade= greater treatment).
YEAR IMPROVEMENT TREATMENT*
Modernization
Expansion
Upgrade
Modernization
Expansion
Upgrade
*Include: (1) Modernization - describe equipment and or processes
replaced.
(2) Expansion - old and new design flow in MGD; old and
new BOD and SS removal efficiencies.
(3) Upgrade - old and new BOD and SS removal
efficiencies; old and new process definitions (e.g.
primary to secondary).
181
p.3-Questionnaire
F. Please provide the average daily findings for the listed
parameters.
1983
INFLUENT EFFLUENT
BOD ( mg/1)
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
TOTAL SETTLEABLE SOLIDS (mg/1)
FECAL COLIFORMS (MPN}
3. THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS CONCERNS SLUDGE PRODUCTION:
A. Would you please tell us about the:
DRY BASIS WET BASIS
TONS GALLONS
DAILY SLUDGE
PRODUCTION
B. Would you please te11 us about the:
BEFORE AFTER
DEWATERING DEWATERING
AVERAGE PERCENT
TOTAL SOLIDS % -%
C. Would you please tell us about volatile solids in your sludge?
BEFORE STABILIZATION: %
----
AFTER STABILIZATION: %
----
182
p.4-Questionnaire
D. If your facility includes a sludge incinerator, please provide the
following:
SLUDGE ASH
TONS/DAY TONS/DAY
DESIGN CAPACITY
OWN SLUDGE
SLUDGE ACCEPTED FROM
ELSEWHERE
E. Where is the ash disposed of?
Landfill name & location:
F. Please provide the name of the septage hauler(s) and source(s) of
septage (if known) and the municipalities they serve {if known).
SOURCE(S) OR
HAULER NAME & REGISTRY AVERAGE GAL/DAY MUNICIPALITY ( S) SERVED
183
p.S-Questionnaire
4. THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS CONCERNS THE ULTIMATE DISPOSAL FACILITY FOR
SLUDGE.
A. What is the name and location of the disposal facility?
Zip
B. What type of facility is it? (Landfill, etc.)
c. What year and month does your contract end?
----
D. Do you plan to continue with this facility when your
contract expires? __
Yes No
--
E. Are you considering going to any other facility?
Type:
Reason:
19
5. WOULD YOU PLEASE FILL IN THE FOLLOWING CHART ABOUT YOUR USERS.
(Estimate)
COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL
NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
ESTIMATED MGD
18.4
TOTAL
p.6-Questionnaire
6. THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS PERTAINS TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE CENTRAL
COLLECTION SYSTEM.
A. To facilitate the mapping of the various infrastructure systems in
Morris County please include infiltration and inflow study maps,
or other equally detailed maps of your service area showing:
(1) Physical layout of the existing or approved for construction
collection system.
(2) Pipe diameter{s).
(3) Direction of flow.
(4) Pumping station location(s) and sizes in MGD.
(5) Indicate pressure, gravity or combined sewers.
(6) Pipe age (if known) and condition (suitable/needs repair).
7. THE FINAL SERIES OF QUESTIONS CONCERNS YOUR FUTURE PLANS.
A. Are you at or near capacity? Yes No
B. Is your capacity sufficient for:
IF NO, HOW MUCH
YES NO ADDITIONAL IS NEEDED
NOW
5 YEARS
10 YEARS
185
C. What are your plans to improve your plant?
DESCRIBE IMPROVEMENT YEAR
MODERNIZE
EXPAND
UPGRADE
p.7-Questionnaire
ANTICIPATED
FUNDING AMOUNTS
(in $1000s)
Federal
State
Own
Other
Federal
State
Own
Other
Federal
State
Own
Other
8. Do you h a v ~ any additional comments, ideas. or information to relate
to us?
9. Signed
Tit1 e
186
Date
MUNICIPAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
TO UPDATE THE WASTEWATER ELEMENT
OF THE MORRIS COUNTY MASTER PLAN
PREPARED BY: THE ~ 1 0 R R I S COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
1. THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS IS GENERAL IN NATURE
A. Municipality:
B. Address:
c. Telephone#:
01. Name of Health Officer:
D2. Name of Onsite Official:
----------------------------------
E. What is name, telephone number, and title of person filling out
this questionnaire?
2. THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS CONCERNS ONSITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS:
A. Estimate the number of onsite systems in use by category:
1. Commercial
2. Industrial
3. Residential
----
B. Would you please include a copy of your 1982 Annual Report?
C. How many septic repair permits did you record in:
1983 --'
1982 --
1981 __ , 1980
D. Please estimate the percentage of septic problems that have been
caused by:
1. High water table: %
2. System failure: %
3. Improper maintenance: %
187
p2 - Questionnaire
E. Of the known problem areas, please indicate:
AREA PROBLEM CAUSE
F. Please indicate the corporate names of the septage hauler(s) that
serve your municipality.
G. Please provide a summary of the administrative actions taken as a
result of septic problems:
AREA NUMBER TYPE OF ACTION OR REMEDY
. ~ . . . -.PUBL! c PRIVATE - ~ - - - - ......... - .. .. -
188
p.3 - Questionnaire
3. THIS SERIES CONCERNS YOUR FUTURE PLANS:
A. In what areas of your municipality do you anticipate growth within
the next ten years? Classify by type of growth (residential, com-
mercial, industrial) and by type of wastewater treatment planned
(sewers, onsite systems, communal systems or package plants, etc.)
AREA __ ... OF __ JB.EATM._,_,E=N,_,_T __
B. (1) Does your community have any wastewater or sewerage master
plans? YES NO
---
(2) If yes, please enclose. If enclosure is impossible, please
tell us what year the study was performed and the title of
the study.
5. THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS CONCERNS EFFORTS TO REDUCE AND CONTROL
SEPTAGE.
A. Is your municipality part of a septage management program?
YES NO
B. If yes, what communities/authorities are included within the
district?
c. If no, would you have an interest in joining or creating a septage
'
l
I
management district? YES NO __ _
189
1-'
tO
0
I
I
i
!
4. PLEASE IDENTIFY ALL KNOWN WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS THAT SERVE YOUR MUNICIPALITY.
(Include package plants and industrial treatment plants.)
p.4-Questionnaire
FLOW
NAME OF FACILITY LOCATION
OWNERSHIP
(PUBLIC/PRIVATE)
SIZE
(MGD)
(# OF CONNECTIONS/% OF FLOW)
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
I
1
I !
/ I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I I
I
I I
'
I I I I I
' I
I
'
I I I
I
I
I
l
! !
!
I
'
I I
I
I !
I
I
I
I I I
I
I i \
I '
I
I !
I
I i
I I I I
I
I
I
I I I I
i
i
l
I I I I
I I I
. I
I I I - ~
I
!
p.5 - Questionnaire
6. DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, IDEAS, OR INFORMATION TO RELATE TO
US?
7. SIGNED
TITLE
DATE --------
191
MUNICIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE
TO UPDATE THE WASTEWATER ELEMENT
OF THE MORRIS COUNTY MASTER PLAN
PREPARED BY: THE MORRIS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
1. THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS IS GENERAL IN NATURE
A. Municipality:
B. Address:
C. Telephone #:
D. What is name, telephone number, and title of person
filling out this questionnaire?
2. THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS CONCERNS ONSITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS:
A. Estimate the number of onsite systems in use by category:
1. Commercia 1
2. Industrial
3. Residential
----
B. Please estimate the percentage of septic problems that have been
caused by:
1. High water table: %
---
2. System failure: %
---
3. Improper maintenance: %
192
p.2 - Questionnaire
C. Of the known problem areas, please indicate:
AREA PROBLEM CAUSE
l
I
!
01. Have there been any public well closures due to septic problems?
YES NO
02. Have there been any private well closures due to septic problems?
\
YES NO
3. THIS SERIES CONCERNS YOUR FUTURE P L A N S ~
A. In what areas of your municipality do you anticipate growth within
the next ten years? Classify by type of growth (residential, com-
mercial, industrial) .and by type of wastewater treatment planned
(sewers, onsite systems, communal systems or package plants, etc.).
AREA TYPE OF GROWTH TYPE OF TREATMENT
;
I
I
\
i
I
I
!
B. (1) Does your community have any wastewater or seweraqe master
plans? YES - NO
---
(2) If yes, please enclose. If enclosure is impossible, please
tell us what year the study was performed and the title of
the study.
193
p. 3- Questionnaire
5. THIS SERIES OF QUESTIONS CONCERNS EFFORTS TO REDUCE AND CONTROL
SEPT AGE.
A. Does your municipality have an ordinance requiring the installation
of dry sewer 1 i nes? YES NO
B. If yes, what year was it adopted?
C. What section of your municipal code is this ordinance under? _____ _
0. Please describe the general provisions of the ordinance:
E. Is your municipality part of a septage management program?
YES NO
F. If yes, what communities/authorities are included within the
district?
G. If no, would you have an interest in joining or creating a septage
management district? YES NO __________ _
194
p.4 - Questionnaire
6. SEWERAGE FINANCES
A. Does your municipality own its own sewers? YES NO
Is your municipality also a sewerage
authority? YES NO
B. Is your municipality also a sewerage
authority? YES NO
c. Does your municipality maintain the sewers? YES NO
D. How are sewer use taxes collected? (i.e., property tax, fixture
charge, ad valorem charge, etc.)
E. What is the current sewer use tax rate (include appropriate units)
$ per
7. MAPS
A. Please enclose a map(s) of your municipality showing the following
information, if obtainable:
(1) Physical layout of existing or approved-for-construction sewage
collection systems. Please indicate:
(2)
a. Pipe diameter(s)
b. Direction of flow
c. Pump station location(s) and sizes in MGD
d. Areas with "dry
11
sewers
e. Pressure, gravity, or combined sewers
f. Pipe age (if known) and condition (suitable/needs repair)
Areas where onsite treatment systems are used. Indicate:
a. Areas served by individual septic systems
b. Areas served by communal septic systems
c. Areas of documented groundwater contamination due to septic
systems
d. Areas of suspected groundwater contamination due to septic
systems
e. Areas of groundwater contamination due to other sou-rces
195
p.5- Questionnaire
8. DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, IDEAS, OR INFORMATION TO RELATE TO
US?
9. SIGNED
TITLE
DATE --------
196
APPENDIX D
NEW JERSEY SURFACE WATER QUALITY
RATING SYSTEM AND CRITERIA
197
APPENDIX D
EXPLANATION OF SURFACE WATER
QUALITY RATING SYSTEM
{From New Jersey State Water Quality Inventory Report, 1982)
The overall water quality rating (poor, fair, good, or excellent) assigned
to each stream segment is an average water quality assessment for the years
1977 to 1981. In order to understand the status of Morris County's waters
relative to the goals of the federal Clean Water Act, water quality
ratings are defined as follows:
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent -
Quality prevents fish propagation but would allow fish
survival except for certain times of the year when fish
kills may occur. Unsuitable for swimming and shellfish
harvesting.
Fish propagation could occur for pollution tolerant
species. Provides for fish survival except for instances
when limited fish kills may occur. Generally unsuitable
for swimming and shellfish harvesting.
Fish propagation and maintenance of desirable species would
occur. Suitable for swimming except for localized
bacterial problems. Generally suitable for shellfish
harvesting, except for localized restrictions.
Essential absence of significant pollution problems. Fish
and maintenance of natural species would occur.
Suitable for swimming except for localized bacterial
problems. Suitable for shellfish harvesting.
198
These categories do not attempt to identify water purity from the stand-
point of potable water use. Many waters in all categories are suitable for
potable use after appropriate treatment processes are applied.
The rating of each stream segment in one of the four categories is based on
available physical, chemical and biological data. Nevertheless, it should
be recognized that the category assigned to a given stream segment may not
apply to every mile of the segment, particularly the headwaters where water
quality may be significantly better than the average water quality stated
for the entire segment. With regard to fishlife, it must also be
emphasized that there are many interrelated factors that determine whether
or not a given species will be present in a stream. Even if the amount of
dissolved oxygen is sufficient for fish survival and reproduction, the
presence of one or more toxic substances, excess suspended solids, or other
factors acting alone or in combination may limit fish populations in a
stream.
The four categories represent a continuum of water quality ranging from
levels below the goal of fishable and swimmable (poor) to levels achieving
these goals {excellent). By applying these categories to waters of the
County it is possible to identify progress being made toward attainment of
the goals in the Clean Water Act.
(201/3)
199
NEW JERSEY SURFACE WATER
QUALITY CRITERIA
200
N
0
......
Substance
1. Bacterial quality
(Counts/100 ml)
7:9-4.141cl Surface Water Quality Criteria for
FW2, SE and SC Waters
!Expressed as maximum concentrations unless otherwise noted)
Cr lteria
i. Bacterial Indicators shall not exceed, in all shellfish
waters, the standard for approved shellfish waters
as established by the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program as set forth in its current manual of operations.
11. Fecal Coliforms:
(l) Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric
average of 50/100 ml.
(2) Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric
average of 200/100 ml nor should more than 10 percent
of the total samples taken during any 30-day period
exceed 400/100 ml.
(3) Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric
average of 770/100 ml.
(4) Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric
average of 770/100 ml.
(5) Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed a geometric
average of 1500/100 ml.
111. Samples shall be obtained at sufficient frequencies
and at locations during periods which will permit
valid interpretation of laboratory analyses. As a
guideline and for the purpose of these regulations,
a minimum of five samples taken over a 30-day period
should be collected, however, the number of samples,
frequencies and locations will be determined by the
department or other appropriate agency in any
particular case.
Class if ica Uons
Shellfish Waters
Within 1500 feet of shore-
line in SC waters.
FW2 (except as in (3) be-
low), SEl, and SC 1500 feet
to 3 miles from the shore-
line.
Tidal portion of FW2-NT
tributaries to the Delaware
River, between Rancocas
Creek and Big Timber Creek
inclusive.
SE2
SE3
All Classifications
N
0
N
7:9-4.14!cl Surface Water Quality Criteria for
FW2, SE and SC Waters
(Expressed as maximum concentrations unless otherwise noted)
Substance
2.
3.
4.
Chloride (mg/ll
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
Floating, colloidal, color and settleable
solids; petroleum hydrocarbons and other
oils and grease
Criteria
1. 250
1. Not less than 7.0 at any time.
11. 24 hour average not less than 6.0. Not less
than 5.0 at any time (see paragraph viii below).
111. 24 hour average not less than 5.0, but not less
than 4.0 at anytime !see paragraph viii below).
iv. Not less than 4.0 at any time.
v. Not less than 5.0 at any time.
vi. Not less than 4.0 at any time.
v11. Not less than 3.0 at any time.
viii. Supersaturated dissolved oxygen
values shall be expressed as their
corresponding 100 percent saturation
values for purposes of calculating
24 hour averages.
1. None noticeable in the water or
deposited along the shore or on the
aquatic substrata In quantities
detrimental to the natural biota.
None which would render the waters
unsu!L1ble Cor the des!gndted uses.
Classifications
FW2
FW2-TP
nn-w
FW2-NT (except as in
iv below), SEl
.Tidal portions of FW2-NT
tributaries to the Delaware
River, between Rancocas
Creek and Big Timber
Creek inclusive.
sc
SE2
SE3
FW2-TH, FW2-NT, SEl
All Classifications
r-..:;
0
w
?;q-4.14(cl Surface Water Quality Criteria for
FW2, Sf. ilnd SC Waters
(Expressed as maximum conccntralion!> unless otherwise noted)
Substance Cr1teria
5. pH (Standard Units)
6. Phosphorus, Total (mq/ll
11. For "Petroleum Hydrocarbons" the goal
is none detectable utilizing the
Federal EPA Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory Method (Freon
Extractable - Silica Gel Adsorption -
Infrared Measurement); the present
criteria, however, are those of
paragraph i. above.
i. 6.5-8.5
ii. Natural pH conditions shall prevail.
i. ~ : Phosphorus as total P shall
not exceed 0.05 in any lake, pond
or reservoir, or in a tributary at
the point where it enters such
bodies of water, except where site-
specific criteria are developed
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.5(g)3.
ii. Streams: Except as necessary to
satisfy the more stringent criteria
in paragraph 1 above or where site-
specific criteria are developed
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.5(g)3,
phosphorus as total P shall not
exceed 0.1 in any stream, unless it
can be demonstrated that total P is
not a limiting nutrient and will not
otherwise render the waters unsuitable.
for the designated uses.
Class i UcaUons
All Classifications
Fll2, All SE
sc
FW2
FW2
Substance
7.
a.
9.
N
0
..j::>.
Radioactivity
Solids, Suspended (mg/ll
[Non-filterable residue]
Solids, Total Dissolved
[F1! terable Residue] (mgll)
10. Sulfate (mg/1)
Surface Water Quality Criteria for
FW2, SE and SC Waters
(Expressed as maximum concentrations unless otherwise noted)
Crilt::ria
1. Prevailing regulations adopte1 hy the
U.S. En\'lronmental Protectior: Agency
pursuant to Sect1ons 1445, and
1450 of the Public Bculth Services
Act, as amended by the Sate Drinking
Water Act (PL
1. 25.0
ii. 40.0
iii. N0ne which would render the waters
unsuitable for tlw rksignated u:.es.
1. No increuse in background which may
adverse' y affect t!:t.: val c;rowth
or propagation of the biota
or wou!d interfere with the des!qnated
or existing uses, or 500 mgl!, llihichevm:
if' more stringent. (lncreasPs up to 133
percent of background are deemed to be
in compliancf: with the narrative criterion
above. Ir.creases ahove 133 percent of
background rna)' be granteci wt:(>re the
discharger demon:;trates, to the satis-
faction o: the depart mer, t, that the
proposed increase will not adversely
affect the aqua! ic biota.:
ii. Norw which wou11 render the l<lilter
unsuitatlt- for the designated uses.
i. :!"(\
Class it ications
All Classifications
FW2-TP I FW2-TM
FW2-NT
Al J SE, SC
FW2
All SE
FW2
Substance
11. Taste and odor producing substances
12. Temperature and Heat Dissipation
Areas
N
0
01
~ :9-4.14 (c) Surface \-later Quality Cr! teria for
FW2, SE and SC Waters
(Expressed as maximum concentratior:s unless otherwise noted)
Criteria
1. None offensive to humans or which would
produce offensive taste or odors in
water supplies and biota used for human
consumption. None which would render
the waters unsuitable for the designated
uses.
i. 'l'hermal Alterations (Temperatures shall be
measured outside of heat dissipation areas)
(l) Streams
(1) No thermal alterations which would cause
changes in ambient temperatures
except where properly treated waste-
water effluents are discharged. Where
such discharges occur, temperatures
shall not deviate more than 0.6C
(lFl from ambient temperature.
(ii) No thermal alterations which would
cause temperatures to exceed ambient
by more than l.lC (2F) at any time
or which would cause temperatures in
excess of 20C (68F).
(iii) No thermal deviations which would
cause temperatures to deviate more than
2.8C (5F) at any time from ambient
temperatures. No heat may be added
which would cause temperatures to exceed
27.8C (82F) for small mouth bass or
yellow perch waters, or 30C (86F) for
other nontrout waters.
Classifications
All Classifications
FW2-TP
FW2-'l'M
FW2-NT
Substance
[',)
0
0'\
7:"' '41c) c .. Ot'"V Cr ..
S SC Waters
as max!mur. r.oncentrat1ons unless noted}

(ivl No U.ermal altf!raUons which would
cau:.P to devtate from
ambieut ty. than (4f':, from
Ccpteaber throuqh nor more than
0.8( 0.5Fl hom June through Auqust,
nor Citu:;e tel'llpel atures to exceed 29.4 C
(B5Fl.
121 Lakes, Ponds or Reservoirs
(1 I No thermal alteratiom. occept where 1t
can bE- ;;howu to be beneficial tu the
and existing uses.
11LI No thermal of more than
1.7( f3"Fl in ol lakes
and other stand!r.q waters. No dischar9es
ot' effluent into the hypolimnion
nor pul!lptnq of water trom the hypolimnion
!for tHschclrge tack into Uw same 111ater
bodyl shall be (Jertn:Uel'i unless it is
demonstn.ted, to tt.e of the
t.hat such practices will he
to the existing and designated
uses.
(31 Waters - No direct additions
wlthln lSOO feet of the shoreline. No thermal
alterations which would cause temperatures to
riE\' i.at. r rclf ambient temr>ratures b) More than
::!.l"C 14ef'l frOI'II Se(Jtcmber throuyl, nor n:ore
thi\n 0.8C ll.5f'l ,'une through Auqust,
nor whlch would cause tf'mperatures to exceed
2L7C (80F'l.
ClassH ications
All SE
FW2-'m
FW:Hn'
sc
Substance
N'
0
""-J
13. Toxic Substances (general)
7:9-4.14k) Surface Water Quality Crit<'ria tor
f ~ 2 , SE and SC Vaters
(ExpressPd as maximum concentrations unles5 otherwise noted)
Criteria
ii. Heat Dissipation Areas
(1) Streams
(i) Not ~ o r e than one-quarter (1/4) of
the cross section and/or volume of
the water body at any time.
(ii) Not more than two-thirds (2/3) of
the surface from shore to shore at
any time.
(iii) These limits may be exceeded by
special permission, on a case-by-case
basis, when a discharger can demonstrate
that a larger heat dissipation area meets
the tests for a waiver under Section 316
of the Federal Clean Water Act.
(2) Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs, Bays or Coastal
Waters: Heat dissipation areas will be
developed on a case-by-case basis.
1. None, either alone or in combination with
other substances, in such concentrations
as to affect humans or be detrimental to
the natural aquatic biota, produce undesirable
aquatic life, or which would render the
waters unsuitable for the designated uses.
ii. None which would cause standards for
drinking water to be exceeded after
appropriate treatment.
Classifications
FW2-TH, FW2-NT,
lUI SE
FW2-TM, FW2-NT,
All SE, SC
All Classifications
FW2
Substance
N
0
co
14. Toxic Substances (ug/1):
i. Aldrin/Dieldrin
ii. Ammonia, un-ionized
(24 hr. average)
iii. Arsenic, Total
iv. Barium, Total
7:9-4.14(c) Surface Water Quality Criteria for
FW2, SE and SC Waters
(Expressed as maximum concentrations unless otherwise noted)
Criteria
i11. Toxic substances shall not be present in
concentrations that cause acute or chronic
toxicity to aquatic biota, or bioaccumulate
within an organism to concentrations that
exert a toxic effect on that organism or
render it unfit for
iv. The concentrations of nonpersistent toxic
substances in the State's waters shall not
exceed one-twentieth (0.05) of the acute
definitive LC50 or EC50 value, as determined
by appropriate bioassays conducted in
accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:18.
v. The concentration of persistent toxic
substances in the State's waters shall not
exceed one-hundredth (0.01) of the acute
definitive LC50 or EC50 value, as determined
by appropriate bioassays conducted in
accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:18.
(1} 0.0019
(1) 20
(2) 50
(3) 0.1 of acute definitive LC50 or EC50
(1) 50
(ll 1000
Classifications
All Classifications
All Classifications
All Classifications
All Classifications
FW2-TP, FW2-TM
FW2-NT
All SE, SC
FW2
FW2
N
0
1..0
Substance
v. Benzidine
vi. Cadmium, Total
vii. Chlordane
viii. Chlorine, Total Residual
[TRC]
ix. Chromium, Total
x. DDT and Metabolites
xi. Endosulfan
xii. Endrin
xiii. Heptachlor
xiv. Lead, Total
xv. Lindane
xvi. Mercury, Total
xvii. Polychlorinated
biphenyls [PCB's]
xviii. Selenium, Total
xix. Silver, Total
xx. Toxaphene
7:9-4.14(c) Surface Water Quality Criteria for
FW2, SE and SC Waters
(Expressed as maximum concentrations unless otherwise noted)
Criteria
!1) 0.1
(l) 10
(1) 0.0043
(2) 0.0040
(l) 3.0
(2) 10.0
(l) 50
(l) 0.0010
(1) 0.056
(2) 0.0087
(1) 0.0023
(1) 0.0038
(2) 0.0036
(1) 50
(1) 0.080
(2) 0.004
(1) 2
(1) 0.014
(2) 0.030
(1) 10
(1) 50
(1) 0.013
(2) 0.005
Classifications
All Classifications
FW2
FW2
.1\11 SE, SC
FW2
All SE, SC
FW2
All Classifications
FW2
All SE, SC
All Classifications
FW2
All SE, SC
FW2
FW2
All SE, SC
FW2
FW2
All SE, SC
FW2
FW2
FW2
All SE, SC
Substance
15. Turbidity (Nephelometric Turbidity
Unit-NTU)
N
t-'
0
7:9-4.14(c) Surface Water Quality Criteria for
FW2, SE and SC Waters
(Expressed as maximum concentrations unless otherwise noted)
Criteria
i. Maximum 30-day average of 15 NTU,
a maximum of 50 NTU at any time.
ii. Maximum 30-day average of 10 NTU,
a maximum of 30 NTU at any time.
111. Levels shall not exceed 10.0 NTU.
Classifications
FW2, SE3
SEl, SE2
sc