PROCEEDINGS
APRIL 13-14, 1971
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
VOLUME 2
CONFERENCE
IN THE MATTER OF POLLUTION OF
THE INTERSTATE WATERS OF LONG
ISLAND SOUND AND ITS TRIBUTARIES-
CONNECTICUT-NEW YORK
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Eugene Seebald
Joseph T. Miller
Calvin E. Weber
Donald F. Squires
Henry M. Doebler
Nils E. Erickson
Mrs. Howarth P. Boyle
Alex Haughwout
Sylvia Dowling
Richard Hill
Thomas E. Glenn, Jr.
Alfred E. Peloquin
R. Frank Gregg
Joseph F, Moran, Jr.
Conclusions
A
CONTENTS
Page
402
436
443
450
483
486
509
516
527
538
546
555
560
564
570
-------
401
CONFERENCE
A 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
reconvened, pursuant to recess, at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday,
April 14, 1971, at the New Haven Motor Inn, New Haven,
Connecticut.
MR. STEIN: Let's reconvene.
I would like to call on Mr. Curry to see if
Connecticut has completed its presentation.
Mr. Curry.
MR. CURRY: Mr. Chairman, we do have a few more
people from Connecticut who would like to speak, but I think,
in all fairness, Connecticut has taken an equitable amount of
time, so at this time I would like to pass to New York with
the understanding that after New York is finished anybody from
Connecticut who has something else to say will be provided
time.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
Mr. Metzler.
MR. METZLER: Thank you, Mr. Stein.
Then New York will be ready to present as its
-------
Eugene Seebald
402
first witness Mr. Eugene Seebald, who is Assistant Director
for the Division of Pure Waters, speaking for Commissioner
Diamond of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
STATEMENT OF
EUGENE SEEBALD
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PURE WATERS
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
MR. SEEBALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, conferees.
I would like to offer for the record the statement
to the Long Island Sound enforcement conference on behalf of
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and
request it be included as if read.
MR. STEIN: Yes, that will be included as if read.
MR. SEEBALD: New York in its statement attempted
to amplify and edit the factual material reported in the
summary report presented for this conference, and to comment
point by point on differences contained in the Federal report
would be repetitive. So, therefore, I would just pledge
that New York will request that the material Included in the
official statement be reconciled with the Federal report
and that the Federal and State staffs sit down and reconcile
any questions they may have subsequent to the reconciliation
of the two reports.
MR. STEIN: Is that agreeable with you?
-------
Eugene Seebald
403
MR. KLASHMAN: Yes. Thank you very much.
MR. BTEINi rt will be done.
MR, SEEBALD: I am Eugene F. Seebald, Associate
Director, Division ot Pure Waters, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation.
New York generally concurs with the documentation
of water quality degradation described In the report by the
Northeast Regional Water Quality Office of the Environmental
Protection Agency entitled "Report on the Water Quality of
Long Island Sound - March 1971,"
New York State's wastewater treatment plant
construction schedule will provide the means of improving
water quality such that the Federally approved New York State
water quality standards will be met and Intended best
usages of the State's water resources restored:
1. By intercepting raw sewage, stormwater
overflows, and Industrial waste.
2. By upgraded treatment and expanded capacity
to substantially remove organic oxygen-consuming wastes
and Infectious agents.
Operational surveillance of present municipal
treatment plants, whether primary or secondary, indicates
they are being operated to the full extent of their present
capabilities and are receiving State reimbursement of
-------
Eugene Seebald
404
one-third of their annual operation and maintenance expenses.
A nutrient policy is under development on which
New York State will base its program for protecting
valuable water resources from accelerated eutrophication.
STATUS OF NEW YORK STATE PROGRAMS
IN THE ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE AREA
The following resume will describe the status of
New York State's water pollution control program as it affects
the water quality of Long Island Sound and its embayments.
Only those discharges having a potentially significant effect
on the Long Island Sound enforcement area are presented.
Enforcement
Of the 27 municipal, institutional, and industrial
wastewater sources in the New York State portion of the con-
ference area, only six municipalities have been cited as
polluters. Four of these have been placed under Commissioner's
Orders, one has been noticed for a hearing and the litigation
is about to be concluded, and one is proceeding under a
voluntary supervised schedule. The status of these and
other wastewater discharges is provided in the summary status
table appended.
Of the remaining 21 identified wastewater sources,
four industrial sources have either installed treatment
facilities, connected to municipal systems, or ceased
-------
Eugene Seebald
405
discharge of industrial process wastes such that they no
longer threaten water quality standards. The remaining in-
dustrial source is an existing fossil fuel powerplant which
has not teen cited as in contravention of water quality
standards.
These water quality standards referred to are the
standards incidental to the classification of the waters of
the State and not the federally approved water quality
standards. 1 believe semantics have to be differentiated at
this point.
Although the remaining 16 municipal wastewater
sources could not be cited for contravention of water quality
standards to which I previously referred, six have voluntarily
completed secondary treatment plants and the remainder
have reached preliminary or final design for improved or
expanded secondary treatment in accordance with the policy
requirements of New York's implementation plan for protecting
f ederally approved State water quality standards. The single
exception is the city of Mamaroneck, whose project for
upgrading to secondary treatment is in the predesign phase.
Construction Grants
The 20 municipal wastewater sources listed in the
attached summary table have identified construction grants
projects approximating $62.1 million of eligible project
-------
Eugene Seebald
406
costs for water pollution control facilities on the Long Island
Sound Basin in Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties.
State grants totaling $32.4 million are expected to be
committed to projects initiating construction by March 31,
1972, including prefinancing of the Federal share where neces-
sary. These projects will provide a total design capacity
of 68.8 mgd, including 23.0 mgd for projects that are already
completed, in operation, or under construction.
This program, where the majority of municipalities
have initiated voluntary action, will result in improved and
enhanced water quality of Long Island Sound and its embayments.
This construction program is in compliance with the New
York State funded $1,365,000 county comprehensive sewage
planning effort.
Incentive Programs
The emphasis currently placed on enforcement and
construction is supplemented by continuing efforts to con-
currently obtain maximum performance from existing waste
treatment facilities. As an incentive towards this objective,
New York State communities may receive one-third reimburse-
ment of their annual audited 0 & M expenses. Eligibility
requirements Include commitment by the governing body to
comply with a specified time schedule for remedial action
when necessary.
-------
Eugene Seebald
407
Since 1965 when the program was funded, O & M
grants totaling over $5.9 million have been granted to 30
communities in the Long Island Sound Basin counties of West-
chester, Nassau, and Suffolk. These plants serve an estimated
957,600 people.
Under the Pure Waters Program, industry is offered
the opportunity to build its own wastewater treatment plants
and receive tax benefits. The tax relief incentive cost of
industry*s option to take a net operating deduction on the
State income tax return in the year expenditures are made and
exemption of the treatment facilities from property taxes
and special levies. Industries constructing their own
treatment facilities must submit engineering plans to DEC
for review and approval. When construction is completed, the
facility is Inspected. If approved, a tax exemption
certificate is issued. Few industries in the Long Island
Sound enforcement conference area have availed themselves of
this opportunity, apparently choosing to deliver process
wastes to municipal systems.
Surveillance
The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation has not established any active water quality
surveillance stations in the drainage system covered by this
enforcement conference.
-------
Eugene Seebald
408
Water quality studies are conducted by the Bureau
of Environmental Control in the Division of Marine 6 Coastal
Resources, DSC. These surveys cover all existing or potential
shellfish waters within the State marine region. Reports
are prepared on specific areas presenting the data gathered
during the course of the water quality studies. Sampling
stations are designed within each area with the following
parameters being measured at each station: stage of tide,
salinity, water temperature, coliform MPN/100 ml, and fecal
coliform MPN/100 ml. In addition, the air temperature,
and the presence or appearance of precipitation during the
past 24 hours is noted.
-------
409
-4-
A complete review of each area (i.e. Westchester Shores
Report) is prepared once within a ten year period, A reappraisal
of each area containing a brief narrative and data gathered within the
time period Is prepared at two year intervals for each area.
The areas surveyed within the Long Island Sound complex
would include:
No. of Date oJ Most
Sampling Stations Re rent R r I
Westchester Shore 34 1969-70
Manhasset Bay 21 Data on File
Hempstead Harbor 23 Data on File
Oyster Bay Complex 40 1969-70
Huntington Bay Complex 53 1967
Smithtown Bay IS 1969
Stony Brook Harbor 14 1969
Port Jefferson Harbor Complex 56 1969
Mattituck Inlet 10 1969
Long Is. Sound Waters 60 Data on File
Matinicock Pt, -Orient
Fishers Island 24 I96X
Lonf; Island Sound
Colt form Trends - West to Fa si
Location
Off Port Chester
Off Mamaroneck
Off New Rochelle
Hempstead Harbor
Oyster Bay
Huntington Bay
Smithtown Bay
Off Port Jefferson Harbor
Off Mai t iluc k
Oil' Rocky Point
Plum Gut
Median
Coliform
MPN/100 ml.
175
23
33
23
23
[2. 3
n
n
23
n
/ 2
C ol i f o r m
Range
MPN/ 100 ml.
23-1610
/2-3 50
11-16)0+
23-540
fl- 1 30
/?.. 3-43
/_2- S
/ 2 - M
/2-240
72- 4
/2-9
-------
N. Y, S. Shellfish Resources
The following is a table showing the total acreage of shellfish-
producing bottom in and tributary to Long Island Sound. Also shown is
the acreage (and percentage) restricted to sheltfishing because of pollution.
The entire area is subdivided according to natural boundaries specified.
Total
Acres
Bay Area
A cres
Restricted
Wosl t lu-sl or
I 5, 520
15, 520
100
Manhassel Bay
2, 72 5
2, 725
100
Hismpslead Harbor
3, 46 5
1, 3S5
40
Desoris Pond
105
-
-
Oyster Bay-Gold Spring
6, 365
270
4.2
Harbor Complex
Huntingt on-Northport Complex 6, 130
325
5. 3
Nissequogue River
555
555
100
Smithtown Bay
22, 300
500
2. 2
Stony Brook Harbor
855
-
0
Port Jefferspn Harbor
1, 550
815
53
Complex
Mt. Sinai Harbor
455
-
0
Wading River
50
-
0
Mattituck Inlet
125
5
4.0
Fishor Island Sound
7, 990
910
1 !
Long Iskiml Sound
Prospect Pt. to Oldfield
Pt. 88, 300
20, 950
24
Oldfield Pt. to Mattituck
188, 000
5, 170
2. S
Inlet
Mattituck Inlet to Fishers 121, 000 300 0.25
Island
Total
465, 540
49, 430
10. 6
-------
Eugene Seebald
411
In the 11-year period, 1960-1970, the average annual
value of shellfish (exclusive of lobsters) harvested from Long
Island Sound by New York fishermen declined from $1.05 million
to $556,000. At the same time, there was a reduction in
acreage of shellfish grounds open to the harvest of shellfish*
These closures were made because of pollution of the waters
that rendered the shellfish unsafe for human food.
Some of the loss of revenue from this shellfish
resource in the sound was the result of a natural decline
in abundance and a decline in the fishing effort of the
industry. However, it is estimated that the annual loss in
revenue caused by the closing of the shellfish grounds amounted
to about $400,000.
Recent water quality surveys conducted by the
Bureau of Environmental Control have documented that improved
water quality affecting some 5,000 acres of presently closed
shellfish beds off Westchester County shore could be reopened.
New York's commercial lobster fishery has enjoyed
phenomenal success over the past 15 years. In 1954, total
New York lobster landings amounted to 379,100 pounds worth
$144,800 at the dock. In that same year, the catch from Long
Island Sound amounted to 28,700 pounds worth $10,900. The
catch increased, and by 1969, 1.42 million pounds worth
$1.47 million were landed by the State's commercial fishermen.
-------
412
Eugene Seebald
Landings from Long Island Sound in 1969 amounted to 266,900
pounds worth $268,000 at the dock.
The increase in lobster landings is believed to be
the result of a real increase in absolute abundance of the
species brought about by regional changes in water temperature.
Average coastal ocean water temperatures in the Northeast
have declined from 10 degrees C in 1954 to 7.2 degrees C in
1967. (No later temperature data are available*) Studies
in Maine have shown a decline in lobster abundance (and
landings) with a southward shift in the range of the species.
Lobsters apparently found the temperature regime in New York's
waters to be more to their "liking" than that in Maine's
waters.
These data indicate that lobsters, which are
scavengerous shellfish, are more influenced by temperature than
moderately polluted waters. This is further substantiated by
an apparent increase in the recreational lobster landings
in the western end of Long Island Sound in waters Influenced
by the Bast River.
Boat Pollution Control
Section 33-C of the New York State Navigation Law
sets forth the prohibitions and requirements regarding liquid
and solid waste discharged from watercraft. This law,
effective March lf 1970, empowers the Department of
-------
Eugene Seebald
413
Environmental Conservation to promulgate boat pollution control
rules, regulations, and standards* Rules and regulations
have been developed which Identify the marine pollution control
devices subject to approval, establishes minimum safety
standards and requirements for approval of the devices, and
provides for retesting of devices as required by the State.
Enforcement responsibilities of this law are assigned to the
Division of Marine & Recreational Vehicles in the New York
State Office of Parks and Recreation.
Several effluent standards have been developed for
all sewage passed overboard from watercraft:
1. Removal of all readily visible floating and
settleable solids.
2. Suspended solids less than or equal to 50 mg/1.
3. 5-day BOD and COD less than or equal to 50 mg/1.
4. A coliform median (MPN) in any number of
samples must be less than or equal to 50/100 ml.
As a result of these regulations and requirements,
private marinas have constructed pumpout facilities to service
pleasure craft and assist them in complying with the New
York State law. As of January 1, 1971, the following
private marinas provide pumpout services in the Long Island
Sound enforcement area:
-------
414
Eugene Seebald
Glen Cove Yacht Service
Glen Cove, New York
Peterson's Shipyard
451 Main Street
Port Washington, New York
Minneford Boat Yard
City Island, New York
North Fork Shipyard
Main Street
New Suffolk, New York
South County Shores
East Patchogue, New York
Bulk Storage, Transportation & Handling
of Hazardous Substances
Rules and regulations are being developed under
the authority of the 1970 legislation which established the
new Department of Environmental Conservation. The program
will be administered by the newly established Bureau of
Bulk Storage which will emphasize preventative measures to
control accidental releases of oil and hazardous substances
from the handling, transportation, and storage of such
materials.
The preventive measures and equipment to be required
by facilities Involved in liquid handling and shipping are
based on heeds as reflected in a record of spills and
releases of liquids to surface waters in this State over the
past four years.
Assembly Bill 5984-A, which established a State
-------
Eugene Seebald
415
policy for the protection of the environment, included under
Article 2, Section 14, a provision to "prevent pollution
through the regulation of storage, handling and transport of
solids, liquids and gases which may cause or contribute to
its pollution."
Assembly Bill 2955-A, also passed during the 1970
legislature, was an act to amend the Public Health Law in
relation to storage of liquids likely to cause pollution of
the waters of the State. The bill authorized the Department
to "make, amend and repeal rules and regulations for the
storage of liquids likely to pollute the waters of the State."
Oil terminals in this conference area are indicated
in Figure 1 attached. Only the few major ones have
inventoried control equipment, such as "boomsfor coping
with accidental spills. Pressure will be brought to bear
under the above legislation to secure proper preventative
measures such as diking and other containment methods.
Nutrients
The Department of Environmental Conservation 1b
developing a policy regarding control of nutrients in Hew
York State. Phosphorus removal requirements have been
adopted for the Great Lakes Basin as a result of previous
enforcement conferences, but have not been extended Statewide,
and will be so extended at the pleasure of the Commissioner*
-------
416
Eugene Seebald
Initial investigations into the nutrient relation-
ships in marine waters indicate that nitrogen is the critical
factor limiting algal growth and eutrophication in coastal
marine waters. Presently, these waters are generally low
in both phosphorus and nitrogen except in the western portion
near New York City where these nutrient concentrations are
above levels conducive to heavy algal growth. Generally,
there is surplus phosphorus available due to the low nitrogen-
to-phosphorus ratio in terrigenous contributions. Further-
more, nitrogen fixation from the atmosphere is a very minor
factor because the responsible algae and bacteria which
abound in freshwaters are not indigenous to marine waters.
However, it remains to be seen whether or not
increased productivity would be beneficial to the finfish
and shellfish resources in Long Island Sound before embarking
on a course of action regarding nutrient or, in particular,
nitrogen removal from point wastewater sources. Meanwhile,
New York State is proceeding on the basis of requiring
secondary treatment and disinfection with discharge of
treated effluents relocated from harbors and embayments into
the open waters of Long Island Sound.
Thermal Discharges
Criteria governing thermal discharges into waters
of New York State have been developed and are on file with the
-------
Eugene Seebald
417
Secretary of State. Current negotiations are under way with
EPA to expedite acceptance of these criteria as amendments
to those currently on file in New York State*s federally
approved water quality standards. Essentially, all new
proposed or modified existing thermal discharges must comply
with the requirements imposed by these criteria.
It has been determined that the criteria developed
to protect coastal waters will apply to all waters of Long
Island Sound in New York State. Specifically, the criteria
require that the water temperature at the surface of
coastal waters shall not be raised more than 4 degrees F over
the monthly means of maximum daily temperatures from
October through June, nor more than 1.5 degrees F from July
through September with the exception that this temperature
may be exceeded within a radius of 300 feet or equivalent
area from the point of discharge. (It is recognized that a
radius of 300 feet or equivalent area may be too liberal or
too restrictive and that a lesser or a greater area may
be required or permitted under the procedures set forth in
"Additional Limitations or Hodifications.")
Thermal discharges existing prior to the
adoption of these criteria are affected only if they con-
template expansion or other modifications to the quantity or
character of their discharge. Enforcement action against
-------
Eugene Seebald
418
existing discharges must be based on Department documentation
of contravention of standards which, with respect to
temperature, state "none alone or in combination with other
substances or wastes in sufficient amounts or at such
temperature as to be injurious to fish life or impair the
waters for any other best usage. .
In the administration of these criteria governing
thermal discharges, it is recognized that the capacity
of the receiving water as a heat sink may be utilized
within the limitations imposed by the criteria and augmented
where necessary by onshore reductions in heat load.
Pesticides
The New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation has imposed stringent restrictions on pesti-
cides effective January 1, 1971. These Include a complete
ban on the use of DDT and nine other persistent pesticides
and restricted use of another 62 pesticides. Pesticides
completely banned include Bandane, BHC, DDD, DDT, Endrin,
mercury compounds, selenites,and selenates, sodium
fluoroacetate, strobane, and Toxaphene.
These regulations, implementing legislation
enacted last year, were developed following consultation
with the State Department of Agriculture and Markets, the
College of Agriculture, and the Geneva Experiment Station
-------
Eugene Seebald
419
to insure availability of less harmful chemicals and after
a series of public hearings held throughout the State last
summer. According to the regulations, supplies of the 62
restricted pesticides on hand in the State as of December 31,
1970 may be used by any person within the State until
December 31, 1971, after which new supplies may be bought
only by holders of "purchase permits" issued by the Depart-
ment. The plan prohibits importing pesticides into the
State without a commercial permit while allowing one year
to gradually deplete the inventory of restricted pesticides.
I will not read the individual summaries of the
status of the various dischargers listed in the Federal
report. However, I would point out that schedules that
were referred to yesterday for implementation have been
included as a part of the summary of the status of individual
polluters where it is appropriate.
I would like to also point out that in the case
of the Long Island Lighting Company Northport plant on page
13 there is an error and the domestic wastes are discharged
not to Long Island Sound after treatment but to a septic
tank leaching field on shore.
(The status summaries referred to follow:)
-------
- ] 1 -
420
STATUS OF WASTEWATER SOURCES IN
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTY
Greenport (V)
The present treatment plant serving the Village consists of
two Imhoff tanks followed by chlorination. Design flow is 0. 5 mgd
and actual flow is 0.3 mgd. An engineering report has been approved
and review of final plans has been completed. The proposed plant will
provide secondary treatment by aerated lagoons, secondary settling and
chlorination before discharge through existing outfall. Design flow is
0. 5 mgd. The Village is under the; following voluntary schedule:
Enginesring Report June 1, 1970
Final Plans October 1, 1970
Advertise for Bids April 10, 1971
Start Construction July 1, 1971
End Construction July 1, 1972
Final plans were submitted on November 30, 1970.
Port Jefferson Sewer District
The present treatment plant serving the district provides
primary treatment with chlorination before discharge to Port Jefferson
Harbor. Legal action has been initiated to enforce compliance with the
following schedule for upgrading treatment:
Submit Engineering Report June 1, 1971
Final Plans October 1, 1971
Start Construction March 31, 1972
End Construction October I, 1 *)7 >
Kings Park Slate Hospital
The plant serving this facility provides secondary treatment
of the activated sludge type with chlorination and discharge 4,000 feet
out into Long Island Sound. Negotiations are presently underway to
transfer the treatment facility over to the Town of Smithtown. This
could then serve as the hub of District #7 of the Comprehensive Study
for the Five Western Towns of Suffolk County.
-------
-12-
421
Northport (V)
The present plant consists of an Imhoff tank, chlori.nat.ion and
discharge to Northport Harbor. Present flow is . 160 mgd. The- Village
stipulated to a Commissioner's Order which contained the following schedule:
Submit Final Plans September 15, 1970
Start Construction April 1, 1971
Complete Construction April 1, 1972
Final plans and specifications were submitted in August of 1970
and were approved in November 1970. Federal Water Quality Administration
grant review has just recently been completed and the authority to advertise
for bids has been given.
The proposed 0. 25 m gd plant will provide secondary treatment
by the extended aeration process and discharge will be to Northport Harbor.
In addition, this plant will serve the newly created Centerport Sewer Dislriet
as well as the existing Northport system. The collection and treatment of
wastes from the Centerport District will alleviate problems that have been
occuring in the Centerport Mill Pond. Completion of construction of the
proposed plant is expected in 1972.
Huntington Sewer District
This plant provides secondary treatment by the trickling filter
process for approximately 2.0 mgd with discharge to Huntington Harbor.
Operation of the plant is good with efficiencies in the 85-95 percent range
for BOD and suspended solids.
Quantitative Biological Laboratory
This plant provides secondary treatment followed by a sand
filter and chlorination before discharge to Cold Spring Harbor. The flail y
flow is approximately 0.01 mgd.
Oyster Bay Sewer District
This plant provides secondary treatment of the trickling filter
type with chlorination before discharge into Oyster Bay Harbor. Operation
of the plant is good with removal efficiencies of 80-85 percent for BOD
and suspended solids.
-------
422
-13-
Glen Cove - Morgan Estates
This plant provides primary treatment for a small area near
Glen Cove. It will be abandoned when the treatment' plant serving the
City of Glen Cove is expanded. Final plans for the proposed pump
station and force main have been approved and are under review by
FWQA. Con6truetion should begin in 1971.
Glen Cove (C)
The present plant provides secondary treatment by the trickling
filter process followed by chlorination and discharge to Glen Cove Greek.
Present daily flow is approximately 4. 5 mgd which hydraulically overloads
the plant.
An engineering report covering expansion of the facility has
been submitted and comments were sent to the engineer. Construction for
this project should begin in 1971.
Long Island Ligh 1 ing Company
1. Port Jefferson Plant - Domestic wastes are discharged to
municipal sewer system. Cooling water is discharged to Fori Jefferson
Harbor.
2. Northport - Domestic wastes are discharged to Long Island
Sound after treatment. Cooling waters are discharged to Long Island Sound
after going through a cooling basin.
3. Glenwood Landing - Domestic wastes are discharged to
Hempstead Harbor after treatment in a septic tank followed by chlorination.
Cooling water is discharged to Hempstead Harbor.
Roslyn (V)
This plant provides secondary treatment for 0. 5 mgd by the
trickling filter process. Discharge is to Hempstead Harbor. Operation
is poor due to hydraulic overloading caused by an industry connected to
the collec tion system. Steps are being taken to eliminate this problem.
Port Washington S. D.
This plant provides secondary treatment for 2. 7 mgd by the
trickling filter process. Discharge is to Manhasset Bay. Operation is
good with removal efficiencies in 80-90% range for BOD and suspended
solids. An engineering report has recently been submitted to cover
expansion of the plant to serve the surrounding area.
-------
-14-
Great Neck Sewer District
This plant provides secondary treatment for 2.7 mgd by the
trickling filter process. Discharge is to Manhasset Bay. Operation is
good with removal efficiencies in 85-90% range for BOD and suspended
solids. An engineering report covering the expansion of the plant to
serve outlying areas was approved in July 1970 and final plans arc: to
be submitted shortly.
Great Neck (V)
This plant provides secondary treatment for 1.3 mgd by the
trickling filter process. Discharge is to Manhasset Bay. Operation is
good with removal efficiencies of 85-90% for BOD and suspended solids.
Improvements have been made recently to the treatment facilities.
Belgrave Sewer District
This plant provides secondary treatment of 1. 8 mgd by the
trickling filter process. Discharge is to Little Neck Bay. Operation is
good with removal efficiencies of 85-90% for BOD and suspended solids.
Final plans for additions and alterations to the existing facilities have
been recently submitted.
-------
-15-
424
STATUS OF WASTEWATER SOURCES IN
WESTCHESTER COUNTY
Blind Brook Sewage Treatment Plant
This plant is currently under order to expand its facilities to
secondary treatment. The Commissioner's Order was issued in October
of 1968. Fnginee r i ng report and an addendum to the reporl has been
submitted to Albany and is under review. The consultant lias been requested
to prepare an analysis on the feasibility of the plant proposed for pumping
the sludge from Blind Brook to Port. Chester for treatment. Proposed
treatment of sludge is to include thermal conditioning and thermal oxidation.
Completion is planned for 1973-74,
Beech Nut-Life Savers
This firm has recently been connected into the sanitary system
of Port Chester. There is pretreatment which included pH adjustment and
chlorinati on.
Emco Porcelain Co. , Inc.
It lias been alledgod that this plant has been responsible for a
periodic discharge of paint wastes containing zinc-. This office lias no
proof of pollution but federal inspectors have observed and sampled a
discharge. As a result of this sampling. Federal Attorneys plan 1 tj indict
the firm. The firm has been primarily engaged in the production of
ammunition boxes for . 30 and . 50 caliber ammunition. Recent informal ion
is that the plant producing these boxes will dose. The plant has essentially
been shut down.
K r ystinel
This company has in the past discharged iron oxide to the Byram
River. The company has constructed treatment facilities which remove
the iron oxide from its discharge. As the matter now stands, the plant is
operating an unapproved treatment facility and is discharging effluent
without a permit. Although the plant is doing a good job, it is technically
operating in violation of the law. The situation remains unresolved.
-------
-16-
425
Mamarnneck Sewage Treatment Plant
At present this plant is a primary plant and the intention is to
upgrade this plant to secondary treatment. A major problem is in obtaining
sufficient land area to expand to secondary treatment. It is hoped that
physiochemical treatment might be employed within the available space
and construction of this plant has been delayed to obtain more information
on the design and performance of existing physiochemical treatment plants.
A major portion of the problem rests in the existing sewer
facilities. During periods of heavy rainfall, subsequent infiltration and
overflow will spill out into the east basin of the harbor. Surveys of the
harbor are to be continued during coming summer.
Now Rochelle Sewer District
The Commissioner's Order issued in October of 196S requires
installation of secondary treatment facilities. The consultant has proposed
that Union Carbide's "Unox" process be used for which acceptance has
been indicated provided provisions are made for rapid conversion to a
conventional activated sludge-type process.
In February 1971, an environmental impact statement for New
Rochelle and Echo Bay Harbors was received and reviewed.
Completion of the plant is expected in 1974 or 1975.
Port Chester Sewage Treatment Plant
Commissioner's Order to upgrade existing facilities was issued
in October 196S. Report is currently under review and lias been given top
priority. Performance of the existing treatment plant has improved con-
siderably since pH problems at the plant were corrected.
Recently the plant has been operating as well as can be reasonably
expected. A television survey of some sewer lines disclosed an open flap
valve which had been admitting salt water during periods of high tides. This
valve has been sealed shut and the flow through the plant has stabilized
considerably. The plant is expected to be completed in 1973.
-------
-17-
426
Russell Burdsall and Ward
This J'irin no longer violates stream standards. 'The pirkle
liquor is presently trucked away and there; has been an auloinatie oil
separator installed. The firm has been placed on a program to eliminate
wastes that violate the municipal sewer use ordinance. Part of the
abatement program includes a study of the effect of NH^ on the chlori-
nation at the Village STP and sampling for oil.
In the past, R. B. & W, has undertaken a number of corrective
steps to remedy the problems existing at the plant.
These steps include trucking away of all pickle liquor wastes,
increased attention to the correct operation of the manual oil skimmer,
and reduction of zinc-cyanide concentrations.
Shenrock Shore Club, American Yacht Club
Rye, New York
Facilities at this club consist of chlorinated septic tank
effluents. These facilities may have some maintenance problems but
the county has been dealing with these types of situations. This particular
case will be investigated in more detail before the boating season begins.
Shell and Metropolitan Oil Co.
These are oil storage and distribution facilities. There are
no industrial discharges, but there are sanitary wastes which are treated
via septic tanks with chlorination of effluents during the bathing season.
-------
STATUS SUMMARY
NEW YORK STATE WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Waste Source
Rece iving
Waters
Pre sent
T reatrnent
Waste Flow
MGD
Enforcement
Status
Project
Status
Estimated
Completion
SUFFOLK CO
JNTY
Greenport (V)
L.I. Sound
Primary,
Chlor Lnatioii
0.5
SuD-rvised
Schedules
STP UP;
Final
Design
7/72
Port Jefferson SD
Port Jefferson
Harbor
Primary,
Chlorination
1. 1
Noticed for
Hearing
STP UP;
Prelim.
Design
10/73
Kings Park St.
Hospital
L.I. Sound
Secondary,
Chlorination
1.0
Abated
To be
Smit h-
towr (T)
Disposal
Dist. #7
4/72
Northport (V)
Northport
Harbor
Primary,
Chlorination
0. 16
Under OrdeT
STP UP;
F inal
Design
4/72
Huntington S. D
Huntington
Harbor
Secondary
|
2.0
Abated
STP UP
Completed
L.I. Lighting
Port Jefferson
Port Jefferson
Ha rbor
|
i
i
i
N'o: Cited as a
Polluter
-------
STATUS SUMMARY
NEW YORK STATE WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Waste Source
Receiving
Waters
Pre sent
T reatme nt
Waste Flow
MGD
Enforcement
Status
Project
Statu s
Estimated
Completion
Nassau cou:
CTY
Quant Biological
Lab
Cold Spring
Harbor
Secondary and
Sand Filters
Chlor ination
0.01
Abated
C omplete d
Oyster Bay S D.
Oyster 3ay
Harbor
Secondary,
Chlorination
1. 11
Abated
Completed
Glen Cove
Morgan Estates
L.I. Sound
Prima ry
Mot Cited as a
Polluter
P.S. ;
FM to
G1 * n
Cove (C)
Final
Design
4/72
Glen Cove (C)
Hempstead
Harbor
Secor.'iar y,..
Chlorination
4. 50
Not Cited as a
Polluter
ST P Exp.
Prelim.
i
Design
i
7/74
Roslyn (V)
Hempstead
Harbor
Secondary
0. 5
1
Not Cir^c a- i
Polluter
j Completed
I
Port Washington
3. D,
Manhasset Bay
Sec or.aar y
i
i
2. 7
I
j\'Ot Cileu 5 5 a.
Polluter
1
STP Fx p.
Prelim.
i
| Design
4/72
-------
STATUS SUMMARY
NEW YORK STATE WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Waste Source
Receiving
Waters
Present
Treat rr.c:
Waste Flow
MGD
Enforcement J Project
Status i Status
Estimated
Completion
Great Neck SD#1
Great Neck (V)
Belarave S. D.
Orchard Beach
New York City
City-Hart Island
New York Citv
Manhasset Bay
Manhasset Bay
Little Neck
Ba v
L. I. Sound
L.I. Sound
Seconda r
Secondarv
Secondare
Priri.ar -
Chem. C em-
ulation, CI?
Primary,
Chlorina: i on
NASSAU COUNTY
1.
Not Cited as a
Polluter
Not Cited as a
Pollute r
Not Cited as a
Polluter
NEW YORK CITY
Intermittent
Seas onal
Not Cited as a
Pollute r
1.00
Not Cited as a
Polluter
STP c.xp,
I ina 1
Design
STP
Impr.
Completed
STP
Impr,
Final
Design
P., Sc ; EM
To connect
to Hunts
Pt. STP
Final
Des i ฃ11
PS.:F M.
tc Hunts
Pt., Final
Des igr.
4/72
I'll
4/74
-------
STATUS SUMMARY
NEW YORK STATE WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Waste Source
Receiving
Waters
Present
Treatment
Waste Flow
MGD
Enforcement
Status
Project
Status
Estimated
Completion
W
ESTCHESTER <
:ounty
New Rochelle SD
L.I. Sound
Primary,
Chlorination
10. 60
Under Orders
STP UP;
Under
Prelim.
Design
12/74
Mamaroneck
L.I. Sound
Primary w/
aeration to
achieve Inter-
mediate Treat.
H. 00
Not Cited as a
Polluter
STP UP;
Pre-
Design
12/75
Shenrock Shore
Club - Rye
L.I. Sound
Septic Tank w/
Chlorination
Not Cited as a
Polluter
Possible
He-In \v/
Blind
Brook STP
American Yacht
Club - Rye
L. L Sound
Septic Tank w/
Chlorination
>;ot Cited as a
Pollute r
Pos s ible
Tie-In \v/
Blind
Brook STP
Blind 3rook
L, T. So\incl
Pr ima r y
? - >' <
Under Orders
1
STP IP-
Prelim.
Dr s ij?n
8/7 3
Port Chester
By ram River
Port Chester
Harbor
Prima ry
Under Orders
STP UP
- Exp.
Ref. for
Penait y
Assess.
1 9/73
-------
STATUS SUMMARY
NEW YORK STATE WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Waste Source
Receiving
W aters
Present
Treatment
Waste Flow
MGD
Enforcement
Status
Project
Status
Estimated
Completion
VEST CHESTER
COUNTY
Shell Oil Go.
Mount Vernon
Hutchinson
River
Oil Storage &
Distribution
F acility
No industrial
discharges;
sanitary wastes
to septic tanks
& chlorination
Not Cited as a
Polluter
Metropolitan Oil
Co. - Mt. Vernor
Hutchinson
River
Oil Storage &
Distribution
F acilities
No industrial
discharges;
Sanitary to
Septic Tank w/ CI 2
Not Cited as a
Polluter
Russell, Byrdsall
& Ward
Port Chester
Byram River
Oil Separator
Installed; Conn,
to Port Chester
System; Prograrr
for Compliance
w/Sewer Use
Ordinance
No Longer
Violates \VQ
Standards
8/71
Krystinel Corp.
Port Cheater
Byram River
Elimination of
j Iron Oxide
j Discharge
t
i
i
I
Abated
i
!
j
t
1
Completed
-------
STATUS SUMMARY
NEW YORK STATE WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
LONG ISLAND SOUND ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
APRIL, 1971 - NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
ATLANTIC OCEAN
~ REFERRED FOR LEGAL ACTION
ED UNDER DESIGN
m UNDER CONSTRUCTION
I COMPLETED
POWER PUNTS
ฉ OIL TERMINALS
-------
433
Eugene Seebald
MR. SEEBALD: This concludes my testimony, and I
am available for questions.
We also have available Mr. Jensen of our Division
of Marine and Coastal Resources and Mr. Harrison, our
regional engineer covering Long Island Sound.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much for a complete
statement.
Let me check one thing. Do you mean the use of
or sale of pesticides after January 1? You said "use." The
reason I ask this and this is just for clarification --
is that on top you said "use of pesticides" and on the
bottom you said ". . .December 31, 1971, after which new
supplies may be bought. . ." Do you mean even if they have
a supply no one can use it?
MR. SEEBALD: There is a control on both the sale
and the use.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR, SEEBALD: The use permit is in existence as of
now. So actually my understanding is that the use of the
pesticides is controlled under permit at the present time.
MR. STEIN: I think this will help us. First you
say these include a complete ban on the use of DDT -- in
the second sentence. I presume that refers to January 1,
1971. Is that correct?
-------
434
Eugene Seebald
MR. SEEBALD: That's correct.
MR. STEIN: Now, when you say they can use it
until December 1971, after which new supplies may be bought
only by holders of permits, that doesn't mean to modify it?
In other words, even if you have it on hand you can't use
it after that date? Is that correct?
MR, SEEBALD: That's correct.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
Let me just take a minute on this, because I think
this is a tremendous advance in New York.
Just the other week in one of the V/estern States
I began getting reports naturally over a weekend of
tremendous fish kills in the State. What we did was trace
this to the use of Toxaphene as a cattle dip.
This was one of the easiest cases I had, because
what we discovered was they were dipping the cattle and
then they had them go across to a corral after the dip, but
there was a stream in between the dip and the corral, so
after they got dipped with Toxaphene they went across the
stream, so we had a good "cause and effect" and stopped it.
But I think this is a great thing you have done.
Are there any other questions or comments?
If not, thank you very much.
MR. METZLER: There is a point that I thought
-------
Eugene Seebald
435
perhaps deserved clarification, Mr. Chairman, if I might see
if we could emphasize this a little more and be sure that
the figures are understood by those here.
You mentioned the comprehensive sewage plans which
the State of New York has developed jointly with the
counties, and I thought the point perhaps needed emphasizing,
especially in view of some of the questions that we received
yesterday from some of the interested lay groups and
environmental groups, that these actually provide a master
plan, as it were, for further sewer development and for
sewage treatment and that it takes into account both the
most efficient way of providing the waste treatment and
also the minimum environmental impact solution also.
You gave a figure of $1,365,000. That's the New
York investment for comprehensive planning on the bodies
surrounding the sound in New York?
MR. SEEBALD: That's correct.
MR. METZLER: Okay.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other questions or
comments?
(No response.)
If not, thank you very much. I think this is a
very complete report and a real contribution.
Mr. Metzler.
-------
436
Joseph T. Miller
MR, METZLER: We have a lew additional witnesses
from New York. There was some mention yesterday of the
flow of water from west to east, and so in the interests of
handling the witnesses in the same order I would like to
start with Mr. Joseph Miller who will be speaking on behalf
of New York City here today.
Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF
JOSEPH T. MILLER
CHIEF OF DESIGN, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, conferees, I would like
to present a brief statement on the status of New York
City's program on behalf of Martin Lang, Commissioner of
Water Resources.
My name is Joseph T. Miller. I am Chief of
Design, Department of Water Resources, New York City.
MR, STEIN: You*re going to give our congratula-*
tions to Mr. Lang, aren't you?
MR, MILLER: I definitely will. Actually, he
doesn't take over I think until July 3, but I know it was
announced yesterday.
MR. STEIN: Right. I have been talking to Mr.
Lang on the telephone. We expected this appointment of Mr.
-------
Joseph T. Miller
437
Lang was imminent, but I am glad to see it came forth. 1
understand Mayor Lindsay did announce it.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. He did announce it I think
it was around 11:00 o'clock yesterday morning.
MR, STEIN: Mr. Lang, as many of you know, has
been a professional who has worked in the field about at
least as long as I have, and, in addition to that, we both
went to the same college at the same time.
Okay. Thank you very much.
I don't know that that's a recommendation for
either one of us. (Laughter)
MR. MILLER: I went to the same school also.
New York City is presently in the home stretch of
their massive $1.3 billion program to clean up the waters
surrounding the city. This entire program has been con**
sistent with all requirements of regulatory agencies
Federal, interstate, and State. Present plans are for
designing upgraded plants to remove over 90 percent of the
pollutants ฆ namely, BOD and suspended solids, with
adequate chlorination facilities.
Y/e are now, as we have always been and will
always be, responsive to the directives of these regulatory
authorities.
New York City has always been a forerunner in the
-------
438
Joseph T. Miller
effort to improve the water quality in the harbor through
actual construction of modern treatment plants and sewers.
In addition, the city has testified in favor of more stringent
classifications of harbor waters as proposed by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the
Interstate Sanitation Commission within the last year.
The immediate goal of this program is to treat
100 percent of the city's dry weather wastewater flow. In
order to accomplish this goal, two new plants are being
constructed, and 11 of the existing 13 treatment plants
are being upgraded and/or expanded. One plant, Hart
Island-City Island, is being replaced by pumping stations
which will pump the sewage to Hunts Point for treatment.
The other remaining plant, Newtown Creek, is presently being
improved for more efficient operation.
In addition, in order to meet a stipulation
with New York State to remove 90 percent of pollutants by
1978 at this plant, a research project to study the
feasibility of oxygenated aeration is under way at Newtown
Creek plant. If this process is successful, the entire
plant will be modified accordingly.
Presently, the city is treating 1.1 billion
gallons per day of its dry weather flow of 1.3 billion
gallons per day, or over 75 percent. At the completion of
-------
Joseph T. Miller
439
this stage of the basic program, we will be treating 100
percent of the dry weather flow and will provide an ultimate
capacity of 2 billion gallons per day at a total cost of just
under $1.3 billion.
Although we are presently treating better than 75
percent of our present dry weather wastewater flow on a city-
wide basis, I am proud to say that in the area contiguous
to Long Island Sound, the immediate area to which this con-
ference is directing its attention, the city is now treating
100 percent of the dry weather wastewater flow.
In fact, prior to World War II the city had
concentrated its efforts towards the western end of the sound
with the construction of three of the four treatment plants
serving this area -- namely, Wards Island, Bowery Bayy and
Tallmans Island. The fourth plant, Hunts Point, was placed on
stream soon after the war. These plants, even at that time,
were designed to give a degree of treatment in excess of
any existing regulatory requirement.
In 1969 the records indicate that a total of
566 mgd were treated by these four plants with an average BOD
removal of 71 percent. At the conclusion of this present
stage of design, treatment capacity of these plants will be
expanded to 725 mgd, encompassing projected increased flows
beyond the year 2000, with a design removal of better than
-------
Joseph T. Miller
440
90 percent of BOD and suspended solids.
In addition, adequate disinfection facilities will
be provided at all locations. In the past the city has
chlorinated at the Tallmans Island plant, the one closest to
the Long Island Sound, since its inception, and has even
placed temporary chlorination facilities at the Hunts Point
and Bowery Bay plants. Last year the Department spent
$1.2 million on chlorination.
The designs of the Hunts Point and the Tallmans
Island plants have been completed and are presently being
reviewed by the Nov York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. In the Hunts Point plant the capacity will
be increased from 150 mgd to 200 mgd at a cost of approximate-
ly $40 million. The Tallmans Island plant will be increased
from 60 mgd to 80 mgd at a cost of approximately $30 million.
The plans on the Bowery Bay plant have been completed, and
the specifications are now being printed. This plant will
be expanded from 90 mgd to 150 mgd at a cost of $55 million.
The design of the remaining plant, Wards Island, is 90 percent
complete, and the cost of this project is pegged at $35
million.
Although the design of these plants includes
digested sludge barging to sea, we are aware of impending
-------
441
Joseph T. Miller
Federal regulations which may eventually require the elimina-
tion of ocean disposal of sludge.
A recent acceptance letter of our application for
construction of the Rockaway plant from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation detailed the condi-
tions under which the formal grant offer from the Federal
Government was made:
"Federal regulations requiring the elimination of
ocean disposal of sludge are now being developed, and no
Federal grant payments will be made on this project until
the city of New York has submitted an acceptable plan with
a timetable for phasing out sludge disposal at sea."
This timetable is being developed, and the city
will comply with this new regulation.
To meaningfully control a program of this size,
to provide management with the systematic and factual flow
of Information, and to minimize assumptions, misdirected
efforts, incomplete data, delays, and to thus enhance the
decision-making process, New York City has inaugurated a
modern and sophisticated management technique of resource
allocation and computer-oriented scheduling under a separate
Program Planning and Management Section.
Our latest projections indicate that the Hunts
Point plant expansion and upgrading will be committed to
-------
442
Joseph T. Miller
construction by October of this year. The construction
phase will then take three years to complete. Construction
of the Bowery Bay plant upgrading and expansion, as well as
the Tallmans Island plant upgrading and expansion, will
commence by December of this year. Tallmans Island will
take 40 months to complete, while the Bowery Bay project will
be completed in three years.
Finally, construction has already started on
several major contracts which are part of the Wards Island
plant upgrading and expansion, with other contracts to follow
in sequence until September 1972. The entire Wards Island
project will be onstream by September 1975.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
Are there any comments or questions?
(No response.)
Again, thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, sir.
MR, STEIN: I don't want to look a gift horse in
the mouth, and I'm glad New York is coming along with the
elimination of their dumping of sludge at sea. When you
get back to Mr. Lang, you might remind Marty of conversations
I have had with him over the years, sometimes very forcefully.
You can't say he wasn't warned.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
-------
Calvin E. Weber
443
MR. STEIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, sir.
MR. METZLER: The next New York witness is Mr.
Cal Weber Iron Westchester County Health Department, who is
here to make a statement on behalf of Westchester County.
Mr. Weber.
STATEMENT OF
CALVIN E. WEBER
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF NEW YORK
WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK
MR. WEBER: I must apologize, gentlemen, for not
having extra copies of my statement with me, but I am one
of these people who make a lot of last-minute changes.
I am Calvin E. Weber, Director of the Division of
Environmental Health Services of the Westchester County
Department of Health in the State of New York.
Westchester County has been cognizant of the
need to improve and maintain the quality of the waters of
Long Island Sound for many years as evidenced by the
existing wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated
by the county at New Rochelle, Mamaroneck, and at Blind
Brook in Rye.
These plants, constructed originally in the 1930*8
-------
444
Calvin E. Yfeber
as screening plants, were upgraded and expanded within the
past 10 years to provide improved treatment of municipal
wastewater before discharge to Long Island Sound. Further,
designs for expansion of the county-owned New Rochelle and
Blind Brook facilities and for provision of secondary treat-
ment at these plants are currently 75 percent and 25 percent
complete, respectively.
The design for an expansion of the Port Chester
treatment plant, currently operated by the village of Port
Chester, and provision of secondary treatment is 25 percent
complete.
The county of Westchester has formed a county
sewer district which will encompass the Port Chester area
and provide for the operation of the Port Chester sewage
treatment plant as a county regional facility.
Through continuing cooperative efforts of the
Westchester County Department of Health and the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, corrective
actions have been and are being undertaken by Industries
discharging to the Byram River in Port Chester. The New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation has dis-
cussed these activities, which are not repeated here in the
interest of brevity.
With respect to the existing Port Chester sewage
-------
Calvin Eป Weber
445
treatment plant, it is recognized that operating problems
have been experienced, primarily due to the effect of in-
dustrial waste discharges and salt water infiltration on the
plant processes. As the result of a conference held by the
Westchester County Department of Health, the mayor of the
village of Port Chester outlined an eight-point program
leading to improved operation and maintenance of the facility,
to reduction or pretreatment of industrial waste discharges
to the plant through improved enforcement of a local industrial
wastes ordinance, and to a program to seek out and correct
salt water infiltration. This program is in effect and has
produced improvement in the performance of the plant.
The Port Chester sewage treatment plant currently
discharges its treated wastewaters directly to the Byram
River at the plant site. This practice most likely contributes
to the coliform concentrations observed in Port Chester
Harbor, particularly during the winter months, which have
been determined to be higher than those found in other areas
of Long Island Sound waters adjacent to Westchester County.
Under the current proposals, the treated wastes
from the proposed expanded and upgraded Port Chester facility
will be pumped to the outfall serving the Blind Brook sewage
treatment plant, thereby eliminating this discharge to the
Byram River with a resulting decrease in coliform
-------
446
Calvin E. Y/eber
concentrations from this source and an anticipated decrease
in coliform concentrations in Port Chester Harbor.
Recognizing that there is a need for improved water
qualify surveillance of the waters of Long Island Sound and
other waters contiguous to Y/estchester County, the West-
chester County Department of Health purchased a 17-foot
Boston Whaler in late 1970 and instituted a water quality
surveillance program with emphasis on the Mamaroneck Harbor
area* Samples were collected at 16 locations once each
month for pH, chlorides, coliform and fecal coliform
organisms, and once each month for pH, chlorides, coliform,
fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, temperature, phosphorus, and
nitrates. The sample runs were made two weeks apart.
During the months of July and August, sampling was
conducted at three locations for temperature, pH, dissolved
oxygen, chlorides, nitrates, coliform, and fecal coliform
on an hourly basis over a 12-hour tidal cycle.
Preliminary evaluation of the data indicates that
treated discharges from the Mamaroneck outfall during the
survey period are dispersed in the sound and do not have an
adverse effect on the adjacent Westchester harbors. The
data, which includes sampling on rivers and streams discharging
to the harbor, Indicates that the waters of Mamaroneck Harbor
are affected by high coliform densities emanating from
-------
447
Calvin ฃ. Weber
these streams and rivers. However, due to dilution and dis-
persion in the harbor, coliform densities as determined at
bathing beaches in and adjacent to the harbor have not indi-
cated a need to close these beaches.
The Westchester County Department of Health began
a sanitary survey along these tributary streams in 1970 and
intends to continue this survey, within the limits of avail-
able resources, during the coming summer in order to seek
out the sources of the high coliform densities and to obtain
abatement through appropriate enforcement action available
to the department.
We also Intend to increase the area of coverage
of the water quality surveillance program and to reevaluate
the constituents for which analyses are made with a view
toward adding others as deemed necessary.
For at least 20 years the Department has conducted
a bacteriological sampling program during the summer months
at bathing places and check point locations along the West-
chester County shore of Long Island Sound. Bathing beaches
are closed, if necessary, for varying periods of time when
bacterial quality is determined to be unsatisfactory by
sampling or if the bathing waters are endangered by wastewater
treatment plant effluents which are untreated or inadequately
treated due to severe storms, power failures, or other
-------
Calvin E. Weber
448
emergency situations.
No bathing beach has been closed for high coliform
counts lor many years. It has been several years since
beaches have been closed due to inadequately treated or
untreated wastewater discharges resulting from emergency situa-
tions.
With respect to shellfishing in waters off the
shores of Westchester County, it is recognized that the
commercial shellfish areas off these shores are closed. It
should be noted, however, that a 1970 report of the Division
of Marine and Coastal Resources, Bureau of Environmental
Control of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation states that a review of the bacteriological data
presented in the report indicates that there has been general
improvement in the bacterial quality of the waters in the
western area of Westchester County along Long Island Sound
and recommends that the western area of Westchester County
along Long Island Sound be certified for commercial shell-
fishing.
Westchester County has considerable interest in and
concern for the waters of Long Island Sound due to its
contiguous location, its vast recreational facilities, and
its fish and shellfish resources and will continue this
interest and concern.
-------
Calvin E. Weber
449
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Weber.
Any comments or questions?
MR. CURRY: When will the Port Chester effluent be
discontinued?
MR. WEBER: This won't be discontinued until the
county facility is completed, and 1 don't recall what the date
is. 1973 or 1975, isn't it?
FROM THE FLOOR: 1973.
MR. WEBER: 1973.
MR. CURRY: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Any further comments or questions?
MR. METZLER: I want to take this opportunity to
point out that New York is extremely fortunate as far as the
environment is concerned in that both the State and local
governments have invested a lot of money over a period of
years in some very excellent local health departments, and
this very modern, forward-looking kind of surveillance program
which Mr. Weber has just described is the kind of backup
that is absolutely essential.
Westchester County is one of the leaders. We also
have some other very good health departments. As a matter
of fact, they are doing some of this same work also located
around the sound. I'm just taking the opportunity of your
testimony to point this out to some who may not be
-------
450
Calvin E. Weber
Donald F. Squires
familiar with that kind of backup.
I hope you will give our regards to Mr. (Mekalian)
and thank him for the testimony that has been presented here
today.
MR. WEBER: Thank you, Mr. Metzler. I appreciate
your comments.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Metzler.
MR. METZLER: The next statement is from Dr. Squires
from the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
STATEMENT OF
DONALD F. SQUIRES
DIRECTOR, MARINE SCIENCES RESEARCH CENTER
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
STONY BROOK, NEW YORK
DR. SQUIRES: Mr. Chairman, with your permission
I would like to have my statement entered as if read.
MR. STEIN: Without objection this will be done.
DR. SQUIRES: My name is Donald F. Squires. I am
Director of the Marine Sciences Research Center, State
University of New York, Stony Brook, New York. My testimony
is presented on behalf of my associates at the Marine
Sciences Research Center and not as an official of the
State of New York.
The Marine Sciences Research Center was created as
-------
Donald F, Squires
451
the locus for marine activities of the over 60 campuses
comprising the State University of New York and the statutory
colleges of Cornell University. The Center is housed on the
campus of the State University of New York at Stony Brook in
a newly constructed laboratory and office building designed
for its own operations.
The Center operates research and instructional
laboratories on Long Island, in the cold waters of the Gulf
of Maine, and in the tropical waters off Jamaica, West
Indies. In addition to its 40-foot research vessel, the
RV/MICMAC, the Center makes use of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Agency vessel, the RV/UNDAUNTED, a 145-foot
oceanographic ship.
The Center has a research faculty of 13 and a
supporting staff of over 30. In addition to its own re-
sources, the Center draws upon faculty from the campuses of
State University and Cornell in its role as providing
leadership for coordinated research program directed towards
the waters of New York State.
Since the commencement of its activities in
September 1968, the Center has been engaged in over 30
research projects directly related to marine environmental
quality and marine resource development. Three of these
ongoing projects are directly relevant to the Long Island
-------
Donald F. Squires
452
Sound enforcement conference, for they affect the waters of
Long Island Sound:
Thermal Loading in Long Island Sound Waters;
Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in Long Island Sound;
Environmental Effects of Solid Waste Disposal on
Coastal Waters.
The research of the Center and Its associates is
closely coordinated with that of other universities in the
area and particularly with the interests of local and State
governments most importantly the Regional Marine Resources
Council and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
One of the most pressing problems facing the western
regions of Long Island Sound is biostimulation and its
attendant problems of water discoloration and fish kills
through the release of sewage, treated or untreated, carrying
nutrients which support large phytoplankton populations.
Investigations of Long Island Sound led by
Professor Peter K. Weyl of the Marine Sciences Research Center
have shown, by comparison with the studies of Riley (1952-55),
that in the period from 1952-55 to 1969-70 there has been
at least a doubling in the concentration of dissolved inorganic
phosphates in the western portion of the sound.
These high phosphate levels combined with Increases
-------
Donald F. Squires
453
of as yet unknown magnitude of the various species of nitrogen
serve to support extensive growths of plankton particularly
during the late summer bloom. While surface waters are
temporarily enriched, the lasting effects of the input of oxy-
gen-demanding solids derived from sewage treatment plants and
the decay of the phytoplankton bloom result in extremely low
levels of dissolved oxygen in bottom waters.
During August 1970, oxygen levels were as low as
1 ppm of dissolved oxygen compared to surface supersaturated
values for much of the region to the west of Stepping Stone
Light into the area of the East River. In this region the
problem of oxygen depletion is exacerbated at least locally
by heating of water passing through powerplant condensers.
Further, in the westernmost region the phytoplankton bloom is
apparently inhibited by as yet unknown factors so that oxygen
values are low throughout the water column.
The answers to the problems created by sewage input
to the western portion of Long Island Sound are not easily
obtained through simple upgrading of sewage treatment. Know-
ledge of the dynamics of plankton blooms and their utiliza-
tion of the nutrients added through sewage must be combined
with an understanding of the outputs of treatment plants In
terms of oxygen-demanding substances and perhaps other
components.
-------
Donald F. Squires
454
Also to be considered are the impacts of extensive
blooms upon the food chain and the relationship between such
blooms and extensive fish kills such as occurred among
menhaden or "mossbunker" in the summer of 1970 and finally
the long-term effects of the settleable solids discharge to
Long Island Sound substrate through sewage treatment plants.
Long Island Sound presently has 19 designated (and
one undesignated) dumping sites, not all of which are receiving
wastes at the present time. Although we have been investi-
gating these sites for the past year, the evidence of the
environmental effects of the disposal of dredge spoils in
these areas is not clearcut. At present the Long Island
Sound sites are principally recipients of construction debris
(until 1970) and of dredged materials removed from Connecticut
harbors.
These latter present a plaguing problem, for most
harbors are in reality primary settling basins for the
effluents of industry, municipalities, and rivers which empty
into them. The bottoms of these harbors are frequently
covered with organically rich debris which may eventually
constitute a problem if discharged improperly Into the sound.
These may be particularly acute when oxygen-consuming wastes
are discharged to already degraded low-oxygen waters.
There is a possibility of utilizing dredge wastes
-------
Donald F, Squires
455
beneficially to improve the benthic productivity of the sound
if undertaken with proper management and knowledge. These
studies are being led by Professor M. Grant Gross of the
Marine Sciences Research Center.
Thermal effluents released to Long Island Sound are
not evenly distributed but, rather, are heavily concentrated
in the most Impacted area of the sound. Answers to the vexing
problem of the environmental effects of thermal pollution
are neither easily found nor are the detriments easily
demonstrated. While every effort should be made, in the
interests of our society, to more effectively utilize the
wgu9te energy released by steam electric generating plants,
it is possible within reasonable limits to continue the use
of Long Island Sound as a thermal sump providing that good
management techniques are followed.
Three points should be made today:
1. Waste discharges have degraded water quality
in the western portion of the sound and in the bays and
harbors, but the central and eastern portion of the sound
are much less affected;
2, Long Island Sound cannot be treated as a single
unit but must be divided or zoned, and the waste-carrying
capacity of each zone must be determined in order to protect
the sound on a long-term basis;
-------
Donald F. Squires
456
3, Waste disposal leaves a long-tern environmental
debt in the form of deposits which release nutrients to the
water and consume dissolved oxygen long after direct waste
discharges have been eliminated.
I should like to comment briefly on each of these
points.
As mentioned in my introductory statement, the
western portion of Long Island Sound is the most degraded.
It is here that disposal of domestic and industrial wastes,
thermal effluents, and recreational utilization of the sound
find themselves in most direct conflict. The resolution of
this conflict has short- and long-term implications.
In the longer term, it is certain that we must
learn to better utilize our resources particularly through
the recycling of wastes. Thus, we all look forward to the
day when liquid-phase effluents from sewage treatment plants
will be recycled to the water supply and some beneficial
utilization will be made of the solid phase.
Similarly, it is hoped that we will learn to utilize
the waste heat of the electrical power generating process
so that it will not be wastefully released to the environment.
In the shorter range, however, we must seek tech-
niques to minimize the impact of these wastes on our environ-
ment while present disposal practices continue.
-------
Donald F. Squires
457
The crisis of the western sound relates principally
to the discharge of nutrients in the liquid phase of sewage
plant discharge. The results of the enforcement conference
will be to spur communities to install sewage treatment
processes where none exists or to upgrade inefficient plants.
This process can only result in an increased volume of waste-
water being discharged into Long Island Sound, thereby
exacerbating an already critical situation.
Every attempt should be made by the Environmental
Protection Agency to encourage municipalities proposing to
upgrade treatment facilities, where these are required, to
institute new technologies which remove nutrients from the
wastewaters. This is an urgent and critical requirement,
particularly in the western region of the sound, if environ-
mental conditions are to remain stable or improve.
Further, techniques must be developed which permit
the effective segregation of industrial wastes, particularly
those containing heavy metals, from domestic sewage so that
we do not add these contaminants to the already burdened
waters of the sound.
These actions are urgently required before citizens
of this region are burdened with long-term indebtedness in
thฃ Construction of facilities which will not effectively
-------
Donald F. Squires
458
resolve the environmental problem and which may lead to
further deterioration of western sound waters.
This leads me to the second point. The sound is
not a single simple system as far as water circulation and
marine organisms are concerned. Therefore, we must be able to
identify and treat each major unit separately. Each area
has a limited capacity to receive wastes without exhibiting
unacceptable deterioration in water quality. For example,
the western portion of the sound and the bays must be treated
separately from the central and eastern regions. The western
portion is the site of maximum population density and the
sites where urban wastes have had the maximum Impact.
Vie must not, however, ignore the rest of the sound.
It too can be overloaded with wastes leading to degraded
water quality.
In short, I am calling for zoning Long Island Sound
and its adjacent waters to guide our thinking on short-
range placement of facilities such as sewage treatment plants
and steam electric generating facilities.
Much of the concern about the quality of Long
Island Sound has revolved around sewage or industrial
wastes. However, the electric generating process adds a
much more subtle and more difficult pollutant in the form
of waste heat. We should not concentrate our attention
-------
Donald F. Squires
459
upon nuclear generating plants, for fossil fuel plants
contribute to the heat burden just as significantly.
Present siting practices have resulted in the con-
centration of powerplants near the metropolitan region.
Existing thermal pollution regulations are restrictive only
in the character of discharge and in the thermal ranges
permitted. We urge that more consideration be given to the
zonation of Long Island Sound for thermal discharge and
that policies regulating the siting of powerplants also
recognize the amount and character of the already existing
thermal and nutrient burden as well as optimum methods of
waste heat disposal*
In brief, we advocate as a short-term solution
to the thermal pollution problem the dispersion of electrical
generating facilities to the central and eastern regions
of the sound; thus, the impact may be minimized.
Thirdly, we must recognize that the sound has a
long memory. Its present condition did not arise
Instantaneously, and it will not be cleaned up overnight
even if all construction schedules are met and all waste
treatment facilities operate at peak efficiency. Past
abuses of the sound and its bays have left deposits on its
bottom which will release nutrients at an unknown rate and
use dissolved oxygen from its overlaying waters. We must
-------
Donald F. Squires
460
learn to manage these deposits to accomplish the long-term
cleanup we all desire.
Strategies to deal with this problem include:
1. Leaving the wastes in place and accepting the
environmental degradation;
2. Remove the wastes and accept temporary degrada-
tion of water and temporary degradation when deposits are
disturbed; or
3. Covering them with a less detrimental material
to lessen the impact.
We lack the information needed to assess the
environmental as well as fiscal cost of each strategy or to
predict the results of every course of action.
Waste management and environmental rehabilitation
are the objectives of the research program of the Marine
Sciences Research Center. We seek to understand the
physical and biological processes governing the sound so
that we can predict its waste-handling capacity and then
zone it so that harmful wastes are eliminated or released in
acceptable quantities. Some of the wastes now dumped may
actually prove to be useful to buy other objectionable
wastes or to provide the habitat for desirable organisms.
Since 1968, when it began research operations,
the Marine Sciences Research Center of the State University
-------
Donald F. Squires
461
of Mew York at Stony Brook has conducted research and Moni-
toring programs to determine the quality of Long Island Sound
waters and the condition of the floor of the sound.
A list of the publications resulting from this
work is attached, and I request that it be included in the
record.
Still, we have much to learn about the sound and
its organisms before we can acconplish these objectives.
But to materially improve water quality in even small areas
of the sound we must begin to acquire the understanding
called for. Some of this involves application of known
principles. In many instances we must begin with long-
term research to obtain basic information. Obviouslyf we
are late, but we cannot afford to delay further these neces-
sary steps.
(The list of publications referred to follows:)
-------
462
Technical Report Series - Marine Sciences Research Center
No. 1 Invertebrate Survey of Flax Pond
Summer, 1967. 39 pp.
by George J. Hechtel
2 New York City -
A Major Source of Marine Sediment. 24 pp.
by M. Grant Gross
3 Biological Effects of Thermal Pollution
Nortliport, New York. 10 7 pp.
by George J. Hechtelr E. J. Ernst, R. J. Kalin
4 Hydrographic Data Report
Long Island Sound, 1969. 129 pp.
by Charles D. Hardy
5 Preliminary Analyses of Urban Waste,
New York Metropolitan Region. 35 pp.
by M. Grant Gross
6 Hydrographic Data Report
Long Island Sound, 1970, Part I. 96 pp.
by Charles D. Hardy and Peter K. Weyl
7 Analyses of Dredged Wastes, Fly Ash and
Waste Chemicals. 33 pp.
New York Metropolitan Region
by M. Grant Gross
8 Survey of Marine Waste Deposits,
New York Metropolitan Region
by M. Grant Gross, et. al^ In Press.
9 Studies on the Effects of a Steam-Electric
Generating Plant on the Marine Environment
at Northport, New York
by Thomas H. Suchanek Jr., Jeffry B. Mitton et. al.
In Press.
10 Hydrographic Data Report
Lpng Island Sound, 1970, Part II.
by Peter K. Weyl and Charles D. Hardy. In Press.
Copies of the above are available by application to the Director,
Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York,
Stony Brook, New York 11790.
-------
463
Donald F. Squires
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Dr. Squires. That was a
very excellent statement and analysis of the problem. Maybe
I say that because that's the way I look at it.
DR. SQUIRES: I'm glad you do.
MR. STEIN: But this is a very interesting point.
I haven't dealt with Dr. Squires before, but I think the way we
lay out the problem and analyze it is almost parallel to
the way you have done it here. And I think we have done it
independently, which to me is kind of interesting. We
have arrived at identifying the same kinds of areas and the
same kinds of problems within them.
Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. GLENN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was interested,
Dr. Squires, in 1970, in August, in the fish kills, you
attributed them all to pollution and lack of dissolved
oxygen. This was right in the middle of our survey where
we were actually sampling each station three times a day
for three weeks. We did not experience, in the area we
found most of the menhaden, this dissolved oxygen deficiency.
And also I think after talking to fish biologists
--which I'm not we could not lay it to this problem.
Because I don't think we could explain, if there was a lack
of dissolved oxygen, why the dissolved oxygen was so
selective and only killed mossbunkers. We didn't find any
other type of fish in this large area -- and there are
-------
Donald F. Squires
464
thousands and thousands of them -- that died at this time.
There are other types of fish.
And also I know by the fishermen in the area at the
same time. Within two days of this they were telling us how
they were fishing through a school of mossbunkers and
catching blues underneath them. So again they were fishing
deep enough.
So I have not had fish biologists agree that this
was the cause of that large kill of mossbunkers.
DR. SQUIRES: I do not wish to attribute all of
the mossbunker kill which has occurred and has occurred
annually in the sound for many, many years not annually
but periodically in Long Island Sound to this particular
problem. But I think that we had a much more extensive kill
last year, and this can in part be attributed to it.
MR. GLENN: Can this be partially because they had
stopped the commercial taking of mossbunkers out there
and there would be a lot more mossbunkers than in previous
years?
DR. SQUIRES: It might have something to do with
it. The complexities of reactions of fish to the low oxygen
values are
MR. GLENN: I don't know
DR. SQUIRES: It Is a fact and I could
-------
Donald F. Squires
465
substantiate this since I was on the cruise at the time
that one of the areas of lowest oxygen values did occur in the
center of the bluefishing fleet which was very successfully
taking blues at the bottom* But these are part of the
complexities of the fisheries problem.
What we are looking at at the present time in Long
Island Sound are short-term deficiencies in oxygen. What we
can look forward to are long-term deficiencies in oxygen. As
we get into that situation, then the character of the
organisms at the bottom, the character of the organisms
in the mid-water will very definitely change, and this is
going to have a profound effect upon the fish that are able
to move in and out of the region.
MR. GLENN: As you know, Dr. Squires, we have been
working with your group, and the majority of your testimony
I am in favor of. But I was surprised at it here because
I don't know of any fish that will live in 1 ppm, and I
couldn't see how we didn't kill something else if it was
dissolved oxygen that killed all the mossbunkers.
DR. SQUIRES: There were other organisms which
were detrimentally affected, most notably the lobsters. Many
of the traps in the region were bringing up red lobsters.
They were in a state of advanced asphyxiation from the low
oxygen levels.
-------
Donald F. Squires
466
MB. STEIN: Any other comments or questions?
Yes, Mr. Gregg.
MR. GREGG: Did you hear the discussion yesterday
about research or nondiscussion, however you want to
characterize it?
DR. SQUIRES: It sounds as if I had the pleasure of
missing it.
MR. GREGG: It occurs to me, if it wouldn't be too
much trouble, you might help the conferees by offering any
further thoughts you may have about research priorities,
particularly relatively short-range ones, as specifically related
to water quality, because the conferees are going to have to
come up with some recommendations here over a period of, you
know, a relatively short time.
Maybe you could zero In on some researchable work
that relates to these general areas that you have identified.
It would be helpful. I wouldn't ask you to do it now.
Perhaps if you could do it later before this afternoon
DR. SQUIRES: Let me give a very quick response to
that. It is our philosophy that there are two kinds of
research endeavors one can undertake.
One is short-term management practice-oriented
research. That can provide palliatives for the environmental
situation.
Then there is the more complex and, unfortunately,
-------
Donald F. Squires
467
longer-term activities that are going to be required to
provide the final answers that we all so much desire.
But there exists, I feel quite confident, enough
knowledge in many areas so that we can devise with real-time
data collecting activities, real-time planning activities
management programs to deal with the environmental crisis
within the next two or three years. We can actually implement
some of these practices within that time framework, and I think
that's about as much time as we have in many areas.
That's a very crude overview of the situation.
MR. STEIN: Any other comments or questions?
MR. METZLER: I'd like to ask Dr. Squires a
question here, or perhaps two. You emphasized the nutrient
problem in the western part of the sound. Do you have any
evidence over some period of time to show trends? Is the
nutrient problem worse now than it was 10 or 20 years ago?
DR-. SQUIRES: The difficulty is the absence of
replicable Information. The best baseline information
existing on Long Island Sound is the work that was done by
Gordon Riley of the Bingham Oceanographic Institution during
the mid-1950*s, and the only data that we have been able to
use are the phosphate levels, and these show a very, very
substantial increase, a doubling in the phosphate levels.
This is, from all evidence, probably attributable
-------
Donald F. Squires
468
to the introduction of detergents into the region.
MR. METZLER: Has this shown a comparable increase in
growth of algae in the sound?
DR. SQUIRES: That's a difficult one.
MR. METZLER: Has this been accompanied by a cor-
responding
DR. SQUIRES: I think it is accompanied by the
release of nitrogen, various species of nitrogen, various
forms, into the waters of the sound through the added outfalls,
sewage outfalls.
The unknown factor here, of course, is the amount
of nutrient transfer through the East River and Throgs Neck
region into the western sound.
He don't have good base-level information on nitro-
gen to accompany the phosphate story. So to give a direct
answer to your question is not possible.
MR. PELOQUIN: Kb*. Chairman, a question.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. PELOQUIN: Is Mr. Riley's data available? Are
they available? The mid-1950 data?
DR. SQUIRES: Yes. These were published in the
reports of the Bingham Oceanographio institution in a series
of volumes which encompass all of his data.
MR. PELOQUIN: What institute, please?
-------
Donald F. Squires
469
DR. SQUIRES: The Bingham Oceanographic Institution
at Yale.
MR. PELOQUIN: One other question, Doctor. On
the list of publications, I have just received your Publica-
tion No. 6, I believe. I'm interested in the 3 and 9. Is
the charge for those the same as for all your other publica-
tions?
DR. SQUIRES: Yes. Our technical reports are at
the present time sufficiently in demand so that we have had
to institute a charge or go broke.
MR. PELOQUIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Let me ask you something specific,
because, unfortunately, while I agree with your classifica-
tions, most of the management that I am faced with is short-
term decisions that we have to put in. Maybe they are
palliatives, but Ifm not sure that the long-term research
has led to very much more. But let
DR. SQUIRES: One always hopes.
MR. STEIN: Yes. One always hopes.
Let me find out what you specifically mean. You
say, "...encourage municipalities proposing to upgrade
treatment facilities,where these are required,to institute
new technologies which remove nutrients from the wastewaters."
Do you mean phosphorus removal, carbonaceous removal* nitrogen
-------
Donald F. Squires
470
removal? Do you want to be specific on that?
DR. SQUIRES: Yes. The question of the effective
nutrient and biological oxygen-demanding substances and that
interplay that occurs causing the phytoplankton bloom that
we have now in the western sound is a complex issue. It
seems certain that the definition of an adequate sewage
treatment plant is going to involve an understanding of the
interplay between the BOD, the solid component, and the
nutrients which are put into the sound.
The answer is not going to be a straightforward
"this is the general rule" sort of a situation. It*s quite
possible that the character of the discharge of a sewage
treatment plant in one area may have to be different than
that in another in order to balance the natural processes.
The removal of nutrients from effluent and I
want to stay out of the question of recycling, which I
think is a little longer-term question but I think
removal of both nitrogen and phosphate from effluent waters
is of pressing concern. And while the technology that we have
itlxai will do this sort of a job is as yet embryonic, every
pressure should be made to introduce these embryonic tech-
nologies beyond the pilot phase and into the actual operating
phase.
MR# STEIN: We are a little farther along on
-------
Donald F. Squires
471
phosphorus removal than nitrogen removal, as you might know.
DR. SQUIRES: The nitrogen may In the longer run
be the more substantial problem.
MR. STEIN: That's right. But I think the question
I am asking, Doctor, is this: If we are going to set up a
program for waste treatment facilities in the sound let's
assume you take the zones, and the most critical zone Is the
western zone -- we generally have to deal with percentage
these days of phosphorus removal. Because if the people are
producing, say, 3.5 pounds of phosphorus per capita I
don't know how much runoff you have, but let's assume we
are just dealing with stuff coming per capita we can
just deal with a reduction.
Now, have you thought in terms of the kind of
phosphorus and nitrogen reduction we need for these areas?
DR. SQUIRES: This is the stage we are in -- is to
begin to define what these levels might be.
1IR. STEIN: Let me give you the situation that
we are faced with. I want to give you a spectrum of stuff.
For example, in Lake Michigan and Lake Erie we asked
for 80 percent on a Statewide basis on phosphorus reduction,
nothing for nitrates. In the Potomac, at the other end
of the spectrum, we asked for a 96 or 98 percent phosphorus
reduction and about the same level of reduction of nitrates,
-------
Donald F. Squires
472
knowing that we were in an embryonic state.
In some of the Southern bays, such as Mobile Bay
and Perdido Bay and Escambia Bay, they were up in the high
90's too.
By the way, as you may or may not know, but I'm
sure you do with the sophistication of your paper, if we say
from 80 to 90 you're doubling the cost. If instead of saying
90 we say 96, you're doubling the cost again from 90.
And I guess for the people here who aren't familiar
with this, if you say 90 you have 10 percent left, and if
you say 96 you are removing 60 percent of the pollution
load that is going in, and that's quite a bit.
Now, have you any idea of the kind of nutrient
loadings that we can tolerate? Or are we at the critical
point where we have to come out with an all-out program to
get these removed as we had to do on the Potomac? Do you have
any views on that?
DR. SQUIRES: Yes. I believe and I'm talking
for another one of my colleagues, Professor Weyl, who is
presently at sea coping with some problems we are at the
stage where we can begin to define. We would like to have
the coming summer to look at our data again.
The difficulty of dealing with these problems is
-------
Donald F. Squires
473
you are dealing with episodes that are occurring once a year.
Summer comes once a year. It makes it difficult to work on
an accelerated time scale. With the potential of seeing
the process again, looking at it again, in the coming summer,
we may be at the stage where we can actually talk to what
the levels are.
The message I wanted to leave today was not so
much that we know what these levels are, but my concern is
that of the taxpayer who pays an inordinate amount of his
income in taxปs ~ feeling that when I go into a bond issue
to build a sewage treatment facility I want to know that the
money is being spent in the most effective way.
And I'm alarmed at the somewhat pedantic, pedestrian
progress of sewage treatment from primary to secondary,
to secondary biological, and so on, when, in fact, we may be
in many areas, particularly in the western portion of the
sound, faced with a problem which should cause us not to
go through an evolutionary phase with a 20-year indebtedness
attached to each step but, rather, to make some jumps in the
process.
MR. STEIN: That's right. But
DR. SQUIRES: The information that we need is the
information that we hope to be able to provide you.
MR. STEIN: All right. In other words, let me
-------
Donald F. Squires
474
try to get the recommendation from you in the setting up of
this program particularly in terms of nutrient removal. Your
suggestion is if we set up a technical group and they
cooperate with you, you think we might have the answers by the
end of the summer?
DR. SQUIRES: I would hope that we will be a lot
further down the pike. Now, we already have, in a sense, the
coordination that is required here. At least I hope we have.
We have been working with the group at Edison and with the
Interstate Sanitation Commission and with some of the county
health departments in the coordination of data gathering and
the projection of where the numbers we get actually are going
to take us.
I think probably what we need to do is to now get
together and do a little analytical work jointly rather than
separately.
There is a remarkable amount of activity going on in
the western sound both at a Federal and a State, and a private
if you wish, level. This is loosely coordinated now, and it
should, hopefully, bear fruit at the end of this coming
summer.
MR. GREGG: Is Dave Wallace working with you on this?
DR, SQUIRES: Yes. We are very closely in touch
-------
Donald F. Squires
475
with the environmental conservation people, Wallace in
particular.
MR, STEIN: Well, I think the answers we're going
to get from the kind of work that you and other people are
doing are going to be possibly the essential answers for our
program here, at least in dealing with municipal wastes and
organic wastes. And as you talk in terms of the bond issues
or the multimillion dollars we're going to spend, either
we're going to go for that or not.
The point I really have to make is that we are
going to have to come up with a judgment on that pretty
soon* Because assuming that your analysis of the conditions
of the western end of the sound is correct -- and I say
assuming that, without my drawing a conclusion we don't
really have the time. We have to come up with an answer
and get moving very rapidly.
Even if we had the answer today, we probably would
be three years away from the plants going into operation,
and you're not going to get any improvement until we throw
the switch.
DR. SQUIRES: I completely agree.
MR, STEIN: Okay. So what I'm trying to do, what
I'm seeking here is eventually in order to make this program
work or to get us to commit money and you have heard
-------
Donald F. Squires
476
Mr. Metzler. He doesn't think we nearly commit enough but
in order to get us to commit money and New York State to commit
money and us to determine whether we're going to bring an
enforcement action to take someone to court or not for being
in violation, we have to and I'm going to use a fancy
word, and I hate to use these fancy words -- we have to
quantify it. In other words, we have to come up with a number.
We're going to ask you whether you are going to
get any phosphate removal, whether you're going to get 60,
70, 80, 95, 96, or 98, and do the same thing with nitrates
or carbonaceous material, however you might want to state
this, in what terms you might want to state the other aspect
of the problem get this to the States and to the
municipalities in sufficient time so they can crank that into
the problem.
If they have any objection to this, they can have
due process and tell us they think we're not right.
But we're going to have to come up with these numbers
to propose pretty soon.
DR. SQUIRES: Right.
MR. STBIN: All right. Thank you.
MR. KLASHMAN: Dr. Squires, could you elaborate a
little bit more on what you are doing in the thermal loading
problem? I mean how extensive is the work that-- I realize
-------
Donald F. Squires
477
that your staff is, you know, very limited and that the sound
is rather a large body of water, but how extensive is the
thermal work you're doing and that you contemplate?
DR, SQUIRES: Starting at the smallest scale and
working up, we have had a single fossil fuel generating plant
under fairly extensive study for nearly three years now,
since late 1968, the Northport powerplant of the Long Island
Lighting Company. We have used this an area-"- Since it's
a fairly new plant, newly constructed, we didn*t have to
look at the long-term Integration of the effects of thermal
pollution. We have used this as a baseline for the effects
of a single powerplant upon the local environment.
We then began to project ahead looking to the
point in time when we might begin to get interaction between
powerplants and also the synergistic effects that occur
In the interaction between nutrients and heat as pollutants
in a body of water.
The question of the future development of power--
plants is a very nasty one because it has so many conditions
and qualifications built around it. It you take the straight-
line projections of the Federal Power Commission and you
assume that every plant that is built will be a 1,000-megawatt
plant and you take the population growth and projected energy
utilization for the metropolitan region, you come to the
-------
Donald F. Squires
478
conclusion that there will be a powerplant every 3-1/2 miles
on the Long Island Sound shoreline. One has the feeling
that this is probably an overextension of straight-line projec-
tions.
We have, therefore, moved into the question of
projections in a more realistic fashion that is, getting
away from straight-line projections and have been working
with the Atomic and Space Development Authority of New York,
which is the authority which is involved in the acquisition
of sites for powerplant : development and probably provides
much of the leadership in New York State for plant siting,
and have been working with them in the question of where they
see things going in the State and how they see, together
with the State Power Commission, the metropolitan power
shortage in that area.
The concept of zoning of the sound emerged fairly
early in our thinking as a working hypothesis to prevent
the interaction of powerplants through their concentration.
There are several factors that work toward the
concentration of powerplants the territoriality of the
power generating company, the problems associated with con-
struction of transmission lines, which are another environment-
al problem. The fact of the matter is that the density of
power generating capacity is greatest in the metropolitan
-------
Donald F. Squires
479
region* It's this region where all the other pollution
problems are also intense.
The dispersion of power capacity and the location
of future power generating sites is now our focus, looking
at these from the viewpoints of: Where do you put a plant
if one is required? And it's obvious that there are going to
be power plants required. Where do you put them so that
the synergistic effects and the interacting effects are mini-
mized?
MR* KLASHHAN: Do you have, in your opinion, enough
data now from your work in Northport to make these judgments
now? In other words, do you have to get more data on what
has happened in order to make these projections? Or do you
feel you have enough field data in order to make some nufejMlpg-
ful judgments ~ that is, with a little bit of confidence?
DR. SQUIRES: As a first cut, I think probably
enough information exists to provide management guidance.
Problems become then ones of engineering, intake and outlet
design, siting both in terms of local characteristics and
regional characteristics. And these are separate problem?*
Transmission lines are another problem altogether. Modal
points in the transmission network. These are all factors
vfelcfe enter into the picture and may be totally outside the
question of water quality in terms of thermal pollution^
-------
Donald F. Squires
480
MR. KLASHMAN: We are very much concerned about
these, but at the moment we were trying to zero in, I realize
those are all very important. But the thing that concerned
me is we have, as you know, seven nuclear powerplants
projected for the sound right now. The question comes up,
first, in your judgment, is there any possibility of building
these without some type of cooling towers? Or in your
opinion is it possible to discharge these wastes, cooling
water, to the sound without any type of treatment at all?
This question is obviously going to come up, and it
affects the cost. In your judgment, is there any possibility
of discharging without cooling towers or some sort of device
for
DR. SQUIRES: That's a lovely loaded question.
(Laughter)
MR. KLASHMAN: I appreciate the fact that you
MR. METZLER: You ought to insist on getting paid a
consultant's fee for answering it. (Laughter)
MR. STEIN: You don't have to answer.
MR. KLASHMAN: No, I appreciate the fact you may
not officially answer that.
DR. SQUIRES: There are tradeoffs involved. And it
is possible through careful site selection and I'm leaving
the question of the radioactive wastes out
-------
Donald F. Squires
481
MR. KLASHMAN: No, I'm talking about heat at the
moment.
DR. SQUIRES: Just the heat. It is possible to
select sites which will have a minimum impact upon the environ-
ment and that it is then a social and political judgment
whether those minimum impacts outweigh the costs to the
environment.
MR. KLASHMAN: That is a very good answer, Dr.
Squires.
MR. STEIN: Any other questions?
MR. KLASHMAN: Dr. Squires, I want to thank you very
much for your statement.
MR, STEIN: By the way, for I know possibly some
people from the power industry and certainly the public
people that are here, I'd like to just make one comment
because we have wrestled with this problem at least in
Washington, and I don't know how far you have done it here.
But if you look at the New York requirements for
temperature, and without going into them much, you say either
they go up 4 degrees or 1*5 degrees, whatever it is, and then
you have a radius of 300 feet or more for a mixing zone or
what people call a mixing zone.
I don't want to get into the details of that, but I
want to talk about the implications that you raised, because
-------
Donald F. Squires
482
this is coming up again and again in the power industry where
you get a bunching of plants. How do you apply that?
I think what we have come up with is a requirement
that plants, say, not be more than five miles close to each
other or certainly their flumes not intersect. But where the
power industry takes upon itself to bunch its plants they
may be faced with this kind of 300 feet as applying to that
whole cluster and their problems may increase in geometric
proportions in trying to meet these necessary requirements.
I don't know that has been particularly thought
through, I certainly agree with you that the siting of
these plants I think is the single most important factor. But
again 1 say to all of you if we have this kind of restriction
and it looks as if this or a variant of it is going to be
the kind of restriction it has a very special impact if
someone decides to put up a cluster of plants.
Are there any other comments or questions?
(No response,)
If not, thank you very much, Doctor.
MR, METZLER: So far as I know, we only have one
other person from New York to speak. If there are others
who have not indicated a desire to be heard, then If they
will get their names to me while llr. Doebler from Long Island
Lighting Company is speaking, I will see that they will get
-------
483
Henry M. Doebler
on immediately following him. Otherwise, Mr. Doebler will
finish the list of those from New York who have indicated a
desire to speak.
STATEMENT OF
HENRY M. DOEBLER
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
MINEOLA, NEW YORK
ME. DOEBLER: I have no copies.
MR* METZLER: I am sure it will be logical and we
will be able to follow it without a copy.
MR. DOEBLER: Good morning, gentlemen. My name is
Henry M. Doebler, and I am the Director of Public Affairs
of the Long Island Lighting Company.
With me here today is Dr. Matthew C, Cordaro,
Senior Environmental Engineer for the company. We would like
to make a brief statement.
Our attendance at this conference was inspired
in part by an article that appeared last Friday in Newsdav.
a prominent daily on Long Island. This story notified us
that the Environmental Protection Agency report on the water
quality of Long Island Sound had cited our powerplant at
Port Jefferson as the sole industrial source of pollution to
the sound on Long Island.
-------
Henry M. Doebler
484
Yesterday we were able to confer with various
representatives of the EPA. and the State of New York and
determined that the Port Jefferson citation centered around
the handling of sanitary waste at this location.
The New York statement just submitted clarifies
this at page 13 where it states, "Domestic wastes are
discharged to municipal sewer system."
Also, at page 18 of the New York statement the
summary comments that the Port Jefferson powerplant is not
cited as a polluter.
We also note some other minor errors in flie JEPA
report that we would like to mention here and correct In a
letter to the conference if that is acceptable.
On page 16 of the EPA report, under the heading
"Discharges of Oil and Petroleum Products," the report
Identifies an offshore oil unloading facility of the Long
Island Lighting Company near Port Jefferson. This facility
is not at Port Jefferson but is at our Northport powerplant.
Also, Table A-l indicating the installed capacity
at our Northport and Glenwood Landing powerplants la in-
correct. The correct figures will be contained in our letter.
MR. KLASHMANi Excuse me. Would you repeat that
again on the offshore loading facility?
MR. DOJSBLER: Yes, sir. This is in the SPA report,
-------
485
Henry M. Doebler
page 16.
MR. KLASHMAN: Do you have a copy of the report?
MR. DOEBLER: Yes, sir. I have a copy.
MR, KLASHMAN: Could you explain what your correction
is in the report?
MR, DOEBLER: Yes. Reading from the report under
the title "Discharges of Oil and Petroleum Products"41 in the
middle of the first paragraph, it states, "Two offshore oil
unloading facilities are also located on the sound at the
Long Island Lighting Company near Port Jefferson, New York
and at Northville Industries, Incorporated near Northville,
New York."
I am merely stating, Mr. Klashman, that that
facility is not at the Port Jbfferson plant but is at our
Northport plant some 15 miles or 20 miles to the west.
MR. STEIN: Go ahead.
MR. DOEBLER: That basically concludes our statement
as to the report. But speaking for the Long Island Lighting
Company, we would like to pledge our cooperation to this
conference and to continue our cooperation with every agency
at the Federal* State, and local level that has an interest in
the water quality of Long Island Sound.
Thank you.
MR, STEIN: Are there any comments or questions?
* - See section III, subsection entitled "Discharges of Oil
and Petroleum Products/' HPA Report.
-------
Nils E. Erickson
486
(No response.)
If not, thank you very much, sir.
MR. DOEBLER: Thank you, sir.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Metzler.
MR. METZLER: I have one more witness, Dr. Nils E.
Eriokson of the Environmental Defense Fund.
STATEMENT OF
NILS E. ERICKSON
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
EAST SETAUKET, NEW YORK
DR. ERICKSON: My name is Nils E. Erickson, employed
by the Environmental Defense Fund as an environmental science
adviser on water pollution problems.
The Environmental Defense Fund is a nonprofit
organization with a nationwide membership of persons concerned
with environmental problems. Our main office is in East
Setauket, New York. The operational staff is composed
of scientists and lawyers, and I happen to be a chemist.
One of our primary activities is litigation In
environmental problem areas, and we have chosen litigation
over some of the more traditional conservation organization
tactics of lobbying because we feel that litigation is
often more rapid and more effective than the more traditional
approaches. Also, the courtroom forum, where cross-examination
-------
487
Nils E. Erlckson
can occur, is often the only means whereby rhetoric can be
separated from truth.
Some of the speakers at this hearing have managed
to point out certain deficiencies and errors in the SPA
report and have attempted to minimize the degree of pollution
that exists in the sound. It is clear, however, that there
are at least some areas of the sound which are in violation
of existing State and Federal water quality standards.
Also, certain shellfish areas are closed due to excessive
coliform levels which prohibit the sale of shellfish from
these areas in interstate commerce.
I don't want to minimize the degree of pollution,
but I want, instead, to point out that it is probably greatly
underes t imated
Water quality standards are defined by certain
technical parameters which have significance to technically-
trained people. I think we all realize that this conference
is being held probably not because the sound is another
Lake Erie at the present time, but it's being held because
many of the people living along the sound are unhappy with
the condition of the sound as it now is. These technical
parameters are not always understood or judged adequately
by the layman who dislikes boating or swimming in soupy
water.
-------
488
Nils E. Erickson
Most of the comments that I have gotten from
talking to people who make use of the sound have complained
about not so much dissolved oxygen, or dissolved oxygen
levels, or high coliform counts, but they simply dislike
boating or swimming in soupy water.
To the layman, visibility or water clarity is
equally as important a parameter as coliform count or
dissolved oxygen.
Since the EPA report suggests that recreational use
of the sound can be expected to increase greatly in the
future, one might hope that one of the recommendations
finally adopted would be that standards be revised to
incorporate features which the public feels or thinks
should be associated with nonpolluted water.
Turbidity standards, for example, are completely
absent in the New York State standards, and they are very
vague in Connecticut standards which state that no turbidity
shall be present which impairs any usages assigned to a
particular water quality class.
Now, if you use this type of reasoning, one could
argue that since certain people take and presumably enjoy
mud baths, there is no reason why a high turbidity in the
sound should prevent swimming activity.
Turbidity can obviously be caused by a number of
-------
489
Nils E, Erickson
different factors. One is suspended algal growth or plankton
species in the water, other suspended silt that has been
raised by storm or dredging activities, and it's very
difficult, as Dr. Squires pointed out, to really have a
good idea of what is causing turbidity or what turbidity
levels have been in the past.
There is very little scientific data that I have
been able to come across that relates to this. Skindivers
I have spoken to, however, have commented that on the
average the average underwater visibility in the sound has
decreased markedly in the past three or four years.
Now, scientists will tell you that this is very
subjective, and it is very difficult to vtrify. I am just
pointing this out as an observation that skindivers have
made, and these are people who have been diving in the sound
for a number of years.
These areas where the visibility has decreased
are in technically nonpolluted areas or in areas not in
violation of water quality standards now in effect. And
this simply suggests to me the standards are not adequate to
fully protect or preserve the recreational uses of the sound.
As I said, much of this increased turbidity seems
to be due to algal growth, although again there seems to
be no hard data on this* These are not blooms in the sense
-------
490
Nils E. Erickson
that they give rise to depressed or greatly variable dissolved
oxygen areas, but they are blooms in the sense that they
reduce visibility and, in part, color.
Increase in marine growth is indicative of excessive
or at least increased level of nutrients in the sound. I
had hoped that the report would reflect in its recommendations
some consideration of the fact that any water body can
assimilate only a certain total amount of nutrients before
it starts showing symptoms of distress. To insure the
preservation of this or any other water body, this total
amount cannot be exceeded and allow discharge levels that
have to be maintained at or below this total.
This approach has been adopted in some previous
water quality enforcement conferences where both basin
standards and effluent standards have been recommended and
hopefully enforced. The total allowable basin Inflow of some
particular nutrient or some fraction thereof has been
allocated among the various dischargers with little or no
additional level of discharge permitted. Expansion or growth
can only occur within limits allowable with increased
treatment levels*
The Delaware River Basins Commission has seemed
to have taken this approach with regard to the Delaware River
with one parameter -- namely, dissolved oxygen, or, rather, BOD
-------
Nils E. Erickson
491
levels*
What has to be realized is that again any water
body can only accept a certain total amount of nutrient.
If you exceed that, you're going to start running into problems.
If we want to maintain water quality suitable for recreation
or for other purposes, we have to somehow come up with a
program which limits the total amount of nutrient inflow
to that quantity that the water body can tolerate, and this
means then that this total amount will have to be divided
among all the various dischargers that dump or discharge
into that water body.
1 have read the proceedings of previous conferences,
and there has been a great deal of discussion among the
various Industries as to how this allocation should be
allotted, and I suspect a great deal of hard "in-fighting" has
taken place, each industry trying to be permitted to discharge
as much as possible.
What is needed for this approach to be established
is some idea of what allowable levels are, what are the
permissible levels, and what amounts of what materials are
currently being put Into the sound.
The allowable levels can probably fairly well be
"guesstlmated," although some additional work is undoubtedly
necessary. Information as to what is currently being put
-------
Nils E. Erickson
492
into the sound is certainly not available from this report
and may, in fact, not exist as yet. As companies comply with
the.1899 Refuse Act, however, and start submitting details
of their discharges to EPA and the Corps of Engineers, details
of present nutrient inflow should start becoming available
shortly after the July 1 deadline for submission of this
Information.
This and other inflow data from municipal wastewater
treatment plants should be sufficient to allow one to
relate current nutrient levels found in the sound with
current inflow and hence make possible a determination of
total allowable discharge amounts which will have to be
adhered to.
Now, as was indicated before, Dr. Squires is in the
process of studying current nutrient levels in the sound,
and he suggested that the sound has to be divided into
regions, which is probably correct. But once information
is available which provides information which gives information
about the amount of nutrient material entering the sound, if
you couple this with the hopefully steady-state concentration
in these water bodies, one should be able to make a
determination of the amount of decrease which will have to be
put into effect to improve water quality.
Mr. Stein indicated yesterday that the primary
-------
493
Nils E. Erickson
responsibility for enforcing the recommendations of this con-
ference would lie with the States. I think this is very
unfortunate, since there is almost unanimous agreement among
those who have studied the performance of the States in water
pollution abatement activities that the States in general
move too cautiously and slowly if they move at all.
Some of the conferences on some of the other water
bodies in this country have dragged on for 1 would almost
say 10 years, which Is probably a little bit too long} but
they have dragged on for a tremendous length of time, because
the States for a variety of reasons have been unwilling or
unable to put these recommendations into effect*
If the States really adopted their proper
responsibility, there would not have been more than 50 inter-
state enforcement conferences in the past few years. And
if the States had acted properly, we would probably not be
here today.
This is not always due to lack of good will and
endeavor on the part of the State water pollution control
officials. It is more often due to inertia or shortsighted
State legislative bodies who refuse to pass adequate legisla-
tion or refuse to appropriate adequate funds.
The New York State Legislature is currently per-
forming In such a fashion by cutting funds for water quality
-------
Nils E. Erickson
494
activities.
I think what I would like to point out is that
there is no need to wait for the States to enforce these
recommendations. The 1899 Refuse Act has a July 1 deadline
for submission of certain data by industries in application for
permits to discharge into navigable waters. The decisions
regarding final issuance of these permits are almost entirely
in Federal hands, with the Corps of Engineers on the naviga-
tional matters and with EPA on water quality. State officials
are not left completely out of the process, but if EPA
were to take a tough stand, permits could be denied unless
provisions were included that provided for abatement schedules.
Now, the Federal Government has been very insistent
on trying to get the States to incorporate in their water
quality standards an antidegradation clause, which usually
includes a phrase which is kubstantially the following: "For
new or increased discharges into high quality waters, the
highest and best degree of treatment availatl e under existing
technology be employed to treat these discharges."
It seems reasonable, in view of the fact that this
conference has been called, that EPA could very well insist
on the best and highest degree of treatment available as
a condition to issuance of these permits under the 1809
Refuse Act, Since these permits will be presumably issued
-------
Nils E. Erlckson
495
sometime shortly after the July 1 deadline and Mr, Stein
may be smiling there the Federal activities could be much
more rapid than waiting for the States to ฆ
MR. STEIN: Let me go off the record.
(Remarks off the record,)
MR. STBIN: Go ahead. Let's get back on the record.
DR. ERICKSONi A group in Illinois brought suit
on Monday of this week, and presumably in Illinois Federal
Court, to require the Corps of Engineers and EPA to Insist
on this requirement -- namely, the highest and best
degree of treatment available under existing technology
for discharges into Lake Michigan.
I see no reason why this suit should be limited
to Lake Michigan. I believe we will consider pursuing
this matter before other levels of EPA or perhaps other
levels of government if EPA does not act on its own initiative.
I am also somewhat concerned about industries tying
into municipal facilities, thereby apparently bypassing the
1899 Refuse Act. Mr. Curry yesterday mentioned that perhaps
50 industries or 50 industrial dischargers in Connectlout
were eliminated. He didn't specify how these were eliminated.
Presumably they didn't shut the plants down. But I suppose
what this means is that they tied Into municipal treatment
facilities.
-------
496
Nils E. Erlckson
I think one could make a very good case that if
municipal waste flow consists of, say, to pick an arbitrary
number, 15 percent or more of industrial waste, it should
really not be considered exempted from the 1899 Act. For
your information the 1899 Act exempts liquid material which
flows from streets or sewers.
Now, I am certain there are Instances in the
country where technically a discharge which is technically
a municipal waste probably or might consist of 50 percent or
more of really an industrial waste because industries are
tied into the municipal waste plant. Why this type of
discharge should be exempted from the 1899 Act I don't know.
Again, this is a question which might have to be
settled in some other form of government, in some other
level of government.
One final thing. The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 requires that before Federal funds are
spent on activities which will have a significant impact on
the environment, a so-called 102 statement has to be prepared
which provides, or hopefully provides, information about
the environmental Impact of this activity, this Federal
activity, and tries to assess, first of all, the impact of
these activities and what the alternatives are.
I have a very strong feeling that 102 statements
-------
Nils S. Erickson
497
should be prepared or should be a requirement for granting
of Federal funds for construction of municipal wastewater
treatment plants. I am thinking now particularly of the Long
Island area where all of our drinking water comes from the
ground.
The problem on Long Island is that if we take our
drinking water from the ground, run it through industrial
or home domestic use, and then discharge it after treatment
out into the salt water body surrounding Long Island, what
is going to happen and has been projected to happen on the
basis of certain engineering reports is that the groundwater
level is going to be greatly lowered, which would affect
stream flow from the island* It would affect the existence
or threaten the existence of the freshwater body the
lakes and ponds that exist on Long Island.
One might very well question whether the
environmentally most sound method of sewage treatment is one
which discharges this treated wastewater out into the salt
water bodies, and the environmentally most sound procedure
might be to treat it to a condition which will allow
recharge back into the underground aquifers.
If 102 statements were a requirement before Federal
funding of municipal wastewater treatment plants, one
might see a reversal of opinion on the part of county and
-------
Nils E. Erickson
498
perhaps State officials regarding the final disposition of
wastewater.
I believe that's all I have to say*
MR* STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR, KLASHMAN: Mr. Stein, 1 would like to make a few
comments. My colleagues in the States don't need me to
defend what they have been doing, but I think it is quite
unfair to indicate that these two States have not been doing
a proper job.
It seems to me that in New York State, which has
been the prime example of a State moving ahead and trying to
get the job done, the Governor of New York backed this
$1 billion bond issue and then got an additional bond issue
of $750 billion.
MR* GREGG: Million.
MR. KLASHMAN: $1 billion and followed by $750
million,
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klashman is so used to talking of
Federal financing he can*t get down into State funds.
(Laughter)
MR. KLASHMAN: Again, the Governor supported a
$1 billion program, then followed with $750 million. Be
then proceeded to scan this country to find what he considered
one of the best people in the country to head up that program.
-------
Nils E. Erickson
499
I don't know that he got the best one, but he got a very good
one out of Kansas.
The State of Connecticut has put up $250 million of
their money.
From my observations, these two States have been
leaders in the field and I think have been doing a magnificent
job under very difficult conditions,
I think in some cases that the difficulty has been
that the support from certain sectors has not been there.
It has been difficult for them to get the job done. But I
don't think they have been dragging their feet at all.
DR. ERICKSON: I vaa not picking on New York State
or Connecticut. I was thinking of the 50 States in general.
New York State and Connecticut I agree have been probably
two of the leading States in water pollution abatement
activities.
But there have been at least two enforcement con-
ferences involving New York State waters, one the Hudson
River, the second one now in Long Island Sound. They I believe
also participated in the Great Lakes conference, which
probably dragged New York State into it simply because they
happen to border on New York State.
There may have been additional conferences. Lake
Champlain is also in New York State, and this has been the
-------
Nils E. Erickson
500
subject of another enforcement conference.
I am simply pointing out that New York State seems
to have been sufficiently lax Well, the fact that we have
had these four conferences Indicates that New York State
has not been performing entirely satisfactorily from the
Federal point of view. I'm not saying
MR, KLASHMAN: Again 1 don't think that is quite
true* I think that what our intent is in having the
Federal Government come in is not to take away authority
from the State but to help the State in meeting its obliga-
tions. Sometimes it may look otherwise, bat we are here
to help the State to move this ahead*
I want to mention two other things. One Is on the
antidegradati'on statement from New York. If you read the
statement carefully, it seems to me that you If you take
out of context, as you did, what it says, it loses its
meaning. What the antidegradation statement said that New
York submitted
DR. ERICKSON: Was the best available
MR, KLASHMAN: But let's read the whole thing.
What it says is that New York State recognizes that there
are some waters that have a higher degree, a very good water
quality, and they want to keep it that way. So what they
said is the quality of these waters will be maintained.
-------
Nils E. Erlckson
501
Then they so on and say that there nay be some cases where
you simply can't maintain them, and in those cases they have
indicated that they will work with the Environmental Protection
Agency. In other words, they have committed them-
selves to saying, "We are not going to do this unless you
guys go along with us." That is what they have said.
Now, it seems to me that, obviously, if you are
going to have some type of a facility, if there is no other
way out but you have got to put some type of facility into
a very high quality water, what they say is you have got
to put in the absolutely very best treatment that is available.
I can't see your point.
The last point I wish to make, sir,
DR. ERICKSON: Well, the point is that a number
of citizens on Long Island are concerned about the groundwater
problem. The county officials ~ and I cannot really speak
for the State officials but seem to be going along
with sewage treatment processes which were developed some
20 or 30 years ago.
If this is the best degree of treatment available,
then I really wonder what the R&D program of EPA has been
doing. I have spoken to your R&D people down in Washington.
They have indicated that some of the experimental R&D
programs in their opinion can now be put into practice, into
-------
Nils E. Erickson
502
operational use, in municipalities.
The trouble, it seens to me, is that the granting
offices are not insisting that some of these more advanced
wastewater treatment facilities be actually put into use in
the field. There seems to be a big tine lag between getting
a plant out of the R&D stage into the actual operational
stage in the field. And the county people Just seem to be
unwilling to adopt any of these new approaches.
MR, KLASHMAN: I'm not going to consent on your
last remark. I just would like to make one other observa~
tion.
I have a copy of the 1899 Act here. Are yoซ a
lawyer?
DR. ERICKSON: No, l*m a chemist.
MR, KLASHMAN: Oh, you*re a chemist? The thing is
I'd be most grateful if you would take section 13 and
explain to us how this means that under the 1899 Act we
could get into industrial wastes in municipalities, because
our lawyers I understand have
MR, STEIN: Lester, that's an open question. We're
considering that now. I don't know that that is going to
be productive or we're going to come up with an answer.
MR, KLASHMAN: Strike that question from the
record.
-------
Nils B. Erickson
503
DR. ERICKSON: Could I comment on it?
MR. STEIH: Go ahead, I think you made your comment
on it. Let me say that obviously we have a question whether
the industrial wastes going into a municipal system come
within the purview of the 1899 Act. X think the drafters of
that Act certainly didn't have this problem in mind at all.
There are people who have opinions on both sides
of this, and I suspect it will ultimately have to be decided
by the courts.
DR. fitlCKSON: I suspect it would also. The thing
that disturbs me is that the question of mercury pollution,
discharge problem, into the Great Lakes was-- The mercury
discharges were finally brought under abatement not by making
use of the water quality standards but making use of the
1899 Refuse Act.
MR* STBIN: Let me ask you there: I don't know By
the way* I did this, and I have responsibility for both
sections. You read the law here. It takes us six months
after this to have a hearing, then six months after that to
go to court. Under the 180-day notice and standards violation
under the law we have to give six months.
When we had this mercury situation and I got the
evidence, the choice was to take an act where we could get
into court and get action immediately. In other words, you
-------
Nils E. Erickson
504
are suggesting that I should have taken a course which
would at a minimum take half a year or a year instead of
taking a course of action where 1 could get into court immedi-
ately and get that abated?
DR. ERICKSON: No, the point is that if one of
these industries were making use of a municipal facility,
you could not have employed the 1899 Act to bring about abate-
ment*
MR. STSIN: Why do you say that? On the basis of
saying it we did, and we didn't have to go to court. We
vent to the industries, and there were several industries
which were discharging into municipal systems. And they
stopped. The authority that I went to the industry with
was the 1899 Act.
Now, I know your organization is concerned with
litigation. But 1 know possibly you talk to our research
people when you come down and get advice on what they can do
and what they can put in and what they can't. But you
might talk to our litigation people to find out what we
did, and this is what worked, and this is what cut the
mercury down.
0Rซ BRICKSON: So you're saying then that the 1899
Act was applied to municipal waste?
I(R. STEIN I'm saying that we did not go to court.
-------
505
Nils B. Erickson
But I went to the industry. And because the industry stopped
it, we didn't have to go to court. But I went to the industry
and told them that we would, in my opinion, take an action
for the mercury discharge unless they stopped putting it in
the municipal sewers, and they stopped.
DR. ERICKSON: This seems to be an interesting
precedent action on your part threatening the use of the
1899 Act against municipal waste.
MR, STEIN: I don't threaten anyone. I just make
statements of what we are going to do.
MR. GREGG: May I make a comment?
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. GREGG: You mentioned turbidity several times.
Have you seen the reports of the National Technical Task
Committees on water quality criteria published in 1967 or
1968? There are some criteria in there on turbidity, aren't
there?
DR. ERICKSON: That's the green-backed one that
you're talking about?
MR. GREGG: Yes.
DR. ERICKSON: I have read over the report quite a
long time ago, and 1 don't recall what it says. But the
New York State water quality standards for sailing waters
make no mention of turbidity.
-------
Nils E. Erickson
506
I know that the Water Quality Office has contracts
out with various groups trying to find out how these existing
water quality standards can be more closely interrelated
with standards and quantities, factors which the public
recognizes or thinks imply clean water.
Now, how do you tie in technical measurements such
as dissolved oxygen, conform counts, and various other
parameters with other parameters which the public thinks
are suggestive or Indicative of clean water?
Certainly I think that to the general public
water visibility and color are very much more important than
coliform. Coliform may hurt them, and the color and tur-
bidity may not, but lt*s the color and turbidity that he
recognizes as being indicative of clean or dirty water,
MR. GREGG: All I'm suggesting is that these
criteria give you some handhold from which you can start in
saying whatever you want to say to the conferees about this.
There are some objective measurements of turbidity In there.
If you can refer to those, it might be easier for the conferees
to respond.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Metzler.
MR, METZLER: May I just make two statements. One
is for our friends from Connecticut I want you to know in
New York since the end of 1966 we have placed $2,1 billion
-------
Nils E. Erickson
507
worth of sewage treatment works under way. Ve have about
another $1.4 billion to go. So I say this primarily not
defensively in any way, because the State was late getting
started. Nor is there any doubt about it we should have been
doing this 20 or 30 years ago. But I don't want to be
held accountable for the sins of ay predecessor father,
grandfather, great grandfather.
Then I want to make an offer. There are six
polluters on the Long Island Sound in New York. We have
Identified these. We have each one of them under schedule.
And I would welcome an opportunity to go over the schedule
with you to see if you can point out any place that we can
speed up this schedule or get treatment sooner.
DR. ERICKSON: Fine.
MR. PELOQUIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make
one observation on the criteria supporting Mr. Gregg's
comment lest people misinterpret the comment.
We very often do not consider use by people as the
most sensitive use. In considering the aquatic chain, the
aquatic life in the stream, there are certain times, certain
periods, certain species that are much more sensitive to
levels of turbidity and other factors that would overrule
the preference or the use by the public.
By using a statement such as has been used -- the
-------
Nils E. Erickson
statement adopted by Connecticut is essentially that
developed by the New England Interstate this requires
each stream be evaluated on its own merits and on the basis
what the most sensitive use is for each body of water. So
the numbers would have to be established on that basis.
DR. ERICKSON: I think what I wanted to point out
was if recreational use of the sound is to be one of the
important future uses of the sound, then the water quality
standards should be designed around criteria or factors
which are important to people making recreational use of the
sound.
If some other small section of the sound should
best be used for industrial use and not for recreational
purposes, then the criteria can be completely different be-
cause
MR. PELOQUIN: I agree. But the language of the
standard does allow this flexibility. This is why this
language was developed. And people may not be the most
sensitive user.
DR. ERICKSON: I would just like to make one final
statement. Several months ago I attended the interstate
Sanitation Commission hearings on its proposed revised water
quality standards for waters under its jurisdiction, and one
the things that I was strongly in favor of was year-round
-------
509
Nils E. Erickson
Mrs. Howarth P. Boyle
disinfection, incorporating In those standards requirement
for year-round disinfection. This is one of the recommendations
of the report.
I wasn't successful in persuading the Interstate
Sanitation Commission to adopt this, but I would very much
like to see this recommendation made by the conferees
that year-round disinfection be employed.
MR, STEIN: Are there any other comments or questions?
If not, thank you very much, Mr. Erickson.
MR, METZLER: That concludes the New York witnesses.
MR, STEIN: Let's turn back to Connecticut.
Mr. Curry.
MR. CURRY: Apparently our Connecticut people are
enjoying the party. There are four more now who have come to
my attention who would like to be actors,
Mrs. Boyle.
STATEMENT OF
MRS. HOWARTH P. BOYLE
GREENWICH ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP
OLD GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT
MRS. ROYLE: My name is Esther Boyle, and I reside
in Old Greenwich, Connecticut.
MR. STEIN: Just a moment, Mrs. Boyle. Can you hear
back there? Will you try to speak up?
-------
Mrs. How&rth P. Boyle
510
MRS, BOYLE: Uy name is Esther Boyle. I reside in
Old Greenwich, Connecticut, and I represent the Greenwich
Environmental Action Group. We employ no experts, but we do
seek an exchange of information and opinion between the lay
public and those who are charged with protecting us.
First of all, we wish to express our thanks to the
EPA and Mr. Ruckelshaus for calling this conference and
to the State and regional agencies for allowing the public
to express its concern about Long Island Sound.
We all know that Long Island Sound is polluted,
and we all know what causes this pollution. We also know
that, despite the many laws that have been passed -- and
resurrected and the agencies that have been called in and
newly formed, and despite the billions of dollars that have
been spent, next to no Improvement has been made, and in
some areas there is a worsening of the situation.
What we want to know now is why.
The Greenwich Environmental Action Group respectfully
submits the following recommendations for your consideration
to combat already existing pollution:
Our Ho. 1 concern is the sanitary sewage plants
which discharge to both the East River and Long Island Sound,
particularly west of New Haven. We would like to see them
upgraded to at least secondary treatment and this upgrading
-------
511
Mrs. Howarth P. Boyle
to be completed by 1974.
But, most importantly, in the meantime these plants
should be required to make immediate interim improvements to
chlorinate throughout the year and to keep their present
facilities in good working order.
We have 1 million coliform counts in the river in
our town.
No. 2, we recommend that the water quality standard
for the sound and all its tributaries be set at "A," and
that effluent standards that meet this requirement be set for
all wastewater dischargers. We feel the discharge of toxic
metals and chemicals should be completely prohibited and
that some -- phosphorus and DDT, for example should be
banned from use.
The attitude that a river or sound is a sewer
must cease. The receiving body of water must no longer be
considered a p^irt of the waste treatment process.
As taxpayers, we also have grave doubts about the
wisdom of allowing Industrial wastes to be Introduced into
municipal sewers, even after pretreatment. It seems to us
that waste treatment is part of the cost of doing business.
Industries, we feel, should not be allowed to use water in
such a way *s to render it unfit for use by others or
threatening to the ecology of the area.
-------
Mrs, Howarth P. Boyle
512
No. 3 in our concerns: We recommend that the use
of designated dumping grounds in Long Island Sound be re-
evaluated. Municipalities and others, we feel, should find
new methods of disposing of garbage, sewage sludge, urban
renewal rubble, incinerator ash, harbor dredgings, etc.
Perhaps they should be encouraged to take a new look at the
very processes which produce these wastes.
The addition of new pollution sources to an already
polluted system is foolhardy. We are dismayed to hear
that there are three such sources proposed or already under
way.
First, five or six today 1 hear s^ven new
nuclear powerplants and at least one new fossil fuel
plant have been proposed for this area. This would add
thermal pollution, the possibility of radibactive wastes,
and the threat of more oil spills in the sound. The HSLCO
plant proposed for Stamford Harbor would use over 1 million
gallons of oil a day, to be unloaded from oceangoing tankers.
We seriously question permitting any more powerplant
construction in the western sound.
This part of my speech you do not have a copy of,
but I will submit this to you.
Greenwich citizens and people from the surrounding
areas are seriously alarmed about the environmental impact
-------
Mrs. Howarth P. Boyle
513
that the 800-megawatt powerplant proposed by HELCO for
Stamford Harbor will have on all of us. We concur with
recent State and Federal reports on the problems of power
siting which seriously question the advisability of burdening
heavily populated and congested areas with a large power
generating unit. We won't talk about the nearly 200,000
pounds of sulfur oxides, the six tons of particulates,
and the 125,000 pounds of nitrous oxides the plant will emit
into our air daily*
Let us concentrate for a minute on the 500 million
gallons of coolant water the plant will use each day. This
water will be taken out of a sewage-and-chemical-laden harbor
and raised 15 to 20 degrees and then be emitted into the
local fishing, swimming, and sailing areas off Greenwich and
Stamford.
The growth of heated bacteria can only be guessed
at, but we believe it poses a real problem.
In addition, slimicides and other chemicals for
the protection of the boilers will be added in unknown
quantities to the already chemical-*laden waters of the sound.
All of this will be emitted from a 12-foot-wide
tunnel blasted under the harbor, ending about a mile out In
the sound. This tunnel will also be used for the oil pipes
leading to the plant from an offshore docking facility.
-------
Mrs. Howarth P. Boyle
514
The docking facility, a concrete platform 300 feet
long and 40 feet high, will receive oil from 600- to 700-foot
tankers to supply the 1.2 million gallons of oil the plant
will burn daily. Although the exact location for this
docking facility is unknown, we have attached a map to our
statement which will give you a general line on which it must
be located due to water depth.
It will be about a mile beyond the Stamford light-
house right in the middle of the heavily used sailing,
swimming, fishing, and clamming area. The clams have to be
washed, of course, before they are eaten washed in clean
water.
Even a small oil spill would ruin the recreation
areas depended on by thousands of people. As many as 20,000
people use the beach at Greenwich Point, one mile from this
docking facility, on weekends. The combined populations of
Greenwich and Stamford number about 200,000 people, most of
whom depend on Long Island Sound for their summer recreation.
We believe that a policy for powerplant siting
should be established for the sound which takes all the
environmental hazards into consideration, and until this
policy is decided that no new power generating units should
be permitted. A temporary moratorium may be necessary since
there is presently no licensing authority for fossil fuel
-------
515
Mrs. Howarth P. Boyle
plants.
Our second concern under new sources of pollution
is the new permit system which we have heard discussed being
reactivated by the Army Corps of Engineers. We are at a loss
to see any value in it. On the contrary, it seems to us it
might slow down the already dragging abatement proceedings.
And, last, the bridge linking Rye and Oyster Bay,
New York is the latest insult added to the multitude of
injuries the sound has received. Plans to start work on the
span are scheduled for this fall. Many groups have ideas
about what to do with the sound - dam it, make it a fresh-
water lake, use it as a dump, as a cesspool, drain it and
build a new city. We have an alternate suggestion. We
believe the sound belongs to all our citizens. Might not It
best serve them if it had the protected status of a national
park?
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
HR. CURRY: While we are in the Greenwich area,
the President of the Byram River Pollution Abatement Associa-
tion has also indicated a desire to say a few words.
MR. STEIN: Pardon roe just one moment. I think we
have attachments here to Mrs. Boyle's statement. Can we use
-------
516
Mrs. Howarth P. Boyle
Alex Haughwout
these as exhibits rather than appearing in the record?
MRS, BOYLE: They are for you.
MR, STEIN: They will be attached as exhibits to the
record and available for inspection at our regional office.
MRS* BOYLE: Thank you.
(The attachments to the statement of Mrs. Boyle
were made exhibits and are available for inspection at
the New England regional office of EPA.)
STATEMENT OF
ALEX HAUGHWOUT
PRESIDENT, BYRAM RIVER POLLUTION ABATEMENT ASSOCIATION
BYRAM, CONNECTICUT
MR, HAUGHWOtJT: My name is Alex Haughwout.
Mr. Stein, conferees, ladies and gentlemen, we
appreciate this meeting that Mr. Ruckelshaus has set up and
the opportunity to speak.
We have a broad question: Is the Federal Government
able to act on our local pollution problem or will it have
to be solved by private citizens doing what the government
is paid to do?
Four million gallons of untreated sewage is
discharged into the Byram River every day.
Three hundred thousand gallons of dirty effluent
contaminated with oil and dirty felt fibers and barrels of
-------
Alex Haughwout
517
sullate are dumped by one Industry into this river each day
at a point where the river is crystal clear,
A single plant in Port Chester has been discharging
more than one barrel of waste oil per day into this stream,
to say nothing of heavy metals like zinc, cadmium, iron,
chromium, and copper in concentrations up to 4,000 ppm.
As President of the Byram River Pollution Abatement
Association, otherwise known as BRPAA, we are a citizen
action group concerned with water pollution in the Byram
River which flows into Long Island Sound at Greenwich, Connecti-
cut. We publish a newsletter, copies of which you have.
We have a mailing list of 1,000 people* Some of you may
have heard of us before.
It will take only 6 minutes to expose a situation
that will amaze you.
We are interested in stopping Greenwich polluters
as well as New York polluters. The major polluters are
the Russell, Burdsall & Ward Nut and Bolt Company and the
sewer plant in Port Chester and the GAF Corporation of Green-
wich. Today X will concern myself with only two of these
the Port Chester sewer plant and the GAP Corporation. There
are people in this room who will not like what I have to
say.
In 1961, Mr. Tom Glenn of the Interstate Sanitation
-------
Alex Haughwout
518
Commission started to take vigorous action against the village
of Port Chester because of the raw sewage discharge into
the river. There are a slew of court orders still standing
from his activities over the last nine years, but we still
have 4 million gallons of raw sewage per day.
But all is not lost, because a new plant is being
designed. It is scheduled to be finished in late 1973.
This date will never be met. I predict that unless this
situation is investigated it won't be finished in 1975, and
I'll tell you why.
First of all, I have attended two meetings at
White Plains, Westchester Department of Public Works, to
determine the progress of the new plant. At the first
meeting on January 18th, I was told by the Commissioner
that the design of the new plant was 15 percent completed.
At the next meeting, 36 days later, the design was 20 percent
completed. Someone testified today that the plant was now
25 percent completed*
Don't forget this project was rated top priority.
Based on progress to date, design will be completed in two
years. After this the job can be let out for bids. Based
on this and with a construction period of 30 months, the
plant might be completed in 1976 * as long as no one rocks
the boat.
-------
Alex Haughwout
519
But try this for a complication: The original
design considered updating the Port Chester primary plant
and piping the effluent from this primary plant to a new,
large secondary plant that was to be built next to an updated
primary plant in Rye, three miles away. The existing long
outfall at Rye was to be used for the secondary effluent
discharge. This design made a lot of sense.
Now, the Rye plant is located in a marsh that
has been used and 1b being used today as a dumping ground.
Additional land was required for the secondary plant. With
some pressure politics and easy agreement from Westchester
County Department of Public Works, the additional land was
not made available, not even by condemnation. This called
for a big design change.
Now we have a situation where the design
is changed from a single, large, new secondary plant
to two smaller secondary plants, one In each town, and
another force main to pump the sludge from Rye back to the
Port Chester plant. This is *n inherently bad design and
represents a large coat Increase.
BRPAA dug up this historical shenanigan last fall
and brought It to the attention of the mayor of Port Chester
wbo had just taken office. We got him to ask for a meeting
at the Westchester Department of Public Works. At this
-------
Alex Haughwout
520
meeting, the mayor and I asked five times for the cost
differential between the two designs. All we could get was
double talk, with an outright refusal by the officials to
look up the actual cost differential, which they had.
Research indicates that a difference of about
$2,5 million is being paid for a design that is not as good
as the original and will cost more to operate each year for
the next 30 years, or the life of the plant.
The Byram River Pollution Abatement Association Is
really not concerned with the $2.5 million that is being
thrown away, because this is not our money. But we know
that a taxpayers' suit is imminent and this could stop the
clock and cause a delay beyond the 1976 date that we men-
tioned before.
Gentlemen, we have had untreated sewage going into
this river at an average rate of over 4 million gallons per
day for 10 years. 1976 will make this 15 years. This
confused mess needs attention.
Now, let me address the GAF Corporation pollution
problem. In 1967 the Connecticut Water Resources Commission
gave GAF Corporation an order with a timetable to stop
pollution. Since that time, the Commission has granted one
postponement after another. GAF has been dumping 300,000
gallons of highly polluted water per day Into the Byram
-------
Alex Haughwout
521
River for years before 1967 and since that time without abate-
ment.
The last postponement granted by the Water Resources
Commission called for the construction to start two weeks
ago, March 30th. Believe it or not, we called the Resources
Commission and they said another postponement was not
required because the GAF Corporation was finally in full
compliance with their brder. Construction of abatement
facilities had started.
Do you know what they consider the start of con-
struction? An iavoice from GAF showing that they purchased
a pH control. The evidence of construction consists of a
paper invoice. GAF has stated that they still haven't
received the control.
Is this collusion? This is all that the plant is
required to do to abate pollution a pH control?
The U. S. Department of the Interior has said in
a study of the Byram River that the GAF Corporation "is the
single largest polluter."
This is a recent sample of water taken down below
the plant (exhibiting bottle of water). It is full of
fibers. Will a pH control solve this?
A representative from the Water Resources Com-
mission came down to Greenwich last December and testified
-------
Alex Haughwout
522
that the town of Greenwich had agreed to have its sewer
plant accept the GAF effluent. This is positively not true.
The town has not agreed to this.
At a representative town meeting last February 8th,
the town representatives voted overwhelmingly to require
GAF to abate pollution with the stipulation that if they
did not the health department should order the plant closed
down as a last step. The vote was overwhelming. Only 15
votes were against the measure, 10 percent.
How could the Water Resources Commission have
acted against the public interest? They have taken a strong
stand in favor of the polluter. We ask that the Federal
agencies step in and run this thing down. If something is
not done, there is likely to be a court test that will,
among other things, pinpoint the blame.
There is a book recently published by Joe Sax. He
is a professor. He discusses a theory called the "insider
perspective," where each move and action is the "right
move" and "will solve the problem" and is "the last move
required" -- but in actuality nothing gets done.
In the case of GAF Corporation, we have wasted 3-1/2
years. In the case of Port Chester, we have wasted 10 years.
Our association has talked over these problems
on the industry level, the town level, the county level, and
-------
Alex Haughv/out
523
the State level. In each case we seem to have stalled out.
We now plead on the Federal level. We should like to have
a meeting with the Federal Water Quality Commission within the
next 30 days and have the opportunity to expose our evidence
and detail the laws that we think have been broken.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
Mr. K1 ashman.
MR, KLASHMAN: Do you have a copy of your statement?
ME. HAUGHWOUT: Yes, sir.
MR. KLASHMAN: Could I have a copy, please?
MR. HAUGHWOUT: I will give it to you in a moment.
I have to make a few changes.
MR. KLASHMAN: On your meeting, we would be very
happy to have you come in to visit us next week, if you like,
if you would call my office. Or better still, Mr. Fitz-
patrick, will.you write to him?
Mr. Fitzpatrick will work out a suitable date for
you. If you will come in, we will be glad to accommodate you.
MR. HAUGHWOUT: Thank you.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Curry, can we get any clarifica-
tion of this business about GAF?
MR. CURRY: The way to treat GAF wastes was to
combine them in the municipal system, which was considered
-------
524
Alex Haughwout
the most satislactory way to treat them with the necessary
pretreatment. Their schedule has been set up, and there have
been delays in the extension of the sewer system up to Glen-
ville, which is a relatively long extension.
If there are any delays, the delays are presumably
for purposes of some local scheduling or some difficulties
in getting the appropriations.
We have no indication it is not going to be built.
Ye have every indication that it is and every indication that
GAF is ready to connect with the necessary pretreatment
when it is.
MR* HAUGHWOUT: Mr. Curry, the original order
in 1967 stipulated that the GAF Corporation should connect
either with the town sewer or pretreat the stuff sufficiently
so they could put it back in the river* This was a choice.
The election was made to put it into the sanitary
sewer, not by town agreement. This provided them three years'
delay.
The GAF Corporation secured an independent
research of their effluent by Metcalf and Eddy, a very
reputable firm. In looking over this report, I find no
comment whatsoever for instance, as one single point here
about the sulfate problem that it might have on the local
plant. They are putting barrels of sulfate in the water
-------
Alex Haughwout
525
every day. This has a very deleterious effect on concrete.
The whole Grass Island plant is constructed of concrete, as
well as the sewer mains.
This in itself I believe would make it impossible
to be accepted by the sewer plant. And I have supporting
technical information.
MR. CURRY: He says he disagrees with Metcalf and
Eddy.
MR. STEIN: May I make a suggestion? I think we
have an allegation, if what you say is so, of a violation
I am not speaking of the State of a Federal law, and
we can take action.
Now, I don't want to wait a month or anything of
that kind. If you have this and you seem to have this
pretty well in mind we can arrange subsequent meetings.
How about your seeing Mr. Fitzpatrick now, giving him the
material? And I*d like to Invite a representative of
Connecticut to sit in with them at the same time.
If there is a violation of the Federal law, you
can be sure we are going to get going.
But I would suggest that that's the way to do
this. Do you want to take that up with Mr. Fitzpatrick now?
MR. HAUGHWOUT: I would be glad to.
MR. STEIN: Let*s get started. And if you have a
-------
526
Alex Haughwout
map of Connecticut, we would like to have him in with that.
You can be assured if in the conclusion of Mr.
Fitzpatrick or Mr. Klashman there is a violation of Federal
lav, they will get me a recommendation and I will start that
action immediately. But we are going to consult, as we
do in all these cases, with the State of Connecticut and
get their point of view too.
MR. HAUGHWOUT: May I ask Mr. Curry what consti-
tues start of construction? Is the invoice that GAF Corpora-
tion showed sufficient?
MR, CURRY: We felt that that would be their
contention. How do you start construction to a sewer that
does not exist? The only thing that the man probably could
have done would be to have a contractor under contract ready
to start construction, or he could have made the application
for equipment, which in many cases is very important because
of scheduling of receipts of equipment.
The first step you have to take is order your
equipment ahead of time so it will be available.
I'm not sure it was just a pH meter. I don't know.
MR, HAUGHWOUT: That's all it is.
MR, CURRY: Well, if you know, I don't. I don't
know that.
MR. STBIN: By the way, no one is going to be cut
-------
527
Alex Haughwout
Sylvia Dowling
off, but I would suggest with a complaint like this it night
be more productive if we got this in the kind of meeting
I am suggesting here rather than letting this go back and
forth.
What we want to do is determine if there is a
violation of a Federal law. And if there is, you can be
assured we will take appropriate action.
MR. CURRY: Sylvia Dowling would like to speak.
STATEMENT OF
SYLVIA DOWLING
STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT
IIRS. DOWLING: My name is Sylvia Dowling. I*m
from Stamford. Before I read some very brief remarks
from several Stamford and Norwalk organizations, I would
like to make a few comments of my own.
I was at your meeting yesterday, and I'd like you
to know that I enjoyed it. I learned a great deal, and I
liked your jokes.
However, I did take issue with some of the remarks
made by speakers during the latter part of the meetlog about
the bureaucrats and about what this council could do or
could QQt do or wouldn't do. And I would like you to know
that this view Is not shared by me or most of us in Stamford.
We need you. You're all we've got. (Laughter)
-------
Sylvia Dowling
528
We found in Stamford
MR. STEIN: That's what I used to say about the
army. When people complained about it, when I was in it, I
used to say, "I complain too, but it's the only army we've
got."
1IRS. DOW LING; Well, at any rate, we found in
Stanford and I'm beginning to learn that this is true in
many parts of the country that we can't depend on local
politicians to stop the abuse of our environment.
In Stamford we have a mayor who made two promises
before he was elected. He promised he'd clean up Stamford
Harbor, and he promised he would not let Stamford tie in
its much needed sewage treatment plant with Darlen, something
that had been in preparation since 1967.
He kept one of his promises. He successfully
fought every effort to keep Darien from tying in with Stair*
ford, and, as a result, the Stamford Harbor is dirtier
than it has ever been.
Of the 11*5 million gallons of raw sewage that go
into our primitive primary treatment plant daily, about 5.5
tons of partially treated solids pour into the harbor every
day. The water is so polluted that, according to the president
of the largest marina In Stamford and probably in this part
of the country, if you leave a manila line hanging in the
-------
Sylvia Dowling
529
water it will be rotted in two or three weeks.
I happen to live on the harbor and sometimes in it
during a hurricane so I know what this is like. I know
how bad the harbor really is.
I am also a writer, and I did a magazine story
on our mayor's efforts to "clean up" the harbor. In my
research I discovered what most of you know the very valid
reasons for the sewage treatment tie-in. That article has
not been published yet, and the only information the people
in Stamford have is what the mayor has told them.
He has given people the impression he is an
engineer. He is not* He has even said he was on occasion.
He has misinformed the public and given only one side of the
issue.
Now, I*m sure most of you know about the tie-in,
and if you don't I'll try to explain it to you. But 1
suspect you do know or Mr. Curry could probably show you his
scars.
But, at any rate, there have been four separate
engineering studies made, and all of them recommended the
tie-in and said that the water quality could be maintained
with Stamford tying in with Darien. But the mayor said this
was wrong, and he said this before he even had seen the evi-
dence. He said it during his campaign.
-------
530
Sylvia Dowling
When he became mayor, he evidently did not have
files that substantiated all the engineering claims, and I
guess the State Water Resources Commission sent it to him but
he still said they were wrong. He accused Or he said
some of the engineering reports were slanted. He accused
the State Water Resources Commission of trying to outsmart
him and of being political and arbitrary ~ and even called
Mr. Curry a stubborn jackass on the radio.
Some of his antics have been like a comic opera.
At one point he said Stamford had never officially
indicated its desire to tie in. Another time he blamed the
former mayor for committing the city to the tie-in without
approval of the city board. When this was denied, he
brought in reporters and showed them about 30 pages of file
about the tie-in to prove his point, but they couldn't find
any evidence.
They confronted the mayor with this, and the mayor
said, "Well, the other mayor didn't speak against it."
So at another time he argued that the State order
never mentioned the tie-in and therefore Stamford was not
obligated to go ahead.
But the high point of the entire issue was in a letter
he wrote to the Water Resources Commission in which he said,
"The fact that we were proceeding with the design for the
-------
531
Sylvia Dowling
tie-in should not have led you to the conclusion that we
were agreeing to take Darien's sewage."
Then in November he said if the Republicans were
elected the Republicans would make sure that we wouldn't have
to have this tie-in.
In January, when the Attorney General served
papers to the mayor to comply with the law, he asked for an
extension of the court action, saying, "I have evidence of
skullduggery, but I have no proof, so I cannot tell you about
it now,"
Among the other things he told people and I think
this is the cruelest part of all he said that the sewer
tie-in would necessitate digging up our best park. Well,
this was simply not true, as you know better than I. The
sewer lines can go anywhere the city wants them. They do
not have to go through the park.
And he has consistently said if he is told by
the Federal Government in Washington that the city would not
get funds to build the plant he would drop the case. Itr.
K1ashman I know has informed him from the Federal office in
Boston that he wouldn't get the funds, but the mayor
insists on hearing it from Washington. So my plea is to you:
Will somebody please drop him a letter from Washington so we
can get going with this much-needed sewer at this point?
-------
Sylvia Dowling
532
MR, STEIN: II we drop the mayor a letter, it may
not be on funds. He may not like this letter. We have
other kinds of letters we drop sometimes.
MRS. DOWLING: At any rate, now I would like to
read a prepared statement. I have been authorized to speak for
the Shippan Point Association, the Davenport Drive Associa-
tion, the Burwood Heights Association, and the Coalition
of Neighborhood Associations homeowner groups representing
over 7,000 families,
I am also speaking for the Talmadge Oyster
Company of Norwalk and, although I'm a Republican, I am
authorized to speak for the East Side Democratic Club and
the North Stamford Democratic Club. (Laughter)
These groups are opposed to the 800-megawatt power
plant proposed by the Hartford Electric Company (HELCO),
a subsidiary of Northeast Utilities.
We don't question the need for more power. We
do question the location of a plant of this magnitude in the
most densely populated residential and recreational area in
Stamford. It will be one of the two largest in Connecticut.
It is planned for the Stamford Harbor in a zone
that permits only 90-foot structures. It will be 200 feet
high, equal to a 20-story building. There are no buildings
that high in Stamford,
-------
533
Sylvia Dowling
The plant will burn, according to HELฃ0, 1.2 million
gallons of heavy fuel oil a day. That means 438 million
gallons of oil a year will have to be brought through one
of the most active sailing and racing areas on the sound.
The unloading dock is planned about two miles
from the plant right in the center of this boating area.
It will be large enough to accommodate oceangoing oil tankers.
It will protrude 30 to 40 feet above the water, spoiling
the view of probably the largest and finest shoreline
residential communities on the East Coast those of
Greenwich and Stamford.
Does a power company have the right to despoil the
most expensive real estate we have left?
Pipes from the plant will necessitate blasting
200,000 cubic yards of bedrock under the harbor for a tunnel.
There are 160 acres of shellfish grounds there used by the
Talmadge Oyster Company of Norwalk for seeding.
The proposed plant will use 300 to 400 thousand
gallons of Stamford's polluted harbor waters a minute and
then send that heated sewage-laden water back into Long
Island Sound. That's 500 million gallons of thermal pollution
into the sound every single day.
According to the U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare's official figures, a plant this
-------
Sylvia Dowling
534
size, burning the amount and type of oil HELCO will use,
will emit 34,383 tons of sulfur dioxide a year.
A HELCO official said he "hoped" an efficient air
scrubber would be available by the time the plant is built
in 1976.
Whether a plant this size is needed in a city of
110,000 is for the experts to decide. But the effect this
giant will have on our environment and our lives ia our
province. For that reason we are asking for an impartial
power sites evaluation council and a moratorium on this
plant until we get the council.
We can no longer accept studies made by power
companies on the effect its plants will have on the environ-
ment. We have seen the effect they have had on our environ-
ment.
In Stamford, our mayor, Julius Wilensky, has
already gone on record (before any studies have been made)
praising HELCO for its new '"clean" plant. When Wilensky
was told that the new plant would send 500 million gallons
of thermal pollution into the sound every day, he told the
news media: "Z*m not going to talk about thermal pollution.
HELCO told me they would take care of it. It's none of my
bloody business."
For the record, Mayor Wilensky's new executive
-------
535
Sylvia Dowling
aide was personnel administrator for HELCO for the last six
years.
We feel there must be a better balance between
public and private interests and between the need for more
power and the even more urgent need of saving our environment.
We are ready to accept some of the financial burdens this
may bring.
Now, sir, may I ask you gentlemen a question?
1IR. STEIN: Surely. Go right ahead.
MRS. DOWLING: I'm sure you have heard of it, and
I wondered what your opinion was about it -- GE's new cooling
tower that will only be 60 feet high.
MR. STEIN: I don't know if any of these people
want to answer, but I will speak for myself. We can get
you one of our experts. The difficulty that any of us has
in this field is speaking about a proprietary product. The
problem that I have as a regulatory agency and most of
these fellows have their regulatory hats on is that I
do consult with GE and other companies very, very frequently,
and I do not think we talk in terms of an individual company's
product.
MRS. DOWLING: I see.
MR, STEIN: We are really under an inhibition.
MRS. DOWLING: I understand.
-------
Sylvia Dowling
536
MR. STEIN: All right. Thank you.
MRS, DOWLING: Thank you very much.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mrs. Dowling, when you were talking
about the Stamford-Darlen Joint municipal facility, were
you talking for yourself or for a group?
MRS. HOWLING: No, I prefaced my remarks by saying
1 was speaking for myself.
MR. KLASHMAN: Right. And is that prepared the
text that you gave there? Or were you talking
MRS. DOWLING: Partly. I had notes. But you1re
certainly welcome to ray notes if you can read them.
MR. KLASHMAN: It might be helpful.
I night say, Mrs. Dowllng, that our Commissioner
did reply to Mayor Wllensky quite recently indicating that
he saw no difference of opinion between what I had told the
mayor and what the Assistant Commissioner for Operations had
told the mayor.
MRS. DOWLING: In Washington?
MR, KLASHMAN: That's right. And that the mayor
had to meet the State requirements. That is, he had to go
along with what the State was telling him to do unless there
were some other facts that we didn't know about.
And so X don't think that the Commissioner specifi-
cally made the statement that I did to the mayor, and that
-------
537
Sylvia Dowling
was that if they didn't go together, from the information
I had, unless something else came up that I didn't know
about, that they wouldn't get a grant, the way the project
appeared to us at that time.
I don't think that the Commissioner said that to
the mayor, but this program is delegated to the regions, and
so
MRS. DOWLING: I understand.
MR. KLASHMAN: the Commissioner simply doesn't
get involved in that type of judgment.
MRS, DOWLING: I understand it, but the mayor
doesn't seem to.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Curry, can you tell us what the
status of this project is? Is there anyone from Stamford
here? Can you tell us what the status of this project is?
MR. CURRY: Apparently the mayor does not recognize
the similarity between two echelons of Federalees. He does
not realize from my point of view I would assume that
the type of language in Commissioner Dominick's letter is
his way of overstating, above-stating, your letter. It's not
so understood by the mayor.
MR. STEIN: Are there any other comments?
MR. KLASHMAN: Do you have them in court now?
MR. CURRY: The papers were drawn last week.
-------
538
Sylvia Dowling
Richard Hill
MRS. DOWLING: They haven*t been served yet,
according to our paper,
MR, KLASHMAN: Well, I can only tell you that Mr.
Curry and I are very much concerned about this particular
problem I probably as much as he. And we will continue to
pursue it vigorously.
MRS, DOWLING: I would also like you to know that
those who understand it are certainly sympathetic to your
point of view.
MR* KLASHMAN: Well, the Federal Government I hope
will be doing more than just talking about it.
MR, STEIN: Do you have any more, Mr. Curry?
MR. CURRY: Yes. Mr. Hill, Director of Environ-
mental Sciences and Technology, Center for the Environment
and Man.
STATEMENT OF
RICHARD HILL
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY
CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND MAN
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
MR. HILL: I am Richard Hill, Director of
Environmental Sciences and Technology at the Center for the
Environment and Man in Hartford, Connecticut.
I would like to take this opportunity to quickly
-------
539
Richard Hill
respond to the question raised yesterday and again today
concerning research priorities for Long Island Sound.
For the last two years, the Center has been assist-
ing the Nassau/Suffolk Counties Planning Board to develop
a marine resources information system. This information system
will assist the board in development planning and will assist
the local Long Island communities in their numerous marine
resources-oriented decisions.
A significant element in this effort has been the
identification of marine research projects that need to be
undertaken. In addition, the Center has been engaged in
numerous oceanography, meteorology, water pollution, and air
pollution research programs for EPA, the National Science
Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, the Corps of Engineers, the electric utility industry,
and others.
I want to answer the research priority question
twice, the first time in a somewhat evasive manner and the
second time more directly to the point.
The first answer is that a long-range plan must
be developed for coordinated research in Long Island Sound
by the various academic, governmental, Industrial, and inde-
pendent research groups. This plan must:
(1) Identify the objective for the research
-------
540
Richard Hill
program;
(2) develop the overall technical framework
within which the research will be conducted;
(3) inventory pertinent research conducted to
date and research now under way;
(4) develop the scientific work statements,
budgets, and schedules for the monitoring and research pro-
jects needed to meet the objective; and
(5) establish and maintain a cooperative Long
Island Sound Data Center to satisfy research and operational
needs.
More specifically, the mission of an applied
research program in Long Island Sound should be to develop
the capability to determine the environmental impact of
proposed construction projects and proposed regulations. This
capability is needed for short-range and long-range construc-
tion planning such as powerplant siting, harbor development,
sewage plant design and for the evaluation of proposed
strategies, such as new water quality regulations, zoning of
coastal areas, oil transport restrictions.
The technical framework for the research program
should be developed around the evolving ability to model
natural environmental systems. In simple terms, the systems
model should describe, in quantitative terms, the effect of
-------
541
Richard Hill
a proposed input for example, a new sewer plant outfall
on the marine environment and ecological system.
It is only with this systematic approach to
research planning and operation that the research community
can be responsive to operational needs.
Let me say here that I do not underestimate the
problems in coordinated interdisciplinary research with a
number of independent research groups, but I have found the
attitude that prevails in the groups related to Long Island
Sound to be unique and refreshing.
Let me get back to my second answer to the question
and be more direct. What specific research projects are
of the highest priority in the sound?
First, we need to develop a good understanding of
the microdynamics of Long Island Sound. We are knowledge-
able of the broad circulation patterns in the sound, but
we do not know enough about local flow and mixing patterns
along the shoreline. Also, we cannot yet predict well how
these local patterns respond to changes in topography, such
as due to silting, dredging, or damming, and to changes in
external forces such as river flow changes and tidal changes.
This requires both survey and theoretical research.
Secondly, we need to better understand the
diffusion and transport of dissolved and particulate matter
-------
Richard Hill
542
in the sound, particularly near the shore.
Third, we need to better understand the chemical
and biological processes that take place in the marine en-
vironment.
In simple terms, these first three research projects
are concerned with tracing and timing the fate of pollutants
in Long Island Sound.
Fourth, we need to design and implement a water
quality monitoring program that will track the long-term
trends in the sound. This monitoring program should be
designed from a systems effectiveness point of view to insure
a system that will satisfy its mission.
As a valuable fringe benefit, a monitoring program
designed to maximize system effectiveness should also be
close to maximum cost effectiveness.
These four research activities, effectively under-
taken, will greatly improve our ability to aifeess the environ-
mental impact of proposed future development and protective
actions and will provide the long-term data base from which
to evaluate the effectiveness of those development and
protective actions that are undertaken*
Thank you.
MR. STBIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
-------
Richard Hill
543
MR. KLASHMAN: When you are talking about that water
quality monitoring program, are you talking about some type
of an automatic system or are you talking about a system --
MR. HILL: No, I'm talking about a program,
deliberately using the "program" different from a "system,"
in that a water monitoring program probably would involve a
number of automatic stations but would also Incorporate and
possibly involve an extension of existing survey activities,
would take into consideration those water quality surveys
that are under way to the degree practical and applicable.
It would make use of aircraft observation,
satellite observation, etc., which are additive here.
The emphasis is on a total systematic approach, if
you Irish, to a program planning, so that we can decide wfc*t
ought to be monitored and then go into a routine long-term
program to do this.
The cost effectiveness or system effectiveness
implies the use of the various techniques for monitoring
rather than switching to just a complete synoptic automatic
system.
MR, STEIN: Any other comments or questions?
MR* GRJBGG: I want to ask a question. You heard the
discussion this morning with Don Squires about short-range
things that we night learn in the short range that
-------
Richard Hill
544
would improve the quality of some decisions that are going
to have to be made here in the next couple of years. What
prospect do you think there is of doing some limited studies
that would provide us with a reasonable basis for decision
on some of these problems, like sites that are proposed for
development?
MR* HILL: I think I probably agree, as you might
well suspect, with Don's point on this, or at least my
interpretation of it, and that is, you know, as researchers
we are Just kind of always apologizing for not really being
sure of just what can be accomplished.
Certainly as far as power plant siting is con-
cerned, we are probably more knowledgeable and more able to
advise with that particular problem at the present time than
with some of the other more complex problems.
I think, in all honesty, the scientific community
working with those who are called upon to make the decision
in an advisory or working group manner can deal quite
effectively with these problems relative to powerplant
siting prediction or tradeoff analysis of one powerplant
or another, things of this type, so long as the scientists
realize that the decision-maker has to make a decision and
can't wait for the long-term research and so long as the
decision-maker realizes that the scientist is making his
-------
545
Richard Hill
Thomas R, Glenn, Jr,
best estimate at any one particular point.
So I think they can be very effective in assisting
in this decision-making process while carrying on the long-tern
range so we are not la so ปuch trouble later oaซ
MR, GREGG: So you think the research community in
the sound would be willing to work with what the Chairman
suggested as some kind of task force on powerplant siting,
might work during the next year on this?
MR, HILL: My interpretation, to the degree that
1 cm speak for that research community, is I nould say yes.
hEfcป STEIfl: Any other questions or covenants?
(No response.)
If not, thank you very much.
Mr. Curry.
MR, CURRY: My cup has run out.
MR. STEIN: We will now call on Mr. Tom Glenn for
the Interstate Sanitation Commission. What we plan to do if
we can is call on Mr. Peloquin and Mr. Gregg and then
recess for lunch. We will then have an executive session.
But we are going to complete the public part of this this
morning if we can before lunch.
-------
Thomas R. Glenn, Jr.
546
STATEMENT OF
THOMAS R. GLENN, JR.
DIRECTOR AND CHIEF ENGINEER
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
MR. GLENN: I am Tom Glenn, Director and Chief
Engineer of Interstate Sanitation Commission. I must admit
that I was quite relieved that we had to discuss something
pertaining to research in between Mrs. Dowling*s talk and
this one. She would be a hard act to follow. (Laughter)
I would like now to make a statement of the Inter-
state Sanitation Commission pertaining to this conference.
The Interstate Sanitation Commission is an agency
of Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey with programs and
responsibilities in the fields of water and air pollution.
Since this conference deals with water quality, we shall make
no further reference to those jurisdictional concerns of our
Commission not directly related to that subject.
The waters within which the Interstate Sanitation
Commission functions may be described in general as those of
the Greater New York metropolitan area. It may be important
to point out that the Interstate Sanitation District includes
the lower Hudson River because Westchester County fronts on
that water body as well as on Long Island Sound. However,
-------
Thomas R. Glenn, Jr.
547
it is most particularly relevant to note that the Commission's
jurisdiction over Long Island Sound covers the entire area
west of a line from the easterly side of New Haven Harbor to
Port Jefferson, New York.
We are happy to participate in this conference
and hope that it may have beneficial results. However, we
believe it appropriate to express some wonderment at the fact
that it is being held under authority of section 10 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. That law is an enforce-
ment measure. While it is always the hope that the first
stages of an enforcement proceeding will resolve the out-
standing issues and so will make unnecessary any further
action, the premise underlying any enforcement action Is that
a condition meriting the application of pressure or compulsion
exists. This does not appear to be the case in Long Island
Sound.
Moreover, we have had reason to believe that such
inquiries and investigations as the Federal Water Quality
Administration (now EPA) has made point to that conclusion.
In the November 1969 "Report on the Water Quality
of Long Island Sound," issued by the FWPCA, the summary states
that although there were indications that potential water
quality problem areas exist, the data obtained did not verify
a violation of water quality standards. The report also
-------
Thomas R. Glenn, Jr.
548
states that chlorophyll a levels were In a range -which
indicated that a problem from excessive algal growth is not
likely.
In 1970, the Interstate Sanitation Commission made
an intensive survey of the upper ฃast River and western
portion of the sound. The waters surveyed extended from
Rikers Island in the East River to the mouth of Hempstead
Harbor in the sound. This was done at the behest of and
in cooperation with the FWQA. However, due to limited
manpower, the Federal participation was limited to one brief
run up the northern shore of the sound, taking only one
sample at each station. The Interstate Sanitation Commission
conducted sampling, testing, and analytical activities
for a much longer period.
The Commission has an extensive background in
sampling tidal waters. It has found that the values of
parameters such as percent dissolved oxygen saturation
vary greatly over a tidal cycle. We have some places in
the upper harbor where we even found as much as 50 percent
difference in one tidal cycle. Therefore* to obtain samples
for analyses over the complete tidal cycle, our survey
included sampling at each station three times each day over
a period of 11 days.
As a result of the survey and of other information
-------
549
Thomas R. Glean, Jr.
concerning the area regularly gathered by the Interstate
Sanitation Commission, It Is apparent that on the whole
Long Island Bound is a healthy body of water. Although the
dissolved oxygen In the waters In the upper Bast River
still does not meet the Trl-State Compact requirements, the
results of our 1970 survey show that the oxygen content of
the waters was from 4.9 percent to 11.7 percent higher in
1970 compared to a similar survey we made in 1959.
I have copies of excerpts of this survey of last
summer that 1 will put out after all the other testimony
is given if anyone would like copies. Also I have a few
copies of the 1959 report.
There are local problems in some of the estuaries
adjacent to the sound. But in every instance there is
already construction under way or in an advanced design
stage to remedy the substandard conditions. In all of the
instances where remedial measures have not been taken
voluntarily, compliance has been pressed either by administra-*
tive or court enforcement proceedings brought by the
Interstate Sanitation Commission or one of the two states
concerned.
Also it may be noted that in the upper East River
and western part of the sound, coliform counts, in all of
the counts of our survey, are high. We would be surprised
-------
Thomas E. Glenn, Jr.
550
if this were not so since the treatment plants discharging
into the upper East River do not have facilities for dis-
infection. One difficulty in evaluating the change in
bacterial numbers is due to the total coliform system which
was used at the earlier survey and at this one last summer.
This is not as good an indicator of contamination, and
that's one of the reasons the Commission has recently
changed over to using fecal coliforms as one of our standards.
The Commission's new upgraded classifications
and both stream and effluent standards will become effective
April 15. That is tomorrow. We also have copies of
those available here if anyone would like to see it. This
does require somebody in their testimony questioned the
degree of treatment at least in our portion that it is
all Class A waters and requires not less than secondary
treatment with 80 percent removal of BOD at all times.
Another difficulty discussed subsequently is the
effect of combined sewers. The Hunts Point, Wards Island,
and Bowery Bay plants in New York City have had an increase
of 18 percent in the volume of the waste which they must
treat in the past 10 years. The necessary treatment capacity
has not kept pace with this increase.
This increased flow not only affects the over-
loading of the existing treatment facilities, but It also
-------
Thomas R. Glenn, Jr
551
aggravates the combined sewer problem. Until expansion of
the treatment facilities is completed ~ we are told today
this is ready for construction to start this year on these
expansions -- and effective disinfection is practiced, it
is difficult to see how this situation can be remedied --
that is, this high coliform count in the western end.
If you look at our report, it starts back near
these plants, and it is somewhere like 60,000 conforms
per 100 milliliters and tapers out shortly after it gets
out through Throgs Neck, drops down, to about a 2,000 level,
and from there it tapers off very rapidly.
While this construction work is proceeding, a
major effort to minimize the effects of combined sewers
should be undertaken so that when the upgrading of these
treatment plants is completed, the full benefits of their
improvements can be realized.
One of the conclusions and recommendations reached
by the conferees at the third session of the Hudson River
Conference held in June 1969 was that the Interstate
Sanitation Commission should undertake a detailed examina-
tion of stormwater overflows. We were led to believe that
if we acted immediately with an application, we would
receive an enforcement grant of $100,000 to start this study.
Unfortunately, the money was not immediately available, and
-------
Thomas R. Glenn, Jr.
552
the funds were later reduced to $50,000. As of this date,
the requested grant has not been funded, and I'm sure the
chairman will hope this will happen sometime because I have
haunted him for several years now.
MB. STEIN: I got up the $50,000. I don't know why
you couldn't take it.
BIB. GLENN: The communication broke down somewhere.
MR. STEIN: Not by me.
MR. GLENN: Since the Commission considers minimizing
the effects of combined sewers to be of the highest priority
in the New York metropolitan area and to indicate another
portion where they are talking about the National Gateway
Park under Verrazano Bridge, after everything is picked
up and receives full secondary treatment, 850 million
gallons of sewage will spill every time it rains we have
proceeded with the combined sewer investigation on a more
limited scale with existing funds.
If the effects of the combined sewers cannot be
minimized, we believe that the other steps taken for the
abatement of pollution will be negated by the overwhelming
effect of the gross pollution occurring from the spilling of
combined sewers.
While there is a considerable amount of industry
-------
Thomas R. Glenn, Jr.
553
in the area, Long Island Sound is a body of water that is and
should remain suitable for recreational uses and, in some
places, for shellfish culture. Undoubtedly, it will be
necessary for public agencies to continue their active water
quality management programs so that steadily increasing
population pressures will not have an adverse effect. Also,
private entities will have to cooperate and become increasingly
meaningful of the relation of their activities to the quality
of the sound waters.
Because it is an interstate water body, Long Island
Sound is a necessary subject of intergovernmental cooperation.
This is why the Interstate Sanitation District includes a
portion of the area which forms the subject of this conference.
Certainly it is to be hoped that there will be energetic
implementation of relevant local, State, interstate, and
Federal programs*
For its own part, the Interstate Sanitation Com-
mission intends to continue to give vigorous attention to
Long Island Sound and to all other parts of the Interstate
Sanitation District.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR, STEIN: Thank you.
Any comments or questions?
I just have one, Mr. Glenn. As always, you put out
-------
554
Thomas JR. Glenn, Jr.
a very interesting statement. But you say one thing I agree
with: "The premise underlying any enforcement action is
that a condition meriting the application oi pressure or com-
pulsion exists." Then you go on to say that this does not
appear to be the case in Long Island Sound, and I'm sure from
what you say that is your opinion. But after hearing the
presentation from Mrs, Dowling and the fiyrant River, I'm not
sure that opinion is universally held.
MR. GLENN: Well, I think even Mrs. Dowling
would admit that there are programs that are moving forward.
I share with her some of her problems, and I have worked
with her organization on some of these particular problems,
but
MR. STEIN: Well, I'm not sure I understood Mrs.
Dowling and Mr. Haughwout. When you talk about the applica-
tion of pressure or compulsion, I sort of got the impression
that that's what they were asking.
MR. GLENN: I'm sure she was. She was trying to
get it resolved with a letter from Washington, which has
held up part of one of our projects.
MRS. DOWLING: I was out. I'm sorry. I don't know
what you're talking about.
MR. GLENN: You'll have to ask Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: No, we're all right. Are there any
-------
Alfred E. Peloquin
555
other comments or questions?
(No response.)
If not, thank you very much.
Mr. Peloquin.
STATEMENT OF
ALFRED E. PELOQUIN
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
NEW ENGLAND INTERSTATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
MR. PELOQUIN: Mr. Chairman, fellow conferees, I
think
MRS. DOWLING: Oh, I agree. I agree. Sorry, sir.
MR. PELOQUIN: I think the horse has been veil
beaten during these two days, and any extensive statement on
my part would be redundant. I think it is obvious from
statements by my fellow conferees that pollution abatement
efforts are proceeding in accordance with federally approved
schedules, and where schedules are being missed, where
slippages occur, compliance under due process hag been
initiated*
I do have a few comments, however, which I feel are
pertinent. Obviously, there are problems in the sound, and
some of our commissioners have expressed considerable concern
with the potential nutrient problem. This matter will be
-------
Alfred E. Peloquin
556
referred to our Technical Advisory Board later this month for
consideration.
On the basis of Federal testimony presented yester-
day, I want to emphasize that the calling of this conference
was based on one sample at some 100 locations over a two-year
period. Alleged violations of criteria occurred in approxi-
mately 10 percent of the samples.
One sample per station can hardly be called
adequate representation of water quality, All it says is
that on the day of sampling, the water at that station did
not meet the criteria. Logically, perhaps we can assume that
the condition of violation is permanent. However, over the
730-day period covered by the conference report, there may
have been many days when all waters were in compliance.
Conversely, there may have been days when the water quality
was far worse than noted in the report.
I hope that, should future conferences be necessary,
violations will be based on more intensive field surveys.
Otherwise, we would have to question the credibility of the
reports.
As Mr, Curry said yesterday, this report was
received on April 5, 1971. Mine is stamped "Preliminary
Data." Upon registering yesterday, 1 was handed a copy with
the same cover but unstamped.
-------
557
Alfred E. Peloquin
Mr. Curry was fortunate in having a staff to review
the report. I am not that fortunate. I do not feel I was
able to give the report adequate review and most certainly
could not review the report handed to me yesterday. I can
only hope that the two documents are identical.
I also hope that, should future conferences be held,
EPA will see to it that the conference report is made avail-
able to the conferees at least 30 days in advance of the
conference date. Otherwise, I will be the first to request a
postponement or recess so as to have adequate review time.
I would like to make reference to page 33 of
the report, the section which pertains to the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. I think the
record should show that supplemental statutes are being
ratified by the State legislatures of the compact-member
States expanding the authority of the Commission to include
surveillance, enforcement, and training and certification of
waste treatment plant operators. I am sure our commissioners
will not hesitate to exercise these new authorities,
including enforcement, as the need may arise.
Connecticut, Maine, New York, and Rhode Island have
ratified the statutes. New Hampshire currently has then
under active consideration. We are working for ratification
by Massachusetts and Vermont.
-------
558
Alfred E. Peloquin
I don't recall during these two days that mention
was made of the expiration of the Federal Water Quality Act as
of June 30, 1971. With the expiration of this law, at that
tine, all Federal action, including funds to build treatment
facilities, will cease. If we wanted to eliminate Federal
intervention, we could urge that new legislation not be
enacted. However, if the job is to be done, Federal assistance
will be needed and, as Mrs. Dowling said, you're all we've
got.
I would like to urge everyone i& this room to
find out about the pending legislation, the Huskie bill,
which is S. 523, and the Administration bills, which are S. 12,
S, 13, and S. 14. S. 12, S. 13, and S. 14 deal with extension
of the Water Pollution Control Act. Interested persons
should contact their Congressmen and Senators relative to
enacting good legislation as expeditiously as possible so we
can be assured of uninterrupted and continuous support In our
pollution abatement efforts.
The Commission is presently preparing an analysis
of the proposed legislation. This analysis, with
recommendations, will be made available to the public on
request. I might say that in a statement to the Senate
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, a recommendation has
been mtide that the conference procedure such as we have had
-------
559
Alfred E. Peloquin
here be abolished in favor of a better, more flexible, less
costly procedure which will truly lead to pollution abatement.
I know of no pollution abated in our compact area as a direct
result of the conference procedures.
The recommendation also calls for joint State-
interstate-Federal enforcement action under section 10 of the
law should it be necessary to proceed under Federal law.
Finally, many recommendations have been made
during these two days* 1 am delighted that Chairman Stein
has indicated that we will adjourn to an executive session.
It was tentatively proposed we adjourn to executive session
so we could kind of sort out our views and come up with final
conference recommendations.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR. METZLER: I merely want the record to indicate
that I don't share Mr. Peloquin*s view regarding the
effectiveness of conference procedures. And to those of you
who have not been following them for about 15 years now, as I
have in participating in them, let me suggest that you compare
what has happened as a result of the enforcement conferences,
how much pollution has been cleaned up, and then take a look
at the legal cases that have been filed and see how much
pollution has been cleaned up.
-------
560
Alfred E. Peloquin
R. Frank Gregg
I think this is a will-of-the-wisp, that we should
be careful about jumping on the bandwagon until at least you
take a look at the facts. If after you look at the facts
that I have suggested you think the conference procedure
isn't effective, certainly you have that right.
MR* STEIN: Any other comments of questions?
(No response.)
If not, thank you.
Mr. Gregg.
STATEMENT OF
R. FRANK GREGG
CHAIRMAN
NEW ENGLAND RIVER BASINS COMMISSION
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
MB, GREGG: I would like to take a couple of
minutes to explain the study that the New England River Basins
Commission will presumably be doing in Long Island Sound.
There have been several references to it here.
The Congress appropriated $100,000 in the current
fiscal year for the purpose of outlining an approach to
developing a comprehensive program for management of Long
Island Sound. This is not strictly a water quality program.
It is the kind of program which attempts to look at all the
resources of the sound and its shoreline and all the demands
-------
Rซ Frank Gregg
561
that may be placed on these resources In the future and
alternative ways of meeting future needs and reconciling
conflicts.
It is an intergovernmental study involving a dozen
or so agencies of the Federal Government, many agencies of
the States of Connecticut and New York, local governments,
and private interests, citizen groups, the business community,
and so on.
The President's budget for fiscal year 1972 includes
$250,000 for this study in fiscal year 1972. Members of the
congressional delegations from New York and Connecticut
have expressed publicly their desire to get that $250,000
amount increased. I have no comment on that except to simply
note that that is the case.
To relate this alleged comprehensive plan to the
purpose of this conference, the planning program will include
a water quality element and Federal funds will be appropriated
to come up with findings of fact and recommendations for water
quality management in the sound. As I mentioned yesterday,
all of the agencies who are sitting at this table are the
agencies through which the New England River Basins Commission
operates in water quality planning. And the funds will be
expended and be available to and will be expended by these
agencies for the purpose of looking ahead in terms of water
-------
562
R. Frank Gregg
quality problems and solutions in the sound.
Similarly, other aspects of sound management, in-
cluding land use, wetlands preservation, future navigation
requirements, power requirements, and other multiple demands
on the sound will be studied.
We will take these discrete portions of the study,
try to find out where the conflicts are, and ultimately
reconcile them and come up with what we hope will be some
sensible alternatives for future management of the sound.
We do hope to clarify these alternatives in ways
in which the people who live here can see what their future
options are and make tradeoffs between conflicting future
objectives.
I would like to note, finally, that it is my hope
that the enforcement conference called by the Environmental
Protection Agency may be used as a device for applying
additional sources of funding through the regular channels of
the Environmental Protection Administration for the water
quality investigations which are specific responses to this
conference,
I'm trying to distinguish here between water quality
Investigations which are designed to produce a long-range
water quality management plan for the sound and those kinds of
things that we might want to try to get at specifically in the
-------
563
R. Frank Gregg
next year or so in the interest of dealing with some of the
specific things that are identified in this conference.
If that can turn out to be the case, then this will
give us a shot at dealing more efficiently and directly with
some of the kinds of short-range problems that have been
identified here as well as giving us an opportunity to do
what we have never done before and to do what this compre-
hensive study is supposed to do, which is to get us out
ahead in time of future problems and give us a chance to
address the sound as an economic and as a social and as an
ecological entity in advance of the problems and try to pre-
vent the kind of future crises that bring us here today.
Thank you very much.
MR, STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
(No response.)
If got, I think that concludes the presentations.
Does anyone in the audience feel they want to say
something?
Come on up, because we are going to close the
public presentation.
-------
Joseph F. Moran, Jr
564
STATEMENT OF
JOSEPH F. MOHAN, JR.
DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES INSTITUTE
HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER FOR URBAN STUDIES
BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT
MR. MORAN: My name Is Joseph F. Moran. I am
Director of the Environmental Studies Institute of HECU5
In Bridgeport. I would like to read a statement into the
record of Dr. Richard J. Qulnton, Chairman of the Bridgeport
Conservation Commission* for Mayor Hugh Curran of the cfity
of Bridgeport, Connecticut.
(The prepared statement of Dr. Qulnton follows:)
We went on record at the time of the Ribicoff hear-
ings on the then proposed bill S. 2472, in recognizing the
unique natural attributes and social significance of Long
Island Sound. We indicated our awareness of the environ-
mental degradation which has taken place and the immediate
threat of further exploitation and insult of this resource
through arbitrary or unwise action. We again emphasize
that time is critical In resolving the many problems
associated with the abatement or cessation of negative
actions to achieve rehabilitation of Long Island Sound.
Bridgeport's concern for these problems and action
toward Improving conditions has been demonstrated by a
-------
Joseph F. Iforan, Jr.
565
number of positive actions* Construction has been initiated
to substantially modify and upgrade the city's sewage treat-
ment plant, as alluded to by Mr. Curry yesterday.
Action was initiated to increase the authority and
operational duties of the office of harbormaster. Existing
legislation was amended at the State level to improve this
function. A new harbormaster was hired to undertake these
expanded duties.
The city, largely at its own expense, undertook a
detailed study for the "Assessment of the Ecological Parameters
of the Bridgeport Harbor, its Tidewaters and Tributaries."
This study was initiated on July 1, 1970 to be completed in
12 months. It is my understanding that a detailed report
of the study will be spearately presented today.
Action committees have been formed involving
municipal departments and related commercial activities to
establish functional procedures and response systems in the
event of accidental oil spill in the harbor waters. The
city has also cooperated with and participated in long-range
planning programs with other communities on the Connecticut
and Long Island shore concerned with oil spills.
The city has further demonstrated its concern by
supporting the State Wetlands Act and in the preservation of
marshes, illegal dumping and filling, etc.
The foregoing actions identified with particular
-------
Joseph F. Moran, Jr.
566
problems are positive steps which have been taken. These
facts demonstrated not only active concern but the commitment
to expend time and funds to achieve necessary goals.
Admittedly, much more needs to be done, both separately and
in cooperation with State and Federal agencies. Clearly,
long-range integrated programs, adequate funding, and involving
all communities on Long Island Sound are needed. The city
of Bridgeport supports legislation and action programs
leading to these goals.
The foregoing statement made by Dr. Richard J.
Quinton, Chairman of the Bridgeport Conservation Commission.
MR. MORAN (continuing): I would add to that a
second very brief statement by myself.
The city of Bridgeport, the Chamber of Commerce,
business firms, and HECUS (a consortium of five area uni-
versities) joined forces in June 1970 to implement a baseline
study of the water quality of the Bridgeport harbors. No
State or Federal funds support this project.
The initial phase of the study focuses on chemical,
physical, and biological parameters of the harbor waters.
We are measuring, at some 30 stations, temperature, pH,
dissolved oxygen, BOD, transparency, nitrates, ammonia,
phosphates, sulfate, chloride, detergents, cyanide, and oil
-------
567
Joseph F. Mora 11, Jr.
and grease content. Biological parameters include the
measurement of total and fecal coliforms, plankton, macro-
benthic organisms, and fish populations.
The second phase of this program would continue to
measure certain of these parameters on a less frequent
schedule, but examine "trouble spots" more intensively.
Additional parameters such as heavy metals, oil and grease
content of bottom sediments, and biota would be examined.
The municipal government and the business firms
supported this project knowing that the information generated
would enhance the quality of decision-making in this area
of concern at the local level.
The city would be pleased to provide this report,
when it is published, to the Environmental Protection Agency
with the anticipation that it would, in some small way, be
of assistance to your agency in its decision-making pro-
cesses.
I thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
(Mo response.)
Thank you very much.
Any others?
(No response.)
-------
568
Murray Stein
I don't say this in defense of statutory proceedings
one way or the other, but I do think the conference we have
had here has been very productive, I think we have a fairly
complete record on the state of the knowledge.
Secondly, I think we have a pretty complete record on
the problems involved.
Thirdly, I think we have had a pretty thorough airing
of the various views that we have had here. I regret that we
didn't have more representation from the industrial and
municipal sources named in the report, but I guess that's the
way things go.
I also think that we have had several indications
that appropriate action might be required under other pro-
visions of State, interstate compact law, or Federal law,
and I'm sure that these points have not gone unnoticed.
However, I guess, knowing all these agencies, that
we all proceed on what we hope are the facts within the limits
of our statutory authority. But as far as I am concerned I
have noted several problems here that require immediate looking
into, and I can assure you that this will be done.
The conferees will, after a recess, go into an
executive session. I would expect, if anyone wants to wait,
that I will be available between 4;30 and 5j00 o'clock here
and hopefully have an announcement for the conferees at the
-------
Murray Stein
569
same time.
I want to make this clear because sometimes this
has happened before. There is no pre-caucusing between me and
the conferees, nor are there any prearranged signals. Some-
times when we go into executive session things go along faster
than at other times. So either I will be here at 4:30 to
5:00 o'clock and I know we are going to do our best to do
that or if I am not, we will send out an emissary and tell
you when I will appear if anyone wants to be here at that
time.
We stand recessed. As far as we are concerned,
the public portion of this, except for the announcement later,
is over.
I and several other members of the Federal staff
and members of the State and interstate agencies will be
available later, and during the recess, of course, for any
questioning or private consultation you might wish to have.
(Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the public portion of
the conference was concluded.)
-------
Conclusions
570
(At 5:00 p.m., Mr. Stein appeared before interested
members of the press and public and made the following
statement:)
MR. STEIN: I am happy to announce that we have
had unanimous agreement among the States, the interstate
agencies, and the Federal Government. While some people may
condemn unanimity in these affairs, I think there is much to
be said for it, particularly when we have a complex situation
such as we have on Long Island Sound and we have to work
through a multiplicity of Federal, State, and interstate
agencies.
The conferees agree that:
The State and interstate agencies are taking
action to abate pollution in accordance with applicable
State and Federal laws and implementation plans.
An extensive pollution abatement program is
moving forward toward the attainment of the State and Federal
water quality standards.
A high degree of secondary treatment for all
dischargeis into the Long Island Sound conference area is
being required,
Enforcement action will be taken immediately
whenever there is a source of pollution not in compliance
with State-Federal approved water quality standards.
-------
Conclusions
571
Treated waste discharges will be disinfected
to eliminate any hazards from bacterial pollution.
The current State implementation schedule for
polluters discharging into the waters covered by the conference
follows: (See appended schedules.)
And you will be given a detailed schedule of this
implementation schedule,
The Environmental Protection Agency, the
State and interstate agencies continue to develop a water
quality management program for Long Island Sound coordinated
through the New England River Basins Commission.
The practice of depositing polluted dredged
material in Bpoil areas of the open waters of Long Island
Sound will be prohibited,
Studies of the combined sewers in the conference
area be conducted by Connecticut, New York, and the inter-
state agencies^ to determine methods of elimination,
treatment, or control, and a report on this.activity be
submitted to the conferees by April 1973.
Connecticut and New York will implement their
programs for the installation of onshore waste disposal
facilities for boats. The Federal Government shall enforce
treatment requirements to meet existing Federal water
quality standards.
-------
Conclusions
572
The Federal Government, State and interstate
agencies cooperate in developing compatible requirements
governing thermal discharges which will be applied to power-
plants and such other discharges as are considered signifi-
cant. The States, interstate agencies, and the Federal
Government in cooperation with their technical staffs will
recommend to the conferees specific temperature requirements
for the waters of the conference area.
The States, interstate agencies, and the
Environmental Protection Agency will develop within six
months a compatible preventive program to control oil
pollution related to the storage, transfer, and handling of
oil.
The conferees urge those agencies of the
Federal Government with jurisdiction over seagoing vessels
to develop and implement appropriate programs for the
control of leakage, accidental and other discharge of oil
from such vessels.
This concludes the recommendations and conclusions
of the conferees. We will be glad to entertain any questions
or comments*
QUESTION: Mr, Stein, you say that secondary
treatment will be required in all cases. Is that correct?
MR. STEIN: That is correct.
-------
Conclusions
573
QUESTION; Primary treatment, no matter how high-
grade, will not be acceptable?
MR. STEIN: Primary treatment is just a mechanical
form of treatment, and at the best it's not very high-grade.
I don't know if we don't have a contradiction in terms in
this day and age when we speak of primary treatment and high-
grade treatment.
QUESTION: You mention in part the thermal
standards. Would these be sort of "degree of temperature
rise" type of thing or would they be mixing?
MB. STEIN: I'm not sure you have given me proper
alternatives. I think if we have temperature requirements
as we have had in other areas of the country, we will have a
degree rise and something in addition.
Now, for estuarine waters, the degree rise is
considered to be, according to the National Technical Task
Force, 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter and 1.5 degrees
Fahrenheit in the summer. In addition to this, there will be
superimposed a month-by-month limitation on the maximum
degree of temperature that is required to support desirable
fish species and the attendant food chain and biota. And
whichever figure is less will obtain.
Generally speaking, the critical periods that are
imposed this 4 degrees during the winter, 1.5 degrees in
-------
Conclusions
574
the summer are the temperature requirements during the
critical months of spawning and the very hot summer months.
Biologists have consistently said the reason we
ask for this limitation on the degree rise is that, contrary
to usual expectationsi the fish don't die because of warm
water, when they get into warm water, but because they get
into cold water.
For example, if you have a 20-degree rise during
the winter and the fish would get acclimated to that 20-degree
rise, if that warm water source were cut off for any reason
or the fish left it for any reason and got into the real
cold water, they'd be shocked and they'd die.
In other areas we have superimposed two kinds of
requirements one, a degree temperature rise under any
conditions and, secondly, a month-by-month maximum and the
lesser amount would obtain.
QUESTION: This is in an effluent standard as
opposed to allowing a certain mixing zone that you are talking
about? In other words, you can't let it come out into the
i
river or into the sound at a temperature above 4 degrees?
MR. STEIN: I don't see any difference and a
lot of people have put this yp as a conceptual matter I have
never seen the difference between a temperature standard
and a requirement of a stream standard.
-------
575
Conclusions
Let me point out that whatever we set as a standard
for any requirement but let's suppose we're dealing with
temperature for fish, whatever we say, the fish don't know
that and they don't read the standards. Either they're going
to thrive and propagate or they're not going to thrive and
they're going to die.
If you have to have certain conditions in the
stream or in the waters, you're going to have to translate
that back to what is coming out of the pipe.
There are so many variables in the stream that
I think if we are going to have a regulatory control or if
we are going to have to ask a man who runs a powerplant to
exercise a reasonable control, the thing that he is going
to have to be kept responsible for is the temperature of the
water coming out of the end of the pipe which he has control
of.
I do^not think jrou can keep a powerplant operator
responsible for all the vagaries and shifts of winds and
currents and whether a tongue of pollution goes beyond the
nixing zone for a half hour or 3 feet or 20 feet or goes to
the north or south or southwest. This is going to have to be
the judgment of the regulatory agencies, State, interstate,
or Federal, and then we are going to have to tell the man
running a plant what he is going to have to put out at tto#
-------
Conclusions
576
pipe. And I think that would be the essence of reasonable
regulation.
QUESTION: Mr. Stein, you mentioned disinfecting.
Does this mean year-round then?
ME, STEIN: No, not necessarily. It may mean year-
round. It depends on the water use here. We discussed this
in the executive session.
If they don't swim year-round, it may not mean
year-round for that place. But if you are dealing with
shellfish year-round, it may mean year-round if you are
discharging into an area in which it affects shellfish.
Depending on the water use, the disinfection may
or may not mean year-round.
QUESTION: Mr. Stein, when you talked about
prohibiting the dumping of polluted dredging matter, that
means just polluted dredging matter or all dredging matter?
And since most dredging matter is polluted, would that mean
an end to dumping except by Pfizer?
MR. STEIN: Well, again, we set up the requirements,
and the chips fall where they may. It's the same as on this
disinfection. You have heard some people say that the
dredgings come from the harbors and the harbors get a load of
waste and they are polluted. If this is the case, we won't
permit the dumping.
-------
Conclusions
577
But the requirement is the prohibition of dumping
of polluted dredged matter. There will have to be a case-by-
case determination of whether this dredged matter is polluted.
If you accept the views of some of the witnesses
here that all the dredged matter from the harbors in Long
Island Sound is polluted, presumably they won't be able to
dispose of that to the sound. However, if they are not
polluted, of course, we will be open to consideration on that.
1 think that's the purpose of a regulation, not
to necessarily outline what every particular party is going
to do but to protect the waters and let the regulation fall
where it will. If you are within that regulation, you can't
do it.
QUESTION: Are there any standards to determine
if dredged material is polluted?
MR. STEIN: We have certain requirements to
determine whether it is polluted. We have done that in many
areas of the country. For example, on the Great Lakes,
that's the basis. The whole program is based on whether they
are polluted dredgings or not. There are several require-*
ments and water quality criteria, and we can examine the
constituents of dredgings and see if there is any deleterious
material in them.
QUESTION: Are all dredging operations standards
-------
Conclusions
578
suspended immediately after this date, like Pfizer, until
investigation of each one?
MR. STEIN: Again, these people are not here. We
can only deal with what we're doing in the Environmental
Protection Agency. As many of you know, our sister agency,
and an agency that I work very closely with and have worked
closely with through the years, the Corps of Engineers, is
primarily responsible for dredging and dredging permits.
I'm sure that the Corps will be consulting very
closely with us on the effects on water quality of the
disposal of any dredging. But the Corps of Engineers has
the statutory responsibility for issuing dredging permits and
controlling dredging.
QUESTION: Because the Corps said yesterday they
questioned any move to cease all dredging at this time,
after Mr. Fogarty's statement, which would seem to put you
at odds with each other.
MR. STEIN: No, I don't think so. If the
determination is polluted dredging at this time and this is
the recommendation, the question is a factual one whether
all their dredged material is polluted or some is and some
isn't. And we'll determine that.
Some of the witnesses said here that every bit of
dredging that comes out is polluted.
-------
Conclusions
579
The Corps had no objection, as I understood that,
to suspending the disposition of polluted dredging. And this
will be a factual situation. I think we and the Corps see eye
to eye on that.
QUESTION: I'm interested in your use of the verb
"is being required" on this secondary treatment. Do you mean
that it's approaching that?
MB. STEIN: No, no. We mean the States have a
continuing program for secondary treatment. The notion there
was that this was not a new requirement we were putting in
here now, that we and the States had a continuing program
for secondary treatment, and we're emphasizing that is being
required and will be carried forward.
QUESTION: Does this include industrial discharges
also?
MS. STEIN: Absolutely. I don't think we can clean
up any waters by just concentrating on municipal discharges
or industrial discharges. We have to do both.
QUESTION: Secondary treatment can clean the chemical
wastes
MB. STEIN: "Secondary treatment" is a word of art
in the pollution control business. It is derived from a
reduction of organic municipal wastes. Generally, primary
treatment just deals with a mechanical settling of wastes.
-------
Conclusions
580
Secondary treatment has dealt with a biological reduction
of what was left after that primary treatment.
Generally, they do this through a trickling filter,
which you have seen, an arm going around and around over that
crushed rock. In the interstices of the rock there is a film
of bacteria that keep chomping away and eating the bacteria
or else you generally have an activated sludge which is
like putting an additive in the yogurt or something and having
it eat. It's a biological operation.
What this kind of treatment does is get reduction,
anywhere from 75, 80, up to 90 percent reduction, of BOD,
This can be translated roughly when you have organic wastes
in industrial wastes if you're talking about the same kind
of reduction. But where you have inorganic wastes, you have
to make a judgment on what you're going to do to get a reduction
in this sense.
In other words, what we determine is pretty
generally the kind of reduction we expect in water quality.
You have to translate that Individually to each industry
concerned.
QUESTION: I think the question I'm getting at is
this: In the report here it is stated the metal finishing
Industries which discharge pickling acids and that sort of thing
into the sound are one of the greatest problems on the
-------
Conclusions
581
Connecticut side. Secondary treatment, as you stated, is
normally concerned with organic discharges, and so forth.
What is being proposed Are you proposing secondary treatment
for non-
MR* STEIN: I'm not sure that the secondary
treatment in that sense has very much meaning relating to
pickling liquors or plating liquors. What we have to do is
remove enough pickling liquids or plating liquids so the
discharge of those materials will not interfere with any
legitimate water use.
QUESTION: Mr. Stein, in No. 10 you're talking
about the onshore waste disposal facilities. Do you have
indication that these facilities can be built in Connecticut
without legislative action on shore? These are for the
disposal areas for the boats.
MR. STEIN: I don't want to make a Judgment on
what Connecticut law is, but we have had that problem in
other States. Some States have done this with legislative
action. Some States have done this without legislative
action.
All you need is an onshore disposal facility in the
city or a marina to let someone go. And no one has to have
a license to a boat. That's something that is permissible.
If you have the license authority on a boat, you can require
-------
Conclusions
582
it to have a holding tank, require them to have access to
an onshore disposal area, or you don't issue the license.
It's a question whether they do that or not.
Now, whether Connecticut wants to do that by State
statute or through its licensing authority is a State preroga-
tive.
QUESTION: On that same subject, this recommendation
would seem to indicate that the Federal requirements when
they are published will be a "no discharge" type law such
as New York's. Is this true?
MR. STEIN: I'm not anticipating that, and I don't
think I can.
Again, as I thought I pointed out at the conference,
someone else in our Administration is developing these
requirements* I gave my recommendations, but I'm not the
last word on that, nor am I the person responsible nor is
my office responsible for promulgating these regulations.
I'm not saying that in the sense of ducking any
question, I just don't know. That's being done by someone
else,
QUESTION: What is the legal status of the 11
recommendations? Can the States choose to ignore them and
nothing happens?
MR. STBIN: Well, I'll tell you. Until the
-------
Conclusions
583
Administrator of EPA adopts them or rejects them or modifies
them, I guess the legal status is in limbo. But if he adopts
them, I guess the States can choose to ignore them if the
States wish. Of course, everyone can ignore any one of
these things at its peril.
The one advantage that I guess States have in
this is the States of Connecticut and New York are not the
polluters. If these recommendations are ignored, we are not
going to proceed against New York or Connecticut or one of
these interstate agencies. We are going to proceed against
the polluter.
I would like to make one other thing clear. There
are several problems brought up here which may call for
Federal legal action before we take action on these recom-
mendations. There is nothing to inhibit us from filing an
1899 Act action or an action for violation of standards,
and at least thdre were allegations here that both of these
existed in the conference area.
I'm going to look at these very carefully. If
Federal legal action is required to achieve compliance in
any of these, I mm going to recommend it, and again it's up
to the Administrator to make a judgment whether he's going
to authorize this or not.
QUESTION: You say that you're going to look into
-------
Conclusions
584
the GAF situation and the Pfizer situation?
MR, STEIN: I think the Pfizer situation, if I
understand it, has been resolved for the time being. If
Pfizer is not going to discharge any more until the Corps
checks with us, I think that's a resolution to the problem.
If you ever want to see instant results, I think we have
probably got one by just asking a few questions.
But if you're talking about will I look into the
GAF situation?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Immediately. As soon as I get back.
We have filed one 180-day notice against GAF and
the plant in New York, and I think we got an adequate
response. I think GAF is a responsible corporate citizen
and has indicated to me that it wants to do a good job of pro-
tecting the environment.
I'm going to look into that. If there is a
discharge that is violating Federal law that calls for
immediate Federal action, you can be sure I'm going to
recommend it.
QUESTION: Mr. stein, in the case of Pfizer, maybe
you have later Information, but until 3:00 o'clock this
afternoon their plant manager says he has to dump Thursday or
start laying people off. He's very interested in knowing
-------
Conclusions
585
how long it might take your agency to reach decision on this
thing he has been doing for so many years.
MR. STEIN: It's the Corps of Engineers. One of
these days I'm going to hear of some plant somewhere that
is going to sdy they're going to comply and not say, "If we
have to do that we're going to have to lay people off." I'm
holding my breath.
QUESTION: How long do the alleged polluters have
to come into some kind of abeyance with these conclusions
here, providing the Administrator
MR, STEIN: As far as I know, they all have a
schedule now. Either the schedule is accepted or revised,
and they have to be in compliance with thu schedule. Either
they are on schedule now or they are off schedule. If they
are off schedule, we will take appropriate action unless
the schedule is modified.
QUESTION: What about companies that maybe aren't
on the list that you published? Was any action taken, any
steps taken, to include these?
MR. STEIN: I think all discharges are included
whether they're on the list or not. I don't think there is
any place one can hide. Either they are covered by a State
program or an implementation plan. If they are not on the
list and we find them, they will be. Or if not, they are
-------
Conclusions
586
complying with a standard schedule and we can proceed against
them. Or maybe they are violating the 1899 act.
But if we find anyone discharging any wastes
into Long Island Sound or its tributaries that is polluting
the navigable waters of the United States, we are going to take
action against them. If you know any of those we have
omitted from the list that you think warrant looking into,
just call it to our attention and I'm sure we will give them
thorough and complete and fair consideration.
QUESTION: Could you tell us what you feel this
conference has accomplished?
MB. STEIN: Yes. We have brought together the
State and interstate agencies and the Federal Government.
We have had programs going perhaps in slightly disparate
directions for some time. I think we have brought them to-
gether. We have brought all the facts together in one situa-
tion, and all the conflicting views. We have unearthed
some situations that I don't think could have been done if you
just dealt with one jurisdiction or another.
I think a prime example is a sister agency, the
Corps of Engineers. You found the New England division
testifying about the waters of Long Island Sound when, lo and
behold, the New York office was issuing a permit for someone
to discharge into these waters.
-------
Conclusions
587
I think the efficacy of bringing this all together
under one roof and putting it on one record is self-evident.
We have also brought up to date the accomplishments
of the State and interstate agencies and also indicated
where the schedules or the accomplishments fell behind the
implementation schedule.
In addition to that, we heard from several citizens
and representatives of citizen groups of situations in
their areas that they regarded as gross violations of State
and Federal law. And I want to assure you that I am delighted
to get these. This is the heart of these conferences.
We are going to explore every one of these. If
there is a violation of State and Federal law, I am going to
recommend we take appropriate action to see that it doesn't
continue.
QUESTION: Will there be any followup to this con-
ference?
MR. STEIN: Yes. That's just what we are going to
do.
I don't think I'm oversimplifying this thing. But
the magic or the trick in this conference and let me give
you the name of the game here is we do have a program for
a cleanup of Long Island Sound. We have the general program
lined up. The point is at a conference like this you catt
-------
Conclusions
588
get a large number of dischargers complying with the schedule.
You are also going to find a large number of dischargers
who may have slipped a little but they are making valiant
efforts. And you are also going to find a number of dis-
chargers who either are not making efforts or, even despite
their efforts, have fallen so far behind that drastic
Federal legal action is called for.
I think we have shaken the box here, and these have
all fallen out.
QUESTION: Will there be any similar conference
or second conference or people getting together to see how
they are doing on following up these recommendations?
MR, STEIN: Well, the point is I have to qualify
that. The only one who can call these conferences is the
Administrator. We generally do follow up with a conference.
But everything we do is open, and any followup is made in the
newspapers. You can check up.
Generally speaking, we have from time to time
followed up on these conferences and met again to see how
well we were doing.
What we have done in the conference and I think
we have laid this wide open is we have laid out the
problems, we have laid out what we think the States should
do and we should do, and any member of the press or any other
-------
Conclusions
589
news-gathering agency, any city, any citizen group can call
us up at any time and find out how well we are doing. We reveal
the box score,
QUESTION: Right. I could say on recommendation
No. 3 I would have a hard time asking you how well you're
doing on that because it doesn't have any timetable or target
date or anything else. You know, high degree of secondary
treatment is being required is basically what it says. It
doesn't say by such and such a date.
MR. STEIN: No, that's just a factual statement.
I think you have to look at our implementation plans and the
State implementation plans in carrying out the water quality
standards and enforcement recommendations. There is a
date, or should be a date, on any specific community or
any specific industry, not only a date but interim dates.
We're going to get that. I think we discovered we had final
dates on most, but we hope in a month that the States
will supply us with all the interim dates.
Now, all you have to do on any specific source is
get to us and get to the States and we are going to be able
to give you a date. Or if they can't, you had better call
me and I'll get you a date on any one.
Then you have to recognize that all this says is
what the dates are going to require is these people to put
-------
Conclusions
590
in a high degree of secondary treatment, that they're not
going to be able to get by with some "chintzy" treatment.
But the reason they mention secondary treatment and
not the date is because it was thought pretty evident in the
conference that these dates were established.
I want to tell you as far as I am concerned all the
information we have is public information. We are a public
agency doing the public business in a public manner. Any
time you want data on any installation, you call us up and
let us know.
QUESTION; In your executive session were you able
to convince either Mr. Peloquin or Mr. Curry of the accuracy
of your basic report here, the blue book? They seemed to
raise a number of questions about it.
HRซ STEIN: I think the conclusions speak for them-
selves,
QUESTION: Well, of course, in your executive session
we don't know
MR. STEIN: I don't know about a "convincing." And
I know my limitations and my powers of persuasion in convincing.
But I think the facts are the things that convince. They
are both professional people and understand the facts.
Let me just take one extra second on this because
I think the situation here is in pollution control. What we
-------
Conclusions
591
are really doing is dealing with physical facts which can be
measured. There may be a little difference. But if you
take reasonable people *ho have been educated or at least
apply certain professional standards, there is no reason unless
you are an extremist and I don't regard Mr. Peloquin
or Mr. Curry to be in that class, to have a specialized,
peculiar theory that isn't common to most people, or to be
an extremist that the facts have to speak for them-
selves within, the profession.
I think this is what has happened, and that is
why we came up with unanimous conclusions and recommendations.
QUESTION: In the thermal pollution area, No. 11,
I assume this will apply to both nuclear and conventional
plants?
MR, STEIN: Yes.
QUE8TI0N: And the second part of my question is this:
From your earlier comments, it seems like you have got all
the technical data established already. How long will it take
to set up the requirement and set limits for this conference?
ICR, STEIN: I tend to agree with you
QUESTION: You seem to have outlined them all.
UK. STEIN: No, I tend to agree with you thซ.t we are
in pretty good shape. Again, what ne're dealing with here
is a Federal-State relationship. Possibly if I just sat with
-------
Conclusions
592
Federal scientists or Federal biologists I would think we had
this data available. But I do know in past experience when
we have dealt with States and interstate agencies we may
have had these scientists differ.
If there is a difference, we are certainly going to
air that in the technical confrontations.
Again, I would like to come back to the statement
we have had here. We are dealing with physical facts, and 1
don't look for any real problem
QUESTION: Well, how long
MR, STEIN: in making the physical facts apply to
a particular situation.
QUESTION: How long before you might have a
deadline and then I guess these standards would apply to all ~
MR. STEIN: We didn't set the deadline, and we
didn't set the deadline in the meeting for this* I thought,
at least in my view, that this shouldn't take more than a
month. Some people thought this might take up to three
months. So we didn't set the time.
But I am going to have the technical staff meet
and then see what the problems and what the differences are.
I think you've got a kind of a ball park figure. If there
are any really fundamental differences it may go up to three
months. If there are not, they should be able to resolve it
-------
Conclusions
593
very| very fast,
We haven1t had the fisheries biologists and aquatic
biologists here to consult. But once we get then there, I
don't look for any real problem. And I don't think the
tine span we gave gives that much difference. It's really
de minimis*
QUESTION: Did you come up with any estimate of
how many power plants might be required to have cooling
towers or other facilities?
MB. STEIN: No, we didn't. But I think again here
you have a proposal on these power plants, and I don't know
how definite they are. As 1 read the Federal report, they
had a couple of plants coming up in 1975, supposed to go on
line. I think we should get to work right away on these.
But I don't think in a sense we have any of these breathing
down our necks.
QUESTION: We're talking about new power plants only
then, not existing plants?
MR* STBIN: No, we're talking about existing plants
too. We're going to look at the whole operation. But I
think what you have to do with existing power plants is the
same as where you have existing municipal or industrial
discharges. Presumably they are putting out their discharges
right now, and you should be able to make a determination
-------
Conclusions
594
whether they are interfering with water quality or not. But
with the new plant we have to make a projection. Then we
have to put them both together and determine whether with the
existing plants or the new plants and both together we are
going to have a problem.
But we have dealt with these problems before, and
I think whether we are going to require closed cycle on
new plants or cooling towers on new plants or backfitting
on old or draw a distinction between them is something that
the conferees are going to have to determine, I think we
should be able to do that very shortly.
QUESTION: Mr. Stein, you have just finished an
enforcement conference with very minimal attendance by the
people who have to be enforced, the people who are discharging
pollution. What effort did the EPA make to obtain the
attendance of these polluters?
MR. STEIN: The way the law reads, sir, the conferees
are the States, the interstate agencies, and the Federal
Government. There was a strong feeling of States' rights
when this law was passed. We invited the States, and under
the law they can bring whomever they wish to the conference.
Presumably the States invited these other people. We do not
have the power of subpeona.
The administration's proposed legislation proposes
-------
Conclusions
595
that when we go into a substitute proceeding of this kind,
which they will call a hearing, these other alleged polluters
or dischargers will be parties to this proceeding and we will
be given subpeona power in order to bring them in. We don't
have that now.
QUESTION: When are you likely to receive that?
MR, STEIN: Bo you want me to anticipate when we will
receive legislation?
QUESTION: When would a substitute regulation be
likely to
MR, STEIN: It's not a regulation. It's a law.
This is the law. And I'm Just not snart enough to know when
the Congress is going to pass a law.
QUESTION1; Does the current law expire?
MR. STEIN: Ho.
QUESTION: No? So they will have to
MR, STEIN: They will have to amend it or the
present law will continue.
QUESTION: You mentioned briefly these layoffs.
Is there any recourse now or anticipated against companies
threatening these layoffs or closing rather than complying
with standards?
MB. STEIN: Oh, companies threaten layoffs all the
time* I think you can count on the fingers of two hands
-------
Conclusions
596
in my 25 or 30 years of experience in water pollution control
where a bona fide layoff or closedown was due to pollution
control* I think this is a gut reaction.
Nov, it's like a baseball player getting up and
cheering when Babe Buth hits a hone run. You've got to
expect that.
QUESTION: One more question, Mr. Stein. Earlier
this week a group in Washington headed by Nader issued a
report concerning the pollution activities regarding water
anti-pollution activities of the government. It wasn't
a very optimistic one. It wasn't very praiseworthy# Do
you have some comment on some of the criticisms in that?
MB. STEIN: No, I don't have any comment on that.
I do know that the Nader people came around to our place
two summers ago. Tbat's the summer before this summer. I
think I had at that time about 20 people out of 500 people
in headquarters, and they devoted 80 percent of the report
to my activities.
I said before that after I read that report I
felt a little like the old man who was unjustifiably accused
of rape. A couple of guys from the bar came out and beat him
up in an alley, and they asked him about it, how did he
feel about it.
And he said, "You know, if it wasn't for the honor,
-------
597
Conclusions
I'd just as soon skip the experience. (Laughter)
Any further questions?
(No response.)
(Whereupon, at 5:50 p.m., the press conference
was concluded.)
* ~ *
-------
MUNICIPAL, PRIVATE ADO 1NST1TOTIONAL DISCHARGES
TO LONG ISLAND SOUND AND CERTAIN TRIBDTJEIKS
AS SUBMITTED BT TOE STATE OF CONNECTITDCT
KHEi A "1" AFTER IBS DUES INDICATES COKPUAHCE WITH TEAT STEP CP THE IMPLEKEMTATICM SCHEOTSI
-------
DISCHARGES TO LONG ISLAND SOUND AND CERTAIN TRIBUTARIES
(As Submitted by the State of Connecticut)
Receiving Waters
Estimated
Population
Served
Greenwich Greenwich Barber 421200
Byram River Interceptor
Belle Haven Interector
Stamford Stamford Harbor 92,700*
Interceptors
Stamford-lndian-Rldge Rippowaa River 500
Darlea Long Island Sound 6,300
Kormalk Horwlk River 55,000
Sever*
Noxwalk (6th Tax Dlstrict)HorMalk River
Wettport Sewer* SATJGJT0CK River 48,000
Fairfield Long Island Sound 30,000
Bridgeport-West Side Cedar Creek 90,000
Municipalities
With Combined
Sellers
Connecticut
4.60
0.05
0.70
9.00
0.50
3.75
24.00
State Implementation Schedule
As of May 1,1971
Average
Dally
Flow
(MOD)
Submit
Degree of Preliminary
Treatment Plans
Secondary
9.20 Primary
Tertiary
Primary
Primary
Septic Tank
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
7/67
7/67
12/67
7/67
1/69
3/68
5/68
9/67
Submit
Final
Plans
Start
Construction
Complete
Construction
3/71
11/69
1
1/70
1
1/71
8/69
1
2/70
5/71
2/70
5/71
8/69
1
ป
2/69
10/69
10/70
10/69
1
6/71
7/71
12/70
5/71
10/72
9/71
4/70
1
12/70
3/72
3/69
1
2/71
1
8/72
1/69
1/70
1/72
-------
DISCHARGES TO LONG ISUKD SOUND AMD CERTAIN TRXEUTUUKS
(Continued)
State Implementation Schedule
As of May 1. 1971
Average
Receiving. ttateri
Estimated
Population
Served
Municipal idea
With Combined
Sewer*
Dally
Flow
(MGD)
Degree Of
Treatment
Submit
Preliminary
Plan*
Submit
final
Plana
Start
Construction
Coupleta
Construction
Connecticut
Bridgeport-East Side
Bridgeport Harbor
40,000
X
11.00
Primary
9/67 1
1/69
1
1/70
1
12/72
Stratford
Housatonic River
40,000
6.00
Primary
9/67 1
3/69
1
1/71
1
1/73
Shel ton-Xain
Housatonic Elver
10,000
X
1.00
Primary
3/6(1 1
3/70
1
9/70
6/71
Shelton-Ronte 1
Housatonic River
1.00
Secondary
8/67 1
4/67
1
4/67
1
11/67 1
Darby
Housatonic River
8,500
X
0.8S
Primary
1/60 1
12/69
6/70
6/71
HI1ford (Savon)
Housatonic Rlvar
Secondary
6/6 7 1
7/67
1
1/68
1
5/69 1
Hllford (Town Headowt)
Hilioxd T5*rt>or
\C,ซป
l.tt
Secondary
Kilford (Harbor Plant)
Mil ford Barber
4,000
0.60
Secondary
Milford (Gulf fond Plant) Gulf Pood
6,000
1.40
Secondary
We at Haven
Hew Haven Harbor
40,000
5.00
Primary
12/67 1
12/6S
1
2/71
1
2/73
Raw Haven-Boul cvard Plant Haw Haven Harbor
76,600
X
11.30
Primary
8/69 1
12/71
6/72
12/74
a>
o
o
-------
2x~wHAKGES 10 LONG ISIAME SOUND AHD CERTAIN *tiIBUlARIES
(Ae Submitted by the State of Connecticut)
State Implementation Schedule
Rase
Receiving Waters
Estimated
Population
Served
Municipalities
With Combined
Severs
Daily
Flos
j;hgd)
Degree of
Treatment
Submit
Preliminary
Plana
Submit
Pinal
Plans
Start
Construction
Cccplete
Construction
Sew Haven-Esst St Plant Sew Haven Harbor
67,500
X
11.20
Primary
8/69
1
12/71
6/72
12/7k
Eew Haven-East Shore Fit. Hen Haven Harbor
3U.900
X
6.00
Primary
8/69
1
12/71
6/72
12/71*
Rorth Haven
Qulnnipae River
lฃ,000
5.00
Secondary
3/68
1
7/68
1
3/69
1
2/70 1
East Lyme-Rocky Beck
Long Island Sound.
0.02
Subsurface
10/67
l
5/68
1
12/68
1
6/69 1
State Park
6/68
2/69
IO/69 1
East Lyae-Hiantic
Bride Brook
0.03
Secondary
1
1
State Far*
East Lyme-Caap Dempsey
Man tic Elver
0.38
Subsurface
9/67
l
3/68
1
11/68
1
6/69
Vaterford-Seaside
Long Island Sound
0.03
Secondary
U/68
1
12/68
1
6/69 1
St. Saa.
.New 1
Thames River
32,700
3.20
Primary
10/67
1
9/68
7/69
7/70
St. Plant
Hew London-Riverside
Thames River
2,600
0.20
'Primary
10/67
1
6/68
V69
10/69
Plant
Vaterford
Thanes River
Individual
5/68
1
6/69
6/70
6/71
Montville
Thames River
Individual
10/67
1
12/69
7/70
11/71
Sorwlch
Shetucket & Thames R.2^,000
X
1.50
Primary
12/67
1
12/68
1
5/71
12/71
Yantic Interceptor
^,500
12/67
1
6/68
1
3/71
1
9/72 1
Shetucket Interceptor
12/67
l
6/68
1
6/71
11/72
La. Hill & Thames Inter.
12/67
1
11/68
1
6/69
3/70
Ledyard-Lifetine Hones .Williams Brook
O.OB
Tertiary
5/68
1
2/69
1
V69
1
5/69 1
-------
D1
.iAKGES TO LONG ISLAND SOUND AND CERTAIN .^XBWTARIES
As Submitted by the State of Connecticut
State Implementation Schedule
As of May 1, 1971
Name
Receiving Waters
Estimated
Population
Served
Municipalities
With Combined
Sewers
Average
Daily
Flow
Degree of
Treatment
Submit
Preliminary
Plans
Submit
Final
Plans
Start
Construction
Ccsple'
Construe'
Groton City-Fort St.
Plant
Thames River
10,000
1.30
Primary
10/67
1
10/68
1
9/69 1
11/71
Groton City-Branford
Court
Bakere Cove
800
0.03
TO BE ELIMINATED
Groton Tcwn-Fart Hill
Haaea
Mumford Core
U,800
0.30
Secondary
7/68
1
6/69
10/70
Interceptor
1
7/68
1
5/70
9/71
Stonington-Jfystic
Mystic River
0.05
Secondary
8/67
1
7/69
1
l*/72
V72
Stonington-Boro
Staniogton Harbor
0.12
Secondary
11/67
1
8/69
1
1/70
1/71
Stonington-Pawcatuck
Pawcatuck River
8/67
1
10/69
3/70
3/71
-------
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
TO LONG ISLAND SOUND AND CERTAIN TRIBUTARIES
AS SUBMimU 3T THE STATE OP CONNECTICUT
MOTEj A *1" ATreR THE DATES INDICATES COMPLIANCE WITH THAT STEP OF THE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
-------
DISCHARGES TO LONG ISIAND SOUND AND CERTAIN TRIBUTARIES
(As Submitted by the State of Connecticut)
State Implementation Schedule
As of Mav 1. 1071
Name
Location
Number of
Employee^
Type of Product
Receiving Waters
Submit Submit
Preliminary Final
Flans Plans
Start
Construction
Coeplete
Construction
GAP Corporation Greenwich 8l4
New England Motor# Greenwich
Globe Slicing Machines Stamford 150
Co. Inc.
Machlett Laboratories Inc. Stamford 1,600
Laminated Shim Co. Inc. Stamford 250
Hoffman Fuel Co. Inc Stamford
Cerro Copper & Brass Co. Stamford 300
National Dairy Products Stamford
Corp (Sealtest)
Acme Electroplating Inc. Stamford
Stamford Polishing & Stamford
Plating
Pitney Bowers Stamford
Devine Brothers Korvalk
Xing Organic Chemical Co. Horvalk 10
Pelt-wool and
Synthetic filters
(sanitary)
Food Slicers and
Choppers
X-ray tubes
Laminated Stampings
Copper & Brass
Products
(Sanitary)
Dairy Products
Electroplating
Metal Polishing
Chrome-Mieke1 Plating
Machinery
Rubber-Plasticlzers
Byram River
Stamford Harbor
Noroton River
Stamford Harbor
Stamford Harbor
Stamford Harbor
Stamford Harbor
Stamford Harbor
Stamford Harbor
Stamford Harbor
Norvalk River
Norwalk River
12/68 1 3/70 1
9/68
3/66
V71
V71
6/71
9/68
9/69
3/6$
6/69
8/68
7/71
7/71
11/71
1/69
8/67
3/70
1
1
1/70 1 6/70
2/69 1 7/69 1
1
1
3/71
6/68
6/69
9/68
9/70
10/69
9/71
9/71
2/72
3/69
11/67
5/70
9/71
12/68 1
1/72
3/o9 1
7/63
-3/71
7/70 :
12/67 1
7/70
2/72
5''72
I!/":
0)
o
-------
DJHARGES TO LONG I3IAND SOUND AND CERIAL JOBUTARIES
(As Submitted toy the State of Connecticut)
State Implementation Schedule
As of May 1. 1971
Saw
Location
Ninriher of
Enrolaveee
Type of Product
Receiving Waters
Submit
Preliminary
Plans
Submit
Final
Plans
Start
Construction
Ceeplete
Construction
Norvelk Asphalt
Norwalk
Norwalk River
9/68
1
1/69
1
3/69
1
8/69
1
Caldor
Norwalk
(Sanitary)
Norwalk Harbor
9/71
Fairfield Investors, Inc.
Norwalk
(Sanitary)
Norwalk Harbor
9/71
1
Rowayton Market
Norwalk
(Sanitary)
Norwalk Harbor
9/71
Rowayton Pharmacy
Norwalk
(Sanitary)
Norwalk Harbor
9/71
Soybel Realty Co.
Norvalk
(Sanitary)
Norwalk Harbor
9/71
Stephanak Brothers Inc.
Norwalk
(Sanitary)
Norwalk Harbor
9/71
Wash-A-VJay car Hashers
Westport
Auto Washing
Saugatuck River
INJUNCTION NO SCHEDUIZ
Fremont Div. Dynamics Corp. Bridgeport
250
Generator Sets-(San.)
Bridgeport Harbor
6/70
1.
Carpenter Steel
Bridgeport
1,000
Alloy & Stainless Steel
Bridgegot Harbor
12/68
1
V69
1
7/69
1
V70
Bridgeport Brass
Bridgeport
Bridgeport Harbor
12/71
1
6/72
12/72
12/73
Herman Isaacs, Inc.
Bridgeport
Bridgeport Harbor
9/69
2/70
1
5/70
-1
12/70
1
Bullard Ccnpany Fairfield
Clark Metal Products Inc.Fairfield
2,000
125
Machinery
(Sanitary)
Small Metal Products
Bridgeport Harbor
Black Rock Harbor
3/68
9/68
1
1
12/68
5/69
1
1
3/69
9/69
1
12/69
6/68
5/70
1
Wakeman Memorial, Inc.
Fairfield
(Sanitary)
Black Rock Harbor
10/69
C. 0. Jelliff Mfg Co.
Fairfield
200
Woven Wire Mesh
Black Rock Harbor
12/68
1
2/71
1
5/71
3/72
-------
D. HARGES TO HONG ISLAHD SOUND AND CERTAi. TRIBUTARIES
(As Submitted fay the State of Connecticut)
State Implementation Schedule
: As of Kay 1, 1971
Submit Submit
n.
Location
Nuriber of
Employees
Type of Product
Receiving Waters
Preliminary
Plans
Final
Plans
Start
Construction
Casplete
Construction
Electric Storage Battery Co. Fairfield
Handy and Harmon Fairfield
108
800
Automotive Storage
Batteries
Precious Metals
Black Rock Harbor
Slack Rock Harbor
6/68
1
2/69
3/69
1
1
4/69
6/69
1
1
V70 1
3/70 l
Parker's Daisy Co.
Trumbull
15
I airy Pro-tacts
Poquonock Biver
9/68
1
2/69
1
5/69
1
12/69 1
Hull Dye & Prist Works,
Incorporated
Derby
300
Textile Dying and
Finishing (Sanitary)
Housatonic River
10/68
1
3/70
1
9/70
1
6/71
6/71
The United Illuminating
Company
Derby
Electricity-(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
1./70 1
W.E Bassett Co.
Derby
180
Manicure Implements
(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
1/68
1
7/69
1
9/69
1
fc/70
10/67 1
Apex Tool & Cutter Co.
Shelton
100
Tools, Holders and
Milling Butters
(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
9/68
1
U/69
1
6/69
1
12/69 1
U/6S 1
B. 7. Goodrich Sponge
Product*
Shelton
2,000
Industrial Cellular
Rubber
(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
3/69
1
5/69
1
7/69
1
U/70
9/68 l
Chromium Process Co.
Shelton
225
Electronics
(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
12/67
1
3/68
1
7/c9
11/67 ;
Driscoll Wire Co.
Shelton
'5
Low Carbon Steel Wire
(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
9/68
1
lt/69
1
6/69
12,. 69
ซv'69
Empire State Uovelty Corp
. Shelton
(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
9/68
1
k/69
1
6/69
1
12 -
<31
0
01
-------
E HARGES TO LONG ISLAND SOUND AND CERTAX. .RIBUTARIES
(As Subaitted by the State of Connecticut)
State Implementation Schedule
As of Mav 1. 1971
Haste
Location
Number of
Employees
Type of Product
Receiving Haters
Submit
Preliminary
Plans
Submit
Final
Plans
Start
Construction
Cccplete
Construction
Axton Cross
Shelton
Mechanical Shop
Housatonic Biver
1
Shelton Tubular Rivet
Shelton
Screw Machine Products
Housatonic River
9/68
9/69
6/69
12,69
1
H. K. Porter Co
Shelton
Housatonic River
1/69
1
Star Pi*
Star Fill Co.
Shelton
Shelton
160
Common, Safety Pins
Hairpins
Housatonic River
Housatonic River
9/68
1
1/69
1
-/6c
7/71
1
Wire Wovelty Company
Shelton
ISO
Wire & Metal
Specialities
(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
9/68
1
k/69
1
6/69
1
12/69
U/l3
1
I
Scotch Wash
Shelton
Farnri.il River
8/69
1
11/69
1
3/70
1
6/70
-
East Village Land Co
Shelton
Farmill River
8/69
1
11/69
1
3/70
1
6/70
-
Chemical Plating Co.
Stratford
55
Electroplating
Bridgeport Harbor
k/69
1
12/69
1 10/70
7,71
Contract Plating Co.
Stratford
130
Metal Finishes
Housatonic River
8/68
1
1/69
1
k/69
1
8/70
1
Ross & Roberta
Stratford
250
Vinyl & Polyethylene
Film and Sheeting
Housatonic River
12/68
1
5/69
1
0\
CO
1
6/70
Eaybestog-Manhattan, Inc.
Stratford
1,250
Asbestos & Metallic
Brake Linings
Housatonic River
1/69
ฆ 1
5/69
1
8/69
1
12/69
1
Tilo Co. Inc.
Stratford
1,500
Asphalt & Asbestos
Housatonic River
7/68
1
12/68
1
k/69
1
1/70
:
Bridgeport Rolling Hills
Stratford
130
Aluminum, Brass It
Bronze
Bridgeport Harbor
8/68
1
6/71
7/71
1/72
Cbathaa Associates
Stratford
(Sanitary)
Housatonic River
k/ll
607
-------
DISCHARGES TO LONG ISIAND SOUND AND CERTAIN 'i^XBUTABDSS
(As Submitted by the State of Connecticut)
State Implementation Schedule
As of May 1. 1371
Semes
Location
Number of
Employees
Type of Product
Receiving Waters
Subnit
Preliminary
Plans
Submit
Final
Plans
Start
Construction
Cocplete
Construction
Sikorsky Aircraft
Stratford
9.83?
Helicopters-(Sani taiy )
Housatonic Hirer
1/73
Branch Motor Express Co.
Orange
Milford Harbor
6/68
l
15/66 1
3/69
1
9/69 1
National Screw Products
Co. Inc.
Orange
Kilford Harbor
6/68 i
Adley Express Corp.
Orange
Milford Harbor
6/70
6/70
9/70
3/71
Syndicated Realty
Orange
50
Milford Harbor
6/68
l
1/69 1
3/69
1
12/69 :
Buyck Corp.
Milford Rivet & Machine
Canpany
Milford
Milford
50
U75
Paper Making
Machinery
Tubular Bivets
Milford Harbor
Milford Harbor
1/68
11/67
l
1
4/68 l
2/68 1
II
1
1
12/63 1
10/68 i
Robertshaw Control Co. Milford
TJ. S. Electronic Motors Di-r.
Emerson Electric Mfg. Co. Milford
U93
1,025
Metallic Bellotrs It
Bellows Assezfclies
Electric Motors
Milford Harbor
Milford Harbor
3/68
10/68
1
l
10/68 l
8/70 l.
1/69
11/TO
1
1
12/o?
8/71
Vaterbury Lock & Specialty
Company
Milford
300
Locks, Cigarette
Lighters
Milford Harbor
lป/68
l
7/68 1
9/68
1 '
3/C9 1
Mayflower Track Shop
Milford
Sanitary
5/71
7/71
9/71
Mayflower Diner
Milford
Sanitary
5/71
Areo
Stratford
Aircraft Parts
7/71
12/71
2/72
10/72
-------
DISCHARGES 10 LOHG ISIAftf SOUND ADD CERTAIN TRIBUTARIES
(As Submitted by the State of Connecticut)
State Implementation Schedule
As of May 1. 1971
Subudt Submit
IfuAer at Preliminary Final Start Complete
ei Location Baplovee* Type of Product Receiving Waters Plans Plans Construction Cocstmcti on
Secondl Brothers Service
Station
Hilfard
Milford Harbor
1/70
1
2/70
1
5/70
1
12/70
The Rex Company
Milford
Milford Harbor
5/70
7/70
9/70
12/70
Eldorado Trans. Co.
Milford
Milford Harbor
9/70
1
12/70 1
Volvo City
Milford
Auto Dealer
Milford Harbor
INJUNCTION NO SCHEDW2
American Powered Metals
Borth Haven
200
Powdered Metal Parts
Quirmipiac River
10/68
l
2/69
1
5/69
1
12/60 1
Burndy Corp.
North Haven
200
Electrical Connectors
Qnlimlpiac River
1/69
1
V69
1
12/69
City Printing Co.
Borth Hanmn
75
Printing & Lithography
New Haven Harbor
12/67
1
3/68
1
6/68 1
Hunphrey Chemicals
North Haven
25
Organic Chemicals
Quinnipiac River
1/68
1
10/69
12/69
6/70
Piatt & Labonia Co .
Borth Bkrd
60
Sheet Metal Fabricators
Quinnipiac River
1/69
V69
12/69
Axtcn-Croas Co.
Korth Haven
60
Industrial Cheaicals
Quinnipiac River
PERMIT NO
SCHEDULE
Pratt & Kiitney Aircraft
(United Aircraft)
Korth Haven
2,500
Aircraft & Marine
Engines
Quinnipiac River
11/68
1
11/70
1
10/70
1
1/72
Union Carbide, T.lnde Air
Products Co. &ie.
Borth Haven
15
Ccnpressed Gases
Quinnipiac River
8/68
1
12/68
1
3/69
1"
9/69 1
0. t. Hostberg t Sons
Korth Haven
300
Firearm*
Quinnipiac River
6/69
1
11/69
1
1/70
1
6/70 1
Upjohn Co, Carvin Organic
nwiii >i>
Korth Haven
200
Synthetic Organic
Cheaicals
Quinnipiac River
6/70
9/70
V71
10/71
-------
ijxiaCHARGES TO LONG ISIAND SOUND AUD CERIM3E TRIBUTARIES
(As Submitted by the State of Connecticut)
State Implementation Schedule
JLs of fev I- lffii
Danes
number of
Location Employees
Tvue of Product
Receiving Waters
Submit
Preliminarj
Plans
Submit
Final
Plans
Start
Construction
C delete
Cor.structior.
"Dpjotan Co. Catwin Organic
Chemicals
North Haven
2Q0
Synthetic Organic
Qjiinnipiai River
2/68
1
5/68
1
7/68
1
2/6?
1
Viae eat Bo.anocore & Sons
BorOi Haven
15
IB nea
Quinnipiao River
9/6?
1
3/70
1
5/70
1
12/70
Orabdin Farcil> Spray Trust
North Haven
Quinnipiae River
3/71
6/71
8/71
"3/72
Circuit-Vfiee, Inc.
Sorth Haven
26
Printed Circuit
Boards
Quinnipiae River
3/71
6/71
8/71
3/72
C. W. BLakeslee & Sons
New Raven
General Contrasting
New Haven Harbor
3/66
1
6/68
1
8/68
1
12/66
1
Federal Paper Board Co.
Sew Haven
750
Folding Boxboard
Mill Biver
8/66
U/69
10/69
10/70
North Haven Laundramat
North Haven
Lanudiy
1
Empire Car Waab
North Haven
7/69
1
Humble Oil
New Haven
New Haven Harbor
11/66
1
3/6?
1
6/69
1
12/69
1
Kite Carp.
New Haven
300
Electrical Equipment
West River
U/69
1
Z/69
11/69
5/70
Hew Haven Board & Carton
New Haven
500
Folding Boaftoard.
Hill River
8/66
1
U/69
1
10/69
10/70
Seftmless Rubber Co. Div.
Bexall Drug 4 Chemical Co
New Haven
900
Rubber Sundries
New Haven Harbor
6/71
1
6/71
9/71
12/71
0. S. Steel, American Steel Hew Haven
k Wire Division
300
Dot Boiled fc Cold
Finished Bars
Quinnipiac River
8/68
1
12/69
1
3/70
1
1/71
New Haven Malleable Iron
Coapanf
Neu Haven
Sanitary
Mew Haven Harbor
7/i?
Textron Electronics
Wen Haven
New Haven Harbor
5/69
1
1Q/69
2/70
12/70
a
-------
DISCHARGES TO LONG ISLAND SOUND AND CERTAIN TRIBUTARIES
(As Submitted by the State of Connecticut)
State Implementation Schedule
As of Kay 1. 1971
Submit Submit
of Preliminary Final Start Complete
Location Employees Type of Product Receiving Waters Plar.s Plans Construction _ Construction
Barnes
Penn Central Co. Union St.
New Haven
4iew Haven Harbor
5/70
1
10/70
10/71
Penn Central Co. Cedar Hall
New Haven
Quinnipiac River
3/70
1
5/70
1.
10/70
10/71
Himnel Brothers
Haaden
70
Metal Moldings
Quinnipiac Biver
6/68
1
1/69
1
3/69
1
2/70
1
Giering Metal Finishing Inc.
Baaden
50
Metal Finishing
Quinnipiac River
7/68
1
2/69
1,
/69
1
3/70
1
South Conn. Gas Co.
New Haven
(Sanitary)
New Haven Harbor
11/72
The United Illuminating Co.
Hew Haven
Electrieity-(Sanitary)
Mill River
11/72
Corenco Corp.
West Haven
675
Tallow & Grease Hides
New Haven Harbor
9/69
1
3/70
1
5/70
1
12/70
1
Car Washers, Inc.
litest Haven
Auto Washing
New Haven Harbor
2/70
2/70
5/70
10/70
American Buckle Co.
West Haven
20
Clothing Buckles
New Haven Harbor'
12/69
1
2/70
1
6/70
1
12/70
1
Armstrong Rubber Co.
West Haven
l,lป71
Tires & Tubes
New Haven Harbor
1/71
1
6/71
9/71
ii/72
Areola' Wire Co
Branford
11
Round Aluminum Wire
Branford Harbor
8/68
1
3/69
1
7/6 9
3/70
0. J. King
Branford
Branford Harbor
8/68
1
1/69
1
3/69
1
9/69
National Qypsu*
New Haven
11/68
1
3/69
1
6/69
1
12/69
1
Carroll Johnson
Branford
(Sanitary)
Branford Harbor
LIS
Branford Harbor
LIS
Branford Harbor
V68
6/68
6/68
Mr. & Mrs. George Hugret
Branford
(Sanitary)
14/68
6/68
S/6S
Brandon Company
Branford
(Sanitary)
12/6S
1
Be: hi in Mfg. Co.
Branford
550
Automobile Parts
Branford River
6/69
1
11/69
1
U/ 70
1
'9/70
1
0)
N
H
-------
DISCHARGES TO LONG ISLAHi?' SOUND AND CERTAIN TRIBUTARIES
(As Submitted by the State of Connecticut)
State Implementation Schedule
Names
Number of
Location Enrolovees
Tvpe of Product
Submit
Preliminary
Receiving Waters Plans
Submit
Final
Plans
Start
Construction
Ccrrplete
Construction
Atlantic Wire Co.
Branford
250
Iron It Steel Wire
Branford Harbor
11/68
1
7/69
1
9/69 1
ii/70
Sunmit House Restsruant
Branford
(Sanitary)
Branford Strean
12/68 1
Malleable Iron Fittings Co.
Olin Corporation
Branford
Branford
622
Metal Fabricating
Branford Harbor
Branford River
12/69
PERMIT
1
3/70
6/70
10/70
1/70 1
Maple Shade Fain, Inc.
Guilford
100
Dairy Products
Streaa
9/67
1
10/67
la/68
Waverly Chemical Co. Inc.
Guilford
5
Hagnesiuai
Guilford Harbor LIS
12/66
1
12/68
1
Li/70
6/70
Madison Laundernat
Madison
Strean
2/68
1
h/68 1
7/68 1
Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc.
Clinton
i,U5o
Pharaaeeuticals
Clinton Harbor
5/68
1
11/68
2/70
10/70
Universal Wire of Bostiteh
Division of Textron, Inc.
Clinton
100
Wire Drawings
Clinton Harbor
5/69
1
2/70
1
7/70 1
Li/71 1
Saybrook Laundry
Old Saybrook
Laundry
L.I.S.
9/67
1
3/68
1
1
1
Barbara Johnson
Vestbrook
L.Z.S.
5/68
1'
7/68
1
9/68- 1
1
Mrs. Russell Arnta
Vestbrook
L.I.S.
2/69
1
6/69
1
7/69 1
1
August & Olin Neidlinger
Vestbrook
L.I.S.
5/68
1
7/68
1
9/68 1
1
Frank Rullyetal
Vfestbrook
L.I.S.
10/68
1
12/68
1
It/69
Verplex Conpaqy
Essex
2 bo
Lampshades
Connecticut River
6/68
1
9/68
1
11/68 1
3/6? 1
Chas. Pfiaer I Co., Inc.
Groton
2,000
Pharmaceutical*
Thames River
12/67
1
5/68
1
9/70 1
12/71
to
-------
DISCHARGES TO U)NG ISLAND SCXJND AND CERTAIN oRIBUTARIES
(As Submitted by the State of Connecticut)
State Implementation Schedule
As of Kay 1. 1971
Submit Submit
Number of Preliminary Final Start Cor^plete
Kanes location Employees Type of Product 'Receiving Waters Plans Plans Construction Construction
General Dynaraie Corp.
Electric Boat Dฑt.
Breton
18,000
Ships (Sanitary)
Birch Plain '
.6/69
1
8/69
1
11/69
1
Compass, Ins.
Groton
5
Newspaper-( Sani tary)
Jtrstic River
SEWER CONNECTION
13/70
Fusconi Cleaners & Tailors
Groton
Thames River
SEWEH C0NNBCTI0H
9/71
Canpenelli Corp.
Lec^yard
Thames River
8/68
1
10/68
1
U/69
1
Continental Can Co.
Hontville
17li
Paperboard
(Sanitary)
Thanes River
2/69 1 10/69
U/68 1 6/68
1
1
lป/70
9/68
1
1
li/71
12/68
l
l
Federal Paper Board Co.
Montville
100
Folding Boxboards
Oxoboxo Brook
2/69 1 10/69
1
h/70
1
ii/71
l
Robertson Paper Bos Co.
Montville
ltOO
Folding Boxboards
Oxoboxo Brook
2/69 1 10/69
li/70
U/71
Thomas Q. Faria Corp.
Montville
130
Automotive & Marine
Instruments
(Sanitary)
Oxoboxo Brook
SEWER CONNECTION
12/71
Finley Screw Machine Prod.
Montville
5
Screw Machine Prod.
Oxoboxo. Brook
SEWER CONNECTIOH
12/71
Conn.Light & Power Co.
Montville
Power
Thanes River-
PERMIT
American Velvet Co.
(A. Wimpfheimer & Brothers
Ine.)
Stoning ton
350
Velvet & Plushes
(Sanitary)
Stonington Harbor
SEVER COKN ACTION
12/73
12/70
Monsanto Company
Stonington
100
Plastic Bottles
(Sanitary)
Stoning ton Harbor
SEWER CONNECTION
l?/7 :
n/r.
Douglas Randall, Ine.
(Subsid. of Walter Kidde fc
Co.,Inc.)
Stoning ton
2$0
Electronic Equipment
Pawcatuck River
S2WIS C0NN3CTI01I
i'i/
at
CO
-------
DISCHARGES TO LONG ISIAND SOUND AND CERTAIN TRIBUTARIES
(As Submitted by the State of Connecticut)
Names
State Implementation Schedule
As of Kay 1. 1071
Number of
Submit
Preliminary
Plans
Submit
Final
Plans
Start
Construction
Complete
Construction
Carole Realty
Stoning ton
Sanitary
Eawcatuck River
SEWBl
CONNECTION
12/70
Micro Leather
Stonington
Leather Products
(Sanitary)
Pavcatuck River
SEWER
connection
12/70
Aaron Lerine
Stoning ton
Sanitary
Paireatuck River
SEWER
CONNECTION
12/70
Russell A. Llrrihiw
Stoning ton
Sanitary
Pawcatuck River
SEWiK
1
a
I
12/70
Cooper Laboratories
(lite Packer Co. Dir.)
S toning ton
20
Soaps & Shampoos
(Sanitary)
Mystic River
SEWER
CONNECTION
5/72
5/72
Puritan Laundry
Stoning ton
15
Laundzy
Paneatuck River
SEiTER
CONNECTION
12/70
Sirtex Printing Co.
General D^aaxics Corp.
Stoning ton
Stoning ton
20
18,000
Textile Printing
(Sanitary)
Warehouse
" Mystic River
Stonington Harbor
3/68
SEWฎ
8/68
connecM&I
11/68
6/68
5/72
5/72
12/70
Yardney Electrie Co.
Stonington
Electronic Equipment
Paveatuck River
SEW31
CONNECTION
12/70
Tardney Electric Cq.
Stonington
Electronic Equipment
Pavcatuck River
SEWIK
OONNECHON
12/70
Cotrell Co.
Stonington
PaHcatuck River
SEWER
CONNECTION
12/70
A. Wimptiner & Son
Stonington
sewik
CONNECTION
12/70
J. St J. Machine C.
Stonington
Machinery
SEWER
CONNECTION
12/70
Conn. Investment Casting
Stonington
Primary Metals
1/68 1
U/68
1
8/68
<3)
l-f
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Henry L Diamond
Commissioner
801 North Broadway, White Plains, N.Y. 10603
June 16, 1971
Mr. William Librizzi
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of the Interior
EcLiBon, New Jersey 08817
Dear Mr. IAorizzi:
Enclosed please find proposed dates for advanced
waste treatment facilities for those plants and industries
discharging to Long Island Sound in the New York area.
Ihese dates are the present imst realistic dates for
the completion of these facilities. If some of these dates
do not meet present orders for these communities, they will
be presented to our Enforcement Section for any action they
may wish to take in this matter.
Very truly yours
John E. Harrison, P.E.
Regional Director of Environmental
Quality, White Plains Region
JEH/sb
cc: Mr. Garvey - Enforcement Section
Mr. Seebald - Division of Pure Waters
-------
616
STATUS LONG ISLAND SOUND ENFORCEMENT
SUFFOLK COUNTY
Greenport (V)
Engineering Report - Approved 5/15/70
Final Plans - Approved 3/31/71
Start Construction 7/l/71
End Construction j/l/72
Port Jefferson S.D.
Engineering Report
Final Plans
Start Construction
End Construction
Phase I
5/15/71
9/15/71
3/3/72
10/1/72
Phase II
7/1/71
Vl/72
10/1/72
10/1/73
Kings Park State Hospital - Plans for alteration of facilities to
handle scavenger wastes are being drawn up. transfer of facility to the
Town of Sraithtown is almost complete.
Northport
Start Construction U/l/71
End Construction k/l/72
Huntington S.D. - No expansion planned.
NASSAU COUNTY
Oyster Bay Sewer District
time.
Glen Cove - Morgan Estates
This facility is mot being expanded at this
Authority to AdTertise
Construction to Start
Construction to End
Glen Cove (C)
Engineering Report
Final Plans
Start Construction
End Construction
Phase I
7/1/11
10/15/71
3/15/72
10/1/72
7/1/71
9/15/71
3/15/71
Phase II
7/1/71
1/1/72
6/1/72
6/1/73
Port Washington Sewer District
Great Neck Sewer District
Engineering Report 3/12/71
Final Plans 8/1/71
Start Construction 3/l/72
End Construction 8/l/73
Engineering Report - Approved 7/22/70
Final Plans 7/l/71
Start Construction 2/l/72
End Construction 2/l/73
Long Island Lighting Company
1. Port Joffornon riant - Demontic waate arc discharged
bo nnmlt'lpnl nowcr nynt.oiii. Cooling wal.oro As discharged, to Port Jefferson
lljll'lllH' .
-------
617
-2-
2. Northport - Domestic wastes are discharged to a
septic tank-tile field system. Cooling waters are discharged to Long
Island Sound after going through a cooling basin.
3* Glenwood Landing - Domestic wastes are discharged to
Hempstead Harbor after treatment in a septic tank followed by chlorination.
Cooling water is discharged to Hempstead Harbor.
Eoslyn (V) - No expansion
Great Neck (V) - No expansion
Belgrave S.D, Engineering Plans - Approved
Pinal Plans - Approved
Start Construction 10/l/Vl
Krul ConebruoUmi lO/l/'{?.
WKSTCHIWTIW COUNTY
Blind Brook S.T.P. Kn^l neor Iritf KoporI; lj
Final llarui 9/1/71.
Bids 1/1/Y2
Start Construction U/l/72
End Construction 2f\jik
New Rochelle ?lnal Piano 8/1/71
Bids 12/1/71
Start Construction 3/l/72
End Construction 3/l/75
Port Chester Treatment Plant & Force Mains
Pinal Plans 9/l/71
Bids 1/1/72
Start Construction 3/31/72
End Construction 2/llfk
Mam&roneok January 1, 1973 - Start of study and preparation oV Waste-
vaster Facilities Report to be completed by the end of that
year.
January 1, 197^ - Start of design of treatment works#
January 1# 1975 - Taking of bids and subsequent award
6f contracts for construction of sewage treatment works*
August lf 1976 - Start of operation of new secondary
treatment process.
Bhem-oek Shore Club, American Yacht Club, Rye, New York & Shell Metropolitan
0(1 Co. - 1'hene companies wtlt br> trrnbnonh by .tnnn 1.
-------
I 61BJ
few York StaJe Department of Environmental Conservation Henry l Diamond
Ibany, N. Y. 12201 Commissioner
June 23, 1971
Mr. William Librizzi
Chief, Enforcement Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Re: LONG ISLAND ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
NEW YORK CITY DISCHARGES
Dear Mr. Librizzi:
Please be advised that the Orchard Beach City Island and
Harts Island discharges have been integrated into the
New York City Hunts Point sewage treatment plant service
area and as such will follow the Hunts Point time schedule
recently agreed to with New York City officials. Specifically,
this covers extension and improvements to the Hunts Point
plant including the Harts island-City island pump station
and force main and the Orchard Beach force main.
Final plans and specifications have been submitted to the
Department and according to the time schedule, construction
contracts will be awarded during the 1st quarter of 1972 with
construction scheduled to be completed during the 1st quarter
Of 1975.
Mr. Harrison, in a letter to you dated June 16, 1971, is
conveying all of the other schedules for the municipalities and
industries in New York discharging to Long Island Sound.
Very truly yours,
William L. Garvey, ฃ.E.
Chief, Enforcement Section
Division of Pure Waters
* J.S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1971-440-786/247
------- |