April 23, 1968
Patchogue, New York
PROGRESS EVALUATION MEETING
In the matter of Pollution of Moriches Bay
and the Eastern Section of Great South Bay
and Their Tributaries.
U.S. Department of the Interior • Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
-------
Openin? Statement
(By Mr. Stein)
Closing Statement
(By Mr. Stein)
STATEMENT BY:
Kenneth H. Walker
J. C. Haberer
J. E. Harrison
J. C. Haberer
Dr. G. E. Leone
Nelson Slager
Emil Usinser
N. D. Houck
Mrs. James Sherard
E. S. Furman
W. Cosulich
-------
PROGRESS EVALUATION MEETING
IN THE MATTER OF
POLLUTION OF MORICHES BAY AND THE
EASTERN SECTION OF GREAT SOUTH BAY
AND THEIR TRIBUTARIES
Felice's Restaurant
Patchogue, New York
April 23, 1968
9:30 A. M.
-------
1
Progress Evaluation Meeting in the Matter
of Pollution of Moriches Bay and the Eastern Section of
Great South Bay and their Tributaries, held at Felice's
Restaurant, Patchogue, New York, on Tuesday, April 23,
1968, at 9:30 o'clock a.m.
PRESIDING:
MR. MURRAY STEIN
Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.
CONFEREES :
MR. DWIGHT F. METZLER
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Health
State of New York
Albany, New York
MR. LESTER M. KLASHMAN
Regional Director
Northeast Region
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Department of the Interior
Boston, Massachusetts
PARTICIPANTS:
MR. KENNETH H. WALKER
Deputy Director
North Atlantic Water Quality Management Center
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Department of the Interior
Edison, New Jersey
MR. JOHN C. HABERER
Assistant Commissioner
New Yor'- State Department of Health
84 H<" 1 Avenue
Albat ' York
-------
2
PARTICIPANTS (Continued):
MR. JOHN E. HARRISON
Regional Engineer
New York State Department of Health
222 Mamaroneck Avenue
White Plains, New York
GEORGE E. LEONE, M.D.
Commissioner of Health
Suffolk County Health Department
County Center
Riverhead, New York
MR. NELSON SLAGER
Member
Oyster Institute of North America
22 Main Street
Sayville, New York
MR. EMIL USINGER
Production Manager
Bluepoints Company
Atlantic Avenue
West Sayville, New York
MR. NELSON D. HOUCK
General Manager
Long Island Duck Farmers Cooperative
Eastport, New York
MRS. JAMES R. SHERARD
Water Resources Chairman
Suffolk County Council League of Women Voters
8 Ivy Hill Road
Oakdale, New York
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR. MARK ABELSON
Regional Coordinator
United States Department of the Interior
Boston, Massachusetts
-------
3
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (Continued):
MRS. ERIK BARNOUW
New York Water Resources Chairman
Tri-State League
League of Women Voters
16 Center Avenue
Larchmont, New York
MR. QUENTIN R. BENNETT
Marine Fisheries Sanitarian
New York State Conservation Department
4175 Veterans Highway
Ronkonkoma, New York
MR. F. X. CLINES
Reporter
The New York Times
6500 Jericho Turnpike
Commack, New York
MR. THOMAS CONDON
Reporter
Long Island Press
67 Harnell Road
Commack, New York
MR. HERBERT W. DAVIDS
Director
Division of Environmental Health
Suffolk County Department of Health
Suffolk County Center
Riverhead, New York
MR. S. A. DOLE, JR.
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife
United States Department of the Interior
50 Maple Avenue
Patchogue, New York
MR. ALAN EYSEN
Reporter
Newsday
Ronkonkoma, New York
MR. E. V. FITZPATRICK
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Department of the Interior
Edison, New Jersey
-------
4
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (Continued):
MRS. CARL FLATAU
League of Women Voters of North Brookhaven
30 Dartmouth Road
Shorehaven, New York
MR„ J. FOEHRENBACK
Sanitary Chemist
New York State Conservation Department
Ronkonkoma, New York
MR. EDWIN S. FURMAN
President
Southampton Town Baymen's Association
Box 180
Hampton Bays, New York
MR. HOWARD B. GATES III
Senior Water Resources Engineer
New York State Department of Health
222 Mamaroneck Avenue
White Plains, New York
MR. N. B. GOLUB
Regional Chief of Maintenance
United States National Park Service
143 South 3rd Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
MR. LOU GRASSO
Reporter
Long Island Advance
20 Metford Avenue
Patchogue, New York
MR. THOMAS J. HARMEAD
Secretary
Board of Supervisors
Suffolk County
County Center
Riverhead, New York
MR. JAMES H. HEIL
Assistant Public Health Engineer
Suffolk County Health Department
County Center
Riverhead, New York
-------
5
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (Continued):
MR. JAMES HENKLE
Assistant to the Chairman
New York State Pure Waters Authority
5^-5 Madison Avenue
New York, New York
MR. THOMAS N. HUSHOWER
Senior Sanitary Engineer
United States Public Health Service
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York
MR. PETER A. ISAACSON
Fishery Biologist
United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries
& Wildlife
50 Maple Avenue
Patchogue, New York
MR. ALBERT C. JENSEN
Assistant Chief of Marine Fisheries
New York State Conservation Department
4175 Veterans Memorial Highway
Ronkonkoma, New York
MR. PETER L. JOHNSON
Conservation Consultant
Great Hamptons Conservation Association
Head of Pond Road
Water Mill, New York
MRS. A. W. JONES
League of Women Voters
2 Wellsley Lane
Smithtown, New York
MR. BENEDICT KEMPER
Assistant Hydraulic Engineer
New York State Division of Water Resources
Route 110
Melville, New York
-------
6
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (Continued):
MR. ARTHUR J. KOERBER
Assistant Sanitary Engineer
New York State Department of Health
222 M&maroneck Avenue
White Plains, New York
MR. DENNIS LEAVY
Suffolk Sun
303 Marcus Boulevard
Deer Park, New York
MR. REX LYONS
Photographer
Newsday
MR. CORNELIUS POILLOW
Executive Secretary
Long Islard Fishermen's,,Association
Westhampton Beach, New York
MR. CARL ROZYCKI
Photographer
Long Island Press
92-9^- l68th Street
Jamaica, New York
MR. RANDOLPH M. STELLE
District Engineer (Long Island)
New York State Conservation Department
Division of Water Resources
150 Broad Hollow Road
Melville, New York
MR. ROBERT A. VILLA
District Engineer
Suffolk County Department of Health
County Center
Riverhead, New York
MR. DAVID WALLACE
New York State Conservation Department
Ronkonkoma, New York
-------
7
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE (Continued):
MR. H. D. WELLS
County Agricultural Agent
Suffolk County Extension Service
246 Griffins Avenue
Riverhead, New York
LT. COMMANDER C. H. WENTWORTH
United States Coast Guard
United States Coast Guard Dispensary
Governors Island, New York
MR. JAMES P. WOLFE
Chief Staff Engineer
National Park Service
28 East 20th Street
New York, New York
-------
8
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
MR. MURRAY STEIN
MR, STEIN: This meeting is open.
This is a meeting of the conferees representing the
State of New York and the United States Department of the
Interior. The purpose of this meeting is to evaluate progress
toward pollution control in the waters covered by the Federal
conference in the matter of pollution of Moriches Bay and the
eastern section of Great South Bay and their tributaries.
The first session of the conference was held
September 20th and 21st of 1966, and the second session, June
21, 1967.
As a result of both these sessions of the conference,
and after hearing statements from all interested parties who
were given an opportunity to appear, and I think we had all the
points of view pretty thoroughly expressed and discussed, the
conferees, representing the State of New York and the United
States Department of the Interior, agreed on a definite
-------
9
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
remedial program with a time schedule.
This progress meeting is to determine just how far
along we are.
The parties to this meeting are the conferees re-
presenting the United States Department of the Interior and the
New York State Department of Health. On my left is Mr. Dwight
Metzler of New York State. On my right is Mr. Lester Klashman,
Regional Director of the United States Department of the
Interior. My name is Murray Stein and I represent Secretary
Udall.
A word about the procedures governing the conduct
of the conference. The State and Federal representatives will
be called upon to make statements, and they will also ask their
invitees to make statements. It is suggested that anyone
wishing to make a statement get in touch with either Mr.
Metzler, Mr. Klashman or myself, and you will be called upon at
an appropriate time.
It is also suggested that your comments and
questions be reserved for your statement, because if we are
going to move this expeditiously, the comments and questions
will be limited to the conferees, who will be given that oppor-
tunity after each statement.
As you can see, we are making a verbatim transcript
of the record, which should be available perhaps within three
-------
10
Opening Statement - Mr. Stein
months, which will be a complete record of what is said here.
If appropriate, we will try to get a summary out on the con-
ference earlier.
Mr. Klashman, will you call upon the Federal
partic ipants ?
I would suggest that anyone other than the conferees
making a statement come up to the lectern and identify them-
selves as to name and organization.
Mr. Klashman.
MR. KLASHMAN: I should like to first call on Mr.
Kenneth Walker, Deputy Manager of the Regional North Atlantic
Water Quality Management Center of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, located at Edison, New Jersey.
Mr. Walker.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH H. WALK®, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, NORTH ATLANTIC WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT CENTER, FEDERAL WATER POLLU-
TION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION, EDISON, N.J.
MR. WALKER: My name is Kenneth H. Walker. I am
Deputy Director of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion's North Atlantic Water Quality Management Center, located
in Edison, New Jersey.
-------
11
K. H. Walker
During the few months since the last session of the
conference was held, considerable progress has been made towards
resolving the pollution problems in the conference area. One
action that has been completed is the approval by the Secretary
of the Interior of the water quality standards established by
the State of New York on its interstate waters. This action
was taken in accordance with the provisions of the Water
Quality Act of 19&5, which amended Public Law 84-660, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This legislation gave the
States the opportunity of adopting water quality standards on
their interstate waters and submitting them to the Secretary
of the Interior by June 30, 1967, for his approval.
New York State submitted its standards on its inter-
state waters, which included the coastal waters of Moriches Bay
and Great South Bay, prior to the June 30 deadline. When the
Secretary accepted these on August 7* New York became one of the
first States to receive approval of its standards on its inter-
state waters.
At both the first and second sessions of this
conference the conferees agreed that there are four major points
involved in the total pollution control problems in the con-
ference area. These are; (1). duck farm wastes, (2) domestic
wastes* (3) sludge deposits in the baywatars, and (4) the bay
Inlets.
-------
12
K. H.. Walker
I understand that the New York Stat e conferee in-
tends to report on progress relative to the duck farm wastes
and the domestic wastes so I will not discuss these further.
I will instead report on progress being made toward resolving
the problem of sludge deposits and the improvement of Moriches
Inlet.
First let me review some of the recommendations
made by the conferees at the last session of the conference
that relate to these problems. These are:
1. The waters affected by duck waste Sludge shall
be surveyed to delineate accurately the extent, composition
and possible deleterious effects of duck sludge. This survey
shall be started immediately under the direction of Mr. Robert
D. Hennigan of New York State, and Mr. Paul De Falco of the
U. S. Department of the Interior. A report shall be made to
the conferees within six months.
2. Pending completion of this survey, dredging of
material containing sludge in the enforcement area from
Patchogue River to the eastern end of Moriches Bay shall be
pumped to the ocean for release. No spoiling of wastes from
the area shall be placed on wetlands or in the waters of the
adjacent bays. Ocean disposal shall be carried out as follows:
(a) Dredging and ocean disposal undertaken
only from October 15 through May 15.
(b) Spoil to be disposed of directly into
the ocean below the low water level.
-------
13
K. H. Walker
(c) The spoil release point to be approximately
1.5 miles away from Moriches Inlet, and further
where practical, unless a lesser distance is indi-
cated at the time of the application for the dredge
permit.
3. The completion of the Moriches Inlet stabliza-
tion project shall be advanced. Such action will coincide
and be in phase with the schedule for construction of other
pollution abatement facilities in the enforcement area.
4. Great value would accrue to the long-range
pollution control program in the enforcement area if the Corps
of Engineers would construct a model of the Great South Bay
and adjoining bays. Data obtained from operation of the model,
together with prototype data from the bays, would provide much
basic information necessary to devise a comprehensive solution
of the inter-related water management of the bays.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
is currently cooperating with the New York State Department of
Health, the New York State Conservation Department, and the
Corps of Engineers to complete a survey delineating the extent
of the duck sludge deposits in the waters of the conference
area and to determine the actual amount of sludge that should
be removed. As soon as this is completed, cost figures on the
removal and disposal of these deposits will be developed. It
-------
14
K. H. Walker
will then be necessary to review methods of funding this
removal and disposal.
Under the terms of an interagency agreement, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration reviews applica-
tions made to the Corps of Engineers for dredging permits.
Since the last session of this conference, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration has reviewed several such
applications for dredging within the conference area. Our
comments have included a stipulation that the applicant be made
aware of the conference recommendations and that he be required
to meet them.
The Corps of Engineers has constructed a model of
the Moriches Inlet at its Waterways Experiment Station in
Vicksburg, Mississippi, to determine the most effective method
of stabilizing the inlet and providing for improvement of flushing
of the bay by ocean waters. I have a statement from the Corps
of Engineers describing progress made on this project which I
would like to read next.
This completes my statement for the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration.
I would like to proceed and read the statement of
the Corps of Engineers.
MR. STEIN: Let's see if we have any questions.
Are there any comments or questions?
-------
15
K. H. Walker
MR. KLASHMAN: None.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: I think not at this time. Let's wait
until we hear the Corps' statement.
MR. STEIN: All right, I have a couple.
When will your study on the duck sludge deposits
be completed, and what specifically are you doing?
MR. WALKER: We are working with the Health Depart-
ment people and the Conservation Department people here to map
out the tributaries of the bay which are filled, or partially
filled, with the duck sludge to get an idea of the area, and
then soundings will be carried out to make a determination as to
the actual volume of what is involved, and then we will discuss
this with the Corps to get an estimate on the cost of dredging
this material out.
MR. STEIN: Yes, but when are you going to do this?
MR. WALKER: I think this will be done within a
month.
MR. STEIN: The whole Job will be done in a month?
MR. WALKER: In terms of this estimate, yes.
MR. STEIN: Can the conferees assume this, and maybe
we are going to await this progress meeting, that you will have
this work done on the estimate of where the sludge is and the
depth of the sludge, within about a month? Will we be ready to
-------
l6
K. H. Walker
go to the next phase of discussions with the Corps of Engineers?
I guess you will not have costs until you have dis-
cussed this with the Corps. Is that correct?
MR. WALKER: Yes.
MR. STEIN: All right.
The next point I have is on the applications for
dredging. It says that the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration makes recommendations that the applicant be aware
of conference recommendations on dredging and disposal of the
spoil.
Do you know if these are included in the permits
which the Corps issues?
MR. WALKER: We assume they are. At the present
time, the procedure is such that we do not get completed copies
of all permits that are issued, but in our discussions with the
Corps we have assurance that these are included in the permits
as issued.
MR. STEIN: For the purposes of the record, it may
be wise if we could get a list of the permits that were issued
after the comments and probably have them on file with us and
with New York State, so we can be sure that that is done, or if
there is a violation by the dredger,
MR. WALKER: There is no problem for us to obtain
that.
-------
17
K. H. Walker
MR. STEIN: Do you think you can get that?
MR. WALKER: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
MR. WALKER: All right.
This statement I will now read was prepared by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, and
relates to the Moriches Inlet stabilization project.
"l. Authorization. The project was authorized by
the River and Harbor Act of i960, in accordance with House
Document No. 126, 86th Congress, First Session.
"2. Project. Hie authorized plan provides for
an entrance channel ten feet deep and 200 feet wide from
the Atlantic Ocean to Moriches Bay and from there, an inner
channel six feet deep and 100 feet wide to the Long Island
Intercoastal Waterway; rehabilitation of existing jetties
and revetments; seaward extension of both east and west
jetties; and provision of sand bypassing facilities.
"3. Funds. Planning funds in the amount of $1,000
were allocated in FY 1967. The FY 1968 allotment of funds
is $120,000. Funds in the amount of $140,000 have been
programmed for FY 1969 to complete the planning.
"4. Design to Date. Advance planning was
started in FY 1967. Hydraulic model studies are under-
way at the Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.,
-------
K. H. Walker
"to develop the best plan for the inlet stabilization
and for bypassing across the inlet; to investigate the
effect of the best plan on tidal interchange and
currents; to develop the length and directions of the
Jetties; and to develop a dredging pattern in the bay
in order to obtain sand borrow for the beach fill with-
out detrimental effect on the inlet and on the bay.
Towards this end, all the necessary prototype data for
the model study have been obtained. These data include
tidal recordings, current velocity readings, salinity
measurements (taken in conjunction with FWPCA), water
temperatures, soundings of Moriches Inlet and Bay, and
high and low tide aerial surveys and controlled mosaics
and topo survey of the bay shores. The construction of
the model is complete. The model is being operated and
adjusted to verify the hydraulic conditions in the bay
inlet and ocean. The verification of the model will take
about 60 days. A series of test plans have been set up.
Bach plan will be tested in the model and data will be
evaluated as developed until the best plan of improvement
is found. This part of the program will take approximately
seven months. The publication of the report is anticipated
to take six months after completion of the tests. Upon
completion of the model tests and as the model results are
-------
19
K. H. Walker
"furnished to the New York District, the development
of the design in detail will be accomplished. Test
soil boring work to develop possible areas of borrow
in the bay inlet are scheduled for this month.
"5. Coordination. Close coordination is being
effected with Federal and State Pish and Wildlife
Services, FWPCA, New York State Department of Con-
servation, and the Suffolk County Department of Public
Works on the development of the improvement. The matter
of sand borrow, inspection of the model, and development
of possible plans to be tested in the model were effected
this month. The matter of local cooperation that must
be implemented will be coordinated with state and county.
"6. Tentative Schedule. The basic design is
tentatively scheduled to be completed in late 1968 and
the plans and specifications are scheduled to be completed
in June 1969."
That is the end of the statement.
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions?
MR. METZLER: 1 would like to ask a question.
I®. STEIN; Yes*
MR. METZLER: Mr. Walker, would you review for our
information the key steps that you feel are necessary between
where we are at the present time and the actual starting of
-------
20
K. H. Walker
dredging this sludge out? What do we have to do? What has to
be done?
MR. WALKER: Well, we need to get an accurate deter-
mination of the volume and location of these deposits. We need
to develop cost figures for removing these and the best way of
removing them. I am assuming that it will probably be a
dredging operation.
Then the cost of this will have to be reviewed for
methods of obtaining the money to carry out this program.
Possibly a special request to Congress may be in order to provide
the funds for carrying out this program.
It depends on the size of what we are talking about
as to the method that would be investigated for funding it.
MR. METZLER: Do you expect that at the end of
thirty days you will have information on the volume, and you
will know how much we are talking about?
MR. STEIN: And location?
MR. METZLER: Volume and location, so we know the
amount and where it is?
MR. WALKER: Yes.
MR. METZLER: What are the plans for developing cost
figures and the best method?
MR. WALKER: This I think we will work out with the
Corps of Engineers, which we consider our authorities on
-------
21
K. H. Walker
dredging operations.
MR. METZLER: They have made some studies, haven't
they?
MR. WALKER: I understand they have. Yes.
MR. METZLER: Don't I recall seeing a report which
indicates that the amount is something in the order of $350»000
a year for five years, to dredge that out?
MR. WALKER: I haven't seen this figure.
MR. KLASHMAN: I haven't seen that either.
MR. METZLER; I am reaching back in my memory, and
when Mr. Haberer testifies from New York, maybe h« can refer to
this.
Does the Corps have someone here?
MR. WALKER: No, they don't.
MR. METZLER: I assumed they did not, since you read
the paper.
MR. KLASHMAN: If you have a reference to that, I
would very much like to follow it up.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Haberer showed me this a few
moments ago. That was the first I have been aware of it.
MR. STEIN: If they have made that statement, we
have to find out the amount and where it is, because they must
have had that in order to make the statement.
MR. METZLER: T^at was the point of my question.
-------
22
K. H. Walker
MR. STEIN: Go ahead.
MR. METZLER: Do you see any other possible way of
financing?
I As to the third step here, being the financing one,
do you see any other possible way of financing except by way of
Congressional appropriation?
MR. WALKER: If the costs are such that it might be
feasible for all the agencies involved to participate on a cost-
sharing basis, we might possibly work it out in this way.
We have many agencies in the area, the Conservation
Department, you, us, and the Department of Public Works, all of
which have an interest in this, and we would like to explore this
as a possibility when we get to that point.
MR. METZLER: I Just want to make one point quite
clear now. There are sludge deposits in waters in New York
State in various places, including the one down here, and the
budget and appropriation of the New York State Health Department
for it doesn't indicate that the legislature has any intention
of us getting into the sludge removal business, so I think it
would be unrealistic to expect the New York State Health Depart-
ment, while we participate in the studies, to ever get into the
business of financing the actual removal of sludge.
MR. STEIN: I think we may take this one step at a
time, just to find out where the sludge is, how much there is,
how much it will cost to remove it, or if it should be disturbed.
-------
23
K. H. Walker
We have to keep an open mind on that, because with the stabiliza-
tion of the inlets and possible control of the wastes in the
bay, the determination might be made after the study that it
might be best to leave the sludge where it is, and not move it.
MR. WALKER: This is a possibility.
MR. STEIN: Or, at least, in some areas.
Perhaps you can't answer this question, but are you
satisfied that that model of the Corps of Engineers meets the
recommendation of the conferees for setting up a model of
Moriches Bay? Is this model large enough?
MR. WALKER: Yes. I was fortunate enough to go down
to Vicksburg a couple of weeks ago, so I have actually seen this
model in place. It is scaled on a size that they use for the
inlet stabilization studies. In fact, they had one at the Fire
Island Inlet.
They just completed this work on that, and I think
these are of a size where the results they get are accurate, and
so that they can make predictions and an evaluation of the best
approach on this thing.
MR. STEIN: How big Is the model? Does it take up
a room this size, or is it smaller?
MR. WALKER: Well, of course, the inlet itself is
relatively small and it is the supporting ocean and tidal —
MR. STEIN: Yes.
-------
2k
K. H. Walker
MR. WALKER: The model itself would occupy an area
about the width of this room, and back half-way in the seating
area.
MR. STEIN: You know, at the first two sessions of
the conference we had testimony from the oystermen and the
other men familiar with the sea and the inlet and the bay on
where to cut through the channel, where to stabilize it, how
deep to put it, and where to put the sand, and it is going to
be interesting to me to see, after all this fancy data, how
close they come to what the seamen around here and the oystermen
felt they knew all the time. If they come pretty close, maybe
we could have saved the money.
MR. WALKER: We feel they are on the right track
anyway.
MR. STEIN: At least, it might be reassuring.
Are there any further comments or questions ?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very much.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klashman.
MR. KLASHMAN: I just want to make sure there is
no one here from the United States District Corps of Engineers.
Is there?
-------
J. C. Haberer
25
(No response.)
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Walker's statement, given for
them, is their statement.
Is there someone here from the National Park
Service of the United States Department of the Interior?
MR. GOLUB: Yes.
MR. KLASHMAN: Do you have a statement?
MR. GOLUB: No, I don't.
MR. KLASHMAN: That completes the Federal presenta-
tion, Mr. Stein.
MR. STEIN: We will now hear from New York State.
Mr, Metzler.
MR, METZLER: John Haberer, Assistant Commissioner
of the Pure Waters Division of the New York State Health Depart-
ment, is here to make a statement, and John Harrison is also
here as a backup. He served as secretary, as you know, for
the Coordinating Committee that was doing the ongoing work
between the meetings of this conference.
Mr. Haberer will make the presentation.
STATEMENT OF JOHN C. HABERER, ASSISTANT COMMIS-
SIONER, DIVISION OF PURE WATERS, NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
-------
2o
J, C. Haberer
MR. HABERER: Mr. Stein, Honorable Conferees,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am John Haberer, the Assistant Commissioner,
Division of Pure Waters, New York State Health Department.
This progress report updates the status of the
pollution problems in the watershed of Moriches Bay and the
eastern portion of Great South Bay which was discussed at the
last conference in June of 1967. These problems pertain to
untreated and inadequately treated duck farm wastes, domestic
sewage, and residual sludge deposits in the receiving waters.
Each item will be summarized in the following paragraphs.
Detailed information is appended to the statement.
Now, I have extra copies of this statement if any
of you are interested in having a copy.
Duck Farm Wastes
The Department of Health has cited the owners of
33 duck farms as polluters of surface waters. They have been
placed under commissioner's orders containing a specified time
schedule for preparation of plans, construction of needed waste
treatment facilities and satisfactory operation of these
facilities.
Basic design criteria of treatment facilities were
predicated on a pilot plant which was constructed and placed
into operation during 19&7• Sampling of the plant effluent was
-------
27
J. C. Haberer
completed in November of IQ67. Results of operation indicate
that an aerated lagoon will reduce the biochemical oxygen
demand and the suspended solids of the influent waste loads by
85 percent. The study revealed that substantial removal of
phosphates cannot be obtained by the addition of lime. The
tabulated data are shown in the attached Tables I, II and III.
As of April 1st, plans for 25 waste treatment facili-
ties have been submitted and approved. Seven farm operators
did not submit plans; one farm installed a spray irrigation
system without prior plan approval. Six operators who failed
to submit plans indicated that the farms would be closed and one
operator advised there would be no discharge to surface waters.
Nineteen farms have either ordered equipment, started construc-
tion or initiated both actions.
Agreements have been reached with operators of 30
farms to modify the existing orders containing a revised time
schedule including further study of the phosphate problem. A
study of a typical order is appended. The time schedule generally
provides for start of construction by February 1, 1968, rather
than November 1, 1967, and full operation of all facilities by
June 30, 1968, instead of April 30, 1968. This is a two-month
delay. Plans for phosphate removal provide for the following
schedule:
(1) Completion of research and siibiiission of ^
-------
28
J. C. Haberer
report to the State Health Department regarding
phosphate removal facilities by October 15, 19&9•
This provides two operating seasons for the opera-
tion of the lagoons, with experimentation on the phosphate
removal.
(2) Submission of final plans for phosphate
removal facilities to the State Department of Health
by February 15, 1970;
(3) Commencement of facilities construction
for phosphate removal by April 15, 1970;
(4) Completion of construction of said facili-
ties according to approved plans by June 30, 1970;
(5) Submission of reports on phosphate removal
every three months to the State Department of Health
with the first report due May 1, 1968. This is a very
close date.
Additional legal action comprising penalty assess-
ment were initiated against seven farms; a copy of a typical
hearing notice is appended. Pour cases were adjourned to give
the respondent time to develop a stipulated order, one case was
discontinued when the owner agreed to stay out of business and
the owner of two farms were set for trial. Stipulated orders
signed by the Commissioner of Health provide for a penalty
of $500 to be assessed if any date in the revised order is not
-------
29
J. C. Haberer
met. The other cases are still In litigation. Suffolk County
Health Department and the State Department of Health are con-
tinuing their periodic inspections of farms to obtain evidence
of chemical and flow data which can be introduced in the legal
proceedings.
Municipal Wastes
Providing adequate sewage disposal facilities for
the Village of Patchogue and the surrounding urban area con-
tinues to receive attention. County, State and local officials
have been meeting to explore available financial assistance to
provide for the construction and planning of facilities to serve
an area-wide need. A decision is expected in the near future
from the Town of Brookhaven regarding its willingness to par-
ticipate in a program of regional sewage collection and disposal.
If the reply is negative the village will proceed unilaterally
taking advantage of existing State and Federal construction aid
to solve its immediate sewage disposal problem.
Duck Sludge Deposits
Duck sludge deposits have created extensive sludge
banks in the following areas:
Carmans River, Little Neck Run, West Mill Pond,
Forge River above Long Island Railroad, Ely Creek, Forge River
-------
30
J. C. Haberer
north of Island Point, Old Neck Creek, Terrell River, Upper
Left Fork of West Cove, Inner Heart Cove, Speonk River,
Seatuck Creek, East River and two tributaries of the Tanner
Neck Area.
Some of the streams are covered with a blanket of
sludge over the entire stream bottom, varying from six inches
to four feet in depth. In some cases navigation is impossible
except at high tide.
Relating to Mr. Walker's statement, and this is not
in the written statement, we are willing to cooperate with the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration to study the
extent of the sludge deposits, as stated by Mr. Walker, if
such a study is necessary.
My ears were very keen to pick up that he did not
mention a price tag on it, so that is why I show this willing-
ness.
We have just learned, and this is only as of April
6th, of the cost estimate for sludge removal contained in the
Corps of Engineers reconnaissance report on an Aquatic Plant Con-
trol Program, dated August 19&7, a*id we will support a formal
request to the Congress of the United States for funds to dredge
the sludge deposits.
I will get a copy of that report, so you can see
what it is. It is on that chair, please.
-------
31
J. C. Haberer
That is the report that I referred to, and if you
wish me to read into the record that last page, I will be very
happy to.
MR. STEIN: All right. You can put it in.
MR. HABERER: It is up to you.
MR. STEIN: You can put it in the record. As I
suspect, the Corps of Engineer has some very careful language.
(Laughter.)
Why don't you read that paragraph?
MR. HABERER: This is on Page 15 of the Aquatic
Plant Control Program Reconnaissance Report dated August 19&7,
put out by the Corps of Engineers.
MR. STEIN: Could we have the local office?
MR. HABERER: Yes. It is the North Atlantic
Division.
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. HABERER: And it is called the "Preliminary
Plan of Improvement." It is Item No. 3ks and it reads as
follows:
"The plan of improvement considered most
suitable at this time for aquatic plant control in
the New York District is as follows:
"(a) Begin removal of duck waste sludge
deposits in these areas already surveyed and
-------
32
J. C. Haberer
continue procedures to locate all such
deposits. The dredged materials should be
deposited so as to cause no further bacterial
contamination or enrichment to the bay. A
logical annual program would cost $353*and
should continue for five years. This is based
on the known 87^- acres of duck sludge, and esti-
mating removal to a depth of one foot at $1.25
per cubic yard."
So endeth the reading.
In summary:
1. Nineteen duck farms are proceeding towards
compliance.
2. Seven duck farms are closed or have no
discharge.
3. Seven duck farms are not proceeding and we
are taking action.
4. The Village of Patchogue has developed a time
schedule cooperatively with the New York State Health
Department.
5. Research on phosphate removal is continuing.
6. We. will support a request to Congress for an
appropriation for sludge dredging.
That finishes the report.
-------
/ cf
j.sne of
Owner
Final
Plans la
:orge niver
Tack Fana
3silo Bros.
-sllock
Frockside Farm
Jiirgielevice
3ros. Fsra
Zsaas &
Sens
Peter Sostack
4 Sons
Kucnr.a Duck
F-rm
Zesz)acv±cz
Farm
Lukert, >7®.
J. 4 Son
Kassey, Chester
& Sons
Oceanic Duck
?arm
,'ss.a. P acholic
Farm
roSXaski
Joseph
Srith Bros,
Fara
John
Jlstteson
Michael
Gallo
Chester
Wilcox
Sane
Same
Victor
Kostuck
Steve
Kuczma
Egnatz &
Man
Leszkowics
Same
Sane
LeRcy
Wilcox
Sane
Saw
"alter R.
Smith
11/30/67
8/214/67
11/30/67
10/3/67
10/2/67
10A7/67
12A/67
No
10A7/67
10/2/67
DUC:' ?iX*S
Status
of Flans
Connents
Approved 1'odified, Penalty Assessment; No construction and
Jan. 31, 1968 no equipment ordered
Approved Modified, Penalty Assessment; Equipment ordered
Jan. 31, 1968 and no construction
Approved Modified; Penalty Assessment; No construction and
Jan. 31, 1968 no equipment ordered.
Approved Modified; Eauipment ordered and an construction
Jan. 31, 1968
Closed
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Modified; Equipment ordered and no construction
Penalty
Assessment; closed
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Modified; No construction and no equipment ordered
Closed
Approved Modified; Penalty Assessment; Equipment ordered and
Jan. 31, 1968 Construction started
No Discharge; D^r.alty Assessment; Case adjourned to
4/30/68
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Modified; Equipment ordered and no construction
Approved Modified; Equipment ordered and construction
Jan. 31, 1968 started
Closed
00
U)
-------
Kane of
Cvner
Pinal
Plans In
Babinski
Zygnunt
Big Seatuck
Bcrak Fcra
S iims
Powell Bros.
(George &
Gorden)
John 3orak
Breezy Acres
Fars
c i a
Careers Keck
C k R
Brus'ay Keck
Csr-aa River
Farm
Certified Duck
Farm
Chi-Dux
Farm
Chornona
Stanley
ChomoisA
?£0l
DePiazzy
Farm
East River
Stanley
Ogeka
Howard
Phillips
Howard
Phillips
Paul C.
Robinson
Harry
Siaitb
John
Leary
Sane
Sane
Edward
DePiazzy
Harry Baker
Ho
10./12/67
10/5/67
10/2/67
8/21/67
8/2U/67
8/21/67
1/31/68
10/2/67
10A3/67
8/21/67
Status
of Plans
Connents*
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Plans Approved
2/28/68
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Spray Irrigation System installed
Modified; Equipment ordered and
no construction
Modified; No construction and no
equipment ordered
Modified; No construction and no
equipment ordered
Modified; Equipment ordered and
io construction
Modified; Equipment ordered and
no construction
Modified; Construction started
and Equipment ordered
Modified; Construction started and
Equipment ordered
Modified; Equipment Ordered and no
construction
Modified; No construction and no
Equipment ordered
Closed
I-Sodified; Equipment ordered and
no construction
Closed
-------
DUCK FAPJJS
—TO Ol
:«'a.-e of
Owner
/inal
Plans In
Status
of Flans
Coments
Ada.- Scrcka
Fsra
Sprirgwster Farm
Swift
Strewn i inn
Tuttle Bros.
T ST3
Vi=licita &
5 333
Long Island
Tuck Farcers
Coop, Inc.**
To-anowski
John
Frank
Loniaga
Fester
Roberts
Vernon
Tuttle
Charles
Vigliotta
Same
11/9/67
2/27/68
10/2/67
8/21/67
10/2/67
10/23/67
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Approved
Karch 12, 1963
Approved
Jen. 31, 1968
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Approved
Jan. 31, 1968
Ibdified, Penalty Assessment; Equipment ordered
and construction started
Modified; Penalty Assessment; Equipment ordered
and construction started
Modified; Equipment ordered and na construction
Modified; Equipment ordered and r» construction
Kodified; Equipment ordered and c&nstruction
started
Kodified; Equipment ordered and no construction
* "Modified" refers to changes in tine schedules contained in the original order issued
} e ssioner of Health sgas^ist those farms violating provisions of the Water
reliction Law.
** Processing Plant
U/V68
-------
J. C. Haberer
MODIFIED ORDER
1/31/68
STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
In the Matter of Alleged Violations of
Article 12 of the Public Health Law by
JOHN BELLINI d/b/a MECOX BAY POULTRY FARM,
C. & R. DUCK FARM, INC. - Riverhead,
C. 8c R. DUCK FARM, INC. - Tanners Neck,
C. & R. DUCK FARM, INC. - Bushy Neck,
EDWARD DePIAZZY d/b/a DePIAZZY FARM,
PAUL C. ROBINSON d/b/a CARMAN RIVER FARM,
MICHAEL GALLO d/b/a GALLO BROS.,
THOMAS DEMKIN d/b/a SHUBERT DUCK FARM,
VERNON TUTTLE d/b/a TUTTLE BROS. FARM,
WALTER SEMASCHUK d/b/a BRIDGE VIEW DUCK FARM,
JOSEPH P. CELIC d/b/a BROAD COVE DUCK FARM,
STANLEY OGEKA d/b/a BREEZY ACRES FARM,
FOSTER ROBERTS d/b/a SWIFT STREAM FARM,
WILLIAM G. HUBBARD 8c WILLIAM G. HUBBARD, JR.,
d/b/a SUNRISE DUCK FARM,
JOHN G. LEARY d/b/a CHI-DUX DUCK FARM,
-------
37
J. C. Haberer
EGNATZ LESZKOWICZ ,and ADAM LESZKOWICZ
d/b/a/ LESZKOWICZ FARM,
CHARLES VTGLIOTTO d/b/a VIGLIOTTO & SONS,
JOSEPH PODLASKI
GEORGE POWELL AND GORDON POWELL
d/b/a BIG SEATUCK FARM,
VICTOR KOSTUCK d/b/a PETER KOSTUCK & SONS,
CHESTER WILCOX d/b/a HALLOCK BROOKSIDE FARM,
JOHN MATTESON d/b/a FORGE RIVER DUCK FARM,
JOHN BORAK d/b/a BORAK FARM,
LONG ISLAND DUCK GROWERS MARKETING COOPERATIVE, INC.,
STANLEY CHORNOMA,
ANNA PACHOLK d/b/a ANNA PACHOLK FARM,
CHESTER MASSEY AND CHESTER MASSEY
d/b/a CHESTER MASSEY & SON,
EDWARD JURGIELEWICZ & JOSEPH JURGIELEWICZ
d/b/a JURGIELEWICZ BROS.,
JOHN ROMANOWSKI d/b/a ADAM SORAKA DUCK FARM
Respondents.
- X
STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the represen-
tative of the Respondents and the Counsel for the New York State
Department of Health that the Orders of the Commissloner of
-------
38
J. C. Haberer
Health previously issued on June 24, 1965 and Modified on June
22, 1966, and Orders issued on June 28, 1965, and Modified on
June 30, 1966, and Orders previously issued on September 9,
1966, September 19, 1966 and September 28, 1966 pertaining to
all or some of the Respondents in the above entitled proceeding
may be modified in the following respects:
THAT decretal paragraph 2(c) as to each respondent
shall be modified to read that on or before February 1, 1968
construction of aerated lagoon treatment facilities in accordance
with approved plans be commenced by the respondent,
THAT decretal paragraph 2(d) as to each respondent
shall be modified to read that on or before June 30, 1968 con-
struction of the aforesaid aerated lagoon treatment facilities
in accordance with approved plans shall be completed by the
repondent.
AND IT IS STIPULATED FURTHER, that decretal para-
graph 2(a) as to each named respondent shall be modified so
that paragraph 2(a) as it pertains to phosphate removal facili-
ties to be provided by respondents, shall be revised as follows:
(i) Complete research and submit report to the New York State
Health Department in approvable form by October 15, 1969. (ii)
Submit final plans for phosphate removal facilities in approvable
form to the New York State Health Department by February 15*
1970. (Hi) Commence construction of facilities for phosphate
-------
39
J. C. Haberer
removal by April 15, 1970. (lv) Complete construction of the
said facilities according to approved plans by June 30, 1970.
(iv) Complete construction of the said facilities according
to approved plans by June 30, 1970. (v) Submit reports on
phosphate removal every three months to the New York State
Department of Health. First report due May 1, 1968; and the same
may be made, served and filed.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that in view of the modi-
fications herein above agreed upon, that the date of January 2,
1967 appearing in decretal paragraph 2 of the State Health Com-
missioner's Orders or Modified Orders as the case may be, shall
be changed to read June 30, 1968 and the date May 1, 1968
appearing in decretal paragraph 3 of the said Orders or Modified
Orders as the case may be shall be changed to read June 30,
1970.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that approval of this
Stipulation by the New York State Department of Health shall
not constitute a waiver of its rights under the Public Health
Law to prosecute or assess penalties upon any subsequent default
(s) by the Respondents under the Order attached and upon which
this Stipulation is predicated.
DATED:
January 30, 1968 Signed Qreenwald. Kovner & Goldsmith
Attorneys for Respondents
-------
J, G. Haberer
40
Signed Donald A. MacHarg
DONALD A. MacHARG, Counsel
New York State Department of
Health
* * *
STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH
In the Matter of Alleged Violations of
Article 12 of the Public Health Law by
JOHN BELLINI d/b/a MECOX BAY POULTRY FARM
C. & R. DUCK FARM, INC. - Riverhead,
C. & R. DUCK FARM, INC. - Tanners Neck,
C. & R. DUCK FARM, INC. - Bushy Neck,
EDWARD DePIAZZY d/b/a/ DePIAZZY FARM,
PAUL C. ROBINSON dA/a CARMAN RIVER FARM,
MICHAEL GALLO dA/a GALLO BROS.,
THOMAS DEMKIN d/b/a SHUBERT DUCK FARM,
VERNON TUTTLE dA/a TUTTLE BROS. FARM
WALTER SEMASHUK dA/a BRIDGE VIEW DUCK FARM,
JOSEPH P. CELIC d/b/a BROAD COVE DUCK FARM
STANLEY OGEKAV dA/a BREEZY ACRES FARM
FOSTER ROBERTS dA/a SWIFT STREAM FARM,
WILLIAM G. HUBBARD & WILLIAM G. HUBBARD, JR.,
dA/a SUNRISE DUCK FARM,
-------
J. C. Haberer
JOHN G. LEAHY d/b/a CHI-DUX DUCK FARM,
EGNATZ LESZKOWICZ AND ADAM LESZKOWICZ
d/b/a LESZKOWICZ FARM,
CHARLES VIGLIOTTO d/b/a VIGLIOTTO & SONS,
JOSEPH PODLASKI,
GEORGE POWELL AND GORDON POWELL
d/b/a BIG SEATUCK FARM,
VICTOR KOSTUCK d/b/a PETER KOSTUCK & SONS,
CHESTER WILCOX d/b/a HALLOCK BROOKSIDE FARM,
JOHN MATTESON d/b/a FORGE RIVER DUCK FARM,
JOHN BORAK d/b/a BORAK FARM,
LONG ISLAND DUCK GROWERS MARKETING COOPERATIVE, INC.,
STANLEY CHORNOMA,
ANNA PACHOLK d/b/a ANNA PACHOLK FARM,
CHESTER MASSEY AND CHESTER MASSEY
d/b/a CHESTER MASSEY & SON,
EDWARD JURGIELEWICZ & JOSEPH JURGIELEWICZ
d/b/a JURGIELEWICZ BROS.,
JOHN ROMANOWSKI d/b/a ADAM SORAKA DUCK FARM,
Respondents.
- X
ORDER MODIFYING PREVIOUS ORDERS
The Respondents in the above entitled proceedings
having applied for modification of the Orders of the'Commissioner
-------
42
J. C. Haberer
of Health previously issued on June 24, 1965 and Modified on
June 22, 1966, and Orders issued on June 28, 1965 and Modified
on June 30> 1966, and Orders previously issued on September
9, 1966, September 19> 1966 and September 28, 1966 to extend
the date for abatement of Respondents discharges on condition
they take scheduled corrective steps and to extend the time
for performance of some three of the decretal provisions therof
and it appearing to the undersigned that said Orders or Modified
Orders shall be so modified; and the representatives of the
parties thereto having stipulated that this Order might be
made, filed and served.
NOW, on motion of the Respondents herein above
named, it is ORDERED:
FIRST: That the date November 1, 1967 in paragraph
2(c) of the Orders dated June 24, 1965 and Modified on June 22,
I966, and Orders dated June 28, 1965 and Modified on June 30,
i960, and Orders dated September 9, 1966, September 19, 1966,
and September 28, 1966 of the undersigned be and it hereby
is changed and modified to read February 1, 1968.
SECOND: That the date April 30. 1968 in paragraph
2(d) of the Orders dated June 24, 1965 and Modified on June 22,
1966, and Orders dated June 28, 1965 and Modified on June 30,
1966, and Orders dated September 9, 1966, September 19, 19^6 and
September 28, 1966 of the undersigned be and it hereby is
changed and modified to read June 30» 1968.
THIRD: That the date January 1, 1967 In
-------
43
J. C. Haberer
paragraph 2(a) of the Orders dated June 24, 1965 and Modified
on June 22, 1966, and Orders dated June 28, 1965 a-nd Modified
on June 30, 1966, and Orders dated September 9, 1966, September
19, 1966 and September 28, 1966 of the undersigned shall be
modified and revised to contain the following schedule of com-
pliance by the Respondents in regard to phosphate removal
facilities, and said Respondents are directed to:
(i) Complete research and submit report to the
New York State Health Department in approvable form by October
15, 1969.
(ii) Submit final plans for phosphate removal
facilities in approvable form to the New York State Health
Department by February 15, 1970.
(iii) Commence construction of facilities for
phosphate removal by April 15, 1970.
(iv) Complete construction of the said facilities
according to approved plans by June 30, 1970.
(v) Submit reports on phosphate removal every three
months to the New York State Department of Health. First report
due May 1, 1968.
FOURTH: That the date of January 2, 1967 in paragraph
2 of the Orders dated June 24, 1965 and Modified on June 22, 1966,
and Orders dated June 28, 1965 and Modified on June 30, 1966,
-------
44
J. C. Haberer
and Orders dated September 9, 1966, September 19, 1966 and
September 28, 1966 of the undersigned be and it hereby Is
changed and modified to read June 30» 1968.
FIFTH: That the date of May 1, 1968 in paragraph
3 of the Orders dated June 24, 1965 and Modified on June 22,
1966, and Orders dated June 28, 1965 and Modified on June 30,
1966, and Orders dated September 9, 1966, September 19, 1966
and September 28, 1966 of the undersigned be and it hereby is
changed and modified to read June 30, 1970.
SIXTH: That the previous Orders of the undersigned
issued to all or some of the Respondents above named on June 24,
1965 and Modified on June 22, 1966, and on June 28, 1965 an<*
Modified on June 30, 1966, and Orders issued on September 9,
1966, September 19, 1966 and September 28, 1966 as herein
modified or revised are otherwise confirmed in all respects
except wherein they may conflict or be contrary to the intent
and purposes of the modifications provided for hereinabove.
DATED: Albany, New York
January 31, 1968 Signed Granville W. Larimore
GRANVILLE W. LARIMOBE, M.D.
First Deputy Commissioner of
Health of the State of New
York
* * *
-------
45
J. C. Haberer
STATE OP NEW YORK : DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH
- X
IN THE MATTER NOTICE
of OF
The Assessment of Penalties for Alleged Violations HEARING
of an Order Issued by the Commissioner of Health
of the State of New York
against
HAROLD T. HUBBARD
d/b/a WHITE BROOK DUCK FARM
(Riverhead-Suffolk County)
Respondent
X
TO: HAROLD T. HUBBARD d/b/a WHITE BROOK DUCK FARM
SIRS:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions
of Sections 1210(3(a)) and 1250(1) of the Public Health Law,
you are required and hereby directed to appear in person or by
attorney before a duly designated representative of the New
York State Commissioner of Health at 12:30 P.M. on January 31.
1968 in Room 159 of the New York State Department of Health
Building, 84 Holland Avenue, Albany, New York at a public
hearing in the above entitled proceedings and answer orally and
in writing the charges specified in the Complaint hereto annexed
-------
46
J. C. Haberer
and made a part hereof, at which time a motion will be made for
the fixing of a date for trial of any issues raised in the
pleadings before the Hearing Officer.
DATED: Albany, New York
December 7, 1967
HOLLIS S. INGRAHAM, M.D.
Commissioner of Health of the
State of New York
/s/By: Donald A. MacHarg
DONALD A. MacHARG, Counsel
New York State Department of Health
Commissioner's Designee for Issuance
of Notices of Hearings
TO:
HAROLD T. HUBBARD
d/b/a WHITE BROOK DUCK FARM
Flanders Road
Riverhead, New York
* * #
-------
47
J. C. Haberer
STATE OF NEW YORK : DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
X
IN THE MATTER
OF
The Assessment of Penalties for Alleged Violations
of an Order Issued by the Commissioner of Health
of the State of New York
against
HAROLD T. HUBBARD
d/b/a WHITE BROOK DUCK FARM
(Riverhead - Suffolk County)
Respondent
- X
COMPLAINT
The Department of Health of the State of New York
complaining of the Respondent in the above-entitled proceedings
alleges as follows;
FIRST: A duly authorized Hearing was scheduled in
the matter of alleged violations of Article 12 of the Public
Health Law of the State of New York by Harold T. Hubbard
d/b/a White Brook Duck Farm pursuant to due written notice in
the manner prescribed by law on or about September 6, 1966,
SECOND: That thereafter on the aforetaid date and
-------
48
J. C. Haberer
prior to the conclusion of the aforesaid hearing, the representa-
tives of the parties aforesaid entered into a written stipula-
tion upon which a proposed order could be predicated and
presented for the approval of the Commissioner of Health of the
State of New York, and the attorneys for the Respondent herein,
in effect agreed thereby for their client, that it would abide
by the contents and directions contained in said Order if and
after it should be approved and found by the said Commissioner of
Health of the State of New York.
THIRD: That on the 9th day of September, 1966 the
said proposed Order to which the Respondent had stipulated in
writing was signed by the Commissioner of Health of the State of
New York wherein he approved the Stipulation of the parties and
found that facts exist as to pollution of the waters of the
State and directed the Respondent to comply with an abatement
schedule contained in his Order aforesaid and in the alternate
upon default to cease and abate its polluting discharges into
the waters of the State.
FOURTH: That a true conformed copy of the aforesaid
Order of the Commissioner of Health was duly served upon the
Respondent on September 22, 1966 by registered mail pursuant to
Rule 76.18 of Part 76 of the Administrative Rules and Regulations
(Title 10 N.Y.C.R.R.).
FIFTH: (1) According to decretal paragraph number
-------
49
J. C. Haberer
2.(a) in the abatement schedule of the Order issued September
9, 1966 and duly served upon the Respondent, the Commissioner
of Health of the State of New York directed and ordered the
Respondent to "On or before January 1, 1967 submit to the New
York State Department of Health, through the Suffolk County
Health Department, preliminary plans showing facilities for
biological treatment of all such wastes and/or effluents thereof
to the extent that at least 85# of the suspended solids and at
least 85# of the biochemical oxygen demand and a substantial
portion of the phosphates thereof and therein shall be removed
and facilities for disinfecting such wastes and/or waste
effluents to the extent that the final effluent shall at all
times contain a chlorine-residual, of not less than one half
part per million after not less than 15 minutes contact time
and an MFtt of coliform organisms not greater than 100 per ml.
in at least 90$ of the samples in a series thereof, provided that
at no time may the MPN of such organisms in said final effluent
exceed 10,000 per 100 ml.".
(2) According to the decretal paragraph 2.(b) of
the aforesaid Commissioner's Order, the respondent was to "On
or before August 1, 1967, submit final construction plans, in
approvable form, prepared by or under the direction of a duly
licensed professional engineer, for such facilities",
(3) According to decretal paragraph 2.(c) of the
-------
50
J. C. Haberer
aforesaid Commissioner's Order, the respondent was to "On or
before November 1, 1967, initiate construction of such
facilities".
(4) That the respondent did submit a preliminary
report about thirty days late which was disapproved thereafter
on April 28, 1967 and respondent was so notified and has been
in violation of its stipulation and the Commissioner's Order
since said date.
(5) That the respondent thereafter failed in all
respects to submit final construction plans for corrective
facilities, to this date and is thereby in default of said
Commissioner's Order.
(6) That the respondent failed in all respects
to initiate construction of corrective facilities to this date
and is thereby in default of the said Commissioner's Order.
SIXTH: Upon information and belief that the require-
ments of Paragraphs 2.(a) (b) and (c) were not met and the
respondent lias been in default thereon for over 300 days in
regard to requirements of 2.(a); for over 100 days in regard
to requirements of paragraph 2.(b); and for over 30 days in
regard to requirements of paragraph 2.(c)j all affirmed by
inspection, investigation and file research of records on the
subject; and by said defaults is in violation of said Commis-
sioner's Order of September 9, 1966,
-------
51
J. C. Haberer
SEVENTH: Pursuant to Sections 1210(3(a)) and
1250(1) of the Public Health Law of the State of New York, the
Respondent is liable to assessment of a penalty not to exceed
Five Hundred ($500) Dollars for its violations of the said
Order of the Commissioner of Health of the State of New York
promulgated pursuant to Article 12 of the Public Health Law and
to a further penalty of not to exceed One Hundred ($100) Dollars
for each day during which such violations continue.
WHEREFORE, the Department of Health of the State of
New York demands:
That the Respondent, Harold T. Hubbard d/b/a White
Brook Duck Farm be assessed penalties for the aforesaid viola-
tions by it of the Commissioner of Health's Order dated
September 9, 1966 with respect to its failure to comply with
and obey the directions and orders therein contaiac* to prevent
contravention of the class and standards of surface waters of
Peconic Creek into which it discharges in Suffolk County in
accordance with the pertinent sections of the Public Health Law.
DONALD A. MacHARO, Counsel
New York State Department of Health
Office and P.O. Address
84 Holland Avenue
Albany, New York
Telephone
-------
52
J. C. Haberer
certification
STATE OF NEW YORK )
)
COUNTY OF ALBANY ) ss
)
CITY OF ALBANY )
WILLIAM L. GARVEY being duly sworn, deposes and
says :
1. I am the Acting Chief of the Water Pollution
Enforcement Section of the Pure Waters Division of the New York
State Department of Healtn with offices in Albany, New York.
2. This verification is made by the deponent
because the Complainant is an agency of the State of New York
and the persons with direct knowledge of the pertinent facts of
this case are not residents or present within the county in
which the Complainant is located.
3. Deponent has read the foregoing Complaint and
knows the contents thereof. The allegations therein are true
to his own knowledge except as to matters therein alleged upon
information and belief and as to those, he believes such matters
to be true.
4. The sources of deponent's information and the
grounds for his belief are files, records, and memoranda sub-
mitted by field personnel of this Department and the reports of
investigation and telephone conversations made by and held with
agents of the Department of Health made in the pertinent area
-------
53
J. C. Haberer
involved and reference to communications from Department per-
sonnel to my Section and to the Pure Waters Division as well as
to information from Department Counsel's Office.
/s/ William L. Garvey
WILLIAM L. GARVEY
Sworn to and subscribed before
me this 6th day of December 1967
/s/ Arthur T. Singer
COMMISSIONER OF DEEDS
Albany, New York
* * *
PILOT PLANT DATA
DePIAZZY DUCK FARM
FEBRUARY 1967
to
NOVEMBER I967
-------
TABLE I
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Date Flow (gpd) B. 0. D. 5 - (ppm) ^ Reduction
Raw Aerated Final
Waste
Lagoon
Effluent
2-27
44,000
64
19
9
86
3-2
37,000
112
25
28
75
3-6
61,000
340
39
24
93
3-16
47,500
580
56
30
95
3-20
21,500
150
18
10
93
3-30
47,500
45
80
24
31
4-3
44,000
123
23
11
91
4-6
21,500
128
16
13
90
4-10
44,000
160
34
15
91
4-17
47,500
180
34
14
92
4-20
47,500
96
24
5
95
52,000
152
27
18
88
4-27
52,000
136
35
18
87
5-1
47,500
183
19
6
97
5-4
87,500
114
13
7
94
5-6
47,500
196
29
8
96
5-11
87,500
121
19
10
92
5-18
47,500
76
23
10
87
5-22
24,000
70
20
5
93
5-25
36,500
172
37
l4
94
5-29
94
21
3
97
6-5
132
m
-------
TABLE I (continued)
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Date Flow (gpd) B. 0. D. 5 - (ppm) $> Reduction
Raw Aerated Final
Waste
Lagoon
Effluent
6-15
UU,000
260
1*2
11
96
6-19
61,000
232
1*3
23
90
6-22
61,000
95
1*6
--
6-26
58,000
116
2i
18
85
6-29
1*7,500
108
30
19
83
7-6
1*7,500
128
21
11
91
7-11
1*7,500
278
2k
2U
91
7-13
1*7,000
259
1*1
25
90
7-18
W*,000
216
1*5
11
95
7-20
36,500
160
3U
8
95
7-2U
1*7,500
89
23
16
82
7-27
96
28
12
88
7-31
116
21
3.6
97
8-7
1*7,500
115
27
12
90
8*10
30,000
116
30
23
80
8-H*
1*7,500
109
26
13
88
8-17
61,000
117
29
13
89
8-21
19,000
256
1*0
m m
8-21*
19,000
100
23
3
97
8-28
30,000
62
20
10
81*
8-31
52,000
168
25
9
95
9-5
2U,000
1U0
28
1*
97
9-7
l»7,500
63
15
7
89
9-11
82,000
66
26
8
88
9-1*
66,000
U»
87
r
81*
-------
TABLE I (continued)
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Date
Flov (spd)
B.
0. D.
-------
TABLE II
SUSPENDED SOLIDb
Date Flow (gpd) Suspended Solidfl jh Reduction
Raw Aerated Final
Waste Lagoon Effluent
2-27
Ml, 000
18U
22
Ik
92.5
3-2
37,000
98
22
16
83.5
3-6
61,000
810
70
19
97.5
3-16
1*7,500
220
35
2
99.0
3-20
21,500
Uo6
28
13
96.8
3-30
1*7,500
76
200
6
92
k-3
M*,000
18U
52
16
91.5
b-6
21,500
152
3k
11
93
U-io
M»,000
530
108
25
95.5
U-17
U7,500
ll+oo
kO
22
98.5
U-20
U7,500
6k2
5k
20
97.6
U-2»*
52,000
582
36
kZ
93
k-27
52,000
1510
U6
12
99.0
5-1
U7.500
1*50
38
16
96.5
5-U
87,500
iko
19
76
^5.7
5-8
U7,5©0
1U20
57
15
99.0
5-11
87,500
188
36
15
92
5-18
U7,500
8l6
95
15
98.2
5-22
2U,000
308
39
50
8U
5-25
36,500
808
99
26
97
5-29
M*
kk
12
97
6-5
896
80
«•«»
6-8
938
126
7k
91
6-12
726
92
12
98
6-15
Wi,000
110
20
90
-------
TABLE II
(continued)
58
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Date Flow (gpd)
j Reduction
Raw
Aerated
Final
Waste
Lasoon
Effluent
6-19
61,000
368
118
36
90
£ OO
61,000
21*8
152
1*9
80.5
6-26
58,000
230
8U
11
95
6-29
U7.500
lUo
Jk
20
85.8
7-6
•~7,500
5U6
37
15
97.5
7-11
1*7,5--
35^
1(2
28
92
7-13
U7,000
320
55
33
89.8
7-18
kk,000
712
212
23
96.8
7-20
36,500
910
180
18
98
7-2k
^5,500
1*18
127
17
96
7-27
668
109
12
83
7-31
1156
101
k
99
8-7
1*7,500
226
26
3
99
8-10
30,000
19U
21
1*
98
8-lU
1*7,500
350
36
9
97.5
8-17
61,000
282
26
17
93.5
8-21
19,000
1830
19
8-2U
19,000
1830
29
15
99
8-28
30,000
lU2
10
5
96.5
8-31
52,000
880
1*3
2k
97.U
9-5
2fc,000
268
29
IB
93
9-7
1*7,500
196
127
18
91
9-11
82,000
928
23
18
98
9-lk
66,000
85
35
IB
79
-------
TABLE II
(continued) ^
SUSPENDED SOLIDB
Date Flow (gpd) Suspended Solids Reduction
Raw
Aerated
Pinal
Waste
Lagoon
Efficient
9-10
2U,000
381
25
22
9U
9-21
1*7,500
126
26
25
80
9-25
62,000
8U
19
17
80
9-28
82,000
313
31
30
90
10-2
70,500
156
39
29
85
10-5
66,000
100
29
12
89
10-9
61,000
782
U5
19
97
10-16
19,000
Uo8
31
1
10-19
87,500
318
39
35
89
11-13
78,000
20U
78
1*0
80
11-16
61,000
33
38
29
U-20
6U,000
78
29
28
64
11-22
87,000
-938
38
37
97
11-27
90,000
k6k
3h
20
96
-------
60
TABLE III
TOTAL i
PHOSPHATE
Date
Flow (npd)
Lime Added
(lbs/ day)
Total Phosphate
Raw Aerated Final
V/aBte Lagoon Effluent
Removal
2-27
44,000
none
20
10
10
50
3-2
37,000
none
20
14
14
30
3-6
61,000
none
90
14
10
89
3-16
47,500
none
20
22.5
15
25
3-20
21,500
none
65
17.5
15
77
3-30
47,500
20
24
40
«s5
—
*~-3
44,000
20
28
25
22
42
4-6
21,500
20
44-
25
22
50
4-10
44,000
20
76
27
25
67
4-17
47,500
30
104
28
22
79
4-20
47,500
30
56
36
30
47
4-24
52,000
30
72
4l
58
38
4-27
52,000
30
56
49
29
48
5-1
47,500
30
80
40
35
56
5-4
87,500
30
42
30
30
29
5-8
47,500
30
140
56
42
70
5-11
87,500
30
62
50
43
31
5-18
47,500
40
66
52
44
33
5-22
24,000
40
32
37
23
28
5-25
36,500
40
116
83
35
70
5-29
6*
&
44
18
71
6-5
m m
88
50
—
--
6-8
—
80
38
39
51
6-12
m m
152
64
56
ft
-------
6l
TABLE III (continued)
TOTAL PHOSPHATE
Date Flow (gpd) Lime Added Total Phosphate Removal
(lbs/ day)
Raw
Waste
Aerated
Lagoon
Final
Effluent
6-15
UU,000
ho
108
he
hZ
61
6-19
61,000
ho
132
h6
30
77
6-26
58,000
ho
7h
6h
66
2h
6-29
^7»500
ho
k2
32
32
39
7-11
^7>500
ho
98
30
28
65
7-13
h'f,500
ho
7h
3h
28
76
7-18
M,000
ho
70
hi
28
75
7-20
36,500
ho
60
36
27
55
7-2U
U5,500
ho
U6
32
31
7-27
mm
5U
U7
36
33
7-31
—
>hQ
UU
22
5h
8-7
^5,500
ho
h2
30
32
2h
6-lh
1*7,500
ho
76
h9
57
25
8-17
61,000
ho
66
3h
32
52
8-21
19,000
ho
60
28
«•••
¦i «D
8-2U
19,000
ho
56
28
10
82
8-28
30,000
ho
3h
37
27
21
8-31
52,000
ho
5*
5h
h7
31
9-5
2U,000
hO
&
Sh
57
9-7
hi>500
hO
32
3h
32
9-11
82,000
ho
22
26
25
9-lU
66,000
hO
20
zh
25
mm
9-18
2^,000
hO
*5
26
23
50
9-21
*7,500
hO
2H
23
22
10
-------
62
TABLE III (continued)
TOTAL PHOSPHATE
Date Flow (gpd) Lime Added Total Phoaphate j, Removal
(lbs/ day) Raw Aerated Final
Waste Lagoon Effluent
9-25
82,000
Uo
26
2^
23
10
9-28
82,000
kO
16
20
19
—
10-2
70,500
Uo
23
26
2k
—
10-5
66,000
uo
—
—
m m
10-9
61,000
kO
39
23
21
U6
10-16
19,000
50
36
19
1
(Probable
10-19
87,500
50
---
•» «*
—
--
11-13
78,000
50
19
16
lb
27
11-16
61,000
50
8
16
16
11-20
6U,000
50
lU
16
Ik
—
11-22
87,000
50
18
lb
22
11-27
90,000
50
20
Zk
16
20
-------
63
J. C. Haberer
MR. STEIN: Are there any comments or questions?
Mr. Klashman?
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Haberer, on the extension of the
dates, I am not clear as to how these dates that you have In
your report vary from the dates that were in the conference
conclusions and also in the standards.
MR. METZLER: It is from May 1 to July 1.
MR. KLASHMAN: It is just a question of a matter
of a few months?
MR. STEIN: It is a two-month delay.
MR. HABERER: For the completion of construction, it
is only the two-month time. There has been change on the other
dates also, but this is the controlling date.
MR. KLASHMAN: Are they actually going to meet
these dates? I noticed that there was a date here of April --
MR. HABERER: It is June 30, 1968, I think that
you are referring to.
MR. KLASHMAN: Which la just another few months?
MR. HABERER: That's right.
MR. KLASHMAN: For a start of construction, the
point is that it is February 1968 instead ©f November 1967.
Did they meet the February 1968 date? Did they actually start
construction in February 1968?
MR. HABERER: Some of them did. I know that some
-------
64
J. C. Haberer
of them did not, because we have started actions against those.
MR. STEIN: Let me see if I can clarify this, and
if I do not, correct me.
There may have been some adjustments in the interim
dates. However, we are talking just now about the treatment
of the duck wastes. Is that right?
MR. HABERER: Yes.
MR. STEIN: Some of the farms are either going out
of business or they are not discharging to surface waters. For
those that are going to be continued, they will be in operation
with a two-month delay from the date originally set, although
there may have been some interim adjustments to get this going.
However, there are some duck fanners which are not
in compliance and the State is taking appropriate legal action
against them.
Is that a fair statement?
MR. HABERER: That's right, and our regional man
and our county Health Department men are on top of the job, and
if they see any faltering, why, then that is their job to report
it to us, for us to take action.
MR. KLASHMAN: The next thing is on the phosphate
removal.
What was the original date on that?
MR. HABERER: I don't have the original date on that
-------
65
J. C. Haberer
in front of me, but I assume it was April 30, 1968, which would
have been the original date for the placing in full operation
the treatment facilities, including the phosphate removal.
When the plans were submitted, they included phos-
phate removal equipment, but not removed to the extent that we
considered necessary, so, therefore, in order to get the plans
under way and construction started, we put off the date of the
design for facilities to remove a higher percent of phosphate
to a later date, which would allow for further experimentation
and research.
MR. KLASHMAN: I'm with you on that.
MR. HABERER: Does that answer the question?
MR. KLASHMAN: Yes, I understand what you are
saying.
MR. HABERER: Did that answer the question, though?
MR. KLASHMAN: Yes.
MR. HABERER: All right.
MR. KLASHMAN: The last thing I wanted to ask was,
in the case of Patchogue, and I am referring to Page 3» "Muni-
cipal Wastes," as I understand it, the problem is whether
Patchogue join a regional facility that Brookhaven would operate,
or whether it would go alone.
First, if Brookhaven Is going to have a regional
facility ultimately, do we have any idea of what the timing
-------
66
J. C. Haberer
might be?
MR. HABERER: Yes. I think that I would furlough
to Mr. Harrison, who just finished a conference with the
Mayor this morning, so I think he would be up to date and right
on the minute as to what the agreement was.
MR. METZLER: Well, isn't the Mayor going to testify
on this a little later, and wouldn't it be appropriate to wait?
MR. KLASHMAN: Why don't we wait?
(Voice from the audience stated that the Mayor
would not be there.)
MR. METZLER: The Mayor will not be here. I'm
sorry. Then it is appropriate for Mr. Harrison.
MR. HABERER: Are there any other questions?
MR. STEIN: Let's get this one first. If you want
Mr. Harrison to answer it, Mr. Harrison, would you come up,
please?
STATEMENT OF JOHN E. HARRISON, REGIONAL ENGINEER,
NSW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 222 MAMARONECK
AVENUE, WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK
MR. HARRISON: Actually, Mr. Klashman, there was
never a thought of the Town of Brookhaven having a regional
facility on its own. What we are talking about is taking some
of the area of the Town of Brookhaven to go in with the ex-
panded Village of Patchogue plant.
-------
67
J.. E.. Harrison
MR. KLASHMAN: Excuse me. In other words,
Patchogue would actually be a regional plant.
MR. HARRISON: Patchogue would build the facility,
and some of the area which is a natural drainage area to the
village and the town would be included.
At the present time, the Village of Patchogue has
agreed with us on a schedule for construction of a secondary
facility from their present plant. At the present time they
have a primary treatment plant serving the business area, and
they will expand this to secondary treatment.
At the same time, a design of that plant will in-
clude the remainder of the village and part of the Town of
Brookhaven.
MR. KLASHMAN: In other words, if Patchogue goes
alone, the way the engineering will be, the engineers will
anticipate that in time the plant will be expanded to handle
this additional load, and the plant will be designed so that it
cam be expanded?
MR. HARRISON: That is right.
MR. KLASHMAN: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: While we are on that, toe determination
has not been made whether Patchogue will go alone yet as of
your last conference. Is that so or not?
MR. HARRISON: We are asking the Town of Brookhaven
-------
68
J. E. Harrison
to give us this answer within a month.
MR. STEIN: If the answer is negative from
Brookhaven, or even if it is positive, will Patchogue have
their secondary treatment plant with chlorination in by
December 31, 1969?
MR. HARRISON: This is what the Mayor has told us,
that they will have it in by the end of 1969• I have the
feeling that it will be probably closer to the middle of 1970.
We have talked with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration on construction grant aid, and our
schedule now reads in the middle of 1970 for the construction
of secondary treatment.
MR. STEIN: If Brookhaven does not go in with
Patchogue, will Brookhaven have to put in their own treatment
facility?
MR. HARRISON: No, not at the present time. They
are served by individual cesspools.
They are included in the comprehensive study of
the five western towns, and eventually there will be sewers,
but it was our feeling in the Coordinating Committee that
sewers would not reach this area for quite some number of
years, and this is the reason why we have requested that the
Village of Patchogue put in secondary treatment now.
MR. STEIN: That brings us to another point while
-------
69
J. E. Harrison
you are here. This is one of the last of the recommendations
of the conferees, that area-wine, drainage collection
systems and treatment are necessary for the protection of the
Moriches Bay and Great South Bay.
Presumably, they are moving towards that very,
very slowly, if at all.
MR. HARRISON: This is true.
MR. STEIN: This, of course, is going to present
a key problem. We may get the channel built; we may get some-
thing done about the sludge; we may get the duck farms set up;
we may get Patchogue putting in secondary treatment; but I
don't know that the millenium is going to arrive here without
that area-wide collection and treatment system.
I think this is something that the people in the
area will just have to face if you are thinking about utiliza-
tion of the waters of Moriches and Great South Bay for the
maximum number of water uses, and particularly for the harvest-
ing of shellfish and the availability of those shellfish for
marketing in interstate commerce.
Are there any other questions?
MR. METZLER: I would like to ask Mr. Haberer one
other question.
MR. KLASHMAN: Mr. Harrison, could I just get some-
thing clear in my mind?
-------
70
J. E. Harrison
This date of December 31, 1969, for Patchogue
ties in with some other dates. Do you know offhand what they
are? That is, the dates when they are supposed to have the
plant --
MR. HARRISON: We have revised a schedule on
the fact that the committee has recommended that part of the
area in the Town of Brookhaven be included, so I can give you
the interim dates.
MR. KLASHMAN: How much do they vary from the
original?
MR. HARRISON: The final construction date would
only be approximately five months from that.
MR. KLASHMAN: I meant the interim dates.
MR. HARRISON: And the interim dates are only within
a month or two.
MR. KLASHMAN: When were the plans supposed to be in?
MR. HARRISON: I can look that up for you.
MR. KLASHMAN: I would like to know when they were
supposed to be in, and when they will be in,
MR. STEIN: Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: My questions would be directed to Mr.
Haberer.
If you want to finish up this line that Mr. Klashman
started on, I would just suggest we hold up until he gets the
-------
71
J. E. Harrison
information for him.
MR. STEIN: All right.
MR. HARRISON: The original schedule read: Submit
preliminary plans January 1, 1968. Now we are talking about
approximately September of 1968.
MR. KLASHMAN: So that is about eleven months?
MR. HARRISON: Eleven months.
MR. KLASHMAN: What is the next?
MR. HARRISON: It was June 1st to submit final
plans, but this will not change too much. It will be about
July 1st.
MR. KLASHMAN: It was supposed to be June 1st of —?
MR. HARRISON: 1968, so this will be still that
eleven months.
MR. KLASHMAN: And the final plans will be twelve?
MR. HARRISON: No. The final plans will be July 1,
1969.
was?
MR. KLASHMAN: July 1969, and then the next date
MR* HARRISON: The start of construction.
MR. KLASHMAN: Right; which ia when?
MR. HARRISON: Which would be approximately November
1, 1969, and then one year for its construction.
MR. KLASHMAN: So, according to this the final date
-------
72
J. E. Harrison
of construction will be November 1970?
MR. HARRISON: Right. One year construction.
MR. KLASHMAN: It will be November or December of
1970?
MR. HARFfcSON: Yes.
MR. KLASHMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. HARRISON: All right.
MR. KLASHMAN: It is about a year.
MR. HARRISON: About a year5 yes.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: I wanted to go back with Mr. Haberer
a little bit in connection with the duck farmers, who are not
meeting the schedule.
What alternatives does the Commissioner of Health
have in enforcing his orders?
FURTHER STATEMENT OP JOHN C. HABERER
MR. HABERER: We can call a hearing and sit in
judgment on whether or not they have met the conditions, and
finding that they have not, he can assess a penalty up to $500
for first penalty, with $100 a day that they operate thereafter.
MR. METZLER: Has he done this on any polluters up
until now?
MR. HABERER: I don't believe that there has been
-------
73
J. C. Haberer
an actual —
MR. METZLER: I am not talking about duck polluters.
I am talking about any sources of pollution.
MR. HABERER: Yes. We have in several industries
made an assessment.
MR. METZLER: And has he actually been assessed
a daily fine as well as an initial fine?
MR. HABERER: No. I think it was an initial fine.
MR. METZLER: How about Pennsylvania Railroad?
MR. HABERER: That is the one I am trying to think
about. That was an initial fine plus a certain number of days,
so it was based on a dally fine also.
MR. METZLER: What other alternatives, in addition
to the penalties or fines, are open to him?
MR. HABERER: Well, he can go the full extent of
asking for an injunction.
MR. METZLER: And the injunction would be for what
purpose?
MR. HABERER: For ceasing operations.
MR. METZLER: What is your impression of his deter-
mination on how to handle these? Does he use one or both, or
neither one?
MR. HABERER: I anticipate that the Commissioner of
Health will use both, and wherever needed.
MR. METZLER: Well, wherever needed? When is this
-------
74
J. C. Haberer
going to happen? Is he going to be willing to give duck
farmers another six months or a year?
MR. HABERER: I would say that we have come up
with a very firm schedule, and that this is what we intend to
stick to.
MR. METZLER: All right, and anyone not in compli-
ance on July 1st can't expect any further mercy. Is that what
you said?
MR. HABERER: That is what I said.
MR. METZLER: I just wanted to understand it.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any further comments or questions?
MR. KLASHMAN: No.
MR. STEIN: Let me go off the record for a minute.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. STEIN: Let's go back on the record.
Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: Dr. Leone, Commissioner of Health
for Suffolk County, is the next person. He appears both for
himself and for the County Executive.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. LEONE, M.D., COMMIS-
SIONER, SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK
-------
75
G. E. Leone
DR. LEONE: Mr. Chairman, Conferees and Ladies and
Gentlemen:
My name is George Leone, Commissioner of Health of
Suffolk County, and on behalf of the County Executive, Mr. H. C.
Dennison, who regrets he was unable to attend this conference,
I want to welcome both the Federal and State conferees for this
enforcement affecting pollution problems of Moriches Bay.
The County Executive has repeatedly expressed his
concern, as well as others, on the duck waste problem, and
many of you know his position. He has asked me to wish this
conference success in bringing this matter to a final resolution,
but especially as it pertains to duck pollution.
Both the Federal and State governments are now
joined together to work towards enforcement of the orders that
have come upon the duck ranchers that were congregated as a
result of this conference, and the County Health Department has
worked cooperatively, as the State Health Department knows, for
the last twenty years in these pollution problems.
As a result of our concern with the progress being
made on the orders that have been placed upon the duck farmers,
with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a
resolution that was passed unanimously by the Board of Health of
Suffolk County at a regular meeting on February 28, 1968, in
connection with duck pollution.
-------
76
G. E. Leone
May I?
MR. STEIN: Yes, go right ahead.
DR. LEONE: Thank you.
"RESOLUTION BY THE SUFFOLK COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
"WHEREAS, The Suffolk County Board of Health is
vitally concerned with the water pollution problems
created by the duck farms in Suffolk County, and
"WHEREAS, the Board of Health has been informed
that the orders of the New York State Commissioner of
Health have been amended to require the installation
of aerated lagoon and disinfection treatment facilities
by June 30> 1968, rather than by April 1, 1968, and
"FURTHER THAT, phosphate removal facilities will
not be required until June 30* 1970, and
"WHEREAS, the Suffolk County Department of Health
reports that the rate of compliance by the duck growers
to initiate the construction of the necessary waste
treatment facilities has been too slow, therefore,
be it
RESOLVED, That the Suffolk County Board of Health
urges that the State Commissioner of Health take the
necessary legal action to assure that all duck growers
adhere to this revised time table for the solution of
this long-standing water pollution problem, and be it
-------
77
G. E. Leone
"further
"RESOLVED, That copies of this proposed resolu-
tion "be furnished the following:
"Hollis S. Ingraham, M.D., State Commissioner
of Health
Dwight F. Metzler, Deputy Commissioner,
Environmental Health Services, New York
State Department of Health
Arthur G. Baker, M.D., Associate Commissioner
of Health, New York State Department of
Health
Andrew C. Fleck, Jr., M.D., 2nd Deputy Commis-
sioner of Health, New York State Department
of Health
William R. Donovan, M. D., Regional Health
Director, White Plains Regional Office,
New York State Health Department
John E. Harrison, P.E., Regional Director of
Public Health Engineering, White Plains
Regional Office
Mr. H. Lee Dennison, Suffolk County Executive
Mr. John V. N. Klein, Chairman of the Suffolk
County Board of Supervisors
U, S. Public Health Service — Region II
-------
78
G. E. Leone
"Mr. Murray Stein, Assistant Commissioner for
Enforcement, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, Department of Interior,
Washington, D. C.
Mr. Paul DeFalco, Jr., Deputy Director, North-
east Region Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, Department of Interior,
Metuchen, New Jersey
"Adopted unanimously in the regular meeting of
the Suffolk County Board of Health tyeld on February 28,
1968."
I just want to add one or two encouraging observa-
tions that I have heard this morning.
I think, in view of Commissioner Metzler's conversa-
tion with Mr. Haberer, I am encouraged that it appears that the
State Department of Health will remain firm on insisting that
the duck ranches comply by June 30th.
Of these 43 duck farms that were placed under these
orders, I note that as to 14 of them, seven will not be
operating, and that action will be taken as to the other seven
to bring them into compliance.
That completes my statement.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Doctor.
Are there any comments or questions?
-------
79
G. E. Leone
MR. METZLER: Well, I would like to comment on
the very fine support which we have had in the investigative
phases particularly that are essential for these enforcement
actions, and also on the assistance of the local Health
Department insisting on those farmers and ranchers who are
going ahead with their facilities.
This cooperation is very much appreciated.
Also, I would like to welcome their strong support
to a rigid enforcement program.
DR. LEONE: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any other comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: The next person is Mr. Charles
Barraud, Supervisor of the Town of Brookhaven.
(No response.)
MR. METZLER: Maybe things are going so well —
how about Miayor Waldbauer?
(No response.)
MR. METZLER: All right.
How about Nelson Slager of the Oyster Institute?
-------
80
N. Slager
STATEMENT OP NELSON SLAGER, SECRETARY OP
FIRE ISLAND FISHERIES, INC., BAY SHORE,
NEW YORK, REPRESENTING THE OYSTER INSTITUTE
OF NORTH AMERICA
MR. SLAGER: Mr. Stein, Conferees:
I am Nelson Slager, representing the Oyster
Institute of North America, the trade association representing
the clam and oyster producers of our country, of which I am one;
specifically, Secretary of Fire Island Fisheries, Inc., Bay
Shore, New York. I am pinch-hitting for Mrs. Wallace, Director
of the Oyster Institute who is in Washington, D. C., for
Congressional hearings of high priority for our industry. Those
matters are not more important than the subject before us here,
but she is especially indispensable to our needs there right
now, and as a local man I shall try to represent the Institute
in this local need.
Just at the time the first session of this con-
ference was held on September 20-22, 1966, the need for our
interest in these proceedings was being reinforced by a re-
currence of the eutrophication of these waters resulting in
another significant bloom of Nannochloris. We have been able to
substantiate the harmful results once again in our production
reports on shellfish.
Beginning in the fall of 1966 and continuing throughout
-------
8l
N. Slager
the winter and early spring of 19&7, the crews of our clam
dredges and other clamdiggers told us the clams were not growing
normally. Our production and cost records after that proved
the observations to be true.
It was not until summer 196? that clams showed the
recovery from their bad diet, and it was fall before they had
grown sufficiently to meet the market demand. Attached is a
table showing the ex-vessel price of Little Neck clams during
1966-67 and 1968, which gives some indication of the effects of
supply variations on the market.
The low point was $11 in 1966. It rose gradually
to 12, 13, 14, 15» and then finally in 1967 came back to 13 and
12, and now it is back down to 12 again, after a short period
during the winter of a high critical market.
The above data is reinforced by a more sensitive
indicator — the oyster. Our oyster hatchery in West Sayville
has been in production since the summer of 1964. We have just
completed our annual transplanting and have had to write off
the 1964 and 1965 crops due to mortalities during 1966. A
major cause of our loss is the superabundance of Nannochloris.
The 1966 seed was under controlled conditions long enough to
survive the initial stress and the 1967 conditions were more
favorable, so we now look forward to an eventual harvest from
our hatchery efforts. Attached are the results of the current
-------
82
N. Slager
transplantings.
In addition to the seed oyster picture, the mature
oyster condition has suffered to such an extent that their
marketability in the fall and winter of 1966 was greatly
reduced.
The oyster industry here has not returned to the
substantial proportions that a crushing blow would affect many,
but it certainly is discouraging to me to make a substantial
investment in an effort to reestablish an industry using the
latest techniques offered by painstaking research, and then lose
its first fruits. We wish the duck industry would invest pro-
portionately in its own future by applying the latest research
in sanitation and pollution control.
For 25 years we have had to suffer the consequences
of the dallying of the duck farmers. The schedule they agreed
upon last June must be met. (See Section 7 (a), (b), (c) and
(d), pp. 130-131. Proceedings of Secorid Session, June 21,
1967.)
We are confident some duck farmers are going to
survive the costs of cleaning up their own industry, and those
who do it quickest will do it cheapest. It has been our
experience that the sooner a capital project is started and
completed the lower the cost. To plead that a competitor who
does not control his effluent now will have an advantage, holds
-------
83
N. Slager
no weight, since all will have to face the problem, and the
later he faces up to it, the more it will cost him.
We are dependent upon the engineers of the State of
New York and the Federal Government to improve the circulation
of water at Moriches Inlet. We are grateful for motivation
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration for the
improvement of the waste treatment plant at Patchogue to meet
the sewerage disposal needs of that community and thereby im-
proving the water quality of Patchogue Bay.
Dredging Sludge. Dredging the sludge from the
creeks is of great concern to us. Probably some unwise removal
of sludge in 1966 released nutriments which helped trigger an
outbreak of Nannochloris, For this reason we are primarily
interested in a cautious and safe approach to this problem.
Furthermore, we understand that any removal of sludge is con-
tingent upon special State appropriations which have not yet
been made.
We understand that the completion date for construc-
tion of the duck waste treatment plants which was scheduled for
April 30, 1968j may be put off until June 30, 1968. We wish
it to be clearly understood that there must be no further
extension.
We further understand that these plants are very
effective, after the waste has been held in the lagooi»8 for *
-------
84
N. Slager
period of five days for the removal of suspended solids, for
improvement of the BOD condition, and destruction of bacteria,
via chlorination. However, this process will not remove
sufficient phosphates. We are told that a delay is being re-
quested for removal of phosphates. We strongly oppose such a
delay. We believe the use of lime would be effective in pro-
viding a solution to this problem, until a more satisfactory
method is developed.
I would like to speak to Mr. Haberer later on that
point, if possible.
Now that the duck farmers have promise of such a
large measure of success in controlling their pollution, the
Long Island Duck Farmers' Cooperative should be encouraged to
assume responsibility for self-policing of their industry. It
will mean conscientious effort on the part of responsible per-
sonnel to assure full effectiveness of the treatment plants.
With periodic check-up by the county Health Department, a situa-
tion will develop to ensure proper operation and good will
between everyone affected.
If there is any doubt that this is not possible,
let there be continuous, mandatory inspection.
The mejnbers of the Oyster Institute are deeply
grateful to the conferees, who by their close attention to this
problem have given the necessary impetus to those who must
-------
85
N. Slager
provide the solutions. Its quick irrp lementation will mean so
much to all the shellfish interests in this area; they are
considerable. In 1967, 3,1^6 clam diggers' permits were issued
in the State of New York. Of this number, 60 percent, or about
1,850 families, were entirely dependent upon shellfishing for
their livelihood. Another 15 percent, or ^50 diggers, are
especially deserving of your consideration, namely, those high
school and college students who dig clams during vacation time
to finance their educations. Over the years I have personally
known a great many of them who are now teachers,
engineers, scientists, and even political scientists. One of
my pleasures as a shellfish dealer has been to watch these young
men develop into our richest resource -- the citizen realizing
his greatest potential. Please continue to do all you can to
restore the environment of the sea, so the sea resource can be
beneficial to all citizens.
One final word is one of appreciation for those
public servants who are engaged in the pollution abatement
program. The firmness of the conferees here is so necessary
to back up their efforts — to hold the line for them — not to
give ground for delays — so they can achieve success and
encouragement. We must not lose the fight because of frustration.
Thank you.
(The table attached to Mr. Slager1s statement follows:)
-------
86
Ex-Vessel Price of Little Neck Clams
Table One
Jan. 1, 1966 $11
Feb. 1, 1966 13
Mar. 8, 1966 12
18 11
May 9, 1966 12
July 7, 1966 13
Oct. 17, 1966 12
Dec. 6, 1966 13
Jan. 1, 1967 14
20 13
Feb. 20 l4
April 18 13
June 1, I967 14
12 13
28 14
July 19 13
Sept. 11 14
Oct. 4 13
13 12
Dec. 1 13
11 12
Jan. 1, 1968 13
5 14
-------
87
Table One
(Continued)
Jan. 15s 1968 18
22 16
Feb. 2 i
23 18
March 8 16
16 15
20 14
25 13
Apr. 2 12
Table Two
1964 2,000 Bu. Seed Mortality
1965 2,100 Bu. Seed 90# Mortality
1966 1,400 Bu. Seed 29# Mortality
1967 2,500 Bu. Seed 2<# Mortality
* * *
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Slager, for a very
comprehensive statement.
Are there any questions?
MR. METZLER: It is a very fine statement.
-------
88
N. Slager
Now, I think I possibly showed my lack of under-
standing of all the problems of shellflshing and my lack of
experience at the first conference here, and, if you will per-
mit me, I would like to ask a question or two primarily for my
own information.
As we stop the pollution from the duck farms, the
organic and the bacterial pollution, doesn't this eliminate
most of the problems so far as shellfishing is concerned, so
that we do have a little time to work on the nutrient problem?
MR. SLAGER: Yes, I would say so.
MR, METZLER: Do we have more time for the nutrient
problem than we have with the bacterial and the organic
problem?
MR. SLAGER: It is hard for me to distinguish --
I am not a chemist -- the difference etween the nutrient
problem and the biochemical problem. I wouldn't know.
I do know that there has been relief from the
situation periodically, particularly due to the improvement of
Moriches Inlet. This relieved the situation for us consider-
ably.
However, we are always in danger, as long as the
duck farms are allowed to permit their effluent to flow into
the bay. We never know what is going to happen in Moriches
Inlet.
-------
89
N. Slager
I think it is a fine thing that the Army Engineers
are making a study of it, which hopefully will provide the
correction of this situation; but until that, we are always in
danger.
As far as nutrients, I can't answer your question.
I don't know. Our great concern now is the phosphates, I
believe. That is the problem.
MR, STEIN: I think your statement is very fine, but
I think we have to come to grips with one operation here.
As far as I can see, the New York program in dealing
with the duck farms has been a vigorous one, and one that, of
course, has to be carried out equitably, but we ran into a snag
in dealing with this problem.
At the conference we asked for a substantial reduc-
tion of phosphates. I think it is to the credit of New York,
certainly, and possibly the people who are working with the
duck farmers, that when they began getting the first results on
the amount of phosphates being reduced, maybe twenty-five per-
cent, they called us up immediately and they notified the
Federal people. They called me in Washington and said, "You
know, we are not really getting a substantial reduction of phos-
pates. What do we do?"
This is sort of analogous to that Patchogue situa-
tion — not that the Mayor of Patchogue doesn't want to go ahead
-------
90
N. olager
with secondary treatment. He Is ready, but he has to integrate
that and dovetail that with the financing in the area.
The question was: What do we do? The best thing
to do was to call on the top scientists we knew who are working
on this program all over the country, because the nutrients
are a tremendous problem all over the country, and ask them to
come up. Now, your point was that all you have to do is
put in lime in an interim way to do this.
MR. SLAGER: Right.
MR. STEIN: I am not sure that our scientists are
convinced, and we have to again relate this to a kind of cost
operation.
MR. SLAGER: Yes .
MR. STEIN: We knew from the beginning, for example,
that you could remove phosphates by getting, if you ever pay
enough for, any flocculating material.
For example, this may be about ten years ago, we
had some radioactive phosphates in an installation, the phos-
phorus didn't come necessarily from this, but we had to get it
out. We did get it out. Of course, we got it out because of
the radioactive nature. We used alum, as I recall, another
flocculating material to get it out.
The question here is with the duck farmers. If,
from what I gather our scientists say, there is no really
-------
91
N, Slager
economic way that you can ask the duck farmer to do that with
the lagoons with the present known technique and get a sub-
stantial reduction, what do you do?
I think Mr. Metzler pointed one of the ways. If
we stop the bacteriological loading of the water from the duck
farms, more and more beds will be able to be opened because the
pathogens won't be there. The nutrients will be there. Maybe
they won't grow, but at least the areas will be opened.
But Mr. Metzler has suggested, and they haven't
allowed this open too long, that they would go to June 1970
until we come up with a reasonable solution to handle the duck
farm wastes.
I would like to indicate this: I hope you can
convince the State scientists and our scientists, and maybe
one of those young engineers who got his education picking
up those clams during the summer, that we have a reasonable way
to move on the phosphates.
Looking at our program and the State program, if
either of us thought there was a reasonable way to move on the
phosphates with the duck farmers now and we really could do this
at this time within the equitable requirements, do you really
think that we would, or the State would have devised this year-
and-a-half program?
What is the point of their saying if they are not
-------
92
N. Slager
proceeding in two months, they are going to take this firm
action on the one that we know how to do, and why do they give
the other?
MR. SLAGER: Yes.
MR. STEIN: The reason I am going into this is,
I want you to come along with this in a joint program, because
I think the notion here just to say that you can add lime and
remove the phosphates does not necessarily get it done.
MR. SLAGER: Well, I agree with you, and it is very
easy for me to say, obviously, just add lime.
MR. STEIN: Right.
MR. SLAGER: However, I don't know if you are famil-
iar with it, but there have been results published on municipal
plants.
MR. STEIN: We have looked into that, sir. In
equating the discharge in municipal treatment plants, where you
have pipes and all kinds of refined equipment that can adjust flows
and retention chambers, and in attempting to relate that to a
lagoon, I hope you have the technical know-how among the people
you have, because I have not been able to find it, nor has Mr.
Metzler been able to find it in our nationwide contacts. We
went through that and we just drew a blank.
MR. SLAGER: Yes. I have confidence in your resources,
Mr. Stein.
-------
93
N. Slager
MR. STEIN: That's right, but this is the point. We
thought of that and we went through that thoroughly.
We have not found yet that you can use the tech-
niques completely taken from a sewage treatment plant and put
them, in a lagoon of the type you have here.
MR. SLAGER: All right.
MR. STEIN: Is that a fair statement?
MR. METZLER: I think this is a fair statement.
If I could just recap here the dilemma that we were
in, we do have some municipal plants that are now being designed
in New York State that should provide phosphate removal of about
70 percent, but these are plants that are large in size. They
have laboratory control.
You can spend more for costs of treating; you can
spend more for phosphate removal; and, as a matter of fact,
phosphate removal may cost almost as much as the treatment may
cost.
We are aware of these. I have seen some published
reports that go as high as 90 percent. I simply have seen
nothing that convinces me at the moment that we know how to
take out more than about 70 percent, even in these pretty
complex large municipal plants.
We have been working with Assistant Commissioner
Weinberger of the Federal Water:Pollution Control Administration.
-------
94
N. Slager
We took a look at all the data that we had here, and we decided
to mount a problem during the next two seasons to see if we
can't get something substantially better than 25 percent,
because if we lock in now at the 25 percent, and then come
along and find a way a little later to do 50, you are not going
to be satisfied with the 25. We did not think this was sub-
stantial .
MR. STEIN: I don't know that the water conditions
will be satisfied with the 25.
Just one more point to really try to give you what
we are doing.
We have the same kind, in a philosophic sense anyway,
problem of eutrophication in the Great Lakes. We have two Great
Lakes that we specifically are concerned with. One is Lake
Erie and one is Lake Michigan. We have asked for an 80 percent
removal of the phosphates in Lake Michigan.
Mr. Metzler will be coming to Lake Erie soon when
we settle this to go back at that.
Here is what happened: We asked for this 80 percent
removal for these most sophisticated municipal waste treatment
plants and industrial waste treatment plants. We are asking for
go percent BOD removal, at least chlorination of the effluent in
the latest plants.
The engineers have asked us, "How do you achieve this
-------
95
N. Slager
80 percent phosphate removal?"
On May 1st and 2nd, we are having a meeting in
Chicago, for two days, a technical meeting, where we are
bringing Dr. Weinberger and his staff in to outline to the
engineers how they can get this phosphate removal.
The engineers, you have to recognize, are going to
install the most sophisticated plants with the most sophisticated
treatment. We expect, because of the interest in this, to have
about 500 of these engineers in attendance.
With that, giving you where we are on the big
operation, the notion that we can really have the state of art
on a place like a duck lagoon is stretching it a little, and, I
suspect, realistically.
We are all going to have to work together to come
to the day where we can do this.
There is one last point that I would like to put
out. I don't think New York or we would ever do this, but, you
know, sometimes people fool with semantics. When they were
getting 25 percent phosphate removal, the requirement here was
25 percent, and someone could have said, well, this was a sub-
stantial removal of the phosphate, and let It go.
To the credit of New York State, they did not say
this, and we did not say it. We said this was not substantial
and we have to do better, and we have to face up to the problem.
-------
96
N. Slager
I recognize, sir, that with the duck industry and
yours, this is possibly going to be a sore point until we get
over this. I am not sure I see the end of the tunnel on this
phosphate removal yet, but we are asking the duck farmers to get
a pretty substantial reduction of the pathogens, so that won't
affect it, and we hope to have a little more time, and, with
your sympathetic help and the duck farmers', we hope to come up
within a reasonable time, and I am not sure 1970 is too far in
the distance, and with a reasonable solution that you can live
with.
As far as the State and Federal program is concerned,
we have identified what I think is a problem area where we do
not have the complete answer yet.
MR. SLAGER: Yes. Thank you very much.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much, sir.
MR. KLASHMAN: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. STEIN: Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: We will next hear from Mr. Usinger of
'¦.he Bluepoints Company, representing Mr. Mercer, who is in
England, I understand.
STATEMENT OP EMIL USINGER, BLUEPOINTS COMPANY,
WEST SAYVILLE, NEW YORK
-------
97
E. Usinger
MR. USINGER: My name is Emil Usinger. I am
Production Manager for the Bluepoints Company. We are oyster
and clam farmers in Great South Bay.
Mr. Stein, Gentlemen:
Thank you very much for letting me represent Mr.
Mercer, who is out of the country, and this is his statement
that I am about to read.
At the first session of this continuing enforcement
conference, the Bluepoints Company detailed its long concern
with the pollution problems that beset the area under considera-
tion. In demonstration of its interest, the company reviewed
its participation in a range of projects commencing with an
early biological survey in 1932, through numerous legal attempts
at pollution abatement from 19^9 to present. In a period of
thirty years the company has heard many arguments, interminable
defenses and procrastinations, has seen innumerable gadgets
and passed through deadline after broken and neglected deadline.
When all the verbal dust had cleared as of today, the duck
sludge yet flows unvexed to the sea.
When it was learned in September of 1966 that a
precedent setting enforcement conference under Federal-State
auspices would be convened to consider the matter, there was
general elation. After an extensive review through a general
session, after repeated hearings of a specially constituted
-------
98
E. Usin^er
committee once again certain mechanical guidelines were erected
and certain deadlines mandated.
To quote from the conferees' unanimous conclusions
and recommendations:
.there' shall be... plans for construction for
adequate waste treatment facilities to remove at
least 85# of suspended solids and at least 85$ of
the biochemical oxygen demand and a substantial
portion of the phosphates...and facilities for dis-
infecting such wastes...so as to maintain a chlorine
residual..."
In various local newspapers on or about January 27,
1968, articles appeared indicating that "plans for reducing duck
pollution did not include a satisfactory method of removing phos-
phates." In addition, it was noted that the "new plan" called
for "installation by June 30" of "$400,000 worth of antipollu-
tion equipment in 27 of Suffolk's 48 duck farms." It was evident
to the casual reader that modifications were already in the mill.
On April 10, 1968, a representative of the company
visited a sampling of duck ranches within the enforcement area
including Carmen's River, Forge River, Terrell's Creek and
Seatuck Creek. All farms visited had a sizable crop of duckling
well under way. Observations of the various ranches included:
1. Of the eight observed, only one was using
-------
99
E. Usinger
tne settling lagoon and appeared to have a serviceable
pumping station.
2. Of the seven farms where settling lagoons
were not currently in use, observations of the lagoon
indicated they had not been cleaned or been in use
for an extended period.
3. Of the sample of eight, there was evidence
of earth-moving on two. Otherwise all equipment and
installations were the standard ones required some 15
years ago.
4. None of the three operators encountered had
heard of the need for chlorination.
5- One operator complained bitterly of the
standardized plan which appeared to be in no way
applicable to his plant. He suggested in his remarks
that it would have been helpful if the engineer-
designer had visited the plant before designing
for it.
Prom these observations the company concludes:
1. Compliance with the abatement mandates of the
last 20 years is minimal.
2. If operators of the fawns have trouble with
the maintenance of earthen pits and simple centrifuge
pumps, how will they cope with aerators and chlorinators?
-------
100
E. Usinger
3- Despite all its gadgeting, phosphates are
not easily or cheaply removed. In fact, for these
operations the only way to remove the threat of the
consequences of phosphates is to remove the farms
from the water. In any event, the difficulty of phos-
phate removal should not hinder the installation of
the basic secondary treatment mandated.
4. Before any final conclusion the company will
subscribe to the adage: Action speaks louder than words.
Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, sir.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR. METZLER: I might want to ask some questions
after I hear from the duck farmers, but, at the moment, I would
rather wait until after Mr. Houck has had a chance to comment.
MR. USINGER: Thank you for the opportunity.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
MR. METZLER: The next speaker is Mr. Nelson D.
Houck, who is General Manager of the Long Island Duck Farmers
Cooperative.
STATEMENT OF NELSON D. HOUCK, GENERAL
MANAGER, LONG ISLAND DUCK FARMERS COOPERA-
TIVE, EASTPORT, NSW YORK
-------
101
N. D, Houck
MR. HOUCK: Mr. Chairman, Conferees, Ladies and
Gentlemen:
I am Nelson Houck, General Manager of the Long
Island Duck Farmers Cooperative, and today I represent all the
duck growers on Long Island.
In the time since the Patchogue conference in Sep-
tember 1966, the duck industry has worked continuously to
eliminate pollution of the waters of the State.
During the fall of 1966, a 50,000 gallons per day
pilot plant was constructed at the De Piazzy Farm in Moriches.
The plant was operated from January to November 1967 and pro-
vided valuable data necessary for the construction of full-
scale waste treatment systems for the duck farm#.
The State Department of Health had set four criteria
for treatment of duck waste. The effectiveness of the pilot
project can best be illustrated by the extent to which it met
or exceeded these standards. The Department established an
85 percent level for biochemical oxygen demand removal. Actually,
the plant exceeded these figures. They specified removal of 85
percent of suspended solids — the treatment system successfully
removed a greater percent than the standards that were set up.
The Department indicated that wastes must be effectively dis-
infected. Chlorlnation of the plant effluent admirably
accomplished this end. The final stipulation required substantial
-------
102
N. D. Houck
removal of phosphates. The plant operation averaged 44 percent
removal, which might be construed as substantial, but which
met neither our expectations nor our self-imposed functional
level. Research on this phase will continue and with the con-
sult ive help of Cornell University we feel that phosphate
removal can be increased possibly to 80 percent.
In the fall of 1967, plans for waste treatment
facilities for 30 duck farms were submitted to the State Depart-
ment of Health. The plans were approved in February 1968.
Construction of waste treatment facilities are
under way on 24 duck farms. Four other farms are taking their
ducks off water and converting to dry farming, where construc-
tion is slow or just starting. it is a case of a limited
number of contractors and a matter of contractors getting from
one farm to another.
We anticipate that by June 30, 1968, the duck
industry will have complied with the State's order to eliminate
pollution of Moriches Bay, and that within reasonable time
thereafter a more effective method of phosphate removal, we
are confident, will be worked out and installed in the duck
farms.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr. Houck.
Are there any comments or questions?
(No response.)
-------
103
N. D. Houck
MR. STEIN: Let me ask one.
As I read your statement, there is no duck farmer
who doesn't want to be in compliance?
MR. HOUCK: As near as possible. There are some
financial problems in a couple of cases.
MR. METZLER: I wanted to inquire how close we had
come3 referring to the thought Mr. Haberer indicated, as to how
many were moving according to our records, and they indicated
that there were seven that we were going to have to move against
in an enforcement action.
Does that tally with your tabulation?
MR. HOUCK: Of course, mine is as of yesterday, which
is perhaps the latest you could have.
MR, METZLER: That is considerably later than ours,
I am sure, by two or three days.
MR. HOUCK: And we have every intention of not
having you have to get anybody into court one way or another.
I realize that we have a lot of individuals to work
with, and there are a lot of problems when I say that, but it
is possible, I think.
MR. METZLER: The question has been raised about the
ability of the individual duck farmers to operate these facili-
ties, even though engineers can design them.
What plans do you have to assist in seeing that
-------
104
N. D. Houck
these facilities are adequately operated?
MR. HOUCK: Well, at the D6 Piazzy farm there is
a pilot plant. We had a farmer who handled that and did it
very successfully.
As far as the facilities go, we have gotten certain
types of equipment on all farms, so that our upkeep or main-
tenance should be minimal, and we will do that from our coopera-
tive, we anticipate, and from the angle of testing we are
hoping to work with our Long Island Duck Research Laboratory,
with a technical engineer from there, that can be set up to go
around and sample on each farm periodically after we have been
able to work out a proper setup for the Department of Health.
MR. METZLER: Well, I am sure that anyone who has
been able to survive in the duck business this many years is
able enough to operate these facilities, but I was wondering
whether or not they have the time.
I think that these plants that the Association has
have gone a long way towards seeing that the facilities are
adequately operated. Certainly, from our point of view, we will
have to maintain surveillance from the enforcement agencies.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klashman.
MR. KLASHMAN: I would like to ask one question.
There is one plant that was built about seven or eight years ago
for two farms. I can't recall the names.
-------
105
N. D. Houck
MR. HOUCK: Baker and LaMotta.
MR. KLASHMAN: What is the status of that particular
operation?
MR. HOUCK: Well, they are just not operating.
Apparently it never was too successful.
MR. KLASHMAN: Is the farm operating?
MR. HOUCK: No.
MR. KLASHMAN: The farm is closed?
MR. HOUCK: Yes.
MR. KLASHMAN: So that, in other words, there is
no reason for its operation?
MR. HOUCK: Right.
MR. KLASHMAN: What has happened to the farm?
MR. HOUCK: Closed.
MR. KLASHMAN: I mean, is it just lying there?
MR. HOUCK: Yes. It has been bankrupted.
MR. KLASHMAN: But no ducks?
MR. HOUCK: That's right.
MR. KLASHMAN: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much, sir.
Are there any other questions? Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: I don't have any other questions.
I have one additional witness who has notified me,
and, if there are others, if you would let me know at the
-------
io6
Mrs. J. Sharkrd
conclusion, I will call on you.
Mrs. James Sherard, who is Water Resources Chairman
of the League of Women Voters, wishes to testify.
We are glad to have you back again, Mrs. Sherard.
STATEMENT OF MRS. JAMES R. SHERARD, WATER
RESOURCES CHAIRMAN, SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL,
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, OAKDALE, NEW YORK
MRS. SHERARD: I am Mrs. James R. Sherard of Oakdale,
New York, representing the League of Women Voters of Suffolk
County.
We are pleased to see you again in our county
checking up on the progress of the work being done under the
recommendations of the Long Island Coordinating Committee
appointed by the first Conference on Pollution of the Navigable
Waters of Moriches Bay and the Eastern Section of the Great
South Bay.
The League has been in contact with some of the
conferees when deadlines were reached and no concrete evidence
of compliance was seen. We thank you for your attention to our
letters.
There are several aspects of the original recommenda-
tions which we would like to bring up at this time. First in
relation to the standards for sewerage treatment plants. Are
New York State Health Department requirements adequate in all
-------
107
Mrs. J. Sherard
cases? We refer to the proposed Patchogue Treatment Plant. At
present a primary treatment plant is dumping its effluent into
the Patchogue Creek. The improved system would give secondary
treatment and chlorination, which is still far from ideal con-
sidering the body of water into which the effluent will be
dumped. Has the possibility of putting the effluent into the
ground been explored? This would essentially give tertiary
treatment if done properly. Indeed, even beyond effecting
greater treatment it might help to maintain our water resource
by preventing salt-intrusion and keeping water levels at their
highest. Sewerage systems built by developers in the middle
of the Island are using this method. Is it not that much more
important in a community on our shoreline?
Secondly, you heard just a few minutes ago the
proposal that Brookhaven Town might well have to decide whether
or not to come into the Patchogue system, or part of it, at
least, and these are all questions in which the public quite
often has a voice through their politicians, if not directly.
Secondly, how high a standard of phosphate removal
can be maintained in a small treatment plant such as that
designed for the duck farms? The recommendation of the commit-
tee was for "a substantial portion of the phosphates to be
removed." The feasibility of adequate removal of phosphates
-------
108
Mrs. J. Sherard
has been explored by many. Various claims have been made and
so far it seems that many of the cheaper processes have been
successful only in laboratories or in a small number of plants
designed for them. Is it true, as we have explored this
question with many in this area, that we should expect over 70
percent removal and a deadline be written into the recommenda-
tions?
In order to clean up our waters and keep them at
the highest possible standards, we must have pvblic support
for appropriations and action. The public can vote down sewerage
systems, public water supply systems and maintain that cesspools
are an adequate means of disposal or the public can demand that
our waters be clean. We need public education in the field of
water resources here in Suffolk County. At present, we have one
Health Educator in Suffolk County. The Board of Supervisors
will not allocate funds for more. The sanitary engineers in
the Water Resources Division of the Suffolk County Health
Department and local officials of the State Conservation Depart-
ment have worked overtime on public education, yet a few well-
chosen newspaper articles and pamphlets by the opposition seem
to reach many more people. We understand there are vacancies
in positions for Health Educators at the State level. Could
funds be transferred so that the Water Resources Division of
the County Health Department and the local office of the State
-------
109
Mrs. J. Sherard
Conservation Department could hire Public Health Educators or
trainees?
Enforcement is still a major problem in our county,
and we are facing it today very strongly. As long as cess-
pools are being built we must see that they come up to speci-
fications; as long as small sewerage plants are built, we must
see that they are built and maintained at high standards; as
long as we do not have a comprehensive sewer system we must
see that adequate enforcement of presented laws regarding
sewerage disposal for homes, restaurants, industries, hospitals
-- just to name but a few -- be maintained. This means more
expenditures in this field and greater insistence by all agencies
concerned that their standards be observed.
The League has endorsed the concept of the Great
South Bay Commission in which the four levels of government
represented would formulate a plan and carry it through to
ratification and implementation. The State Water Resources
Commission has not supported this legislation, to our knowledge.
They have indicated that perhaps a Regional Board under existing
legislation would solve the problems at hand. We would propose
careful consideration of the present legislation and proposed
legislation so that we can come up with the best possible means
of saving our bays.
In summary, let me say we would ask: (1) Are the
-------
110
Mrs. J. Sherard
standards for the proposed Patchogue Sewerage Treatment Plant
adequate? (2) Are recommendations going to be incorporated
which would give the degree of phosphate removal deemed neces-
sary and would establish deadlines for achievement by the
proposed Duck Farm Treatment Plants? (3) Are State funds
available for more health education in Suffolk County? (4)
Can Suffolk County maintain a higher degree of enforcement of
present standards of the Health and Conservation Department in
face of growing demands? (5) Will the Water Resources Commis-
sion carefully consider all legislation, proposed and existing,
which attempts to get cooperation of all levels of government
to solve the problem of saving our bays?
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
MR. KLASHMAN: Most of the questions are directed
to Mr. Metzler.
MR. STEIN: I am sure he is going to thank you for
that comment.
MR. METZLER: I appreciate this cooperation.
MR. KLASHMAN: On Item No. 1, I would just like to
make an observation.
It would seem to me that the proposal that, if
the timing of the regional plant is not right, Patchogue move
ahead on its own with the understanding that they design the
-------
Ill
Mrs. J. Sher&rd
plant so that it can take in the additional drainage, would
certainly be a far better move rather than to not get anything.
I mean, it would seem to me that this is not an unreasonable
proposal by the State. I just wanted to make that comment.
X understand that is what your proposal is, and I
don't think that is unreasonable at all if that is what they
decide.
MR. METZLER: Again, it is a matter of timing.
I think the League understands timing better than
almost anybody else moving in public affairs, so the decision
we are having to make is whether we can move a regional project
fast enough, or whether we must take the Interim step.
My Impression, just on the discussion of the last
few days, is that we will probably conclude it is better to
take the interim step of getting the treatment.
Now, as to your question as to the adequacy of
the treatment, there are others, I am sure, who can speak more
knowledgeably, and I invite Jack Harrison or Herb Davis, if he
is here, to comment on this.
My impression Is that with the high degree of
secondary treatment combined with chlorination, actually this
is an adequate degree of treatment.
I assume that you are thinking perhaps of the phos-
phate removal or nutrient removal?
-------
112
Mrs. J. Sherard
MRS. SHERARD : Yes.
MR. METZLER: All I can say is we will be alert to
this, and it is an extremely important question.
As a matter of fact, I have raised some of the same
questions with respect to whether it was good water resources
management policy to export all the rainfall, or a substantial
amount of the rainfall and groundwater, through sewers into the
ocean, rather than recharge them. I think from the standpoint
of management of water resources, we ought to consider this.
We are considering it rather seriously in some other places.
MR. STEIN: Are there any further comments or
questions ?
MR. METZLER: I just have a few of these in my
mind.
With respect to Health Educators, you are quite
right about the information that we have about fourteen posi-
tions budgeted that we can't fill in the State Health Department
for Health Educators.
I am very much interested in looking into this
with Dr. Leone to see if there is any possibility that we might
be able to use those funds.
MRS. SHERARD: We feel we try at least to do a
little bit.
I know the men in the Health Department have tried
-------
113
Mrs. J. Sherard
so hard, and the Conservation Department.
MR. METZLER: It is a good suggestion, and we will
follow it through.
MRS. SHERARD: Thank you.
MR. STEIN: Thank you.
Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: Are there any other persons from New
York State who want to testify?
These were all the names that were submitted to us
in advance. I believe that concludes the group then.
MR. STEIN: Yes.
MR. FURMAN: Is this only for New York State?
MR. METZLER: Anyone from the local communities or
from the State who might want to testify.
MR. FURMAN: Well, I am representing Southampton
Bays. Do you want to hear me now?
MR. METZLER: Yes, sir.
STATEMENT OF EDWIN S. FURMAN, PRESIDENT,
SOUTHAMPTON TOWN BAYMEN'S ASSOCIATION, BOX
180, HAMPTON BAYS, NEW YORK
MR. FURMAN: I am Edwin S. Furman and I represent
the Southampton Baymen's Association.
I wanted to have this typed up for you, but my
-------
114
E. S. Furman
secretary was sick, so we couldn't do it at the last minute.
I am sorry.
At the first Federal enforcement conference I made
a feeble attempt to warn of the danger to our shellfishery of
enlarging Moriches Inlet. Since that time, the inlet has
deepened somewhat and we are getting more ocean water with
higher and lower tides all the time. This condition has already
eliminated considerable bay bottom from clam production. The
clams cannot survive in the very high salinity with the lower
water temperature and the rough open water of wintertime within
several miles of a free-flowing inlet.
If we look at an old, established inlet like Fire
Island, there is very little commercial production of hard
clams within six miles, and that is nautical miles, of the
ocean. By comparison, very little of Moriches Bay is as much as
three miles from the ocean, as the tide runs. Most of Shinnecock
Bay is not producing hard clams today for the same reason —
too much ocean water.
This action program to clean the pollution from our
bays and make our s hellfish clean and safe to eat will result in
the elimination of most of said shellfish, at least in Moriches
Bay.
A stabilized inlet — by all means — but not a
larger one. It can be controlled so that storms do not carry
-------
115 .
E. S. Purraan
so much sand into the bay in the future, and stop the continual
channel dredging made necessary in the past.
As far as we — the harvesters of shellfish from
Moriches Bay -- can see, there has been absolutely no progress
in duck farm pollution abatement. In looking at the farms
themselves, you smell the air and you have to get rid of them,
or in reading the Conservation Department's list of condemned
areas, there is no change. And the duck farm owners were under
Federal orders to completely stop all, or nearly all, polluting
of our waters by April 30, 1968.
Is the Federal enforcement going to be just more
talking like we have had for the past twenty or thirty years?
I guess that has been pretty much answered here
today, and I hope you live up to it.
There is one thing I would like to draw your atten-
tion to, one very obvious mistake in this engineer's report
which was given at the last meeting concerning Moriches Bay. It
is on Page 12 of this report that you lud.
MR. KLASHMAN: Which one is that?
MR. FURMAN: Well, it is the engineer's report that
you had at the last conference meeting, Page 12.
MR. KLASHMAN: Do you know who was making the
statement?
MR. FURMAN: What is that?
-------
116
E. S. Furman
MR. KIASHMAN: What is the name of the man who was
making the statement?
MR. STEIN: Why don't you read the name on the
front of the report, right on the cover?
MR. FURMAN: "Report to the Conferees in the
Matter of Pollution of Navigable Waters of Moriches Bay and
Eastern Section of Great South Bay."
MR. STEIN: On the bottom.
MR. FURMAN: This is the Moriches Inlet Report.
MR. KLASHMAN: That is prepared by the Long Island
Coordinating Committee.
MR. STEIN: All right. Thank you.
MR. FURMAN: He makes the statement here that the
tide range in Moriches Bay is three feet four inches. I can't
tinderstand how anyone that spent as much as six hours on Moriches
Bay can make a statement like that.
I have been over at the eastern end of the bay. I
have measured it several times. In mild weather the tides are
in at 28 inches.
Now, that shows we are getting a very good flow of
water through Moriches Inlet.
Another thing I can't understand is why this is
necessary, when they make a statement before they even started
that they are going to make a channel ten feet deep, two hundred
-------
117
E. S. Purraan
feet wide3 from the ocean. They are adding to a channel six
feet deep and one hundred feet wide. They already say what
they are going to do, and why all this additional work? Why
not take the money and do it?
If they do that, you have got an inlet there that
is eight hundred feet wide, you bring it to a channel ten feet
deep by two hundred feet wide, and if you head that up into a
channel six feet deep and one hundred feet wide, I think you
can all visualize what happens. That six-foot channel starts
moving right out in the bay.
We have got it dredged down there at Moriches In?
now clearing that intercoastal waterway, and the ocean keeps
pushing sand off the beach. It is a narrow channel and it
keeps pushing it all the time, and they have to keep at it con-
tinuously.
There is another statement made here in the
engineer's report where they say sludge should be removed to
one foot.
I would like to know how we are going to do that.
There is no water at low tide. How are you going to dig it in
a one-foot depth?
That is what I have.
MR. STEIN: Thank you, Mr, Furman.
Are there any comments or questions?
-------
118
E. S. Furman
MR. METZLER: I don't believe I have any.
MR. STEIN: Do you have any, Mr. Klashman?
MR. KLASHMAN: No.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Metzler?
MR. METZLER: I would like to call one more witness
for New York State. I would like to call Mr. Cosulich and ask
him a few questions about both the design and the construction
work here for the treatment works for the duck growers.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM COSULICH, CONSULTING
ENGINEER, SYOSSETT, NEW YORK
MR. COSULICH: I am a consulting engineer from
Syossett. My name is William Cosulich.
MR. METZLER: The last time we were together, we
adopted some rather optimistic time lines. The thought among us
was that was the time that was needed to do the engineering work.
We should now be well into construction of these facilities.
My principal question is: Do you see anything to
keep us from actually accomplishing, or actually having in place
the treatment works for those farmers that are going to move?
MR. COSULICH: I think it is moving along very well
right now. Most of the farmers have contracted for earth moving
or have ordered their equipment, and It is Just a matter now
-------
119
W. Cosulich
of the earth movers going from one farm to the other, construct-
ing the lagoons. It just takes a few days, and I think we have
made very satisfactory arrangements.
MR. METZLER: How are the costs running? Are the
costs running within the range that you had anticipated?
MR. COSULICH: Good and better. The duck farmers
are very good when it comes to getting the lowest price.
Just on selecting equipment, where the normal price
for a five horsepower motor is $2,500, the co-op ordered them
as a group and placed an order for over forty and got them for
about $1,200 each. That is true right down the line, as far
as the chlorination equipment and everything is concerned. By
doing it cooperatively, they have gotten good prices.
They have worked together. When one farmer found
an earth mover who gave a very good price, the word got around.
MR. METZLER: All right. One other question.
There have been some suggestions that we ought to
investigate other methods of treatment. Have you had any
farmers who have not wanted to go ahead on the basis that they
would like to consider land irrigation?
MR. COSULICH: Yes. We have had conferences with
the State Health Department based on some work that was done
by the Federal Government on ridge and furrow Irrigation, but
with our conferences with the Health Department and subsequent
-------
120
W. Cosullch
investigations by the engineering personnel of the Health
Department, it was decided that the lagoon was pretty much the
standardized solution for the industry.
MR. METZLER: And probably the most economical.
MR. COSULICH: Most economical.
MR. METZLER: As well as most effective?
MR. COSULICH: These other things may have some
merits, but they are not proven. We have a time-table and we
just can't take two more years out to fool around with ridge
and furrow irrigation.
MR. METZLER: And your clients understand that?
MR. COSULICH: I am pretty sure they understand it.
Most of them understand it. I think the responsible people in
the industry understand it.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Klashman?
MR. KLASHMAN: I have no questions.
MR. STEIN: Thank you very much.
I think the basic thing that you can say, and I am
sure you have said, after hearing the testimony of the people
today, and we have heard it before, is that time after time the
State has come, and the Federal Government has come in here,
orders have been issued, directives have been issued, and you
get a lot of talk and action. The indication is that you can
hop into your automobile and ride up and down the street and
-------
121
W. Cosulich
look at the duck farms, and it looks just the way it always
was.
The hardest thing to get across in waste treatment
control is you are not going to get one thing until you throw
the switch in the plant.
With all the planning you do, all the ordering
you do, and all the contracts you enter into, nothing is going
to happen. Even in building a sewage tank, you can see it going
up and up for two, three and four years, you can see all the
concrete being put in, all the lab equipment, all the pipes
coming in, and nothing happens to that water until you put it
on stream, as these fellows here.
In dealing with waste treatment, always most of the
work is done where you don't see it.
When will these people begin seeing what is happening
out there?
MR. COSULICH: You can go out this afternoon and
see some of the progress on the construction. There are some
that are practically completed.
MR. STEIN: As I understand it, the equipment is
ordered for the compliance?
MR. COSULICH: Yes, sir.
MR. STEIN: The pumps and the aerators?
MR. COSULICH: Yes.
-------
122
W. Cosulich
MR. STEIN: And the pipes, I assume?
MR. COSULICH: Yes.
MR. STEIN: And the contracts have been let with
the earth movers?
MR. COSULICH: Yes.
MR. STEIN: So it is just a question'of their
getting time to move the earth and install the equipment?
MR. COSULICH: Yes, and some are more towards
completion than the others. Several are near completion now,
if you want to go and see some this afternoon.
MR. STEIN: Right.
Let me just ask you to do this, or maybe the Duck
Association would do it. If anyone wanted to see any of that,
could they get in touch with you and would you point it out?
MR. COSULICH: Yes, or Mr. Houck.
MR. STEIN: Mr. Houck could do that, because I think
this is an important thing.
You know, the dismal point from a spot like Mr.
Metzler's or mine is this: That when you get a continuing
stream of letters on one side saying that nothing is being done,
then we check with them, and we hear the argument on the other
side that, "We developed the plans; we got the specifications;
we put in the orders; we signed the contracts, and so forth.
What do you want us to do?"
-------
123
W. Cosulich
I think the kind of communication you should have
oft the local issues is with each other, because the hardest
thing is to go through Albany or Washington and try to get us
back. We are looking for the facts. I think both the State and
Federal people have assured you we mean that the time-table be
met, but I think we should try to appraise these facts and see
what the people are doing.
Are there any other comments or questions?
(No response.)
MR. STEIN: If not, thank you very much.
I think we are fairly close together and the con-
ferees will be able to get together and summarize. We will do
this here, but we will recess for ten minutes, and if we all
get back on time, maybe we can have you out of here about half
past twelve.
(Whereupon a recess was had.)
CLOSING STATEMENTS
MR. STEIN: May we reconvene?
Let me attempt to summarize the conference.
We had a time schedule set up in the last conference
and an action program, involving several major areas.
It should be recognized that in all these programs,
when you set up a time schedule, there is a tendency sometimes
-------
124
Clos ing Statements
for slippage. Sometimes we set up a time schedule which is
tight, and sometimes you have unforeseen circumstances.
I think the New York State Department of Health and
the duck farmers, the oyster growers, and the people in the
municipalities and counties and townships of Suffolk County
should be commended on the progress which has been made since
we came up with the schedule. I think we will find that we are
getting closer and closer together all the time, and we are
finding that the oyster growers, duck farmers and the people
in the cities and towns are beginning to understand each other's
problems.
As far as the duck farm wastes, we can state that
the program is in substantial compliance with the recommendation
made as far as the reduction of the BOD.
As far as the reduction of phosphates, given the
s ituation, I also have to state that the program is moving along
in a reasonable manner consistent with the state of the art, and
we will just have to follow up the phosphate program.
The target date has been adjusted on that, as you
know, until the end of June 1970, and I think we have to recog-
crv^
nize that we are moving jjprwith that program.
On domestic wastes, the indications that we have
had are that the town of Patchogue will be in substantial
compliance with the requirements of our first session of the
-------
125
Closing Statements
conference.
We should also point out that any delays in the date
which have occurred may be due not to the lack of the willing-
ness of Patchogue or its government to meet the date and come
up with the required degree of treatment, but of the effort
of the State and Federal agencies to try to come up with the
best coordinated system we could for the area, and with the
problem of adjusting both the State and Federal aids in a
coordinated program, so I think we will have to say that the
municipalities are moving ahead.
With regard to the sludge deposits in the bay
waters, I think the technical committee has done a good job on
that.
I do think that we are in a position where, in a
month, the staffs of the State and the Federal governnents will
have an idea of how much sludge there is, and just where it is,
and we will be able to go in an orderly way to the next step
of finding what the costs of the removal and disposal of the
sludge should be.
This does not preclude the problem that you are
going to necessarily dredge out the sludge, or at least dredge
it out in all places. This may be selective, because, as we
have learned from some of the statements and observations here,
sometimes the removal of the sludge or a disturbance of the
-------
126
Closing Statements
sludge might create deleterious conditions.
But I think we are proceeding on a step-by-step
basis. The sludge deposit problem, I suspect, will take some
more time until it comes to a solution, but again, with all
these problems, we have a little more time once we have cleaned
up the major municipal wastes in the area and the duck farm
wastes.
The project for the bay inlets and the stabilization
of those inlets seems to be proceeding, again, in as rapid a
fashion as is the custom in any of the inlet stabilization
programs.
There is a long history to that. As you well know,
there is a method that the Congress authorizes under the Rivers
and Harbors Act, and the project takes its course. I do not
think that there is anything to indicate that this project will
not go to full fruition.
I do think that we can pretty much assume that the
Corps of Engineers means business by putting in the model at
Vicksburg on Moriches Bay.
I purposely asked Mr. Walker, and I didn't know the
answer to that question, how big the model was, because sometimes
^you think of a model like a ship and a boat, but it is about half
the size of this room, and when they go into an extensive model
like that, they generally really are getting data for a project
-------
127
Closing Statements
that they are serious about.
There is one last point that evidently we have not
made too much progress on, and I am not sure that we pointed
out during the session here that you really can't expect to get
the maximum use out of the waters of Moriches Bay until we meet
it, and that is a regional or area-wide drainage collection
and treatment system.
This is the one area that I think it is not too
early to get started on. This is essential.
Let me make this point very clear to you people. I
think we have a program going here, and I think after follow-
ups, perhaps a few more times, you may begin looking for the
Federal Government to disengage and for this to be a State-local
relationship# But I strongly suspect, unless we come up with
some movement toward a regional or area-wide drainage and collec-
tion system, you may have us working with the State for a long
time, because, unless our data is wrong, I don't see how we are
going to be able to disengage and indicate that you have
corrected your pollution problem unless you have this.
There are a few notions and ideas that have come up
here that we would like to point out.
A very encouraging sign has been that the Duck
Growers Cooperative will possibly maintain and operate the waste
treatment facilities on the farms. This, it seems to the
-------
128
Closing Statements
conferees, affords possibly the best method of achieving
effective results.
It is somewhat analogous to the Individual home
owner not being able to treat or care of his sewage, who sends
it to a central facilities, and you would need a specialist
to see that these are running well.
Obviously, the duck farmers' main business is to
grow and market healthy ducks and sewage disposal or waste
disposal is not the main thrust of their activities.
Are there any additions or comments that the
conferees want to make?
Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. STEIN: There was one more point that I had
overlooked. I knew there was one.
We had a technical committee which was very
effective in keeping tabs on the situation in the Moriches Bay
afea and in Suffolk County and in keeping the program moving.
That committee has done yeoman work and I don't think the program
would have been as far along if we did not have the committee.
The committee had State, county, village representa-
tives, the County Health Officer, and so forth on it. After
filing a really comprehensive report, the committee has been
disbanded. I think our intelligence and possibly getting at some
-------
129
Closing Statements
of the fine points of the problem have not been as acute since
the committee has disbanded its activities.
The conferees propose and agree that we are going
to reactivate this committee with the same kind of representa-
tions we had before, and, hopefully, for the most part the same
personnel, except where changes will have to be made because of
transfers or shifts of Jobs, or other problems such as thatj
but I think this committee can help keep you informed, help
keep us informed, and alert us to the niceties of the problem.
I suspect as we move forward into the cleanup
program, the situations we are going to have to deal with are
going to be more refined all tne time, and this committee can
be very useful.
For example, you have identified waste sources in a
very broad sense, such as municipal wastes and duck farm wastes,
channel stabilization, and the sludge problem. These are all
identified in the broad sense. I think we are moving to meet
them all, but once we get these programs moving, unless we are
luckier here than we have been anywhere else, there will be the
inevitable snarls and snags, and to get around those we are
going to have to make some pretty refined and discreet judg-
ments, and this committee can help us over this situation.
Also, we would have the voice of all interested
parties, so we feel that no one will be hurt and we could come
-------
130
Closing Statements
up with the most equitable proposals.
Are there any other comments or questions?
MR. KLASHMAN: I have none.
MR. METZLER: No.
MR. STEIN: If not, I again would like to thank you
all for coming.
Do not despair. We are in the midst of a pollution
cleanup. We should be seeing the results soon. I think this
case is moving along very well.
Thank you all for coming.
We stand adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the conference was
adjourned.)
------- |