REPORT
ON
RECOMMENDED REVISIONS
TO
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
NEW dERSEY ATLANTIC COASTAL AREA
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region II Office
New York, New York
August, 1972

-------
SUMMARY
At the request of Gov. Cahill of New Jersey, arid pursuant
to Section 10(C)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended, a Water Quality Standards Setting/Revision Conference
was held for the Mew Jersey Atlantic Coastal Area on June 2Z,
1972. The conference provided an opportunity to review and comment
on State/Federal intentions to revise portions of the presently
applicable water quality Standards implementation plan.
Conference consideration encompassed all point source waste
discharges affecting the interstate waters of the Atlantic Coast
of New Jersey between the coastal stretch from Sandy Hook to
Cape May,
State/Federal proposals for standards revision are outlined
in a pre-conference report which was distributed to point source
dischargers and interested parties prior to the conference. After
presentation of the State/EPA position, the conference provided
a forum for interested and affected parties to register their
approval, criticism, etc., of the proposed revisions to the
currently applicable implementation plan.
Conference consideration emcompassed 154 point sources of
domestic sewage and wastes from 18 industrial facilities. The
items afforded maximum consideration at the conference were plans
for abatement of domestic sewage pollution via the development
i

-------
of 18 major and 5 smaller regional treatment systems. Also,
consideration was given to industrial wastes, Including wastes
discharged to municipal sewer systems.
This report contains proposed changes to the existing
implementation plan, comments by interested parties submitted at
the standards revision conference or for the conference record,
and an analysis by EPA of the statements submitted by the various
conference participants.
Finally, specific recommendations for inclusion into a
revised implementation plan are presented for consideration
and promulgation by Administrator Ruckelshaus. Also, where
deemed more effective and feasible, some point source discharges
have been removed from final conference recommendations and will
be handled under other State or Federal enforcement mechanisms.
ii

-------
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
A.	Standards Revision Conference and Enforcement	l
Objectives
B.	Chronology	4
C.	Proposed Standards Revisions - Pre-Conference
Report	6
D.	Standards Revision Conference - Evaluation of
Statements by Interested Parties	9
E.	Recommended Revisions to Water Quality Standards
Implementation Plan	17
APPENDICES
Appendix A -
Appendix B -
Appendix C -
Pre-Conference Report
Conference Transcript
Statements and Material Submitted for
Conference Record

-------
A. Standards Revision Conference and Enforcement Objectives
The economy of the New Jersey Atlantic Coastal Area, of
which recreation and commercial fishing comprise major elements,
is greatly dependent upon good water quality. Also, as high-
lighted in the National Estuarine Pollution Study, the many
inland bays and estuaries located along the Atlantic Coast of
New Jersey comprise an extremely sensitive and productive
aquatic environment, whose maintenance and protection is
essential to the total marine environment. As such, the New
Jersey Coastal Area has been singled out for priority enforcement
action, for which the revised implementation plan, if or as
adopted, will serve as a basis.
The major problem relating to water pollution in the New
Jersey Coastal Area is domestic sewage from municipalities,
institutions and Federal facilities. Industrial waste
discharges comprise a less significant source of pollution,
as compared to the pollutional load from domestic sewage. This
fact was emphasized in the Enforcement Conference (1967) on the
Jersey Coastal Area. Sewage discbarges into tidal estuaries
and tributary streams have caused unacceptable water quality
levels in a number of locations and also have resulted in the
closing of many thousands of acres, to shellfish harvesting.
Pollution control for the Jersey Coastal Area, as proposed
by state officials and confirmed by comprehensive studies by
1.

-------
consulting engineers, requires the development and construction
of a large number of regional treatment systems to insure that
the fresh and coastal waters of the New Jersey Atlantic Coastal
Area are maintained and protected for their designated usage.
Also, consistent with good engineering practice, all sources
of pollution (including industrial waste, and discharqes to
municipal sewer systems) must be controlled in any comprehen-
sive plan to restore and protect water quality.
The standard revision process was selected out of the
various abatement mechanisms available to help speed pollution
control for the Jersey Coastal Area. Conference sessions
provided a public focus to apprise municipalities of the
Federal government's support of State plans to abate pollution.
The conference procedure, with the attendent public discussion1
and publicity, provided the means for placing municipalities on
notice as to the updated schedules and abatement measures
required and the Federal intention to insure that pollution
abatement efforts are maximized.
Also, this conference provides an opportunity for placing
all sources of pollution in the area under a Federally-approved
plan. Thus, Federal enforcement powers can be utilized
effectively against any source of pollution in the designated
conference area.
As indicated in the preceeding paragraphs, the standards
2.

-------
revision process is one of the vehicles that can be utilized to
effect pollution abatement. Other actions include State
enforcement measures, EPA 180 days notice under existing standards
of enforcement conference recommendations, Refuse Act action
for industrial dischargers, or achievement of industrial
pollution control under the Refuse Act Permit Program.
Proposed standard revisions were formulated in light of
guidelines being applied in other on-going pollution
abatement programs so that inconsistencies would not develop
in the future. For example, proposed industrial pollution
control requirements were developed by members of the Region II
RAPP staff, with the concurrence of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.
Although the original intention was to include all point
sources of pollution under the revised implementation plan,
other enforcement mechanisms or programs will be used for
specific discharges where these are more efficient or feasible.
Pollution sources that will be dealt with under alternate
abatement programs or mechanisms are not included in revised
implementation plan recommendations to Administrator
Ruckelshaus.
3.

-------
B. Chronology
The initial request for the meeting, formally known as a
Water Quality Standards/Setting Revision Conference, came in
a letter December 8, 1971 from New Jersey Governor William T.
Cahill to EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus. Gov. Cahill
requested a conference which would "examine the recent process
made by shore correnunities and the lack of progress by a few
toward the design and construction of regional sewerage
treatment system needed to conform with State-Federal water
quality standards." Pursuant of this request, a joint Federal
conference to establish and up-date water quality standards
was scheduled.
In mid-February, a joint task group was formed consisting
of EPA and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
experts. The committee drafted a pre-conference report which
contained specific proposals for revising the applicable water
quality standards impelmentation plan.
Consistent with statutory requirements, 30 days public
notice was given to all interested parties via direct mailings
and newspaper notices. The pre-conference report was mailed
to all known and potential conference participants two weeks
prior to the conference.
On June 27, 1972, the conference was convened. Conference
activities were concluded on June 28. In order to permit and
4.

-------
encourage a more comprehensive response to the proposed
standards revisions, the conference record was extended to July
14, 1972. This afforded prospective participants an opportunity
to present their positions in regard to proposed revisions.
Letters were sent out apprising interested parties of the
extention of the deadline for closing of the conference record.
Subsequently, conference statements were evaluated by EPA
professionals and the results and final reconmendations to
Administrator Ruckelshaus are presented herein.
5

-------
C. Proposed Standards Revision - Pre-Conference Report
The pre-conference report, which was distributed to
prospective participants and interested parties 2 weeks prior
to the conference, is not a statutory requirement for a
standards setting/revision conference. The intent in
distributing this report prior to the conference was to help
maximize public scrutiny and comment on the proposed
standards revision.
The pre-conference report was prepared by a joint State
and Federal task group and reviewed by EPA professionals.
This joint approach exemplifies the type of State-Federal
cooperation intended under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
Professionals from the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection provided information on proposed
regional systems and service areas,.with associated implementation
schedules. Their plans were based upon consulting engineering
studies and State evaluations. EPA Region II professionals
reviewed the proposed plans in relation to: (1) their effect
upon water quality criteria, and (2) the proposed
implementation dates.
The Refuse Act Permit Program (RAPP) branch of EPA
Region II developed requirements for industrial direct dischargers.
EPA Region II also developed guidelines for industrial discharge
6.

-------
to municipal sewage systems, with the help of the National
Environmental Research Center (Edison, N.J.). This data was
reviewed and evaluated by State Bureau of Water Pollution
Control personnel and a concurrence of opinion was achieved.
The pre-conference report contains all elements related tp
pollution control for the Jersey Coastal Area, including
specific proposals for revision to the existing Water Quality
Standards Implementation Plan. In addition, to present a
complete and conprehensive picture of factors affecting
pollution in this area, other aspects and sources of pollution
are also described in this report. For example, attention is
given the question of ocean dumping, pollution from
recreational boating, pollution from subsurface systems, etc.
Although these items are not specific subjects for revision
in the Water Quality Standards, their effect upon the
environmental quality of the area and their relationship to
proposed standards revisions should not be overlooked.
The major overriding factor in the Jersey Coastal Area is
discharges of domestic sewage from municipalities, institutions
and Federal facilities, Industrial wastes .and, to a much
lesser degree, industrial discharges to municipal sewer
systems, also affect water quality in the area, although in
relation to domestic sewage, their impact is secondary.
7.

-------
The proposed standard revisions are contained in detail in
the pre-conference report for Water Quality Standards Setting/
Revision Conference - New Jersey Coastal Area, a copy of which
is appended (Appendix A). In summary, 18 major and 5 minor
regional sewage treatment systems are proposed to effect
pollution control for domestic sewage. The pre-conference report
details which point sources of pollution are to be accommodated
in each regional sewage treatment system. Also, implementation
dates are proposed for each regional system and its respective
point source dischargers.
Industrial pollution control requirements are delineated for
each industrial point sources discharge in the pre-conference
report, including implementation dates for construction of
requisite pollution abatement facilities. Pre-treatment
requirements for industrial wastes which discharge to municipal
sewer systems are also outlined in the pre-conference report.
8.

-------
D. Standards Revision Conference. - Evaluation of Statements by
Interested Parties	:
The Conference,which was conducted as an informal public
hearing, essentially consisted of two parts. The EPA/State
position was outlined and presented for the conference record.
The proposed revisions were contained in the pre-conference
report, and the entire report was formally entered into the
conference record. The remainder of conference activities
consisted of statements by interested parties relating to
the feasibility, merits, and applicablity of the proposed
standards revision.
A number of statements were received by mail subsequent
to the Conference outlining positions by various municipal
and industrial dischargers. The Conference transcript
and copies of letters and other material submitted for the
Conference record are appended (Appendix B and C, respectively).
As previously indicated, the major components of the
proposed standards revision were plans and implementation dates
for 18 major and 5 smaller regional systems to accommodate
domestic sewage discharges. In general, support for and
concurrences with the proposed regional plans were evidenced
by most conference participants who addressed themselves to the
subject of sewage treatment. A detailed summary and evaluation
of statements by the various conference participants is
contained in Table #1.
9.

-------
Two witnesses presented major objections to the
proposed plans (standards revision) to abate domestic sewage
pollution. The first was by Mr. Joel S. Fogel, President,
Atlantic County Citizens Council on Environment (ACCCE). The
ACCCE criticized the basic concept of the major regional systems,
i.e. final discharge via ocean outfalls. It proposed, in turn,
what it described as a "more ecologically acceptable alternative,"
i.e. recycling. The ACCCE proposed ground water recharge as a
final terminus for treated sewage effluent.
The response of the EPA to Mr. Fogel's comments is that,
based on our independent evaluations, the proposed system
(Atlantic County Sewerage Authority) will meet established
water quality criteria. Since water quality criteria will
not be violated, the proposed system is one that will meet
the pollution abatement needs of the area. We feel that the
Droposed system is feasible and consistent with current
engineering practice. A statement submitted by Mr. David
Rutherford of the Cape May County Water Policy Advisory Com-
mittee, based on studies undertaken for them by ground water
specialists, questions the practicality and desirability of
recharging treated sewage effluent into fresh water aquifers
(ground water recharge).
In summary, in reference to Atlantic County, the proposed
implementation plan is concurred in by the EPA, the State of
10.

-------
New Jersey, and the Atlantic County Sewerage Authority. It
is reasonable and should be implemented to achieve pollution
control.
The second major criticism of the proposed implementation
plans was delineated by Mr. Steve M. Cicala, who reported the
feelings of the greater Wildwoods of Cape May County. Mr.
Cicala felt that the ocean outfall discharge was not a safe
system to insure the protection of the beaches in Cape May
County. He also contened that the system was not in conformity
with more modern and up-to-date treatment technology. In
particular, he objected to the ocean discharge of treated
effluent, and its associated costs. He proposed that sewage
flows be given a high degree of treatment and discharged into
waters classified as FW-2» FW-3, or TW-1.
The EPA, as was also the case with Mr. Fogel's criticisms,
has undertaken a computerized evaluation of the effect the
proposed regional systems on water quality criteria and has judged
that established water criteria will not be contravened. Meeting
water quality criteria, in essence, means that the water will
be acceptable for its designated usage. The proposed
standards revision (regional plants for Cape May County) are
in concurrence with the EPA position, the State's position and the
position of the Cape May County Water Policy Advisory Committee,
including proposed implementation schedules.
11.

-------
One of the paramount factors determining the details of
the proposed regional systems is to insure restoration and
protection of the shellfish harvesting areas located in the
many inland bays and estuaries along the Jersey Coast, and
especially in Cape May County. The regional plan is based
upon the overriding guideline that discharges of sewage, whether
treated or untreated, should not be permitted into the inland
bays and estuaries, if shellfish harvesting is to be restored
and preserved.
This approach is consistent with the recommendation of the
1967 Enforcement Conference for the Jersey Coastal.Area
(Shark River to Cape May). The major reason for the calling of
this Enforcement Conference was the deterioration and closing
of numerous areas for shellfish harvesting, which is an
important economic and natural resource of the Jersey Shore.
In summary, we feel that the proposed systems are
reasonable, practicable, feasible and will meet water quality
needs for the area. We recommend that the development and
implementation of regional sewage treatment systems be
expedited.
Some municipalities and regional sewage authorities
proposed different implementation schedules than contained in
the pre-conference report. Some typographical errors were
also indicated by conference participants. Major changes, as
12.

-------
reflected in the following section, include schedule revisions
for Ocean County regional systems, and correction of schedules
for the South Monmouth Regional Sewerage Authority and the
Manasquan River Subregion.
As indicated previously, where pollution control can be
more readily achieved via alternative enforcement action, i.e.
not included in the standards revision process, this action
would be undertaken. The achievement of pollution control via
regional systems requires, as a first step, the formation of a
regional authority by a number, or all of the point source sewage
dischargers and formal , legal commitments by all point sources
to provide the authority with the means to "get on" with the work
of developing and constructing sewage treatment works.
From our review of activity by Jersey Coastal dischargers
toward abating pollution, it is our judgment that the Cape May
County municipalities and sewage point sources, and those dis-
chargers proposed to form the Neptune Township Subregion have not
made sufficient progress; no authorities have been formed and
agreements between all the sewage dischargers have not been con-
summated. We are, therefore, not including these domestic sewage
dischargers in the recommended standards revision so that EPA will
have the option of immediate enforcement action. The State of
New Jersey is in the process of initiating legal action against
these dischargers. Administrative Federal enforcement action can
13.

-------
be taken via the 180-day notice procedure for violation of the
existing Federally-approved water quality standards.
Industrial Wastes
A summary of conference statements by various effected in-
dustries, an EPA evaluation of their positions, and final recom-
mendation are contained in Table 1.
The two power companies which have plants in the Jersey Coast-
al region presented essentially the same position. They stated
that they are engaged in continuing studies to evaluate environ-
mental effects and also point out that they are currently dealing
with the State and the Federal Government in other regulatory
matters related to water pollution control (environmental impact
statement, Refuse Act Permit Program, etc.).
The contended that since environmental studies and other re-
gulatory procedures are underway, it is premature to revise stan-
dards. They also requested the rationale for the implementation
plan requirements proposed.
EPA has considered the position of the power companies as
contained in conference statements. We have also assessed the
position of the power companies in light of effluent guidance that
is being developed under the Refuse Act Permit Program by EPA
Headquarters. It is the judgment of EPA that a final resolution
of the power plant situation can be achieved under the Refuse Act
14.

-------
Permit Program. To this end, we are not including recommendations
for the power companies in our final package to be submitted to
Administrator Ruckelshaus. Of course, as circumstances warrant,
or as new information becomes available, this does not preclude
Federal or State enforcement action under existing water quality
standards or the Refuse Act.
The Toms River Chemical Corp. has also been removed from
final recommendations to Administrator Ruckelshaus, as indicated
in Table 1. It is the current opinion of EPA that this matter can
be more successful?y, promptly, and efficiently resolved via a con-
sent decree in connection with a Refuse Act civil suit.
The final class of industries to be discussed is producers
of "organic fish wastes." An exemption for "orgainic fish wastes"
from consideration as pollutants is under consideration in pending
Federal water legislation, as noted by Borden, Inc. We,therefore,
will not include plants producing "organic fish wastes" in recom-
mendations for revision of standards to Administrator Ruckelshaus.
The status of these discharges will remain flexible until the
"organic fish wastes" question is resolved. If a special exemption
is not granted, pollution control compliance can be achieved
through a 180-day notice (existing standard) or through the Refuse
Act Permit Program.
The remainder of the industrial requirements will be recom-
mended for inclusion into the revised standard, as proposed in
15.

-------
the pre-conference report.
Requirements for discharges to municipal sewer systems (pre-
treatment requirements), as contained in the pre-conference report,
are not included in the final confernece recommendations. The
State of New Jersey has recently passed legislation empowering the
Department of Environmental Protection to set pre-treatment require-
ments for discharges to municipal sewage treatment plants. The
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (Region II) have agreed to form a joint com-
mittee to establish comprehensive pre-treatment requirements and
limitations on discharges to sewage treatment plants.
16.

-------
E. Recommended Revisions to Mater Quality Standards
Implementation Plan
The recommended water qulaity standards revisions are as
follows (wording recommended for Federal Register):
40 CFR 120.10 (New Jersey Water Quality Standard-Implementa-
tion plan for the Atlantic Coastal Plain) is amended to read as
follows:
The implementation plan for abating water pollution in the
New Jersey Atlantic Coastal Area was reviewed and updated at a Water
Quality Standards Setting/Revision Conference in Toms River, New
Jerseyfconvened on June 27, 1972. Based on consulting engineering
studies, State proposals, and USEPA review, an updated plan has
been developed encompassing domestic sewage point source discharges,
and specific requirements for point source industrial waste dis-
charges .
Domestic Sewage
To accomplish pollution control for domestic sewage from the
Atlantic Coastal and designated study area, 18 major regional
treatment facilities, with subsequent discharges of treated effluent
into the Atlantic Ocean, are proposed. There will be 16 regional
outfalls entending into the Atlantic Ocean, into waters classified
as CW-2, to accommodate discharges from the various regional
17.

-------
treatment facilities. In addition, consistent with the policy of
eliminating domestic sewage discharges from estuaries and tributary
streams, five smaller treatment facilities are proposed to accommo-
date sewage needs of areas too remote to be included in the 18 major
regional treatment systems. At some time in the future, assuming
that sufficient development occurs, population densities may justify
extending interceptors to include flows from these five treatment
plants in regional treatment systems (ocean outfalls). For the
foreseeable future, these facilities will discharge treated wastes
to the ground, after appropriate treatment to insure protection of
ground water quality.
Of the 18 major regional treatment facilities (with final
discharges to ocean), 10 will serve Monmouth County, 4 will serve
Ocean County, one regional system will serve Atlantic County, and
three regional systems will serve Cape May County. In certain in-
stances, one regional system may include discharges from two counties
since in the development of any regional treatment system, drainage
basins and land topography are significant factors determining the
service area for a regional treatment facility.
The treatment facilities are listed as follows:
Monmouth County
1.	Atlantic Highlands - Highlands Regional Sewerage Authority
2.	Middletown Township Regional Sewerage Authority
3.	Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority
18.

-------
4.	Northeast Monmouth Regional Sewerage Authority
5.	Long Branch Sewerage Authority
6.	Ocean Township Sewerage Authority
7.	Asbury Park Subregion
8.	Neptune Township Subregion
9.	South Monmouth Regional Sewerage Authority
10.	Manasquan River Subregion (Regional Sewerage Authority)
Ocean County (Ocean County Sewerage Authority)
11.	Metedeconk River Subregion
12.	Island Beach Subregion
13.	Central Basin Subregion
14.	Southern Subregion
Atlantic County (Atlantic County Sewerage Authority)
15.	Atlantic Coastal Subregion
Cape May County
16.	Ocean City Subregion
17.	Stone Harbor - Sea Isle City Subregion
18.	Wildwoods Subregion
The five (5) plants that will utilize ground discharges are:
1. Egg Harbor City
19.

-------
2.	Town of Hammonton
3.	Winslow Township (Ancora State Hospital)
4.	Hamilton Township (Mays Landing)
5.	Buena Borough
Of the above listed regional treatment system (with final
discharges to Atlantic Ocean), the Atlantic Highlands, Middletown
and Bayshore regional treatment systems all will discharge through
a common outfall to the Atlantic Ocean (Monmouth County Bayshore
Gutfall Authority). As indicated previously, wastes from the
service areas of these three regional systems, located along the
north shore of Monmouth County (Sandy Hook Bay - Raritan Bay),
do not currently discharge to the Atlantic Ocean. We have in-
cluded these three regional systems for conference consideration
since their final, discharges will eventually be directed into the
Atlantic Coastal waters. The remaining 15 regional treatment
facilities will each be served by an individual outfall.
Development and implementation of proposed regional plans for
domestic sewage treatment will be accomplished by diverting present
point source discharges into regional interceptors and collectors,
subsequently directing the flow to the appropriate regional facil-
ities. In most cases, existing treatment facilities will be de-
activated, and utilized as collection points and pump stations to
divert wastes from a locality or area into a regional interceptor
or collection sewer.
20.

-------
Table R-l indicates the point source discharges recommended
for inclusion in each regional system; also the point sources
recommended for inclusion in the five (5) plants employing ground
disposal.
In terms of treatment, the major regional facilities (with
ocean discharge of treated effluent) will provide secondary bio-
logical treatment (min. 85% BOD revoval). The five (5) treatment
plants which will discharge effluents into the ground will pro-
vide tertiary treatment, as is necessary for' ground discharge.
All facilities will provide year-round disinfection (chlorination)
of the wastewater.
The discharge from the U.S. Army Installation at Fort Hancock
(Sandy Hook Area) will be given secondary treatment, plus adequate
disinfection in an individual treatment facility. The effluent will
be discharged to the Atlantic Ocean via an ocean outfall.
In terms of the small, remote, inland domestic sewage point
source discharges for which ground discharge systems are envisioned,
final details of pollution abatement (point sources to be served
by various plants, type of treatment, etc.) will be confirmed and
finalized after detailed engineering studies.
Table R-2 presents implementation dates for engineering, con-
struction and completion of requisite pollution abatement facilities,
which we feel are feasible and realistic. These implementation
dates apply to both the regional authority, if one exists, and
21.

-------
to the point source discharges included under the particular sub-
region or sewerage authority (Table R-l).
Point Source Industrial Wastes
Implementation plans for industrial wastes are presented in
Table R-3 and in the following discussion- For Nestel and Co.,
Inc., Brockway Glass, and Haynie Products, Inc., requirements in
Table R-3 include a value of 1 ppb phenol in the receiving stream.
In each case, these companies discharge into a stream classified
as suitable for potable water supply. The dilution capacity of
the receiving streams may be limited and from a technology view-
point, reduction of phenols to trace levels may not be economically
feasible. Also, the receiving streams are not currently used as
sources of potable water supply and may be unsuitable due to high
salinity. Weighing these factors, we would require, at minimum,
that the company's waste treatment technology and inplant process
changes to reduce phenols be "state-of-the-art".
22.

-------
Table 1

-------
Table No. 1
Summary of Statements of Interested Parties and EPA (Region II) Evaluation
Name/Organization
U. S. Senator Harrison
A. Williams - Statement
presented by Staff Assistant
Jefrery B. Diamond
Position
Underscores problem of ocean dumping
cites need for Federal funding
for municipal sewerage treatment -
emphasizes that Jersey Coastal
environment requires rapid
achievement of pollution
abatement.
EPA Evaluation
Ocean dumping regulation not within
statutory " powers under Federal
Mater Pollution Control Act.
Final Recommendation to
EPA Administrator
Mr. Charles Pike -
Director, Division of
Water Resources, New
Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Support of recommended revisions -
emphasizes importance of pollution
control to coastal area.
Mr. Joel S. Fogel, President
Atlantic County Citizens
Council on Environment
Critizes pollution abatement pirns
utilizing final discharge through
ocean outfalls - proposes recycling
as a "more ecologically acceptable
alternate" - advocates ground water
recharge - objects to proposed
sludge disposal system for Atlantic
County Sewerage Authority (incin-
eration) .
Proposed system will meet water
quality criteria (EPA evaluation) -
proposed system is a feasible,
practicable alternate to meet
water quality criteria (concurrence
with State and County policy) -
method of sludge disposal to be
decided locally (not appropriate for
inclusion In standard).
Final recommendations- .
same as in pre-conference
report.
Mr. George E. Fieldhouse,
President, Atlantic City
Sewerage Authority
Supports regional systems proposed -
underscores need to "move" before
inflation makes proposed projects
prohibitive costwise - also proposes
"realistic" approach in environmental
Impact evaluation.

-------
-2-
Name/Organization
Posi tion
Mr. Robert H. Sims
Vice-President, Jersey
Central Power and Light
Co. - Lacey Township
Plant
•Continuing ongoing studies to
date demonstrate no harmful
effects on Barnegat Bay -
JCP & L is currently involved
in licensing procedures with
State, EPA (RAPP) and AEC -
In view of above, states it is
premature to revise standards
proposes existing studies &
regulatory licensing procedures
be completed first.
Mr. Fred E. Morgenweck,
Manager, Environmental
Engineering, Atlantic
City Electric Co.
Insufficient time to review and
comment on proposed revisions -
Atlantic City Electric has under-
taken an environmental study at
one of lt6 plants to determine
if discharge is causing harm -
study developed in concert with
EPA - proposes power plants be
severed from conference.
Mrs. R. 0. Rippere,
Water Chairman, League
of Women Voters of
Monmouth County
Supports State/EPA efforts in
cleaning up pollution (regional
systems) - cites problem of ocean
dumping and pollution from outside
of coastal area affecting coastal
waters.
Citizens Against Water
Pollution (CAMP)
Support of State/Federal efforts
and reglonalizatlon - urges
intensified enforcement activity.
EPA Evaluation
Final Recommendation to
EPA Administrator
EPA has reassessed its position
in view of effluent guidance
under development "by RAPP
Headquarters Staff - power
plants can best be handled under
the Refuse Act Permit Program
(RAPP).
Proposed revisions will not
be submitted to Administrator
Ruckelshaus - power companies
not included under revised
implementation plan.
EPA has reassessed its position
in view of effluent guidance
under development by RAPP
Headquarters Staff - power
plants can best be handled
under the Refuse Act Permit
Program (RAPP).
Proposed revisions will not
be submitted to Administrator
Ruckelshaus - power companies
not included under revised
implementation plan.
Ocean dumping regulation not
within statutory powers under
Federal Water Pollution Control
Act - EPA is taking action to
abate pollution outside of
area (ex.: 180 day notice -
New York City)

-------
Name/OrganizatIon
Mr. Stephen M. Cicala
(representative of
greater Wlldwoods of
Cape May County)
Position
Opposition to regional systems
and ocean outfall discharge -
wants "new technology
treatment" and discharge to
FW-2, 3, and TW-1 waters.
Mr. Charles E. Knight,
Stafford Township
Mr. Gerald E. Speltel,
representing the Atlantic
County Sewerage Authority
Comments on need to abate
water pollution - raises
questions concerning local
subdivision development.
Supports pre-conference
report proposals - cites
typographical1 error in
Implementation plan date -
proposed new schedule for
Egg Harbor City (extentlon).
F.PA Evaluation
Final Recommendation to
F.PA Administrator
Proposed system will meet water
quality criteria (EPA evaluation) -
proposed system is a feasible,
practicable alternate to meet
water quality requirements and
is in concurrence with State and
County policy - discharge of
wastes to inland estuaries (TW-1)
is unacceptable - sewage, irrespective
of the degree of treatment, must
be removed from inland estuaries,
if closed shellfish area are to
be reopened.
Comments not specifically
pertinent to proposed standards
revision.
Final recommendations will
not be submitted to Administrator
Ruckelshsus for inclusion in the
revised standards - the State
of New Jersey 1s initiating
court action to force implementa-
tion of proposed regional systems
is Cape May County - EPA retains
option to take immediate
enforcement action (180 day
notice) against recalcitant
Cape May dischargers under
existing standard..
Requests for time extentlon must
be based upon specific requirements
of a particular project.
Implementation date correct-
ed - Egg Harbor City dates
as proposed in pre-conference
report.

-------
-4-
Na=e/Organization
Posit Ion
Mr. Laurence Simpson
Ocean County Sewerage
Authority
Mr. Robert D. Halsey,
Mcr.south County Planning
Supports regional plan as
contained in pre-conference
report - describes problems
In Implementation of regional
plan - proposes revised
implementation plan dates.
Supports regional plan as
contained in pre-conference
report - cites apparent error
in Table of isipletnentation
schedules - also cites problems
of and associated costs of beach
debris cleanup.
Mr. David C. Wright,
Tcver Sewerage Authority
Supports regional plan as contained
in pre-conference report - urges
State and EPA to take requisite,
uniform, enforcement action-cites
problems in effort toward achieving
pollution control.
Mr. David Rutherford,
Cape May County Water
Advisory
Co=ittee
Supports regional plan as contained
in pre-conference report - In
reference to proposed comments
of Mr. J. S. Fogel (Atlantic
County Citizens Council on
Environment), Mr. Rutherford
questions the practicality
and desirability of recharging
treated sewerage effluent into
the fresh water aqulflers.
EPA Evaluation
Legitimate request for tine
extension based on delays due to
environmental assessment and
finalizing basin plan.
Final. Recommendation to
EPA Administrator
Revised implementation
dates (approximately 6
months) as vs pre-conference
report.
Mr. Halsey is correct - mistake
In Table
Implementation schedules
corrected.

-------
-5-
Name/Organization
Position
Mr. Donald M. Neuman,
representing South
Monmouth Regional
Sewerage Authority
(SMRSA)
Gary Labo,
Borough of Bueno
Notes changes in service area
(communities to be included
in SMRSA treatment system) as
versus those proposed in
pre-conference report - SMRSA
is making efforts to complete
installation by a date earlier
than that shown in schedule.
Concurs with proposals in
pre-conference report, except
that ground recharge has not
yet been proven feasible.
DuVal F. Dichey,
Humble Oil & Refining Co.
Company intends to submit oil
spill prevention plan for
their terminal, as proposed in
pre-conference report.
Dr. P. Hehner
Toms River Chemical
Corp. (TRC)
Detailed statement outlining
position that some limits
proposed for TRC in pre-
conference report are not
reasonable or practical.
EPA Evaluation
Final Recommendation to
EPA Administrator
Mr. Neuman is correct - two
communities are placed under wrong
regional authority.
Service area -corrected -
as indicated by Mr. R. D.
Halsey, implementation dates
for SMRSA were reversed
with another regional
system - dates corrected.
Consistent with EPA/State position -
pre-conference report states that
final details of smaller "ground
disQharge" systems will be determined
after detailed engineering studies.
TRC will not be included in
final recommendations to
Administrator Ruckelshaus
for revision of implementa-
tion plan - alternate enforce-
ment plans will be pursued -
EPA desires final resolution
of matter via consent decree
under a Refuse Act civil suit

-------
-6-
N'are/Orsi.-iiza: ion
Position
Dr. Robert J. Ryder,
Brockway Glass Co., Inc.
Statcn-.cnt of co~T;nv that,
in their judgement, they are
meeting implementation plan
requirements, SS contained
in pre-conference report.
Mr. Louis Jar.ik
Borden, Inc.
(2 planes)
Both plants discharge "organic
fish wastes" - two basic contentions:
(1) "organic fish wastes" should
be exempted from consideration
as pollutants, as is under reviev
In pending Federal legislation;
and (2) if they have not exempted,
proposed reductions are too stringent.
Donald W. Long	Statement th^t company will make
Uildwood Clam Company	maximum possible effort to meet
proposed requirements - cites
economic hardship to build
treatment plant.
EPA Evaluation
Final Rcco^r-.endation to
	ET'A Ad-Lnistrator
EPA/State proposals, as contained
in pre-confercnce report, were
based on existing implementation
plan requirement of 95% BOD
removal for discharge to estuaries
or tributary streams - if wastes are
not exempted by upcoming Federal
legislation proposed requirements
must be met.
Organic Fish Wastes will not
be included in recommendations
for revision of standards to
Administrator Ruckelshaus -
status of these discharges
will remain flexible until
"organic fish waste" question
is resolved - if special
exemption is not granted,
compliance with 95% BOD re-
moval requirement will be
sought via 180 day notice
(existing standard) or
through Refuse Act Permit
Program.
Organic Fish Wastes will not
be included in recommendations
for revision of standards to
Administrator Ruckelshaus -
status of these discharges
will remain flexible until
"organic fish waste" question
is resolved - if specicl
exemption is not granted,
compliance with 95% BOD .re-
moval requirement will be
sought via 180 day notice
(existing standard) or through
Refuse Act Permit Program.

-------
Table R-l

-------
Table No. R - 1
Sewage Point Sources to be Served by Regiona
A.
Regional Plant
(System)
Atlantic Highlands
Highlands Regional
Sewerage Authority
Municipality
Atlantic Highlands
Highlands
B. Middletown Twp.
Regional Sewerage
Authority
Middletown Twp.
Middletown Twp.
Middle town Twp.
Middletown Twp.
Middletown Twp.
Middletown Twp.
Middletown Twp.
Middletown Twp.
C. Bayshore Regional	Hazlet Twp.
Sewerage Authority	Hazlet Twp.
Hazlet	Twp.
Hazlet	Twp.
Hazlet Twp.
Hazlet Twp.
Hazlet Twp.
Hazlet Twp.
Homdel Twp.
Keansburg
Union Beach
Union Beach
Plants (Near Future)
Owner
Municipal
Municipal
Atlantic Highlands Nursing Home, Inc.
Food Fair Properties , Inc.
Howard Johnson Motel and Restaurant
Middletown Sewage Authority -
Middletown Green
Middletown Swim and Tennis Club
St. Catherine's Parish Hall
Middletown Twp. Regional Sewage Auth.
U. S. Navy - Leonardo Loading Pier
Bayshore Sewerage Company
Beer Street School - Board of Education
Family Circle Associates
Harvich Associates - K-Mart Shopping
Center
Hazlet Twp. Sewage Authority
Holly Hill Mobile Home Park
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.
J. M. Fields Department Stores
Municipal (Lanvin - Charles of the Ritz)
Municipal
Board of Education - Memorial Park School
International Flavors and Fragrances
(Domestic)

-------
Regional Plant
(System)
-2-
Municipality
D. Northeast Monmouth
Regional Sewerage
Authority
E.	Long Branch Sewerage
Authority
F.	Ocean Twp. Sewerage
Authority
G.	Asbury Park Subregion
H.	Neptune Twp. Subregion
Keyport
Matawan Borough
Matawan Twp.
Matawan Twp.
Matawan Twp.
Sea Bright
Monmouth Beach
Rumson
Rumson
Oceanport
New Shrewsbury
New Shrewsbury
Long Branch
Ocean Twp.
Deal
Asbury Park
Bradley Beach
Bradley Beach
Avon-by-the-Sea
Neptune Twp. Ocean
Grove
Neptune Twp.
Neptune Twp.
Neptune City
Wall Twp.
Owner
Municipal
Municipal
Matawan Twp. Mun. Utilities Auth. -
Cliffwood Beach
MTMUA - River Gardens
MTMUA - Stratmore
Municipal
Northeast Monmouth Regional Sewerage
Authority
Municipal Plant
Board of Education - Dean Porter School
Fort Monmouth (U. S. Government)
Mid-Monmouth Industrial Park
Camp Charles Wood (U. S. Government)
Long Branch Sewer Authority
Ocean Twp. Sewerage
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal Evergreen Ave. Plant
Municipal Ocean Park Ave. Plant
Municipal
Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association
Municipal Plant #2 Old Corless Ave.
Plant
Municipal Plant #1 Penn Ave.
Municipal
N. J. Highway Authority - Asbury Park
Service Area

-------
Regional Plant
(System)
Municipality
South Monmouth Regional
Sewerage Authority
Belmar
Manasquan
Sea Girt
Sea Girt
Spring Lake
Spring Lake
Spring Lake Heights
Wall Twp.
Manasquan River Subregion Freehold Borough
Freehold Twp.
Freehold Twp.
Freehold Twp.
Howell Twp.
Howell Twp.
Howell Twp.
Farmingdale Borough
Freehold Twp.
Wall Twp.
Wall Twp.
Metedeconk Subregion	Bay Head
Point Pleasant Beach
Brick Twp.
Brick Twp.
Brick Twp.
Owner
Municipal
Municipal
N. J. State Dept. of Defense National
Guard Training Center
Municipal
Municipal Pitney Ave. Plant
Municipal Penn. Ave. Plant-
Municipal
U. S. Army Installation Camp Evans
Municipal
Wynnewood Sewerage Utilities Co.
Freehold Sewer Co.
Silvermeade Mobile HOmes Park, Inc.
Howell High School-Regional Board
of Education (Freehold District)
Adelphia Sewer Company
Farmingdale Associates
Main Street Apartments (New Construct.)
Levitt & Sons (New Construction)
Arthur Brishane Child Treatment Center
Geraldine L. Thompson Medical Home
Municipal
Municipal
Brick Plaza, Inc.
Brick Twp. Srg. Auth. - Lake Riviera
Kennedy Mall Shopping Ctr.

-------
Regional Plant
(System)
-4-
Munlclpality
Owner
Brick Twp.
Brick Twp.
Pt. Pleasant Borough
Pt. Pleasant Borough
Lakewood Borough
Lakewood Twp.
Jackson Twp.
Jackson Twp.
Jackson Twp.
Jackson Twp.
Jackson Twp.
Jackson Twp.
Jackson Twp.
Howell Twp. (Monmouth Cy)
Howell Twp. (Monmouth Cy)
L. Island Beach Subregion Lavallette
Dover Twp.
Seaside Park
Seaside Heights
Berkeley Twp.
M. Central (Basin Subregion) Dover Twp.
Dover Twp.
Dover Twp.
Berkeley Twp.
Berkeley
Brick Twp. Srg. Auth. - Green Briar
Brick Twp. Bd. of Ed. - Middle Elem.
School
Bd. of Ed. High School
Bd. of Ed. Nellie Bennett School
N. J. Water Co. (Lakewood)
S. Lakewood Water Co.
Oak Tree Mobile Home Inc.
United Mobile Homes (South Wind
Mobile Homes)
Harmony Sewer Co.
Jackson Twp. Util. Auth. Brookwood I
Jackson Twp. Util. Auth. Brookwood II
Jackson Twp. Util. Auth. Brookwood III
Jackson Twp. Bd. of Ed. H. S. Complex
Maxim Sewer Co.
Crickett Restaurant
Municipal
Dover Sewer Auth. (Ortley Beach)
Municipal
Municipal
Berkeley Twp. Srg. Auth. (So. Seaside
Park)
Dover Twp. Srg. Auth. - Toms River Boro
Dover Twp. Srg. Auth. - Holiday City
Toms River Chemical Co.
Berkeley Twp. Srg. Auth. Berkeley Shores
Berkeley Twp. Srg. Auth. - Clamming Crk.
Plant

-------
-5-
Regional Plant
(System)
Municipality
Island Heights
Lacey Twp.
Lacey Twp.
Lacey Twp.
Lakehurst Borough
Manchester Twp.
Manchester Twp.
Ocean Twp. Ocean County
Union Twp.
N. Southern Subregion
Beach Haven Borough
Long Beach Twp.
Ship Bottom Borough
Surf. City Borough
Stafford Twp.
Tuckerton
Little Egg Harbor Twy.
0. Atlantic Coastal Subregion Atlantic City
Atlantic City
Atlantic City
Brigantine
Galloway Twp.
Galloway Twp.
Owner
Municipal
Jersey Central Power & Light
N. J. Hwy. Auth. Forked River Service
Area
N. J. Dept. Env. H-Forked River Marina
Municipal
U. S. Naval Air Station Lakehurst
Crestwood Vil. Sewer Co. Inc.
Mid-Jersey Sewer Corp. (Waretown)
Pebble Beach Water & Sewer Co.
Beach Haven Srg. Auth.
Long Beach Twp. S. A.
Ship Bottom Srg. Auth.
Municipal
Stafford Twp. M. U. A.
Tuckerton M. U. A.
Mystic Isles Sewerage Company
Atlantic City Sewer Co. City Island
Plant
Atlantic City Sewer Co. Texas Ave.
Plant -Operational summer months only
Vornado Inc. (Two Guys)
Municipal
Seaview Country Club
N. J. Highway Auth. - Atlantic City
Service Area

-------
-6-
Regional Plant
(System)
•P. Ocean City Subregion
Q. Stone Harbor - Sea Isle
City Subregion
R. Wildwoods Subregion
Municipality
Longport
Linwood
Pleasantville City
Soitiers Point
Ventnor
Ocean. City
Ocean City
Upper Twp.
Avalon
Uennis Twp.
Middle Twp.
Middle Twp.
Sea Isle City
Stcne Harbor
North Wildwood
Wildwood
Wildwood Crest
Lower Twp.
Lower Twp.
Middle Twp.
Middle Twp.
Owner
Municipal
Mainland Regional High School-Mainland
Bd. of Ed.
Municipal
Somers Point City Srg. Auth.
Ventnor-Margate Sewerage Auth.
Municipal 46th St. Plant
Ocean City Sewer Service Co.
Bay Motel Corp.
Avalon Sewage Authority
N. J. Highway Auth. Seaville Service
Area
Cape May Bd. of Chosen Freeholders -
Holmes Creek Plant
Middle Twp. Sewer District #1 Cape
May Court House
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
Shaw Crest Mobile Homes-Corp.
Lower Cape May Regional - Bd. of
Education Lower Twp.
Garden Lake Corp.
Florida Motor Court

-------
-7-
Regional Plant
(System)
S. Egg Harbor City
I. Town of Hammonton
U. Winslow Twp. (Ancora
State Hospital)
V. Hamilton Twp. (Mays
Landing)
Plants Utilizing Ground Disposal
Municipality
W. Buena Borough
Miscellaneous
Egg Harbor City
Hammonton
Hammonton
Hammonton
Winslow
Winslow
Galloway Twp.
Hamilton Twp.
Hamilton Twp.
Hamilton Twp.
Weymouth Twp.
Egg Harbor Twp.
Buena Borough
Owner
Municipal
Municipal
N. J. Expressway Authority
N. J. Expressway Authority (Elmwood Sect.)
Ancora State Hospital
Winslow Sewage Co.
Lenox, Inc.
Hamilton Twp. Munic. Util. Authority
Zaberer's Restaurant
Atlantic City Race Track
Belcoville
National Aviation Facilities Experi-
mental Station
Buena Borough Munic. Util. Authority
(1)	Fort Hancock (U. S. Army Installation) - Middletown Township - to provide secondary
treatment with discharge through ocean outfall to Atlantic Ocean.
(2)	Isolated small plants not included in ground disppsal systems are:
Pacemaker Corp. (Washington Township)
Monroe Township (Municipal Utilities Authority)
Monroe Township (American Mobile Home Park)
Detailed engineering studies to determine final pollution abatement system (tertiary
treatment, ground discharge, etc.)

-------
Table

-------
TABLE NO. R-2
Updated Implementation Schedules - Regional Treatment Facility and Service Area Point Sources
cur.tv
nsouth
Submission
of Final Plans
Aug. 1972
Regional Fncillty
Ada-tic Highlands -
Highlands Regional
Sewerage Authority
Miccle:o>m Twp.
Reiicr.il Sewerage
Authority
Bayshore Regional Sewerage
Authority
N. E. Monmouth Regional
Sewerage Authority
Lcr.g 2rar.c'n Sewerage Authority July 1972
Ocear. TVp. Sewerage	State has plans
Authoritv
Asbury Park Subregion
Martascuan River Subregion
(Mar.asquan River Regional
Sewerage Authority)
South Monmouth Regional
Sewerage Authority
Xetedeconk River Subregion
ce-in County
werage Auth-
izy)	Island Beach Subregion
Sept. 1, 1973
Jan. 1974
Jan. 1974
July 1, 1973
June 1, 1974
Begin
Construction
Dec. 1972
Jan. 1973
Sept. 1972
Sept. 1, 1974
July 1974
July 1974
Jan. 1, 1974
•Dec. 1, 1974
Complete
Construction
Dec. 1973
.".er.orks
Dec. 1973
July 1974
May 1973
June 1, 1975
Jan. 1977
July 1975
April 1, 1976
Dec. 1, 1976
Bayshore Outfall Authority under construe*
tion
Plant in operation - connection of all
point sources to system by June, 1972.
Plant under construction
Placed in operation in Spring 1971
Regional facility completed in Sept. 1968.
Schedule giver, is for the Borough of New
Deal which is remaining comnunity re-
quired to tie in.
Authority formed
Authority formed
This subregion has been recently designated
the Northern Service Area.
This subregion has been recently included
in the newly designated Central Service
Area.

-------
-2-
County
Atlantic
Ground
f)i srhargp
Plants
Regional Facility
Central Basin Subregion
Southern Subregion
Aclantic Coastal Subregion
(Atlantic County Sewerage
Authority)
Egg Harbor City
Town of Hammonton
Winslow Twp. (Ancora)
Hamilton Twp. (Mays
Landing)
Buena Borough
Submission
of Final Plans
June 1, 1974
Nov. 1, 1973
Sept. 1973
March 1973
Jan. 1, 1974
Jan. 1, 1974
Jan. 1, 1974
Jan. 1, 1974
Begin
Construction
Dec. 1, 1974
May 1, 1974
March 1974
Sept. 1W3
July 1, 1974
July 1, 1974
July 1, 1974
July 1, 1974
Complete
Construction
Dec. 1, 1976
April 1976
March 1975 •
Sept. 1974
July 1, 1975
July 1, 1975
July 1, 1975
July 1, 1975
Reraarks
NOTES:
1. For point source sewage dischargers not covered under updated implementation schedules,
currently applicable implementation schedules remain in effect.

-------
Table R-3

-------
TABLE NO. R-3
Proposed Implementation Plans-Industrial Point Source Dischargers
Name of Firm
MONMOUTH COUNTY
Brockway Glass
Nestle
Proposed Effluent Requirements (I)
Phenol - 1 ppb in receiving stream
Oil & Grease - None that will produce a visible sheen
BOD - 20 lbs/day
Oil & Grease - N'one that will produce a visible sheen
Phenol - 1 ppb in receiving stream
Temp. - Differential between 10 yards upstream and 10
yards downstream won't exceed 5°F max.
Proposed Implementation Dates
Preliminary	Complete Compliance
Plans	with Proposed Limits
12/15/72
12/15/72
12/15/73
3M, Minnesota, Mining & Manufacturing Co.
No change required over existing discharge
CAMDEN COUNTY
Mrs. Paul's Kitchen (Braddock Frosted
Foods, Inc.)
No change over existing discharge
BURLINGTON COUNTY
Pacemaker
No change over existing discharge
ATLANTIC COUNTY
Humble Oil (Terminal)
Lenox China
Submit Oil Spili Prevention Plan
No change over existing discharge
L. N. Renault & Sons (Universal Foods Corp.) BOD5 - 40 lbs/day*
TSS - 50 lbs/day*
No appreciable color differential in receiving stream
Scott Paper
No change over existing discharge required
12/15/72
12/15/72
12/15/73

-------
TABLE NO. R-3
Proposed Implementation Plans-Industrial Point Source Dischargers
Name of Firm
MONMOUTH COUNTY
Brockway Glass
Nestle
Proposed Effluent Requirements (I)
Phenol - 1 ppb in receiving stream
Oil & Grease - Sone that will produce a visible sheen
BOD - 20 lbs/day
Oil & Grease - None that will produce a visible sheen
Phenol - 1 ppb in receiving stream
Temp. - Differential between 10 yards upstream and 10
yards downstream won't exceed 5°F max.
Proposed Implementation-Dates
Preliminary	Complete Compliance
Plans	with Proposed Limits
12/15/72
12/15/72
12/15/73
3M, Minnesota, Mining & Manufacturing Co.
No change required over existing discharge
CAMDEN COUNTY
Mrs. Paul's Kitchen (Braddock Frosted
Foods, Inc.)
No change over existing discharge
BURLINGTON COUNTY
Pacemaker
No change over exiscing discharge
ATLANTIC COUNTY
Humble Oil (Terminal) '
Lenox China
Submit Oil Spill Prevention Plan
No change over existing discharge
L. N. Renault & Sons (Universal Foods Corp.) BOD5 - 40 lbs/day*
TSS - 50 lbs/day*
No appreciable color differential in receiving stream
Scott Paper
No change over existing discharge required
12/15/72
12/15/72
12/15/73

-------
-2-
Proposed Implementation Dates
Name of Firm
Havnie Products
Proposed Effluent Requirements (1)
Maximum discharge:
BOD5 - 75 lbs/day*
TSS - 3 lbs/day*
Oil & Grease - 1 lb/day*; None that will produce
visible sheen
Phenols - 1 ppb in receiving stream
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons (2)
pH - 7.0 - 8.0
Preliminary
Plans
12/15/72
Complete Compliance
with Proposed Linits
Notes:
(1)	Except where indicated proposed effluent requirements are average values.
(2)	Company will sample to see if present; chlorinated hydrocarbons must not be present in the effluent
in toxic amounts.
*Maxiraum Discharge

-------