-------
                         A. POPULATION PROJECTIONS
     (reference, Section III.C, p. 111-16)
     We were rather surprised to see that EPA's population projections for
the York River STP Service Area (Table III-9) exceeded those of the PPDC
(Table III-7).  We confidently expected PPDC to top all others.  However,
GFCC's were highest.
     The discussion recites how the EPA rejected the HRWQA projections and
proceeded to make its own projections for the York River STP Service Area.
From the information given, it is not possible to correlate the various
Service Area Projections and corresponding City/County Projections.  In any
event, the population projections of interest are those for the cities,
the counties, and the Peninsula, not for the arbitrary York River Service
Area, and it is the sewered population that is the source of the residential
wastewater flow.  We know that PPDC has been dissatisfied with the DSPCA
(now OPB) projections that came out in March, 1975.  These were appreciably
lower than the projections used in the York River STP Preliminary Engineer-
Ing Report.  A new edition of the OPB projections is about to be published.
It is interesting to compare the various projections for the Peninsula, all
in thousands:
                 1970        1975        1980        1995
  GFCC, 1974     	       350.3       403.0       (525)
  DSPCA, 1975   319.1        	       373.5       460.0
  HRWQA, 1976   319.9        	       341.2       401.4
  (OPB,1977)    319.1       332.8*      350.3       386.9
                  * 1974
The projections of future population are seen to be shrinking substantially
as the years go by.  No doubt, PPDC will object to the latest projections
as being too low. We believe the PPDC, GFCC and EPA projections are inflated.
                                     4

-------
     We must point out again that population projections used for planning




sewers and roads are,  to a very large degree, self-fulfilling prophecies




if they are acted on,  and this should be recognized by all concerned.




     An entirely different aspect of the population projections for the




York River Service Area, that deserves comment is that the portions of the




service area showing the greatest numerical growth, in Hampton and




Poquoson, lie in the 100 year flood plain,  as can be seen by transfering




the flood plain boundary from Figure 11-15  to Figures 111-2,3,4 and 5.




(The more frequent flood plain boundaries will be related but show somewhat




smaller area.)  While developers may choose to ignore the dangers of the




flood plain, it would appear that some fraction of prospective residents




will be aware and prudently avoid the area, or in the course of time a




disaster affecting the population numbers will occur.  Was any notice taken




in the population projections?  On the other side of the coin, it would




appear that local jurisdictions have some responsibility to avoid relatively




large populations on the flood plain.  The  reality of these concerns will




be apparent to those who remember the hurricane in the fall of 1933 and the




Ash Wednesday northeaster of April, 1962, when the water levels reached




nine and eight respectively above normal high water in Poquoson.   Or will




Federal disaster assistance take care of everything?

-------
             B. UNSATISFACTORY ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS




     (reference, page 1-18)




     This list was prepared by the York County Health Department at the




request of the former County Administrator.  The sole use for the list




was as justification for a Health Hazard declaration to improve the




probability of state and federal funding for the County's sewage col-




lection system.  No other use has been made of the list, nor (even after




the declaration of a "most urgent health hazard") has there been any at-




tempt by any level of government to confirm the correctness of the list




or to have the problems corrected.




     The 35 satisfactory and 60 unsatisfactory privies and the 24 cases




of no sanitary facilities listed are almost entirely in Lackey, a sub-




standard residential area immediately outside the main gate of the Naval




Weapons Station.  There are no known plans for sewering this area.  It is




inconceivable that the residents of this area could afford the several




thousand dollars per residence cost of sewage collection, even considering




75% federal funding.  It is possible that at some future date a special




arrangement could be worked out with the Naval Weapons Station.




     The other lists of some several hundred malfunctioning septic systems




are hard to evaluate.  Spot checks have shown the list to be wrong.  Ap-




proximately half the lists came from a drive around the area, and certain-




ly are questionable,  A check of the locations of the malfunctions showed




that only about 20% would be included in the initial Sanitary District No. 2




collection systems.  The CBF, YC urged York County to check the list, and




to seek alternative solutions to the identified problems.  For example,




a CBF,YC member had a chronically malfunctioning septic tank during the




time interval involved (he was not on the list).  He cured the problem by




adding on to the septic system at far less cost than connecting to a central




sewer and at zero cost to any governmental agency.



                                     6

-------
     The accuracy of the lists is known to be low.  There are certainly




malfunctioning septic systems, but their nature and location are not




derivable from the lists.  (We obtained the location information by




research of the original data.)  The shame of the matter is that this list




was contrived for the special purpose of promoting the sewage collection




systems along Route 17.  Its usefulness as a tool for seeking correction




of the malfunctions or for identifying the areas most needful of sewage




collection was, to the best of our knowledge, ignored completely by all




levels of government from local to federal (EPA).

-------
                        C. SOILS INFORMATION




     The draft EIS presents a large volume of information on the natural




 setting of the proposed STP.  However, some glaring deficiencies are




obvious.  The data on ground-water and the regional changes in ground-




water tables is out of date or it does not apply to the service area of




the STP.  Similarly, the EIS does not address in a meaningful way the effects




on the ground-water of the diversion of the desseminated septic tank




effluents to surface discharge or the reduced infiltration created by




STP stimulated development.  Without these data is is not possible to conclude




what effects the STP will have on the ground-water tables.




     The report indicates that the soils in the proposed service area will




not support developments using septic tank drainfields.  This is based in




part on the soils map (Figure II-3) which was gathered on a reconnaissance




survey.  The map does not delineate major tracts of land that are suitable




for more intensive land uses and is not sufficiently detailed.  Consequently




the soil data base is inadequate and cannot be used to support the position




that most of the area within the service area must be sewered.




     The draft EIS contains a lengthy discussion of the soils on the STP




site (Figure II-4) and the geology of the area.  Although the report points




out the inadequacy of the soils for various purposes, including roads, it




fails to indicate whether or not the site has adequate geology or soil con-




ditions to support large facilities, such as the large aeration and settling




tanks of a sewage treatment plant.
                                     8

-------
                D.  HRSD PENINSULA INTERCONNECT SYSTEM







     The draft EIS  makes clear the significant discrepancies between gener-




alizations about the interconnect system on the Peninsula and its apparent




actual capabilities.  For generalities,  see first paragraph, page 1-17,




and also paragraph  7,  SWCB letter of January 6,  1977, page 9 of section




VII: "Another reason for the increased capacity is that all of the facil-




ities in the Peninsula have to be interconnected  so that all the wastes




from  a facility can be transferred to the others in case of a malfunction."




(?).  Actual diversion capabilities are discussed on pages 1-17,18; 1-29;




V-9,10; and VII-49  (HRSD letter of 4/4/77), but the situation appears




confused, and the nature of the limitations on diversion capability are




not made clear.  It appears to us that indeed the system should be made




capable of diverting substantial  flows  both  from and to any given STP,




and that it is worth a study to secure an optimum capability to minimize




individual STP capacity requirements,  and for emergency use in event of process




or equipment breakdown at one of the STPs.   This  study should be a factor




in decisions on future STP capacities,  including  the present case.

-------
                    E. HRSD PENINSULA INFILTRATION/INFLOW

     (reference, page 1-11)

     The Boat Harbor 11.3 mgd maximum average 30-day I/I flow is 46% of

the maximum total flow for any month during this period (24.6mgd),

which appears to us to be excessive, even though I/I is certified to

be non-excessive by the SWCB.  Examination of Table 2 of GFCC's 2/1/77

letter  (VII-44) shows that the maximum 30-day I/I flow at 2.2 mgd was also

a relatively high proportion of the total flow at the Williamsburg STP-

Table 3 of the GFCC letter of 2/1/77 projects much lower (but still very

high) Boat Harbor  I/I flows, but it is not made clear how the re-

ductions are to be achieved.

     It is interesting to compare the projected total wastewater flows on

the Peninsula as calculated by GFCC in Table 3 of the reference letter

and those of Table 13 of the 1974 Preliminary Engineering Report (mgd).
                 Table 13(1974)
                 YR STP REPT.

      1975       35.83 (16.0)

      1980       48.47 (21.2)

      1990       62.89 (24.9)

      1995       68.52 (26.0)
Table 3
GFCC

41.44 (16.4)

51.48 (21.2)

63.80 (24.9)

68.49 (26.0)
Table V-6
EIS
47.38
57.96
     It is seen in the table that the GFCC projected flows are about

the same, achieved by using the maximum 30-day I/I flows,  (Table 3)

Instead of average I/I, as the sewered population projections reduced

from those used in Table 13 (from 463,700 to 406,300 for  1995).  The

gpcd increased with time in both cases, from 58 to 75 for Table 3, and

60 to 79 for Table 13.  The non-residential component (shown in parentheses)

remains the same.  The EIS projection, Table V-6, with average I/I and  con-.

stant gpcd is shown for comparison.
                                     10

-------
     The actual average total flow for 1974 was 33.8 mgd and for 1975 was




39.8 mgd (a wet year).   For 1976 it was 36.3 mgd.  So far this year it




is 38.6 mgd.  Inspection of,the monthly average flow at the Peninsula STPs,




together with the information presented in Table 2 of the GFCC 2/1/77




letter, clearly shows the great importance of the I/I characteristics of




a system.  The contrast between the flows in November 1974 (27.5 mgd total)




and 4 months later in March,  1975 (48.8 mgd total, 21.3 mgd greater) is




impressive, as is the Boat Harbor STP component of the flow, which went




from 14.7 mgd to 31.3 mgd, 16.6 mgd higher.




     Table 3 of the reference letter projects the Peninsula 1975 I/I flow




to be 10.7 mgd (30-day maximum I/I), about 26% of the total flow.  STP




capacity to treat the I/I component represents a substantial investment,




and points out the importance of the cost study on rehabilitating the Boat




Harbor conveyance system.  It appears to us that there is more than cost-




effectiveness involved in a decision on rehabilitation of the system.  It




is not simply a matter of comparison of the costs with the cost of addition-




al treatment capacity at the York River or James River sites.  The en-




vironmental and social impacts of the increased STP capacity and effluent




flow must also be considered.  It appears to us that the value of rehabil-




itation is very much greater than the dollar cost of treatment capacity




for the I/I flow reduction.
                                     11

-------
                 F. HRSD PENINSULA. OPERATIONS




     The draft EIS cites a number of instances of problems in the operations




of the James River STP (page 1-13) and the Williamsburg STP (page 1-15,16).




The third paragraph on page 1-16 cites thr EPA requirements for pre-




treatment regulations to be established by the public treatment authority,




and that HRSD has not formulated the required standards for Anheuser Busch.




A hearing on these problems was held before the SWCB on June 6, 1977 (being




continued from the previous December) to consider the permit violations at




the two plants, and the two matters were voted to be continued until




September.  At the hearing, there was no discussion of the reasons for the




James River STP being out of compliance from December through April.  It was




stated that the plant was back in compliance with the new 30 BOD/30 Sus-




pended Solids mg/1 requirement (replacing the former 20/20) in April and May,




and the matter was continued,  dn the problems of the Williamsburg STP, HRSD




testified at length as described in the press reports, but it was not made




clear just how the "spill" or "pretreatment failure" at Jeffco occured,




whether it was human failure or process failure; structural failure or what




the cause of the failure was.  No questions were asked about this.  The




major part of the testimony related to problems in treating brewery waste,




with the very large fluctuation in flow now being considered a major dis-




turbing factor.  It was reported that the plant was back in compliance the




last two weeks in May and the matter was continued.  It should be noted




that there has been a continuing history of violation of permits and re-




duction of permit requirements going back at least to 1974.  A summary per-




formance report in the SWBC's quarterly newsletter of September, 1974




illustrates the situation at that time.




     The continuing problems at the Williamsburg STP makes one wonder about




the wisdom of HRSD's having contracted with Anheuser Busch to treat




2.8 mgd of brewery waste as an inducement for location of the brewery on




                                     12

-------
the Peninsula.  With the continuing problems since the start of operations,




the prospect of having to treat an additional 2.8 mgd when the brewery




decides to expand, is positively discouraging.  Any expression that extra




capacity is needed because of the difficulties of treating the brewery




waste are inadmisable.  Anheuser Busch must conform to pretreatment re-




quirements .




     We are dismayed by HRSD's defense of chlorine as a disinfectant and




the questioning of chlorine's toxic effect on aquatic life, as reported in




the press in mid-May.  This is a very serious matter for the waters around




the Peninsula.  The occurance reinforces our impression the HRSD's interest




in environmental problems is strictly secondary.
                                    13

-------
                       G. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT







     In Table IV-1, Summary of Environmental Impact of the York River STP,




the Impacting Action "Relief/Elimination of peptic tanks and samll/pro-




liferated sewage treatment plants/facilities" is rated as Primary, long




term; Beneficial, and Significant with respect to Surface Water Quality and




Public Health.  No other unequivocal Significant rating appears in the




table.  This impacting action is discussed under related headings (pages




IV-7, IV-14, IV-24, IV-29).  The basis for the beneficial rating of this im-




pacting action  (also cited at lessee degree on 3 other parameters) is




evidently the unsatisfactory on-site sewage disposal systems listed on page




1-18 (the Health Hazard declaration) and also the Back River paragraph




(page 290) and  the last paragraph on page 321 (lower York River) of the




referenced SWCB Water Quality Inventory 305 (b) Report.




     An interesting aspect not referred to in the EIS is quoted from the




paragraph on page 290: "... and receive some suspected over-flows from




local pump station interceptors.  These interceptors are faulty at times




and release raw wastewater into New Market Creek".  This is mentioned as




"minimal to moderate" in Table IV-1.




     The health hazard matter has been the subject of extensive corres-




pondence with EPA, covered elsewhere.  The point to be made here is that




the relation between the 15 mgd York River STP and this impacting action is




so slight as to be practically non-existent.  This is because no beneficial




impacting action will exist until sewage collection from the malfunctioning




sites exist, and when it does exist, it will be to an interceptor capable




of conveying the wastewater to any of the HRSD STPs.>  It is seen that it is




the collection  system, not the STP, which has the key role in locations




where the on-site system cannot be made to function properly.  It should




also be noted that the failing York County Sanitary District No.l STP at



                                     14

-------
0.368 mgd does not relate to the York River STP nor to the York County




Interceptor.  It will be connected to a Williamsburg STP force main.  In the




meantime, it does contribute pollution to the upper York River.




     We notice that the STP effluent loading of the lower York River is




rated as "minimal to moderate, adverse".  The contrast is between this




rating applied to the daily discharge (at 15 mgd) of 1.9 tons each of




BOD and Suspended Solids. 0.5 tons of total phosphorus, 2.2 tons of total




nitrogen, and substantial coliform bacteria when the STP is operating as




designed (page 1-19), and the "significant beneficial" rating applied




to the elimination of the intermittent polluted wastewater overflows of




the on-site facilities enumerated on page 1-18, the pollutant loading of




which at most, amounts to a small fraction of a pound on a daily basis.




We consider that the adverse impact of the STP discharge must be rated




"significant", to put it mildly.
                                    15

-------
                             H. SURFACE RUNOFF






     The York River STP proposes to eliminate the "health hazard" problems




in the small eastward flowing tidal streams south of Seaford by eliminating




the seepage from septic tank drainfields.  However, the growth in develop-




ment induced by the STP along and east of Route 17 will create highly




polluted stormwater runoffs.  The organic and inorganic pollutants in first




flow runoff from streets, parking lots, service areas and other impervious




areas is commonly comparable to domestic waste levels and the release of this




water directly into natural streams in the area east of Route 17 will have a




deleterious effect on" the stream biota and water quality.




     Furthermore, STP stimulated development will necessitate the channeli-




zation and dredging of the natural upland drainage-ways to accomodate the




additional storm runoff.  This will result in greater flood flows and lower




non-storm stream flows.  As a consequence, these streams and their plant




and animal life will be destroyed and the streams will become as unsightly,




polluted and devoid of life as Newmarket Creek above Mercury Boulevard in the




Hampton-Newport News area.  One of the principle objectives of the proposed




STP, the improvement of stream water quality, will be negated by its con-




struction.
                                     16

-------
                I. BIOLOGY OF THE YORK RIVER ESTUARY







     A serious reservation still remains with respect to the calibration




and verification of the Hydroscience model, as cited on page IV-25  (also




page VII-63).  Although there may be some acceptance of the model's ability




to simulate dispersion and dilution of conservative substances  (N and Po),




the effects of these nutrients on the phytoplankton community is still




open to question because it is unknown whether or not the growth of the




phytoplankton community is nutrient limited (Jordan ^t _al_, 1975).  In




addition, a high value of chlorophyll a_ is assumed as an initial condition




in the model with a result that an inconsequential increase of  5 ug/1




in chorophyll a_ will occur.




     In aquatic studies, interpretations of the meaning of chorophyll. a.




do vary with respect to the phytoplankton communities which serve as the




base of the autotrophic food webs for higher trophic levels.  Although




chlorophyll a_ levels of 50 ug/1 are considered "bloom" conditions for green




(Chlorophyta) and blue-green (Cyanophyta) algae in fresh water  environments,




some authorities consider levels of chlorophyll a_  greater than 20 ug/1 for




diatoms and dinoflagellates in the estuarine (saline) environment to be bloom




levels.  In a two year study at the mouth  of the York River (1972-1973),




five out of 44 measurements of chlorophyll a_ were in excess of  20 ug/1 and




these were made when noticeable phytoplankton blooms were observed (Zubkoff




and Warinner, 1977).  In another study at the same location on  diurnal




productivity measurements in 1974, during 8 intensive study periods, only




rarely were levels of chlorophyll a_ greater than 20 ug/1 (Haas, 1975, Ap-




pendix B).




     These two studies, in addition to that cited in the EIS, indicate that




the existing chlorophyll a level used in the Hydroscience model should have




a lower initial condition for chlorophyll a_ - possibly at the highest level




                                     17

-------
of 20 ug/1 or even more reasonably at 10 ug/1.




     Thus, there is another weakness concerning the effectiveness of the




proposed model with realistically simulating non-conservative biological




parameters, as cited on page IV-25.






References cited in this section:




Haas, L. W.  "Plankton dynamics in a temperate estuary with observations




on a variable hydrographic condition."  Doctoral Dissertation, College




of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.  1975






Zubkoff, P. L., and Warinner, J. E.  "The effect of tropical storm Agnes




as reflected in Chlorophyll a_ and heterotrophic potential of the lower




Chesapeake Bay".  May 1974 Symposium.




Zubkoff, P. L., and Warinner, J. E.  "The effects of tropical storm Agnes




on the  Chesapeake Bay'Estuarine system". Chesapeake Research Consortium,




Publication 54, 1977.
                                     18

-------
                     J.   EFFLUENT DISINFECTION







     This matter is extremely important for the waters around the Peninsula,




but its treatment (page V-4) in the draft EIS is about as perfunctory as




it has been in the HRSD and SWCB documents.  The one reference is not even




included in the reference list.  We have been seeking information on de-




chlorination in practice for some time without results.  It seems to us




that if we in Tidewater Virginia are serious about our shellfish commerce,




we must pay far more attention to protecting it from toxic pollutants than




we have paid in the past, including the elimination of the use of chlorine.




As of now, we have no confidence in dechlorination by SC>2.   This is just




another chemical that can be overdosed by careless operators.   We consider




that it would do much more for clean water and the environment C and our




shellfishery) for EPA to provide funds for non-toxic disinfection of the




effluent at all the STPs operated by HRSD, than the funding contemplated




for additional capacity "to promote orderly growth" (page xi).
                                    19

-------
                  K. HAMPTON ROADS WATER QUALITY AGENCY




     (REFERENCE, pages III-2, IV-12)




     This Agency is composed of the Peninsula Planning District Commission,




the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, and the Hampton
                               I



Roads Sanitation District Commission, and was formed in 1974 under Section




208 of PL 92-500 to develop wastewater management plans.  The Peninsula is




the northern half of the critical area.  The completion date was originally




in 1976, subsequently extended to June .1977, -and most recenjtly to April, 1978.




EPA has provided 2.6 million dollars for this effort, which by its nature




provides vital information pertinent to the subject of this draft EIS.




In view of the need for this information and the investment of the sub-




stantial sum in the 208 effort, it would appear that extraordinary efforts




should be made to have the resolution of the York River STP problem




benefit from the 208 effort.  It would appear from the trend toward down-




ward revisions in population and wastewater flow  projections, as well as




the actual Peninsula wastewater flows in the past 4% years, that the situation




is not so critical as to require decision before the data from the 208 study




can be made available.
                                     20

-------
                     L.  ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE SITE







     It has never been made clear why effort was not made to secure




sufficient acreage for a  STP on a small portion of the Federal land in




Hampton, between Fort Monroe and Buckroe Beach.   This site is nearby to




the areas in Hampton which are projected to transfer from the Boat Harbor




to the York River service area.  It is a natural low point on the Peninsula,




topographically.  Its outfall would be furthest  downstream of any site on




the Peninsula.  The value of Fort Monroe to the  Army as an operational




site is obviously diminishing, and it would appear that the transfer of




a small portion sufficient for  a regional STP would not be unreasonable.




About 15^30 acres would be required,   Obviously,  the historical value of




Fort Monroe itself is beyond estimation, but the area under discussion is




considerably removed from the old Fort.   Although Hampton is a major




contributor of present and future wastewater flows,  all HRSD treatment




plants are distant from its boundaries.
                                    21

-------
                M.  PL 92-500, SEWERS AND GROWTH







     It has been said that we (CBF,YC)are against growth.  This is not so.




We recognize that the population of this country and of this state is going




to continue to grow for decades to come, and likewise the population of




the Peninsula and the upper counties.  We hope that the economic growth in




terms of constant dollars will continue.  But we are concerned about growth,




because we are concerned about our natural environment, and we are aware




how much the environment deteriorated as a result of growth in the recent




past.  We are concerned that our growth and development, particularly in




York County, take place at a reasonable rate and within the carrying capacity




of the land, soils, water, and air (not to mention our financial capacity)




so that we maintain the attractive qualities of our environment as we grow.




We believe that most agree with us.  We consider it imperative that the




"carrying capacity" concept be a basic condition for all growth and develop-




ment.  By this we mean that our free enterprise system progress must be




made consistent with the carrying capacity of both our natural environment




(land, water and air) and our social environment, at the same time we are




repairing our past environmental insults.  Perhaps it is noteworthy that a




page or two past the two page spread in the 6/12/77 Newport News Daily Press,




which focussed on the controversy about the York River STP, the results of




a recent Harris poll were reported.  The headline was "Americans wary of




growth".  A message to our officials and planners perhaps?




     It seems evident that the goal of our local officials is unreservedly




"get the federal 75% of the money for the STP so that growth will not be




held up".  The environment and clean water are secondary matters.  There is




no question about their wanting clean water and a healthy environment, but




they want to be told that the impact of increasing effluent flows, urban run-




off, air  emissions and so forth are tolerable, and they willingly accept




studies or interpretations that support this, as they did in the completely






                                     22

-------
 useless  "Environmental Assessment" appendix to the Preliminary Engineering




Report.




     The obsession with growth appears to stem from the belief that not only




 is  continuing economic growth the most beneficial state of affairs for all




 of  uss but  it is essential for the solution of our social problems.   It




 appears  that this belief is almost universally accepted at all levels of




 government.  Some appear to believe that when they conflict, environmental




 considerations must bow to those of growth.  This is a narrow, short  term




 point  of view.  We believe the long term considerations must prevail, with




 growth and  a healthy environment for ourselves and our future generations.




     With this universal belief in the desirability of growth, there  is of




 course competition between localities and regions to secure the location of




 new industries, new federal installations, new state installations, new




 residents in one's own locality, etc.  At the same time we also have  the




 phenomenon  of net migration of residents from the inner city to the suburbs,




 within the  same commuting area, and the deterioration of the inner city.




 This is  already happening on the Peninsula, especially in downtown Newport




 Newsand  Hampton.'  Suburban sprawl at the expense of the inner city is taking




 place  here.  And it appears to us, that in funding the Yorktown Interceptor




 (EPA C-510-465) and the Sanitary District No. 2 Collection System (EPA C-




 510-405), EPA is contributing to suburban sprawl.  We objected as strenuously




 as  we  could to what is now the Phase I, Sanitary District No. 2 Collection




 System (EPA, Region III has a substantial file of our letters and exhibits




 in  support of our position), but EPA chose to support the project as  applied




 for.   The Route 17 Interceptor Project went through before we had learned our




 lessons  about sewers.  The York River STP is another growth promoting pro-




 ject.




     The first words of PL 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act






                                    23

-------
Ammendments of 1972, in it Declaration of Goals and Policy are: "Sec.




101.(a). The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical,




physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.", but this and




the listed national goals and policies are rather pushed aside by the Act's




funding provisions, and growth is catered to under the otherwise prudent




condition: "Sec. 204(5). ..that the size and capacity of such works relate




directly to the needs to be served by such works, including sufficient




reserve capacity."  It appears that in practice, the concept of reserve in




the sense of "keeping back" for special needs is utterly lost, and in the




absence of controls on the rate of use of the reserve, it's "first come,




first served".  It appears to us that despite the disclaimer (page III-ll,




first paragraph) emphasizing environmental laws and regulations and which




leaves open the question of whether EPA regulations on qualifications for




grants are adequate uiider the goals and policy of LP 92-500, EPA has




greater responsibility for action than the relatively ineffective (in terms




of results) method of being satisfied with local intentions or agreements.




     The discussion on pages IV-38 and 44 seeks to differentiate between




"accommodated growth" and "induced growth", with accommodated growth de-




fined as previously projectd population increases.  The discussion does not




make very clear what induced growth is.  Presumably, it is growth beyond the




original population projections.  It is noted in the discussion that "lower




York County  and Poquoson have the highest potential for single-family res-




idential  growth inducement" (page IV-42) and also that: "lower York County




also has a significant potential for multi-family growth inducement".  The




last paragraph on page IV-42 arid the five paragraphs on page IV-43 recite




studies by EPA which show undesirable sewage-related effects in undeveloped




and developing areas.  For all this discussion, an extremely important part




of the problem is not addressed.  This is the problem of controlling the







                                     24

-------
growth of a region so that it proceeds at a reasonable rate, within  the




capabilities of the locality involved.  Some reference is made to this




problem in  Section III-B., but the experience in York County in achieving




growth control means and in implementing them has been poor in the extreme.




This is mentioned in the draft EIS (page III-ll), but progress on the County




Master Plan and on up-dating the zoning ordinances to conform with the Land




Use Plan adopted March 4, 1976, has been insignificant.  It appears  that




resolution during 1977 will be impossible.




     In considering regional growth,  a most important component is res-




idential growth.  It is instructive to compare growth rates correspond-




ing to population projections for the country, the state and our region.




The table below shows the  average annual rates,  in percent, with the Virginia




data taken from the DSPCA projections of March, 1975.

USA
Virginia
Peninsula
York Co.
1972-
1980
0.9
1.3
1.7
3.0
1980-
1985
1.0
1.2
1.7
3.5
1985-
1990
0.9
1.2
1.4
2.8
1990
1995
0.8
1.0
1,3
2.6
The principal  question that arises is whether the higher rates on the Pen-




insula involve environmental degradation.   It seems to us that for growth




rates higher than the national or state average to be acceptable, environmen-




tal degradation must not be allowed to occur.




     We consider that EPA must face up to  its responsibilities, because




events have shown that local and state governments cannot be relied upon




to exercise the necessary responsibility for the environment.
                                    25

-------
                          N.  CONCLUDING REMARKS







     We find ourselves in general agreement with the Preliminary Conclu-




sions (page VI-1) with some exceptions.  We believe the conclusions can,




from information in the draft EIS, be taken further, and that additional




preliminary conclusions can be drawn, as follows:






     Paragraph 1.  additional   Since they relate directly to required treatment




     capacity, HRSD should institute a program to promote water conser-




     vation and arrange its fee structure accordingly.  HRSD studies and




     estimates relating to the rehabilitation of the Boat Harbor collection




     system to reduce excessive I/I should be expedited and also independently




     reviewed to insure that the estimated costs are not inflated.




     Paragraph 2. additional  HRSD should conduct studies to establish the




     requirements for an optimum interconnect system to secure maximum




     system reserve capacity.  If modification of the interconnect mains




     and pumping stations are required, these should be undertaken.




     Paragraph 3. additional  HRSD should conduct a study in connection with




     those mentioned above to arrive at the most cost effective and en-




     vironmentally sound means for providing for reasonably projected waste-




     water flows on the Peninsula for the ten years beyond 1980, at the




     James River and Fort Monroe sites.




     Paragraph 6.  We disagree with this conclusion.  Local ordinances to




     manage growth and protect environmentally sensitive areas are not




     present and have little prospect.  Future growth in urban areas will




     increase pollution through storm run-off.




     Paragraph 7.  additional paragraph   The need for, and acceptable siting




     of the proposed 15 mgd York River STP has not been established.




     Our principal  conclusion is that the draft EIS brings out very clearly




that in view of the lack of essential information (on the interconnect system,
                                    26

-------
on I/I, on water conservation to maintain present per capita flows), an




intelligent decision on the capacity and siting of an addition to the HRSD




Peninsula system cannot be made at this time.   It is very important that




a good decision be made because the environmental impact of additional STP




effluent will be significantly adverse.  We are within a relatively short




time of having important needed data as a result of the HRWQA 208 project




work.  It is evident that the present Peninsula system capacity is sufficient




to handle wastewater flows until a decision can be made and a facility put




into operation.




     We request that we be informed directly and promptly of any action by




EPA, Region III on the application for funding of Step II and Step III  for



the HRSD York River STP project.
                                   27

-------
RICHMOND  REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
                              July 1, 1977
Mr. Alvin R. Morris
Acting Regional Administrator
Region III U. S. Environmental
   Protection Agency
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19106

Attention:  Environmental Impact Branch-
            Environmental Impact Statement Section
                              Re:  Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
                                   York River Wastewater Treatment Facility,
                                   York County, Virginia.
Dear Mr. Morris:
     I am writing regarding the above referenced document pursuant to the
opportunity for comments per 40 CFR 6, April 14, 1975.  My understanding
is  that comments received by July 8, 1977 will be considered for inclusion
scheduled for completion in August, 1977.

     One of my concerns is that neither myself, Planning District Commission
ers, nor local officials particularly in New Kent and Charles City Counties
have been involved  in the York STP/EIS process.  This is quite perplexing
given this correspondence exchanged during the past two years, the major
pieces of which I have attached to this letter for your information, as
well as to elaborate our concerns for the benefit of the recipients of this
letter who prepared the York STP/EIS.  It was on inquiry at my initiative
that I received the information ( the EIS draft) and that a public hearing
had been scheduled.  Unfortunately, such was scheduled for the same date
and hour as our own 208 Study meeting.

     Assuming that  we will be dealt  with on this matter in the future, I
offer the following comments to the Draft EIS which are in addition to the
attached materials  and which illuminate our continuing concerns:
  6 NORTH SIXTH STREET. SUITE 5OO. RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23219 • PHONE (8O4) 644-8366

-------
Mr. Alvin R. Morris
Page 2
July 1, 1977


1.  Environmental Evaluation of the Applicant's Proposed Project
    pages S-9 through S-14 is a focal point of concerns of Planning District
    15.  I am specifically concerned that the statement, "secondary impacts
    of the applicant's proposal are generally minimal", does not agree
    with the resource allocations which impact the water resources of
    the York available to localities upstream and the anticipated induced
    growth with its ramifications on future increases in water resources
    demand on the Chickahominy River.  Regarding the former, I am concerned
    that the allocation of conservative substances to the York STP outfall
    will preclude the allocation of such substances to upstream development.
    In the second point, I am not convinced that the proposed York STP will
    not provide excess wastewater treatment capacity beyond existing available
    water resources in the Peninsula Planning District (PPD).  Apparently
    the EIS shares one part of this concern (see page S-15 and the statement
    that "EPA has concluded that 15 mgd may provide extra capacity ...")
    but ignores secondary impacts which we see as occurring outside the PPD
    but rather quite resident within the Richmond Regional Planning District,
    (RRPD).  Simply stated, figures shown me and included in EIS indicate
    that the proposed increase in capacity can only reach full utilization at
    the expense of water resources residents in RRPD.  While the impact
    of this situation may be "minimal" in PPDC, it is more than "potentially
    significant" to RRPD.

2.  These comments apply also to the "Summary of Environmental Impacts
    Resulting from the Proposed Construction and Operation of the York
    River Sewage Treatment Plant" beginning with the parameters of
    Surface Water Quality and including that of Water Supply.  In both
    cases the impact, its "Degree of Impact", and "Mitigating Measures"
    all apply only to the PPDC and/or the York STP Service Area.  While
    the statements may be true in that regard, I am concerned and assessment
    of impacts on these parameters in the RRPD and recommend consideration
    thereof prior to arriving at a final decision by EPA.

3.  Additionally, regarding the Parameters Impacted of Social and Economic
    Factors (see pages S-14), while EPA's consultant views the degree of
    impact as "minimal" given the Federal subsidies for 75% of eligible
    costs, two comments occur to me.  First, that over the life span of such
    a facility, the "0 and M" costs will far exceed the federal investments,
    which, in my judgment fall in a category beyond "minimal".  Second , again
    I do not see any consideration of the social and economic dislocations
    resulting from allocation of RRPD's water resources to the PPD in the
    RRPD.

4.  Finally, the Parameter Impacted of Land Use (page S-14) begins to reflect
    some of my concerns expressed both abo-ve and attached.  I feel its
    degree of impact to be significant, and would urge EPA to look at this
    parameter, along with those above, as it relates also to RRPD.

-------
Mr. Alvin R. Morris
Page 3
July 1, 1977
    Thank you for the opportunity, belated as it is, to participate in
this process.  We stand ready to assist EPA or anyone else involved to
discuss these concerns and issues with the hope that some satisfactory
resolution can be obtained.
                          Ver
                          Executive Director
EGC,III/rba
enclosures
cc:   RRPDC Executive  Committee

-------
           DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,  EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

                          PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

                     FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
                                ..   TOTT                        BALTIMORE DISTRICT
                                II)  iy//                        900 MADISON AVENUE
                                                               BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201
                                                               TELEPHONE: 301-962-3396
Mr. Alvin R. Morris
Acting Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania   19106
Dear Mr. Morris:

The Department has asked  for our  review  and  comments  on  the  subject
document:  DEIS:EPA--York River Waste  Water  Treatment Facility,  York
County, Virginia.

Our comments are as follows.  All  sewage treatment  plants  that dis-
charge into shellfish growing areas  are  required  to meet structural
and physical plant design requirements.   These  design requirements
are outlined in the Technical Bulletin entitled "Protection  of
Shellfish Waters" (EPA430/9-74-010)  and  the  Technical  Bulletin
entitled "Design Criteria for Mechnical , Electric,  and Fluid System
and Component Reliability"  (EPA-430-99-74-001).   At the  present  time,
all discharges of sewage  treatment plant effluents  into  shellfish
growing waters should be  from plants of  reliability class  I.

The above guidelines are  necessary because of the'public health
hazards resulting from  the harvesting  of edible molluscan  shellfish
from waters subject to  discharge  of  pollutents.   Shellfish are known
to concentrate pollutents from the aquatic environment.  The
quality of the shellfish  is directly related to the quality  of the
overlying waters.  Several  outbreaks of  enteric diseases related to
consumption of shellfish  that have grown in  sewage  contaminated  waters
have been documented.   Since shellfish are frequently eaten  uncooked or
partially cooked, there habitat must be  protected to  preclude contam-
ination and the resulting health  hazard.

The National Shellfish  Sanitation  Program which is  administrated by the
Food & Drug Administration  requires  shellfish growing area closures
surrounding sewage treatment plant discharges.  The York River waste
water treatment plant facility will  discharge into  an approved harvest
area of shellfish.  A closure is  necessary and  should be of  sufficient
size to protect the public  health  as described  in the Manual  of
Operations of the National  Shellfish Sanitation Program.

-------
Mr. Alvin R.  Morris
-2-
                                                              7/8/77
This proposed waste water treatment facility will  have impact on
shellfish growing areas.   The upgrading of this plant to include
advanced waste treatment  would reduce the BOD and  suspended solids,
This changing concept would reduce the effect of this plant's
affluent on the shellfish growing area.  A reduction  of closure
size may, in fact, be possible due to a heightened disinfection
capability due to the lowering of the organic load of the effluent.

If you have any questions, you may contact Mr.  Robert H.  Brands at
301/962-4052.
                             Sincerely yours,
                             M.L.  Strait,
                             District  Director

-------
        United States Department of the Interior

                  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
                   WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

PEP ER-77/520
                                         JUL 1 4 1977
Alvin R. Morris
Acting Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
6th and Walnut Streets
Phildelphia, Pennsylvania  19106

Dear Mr. Morris:

Thank you for the letter of May 18, 1977, requesting our
views and comments on the draft environmental statement for
the York River Wastewater Treatment Facility, York County,
Virginia.  Except for the comments and suggestions listed
below, the document adequately considers those areas within
our jurisdiction and expertise.

Page 1-23, paragraph 2 -- The frequency and magnitude of
storm-generated tidal flooding of greater than 100-year
frequency should be considered.  Such data would be use-
ful to evaluate any adverse effects of potential flooding
of the proposed site that may exceed the 100-year flood
protection.

Page 11-79, paragraph 3 — Inland, wetlands not dependent
upon or associated with tidal action should be included in
this section if they are present.  Such wetlands are
generally more subject to development as they are less
protected by state and Federal laws.

Page 11-81, Endangered Species -- The fact that no endangered
animal species are reported in the study area does not
necessarily mean they do not exist there.  If there are
any plans to determine if the primary study area as well as
the service area contain endangered species these plans
should be described in this section.

-------
Was a specific reconnaissance made to determine the presence
or absence of endangered plants in the primary study area?
If so, this should be indicated in this section.

Page 11-33, Terrestrial Fauna — The reference to wooded
tracts which are large enough to meet territorial requirements
should be amplified by inclusion of wildlife population
density data which is available from the Virginia Commission
of Game and Inland Fisheries.

Page IV-1 — If land application of sludge is to be considered
more fully as suggested by the Environmental Protection Agency,
resultant impacts on ground water should be fully assessed.
The consideration of the use of outfalls in the river or bay
for effluent disposal (p. V-4 through V-6) should include
as assessment of impacts related to the export of ground
water over and above those resulting from elimination of the
recharge from septic tanks.

Pages IV-2-6, Table IV-1 — The mitigating measures cited in
Table IV-1 should be considered carefully.  In reference to
"Recreation," the phrase "Preservation of the sewage treat-
ment plant site" is inaccurate since preservation is an
alternative rather than a mitigation measure.  If the pro-
ject is designed to provide access to waterfront or a tot
lot or other recreation facility, then such a facility
would be a mitigating measure in regard to recreation.

The provision of open area around the treatment plant is a
minor mitigating measure at that site in regard to open
space.  However, the "Preservation of critical open space
and environmentally sensitive areas" is not a program respon-
sibility assumed by this project nor by those who are managing
the project.  Further, the phrase "Preservation of critical
open space . . . ." is to general to be considered a specific
mitigating measure.

The Summary, Item 3, asserts that "Many of these secondary
impacts will be mitigated as a result of local ordinances to
manage growth and protect environmentally sensitive areas,
•   • • •"  Again, this project cannot assure managed growth.
The sponsoring agency does not have authority to control
any of the specific areas listed.  Further, the mere "...
presence of substantial areas of land which cannot be
developed . . ."is not a mitigating measure.  This para-
graph should be rewritten.

-------
Mitigation measures should properly be defined as those
specific items and actions to be undertaken as a part of
the proposed project, and by the project sponsor, rather
than a general list of community goals.

The term "secondary development" is used several time in
Chapter IV, especially in regard to recreation and aesthetics.
It would seem that a more accurate term would be "induced
development" as used in regard to Land Use in Table IV-1.

Page IV-7, Section A.I, Section IV.A.I, Surface Water Quality --
In the discussion of erosion and sedimentation, the statement
is made that strict enforcement of state and local erosion
and sediment control ordinances will minimize undesirable
affects.  We believe that erosion and sedimentation are
major habitat disruption elements when considering develop-
ment of an area.  As such our interpretation of the above
statement leads us to believe that there will be strict
observation of such laws.  We believe that an evaluation of
past local and state enforcement efforts should be included
to support the positive position taken in this section with
regard to erosion control.

Page IV-26, Biology — The section dealing with secondary
environmental impacts upon vegetation and wildlife should be
expanded and quantified.  Additionally, secondary environmental
impacts regarding endangered species, if any, in the study
area should also be addressed.

Page xV-UV -- Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of
Resources Which Would Be Involved In the Applicants Proposed
Project Should It Be Implemented.  The loss of public fish
and wildlife resources through habitat destruction should be
thoroughly addressed in this section.

We hope these comments and suggestions will be of assistance
to you.

                                         'ours ,
                               Larry E.  Meierotto
                 Oep-uty Assistant SECRETARY

-------
LAW OFFICES OF



t/bPtUWJWU/  &?
G. DUANE HOLLOWAY
PRENTIS SMILEY, JR.
                2IO7 GEORGE WA.SHINGTON HIGHWAY

                         POST OFFICE BOX I3O7

                       ORAFTON, VIRGINIA 23692

                      TELEPHONE: 8O-4 898-5485
ROBERT F. SCHULTZ, JR.                                 July  15,  1977


EIS  PREPARATION SECTION  - YORK  RIVER  DRAFT  EIS
Environmental Impact  Branch
United States Environmental  Protection  Agency
Region III
Curtis Building 6th and  Walnut  Streets
Philadelphia, PA   19106

Dear Sir:

     I have followed, with great  interest and  concern,  the irrelevant
and  irrational statements presented by  those in  opposition to  the
York River Wastewater Treatment Facility  at your hearing  on June  20,  1977
in Tabb High  School.

     Our economy minded  Board of  Supervisors have spent many hours
cutting $420,000 out  of  the  County Administrator's  recommended budget,
but  have lost all  sense  of fiscal responsibility by suggesting that  the
additional 15 MGD  sewage treatment capacity needed  for  this area  be
built at the  James River Facility at  an added  cost  of  $3,050,000.00.
Speaking as a York County resident and  taxpayer  and as  Federal taxpayer,
this additional cost  cannot  be  justified.

     As a potential HRSD  customer  (the York  County local collection
system is under construction now  adjacent to my  place  of  business)   the
additional costs cannot  be justified.

     My good  friends  from the Chesapeake  Bay Foundation York Chapter
say  that an intelligent  decision  cannot be  made  until  more study  is  done.
This group of self acknowledged experts (the Draft  EIS  contains a letter
in which they say  the group  "has  among  its  membership  experts  in  many
disciplines related to this  problem,  including numerous holders of  ad-
vanced degrees.")  either do not  want a decision to be  made or are  not
capable of making  a decision.   They say in  the Draft EIS  that  the group
is particularly aware of the "pristine" condition of the  York  River  and
"wish to see  no significant  alteration  of its  condition." The Draft EIS
shows that the construction  of  a  York River Facility will improve water
quality in the York River.   Mr. Baker in  his opening statement said  the
Draft EIS was well prepared  and that  they were in agreement with  the
thrust of the document - Mr. Ross Clunis  emphasized the environmental
objectives of 92-500, but CBF YC  wants  no significant  alteration  of
conditions in the  York River even if  they are  beneficial. CBF YC wants

-------
 LAW OFFICES OF
Environmental Impact  Branch
Page 2
July 15, 1977


more study.   Perhaps  this additional study is desired to feather their
own nests by allowing them to apply for more EPA funded CBF YC sponsored
seminars as  each additional study is unveiled.  I have seen 7 years
worth of studies relating to the York River Facility including the
Draft EIS.  These six documents weigh a total of 16 pounds, contain
2000 pages and over 500,000 words.   The bottom line in each of these
studies is that a 15  MGD secondary treatment facility is needed now
and that it is more cost-effective to build a facility at  York River
with only minimal adverse impacts both primary and secondary.  Addi-
tional  study is not needed.  I have seen sufficient evidence  to make
a  decision and I know that EPA has also.

     As further evidence of their inability to arrive at a decision,
 (CBF YC believes the York to be Pristine and  the James to  be  heavily
stressed)  they now pick on their namesake Chesapeake Bay  and say
build  the facility at Ft. Monroe and discharge into the  Bay,  even
though  their letterhead proclaims "Preserve the Environmental Integ-
rity of Chesapeake Bay".  A similar alternative was studied and dis-
carded  in 1968 when the PPDC was preparing its 1969 Water  and Sewerage
Facilities Plan.   It was also  studied and discarded in  1972 when HRSD
proposed  the construction of the York County  Interceptor that was  de-
signed  to serve a York River Plant  location and approved and  funded
by EPA.   The problems associated with a Chesapeake Bay outfall were
also  evaluated in  the York  River Facilities Plan in  1975.  There is
no need to pursue  this alternative  further.

      I  personally  do not concur with CBF YC's classification  of the
York  River as  pristine.  Webster's  dictionary defines pristine  as  char-
acteristic of  the  earliest,  or  an earlier period or  condition;  original;
still  pure and untouched.   Mrs. Matthews  in her  statement  described  how
God created  the world.   Unfortunately  she neglected  to  point  out how
the York  - James Peninsula  was  created  millions  of years  later  by  those
infamous  adverse environmental  impacts  of erosion, sedimentation  and
 flooding, not  exactly pristine  conditions.   Surely EPA  does  not want
to return to  the pristine  conditions that existed  in  October  1781  when
the York  River assimilated  the  wastes  generated  by the  32,140 British,
 French and American  troops  assembled at Yorktown  or  the  103  ships  in
the British  Naval  Force  on  the  York River or  the pristine  condition
 that  existed  when  Cornwallis  ran  out of forage  for his  horses and  ex-
peditiously  solved the  problem by  slitting  the  throats  of  400 horses
and casting  the  carcasses  into  the  York River.   This  pristine condition
 of bloated  decaying  animals  is  described  in  The  Allies  at  Y-orktown:
A  Bicentennial  History  of  the  Seige of  1781  and  was  also recorded  on
 canvass by James Peale  in  1781  in  his  painting,  The  Generals  at York-
 town.   Surely  EPA  does  not  wish to  return  to  the  pristine  conditions
 that  existed in  1881  at  the poorly  planned  Centennial Celebration or

-------
  LAW OFFICES OF
                         Q
                         &?
Environmental Impact Branch
Page 3
July 15, 1977


the pristine conditions that existed in 1931 when 300,000 people attended
the 4 day Sesquicentennial where they actually constructed 6 permanent
comfort stations to accommodate the planned attendance of 100,000 people.
I, for one, believe that adequate sewage treatment capacity will be es-
sential for the health and safety of those that will come to visit in
1981 for the Bicentennial celebration.

     The Williamsburg League of Women Voters wants a decision on this
facility delayed until the completion of the Hampton Roads Water Quality
Agency 208 Study.  I have participated in the past as a member of the
public participation committee of that agency and am aware of the fact
that the HRWQA has accepted the facilities plan as an integral part of
the study.  The HRWQA considers that the York River facility will be
constructed by 1980 and that wastewater flows will be treated at the
York River Facility from 1985 on.  Therefore, there is no need to de-
lay this project until completion of the 208 Study.

     Mr. Flagge, in his testimony, acknowledged the citizen support for
this project while he suggests that the environment continue to be sub-
jected to septic tank effluents such as his, with "77 mg/1 suspended
solids and 305 mg/1 of BOD"  as opposed to the secondary treatment con-
centrations of 30 mg/1 suspended solids and BOD of the proposed HRSD
facility.  I concur with EPA's Draft EIS conclusions that continued
reliance on septic tanks is not practical and that HRSD's secondary
treatment is adequate.

     Mr- Elksnin, as usual, is confused with his facts.  He described
the plight of the famous Lynnhaven oyster.  The entire Lynnhaven Bay
was closed for the taking of shellfish in March 1975 due to the same
conditions that exist in York County - inadequate sewage treatment,
mainly from malfunctioning septic tanks.  At that time you could not
buy a Lynnhaven oyster.  The provision of adequate sewage treatment
has contributed to the opening of selected areas of Lynnhaven Bay in the
fall of 1976.  Since that time Lynnhaven oyster have reappeared in sea-
food markets.

     Mrs. Cooper, Chairman of the York County Board of Supervisors, is
also confused.   She voted in favor of the York County resolution re-
questing EPA to give consideration to expansion at the James River.
At the public hearing she personally concurred with the statement of
Mr. McBride of the SWCB in support of the York River Facility.

     Mr. Burgess indicated that our problems will be solved by water
conservation.  Water conservation practiced by Anheuser BusQh in regard
to the Williamsburg STP has reduced their hydraulic volume but has not

-------
 LAW OFFICES OF
              -^ •/   Q
             
-------
                                       of
             HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION DISTRICT
WILLIAM J- LOVE, P. E
  GENERAL MANAGER

MAURICE A. PERSON, P. E
  ASST- GEN. MGR. &
  D1R- OF ENGINEERING

MRS. ANNA MARIE BOTTOMS
  SECRETARY

JAMES R- BORBERG, P. E
  DIP. OF CONSTRUCTION

EUGENE K- GOFF1GON
  DIR. OF TREATMENT

ROBERT H. PORTER,, JR.
  DIR. OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION

DONN1E R. WHEELER
  DIR. OF WATER QUALITY
         BOX 5OOO

VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA 33455




       July li, 1977
COMMISSION MEMBERS

 WILLIAM A. COX, JR., P. E.
   CHAIRMAN

 G. DUANE HOLLOWAY


 J. CLYDE MORRIS

 ROBERT K. HEIDE, M. D.

 CAROLYN H. COFFMAN

 WILLIAM T. PARKER

 S. WALLACE STIEFFEN

 CHESLEY H. McOINNIS
 Environmental Impact Branch
 EIS Preparation Section
 Environmental Protection Agency
 6th and Walnut Streets
 Curtis Building
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19106

           Re:  York River Wastewater Treatment Plant
                Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 Dear Sir:

      HRSD concurs with many of the conclusions in the Draft Environmental
 Impact Statement for the York River STP.  The majority agree with those
 obtained in the environmental assessment for the York River Plant pre-
 pared by our Consultants, Gannett, Fleming, Corddry and Carpenter, in
 December, 1974.  It is significant that both EPA and the EIS conclude ,
 that at least 15 MGD of additional sewage capacity is required on the
 Peninsula.  The secondary impacts resulting from new capacity is con-
 sidered neither controlling nor sufficiently serious to warrant reliance
 on "no action" or "non structural controls" alternatives.  Other conc}.u-
 sions considered relevant are listed below and quoted from statements in
 the EIS.  Without a careful reading of the draft, it would be difficult
 to appreciate some of these findings.

      1.  EPA has reviewed the applicant's proposed project and has deter-
 mined that the proposed treatment disposal, and disinfection processes
 are acceptable.

      2.  Advanced water treatment units are not required at the proposed
 facility.

      3.  The "no action" alternative (i. e., no new additional sewage
 capacity) would have significant adverse impacts upon growth in the ser-
 vice area and could promote adverse secondary impacts upon air and water
 quality.

      4.  That EPA generally concurs with the Hydroscience Model which
 denotes that discharge from the York River STP would have minimal adverse
 impact upon water quality in the lower York River.
-------
Page 2	July  18.  1977_


     5.  The addition of particulate emissions from the  incinerators would
not cause the primary or secondary air quality standards to  be  violated.

     6.  No air quality standard should be violated by the secondary im-
pacts of the proposed project.

     7.  Treatment plant operation will not significantly increase  ambient
noise levels.

     8.  The entire area does have significant visual appeal, but sewage
treatment facilities on the site will not destroy any significant visual
amenities.

     9.  The effects of the condemnation on oyster production will  be
negligible.

     Although HRSD supports many of the conclusions in the EIS,  there are
basic disagreements with several portions of the draft and with several
of EPA's preliminary draft conclusions.  Prior to the June 20,  1977 public
hearing, the District's primary objection to the EIS was EPA's  proposal
to construct a 20 MGD increment at the existing James River  STP in  lieu
of the  15 MGD York River facility.  This proposal was not considered either
economically or environmentally advantageous.  Not even  a preliminary
evaluation was made by EPA of the environmental effects  of a 20-35  MGD
additional discharge to the James River (now designated  as a National
Priority River).  Furthermore, this proposal directly conflicted with pre-
vious EPA actions supporting the York River Plant.  The  major interceptors
for the York River Plant were constructed with an EPA Grant  (C-510465).
These interceptors were sized for a plant on the York River  and not as
peripheral sewers for the James River STP.  Through statements  in the
"errata sheets" issued at the public hearing, EPA concurs that  the  York
River site is more cost effective than a plant on the James  River.  A copy
of the  Hydroscience testimony (Exhibit A) adequately addresses  the  environ-
mental  impacts of a large incremental discharge from the James  River STP.

     The following will specifically address EPA's preliminary  conclusions
and specific statements on the EIS which require clarification.


          EPA Preliminary Conclusion 1

          The applicant's proposed treatment capacity of 15  MGD is
     sufficient to accomodate maximum wastewater flows projected
     by 1995.  The applicant's flow projections incorporate  a 12.4
     gpcd increase in residential wastewater flows between 1980 and
     1995 and assume that removal of infiltration/inflow from the
     Boat Harbor sewer system is not cost effective.  EPA has cal-
     culated that maintenance of 1980 residential per capita flows
     throughout the Peninsula would reduce projected 1995 resi-
     dential wastewater flows by 5 MGD.  Cost-effective  removal
     of infiltration/inflow from the Boat Harbor collection  system
     could also provide the applicant with additional available
     treatment capacity for residential and non-residential  waste-
     water .
-------
    Refer also  to pages:   xi,  S-15,  1-4,  1-11,  V-5,  V-10,  V-25.


    HRSD has been a  long  term advocate  of water conservation.   In 1972,
i program^was initiated by the District  to inform industry  and the gen-
sral public of means  available to  reduce water consumption.   Many of the
:ommercial and industrial  establishments served by HRSD have responded,
showing  dramatic decreases in consumption.   Unfortunately,  the effect
pf the program on residential users  has  not been significantly measure-
able - despite a substantial  increase in HRSD sewer  rates.

    Accordingly, current  planning for future sewage capacity relied on
predictions available at the  time  of planning.  Exhibit B presents the
documentation for the projected increase in residential sewage flows from
62.7 gpcd in 1980 to  75.1  gpcd in  1995.  The 75.1 gpcd was  used as a
basis for projecting  long  range regional planning on Peninsula treatment
capacity.  The York River  STP is the scheduled treatment facility in the
regional plan as reflected by the  existing interceptors for the plant.
Even with no increase in per  capita  water  consumption from  62.7 gpcd,
a 15 MGD York River Plant  is  still needed.   Planned  expansion of other
HRSD facilities  is not locked into any definite time phase,  but will be
made as  needed and according  to the  demands of the system.

    Throughout  the EIS in general and EPA Conclusion #1 in particular,
it is implied that additional sewage treatment capacity would be avail-
able by  removal  of infiltration/inflow.  At the public hearing, EPA ack-
nowledged that it was not  cost effective to remove infiltration/inflow.
Accordingly, the continued references in the EIS to  the capacity avail-
able from additional  infiltration/inflow removal are no longer germane
and should be deleted.

         EPA Preliminary  Conclusion 2

         The interconnect system  has not  functioned as the appli-
    cant had proposed with the result that two treatment faci-
    lities frequently violate their NPDES permit limitations.   In
    addition, the capacity of the interconnect system to provide
    long-term diversion with complete treatment at  a second faci-
    lity is not sufficient to efficiently utilize the total re-
    serve capacity of all HRSD Peninsula  treatment  facilities.
    The applicant has failed to comply with EPA's 1973 pre treat-
    ment requirements with the result that the James River and
    Williamsburg facilties have experienced operational diffi-
    culties from industrial  waste discharges.

    Refer also  to pages S-3,  S-15,  1-16,  1-17,  1-18, 1-29,
                        IV-46,  V-18, V-20, V-21.


    It  is apparent from this statement and other contained throughout
the EIS  that the purpose and  operation of  the HRSD interconnector system
is not understood in  the draft.  The intent of the SWCB directive to
interconnect the Peninsula systems was to  a) increase system relia-
bility;  b) maximize existing  capacity.  HRSD & and State never considered the
-------
Page 4	July 18, 1977


system would be utilized to accept all the flow from a plant experiencing
major failure.   Nor did they intend the system to allow the District to
violate long-term planning of defined service areas.  Instead, the inter-
connection allows for temporary diversion from a plant experiencing
operational difficulties or an overloaded system or pump station, and an
alternate route for sewage in case of line or pump station failure.  As
in the case of  York County, it enabled the District to temporarily extend
service boundrles  of existing plants to provide needed sewage treatment
capability long before construction of the York River Plant.

     The interconnect system allows HRSD some flexibility to define the
service area of Its plants.  However, the process is not arbitrary as
suggested by EPA.  The decisions are based on conditions and character-
istics of systems and pumping costs as well as development and growth
patterns in an  area.  The system model proposed by Gannett, Fleming,
Corddry and Carpenter will enable HRSD to more efficiently predict line
pressures resulting from projected flows and the effects of proposed
emergency or minor permanent service area changes, procedures which now
consume considerable time.

     As portions of the interconnect system on the North Shore have
either recently been completed or now are under construction, its use has
been somewhat limited.  Flow transfer between Williamsburg and James River
was not possible until mid-1976.  Due to available capacity and opera-
tional difficulties at these plants, it was HRSD's decision not to trans-
fer any flows in recent months.  Diversions from James River to Boat
Harbor STP will be limited until the Boat Harbor influent line is rein-
forced (now awaiting resolution of PG-62).  The system,  although incom-
plete, has already increased system reliability.  Flows have been diverted
from several overloaded pump stations in the Boat Harbor area to prevent
bypasses and to allow repair of force mains with a minimum of sewage
overflow.

     Hampton Roads Sanitation District has been acutely aware of treat-
ment difficulties at the Williamsburg Treatment Plant and those occas-
sionally experienced at the James River Plant for the past several years.
The District has expended considerable effort in trying to optimize treat-
ment processes  and meet effluent limitations as specified in the NPDES
permit.  In addition, many studies of influent wastes to the plant have
been accomplished.  These studies have included wastewater character-
ization, effects of mixing of various waste streams, and effects of load-
ings (hydraulic and organic) on the treatment plant itself.  This work
has culminated in our belief that the Williamsburg Treatment Plant cannot
successfully treat waste as are presently discharged from the Anheuser-
Busch Brewery.   Treatment difficulties at James River have never been
conclusively attributed to an industrial discharge.

     Hampton Roads Sanitation District has enforced a pH effluent limi-
tation on Anheuser-Busch since 1972.  This limitation is in keeping with
those promulgated by EPA in 1973.  Even though these effluent limitations
state that no discharge shall be allowed which impairs treatment struc-
tures and processes, HRSD had not satisfactorily concluded that the
Brewery wastes  could not successfully be treated at the treatment plant
until mid-1976.  In absence of specific EPA pretreatment requirements  for
brewery wastes, HRSD has attempted to define reasonable standards during
-------
Page 5    	July 18. 1977


the process of optimizing treatment.  Negotiations to implement these re-
quirements are ongoing and will continue until problems associated with
waste treatment at the Williamsburg Plant are solved.


          EPA Preliminary Conclusion 3

          Regionalization of treatment capacity at the site of
     the existing James River facility would provide HRSD with
     long-term cost savings.  Constructing a 20 MGD facility at
     the site to incorporate the 15 MGD proposed capacity for
     the York River STP and a proposed 5 MGD expansion of the
     James River facility would save HRSD approximately $450,000
     in capital costs and $29,000 annually in operation and
     maintenance costs.

     Refer also to pages:  S-15, V-18, V-19, V-22, V-23.


     The cost analysis and the resultant EPA preliminary conclusion #3
were revised by the "errata sheets" issued at the public hearing.  In
essence, the "errata sheets" noted that the cost differences between build-
ing a 20 MGD plant in 1981 versus providing 15 MGD of capacity in 1981,
followed by 5 MGD in 1991 were negligible.  More importantly, they con-
firmed that construction of a 15 MGD York River Plant is more cost-
effective than expansion of the James River Plant by 15 MGD.

     Based on the review of the "errata sheets", our consultants still
have doubts regarding the procedures which were used for conducting the
present worth analyses as well as the logic used in assessing the feasi-
bilities of phased construction.  While the EIS methodology and its appli-
cation to the EPA document "A Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effective
Wastewater Treatment Systems", (EPA, July 1975) cannot be accepted, the
revised Preliminary Conclusion Number Three, as contained in the "errata
sheets", better reflects the results of our own independent analysis.
Nevertheless, it is believed that the prepared testimony by Gannett,
Fleming, Corddry and Carpenter, presented at the public hearing, is still
pertinent and accordingly again will be filed with EPA (Exhibit C).


          EPA Preliminary Conclusion 4

          The applicant's proposal to rely upon incineration as
     a sludge volume-reduction technique in an AQCR for particu-
     lates requires further evaluation.  HRSD should formulate
     a comprehensive sludge management program for all of its
     treatment facilities on the Peninsula and continue to eval-
     uate land application as a disposal alternative.

     Refer also to;pages:  S-4, S-15, xii, 111-16, IV-48,  V-io-18.
-------
Page 6	July 18. 1977


     EPA's concern over particulate emissions is unclear, as the EIS
stated that no secondary or primary air quality standards would be vio-
lated by the Boat Harbor incinerators.   To clarify any ambiguity, HRSD
is submitting the Boat Harbor Compliance Test for Particulate Emissions
(Exhibit D) which states the incinerator meets air quality standards.

     Incineration is presently the major thrust of HRSD's sludge manage-
ment program.  It is the product of an extensive effort by HRSD to find
a reliable and economically and environmentally acceptable sludge disposal
method.  Land application has been the traditional means of sludge appli-
cation for the District since its inception.   The James River Plant con-
tinues to rely solely on land application.  HRSD has applied liquid sludge
via tank trucks,  spray irrigation and plow injection.  Dried sludge from
lagoons and drying beds has also been applied to the land.  In recent
years, the spread of residential development and increased quantities of
sludge have reduced the availability of disposal sites.  The relatively
high groundwater  table, the number of reservoirs, and concern over drain-
age to shellfish  areas has made it difficult to locate new sites.  In one
year, the District examined almost 60 areas   extending from North Carolina
to the suburbs of Richmond to the mines in the Western portion of the
state, before a suitable location could be found to dispose of sludge
from an upset digester.  A good sampling of  these problems is indidated
in the EIS appendix where requests to receive composted sludge were re-
ceived with "little" enthusiasm.

     To obtain a  reliable sludge disposal method, HRSD made the committ-
ment to incineration in 1972.  It is recognized that incineration is ex-
pensive and wastes a potentially valuable resource.  Thus, the District
continues efforts to find other alternatives.  At considerable expense,
HRSD piloted a sludge dryer.   Purifax was also used.  A small scale com-
positing study will begin this fall.  Underway at the Atlantic Plant site
is the most extensive effort in Virginia to  study the viability of land
application.  This project, initiated by HRSD, has just received EPA fund-
ing as a portion  of the Step I Atlantic Plant Grant.

     Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern made an extensive study to cover
available sludge  options for the District thru 2000.  The study includes
potential sites for sludge disposal on the North and South Shores.  How-
ever, until the results of the Atlantic Plant project can conclude that
land application  is environmentally and economically acceptable for this
area, incineration will be the main sludge disposal method  for the
District.


          EPA Preliminary Conclusion 5

          The principal, primary, long-term impact of the appli-
     cant's proposed project will be a substantial increase in
     point-source pollutant loading of the lower York River.
     During normal operations at 15 MOD, the proposed facility
     will discharge 3750 Ibs/day BOD, 2500 Ibs/day ammonia-nitro-
     gen, 4380 Ibs/day total nitrogen,  and 1000 Ibs/day total
     phosphorus into the estuary.  These loadings will increase
     the average  concentrations of total phosphorus in the estuary
-------
Page 7	July 18. 1977


     by approximately 20% and total nitrogen by approximately
     10%.  According to a model of the estuary, this nutrient
     addition will increase maximum chlorophyll concentrations
     to approximately 50 ug/1.  However, the effects of failing
     septic tank systems on groundwater, surface waters and
     public health.  Additional study may also be needed to
     compare the loading effects of the proposed York STP versus
     the alternative of the James River STP expansion.

     Refer also to pages:  S-9, xii, IV-8, IV-9, IV-25.


     The enclosed copy of (Exhibit A) of John St. John of Hydroscience
adequately addresses this conclusion.

     The following attachment "A" addresses specific items in the EIS
which also warrant your attention.  I hope our comments have been helpful,
If you have any questions, please contact me.

                                    Very truly yours,
                                               Love
                                       eral Manager
mhc
Enclosure
CC:  Mr. Robert V. Davis, SWCB
-------
                                         •RX.TTTRTT B


                     GANNETT FLEMING CQRDDRY & CARPENTER

 HARRISBURG, PA.                             ENGINEERS                            STERLING VA
PHILADELPHIA, PA.                                 »^                               NEW YORK, N. Y.
 PITTSBURGH, PA.                                fjS(                                BUFFALO, N. Y
INDIANAPOLIS, IND.                               ||^^||                               ROCHESTER, N. Y.
  CHICAGO, ILL.                                                                  WASHINGTON, D. C.
                                      P.O. BOX  12621
                                  NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23502


                                     July 18, 1977
     Mrs.  Marjorie McLemore
     Project Coordinator, York River EIS
     Hampton Roads Sanitation District
     Post  Office Box 5000
     Virginia Beach, Virginia   23455

     Dear  Mardene:

                                     Re:  York River Wastewater Treatment Plant
                                          Documentation of Increasing Water Consumption

               As requested in the Draft EIS on the York River Wastewater Treatment Plant,
     we are documenting in this letter the basis for the projected increases in per capita
     water consumption used in the development of wastewater flows.  In our Preliminary
     Engineering Report on the York River Wastewater Treatment Plant, we indicated that per
     capita water consumption is likely to increase for the foreseeable future, based upon
     estimates made by Pitometer Associates for the Newport News Water System, on long-
     term  projected trends in water consumption, and on projections of the Virginia State
     Water Control Board.

               Long-term trends in most areas show that per capita water consumption is
     increasing.  This is particularly the case on the Virginia Peninsula, as is well doc-
     umented in the 1972 report by The Pitometer Associates on their Engineering Study of
     the Newport News Water Distribution System.  Table Number 5 of the Pitometer report,
     enclosed herein, presents over 20 years of water consumption data for the Newport
     News  Water System service area.  This data is displayed graphically in Chart Number 2
     of the report, which is also enclosed.  The long-term per capita water consumption
     trend is obviously toward increasing consumption.

               We analyzed the per capita water consumption data for both 20-year and
     10-year trends using a least squares fit.  The results of the analysis show a long-term
     (1951-1970) trend of consumption increasing at 1.42 gallons per capita per day per
     year  (gpcd/year), and a more recent shorter term (1961-1970) trend at a 2.43 gpcd/year
     rate  of increase.  This analysis also indicated that there is an apparent positive
     rate  of increasing water consumption rates.
-------
Mrs. Marjorie McLemore                -2-                   July 18, 1977
Project Coordinator,
York River EIS
          The Pitometer report also developed projections of per capita water
consumption, which are presented in the enclosed Chart Number 2.  These projections
began with a higher per capita rate of increasing water consumption (6 gpcd/year for
1972-1977), with lower rates farther into the future (1.2 gpcd/year for 1977-1982
and 1.0 gpcd/year for 1982-1987).

          In projecting future water consumption and wastewater flows for the York
River Facilities Plan, we were cognizant of the increased interest in water conser-
vation on the part of the general  public and as mandated in Public Law 92-500.  How-
ever, we were also obligated to provide for wastewater needs based upon a realistic
evaluation of actual conditions.   Therefore,  we projected a continuation of increasing
per capita water consumption,  but  at a lesser rate than that projected by Pitometer
Associates.  Our projections were  for a rate of increase of 1.0 gpcd/year for the
near future (until 1990), decreasing to 0.5 gpcd/year after 1990.   For the period
1980 to 1995, this corresponds to  12.43 gpcd after adjustment for water not discharged
to'the sewer system, as compared to 15.4 gpcd as provided by Pitometer Associates.
The increase of 12.4 gpcd is approximately one-half of the increase that would be
justified by extrapolating past trends.

          We are aware of the recent public information program developed by the
HRSD directed toward water conservation, but the effect of such a program is gradual
and cannot be quantified until it  has been underway for several years.  The projections
of wastewater flows must balance anticipated decreases in water consumption with doc-
umented historical trends.   We believe that the projections developed by us provide
that balance and are the most  accurate and realistic projections available for the
Virginia Peninsula.  To project any lower water consumption (and wastewater flows)
would not be responsible planning  toward the elimination of public health hazards
and protection of water quality.

          Please feel free to  contact us should you have any questions concerning
this information.


                                Very truly yours,

                     GANNETT FLEMING CORDDRY AND CARPENTER

                                     '/?
                                     4m
                                D.  RANDOLPH 6RUBBS,  P.E.
                                Norfolk Branch Office
                                Pollution Control  Division

DRG:JCE:mn

Enclosures
-------
:|940
I95C
I960
I97O
1980
                                                                 I99O
-------
     TABLE NO,  5
 DAILY COWSUMWION
GALLONS PER CAPITA




Year
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
1953
1952
1951
1950
(Water

Esti.ir.ated
Population
Supplied
271,000
265,000
258,000
251,000
245,000
239,000
232,000
226,000
219,000
214,000
203,000
203,000
195,000
188,000
182,000
174,000
168,000
162,000
156,000
152,000
145,000
139,000
Quantities are

Average
r:;ily
Con5v,~r>tion
31.00
30.01
28.80
28.50
25.30
23.70
23.30
22.00
21.30
19,68
19.61
19.41
17.78
16.27
15.92
13.71
13.61
13.88
13.62
13.70
13.22
10.34
in Million
Average
Gallons
Per
Capita
114
113
111
113
103
99
100
97
97
92
94
96
91
87
87
79
81
86
87
90
91
75
Gallons Per

Maximum
Daily
Constraotion
38.22
39.10
37.08
39.24
31.89
30.52
30.18
29.24
27.92
24.52
25.58
26.77
24.91
20.65
21.53
18.48
17.60
18.41
18.67
19.06
17.00
13.13
Day)
Maximum
Day Gallons
Per Capita
Supplied
141
148
144
156
130
128
130
129
127
114
123
132
128
110
118
106
105
114
119
125
117
95

Ratio
Maximum
To Average
Percent
t
123
130
129
137
126
129
129
133
131
125
130
138
140
127
135
135
129
133
137
139
129
127
-------
                                       100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN  BASED


                                       ON 8.5 FEET ABOVE MSL


                                       (Existing Topography)

'        "

                                                T>if fMfitef'j  IMS. Sf
                                                     K T'(fi/\rMPfir
                                                        (ifci;  (I')//)  i>f
                                                 1-20
                                                                         cu
-------
                               ATTACHMENT "A"

                SPECIFIC COMMENTS - YORK RIVER DRAFT EIS
Pages  and  Item

S-2, 3rd Para.



S-3 -  Refer  to Table
1974 (MOD)
1977 (MOD)
1980 (MGD)

S-7, 1st  Para.
James River

    11
    15
    15
S-9,  last  Para.
S-15,  2nd Para.
S-15,  2nd  Para.
S-15,  4th Para.
                                    Comment

                     GFC&C did not assume that the 1973
                     total population was the population
                     served.

                     It appears reserve capacity is based
                     on 1974 figures.  This is misleading,
                     The 1974, 1977 and 1980 plant capa-
                     cities are provided below:
Boat Harbor

    12
    22
    25
Williamsburg

    9.6
    9.6
    9.6
                     The highway construction moratorium
                     is no longer in effect.  See 11-72
                     also.

                     Pollution load cannot be termed "sub-
                     stantial"; Hydroscience's statement
                     at the hearing, based upon their
                     modeling study, demonstrated that the
                     pollution load is environmentally in-
                     significant.  Refer to Exhibit A.

                     Portions of this paragraph are unneces-
                     sary and irrelevant.  EPA, in pre-
                     liminary conclusions, supports at
                     least 15 MGD capacity.  EPA has de-
                     clared Boat Harbor "non-excessive"
                     Infiltration/Inflow.  Refer to HRSD
                     comment to EPA conclusion #2.

                     Increasing per capita consumption can
                     be documented.  Refer to HRSD comment,
                     EPA conclusion #1.

                     EPA has supported the York River Plant
                     by funding the interconnect system to
                     the York River Plant.  Interceptor
                     lines leading to the facility were
                     built under Federal Grant C-510465.
                                    Refer to GFC&C detailed statement
                                    comments regarding cost analysis.
                                    (Exhibit C).
                                                       and
-------
                                     -2-
S-16,  (last sent,  1st  para.)


xi, 3rd Para.


xii, 2nd Para.


1-6, Table 1-1



1-7


1-8, 1st Para.
1-11, 1st Para.



1-11, 2nd Para.




1-11, 3rd Para.


1-13, 1st Para.
1-14,  1st Para.
      2nd Para,
1-16,  1st Para.
Similarly, the York River facility
would not adversely affect growth.

Increasing per capita consumption
can be documented.

Refer to comment for Item S-9: last
Para.

The Boat Harbor STP is a primary
plant design capacity is currently
22 MOD.
#16 and #17 should be reversed.
Figure 1-3.
See
Water and wastewater flow data and
population are for various years (1974,
1975 and 1976) over a period of changing
service area delineation, and cannot be
analyzed this way.  Also, Boat Harbor
Plant has 22.0 MGD capacity now.

Third sentence should be deleted; data
not sufficiently detailed to analyze
one year versus the next year.

Infiltration/inflow comparison is mean-
ingless because it compares I/I from
existing service area with I/I pro-
jected for a smaller, new service area.

The paragraph is incomplete and in-
accurate and should be deleted.

Effluent from the James River facility
is discharged through a 60 and a 36
inch outfall.  Sludge from the James
River Plant is not incinerated.  Refer
to HRSD comment, EPA conclusion #4.

It is not conclusive that operational
difficulties at James River are
cuased by toxic industrial waste.

Although Anheuser-Busch only discharged
an average of 1.65 MGD versus the 2.8
MGD originally anticipated, BOD and SS
poundages were the same as anticipated
with the 2.8 MGD.

Put facts into correct context.  The
heavy metal discharges into the
Williamsburg STP only occurred  during a
-------
                                     -3-
1-16,  last Para.
 1-17,  2nd Para.
 1-27,  3rd Item
 1-28,  Figure 1-9
 11-19,  1st  Para.
 11-23,  2nd Para.
11-24,  Figure II-4 & 11-26
3rd Para.
11-31,  Figure II-6
11-45,  3rd  Para,  and
11-47,  Table  11-24
11-73
III-2
brief period.  The  situation was
corrected and the violator  charged
for the discharge.  See HRSD comment
and EPA conclusion  #2 on pretreatment
standards.

The Williamsburg incinerators were
still under construction at the time
the EPA representatives conducted his
field investigation in 1977.

The existence of reserve capacity in
1975, based on 1974 flows,  is irrelevant
and misleading.

The Route 17 interceptor is known as
the York County Interceptor.

Areas near Cheatham Annex and Naval
Weapons Stations were neglected.

Elevations at the York River Plant site
range up to 11 feet above MSL.

HRSD has conducted  an investigation
of foundation conditions at the site in-
cluding core borings and soil tests
which established the acceptability of
the site for the proposed types of
structures.

Back Creek is adjacent to the site,
not the York River.  100-year flood
zone, as depicted in Figure, is much
larger than actually exists based upon
8.5 feet above MSL, as on Page 11-26.
See attached Exhibit E for correct
delineation.

The figure does not show all of the
existing shellfish  condemnations in
the York River.

Table clearly shows increasing rate of
growth in York River service area, con-
trary to statement  in text.

GFC&C found information to indicate
the York River STP will not affect any
archaeological or historical site.  See
Exhibit F. Refer  also to P.  11-84,  IV-29,

The HRSD includes the City of Suffolk as
well as portions of the City of Ports-
mouth and Isle of Wight County.
-------
                                      -4-
111-21,  2nd Para.
111-22,  Table  111-10
and 111-23,  1st  Para.
IV-16,  3rd Para.
IV-16
IV-31,  1st line
       last sent.,
       1st Para.
IV-32
IV-37
IV-46,  1st Para.
GFC&C also used 1972, 1973 and pro-
visional 1974 population data.

Table would more clearly present
GFC&C methodology if growth rates for
all portions (other service areas) of
the municipalities were shown (as pre-
sented in October 1975 supplement to
the York River Facilities Plan).  The
lower composite growth rate for Hampton
reflects low growth rate for the center
city.

This section is inaccurate - in 1995
HRSD has projected 182,000 Ibs/day
of sludge will be produced at a 20%
cake.  Incineration capacity at the
Boat Harbor incinerator is 810,000
Ibs/day of a 20% cake.  Boat Harbor
will produce secondary and primary sludge.
York River sludge will be roughly equi-
valent to 50% of the total sludge burned
in 1995, provided only York River and
Boat Harbor STP sludge are incinerated
at this site.

The emissions data is now available and
is enclosed as Exhibit D.  Refer to
HRSD comment to EPA preliminary con-
clusion #4.

According to figures on IV-30, the
$1,244,000 should be $980,052.

A general increase in rates cannot be
concluded.  If a sufficient number of
customers are added, a rate increase may
not be necessary.

The average Family (HRSD) quarterly
User Rate is $15.50 not the $22.00
indicated.

Land Use Impacts - EPA is referred to
the York County Zoning Ordinance
(Exhibit G).  A Sewage Treatment Plant
is classified as an acceptable use.
Refer specifically to M-l, B-l (0-1-10).
Both classifications are  included  in M-2.

Capacity on the Peninsula will run out
by the first half of 1979.  A restriction
may be imposed on the Peninsula within
6 months.
-------
                                     -5-
!V-47
[V-48
jr-5, 1st Para.
N, Table V-4
M>, last Para.
JF-8, Table V-6
ind V-9,  1st  Para.
7-9, last Para.
ind V-10
f-18,  4th Para.
f-12,  2nd Para.
Materials and Natural Resources - the
operation of the system will also re-
quire sulfur dioxide.

Air Quality - I refer to previous state-
ment in the EIS that the secondary
effects will not be significant.

GFC&C letter of January 11, 1977 to
EPA presents further information on the
flow projection methodology acceptable
to EPA.

The project cost of the effluent force
main to VEPCO is estimated to be
$2,810,000 based upon an ENR Con-
struction Cost Index of 2225.

Increasing per capita consumption can
be documented.

Inasmuch as the EPA has now acknowledged
that infiltration/inflow on the Peninsula
is not cost-effective to remove, this
paragraph should be deleted.  Refer to
HRSD comment on EPA conclusion #1.

Table V-6 is also in error with regard
to 1980 York River wastewater flow;
corrected table is attached as Exhibit H.

This presents an erroneous and mislead-
ing comparison of the latest (1977)
flow projections versus a 1974 example
presentation of potential plant ex-
pansions based on previous flow pro-
jections; the only proposed facility is
15 MOD at York River, with further plant
expansions to follow later when required.
The proposed Peninsula treatment
capacity is thus 64.6 MGD.  When flow
projections are compared to this figure,
a 3.9 MGD deficit results in 1995
(Table on page V-10).

If the table on page V-10 must be used,  it
should be reconstructed as shown in
Exhibit I.

Boat Harbor - HRSD has extensively ex-
plored the availability of land adjacent
to Boat Harbor STP.  It is not available.

It is our understanding PCB's are des-
troyed at 1200°F.  See HRSD comments on
EPA's preliminary conclusion #4.
-------
                                      -6-
V-15, last Para.                     The cost figures for treating  and trans-
                                    porting sludge are not applicable.  An
                                    important cost factor is percent solids.

V-17, 2nd para.                      Twelve acres of land for sludge disposal
                                    are not available at Williamsburg.
                                    See Also V-19.

V-19                                Willi amsburg  - Additional land is not
                                    available at the Williamsburg  STP for
                                    sludge disposal.

V-20, last Para.                     The interconnector mentioned is not
                                    needed during the initial operation of
                                    the York River STP.

V-20                                Eight MGD excess capacity is not
                                    currently available.

V-21                                Using the same logic - regionalization -
                                    a 20 MGD plant at the York River would
                                    be equally advantageous.  This section
                                    should be changed to reflect conclusions
                                    presented in the draft sheets.
-------
WILLIAM J.HAPGIS, JR.
         TO:
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
    Virginia Institute of Marine Science
         Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062
                                     July 21,  1977
Mr. Reginald F. Wallace
Environmental Impact Statement Coordinator
Council on the Environment
903 Ninth St. Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
                              and
                                                                         Phone: (804) 642-2111
          FROM:

          SUBJECT:
                   Mr. Alvin R. Morris
                   Acting Regional Administrator
                   U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   6th and Walnut Sts.
                   Philadelphia, Pa.  19106
Virginia Institute of Marine Science,  M.  E.  Bender, Ph.D., Coordinator
Status of the York River, Virginia in Relation  to the Proposed
York River Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)
                 The Institute has reviewed the DRAFT Environmental  Impact State-
         ment on the York River Sewage Treatment Plant and is  seriously concerned
         that the present status of the river was not adequately considered in
         developing the impact statement.

                 There are four areas of principal concern,  these are:

                 1)  Oxygen depletion
                 2)  Phytoplankton growth and population changes
                 3)  Loss of potentially productive shellfish  grounds
                 4)  Potential impacts of the plant on the use of the  river
                     and its water for research purposes.

                 We will develop our concern for each of these areas separately
         in  the following sections.
-------
                                -2-
SYNOPSIS OF SUMMER DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONDITIONS IN THfe LOWER YORK RIVER,
1960-1976.

        Oxygen conditions  in the lower estuary are difficult to compare
because of  the paucity of  data in certain years and because of the often
complex and dynamic vertical and horizontal distribution of dissolved 02.
The following summarizes* data available in the VIMS hydrographic data
base and in various reports  and publications by Institute staff.  Almost
no reliable data on dissolved G£ concentrations in deeper waters of the
lower York  prior to 1960 are available from these sources.

I960    Patten et al.  conducted productivity experiments at the "plankton
        buoy" station located directly off VIMS in 9 m of water (approx-
        imately river mile 4.5).  Experiments were conducted from June 22
        to  October 11, thus  abundant data are available.  Bottom dissolved
        oxygen concentrations during the summer ranged from 2.70 - 6.14
        mg/1.  Most values were in the 4.5 - 5.5 mg/1 range, but levels
        below 4.0 mg/1 were  found on 4 of the 16 sampling occasions, and
        only once was the  DO much below 4 mg/1 - 2.7 (August 24).    Bottom
        values were considerably lower than those just above the bottom
        due to benthic oxygen demand.  DO at 7 m was never below 4 mg/1.

1961    Patten continued experiments during the early summer of 1961.
        The lowest DO value  observed on the bottom (9 m) was 5.92 mg/1.

1962    Essentially no relevant data from the summer of 1962 were uncovered.

1963    Patten and Chabdt  conducted 8 factorial productivity experiments
        at  the plankton buoy from 24 June to 14 August.  Bottom D.O ranged
        from 3.35 - 6.16 mg/1 and was reduced below 4 mg/1 (mean 3.7 mg/1)
        through 15 July, however DO at 6 m remained dbove 4 mg/1.

1964    Few data are available from the lower York River.  Collections
        at  the mouth of the river (YOO) showed 6 mg/1 at 15 m in May, a
        low value of 1.1 mg/1 at 12 m on 23 June, ancfl 5.3 and 6.7 mg/1
        deeper than 15 irl in July and September, respectively.  Surface
        DO was reported as 4.0 mg/1 on 23 June.  The^e low values must
        be regarded with some caution since they represent single samples.

1965    Relevant data are  sparse to non-existent.

1966    Data are available for YOO for May, June, July and August.  5.1 -
        6.9 mg/1 were found at 10 m except on August 23 when the DO level
        was reported as 4.2 mg/1.

1967    Relevant data are  extremely sparse.

I968    Brehmer conducted  hydrographic surveys of the major Virginia
        subestuaries and visited one station (river mile 4-5) in the
        lower York monthly on slack water runs.  DO levels in May and
        June were 76 mg/1  at 11 m.  On July 16 4.93 mg/1 were found at
        15  m and on Sept.  10 4.54 mg/1 were found at 11 m.
-------
                                -3-
1969
Brehmer continued sampling at the mile 5 station.

        Date      Depth (m)      D.O (mg/1)
                  He reported:
                5-26
                7-15
                8-18
                9-16
                      9
                     11
                      9
                      9
  5.93
  4.14
  3.33
  4.21
1970
1971
Again few relevant data are available.

Physical Oceanography sampled a station at mile 3.6  (off VEPCO)
on slack water rivers.  The following data are available:
                Date

                5-19

                6-7

                8-2

                9-22
                  Depth  (m)

                      6
                     12
                      6
                     12
                      8
                     16
                      6
                     10
D.O (mg/1)

  8.0
  5.7
  3.7
  2.9
  2.2
  2.3
  3.3
  3.8
        Dissolved oxygen in the bottoto water remained 3-4 mg/1 into
October.  For the first time in the available data we see evidence of
fairly persistent low oxygen levels throughout the summer.
1972
Regular sampling of  6  stations in  the lower York by Jordan began
in  the spring, just  before  the arrival of Tropical Storm Agnes.
The figure below shows mean DO values at 12 m for 1972 and 1973
and values at station  4  (off VEPCO)  for 1974.  DO was reduced
at  about  the time of Agnes  to <3 mg/1.  After a slight rebound
in  mid-July it was again very low  through late July and August
(<3 mg/1).
     II

  flO
     8
  0
  o
     6-

     5 -

     4 '

     3

     2
                      STUDY YEAR I
                          C
     ^.^
               V
  A'M'J'J
                              A'S'O'N'D'J'F'M
-------
                                -4-
1973    DO in bottom water again was drastically lowered in 1973 but
        did not fall to very low levels until late August.   It remained
        low until late September.  Water containing 2 mg/1 of DO was
        found within 8 m of the surface in early September.

1974    Jordan conducted an extensive study of dissolved oxygen conditions
        in the lower York River during May - October.  Low oxygen con-
        ditions developed in deep water in early June.  The density
        stratification and oxygen clinograde was periodically broken
        down and reformed resulting in at least 5 episodes of oxygen
        reduction followed by "ventilation" throughout the summer.
        This conforms with Haas' observations of the  dynamic nature
        of the thermohaline structure of the York.  Jordan also observed
        lowered DO throughout the water column (below the state standard
        of 5 mg/1) after an extended period of overcast skies.  On the
        average 34% of the volume of the river (below 8 m)  and nearly
        half of its bottom area was affected by <5 mg/1 water.

1975    Physical Oceanography slack water runs sampled river mile 3.6
        on May 15, September 19 and October 15 and found in excess of
        5.2 mg/1 at 11 m.  However no data are available from June -
        August.

1976    Physical oceanography slack water runs on May 15, June 7 and
        September 13 show no unusually low DO values.  However, synoptic
        sampling at several stations in the lower river by Physical
        Oceanography on 30 June and 1 July for the 208 study showed
        probably the worst DO conditions yet witnessed in the lower
        York.  At a station near Jordan's station 4 off VEPCO DO in
        the 8-11 m layer was found to vary from 1.9 - 4.3 mg/1 (mean
        2.7 mg/1).  Lower DO levels were found at stations near the
        Gloucester Point - Yorktown constriction.  Here a value of
        0.4 mg/1 was found at 10 m although the levels there averaged
        about 2.2 mg/1.  Occasionally the low DO water reached the
        surface and levels of 3-4 mg/1 were found in surface water
        samples.

             Ichthyology samples in the lower York taken on 21 July also
        showed low DO conditions;near Jordan's station 4 3.7 mg/1 was
        found at the surface and 2.6 mg/1 at 7 m.  DO levels in surface
        water were about 4 mg/1 at several of their stations.

Conclusion:
        Because of the paucity of data from many years and the known
dynamic nature of the oxygen depletion phenomenon it is not possible
to statistically demonstrate a worsening of oxygen conditions in the
lower York River.  Nonetheless    the low DO values observed in recent
years fall outside the range of the extensive observations in the early
1960's.  In the 1960's values of <4 mg/1 were not witnessed within 7 ra
of the surface.  This condition was observed on several occasions during
1971, 1972, 1973 and 1976.  According to Jordan an average of about one-
third of the volume of the lower York River fell below the state long-term
-------
                                 -5-
standards of 5 mg/1 during the summer 1974 (not a particularly severe
year).  Furthermore, this oxygen deficient pool blanketed about one
half of the bottom area of the river, and much of this area experienced
<3 mg/1.  The oxygen clinograde usually intersects the shoulders of
the channel, thus a slight rise in the depth of the oxygen deficient
zone, say to 5 or 6 m, will affect a very large area of river bottom.
Substantial changes in the benthic biota of the deeper portions (> 7 m)
of the lower York River have been documented since 1972 and these are
thought to be, at least in part, attributable to these degraded oxygen
conditions.

Impact of the Proposed York River Sewage Treatment Plant:

        Adequacy of model in simulation of complex physical system -
Previous investigations (particularly those by Jordan and Haas) have
shown that the circulation and thermohaline structure of the lower
York River is extremely complex.  The lower river exhibited periodic
stratification and destratification, the cause of which, to our knowledge,
is not explained by variation in freshwater inflow.  Also noteworthy
is the response of the river following several overcast days, wherein
4-5 mg/1 DO water was observed at the surface by Jordan.
                                                       f
        We also note that in earlier reviews of the Hydroscience model
by VIMS' physical oceanographers that the salinity verification of the
model is questionable and no attempts have been made to simulate and
verify the present water quality conditions.  All things considered,
we have  grave reservations regarding the accuracy of the model's pre-
dictions.  Furthermore, the model fails to estimate the effect on
dissolved oxygen distribution of the nutrient additions.  Since mass
discharge of  total N  is greater than that of BOD, given any reasonable
C:N  ratios for organic matter produced, it is obvious that the oxygen
demand of organic material which could be secondarily produced through
nutrient stimulation may  far outweigh BOD discharged by the STP.  And
this  N can be used  again and again  in the production of new carbon!

Phytoplankton Response

         Background  -  The EIS treats the effects of nutrient enrichment
only  in  terms of increases in standing crop, .i.ja. chlorophyll £.   It
concludes  that an  increase in 5 jig/1 is likely and then compares  this
increase to other  situations where  nuisance blooms occur.  Since  the
present  standing crop levels are well below nuisance levels, the  con-
clusion  is  reached  that no significant impacts will occur.  This  approach
is very  much  an oversimplified  one.  At present the average chlorophyll a
levels are usually  between 5-10 >ig/l, an  increase of between 50 to 100%
can  hardly be expected  to be  insignificant.  More importantly are  the
potential  changes which might occur in species composition.  As a measure
of potential  impact  in  this regard,  we have summarized  the impacts which
-------
dlnoflagellate blooms have on oyster growth.

        We began weighing oysters under water as a measure of growth
(shell accretion) and to monitor diseases in the mid 1950's.  In the
1950.'s, oysters grew continuously through the warm season from about
1 April to 15 December each year.  Growth was fastest: in May-June and
slowest on the two cold ends of the growing season.  Temperature was
the chief limiting factor provided diseased and sick oysters were
ignored or removed.

        In the 1960's, slummer growth was frequently interrupted by
red tides (dinoflagellate blooms) beginning about 10 July and continuing
4 to 6 weeks depending tlpon weather (temperature) andl other factors.

        In the wet years! of 1971 - 1975, a new 4 to 6 week period of
no growth was added in April and early May.  This stoppage was also
associated with dinoflagellate blooms.  The species involved in both
spring and summer blooms varied from year to year,  there were no large
red tide blooms in the summer of 1976 or the spring of 1977 and oyster
growth was not interrupted.

        We believe that these red blooms are associated with high
nutrient levels in the water, and they seem to be associated with wet
years and abnormal runoff.

Potential Impact of Nutrients from the STP

        It is not possible to predict with accuracy the impact of
nutrient additions from the York STP on the composition of the phyto-
plankton community.  However, as shown above, if nutrients released
from the plant were to cause a shift in the plankton community to
increased populations of dinoflagellates, a very serious  impact on the
oyster industry in the York could result.

        Red  tide bloom formation has been studied rather  extensively
and  the causative agent or agents have yet  to be identified.  Therefore,
if the STP caused shifts in the plankton community, the addition of
nutrient removal for N and/or P would not necessarily reverse the
situation.

Loss of Shellfish Grounds

        It is our opinion  that the EIS treats the condemnation of
1500 acres of oyster grounds too lightly.   Although of little economic
importance at the present  time because of the existence of MSX, the
development  of hatcheries  to produce  disease resistant oysters at
some point in the  future could make this a  valuable oystering area
again.  An acre  of productive oyster  ground, not of the highest quality,
-------
                                 -7-
can be expected to yield a profit of about $$00/acre/year (Haven,
personal communication).  If relaying is necessary, the potential
profit is reduced by at least one half; therefore, uding these
estimates one could project the potential loss, due to the projected
closure, of over one half million dollars per year.

Potential Impact on the River as a Research Asset

        The Commonwealth: of Virginia maintains its main marine research
facilities, valued at over 4 million dollars, with research, advisory
service and educational operations totaling around 8 million dollars,
on the shores of the York River.  VIMS draws water from the river for
the culture of sensitive marine organisms and also utilizes it as a
source of dilution water for numerous types of bioassay experiments.
If toxic materials were to enter the river from the sewage system,
they could seriously jeopardize this research operation and continued
utility of the facility.  Since the plant will be interconnected with
others in the area which have industrial inputs, this concern is even
greater than it would be for a strictly domestic system.  The recent
problems with the release of toxic wastes into the Williamsburg Plant
are an example of this concern.  In addition, the introduction of
persistent chlorinated organic compounds which will not be neutralized
by dechlorination, could affect our water supplies.

        It is difficult to gage the exact magnitude of this potential
problem because of the uncertainty as to the composition of the effluent.
We feel, however, that the risk is significant and that a substantial
public resource may be affected.

Overall Impact

        The staff of the Institute believes that environmental conditions
in the Lower York River have been deteriorating over the past 10 years.
This trend is most evident in the dissolved oxygen conditions and is
also indicated by declining and/or interrupted oyster growth rates.

        If the plant is allowed to be built, it is our opinion that
monitoring of environmental conditions in the river should be required.
If such studies show conditions to be changing as a result of the
discharge, corrective measures should be mandatory.  The river monitoring
should include comprehensive studies of dissolved oxygen distribution,
phytoplankton populations, and toxic substances.
-------
                                     if Ona.

                             P. 0. BOX 643

                        YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA  23690

                                               July  25,  1977
Mr. Joseph Piotrowski
EIS Preparation Section
U.S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Region III
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Penna. 19106

             Ref: York River STP EIS
Gentlemen:

      Noting that today is the  closing date for supplementary
comments on the draft Environmental  Impact Statement for the
proposed York River STP, 'we request  your indulgence  for the
brevity of this communication.  The magnitude and complexity of
the matter has resulted in the  impossibility of full treatment
within the present time limit.  Consequently, we here treat
several topics very briefly, and will provide extension of our
remarks on these and other topics where advisable.

      The topics we include here are:

              1) York River Site Planning
              2) I/I Problem
              J>} Recent Related Events
              4) Letters from HRSD,  PPDC

Site Planning The draft EIS does not treat the planning nor
refer to the planning reports that led to the Goodwin Neck
site for the proposed York River STP.  There is no listing of
these references in the GFCC York River STP "Preliminary Eng-
ineering Report", 1974, but a listing does appear on pagge 2-3,4
of the "Boat Harbor Water Pollution  Control Plant Phase II1
Report^; April, 1975, from Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern. We
have not yet been able to examine the Buck, Seifert and Jost
1968 report to verify that the Fort Monroe/Buckroe Beach site
was considered (a copy was not available in the Peninsula Plan-
ning District Commission library), but in any event, conditions
today are much different than they were in 1968.  We have re-
examined the Malcolm Pirnie reports  and confirmed our view
that the planning is typical of pre-PL 92-500 sewerage reports.

  'I Problem  We were informed at the hearing on June 20th that
  le EPA had decided that'it was cost effective to treat the
Infiltration/Inflow in the Peninsula system, i.e. to pass it
through larger capacity STP's rather than to correct it.  We
have requested information on the basis for this decision,
since the I/I in the Boat Harbor system is such a large propor-
tion of the total flow, and we believe any such decision must be
arrived at only after consideration  of all the factors involved.
-------
                                     ^foundation,

                                     i, tine.

                            P. 0. BOX 643

                       YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA  23690

                               - 2 -

The term "cost-effective" has  implication of a restricted scope
in factors.   The requested information is urgently needed for
review.
Recent Related Events  The events below have all occurred since
t^ie June 20th hearing,  and all relate  to questionable aspects
of the planning for the proposed York  River STP, which must be
adequately dealt with prior to any decision on the York River STP.

  a) Anheuser-Busch Brewery Expansion  (clipping) Though the ¥111-
     iamsburg STP designed capacity of 9.6 mgd should provide
     sufficient capacity for the additional 2.8 mgd wastewater
     flow, the recent problems show that HRSD must impose appro-
     priate  effluent requirements on Anheuser-Busch, so that the
     Williamsburg STP can in turn meet its effluent requirements.

  b) Peninsula Population (clipping)  This is another in a contin-
     uing series of reports which show continuing reductions in
     the population projections for the Peninsula.

  c) Fort Monroe Site (clippings) This  continuing situation adds
     credence to the practical possibility of the proposed "fur-
thest downstream" Buckroe/Fort Monroe  site for an STP for Hamp-
     ton wastewater flows.

  d) Fairfax County (no clipping)  A brief citation in the June
     issue of the "Water News" from the Virginia Water Resources
     Research Center at VPI&SU at Blacksburg led us to an encour-
     aging article in the June 20th issue of the Richmond "Times-
     Dispatch" referring to the Fairfax County Difficult Run Pump-
     down project, in which an EPA Region III spokesman was
     quoted  as stating the EPA must give priority to cleaning up
     the environment and to clean water, with projects to cope
     with a  community's growth to be  of secondary importance.

Letters from HRSD and PPDC (copies herewith) These letters are in
response to  ours to Mr. Cox on June 25, 1977, a copy of which
you have.  They have not yet been answered.   They appear to show
a rather complete lack of understanding of our position.  We
will forward copies of our respective  responses.

Concluding Remarks  We intend  to conduct further researches into
the shellfishing situation in  the neighboring waters.  We also
intend to comment on additional aspects of the York River STP.
We continue  to believe that time is available for resolution of
the many questions that have been raised, so that a more reason-
able decision on additional STP capacity for the Peninsula can
be reached than is possible under the  present circumstances.

                                       truly yours,

                                   aul S7~ Baker
                                  Corresponding Secretary
-------
                          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                          The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology
                          Washington, D.C. 20230               (202) 377-3111
August 16, 1977
Mr. Alvin R. Morris
Acting Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency-Region III
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania   19106

Dear Mr. Morris:

This is in reference  to your draft environmental impact
statement entitled,  "York River Wastewater Treatment
Facility, York County, Virginia."   The enclosed comments
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
are forwarded for your consideration.   In addition to these
comments, the Maritime Administration  suggests  that the
discussion in Chapter I of  the statement should include a
description of plans  to handle ship-generated sewage in the
Port of Hampton Roads and environs.

Thank you for giving  us an  opportunity to  provide these
comments, which we hope will be of assistance to you.
We would appreciate receiving six  (6)  copies  of the
final statement.

Sincerely,
Deputy Assistant  Secretary
for Environmental Affairs
Enclosure—Memo  from: NOAA
-------
 .ATTENTION:  Bob Massey, NMFS, BAD, F53


' ADVANCE COPY
 Date '    :August 5, 1977

 To       :.  Director, Office of Ecology and Environmental
             Conservation, EE

 Thru     :  Assistant Director for Scientific and Technical
             Service, FS

 From     :  William G. Gordon, Regional Director

 Subject  :  Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement—York
             River Wastewater Treatment Facility, York County,
             Virginia--EPA—DEIS #7706.06.


 The draft environmental impact statement that accompanied your
 memorandum of June 6, 1977, has been received by the National Mar-
 ine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for review and comment.

 The statement has been reviewed and the following comments are
 offered for your consideration.

 General Comments

 In our  opinion,  the DEIS contains sufficient biological and envi-
 ronmental information to allow an adequate evaluation of the STP's
 impacts on the local aquatic resources.  However, several sections
 describing plant operation and construction should be covered in
 greater detail.   In addition,  it would appear that the majority of
 the project's beneficial impacts could be  achieved by enforcing
 improved septic  tank and land use codes along with expansion of the
 existing HRSD treatment facilities.   We also note that many of the
 STP's adverse impacts are to be mitigated  through enforcement of
 environmental legislation and regulation.   Since existing regulations
 governing septic systems etc.  are apparently not being enforced in
 York County,  adherence to these new regulations  is doubtful (see
 page 5-16,  V-24, V^.25) .   It should be noted that of the 42 impacts
 associated with  the proposed project, 33 or 78.6% are listed as
 adverse.   In  conclusion, the various contradictory statements con-
 cerning the balance of the postulated surface v;ater quality benefits
 resulting from closure of failing septic systems and inauequate
 package treatment plants against the projected adverse impacts of
 increased urban  runoff that would result from project-stimulated
 construction  should be clarified.

 The statement on Page IV-48, paragraph 4,  "The beneficial impacts
 resulting from improved water quality may  offset the adverse impacts
 resulting from increased flow variations and increased urban runoff."
 typifies  these statements and appears to eliminate the major posi-
 tive benefit  claimed for the project.  In  short, it would appear
-------
August 5, 1977
Page 2

that the entire project is based on a benefit which, will be totally
eliminated by the secondary growth induced and permitted by project
construction.  It is our opinion that this secondary growth will
have a significant adverse impact on the aquatic resources within
the project area not to mention the loss of 1,500 acres of poten-
tially productive shellfish grounds as a direct result of the plant's
effluent condemnation zone.

Specific Comments

Section II

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

A.  NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

    7.  Biology

Aquatic Fauna

Page 11-41, paragraph 2.  The final sentence in this paragraph
indicates that MSX and natural predators have practically elimi-
nated all oyster production in Lower Chesapeake Bay and its trib-
utaries.  While it is true that MSX has reduced the oyster produc-
tion to a very low level, efforts are being made to solve the
problem  (see comments on page IV-34, paragraph 6).

Page 11-42, paragraph 2.  Harvest figures for the commercially
important species mentioned in this paragraph should be included
in this section.  We have included a table of catch statistics
for the lower York River  (Naval Weapons Station to the river mouth),
giving the 1976 data for your review and inclusion in the final
EIS.  The table also lists the shellfish harvest for this reach of
the river discussed on previous pages in the DEIS.

Section IV

IV.  ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT.

A.  Environmental Impacts of Applicant's Proposed Project

Page IV-1, paragraph 1.  This paragraph indicates that many of the
project's adverse impacts can be minimized or mitigated through
careful planning and enforcement of regulations designed to protect
environmental quality.  This statement becomes suspect when we con-
sider the statements on pages S-16 and V-24, which indicate that
the present standards for septic tanks are ineffective, the minimum
lot size is too small, and the York County Health Department has,
historically, poorly enforced this inadequate standard.  We see no
reason to believe that these new criteria, posed as mitigative
measures, will fare any better than present regulations.  This will
-------
August  5,  1977
Page  3

result  in  project damage to aquatic resources.   In  addition,
paragraph  2 indicates that many of these mitigative measures  will
require the development of new and complex programs to  ensure their
success.   These programs should be described  and their  potential
effectiveness evaluated.

    1.  Surface Water Quality

Page  IV-9, paragraph 1.  This paragraph indicates the STP effluent
will be discharged through the outfall of the VEPCO plant located
on the York River adjacent to the proposed STP site.  This section,
however, does not discuss the potential effects  of  the  VEPCO  plant's
heated effluent on biocides in the STP effluent.  The potential for
a continuous plankton bloom at the discharge  pipe,  as a result of
the mixing with heated effluent, should be discussed.   In addition,
the potential interaction of the combined effluent  from the STP and
VEPCO plants with the adjacent Amoco refinery should be considered.

Finally, Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) has detected
a trend in DO reduction within the York River beginning in the early
1950s (Tom Barnard, VIMS, Gloucester Point, Virginia:   personal
communication).  This fact should be discussed and  related to the
model prediction concerning dissolved oxygen  concentrations.

These topics should also be related to Section 6. Biology on page
IV-24.

Page IV-10, paragraph 3.  Increased urban runoff will enter the
streams within the study area as the area develops  in response to
the project.  The extent to which increased urban runoff pollutes
local streams will have a direct effect on the proposed project's
effectiveness in improving surface water quality.   Since the elimi-
nation of failing septic tanks and small sewage treatment plants is
a major project benefit, calculation of the difference  in projected
benefits from removal of these sources from the increased urban
runoff is critical to project success.  Because urban runoff contains
heavy metals, petroleum extracts, pesticides, organic waste, sus-
pended solids, and nutrients, it is more detrimental to aquatic
resources than simple septic leacheate or treatment plant effluent.
In addition, upland runoff has been found to  leave very high coli-
form counts, and it therefore appears unlikely that any presently
condemned shellfish areas would be opened as  a result of project
construction.  In summary, we would take issue with the DEIS con-
clusion (page IV-12, paragraph 3) that the reduction of point source
loads may be reduced sufficiently to allow the receiving streams to
-------
August 5, 1977
Page 4

assimilate the increasing load from non-point source urban runoff.
While this may occur in the short term before significant project-
induced construction takes place, it is our opinion that the long-
term effects of increasing urban runoff will have a decidely
adverse effect on the aquatic resources within the STP's service
area.

    6.  Biology

Page IV-24, paragraph 4.  This section again indicates that the
project's primary beneficial impact will be the improvement of water
quality in the small tributaries to the lower York River.  As stated
in the preceding  paragraph, it is the opinion of NMFS that these
projected benefits will not be realized and that, in fact, the re-
sultant water quality degradation from increases in urban runoff
will actually effect a net reduction of water quality.  This very
fact is alluded to in the third paragraph on page IV-25 which states:
"The adverse results of flash flooding, low stream flow, and pollution
from urban areas may negate the beneficial impacts expected from the
relief of clustered treatment plants and septic tanks."  Thus, this
project is, in fact, simply providing a vehicle by which construc-
tion can continue in an area that, by its very physical features,
is not suited for either residential or commercial development, and
that this development with its secondary impacts will result in
adverse impacts to aquatic resources, including the closure of 1,500
acres of potentially productive shellfish beds in the York River.

Page IV-26, paragraph 3.  We do not agree with your conclusion that
the effects of salinity changes will be minor.  The marine organisms
present within the project area are conditioned to the various
salinity ranges that exist at present.  While they are able to tole-
rate moderate changes in salinity, any significant shift in salinity
will result in a concurrent shift in species distribution.  In
addition, significant short-term influxes of fresh water such as
Hurricane Agnes, 1972, can cause a shellfish mortality-  The likeli-
hood of this occurring in the project area increases with the rise
of urbanization.

    12.  Social and Economic Impacts

Page IV-34, paragraph 6.  This paragraph indicates that the con-
demnation of 1,500 acres of shellfish leases and grounds will have
a negligible effect on oyster production.  While this is generally
true at present, it should be noted that plant location at this
site will result in the permanent closure of 1,500 acres of oyster
grounds which will preclude their return to productive use in the
future.  In addition, fourth generation oysters resistant to MSX
are presently being cultured in the laboratory at VIMS.  This and
other experimental work presently being conducted on solving the
MSX problem indicate that the problems are not insurmountable,
leading us to conclude that the oyster bars in higher salinities
-------
August 5,  1977
Page 5

will again become productive.  Thus the  closure  of  1,500  acres  of
potential oyster grounds is, in our opinion,  not insignificant.

Page IV-37, paragraph 1.  If MSX is eliminated as a problem,  as
discussed in the preceding  comment, we  believe  that seed oysters
of a resistant strain will again be planted in the  York River.

Page IV-37, paragraph 2.  While commercial harvesting of  hard clams
in low-density areas  (less than 23 bushels/acre  ) is not  feasible,
the reason for the low density of hard clams  in  the condemnation
area should be investigated.  If the area is  potentially useatxLe
for clam production, then the loss of this potential area is  more
significant than indicated in the DEIS.

B.  Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided

Page IV-44, paragraph 2.  This section again  indicates that enforce-
ment and implementation of the appropriate environmental  protection
measures will be required to mitigate or reduce  many of the project's
adverse environmental impacts.  As indicated  in  our  earlier comments
on this subject, we see no reason to believe  that the present lack
of enforcement of existing standards by  York  County  will  change
(page 5-16, V-24, V-25) and are therefore  skeptical   of the useful-
ness of these proposed new regulations to reduce the project's
adverse impacts on the marine environment.

C., Relationship Between Local Short-term Use of Man's Environment
    and the Maintenance and Enhancement  of Long-term Productivity.

 Page IV-46, paragraph 1.  This paragraph states:   "The requirement
for treating wastes at the proposed site has  not been demonstrated."
and that "Capacity is available at the James  River and Williamsburg
facilities."  Given these two statements, we  question the need for
the construction of the STP at this location with its associated
environmental disruptions.  This position is  further  strengthened
when we consider the statement on page IV-48, which  indicates that
the projected surface water quality improvements may offset the
adverse impacts resulting from increased flow variations  and increase
urban runoff.

SECTION V

V.  IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE APPLICANT'S
    PROPOSED PROJECT

Page V-l.  While this section generally  addresses the various
alternatives to the project, we note that no  consideration has
apparently been given to actually locating the proposed STP at a
site other than the proposed York River  location.  This topic should
be discussed along with the other listed alternatives.
-------
August 5, 1977
Page 6


Finally, the opening paragraph of this section indicates that
various alternatives are available to HRSD which would allow
them to attain their stated goal while eliminating many of the
adverse impacts of the present proposal.   It might prove useful
to list these various options in tabular  form for easy comparison.
-------
           1976 YORK RIVER CATCH  STATISTICS  (LOWER RIVER)
Alewife
Bluefish
Butterfish
Croaker
Eel
Flounder
Harvestfish
Menhaden
Gray trout
Spanish Mac!
Spot
Striped bass
Soft crabs
Hard crabs

Oyster (meat)
Hard clams

Total listed

Total all-river
Pounds
25,000
149,000
22,500
400,000
20,500
3,200
1,000
687,000
252,000
kerel 3,900
97,500
s 27,000
d industrial 312,000
4,400
1,200,000
t) 177,000
120,000
d 3,502,000
iver 3.7 million
Value
1,000
16,000
6,700
71,000
7,900
1,100
450
13,600
43,000
750
14,300
11,000
7,000
3,200
260,000
165,000
113,000
735,000
794,000
Soxirce:   Virginia Marine Resources Commission
         Newport News, Virginia
-------
                         APPENDIX F
  Ti
      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460


                              Ft U*. 1976

                              PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-38
                              Program Guidance Memorandum PG-66
                                                        ori'ici or WA i I:H ANI>
                                                        HA/.AF1DOUS MAIL niAl. S
SUBJECT:  Relationship Between  201 Facility Planning and
          Water Quality Management (WQM) Planning

FROM:     Andrew W. Breidenbach, Assistant
          for Water and Hazardous Material
                                        /
TO:       Regional Administrators     PROGRAM  GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
          Regions I - X               Construction Grants No. 66
                                      Water Quality Management SAM-1

PURPOSE

     This policy statement describes the relationships between 201
facility planning and WQM planning under Section 208 and the minimum
facility planning requirements which an initial WQM plan must meet
for EPA approval of the WQM plan.

     The purpose is to assure that facility plans can be completed and
processed expeditiously through EPA approval during those periods when
an initial WQM plan is either being prepared,  approved,  or implemented.
A second purpose is to have initial WQM plans prepared that satisfy,
at a minimum, certain requirements with respect to facility planning.
As WQM planning requirements overlap with the 201 planning requirements,
this policy seeks to minimize duplication and conflict between the two
planning efforts.

     This policy statement supersedes the memo on the same subject
signed March 11, 1975, by James L. Agee (issued as construction grants
program guidance memo number 47 and planning guidance memo AM-1).   Any
other policy or guidance statements contrary to this policy are also
superseded.  This policy statement applies to all agencies (State and
local) responsible for either 201 or WQM planning.

BACKGROUND

201 Facility Planning

     Facility planning consists of the plans and studies prerequisite
to the award of grant assistance for detailed design and construction
of publicly-owned treatment works. In the absence of a completed and
-------
                              - 2 -

approved WQM plan or approved interim outputs produced by the WQM
planning process, the facility plan must contain the following
elements:

     1.  Description of the planning area.

     2.  Selection of service areas.

     3.  Selection of overall treatment systems, including location,
         capacity and configuration of all  facilities, treatment
         levels, and preliminary identification of type of treatment
         and method of disposal of residual wastes.

     4.  Analysis supporting the selections in 2 and 3 based on
         identification, evaluation and cost-effective comparison
         of alternatives.

     5.  Preliminary designs and studies related to the selected
         wastewater treatment systems, including sewer evaluation
         surveys, surface and subsurface investigations of sites
         for proposed facilities, preliminary designs and detailed
         cost-effectiveness assessment, and other requirements set
         forth in Section 35.917-1 of the Title II regulations.

WQM Planning under Section 208

     WQM planning sets forth a comprehensive management program for
collection and treatment of wastes and controlling pollution from all
point and non-point sources.  Control measures for abating pollution
from these sources utilize a combination of traditional structural
measures together with land-use or land management practices and regu-
latory programs.  These measures are implemented by a management agency
or agencies designated in the plan.  An initial WQM plan is developed
over a prescribed planning period and, thereafter, updated and approved
annually.

POLICY: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 201 FACILITY PLANNING AND WQM PLANNING

I.  THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN 201 AND WQM PLANNING IN THE SAME
GEOGRAPHIC AREA DURING THE PERIOD BEFORE FINAL EPA APPROVAL OF
A WQM PLAN ARE AS FOLLOWS:

     A.  201 Planning

     All 201 plans underway and on current  or subsequent approved
priority lists should proceed expeditiously through to completion,
State certification and approval by EPA.  The scope of 201 planning
approved before the final WQM work plan is  approved by EPA should
be at a level necessary to complete all required elements of the
facility plan.  The scope of 201 planning approved after the final
WQM work plan is approved by EPA should be  at a level necessary to
-------
                                - 3 -

supplement work assigned to and within the capability of the respon-
sible WQM planning agency to accomplish expeditiously so that a
complete facility plan can be provided with minimal delay.

     The WQM planning agency's review of ongoing facility plans
will generally be handled in accordance with procedures for the
A-95 review process.

     B. Minimum Requirements for Facility Planning by WQM
        Planning Agencies

     During the initial planning period, WQM planning agencies
must produce the interim outputs specified in Program Guidance
Memorandum AM-2; generally, for designated areawide agencies,
these interim outputs will be completed within 9 months of the
date upon which the planning process becomes operational as
selected by the Regional Administrator.  States conducting the
planning in non-designated areas may elect to place a lower
priority on facilities planning outputs, and, with the approval
of the Regional Administrator, may provide alternative schedules
to satisfy this interim output requirement.

     For those municipal facilities within the WQM planning area
expected to receive a construction grant award during the five
years following initial WQM plan approval, the initial WQM plan
will include the facility planning information listed below.   In
most cases, 201-funded facilities planning is either  ongoing or
scheduled in the near term to support facilities construction  over
the next several years.  Thus, WQM planning agerjcies  are expected
during this period to utilize and incorporate (not duplicate)  the
201-funded planning information, supplementing the 201-funded  or
programmed activities whenever deemed necessary by the Regional
Administrator.

     Minimum requirements for facility planning to be summarized in
initial WQM plans for any facilities expected to receive a construc-
tion grant award during the five years following initial WQM plan
approval:

1.  Selection of service areas

2.  Preliminary estimate of municipal wastewater flows to be
    generated during a 20 year planning period based on economic
    and population projections for the WQM planning area.

3.  Preliminary identification and comparison of the cost of
    alternative treatment systems needed to handle projected
    municipal wastewater flows, and to meet the requirements of
    BPWTT or any more stringent discharge limitation necessitated
    under the Act.  Cost estimates may be based on streamlined
    cost-estimating systems such as those prepared by Bechtel,
    Black and Veatch, and ICARUS.
-------
                                - 4 -

4.  Preliminary comparison of the cost of alternative general
    configurations for needed wastewater collection at the
    trunk line level.

5.  Overall summary of environmental impacts of alternative
    treatment and wastewater collection configurations.

6.  Preliminary determinations, based on the above analysis,
    of which municipal treatment systems and conveyance
    configurations are likely to be most cost-effective.

7.  Estimate of the land area required and possible financial
    arrangements which could be utilized to construct these
    facilities.

     The terms "preliminary", "summary" and "estimate" in this
description are used to emphasize that the WQM plan will  satisfy
these requirements by brief, general analysis and conclusions which
are much shorter and less detailed than those in a facility plan.
As such, these conclusions may be modified as a result of 201-funded
facility planning conducted in accordance with policies and procedures
described in Section II (see p. 5).

     WQM planning agencies are also required to meet statutory require-
ments which are normally not considered a part of the facility planning
process but which, after approval of the WQM plan, will affect facility
planning.  Such requirements include establishment of priorities and
time schedules for completion of treatment works, estimation of municipal
waste treatment system needs, identification of agencies  necessary to
construct, operate and maintain treatment works,, and establishment of a
regulatory program that can affect facilities in the area (example -
stormwater or pretreatment controls).

     C. Detailed Facility Planning in WQM planning Work Plans

     New WQM planning work plans shall not be approved by the
Regional Administrator when they provide for detailed facility
planning beyond the minimum requirements in section B, above.
This detailed facility planning shall be handled by existing and
subsequent 201 facility planning grants.

     Existing approved work plans for FY 74 and 75 designated 208
areawide agencies which provide for facility planning beyond the
minimum requirements should be amended to eliminate such  detailed
planning, except where designated WQM planning agencies have already
contracted to conduct detailed facility planning and the  contractor
has started the work and is too far along for the contract to be
revised or terminated as determined by the Regional Administrator.
If work plans are revised to eliminate detailed facility  planning,
Section 201 planning grants should be quickly provided in these areas
in accordance with paragraph A above.
-------
                              - 5 -

     D.  Interim 208 Outputs

     After interim outputs  (AM-2) are approved by the State and
EPA for a WQM planning area, the relationship between 201 and WQM
planning in that area will be the same as described above except
that planning under any 201 grantvawarded after the approval of
the interim outputs must be consistent with these interim WQM
outputs.  The scope and funding of new 201 planning should not
extend to developing a justification for the interim outputs,
as this will have been produced by the WQM planning process.

     E.  Coordination Between Concurrent 201 and WQM Planning

     All WQM planning must be coordinated with facility planning
and other construction grant activity so that the final  WQM plan
will facilitate needed construction in the area.  Each State,
working with the Regional office must assure that effective coor-
dination between concurrent 201 and WQM planning does occur, and
that relationships between the two planning efforts are  consistent
with this policy statement.  The procedures for securing agreement
on relationships and responsibilities between concurrent 201 and
WQM  planning efforts are at the discretion of the State.  Conflicts
in approaches between concurrent 201 and WQM planning  should be
resolved between the 201 and WQM planning agencies and concerned
State and local officials.

     F.  Transition to New WQM Requirements Affecting  Facility
         Planning

     Any WQM plan which proposes a significant change  in either
management or approach affecting construction grant awards  must
allow adequate time and establish detailed procedures  for transi-
tion to the new approach or management once the WQM plan is approved
by EPA.

II.  THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIES THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN 201  AND WQM
PLANNING AFTER THE WQM PLAN HAS BEEN COMPLETED,  AND THE  MANAGEMENT
AGENCY OR AGENCIES IDENTIFIED BY THE PLAN ARE APPROVED BY THE STATE
AND EPA.

     A.  Facility Plans Underway

     All facility plans underway at the time of approval will be
completed by the agency which received the Step 1 grant. The
planning effort will continue expeditiously through to State
certification and EPA approval unless the approved WQM plan
clearly justifies a change in required treatment levels  or  alter-
native approach on the basis of substantially lower costs or major
changes in projected environmental impacts.
-------
                               - 6 -

     B.  New Facility Plans; Role of Designated Management
         Agency(s)

     New grants for 201 plans will be made to the management
agency(s) designated in the approved WQM plan.  New facility
planning will be consistent with the approved WQM plan.

     The scope and funding of new facility planning starts
should be sufficient to supplement the data and analysis in
the WQM plan to the extent necessary to provide a complete
facility plan as required by Section 35.917 of the Title II
regulations.

     Where future 201 planning results in recommended projects
not in general conformance with the recommendations of an
approved WQM plan, review of the proposed change must be made
by the designated agency responsible for operating the continuing
WQM planning process.  If the proposed change is accepted by the
WQM planning agency, the WQM plan is to be revised.  (Revisions
will then proceed through the normal State certification and EPA
approval process.) If the proposed change is unacceptable, the
approved WQM plan is controlling.

Review of WOM Plans

     Regional municipal construction grants personnel should review
sections of the work plans for WQM planning and draft WQM plans
focusing on facility planning elements to assure coordination between
WQM planning and the municipal facilities grant program consistent
with this guidance.  State construction grants personnel should  be
encouraged to do the same.
-------
/XN
\±SK£ *    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 **tnatr                     WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
^..,.

                                2 1  JLW 1977
                                    CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
                            Program Requirements Memorandum
                            NO. 77-8                             THE ADMINISTRATOR
    MEMORANDUM FOR  Regional Administrators

    SUBJECT:   Funding of Sewage Collection System Projects
    I.   PURPOSE

         This memorandum summarizes Agency policy on the award of grants for
    sewage collection system projects under P.L. 92-500.  It sets forth
    guidance for rigorous review of grant applications to ensure that proposed
    projects meet the established requirements of the law and regulations.

    II.   DISCUSSION

         Sewage collection system projects may be grant eligible projects
    under P.L.  92-500 (the Act) .  Eligibility is limited,  however,  by Section
    211  of the  Act which provides for funding of collection systems only 1)
    for  the replacement  or major rehabilitation of an existing collection
    system or 2)  for  new collection systems in existing cormunities .

         Sewage collection systems are defined in 40 CFR S 35.905-19 as:

                       For the purpose of S 35.925-13,  each,  and
                  all, of the common lateral sewers, within a
                  publicly-owned treatment system,  which  are
                  primarily installed to receive wastewaters
                  directly from facilities which convey wastewater
                  from individual structures or from private
                  property, and which include service connection
                  "Y" fittings designed for  connection with those
                  facilities.  The facilities which convey waste-
                  water from individual structures  or from private
                  property to the  public lateral sewer, or  its
                  equivalent, are  specifically excluded from the
                  definition, with the  exception of pumping units,
                  and pressurized  lines,  for  individual structures
                  or groups of structures when such units are cost
                  effective and are owned and maintained by the
                  grantee.
-------
      The eligibility of sewage collection system projects is further
defined in 40 CFR § 35.925-13 which reads:

                    That, if the project is for, or includes
               sewage collection system work, such work  (a) is
               for replacement or major rehabilitation of an
               existing sewer system pursuant to § 35.927-3(a)
               and is necessary to the total integrity and
               performance of the waste treatment works
               servicing such conntunity, or (b) is for a new
               sewer system in a corcnunity in existence on
               October 18, 1972, with sufficient existing or
               planned capacity to adequately treat such collected
               sewage.  Replacement or major rehabilitation of
               an existing sewer system may be approved only if
               cost effective and must result in a sewer system
               design capacity equivalent only to that of the
               existing system plus a reasonable amount for
               future growth.  A camnunity, for purposes of
               this section, would include any area with sub-
               stantial human habitation on October 18, 1972.
               No award may be made for a new sewer system in
               a comtunity in existence on October 18, 1972
               unless it is further determined by the Regional
               Administrator that the bulk (generally two-thirds)
               of the flow design capacity through the sewer
               system will be for waste waters originating from
               the cotinunity (habitation)  in existence on
               October 18, 1972.

     This section of the EPA regulations implements Section 211 of
P.L. 92-500.

     All treatment works funded under the construction grants program
must represent the most cost effective alternative to comply with the
requirements of the Act.  Treatment works are defined in Section 212 to
include sewage collection systems.  EPA cost-effectiveness requirements
are found in 40 CFR S 35.925-7 and in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 35.

     A large number of new collection system projects have appeared on
FY 1977 State project priority lists.  The lists contain both individual
collection system projects and collection systems associated with treat-
ment plant and interceptor sewer projects.  Many of these projects may
not meet the eligibility and cost-effectiveness requirements set forth
above.

     Funding must be denied for all collection system projects which are
not grant eligible or not cost-effective.   This is important for two
reasons.  First, the requirements of the regulations must be satisfied.
Secondly, the funding of collection system projects not meeting the
-------
eligibility and cost-effectiveness  requirements will  commit limited
Federal dollars to projects which  provide fewer pollution control benefits
than more needed treatment plants  and interceptors.

     Public disclosure of  costs  is a  fundamental prerequisite for all
grants projects, including collection systems.  Program Requirements
Memorandum 76-3, "Presentation of  Local Government Costs of Wastewater
Treatment Works in Facility Plans," August 16, 1976, requires that cost
information be presented at all  public hearings held on facility plans
after January 2, 1977.  However, public hearings were held on many
collection system projects prior to this  date.  Special measures are
necessary to ensure the public is  aware of the cost  implications of
collection systems prior to their  approval.

     The following policy  is to  be followed in reviewing future grant
applications for collection system projects.  This policy supplements
all existing Agency regulations  and policy statements.  It does not levy
any fundamentally new requirements, but provides guidance for more
rigorous review of grant applications to  ensure that proposed projects
meet the established requirements  of  the  law and regulations.  Compliance
with this policy will help to  assure  that only grant eligible and cost-
effective collection system projects  are  funded by EPA.

III.  POLICY

     EPA policy on the funding of  sewage  collection  systems is as fpllows:

     A.  Substantial human habitation

     New collector sewer projects  are eligible for funding only in a
cannunity in existence on  October  18,  1972, with sufficient existing or
planned capacity to treat  adequately  such collected  sewage.  The Title
II regulation states in Section  35.925-13 that a ccrtmunity would include
any area with substantial  human  habitation on October 18, 1972.  The
bulk (generally two-thirds) of the flow design capacity through the
sewer system is to be for  wastewaters originating from the habitation.

     The Agency policy is  that closely populated areas with average
densities of 1.7 persons per acre  (one household for every two acres) or
more on October 18, 1972,  shall  be considered to meet the requirement
for "substantial human habitation".   Population density should be evaluated
block by block or, where typical city blocks do not exist, by areas of 5
acres or less.  The "two-thirds" rule would apply within each area
evaluated when making a decision on collector sewer eligibility.

     Densities of less than one  household for every  two acres rarely
result in serious localized pollution or  public health problems from the
use of properly operated on-site systems.  These areas should not be
considered to have had, on October 18, 1972, substantial habitation
warranting collection sewers from  a pollution control standpoint.
-------
     B.  Cost-Effectiveness

     New collector sewers must be proven in the facility plan to be
necessary and cost-effective in addition to being eligible under the
definition of "substantial human habitation" and the two-thirds rule.

     New collector sewers should be funded only when the systems in use
 (e.g. septic tanks or raw discharges from homes) for disposal of wastes
from the existing population are creating a public health problem, con-
taminating groundwater, or violating the point source discharge require-
ments of the Act.  Specific documentation of the nature and extent of
health, groundwater and discharge problems must be provided in the
facility plan.  Where site characteristics are considered to restrict
the use of on-site systems, such characteristics, (e.g. groundwater
levels, soil permeability, topography, geology, etc.)  must be documented
by soil maps, historical data and other pertinent information.

     The facility plan must also document the nature,  number and location
of existing disposal systems (e.g. septic tanks) which are malfunctioning.
A community survey of individual disposal systems is recommended for
this purpose, and is grant eligible.

     In addition, the facility plan must demonstrate,  where population
density is less than 10 persons per acre, that alternatives are clearly
less cost-effective than new gravity collector sewer construction and
centralized treatment.  Such alternatives are cited in the previous
Administrator's memorandum of December 30, 1976, subject:   "Encouraging
Less Costly Wastewater Facilities for Small Communities" and Mr. Rhett's
memorandum of August 18, 1976 on "Eligibility of Septic Tanks and other
Small Treatment Systems".  A draft guidance document accompanied the
August 18 memorandum.  The draft policy represents the policy of the
Agency until issued in final form.

     The alternatives to be evaluated include the following:

     - measures to improve operation and maintenance of existing septic
       tanks including more frequent inspections, timely pumpouts, and
       prohibition of garbage grinders.

     - new septic tanks

     - holding tanks and "honey wagons"

     - various means of upgrading septic tanks, including mounds,
       alternate leaching fields and pressure sewers

     - other systems to serve individual households or a cluster
       of households.  Such systems include, for example,  wastewater
       separation, water conservation and recycle systems where feasible.
-------
     "Okie facility plan, where applicable, must examine alternatives such
as limited sewer service for a portion of a community.  For example,
septic systems work very well in many small towns except in one isolated
area such as a business district where open space for adequate on-site
disposal is not available.

     C.  Public Disclosure of Costs

     All projects, including collection systems, on which public hearings
were held after January 2, 1977, must comply fully with the requirements
of Program Requirements Memorandum 76-3 prior to approval.

     Agency policy is to ensure public disclosure of the costs of any
collection system projects where a public hearing was held on or before
January 2, 1977.  Such disclosure shall take the form of a prominently
published notice in a local newspaper, and the cost is grant eligible.
The Agency shall pay the cost of the notice if necessary to expedite the
project.

     The notice shall include the estimated monthly charge for operation
and maintenance, the estimated monthly debt service charge, the estimated
connection charge and the total monthly charge to a typical residential
customer for the new collection system being funded and any other associated
wastewater facilities required.  Such associated facilities would include
new treatment capacity needed to handle the flows from the new collection
system.

     The charges may be only rough estimates, and may be presented as a
range of possible costs when major unknowns exist such as whether or not
substantial parts of the project are grant eligible.

IV.  IMPLEMENTATION

     The States are to be advised of the issuance of this policy at
once.  All pending and future grant applications for collection system
projects or projects containing collection systems are to be reviewed
for compliance with this policy.

     The requirements of sections III-A and III-C are effective immediately.

     The requirements of Section III-B are effective immediately for all
projects which have received a step 1 facility planning grant but have
not yet received approval of their facility plan.

     For all other projects, the requirements of section III-B are
effective immediately unless the Regional Administrator determines, from
information in the facility plan and other sources, that a project is
necessary and cost-effective even though the full documentation required
by section III-B is not available.  In any case, the full requirements
of section III-B shall apply without exception to all projects being
reviewed for funding after September 30, 1977.
-------
V.  REFERENCES
     A.  Sections 201, 211, 212, P.L. 92-500.

     B.  40 CFR SB 35.905-19, 925-7, 925-13, Appendix B.

     C.  PRM 76-3, "Presentation of Local Government Costs of Wastewater
         Treatment Works in Facility Plans", August 16, 1976.

     D.  Memorandum to Regional Administrators from Russell E. Train,
         "Encouraging Less Costly Wastewater Facilities For Small
         Communities", December 30, 1976.*   -

     E.  Memorandum to Regional Administrators from ybkfnjf\ Rhett, "Less
         Costly Treatment Systems", Auqvist/18, 1976.
                                              Costle
-------