30740 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices

LAWRENCE PAPERBOARD

CORPORATION, 3/3/98, RK272–

04120, RK272–04178, RC272–00377

The DOE issued a Decision and Order

concerning competing claims to the

right to a refund based on the purchases

of Lawrence Paperboard Corporation.

The DOE had originally granted the

refund to Atlantic Coast Paperboard. In

the instant case, the DOE learned that

Atlantic merely purchased the assets of

Lawrence Paperboard and that the assets

did not include the right to the refund.

Accordingly, the DOE rescinded the

refund granted Atlantic. As between the

two remaining claimants to the refund,

the bankruptcy trustee on one hand, and

the sole owner of the corporation at the

time of its dissolution on the other, the

DOE determined that the refund should

be sent to the bankruptcy trustee for

distribution to unpaid creditors.

Accordingly, the request of the

bankruptcy trustee was granted and the

claim of the owner at the time of

dissolution was denied.

Refund Applications

The Office of Hearings and Appeals

issued the following Decisions and

Orders concerning refund applications,

which are not summarized. Copies of

the full texts of the Decisions and

Orders are available in the Public

Reference Room of the Office of

Hearings and Appeals.

CITY OF RENSSELAER ELEC. DEPT. ET AL .................................................................................................... RF272–79197 3/3/98

JOHN RAY TRUCKING CO. ET AL .................................................................................................................... RF272–76565 3/3/98

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed.

Name Case No.

VERNON J. BRECHIN ..................................................................................................................................................................... VFA–0383

[FR Doc. 98–14973 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6108–2]

New Jersey State Prohibition on

Marine Discharges of Vessel Sewage;

Final Affirmative Determination

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notification is hereby given

that the Regional Administrator,

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Region II has affirmatively determined,

pursuant to section 312(f) of Public Law

92–500, as amended by Public Law 95–

217 and Public Law 100–4 (the Clean

Water Act), that adequate facilities for

the safe and sanitary removal and

treatment of sewage from all vessels are

reasonably available for the waters of

the Manasquan River, Counties of

Monmouth and Ocean, State of New

Jersey.

This petition was made by the New

Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection (NJDEP) in cooperation with

the Monmouth-Ocean Alliance to

Enhance the Manasquan River. Upon

receipt of this affirmative determination,

NJDEP will completely prohibit the

discharge of sewage, whether treated or

not, from any vessel in the Manasquan

River in accordance with section

312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act and 40

CFR 140.4(a). Notice of the Receipt of

Petition and Tentative Determination

was published in the Federal Register

on March 12, 1998. Comments on the

tentative determination were accepted

during the comment period which

closed on April 13, 1998. Written

statements were received from the

following:

1. James F. Lacey, Freeholder Director,

Ocean County Board of Chosen

Freeholders, P.O. Box 2191, Toms

River, New Jersey 08754–2191

2. Mr. Lester W. Jargowsky, M.P.H.,

Public Health Coordinator,

Monmouth County Board of Health,

3435 Highway 9, Freehold, New

Jersey 07728

3. Ms. Cindy Zipf, Executive Director,

Clean Ocean Action, P.O. Box 505,

Highlands, New Jersey 07732

4. Mr. Arthur J. Bretnall, Jr., President,

Raritan Engineering, P.O. Box 1157,

Millville, New Jersey 08332

5. Mr. Philip G. Conner, President,

Crockett Brothers Boatyard, Inc.,

P.O. Box 369, Oxford, Maryland

21654

The comments are summarized and

responded to below:

Three individuals expressed their

support of the Manasquan River

determination. One individual stated

that the notice failed to mention that the

proposed No Discharge Area (NDA)

included the southern shore of the

Manasquan River which lies within

Ocean County. Another individual

stated that many organizations and

individuals have worked hard to ensure

that there are an adequate and

convenient supply of sewerage pumpout

facilities in the subject coastal

watershed. He further commented that

his organization will continue to

educate and motivate boaters to adhere

to the designation.

EPA acknowledges the support. While

the document clearly indicates the

boundaries of the area including the

southern shoreline, EPA has added

Monmouth County and Ocean County to

the listed communities for clarification.

The description now reads, ‘‘The lower

6.5 miles of the river forms the estuary

that is bordered by Wall Township,

Brielle Borough and Manasquan

Borough to the north in Monmouth

County and Brick Township, Point

Pleasant Borough and Point Pleasant

Beach Borough to the south in Ocean

County.’’ EPA also agrees that education

is a key component of the compliance

and enforcement effort.

One individual stated that there is

evidence that there is a need for better

management of marine sewage. He

commented that shellfish beds in the

river continue to be closed to harvesting

due to elevated fecal coliform counts.

Through the establishment of an NDA,

the local Boards of Health will have a

new management tool for vessel sewage

which can reduce the fecal coliform

loading and which may assist in the

reopening of the shellfish beds for

harvest. No revision to the

determination is warranted based on

this comment.

Another individual stated that there is

no credible reason to disallow the

continued use of the Type I and Type

II Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs). He

further stated that according to the

National Shellfish Register the five

principal sources of pollution are

upstream sources, wildlife, individual

waste management systems, septic tanks

and waste treatment plants.

In response, EPA notes that the

National Shellfish Register stated in the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices 30741

Overview of Results that the top five

pollution sources reported as

contributing to harvest limitations were

urban runoff, upstream sources,

wildlife, individual wastewater

treatment systems and wastewater

treatment systems. The above

commenter’s listing of the top five

pollution sources omitted urban runoff

and listed septic tanks in addition to

individual wastewater treatment

systems.

In addition, the Overview of Results

in the National Shellfish Register

regarding pollution sources cites an

apparent trend. Compared to the 1990

Register, there is a significant decrease

in the acreage that is harvest-limited

due to contributions from industry,

wastewater treatment plants and direct

discharges. There is an increase in the

acreage limited by boating and marinas

(when added together to reflect the way

the data were collected in the 1990

Register), urban runoff and agricultural

runoff.

In further response to the above

comments, EPA notes that NJDEP’s

application includes a certification that

the protection and enhancement of the

Manasquan River requires greater

environmental protection than the

applicable federal standard. NJDEP

presented data which indicate that fecal

coliforms exceed the bathing beach and

shellfish special restricted classification

criteria. In 1990, 400 acres of the more

than 1,500 acres were downgraded to

Prohibited status by NJDEP. Runoff from

residential and commercial

development, marina and boating

activity, and agriculture have been

implicated as sources of bacterial

loading. EPA has accepted NJDEP’s

certification and EPA concludes that no

revision to the determination is

warranted.

One individual criticized the method

used to calculate the number of

pumpouts for the vessel population. He

stated that no allowance was made for

vessels of length 26 feet and under with

toilets. He commented that the

assumption used in NJDEP’s application

that only 50% of the boats between 26

feet and 40 feet length were equipped

with toilets was low based on his

experience. He also stated that the

assumed peak occupancy rate of 45%

was low. During the busiest part of the

boating season, the percentage of boats

in use would be much higher. Due to

these assumptions, he stated the

application underestimated the need for

pumpouts.

The vessel populations were based on

the vessels docked at marinas and yacht

clubs, vessels docked at non-marina

facilities and transient vessels. The

number of pumpouts needed in the

Manasquan River NDA were calculated

using two different methodologies. Both

are based on the probability of a vessel

being equipped with a holding tank, not

a toilet, and an acceptable boat to

pumpout ratio. The first method is

based on the New Jersey Clean Vessel

Act Steering Committee’s

recommendation that one pumpout be

provided for every 200 to 300 vessels.

The second method was developed by

the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and

Wildlife Service. The percent of vessels

with holding tanks is based on surveys

conducted by the Fish and Wildlife

Service and available data for vessels

using the Manasquan River. EPA finds

the estimates to be based on accepted

methodologies and the best information

available. No revision to the

determination is needed.

One individual stated that there was

no need for the establishment of an

NDA in the Manasquan River. He

indicated that enforcement of the

current regulation, 40 CFR 140.3, which

prohibits discharge of untreated sewage

is the ‘‘key element to the issue.’’ He

further stated that the prohibition of the

discharge of untreated sewage from

vessels has never been adequately

enforced. In response, EPA notes that

the New Jersey Attorney General’s

Office and the New Jersey Marine Police

have issued numerous citations when

the discharge of raw sewage has been

observed. One violator was criminally

prosecuted and received 5 years

probation, a $30,000 fine and 200 hours

of community service. New Jersey has

enforced current regulations, but as

certified in the application, greater

environmental protection is needed. No

revision to the determination is

warranted.

Another individual stated that the

only effect the establishment of an NDA

will have would be to outlaw the use of

Type I and Type II MSDs.

The intent of the Manasquan River

NDA is not to outlaw any type of MSDs,

but to prohibit the discharge of sewage,

whether treated or untreated, from a

vessel until the vessel has left the

Manasquan River. Once a vessel has

exited the Inlet and is in the Atlantic

Ocean, the discharge from a Type I or

Type II MSD is allowed. Discharge of

untreated sewage is prohibited from a

vessel at all times while operating in

U.S. waters. No revision to the

determination is warranted.

Another individual stated that the

intent of Congress when it passed the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of

1976 (referred to as the current MSD

law) was to assure uniformity as vessels

engaged in interstate commerce. He

further stated that granting exceptions

compromises the existing uniformity.

The federal MSD standards were set

to provide a uniform standard for all

vessels, regardless of area operation, in

regards to protecting waters of the U.S.

Congress also recognized that States,

when further environmental protection

was warranted, should be allowed to

completely prohibit the discharge from

all vessels of any sewage, whether

treated or not, into some or all of the

waters within a State by applying to

EPA for such a prohibition. The State of

New Jersey is exercising that option

provided by Congress through section

312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act. No

revision to the determination is

warranted based on the comment.

Two people commented that forcing

boaters into a position that requires

holding tanks with no other option is

dangerous to the boating public. These

comments addressed the risk of

transmitting disease when handling

untreated waste. One person further

stated that people have been overcome

and died due to the generation and the

escaping of hydrogen sulfide gas from a

holding tank. He stated that the

application does not address this.

Another person stated that methane gas

may build up in the holding tanks and

explode.

The establishment of a Manasquan

River NDA does not require vessel

owners to retrofit their MSDs. The

comment regarding the generation of

hydrogen sulfide gas and escape from a

holding tank, is not relevant to the

adequacy of the application submitted

by NJDEP. MSDs are certified by the

U.S. Coast Guard in regard to safety and

performance. Any questions regarding

the safety of any certified MSD should

be brought to the attention of the U.S.

Coast Guard since it is the certifying

agency. No revision to the

determination is warranted based on the

comment.

One individual commented that the

establishment of an NDA, in and of

itself, does not prevent the discharge of

raw sewage.

The discharge of raw sewage is

currently prohibited by law.

Establishment of an NDA prohibits the

discharge of sewage, whether treated or

untreated, from vessels. Compliance

with the prohibition is dependent on

the attitude of the boating population. A

major component of a compliance

program is the education of the

regulated community and the impacts of

noncompliance. No revision to the

determination is warranted based on the

comment.

One person stated that Type I and

Type II MSDs treat the pathogens in
30742 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices

sewage as effectively, if not better than,

municipal sewer plants. In comparing

Type I and Type II systems to sewage

treatment plants, he stated that an MSD

achieves coliform results that are

virtually zero and BOD percent

reductions of over 70%.

The treatment plants that handle the

sewage from the pumpouts are reporting

Fecal Coliform counts of less than 10

colonies per 100 ml. and achieve BOD

percent removal of greater than 90%.

Samples of the effluent are taken at least

twice per week to monitor the

discharge. Based on these removals,

EPA believes the performance of the

treatment works is better than MSDs.

The municipal authorities are required

by New Jersey Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NJPDES) permits to

properly operate and maintain the

treatment plant and to report any

noncompliance with the permit

conditions. Also, the treated wastewater

from the treatment plant is discharged

to the Atlantic Ocean, not the

Manasquan River. MSDs are certified on

a one time basis and after installation

are rarely, if ever, checked to see if they

are operating properly. They are never

recertified. No revision to the

determination is warranted based on the

comment.

One individual commented that the

federal MSD laws are obsolete and that

the standards should be modified

immediately. While this comment is not

relevant to the determination or the

factual content of the application,

modification of the regulation cannot be

initiated by the State or EPA Region II.

40 CFR 140 was recently modified to

clarify the application requirements to

establish NDAs for drinking water

intakes zones. It is unlikely that this

regulation will be evaluated for

modification in the near future. No

revision to the determination is

warranted.

The remainder of this document

summarizes the location of the NDA, the

available pumpout facilities and related

information. The Manasquan River is

located in central New Jersey and runs

southeasterly through Monmouth

County for more than 23 miles before

emptying into the Atlantic Ocean at the

Manasquan Inlet. The Manasquan River

is classified as a medium river with a

drainage area of 81 square miles. The

lower 6.5 miles of the river forms the

estuary that is bordered by Wall

Township, Brielle Borough and

Manasquan Borough to the north in

Monmouth County and Brick Township,

Point Pleasant Borough and Point

Pleasant Beach Borough to the south in

Ocean County. The NDA will include

all navigable waters in the Manasquan

Estuary beginning at Manasquan Inlet

and including Stockton Lake, Glimmer

Glass, Lake Louise and Point Pleasant

Canal up to the Route 88 bridge.

Information submitted by the State of

New Jersey and the Monmouth-Ocean

Alliance to Enhance the Manasquan

River stated that there are five existing

pumpout facilities available and two

portable toilet dump stations to service

vessels which use the Manasquan River.

A detailed description of the available

facilities was published in the Tentative

Affirmative Determination in the

Federal Register on March 12, 1998.

The location of the facilities are as

follows:

1. Brielle Marine Basin (stationary

pumpout and portable pumpout),

608 Green Avenue, Brielle, New

Jersey

2. Brielle Yacht Club (stationary

pumpout), located 201 Union Lane,

Brielle, New Jersey

3. Manasquan River Club (portable toilet

dump station), 217 Riverside Drive,

Brick, New Jersey

4. Suburban Boatworks and Marina

(stationary pumpout and a portable

toilet dump station), 1500 Riverside

Drive, Brick, New Jersey

5. Crystal Point Yacht Club (stationary

pumpout), 4000 River Road, Point

Pleasant, New Jersey

Within six nautical miles of the

Manasquan River are eight additional

pumpout facilities and two portable

toilet dump stations. Three facilities are

located on the Shark River, three

facilities are located on the Metedeconk

River and two facilities are on Barnegat

Bay.

Vessel waste generated from the

pumpout facilities in Monmouth County

is conveyed to the South Monmouth

Regional Sewage Authority (NJPDES

Permit No. NJ0024520). Vessel waste

generated from the pumpout facilities in

Ocean County is conveyed to the Ocean

County Utilities Authority—Northern

Plant (NJPDES Permit No. NJ0028142).

These plants operate under permits

issued by the New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection.

According to the State’s petition, the

maximum daily vessel population for

the waters of Manasquan River is

approximately 2624 vessels. This

estimate is based on (1) vessels docked

at marinas and yacht clubs (1940

vessels), (2) vessels docked at nonmarina facilities (559 vessels) and (3)

transient vessels (125 vessels). The

vessel population based on length is

1505 vessels less than 26 feet in length,

885 vessels between 26 feet and 40 feet

in length and 234 vessels greater than 40

feet in length. Based on number and size

of boats, and using various methods to

estimate the number of holding tanks, it

is estimated that 3 to 5 pumpouts are

needed for the Manasquan River.

The EPA hereby makes a final

affirmative determination that adequate

facilities for the safe and sanitary

removal and treatment of sewage from

all vessels are reasonably available for

the Manasquan River in the counties of

Monmouth and Ocean, New Jersey. This

final determination on this matter will

result in a New Jersey State prohibition

of any sewage discharges from vessels in

Manasquan River.

Dated: May 26, 1998.

Jeanne M. Fox,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–15015 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6108–3]

New Jersey State Prohibition on

Marine Discharges of Vessel Sewage;

Final Affirmative Determination

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notification is hereby given

that the Regional Administrator,

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Region II has affirmatively determined,

pursuant to section 312(f) of Public Law

92–500, as amended by Public Law 95–

217 and Public Law 100–4 (the Clean

Water Act), that adequate facilities for

the safe and sanitary removal and

treatment of sewage from all vessels are

reasonably available for the waters of

the Shark River, County of Monmouth,

State of New Jersey.

This petition was made by the New

Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection (NJDEP) in cooperation with

Monmouth County and the Shark River

Roundtable. Upon receipt of this

affirmative determination, NJDEP will

completely prohibit the discharge of

sewage, whether treated or not, from

any vessel in the Shark River in

accordance with section 312(f)(3) of the

Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 140.4(a).

Notice of the Receipt of Petition and

Tentative Determination was published

in the Federal Register on March 12,

1998. Comments on the tentative

determination were accepted during the

comment period which closed on April

13, 1998. Written statements were

received from the following:

1. Mr. Lester W. Jargowsky, M.P.H.,

Public Health Coordinator,