DEP Quietly Proposes Permit for New Sewage Treatment Plant On Crosswicks Creek

“Minor facility” means any facility or activity not classified a “major facility” by the Regional Administrator or the Department.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/7_14a/sub01rule.pdf

Accordingly, the Regional Administrator has discretion in the practical definition of “minor” facility. 

NJ DEP NJPDES permit rules provide two additional factors to classify permits as “major” or “minor”, for industrial or municipal discharges..

There is a scoring system for industrial facilities, but for municipals, the DEP threshold in 1 MGD.

The proposed draft permit is for 600,000 GPD discharge, and thus is below the 1 MGD flow threshold for “major facility” under NJ DEP NJPDES regulations.

However, given the significant policy, regulatory, and technical issues involved in this permit and the public interest concerns, we ask that you exercise your discretion to define this draft “minor” NJPDES permit as a “major” facility NJPDES permit subject to EPA review.

We also request, given the same interests and issues, that you request – or require – that DEP extend the public comment period for 60 days following the public hearing. It is unusual and unacceptable for the NJ DEP to close the public comment period on a draft permit PRIOR TO the public hearing.

The public hearing provided an opportunity for the public to share concerns and learn about issues relevant to the draft permit. It is critical that the written comment period remain open after the close of the public hearing.

Some of the complex and controversial policy, regulatory, and technical issues involved with this daft permit include:

1) the Crosswicks Creek is listed as “impaired” for phosphorus, mercury, and bacteria under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. There may be additional relevant “aquatic life support” and “recreational use” impairments that require additional research to determine at this time.

While the draft permit appears to include a Water Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL) for phosphorus, the public needs additional time to review whether the draft permit effluent limits are fully protective and comply with applicable Clean Water Act requirements ;

2) the applicant’s antidegradation analysis in the draft permit documents declines in water quality and raised significant concerns about how socio-economic factors are evaluated. The public needs additional time to review whether the draft permit effluent limits are fully protective and comply with applicable Clean Water Act requirements.

Additionally, given the manner in which the socio-economic analysis is used to justify a lowering of water quality, EPA and the public need to understand whether this analysis is consistent with state and federal Environmental Justice Executive Order review requirements.

3) the Crosswicks Creek is a low flowing and recreationally and ecologically sensitive tributary to the Delaware River. A new discharge raises a host of issues that warrant close scrutiny;

4) The proposed new discharge is upstream on the Trenton/Hamilton marsh, an ecologically rich and water quality sensitive resource of regional significance – including the presence of federally protected species and potential water quality impacts of federal concern;

5) the proposed new discharge would impact the Delaware River and is subject to policies of the Delaware River Basin Commission;

6) The Crosswicks Creek is a significant recreational resource. However, bacterial impairments prevent full recreational use enjoyment by the public. The public needs additional time to review the permit to determine whether recreational uses will be protected.

7) We understand that this is the first NJPDES permit for a new POTW discharging to a low flow Delaware River tributary in many years. Accordingly, this permit will set a precedent and establish new regulatory policy.

8) It is vitally important that EPA rigorously review this draft permit to ensure that there is full compliance with the Clean Water Act, including meaningful public participation.

9) The NJ DEP draft permit minor classification and proposed public participation requirements frustrate meaningful EPA and public participation.

We strongly urge your immediate intervention to extend the public comment period for 60 days after the public hearing and for EPA to review this draft permit for full compliance with the Clean Water Act.

Sincerely;

[Update: 12/15/14 – this may take an additional post, but for now, all I can say is that the basis for the effluent limits in the DEP draft permit are not clear.

Above, I used the terms “advanced” and “tertiary treatment” without adequate specificity – except for the need for biological nitrogen and phosphorus (nutrient) removal requirements.  Obviously, any new plant must have state of the art advanced treatment.

However, in quickly reviewing the draft permit, I found only these, which are 30+ year old EPA minimum national treatment requirements and Guidance documents.

This  DEP reliance on outdated federal EPA minimums may be a result of Gov. Christie’s “regulator relief” Executive Order #2, which seeks to rollback NJ’s stricter standards to their federal minimums: (from the DEP draft permit:

• The effluent limitations and permit conditions in this permit have been developed to ensure compliance with the following, as applicable:   [1-4]

Secondary Treatment Standards (40 CFR Part 133, N.J.A.C. 7:14A-12.2 and -12.3),

• 5-Day Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5):

Percent removal limitations are based on the definition of secondary treatment 40 CFR 133.102(a)(4)(iii) and N.J.A.C. 7:14A-12.2(c) 3.