ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
UN A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION GRANT
FOR THE CENTRAL SERVICE AREA OF THE OCEAN COUNTY
SEWERAGE AUTHORITY IN OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
VOLUME II
COMMENTS ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FINAL
OCTOBER 1974
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
-------
902174255B
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION GRANT
FOR THE CENTRAL SERVICE AREA OF THE OCEAN COUNTY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
IN OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
VOLUME II
COMMENTS ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FINAL
OCTOBER 1974
Prepared by:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Reviewer Guide Number
Berkeley Township Sewerage Authority 1
Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority 2
Citizens' Conservation Council of Ocean County, Inc 3
League of Women Voters of Ocean County, New Jersey 4
New Jersey Cooperative Extension Service 5
New Jersey Department of Community Affairs 6
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 7
Ocean County Planning Board 8
Ocean County Sewerage Authority 9 --
U.S. Department of Agriculture 10
U.S. Department of the Army 11
U.S. Department of Commerce 12
U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare 13
U.S. Department of the Interior 14
U.S. Department of the Navy '. 15
-------
-------
BERKELEY TOWNSHIP SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
Post Office Box R
271 Atlantic City Blvd. (State Hwy. #9)
Bayville, New Jersey 08721
PHONES
201-269-3500
201-269-3501
HAROLD MATHIS, Chairman
HERBERT I. WRIGHT, JR., Vice Chairman
WILLIAM KEHOE, Treasurer
LEO J. BELLARMINO, Secretary
ANTHONY KURNEL, Member
CHARLES J. KUPPER, INC., Engineer
STOUT, O'HAGAN, DeVITO & HERTZ, Attorney
FRED J. STEFANY CO., Auditor
June 17, 1974
Mr. Paul Arbesman, Chief
Environmental Impact Branch
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Arbesman:
The Authority has examined a copy of the Environmental Protection Statement
on the waste water treatment facilities construction grant for the Central Service
Area of The Ocean County Sewerage Authority, Ocean County, New Jersey. The Berkeley
Township Sewerage Authority has caused its consultant to review and examine the
above mentioned Environmental Protection Statement. May this letter serve as the
Authority's comments in regard thereto.
The Authority has difficulty in understanding the basis for your Agency
limiting the population of Ocean County in the central area to 250,000. The Authority
is mindful that your Agency is one that determines the grants in aid of construction
for particular projects but it is not aware that this right contains the power to
limit the size of the population in a particular area. It is the Authority's general
understanding that recent Federal pronouncements have espoused a theory that the
Federal Government leaves to State and governmental units, such questions as the
control of population. Suffice it to say that the Federal Government has no direct
power to limit the population of a particular area or region and apparently chooses
to do so by a back door approach.
The Berkeley Township Sewerage Authority has entered into a contract with
The Ocean County Sewerage Authority which has been approved by the New Jersey State
Department of Environmental Protection and by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Under the terms of that contract and in particular, Article IIA,
The Ocean County Sewerage Authority agrees and covenants with the Berkeley Township
Sewerage Authority that it shall, during the term of the Agreement, treat and
dispose of all waste water delivered to it by the Berkeley Township Sewerage Authority.
It is the understanding of the Berkeley Township Sewerage Authority that to limit the
size of the Central Treatment Plant to 24 million gallons per day, will not adequately
provide for the anticipated population in this area.
-------
Page 2
June 17, 1974
To: Paul Arbesman, Chief
Environmental Impact Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
It must be contemplated by the Berkeley Township Sewerage Authority that
your limitation of total population in the central area of Ocean County imposes an
uppermost limit on this provision of the Agreement. This Authority questions why
your Agency would not make this a part of the Agreement with the two parties.
The Berkeley Township Sewerage Authority questions how this population
limitation can be interpreted by the Berkeley Township Sewerage Authority and The
Ocean County Sewerage Authority. For instance, the Contract between The Ocean
County Sewerage Authority and the Berkeley Township Sewerage Authority does not
reserve a capacity for Berkeley Township in the Ocean County Sewerage Authority
system. Therefore, can one or more of the participants in the central region use
existing capacity at a greater rate than was anticipated, at the expense of the
other communities? It is submitted that there is nothing in the Agreement nor
under the law that would prevent one participant from taking advantage of the
other's in this regard.
It is highly questionable as to whether the zoning powers authorized
under existing law by the New Jersey Legislature would allow for limitation .of
population in a particular area, in the sense contemplated by your report. Whereas,
the zoning act allows for the regulation and restriction of the density of population
and as one of its purposes, attempts to provide adequate light and air. Nevertheless,
the case law interpreting these provisions of the zoning law does not allow for
limitation of population, based on the deterioration of air quality at a given
time by subsequent population growth as expressed in your report.
As a matter of fact, the zoning law of the State of New Jersey is
presently under intensive study by the Legislature and the Courts, in order to
determine whether the heretofore approved precepts of home rule should continue.
One aspect of the social problems the Legislature and Courts are confronted with
rests in the fact that particularly in New Jersey, there is a limited amount of
land available for dwellings proximate to the employment areas. Another aspect
of this problem is that many of the municipalities under home rule have, in effect,
limited the population by requiring as a minimum, under their zoning ordinances,
large lot sizes with large habitable floor areas and costly improvements to be
installed by developers. In many communities, this has been by and large the rule
rather than the exception and, therefore, great segments of the population are
unable to afford the purchase price of single family dwellings, in many municipalities.
However, the effect of these restrictions is to limit the population
in a given area, which is apparently what the Environmental. Protection Agency
advocates as part of the aforesaid report. The Courts of this State have recently
stricken down such highly restrictive zoning ordinances on the theory that they
used up the available land supply and do not provide shelter for all segments of
the population.
*
Therefore, it is submitted that your limitation of the total population
of the central area of Ocean County could readily be in conflict with recent
pronouncements of New Jersey Courts in this regard.
-------
Page 3
June 17, 1974
To: Paul Arbesman, Chief
Environmental Impact Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
This letter is not meant to exhaust all of the ramifications of your
report but rather addresses itself to that portion which will generate large
problems for The Ocean County Sewerage Authority and the Berkeley Township Sewerage
Authority with no apparent legal means of remedying the situation. Again, it is
submitted as directed under the terms of your Environmental Impact Report, as
contrary to the present philosophy of the Federal Government leaving local
problems and decisions to the State, Counties and Municipalities and apparently
is contrary to the existing law of the State of New Jersey and the recent
decisions of the Courts.
Very truly yours,
BERKELEY TOWNSHIP
SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
Harold Mathis
Chairman
HM:rh
cc: William J. O'Hagan, Jr.
Charles J. Kupper, Jr.
The Ocean County Sewerage Authority
Berkeley Township Committee
-------
-------
",APE MAY COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY
P.O. BOX 376. CAPE MAY. NEW JERSEY O82O4
AREA CODE 6O9 TEL. 884-34O7
VASTER A. SUPLEE. JR.. CHAIRMAN
JOHN Vwci
H. EDMONDS
IRGE CAMPBELL
CLIFFORD L. MOCABEE
I
June 10, 1974
H. MEAD, SOLICITOR
Mr. Gerald Hansler
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Re: Environmental Impact
Statement - Air Quality
Ocean City, New Jersey
Dear Mr. Hansler:
As the Cape May County New Jersey Municipal Utilities Authority,
we have been involved for the past year in developing a facilities
plan for wastewater management on a regional basis in the County of
Cape May. Through the course 06 developing an appropriate facili-
ties plan for the County, there has emerged an intense inter-rela-
tionship with the County Health Department, Planning Board and the
County Utilities Authority. An important aspect of this relation-
ship has been the development, through the leadership of the County
Planning Board, of an inter-related total management system. This
involves the three agencies recited above, the sixteen County muni-
cipalities and the New Jersey State Department of Environmental
Protection. The framework for this total management system is pres-
ently being developed and strengthened by the first steps of imple-
mentation. The ultimate goal will bs to match population densities
with the environmental resources of the County. It is intended that
restrictions will be placed on the environmentally sensistive areas
and that major public works, such as utilities, shall be so construc-
ted and managed that their use will be consistent with proper
management of the development and of resources of the County.
The County Authority is aware of the "Environmental Impact State-
ment on a Wastewater Treatment Facilities Construction Grant for the
Central Service Are£i of the Ocean County Sewerage Authority in Ocean
County, New Jersey", which was prepared in draft form and dated April
1974,, We have discussed the content of this report at some length
-------
Mr. Gerald Hansler
Regional Administrator
- 2 -
June 10, 1974
with the Director of the Cape May County Planning Board and wish
to provide the following comments on the Environmental Impact
Statement.
As a part of the air quality control region including Ocean,
Atlantic, Cumberland and Cape May Counties, we wish to register
an objection to the degradation of air quality which will be
committed by the planned population increasre in Ocean County.
Emission limitation presumably which would be placed on Cape May
County would arrest any planned growth within the County and
would stunt the economy in this area of the State. Planning and
construction of various facilities in the four-county area are
presently under way. The total region should be assessed rather
than one segment.
The need for wastewater management control in Cape May County
has placed its name in the number 2 position on the priority list-
ing of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. It
is essential that existing pollution be arrested, brought under
control and eliminated to the benefit of many millions of people
living in the northeastern sector of the United States.
It is our request that consideration be given to a regional
management system for air quality control through the appointment
of representatives from each of the four counties to immediately
develop a basic strategy for management of air quality. The in-
tent should take on a regional aspect that would allow the four
counties in the region to share equally in the planning to accom-
plish the ultimate objectives of the Clean Air Act of 19700
The Cape May County Utilities Authority is taking the initia-
tive in this communication and stand ready to cooperate in any way
necessary to provide the proper institutional base for air quality
control.
Very truly yours,
CAPE MAY COUNTY
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AU
C^£tl.
'Walter A. Suplee,
WAS/ak
cc: Brendan Byrne, Governor, State of New Jersey
David J. Bardine, Commissioner, N.J. DEP
Cape May County Board of Chosen Freeholders
Elwood Jarmer, Director, Cape May County Planning Board
Steven Lubow, N.J. DEP
Pandullo, Chrisbacher and Associates
ORITY
-------
-------
CITIZENS' CONSERVATION COUNCIL of Ocean County, Inc.
Toms River, New Jersey
May 31, 1974
Reply To: BOX 154-Z
R.D. 2
Mr. Gerald Hansler, Regional Administrator EPA
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Re: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION GRANT FOR THE CENTRAL SERVICE AREA OF THE OCEAN COUNTY
SEWERAGE AUTHORITY IN OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.
THE CITIZENS' CONSERVATION COUNCIL of Ocean County, New Jersey
is a coalition of conservation-minded government agencies,
private organizations and individuals formed for the purpose of
"...working for the conservation of the natural resources of
Ocean County to the end that a quality environment may be
attained." It is a non-partisan, non-profit organization whose
participants now number over 7,000 people of Ocean County.
Dear Mr. Hansler:
Ocean County, New Jersey is indeed fortunate that we will be at
long last getting a sewage system in a county which is termed the fastest
growing county in the United States. At present we have many critical
areas and have been fortunate that we have not had an out break of any
water-borne disease to date. It is with great graditude that we look
forward to state and federal aid on a project that we could never have
financed alone. We appreciate very much the careful analysis that the
EPA .has given the Impact Statement.
In reply to your request that our organization respond to the
Environmental Impact Statement on a Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Construction Grant for the central service area of the Ocean County
Sewerage Authority in Ocean County, New Jersey, we submit' the
following remarks:
1) Our over-all fear upon reviewing the document'is that it
appears to us that (note page 47) that unless there is a curtailment
of the year-round influx of people into Ocean County that gradually
there will be the elimination of Ocean County as a recreational area
for the people of the state of New Jjersey. This would be a great loss
to Ocean County as a revenue but more importantly as a place for people
of northern New Jersey, Pennsylvania'', 'New York and other parts of the
country to use as a vacation retreat.. In other words our Resort
Industry would be lost. We are concerned that the population projections
of the Ocean County Sewerage Authority do not allow for the annual'
increase of people into our county which triples the population in the
summer months.
-------
-2-
2) We have noted numerous references of Tertiary Treatment plants.
We should appreciate a definition of tertiary treatment. Our member-
ship doubts that these so-called tertiary treatment plants are tertiary
in the true sense of the word. Arc the Tertiary treatment plants as
listed on pages 82 and 83 (table #7) really tertiary plants? Are they
acceptable for ground discharge?
3) We are concerned too, that the OCSA has not as yet designated
where the sludge disposal areas will be. This is of particular concern
since our water table is very high throughtout the county.
4) Great Adventures... Safari Animal Park and Amusement Park,
Jackson, has mushroomed into a far greater impact upon Ocean County
than anyone ever expected. At present the DEP has not completed their
approval of the sewer plant under construction and has issued a stop
work order which the Great Adventure appears to ignore. We have been
led to believe that drainage from this enterprise will go westward to
the Delaware River and then again we read that eventually the effluent
will be taken over by the Ocean County Sewerage System. Which is right?
We should appreciate knowing the exact facts. This Enterprise is over-"
a valuable water table suppling parts of Ocean County.
5) As you noted no definite arrangements have been made for
sewage discharge from boats and marine holding tanks. Sewage from
boating tho denied, is a serious problem in Ocean County.
6) Our ocean front beaches are frequently littered with fecal
matter contrary to reports by government officials. We are looking
forward to considerable change for the better when regional sewerage
is implemented.
A number of our members give freely of their time gathering
water samples for testing under federal standards, yet, recent news-
paper releases indicate our Barnegat Bay and related waterways are
acceptable under County Standards which are not released to the
general public.
Our citizens' water testing group have noted much higher fecal
coliform counts in the areas of boat marinas.
7) We already have one operating Atomic Plant, on Barnegat Bay
which has been responsible for numerous fish kills and has been -
fined by the DEP of the state of New Jersey. The second plant pre-
paring to be built will have cooling towers. It is our understanding
that the increase of salt into Bainegat Bay waters from this plant
will be considerable and we wish to draw this to your attention.
8) We agree and commend your department on the chapter on
Conclusions and Recommendations. We think we have a reliable,
conscientious Ocean County Sewerage Authority under the leadership
of Mr. Grutzik. With careful monitoring at all levels of government
we are confident that the best for the health and welfare of the
people of our county and state will be realized.
-------
-3-
A copy of our statement of Eeceiriber 14, 197^ regarding the
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Sewage Collection, Treatment
and Disposal System Is enclosed for your perusal.
Sincerely yours,
Robert Anstett
President
RA/lm
-------
CITIZENS' CONSERVATION COUNCIL of Ocean County
Statement to the Ocean County Sewerage Authority Regarding the Environmental
Impact of the Proposed Sewage Collection, Treatment and Disposal System.
The CITIZENS' CONSERVATION COUNCIL of Ocean County is a coalition of
conservation-minded government agencies, private organizations and individuals
formed for the purpose of "...working for the conservation of the natural re-
sources of Ocean County to the end that a quality environment may be attained."
It is a non-partisan, non-profit organization whose participants now number
twenty. A list of members is attached at the end of this statement.
The Board of Directors of the COUNCIL is deeply concerned that the follow-
ing questions be answered satisfactorily and that the following suggestions
be thoroughly investigated and carried out if feasible.
A. Water Resources. The sewerage network, when completed, will require much
more water per capita than is now being used in order
to flush and carry wastes to treatment plants. In
addition, a growing population will increase usage. The
possible danger of salt water intrusion in some areas
would exist from water table depletion.
1. We suggest that a water table depletion study be made
to indicate estimated effects, at specified future
dates, on water table levels, and water level changes
in creeks rivers, swamps, wetlands and lakes. Is
there a possibility that water table depletion will
.lead to land sirkage?
2. If depletion and descending levels are indicated, the
following possibilities should be Investigated to
alleviate the problem.
a. Return treated waters to the land via holding
basins, lakes or reservoirs instead of discharge
into the Ocean. These would be useable in var-
ious ways depending on water quality.
b. Pipe effluents to areas where the water can be
used to irrigate or fertilize land - farms,
golf courses, etc.
c. In general, investigate and utilize any other
feasible ways of recycling water. Even the pos-
sibility of dual water systems, one for
COVFR)
-------
Page 2
2. When will it be necessary to have such a plan avail-
able to guide the completion of the sewer collection
system? If soon, we suggest that the existing 1966
county plan be used. Its basic principles are sound.
C. Environment. - Every effort should be made to minimize damage to any
part of the environment affected by the sewerage network.
1. Pipeline routings should avoid wetlands, marshes, b^.y
bottom and other ecologically Important areas.
2. If absolutely necessary to cross these areas, routes
where the destruction has already been done should
be sought. Sewer lines should use existing rights-
of-way along roads, power lines or other pipe lines
wherever possible.
3. We note that one outfall line is to cross Island Beach
State Park. If this is necessary, how will it be
handled so as net to damage the park?
4. We also note that the northern-most outfall line
crosses a green acres park project in Brick Town.
This should be avoided.
5. Pipes should be kept at least 20 feet from stream
beds-, and farther if conditions warrant.
6. Areas cleared of trees and other vegetation should
be kept to a minimum. If there is damage, it should
be replaced by natural, native growth to disturb the
local ecology as little as possible.
7. Barnegat Bay's shellfish and finfish Industries, both
coirinercial and sport, have been badly damaged already
by water pollution and wetlands destruction. Pipe-
lines laid across as yet undisturbed portions of Bay
bottom should be avoided for this reason. Any further
damage would be intolerable.
8. Since the effects of taking Bay waters and of heated
Bay waters from generating plants discharged into the
environment are not fully known, sewer effluents
might be used to cool generators before being held
in cooling reservoirs and re-used for other purpose.
In this case, it would be desirable to locate treat-
ment plants as close as possible to generating plants.
9. All treated effluents, if finally discharged into
streams, bays or oceans, should meet all water quality
standards for those water bodies established by thp
State of New Jersey.
10. During construction, temporary flooding should be
avoided, as this is known to cause tree kills.
11. If trees are injured during construction, they should
bo properly cared for according to the best arborir.t
practices.
12. In retaining an environmental impact consultant, all
required disciplines should be included — forer.ters,
wildlife biologists, soils experts, etc. — in orcbr
to choose the proper routes and sites and in planr..'.ng
the construction process.
13. Soil erosion should be avoided during and after con-
struction.
-------
Page 3
a. Avoid steep slopes where it is virtually impos-
sible to restabilize the area.
b. If flood plains must be crossed, care should be
taken to prevent siltation and possible adoption
by the stream of the new artificial channel cre-
ated for the pipe.
c. Steps to stabilize soils should take place im-
mediately after construction.
d. The Ocean County Soil Conservation District has
adopted "Standards and Specifications for Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control in Urbanizing Areas,"
and this is recommended for your use. The Dis-
trict can also provide consultative soil services
for review and execution of construction plans.
D. Sludge Disposal. The Authority should investigate all possible ways of sludge
disposal that would be harmless, and preferably beneficial,
to the environment. Among them may be:
1. Sell to sod or other types of farms.
2. Use to enrich soils of abandoned sand and gravel pits
and reclaim them.
3. Sell to fertilizer plants
k. Should not be used on pine barrens, because it would
change their unique ecology, and possibly endanger
their usefulness as water .supply sources and open
spaces .
E. Priorities . We understand that the Authority will sewer all urbanized
areas in the county first. This is good. Among urbanized
areas, first priority should be given to those where septic
tank effluents are endangering health, seeping into near;."/
waters or flowing out on the surface of the land.
F. Contract . We urge the Authority to specify in all the construction
contracts it lets, all of the measures, in detail, which
are necessary to carry out the above recommendations and
suggestions .
Gentlemen, I thank you very much for this opportunity to offer comment on
behalf of the CITIZENS' CONSERVATION COUNCIL of Ocean County, and request thai:-
this statement be made a part of the record.
Charles D. Smith, Jr.
President.
CITIZENS' CONSERVATION COUNCIL Parti
Charles D. Smith, Jr. Pres. Brick Twp. Winn Epstein,. Lakewood Twp. Conserva-
Conservation Commission tion Commission
Robert B. Litch, Vice Pres. Fed. of Con- Arnold Lehman, O.C. Board of Agriculture
servationists , United Societies Frederick Lesser, 0. C. Mosquito CoMrn.
Donald M. Rippey, Sec. 0. C. Cooperative Harley Winchip, 0. C. 4-H Leaders Asso.
Extension Service Isaac Walton League
Stanley Cottrell, Baymsn's Asso. & O.C. Fish and Game Protective Asso.
Shellfish Institute of No. America League of Women Voters of O.C.
William Eissing, Fed. of Sportsmen's 0. C. Soil Conservation District
Clubs
(OVER)
-------
Page 4
Ocean Nature and Conservation Society Veterans of Foreign Wars
Conservation Society of Long Beach Is. Woman's Club of Long Beach Is.
0. C. Senior Coordinating Council Rctert Anstett & Asso.
N.J. Bureau of Forestry
-------
4
-------
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OCEAN COUNTY, N. J.
84? Ocean View-Drive Toms River, N.J. 03753
Lydia 3. Arden, President May 30, 1974
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II 26 Federal Plaza \
New York, N.Y. 10007
Re: Invitation to eminent on April 1974 Draft-
Environmental Impact Statement on a Wastewater Treatment
Facilities Construction Garant for the Central Service
Area of the Ocean County Sewerage Authority in Ocean
County, New Jersey.
The League of Women Voters of Ocean County appreciates the
request of the Environmental Protection Agency to comment on
the April Draft of the above named report. -'Members find the
Statement fascinating reading and are impressed with the com-
pleteness of the work and its thrust.
We enclose a release of October, 1973 from the L.W.V. of Ocean
Qountyfciting the accelerating pollution. It received extensive
covera'ga in the Newark Star-Ledger and many other N.J. papers.
The need for wastewater management continues more and more
evident. The conditions of the ocean this year in the first
six months of 1974 are sickening to League observers-even be-
fore the tourist season begins. Anything that will hasten
the full implementation of the Central Service Facility should
have high priority.
Members are impressed with the E.P.A.' s "reach " to control
excessive growth in Ocean County. We can pray the E.P.A.will
be successful but opine it will be the trick of the century
should control control. Observation indicates that developers
equipped with steamrollers flap over officials girded with little
determination to deter.
On page 47 "? R & W predicts that by 1990 most of the resic—ii
dences in the Central Service area will be year-round homes.
Consequently, seasonal variations in population will be neg-
ligible." We feel that this does not squarely face the tour-
ist summer influx. The many new motels building on "the Strip"
seem to be a trend. The resort traffic will not go away.
What will hold back multitudes from the hot cities? Is it not
a paradox that we demandjfreedom from off-shore development
in order to protect our tourist and resort business then plan
on a stable year-roundpopulation? We believe wastewater manage-
ment planning must acknowledge seasonal variation realistically
and plan for it.
On December 14, 1971 the OQSA held a hearing in the Court House
in Toms River. At that time the LWVOC offered definite
recommendations. Certain of them follow:
*make provision for pumping and dispasal of waste water
frcs septic systems.
This suggestion was the direct result of a honeydipper's
unloading directly into a coastal stream.
Since the olan to sewer the county will not be comnlete
-------
-2-
fcr a decade a station must be provided to encourage
sanitary practices. (connected to a central treatment
plant?)
-*• Hake provision for disposal of waste from recreation •
vehicles.
Self-contained vehicles are a way of life at this time.
Facilities must exist to accommodate theirwaste.
* Make provision for holding tanks and disposal in marinas.
It is a fact that fecal coliform count in the vicinity
of marinas is notably higher tha£ in mo*re distant -:.
areas. (League members take the water samples.)
Other areas of our nation have banned disposal of waste
from boats directly mnto the water. Many people gladly
comply with the law. Visiting boatmen in Ocean County
are shocked that absolutely no facility exists for pump-
ing holding taiiks. A person who goes near moorings
and marinas in this regionjcan see visible,disgusting
pollution. Marina owners seem oblivious to the need
of marina holding tanks or to the degradation of "pum-
ping overboard". When a hull springs a leak in a mar-
ina the bilge is more reminiscent of a country out-
house than of off-shore breezes.
It mist be mandatory to make convenient and adequate facili-
ties for all of the above noted sourses of waste
septic system - recreation vehicle - boat, private
and commercial
Individuals will not comply with laws-that might be passed-if
it is impossible ibr too difficult to do so. People are beco-
ming increasingly more sensitive to environmental improve-
ment. They HAVE to be supported and encouraged. The county,
as a more responsible group., should take leadership. The cost
to the taxpayers is reasonable compared to epidemics.
TYPHOID WAS KERB AGAIN IN 1973-
There follow here some pages with random thoughts and observa-
tions. Several ideas would necessitate cooperation of muni-
cipal, civic or professional groups. On page 161 under recom-
mendation #3 cooperation of groups is recommended. Actually
it will be a great day for the government when all branches
plan .
The LWVOC has comment to offer on pollution from run-ff
and the validity of retention basins near parking lots,
shopping centers and subdivisions. However, we learn that
others will make what we believe is good observation so for
the sake of efficiency we will not say mare.
Judging from the retention business in Toms River an edu-
cation°campaign and course in trustworthy government will
be in order before the rank and file will "buy" retention
basins.
-------
-3-
RE: Shift in Saline Conditions of Barnagat Bay
?. 126 "Those streams that empty into Barnegat Bay
may experience a -shift in saline conditions because
reduced stream flow will permit the salt water of t,
the bay to flow farther upstream."
All parties interested in environmental conditions
in Barnegat Bay should be warned thatt the cooling
towers of the new Forked River Buclear Plant may
or will return enormous amounts of salt to the
Forked River. Testimony to this effect Has offered
at' the &. E. C. License Hearings for the new plant,
held in Waretown, N.J. The amount of salt that could
be returned to the estuary seems to pose a serious
hazard, The fact is not being taken seriously for
its potential to change the environment. Higher
salt content in the bay could increase the shift in
saline conditions predicted by the impact statement
at hand.
Exact information can be found in the published re~
cord of the A.E.G. hearings. References will be
furnished by the LWVOC at the drop of a letter or
the ring of a phone.
-------
-4-
RE: Dredge Spoils
The environmental impact statement refers to dredge
spoils as a problem in sevesi pages.
On May 14th, 1974 representatives of interested-
groups met in Ocean County College with Rutgers
scientists from the Marine Science Centerjfor the
precise purpose of discussing rehabilitation of the
marshes, that is marshes that have been despoiled.
Some of thoso-present-including a League member-have
witnessed actual new growth in the bay on dredge
spoils. Those present agreed to plan a research
project for definite replanting and restoring
marsh areas, especially where extensive development
has destroyed marshes. We search proper areas now.
The League recommends that the OCSA consider with
the DSP and EB-k possibility of restoration of
small islands, where wild life would take up resi-
dence aL the earliest moment they could succeed.
We believe that volunteer environmental groups of
adults and youth would cooperate in planting and
nurturing islands under professional direction.
* x % * *
Hubble of World War II in Berlin and M^Jiich was
trucked outside of the cities and built into delibe-
rate hills now called "Devil^s Mountains". They
serve recreational purposes, park and picnic in
summer; skiing and sledding in winter. Munich is
as flat as the shore area.
In New Zealand the government pwns all of the hills
in cities and towns, They are landscaped and kept
for the one, only and sole purpose of looking green,
lovely, cool and beautiful-. Those hills give the
cities a. unique and altogether pleasant panorama.
The richest nation in the world, adverse to creating
little nice places for people, would never care to
create a hill in Ocean bounty with landscaping and
possibly a "Top of the County" restaurant or observa-
tion facilities. However dredge spoils could be con-
sidsred as assets for some use as hills.
RE':Sludge Disposal
A"dredge spoils"hill with a hole in the middle could
contain sludge?
In Ridgewood, N.J. sludge was placed in a disposal.
site available to the residents. People went with
cans and removed quantities of it for their gardens.
Presumably such a provision would require an eduaation-
al campaign.
-------
-5-
Re: Recreation of OGSA buffer zones
The LWVOC has witnessed the antipathy of the people
to the treatment plant in Berkeley Township. It
is reminiscent of a utility substation in a north
Jersey suburb.i'-V.. Now that the plant has been a
reality for years people have forgotten it is there.
It has been built like a large beautiful home. The
truck area has Norway maples shading the area and the
street side has tennis courts.
"At the proposed site of the treatment plant"(p.158)
"62 ha (25 acres) of woodland will have to be cleared
prior to construction." (The League digs metrication
but believes this should be reversed.or corrected).
One feels that a low cost public goodwill measure
could be incorporated into the buffer zone of the
treatment plant. If the periphery were made into some
type of recreation field, small as badminton, paSdle
tennis, volley bailor if possible, larger fields as
baseball, hockey, la cross, tennis. One would expect
that recreation commissions of the municipalities
would cooperate. With good advertising and education-
al campaign the addition of facilities for athletic
use would benefit the public and make ggodwill.
Appeal to Boys' Clubs might make a nearly cost free
playgroun^.
The LWVOC thanks the EPA for the opportunity to
read the excellent document. We only hope that there
may be a. kernel in the comments submitted.
It is necessary to congratulate the EPA again for a
stand to protect the future of Ocean County from
the insane growth without planning or care.
Respectfully submitted
&*
Lydia B. Arden, President
League of Women Voters of
Ocean County
-------
-6-
Comment not concerned with the Ocean County Sewer- .
age Authority but apropos of the E.P.A. Impact
Statement.
R3: Tha Kirkwood Formation described on page 65
The Kirkwood with other aquifers outcrop along
ridges in the northern area of Ocean County.
Some of the Kirkwood outcrop is in the Great
Adventures animal park.
In a special invitation tour, members of the LVTVOC
were escorted by the vice-president and chief engi-
neer to all parts of .the park. ¥e discussed the
Kirkwood outcrop with them. It was all news,
they had never heard of it. However, they did
recognize thatoa some parts of the land there
was soil too thin for grazing. They explained that
that area would be covered with topsoil and planted
with grass. We believe that they were probably
identifying the Kirkwood outcrop. We did not inves-
tigate further.
•o'
The Ocean County League and theMonmouth County
Leagues feel that recognition of the importance of
aquifers should be publicized. We believe there
should be active protection of the outcrops that
lie in a line from roughly Perth Amboy to Trenton.
Would some kind of park system or differentiation
set them aside for protection? {"Not unless you
pay full money value for every inch of the land! I*]
Also Great Adventures: Concerning OCSA?
Vice-president and chief engineer claim that all of
Great Adventures park falls into the Delaware River
Basin. Indeed, the drainage map shows that the
tiniest corner of the park dips into theToms River
Basin. Page 43, quoting from the statement of Great
Adventures to the NJDSP, in June 1973: "Thi's site
in Ocean County will ultimately be served, by sewers
extending from the Ocean County Regional Sewerage
Authority system." Great Adventures anticipates
up to two million patrons per day in the park. As
far .as the LWVOC knows there is no plan to sewer
the area of Jackson Township for many years.
The whole failure to make public., plans for the
Safari Park and anything else connected with Great
Adventures appers to be a. dismal chs^.ter in the an-
nals of New Jersey and .this county. Practices in
and not in the park defy the law and human decency..
As long ay it will be an asset to pockets nothing will
change we -presume. It L$ indae'd, an unhappy example
of how to get things done the wrong way. Tha League
bleeds in impotence, along with many others.
-------
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OCEAN COUNTY, N. J.
The purpose of the League of Women Voters is to encourage
the informed and active participation of citizens in government,
LYDIA B. ARDEN, PRESIDENT
201-244-5704, 244-6850
CCTO B££, i*;7.3
847 Ocean View Drive
Toms River, New Jersey 08753
Release Re:
Accelerating Pollution, Health Hazards and their
relation to the Proposed Sewerage Facilities of
The Ocean County Sewerage Authority.
The League of Women Voters of Ocean County notes with apprehension.
the accelerating degradation of the waters of Ocean County.
Increasing pollution, obvious to field observers, during 1973
is reason for grave concern. The loss of water resources to
the people is at a cost beyond sustaining whether the people
understand it or not. •
In May 1973 the Environmental Assessment Council placed the
final report of studies on the projected regional sewerage ..
plan of the Ocean County Sewerage Authority in the Public
Library. Members of the League of Women Voters have studied
the volumes and found them a fascinating compendium of
information on the environment in which we live. The League
recommends the report as general reading to all our fellow
countymen.
The Environmental Assesssment Council's report states, "Waste-
water management programs based on river basin development
have not been formulated Or initiated in the County. Rather
a haphazard array of treatment facilities has been established".
Informed citizens participating actively in government -know
that modern wastewater treatment must be based on river basin
systems. The League deduces from the report that if river
basin disposal systems in this county were not planned river
basin disposal "just growed".
The Environmental Assessment Council's report discussed the
drainage of the county from north to south:
The Metedeconk River Basin, including the north (part in
Monmouth County) and south river branches, Kettle Creek and
the tributary systems and associated estuaries receive the
effluent of fifteen secondary sewerage plants, an estimated
3.5 million gallons per day in the summer. Beautiful Lake
Carasaljo receives from upstream, 133,000 gallons per day of
secondary waste. Irisado Lake - now rejoicing in the name of
Lake Riviera, wins, from a treatment plant upstream, 350,000
gallons per day. The lakes, in turn, contribute to the
Metedeconk system. Last summer the League remembers the
Clean Water Council discovered astronomical counts of coliform
bacteria which caused the closing of some bathing beaches in
-------
Brick. Every summer the "fertilizer factories" pumping excessive
nitrogen into the waters cause "eutrophication", which is the
abnormal rapid aging of water bodies due to increased concen-
trations of nutrients and algae. The resultant rampant, growth
of plant life spoils water recreation and lowers the water
quality. Insupportable odors lead to the harvesting and
trucking of material by municipal government at taxpayers
expense.
The Environmental Assessment Council's report suggests that
regional sewerage systems with some rehabilitation of waterways woul
restore water conditions to their original quality.
This summer, the League of Women Voters awarded the "Solid
Gold Potty" to the people of the Metedeconk Basin for the
dubious honor of living along the most polluted river basin
in Ocean County.
The Toms^ River Basin receives effluent from six treatment
plants ^ five secondary and one primary. (Primary means they
only screen and settle out the big pieces). 1.5 million gallons
of some-more-or-less treated, some not treated, sewage flows
past Dover Township everyday. Pine Lake, in Manchester, wins
122,000 gallons of discharge from Lakehurst and passes it into
Toms River.
The Forked River-Cedar Creek Basin receives effluent from five
treatment plants excluding Oyster Creek.
The Mill Creek Basin receives effluent from three treatment
plants, more than half a million gallons per day.
The Tuckerton Creek and Mullica River Basins also receive such
inadequately treated effluent [some from Burlington County).
All river basins show similar conditions - the situation in
each case is a matter of degree.
It is easy to see that planned, or not planned, Ocean County
has a river basin system - not of Sewerage but of Pollution.
The Environmental Assessment Council's report permits us to
identify the quality of effluent passing into our waterways.
There are 46 separate treatment plants currently operating in
Ocean County most of which are not providing the required
degree of treatment and 9 of which are approaching "overloaded
conditions" or are presently overloaded. Of these, 26 are
discharging into rivers and streams. Four of the 26 are operating
in excess of their design capacity. (Operating in excess of
design capacity results in lesser treatment of the sewage before
it goes directly into waterways). The inadequate treatment
facilities are causing serious problems in the County. The New
Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection has.ordered
20 systems in Ocean County to be upgraded.
The certain knowledge that many inadequate plants are passing
human waste into all our river basins should make every citizen
sick, literally and figuratively.
-2-
-------
.The certain knowledge that the rate increases with an un-
controlled population explosion should make every citizen ••'•
sicker.
The facilities described so far represent the civilized part
of wastewater management as practiced in our area - the bow
to the 20th Century; the bow -to American high technology.
Treated sewage accounts for less than half of the total sewage
produced in the County. According to the New Jersey census,
58% of sewage disposal occurs in individual septic systems.
The Environmental Assessment Council's report states "the
County has allowed development of areas on a septic system
of waste handling".
Septic systems never belonged in populous areas in the first
place. The proper habitat of septic tanks is in the country,
on farms, in isolated residences. Septic systems are country
cousins. They never should have come to town! Above all
they never should have been tolerated in the lagoon and bay
area of a coastal plain. Every dumb-dumb knows that no man
can keep a good septic tank down in a high water table.
So-o-o-o-o- "knock the bottom out of it!" Everybody laughs.
You no longer have a septic system, you have a cess-pool.
The report points out septic systems exist on lots 75'xlOO'
and smaller in large developments of high density along the
bay; that homeowners experiencing problems due to poor drainage
systems often by-pass septic tanks entirely and discharge their
raw sewage into the bay. Contributions of bacteria and viruses
from unsewered lagoon communities are quite high. The report
does not state that many small lots with septic systems in
high density developments draw water from wells. One League
member knows a fellow who insists he does not mind his own
effluent so much - "but ugh to the guy next door".
Polluted streams and polluted lagoons flow to polluted rivers.
Ultimately Barnegat Bay receives the co-mingled urine and
feces or thousands of human beings. In plain English, "Our
bay is a great big John". . .. , .;-;. . V ;.. , .. , .;'.-',S;
• •• • •• . ^ ^
The State government and the Federal government forbid the
eating of shellfish from our rivers, our bays, and our nearby
ocean because of the bacteria and viruses flushed into these -
waters by and from people, in a world protein shortage, how
rauch we miss the succulent seafood that flourished in and
around our bay. .
The League notes that nowhere does anyone pose the big question -
"What about the menace of disease?" Does no one think in terms
of Public Health"? How can the people of Ocean County live
in health with the feces of "all those other guys"? Have all
of the people forgotten the scourge of typhoid? of cholera? of
all the brands of dysentery? - of polio? - and of all other
infectious diseases? Our population has lost endemic immunities.
We could be decimated by new epidemics. Citizens now are plagued
with hepatitis and odd mutations of viruses. Mutations mutate in
worse directions. Are citizens aware that world travelers and
the military returning home from foreign lands can impart bizarre
parasitic organisms? These bugs might just dig our brand of pollution.
-3-
-------
The League asks one more question, "Are citizens aware that
doctors and medical services have not had the training to
recognize and diagnose the forgotten and foreign diseases?
In New Jersey there has not been teaching material in many
years. The cholera scare should shake up the seaside society.
We are disturbed by the apathy of the people to a regional
sewerage system in Ocean County. We believe that that apathy
is the arch tribute to the accomplishments of the Public Health
services in this century. In one sentence, "We have forgotten
to be afraid".
Members of the League have attended most of the public meetings
of The Ocean County Sewerage Authority and the Environmental
Assessment Council during the past two years. We are appalled
by the adversary atmosphere apparent in each meeting. It
seems incongrous that in 1973, in the United States, there should
be high emotion manifested against the implementation of a
master plan for wastewater management in Ocean County. It seems
incredible that speakers inveigh against the sewerage plan
and that boorish crowds react with applause. In all the public
meetings, the League cannot remember many concerned citizens.
or representatives or organizations who have struck a positive
note for the one thing this county needs more than all others -
a total, efficient operating wastewater management system.
The League of Women Voters of Ocean County says, "Let us get
on with the job - and fast".
-------
-------
NEW JERSEY COOPERATIVE Address «ply ta Extension Service
Agricultural Center, Toms River, N. J. 08753 !
EXTENSION SERVICE Phone: (Area Code 201) 349-1245
; _ __ < ., 1
j Cooperating Agencies: Rutgers — The
State University, the U. S. Department of * D ,,.«-,•»«-.„ HTL. Cj. A.
Agriculture, and the Ocean County Board , KUtgCrS - IhC State
of Chosen Freeholders.
April 26, 1974
Ms. Barbara Metzger
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Barbara:
I have had an opportunity to look over the E.P.A. impact statement
on the Central Service Area of the Ocean County Sewerage Authority. If
is basically excellent — - one of the courageous and more hopeful, realis-
tic documents of our time.
I will have some comment to make, either directly or indirectly, on
the report. It will be in strong support, but aimed in the direction of
strengthening it. How, by the way, does a layman go about evaluating the
1972 air quality baseline and evaluating the accuracy of the dispersion
model?
In the meantime, I could use a copy of the report here in my office.
Could you arrange to have one sent?
Best regards, and many thanks for your part in the sewerage impact
statement and for a copy if you can manage it.
Sincerely yours,
Qi, O
Donald M. Rippej!
Extension Agent-
Resource Management
DR/ljn
-------
-------
of
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
363 WEST STATE STREET
RICIA Q. SHEEHAN POST OFFICE BOX 2768
COMMISSIONER May £4, 1974 TRENTON. N.J. 08625
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
The Division of State and Regional Planning has
reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
prepared by E.P.A. for the Wastewater Treatment
Facilities in the Central Service Area of Ocean County,
It is an excellent evaluation of the possible impacts
of the project, and the recommendations regarding pop-
ulation growth will surely set a precedent for future
assessments and impact statements.
We trust that E.P.A.,having set the parameters
for growth, will give whatever technical assistance
possible to help the county and the municipalities
in actually allocating population. This Division will
certainly provide whatever services it can if called
upon.
We hope that in the near future the State will
be taking on broad responsibilities for guiding growth
within our borders.
Very truly yours,
\Richard A. Ginman, Director
Division of State & Regional Planning
RAG:s
-------
nf Ni
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
f
May 30, 1974
PATRICIA Q. SHEEHAN 363 WEST STATE STR
COMMISSIONER POST OFFICE BOX 21\
TRENTON, N.J. 0862
Mr. Paul Arbesman, Chief
Environmental Impact Branch
Department of Agriculture
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
RE: Our File #OSRC-FY-74-494
Dear Mr. Arbesman:
This will acknowledge receipt of your recent Project
Notification for EIS-"Wastewater Treatment Facilities Construction
Grant", for Ocean County received on May 21, 1974. The Project
has been designated application #OSRC-FY-74-494, for all future
references.
We have circulated the Project Notification to appropriate
State agencies for review and comment. We anticipate no problems
during the review phase, but should any conflicts or issues arise
it will be necessary to schedule a conference in order to resolve
the issues prior to the issuance of a Letter of Certification.
Very truly yours,
f\ ..;>
Eure
Supervising Planner
Project Review Section
Division of State and Regiona
Planning
•
I
l
JE/dm
-------
nf Neui
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
PATRICIA Q. SHEEHAN 363 WEST STATE STREET
COMMISSIONER POST OFFICE BOX 2768
June 13, 1974 TRENTON. N.J. oseas
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Environmental Protection
Agency — Region I I
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
In accordance with the U.S. Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-95 Revised, your Environmental Impact Statement for "Wastewater
Treatment Facilities Construction Grant" for Ocean County designated
OSRC-FY-74-494, has met the State of New Jersey Clearinghouse requirements.
We have circulated this Project Notification to appropriate State
agencies, none of which have voiced any objections.
Very truly yours,
. to
Si dney L. Willis
State Review Coordinator
Division of State & Regional Planning
SLW:vt
-------
-------
&f at*
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TRENTON O8625
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
June 28, 1974
?'r. Gerald Pansier
Regional Director
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10CO7
Dear Mr. Hans1er ;
RE: Fnvironmsntcil Impact Statement on a Wastewater
Treatment Facilities Construction Grant for
the Contral Service Area of the Ocean County
Suv~,rage Authority, Ocean County, Hew Jersey.
The Nb-v,' Jersey Di>parti?cnt of Environmental Protection has
hacl the opportunity to review the above cited environmental im-
pact statement. As a re-suit of the review, the Department's
prime area of concern is the far-reaching implications associated
with the limiting of sewage treatment capacity as a raeans of in-
suring non-degradation of air quality. In the case of the Ocean
County Central Service Area, the Environmental Protection Agency
has determined that a sewage treatment capacity of 24 mgd would
limit population growth to a maximum of 250,000 people.
We take exception to the methodology used by EPA to conduct
a diffusion model study which concluded that there would be sig-
nificant air quality deterioration if the population of the Cen-
tral Service Area exceeded 250,000. The recommendation contained
in the EIS is based on the Air Quality Increment Plan contained
in the proposed non-degradation regulations. Although EPA dis-
cussed several non-degradation control strategies in the EIS, the
determination in the Air Quality Increment Plan is based on sus-
pended particulates only, and. fails to consider control strategies
other than restricting population. For example, deterioration
with respect to particulates could be limited bv one or more of
the following alternative strategies-
-------
Mr. Gerald Hansler june 28, 1974
-2-
a. Improvement in combustion equipment, especially domestic
and commercial units.
b. Auxiliary controls on domestic and commercial combustion
units.
c. Wider use of cleaner fuels.
d. Substitution of remote heat and power sources for on-
site generation.
e. More homogeneous population distribution.
While some of these strategies may be "advanced" for today's
climate, they cannot be ruled out when we are looking 15 years or
more into the future.
One of the major emission categories used as a parameter for
projecting air quality was gasoline usage. According to the EPA
inventory, gasoline generated particulates represent 300 of 875
tons per year or about 34% of the particulates presently coming
from area sources in the county. By January 1, 1978 when the
Federal requirements are in full force, particulate emissions
from motor vehicle exhausts will be expected to decrease by 35 to
50% because of lead reductions and increased use of unleaded fuels.
For vehicles equipped with catalytic control devices, there will
also be a mechanical filtering action. Total particulate reduc-
tions, according to some studies, may be as high as 97%. These
factors apparently were not taken into account in the EPA projec-
tions.
In selecting designated Air Quality Maintenance Areas according
to EPA procedures, Ocean County was not included as one of those
areas in which the National Air Quality Standards are expected to
be exceeded within the next ten years. The maintenance areas are
to be updated every five years. Should Ocean County become a
"designated" area in the next updating, we would then be obligated
to prepare an implementation plan to prevent the standards from
being exceeded. There would seem to be ample opportunity to deal
with this issue without resorting to the approach proposed in the
subject document.
The Air Quality Increment Plan is just one of four contained
in those proposed regulations and is therefore not necessarily
the one that New Jersey would adopt if those proposed regulations
are promulgated.
Among the alternatives is the Local Definition Plan. This
plan would authorize the State to set the allowable degree of air
quality deterioration on a local basis. Under this plan, the
responsibility for delineating air quality areas and for defining
significant deterioration is left to the State and under this plan
the ultimate level of deterioration could progress in finite
increments up to the level of the secondary standards.
-------
Mr. Gerald Kansler
June 28, 1974
-3-
As sum ing that this is the plan that woul
Jersey and further assuming that significant
defined as an increase up to the level of the
let us examine the data on which the UFA base
together with a third set of figures which v/.
to methodologies set clown in the Environmenta
'Guidelines for Designation of Air Quality Ma
d he adopted by New
deterioration is
secondary standards
d its recommendations
re projected according
l Drotection Agency's
intenance Areas" (AQMA)
Annual Geometric Means of Particulars
TATION
River
ms
rkeley
re town
Measured Projected 1990
(7/72-7/73) froiu DSR.F* Data
43
40
28
27
90
TO
e.s
i\ '">
Projected 1990
from F R ^ Kr - - Data
70
69
55
36
Projected 1990
AQMA Guidelines
65
59
40
32
division of Stats
lannne
**
Fellow Read £ l-'ebor (:.;;gineeri:.ig consultants
to the Ocean County Sewage Authority)
In all cus-r.s th- uunerical guideline against which tliese
projected concentrations should be compared is the National
Secondary Airbii,nt Air Quality Standards for Suspended Particulates
of CO ug/mj. DSRF data indicate that 3 sites would, contravene
the standard, FRfjVv data suggests that 2 sites would contravene
the standard while the AQMA projections indicate that the standard
would be contravened at one of the four sites.
It is obvious that any conclusions drawn from this examination
will be influenced by the set of projections that are used. The
first two sets of projections (DSRP and FRfjW) were generated
through a diffusion model while the last set of projections (AQMA)
is the result of a proportional model. This difference is men-
tioned because diffusion modeling is very sensitive to variations
in input parameters , such as the number and locations of pollutant
sources, as demonstrated by the differences in the results of the
first two sets of projections. The accuracy of diffusion modeling
in the predication of the future ambient air quality concentrations
that result from area sources will be highly dependent on the
validity of the assumptions made in locating those sources in
relation to a receptor grid.
Proportional modeling, on the other hand, implicity assumes
the homogeneous mix of pollutant sources throughout an area in
order to confirm a direct relationship between emissions and
ambient concentrations. Although simplistic in scope, propor-
tional modeling is nonetheless a useful predictive tool because
its unchanging assumptions permit a direct comparison of results
-------
Mr. Gerald Hansler June 28, 1974
-4-
obtained for different areas. Most significantly, proportional
modeling was the methodology approved by the EPA for the develop-
ment of the New Jersey State Implementation Plan to meet air
quality standards.
However, it is not our intent to determine which of the
projected concentrations is the most accurate but rather to point
out that there are several r.cthods of modeling future air quality
concentrations each of which is very sensitive to th.3 validity of
all input data and working assumptions.
Finally modeling is still a relatively inexact science and
the results of a model should not be consiclersc absolute values
but ratiier relative- values that would be subject to further
interpretation.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
therefore concludes that the diffusion nodel study based on the
AQIP is not an appropriate method to determine and regulate sewage
treatment capacity in order to achieve non-degradation of air
quality. Ive suggest that the- Draft EIS be modified to specify
population limits in the order of magnitude of 250,000 as the
actual air quality deterioration threshold point may vary con-
siderabily with the methodology used. We further recommend the
approach to non-degradation be made by on-going planning of growth
in the Central Service Area as indicated by continuous air quality
monitoring. Any decision to expand the capacity of the sewage
treatment facilities should be made far in advance of the time
the expansion is required and be made contingent upon the latest
possible analysis of air quality.
The final analysis prior to a decision on whether to approve
or disapprove increased sewage treatment capacity should be based
on State approved modeling techniques, consideration of alternate
strategies, and consideration of technological and improvements.
In addition to our major area of concern, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection offers the following more
specific comments, questions, and recommendations on the Draft EIS:
The U.S. Bureau of Sports Fish § Wildlife should have
been added to the Department of Interior's list of
agencies in which comments were to be requested. The
Bureau of Sports Fish $ Wildlife should be given an
opportunity to review the Draft EIS (page 5).
There are no smallmouth bass in the area's waters.
However, waters of the area contain the black-banded
sunfish, the blue spotted sunfish, the sphagnum sunfish
and the mud sunfish - all species that are associated
with acid waters of the Coastal Plains and are not
generally found elsewhere in New Jersey. (page 56)
-------
Mr. Gerald Hansler June 28, 1974
-5-
The anadromous species (blueback herring, alewife, white
perch) have not been included. These utilize and are
dependent upon both the tidal and non-tidal waters of the
area, (page 60)
Oysters are not found offshore in the ocean, but rather
in the estuary. (page 61)
The OCSA should restore through dredging the ponds and
upper estuarine waters those sediments resulting from
the project construction phase.
Consideration should be given by OCSA to require a per-
formance bond to "assure" the correction of environmental
problems for a period of two years following completion
of the project.
The Division of Marine Services should be consulted before.
the construction phase of the project commences, with respect to
specific sites for the interceptor lines. The present specifi-
cations are not easily adaptable to Wetlands photography scale
and present the problem of determining regulatory jurisdiction.
Specific details should be made available, before commence-
ment of the construction phase of the project, concerning the
proposed schedule of the excavation of restoration process for
any interceptor lines traversing wetlands. A detailed description
should be given concerning the time of year, the exact process,
and the means of restoration (artificial or natural) that will be
utilized during and after installation of lines through wetlands.
Discussion and investigation by representatives of the Ocean
County Sewage Authority and the New Jersey DF.P should be initiated
as soon as possible concerning the sites available for dredge spoil
materials that will b- o, rssr.lt in the installation of trunk lines
under Earnest Day and Tons P.ivor. Dispose 1 rntos should b?
acrecc! upon before the final EIS has been written. . Before any
discussion of the spoil sites takes place, the Authority will have
to obtain tho following information:
a. the approximate cubic yardage of spoil
material,
b. the composition of materials that will
bo cr-.countercd and approximate cubic
varclagc of each .
c. the r.onns of accomplishing the dredging
and back-filling.
-------
Mr. Gerald Uansler
June 23, 1974
-6-
In addition to uny wctiaiiJs p^r,.-.it ir;it r; ay bo required, the
bulh of the project would b^ located within the Coastal Zone and,
as such, would bo subject to the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area
Facility Review Act. Furthermore, any alteration of lands below
thci natural mean high water line, including the. dredging activity
in Barnegat Bay and Toms River, would be subject to the necessary
riparian permits and licenses.
Sincerely yours
Alfred)
Office
Gv/tdo, Chief
o f ,.jSTiviro3iner. ta 1 Review
ATG:cjw
-------
-------
OCEAN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
COURT HOUSE SQUARE
TOMS RIVER, NEW JERSEY O87S3
THOMAS A. THOMAS
DIRECTOR
EDWARD M. ROTH8TEIN
COUNSEL
ELIZABETH C. PRIESTLEY
S (CHITA* Y
MBMMM
H. OEOROE BUCKWALD. CHAIRMAN
PHILLIP D. BERTRAND. Vice CHAIMMAN
JOSEPH E. BUCKELEW. FREEHOLD!*
JOSEPH 8. PORTASH. FREEHOLDER
WILLIAM F. OILLETTE
G. THOMAS OAKLEY
PAT STORING
ERNEST H. MANUWALD
RICHARD LANE COUNTY ENGINEER
201.244-2121 EXT. 2O2
May 30, 1974
Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Administrator
0. S. Environmental Protection Agency
•26 Federal Plaza
(flew York, New York 10007
RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT on a WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION GRANT for the CENTRAL SERVICE AREA of the OCEAN COUNTY
SEWERAGE AUTHORITY in OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY - Draft - April,1974
•tear Mr. Hansler:
The Ocean County Planning Board has reviewed the Environmental Impact
K^tatement on a iVastewater Construction Grant for the Central Service Area
f the Ocean County Sewerage Authority (E.I.S.) and has attempted, within
brief period of time, to evaluate the ramifications and potential im-
pacts of the conclusions of this Statement.
The County Planning Board, the County Sewerage Authority, and the
affected 16 municipalities have had a relatively brief period of time in
fhich to respond to the E.I.S. A meeting with E..P.A, officials called
y the County Planning Board and the County Sewerage Authority indicated
the problems of analyzing the potential impact of the C.I.S. It is not
fossible to evaluate the long terra impact of many of the conclusions
eveloped from the statement in a period of less than six weeks. The
.I.S. does, however, focus upon the problem of rapid population growth
which has been recognized in Ocean County by responsible governmental
"fficials.
I
The Ocean County Planning Board is currently in the process of updating
the County Master Plan. This Plan will incorporate and be based upon en-
ironrnental, economic and social analyses, and will be designed to reflect
current State and Federal regulations pertaining to the environment. The
Ilan is to be developed in cooperation with Ocean County municipalities
nd will reflect the goals, objectives and needs of the County.
The Planning Board is deeply concerned with the proposed limitations
Kthe size of the central sewage treatment plant on the basis of air
ality standards stipulated in the E.I.S. The Board is concerned that
adherence to a limitation on sewage treatment facilities would lead to
extensive use of septic tanks after the 250,000 or other population limit-
ation is reached. This would produce deterioration of ground and surface
water quality. Under current State legislation the County Health Department
and municipal health departments cannot prevent use of septic tanks in
•reas where sewer systems are not available provided minimum state standards
Bre met.
-------
Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Administrator -2- May 30, 1974
Ocean County's leadership in developing a regional sewage treatment
system designed to eliminate septic systems which collectively produced
deteriorated water quality in Ocean County was imperative. Unless signi-
ficant changes are made in current State legislation,. Central Ocean County
would soon face the spector of a proliferation of septic systems which it
hoped to avoid.
Restriction of population in the central service area of the County
to a level of approximately 250,000 as indicated in Conclusions 1 and 2
of the E.I.S. would result in major economic, social and legal impacts
which cannot be answered by municipal, County, State or Federal institu-
tions without extensive analysis.of administrative strategies for a popu-
lation control policy on a regional basis. If population growth were to
be terminated at 250,000 in the central portion of the County by 1983 or
1984, the Board questions how it can be accomplished, by whom it should
be accomplished, and at what point in the development process this should
occur? A study of the Planning Board staff indicates that between 1970
and April 1974, the Board processed and gave final approvals to 36,947
proposed dwelling units (24,106 single family homes, 11,460 multi-family
units, and 1,381 mobile homes) in the Central Service District. It is
conceivable that within the next year or two additional subdivision and
site plan approvals, combined with existing permanent and seasonal .resi-
dential development, would provide for residential development proposals
capable of supporting 250,000 residents. Should the County Board and/or
municipal planning boards restrict further processing of development pro-
posals or should the municipalities be responsible for not issuing build-
ing permits when the population maximum is reached? Restricting, popu-
lation growth is extremely difficult within the present legal framework
and restrictions applied on a regional basis could have significant social
and economic impacts on Ocean County and on adjoining counties.
The E.I.S, does not clearly specify if the proposed population re-
striction of 250,000 applies to permanent resident population or a combin-
ation of permanent and seasonal residents. If the latter applies the per-
manent resident population would account for only approximately 180,000
to 190,000 residents, a level which could be achieved prior to 1980 and
possibly at a point in time simultaneous with the final construction of
the central sewage treatment plant and collection system. This is an
important point which should be clarified,
.The imposition of a population limitation on central Ocean County
or any other large region would result in litigation if land owners are
deprived of the use of their property. The Ocean County Planning Board
recommends that, if this should occur, the Environmental Protection Agency
be legally responsible for the restrictions on population growth including
payment of legal fees resulting from law suits and possible liability
for compensation which could occur if redress for financial loss to land-
holders does occur.
The Ocean County Planning Board is generally in agreement with
Recommendation 3 and Ocean County has already initiated and will continue
to effect coordination with State and municipal officials on methods of
guiding future development through existing legal mechanisms and insti-
tutional arrangements. The Board also will work with appropriate State,
Federal, County and municipal agencies in development of necessary regu-
lations which will encourage cooperative and coordinated planning on a
County and sub-County basis.
-------
Gerald Me Hansler, Regional Administrator -3- May 30p 1974
The Board agrees with Conclusion 4 and will work with the Sewerage
Authority on its reevaluation of interceptors for these areas„
Conclusions and recommendations 5 and 6 do not apply to the County
Planning Board„
In eonclusion and recommendation 7 references are made to landfill
sites for sludge disposal„ The Ocean County Board of Freeholders and
Planning Board have initiated a County Solid Waste Disposal Study with
Mo Disko Associates as consultants. This study is expected to result in
recommendations leading to a County operated landfill system0 The Planning
Board staff and M0 Disko Associates will be coordinating with the Sewerage
Authority on the problem of sludge disposal„
Conclusions and Recommendations 8 and 9 pertaining to the water°table
acquifer and ground~water recharge has already been addressed by the County
Planning Board through a preliminary program of regional reservoirs and
retention.basins to retard surface drainage and provide for grovmd°water
recharge0 Richard Lane, County Engineer? Thomas A0 Thomas9 County Planner?
Charles Pike, County Administrator; and the Ocean County Soil Conservation
Service have held a series of sessions leading to a program of delineating
critical reservoir areas0 MrD Lane is currently undertaking a Counfcy-wide
analysis of critical areas which should be preserved for reservoir and
retentipn basin sites0 The County Planning Board and County engineer have
also required major developments to provide infiltration-detention basins
Inhere ..excess run-off would occur „ The Board has also encouraged the use
|pf porous concrete parking lots in areas where feasible and has approved
two developments which utilize this new technology,,
The problem of saltwater intrusion is,, we believe, of critical import"
ance to the future populations along the shore. We encourage the E0PoA0
to assist; the County Sewerage Authority in developing an effective m©ni~
Storing, program pertaining to salt-water intrusion* We endorse the Sewerage
•Authority's position that an independent agency from the Federal or State
or County level should be responsible for the monitoring program as it
delates to the operational effects of the Central Sewage Treatment Plant
||nd to other treatment facilities0 The Authority should be held res>pon°
sible for a monitoring program if no independent agency can accomplish
uch a program in an effective manner,.
The Board has discussed conclusion and recommendation 10 and find that
the County cannot implement a plan to eliminate the discharge of wastes
Irom boats and marinas since the coastal waters and .estuaries are con-
Broiled by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the U0S0
Army Corps ©f Engineers, and the U0 S0 Coast Guard,, We believe that the
Jersponsible agencies should develop a plan to prevent pollution of water°
ays from boats and marinas„ The County would cooperate to the greatest
extent possible but it has no statutory authority to implement a plan at
I
The County Planning Board recognizes that there are long-term problems
of rapid population growth and that there are limitations to the extent to
Iach the County should be developed if it is to maintain a desirable envir=
.mental netting. The Board does not feel, however, that the Central Ser-
vice Area can be singled out as a target area for population growth control
t' thout an overall plan for environmental quality control at the State
d regional levelo The Board feels very strongly that a limitation of
-------
Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Administrator -4- May 30, 1974
population growth in central Ocean County will have significant social,
economic and legal impacts which have not been determined or properly
analyzed. Since there are no statutory provisions for allocating popu-
lation gro;\?th on a regional basis, this problem will require an innovative
program if economic inequities are to be minimized amongst the affected
communities.
In conclusion the Ocean County Planning Board urges the L.P.A,
to reconsider its proposed requirements for the Central Service Area
Treatment Facilities Grant and to provide an in-depth analysis of the
economic, social, legal institutional impacts if population growth is
restricted on a regional basis in Central Ocean County, The Board dees
commend the E.P.A. staff on its background analysis and its efforts in
pointing up the necessity for evaluating the secondary impacts generated
by a regional sewerage system. The Planning Board and its staff expect
to continue working cooperatively with the E.P.A. and other Federal,
State and County agencies which are working toward a goal of guiding
future development in a manner consistent with proper land use and
environmental planning standards.
Very truly yours,
il. George Buckwald '
Chairman
IIGB/ccp
c.c. Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders
Ocean County Sewerage Authority
Mrs. Patricia Q. Sheehan, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of
Community Affairs.
David Bardin, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Charles M. Pike, Ocean County Administrator
Ocean County Environmental Agency
16 Municipalities - Planning Boards
-------
-------
THE OCEAN COUNTY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
REVIEW OF U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DATED APRIL 1974 OF THE PROPOSED
CENTRAL SERVICE AREA FACILITIES.
June 21, 1974
-------
THE OCEAN COUNTY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
COMMISSIONERS
NCE SIMPSON. CHAIRMAN
= 3WASO J. MORAN. VICE CHAIRMAN
J. CHSST5P HOLMAN
JACK MEYER
JOHN J. SWEENEY
40 HADLEY AVENUE
TOMS RIVER. NEW JERSEY O8753
2OI/349-3664
June 20, 1974
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N. Y. 10007
RE: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, "Environmental Impact
Statement on a Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
Construction Grant for The
Central Service Area of The
Ocean County Sewerage Authority
In Ocean County, New Jersey-
Draft-April 1974"
Dear Mr. Hansler:
The Ocean County Sewerage Authority has reviewed the referenced
environmental impact statement and wishes to commend you and
your staff for the exhaustive evaluation performed..
Presented herein are this Authority's comments on the impact
statement.
As Indicated in these comments, The Ocean County Sewerage
Authority unequivocally endorses the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency's goal of preventing significant deterioration
of the air quality the residents of Ocean County presently enjoy.
We feel, however, that several of the assumptions, calculations
and procedures used In the development of the Impact statement
need clarification. In addition, population restrictions as
may be required to Implement these goals, will provoke many
legal and practical questions which should be considered prior
to the Implementation of such a program. Accordingly, this
Authority has attempted to Identify areas of concern in the
comments contained herein and respectively request that they
be seriously considered In your preparation of the final
environmental impact statement.
-------
THE OCEAN COUNTY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
Page 2
June 20, 1974
Mr. Gerald Hansler
We wish to thank your staff for the cooperation they have
extended representatives of this Authority in the many meetings
and discussions held to date and look forward to continued
cooperation on this matter. We are certain that the final
outcome of this revolutionary concept will strengthen the
need for proper planning for the future of Ocean County and
protection of the environment.
Very truly yours,
THE
LSrmal
c.c. O.C.S.A. Commissionyers
AUTHORITY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. COMMENTS ON..USEPA CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS. 1
II. "GENERAL COMMENTS ON CONTENTS OF USEPA IMPACT 27
REPORT.
APPENDIX A COMMENTS PREPARED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT COUNCIL, INC.
APPENDIX B LEGAL COMMENTS PREPARED BY HIERING, GRASSO,
GELZER § KELAHER, ESQS.
APPENDIX C USEPA PROPOSED RULEMAKING - PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY DETERIORATION.
-------
THE OCEAN COUNTY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
I. COMMENTS ON U.S.E.P.A. CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
USEPA Conclusion 1
"A diffusion model study of the air quality situation
in Ocean County shows that significant air quality
deterioration will result if the population of the
Central service .area exceeds 250,000, assuming that
the current fuel use patterns, transportion modes
and industrial patterns remain constant. The pop-
ulation of the Central service area is expected to
reach 250,000 by 1984."
USEPA Recommendation 1
"In seeking to provide the Central service area
with adequate sewage treatment facilities, the
responsible governmental agencies should not
indirectly encourage air quality deterioration.
Therefore, the capacity of the Ocean County Central
sewage treatment plant should be limited to
91,000 cu m/day (24 mgd) . --A sewage treatment plant
of this size will be capable of treating the wastes
generated by a population of 250,000."
As an authority created to protect the environment of Ocean
County, the Ocean County Sewerage Authority (OCSA) unequivocally
endorses the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
goal not to allow significant deterioration of the air quality
of Ocean County. The OCSA however, questions the accuracy of .
the work performed by EPA which lead to the above conclusion.
EPA's conclusion is based upon their interpretation of their
proposed rules entitled "Environmental Protection Agency-
Prevention of Significant Air Quality Deterioration" as they
appear in the Federal Register dated July 16, 1973 (Appendix C)
and their conductance of an air quality diffusion model study.
-------
However, based upon reviews conducted by OCSA and their environ-
mental consultants, Environmental Assessment Council, Inc., there
appears to be various inconsistencies and errors in the air
quality analyses which lead to the above conclusion. The
detailed review conducted by the Environmental Assessment
Council, Inc. is included in Appendix A.
«.
Following is a partial listing of various significant points
raised which should be evaluated by the EPA before confirming
the above cenclusion:
1. In order to establish maximum air quality emission rates,
which if exceeded, would be considered by the EPA as significant
deterioration of air quality, the EPA utilized an alternate
plan described in their proposed rules dated July 16, 1973
(Appendix C) which arbitrarily establishes an allowance of
20 percent degradation above certain "baseline emission" levels.
It appears however, that the baseline emission levels utilized
by EPA were the 1970 emission levels which appear to contradict
their proposed rules in which the following is stated:
"The use of 1970 as a nationwide baseline would
present several practical problems. Foremost
among these is that in the interim between
1970 and the current time, growth patterns
have changed sufficiently that, although the
nationwide air quality has improved substantially
in some (particularly non-urban) areas, the air
quality has already deteriorated."
"For these reasons those plans discussed herein
which require establishment of a baseline air
quality or emission level are developed around
the measured or established data for 1972."
"Hence in all plans proposed herein requiring a
baseline year, 1972 is used."
-2-
-------
Accordingly, EPA is requested to clarify which year's emissions
were utilized and if necessary, reestablish the maximum allowable
emission rates utilizing 1972 data. The EPA should also be
cognizant of the significant Increase in the population of Ocean
County from 1970 to 1972.
:
2. The July 16, 1973 proposed regulations specifically
Indicate the following:
"Emission reductions to be achieved under State
plans in major urban and Industrial centers will
significantly affect total national emissions
and thereby lower the background pollutant con-
centrations in rural areas. Thus a 25 percent
reduction In the background concentration of
particulate matter in rural areas in the northeast
is anticipated."
Since Ocean County is a rural area, the EPA should indicate
why the above expected reductions in emissions, as well as other
reductions mentioned in the proposed regulations, were not
considered In their determination of the maximum allowable
emission levels.
3. It Is felt that sufficient trends are apparent today which
can safely disclaim EPA's claim that "current fuel use patterns,
transportation modes and industrial patterns remain constant."
For example, the Jersey Central Power and Light Company has
reported that pollutant free nuclear and hydroelectric plants
contributed 18 percent of the power network to which Ocean County
Is a part In the year 1972. This percentage is expected to
Increase to 57 percent by 1982. The Ocean County Board of Chosen
Freeholders and the Ocean County Planning Board have strongly
endorsed mass transportation as a necessary means of travel in
-3-
-------
the immediate future. Industrial patterns and any associated air
pollution effects are expected to be rigidly controlled by
existing Federal and State regulations. It should also be noted
that the Ocean County Freeholders have recently created the
Industrial Pollution Control Financing Authority of Ocean County
whose function it is to enforce industrial pollution requirements
and assist In financing--anti-pollution facilities.
4. The validity of the EPA assumption that air quality emissions
are proportional to population appears doubtful in light of the
recent reporting of the New Jersey State Department of Environ-
mental Protection (NJSDEP) that air quality over Ocean County
has Improved In recent years (while undergoing a significant
population increase).
5. Considering the four county Air Quality Control Region
(consisting of Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland and Ocean Counties)
as a whole, Ocean County represents 33 percent of the land
area. In 1970, Ocean County's population accounted for approx-
imately 37 percent of the entire population of the Region while
only contributing approximately 7 percent of the particulate
and sulfur dioxide emissions. Thus, It is extremely difficult
to accept the EPA conclusion that air quality emissions are
proportional to population. EPA also does not account for
the remaining approximately 93 percent particulate and sulfur
dioxide emissions attributed to Atlantic, Cape May and Cumberland
Counties while these counties in combination, comprise 63 percent
of the population.
-4-
-------
Population data developed by the State of New Jersey Department
of Labor and Industry for the four counties in the Air Quality
Central Region (AQCR) indicates that Ocean County will represent
45.4 percent of the propulation of the Region in 1990, if
population restraints are not imposed. These population figures
also indicate that 64. 5.,percent of the increase in population
in the Region is attributed to Ocean County. The EPA claims
that this increase in population will account for 44.4 percent
of the allowable sulfur dioxide increase and 69.3 percent of
the allowable particulate increase, which to the OCSA appears
justifiable. The EPA, however, further asserts that if this..
increase in emissions were allowed Ocean County, "growth in
the other counties of the AQCR (Atlantic, Cumberland and Cape
May) would be severely restricted." This EPA conclusion appears
unfounded since Ocean County's projected increase in population
is projected by EPA to be proportional to the allowable increases
in emission levels and thus no inequities would exist between
the counties of the AQCR. On the contrary, if inequity were
claimed, it should be claimed by Ocean County since, while
representing 45.4 percent of the 1990 population of the AQCR,
Ocean County will only contribute approximately 18 percent of
the particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions in the AQCR.
6. The EPA calculations do not indicate any reductions in
the emissions presently being discharged by the Toms River
Chemical Company which is located in the Central Service Area.
-5-
-------
This industrial discharge accounts for 10.0 percent of the
particulate emissions and 22.0 percent of the sulfur dioxide
emissions of the County and 20.0 percent and 42.0 percent
respectively, of the Central Service Area. It is suggested that
EPA report on any Federal or State requirements for the
reduction of these emissions and the effects such reductions will
have on the Central Service Area.
7. Since it appears that various arbitrary and possibly
unsubstantiated assumptions had to be made in the diffusion
model study, primarily due to the unavailability of accurate
data., OCSA recommends that EPA indicate that the results of-"
their model studies are, at best, only broadly approximate.
In addition, OCSA suggests that the wording of the above
Conclusion and Recommendation be revised to read as follows:
Conclusion 1
"A diffusion model study of the air quality situation
in Ocean County shows that there is a possibility that
significant air quality deterioration may result if
the population of the Central service area exceeds
approximately 250,000, assuming that current fuel use
patterns, transportation modes and industrial patterns
remain constant. The population of the Central service
area is expected to reach 250,000 by 1984."
Recommendation 1.
"In seeking to provide the Central service area with
adequate sewage treatment facilities, the responsible
governmental agencies should not indirectly encourage
air quality deterioration. Therefore, the capacity of the
Ocean County Central sewage treatment plant should
initially be limited to 91,000 cu m/day C24mgd). A
sewage treatment plant of this size will be capable of
treating the xvastes generated by a population of 250,000.
Future expansions of the treatment plant will be pre-
dicated upon what effects if any, secondary air quality
impacts attributable to the treatment plant will have
on the air quality of the Central Service Area."
-6-
-------
8. Of the four alternative plans for evaluating air
quality deterioration outlined in the proposed non-degradation
rules dated July 16, 1973, "EPA utilized only the Air Quality
Increment Plan and the Emissions Limitation Plan in arriving
at the above Conclusion since "the other plans were considered
impractical because they required State determinations of areas
•
or zones that were simply unavailable." Never-the-less, EPA
is requested to comment upon the advisability and drawbacks in
the use of the Local Definition Plan as it appears that this
plan would offer the greatest degree of local imput and thus
could possibly be most favorably received by the local communities.
9. It must be stressed that OCSA does not have the authority
to restrict flow from any of the.-participating municipalities
of the regional system because of existing state statutes and
conditions in the service agreements executed between the
Authority and the municipalities....... - .
The State of New Jersey Sewerage Statutes, Sewerage Authorities
Law (Title 40, Chapter 14A, SourcerL.1946, c.138) under which
the OCSA was created requires: .
"Every sewerage authority is hereby authorized and
directed to collect from any and
all public systems within the district all sewage
and treat and dispose of the same in such manner as to
promote the purposes of the sewerage authority."
(Section C.40:14A-6.(c))
The Service Agreements .executed with the participating municipalities
in the Central Service Area contain the following provisions:
-7-
-------
"The Authority will operate and maintain and
enlarge the Regional Sewerage System so as to treat
and dispose of all wastewater, without limitation as to
flow, which may be delivered into the Regional Sewerage
System by any Participant." (Article II.(A))
"Each Participant will deliver all wastewater collected
in its Local Collection Sewerage System and deliver at
the said point or points of connection (to the regional
system)." (Article III.(A))
A
"After connection to the Regional Sewerage System,, each
Participant will keep its Local Collection Sewerage System
connected, with the Regional Sewerage System, and will
deliver and discharge into the Regional Sewerage System
all wastewater originating in or collected by it."
(Article III.(A))
Thus, it appears that revisions to existing state statutes and
the service agreement would be necessary to implement the EPA
intended restrictions on municipal flows.
-8-
-------
USEPA Conclusion 2
"It is not the Intent of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency to restrict the ultimate population
of the Central service area to 250,000. However, the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency will not grant
funds for the expansion of the Ocean County Central
sewage treatment plant beyond 91,000 cu m/day (24 mgd)
or issue a discharge permit for the expanded facility
if that expanded facility will directly or indirectly
cause contravention of air quality standards."
USEPA Recommendation 2
"Growth of the population of the Central service area
beyond the 250,000 mark and simultaneous expansion
of the Ocean County Central sewage treatment plant
might be justified in one of two ways. The first
would be to disprove the results of the air quality
diffusion model study. This would require that the
existing network of air quality monitoring stations :"
in Ocean County be kept in operation over the long
term so that trends in air quality could be assessed.
The second would be to develop new technologies that
would invalidate the assumptions used in the diffusion
model study. New technologies, such as the development
of coal and oil gasification plants to supply homes
and industries with clean burning natural gas and the
development of a truly non-polluting automobile,
could enable growth of the Central service area's
population beyond the 250,000 mark without contra-
vention of the air quality standards. Any decision
made by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency must
be consistent with the possibility that a solution
to the Central service area's potential air quality
problems will be found. Therefore, the interceptors
should be sized to accommodate the sewage flows that
would be generated by the 2020 population of the Central
service area, as projected by Fellows, Read § Weber,
Inc., except in the cases of Manchester and Berkeley
Townships whose population projections may be understated."
The OCSA comments included under Conclusion I and Recommendation
1 are also applicable to this Conclusion and Recommendation.
The above Recommendation allows only the txvo indicated methods
to disprove the results of the air quality diffusion model study.
-9-
-------
As indicated in the comments prepared by the Environmental
Assessment Council, Inc. (Appendix A) many uncertainties exist
concerning the accuracy of the model. The EPA is therefore
requested to comment on the accuracy and validity of their
model results based upon the items raised.
The refusal of EPA to grant funds or issue a discharge permit
for a facility greater than 24.0 mgd, without parallel local
and State restraints and/or new Federal and State laws, will
probably not result in maintaining the air quality in the
Central Service Area and may result in Increasing water
pollution.
It Is the present practice of the NJSDEP to approve of interim
package type treatment facilities that dispose of their effluent
by spray Irrigation. Policy of the NJSDEP requires that these
facilities be abandoned upon the availability of the regional
.sewerage system. However, upon reaching the 24.0 mgd limitation,
Individual package type treatment facilities employing spray
irrigation could again be approved by the NJSDEP if it can be
shown that the effluent will not cause contamination of the
ground water. Thus, populations could continue -without an
expanded regional treatment facility and without the issuance
of a discharge permit since a discharge permit is not required
where a receiving stream Is not Involved. A multitude of such
package type treatment facilities could thus defeat EPA's
goal of maintaining air quality and will thwart OCSA's efforts
to maintain a high level of water quality in the service-area
-10-
-------
through the denial of adequate regional treatment facilities.
Population increases could also be accomplished by the con-
struction of housing developments of any size \vlth septic disposal
systems in areas of greater than 10 feet elevation that provide
adequate percolation with the ground water level greater than
4 feet from the bottom of the disposal field. Existing State
!»_
statutes approve construction in such areas which are abundant
in the Central Service Area.
Thus, from the above, it Is apparent that the State could allow
development to continue beyond the goals of EPA and thus their
cooperation is essential If the EPA goals are to be realized.-.-
The EPA is therefore specifically requested to indicate in their
final recommendations whether the State Intends to join the
EPA In the implementation of their intended goals.
Due to the apparent uncertainties of the diffusion model,
the OCSA recommends that the wording of Conclusion 2 and
Recommendation 2 be modified as follows:
USEPA Conclusion 2
"It is not the intent of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency to restrict the ultimate' population
of the Central service area to 250,000. However, the
U. S. Environmental Protection 'Agency will not, at
this time, grant funds for the expansion of the Ocean
County Central sewage treatment plant beyond 91,000
cu m/day (24mgd) or Issue a discharge permit for the
expanded facility unless It can be shown to the
satisfaction of this Agency that the population served
by any expanded facility will not directly or indirectly
cause contravention of air quality standards."
USEPA Recommendation 2
"Growth of the population of the Central service area
beyond the 250,000 mark and simultaneous expansion
-------
of the Ocean County Central sewage treatment plant
beyond 24 mgd might be justified in one of two ways.
The first would be to disprove the results of the air
quality diffusion model study. The second would be
to develop new technologies that would invalidate
the assumptions used in the diffusion model study.
Any decision made by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency must be consistent with the possibility.that
a solution to the Central service area's potential
air quality problems will be found. Therefore, the
interceptors should be sized to accommodate the sewage
flows that would be generated by the 2020 population
of the Central service area, as projected by Fellows,
Read ?7 Weber, Inc., except in the cases of Manchester
and Berkeley Townships whose population projections may
be understated."
-12-
-------
USEPA Conclusion 3
"State and local land use legislation cannot prevent
urbanization of the communities in the Central service
area. At most, existing legislation can retard the
rate of urbanization and can promote the orderly
implementation of development. If development in the
Central service area is as extensive as allowed by
existing legislation, only some type of as yet un-
developed technology can prevent contravention of
the proposed no,n-degradation regulations of the Clean
Air Act."
USE'PA Recommendation 3
"The Ocean County Planning Board, the municipal
planning board for each community in the Central
service area, and the Ocean County Sewerage Authority
should jointly decide on a land use strategy that will
prevent contravention of the Clean Air Act.
For its part, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
through its construction grant program and its mun-
icipal discharge permit program will impose the
following conditions on the Ocean County Sewerage
Authority's proposed project. The Ocean County Sewerage
Authority, in cooperation with municipal authorities,
must:
(a) Begin to develop an overall land use and
pollution control strategy within the communities
of the service area to achieve a proper balance
between desirable development goals' (with concomitant
wasteload generation) and treatment capability.
(b) Begin to develop an effective mechanism within
the communities of the service area for review of
development changes or Increases that influence
wasteload generation, Including subdivision approvals,
residential and nonresldentlal zoning changes that
allow higher densities, building permit Issuances by
location and type, and so on. Such increases in
wasteload generation over time should be compared
with treatment capability.
(c) Develop the capability within the communities of
the service area to Initiate appropriate adjustments
In development policies and controls (enact ordinances,
amend zoning regulations, modify subdivision requirements
and building codes, and so on) as necessary to avoid
emergence of hydraulic overload or Inadequate treatment.
-13-
-------
(d) Submit a report to the EPA, the State, and the
local governmental authorities x^ithin one year following
issuance of this grant (or permit) and annually there-
after, summarizing progress in implementing these initial
planning actions within the communities of the service area.'
The above Recommendations which apparently will become a grant
condition of any EPA construction grant offered for the Central
Service Area regional facilities, very clearly imposes air
pollution conditions on the OCSA. Authority to impose such
conditions, EPA purports, are given in the Clean Air Act and
the proposed anti-degradation regulations of July 16, 1973.
As detailed in the legal summary prepared by the Authority's
Counsel, Hiering, Grasso, Gelzer § Kelaher, included in
Appendix B, the OCSA questions the legitimacy of the imposition
of conditions on an anti-water pollution grant, where those
conditions demand affirmative anti-air pollution measures in
excess of the proposed non-degradation regulations which govern
all potential pollutants. In addition, the OCSA questions the
applicability of the proposed regulations, which were intended
for State implementation plans relating to air quality control,
to an application for grant funds for wastewater facilities.
While raising these issues to preserve its future rights, the
OCSA does not intend to contest the conditions presently.
The Recommendation advanced above by EPA to have OCSA initiate
the implementation of a land use strategy plan directed at
restricting population growth in the Central Service Area
fails to recognize the lack of statutory authorization for
such action.
-14-
-------
A county planning board Is limited to encouraging the cooperation
of local municipalities. Moreover, a county planning board
has subdivision supervision only with respect to "those sub-
divisions affecting county road or drainage facilities." While
the New Jersey statutes permit the creation of regional planning
'*•,
boards, the existence of such bodies Is dependent upon the will-
ingness of component municipalities and counties to sacrifice
their respective planning powers and duties. A transfer of
such powers from the communities within Ocean County cannot
be considered a likely possibility.
Indeed, local municipal planning boards have the statutory
authority to implement land use strategy; however each municipality
can do so only within Its own domain. The absence of any co-
ordinating Influence prevents the municipalities from being
considered as an effective Instrument for regional planning.
The legality of any regional land use strategy directed at the
limitation of growth, must be viewed in the light of recent
judicial antagonism towards exclusionary zoning. Such decisions
have not squarely confronted the use of environmental factors
to justify population limitation. That issue, however, will
certainly be raised by the EPA's proposal.
The OCSA takes no position upon the legality of the proposed
land use strategy and program, but will dedicate its full
cooperation in developing such a strategy and implementing such
a program if it is imposed upon the Authority by EPA.
-15-
-------
OCSA further recommends that EPA thoroughly review all the
legal questions raised herein and include a legal opinion
from their Regional Attorney on these legal matters.
In the event an overall land use and pollution control strategy
plan is imposed upon OCSA, it is recommended that the wording
of the above Recommendation be altered to remove any objection
based upon lack of statutory authority. It is therefore
suggested that Recommendation 3 be changed to read as follows:
"The Ocean County Planning Board, the municipal
planning board for each community in the Central Service
Area, and the Ocean County Sewerage Authority
should attempt jointly to decide on a land use
strategy that will prevent contravention of the
Clean Air Act.
For Its part, the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency through its construction grant program and
its municipal discharge permit program will Impose
the following conditions on the Ocean County Sewerage
Authority's proposed Central Service Area project. The
Ocean County Sewerage Authority In such attempt, should
seek the cooperation of municipal authorities in a
joint effort to:
(a) Begin to develop an overall land use
and. pollution control strategy ivlthin the
communities of the Central Service Area to
achieve a proper balance'between desirable
development goals (with concomitant wasteload
generation) and treatment capability.
(b) Begin to develop an effective mechanism
within the communities of the Central Service
Area for review of development changes or
increases that Influence wasteload generation,
Including subdivision approvals, residential and
non residential zoning changes that allow higher
densities, building permit issuances by location
and type, and so on. Such increases In wasteload
generation over time should be compared with
treatment capability.
-16-
-------
(c) Develop the capability within the communities
of the service area to Initiate appropriate
adjustments in'development policies and controls '
(enact ordinances, amend zoning regulations,
modify subdivisions requirements and building
codes, and so on) as necessary to avoid emergence
of hydraulic overload or inadequate treatment.
The Ocean County Sewerage Authority shall submit
a report to EPA, the State, and the local governmental
authorities within one year following the issuance
of this grant (.or permit) and annually thereafter,
summarizing progress in implementing these initial
planning actions within the communities of the
Central Service Area."
In the brief time since the issuance of the EPA draft report,
•the OCSA has met with State legislators and County officials
to discuss the impact of the EPA proposed requirements on the
Central Service Area. These officials have expressed a willing-
ness to cooperate In the development of the land use strategy
plan pending clarification of the comments raised herein. If
required by EPA, OCSA will continue such discussions with
State, County and local agencies In order to achieve the stated
goals. OCSA requests however, that EPA officials participate
in the initial discussions to Insure that the goals are accurately
'Indicated.
-17-
-------
USEPA Conclusion 4
"Population projections made by the Division of
State and Regional Planning are more up to date
than those made by Fellox^s, Read § Weber, Inc.
The Division of State and Regional Planning's
1990 population projections for Manchester and
Berkeley Townships exceed Fellows, Read § Weber,
Inc.'s 2020 projections for the same townships.
Since Fellows, Read £ Weber, Inc. used its own
2020 population projections in designing the
interceptors for Manchester and Berkeley Townships,
the interceptors may be undersized."
USEPA Recommendation 4
"The Ocean County Sewerage Authority should re-
evaluate the interceptor designs for Manchester
and Berkeley Townships."
"The OCSA accepts the population projections developed by
the Division of State and Regional Planning. The proposed
interceptor lines to serve Manchester and Berkeley Townships
will be designed to conform to the 2020 population projections
as developed by that Department.
-18-
-------
USEPA Conclusion 5
I!
Care has been taken to select Interceptor and
outfall routings that will minimize the environ-.
mental effects of construction. However, damage is
still likely to occur In critical areas, such as
steep slopes, barrier bay crossings, stream and
estuary crossings, and marshlands."
USEPA Recommendation 5
"The contract specifications for the proposed project
should include the recommendations made by the Environ-
mental Assessment Council. Relevant procedures
outlined In the following documents should also be
included in the specifications:
Maryland Department of Water Resources, Becker, B.C.,
and Mills, T.R. 1972. Guidelines for Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Implementation. U.S.
EPA, Office -of Research and Monitoring, Washington,
D.C.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
1972. Environmental Guidelines for Planning,
Designing and Constructing Interceptor Sewers.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Trenton, New Jersey.
New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee. 1972.
Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in
New Jersey. The New Jersey State Soil Conservation
Committee. Trenton, New Jersey.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973.
Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control
Pollution Resulting from All Construction Activity.
U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C.
The specifications should clearly identify each problem
area and should stipulate exactly what the contractor
is to accomplish In each problem area. During pre- .
paratlon of the specifications, It may be necessary
to make changes in the proposed routings. If, for
any reason, It Is necessary to alter the proposed
routings, an environmental assessment of the new
routings should be prepared".
OCSA intends to comply with the recommendations made by the
Environmental Assessment Council as indicated in their report
dated May 15, 1973. These recommendations will be reflected
in the final plans and specifications.
-19-
-------
If the Authority finds it necessary to change any of the
selected routes or sites, the new routes and/or sites will be
environmentally assessed by the Environmental Assessment
Council, Inc. and will be reported as an addendum to the
May 15, 1973 assessment report. In addition, the OCSA will
conduct a. public meeting on such changes as may be required
i»s
by EPA regulations.
This Authority has in the past, and will continue in the future,
to adhere to all Federal, State and normally applicable design
codes, regulations, etc.
-20-
-------
USEPA Conclusion 6
"The Ocean county Sewerage Authority and its
engineering consultant have developed the frame-
work for the proposed project, but have yet to prepare
detailed plans and specifications.
USEPA Recommendation 6
"In preparing derailed plans and specifications for
the proposed project, the Ocean County Sewerage
Authority and its engineering consultant should
follow the Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation
and Maintenance of Waste Water Treatment Facilities
CFWQA, 1970) and the Design Criteria for Mechanical,
Electric and Fluid System and Component Reliability
(U.S. EPA, 1974b)."
This Authority has in the past and will continue in the future
to adhere to all Federal, State and normally applicable design
codes, regulations, etc.
-21-
-------
USEPA Conclusion 7
"The landfill site for disposal of the sludge from
the Ocean County Central sewage treatment plant has
not yet been selected. All of the sites now being
considered by the Ocean County Sewerage Authority xvould
require the Implementation of special measures to
protect the ground water from leachates."
USEPA Recommendation 7
"Before the Ocean County Central sewage treatment plant
goes Into operation, the Ocean County Sewerage Authority
must commit Itself to a specific sludge disposal method
and a specific sludge disposal site. An environmental
assessment statement on the sludge disposal alternatives
should be prepared. If the sludge disposal site
selected by the Ocean County Sewerage Authority is not
a State approved landlll site, the Sewerage Authority
should commit Itself to a ground-water monitoring program.
A summary of the environmental assessment statement
should be presented at a public hearing."
This Conclusion and Recommendation Is in error since the OCSA
has committed Itself to a specific sludge disposal method and
specific sludge disposal sites which were described in the
documents submitted on May 24, 1973 that accompanied the Step 2
Federal and State grant applications for the Central Service Area
(USEPA Project Number C-34-0372).
The following is Indicated In the previously submitted report
prepared by Fellows, Read § Weber, Inc. entitled, "Proj ect
Report, The Ocean County Sewerage Authority Regional Sewerage
System, Phase 1, April 1973." . :
"Because the environmental Impact of the various
methods of wastewater solids handling and disposal is
presently under review by the Regulatory Agencies,
It was decided that a process should be selected which
was both economical and readily adaptable to other
methods. "
-22-
-------
"As a result, it was decided to use standard - rate
anaerobic digestion at each treatment plant. After
digestion, the wastewater solids will be dewatered-and
trucked to an existing State approved private landfill
site. In the future, the solids could be pumped to a
land reclamation area or, If the land reclamation
pilot study indicates land reclamation is not
desirable, the Authority will have the option to
operate Its own landill, use a public landfill, or
continue to use private landfills. At the present
time, the Authority Is conducting a pilot study for
land reclamation "to determine if the land reclamation
method Is economical and feasible for use in conjunction
with the regional facilities. The details of the pilot
study Is discussed hereinafter."
The Project Report also includes copies of letters received from
the following privately owned and State approved lanfill corp-
orations Indicating their willingness to accept digested sludge:
Ocean Landfill Corp., Lakehurst, N. J.
Southern Ocean Landfill, Inc., Ocean Township, N. J.
It is this Authority's Intent to utilize both of the above
landfill sites for the disposal of digested sludge from Its
Central Service Area treatment facilities.
Since the indicated landfill operations have been previously
approved by the State, it is assumed that an environmental
assessment as indicated In the above Recommendation is not
necessary.
-23-
-------
USEPA Conclusion 8
"Increased pumpage from the water-table aquifer and
decreased ground-water recharge will reduce the
ground-water level. A reduction in the ground-water
level will induce saltwater intrusion into the aquifers
and will reduce the base flow of streams."
USEPA Recommendation 8
"Programs should T)e developed and implemented to
monitor the incidence and extent of the operational
effects of the Ocean County Central sewage treatment
plant on the base flow of streams, the intrusion of
saltwater into aquifers, and the piezometric head of
aquifers. If the monitoring data indicate the potential
for serious problems, a program to artificially re-
charge the ground water with treated effluent should be
developed."
OCSA agrees to the establishment of a program to monitor ground
water levels and saltwater intrusion.
The Environmental Assessment Council, Inc. is presently preparing
a conceptual report for the development of a program to monitor
ground water levels and saltwater intrusion. Upon the availability
of this report, this Authority will seek approval of the concept
from NJSDEP and EPA. In addition, OCSA will formally request
Federal and State construction grant funds for the development
of the monitoring program.
-24-
-------
USEPA Conclusion 9
"Urbanization will Increase runoff which will
decrease the amount of natural ground-xvater recharge
and increase the amount of peak flow in streams."
USEPA Recommendation 9
"Wherever possible, large subdivision or parking lots
should install infiltration-detention basins so that
runoff can be used to artificially recharge the
water.table aquifer."
Although OCSA agrees to the concept of artificial recharge
of the water-table aquifer with storm water runoff it questions
the immediate need for such recharge in Ocean County and suggests
that additional documentation be provided to justify the expend-*
iture for the construction of detention basins.
The OCSA does not have any authority to impose infiltration-
detention basin requirements on proposed subdivision arid parking
lots. The Authority has, however, discussed this Recommendation
with County officials who have agreed to its concept.
By letter dated May 30, 1974, the Ocean County Planning Board
submitted comments on the subject EPA Environmental Impact
Statement. Their comments indicate their concurrence in this
Recommendation.
-25-
-------
USEPA Conclusion 10
"If maximum benefit Is to be gained from the proposed
project, a system must be devised to prevent the •
pollution of Ocean County's waterways with sexvage
discharges from boats and marinas."
USEPA Recommendation 10
"Ocean County, either alone or in cooperation with
the State, should devise and implement a plan to
eliminate the discharge of wastes from boats and
marinas into the waters of the county."
OCSA endorses and strongly encourages the development of a
program to eliminate wastewater discharges from boats and
marinas into the waterways of Ocean County.
The development of a comprehensive vessel pollution abatement
program however, cannot be implemented by the County of Ocean
and/or OCSA alone, as suggested in the above Recommendation,
since navigable waters, as a general rule, which lie within
the confines of the State of New Jersey are subject to the
exclusive control of the State of New Jersey and the U. S.
Government. Thus, as Indicated in the legal opinion included
in Appendix B, OCSA does not possess authority or jurisdiction
to enact this type of abatement program.
The OCSA strongly recommends that the EPA and other federal
agencies, such as the U. S. Coast Guard, join In a. cooperative
effort with the State, County and OCSA in the development and
implementation of a comprehensive program to abate vessel
pollution of Ocean County's waterways.
-26-
-------
II. GENERAL COMMENTS ON CONTENTS OF
U.S.E.PVAV IMPACT REPORT
The OCSA wishes the EPA to also consider the following additional
comments concerning the general contents of the draft environ-
mental impact report: (The indicated page numbers are those
of the EPA report).
Page 2
The indicated potential adverse effect that "possible contamination
at the site of effluent disposal" is inconsistent with EPA's
conclusion on Page 100 that "the ocean is not expected to suffer
any adverse effects as a consequence of ocean disposal of
secondary treatment plant effluent". The EPA is reminded that
the ocean outfalls will be designed incorporating a diffuser
design that will achieve an initial dilution ratio of 200:1
in accordance with recommendations contained in the Environmental
Assessment Report of May 15, 1973 prepared by the Environmental
Assessment Council, Inc. and requirement of the Federal/State
approved "Interim Plan For Wastewater Management/Water Pollution
Control Ocean County Sewerage Authority District, Ocean County,
New Jersey" dated June 1973.
Page 10
The treatment facility for the Central Service Area will employ
•the complete mix and step aeration modifications to the activated
sludge method of treatment rather than the "complete mix,
extended aeration" method indicated.
-27-
-------
Page 34
The list of communities in which sewer connection bans have
been imposed by the NJSDEP should also include the Boroughs
of Surf City and Beach Haven.
Page 42
Ocean County is not presently within a Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area.
Page 45
Although Great Adventure, Inc. is within Ocean County, it is
within the natural drainage basin of the Delaware River and
thus, will not be served by the OCSA.
Pages 44 5 45
The difference between the 1990 population projections
of DSRP and F.R. § ¥. Is approximately 82,000 rather than
70,000 as indicated.
Pages 82 5 85
The Holiday City, Intermediate School and Toms River treat-
ment facilities of the Dover Sewerage Authority (Nos. 7,8,
and 9 of Table 7) have been abandoned with their flow presently
being discharged to the Dover Sewerage Authority's Ortley Beach
facility.
It is suggested that the NJSDEP confirm the summer and winter
flows Indicated in Table 7 as several seem to be inaccurate.
-28-
-------
Pages 116 5 117 .
It is requested that this "Miscellaneous" section be
entirely eliminated from the impact report as it belittles
the compentency of both this Authority and its consultants
by inferring that items such as bypasses, overflows, lack
of auxiliary power, inadequate pump capacities, etc. could
be designed into the proposed facilities. In addition, the
general layman reading the report could misinterpret this
section and assume that such items have been included in the
design. As was demonstrated in this Authority's previously
funded projects, the OCSA and its consultants are cognizant
of the EPA and NJSDEP design, construction and operating requirements
and fully intends to adhere to all such requirements.
-29-
-------
'- APPENDIX A
Comments Prepared By:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COUNCIL, INC
-------
eac
Environmental Assessment Council, Inc.
Review and Analysis of the
Draft EIS on the
Central Service Area of the
Ocean County Sewerage Authority
789 Jersey Ave., New Brunswick. New Jersey 08902 Telephone: 201-846-7049
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Conceptual Discussion of Comprehensive Land Use
Planning 2
A. Temporal Sequence 3
B. Projected Growth 3
C. Legislative Considerations 5
1. State Statutes 5
2. Federal Statutes 7 '
III. Discussion of Assumptions Involved in Growth
Limitations based on Air Quality Considerations n
A. Proportionality of Population to Emissions n
1. Alternate Energy Sources
2. Improving Technology
B. Emission Limitation Plan 13
IV. Discussion of AQIP - IPP Modelling 18
A. Source Data 18
B. Theoretical Basis 19
C. Application 21
1. Background Reductions
2. Significant Industrial Sources
V. Summary of Conclusions 25
Appendix A
List of Works Consulted
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COUNCI L, INC
-------
I. Introduction
This review and analysis of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement issued by Region II USEPA for the Central Service
Area (CSA) of the Ocean County Sewerage Authority (OCSA)* has
focused on several areas that are subject to inquiry. Two
principle levels of analysis are involved in reaching the con-
clusions on growth and environmental quality within the CSA of
Ocean County.
Accordingly, our analysis will address itself both to the
fundamental assumptions about land use controls, and, more
specifically to the assumptions and procedures employed in imple-
menting the limitations based on air quality standards.
A comprehensive and balanced approach to land use planning
must integrate all the components of an environmental system
into an optimal and equitable growth plan. This environmental
system is composed not only of a physical component, measured in
part by parameters of air and water quality, but also a biotic
component, measured in the quality of open space and woodlands,
and the stability and diversity of wildlife populations. A
third and vital component of the environmental system is measured
by the social and cultural amenities within a region. The parts
of the area's infrastructure — its arterial and local road
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COUNCIL. I *
-------
networks, municipal water and sewerage facilities, recreational
opportunities, open space, and cultural and historical aspects —
must be included as objectives within the overall planning
process.
/
The balanced planning approach will provide for continued
growth within the context of, and assuring the protection of, the
environmental system described above.
II. Conceptual Discussion of Comprehensive Land Use Planning
The attainment of high standards of quality in both air
and water pollution control is a goal which has to be met in
order to assure continued environmental protection. The
attainment of these standards, however, must be viewed in the
proper temporal, legislative and technological contexts. The
regulation of only one component of the system should not be the
limiting factor to which all other components are forced to
adjust. The projected plans to maintain air quality standards
for the Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) — as it is defined in
«"N
the Draft EIS , Ocean 'County being a part of it — attempt to
place severe restrictions on all other.phases of development. As
a result efforts to maintain a high level of water quality in this
region may be thwarted through denying adequate sewerage treat-
ment facilities.
-------
A. Temporal Sequence
The projection of air quality standards for 1990,by utilizing
1972 baseline emission data, represents an 18 year span. During
this span, the air quality component of the total environmental
system will be rigidly fixed, thus forcing adjustments to be
made in all other parameters. The adjustments necessary to
accomodate this limitation include the possibility of reducing
the effective life span of the primary focus of the project
and the maintenance of high water quality. In addition, some
estimates indicate that the design capacity of the sewerage
treatment plant will be exceeded by its completion date.
B. Projected Growth
The effectiveness and legitimacy of attempts to exercise
land use control by limiting municipal facilities is of crucial
importance. To act effectively, other growth-indueing factors
must be consistent and subject to constraint. The Division of
State and Regional Planning (DSRP) of the New Jersey Department
of Conservation and Economic Development has envisioned the
following "overall growth picture" for Ocean County:
Ocean is the fastest growing county in New Jersey in
terms of residential development. In both 1971 and 1972
more than 17% of the housing units built in the state were
built in Ocean. Between 1960 and 1970 the County population
just about doubled going from 108,000 to 208,000. It is
estimated by Eugene Oross that in the next three years,
FNVIRONMENTAI. A f,S P. SRM f. NT COUNCIL.
-------
1970-1973 it has grown by almost another 100,000. It is
difficult to see how anything short of nuclear war or the
demise of the automobile could put a stop to the building
boom there considering the following growth-conductive
factors:
1. The existence of vast amounts of flat, well drained
land. (Our estimates show 138,778 acres of vacant,
undeveloped land outside of the Wetlands for which
no development has yet been proposed). This
results in cheaper building costs. Smaller lots
are possible. There is no rock to blast through,
little grading to be done, etc.
2. Underground water supplies are abundant and many
people seem to think they are limitless.
3. No other area within a two hour commuting radius of
New York City has such felicitous natural features
for building.
4. A special land-holding situation where major developers
own enormous tracts outright which they bought very
cheaply, quite a few years ago.
5. Industry and service jobs are moving out to fringe
areas. So more and more jobs will exist close to
Ocean County and thus increase the demand for
housing. Middlesex County, for instance, is New
Jersey's fastest growing county industrially. Also
industry and service jobs will come to Ocean
as the work force grows.
6. As land and building costs go up in Ocean County,
they will be going up higher in the already more
developed areas, so that relatively, speaking it will
still be cheaper to build in Ocean.
7. The ocean and bays are an attraction in themselves.
Living near them means easy access to recreation -
vacation living year around (sic).
8. Accessibility
New roads and road improvements planned by the
state, the Turnpike Authority, and the New Jersey
Highway Authority which runs the Garden State all
-------
pro-raise incrcv?^ir.n- accessibility for large portions
of Ocean County.
9. Regional Sewerage System
It seems that Ocean County would develop rapidly
even if the regional sewer weren't built. However,
pollution problems are beginning to plague various
parts of the County. Developers are willing to
build package treatment plants, but not whole collector
systems and tertiary treatment plants with ocean
outfalls. The regional sewerage system, thus, will
be another factor insuring continued growth, removing
one of the few obstacles which can be seen today to
rapid growth. (DSRP, 1973).4
As a fundamental premise, the Draft EIS maintains that
limiting the capacity of the regional sewerage system—only one
of nine growth-conducive factors—will limit population growth
within the region. The DSRP states, however, "that Ocean County
would develop rapidly even if the regional sewer were not
built." It becomes apparent than that a crucial link in this
premise is controlling the use of septic'tanks in sustaining
population growth.
C. Legislative Considerations
1. State Statutes
The legislative tool available to exercise the
above mentioned control is Chapter 199, P,L. 1954 "Standards
for the Construction of Sewerage Facilities for Realty
Improvements" (revised 1963). The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (wJDEP), however, has jurisdiction
FMVI'JDMMFNTAI ASSBSSMTNT cr-<""r.<
-------
over septic tank usage only in critical areas (defined as those
areas of less than 10 feet elevation or where a development of
50 or more dwelling units is proposed). Even within these
critical areas, the primary limiting parameters are percolation
rate/ and depth to seasonal high water table. Within Ocean
County, the soils generally provide rapid percolation and the
depth to seasonal high water is very often greater than the
required "four feet from the bottom of the disposal field."
The effectiveness of this legislative tool for controlling
growth within Ocean County must be considered marginal, at best.
The Wetlands Act of 1970 and the Coastal Facilities
Review Act both exercise a measure of land use control. Neither
act, however, is intended for use as a limiting control on
population growth.
Thus, the three legislative tools available at the state
level apparently do not contain the power to limit the population
growth which could occur using septic tanks.
The USEPA Region II, in their analysis of the environmental
impact of the proposed wastewater management facilities for the
Central Service Area of the Ocean County Sewerage Authority
(OCSA), utilized EPA's proposed rules for the "Prevention of
8
Significant Air Quality Deterioration".
-------
2. Federal Statutes
The proposed rules set forth by EPA in the Federal
Register (V. 38 #135) were intended to establish a mechanism
for preventing significant air quality deterioration. This was
upheld by a preliminary injunction issued on May 30, 1972 in
the District Court for the District of Columbia, affirmed by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit
on November 1, 1972, and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court on
June 11, 1973 by an equally divided court. The preliminary
injunction required the Administrator of EPA to review all
state plans and "disapprove any portion of a state plan which
fails to effectively prevent significant deterioration of
9
existing air quality." The injunction also required the
Administrator to promulgate regulations
as to any state plan which he finds on the basis of his
review either permits the significant deterioration of
existing air quality in any portion of any state or fails
to take measures necessary to prevent such significant
deterioration. *-®
It is important to note that the rules issued by the Administrator
of EPA were for state implementation plans relating to air
quality control. Applying the Proposed Rules for the Approval
and Promulgation of Implementation Plans to an application for
grant funds for wastewater facilities indicates either an
extension of federal authority, or a new interpretation of the
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COUNCIL.
-------
8
purpose and extent of the proposed rules.
Furthermore, to the extent that these proposed rules are
being applied to size the Ocean County Central Sewage Treatment
Plant (OCCSTP), and ultimately restrict the growth of Ocean
County, it should be noted that they are applied without
scientific data to support the arbitrary increment increases as
defined and recognized in the proposed rules.
Pending the development of adequate scientific data.
on the kind and extent of adverse effects of air pollutant
levels below the secondary standards, significant deteriora-
tion must necessarily be defined without a direct quantita"
tive relationship to specific adverse effects on public
health and welfare. It should be emphasized that defining
significant deterioration in this way does not imply a
judgment by EPA on the question of whether it is sound
public policy to define "deterioration" as any increment
above existing air pollution levels and to attempt to define
"significant" deterioration in the absence of documentation
on the adverse effects thereof. Furthermore, it is possible,
indeed probable, that even when there are additional data,
it will be evident that there are levels below which some
of the pollutants covered by national standards do not
have effects that can be considered, adverse to public
health and welfare.
EPA Region II states in conclusion #2 that.:
It is not the intent of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to restrict the ultimate population of the Central
Service Area to 250,000. However, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency will not grant funds for the expansion
of the Ocean County Central Sewerage treatment plant beyond
91,000 m-Vday (24 mgd) or issue a discharge permit for the
expanded facility if that expanded facility will directly
or indirectly cause contravention of air quality standards.13
-------
However, this appears to be in contradiction to both the
U.S. EPA and the purpose and intent of the plaintiffs in the
original court action that initiated the proposed rules.
Clearly, it is not within the province of EPA, under
either the Clean Air Act or any other statute, to impose
limitations on the Nation's growth. Neither the Sierra
Club nor any of the States or organizations that filed
amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in support of
the Sierra Club's position argued that the District Court's
preliminary injunction means that EPA must limit economic
growth, as such, in order to prevent significant deteriora-
tion of air quality. To the contrary, it was agreed that
growth could and would continue, albeit with the restric-
tions necessary to prevent significant deterioration.^
Therefore, one must question upon what premise EPA Region
II justifies recommendations #1 and #2 of the EIS—recommendations
which appear to limit the population growth of the Central Service
Area to 250,000 people by denial of funds and permits, and
which, by EPA Region II's own admission, would not be sufficient
beyond 1984. Furthermore, what is the purpose of recommendation
#3 which directs the adjustment and change of zoning and land
use patterns?
The USEPA proposes only two means by which the Ocean County
Central Sewage Treatment Plant could be expanded beyond 91,000
nvVday (24 mgd) and the Central Service Area allowed growth
beyond 250,000 people:
ASr.rsswir-NT ronwrn r. -
-------
10
The first would be to disprove the results of the air
quality diffusion model study. This would require that
the existing network of air quality monitoring stations
in Ocean County be kept in operation over the long term
so that trends in air quality could be assessed. The
second would be to develop new technologies that would
invalidate the assumption used in the diffusion model
study.15
Both procedures assume that the assumptions and conclusions
reached in EPA Region II analysis of the air quality impact
are correct and justified.
There is a third means by which conclusions and recommen-
dations can be modified: to challenge the equity and validity
of the assumption and conclusions. This we have done in the
following sections.
-------
11
III. Discussion of Assumptions Involved in Growth Limitations
based on Air Quality Consideration.
A. Proportionality of Population to Emissions
Since existing air quality levels are a primary result of
point sources — such as industrial emission and electric power
generation — in addition to stationary area sources — such
as home heating facilities — which are generated within the
larger air quality control region, it may be useful to review
the assumption on which the 1990 projected air quality levels
are based.
The energy requirement from stationary sources can be
divided into two major groups. One consists of electric power
generation which would be concentrated in a few locations where
emissions would affect an airshed downwind from the plant. The
second significant source of emissions would result from heating
facilities associated with both multi and single family dwell-
ing units. The air pollution problems associated with either
type of source are spatially differentiated and consequently
would contribute to the background emission levels in different
locations in different magnitude and at different times.
The E.I.S. report assumes that S02 and particulate matter
levels are a direct function of the population projected for
FNVIRONMTMTAL ASSESSMENT COUNCI! . I's.'
-------
12
1990. At the same time, the report makes no assumption re-
garding the expected improvements in the environment caused
by the abatement technologies, the increased use of high
quality fuels, and improvements in the legal and administrative
institutions responsible for the integration of regional and
environmental planning. Specific examples of the expected
results created by the consideration of these factors follows.
In 1972, the total power generating capacity, in the .power
network of which Ocean County is a part, amounted to approx-
imately 5000 megawatts. Of this, 18% was derived from nuclear
and hydroelectric plants, neither of which would produce any of
16
the two pollutants under consideration. The percentage in-
crease in such non-polluting power sources will rise to 57%
by 1982, thus not increasing the background emission levels
of both S02 and particulate matter, while significantly in-
creasing the generating capacity. The significant increase
in electrical generating capacity within the network seriously
questions the assumption in the E.I.S. that the proportion of
fossil fuel usage by stationary area sources such as residences
will remain constant.
Of potentially greater significance is the implied
assumption that the total population projected for the Central
-------
13
Service Area is permanent. Although the proportion of seasonal
population probably will decrease by 1990, it is doubtful that
a complete conversion of existing housing units to year round
residences will take place by the end of the planning period.
Since most of the energy requirements by the summer
population would be in the form of electrical energy, part
of which would be produced elsewhere, and an increasing per-
centage of which would be non-polluting in terms of air quality,
it is suggested that the population energy equivalent added
would be significantly less than that projected by EPA, thus
seriously questioning the relationship between population
growth, its distribution, and the projected increase in total
emission levels.
Of the four alternative plans for evaluating air quality
deterioration proposed in the non-degradation rules, EPA applied
the Air Quality Increment Plan (AQIP) and the Emissions Limita-
tion Plan (ELP) in their analysis. The other plans were con-
sidered impractical. This critique will only be directed at
the AQIP and the ELP utilized by EPA Region II.
B. Emission Limitation Plan
The utilization of the ELP was based on an allowed 20%
-------
14
increment increase to the baseline emissions, as set forth in
the non-degradation regulations to establish ceiling air quality
emission rates. This was required since emission rates for 1970
exceeded ceiling emission rates calculated by emission density
factors cited in the non-degradation rules, which are based on
the land area of the Air Quality Control Region (AQCR).
The EPA analysis for Ocean County is based on the assump-
tion that the increase in emissions in selected categories is
proportional to the increase in population. The validity of
this assumption can be discerned by an analysis of the present
air quality emissions calculated for Ocean County by EPA Region
II, as compared to the emissions of the AqCR and the population
distribution within the AQCR.
17
Population data obtained from the Department of Labor and
Industry for the four counties which comprise the AQCR is
presented in Table 1. The projections were made in 1973 and
represent the most recent population projections for the AQCR.
Table 2 represents the percent of the AQCR population each county
presently has, and future population distribution trends.
Table 3 is a presentation of the relative population increases
of each county to the AQCR population increases.
-------
15
Ocean County presently has an air quality emission rate
of approximately 1020 tons/year particulates and 3060 tons/year
18
sulfur dioxide. A comparison of these values to the AQCR
values for 1970, presented on Page 146, reveals that Ocean County
accounted for approximately 7% of the particulate emissions and
approximately 5% of the S02 emissions of the AQCR. A comparison
of the 1970 values presented in Tables 1 and 2 reveals that
Ocean County represented approximately 37% of the population
of the AQCR. With this information, it becomes increasingly
difficult to accept the premise that air quality emissions
are proportional to population. If this were a valid assumption,
one would expect Ocean County to account for a greater share of
the 1970 AQCR emissions reported in the EIS. Furthermore, if,
as it appears, there is little correlation between present
emission levels as they relate to population, how can it be
assumed that future emission levels will be proportional to
population?
As shown in Table 2, Ocean County represents 45.4% of the
AQCR population in 1990. The proportionate share of population
increase of the AQCR claimed by Ocean County will be 64.5% as
indicated in Table 3. In comparison to the 3 other counties
in the' AQCR, Ocean County is expected to grow in population by
a factor of at least 4.5 times any other county in the AQCR.
ASSFSSMFNT couwcn . ir
-------
16
This explains why Ocean County will be claiming 44.4% of the
allowed SC^ increase and 69.3% of the allowed particulate
increase for the AQCR, considering EPA's assumption that emission
increases are proportional to population increases.
It would appear from Tables 1, 2, and 3 that growth in the
other counties of the AQCR will be very small as compared to
Ocean County. In addition, little if any restriction would
have to be imposed should Ocean County claim the projected
emissions as expressed in the EIS since the 3 other counties
in the AQCR only represent 36.5 % of the projected growth.
(Table 3) It seems then that if the same air quality evalua-
tion were used in the other counties of the AQCR, no inequities
would surface.
A question then arises from the assumptions made by EPA
Region II:
If increased emissions are proportional to population
growth, why shouldn't emission densities within an AQCR be
allocated by projected population growth? It would seem in-
equitable to determine distribution by the number of partici-
pating counties or by land area since neither is a controlling
parameter in future growth. If emission levels are to be
projected from proportionate population growth, the emission
density distribution should be based on projected population
-------
17
growth. The question then arises as to who is responsible
for emission density distribution, the State or the Federal
government? EPA has relinquished its role in emission density
allocation to the state level in the ELP, as described in the
proposed rules:
The determination of how emission density is to be
distributed in each region would be the state's pre-
rogative, and the Administrator would accept any distri-
bution provided that the emissions ceiling and national
ambient air quality standards are observed.19
If EPA has relinquished its role in emission density
allocation to the states, would it not be the State of New
Jersey's perogative to decide if the projected increased
emissions, as calculated in the EIS (pargraph 142), restrict
growth in the other counties of the AQCR? Furthermore, Ocean
County will represent 45.4% of the projected 1990 population
of the AQCR — while contributing approximately 18% of the
AQCR particulate emissions and approximately 12% of the SC>2
emissions of the AQCR in 1990.
PNVmONIVIf-'NTAI. ASSPSSM T N T COHN'Clt.
-------
18
IV. Discussion of AQIP - IPP Modelling
A. Source Data
Data used in the Implementation Planning Program (IPP) model
for air quality modelling was obtained and analyzed, yielding
the observations that follow.
Point sources within the county were limited only to the
Toms River Chemical Company (TRC). TRC accounted for a large
percentage of the sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions -'of
Ocean County in 1972, as discussed in a later section. The
projection for 1990 does not consider additional point sources
nor does it reflect the addition to the existing sources of any
higher level of emission control technology.
Projected particulate emissions from the transportation
area sources did not account for reductions in emission levels
due to the use of non-leaded fuels.. This reduction is expected
to be in the range of 35 to 50 percent by 1978, according to the
NJDEP Air Pollution Control Division. Since the transportation
area sources account for approximately 37 percent of the total
emissions inventory of the county, the above cited reduction may
reflect itself in a 13 to 18 percent reduction in overall
particulate emissions.
-------
19
Area sources established for 1972 were used as 1990 area
sources by increasing the projected emission levels. The
assumption implicit in this procedure is that the spatial
population distribution, as reflected in the area source locations
for 1972, will remain constant through 1990. The projected rapid
population influx, in conjunction with the large tracts of
essentially undeveloped land under single ownership (DSRP growth
factor #4), may lead to intensive residential development of
areas not now assigned values as "area sources" of emission. The
geographic distribution of area sources plays a crucial role in
the calculated air quality values at the "receptor" locations.
Therefore, some question exists as to whether the receptor values
calculated at Toms River, Berkeley, Jackson and Waretown will in
fact represent the air quality resulting from a 1990 population
distribution.
B. Theoretical Basis
Utilization of only four stations within the CSA leads
to uncertainties concerning the adequacy of the modelling
technique utilized to accurately interpolate .between receptor
locations.
The rapidly fluctuating climatic conditions which pre-
vail in coastal regions lead to greater uncertainties in
modelling steady-state atmospheric diffusion. Atmosphe-ric
r rvviMOWMrr.'T At ASSKPSM r r-r: <:<;< if-'r n
-------
20
instability caused by the differing rates of temperature
fluctuation between the land and the ocean give rise to off-
shore and onshore winds. Consideration of the atmospheric
mixing resulting from this phenomenon may give rise to markedly
lower concentrations of air pollutants at receptor locations
in the coastal area.
Many of the limitations inherent in steady-state modelling
techniques are of crucial importance in the present application
as discussed above.
In summary, areas which will require further clarification
are:
1. Accuracy of assumptions regarding projected point
source emissions.
2. Validity of area source distributions stack heights, and
emission rates (some of which increase by 3500% in the period
1972-1990).
3. The ability of any area-wide model to be statistically
verified on the basis of only four sampling stations.
4. The adequacy of a steady-state diffusion model to
accurately predict air quality levels in the rapidly fluctuating
coastal climatic zone which prevails in Ocean County.
5. The temporal variations in climatic data employed as
input of the diffusion model and 'the number of runs made to
-------
21
obtain a statistically valid result for any given receptor
location.
Consideration of the above variables leads to the conclusion
that the accuracy of the modelling technique should be clearly
stated. The implications of large variations from the mean
determined value for expected air quality would lead to large
variations in the proposed treatment plant sizing. A variation
of 50 percent in the model result would vary the expected treat-
ment plant sizing from approximately 12 mgd to 36 mgd.
The IPP diffusion model is a crucial link in the analysis
and conclusions regarding the future growth in Ocean County.
The basic assumptions inherent in the model and in its applica-
tion to Ocean County, some of which are outlined above, must
be the object of intensive study and verification.
C. Application
The analysis of air quality levels through the use of
an air quality diffusion model is the basis of the AQIP. EPA
Region II utilized measured baseline air quality for particulates
only, and projected, through the model, future air quality at
4 locations in the Central Service Area. The short term (24 hr.)
secondary air quality standard for particulates, and the allowable
increase in existing annual geometric mean, as proposed
FNVIROWMFNTA!. ASSHSSMFNT COUNCIL. !'
-------
22
in the non-degradation regulations, were used as guidelines.
EPA projected that air quality standards would be contra-
vened utilizing Fellows Reed and Weber population projections
20
for 1990 , and that a 28-31% reduction in particulate air
pollution would be required to meet the 10 ug/m3 increment
guideline. EPA proposed that a 25% reduction in the OCCSTP
to 91,000 M3/day (24 mgd) from 125,000 M3/day (32 mgd) would
provide a 25% reduction in population, which would be reflected
in a similar reduction in particulate air pollution.
This is within the range of the calculated reduction
required in air pollutant emissions, allowing for errors
inherent in the diffusion modeling process. Therefore,
a 91,000 M3/day (24 mgd) treatment facility should meet
the intent of the proposed non-degradation regulations.21
The apparent intent of reducing the OCCSTP by 25% was to achieve
an approximate 25% reduction in particulate air quality levels,
since the sewage treatment plant size reflected population, and
EPA had, as previously described, assumed emission increases to
be proportional to population.
Ocean County is not, nor will it be, a major urban and
industrial area as described and projected in the EIS. The
proposed rules claim that from the implementation of State Air
Quality Control Plans, a reduction in particulates is to be
anticipated in rural areas or the northeast. The anticipated
-------
23
reduction in particulates stated in the proposed non-degradation
regulations is as follows:
Emission reductions to be achieved under state plans
in major urban and industrial centers will significantly
affect total national emissions and thereby lower the
background pollutant concentrations in rural areas. Thus
a 25% reduction in the background concentration of particu-
late matter in rural areas is anticipated.22
If a 25% reduction is anticipated in background emissions
for rural areas such as Ocean County from the implementation
of state plans in major urban and industrial centers, should the
OCCSTP be reduced by 25% or by some lower value? If a 25% re-
duction is, as stated in the EIS, within the calculated accuracy
of the diffusion model for the OCCSTP, it should follow that a
25% projected reduction in background particulates in rural
areas like Ocean County from state implemented air quality control
plans in major urban and industrial centers should also be
considered and applied if an accurate and equitable population
reduction is to be utilized to size the OCCSTP.
There exists in Ocean County a single major industrial
emission source that accounts for 9% of the particulate emissions
and 18% of the S0_ emissions of the county. If viewed with
respect to the Central Service Area, this source is 18% of the
particulate emissions and 41% of the S0« emissions. It appears,
from data analysis of the emission values utilized by EPA in the
IMTAI.
-------
24
AQIP, that no reduction was anticipated or planned for this
source. Obviously the application of emissions control equip-
ment to this source can significantly affect the projected air
quality levels for particulates calculated by EPA. There
appears to be no application of restrictions to this industrial
source. One must question the premise the allows future signi-
ficant industrial point source emissions while restricting future
growth.
! i t:< V ! P O fJ M r: M T A I A ? S P T S M f" IV T C. O 1.1'-! r I'.
-------
25
V. Summary of Conclusions
1. A comprehensive and balanced approach to land use planning
o
must integrate all the components of an environmental system into
an optimal and equitable growth plan.
2. By restricting the capacity of the OCCSTP on the basis
of air pollutant emissions, water quality standards may be con-
travened in less than five years. This seems contradictory
to the primary aim of the project—to protect and enhance the water
quality of Ocean County.
3. Given the combination of growth-inducing factors within
Ocean County, it is doubtful that limiting regional sewerage
facilities will significantly limit population growth.
4. The use of septic systems to sustain continued growth
within Ocean County cannot be effectively controlled by exist-
ing tools.
5. It seems apparent from the proposed rules for the
approval and promulgation of implementation plans that the
purpose and intent was to set up
a mechanism for preventing significant deterioration of
air quality in areas where air pollution levels currently
are below national ambient air quality standards which would
prescribe steps to be taken by the states.23
The relevance of utilizing the air quality increment plans or the
proposed plans to apply for grant funds for wastewater facilities
indicates either a new interpretation of the purpose and intent
-------
26
of the proposed rules, or an extension of Federal authority.
6. To the extent that these proposed rules are being
•
applied to reduce the capacity of the OCCSTP, it is important
to note that they are being applied without scientific data to
support the arbitrary allowed increment increase defined in the
proposed rules.
7. There appears to be a contradiction between the purpose
O A
and intent of EPA Region II's recommendations 1, 2 and 3 and
the purpose and intent of the plaintiffs in the original court
action and the proposed rules developed by EPA, with regard to
restrictions to limit growth.
8. The changing distribution of energy generating modes from
fossil fuel to nuclear will provide a larger generating capacity
with no increase in air pollutant emissions.
9. The significant increases in electrical generating
capacity projected for the mid-1980"s seriously questions the
assumption that the proportion of fuel oil usage by stationary
sources will remain constant.
10. Particulate emissions from residences are subject to
large seasonal fluctuations. The winter time.population would
most accurately represent that population whose area sourcs
emissions would contribute to air pollution.
-------
11. The validity of the assumption that air quality emissions
are proportional to population is doubtful, at best, when con-
sideration is given to the fact that in 1970 Ocean County accounted
for approximately 37% of the AQCR population while contributing
approximately 7% of the particulate and 5% of the SO emissions
X
to the AQCR.
12. Population data from New Jersey Department of Labor and
Industry, Office of Business Economics, indicates that Ocean
County will account for 64.5% of the population growth of the
AQCR (Table 3) or 4.5 times the growth of any other county in
the AQCR. This data refutes EPA Region II's claims that Ocean
County will restrict growth in the AQCR if the County is allowed
to claim the projected emissions calculated by EPA. Growth in
the.other counties of the AQCR will be insignificant in comparison
to Ocean County. Furthermore, projected population growth is
of the same magnitude of the estimated percent increment increases
in particulate and S0~ emissions calculated by EPA. It seems that
if the same air quality evaluation were employed in the other
counties of the AQCR no inequities would occur.
13. It appears that EPA Region II in Recommendation 1, 2
O r
and 3 is attempting to influence the emission density
allocations in the AQCR. This is in contradiction to the EPA
stated objective in the proposed rules, ELP, which designate
responsibility for emission density distribution allocation
to the state.
r r.i >,' i ' • \< if : i-l'i /. I \'\". rr;S".i i' !•' "' r ^ •'."•
-------
28
14. EPA Region II appears to have neglected anticipated
background reductions in particulates for rural areas, as stated
in the non-degradation proposed rules, in its diffusion model
analysis in the AQIP. A 25% anticipated reduction in background
levels of particulates, from improvement in metropolitan and
industrial air quality, should be considered and applied to the
diffusion model study.
15. It appears that EPA Region II did not anticipate or
plan for any reduction of emissions from a major industrial source
in the Central Service Area with regard to projected emissions
and air quality analysis in their diffusion model and in the AQIP.
This source accounts for 9% of the particulate and 18% of the
SO emissions calculated for Ocean County. There is serious
doubt as to the equity of the AQIP applied to Ocean County when
it appears that no consideration was given to any future reduction
of this point source emission. A reduction of this source may
result in decreased emissions over the long term. Consideration
of this point assumes special significance since the apparent
restrictions on the future growth of the area, which are proposed
in the EIS, are based, in part, on this assumption.
16. The accuracy of the model to predict future ambient air
quality levels should be clearly explained. Large variations from
the mean determined value will significantly affect the sizing
of the sewage treatment plant and the planning-related conclusions
stated in the EIS.
p i\i \ < i': r> r; '•.". r w T ,M /* r:r. rs pri'' r i T c o 11". '• i
-------
Appendix A
-------
Table 1
Atlantic
Cape May
Cumberland
Ocean
Total
Estimated Projections
Land Area
Sq. Mile
569
267
500
642
1,978
1970
175,043
59,554
121,374
208,470
564,441
1975
185,250
64,940
131,450
253,310
631,950
1980
193,460
68,090
139 ,100
289 ,860
690,510
1985
202,760
72,410
147,770
326,000
748,940
1990
212,070
76,740
156,450
370,140
815,400
1995
221,410
81,560
165,110
414,270
882,350
-------
Table 2
Atlantic County
Cape May County
Cumberland County
Ocean County
AQCR
Percent
Land
28
13
25
32
100
Area
.8%
.5%
. 3%
.4%
.0%
19
31
10
21
36
100
Population o
70
.0%
.6%
.5%
.9%
.0%
19
29
10
20
40
100
75
.0%
.3%
.8%
.0%
.0%
f AQCR
19
28
9
20
42
100
80
.0%
.9%
.1%
.0%
.0%
1985
27.1%
9.7%
19.7%
43.5%
100.0%
1990
26
9
19
45
100
.0%
.4%
.2%
.4%
.0%
1995
25. 1%
9.2%
18.7%
47.0%
100.0%
-------
Atlantic County
Cape May County
Cumberland County
Ocean County
AQCR
Table 3
Relative Population Increases from 1970
1980
Population % Population
Increase Increase
18,417
8,536
17,726
81,390
126,069
14.6%
6.8%
14.1%
54. J%
100.0%
1990
Population
Increase
37,027
17,186
35,076
161,670
250,959
Population
Increase
14.7%
6.8%
14.0%
64.5%
100.0%
-------
LIST OF WORKS CITED
1. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Impact
Statement on a Wastewater Treatment Facilities Construction Grant for
the Central Service Area for the Ocean County Sewerage Authority in Ocean
County, New Jersey, April, 1974.
2. Ibid.
3. Personal Communication with the Ocean Gouty Sewerage Authority, 1974.
4. United States Environmental Protection Agency, op. cit., April, 1974.
5. New Jersey State Department of Health, Chapter 199, P.L. 1954 and Standards
for the Construction of Sewerage Facilities for Realty Improvements,
(revised 1963).
6. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Mew Jersey Wetlands Order
Basis and Background, April, 1972.
7. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Area Facility
Review Act, June 20, 1973.
8. United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Proposed Rule Making for
Prevention of Significant Air Quality Deterioration", Federal Register
38 (135) Part IV; 18986-18999, 1973.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. United Spates Environmental Protection Agency, op. cit., 1974, p. 149.
14. United States Environmental Protection Agency, op. cit., 1973.
15. United States Environmental Protection Agency, op. cit., 1974, p. 150.
16. Jersey Central Power and Light Ccrrpany, Applicant's Environmental Report; -
Forked River Nuclear Station, Unit 1, April, 1972.
i •;' v 11: o !••'r - v r-i r A i A •: *\ r ••. r, ?-" F M r r o 11 r-1 r •
-------
17. New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry, Population Estimates for
New Jersey, 1973.
18. United States Environmental Protection Agency, op. cit., 1974, p.148.
19. United States Environmental Protection Agency, op. cit, 1973.
20. Fellows, Read, and Weber, Project Report for Ocean County Sewerage Authority,
1973.
21. United States Environmental Protection Agency, op. cit., 1974, p.152.
22. United States Environmental Protection Agency,, op. cit., 1973.
23. Ibid.
24. United States Environmental Protection Agency, op. cit., 1974.
25. Ibid.
-------
( • APPENDIX B
Legal Comments Prepared By:
- HIERING, GRASSO, GELZER § KELAHER, ESQS,
-------
LAW OFFICES
HIERING.GRASSO.GELZER & KELAHER
p o.BOX ioaa
HIERING BUILDING
WILLIAM T.H.ERING COURT HOUSE SQUARE
VINCENT A.GRASSO TOM S RIV E R, N £W J E RS EY O8753 AREA CODE aoi
MILTON M.GELZER TELEPHON E 349 - I Z I 2
THOMAS F- KELAHEB
GASRY J. ROETTGER
WILLIAM T. HIERING,JR.
THOMAS L. BACE
June 19, 1974
Mr. Lawrence Simpson, Chairman
Ocean County Sewerage Authority
40 Hadley Avenue
Toms River, N. J. 08753
RE: Legal Comments on Recommendations 3 and 10
of the April 1974 draft of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Environmental Impact Statement
pertaining to the central service area of the
Ocean County Sewerage Authority
Dear Mr. Simpson:
We respectfully submit herewith for consideration and use in
connection with the reply to be made by the Ocean County Sewerage
Authority to the draft of April 1974 of the Environmental Impact
Statement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, our comments
on Recommendations 3 and 10.
If there is any further matter, which we are required to explore
and advise, please let us know as soon as possible.
Very truly yours,
/ VINCENT A.,,:.-GRASSO
VAGrajl •'' For The Firm
Enclosures
-------
COMMENTS ON THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION 3
MADE BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN ITS
DRAFT OF-APRIL 1974 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION GRANT
FOR THE CENTRAL SERVICE AREA OF THE OCEAN COUNTY SEWERAGE
AUTHORITY IN OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.
PREPARED BY: .
HIER1NG, GRASSO, GELZER & K2LAHER, ESQS.
ATTYS FOR OCEAN COUNTY.SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
204 HORNER STREET
TOMS RIVER, NEW JERSEY 08753
-------
POWER .OF EPA TO IMPOSE AIR POLLUTION CONDITIONS
The Ocean County Sewerage Authority has applied to
the federal Environmental Protection Agency for a grant for
construction of treatment works/ pursuant to 33 USCS 1281 (g)
(i). The entire "Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
»s
ments of 1972" [33 USCS 1251-1376 refers to water pollution.
Among the goals set forth in this law is the restoration and
maintenance of the "chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's Waters." 33 USCS 1251. The comprehensive program
created is aimed at "preventing, reducing or eliminating the pollu-
tion of the navigable waters and ground waters and improving the
sanitary condition of surface and underground waters." 33 USCS
1251. The statute even defines the terms "pollutant" and
"pollution" in terms of the integrity of Water. 33 USCS 1362.
A question therefore must be raised as to the source
of authority for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to impose upon such a grant conditions significant only
with respect to air pollution. The Ocean County Sewerage
Authority does not assert an immunity from those federal air
pollution controls which govern all potential pollutants.
However, the Authority questions the imposition of conditions
on an anti-water pollution grant/ where those conditions demand
additional affirmative anti-air pollution measures in excess of the
proposed non-degradation regulations of the "Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970."
- 1 -
-------
The "Clean Air Act Amendment of 1970" establishes sufficient
regulatory control of potential pollutants by creating air
quality control regions [42 USCS 1357 c-2 national ambient
air quality standards [42 USCS 1857c-4], and by requiring
the submission of state implementation plans [42 USCS 1857c-5]
How can the Administrator burden the Authority with additional
air pollution restrictions solely because it happens to be
applying for a water pollution grant.
- 2 -
-------
POWERS OF OCEAN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
A county planning board is enabled by N.J.S. 40:27-2
to adopt a master plan for the physical development of the county.
This plan/ however, cannot be imposed upon constituent munici-
palities. The county planning board is limited to encouraging
"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 capital expenditures." Id.
In addition to the abovementioned planning powers,
a county planning board must review all subdivisions of land
within the county, and must approve or reject "those subdivisions
affecting county road or drainage facilities," in accordance
with specific statutory standards. N.J.S. 40:27-6.2. The county
planning board may also provide "for the review of site plans for
land development along county roads"for the "purpose of assuring
a safe and efficient county road system." N.J.S. 40:27-6.6.
These functions of the. county planning board are very
limited in scope and restricted in application by statute. They
certainly do not provide an operative framework for any significant
control of regional land development.
The spirit of regional land use planning is exhibited
by statutes that require municipalities to file their zoning
ordinances with the county planning board and to give the .board
i
notice of proposed changes affecting certain lands, N.J.S. 40:27-6.10,
- 3 -
-------
and to notify the county planning board of variance applications
where the land fronts on an existing or proposed county road,
adjoins county-owned land or is situated within 200 feet of a
municipal boundary. N.J.S. 40:27-6.11. Unfortunately, only the
spirit of regionalization exists/ since the county planning
board's ability to influence development is minimal.
- 4 -
-------
POWERS OF OCEAN COUNTY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
The Ocean County Sewerage Authority has not the'
slightest power to affect local municipal zoning. It is believed
that powers of this nature are included in a water quality manage-
ment bill, whcih has yet to be introduced in the New Jersey
legislature. However/ at"" the present time/ the maximum effort
which may be expected of the Authority is to encourage municipal
governing bodies to join in a cooperative program.
N.J.S. 40:14A-7(7) empowers county sewerage authorities
n[t]o accept. . . grants-of. . . money. . . for the purposes
of the sewerage authority, and to make and perform such agreements
and contracts as may be necessary or convenient in connection
with the procuring, acceptance or disposition of such. . . grants."
This specific delegation of powers, together with the omnibus
section of powers, N.J.S. 40:14A-7(11), apparently would enable
the Authority to seek and to enter a compact with the local
governing bodies in the Central service area. The legality of
any such agreement is a separate problem, which will be discussed
below.
It is doubtful that arbitrary limits upon service to
residents in participating municipalities would stand up to a
judicial attack. The New Jersey Supreme Court noted in Deerfield
Estates, Inc. v. Tp. of East Brunswick, 60 N.J. 115, 130 (1972)
that while "a municipality, engaged in furnishing water to its
inhabitants, has a large measure of discretion as to the limits to
which it should extend its mains [,] [a]t the sarae time there
is an obligation to supply impartially all applicants in substantially
« C. «
-------
like position." This philosophy was reiterated with respect to
a municipal sewerage authority in S.S. SO. Corp. v. Tp. of Bernards
Sewerage Auth., 62 N.J. 369, 381 (1973)
However, even if such a mechanism were valid, the
service contracts already entered between the Authority and the
participating municipalities provide for delivery to and treatment
n>
by the Authority of all wastewater originating in and collected
by the respective municipality. These factors would certainly pre-
clude the Authority from using rationing as a land use development
tool.
~* 5 ~
-------
REGIONAL PLANNING SCARPS
The concept of regional planning is embodied in 'a little
used statute, N.J.S. 40:27-9- This: law permits municipalities
and/or counties to "co-operate in the creation of a regional
planning board for any region defined as may be agreed upon by
said co-operation councils and board or boards or by said co-
operating boards." Such a body, once formed, would have the res-
ponsibility of preparing a master plan for the physical development
of the region, (N.J.S. 40:27-10), but more importantly, co-operating
municipalities or counties would be permitted to delegate to
the regional planning board "any or all of the powers and duties
of a municipal planning board. •. .and of a county planning board. ..
N.J.S. 40:27-11. .
While, the availability of such a potential planning
body is encouraging, it is extremely doubtful that municipalities
with established planning boards would be willing to sacrifice
their respective autonomy. Absent a transfer of powers from
municipalities to the regional planning board, the latter would
serve no greater function than the existing county planning board.
- 7 -
-------
MUNICIPAL ZONING
The municipal planning board is empowered to prepare
a master plan "for the physical development of the municipality[,]"
and to include in such plan "proposals for various stages in-
the future development of the municipality." N.J.S. 40:
55-1.10. The plan must be presented to the county planning
board for review and comment prior to public hearing. Id.
- The scope of the master plan, among other factors,
includes the following:
Conservation - water, forest, soil, flood control,
and other like matters (N.J.S. 40:55-1.lie)
The distribution and density of population
(N.J.S. 40:55-1.llg)
Other elements of municipal growth and development
(N.J.S. 40:55-1.llh)
"The master plan may include-in its ccope areas
outside the boundaries of the municipality which the planning
board deems to bear an essential relationship to the planning
of the municipality. The studies in connection with the
master plan shall be conducted whereever possible with the.
co-operation of adjacent planning agencies;" N.J.S. 40:55-1.11.
The general purpose of the master plan is to guide
and accomplish "a co-ordinated, adjusted and harmonious
development of the municipality and its environs. . . "
N.J.S. 40:55-1.12.
-------
The municipality may "limit and restrict to specified
districts and may regulate therein" the development of the
municipality. N.J.S. 40:55-30. This general zoning power
must "be in accordance with a comprehensive plan and
designed for one or more of the following purposes: to lessen
congestion in the streets; secure safety from fire, flood/
panic and other dangers; promote health, morals or the
general welfare; provide adequate light and air; prevent the
overcrowding of land or buildings; avoid undue concentration
of population. Such regulations shall be made with reasonable
consideration, among other things, to the character of the
district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses,
and with a view of conserving the value of property and en-
couraging the most appropriate use of land throughout such
municipality. N.J.S. 40:55-32.
Municipal cooperation is fostered by N.J.S.
40:55-53 which requires notice to adjoining municipalities
of hearings with respect to planning, zoning, approval of
subdivisions, granting of variances, or establishing or
amending an official map involving property within 200 feet
of such adjoining municipality.
-------
JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN ZONING
Having recognized the statutory ability of municipalities
to control their development through zoning, it becomes important
to consider the judicial limitations imposed upon the power to
zone. While regional considerations have been promoted wherever
feasible by our courts, the judicial system has expressed antago-
nism towards exclusionary zoning. These two trends in decisional
law would apparently collide were a geographic area to be restric-
tively rezoned for the purpose of limiting population in order
to preserve the air qual-ity of the region.
In Southern Burl. Cty NAACP v. Tp. of Mt. Laurel, -"
119 N.J. Super. 164 (Law Div. 1972) the municipal zoning ordinance
was invalidated for exhibiting "economic discrimination in that
the poor have been deprived of adequate housing and the opportunity
to secure the construction of subsidized housing. . ." Supra at 178.
The municipal zoning had excluded trailers and had excluded multi-
family dwellings except on farms. In addition, the court ordered
the defendant municipality to undertake a study and then -to develop
a plan of implementation'towards an affirmative program of meeting
the municipality's housing needs for persons of low and moderate
income residing in the township, or presently or projected to be
employed by the municipality or in commercial and industrial uses
in the township.
The Township of Madison had enacted a zoning ordinance which
limited the increase in multiple dwelling units to 200 per year,
and restricted construction in most of the undeveloped areas in
-------
the township to one or two acre minimum areas. In Qakwood at
Madison, Inc. v. Tp. of Madison, 117 N.J. Super. 11 (law div.
1971) , the court found that the governing body had "determined
to curb population growth signigicantly and thus to stabilize the
tax rate." Supra at 14. The objective of the ordinance "was
fiscal zoning, zoning as a device to avoid school construction and
*..
other governmental costs incident to population expansion."
Supra at 18.
Judge Furman found that the 'general welfare1 requirement
of the Zoning Act requires a consideration of housing needs, and
i
concluded that in view of the municipality's continuing encourage-
ment of new industry, and the lack of consideration for moderate
and low income housing in the area, that the ordinance was exclusion-
ary in purpose and effect, and therefore, invalid. He commented
that:
Families with more than one child are barred
from multi-family apartments because of the one
and two bedroom restrictions, restrictions without
any guise of a health or safety purpose. Supra at 20.
While the local ordinance was overturned for failing to promote
a reasonably balanced community/ several points are significant
with respect-to any type of population limitation based upon
environmental protection. Primarily, it should be noted that
the Madison Township ordinance w*.s not supported by any health or
safety purposes, and Judge Furman deemed it important to comment
upon the lack of such scientific support:
- 11 -
-------
Only engineering data and expert opinion
and, it may be, ecolo.qical data arid expert opinion
could justify the ordinance under attack. These
were lacking both in the legislative process and
at trial. The record fails to substantiate that
safeguarding against flood and surface drainage
problems and protection of the Englishtown aquifer
v/ould be reasonably advanced by the sweeping zoning
revision into low population density districts
along the four water courses, Supra at 21-22
(emphasis added).
Secondly, the Oakwood decision does not purport to overrule Fischer
v. Bedminster Tp., 11, N.J. 194 (1952), which sustained five
acre zoning throughout 85% of Bedminster. Rather, the Fischer
case was distinguished as being based upon "preserving the
character of the community, maintaining the value of property
therein and devoting the land throughout the township for its
most appropriate use[,]" while Madison Township "has no established
residential character or residential property values." Oakwood,
supra at T9.
Another interesting aspect of the Oakwood decision is
that the multiple dwelling restriction of 200 per year, was not
commented upon except to state that "[t]he township concedes the
invalidity of the limitation to 200 new multi-family units per
year. . ."Supra at 17.
Finally, it should be realized that on September 19,
1972 Certification was granted by the New Jersey Supreme Court,
62 N.J. 185 (1972), to review the lower court's holding.
Shortly after the Oakwood decision, the Appellate Division,
in Schere v. Township of Freehold/ 119 N.J. Super 433, 436
App, Div. 1972), held that fiscal "considerations will not justify
-------
imposing substantial functional non-utilization of a property
owner's lands." This ruling was in response to an ordinance
restricting development of one-family residential areas to
40,000 square feet per lot, such restricted areas being surrounded
by industrial, vestigal farming and samller residential uses..
Expert witness testified, without contradiction to the effect that
»„
"these properties were not developable for one-acre residences in
the reasonably forseeable future." Supra at 435. The Court believed
that the restrictions were "designed to inhibit residential
development in the municipality at a rate which would outstrip
what the town fathers thought the voters and taxpayers would
accept in fiscal outlay to supply ancillary municipal services
(schools, etc.). "Supra at 436.
Relying on the Oakwood decision, it was observed that:
. . .a deliberate governmental attempt to prevent
by zoning the residential utilization of land,
apt for the purpose, on behalf of the generality
of the population in need thereof, in favor of
reserving such land for future utilization by
more affluent users, would seem to conflict with
present-day judicial thought as to appropriate
relationships between.zoning policy and social housing
needs. Supra^ at 437.
Some of the sharpest exclusionary language encompassed
in New Jersey cases is found in Molino v. Mayor and Council of
Bor. of Glassboro, 116 N.J. Super. 195 (Law Div. 1971), wherein
the local zoning ordinance, which had the effect of restricting
population of the borough to adults, was found to be violative
of the equal protection clause, and therefore, invalid. The tool
used by Glassboro had been a bedroom ratio limitation in multiple
- 13 -
-------
dwellings. The municipality admitted that the ordinance was designed
to keep children out of Glassboro, thereby preventing the necessity
for more schools and higher taxes. Judge Schalick stated that
zoning "cannot be used as a means to solve all collateral municipal
problems." Supra at 201. He then continued:
Our courts have upheld the regulation of
apartments, the land areas for dwelling units, the
limitation of congestion, the requirements for living
and recreation space, the exclusion of residential
uses consistent with the needs of the region as
well as the limitation of the type of permissible
uses within the municipality. There must be a
case by case analysis, with concern for a legal
use of the land and the health, safety and welfare
of the people. Supra at 204.
The most far reaching portion of the decision followed:
Exclusionary zoning may lead to illegal
and unwanted conditions, which are violative of
individual rights. No municipality can isolate
itself from the difficulties which are prevalent
in all segments of society. When the general interest
is paramount to the limited interest of the mun-
icipality then the municipality cannot create road
blocks. Zoning is not a boundless license to structure
a municipality. Supra.
One further decision must be mentioned. It involved
the so-called "Petaluma Plan", which passed into law by the small
California community in its attempt to retain its rural character.
The Plan, which restricted the construction of new homes to no
more than 500 per year, was aimed at preventing the doubling of
Petaluma's 30,000 person population, as had been projected would
occur by 1985.
U.S. District Court Judge Burke found the "Petaluma Plan"
unconstitutional, "saying the city could not halt the natural
influx of suburbanites." 97 N.J.L.J. 382, (May 23, 1974). The
/
ruling was grounded upon a "violation of the right to travel"
which was inherent in this ordinance "designed to restrict population
-------
growth." Id. Judge Burke's decision was,
. . .intended to encompall not only the outright
numerical limitations upon the issuance of
building permits, but also any and all features
of the plan which, directly or indirectly, seek to
control population growth by any means other than
market demands. Id.
Having reviewed the recent proliferation of anti-
exclusionary zoning cases', refernce should be made to a somewhat
more sustained and less dramatic trend towards consideration of
regional needs and welfare. Local municipal action granting a
"special reasons" variance was sustained upon regional needs in
Kunzler v. Hoffman, 48.N'.J 277 (1966). extended the scope of pre-
vious judicial precedent in considering the urgent need for a~
private hospital in the township and the surrounding communities:
.A municipality may look beyond its own
borders for zoning purposes and recognize legitimate
regional needs. . . it may provide cooperatively
for.the needs of neighboring communities, as well
as its own. . . .Recently there has been recognition
that local zoning authorities should look beyond
their own provincial needs to regional requirements.
Supra at 287 (citations omited). • •
The first major expression of regionalism by the New
Jersey Supreme Court had been set forth in Duffcon Concerte
Products v. Borough of Gresskill, 1 N.J. 509 (1949), as a justi-
fication for the Cresskill ordinance which restricted the borough
to residential uses, and small businesses and trades, while
excluding heavy industry. Chief Justice Vanderbilt, speaking
for the Court announced:
-------
• :••.->*•
v;.:at ;,,^y be the ./scst. appropriate """use
of any p^r.r.-i.oul :•.!-• property- depends not only...on
a 1,1 the conditions, physical, exonomic and social,
prev.--lli.v- v< it hi n the municipality and its neads/
present diid. reasonably -prospective, 'but also §?£
the r-.-b'.r-.e.-.of - the entire region in which the raunic-
ipality is located arid the use. to which the land
in^thi-i" recrJ.qwi has been or may be put .most-s^yart-'
ta^eoa^jy. The effective development of a racion
should-: net ;;aad cannot be made to depend upoh "f
the -adventitious location of municipal boundaries,
of te?i- -prescribed decad.es or even centuries ago,
and based in many instances on-.considerations of
geography, of commerce., or of politics that are
no longer significant with respect to zoning.
-... --i..-,-r;ripra- at 513. .•.•#?• •
• .• ".•:•.. •- >.-. i**— — ... . "jji
The Court--upihelci the highly residential nature of Cressxill's zoning::
ordinance by taking cognizance of "the availability and.use of the
extensive bottom "land 3 sf the Hackensack River Valley .'Within-the re-
gion for industrial purposes." Supra at 514.
Five years later, Chief Justice Vanderbilt and the Borough1.
of Cresskill were again involved in a decision espousing regional
zoning, Cresskill v. Duinont, 15'N,J. 233 (1954). Diifiont claimed that
it.need give no consideration to, the effect or a zoning aranendment
upon neighboring municipalities. Vanderbiit wrote:
The appellant-spells out from the language of
these constitutional and statutory provisions that
the responsibility of a municipality for zoning.
halts at the municipal boundary lines without regard
to the effect of its zoning ordinances on adjoining
and nearby land outside the municipality- Such a .
view might prevail where there are large undeveloped
areas at the borders of two -contiguous, towns... but it
canno.t be tolercfted. whers^. -.-s.3., hcrc> Lhs area is'"'
built- up-.Tar*d cvne cannot tell when o-ne is. passlctg:
from GZ.-S. ;i?crcuga to another. - Supra at 247. ';.;
Kozesnik v. Montgomery T\-ro., 24 N.J. 154- (19'S7'."-approved
.- . ' •>
of cooperation between tvo townships in amending their
*
• -lit:' i •
zoning ordinances in ord.£-r ta allow :a~ specific project to! be
practicable: " '
-------
. . .municipalities are concerned with land util-
ization abutting their lines, and hence a concurrent
effort to integrate them serves the objective of
our zoning statute. Supra, at 163.
A strike against regional awareness was embodied in Fanale
v. Hasbrouck Heights, 26 N.J. 320 (1958), where the Court rejected
a plea for the necessity of more apartment houses throughout Bergen
County> in upholding the "municipal ordinance which prohibited the
erection of multiple family dwellings. Indeed, Fanale is directly
contradicted by cases such as Oakwood, Supra, and Molino, Supra,,
which fail to mention the Fanale decision.
A final steppi-ngstone to the Kunzler holding, was Andjrews
v. Ocean Twp. Board of Adjustment, 30 N.J. 245, (1959) which--upheld
the granting of a "special reasons" variance for a parochial school
even though "the school will serve the entire parish of which
[Ocean] [Tjownship is but a part." Supra at 251.
Into the judicial climate analyzed above, there is
supposedly to be interjected a cooperative program of rezoning by
the municipalities in the Central service area. The theme supporting
this proposed joint effort is the limitation of population growth
for the purpose of preventing contravention of the Clean Air Act.
Whether the judicial system will accept environmental protection
as a justification for restrictive zoning is certainly unpredic-
table.. Any such municipal action will be scrutinized with respect
to the concepts and principles of zoning, as well as with respect
to the constitutional issues of equal protection, freedon of in-
terstate commerce, privileges and immunities, due process, and
possibly others. • ,'
- 17 -
-------
It must not be forgotten that the Central service area
is not the universe; if population growth is restricted ther, it
will take place elsewhere. The environmental benefit bestowed upon
the Central service area, will be counterbalanced by a detriment
elsewhere. This phenomena is reminiscent of municipal parochialism
which the courts have admonished.
- 18 -
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Several New Jersey statutes deserve comment upon the
powers they vest in the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection.
The Coastal Wetlands Act [N.J.S. 13:9A-1 et seq.]
m_
provides the Commissioner of Environmental Protection with
authority to adopt regulations "restricting or prohibiting dredging,
filling, removing or otherwise altering, or polluting, coastal
wetlands." N.J.S. 13:9A-2. Such regulations, however, must have
as their purpose the promotion of public safety, health and welfare
and the protection of public and private property, wildlife and
marine fisheries. Id.
The Act also prohibits the erection of structures, draining,
dredging, dumping, and other "regulated activity' upon any wetland
without a permit issued by the Commissioner of Environmental Pro-
tection. N.J.S. 13:9A-4b.
"In granting, denying or limiting any permit the com-
missioner shall consider the effect of the proposed work with ref-
erence to the public health and welfare, marine fisheries, shell
fisheries, wildlife, the protection of life and property from
flood, hurricane and other natural disasters, and the public
policy set forth in [N.J.S. 13:9A-la]" N.J.S 13:9A-4d.
The Coastal Area Facility Review Act [N.J.S. 13:19-1 e_t sea.]
recognizes the "coastal area" as "an exceptional, unique, irreplaceable
anddelicately balances. . .natural environmental resource." N.J.S.
-------
13:19-2. The Act encourages "the development of compatible land
uses in order to improve the overall economic position of the in-
habitants of that area within the framework of a comprehensive
environmental design strategy which preserves the most ecologically
sensitive and fragile area from inappropriate development and.
provides adequate environmental safeguards for the construction
*
of any .facilities in the coastal area." Id.
The coastal area is statutorily defined to include a
great deal of .the Central service area. [See Figure 14 of EPA
Draft Statement], No "facilities," as defined by the Act may bo
constructed without a permit issued by the Commissioner of Environ-
mental Protection. N.J.S. 13:19-5. All applications for permits
must include an environmental impact statement, which statement
must provide information concerning, among other things, air quality.
N.J.S. 13:19-6 & 7. An assessment of the probable impact of the
project upon air quality, and the other existing environmental
conditions is also necessary. N.J.S. 13:19-7d. The Commissioner
may issue a permit only if he finds, j.nter alia, that the proposed
facility:
a. Conforms with all applicable air, water and radiation
emission and effluent standards and all applicable water quality
criteria and air quality standards.
b. Prevents air emissions and water effluents in excess of
the existing dilution, assimilative, and recovery capacities of the
air and water environments at the site and within the surrounding
region. N.J.S. 13:19-10 a & b.
The standards incorporated in the Coastal Area Facility
Review Act hopefully will provide the D.E-P. with a tool to assist
in the protection of the air quality in the coastal area.
-------
The Air Pollution Control Act [N.J.S. 26:2C-1 et seq.]
empowers the D.E.P. to "formulate and promulgate, amend and repeal
codes and rules and regulations preventing, controlling and pro-
hibiting air pollution throughout the State or in such territories
of the State as shall be affected thereby." N.J.S. 26:2C-8.
Administration of this law is now handled by the Bureau of Air
Pollution Control in the Division of Environmental Quality of the
Department of Environmental Protection in accordance with N.J.A.C.
7:27A-1.1 et seq.
These and other powers which rest within the office of
the Commissioner of Environmental Protection may offer some assis-
tance in the goal of preventing degradation of air quality/ but
are totally beyond the control of the Ocean County Sewerage
Authority.
-------
LAND USE POLICY AND PLANNING ASSISTANCE ACT
It is appropriate to note that there is presently
being considered by the U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs a proposed federal Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance
Act (S. 268). This bill recites the national interest in more
efficient land use planning and decision making, and attacks land
use problems by a program of grants to the states. The key
element of the grant program is the philosophy of statewide land
use planning, and the necessity for state land use planning agencies.
The state programs which will be eligible to apply for
federal funds pursuant to this bill are strictly defined. For
example, every such program must regulate land sales and develop-
ment projects so that such projects do not exceed the capacity of
existing or planned and approved systems for water and power supply,
waste water collection and treatment and.waste disposal.
Implementation of state programs may be handled fay'general
purpose local governments as long as the respective state retains
authority to prevent arbitrary and capricious restriction or
prohibition of development of public.facilities or utilities of'
regional benefit, and to prohibit the use of land within areas
which, under the state land use program, have been designated as
areas of critical environmental concern.
The Act also encourages through.grants interstate
coordination of planning functions.
Although the Act, if passed, will not directly create new
planning agencies or philosophies, its financial incentives should
result in such innovations.
-------
COMMENTS ON THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION 10
MADE BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IN ITS
DRAFT OF APRIL 1974 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION GRANT
FOR THE CENTRAL SERVICE AREA OF THE OCEAN COUNTY SEWERAGE
AUTHORITY IN OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. :
PREPARED BYr ;___ -
HIERING, GRASSO, GELZERr & KELAHER, ESQS.
ATTYS FOR OCEAN COUNTY SEWERAGE,AUTHORITY
204 HORNER STREET •/ ' ' . . - :V:':'" •' --, ' • •••••.-.
TOMS RIVER, NEW JERSEY 08753
-------
With respect to the Recommendation 10 made by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in its draft of April 1974,
Environmental Impact Statement, affecting the central service area
treatment facilities, it is first to be noted that the report does
not specifically designate, indicate or suggest any specific action
recommended to be taken .by the Ocean County Sewerage Authority with
respect to abating pollution caused by sewage discharged by boats
and marinas.
However, it is to be noted, as with respect to
Recommendation 3, that the Ocean County Sewerage Authority is
completely without power or jurisdiction to enact or enforce.-any
rules or regulations controlling this problem.
As a general rule navigable waters which lie within
the confines of the State of New Jersey are subject to the exclusive
control of "the State of New Jersey and under certain circumstances,
'the U.S.". Government. ".: '.' : - • '...••-./•.•. " . TV:^'---:'•':";-.:.:':•/.:.•..• . •.--:•
.... •'.'.. The State has" retained this '•.jurisdiction"; and Thas' not '-•••?•
in any instance delegated to any municipality or county bordering
•on navigable- waters the power;- to .regulate traffic" .or: -commerce ... :.
on'navigable waters. ..-.:-;—--^c •.•• ^••.:•-..-••..•••• • :.-.-• '-^r-'f^'- '^r^'*:'' • '""" ".v.v:
_ So, .the State of New Jersey has enacted., several .statutes
attempting to control pollution of waters by boats and vessels,
among which are:
A. Being a disorderly person offense to pollute
fresh waters (N.J.S. 2A:170-69.la);
-1-
-------
B. Also there is a prohibition against registration
or licensing of vessels containing facilities
which may pollute (N.J.S. 2Al70-69.1b);
C. Exhaustive regulations controlling the ownership
and operation of vessels as set forth in- Chapter 7
Title 12 of the New Jersey Statutes;
D. R.S. 12:7-44 is specific in vesting power to
regulate vessels on the tidal waters within the
State in the Department of Conservation and
Economic Development, which is now the Department
of Environmental Protection.
Not only does the Ocean County Sewerage Authority lack
the power or authority to attempt to adopt any rules or regulations/
but past experience of the State in attempting to enforce its
regulations has proven very costly and difficult.
In addition, it is obvious that control must.be exercised
by the State and not any specific County or service area because
flowing tide waters know no boundaries.
-2-
-------
APPENDIX C*
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Proposed Rulemaklng
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
AIR QUALITY DETERIORATION
*Not included.
-------
10
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
1370 Hamilton Street, P. 0. Box 219, Somerset, New Jersey 08873
June 3, 1974
Mr. Paul Arbesman, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Arbesman:
The draft environmental impact statement on "A Wastewater Treatment
Facilities Construction Grant for the Central Service Area of the Ocean
County Sewerage Authority in Ocean County, New Jersey" that was sent to
the Soil Conservation Service has been reviewed and the following comments
are offered for your consideration.
1. Throughout the county are numerous drainage ways which only carry water
occasionally. The presence and function of these minor drainage ways
is not considered in the planning and design of the collection system.
2. With the large size of the collection pipes and the quantity of porous
bedding material placed under these pipes, there may be a tendency for
groundwater to be conducted along the pipes. This piping may cause
adverse effects by altering the.natural internal drainage of areas by
diverting water or conducting excess water to areas of lower elevation.
3. Throughout the Environmental Impact Statement the concerns relating to
increased runoff, decreased natural groundwater recharge, the intrusion
of salt water, and the maintenance of stream base flow are repeatedly
mentioned. Management of the water resources of a region should be
considered in total. Conclusions number 8 and 9 along with the
recommendations address part of the overall water resource management
needs. These needs could be better handled on a watershed basis than
on the individual subdivision or parking lot basis. It is suggested
that Recommendation #9 be broadened so that a watershed is considered
as a unit.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed project,
Sincerely,
. •*-•
Chester F. Be Hard
State Conservationist
-------
11
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CUSTOM HOUSE-2D & CHESTNUT STREETS
PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 191O6
IN REPLY REFER TO
NAPEN-E
Mr. Paul Arbesman
Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N. Y. 1000?
Dear Mr. Arbesman:
In response to your undated letter, this office has evaluated the
Environmental Impact Statement on Wastewater Treatment Facilities
in Ocean County, New Jersey; we offer the inclosed following comments,
The comments are listed as to sections in the EIS. On the whole, the
report was satisfactory; in the final document, however, some further
details are needed.
If any further assistance or clarification is needed, please do not
hesitate to contact our Environmental Resources Branch, telephone
(215) 597-^833.
Sincerely yours,
1 Incl WORTH D. PHILLIPS
As stated • Chief, Engineering Division
BUY U. S. SAVINGS BONDS REGULARLY ON THE PAYROLL SAVINGS PLAN
-------
Fresh Waters Section
page 56, paragraph 5
Specify location(s) of high population density.
Estuarine Waters Section
page 58, paragraph 2
Include a map showing the streams that enter Barnegat Bay and
mention how wide are the streams or rivers.
Terrestial Ecosystems Section
page 79} paragraph 2h
Provide soils data that verifies the high organic content, high
acidity and low phosphate availability of the flood plain soils.
Attach a brief ecological glossary of the terminology used in the
report to convey the information that can be easily understood, both
by members of the public and by the public decision makers.
-------
12
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology
Washington. D.C. 20230
June 10, 1974
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
Regional Administrator-Region II
Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
The draft environmental impact statement for "A Waste water Treatment
Facilities Construction Grant for the Central Service Area of the Ocean
County Sewerage Authority in Ocean City, New Jersey," has been re-
ceived by the Department of Commerce for review and comment.
The statement has been reviewed and the following comments are offered
for your consideration.
It is our opinion that this document does not provide sufficient information
to allow assessment of all relevant problems concerning this project pro-
posal.
Section IV - Alternative to the Proposed Project
Waste water Treatment System
Page 99, paragraph 1
The attitude of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection of
not allowing disinfectants other than chlorine to be used at the plants
should be reviewed in light of the following:
1. The identified negative effects of chlorine and chlorine
compounds on the environment (Baker and Cole, 1974:
Grothe and Eaton, 1974; Jolley , 1973; Eaton, J., Univ.
of Minn. Minneapolis, MN, personal communication).
-------
- 2 -
2. The existing mild shortage and potential major shortage
of usable chlorine in the United States (Ward, 1974).
3. The indication and information that ozone treatment can
be used as a disinfectant for drinking water and/or
sewerage treatment/ as displayed by Whiting, Indiana;
Strausberg, Pennsylvania; Paris, France; and Montreal,
Canada (Blogoslawski, W., NMFS, Milford, CN, personal
communication).
4. The cost analysis performed by several independent en-
gineering firms indicating that there are savings in using
ozone rather than chlorine disinfection techniques (Bollyky,
J., A.C.I. Ozone Corp., Stamford, CN, personal communi-
cation) .
5. The recent research at Notre Dame University using both
ozone and ultrasonic vibration demonstrating that in addi-
tion to disinfecting for bacteria and viruses, this system
appears to shatter long molecule chemical compounds.
Effluent Disposal System
Page 103, paragraph 3
Although Ocean County does not presently have a saltwater intrusion prob-
lem, it would be desirable to know if the potential for such a problem does
exist. While the groundwater recharge system alternative may be imprac-
tical at this time, technology for these systems will undoubtedly be im-
proved in the future. It may be prudent to design the proposed facility
in such a manner that a groundwater recharge system could be implemented
should it prove to be necessary in the future.
Section V - Detailed Description of the Proposed Project
Effluent Disposal System
Page 115
The information presented here is insufficient for us to assess the align-
ment or the existing conditions around the proposed outfall pipe pathline.
The flora and fauna, bottom topography, geology, current patterns, method
of installation, and predicted scour activity should all be addressed in any
future environmental statement. This information may be obtainable from
the assessment studies concerning the offshore nuclear power plants to
be located southward of these outfall lines.
-------
- 3 -
Section VI - Environmental Impact of the Proposed Project
Short-Term Impact
Aquatic Ecosystems
Pages 120-124
It is not possible to accurately assess the impact of the proposed project
on streams, estuarine areas, or open ocean without additional information
concerning the following topics:
1. The specific organisms presently found in these areas or
migrating through them.
2. The proposed methods of pipeline placement in these areas
(coffer dams, dewatered trenches, hydraulic or mechanical ..
dredging).
3. The degree of flexibility in the time frame for pipe placement.
4. The types of materials to be excavated and their pollution po-
tential with respect to the Environmental Protection Agency
criteria.
5. The degree of water movement by osmotic processes through the
the wall of the pipe (infiltration and exfiltration). [Apparently
this was a major concern regarding a sewage treatment plant
constructed on Long Island, New York (Wantaugh Sewage Treat-
ment Plant in Nassau County)].
6. An explanation of what constitutes "proper construction tech-
niques. "
7. The water velocities present in the areas where the pipeline is
to be installed.
8. Types of fauna that are considered to be highly susceptible to
suspended materials.
9. The location of islands in Barnegat Bay that are to be spoiled
and an explanation of how the spoil material is to be placed
and retained on them.
-------
- 4 -
10. The location of the old spoil sites and a detailed assess-
ment of the existing conditions of the dump site, amount
and type of spoil materials, anticipated impact upon the
dump site, etc.
11. The type of safeguards planned to insure continuity of
the pipeline and protection of the aquatic environment
from pipe failure or incorrect placement, which could
cause leakage of the effluent.
Page 122, paragraph 2
Are the results of the dilution ratios presented in this table based on waters
containing ambient loads of nutrients, as presented in the previous table,
or are they based on relatively nutrient-free water?
Since a dilution ratio of 200:1 is considered optimum, we assume that the
facility will be designed using this ratio as a basis that concentrations
of phosphorous and nitrogen in the effluent will be comparable to those
present in the table. If this is not true, this topic should be clarified
in the final statement. Additionally, considering the enormous volumes
of water required, it would be desirable to know how a 200:1 dilution
will be achieved.
Long-Term Secondary Impacts
Surface and Groundwaters
Page 141, paragraph 1
In view of the discussion presented here, we strongly re-emphasize the
need to discuss groundwater recharge systems that could be implemented
should it prove necessary to do so.
Section VII - Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided Should
the Proposed Project be Implemented
Page 154, paragraph 1
It would be desirable to know what "temporary and permanent erosion control
methods" are anticipated to minimize adverse effects and to have some as-
surance that these methods will be utilized by the contractors.
-------
•~ 0 "*
Pages 154-155, paragraph 4
The entire problem of reduced stream flow and its impact on estuarine areas
should be discussed. Potential effects include increased salinity in the
Bay, alteration of the existing ecological communities in the Bay and its
associated tributaries, reduction of the estuarine mixing zones, increased
siltation and sedimentation due to reduced flushing abilities of the fresh
water streams, reduced aquatic habitat resulting from inaccessibility of
once productive areas, and the potential alteration of tidal currents. Our
comments regarding page 141, paragraph 1, are also applicable here.
Section VIII-Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environ-
ment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
Page 156
We suggest that this section be expanded to include a discussion of the
items mentioned in our comments on Section VII, pages 154-155.
Section IX-Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Which
Would be Involved in the Proposed Project Should It be Implemented
Page 158
We suggest that this section be expanded to describe the commitment of
aquatic organisms as a result of the project. In addition, in view of the
chlorine problem outlined in our comments on Section IV, page 99, this
section should address this problem.
Section X-Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 163, Recommendation No. 5
The revised statement should include a detailed assessment of the impacts
associated with placement of the pipeline. This draft statement does not
provide complete coverage of the environmental impacts.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these comments, which
we hope will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving a
copy of the final statement.
Sincerely,
Sidney R. <3aller(
Deputy Assistant"Secretary
for Environmental Affairs
-------
Literature Cited
Baker, R. and Cole, S. 1974. "Residual chlorine: Something new to worry
about." Industrial Water Engineering, Vol. II, No. 2, pages 10-21.
Grothe, D. and Eaton, J. Unpublished. Chlorine - Induced Mortality in
Fish.
Jolley, R. 1973. Chlorination effects on organic constituents in effluents
from domestic sanitary sewerage treatment plants. Doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Tennessee. 281pp.
Ward, P. 1974. "Chlorine for effluents in short supply." Journal of Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 46, No. 1. pages 2-4.
-------
•" 5 —
Pages 154-155, paragraph 4
The entire problem of reduced stream flow and its impact on estuarine areas
should be discussed. Potential effects include increased salinity in the
Bay, alteration of the existing ecological communities in the Bay and its
associated tributaries, reduction of the estuarine mixing zones, increased
siltation and sedimentation due to reduced flushing abilities of the fresh
water streams, reduced aquatic habitat resulting from inaccessibility of
once productive areas, and the potential alteration of tidal currents. Our
comments regarding page 141, paragraph 1, are also applicable here.
Section VIII- Relation ship Between Local Short- Term Uses of Man's Environ-
ment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
Page 156
We suggest that this section be expanded to include a discussion of the
items mentioned in our comments on Section VII, pages 154-155.
Section IX-Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Which
Would be Involved in the Proposed Project Should It be Implemented
Page 158
We suggest that this section be expanded to describe the commitment of
aquatic organisms as a result of the project. In addition, in view of the
chlorine problem outlined in our comments on Section IV, page 99, this
section should address this problem.
Section X-Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 163, Recommendation No. 5
The revised statement should include a detailed assessment of the impacts
associated with placement of the pipeline. This draft statement does not
provide complete coverage of the environmental impacts.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these comments, which
we hope will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving a
copy of the final statement.
Sincerely,
idney R. Qaller
Deputy Assistant secretary
for Environmental Affairs
-------
Literature Cited
Baker, R. and Cole, S. 1974. "Residual chlorine: Something new to worry
about." Industrial Water Engineering, Vol. II, No. 2, pages 10-21.
Grothe, D. and Eaton, J. Unpublished. Chlorine - Induced Mortality in
Fish.
Jolley, R. 1973. Chlorination effects on organic constituents in effluents
from domestic sanitary sewerage treatment plants. Doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Tennessee. 281 pp.
Ward, P. 1974. "Chlorine for effluents in short supply." Journal of Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 46, No. 1. pages 2-4.
-------
13
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
REGfON II
FEDERAL BUILDING
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007
Our Reference: ROFEC
May 24, 1974
OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Mr. Paul Arbesman, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region II
26 Federal Plaza - Room 905
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Arbesman:
Subject: E.I.S. #014-04-74 Waste Treatment Facility For The
Central Service Area of The Ocean County Sewerage
Authority, Ocean County, New Jersey
Our primary area of concern for a project of this nature is the protection
of public health from unsafe shellfish.
We therefore, requested Mr. George C. Meyer, Regional Shellfish Consultant
for the Food and Drug Administration (the branch of HEW charged with the
Shellfish Program) to comment on your EIS.
Mr. Meyer has indicated his comments on the enclosed memorandum dated
April 30, 1974.
We also would suggest that during the scheduling of construction of the
collection system sewers, that special consideration be given to maintaining
traffic flows on important access routes to hospital and health service
facilities.
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft EIS.
SI
Charles S. Joa
Regional Environmental Officer
Enclosure
-------
A/f T?\AC\D A TVT\r TA/f DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
MEMUKAJNIJUM l>n!lu. I1KVLTH SERVICE
FOOD AND DKI;G ADMINISTRATION
TO : E. Warner, HFR 26 DATE: April 30, 1974
FROM : G. C. Meyer, HFR 218
SUBJECT: B.I.S. #014-04-71, Central Service Area of The Ocean County Sewerage
Authority, N.J. •'
We have reviewed the subject E.I.S. and submit the following comments:
1. We agree that the proposed project should help improve water quality
in Barnegat Bay and will eliminate a number of waste water treatment
plant discharges to tributaries of the Bay. It is possible that some
presently closed shellfish areas may be reopened. However, these
areas must first meet FDA approved area classification criteria.
2. We concur fully with Conclusion and Recommendation 10 regarding
elimination of boat and marina waste discharges.
3. We also agree with Conclusion and Recommendation number 9 in that
increased runoff^because of urbanization will also intermittently
degrade water quality, possibly resulting in closure of shellfish
growing areas.
4. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has adminis-
tratively closed the ocean waters extending 1 mile offshore to
shellfishing because of outfall discharges. This project will
eliminate a number of outfall discharges and' hence some area may
be reopened. Howeve'r, the waters around the outfall diffuser will
have to be closed to shellfish harvesting. Commercial sea clamming
is of concern in this area.
5. In view of the recent Nassau County Wantagh waste water treatment
plant'outfall rupture in approved shellfish waters and the fact that
the proposed outfall for this project runs through approved waters
in Barnegat Bay, careful control should be exercised to assure otit-
fall intregity. . . \
6. We concur fully with recommendation 6, regarding utilization of the
"Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation and Maintenance of Waste
Water Treatment Facilities" and "Design Criteria for Mechanical,
etc." Since the proposed project will have the potential to
adversely affect approved shellfish waters, we would recommend that
proposed Technical Bulletin "Protection of Shellfish Waters" also
-------
2
be followed. FDA and EPA technical advisors have jointly developed
this document and it is presently being reviewed for inclusion as
a supplemental technical bulletin to the original "Federal Guidelines
for Design, Operation and Maintenance etc." We are especially
concerned with the disinfection system and the document includes
guidelines regarding effluent chlorine residual monitoring, chlorin-
ator capacity and reliability, pre-mixing, contact chamber design, •
detention time, outfalls and alarm systems.
George C. Meyer
Regional Shellfish Consultant
-------
14
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, B.C. 20240
ER-74/549
JUN I 6
Dear Mr. Arbesman:
Thank you for the letter of April 21, 1974, requesting
our views and comments on the draft environmental im-
pact statement for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities
of the Ocean County Sewerage Authority, Ocean County,
New Jersey.
We have completed our review of the draft statement and
submit the following comments for your consideration and
use.
We note in the statement that three crossings of Island
Beach State Park were considered and rejected for the
Island Beach Section of the outfall line. Because Land
and Water Conservation Fund monies have been invested in
that park, Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act, as amended, would apply in the event that any of
the three crossings need be used. Section 6(f) of the Act,
as amended, specifies that the Secretary of the Interior
must approve the conversion of lands acquired or developed
' through the Fund from park land to other uses. That sec-
tion of the Act further provides for such conversion "...
only upon such conditions as he (the Secretary) deems
necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation
properties of at least equal fair market value and reason-
ably equivalent recreational usefulness and location."
This authority has been delegated by the Secretary to the
Director of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. If coordina-
tion is later required, the project sponsor should contact
the Regional Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 600
Arch Street, Ninth Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106,
Background
The text of this environmental statement does not show any
indication that consideration has been given to cultural
(historical, archeological, architectural) resources. The
Let's Clean Up America For Our 200th Birthday
-------
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, whose
Commissioner bears the responsibility of State Historic
Preservation Officer, is listed as an agency reviewing
this draft environmental statement. We recommend that the
final statement indicate full compliance with Executive
Order 11593 and contain the results of any consultations
and communications with the State Historic Preservation
Officer.
There are three National Historic Register properties in
Ocean County, New Jersey. Of these, Hangar No. 1, Lake-
hurst Naval Air Station (a National Historic Landmark) lies
within the Ocean County Sewerage Authority's central service
area and may be affected by the subject action. EPA should
apply the "Criteria of Effect" as set forth by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation and follow related proce-"
dures as necessary in 36 CFR, Part 800, January 25, 1974.
The work relating to the subject grant will not adversely
affect any existing, proposed, or known potential unit of
the National Park System or any known natural or environmental
education sites eligible for the National Landmark Programs.
Coastal Marine Waters
Page 61, paragraph 1 - It would be useful if a full
description of the existing effects of wastewater treatment
plant outfalls cited here were provided.
Terrestrial Ecosystems
This section would be improved if a map of vegetation types
in the project area were provided to accompany the text.
This map should also show which areas will be disrupted by
project implementation.
Page 76, paragraph 4 - The estimate of the area of tidal
marsh in Ocean County (30 acres) is too low by a factor of
more than 1,000. This area should be recalculated so that
a reasonably accurate figure can be included in the final
statement.
The last sentence of this paragraph is too strong - there are
still some significant areas of tidal marsh not damaged by
siltation, pollution, and spoil deposition.
-------
Environmental Impacts
Aquatic Ecosystems
Page 121, paragraph 2 - The vegetation types and aquatic
organisms (including benthos) in each of the streams and
other aquatic habitats through which pipelines will pass
should be assessed for impacts.
Sentence two of this paragraph indicates that all benthic
organisms will adjust within a week. This is inaccurate
and contradicts the final sentence of the paragraph. To
remedy this problem, the words "and other benthic organisms"
should be struck from sentence two and the final phrase
modified to read, "but many of them will adjust within a
week after turbidity subsides."
We believe that the statement should be more specific
about the kinds of recreation uses which occur in the area
where the project will be located. There are many references
to recreation as the "economic backbone of the Bay area"
(page 60) and as a "major economic factor in the coastal area"
(page 63) accompanied by mention of the most popular activi-
ties such as fishing, swimming, boating, and hunting. The
statement does not mention, however, the hiking and trail use
in the area or the need for facilities for such use in the
area. The New Jersey Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recre-
ation Plan, Outdoor Recreation in New Jersey, 1973, documents
the need for these facilities on page 123. In this regard, we
believe that the final statement should elaborate on the po-
tential beneficial impacts of the project, particularly the
interceptor lines, in providing trails for public use.
Specifically, we believe that the abandoned railroad right-of-
way between Barnegat and Tom's River in conjunction with the
main interceptor lines, as well as the spurs which go towards
Lakehurst and the Whiting Tract in Manchester, should be in-
vestigated. If technical assistance is desired in evaluating
this potential and means for implementing it, the project
sponsor should contact:
Regional Director
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Northeast Regional Office
600 Arch Street, 9th Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
ATTN: Division of Land Use Coordination
-------
Page 123, paragraph 3 - The locations of spoil sites
referred to (including beach sites, islands in Barnegat
Bay, and old spoil sites) should be specified and evalu-
ated for possible impacts.
We are concerned about the effects that the ocean outfall
(page 128) may have on recreational uses, particularly
boating and fishing, in the immediate area of the outfall.
An analysis of these impacts (deposition of solids, sight,
smell, etc.) and their approximate zones of influence on
recreation use should be included in the final statement.
Aquatic Ecosystems
Page 126 - This section gives a full description of the
effects of effluent discharge on algal blooms, but the topic
should be expanded to include a description of the effects
on invertebrates and fish.
Page 130, last sentence - The word "The" at the beginning
of the sentence should be changed to "A". Although nutrients
are certainly a major factor in red tide blooms, it has not
been shown that they are the maj or cause. This has been
very clearly explained on page 62 of this statement.
Terrestrial Ecosystems
Page 135, paragraph 4 - Will herbicides be used to control
vegetation along project right-of-ways? If so, what will be
their impact on fish and wildlife resources?
We find the statement reasonably adequate and accurate in
its evaluation of the environmental impact of the proposed
action on water resources. However, one item should be fur-
ther examined in the final statement. On page 135 of the
draft, third paragraph, the statement reads, "Lastly, ground water
can be lost by infiltration into interceptor lines." What is
not discussed is that, conversely, sewage can leak from the
interceptor lines into the groundwater system and cause contam-
ination wherever and whenever the interceptor lines lie above
the water table. Because there will be about 45 miles of sewer
pipe (page 10) buried at different depths relative to the
fluctuating water table, an estimate should be made of the
-------
quantities of raw effluent that may leak from the lines
and reach the groundwater system. This information
should be compared with an estimate of leakage from sep-
tic tanks. If the quantities are considered negligible,
it should be so indicated in the statement.
Adverse Environmental Impacts
This section fails to describe and summarize the effects
of project construction and operation in flora and fauna.
In closing, we wish to thank you for the opportunity to
review and comment on this draft statement. Also, we would
like to surface a problem relating to the review process
which, if corrected, can be to our mutual benefit. As you
know, the Department of the Interior has a number of Bureaus
which have jurisdiction or special expertise in a variety of
disciplines. Hence, these Bureaus must have copies of any
impact statement for review if we are to establish a fully
coordinated Departmental response. Accordingly, to assist
us in this effort and to provide a timely input into the
development of your statements, we request that you provide
12 copies of all future impact statement to the following
address:
Department of the Interior
Assistant Secretary for Program,
Development, and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20240
ATTN: Office of Environmental
Project Review/Room 5313
Sincerely yours,
Deputy Assistant Secretary '"o'f the Interior
Mr. Paul Arbesman
Chief, Environmental Impacts
Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
-------
15
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OFFICE OF THE OCEANOGRAPHER OF THE NAVY '* REPLY REFER TO
HOFFMAN II
200 STOVALL STREET 31
ALEXANDRIA. VA. 22332
Mr. Gerald M. Ilansler, P.E.
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
The draft Environmental Ircpact Statement on a Wastewater
Treatment Facilitias Construction Grant for the Central Service
Area of the Ocean County Sewerage Authority in Ocean County, New
Jersey has been reviewed,
At this time there ara no comments. The opportunity to
review the draft is appreciated.
Sincerely,
' B. E. STULTZ
Commander, CEC, U. S. Navy
Assistant Chief of Staff
for Environmental Quality
By direction of the
Oceanographer of the Navy
------- |