SITE REMEDIATION NEWS             August 1996          Volume 8 Number 2
========================================================================

Contents

Environmental Technology Commercialization  ... 1
Focusing On Productivity . . . ................ 3
BUST Announces Outreach Effort . . . .......... 3
Correction..................................... 4
Natural Resource Damages _ An Overview... ..... 5
Site Cleanups Progress with Public Funds ...... 6


SITE REMEDIATION NEWS
    State of New Jersey
    Department of Environmental Protection
    Division of Responsible Party Site Remediation
    CN 413
    Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0413

Senior Editor                        Donna Marie Zalis

Editorial Review Board               Ron Corcory, Barry Frasco,
                                     Linda Grayson, Wayne Howitz,
                                     George King, George Klein,
                                     Kevin Kratina, Ed Putnam,
                                     Dave Sweeney, and Bob Van Fossen.

Graphics Support                     Kathy DiGregorio

Contributing Writers                 Brian J. Sogorka, Doug Burry,
                                     Barbara Dietz, Martin McHugh,
                                     and Fred Mumford.


  The Site Remediation News is published by the Program Support Element.


SPECIAL NOTES FOR THE ONLINE ASCII VERSION:

    The HTML Online Version of the Site Remediation News is a
    conversion of the desktop publishing generated print edition.
    While the HTML version contains all the articles and relevant
    texts of the print version, some adjustments are made for the
    differences in media.

    Some items that are scattered throughout the print edition are
    moved to the top of the HTMLsion.  These items include the
    newsletter masthead (credits for the people who put together the
    newsletter), and various general information notes.




General Information:

  Please be sure to include the box number on all mail addressed to the
Industrial Site Evaluation Element. Some mail has been received by the
element many weeks past the date on the correspondence due to the
omission of the box number. The proper way to address mail to the
element is:

      Section Name or Case Manager's Name
      Industrial Site Evaluation Element
      CN 028
      Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0028


FYI: The Guidance Document for the Remediation of Contaminated Soils is
presently under revision. New copies should be available on or about
September 30, 1996.


 
Return to Table of Contents.

Environmental Technology Commercialization               [Pages 1 and 2]
By: Brian J. Sogorka, Bureau of Environmental Evaluation
    and Risk Assessment

  The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) Workgroup
was formed in December, 1994, as a subgroup of the Demonstration On-Site
Innovative Technologies (DOIT) Coordinating Group, a Western Governor
Association initiative. The goal of the ITRC is to speed the efficient,
safe, and effective cleanup of waste sites by accelerating the
regulatory acceptance and commercial use of innovative technologies.

  Membership in the ITRC is open to any state regulatory agency. At
present, approximately 25 states belong to the ITRC. In addition, ITRC
membership includes representatives of stakeholder groups including
national environmental groups, citizens groups, Indian nations,
technology developers and vendors, consulting engineers, technology
users including federal and private sector, investment companies, and
federal agencies including the US Environmental Protection Agency,
Department of Energy and Department of Defense.

  NJDEP is a member of the ITRC and is represented on the ITRC Steering
Group (Brian Sogorka), the Cone Penetrometer Site Characterization
Technology Task Group (John Prendergast) and the Low Temperature Thermal
Desorption Technologies Task Group (Matt Turner).

  The ITRC's activities are closely related to activities being
conducted under a multistate Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for
environmental technology evaluation which was signed in April, 1995. The
original signatories of the MOU were the environmental commissioners of
New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, and Illinois, and the MOU has
recently been expanded to include Pennsylvania and New York. The MOU
supports the work of the ITRC and identifies the ITRC as a building
block in the development of interstate cooperation. While the scope of
the MOU includes a broad range of environmental technologies, the
initial efforts of the ITRC have been concentrated on characterization
and remediation technologies for contaminated sites.

  Through a pilot technology review project currently underway, the six
MOU states will be evaluating twelve technologies (two from each state)
in an effort to define a process for the reciprocal evaluation,
acceptance and approval of environmental technologies among the six
states. The department's newly formed Office of Innovative Technology
and Market Development is coordinating New Jersey's participation in the
MOU project as well as a variety of other innovative technology projects
including the New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology (NJCAT).
The function of this new office will reinforce the mutually beneficial
relationship between a clean environment and a healthy economy. If you
wish to contact this office, please call 609-984-5418.

  The ITRC is exploring mechanisms that decrease the amount of time it
takes for new technologies to become widely accepted. Initial efforts of
the ITRC focused on the following technology classes:

     1) in situ bioremediation;

     2) real-time field characterization using fiber optic sensors in
        cone penetrometer system;

     3) low temperature thermal desorption technologies;

     4) plasma technologies.

The ITRC has completed the following work efforts for each technology
area:

1.   In Situ Bioremediation
     A report of case studies has been prepared which describes how
     several states successfully overcame institutional and regulatory
     barriers to in situ bioremediation. In addition, a general outline
     for in situ bioremediation. In addition, a general outline for in
     situ bioremediation technology demonstrations has been developed,
     along with outlines for bioventing and natural
     attenuation/remediation. Proposals for in situ bioremediation
     developed according to the outlines should contain sufficient
     detail to allow other parties to identify the applicable regulatory
     requirements for the project, the nature and scope of the project,
     the advantages this technology may offer, and concerns that the
     public or other stakeholders may have with the project. The
     outlines may then be expanded to create a site specific workplan
     for implementation of the technology.

2.   Real-time Field Characterization The SCAPS-LIF (Site
     Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System Laser Induced
     Fluorescence) was evaluated and accepted as a suitable field
     screening technology by seven states.

     The SCAPS-LIF technology is a real-time in situ subsurface field
     screening method for petroleum, oil and lubricants that contain
     polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The states concluded
     that, with the appropriate number and placement of confirmatory
     laboratory samples, the SCAPS-LIF field screening system should
     produce reliable qualitative data capable of providing a
     detect/non-detect measurement of petroleum contamination in soil
     and an acceptable means of estimating the subsurface distribution
     of petroleum contamination. This technology evaluation effort used
     the state of California's certification process as a basis for
     multistate approval of this technology.

3.   Low Temperature Thermal Desorption Technologies Low Temperature
     Thermal Desorption (LTTD) is a treatment technology that removes
     contaminants from solid media by volatilizing them with heat, but
     without combustion of the media. LTTD has been widely used in
     treating petroleum contaminated wastes and is being used
     increasingly in the cleanup of manufactured gas plant (MGP) wastes
     and hazardous constituents, notably chlorinated solvents and
     pesticides.

     A five-state workgroup developed technical requirements for
     regulatory approval of LTTD technology. The document was then
     peer-reviewed by the full ITRC and was accepted for use by many
     states. By obtaining concurrence on the regulatory requirements
     from many states, it is expected that the technology will be able
     to move more easily from state to state, without unnecessary
     redevelopment and review of technical requirements. The
     requirements cover areas such as pre-treatment soil sampling, feed
     soil limitations, soil treatment verification sampling, soil
     handling and stockpiling, thermal system operating requirements,
     air emissions monitoring requirements, record keeping, QA/QC and
     health and safety.

4.   Plasma Technologies
     Plasma technology is a thermal technology in which heat is
     generated by passing an electrical current through a gas. The
     ionized gas is sometimes referred to as plasma. Plasma technology
     produces a vitrified ceramic slag and a gas stream which can
     usually be treated using conventional technology. This technology
     has the potential to treat both organic and inorganic contaminants
     in both liquid and solid waste, including soil.

     A six-state workgroup prepared a document that provides a general
     technology description, regulatory pathways for permitting the
     technology, case studies of technology applications and projections
     for future applications of the technology.

  Technology classes identified for potential future work include
permeable barrier walls for in situ ground water treatment, soil vapor
extraction, and treatment of soil contaminated with metals.

  In addition to the technology focus areas, the ITRC has developed an
effective electronic communications network for its members which allows
for rapid multi-state/ stakeholder review of documents and other
products. The network also provides a convenient forum for information
updates on technology demonstrations and a variety of technical and
regulatory information.


 
Return to Table of Contents.

Focusing On Productivity Through Data Sharing Initiatives       [Page 3]

  The Site Remediation Programs (SRP) goal of 100 percent data quality
and optimum data sharing is closer to becoming a reality after the
appointments of element level database administrators (DBAs) and an
SRP-wide DBA. The DBA process is part of the SRP's distributed
information strategy, which places data authority and ownership at the
local level where the data is used by staff. The DBAs are :

    SRP-Wide: John Tolleris
    Discharge Response Element: Clare Whittaker
    Hazardous Site Science Element: Gary Czock
    Industrial Site Evaluation Element
       Underground Storage Tanks: Don Cramer
       Environmental Evaluation Cleanup
       and Response Assessment: Henry Kindervatter
    Program Support Element: Debbie Ethington
    Remedial Planning and Design Element: Phil Shortino
    Responsible Party Cleanup Element: Glenn Savary

  The group's mission is to manufacture a data system for SRP that
provides all SRP staff with prompt access to quality data. The data
architecture designed within the SRP will also be shareable with other
NJDEP programs and offer integration with the department's Geographic
Information System (GIS). The DBA process will improve the information
management practices that support site-specific decisions. A better
supported decision making function will result in more efficient
decisions. This is expected to reduce costs to the regulated community.

  The DBA process is coordinated by the SRP-wide DBA John Tolleris,
under the Program Support Element Assistant Director George H. Klein.
Mr. Tolleris can be reached at (609) 777-4297 or via Email
JTOLLERI@DEP.STATE.NJ.US.


 
Return to Table of Contents.

BUST Announces Outreach Effort to Help UST Owners/ Operators
Comply With 1998 Deadlines                               [Pages 3 and 4]

By: Doug Burry, Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks

  With 1998 just around the corner, the Bureau of Underground Storage
Tanks (BUST) is making every effort to help underground storage tank
(UST) owners and operators comply with requirements for the upgrade and
maintenance of their USTs. With this goal in mind, BUST mailed a package
of material in April to help UST owners and operators in two ways.
First, the package included a postcard for owners/operators to send back
to BUST to show their interest in a free UST seminar. Second, the
package contained reading materials that provide useful information
about tank owners' and operators' responsibilities under state and
federal law. The seminar and the reading material are discussed in
greater detail below.

  The DEP, with the support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), will offer a free seminar for UST owners and operators. The
seminar will be open to owners and operators of USTs only. Consultants
and contractors need not inquire regarding attendance. In the event that
extra seating is available, consultants and contractors will receive
notice in a future issue of the Site Remediation Newsletter. The general
subjects of the seminar will be UST upgrade and leak detection. Possible
topics include corrosion protection, leak detection, and UST insurance.
Recipients of the packages were asked to help decide the specifics of
the seminar by filling out and returning a postcard telling BUST what
topics they wanted to learn more about, when they wanted the seminar,
and their preferred location for the seminar. The returned postcards
will allow the DEP to organize the seminars in a manner that will best
suit UST owner/ operator needs. The seminars will probably take place in
late summer or fall of this year.

  The package included two pamphlets entitled _Don't Wait Until 1998_
and _Straight Talk on Tanks_ which were initially developed by the EPA
and have been modified to incorporate the laws and regulations of New
Jersey's UST program. Don't Wait Until 1998 discusses tank upgrade
requirements, including corrosion, spill, and overfill protection. This
pamphlet provides an overview of what is required to bring a regulated
tank into compliance with the upgrade requirements, which must be
implemented by December 1998. Straight Talk on Tanks focuses on leak
detection. This pamphlet should be referred to for more detailed
information regarding leak detection requirements for tanks and piping.

  Also, contained in the package was a fact sheet discussing financial
responsibility requirements. This sheet gives a quick overview of which
tanks need financial responsibility, options for demonstrating
financial responsibility, and how much coverage is needed.

  BUST is in the process of developing two additional booklets for UST
owners and operators. Manual Tank Gauging and Doing Inventory Control
Right were also initially developed by the EPA and then modified to
include the laws and regulations of New Jersey's UST program. Manual
Tank Gauging explains how to use inventory control measurements as a
method of leak detection on some small USTs. Doing Inventory Control
Right illustrates the proper method for performing inventory control on
USTs. Both of these booklets are currently being printed. Please call
the Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks at (609)292-8761 for
availability and ordering information.

  The seminar and the reading material are only the beginning of the
DEP's efforts to help UST owners and operators comply with upgrade and
other requirements. In the near future, the DEP will distribute a
self-audit checklist to help owners and operators systematically
evaluate their UST facilities to assure that all the necessary
components for compliance are in place. Results of these self-audits
will help the DEP to organize compliance inspections of certain
facilities. These inspections will concentrate on helping cooperative
owners and operators understand their upgrades and comply with leak
detection and financial responsibility requirements, rather than on
strict enforcement of the requirements. A record of compliance or
non-compliance will be noted. The DEP will utilize conventional
enforcement measures for those with repeat non-compliance and for those
UST systems that are not in compliance and which leak and cause harm to
public health and the environment.

  If you have any questions about the seminar or the pamphlets, please
contact David Rubin, Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks, at
(609)633-1284.

 
Return to Table of Contents.

Correction                                               [Pages 4 and 5]

  Because of editorial oversight, the article entitled "Supporting A
Ground Water and Soil Natural Remediation Proposal" by Sharon P.
McLelland (March 1996) contained several errors that require correction.
These are as follows:

1. Throughout the article, it was stated that methane is an electron
   acceptor in methanogenesis. Methane is fully reduced and is the
   product of methanogenesis. Carbon dioxide or methanol are the
   electron acceptors.

2. Likewise throughout the article, the term "biogeochemical" should be
   used in place of "geochemical," since the described processes are
   microbiologically mediated.

3. In the discussion of low oxygen environments in the section
   "Evaluation the Site's Geochemical Indicators," the term "hypoxia"
   was used; this is a medical term and is inappropriate in this
   context. The proper ecological term applied to the microbial
   environment is "anoxic."

4. Under paragraph two in "Anaerobic Environments," the discussions of
   limited amounts of available oxygen was ambiguous. The term "reduced"
   was used to describe oxygen. This can be confusing in that chemical
   reduction is implied. The term "depleted" is more appropriate.

5. In the last paragraph of "How Natural Remediation Acts as a Remedial
   Strategy, the term "class" was used in the discussion of the shape of
   hydrocarbon molecules. Rather, the author was referring to the
   chemical "structure" of the hydrocarbon.

6. In the same paragraph, the discussion of the number of carbons in a
   h-alkane and its effect on degradation is incorrect. Even and odd
   numbered h-alkanes do not degrade at differential rates, rather
   degradation of h-alkanes occurs by transformation to fatty acids and
   sequential cleavage of 2-carbon intermediates from one or both ends
   of the h-alkane in a process known as beta-cleavage.

7. In the seventh paragraph in "Measuring for the Secondary Indicators,
   dehydrogenase enzyme activity was suggested as a means to estimate
   aerobic microbial activity. While there is dehydrogenase activity in
   aerobic metabolism, the dehydrogenase test measures the reduction of
   a dye. This dye will re-oxidize in the presence of oxygen making
   measurement impossible. Dehydrogenase is a better estimator of
   facultative anaerobic metabolism (low oxygen), but some experience is
   required to produce reliable results with this method.

8. In the same section, carbon dioxide respiration with poison control
   treatments is a more direct method of estimating microbial activity
   and should be considered when these data are needed.

9. The Microbial Degradation Checklist is very ambiguous and should not
   be used as guidance at this time.

10. Manganese also acts as an electron acceptor for microbial
    respiration in that Mn +4 is reduced to Mn +2 in low aerobic
    environments.

11. Carbon: Nitrogen: Phosphorous ratio of 100:10:1 is optimal for
    growth of organisms, but to optimize the rate of hydrocarbon
    mineralization, ratios somewhat deficient in nitrogen (100:5:1) are
    required.

 
Return to Table of Contents.

Natural Resource Damages -
An Overview of the Program and the Importance
of Coordination Between the Site Remediation Program
and the Office of Natural Resource Damages             [Pages 5 and 6]

By: Barbara Dietz and Martin McHugh, Office of Natural Resource Damages

  The Office of Natural Resource Damages (ONRD), formed in 1993, is part
of the Natural and Historic Resources group within Assistant
Commissioner's office. The mission of ONRD is to provide for the
restoration of New Jersey s natural resources that have been injured by
oil spills or other discharges of hazardous substances and hazardous
waste sites. Federal and state laws define natural resources as land,
fish, wildlife, biota, drinking water, wetlands, and other resources,
such as public beaches and parks. Restoration includes activities to
replace destroyed resources or enhance those that have been damaged.
Superfund (CERCLA), the federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the
federal Water Pollution Control Act charge state and federal natural
resource agencies with the responsibility to document injuries to
resources and to work cooperatively to undertake activities to restore
resources that have been injured. In New Jersey, the Water Pollution
Control Act, the Spill Act and the reported court opinions that make up
the state's common law provide additional state authority for seeking
natural resource damages and restoration of injured resources.

  The premise for the natural resource damage provisions in our current
law dates back to the times of Roman emperors and English kings and it
has developed into a body of law known as the Public Trust Doctrine.
Generally, the Public Trust Doctrine provides that lands, water and
wildlife are held in trust by the state for the benefit of the public
and establishes the right of the public to use and enjoy these trust
resources for a wide variety of recognized public uses.

  Trusteeship for natural resources lies with the government agencies
that manage and regulate fisheries, wildlife and public land. At the
federal level, the trustees for natural resources are the Secretary of
Commerce and the Secretary of Interior. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the agency within the Department of
Commerce that is responsible for marine resources and the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) is the agency within the Department
of Interior (DOI) responsible for the management of federal lands,
migratory birds and freshwater resources. Since DOI and NOAA authority
for wildlife and fisheries overlap with one another as well as with
state resource agencies, trusteeship is therefore shared and all of the
agencies are considered co-trustees. The state trustees are designated
by their respective governors. In New Jersey, DEP Commissioner Robert C.
Shinn, Jr. is the designated trustee for natural resources. The Office
of Natural Resource Damages (ONRD) through Assistant Commissioner Hall,
represents the commissioner on natural resource damage assessment and
restoration issues. ONRD, therefore, coordinates with the other state
and federal trustee agencies to meet the collective obligation to ensure
the restoration of injured natural resources that cross state borders
and government management authorities.

  While distinction between remediation, damage assessment and
restoration is frequently misconstrued it is very important and
beneficial to coordinate these actions. The focus of remediation is to
abate the source of contamination and implement a remedy protective of
public health and the environment. Natural resource damage assessment
and restoration take the remedial process to the next step. The focus of
ONRD and the federal trustees is to promote the restoration of natural
resources damaged by discharges of hazardous substances at a site or by
the remediation procedures necessary to address these discharges.
Essentially, the purpose of the NRD program is to begin putting back
public resources that have been lost due to these discharges.

  It is important to note that natural resource damages are not
penalties: assessments are performed to obtain compensation to be used
for restoration. Funds collected as part of a settlement for natural
resource injuries must be applied to replace the destroyed or injured
resources. In most cases where the responsible parties so choose, they
may undertake restoration activities themselves, just as they would
perform a cleanup with department oversight. In most cases, ONRD
attempts to work with the responsible parties early in the process in
order to identify appropriate restoration projects, to eliminate the
need of economic valuation of damages. This accomplishes direct resource
for resource compensation while reducing transaction costs and promoting
quicker restoration. In some cases, responsible parties choose to settle
natural resource damage and restoration issues with a monetary
settlement. Under those circumstances ONRD and the federal trustees then
identify the appropriate restoration projects and work to implement them
by coordinating with both public and private environmental groups. Some
current restoration projects are being accomplished through unique
partnerships between DEP and various environmental and governmental
groups. An example is the B. T. Nautilus oil spill. A 280,000 gallon oil
spill from the tanker B.T. Nautilus resulted in oiled shorebirds and
beaches along the entire New Jersey coast. One species specifically
impacted was the piping plover, a state endangered and federally
threatened species. Tarballs washed up on beaches used by the plovers
for nesting, oiling adult birds and chicks. The natural resource
trustees designed a restoration program. Under the plan, a partnership
was formed with the Nature Conservancy, a non-profit conservation
organization, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Jersey
Division of Fish and Game and Wildlife to carry out various restoration
activities such as: installation of fencing to exclude predators and
beachgoers from nesting areas; preparation of educational displays;
increased wardening and monitoring of nesting sites; and identification
of new nesting areas.

  The key to successful natural resource damage assessment and
restoration is to have the trustee representatives coordinate with the
remedial program during the early phases of a remedial investigation at
a site. Early trustee involvement allows for the cost effective
collection of natural resource data during the remedial investigation
(RI) process to identify resources already impacted and those resources
that may be impacted by the implementation of the chosen remedy.
Significant savings of time and money can be realized if the remedial
program and the PRPs are aware of natural resource damage issues at the
beginning of the RI, before sampling plans are finalized and prior to
mobilization in the field. Further-more, during the development of the
feasibility study, there may be opportunities to offset natural resource
injuries by designing restoration options that can be built in to the
remedy.

  ONRD has been working to accomplish the integration of natural
resource damage issues into the remedial investigation/remedial action
process. In this manner, the Site Remediation Program and the Attorney
General s Office can more easily address NRD as part of the overall
case.

  However, there are cases where the remedial investigation has been
ongoing for a long period of time and the prospect of introducing the
concept of natural resource damages to the responsible party at such a
stage in the remedial process is not a welcome idea. A responsible party
that has completed a cleanup and received a No Further Action letter for
the site will not react positively if state or federal trustees pursue a
natural resource damage claim. These situations do exist since formal
federal and state natural resource damage programs have only recently
come into existence. While ONRD and the federal trustees are working on
innovative approaches to handling such cases, it is clear that it is
more effective for all involved to avail themselves of the opportunity
to address NRD at the beginning of the RI.

  Natural resource damage liability continues to accrue as long as the
public's resources remain unrestored. ONRD's coordination of natural
resource assessment and restoration issues with the federal trustees
will help to limit a PRP's overall NRD liability. This type of
coordinated approach between ONRD, the federal trustees and the Site
Remediation Program not only best serves the responsible parties, but
also ensures that the department upholds its obligations to restore,
replace or acquire the equivalent of the public's resources for their
enjoyment.

  For more information on natural resource damage assessment and
restoration issues, please call (609) 984-5475.

 
Return to Table of Contents.

Contaminated Site Cleanups Progress with Public Funds
New Funding Initiatives on Ballot                    [Pages 6 through 9]

By: Fred Mumford, Bureau of Community Relations

  The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) released a new report
entitled "Publicly Funded Cleanups Site Status Report" in March 1996
that details investigation, cleanup and monitoring progress at 333
Superfund and non-Superfund sites where federal and/or state monies have
been used to fund remedial activities.

  DEP Commissioner Robert Shinn presented the report to the Assembly
Agriculture and Waste Management Committee when providing an update on
contaminated site cleanups and calling for continued funding of the
state's cleanup program.

  "This report shows how the Department uses public funds to clean up
contaminated sites ranging from a small cluster of affected residential
drinking water wells to 100- acre landfills and industrial sites," said
Richard Gimello, DEP's Assistant Commissioner for Site Remediation. "It
is important to maintain a strong publicly funded program to continue
these necessary remedial activities when no relief from responsible
parties is available."

  Currently, state funding projections for the publicly funded program
indicate that additional monetary sources will be required in calendar
year 1997 to complete site work underway and begin new projects at those
sites currently in the pipeline. "The pressing need for a permanent
source of state funds to carry out site cleanups must be addressed in
the coming year," Gimello noted. "The obligation of the Department to
conduct site clean-ups is threatened without such a source of state
funds."

  The Governor's Office and Legislature responded to this need by
approving a bond act to provide monies for contaminated site remediation
including affected drinking water supplies. "The Port of New Jersey
Revitalization, Dredging, Environmental Cleanup, Lake Restoration, and
Delaware Bay Area Economic Development Bond Act of 1996" is a $300
million measure that includes $70 million to pay for investigating and
cleaning up contaminated sites and providing alternate water supplies
and treatment facilities to address polluted potable water supplies.
This measure was sponsored by Senators Donald DiFrancesco (District 22)
and Edward O'Connor (District 31) with Senate Bill Number 95 and by
Assemblyman Steve Corodemus (District 11) with Assembly Bill Number
1099. Governor Christine Todd Whitman signed the act in July 1996 and it
is on the ballot this fall for New Jersey voters. Other monies would go
towards dredging and disposal actions in the New Jersey/New York port
region ($185 million) and other areas ($20 million), economic
development along the Delaware River and Bay region ($20 million) and
restoration of lakes throughout the state ($5 million).

  The Legislature also approved in June 1996 a constitutional amendment
to dedicate four percent of the state's corporate business tax each year
to publicly funded site remediation, underground storage tank grants and
loans, and water quality planning and monitoring. This measure will
provide DEP approximately $48 million annually based on current
collection levels. About $24 million each year will be used to
investigate and clean up contaminated sites, while approximately $16
million will go towards providing grants and loans to private parties to
upgrade, close, remediate or replace leaking underground storage tanks.
An additional $5 million each year from the fund will be used for
watershed planning and non-point source pollution programs. This measure
was sponsored by Senators John Bennett (District 12), Henry McNamara
(District 40) and John Adler (District 6) with Senate Concurrent
Resolution 41 and by Assemblyman Steve Corodemus (District 11) and
Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg (District 37) with Assembly Concurrent
Resolution 56. The question of whether to amend the New Jersey
Constitution to dedicate four percent of the corporate business tax as
outlined above also will be on the ballot this fall for state voters.

  State funding enables New Jersey to pay the required state share for
Superfund site cleanups and to conduct remedial activities at
non-Superfund sites when companies or individuals responsible for
contamination are unknown, unable or unwilling to perform necessary
remedial work. New Jersey has received more than $1.1 billion in federal
funds from the Superfund program and has dedicated more than $650
million in state funds to support publicly funded cleanups.

  "In New Jersey, significant cleanup progress has been achieved with
public monies as evidenced by the fact that more than half of all
environmental problems have been addressed at Superfund and
non-Superfund publicly funded sites," said Gimello. "Also, it is
important to note that more than $900 million of the $1.1 billion in
federal monies dedicated to New Jersey Superfund sites has been spent on
actual cleanups, not studies. New Jersey's share of approximately $84
million to support these Superfund sites resulted in a very successful
return of federal monies for the state's residents and the environment."
(See Figure 1.)



    Graphics Description:
    Figure 1 is labeled "New Jersey's Success at Securing Superfund
    Dollars" and states, "Since 1980, New Jersey has received 13 federal
    dollars for each state dollar spent."


  Overall state public funds dedicated to New Jersey's cleanup program
since 1977 include: $242 million from state taxes on businesses
generating or using hazardous substances collected through the New
Jersey Spill Fund; $250 million in state bond funds approved by the
voters in 1981 and 1986; 103 million in general state funds approved by
the Legislature; and, $62 million from the Hazardous Discharge Site
Cleanup Fund that includes monies recovered from responsible parties
stemming from past state expenditures and a variety of other sources. An
additional $50 million in state bond funds were transferred to a loan
program created by the Legislature in 1993 to help fund private cleanups
with DEP oversight at various types of sites in the state.

  In terms of cleanup progress, the status report notes that at the
Superfund and non-Superfund publicly funded sites, 44 percent of
environmental problems, which are broken down and tracked as subsites,
have been completely remediated and no longer pose a threat to human
health or the environment. Also, 11 percent of the environmental
problems are being controlled with active treatment systems and/or are
being monitored to ensure the integrity of past remedial work. DEP
achieved this progress by completing 242 remedial action or (cleanup)
projects and managing 51 operation and maintenance projects that are now
underway.

  The report provides information on 312 sites that have been or are
being addressed with public funds and 21 sites where public monies were
initially expended before responsible parties agreed to complete the
work. Contaminated sites are divided into subsites that allows for
variation in the speed and extent to which problem areas at a site are
addressed, often with the most immediate environmental concerns handled
first. Statistics presented in the report show the status of activity at
subsites and the number of projects (e.g., remedial investigations,
remedial designs, remedial actions) completed and underway. The subsite
status and project listings are two key indicators used to track
remedial progress at contaminated sites in New Jersey. Included in the
report are 160 individual descriptions of sites with active remedial
measures underway and one additional "site" description that
encompasses 45 separate sites affected by chromium contamination in
Hudson County. Various remedial activities have been performed at these
sites, including numerous successful cleanup actions; however, all work
is not yet completed. The remaining 128 sites included in this report
are categorized as follows: 54 Water Supply sites where DEP provided an
alternative drinking water supply or treatment system and is or will be
investigating the source of the contamination; 27 Pending sites where
DEP is considering taking action with public funds; 26 No Further Action
sites where DEP has completed all remedial action; and, 21 sites where
remedial work was conducted with public funds or administered by DEP
before the responsible parties agreed to complete the remaining work.

  The 55 currently active, publicly funded Superfund sites and four
removed from the Superfund list after cleanups were completed using
public funds have been divided into 151 subsites. Of this number 64
subsites _ or 42 percent _ have a No Further Action (NFA) status and no
longer pose a threat to human health or the environment. The status of
the remaining 87 subsites is: 18 in Operation and Maintenance; 15 in
Remedial Action; 27 in Remedial Design; and, 24 in Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study. There are three subsites where work
has yet to be initiated. Also, remedial work previously conducted by
NJDEP and USEPA with public funds at 14 additional Superfund sites,
where responsible parties have since agreed to complete the remaining
work, resulted in 23 subsites achieving a NFA status and one in O&M.
(See Figure 2.) Progress at these Superfund sites also is measured by
remedial projects completed and underway that include: 89 Remedial
Action projects completed and 14 underway; 53 Remedial Design projects
completed and 26 underway; 92 Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study projects completed and 18 underway; and, 19 Operation and
Maintenance projects underway. Listings of these projects are included
in the report's appendixes.



    Graphics Description:
    Figure 2 is labelled "Superfund Publicly Funded Subsite* Status"
     *175 Subsites as of June 30, 1995 Includes Work at 55 Active Sites/
      4 Deleted Sites/ 14 Sites Now Private

     The figure is a pie chart divided into:
        Operation &  Maintenance (11%) 19
        Remedial Action (8%) 15
        Remedial Design (15%) 27
        Remedial Investigation &  Feasibility Study (14%) 24
        No Work Initiated (2%) 3
        No Further Action (50%) 87


  At the 214 non-Superfund sites that are being or have been addressed
with public funds, there are 298 subsites. Of this number 134 _ or 44
percent _ have a NFA status. The status of the remaining 165 subsites
is: 32 in Operation and Maintenance; 22 in Remedial Action; five in
Remedial Design; and, 33 in Remedial Investigation and Remedial
Alternatives Analysis. There are 72 subsites where work has yet to be
initiated. Also, remedial work previously conducted by NJDEP with public
funds at six additional non-Superfund sites, where responsible parties
have since agreed to complete the remaining work, resulted in seven
subsites achieving a NFA status. (See Figure 3.) Progress at these
non-Superfund sites also is measured by remedial projects completed and
underway that include: 153 Remedial Action projects completed and 21
underway; 24 Remedial Design projects completed and six underway; 40
Remedial Investigation and Remedial Alternatives Analysis projects
completed and 33 underway; and, 32 Operation and Maintenance projects
underway.

  Most subsites routinely require a series of remedial projects to
address the specific environmental concern associated with that subsite.
As remedial projects are begun or completed, a subsite's status
advances. This means that the environmental problem at each subsite
moves toward a status of No Further Action (NFA), the primary end point
in the remedial process. It is also noteworthy to mention that when a
subsite enters Operation and Maintenance, the environmental problem has
been addressed and essentially brought under control.

  The report has been provided to health agencies participating in the
County Environmental Health Act program and municipalities were sent
descriptions of sites within their locales included in the report. The
report also was placed in state repositories throughout the state. A
listing of these repositories is available through the state library at
(609) 633-2111.

  A 1996 update of the _Publicly Funded Cleanups Site Status Report_ is
scheduled to be released in October 1996.





    Graphics Description:
    Figure 3 is labelled "Non-Superfund Publicly Funded Subsites*
    Status" (*305 Subsites as of June 30, 1995 Includes Work at 214
    Public Sites/ 6 Sites Now Private)
    The figure is a pie chart divided into:
        No Further Action (46%) 141
        Operation &  Maintenance (10%) 32
        Remedial Action (7%) 22
        Remedial Design (2%) 5
        Remedial Investigation &  Remedial Alternatives Analysis (11%) 33
        No Work Initiated (24%) 72


Return to Table of Contents.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Christine Todd Whitman, Governor
                                       Robert C. Shinn, Jr., Commissioner
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Site Remediation Program
CN 028
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0028
(609) 292-9120

[End of the HTML version of the SITE REMEDIATION NEWS August 1996]

Please send your comments regarding the design or function of the NJDEP SRP Web pages to:

Last revision: 25 Mar 97