report on coastal zone act administration 1977-1983

8/14/2019 Report on Coastal Zone Act Administration 1977-1983

1/45

'.-, - - } b ; " " J - - : ~ ; ; : ~ ' _ ~ " ~ _

September 1984

July 1977- December 1983

REPORT ONCOASTAL ZONE ACT ADMINISTRATION

STATE COASTAL ZONE INDUSTRIAL CONTROL BOARDAND

RTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLHT393.D3D4691984


2/45

-N

COASTAL ZONE ACT ADMINISTRATIONJuly 1977 - December 1983

State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Boardand

Department o f Natural Resources and Environmental ControlSeptember 1984

u. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOA ACOASTAL SERVICES CENTER2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUECHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

This publication is financed in part through a federal grant from th e Offic eof Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA, under the p rovis ion o f Sec tion306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-583) as amended.

PRINTED IN U.S.A.DOCUMENT NO.

40-08/84/09/02

Property of esc Library


3/45

APPENDIX I Advisory Legal OpinionsAPPENDIX I I DefinitionsAPPENDIX III Coastal Zone Act and Map

Part 1Part 2Part 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BackgroundState Coastal Zone Industrial Control BoardProject Applications and Appeals

APPENDICES

Page1-1

2-13-1

4-15-16-1


4/45

BACKGROUND

In June 1971 the Firs t State was f i r s t in protecting i t s coastal landsand waters from environmentally harmful industrial development by enactingDelaware's C o ~ s t a l Zone Act. Since then, under the 1972 Federal Coastal ZoneManagement ~ c t , twenty-seven coastal states (and terr i tor ies) have establishedcoastal management programs involving regulation of coastal land and wateruses to one degree or another. Delaware's early r ecogn it ion of the value ofi t s coastal resources and the decision to p ro tec t them for the benefit ofpresent and future populations set a national precedent.

Enactment of the Coastal Zone ~ c was the resul t of the deep concernof many cit izens and public off ic ia ls in Delaware over the l ikelihood ofindustrial growth in the coastal zone re su ltin g i n a large new petroleumrefinery and a deepwater terminal for supertankers and related heavy indu stries in areas not yet industr ialized. Land ownership and some localzoning policies (or lack of policies) indicated that such industrial izat ionwas a r ea l possi b il it y. The absence of a State policy toward industrialgrowth in the coastal zone and regulatory authority over i t l e f t the Statein a position of not having an effective voice in the use of the uniquelyvaluable and environmentally sensitive resources of the coastal zone.~ a result of t hi s s itu ati on and this concern, the Governor appointeda Task Force on Marine and Coastal Affairs in early 1970 to examine thesi tuat ion and advise him on a proper course of action to protect the State ' sinterest in use and protection of coastal resources. In February 1971, theTask Force completed a preliminary report recommending t ha t indus tr ie s com-patible with high environmental quality standards be encouraged, but thatno further incompatible industries be allowed in the coastal zone. Incom-

patibi l i ty would be determined on the basis of quantit ies and types of pollutants and the magnitude of adverse environmental effects result ing from thenature of the industry. The Task Force a150 recommended prohibitinga deepwater port faci l i ty in Delaware Bay. The report emphasized the recreational values of the coastal zone for Delawareans and for visi tors fromother s tates .Shortly af ter release of the Task Force Preliminary Report, in thespring of 1971, the Governor introduced legislat ion in the General Assembly

~ H o u s e Bil l Number 300) for the Coastal Zone Act which follows recommendationsof the Task Force on Marine and Coastal Affairs as to what i t regulates andwhat i t prohibits. On June 28, 1971, Governor Peterson signed the Act intolaw, (Tit le 7, Chapter 70 , Delaware Code).Since enactment in 1971 there have been numerous proposals to amend thelaw. Only two amendments have been adopted, one of these having the basicpurpose of reorganizing some agencies of State government.In 1979 Section 7002 was amended by adding onshore support faci l i t iesfor Outer Cont inen ta l She lf o il and gas activi t ies to a l i s t of industrialland uses not to be defined as prohibited heavy industry uses in the defini t ion of 'heavy industry use ' . Such onshore support faci l i t ies as warehouses, outdoor storage areas, and equipment repair and maintenance faci l i t ies

1-1


5/45

are not prohibited provided that they occupy less than 20 acres. Tank farmsand storage tanks are excluded from the exemption from prohibition.The second amendment took effect on November 1, 1981 when Reorganizationlegislation transferred Coastal Zone Act responsibility from the terminatedOffice of Management, Budget and Planning to the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Prior to th i s , in January 1977 when the

duPont administration took office, the State Planning Office referred to inthe original Coastal Zone Act became the Office of Management, Budget andPlanning (OMBP). From January 1977 through October 1981 the Director of theOMBP administered the law. Since November 1981 the Secretary of the Depar tment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control has admin is te red thelaw.

Within the Division of Environmental Control day-to-day coastal zoneadministrative act ivi t ies are housed in the Planning Branch, which alsoprovides staff-support to the State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board.

1-2


6/45

STATE COASTAL ZONE INDUSTRIAL CONTROL BOARD

Established by Section 7006 of the Coastal Zone Act, th e State CoastalZone Industrial Control Board authority and responsibil i t ies are:1. To serve as an appeal board to hear and decide appeals from

decisions of th e Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control;2. To review and approve, disapprove or modify application andprocedural regulations prepared by the Secretary; and3. To review and adopt a comprehensive plan and guidelines concerning acceptable (permit ted) manufacturing uses and regulations f or e labo ra ti on of the defini t ion of (prohibited)

heavy industry uses.Originally, the Board was comprised of ten members includ ing the

Secretary of th e Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.In November 1981 when Coastal Zone administrative responsibility wasgiven to th e Secretary by reorganization legislation, th e Board was re-duced to nine members by eliminating the Secretary's membership. The Governor,with Senate confirmation,appoints five members representing th e gener alpublic, one of whom is designated Board chairman. Four ex-officio membersrepresent th e Delaware Development Office and each of the three countyplanning commissions. All members are voting members.As of December 31, 1983 members of the Board were:

Staff and record-keeping servi ce s for the Board are provided by thePlanning Branch in the Div is ion of Environmental Control, Department ofNatural Resources and Environmental Control. Legal a ss is ta nc e to theBoard is provided by a Deputy Attorney General in th e Department of Just ice.

the five appointed regular members:Dr. Donald F. Crossan, ChairmanMrs. Lynn WilliamsMr. Harry M. Fisher, IIIMr. Charles W. ColeMr. Robert W. Tunnellth e four ex-officio members:Dr. V. Eugene McCoyMr. Jack RoeMr. John AllenNathan Hayward, I I I

New Castle CountyNew Castle CountyKent CountySussex CountySussex County

New Castle County PlanningBoard ChairmanKent County Regional PlanningChairmanSussex County Planning andZoning ChairmanDirector, Delaware DevelopmentOffice

2-1


7/45

During th e period July 1977 through December 1983 there were fiveappeals of Coastal Zone decisions. Three of these appeals were sett ledwithout the Board making an appeal decision. The five appeals were:Project No. 103Project No. 106Project No. 123Project No. 127Project No. 144

Brandywine Chemical Company, Inc.IKO Industries, Ltd.Getty Ref in ing and Marketing CompanyDunn Development CompanyFischer Enterprises, Inc.

Details about th e appeals are given in the pro ject descr ip tion inPart 3 of this Report.In add iti on to appeal hearings, the Board held a ser ies of meetingsduring this reporting per iod dea li ng w ith improving administ ra t ion of theCoastal Zone Act.In December 1980, a t th e r eque st of the Acting Director of the Officeof Management, Budget and Planning, the Board held a workshop meeting inDover to discuss several admin is tr at ive mat te rs . The discussion involved

the following topics:Section 7004(b) of the Act requires that environmental,economic, aesthet ic , land use and other effects of projects proposed by permit applicants be examined priorto a permit decision. There was a need for a moresystemmatic, objective system for this review and evaluation. The Board discussed a methodology, preparedwith federal Coastal Management Program grant funds,to accomplish this.The law's definition of 'heavy i ndus try use ' causedproblems of interpretation as to exactly which industry types could be classif ied as prohibited heavyindustries. For example, the definit ion refers tochemical plants such as pet rochemical complexes,l ea ving the ques ti on whether this meant prohibitiononly of petrochemical plants or of a l l chemicalplants. The law also requires an elaboration oft hi s def in it ion . With Coastal Management Programgrant funds, a basis to identify heavy industryuses using the federal census standard industrialclassification had been devised by the OMBP, andwas briefly discussed by the Board.A discussion of the potential for industrial development in the coastal zone centered on the idea ofidentifying and mapping dist inct ive geographic areasin the zone. The OMBP Acting Director noted that muchof the coastal zone south of the Chesapeake and DelawareCanal is publicly-owned and much of i t is State-designated wetland. The idea was discussed that part iculartypes of (pe rmit ted) industry would have differentexternal effects in different areas depending uponthe degree of existing urban and industrial developmentand the natural resources in each area.

2-2


8/45

The Board concluded the meeting by asking th e OMBP staff to prepare aseries of overlay maps of th e coastal zone showing local zoning, historicsi te , public ownership, and cr i t i ca l natur al f ea tu re s with in the zone. Whenappropriate th e Board would meet again to reach decisions on th e subjectsdiscussed at this workshop meeting.

Following this workshop meeting, in 1982 a series of Board meetingswas held.

Subjec ts discussed at the Janua ry 5 , 1982 meeting included effects ofthe reorga.nization legislat ion on Coastal Zone administration with thet ransfer to the Department o f Natu ra l Resources and Environmental Controlof Coastal. Zone Act authority, a possible fee system to defray some administrat ive expenses, improved administrative guidelines, and coastal zoneoverlay maps for each county. No final decisions were made, work was tocontinue on these topics.At i t s February 8, 1982 meeting the Board was advised by legal memorandumthat authority to adopt fees is ambiguous in the Coastal Zone Act, but that

other law prevents the Department from retaining any fees. Fee money must goto the General Fund without other specif ic statutory authority. There wouldbe no point in adopting Coastal Zone fees. The Board voted to approve thismemorandum.A second legal memorandum advised that the Board does have theauthority to adopt definit ions and administrative regulations provided theyare reasonable interpretations of l eg is la ti ve i nt en t. The Board approvedth is legal memorandum.The subject of the status decision procedure was discussed in terms ofproviding an opportunity for public pa rt ic ipa ti on p rior to the decision. Thepresent system allows only for appeals of the dec is ion, th er e i s no publicannouncement of or public hearing on the status decision application. TheBoard decided to keep the procedure as is but to suggest to Secretary Wilsonthat he can decide to hold an information meeting prior to a status decision

i f he feels i t is a matter of public in teres t .Concerning the possibi l i ty of differential weighing of environmental,

economic, land use and other factors according to the permit applicant 'slocation in th e coastal zone, legal counsel adv ised that the coastal zoneis a single enti ty and that i t cannot be divided into sub-types each havingdifferent: standards for weighing the effects of the proposed manufacturinguse. That is , in contrast to t radi t ional zoning practice of having a seriesof different zones for r es idences, commercial uses, industry, etc . there isonly one coastal zone and only new or expanded manufacturing uses are permitted in that zone. Eva luat ion of l ikely effects on th e coastal zone, asrequired in Section 7004(b) of the Act, should not vary in terms of theurban, industr ia l , rural or undeveloped character of the area around theapplicant 's proposed s i te .

On March 16, 1982 meeting, without a quorum, the Board discussed termswhich have caused problems of administrative interpretation. The "productioncapacity" used in the Board-approved definition of expansion or extensionof a nonconforming use i s whatever capacity figure the applicant customarilyuses to describe his operating capacity. Capacity mayor may not be the

2-3


9/45

same as actual production, capacity may exceed production. In the definit ionof heavy industry use the l i s t of industries as examples of heavy industriesis not intended to be all- inclusive, the Board decided. Other industrieshaving identifying characterist ics of a heavy industry use including pollutionpotential can be considered as such. The term "petrochemical" in the definition of heavy industry use does not mean that only petrochemical plantsare prohibited. The Board decided that other chemical plants can be heavyindustry uses i f they have the identifying charac te ri st ic s i n the definit ion.The Board further decided that , with th ese clar i f icat ions , existing terminology i s adequate.

At i t s May 17, 1982 meeting the State Coastal Zone Industr ial ControlBoard discussed the coastal zone county overlay maps showing prime agricultural soi l s , federal and state land, local industrial zoning, historic andarchaeological si tes , and wetlands and other cr i t ica l natural areas recognized in Delaware's coastal management program. After review of a reportsuggesting alternative methods to eva lu ate environmental and other effectsof manufacturing uses the Board decided that a methodology using a matrixidentifying possible effects would resu lt in more systemmatic and objectivestaff evaluations of permit applications.

At i ts meeting of July 14, 1982 the Board again reviewed the coastalzone overlay maps. The Kent County Planner presented overlay maps of the~ o a s t a l zone in that county and noted that only a small part of the county'scoastal zone could be developed for industrial use due to extensive wetlands and public lands. He also noted that nearly a l l of Kent County'scoastal zone is zoned for agricultural-residential use. The Board also reviewed proposed, revised coastal zone permit application forms which wereorganized in a format encouraging more explici t information from applicantskeyed to the language and purpose of the law - whereas the quest ions in theold form, especially in the environmental section, were expressed in moregeneral terms similiar to the Nat ional Environmental Policy Act. Site planrequirements were a lso s impli fi ed . No Board decision was made on theamended application forms.

The Board a t i t s meeting on October 4, 1982 formally approved the revised permit application forms and the use by Coastal Zone Act administrativestaff of t he matr ix methodology for reviewing and evaluating environmentaland other effects of permit applicant 's projects.

2-4


10/45

PROJECTS AND DECISIONS

Summary of Projects and Decisions

The Unusual Decisions involved Projects No. 109, 127, 131, and 144; theyare described in some detai l in the following projec ts descr ip tions .

Brief desc ip tions of each of the 63 projec t applicat ions received duringthe per iod July 1977 thorugh December 1982, including descriptions of appealsto the State Coastal Zone Industr ial Control Board, are provided in chronological order as follows.

Most of the decisions, 37 of 63, never proceeded further than the statusdecision. That i s , the decision was that the project was not regulated by theAct and there was no appeal. Nearly a ll of these involved companies in operation in the coastal zone since prior to enactment of the law and having nonconforming use status.

63378Use 21125124

Given th e urban, industrial nature of the northern one-third of the s tatein c on tr as t to the more rural and non-industr ial character of central andsouthern Delaware i t is not surprising that over 75 percent of the projectswere located in New Castle County from Delaware City northward, 49 of 63projects. One project was located in Kent County, which has very l i t t l eland zoned i ndus tr ia l i n the coastal zone. The remaining 13 projects were inSussex County. This pattern of industrial development and Coastal Zonedecisions con tinues the g e o ~ r a p h i c a l pattern established in the f i r s t sixyears of Coastal Zone administration.

Total Number of ProjectsStatus Decision: Not Regulated, No Further DecisionPermits for New ManufacturingPermit for Expansion or Extension of a NonconformingProhibited UseStatus Decision Not Regulated - AppealStatus Decision Permit Required - AppealPermit Required - Project Never Completed orApplicant Located Outside of Coastal ZonePermit Required - No Application Received by Closeof This Report PeriodStatus Decision Application Under Review a t Closeof This Report PeriodUnusual Decision (not categorized above)

In the six and one-half years from July 1977 through December 1983a to ta l of 63 projec ts (appl ica tions) were received for Coastal Zone decisions. Between July 1977 and October 1981 t hese dec is ions were madeby the Director of the Office of Management, Budget and Planning, thesuccessor to the State Planner (referred to in the Coastal Zone Act).Since November 1, 1981 the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resourcesand Environmental Control has made the Coastal Zone decisions as a resultof the reorganization legislat ion previously referred to .

3-1


11/45

Project No. 90 - - Allied Chemical Corporation, Industr ial Chemicals Division,Delaware Works at Claymont. Status applicat ion: July 27, 1977. Project: Ins tal la t ion of a 10,000 gallon l iquid sulfur dioxide storage and handling system within the existing sulfur ic acid manufacturing area. The sulfur dioxideis a waste material from another company's pollution control device and willbe used by Allied Chemical in a boiler as a raw material in i t s sulfur ic acidprocess; i t is a part ia l substi tution of raw materials. There will be no sulfuric acid production capacity increase, no new manufactured product, and nonew eff luents , emissions or solid wastes. Sta tu s dec is ion: September 2, 1977not regulated, not an expansion or extension of a nonconforming use as defined in Board-approved regulations.Project No. 91 - - Getty Refining and Marketing Company a t Delaware City.Status application: September 19, 1977. Project: To recover Aromatics-lSOfrom an ex is ting ref ine ry petroleum stream using less than one acre ofspace within an existing processing and tank farm area. There will be nooverall refinery production capacity increase. There will be a small hydrocarbon emissions increase from tanks bu t no signif icant adverse environmentaleffects . Sta tu s dec is ion: November 8, 1977, not regulated, not an expansionor extension of a nonconforming use.Project No. 92 - - Getty Refining and Marketing Company at Delaware City.Status decision: September 27, 1977. Project: To insta l l a Wellman-Lordstack gas scrubb ing unit to reduce sulfur dioxide and particulate emissionsfrom boiler stack gases, there would be no effect on refinery productioncapacity, the project i s s tr ic tl y a po llut ion con trol device, recoveredsulfur oxides would be converted to sulfur ic acid. Sta tu s dec is ion: November8, 1977, not regulated, not an expansion or extension of a nonconforming use.Project No. 93 - - ICI Americas, Inc. at Atlas Point north of New Castle.Status application: November 23, 1977. Project: Modification of an existingsorbitol processing faci l i ty to changeover from a l iquid to a crystall inesorbitol , there will be no net i ncr ea se of to tal sorbitol production capacity,a ir emissions wil l be controlled by a baghouse system. Sta tu s dec is ion:Janua ry 6, 1978, not regulated, not an expansion or extension of a nonconforming use.Project No. 94 - - Townsends, Inc., near Mi ll sboro. Status application:December 13, 1977. Project: To construct a scale house for a grain receivingstation, not part of the soybean plant, not a plant expansion, no adverseenvironmental effects. Status decision: January 6, 1978, not regulated, notan expansion or extension of a nonconforming use.Project No. 9S - - Standard Chlor ine of Delaware, Inc. , at Delaware City.Status application: February 2, 1978. Project: To replace two older boilerswith a new, l ar ge r boi le r in order to i n c r ~ ~ s e steam generating capacity,the older boilers to be put on standby capdcity, no increase of p lan t p roduction capacity, no adverse effect on a ir quality i f use of a l l three boilersdoes not exceed 110,000 pounds per hour l imit of the DNREC boiler constructionpermit. Status decision: March 3, 1978, not regulated, not an expansion orextension of a nonconforming use.

3-2


12/45

Project No. 96 - - Get ty Ref in ing and Marketing Company a t Delaware City. Statusapplication: March 2, 1978. Project: To separate and recover nitration gradetoluene from a refinery stream involving modification of an existing fractionation tower and three new tanks within a one acre area, no addit ional tolueneproduced (n i t ra t ion grade toluene l iquids have been proced a t the ref ineryas a small part of the stream going into gasoline blending) , toluene emissionsto the atmosphere from the new tanks wil l be within DNREC Air Resources allowedl imits , no ove ra ll r ef iner y production capacity incre ase. Sta tus decision: May24, 1978, not regulated, not an expansion or extens ion o f a nonconforming use.Project No. 97 - - Georgia Pacific Corporation a t New Castle Industr ia l Parksouth of Wilmington. Sta tus appl ica tion : March 30 , 1978. Project: A warehouse including an office, some repackaging of nails and plywood cutt ing inc idental to the primary warehousing funct ion, i nc ludes two tanks for diesel fueland gasoline at a truck loading area, no signif icant environmental effects .Sta tus dec is ion: June 12, 1978, not a new manufacturing use nor a heavy industry use, not regulated; th is decision considered th e cutt ing and packagingoperations as minor act iv i t ies , incidental to the main warehousing function incontrast to a prior status decision - Project No. 21 Ferralloy Corporation where the cutt ing and sl i t t ing of sheet stee l was a major part of the operationand involved most of the instal led machinery.Project No. 98 - - ICI Americas, Inc. , at Atla s Poin t north of New Castle.Status application: May 10, 1978. Project: Modif icat ion of a sulfonation production faci l i ty in ope ra ti on s ince 1951 resulting in a 65 percent productioncapacity increase involving new equipment and rearranging of some existingequipment including a new vacuum system to re plac e an existing je t stream system; agricul tural emulsifiers are produced by blending calcium dodecylbenzenesulfonates with surfactants. Total a ir emissions of organ ic vapor , part iculates,and sulfur oxides from the modified faci l i ty to be less than emiss ions from thecurent faci l i ty . Contaminated wastewater from equipment washdowns are to beprocessed in the A tlas Point treatment plant prior to going to the New CastleCounty Sewerage system. No signif icant adverse environmental effects expected.Status decision: June 23, 1978, not regulated, not an expansion o r extens ion ofa nonconforming use. By i t se l f a production capac ity increase with no signi f i cant environmental or land area increases does not necessarily just ify a determination that a project is an expansion or extension.

*Project No 99 - - Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc. at Delaware City. Statusapplication: June 13, 1978. Project: To ins ta l l a duplicate dist i l la t ion system to increase dist i l la t ion capacity by eliminating downtime enabling a chemical production capacity increase from 150 million to 250 million pounds per year(to match present reactor capacity) - chlorinated benzenes are the product made.The project involves 5 acres of an overall 17 acre plant s i te , 14 new tanks and5 dist i l la t ion columns, an electr ic power substation and a control room building.S ta tu s dec is ion: August 15 , 1978, this is an expansion or extension of a nonconforming use requiring application for a coastal zone permit; there would bea signif icant increase of plant production capacity and a s ign if icant po ten ti alfor increased sulfur dioxide, benzene, poss ib ly increased odors and a potentialto aggravate present wastewater iron content t reatment problems. Permit application: November 28, 1978, public hearing December 19, 1978. Permit decision:The February 2, 1979 decision to grant a permit attached a number of st ipulations to ensure compliance with State a ir and water pollution regulations. At

* Projects with an asterisk require a permit.3-3


13/45

the requ est of Standard Chlorine, the Director of th e Office of Management,Budget and Planning reconsidered his permit dec is ion a s to th e practicali tyof implementing some of the permit conditions. revised his permit decisionon February 26. 1979 by add ing language about the perm it conditions so thatin the event of confl ic t between compliance with the Coastal Zone permitconditions and any DNREC standard or regulation the DNREC requirement wouldapply. There was no appeal from ei ther permit decision. Permit issued:March 13. 1979 with numerous st ipulations to ensure compliance with DNRECa ir and water quality requirements in connection with this project.Project No. 100 - - Getty Refining and Marketing Company at Delaware City.Status application: June 21, 1978. Project: Petroleum tank storage capacityfor crude o il and for intermediate or finished petroleum products to beincreased by 800,000 barrels with two new equal- sized s torage tanks withinGetty's existing tank farm. The project involved no crude o il refiningcapac ity increase. DNREC advised that negative environmental effects wouldnot be significant, that the new tanks would comply with a ir quality regulations, that increased hydrocarbon emissions from the two new tanks would beoffset by new emissions control equipment to be instal led at Getty's truckloading faci l i ty result ing in a net r educ ti on of hydrocarbon emissions. andthat a sl ight increase in l iquid waste discharged to the refinery wastewatertreatment plant would have no serious environmental effect . Status decision:August 11, 1978, not regulated, not an expansion or extension of a nonconforming use.Project No. 101 - - Dravo Corporation at Wilmington. Status applicat ion :September 25. 1978, made by Dravo Corporation on behalf of F. A. Potts andCompany, Inc. , the si te owner. Project: Coal storage and transfer terminalon south shore o f Chr is tin a River immediately west of the Wilmington MarineTerminal. Metallurgical and steam coal would be brought to the si te byrai lroad, temporarily stored in large piles onsite , then loaded by a conveyorsystem onto ships docked in the Christina River for ocean tr an spor t; i nwinter there would be some crushing of the coal because i t would be frozen.For status decision purposes two aspects of this project are pertinent:(1) the docking faci l i t ies , poss ib ly prohib ited as an onshore bulk productt ransfer faci l i ty, and (2) the crushing operation as a possible manufacturinguse requiring a permit. Sta tus dec is ion: June 13. 1979. (1) the dockingfaci l i t ies are part of th e Port of Wilmington and are therefore exempt fromprohibition under the exemption in the law for the Port docking faci l i t ies ;(2) coal crushing would be a seasonal and minor i nc id en ta l p ar t of the terminal operations and would not be a manufacturing use. The status decision.for t hese reasons , was that the proposed coal terminal is not regulated bythe Act.Project No. 102 - - ICI Americas, Inc. , at Atla s Poin t north of New Castle.Status application: October 17, 1978. Project: Modifica tion of a sorbi tolproduction faci l i ty to increase production capacity. Sorbitol is an edible,non- toxic product, i t is a sweetener. A new collection and grinding systemfor c rystal line sorb i to l to be within an existing building and a sorbi tolcrystal l ization system in an existing building. The project requires lessthan one acre of new space within a to ta l processing area of approximately70 acres. No signif icant environmental e ff ec ts ; par ti cu la te emissions to beminor, no l iquid wastes, and a l l solid wastes would be recylcled throughthe production system. Status decision: December 15, 1978, not regulated,

3-4


14/45

not an expansion or ext ension of a nonconforming use.*Project No. 103 - - Brandywine Chemical Company, Inc. Status application:October 30. 1978. Brandywine Chemical, located at Terminal Avenue west ofthe Wilmington Marine Terminal, is a small specialty chemical manufactureroperating by a batch process rather than a continuous-run production process.Project: To renovate faci l i t ies and start-up production of special tychemicals, no new build ings o r faci l i t ies and no additional land area required. Legal advisory: A permit for new manufacturing should be required,unless the OMBP decides i t is a heavy industry use. Any permit should beworded to allow batch-type operations but not to cover operations not described in the application. Status dec is ion: March 20, 1979. This is amanufacturing use requiring a coastal zone permit; i t i s not a heavy industryuse; i t has only a few of the identifying heavy industry characterist icsand occupies a si te of considerably less than 20 acres. Appeal: On April2, 1979 Brandywine Chemical fi led an appeal with the State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board claiming that i t has nonconforming use status andthat a permit for new manufacturing should not be required. On May 7, 1979 th eBoard held i t s appeal hearing a t the Carvel State Office Building in Wilmington. Principal appeal questi on s t o be decided are: (1) was there acessation of manufacturing operations during Brandywine Chemical's occupancyof the si te - since December 21, 1977; (2 ) i f there was a cessation i s thenonconforming use status thereby eliminated? The status decision was basedon a cessation of manufacturing operat ions el iminating the nonconforming usestatus. The appellant claimed that: (1) due to the nature of specialtychemical manufacturing with frequently changing market demands there weretimes when no manufacturing operations were conducted a t the si te but thatthere was no "abandonment" of operations and faci l i t ies ; (2) Brandywine'sprocesses, equipment and raw materials are very similar to those o f p reviousspecialty chemical occupants of the si te ; and (3) Brandywine will insta l l noequipment different from i t s predecessors. Prior to the Board's appealdecision an agreement was reached between th e parties to the appeal result ingin a Board order dec la ri ng the appeal moot and dismissed without prejudice.Upon legal advice th e Board did not advertise i t s order as a f inal decision.A legal st ipulat ion agreed-to s ta te d t ha t: (1) the Dire cto r o f the OMBPwithdrew without prejudice that part of the status decision which said thatBrandywine Chemical's operations did not have nonconforming use status; (2)Brandywine Chemical agreed the appeal was moot and should be dismissed bythe Board without prejudice; and (3) Brandywine Chemical agreed to applyfor a coastal zone permit. Permit application: on May 29, 1979 BrandywineChemical app lied f or a permit. The permit application public hearing washeld in Wilmington on July 10, 1979. On July 18, 1979 a permit was grantedwith severa l condit ions specif ic to Brandywine Chemical's specialtychemical manufacturing operations: (1) any new operating parameters and/orexpansion of the product operat ion capac ity identified in the permit requires prior notice to the Director of theOMBP*; and (2) any operations changeand/or production capaci ty increase which requires a change to any federalor state pollution control permit or change in local wastewater dischargeapproval requires prior notice to th e OMBP Director. The permit was issuedon August 3, 1979. (* Since November 1, 1981 the Secretary of the DNREC)Project No. 104 - - The United States Asphalt Company. Status application:February 28, 1979. Project: U.S. Asphalt Company proposes to purchase thesi te a t EdgeMoor previously used for asphalt roofing manufacturing byDel Val Asphalt and Artie Roofing. U.S. Asphalt would produce saturated

3-5


15/45

fe l t and packaged asphalt (roofing material) , with the same productioncapacities as the prior si te occupants, claiming nonconforming use status.Sta tus dec is ion: April 17 , 1979, U.S. Asphalt must apply for a coastal zonepermit as a new manufacturing use. No permit application was fi led, thesi te was purchased by IKO Industr ies , LTD for asphalt roofing manufacturing(see Project No. 106).kProject No. 105 - - Delaware Solid Waste Authority. Sta tus appl ica tion :February 28 , 1979. Project: The Solid Waste Authority proposes the DelawareReclamation P roje ct to burn refuse from th e Pigeon Point solid waste reclamation plant in order to generate steam to produce electr ic power foruse a t t he rec lamation plant and to se l l low pressure steam to nearbyindustr ies . Status dec is ion: Apr il 3, 1979. A permit for a new manufacturinguse is required, the project does not have the characterist ics of a heavyindustry use. Permit application: December 5, 1979. Permit applicationhearing: February 11, 1980 'a t Wilmington. At th e hea ring th e Solid WasteAuthori ty 's representa tives pointed ou t several advantages of the project:(1 ) i t wil l reduce the volume of solid waste going to th e landfi l l andextend the useful l i fe of the landfi l l , and (2) i t will generate energyfrom solid waste thereby saving fuel oil and avoiding emissions to thea ir from burning fuel oi l , although fuel oil would be a supplemental fuel.There would be the possible use of coal as a supplemental fuel necessitatingonsite coal storage. Wastewater from th e plant would go into the New CastleCounty sewerage system. Permit decision: On March 4, 1980 a permit wasgranted for the steam electr ic generating faci l i ty with two conditions:(1) i f there are significant deviations from the plan reviewed and approvedby the OMBP for th is permit the Director must be so notif ied, and (2)i f coal is used as a supplemental fuel the OMBP Director must be notified.The permit was issued on March 19 , 1980.Project No. 106 - - IKO Industr ies , LTD a t EdgeMoor. Status application:March 1, 1979. Project: Proposed manufacturing of asphalt roofing shinglesa t th e si te formerly occupied by Del Val Asphalt and Artic Roofing. Statusdec is ion: Apr il 24, 1979. A new manufacturing use in the coastal zone requiring a permit. Appeal: May 1, 1979. In i t s appeal IKO Industries claimsi t has nonconforming use status inherited, so to speak, from the ArticRoofing asphalt manufacturing operation& IKO fur ther claims that there hasbeen no "abandonment" of the nonconforming use of the si te even thoughactual production ceased when Artic Roofing shut down i ts plant. Prior toany Board hearing or action on th e appeal IKO Industr ies , representedby i ts attorney, and the Director of the Office of Management, Budget andPlanning reached a written agreement as follows: (1) the IKO plant a tEdgeMoor can cleanup the s i te , renovate th e manufacturing plant, and conductt r i a l run operations as a nonconforming use without a permit; (2) within 6months of commencement of asphalt production IKO will apply for a permit;(3) IKO must keep th e Director of the OMBP informed of plant renovation progress. On th e basis of this agreement the appeal was withdrawn with nodecision by the State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board. IKO commencedproduct ion of asphalt roofing on May 25, 1981 and notif ied the OMBP thata coastal zone permit application was being prepared.Project No. 107 - - Townsends, Inc. near Millsboro. Status applicat ion :March 27 , 1979. Project: Townsends proposes a soybean meal enrichmentprocess to add hydrated soybean leci thin to soybean animal feed. There

3-6


16/45

would be no in cr ea se o f overall soybean meal processing capacity. The projectinvolves a new small building added to the soybean extraction si te . No adverseenvironmental effects are expected. Sta tus deci sion: April 25, 1979, the project is not an expansion or extension of a nonconforming use and is not regulated by th e Coastal Zone Act.*Project No. 108 - - SunOlin Chemical Company at Claymont. Status application:May 22, 1979. Project: SunOlin proposes to insta l l a carbon dioxide recoverypurif icat ion-l iquif icat ion plant to produce food grade l iquid carbon dioxideby liquifying CO 2 now vented to the atmosphere. The project wil l occupy aboutone-quarter acre. There will be a sl ight production capac ity increasebut no signif icant adverse environmental effect . In fact , carbon dioxideemissions and some impurities emissions would be reduced. Status decision:July 13, 1979. This is a new manufacturing use, there would be a new product.Permit application: July 19, 1979. Permit application hearing: August 10,1979 in Wilmington. Permit decision: August 17, 1979, a permit was granted,i t was issued to SunOlin on September 4, 1979.Project No. 109 - - Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Delaware City. Status application: June 1, 1979. Project: Diamond Shamrock's re qu est for a status decision involves three alternative means to tra nspo rt vinyl chloride monomer(VCM) to the plant si te north of Delaware City. Each alternative would involvea pipeline to carry the VCM from the docking faci l l ty to the Diamond Shamrockplant. Alternative No.1: Use Getty 's P ie r #3 at Delaware City to off-loadVCM from an ocean-going vessel, then build pipeline from that pier to theDiamond Shamrock plant north of the Getty refinery. Alternative No.2: Buildnew faci l i t ies at th e Diamond Shamrock plant by extending a pier and by dredging a channel from the Getty piers to th e Diamond Shamrock pier ; dredged ma-ter ia l would be disposed of on th e Getty property. Alternative No.3: Up-grade the Diamond Shamrock pier so that barges of v iny l chlor ide monomerfrom Paulsboro, New Jersey could be docked. The VCM would have to be shippedfrom th e Gulf Coast to Paulsboro prior to barging to the Delaware City Diamond Shamrock plant. Additional storage tanks would be required for thet h ird a lt e rna tive. Status deci sion: July 18, 1979. Alternative No.1: Useby Diamond Shamrock of Getty Pier #3 would e limina te the exemption of thatpier (bu lk product transfer facili ty) from p rohibi ti on . A lte rn ati ve No.2:Extend the Diamond Shamrock pier and dredge an access channel to i t would notbe regulated provided that only Diamond Shamrock would use th e pier. Alternative No.3: Improve the Diamond Shamrock pier without any dredging to receive barges from Paulsboro, New Jersey would not be regulated provided thatonly Diamond Shamrock would use the pier. The f i r s t alternative was not feasible for Dimaond Shamrock because Getty refused to allow use of i t s pier .Whether or not Diamond Shamrock improved i t s own pier is u ~ ~ n o w n .Project No. 110 - - Getty Pipeline Incorporated, Delaware City. Status application: June 6, 1979. Project: Getty proposes a 19.7 mile 16 inch pipelineto tra nspo rt gasoline and #2 fuel oil form i ts Delaware City refinery to anexisting petroleum pipeline in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. For most of th epipeline length road and railroad rights-of-way would be used. Pipelinethrough-put would be 30,000 barrels per day. The pipeline would replacebarge transport of refined petroleum products from the refinery at DelawareCity to the New York City area. S tatu s decisio n: Ju ly 13, 1979. Thepipeline is not regulated by t he Coasta l Zone Act. There will be noin cre as e o f refinery production capacity, no expansion of a

3-7


17/45

nonconforming use, and no new heavy industry use. Although the Coastal ZoneAct does not apply, the pipeline would be regulated by the National PipelineSafety Act and by the Army Corps of Engineers for stream crossings and bythe Wetlands Sec tion o f DNREC for stream crossings and any use of wetlands.Project No. 111 - - Delaware Terminal Company. Status application: June 15,1979. Project: Delaware Terminal Company, a subsidiary of Gulf InterstateCompany, proposes construction of five storage tanks for #2 fuel oil andgasoline at i t s tank farm adjacent to the Wilmington Marine Terminal. Petroleum products would be deliv er ed to the tank farm by a 10 inch pipeline fromth e Marine Terminal's petroleum pier on the Christina River. This is astorage faci l i ty , not a refinery. The new tanks would ut i l ize about 5 acres.Status decision: July 18 , 1979. The five new storage tanks are not regulatedby the Coastal Zone Act, they are not part of a prohibited bu lk p roducttransfer faci l i ty. All piers and docking faci l i t ies of the Marine Terminalare exempt from this prohibition, and tank farms used entirely fo r sto rag eand not part of a heavy industry or manufacturing use are not regulated bythe Act.Project No. 112 - Helix Assoc ia te s, Inc . Status application: September17 , 1979. Project: Helix Associates proposes to move i t s specialty chemicalsmanufacturing plant from Newark, Delaware, to the New Castle IndustrialPark off Lambsons Lane near Pigeon Point. Helix is a specialty chemicalmanufacturer making such product s as b iochemical s, pharmaceuticals, and reagents. Products to be made in the new plant would be drill ing mudadditives, a synthetic vitamin, and a gas well desulferizer. Status decision: The status decision of January 22 , 1980 was that the new plant inthe coastal zone would not be a prohibited heavy industry use but thati t would be a new manufacturing use requiring a permit. The new plantwould have most of the physical equipment characterist ics of a heavy in dustry use but the si te would be much less than twenty acres and therewould be no significant negative environmental effects , in fact by re-using scrap plastic there would be a positive effect . No permit applicationwas fi led, Hel ix dec ided to located outside of the coastal zone.Project No. 113 - - Diamond Shamrock Corporation. Status applicat ion : October29 , 1979. Project: Diamond Shamrock proposes to insta l l a 500,000 gallonsurge tank in i t s mercury wastewater treatment system a t i t s chemical plantnear Delaware City. The project would be entirely for pollution controlpurposes; there would be no increase in wastewater discharge flow. Statusdecision: November 8, 1979. The surgQ tank is not regulated by theCoastal Zone Act. The Act does not regulate industrial projects purelyof a pollution-control nature.Project No. 114 - - The Arundel Corporation. Status application: November7, 1979. Project: The project involves The Arundel Corporation taking flyash and bottom ash from the Delmarva Power and Light Company power plant atIndian ~ i v e r in Sussex County for separat ion o f marketable and unmarketableash part icles. Most of the ash would be fly ash which would be transportedto an Arundel terminal for a ir separation by part icle sizes. Arundel will

3-8


18/45

sel l the marketable f ly ash and dispose of the remainder in a DP&L Landfil l .Bottom ash would be gravity separated with marketable pieces to be sold byArundel as f i l l and construction aggregate and large unmarketable piecesto go to a disposal si te . All unmarketable ash would remain the propertyof Delmarva Power and Light Company. No coal crushing is involved in th eash separation process. Status decision: December 20, 1979. The coal ashseparation land use i s not regulated. I t is not a manufacturing use becausethere would be no "transformation of a substance". That i s , pneumatic andgravity separation and transportation of ash part icles, with no crushing, doesnot meet th e law's definition of manufacturing.*Project No. 115 - - Trimark Publishing Company, Inc. Status applicat ion :November 19, 1979. Project: Trimark proposes to build and operate a commercialprinting plant at the Hares Corner Industrial Park near Hares Corner, Route13, in New Castle County. Status decision: December 14, 1979. Commercialprinting is a manufacturing use and requires a permit. Permit application:January 3, 1980. The requi red public hearing was held in Wilmington onFebruary 19 , 1980. Permit decision: March 7, 1980. A permit was grantedto Trimark Publishing for commercial printing.*Project No. 116 - - Delmarva Power and Light Company. Status application:December 4, 1979. Project: Delmarva Power and Light Company proposes toconvert two of i t s power generating units at th e EdgeMoor power plant fromfuel o il to coal burning. Power generating capacity would not increase.There would be some increase of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.Increased eoal ash disposal would occur at Cherry Island. DP&L claimed nonconforming use status for the power generating units a t EdgeMoor. Prior toenactment of the Coastal Zone Act in June 1971 these units burned coal andthen were converted to fuel o il in late 1971. In 1975 the f e d e r a ~ government ordered DP&L to convert units 3 and 4 back to coal burning. A deputyattorney gene ra l' s l egal opinion advised that convers ion of the two generatingunits to coal would be an expansion/extension of a permitted use requiringa permit for new manufacturing. In 1971 when DP&L's power units convertedfrom coal to fuel o il the nonconforming grandfather rights expired. A permit is required for the fuel conversion of units 3 and 4 as an expansion/ext en si on o f a manufacturing use. There will be new equipment including anelectrostat ic precipitator to control a ir emiss ions , l and use area would in:rease substantial ly due to coal ash disposal needs, and envtronmental effectsfrom ash disposal dust, coal pile runof f, i nc reased nitrogen oxide and sulfurdioxide emissions and from reduced capacity at Cherry Island for dredged spoildisposal due to DP&L coal ash disposal at that si te coal would be significant.Permit application: September 30, 1980. Permit public hearing: November 5,1980 in Wilmington. Permit decision: November 18, 1980. A permit was grantedto the DP&L Company to convert units 3 and 4 to coal burning.

Project No. 117 - - Standard Chlor ine of Delaware, Inc. Status application:January 17, 1980. Project: Standard Chlor ine proposes to insta l l equipmentt o convert liquid paradichlorobenzene to a sol id c ry sta l form. Overallplant capacity to produce chlorinated benzene products will not increase butcapac ity fo r conversion from l iquid to solid form wil l increase. Due tol ikely increased emissions from crystal production an amendment to theCompany's Air Resources permit would be required. Status decision: March12, 1980. The project is not regulated by the Act, there would be no overallproduction capac ity increase and no new product made. Environmental effectswould be within acceptable l imits .

3-9


19/45

Project No. 118 - - All American Engineering Company. Status appl ication:January 22, 1980. Project: The company proposes to move i t s operations fromthe old Dravo Shipyard in Wilmington ( o u t s ~ d e of the coastal zone) to the HaresCorner Industr ia l Park (in the coastal zone). All American Engineering makesmachining and metal f ab ri ca ti ng too ls . Minor coating, painting, and electroplating are involved. Status decision: January 24, 1980. This is a newmanufacturing use in the coastal zone requiring a permit. No permit applicationwas fi led, th e Company changed i ts plans and moved to a new s i te in Delawareoutside of the coastal zone.Project No. 119 - - Allied Chemical Corporation, Delaware Valley Works.S ~ a t u s application: February 15, 1980. Project: Allied Chemical proposesto melt dry sulfur using indirect steam heat to make molten sulfur for usein producing sulfuric acid. There will be no stockpiling of dry sulfur.Overall capacity to produce sulfuric acid would not increase. Sta tus dec is ion:March 24, 1980. The project is not regulated by th e Coasta l Zone Act, therewould be no new or expanded manufactur ing use and no signif icant environmentaleffects .*Project No. 120 Betts Pond Rea lty , In c. (Inter-Continental Biologics, Inc.)Status application: May 16 , 1980. Project: Testing and product ion of veterinary vaccines for poultry diseases and a swine vaccine would comprise theoperations of Betts Pond Realty at a s i te in Millsboro. The applicant claimedthat biological production of vaccine is not a manufacturing use because therewould be no "mechanical or chemical" transformation of substances into a newproduct. An advisory legal opinion was requested on this question. Theadvisory opinion referred to th e federal Standard Industr ia l Classif icationof vaccine as manufacturing and concluded that th e language in the law's definit ion of manufacturing should not be construed so as to exclude vaccineproduction as a manufacturing use. Status decision: June 4, 1980. An appli

~ a t i o n for a permit for new manufacturing is required. Permit application:June 13, 1980. Permit decision: June 27, 1980 a permit was granted to BettsPond Realty Company.Project No. 121 - - Christina Service Company. Sta tus appl ica tion : June 23,1980. Project: At Lambson Lane south of the Wilmington Marine TemrinalChristina Service Company proposes co construct a warehouse for cars andtrucks. The company repairs minor damage and re-paints cars and trucksprior to shipment to overseas markets, i t is a stevedoring company. ~ t a t u sdecision: July 8, 1980. The warehouse operation is not something reguLatedby th e Coast al Zone Act.Project No.122 - - White Chemical Corporation. Status application: July 31 ,1980. Project: White Chemical manufactures specialty chemicals includingflame retardants , acid chlorides, and a l ~ y l bromides. I t planned to movefrom Bayonne, New Jersey to a s i te ei ther a t EdgeMoor or near the WilmingtonMarine Termina l, bo th potential s i tes located in Delaware's coastal zone.There would be possible outdoor storage of chemicals in drums. Statusdecision: October 7, 1980. The status decision was that this would be a new~ a n u f a c t u r i n g use requiring a permit; i t would not have the characterist icsof a (prohibited) heavy industry use. The Conpany never moved to Delaware.Project No. 123 - - Getty Refining and Marketing Company. Status application:July 31, 1980. Project: A new plant to produce methanol would be constructedas part of Getty's Delaware City petroleum ref inery. The project would changethe refinery product mix but would not increase ove ra ll r ef iner y crude o ilprocessing capacity. Feed materials for the methanol would be existing

3-10


20/45

aesulfurized refinery streams. There would be a methanol pipeline from theproduct tank farm to Pier #3 within the present pipeline corr idor . The methanolwould be shipped-out by barge and to a lesser extent by tank truck and r a i l road tank cars. Status decision: November 18 , 1980. The methanol plant isnot an expansion o r extens ion of a heavy industry use and is not a new manufacturing use, i t is not regulated by the Act. Appeal: December 1, 1980.Three environmental organizations: Watch Out Waterways, Delaware AudubonSociety, and Save Our Seashores appealed this dec is ion to the State CoastalZone Industr ial Control Board. The appeal hearing was held in Dover onJanuary 7, 1981. An advisory LegaLopinion of March 6, 1979 was made partof th e hearing record. This opinion said that the word "manufacturing" inthe ~ o a s t a l Zone Act encompasses both heavy industry uses and manufacturing,that i f an expansion project is i ts e lf a heavy industry use i t is prohibited,and that any expansion of a faci l i ty which pre-dates th e Coasta l Zone Act istreated exactly as a new project would be treated. The Board 's appea l decisionof January 27 , 1981 was in two parts s ta ti ng t ha t: (1) the appellants hadstanding to appea l (Getty had challenged their standing); and (2 ) the statusdecision that the methanol plant is not regulated was upheld by a 5-2 votewith the dissenting Board members voting to remand the project to the Directorof the Office o f Management, Budget and Planning for him to decide whetheror not a permit would be necessary for an expansion or extension of a nonconforming use. There were no further appeals. No permit was required.Project No. 124 - - Allied Chemical Corporation - Delaware Valley Works.Status application: September 4, 1980. Project: Allied Chemical a t i t sClaymont plant proposes a magnesium oxide regeneration faci l i ty to be locatedon 2.5 acres within an existing sulfur ic acid plant. Solid magnesium oxidewould be made from magnesium sulf i te for use in sulfur dioxide scrubber systemsa t e le ctric power plant in the Delaware Valley. Byproduct sulfur dioxide gaswould be used in Allied Chemical's sulfur dioxide product ion process. APrevention of Significant (a i r quality) Deteriorat ion decis ion by the Environmental Protection Agency would be necessary. Also, a variance of countywastewater discharge l imits would be n e c e s s ~ r y to allow concentrations ofdissolved and suspended inorganic solids exceeding the l imits. Status decision: December 3, 1980. The magnesium oxide faci l i ty is not regulated bythe Coastal Zone Act. I t would no t be a new manufacturing use and not anexpansion or extension of a nonconforming heavy industry use.project No. 125 - - American Hoechst Corporation - Film Division. Statusapplication: October 7, 1980. At i ts chemical plant north of DelawareCity, American Hoechst proposes to build a warehouse to store PVC film,no manufacturing is involved. Status decision: October 23 , 1980. Warehousing is no t regulated by the Coastal Zone Act.Project No. 126 - - Townsend Farms. Status application: January 19, 1981.At i ts plant near Millsboro, Townsend Farms proposes to replace an oldmill with a new mill to grind grain for chicken feed. There would be abaghouse with f i l ters to con trol g ra in dust. No additional milling production capacity is involved. Status dec is ion: February 25, 1981. The newg ra in m ill is not regulated by the Act, i t simply replaces an existingmill and does not change any mill ing capac ity.

3-11


21/45

Project No. 127 - - Dunn Development Company. Status application: May 27, 1981.Project: Dunn Development Company of Annapolis, Maryland, proposes to improveand operate a bulk product transfer faci l i ty at an existing bulk product transfer si te on 63.5 acres a t Lewes Harbor. Possible bulk products to be t ransferred include l iquid nitrogen fert i l izer , potash, f ishmea l, dry fert i l izer ,and, most l ikely, coal. An existing pier , in poor condition, would have tobe improved. No specific coal transfer plans were presented. Status decision:September 16, 1981. The decision by the Acting Director of the Office ofManagement, Budget and Planning was that: (1) the bulk product transfer fac il i ty is a nonconforming use, that bulk product transfer operations were ongoing prior to enactment of the Coastal Zone law; (2) the exi st ing p ie r may berestored to a usable condition but no new or enlarged pier may be buil t ;(3 ) no expansion or extension of the faci l i ty is allowed but Dunn Developmentmay operate the faci l i ty provided that the "character of the facil i ty" asi t existed in June 1971 (time of enactment of the Act) cannot be substantial lychanged; (4) th e si te may be used for manufacturing provided that a CoastalZone permit is obtained. Appeals: September 23, 1981 and September 30, 1981.Two appeals from this status decision were filed: On September 23rd by th ePilot Point Condominium Council, an association of homeowners, and onSeptember 30th by Port Lewes Limited Partnership, a subsidiary of the DunnDevelopment Company. The basis for Dunn Development Company's appeal wasi t s contention that the language of the status decision referr ing to nosubstantial change of character of the faci l i ty (as i t was in June 1971)was not in accordance with the law. Dunn particularly objected to the decision referenc e to "basic design and configuration" (of th e fac i l i ty) notbeing changed. The basis for the Pilot Point Condominium Council appealwas i ts contention that th e status decislonshould have been more restrict ive,that any coal transfer operation should have been expressly prohibi ted as anexpansion or extens ion of a bulk product transfer faci l i ty , and that onlythose transfer faci l i t ies in use in June 1971 should be used for futurebulk product t ransfer operations. The Board 's appea l hea ring was held inLewes at t he Co llege of Marine Studies on November 18, 1981. Appeal decision:November 23, 1981. The appeal decision upheld the status decision by theActing Director of the OMBP, that is : (1) there can be no substantial changeof character of the faci l i ty i nc luding the pier from th e design and conf igur at ion tha t existed in June 1971; and (2) future use of the Lewes faci l i tyis l imited to uses in kind and quantity which could have used the faci l i tyas i t existed in June 1971. The Board said that the intent of th e Act isto prohibit new bulk product transfer faci l i t ies and to gradual ly el iminateexisting nonconforming faci l i t ies through at t r i t ion. The Board affirmedthe Acting Director 's authority to require detailed plans from Dunn Development Company for any proposed coal transfer faci l i ty so that a status decision on a specific project can be made as to whether or not i t would beallowed. Concerning the appeal by the Pilot Point Condominium Council.th e Board said that the Acting Director was c orrec t in not specificallyprohibiting the bulk transfer of coal (prior to de ta il ed, p ro jec t- spec if icplans) and that he was correct in not specifying that only those t ransferfaci l i t ies in a ctiv e use in June 1971 could be used for future bulk cargot ransfer . The Board 's appeal decision was by a 6 to vote. There was noappeal of th e Board 's appeal decision. (See Project No.138).Project No. 128 - - Delmarva Energy Resources, Inc. Status applicat ion :June 3, 1981. Project: This is a proposal to dr i l l a geothermal well atLewes at the entrance of Cape Henlopen State Park to extract hot water froma deep well to be piped to the nearby Barcroft Company plant. An EPA permit

3-12


22/45

is required for any underground injection and state permits for the well andfor any discharge of geothermal f luids to su rface waters would be required.Status dec is ion: J uly 8, 1981. This is simply a natural source of hot waterenergy for a manufacturing company, in i t se l f i t is not a regulated heavyi ndus try o r manufacturing use. The well was never dri l led .Project No. 129 - - National Bulk Carriers, Inc. Sta tus appl ica tion : June24 , 1981. Project: I t is proposed to conduct a bulk p roduct transferoperation a t Big Stone Anchorage in lower Delaware Bay. A large (150,000deadweight tons) bulk cargo ship would be anchored in the Bay to serve as afloating coa l s to rage faci l i ty . Barges from Philadelphia and other nearbyports would load coal into th e storage ship. Large coal carriers partlyloaded with coal would tie-up to the coal s to rage ship on a regular basis .By a conveyor system, coal would be t ransferred from the storage ship to thecol l ier . When fully loaded the coll ier would depart for overseas ports . Thes to rage ship would avoid the necessity to schedule meetings of the barges withthe overseas carr iers . The deepwater Big Stone Anchorage has been used forincoming crude oil l igh te r ing ( transfer ) ope ra ti ons s ince th e 1950's. I toffers the advan tages of natural deep water exceeding water depths of a llEast Coast ports south of New England with no costly dredging necessary and beingconvenient to northern Appalachian coal fie ld s in Pennsylvania, Virginia,West Virginia, and Kentucky. An advisory legal opinion was requested toanswer questions whether or not this wow.d be a prohibited offshore bulkproduct t ransfer faci l i ty . The legal opinion of June 24, 1981 was that theproposed National Bulk Carrier 's (Universal Tankshops) coal transfer wouldnot meet the definition of offshore bulk product t ransfer faci l i ty becausethe entire operation, within Delaware, would be from ship to ship with not ransfer between an onsho re faci l i ty and a ship. No Delaware onshore faci l i tywould be involved. Status dec is ion: J uly 1, 1981. The proposed Delaware Baycoal t ransfer operation is not regulated by the Coastal Zone Act, i t wouldnot be a prohibited offshore bulk product transfer faci l i ty as defined inthe law.Project No. 130 - - Get ty Ref in ing and Marketing Company. Status application:July 29, 1981. Project: Getty proposes a Continuous Catalyst Regeneration(CCR) Platforming Unit at i ts Delaware City refinery to in cre as e i ts gasolineoctane rating. Within i t s p re sent ope ra ting a re a approximately three acreswould be needed. There would be no increase of ref inery production (measuredby the output capacity of i ts Crude Unit) . Cooling water usage would be reduced; wastewater discharges would be within p resent state-permitted l imits .Status decision: November 2, 1981. This is not an expansion or ext ension ofa nonconforming heavy industry use; i t is not regulated by th e Coasta l ZoneAct.Project No. 131 - - City of Wilmington. Status application: August 6, 1981-Project: A coal port for the export of 5 to 10 million tons per year of U.S.coal involving railroad car deli ve ry , on-site storage, a conveyor for shiploading and a new pier and t res t le at a si te near Pigeon Point south of thepresent Wilmington Marine Terminal i s proposed. Part of the storage area andrailway would extend beyond city l imits southward to near the approach to theDelaware Memorial Bridge. A private company will operate the faci l i ty ,leasing the land from the City. The City 's attorney argued that the entiref ac il i ty is exempt from Coastal Zone Act regulations as an offshore bulkproduct transfer faci l i ty , that the exemption in Section 7002(f) of the lawfor the Port of Wilmington is not l imited to the city boundaries. He suggesteda legal agreement between the City and the Department of Natural Resources

3- 13


23/45

'lnd Environmental Control that would extend the "Port of Wilmington" beyondC:ity l imits south to the Memorial Bridge and inland to the 0.982) extent of landzoned for manufacturing southwest of the Marine Terminal. No agreementwas reached. The subject became moot when the private company decided notto go ahead with the project after engineering studies of subsoil conditionsshowed considerable soi l ins tabi l i ty which would be very costly to correct .There was no status decision.roject No. 132 - - Delmarva Power and Light Company. Status 'appl icat ion:September 1, 1981. Project: DP&L plans to ins ta l l rebo i1ers f or steam a ti t s EdgeMoor power plant. There would be two reboi1er units for low pressuresteam to be piped to the Dupont titanium dioxide plant a t EdgeMoor north ofThe power plant. No power generating capaci ty increase is involved. Non-sanitary wastewater from metal cleaning would be within State permit l imits .Sta tus deci sion: January 15, 1982. The project is not regulated by the Act,i t is not an expansion or extension of a nonconforming use.Project No. 133 - - TKO Manufacturing, Inc. and Delaware Asphalt Produc ts, I nc .Permit application: September 10, 1981. Project: This project is related toproject number 106 which involved an appeal by IKO Industries of a status decision requiring a permit for a manufacturing plant to make asphalt roofingshingles and fiberglass mat material at the si te of the old Artic Roofingplant at EdgeMoor north of Wilmington. Before the State Coastal Zone Industr ia l Control Board made i t s appeal decision a written agreement betweenthe Company and the O ffice of Management, Budget and Planning was reachedrequiring IKO to apply for a coastal zone permit within six months of com-mencement of asphalt ro ofing or fiberglass mat production; this permit appli~ a t i o n fu l f i l l s that agreement stipulation. Permit decision: November 3, 1981.permit was granted to IKO Manufacturing, Inc. and Delaware Asphalt Products,Inc. for fiberglass mat production , increased asphalt roofing production andstorage capacity, new tank s torage capac ity, and improvements to a sph altoxidizing and kegging faci l i t ies .roject No. 134 - - Delaware Storage and Pipeline Company, Inc. Statusapplication: September 29, 1981. Project: At i t s je t fuel tank farm nearPort Mahon in Kent County the Company proposes to con st ru ct two new storagetanks. Delaware Storage and Pipeline Company is a private contractor supplyingje t fuel to the Dover Air Force Base . The fuel is pumped from barges to apipeline a t Port Mahon, then to the tank farm and then by two p ipel in es t othe ~ i Base southwest of the tank farm. Due to shorel ine erosion the PortMahon pier is exposed to storm waves which sometimes prevent barge unloadings.The lack of re se rve s to rage capac ity requires the company to truck je t fuelto Dover from New Jersey when barge deliver ies cannot be made. The newstorage tanks will eliminate th e need for such truck deliveries. The newt a ~ ~ s wil l be within the tank farmed dited area to contain any leaks orspi l l s , and will require Sta te Fire Marshal approval and Kent County approvajfor a hazardous use. No new pier or pipeline is required. The new tanks willoccupy less than one acre of a 27 acre si te . Sta tus dec is ion: December 1, 1981.The new je t fuel storage tanks are not r e ~ u l a t e d by th e Coasta l Zone ~ c t .No increase of je t fuel deliver ies to the Air Base would resul t from thetwo new tanks, the project simply increases on-site s torage capac ity toavoid truck deliver ies when barge deliveries cannot be made due to stormconditions a t Port Mahon.

3-14


24/45

*Project No. 135 - - Formosa Plast ics C o r p o r a t i o ~ , Delaware. Status application:September 29, 1981. Project: The applicant proposes to increase polyvinylchloride (PVC) production capacity at i ts chemical plant near Delaware Cityfrom 180 million to 225 million pounds annually, a 42 percent increase.There would also be increased PVC resin drying capac ity, r equi ring a permitfrom DNREC Air Resources section. Status decision: October 28 , 1981. Apermit is required for an expansion-extension of a nonconforming use. Permitapplication: January 6, 1982. A permit was requested for a new fluid beddryer to inc rea se PVC resin drying capacity. Increased emissions of vinylchloride monomer emissions would be DNREC-regulated. Wastewater increasewould be within sta te permit limts. The permit application public hearingwas held in Wilmington on March 11, 1982. Permit decision: April 5, 1982.A permit was granted.Project No. 136 - - Townsends, Inc. Status application: November 6, 1981. Project : Townsends proposes to construct a soybean o il storage tank within i tssoybean processing plant near Millsboro. Sta tus dec is ion: November 11, 1981.th e project is not regulated by the Act, i t is not an expansion-extension ofa nonconforming use, soybean production capacity would not increase.kproject No. 137 - - Elias Artmetal Company. Status application: November 6,1981. P ro je ct: E lia s Artmetal is a small company which manufactures pewterware. I t proposes to move i t s operations from New York City to an existingsmall industrial building at Lewes. Status decision : December 16 , 1981. Acoastal zone permit for a new manufacturing use i s required. Permit application: January 13, 1982. The permit application was held in Lewes onFebruary 1, 1982. Permit decision: February 3 , 1982. A permit was granted.Project No. 138 - - Dunn Development Company, Inc. Status application:December 29, 1981. Project: This project is a follow-up to Project No. 127which was appealed to the State Coastal Zone Industr ia l Control Board. Thecompany presented specific plans for new and renovated bulk product transferfaci l i t ies at i t s si te on Lewes Harbor. The plans described a proposal tostore and ship coal, l iquid nitrogen fe r t i l i ze r , and other bulk productsinvolving extended on-site railway tracks, a coal thaw shed, covered conveyorsto move the coal to and from storage piles, and a coal sto rage area of 2.5acres. Sta tus dec is ion: April 14 , 1982. The proposed faci l i ty for transferof coal and other bulk cargoes is prohibited. I t would be a violation ofSection 7003 of the Coastal Zone Act prohibiting new offshore bulk producttransfer faci l i t ies . I t would be a substantial change of character of theoffshore bulk product transfer faci l i ty existing in June 1971 when the Actbecame law; th e new faci l i t ies proposed by Dunn Development would enableth e Company to t ransfer bulk products which could not have been stored andhandled at this si te in June 1971 and would be contrary to the status decision of September 16, 1981 upheld by th e State Coastal Zone Industr ia lControl Board which prohibited any substantial change of character of thefaci l i ty as i t was in June 1971. There was no appeal of this decision.Dunn Development Company changed i t s plans and began construction of townhouses on a part of th e site proposed for the bulk product t ransfer fac i l i ty ; the remainder of the proposed si te continues in th e ownership ofFischer Enterprises, Inc.

3-15


25/45

Project No. 139 - - City of Wilmington, Department of Commerce. Status application: February 5, 1982. Project: The City 's Department of Commerce, whichmanages the Marine Terminal, proposes a 220 acre a rea a djoin ing the MarineTerminal along the Delaware River extending south to Pigeon Point for disposalof dredged spoil . Additional land for disposal of spoil is essent ial tocontinued ope ra ti ons o f the Marine Terminal due to the recurring need fordredging of the Christina River; a l l docking faci l i t ies are on the Christina.A detailed environmental impact statement has been prepared by the ArmyCorps of Engineers on this proposal. Status decision: February 18, 1982.Disposal of dredged spoil i s not an activity regulated by the Act. Anyfuture plans to expand terminal operations on this si te would require a statusdecision.Project No. 140 - - Getty Refining and Marketing Company. Status appl ication:March 8, 1982. Project: At i t s Delaware City ref inery, Getty proposes newsulfur recovery faci l i t ies to back-up existing faci l i t ies and to allow re finery pro cessin g o f h ighe r sulfur crude oi l . There wil l be a decrease ofS02 emissions. Refinery throughput capacity would not increase. Statusdecision: April 15, 1982. The sulfur recovery unit is a po llu tion cont ro ldevice, i t is not regulated by the Coastal Zone Act.Project No. 141 - - Coastal Supply Company, Inc. Status application: April20, 1982. Project: Coastal Supply ryroposes a plant near Dagsboro to manu-facture l ig h t in dus tr ia l springs The plant would be leased to a company fromout-of-state for operations. Status decision: April 26, 1982. Applicationfor a Coastal Zone permit is requ ired f or a new manufacturing use. No permitapplication was received. The manufacturer decided to locate a t a si te inSussex County outside of the coastal zone.Project No. 142 - - Alloy Surfaces Company, Inc. Status application: May 21,1982. Project: Alloy Surfaces Company, Inc. coats s teel parts such as je tengine parts with meta ll ic ( ni ckel , chromium, aluminum) powders to increaseheat resistance. The company proposes to move i t s operations from a Wilmingtonsi te not tn the coastal zone to the Ludwig Honold property a t EdgeMoor northof the DP&L power plant in th e coastal zone. Status decsion: July 2, 1982.Diffusion coating of s teel parts does not resul t in mechanical or chemicaltransformation of a substance into a new product and is not a manufacturinguse. I t does not have the characteristics of a heavy industry use. I t isnot regulated by the Coastal Zone Act.Project No. 143 - - Multichem, Inc. Status application: October 12, 1982.Project: Multichem is a service industry for the disposal of infectious andpathologic medical wastes from hospitals , labs, and clinics. The Companyproposes to ope rate an incinerator a t a leased si te in the Ludlow Industr ialPark at EdgeMoor. There would be temporary storage of the waste materialwithin a building prior t o i nc in er at ion. Environmental Con trol A ir Resourcespermits to construct and ope ra te th e incinerator a re r equi red. Ash from th eincinerator is non-hazardous and any disposal in Delaware requires a SolidWaste permit. Sta tus dec is ion: December 23, 1982. This is not a manufacturingor heavy industry use, there is no transformation into a new product. I tis not regulated by th e Act.

3-16


26/45

Project No. 144 - - Fischer Enterprises, Inc. Status application: November17, 1982. Project: In 1981 and 1982 Fischer Enterprises moved fourteen (14)large storage tanks from adjoining properties to a si te adjoining exist ingtanks. There were no new tanks. Liquid nitrogen fe r t i l i ze r has long beenstored at this si te . Moving of the tanks was brought to the at tent ion of theDiv is ion of Environmental Control by a local private cit izen who expressed concern about a possible violation of the Coastal Zone Act. The Company was contacted and agreed to requ est a status decision. When nothing fur ther washeard from Fischer Enterprises, a status application was prepared on theCompany's behalf by the Division. Sta tus dec is ion: December 15, 1982. Relocation of the storage tanks is not regulated by the Coastal Zone Act.There was no increase of overall bulk produc t storage capacity beyond thatexist ing in 1971 a t the time of enactment of the Act; there was no substant ia l change of character of the faci l i ty . Appeal: December 29, 1982. ThePilot Point Council of Owners, of Lewes, appealed th is s tatu s dec is ion tothe State Coastal Zone Industr ia l Control Board. An appeal hearing by theBoard by scheduled for February 9, 1983 in Dover but was not held. Theappeal was formally withdrawn by th e Pilot Point Associat ion of Owners onFebruary 8th on the basis of an agreement with Fischer Enterprises, Inc.to establ ish l ines of communications to keep the Pilot Point Associationinformed of Fischer's plans for future use of onsite s to rage tanks .kProject No. 145 - - Glackin Industr ies , Inc. Glackin Industries proposes toconstruct and operate a new manufacturing plant in the coastal zone at theAirport Industr ia l Park east of Route 13 near New Castle for the productionof bedding products including box springs, matt ress covers, and sleepingbags. To expedite the Coa sta l Zone decision process Glackin Industries waivedi t s right to a status decision and app lied f or a coastal zone permit. Permitapplication: January 3, 1983. The permit application public hearing washeld in Wilmington on February 15, 1983. Permit decision: February 28, 1983.The Secretary granted a permit for a new manufacturing use.Project No. 146 - - Get ty Ref in ing and Marketing Company. Status application:February 1, 1983. Project: Getty proposes to modify the vacuum section ofi t s ref inery Crude Unit and to modify i ts Fluid Coking Unit to enable theprocess ing of a higher percentage of heavy crude oi ls . The over al l p ro je ctis termed t he Refi ne ry Upgrading Project. Heavy crude o il mayor may nothave a higher sulfur content than l ighter crude. This project is relatedto a new sulfur recovery unit (BSRU) and Scot Tail Gas Unit which are meansto control increased sulfur dioxide emissions from the modified Fluid CokingUnit. The end result of a l l of these related new faci l i t ies would be animproved capacity to handle increased S02 emissions from the modified FluidCoking Unit. Overall refinery processing capacity basedon i t s Crude Unitcapacity will not increase. In addition to increased sulfur dioxideemissions there could be odor problems due to more hydrogen sulf ide in thewastewater discharge if higher sulfur content crude oil is processed.In terms of Clean Air Act requirements the Refinery Upgrading Project const i tu tes a "Major Modification" due to increased S02 emissions and wil l beregulated by PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) requirementsof that Act. As of the end of the period covered by this Report the projectwas s t i l l under review by the Div is ion o f Environmental Control. Both EPAand th e State are dissatisfied with Getty's a ir quali ty model emissionvalues and are requiring revision of the model. Air quali ty effects willbe an important factor in t he Coasta l Zone status dec is ion for t he Ref ineryUpgrading Project.

3-17


27/45

Project No. 147 - - Formosa Plastics Corporation, Delaware. Status application:February 18, 1983. Project: Formosa Plastics proposes a new compound plantto make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pellets from PVC resins a t i t s chemical plantnear Delaware City. Additional faci l i t ies will include 13 si los, 3 extruders,and 7 tanks. Compound plant maximum annual capacity wil l be 54 million pounds.However, plant PVC resin production capacity wil l no t inc re ase , the projectwill simply resul t in further processing of the PVC re sin (in to pellets) .There wil l be no addit ional load to the wastewater system and no solid wasteproblem. PVC particulate emissions and residual vinyl chloride monomer wil lbe within allowed l imits . Sta tus dec is ion: June 3, 1983. The compound plantis not regulated by the Act, environmental e ff ec ts w il l not be signif icantand overall plant production capacity will not increase.Project No. 148 - - Multichem Corporation. Status application: March 25, 1983.Project: This project is a follow-up to Project No. 143. Within the LudlowIndustrial Park at EdgeMoor, Multichem proposes a second incinerator for theburning of infectious and pathologic medical wastes raising to ta l on-siteincineration hourly capa city to up to 1500 pounds of waste. Some of thepharmaceutical waste is l is ted as hazardous chemicals. Material which cannotbe incinerated including medical corrosive l iquids will be collected andconsolidated for treatment at a commercial si te which neutralizes acids orat a solvent recovery faci l i ty . A small amount of this material which cannot be treated or reclaimed wil l be shipped to an out-of-state landfi l l .S ta tu s d ec isio n: J uly 21, 1983. The (second) incinerator is not regulatedby the Coastal Zone Act, i t is not a heavy i ndus tr y o r manufacturing use.The decision carefully noted that i t does not apply to incineration or storageof any hazardous waste. Air Resources permits are necessary for a ll industr ials ize inc inerator s. To date the second incinerator had not been instal led.Project No. 149 - - Formosa Plastics Corporation. Sta tus appl ica tion: July27, 1983. Project: This project is a modifica tion of Formosa Plastic 's Emulsion II plant to increase PVC emulsion resin yield per batch. Increasedproduction capacity would equal th at e xisting prior to enactment of the CoastalZone Act unti l the mid-1970's when th e Emulsion-I plant at Delaware City wasshut down. There will be no increase in the number of emulsion resin batches,only in the number of solids in each batch. Plant acreage outside of thecurrent operating area would not increase. Status decision: October 6, 1983.Modification of th e Emulsion II plant is not regulated by th e Act, howeverany star t-up of the Emulsion I plant will be cause for a reconsideration ofth is sta tu s decision - overall emulsion resin production capacity cannotexceed the 100 million pounds annually exis tin g i n 1971 when the CoastalZone Act became law. In the decision Formosa Plastics was required todemonst ra te to the Solid Waste Branch of th e DNREC that spray drying inconnection with the modified Emulsion I I plant will not produce dioxin(as a hazardous waste).Project No. 150 - - Barcroft Company. Sta tus dec is ion: August 3, 1983. Project:Barcroft manufacturs alumina gel at a plant a t Lewes. The project is toins tal l equipment in an existing building to produce a new type of aluminagel. There would be a 12 per cent increase of plant production capacity.No addit ional a ir emissions or solid wastes would resul t and wastewatereffluent character is t ics would not change. Sta tus dec is ion: August 24, 1983.The project is not regulated, i t is not an expansion or extension of a nonconforming use. Although production capacity would increase there wouldbe no change or increase of environmental effects and no in cr ea se o f land useacreage.

3-18


28/45

Project No. 151 - - Citrus Coolstore , Inc. Status application: November 9, 1983.Project: On a 3 acre si te at the Wilmington Marine Terminal, Citrus Cools toreproposes t o con st ru ct a warehouse-like structure for the impor ta ti on of orangejuice. The orange juice in concentrated form, with water and peel o ilremoved, wil l be pumped from tank ships to indoor storage tanks. Some of theorange juice wil l be shipped out in tank t r u c ~ e x a c t l y a s re ce ived , somewill have water added, and some wil l have water and peel oil added. Thatis , some of the orange juice concentrate will undergo a blending-mixingoperation. Except for the ship offloading and the truck loading a l l operationswould be indoors. Status decision: December 9, 1983. A permit applicationwas requ ired for a new manufacturing use. The blending and mixing operationsconstitute a t ransformation of an organic substance into a new product. Atthe end of 1983 no permit application had yet been f i led.Project No. 152 Kiernan Petroleum Corporation. Status application: De-cember 5, 1983. Project: At the Texaco si te in Claymont, Kiernan Petroleumproposes an oil terminal. The property is for sale by Texaco, which operatedan o il terminal- tank farm on th e si te for many yea rs before and af ter enactment of the Coastal Zone Act but ceased use of the on- site p ie r to bring inrefined petroleum products in May 1982. Some of the storage tanks requirer ~ ? a i r or replacement and th e pier is currently unusable. At the end of theperiod covered by this report a status decision had not yet been made ont hi s p ro je ct . Texaco retained ownership of the s i te . The decision willinvolve whether or not the nonconforming use status of this offshore bulkproduct transfer facil i ty has expired due to the complete absence of t ransferoperations and the unusable condition of the pier since May 1982. The law~ a k e s no mention of nonconforming use expirations but a general principleof common zoning law is to eliminate such uses i f they are abandoned orvoluntarily cease operations for a long period o f time.

END OF PERIOD COVERED BY THIS REPORT

3-19


29/45

APPENDIX IADVISORY LEGAL OPINIONS

Difficul t ies of interpreting the language and in tent of th e Coa stalZone Act are a common par t of the law 's administration. Advisory legalopinions were requested on a number of occ as ions during th e six-and-onehalf years covered by this report. The opinions summarized and paraphrasedbelow are those of Department of Justice attorneys assigned to advise theadministrators of the law and the State Coastal Zone Industr ia l ControlBoard. Only those opinions having general in teres t are summarized; opinionsapplicable only to a part icular decision, industr ia l s i te , or industr ia l orbulk product t ransfer faci l i ty are omitted. The opinions are organizedchronologically.

July 6, 1977 and September 2, 1977 (supplemental opinion)Question: Does the Coastal Zone Act prohibit or otherwise r egu la te p ipe li nes?Answer: I t does i n p ar ti cu la r circumstances. I f a bulk product pipelinerepresents a signif icant danger of pollution to the coastal zone

and generates pressure f or con st ru ct ion of industr ia l plants inthe zone, is a tta ch ed to a regulated industr ia l faci l i ty in th ezone, and l i es , a t least partly , offshore the pipel ine is prohibited.The ent i re pipeline does not have to be in the coastal zone. I f thepipel ine simply passes through the zone and is not attached to aregulated faci l i ty in the zone i t is not regulated by the Act.

March 6, 1979

October 5, 1978Question: Does the exemption in Section 7002(f) of the Act apply to offshorebulk product t ransfer faci l i t ies within Delaware t e r r i tor ia lwaters, but on the New Jersey side of the Delaware River? Theexemption referred to is for a single industr ial or manufacturing

faci l i ty .Answer: Yes. That i s , an indus tr ia l faci l i ty on the New Je rse y s id e ofthe River hav ing an o ff shor e bulk product t ransfer faci l i tyextending into Delaware waters is regulated in the same way withthe same exemption as would such a faci l i ty totally withinDelaware. This quest ion a rose because north of Art i f ic ia l Islandto the Pennsylvania--New Jersey boundary a l l of the Delaware

River to the mean low water mark on the New Jersey side is inDelaware. A pier or dock extending into the River from the NewJersey side comes under the authority of Delaware law.

Questions: What uses are encompassed by the term "nonconforming use" andhow shal l they be treated in terms of expansion or extension?

4-1

8/14/2019 Report on Coastal Zon

report on coastal zone act administration 1977-1983

Documents