Conference In The Matter Of Pollution Of The Interstate Waters Of Long Island Sound And Its Tributaries In The States Of Connecticut And New York: Held In New Haven, Connecticut, April 13-14, 1971 : Transcript Of Proceedings, Vol. 1


r
PROCEEDINGS
APRIL 13-14, 1971
0.
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
VOLUME 1
*>V
CONFERENCE	^
/
IN THE MATTER OF POLLUTION OF
~
y
THE INTERSTATE WATERS OF LONG
ISLAND SOUND AND ITS TRIBUTARIES-
CONNECTICUT-NEW YORK
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OF POLLUTION OF
THE INTERSTATE WATERS OF LONG ISLAND SOUND AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
IN THE STATES OF CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK
held in
New Haven, Connecticut
April 13 - 14, 1971
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

-------
A
CONTENTS
Page
Opening Statement - Mr. Murray Stein	5
Honorable Abraham Ribicoff (submitted statement)	12
Honorable Lester L. Wolff (read by Henry Levine)	16
Henry L. Diamond	19
Albert W. Bromberg 27, 56
Frank Fogarty	228
Carl Hard	242
Robert H. Wuestefeld	253
Gerald Rogers	261
Darrell J. Schwalm	267
John Curry	287
David C. Wiggin	312
Mrs. Bertrand H. Brown (submitted statement)	320
John I. Kirychuk	323
Richard J. Benoit	335
J. Richards Nelson	345
Frank Singleton	351
Mrs. Claire Stern	373
Michael Kaufman	396

-------
2
The conference in the matter of pollution of the
interstate waters of Long Island Sound and its tributaries
in the States of Connecticut and New York convened at
9:30 a.m., on April 13, 1971, at the New Haven Motor Inn,
New Haven Connecticut.
PRESIDING:
Mr. Murray Stein
Assistant Commissioner
Enforcement and Standards Compliance
Water Quality Office
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
CONFEREES:
John J. Curry
Director
Connecticut Water Resources Commission
State Office Building
Hartford, Connecticut
Dwight Metzler
Deputy Commissioner
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Albany, New York
Thomas R. Glenn, Jr.
Director and Chief Engineer
Interstate Sanitation Commission
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York
Alfred E. Peloquin
Executive Secretary
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission
73 Tremont Street
Boston, Massachusetts

-------
CONFEREES (continuedJ :
Lester M* Klashman
Regional Coordinator and Regional Director,
Hew England Region
Environmental Protection Agency
Boston, Massachusetts
Frank R. Gregg
Chairman
New England River Basins Commission
55 Court Street
Boston, Massachusetts
PARTICIPANTS:
Honorable Lester h. Wolff
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, I). C,
Read by Henry Levine
Henry L. Diamond
Commissioner
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Albany, New York
Albert W, Broraberg
Chief, Operations Branch
Water Quality Office, Region II
Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, New Jersey
Honorable Ogden R, Reid
Member of Congress, 26th District, New York, N,
Frank Fogarty
Chief, Operations Division
U. S, Corps of Engineerst New England Division
Waltham, Massachusetts
Carl Hard
Chairman, Ecological Advisory Group
U, S. Corps of Engineers, New England Division
Waltham, Massachusetts

-------
3-A
PARTICIPANTS (continued):
Robert H. Wuestefeld
Assistant Chief, Operations Division
U. S. Corps of Engineers, New York District
New York, New York
Gerald Rogers
Special Assistant for Environmental Engineering
Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Darrell J. Schwalm
Regional Shellfish Consultant
Shellfish Sanitation Branch, Food and Drug
Administration
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Boston, Massachusetts
David C. Wiggin
Director
Environmental Health Services Division
Connecticut State Health Department
Hartford, Connecticut
Mrs. Bertrand H. Brown
Director, Environmental Projects
League of Women Voters of Connecticut
Glastonbury, Connecticut
John I. Klrychuk
Chairman, Connecticut Sportsmens Natural Resources
New Britain, Connecticut
Richard J. Benoit, Ph.D.
Director, Ecology Laboratory
Environmental Research and Applications, Inc.
Norwich, Connecticut
J. Richards Nelson
President
Long Island Oyster Farms, Inc.
New Haven, Connecticut
Frank Singleton
Director of Environmental Health
Town of Greenwich, Connecticut

-------
PARTICIPANTS (continued):
Mrs. Claire Stern
Executive Director
Long Island Environmental Council
Roslyn, New York
Michael Kaufman
Kaufman Advisory Services
New Haven, Connecticut
Eugene Seebald
Weber County Office
Associate Director, Division of Pure Waters
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Albany, New York
Joseph T. Miller
Chief of Design
Department of Water Resources
New York, New York
Calvin E. Weber
Director
Division of Environmental Health Services
Westchester County Department of Health
State of New York
White Plains, New York
Donald F. Squires
Director
Marine Sciences Research Center
State University of New York
Stony Brook, New York
Henry M. Doebler
Director of Public Affairs
Long Island Lighting Company
Mineola, New York
Nils E. Erickson
Environmental Defense Fund
East Setauket, New York
Mrs. Howarth P. Boyle
Greenwich Environmental Action Group
Old Greenwich, Connecticut

-------
3-C
PARTICIPANTS (continued):
Alex Haughwout
President
Byram River Pollution Abatement Association
Byram, Connecticut
Sylvia Dovling
Stamford, Connecticut
Richard Hill
Director of Environmental Sciences and Technology
Center for the Environment and Man
Hartford, Connecticut
Joseph F. Moran, Jr.
Director, Environmental Studies Institute
Higher Education Center for Urban Studies
Bridgeport, Connecticut
Honorable Abraham Ribicoff
U. S. Senate
Washington, D. C.

-------
4
ATTENDEES:
D. A. Alberts, Chief
U.S.C.G. COTP/Oil Pollution
New Haven Coast Guard Station
New Haven, Connecticut
Mary Ansbro, Editor
Water in the News
475 Park Avenue South, 27th Fir.
New York, New York 10016
William Banks
On the Sound
1261 Flagler Drive
Mamaroneck, New York
Ronald D. Barbaro, Ph.D.
V.P., Princeton Aqua Science
U. S. Route 1
Princeton, New Jersey
Jonas Barish, Engineer
Federal Power Commission
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N. Y. 10007
Franklin L. Barth
Sales Engineer
New York Testing Labs., Inc.
81 Urban Avenue
Westbury, N. Y. 11590
Frank Basil
Outdoor Recreation Planner
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
1421 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Philip Barsk
Field Representative
Wilalge Mgt. Institute
200 Audubon Lane
Fairfield, Connecticut
Seymour Bayuk
Chief, Records Engineer
City of New Haven
38 Long Hill Terrace
New Haven, Connecticut
Mrs. Richard G. Bell
Jr. League of New Haven, Inc.
75 Ridgewood Avenue
North Haven, Connecticut
Chris Biemiller
Asst. Public Health Engineer
Suffolk County Dept.
Environ. Control
1324 Motor Parkway
Hauppauge, New York 11787
David Bird
Reporter, New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, N. Y. 10036
Ernest V. Bontya
Engineer
Shellfish Commission
Riger Avenue
Milford, Connecticut
Frank R. Boucher
President
Ecology Services, Inc.
135 Crossways Park Dr.
Woodbury, N. Y. 11797
Rita L. Bowlby
Director, Environ. Programs
Conn. Action NOW
152 Temple Street
New Haven, Connecticut
David R. Brown
Training Director
Slick Bar, Inc.
10 Saugatuck Ave.
Westport,Connecticut

-------
ATTENDEES: (continued)
Theodore Burger
Public Health Engineer
Nassau Co. Health Dept.
240 Old Country Road
Mineolat N. Y. 11501
S. R Caliento
District Representative
E.R.A.| Inc.
27 Danbury Road
Wilton, Connecticut
George Carpenter, Jr.
Elm City Filling Stations
169 Derby Ave.
New Haven, Connecticut
Richard Carpenter
Planning Director
So. Western Regional Planning
Agency
137 Rowayton Ave.
Rowayton, Conn. 06853
Andy Carrano
Press News Editor, WELI
New Haven, Connecticut
James Carrier
WICC - N. Y. Daily News
177 State Street
Bridgeport, Connecticut
Patrick F. Cassell
Sanitarian
New Haven Dept. Of Health
One State Street
New Haven, Connecticut
Constance Ceberek
14 Batt Street
Middleton, Conn. 06457
4-A
Jacqueline Cebertk
14 Batt Street
Middletown, Conn. 06457
George A. Chalmers
Crescent Park Associates
Morris Cove (East Shore)
48 Townsend Ave.
New Haven, Conn. 06512
P. W. Child
Photo
WNHC-TV
135 College Street
New Haven, Connecticut
Peter A. Clark
Assistant U. S. Attorney
U. S. Attorney - District
of Connecticut
141 Church Street
New Haven, Connecticut
Bill Clede
Outdoor Editor
The Hartford Times & WTIC
Radio
Hartford, Conn. 06101
LeRoy H. Clem
Director, Program Development
Center for Environment & Man
250 Constitution Plaza
Hartford, Conn. 06109
Ruth E. Coan
Urban Planner
RPA - South Central Conn*
96 Grove Street
New Haven, Connecticut
Allen T. Cole
Chief Plant Utilities
AVCO Lycoming,
550 Main Street
Stratford, Connecticut

-------
4-B
ATTENDEES: (continued)
Thomas J. Condon
Reporter
Hartford Current
187 Gardner Ave.
New London, Connecticut
Peter B. Cooper
35 Elm Street
New Haven, Connecticut
Matthew C. Cordaro, Ph.D.
Senior Environmental Engineer
Long Island Lighting Co*
175 E. Old Country Road
Hicksville, N. Y. 11801
Tom Costello
Editor and Publisher
National Environmental News
87 Christian Street
Oxford, Conn* 06483
George T. Cowherd, Jr.
Environmental Engineer
Con Edison
4 Irving Place
New York, N. Y.
George H. Craemer
Consultant
Metropolitan District -
Hartford, Conn.
P. 0. Box 800
Hartford, Conn. 06101
Gary F. Crosby
Group Commander
U. S. Coast Guard
Fort Trumbull
New London, Conn. 06320
William H. Cuddy, Lawyer
Day, Berry & Howard
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, Connecticut
Joseph Daddic
Shachlee Prod.
51 Elizabeth Ann Dr.
Connecticut
J. Daniels
Reporter - Environment
Hartford Times
10 Prospect Street
Hartford, Connecticut
Henry A. Darius
Assistant Secretary
Northeast Utilities
P. O. Box 270
Hartford, Conn. 06101
Stanley R. Davis
Regional Hydraulic Engineer
U. S. Federal Highway Admin.
4 Namarskill Blvd.
Delmar, N. Y.
Edward DeLouise
Director, Bur., of Environ.
Health
City of New Haven
One State Street
New Haven, Connecticut
James Elliott
News Director, WGCH
1490 Dayton Ave.
Greenwich, Connecticut
Ralph A. Esposito
Industrial Specialist
DCASPRO Stratford
Stratford, Connecticut
J. Thomas Failla
Reporter
Bridgeport Post - UPI

-------
4-C
ATTENDEES: (continued)
Jim Farrell
AP
367 Orange Street
New Haven, Connecticut
E. Feleppo, Ph.D.
Senior Member Research Staff
Riverside Research Institute
80 West End Ave*
New York, N. Y. 10023
James V. Fitzpatrick
President
Environmental Analyst
40 Hilton Avenue
Garden City, N. Y.
Martin Flusser, Jr.
Reporter - Newsday
550 Stewart Ave*
Garden City, L. I.
Jeff Forgoston
Reporter
Long Island Press
92-24 - 168th Street
Jamaica, Queens, N. Y.
George L. Fox, Jr.
Vice President
Albertson, Sharp & Backus, Inc.
83 East Avenue
Norwalk, Conn. 06851
Dominic Gabriele
Civil Engineer
Naval Submarine Base,
New London
P. O. Box 400
Groton, Connecticut
James Gallagher
Oceanographer
u. s. Navy U/ff Systems Center
New London, Conn.
Robert F. Gasser
Executive Vice President
Ecolotrol, Inc.
1211 Stewart Ave.
Bethpage, N. Y. 11714
Paul Gough
Science Writer
New Haven Register
New Haven, Connecticut
Stanley V. Greimann
Director
Conn, River Estuary R.P.A.
Essex Square
Essex, Conn. 06426
Myrt Gross
Asst* to Executive Director
L. I. Environmental Council
Roslyn, N. Y. 11576
Charles F. Guck
Const. Engineer
Remington Arms Co.
939 Borman Ave,
Bridgeport, Conn.
Arsen K. Gulesserian
Assistant Engineer
NUSCO
66 Franklin Sq., Apt. 2-B
New Britain, Conn.
Robert C. Halligan
Representative to Town of
Hungtington
Main Street
Huntington, N. Y.
Carl E. Hammon, Sr.
Mgt. Consultant
135 Vauxhall Street
New London, Conn. 06320

-------
ATTENDEES: (continued)
G. M. Hansler
I.B.C., SPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N. Y. 10007
R. J. Hanson, Ph.D.
Chief, Intelligence and Lav
Enforcement
If. S. Coast Guard
Quarters 6A
Governors Island, N. Y,
John E, Harrison
Director, Environ. Quality
N.Y.S. Depart. Environ.
Conservation
901 N. Broadway
White Plains, N. Y.
Daniel T. Hedden
Chief of Environ. Science
Northeast Utilities
P. 0. Box 270
Hartford, Conn. 06033
Guy- L. Helaemaan
Asst. U. S. Attorney
U. S. Attorney - Eastern
District, N, Y.
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, N. Y. 11201
Douglas Hill
Mgr. Environ. Programs
Grumman Ecosystems Corp.
Bethpage, N. Y. 11714
Jon S. Hiltunen
Eastern Regional Dir.
N. Y. State Petroleum
Council
757 Third Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10017
Terrence Hodnik
Pollution Abatement Officer
Naval Base NCON Ct.
Naval Submarine Base
New London, Conn.
Henry N. Homeyer
President
Homeyer Associates
15 Center Road
Woodbridge, Conn.
William R. Hurder
U. S. Merchant Marine Academy
Kings Point, New York
Charles W. Hutton
Chief Engineer
New Haven Trap Rock Co., Inc.
North Branford, Conn. 06571
George W. Jay, Lt. (jg)
Sanitation Officer
Naval Sub Base, New London
Groton, Connecticut
Robert E. Jenkins
Environmental Editor
Norwich Bulletin
66 Franklin Street
Norwich, Connecticut
Albert G. Jensen
Asst. Director, Marine b
Coastal Res.
N.Y.S. Dept. Environ. Conservation
4175 Veterans Highway
Rontontoma* N. Y. 11779
Arne R. Johnson, Attorney
Olsin Corp.
275 Winchester Ave.
New Haven, Connecticut
Gustave Johanson
Supervisory Auditor
U. S. General Accounting Office
1903 JFK Federal Bldg.
Boston, Mass. 02203
James A. Johnson, Dlv. Engineer
G. T. Lakes
206 Main Street
Millburn, New Jersey

-------
4-E
ATTENDEES: (continued)
Robert C. Joseph
Exec • V# P»
Ecology Services, Inc.
135 Cranuan Park Drive
Woodbury, N. Y.
Carole Kahn (with
Paul Bloomhardt)
Producer
Conn. Public TV
24 Summit Street
Hartford, Connecticut
John W. Kane
Reporter Photographer
(with Phil Holmes,
Director)
WHNB-TV, NBC TV 30
West Hartford, Conn.
Steven B. Kaufman
Reporter
New Haven Register
New Haven, Connecticut
Lawrence F. Keane, Jr.
V. P., Stearns 8s Wheler
Civil and Sanitary Engrs.
44 Cherry Street
New Canaan, Conn. 06840
Ray Kendall
Sales Engineer
Antrol Ind.
Valley Forge, Pa.
Paul Knapp (with
Jim Esposito)
TV News Editor
WNHC-TV 8
135 College Street
New Haven, Connecticut
Myron 0. Knudson
Chief, Operations Branch
EPA, WQO, NEBO
240 Highland Ave.
Needham Heights, Mass. 02194
Carl A. Kramer
Industrial Engineer
D0D Defense Supply Agency
Boston Regional Office
888 Summer Street
Boston, Massachusetts
Leonard A. Krause, Ph.D.
Mgr. Environmental Engr.
United Illuminating Co.
80 Temple Street
New Haven, Connecticut
Bill LaPlante
Reporter, WHNB-TV
West Hartford, Conn.
Kenneth Lanouette
Vice President
Industrial Pollution Control
45 Riverside Avenue
Westport, Connecticut
William H. MacLeish
Editorial Asst. to the President
Yale University
205 Strathcona Hall
New Haven, Connecticut
E. L. MacLeman
Regional Representative
Div. of Water Hygiene, EPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N. Y. 10007
A1 Mari
Reporter, Westchester-Rockland
50 Westchester Ave.
Port Chester, N« Y. 3Q573

-------
4-F
ATTENDEES: (continued)
W. E. Martin
Area Engineer
Remington Arms Co.
Barnum Avenue
Bridgeport, Connecticut
William A. Mawney
Plant Engineer
Wyatt, Inc.
900 Chapel Street
New Haven, Connecticut
Cmdx, Robert B. May
U. S. Merchant Marine
Academy
Kings Point, New York
Jack McCarthy
Director, Air Pollution
Control
City of Bridgeport
835 Washington Avenue
Bridgeport, Connecticut
William F. McCarthy
Chief, Environmental Resources
Planning
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Mass.
Marcus R. McCraven
Director of Environ, Engr.
United Illuminating Co.
80 Temple Street
New Haven, Connecticut
Walter T. McPhee
Partner, Nebolsine, Toth,
McPhee Assoc.
450 Livingston Street
Norwood, New Jersey
Ed Meehan
Regional Planner
Conn. River Estuary R.P.A.
Essex, Connecticut
Fred Meisenkothen
Mgr. R&D
New Haven Chamber of Commerce
152 Temple Street
New Haven, Conn. 06505
George C. Meyer
Regional Shellfish Consultant
FDA, USPHS
850 Third Avenue
Brooklyn, New York
Jay Mikan
1462 Broad Street
Hartford, Connecticut
Richard A. Mikan
1462 Broad Street
Hartford, Connecticut
Steven Monje
Reporter, WTIC
Hartford, Connecticut
Joseph J. Monkoski
Civil Engineer
National Park Service
143 S. Third Street
Philadelphia, Pa.
Robert E. Moore
Sanitary Engineer
Conn. Water^Resources Comm.
165 Capital Ave.
Hartford, Connecticut
Laura Morrison
Laboratory Director
Greenwich, Conn. Health Dept.
Town Hall Annex
Greenwich, Connecticut

-------
4-G
ATTENDEES: (continued)
P. L. Morrissey
Const, Mgr.
Teetor-Dobbins
Rowkonkona, L. I,, N. Y.
Edison Morton
Tall, Magex Bloom
132 Water Street
South. Norwalk, Connecticut
Edmund A. J, Mroz
De-Pol Company
17 Harrison Street
Stoneham, Massachusetts
William L. Nash
Utility Project Mgr.
21 Health Street
Mystic, Connecticut
P. Nazzaro
Associate Professor
U. S. M. M. A.
Kings Point, New York
Allan Neustadter, Planner
Metropolitan Regional Council
155 E. 71st Street
New York, New York.
George E. O'Brien
New Haven Journal Courier
New Raven, Connecticut
Eva Orsini
Citizen-Student-S.C.S.
College
50 Barbara Lane
Hamden, Conn* 06518
Wadsworth Owen
Manager, Uarine Tech. Waterford
Research Lab.
Vast| Inc.
P. O. Box 218
Yfaterfoxd, Conn. 06385
L. Pearson
Professor, U„ S, M, M, A#
Kings Point, New York
Joseph Paganus
Sr. Sales Engineer
Honeywell, Inc.
3660 Ivy Drive
Bethpage, N. Y. 11714
Louis Pinata
Asst. Cm. Permits Branch
N, Y. Dist. Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York
R. Pitchai, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
Center for the Environment
and Man
250 Constitution Plaza
Hartford, Conn. 06103
Robert S, Probman
Assistant, NEIWPCC
73 Tremont Street
Boston, Massachusetts
William E. Reifsnyder
Chairman, Conn. Group,
Sierra Club
1750 Country Club Road
Mlddletown, Conn. 06457
Arthur W. Remling
Division Landscape Architect
U. S. Corps of Engineers, NAD
1501 NewfieId Avenue
Stamford, Connecticut
Robert C. Richards, Attorney
Long Island Lighting Co.
350 Old Country Road
Mineola, New York

-------
ATTENDEES: (continued)
Dean P. Ritter
R. S.i Navy Sub Base
Groton, Connecticut
John D. Sandifer
Sierra Club
55 Pecksland Road
Greenwich, Connecticut
Richard R. Sarginson
Project Engineer
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Statler Building
Boston, Mass. 02116
Jacqueline Schafer
Legislative Assistant
Senator James L. Buckley*s
Office
452 Old Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D. C. 20510
Richard P. Schulz, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Westchester County, DPW, N.Y,
County Office Bldg,
White Plains, N. Y. 10601
Gordon D. Shaub
Associate, Hazen & Sawyer
360 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York
Mrs. Joseph Sheehan
Director, Shippan Pt. Assoc*
422 Ocean Drive West
Stamford, Connecticut
Bernard P. Skulte, Ph.D.
Special Assistant for
Envir. Engr. to Northern
Division Naval Facilities
Engineer Command
44 Cypress Street
Brookline, Massachusetts
Bruce F. Smith
Assistant U. S. Attorney
U. S. Attorney, E.D.N. Y.
225 Cadman Place East
Brooklyn, New York
Clinton S. Smith
Harbor Master
Town of Oyster Bay
58 W. Main Street
Oyster Bay, New York
Millard F. Smith
President, Slickbar, Inc.
10 Sauoatuck Avenue
Westport, Connecticut
Roger Smith
President, Syn Ecology
P. O. Box 502
Port Washington, N. Y. 11050
W. K. Smith
H. 0. & R. Company
Hutchinson River Parkway
Pelham, New York
E. J. Smolinski
Supervisor, E.E. & Util.
Remington Arms Co.
939 Barnum Avenue
Bridgeport, Connecticut
John J. Smutes
Civil Engineer
North Atlantic Division
90 Church Street
New York, New York
Thomas J. Spota, Attorney
Town of North Hempstead
Plandome Road
Manhasset, New York

-------
4-1
ATTENDEES: (continued)
Judith Stockdale
32	Beach Avenue
Woodmont, Connecticut
Jos, R. Tamsky
Planning Director
Norwalk C.P.C.
33	S. Main Street
Norwalk, Connecticut
Robert B. Taylor
Principal Sanitary Engr.
Conn. Water Resources Comm.
State Office Building
Hartford, Connecticut
Walter D. Temple, Jr.
Asst. V.P. of Operations
Wyatt, Inc.
900 Chapel Street
New Haven, Connecticut
Steve Thomas
News Editor, WAVZ Radio
152 Temple Street
New Haven, Connecticut 06510
Herbert H. Thompson
Sales Engineer
Honeywell, Inc.
885 Wethersfield Ave.
Hartford, Conn.
R. B. Thompson
Vice President
Industrial Pollution Control
45 Riverside Avenue
Westport, Connecticut
Anthony Trelewicz
Junior Engineer
Westchester County D.P.W.
County Office Building
Marine Avenue
White Plains, N. Y. 10528
Kenneth A. Venit
News Reporter, WNHC-TV 8
New Haven, Conn. 06510
James L. Verber, Capt.
Chief, NETSO
PHS/FDA
Bldg. S-26, CBC
Davisvilie, R« I. 02854
Mrs. James L. Verber
146 Chatsworth Road
North Kingstown, R. I.
Peter VIllano
332 Kneeland Road
New Haven, Connecticut
Mr. Webb
Defense Supply Agency
Boston Regional Office
888 Summer Street
Boston, Massachusetts
Mitchell Wendell, Ph.D.
Counsel
Interstate Sanitation Comm.
10 Columbus: Circle
New York, N. Y.
R. H. White
Associate Director
N. h. Ocean Science Lab
Montauk, New York
Richard White
WAVZ News
New Haven, Connecticut
Merlon E. Wiggin
Chief, E & P M
USDA Plum Island
P. O. Box 848
Greenport, N. Y.

-------
ATTENDEES: (continued)
L. M. Woodworth
Marine Engineer
Howard Needles Tlammev & Bergendoff
G. R. Young
Consultant (Self-Employed)
202 Harbor Street
Branford, Connecticut
Gilbert Zawadski
Harbor Master
City of Bridgeport
Lyon Terrace
Bridgeport, Connecticut
R. Zimmerman
240 West 98th Street
New York, New York

-------
5
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
MR. MURRAY STEIN
MR. STEIN: The conference is open.
This conference in the matter of pollution of the
interstate waters of Long Island Sound and its tributaries
in the States of Connecticut and New York is being held
under the provisions of section 10 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended.
Under the provisions of the act, the Administrator
the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to
initiate a conference of this type when on the basis of
reports, surveys, or studies he has reason to believe that
pollution subject to abatement under the Federal act is
occurring.
As specified in section 10 of the act, the
official State and interstate water pollution control
agencies have been notified of this conference by
Administrator Ruckelshaus. These agencies are the Connecti-
cut Water Resources Comission, the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, the Interstate Sanitation
Commission, and the New England Interstate Water Pollution

-------
6
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
Control Commission.
In addition, we have invited the New England
River Basins Commission to sit with us on the panel.
Both the State and Federal governments have
responsibilities in dealing with water pollution control
problems. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act declares
that the States have primary rights and responsibilities for
talcing action to abate and control pollution. Consistent
with this, we are charged by law to encourage the States
in these activities.
At the same time, the Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, is charged by law with specific
responsibilities in the field of water pollution control
in connection with pollution of interstate and navigable
waters. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides
that pollution of interstate or navigable waters which
endangers the health or welfare of any persons shall be
subject to abatement. This applies whether the matter
causing or contributing to. the pollution is discharged
directly into such waters or reaches such waters after
discharge into a tributary.
The purpose of the conference is to bring
together the State and interstate water pollution control
agencies, representatives of the U. S. Environmental

-------
7
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
Protection Agency, and other interested parties to review
the existing situation and the progress which has been made,
to lay a basis for future action by all parties concerned,
and to give the States, localities, and industries an
opportunity to take any indicated remedial action under
State and local law.
The Connecticut Water Resources Commission will
be represented by Mr. John Curry.
The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation will be represented by Mr. Dwight Metzler.
The Interstate Sanitation Commission will be
represented by Mr, Thomas Glenn.
The representative of the New England Water
Pollution Control Commission is Mr. Alfred X. Peloquin.
The Federal conferee is Mr. Lester Klashman who
is Regional Coordinator and Regional Director of the New
England Region of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Frank Gregg will represent the New England
River Basins Commission.
And my name is Murray Stein. I am from headquarters
of the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D. C.,
and the representative of Administrator Ruckelshaus.
The parties to this conference are the official
State and interstate water pollution control agencies and

-------
8
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
the Environmental Protection Agency. Participation in this
conference will be open to representatives and invitees of
these agencies and such persons as inform me that they wish
to present statements. However, only the representatives
of the official agencies constitute the conferees.
Now a word about the procedures governing the
conduct of the conference. The conferees will be called
upon to make statements. The conferees, in addition, may
call upon participants whom they have invited to the con-
ference to make statements. In addition, we shall call on
other interested individuals who wish to present statements.
At the conclusion of each statement, the conferees
will be given an opportunity to comment or ask questions,
and I may ask a question or two. This procedure has
proven effective in the past in reaching equitable solutions.
In order to get the conference concluded withih
a reasonable time, we just cannot entertain comments or
questions from the floor. However, you may be assured that
everyone will have an opportunity to be heard fully. Please
save your comments and questions, and you will be given an
opportunity to make these points when your turn comes to
speak.
At the end of all the statements, we shall have
a discussion among the conferees and try to arrive at a

-------
9
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
basis of agreement on the facts of the situation. Then we
shall attempt to summarize the conference, giving the con-
ferees, of course, the right to amend or modify the summary.
Under the Federal law, the Administrator of
Environmental Protection Agency is required at the conclusion
of the conference to prepare a summary of it which will be
sent to the conferees. The summary, according to law, must
include the following points:
1.	Occurrence of pollution of interstate waters
subject to abatement under the Federal act;
2.	Adequacy of measures taken toward abatement
of pollution; and
3.	Nature of delays, if any, being encountered in
abating the pollution.
The Administrator is also required to make
recommendations for remedial action if such recommendations
are indicated.
A record and verbatim transcript of the conference
is being made by Mr. Joe McLaughlin. This is being made for
the purpose of aiding us in preparing a summary and also
for providing a complete record of what is said here. It
usually takes about 3 or 4 months for the transcript to come
out in printed form. If you wish a record or a part of it
beforehand, you can check with Mr. McLaughlin, who is an

-------
10
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
independent contractor, and make your own arrangements with
him.
If you do that, of course, you can have the whole
or any part of the transcript beforehand. But we will not
be able to make this available before 3 or 4 months.
I should indicate that we do not print in color.
So take that into account in any chart you may present. These
will be reproduced in black and white. Try not to refer
to color if you use graphic aids in your presentation, as
they may be meaningless when someone tries to read the
transcript.
We shall make copies of the summary and transcript
available to the official State and interstate water pollu-
tion control agencies. We have generally found that for
the purpose of maintaining relationships within the States
the people who wish summaries and transcripts should request
them through their State agency rather than come directly
to the Federal Government. The reason for this is that,
when the conference has been concluded, we would prefer
people who are interested in the problem to follow the
normal relations in dealing with the State agencies rather
than the Federal Government. This has worked successfully
in the past. And we will be most happy to make this
material available for distribution.

-------
11
Opening Statement - Murray Stein
I would suggest that all speakers and participants
other than the conferees making statements come to the lectern
and identify themselves for the purposes of the record.
The way we have generally worked the conference
is that we have allowed all the States and interstate
agencies to manage their own time. In other words, we will
call upon the States and then the interstate agencies, and
any constituents of these States will be called by them.
Thus, if you feel you want to make a statement
or have any particular request as to the time you should be
put on the agenda, please get in touch with your State
representatives.
Under the law, if you are not happy with that, you
can always come to the chairman. I should indicate that I
have worked with this entire panel I would say for almost
a career. We are not strangers to each other. I know the
representatives of both States here, Connecticut and New
York, for a very long time. They are both consummate
professionals in their field and very highly respected, and
I'm sure we should have no problem with them.
I have a statement here for the record. I guess
if you're around long enough everyone gets a chance to be
a boss once in a while. This is a statement from a former
boss of mine. I would like to put it in the record. This

-------
12
Honorable Abraham Ribicoff
is a statement of Senator Abraham Ribicoff. He just wants
this statement submitted to the record of the conference.
As many of you know, Senator Ribicoff used to be
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and was very
active and interested in this field. He has that active
interest to this day. We are very happy to have this state-
ment from Senator Ribicoff put in the record.
STATEMENT OF
HONORABLE ABRAHAM RIBICOFF
UNITED STATES SENATE, WASHINGTON, n. C.
The water pollution control conference beginning
today can be an important step in controlling and ultimately
eliminating pollution in Long Island Sound.
The sound occupies a unique place in American
life. Its protected waters provide a harbor for sailors
and a harvest for fishermen. It is the home for innumerable
species of fin and shell fish and a way station for migrating
birds. Above all, the sound plays a central role in the
lives of the 11 million citizens of three States — Rhode
Island, Connecticut, and New York — who live within 15
miles of the shore.
Ironically, the very uniqueness of the sound has
contributed to its deterioration. Because of the sound's
proximity to urban centers, real estate and commercial

-------
13
Honorable Abraham Ribicoff
developers have hacked away at the land. Because the sound
contains many important harbors, it is crisscrossed with
tankers and freighters which have carelessly dumped their
wastes into the once clean waters. Because three States
share jurisdiction ol the sound, there has been little uni-
fied concern with its future.
For years, no government, State or Federal, recog-
nized the pollution crisis of Long Island Sound or took
steps to prevent it. Even now that the problem is being
recognized, intergovernmental rivalry has stymied serious
attempts to cope with the deteriorating situation.
The problems facing the sound cannot be separated
into separate categories. Water pollution, land development,
and transportation policies, for example, are inextricably
linked together. The solution of each individual problem
depends upon the solution for the others.
If we are to reverse the present trend and
revitalize the sound, we must have the active and coopera-
tive participation and support of all concerned State and
Federal agencies.
To accomplish this goal, I introduced two years
ago a bill authorizing a regional study of the future of
Long Island Sound. Ve held three days of hearings last

-------
Honorable Abraham Ribicoff
14
summer in Connecticut and New York which documented the need
for a thorough analysis of the sound's problems, and the
New England River Basins Commission (NERBC) was chosen to
undertake the investigation.
The Commission has begun its initial planning,
and I am pleased that it has been included in this conference.
Lines of communication must be opened, and this first multi-
state enforcement conference was the proper occasion to
begin this new spirit of cooperation.
The New England River Basins Commission will be
calling on all the relevant government agencies as well as
local citizens for help in formulating a comprehensive
plan for development of the sound. This will enable each
government agency to make the most effective use of their
limited resources.
The Commission will need more than our cooperation,
however. It will need adequate funds to do the job. The
Commission has informed me it will need $2.9 million over
the next three years to conduct a truly effective study of
the sound's problems, with $1.5 million needed this year.
All of us concerned with the future of Long Island Sound
must work to see that this money is provided.
The present conference is scheduled for only two
days. We found last summer that we were only able to

-------
Honorable Abraham Rihicoff
15
scratch the surface of this problem In three days, and I
hope this hearing will only signal the beginning of our
efforts to end pollution of the sound. This once beautiful
body of water has not yet reached the point of no return,
but it is seriously close to it. We along the sound can
no longer afford the luxury of jurisdictional disputes or
political squabbles. To delay any longer will be an abdica-
tion of our responsibilities to the present residents of
the sound area and the generations to come.

-------
16
Honorable Lester L. Wolff
MR. STEIN: We also have a representative of
Congressman Wolff here, Congressman Lester L» Wolff- Will
Henry Levine come up and read his statement?
Mr. Levine.
STATEMENT OF
HONORARTjE LESTFR L. WOLFF
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D. C.
(HEAD BY HENRY LEVINE)
MB. LEVINE: Thank you, Mr, Stein.
My name is Henry Levine. I am the Research and
Projects Coordinator for Congressman Lester Volff. The
Congressman, whose interest in the preservation of Long
Island Sound has been extensive and longstanding, regrets
that he cannot be present today himself. He never gets to
all the things he would like to go to. However, I would
like to take this opportunity to make a brief statement on
his behalf, as follows:
I am highly gratified by this conference, which
Indicates a welcome Federal interest in the sound. I would
hope that it will be a major step toward cleaning up the
sound, complementing the planning study being done by the
New England River Basins Commission.
I would further hope that this conference will

-------
17
Honorable Lester L. V'olff
result in not only talk but also in affirmative action. It
must not slow the progress of the New England River Basins
Commission study, and it will not give us the single effective
body needed for future control of the sound. But it can be
a vital step, and I am pleased that such a step is being taken.
During the past week I have written to Environ-
mental Protection Agency Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus
urging that the Federal Government ban powerplants from
discharging heated waters into Long Island Sound. Thermal
discharges could be controlled by recycling the heated
waters and using wholly contained cooling towers as
Ruckelshaus has suggested for Lake Michigan.
In view of our lack of information on the precise
extent of damage which may be caused by thermal discharges,
and in view of the possibility that thermal discharges
may accelerate the harm caused by other pollutants, I feel
it would be wise to preclude any additional thermal dis-
charges into the sound at this time. Long Island Sound is
already deteriorating at an alarming rate, and we should
take every available measure to prevent its further
deterioration.
With regard to the Environmental Protection Ageucv
report issues as the basis for this conference, I feel that
while this is certainly a good beginning, the agency appears

-------
18
Honorable Lester L. Wolff
to have missed much of the pollution which flows into the
western end of the sound from New York City. Since there
are many tidal studies which show that water in the sound
flows from west to east, it will be necessary for the
Environmental Protection Agency to look harder and longer
at the pollution created in the extreme western end of the
sound and the upper East River.
I note with some concern that while half of the
shoreline of Long Island Sound is part of New York State,
and as such under the jurisdiction of Region II of EPA,
the administrator of that region is not listed els one of the
conferees. It would be unfortunate if the fact that most
of the heavy pollution in the sound originates on the
Connecticut shore were to obscure the real problems of
pollution from New York City, thermal discharges, sewer
effluent, and oil terminal leaks, among others, which
materially harm the economic, recreational, and ecological
value of Long Island Sound,
I thank you for this opportunity to talk, and I
wish you much good luck,
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Levine.
I think we should point out for the record that
the Federal conferees just have one conferee, Mr. Klashman,
but the Regional Director for the New York Region and New

-------
19
Henry l. Diamond
Jersey, Mr. Gerald Hansler, is in the room. He is following
these procedures very closely. He has long experience in
the enforcement operations of the Water Pollution Control
Act. I am sure that on a day-to-day basis he will be working
with us, and we will be working with him, on this problem.
At this point I would like to call on Mr. Dwight
Metzler before we go into the Federal presentation.
MR. METZLER: Thank you very much, Chairman Stein.
Environmental activities in New York State have
recently been consolidated in a new Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, and here to make an opening statement
for the department is Commissioner Henry L. Diamond.
STATEMENT OF
HENRY L. DIAMOND
COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
MR. DIAMOND: Chairman Stein, my friends on the
panel, conferees, New York State welcomes the calling of
this conference. We are always pleased when our Federal
friends and our sister States are concerned with our environ-
mental problems. We welcome you here and look forward to
working with you on them.
The preconference report lists 27 discharge
sources in New York State. We have studied them in some

-------
20
Henry L. Diamond
detail. My associates, Gene Seebald and Jack Harrison, of
the department, will report in detail on those sources and
also on the New York program in general in some detail, as
I understand is customary in these conferences.
However, in my brief remarks here I would like to
bring to the attention of the conference some emerging
problems that I hope will be considered that may be a
little broader than the sound but really are going to
determine, in ray view, the future of the sound.
First, I think, enforcement. New York State is
committed to a vigilant enforcement program. We believe
that industrial and municipal polluters have got to be on
a realistic, tough schedule, and we hope this conference
will continue that tradition.
We are now carrying out a review of every outstand-
ing commissioner's order to make sure that, indeed, all the
schedules are tough and realistic.
I think that the Federal Government and the States
have got to integrate their enforcement programs more closely.
This will be particularly important as the new effluent per-
mit program comes into operation. At present the Federal
enforcement program is divided among several entities of
the Federal Government, And seemingly without full
consultation among themselves, not to mention with the

-------
21
Henry L. Diamond
States, they are proceeding apace.
There has been, frankly, a degree of environmental
"oneupmanship" involved here, and I think that we need more
cooperation and less of this "oneupmanship."
The purpose of the entire water quality effort is
to clean up the waterways, not to establish courtroom box
scores or a line count in the newspapers.
We in New York are now beginning to work with
the Environmental Protection Administration attorneys to
allocate some of the workload. There are plenty of polluters
for all. Our plan is that they take some of the "bad guys"
and we'll take the rest, rather than everyone going after
everyone else or everyone going after those who produce
the greatest media coverage.
So I believe this is important to the overall
enforcement program and enforcement on the sound, and we
look forward to working with our Federal friends on it.
Secondly, one cannot talk about water quality
without talking about money. I know Chairman Stein hears
this wherever he goes, but I have got to say it for the
record here. We cannot clean up Long Island Sound or any
part of the waters of this country without full financing.
We in New York State have been prefinancing the
Federal share of the water quality program to the tune of

-------
22
Henry L. Diamond
almost a half a billion dollars in State money and almost
that much in local money.
Now, the Long Island Sound area actually, as set
forth in the preconference report, has fared rather well in
Federal money. The average is about 25 percent. Across the State
in New York, however, the average is about 7 percent. And we
have made a judgment in New York to put more of the Federal
money into some of the Long Island projects. In other areas
the Federal share is only 1 percent.
Of course, the authorization level is 55 percent. And
we are pleased that the President has recommended — and
some of the congressional leaders have been urging — a far
higher level of Federal appropriation. I believe that it
is essential that this money be authorized, appropriated,
and distributed to the States.
We can hold enforcement conferences until we
are blue in the face. Unless the Federal Government lives
up to its share of the antipollution partnership, we are
not going to get the water clean. Money is the key; there is
no way around it.
The third point, boats. Pleasure and commercial
ships are important on Long Island Sound. On any weekday from
April to September anyone can see the sound covered with
sails. This is good. But people pollute the water.

-------
23
Henry L. Diamond
We in New York have passed some very stringent boat-
ing regulations. Quite frankly, this was a difficult and
hard-won victory on which we have taken a lot of heat and
continue to take it. All or part of our ability or our
authority to regulate pleasurecraft will probably be pre-
empted by the Federal standards. We urge that this conference
consider making the Federal standards just as strong as New
York's so we do not have a denegration of this hard-won
victory. And I hope that will be a major part of this
conference.
A fourth point is the thermal pollution question.
I think one of the great threats to future quality of the
sound is the thermal pollution problem. We are approaching
it I think on an ad hoc, piecemeal basis.
We in New York have thermal standards. We think
they are good. We are applying them vigorously in the one
case before us. But we are not looking ahead to the future
of the sound.
There may be as many as a dozen electric
generating plants scheduled for the sound, maybe more, to
use the sound water. Maybe a ban is needed. Our present
statistics don't show us that. Maybe it is*
But I think this conference has to consider how
we allocate the cooling resources of the sound, starting

-------
24
Henry L. Diamond
from a ban or some reasonable allocation for the long term.
Again, the decisions on thermal pollution and
powerplant siting to too far great an extent are being made
on the basis of litigation and on the basis of press re-
leases rather than on the basis of sound judgment.
We think we environmentalists and the power
people have abrogated our responsibility to the lawyers and
public relations people, and this doesn't make for good
power or good environment. I suggest we have a long-term
planning effort on the environment.
Another point which I hope this conference will
consider is the problem of stormwater separation. Most
of the effluent that flows into the sound comes from com-
bined sewers. It is particularly true in New York City,
where immense quantities of sewage and stormwater flow into
the sound.
We are just making a beginning on controlling this
problem. It is a huge one. The financial ramifications
are absolutely enormous. I think we have got to have
better ways of treating it. Our technology has got to be
better.
I hope we get some demonstration grants and a
new Federal program, and we will probably have to have some
new State efforts to clean this up. If we are ever going

-------
25
Henry L. Diamond
to have a clean sound, we have got to find better ways of
separating the storage water from the sewage water. There
is no way around that.
The sixth and last item I would like to mention,
that I think is a great potential for Long Island and
particularly for eastern Long Island, is ground water re-
charge. What is now a problem in the sound, sewage
effluent, can be an opportunity to restore the lowered
aquifers of Long Island. We in New York are working on this
problem. We have had a cooperative agreement with the
Federal Government. I think we are getting there. But I
hope this conference again will look into the possibilities
of treating water in areas where it is feasible to such
levels that it can be recharged in the aquifers so we get
a plus rather than minus out of our sewage effluent.
In closing, let me say that I appreciate very
much the opportunity to bring these matters to the atten-
tion of the conference. They may not be in the narrow
sense what conferences usually focus on. And we are going
to focus on specific enforcement in later statements. But
I believe these kinds of basic decisions on enforcement
and financing, on thermal pollution, on ground water
recharge, and on stormwater separation are what is going
to get the final goal of this conference — clean water in

-------
26
Henry L. Diamond
the sound. I hope you can give us some pushes on it.
Thank you very much.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Diamond.
Are there any comments or questions?
(No response.)
Again, I would like to just say one thing for the
record, although you may have heard this before. When we
talk about Federal or State financing, who is the Federal
Government? It's just you people in the States. I think
we all know in checking the Constitution where the money
comes from. That is the Congress.
I just made a rough estimate. I think there are
535 Senators and Representatives. If we take Connecticut and
New York, we probably have 50 of the 535, which for 2 contigu-
ous States is a pretty good average, I think, pretty near
the top.
I don't think in this question of money that one
party can point to the other party. We're all together.
We're not a foreign government. You're dealing with your
Government in Washington.
MR* DIAMOND: I certainly agree with you. We in
New York who send a dollar to Washington and get back 7 cents
sometimes think we are sort of low on the "foreign aid" totem-
pole, but I certainly agree it's the same dollar.

-------
Henry L. Diamond
Albert W. Bromberg
MR. STEIN: They say these days we only get
52-cent dollars when they come in.
We will now call on Mr. Klashman for the Federal
presentation.
MR. KLASHMAN: I should like to first call on
Mr. Albert Bromberg, who is Chief of the Operations Branch
of the Water Quality Office, Region II, Environmental
Protection Agency, located at Edison, New Jersey.
The effort which went into this conference was
carried on by both Regions I and II of the Environmental
Protection Agency, and Mr. Bromberg, who is with Region II,
will give our statement.
STATEMENT OF
ALBERT W. BROMBERG
CHIEF, OPERATIONS BRANCH
WATER QUALITY OFFICE, REGION II
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EDISON, NEW JERSEY
MR. BROMBERG: Mr. Chairman, conferees, my name
is Albert Bromberg. I am the Chief of the Operations
Branch of the Environmental Protection Agency's Water Quality
Office in Edison, New Jersey.
I would like to present our report on the water
quality of Long Island Sound. I would like to read portions

-------
Page, Figure
or Section
Number
Section. II, Page 10
27a
mm
for
Heport on the Water Quality of
Long Island Sound
March, 1971
Correction
Closed Shellfish Areas listed are
numbered as follows:
In New York
1.	Hempstead Harbor
2.	Vicinity of Matinicock Harbor
3.	Oyster Bay Harbor (part)
Cold Spring Harbor (part)
5.	Huntington Harbor (part)
c.	Centerport Harbor (part)
7-	Northport Harbor
8.	Nissequoque fiiver
9.	Port Jefferson Harbor (part)
1C. Offshore area of Northville (oil
unloading facility)
11.	Vicinity of Mattituck Inlet
12.	Vicinity of Inlet Point (Greenport
sewer outfall)
13- Vicinity of west end of Fishers Island.
In Connecticut
l*t.	Greenwich
15.	Darien - Stamford
16.	Darien - Norwalk
17.	Norwalk
18.	Westport - Fairfield
19.	Bridgeport
20.	Stratford - Milford (Housatonic River)

-------
27b
Page, Figure
or Section
Number
Figure 3
Section III, Page 13
Section III, Page 16
Section IV, [Cable 6
Section V, Page 32
Correction
21.	Milford
22.	New Haven
23.	East Haven - Branford
24.	Thimbles Islands
25.	Madison - Clinton
26.	Old Saybrook - Old Lyme (Connecticut
River)
27.	Four Mile River
28.	Bride Brook
29.	Groton - New London (Thames River)
30.	Groton - Mumford Cove
31.	Groton - Mystic River
32.	Stonington
Replace Figure 3 with the attached new
Figure 3 showing numbered location of
closed shellfish areas.
Second paragraph, revise fifth sentence to
read: "Of the 60 systems listed, five in
Connecticut serving less than one percent
of the sewered population are individual
septic tank communities; 32 (12 in New
York and 21 in Connecticut) serving 73
percent provide primary treatment; and
23 (10 in New York and 13 in Connecticut)
serving 27 percent provide secondary
treatment".
Second paragraph, sixth line - replace
"Port Jefferson" with "Northport".
Seventh entry in this Table, change
"Manyasset" to "Manhasset".
Third paragraph - replace last sentence
with "The municipal plants that have been
identified total 38, of which six are on
schedule; 2k are behind schedule; one has
a pending completion date (with no interim
date) and six presently provide adequate
treatment with no established schedule".

-------
27c
Page, Figure
or Section
Number
Correction
Appendix B, Table B-l
Change entry No. ~*C, "Fairfield11 as follows:
a)	Under "Degree of Treatment", replace
"Primary" with "Secondary".
b)	Under "Federally Approved Implemen-
tation Schedule" delete all dates
of the schedule and code regarding
status.
Appendix B, Table B-l
Change footnotes at the end of page 3 of
Table B-l as follows:
a) Under the column "Status", a "1"
indicates the step has been completed,
a blank indicates it has not been
completed. Status of Compliance is
as of March 15, 1971 f°r Connecticut
sources and October 30, 1970 for New
York sources.
b) An asterisk at the right margin
of the Implementation Schedule indi-
cates it is a State Schedule with no
Federal Schedule established.

-------
CLOSED SHELLFISH AREAS
LONG ISLAND SOUND
NEW LONDONl
i NEW HAVEN
(2 3)	(2 4)
"*VC,
FISHERS ISLAND
BRIDGEPORT
©
•(/plum island
a*tlNr°!l^Z7°Mm PT.

A
POST CHESTER
MAMARONECK j
Lorchmont Harbor
NORTON PT
NEW ROCHELLE ,
EflttchtiUr Bey
v N'
kHUNTINGTON
MONTAUK POINT
^	Cold Spring Harbor
• Hempstead Harbor
Monho»»et Bay
NASSAU COUNTY |
|SJ
a

-------
Albert W. Bromberg
28
of our report, which I am sure most of you have, but, Mr.
Chairman, I request that the entire report be entered into
the record as if read.
MR. STEIN: We will enter it into the record as
if read.
I hate to give this admonition on the Federal
report, but I notice you have charts with little red marks.
They will appear in black and white.
MR. BROMBERG: Be it so. They will appear in black
and white.
MR. STEIN: There is no other way.
Let me go off the record here.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. STEIN: Let's go back on the record.
Mr. Bromberg. I will start on page 1.
I - BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
Outline of Area
This report is concerned with the waters of Long
Island Sound and its tidal estuaries, bays and harbors to
head of tide along the shores of New York and Connecticut
between Throgs Neck Bridge in the west and a line extending
from the New York-Connecticut-Rhode Island State line to
north shore of Long Island Sound at Orient Point in the
east (see Figure 1).

-------
<0
c
90

-------
30
Albert W. Bromberg
The area covered includes Fishers Island and Plum
Island. It excludes the Pawcatuck River Basin and the
tidal portion of the Connecticut River not affecting Long
Island Sound.
Geology
Long Island Sound was formed in the Tertiary
period, probably as the valley of a large stream, by the
erosion of weathered bedrock and the overlying Lloyd sand.
South of the sound, a line of hills was formed on what is now
Long Island. After the ice sheets melted, the northern
slopes of these hills were carved into a series of short,
steep, straight valleys and wide, deep harbors by the
numerous small northward flowing streams. These small
streams on the north shore of Long Island have drainage areas
of less than 30 square miles.
Long Island Sound has a length of more than 90
nautical miles and an average width of about 10 nautical
miles. The maximum width of about 20 nautical miles occurs
opposite New Haven Harbor. The depths of the near-shore
waters (less than a mile off shore) are generally below 25
feet. Offshore waters range in depth from 25 to more than
100 feet with some pockets having depths of 125 to 150
feet. The volume of the sound is estimated to be about
2,200 billion cubic feet (63 billion cubic meters).

-------
31
Albert W, Bromberg
Long Island Sound has an eastern entrance to the
Atlantic Ocean through Block Island Sound and The Bace. The
Race Is that stretch of water between Fishers Island and
Plum Island* The western entrance to the sound is by way
of the East Kiver at Throgs Neck.
Climate
The average annual air temperature of Long Island
Sound is about 51 degrees F. The average monthly air
temperature ranges from the middle seventies in the summer
to the middle twenties in winter. Extreme temperatures
range from about 100 degrees F. to less than 0.
Precipitation is evenly distributed throughout
the year with the monthly average at about 3.7 inches. The
annual precipitation rate varies with location around the
sound, but generally ranges from 40 to 46 inches per year.
The annual snowfall on the area is about 30 to 35 Inches.
During the winter months, precipitation results from the
"prevailing westerlies." The greatest precipitation
generally occurs during August when tropical storms reach
the area. June and July offer the lowest monthly average
precipitation.
Hydrology
Freshwater Inflow
Three major drainage basins provide the sound with

-------
Albert V. Bromberg
32
freshwater. They are, in order of importance, the Connecti-
cut River Basin (11,265 square miles), the Housatonic River
Basin (1,950 square miles), and the Thames River Basin
(1,470 square miles). Smaller streams in Connecticut, on
the New York mainland, and on Long Island drain an additional
1,300 square miles. Thus, the entire drainage area to the
sound is about 16,000 square miles, or about 13 times the
area of Long Island Sound. A summary of the average
annual runoff from river basins draining to the sound is
shown on Table 1.
Another source of freshwater to Long Island
Sound is ground water outflow. The estimated subsurface
outflow from ground water in Connecticut is estimated to be
about 190 cubic feet per second (cfs) and from Long Island
about 260 cfs.
Circulation of Water
Movement of water in Long Island Sound is complex.
Circulation is influenced by: inflow of salty Block Island
Sound water; density differences between bottom and surface
waters; inflow of freshwater from streams and groundwater;
and by tides, winds, and the earth's rotation. There is
also inflow of water from the East River at Throgs Neck
which affects the western portion of the sound near the New
York metropolitan area.

-------
33
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF MAJOR SURFACE WATER RUNOFF TO LONG ISLAND SOUND
Drainage Area	Average Annual Flow
Drainage Baain	Square Miles	Cubic Feet Per Second
Long Island, N.Y.
Glen Cove Creek	11	7,2
Mill Neck Creek	12	9.5
Cold Spring Brook	7	A.6
Nissequoque River	2_7	42.2
57	63.5
Westchester County, N.Y.
Hutchinson River	6
Mamaronsck River	23
29
New York-Connecticut
Byram River	36	10.7
Connecticut
Connecticut River	11,265	19,100
Housatonic River	1,950	3,230
Thames River	1,470	2,420
Connecticut Coastal	1,150	2,060
15.B35	26,810
Total	15,957	26,920

-------
34
Albert W. Bromberg
Water from Block Island Sound enters Long Island
Sound along the bottom through The Race. As the bottom
water travels westward it is gradually mixed into the surface
layer. Near New Haven, bottom water moves west at an
average speed of almost 6 miles per month; at the western
end the bottom transport is essentially 0.
Surface transport, generally composed of mixed
bottom water, and surface runoff and groundwater seepage
increases from west to east. Near New Haven the surface
transport flows east at a rate of almost 9 miles per month.
Tidal currents commonly average about 0.7 knots,
and generally move parallel to the coast. Figure 2 shows
the average surface velocities in the sound. The polluted
fresher water entering the sound through Throgs Neck tends
to keep to the Long Island shore. The saltier Block Island
Sound water entering The Race tends to keep to the Connecti-
cut shore. These surface currents cross the New York-
Connecticut State line near Fishers Island ahd the New York-
Connecticut State line near Port Chester Harbor. When the
waters near the State lines are polluted, tidal currents
carry the polluted waters from one State into another.
Population
Conference Area (Immediately Bordering the Sound)
The conference area for Long Island Sound consists

-------
CO
c
o
to
SURFACE CURRENT-AVERAGE (KNOTS)
LONG ISLAND SOUND
NOTES
1 $urlo
-------
36
Albert VI, Bromberg
of those municipalities which immediately border the water
body itself. In addition, it is necessary to define a
larger area — called the tributary region — which consists
of counties which are reasonably close to the sound. The
municipalities in the conference area will have the greatest
impact on the sound, whereas the tributary region contains
not only these municipalities but also others which have a
lesser but still significant impact.
In 1960, approximately 2 million people lived in
those municipalities bordering the sound, excluding New York
City. About half of the area's population was located in
Connecticut municipalities and the other half in New York
State municipalities. Table 2 shows the population in
the conference area for selected years and area population
distribution and population percentage changes estimated for
1969, 1980 and 2010.
The total population in the conference area is
expected to rise from 2,480,000 in 1969 to 4,340,000 by 2010,
an increase of75 percent. During this period, the population
of the New York portion, primarily the Nassau and Suffolk
municipalities bordering the sound, can increase by an
estimated 100 percent, from 1,230,000 in 1969 to 2,450,000
In 2010. Table 3 shows that, of the total conference area
population, the Connecticut portion was 53 percent in I960
-------
37
TABLE 2
DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN CONFERENCE AREA
FOR 1960, 1969, 1980 AND 2010^
(thousands)
Percentage Increase

1960
1969
1980
2010
1969-
1980
1980-
2010
1969
2010
Connecticut
Portion
1,060
1,250
1,490
1,890
19
27
51
New York
Portion
930
1,230
1,460
2,450
19
68
99
AREA TOTAL
1,990
2,480
2,950
TABLE 3
4,340
19
47
75

CONFERENCE
AREA POPULATION AS
PERCENT
OF TOTAL

FOR 1960,
1969, 1980
AND 2010

1960
1969
1980

2010
Connecticut
Portion

53
50
50

44
New York Portion

47
50
50

56
AREA TOTAL

100%
TABLE 4
100%
100%

100%

TRIBUTARY
(COUNTY)
DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION^-

(thousands)

1960
1969
1980
2010
Percentage Increase
1969- 1980- 1969'
1980 2010 2010
Connecticut
(4 counties)
1,588
1,910 2,280
2,970
19
30
55
New York
(7 counties)
10,336
10,980 12,320
15,640
12
27
42
REGION TOTAL
11,924
12,890 14,600
18,610
13
27
44
1/ Information contained in the table was derived from the U.S. Census of
Population 1960, PC(1)-8A, The Demographic Projections for New York
State Counties to 2020 A.D., New York State Office of Planning Coordina-
tion and the Population Survey, 1970, Long Island Lighting Co. With
the exception of 1960, Connecticut population figures are based upon
Environmental Protection Agency estimates.
-------
38
Albert W. Broraberg
but by 2010 it is expected to decline to 44 percent. Con-
versely, the New York portion is expected to increase to 56 per-
cent during this period.
Tributary (County) Region
Any consideration of the Long Island Sound con-
ference area should take into account the socioeconomic
impact of the larger county-wide region that is tributary
to the sound. Counting whole counties (7 in New York —
Kings, Queens, New York, Bronx, Westchester, Nassau, and
Suffolk — and 4 in Connecticut — Fairfield, Middlesex,
New Haven, and New London), the population in the tributary
region was 11,924,353 in 1960. The estimated 1969 population
was 12,890,000; the population by 2010 is estimated at
18,610,000, an increase of 44 percent (see Table 4).
In 1960, the total population for the 7 New York
State counties was 10,335,839, whereas the 4 Connecticut
counties totaled 1,588,514. For 2010, the New York
counties' total is estimated at 15,640,000 and Connecticut's
4 counties at 2,970,000. This indicates that the New York
counties' population will increase by an estimated 42
percent between 1969 and 2010, compared to the Connecticut
counties which will increase by 55 percent.
Comparison of Table 2 and Table 4 discloses that
the population in the conference area is expected to
-------
39
Albert W, Bromberg
increase by 75 percent between 1969 and 2010, while the
population throughout the tributary region for the same
period will increase more slowly — by 44 percent.
Population growth in the conference area and the
larger tributary region will result in an increase in waste
load to the waterways; the waste load per person will also
rise due to the increased domestic use of such items as
garbage disposal units.
The expected increase in leisure time during the
coming decades will place greater demands on recreational
facilities and the use of recreational equipment such as
boats. Long Island Sound will be called upon to serve
more and more people. At the same time, the divergent
demands of recreation and other environmental needs versus
waste disposal, power generation, and commercial uses are
competing with each other.
Economy
The discussion of the economy in the conference
area is based only upon the 7 counties directly adjoining
Long Island Sound — namely, Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk
Counties on the New York side and Fairfield, Middlesex, New
Haven, and New London Counties on the Connecticut side.
For these 7 counties slightly more than 91,000
business establishments (all Standard Industrial
-------
40
Albert W. Bromberg
Classifications-SIC) were reported in 1968. Table 5 shows
that the New York counties accounted for approximately 57,600
or more than half of the total number.
Roughly 8,200 manufacturing establishments were
located in this limited region, and the majority, or 57
percent, were in New York. Included among these establishments
are such large water-using or potential water-polluting
categories as food, textiles, paper, chemicals, petroleum,
and primary metals.
Although the total number of manufacturing
establishments in the area remained almost constant between
1964 and 1968, it is expected, according to the Office of
Business Economics employment projections, that manufacturing
in the conference area will increase by 30 percent in the
next 4 decades.
Considering employment projections in the 6 major
water-oriented industries cited above, the importance of
the food and chemical industries in the area is expected
to increase, whereas the textile, paper, and primary metals
industries are expected to decline. These industrial
employment changes will come about by means of technological
advances or the use of automated equipment. It is not
possible at this time to obtain employment data for the
petroleum industry, but the anticipated increase of
-------
TABLE 5
1968 DISTRIBUTION OF BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS IN LONG ISLAND REGION
BY STATE, COUNTY AND MAJOR BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION^'

Finance,
Services
Total No. Agricultural

Insurance,
(Hotels,
of Estab--, Services
lishments— Mining
Contract
Manufac-
Transport-
Real
Repairs,
Construction
turing
ation
Wholesale Retail Estate
etc.)
New York
Nassau
26,483
425
2,558
2,187
800
2,388
7,662
2,655
7,808
Suffolk
13,440
238
1,832
1,169
512
771
4,470
797
3,651
Westchester
17,643
297
1,807
1,265
502
1,282
5,033
2,206
5,251
SUB-TOTAL
57,566
960
6,197
4,621
1,814
4,441
17,165
5,658
16,710
Z of Sub—Total
100
1.7
10.8
8.0
3.2
7.7
29.8
9.9
29.0
Connecticut
Fairfield
14,771
204
1,730
1,589
405
944
4,212
1,171
4,516
Middlesex
1,943
29
279
243
52
94
623
116
507
New Haven
13,519
96
1,287
1,506
396
1,034
3,952
1,199
4,049
New London
3,291
53
353
224
107
200
1,183
228
943
SUB-TOTAL
33,524
382
3,649
3,562
960
2,272
9,970
2,714
10,015
Z of Sub-Total
100
1.1
10.9
10.6
2.9
6.8
29.7
8.1
29.9
REGION TOTAL
91,090
1,342
9,846
8,183
2,774
6,713
27,135
8,372
26,725
Z of Total
100
1.5
10.8
9.0
3.0
7.4
29.8
9.2
29.3
1/ County Business Patterns, 1968, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
?J Unclassified Establishments excluded.
-------
42
Albert W. Bromberg
petroleum shipping in the sound indicates that this industry
will be an important factor in the future economic develop-
ment of the area.
Extensive land requirements for residential,
industrial, and commercial development will decrease the
amount of agricultural land usage and agricultural employment
in the area, even though the value of the agricultural output
may increase. The decline in the agricultural industry may
be offset by the growth of other industries, such as oyster
shellfishing and services.
At present, the shellfish and fin fish industries
significantly contribute to the economic importance of the
conference area. With improved water quality, the
economic value of these two industries could be greatly
enhanced. Detailed information concerning these industries
will be discussed in a later section.
Some indication of the overall economic value
of the region can be measured in terms of the dollar value
of the region's physical output. In 1963, the region
accounted for $4.4 billion worth of economic production
(value added by manufacturers),
II - WATER USES
Industrial and Municipal Water Supply
The waters of Long Island Sound with salinities
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
of about 20 parts per thousand are unsuitable as a source of
municipal water supply.
Few industrial plants withdraw sound water for
in-plant process use because of high salinities. Seventeen
fossil fuel power generating stations and many industrial
plants located around the periphery of the sound use sound
waters for cooling purposes. An estimated 2,100 mgd of
water withdrawn from the sound or its harbors were used
for cooling in conjunction with power generation during
1967. To meet projected increases in local power demands,
several nuclear and conventional steam electric power
plants have been proposed. Cooling water withdrawals from
Long Island Sound for generating this power are estimated
at 3,300 mgd by the end of 1970 and 17,400 mgd by 1990.
The installed and planned power capacity of
conventional steam and nuclear power stations using cooling
water from the sound are summarized below. An estimate of
the amount of cooling water used is also included.
Appendix A, Tables A-l and A-2 list the conventional steam
electric powerplants and the nuclear power stations used
to develop the summary table. Appendix Figure A-l shows
the location of the power stations.
Since more power production will be needed to
sustain the projected population and industrial growths,
-------
44
Albert W. Bromberg
detailed studies should include the effects of heated
effluent on the ecology of Long Island Sound.
SUMMARY OF CONVENTIONAL STEAM AND NUCLEAR ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS
ON LONG ISLAND SOUND
Installed
Capacity
1967
Planned Capacity*
1970 1990
Conventional Steam Electric Power Plants
Installed Capacity (megawatts) 2,930 4,520 5,370
Estimated Cooling Water Use (mgd) 2,100 3,300 3,900
Nuclear Electric Power Plants
Installed Capacity (megawatts)
Estimated Cooling Water Use (mgd)
10,230
13,500
Total
Installed Capacity (megawatts)
Estimated Cooling Water Use (mgd)
2,930
2,100
4,520
3,300
15,600
17,400
~Recent controversies regarding thermal pollution have delayed
construction of many planned stations.
-------
45
Honorable Op;den R. Re id
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Bromberg, I wonder if you might
delay the remainder of your statement just for a moment.
You have finished reading on page 6?
MR. BROMBERG: Right. I can start on page 7.
MR. KLASHMAN: If you can just delay, then we will
recall you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you. The reason for the delay
is we are very honored to have a man who was very instrumental
in the calling of this conference and in the calling of our
attention to the problems constantly in Washington. We
would like to call on Congressman Ogden Reid.
Congressman Reid.
STATEMENT OF
HONORABLE OGDEN R. REID
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C.
CONGRESSMAN REID: Mr. Chairman Murray Stein,
I'm very happy to be here today, and I think that this
conference is particularly fortunate to have your leadership
as chairman.
Murray Stein is one of those who have worked
particularly hard in Washington over the years to really
make a difference in what the Federal Government does
with regard to the environment. He is fair, he is thought-
ful, he is creative, and I am sure he will work out a plan
-------
46
Honorable Ogden R. Reid
with the others represented today that will represent major
steps forward for the Long Island area.
I understand there are representatives of the
New York Department of Environmental Conservation — is
Henry Diamond here? I think he is coming — and the
Connecticut Water Resources Commission. The New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission I think was
due to be here today.
At any rate, let me say first that I am delighted
that this Long Island Sound enforcement conference to
halt pollution is at last a reality. It started in part
back in 1965 with a memorandum to Secretary Udall and was
given subsequent impetus by Russ Train, now in the White
House, David Dominick, and Bill Ruckelshaus, and I could
not be happier that this has occurred.
The plain fact of the matter is that I don't think
we'll make progress unless the two States of New York and
Connecticut work together and, further, the Federal Government
steps up to its responsibilities as well. And the only
mechanism really for putting the facts together, working
out joint abatement schedules, and backing that up with
necessary fines, if that is required, is a Federal enforce-
ment conference.
We are meeting today, I submit, ladies and
-------
47
Honorable Ofrden R. Reid
gentlemen, none too soon. The pollution of Long Island
Sound has reached serious — some would say alarming —
proportions.
Statistics cited in the report on the water
quality of Long Island Sound, copies of which I am sure you
have, are very clear. This is the second report issued by
the Federal Government. And it notes at least 15 areas of
the sound are violating basic standards and are polluting
the area.
I would call your attention to Bill Ruckelshaus'
statement in the press release on this conference in which
he said, "Portions of Long Island Sound are already
severely degraded by municipal and industrial wastes. If
we do not take steps now to reverse this situation,
incalculable damage could be done to this vital water
resource. The area of New York City, Westchester, Nassau
and Suffolk Counties in New York and Connecticut supports a
population of 11 million people and is still growing
rapidly."
When I first looked at some of these figures,
there were some that told me there had been a tenfold
increase in pollution in a relatively few years. Others
were concerned that we were headed down the route of Lake
Erie. Without trying to evaluate precisely where we are,
-------
48
Honorable Ogden R. Reid
there are some specifics I believe that this conference must
and can deal with.
First, there is a total of 60 municipal and
institutional sewage systems, 22 in New York and 38 in
Connecticut, that dump 170 mgd of wastewater into Long Island
Sound and its embayments. There are 16 combined sewers
in Long Island Sound which dump serious quantities of
untreated water and wastes into the sound after rains.
We are well aware that there are significant
thermal pollution dangers as well. We have one atomic
plant at the moment on the Connecticut River, as we're all
familiar, and there are possibilities of an additional five
or six being built in the sound area.
I happen to believe that no power facility should
be built unless there is conclusive evidence, after
thoughtful study and siting, that there will be no environ-
mental danger or hardship.
Additionally, as the report points out, there are
137 industrial sources of wastewater discharge into the
embayments and estuaries of the sound, 132 in Connecticut
and five in New York, four of which are in Westchester
County.
There are 16 Federal installations, including 11
lighthouses, that include, in addition to the lighthouses,
-------
49
Honorable Ogden R. Beid
a U. S. Air Force facility and a U. S. Navy facility,
discharging 2 mgd of wastewater and 5.3 mgd of cooling water
into the sound, its embayments and estuaries.
Substantial pollution, I submit, is also created
in the sound by 240 boat marinas, more than 100 oil storage
and unloading facilities, nine Corps of Engineers disposal
areas, which in 1968 received 1.4 million cubic yards of
dredged material, and there are 17 fossil fuel steam
electric generating plants which use the sound and affect
it for cooling purposes.
Adding all of these up, Mr. Chairman, there is
a grand total of 579 identifiable sources dumping several
hundred million gallons of waste per day directly or
indirectly into Long Island Sound.
It is clear that we have a tremendous amount of
work ahead of us. At a minimum, it seems to me we need
to greatly improve our sewage treatment process. Of the
60 institutional sewage systems polluting the sound, only
22 have even secondary treatment facilities. None provides
tertiary treatment.
Tertiary treatment, as well as year-round
chlorination, is essential if the waters of the sound are to
be restored to acceptable quality.
Now, the minute you mention tertiary treatment,
-------
50
Honorable Ogden R. Its id
hands go up in horror over the cost. But, as a practical
matter, I think the Federal Government has got to step up
to bat, and the States, to help pay the cost of what is
required. And we'll be kidding ourselves, I submit,
if we permit primary and secondary plants to operate which
do not filter out either phosphates, for example, or
viruses.
I would submit that year-round chlorination and
consideration of tertiary plants is an appropriate matter
for your agenda.
Moreover, it is my belief that the State of New
York should make stricter its classes and standards for
water quality. Presently, for example, New York imposes
a higher standard for waters usable for commercial shell-
fishing than for waters usable for swimming. Yet a bather
might easily ingest water while swimming. Why, then,
should we give less protection to people swimming than we
do to shellfish?
As you may know, there are 61,000 acres in Long
Island Sound closed for shellfishing purposes now in New
York and 15,000 acres in Connecticut.
So there does seem to be quite a bit to be done.
We are fortunate that there is time to do it. And, in spite
of the magnitude of the problem, as I mentioned earlier,
-------
51
Honorable Ogden R. Reid
Long Island Sound is not yet Lake Erie — which, for those
of you who are interested in statistics, has aged 50,000
years in the last 50. And there is no need for Long Island
Sound to follow that path. But it will follow that path
unless we act more vigorously.
While I have not taken a nose count as I walked
in the door, Mr, Chairman, I hope that you will have present
at your hearings and at this conference all of the polluters
in the Long Island Sound area. I think voluntary participa-
tion and concern rather than merely just concern for public
condemnation or censure should bring everyone in.
But let's be candid. The history of enforcement
conferences shows that something like 50 percent come in
initially, another 25 percent later, and there are apt to
be something on the order of 25 percent who are recalcitrant
and do not really put their shoulder to the wheel or appear.
This is something that I think every industry,
every municipality should want to do and take the lead on.
It shouldn't be the Federal Government really in the first
instance that requires it. Any industrial company should
be taking the lead in the environment today. But, unfortu-
nately, this is not always the case.
Needless to say, failure of any polluter to
cooperate would be dereliction and would justifiably earn
-------
52
Honorable Ogden R. Reid
that municipality or that company the contempt of the public.
But I hope that this conference will set new
records of voluntary participation, prompt agreement on
necessary abatement schedules, and progress in this regard
in excess of the schedules, so that we can really get ahead
of the problem.
But, finally, let me say a word about the Federal
law and the statute under which you are operating today
and a word about what I think the Federal Government must
do to assist you and I am convinced will do.
First, the Federal Government at the moment can
act only in cases of interstate pollution — that is, when
water pollution originating in one State endangers the
health or commerce of persons in another state.
Second, there is no subpena power to compel the
attendance of polluters at enforcement conferences and
hearings on pollution control.
Third, too much time — at least 12 months and as
a practical matter often closer to two years — is permitted
for voluntary compliance before the Federal Government
can act to compel polluters to abide by abatement schedules.
Fourth, no financial penalties are assessable
against non-complying polluters unless the hearing process
and subsequent court action take place, which is an
-------
53
Honorable Ogden R. Reid
appreciable point in the future.
In order to put real teeth into our anti-
pollution laws on water, it is my intention to introduce
and cosponsor legislation designed to correct these de-
ficiencies:
1. To broaden the coverage of water quality
standards and enforcement provisions to intrastate and
interstate waters, including all navigable waters, ground-
waters, and tributaries of such waters.
2. Empower the Administrator of the EPA to
prescribe appropriate remedial action for a polluter
based on information, however obtained, that the polluter
was clearly violating water quality standards.
3. Shorten substantially the permissible period
for voluntary compliance.
4. Provide civil penalties of up to $25,000
a day for violations of final enforcement orders.
Provision 4 would mean, for example, that a
municipality which permitted effluents of an unaccepted
quality to be discharged into its sewerage for a month
would be subject to a fine of $750,000.
In addition, those of you from New Haven and
concerned with what happened on January 21st of this year
-- where 386,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil and kerosene
-------
54
Honorable Ogden R. Reid
were spilled by a tanker into the vicinity of New Haven
Harbor — are well aware that our law regarding oil spillage
needs to be strengthened, and I have introduced legislation
here which would fine any such polluter $10 per gallon. In
the case of New Haven, that would be a fine of over
$3 million for that particular company.
Second, we are endeavoring to change the law so
that merely simple negligence would be sufficient to invoke
the fine, not willful negligence. In my judgment, if an
oil tanker goes out on a foggy day without a pilot on board
and with the radar inoperative, this comes very close to
simple negligence.
Third, as many of you know, the Federal law at
the moment does not require either a tank farm or an oil
tanker to assume the full charge of cleanup of whatever
they may spill. I think the law should be amended so that
the total cost would have to be borne by the oil company,
the tank farm, or the shipping company in this case.
I'm very happy that the administration in Washing-
ton has embodied most of these concepts in draft legislation
which is starting to move in the Senate and I hope will move
in the House.
In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the
time has come to crack down hard on industrial and municipal
-------
55
Honorable Ogden R. Reid
polluters that have flouted the public Interest for too many
years. The principal answers, in my judgment, are prompt
compliance — and in the absence of compliance, major fines.
No municipality or private industry is going to
lightly ignore the threat of a multimillion dollar fine.
The environment, in a nutshell, it seems to me,
must be given priority. The reason all of you are here
today is your conviction and commitment that Long Island
Sound is a great natural resource, that we can restore that
which has been despoiled, and that we can plan intelligently
and creatively and together for the future.
I think you can set some history here at this
conference that will be meaningful as a national model of
two States working together, of the Federal Government
stepping up to its responsibilities, which has not always
been the case, to come forward with a plan that is voluntary,
that is creative, and that will do the job.
I wish you the very best, and I thank you most
warmly for the indulgence of the opportunity for expressing
a few thoughts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Congressman. We certainly
appreciate your remarks, and I particularly am appreciative
of the fact that these remarks are based on a real,
-------
56
Albert W. Bromberg
thorough, factual and legislative analysis.
These are remarks from a Congressman which I
think are most helpful. They are specific comments. From
the point of view where I sit, every one of them has to
be taken very, very seriously.
Thank you very much, Congressman Re id.
May we continue?
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr, Bromberg, will you continue?
FURTHER STATEMENT OF
ALBERT W. BROMBERG
CHIEF, OPERATIONS BRANCH
WATER QUALITY OFFICE, REGION II
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EDISON, NEW JERSEY
MR. BROMBERG: Mr. Chairman, we will continue
the presentation on page 7.
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
57
Commercial Navigation
la 1968, there were 20 active commercial shipping
ports in Long Island Sound (10 each in New York and
Connecticut). The major product shipped on Long Island
Sound — 68.5 percent of total tonnage — was petroleum
and related products. The remaining major products shipped
were sand and gravel (17.4 percent) and coal and coke (7.0
percent). Shipping in Long Island Sound is heavily oriented
to the Connecticut ports; in 1968, 24 million tons were
shipped in Connecticut ports and 12 million tons were moved
in New York ports.
The importance of shipping on Long Island Sound
can be appreciated by recognizing that 90 percent of
Connecticut's entire fuel supply arrives by water. Petroleum
products in 1968 accounted for 18.8 million tons of cargo
in Connecticut ports and 6.1 million tons in New York ports.
In 1969, there were 102 oil unloading facilities on the
sound, with 49 in New York and 53 in Connecticut. There
will be a need to expand these facilities to meet the growing
demand for petroleum products anticipated in the conference
area.
Commercial ferry service on Long Island Sound
handles about 500,000 passengers a year and about 130,000
automobiles. Ferry service (primarily seasonal) runs
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
58
between New London and Greenport, New London and Fishers
Island, Greenwich and offshore islands, Bridgeport and
Port Jefferson. Passenger numbers have gradually declined
for both the Bridgeport and Greenwich ferries.
Passenger and cargo-handling vessels made over
270,000 trips on Long Island Sound in 1969. With the
expected increases in shipping, the likelihood of accidental
spillages of petroleum products and the overboard discharge
of sewage rises.
Recreation
Swimming
Long Island Sound has approximately 400 miles of
recreational shoreline, 76 miles of which may be categorized
as beach area. Twelve public recreation areas with beaches
and many private beaches associated with individual camps
and homes are located on the sound's waters. More than
3.5 million visits per year are made to Long Island Sound
beaches with visits being split equally between New York
and Connecticut.
About 135,000 people or nearly 5-1/2 percent of
the Connecticut population goes swimming on a sample
Sunday afternoon, with approximately 60,000 at saltwater
beaches. This number is greater than the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation "standard of supply" (total fresh and salt
-------
59
Albert W. Bromberg
water) of 3 percent of the population (87,900). Connecticut
State Parks have a capacity for 50,000 saltwater swimmers
per day. Peak-day demand is estimated as high as 100,000
visits, 25,000 of which are from New York State. The
number of swimmers in Connecticut is projected to almost
triple by the year 2010.
Ten percent of the State Park attendance on Long
Island in 1969 was at the two north shore State Parks
(Sunken Meadow and Wildwood). Bathing activity at these
two parks accounted for 1.0 million visits in that year.
New York State indicates an expected regionwide increase of
50 percent in park visits for the facilities in and around
the New York City area in 1975.
Since much of the swimming on Long Island Sound
takes place on private beaches for which there are no
records, the estimated value of bathing as a recreational
activity must be based upon the public sector data.
Multiplying $1.50 (Source - Bureau of Outdoor Recreation)
for the value of a swimming recreation day by 3.5 million
visitors in 1969 to Long Island Sound beaches shows an
annual value of $5.25 million. The magnitude of this
value is illustrated when visualized as the equivalent
of a capital investment of $65.5 million at 4-7/8 percent
repayable in principal and interest over a 20-year period
-------
60
Albert W. Bromberg
at a rate of $5.25 million annually.
Bathing activity at beaches on the sound by the
year 2000 will more than double according to State estimates.
The estimated annual value of the activity can increase
to more than $10.5 million. The costs of food, transporta-
tion and entertainment associated with swimming if added
to this value increases the total estimated annual expendi-
ture for the bathing activity to some $42 million by the
year 2000 (estimate is based upon Outdoor Recreation
Resources Review Commission data).
Recreational Boating
Recreational boating has increased significantly
in the last decade. In New York State, over 120,000
boats are registered in the New York City-Nassau-Suffolk-
Westchester County area. This number is expected to
increase 63 percent between 1965-1975, with a major
portion of both use and growth occurring in the Long Island
area (Nassau-Suffolk Counties). The number of boats
registered in New York and operating on the sound will
probably increase more than 150 percent by the year 2010.
About 65,000 boats of all sizes and types are
based in Connecticut and operate on Long Island Sound.
The number of recreational boats in Connecticut coastal waters
is expected to increase about 8 percent per year. The
-------
61
Albert W» Broraberg
number of boating recreation days per year is expected to
increase from 6.2 million in 1960 to about 15 million in
2010.
The recreational boating industry is big business.
The annual value of this activity approaches $642 million
for Long Island Sound and could increase to some $1.5
billion by the year 2010. This value consists of estimates
of the value of all boats operated on the sound, the value
of the recreation day, and the value of the peripheral
expenses associated with owning a boat.
Fishing
Fishing as a sport in Long Island Sound is
extremely popular due to the variety of both fresh and
salt water species found within a short trip from the
sound's shores.
The annual demand for salt water fishing in
Connecticut is presently estimated at 2.8 million activity
days and is expected to double by the year 2000. This
fishing activity based upon a conservative per person cost
of only $1.50 daily represents a value to the area of over
$4 million.
New York State reported an estimated 1.6 million
persons were fishing on Long Island Sound in 1970; of
course, the number of days each person goes fishing will
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
vary. Sport fishing in New York State is expected to
double for the period 1965-1975.
Shellfishing
People living around Long Island Sound are
fortunate to have oysters, hard clams, lobsters, and some
bay scallops in their shoreline waters.
According to the New York State Bureau of Marine
Fisheries, of the 433,000 acres of Long Island Sound in
New York State, over 100,000 acres are suitable for shell-
fish production. Approximately 61,000 acres, including
productive and nonproductive areas, have been closed to
shellfishing.
The Public Health Service's 1966 National
Register of Shellfish Production Areas reports that in
Connecticut, of a total of 83,000 acres of shellfish
growing areas, about 15,000 acres are closed to shell-
fishing. The Connecticut Shell Fish Commission administers
approximately 57,000 acres of franchised, leased, and public
shellfish grounds.
Approval or condemnation of a shellfish area is
predicated upon bacteriological data resulting from water
samples collected by appropriate State or Federal agencies
and the proximity to an actual or potential source of
pollutants. Other factors such as hydrographic conditions,
-------
63
Albert V. Bromberg
presence of pesticides and radionuclides, and available
dilution water are also considered. (See section IV,
Description of Criteria.)
The estuaries and coastal harbors surrounding
Long Island Sound are significant areas of shellfish pro-
duction. These areas contain the optimum combinations of
bottom type, temperature, salinity, and water quality
which are key factors in shellfish growth. Estuaries,
harbors and embayments are also areas of urban and industrial
development. Polluted by waste discharges, many of these
areas are closed to shellfishing.
Closed Shellfish Areas in New York - Moving
from west to east:
The area of Long Island Sound west of a line
between the Byram River on the north and Prospect Point on
the south, including the entire Westchester County shore-
line, East River, Little Neck Bay, and Manhasset Bay.
In addition, the following harbors are closed or
partially closed to shellfishing:
Hempstead Harbor
Vicinity of Matinicock Point
Oyster Bay Harbor (part)
Cold Spring Harbor (part)
Huntington Harbor (part)
-------
64
Albert W. Bromberg
Centerport Harbor (part)
Northport Harbor (part)
Nissequogue River
Port Jefferson Harbor (part)
Offshore area of Northville (oil unloading
facility)
Vicinity of Mattituck Inlet
Vicinity of Inlet Point (Greenport sewer outfall)
Vicinity of west end of Fishers Island
Closed Shellfish Areas in Connecticut - Harbors
and estuaries surrounding the following municipal areas,
moving from west to east:
Greenwich
Darien - Stamford
Darien - Norwalk
Norwalk
Westport - Fairfield
Bridgeport
Stratford - Milford (Housatonic River)
Milford
New Haven
East Haven - Branford
Thimbles Islands
-------
65
Albert W. Bromberg
Madison - Clinton
Old Saybrook - Old Lyme (Connecticut River)
Four Mile River
Bride Brook
Groton - New London (Thames River)
Groton - Mumford Cove
Groton - Mystic River
Stonington
Figure 3 shows the areas of shellfish closure in
Long Island Sound.
Closure of these shoreline areas eliminates the
shellfish grounds most accessible to the commercial and
recreational shellfishermen. The Connecticut Shell Fish
Commission indicates that the present sport fisheries aire
generally confined to the eastern Connecticut shoreline
from Branford to Stonington, and the market areas extend
westerly from Branford.
Shellfish ground closures have also contributed,
in part, to the decrease in commercial shellfishing activity.
Closure of near-shore waters has forced commercial fishermen
to relocate their shellfish beds further out where condi-
tions often impair or slow shellfish growth, consequently
requiring longer work hours and a greater expenditure of
effort. Seed and market shellfish are still raised in
-------
CLOSED SHELLFISH AREAS
LONG ISLAND SOUND
-------
67
Albert W. Bromberg
closed areas, but are transplanted under the supervision
of the State Health Department to open areas where they are
naturally self-pur ified. This activity is particularly
prevalent in Branford, New Haven Harbor, Housatonic River,
Darien and Norwalk areas of Connecticut. In New York, hard
shell clams are harvested from the closed beds of the
Westchester and Nassau County shores for transplant to the
open waters along the Atlantic coast (south shore of Long
Island).
Prior to 1920, oyster companies operating from
New Haven Harbor sent seed oysters to the bays in Long
Island and Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island. Several
companies transplanted seed oysters from Connecticut to
Gardner's Bay and Shelter Island Sound in New York and
reharvested them for processing in their plants in New
Haven. Other companies, similarly, operated in eastern
Long Island waters and in Oyster Bay. This production
represented an annual bve iness of more than $5 million to
the shellfish industry during that period.
In 1965 and 1966 a group of local fishermen from
Stratford, Connecticut began a shell planting program in
an attempt to increase the productivity of public beds in
the Housatonic River. In 1966, the Connecticut Shell Fish
Commission received a grant from the U. S. Department of
-------
68
Albert W. Bromberg
the Interior to be used for the rehabilitation of the
oyster industry. At this time the Commission provided
12,000 bushels of shells for planting and, together with
additional shells from the local harvesters, 17,000 bushels
were laid. The Commission reported that during the summer
of 1966 an excellent oyster "set" was obtained. This was
the only planting of materials that took place on any of
the natural beds of Connecticut. This limited local effort
was successful.
Pollution Affecting Shellfisheries
In 1970, the Connecticut State Department of
Health issued new shellfish closure lines affecting
communities in Branford, Norwalk, and Darien. Some of these
closures forced the shellfishermen to alter their operations
and move their shellfish stock further offshore into waters
acceptable for harvesting.
Mr. J. Richard Nelson, President, Long Island
Oyster Farms, Incorporated, New Haven, Connecticut,
indicated that their company had extensive seed beds in
Upper New Haven Harbor and the Quinnipiac River prior to
1920. Since that time these beds have become unfit for
planting because of sludge deposits resulting from
inadequately treated wastewater discharges. Sludge from
pollution has destroyed at least
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
69
1,000 acres of formerly productive seed beds in New Haven
Harbor and the Quinnipiac River. To augment the supply of
seed oysters, Mr. Nelson's firm constructed an oyster hatchery
at Northport, New York, at a cost close to $1 million.
Six hundred acres of shellfish beds are active
during part of the year at Stony Creek in Branford where
oysters are harvested for direct marketing. However, because
of pollution from nearby summer homes and cottages, this
area is closed to shellfishing annually from May 1 to
October 1.
Three shellfish dealers operating in Norwalk Harbor
reported that the cost for harvesting shellfish has increased
as a result of the shellfish closure lines being extended
farther off shore. The dealers claim that about 20 percent
more working time is necessary in working the hard clam and
oyster beds because of travel distance committed to seek
suitable grounds. The shifting of shellfish populations
from one location to another involves a risk that can cause
a 50 percent loss when transplanting hard clams and a 15 to
20 percent loss when handling oysters.
The grounds inside the chain of islands in Norwalk
Harbor are considered the best producing grounds on the
east coast. The shellfish harvested here represent the best
in growth, development, and flavor. Should the shellfish
-------
70
Albert W. Bromberg
closure lines be moved beyond the Islands, this would reduce
the supply of good beds and force the fishermen to use
questionable grounds in deeper waters and the risk of greater
losses due to the lack of protection from storms.
Water pollution along the shores of Greenwich,
Stamford, and Darien has contributed to closing of several
oyster firms in the area. Out of 11 oyster dealers who have
operated in the Norwalk-Darien area, five have gone out of
business with little chance of returning. The Norwalk
Estuary, including parts of Darien, produces approximately
$1 million worth of shellfish annually.
Accordingly, the direct and indirect damages to
the shellfishing industry are extensive as a result of water
pollution. It has been estimated by the Connecticut Shell
Fish Commission and Mr. Richard Nelson, President, Long
Island Oyster Farms, Inc. (see Appendix C) that, as a result
of the closures due to pollution, losses to the shellfish
industry over the past 50 years exceed $500 million.
Comparison by Mr. Nelson of the oyster yield between 1920
and 1970 indicates a difference of $17 million in 1970 alone.
Ill - SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Long Island Sound and its estuaries, harbors, and
embayments receive pollutional discharges from municipalities,
institutions, industries, Federal installations, combined
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
71
sever overflows, recreational boating, and discharges of oil
and petroleum products. Thermal discharges and disposal of
dredged spoils also affect the quality of waters in the
sound.
Municipal and Institutional Waste
A total of 60 municipal and institutional systems
serving approximately 1,272,000 persons discharge approxi-
mately 170 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater into
the open waters of Long Island Sound and its embayments.
Twenty-two of these systems are in New York, and 38 are in
Connecticut. Available data regarding these sources are
summarized in Appendix B, Table B-l. The general location
of each discharge is also shown in Appendix B, Figure B-l.
Of the 60 systems listed, five in Connecticut
serving less than 1 percent of the sewered population, are
individual septic tank communities, 33 <12 in New York and
21 in Connecticut) serving 73 percent provide primary treat-
ment; and 22 (10 in New York and 12 in Connecticut) serving
27 percent provide secondary treatment. All of the primary
and secondary treatment plants have chlorination facilities.
Thirteen systems, accounting for about 20 percent
of the municipal flow, discharge directly to Long Island
Sound after primary or secondary treatment. The
Mamaroneck and New Rochelle primary treatment facilities
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
72
in New York are the largest of these systems. The 47 other
facilities discharge the remaining 80 percent of the wastewater
flow to the embayments and estuaries of the sound or to sub-
surface fields. Nearly all of these facilities provide at
least primary treatment prior to discharge. The primary
facilities at Bridgeport and New Haven, Connecticut are the
largest, discharging 64 mgd to the tributary waters of the
sound. Five relatively small systems in Connecticut are
presently served by individual septic tanks with treatment
facilities scheduled for completion by June 1971,
The ratio of area population served (1,272,000) to
area total population, (2,480,000), indicates that 55 percent
of the population in 1969 were served by primary or secondary
sewage treatment facilities. Service is projected for
1,610,000 people by 1980. In order to sewer 100 percent of
the population In 2010, facilities will be needed for
4,340,000 people.
Federal Facilities
There are 16 Federal installations, Including 11
lighthouses (see Appendix B, Table B-2), discharging approxi-
mately 2.0 mgd of treated and untreated wastewater to Long
Island Sound and its embayments and estuaries (see Figure B-2).
Approximately 5.3 mgd of untreated cooling water is also
discharged from Federal Installations.
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
73
Remedial measures are scheduled for completion at
all 11 lighthouses by FY 1972. These measures include
incinerator toilets, municipal connections and subsurface dis-
posal.
The U.S.D.A. Animal Disease Laboratory at Plum
Island, New York discharges 0.046 mgd of domestic wastewater
after septic tank treatment and chlorination. Approximately
0.055 mgd of laboratory wastewater is comminuted, neutralized,
and sterilized by a heat-pressure process prior to discharge.
The Environmental Protection Agency has recommended sub-
surface disposal for the septic tank effluent and the
laboratory wastewater after upgrading to secondary treatment.
The U. S. Air Force plant 43, Avco Lycoming, at
Stratford, Connecticut, provides treatment for 0.576 mgd
of industrial wastewater prior to discharge to the Rousatonic
River. Sanitary wastes are discharged to the Stratford
municipal system.
There are potential problems at this plant associated
with Intermittent discharges of oily and Industrial wastes.
The State of Connecticut has requested that Avco Lycoming
provide facilities by October 31, 1972 to prevent any such
discharges without appropriate treatment. The State has
outlined the following schedule for abatement:
A. On or before Julyv 31, 1971 submit for the
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
74
review and approval of the Water Resources Commission an
engineering report describing all sources and volumes and
characteristics of all industrial wastes and oils and describe
any required treatment facilities;
B. On or before December 31, 1971 submit for the
review and approval of the Water Resources Commission contract
plans and specifications for the required treatment facilities;
C. On or before February 29, 1972 verify to the
Water Resources Commission that construction of the required
facility has been started;
D. On or before October 31, 1972 verify to the
Water Resources Commission that the constructed facilities
have been placed in operation.
Avco Lycoming Division is developing a proposal
which will include recommendations for abatement of these
discharges. The Water Quality Office of the Environmental
Protection Agency has contacted the Air Force to ensure
that appropriate measures are taken to fund and implement
the plan within the timetable outlined by the State.
The U. S. Navy New London Submarine Base at Groton,
Connecticut discharges 1.30 mgd of domestic wastewater to
the Thames River after primary treatment. The base will
connect to the Town of Grotonfs sewer system which will
provide secondary treatment.
-------
75
Albert W. Bromberg
The U.S.S, FULTON is a submarine tender which
discharges approximately 0.04 mgd of untreated domestic
wastewater to the Thames River. By April 19, 1971, the
FULTON will undergo a major overhaul during which onboard
sewage treatment units will be installed. Provisions will
also be made to enable the ship to connect to a municipal
sewer which will be constructed on the pier as a joint
Federal-Connecticut Department of Transportation project.
This will provide backup facilities as the onboard units
undergo testing to determine their operating characteristics
under service conditions.
The U. S. Navy owns four barges which are berthed
at the General Dynamics piers to provide temporary quarters
for naval personnel while their ship is under repair.
Facilities completed in November 1970 pump wastewater to the
dockside collection system which discharges to the town
of Groton system.
Industrial "Waste
At least 137 sources of industrial wastewater
discharge to the embayments and estuaries of Long Island
Sound. None discharges directly to the sound. Five of
these sources are in New York, and the remaining 132 are in
Connecticut. (See Appendix Table B-3). The general location
of each source is shown in Appendix Figure B-3.
-------
76
Albert W. Bromberg
Industrial wastewaters result from the processing
operations associated with the manufacture of food and
kindred products, primary metals products, chemicals and
allied products, and textiles. The metal finishing industry,
in particular, is heavily concentrated in Connecticut.
Significant volumes of wastewater result from the pickling,
plating, and anodizing processes associated with this industry.
Flow from industrial operations contributes a
variety of contaminants including, in addition to oxygen-
consuming materials, oil, grease, solvents and toxic sub-
stances, chromic and other acids, cyanide, and alkali.
Combined-Sewer Overflows
Sixteen municipal collection systems (four in
New York and 12 in Connecticut) serving approximately
680,000 people have combined sewers (See Appendix Table B-4).
When it rains, large quantities of untreated sanitary and
Industrial wastewater can be discharged directly to the
receiving waters via combined-sewer overflows. These
overflows, a mixture of wastewater and stormwater, contribute
organic material which decrease dissolved oxygen, introduce
floating, suspended, and settleable solids which reduce
the aesthetic and recreational values of the water and
increase bacterial densities posing a danger to public
health. Other pollutants such as toxic substances, oil, and
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
77
grease are often contained in the overflow water.
Recreational Boating Wastes
The presence of th© nearly 240 marinas with over
64,000 berths which service the thousands of boats registered
in counties bordering the sound indicates that the waters
of the conference area are used extensively for recreational
boating. Countless other boats also travel into and along
the sound for weekend or extended visits. Wastes from these
recreational boating activities constitute one more source
of pollution to the waters of th© sound. The discharge of
untreated human fecal matter into the sound and its
estuaries adds pathogenic bacteria contributing to a health
hazard where the water is used for contact recreation or
harvesting of shellfish for consumption. Bilge pumping
and litter from boating activities is another source of
pollution causing a deterioration of the aesthetic quality
of the euviroMftstit.
PiRcharpreg Qf oil and Petroleum Products
The sound is used as a major transportation route
for lafge oil tankers and barges carrying both crude and
refined petroleum. A large number (102 in 1969) of oil
unloading and storage facilities dot the shoreline of this
body of water. Two offshore oil unloading facilities are
also located on the sound — at the lx>ng Island Lighting
-------
Albert Vf. Bromberg
78
Company near Port Jefferson, New York and at Northville
Industries, Incorporated near Northville, New York. In 1968,
about 25 million tons of petroleum and petroleum products
were delivered to storage facilities along the sound via
commercial ships.
The discharge of a large amount of oil into Long
Island Sound could be a catastrophe to the ecology of this
water body. In 1969, there were 17 recorded oil pollution
incidents in the sound. There is no doubt that there were
many minor spills of petroleum products into the sound which
were unreported and therefore unrecorded.
Two major spills of oil occurred in 1970 and
1971, respectively. On June 5, 1970, 670,000 gallons of
No. 2 fuel escaped into Bridgeport Harbor due to a faulty
valve at a petroleum tank farm located at Bridgeport,
Connecticut. On January 23, 1971, 386,000 gallons of No. 2
fuel and kerosene escaped into the sound due to the
grounding of an oil tanker in the vicinity of New Haven,
Connecticut. These spills caused damage to boats and shore-
front properties and were harmful to marine life and water
fowl.
Max Blumer, Senior Scientist of the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute, in a paper "The Problem of Oil
Pollution in Coastal Waters" has said, "All crude oils are
-------
Albert ¥. Bromberg
79
poisons for all marine organisms; many crude oil distillates
are more severely poisonous because they contain higher pro-
portions of the immediately toxic compounds. Long-term
toxicity may harm marine life that is not immediately killed
by spills, and oil can be incorporated into the meat of
marine animals, making it unfit for human consumption. Crude
oil and oil products may cause cancer in marine organisms
and in man; even at very low concentrations oil may interfere
with processes which are vital for the propagation of marine
species."
Disposal of Dredging Spoils
There are 19 disposal areas located in the sound
which are controlled by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(see Figure 4). During 1968, more than 1.4 million cubic
yards of material dredged from nearby rivers and harbors
were dumped into these disposal areas. These dredged
materials, often containing pollutants which have settled
as bottom deposits in the estuaries and embayments, can
affect water quality.
Municipalities located around Long Island Sound
do not dispose of sewage sludge in the sound. Sewage sludge
from New York's Glen Cove, Roslyn, Belgrave and Port
Chester water pollution control facilities is barged for
ocean disposal In the New York Bight, 12 miles east of
-------
<0
c
-U
DUMPING GROUNDS
LONG ISLAND SOUND
— ™ ™ " Cortf«ran
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
81
Sandy Hook, New Jersey. Sludge from the conference area's
remaining municipal facilities is disposed of in sanitary
landfills.
Thermal Pollution
Seventeen fossil fuel steam electric generating
plants with a total installed capacity of 2,930 megawatts use
the waters of Long Island Sound for cooling purposes. Many
industries also withdraw cooling water from the sound. For
power generation alone, an estimated 2,100 mgd of water
from the sound was used in 1967 for this purpose. The
effect that these heated water discharges have upon the
sound's ecology will depend upon many variables which include:
the temperature and volume of the heated effluent; the depth
and dispersion pattern of the rejected thermal waste at
the outfall; the circulation pattern and depth of the
receiving water; and the nearness to other discharges.
Increased water temperature from these discharges can upset
the entire ecological system with proliferation of less
desirable flora and fauna and decreased assimilative
capacity. Researchers are currently investigating the
possible benefits from thermal discharges under controlled
conditions, but there is general agreement that the overall
effect of indiscriminately adding heated effluents to the
sound would be detrimental.
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
82
The projected increase in population and industrial
activity will demand greater power generating capacity. The
estimated cooling water requirements to meet these future
demands will exceed 17,000 mgd by 1990. The possible adverse
effects from the release of this significant quantity of
waste heat into the water environment of the sound must be
a consideration in the development of any new power generating
facility.
IV - PRESENT WATER QUALITY
The extent to which Long Island Sound is affected
by pollution can be shown by comparing existing quality
with the approved State and Federal water quality standards.
These standards and their associated criteria are furnished
in Appendix D. The Environmental Protection Agency
conducted two surveys, one in late September 1969 and
another in July 1970, to collect data for defining existing
quality. The 1969 survey was concerned primarily with the
quality of the open waters of the sound. The July 1970
survey concentrated on harbors and embayments along the
north shore of the sound from Throgs Neck to the Connecticut-
Rhode Island State line. Data regarding both surveys are
summarized in Appendix E and F. The results of other
studies conducted by the Interstate Sanitation Commission
and the States of New York and Connecticut and Nassau
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
83
County were also reviewed to supplement the EPA data.
Important criteria established by the water quality
standards to characterize water quality and the effects of
pollution include temperature, dissolved oxygen, and bacteria.
Nutrient limits, although not established by the standards,
also characterize water quality and show the effects of
pollution and the ability of the water to support growth of
aquatic plants.
The results of the Environmental Protection
Agency surveys showed that these indicators of quality
ranged generally as follows:
Temperature ranged from 15.8 to 24.6 degrees
Centigrade, dissolved oxygen ranged from a low of 0,6 to a
high of 10.3 mg/1, total coliforra densities ranged from
less than 2 to greater than 100,000/100 ml, and fecal
coliform densities ranged from less than 2 to greater than
36,000/100 ml.
The open waters of the sound are generally of
good quality. That is, they are above the State-Federal
water quality standards. Pollution problems, however, exist
in the harbors and embayments of the sound which are
surrounded by the highly developed urban areas. Water quality
in these areas was below the approved standards. Areas
where existing water quality does not conform to the
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
84
standards are identified in Table 6 and shown in Figure 5.
Table 7 lists those areas where surveys conducted by State,
interstate and county agencies showed quality below the
standards. The specific problems are discussed in this
section.
Description of Criteria
Temperature affects the solubility of dissolved
oxygen, rates of chemical and biochemical reactions, bacterial
growth rates, and the growth of biological flora and fauna.
The temperature of a body of water will depend upon the
season of the year, water depth, currents, and the discharges
of large volumes of hot "cooling" water. Deep waters such
as those found in lakes, estuaries, and the ocean show a
smaller response to climatic change than shallow waters.
Adequate levels of dissolved oxygen are necessary
to support the survival and propagation of fish and other
forms of aquatic life. Dissolved oxygen is also necessary
for aerobic bacterial action which stabilize decomposable
organic material. The amount of dissolved oxygen in water
will depend upon the transfer rate of oxygen from the
atmosphere, photosynthetic oxygen production, the imposed
oxygen-demanding waste load, and salinity and temperature.
Where the oxygen demand of organic materials exceeds the
available dissolved oxygen, anaerobic conditions exist and
-------
85
TABLE 6
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS IN LONG ISLAND SOUND
AS DETERMINED BY EPA SURVEYS OF SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1969 AND JULY 1970
Location
Water Quality
Classification
1/
AREAS OF SERIOUS DEGRADATION-1
2/
Year Of
Survey
Standards
D.O.
Violation
Coliform
East River
Off Stepping Stones
Off Hewlett Point
Eastchester Bay
Hutchinson River
Little Neck Bay
Manyasset Bay
Off Peningo Neck
Port Chester Harbor
Greenwich Harbor
Stamford Harbor
Norwalk Harbor
Bridgeport Harbor
Housatonic River
Milford Harbor
New Haven Harbor
New London Harbor
Thames River
AREAS OF MARGINAL WATER QUALITY
New Rochelle Outfall
Larchmont Harbor
Mamaroneck Outfall
Blind Brook Outfall
3/
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SB
SA
SA
SB
SB
SB
SC
SB, SC
SA,SB
SB
SA,SB,SC
SB
SB
SB
SA
SA, SB
SA
1969-70
1969-70
1969-70
1970
1970
1969
1969
1969-70
1969-70
1969
1969-70
1970
1969
1970
1970
1969-70
1970
1970
1969
1969
1969-70
1970
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1./ See Appendix D for the criteria pertaining to the water quality
classification,
2j Criteria used for establishing the areas of Serious Degradation include:
DO level below standard on one or more occasions.
Coliform equal to or above median value on two occasions.
Coliform density equal to or above 5000 MPN on one or more occasions.
3/ Criteria used for establishing the areas of Marginal Water Quality indlude:
Coliform density above median value on only one occasion.
DO level equal to or only 0.1 mg/1 above standards level.
-------
86
TABLE 7
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS IN
LONG ISLAND SOUND AS DETERMINED BY
STATE, COUNTY AND INTERSTATE AGENCIES
Location
East River
Off Stepping Stones
Off Sands Point
Off Hewlett Point
Little Neck Bay
Hempstead Harbor
Oyster Bay
Cold Spring Harbor
Port Jefferson Harbor
Huntington - Northport Harbor
Off Peningo Neck (Porgy Shoal)
Mamaroneck Harbor
Larchmont Harbor
Off Port Chester Harbor
Housatonic River (from mouth to Derby Dam)
Water Quality
Classif ication
SB
SB
SA
SA
SB
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SB
Connecticut River (from mouth to Hurd State Park) SB
Byram River (from mouth to tide water) SC
Stamford Harbor - East Branch inside barrier SC
Norwalk Harbor - inside Calfgastan Point SC
Ash Creek, Black Rock Harbor SC
Bridgeport Harbor SC
Tidewater Inside Bridgeport Shellfish line SB
New Haven Harbor SC,SB
Mill River SC
Quinnipiac River SC
Mystic River - inside Shellfish line SB
Stonington - inside Shellfish line SA
Year of
Survey or Report
1959,1970
1969,1970
1969,1970
19 70
1970
1969,1970
1969,1970
1969,19 70
1966-1969
1967-1970
1967-1970
1967-1970 '
1967-1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
1970
19 70
1970
1970
-------
CD
C
o
Ut
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS 1969,1970
LONG ISLAND SOUND
• ¦ ¦ ¦ • Cenftr«nc« or»a lip
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
88
the water becomes septic and foul-smelling.
A primary source of bacteria in water is the dis-
charge of raw and inadequately treated domestic wastes. Total
coliform densities have traditionally been used as an
indicator of human contamination since they occur in the
fecal matter of all warm-blooded animals, including man.
Their presence may also indicate the presence of pathogenic
bacteria and viruses. Coliform organisms originate not only
in the excrement of warm-blooded animals but may also be
found naturally in the soil. The use of the fecal coliform
group as indicator organisms can further identify possible
fecal contamination. The presence of fecal coliform
organisms above safe levels indicates contamination with
human or animal wastes which can contain organisms capable
of causing disease in man. The water quality standards
establish levels of total coliform densities which cannot
be exceeded for particular water uses.
There are no criteria in the standards for levels
of fecal coliform concentrations. The report by the National
Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior
on Water Quality Criteria indicates, however, that detectable
health effects may occur in recreational waters where the
fecal coliform level is above 400 per 100 milliliters.
Shellfish contaminated by pathogenic bacteria
-------
89
Albert W. Bromberg
which are eaten raw or after improper cooking result in
disease and illness. The National Shellfish Sanitation Pro-
gram administered under the Food and Drug Administration was
established to control such disease transmission. State and
Federal governmental agencies as well as industry participate
in this program of preserving and managing shellfish resources.
Through the program, in which New York and Connecticut are
members, guidelines for proper sanitary quality of waters
approved for shellfish harvesting have been established.
Approval or condemnation of a shellfish area is
based upon:
1. Amount of dilution water available;
2. Hydrographic conditions;
3. Presence of sources of pollution which might
discharge fecal material, radionuclides, pesticides, and
chemical wastes;
4. Possible pollution sources, such as toilet
discharges from boats directly over shellfish beds;
5. Lack of know ledge of the above factors pending
sanitary surveys; and
6. Bacteriological data, with samples collected
under the worst hydrographic conditions. Bacteriologic
limits Included in the approved water quality standards
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
90
require that the total coliform count be less than 70 MPN
(most probable number) organisms per 100 ml.
Nutrients are necessary to the growth of algae and
aquatic plants. When other environmental conditions such
as temperature, sunlight, and salinity are satisfactory,
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus become critical
restraining growth factors. Low concentrations of phosphorus
and nitrogen will support algal growth. Algal growth in
limited quantities is desirable as a necessary link in the
aquatic food chain. Enrichment of the receiving water with
nutrients can cause excessive algal growths to occur which
renders the water unsightly with accompanying obnoxious odors
and reduced dissolved oxygen levels.
Water Quality in 1969
The results of the survey conducted by the EPA in
1969 show that the open waters of the sound, from the New
York City - Nassau County line in the west to The Race, near
Fishers Island, in the east, (1969 stations 5-23) are of good
quality. Temperatures throughout the sound ranged from
17.8 degrees C to 20.2 degrees C. Thermal stratification
was not detected although slightly lower temperatures were
found in the deeper waters. Surface dissolved oxygen con-
centrations ranged from 6.4 to 7.8 mg/1 (84 to 100 percent
saturation). Dissolved oxygen concentrations (due mainly to
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
91
the higher salinity) were 5 to 10 percent lower in the deeper
water than near the surface. Total and fecal coliform
levels were generally less than 10 organisms per 100 ml
except at the extreme western end near the New York City -
Nassau County line, where the level approached 300 total
coliform organisms per 100 ml. Concentrations of total
phosphorus ranged from a high of 0.26 mg/1 in the western
end to 0.03 mg/1 in the eastern end. Nitrate concentrations
ranged from 0.19 to 0.06 mg/1. Chlorophyll a ranged from
3
a high of 14.5 mg/m (milligrams per cubic meter) to a low
3
of 2.6 mg/m .
Over the past 15 years, State, county, interstate,
and local agencies have conducted extensive water quality
surveys in selected portions of Long Island Sound. Generally,
the results of these studies were similar to those found
during the EPA survey of 1969.
Western Long Island Sound - Upper East River
Water quality in the west end of the sound and the
adjacent waters of the East River (1969 stations 1-4, 24, 25,
35, and 36) indicated that violations of the approved
water quality standards occurred during the fall 1969
survey. The data showed that quality of the water improves
from west to east with the lowest water quality existing in
the East River. Dissolved oxygen levels for all the stations
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
92
in this section ranged from 4.6 mg/1 in the East River to
8.0 mg/1 near Orchard Beach. Dissolved oxygen at two loca-
tions (Whitestone Bridge in the East River and Throgs Neck
in the sound) were below the required concentration of 5.0
mg/1. Total coliform bacterial levels ranged from 27,000
organisms per 100 ml in the East River to 150 organisms per
100 ml near City Island. Four locations contained coliform
densities greater than the monthly median value of 2,400 per
100 ml established by the standards. These stations were
in the East River, Long Island Sound at Throgs Neck Bridge,
near Stepping Stones, and in Little Neck Bay. Fecal coliform
levels at these locations were greater than the level
recommended by the National Technical Advisory Committee,
suggesting contamination from inadequately treated wastes
and a possible health hazard to people swimming or boating
in the area. Nutrient concentrations were generally higher
than those found in other areas of the sound. Phosphorus
concentrations ranged 0.36 mg/1 to 0.19 mg/1 while nitrate
levels varied from 0.25 to 0.19 mg/1. These water quality
conditions indicate the effect of waste sources originating
from the metropolitan New York City area.
The Nassau County Department of Health has carried
out extensive bacteriological studies along the beaches and
in the harbors on the north shore of Nassau County. The
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
93
results of its 1969 studies indicate that total coliform
levels in the western end of the sound and in several harbors
were in violation of the established standards for Class SB
and SA waters, respectively. Based upon 5 or more samples
collected monthly, median values for total coliform per
100 ml exceeding permissible levels were found at Stepping
Stones and Sands Point in the sound and in Little Neck and
Manhasset Bays.
In the summer of 1959, the Interstate Sanitation
Commission conducted a water pollution survey of the East
River and the western end of Long Island Sound. That
survey revealed that in the upper East River and west end
of Long Island Sound mean percent saturation of dissolved
oxygen was generally below the required 50 percent of satura-
tion. Total coliform values found at the majority of
stations were greater than 2,400 per 100 ml. It was
expected at that time that the new chlorination facilities
at the New York City Tallmans Island waste treatment plant
would reduce the coliform density in the upper East River -
western Long Island Sound area. The study also indicated
that pollution from the upper East River can move through
Throgs Neck to Stepping Stones Beach,
Southern Shore
Along the southern shoreline from the entrance of
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
94
Hempstead Harbor to Fishers Island (1969 stations 26 to 34),
dissolved oxygen concentrations were greater than 100 percent
saturation at four locations and not less than 90 percent
at any location. Total coliform levels were less than 4 per
100 ml except in Port Jefferson Harbor and near Inlet Point
where levels were 50 per 100 ml and 22 per 100 ml, respective-
ly. Fecal coliform levels were all less than 8 per 100 ml.
Phosphorus concentrations declined from west to east
(0.23 to 0.03 mg/1) and nitrate concentrations showed the
same general trend (0.22 to 0.07 mg/1). Chlorophyll a levels,
a measure of the concentration of phytoplankton (microscopic
green plants), were about twice those of the open sound
waters, reaching a high of 19.7 mg per cubic meter.
The 1969 Nassau County Department of Health
studies Indicate that median densities of total coliform
per 100 ml were in violation of permissible values in portions
of Hempstead Harbor and Oyster Bay.
Studies conducted by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation during 1966-1969 reveal that
water quality problems restrict the permissible use (namely,
shellfishing for market purposes) in Oyster Bay, Cold
Spring Harbor, Port Jefferson Harbor, and Huntington - North-
port Harbor. In these waters, total coliform densities
require that certain areas be closed to the harvesting of
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
95
shellfish.
Westchester County Shore
Along the shoreline of Westchester County (1969,
stations 37-43), total coliform levels ranged from less
than 8 organisms per 100 ml to 4,000 organisms per 100 ml.
At three of the seven station locations, the coliform levels
were greater than the established standard for contact
recreation. These locations were near the New Rochelle and
Mamaroneck outfalls and off Peningo Neck. In Larchmont
Harbor, the extremely high chlorophyll a (52.1 milligram per
cubic meter) suggests an abundant growth of phytoplankton.
Port Chester Harbor
Port Chester Harbor, including a 1-1/2-mile tidal
section of the Byram River, forms part of the boundary
between New York and Connecticut. The EPA survey of 1969
(Stations 44 and 45) and an earlier survey in September
1968 showed that the quality of these waters violates the
approved standards. In 1969, the sample collected in the
harbor contained a total coliform level of 14,000 per 100 ml
and a fecal level of 2,100 per 100 ml. Another station
sampled in the open surface waters adjacent to the harbor
near Bluefish Shoal (classified for commercial harvesting
of shellfish) contained a total coliform density of 100
per 100 ml.
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
96
In 1968, EPA conducted a separate study of the
interstate waters of the Byram River Basin. The results of
the survey showed that in the 1-1/2-mile tidal stretch
dissolved oxygen ranged from a low of 0.9 mg/1 up to and above
the water quality standards established by New York and Connecti-
cut. Total and fecal coliform levels in the stretch indicate
that inadequately treated municipal wastes enter these waters.
In the tidal portion of the Byram River, the water was
visibly polluted by oil and suspended matter. A distinct
oily odor filled the air, and the banks were coated with oil.
Gas bubbles were surfacing at several locations. The bottom
in this stretch of the Byram River was found to consist
primarily of ooze saturated with oil and which released a
slight hydrogen sulfide odor. Benthic life was typical of a
degraded water. The Byram River forms the interstate boundary
between New York and Connecticut. Interstate pollution
occurs in the Byram River, and these waters eventually enter
the harbor and sound creating interstate pollution problems
there too.
Connecticut Shore
Along the Connecticut shore (1969 stations 46-59),
from Port Chester Harbor to New Haven Harbor, dissolved oxygen
concentrations ranged from 5.1 to 9.6 mg/1 (64 percent - 120
percent saturation). The bacterial densities varied from
-------
97
Albert W. Bromberg
4 per 100 ml to greater than 30,000 per 100 ml for total
collform and 2 per 100 ml to 9,800 per 100 ml for fecal con-
form.
Problem areas along the western Connecticut shore
were found in the waters in or adjacent to the highly urbanized
harbors of Greenwich, Bridgeport, and Stamford. In these
harbors, total coliform densities far exceeded the median
level established by the standards. The high density of
fecal coliforms suggests gross pollution from inadequately
treated municipal wastes and represents a potential health
hazard to those using these waters for recreation.
New Haven Harbor
Two stations (1969 stations 60-61) were sampled in
New Haven Harbor. One sample was taken in the harbor while
the other was taken at the breakwater in Long Island Sound.
The analytical data suggest dissolved oxygen and bacterial
problems. Dissolved oxygen measured at 4.0 mg/1. In the
harbor, total and fecal coliform densities were greater than
100,000 and 36,000 per 100 ml, respectively, indicating gross
pollution from human wastes. In the outer harbor, total and
fecal coliform counts were still above the standards although
reduced to less than 3,000 and 300, respectively.
In September and October 1967, EPA conducted a
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
98
microbiological and biological study of New Haven Harbor.
These surveys confirmed that pollution problems exist in the
harbor. The data also showed the effect of discontinuing
chlorination of the four water pollution control plant effluents.
Chlorination was being carried out in September, but not during
the October surveys. During disinfection, average maximum
total coliform levels in the harbor ranged from 220 to 17,200
per 100 ml, while during the period in which disinfection was
discontinued total maximum coliform densities showed much
higher levels ranging from 1,410 to 348,000 per 100 ml.
Average maximum fecal coliform levels during the surveys varied
from 80 to greater than 16,000 per 100 ml with disinfection
and from 790 to 92,000 per 100 ml after chlorination was
terminated.
At and beyond the breakwater system, the data again
showed marked reduction in coliforms. Average maximum total
coliform levels were less than 230 per 100 ml, but greater
than the established safe level of 70 per 100 ml for shell-
fishing. Analysis of water samples taken in the fall of
1967 in the vicinity of shellfish beds showed a direct relation-
ship in the concentrations of coliforms found in the overlying
waters and in shellfish. The data confirm the ability of the
shellfish to concentrate contaminants in their meat.
The biological survey conducted in conjunction
-------
Albert W. Bromber^
99
with the microbiological study consisted primarily of an
examination of the benthic conditions underlying the harbor
waters. The results indicate the cumulative effect on the
harbor of inadequately treated municipal and industrial
wastes, oil seepage from oil storage facilities and ships, and
pollutants originating from the Mill and Quinnipiac Rivers.
The upper harbor area, comprising 8 percent of the total harbor
area (from Mill and Quinnipiac Rivers to City Point) was found
grossly polluted from a biological standpoint. Sludge
deposits exceeding 6 inches in depth were prevalent throughout
the area. The benthic population, extremely limited in
numbers and species, consisted only of worms and snails.
Strong septic, hydrogen sulfide odors were observed in all
bottom samples, suggesting extensive anaerobic decomposition.
In the remaining portion of the harbor from City
Point to the breakwater, sludge depths of 2 to 5 inches were
observed. Foul-smelling odors caused by anaerobic decomposi-
tion were again prevalent in the bottom samples.
Bottom samples outside the breakwater reflected
clean, unpolluted water. There were generally no sludge
buildups or detectable odors of decomposition found at the
various stations sampled. Benthic species indicated a wide
diversity of life, such as would be found in a clean water
environment.
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
100
New London Harbor
Water quality in New London Harbor during the
September - October 1969 survey (stations 68-69) indicated a
marginal dissolved oxygen and bacterial condition. The
dissolved oxygen (5.1 mg/1) was slightly greater than the
5.0 mg/1 established by the standards. Fecal coliform
densities were also high (1,200 per 100 ml).
Water Quality in 1970
Previous data and the 1969 Environmental Protection
Agency survey of the open waters of Long Island Sound
showed sufficient areas of degraded water quality to warrant
more extensive and detailed study. Accordingly, the EPA,
the Interstate Sanitation Commission, the Nassau and West-
chester County Health Departments, and the State University
of New York agreed to conduct a more detailed cooperative
study during 1970, Each agency concentrated its activities
on different portions of the sound. The results of the 1970
EPA Survey, which was conducted along the north shore of
the sound, support the findings in 1969 and reveal new areas
of water quality standards violation. These results are
summarized in Table 6 and Figure 5 and are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Western Long Island Sound
Water quality standards violations were found in the
-------
101
Albert W. Bromberg
western end of Long Island Sound (1970 stations 1-6, 2A).
Dissolved oxygen levels ranged from 0.6 mg/1 in the Hutchinson
River to 6,5 mg/1 near Orchard Beach. Total coliform
densities ranged from 35,000 organisms per 100 ml at Throgs
Neck to 79 organisms per 100 ml near Orchard Beach. Fecal
coliform densities ranged from 11,000 to 83 organisms per
100 ml. These bacterial concentrations were 2-10 times
those observed in 1969.
Water quality failed to meet the dissolved oxygen
and bacterial criteria at Throgs Neck, East Chester Bay, and
in the open waters off Great Neck (Stepping Stones and
Hewlett Point). Total coliform densities from Throgs Neck
to Orchard Beach were 2-1/2 times the monthly median value
of 2,400 organisms per 100 ml established by the standards.
The high fecal coliform densities indicate recent contamina-
tion by inadequately treated human or animal feces. The
nutrient data indicate high levels of enrichment. Total
phosphorus (range: 0.18-0.52 mg/1) and nitrate (range: 0.09-
0.18 mg/1) concentrations were 2-10 times levels elsewhere
in the sound.
Extremely low dissolved oxygen levels and high
coliform densities indicate gross contamination of the
upper Hutchinson River. Combined sewer overflow may repre-
sent a source of this contamination. During the survey,
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
102
extensive floating trash and heavy recreational use were
observed in this area. The high fecal coliform density repre-
sents a definite hazard to recreational use.
A study conducted by the Interstate Sanitation
Commission during July 28 - August 14, 1970 in the upper
East River and western Long Island Sound showed violations of
the approved standards. Interstate Sanitation Commission
results indicate that, although dissolved oxygen has increased
since the 1959 study mentioned earlier, levels in the upper
East River and the adjacent waters of Long Island Sound were
below the standards of 5.0 mg/1. Saturation levels were
below 50 percent. Coliform densities in these waters were
found to exceed the limits established by the standards with
geometric mean ranging from 56,690 MPN per 100 ml in the
East River to less than 100 MPN per 100 ml in western Long
Island. These coliform densities were noticeably higher
than those found during the 1959 survey.
Westchester County Shore
Standards violations continued along the shoreline
of Westchester County (1970 stations 7-15, 9A, 10A) from
New Rochelle to Port Chester Harbor. Dissolved oxygen
levels ranged from 5.3 mg/1 adjacent to the Mamaroneck
sewage outfall to 9.8 mg/1 in Larchmont Harbor. Dissolved
oxygen concentrations were below acceptable levels in ihe
-------
103
Albert W. Bromberg
Class SA waters adjacent to the Mamaroneck and Blind Brook
sewage outfalls. Total coliform densities ranged from 2,400
organisms per 100 ml in Port Chester Harbor to 33 organisms
per 100 ml at the entrance to Larchmont Harbor. Total coliform
densities exceeded the established levels at these locations
and in Port Chester Harbor. Fecal coliform densities ranged
from 13 to 230 organisms per 100 ml. Chlorophyll a concentra-
tions were noticeably higher in Larchmont and Mamaroneck
Harbors than in the open sound waters.
Standards were violated in Port Chester Harbor in
1970. The total coliform density at the entrance to the
Byram River was 2,400 organisms per 100 ml. Extensive float-
ing trash, aquatic plant growth, and a slight oil slick were
observed.
A comprehensive study was conducted by thiS New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation during
1969-1970 of the waters of Long Island Sound in Westchester
County. The results of the study indicated an improvement
in water quality in the waters generally west of Mamaroneck
Harbor. It showed that the area northeast of Mamaroneck
Harbor continued to contain high densities of coliform
organisms.
Connecticut Shore
Samples were collected at 43 locations alon?* the
-------
104
Albert W. Bromberg
Connecticut shore from Port Chester Harbor to New Haven
Harbor (1970 stations 16-58, 45A). Dissolved oxygen ranged
from 3.8 mg/1 in Norwalk Harbor to 10.3 mg/1 off Smith Reef
(near Stamford). Total coliform density ranged from 2 organisms
per 100 ml at several locations to greater than 24,000 organisms
per 100 ml on the Housatonic River. Fecal coliform densities
ranged from 2 to 5,400 organisms per 100 ml.
Approved coliform and dissolved oxygen standards
were violated in Stamford Harbor, Norwalk Harbor, the Housa-
tonic River, and Milford Harbor. In the Housatonic River,
dissolved oxygen concentrations were below the established
limit of 5.0 mg/1 at three of the five stations sampled.
Total coliform densities were also greater than the established
standards at three locations. The maximum total coliform
level of 24,000 organisms per 100 ml was found at two up-
stream stations. Fecal coliform densities were also significantly
high at these stations. These low dissolved oxygen levels and
high densities of total and fecal coliform organisms (24,000 and
5/400 organisms per 100 ml, respectively) suggest that the
Housatonic River receives discharges of inadequately treated
municipal waste. The area of water quality degradation includes
both the river itself and the area adjacent to its mouth.
Dissolved oxygen levels were also depressed in
Norwalk (3.8 mg/1) and Milford Harbors (5.3 mg/1). High
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
105
total and fecal coliform densities (4,900 and 490 organisms
per 100 ml, respectively) were observed in Stamford Harbor.
Chlorophyll concentrations were noticeably higher
in Cos Cob, Stamford, Sheffield, Norwalk, Southport, Black
Rock, and Bridgeport Harbors and the upper Ilousatonic River
when compared to the offshore waters. These levels suggest
the presence of abundant phytoplankton or plant growth.
A 1970 report by the Water Resources Commission,
State of Connecticut on water quality standards lists those
waters where present quality is below the adopted standards.
The report, which confirms the results of the 1970
Environmental Protection Agency survey, indicates that problems
of quality exist in Connecticut River, Housatonic River,
Byram River, Stamford Harbor, Norwalk Harbor, Black Rock
Harbor, Bridgeport Harbor, New Haven Harbor, Mill River and
Quinnipiac River, Mystic River and Stonington,
New Haven Harbor
New Haven Harbor (1970 stations 59-69) continues
to exhibit poor water quality. The water quality standards
were violated at 6 of the 11 locations sampled. Water quality
at 5 of the 6 stations in the inner harbor (classified SC)
failed to meet criteria established for dissolved oxygen
and bacteria. Dissolved oxygen levels varied from 1.4 to
4.2 nig/1. Total and fecal coliform densities ranged from
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
106
3,300 to 24,000 and 350 to 5,400 organisms per 100 ml,
respectively. Water quality standards were not violated in
the outer harbor (classified SB). Dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions ranged from 5.5 to 6.1 mg/1. Total coliform densities
ranged from 23 to 220 organisms per 100 ml. However,
dissolved oxygen was below acceptable levels outside the
breakwater at the harbor entrance (classified SA).
Chlorophyll a concentrations exceeded 10 milligrams
per cubic meter at 4 of 6 locations in the inner harbor and
3
reached a maximum of 17.1 mg/m . These levels suggest
abundant phytoplankton growth.
Branford to Connecticut-Rhode Island State Line
(excluding Thames River)
From Branford to the Connecticut-Rhode Island
State line shoreline (1970 stations 70-91, 106-116) waters
excluding the Thames River were of high quality. Approved
standards were not violated in this area during the survey.
The mean dissolved oxygen concentration in these waters was
7.8 mg/1. Total coliform densities ranged from less than 2
organisms per 100 ml to 540 organisms per 100 ml in Mystic and
Stonington Harbors. Fecal coliform densities were generally
less than 30 organisms per 100 ml.
Chldrophyll a and nutrient concentrations and
bacterial densities were much lower than those in urbanized
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
107
areas west of New Haven Harbor. Chlorophyll a concentrations
were higher than background levels in the Connecticut River
and Mystic and Stonington Harbors.
New London Harbor - Thames River
Water quality standards were violated at seven of
13 locations in the New London Harbor - Thames River complex
(1970 stations 92-105). Dissolved oxygen levels ranged from
4.2 to 8.6 mg/1. Both total and fecal coliform densities
ranged from 33 to greater than 24,000 organisms per 100 ml.
Bacterial densities were higher than acceptable levels at
five locations upstream from the Route 95 bridge. Four of
these locations also exhibited total coliform densities
greater than 24,000 organisms per 100 ml. These high total
and fecal coliform densities — exceeded only in the western
Long Island Sound - East River area — represent a definite
hazard to recreational use.
Biology
In the balanced biological system of Long Island
Sound sunlight and nutrients foster the growth of microscopic
aquatic plants, the grass of the sea. These microscopic
plants are consumed by the microscopic animals, clams,
oysters, shrimps, and small fish. Larger fish feed upon
the smaller, and waste from all these organisms is broken
down by bacteria into the nutrients which start the cycle
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
108
anew. It is becoming apparent that all portions of this
complex biological cycle are now undergoing change.
The results of the EPA surveys of Long Island Sound
in 1969 and 1970 showed that nutrients and chlorophyll a
concentrations varied: for phosphorus, 0.52 - <0.01 mg/1;
nitrate 0.47 - 0.01 mg/1, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, 3.66 -
3
0.1 mg/1 and chlorophyll a 88.8 - 1.0 mg/m . Phosphorus and
nitrogen generally decreased toward the east. Chlorophyll a,
a measure of primary production of plant life, also followed
this same pattern. Riley, in 1959, found phosphate and
nitrate concentrations in Long Island Sound to decrease
from west to east. He also found a sevenfold decrease in
the chlorophyll concentration per unit volume between the
western and eastern end of the sound. Harris, in 1959,
observed maximum levels of all fractions of nitrogen in the
western end of the sound. Riley, in 1941, observed
3
chlorophyll a concentrations ranging from 5.2 - 62.0 mg/m .
He found these values much higher than the oceanic waters
outside the sound. Nutrients, particularly phosphorus, were
also higher.
The EPA surveys indicate that nutrients and
chlorophyll levels were generally higher near the population
centers. Specifically, the western end of the sound and
embayments such as Oyster Bay in New York and Stamford,
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
109
Southport, Bridgeport, and New Haven Harbors in Connecticut
had nutrient levels and quantities of floating aquatic
plants noticeably higher than other areas of the sound.
These extensive growths of aquatic plants may occur only
sporadically (e.g., New Haven Harbor, 1969), as indicated by
the State University of New York in their surveys, but the
history of their occurrence dates back to the early 1950fs.
If the incoming load of nutrients continues to increase, the
incidence of these nuisance conditions will multiply.
It is then that the water will become green, the profusion
of rooted and floating plants will interfere with swimming,
boating, and fishing, and periodic high tides will leave the
beaches covered with decaying marine plants which produce
obnoxious odors.
The study of nutrient enrichment is an area which
requires extensive and careful evaluation. The causes of
problems produced by extensive aquatic growth are far more
complex than a simple review of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
chlorophyll concentrations alone. Research in this area
is a definite need.
Summary
The water quality picture of Long Island Sound
which has been presented is a reproduction of what has
happened before at other places in other times. The quality
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
110
of portions of the sound are deteriorated to levels below
the adopted standards. These conditions which are now
occurring in the sound are occurring by default rather than
by design, and to follow that path is to invite ecologic
disaster and the loss of a valuable natural resource.
This natural system can be well managed and an
ecologic balance restored. It is not too late. A major
effort toward this end has been initiated by the States of
Connecticut and New York, and these efforts are described
in the next section. This effort, primarily aimed at the
construction of upgraded and expanded water pollution control
facilities, will provide the prompt action needed to abate
pollution in areas of presently degraded water quality and
prevent the spread of degradation to areas which are now of
good quality. The formulation of a comprehensive water
resource management program might well represent a rational
plan which can ensure the future development of the Long
Island Sound region while protecting the quality of its
waters.
V - POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
Federal
Water Quality Standards
The Water Quality Act of 1965 amended the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act and provided for the
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
111
establishment of water quality standards for interstate
waters. Under the provisions of the act, the States were
given the option of setting water quality standards by June 30,
1967 for interstate waters or portions thereof within their
borders and coastal waters. The standards were to be con-
sistent with the purposes of the act which are "...to enhance
the quality and value of our water resources and to establish
a national policy for the prevention, control and abatement
of water pollution."
The standards adopted by the States include a
classification of water uses, water quality criteria for
these uses, and a plan for the implementation and enforce-
ment of the water quality criteria adopted. The standards
shall protect the public health or welfare, enhance the
quality of the water, and serve the purposes of the act.
In establishing standards, consideration was to be given to
their use and value for public water supply, propagation
of fish and wildlife, recreation, agriculture, industrial,
and other legitimate uses.
The standards adopted by New York and Connecticut
were approved by the Administrator of EPA. Since the
Administrator has determined that they are consistent with
the provisions of the act, they are Federal water quality
standards applicable to those Interstate waters. Appendix D
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
112
contains a definition of best water usage and its appropriate
water quality criteria pertinent to the waters of Long Island
Sound.
Construction Grants
In the Long Island Sound area, to date, EPA has
spent or allocated $11,500,331 in Federal grants to assist in
the construction of 58 water pollution control projects
having a total eligible cost of $142,615,317. Fifteen projects
are in New York, and 43 are in Connecticut. Table 8 lists
these projects.
Federal Facilities
Federal agencies are charged by the President and
the Congress to provide leadership for the nationwide
pollution abatement program. Executive Order 11507 issued
by the President February 4, 1970 declares: "It is the intent
of this Order that the Federal Government in the design,
operation and maintenance of its facilities shall provide
leadership in the Nation with effort to protect and enhance
the quality of our air and water resources." Actions necessary
to meet the requirements of the Executive Order are to be
completed or under way by December 31, 1972, except where
enforcement conferences or water quality standards require
earlier actions, in which case the earliest date must be
met.
-------
3
2
3
3
2
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
3
2
TABLE 8
FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROJECTS
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Project
No.
Eligible
Costs
Grant
Amount
Date
of
Grant
Description^
190
236
432
84
289
341
609
237
577
130
67
351
342
105
218
3/
NEW Y0RK-
$ 400,000
120,000
504,000
975,000
1,138,943
265,000
366,600
28,600
508,000
1,161,300
916,300
637,000
133,602
2,875,000
5,020,000
$ 15,049,345
$ 120,000
36,000
166,320
250,000
375,851
87,450
120,990
8,580
152,340
348,390
250,000
191,100
44,089
250,000
1,506,000
$3,907,110
1-63
4-64
9-68
8-59
7-66
3-67
4-70
5-64
9-70
8-61
9-58
8-67
5-67
2-61
STP (A
STP (A
PS, FM
STP (A
STP (A
STP (A
STP (A!
INT, PS, FM
STP (A
STP (A
STP (A
STP (A
STP (A
STP (A
6-63 STP (A
INT
, PS, FM
-------
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
1
TABLE 3 (Cont'd)
FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROJECTS
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Date
Project Eligible Grant of .
No. Coats Amount Grant Description—
4/
CONNECTICUT—
63
$ 1,564,900
$ 516,440

6-67
STP

91
2,103,000
50,000

8-69
STP
(A)
99
15,725,000
1,500,000
(L)
8-69
STP
(A)
81
418,500
10,000
(L)
6-68
STP,
INT
25
661,926
198,577

5-63
STP,
INT
76
239,000
6,000
(L>
12-68
STP

50
915,000
250,000

11-65
STP,
INT
14
998,586
250,000

8-60
INT

68
2,130,695
42,000
(L)
9-67
STP
(A), INT
126
2,200,000
60,000
(L)
6-70
STP
(A)
55
819,897
270,566

8-66
STP
(A)
-------
3
2
2
1
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
TABLE 8 (Cont'd)
FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROJECTS
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Date
Project Eligible Grant of . ,
No. Costs Amount Grant Description—
CONNECTICUT—^ (Cont'd)
21
$ 846,123
$ 250,000

7-62

INT

113
1,350,000
25,000
(L)
12-69

INT

61
339,000
111,870

2-67

STP
(A), INT
136
13,615,000
100,000
(L)
11-70

STP,
FM, PS
104
3,544,000
50,000

8-69
(L)
STP
(A)
38
1,320,000
250,000

3-64

INT

72
5,196,000
80,000

1-68
(L)
STP,
0, INT
17
653,714
196,114

4-61

STP
(A)
39
2,294,000
250,000

6-64

STP
(A)
95
82,749
45,511

3-69

STP
(A)
36
27,000
8,100

2-64

STP
(A)
135
2,459,000
50,000
(L)
11-70

STP,
PS, INT
37
1,647,100
250,000

3-64

STP

90
385,100
11,000

11-68
(L)
INT

-------
3
2
1
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
TABLE 8 (Cont'd)
FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROJECTS
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Date
Project Eligible Grant of
No. Cost9 Amount Grant Description—'
4/
CONNECTICUT- (Cont'd)
19
$ 127,677
$ 38,303

1-62
STP (A)
42
1,692,000
558,360

10-64
STP (A)
139
5,361,000
100,000
(L)
11-70
STP (A)
1
1,517,696
250,000

2-57
STP, INT, PS
26 (APW)
339,439
-

-
STP (A) , FM
92
1,783,000
40,000

12-68 (L)
INT
46
970,450
250,000

1-65
STP, INT
5
1,031,080
250,000

8-57
STP
77
100,800
55,440

4-68
INT
103
2,109.500
52,000
(L)
7-69
INT
120
3,842,000
50,000
(L)
4-70
STP, INT, PS
124
15,450,000
100,000
(L)
5-70
STP, INT, PS,
64
5,039,000
400,000
(L)
8-67
STP, INT
131
12,665,000
100,000
(L)
8-70
STP (A), INT,
-------
TABLE 8 (Cont'd)
FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROJECTS
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Name
of
Project
Project
No.
Eligible
Costs
Grant
Amount
Date
of
Grant
Description^
Status-^
Lf
CONNECTICUT- (Cont'd)
Westport, Town of
$ 1,059,000
$127,565,972
$ 250,000
$7,634,221
4-59
STP, 0, INT
(L) Limited Federal Grant. State Prefinancing Remainder of Federal Share.
1/ Description of Project; 2f Status:
(A) - Additions and/or Alterations 1. Project Approved (Grant Offer Made)
FM - Force Main 2. Under Construction
INT - Intercepting Sewers 3. Project Completed
STP - Sewage Treatment Plant
0 - Outfall Sewer
3/ New York State provides a 30% State construction grant to communities to assist in the construction
of Water Pollution Control Facilities. This program also provides for prefinancing of Federal
grants, where necessary, up to 29% because the funding of the Federal program is far below needs.
In 1965, a billion dollar bond issue was authorized to finance the State Grant Program.
4/ Bond Issues totalling $250 Million have been financed for matching construction grants funds of
_ 30Z. The law also provided for State prefinancing of the Federal share of the grant. Connecticut
has prefinanced all major FY 69 and 70 projects with limited Federal Grants averaging 5% of
Eligible Costs.
-------
ITS
Albert W. Bromberg
Section 21 of the Federal Water Quality Improvement
Act of 1970 requires, among other tMngs, that: "Each Federal
agency (. . .includes Federal departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities) having jurisdiction over any real property
or facility or engaged in any Federal public -works activity
of any kind, shall, consistent with the paramount interest
of the United States as determined by the President, Insure
compliance with applicable water quality standards and the
purpose of this Act in the administration of such property,
facility or activity.11
Federal activities have been instructed to program
for needed improvements in order that requests may be submitted
to the Congress for the appropriations needed to meet the
compliance dates. Specific details for each of the Federal
facilities located on Long Island Sound are listed in
Appendix B.
State
New York
The New York Water Pollution Control Act of 1949
established a program of stream classifications for designated
waters of the State. In response to the Federal Water Quality
Act of 1965, New York was one of the first States in the
Nation to secure approval from the Federal Government of
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
119
quality standards for interstate waters. Appendix D presents
the classifications and water quality criteria for Long Island
Sound submitted to the Secretary of the Interior by New York.
Appendix Table B-l and B-3 summarize the implementation
schedule for each identified waste source as established by
New York State in order to achieve compliance with the
standards.
Also listed are those waste sources which, in
accordance with the standards, have ordered or voluntary
implementation dates not specified but fall within the Pure
Waters Program ending date of March 31, 1972. According to
these schedules, there are five industrial facilities identi-
fied as sources of pollution. A breakdown of the compliance
status is as follows: one is on schedule; one is behind
schedule; one has a pending completion date (with no interim
date); and two have no established schedule at this time. Of
the 22 municipal waste sources that are identified, one is
completed, three are behind schedule, three have pending
interim dates, 11 have pending completion dates (with no
interim dates), and four presently provide adequate treatment
with no established schedule.
The New York State Legislature, in 1966, passed
into law section 33 of the Navigation Law. This section,
which became effective liarch 1, 1970, regulates the disposal
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
120
from vessels of sewage and litter into the waterways of the
State. Administrative rules and regulations promulgated in
conformance with the laws prohibit the discharge of all wastes
without complete treatment. Holding tanks, incineration,
and anaerobic digesters are some of the treatment methods
permitted under the law. Effective implementation of section
33 will protect Long Island Sound from the discharge of
wastes from watercraft.
Connecticut
The Connecticut Water Resources Commission under
Connecticut Public Act No. 57, approved May 1, 1967, has held
five public hearings relative to the adoption of standards
for the waters of the State and has adopted water quality
standards for all interstate, intrastate, and coastal waters.
The standards applicable to interstate and coastal waters
were approved by the Secretary of the Interior in his letter
of February 15, 1968, with two exceptions. Revisions intended
to overcome the exceptions along with other modifications
were adopted by the Commission on November 17, 1969, and
were approved by the Secretary on April 21, 1970.
To achieve compliance with the standards, the
Commission has issued orders to all known polluters, both
municipal and private. The orders are aimed at treating all
sources of pollution through the installation of secondary
-------
Albert "if. Bromberg
121
treatment of the activated sludge type or its equivalent,
except in cases where a higher degree of treatment will be
required to maintain the water quality standards. The original
State schedule provided for completion of all waste treatment
facilities by the end of 1972, The Commission has, in some
cases, modified original schedules after review of new
information and special conditions. Appendix Table B-l and
B-3 summarize the implementation schedule for identified waste
sources as established by the State of Connecticut.
According to these schedules, 132 industrial
facilities are identified as sources of industrial and/or
domestic pollution. A breakdown of the compliance status is
as follows: 4 are no longer discharging; 33 are on schedule;
79 are behind schedule; 10 have pending completion dates
(with no interim dates); and 6 have no schedules established
at this time. In addition, 17 facilities are required to
abate domestic pollution as well as industrial discharges;
namely, by connection to a municipal system. A breakdown of
the compliance status for these is as follows: 1 is no longer
discharging; 9 are on schedule; and 7 are behind schedule.
The municipal plants that have been identified total 38, of
which 6 are on schedule, 26 are behind schedule, 1 has a
pending completion date (with no interim date) and 5 presently
provide adequate treatment with no established schedule.
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
122
Interstate Programs
Interstate Sanitation Commission
The Interstate Sanitation Commission was formed by the
Tri-State Compact between the States of New Jersey, New York,
and Connecticut to have jurisdiction in the Interstate
Sanitation District. This district consists of all coastal,
estuarine, and tidal waters within or covering the signatory
States in an area which includes the New York Harbor complex
and the waters of Long Island Sound from the East River to a
line extending from the east side of New Haven Harbor on the
Connecticut shore to the east side of Port Jefferson Harbor
on the New York shore.
The Commission has the power to make rules,
regulations and issue orders with regard to pollution and
to determine the adequacy of treatment provided by wastewater
facilities. It carries out a program of surveillance and,
when necessary, can resort to the courts to compel enforcement.
The Commission endeavors to convince municipalities and
industries of the need for voluntary and cooperative abatement
measures before it considers enforcement action.
The Commission exhibits its regional leadership in
numerous ways. It has made substantial progress toward the
enactment of legislation which will enable the Commission to
place in force, through appropriate steps, improved
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
123
classification of waters and effluent standards. Preset! tly,
the Commission performs the valuable role of facilitating the
development of uniform standards and regulations. Surveillance
of water quality is carried out throughout the Commission's
jurisdiction by means of sampling and analysis on routine
boat runs as well as more intensive studies in selected areas.
The Commission also conducts an extensive waste sampling
program and develops programs for the training of treatment
plant operators.
New England River Basins Commission
The New England River Basins Commission is a
Federal-State commission composed of representatives of the
six New England States and New York, eight Federal agencies,
and six interstate agencies. Established in September 1967
under the Water Resources Planning Act, the Commission is
charged with: a) serving as the principal agency for coordina-
tion of all plans for water and related land resources;
b) preparing and updating a comprehensive, coordinated joint
plan for water and related land resources; and c) recommending
schedules of priorities for water resources programs. Special
studies and projects related to these purposes have been
conducted.
A recent Presidential Executive Order (Order No.
11528, dated April 24, 1970) extended the jurisdiction of the
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
124
Commission to include Long Island Sound except the portion
lying west of a line extended from the Connecticut - New York
boundary at the northern shore of the sound to the New York
City - Nassau County boundary on the southern shore of the
sound.
The Commission provides leadership in a cooperative
Federal, State, and local comprehensive plan for the waters
and related land resources of Long Island Sound, initiated in
1971 under the Water Resources Planning Act.
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
Comprising the six New England States and the State
of New York, the New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission was established by interstate compact in
1947. The Commission provides a vehicle for interstate
cooperation in water pollution control through the classifica-
tion of interstate streams, research on regional water pollution
control problems, and public information. Recently, it has
directed its attention to programs providing training for
waste treatment plant operators.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Long Island Sound is a valuable natural resource
which the present generation holds in trust for posterity,
with an obligation to pass it on in the best possible condition.
2. Pollution of Long Island Sound, particularly in
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
125
its harbors and embayments, has adverse effects on fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic life; causes interference with
recreational use of the waters; despoils beaches and shore-
front property; and causes interference with aesthetic enjoy-
ment. Dredging and filling of marshlands also significantly
affect the ecology of the sound. The sources of this pollution
include wastes from municipalities and industries (including
oil and heated effluents), Federal activities, watercraft,
and sewer overflows.
3. Many commercial shellfish areas in New York and
Connecticut are closed to the harvesting of shellfish for
direct human consumption or market purposes as a result of
high bacterial levels or proximity to sources of pollution.
It is estimated that losses to the shellfish industry over the
past 50 years have exceeded $500 million as a result of
these closures.
4. Water quality standards have been established
to preserve and protect the waters of Long Island Sound.
Recent reports and surveys show that water quality in areas
of Long Island Sound, particularly in the major harbors and
embayments, does not meet Federal-State water quality criteria.
Moreover, many of the Federally approved water quality standards
Implementation schedules are not being met.
5. A primary source of bacteria in water is the
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
126
discharge of raw and/or inadequately treated domestic wastes.
Evidence of severe bacterial pollution, in violation of the
water quality standards, has been found by Environmental
Protection Agency and by other State and interstate agencies
to occur in the East River, off Stepping Stones, off Hewlett
Point, Eastchester Bay, Hutchinson River, Little Neck Bay,
Manhasset Bay, off Peningo Neck, Port Chester Harbor,
Greenwich Harbor, Stamford Harbor, Bridgeport Harbor, Housa-
tonic River, New Haven Harbor, New London Harbor, and Thames
River.
6. The small quantity of oxygen normally dissolved
in water is perhaps the most important single ingredient
necessary for a healthful, balanced, aquatic life environment.
The discharge of inadequately treated municipal and
industrial wastes with their high concentrations of
biochemical oxygen demand has resulted in seriously low levels
of dissolved oxygen in violation of the Federal-State
standards in many areas of the sound. EPA studies show that
these areas are: East River, off Stepping Stones, off
Hewlett Point, Eastchester Bay, Hutchinson River, Norwalk
Harbor, Housatonic River, Milford Harbor, New Haven Harbor,
and Thames River. At present, the main body of Long Island
Sound has not evidenced signs of oxygen deficiency.
7. Many of the harbors and embayments of Long
-------
127
Albert V. Bromberg
Island Sound have high nutrient levels. Algal blooms have
occurred in Long Island Sound, with the most recent occurring
outside New Haven Harbor in the fall of 1969.
8. Vessels of all types, commercial, recreational,
and Federal, plying the waters of Long Island Sound and its
tributaries, are contributors of untreated and inadequately
treated wastes in local harbors and in the open waters of the
sound. These discharges intensify local problems of bacterial
pollution.
9. Oil discharges from industrial plants and commer-
cial ships and careless loading and unloading of cargoes despoil
beaches and other recreational areas, damage shorefront
property, coat the hulls of pleasure boats, and are deleterious
to fish and other aquatic life.
10. Disposal of polluted dredged material in the
open waters of Long Island Sound contributes to degradation of
water quality in the sound.
11. The circulation pattern of Long Island Sound is
such that the wastes discharged in Connecticut cross the State
line into New York. In the western part of the sound, wastes
discharged in New York cross the State line into Connecticut.
12. Discharges of sewage, industrial wastes, and
other wastes originating in New York and Connecticut cause
pollution of Long Island Sound which endangers the health or
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
128
welfare ol persons in States other than those in which such
discharges originate. This pollution is subject to abatement
under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1151, et seq.).
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that:
1. Enforcement action be initiated immediately
against those sources of pollution not in compliance with
Federally approved water quality standards.
2. Waste treatment be provided by all municipal and
industrial waste sources affecting Long Island Sound so as to
provide compliance with federally approved water quality
criteria established by the States.
3. All municipal and industrial discharges contain-
ing fecal coliform bacteria be effectively disinfected year-
round.
4. Where federally approved water quality standards
implementation schedules do not contain interim dates for
submission of final plans and specifications and for start of
construction, such dates be furnished by the States to the
conference chairman within 30 days from the date of this
conference. In all such cases, the established dates for
completion of construction, as specified In the federally
approved State water quality standards, shall continue to apply.
-------
Albert YJ. Bromberg
129
5. There are 46 municipal and industrial waste
sources in the conference area not included in the federally
approved water quality standards implementation schedules.
These sources and the State schedules are listed in Tables B-l
and B-3 contained in this report. It is recommended that these
schedules be adopted by the conferees as the enforceable
conference implementation schedules.
6. The Environmental Protection Agency, the States,
and the Interstate agencies develop a water quality management
program for Long Island Sound. The program shall evaluate
alternatives and recommend specific programs, including
financial and organizational arrangements, to secure long-term
compliance with the water quality standards and a rational
management scheme to protect the sound. The program shall
include, but not be limited to:
a. Determination of areas of critical value for
recreation and for finfish and shellfish produc-
tion, and of measures for restoring these areas
or protecting them from future encroachments;
b. Alternate municipal and industrial waste
collection and treatment systems;
c. Location, siting, and design of powerplanta;
d. Disposal of dredged material, sludge, and other
wastes;
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
130
e. Financial, organizational, and legal arrangements
for implementing recommended actions.
It is recommended thit the program be initiated
immediately. It should be coordinated with the interagency
multipurpose plan for the water and related land resources of
Long Island Sound being initiated under the leadership of the
New England River Basins Commission. None of these activities
shall be construed as superseding the existing water quality
standards implementation schedules or the recommendations of the
Long Island Sound Enforcement Conference.
7. The practice of transporting polluted dredge
material to spoil areas in the open waters of Long Island Sound
be prohibited.
8. A comprehensive study of the combined sewers in
the area be conducted by Connecticut and New York to determine
methods of elimination or treatment, and the report of this
study be completed by April 1973. Upon completion of this
study, the conferees shall establish a program and schedules
for alleviating this source of pollution.
9. Connecticut is to take the appropriate steps to
require marinas to install facilities to receive the sewage
discharge from vessels for appropriate onshore treatment.
-------
131
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, A. W., Powers, E. A., 1949. Fisheries Statistics of the United
States 1945. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Statistical Digest No. 18.
Balch, F. N., 1899. List of Marine Mollusca of Cold Spring Harbor, Long
Island, with Description of One New Genua and Two New Species of
Nudibranchs. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 29 (7): 133-162.
Bingham Oceanographic Collection, Yale University, Oceanography of L. I.
Sound 1952-1954, Volume XV.
Bingham Oceanographic Collection, Bulletin Vol. 19, Jan. 1964-Apr. 1967,
Article 2. (Data collected 1952 to 1955).
Blumer Max, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Woods Hole, Massachusetts, "The Problem of Oil Pollution In Coastal
Waters".
Bromley, G. W. & Co., Inc., 1969. Boating Almanac, Vol. 2, New York, N.Y.
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, N.Y.C., Department of Health, August 1959,
Investigation of Pollution of Eastchester Bay, New York.
Bureau of Marine Fisheries, Conservation Dept., State of New York, April 1969.
Studies of Shellfish Growing Area #48 - Cold Spring Harbor, Ronkonkomo, N.Y.
Bureau of Marine Fisheries, Conservation Dept., State of New York August 1966.
Studies of Shellfish Growing Area #37 - Stony Brook Harbor, Ronkonkomo, N.Y.
Bureau of Marine Fisheries, Conservation Dept., State of New York, March 1966.
Studies of Shellfish Growing Area #39 - Smithtown Bay, Ronkonkomo, N.Y.
Bureau of Marine Fisheries, Conservation Dept., State of New York, June 1967.
Studies of Shellfish Growing Areas #40-46 - Hunington-Northport Bays,
Ronkonkomo, N.Y.
Bureau of Marine Fisheries, Conservation Department, State of New York,
1970 Report, Westchester Shore Shellfish Growing Area #55.
Cervione, M. A., Grossman, I. G., and Thomas, C. E., 1969. Hydrogeologic
Data for the Lower Thames and Southeastern Coastal River Basin,
Conn., Conn. Water Resources Bull. No. 16.
Charmatz, R., 1961. Preliminary Observations on Long Island Sound Sediments.
Trans New York Acad. Sci. 24 (2): 119-129.
Coast and Geodetic Survey (U.S. Department of Commerce) 1958. Tidal Current
Charts - Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound, Fourth Edition.
Conover, R. J., 1956b. Oceanography of Long Island Sound, 1952-1954. IV
Phytoplankton. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr, Coll. 15: 62-112.
- 34 -
-------
132
Conservation Department, Fifty-fifth Annual Report, (for the year 1965) p. 126.
Corps of Engineers, 1968. Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 1,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Department of Environmental Conservation, State of New York Studies of
Shellfish Growing Area #55, Westchester Shore, 1970.
Department of Environmental Conservation, State of New York Sanitary
Survey Report - Area #19, Sag Harbor and Sag Harbor Cove, 1965.
Department of Environmental Conservation, State of New York, 1970 Sewage
Treatment Works Inventory.
Deevey, G. B., 1956. Oceanography of Long Island Sound. 1952-1954. V
Zooplankton. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 15: 113-155.
Department of Health, County of Nassau, Water Quality Data, Bathing Mater
Sampling Program, 1970.
Department of Health, County of Nassau Survey Results for Manhasset Bay
and Hempstead Harbor.
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Anne H., 1970. The Food-From-The-Sea Myth. Saturday
Review. Vol. LIII, No. 14: April 4, 1970.
Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Waste Facilities Inventory,
1968.
Environmental Protection Agency, Report of the Committee on Water Quality
Criteria, April 1, 1968.
Environmental Protection Agency, New England Basins Office, Report on
New Haven Harbor, Shellfish Resource and Water Quality CWT 10-25,
August 1970.
Flint, R. F., 1930. The Glacial Geology of Connecticut: Bull 47, State of
Conn., Public Doc. No. 47, Hartford, Conn.
Hardy, Charles D«, 1969. Hydrographic Data Report, Marine Sciences Research
Center, State Union of N.Y., Tech. Report Series #4.
Hardy, Charles D., 1970. Hydrographic Data Report: Long Island Sound 1969
Marine Science Research Center, State University of New York, Stony
Brook, New York.
Harris, E., 1959. The Nitrogen Cycle in Long Island Sound. Bull. Bingham
Oceanogr. Coll. 17 (1): 31-65.
Hudson-Delaware Basins Office, April 1967, Report on Immediate Water
Pollution Control Needs; Interstate and Intrastate Waters Long Island
Region.
- 35 -
-------
133
Hudson-Delaware Basins Office, EPA, November 1969, Report on the Water
Quality of Long Island Sound, Edison, N.J., CWT-10-14.
Hudson-Delaware Basins Office, EPA, July 1968, National Estuarine Pollution
Study, Proceedings of the Public Meeting held at New York, N.Y.,
Boston, Mass.
Humphries, Robert, 1970. The Imperiled Environment. Vista, Vol. 5, No. 5:
March/April 1970.
Interstate Sanitation Commission, January 1970. Report on the Water
Pollution Control Activities and the Interstate Air Pollution Program,
New York, N.Y.
Interstate Sanitation Commission, 1959. Preliminary Report on the Water
Pollution Survey In the East River and Long Island Sound, New York.
La Lacheur, E. A., and Sammons, J. C., 1932. Tides and Currents in Long
Island and Block Island Sounds, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Special
Pub. 174.
Larkin, Richard R., and Riley, G. A., (1967). A Drift Bottle Study in Long
Island Sound. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. XIX, 2, III: 62-71.
Long Island Lighting Co., Mineola, N.Y., Population Survey, 1970.
Lyles, Charles, H., 1968. Fisheries Statistics of the United States 1966.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Statistical Digest No. 60.
New England Division Corps of Engineers, Waltham, Mass., January 1, 1969.
Water Resources Development by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
Connecticut.
New England-New York Interagency Committee, 1957. The Resources of the
New England-New York Region, Part two, Chapter XXIII, Connecticut
Coastal Area, New England-New York.
New York State Conservation Dept. by Vollmar Ostrower Assoc., October 1966.
New York Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Vol. 1 - State
Responsibility and Vol. 2 - Municipal Responsibility.
New York State Conservation Dept., October 1966. New York Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Vol. 3, The Role of Private
Enterprise.
New York State Office of Planning Coordination, Albany, N.Y., June 1968.
Demographic Projections for N.Y. State Counties to 2020 A.D.
North Atlantic Division of Corps of Engineers, January 1, 1969. Water
Resources Development by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in New York.
Northeast Regional Advisory Committee, November 1968. Electr-ic Power in
the Northeast 1970-1980-1990.
- 36 -
-------
134
Northeast Region, FWQA, April 1967. Pollution of Navigable Waters by the
Operation of Watercraft, Boston, Mass.
Office of Statistical Coordination, NYS Division of the Budget, March 1969.
New York State Statistical Yearbook 1968-1969, Table L-l, p. 214 and
L-5, p. 218.
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Economic Study, Report 24.
Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory, FWQA, September 1968. Industrial
Waste Guide on Thermal Pollution, Corvallis, Oregon.
Port of New York Authority, New York, N.Y., September 1966. The Next Twenty
Years.
Regional Economics Division, Office of Business Economics, Wash.,
D.C., The Economic Base of Specified Geographic Areas in the North
Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study Area, Revised 1968.
Richards, S. W., 1963a. The Demersal Fish Population of Long Island Sound.
I, Species Composition and Relative Abundance in Two Localities,
1956-1957. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 18 (2): 5-31.
Richards, S. W., 1963a. The Demersal Fish Population of Long Island Sound.
II, Food of the Juveniles from a Sand-Shell Locality (Station 1)
Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 18 (2): 32-95.
Richards, S. W., 1963b. The Demersal Fish Population of Long Island Sound.
III, Food of the Juveniles from a Mud Locality (Station 3A)
Bull. Bingham C-ceanogr. Coll. 18 (2): 73-94.
Richards, S. W., Riley, G. A., 1967. The Benthic Epifauna of Long Island
Sound. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 19 (2): 89-135.
Riley, Gordon A., (1959). Oceanography of Long Island Sound. Bull Bingham
Oceanogr. Coll. XVII, 1, I: 9-30.
Riley, Gordon A., (1956). Physical Oceanography. Bull Bingham Oceanogr.
Coll. XV, 2: 15-46.
Riley, Gordon A., (1956). Review of the Oceanography of Long Island Sound.
Deep-Sea Res. 3 (Suppl.): 224-238.
Riley, Gordon A., (1967). Transport and Mixing Processes in Long Island
Sound. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. XIX, 2, II: 35-61.
Riley, G. A., 1941. Plankton Studies III. Long Island Sound. Oxygen,
Chlorophyll, Phosphate, Productivity. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll.
7 (3): 1-93.
Riley, G. A., Conover, S. A. M., 1956. Oceanography of Long Island Sound,
1952-1954, III. Chemical Oceanography. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll.
15: 47-61.
- 37 -
-------
135
Riley, G. A., 1959a. Oceanography of Long Island Sound, 1954-1955.
Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 17 (1): 9-30.
Riley, G. A., 1959b. Note on Particulate Matter on Long Island Sound.
Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 17 (1): 83-86.
Riley, G. A., Schurr, H. M., 1959. Transparency of Long Island Sound Waters.
Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 17 (1): 66-82.
Riley, G. A., Conover, S. M., 1967. Phytoplankton of Long Island Sound.
1954-1955. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 19: 5-33.
Sanders, H. L., 1956. Oceanography of Long Island Sound. 1952-1954. X
The Biology of Marine Bottom Communities. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr.
Coll. 15: 345-414.
The Green Land Connecticut Interregional Planning Program, 1966.
The State of Connecticut.
Thomas, C. E., Cervione, M. A., and Grossman, I. G., 1968. Water Resources
Inventory of Conn., Part 3, Lower Thames and Southeastern Coastal River
Basin: Conn. Water Resources Bull. No. 15.
Thomas, M. P., Ryder, R. B., and Thomas, C. E., 1969. Hydrogeologic Data for
the Southwestern Coastal River Basins, Conn. Conn. Water Resources
Bull. No. 18.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water-borne Commerce of the United States;
Calendar Year 1968; Part 1 - Waterways and Harbors - Atlantic Coast,
1968.
U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1968. Environmental Science Service
Administration, Surface Water Temperature and Density, Atlantic Coast,
North and South America, Pub. 31-1.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1967, 1964.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population,
1969, PC (1)-8A, Number of Inhabitants.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, U.S. Census of Manufacturers,
1963, MC 63 (3) - Area Statistics.
USGS and NYS, 1968. An Atlas of Long Island's Water Resources, N.Y. Water
Resources Commission Bull. 62.
Water Resources Commission, State of Connecticut, 1970, Water Quality
Standards.
- 38 -
-------
136
APPENDIX A
CONVENTIONAL STEAM AND NUCLEAR ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS ON
LONG ISLAND SOUND
-------
137
TABLE A-l
CONVENTIONAL STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS
ON LONG ISLAND SOUND^
Map
No.
10
Name of Plant and Location
Long Island Lighting Company
Port Jefferson
Port Jefferson, Long Island
Long Island Lighting Company
Northport
Northport, Long Island
Long Island Lighting Company
Glenwood Landing, Hempstead Harbor
Glenwood Landing, Long Island
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
Cos Cob
Cos Cob, Connecticut
Hartford Electric Light Company
Stamford
Stamford, Connecticut
Connecticut Light & Power Company
Norwalk Harbor
Norwalk, Connecticut
General Electric Company
Bridgeport
Bridgeport, Connecticut
United Illuminating Company
Steep Point
Bridgeport, Connecticut
United Illuminating Company
Bridgeport Harbor
Bridgeport, Connecticut
Connecticut Light & Power Company
Devon, Housatonic River
Devon, Connecticut
Installed Capacity
(Megawatts)
1967
467
2/
Planned Capacity—
(Megawatts)
1970 1990
387
307
27
52
326
15
156
261
479
483
403
1567
483
403
1567
655 1155
470
445
1/ See Figure A-l for location of power plants.
2/ Recent controversies regarding thermal pollution have delayed
construction of many planned stations.
-------
TABLE A-l (Cont'd)
138
CONVENTIONAL STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS
ON LONG ISLAND SOUND
Map
No.
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
Name of Plant and Location
United Illuminating Company
Derby, Housatonic River
Derby, Connecticut
United Illuminating Company
English, Mill River
New Haven, Connecticut
Yale University
Sterling
New Haven, Connecticut
Yale University
Central
New Haven, Connecticut
United States Navy
New London Sub Base
New London, Connecticut
Connecticut Light & Power Company
Montville, Thames River
New London, Connecticut
Charles Pfizer & Company
Groton, Thames River
Groton, Connecticut
Installed Capacity
(Megawatts)
1967
Planned Capacity
(Megawatts)
1970 1990
20
146
1.7
3.4
176
176
554
11
-------
139
TABLE A-2
NUCLEAR ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS
ON LONG ISLAND SOUND^-
Map
No.
*5
Name of Plant and Location
Long Island Lighting Company
Shoreham
Shoreham, Long Island, New York
Long Island Lighting Company
Lloyd Neck
Lloyd Harbor, New York
Consolidated Edison Company
Welfare Island
New York City (East River)
Consolidated Edison Company
Davids Island (Ft. Slocum)
New Rochelie, New York
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company
Connecticut Yankee
Haddam Neck, Connecticut
Northeast Utilities
Millstone Point - Unit #1
Proposed Capacity
(Megawatts)
849
1000
3000
4000
567
Scheduled
Completion
Date
1975
Mid 1980's
Proposed
1978
In Operation
Millstone Point - Unit //2
New London, Connecticut
828
1975
1/ See Figure A-l for location of Nuclear Power Plants.
*Not included in Summary, Section II. Plant is located on the Connecticut River
20 Miles from Long Island Sound.
-------
to
c
™T
o
>
POWER GENERATING STATIONS
LONG ISLAND SOUND
r' B o ' C > t 0 N i..' r L t A ? ? 2' «"• f C P l A N' S
f > i' 'NO ! OSS'I I- JtL PC WE R Pi A NT$
t > 15 ' N G S V.'lf A ~. o OWES PI. A NTS
Corf«rerce ores limits
-------
141
APPENDIX B
WASTE SOURCE LISTING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
SCHEDULE
-------
TABLE B-I
MUNICIPAL, PRIVATE AND INSTITUTIONAL WASTE SOURCES
LONG ISLAM) SOUND
Map
Ident.
No.
Receiving Waters
Ave rage
Estimated Municipalities Daily Submit
Population With Combined Flow Degree of Preliminary
Served Sewers (HID) Treatment Plans
Submit
Final
Plans
Start
Construction
Complete
Construct ion
SEW YORK
1
Greenport
Long Island Sound
3,000

0.15
Primary
11/69
1

4/72

2
Port Jefferson
Port Jefferson Harbor
9,000

0.80
Primary

4/72

3
Kings Park Hospital
Smithtown Bay
9,500

1 .00
Secondary

4/72

4
Northport
Northport Harbor
3,000

0.15
Primary

4/72

5
Hunt ington
Huntington Harbor
16,000

1 .40
Secondary

6
Qfciant . Biological Lab
Cold Spring Harbor
40

0.01
Secondary

4/72

7
8
Oyster Bay
Glen Cove-Morgan Estates
Oyster Bay Harbor
Long Island Sound
7,125
250

1.11
Secondary
Primary

7/71
4/72

9
Glen Cove
Hempstead Harbor
25,000

J*.20
Secondary

4/73
4/75
*
10
Roslyn
Hempstead Harbor
3,500

0.43
Secondary

11
Port Washington
Manhasset Bay
36,£*15

2 -52
Secondary

12
Great Neck SD #1
Manhasset Bay
10,000

2.42
Secondary

12/68 1
¦*
13
Great Neck Village
Manhasset Bay
9,080

1 .06
Secondary

6/71
*
14
Belgrave SD
Little Neck Bay
15,000

1.42
Secondary
-
-

7/71
7/72
•*
15
Orchard Beach, NYC
Long Island Sound
Seasonal

-
Septic Tank

4/72

16
City-Hart Island, NYC
Long Island Sound
6,000
X
1.00
Pr ima ry

4/72

17
New Rocbelle
Long Island Sound
71,390

10.60
Primary
10/69
1
3/70
2/72
12/74
*
16
Haaarooeck
Long Island Sound
167,000

14.40
Primary
-

-
-
4/72

19
Shenrock Shore Club, Rye
Long Island Sound
Seasonal

Septic Tank

4/72

20
American Yacht Club, Rye
Long Island Sound
Seasonal

Septic Tank

4/72

21
Blind Brook
Long Island Sound
59,100
X
2 .50
Primary
4/69
1
3/70
3/72
8/73
*
22
Port (tester
Byram River-Port
23,800
X
4.20
Primary
10/69
1
4/70
3/72
9/73
*
Chester Harbor
i—1
to
-------
TABLE B-l
MDNICIPAL, PRIVATE AND INSTITUTIONAL WASTE SOURCES
LONG ISLAND SOW® (Cont'd.)
a/, b/
FEDERALLY APPROVED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE - ' ~
mp
Ident.
Ho.

Receiving Waters
Bstiaated
Population
Served
Average
Municipalities Daily
tfith Combined Plow
Sewers (M3D)
Degree of
Treatment
Submit
Preliminary
Plans
STATUS
Submit
Final
Plans
STATUS
Start
Const ruction
STATUS !
i
Couplet
Construct

C0NNBCTICUT

23
Greenwich
Greenwich Harbor
42,200
4.60
Secondary

Byrm River Interceptor

3/71

Belle Haven Interceptor

11/69

1/70
i
1/71
2%
Staford
Stafford River
92,700
9.20
Primary
7/67

4/68

2/69
i
7/70

Interceptors

7/67

4/68

2/69
i
7/70
25
Statford-IndUn Ridge
Stsaford River
500
X 0.05
Secondary

26
Dmrien
Long Island Sound
6,300
0.70
Primary
12/67

1/68

9/68

7/69
27
¦orwalk
Norwalk River
55,000
X 9.00
Primary
7/67
1
5/68

2/169

2/70

Severs

6/68

4/69

12/69

4/71
28
lonnlfc (6th Tax Dist.)
Norwalk River

X
Sept ic Tank

9/71

Sand Filter

29
Heatport
Saugatuck River
48,000
0.50
Secondary
12/67
1
7/68
I
3/69

3/70
30
Fairfield
Long Island Sound
30,000
3.75
Priaary
2/68
1
4/68

12/68

10/69
31
Bridgeport-Heat Side
Cedar Creek
90,000
X 24.00
Primary
9/67
1
1/69

6/69
i
6/71
32
Bridgeport-Bast Side
Bridgeport Harbor
40,000
X 11.00
Priaary
9/67
1
1/69
1
6/69
i
1/71
33
Stratford
Housatonic River
40,000
6.00
Primary
9/67
1
6/68

2/69

12/69
3*
She 1 ton-Ma in
Housatonic River
10,000
X 1.00
Priaary
11/67
1
7/68
1
4/69

2/70
35
SheIton-Route 8
Housatonic River
-
1.00
Secondary
8/67
1
4/67

4/67
i
11/67
36
Derby
Housatonic River
8,500
X 0.85
Primary
12/67
1
9/68

6/69

4/70
37
Milford (Devon)
Housatonic River
-
-
Individual
6/67
1
7/67

1/68
i
5/69
38
Milford (Town Meadows)
Milford Harbor
10,000
1.15
Secondary

39
Milford (Harbor Plant)
Milford Harbor
4,000
0.60
Secondary

*0
Milford (Gulf Pond Plant)
Gulf Fond
6,000
1.40
Secondary

*1
Vest Haven
New Haven Harbor
40,000
5.00
Primary
12/67
1
12/68
1
8/69

6/70
42
Hew Haven-Boulevard Plant
New Haven Harbor
76,600
X 11.30
Primary
7/68
1
12/69

11/70

11/72
CO
-------
TABLE B-l
MUNICIPAL, PRIVATE AND INSTITUTIONAL WASTE SOURCES
LONG ISLAND SCHJt© (Cont'd.)
a/1 b/
FEDERALLY APPROVED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE - ~
Map
Ident.
No.

Receiving Haters
Estimated
Population
Served
Municipalit ies
With Combined
Sewers
Average
Daily
Flow

Degree of
Treatment
Submit
Preliminary
Plans
STATUS
Submit
Final
Plans
STATUS
St art
Construction
STATUS
Complete
Construction
STATUS
43
New Haven-East St. Plant
New Haven Harbor
67,500
X
11.20
Primary
7/68
1
12/69

11/70

11/72

44
New Raven-Bast Shore Plant
New Haven Harbor
34,900
X
6.00
Primary
7/68
I
12/69

11/70

11/72

45
North Haven
Quinnipiac River
16,000
X
5.00
Secondary
3/68
1
7/68
1
3/69
1
2/70
1
46
Bast Lyme-Rocky Neck State
Park
Long Island Sound
-

0.02
Primary
10/67
I
5/68
1
12/6 8
1
6/6 9
1
47
East Lyae-N iant lc St.Farm
Bride Brook
-

0.03
Sec ondary

6/68

2/69

10/69

48
East Lyme-Camp Deapsey
Niantic River
-

0.32
Primary
9/67
I
3/68
1
11/68
1
6/69
1
49
Vaterford-Seaside St. San.
long Island Sound
-

0.03
Primary

4/6 B
1
12/68
I
8/6 9
1
50
New London-Trumbull St.Plant
Thames River
32,700

3.20
Primary
10/67
1
9/68

7/69

7/70

51
New U>ndon-Riverside Plant
Thoses River
2,600

0.20
Primary
10/67
1
6/68

4/69

10/69

52
Vaterford
Thames River
-

-
Individual
5/68
1
6/69

6/70

6/71

53
Mont ville
Thames River
-

-
Individual
10/67
1
7/68

6/69

8/70

54
Norwich
Shetucket & Thames S.
24,000
X
1.50
Primary
12/67
1
12/68
1
10/69

10/70

Yantic Interceptor

4,500

12/67
1
6/68
1
6/69
1
3/70

She tucket Interceptor

12/67
1
6/68

6/69

3/70

La* Hill h Thanes Inter.

12/6 7
1
11/68
1
6/6 9

3/70

55
Ledyard-Lifet ime Homes
Will ins Brook
-

0.08
Sec ondary
5/68
1
2/69
1
4/69
1
5/6 9

56
Groton City-Port St. Plant
Thames River
10,000

1.30
Primary
10/67
1
10/68
1
9/6 9
I
9/70

57
Groton City-Branford Court
Bakers Cove
800

0.03
Sec ondary

58
Groton Town-Fort Hill Homes
Interceptor
Mjmford Cove
4,800

0.30
Secondary

1
7/68
7/68
1
1
6/6 9
6/6 9

10/70
10/70

59
Stonington-Mjrst lc
Mystic River
"

0.05
Individual
8/67
1
3/68
1
1/69
1
4/70

60
9t on iogt on-Boro
Stonington Harbor
-

0.12
Individual
8/67
1
9/68

5/69

8/70

Under the "Statu#** column, a "1" Indicates tbe step has been tatus of Compliance as of March 15, 1971 for Connecticut Sources and October 30( 1970 for New York Sources.
W An asterisk at the right sai|io of tbe Implementation Schedule established.
M
-------
MUNICIPAL AND INSTITUTIONAL WASTE SOURCES
LONG ISLAND SOUND

em
1—1 •

£/

NfW LONDON
m
• |sT|1
I47I /
jisor
-------
tfftp
Ident.
Wo. Installation
Location
Receiving Waters
u
Animal Disease Lab
Plum Island, N.Y.
Block Island Sound
1
Animal Disease Lab
Plum Island, N.Y.
Long Island Sound
2
D*8« Air Force Plant #43
Stratford, Conn.
Housatonic River
3
Hew London Sub Base
Groton, Conn.
Thames River
*
U« S. S. Fulton
Groton, Conn.
Thames River
5
Navy Barges
Groton, Conn.
Thames River
6
Little Gull Is. Lighthouse
Little Gull Is. N.Y.
Long Island Sound
7
Plum Island Lighthouse
Plum Island, N.Y.
Long Island Sound
6
Stratford Shoal Lighthouse
Port Jefferson, N.Y.
Long Island Sound
9
Bcecution Rocks Lighthouse
New Rochelle, N.Y.
Long Island Sound
10
Greens Ledge Lighthouse
Northport, N.Y.
Long Island Sound
11
Fenfield Reef Lighthouse
Bridgeport, Conn.
Long Island Sound
12
Stratford Point Lighthouse
Stratford) Conn.
Long Island Sound
13
Falkner Island Lighthouse
Guilford, Conn*
Long Island Sound
1*
Jteu London Depot Lighthouse
New London, Conn.
Thames River
15
New London Ledge Lighthouse
New London, Conn.
Long Island Sound
16
Race Rock Lighthouse
Fishers Island, N.Y.
Long Island Sound
TABLE B-2
FEDERAL WASTE SOURCES
LONG ISLAM) SOUND
FEDERALLY APPROVED IMPLMNTATION SCHEDULE
Average ot w w g
Daily Subait H Submit H H Jjj
Flow Type of Preliminary 5 Final 5' Start i- Complete H
(GPP J Treatment glans " Plana Construction w Construction
Chlorination
46,000 Septic Tank 1972
/"Grind ing
55,000 J Neutralization 1972
^Sterilization
576,000 Secondary 7/71 \2/Tl 2/72 30/72
,300,000 Primary 9/71
40,000 None 5/71
40,000 Pump to Groton 12/70
Tom System
300 None 1972
300 Septic Tank 1972
200 None 1972
400 None 1972
300 None 1972
300 None 1972
300 Septic Tank 1972
400 Septic Tank 1972
150 None 1972
300 None 1972
300 None 1972
M
o
-------
e
c
M
FEDERAL WASTE SOURCES
LONG ISLAND SOUND
« ¦ ¦ • CwftrtKt arM Umili
-------
TABLE B-3
I US TRIAL WASTE SOURCES
LONG ISLAND SOUN)
Map
Ident.
Wo.
Niaber of
Eaployces
JOEL of Product
Receiving Maters
1
Urns Island Lighting Co.
Port Jefferson

Power
Port Jefferson Harbor
2
Shell Oil Co.
Mount Vernon

Oil
Hutchinson River
3
Metropolitan Oil Co.
Mount Vernon

Oil
Hutchinson River
4
Russell, ByrdsalI k Ward
Port Chester
800
Nuts It Bolts
Byram River
5
Krystinel Corp.
Port Cheater
70
Ferrites
Byram River
CONNECTICUT
6
GAF Corporation
Greenwich
814
Felt-Wool and
Synthetic Filters
(Sanitary)
Byram River
7
Globe Slicing Machine
Co., Inc.
Stamford
150
Food Slicers and
Choppers
Stamford Harbor
8
Machlett Laboratories, Inc.
Stamford
1,600
X-Ray Tubes
Noroton River
9
Laminated Shim Co., Inc.
Stamford
250
Laminated Stampings
Stamford Harbor
10
Hoffman Fuel Co., Inc.
Stamford

-
Stamford Harbor
11
Cerro Copper fc Brasa Co.
Stamford
300
Copper & Brass
Products
(Sanitary)
Stamford Harbor
12
national Dairy Product*
Corp. (Sealte«t)
Stamford

Dairy Products
Stamford Harbor
13
Devine Brothers
Norwalk

-
Norwalk River
14
King Organic Chemical Co.
Norwalk
10
Rubber-Pi«st ic iaers
Norvalk River
15
No rue lk Asphalt
Norwalk

-
Norwalk River
16
Caldor, Inc.
Norwalk

(Sanitary)
Norwalk Harbor
17
ftirfitld Investors, inc.
Homa lk

(Sanitary)
Norwalk. Harbor
18
loMjton Market
Nome lk

(Sanitary)
Norwalk Harbor
19
fcowayton Pharmacy
Norwalk

(Sanitary)
Norwalk Harbor
20
Soybel Realty Co.
Norwalk

(Sanitary)
Norwalk Harbor
federally approved impiemestatioh schedule -7
Submit 3 Submit 5 5 §
Preliminary « Final « Start « Complete «
Plana in Plana £ Construction in Construction to
6/69 1 3/70 8/70 8/71 *
11/69 1 1/70 1 7/70 1 *
6/68 1 3/69 i 6/69 5/70
6/68 5/70
9/68 1 1/69 1 4/69 11/69
3/66 1 2/68 1 4/68 1 12/68 1
7/68 1
1/70 • 1 6/70 9/70 3/71 *
7/68 1 12/68 1 3/69 1 12/69 1 c/
12/69 1 £/
12/70
9/68 1 1/69 1 3/69 8/69
*
9/68 j 1/69 1 3/69 1 8/69 \
4/71
4/7 \
9/71
9/71
9/71
M
00
-------
TABLE B-3
1NDOS TRIAL WASTE SOURCES
LONG ISLAM) SOUO (Cont'd.)
FEDERALLY APPROVED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE * ¥
H«P
Ideal.
Ho.
Kmc
Location
Nwber of
Employees
Troe of Product
Receivins Waters
Submit
Preliminary
Plans
m
3
m
CO
Sub* it
Final
Plans
•
3
4
cr>
Start
Construct ion
Status
Complete
Construction
•
3
•
4->
00
21
Stephanak Brothers, lac.
Horvalk

(Sanitary)
Nor«alk Harbor

9/71

22
Vtsti-A-Uay Car Washers
West port

Auto Washing
Saugatuck River

23
Fermoot Div. Dynamics Corp.
Bridgeport
250
Generator Sets-(San.)
Bridgeport Harbor

6/70

24
Car peat er Steel
Bridgeport
1,000
Alloy It Stainless
Steel
Bridgeport Harbor
12/68
1
ft/69

7/69
1
ft/70

25
Bollard Coapanjr
Fairfield
2,000
Machinery
(Sanitary)
Bridgeport Harbor
3/68
I
12/68

3/69
1
12/69
6/68
1
1
26
Clark Itetel Product* Inc
Fairfield
125
Saall Metal Products
Bridgeport Harbor
3/68
1
12/68

3/69

12/69

27
Uakeaaa Memorial, Inc.
Fairfield

(Sanitary)
Bridgeport Harbor

10/69

28
C. 0. Jell iff t«g. Co.
Fairfield
200
Woven Wire Mesh
Bridgeport Harbor
3/68
1
12/68

3/69

12/69

29
Electric Storage Battery Co.
Fairfield
108
Automotive Storage
Batteries
Bridgeport Harbor
6/68
1
2/69

ft/69
1
ft/70
1
30
Foremoat-MeKesson Lab
Fairfield
500
Pharmaceuticals
Bridgeport Harbor

31
Handy k Harmon
Fairfield
800
Precious Metals
Bridgeport Harbor

3/69

6/69
I
3/70
1
32
Parker's Dairy Co.
Trumbull
15
Dairy Products
Bridgeport Harbor
9/68

2/69

5/69

12/69

33
Hull Dye Ie Print Works, Inc.
Derby
aoo
Textile Dying fc
Finishing
(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
11/67
1
7/68

9/68
1
ft/69
10/67

M
The United Illwiutiag Co.
Derby

Electr icity-(Sanitary)
Housatonic River

ft/70
1
35
V. E. Bassett Co.
Derby
180
Manicure Implements
(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
1/68
1
3/6 B

5/68

12/68
10/67
1
36
Apex Tool A Cotter Co., Inc.
Sheltan
100
Tools, Holders fc
Milling Cutters
(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
9/68
1
ft/69

6/69
1
12/69
ft/68
1
1
37
B. F. Goodrich Sponge
Products
Sheltan
2,000
Industrial Cellular
Rubber •
(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
1/69
1
5/69

7/69

ft/70
9/68
1
38
Cbroaiui Process Co.
She It on
225
Electroplates
(Sanitary)'
Housatonic River

12/67

3/68
1
12/6B
11/67
1
39
Driacoll Wire Co.
Sheltan
75
Low Carbon Steel Wire
(Sanitary)
Houaatonic Biver
9/68
1
ft/69

6/69

12/69
ft/69
1
*0
(hpire State Hove It; Corp.
Shelton

(sanitary)
Housatonic River
9/68
1
ft/69

6/69
1
12/69
ft/68
1
1
<0
-------
TABLE B-3
I1O0STRIAL WASTE SOURCES
LOWS ISLAM) SOW© (Cont 'd )
FEDERALLY APPROVED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Map
Ident.
No.
Naae
Locat ion
Nusber of
Employees
Type of Product
Receiving Waters
Subvit
Preliminary
Plans
9
4J
4
4-1
V>
Subffit
Final
Plans
Status
Start m
Construction to
Coaplete
Const ruction
Status

41
Star Pin Co.
Shelton
160
Hairpins
Housatonic River

9/68

1/69
12/69

42
Wire Novelty Mfg. Co.
Shelton
190
Wire & Metal
Specialities
(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
9/68

4/69

6/69 1
12/69
4/68
1

ty
Scotch Wash
She It on

-
Housatonic River
8/69

11/69
1
3/70 1
6/70
1
*
i*u
East Village Land Co.
Shelton

-
Housatonic River
8/69

11/69
I
3/70 I
6/70
1
*
45
Chesical Plating Co.
Stratford
55
Electroplating
Housatonic River
8/68

1/69

4/69
1/70

46
Contract Plating Co.
Stratford
130
Metal Finishes
Housatonic River
8/68

1/69
I
4/69 1
1/70

47
Ross k Roberts
Stratford
250
Vinyl k Polyethylene
Fils & Sheeting
Housatonic River
12/68

5/69
1
8/69 1
6/70
1

46
Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
Stratford
1,250
Asbestos & Metallic
Brake Linings
Housatonic River
1/69

5/69
1
8/69 1
12/69
1

49
Tllo Co., Inc.
Stratford
1,500
Asphalt & Asbestos
Housatonic River
7/68

12/68
1
4/69 1
1/70
1

50
Bridgeport Rolling Mills
Stratford
130
Aluainum, Brass &
Bronse
Housatonic River
8/68

1/69

4/69
1/70

51
Chathaa Associates
Stratford

(Sanitary)
Housatonic River

4/70

52
Sikorsky Aircraft
Stratford
9,832
Hel icopters~(Sanitary)
Housatonic River

12/69

53
Branch Motor Express Co.
Orange

-
Milford Harbor
6/68

12/68
I
3/69 1
9/69
1

54
National Screw Products
Co., Inc.
Orange

-
Milford Harbor

6/68
I

55
Ad ley Express Corp.
Orange

-
Milford Harbor
6/70

6/70

9/70
3/71

*
56
Syndicated Realty
Orange
50
-
Milford Harbor
6/68
1
1/69
1
3/69 1
12/69
1

57
Huyck Corp.
Milford
50
Paper Making
Machinery
Milford Harbor
1/68
1
4/68
1
7/68 1
12/68
1

58
Milford Rivet ft Machine Co.
Milford
475
Tubular Rivets
Milford Harbor
11/67
1
2/68
1
4/68 1
10/68
1

59
Robertshav Control Co.
Milford
493
Metallic Bellows 6
Bellows Asseablies
Milford Harbor
3/68
1
10/68
1
1/69 1
12/69
I

60
V. S. Electric Motors, Div.
Person Electric Kg. Co.
Milford
1,025
Electric Motors
Milford Harbor
10/68

3/69
1
6/69
6/70

61
Uaterbury lock k Specialty
Company
Milford
300
Locks, Cigarette
Lighters
Milford Harbor
4/68

7/68

9/68
3/69

01
o
-------
TABLE B-3
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SOURCES
LONG 1SIAHD SO WD (Cont'd.)
FEDERALLY AP PR OWED IHPLE>SHTATION SCHEDULE
a/, b/
mp
Unt.
No.
(hater of
^ployees
Type of Product
Receiving Waters
Submit
Pre 1 iminary
Plans
Submit
Final
Plans
Start
Cptistruction
Complete £
Construction
(2 Seccndi Brothers Service
Station
(3 Tlw Rex Company
M Eldorado Trans. Co.
65 Volvo City
66 American Powdered Metals
6? Boradjr Corp.
68 City Printing Co.
69 Aapfcrey Chemicals
70 Piatt 1 Labonia Co.
71 Axton-Cross Co.
72 Pratt It llhitnejr Aircraft
(United Aircraft)
73 Onioa Carbide, Linda Air
Products Co.. Inc.
74 0. F. Mtttbarg I Sons
75 Dpjofaa Co., Carvin Organic
Chemicals
76 Upjohn Co., Carvin Organic
Chnaicats
77 T Incest Buooocore k Sons
78 Drabfcin Family Spray Truat
79 Circuit-Wise, Inc.
80 C. W. Blakeslee fc Sons
81 Federal Paper Board Co.
Milford
Milford
Milford
Hilford
Korth Haven
Hortb Haven
North Haven
north Haven
Horth Haven
Worth Haven
Horth Haven
north Heven
north Haven
north Heven
north Haven
North Haven
Horth Haven
North Haven
Hew Haven
Hew Haven
Auto Dealer
2oo Powdered Hstal Parts
200 Electrical Connectors
75- Printing fc Lithography
25 Organic Chemicals
60 Sheet Metal Fabri-
cators
60
2,500
300
20O
Industrial Chemicals
Aircraft & Marine
Engines
Compressed Gases
Synthetic Organic
Chemicals
Synthetic Organic
CheaicaU
Hinted Circuit
Boards
General Contracting
Folding loxboard
Milford Harbor
Milford Harbor
Hilford Harbor
Milford Harbor
Quinnipiac River
Quinnipiac River
New Haven Harbor
(Quinnipiac River
Quinnipiac River
Quinnipiac River
Quinnipiac River
Quinnf^iac River
New Haven Harbor
Quinnipiac River
Quinnipiac River
Hew Haven Harbor
Hew Haven Harbor
New Haven Harbor
New Haven Harbor
Mill River
1/70
5/70
5/70
1/68
11/68
B/68
6/69
9/69
2/66
9/69
1/71
1/71
3/68
7/68
2/70 1
7/70
7/70
2/69 1
1/69 1
12/67 1
7/68
1/69
11/69 1
12/66 1
1 11/69
1 2/70
1 3/70
6/71
6/71
I 6/66
1 12/66
5/70
9/70
9/70
5/69
a/69
3/68
10/68
ft/69
3/70
3/69
1/70
5/70
7/68
5/70
8/7 i
8/71
8/68
3/69
12/70
12/70
12/70
12/69
12/69
6/68
5/69
12/69
6/71
9/69
6/70
11/70
2/69
12/70
3/72
3/72
12/68
3/70
-------
TABLE B-3
II®BSTRIAL HASTE SOURCES
LONG ISLAM) SOON) (Cont'd.)
PH)ERALLY AWItOVH) IMPLEMEKTATIOH SCHEDULE
M»P
Meat.
Mo.
Naae
Location
Number of
taolovees
Type of Product
Receiving Waters
Subeit
Preliminary
Plans
3
41
**
CO
Subait
Final
Plans
•
9
4->
4
4->
CO
Start
Construct ion
9
m
+*
00
Complete
Construction
Status

82
Suable Oil
New Baven

-
New Haven Harbor
11/68
1
3/69
1
6/69
1
12/69
1

83
Mite Corp.
Hew Baven
300
Electrical Equipment
West River
11/68
1
3/69

6/69

12/69

m
New Haven Board k Cert on
Mew Baven
500
Folding Boxboard
Mill River
7/68
1
12/68
1
3/69

3/70

85
Seaaless Bobber Co., Div.
Rexall Drag k Chemical Co.
New Haven
900
Rubber Sundries
New Haven Harbor
11/68
1
3/69

6/69

12/69

86
0. S• Steel, Jtoeriean Steel
k Wire Div.
Mew Haven
300
Hot Boiled k Cold
Piniabed Bars
Quinnipiac River
8/68
1
3/69
1
6/69

3/70

87
New Haven Malleable Iron Co.
New Haven

(Sanitary)
Mew Haven Harbor

6/68

88
Textron Electronics
New Baven

-
Mew Haven Harbor
5/69
1
10/69

2/70

12/70

*
89
Peon Central Co., Union St.
New Baven

-
Mew Haven Harbor

5/70

10/70

10/71

*
90
Penn Central Co., Cedar Ball
New Baven

-
Quinnipiac River
3/70

5/70

10/70

10/71

*
91
Til 11 Brat ben
Harden
70
Metal Moldings
Whitney Lake
6/68
1
1/69
1
3/69
1
2/70
1

92
Giering Metal Finishing, Inc.
Hasten
50
Metal Finishing!
Mew Haven Harbor
7/68
1
2/69
1
4/69

3/70

93
South Conn. Gas Co.
New Beven

(Sanitary)
New Haven Harbor

7/72

94
The United marinating Co.
Mew Baven

Electricity-(Sanitary)
Mill Biver

7/72

95
Coreaco Corp.
Heat Haven
625
Tallow fc Grease Bides
New Haven Harbor
9/69
1
3/70

5/70

12/70

*
96
Car Washers, inc.
ttest Baven

Auto Hashing
New Haven Harbor
2/70

2/70

5/70

10/70

*
97
American Buckle Co.
West Baven
20
Clothing Buckles
New Baven Harbor
12/69
1
2/70
1
6/70
1
12/70
1
*
98
AiMtrong lubber Co.
Vest Baven
1,471
Tires k Tubes
New Haven Harbor
1/71

6/71

9/71

4/72

~
99
Areola Wire Co.
Bradford
11
Bound Aluminum Wire
and Bod
Bradford Harbor
8/68
1
12/68
1
4/69

12/69

100
D. J. Kit*
Bradford

Branford Harbor
8/68
1
1/69
•*1
3/69

9/69

(Sanitary)
Br«aford Berbor
10*
Bcfalia IC|. Co,
Bradford
550
Automobile Parts
Braaford Harbor
105
Atlutie Wire Co.
Brnnford
250
Iron k Steel Wire
Irutord Harbor
106
8iHlt Bonne tutMrnt
B*nf«r4

(Sanitary)
fcuford Bnrbor.
107
Milltibli Iron fittiaci Co.
Branford
622
Metal Fabricating
(Sanitary)
Branford Bnrbor
108
011a Corporation
Branford

Braaford Harbor
10*
Ik^U SBndn RKt, 1m .
Guilford
100
Dairy Product*
Gail Cord Harbor
110
Hrtrl) Cb—Iral Co., lac.
Gnilford
5
Hagansion
Guilford Harbor
111
Hndiacn Irarfmat
Madlac®

-
Gnilford Baifeor
112
QuAreMfhoPavdi, Int.
Clinton
1,450
ttarnnceuticala
Clinton Bnrbor
113
tainrwl Virt of Boatitch
MvUiat of Ttttrot, inc.
Clinton
100
Wire Drawings
Clintoh Bnrbor
11*
Vttftax Coajsny
BlMX
200
T-IMlMllt
Connect lent livci
IIS
Cfcil. Histr k Co., Ik.
Groton
2,000
Fhareee eat lea la
Ami Bivcr
116
Ciwnl ttynwtct Cory,
Bleetric Boat Di*.
Groton
18,000
Sbife-(Saa it ary)
Tfcaaas liver
117
Cm$mm» be.
Groton
5
¦mm paper-(Sanitary)
TlMaas River
118
9mcent CIumti ft bllori
Groton

-
^¦n liver
11*
Ufttlai Boms, inc.
Ledynrd

(Sanitary)
TKiati lint
120
Caa*onalli Corp.
Ledyard

-
Aaai liver
TBDEBALLY APPBOfB lKFLBgWtATIOB 3CHSTBLB -7
Sabait
frrel ialury
PUm
Sobait
tiul
_ >Uin
Start
Ooastrnc-tjoo
Canplcte
:umM ruction
6/69
11/68
12/69
4/68
t/68
I 11/69 I
1 7/69 1
3/70
6/66
6/66
a/70
9/69
6/70
8/68
8/68
12/66
V70
V?0
13/tft
10/70
1/70
12/68
5/66
5/69
9/6?
U/6B
2/66
U/66
2/70
10/67
lt/70
V68
2/70
7/70
*/66
6/70
7/6B
10/70
*/7l
6/68
12/67
9/68
5/68
6/69
11/68
8/68
8/69
3/69
8/69
11/69
5/68
9/68
8/68
1/69
10/68
11/70
9/71
v#»
«*/69
M
en
u
-------
TABLE B-3
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SOURCES
LONG ISLAND SOUND (Cont'd.)
FEDERALLY APPROVED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE */' 5/
Map
•dent.
No.
Name
Location
Nuaber of
Employees
Type of Product
Receiving Waters
b n
Submit o Sutar.it a
4J
Preliminary • Final «
Plans w Plans w
•
3
Start «
Construction w
Complete
Construction
121
Continental Can Co.
Montville
174
Metal Cans
(Sanitary)
Thames River
2/69 10/69
U/68 6/68
4/70
9/68
4/71
12/68
22
Federal Paper Board Co.
Montville
100
Folding Boxboards
Ofecobozo Brook
2/69 10/69
4/70
4/71
33
Robertson Paper Box Co.
Montville
400
Folding Boxboards
Oxoboxo Brook
2/69 1 10/69
4/70
4/71

Thoaas G. Faria Corp.
Montville
130
Automotive & Marine
Instruments
Thaaes River

12/71
25
Pinley Screw Machine Prod.
Montville
5
Screw Machine Prod.
Thaaes River

12/71
.26
Conn. Light A Power Co.
Montville

Power
Thaaes River

27
American Velvet Co.
(A. ViipCbeiaei ft Brothers,
Inc.)
Stonington
350
Velvet & Plushes
(Sanitary)
Stonington Harbor

12/70
12/70
28
Monsanto Company
Stonington
100
Plastic Bottles
(Sanitary)
Stonington Harbor

12/70
12/70
29
Douglas Randall, Inc.
(Subsid. of Halter Kidde k
Co., Inc.)
Stonington
250
Electronic Equipment
Stonington Harbor

12/70
i30
Carole Realty
Stonington

-
Fishers Island Sound

12/70
31
Micro Leather
Stonington

Leather Products
Fishers Island Sound

12/70
32
Aaron Levine
Stonington

-
Fishers Island Sound

12/70
33
Russell A. Linihan
Stonington

-
Fishers Island Sound

12/70
34
Cooper Laboratories
(lb* Packer Co. Div.)
Stonington
20
Soaps k Shampoos
(Sanitary)
fystic River

12/70
12/70
35
Puritan Laundry
Stonington
15
Laundry
Mystic River

12/70
¦36
Sirtex Printing Co.
Stonington
20
Textile Printing
(Sanitary)
Mystic River
3/68 6/68
3/68
11/68
6/68
9/69
9/68
137
General Dynaaica Corp.
Stonington
18,000
Ship Construction
Mystic River

12/70
a/
Under the "Status" column* a
"1" indicates
the step has been
completed, a blank indicates it has not been
coapleted. Status of Compliance
as of March , 1971.

b/ An asterisk "**' at tfce right aargin of the Implementation Schedule indicates it is a State schedule with no Federal schedule established.
c/ No longer discharging wastewater. H
cn
-------
c
•
Q»
i
W
INDUSTRIAL WASTE SOURCES
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Confer**c« «r«a Ibki
-------
156
TABLE B-4
COMBINED SEWER SYSTEMS
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Estimated Population
Municipal System Served
New York
City-Hart Island 6,000
Port Cheater 23,800
Blind Brook 59,100
Mamaropeck 167,000
255,900
Connecticut
Stamford-Indian Ridge 500
Bridgeport-East Side 40,000
Bridgeport-West Side 90,000
Shelton-Main 10,000
Derby 8,500
New Haven-Boulevard Plant 76,600
New Haven-East Street Plant 67,500
New Haven-East Shore Plant 34,900
North Haven 16,000
Norwich 24,000
Norwalk 55,000
Norwalk-6th Tax District
423,000
678,900
-------
157
appendix c
LETTER FROM IMG ISLAND OYSTER FARMS DC., HEW
HAVEN, CONNECTICUT AND STATE OF CONNECTICUT
SHELL FISH COMMISSION, MILFORD, CONNECTICUT
REGARDING ECONOMIC LOSS TO SHELLFISH INDUSTRY
AS RESULT OF WATEB POLLUTION.
-------
COPX 15fi
LONG ISLAND OYSTER FARMS, INC,
610 Quinnipiac Avenue
New Haven, Connecticut 06513
203-167-6381;
February 10, 1971
Mr. Edward "Wong
Federal Water Quality Administration
2lj.O Highland Avenue
Needham, Massachusetts
Dear Ed,
In reference to your telephone inquiry of yesterday regarding
the decline in the Connecticut, New York oyster industry over the
past fifty years, I offer the following:
In 1920 there were more than sixty planters all of them de-
pendent on Connecticut seed. These varied in size from the companies
producing a quarter million bushels yearly of market stock down to
the individual producing one or two thousand bushels per year.
The average yearly production of market oysters at that time
was about 1,$00,000 bushels down from, double that production at the
beginning of the century.
Today there are only four planters left that are doing any
substantial amount of business. An estimate of their total sales
in 1970 is 11*0,000 bushels, which at an average price of $11+.GO per
bushel would amount to a little under two million dollars.
If 1920 production of one and a half million bushels had been
maintained, the 1970 yield would have been over nineteen million
dollars - a difference of seventeen million dollars in 1970 alone.
A rough estimate of the total accumulated loss over the past
fifty years expressed in 1970 dollars would be in excess of five
hundred million dollars.
This loss can be charged almost exclusively to pollution of
our estuaries, the natural breeding area for oysters.
Very truly yours,
LONG ISLAND OYSTER FARMS, INC.
/S/ Mr. J. Richard Nelson
-------
COPY
159
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Shell Pish Commission
Rogers Avenue
P.O. Box 97
Milford, Conn. 06i±60
87U-0696
February 11, 1971
Mr. Edward F. M. Wong
Shellfish Consultant
Environmental Protection Agency-
Water Quality Office
2ii0 Highland Avenue
Needham Heights, Mass. 0219U
Dear Ed:
With reference to our telephone conversation concerning the
cost of water pollution as related to our shellfishery, I am
enclosing a copy of the report made to the Clean Water Task Force
in I966 widch may be helpful. You will note that I estimated the
total loss at over a billion dollars just in the shellfishery alone.
I am also enclosing a copy of the article in the New Haven
Journal Courier, Monday, February 8, 1971, also a copy of work
done by the University of Southern California concerning the Santa
Barbara blowout which should be of interest.
Have you seen the latest work by George C. Matthiessen
entitled, "A Review of Oyster Culture and the Oyster Industry
in Worth America?" If not, I have an extra copy and will send
it to you.
Sincerely,
COM. STATE SHELL FISH CCMM.
Ernest J. Bontya
Engineer
EJB :mem
End.
COPY
-------
Of all the problems that face the Connecticut shellfisheries,
the pollution of our rivers and costal waters has become the moat
serious. To appreciate this condition and its consequences, a
brief review of the shellfisheries would be appropriate. The
estuaries and wetlands form a complex ecological system contributing
to a wide variety of fish and wildlife. The shellfisheries, as a part
of such a complex, are in even more delicate balance in the require-
ments of a productive environment. Type of bottom, temperature,
salinity, water quality and food are all key factors in the shellfish
cycle and the variation of one is critical to growth and reproduction.
Connecticut was gifted in this unique combination of conditions and
became one of the most prolific shellfisheries in the world. At
the turn of the century, production was over 3>000,000 bushels of
mature and seed oysters annually. At today's prices, this would be
about $UO,000,000 per year. The decline of this industry as a
result of the environmental change along our shorelines has been at
the cost of over a billion dollars in shellfish during the past 65
years. Add to this the loss of the commercial finfishery that also
prospered in Connecticut during this period as well as the future
cost of pollution abatement and we have already had a costly lesson
in the value of our water resources.
Today, the shellfisheries consist of approximately 6U,000 acresj
U6,000 acres under State control- and 1*8,000 acres as Town ground.
-------
161
COPY
Of the total, lj.2,000 acres would be considered oyster grounds,
20,000 acres of clam ground and 2,000 acres of escallop ground.
The industry is generally located from Greenwich to Branford and
has been the area of the greatest lost of productive ground. The
area from Branford easterly to Stonington is predominately a sports
shellfishery with a small commercial shellfishery in a number.of
towns. The total product value for both the commercial, and sports
shellfishery for 196U is estimated at two and a half million dollars.
Production for 196J? will be lower due to the continuing decline in water
quality from pollution and the lack of fresh water run-off.
WATER POLLUTION
The shellfisheries require a high standard of water quality for
propagation and more importantly, the protection of the consumer.
Approximately y~>% of all shellfish grounds are closed by the State
Health Department for poor water quality. This closure prohibits
direct marketing of oysters or clams from specific areas, however,
transplanting to clean water is permitted under strict control. There
are two general kinds of water pollution creating problems for our
industry. Untreated or partially treated domestic sewage deposits
sludge on shellfish grounds and removes dissolved oxygen from the water
making the grounds useless for production. Domestic sewage also
carries various types of human diseases which can be transmitted to
humans. Industrial pollution is the disposal of wastes from manufacturing
-------
plants but it is convenient to broaden the definition to include other
chemical pollutants such as detergents, oil, pesticides, chemical
fertilizers and weed killers that wash into our streams. The effects
of industrial waste are varied and often not as clear cut as domestic
sewage. It is also economically impossible to remove the last trace
of waste materials from processed water and harmful pollution can
originate even in the presence of acceptable standards which might
be met by a manufacturer in waste treatment. Considering the nature
and extent of our polluted waters, it can be assumed that our major
estuaries such as the Thames River, Connecticut River, New Haven
Harbor and the Housatonic River can never be totally reclaimed for
direct market shellfish. The remaining clean waters of Connecticut
are therefore a valued asset and one objective of any program should
be to prevent their loss to pollution as well as to support pollution
abatement to bring other areas to more acceptable standards.
SHELLFISH FUTURE
The future of the shellfisheries is at best a challenge. There
is a correlation in the loss of the former productive natural environ-
ment in our estuaries and the decline in shellfish production. Pollution,
filling of the marshlands, dredging for gravel or fill, navigation projects,
erosion and hurricane protection have all taken their toll. The environ-
ment that created our 3,000,000 bushel years is gone and although there
are still thousands of acres of good shellfish bottom available, their
-------
163
COPY
ability to produce is keyed to a declining water quality. Recent
developments in oyster and clam culture offer a number of areas of
promise to the shellfish industry. Chemical control of some predators
is now practical. The process known as depuration is available for the
cleansing of shellfish from moderately polluted areas and would open
thousands of acres of clam grounds. The artificial spawning of oysters
and clams is in operation on Long Island and has excellent commercial
possibilities, however, natural spawning will still be needed for
volume production and our future shellfisheries will be dependent on
a clean and productive water quality.
THE PROBLEM
The shellfisheries of Connecticut are an example of the con-
sequences in the misuse or* destruction of our irreplaceable natural
resources. The hub of the commerical shellfisheries was the area
between New Haven and Bridgeport. The Bridgeport beds were supported
by the Housatonic River and the history of this river and it's pollution
is well known. The New Haven Harbor is the terminal for three rivers:
the West River, the Mill River and the Quinnipiac River. All of these
streams are polluted in varying degrees and the Mill River is the
classic example of our stream pollution problem. Its putrid grey
green waters can only be appreciated by sight and smell. Pulp plants
are the major contributors to this pollution and action by many local
groups to correct the flagrant violation of pollution laws and common
COPY
-------
sense is defeated by political expediency and a negative attitude
on the part of enforcement officials. The law is being compromised for
jobs and our public waters have become their private sewer. The Mill
River demonstrates how little protection the public interest and our
water resources have had wherever the problem is basically the law
and its administration. The emphasis being placed on pollution abate-
ment is essentially a technical matter, however, without the strong
support of our laws to prevent the increase of sources of pollution,
much of any program would be wasted and therefore, our recommendations
are limited to what' we consider the first phase of clean water program.
1. Revise existing statutes, to clarify and define the State role and
responsibility in water pollution control with emphasis on a policy
that will recognize, preserve and protect the public interest in
fish, wildlife and water resources.
2. The prevention and control of pollution is primarily a public
health problem and should be under the jurisdiction of the State
Health Department as a direct line responsibility. The professional
stature of the State Health Department would minimize the pressures
of special interests. Today, the dual role of the Health Department
and the Water Resources Commission apparently provides a grey area
of jurisdiction which is both a refuge and a source of inaction in
resolving our pollution problems in the best interests of the public.
3. The existence of the Glean Water Task Force is an indication of what
has not been done and on the basis of past experience, we have no
-------
165
COPY
assurance of what will be done to implement and support pollution
prevention and abatement in the waters of Connecticut. A citizen's
group to oversee a clean water program for a period of five to ten
years might be appropriate and would at least provide support and
strength to the actions of any State agency that will in time be in
charge of millions of dollars in pollution abatement programs.
Water pollution along the shores of Greenwich, Stamford and Darien
have contributed to closing of several oyster firms in the area. Out of
11 oyster dealers operating in the Norwalk-Darien area, five have gone
out of business with very little chance of returning. The Norwalk
Estuary, including parts of Darien, produces approximately one million
dollars worth of shellfish annually.
Even though pollution has closed an ever-increasing number of shell-
fish beds, interest seems to continue in commercial and recreational
shellfishing. But even here the trend is downhill if we can use recent
events in Norwalk as a representative example. From 1959-1965 there was
a gradual increase to over 1,300 clamming permits issued annually in
Norwalk. After 1965 the number declined, reaching about 900 in 1969.
COPY
-------
APPENDIX D
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
-------
copy 167
ANTIDEGRADATION STATEMENT
NEW YORK STATE
It is recognized that certain waters of New York State possess
an existing quality which is better than the classification standards
assigned thereto. The quality of these waters will be maintained unless
and until it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commissioner
of Environmental Conservation that other uses and different standards
are justifiable as a result of necessary economic or social development.
To accomplish this objective all proposed new or increased sources of
pollution will be required to provide the best practical degree of waste
treatment to maintain these waters at this higher quality.
In addition, there will be furnished to the Federal Water Quality
Administration, U. S. Department of the Interior, such information as
is needed to enable the Secretary of the Interior to fulfill his
responsibilities under the Federal law.
Water which does not meet the assigned classification will be
improved to meet the standards.
Adopted by Water Resources Commission
May 7, 1970
COPY
-------
168
4. Classes and Standards For Tidal Salt Waters
CLASS SA
Best usage qf waters: Shellfishing for market purposes and My other usages.
Quality Standards for Class SA Waters
/lam*
1. Floating solids; setdeable solids; oil;
sludge deposits.
2. Garbage, cinders,, ashes, oils, sludge or
other refuse.
3. Sewage or waste effluents.
4. Dissolved oxygen.
5. Toxic wastes, deleterious substances,
colored or other wastes or heated liquids.
6. Organisms of Coliform group.
Specification*
None attributable to sewage, industrial
wastes or other wastes.
None in any waters of the Marine District
as defined by State Conservation Law.
None which are not effectively disinfected.
Not less than 5.0 parts per million.
None alone or in combination with other sub-
stances or wastes in sufficient amounts or
at such temperatures as to be injurious to
edible fish ot shellfish or the culture or
propagation thereof, or which in any manner
shall adversely affect the flavor, color, odor
or sanitary condition thereof or impair the
waters for any other best usage as determined
for the specific waters which are assigned
to this class.
Hie median MPN value in any aeries of
samples representative of waters in the
shellfish growing area ahall notbein excess
of 70 per 100 milliliters.
CLASS SB
Beit usage of water*: Bathing and any other usages except shell fishing for market
purposes.
Quality Standards tor class SB Waters
Item*
1. Floating solids; settleable solids; oil;
sludge deposits,
2. Garbage, cinders, ashes, oils, sludge
or other refuse.
3. Sewage or waste effluents.
4. Dissolved oxygen.
5. Toxic wastes, deleterious substances,
colored oc othet wastes or heated liquids.
Specification!
None attributable to
wastes or other wastes.
sewage, industrial
None in any waters of the Marine District
as defined by State Conservation Law,
None which are not effectively disinfected.
Not less than 5.0 pacts per million.
None slone or in combination with other
substances ot wastes in sufficient amounts
or at such temperatures as to be injurious
to edible fish or shellfish or die culture or
propagation thereof, or which in say manner
adversely affect the flavor, color,
-------
odor or sanitary condition thereof; and other-
wise none is sufficient amount* to make the
waters unsafe or unsuitable for baching
or impair the waters for any other best usage
as determined for the specific waters which
are assigned Id this class.
CLASS SC
Best usage of water*: Fishing and any other usages except bathing or shell fishing for
maiket purposes.
Quality startarto for class SC Waters
Spici/iciilisu
None which are readily visible and attributa-
ble to sewage, industrial wastes or other
wastes or which deleteriously increase the
amounts of these constituents in receiving
waters after opportunity for reasonable dilu-
tion and mixture with die wastes discharged
thereto.
None in any waters of the Marine District
as defined by State Conservation Law.
Not lew than SO parte pet million.
None alone or in combination with other
substances or wastes in sufficient amounts
or at such temperatures as to be injurious to
edible Rah or shellfish or the culture or
propagation theieof, or wfeich in any manner
shall adversely affect die flavor, color, odor
or sanitary condition thereof or impair the
waters for any other best usage as determin-
ed for the specific water* which are assign-
ed to this class.
CL ASS SB
Bee I of waterai Any usages except fishing, bs thing, or shellfi thing for market
purposes.
Qiditr ttaMt for Claaa so Waters
Spteiftealio**
None which are readily visible and attributa-
ble to *9w»g*i, industrial wattes or other
wastes or which deleteriously increase the
•mounts of thesa constituents in receiving
waters after opportunity for reasonable dilu-
tion and mixture with the waste* discharged
tbere«».
2. Garbage, cin4tre> aahea, oils, sludge None in any waters of the Marine District
or other refuse, as defined by Slate Coasetvauoa Law,
/list
1. Floating solids; settleable solids;
sludge deposit*.
2. Garbage, cinders, ashes, oils, aludge
or other refuse.
3. Dissolved oxygen.
4. Tosic wastes,oil,deleterious substances,
colored or other wastes or heated liquids.
iHfu
1. Floating aolids; aetdeabie solids;
sludge deposits.
J, Dissolved oxygen.
Not leas than J.C pete per millioa.
-------
PUBLIC HEALTH LAW
§ 1205
"(h) 'Hoard' means tho New York
water pollution control board created
by tliis articlo."
Library references
Hculth <3=»28.
Waters nnd Water Courses <§=»37,
38, 04-70, 72.
C.J.S. Health S 21.
C.J.S. Waters jf 3, 5, 43 et seq.,
53.
I. Waters of the state
Tho "waters of tho stnto" include
nil fresh water in strenins, public or
private, and board had power to clas-
sify creek even though it was a non-
navienblc stream, tho title of which
was in private riparian owners. Ap-
plication of City of Johnstown, 1001,
12 A.D.24 218, 208 XXS.2d 082.
TITLE II—CLASSIFICATION Of WATERS AND ADOPTION
OF STANDAHDS
See.
1205. Classification of waters and adoption of standards by Water
Resources Commission.
Title added liy L.lOlil, c. 400, S 5, Law Review Commentaries
cff. Jan. 1. 1002. A former Tiile II, Water pollution control in Now
which related to the wntcr pollution York. 31 Albany L.ltev. 50 <10G7).
control bonrd, wtis omitted by the
twine act, oil. Jan. 1,10G2*
§ 1205. Classification of waten and adoption of standards, by water
resources commission
1. It is recognized that, due to variable factors, no single standard
o£ quality and purity of the waters is applicable to all waters of tbe
state or to different segments of the same waters.
2. In order to attain the objectives of this article, the water re-
sources commission after proper study, and after conducting public
hearing upon due notice, shall group the designated waters of the state
into classes. Such classification shall be made in accordance with con*
siderations of best usage in the interest ^of the public and with regard
to the considerations mentioned in subdivision three hereof.
3. In adopting the classification of waters and the standards of purity
and quality above mentioned, the water resources commission shall give
consideration to:
(a) tho size, depth, surface area covered, volume, direction and rate
of flow, stream gradient and temperature of the water;
(b) the character of the district bordering said waters and its peculiar
suitability for the particular uses, and with a view to conserving the
value of the same and encouraging the most appropriate use of lands
bordering said waters, for residential, agricultural, industrial or recrea-
tional purposes;
(o) the uses which have been made, are being made or may be made,
of said waters for transportation, domestic and industrial consumption,
bathing, fishing and fish culture, Ore prevention, the disposal of sewage,
industrial waste and other wastes, or other uses within this state, and,
at the discretion of tbe water resources commission, any soeb uses in
another state on interstate waters flowing through or originating in this
state;
(d) the extent of present defilement or fouling of said waters which
has already occurred or resulted from past discharges therein.
4. The water resources commission, after proper study, and after
conducting public hourings upon due notice, shall .adopt and assign
standards of quality and purity for each such classification necessary
fop the public use or benefit contemplated by such classification. Such
standards shall prescribe what qualities and properties of water shall
indicate a polluted condition of tbe waters of the state which is aataaUy
or potentially deleterious, harmful, detrimental or injurious to the
publie health, safety or welfare, to terrestrial or aquatic life or the
-------
§ 1205 PUBLIC HEALTH LAW
growth and propagation thereof, or to the use of such waters for do-
mestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or other rea-
sonable purposes, with respect to the various classes established pursuant
to subdivision two hereof.
5. In establishing such standards, consideration shall be given to
the following factors:
(a) the extent, if any, to which floating solids may be permitted in
the water;
(b) the extent to which suspended solids, colloids or a combination
of solids with other substances suspended in water, may be permitted;
(c) Organisms of the coliform group or any other organisms from
wastes of animal or human origin shall not exceed the tollowing pre-
scribed standards for usage of the classified waters of the state:
(i) Sources of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing
purposes which, if subjected to approved disinfection treatment, with
additional treatment if necessary to remove naturally present impurities,
meet or will meet New York state health department drinking water
standards and any other usages: For such sources the monthly median
coliform value for one hundred ml of sample shall not exceed fifty
from a minimum of five examinations and provided that not more than
twenty percent of the samples shall exceed a coliform value of two
hundred forty for one hundred ml of sample.
(ii) Sources of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing
puiposes which, if subjected to approved treatment equal to coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration and disinfection, with additional treatment if
necessary to reduce naturally present impurities, will meet New York
state department of health drinking water standards; bathing, fishing,
boating, and any other usages: For such sources the monthly median
coliform value for one hundred ml of sample shall not exceed five
thousand from a minimum of five examinations and provided that not
more than twenty percent of the samples shall exceed a coliform value
of twenty thousand for one hundred ml of sample.
(iii) Sources of water for bathing, fishing, boating, and any other
usages except shellfishing for market purposes in tidal salt waters:
For such sources the monthly median coliform value for one hundred
ml of sample shall not exceed two thousand four hundred from a
minimum ot' five examinations and provided that not more than twenty
percent of the samples shall exceed ia coliform value of five thousand
for ono hundred ml of sample and provided further that surface waters
receiving treated sewage discharges which pass through residential com-
munities where there is a potential exposure of population to the surface
waters shall be protected by the requirement that all effluents from
sewage treatment plants shall be adequately disinfected prior to dis-
charge into the surface waters in order that the monthly median coliform
value for one hundred inl of sample shall not exceed two thousand four
hundred from a minimum of five examinations and provided that not
more than twenty percent of the samples shall exceed a coliform value
of five thousand for one hundred ml of sample.
(iv) Sources of water for shellfishing for market purposes and any
other usages of tidal salt waters: Median MPN not to exceed seventy
coliform organisms per one hundred milliliter sample in a series of four
or. more samples collected during any thirty-day jimoil in the wntors of
a shellfishing area, ami not exceeding in more than ten ]>crccnt of the
samples collected during the iwriod an MPN of two hundred thirty
eolilorm organisms per one hundred milliliters for a five-tube, or an
MPN of three hundred thirty per ono huudred milliliters for a three-
tube decimal dilution test in those areas most probably exposed to fecal
contamination during the most unfavorable hydrographic conditions.
(v) All samples shall be collected, analyzed, and reported in. •
manner satisfactory to the state commissioner of health.
-------
172
s 1* C? A/e" /o'- /r
CHAPTER X DIVISION OF WATKR BJ-JS0XT3CSS §704.1
PART 7C4
CEtlTBHIA GOVERNING XttlSUKAX. DISOHARGKS (HEATED LIQUIDS)
(Statutory authority: Conservation Law, { 420)
Sec. See.
704.1 Criteria govcrninc thermal 704.3 Rules and regulation*
discharges (heated liquids) 704.4 Extant of applicability of criteria to
704.2 Additional limitations or existing discharge*
modifications
Historical Nolo
Part (15 7O1.M04W) udded. filed Aug. 13,
1069 off. Auc- 12, 1CC9.
SscVion 704.1 Criteria governing thermal dlschr.rgrs (licafty.J lir-ui'ly). The
starsJanis for thermal disc'i'iav^es (heated liquids) to the waters of the State arc
"None alone or in combination with othov substances or wastes in sufficient amounts
or at such temporatures aa to be injurious to fish life ... or impair the waters lor
any other best usaje .. ." (6 NYOR.E. 701.3 et aeq.) and shall be applied, under Water
Pollution Control Act, Public Health Law, article 12, as follows:
(a) Definitions, (l) A thermal discharge is one which la at a temperature
greater than 70"F. A discharge at a lower temperature will also be a thermal
discharge if it results in a temperature rise of the receiving water above the
permissible temperature rises listed below.
(2) The term addition of heat of orl.ifiolvl origin as used throughout ti;o
criteria shall include all heat from other than natural sources. Ir. the uvent
of multiple discharges, consideration shall be given to the cumulative effect* of
such discharges.
(3) Coastal waters are those marine waters within the territorial limits of
the State other than estuaries.*
(4) Estuaries ave the tlSel portions of all rivers and etreania, the bays of the
south shore of Long Island and Pccoulc Bny.»
(b) Fresh waters.
(1) Streams, (i) Non-trout too,tew. The water temperature at the surface ot
a stream shall not bo raised to more than 90"F at any point, Further, at least
50 percent of the cross sectional area and/or volume of the ilow of the stream
including a minimum of one third of the surface as measured from shore to
shore shall not be raised to more than 5"jT over the temperature that existed
before the addition of heat of artificial origin or to a maximum of 83*F which-
ever ic lCKfj,J except during periods of the year when stream temperatures are
below 39#F. A greater than 5°F increase may be authorized under "Additional
limitations or modifications", section 704.'/, infra. Vor the protection of tho
aquatic: biota from severe temperature changes, routine shut down of an entire
thermal discharge at any site should not bo scheduled during the period from
December through March.
(II) TrotU waters. No discharges at a temperature over 70"P will be per-
mitted at any time to streams classified for trout. From June through Septem-
ber, no discharges at any temperature will be permitted that will ruise the
temperature of the stream mere titan 2'F over that which existed before the
• Tho waters of Long Island Sound end its bays oi portion* thereof have elinraeteT-
iBtica of cither consfril waters and/or estuaries. The criteria to bo r.ppl'o) of section 70-».2,
infra.
t It is recognised that bccRiino of widely vru-ylng conditions In *ti earns and estuaries,
the commissioner will establish, where necessary to meet tho standards for thermal dis-
charges, u lower maximum surface water temperature and a greater zone of passage
under tho procedures set forth in "Additional limitations or modifications", section 704.2,
infro.
82d ON &-31-69
-------
§ 704.2
TITLE 6 CONOTStVATION
addition of heat of artificial origin. From October through May, no di:;cJiarj,'cs
at nny temperature will be permitted that will raise the temperature of the
Gtvcnm /More than 5<,1<1 over that which existed before the addition of hoat ot
artificial origin or to a maximum of 50 "F whichever is less.
(2) Lakes. The water temperature at the surface of a lake shall not be
raised more than 3°F over the temperature that existed before the addition of
heat of arf'ici.. 1 origin, except that within a radius of 300 feet or equivalent area3
from the point of discharge, this temperature may be exceeded. In lakes subject
to stratification, the thermal discharges shall be confined to the epilimnetic area.
(8) Coastal tourers. The water temperature tit the surface of coastal waters
shall not bp raised more than 4°P over the monthly means of maximum daily
temperatures from October through June no; more than 1 ;>°F from July thrc.:~h
September except that within a radius of 300 feet or equivalent area* from the
point of discharge this temperature may be exceeded.
(4) Estuaries or portions of cstwirics. The water temperature at the surface
of an estuary shall not be raised to more than 90°F at any point provided further,
fit least 50 percent of the cross sectional area and/or volume of the flow of the
C3tuary including a minimum of one third of the surface as measured from water
edge to water edge at any stage of tide, shall not be raised to more than 4°F over
the temperature that existed before the addition of heat of artificial origin or a
maximum of 83°F, whichever is less.t However, during July through September
if the water temperature at the surface of an estuary before the addition of heat
of artificial origin Is more than S3°F, an Jiicressn in temperature not to cxcc&d
1.6° F, at. any point of the cstuarlne passageway as delineated above, may bo
permitted.
Historical Noto
See. added, fllod Aug. 12, 1369 e£L Aug.
12, lCGO.
7M.2 Additional limitations or modifications, {n.) The Commissioner of
Health may impose limitations and/or conditions in addition to the stated criteria
where he determines, in the exercise of his discretion, that such additional limitations
and/or conditions are necessary to maintain the quality of tho receiving waters for
the best uyagc classifications and standards assigned by the Water Resources Com-
mission pursuant to Public Health Law, article IS, section 1205.
(b) Tho commissioner may authorize a conditional modification of the stated
criteria upon application. Upon receipt of such application the commission shall
confer witn the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and shjill transmit
to that agency information to enable tho Secretary of the Interior to fulfill his
responsibilities under Federal law. The applicant shall have the burden of estab-
lishing to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Health that ono or more of tins cri-
teria are unnecessarily restrictive as to a particular project in that a modification of
such criterion, or criteria, as die case may bo, would not impair the quality of tho
receiving waters so as to adversely affect them for the best usage classifications and
standards assigned by the Water Resources Commission. Tho commissioner may,
when ho determines it to bo in the public interest, hold a public hearing upon tho
application.
(c) Any such modification shall he coiuHttonijd upon post-operational espin'ient'.c.
Plans for additional treatment of, or ehoiign in, tho thermal discharge shall bo
• It is recognized that a rndius of 3C0 feet or equivalent area may bo too liberal or too
restrictive thn*. a lessor or greater area >uay ba required or permitted under tho pro-
cedures not foith 1n "Additional [imitations or modifications", section 701.2, infra.
I It Is recojjntzcd. that because oC widely voxyinf? conditions In. streams and cstuartes,
tho commissioner will establish, where necessary to meet tho stimdards for thermal dis-
charges, a lower maximum snrl'ucu water temperature and a sroalor zono of passago
under tho procedures set forth in "Additional limitations or modifications", section 701.3.
infra.
630 CN 8-31-69
-------
174
CHAPTER X DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES § 704.4
developed and submitted as part of the application to the commissioner which shall
bo implemented upon order of the commissioner in the event that post-operational
experience shows a trend toward impairment by the discharge of the quality of the
receiving waters for the assigned best usage classifications and standards.
Historical Note
Sec. added, filed Aug. 12, 1969 off. Aug.
12, I960.
704.3 Rules and regulations. The commissioner may adopt rules and regula-
tions with the approval of the Water Resources Commission governing the procedures
prescribed or authorized herein. Such rules and regulations may include the methods
and procedures for tho making of tests and analytical determinations hereunder and
tho notice and hearing procedure to be followed in administering section 704.2, supra.
Historical Note
Soc. added, filed Aug. 12, 1969 off. Aug.
12, 1SS9.
704.4 Extent of applicability of criteria to existing discharges, (a) In deter-
mining whether a discharge existing prior to the adoption of the above criteria
complies with tho applicable standard for thermal discharges ("None alono or in
combination with other substances or wastes in sufficient amounts or at such tem-
perature as to be injurious to fish life ... or impair the waters for any other best
usage . . ." [6 NYCRR 701.3 et seq.]), these criteria are intended only to bo a frame
of reference.
(b) Moreover, the procedures described in Public Health Law, section 1?23, shall
apply in any application of the criteria to discharges cxiuting prior to the adoption
of these criteria without regard to whether such discharges began prior to or subse-
quent to the enactment of this State's Water Pollution Control Act (now Public
Health Law, articlo 12).
Historical Note
Sec. added, filed Aug. 12, 1909 eff. Aug.
13, 1989.
-------
175
WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
State Office Building • Hartford, Connecticut 06115
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
GENERAL PO LI C Y
1. Water quality standards adopted on the basis of these criteria are
in accord with all the requirements of Section 25~5i+e of the 1957
Supplement to the General Statutes.
2. In the discharge of waste treatment plant effluent and cooling waters
to the receiving waters, cognizance shall be given both in time and
distance to allow for mixing of effluent and stream. Such distances
required for complete mixing shall not Bffect the water usage Class
adopted but 6hall be defined and controlled by the Commission.
3. Recommendations on other waste parameters will constitute a portion
of the continuing effort of the Commission in further defining
interstate and intrastate water quality standards. The Commission
reserves the right to amend or extend the following criteria as
improved standard methods are developed or revisions consistent
with the enhancement of water quality are justified.
Coastal and marine waters are those generally subject to the rise
and fall of the tide.
5. Interstate waters whose existing quality is better than the
established standards as of the date which such standards become
effective will be maintained at their existing high quality. These
and other Interstate waters of the State will not be lowered in
quality unless and until it has been affirmatively demonstrated
to the Commission and the Department of the Interior4 that such
change is justifiable as a result of necessary economic or social
development and will not interfere with or become injurious to any
assigned uses made of, or presently possible in, such waters. This
will require that any industrial, public or private project or
development which would constitute a new source of pollution or
an increased source of pollution to high quality waters will be
required, if provided a permit, as part of the initial project
design, to provide the highest and best degree of waste treatment
available under existing technology, and, since for interstate
waters these are also Federal standards, these waste treatment
requirements will be developed cooperatively.
-------
176
HQTES
1. Tliese criteria do not apply to conditions brought about by natural
causes.
2. Class D waters will be assigned only where a higher water use Class
cannot be attained after all appropriate waste treatment methods are
utilized.
3. All sewage treatment plant effluents shall receive disinfection before
discharge to the watercourse. The degree of treatment and disinfection
shall be as required by the State.
<4. Waters shall be free from chemical constituents in concentrations or
combinations which would be harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life
for the appropriate, most sensitive and governing water class use.
In areas where fisheries are the governing considerations and approved
limits have not been established, bioassays shall be performed as
required by the appropriate agencies. For public drinking water supplies
the raw water sources must be of such a quality that United States
Public Health Service limits, or State limits if more stringent, for
finished water can be met after conventional water, treatment.
5. Radioactivity limits to be approved by the appropriate State agency
with consideration of possible adverse effects in downstream waters from
discharge of radioactive wastes; limits in a particular watershed to be
resolved when necessary after consultation between appropriate State
and Federal agencies. In no case shall the Alpha emitters exceed a
concentration of 3 picocuries per liter or the Gross Beta emitters
exceed a concentration of 1000 picocuries per liter.
6. Sludge deposits, floating solids, oils, grease and scum shall not be
allowed except for such small amounts that may result from the dis-
charge of appropriately treated sewage or industrial waste effluents.
7. The minimum average daily flow for seven consecutive days that can be
expected to occur once in ten years shall be the minimum flow to which
the standards apply.
8. Class B and C waters shall be substantially free of pollutants that:
a) unduly affect the composition of bottom fauna; b) unduly affect
the physical or chemical nature of the bottom; c) interfere with the
propagation of fish.
9. Class A waters reserved for water supply may be subject to restricted
use by State and Local regulation.
10. All interstate Class A waters and all interstate Class B waters, except
Shetucket River from confluence of Willimantie and Natchaug Rivers to
Greenville Dam, Norwich, are considered to be suitable for cold water
fish spawning and growth.
11. The criteria for dissolved oxygen and allowable temperature increase
for interstate Class B and Cc waters are applicable to waters used
only for fish passage. When such class waters are suitable for cold
water fish spawning and growth, these criteria shall be the same as
those specified for Class A waters.
12. In the case of interstate Class B and Cc waters where parts of such
waters are not suitable for spawning and growth, the requirements for
fish passage shall be considered with other sensitive uses in defining
allowable temperature increases.
-------
177
COASTAL AND MARINE WATERS
CLASS SA
Suitable for all sea water uses including shellfish harvesting for direct
human consumption (approved shellfish areas), bathing, and other water contact
sports.
1. Dissolved oxygen
2. Sludge deposits - solid refuse -
floating solids, oils, and grease
scum
3. Color and turbidity
Coliform bacteria per 100 ml
5. Odor
6. pH
7. Allowable" temperature increase
Not less than 6.0 mg/1 at any time
None allowable
None in such concentrations that will
impair any usages specifically
assigned to this Class
Not to exceed a median MPN of 70 and
not more than 10% of the samples
shall ordinarily exceed an MPN of
230 for a 5-tube decimal dilution or
330 for a 3-tube decimal dilution
(See Note S.S)
None allowable
5.8 - B.5
None except where the increase will
not exceed the recommended limit on
the most sensitive receiving water
use and in no case exceed 85° F or in
any case raise the normal temperature
of the receiving water more than
4° F
8. Chemieal constituents None in concentrations or combina-
tions which would be harmful to
human, animal, or aquatic life or
which would make the waters unsafe
or unsuitable for fish or shellfish
or their propagation, impair the
pslatability of same, or impair the
waters for any other uses.
9. Radioactivity
(See Note S.6)
-------
178
CLASS SB
Suitable for bathing, other recreational purposes, industrial cooling and
shellfish harvesting for human consumption after depuration; excellent fish
and wildlife habitat; good aesthetic value.
1. Dissolved oxygen
2. Sludge deposits - solid refuse -
floating solids, oils and grease -
scum
B. Color and turbidity
U. Coliform bacteria per 100 ml
5. Taste and odor
6. pH
7. Allowable temperature increase
8. Chemical constituents
Not less than 5.0 mg/1 at any time
None except that amount that may
result from the discharge from a
waste treatment facility providing
appropriate treatment
None in such concentrations that
would impair any usages specifically
assigned to this Class
Not to exceed a median value of 700
and not more than 2300 in more than
10% of the samples (See Note S.5)
None in such concentrations that
would impair any usages specifically
assigned to this Class and none that
would cause taste and odor in edible
fish or shellfish
6.8 - 8.5
None except where the increase will
not exceed the recommended limit on
the most sensitive receiving water
use and in no case exceed 85° F or
in any case raise the normal
temperature of the receiving water
more than 4° F.
None in concentrations or combina-
tions which would be harmful to
human, animal,or aquatic life or
whic,h would make the waters unsafe
or unsuitable for fish or shellfish
or their propagation,or impair the
water for any other usage assigned to
this Class
9. Radioactivity
(See Note S.6)
-------
179
CLASS SC
Suitable fish, shellfish and wildlife habitat; suitable for recreational
boating and industrial cooling, good aesthetic value.
1. Dissolved oxygen
2. SiudgP deposits - solid refuse
floating solids, oils and
grease - scum
Not less than 5 mg '1 for more than 6
hours during any 24-hour period and
at no time less than 4 mg/1. For cold
water fishery, SCc, not less than 5 mg'1
at any time
None except that amount that may result
from the discharge from a waste treat-
ment facility providing appropriate
treatment
3. Color and turbidity
U. Coliform bacteria per 100 ml
None in such concentrations that would
impair any usages specifically assigned
to this Class
Not to exceed an average in any 30-
day period of 5000 nor exceed this
value in more than 20% of the samples
collected during the period.
5. Taste and odor
6. pH
7. Allowable temperature increase
None in such concentrations that would
impair any usages specifically assigned
to this Class and none that would cause
taste and odor in edible fish or
shellfish
6. S - 8. S
None except where the increase will not
exceed the recommended limit on the most
sensitive receiving water use and in no
case exceed 85° F or in any case raise
the normal temperature of the receiving
water more than 4° F
8. Chemical constituents None in concentrations or combinations
which would be harmful to human, animal,
or aquatic life or which would make the
waters unsafe or unsuitable for fish or
shellfish or their propagation, or
impair the water for any other usage
assigned to this Class
9. Radioactivity
(See Note S.6)
-------
180
N 0 T E S
5.1 ALL sewage treatment plant effluents shall receive disinfection before
discharge to coastal and marine waters. The degree of treatment and
disinfection shall be as required by the State.
5.2 These criteria do not apply to conditions brought about by natural
causes.
5.3 The waters shall be substantially free of pollutants that will: a) un-
duly affect the composition of bottom fauna, b) unduly affect the
physical or chemical nature of the bottom; c) interfere with the
propagation of fish.
5.4 These criteria shall apply at all times in coastal and marine waters.
5.5 Surveys to determine coliform concentrations shall include those areas
most probably exposed to fecal contamination during the most unfavor-
able hydrographic and pollution conditions.
5.6 The discharge of radioactive materials in concentrations or combinations
which would be harmful to human, animal or aquatic life shall not be
allowed. In no case shall the Alpha emitters exceed a concentration
of 3 picocuries per liter or the Gross Beta emitters exceed a con-
centration of 1000 picocuries per liter.
5.7 All interstate Class SA waters and all interstate Class SB waters,
except Housatonic River from Derby Dam to mouth, Connecticut River
from Hurd State Park in East Haqppton to mouth, and Shetucket and
Thames Rivers from Greenville Dam, Norwich, to mouth, are considered
to be suitable for cold water fish spawning and growth,
5.8 The criteria for dissolved oxygen and allowable temperature increase
for interstate 'Class SB and SCc waters are applicable to waters
used only for fish passage. When such waters are suitable for cold
water fish spawning and growth, these criteria shall be the «ame as
those specified for Class SA waters.
5.9 In the case of interstate Class SB and SCc waters where parts of such
waters are not suitable for spawning and growth, the requirements for
fish passage shall be considered with other sensitive uses in
defining allowable temperature increases.
-------
APPENDIX E
FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION SURVEY OF
LONG ISLAND SOUND
SEPTEMBER - OCTOBER 1969
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
182
STATION DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LONG ISLAND SOUND SURVEY
SEPTEMBER - OCTOBER 1969
Description
Station
Description
Whitestone Bridge
36
Near Orchard Beach
Throggs Neck Bridge
37
Hew Rochelle Outfall
Near Stepping Stones
38
Larchmont Harbor
Near City Island
39
Mouth of Larchmont Harbor
Near Execution Rocks
40
Mamaroneck Harbor
Outside Mamaroneck Harbor
41
Mamaroneck Outfall
Off Fox Point
42
Off Peningo Neck
Near Great Captain Island
43
Blind Brook Outfall
Off Lloyd Point
44
Port Chester Harbor
Outside Cove Harbor
45
Near Bluefish Shoal
Off Eatons Neck
46
Captain Harbor
Off Norwalk Islands
47
Greenwich Harbor
Outside Smithtown Bay
48
Stamford Harbor
Outside Bridgeport Harbor
49
Mouth Stamford Harbor
Outside Mt. Sinai Harbor
50
Darien River
Off Pond Point
51
Norwalk Harbor Entrance Channel
Off Herod Point
52
Saugatuck River
Outside Branford Harbor
53
Southport Harbor
Off Jacobs Point
54
Black Rock Harbor
Off Orient Point
55
Off Bridgeport
Off Hatchett Point
56
Bridgeport Harbor
Near The Race
57
Housatonic River
Outside New London Harbor
58
Mouth Housatonic River
Little Neck Bay
59
Mouth Milford Harbor
Manhasset Bay
60
New Haven Harbor
Hempstead Harbor
61
Mouth New Haven Harbor
Matinecock Point
62
Branford Harbor
Oyster Bay
63
The Thimbles
Huntington Bay
64
Guilford Harbor
Nissequoque River
65
Clinton Harbor
Stony Brook
66
Connecticut River
Port Jefferson Harbor
67
Mouth Connecticut River
Inlet Point
68
New London Harbor
Fishers Island
69
Mouth New London Harbor
Eastchester Bay

-------
DATA, EmROHHBSTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SURVEY OF LONG ISLAND SOUND, SEPT. 29-OCT. 3, 1969
ation
Depth
Feet
Water
Temp. "C
Conductivity
umbos
Salinity
s/i
Chloride
rag/1
DO
">kA
Percent
Sat.
BOD
rug/1
TOC
mg/1
Turbidity
ppm
(JOj-N
it!r71
FOj-P
mg/1
Chlorophyll 5
mp/m?
Total
Coliform/lOO ml
Fecal
Coliform/lOO
1-S
10.0
19.8
314,300
2h.3
111, 600
i.6
58.9
3.0
6
1.0
0.25
.36
I4.U
27,000
5,600
1-D
6U.0
19.9
3lt,800
2U.7
Ui,800
li.e
61.7
2.6
3
2.0
0.23
.36
-
15,000
3,500
2-S
10.0
19-B
3U,800
214.7
1U.100
ii.8
61.1

3
1.0
0.2U
.33
7.2
18,000
6.600K
2-D
S7.0
19. B
35,000
21i.7
1U,500
5.1
65.2
2.0
3
2.0
0.22
.36
-
1U,000
3,300
3-S
10.0
19.7
35,200
2U.9
15,000
5.7
6k .9
3.0

1.0
0.21
.29
7.7S
3.000
6iiO
3-D
56.0
19.8
35,200
25.1
1U,600
5.5
70.h
1-5
S
1.0
0.22
.29

2,800
ijPO
U-s
5.0
19.6
35,100
25.0
1U,600
6.1
77.8

I4
1.0
0.20
.29
8.3
600
iko
k-B
70.0
19.9
35,300
25-3
Ut.eoo
5.6
72.0

3
1.0
0.21
.29
-
150
50
S-S
S.O
19.9
36,100
25.7
lk, 800
7.3
102.0
3.1
6
1.0
0.18
.26
114.5
28 L
02L
S-D
60.0
19.9
36,200
25-7
lit, 700
6.8
76.9

3
1.0
0.17
.23
-
290
I4O
6-S
S.O
19.9
36,500
26.0
114,800
7.U
77.7

5
1.0
0.15
.16
-
06L
02
6-D
u.o
19.9
36,700
26.1
1U,500
6.h
814.7

2
1.0
0.17
.20
-
O0L
02L
7-S
S.o
19.9
36,600
26.0
Hi, 300
7.8
99.7
1.5
3
1.0
0.16
.23
9.0
02L
02
7-D
U5.o
19.9
36,800
26.2
114,600
7.0
89.8

3
1.0
0.17
.20
-
02L
02
B-S
5.0
20.1
37,200
26.5
lit,600
7.U
95-3

3
1.0
0.16
.20
-
02
02
6-D
ui.o
20.0
36,900
26.3
111, 900
7.1
91.6

I4
1.0
0.15
.20
-
02
02
9-S
5.0
20.0
37,000
26.3
15,000
7.5
96.9

3
1.0
O.lP
.20
-
02
02
9-0
32.0
20.0
36,900
26.3
15,000
6.9
69.1

I4
1.0
0.17
.16
-
02
02
10-S
5.0
20.1
37,200
26. S
15,000
7.5
97.1
l.U
3
2.0
0.1U
.16
8.8
02L
02
10-D
72.0
20.1
37,WX)
26.5
15,100
6.3
81.6

2
3.0
0.15
.13
-
02L
02L
11-S
5.0
19.6
37,100
26.6
15,300
7.1
91.li

9
1.0
0.1U
.13
-
02
02
U-D
ii9.0
19.9
37,100
26.5
15,200
6.5
8U.0

3
1.0
O.lli
.13
-
02
02
12-3
S.O
19.8
37,500
26.8
15,000
7.0
90.1
1.2
9
1.0
0.13
.13
6.U
02
02
12-D
63.0
19.7
37 ,1|00
26.9
15,200
6.5
83.7

14
1.0
0.13
.13
-
02
02
13-S
5.0
19.9
37,200
26.6
15,500
6.9
69.5
1.1
9
1.0
o.m
.13
3.6
02
02
13-D
100.0
20.0
38,000
27.0
15,700
6.1
79.5

2
1.0
0.15
.10
-
02
02
Ui-s
S.o
20.0
37,500
26.9
15,000
6.5
8I4.O

2
1.0
0.15
.13
-
02
02
1!H>
56.0
20.0
37,600
26.8
15,200
6.5
8U.2

3
1.0
0.19
.13
-
02L
02
H
00
CO
-------
DATA, BiVIROMHami. PROTECTIOi AGSKCT
SBRVEI OFTONGTSTANIj SOUND, SEPT. 29-OCT. 3- 1969 (Cont'd.)
Station
Depth
Feet
Water
Temp. °C
Conductivity
lmhos
Salinity
bA
Chloride
me/1
DO
me/1
Percent
Sat.
BOD
me/l
TOC
me/l
Turbidity
ppm
H0.-N
me/1

Chlorophyll a
mg/m3
Total
Colifora/100 ml
Fecal
Coliforn/lOO
IS-S
S-0
20.2
37j600
26.8
15,700
7.3
95-5

2
1.0
0.12
.13
_
02
02
15-0
LOO.O
20.0
37,900
27.2
16,000
6.It
83.7

16
1.0
0.12
.10
-
02
02
16-S
S.O
19.8
37,700
26.8
15,600
6.8
88.2
.6
3
1.0
0.15
.13
2.6
02
02
16-0
50.0
19.7
37,600
26.7
15,700
6.5
81t.2

2
1.0
0.11;
.10
-
02
02
17-S
5.0
19.9
38,300
27.lt
I5,li00
7.it
95.?
.9
5
1.0
0.13
.10
2.8
02
02
17-D
90.0
19.5
38,100
27.6
11*,600
6.7
85.3

3
1.0
0.12
.10
-
02
02
18-S
5.0
19.5
37,300
27.0
lit,600
7.6
96.8

3
1.0
0.13
.13
-
02
02
I&-D
UB.O
19.3
32,200
27.0
1U, 900
6.9
87.8

3
1.0
O.llt
.13
-
02
02
u-a
5.0
19.7
37,900
27.1
15,700
7.6
98.5

2
1.0
0.10
.10
-
02
02
19-0
76.0
19.7
37,900
27.1
15.UOO
7.1
91.6

3
1.0
0.10
.10
-
02
02
20-s
5.0
18.8
38,300
28.0
16,300
7.5
96.2

2
1.0
0.07
.10
-
02
02
20-J)
LOO.O
18 .U
38,900
28.8
16,lj00
7.1
90.5

3
1.0
0.07
¦ 03
-
02
02
ZL-S
5.0
18.2
39,000
28.9
16,700
7.5
95.6
1.0
2
1.0
0.08
.03
Xtt
02
02
21-0
U5.o
18.0
39,200
29.2
16,900
7.3
92.9

3
1.0
0.-O8
.03
-
02
02
22-S
5.0
18.1
38,800
28.8
16,800
7.5
95.5
.6
2
1.0
0.08
.03
3-3
02
02
22-4)
100.0
17.8
39,200
29.1i
16,800
7.3
92.lt

2
1.0
0.06
.03
-
02
02
23-S
S-o
18.3
39,ltOO
29.1
17,100
7.7
98.8

2
1.0
0.08
-03
-
02
02
23-0
60.0
lfl.2
39,300
29.2
17,600
7-U
9U.6

2
1.0
0.07
.03
-
02
02
2U-3
8.5
19.6
31»,700
2U.7
Ut.ltOO
5.1
6)4.9

a
1.0
0.20
.36
h.6S
12,000
14,200
25-s
S-o
19.8
35,300
25.0
lit, 200
6.2.
79.0
2.0
5
1.0
0.20
.29
7.6
180
12L
26-3
5.0
19.8
35,700
25.3
15,700
8.7
112.9
3.7
It
1.0
0.15
.20
18.6
OUL
02L
26-0
27.0
19.5
35,500
25.5
lit, 600
8.2
10lt.lt

h
1.0
0.18
'.23
-
OiiL
02
27-S
5-0
19.7
36,000
25.6
1U, 700
7.7
98.5
2.3
It
1.0
0.20
.20
10.7
OU
Oh
28-S
5.0
19.8
36, bOO
26.2
15,100
7.9
101.8
2.0
h
1.0
O.llt
.20
7.6
02L
02
28-0
20.0
19.6
36,500
25.8
lit, 900
7.1
90.9

7
1.0
O.llt
.20
-
02
02
29-8
5.0
18.6
35,500
25.8
H»,500
7.8
97.lt
1.2
3
1.0
0.22
.16
7.6
02L
02
29-D
25.0
18.8
35,600
25.9
lit,600
7.5
9U.2

3
1.0
0.12
.16
-
02L
02
30-3
5.0
19.7
36,800
26.5
15,300
8.9
93.7

12
1.0
0.10
.16
19*7
02
02
oo
-------
DATA, HTOHOJHHim FROTECTICM A GEM CI
SOKVEX OF LONG ISIAHD SOUND, SEPT. 29-OCT. 3, 1969 (Cont'd.)
Station
Depth
Feet
Water
Tshp. "C
Conductivity
mhos
Salinity
g/l
Chloride
m/i
DO
xik/1
Percent
Sat.
BOD
mfc/l
TOC
mg/1
Turbidity
ppm
MOj-N
mg/l
PO^-P
mg/1
Chlorophyll *
aig/m
Total
ColiformAOO ml
Fecal
Coliform/100
31-S
S.o
19.6
36,700
26.2
15,500
0.6
110.9

•e
1.0
O.lii
.13
-
OltL
02
32-S
5.0
19.9
37,100
26.lt
15,600
9.2
119.5
2.3
3
1.0
0.08
.13
18.6
50
OltL
32-D
33.0
20.2
37,100
26.lt
16,200
9.1i
123.7

12
1.0
0.09
.13
-
16L
061
33-S
5.0
18.9
38,100
27.7
15,900
7.7
98.5
1.2
h
1.0
0.11
.07
7.1
22L
08L
33-D
19.0
18.9
38,200
28.0
15,800
7.5
95-8

2
1.0
0.07
.07
-
16L
021
31>-S
5.0
18.0
39,200
29.3
16,800
7.6
96.8

2
1.0
0.08
.03
-
02
02
3it-D
Ztt.O
18.0
39,200
29.1*
17,000
7.5
95.5

2
1.0
o.oe
.03
-
02L
02
35-s
5.5
18.lt
3U.000
2U.7
11*,300
8.0
99.3
1*.2
U
1.0
0.21
.26
1?.6S
210
32L
36-S
5-0
20.0
35,500
25.0
11*.500
6.6
81t.7
1.9
5

0.19
.29
-
390
80
37 -3
5.0
19.7
35,1*00
25.3
lit, 600
7.7
98.lt
3-3
2

0.19
.23
22.1
100
381
37-D
21.0
19.5
35,700
25.3
lit, 700
6.1
77.7

0.18
.23
-
2,800
230
36-S
5.0
20.1
35,300
25.0
Hi,600
7.7
99.2
3.9
2

O.lit
.20
52.1
320
ItOL
39-3
5.0
19.7
35,500
25.3
lit, 1*00
8.0
102.0
3.1*
2

o.ie
.26
-
1*20
230
39-D
36.0
19.7
36,000
25.7
lit, 800
6.0
76.9

0.17
.26
-
1,200
380
bD-S
5.0
19.5
31t,800
21*.7
lit, 500
5.6
72.2
2.5
2

O.lb
.23
15.0
1*20
180
U.-S
5.0
19.6
35,
25.3
Hi,200
7.9
100.3
3.It
2

0.17
.26
29.0
It,000
6h0
ia-D
39.0
19.7
36,800
26.3
lit, 200
5-5
69.9

O.llt
.20
-
120L
12L
42-S
5.0
19.5
36,000
25.8
lit, 800
7.3
93.2
2.1*
2

0.16
.23
-
2,500
ltlO
1*2—D
39.0
19.5
36,600
26.3
15,200
5.6
69.it

O.llt
.16
-
130
1|6
lo-s
5.0
19.6
36,100
25.8
15,100
7.5
96.3
2.2
3

O.ll*
.23
21*. 3
220
56
k3-B
37.0
19.7
36,700
26.1
15,100
5.It
69.lt

0.13
.20
-
08L
02L
U»-3
5.0
19.5
35,700
25.7
lit, 800
6.3
80.lt
2.0
2

0.13
.23
18.6
lit,000
2,100
US-s
5.0
19.7
36,200
25.9
lit,900
7.5
96.2
2.5
2

0.14
.20
-
100
281
h5-D
3U.0
19.6
36,500
26.3
lit, 800
6:8
86.9

0.13
.16
-
28L
02
i6-S
5.0
19.1*
36,500
26.3
lit, 700
?.lt
9U.1
1.6
5

0.13
.20
15.2
92
36L
K?-s
5.0
19.2
35,800
25.7
lit.liOO
6.It
eo.e
3.5
2

0.11
¦ 33
IP.6
ip.ooo
9,800
bS-S
5.0
19.6
36,700
26.3
lit,900
6.e
87.1
2.It
3

0.10
.20
lit.9
15,000
8.900H
U-s
17.0
19.5
36,700
26.3
15,100
7.2
92.2

0.12
.16
-
7,600
3,600
00
a*
-------
DATA, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SWVEY 07 LONG ISLAKD SOUND, SEPT. S9-0CT. 3, 1969 (Cont'd.)
Station
Depth
Feet
Water
Temp. °C
Conductivity
umhos
Salinity
r'I
Chloride
me/1
DO
mfc/1
Percent
Sat.
BOD
mg/l
TOC
hk/1
Turbidity
ppm
N03-N
"S/l
POt-P
mg/1
Chlorophyll a
mgA
Total
Coliform/lOO ml
Fecal
Coliform/lOO ml
U9-S
5.0
I9.ii
36,700
26.U
15,200
7.7
98.6
i.e
1.

0.10
.16
111.9
960
260
U9-D
20.0
19. Ii
36,700
26.3
15,200
7.6
97.3

0.12
.16
-
1,100
230
50-S
5.0
19. U
36,800
26.5
15,600
7.7
99.0
1.5
3

0.11
.16
13.6
Oil
02
Sl-s
5.0
18.9
36,300
26.6
15,1,00
7.2
91.5
1.0
2

0.10
.16
8.0
36L
2hi
52-S
5.0
16.?
36,300
26.3
15,300
e.9
113.0
2.5
3

O.OR
.13
12.2
02L
02
53-s
5.0
19.3
36,900
26.2
13,300
9.6
119.P
2.3
3

0.09
.13
11.6
OW
02
51»-s
5.0
19.5
36,600
26.3
15,100
5.3
67.9
2.3
2

O.lli
.20
11.6
2,1,00
230
a-D
15.0
19.3
36,800
26.5
15,700
5.5
70.7

0.12
.16
-
130
22L
SS-s
S.0<
19.9
37,100
26.5
15,500
7.1i
96.0
1.5
2

0.12
.16
10.2
2,900
210
SS-D
l?.o
19.6
37,000
26.6
15,300
7.h
95.2

0.15
.13
-
¦l.UOO
120
56-S
S.O
21.6
37,1»00
25.6
1U,800
5.9
78.1!
1.9
2

0.15
.23
8.0
>30,000
2,300
56-D
32.0
19.9
37,000
26.2
15,000
6.3
81.2

0.11
.16
-
1U0
l8L
57-3
5.0
20.3
26,000
17.7
0
1
i
5.5
55.Ii
2-3
3
2.0
0.32
.23
9.2
2,200
100
57-D
22.0
19.7
33,300
23.5
13,900
5.7
72.2

3
1.0
0.19
.16
-
760
301
56-S
S.O
19.1
35,300
25.5
1U,U»
6.2
78.1
1-il
2
1.0
0.18
.13
-
Wo
32L
5»-D
15.0
19.3
36,600
26.6
15,500
6.8
87.2

2
1.0
o.m
.13
6.I1
26L
UjT.
S9-S
5.0
19.3
35,800
25.9
111,000
5-1
61i.2
1.0
3
2.0
0.22
.36
-s.1
160
liO
60-S
5.0
18.5
35,000
25.6
lii.UOO
li.O
ti9.8
2.7
3
2.0
0.19
.29
li.O
10O,00OH
36,OOOH
60-D
Jl».0
18.5
36,000
26.5
15,200
6.0
75.1i

3
2.0
O.lll
.16
-
660
100
61-S
5.0
18.2
35,600
26.2
15,100
6.1
76.1
.9
3
1.0
0.13
.16
2.I1
2,600
310
a-D
33.0
18.3
35,900
26.5
15,800
6.3
79.5

1
1.0
0.17
.16
-
1,800
210
62-S
5.0
19.0
36,600
26.6
15,300
6.9
B3-9
1.3
2
3.0
0.12
.13
5.1j
12L
12L
63-S
5.0
16.8
37,000
26.9
15,800
6.9
87.9
1.1
2
2.0
0.12
.13
5.1
081
02
6U-S
5.0
18.8
37,300
27.0
15,900
7.0
89.3
.9
2
li.O
0.11
.13
li.li
OliL
02
65-S
S.O
16.6
37,700
27.5
16,700
7.6
97.6
1.1
2
3.0
0.10
.07
U.9
02L
02
66-S
S.O
18.2
37,900
28.2
11,,700
7.3
90.7
.8
3
3.0
0.12
.07
5.3
liO
06L
61-S
5.0
18.0
37,200
27 .ii
16,1)00
7.1i
92.5
.8
3
5.0
0.10
.10
5.h
OliL
02
6S-S
5.0
18.3
37,600
27. B
16,100
5.1
61,. 6
>5.1
ii
1.0
0.12
.07
5.6
ll.OOO
1,200
6S-D
3ii.O
17.8
39,000
29 .U
16,700
6.8
85.9

2
1.0
0.07
• 03
-
600
260
69S
5.0
18.0
39,250
29. ii
19,000
7.6
93.2
.7
2
1.0
0.09
.03
3.3
It8L
M
02L go
69-D
31.0
17.9
39,200
29.ii
15,800
7.6
96.li

2
1.0
0.07
.03
-
60L
06 L ®
-------
187
APPENDIX F
FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION SURVEY OF
NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND SOUND
JULY 1970
-------
2
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9,
10
10,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
188
STATION DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LONG ISLAND SOUND SURVEY
JULY 1970
Sampling Depth,
Location A (MLW)
Throggs Neck Bridge 5
Off Stepping StoneB 5
Off Hewlett Pt. 5
Eastchester Bay 4
M II 2
Hutchinson River 3
Off Orchard Beach 5
Off Glen Island 5
Echo Bay 5
Larchmont Harbor 5
Larchmant Harbor 1
Mamaroneck Harbor 5
Milton Harbor 3
Mamaroneck Harbor 5
Off Peningo Neck 5
Off Rye Beach 5
Byram River 5
Portchester Harbor 5
Captain Harbor 5
Greenwich Harbor 5
Captain Harbor 5
Cos Cob Harbor 3
II It II J
Greenwich Cove 5
Off Greenwich Pt. 5
Stamford Harbor 5
IJ II J
Stamford Harbor (W. Branch) 5
Stamford Harbor (E. Branch) 5
Westcott Cove 5
Gove Harbor 5
Off Smith Reef 5
Sheffield Harbor 5
Five Mile River 5
Sheffield Harbor 5
ii ii ^
Norwalk River 5
Cockenoe Harbor 5
Saugatuck River 5
It tl C
-------
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
189
List and Location of Sampling Stations
Sampling Depth,
Location A (MLW)
Off Frost Pt. 5
Southport Harbor 5
Off Pine Creek Pt. 5
Black Rock Harbor 5
Ash Creek 3
Cedar Creek 5
Bridgeport Harbor 5
Yellow Mill Cannel 5
Bridgeport Harbor 5
" 11 5
It M ^
Off Lordship Beach 5
Housatonic River (mouth) 5
Housatonic River 5
It H j
5
II H j
Off Charles Island 5
The Gulf 5
Milford Harbor 5
Off Pond Pt. 5
Off Oyster R. Pt. 5
Off New Haven Harbor 5
Off West Haven 5
West River 5
Quinnipaic River 2
M || ^
Hew Haven Harbor 5
it M ii
ii it it 2
Off Lighthouse Pt. 5
New Haven Harbor Ent. Ch. 5
Branford Harbor 5
Branford River 5
H.W. of the Thimbles 5
Off Sachem Head 5
Guildford Island 4
Madison Reef 5
Clinton Harbor 5
ii ii 4
Duck Island Roads 5
Patchogue River 5
Westbrook Harbor 5
Off Cornfield Pt. 5
Connecticut River (mouth) 5
-------
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
190
List and Location of Sampling Stations
Sampling Depth,
Location A (MLW)
Connecticut River (mouth)
5
Connecticut River
5
II II
5
Off Sound View
5
Off Giants Neck
5
Off Black Pt.
5
Niantic Bay
5
Niantic River
5
Jordan Cove
5
Off Goshen Pt.
5
New London Harbor
5
11 1* 11
5
11 II "
5
ti ir it
5
Thames River
it ri
5
c
it n
J
5
if n
5
it ii
5
tr n
5
ti ii
5
Pine Island Channel
5
Mumford Cove
5
Fishers Island Sound
5
Bebee Cove
5
Mystic River
5
Mystic River
5
Fishers Island Sound
5
II II 11
5
Stonington Harbor
5
n ii
3
Off Stonington Pt.
4
Little Narragansett Bay
5
Pawtucket River
5
II II
5
-------
DATA., ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SURVEY OF LONG ISLAND SOUND, NORTH SEOEE, JULY 1970
STAT
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
LAB
AIR
WATER
DO

BOD
PH
TURB
COND
SALIN
CL

NO.
TEMP
TEMP
MG/L
5 DAY
SU
JK.SN
A-25C
G/L
MG/L

00008
CENT
CENT

MG/L

JU
UMHOS

00020
00010
00300
00310
00400
00070
00095
70305
00940

—
———
——

NS1
0 7-19-70
0640
005
2277
N
18
70
2
70
N
7 . hG
3
3 77 30
2
: '.too
NS2
0 7-19-70
0850
005
2278
N
17
90
3
60
N
7.70
2
38400
24
15300
NS2A
07-19-70
0915
005
2279
N
18
40
4
90
N
8.00
2
38600
25
14700
NS3
07-19-70
0945
005
2281
N
18
10
4
30
N
B .00
3
38600
25
15000
NS*
07-19-7 0
1135
005
2283
28*00
19
80
5
40
N
7.60
5
38400
24
14700
NS5
07"* 19—70
1120
005
2282
28.00
22
00
0
60
N
8.00
10
36300
23
13300
NS6
07-/19-70
07^19—70
0920
005
2280
N
17
60
6
50
N
8.10
2
39300
25
15300
NS7
1000
005
2286
29.00
18
30
5
30
N
7.70
2
36300
24
15100
NS8
07-19-70
0940
005
2285
N
18
30
6
10
2.20
7.70
2
38200
24
15000
NS9
07-19-70
1030
005
2287
30.50
17
60
6
20
N
8.00
2
38700
25
14700
NS9A
07-19-70
1045
005
2288
26.90
18
10
9
BO
3.20
8.00
3
38500
24
15000
NS10
07-19-70
1115
005
2289
32.00
17
30
5
60
N
8.00
2
38600
25
15300
NS10A
07-19-70
1130
005
2290
N
19
40

N
2.00
8.00
2
38400
24
15100
NS11
07-19-70
1255
005
2291
N
19
80
9
30
3. 50
8.10
3
38300
24
14700
NS12
07-18-70
0900
005
2270
N
18
30
6
50
N
7.80
2
39800
25
14300
NS13
07-18-70
0915
005
2271
N
17
40
5
60
N
7.90
2
40000
25
14300
NS14
07-18-70
0940
005
2273
N
18
50
7
20
3.00
8.00
2
40100
25
14400
NS15
07-18-70
0930
005
2272
H
18
00
5
80
N
7.90
2
39800
25
14300
NS16
07-18-70
1030
005
2276
N
1 t
90
5
• 0
N
d.io
2
40500
26
14900
NS17
0 7-18-70
1015
005
22 75
N
18
60
6
90
N
8.00
3
40000
25
14700
NS18
07-18-70
1000
005
2274
N
15
80
4
60
N
7.70
2
42000
27
15200
NS19
07—IB—70
0840
005
2261
38.70
18
90
7
00
N
7.70
2
38700
25
15400
NS20
07-18-70
0820
005
2260
27.70
19
60
6
10
N
7.80
3
38500
24
15100
NS21
0 7-18-70
0910
005
2262
23.30
18
10
6
10
N
7.70
3
38800
25
15 800
NS22
07-18-70
0940
005
2263
33.00
18
70
7
90
N
7.90
3
38900
25
160G0
NS23
07-18-70
1005
005
2264
34.50
18
20
7
10
N
7.90
2
39400
25
14 700
NS24
07-18-70
1010
005
2265
28.50
18
90
7
00
N
8.00
3
38700
24
1 5600
NS25
07-18-70
1100
005
2267
39.50
20
30
6
40
3.10
7.70
4
37900
24
14300
NS26
07-18-70
1030
005
2266
34.20
20
50

N
3.30
7.90
5
38400
25
14700
NS27
0 7-17-70
1410
005
2328
N
18
20
7
20
8 . 80J
8.50
2
40200
26
1 5000
NS28
07-17-70
1340
005
2326
N
18
30
7
00
N
B • 30
3
40600
26
14500
N529
07-17-70
1355
005
2327
N
19
50
10
30
N
e.70
3
40100
26
14500
NS30
07-17-70
1250
005
2324
N
19
00
8
10-
N
7.90
2
^0000
25
14500
NS31
07-17-70
1315
005
2325
N
18
00
7
50
N
8.30
3
40200
25
14500
NS32
07-17-70
0950
005
2318
N
IB
50
8
20
N
8.10
4
40500
26
15600
NS33
07-17-70
1045
005
2320
N
21
00
6
10
3.00
8.10
6
39100
25
14500
NS34
07-17-70
1030
005
2319
N
21
40
3
80
3.00
7.10
5
39100
25
14300
NS35
07-17-70
1215
005
2321
N
18
90
6
50
N
8.10
4
40000
25
15300
NS36
07-17-70
1200
005
2323
N
17
60
5
40
N
8.00
5
40200
25
14300
NS37
07-17-70
1140
005
2322
N
21
30
5
50
N
6.00
5
38100
25
14100
NS36
07-17-70
0740
005
2331
25-70
17
30
6
00
N
7.40
2
39100
25
14500
NS39
0 7-17-70
0725
005
2330
22.50
17
50
6
00
N
7.40
3
38800
25
14300
NS40
07-17-70
0755
005
2332
21.00
16
50
5
50
N
7.70
2
39400
25
15000
NS41
0 7-3 7-70
0825
005
2333
21.50
20
30
6
60
N
7.90
2
38700
25
14500
NS42
07-17-70
0845
005
2334
22.50
19
10
5
20
N
7.80
3
3S800
25
14300
NS4 3
07-17-70
0900
005
2335
24.50
19
20
5
10
N
7.70
3
36600
24
14300
NS44
07-17-70
1100
005
2255
30.00
21
80
5
40
1 • 60 J
8.00
2
38100
24
14500
NS45
07-17-70
1040
005
2340
22.50
21
20
6
10
1.90J
7.90
3
38000
24
14500
NS45A
07-17-70
1020
005
2339
26.50
20
80
5
50
N
7.80
3
38400
24
15100
REMARKS-
N*NO DATA AVAILABLE* J=EST1MATED VALUE. IC=LESS THAN» L=GREATER THAN, -=MINUS TEMP
-------
DATA, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SURVEY OF LONG ISLAND SOUND, NORTH SHORE, JULY 1970
STAT
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
LAB
CHLR-
N03-N
T ICJL
PH5-T
T ORG
cu
CR
ZINC
LEAD

NO.
PHL A
MG/H3
MG/L
N
MG/L
P-WET
MG/L
C
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L

0000 8
32230
00620
00625
00665
00680
01040
01030
01090
01049

—————

———-—

NS1
07-
9-70
0840
005
2277
3.00
0.18
1.03
0
28
A. 00

N
N
'4
NS2
07-
9-70
0850
005
22 78
5.80
0.14
1.04
0
23
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS2A
07-
9-70
0915
005
2279
7.80
0.14
0.48
0
22
4.00
N
N
N
N
N53
07-
9-70
0945
005
2281
N
0.09
1.00
0
22
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS4
07-
9-70
1135
005
2283
13.80
0.12
0*68
0
20
5.00
N
N
N
N
NS5
oz-
9-70
1120
005
2282
10.60
0.18
1.15
0
52
6.00
N
N
N
N
N56
071
9-70
0920
005
2280
7.40
0.09
0.88
0
ia
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS7
07-*
9-70
1000
005
2286
11.80
0.09
0.69
0
17
3.00
N
N
N
N
NS8
07-
9-70
0940
005
22B5
7.30
0.09
0.61
0
16
3.00
N
N
N
N
NS9
07-
9-70
1030
005
2287
6.30
0.07
1.43
0
13
3.00
N
N
N
N
NS9A
07-
9-70
1045
005
228B
19.10
0.07
0.59
0
11
3.00
N
N
N
N
NS10
0 7-
9-70
1115
005
2289
5.30
0.09
1.31
0
12
2.00
N
N
N
N
NSIOa
07-
9-70
1130
005
2290
8.80
0.07
0.73
0
13
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS11
07-
9-70
1255
005
2291
24.10
0.07
0.96
0
12
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS12
07-
8-70
0900
005
2270
8.80
0.07
0.64
0
14
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS13
07-
8-70
0915
005
2271
5*60
0.09
0.71
0
12
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS14
07-
8-70
0940
005
2273
8.10
0.07
0.74
0
12
4.00
160
100K
50K.
300K
NS15
07-
8-70
0930
005
2272
8.10
0.07
0.83
0
11
3.00
N
N
N
N
NS16
07-
8-70
1030
005
2276
8.60
0.07
1«28
0
11
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS17
07-
8-70
1015
005
2275
7.50
0.05
0.66
0
11
4. 00
N
N
N
N
N518
07-
8-70
1000
005
22 74
5.10
0.05
0.56
0
14
2.00
N
N
N
N
N519
07-
8-70
0840
005
2261
16.00
0.07
0.39
0
12
4.00
N
N
N
N-
N520
07-
8-70
0820
005
2260
11.80
0.09
0.74
0
14
4.00
N
N
N
N
N$21
07-
8-70
0910
005
2262
6.10
0.07
0.89
0
14
3.00
N
N
N
N
NS22
07-
8-70
d940
005
2263
4.50
0.07
0.65
0
13
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS23
07-
8-70
1005
005
2264
7.00
0.05
0.22
0
11
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS24
07-
8-70
1010
005
2265
7.40
0.05
0.49
0
13
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS25
07-
8-70
1100
005
2267
33.30
0.09
N
0
21
5.00
100K
100K
500K
300K
NS26
07-
8-70
1030
005
2266
13.00
0.01
0.34
0
22
5.00
200
100K
50
300K
NS27
07-
7-70
1410
005
2328
10.90
0.04
N
0
08
4.00
lOOK.
100K
500K
300K
NS28
07-
7-70
1340
005
2326
9.20
0.04
0.76
0
01
4.00
N
N
N
M
NS29
07-
7-70
1355
005
2327
14.80
0.05
0*86
0
07
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS30
07-
7-70
1250
005
2324
8.00
0.04
0.76
0
07
7.00
N
N
N
N
NS31
07-
7-70
1315
005
2325
9.20
0.04
0.76
0
06
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS32
07-
7-70
0950
005
2318
16.00
0.04
0.18
0
10
6.00
. N
N
N
N
NS33
07-
7-70
1045
005
2320
10.20
0.08
0.08
0
18
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS34
0 7-
7-70
1030
005
2319
10.50
0.09
0.06
0
20
4.00
fi
N
N
N
NS35
07-
7-70
1215
005
2321
8.50
0.08
0.10
0
08
4.00
N
N
N
H
NS36
07-
7-70
1200
005
2323
7.30
0.04
0.84
0
10
4.00
N
N
N
H
NS37
07-
7-70
1140
005
2322
8.40
0.08
0.06
0
12
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS30
07-
7-70
0740
005
2331
8*80
0.11
0.94
0
11
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS39
07-
7-70
0725
005
2330
13.90
0.06
0.94
0
08
4 . 00
N
N
N
N
NS40
07-
7-70
0755
005
2332
N
H
0.58
0
07
4.O0
N
N
N
N
MS41
07-
7-70
0825
005
2333
12.00
0.11
3.66
0
10
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS42
07-
7-70
0845
005
2334
6.70
0.03
1.02
0
13
5.00
160
100K.
500K
300K
NS4 3
0 7-
7-70
0900
005
2335
51.20
0.08
0.80
0
31
5.00
170
100K
500K
300K
NS*4
07-
7-70
1100
005
2255
10.90
0.05
0.84
0
12
5.00
120
100H
500K
300K
NS45
0 7-
7-70
1040
005
2340
12.00
0.07
N
0
13
7.00
lOOK
100K
500K
300K
NS45A
0 7-
7-70
1020
005
2339
14.30
0.08
0.46
0
15
5.00
N
N
N
N
-------
DATA, ENVIBONMMm PROTECTION AGENCY
SURVEY OF LONG ISLAND SOUND, NORTH SHORE, JULY 1970
STAT
DATE
TIME
depth
LAB
HG
TCOLI
FCOLI

NO.
UG/L
MPN
MPN

100ML
100ML

00008
71900
31505
31615
NS1
07-19-70
0840
005
2277
N
35000
11000
NS2
07-19-70
0850
005
2278
N
11000
1700
NS2A
07-19-70
0915
005
2279
N
3500
280
NS3
0 7-19-70
0945
005
2281
H
2400
1300
NSU
07-19-70
1135
005
2283
H
330
230
NS5
07-19-70
1120
005
2282
N
240 OL
1600
NS6
07-19-70
092O
005
22B0
N
79
33
NS7
07-19-70
lOOO
005
2286
N
79
23
MSB
07-19-70
0940
005
2285
N
70
70
NS9
07-19-70
1030
005
2287
N
33
33
NS9A
07-19-70
1045
005
2288
n
330
230
NS13
07-19-70
1115
005
2289
N
49
14
NSIOA
07-19-70
1130
005
2290
N
46
13
NS11
07-19-70
1255
005
2291
N
170
49
NS12
07-18-70
0900
005
2270
n
330
230
NS13
07-18-70
0915
005
2271
N
1700
220
NS14
07-18-70
0940
005
2273
N
2400
180
NS15
07-18-70
0930
005
2272
N
46
13
NS16
07-18-70
1030
005
2276
N
11
2
NS17
07-18-70
1015
005
2275
N
49
7
NS1B
07-18-70
1000
005
2274
N
70
2
NS19"
07-18-70
0840
005
2261
N
230
33
N&20
07-18-70
0820
005
2260
N
79
49
NS21
07-18-70
0910
005
2262
N
17
4
NS22
07—lfe-70
0940
005
2263
N
13
5
NS23
07-18-70
1005
005
2264
N
79
22
NS24
07-18-70
1010
005
2265
N
230
130
NS25
07-18-70
1100
005
2267
2.00K
2300
790
NS26
07-18-70
1030
005
2266
2.00K
4900
490
NS27
0 7-17-70
1410
005
2328
N
33
8
NS2 8
07-17-70
1340
005
2326
N
2
2
MS 29
07^-17-70
1355
005
2327
N
B
8
NS30
07-17-70
1250
005
2324
N
50
2K
NS31
07-17-70
1315
005
2325
N
130
90
NS32
07-17-70
0950
005
2318
N
23
13
N533
07-17-70
1045
005
2320
N
240
13
NS34
07-17-70
1030
005
2319
N
490
130
NS35
07-17-70
1215
005
2321
N
49
70
N536
07-17-70
1200
005
2323
N
17
14
NS37
07-17-70
1140
005
2322
N
140
33
N538
07-17-70
0740
005
2331
N
2
2K
NS39
07-17-70
0725
005
2330
N
110
2K.
NS40
07-17-70
0755
005
2332
N
49
2K
NS41
07-17-70
0825
005
2333
N
79
14
NS42
07-17-70
0845
005
2334
2»00K
49
8
NS4 3
07-17-70
0900
005
2335
2.00K
220
23
NS44
0 7-17-70
1100
005
22 55
ti
4900
540
NS^5
07-17-70
1040
005
2340
H
790
170
NS45A
07-17-70
1020
005
2339
N
N
N
-------
DATA., ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUSVEY OF LONG ISLAND SOUND, NORTH SHORE, JULY 1970 (Cont'd.)
STAT
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
LAB
AIR
WATER
DO
BOD
PH
TURB
COND
SAL IN
CL

NO.
TEMP
TEMP
MG/L
5 DAY
SU
JKSN
A-2 5C
G/L
MG/L

CENT
CENT

MG/L

JU
UMHOS

00006
00020
OOOlO
00300
00310
00400
0C070
00095
70305
00940
NS46
07-17-70
1010
005
2338
28.00
20.50
5.50
3.60
7.80
3
38400
24
14500
NS47
07-17-70
0950
005
2337
26.80
19.00
6.20
N
7.50
2
38700
25
14500
N$48
07-17-70
0940
005
2336
24.50
17.20
5.00
N
7.90
2
39000
25
14300
NS49
07-17-70
0805
005
2317
N
16.40
5.00
N
7.70
1
41400
26
15100
NS50
07-16-70
0825
005
2308
17.00
17.70
5.00
2.30
8.00
1
42200
27
15300
NS51
07-16-70
0845
005
2309
20.00
17.80
5.00
1.30J
8.00
1
41900
27
14700
NS5Z
07-J6-70
0910
005
2310
20.00
17.10
4.10
1.30J
7.70
2
40900
26
14000
NS53
07—J6—70
0930
005
2311
21.00
20.80
3.90
1. 70J
7.60
3
24800
15
N
NS54
07-16-70
0945
005
2312
21.00
22.70
4.00
4.00
7.50
5
9700
5
3000
NS5 5
07-17-70
0745
005
2316
N
16.80
4.00
N
7.90
1
42000
26
15300
NS56
07-17-70
0725
005
2314
N
18.30
5-10
N
8.00
1
41200
26
15300
N557
07-17-70
0710
005
2313
N
17.80
4.00
N
7.60
1
41500
26
14500
NS58
07-17-70
0735
005
2315
N
18.40
5.50
N
7.90
1
41800
26
15300
NS5 9
07-16-70
0905
005
2228
24.00
19.20
6.10
N
8.00
1
54800
26
15300
NS60
07-16-70
0920
005
22 29
24.20
N
N
N
7.70
2
N
N
15300
NS61
07-16-70
0840
005
2227
21.00
19.20
5.90
N
d.20
1
40200
26
1531*0
NS62
07-16-70
1305
005
2306
30.50
21.40
3.50
3.10
7.60
5
36500
23
13500
NS63
07-16-70
1150
005
0515
N
23.00
2.50
6.80J
7.30
4
N
N
13300
NS64
07-16-70
1230
005
2305
26.00
21.50
2.00
2.10
7.50
6
33400
21
12300
NS65
07-16-70
1210
005
2304
26.50
26.50
1. 40
1.90J
7.50
7
38400
24
14100
NS66
07-16-70
1255
005
2303
24.20
21.30
2.60
2.10
7.60
6
36100
23
13700
NS6 7
07-16-70
1130
005
2302
25.00
20.20
4.20
3.10
6.00
5
38700
25
14500
NS68
07-16-70
1020
005
2301
N
19.70
5.50
N
7.80
2
39700
26
15200
NS69
07-16-70
0950
005
2230
N
19.40
5.70
N
7.60
2
40100
25
16000
NS70
07-15-70
07,45
005
2245
19.00
19.10
6.60
N
7.90
17
42300
27
15400
NS?1
07-15-70
0730
005
2244
19.00
20.00
6.70
N
7.80
2
41700
27
15600
Ns72
07-15-70
0810
005
2246
19.00
19.50
7.80
N
8.00
1
41900
27
15600
NS7 3
07-15-70
0840
005
2247
20.00
19.20
7.30
N
8.00
2
42300
27
15600
NS74
07-15-70
0900
005
2248
20.00
19.30
7.60
N
8.10
3
42500
27
16000
NS75
07-15-70
1015
005
2249
21.00
19.00
8.10
N
6.10
2
42500
27
16400
NS7 6
07-15-70
1240
005
2254
26.00
18.40
8.50
N
8.10
2
43600
28
16 100
NS77
07-15-70
1225
005
2253
28.00
20.50
8.00
2.60
8.20
5
41400
27
15100
NS78
07-15-70
1155
005
2252
26.50
17.80
8.20
N
8.20
1
43600
28
16100
NS79
07-15-70
1140
005
2251
24. 50
19.30
8.30
N
8.00
2
41800
27
14700
NS80
07-15-70
1115
005
2250
23.00
18.00
8.10
N
7.90
2
41900
27
16200
NS81
07-15-70
0930
005
22 22
26.00
18.10
8.00
N
7.50
2
40500
26
1 5600
NS82
07-15-70
1045
005
2223
23.50
17.70
7.50
N
7.50
2
41900
27
16000
NS8 3
07-15-70
1000
005
2224
27.50
18.60
7.50
N
7.90
2
38700
25
15200
NS84
07-15-70
1025
005
2225
30.00
19.20
7.10
N
7.50
4
35300
22
10700
NS85
07-15-70
1045
005
2226
29.50
22.30
5.50
N
7.40
5
20400
12
7300
NS86
07-15-70
0955
005
2221
22.50
17.50
7.80
N
7.90
1
44100
27
16400
NS87
07-15-70
0805
005
2220
21.70
17.70
8.50
N
8.30
1
42600
27
16800
NS88
07-15-70
0845
005
2219
21.00
17.10
8.00
N
8.10
1
43300
28
16800
NSB9
07-15-70
0700
005
2217
23.20
17.00
7.70
N
8.10
1
44600
28
16600
NS90
07-15-70
0720
005
2218
N
17.80
7.90
N
8.10
1
44700
28
16800
NS91
07-15-70
0645
005
2216
20.20
16.50
7.50
N
8.00
1
43800
28
16900
NS92
07-14-70
0805
005
2203
26.00
16.40
7.60
N
8.00
1
45200
28
17000
NS93
07-14-70
0845
0C5
2204
26.20
17.00 •
8.30
N
7.80
1
43300
28
17400
NS94
0 7-14-70
0915
005
2205
28.00
17.80
6.40
7.90L
7.60
2
42500
27
16200
-------
DATA., ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SURVEY OF LONG ISLAND SOUND, NORTH SHORE, JULY 1970 (Cont'd.)
STAT
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
LAB
CHLR-
N03-N
T KJL
PHS-T
T ORG
CU
CR
ZINC
LEAD

NO.
PHL A
MG/L
N
P-
WET
C
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L

MG/M3

MG/L
MG/L
MG/L

00008
32230
00620
00625
00665
00680
01040
01030
01090
01049

———

——
—
—

NS46
0 7-17-70
1010
005
2338
11.70
0.04
0.7 2
0
; 1
5.0C
120
; c c <
500*
300K
NS47
0 7-17-70
0950
005
2337
8.10
0.04
1.52
0
07
3.00
N
N
N
N
NS48
07-17-70
0940
005
2336
6.70
0.04
0.68
0
07
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS49
07-17-70
0805
005
2317
4.30
0.03
0.39
0
06
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS50
07-16-70
0825
005
2308
3.70
0.10
0.70
0
04
3.00
150
100K
90
300K
NS5 1
07-16-70
0845
005
2309
4.90
0.10
0.72
0
21
4.00
170
100K
80
300K
NS52
07-16-70
0910
005
2310
5.90
0.10
0.82
0
33
4.00
100K
10QK
50K
30 OK
NS53
07-16-70
0930
005
2311
N
N
1.38

N
N
210
100K.
130
300K
NS5 4
07-16-70
0945
005
2312
23.70
0.47
2.30
0
08
6.00
230
100K
120
3 OOK
NS55
07-17-70
0745
005
2316
2.20
0.03
1.61
0
07
4.00
N
N
N
N
NSS6
07-17-70
0725
005
2314
5.00
0.03
0.86
0
09
4.00
N
N
N
M
NS57
07-17-70
0710
005
2313
5. 30
0.03
0.52
0
11
2.00
N
N
N
N
N556
07-17-70
0735
005
2315
8.40
0.04
1 • 16
0
11
3.00
N
N
N
N
NS59
07-16-70
0905
005
222 8
6«50
0 .09
0.88
0
05
3.00
N
N
N
N
NS60
07-16-70
0920
005
2229
3.60
0.12
1.50
0
03
4.00
N
IM
N
N
NS61
07-16-70
0840
005
2227
3.90
0.09
0.60
0
07
4.00
N
H
N
N
NS62
0 7-16-70
1305
005
2306
14.40
0.18
1.28
0
01
5.00
100K
100K
60
300K
NS6 3
07-16-70
1150
OO5
0515
14.10
0.32
1 .60
0
07
5 .00
100K
10QK
60
300K
NS64
07-16-70
1230
005
2305
15.20
0.28
1*90
0
01
5.00
260
100K
60
300K
NS65
07-16-70
1210
OO5
2304
6.10
O.lO
1.34
0
03
5.00
210
100K
120
3 OOK
NSt.6
07-16-70
1255
005
2303
17.10
0.16
1.82
0
03
5.00
100K
100K
60
300K
NS67
07-16-70
1130
005
2302
8.60
0.14
1.36
0
02
5.00
100K
100K.
50K
300K
NS68
07-16-70
1020
005
2301
4.10
O.lO
0.94
0
03
3 .00
N
N
N
N
NS69
07-16-70
0950
005
2230
3.50
O.lO
0.42
0
03
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS70
07-15-70
<5745
005
2245
2.00
0 .06
0.70
0
05
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS71
07-15-7 0
0730
005
2244
5.90
0.07
0.65
0
08
3.00
1 OOK
100
120
300K
NS72
07-15-70
0-810
005
2246
2.80
0.07
0.56
0
07
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS73
07-15-70
0840
005
2247
3.70
0.07
0.60
0
0 1
b.00
N
N
N
iM
NS74
07-15-70
0900
005
2248
7.10
0.06
0.96
0
07
3.00
N
N
N
N
NS75
07-15-70
1015
005
2249
3.30
0.06
0.70
0
04
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS76
07-15-70
1240
005
2254
5.20
0.06
1.14
0
04
3.00
N
N
N
N
NS77
07-15-70
1225
005
2253
6.30
0.08
N
0
C5
3.00
100K
10QK
60
3 OOK
NS78
0 7-15-70
1155
005
22 52
5.80
0.06
0.72
0
OIK
6.00
N
N
N
N
NS79
07-15-70
1140
005
2251
5.50
0.06
1.20
0
04
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS80
07-15-70
1115
005
2250
4.60
0.06
0.92
0
04
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS81
07-15-70
0930
005
2222
5."fo
0.06
1.06
0
05
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS82
07-15-70
1045
005
2223
6.10
0.06
0.70
0
04
3.00
N
N
N
N
NS83
07-15-70
1000
005
2224
4.20
0.06
0.58
0
04
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS64
07-15-^70
1025
005
2225
5.30
0.12
0.86
0
32
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS85
07-15-70
1045
005
2226
9.10
0.19
1.48
0
12
5.00
100K
100K
50
3 OOK
NS36
07-15-70
0955
005
22 21
2.00
0.08
0.40
0
03
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS87
07-15-70
0805
005
2220
4.30
0.08
0.46
0
04
2.00
1Q0K
100K
5 OK
3 OOK
NS88
07-15-70
0845
005
22 19
1.00
0.06
0.18
0
05
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS89
07-15-70
0700
005
2217
2.20
0.05K
0.58
0
03
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS90
07-15-70
0720
005
2218
1-10
0.06
0.64
0
05
3.00
100K
100K
50K
300K
NS91
07-15-70
0645
005
2216
2.80
0.05
0.94
0
04
3.00
N
N
N
N
NS92
07-14-70
0805
005
2203
N
0.05K
0.52
0
06
1.00
N
N
N
N
NS93
07-14-70
0845
005
2204
3.10
0 .05K
0.64
0
06
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS94
07-14-70
0915
005
2205
6.30
0.10
1.20
0
07
5.00
100K.
100K
100
3 OOK
-------
SURVEY
OF
DATA, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
LONG ISLAND SOUND, NORTH SHORE, JULY 1970 (Cont'd.)
STAT
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
LAB
HG
TCOLJ

NO.
UG/L
MPN

100ML

00008
71900
31505
NS46
0 7-17-70
1010
005
2333
N
1700
NS47
07-17-70
0950
005
2337
N
12
NS48
07-17-70
0940
005
2336
N
49
NS49
07-17-70
0605
005
2317
N
22
NS50
07-16-70
0825
005
2308
N
2
NS51
07-16-70
0845
005
2309
2.00K
220
NS52
07-16-70
0910
005
2310
2.00K
3500
NS5 3
07-16-70
0930
005
2311
2.00K.
24000L
NS54
07-16-70
0945
005
2312
2.00K.
24000L
NS55
07-17-70
0745
005
2316
N
11
NS56
07-17-70
0725
005
2314
N
170
NS57
07-17-70
0710
005
2313
N
79
NS58
07-17-70
0735
005
2315
N
23
NS59
07-16-70
0905
005
2228
H
60
NS60
0 7-16-70
0920
005
2229
N
23
NS61
0 7-16-70
0840
005
2227
N
220
NS62
07-16-70
1305
005
23C6
4.00
24000L
NS6 3
07-16-70
1150
005
0515
2.U0K
9200
NS64
07-16-70
1230
005
2305
2.00K
13000
NS65
07-16-70
1210
005
2304
N
5400
NS66
07-16-70
1255
005
2303
N
16000
NS67
07-16-70
1130
005
2302
N
3300
NS6B
07-16-70
1020
005
2301
N
170
NS69
07-16-70
0950
005
2230
N
280
NS 7 0
07-15-7(5
0745
005
2245
N
13
NS71
07-15-70
0730
005
2244
N
33
NS72
07-15-70
0810
005
2246
N
11
NS 7 3
07-15-70
0840
005
2247
N
2K
NS74
07-15-70
0900
005
2248
N
11
NS75
07-15-70
1015
005
2249
N
ZK
NS76
07-15-70
1240
005
2254
N
5
NS77
07-15-70
1225
005
2253
N
110
NS78
07-15-70
1155
005
2252
N
7
NS79
07-15-70
1140
005
2251
N"
79
NSBO
07-15-70
1115
005
2250
N
21
NS81
07-15-70
0930
005
2222
N
33
NSB2
07-15-70
1045
005
2223
N
13
N5B3
07-15-70
1000
005
2224
N
130
NS84
07-15-70
1025
005-
2225
N
70
NS85
07-15-70
1045
005
2226
N
79
NS86
07-15-70
0955
005
2221
N
2
NSB7
07-15-70
C805
005
2220
N
2
NS88
07-15-70
0845
005
2219
N
13
NS89
07-15-70
0700
005
2217
N
17
NSSO
07-15-70
0720
005
2218
N
33
NS91
07-15-70
0645
005
2216
N
33
NS92
07-14-70
0805
005
2203
N
79
NS93
07-14-70
0845
005
2204
N
33
NS94
07-14-70
0915
005
2205
N
5400
(O
0>
FCOLI
MPN
10CML
31615
170
2
2
20
2K
17
2400
5400
1700
70
33
11
50
50
8
17
5400
350
~3300
3500
3500
3300
17
49
8
13
5
2K.
2K
2 K
2K
70
2
33
7
5
5
17
22
33
2K
2K
5
7
11
33
49
33
1100
-------
TIME
0920
0940
0955
1020
1035
1100
1115
1135
1150
0735
1240
1215
1155
1140
1125
10C5
0945
0925
0905
0845
0630
0815
0800
CL
MG/L
0094
14700
14700
14100
12300
12700
10100
8300
13700
3000
16800
16800
16800
16d00
16200
15 800
17600
17200
17600
17600
15600
17000
16900
15600
DATA., ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SURVEY OF LONG ISLAND SOUND, NORTH SHORE, JULY 1970 (Cont'd.)
DEPTH
LAB
AIR
WATER
DO
BOD
PH
TURB
COND

NO.
TEMP
TEMP
MG/L
5 DAY
SU
JKSN
A-25C

CENT
CENT

MG/L

JU
umhos

ooooe
00020
00010
00300
00310
00400
00070
00095
OO5
22C6
25.60
17.90
7,go
2. 70
7.90
3
40600
OO5
2207
26.60
17.60
7.20
2. 90
8.00
2
40800
005
2208
26.50
19.70
6.60
2. 50
8.00
3
33100
005
2209
25.90
20.30
5.10
4. 10
7.40
5
35100
005
2210
26.70
23.60
4.20
4.30
7.30
5
35500
OO5
2211
30.10
20.20
7.00
3. 30
7.50
4
32400
005
2212
28.60
20.60
8.60
7. 30
7.40
4
30500
005
2213
27.20
21.70
7.00
3.70
7.20
5
25700
005
2214
27.50
23.10
5.40
3.20
7.10
4
N
005
2202
26.10
16.90
7.80
N
7.80
2
43900
005
2243
26.00
17.20
8.20
N
8.20
2
56200
005
2242
26.00
17.70
8.10
N
8. 10
1
54200
005
2241
26.00
21.90
8.70
N
8.30
2
51900
005
2240
26.00
22.60
8.30
N
8.10
2
49900
0C5
2239
24.50
23.50
7.60
N
8.00
2
47800
005
2238
25.00
17.40
8.00
N
8.00
1
53200
005
2237
24.00
17.90
8.30
N
7.90
1
*5000
005
2236
23.00
18.10
8.40
0. 80J
7.90
1
48000
005
2235
22.00
20.70
7.90*
2.20
8. 10
1
47800
OO5
2234
22-00
20.30
8.10
1« 20J
7. 90
1
44400
005
2233
21.00
19.50
8.20
N
8.10
1
56100
005
2232
20.50
19.70
7.70
1. 40 J
7.70
1
56200
005
2231
20.00
20.70
6.10
1. 80J
7.30
2
54400
-------
DATA., ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SURVEY OF
LONG
ISLAND SOUND
, NORTH
SHORE,
JULY 1970
(Cont* d.)

STAT
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
LAB
CHLR-
N03-N
T KJL
PHS-T
T ORG
cu
CR
ZINC
LEAD

NO.
PHL A
MG/L
N
P-WET
C
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L

MG/M3

MG/L
MG/L
MG/L

0Q008
32230
00620
00625
00665
00680
O1O4Q
01030
01090
01049
NS95
07-14-70
0920
005
2206
6« 20
0.06
0.90
0.09
3.00
100K
100K
50K
300K
NS97
0 7-14-70
0940
005
2207
11.60
0.09
0.88
0.08
2.00
100K
100K
50
300K
NS98
07^14-70
0955
005
22 08
12.10
0.09
0.94
8« 00
2.00
100K
100K
50K
300K.
NS99
07-14-70
1020
005
2209
21.60
0.10
1.54
0.08
4.00
100K
100K.
50<
300K
NSIOO
07-14-70
1035
005
2210
34.30
0.12
1.10
0.10
4.00
100K
100K
50K
300K
NS 101
07-14-70
1100
005
2211
15.80
0.15
1.28
0.12
5.00
100K
100K
50K.
300K
NS102
07-14-70
1115
005
2212
ea.su
0.18
1.20
0.13
4.00
100IC
100K
50K.
300K
NS103
07-14-70
1135
005
2213
20.00
0.12
0.86
0.15
2.00
100K
100K
50K
300K
NS104
07-14-70
1150
005
2214
N
0.44
1.90
0.17
5.00
100IC
100K
50L
300K
NS 105
07-14-70
0735
005
2202
2*40
0.05
0.70
0.06
N
N
N
N
N
NS106
07-14-70
1240
005
2243
3.90
0.05K
0.44
0.06
1.00
100K
100K
50K
300K.
NS 107
07-14-70
1215
005
2242
3.10
0.05K
0.50
0.08
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS 108
07-14-70
1155
005
2241
3.80
0.06
0.96
0.09
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS 109
07-14-70
1140
005
2240
7.60
0.09
0.70
0.11
2.00
100K
100K
50K
300K
NS 110
07-14-70
1125
005
2239
8.70
0.08
0.92
0.17
2.00
100K.
100K
50K
300K
NS111
07-14-70
1005
005
2238
3.80
0.05IC
0.74
0.07
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS 112
07-14-70
0945
005
2237
3.60
0.05K
0.40
0.07
4.00
N
N
N
N
NS 113
07-14-70
0925
005
2236
2.70
0.05K
0.34
0.08
1.00
100K
100K.
50K
300K
NS 114
07-14-70
0905
005
2235
13.60
0.06
0.34,
o.oe
2.00
110 L
100K.
50K
30 OK
NS 115
07-14-70
0845
005
2234
2.20
0.06
0.16
0.09
2.00
21OL
100K
130
300K.
NS 116
07-14-70
0830
005
2233
1.60
0.05K
0.30
0. 10
2.00
N
N
N
N
NS 117
07-14-70
0815
005
2232
4.30
0.06
0.36
0.11
2.00
100K
100K
50K
300K
NS 118
07-14-70
0800
005
2231
N
0.15
0.60
0.12
2.00
220L
100K
1S0L
300K
-------
DATA., ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SURVEY OF LONG ISLAND SOUND, NORTH SHORE, JULY 1970 (Cont'd.)
STAT
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
LAB
HG
TCOLI
FCOLI

NO.
UG/L
MPN
MPN

100ML
100ML

00008
71900
31505
31615
NS95
07-14-70
0920
005
2206
N
1600
920
NS97
07-J4-70
0940
005
2207
N
1300
170
N59B
07—A4-70
0955
005
2208
N
790
240
NS99
07-14-70
1020
005
2209
N
2400CL
24000L
NSIOO
07-14-70
2035
005
2210
N
920C
2400
N5101
07-14-70
1100
005
2211
N
3500
<940
NS102
07-14-70
1115
005
2212
N
24000L
1400
NS103
07-14-70
1135
005
2213
N
24000L
5400
NS104
07-14-70
1150
005
2214
N
2400CL
9200
NS105
07-14-70
0735
005
220?
N
33
33
NS 106
07-14-70
1240
005
2243
N
8
2
NS107
07-14-70
1215
005
2 2 4 J
N
17
4
NS108
0 7-14-70
1155
005
2241
N
79
11
NS109
07-14-70
1140
005
2240
N
540
350
NS110
07-14-70
1125
005
2239
N
350
130
NS 111
07-14-70
1005
005
2238
N
2
2K
NS112
0 7—14—7 0
0945
005
2237
N
2K.
2K
NS113
07-14-70
0925
005
223$
2.50
33
13
NS114
07-14-70
0905
005
2235
N
110
17.
NS115
07-14-70
0845
005
2234
2*00
540
79
NS11S
07-14-70
0830
005
2233
N
70
23
NS117
07-14t70
0B15
005
223?
5.00
540
79
NS118
07-14-70
0800
005
2231
5.50
9200
2400
REMARKS—

N=NO DATA AVA]LABLE¦ J=ESTJMATED VALUE. K=LESS THAW, L=SREATER THANi -=yiNUS TEMP
©
to
-------
Albert *. Bromberg
200
MR. BHOMBERG: Mr. Chairman, this concludes the
presentation by the Environmental Protection Agency.
MR, STEIN: The entire report will be included in
the record as if read.
Are there any questions or comments?
Mr. Peloquin.
MR. PELOQUIN: I have a few questions, Mr. Chairman.
The references are on pages 9 and 19 as to shellfish closure
areas. The closures are due, as I understand it, to raw
discharges but can also be due to the presence of treated
effluents. Even though they provided complete treatment for
all waste going into the receiving waters, surface waters,
am I correct that this could still leave some closed areas
because of the discharges?
MR. BROMBERG: Yes. Under the present criteria, a
water body within a proximity of a treatment plant discharge,
even though it is secondary, should be closed to shellfish.
MR. PELOQUIN: It could lead to some opening of
closed areas, but there would still be closed areas regardless
of the amount of treatment?
MR. BROMBERG: Yes.
MR. PELOQUIN: On page 14, Mr. Bromberg, the report
makes reference to the Animal Disease Laboratory and a
recommendation that wastes will go to a subsurface system.
-------
201
Albert W, Bromberg
Is there a time schedule established for that?
MR* BROMBERG: I have no time schedule at hand
right now, but I can check on it and report that back to you.
MR. PELOQUIN: How about the submarine base at
Groton tying into the Grotom system? Is there a time
schedule on that?
MR, BROMBERG: That system is ready to connect
right now. It's awaiting the extension of the Groton system.
MR. PELOQUIN: I had a question on page IS.
Under your "Industrial Waste" listing of the 137 sources,
you indicate here that none goes to the sound. Am I
correct in assuming, where you say significant volumes of
wastewater result from pickling, plating, and so on, that
none of these wastes — also the oxygen-consuming materials —
none of these is going into the sound at the present time?
This is merely a description of what is in the basin, but
this is not contributing to the pollution of the sound?
MR, BROMBERG: Well, it is contributing to the
pollution of the sound, yes. We tried to make the decision
of what was being discharged directly to the sound as
opposed to harbors and embayments, and most of these
discharges — or, in fact, all of them — are, for all
practical purposes, to the harbors and embayments as opposed
to the open waters of the sound.
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
202
MR. PELOQUIN: Okay. Fine. Thank you.
The report, unless 1 missed it, makes no mention
of the degree of heat presently being discharged or the
amount of thermal discharges going to the sound now. You
make reference to the potential heat impact, with which I
agree* I think it needs further study.
But is there anything in the report that indicates
the temperature of the present discharge? If there is, I
missed it.
MR, BROMBERG: No, there is not. We have data
relating to the volume of water but not to the temperature of
those discharges.
MR. PELOQUIN: Is there anything available that
would indicate the thermal impact at the present time on
the ecology due to the present thermal discharges?
MR. BROMBERG: No information that we have directly.
There may be some localized studies being done through
grants through universities, but I did not have it available
for this report.
MR. PELOQUIN: Then with regard to the two studies
that were done, one in 1969 and one in 1970, those cover
two separate areas, so that, in effect, you have one survey
of one area and one survey of another. Roughly what? One-
week surveys? About how many samples do you estimate there
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
203
were?
MR. BROMBERG: There were approximately, In round
numbers, 140 stations in each of the surveys* The first
survey concentrated on the open waters of the sound but did
have stations located at the entrance to most of the harbors
and the embayments.
The second survey concentrated on the north shore
and resampled some stations that were, in effect, sampled in
1969.
MR. PELOQITIN: About how many samples altogether?
Do you have any idea?
MR. BROMBERG: In total, as I said, there were
approximately about 140 stations in each survey. Each one
was sampled once.
MR. PELOQUIN: Once?
MR. BROMBERG: Right.
MR. PELOQUIN: Thank you. Now, on page 29, on your
summary, I don't quite agree with the statement — I don't
think you read that particular comment — that pollution
is occurring by default. You say in the last sentence, "These
conditions which are now occurring in the sound are occurring
by default rather than by design. . ." I don't completely
agree with that statement.
I feel the States are moving. And I agree there
-------
Albert V. Bromberg
204
are some polluters in default with their schedules. But these
are being subject to the due processes, as I am sure will be
brought out by my fellow conferees.
But just for the record I wanted to indicate that
I don't completely agree with that statement.
MR. BROMBERG: The statement was not intended to
indicate that there is default on the part of the State
agencies. It is in reference to the sentence above that,
indicating that quality is deteriorating, and we are not
designing this deterioration. It's happening by default
rather than by design.
So it's referring to the deterioration, not to
the programs within each of the States.
MB. PELOQUIN: Thank you.
No further questions, Mr. Chairman,
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions?
MB. GLENN: I'd like to carry this a little bit
further. On page 10, on the shellfish beds closed, let's
take the ones in Connecticut. I think it indicates that most
of these are urban areas, and the indication is that if the
water quality was being met these shellfish beds would be
opened. Referring to the federally approved plans, implementa-
tion plans, for water quality for the State of Connecticut,
do you think that all these here with the major urban areas
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
205
would be open if those implementation plans of the treatment
plants with secondary treatment with disinfection were com-
pleted today?
MR. BROMBERG: All of them probably would not be
opened, as Mr. Peloquin said.
MR. GLENN: Would any of them be open where there is
an urban area?
MR. BROMBERG: Depending on the location of the
treatment plant discharge, some way, and some may not.
MR. GLENN: Do you feel if you met your bacterial
standard for coliform that this would effectively kill the
viruses too?
MR. BROMBERG: Could you repeat the question, sir?
MR. GLENN: I said do you feel that the effect
of disinfection where we use coliform standards would kill
the viruses so you would be able to open these if any of the
waters of this infected or disinfected effluent reached into
the shellfish bed areas?
MR. BROMBERG: Well, our shellfish standards are
now based on a total coliform count, not on a virus count.
I don't have precise data to indicate whether chlorination
would in fact kill viruses or not. So I would suspect we
would still have some contamination of the beds.
MR. GLENN: So that this business of closed shellfish
beds I think is giving a false indication that they would be
-------
206
Albert V. Bromberg
open. And I thought that the way this was expressed it is
giving indication they will be open if these water quality
standards are met, and I don't think they would be open. And
I think this should be made a part of the record.
MB. STEIN: Well, I think you have raised a very
interesting point, Mr. Glenn, because this has happened
nationally, all over. We have 300 areas where we have shell-
fish beds closed.
If you are pointing out that the Connecticut
standards as approved by the Federal Government are not going
to be sufficient to open these beds, I think we are just
going to have to look at these standards again and see if
what is in order is a higher degree of treatment than that
which Connecticut has been asking in the past.
I think we should be grateful to you for pointing
that out to Connecticut and to us.
MR. GLENN: 1 think the question in many areas is
not why the shellfish beds are being closed recently. It's
why they weren't closed about 25 years ago.
MR, STEIN: That may be. But if we have to open
them— And, by the way, I think your question is one that
has been put to me. And I just don't think it's likely. I
think, one, we may need revision of the shellfish standard on
how we are going to consider a shellfish bed being open or
not. I think when that coliform standard was set of 70 or
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
207
less, no one was really thinking in terms of viruses. Or
even if we were thinking in terms of viruses, we couldn't
measure them.
But the issue here is that if we are going to open
shellfish beds in areas where you have large centers of popula-
tion particularly — and this isn't just in Long Island
Sound — we may have to revise our thinking on the kind of
treatment we are going to require. This may be a much, much
higher degree of treatment than we ordinarily consider
with secondary treatment or I think what Mr. Peloquin referred
to as complete treatment.
Our notion of "complete" may undergo a change,
and our notion of what we can allow to come out in stormwater
may undergo a change, or else — I think your point is well
taken — you're not going to be able to open many shellfish
beds.
MR. GLENN: I have one other — more of a comment
than a question. That is, on page 16, pertaining to recreation-
al boating wastes, I think one of our problems that we are
facing on our boating wastes is with the Federal legislation*
which requires the Federal Government to come up with what
they say water quality standards for the boats are,which will
not go into effect for either two or five years according to
whether it's new boats or old boats. The time will not start
-------
208
Albert W. Bromberg
counting until we come up with these standards.
We have had a couple of false starts, and they never
quite came out.
What I cannot understand is the problem anyway.
I have read over most of the State standards and the Federal
standards, and it doesn't say anything abput whether
those standards which were approved came from land or boats.
So I think in most cases we already have our boat standard
too if we just come out and say so.
1 think this problem from boating wastes we could
move on much faster if the Federal Government would say this
and not keep waiting for these standards to be promulgated
sometime in the future.
MR* STEIN: Do you want to comment on that, Mr.
Klashman? I don't have the boating wastes now*
MR. KLASHMAN: No, the only comment I can make,
Mr. Glenn, is that we did not write the law. The laws are
passed by the Congress. And the law is very specific about
the establishment of standards and about the two and five
years*
We anticipate that something will be coming out
very soon to implement this, and I can't say any more about it.
MR. STEIN: All right. Now, let me tell you in the
past — and I think Mr. Metzler has been working with us in
Lake Erie — and in Lake Michigan too — at a conference such
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
209
as this. We had, I wouldn't say "no trouble," but after a consider-
able amount of "give and take" and discussion between the
various States concerned, which are, you know, independent
States, and the Federal Government, to adopt boating requirements
for those lakes I think we came up with an agreement.
All that can come out of a conference is what the
States really are going to do. We all recognized that if the
States were going to adopt these this would apply to relatively
small pleasure boats licensed by the States. The States did
adopt them, put forth regulations and, where necessary, laws.
I know, Tom, you and several others of us in this
area have been wrestling with this problem of boat pollution
for a long time. When you talk about the time element of either
two or five years there are no real easy answers on this.
Because when we get through with the pleasure boats, you are
going to get these big commercial ships coming in.
This isn't a very easy problem anyway. Because
how do you regulate the foreign vessels coming in? With all
the problems that our merchant marine industry has, if you
begin operating on an American-flag vessel and find that
the next week after you put your regulation on they change
their registry to one of these little countries that you know
-------
Albert W. Broraberg
210
so well, 1 don't know what you have accomplished for water
quality,
I do know we have a group In Washington that has
been meeting with the States and wrestling with these problems
and trying to come up with a boat or a ship regulation. 1
know also from past experience, even though I am not directly
charged with that function, they have a very difficult task
indeed.
MR. GLENN: What bothers me is I don't know what
they are wrestling over. If they come up with a separate
standard for the same waterway, we are going to be in real
trouble.
So I think the standards have already been set for
many of the waterways, and I see no reason to debate it any
further. I think it just takes a little intestinal fortitude
to admit this and come out and face it, and then we can work
on one of the different things.
But I wasn't talking about pleasure boats. I was
talking about the big ones, the small ones, and so forth.
MR# STEIN: All right. If you haven't taken your
message back to the people who handle this in Washington,
Tom, as I am sure you have, directly, 1*11 be glad to carry
it for you.
Are there any other comments or questions?
-------
211
Albert W. Bromberg
MR. METZLER: A very fine presentation, Mr. Bromberg.
Just a question or two. I thought it quite lucid and clear.
A very simple question though. Is the quality of
waters in the sound improving or being degraded over a period
of let's say the last decade or even the last shorter period
if you like?
MR. BROMBERG: We have no historical data to show
any real trend. About the closest to historical data that
I know that exists are studies done by the Interstate
Sanitation Commission over a 10-year period in the East River,
western end of Long Island Sound area.
I believe the comparison of their two reports
indicates — correct me if I am wrong, Tom — basically no
change in oxygen levels, maybe a slight increase.
MR. GLENN: No, it's more than a slight increase in
some areas. There was a slight increase, in some areas quite
a substantial increase. But the coliform deteriorated. But
we will explain that in our own statement, why this deteriorates.
MR. BROMBERG: No, we have no historical data of
our own.
MR. METZLER: Commissioner Diamond, of course,
mentioned the thermal discharge concern which New York has.
You mentioned 17 power generating stations. Did you mean to
indicate that each of these has some thermal impact upon the
-------
212
Albert W. Bromberg
sound?
MR, BROMBERG: I think I indicated 17 existing and
proposed as a total.
MR. METZLER: All right.
MR. BROMBERG: And we related their discharge to
volume only, not to impact.
MR. METZLER: But is each of these located so that
there would be some temperature rise in the waters of the
sound from the cooling water from these facilities?
MR. BROMBERG: With the exception of one or two
that might be located up the Connecticut River, I would think
that, yes, they would have an effect on the sound.
MR. STEIN: Let me break in here. I want this for
clarification, because this is a problem that we have with
thermal discharges.
I think Congressman Reid recommended we take up
this problem, and I think it was brought out in the question-
ing, I think by Mr. Peloquin, there were no specific
recommendations.
But as I read this, there are 17 existing fossil
fuel plants that you have listed and seven nuclear plants,
one which was in operation, two which were proposed for 1975,
one for 1978, one for the middle 1980*s, and the other, a
real big one, just proposed.
-------
213
Albert W. Bromberg
I raise this question for clarification. I say
this on the basis of sad experience in other parts of the
country. If you are talking in terms of plants coming in by
1975, unless we have a proposal now you are going to find
that the problem is on you. It's on us now.
I would agree with Congressman Reid that we had
better start thinking and coming up with a recommendation on
what we are going to do about these powerplants, if anything.
For example, I don't know how far they are from
contract or ordering equipment. But we're in 1971 now. If
you take the leadtlme that it takes to buy some of this
equipment for powerplants, I suggest that the conference
might consider this problem.
Do you have any comment on that or a proposal on
powerplants or a suggestion on that?
MR, BROMBERG: Mr. Chairman, we would hope that
this subject would be seriously considered in what we
recommend as this water resources program to be carried out
for Long Island Sound, that long-term planning be incorporated
in this.
MR. STEIN: Maybe because I'm talking, but I don't
quite get what your proposal means. I'm not making any
comment. Does your proposal mean we can wait for this
long-term planning study before we have to come to grips with
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
214
specifics on the powerplants?
MR. BROMBERG: For the ones that are immediately
considered, I would suggest that, no, we don't wait. They
should be considered right now, and they are being considered.
MR. STEIN: Do you have a recommendation? I
didn't hear one, and Mr. Peloquin indicated he didn*t hear
one either.
MR. KLASHMAN; Mr. Stein, may 1 make an observation?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. KLASHMAN: In each of the cases of the new powerw
plants, the Water Quality Office of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency is very carefully reviewing each of these, doing
exactly what you are saying, to determine what we anticipate
the impact will be.
We haven1t had any case yet that I know of where
we have not insisted on cooling towers to lessen the load
in the ones that are coming up.
MR. STEIN: I'm afraid you missed my point. My
point is this: We have been in this particularly — I think
it's on the record — in the Pacific Northwest on the Columbia
River, in Biscayne Bay, and in Lake Michigan. The point
is I recognize that the Federal Government has come up with
its recommendations. However, we have found that it is the
better part of valor and makes more sense if we come up with
-------
215
Albert W. Bromberg
a joint recommendation with the States and the interstate
agencies concerned.
The purpose of the conference is to get this started
so we have some ground rules and know how to come up with this.
I don't know whether the proposal is to go it
alone as we have had to do it in the past or to use the con-
ference device to come up with a joint recommendation.
Certainly in the Biscayne Bay and in Lake Michigan we have
found that this couldn't be resolved except by coming up with
a joint recommendation. I am suggesting that in 1971 we're
not too far removed from 1975 to get working on this right
away and not wait for a long-term study or by having to come
in when I get disparate reports from State agencies and
Federal agencies and interstate agencies and try to reconcile
them.
MR, KLASHMAN: Mr. Bromberg, the report mentioned
the fact on page 17 that the overall effect of indiscriminately
adding heated effluents to the sound would be detrimental.
Do I gather, Mr. Bromberg, that you would add a recommenda-
tion, on a thermal ——
ME* STEIN: You may want to think about it. I'm
not pushing you now. I think you may want to. I think Mr.
Peloquin said that the report was deficient in this area on
recommendation.
-------
216
Albert W. Bromberg
MB* KLASHMAN: Why don't we just agree we will put
such a recommendation in? I think all the conferees are
agreed.
MB. STEIN: All right.
Are there any other comments or questions — on
anything, not just this?
MB. CUBBY: I'll keep on the subject.
MB. STEIN: Good.
MB. CUBBY: You indicated that if the Federal
Government wanted to get involved in this you didn't want to
go in alone. As far as Connecticut is concerned, we have
been in this business of controlling thermal discharges for
six or seven years, and we have been alone. So if you join
with us, you won't be alone. We'll be already there.
It is a serious problem.
I would go back to one point and say I am a little
bit discouraged with some of the statements you made that
indicated the attitude of such an impossibility to control
sewage discharges from large ships.
MB. STEIN: I didn't say that at all.
MB. CUBBY: You made it sound so difficult that I
was discouraged.
MB. STEIN: No, I don't think it's difficult to do
this. I think the jurisdictional problems are difficult. I
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
217
think physically —
MR, CURRY: I'm not worrying about the kind of
difficulty but the expression that it was so seriously diffi-
cult that maybe it isn't possible.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr, Stein, it is my understanding
that the Connecticut standards for a Class A water indicate
that no water with a temperature can be increased where the
Increase will exceed the recommended limit on the most
sensitive water use, and in no case can it exceed 85 degrees
or in any case raise the normal temperature of the receiving
water more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit.
And it is my understanding that in carrying this
out Connecticut is requiring devices to meet this.
I'm not sure I know what the story is in New York
on that, Mr. Metzler. You might want to —
MR. METZLER: If it is agreeable, Mr. Seebald
will cover that when he makes his presentation for New York.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions? And not just on this.
MR* GREGG: May I observe on this thermal problem
that what we are really talking about here is some short-
range improvements, improvements in our short-range mechanisms
for dealing with these things, and also some kind of long-range
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
218
decision-making process.
I'm sure it will be brought out by witnesses
appearing here today that the industry has funded a scoping
study done by Battelle Memorial Institute to try to outline
the metes and bounds of what was needed to be known in order
to approach the question of thermal loading in the sound.
In the comprehensive study that the New England
River Basins Commission will do, we will have some money we
can throw into this pot for the purpose of looking at power
requirements and also alternative ways of meeting them.
So this is sort of in mid-range. There are a
number of things under way here that will probably be clarified
today.
MR. STEIN: I understand that, Mr* Gregg. But
let me indicate the problem we found ourselves with in other
areas. Maybe this is what you want to do in Long Island
Sound; maybe not.
In other areas we found ourselves with the problem
whether we were going to permit the plants to open or not.
I think this is the same question you have in a sense with
these foreign ships. People need power. This Is a little
different kind of industry than other industries.
The question here is whether you let the power-
plant open without, say, specialized cooling devices, having
-------
219
Albert W. Bromberg
what they call once-through cooling in the trade, and take
about five years to find out what is going to happen to the
water on a survey, or whether you make your judgment before
the plant opens and do this.
Now, we have been faced with that first alternative
I gave you in various other waters. What I am suggesting —
if I can predict the controversy that is going to come up,
as I suspect it is — is that unless we start right now — and
I agree with these long-term and short-term objectives —
we may be faced with the same problem on Long Island Sound*
And I know if you take that alternative, you are
going to have a lot of controversy, that first one, to let the
plants open and study them afterward and see if they need
anything.
Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. METZLER: Mr. Chairman, I was following a line
of questions, perhaps a little circuitously here, but may I
complete it?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. METZLER: Back on the thermal problem, Mr.
Bromberg, do any of these discharges that are mentioned in
the tables here from powerplants contravene standards If you
used the same guidelines that are used on Lake Michigan —
that is, a radius of 1,000 feet away? If the same criteria
-------
220
Albert W. Bromberg
were applied as have been recommended for Lake Michigan, is
there any of the places where these would be violated now?
MR. BROMBERG: We have not collected specific data
around a particular plant for me to give you a clearcut
answer to that.
MR. STEIN: Again for purposes of clarification,
as I understand it, and I will let you technical people
check me, we have two things. In Lake Michigan, the
recommendation was that there be a 3-degree rise maximum plus
a 1,000-foot mixing zone, plus there were temperatures to
support the indigenous fish established for each month, or
3 degrees, whichever is less.
Now, there is a change. They just put this out, and
if I read the green book correctly — and I have been living
with biologists for the past six months or a year since the
temperature item (rot so hot — there is a change in the 3 degrees
when you deal with a water like Long Island Sound, a coastal
water. That would be that it is a 4-degree rise in the
winter and 1-1/2 degrees in the summer rather than 3.
You would still have superimposed on that, if it
were applicable, the temperatures to provide the indigenous
fish, and so forth.
You may want to think in those terms here. Because
again, without knowing the sound and the details, in most of
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
221
these other areas we have found that even though you have
the discharges, as you usually have, into embayments or some-
thing of that kind, these are the particular areas which are
very sensitive to fish spawning, propagation, and migration.
They are precisely the critical areas you have there.
Again I would suggest that this may be applicable
here as we have found in great bodies of water like Lake
Michigan. I don't think if you put your mind to it that you
could heat up Lake Michigan, and I don't think if you put your
mind to it you could heat up Long Island Sound, no matter
what you did.
The question is whether heating up some of the
shallower inshore waters would so change the quality or
characteristics of those waters that they would affect the
ecology of the sound. I suggest we think about that.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Stein, I wonder if it would be
appropriate to add a recommendation here that we carry out
the necessary studies and report back to the conferees on
what we recommend.
MR. STEIN: How long will you take to report?
MR. KLASHMAN: 1 think that we will have to —
MR. STEIN: Why don't you think about that? Don't
rush unless you— I mean think about the recommendation.
We're not going to close the meeting right now. Don't come
-------
222
Albert W. Bromberg
up with a date off the top of your head. We still have a day
or two.
Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. METZLER; I still have a couple of questions.
MR. STEIN: Yes, sir. You know, you are so
intriguing I can't let you go. (Laughter) You open such
intriguing vistas all the time.
Go ahead.
MR. METZLER: Thank you, Murray.
You thought it probably was desirable to add a
recommendation with respect to thermal pollution. Would you
also think it desirable to add one with respect to boat
pollution? I'm speaking specifically about the raw sewage
discharge from boats.
While it has been mentioned, it is surprising that
in this laundry list we have we don't have a specific recom-
mendation that we must stop pollution from boats, especially
when we are concerned about shellfishing.
MR. BROMBERG: If I am not mistaken, New York already
has legislation requiring onboard treatment devices or holding
tanks for vessels.
MR. METZLER: Yes.
MR. BROMBERG: To my knowledge, I don't think
Connecticut has one. We did make reference in our last
-------
223
Albert W. Bromberg
recommendation that Connecticut do undertake steps to install
facilities at marinas.
I admit it is lacking in that it doesn't specify
action be taken with vessels, and possibly the conferees could
take this under consideration.
MR. METZLER: Very good.
One more question, Mr. Bromberg. In your extensive
investigations of the quality of water in the sound, did you
find that trash was a problem?
MR. BROMBERG: We made observations of trash in
quite a number of areas, particularly in our second survey
where we did go deeper into the individual embayments. I
think the text of the report dealing with quality does mention
in some specific cases we observed not only floating trash
but oil slick-type problems.
MR, GLENN: Let me make one more addition. We found
out in the main body of water, on the trips we made out
in that area last summer, we saw more trash and debris out in
the main body of water than we had in previous years.
MR. METZLER: I'm very much a newcomer to boating
on Long Island Sound. I must admit to that. But I'm surprised
at the amount of trash that one sees. It seems to me unless
that trash is controlled no one will think we have cleaned
up Long Island Sound even if you can drink the water.
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
224
But I really was interested in not having my opinion
expressed at this point — there will be an opportunity for
that — but to know what your evaluation of the problem was.
MB. BROMBERG: I think you're correct that the "eye"
pollution is the thing that is most apparent to the public.
Where there is poor aesthetic quality, there is the implication
that there is poor water quality. I think this can be and
should be Incorporated into vessel pollution legislation
as New York does have,
MR. METZLER: Do we really know what the source of
this is? Does most of it come from trash discarded from
vessels? Is it shore-based?
MR. BROMBERG: It may come from shore-based —
MR* METZLER: Have we made enough investigation to
understand the source?
MR. BROMBERG: No, we do have none.
MR« STEIN: Let me have one more point of clarifica-
tion* Your first recommendation says, "Enforcement action be
initiated immediately against those sources of pollution
not in compliance with federally approved water quality
standards.'1 What action do you suggest?
MR. BROMBERG: Well, as you know, Mr. Stein, our
emphasis in the Federal Government is to allow the States to
initiate the enforcement action since they are the prime
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
225
regulatory agencies. What we are recommending here is where
a waste source is not in conformance with his schedule for
a good, valid reason that the State itself initiate the
legal action.
MR. STEIN: In other words, are you suggesting the
River and Harbor Act, 180-day Federal actions, or do you
mean State actions?
MR. BROMBERG: I think the State should take the
initiative to start the action. If they do not, I think we
should take the initiative.
MR* STEIN: Immediately? How does that fit with
your fourth point where you suggest that they give us interim
dates within 30 days? How do we work that -- taking Immediate
enforcement action — with giving them 30 days for interim
dates?
MR. BROMBERG: Well, as you know, the Federal
Government cannot initiate action unless we have a waste
source listed in the water quality standards with a complete
schedule. In many cases —
MR. STEIN: No, we take action under the River and
Harbor Act.
MR* BROMBERG: Under the Refuse Act also.
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. BROMBERG: But when we don't have data by which
-------
Albert W. Bromberg
226
we can measure progress, we don't know whether someone is
meeting his schedule or not. If there is just a final date,
we don't know whether he is proceeding with the logical
predecessor steps to completion. Therefore, in this case we are
requesting that where we have waste sources listed that do
not have interim dates these dates be submitted to the con-
ference and be incorporated as Federal dates.
MR. STEIN: If I understand you, your use of
"immediate enforcement action" means giving the States an
opportunity to take enforcement action first, and your use
of "immediately" means where there are no interim steps that
this "immediate" will be at least 30 days when we get these
interim requirements. Is that correct?
MR. BROMBERG: Yes. We are requesting the States —
MR. STEIN: All right. Thank you.
MR. PELOQUIN: On Table B-2, Mr. Chairman, the
listing of Federal waste sources, I think there are 16 sources
listed. Only one has an interim date. I hope that the
Federal agencies will see fit to comply in the same sense of
cooperation and provide Interim dates for the Federal
installations as is being asked of the State agencies.
MR. STEIN: Do you want to comment on that?
MR. BROMBERG: We will do our best to review the
cases and see whether interim dates are warranted, Mr. Chairman.
-------
227
Albert W. Bromberg
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments? If not,
thank you very much.
ME. KLASHMAN: Wait. I —
MB. STEIN: All right.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Curry, did you have anything else
to say?
MR. CURRY: I don't think so.
MR. KLASHMAN: Before Mr. Bromberg leaves, while we
have the report out, I would like to just raise a couple of
questions about the implementation schedules.
First, as far as the Federal agencies are concerned,
we will attempt to get interim dates for a schedule within the
next 30 days.
If we were to turn to Table B-l and the tables that
follow, there is a listing here of municipal and industrial
sources in both New York and Connecticut. First, in New
York, Mr. Metzler, there are final dates here, but there are
no interim dates on some of the sources of pollution. I
wonder if we could request that we be furnished these Interim
dates — that is, on Table B-l — within 30 days?
MR. METZLER: We will cover that I think in New
York State's presentation, if you would be willing to put
that over until tfr. Seebald makes his statement for New York.
MR. KLASHMAN: Fine, And the sane for Connecticut.
-------
228
Albert W. Bromberg
Frank Fogarty
MR. CURRY: We will be glad to do it to the extent
it is applicable, but there are many line errors in that
table.
MR. KLASHMAN: If we could have that corrected —
MR. CURRY: We will work with you to correct it.
MR. KLASHMAN: I have no other points.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Bromberg.
This has been very helpful as a start.
Let me indicate off the record —
(Remarks off the record.)
MR. STEIN: Back on the record.
Mr. Klashman.
MR. KLASHMAN: I would now like to call on Mr.
Frank Fogarty, Chief of Operations, New England Division,
Corps of Engineers,
STATEMENT OF
FRANK FOGARTY
CHIEF OF OPERATIONS DIVISION
V. s. CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NEW ENGLAND DIVISION
MR. FOGARTY: My name is Frank Fogarty. I am
Chief of Operations Division of the New England Division,
U. S. Army corps of Engineers. I represent Colonel Frank P.
Bane who is the Division Engineer with headquarters in Waltham,
Massachusetts.
-------
229
Frank Fogarty
The District Engineer of New York, Colonel Barnett,
also has staff representatives here in the audience today.
In addition to myself, I have with me Mr, Carl
Hard who is chairman of our ecological advisory group advising
us on the subject of the ecology and environment.
The Corps of Engineers has been involved in activi-
ties affecting Long Island Sound and its tributary rivers
since the early days of the country. From the early part
of the 19th century, for over 100 years, until about 1930,
these activities consisted nearly entirely of projects to
improve navigation, as a much greater percentage of the
interstate commerce of the country in that era was by water.
In the relatively recent past, since 1930, the
Corps of Engineers has also undertaken programs of flood
control, multipurpose projects providing also water supply
and recreation areas, coastal beach erosion control, and
hurricane protection.
But in that earlier period before 1930, the sole
emphasis of the Federal interest was the enlargement of its water-
ways to strengthen the Nation's economy and the growth of the
Nation from a small agricultural nation to a large industrial
nation.
In this period, many of our harbors were dredged as
the cities grew and became industrialized. In those days
-------
230
Frank Fogarty
of laissez-faire there were few if any laws passed to
restrict industrial activities, and much of our present problem
stems from practices established during that all-out drive
to build up our industries.
It was not until 1899 that any Federal law was
passed to impose any controls on the use of our waterways,
and even that act of March 3, 1899 is a river and harbor
act, authorizing many navigation projects, and at the same
time including two sections of the act aimed at controlling
waterfront activities. These two sections of the 1899 act
are as follows:
Section 10, which says that creation of any
obstruction to the navigable capacity of the waters of the
United States is prohibited, and that any dredging or
construction within the navigable waterways of the United
States would require a permit by the Secretary of the Army.
Section 13, which says it shall not be lawful to
discharge or deposit any refuse, except that flowing from
streets and sewers in a liquid state, into any navigable
waterway of the United States or into a tributary from which
the refuse is washed into the navigable waterway, with the
proviso that the Secretary of the Army, when anchorage and
navigation will not be injured by such deposit, may upon
application issue a permit for such discharge or deposit.
-------
Frank Fogarty
231
This section 13 which I have just paraphrased is
the so-called "Refuse Act of 1899" which is much in the news
nowadays. You will notice that the Refuse Act specifically
exempts sewage and refuse flowing from the streets in a
liquid form and bases the authority for the Secretary of
the Army to issue permits for discharge or deposit into the
waterways when anchorage and navigation would not be injured
thereby.
It is apparent that this act of 1899 could hardly
be called an environmental act as it excluded sewage. It
was part of a navigation act to protect navigation.
It should also be realized that by far the greatest
number of the discharges and deposits which we are concerned
with now and which pollute Long Island Sound do not, in fact,
seriously affect navigation. Therefore, under the wording
of the 1899 act, if the industries and others who were
discharging were to have applied for permits, the Secretary
of the Army would have been in a difficult position to deny
such requests.
This has now all been radically changed within the
last few years based on a number of recent laws and court
rulings broadening the considerations on which the issue
or denial of either type of permit would be based -- that is,
a permit under section 10 of the 1899 Act, to undertake
-------
Frank Fogarty
232
dredging or construction in navigable waters, and under
section 13, to discharge or deposit refuse in navigable waters.
The 1958 Coordination Act, so-called, since amended,
requires that the Corps of Engineers coordinate with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service on all permits or
other activities affecting the fishery resources of the
Nation.
The Clean Waters Act of 1965, as later amended,
set up a program for the States to establish water quality
standards and programs and schedules for abatement of present
non-conforming practices, subject to the approval of the
Federal Government. The agency of the Federal Government
supervising this program was initially the Federal Water
Quality Administration in the Department of the Interior.
In 1970 President Nixon by executive order trans-
ferred this function to the Water Quality Office of the newly
created Environmental Protection Agency.
Also, last year Congress passed the Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1970 prohibiting any Federal licensing
agency from issuing a permit for any activity involving a
discharge into a waterway of the United States unless that
applicant has secured a certification from the respective
State that there Is reasonable assurance the proposed activity
will not violate applicable water quality standards. This
-------
233
Frank Fogarty
act gives the States the first say. And if they say no, the
Federal Government will not even take up the permit request.
And finally there is the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 which requires that all Federal agencies
shall to the fullest extent under their authorities minimize
or eliminate damage to the environment.
This recent National Environmental Policy Act
presents us with a standard guideline which, if we use it
diligently, can help us insure that our coastal developments
will provide required facilities but yet minimize or remove
the possibility of adverse effects on our coastal resources.
In brief, the National Environmental Policy Act
demands that in considering Corps of Engineers' work or any
application for dredging or dumping in the coastal zone we
give attention to:
1. The impact of the proposed action.
2. The possible adverse effects of the proposal.
3. The relationship between short-term use of a
resource and long-term productivity from this resource as
affected by the proposed action.
4. The possibility or availability of alternatives
to the action.
5. Any irretrievable or irreversible commitment
of resources which is involved in the implementation of the
-------
Frank Fogarty
234
proposal.
The law further i-einforces the generally accepted
principle that views and decisions regarding coastal works
will be coordinated with State and Federal agencies which have
responsibility and expertise in these areas. The majority
of coastal works may be of negligible impact when considered
separately. It is the impact of the number of these
separate applications that may adversely affect the use of the
coastal zone.
This approach may seem unduly oppressive to some,
especially in areas where it appears to place constraint
on activities heretofore not considered to have any basis
for objection.
In administering the Environmental Policy Act,
new burdens are placed on all of us. Before we can assume
these responsibilities we must formulate and crystallize
the policies regarding resources and areas which were
formerly given little or no credence as being potentially
useful or problematic.
Our existing regulations provide that in cases
where there could be an environmental change by the granting
of a permit in its initially received form, the impact on
the environment will be carefully evaluated. Objections
will be presented to the applicant who will be given the
-------
Frank Fogarty
235
opportunity to explain, withdraw, or modify his application
so as to remove the cause for the objection.
If this can't be done and it is deemed that granting
the permit would lead to significant environmental degradation,
the Corps will prepare the statement required by section
102(2)(c) of the Environmental Policy Act of 1969. We may
require the applicant to furnish the information required
for preparation of the statement in addition to any information
the applicant may wish to volunteer in order to demonstrate
that granting of the permit is in the public interest. The
statement would eventually be filed with the Council on
Environmental Quality.
Properly administered, we feel that the act will
help eliminate piecemeal planning and development which has
resulted in the rapidly deteriorating coastal zone of the
past.
Public notices now concerning applications for
permits carry the following language:
"The decision as to whether a permit will be issued
will be based on an evaluation of the impact of the proposed
work on the public interest. Factors affecting the public
interest include, but are not limited to, navigation, fish
and wildlife, water quality, economics, conservation,
aesthetics! recreation, water supply, flood damage prevention,
-------
236
Frank Fogarty
ecosystems, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the
people."
This language covers practically every conceivable
factor that can affect the public interest. Not all the
factors are environmental. A court test of a permit
decision on these factors other than navigation, the so-called
Zabel case, in Florida, has recently been upheld by the
Supreme Court.
The Corps of Engineers is now entering into a
joint effort with the Environmental Protection Agency on
issuing discharge permits under the Kefuse Act of 1899.
Where a permit is denied, the applicant must cease such
discharge until the discharge is so modified as to qualify
for a permit or face prosecution under the Refuse Act.
This is a massive undertaking because of the backlog of such
discharges.
A "Memorandum of Understanding" between the Secretary
of the Army and the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency states that the Corps of Engineers will
make the decision to issue or deny a permit on those cases
affecting the navigable capacity of the waterway, and the
Environmental Protection Agency will make the final decision
on those cases that affect the water quality.
Several joint meetings have been held by the Federal
-------
Frank Fogarty
237
agencies involved in this program — the Corps of Engineers,
the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of
Justice — and by the Federal agencies with each State.
Actually, the States are the dominant government level
in the effort to abate water pollution and have been involved
in it longer than has the Federal Government. The States
have established their water quality standards and their
abatement programs.
The Federal Government is attempting to assist the
States in these efforts, partly through a program of Federal
grants to share in the costs of treatment works, partly in
review and approval of the States' abatement programs, and
partly through activating a Federal discharge permit program
which would provide for Federal prosecution of those
dischargers not entering into a satisfactory abatement program.
We hope to be in full swing on this latter program
of issuing discharge permits this month, as President Nixon
has set a target date of July 1, 1971 for all dischargers
to have applied for permits. We have been pressed by
industry to let them start applying so that they will not
be in default.
It is obvious that final decisions will not be
reached on most of these cases by that date, in view of the
numbers involved. It is estimated that there are on the
-------
238
Frank Fogarty
order of 800 such discharges in Connecticut alone, either
directly into Long Island Sound or into the rivers flowing
into the sound.
It should be noted that, in addition to large
numbers of requests the Corps of Engineers receives and will
receive for permits to construct or discharge into navigable
waters, the Corps of Engineers also is requested periodically
to undertake studies of the various harbors and rivers to
determine if their navigable capacity should be increased.
This applies to the large commercial harbors to enable
larger and more economical tankers and cargo carriers to
be used, and also to the small pleasure boat harbors to
serve the ever increasing numbers of pleasure boats cruising
in Long Island Sound and its many small harbors and tributary
rivers.
Waterborne commerce in the Connecticut harbors and
rivers totals 27,069,091 tons a year, having a significant
effect on the economy of the region. It is estimated that
over 70,000 pleasure boats are based in the small harbors
and rivers on both shores of Long Island Sound and up to
200,000 if you include the New York metropolitan waters.
At present the Corps of Engineers has been requested
to study the feasibility of deepening New London Harbor and
New Haven Harbor on the Connecticut shore. The practice in
-------
239
Frank Fogarty
the past has been either to pump such dredgings ashore for
land development, another economic factor, or to dump such
dredgings in certain established dumping grounds in Long
Island Sound.
Both of these methods of disposal of dredged
materials are now open to question — land disposal because
of present desire to preserve marshes and wetlands and the
scarcity of areas available for disposal of dredged materials
in the vicinity of our towns and cities; and dumping in
Long Island Sound in view of present questioning whether
such dumping is degrading the ecology of the sound.
Some of the dredgings, particularly in the harbors
within our metropolitan regions, undoubtedly contain pollutants.
Others, primarily in the small harbors away from heavy
concentrations of population, comprise dredging of the
natural sediment deposits from streams and coastal erosion,
with little pollutant material.
In this regard, there is the problem also of
maintaining or redredging the navigation channels or
anchorages already dredged.
The first annual report of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality contains the astounding statistic that the
sediment deposits in waterways due to natural erosion amount
to 700 times the volume of all industrial and sewage
-------
240
Frank Fogarty
discharges. This is presumably a national average and may
reflect areas of greater erosion perhaps in southeastern or
central United States, but, even adjusted for these factors,
the volumes of deposit or filling of Long Island Sound
appear to be principally from natural erosion carried down
by the rivers or by wavewash along the coast.
This statistic may also give a perspective on
the volumetric degree of polluted materials to natural
deposits. It would appear that pollutants are a minor
fraction of dredging volumes. This fraction, however, may,
of course, be the determining factor.
Although these large volumes are not of themselves
perhaps polluting, they do indicate that continued use of
the harbors and tributary rivers for navigation will require
periodic redredging. If these harbors and rivers are not
dredged, they will gradually shoal by these large volumes
of sedimentation and become unsuitable for the present
commercial or pleasure boat navigation.
The question arises as to whether there is any
alternative means of maintaining or enlarging navigation
use of the harbors or rivers bordering Long Island Sound,
perhaps at an added cost that can be justified at whatever
added cost for the benefits to be derived, or whether society
is willing to forego and give up the benefits of past harbor
-------
241
Frank Fogarty
and river development and revert to a more natural and less
developed use of the region's waterways, at the economic cost
entailed for such reduced use of the waterways.
The decisions and the trends in future use or non-
use of Long Island Sound and its adjoining harbors and
rivers will be dictated by the voice of the public. In
making such decisions, there should be full understanding of
the tradeoffs involved: How much use of the waterway do
you want? How much are you willing to give up to preserve
or restore Long Island Sound and its tributaries to its
condition before the colonization and industrialization of
Amerlea?
The Corps of Engineers without reservation endorses
the effort to remove sources of pollution through State and
Environmental Protection Agency time-phased abatement programs,
and prosecution under the Refuse Act of 1899 or otherwise
of those non-conforming entities not entering into or
keeping up with such programs.
Accomplishment of this program should remove much
of the concern about dumping of dredged materials into Long
Island Sound, once the pollutant discharges are eliminated.
The Corps questions that there should be proposals
for immediate suspension of all dredging and dumping, regard-
less, as possible over-reaction without regard to a more
-------
242
Frank Fogarty
Carl Hard
controlled or balanced approach to the problem.
The Corps supports regulation of dredging and dump-
ing of dredged Material,
At this tine I do request an additional 5 minutes
for Mr. Hard who accompanied me to discuss studies that our
office is making on the single subject of dredging and
dumping. Then I will remain here for the inquisition to
follow.
STATEMENT OF
CARL HARD
CHAIRMAN, ECOLOGICAL ADVISORY GROUP
NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, U. S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MR. HARD: I am Carl Hard, Chairman of the Ecological
Advisory Group of the New England Division of the Corps of
Engineers.
Our Ecological Advisory Group was established in
May 1970, following Earth Day, to provide scientific assistance
to engineers of the New England Division in satisfying the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969.
It initiated the development of a system for
storage and retrieval of ecological data involving offline
storage disks which ultimately should constitute a standard
basic reference of biological, chemical, and
-------
243
Carl Hard
physical data. The bank currently Is structured and ready
to receive data on a routine basis now that EPA guidelines
and division of work have been clarified.
The Foundation and Materials Branch of the New
England Division currently is sampling all materials in situ
during pre-dredging investigations and is testing the
materials for various chemical and physical characteristics
which comprise a preliminary screening study of the materials.
Our field personnel are accompanied, where appropriate, by
an EPA microbiologist at present, soon to be expanded by
the addition of an EPA oceanographer and chemist.
Results of these tests are supplemented by addi-
tional tests in the EPA laboratory when it is felt by them
that more information would be desirable.
Field efforts will be recycled for more detailed
studies if required by EPA.
The need for this extensive sampling and testing
program was anticipated by the New England Division last
summer at which time the collection of physical, chemical,
and biological data on all Corps dredging projects became
a routine procedure. We had to rely on the capabilities
of such people as the University of Connecticut and Halne
Sea and Shore Fisheries Marine Laboratories, and private
chemical laboratories.
-------
Carl Hard
244
Currently we are developing our own capabilities
in the chemical and sampling areas and are staffed by
biologists in our Environmental Resources Section. We have
bottom coring capability in up to 300 feet of water depth,
using the tugboat MANAMET, and near-shore small boat coring
capability in the order of 100 feet water depth. Sampling
teams are being trained on a rotational basis. We soon
will provide greater leadtime on the environmental aspects
of our projects by sampling and testing during our project
condition surveys.
The New England Division also anticipated the
recent action of Congress which authorized the Chief of
Engineers to conduct broad research on the effects of ocean
dumping on the marine environment by submitting last year
to the Chief of Engineers a proposal for an in-house
conducted offshore regulatory program which would monitor
five major New England dumping grounds, respectively off
New Haven, New London, Newport, Boston, and Portland, for
a five-year initial program.
All biological, chemical, and physical oceano-
graphic parameters would be measured for a one-to-two-week
period at each site at least twice a year to establish
background, and the resulting data would be stored and
interpreted using multiple regression analysis in the
-------
245
Carl Hard
aforementioned data bank.
Against this background would be satellitic studies,
under contract performed by others during important dumping
periods.
This proposal is being examined at the Waterways
Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi, along with
other approaches to the general problem of ocean disposal.
The New England Division is coordinating its effort with
that of biologists at the Coastal Engineering Research Center
in Washington.
An offshore disposal conference was held at the
Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole on February 23,
cospohsored by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the
New England Division, where 22 oceanographers broke up into
discussion groups and each group spokesman reported on
various aspects of the problem. The general tenor was not
so much whether to dispose at sea at all, but where, how,
and when to dispose of what.
Conference notes currently are being assembled and
edited and will be used as a basis for future conferences
involving people in the present meeting.
MR. STEIN: Thank you. Are there any comments or
questions?
Let me ask one for clarification.
-------
Frank Fogarty
246
MB. KLASHMAN: I have one.
MR. STEIN: You gave up your chance. (Laughter)
At New Haven and New London you have dumping
grounds. Both of those dumping grounds presumably are in
Long Island Sound, aren't they?
MR. FOGARTY: Correct.
MR. STEIN: What do you permit to be dumped there?
Just dredging? Or other material?
MR. FOGARTY: Just dredging. And we do not have
any permits for industrial dumping as such except one, and
that does actually result in New London, but all the rest
of the sound as far as the New England Division is concerned
is just for dredgings.
MR, STEIN: What do you permit to be put in the
dumping ground off New London?
MR. FOGARTY: That is a product from the Pfizer
Company and is an inert waste product after the manufacture
of the chemical.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Fogarty, is that a continuing
type of permit or are we being asked for —
MR* FOGARTY: That is a continuing type of permit,
and we are now in the program of making further analysis of
it to verify that it is, in fact, inert.
MR. KLASHMAN: Well, we would like to ask you the
-------
247
Frank Fogarty
next time there is any dump or the permit is being used
that we— We would like to discuss it with you.
MR. FOGARTY: We would be very happy to do so.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Hard, in your statement were
you referring merely to dredging?
MR. HARD: Yes, sir.
MR. KLASHMAN: Because you talk in your statement
about this meeting you attended where the question came up
about not whether to dispose of wastes but where, how, and
what to dispose of. This is on page 3 of your statement.
But you were just making a general —
MR. HARD: Yes, sir.
MR. KLASHMAN: That is a general statement that
has nothing to do with Long Island Sound I take it except in
this one case?
MR. HARD: Well, the meeting did not go into
specifics to that extent. I mean this was a general discussion
of the kind of things which would be acceptable to the
environment.
All of these oceanographers at this meeting con-
sistently— I can't say they all said it because they didn't
all speak, but they all reported, and there was no dissension,
to the effect that you can dump, you can dump in Long Island
Sound, In parts of Long Island Sound, and you would dump
-------
248
Frank Fogarty
different kinds of materials under different conditions.
MB. KLASHMAN: You mean you could dump some
industrial wastes, for example, and not cause any water
quality problems?
MR. HARD: Well, we were talking about conventional
dredging I believe. You're talking about specifically
putting potential poisons in the water?
MR. KLASHMAN: As I understand it, then, there is
only one area where you are dumping, and we will be in
touch with you or you will be in touch with us about this?
MR. FOGARTY: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or ques-
t ions?
MS. GLENN: Just one more comment in case Mr.
Wuestefeld of the New York Corps didn't pass the word on to
the Boston office.
In each of these cases I try to take the time to
urge you to please use the 1899 Act also for something it
was intended for, and that is to clean up some of this
debris. I think you could do it. I think you could get
another Supreme Court interpretation maybe that the deteriora-
ting piers and the abandoned barges that are coming to
pieces are a form of discharge.
I would like to see you push with the 1890 act on
-------
Frank Fogarty
249
some of that and we wouldn't have as much floating material
around in the water.
MR. FOGARTY: May 1 comment on that, sir? The
Corps of Engineers has been making studies of various
harbors, the larger harbors which do have a serious problem
on debris floating from piers or old barges coming apart
along the shore. We have been making reports through the
Washington level to go back to Congress on this subject.
My latest understanding is that at higher level
than ours they have taken the position that these problems of
the deterioration of the waterfront are primarily — and I'm
probably not using the right word here — of State and local
concern.
MR. GLENN: Well, this is quite interesting since
the cleanup of the debris after it floats is yours, and the
only thing I was trying to do was to get an appropriation
which has been pending maybe passed sooner.
Because I feel if you would take action against
enough industries and enough municipalities that have piers
deteriorating we will suddenly get the appropriation passed.
MR. FOGARTY: Well, our recommendations Z should
point out were for undertaking such a program. We are not
averse to work. And we're ready to undertake such a program.
MR. GLENN: I'm interested to hear this new
-------
Frank Fogarty
250
interpretation —
MR. FOGARTY: So am I.
MR. GLENN: — on barges and piers, that they are not
under your jurisdiction.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Fogarty, —
MR. STEIN: He didn't say that.
MR. GLENN: I thought that's what he said.
MR. STEIN: No. I didn't hear that if he said it.
MR. FOGARTY: Let me restate it, and perhaps I did
not say it in a crystal clear way. But what we were advised
at the Washington level was that in review by the Office
of Management and Budget of proposals for additional Corps
projects to clean up waterfronts of sources of debris it
was ruled that those were areas primarily of State and local
concern.
MR. GLENN: If this debris is going in the water
and has a chance to interfere with navigation, you have no
responsibility on this?
MR. FOGARTY: We certainly have a responsibility
to protect navigation, and that was, of course, one of the
primary reasons, as well as pollution or aesthetic reasons,
just the protection of small and large boats from the
floating debris from deterioration. And if we now have what
is an actual, observable menace to navigation coming down
-------
251
Frank Fogarty
the channel, we do have authority to hurry up and pick it up.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Fogarty, could you get a copy of
the report and look at the Figure 4 following page 17. On
this figure, Mr. Fogarty, you will note that there are 19
areas —
MR. FOGARTY: Is this the map showing these areas?
MR. KLASHMAN: Yes.
MR. FOGARTY: Yes.
MR. KLASHMAN: — there are 19 areas where there
is dredging, the dumping of dredged materials going on now.
By the way, where is the industrial waste dumped?
Is that one of these?
MR. FOGARTY: It's off of New London.
MR. KLASHMAN: Is it the one shown there?
MR. FOGARTY: I'm not sure. I can't tell you right
now.
MR. KLASHMAN: But of these 19 where you are now
dumping dredged materials, I understand that this is a
continuing operation that you anticipate is going to continue
in order for you to keep the harbors open?
MR. FOGARTY: Yes. The New England Division— I'm
talking about the Connecticut shore which I'm more familiar
with than New York. Based on recent years, the average has
been about a million yards a year dredged and dumped or
-------
252
Frank Fogarty
placed ashore. Of that, half has been redredging or main-
tenance dredging to keep the harbors open. Half has been
an average of a fluctuating volume of irregular deepening
projects to enlarge the harbors.
MR. KLASHMAN: What are the alternatives to dumping
in Long Island Sound? Has this been considered by the Corps?
I mean either dumping some place on shore or -
MR. FOGARTY: I attempted to mention that in here,
but not, of course, in great detail, that the availability
of shore areas is getting very, very limited.
First of all, there is no desire to place in
wetlands or marshes. And, secondly, in the harbor areas
there is generally little open land available that could be
used for placing this material. So we have a real knotty
problem.
MR. CURRY: There is somebody in the audience
who might add a fact to this discussion. Would you like to
bring it up?
MR. ROBERT H. WUESTEFELD: With regard to the
Pfizer Company.
MB. STEIN: If you are going to add a fact, why
donft you come up so we can hear it?
MR. FOGARTY: This is Mr. Wuestefeld, Assistant
Chief of Operations, New York office.
-------
Robert H. Wuestefeld
253
STATEMENT OF
ROBERT H. WUESTEFELD
ASSISTANT CHIEF, OPERATIONS DIVISION
NEW YORK DISTRICT, U. S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
MR. WUESTEFELD: In view of Mr. Klashman's question
about the disposal of the Pfizer chemical material, I would
say we issue the permit on a quarterly basis for the disposal
of that material in the position of supervisor of New York
Harbor.
The material is disposed of not in any one of the 19
disposal areas, but it is dumped in The Race in the vicinity
of Little Gull Island. It's in The Race that it goes. And
the fermentation liquor waste is from the manufacturing
process. It has not been found harmful in any way at all.
MR. KLASHMAN: I still would like— I do not
recall — I may be wrong — but I do not recall having that
submitted to us for comment. We would like very much to
have that submitted,
MR. WUESTEFELD: It could be submitted. The thing
is it was started long before we were coordinating with you.
MR. KLASHMAN: I understand. But If you could
before the next dump discuss this with the office —
MR* WUESTEFELD: It's being done practically dally,
so I mean it's a case of we will have to arrange with you
-------
Robert H. Wuestefeld
254
then to —
MR. STEIN: These fermentation wastes are organic,
aren't they?
MR. WUESTEFELD: Yes. That's right.
MR. STEIN: This is something I didn't understand
about the Corps' position. I am glad to have your position
here clarified. I would like to go into that.
You think in terms of dumping clean spoil rather
than polluted spoil or what you call polluted spoil in the
sound. But I didn't know that you were thinking in terms of
using Long Island Sound as a place to dispose of industrial
wastes even if you considered it inert.
MR. WUESTEFELD: Well, we were not considering it.
as an industrial waste going into Long Island Sound. It's
going into The Race. It's where the greatest turbulence and
flow of current is.
MR. STEIN: But you're using the watercourse to
put in industrial wastes. Here's the problem that we have.
If we're going to come up with a program to clean up the
Long Island Sound and we're going to make people spend millions
of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars in the cities
to do it, to provide all this kind of treatment, and then we
are going to use this as a dump for industrial waste, I
think we may have a problem.
-------
Robert H. Wuestefeld
255
I'm not sure. If you think it's all right —
MR. WUESTEFELD: Well, we have clarified it with the
State health agencies. It was found to be innocuous. How-
ever, at Mr. Klashman's request, I will be very glad to
discuss it with him.
MB. STEIN: The question is whether anything is
innocuous here — putting in organic material, pulling it
out to Long Island Sound, and dumping it. Suppose I put
cardboard in that. Is this a proper use of the sound?
Go ahead, Mr. Klashman.
MB. KLASHMAN: Mr. Wuestefeld, where is the Pfizer
Company? Which plant is this it comes from? Or is it from
a variety?
MR. WUESTEFELD: It comes from one plant. Offhand
I don't recall which.
MR. KLASHMAN: In Connecticut?
MR. WUESTEFELD: In Groton. It is in Groton.
MR. GREGG: A question on the dredging. What
information do you have that indicates the amount of increased
demand for spoil disposal areas that there may be over the
next 10 to 25 years? In other words, are there likely to be
major requirements for deepening shipping channels to
accommodate new kinds of tankers? Are we looking to a very
substantial increase in the future or are we likely to continue
-------
256
Robert H. Wuestefeld
Frank Fogarty
at roughly the existing volume?
MR. WUESTEFELD: I believe I had better defer to
Mr. Fogarty on that. We do issue the permits for disposal
of the material in those 19 areas. The material that is
disposed of basically comes from Connecticut, and it is
dredged under permits issued by the New England Division. All
we do is issue the permit for the disposal of the material.
MR. GREGG: What is the future outlook?
MR. WUESTEFELD: I think Mr. Fogarty could better
answer that.
MR. FOGARTY: I have mentioned I believe in my
talk that we now have studies that have been requested by
New Haven and New London for proposals to deepen those two
waterways, and they amount to a fairly sizable volume of
material.
We do not have any request at present for any
studies for enlargement of any of the smaller harbors.
Our budget submission two years ago — our budgets
are prepared about two years ahead — for dredging for the
upcoming fiscal year 1972 does incorporate appropriations, if
passed, for five harbors along the Connecticut shore. I
think that these are germane to this discussion today.
Presuming that these appropriations pass, they
would be programmed for dredging in the coming fiscal year.
-------
Frank Fogarty
257
These five harbors are Stamford Harbor, Kew Haven Harbor,
Patsall River which is a small river in Westbrook, Connecticut,
Clinton Harbor, and the Housatonic River.
MR, GREGG: You don't see any changes in the
commercial navigation situation in the sound over the next
decade or so that would require a deepening of the major
commercial navigation channels and harbors?
MR, FOGARTY: I mentioned, Mr. Gregg, we do have
the studies of those two, and that is for the purpose of the
increased commercial activity. We do not now know of any
possible other request, no.
MR, STEIN: Are there any other questions?
Let me raise two questions with you, and I think
they are both very important ones.
One is the problem we have had with disposal of
dredged spoils in other bodies of water. Let me specifically
mention Lake Erie and Lake Michigan. The Corps has come up
with a program there where they have determined that at least
dredged spoils which were determined to be polluted— And, by
the way, with the conditions of the cities and the rivers
discharging wastes into the harbors — I don't know —- maybe
you can find a clean spoil when they dig out these harbors
and maybe not. That's a factual question. But at least
when the spoil was polluted they were not going to dump it
-------
Frank Fogarty
258
in the water but find a place of land disposal for it.
However, we did leave the question open. As I
understood the Corps' position, it was largely a financial
question of whether they were going to use Lake Erie or Lake
Michigan to dispose of any spoil, and we left that question
open.
But as 1 understood your statement here today, Mr.
Fogarty — and you interposed that at the end of your typed
statement — you said it was the Corps' position to utilize
the waters of Long Island Sound for the disposal of unpolluted
dredged spoil. Did I understand you correctly to say that?
MR. FOGARTY: Well, more or less words to that effect,
yes.
MR, STEIN: All right. Well, again I think we come
up with the question, Mr. Fogarty, and maybe this is what we
are going to have: If we are going to keep stormwater and
all these municipal and industrial wastes out, are we
really cleaning up Long Island Sound to make it available
for a selective dump? Maybe we are. But I think vie have to
look at that question.
The other question I have — and this bothers me—
is I know in the Corps — and I have worked with the Corps
as some of you may know very closely for many years; as a
matter of fact, we go before the same committees of Congress —
-------
259
Frank Fogarty
but I know we all have the same idea in the Federal Government
and that is the even-handed administration of the law. Now,
if the Pfizer Company can get a permit for putting out what
you consider a nondeleterious waste and get a permit to
dump it in the waters of Long Island Sound, then I suppose
if we have that precedent we have to entertain the permits
of every company that comes along that says they have a non-
deleterious waste and a possible place to dispose of it
would be to dump it in Long Island Sound,
MB. FOGARTY: May I differ with you, Mr. Stein,
in that that Pfizer permit I think Mr. Wuestefeld implied
was an historical you might say hangover from before.
MR. STEIN: In other words, they're discharging on
a grandfather clause?
MR. FOGARTY: No, sir. But let me get into this a
bit. I talked about the fact that we now have these further
acts. And any action now on permits considers all of
these recent additional Federal acts. And what I'm saying
is that it does not follow that other permits will be granted,
no, sir.
MR. STEIN: How about the Pfizer permit?
MR. FOGARTY: That is —
MR. STEIN: They may be innocent bystanders, but
I'm obliged to go back and look at that again now to see if we
-------
260
Frank Fogarty
are going to recommend renewal of that permit.
MR. FOGARTY: That is what we are studying ourselves.
We are having an analysis made of that, and we are going to
review and determine whether to close out Pfizer.
MR. STEIN: All right. Thank you. I think that
clarifies the situation.
Are there any other comments or questions?
(No response.)
If not, we will stand recessed for lunch until
2:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the conference was
recessed, to be reconvened at 2:00 p.m., this date.)
-------
Gerald Rogers
261
AFTERNOON SESSION
2:30 p.m.
MR, STEIN: Mr. Klashman.
MR. KLASHMAN: I would now like to call on Mr.
Gerald Rogers, Special Assistant for Environmental Engineer-
ing, Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Philadelphia,
Mr. Rogers.
STATEMENT OF
GERALD ROGERS
SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
NORTHERN DIVISION, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
MR, ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, the Navy,, recognizing
the need to treat raw sewage from the ships, in 1968 installed
a sewage treatment device in the destroyer USS FISKE (DD-842)
for shipboard evaluation. The device, which utilizes an
electrochemical separation process, incinerates the solids
and chlorinates the fluids. This device worked well, and
the effluent met the Public Health Service water quality
standards of 1965.
The first large ship installation, which consisted
of 12 of the 175-man units, was installed in the submarine
tender USS CANOPUS (AS-34) in May 1970. From the beginning
the system has been plagued with reliability and
-------
Gerald Rogers
262
maintainability problems.
The contractor, Fairbanks-Morse Company, Beloit,
Wisconsin, has incorporated 14 major changes into an improved
version, a 500-man unit. The prototype has been undergoing
simulated shipboard tests at the factory since early November
1970 without any failures and providing an effluent which will
meet the initial standards expected to be imposed by the
Federal Water Quality Administration. The Navy has
contracted to install three of these 500-man units in the
USS FULTON (AS-11) (the submarine tender berthed at State
Pier in New London, Connecticut) during her overhaul scheduled
to commence at Charleston, South Carolina this April.
In addition to the onboard treatment devices,
FULTON will also be re-piped so that all soil and waste
drains can be discharged into the municipal sewage mains
which are being extended onto State Pier. This system will
provide us a backup (should the onboard devices prove
unreliable) and afford us the opportunity to transfer our
repair shop liquid wastes (pretreated if necessary) and
galley/scullery liquid wastes ashore.
It should be pointed out that although current
legislation does not prevent these discharges (except sewage),
the Navy has decided to use the FULTON as a "test bed" to
insure that all shipboard polluting liquid wastes can be
-------
263
Gerald Rogers
eliminated.
The FULTON will also be equipped to receive for
further transfer ashore the liquid wastes from submarines
moored alongside.
In summary, the Navy is very optimistic about the
prospects of FULTON providing the opportunity to demonstrate
leadership in development of methods to halt liquid waste
pollution from ships.
Our long-range plans also include development of
second-generation equipment which will meet the second-phase
standards expected to become effective in another five years.
Another ongoing effort which will interest you is
the solution for handling our submarines' liquid waste
problem. This summer we will commence re-piping our sub-
marines so that liquid wastes can be transferred via hoses
either to the FULTON, to a municipal sewage main if the pier
is so equipped, or to a barge, the first of which will be
outfitted shortly by the Boston Naval Shipyard with two
biological purification systems.
In addition to our liquid waste cleanup program
described herein, we are also conducting extensive studies
to determine methods for disposal and handling of shipboard-
generated trash and rubbish and oil sludge. We are equally
optimistic of our ability to develop equipment such as an
-------
264
Gerald Rogers
oil/water separator, a high temperature nonpolluting_
incinerator or a rubbish compactor which will enhance retention
of rubbish on board.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any questions or comments?
MR. GLENN: Just one question. On that oil/water
separator, how do you expect to get that removal?
MR. ROGERS: I haven't got an answer for you. I'm
sorry. I'm not too familiar with that portion of it.
MR. GLENN: Most oil/water separators will not
get down to the required amount, which is as near zero as
possible. So I thought I had better indicate that it has
changed in recent times where you have to get down to
zero, as near zero as possible.
MR. ROGERS: As possible.
MR. GLENN: Most oil separators will only take it
down to about 10 or 15.
MR. ROGERS: Most of the places we are working with
now do just take the oils and haul them out to the private
contractors for removal at this time.
MR* STEIN: You don't put the waste out from the
submarines now, do you?
MR. ROGERS: I believe so.
-------
Gerald Rogers
265
MR. STEIN: You do? Doesn't that give away your
position? I thought that the way you did that was weight
them and put them in a plastic bag and send them down. No
wonder we're losing all those submarines.
MR. CURRY: I thought you saved them until you got
back to Connecticut.
MR. STEIN: Yes, they do.
MR. CURRY: Do you or don't you?
MR. ROGERS: Sir, I'm not familiar. I believe that
the wastes from the submarines are piped directly overboard.
MR. CURRY: They're piped directly overboard?
MR. ROGERS: If I'm not mistaken. I don't believe —
MR. STEIN: Do you know that?
MR, ROGERS: No, sir. I'm not familiar with the
makeup of the submarine.
MR. STEIN: I know. And we may strike this from
the record. But as far as I can see, they don't pipe the
wastes from the submarines overboard because this gives
away the position. As I understand this, they put the wastes
in a plastic bag, weight it, and send it down. Of course,
the plastic bag doesn't last too long as far as water quality
is concerned, but by then the submarine is out of the
vicinity.
I would hope the Navy would use at least those
-------
266
Gerald Rogers
precautions. You know, we're very interested in water quality,
but we're just as interested in preserving the lives of the
boys on the submarines.
MR. CURRY: We don't want Washington to know where
they are. (Laughter)
MR. STEIN: No. (Laughter)
It's very hard for him to know that since he has
been dead so long. (Laughter)
MR. CURRY: Can you tell me what electrochemical
treatment is? How does it work? And is there any enforcement
agency that has approved the naval plants?
MR. ROGERS: Basically it's electrolysis of the
sea water, and you form chlorophenes, and you have a flotation
where the solids are floated on the surface, and they are
scraped off, and then they go into an incinerator, and the
chlorinated effluent is discharged overboard basically.
MR. CURRY: You're going to do something about your
rubbish in the future. What do you do with it now?
MR. ROGERS: Most of the time it is brought on
shore and then transferred to private contractors in the area.
MR. STEIN: Any other comments or questions?
(No response.)
Thank you very much.
MR. KLASHMAN: Thank you.
-------
Darrell Schwalm
267
I would like to now call on Mr. Darrell J. Schwalm,
United States Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administra-
tion.
Mr. Schwalm.
STATEMENT OF
DARBELL J. SCHWALM
REGIONAL SHELUISH CONSULTANT
SHELLFISH SANITATION BRANCH, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
MR. SCHWALM: Mr. Chairman, conferees, my name
is Darrell Schwalm. I am a regional shellfish consultant
with the Shellfish Sanitation Branch, Food and Drug Administra-
tion, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
For the sake of brevity, I am going to summarize
some of the technical data and some of the background
information. I may omit from the written statement that you
have there before you. However, I would like the written
statement that you have and our program manual of operations
which I will present to the chairman included in full in
the official minutes.
My statement of interest in this conference is
made within the framework of the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program (NSSP) — a consumer protection-oriented program
administered jointly by the States and the Public Health
-------
Darrell Schwalm
268
Service, Food and Drug Administration.
The FDA is directly interested in the pollution
profiles of Long Island Sound and is vitally interested in
seeing that more of the naturally available shellfish-growing
waters in the sound meet the criteria for the harvesting of
shellfish for human consumption.
In this connection, the Food and Drug Administration
is pleased to support any recommendations of the Environmental
Protection Agency that will upgrade the water quality in
Long Island Sound, and especially those recommendations
which, if implemented, will allow the opening of shellfish-
growing waters*
The Federal Government has been active in the
field of shellfish sanitation since 1925 when an outbreak of
typhoid fever attributed to the consumption of oysters taken
from polluted waters occurred. The State shellfish control
agencies and the shellfish industry at that time requested
the Federal Government to aid them in developing a program to
assure safe shellfish for the consuming public.
Minimum standards were developed for adoption by
all shellfish producing States, and since that date the
standards have been revised and updated several times.
The current edition of the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program Manual of Operations, dated 1965, has three
-------
Darrell Schwalm
269
parts. Part I of the manual provides detailed criteria
for surveying and classifying shellfish waters. For example,
surveys of shellfish growing areas must take into considera-
tion the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution con-
ditions that may exist in the areas surveyed. The States of
Connecticut and New York have agreed to classify their
shellfish waters according to this manual.
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Shellfish have received this special attention
because oysters, clams, and mussels have an unusual potential
for the transmission of disease to man. This unusual
potential can be attributed to three factors:
1. The environmental growth tolerances of shell-
fish are such that they ordinarily grow only in estuaries
in which there is an admixture of fresh and salt water.
These are also areas most subject to pollution from both
industrial and municipal sources.
2. Shellfish are filter feeders. In the process
of feeding they pump large quantities of water across their
gill systems. Particulate materials and dissolved substances
are removed and concentrated to levels above that of the
overlying waters. Quahogs during periods of active feeding
concentrate bacteria to a level 2.5 to 6.0 times that of the
overlying waters. The concentration factor for metals,
-------
Darrell Schwalm
270
industrial wastes, or pesticides is much greater.
3. Shellfish are frequently consumed raw or with
little cooking. The entire animal is eaten.
It has been demonstrated many times that these
factors can combine to transmit human diseases. Typhoid
fever has been, historically linked with polluted shellfish,
but in recent years infectious hepatitis has been the prime
offender.
There have been no recognized instances in the United
States in whlcla shellfish have carried a. significant burden
of industrial wastes to ce/use acute illness. However, ia
Japan 83 cases of severe mercury poisoning were attributed
to waste discharged from a plastics manufacturing company.
Carcinogens, various heavy metals, and pesticides have also
been identified in shellfish.
Use of shellfish as food then demands that great
care be exercised to assure that harvest areas are reasonably
free of undesirable pollutants. By similar reasoning,
great care must be exercised to prevent the harvesting of
shellfish for direct marketing from any areas which are not
of satisfactory quality. These two elements are, in fact, the
underlying principles of the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program.
-------
Darrell Schwalm
271
SHELLFISH GROWING AREA CLASSIFICATIONS:
The detailed technical criteria for the classifica-
tion of shellfish growing waters is set forth in Part I of
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual, A copy of
the current edition of Part I is provided as part of this
statement, and it will be provided to the chairman. In brief,
the types of classifications are as follows:
1. Approved — Shellfish may be taken from these
areas for direct marketing.
2. Conditionally Approved — Shellfish may be
taken from these areas for direct marketing only when pre-
established performance standards based on the approved area
criteria are met by nearby sources of pollution; e.g., a
sewage treatment plant, a harbor facility, etc. When the
standards are not met, the area is closed to shellfish
harvesting.
3. Restricted of moderately polluted — Shellfish
may be taken from these areas only under close supervision
by health officials and only for purification in an approved
depuration plant or by relaying before they can be released
for the market.
4. Prohibited or grossly polluted — Shellfish may
be taken from these areas only for the purpose of trans-
planting seed stock or relaying mature stock to approved
-------
272
Darrell Schwalm
growing areas under special written permit from health
officials.
SHELLFISH AS A NATURAL RESOURCE:
The estuaries and their biological populations have
long been recognized as a valuable natural resource. In
fact, colonial statutes hopefully designed to assure the
wise use of this resource antedate most other conservation
measures in the United States. Unfortunately, this concept
passed into a period of eclipse — at least insofar as water
quality was concerned — during the very period in which
degradation of estuarine water quality was most prevalent.
It now shows signs of reeiaerging.
The National Shellfish Sanitation Program as
established in 1925 had a twofold base: (1) safe use of a
resource, and (2) conservation of a resource. This dual
concept was reaffirmed by action taken at the 1964 National
Shellfish Sanitation Workshop which adopted a positive
statement to the effect that the estuaries represented a
valuable manageable natural resource — similar in many
respects to forests, land, air, or freshwater — and that
shellfish culture represented a beneficial use of this
resource.
It does not, of course, follow that shellfish
culture is the only beneficial use, or that it is the most
-------
Darrell SchwaIm
273
important beneficial use. But clearly, and for several
hundred years of our history, shellfish culture has repre-
sented a beneficial use of a natural resource — the estuary
and its tributary streams.
POLLUTION IN CONNECTICUT:
There are approximately 43,000 acres of estuarine
waters in Connecticut that are presently closed to the
direct harvesting of shellfish for the market because of
water pollution. This constitutes 46 percent of the available
shellfish growing waters. The areas are closed because
biological pollution from small sewage treatment plants in
several of the coastal towns, upstream pollution flowing out
into the sound from the major river systems, individual
pollution discharges from homes along the coast, and pollution
from summer recreational activities (e.g., boat marinas,
summer cottages, etc.) render the shellfish unsuitable for
direct human consumption.
The towns affected by these closures include:
1. Greenwich
2. Stamford
3. Darien
4. Norwalk
5. Westport
6. Fairfield
-------
Darrell Schwalm
274
7. Bridgeport
8. Stratford
9. Milford
10. New Haven
11. East Haven
12. Branford
13. Thimbles Islands
14. Madison
15. Clinton
16. Old Saybrook
17. Old Lyme
18. East Lyme
19. Groton
20. New London
21. Stonington
In addition to the 43,000 acres of closed areas,
new closures or extensions to present closures are pending
in 17 coastal communities in Connecticut because of spreading
pollution in the sound.
POLLUTION IN NEW YORK;
A number of areas in New York are closed to the
harvesting of shellfish because of water pollution. The
largest closed areas are in western Long Island Sound,
although a number of smaller closures exist along Long
-------
Darrell Schwalm
275
Island's north shore as one moves further east. Moving in
a counterclockwise direction from west to east, the major
closed areas are:
1. Westchester County — This area includes about
15,500 acres of underwater lands* It had been a major
shellfish producing area in the past, although it has been
closed for over 20 years. It is reported that about 7,500
acres of the Inshore waters have extensive populations of
hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria). Because of this
abundance, the area has been used often as a source of
shellfish for transplant programs. For example, the following
amounts of shellfish were transplanted during the period
1965-1970:
1965 - 17,490 bushels
1966 - 27,355
1967 - 21,810
1968 - 7,375
1969 - 4,575
3.970 - 655
79,260 " Total
2. Manhasset Bay — It is reported that some hard
clam resources are found in this bay and that a definite
potential for future development exists. Only one transplant
operation has taken place in recent years. This occurred
-------
Daxrell Schwalm
276
in 1967 when 8,823 bushels of hard clams were transplanted
from this area. Approximately 2,100 acres are closed in this
area.
3. Hempstead Harbor — Hard clams are found in
this area, and transplant operations have occurred recently.
During the years 1964, 1965, and 1967, 10,278 bushels of
hard clams harvested from the northern portion of the closed
area were transplanted. There are approximately 3,300
acres of closed area in this harbor.
In addition:
Approximately 270 acres in Oyster Bay Harbor.
90 acres in Cold Spring Harbor.
20 acres in Huntington Harbor.
40 acres in Mill Pond.
130 acres in Northport Harbor.
1,380 acres in Smith Town Bay.
810 acres in Port Jefferson Harbor.
910 acres in Fishers Island Sound.
110 acres of Dosoris Pond.
In addition, there are some nonproductive areas
in Northville off the Northville oil facility and portions
of Mattituck Inlet and portions in the offshore area of Inlet
Point that are closed.
The present resource level of these sites varies
-------
Darrell Schwalm
277
but they must be considered as potentially valuable shellfish
producing areas.
SEWAGE TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Any program of water quality improvement for the
purpose of providing additional areas for the direct market
harvesting of shellfish must take into consideration the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program requirements for either
an approved or conditionally approved area. The elimination
of a pollution source from an area or to an area is rather
easy to evaluate in terms of both water quality improvement
and its effect on the classification of a shellfish growing
area.
However, when the water quality control is dependent
upon the design and operation of a sewage treatment facility
discharging into the same area, then the abatement program should
be guided at all stages of planning by the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program recommendations.
With respect to sewage treatment plants, the
Food and Drug Administration has been working with the
Environmental Protection Agency on additional measures to
protect shellfish resources.
The recent publication of the Water Quality Office,
Federal guidelines, "Design, Operation and Maintenance of
Wastewater Treatment Facilities," includes requirements aimed
at protecting shellfish.
-------
Darrell Schwalm
278
We call your attention to these facts so that they
may be given adequate consideration where the water quality
improvement program is aimed at the eventual use of the
estuarine water as a shellfish harvest area for direct
marketing. The abatement program would have to be shown to
provide an established degree of treatment at all times
during which the related area is to be used for harvesting
of a raw food resource.
The fact that the treatment facility may provide
better than the established degree of treatment most of the
time is all to the good, but for a raw food resource the
assured level which will be consistently met at all times
during periods of shellfish harvesting is the critical
consideration and the one that will determine the location and
the amount of any additional harvest area that will be made
available in accordance with the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program.
It should be made clear that any treatment plant
outfall, no matter of what degree of treatment, must have a
closed buffer or safety zone around the point of discharge.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, municipal, industrial, and other
waste discharges to the waters of Long Island Sound have
caused areas in both New York and Connecticut to be closed
-------
Darrell Schwalm
279
to the harvesting of shellfish. The NSSP is directly
responsible for assuring the safety of shellfish harvesting
areas. The program is also responsible for the proper
classification of any areas which may be reclaimed for shell-
fishing. The National Shellfish Sanitation Program is
vitally interested in seeing that more of these natural
shellfish waters meet the criteria for growing and harvesting
of shellfish for human consumption.
In this respect, we strongly support any recommenda-
tions or actions sponsored by this enforcement conference
aimed at upgrading the water quality of Long Island Sound.
We especially support any recommendations which might allow
the opening of presently closed shellfish growing areas.
Thank you.
(Note: The National Shellfish Sanitation Program
Manual referred to by Mr. Schwalm is made an exhibit to
the conference proceedings and is on file in the offices
of the Environmental Protection Agency.)
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Schwalm.
Any comments or questions?
MR* PELOQUIN: Have any studies been made to determine
the extent of reopened areas as a result of the construction
of treatment facilities, if you know?
MR. SCHWALM: This would be treatment facilities?
-------
Darrell Schwalm
280
MR. PELOQUIN: Yes.
MR. SCHWALM: That have gone in a couple of years
ago? And what improvements have been made?
MR. PELOQUIN: No, treating raw sources now and
upgrading those which are considered to be below par.
MR. SCHWALM: With respect to opening shellfish
areas after treatment facilities are in, we have to study
this on an individual level, you know. I think throughout
Connecticut — what l*m most familiar with — the treatment
facilities, a lot of them, are in harbors where there will be
many sources of pollution, and one treatment facility doesn't
eliminate all the sources of pollution.
Does this answer your question?
MR. PELOQUIN; In other words, there have been
no comprehensive studies made to determine just how
extensive are areas that could be returned to production?
MR. SCHWALM: No, no, in terms of X number of
sewage treatment plants installed, X number of acres, no, we
have not done any studies of that sort.
MR. PELOQUIN: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Gregg.
MR. GREGG: I notice, Darrell, in the prfeconference
report there is a reference to shellfish closures in
Connecticut that says there are 15,000 acres in Connecticut
-------
Barrell Schwalm
281
closed to shellfish. Your paper says there are 43,000 acres
in Connecticut closed. Are these different kinds of closures?
MR. SCHWALM: That is correct.
MR. GREGG: The difference between prohibited and
restricted or —
MR. SCHWALM: No, the 15,000 acres referred to
active shellfish harvesting areas. Ours include both active
and inactive areas. So the 43,000 acres are the total
estuarine waters in Connecticut that are closed to shellfish
whether or not they are active producing areas.
MR. STEIN: What's that interim grade you have?
MR. SCHWALM: In our classification system?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. SCHWALM: We have the approved. We have the
conditionally approved.
MR. STEIN: What do you mean by "conditionally
approved"?
MR. SCHWALM: This is an area where usually itfs
subject to occasional pollution from let us say a sewage
treatment plant. If the sewage treatment plant should suddenly
stop operating, then you'd have to close the area. Under
normal operation it would operate fine.
There is a conditional approval area in Narragansett
Bay where every time it rains over three-quarters of an inch
-------
Darrell SchwaIra
282
they automatically close the area for seven days to allow the
combined sewer outfalls and the sewage plant discharges to
clear.
MR. STEIN: You mean you're running it that close with
an animal that we eat intestinal tract and all?
MR. SCHWALM: The same with depurating shellfish.
Studies have shown, and everything, that shellfish will
cleanse themselves of biological pollutants if they are in
clean water. So if you have a sewage plant that discharges
one day, a week later those shellfish are going to be
perfectly safe for consumption.
MR. STEIN: In the depuration plant you cover all
the factors. But you are ready to relate this to water
in the reports of the sewage treatment plant as to when these
shellfish are safe to take?
MR, SCHWALM: This is a very good point. Any
conditional area must be under very close supervision by the
State officials and us in our review of their activities.
You're right. We cannot treat a conditional area like we
would treat any other area. It has to be constantly sampled.
When they want to open it up again, it has to be sampled
to show it is in fact safe for operation.
MR* GLENN: What do you mean by "safe"? For viruses
too?
-------
Darrell Schwalm
283
MR. SCHWALM: We sample, I think as you know you
cannot sample for viruses.
MR. GLENN: That's what worries me.
MR. STEIN: Why can't you sample for viruses?
MR. SCHWALM: I will have to relay that to the
laboratory people. As far as I know, we don't have the tech-
nical expertise to isolate viruses.
MR. STEIN: We have it.
MR. SCHWALM: Not the hepatitis.
MR. STEIN: It takes a little time. No, we do.
MR. GLENN: I think maybe you're making a better
case for depuration than you could make for pasteurizing
milk which we have done for quite a while.
MR. SCHWALM: You mean depuration from conditional
areas?
MR. GLENN: Or all areas. All shellfish.
MR. SCHWALM: I should point out in Connecticut
there are only five conditional areas, and four of those are
seasonal — what we call seasonal. That is, they are closed
during the summer when there is a recreational population
polluting the waters. They are open in the winter when there
is no source of pollution there.
MR. STEIN: You mean in New York they have off-track
betting but now in Connecticut in only five areas you're
-------
Darrell Schwalm
284
prepared to play Russian roulette?
MR. SCHWALM: Is that a question?
MR. STEIN: Interpret it as you will.
MR. PELOQUIN: Mr. Chairman, I was always under the
impression shellfish taken from a conditional area had to be
put through depuration before they could be consumed. I
wasn't aware —
MR. SCHWALM: They are in essence depurated in the
water once the water is clean.
MR. STEIN: They figure that sitting there is the
equivalent of depuration. They don't put them through
depuration.
MR, SCHWALM: I should point out perhaps, Mr.
Chairman, that many studies have been made on this. This is
a very important consideration, as you know, as I'm sure you
appreciate, and studies have been made on this. If you want
some more information on this, we have a person in the
audience who is very —
MR. STEIN: I'm familiar with this. I have worked
with shellfish programs for years. And the difficulty that
I see with it is I'm going to get stuck with it again.
(Laughter)
Are there any further questions or comments?
MR. CURRY: Can I ask one?
-------
Darrell Schwalm
285
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. CURRY: This is personal, but you're an expert.
Why am I not protected in the same way on shellfish to make
sure that I am on milk or water or bonded whisky? Why aren't
we sure that every shellfish that we buy is completely safe?
MR. SCHWALM: I think the history of our program
has shown that any shellfish that are grown and harvested
from our approved or conditionally approved areas when they
are managed right are safe for human consumption. There
aren't any epidemics —
MR. STEIN: That's a big qualification — "when
managed right,"
MR. SCHWALM: Well, in Connecticut. Now, I can't
speak for the whole country, I'm regional consultant for
this region. I can't speak for the whole country. You'd
have to get somebody from Washington here to do that.
But the shellfish that are taken from approved
areas and conditionally approved areas, there has not been
an epidemic associated with them.
MR, STEIN; You mean we have to have an epidemic
and not an enteric upset to do that? That's a very interesting
observation.
MR. METZLER: Oh, come on. Lay off the witness.
He has done a good job. He has defended a program. And we
-------
Darrell Schwalm
286
have a good deal more array.
(Audience applause)
And our record isn't very clean in the public water
supply business either. We have more outbreaks there than we
have in shellfish sanitation.
MR* STEIN: I think you're right, Mr. Metzler.
More people drink water than eat shellfish.
1 have a story about this. This holiday season
brings it to mind. The orthodox Jews can't really eat
shellfish because the only fish they can eat are those that
have a backbone and scales. And they can't eat at all on
the Day of Atonement.
One time when I was growing up and living in
Brooklyn, I ran across a guy on that day who was "whomping"
a dozen oysters. 1 was shocked, being rather young at that
time, and I said to him, "My goodness, are you eating
oysters on Yom Kippur too?"
And he looked at me askance, and he said, "What's
the matter? Doesfi't it have an "r" in it?" (Laughter)
MR. KLASHMAN: Thank you very much.
Are there any other Federal agencies represented
here who wish to make a statement?
(No resirtnse.)
If not, that completes the Federal presentation.
-------
John Curry
287
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
May we call on Connecticut?
MR. CURRY: Here, or there (indicating rostrum)?
MR, STEIN: Here. Handle the time the way you wish.
STATEMENT OF
JOHN CURRY
DIRECTOR| CONNECTICUT WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION
MR. CURRY: It has been our basic attitude that
Connecticut, when it revised its statute in 1967, provided
a clean water program that would most closely coordinate
with the Federal activities in this field according to what
were the then existing Federal laws in the business.
Now, in thinking about how to design a statute
to coordinate with the Federal effort, we gave due considera-
tion to the then existing statutes in New York State because
we thought that they represented an earlier effort to
accomplish a similar working arrangement with the Federal
Government.
I think before we start we should note that one
of the things about this conference is it is concerned with
the boundary waters between two States which by their programs
should most admirably accomplish what are the expressed
Federal objectives.
Having made that point, I will restrict my comments
-------
288
John Curry
to Connecticut, because by our previous experience -we have
had with New York State I think they can make their own
points.
In order to make full use of the correlation
between these State statutes that we have and the Federal
programs, we do, of course, have to meet regularly with our
Federal brothers, and we are in close cooperation with the
regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Since this is an ongoing relationship, day in and
day out, we have no objection to having a conference like
this. In fact, it's pleasant to sit down face to face with
the people in a rather agreeable environment rather than
some of our hard work sessions or long telephone conversations
and exchanges.
So although we might question the necessity of a
conference such as this, we are still enjoying the opportunity
to be here with you.
When we had a meeting In Boston, Mr. Ruckelshaus
was there, and I had a discussion with him. Many other people
were there, so they all know. He indicated that he was the
man who called this conference. So the first question I
asked him was why.
And so he Indicated that it was In order to help
the States with our abatement program, which I appreciated.
-------
289
John Curry
Actually, he used a lot more words than that, but I think
they were only to emphasize that was the point.
And so, in the words of my nephew, "What I want
to tell you, baby, is what I want you to do," you know.
(Laughter)
Now, to be as brief as possible in telling the
Federal Government how they can help us with what Mr.
Ruckelshaus wanted them to do, I might say we might first
of all, to save time, just comment on the conclusions of the
report rather than go through the long difficulties with the
body of the report. This is the report dated March 1971
by the Environmental Protection Agency called "Water Quality
of Long Island Sound," which I take to be the basis of this
conference.
We understand from what we read about other
conferences that this data sometimes comes too late for a
review by the State. But we received it in time for review.
Our only difficulty is we didn't receive it in time to point
out the many errors that we found in it so that they could
be corrected before we met.
But if we go along with him, I think, as we indi-
cated previously, we can subsequently straighten out all
these rather minute line by line details that we are talking
about.
-------
John Curry
290
If we go back to talking about the conclusions, it
would be silly in this day and age anyway not to agree with
Conclusion 1 or actually to agree with Conclusion 2, except
that it may have been a point that Connecticut does have a
statute for the control of dredging and fill in the tidal
marshes, and it does include heated discharges which affect
any use of the waters, and it defines them in the statute as
pollution, and we can take action against them.
We have no objection. You just missed the point,
which I thought might be of interest to the people in the
audience.
We might also agree with the point that is
attempted in Conclusion 3 except that we recognize that there
were in the last 50 years many other factors other than
pollution which may have affected the profits and losses of
the oyster industry.
In fact, I remember one time I think Victor Loosanoff,
who was a well known expert in the field, was on the stand
in a court case, and the judge asked him if there were any
other ways that oysters could die beside pollution. And
when he got to No. 29, the judge said, "That's enough."
So there are many other things that affect the
oyster industry than pollution. And we're not saying that
pollution isn't a factor, and we agree to it. But to use it
-------
291
John Curry
to make an important point at a conference like this is— We
agree with that, but sometimes it*s a dangerous tactic not
to be thoroughly scientific.
Now, in respect to Conclusion 4, we believe that
we are talking about certain water quality criteria which are
a subject of a report by a Federal agency and which made
certain suggestions and recommendations for quantifying
criteria which had already been submitted with our proposed
water quality standards to the Federal Government.
Rightly or wrongly, we have been educated through
the rules and regulations and interpretations of the Federal
pollution abatement agencies to consider the water quality
standards as being this kind of criteria we*re talking
about, and, in addition, but of equal importance, the
implementation schedules to accomplish these criteria and a
system of monitoring to prove that we were accomplishing them.
Now, with that, we do not understand at this date
or at this meeting how these criteria can be considered the
water quality standards, which were much more than the
criteria.
We presume that, in saying that many of the
implementation schedules are not being met, the report does
not take into account the necessary revisions in these
schedules which have been made as required to accomplish
-------
John Curry
292
maximum pollution abatement and to be in conformance with the
Connecticut statute under which the original implementation
plan was developed and sent to the Federal Government,
If it recognizes one part of our statute, it must
recognize the second part which is tied to it.
We have no reason to disagree with Conclusion 5
except we would note that the bacterial pollution noted
at locations such as in Greenwich Harbor, say, only occurred
during the nonrecreational seasons when chlorination was not
provided.
With respect to Conclusion 6, I think it is an
important point in this conference to note that the main
body of Long Island Sound has not evidenced signs of oxygen
deficiency. I am essentially quoting the report. However,
the wording might indicate that the deficiency can be assumed
in the future.
If the assessment of the present situation is
correct and due account is made of the ongoing construction
programs for pollution abatement, it might not be proper
to promote such a conclusion from the present data. I'm just
bringing up the question.
If No. 7 is a matter of fact, then, of course, we
have no argument against using it as a conclusion.
In regard to Conclusion 8, Connecticut has given
-------
John Curry
293
serious consideration, most recently within the activities
of the Environmental Task Force and the present considerations
of the State Legislature, to providing more specific controls
on boat pollution than are provided by our general pollution
statute. Our current difficulty is in anticipation of what
the rules and regulations on these matters will be when they
are promulgated as required by Federal legislation.
I think personally when this matter is determined
you will find that Connecticut will be happy and willing
to provide coordinating legislation or policy and program
to make such rules and regulations of the Federal Government
have a maximum effectiveness within the State.
Conclusion 9 covers one of our most important
considerations in pollution abatement in Long Island Sound.
We have noted previously in bur meetings with the Federal
Government that the contingency plan for water pollution
developed under the Federal law allows various interpretations
of the relationship between the Federal and State agencies
from State to State or from part of State to part of State,
and we have suggested that although the efforts on both
sides have produced notable results in the last couple of
years — and that is a fact —- a more careful definition
could proceed another step toward the elimination of this
problem. And it is a most important problem. This is oil
-------
John Curry
294
pollution discharges into the sound.
We do agree, and we have recommended against the
disposal of polluted material as suggested in Conclusion 10
into these disposal areas that we had under discussion
previously. However, we think it might be reasonable to
retain a few dumping areas available for, say, private citizens
doing small dredging jobs in unpolluted materials. We
think that is a proper thing to do for the citizens in the
State to save an unnecessary expenditure of funds.
In commenting on Conclusion 11, it is necessary
to note the obvious deficiency in this report by the exclusion
of the interstate problem between Rhode Island and Connecticut,
through the procedure of placing boundary lines for this
conference. What I'm talking about is placing the boundary
line not in the center of Pawcatuck River between Connecticut
and Rhode Island but placing it on the Connecticut side.
This would be all right except in the tables
listing the sources of discharge there was a mistake made and
the report includes five that actually go to the Pawcatuck
River, which gives you boundary lines outside the Interest
of this agency. If you want to include the Pawcatuck River,
you have got to include six more that you missed.
What has happened here is I thlbk you have exposed
your own hand. You're like the fellow who was married for 30
-------
295
John Curry
years, and his wife didn't know he drank — until one night
he came home sober. (Laughter)
Just so we will be all in on the game, we do want
to point out that on the Pawcatuck River we have secondary
activated sludge treatment plants proposed for treatment,
and our sister State of Rhode Island has primary suggested
for the town of Westerly,
This is an inadequacy in our dealings with the
Federal Government on interstate matters. But it is outside
the conference area, so we won't say any more about it.
MR, STEIN: Do you want to move for Rhode Island to
be included in this?
MR. CURRY: No. They are very talkative people,
and the conference would be much longer. (Laughter)
Of course, we don't have any objection to
Conclusion 12, and we are always glad to have the Federal
Government support our abatement actions in waterways that
are of specific interest to the State.
So now we can pass on to the recommendations.
We, of course, assume that the enforcement actions
suggested in Recommendation 1 would be on those matters which
we have already referred to the Attorney General's office for
action.
As stated previously, we feel that water quality
-------
John Curry
296
include the implementation plans. It is inherent that if
the schedules in such implementation plans are arranged to
bring about the completion of projects in the shortest period
of time — if you do this — then they must have a flexibility
to allow for changes which develop, which occur, or are
necessary in the development of the project when these
changes are shown to be required for good and sufficient
reasons.
We realize that the Federal Government has no
mechanism set up in the Federal operation to provide the
necessary flexibility to enforce the schedules on a reasonable
basis except possibly through the determinations of a con-
ference such as this.
Wo, therefore, recommend that this conference
consider the adjustments of the implementation schedules
which were provided in 1967 to take into account all the
important work that has been done in the last three years to
bring about compliance with the approved water quality
standards.
I'm not sure that it's proper for the conference,
but I don't know any other place in the Federal operations
that can do it, so I'm suggesting that it might be proper to
be done here.
We would al80 enlarge upon Recommendation 2 so that
-------
297
John Curry
the waste treatment that is going to be required would be
high-grade secondary treatment at least, and make it appli-
cable to all Long Island Sound discharges. And if you want
to include Rhode Island, I'll accept that.
MR. STEIN: Make your motion.
MR. CURRY: I'm not sure what that means.
MR. STEIN: I don't know you should take it
seriously. Just because we talk about the Long Island Reds,
they're still with us.
MR, CURRY: What? I lost something. (Laughter)
MR. STEIN: I'll amend that to the Rhode Island
Reds. (Laughter)
MR. CURRY: The Long Island Reds are a hockey
team — or are those ducks? (Laughtwr)
MR. STEIN: They're ducks. Whiteheads. (Laughter)
MR. CURRY: We lose something without interpretation.
(Laughter)
We find no basic disagreement with Recommendation 3
except to comment that in many cases it would not be
reasonable expenditure for promoting water quality until
more work has been accomplished on other elements of the
pollution problem.
We have been particularly careful, compared with
other States with which the Federal Government does business
-------
John Curry
298
— and we are sure of this — to provide carefully considered
implementation schedules. However, we note that some of the
tabulated data on which Recommendation 4 may be based has
to do with illegal discharges against which we have brought
injunctions for discontinuance under our statute. To attempt
to establish schedules would not be in conformance and would
weaken our action against this type of polluter.
The important thing here is that this type of
action will be of increasing importance upon the completion
of our present program and it should not be watered down.
If you will recall, when Mr. Klashman asked us if
we could provide schedules for all of these matters that you
had tabulated, I said yes, with reservations, because I
don't want to have to establish schedules for people who
are discharging illegally. If they get into the court and
the court wants to give them so many months to do something,
that's all right. That's the court's function. But under
our statute we don't have to, and I don't think we should
water down our enforcement provisions to that extent.
So I agreed that we would give schedules where it
was applicable and suitable, and I am sure you will agree.
Recommendation 5 is, of course, in compliance with
our previous commitment to the Federal Government, and we
would be glad to provide this addendum information in a formal
-------
299
John Curry
way and with due regard for the comments that we have
previously made.
The program of the New England River Basins Com-
mission, which is given what I might classify as unequal
representation in Recommendation 6 — it's the longest one
we have — (Laughter) — is questioned. We only question
its applicability for the accomplishment of our present water
quality standards implementation plan.
We should recognize the New England River Basins
Commission is a planning agency rather than an enforcement
agency, and I believe that the conferees should agree any
such work outlined which may be accomplished in a planning
procedure should not supersede our mutual agreements already
made on enforcement or delay any implementation that we may
have already agreed upon.
Actually, if such planning is accomplished, it will
not be available until after the dates that were originally
established for the accomplishment of our Improved water
quality, so that it is questionable as to what effect it
could have in any case.
Our only comment on Recommendation 7 has already
been made with reference to Conclusion 10, and this is a
"gimmick" that we use to get audience attention.
We are, within our present program, and extending
-------
300
John Curry
from it, carrying out the kind of study which we think is
contemplated in Recommendation 8, and several problems of
combined sewers are being eliminated in our ongoing program.
Our procedures in this matter have been reviewed
by the Federal agencies, and we believe that we are proceeding
in a practical and a satisfactory way to achieve solutions
of these problems.
It is only fair to note that our State statute
permits grants for the solution of combined sewer problems
but that the Federal law does not. And so we say, "Come
aboard."
Therefore, we are not aware of any firm Federal
policy on these matters which would indicate the kind of
detail that they want from the kind of study which is
suggested.
I can't help but say undoubtedly some of the
pollution of this type that is noted comes from problems in New
York City, and the recommendation would be more effective
if we knew that such major problems could be accomplished by
the date that is recommended for us to do our study.
The State of Connecticut is in a fortunate position
in being able to comply with Recommendation 9 and has done
so for several years. This arises from a fact which might
not be known — due to the fact the Commission also has a
-------
John Curry
301
duty, among other duties in the water resources field, of
issuing permits for structures and dredging in tidal waters.
On such permits, when there is an indication that
it might be an area of concentrated moorings, the Commission
places a condition on the permit for construction of these
mooring facilities which requires submission of a program
which will control the discharge of sanitary waste, petroleum
products, or trash, and the submission of any plans of
facilities which may be required by such a program.
You see that such controls as we are exerting now
can easily be made to conform with any rules and regulations
that the Federal Government finally develops as required
by the existing Federal statute for the control of small boat
pollution, and we are set up and ready and willing and waiting
to do it.
We would like to note that, in addition to the
matters covered by these recommendations, the handling of
pollution from Federal installations should be of interest
to this conference. Whatever the proposals might be as
you heard them presented, there is no record of a schedule
of procedure on the elimination of these Federal sources of
pollution, nor is there an indication of who, if anybody,
will approve the engineering concept or the plans and
specifications for these installations.
-------
302
John Curry
I asked the question oi the Navy man. We are
interested in this. Somebody should look at these programs,
because we already have questions about some of them that have
come to our attention.
Now, we're not anxious for any additional duties
to review these plans of the Federal people — and we also
understand that there is some difficulty in State approval
of a Federal facility — but at least we'd like to know if
there is a suitable review process to be exercised by somebody
in some office.
We also note that although Recommendation 6 indicates
the need for future planning, there is nothing in the
report that considers the future discharges of sanitary
sewage that may arise and are planned to arise along the
north shore of Long Island.
If we talk to the report itself, leave the conclu-
sions and recommendations, we have little comment on the
first 12 pages of the text except those about the conference
boundaries which have already been noted.
However, on page 13 there is an indication that in
the future, sometime in the distant future, sewers — and
therefore treatment — will be required for 100 percent of
the anticipated population, Now, we're not sure that
100 percent of the population which exists at any given date
-------
303
John Curry
will ever have to be sewered.
As we moved west, we had to get a wagon trail Id,
had to get a railroad Id, had to get a telegraph in, and
sometime later on, after the people go there, you need
sewers. But I'm not sure that you need them waiting for the
people when they first move out into the hinterlands. So
I'm not sure that we will ever arrive at a situation where
100 percent of the population will be dependent on sewers.
On page 15 it indicates that there are five
industrial waste sources in New York and 132 in Connecticut.
This indicates to us that the Federal Government was more
successful in obtaining information from Connecticut than from
New York. And we think it has the same significance as
the woman driver who put her head out the window for a
left turn and it proved that the window was open. (Laughter)
One could observe almost five discharges without
leaving the bovndary of Connecticut.
Actually, this reporterfs success was not too great
in Connecticut either — and we're trying to figure out
what he was reporting — but we estimate that on the kind of
discharges that were being counted within the conference area
Connecticut doesn't have 132 but it b&e 176.
Now, if we arrive at that number and we use it, that
is 176 sources of discharges in 1967, and it might be of
-------
John Curry
304
interest to a group like this to know what happens to those
in a period of three years under our program.
Of these 176, since 1968, 81 have been eliminated
as pollution.
Another 37 are on the schedules that we have
proposed leading to the elimination, so we know they will be
eliminated in the ordinary course of events.
Of the remaining 58, six have been referred
to the Attorney General's office, and the remainder are
held up for technical negotiations. This covers a great
variety of reasons, and I probably couldn't do it, but if
you want to talk to the engineers in my office, they can single
out and show you the absolute reason why there is a one-,
two-, or three-month delay in any step of the schedule of
these individual polluters. And I'm talking about 52 that
are remaining in the Long Island area.
In assessing the feasibility of schedules or the
appropriate kinds of schedule changes which we have suggested
might be a matter for this conference's consideration, the
flow of funds into the grant area is an important consideration
naturally. Not only must they be authorized and we know that
somebody said we could have them, but they must flow through
the bureaucracy into the program to fit a very complex set
of actions that are required on each project.
-------
John Curry
305
Connecticut*s success — which would have been
indicated by a correct tabulation of the last three years of
operation — is largely dependent on its rather magnanimous
attitude in providing funds to cover up for the Federal
Government when they don't have them available. These funds
as of March 31, 1971 amount to $84 million that the State has
provided. That is a large chunk of money.
Of course, if Congress doesn't appropriate, the
situation must be faced by any State the way Connecticut has
done it. We put out the money. We accept the difficulties
of it.
But we will note that the last Congress and the
President during the period of last fall, September-October,
did take aotion to correct this hedge of the Federal
allotment procedures, and there's now $200 million — or I
guess it has been sliced off to $150 million before it got
out of Washington — but $150 million that was made available
to repay the States who had made these efforts to cover the
Federal amount.
This was last fall, but these funds have not yet
got through the bureaucratic process. Our last word indicates
that the funds must be obligated and fully expended by
June 30th of this year, which Is only a couple of months away.
Ve would recommend that careful consideration bo
-------
John Curry
306
given to the method of disbursing such funds, because this ia
a very short period and your operation will have to be very
fast so that the maximum benefits can accrue to our pollution
abatement program.
Also, we recommend that future funds of this type
be disbursed more quickly than from September to June. We
are afraid that some of our municipalities might get paid
twice, and we wouldn't want that to happen — (Laughter) — it
the state does get paid.
MR. STEIN: Well, it might happen you get paid
once.
MR. CURRY: We'd love to get paid once. (Laughter)
MR. STEIN: We figure if municipalities get paid
twice we can equalize that, and on the average you will get
paid once. (Laughter)
MR. CURRY: If we get paid once, that would be one
up.
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. CURRY: To complete the picture on the Connecticut
side of Long Island Sound, in relation to the industrial
discharges it should be noted two of those listed are now
the subject of injunction proceedings because they were
illegally established.
We have already commented on the distinction
-------
307
John Curry
between criteria and water quality standards.
We noted in some cases the high bacteria counts
were obtained in the nonrecreational season and, therefore,
are less likely to be a hazard than those which would be
existing when waters were used for recreation.
We note that the extensive work done to determine
existing water quality agrees with the assessment that we had
provided to the Federal Government in our water quality
standards negotiation. So we assume that the fact that they
agree with us indicates a high capability of the Federal
agency to do sampling and analysis. (Laughter)
So without going into any more detail or being
picayune, we suggest that we get together and correct the
tabulations. The only changes in the implementation plans
are made by formal acts of our Commission at its regular
monthly meetings, and these matters are available to the
Federal agency on IBM cards or printouts from them. It is,
therefore, a relatively easy matter to correct these little
things that we are talking about.
We recognize that a reporter should have the
privilege of his own method of presentation. But this report
and this conference do have at least a secondary purpose to
generalize public opinion, and so it seems improper, as an
example, to Indicate that the city of Bridgeport — and I'm
-------
John Curry
308
only using that as an example — Is in some manner violating some
kind of an established standard without also indicating that
in compliance with State and Federal programs it is concurrent-
ly enlarging and upgrading two large treatment plants at a high
cost and with none of the fanfare of intergovernment arguments
or exchanges or charges or countercharges.
The procedure has elements which must make it
unique throughout the country, and it should have been a
matter of interest I think in this report*
It might also hurt the people of Fairfield to
find out by reading this report they have primary treatment,
when they actually built 20 years ago a very high-grade,
super-high-grade, secondary treatment plant. And, not only
that, they took the outfall from the secondary plant and
extended it far enough out into the sound so that
even when the tide changed and it happened some day that
the plant wasn't working, the pollution could not be washed
back by the tide to the beach.
This is an extensive expenditure made long before
the Federal Government even had $250,000 to contribute to
such a plant.
It might hurt those people to know that the Federal
Government only thinks they have a primary plant.
Or the people of Branford to think that the Federal
-------
John Curry
309
Government doesn't know they have a plant which is a secondary
high-grade treatment plant which has been there for a great many
years.
Now, this could go on.
But just to single out another way that the Federal
Government could be of help to Connecticut and its problem,
we have a city in which we could have avoided what will be
a forthcoming long legal battle, costly and time-consuming,
if we could have gotten letters from the Washington office
in which the "Federalees" indicated that they agreed with
the Regional Office.
So I would suggest if you can write a letter saying
Washington agrees with Boston, we'll save four or five months
on an Implementation schedule, and I think it could be done
with a simple memorandum.
Well, 1 can go on, but 1 think that we have gone
far enough as far as Connecticut's attitude is concerned,
Mr. Chairman. I assume that you agree with Mr. Ruckelshaus
and that you are here to be of maximum assistance to the
States in their program, so 1 tried to indicate some specific
points at which the action of this conference could do
things that would be helpful to the State of Connecticut --
actions by the Federal Government that would be helpful to the
State of Connecticut.
-------
310
John Curry
It was only by mere happenstance that I found
nothing in the report which indicated any action that the
State of Connecticut could take that would increase the
rate. But I will say that this is subject to negotiation in
our executive session.
MR. STEIN; Are there any comments or questions?
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Curry, I would like to merely
comment first on the question you raised about Westerly, Rhode
Island. We will certainly be in touch with Rhode Island
on this to see what we can do about having the degree of
treatment changed to meet the water quality standards in
Connecticut. Your point is well taken.
On the question of the New England River Basins
Commission report, on page ix, the last sentence in that
recommendation states that none of these activities, speaking
of activities to be carried out by the New England River
Basins Commission, shall be construed as superseding the
existing water quality standards implementation schedules
or the recommendations of this conference. So I think
that the recommendation is in complete accord with your views
on this.
As far as the tables are concerned listing the
sources of pollution, do I understand that you will furnish
us a corrected table with the proper information?
-------
311
John Curry
MR. CURRY: We will so do. And we prefer maybe when
we are doing this to sit down with your people and have a
discussion.
MR. KLASHMAN: Fine. On those sources where you
say you have reservations) we will so indicate that these
are cases where the communities or industries are in default
and that interim dates at this time are not indicated.
It is my understanding that we will shortly be
hearing about this $150 million that you speak of. I too
would hope for reimbursement to those States which have pre-
financed projects. I think Mr. Metzler also has a slight
interest in this.
MR. METZLER: Yes.
MR. KLASHMAN: 1 would also like to ask Mr. Stein
to carry back this message, that we heartily endorse the
need for some action very quickly from Washington on this.
MR. STEIN: Well, you're the regional coordinator.
I'm the enforcement man. You have a direct line to the
financial operations, Mr. Klashman.
MR. KLASHMAN: I too assure you, Mr. Stein, I will
bring this message back to them.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
(No response.)
-------
312
John Curry
David C. Wiggin
Mr. Curry, I was really Impressed by your extensive
recital. Semething you said earlier really impressed me.
I guess you and I can tell our nephews to please be brief.
But, Jack, at our age it takes a little longer. (Laughter)
MR* CURRY: I would have been, but you usurped
all the prime television time. (Laughter)
Ve have some other people in from Connecticut, I
don't know whether you want to hear them now —
MR. STEIN: Ve want to go ahead.
MR. CURRY: — or hear the conferees first.
MR* STEIN: No, call on your own people.
MR. CURRY: I believe Dave Viggin has a statement
which should be of interest because he is deeply involved in
these pollution problems.
STATEMENT OF
DAVID C. WIGGIN
DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION
CONNECTICUT STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MR* WIGGIN: Mr. Chairman, members of the conference,
you know, after listening to Jack talk, I almost got up and
left because I figured anything I'd say would be superfluous.
But I was sitting listening to him and I didn't think to get
up.
Also, the previous speaker told so much about
-------
3X3
David C. Wiggin
shellfish in Connecticut that I'm not sure I can add anything
to that subject either. However, I did prepare a few words,
and I would like to say them.
My name is David Wiggin, the Director of Environ-
mental Health Services Division with the Connecticut State
Department of Health.
The Connecticut State Department of Health has the
responsibility for classifying the waters of Long Island
Sound as to their sanitary suitability for bathing and shell-
fishing. In this connection, approximately 2,800 samples
for bacteriological examination are collected from the tidal
waters annually during the summer months for the purposes of
classifying the waters for bathing purposes.
Sampling stations are located every 1,000 feet,
and four samples are collected from each station. Half of
the State Is surveyed each year in this manner.
All sewage treatment plants chlorinate the effluent
between May 1 and October 1 In order to protect recreational
activities such as bathing and boating. The analysis reports
for the past 20 years are punched for data processing, and
each year copies of the punched cards are sent to the
Environmental Protection Agency office in Metuchen, Mew
Jersey, if that is still part of the EPA. Is it?
MR. STEIN: They changed the name to "Edison" from
-------
David C. Wiggin
314
"Metuchen."
MR. WIGGIN: I beg your pardon.
MR. STEIN: Thomas Alva.
MR. WIGGIN: Next time we send samples I ask that
you send us the new address, because we punch duplicate cards
and send them to you.
Generally speaking, the areas in Connecticut which
are found to be not suitable for bathing purposes are the
inner harbors near the major cities such as Stamford, Norwalk,
Bridgeport, and New Haven. However, under certain adverse
conditions, such as temporary interruption of sewage treatment
or the overflow of combined sewers following a heavy storm,
the pollution could extend to the outer harbors into areas
which are normally suitable for bathing.
Local health departments collect frequent samples
to check the sanitary quality of these questionable areas.
If the samples are unsatisfactory, the beach may be closed
temporarily until satisfactory samples are obtained. The
bathing beach sampling program which has been in existence
for over 20 years has shown no discernible increase in
pollution, although there have been fluctuations in water
quality apparently due to variations in the efficiency of
treatment at certain sewage treatment plants during the time
of sampling, as well as effects of storms on the treatment
-------
David C. Wiggin
315
plants, combined sewers, and the river flows.
It should be kept In mind that this classification
is based on coliform content only, and this is effectively
controlled by chlorination.
The State Department of Health also carries out
shellfish classification studies along the shores of Long
Island Sound. Additional areas of tidal waters are continually
being closed for shellfishing purposes. The reason for this
is the increasing pollution as well as an increasingly
restrictive cooperative State-Federal policy for classifyittg
such areas.
In years past, most of our concentration on shell-
fish sanitation was on the prevention of typhoid fever, and the
record on this disease has been outstanding. There has been
only one death from typhoid fever in Connecticut from any
cause since 1949. In comparison, there were 278 deaths
from typhoid fever in 1900 and 166 deaths in 1910, In 1940
it was down to three to five deaths per year.
In the past 10 years, the total number of cases —
not deaths but cases — of typhoid fever, the total for 10
years, was only 34. If typhoid fever had continued to be
the controlling criterion, some shellfish harvesting areas
would have remained open and the record would be good.
However, while the number of cases of typhoid fever
-------
David C. Wiggin
316
decreased, throughout the country we have had an increase
in the number of cases of hepatitis, as pointed out earlier,
caused by a virus. In Connecticut, our record also has
shown an increase. The number of cases of hepatitis in
Connecticut in 1961 was 483, while the number of cases in
1970 was 1,056, Not all of these cases were due to shellfish,
but we have had several outbreaks attributable to shellfish.
In the shellfish program, we carry out an evaluation
of the areas, including sampling, float studies, and sanitary
surveys. We then determine the worst possible condition
which might affect the sanitary quality of the harvesting
areas. Shellfish areas which do not meet the necessary
standards even under the most adverse conditions must
now be closed unless the State agency can give assurance of
controlling the use during such a situation.
Furthermore, areas subject to potential contamina-
tion, such as at marinas, must also be closed.
We feel that the provision of secondary treatment
with chlorination at all sewage treatment plants discharging
into the tidal waters will virtually assure the safety of
all existing bathing areas in the State for a great many
years to come. Also, some questionable areas will become
satisfactory. Such secondary treatment will also increase
the potential for shellflshing in the State.
-------
317
David C. Wiggin
However, combined sewers with stormwater overflows
complicate the health problem. In order to utilize this
potential, the State Department of Health would have to go
into a program of conditional classification — I enjoyed
the discussion earlier — which involves a much tighter
degree on monitoring and control of both sewage treatment
plant operations and the activities of the shellfish industry.
The State Health Department is not presently in a
position to assure such control due to limitations of staff
and money and, therefore, it is not likely that many closed
areas will be opened.
However, if depuration of clams and oysters could
be established as a standard procedure, we believe the
shellfish program would be protected and it is likely that
some presently closed areas could be reclassified.
We recommend that the Federal agencies promote the
necessary research work to develop this procedure. If this
procedure were effective in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
York, and New Jersey — and we believe it would be successful
— we believe, as Mr. Curry pointed out, and he's doing some of
ay health work for me, that it would give us the same
protection for shellfish or similar protection at least that
we now have for milk.
Back 50 years ago I can remember people objecting
-------
David C. Wiggin
318
to pasteurized milk. And a few years after that — because I
can't remember a lot of details 50 years ago — but a few
years after that I remember going into a restaurant and having
a man talk about the scalded milk and getting up and walking
out and leaving his glass of milk on the table.
But I do believe that depuration would give us
similar protection to what we get from pasteurized milk and
chlorinated water. We do not drink unchlorinated surface
water in Connecticut in any of our supplies, nor do we
drink raw milk, and it would seem that we certainly should
not eat raw oysters and clams, and I'm one who believes
that we should develop a program for depuration and make it
mandatory.
We have also made a special study for mercury.
Samples of water were collected from the three main river
basins, the Thames, the Connecticut, and the Housatonic. All
water samples were well below the figure of 0.005 ppm which
the Public Health Service has proposed as a standard for
drinking water.
We have also collected samples of fish from the three
main river basins, and the samples from each river averaged well
below the limit of mercury in fish of 0.5 ppm which has been
established as an interim guideline by the United States
Food and Drug Administration.
-------
319
David C. Wiggin
We have also collected samples of shellfish from
New Haven, Bridgeport, and Norwalk Harbors, and the samples
from each harbor averaged well below the limit of mercury in
shellfish of 0.2 ppm which has been established as a tentative
standard by the United States Public Health Service,
We are now making further study for other heavy
metals in water, fish, and shellfish.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Wiggin.
Any comments or questions? If not, thank you very
much, sir.
MR. CURRY: The League of Women Voters in Connecti-
cut had a statement, but I believe that Mrs. Brown is not
here, and I'm not sure she left a statement.
MR* KLASHMAN: She left a statement.
MR. CURRY; Did she leave anybody the job of giving
it?
(No response.)
I think we will save time if we can make it a part
of the record. I present it in the record.
MR. STEIN: That will be entered into the record
as If read.
MR* CURRY: It is our loss. She is not only a
charming lady, but her voice would be nice counterpoint to
-------
Mrs. Bertrand H. Brown
320
the masculine voices we have had here.
STATEMENT OF
MRS. BERTRAND H. BROWN
DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CONNECTICUT
Long Island Sound is one of the greatest natural
resources of the Northeast. For centuries man has used it
and abused it. We have used it for navigation and trade,
recovery of sand and gravel, cooling water for power produc-
tion, marinas, industrial waste and garbage disposal. Yet
we also expect it to provide shell and fin fish habitat,
commercial and sport fishing, plus unlimited outdoor recreation
for the millions of people who live nearby. And now we are
beginning to realize that the sound is a limited natural
resource and that the public good requires us to repair some
of the damage that has been done.
The League of Women Voters has a longstanding
interest in water resource planning and management and is
particularly concerned with the improvement of water quality.
We commend the Environmental Protection Agency for convening
this hearing, for it will focus attention on the problems
of Long Island Sound and will surely accelerate the' lengthy
process of pollution abatement.
We in Connecticut are very proud of our Clean Water
-------
Mrs. Bertrand H. Brown
321
Program, one of the finest in the Nation. Yet the State
needs continued cooperation front the Federal Government if
the program is to be a success.
Specifically, Connecticut needa dependable financial
assistance. As you know, the State preflnances the Federal
grant to municipal treatment plants. It is Important that
this money be reimbursed regularly so the State may carry
out its own assistance program for municipal treatment plants.
The State government is in serious financial difficulty
and without the promised Federal assistance might be forced
to cut back on some of its grants. We urge the EPA to do
everything in its power to ensure a reliable continuing
program of adequate Federal aid.
On the matter of industrial pollution, the League
of Women Voters is pleased with the heightened Federal
interest in abatement as evidenced by the reactivation of
the 1899 law requiring permits for Industrial discharges from
the Corps of Engineers. We are somewhat confused, however,
as to the way the Corps fits into the enforcement picture
and ask that procedures be carefully worked out so that State
enforcement powers are in fact strengthened and delaying red
tape is avoided.
It appears to us In the League that several aspects
of pollution abatement on Long Island Sound are primarily a
-------
322
Mrs. Bertrand H. Brown
Federal responsibility. One of these is the cleanup of oil
spills at sea. Since the State cleans up spills near shore,
it appears there is a need for a better definition of
responsibility between the two — a clear statement of who
is supposed to do what. There is also a need to develop
better methods of cleanup. Federal leadership is clearly
indicated here.
Long Island Sound also suffers from pollution by
boats. The State can do nothing to alleviate this until the
EPA decides how the Federal legislation on boating pollution
is to be implemented. The League urges you to make this
decision soon. It is too late to do anything in time for
the coming summer, but, please, make it possible for the State
to require installation of necessary shore facilities in time
for the following boating season.
Navy and Coast Guard vessels continue to pollute
the sound. They are pretty much out of reach as far as the
State is concerned. We ask the EPA to exert its considerable
influence toward the installation of pollution control
devices on Federal craft.
The League of Women Voters of Connecticut is pleased
that both the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and the
State of Connecticut are concerned with accelerating pollution
abatement in Long Island Sound. We urge you to intensify
-------
Mrs. Bertrand H. Brown
John Kirychuk
323
your efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to be heard,
MR. CURRY: There was an Esther Boyle who asked
if she could speak at this conference, and the reporter led
her to you, Mr. Stein.
FROM THE FLOOR: She will be up tomorrow.
MR. CURRY: Then we have a representative of the
combined fisheries groups of the State, Mr. Kirychuk.
STATEMENT OF
JOHN I. KIRYCHUK
CHAIRMAN, CONNECTICUT SPORTSMENS NATURAL RESOURCES
MR, KIRYCHUK: Mr, Chairman, members of the
committee, ladies and gentlemen, I will omit from my statement
portions of it but request it be put on record,
MR. STEIN: The entire written statement will be
included in the record as if read.
MR. KIRYCHUK: My name is John I. Kirychuk. I am
Chairman of the Connecticut Sportsmens Natural Resources —
clubs, marinas, bait and tackle shops, private citizen groups.
Sportsmen's liaison representative by legislative petition
(signed by members of both parties). And I represent some
sportsmen in Rhode Island and harbor pilots.
On April 5, 1971, as State chairman in Connecticut
-------
324
John Kirychuk
of sportsmen's clubs and other organizations, I as the leading
speaker, with league leaders, did represent some 250,000
residents of Connecticut.
During my personal exposure on Channel 30 tele-
vision, I requested the support of the sportsmen and
supporters, including the members of the legislature. I
received a long standing ovation. And as the cameras have
filmed, not one individual could be seen sitting when my
request was given cheers and human reactions. 1 notified
all those within hearing that I would represent them at
this hearing, as I did on July 7, 1970.
In Connecticut we have once and for all time
elimiaated the stigma, the bias, prejudices, and unjusti-
fiable criticisms. We were heard in Connecticut in the
State Capitol one week ago today by many, many thousands,
being represented, and we demand to be fully recognized
here, not only as residents and taxpayers but as excise tax-
payers with little or no return.
As an individual who has by request from the White
House to the individual citizen made thousands of investiga-
tions, I feel that my technical expertise has benefited not
only Connecticut but the Federal Government. As an
individual who has researched both pollution occurrences and
the laws providing protection, I find it disgraceful to the
-------
John Kirychuk
325
intelligence of the taxpayer.
From the President's office down through every
bureaucratic agency and department, my facts, criteria, and
data have never been disputed or proven partially fabricated.
In fact, every scientist, engineer, government official,
Senator and Congressman, as well as Governors, have agreed
with my findings.
I have some excerpts from letters that I recently
received, and I will read just a line or two from each of
these letters.
From the Office of the Secretary, U. S. Department
of the Interior:
"Your letter to President Nixon expresses concern —
a waste of the taxpayers' money.
"I have asked the Commissioner of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration to look into the
natter, and advise me as well on the other points you raise.
As soon as I have his report I will be in touch with you.
"In the meantime, rest assured that this
Administration, this Department, and this office intend to
enforce the water pollution control law now on the books
whenever and wherever necessary and in the public interest.
To this end, we trust that we have the support of the Connecti-
cut Sportsmen."
-------
John Kirychuk
326
From the White House:
"John Ehrlichman has asked me to reply regarding
a position on a -water pollution council."
This is a 13-man council which privately helps the
President out.
"Mr. Ehrlichman appreciates your interest and
enthusiasm and has forwarded your letter to Harry Flemming,
Special Assistant to the President for personnel. He has
also sent a copy to Russell Train, Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality for his attention and consideration."
From the Department of the Interior — and this
might have helped the Navy and Coast Guard. This was signed
by Mr. Prince.
"You are correct concerning the date not coinciding
with the recently issued Executive Order 11507."
And I say the FULTON has already left.
"This order requires Federal facilities, including
vessels, to have abatement completed by December 1972. Sub-
sequent to the issuance of this order, Congress passed new
legislation which also applies to pollution from private and
other watercraft."
Here I would like to interject that a great deal
of our pollution on the sound is by barges and tankers and
ships under foreign registration because they are not good
-------
John Kirychuk
327
enough to be registered in the United States. So, in other
words, we are getting garbage scows to bring in the oil.
From the Department of Justice:
"The Federal Water Quality Administration has
referred to us your letter of February, relating to a writ of
mandamus" — which I intend if I am forced by the sportsmen or
requested to institute in the Justice Department in Washington.
"We suggest, therefore, that if you believe legal
action is necessary. . .The Department of Interior through
the Federal Water Quality Administration has been alerted to
this problem, and will doubtless refer the matter to us for
litigation."
Governor Meskill has recently asked my personal
investigation results and report on the last big spills in
Long Island Sound, which he has received December 24th and
January 8th, when I sent them to him. He writes:
"I will keep you advised if I receive any further
information regarding your application for appointment to
the President's Advisory Council on Water Pollution."
Senator Ribicoff has always given me full support,
and his statement here in the letter says:
"Thank you very much for your recent letter regarding
the pollution of Long Island Sound. I appreciate receiving
your informed views and will submit your letter to be printed
-------
John Kirychuk
328
in the record of the hearings."
Senator Weicker also made a statement. He pledges
100 percent support for abatement of pollution on Long Island
Sound, and he will, if necessary, institute other legislation
to make sure that it is enforced properly. And I personally
have communicated with Senator Weicker concerning the New
Haven area, 1 informed the Governor in November that it
would be a "Dead Sea" area, and I believe the Corps of
Engineers have indicated it as a "Dead Sea" area in the first
week of February.
1 have made pollution reports to Governors,
Senators, Congressmen, Presidents, and Federal agencies many
times before. My firm and positive opinions follow.
The shores, waters, and rivers emptying into the
sound are being destroyed by corruption and greed, lax
enforcement, failure of the Federal Government and State
government to act in activating the existing laws provided
to protect the public, by indifference and apathy of
bureaucratic agencies who rob the taxpayer, by not cooperating
and by competing for power, diverting funds, extending goal
dates, and with committees that have been exposed by the news
media as farces.
In fact, I was investigating the last three
committees of the past Administration. I *as one of the
-------
John Kirychuk
329
Investigators.
The millions of people who realize the values of the
lands and waters of Long Island Sound and those directly related
to the sound have constantly provided the nucleus of protection
of this life, for there is no substitute, physical or one
of imagination, for the activities in, on, or around the
sound on this planet*
1 have witnessed many changes and innovations
that were put on paper for paper has no resistance. The
trick has always been to make them work. Honesty of thought
and written word is a jewel, and they who curb prejudice
and seek honorably to know and speak the truth are the only
builders of a better life, I wish Agnew was here now.
Billions of dollars have been wasted, while rape,
devastation, exploitation, and permanent and unrepairable
damage is continuing each second of the tick of the clock,
Bven with the executive orders of the President of the United
States and billions of added tax dollars, 100 percent increase
in personnel, the responsible jurisdictions sit on critical
cases — and this is true right in our Attorney General's
office in tbe State of Connecticut — which according to the
laws are priority cases and in the books.
The livelihood of millions of people is dependent
on Long Island Sound, The normal wildlife and aquatie life
-------
330
John Kirychuk
cycles are decreasing astronomically. With laws and tech-
nology available, death continues. There is no applicable
price tag from which one could possibly evaluate our natural
resources.
Now is the time for the Federal Government to step
in immediately. Over 100 spills have occurred on the sound
during 1970 that are a matter of record, and I assure you
it's twice as much that were whitewashed. Many more were not
recorded. But each spill, no matter how small, is critical
to a life cycle area.
The constant surveillance of the Coast Guard,
sportsmen's organizations, and the many other related
conservation groups is commendable but not sufficient to
even arrest the continued pollution. As the news media,
investigations, research, and scientific predictions indicate,
the Federal Government must immediately activate its
prerogative and authority with a firm and positive direction
of action. Money alone will not control or improve and
preserve our irreplaceable natural resources*
There are 11 million people who live in and around
the sound area. Many millions visit the sound each year,
and the numbers are Increasing daily. I believe we have
taken a tentative figure that if the sound is deteriorated
to that point there will be as many as 50,000 jobs involved.
-------
331
John Kirychuk
There are 16 "Dead Sea" areas in the sound on
record.
MR. STEIN: Who has jurisdiction of those "Dead
Sea" areas? The Corps of Engineers?
MR. KIRYCHUK: The Corps of Engineers.
MR. STEIN: That's what I figured. Thank you.
MR. KIRYCHUK: I have documents for everything I say,
Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Yes, sir. Go right ahead.
MR. KIRYCHUK: There are hundreds of water pollution
discharges into the sound every second — chemicals, oils,
human waste, toxic materials, nutrients, solids, and the
deliberate and accidental spills.
If the laws as written on the books are not
enforced, then the constitutional rights guaranteed by the
Constitution to every American are jeopardized by the
Federal Government who has allowed the lawbreaker freedom
from responsibility. Then the government is not for the
people or by the people in freedom of the pursuits of the
individual instincts.
For those I represent, and in conclusion, I say
the time is now. No other recourse is possible. Nor will fur-
ther studies and delays solve the situation, but waste the
taxpayers' dollars and allow the permanent and irreparable
-------
John Kirychuk
332
damage of our natural resources, terminating thousands of
Jobs, adding to the social and welfare problems, and depleting
our economy beyond any reclamation and stability in the area.
My research records and investigations, many of
them, are in the Department of the Interior now or in the
hands of Robert L. McCormick ox Charles Sogers or in the
Executive Branch. In the President's office it would be John
Ehrlichman, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Flemming.
Thank you very much.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
MR. CURRY: Mr. Chairman, as you see, we have a
very broad spectrum of Connecticut citizens interested in this
today.
Do you want to —
MR. STEIN: I want to see if there are any comments
or questions. If not, thank you very much.
I tell you we will go to about 5:00 o'clock today.
I suggest we recess now. We are going to continue with
Connecticut. I suggest we hear the people who want to
speak from Connecticut, and the people who feel they have to
get out today from New York get in touch with Mr. Metzler,
and we will arrange to have all those who have to get out
today be on this evening before we recess for the evening.
So we will stand recessed now. Anyone who feels
-------
M. E. Wiggin
333
he wants to get on today from Connecticut or from New York
see either Mr. Curry or Mr. Metzler, as the case may be, and
make your arrangements.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
MR. STEIN: I have a statement here I would like to
put in the record from Mr. M. E, Wiggin, United States
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Animal Disease and Parasite Research Division, Plum Island
Disease Laboratory, Marineport, Long Island. The address is
almost longer than the statement.
The statement reads:
STATEMENT OF
M. E. WIGGIN
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
ANIMAL DISEASE AND PARASITE RESEARCH DIVISION
PLUM ISLAND DISEASE LABORATORY
MARINEPORT, LONG ISLAND
Because of the unique and specialized treatment
required at Plum Island Animal Disease Laboratory with
sewage effluent, it is recommended that an engineering study
be accomplished to determine the most feasible method of
disposal to meet the requirements of the executive order.
It is planned that negotiations with an engineering
-------
334
M. E. Wiggin
Albert W. Bromberg
firm to conduct the study will be accomplished in July of
this year.
MR. STEIN: Do we have anyone from the Region here?
Are you familiar with that, Mr. Bromberg? Are you familiar
with Plum Island?
MR. BROMBERG: Vaguely. Yes, I know where it is.
MR. STEIN: I guess you didn't listen. He says
"because of the unique and specialized treatment required
at the Plum Island Disease Laboratory." What kind of unique
and specialized treatment? Can't a lagoon handle those
fellows?
MR. BROMBERG: That was sterilization procedure
because they deal with animal control and virus control
systems and do animal research. They require a sterilization
procedure.
MR. STEIN: Before they put it in?
MR. BROMBERG: Before discharge.
MR. STEIN: You mean they are discharging it now
without sterilization?
MR. BROMBERG: No, they are doing it right now.
MR. STEIN: What is the specialized and unique
treatment?
MR. BROMBERG: Go ahead with the complete secondary
-------
335
Albert W. Bromberg
Richard J. Benoit
treatment system.
MR. STEIN: What's unique and specialized about it?
MR. BROMBERG: Nothing really, sir.
MR. STEIN: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Curry.
MR. CURRY: As I mentioned after the last speaker
about the Connecticut people in the audience, we have a very
wide spectrum of interest. And we have Dick Benoit who
is knowledgeable on these matters and generally has some
unusual and interesting comments on our kind of work.
Dick, would you like to say something?
STATEMENT OF
RICHARD J. BENOIT, Ph.D.
DIRECTOR, ECOLOGY LABORATORY
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS, INC.
NORWICH, CONNECTICUT
DR. BENOIT: I don't think I have anything very
unusual or special to say.
MR* STEIN: Why don't you identify yourself?
DR. BENOIT: I will. I am Richard J. Benoit. I am
Director of the Ecology Laboratory of Environmental Research
and Applications, Inc., of Norwich, Connecticut.
For three years the scientists from colleges,
universities, government laboratories, and industries
-------
336
Richard J, Benoit
surrounding Long Island Sound have met in annual informal
research planning colloquia, The first was held at Yale, the
second at Stony Brook, and the third and most recent one at
the Avery Point, Groton, Connecticut campus of the University
of Connecticut.
Xn spite of the information that ia exchanged at
these colloquia and in spite of the limited informal coordina-
tion that can come out of that kind of a meeting, no
comprehensive research plan has come into being for research
on Long Island Sound. No single research project of the
scope and quality comparable to the work covered by the
publications of Dr, Gordon Riley of about a decade ago isin
the course of being carried out.
The New England River Basins Commission has
apparently been assigned the Federal coordinator's role. We
all hope that the Commission will integrate the private
sector into its planning. If all the Commission can do is
coordinate the activities of the Federal operating agenoles,
I fear that it will become an Ineffectual bureaucratic
instrument.
In the absence of a full-fledged participation
of the private sector, I fear that pollution abatement in Long
Island Sound will drag and we will not gain in a timely way
the new knowledge needed to assure that the moat water quality
-------
Richard J. Benoit
337
improvement will be purchased for the dollars spent.
Even in the absence of coordination, some money
will buy some water quality improvement.
There is an outstanding array of research facilities
and professional talent in the institutions surrounding our
beloved Long Island Sound, At these annual research planning
colloquia these institutions and individuals have expressed
their interest and commitment. At present they lack the
resources to carry out the work that they plan. The Federal
treasury must be the source of those resources.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you. Are there any comments
or questions?
MR. METZLER: Yes. I think it's very helpful to
have someone from the research community here, and I compli-
ment you on the statement.
I think it would be very helpful to the conferees
if you could identify, say, the two or three most pressing
research problems that you see needing attention as far
as the sound is concerned.
DR. BENOIT: I think one of them Is the exchange of
water across the Throga Neck, and the other is the exchange
of water across Block Island Sound.
I find it very difficult to understand why Block
-------
Richard J. Benoit
338
Island Sound is not included in the jurisdiction of this
conference. It seems to be physiographically part of the body
of water that we are concerned with. And in the same way
that the pollution of the sound by rivers emptying into it
is important, the pollution of Block Island Sound by Long
Island Sound, if in fact that occurs, is an Important problem.
I still don't think we know as much as we should
know about the exchange of water between Long Island Sound
and the East River and the North River.
MR. GLENN: This was done back in 1959, and we
would be glad to furnish you this information if you would
like to have it.
DR. BENOIT: I'm familiar with the information
from the work in 1959. I consider it to be a far from complete
story.
MR. METZLER: Your response not only is helpful
but it also brings some additional questions to mind.
Is some of this research needed before these
pollution abatement efforts are implemented? What are the
kinds of things that need to be done now and have a high
priority because they influence how we abate pollution?
DR. BENOIT: I think the answer to your question is
in the general statement that I made to the effect that
some money will buy some pollution abatement. If it is
-------
Richard J. Benoit
339
important to optimize the economics, if it is important to
get the most out of the resources that we can devote, all
of us, the government, the industries, the cities, if it's
important to get the most for our money, there's a lot of
research on Long Island that needs to be done.
It boils down to a question of, first of all,
bringing into existence a system which will tell us what the
water quality is at some number of locations and at the same
locations some time from now after some money has been spent.
A system for water quality monitoring in Long Island Sound
doesn't exist yet. A suboptimal system could be put together
if anyone is interested in having it. I say suboptimal
just by way of repeating my earlier statement that some money
will buy some abatement and some money will buy some amount
and quality of monitoring*
MR, METZLER: I must confess I'm not satisfied with
your answer, because my question was: If you had some money
to invest, what's the top priority for research? And I
assume that with the universities and the private sector
meeting here and discussing these problems you must have some
concept of what you think the top priority problems are as
far as research is concerned, and I would just like one
example.
DR. BENOIT; Well, I think I have given you two
-------
Richard J. Benoit
340
examples.
MR. METZLER: Okay.
DR. BENOIT: I think though the point that should be
made in answer to your question is that these research
colloquia that have been held do not result in a coordinated
plan of research. They do not establish priorities In a
research program. They are simply a discussion of the
research projects that are deemed to be important and inter-
esting to the individual scientists who participate In the
discussions.
lOt, STEIN: We understand that. But let's get back
to Mr. Metzler*s question which I share with Mr. Metzler as
an administrator will always be the most pertinent question,
the most interesting one of our time.
Mr. Metzler together with the other panelists and
myself are going to have to come up with a decision maybe
within the next day or certainly not more than the next five
weeks on how we move ahead with the pollution abatement
program if we do anything on Long Island Sound. And we are
going to have to make these determinations.
I think his question that he asked you wa«: Are
there any decisions that we should be able to or should
define in order to get some reasonable research answers
before we make these decisions?
-------
Richard J. Benoit
341
Now, I tried to listen very carefully to understand
what you are saying. You are saying we should check the
condition of the water beforehand, go on with our program
for remedial action, and check the condition of the water
afterwards and see what we did.
If this is the case, I can understand it. But
Mr. Metzler has said what he was looking for, and Z think
what he was looking for was a statement by the scientific
community which was going to aid us in his administrative
problems•
I think to put it very briefly, I have heard this
many, many times, as Mr. Metzler has, from the scientific
community. You just have to bring the aquatoria and the
colloquia closer together.
DR« BENOIT: Veil, I'm not here as a spokesman
for the scientific community, first of all.
Secondly, I'm not here as an adviser to either the
Federal Government or the State of New York.
I have made certain simple recommendations that
I hope the conference in its executive sessions will take
into account.
I don't think that these research planning colloquia
have established any clearcut set of ordered priorities for
research on Long Island Sound. I hope that the New England
-------
Richard J. Benoit
342
River Basins Commission in its role as Federal coordinator
will be able to do this.
I fear, however, that if their role is limited to
the coordination of the operating Federal agencies, they will
not succeed. I think that it is critically important that
the Commission find a way of integrating the activities of
the private sector into the planning process.
MR. GREGG: Dr. Benoit, may 1 comment? I am trying
to respond to Dwight's question about some current research
priorities. As I recall, there was a paper prepared by one of
the departments of the University of Connecticut called "A
Research Strategy for Long Island Sound" which I think did
have some priorities in it.
If anyone is here from the University of Connecti-
cut — I think Dick may know about that paper — we could
provide a copy of that for the conferees. This would give
us what at least a few people who are working on it saw as
research priorities.
I might comment on the question of research
coordination. And I should note that all the members who
are sitting here are members of the New England River Basins
Commission, and, in effect, these people are the water
quality planning people who do the work on water quality that
Is done In the name of the River Basins Commission. We are
-------
343
Richard J« Benoit
about to set up an ad hoc research advisory committee for
the specific purpose of trying to bring the private research
community in, to try to arrive at some research priorities
over the next few years.
Now, I know enough about the research community
to know that no one tells the research community what its
priorities are, but we can discuss these priorities with the
research community, and, hopefully, we can get — and our
explicit intention is to try to help to work out — some
priorities to which money can be allocated.
We hope also that we can use whatever influence
we have to help get funding, public funding, for research
programs which are directed at answering these priority
questions.
So we discussed this at some length at the meeting
we had here in New Haven on March 25 and 26, and we are
quite serious about this, and we think we can make a contribu-
tion here and intend to do it.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions? Yes, Mr. Peloquin?
MR, PELOQUIN: Dr. Benoit, I hope by your statement
that some money will buy some abatement you are not inferring
that we should delay abatement activities until some of
these other problems have been resolved.
-------
344
Richard J. Benoit
DR. BENOIT: No, I mean by that statement to say
that we ought to go ahead and spend some money and get
whatever pollution abatement we can for our money at this
point of knowledge.
MR, GREGG: May I ask one other question? Do you
have reports from those three colloquia that have been held
that you could provide to the conferees?
DR, BENOIT: No, the proceedings of the colloquia
are not recorded and not published.
MR, STEIN: Are they open?
DR. BENOIT: Yes, they are open to the general
public, although the organization of the colloquia is quite
informal. It's usually the responsibility of the host
institution. I'm not sure that the complete mailing list
from one colloquium to the next gets transferred from host
institution to host institution.
But there has always been a very good representation
of the research talent in the institutions surrounding the
sound at those colloquia.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any further comments or questions?
(No response.)
If not, thank you.
Before we go on, I would like to make one announcement.
-------
J. Richards Nelson
345
I am informed — I must say this is hearsay, but I will make
the announcement anyway — that the Corps of Engineers has
suspended immediately discharges by Pfizer pending meetings
with our agency.
Mr, Curry, would you continue?
MR* CURRY: We have Mr. Richards Nelson in the
audience. He is already on the record as providing some
information concerning the oyster situation. He is an oyster-
man of many years and member of the Shellfish Commission
of the State of Connecticut.
STATEMENT OF
J. RICHARDS NELSON
PRESIDENT, LONG ISLAND OYSTER FARMS, INC.
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
MR* NELSON: The name is J. Richards Nelson,
President of Long Island Oyster Farms. Inc.
Just as a matter of perhaps interest, one of the
predecessor companies of Long Island Ouster Farms was
F. Mansfield & Sons Company that was founded in 1846 in New
Haven and was continually in business until 1968 when they
sold their assets to Long Island Oyster Farms.
My remarks will be brief. The oyster is a brackish
water animal. As has already been stated, its natural
habitat was In the lower reaches of rivers coming into the
-------
J. Richards Nelson
346
salt water and the estuaries along Long Island Sound, which
is the reason that Connecticut's area has been historically
a great area for oyster production. Chesapeake Bay is probably
the greatest area for production in the world, and that
is because of the great rivers that come in there to the salt
water.
The fact that the oyster is an estuarian animal,
of course, makes it highly vulnerable to pollution. And,
Jack Curry, I'll agree that there are many things that kill an
oyster besides pollution. And I think 29 reasons are not
the complete reasons. I think there are at least 30.
(Laughter)
But, in fact, pollution and associated things with
pollution I suppose — if you call silt "pollution," which I
certainly do — the destruction of the environment in the
estuaries, in the lower reaches of our streams, and the
inability of the parent stock to live in those fereas has been
a prime reason for the decline in the production*
I think a few words of clarification might be
helpful on this matter of pollution and its effect on market-
ing of shellfish.
The standards under the sanitary system that was
set up in 1925 Required virtually that shellfish for consumption
must be taken from waters having a bacteriological quality
-------
J. Richards Nelson
347
comparable to drinking water. And I might say that under
this program — and it's a voluntary shellfish program started
in 1925, and I was in there at that time — it has been a
cooperative program between industry, States, and Federal
Government, formerly under the United States Public Health
Service and now under Food and Drug — under that system that
has been in effect over 50 years, if my information is
correct, and I believe it is, there has not been a single
case of disease from oysters produced under this program by
certified dealers.
A person can be perfectly safe if you are eating
shellfish that are produced under this system and the
dealer or restaurant that has them has the tag, the split
tag, half of the split tag that goes with it showing itB
origin.
This has been a remarkably successful program.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Nelson, I'm not disputing your
statement, but when I — or the average man — eats an oyster,
how do I know it comes from a certified dealer?
MR. NELSON: Correct. Your question is good, Mr.
Stein, And I would say that you could inquire of your
restaurant or place that you ate as to the source. But I
don't think that that is enough. And as businessmen we are
currently working on and have been for more than a year a
-------
J. Richards Nelson
348
method by which we can mark each individual oyster, maybe
not quite like the sticker that is on the bananas, but we
have been experimenting with various devices that would put
a marker on the shell as the oyster passed under this
apparatus so that after — or before if you like — you turn
the shell over and look at the mark and you say, "Well, this
came from Long Island Oyster Farms. It's safe."
This I feel is a very real thing. And I don't
take the suggestion lightly. Vfe feel that this is an extremely
important matter.
The history of the Rocky Mountains shows the
oyster has been around since the Rocky Mountains were under
water, which I guess was back in the days of Macedonians, and
the oyster has been able to survive ever since. But the
question is whether — unless this pollution situation is
reversed in our estuaries — it can continue to exist*
I think it's very, very heartening that we have
these activities. It has come with great support and
popularity, as we can see by the people who are attending,
and it is very heartening indeed.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Mr. Nelson, I don't think some of us who have
worked with the oyster Industry have any doubt of the oyster's
ability to exist. Our question is with pollution whether the
-------
J. Richards Nelson
349
oyster and man have the ability to coexist.
MR* NELSON: I think that's a very good point. We
transplant practically all of the oysters that we operate in
Connecticut and New York waters. Our seed is largely
produced in Connecticut but we are transplanting practically
all of our production to eastern Long Island waters where
the bacteriological quality of the water, like drinking
water, is acceptable.
We have been marketing a few from the Thimble
Islands area which is open in the winter months when people
aren't on the islands. We are questioning whether we are
even going to continue to try to produce market oysters in
that area.
MR* STEIN; Let me ask you this. Again I haven't
been as close to this field for the past 15 or 20 years
on the marketing conditions as I guess I would like to be.
I always liked working with you people. But do I understand
what you are saying is that up in these areas you are largely
producing seed oysters and getting then to other waters to
grow them?
MR. NELSON: Yes.
MR. STEIN; In other words, the conditions of the
waters you are operating in are such that if you produce the
oysters in those waters to maturity, the quality of the
-------
J. Richards Nelson
350
waters would not permit you to ship them in interstate
commerce? Therefore, you ship the seed oysters to other
places?
MR* NELSON: This is largely true. It is true of the
oysters grown in the estuaries. We have plantings out in
deep water in Long Island Sound where the quality of the
water is acceptable, but the depth of the water is such
that the food conditions are not proper for production of
suitable meats. For that reason we transplant over to other
areas, where they fatten better.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any other comments or questions?
(No response.)
If not, thank you very much.
If you want to come up, come on up.
DR. BENOIT: I'd like to ask Mr. Nelson how I might
be able to determine in a restaurant whether a piece of
sausage that I am eating was made with government-inspected
pork.
MR. STEIN: Well, let me tell you. When you get a
piece of sausage in a restaurant, if you eat it raw, as I
suspect you don't, Doctor, you probably proceed at your own
peril. But the trick we have with oysters and clams is we
eat them raw, alimentary canal and digestive system and all.
-------
351
J. Richards Nelson
Frank Singleton
There are very few animals that we eat that way.
That's why we have the high degree of protection
for oysters and clams. This is the problem. We have always
had it. I know of nothing else within our American society
that we consume that way. That's why we have to be super-
careful.
If you want to answer further, go ahead,
MR* KELSON: No, I have no other comment.
MR. STEIN; You know, we have been in this business
a long time. Most of us grew up on it.
MR. NELSON: I have no knowledge of sausage.
(Laughter)
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments or
questions?
(No response.)
Mr. Curry.
MR. CURRY: We have a representative of the Green-
wich Environmental Action Group who would like to say a few
words*
STATEMENT OF
FRANK SINGLETON
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
TOWN OF GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT
IIS. SINGLETON: My name is Frank Singleton, Director
-------
352
Prank Singleton
of Environmental Health, town of Greenwich. I run an environ-
mental health program there. We are the dividing line
between New York State and Connecticut. So I think it's
time we went down to reality a little and talked about the
local level. We're where the actual action usually takes
place.
First of all, let me comment that I am also speaking
for the Greenwich Environmental Action Group and the Byram
River Pollution Abatement Society, They hoped to be here
today but they couldn't make it.
I want to speak on a number of issues. Before X
do though, I would like to answer some of your questions
perhaps regarding research needs. I think there are two that
are very interesting.
One is the fact that metals in Long Island Sound
apparently are more extensive as a pollutant than we recog-
nized. One of them is, for example, cooling waters from
powerplants often have metals added to prevent fouling
inside the machinery.
MB. STEIN: What?
MR. SINGLETON: There are metals sometimes added
such as copper or chlorine, for that matter, to prevent fouling.
MR. STEIN: Slimicides. They generally add
chlorine. Are they really adding metals?
-------
Frank Singleton
353
MR, SINGLETON: Sometimes metals as 1 understand it.
We are dealing with a powerplant that may come in in Stamford
so we have been concerned with that. That's a research need.
But now with the millions of gallons a day of cooling water
that goes through some of these powerplants, there may be
a large amount of metals generated.
MR. STEIN: That's right. We are generally asking
that no chemicals or metals, slimicides be used in the cooling
plants. I don't know how far we're getting with that, but
we are proposing that.
MR. SINGLETON: Well, at the moment, as far as I
know, they are being used.
Secondly, there was a study done in Massachusetts
recently about marine fouling tanks that contain mercury,
and it showed, in parts of Cape Cod, sediments approached
900 ppm of mercury. These were close to marine boating
areas in which boats were cleaned. The paint chips were
washed off.
However, this is not a shellfish problem. Since
usually the harbors are so fouled with the usual activities
of boat yards you'd get parts per million as high as 3, 4, 5,
or 6 in oysters and clams that exist, but these were not
shellfish harvesting areas. I have the papers if you want
then. They are from the Massachusetts Department of Health,
-------
Frank Singleton
354
So Kadie Anders came up from the New York Times.
It's reaching rather high concentrations in some
of our shellfish by biological measurements, and apparently
metals in Long Island Sound may be a very significant
research problem. And every time we turn around we are
falling over it. As a local health department involved with
this# I am beginning to find out I am getting really frightened
about some of the research results that have been coming
in, but it hasn't been put together or correlated nor an
inventory made of Long Island Sound. I can show you —
MR. STEIN: Let me ask you one question. I just
ask you this to try to put this in perspective. Do you
think you have any special problems in the waters, metal
problems in the waters, of Long Island Sound that we don't
have in the other waters of the country?
MR. SINGLETON: I can't answer that, not being
familiar with the other waters of the country. But I
suspect that you do have a more serious problem due to the
limited shall we say capacity of the basin here compared to
let's say Open ocean.
However, it may be more serious in something like
the Great Lakes*
But in some of your test results which are in the
back of your book there I can show you where Stamford Harbor
-------
355
Frank Singleton
is and where Port Chester Harbor is by the metal content.
Greenwich in between shows none.
So the only point I 'n» trying to bring up here is
that mercury was sort of stumbled across a few years ago almost
by accident, and we may have a problem in Long Island Sound
with metals that not enough research has been done to
determine.
This is a real buildup in the lower part of the
sound. It has been characterized actually, the western end
of the sound, as a toilet bowl that doesnft quite flush.
This is really I believe a point that is a serious point«
I think there is a need for some research on what
are the concentrations of metals in the lower part of Long
Island Sound specifically, but in general in Long Island
Sound, especially as related to powerplants.
Now, this brings in a couple of other items. First
of all, let me mention a few of my local problems as related
to this conference.
One is the fact that at Stamford Helco wishes to
build an 800-megawatt powerplant. This will create quite a
bit of a problem with thermal pollution. You have, of course,
a great deal of cooling water being brought in. There may be
sllmicides put in. We don't know yet.
They want to offshore load. They will be
-------
Frank Singleton
356
burning over a million gallons of bunker C oil a day. They
plan to come in with tankers on this I think.
I think there should be a moratorium on construction
of powerplants the western end of Long Island Sound
until the oil pollution problem can be pretty well clarified,
whether it be by pipeline, whether it be by the Coast Guard
providing specific navigational aids, or what have you.
But Helco right now is moving rather rapidly to
construct this plant or try to get it going. And if you sit
there for the next two years and think about it, it will
already be built or well on its way.
I think that there needs to be a decision made
by this agency in the next few weeks on the powerplant
problem especially in the western end of the sound. 1 don't
think it can be delayed any further.
MR. STEIN: What plant are you talking about?
MB. SINGLETON: Stamford. Right now there is a
powerplant that already exists. I think it's 47 megawatts.
Helco has come in and would like to build— It's not in your
list in there.
MR. STEIN: You mean this is an added starter?
MR. SINGLETON: They want to tear it down. They want
to put an 800-megawatt plant where the existing plant is.
MR. STEIN; Fossil fuel?
MR. SINGLETON: Fossil fuel. Bunker C.
-------
Frank Singleton
357
MR. STEIN: What's your complaint about that plant?
MR. SINGLETON: First of all, excluding the air
problem, we have a problem where first of all they want to
offshore load, like they do in Northport off Greenwich Point.
Invariably there will be an oil spill. The oil technique,
as you well know, is not sufficient to control oil spills
on open waters. It's bad enough in enclosed harbors. It's
putrid in open waters. You can't control oil that is
spilled of any magnitude at all, especially in an open sea.
You're going to have tankers coming in at least
once every two to three weeks. This plant will burn at
least a million gallons of oil a day. This is the western
end of the sound.
We have had since I have been in Greenwich in the
last several months six oil spills of greater or lesser
magnitude. The Coast Guard and I are getting very friendly
because of this problem. These have only been 100 or 200
gallons, and they are bad enough. I can imagine what it
would do to Greenwich's major recreational point if there
was a major oil spill of bunker C.
MR* STEIN: Let me just check the facts to be
sure I heard you right.
MR. SINGLETON: Sure.
MR. STEIN: You said 800 --
-------
Frank Singleton
358
MR. SINGLETON: Megawatts. That is what they
anticipate they would like to build.
MR. STEIN: On fossil fuel?
MR. SINGLETON: On fossil fuel. Correct.
MR. STEIN: You know, the largest plant we listed
on fossil fuel is 479 megawatts.
MR. SINGLETON: I know that. Yes.
MR. STEIN: Generally speaking, when they go that
high these days, they go to nuclear power.
MR. SINGLETON: They can't because AEC won't let
them. The population density is too heavy. They would like
to go to atomic power. They have told us they regret going
to fossil fuel. I mean they would prefer atomic power. But
the AEC has told them it's too close to New York City.
This is in direct conversations with the people
at Helco. This is not by hearsay or even by telephone. This
is face-to-face communication.
MR. STEIN: We're taking what you say, but you
know they do have some nuclear plants around Chicago.
MR. SINGLETON: I agree. Apparently this is a
fairly recent Federal decision by the AEC.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. SINGLETON: But that's not my jurisdiction.
MR. STEIN; All right. By the way, I'm not
-------
359
Frank Singleton
questioning you. I just wanted to ascertain the facts when
you gave the megawatt loading,
MR. SINGLETON: Right.
MR. STEIN: When you mentioned fossil fuel I wanted
to be sure I understood you correctly.
MR. SINGLETON: Correct.
MR. STEIN: Go ahead.
MR. SINGLETON: Our problem, as I say, has been we
would like to see a moratorium until some of this gets
clarified specifically from the point of view of oil and
specifically from the point of view of the thermal pollution
and the cooling water.
I first of all am against any once-through cooling.
I think now it's cheap and that's the only advantage you have.
Okay. Let's go to Port Chester. Mr. Glenn is
very familiar with the problem in Port Chester. It is a
sewage treatment plant —
MR* STEIN: Wait. I don't understand you.
MR. SINGLETON: I'm giving you —
MR. STEIN: Let me see. I don't understand what
you're saying. Would you be in favor of the 800-megawatt
plant —
MR. SINGLETON: No.
MR. STEIN: — in your community if they had cooling
-------
360
Frank Singleton
towers or a closed system because of the oil problem?
MR. SINGLETON: Our main concern— Now, this air
pollution I'm going to avoid. Let's go on to just the water.
The oil is what we are really most concerned with.
MH. STEIN: In other words, you doctft want them in
your community at all, no matter what they do about thermal
pollution?
MR. SINGLETON: No, sir.
MR, STEIN: Is that correct?
MR, SINGLETON: We want to see better protection.
However, at the moment we have not received any hard
guarantees— First of all, I think offshore loading would be
a disaster in this highly populated area, because I don't
see how when an oil spill takes place— And if you bring
in tankers every two or three weeks and you do this for
three or four years, sooner or later there will be human
error,
MR, STEIN: I'm just trying to find out what you're
driving at.
MR. SINGLETON: I'm driving at --
MR, STEIN: Are there any conditions under which you
would accept the 800-megawatt plant? Suppose they did not
have offshore oil loading. Suppose they had a closed system
and they didn't have once-through cooling. Vould that plant
-------
Frank Singleton
361
be acceptable in Greenwich?
MR. SINGLETON: All other things being equal, yes.
MR. STEIN: All right. Thank you.
MR. SINGLETON: What we're pointing out is they are
planning to build now, and I'm not sure we are going to get
these guarantees.
MR. STEIN: All right. I just wanted to see what
you had in mind.
MR. SINGLETON: Okay. A second problem is that in
both our end of the sound, if you will, the Connecticut
end, and in the New York end the majority of sewage treatment
plants are primary. Specifically, Port Chester in New York
State has a plant that at times has been so bad in its per-
formance that the effluent has been worse than the influent
in terms of BOD removal and suspended solids.
MR* STEIN: That's not unusual that the effluent
is worse than the influent, is it?
MR. SINGLETON: That's one of my points.
MR. STEIN: That's the story of our life in pollution.
MR. SINGLETON: That's right. My only point in
this is that before we talk about tertiary treatment, why don't
we get secondary treatment?
Americans have a tendency to jump 20 years in the
future. I'd like to talk about the present. And I do feel
-------
362
Frank Singleton
that all sewage plants in the whole Long Island Sound area
and especially the western end should be secondary treatment
and this should start immediately and not sit around and
study it the next three or lour years.
The third point is jurisdictional matters. Now,
let me give you who I have to deal with over something as
simple as the Byram River, which is a small interstate river
that divides New York from Connecticut, which is heavily
polluted by the American Felt Company of General Aniline and
Film, and a number of other things, including Port Chester.
I have to deal with everybody at this table, and
I won't go through it all. I have to deal with the Health
Department of the State of Connecticut, the Health Department
of New York State, the Coast Guard, the Corps of Engineers,
and the Attorney General.
If that is the case with the jurisdictional problems
in just the simple matter of getting something done on a
small river basin, I really feel sorry for you with the
Mississippi and the Hudson because I can imagine the problems.
But I think we need better communication between
the various Federal, State, and local agencies on this matter.
One point I'd like to mention here is that the
local government very rarely gets notified by any of these
agencies, including the Federal Government, about meetings
-------
Frank Singleton
363
such as this. I usually find out about these meetings through
conservation groups.
MR. STEIN: If you read the law, I think the law
is plain on this. This is the meaning of the Federal and
State agencies. The States are supposed to notify you. The
fact that the Federal Government doesn't notify you is a
question not only of design but it's because we're following
the law.
MR. SINGLETON: Right. I'm just stating —
MR. STEIN: I'm really suggesting this because we
get it very often. The point is if you have another approach
to this where you feel you want to deal with the Federal
Government rather than the State — and I'm not sure I
recommend it because if you begin dealing with us Federal
scoundrels you'd find how nice a guy Jack Curry really was all
the time — (laughter) — the forum for this is probably the
Congress.
What we are trying to do is follow the Federal law
which deals with the primary rights and responsibilities of
the States. We notify the States, and they are supposed
to notify you.
MR. SINGLETON: Fine. I'm just pointing out there
have oftentimes been deficiencies in communication. I'm not
-------
364
Frank Singleton
really trying to make a big point about it. It's merely
that there are so many agencies involved that oftentimes
something that is important falls between two agencies and
disappears.
One other point then I would like to mention is
that we would like to clarify and hopefully at the Federal
level the implementation time needed for this permit system.
I'm not sure this is the forum for it.
But we have had an argument with GAF about a dis-
charge. We have had a problem with it because it is a
pollutant on the Byram River. It's the single most serious
pollution in there. We have gone to the Attorney General.
We have been fighting back and forth with the Corps of
Engineers on this.
But one of the problems will be if they apply for
a permit can we take them or can we refer them to the
Attorney General? Do we have to wait until the Federal
Government with its limited manpower spends the next six
months, a year, etc.?
MR. STEIN: Let me help you out on this.
MR. SINGLETON: Okay.
MR. STEIN: It just happens to be the right forum
for this.
HR. SINGLETON: Okay. Good.
-------
Frank Singleton
365
MR, STEIN: Where is this? In Connecticut or in New
York?
MR* SINGLETON: In Connecticut. There is a plant
owned by General Aniline and Film, formerly titled the American
Felt Company, which discharges 300,000 gallons of industrial
waste,
MR. STEIN: It belongs to GAF now?
MR. SINGLETON: GAF. Yes. Industrial waste. Mr.
Curry has it under order, etc. There is a regular procedure.
However, we feel we have a lot of problems that we have been
trying to deal with with Mr. Curry's agency, with the Federal
Government in general, with the Corps of Engineers.
One of the problems has been, see, they want to
tie into our municipal secondary sewage treatment plant. We
would just as soon not have them in there until we have some
questions answered which we don't feel have been answered
yet.
However, at the moment the problem is that we have
them legally and I think we can press the issue farther if
we can get the Attorney General to move. However, if a permit
system gets implemented and they apply for it, then we feel
probably no court in the land obviously would go and, let's
say, blame GAF for, you know, waiting for the Federal
Government to act.
-------
366
Frank Singleton
I have asked Mr, Ruckelshaus this recently in
Boston. I have read his letter in the New '/ork Times. He
never does answer how long will it take to make an inventory
of these permits — the bureaucratic delay, in other words.
MR, STEIN: You're right with the bureaucratic
guy who makes the decision here right now on these permits.
MR. SINGLETQN: Okay.
MR. STEIN: You have the most vexing problem whether
you're going to take them into your city system or not.
MS. SINGLETON: Right.
MR, STEIN: Now, you make up your mind whether you
are going to include them or not. And if you are going to
include them, great. We'll give you a time schedule, and
you include them. If you're not going to include them, you
work with Mr. Curry. He'll get in touch with the Federal
people and we'll talk to GAF, who are not entire strangers
to us, as you might guess, and I think we can expedite this
very rapidly.
But I suggest to you that the basic decision is
going to be yours — whether you are going to take them
into your municipal system or not. And you're going to have
to give us the answer.
MR. SINGLETON: I agree.
MR* STEIN: But once you do that, we will move on
-------
Frank Singleton
that very rapidly.
MR. SINGLETON: Okay. But I want to clarify that
one of the problems was until — Originally they were going
to go into the municipal system. This is something that was
decided by Water Resources and GAF with the town. We have
sort of thrown a wrench in those gears until we get some
more information.
But all we're worried about now on the specific
question is: Would the permit system being implemented for
industrial discharges slow down or interfere with any legal
action if they decide not to go into the municipal system?
MR. STEIN: I can answer that. The answer is no.
But this is the question that we're going to have to face*
because I think this in microcosm probably will give you the
kind of complexity of problems we have.
The point is I don't think I would — and even if
I did, I don't think a Federal judge would support me — ask
GAF to spend millions of dollars on the cleanup if all they
were going to do to handle their waste in a few months was
to make a connection to Greenwich's municipal system.
So you have to make up your mind with the company
one way or another. And you set a date with Mr. Curry. And
by the way, if you call this to our attention, we1re very
-------
Frank Singleton
368
charming people, and if you don't set the date we'll set it
for you where you are going to make up your mind whether you
are going to take them into the municipal system or not.
This is the key question.
Then, if you are, you are responsible technically
and legally for handling their refuse, their wastes. If
you're not, then we will deal with GAF.
By the way, I think GAF is, from my indications,
a reasonably responsible corporate citizen. I don't
anticipate having any problems with them if we get that
answer.
But as long as you can be whipsawed about whether
you're going to take them in your municipal system or not —
talk about tax refuges — this is one of the refuges of
industrial dischargers. And until we can get a straight
answer in the municipality, they can go behind this. So you
have to face up to your responsibilities too.
MR« SINGLETON: Not to drag it out, but I want to
say one thing I don't think I made clear. Decision was
made to tie into this municipal system. We stopped it. The
date that was supposed to tie In just passed — March 31st.
Now, the decision has to be made all over again
with Water Resources and the local sewer division and myself,
of course.
-------
Frank Singleton
369
So what I'm saying is that the decision originally
was made based on a Metcalf and Eddy report that we decided
was not sufficient to answer or to protect the town. So it's
up in the air.
But GAF, while they're cooperative and they're
lovely people, I agree, are not famous either for moving
rather quickly unless prodded with a bayonet. So I mean the
whole —
MR. STEIN: No one is going to be —
MR. SINGLETON: Right.
MR. STEIN: No one is going to move rather quickly.
This is the point.
By the way, I have no complaint in these cases
against these industries, because the industries were within
the morality of American industry, and if cities are going
to come up with this indecision when they are on and off
about whether they are going to take an industry into their
system or not into their system, don't point to the States
and the Federal Government to solve your problem —
MR. SINGLETON: We're not.
MR. STEIN: — because we can't until we get a
definite answer from you people.
I would say if you look at the unresolved cases
and the cases missing a deadline in most of the Industrialized
-------
370
Frank Singleton
States, that we have on our books, you'd be surprised at the
high number — maybe it's as much as 20 percent — of cases
that are hanging fire just because there hasn't been a
resolution of whether they are going into a municipal system
or not, or when they decided to go into the municipal system
the municipality hasn't extended the sewer so they can connect.
I think you just are going to have to face up
to your obligations before we can all work together on this
and have an answer to it.
MR. SINGLETON: I agree. When it is done, all I
want to say is we don't have any further delays by a permit
implementation system.
MR. STEIN: You're not going to get any delays from
that.
MR. SINGLETON: Can I hold you to that?
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Singleton, you're here as the
Director of Environmental Health of Greenwich?
MR. SINGLETON: Yes.
MR. KLASHMAN: Are you also representing the mayor?
MR. SINGLETON: There is a selectman, not a mayor,
and I'm not representing him.
MR. KLASHMAN: Are you here for the city?
MR. SINGLETON: I'm here for the city. I also am
here to speak for two of the local groups.
-------
371
Frank Singleton
MR. KLASHMAN: What concerns me is in the implementa-
tion schedule I understand that Greenwich was supposed to
build an interceptor, and the date for that is behind schedule
now.
MR. SINGLETON: Due to a funding problem plus certain
bureaucratic procedures, yes, sir.
MR. KLASHMAN: So the question —
MR, STEIN: I never heard that before. That kind
of reason is completely unfamiliar to me. (Laughter)
MR. SINGLETON: Is it? Well, by the way, I want
to clarify something before we go on. I'm not responsible
for the sewer plant or the system. That is the Sewer Division
of the Department of Public Works. What I am responsible
for is the problem that may be created if the sewer plant
in the lower harbor, a secondary plant, gets damaged by
industrial waste creating a sanitary condition in the lower
harbor.
Also I*m responsible for the water quality in the
Byram River which is affected by this plant.
But I was not responsible nor am I in the direct
line of getting that sewer up there or tying that plant In.
I can have a negative veto, but I can't agree to let it in.
That's not my job. I mean my point was —
MR. STEIN: I'm glad we went through with this,
-------
Frank Singleton
372
Mr. Singleton. Because I think the story that you have heard
with Ur. Singleton is a very typical situation that we have
in pollution control. When you talk about someone being in non-
compliance or anything of this sort, when you begin getting
down to the facts of the case, you always get into a complex
situation like that.
You know, when you say tbfct the problem is lack of
funds or bureaucracy, I agree with what Ur. Singleton says,
but 1 think we have to apply both those things, lack of
funds and bureaucracy, to all levels of government —
UR. SINGLETON: Agreed.
MR. STEIN: ~ namely, Federal, State, local — and
go beyond the levels of government to Industry, —
UR. SINGLETON: Corporate.
UR. STEIN: — because they have the same problems.
MR. SINGLETON: Agreed.
UR. STEIN: But this is what we have to cut through
in order to get pollution control lined up.
Thank you very much.
UR. UETZLER: Through the courtesy of my colleague
from Connecticut, I have been granted the privilege of
putting on a witness from New York who has to go back
tonight — Mrs. Claire Stern, who is Executive Director
of the Long Island Environmental Council, from Roslyn.
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
373
If Mrs. Stern will come forward, we will be ready
for her statement at this time.
STATEMENT OF
MRS. CLAIRE STERN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
LONG ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
ROSLYN, NEW YORK
MRS. STERN: You're all tired and weary, as I am,
so let me briskly read my statement directly.
The Long Island Environmental Council is a coali-
tion of 63 organizations. For those men who can see my
statement, you can see it said yesterday 62. It is crossed
out to say 63 beaause yesterday afternoon the Presbytery
of the Protestant Church of Long Island became the 63rd
member of our organization.
We represent differing individual agendas, as you
can tell from my comment to you about the Protestant Church,
and individual memberships, all working together under one
administrative structure in defense of the environment,
especially the quality of life on Long Island.
In aggregate, we represent the general attitudes
of well over 20,000 members, but I speak today for the
Board of Directors of the Council. I am Claire Stern» the
Executive Director. The alms of the organization are public
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
374
education and citizen action. One goes with the other, of
course.
Since the Council was organized just over two years
ago, we have identified water quality and water resources
as a priority goal. We have implemented this goal in a
variety of ways:
-- participating in the Citizens' Crusade for Clean
Water, which was a national coalition;
-- successfully stopping an application to the
Corps of Engineers to dredge 5 million cubic yards of fill
off the western coast of Great Neck;
-- cooperating with local conservation groups to
save acres of marshland in a variety of places;
— actively campaigning to enforce the New York
State boat holding tank law;
-- supporting the detergent ban in Suffolk
County, and cooperating with all public agencies to enforce
the ban;
— initiating a consumer boycott in Nassau County
toward the use of soap and no-phosphate detergent;
-- supporting legislative proposals for a single
governmental authority to protect, preserve, and develop
the Long Island Sound. For this purpose we cooperated with
other organizations to form a communications network of
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
375
citizen organizations around the sound, called the Long
Island Sound Association;
— testified at the Ribicoff, Wolff hearings,
July 1970f on proposed legislation;
— opposed the construction and still oppose the
construction of the Oyster Bay-Rye Bridge;
— testified at public hearings, conferences, etc.,
to consider applications for use of the shoreline — most
notably (1) against the proposed desulfurization plant in
Suffolk County, which, by the way, 1b now up in Maine look-
ing for a piece of the shoreline, and (2) against the request
of the town of North Hempstead to place incinerator residue
on 26 acres of the shore of Hempstead Harbor; and
-- attended quarterly meetings of the New England
River Basins Commission which has been discussing the
study of the sound.
This enumeration should give you, the conferees,
an estimate of the Interest and commitment of the Long
Island Environmental Council in the proceedings and possible
results of this enforcement conference being held here in
New Haven*
I hesitated to add another phrase after "being
held" as I was typing this, because, in truth, after a total
of many manhours of conversation, reading, and research, I
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
376
still do not know why this conference is being held. Until
Monday night, it seemed to me to be a giant press conference
to release a much-heralded report which would list the
polluters who are guilty of degrading the waters and embayments
of the sound and to establish a schedule of enforcement
proceedings.
It appears to be, in addition, an opportunity for
each public official to state the progress and needs of his
own individual jurisdiction. We were not to be outdone. As
you heard, we started off our statement in the same fashion.
Identification of the private, municipal, Federal,
and industrial polluters is a necessary data gathering
device prior to action. Even a determined reader of the
report cannot tell where the blame should be placed. Mr.
Curry has carefully enumerated how he feels on behalf of
Connecticut.
I can tell from looking through carefully for those
areas on Long Island that I know well that it just did not
jibe. It looked to me like it was a first draft of a report
yet to be put together.
The charts are incomprehensible to me. Poor
little Rowayton Market was listed In the same place with
Raybestos-Manhattan. We cannot tell from the chart or text
if the 48 Industries which have completed their federally
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
377
approved schedules are no longer polluting the sound, or
must they now start on another schedule? We hope the EPA
staff has this information. We hope they know exactly what
polluting elements are being sent off with the wastewaters.
Clearly we, the citizens, do not know from the information
provided.
You might say, then, that*s all right, that the
State and Federal agencies know and will proceed toward en-
forcement. My answer to that hypothetical remark is twofold:
One, if we could depend on your vigilance,
gentlemen, we would be relieved of the constant worry as we
watch our beaches closed and our shellfish beds being closed,
in spite of all the conversation today about how many are
being opened.
But while we have relied on our elected and public
officials, we have seen a continuous flow of language
lamenting the deterioration of our waters and very little to
encourage us that the trend is truly being reversed.
My second comment on this hypothetical conversation
is that every piece of legislation builds in the opportunity
for citizen Involvement. Hearings are mandated in locales
to be affected by the proposed project. The Nassau County
Health Department, for example, wrote a new brochure in
fall 1970 urging the citizen on to play "a vital role In
-------
378
Mrs. Claire Stern
reducing and controlling water pollution," but refuses to
give us information on locations of wells or the data on a
particular harbor that we were seeking.
This conference today was called with the cheery
encouragement to conservation groups and citizens. But I
could not receive a copy of the important report until today,
when presumably I would be so confused by the presentation
of the data that all I would be able to do would be to say
"we are here and we care."
Since the report was made available to municipalities,
congressmen, and industries, I cannot see why the two Long
Island daily papers were the only ones able to print the
news about the report and the conference and why the Long
Island Environmental Council, known for its continued,
responsive interest, could not also have been given the
courtesy beforehand.
Now, having expressed our competence as an
organization, our interest, and our desire to see this en-
forcement conference be the beginning of a real effort to
clean up the waters of the sound, I wish to review and comment
on the recommendations of the report, page viii, and add
a few of my own which were not included and which I believe
should have been.
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
379
Enforcement
1. We wholeheartedly concur with this recommenda-
tion. We hope you have the necessary data to proceed
immediately. We would wish to know about the progress being
made, which industries and which municipalities are being
selected, and which enforcement procedure is being adopted.
We recommend that your ability to "select" be removed from
the law, so that no pressure of any kind can be brought to
bear on any public official to delay prosecution.
Thank you, Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
MRS. STERN: 2. We agree, and I am fairly sure
that recommending waste treatment plants is like singing
the praises of Mother Nature. This ta&es a commitment of
dollars from the Federal Government which we have not yet
seen.
You will all recall how hard we had to work to
raise the $214 million in 1969 for water pollution abatement
to the final $800 million, knowing all the while how
inadequate this billion dollars would be that we were fight-
ing for.
We need money for construction grants and money
for research to hasten us toward the time the local officials
can no longer say, "We cannot commit tax dollars, Mrs. Stern,
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
380
to pilot projects."
At that rate, we will not see phosphate and nitrate
removal in the densely-populated metropolitan areas in my
lifetime.
In a report of the U. S. Department of the Interior,
March 1970, "The Economics of Clean Water," a helpful point
was made — that the priority system of directing funds to
the most useful projects has been Ineffective, because
"willingness of the community to proceed with a project is
the operative allocation mechanism."
Greater Federal funding, as originally conceived,
is a more equitable use of the tax dollar and would insure
greater quality control on all projects.
I would recommend, further, that the municipality
be required to post a performance bond or use some other
workable,enforceable agreement prior to receiving Federal
subsidies, as was suggested in the Nader report released
on Monday of this week.
3. I am surprised at this suggestion — although
perhaps I really did misread it — that SPA suggests by
highlighting it as a recommendation that disinfecting is
acceptable and that it does not say that such discharge
should be closed down a« quickly as possible, which would
make more sense to me. But again I say perhaps I misunderstood
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
381
that recommendation,
4 and 5. These to me appear to be jurisdictional,
and I got that feeling from Mr. Curry's comments.
6. Every agency wants to develop a water management
program for the sound — the Corps of Engineers, the New
England River Basins Commission, the Interstate Sanitation
Commission, the Tri-State Transportation Commission, the
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, and, of course, the
Environmental Protection Agency. Each agency has wanted to
be funded for this study for several years, according to my
records.
Having stated this desire as a truism of water
management, each agency and municipality continues to do
business in the same old way. Hence, the list of environ-
mental skirmishes between citizen groups such as ours and
the agencies or Industry grows in number and intensity, with
great costs of time and money for both sides of the fight.
Ve have no choice. We have no plan. Each power
company proposal, each incinerator, each dredging application,
each housing subdivision -- you name It — must become an
adversary situation.
Don't talk about planning. Please do it. And
remember further that we will not accept planning as a
substitute for the kind of action needed on enforcement that
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
382
we are talking about here today.
7. How can you stop using the spoil sites as
recommended? First of all, you really do not know what
effect the spoil has on the sound. Nor can you be sure there
won't be equal damage on land, assuming you could find land
to use, which on Long Island is not really possible.
Why not be more selective, at least —- and since
I wrote this before this morning*s colloquy, I still point
out that I was saying then -- why not be more selective,
at least, and find out if the dumping of pharmaceuticals by
Pfizer at The Race is being carried westerly? Why not
close down the spoil sites close to shorelines? Why not
fund an onsite inspection program? For no one really knows
if the skipper takes his spoil to the spot designated
on the Corps' permit.
Now I'm going to skip to No. 9 in the recoramenda~
tions. I ask the staff of BPA why they picked on Connecticut
to install pumpout stations and why you did not remind New
York State, which has a law mandating boat toilets, to also
mandate pumpout facilities. We are indeed happy that
compliance is announced by New York. But we are not yet
witness to performance.
You might be Interested to know that as a result
of conversations through the Long Island Sound Association
-------
383
Mrs. Claire Stern
Senator Edward Rimer, of Wilton, Connecticut, introduced
a mandatory bill into the Connecticut Legislature this session.
I will conclude my statement by touching on a
few recommendations not referred to in the report at all
and which we wish you would take under advisement.
1. Ban phosphate detergents. Encourage the
Industry throughout the Nation to move quickly to find a
reasonable substitute. Encourage the States to move indi-
vidually, as quickly as possible. New York has three bills
now which relate to detergents which we hope to see passed
which will ban detergents with phosphates over 8 percent
(we, of course, would like to consider banning them com-
pletely, and we are still doing some research on this), en-
courage research into substitute washing powders (this is
the second bill), and, third, set a target date for the
complete ban in New York State.
2. We recommend that EPA concern itself in
greater detail, immediately, with the siting of powerplants,
conventional and nuclear. Governor Rockefeller introduced
a bill yesterday which would place this decision-making
power in the hands of the Public Service Commission of New
York, an agency not especially well known for its
environmental concerns.
3. My last recommendation is that a fund be
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
384
established for aiding industries which are vital to the
Nation's production capability but who would be under severe
financial difficulties if forced into a schedule of upgrading
their operation. A report prepared by a consulting firm
from Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1967 for the Department of
the Interior suggests criteria to be used for granting those
dollars.
Mr. Metzler, thank you very much for giving me
the chance to speak today. Thank you very much for the chance
to be here.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mrs. Stern.
Are there any comments or questions?
KR. EETZLER: I merely want to thank Mrs, Stern
and the agency she represents for their concern about the
environment. Some of these groups that she represents
have demonstrated their willingness to get out and work for
bond Issues and to help change things. This is the name
of the game. So we appreciate that.
Ye will take note of some of your comments for
improving the program that we now have going, specifically
on the boat pollution.
Z think it might be at least of Interest to explain
the decision-making process. There are two schools of
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
385
thought. One is that you mandate pumpout facilities.
Several States have gone this route. The marina operators
have insisted that if we will enforce the law they will
provide the facilities.
Now, frankly, they didn't last year, but we didn't
enforce the law either. And so this year we think everything
is set for strict, hard enforcement, and we'll have an
opportunity to see. If the evidence is that they simply
don't provide enough facilities, then I don't think we will
have any choice but to go back to the New York Legislature
next year and mandate pumpout facilities.
One other point. The State of New York has
quite a number of State-owned marinas, and the legislature
in 1969 appropriated money so that we do have pumpout
facilities at the New York marinas.
MRS. STERN: Kay I comment?
MR. METZLER: Please do.
MRS. STERN: Unfortunately, not many of those are
down on Long Island. That's the point I want to make.
Because I'm in touch with the boat owners and many of the
operators* The feeling has been very clearly that, one,
the State of New York did not provide the pumpout facilities
where it might have been doing so in the land where it has
ownership. Okay. So that you did not at least show the way.
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
386
The second point to be made: The men who own
boats, whether it is lor recreational reasons or for commer-
cial fishing, I find love Long Island Sound in a way that
perhaps the rest of us don*t. They live out on it. They
have a kind of an emotional relationship with it. They are
more offended by the degradation of the western part of the
sound than many of the rest of us do.
We somehow make accommodation. They do not. They
are the ones who are saying, "Wefre very happy to comply with
the law, but we expect everybody to comply with the law. We
expect the government facilities to be provided. We
expect the government-owned boats to have holding tanks on
them. And we also would like very much, please, if
Connecticut, which is just across the way, would be doing the
same thing" — which is why we attempted to provide this
service, and we talked to some people in Connecticut when
this bill was introduced in the Connecticut Legislature.
The other part, which is really a third point that
needs to be made, is we have been this route and I have
gotten very many nasty letters from some irate boat owners
who have said, you know, "Really we*re the smallest part of
the whole thing. Why aren't you really after the big guys?"
And we have to show them together. You know, I
say "together" because I*m here representing their point of
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
387
view, and I am hopeful that it will have some effect upon
what all of you decide tonight or tomorrow or whenever it
is you're going to set your schedules.
You really have to start going after the large
polluters. You must start doing this immediately, and
you must announce it* We can't have a report like we had
from EPA today which doesn*t give any Indication at all about
the changes that have taken place. You can*t tell from
that list whether someone has upgraded sufficiently, as
you indicate in New York State's report, that a given
installation has been upgraded and is no longer cited as a
polluter.
What's the point of having a report such as the
one that I have if I can't go to the Roslyn Village and
say, "Good people, you know you have done yours, and now
we go to the next and we try to persuade Port Jeff to come
up to par."
This is the kind of thing that is terribly
important.
But I went off the original point, which is the
boat toilet thing, and the detergent ban, which for some
strange reason have caught the imagination of the sort of
everyday citizen who finds that worrying about nuclear
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
388
powerplants, y°u know, all around Long Island Sound or
all of the sewage wastes coming out of the western part of
the sound is really more than he can tolerate. They can't
do anything about it. All they can do is maybe write an angry
letter to somebody.
That's your job. That's the way they feel. But
their job is to do these small things that we are talking
about, which is to put a holding tank in, and they are per-
fectly willing to do this, but you, the State, have to give
them the lead.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Glenn.
MR. GLENN: Just one thing. I'd like to correct a
false impression that you might have here. I don't want
to have all these people elbowing me in this race for this
management study on Long Island Sound and elbowing me
unnecessarily.
I'm not in that race. And I'm very much in favor
of the New England River Basins Commission making this study.
We'll be glad to give what input we can for our end of the
sound that we have*
And I'll assure you we won't even be out there in
line with our hand out with all that large crowd that will
be knocking on Mr. Gregg's door.
MRS. STERN: I'll cross you off my list here. All
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
389
right? Is there anyone else? Shall I add somebody I forgot?
I mean there are so many. (Laughter)
MR. GLENN: I didn't want people taking pot shots
at me and not having a reason.
MRS. STERN: Mr. Glenn, we certainly won't do it
for that 1 assure you.
MR. GREGG: Murray, may I ask —
MR. STEIN: Yes, Mr. Gregg.
MR. GREGG: Mrs. Stern, you said on the last page
of your statement, "We recommend that EPA concern Itself
in greater detail, immediately, with the siting of power-
plants." There were several comments on this today, a
couple calling for moratoriums. It wasn't clear under what
authority moratorium might be applied.
Were you thinking here about intensive studies
to determine the potential effect of thermal plants on the
sound? Or are you talking about a moratorium? Or what
are you talking about?
MRS. STERN: What 1 really was talking about was
the most Intensive study possible. We cannot, you know,
continue to have this kind of confrontation that says, you
know, we put on all the lights and then we tell the power
company they can't build a plant anywhere of any kind.
I think we do think that in terms of nuclear power
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
390
at this time we do ask for moratorium. We have taken this
position.
But we want very much to have a study made, and
we believe it can be made. We hope that it can be made very
quickly. Otherwise we are going to have things such as
the hearing out on the Shoreham plant that are going to go
on forever. We can't afford that. None of us can.
MR. STEIN: I'm trying to understand this.
You mean a moratorium and that they don't build any powers
plant even with all safeguards? Let's assume that you had
all the safeguards you wanted. You wouldn't want any plants
at all?
MRS. STERN: Mr. Stein, maybe it's my lack of
knowledge, but isn't it possible that for one year all
applications could be held in abeyance while we would
begin to determine what, in fact, a compilation of anything
up to 12 plants using the Long Island Sound waters for, you
know, exchange — what effects it would have upon the sound?
MR. STEIN: I don't want to take too much time.
I think what you said Is correct. I was going to make a
general recommendation to you, Mrs. Stern. I think you have
some very profound analytical thrust in your statement, I
would suggest though that you talk to some of the people
here just on a technical basis.
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
391
Now, I think when you talk about beginning to
understand, that is correct, and I said that to our
Administrator the other day. This question comes up with us
all the time.
For example, in Lake Michigan the biologists have
said they would need five years to figure the effect on the
biota. With all deference to the biologists — as a matter
of fact, some of my best friends are biologists — when
they say five years, I think this is Just the beginning. And
I told the Administrator we have to make a decision in five
weeks.
If we could get a moratorium and we could have
an answer in a year, this might be a viable position. But
if -- with the growing and burgeoning demands that we have
for electric power in other industries — we proceed on the
assumption that we are going to stop everything for a year
and at the end of the year we are going to be all wise and
come up with the answers, I'm not sure we're not deluding
ourselves.
Because I have been in this business a long time.
As I say, as I look at these people at this table, most of
these people I have known for 25 years. Ve have been through
It. We have made these proposals when we were young and
Innocent ourselves. We came back in a year. There were the
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
392
same arguments that went on when we left.
MRS. STERN: Whose arguments, sir?
MR. STEIN: The same arguments on both sides.
MRS. STERN: Oh, I see what you're saying.
MR. STEIN: In other words, nothing was resolved.
Now, the question I think that we have with the
powerplants or any other industry that is concerned is unless
you can come up within a relatively short time— By the
way, this doesn't denigrate what Mr. Gregg says. I was
checking with Mr. Klashman. As far as I'm concerned, we are
not looking for money either. And I would be delighted
MRS. STERN: I didn't put you on the list.
MR. STEIN: Yes, it's on the list at the end.
(Laughter)
I believe we have to have the long-range approach.
But I also think, if you are going to have a problem, we
have to come up with relatively short-range solutions to
let the economy go forward.
We have had several cases in Florida and many other
places. When we operate in a democracy, people get what
they can.
I think I have tried to vigorously enforce It.
But I tell you I would hate to put this up to a vote of the
people, say. In southern Florida as to whether they wanted
-------
Mrs. Claire Stern
393
clean water or air conditioners, because I might lose. And
this is what we have to recognize. The people are going to
get what they want.
In other words, what I'm suggesting to you is if we
are going to have, as I see it here, two powerplants coming
in by 1975 and that's what you need for your electrical
energy, I think by the end of the year we are going to have
to make some basic decisions on whether we are going to
let these powerplants proceed, and with what safeguards
to preserve or protect the environment, and we're really not
going to have five years to make the study. Nor can I find,
if we give a year's moratorium for the study of this, any
scientist who Is going to assure me we are going to have
the definitive answer.
This is why I asked you to talk to them.
There is one more technical point I would like ¦—
MRS. STERN: Can you hold that? I'd like to
comment.
MR. STEIN: Tes.
MRS. STERN: Because you said something which I
disagree with, sir. You said the people are going to get
what they want. But the people aren't necessarily told what
the tradeoffs are. They only know that their own comfort is
geared to, let's say, the air conditioner because it's
-------
394
Mrs. Claire Stern
awfully hot outside. But you know better than I do that
65 percent, more or less, of the electrical energy generated
in this country is not for the air conditioner. It*s not
for the direct convenience of the person. It*s more likely
for the industry that created the air conditioner.
But I think the feeling that has to be conveyed
from me back to you is that the facts of the matter are not
always put before the people. The people are not always given
the choice.
It may well be that I am prepared to make that
choice, but you have to tell me what I am giving up in order
to be comfortable every morning and to know that my child
may or may not have clean water in which to swim or water
to drink or shellfish to eat or whatever else you want to
get out of the waters. And this is our argument.
Now, it seems to me-- I'm sorry, but I think that
was an unfair— All right.
MR. STEIN: I understand your position, and we
tried to do this. With all deference to industry, when your
child gets up in the morning, 65 percent you say goes to
industry that provides him with creature comforts that make
it pleasant for him to get up and make it pleasant for you to
get him ready to go to school. And we have made these things
plain of what the people want and the choices. We try to
-------
395
Mrs. Claire Stern
do this all the time. And these are the choices.
Now, if you will, I'd like to ask you to just check
one further point —
MRS. STERN: Certainly.
MR. STEIN: — on chlorination.
MRS. STERN: Yes. What —
MR. STEIN: I don't believe you understood.
MRS. STERN: All right.
BAR. STEIN: And I'm not sure we can go into a full
explanation here. But, generally speaking, in a municipal
water supply, for example, in a public water supply, the
engineers just put a shot of chlorine in the water as a
prophylaxis before they shoot it through the pipes in case
it runs into anything at the pipes. This chlorination is
not a substitute for treatment.
In other words, what they aire saying is, "We'll
give it the best possible treatment. But just in case" —
and we know this — "just in case some bacteria, some viruses,
some pathogens escape the operation, we'll give it a shot
of chlorine, enough of a shot of chlorine so it will be
dissipated and absorbed when It gets out."
But It's purely a technical point where these
people who are responsible for this want to assure you and
the people of the area that you're going to have a waste
-------
396
Mrs. Claire Stern
Michael Kaufman
effluent without any disease-bearing organisms in that. They
want to be sure that, despite their best efforts, if any
have gotten past their various devices to kill them, at the
last shot they are going to wipe any out that are left.
MRS. STERN: Is that in addition to so-called
secondary?
MR. STEIN: Yes, it's extra. It's an dxtra shot
just in case you miss something.
MRS. STERN: Okay.
MR, STEIN: Fine. Thank you very much. Are
there any other comments?
MR. GLENN: I only have one question, Mr. Chairman.
I don't mind prefinancing this hour of overtime after 5:00
o'clock, but when can I expect my check to pay back for it?
(Laughter)
MR. STEIN: Tou will get it soon. There is one
more witness from Connecticut.
MR. CURRY: Connecticut has one more. As far as
I know, there is only one more person from Connecticut who
would like to be heard. His name is Michael Kaufman.
STATEMENT OF
MICHAEL KAUFMAN
KAUFMAN ADVISORY SERVICES, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
MR, KAUFMAN: My name is Michael Kaufman of
-------
Michael Kaufman
397
Kaufman Advisory Services, 603 Central Avenue, in New Haven.
And I have a few questions regarding what was heard here
tonight, and also in an article which I wrote which was
published in the New Haven Register. I take the long-term
viewpoint, and 1 ask this committee and anyone else the
answers.
I quote:
"The fear and hysteria generated by those that
criticize pollution and talk about the subject prompts this
article.
"For a long time I have been trying to get the
answer to what happens to the pollutants and the anti-
pollutant devices once the latter are filled with the pollution
they are designed to capture. Are they burled In the
ground, sunk In the oceans, or what?
"If either is true, the water that flows through
the underground strata will pick up the pollutants and
redistribute then throughout the land to pollute the land
again, which Is also true as to the waters of the oceans and
seas.
"Lately, to coofeat oil pollution on the seas, it
has been noted that science has developed microbes that
destroy the oil that 1s deposited in the oceans when an
oil tanker has an accident and loses Its cargo In the sea.
-------
Michael Kaufman
398
Question: Do the winds then pick up the sea water with the
microbes in it, bring this water or vapor over our land,
deposit the water in the form of rain or snow which
eventually finds its way into our oil fields to destroy
our oil resources, our economy, and us?
"No one that I have spoken to can supply the
answer. And before we are destroyed by the unthinking
people who cry pollution and force the businessman to
spend his money needlessly or, worse, force him out of
business because he cannot afford the cost of pollution
devices, we had better come up with the answer."
Perhaps one of you gentlemen here tonight has the
answer to these questions. If not, all this anti-
pollution hysteria must come to an abrupt end until the
answer is forthcoming.
And my other comment was tonight that the New Haven
Register ran an article a short time ago stating that fish
in the United States waters do not have a dangerous level
of mercury. They are eatable. After the mercury scare
that ruined many businessmen because people in the fish
business and the fish industry could not sell their fish,
they had to take back all the fish that they had sold, and
they lost millions and millions of dollars until many were
forced out of business because of this stupidity, this fear.
-------
Michael Kaufman
399
What recourse have these men to make the govern-
ment, its agencies and bodies pay them monetary damages
for all this needless ruination that was caused by the
stupid people crying scare pollution?
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR. KAUFMAN: I don't want comments, sir. I want
answers. And if you don't have the answers, I suggest
that this board be dissolved. You're wasting my money and
the taxpayers' money and not accomplishing anything.
MR. STEIN: Well, we have heard your comments,
and I have asked for any comments, questions, answers anyone
wants to rejoin to Mr. Kaufman.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'm asking the questions. I'm
being given the pushoff. Aren't I? Is that the abrupt
kick in the pants and get out of here because I asked
something that can't be answered?
So I'll come right out very, very plainly. This
committee and all your antipollution committees are an
insult to the Intelligence of the Intelligent people in
our country. You're a waste of my money. I pay taxes.
And I wish to God 1 didn't have to pay taxes to support you
in jobs you have no right to have because you're incompetent,
MR, STEIN: Are there any comments or questions?
-------
Michael Kaufman
400
MR. KAUFMAN: It's not funny.
MR. STEDr: If not, thanfc you very much,
MR. KAUFMAN: Not funny, Mr. Stela.
MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very much for your
constructive suggestions.
We stand recessed until 9:30 tomorrow morning,
(thereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the conference was
recessed, to be reconvened at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday,
April 14, 1971.)
* * #
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1971-440-785/246
-------