Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924004983510 Cornell University Library TD 525.M8A3 Report of the Board of Sewerage of the T 3 1924 004 983 510 RBPORT —OK- THE BOARD OF SEWERAGE —OP- THE TOWN OF MORRISTOWN, N. J. ■WITH THE REPORT OF THE ENGINEERS MAPS, PLANS, ESTIMATES, ETC. PRESENTED FEBRUARY 28, 10O7 " The Jerseymaa " Pres=, Morristown, N. J. BOARD OF ALDERMEN MAYOR : AJvEXANDER BENNELI. aldermen: JACOB O. ARNOI.D JOHN J. A. OWENS OUVER K. DAY CLIFFORD RUTAN WALTER V. MESLER J. DIXON' THOMPSON IRA MOWERY KINSLEY TWINING BOARD OF SEWERAGE PHILIP H. COOPER, Chairman EUGENE S. BURKE, Secretary CHARLES D. M. COLE EMILE HURTZIG ENGINEERS WILLIAMS, PROCTOR & POTTS New York City REPORT OF BOARD OF SEWERAGE To The PIonokable The Matob And Board of Aldermen of The Town of Moebistown. Gentlemen : The Board of Sewerage of the Town of Morristown, ap- pointed by His Honor, Abram Q Garretson, Judge of the Circuit Court of the County of Morris, under and by virtue of an act of the L9gislature of the State of New Jersey, entitled '• An Act to authorize incorporated towns to construct, operate and maintain a system of sewers, or a system of sew- ers and drains, and to provide for the payment of the costs of the construction, operation and maintenance thereof," approv- ed April Third, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Two and Amendments thereto, hereby reports under the hand of its Chairman and Secretary its determination. The members of the Board, having duly qualified accord- ing to law, met on the 13th day of April, lyOfi, and organized by the election of Rear Admiral Philip H Cooper, as Chair- man, and Eugene S Burke as Secretary. Willard W. Cutler, Esquire, was appointed "Counsel to the Board. Morristown has reached a point in its growth where sew- erage facilities are absolutely necessary to its general health and prosperity. There are to-day cesspools under buildings in Morristown which have to be pumped out from the cellar through the building to a vehicle in the street. Furthermore, the streams flowing through the Town are daily polluted by private drains and overflows from cesspools ; the engineers estimate that more than a thousand people are so polluting these streams) so that when they are at a low stage, especially in the summer time, the raw sewage thus turned into them cannot be assimilated by dilution and an intoler- able nuisance results therefrom. The Town is fully warranted in making the necessary ex- penditures, for aside from the necessity of considering the health of the people it is an indisputable fact the introduc- tion of a system of sewerage will very greatly enhance the value of real estate in the Town and add to its prosperity. This matter being of so much importance to the community it is to be hoped that every tax payer will carefully consider this and the Engineer's report. After its organization the Board set out to determine the system of sewers most advantageous and for the best interests of the Town. Finding the maps, plans, estimates and data at its dispos- al entirely inadequate, the Board, after extensive inquiry re- specting the different sanitary engineers who had been under favorable consideration, voted unanimously to employ Messrs Williams, Proctor & Potts, of New York, to prepare and sub- mit a report for the comprehensive sewering of the Town, with a recommendation as to the best method of disposal. The Board of Sewerage, in submitting a report of its work feels that the exhaustive and excellent report of these en- gineers, herewith submitted, makes it unnecessary to state more than a few facts relating to the. subject under consider- ation, which do not properly belong in the Engineers' report, but which may serve as an introduction to the same .While the necessary surveys and plans were being pre- pared by these Engineers, the Board inquired into various methods for the disposal of sewage, considering first a con- nection with the Joint Outlet Sewer at Summit The Joint Outlet Sewer, completed in July, 1903, was built by eleven (11) separate municipalities in Essex and Union Counties, and runs from Summit to the Arthur Kill, a distance of twenty-three ('23) miles. It was intended in the construction of this sewer to provide sufficient capacity for Madison, Morristown and Morris Plains (State Hospital), the extra capacity being taken by Summit with the idea of selling it to these municipalities when ready to connect with the sewer. Summit however, is now unwilling to sell enough space for both Madison and Morristown, and, as the State Hospital has recently renovated its disposal system and will not entertain any proposition for connection with the Joint Outlet Sewer, the entire expense of connecting with the sew- er would have to be borne by Morristown alone, if it should now adopt that system. To connect with the Joint Outlet Sewer at Summit, Mor- ristown would have to construct about fifty thousand (50,000) feet of open cut sewer, and either thirteen thousand (13,000) feet of tunnel under Hobart Hill, or establish a pumping station at this point to pump the sewage over the hill. There are so many objections to the establishment and maintenance of the pumping station that the Board could not consider it except as a last resort. The tunnel is feasible, but, owing to the uncertain character of the soil no engineer will guarantee an estimate without borings, which would cost a much great- er sum than the Board has at its disposal From estimates submitted, by competent engineers the Board believes the cost to Morristown of connecting with the trunk sewer would be at least Four Hundred and Sixty-Three Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars (*463.260 00). To this, of course, must be added the estimated cost of sewer- ing the Town Two Hundred aud Fifty-One Thousand, Fiv Hundred and Forty-Five Dollars and Seveniy Cents ($"25l 545 7ii;\i x f -1 \VA(.I. |I|>I'0-AI. ,/ MOKHIS 1 OWN /' / .,„,,„,.;,■„„...„., ■, ;- / >^ y \uiji\\iN i'i«i|(j'o« & tnms y> r •/ >> NKHVOHKcm . _ ... ■■ ,. 1 ^ ^^---...j' . ' y/l \ / ■-rzir-z -'-.-■, . • .. -"'VX \ ^,^^%^ ,-Aa -— — _ *■ ,>^'. V ',-*^Sk"' "^^ '^^^i^'^ '^jT ' '}■ Jr' '*' ""' /i- ~ """■ 'a"' V' '\>i!^^^^ t\ 7^^^^^ .^^'^^-^'''''''^'^ '■^■^j/''^. % :^^'^w^^raiyQ''' - ' ■-^•rri^-"'- '-.j,^ /'/ ' J^\'\ '^ "A^^i="'^'^^>^^^^--^^\ -y^^^S^ ■^" ' ' J -S ^f ^ -'^^ \ ^>' =^ft*fe^^^S^%sil//'i^^^x^'' :' ^"~"--^^a^i^^^5''*'¥s*&" ■l4I^S^3 • 'J^^^^^ ' ~ -- ,..,^^^^^^>ypi|fjEi^^g^^T -? "'^ ■ : i "'-^ "^^jis=^^,3J^^^^S^ ■ , --— '-=;=5>5^^ -^; >^^^^^l^f^'^r^vk ••jM- J^^'^''^.* '' '■ ■-«''^>'**'^^^^i^"^ "^'X : "I^^ '^^^t^jT'^^ *^^-^^ri^?^- ^^^^ \ ^ "^>Pll *^^^^T^"- " , / " '•^^Lji''*5?^^*^'f^^— "^^^^^ 1 /^ ^^ fl^f\?l^^w''^ ^ j\ '■■V " ■'** J^ ^- '/ ■ \ -^^ » / ''it:)/ ,r. 'aVx: \>< ^" ^ ,. X''- y^ ' \ i\ ^'^ ~' /■ ~ / ' 'i' »X' »'\ '*-> '\ '•■ "' \* ' • -A /\ . !; / ^ ■■';'• vCX'x \' \:i--r--< 1 ■ " *^\, */\ \* "^ l\' ' f:!' "' aJ /' \ \ 'r // I *• '■ • '^^'?■^**<^^ \ 'f. C_/ ' , ' •• y-"* /*"^*S(A 1,,' ' ' T^W ■ '■. /' .' ^\? . / % ■' / '■-: ;\ 1 — ' V ; - ■• } "~"j9:i~-^:,„ .' Showing portions iu black lines of the sewers recommended in the Engineers* Report to be built in 1907. REPORT OF THE ENGINEERS. December 31st, 1906. To the Honorable i Rear- Admiral Philip H. Cooper, Chairman ; Eugene 8. Burke, Secretary j Charles D. M. Cole and Emile Hurtzig, Members of Morristown Sewerage Commis- sion, Morristown, N. J.: Gentlemen : In pursuance of au agreement entered into with your Honorable Body, dated August 10th, 1906, we submith here- with our Report for the comprehensive sewering of the Town of Morristown, New Jersey, with a proper method of disposal. GENERAL DISCUSSION. SEWAGE FLOW PER CAPITA. § 1. In designing the sewers and sewage disposal worlis for Morristown, the information first essential is, of course, th& probable amount of sewage for which to provide. Morristown has no public sewers whose flow we can measure, therefore, the nearest approximation to the proper amount can be had only through the per capita consumption of water as furnished by the proprietors of the Morris Aqueduct, which is 40 gallons per person per day (see letter appended). Assuming the population of Morristown to be cared for in the proposed sewers to be 15,- 000 persons, would give a sewage flow of 600,000 gallons. Ex- perience shows that when a system of sewers is constructed in a town, people use more water than formerly. For the purpose of our estimate, we have assumed that the per capita consump- tion of water at Morristown will increase from 40 gallons to 60 gallons per person per day. This gives us a probable sewage flow of 900,000 gallons. LEAKAGE OR INFILTRATION. § 2. No matter what care is taken in the construction, of sewers, there is always more or less infiltration of ground water, depending on the character of the soil, the height, etc. This is usually approximated at 10 per cent, of the whole flow, or, in the case of Morristown, 90,000 gallons per day. This we be- lieve to be ample, for with gaugiugs of newly constnacted sew- ers built by us in other places, we find that under our specifica- tions the leakage seldom exceeds 3,000 gallons per mile. The profiles of the proposed sewers at Morristown call for 28.0 miles of sewers. With leakage at 3,000 gallons per mile, this would give us 84,000 gallons, which, "as will be seen, is about 9.3 per cent, of the sewage flow for which we propose to provide, giving us still a leeway of 16,000 gallons per day on our allowance of 10 per cent, for leakage. Our sewers and disposal plant are accordingly designed to care for a total flow of 1,000,600 gallons of sewage and infiltration. FUTURE POPULATION. § 3. It is hardly probable that many more people will live within the Town limits of Morristown, — certainly no considera- ble percentage of the present population: Asa rule, the availa- ble building sites within the Town hmits are occupied. While Morristown covers approximately 3 square miles, much of this is occupied by large estates, some of them occupying several acres, and it is hardly possible that these will be divided, at least, in this generation. We have, therefore, designed the sewers to care for a maximum population of 15,000, and have designed a sewage plant to treat a corresponding amount of sewage. ELASTIC DESIGN. § 4. The plant is designed to be elastic so that it may be added to without any hindrance to the general arrangments. It is proposed to build 4 sections of the sedimentation tanks at the present time, and any one of these may be thrown out of com- mission at the option of the operator, or, if desired, the entire sewage can be run through 1 unit and 3 thrown out of commis- sion. The same arrangement is made for each remaining pro- cess in the method of disposal. PRIVATE WAYS. § 5. Any system for Morristown must necessarily include an unusual amount of private ways. This is true because of the fact the streets are laid out with no sort of regularity, and also because the physical shape of the Town is such that num- bers of creeks and waterways cross private lands; and as a rule it may be said that a system of drainage follows the natural waterways. We have tried in our design to keep the private ways to a minimum, and in all cases have figured the expense of the private way as compared to extra deep cutting necessary to keep the sewers in the streets, and in most cases have chosen the cheaper method, although in some cases we have advocated deep cuts as being preferable to private ways. In the plans as completed, 14 3 per cent, of the sewers are shown crossing pri- PI.ATK II, -I \v vi.i ni-ro- M. M()liKI>- I (>\\ N WIl.l.LVMS l'K(K lilK i i'UTl' j^., .7 , .'I 1.-,: ; -. s-"Ji,-':„-.> vr «>4;rrr .tLjgiSs , T<> 1:. » A PLAN or -ISOg The area unshaded drains by gravity lo the Hidgedale avenue outfall. 'I'he shaded area is drained to ejectors from which it is forced over the ridge to the main systei.i. vate lands. These, of course, are mostly trunk sewers and do not serve as laterals. GENERAL SCHEDULE OF DRAINAGE. § 6. The gempral scheme of the system of drainage shows the low point of the system to be about 800 feet east of Abbett Avenue on Ridgedaie Avenue. From this point it is very easy to drain all that portion of the Town lying east of South Street and Madison Avenue and north of Court Street, shown on Plate II as unshaded. EJECTORS. § 7. In draining the remainder of the Town, as shown on Plate II shaded in light lines, three ways present themselves — First — By running a tunnel under the ridge at Madison Avenue South Street, as recommended by Messrs. Herring & Fuller in their scheme of 1902. However, some equallj' advan- tageous location might be chosen. Second — By installing a pumping station or ejector cham- ber at Green and James Streets,- and one on Wetmore Avenue to pump all the sewage over the ridge to a manhole at James and South Streets, and to a flush tank at Maple Avenue and DeHart Street respectively. The sewage so pumped amounts to approximately 120,000 gallons per day. Other small ejectors could be ■ built when needed, one being at the point where South Street crosses the Town line. These ejectors, which it is proposed to operate by electricity, will be automatic, the elec- trical device beng set in operation and stopped by means of a float in the ejector chamber which rises and falls with the sew- age. Third — By treating the sewage of the western portion of the Town in an independent disposal plant. for the SEWER GRADES. § 8. In laying out the sewers we have adopted minimum grades the following: , 8 inch 0,5 10 " .35 12 " .26 15 " .16 18 " .11 20 " .09 24 " .085 These grades will give a minimum velocity of 2 to 3 feet per sec- ond in the pi pes, which experience has shown to be a self-cleans- ing velocity. The trunk sewers are about the only pipes that are affected by these minimum grades, the greater percentage of the laterals being laid on steeper grades to conform to the shape of the ground. Most of the sewers are laid at a minimum depth of 9 feet, iu some cases more, as the depth of cellars were noted at the time of making the surveys and in nearly all cases it is attempted to lay the sewers at a sufficient depth to drain cellars. FLUSHING. § 9. Automatic flush tanks can be placed at the dead ends of laterals, laid on a less grade than 1 per cent. In every case where the dead ends are laid on grades exceeding 1 per cent , flushing manholes are sufficient. This type of a flushing manhole allows inspection of the dead ends and also flushing at periodic intervals. In flushing, the manhole is filled with water, the end of the pipe having been previously covered by a flap. Upon the removal of the flap, the contents of the manhole are allowed to rush through the sewer. This methoa of flushing gives a flush wave the full bore of the sewer, and its effects may be traced a thousand feet down the sewer. PERIODIC vs. AUTOMATIC FLUSHING. § 10. The question of flushing is one that is by no means solved, the evidence fcJr and against being about evenly divided between periodic flushing of this kind and automatic flushing. Indeed, there are advocates of the idea of no flushing at all. Mr. F. S. Odell, of Portchester, N. Y., in an exhaustive article in the Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1893, describes the sanitary sewers of Portchester in which periodic flushing only is used. His experiences indicate that au- tomatic flu¥hit)g is a double waste of money, there being the first cost of the flush tanks and the cost of the enormous amount of water used by them annually. COMPARATIVE COST OF PERIODIC VS. AUTOMATIC FLUSHING. § 11. In Morristown there are approximately iHQ dead ends which would require 136 flush tanks at a cost of $5000 each more than flushing manholes. This item of first cost would amount to $6,300.00. The tanks would consume daily 33,900 gallons of water, which equals 13,797,000 gallons per year, which at 15c per*housand gallons, amounts to $2,069.75 per year for water alone. The interest on the first cost at 5 pc. would amount to $315.50 per year, making a total annual cost of $2,- 384.75 as the charge against automatic fiushing. On the other hand, with periodic fiushing, it would require, as experience has shown in 6 towns in New England, fiushing 4 times a year, which, for the 126 fiush tanks, would require perhaps 157,000 gallons, which, insofar as cost or value is concerned, is insig- nificant, but it would require the services of one attendant for at least 22 days during the year. This with the water, at most would amount to scarcely more than $100.00 per year, and as before shown, is offset by a charge of $2,384. 76 for automatic flush- ing. In view of this, and also the lack of conclusive data by the advocates of automatic flushing, we recommend periodic flushing 12 for Morristown. Periodic flushing is very effective vehen prop- erly done, for it is begun at the flush tanks lying at the higher elevations, and from these tanks the sewrers are flushed down- ward to the lower elevations, and any refuse lying in the upper reaches of the sewers is thus completely washed out. In using automatic flush tanks on a system where the sewage is treated in a disposal plant as at Morristown, the fact must not be lost sight of that capacity must be provided in the disposal plant for 37,800 gallons of water contributed by flush tanks. While this is an inconsiderable amount, it represents, however, a proper charge against automatic flush tanks. INVERTED SIPHONS. § 12. In four cases we have designed inverted siphons to carry the sewage across creeks and waterways. These are in accord with the best practice in sewer design, and make it pos- sible to carry the trunk sewers under creeks. They are located on Atno, Ridgedale and Abbett avenues and Water and Centre streets. SIZE OP SEWBKS § 13. The minimum size of sewers is taken at 8 inch, which is in conformance with the best practice. Some Engineers, no- tably the English Engineers, recommend 9 inch as the smallest allowable. While a less size than 8 inch might be large enough to carry the quantity it would receive, the danger of stoppage is very much greater. All sewers are designed to flow half full. CHARACTER Ofr MORRISTOWN SEWAGE. § 14. The sewage of Morristown is composed of practically domestic sewage only. Sewage of this quality lends itself to treatment much more readil}' than a sewage containing large amounts of factory or creamery wastes. We anticipate no dif- flculty in the treatment of Morristown sewage by any method of treatment now accepted as good practice among Engineers. Many of the complications that arise in the treatment of sewage in other localities are due to large amounts of dye, creamery, packing house or other industrial wastes. These add not only large quantities of solid matter to the sewage, but are generally supposed to contain chemicals and other ingredients detrimental to bacterial action in the process of treatment. For Ravenna, Ohio, where a plant of about the same size as that proposed at Morristown is now in course of construction, we recommended a method of disposal consisting of sedimentation or septic tanks followed by intermittent sand filters. The sewage contains about 27 per cent, of factory wastes of which nearly 33 per cent, were wastes from a dye house containing large quantities of chemicals, including sulphuric and other acids. This dye house contribu- ted 225,000 gallons of sewage per day. Our recommendations for intermittent sand filtration following sedimentation, were 13 accepted and approved by the Ohio State Board of Health as one of the best known for treatment of sewage of this character. At Morristown, as before stated, we have only domestic sewage to treat, and the problem Is comparatively simple. WHIPPANY RIVER, § 15. The Whippany River into which the effluent must discharge, regardless of the method of local disposal, drains in- to the Passaic River above Little Falls, consequently, the efflu- ent of a disposal plant should be purified " to the highest practi- cal degree," and should also be of as uniform a quality as pos- sible. Inasmuch as the waters of the Whippany River are used for drinking purposes at a point lower down by other munici- palities, Morristown would not be justified in turning an efflu- ent into these waters that is not uniformly purified to a high degree. Beyond a question, at least 1,000 persons in Morris- town now turn their raw sewage into the Whippany River; at a low stage of the river this -cannot be assimilated by dilution, which is visibly apparent. A disposal plant in our judgment will materially improve the present quality of the water of the Whippany River. There is an old theory that running water will purify itself. Morristown can get no consolation from this, because the State Sewerage Commission has a dictum that " no river in New Jersey is long enough to purify itself." ATTITUDE OF THE STATE SEWERAGE COMMISSION. § 16. Morristown has no moral right to discharge crude sewage or any improper effluent from a sewage disposal plant into the Whippany River. Neither has it a legal right to do so and should such an attempt be made, the municipalities afifected have recourse to order the cessation. Again the attitude of the State Sewerage Commission is such that only a plant giving the highest practicable degree of purification will meet with their approval. In our designs and recommendations we have at- tempted to secure proper disposal at as low a cost as possible, and have endeavored to carry out the teachings and high ideals which should govern a sanitarian in the design of works which so affect the health, happiness and lives of a population. We trust and believe that the Sewerage Commission and the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of Morristown will adopt our recom- mendation, together with such means as to conserve the health of the people of Morristown, as well as other municipalities af- INVESTIGATIONS. OUTLINE. fn selecting the mcfet suitable and economical method of collection and disposal of Morristown sewage, the results have been achieved by a process of elimination. That is— in dealing '4 with any particular problem, we have endeavored to consider all possible solutions with regard to their cost, efficiency, main- tenance and durability, and then to eliminate those that are pro- hibitive or impractical in any of the features above mentioned. . 1st. Study. In the collection of the sewage from the Town, we are at once confronted with the impossibility of draining the sewage to one common point without recourse to Plan — (a) long stretches of deep cut and tunneling, in- volving "many private ways owing to the topography elsewhere described : — Plan — (b) pumping the sewage of the westerly portion of the Town over the ridge, or — Plan — (c) installing two disposal plants. 2nd Study. After having collected the sewage to a point of primary disposal near the bridge across the Whippany River on Ridgedale Avenue, we are again confronted with different methods of drainage to final disposal, namely : Plan —(a) to discharge the raw sewage into the Whippany River. Plan — (b) to discharge the crude sewage intothe Arthur Kill by constructing about 50,000 feet of open cut sewer to the western slope of Summit — 13,500 feet of tunnel under the moun- tain at Summit; 17,000 feet of open cut sewer to the joint out- let sewer proper and 50,000 feet to the Arthur Kill from this point. , Plan — (c) to drain the sewage to a point far down the River, utilizing the mill race bank, where sufficient fall may be had to build a disposal plant operated by gravity, and Plan — (d) to pump the sewage from the point of primary collection to a disposal plant located near the point of primary collection within the limits of Morristown. Srd Study. A proper method of disposal by either (a) artificial beds (b) natural beds (c) chemical precipitation. MINUTI^ OF FIRST STUDY. HERRING & FULLER PLAN. Plan — (a) Messrs. Herring & Fuller, in 1902, submitted to the Town Authorities a plan for the collection of sewage which contemplated the collection by gravity and involved long stretches of deep cut, together with about 1,500 feet of tunnel. This plan, as recommended by them for collection by gravity alone, is about the only comprehensive plan that will sewer the major portion of the Town. It is, however, subject to the fol- lowing criticisms aside from financial considerations. These IS criticisms might or might not condemn the plan, accordiug to the personal equation of the critic. FIRST OBJECTION. The plan does not sewer the entire area of Morristown, but leaves the area below contour 315 unsewered except by pumping.. The amount so unsewered is shown on Plate III. To sewer the entire Town by gravity would require the trunk sewer pro- posed by Messrs. Herring & Fuller, including the tunnel to be lowered 20 to 35 feet, which would, of course, reduce the whole plan to impracticability. It will be stated that the plan as con templated practically sewered the. entire. town, and while this is true, nevertheless, it does leave an area unsewered that may be built up more or less within a relatively short time. A sewer system will last for generations and its layout should contem- plate caring for the sewage of future generations. SECOND OBJECTION. The major portion of the trunk line as proposed, is laid in marshy ground, and would be subject to the infiltration of large quantities of ground water. This would bring a large volume of infiltrate to the disposal plant which would add to the ex-, pense of disposal. Probably a large portion of this trunk line would need to be built of cast iron pipe which again would add to the expense. These items are not considered in the estimates. Between DeKalb Avenue and the D., L. & W. Railroad across the Ball Ground, the line is 20 feet deep, and it is more than probable that very difiicult trenching would be encountered here. Between DeKalb and Madison Avenues, the sewer is.from 20 to 30 feet deep with similar ground. THIRD OBJECTION. The sewer crosses private lands almost entirely, and these rights of way could probably be secured only at large expense and delay ; especially is this true if condemnation proceedings were resorted to, FOURTH OBJECTION The tunnel, as constructed under the hill south of Madison Avenue, is built largely in sand and in which the ground water stands to a considerable height, presumably over the proposed tunnel at all times This means that the tunnel would need to be built under air pressure and at great expense. No respon- sible Contractor would care to bid on the tunnel unless borings were made at his or the Town's expense; with the borings, should they be unfavorable, his bid would be higher, and with- out them it is only a matter of guess work as to the cost. Such a tunnel for sewer purposes, and with so much argument against it, is a hazardous proposition at best. We have prepared the fol- i6 PLATE III. II v\ Hlft nil -I \M pu(.i .->~ii:\i -i.u v(.i;,i)i~i'(j-M, MOUKlJ- TOWN '£.'S_3^»^' ife,^ ^4 : % ', ♦ nER>*i© au ruUi-ER P^UAtM OF y // Showing portion of the towu unsewered by the scheme of 1902 and which can be served only by pumping. ^ lowing made up from costs for similar work uqder similar con- ditions, and believe this to be the minimum cost for the project. Should this plan be adopted, we would recommend that the Town make the borings before asking for bids. ESTIMATE OF SEWERING BY GRAVITY. 5,125 feet 18 inch pipe at $2.50 $12,812 50 1,500 feet Tunnel at $20.00 30,000 00 3,350 feet Open Cut at 3.00 (20-30') deep 10,050 00 Cost of Sewering by Gravity $52,862 50 Interest and Sinking Fund at 4 1-2 per cent 2,114 50 Annual Per Capita Cogt 0. 141 Plan — (b) In disposing of the sewage from the western slope by pumping, we have considered the ejector tyjfe of pump, as this is nearly automatic and is equally applicable whether the Town builds a pumping station on Ridgedale Avenue to pump the sewage to a disposal plant, or whether the sewage is ulti- mately disposed of by gravity. In case the pumping station is not built, the ejectors can be operated by electricity from the local lighting company. Should the pumping station be built, as explained in paragraph (d) Second study, a dynamo can be installed which will generate electricity to operate the ejectors and at the same time generate electricity to light the pumping station and grounds. OPERATION OF EJEOTOKS. These ejectors are placed in chambers built in the streets and in operation they act as follows : As the sewage enters the ejector chamber, it is stored up until such a pre determined quantity has collected to set the ejector in operation, when, by a type of air pump, the sewage in the chamber is elevated to auy chosen point through a cast iron pipe. Ejectors of this type are used extensively for this purpose, in fact, nearly all the big buildings in New York where the sewage drains to a point be- low tide, the sewage is discharged in this manner. The sew- age of the World' Fair at Ohi'jago, which was collected below lake level, was discharged in this manner. ADVANTAGE OF EJEOTOES. One great adyatitage of the ejectors over the tunnel and which does not appear in our estioiite, is that the ejector system, does not require a foot of ground . or private right of way. These estimates, as all estimates in this report, are exclusive of real estate and right of way. COST, We estimate the cost ofthrse such ejector:?, one located on 17 Mt. Kemble Avenue near (he Hospital, one on Green street at the corner of James and one on South street at the Town Line, as follows : FIBST COST ESTIMATE OF SEWEKING BY EJECTOE8. 3 Ejectors, Dynamos, Machinery complete, $3,300 00 5,300 feet 6 inch Discharge Pipe, . 5,300 00 3 Ejector Chambers, 1,500 00 $10,100 Wiring is not included as it is pi-esumed that the Town has franchise rights in existing conduits or pole lines. In case the electricity is bought from the local* company, they will furnish their, own delivery. OPERATION — MAINTENANCE. NoTii— The leaser permanence of some classes 6t work requires a graeter per cent, for sinking fund charges. Interest and Sinking Fund on $10,100 at 5 per cent, $505 00 Operation and Electricity, 438 00 Cost of Maintenauce, $943 00 Per Capita Cost, 0.063 EEMAEKS. This method of caring for the sewage possesses the advan- tage before noted over that outlined in Paragraph (a) First Study, in that the ejectors can be located so as to care for the sewage of the entire district. No private lands need be ac- quired, a feature which does not appear in the above discussion as the estimates given, as before stated, are exclusive of real estate. The ejector system will shorten the time of execution of the contract materially, as the ejectors can be built much more quickly than the tunnel. The ejectors are as nearly automatic as it is possible ta make them, and further than occasional inspection will need little attendance. In case of accident or breakdown, no damage is liable to occur as the ejector chambers are provided with an overflow, also an alarm to indicate to the attendant at his office that attention is needed. EJECTORS ABE MOVABLE. The ejector at Green and James Streets is located at thi& point temporarily. When neceRsity requires, it can be located at the bridge on James Street below Foote's. Pond. In this loca- tion it will collect the sewage from any houses that may be built on James Street below Green Street. SEWEBING WITH TWO DISPOSAL PLANTS. Plan (c) The matter of providing a separate disposal for i8 the western district has been rejected from consideration prin- cipally for the reason that no site is available that will give sufficient fall to operate a separate plant and at the same time drain the entire area. It conld be accomplished by pnmping, but were pumping resorted to, the sewage conld be pumped to the other plant with almost equal facility. Further, the cost of a plant to care for 120,000 gallons per day would more than equal the cost of the ejectors as estimated above. MINUTI^ OF SECOND STDDY. DISPOSAL. BY DILUTION. Plan (a) To discharge the crude sewage into the Whip- pany River would not be tolerated by the State Sewerage Com- mission, inasmuch as the Whippany Hiver is located in the water shed of the East Jersey Water Company, which supplies Jersey City and some of the West Hudson towns. The flow of the Whippany River is so small at times that it is doubtful if a serious nuisance would not be caused even were the livesof the people supplied by tiie East Jersey Water Company not jeopar- dized by the pollution. The present condition of the river at times borders on being a nuisance and only a small per ceut.o the people sewer into it clandestinely or otherwise. Should any consideiable portion of the population sewer into the river, it would lose its power of assimilation and a nuisance would ensue. This method is not to be considered. DISPOSAL IN ABTHUE KILL. Plan (b) To discharge the sewage into Arthur Kill would I'equirethe construction of — 1st — Some 50,000 feet of new sewers. 2nd — Securing the consent of Summit and Milburn to use a portion of 17,200 feet of trunk sewer owned by them and 3rd — Securing a space in 50,000 feet of the joint trunk sewer built by the eleven municipalities in Union and Essex Counties owned by Summit. The cost of this method for the pipe line, exclusive of real estate and based on available data, approximately is as follows : ESTIMATE OF DISPOSAL TO AETHUB KILL. 45,000 feet, 24 inch Pipe to Summit at f2.50 $112,500 00 13,500 " 48 inch Tunnel at $20.00 270,000 00 To Rights in Joint Sewers 100,000 00 $482,500 00 Incidentals at 10 per cent. 48,250 00 Total, . #530,750 00 19 Interest and Sinking Fund at 4^ per cent. 23,883 75. Per Capita Cost 1.592, And, the expense of maintenance, thonajh inappreciable, should be considered. JOINT SEWER WITH MADISON, CHATHAM AND WEST SUMMIT. Should Madison, Chatham and West. Summit be interested in the project and share a burden of the expense, the fij^ures would need to be materially revised, although it is doubtful if the cost per capita in that event could be reduced below 0.85 oi' 1.00. This being outside the province of your engineers, we have not devised any apportionment of cost between the muni- cipalities named. It might be said that the charge of $270, ■000.00 for tunnel could, as an alternate plan, be invested in a pumping station to pnmp tire sewage over tiie mountain at Sum- mit. Such a pumping station would be similar in design and cost to tliat described in paragraph (d) Second Study. OBJECTIONS. Aside from tlie tremendous estimated cost of the project of disposing of the sewage by a trunk sewer to Arthur Kill, there are two very good objections — 1st. No one can foretell the conditions to be met with in prosecuting work on the tunnel. In case quicksand or running oravel is encountered, the cost would be extremely high, per- haps higher than our estimate by a large sum. Before receiv- ing bids the Town would need to make borings and investiga- tions as to the character of the soil so that contractors could bid intelligently. The result of these borings might throw out the whole project as impracticable or impossible at any reasonable figure. Mr. Win. M. Brown, Chief Engineer of the Metropol- itan Sewerage District of Boston, estimated a similar project at $25 to $30 per lineal foot, so that in all probability our estimate is the minimum figure for which the tunnel could be built if the verv ^est possible conditions were encountered for tunnel con- struction. A proj( ct of the magnitude of this trunk sewer is an entirely unjustifiable solution for disposing of Morristown sew- age for a second and greater reason than the uncertainty of the final cost, which is as follows : . 2nd. The sewage is not disposed of by the trunk sewer except temporarily. No man can say that the subscribers to the- joint trunk sewer can perpetually empty their sewage into the Arthur KiU. If the outlet sewer emptied into deep water or far out into the ocean, or even into the New York , Bay, it might be said with some assurance that it would be tolerated by the authorities for ten, twenty or -thirty years. Emptying, however, as it does, into Artiiur Kill, the tendencies of the times and 'the rapid advance in sanitary science, lead us, as ■your Engineers, t"o condemn the project of sewering into Arthur Kill. Wo do not consider it practical owing to the higli tirst cost nor do we consider it permanent because emptying sewage into Arthur Kill, as a subscriber to the joint outlet sewer, is not final disposal. We believe the time will come in this genera- tion perhaps, when it will be necessary for the sewage froiri the joint outlet to be purified 'before turning it into the Arthur Kill. When this is- done it will cost Morristown nearly as much for its share of the joint disposal plant as to build u local dis- posal plant at the present time. Should this transpire, tlie tre- mendous cost of the trunk sewer projotit would be an asset of no value and one on which the maintenance would increase with its age. To show the probability of Federal interference with the joint outlet sewer, we quote the following report of a Board of Engineei's appointed by the Government to pass on the project of emptying the Passaic Yalley trunk sewer into Newark Bay. This report is adverse and destroyed the possibility of Parerson and Newark obtaining an outlet for tliis sewer in Newark Bay. This report clearly reflecls the attitude of the Federal authori- ties on the subject of emptying sewage into navigable bodies of water where shoaling is liable to occur. Harboe Line J'oaed. New York City, May 28, 1897. Brig. Gen. John M. Wilson, C kief of Engineers, U. S. A., Washington j D. C. G ENSEAL : In compliance with instructions contained in 6th endorse- ment, dated April lath, 1897, upon a letter from the P>assaic Valley Sewerage Commission to the Secretary of War, dated March 24th, 1897, having reference to the question of the pos- ' sible interference of navigation of the plans for sewage disposal proposed by the Commission, the New Y"ork Harbor Line Board has the honor to submit the following report : The plans proposed by the Commission, which are de- scribed in detail in the printed report accompanying its letters above referred to, contemplate the discharge of all the sewage collected in what is called the lower Passaic district upon the flats of Newark Bay at a point about 2,200 feet above the bridge of the Central Railroad of New Jersey, The Board is required by your instructions to examine and report upon the question of the probable effect of the scheme upon the navigable capacity of Newark bay and adjacent waters. The navigable .clia*nnel8 which would be affected by the pro- posed scheme of sewage disposal are the channel of the Passaic Eivcr between Passaic and the Centre street bridge in Newark ; the channel extending from Centre street bridge in Newark to deep water in Newark bay ; and tlie ciiannel on the Sonth side of the bay connecting the -Arthur Kill with tiie Kill von Kull. Tiie conditions in these cliannels are briefly as follows : Channel Above Newark. This channel extends from Cen- tre street bridge, Newark, to the City of Passaic. The Dnited States has expended $140,000 upon its improvement since 1872, and the w(jrk is still in progress. The project provides for a channel from 200 to 50 feet wide and from 7i to 6 feet deep at mean low tide. Channel Below Newark. This channel exiends from deep water in Newark Buy to Centre street bridge, Newark. Be- tween 1880 and 1886, the United States expended $170,000 in improving it to a width of 200 feet and a depth of 10 feet at mean low water, and tlie aimnal cost of maintenance has been $16,000. Channel Between the Arthur Kill and the Kill Von Kull. This forms a part of the channel separating Staten Island from the State of New Jersey, which is 17 miles long, extending from Perth Amboy, N. J., and Tottenville, S. I., to Constable Point", N. J. and New Brighton, S. I. The waterway ts generally nar- row, having a least width of about 500 feet. Its original depth was at least 15 feet at low water, except for a length of about If miles opposite tiie mouth of Newark Bay, wliere the depth was 9^ feet in a narrow channel -bordered by flats. Tlie chan- nel has been improved by the United States by deepening the passage across this shoal ; and further improvements are con- templated. The project provides for the formation and main- tenance of a channel between the Arthur Kill and the Kill von Kull, 400 feet wide and 14 feet deep at mean low water, at iin estimated cost of $210,000. The annual cost of maintenance is estimated hy tlie District Engineer at $10,OoO. The channel connecting the Arthur Kill and the Kill von Kull is commercially of much greater importance than those ex- tending througli the Bay, up the Passaic Kiver, the traffic of the former in 1895 having been estimated at 9,865,000 tons while that of the latter was only 1,259,1)00" tons According to the report of the Sewerage Commission, the quantity of sewage now daily discharged into the Passaic River, is about 75,600,000 gals., of which about 49,500,000 gallons en- , ter the Eiver below the Dundee dam, and about 26,0iJ0,000 gal- lons above it. The sewage entering tiie River below the dam must increase 4he rate of shoaling in the channel and thereby increase the cost of channel maintenance. The material enter ia^ the River above the dam is doubtless deposited in the upper part of the River and in Dundee Lake, and can have little or no effect upon the navigable channel which terminates below the dam. The plan of the Commission proposed to discharge all this material into Newark Bay whence it m'ay be moved by the currents into navigable channels, thereby increasing about 50 per cent, the quantity available to produce shoaling. • Should the outlets for sewage discharge be removed from the river to the bay, as proposed by tlie Sewerage Commission, the effect in the channel of the Passaic River would probably diminish the rate of slioaling ; but the Board is of the opinion that, owing to the location of the new outlet and the increased quantity of the material to be discharged, the rate of shoaling would be- increased in the channel between the mouth of the river and deep water in Newark Bay, especially at the lower part. The most important question, however, in connection with the proposed plan of sewage disposal is its probable effect upon the channel connecting the Arthur Kill and the Kill von Kull. As has been before remarked, the commercial importance of this channel is vastly greater than that of the others. It will, under any circumstances, require more or less dredging for its maintenance. The Board is of the opinion that the concentra- tion and discharge of all the sewage of the lower Passaic dis- trict at a point only IJ miles from this channel cannot fail eventually to seriously increase the rate of shoaling therein. Such an increase will not only augment the cost ot dredging, but will also prolong the time during which the channel must be obstructed by machine. From natural causes incident to the partial antagonism of the flood currents flowing into • tlie southern end of Newark Bay from opposite directions, the navigable channel leading to Eli'zabethpdrt has alw0.ys been subject to shoaling, requiring annual expenditures, of greater or less amount, for mainten- ance. These effects are clearly apparent in the wide shoals in the vicinity of Shooter's Island and the Corner Stake Light. The estimated annual deposits of 650,000 cubic yards of solid material in the lower end of Newark Bay following the adoption of the proposed sewer system, would fill up the entire area of the Bay below the proposed sewer outlet, from bank to bank, to the depth of about one third of a foot annually, if even- ly distributed. As the existing average depth of the flats, except in the 23 uarrower width of the improved channel, is al5out four feet at mean low water, it is easy to see that it will require only a few years to make the proposed sewer system not only a public nuisance but a serious obstruction to tJie navit^able waters adja- cent to the harbor of New York. Tlie Eofird is fit the opinion that, as a general rule, when it is desirable to discharge sewage or other materials into tide water, it should be done at points where natural deep water exists, and not in tlie vicinity of artificial channels which re- quire periodical dredging for their maintenance. Newark Bay is a land-locked tidal basin of considerable area with compara- tively small outlets, through which it will always be difficult to maintain channels of a depth adequate for navigation. The Board is of the opinion that it is not advisable to permit the ' use of such a basin as the receptacle for a large and constantly increasing amount of sewage. Even if the dilution of the sew- age, for which provision is now contemplated, should be suffi- cient to prevent serious deposits it is certain that the amount to be discharged will rapidly increase and eventually produce shoaling in the channels. TAe Commission recognizes the fact that this sewage can- not he indejinitely emptied into the waters of the Hay, and then a time witl come when other means m,ast he adopted for its dis- posal. ... . The Board concurs in the opinion of the Diitrict EncineeT that the dispo8;il of the sew age of tlie lower Faseaic district in the waters of Newark Bay will be detrimental to the interests of navigation. Respectfully siibmitted. HENEY M. ROBERT, Colonel, Corps of Engineers G. L. GILLESPIE, Colonel, Corps of Engineer. C. W. RAYMOND, Major, Corps of Engineers. H. M. ADAMS, July la, 1906. Major, Corps of Engineers. DISPOSAL BY GRAVITY. .1 tS^^^ ^""^ J.° '^™^" *^^^ sewage by gravity to a point on the Wlnppany River where a disposal plant may be bnllt. Surveys were made to locate a suitable site for such dispos- al works, and two pieces of ground about 4,000 to 5,000 feet down the river from the Ridgedale Avenne bridge were chosen. Ihey are situated near the road leading to Monroe where it crosses the river. These sites are about 1,000 or 1,500 feet 24 -easterly from the sand pits on the Erie Kailroad, where an ad- mirable quality of satid can be obtained. These sites could be reached by about 4,000 feet of 20 inch pipe (most of which would be ca^ iron) laid alon^ the old mill race. This outfall pipe would dischars;e into the disposal works at about an eleva- tion of 280. 8 and the outfall from the disposal works could discharge at an elevation of 267, giving a gross working head through the plant of 13.8 feet. This would, of necessity, limit the type of disposal works to intermittent sand filtration preceded by sedimentation tanks, and pos^iJbly, contact beds. For intermittent filtration Snd sedimentation tanks, fully six acres of sand filters would be required, allowing for an applica- tion of 150,000. gallons per acre (approximately 5J inches) per day. To build six acres of filters on the site chosen would re quire considerable cleaning and grading and the lower side of the beds protected by. a rubble wall along the river, approximately 1,0C0 lineal feet. The cott of disposal without pumping is as follows : ESTIMATE OF DISPOSAL WITHOUT EESOETING TO PUMPING. 4,000 feet 20 inch pipe at $5 00, $20,000 00 6 Acres Filters, including grading and grubbing, 48,000 00 Sedimentation Tanks, Buildings and Macliinery, 9,000 00 Sludge Bed, Piping, etc., 8,000 00 1,000 feet Bubble Wall, 5,000 00 Cost of Disposal Works, $90,000 00 Maintenance estimated at approximately, 2,000 00 Interest Charges and Sinking Fund at 5 per cent, 4,500 00 Annual Cost, $6,500 00 Annual Per Capita Cost, 0.433 These figures are all based on cost of construction exclu- sive of real estate. It would, of course, be necessary to secure rights along the mill race or buy the property outright, and also to secure about ten acres or more of ground for the dispos- al wprks. PBELIMINAKY TREATMENT. Plan (c') Any system of disposal for Morristown de- signed to give the *'highe»t practicable degree of purity" must be some method of sand filtration. The design might contem- plate the discharge of raw sewage on to either natural or arti- ficial sand beds. According to different ideas of different en- gineers, the raw sewage might have a preliminary treatment "with septic or sedimentation tanks ; trickling or primary fil- ters; contact beds; double contact beds, aeration — forced or 25 natural. One of these, or a combination of them, might pre- cede filtration. One of these, or a combination of them, might, and experience shows they do, give a oonpntrescible effluent. None, however, in the light of present Americaa practice, give the highest degree of purification practicable. A preliminary treatment by one or more of the above mentioned methods, wil. serve, however, to reduce the solids in the sewage and other- wise better adapt it to sand filtration, thereby reducing Ihe size of the sand filters and prolonging their useful life. It is a mistake, at least in view of present day knowledge, to believe that sewage can be treated successfully without a solid residue in some form. There are certain chemical compounds, stable perhaps, if the plant is giving satisfaction, which in a solid form, and tliese must be cared for. must appear Mr. R. W. Pratt states that at Mansfield, «-)hio, the amount of sludge re- moved from the septic tanks after four years' operation was 0.8 cubic yards for each million of gallons of sewage treated. At this place they have contact beds which are undoubtedly be- coming clogged. If to the information above given, Mr. Pratt had stated the approximate amount of sludge retained by these beds, the data wonVl l^o Fomewliat comparable to what might be expected at Morrietown. It must be borne in mind that any device preceding sand filtration will prolong the life of the filters and reduce their size, but it must also be remembered that any relief afforded the sand beds does not relieve the dis- posal plant. The work of the filters in removing the solids is .transferred to the preliminary devices. PBOPEE MAINTENANCE. The addition of preliminary devices tends to complicate the plant and more skilled attendants are required in its oper- ation. For a plant the size of the one proposed for Morris- town, a complicated plant is hardly justified. Any disposal plant requires proper maintenance. By proper maintenance is meant that one man should be in attendance at the works and SAh4D Fli_-rei?s !.;& ACRES PUAIM.C! FIG. I. Ideal section showing profile through disposal plant, Plan C, with relative elevations. 26 be responsible for its operation . H^ should have such assist- ance from time to time as the needs of the work demand. CONTACT BEDS CTSED. While we have only a gross working head of 13.8 feet through this plant, we have considered giving the sewage pre- liminary treatment in septic or sedimentation tanks and con- tact beds. A profile through the plant shows the following elevations : Inlet to Sedimental Tank 280.3 feet Surface of Contact Beds 280.4 " Outlet " " 272.5 " Surface of Sand Filters 273.3 " Outlet of Sand Filters 267.8 feet Surface of Sludge Bed 269.7 " Outlet " " 265.2 " River Surface normal 263.0 " Bridge across River (floor) 268.9 " For purpose of a better understanding, the bridge across the Whippany River has an elevation of 268.9 feet which means that the bottoms of the filters are scarcely a fOot below the floor of the bridge, and the bottom of the sludge bed is 3J^ feet below this floor. With an arrangement of this kind, water would en ter the underdrains of the filters only when the river was so high as to be but one foot below the floor of the bridge. To enter the sludge bed, it would need to rise to within 3J^ feet of the bridge, which it would probably do. To overcome this objection, sludge from the septic tank would need to be drawn off in times of ■drouth when the stage of the river is low. It is not certain by any means that water in the underdrains of the sludge bed would be detrimental to the plant to the extent of impairing its efficiency. It certainly would not be objectionable to the phys- ical working of the plant. Again, the sludge bed is to be used for sludge removal at comparatively rare intervals, and to be used for an additional filter at the option of the attendant. We would say that to endanger the plant as designed, the water ID the river would need to rise to a point within a foot of the bridge floor. Our estimate covers the expense of building a rubble masonry wall along the river to protect the plant. We have estimated contact beds six feet deep to receive sewage at the rate of about 1,000,000 gallons per acre per day. With this preliminary treatment, we believe the sand filters can operate successfully at 660,000 gallons per acre per day, reducing their size to ] J^ acres. COST WITH CONTACT BEDS. Estimate of Intermittent Filtration Preceded by Sedimenta- tion Tanks and Contact Beds. Sedimentation Tank and Machinery. $10,500 00 Contact Beds unS Building 49,000 00 .27 Piping, Valves and .Manholes . . - 3, 100 00 Sand Filters. • •' • 9,000 00 Sludge IPed and Piping 3,500 00 4^000 feet Rubble Masonry Wall 5,000 00 4000 feet 20 inch C. I. pipe 30,000 00 Cost of Disposal by using Contact Beds $99,100 00 Interest and Sinking Fund at 5 per cent $4,955 00 Maintenance estimated 2,000 00 Annual Cost of Operation $6,955 00 Annual Per Capita Cost .464 REMARKS. The addition of contact beds possesses, we believe, one great advantage over intermittent filtration and sedimentation just previously estimated. The advantge is, we think, a more uni- form effluent will be secured. The disposal plant will occupy less space. The treatment will, however, be more intense and require a little better superintendence. The contact material will require cleaning and washing in a period of from 5 to 10 years, depending on the character! stigs of the sewage and the works. This removal, washing and replacing costs from 30 to 50 cents per yard, assuming 40 cents, and the life of the beds as 10 years would give us the annual cost of washing the contact material at $80.00 per bed. We have designed 5 contact beds of which one will always stand idle. We believe this arrange- ment will materially prolong the life of the beds. Again, it will give the advantage of the material, while idle, of being exposed to the effects of the air, giving the voids complete aera- tion. Further, with a bed standing idle for a long term, the attendant can wash the contact material without conflicting with his routine duties. FINAL LOCATION OF BEDS, We wish it understood that while the locations chosen are beheved to be the best, they need not be final. After the real estate is purchased and bids called for, we will stake out .the final locations on the ground so that it may be viewed by pros- pective bidders. Plan (d) To pump the sewage from the point of primary collection on Ridgedale Avenue to a disposal works situated near the Town Limits. A site for such disposal has been selected on or just outside the Town Limits and about 1,000 feet easterly from Ridgedale Avenue. This site will give any desired fall through the dis- posal works, necessita.ting, of course, the elevating of the sew- age to the -v^^orks from the point of- primary ^llection by pump- ing. ■ , : ANY LOCATION. The various stages in the process of purification with statue elevations, are shown graphically on Fig. II and are as fol- lows: * n , PRIMARY riLTER I I loo-xaao' / 1 ^ACRE. / CAPAClTV ISOjOOQGALS Pl.AIM,D. riG. II. Ideal section showing profile through diposal plant, Plan D, with relative elevations. The sewage passes through — (1; the sedimentation tank from which it passes to, (2) sprinkling filters, and from this to (3) a settling tank, and finally through (4) sand filters. • The four steps embraced in this process are, in the light of present engineering knowledge of the subject of sewage dispos- al, supposed to give the highest practicable degree of purifica- tion attainable. After considerable experimentation, such a scheme was recommended for Columbus, Ohio, and also later recommended for Baltimore, Md. By this process we substi- tute the sprinkling filters, settling tank and sand filters for the intermittent sand filters outlined in paragraph (c) Second Study. These filters require 6 acres. Owing to the preliminary treat- ment and the consequent removal of such suspended matter, we could run the sand filters at a higlpr rate than 150,000 gallons per acre per day. We have estimated 650,000 gallons per acre per day, which would require approximately 1 J^ acres ; the set- tling tank would need to be a 150,000 gallon tank, uncovered, and the sprinkling filters give good results at the rate of 2,000,- 000 gallons per acre per day, which would call for J^ acre "of sprinkling filters. COSTS. Basing our estimates on these figures this method of dis- posal, exclusive of real estate, amounts to the following : Estimated Cost of Disposal Plant. Sedimentation Tank, Buildings and Machinery $ 9,000 00 Settling Tank, Yt. acre 18,000 00 Sprinkling Filters 30,000 00 29 Sand Filters, lyL acres at $5,000 7,500 00 $64,500 00 Estimated Cost of Pumping. Pumps, Engines, Dynamos and MacJiinery $10,000 OQ Addition for Pump Use 2,000 00 Pump Well '. 1,200 00 Chimney ^ 1,100 OO Receiving Basin 800 OO $15,100 OO Total cost of Disposal by Pumping $79, 600 00 Operation. $79,600.00 at 5 per cent $3,980 00 Maintenance 3,000 OO Annual Cost of Disposal $6,980 00 Less Electricity furnished Ejectors 300 OO Net Annual Cost of Disposal $6,680 OO Annual Cost per capita 0.445 • y • / / / Y 4/ .d "■°°° J t 9- \ ^ 0. 0. 9600 ^ ''/■ N r / I / ? i / 1 IB eo IB 30 19 oo IS to IS FIG. III. Future Population. Per capita coBts are based on the future estimated popula tion of 15,000 in 1920, for which our designs are made. The increase in population in Morristown since 1880 has been about as follows: 1880,5,418; 1890, 8,156; 1895, 10,390; 1900, 11,367; 1905 ,13,366 This increase is shown graphically in Fig. Ill as is also the probable increase, which leads us to believe that the population will be about 15,000 in 1930, conditions remaining normal. 31 MINUTI^ OF THIRD STUDY. METHOD!? OF DISPOSAL. Plan, So much has been said in the body of the Report preceding on the subject of sewage disposal, that flo further elab- oration will be made here. Generally speaking, there are three ways of disposing of sewage aside from disposal by dilution, namely — Plan (a) disposal on artificial beds, Plan (b) disposal on natural beds, and Plan (c) disposal by chemical precipitation. Plan (a) Disposal on artificial beds received our consider- tion for we early found that this method alone was practicable for Morristown. Plan (b) To use this method presupposes the location of a natural sand bed of the proper texture, answering the following specifications : First — Location convenient to the point of proposed outfall. Second — At the proper elevation to receive the sewage by gravity or by pumping, the pumping, to be at a lower cost of maintenance than the interest and sinking fund charges on the first cost of artificial beds. Third — Overlaid with so little top soil as to facilitate its ready conversion into sewage beds. No natural beds answering to the above specifications were found. Plan (c) Disposal by chemical precipitation is applicable mainly to sewage containing chemicals and industrial wastes. It is not suitable nor justified for domestic sewage of such a quality as that at Morristown, and was eliminated from consid- eration by its high cost of maintenance and the extreme care required in its operation. These considerations would reject chemical precipitation in many localities, but for Morristown, especially where a high and uniform degree of purification is required, we believe it to be wholly impractiifable. 32 TABULATION street From To Cut in Feet Size Liueal Faet M.H. F.T. IP. Cost Chestnut M. H. Cherry 7 8" 555 1 Cherry Chestnut M. H. 8 8" 248 1 " M. H. M. H. 8 8" 175 1 )f M. H. Western 7 8" C5 1 Plum M. H. " 7 8" 260 1 Western M. H. M. H. 8 8" 270 1 " M. H. M. H. 8 8" 275 1 ti M. H. Plum 8 8" 645 2 " Plum M. H. 7 8" 125 1 " M. H. M. H. 7 8" 275 1 " M. H. Searing 8 8" 355 1 Prt. Way M. H. Cherry 6 8" 550 1 Searing Western M. H. 8 8" 200 1 Prt. Way Searing M. H. 8 8" 400 1 " M. H. M. H. 8 8" 400 1 " M. H. Miller St. 8 8" 325 1 '* M. H. M. H. 7 8" 475 1.2 " M. H. Miller St. 7 8" 475 1 Miller St. M. H. M. H. 7 8" 173 1 If M. H. Phoenix 7 8" 165 1 " Phoenix M. H. Bend 8 8" 80 1 " Budd M. H. Bend 7 8" "375 1 Budd M. H. Miller St. 7 8" "400 1 II M. H. M. H. 8 8" "385 1 »» M. H. Miller St. 7.5 8" 380 1 Phoenix M,. H. M. H. 8.5 8" 400 1-2 " M. H. Miller St. 8 8" 345 1 Part. Way M. H. M. H. 8 8" 310 1 II M. H. M. H. 8 8" 310 1 " M. H. M. H. 8 8" 325 1 Mills M. H. M. H. 6 8" 300 1 1 )1 M. H. M. H. 7.13 8" 440 1 >] M. H. Kenmuir 15 8" 450 1 *f Kenmulr M. H. 10.5 8" 200 1 it M. H. Hazelett 7 8" 315 1 t> Hazelett Eiarley 7.5 8" 245 1 ti Barley M.H. 7 10" 195 1 >» M. H. Wash'n Si. 3-16 10" 510 1 24' EJarley M. H. Harrison 8 8" 490 1 i» Harrison M. H. 8 8" 300 1 It M. H. Mills 6 10" 320 1 12' Milton . M. H. Hazelett 7 8" 410 33 Cut in Lineal street From To Feet S-ize Feat M.B [. F.T. LP. Cost Hazelett Milton M. H. 8 8" 300 " M. H. Mills 8 8" 300 Kenmuir M. H. Mills 3-13 8" 555 1 Sussex Cutler M. H. 8 8" "235 " M. H. Mills 8.5 8" "280 " Mills Soway 8.5 8" 345 Mills Cutler Sussex 8 8" "275 1 Sussex M. H. Henry 10.5 8" 245 " Henry Cleveland 13 8" 90 " M. H. M. H. 8 8" "335 1 " M. H. Cutler St. 8 8" "330 Cutler St. Sussex M. H. 7 8" 275 1 " M. H. M. H. 7 8" 165 " M. H. Prt. Wiay 8 8" 290 M. H. Prt. Way 8 8" 395 1 Prt. Way Cutler Spdwell PI 8 8" 340 Spdwll PI. Spdwll Av. Prt. Way 8.5 8" 430 1 " Sussex M. H. 7 8" 225 1 " M. H. Prt. Way 8 8" 170 Prt. Way Spdwll PI. Sussex 8 8" 270 Henry M. H. Sussex 8 8" 315 1-2 " . M. H. Spdwll Av 8 8" 250 1-2 Clvlnd Sussex Bend 12 8" 385 " Bend Bend 12.5 8" 40 " Bend Grand 13" 8" 240 Grant M. H. M. H. 7 8" 215 1 " M. H. Clev'nd 8 8" 230 " Clev'nd Blvw Ter. 14 8" 75 " Blvw. Ter. M. H. 17-8 8" 175 " M. H. Harrison 8 8" 125 Harrison M. H. Grand 7 8" 400 1 " Grant Morton G.5 8" 310 it Morton Earley 5-15 10" 370 Columbia Sussex M. H. 8 8" 320 1 " M. H. Belvw. Ter. 7-14 8" 320 Belvw. Ter. Morton Columbia 7 8" 190 1 )> Columbia Grant 16 8" 250 Morton M. H. Harrison 7 8" 375 1 Ann M. H. Western 8 8" 150 1-2 Western Ann M. H. 7.5 8" 200 " M. H. Wash'ton 7 8" 365 Phoenix xM. S. M. H. 8 ■8" 475 1-2 " M. H. Wash'ton 8 8" 110 Prt. Way M. H. Bend 7 8" 270 1-2 " Bend Phoenix 8 '8" 165 Cobb M. H. M. H. 7 8" 355 1 It M. H. Wash'ton 9 8" 355 Washington Western M. H. 8 8" 130 1 »j M. H. Phoenix 8 8" 350 It Phoenix M. H. 8 8" 220 It M. H. Cobb 8 8" 495 34 Cub in Lin3a] 1 Street ffrom To Fjet Size Fue: M.H. F.T. I.o._Cj3t Washington Cobb Prt. Way 8 8" 215 1 Prt. Way Wash'ton M. H. 8 15" 365 1 M. H. M. H. 8 15" 400 1 ■ M. H. Atno 7 15" 405 1 Wasihlngton M. H. Westwood i 8" 570 1 1 12' " W. Wood Mills 5-13 8" 425 1 " Mills Budd 15 10" 235 1 " Budd Prt. Way 11 10" 395 1 •Prospect M. H. M. H. 6 8" 295 1-2 " M. H. Clinton 6 8" 65 1 Clinton Prospect M. H. 6 8" 250 1 " M. H. Atno G 8" 290 1 Atno Wash'ton Clinton 7 8" 230 1 " Clinton Prt. Way 7 8" 140 1 " Earley M. H. 7 8" 230 1 ** M. H. Siphon 8 8" 405 1 Earley Atno Prt. Way 9 8" 425 1 " Speedwell M. H. 6 8" 220 1 )j M. H. Prt. Way 5 8" 135 1 Prt. Way Earley Prt. Way 7 8" 370 1 36 Sussex Cleveland M. H. 8 8" 472 1 " M. H. Spdwell 8 8" 330 1 Speedwell M. H. Bend ,7 8" 300 1 " Bend Cutler 7.5 8" 365 1 " Cutler Spdwll PI 10 8" 340 1 ** Spdwll PI Henry 9 8" 365 1 ** Henry M. H. 8 8" 350 1 " M. H. M. H. 8.5 8" 350 1 " ,M. H. M. H. 9 8" 390 1 " M. H. Spring 8.5 8" 350 1 " Spring Clintn PI. 10 8" 220 1 " M. h; Clintn PI. 9 8" 555 1 Henry M. H. Spdwll 8 8" 250 1-2 Prospect M. H. High 8 8" 305 1-2 High M. H. Prospect 8 8" 170 1-2 " Prospect Spdwell 7 8" 235 1 Speedwell High M. H. 8 8" 375 1 " M. H. Water 8 8" 40 1 Park PI. N Wash'ton Speedwell 12 8" 475 1 Water Spdwell M. H. 8 8" 225 1 " M. H. M. H. 7 8" 240 1 >J M. H. Bend 5 8" 160 1 12* " Bend Spring 5 8" 185 1 Spring PI. M. H. Spring St. 8 8" 340 1 Spring St. Morris St Spring PI. 8 8" 70 1 » Spring PI M. H. 8 8" 465 1 12' " M. H. Centre 4 8" 165 1 " Spdwell M. H. 9 8" 175 1 H M. H. Main 8 8" 370 1 » Kain Water 7 15" 170 1 Water Centre 7.5 15" 315 1 ( 3utin Lineal street Fro-n To Feet Size Feet M.H. F.T. IP Cost Flagler Sp dwell Bena 7 8" 160 1 M. H. Race 6 8" 575 1 „ Race Bead 7 12" 215 1 „ Bend Water 6 15" 185 1 ■^ater M. H. Mt. Airy 7 8" 65 1 Mt. Airy Bend 7 8" 200 1 Bend Willow 7 8" 295 1 >, Willow Bend 7 8" 330 1 „ Bend Cole 7 8" 100 1 „ M. H Flagler 6 8" 330 1 1 Linden M. H. Grove 8 8" 407 1 Grove Linden Willow 8 8" 180 1 )» M. H. M. H. 8 8" *170 1 it M. H. M. H. 9 8" * 50 1 » M. H. Linden 9 8" * CO 1 Willow Grove M. H. 4-9 8" 400 1 M. H. M. H. 11 8" 415 1 '4 M. H. Water 8 8" 200 1 lii'berty Hazel Linden 8 8" 350 1 j> Linden Mt. Airy 8 8" 290 1 Mt. Airy Liberty M. H. 9 8" 175 1 M. H. Water 8 8" 175 1 Jersey M. H. M. H. G 8" *260 1 » M. H. M. H. G 8" *300 1 j» M. H. Water 7 8" *300 1 Water Jersey Monroe 8 8" *125 1 Monroe Hillary 9 8" 330 1 ») Hillary Hazel 8.5 8" 400 1 »» Hillary Garden 8.5 8" 200 1 .. Garden Jjinden 9 8" 150 1 » Linden Abbett 8.5 8" 250 1 Hillary M. H. M. H. 8 8" 295 1 j» M. H. M. H. 9 8" 300 1 ,, M. H. M. H. 8 8" 300 1 Ha-zel M. H. Liberty 8 8" 350 1 Liberty Water 9 8" 350 1 Linden M. H. Water 9 8" 275 1 Abbett Water M. H. 9 8" 278 1 tt M. H. Lincoln 8 8" 276 1 Abbett Lincoln M. H. 7.5 8" 258 1 II M. H. Siphon 7.5 8" 265 2 Ann M H. Court 7.5 8" 200 1-2 Court M. H. Ann 9 8" 280 1 J) Ann M. H. 8.5 8" 220 1 » M. H. South 8.5 8" 300 1 High M. H. Wash'tn 8 8" 360 1-2 Market M. H South 7-12 8" 290 1 Soutb Miller Rd Pine 15 10" 300 1 Pine South King 14-6 10" 445 1 »» King M. H. 7 10" 300 1 »» M. H. M. H. 8 10" 260 1 12' 36 Cut ia Lineal street From To Feet Size Feet MH. F.T. LP. Cost Pine M. H. Mor. St. 8-15 10" 255 1 • King M. H. Pine 7.5 8" 315 1 Garden M. H. M. H. 7 8" *235 1 11 M. H. M. H. 6 8" *175 1 )t M. H. M. H. 8 8" *320 1 " M. H. M. H. 8.5 8" *320 1 Prt. W«Ly M. H. Abbett J 8" 350 1 Lincoln M. H. Fence 7.5 8" 475 1 Prt. Way Fence Trunk 7.5 8" 420 1 Abbett Siphon Olyphant 5 18" 300 1 " Olyphant M. H. G-9 18" 395 1 " M. H. Ridgedle 9-14 18" 395 1 Olyplian't PI M. H. M. H. 7 8" 180 1-2 " M. H. M. H. 7 8" 185 1 » M. H. M. H. 7 8" 305 1 >» M. H. Loop 7 8" 162 1 »j Loop Abbett 7 8" 130 1 Loop M. H. M. H. 7 8" 355 1-2 »» M. H. M. H. 7 8" 115 1 »» M. H. M. H. 7.5 8" 175 1 » M. H. Olphnt 8 8" 200 1 Clinton PL M. H. Spdwell 8 8" 250 1 Center Spring Siphon 6 15" 180 " Siphon Cole 5 15" 430 Cole Water Centre 7 15" 320 Race Prt. Way M. H. 6-11 12" 340 1 " M. H. Water 11-6 12" 400 1 MacCuUoch Perry Mil. Rd 8.5 8" 475 1 " Flarragut Mil. Rd 8 8" 490 1 Perfy M. H. M. H. 8 8" 240 1 1» M. H. MacCul'h 8 8" 240 1 Miller Rd. M. H. It 8 8" 440 1 Miller Rd. MacCul'h M. H. 9 10" 270 1 tt M. H. Maple 11-5 10" 270 1 Boyken Maple M. H. 13-5 10" 250 1 " M. H. South 16 10" 250 1 DeHart M. H. South 9 8" 460 1 Maple DeHart Oak 8 8" 365 1 " Oak Boyken 9 8" 515 1 South High Court 9.5 8" 45 1 »» Court M. H. 10 8" 685 2 ti M. H. DeHart 11 10" 500 1 •' DeHart M. H. 11 10" 340 1 II K. H. Pine 10 10" 340 1 •' M. H. M. H. 8.5 8" 325 1 II M. H. Madi. St. 9 8" 350 1 It M. H. M. H. 8.5 8" 305 1 II M. H. Ma,di. St. 8.5 8" 305 1 Madl. St. South Elm 9.12 8" 235 1 Elm Madi. St. M. H. 12-16 8" 310 1 « M. H. M. H. 16-9 8" 310 1 37 Cut itt Lineal street From To Feec Size Feet M.H. F.T. I.P. Cost Elfti M. H, Hill 7.5 8" 440 1 It Hill Bend 8 8" 230 1 " Bend M. H. 10 10" 195 1 ■■ M. H. Mor. St. 10 10" 41 1 Hill Frnkln PI. M. H. 8 8" 175 1 " M. H. M. H. 8 8" 140 1 ■' M. H. M. H. 8 8" 200 1 " M. H. Elm 8 8" 400 1 Park PI. E Park PI N Morris 11 8" 410 1 Morris St South Park P E 10 8" 300 1 " Park P E M. H. 10 8" 320 1 " M. H. Spring St 9.5 8" ■ 180 1 " Spring St. M. H. 9 8" 300 1 " M. H. M. H. 10 8" 300 . 1 " Pine King 14 10" 275 1 " King M. H. 13 10" 290 1 »> M. H. Olyphant 10.5 10" 290 1 48' » Olyphant Ridgedale 9 10" 390 1 " Ridgedale M. H. 7.5 10" 400 1 12' King Bend M. H. 8 8" 2G5 1 " M. H. M. H. 7.5 8" 300 1 " M. H. Mor. St. 5-13 8" 300 1 Lane M. H. Mor. St. 8 8" 460 1 48' Olyphant PI. M'. H. Olypht 8 8" 145 1-2 Olyphant M. H. Loop 8 8" 200 1-2 " Loop ?.I. H. 7 8" 312 *» M. H. Mor. St. 8 8" 300 Ridgedale M. H. M. H. 8 8" 140 1-2 " M. H. Mor. St. 9 8" 580 Mor. St. Wash'ton Lafayette 8.5 8" 330 " Lafayette M, H. 7 8" 400 1. " M. H. M. H. G 8" 200 Mor. Av. M. H. M. H. 9.5 8" 350 " M. H. M. H. 8 8" 350 " M. H. M. H. 7.5 8" 700 >f M. H. Wash. PI. 8 8" 355 " M. H. Wash. Av. 8 8" 300 1 Wash. PI. Mor. Av. M. H. 8 8" 300 »» M. H. Bend 7 8" 300 M Bend Bend 7 8" 150 >l Bend M. H. 7 8" 100 Wash. Av. M. H. M. H. 8 8" *540 1 »f M. H. M. H. 10.5 8" 350 " M. H. M. H. 12.5 8" 400 »» M. H. M. H. 12 8" 350 »* M. H. M. H. 9.5 8" 350 » M.. H. M. H. 11 8" 240 *i M. H. M. H. 12 8" 400 »» M. H. M. H. 10 8" 400 *> M. H. M. H. % 8" 290 »» M. H. Morris 8 8" 320 3^ Cut in Lineal street From To Feet Size Feet II.F. F.T. I.P. Cost Lafayette Mor. Av. M. H. 8 8" 385 1 >» M. H. Division 7 8" 400 1 Division M. H. M. H. 7 8" 290 1 ff M. H. Lafayette 7 8" 230 1 Headley Rd. M. H. Soutti 13 10" 500 1 Soutli M. H. M. H. 6.5 8" 200 1 n M. H. M. H. 10 8" 3.G5 1 it M. H. M. H. 13 8" 3C5 1 " M. H. Headly 14 8" 400 1 n Headly Mad Av. 14 8" 170 1 " M. H. M. H. 10 8" 300 1 " M. H. M. H. 10 8" 300 1 " M. H. Mad. Av. 10 8" 300 1 Mad. Av. South .M. H. 15.8 10" 350 1 " M. H. Frnk St. 8 10" 260 1 " Frnk Jefferson 8 10" 450 1 " M. H. M. H. 8 8" 200 1 " M. H. M. H. 8 8" 325 1 *» M. H. Jefferson 8 8" 390 1 " M. H. M. H. 8 8" 275 1 " M. H. Prt. Way 7 8" 420 1 " M. H. M. H. 8 8" *350 1 " M. H. M. H. 9 8" 350 1 jj M. H. DeKalb 8 8" 250 1 " DeKalb M. H. 8 8" 350 1 " M. H. Prt. Way 8 8" 350 1 Jefferson Mad. Av. M. H. 7 10" 338 1 tf M. H. Prt. Way 8 10" 260 1 " Prt. Wiay M. H. 7 10" 353 1 Franfclyn St. Elm M. H. 7.5 8" 440 1 )» M. H. Frkn PI 8 8" 440 1 it Frnkn PI. Bend 8 8" 280 1 " Bend M. H. 7 8" 190 1 » M. H. DeKalb 8.5 8" 280 1 " M. H. M. H. 8 8" *225 1 i> M. H. M. H. 7:5 8" *270 1 ft M. H. M. H. 7.5 8" *260 1 St M. H. M. H. 7.5 8" *235 1 .-» M. H. DeKalb 9 8" * 30 1 Franklyn PI. M. H. Frkn PI 8 8" 365 1-2 j» M. H. Hill 8 8" 345 1-2 DeKalb Frnkn St. M. H. 7 8" *325 1 it M. H. Jefferson 7 8" *250 1 n Madison Bend 8 8" *320 1 " Bend M. H. 9 8" *365 1 " M. H, Prt. Rd. 9 8" *350 1 " Prt. Rd. M. H. 8 8" *340 1 a M. H. M. H. 7 8" *300 1 » M. H. M. H. 6 8" 350 1 It M. H. Jefferson 7 8" 350 1 Hill Frnkn PI. M. H. 8 8" 287 1 39 Cut in Lineal street From To Feet Size Feet M.H. F.T. I.P. Coatf Hill M. H. Ford 8 8" 275 1 Ford Frkln PI. M. H. 6.5 8" *270 1 Ford M. H. Hill 6-12 8" *310 1 12' Ford M. H. Hill 6-12 8" *295 1 It M. H. Howells 8.5 8" 180 1 it M. H. M. H. 7 8" 110 1 tt M. H. Howells 8 8" 195 1 12' Ridgedale M. H. M. H. 7.5 8" 385 1-2 It M. H. Abbett 7.5 8" 300 1 It Abbett M'. H. 14-5 20" 400 1 t> M. H. M. H. 5 20" 285 1 " M. H. Siphon 7 20" 400 1 Prt. Way Mor. St. M. H. 6 15" 300 1 " M. H. M. H. 6 15" 350 1 " M. H. M. H. 6 15" 330 1 It M. H. M. H. 6 15" 130 1 It M. H. M. H. 6 15" 200 1 ". M. H. M. H. 6 15" 320 1 12' " Division Prt. Way 6 8" 100 1 Water St. Flagler Sipbon 7 15" 180 1 12' INVERTED SIPHONS. Water St. M. H. Cole 1 1 8" 6" 130 2 Centre M. H. M. H. 1 1 8" 10" 100 2 Abbett M. H. M. H. 1 1 8" 10" 135 2 Atno M. H. Prt. Way 2 6" 451 2 Ridgedale Av. M. H. Prt. Way 2 6" 120 2 Spdwell Av. M. H. Bend 8 8" *390 1 ti Bend M. H. 8 8" *315 1 It M. H. Hend 8 8" *352 1 " Bend M. H. 8 8" *300 1 " M. H. ]V; H. 8 8" *400 1 tt M. H. Emmet 4 8" *200 1 It Emmet i'lt. Way 5 8" *172 1 Hill DeKalb Bend 7 8" *120 1 " Bend M. n. 8 8" *150 1 " M. H. M. H. 7 8" *400 1 tt M. H. Jeffer'son 6 8" *400 1 Columbia Rd. M. H. Morris 7 8" *300 i Olmstead Rd. M. H. M. H. 6 8" *440 1 " M. H. Washt'n 7 8" *440 1 Malcolm M. H. M. H. 8 8" *170 1 " M. H. Trk Line 5 8" * 20 1 " F. T. Ridgedale 6 8" *300 1 36' Ridgedale Siphon Siphon 7 8" *165 1 36' Morris Av. F. T. Fork 7 8" *250 1 Woodland F. T. South 8 8" *200 1 40 Outiu Liieal Sti eet From To Feet Size Feet M.H, F.T. I.P. Cost Rt. Wiay W'dlnd South 8 8" *200 1 ♦Market M. H. Doughty 8 8" 545 1 " Doughty M. H. 8 8" 340 1 ti M. H. Colles 9 8" 355 1 »> M. H. M. H. 8 8" *510 1 " M. H. M. H. 7 8" *170 1 " M. H. Maple 9.5 8" 250 1 )> Maple M. H. 8 8" 215 1 « M. H. Bank 12 8" 155 1 12' it Bank Mac 9 8" 140 1 If Mac. M. H. 9 8" 195 1 it M. H. Colles 10-15 8" 335 1 CoUes . Mt. Kemble Wetmore 14-6 8' 310 1 12' II Parragut Wetmore 8.5 8" 440 1 Bank M. H. Bend 9 8" 188 1 II Bend Ann 8.5 8" 283 1 fi Ann Market 9 8" 430 1 12' MacCuU. M. H. DeHart 8 8" 370 1 " M. H. M. H. 7.5 8" 190 1 It M. H. Market 8 8" 160 1 12' Wetmore M. H. Mac. 8 8" 408 1 « Mac. Colles 9 8" 523 1 If Colles M. H. 9 8" 320 1 i> M. H. Ogden 7.5 8" 320 1 » Ogden M. H. 8 8" 325 1 t» M. H. Pump 8 8" 330 1 It Prt. Way M. H. 8 8" 235 1 It M. H. Pump 8 8" 275 1 12' Prt. Way Mt. Kemble Wetmore 8 .8" *330 1 Miller Rd. M. H. M. H. 8 8" 250 1 f* M. H. Ogden 8 8" 280 1 Maple M. H. Market 8.5 8" 390 1 Doughty M. H. M. H. 8 8" 132 1 If M. H. Wetmore 8 8" 125 1 Ogden Miller Rd. M. H. 7.5 8" 100 1 It M. H. M. H. 8 8" 100 1 ji M. H. M. H. 8 8" 130 1 •• M. H. M. H. 7.5 8" 110 1 •• M. H. Wetmore 7 8" 335 1 Ann M. H. M. H. 8 8" 360 1 )f M. H. Bank 7.5 8" 140 1 Colles Miller M. H. 6 8" *215 1 tt Farragut M. H. 6 8" *160 1 Prt. Wlay Colles M. H. 7 8" *300 1 If M. H. Ogden 8 8" *300 1 ♦James • South Maple 8 8" 310 1 ff Maple M. H. 7 8" 305 1 >f M. H. Mac. 7 8" 290 1 ff Mac. M. H. 7.5 8" 225 1 If M. H. *Pumnin Green g Station 7.5 No. 1. 8" 240 1 41 Cut in Lineal street From To Feet Size Feet M.H F.T. IP Uost *James Green Bend 8 8 120 » M. H. M. H. 8 8 ' *385 » M. H. M. H. 8 8 ' *250 l> M. H. M. H. 7 8 ' *305 .. M. H. M. H. 7.5 8 ■ *310 " M. H. Pump 8 8 ' *305 >. F. T. Bend 7 8 ' *440 1 ■> Bend M. H. 7 8 ' *245 )) M. H. Bend 7 8 ' *3oo » M. H. Pump 7.5 8 ' *120 12' Madison M. H. Mac. 8 8 325 1 " Mac. M. H. 7 8 270 " M. H. Green 7 8 275 MacCuUoch M. H. Mad. St. 7 8 270 1 " M. H. James 8 8 360 1 Maple M. H. James 8 8 340 1 Green Madison James 8 8 405 1 ♦South St. F. T. M. H. 8 8 390 1 i Pumping Station No . 2. 13 8" 330 1 " M. H. Woodlwn " Woodlwn W^alnut 10 8- 200 Walnut Pump 8 8 120 Prt. Way F. T. M. H. 8 8 400 1 M. H. M. H. 8 8 300 M. H. M. H. 8 8 400 M. H. M. H. 8 8 400 ■' South South St. 8 8 330 ; Emmet Ave. M. H. M. H. 8 8' ' *400 1 M. H. M. H. 8 8' ' *285 M. H. Bend 8 8' ' *155 Bend Bend 8 8' ' *140 *■ Bend M. H. 8 8 ' *235 M. H. M. H. 8 8- ' *170 12' M. H. Pump 10 8 ' *365 Prt. Way Madison Bend 7 8 365 Bend M. H. 7 8' 300 M. H. M. H. 7 8 360 M. H. M. H. 7 8' 400 M. H. Jefferson 7 8' 370 DeKalb M. H. 7.5 IS- 255 M. H. Bend 7.5 IS' 280 Bend Bend 8 15' 230 Bend Track 8 15' 400 Track Howells 10 15' 360 Howells Ford 11 15' 440 Ford Trunk 7 8 450 • Ford M. H. 9 15' 450 M. H. Morris 9 15 100 * Pum.ping Station No. Pumping Station No. 3. 4. 42 Oat in Lineal street Fro 31 To Feet Size Feet M.H. F.T. I.P. Cost Prb. Way Atno M. H. 7 15" 135 1 M. H. M. H. 7 IS- 280 1 M. H. M. H. 7 IS" 200 1 M. H. M. H. 7 15" 355 1, M. H. M. H. 7 15" 250 1 250' M'. H. M. H. 8 15" 180 1 M. H. Spring 10 15" 180 1 Centre R. R. 7 18" 380 1 R. R. M. H. 7 18" 400 1 144' M. H. M.. H. 8 18" 400 1 M. H. Abbett 7 18" 400 1 Spdwell M. H. 8 12" * 35 1 M. H. M. H. 6 12" *220 1 M. H. M. H. 6 12 *260 1 M. H. M. H. 6 12" *410 1 M. H. M. H. 6 12" *280 1 M. H. M. H. 6 12" *340 1 M'. H. M. H. 6 .12" *410 1 M. H. M. H. 6 12" *400 1 M. H. M. H. 6 12" *400 1 M. H. M. H. 6 12" '^400 1 M. H. Race 6 12" *375 1 Kinney M. H. Anderson 7 8" *190 1 ThomETaon M. H. Anderson 7 8" *225 1 Anderson 'Thompson Kinney 7 8" *400 1 Prt. Way Anderson Trunk 7 8" * 60 1 Spdwell Av. M. H. M. H. • 6 8" *380 1 J) M. H. Bend 7 8" *365 1 » Bend M. H. 7 8" *350 1 It M. H. Prt. Way 7 8" *240 1 Ai to 00 5„ CO c lO >o g=^ c o a o 5Q Ph iO o (p CO CO ■* «"^s d d Iz; H^-gp^ o p _CS Sr^ 1— 1 o CEO ^ a CD o o 'n Ta and dFilt d d < 13 fl 1— 1 ID eg TO CQ 0^ CO »o < o ^ CO IO o ts !> a3 ^^ I— 1 P5 "S ^ m ' ■§^ Ph sS -e 03 ^<. w i-i^ hH -w o o 0:3 ^•? he fcC _H a .'^ Xi P n a (D 0) & & CD ID "O o cr' Ci CO 00 CO *o OS • • -*" o a !; sa O £ «Ph 03 O +i ^ f- s toP-i^ cs b « is OQ<^ 44 -*-= r-J CO CJ CO 'dH 1 o Oft Tf CO r_ C:; CO C^ -^ '-' o S >0 ^ Tji -* od^§3 ,_ r-i O O O go o '~o g o o d 4-J c o 'O o o o o >oo ,^ t- o o o g o 3 2 .2 CO O K5 O 13 -s^^ ^_ GO O lO cc •^ 00 lo o: CO ^ ^1 ^ Co' CD CD cjT g • a a < o g +3 CO o o o o « o £ «0 O 4J £ CO CO c c c c C C CO ^- >0 C CO if 00 -^ C 13 L" J> O i-J CO •^ Q ■+3 CO OT d"!zi"S "^ O O C3^ C5 S o ^ E «5 --I a m o g CO 35 en !> C/3 H . .r^ . H o : S § : h" M-l ■B . OJ 3 o ^ 7^^ ' u *3 i2 3h hJ CO ^ .go i 1 . O H a. J CO o CO O IS Q O K «^§o :^ O o ^ ■>.?, ^ g 1 r3 £H H u t3j ^ H Ja^ ^ ^l?>^-f^.S '>">'>'^ B* J .S.S .9 ce cS aj 03 9 e ^ CB 03 0) t, s- tj IL. ffi 3 H cQco an pqmpqm pq hH 1— I 1— 1 tH C6 -Q o m c8 ^ O 'o 'tS Q ■H CO 5 c cS E CO 1=1 d EE EE 45 ESTIMATED COST OF SEWERS. DETAILED KSTIMATES PREPARED. We have estimated the cost of the sewers exclusive of the ejectors, which are estimated elsewhere, and the results are set forth in the accompanying tables. The estimates are prepared so that each stretch of pipe is a unit and can be deducted from the total estimate if it is desired to omit any stretch. In the table the stretches which we recommend omitting are marked with a star (*) and the Map Plate I shows graphically the portion we would recommend building in 1907 as the first section. The table is subdivided, and that portion draining to the ejector chambers is classified separately. Our plans call for approximate- ly the following amounts of work : 8 inch Pipe Sewers, 116,240 lineal feet 10 " t < ( ( 10,201 " 12 " 15 " 18 " 1 ( ( ( (1 ( c ( ( 1 ( Manholes, 4,485 " 3,405 " 3,740 " 342 Flushing Manholes, 126 Siphon Chambers, 10 In total, the plans call for 143,071 lineal feet of sewers of which 20,460 lineal feet cross private ways, as explained else- where. The estimates for sewers are based on costs of work under conditions similar to those at Morristown. TOTAL AND PER CAPITA COST. The estimated cost of sewering the Town completely, is $174,- 449.95. From the fact that Morristown has grown to its present .size without sewers, public or private, it will be necessary to build at least 87.2 per cent, of the total to sewer the Town at all com- pletely. Plate I shows the portions we recommend, and a glance at the Plate will show graphically the number of houses af- forded sewer facilities by the portions recommended. The only portion omitted along which any number of people dwell, is the north end of Speedwell Avenue. This we omitted, thinking it was not justifiable to build it until local sanitary regulations were adopted and enforced. To sewer these houses would require a long expensive right of way. The total cost of the portions we recommend to build in 1907, is $137,013.10. This gives a total cost of $9,134 per capita, or, an annual per capita cost of $0,457 for sewering. COST OP SEWERING AND DISPOSAL. Combining our cost for sewering and the cost of the ejectors, we have an annual cost of $0.53 per capita, which covers our rec- ommended plans for the collection of the sewaee. Using this 46 figure iu connection with the different plans for disposal, we get the following total figures : total cost of eecommended skwers and disposal (using ejectors). Total Cost Annual Plan. of Portions Per Capita Recommended. Cost. (b) To Arthur Kill $677,863 10 §-J.113 (c) By Gravity to Sedimentation TanksandSand Filters.... 237,113 10 .953 (c') By Gravity to Sedimentation Tanks, Contact Beds and Sand Filters 246,213 10 .984 (d) By Pumping to Disposal Plant 226,713 10 .965 TOTAL cost of COMPLETE SEWERS AND DISPOSAL (using EJECTORS). (b) To' Arthur Kill 715,299 95 2.237 (c) By Gravity 274,549 95 1.075 (c')" " " 283,640 95 1.062 (d) By Pumping 264,149 95 1.090 RECOMMENDATIONS. In view of the points brought out in the preceding Report, and review of our surveys, investigations and studies, we recom- mend — I. That the sewage from the westerly portion of the Town be pumped over the ridge to the main system by ejectors. II. That those portions of the sewers indicated by a star (*) in the detail estimate, be built at a later date than the first system. III. Disposal by Plan c', by gravity to sedimentation tanks, contact beds and sand filters, as a proper method to give a high degree of purification. IV. Disposal by Plan d, pumping to disposal works, as a proper alternate plan for di.sposal shou!d the cost of securing property rights for Plan c' be disproportionately great, and V. Proper and ef&cient care of the disposal works when built. COST OF RECOMMENDED PLAN, The cost of the recommended plan for the collection and dis- posal of the sewage of Morristown, is $246,213 10. To this must be added the expenses of the bond issue, procuring of rights of way, real estate for the disposal works, legal and miscellaneous expenses and the cost of engineering superintendence. 47 In closing, we wish to compliment the members of the Sew- erage Commission for the deep interest they have shown in the subject of sewerage and the insight displaj-ed in the intricate subject of sewage disposal. We also wish to extend our thanks to the members of your Honorable Body for the courtesies shown us. Respectfully suVjmitted, WILLIAMS, PROCTOR & POTTS, Inc. Clyde Potts, Vice-President.