Introduction The Publicly Funded Cleanups Site Status Report 2003 details efforts by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) Site Remediation and Waste Management Program to investigate and clean up contaminated properties using public funds. NJDEP issues the Publicly Funded Cleanups Site Status Report every year pursuant to P.L. 1997, chapter 234, the legislation that dedicated annual appropriations of New Jersey’s Corporate Business Tax receipts for site investigations and cleanups. The report summarizes work conducted through December 31, 2003 at 234 sites in the Remedial Response Element of the Division of Remediation Management and Response, including 51 federal Superfund sites where NJDEP is working with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to resolve environmental problems. (The remaining 61 Superfund sites in New Jersey are being addressed by USEPA.) Sites covered in this report include industrial facilities, inactive landfills, gasoline stations with leaking underground storage tanks, illegal hazardous waste disposal sites and unknown source ground water contamination areas where municipal or private potable wells have been affected. A discussion of the types of activities conducted by NJDEP and USEPA at publicly funded sites can be found at The Remedial Process. This in-depth explanation provides details of the investigation, design, construction and operation and maintenance phases of the remedial process. The report contains a list of Completed Sites where all investigation and remedial work are finished. Also available is Site Transfers, a list of contaminated sites that were initially addressed with public funds, but where the responsible parties ultimately agreed to complete the necessary work with USEPA and/or NJDEP oversight. In addition to these site descriptions, the Site Remediation and Waste Management Program maintains the Known Contaminated Sites in NJ list, which lists all known sites, both privately and publicly funded, in New Jersey. The Remedial Process during the Feasibility Study. A Remedial Investigation is also implemented at non- It is important to understand the se- Superfund sites to determine the nature and quence of events that make up the remedial extent of the contamination, but a Remedial process when evaluating the cleanup Action Selection (RAS) is conducted instead progress at publicly funded Superfund and of a Feasibility Study. All publicly funded non-Superfund sites. A site consists of one or actions and most privately funded actions at more subsites (sometimes referred to as Op- non-Superfund sites require an RAS prior to erable Units at Superfund sites) that repre- selecting and implementing a cleanup plan. sent individual areas of environmental con- After selecting a preferred remedial alterna- cern. While a subsite can focus on any envi- tive for a publicly funded Superfund or non- ronmental hazard, typical examples include Superfund site based on how well it meets contaminated ground water, contaminated the stipulated evaluation criteria, NJDEP (or soil, leaking underground storage tanks, in the case of federal-lead Superfund sites, buried drums, abandoned containers of USEPA) will hold a public comment period chemical wastes, off-site potable wells or an on the proposed cleanup plan. Immediate Environmental Concern (IEC) condition. A subsite may be identified at the A Remedial Design is the development beginning of a site investigation or at any of engineering plans and specifications to time during the course of the remedial pro- implement the remedy selected in the Feasi- cess additional environmental problems are bility Study or Remedial Action Selection, discovered. Subsites are identified by such as sizing a ground water treatment “Project Name” on the bar charts provided plant or developing an accurate measure- beneath the site descriptions. ment of contaminated soil that must be re- moved for off site disposal. Further data Once a site or subsite has been identified, collection and analysis may be required to it undergoes one or more of the following finalize design specifications. steps to characterize the extent of the con- tamination and/or remediate the environmen- A Remedial Action (sometimes referred tal or health hazards. The phase of the reme- to as a Construction project) is the implemen- dial process that is underway determines the tation of a selected remedy. A Remedial Ac- current status of the site or subsite. The site tion may be implemented immediately after or subsite is assigned a Completed status a site is identified, such as a source removal when all remedial work is finished and the at an Immediate Environmental Concern environmental and health hazards are fully (IEC) site, as an interim remedial measure addressed. while a site is being investigated, or as a final cleanup measure after a formal Remedial A Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Design has been completed. A Remedial Study (RI/FS) is a study conducted at Action may include, but is not limited to, the Superfund sites to determine the nature and following activities: extent of the contamination and evaluate cleanup alternatives. The environmental • Installation of a ground water treatment problems at a site or subsite are character- system ized during the Remedial Investigation. The • Installation of a soil treatment system (i.e., effectiveness, implementability, timeliness, soil flushing or soil vapor extraction) cost and community concerns associated with each cleanup alternative are considered • Removal of contaminated soil or drums 1 • Installation of a landfill cap or slurry wall ing on its use. A Classification Exception Area (CEA) is established at sites when • Removal of leaking underground tanks ground water contaminant levels exceed • Installation of a permanent cover over con- state ground water quality criteria, but there taminated soil is an expectation that over time such stan- dards will be met. • Installation of a ventilation system in a building or other structure where hazard- The state funds 10% of the Remedial Ac- ous vapors are present tion costs at Superfund sites, with USEPA providing the rest. NJDEP funds 100% of the • Installation of Point-of-Entry Treatment Remedial Action costs at non-Superfund (POET) systems on private potable wells sites. When responsible parties for these sites • Demolition of buildings or other structures are identified, NJDEP brings legal action to when needed to facilitate remediation of recover the expended funds. the site Operation and Maintenance (O&M) are • Fencing of a site to prevent access performed at sites where long-term cleanup actions are underway or environmental con- In addition, extension of water lines to a trols have been installed. O&M covers a wide ground water contamination area or installa- range of activities, from overseeing the tion of a treatment system on a contaminated proper functioning of a ground water treat- municipal supply well by a municipality or ment system to cutting the grass on a landfill local water purveyor with funds provided by cap. O&M may also include the environmen- NJDEP are also considered Remedial Ac- tal monitoring conducted to evaluate the tions. effectiveness of a remedial action. One ex- NJDEP soil cleanup criteria have been ample of this is the periodic sampling of established for many contaminants to guide ground water that is conducted after a leak- unrestricted, limited use and restricted Re- ing underground storage tank or other medial Actions for soil. This allows cleanup source of contamination has been excavated, and reuse of some sites, such as former in- or after a plume of contaminated ground dustrial complexes, at lower costs, while still water has been remedied through active protecting human health and the environ- treatment. At sites where restricted cleanups ment. A Deed Notice (formerly called a Dec- are conducted, O&M may continue indefi- laration of Environmental Restriction) is im- nitely. The state funds 100% of O&M costs at posed for sites that only comply with the Superfund and non-Superfund sites. restricted soil criteria (a limited restricted Long-Term Remedial Action (LTRA) Remedial Action). It is also imposed when denotes O&M activities performed on large- engineering controls at sites with soil con- scale ground water extraction and treatment tamination levels that exceed the restricted plants at Superfund sites. These treatment criteria adequately protect public health and plants are projected to run for several years the environment (a restricted Remedial Ac- until ground water cleanup criteria are tion). This notice ensures the disclosure of achieved. For the first 10 years, USEPA funds site conditions to future owners and the 90 percent of LTRA costs and the state pro- maintenance of required engineering controls. vides the remaining 10 percent. After ten Certain exceptions for contaminated years the site is considered in O&M and the ground water can also be obtained depend- state funds 100 percent of these costs. 2 Site Descriptions by County Alphabetical Index of Site Descriptions by Site Name Site Name Type County 1st Street Ground Water Contamination State Lead-IEC Union 1603 Dumont Terrace State Lead-IEC Monmouth 2043 Ocean Heights Avenue State Lead-IEC Atlantic 243 North Texas Avenue Non Superfund Atlantic 398 Olden Avenue State Lead-IEC Mercer 5 Devon Avenue Non Superfund Burlington 661 South Broad Street Non Superfund Salem A-Z Automotive Repair Center Non Superfund Passaic Adron Incorporated Non