NEW JERSEY STATE
EPA
AGREEMENT
FY 81 UPDATE
RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY
-------
NJ STATE/EPA AGREEMENT
FY 81 UPDATE
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION
Annually, the Department of Environmental Protection is required to update the
State/EPA Agreement (SEA) that was originally signed by the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Administrator in November, 1979. This document is important as it
is used in New Jersey as a guide in the protection and management of the quality
of the State's water resources. It is the key strategy document that establishes
and annually updates a plan to accomplish priority objectives, provides milestones
for measurement of progress and allocates staffing and financial resources. The
document includes detailed work plans along with their output commitments to be
reported on a quarterly basis. The Fiscal Year 81 Update includes, among others,
programs under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances
Control Act and the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act.
RESOURCE SUMMARY BY FUNDING SOURCE
GRANT FEDERAL STATE TOTAL
106
201
205(g)
208
314*)
SDWA
a. Public Water System/
Supervision
b. U.I.C.
RCRA
a. Planning
b. Open Dump Inventory
c. Hazardous Waste
TOTALS
$ 1,334,000
112,524,500
3,692,263^
1,680,2503)
882,300
540,100
112,050
105,952
158,928
853,000
$121,883,343
$ 3,653,035
12,002,613
1,000,0002>
453,417
549,7365)
305,044
37,350
35,318
830,568
$18,867,081
$ 4,987,035
124,527,113
4,692,263
2,133,667
1,432,036
845,144
149,400
141,270
158,928
1,683,568
$140,750,424
1) Includes FY 81 federal funds plus prior year carry over funds.
2) State funds to supplement the administration of the Construction Grants Program.
3) Includes 355,250 for stormwater program support.
4) Four public lake projects proposed for FY 81 funding.
5) Includes approximately $504,000 in bond funds from Green Acres Program.
-------
This year, the Draft FY 81 Update document was issued for public comment in
two parts:
A. Narrative
B. Grant applications (including detailed work plans and Output
Commitment Table.
The final Update publication will be a single document with program grant work
plans as an appendix.
II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
In order to allow for public involvement in the development of the State/EPA
Agreement, the following activities were conducted.
Letters (315) were sent (on July 22, 1980) to people believed interested in the
State/EPA Agreement process announcing the availability of the draft and describing,
in a narrative form, the major aspects of the report. Realizing the extremely short
period of time available for public review, the Division of Water Resources decided,
if there was a public desire, to hold preliminary public meetings to allow for
discussion, questioning, and answering. These meetings were offered to the public
and a positive response was returned. Fifty-four responses requesting a meeting
were received. All except two requested a day meeting. Initially 150 copies of
the report were printed. In order to get maximum circulation, it was decided
that library distribution would be used. On August 7, 1980, forty-eight (48)
libraries were each sent two (2) copies of the draft report. One copy was to remain
in the library and one copy was to be available for circulation.
In order to cover the entire State, three separate meetings were scheduled based
on the locations of the respondent (August 18, 1:30 p.m., Lindenwald; August 19,
9:30 a.m., West Caldwell; August 20, 9:30 a.m., East Brunswick). Each person
who responded to our questionnaire was notified of the meeting schedule. In
addition, a press release was prepared to advertise the meetings.
Since the purpose of the meetings was to respond to questions, clarify issues, and
help reviewers understand the document, we attempted to have substantial agency
representation at all three meetings. At least eight and up to twelve agency
representatives attended each meeting.
Thirty-two members of the public attended the meetings to discuss the report.
Comments and questions received have been collected and are responded to in the
next portion of the report. (Due to the presence of agency personnel representing
a variety of programs, several discussions were conducted which do not directly
reflect on the State/EPA Agreement. These comments are not addressed in this
document.)
Prior to the meetings, we were able to print 50 additional copies of the report.
These were available to anyone who attended the meeting and/or who requested it.
In addition, additional copies of the draft narrative were mailed directly to
the members of the N.J. EPA Advisory Group, a brief presentation and discussion
was also held with this group.
-------
Public hearings were held in Morristown on September 9, 1980 and in Pomona on
September 10, 1980. Staff from both EPA and DEP were in attendance. Public
attendance was extremely light at both hearings. Available at the hearings
were copies of grant applications, detailed work plans and output commitment
tables for several programs. DEP and EPA were asked to extend the review
period to allow for a more thorough examination of the documents.
Due to an acknowledgement that the public involvement process associated with
this agreement was extremely short, the EPA and the DWR negotiated an extended
review period. Notices of this review time extension were mailed to everyone
on the mailing list, updated to include participants of the public meetings,
public hearings and the N.J. EPA Advisory Group. Final comment period closed
October 20, 1980.
One comment received repeatedly was a criticism of the procedure by which the
DEP and the EPA solicited public input to the State/EPA Agreement. We were
criticised for failing to meet the expectations of the original Agreement which
promised involvement of substate governmental agencies and the general public
early in the process. We agree this criticism is legitimate. Both EPA and
the Division of Water Resources are examining and attempting major revisions
in their public participation programs which will allow greater public participation
in the development of subsequent updates.
At the Division of Water Resources, increased staffing for public participation
work is planned. Creation of a position for Public Participation Coordinator
and development of a consolidated statewide public involvement program should
result in an improved relationship between the Division and the public.
Unfortunately, these mechanisms were not in place in time to develop the early
involvement of the public. Conflicting theories on the appropriate timing for
initial public input and delays in the actual development of the draft resulted
in the unfortunate short period for review. Scheduling of informational meetings
with extensive staff involvement was seen by the State and the EPA as a step to
aiding public involvement efforts.
By the development and maintenance of a Division public participation program, a
relationship will result which will allow the early and continued involvement of
the public. A forum will exist for the Division and substate governmental and
general public representatives to discuss and understand each other's priorities
and concerns at an early enough stage to guide Division programs and, subsequently,
the Agreement.
We do not object to your criticisms of our public participation efforts for the
Agreement. In fact, we welcome these comments because they serve to reinforce
and force the commitment of resources to these efforts. As in other programs
pertaining to the protection of the environment, public participation programs
require critiquing in order to improve.
III. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with EPA's regulations (Title 40, Part 25) each agency which conducts
any public participation activity must prepare a responsiveness summary which shall
be made available to those who request it. This summary has three purposes:
-------
1. To let the public know how its comments are being used;
2. To let the public know about the current status of the project;
3. To give decision makers and reviewers an overview of public reactions
and the changes made to accommodate them.
IV. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY—ISSUES
This Responsiveness Summary has been written by DEP with EPA concurrence. It
summarizes the responses to comments made by the public regarding the published
draft of the FY 81 Update of the State/EPA Agreement. The summary includes
comments that were given at the three public meetings, the two public hearings
and by mail through October 20, 1980.
A. Summary of the Public's Views, Significant Comments, Criticisms and Suggestions
The public recognized that the development of the FY 81 Update was a difficult
and complex task. They found that the provisions of the update narrative
document were logical derivatives of the original agreement, and that the
proposed FY 81 programs continued the predominantly regulatory approach
centralized in DEP under New Jersey's Water Resources Law. The Update was
found to provide a more consolidated and comprehensive integration of policies
and problems than previous documents.
On the other hand, the public was critical of the Update in that it did not
emphasize the roles of the counties and the substate Water Quality Management
Planning Agencies (208 agencies) and noted the lack of FY 81 208 projects.
The public also criticized this year's public participation program. The
public said that the primary policy and program thrust of DEP and EPA seems
to be toward more regulation, without an equal policy and program commitment
to monitoring, surveillance, enforcement and clean-up to achieve the goal
of "fishable and swimmable waters by 1983". The public criticized the document
as not having a program evaluation (i.e., a critique of the effectiveness of
the FY 80 programs in each of the priority issue areas). The public thought
that the document seemed to be written by inside professionals for inside
professionals which made it "....extremely difficult for local elected officials
and the general public to readily read and understand...."
The public made a numer of suggestions for improvement which primarily
centered on communications with county and local governments and the
general public:
1. An Executive Summary should be written in layman's language
for all future documents with a program evaluation to
inform, educate and involve elected officials and the general
public;
2. A regular newsletter should be published for general
distribution to get the thoughts and purpose behind the
programs down to the local level to people who have
expressed an interest in environmental programs;
-------
3. A mechanism should be developed to fund local environmental
groups, watershed associations, etc. to maximize the
involvement of the citizens across the State in water
programs and to develop effective advocates for environmental
protection;
4. Improve the public participation program by retaining a strong
public constituency with a strong base of support at the
local level and maintain a clear and meaningful role for
substate agency participation. Integrate planning and imple-
mentation between federal, State and local agencies;
5. DEP and EPA should join the New Jersey/New York 208 Coalition
and others in requesting that Congress reinstate a 208rtype
public participation process in water quality management with
appropriate funding;
6. Include the FY 81 list of 208 projects in the Update document
and reemphasize the role of the counties.
B. Areawide Water Quality Management Planning (208)
The public was quite critical of the 208 portion of the FY 81 Update draft.
DEP had not included FY 81 funded projects as, at the time the draft was
completed, EPA had not reached a decision. We now have that decision.
The FY 80 Work Plans for 208-funded activities are included in the State/EPA
Agreement and should be viewed in conjunction with the FY 81 project
descriptions.
The following projects were submitted to USEPA Region II for consideration
for 208 FY 81 funds. The order in which they are listed reflects the
State's priorities calling for projects with maximum statewide applicability.
NJDEP Rank Project Title Agency
1 Setting priorities for the permitting NJDEP
of existing solid waste facilities
2 Statewide stormwater program: urban NJDEP
stormwater control through management
of environmentally sensitive areas
3 Statewide stormwater program: NJDEP
transferability of control programs
4 Statewide stormwater program: NJDEP
regulatory framework for implementation
of stormwater management requirements
5 Statewide ground water program: NJDEP
regulatory framework for implementation
ground water management requirements
-------
NJDEP Rank
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Project Title Agency
Sole source buried valley ground water NJDEP
modeling of aquifers in Morris County
Statewide storrawater program: use of NJDEP
stream corridor protection
Application of the stormwater manual DVRPC
to site development
Implementation of operational NJDEP
stormwater control measures
Development of guidelines for upland NJDEP
disposal of non-municipal residues
Management of environmental health NJDEP
services program - institutional and
financial management assistance -
first1priority ground water
Development of BMP's for applicational NJDEP
municipal sludge on land
Support of three RCWP projects: NJDEP
monitoring and evaluation
Determining soil suitability for land NJDEP
treatment technologies
Unified watershed management program Mercer
Apply stormwater BMP's to county drainage Atlantic
ordinance, site plan revisions, and
stream corridor protection
Determining stabilization guidelines for NJDEP
the land application of septage
Selection of optimum landfill sites for NJDEP
water quality protection
Institutionalization of regional water Middlesex
resources management program to LR/MC
Modification of existing soil erosion NJDEP
and sediment control regulations
Sensitive lands management in NJDEP
agricultural watersheds
-------
NJDEP Rank Project Title Agency
22 Program for transferability of use DVRPC
of stormwater manual in 10 targeted
towns
23 Update stormwater manual DVRPC
24 Small watershed NPS/PS relationships Mercer
25 Unified ground water management program Mercer
26 Establish site plan & subdivision DVRPC
review process in Burlington County
27 Septic ordinance transferability to the Cape May
rest of Cape May County
28 Management strategy for runoff control Middlesex
and recharge facilities
29 Agricultural BMP's for ground water NJDEP
protection
The USEPA, Region II considered the above projects together with other proposed
projects submitted by agencies from the other states within the region. The USEPA
then selected the following 20 projects which were prioritized and forwarded to
USEPA headquarters in Washington. The projects assigned the highest priority by
USEPA were those proposals which will complete program development activities
initiated with previous water quality grants. The following is a list of the
20 projects ana the proposing agency.
Rank Title Agency
* Lake George NURP - 2nd - 3rd yr. NYSDEC
1 Extrapolation and transfer of NJDEP
prototype project results
2 Development of fertilizer best NYDEC/LI
management practices program
3 Financial and institutional NJDEP
modifications to the State of New
Jersey Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Act (Chapter 251) regulations
4 Development of a consumer products NY/LI
control program
* Proposed as part of Headquarters' NURP funds.
-------
Title Agency
Development of control program for NJDEP
prioritization and pollution
abatement with respect to existing
solid waste facilities and their
associated water quality impacts
6 Operational program development for EQB
animal waste management
7 Development of a construction soil NYSDEC/West Co.
erosion and sediment control program
8 Development of a prototype point/non- NYSDEC/CNY
point tradeoff analysis program
9 Implementation of stormwater operational NJDEP
control programs through agreements with
the New Jersey Department of Transportation
(NJDOT) and Housing and Urban Development
(HUD)
10 Financial management and institutional NJDEP/7 counties
analysis of NPS (septage, groundwater
monitoring, spills and leaks impact)
management by county health boards
11 Development of a petroleum bulk storage NYSDEC/LI
spill control program
12 Ag NPS Program for La Plata River EQB
watershed
13 Nonpoint source control program for USVI
sediment and erosion control and
on-lot waste disposal and vessel wastes
control in USVI
14 Development of roadway deicing best NYSDEC/WCHD
management practices program
15 FMAP - Institutionalization of NJDEP/MC
regional water resources management
program to Lower Raritan basin
16 Development of a small community NYDEC/CNY
sewage disposal financing program
17 Modeling of the buried valley sole NJDEP
source aquifer and contiguous aquifers
in Morris County for groundwater
quantity/quality management
-------
Rank Title Agency
18 Statewide groundwater monitoring NJDEP
strategy
19 New York City watershed management NYDEC/WC
program
20 Development of a watershed management NYDEC/CNY
program for central New York
Following a review by USEPA Headquarters, six projects submitted by NJDEP were
tentatively approved. The six projects and a brief summary are described below.
A seventh project (No. 19 on DEP's original list) may be approved if funding is
available.
1. Extrapolation and Transfer of Prototype Project Results
Develop an implementation program to provide for the transfer of
results from area-specific prototype projects to implementation
of operational control programs on a statewide level (Nos. 2,3,4,
5,7,21 on DEP's list).
2. Financial and Institutional Modifications to the State of Hew Jersey
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act (Chapter 251) Regulations
Evaluate and make recommendations to improve effectiveness of Chapter
251 program administered by the State Soil Conservation Districts
considering both past and new program responsibilities. Project to
be undertaken by State Soil Conservation Committee through agreement
with the NJDEP (No. 20 on DEP's list).
3. Financial Management and Institutional Analysis of NFS (septage,
groundwater monitoring, spills and leaks impact, surface water pollution)
management by county health agencies
Establish a broader resource base for more effective management for
mitigating of environmental health problems related to water quality.
Work to be carried out primarily by counties (No. 11 on DEP's list).
4. Implementation of Stormwater Operational Control Programs through
Agreements with N.J. Department of Transportation (NJDQT) and the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
To develop agreements with NJDOT, and HUD to include stormwater
quality controls in these agencies' respective roadway storm drainage
and sewerage rehabilitation projects (Nos. 8,9,16,22,23 on DEP's list).
5. Development of Control Program for Prioritization and Pollution Abatement
with Respect to Existing Solid Waste Facilities
To develop a methodology for assessment and prioritizing permit issuance
for existing solid waste facilities (No. 1 on DEP's list),
6. Statewide Ground Water Monitoring Strategy
Develop an integrated strategy to determine overall monitoring
responsibilities and activities (not on DEP's list).
-------
7. Overtarget Funding Request
A model for integrated water resources management in the Lower Raritan
River Basin (No. 19 on DEP's list).
-------
V. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1. Comment:
FY 80 SEA presented a detailed one-year work program, which reflected the
total resources available to meet water quality issues, and detailed how these
funds were to be utilized on each of the 24 priority issues. How effective was
the FY 80 program in each of the priority issue areas? How does the FY 81 program
relate to that of FY 80, and how will we build on the work and accomplishments
of the FY 80 program?
Response:
A summary section identifying the environmental and program accomplishments
attained through the program strategies in the FY 80 document was not developed
this year however the strategy/activity charts are intended to provide a view
of the progress attained within a program strategy. The effectiveness of the
strategies will ultimately be measured by the improvement in the quality of the
State's water resources. A comprehensive evaluation of water quality management
program progress can be obtained by reading the SEA in conjunction with the
Water Quality Inventory Report (CWA 305b), prepared binennially by DWR. Though
the original 24 priority issues have been reorganized, they are embodied in the
FY 81 update. Consideration will be given in the FY 82 Update to the incorporation
of a section on progress and accomplishments.
2. Comment:
Unlike the SEA, the FY 81 update does not clearly delineate the role of county,
regional or local governments in these programs. This is particularly true in
its attention to the 208 agencies. Please explain.
Response:
The county role was articulated in various sections in the draft narrative document.
The final document has a separate chapter (2.11) entitled "Role of Counties and
Water Quality Management Planning Agencies". This chapter updates the same
chapter which was priority statement No. 11 in Document I of the original SEA.
This responsiveness Summary contains a full description (above) of the FY 81
project submission and expected funding.
3. Comment;
The SEA appears to be a report written by inside professionals for inside
professionals. Thus is is extremely difficult for the public to understand the
thrust of the SEA. A Summary Volume should be written in laymans language which
encompasses Water Resources issues and the process to solve them, and, the role
of local governments in SEA programs and the resources available for their
implementation. The document should produce a Work Program for the current year,
including a recap of the previous year; a prioritized list of programs; who will
perform the work; estimation of water quality improvement expected; cost of program
and sources of funds. Develop integration between responsible agencies and the
public in the updating process, and specifically, between DEP/EPA and the Tri-
County WQMPB and its Advisory Committee.
-------
Response;
The public notice and the introduction to the FY 81 Update were intended to
serve as an executive summary highlighting the major as well as the more
complex issues being presented to the public. The guidelines established by
EPA vis-a-vis the SEA update provide for a comprehensive description of the
water quality management programs of the State.
Most of the recommended criteria for production of a current year Work Program
are, in fact, intrinsic to the SEA with its accompanying one-year Detailed Work
Plans. NJDEP will strive to better describe program accomplishments as well
as provide an estimation of future, site-specific, improvements in water quality
in the next update.
Public sentiment on the SEA updating process has focused DEP/EPA attention on
the need to involve substate agencies (including the TCWQB and its Advisory
Committee) and the general public more fully in the development of the document
(see response to Comment 1).
4. Comment:
Criticism was expressed concerning the distribution and limited availability
of the draft SEA. Criticism of using libraries when they may not be able to
handle a rush item was stated.
Response;
It was in reaction to the short review period that we decided to use the libraries
as a depository for the draft SEA. Each library was notified early that these
reports were forthcoming and were told of the need to make them available
quickly. Unfortunately, this did not occur in all cases. In our attempt to
use natural resources most efficiently, depositories which are accessible to
a broad range of people seems appropriate. We also acknowledge that there are
different "publics" and strategies designed to address the most appropriate
public will be pursued. Nevertheless, whenever it appears to be suitable, we
will try to utilize centrally located and accessible depositories.
5. Comment:
We are quite concerned with the implementation of the various strategies identi-
fied in the SEA, as a small amount of time has been allocated to many important
activities. For example, no allocation of man-years is recorded for the
supervision of water quality surveys and analyses, even though 201 funds are
identified. The development of policy strategies on effluent chlorine residuals
and on limitations for land disposal discharges have no apportionment of man-years.
Response:
The allocation of man-years have been provided wherever practicable. Many of
the strategies do not lend themselves to the allocation of man-years, while
in some case man-year allocation was not available. The final update
indicates man-years where possible.
-------
6. Comment:
Why was there no court reporter at the three public meetings?
Response:
As described in the original notice and at the meetings, those meetings were
designed to be an informal discussion between members of the public and
agency staff. The intent was to give the public the opportunity to clarify
confusions in the SEA thereby making it easier to critique the SEA prior to
the hearings. Each agency representative was expected to answer issues and
questions raised at any meeting.
7. Comment:
Several comments dealt with the issue of funding to local organizations to
aid their ability to participate.
Response:
The EPA and the DWR are supportive of the concept of providing funds to local
organizations to assist in our programs. Arrangements have been made to fund
certain watershed associations to assist in 201 Citizen Advisory Committee (CACs)
training. The Pretreatment Program's public participation element will require
subcontracting with local groups. As the Division program takes shape and
funding sources are all verified, every effort will be made to utilize resources
available in the myriad of local groups.
8. Comment:
Why is there no attention paid to the Clean Water Council and their role in DWR
public participation?
Response:
Our preliminary presentation, seen in draft, geared itself to programs specifi-
cally related to EPA funded programs. This was too limited an approach and the
revised document lists the Council as a part of the Division public involvement
process.
9. Comment:
Since the State is taking on responsibilities formerly held by EPA, we recommend
the establishment of an oversight committee to evaluate whether the State is
indeed pursuing the program efficiently and expeditiously (NPDES permits, in
particular).
Response;
EPA retains oversight responsibilities and can revoke authority for State
programs.
-------
10. Comment:
The SEA Update should be available for county review prior to deadlines for
grant applications. This is critical in order for sub-state agencies to be
able to examine all potential funding sources and priorities.
Response;
The FY 81 Update draft was available to the public in August, several months
in advance of grant funding deadlines. This was a significant improvement
over the timing of the basic agreement last year. We anticipate the FY 81
process will start earlier and produce a draft for public review by June,
1981. Grant applicants do not necessarily run along the same time lines as
the State or Federal fiscal years (e.g., FY 80 208 grant period extended
from July 1, 1980-December 31, 1981). The SEA Update covered the Federal
fiscal years (1981-1986) which run from October to September, while the
State's fiscal year runs July to June. We are reviewing the SEA process for
additional areas of possible coordination with our respective budget cycles.
11. Comment:
Under Chapter 2.3.2.1, Antidegradation Policy, a number of comments were
received on the relative positioning of the chart on page 2-42 in the draft
narrative. Specifically it appears that the DEP would fund Middlesex County
for work already completed. Why?
Response;
This chart section was mistakenly inserted in this chapter in the draft, and
has been deleted in the final document.
12. Comment:
There needs to be a "lubricating" of the system that makes water quality data
available to sub-state agencies. How is this problem to be addressed? How
will the State determine what information is available to the public?
Response;
Water quality data has always been available from DEP's Data Acquisition and
Analysis Unit, which can be reached by calling (609) 292-0450, or by writing
to that unit in the Division of Water Resources, P.O. Box CN-029, Trenton, NJ
08625. All ambient data is on the STORET (Storage and Retrieval) computer
system, and lakes data is in paper files at 1474 Prospect St., Trenton.
USGS publishes annually a report on Water Resource Streamflow and Quality Data
for New Jersey which can be obtained by writing directly to them at U.S.
Department of Interior, 402 E. State St., P.O. Box 1238, Trenton, 08607 or
calling (609) 989-2162. Other State agency files are also available by
contacting each agency directly. The usual practice is to arrange dates and
times that are mutually convenient. The only restrictions on public file
access relates to enforcement cases when the case has been referred to the
Attorney General's Office for prosecution, or where the information has been
ruled to be proprietary information of a confidential nature. Documents may
usually be copied for a nominal fee.
-------
13. Comment:
A broader open discussion of the SEA should take place earlier this year,
not at the point when the EPA and DEP are pushing to meet deadlines.
Response;
It is the DWR's intention to expand its public involvement efforts to result
in a comprehensive Statewide program. This type of program will allow for a
"routine" involvement of the public in all DWR activities including program
plan development.
Comment;
The SEA should specifically identify the participation of County Planning Boards
through the established State-Regional-County-Municipal growth protection cross
acceptance process in the consideration of water resources aspects of growth
management activities.
Response:
DEP plans to continue the policy begun in FY 79 of a cross acceptance process
of growth management activities (see response to Comment 35 below).
15. Comment:
The FY 81 Update still shows DVRPC as the selected lead agency for determining
regulatory programs for new stormwater systems. The FY 80 208 grant does not
provide funding. How will existing problems be regulated? What arrangements
have been made? Have any health departments been contacted?
Response;
The SEA has been changed to reflect the present support role of DVRPC. The
enforcement mechanism for stormwater control has not been completely developed.
Most of this program will be developed in FY 81 (refer to FY 81 descriptions,
Section IV, B above).
16. Comment:
There should be some mechanism for funding local and statewide watershed
associations with limited funds, volunteer memberships and few if any paid
employees who can devote full time to environmental issues.
Response:
Associations such as these are independent interest groups. Both DEP and EPA
recognize their value, and will explore funding possibilities in the forthcoming
year. Although we do not want to jeopardize their independence through any
potential conflict of interest, we see a definite role in some public partici-
pation aspects for certain programs. Funds will be provided, for example, for
an important role in the training of 201 CACs as soon as training materials
become available (see response to Comment 7).
-------
17. Comment:
Has Construction Grants' program efforts for attracting and retaining qualified
personnel in fact been completed? Under whose authorship is that program to be
published in September, and will all members of the Region II Advisory Group
receive a copy? Likewise, will the same members receive a copy of the Performance
Evaluation of the DEP scheduled for completion by EPA by Sept., 1980?
Response:
The program for training and maintaining quality staff is presently under way.
Certain improvements, including upgrading the trainee, assistant, senior and
principle engineering salaries and the establishment of 16 project engineer
positions within the Construction Grants Administration have been completed.
The program will be fully described in the report on the EPA annual review of
the N.J. Construction Grants program. This report should be forwarded to all
members of the Region II advisory group.
18. Comment:
We fear that there will continue to be a fracturing of environmental goals to
accommodate the funding programs of Construction Grants. Funding deadlines seem
to take precedence over careful environmental review required by Construction
Grants Regulations of September 27, 1978. We fear that the dollars allocated
to Construction Grants will be spent regardless of environmental impacts.
Response;
Environmental goals are fully considered in the review of all Construction Grants
projects. Funding deadlines have not taken precedence over careful environmental
reviews of the projects and will not do so in the future. Starting in fiscal
year 1981, DEP fully expects to obligate all available monies. This will avoid
the September grants "crunch" to utilize the grants funds prior to the funding
deadline. In the past, there has been more money than projects which were ready
to proceed, thereby resulting in the funding of projects that were relatively low
on the priority list. This year, the process has been reversed so that only the
highest priority projects can be funded which will result in maximum pollution
control benefits.
19. Comment:
Utilizing the 201 agencies to perform environmental reviews as part of their
grant applications does not seem appropriate. 201 agencies have a vested
interest in the development of these reviews. The 208 plans are a better
criteria to be used. Please explain.
Response:
We disagree that 201 agencies should not perform environmental reviews in
developing their grant applications. Environmental analysis must be performed
throughout the facility planning process to insure that all feasible alternatives
receive a full environmental review. This can best be done by the agency
preparing the overall plan. The 201 agency has the option to retain separate
consultants to prepare the environmental anslysis, but the 201 agency has full
responsibility for insuring that all environmental requirements mandated by
State and Federal law are fully addressed and considered in the planning process.
Environmental review criteria will be established jointly by DEP and EPa as part
of the delegation agreement, as will criteria for review of environmentally
-------
sensitive area delineations (also developed by 201 agencies). The review
of the 201 plans will continue to be subject to public participation at all
levels. In those situations where major adverse environmental effects are
anticipated, EPA will prepare an environmental impact statement.
20. Comment:
Under environmentally sensitive areas, responsibility for collection and
utilization of pertinent information has been transferred to the 201 facilities
planning agencies to the complete exclusion of any certified areawide 208
agency involvement.
Response;
The Proposed Policy and Procedures presently being developed will include
provisions for county level verification using existing data. The maps
prepared by DVRPC, for example, would be used for this purpose.
21. Comment:
Has the State in fact established the staffing for the Combined Sewer Overflow
(CSO) section? Who is the contact person? Do the prioritized CSO projects
fit into the current lists of priority construction grants for FY 81? If
so, how?
Response:
The Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) section is not staffed at present. The contact
person is George McCann, Construction Grants Administration, 292-0950. CSO
projects are presently included in the N.J. priority system as a separate
discharge category. At present, this category receives 100 points, which is
relatively low in comparison with other discharge categories. Upon completion
of the CSO studies and determination of the Water Quality benefits associated
with CSO control projects, the CSO priority ranking will be reevaluated.
22. Comment:
The identification and evaluation of combined sewer overflow problems has long
been a part of the 201 planning process. Such information, including a detailed
strategy for mitigating these problems, must be documented and submitted to the
Division by each local "201" grantee as part of each facilities plan for a
proposed service area.
Rather than creating an administration to seek out additional problems, the funds
earmarked for CSO should be passed on to agencies responsible for local treatment
works to respond to the serious problems already known to the Division to imple-
ment solutions which have largely already been developed.
Response:
The majority of CSO projects within the State have not developed implementable
solutions to correct the CSO problems. The optimal CSO solution is dependent
upon the water quality benefits derived from the solution. The benefits cannot
be determined until a water quality study has been conducted.
Experience has shown that significant cost saving can be obtained through a
comparison of alternative solutions with their associated water quality
-------
benefits. The proposed CSO program would include a thorough analysis of
the costs and benefits for the CSO projects, a reevaluation of water quality
standards and selection of the appropriate project. The program has potential
to save millions of dollars in construction costs, at a time when the construction
grant monies are severely limited to the State of New Jersey.
23. Comment:
Under growth area management, DEP cites its plans to formally adopt 201
facilities plans making revisions to 208 plans where necessary, without any
cited involvement by certified areawide 208 agencies.
Response:
Certified 208 plans, including those developed by the areawide agencies, are
always used to develop wastewater flow projections and wasteload allocations
prior to facilities plan certification. Any major revisions to previously
certified WQM plans will require areawide agency and public involvement.
24. Comment:
There appears to be a number of instances where "208" funding is recommended for
waste discharge permitting procedures, especially in river modelling and
wasteload allocation and NJPDES implementation. In view of the limited resources
under "208", these areas are more appropriately funded with 201 or 106 funds.
Response;
Available section 205(g) funding will be utilized (see work plan), and the State
Groundwater Grant is considered by EPA as a prototype grant to develop a program
that will be applicable to all states. The use of 205(g) funds to develop
groundwater permits is an effective approach to prevent groundwater pollution at
its source. Additionally, it is expected that 201 funds will be utilized for
river modelling and ensuing wasteload allocation calculations when it can be
shown that such is essential to determination of need and extend of advanced
treatment facilities. However, use of 201 funds for the purpose of permitting
procedures and regulations to control groundwater discharges is not allowable,
and 106 funds will not stretch that far.
25. Comment:
With so much of NJ's land falling within the category of "Environmentally
Sensitive Areas", why only 2.5 man-years to establish the State's interpretation
of "constraints"? The importance of protecting these areas received a high
priority in the Northeast 208, and should receive a higher standing in the
SEA Update.
Response:
The allocation of 2.5 man-years to the delineation of Environmentally Sensitive
Areas (ESA-p.A) has been deleted. This project represents a major commitment
by the Division and will be staffed accordingly. The project was begun in
FY 79 and will continue under FY 81 in the Extrapolation and Transfer project.
-------
26. Comment:
We would like to be assured that the DEP policy on wetlands and flood plains
will conform to the EPA policy. We now see important differences in policy
implementation—particularly in the Bureau of Flood Plain Management and the
Construction Grants Section.
Response:
The DEP is presently developing a policy for all categories of environmentally
sensitive areas (see also response to Comment 20). The protection policy will
be dependent upon the environmental values associated with each category. We
expect that EPA will find the DEP policy to be fully consistent with their
grant regulations and program policies.
27. Comment;
Which is the lead agency in water quality management planning activities: DEP or EPA?
Response;
DEP is the lead agency, with EPA priority criteria governing the actual funding
by them through DEP (see also Comments 2 and 28 responses).
28. Comment:
Regarding the 208 agency continuing role, there is typically no provision for
passing through funds to local or areawide agencies to conduct studies or take
actions for water quality management that DEP finds are best carried out by
local agencies (including certain toxic pollution control measures). We are
all working together cooperatively for the same purpose. To this end, please
consider the "Designated 208 Agency" not to be an independent and competitive
entity, but rather as an "outreach" of the Division (DWR) and its program at
the local level.
Response:
The Draft FY 81 Update did not include FY 81 208 project funding as it was not
available (see IV, B above for details). As soon as FY 81 information was
received from EPA, a meeting of the 208 agencies was called for October 16, 1980.
At that meeting, project and funding details were distributed, and both DEP and
EPA reviewed the development process, time frame for decisions and priority
criteria utilized. On October 17, 1980, five of those agencies met again with
DEP to review the funded projects. Each agency was given the opportunity to
indicate the activities they could realistically handle. DEP stated that the
funding, if approved, would be commensurate with the level sf effort, and that
it would be a 60/40 split (60% DEP, 40% local match). Three general conditions
were stated:
A. That the designated agencies had to demonstrate good faith
by moving towards making themselves self-sustaining by the
end of FY 81 (or showing significant indications of progress);
B. That any funding would be on a contract basis (not a grant);
C. That the funding should be spread as far as possible.
-------
The agencies were told to develop a narrative specifying progress already made
to achieve long term self-sustaining local funding. The narrative also had
to include a specific schedule with milestones to obtain this goal, specify
the strategy to be utilized, and show a detailed work plan. Further meetings
will be held with DEP and EPA to work out the individual project arrangements.
29. Comment:
A stormwater project that the Sussex County Soil Conservation District has
been commissioned to do for Sussex County 208-FY 80 has not been included.
Response:
This project is consistent with the issues identified in the FY 80 SEA and the
Non-Point Sources Strategies in the FY 81 SEA. The SCD's and counties are
appropriately referenced in the SEA Strategies' chart for Non-Point Sources.
30. Comment:
DEP and EPA should incorporate a strategy for development of a new institutional
framework to provide for greater integration and coordination of federal, State
and local water resources management powers to reach water quality, water supply,
flood control and storm drainage control objectives established by 208 plans.
Response;
This will be undertaken in FY 81 in the Extrapolation and Transfer project and
the Statewide Stormwater Management project (refer to FY 81 descriptions,
section IV, B above).
31. Comment:
DEP and EPA should incorporate the reflection of a key Lower Raritan/Middlesex
County Water Resource Association and Freeholder role in developing and
implementing an institutional integration required to establish a basis for a
new institutional framework. This study should be initiated in the FY 81 period.
Response;
Two FY 81 208 projects (Extrapolation and Transfer, Statewide Stormwater
Management) will address the framework issue (see Section IV, B above). All
208 agencies will be consulted during these projects. There are no plans to
designate any agency for a key role at this time.
32. Comment:
The "Clean Lakes Program" should be staffed up. .15 man-years for five years
to establish a fact sheet for each lake and upgrade as necessary for all the
lakes in New Jersey is impossible. One person to respond to survey private
lakes in all of New Jersey is further inadequate. .3 to develop a program to
aid in the restoration of the State's "significant publicly owned freshwater
lakes" also is inadequate. The aforementioned are only examples; the activities
are good, but the appropriation of man-years is not at all realistic if a good
job is going to be done on New Jersey lakes.
-------
Response;
The 0.5 man-years is marginally adequate since the inventory is now established
and requires only annual revision and updating of the data base. The 1 man-year
devoted to private lake surveys and complaint investigation is adequate since
the thrust of our resources is toward publicly-owned lakes (most private lake
complaints should be handled locally). The 0.3 man-years is sufficient to
complete the remaining two intensive lake surveys (we made major man-year
expenditures prior to FY 31). The serious lack of manpower is in providing
adequate monitoring activities for the various Phase I and II grants already
received and for those expected shortly. We are addressing this, and expect
to allocate 2.0 man-years to it.
33. Comment:
If the State is serious about protecting ground water, on which more than 50%
of its population depend, and for which there is no other easily available
source, a greater emphasis should be placed on the enforcement part of the
"Strategies for Ground Water Management". Frankly, the entire ground water
program seems underfunded and understaffed if we are realistically going to deal
with the lack of data and State policies existent at this point in time. If
the SEA is going to be effective, it must place a greater emphasis on the
management of ground water in New Jersey, as the development of NEW supply
surface sources will continue to meet with opposition for many diversified and
sound reasons—environmental and economic.
Response:
NJDEP is aware that greater emphasis (i.e., funding and staff) on management
of groundwater is required. NPDES permitting fees may be available to provide
a financial base for an expanded groundwater program.
Comment;
We totally object to the abandonment of programs for protection of inland
wetlands. The statement on page 2-277 under 2.10.3 regarding the continuation
of the program through FY 81 "as needed to meet the requirements of the current
work plan" and then "shifting" to the coastal area protection, abandons some of
the most valuable water resource lands in the State. Why can't both be attended
to? Where is the report on the inland wetlands? Why with Region II EPA now
placing a priority (so-called) on inland wetlands is the SEA considering such
a move?
Response;
The development of the policy for the protection of Environmentally Sensitive
Areas (ESA's) provides for the delineation and protection of inland and
coastal wetlands. Other strategies, such as the use of the Section
Permits, are also being investigated.
-------
35. Comment:
Regarding "Growth Management", the DEP must obtain cross acceptance of its
policies and enforcement responsibilities from the Depts. of Community Affairs
(DCA), Transportation and Agriculture. In particular, the Revised Development
Guide Plan issued by DCA contradicts many programs which DEP is mandated to
implement.
Response:
DEP has consistently consulted with other State agencies both during, and
after,the development of any policies of a Statewide nature, and will continue
to do so.
36. Comment:
Regarding advanced waste treatment, how can someone receive copies of
PRM 79-7, PRM 79-11 which address wasteload allocations, water quality
analysis and advanced waste treatment. Under Develop Wasteload Allocation
Methodology, Page 2-33, there is an item: NOD Removals. What is this?
Response:
(The documents have been mailed to the commentor.) These documents requested
are published by EPA and can be obtained by writing to the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10278.
NOD stands for nitrogenous oxygen demand, which is the amount of oxygen needed
to oxidize nitrogenous compounds in their various forms into nitrates or
nitrites.
37. Comment:
The primary policy and program thrust of DEP and EPA seems to be toward more
regulation, without an equal policy and program commitment to monitoring,
surveillance, enforcement and clean-up to achieve the goal of "fishable and
swimmable waters by 1983". We will not be able to prevent the future degradation
of our water resources through promulgation of regulation without an effective
oversight function.
Response;
To take over the various EPA programs, DEP must have regulations in place
(i.e. safe drinking water, construction grants, NJPDES). DEP is currently
proposing NJPDES regulations (required by the NJ Water Pollution Control Act).
The State has no power to enforce federal regulations and the enforcement
powers authorized by State law must be clearly detailed by regulations.
38. Comment:
What is being done to make sure that DWR staff is sufficient to administer
the NPDES program?
Response:
In January, 1980, staffing totalled 35 (including clerical). The detailed work
plan stated that the program would require a staff of 102 by January, 1981. As
of October 27, 1980, staffing totalled 100.
-------
39• Comment:
The section on Permit/Regulatory Program for Septic Systems now recommends the
establishment of districts. Where is the money to support this activity in all
counties? In addition, it is our understanding that legislation has been developed
which authorizes the municipal treatment facilities (201) agencies to regulate
on-site systems. What preparations are to be made to resolve the apparent
redundancy of roles?
Response:
See response to Comment 40. There is no redundancy; but public 201 agencies,
who have a vested interest in sewage treatment plants, could take advantage
of funding for establishment and construction of treatment works serving one
or more principal residences or small commercial establishments.
40. Comment:
Regarding groundwater enforcement actions, the draft identified actions against
municipalities who fail to enforce on-site subsurface sewage disposal regulations.
There is a basic contradiction in taking action against municipalities without a
clear strategy for development of resources at the local level to deal with the
problem of septic system management. The narrative of the Update supports the
creation of On-Site Waste Management Districts; however the actual inference
of the activities identified is that local agencies have not done an adequate
job and the recourse is State level control. We recommend that the agreement
express the intent to investigate a locally based program that can work. The
pending East Brunswick Twp. "201" application for this purpose is a useful model
study which should be recognized in the agreement.
Response;
Authority has always been in local hands under Chapter 199 with some exceptions
(see response to Comment 47). Some areas have continually failed to enforce
the code for various reasons. Resultant groundwater pollution jeopardizes the
health of N.J. citizens, and the State must take action as groundwater recognizes
no political boundary. Construction Grants regulations, on the other hand, allow
public organizations to utilize 201 funds to establish local programs (e.g., the
East Brunswick application above) for septic system management.
41. Comment:
Since DEP lacks the laboratory equipment, the funds and adequate staffing,
how can it be assigned the responsibility of using best engineering and judgment
to conduct a comprehensive certification program on toxic substances or industrial
categories when EPA guidelines have yet to be promulgated? Should this not be
a responsibility of the EPA?
Response;
The NJ takeover of the NPDES system is contingent upon adequate staffing at DEP
(see response to Comment 38). This takeover will require DEP to utilize the federal
guidelines for discharge permitting unless the State establishes effluent
limitations (guidelines or standards) on its own or water quality based effluent
standards to meet water quality standards. These limitations may be based on
-------
best engineering and judgment using knowledge of the particular discharger,
the receiving waters and current technology. EPA will continue to develop
guidelines and standards for NSPS (New Source Performance Standards) and toxic
substances. EPA's laboratory support will continue to be of valuable assistance.
EPA supports, and is working with DEP to facilitate the delegation of NPDES
responsibilities to New Jersey.
42. Comment:
Under Permit/Regulatory Programs for Groundwater Discharge, we find that this
section is written in more direct language than the original version (1979).
It calls for a permit program (i.e., effluent discharge standards) under NPDES
for these discharges. Is the state-of-the-art technology there to adequately
provide information to properly administer a program and make it stick in the
courts? Can a discharge limit be appropriately defined and measured for a
pollution source such as a landfill?
Response:
DEP has used two existing groundwater grants to develop strategies and, in
addition, will be giving money to a State university to develop a dilution model
that will extend our control to cover groundwater discharges from landfills.
43. Comment:
Regarding a Stormwater Regulatory Program, in the FY 80 version EPA was to develop
a strategy for NPDES requirements for storm drainage. This has apparently been
eliminated. What is the reason? (Tri-County 208 recommended NPDES not be
used because of impracticality and expense.) How will existing problems be
regulated?
Response;
The FY 81 Update has been revised (NJPDES Permit System) to allow for the
issuance of general permits to deal with areas which have been identified by
DEP as water quality problem areas. General permits will be issued for stormwater
discharges as required by State and Federal regulations.
44. Comment:
In Chapter 2.4.1 (NPDES Assumption/Industrial Discharges), what efforts will be
made to standardize sampling? How frequently will they be conducted? What is
the mechanism triggering enforcement by DEP and EPA? Have guidelines for spray
irrigation been promulgated? If not yet, when? How do industrial research
facilities fit under NPDES and NPDES Pretreatment Program? Are they considered
in the same category with regular industry?
Response:
Under interagency agreement between EPA and DBF, compliance monitoring of
facilities permitted under the NPDES system is to be conducted jointly by the
two agencies. In FY 80, the NJ Division of Water Resources was to conduct
thrity 24 hr. compliance monitoring investigations of municipal and industrial
dischargers. In FY 81, a target number of 40 compliance monitoring investigations
would be carried out by DEP under the interagency agreement. This would
-------
include 20 municipal and 20 industrial dischargers. EPA will conduct 50
24 hr. composite sampling investigations overall as part of the joint
compliance monitoring program. Formerly, the DEP component of the program
resided with the Enforcement Element. However, the Bureau of Monitoring
and Data Management of the Monitoring and Planning Element is to assume the
responsibility within the next few months. The two agencies (DEP and EPA)
would not ordinarily conduct compliance monitoring at the same facility within
a given year unless there were agreement to do so.
Facilities are chosen by DEP for compliance monitoring on the basis of several
criteria such as the potential for adverse impacts due to violations or timing
in relation to permit renewal. Priority setting criteria are yet to be
formalized but will be addressed in the near term. In addition, formulation
of criteria to be applied in (a) evaluating conformance with permit conditions
and (b) initiating referral of a case to enforcement; and the ensuing
procedural actions are to be formalized between DEP and EPA in the forthcoming
year.
A Manual for Laboratory Certification Criteria and Procedures has been prepared
by DEP establishing and standardizing analytical testing of samples collected
under compliance monitoring. This is currently being reviewed by the EPA
Quality Assurance Branch. All laboratories analyzing samples collected for
compliance monitoring will be required to meet these guidelines. Furthermore,
a laboratory certification program will be effective as of July 1st, 1981.
A Field Procedures Manual for Water-Data Acquisition has also been drafted and
released for review.
Guidelines for Spray Irrigation are currently in Draft form. These will be
available when NJPDES regulations are adopted in early 1981. Industrial
research facilities are regulated under the NPDES and NPDES Pretreatment
Program as are regular industries by the Division of Water Resources, Bureau
of Industrial Waste Management and Bureau of Groundwater Management.
45. Comment:
Regarding enforcement actions, i.e., failing septics, spills of hazardous
or toxic substances into groundwater, and industrial or sewage dischargers,
the allocation of 6 man-years for the entire State is totally inadequate. The
PRC in particular supported a strong enforcement program for antidegradation
policy.
Response:
Primary responsibility for enforcing the proper operation of septic tanks rests
with municipal, county or regional health agencies. State involvement would
only come as a result of inaction by those agencies. We do not anticipate a
significant workload in this category. In the case of spills of hazardous
or toxic substances, the Office of Hazardous Substances Control (now in the
Division of Emergency and Hazard Management) specializes in these situations.
DWR involvements, depending on the individual cases, may be a support role,
a coordinative or participatory role or in a small number of cases a lead role,
thereby reducing the time involvement for DWR in these types of cases.
Discharges of sewage and industrial waste will require a significant monitoring
and enforcement effort to prevent degradation of the State's waters. However,
-------
the permitting program for these discharges remains in its infancy. It is
expected that the program will grow and as it grows the need to dedicate
additional enforcement time will grow with it. At the present time this
represents a small percentage of our need to deal with discharges. As in
any good enforcement program, we can estimate the man years necessary for
certain categories but the priorities as real cases become known and are
developed will determine the actual expenditure of man years in each
category of enforcement.
46. Comment:
For the first time a regulatory program for agricultural runoff is being
recommended where voluntary programs are deemed unsuccessful. How will
these determinations be made? Is there new data which has been gathered
over the last year which allows DEP to make these determinations?
Response:
Determinations will be made using data received from all sources including
intensive surveys in problem areas. We are currently in the process of
collecting and analyzing new data although "Best Management Practices" (BMPs)
exist, there is no water quality plan requiring their useage. County and local
officials as well as the public will be contacted and informed of the problems
and encouraged to voluntarily adopt the program. A regulatory approach will
only be considered where all efforts to develop a voluntary program have
failed.
47. Comment:
Regarding on-site disposal, OEP appears to be needlessly expanding its role in
on-site wastewater disposal management by duplicating permit approval processes
currently in place at the local level.
State agencies train and certify local health officers, inspectors, and agencies
in accordance, with increasingly demanding standards to effectively review and
approve proposed water supply and on-site disposal systems and to identify and
respond to problems associated with on-site disposal of wastewater. Local
health officers are able to recognize truly "alternative" on-site disposal
systems. Even where DEP retains review authority for alternative systems,
municipalities reserve the option to disapprove the construction and
operation of such systems. It is recommended that the Division emphasize
continuing technical assitance and accelerating the development and approval
of performance standards and criteria for on-site disposal systems rather than
needlessly duplicating a permit process long established and already strictly
regulated at the local level.
Response:
DEP has been reviewing on-site wastewater systems for 50 or more units and
in the coastal critical areas since these laws were passed in 1972. The
Legislature evidently felt that the local health departments were not giving
these applications a sufficiently thorough review.
-------
In 1978 the Department began individual reviews i'n the Pinelands Critical Area
as required by the Legislature in order to protect the water resources of this
sensitive area. Also in 1978 the Department decided to allow municipalities
to approve alternate or innovative designs which did not conform with Chapter
199. However, it was felt that most municipalities did not have the expertise
to review alternate designs and a joint review is therefore required. An
exception is Hopewell Township (Mercer County) that has mandated (by Township
Ordinance) approval for alternate designs. Where county or local health
departments can meet the performance standards of the County Environmental
Health Act, the Department may delegate some of its responsibilities for on-site
disposal.
48. Comment:
Residuals Management—the strategy missing is cross-fertilization with other
programs within DEP. We do not need any solid waste facility in the freshwater
marshes of the Passaic River Basin—they serve as a source of potable water
supply—surface and ground water. The Central Valley of the Passaic River
has been designated as a "sole source" aquifer by EPA (Federal Register, May 8,
1980), and those developing plans within the solid waste management area should
be aware of such designations.
Response:
Approvals for land application of sludge are determined after a thorough review
process. Cross fertilization with other programs is intrinsic in this process,
which includes an evaluation of information on sludge quality, operational
considerations and site evaluation. The latter portion of the review, site
evaluation, would likely preclude approval for application in marshy areas.
In addition there is an operational prohibition in the Departmental Guidelines
from application in areas prone to flooding or on saturated soils. Copies of
the Guidelines are available upon request from DEP.
49. Comment:
It is extremely important that the State give adequate attention assessing the
impact on nonpoint related toxic substance problems and to develop and implement
effective controls to limit these problems. It is important for the State to
include research organizations presently spraying unregistered pesticides on
experimental plots in its study of statewide pesticide usage. My understanding
is that there is no program to control this kind of research activity in New
Jersey and that such a control is long over due. It is vitally important that
the State fill in the gaps is left under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act in requiring more stringent lab testing of new chemical
compounds that are destined for field experimentation. A system to corroborate
lab data with regards to the persistence, toxicity, synergistic effects and
transport in the soil structures is needed.
Response;
A control program for these types of research activities is currently being
planned and is in the developmental stage.
-------
50. Comment:
Regarding siting criteria for toxics disposal facilities, strategies described
on page 2-261 use of the DRBC study output and specify the actual listing of
sites as the product. (State officials at the public meeting indicated an
indpendent relationship between the agreement and this tudy when questioned.)
Has DEP thoroughly investigated the approach taken by DRBC and are they satisfied
that it will result in the best possible alternatives? It is recommended that
this section be changed to reflect the independnet relationship voiced at the
public meeting so that the results of the study can be properly assessed.
Response;
DWR received a federal grant ($6.0 m) to develop a statewide facilities plan for
the pretreatment program. This facilities plan will be comprehensive and
include regulatory components as well as residuals management components. The
DRBC siting criteria will be considered by this study and definitive cost
effective solutions for management of toxics/hazardous residuals will be developed.
A bill to establish a statewide operating authority to facilitate siting
is expected to be enacted soon.
51. Comment:
Please clarify the dates listed for the Hazardous Waste Program. What is the
"ongoing" public participation program?
Response;
Correct dates for Hazardous Waste Program activities are listed in the final
copy for the FY 81 Update. The term "ongoing" in the Strategies/Activities
chart refers to program activities which will continue with time (e.g., public
participation) rather than one which will be considered complete at a specific
time (e.g., issuance of a regulation). The specific activities for Hazardous
Waste public participation are listed in the FY 81 Cooperative Agreement
governing the RCRA Subtitle C program grant.
52. Comment;
The agreement lists county involvement in the locating and securing of abandoned
disposal sites. How is this to be done, and when will the counties be involved?
Response:
During the past year all county solid waste coordinators were contacted and
asked to identify abandoned sites. Over half of the coordinators named specific
sites. In addition, the county coordinators have varying involvement in the
remedial actions taken at abandoned sites. At a minimum they track the
Department's progress in individual cleanup actions and offer specific
assistance as appropriate.
53. Comment:
There is an indication that DEP will conduct a statewide industrial chemical
survey to determine the magnitude and extent of toxic chemicals discharged
into the environment. Has this not already been done by at least two other
organizations or does this survey differ to some extent from previous surveys?
It seems to me that industry has always been subjected to a barrage of surveys
and may bridle at the prospect of yet another.
-------
Response;
Industrial surveys for toxics are carefully planned and coordinated with other
sources of information to keep inconvenience to industry at a minimum. The
information is vitally necessary to the control of toxic chemicals in New
Jersey.
54. Comment:
Regarding the "Strategies for Toxic Substances Control", we urge that a
comprehensive report of achievements be presented to the public at the end
of FY 81.
Response:
DEP will issue "Data Reports" by the end of 1980 to inform the public of
any toxic substances in groundwater and surface waters of the State. These
reports will be made available through the Office of Cancer and Toxic Substances
Research, 190 W. State St., Trenton, N.J. 08625.
55. Comment:
Specific reference is made in the section on Water Supply Management and
Conservation that some groundwater supplies will be considered for abandonment.
There is a significant problem in the phasing of the tasks in that the "estimate
of potential need to abandon certain supplies" is programmed for 1980 while
"develop groundwater supply abandonment criteria" is scheduled for 1982. Criteria
should be developed first and no action should be taken in either of these tasks
without opportunities for input from designated "208" agencies and representatives
of local governments and major groundwater uses in the State.
Response;
We find no problem with investigating need prior to developing criteria for
abandonment as the situation may be such that it can be reversed through
ameliorating measures.
56. Comment:
Under Section 2.5 Water Supply, we suggest the strategy be amended to develop
an immediate program for EPA designated "sole source" aquifer, such as the
Buried Valley Aquifer of the Central Passaic River Basin. The State should
develop guidelines for the protection of this aquifer and request that County
Planning Boards carry through on this effort.
Response:
Subchapter 2.5.4, Figure 2-14, Strategy 2.11 addresses DEP's intention to
provide a program for EPA designated "sole source" aquifer recharge area
protection program.
-------
57. Comment:
Many elements in the SEA have extensive effects; if the DEP is successful
in its activities, the information should be presented to the public. We
would, for example, be extremely interested in the procedures being followed
on the integration of water quality and water supply. Inasmuch as so much of
the Passaic River Basin has beer, artificialized, the method used to determine
"future water supply demands and their effects on water quality" would be most
meaningful to us.
Response;
The key document is the Statewide Water Supply Master Plan. This document is
being readied for printing, along with a summary document which will be
available for review. Public meetings will be held in early 1981 to get public
input and comment. Chapter 2.5.4 details (in Figure 2-14) specific activities
with report outputs (e.g., surveys, projections, etc.) which will also be
available.
58. Comment:
Under the component, Section 2.2.2 "Recommend long term conservation policies
and programs" is timed for 1983! WHY DOES IT HAVE TO TAKE SO LONG! We need
an interim conservation program NOW! During the deliberations on the Water Supply
Master Plan, the PRC commented on the fact that "water conservation" seems to
be the much neglected stepchild of the Division of Water Resources. We
sincerely request that this timing will be updated, and that interim programs
will be developed and implemented IMMEDIATELY.
Response;
The Statewide Water Supply Plan consultants have made several recommendations
concerning long term water conservation which have been or are in the process
of being carried out. Municipalities have begun programs to promote conserva-
tion, to install water saving devices and to conduct public education programs.
Furthermore, the State will shortly sponsor the testing of various domestic
water conservation devices in order to provide a more sound technical basis to
carry out a full scale conservation program. For the near future the Plan
consultants recommend conservation measures that include reducing water supply
distribution system water losses, with State funding of repairs in certain
circumstances; evaluating conservation water rates and establishing pricing
policies; and implementing study programs for wastewater reuse.
Regarding short term drought response water conservation activities, the Water
Supply Plan consultants recommendations include restrictions on water use; water
rationing; and escalation of water rates in order to encourage demand
reductions.
More specific definition of the State's conservation policies will be made in
1981 in the preparation of the State's response to the Statewide Water Supply
Plan consultants' recommendations.
-------
59. Comment:
All aspects of NEPA should be made to apply to the "Purveyor Deficits/
Fragmentation of Water Supply Network" component. The acquisition of sites
and design and construction of facilities (pipelines and reservoirs) requires
the input of the citizens of the region. Furthermore, all components of the
Water Supply effort should be subject to the National Environmental Policy
Act, since projects have been identified in the Master Plan which have far
reaching environmental impact,
Response;
Only projects which receive federal funding are subject to NEPA; however the
State has a requirement for environmental assessments on all projects which
exceed $1 million dollars, or have the potential for significant environmental
impact.
60. Comment:
What is the policy on a nonpoint source control permitting process? The
document should clarify this.
Response:
There is no official policy.
------- |