MANAGEMENT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS
IN NEW JERSEY
APRIL 130,1996 WO
REPORT ON T
THE/NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP SYSTEM (NEPPS)
A .
July 1996
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Report Prepared by DEP's Division of Science & Research
-------
Introduction
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Region 2 of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have inaugurated a new partnership in environmental
protection, as part of the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS)
begun by six states, including New Jersey, in 1995. NEPPS is an approach designed to allow
states to more effectively direct federal and state resources toward state environmental priorities,
using environmental indicators as primary measures of improvements in environmental quality.
The intent is to emphasize DEP-EPA cooperation for achieving continuous gains in
environmental quality, in contrast to the earlier approach of measuring progress through agency
activities (e.g., number of permits issued) that have less obvious links to environmental
improvement.
Because of NEPPS' emphasis on identifying environmental goals, objectives, and
milestones, and using state agency self-assessments and environmental indicators to evaluate
progress in meeting these targets, it is critical that public involvement be integral to NEPPS. It is
public values and concerns that shape state goals, and achieving them will require cooperation of
groups and organizations other than DEP and EPA. These agencies view the key issues, goals
and indicators in the initial NEPPS program, as well as its future versions, as dynamic concepts
that will evolve as DEP and EPA Region 2 become more experienced with the NEPPS approach
and as stakeholder input becomes integrated into the system. The very short schedule for
inauguration of the NEPPS process in 1995 limited public involvement in development of the
pilot Performance Partnership Agreement (hereinafter Agreement) signed by DEP and EPA in
March 1996, which covered DEP programs involved with drinking water, air quality, and
freshwater water quality, pollution prevention, and aspects of enforcement. This made it even
more important to begin public involvement before the second Agreement, which would add
other EPA-funded or mandated programs (e.g., marine water quality, site remediation, solid
waste, land management), is signed (by October 1996).
Thus an "initial collaborative workshop" with a diverse group of stakeholders was
organized for April 30, 1996, under the title "Management for Environmental Results in New
Jersey," and co-sponsored by DEP, EPA, and the Green and Gold Task Force (a DEP advisory
group with business and environmentalist members). This is a report on the content of that
workshop, as an element in an ongoing dialogue with New Jersey stakeholders about how to
make NEPPS an integral and ever-improving part of DEP and EPA Region 2's operations.
Workshop Background
The workshop had two goals. First, it would allow DEP and EPA to inform a diverse
group of stakeholders about NEPPS, both its aims and its current status in New Jersey. Second,
the agencies could begin to get stakeholders' feedback on the New Jersey-specific key
environmental issues, goals, objectives, milestones, and environmental indicators that were part
of the first (FY96) NEPPS Agreement between DEP and EPA, or that were being formulated for
programs being added for the FY97 Agreement. This entailed a division of the workshop agenda
(see p.3) into two portions: a morning section devoted to describing NEPPS aims and overall
status, and a three-hour afternoon section involving smaller discussions (breakout sessions) by
stakeholders of program-specific NEPPS plans. The morning session is summarized below; the
1
-------
bulk of the report describes comments made by stakeholders about NEPPS, both overall and for
specific aspects.
The unfamiliarity of the inaugural NEPPS process in New Jersey suggested that initial
audiences should be those with a strong and active interest in DEP and EPA Region 2 activities:
in other words, "stakeholders" rather than the general public (outreach to the latter will occur
later). The intent was to have a wide range of major perspectives on New Jersey's environmental
quality and management represented at this first workshop. DEP Commissioner Robert C.
Shinn, Jr. and EPA Regional Administrator Jeanne Fox issued personal invitations to over 200
people, including an executive summary of the 1996 NEPPS Agreement and the key
environmental issues from the 1996 NEPPS Self-Assessment documents. Invitees came from the
following types of organizations: federal, state (from New Jersey and neighboring states) and
local government agencies; state legislators and local politicians; academics and educators;
business, including developers; environmental organizations; environmental justice groups;
labor; farmers; recreation organizations; religious groups; and foundations. Members of DEP's
Green and Gold Task Force were very helpful in providing names of potentially interested
stakeholders. Attendance at the workshop was 115 (plus about 60 DEP and EPA attendees),
roughly representing the same range of diversity as among invitees. All attendees received a
copy of the FY96 NEPPS Agreement, as well as some additional background material for
breakout sessions and a survey to provide further feedback on the NEPPS process.
-------
Workshop Agenda
MANAGEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS IN NEW JERSEY:
IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP SYSTEM (NEPPS)
An Initial Collaborative Workshop
Co-Sponsored by DEP, EPA Region 2 & DEP's Green & Gold Advisory Task Force
April 30, 1996
Public Hearing Room - NJ Department of Environmental Protection
401 E. State Street, Trenton, NJ
8:00-9:00 AM REGISTRATION
Morning Moderator: Michael Catania, Co-Chair, Green & Gold Advisory Task Force
Executive Director, The Nature Conservancy
9:00 AM WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
Mark Smith, Chief of Staff, DEP
Jeanne Fox, EPA Region 2 Administrator
9:30 - 11:15 AM SESSION 1 - NEPPS, ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS & INDICATORS
9:30 AM National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) Process
Leslie McGeorge, Director, Division of Science & Research, DEP
Kevin Bricke, Deputy Director, Water Management Division, EPA Region 2
9:45 AM Environmental Goals and Indicators: A. Federal, State and Regional Initiatives;
B. Key Concepts
Jim Bernard, Project Manager, State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project
10:30 AM Break
10:45 AM Implementation of NEPPS in New Jersey
Leslie McGeorge, DEP
John Malleck, Chief, Water Quality Management Section, EPA Region 2
11:15 AM Discussion of NEPPS Strategy and Charge to Breakout Sessions
Mike Catania & James Shissias - Facilitators
11:45 - 2:45 PM SESSION 2 - DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES, GOALS & INDICATORS IN INDIVIDUAL TOPIC
AREAS: BREAKOUT SESSIONS WITH FACILITATORS
Pilot 1996 Areas New Areas
Water Quality (Public Hearing Room) Site Remediation/Waste (5th Fi. Lg. Conf. Rm.)
Drinking Water Quality (3rd FI. Lg. Conf. Rm.) Land & Natural Resources (6th FI. Lg. Conf. Rm.)
Air Quality/Radiation (4th FI. Lg. Conf. Rm.)
12:30 PM Lunch in Breakout Rooms
Afternoon Moderators: James Shissias, Green & Gold Advisory Task Force; General Manager, Environmental Affairs,
PSE&G
Mark Smith, Chief of Staff, DEP
3:00 PM SESSION 3 - REPORTS ON BREAKOUT SESSIONS AND FUTURE OUTREACH PLANS
(reconvene in the Public Hearing Room)
4:15 PM CLOSING REMARKS AND ADJOURNMENT
Mark Smith, DEP
-------
Morning Summary
As noted above, morning speakers from DEP and EPA (and the State Environmental
Goals and Indicators Project) welcomed attendees, explained NEPPS' aims, and discussed how
New Jersey had proceeded with NEPPS so far. These points are briefly summarized in the next
pages.
[prlorli
Comparative
Risk Projects '
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE PARTNERSHIP SYSTEM (NEPPS)
1
1
1
INatL
Goa
lEnvi
Iperf
IMea
iProe
|Guic
State
Self-Assessment /
Key Bnvir. Issues, *V /
Program Strengths \. /
& Limitations, «V/
Status & Trends 1 ,
(Year 2) i
Regional .^ i
Perspective / \ „
on ^ i .
State \ :
Program y *
• Performance \
onal V
Is,
r. Indicators,
ormance
sures,
ram
Lance J
I\ ^
1 / and \ Environmenta:
3 ^*~ Development of ^- Performance — ^— J
1 \ Agreement by / Partnership ™
I \ State & EPA / Agreement
@ \ Region /
| ' Priorities
3 / Goals/milestones,
' Envrr. indicators,
1 Activity
Oommitments by
State <& EPA Region
iplementation
* Other key opportunties for stakeholder input
How NEPPS Works
A diagram of the generic NEPPS process appears above. Where available, environmental
priorities established through a "comparative risk" process (in which one input would be
rankings of environmental issues according to their human health, ecological, and quality-of-life
impacts; DEP has applied for EPA funding for a comparative risk project) would help shape the
first major NEPPS document, the Self-Assessment. This document identifies the state's key
environmental issues, and the state environmental agency's strengths and limitations in
addressing these issues; after the first year, it also reports progress toward meeting goals for these
key issues, as measured by environmental indicators. DEP released its "Self-Assessment of New
Jersey's Environment and NJDEP Programs: Air Quality, Water Quality, Drinking Water" in
August 1995.
Following EPA Region and stakeholder input on key environmental issues, and proposed
goals, environmental indicators, and activity commitments, the second major NEPPS document--
the Environmental Performance Partnership Agreement (Agreement)--!s developed jointly by the
state and the appropriate EPA Region office. This Agreement guides data acquisition,
environmental quality assessment, indicator development and agency activity commitments for
the Agreement period. Program implementation, particularly when EPA funding is involved, is
driven by the Agreement. DEP and Region 2 released the pilot "New Jersey Environmental
Performance Partnership Agreement—1996" in March 1996. The timeframe covered by this
Agreement has been extended to September 30, 1996.
In New Jersey, as in several other states, Commissioner Shinn has elected to apply the
Self-Assessment, environmental goal/indicator approach for environmental management to state-
funded, as well as federally-funded, environmental management programs. This means the
concept of management for environmental results can be implemented throughout DEP, rather
-------
than being limited to programs or portions of programs funded by EPA.
The basic steps involved in NEPPS include: identifying key environmental issues,
establishing goals, and developing environmental indicators to measure progress toward the
goals. An example is the problem of "ozone pollution in air." A key issue is that New Jersey
citizens are periodically exposed to unhealthful ozone levels; a goal is to achieve a safe level of
ozone statewide by 2007. Examples of potential environmental indicators for causes, conditions
and effects, and responses are:
CAUSES
CONDITIONS AND
EFFECTS
RESPONSES
Estimate and track emissions
from:
—industry
—commercial activities
—cars, trucks, buses
—consumer products
Measure and track number of days
when ozone exceeds standards
Monitor effects on people (asthma
effects, etc.) and plants (crop
damage, etc.)
State/EPA: prepare state plan
Region: limit regional emissions
Industry: participate in emissions
trading programs
Citizens: use public transportation and
carpools, get regular tune-
ups, etc.
The National Situation
New Jersey is one of six states—the others being Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Utah, and
(since the Workshop) Oklahoma—pioneering NEPPS during the 1996 federal fiscal year (FY96),
which ends September 30, 1996. All of them, in varying ways and covering varying proportions
of each state's environmental programs, have been developing Self-Assessments, goals,
objectives and milestones, and indicators. In FY97, all 50 states must enter NEPPS, and will use
the experience of New Jersey and the other pilot states to guide their efforts.
While NEPPS itself is new, a number of states have been working on environmental
indicators and, in some cases, publishing these as part of an annual State of the Environment
report or its equivalent (which sometimes includes milestones or benchmarks). These include
California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North
Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as New Jersey. EPA
supports the State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project at Florida State University, which
helps these and other states to develop goals and indicators and integrate them into
environmental management.
New Jersey is among the most advanced states in the scope of its indicator development,
but has not yet published a State of the Environment report. It has also not yet set priorities
through a "comparative risk" project (as outlined in the diagram of the NEPPS process on the
previous page and as some states have done), but EPA funding for such a project in New Jersey
was recently requested.
State Aims
DEP aims to use the NEPPS process to: set priorities for the use of federal funding;
evaluate environmental progress;and provide information to the public. Traditionally, EPA has
relied on detailed workplans from separate DEP programs to ensure that these programs merit
continued federal funding; progress has been evaluated by the number of permits issued, and
other activity measures, rather than on the status of the environment itself; and public
-------
participation has been limited. As detailed in the table on the next page, DEP expects to gain
more flexibility in its ability to direct policy and funding so as to maximize environmental
quality, and to work as a partner with New Jersey citizens and EPA to accomplish these ends.
TRADITIONAL SYSTEM VS. NEPPS
Setting Priorities
Environmental Goals
Using Environmental Indicators to Measure Progress
Counting Actions (number of inspections, etc.) to Measure
Progress
Assessing Environmental Quality Data
Federal Oversight
Public Participation
Old System
minimal
minimal
minimal
extensive
minimal
extensive
minimal
NEPPS
first step in process
extensive
extensive
minimal
extensive
reduced; more state flexibility
extensive
DEP is undertaking several initiatives to improve how it manages environmental issues.
The figure below shows one perspective on the core activities in environmental protection,
highlighting the position of NEPPS as a key part of strategic planning. Although the transition
will take some time, DEP expects NEPPS to provide a core around which, with the help of
citizens and EPA, it can build a comprehensive and effective environmental protection process.
-------
Core Activities in Environmental Protection Process:
A Perspective
Data Collection
Monitoring/Sampling
Research
Modeling
Program Evaluation
Environmental results/indicators Data
Costs A i
Public acceptance ASSCSSment
Strategy refinement Problem identification, characterization
. TrendsAnaiysis
l NJDEP Vision & Mission1
Implementation
^Statutes, regulations
Strategic Planning
NEPPS
Priority setting
Goal setting
Indicators/Benchmarks
Strategy Development2
"Command & Control" (regulation & enforcement);
Planning; Education & outreach;
Partnership & cooperation; Market incen
Scientific information needs;
Technological solutions
Division of Science & Research
1 Vision: Commitment to high quality of life in NJ 1/96
Mission: Preserve,sustain, protect & enhance anvironmentto ensure integration of high environmental quality, public health & economic vitality.
-------
EPA's Role
The Agreement between DEP and EPA Region 2 focuses limited resources on solving
environmental problems across all environmental media, with EPA more as a partner than
overseer and DEP gaining increased flexibility. The two agencies become jointly accountable to
the public (rather than simply DEP being accountable to EPA), with progress being measured
through agreed-upon indicators, particularly of environmental quality. In pursuing these efforts,
EPA's preferred approach is partnership through community-based environmental protection, in
which all stakeholders work with DEP and EPA to design and implement a plan to solve a given
problem. It sees NEPPS as the instrument for reaching agreement on the details of this approach
with the State. However, EPA Region 2 will continue to review Agreements and Self-
Assessments to determine if progress is being achieved and that New Jersey meets minimum
federal requirements, and to evaluate (as required by federal rules) its performance under federal
grants. Evaluation will rely heavily upon the Self-Assessments, but EPA will supplement these
if needed.
EPA Region 2 expects that DEP, under NEPPS, will:
• maintain efficient and effective base programs (as delegated) equivalent to federal
programs
• do more to solve problems in places that have not, or cannot, be addressed with base
programs alone
• continue to submit many state products (such as water quality standards) for approval to
EPA, as mandated by federal laws and regulations
• continue to support national databases
• supplement national and state indicators with regional or local ones, as appropriate
For its part, EPA Region 2 will:
• be an active participant on DEP's NEPPS Steering Committee, to ensure direct
communication and swift resolution of any problems
• work with DEP through its new Environmental Indicators team to ensure indicators'
relevance, technical feasibility, validity and reliability, and to foster compatibility with
New York State indicators in border areas
• provide training and assistance to DEP in ambient monitoring and enforcement
• work with DEP on revising state regulations (for example, to meet ozone and carbon
monoxide standards)
• participate in the Passaic River Watershed Project to address harbor contamination and
instream impact issues, among others, and explore how to deal with non-tidal controls
-------
BREAKOUTS
Five breakout sessions let small groups of stakeholders comment on New Jersey's
NEPPS efforts to date.
Overall Goals of Breakout Sessions
For the three topics in the pilot FY96 Agreement—air quality, water quality, and drinking
water—stakeholder feedback was sought on what to add, drop or revise to the Self-Assessment's
key environmental issues, and the Agreement's environmental goals [general aims, non-
quantitative] and objectives/milestones [respectively, specific qualitative targets, and quantitative
targets with deadlines]. Information on key issues, goals and objectives/milestones was sent to
invitees before the Workshop. Feedback also was sought on the Agreement's environmental
indicators [measures of environmental quality, of problem causes, or institutional responses]. In
addition, it was hoped stakeholders would provide feedback on which objectives should be
quantitative and have target dates (i.e., become milestones); whether to create aggregate
indicators and appropriate formats for communicating indicators; and on future outreach - how
DEP should consult with stakeholders; how DEP should get background information to
stakeholders, and what background information is most helpful. Goals for the two new topics-
site remediation and waste management, and land and natural resources—were similar, but
prospective: for example, key environmental issues to include in the draft self-assessment, or
goals in the FY97 Agreement.
Format of Breakout Summaries
Each breakout summary that follows covers (1) key environmental issues, and (generally)
program strengths and weaknesses; (2) goals; (3) objectives/milestones; and (4) indicators.
Stakeholder comments, presented in standard typeface and text, should not be taken as consensus
statements unless explicitly labeled as such. There was a diversity of opinion in the discussions,
and this document aims at presenting the full range of opinion. Comments on another topic
appear under that topic, rather than under the breakout session where they were made. Generic
comments (on NEPPS overall) appear in a separate section following breakout summaries. In
addition to oral comments during the breakout sessions themselves, surveys were distributed so
participants could provide more comments after attending the workshop and reading the material
provided (including the Agreement). Survey comments are included where appropriate (not
always identified as such).
Material from DEP (whether oral, from the Executive Summary of the Agreement, or the
full Agreement distributed at the workshop) specific to goals, indicators, etc. precedes
stakeholder comments on these topics. Key issues and program strengths/limitations come from
the FY96, or draft ideas for FY97, Self Assessments. For air quality, water quality, and drinking
water, goals, subgoals, and milestones/objectives appear together. Some DEP presentations have
been modified from their workshop form to clarify their meaning, and some material not
presented then (e.g., proposed indicators from FY96 Self-Assessments) has been added for
context. What in the FY96 Self-Assessments and Agreement were labeled pressure, state, and
response indicators have been renamed as "causes," "conditions and effects," and "responses" to
clarify their meaning. All DEP-presented material is in smaller type and in boxes, to distinguish
it from stakeholder comments.
-------
A. Air Quality/Radiation
Facilitator: Jim Bernard. Resources: Joann Held, Bureau of Air Quality Evaluation, Charles Pietarinen,
Bureau of Air Monitoring (DEP); William Baker and Rudy Kapichak, Air Programs Branch (EPA).
Self -Assessment:
KEY ISSUES
DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT AREAS
Carbon Monoxide: five counties, several municipalities; NJDEP asking, based on monitoring data, that these be labeled "attainment"
Ozone: entire state, most "severe" nonattainment (Warren marginal, Atlantic/Cape May moderate); Clean Air Act of 1990 mandates control strategies
depending on status
Particulates: entire state meets EPA's inhalable particulate (PM10) standard, but several municipalities do not meet older Total Suspended Particulate
standard; NJDEP asking that these designations be removed
Sulfur Dioxide: part of Warren County
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Lists of hundreds of compounds with generally known health effects have been developed for regulatory purposes
STRENGTHS
—Baseline program for maintaining air quality
-State Implementation Plan for ozone (Ozone Transport
Commission agreements; promoting cleaner fuels; diesel emission
testing)
-Air toxics (mercury; Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act program;
inspections of high risk point sources)
-Pollution prevention
-Air monitoring network
—Emission trading pilot program
-Compliance assistance (alternative dispute resolution; air permit
amnesty program; voluntary environmental audits or compliance
evaluations; grace periods)
-Air operating permit program
CONSTRAINTS AND WEAKNESSES
—Motor vehicle emissions (low-emission-vehicle production, gasoline type
regulation)
-Out-of-state emissions of ozone precursors
—Possible EPA changes in ambient standards for ozone, particulate (PM-10), and
sulfur dioxide)
-Gaps in ambient air monitoring program
—Environmental indicators for evaluating effectiveness of air quality enforcement
-Mobile source emissions and personal behavior
—Emissions database (Air Pollution Enforcement Database System; Toxic Release
Inventory and Right-to-Know data; emissions statements)
-Information integration
—Expansion of public education efforts
-Fiscal accounting of program activities
Few comments were received on the Self-Assessment as presented at the breakout (the
redesignation of towns under the older particulate standard—raised under "Non-Attainment,"
above—occurred since the Self-Assessment). Suggestions were to add advocacy of good
science to the self-assessment and quantifying of sources. The group discussed how the regional
context (for example, transboundary pollution) will be taken into account in State pollution
control plans, and a strategy for filling gaps in measurement and knowledge. A survey
suggested not adding issues until the current approach had been tested.
Goals/Subgoals
10
-------
Goal: Ensure a high quality of life for the residents of New Jersey by preserving, sustaining, protecting and enhancing the air environment. Air
quality across the state should be healthful for all of its citizens and of sufficient purity not to degrade the quality of life or cause undue
economic loss.
Subgoals:
#1 Bring the entire state into attainment for all criteria pollutants by 2007 and maintain air quality in areas already meeting health standards.
Obj ectives/Milestones
* Attain the air quality standards for ozone
* Attain and maintain the carbon monoxide standards
* Maintain current attainment status for particulate matter
* Maintain current attainment status for lead
* Maintain current attainment status for nitrogen dioxide
* Attain the sulfur dioxide standard statewide
* Alert public to unhealthful air quality conditions
#2 Minimize exposure to toxic air contaminants
Obj ectives/Milestones
* Reduce Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) emitted by major sources by implementing the national Air Toxics program
* Reduce toxics emissions from motor vehicles
* Identify and correct mercury problems related to air emissions
* Identify hotspots of exposure to air toxics and reduce emissions which lead to those exposures
#3 Minimize the adverse effects of air pollution on the quality of life in New Jersey
Obi ectives/Milestones
* Protect visibility in a) the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge Class 1 Area, and b) selected urban areas
* Reduce nuisance complaints (primarily odors and soiling)
#4 Reduce levels of acid deposition
Obi ectives/Milestones
* Reduce regional acid deposition by implementing the federal acid rain program
Goals should be achievable, understandable and time independent, reflect performance,
couple cause and effect, and have all their impacts known. There was disagreement on whether
goals or indicators come first: it is hard to define good goals without evaluation of (good)
indicators.
Some subgoals are to "minimize" exposure or adverse effects, but objectives for those
subgoals say "reduce": subgoals should be modified accordingly; one person felt that
"minimize" was not measurable, and that "acceptable levels" of risk needed better
quantification. One suggestion was that reducing exposure to protect public health should be a
subgoal; another suggested that a subgoal might be to "understand" an issue (i.e., before
responses were formulated). DEP should be proactive on energy, pollution prevention, etc.;
deal with transboundary issues; (in a survey) strongly urge maintenance and strict enforcement
of the 55 MPH speed limit to reduce fuel use and pollution; and acknowledge pollution (e.g..
transport, biogenics) which it cannot control. A survey noted that indoor air quality was not
mentioned at all (DEP plans to add indoor radon and pesticides in the FY97 NEPPS
Agreement). Questions were raised about whether: the goals reflect national, regional, or state
policies (DEP used EPA-developed national goals as a starting point for its own goals); ambient
standards were correct; and if and how carbon dioxide was handled.
Obj ectives/Milestones
These should be measurable; one survey suggested minimum two-year intervals for
milestones, and another felt timetables could be more aggressive. One milestone suggested was
adoption of volatile organic chemicals (VOC) reduction requirements of Clean Air Act
(Sections 182bl and 182c2), as in 9% reduction 1996-1999. Emerging health-based
environmental issues should be acknowledged and addressed.
11
-------
Indicators
Subgoal #1: Bring the entire state into attainment for all criteria air pollutants by 2007 and maintain air quality in areas already meeting health standards.
Objective/Milestone Causes
Conditions and Effects
Responses
Attain the air 1. BASE YEAR EMISSION
quality standards INVENTORY FOR VOLATILE
for ozone ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOQ
AND NITROGEN OXIDES (NOx)
2. PROJECTED EMISSIONS
FOR VOC AND NOx AFTER
STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN (SIP) IMPLEMENTATION
3. Ambient precursor levels
4. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
5. Average precursor emission per
vehicle [F]
6. Stack test data for precursors
1. Ambient ozone levels at 16 sites1
# OF EXCEEDANCES
# of people exposed and duration
2. Emergency room admissions for
asthma attacks [F]
3. Crop and ecosystem injury [N]
1. PROGRESS ON COMPLETION OF
ATTAINMENT PLAN (SIP)
2. Consistency between SIP and transportation plans
and projects
3. Number of required rules promulgated
4. Innovative programs (e.g. emissions trading)
initiated
5. Status of emission statement program
6. Progress in participating in regional solutions
(Ozone Transport Commission, Ozone Transport
Assessment Group)
7. Permits issued limiting precursor emissions
8. % of pollution sources complying with ozone
control regulations [N]
9. Continue implementing Photochemical Assessment
Monitoring Station (PAMS) network and routine
ozone monitoring
Attain and maintain
the carbon
monoxide (CO)
standards
1. Mobile source emissions inventory
2. Average CO emission per vehicle
3. Traffic congestion [N]
4. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
5. % of vehicles passing inspection
1. Ambient CO levels at 16 sites
# OF EXCEEDANCES
# of people exposed and duration
1. Status of motor vehicle control program including
# of Low Emission Vehicles and Zero Emission
Vehicles in fleet
2. STATUS OF ENHANCED I/M PROGRAM
3. STATUS OF MECHANICS TRAINING FOR
I/M
4. Status of redesignation request
5. Results of special LIDAR study for measuring CO
[F]
6. Limit CO emissions through permitting
7. % of sources complying with CO regulations [N]
8. Continue CO monitoring program
Maintain current 1. Total Suspended Particulates
attainment status for (TSP) and PM10 (particulate matter
particulate matter lees than 10 microns diameter)
allowable emissions reported in Air
Pollution Enforcement Data System
(APEDS)
2. TSP and PM10 actual emissions
reported in Emissions Statements
3. Fine particulate emission
inventory [N]
4. Modeling results [Lim]
5.Average particulate emissions by
vehicle type
l.TSP concentrations at 13 sites
2. PM-10 concentrations at 24 sites
# OF EXCEEDANCES
# of people exposed and duration
3. Fine particle (PM-2.5) concentrations
[N]
4. Composition of particles [Lim]
1. Limit particulate emissions through permitting
2. TSP nonattainment designations removed
3. Participate in development of National Ambient
Air Quality Standard for fine particles
4. % of pollution sources complying with particulate
matter regulations [N]
5. Average ug PM/m3 in stack [N]
6. Continue particulate monitoring program
Maintain current 1. allowable emissions of lead
attainment status for reported in APEDS
lead (Pb) 2. Pb actual emissions reported in
Emissions Statements
3. Modeling results [Lim]
1. Lead data at 10 sites
# OF EXCEEDANCES
# of people exposed and duration
2. Accumulation of lead in the
environment [N]
3. Blood lead levels [N]
1. # of sources with potential to cause exceedances
identified in permit process/# of sources evaluated
[Lim]
2. % of pollutant sources complying with lead
regulations [N]
3. Continue lead monitoring program
Maintain current
attainment status for
nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
1. NOx allowable emissions reported
in APEDS
2. NOx actual emissions reported in
Emissions Statements
3. Modeling results [Lim]
1. Nitrogen dioxide data at 10 sites1
# OF EXCEEDANCES1
# of people exposed and duration1
1. Limit NOx emissions through permitting
2. NOx Reasonably Achievable Control Technology
plans reviewed
3. % of sources in compliance with NOx regulations
[N]
4. Average Ib Nox per million BTUs [N]
5.Continue NOx monitoring program
Attain sulfur
dioxide (SO2)
standard statewide
1. SO2 allowable emissions reported
in APEDS
2. SO2 actual emissions reported in
Emissions Statements
3. Modeling results [Lim]
1. SO2dataat 16 sites
# OF EXCEEDANCES
# of people exposed and duration
2. SO2 data collected by Penn. Power
and Light
1. Comments on the Martins Creek power plant
model compliance protocol and model compliance
study
2. Limit SO2 emissions through permitting
3. % of sources complying with SO2 regulations [N]
4. Continue SO2 monitoring program
Indicators in bold capitals will be reported to EPA in FY96; others are possible future indicators. Unless otherwise labeled (N=data not
available; Lim=limited data available; F=feasibility will be explored), data are available with which to report these indicators.
12
-------
Objective/Milestone Causes
Conditions and Effects
Responses
Alert public to
unhealthful air
quality conditions
1. Pollutant emissions (see above)
2. Weather conditions
3. Acute releases
1. AIR POLLUTION LEVELS
CONVERTED TO POLLUTANT
STANDARDS INDEX (PSI)
2. Health advisories
3 Regional air quality reports distributed
by media [N]
1. Timeliness of health advisories [N]
2. Develop a report for television use [F]
Subgoal #2: Minimize exposure to toxic air contaminants
Reduce Hazardous
Air Pollutants
(HAPS) emitted by
major sources by
implementing the
national Air Toxics
program (Title III of
the Clean Air Act
Amendments)
1. Actual emissions from the
toxic release inventory (TRI)
and from the Release and
Pollution Prevention Report
(RPPR)
2. Allowable emissions data
from APEDS
1. Ambient air concentrations for some HAPS at
one Toxic Air Monitoring Site
1. NUMBER OF MAXIMUM ACHIEVEABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (MACT)
STANDARDS DELEGATED
2. NUMBER OF MACT WORKSHOPS FOR
AFFECTED PARTIES & DEP STAFF
3. % of sources complying with MACT standards
[N]
Reduce toxics
emissions from
motor vehicles
1. Mobile source inventory
speciated for air toxics [N]
1. AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS
OF BENZENE, ETC, AT 2 PAMS SITES
2. Ambient air concentrations of other air toxics
from mobile sources [N]
1. Implement heavy duty diesel
Inspection/Maintenance program
2. Number of Heavy Duty Vehicles inspected
3. Evaluate air toxics benefit of federal mobile
source program for motor fuel [Lim]
Identify and correct
mercury problems
related to air
1 .Mercury emission inventory
for stationary sources (1990)
1. Mercury levels in ambient air [Lim]
2. Wet and dry deposition of mercury
emissions
1. # of air sources with potential to contribute to fish
contamination/ # of sources evaluated [Lim]
2. Mercury emission reduction resulting from
implementation of the Control and Prohibition of
Mercury Emissions rule
Identify hot spots of 1. Emissions data from APEDS 1.METALS CONCENTRATION DATA AT 1 .Pilot Geographic Information System mapping
exposure to air
toxics and reduce
emissions which
lead to those
exposures
2. TRI and RPPR data
3. Data from Emissions
Statements [F]
4. Operating Permits [F[
5. Mobile source emissions [N]
9 SITES
2. BENZO(a)PYRENE CONCENTRATION
DATA AT 6 SITES
3. Mercury deposition data [Lim]
4. Ambient air concentrations of benzene, etc. at
2 PAMS sites
5. Mercury levels in fish [Lim]
6. Ambient air concentrations for HAPS [N]
7. Environmental sampling around municipal
waste combustors [Lim]
8. Metals deposited in water bodies [N]
9. Data collected by entities outside DEP [N]
project combining TRI and toxicity data with air
monitoring data [F]
Subgoal #3: Minimize the adverse affects of air pollution on the quality of life in New Jersey
Oobjective/Milestone
Protect visibility in
a) Brigantine
National Wildlife
Refuge (Class 1
Area)
b) selected urban
areas
Reduce nuisance
complaints (primarily
odors and soiling)
Causes
1 . Allowable emissions
reported in APEDS
2. Actual emissions reported
in Emissions Statements
3 . Modeling results [Lim]
4. Emissions data from other
states [Lim]
1 . Complaints received
2. Inventory of odorous and
corrosive substances [N]
Conditions and Effects
1. Visibility monitoring (Visual Range ) [Lim]
2. Observational data [Lim]
1 . Soiling index [N]
Responses
1. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
permit applications reviewed and
coordinated with federal land manager
2. Regional haze plan developed [N]
1. Number of complaints received/resolved
Subgoal #4: Reduce levels of acid deposition
13
-------
Reduce regional 1. Actual NJ emissions of SO2 1. ACIDIC LOADING AND IONIC 1. Phase II permits issued
acid deposition by and NOx as reported by BURDEN IN DEPOSITION DATA 2. Review CEMs plans submitted by Phase II
implementing the Continuous Emissions COLLECTED AT 3 SITES utilities
federal acid rain Monitoring System (CEMS) 3. Observe CEMs performance for Phase II utilities
program 2. Aerometric Information 4. Review certification applications for Phase I and
Retrieval System inventory data Phase II utilities
from upwind states [F] 5. CEMs audits [F]
Given practical limits to accuracy, precision and timeliness of indicators, less than
perfect measures are needed. Flexibility was important to stakeholders: they advised that
DEP's internal use of indicators be flexible, allowing indicators to evolve in response to
changing problems without eliminating any, although there was some question as to whether
conflicting indicators should be included. A question was raised about whether some indicators
were causally related. Additional indicators that reflect the magnitude of the problem, relate to
what can be done, and measure agency performance were encouraged. DEP was urged to
distinguish indicators of factors that it (or others) can and cannot control; design indicators for
several audiences; and limit the number of indicators to priority items. A survey response noted
a need to develop better indicators based on scientific research on interacting factors in elevated
pollution levels, understand what data are needed to develop and evaluate indicators, and collect
data on an ambitious scale.
Human health or biological effects indicators were agreed to be superior to those on
emissions or performance; some felt health should be the only indicator. One health indicator
proposed (already included in DEP's list) was the number of people (or people/hours) exposed
above the ambient air quality standards or exposed to air toxics, and where; another was hospital
admissions (related to pollution levels) for asthma/respiratory distress/cardiac problems. Other
people said asthma admissions and other health indicators may not truly measure DEP success,
and may have other causes than air pollution, requiring scientific data on the proportion caused
by poor air quality. A suggested summary indicator was number of person-days with one or
more exceedences of a national ambient air quality standard. A survey suggestion was that just
about any living thing (either directly, as in tree dieback from acid or plant damage from ozone,
or indirectly, as in mercury accumulation in bird tissue) could be an indicator of air quality that
would be easily understandable to the public. One proposal was to do away with the Pollutant
Standards Index, as being useless to both officials and the public. Another survey suggested that
"indicators of [DEP] success" should include ones not affected by actions outside the state.
As for cause indicators, a survey argued that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is not a good
indicator of air quality (ignores improved vehicle technology and less-polluting fuel), does not
allow a common approach for all emissions sources, results largely from land use, economic and
population changes outside state control, and some efforts to reduce VMT could harm the
economy. Emissions per vehicle-mile seemed to take many of these factors into account. Other
surveys urged inclusion of transboundary sources and measures of airborne contaminants from
other states, and noted that the paniculate indicators focused on stack emissions to the exclusion
of other particulate sources (such as diesel vehicles).
The response indicator of conformity between the State Implementation Plan (for ozone
reduction) and transportation plans was criticized in one survey as simply being a slightly more
flexible way for EPA to count DEP's beans, and thus antithetical to the NEPPS spirit. Less
attention to indicators devoted "to DEP stewardship to EPA" was urged. Reducing the time
14
-------
required to issue permits would be a better focus than the number of permits issued.
15
-------
B. Water Quality
Facilitators: Martin Bierbaum (DEP), Marcus Kantz (EPA). Resources: Karen Schaffer,
Division of Science and Research (DEP); John Malleck, Surface Water Quality Management
Branch, Kevin Bricke, Water Management Division (EPA).
FRESHWATER
WATERSHEDS
(FY96)
GROUND WATER
(FY96)
ESTUARINE
(FY97)
Key Issues
—Standards exceeded in some
streams: fecal coliform,
suspended solids, phosphorus,
pH, mercury (?)
-Accelerated eutrophication of
lakes
-Fish consumption advisories:
organics & mercury;
contaminated sediments
-Aquatic life use impairments
—Habitat alteration (wetlands
losses)
—Exceedences of standards:
nitrate, mercury, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs),
contaminated sites
-Ground-water depletion
-Salt water intrusion
[by National Estuary Program; under review for
NEPPS]
-fecal coliform & toxic contamination in water,
sediments and biota
-fish & shellfish population declines
-coastal birds' impaired reproduction (NY/NJ Harbor
Estuary Program)
-fish & shellfish consumption advisories
—ocean disposal sites for dredge materials (NY/NJ
HEP)
-beach closings/swimmable use impairment
—surface & ground-water supply (Delaware Estuary
Program)
-habitat alterations/current development
Program
Strengths
—reduced point source loadings
-improved compliance under
Clean Water Enforcement Act
—reduced habitat alteration/
wetlands loss
—water quality improvements in
some streams
—ground-water quality
standards
-monitoring data available
—comprehensive regulation of
discharges to ground water
—remediation of contaminated
sites
-ground-water supply planning
[not yet specified]
Program
Limitations
—obstacles to full
implementation of standards
-progress toward watershed
management
-implementation of water-
quality-based effluent
limitations for toxics
-data gaps
—need comprehensive
assessment of ground-water
quality
—remediation challenges
-unidentified pollution sources
-need enhanced public
education
[not yet specified]
Programs
Included
-watershed management
planning
-nonpoint source management
—water quality management
(standards; permitting:
industrial/ municipal surface
water, industrial stormwater,
UIC; enforcement; monitoring
and assessment)
—SRF and construction grants
-clean lakes
—[Self Assessment added:]
freshwater wetlands, industrial
pretreatment, combined sewer
overflow
-ground water quality standards
—ground water supply
-ground water discharge
permitting
—ground water enforcement
-ground water aspects of Site
Remediation Program
-monitoring
-research
National Estuary Program
Self-Assessment
16
-------
Discussion of the Self-Assessment stressed process, since stakeholders had only seen the
Executive Summary. Water consumption, given declining supply, was urged as an additional
item to consider. Non-point source pollution was also noted as a problem of equal magnitude
with permitted point source discharges. Pollution prevention will be included in the FY97 Self
Assessment. DEP's monitoring program network was a concern: despite extensive testing of
many constituents at current sites, these data can be extrapolated to only 8.1% of stream miles.
The sampling design precludes wider generalization, thus limiting development of water quality
indicators.
GOAL: Our water will support human health and uses, such as swimming, fishing, drinking water supply, agriculture and industry. Our
waters will also support ecosystem health by sustaining healthy communities of plants, fish, insects and other animals that depend on the
water. We will conserve existing wetlands and protect threatened and endangered species. It is the goal of the state to restore,
maintain and enhance the chemical, physical and biological integrity of its waters, to protect the public health, to safeguard the
aquatic biota, protect scenic and ecological values, and to enhance the domestic, municipal, recreational, industrial, agricultural
and other reasonable uses of the state's waters.
SUBGOALS:
#1 Protect and enhance aquatic life designated uses.
Milestones/Obi ectives
* By 2005, 75% of assessed river miles will support healthy, sustainable biological communities
#2 Protect recreational designated uses in freshwater watersheds.
Milestones/Obi ectives
* Maintain and improve the number of swimmable stream miles in NJ rivers
* Maintain and improve the current number of lakes suitable for bathing in NJ
* Maintain and improve the aesthetic value of lakes in NJ
#3 Protect fish consumption designated use.
Milestones/Obi ectives
* NJ will continue to evaluate fish tissue for contamination, issue advisories and provide public education
Goals/Subgoals
Several participants raised concerns about the generality of the water goals (a survey
response said these goals could have appeared many years ago), or suggested that a focus on
milestones would be more productive. A suggestion on the subgoal to protect fish consumption
was to add an effort to move fish off advisories, rather than focus solely on education. A
comment on the subgoal for aquatic life was that sewage treatment plants may discharge effluent
that meets permit limits, but nothing can live in the stream due to poor water quality. Additional
goals requested in one survey dealt with infiltration and stormwater management: helping
municipalities (perhaps with Office of State Planning help) develop ordinances to increase
infiltration into groundwater in new developments, and help them de-pave, especially in and
upstream of water supply collection areas and flood-prone areas. A broad discussion of
"community-based environmental management" (the community decides priorities and tradeoffs)
and watershed management occurred. Despite some concern that the latter concept did not
include all environmental issues, it seemed to establish a workable initial context.
Obj ectives/Milestones
Most (see box at top of page) are "objectives" (qualitative); stakeholders wanted more
milestones (quantitative), which DEP said it expected to produce after further analysis of existing
baseline data. DEP responded to questions that the Agreement does discuss activities needed to
17
-------
achieve these milestones and objectives, and that public suggestions on activities would be in the
FY97 NEPPS Agreement. (Joint DEP-citizen monitoring was cited as appropriate for generating
both greater public understanding and movement toward objectives.) DEP acknowledged that
causes were identified in general (i.e., at the state level); stakeholders' concerns that causes of
poor water quality in particular stream reaches would require allocation of more resources to this
important type of assessment. A stakeholder asked how success can be attributed to a given
policy if several regulations had been promulgated, and whether this would be addressed in Self-
Assessments. Finally, one suggestion was to put pollution prevention in each milestone where
appropriate, not in its own section.
DEP clarified that the milestone of 75% of river miles supporting aquatic life uses by
2005 was a 10% increase over current status, as defined from an analysis of three out of New
Jersey's five major river basins. DEP should explore potential conflicts among subgoals and
milestones; an example may be conflict between natural resources use by waterfowl and the
swimmable subgoal on fecal coliform. NEPPS should include consultation with all parties to
ensure agreement on objectives and milestones, and assumptions behind rule implementation.
Other comments were that water quality for different parts of streams must be assessed
differently, since they have different circumstances, and ground water and surface water cannot
be viewed independently.
Indicators
Subgoal: Protect and enhance aquatic life designated uses.
18
-------
Objective/Milestone
s
Causes
Conditions and Effects
Responses
Ml. By 2005, 75%
of assessed river
miles will support
healthy, sustainable
biological
communities.
1. STATUS AND TRENDS OF
MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCE
LOADS OF BIOLOGICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
(BOD)/CARBONACEOUS BOD
Coverage: Statewide
2. Evaluate nonpoint source loads
of conventional parameters (Lim)
3. STATUS AND TRENDS OF
INDUSTRIAL & MUNICIPAL
POINT SOURCE LEVELS OF
ACUTE WHOLE EFFLUENT
TOXICITY (WET) indirect
indicator of toxics loads
4. STATUS OFIN-STREAM
WATER TEMPERATURE (Lim)
Coverage: Freshwater streams
5. STATUS OF LAND USES
(E.G. URBAN, SUBURBAN,
RURAL, AGRICULTURAL,
PRESERVED)
(incorporation of population
assessment into this indicator will
be explored)
Coverage: Statewide
1. STATUS OF ASSESSED
STREAM MILES ATTAINING
AQUATIC LIFE DESIGNATED
USES (Lim) Coverage: Freshwater
streams
2. STATUS AND TRENDS OF
CONVENTIONAL IN-STREAM
WATER QUALITY
PARAMETERS IN ASSESSED
STREAMS. (Lim) Coverage:
Freshwater streams
3. Status of in-stream
concentrations of toxic parameters.
(Lim)
4. STATUS OF SEDIMENT
CONCENTRATIONS OF
SELECTED PARAMETERS IN
ASSESSED SEDIMENTS.
(Lim) Coverage: Freshwater
streams
Explore with Fish, Game &
Wildlife developing 1 or more
(below) reportable:
5. Endangered species act status of
aquatic and wetland species
(crustaceans, bivalves, mollusks)
(Lim)
6. Status and trends offish
populations and reproductive status
(Lim)
7. Number and causes offish kills
(Lim)
1. NUMBER OF WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PROJECTS AND
% OF STATE LAND AREA
COVERED BY THESE PROJECTS,
BY PROJECT TYPE
Coverage: Statewide
2. STATUS AND TRENDS OF
INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL
FACILITIES IN SIGNIFICANT
NON-COMPLIANCE. Coverage:
Statewide
3. INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT TO IMPROVE
WATER QUALITY
Coverage: Statewide
4. IMPLEMENTATION OF
INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER
PERMITTING PROGRAM AND
DEVELOPMENT OF METHOD
FOR EVALUATION OF
PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
(Lim) Coverage: Statewide
5. Evaluate use of Best Management
Practices statewide across levels of
government and coordinate for
consistency.
(Lim)
6. % OF TOTAL WATERS &
NUMBER OF STREAM MILES
ASSESSED USING BIOLOGICAL
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENTS
OVER TIME Coverage: Freshwater
streams
7. CONDUCT RESEARCH TO
DEVELOP AN INDICATOR OF
THE PHYSICAL AND
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF
NONPOINT SOURCES. (Lim)
Coverage: Freshwater streams
Subgoal: Protect recreational designated uses in freshwater watersheds.
Milestones/
Objectives
1 . Maintain and
improve the
number of
swimmable stream
miles
2. Maintain and
improve the
current number of
lakes suitable for
bathing
3 . Maintain and
improve the
aesthetic value of
lakes
Pressure Indicators
(Loadings and other
stressors)
1 . Nonpoint source
contributions of fecal
coliform, nutrients, and
suspended solids to
streams and lakes. (Lim)
2. POINT SOURCE
CONTRIBUTIONS OF
FECAL COLIFORM,
NUTRIENTS AND
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TO SURFACE
WATERS. Coverage:
Statewide
3. STATUS OF LAND
USES (E.G. URBAN,
SUBURBAN, RURAL,
AGRICULTURAL,
PRESERVED)
Coverage: Statewide
State Indicators
(Ambient conditions)
1. STATUS AND TRENDS OF
NUMBER AND % OF
ASSESSED STREAM MILES
MEETING SWIMMABLE
DESIGNATED USE. (Lim)
Coverage: Freshwater streams
2. STATUS OF INCIDENCE
OF DISEASE OUTBREAKS
ASSOCIATED WITH
RECREATIONAL USES OF
WATER
Coverage: Freshwater streams,
public lakes
3. STATUS OF USE
IMPAIRMENT OF PUBLICLY
FUNDED LAKES PROJECTS
(Lim) Coverage: Public lake
Response Indicators/ Activities
1 . Evaluate availability, adoption rate and
implementation of Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for new and existing land-use activities at
various levels of government. (Lim)
2. Explore development of an indicator of
effectiveness of agricultural BMPs. (N?)
3. STATUS AND TRENDS OF MUNICIPAL
FACILITIES WITH SERIOUS VIOLATIONS
AND IN SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIANCE
FOR FECAL COLIFORM Coverage: Statewide
4. Evaluate development of an indicator of
recreational designated use attainment for lake
beaches. (Lim)
5 . Evaluation of alternate pathogen indicators
6. STATUS AND TRENDS OF NUMBER AND
% OF TOTAL WATERS ASSESSED FOR
RECREATIONAL DESIGNATED USE
ATTAINMENT. Coverage: Freshwater streams
Objectives/ Causes Conditions and Effects Responses
Milestones || || ||
19
-------
1. Continue to
evaluate fish
tissue for
contamination,
issue advisories
and provide public
education.
1. STATUS OF
SEDIMENT
CONCENTRATIONS
OF
BIOACCUMULATIVE
TOXINS FOUND IN
FISH TISSUE AT
MONITORING
LOCATIONS (Lim)
Coverage: Freshwater
streams
1. FISH TISSUE
CONCENTRATIONS OF
BIOACCUMULATIVE
CHEMICALS THAT ARE
TOXIC TO HUMANS FOR
MONITORED SPECIES.
(Lim)
Coverage: Freshwater streams
2. % of river miles & lake acres
with advisories by contaminant
(Lim)
1. ISSUANCE OF FISH CONSUMPTION
ADVISORIES AS NEEDED.
Coverage: Freshwater streams
2. CONDUCT PUBLIC EDUCATION ON
CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES.
Coverage: Statewide
3. Investigate sources and causes offish tissue
contamination. (Lim)
4. REPORT ON PRIORITY SETTING AND
DATA DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR FISH
CONSUMPTION DESIGNATED USE
INCLUDING STATUS OF EXISTING
CONDITIONS Coverage: Statewide
NOTE: Designated uses for drinking water supplies are covered in the Drinking Water section.
Indicators in bold capitals will be reported to EPA in FY96; others are possible future indicators. Unless otherwise labeled (N=data not
available; Lim=limited data available; F=feasibility will be explored), data are available with which to report these indicators.
DEP clarified that indicators were chosen for various reasons (e.g., information was
available, they related to the goal, etc), existing data may not be in the needed format yet, and
the table (above) includes several indicators that could be used in the future. DEP was urged to
reflect state-wide indicators on a watershed basis, using geographic information systems, and to
tie cause indicators back to the problem source. DEP was asked why it didn't use the
Chesapeake Bay model of indicators; DEP noted that the two approaches are essentially the
same, but its version uses fewer categories. A stakeholder commented that the "Sneaker Index"
used by Chesapeake Bay—how far can you wade in until you can't see your sneakers?—does not
apply to New Jersey, and DEP should pick something people understand, like trout. DEP needs
to concentrate on determining what the problem is and where it is, since it may vary from area
to area. A survey commented that the indicator system simply repackages EPA performance
measures, indicators were too many (DEP plans to limit the number of indicators used for its
State of the Environment report, intended for the general public), and indicators needed to be
linked both to causes and to responses in each watershed (DEP plans to do this). A survey
suggested that opportunities must be identified for partnerships with the regulated community
to solve problems.
For aquatic life uses, one person pointed out that there were 19 indicators for just one
milestone, making it hard to understand, and suggested reducing this to three indicators and
developing cause and response plans. DEP will use the cause indicator of biological oxygen
demand or carbonaceous biological oxygen demand (BOD/CBOD) loading to start measuring
progress towards the 75% milestone for river miles; although some stakeholders felt it was not
as direct a link as dissolved oxygen, point source loads of BOD/CBOD affect ambient DO
levels. DEP clarified it would report a "conditions" indicator for aquatic life designated uses
using benthic macroinvertebrate data, and that trends would be made available as soon as DEP
had more than one year's worth of data. The amount of pollution eliminated was suggested as a
better response indicator than infrastructure investment to improve water quality; DEP agreed.
Open space (Green Acres purchases, etc.) was proposed as infrastructure investment that
deserves inclusion. In reply to a comment that stream scour and tree removal have
environmental impacts, DEP noted that the cause indicator of land use starts to get at
environmental changes due to population impacts, and more information is expected in FY97
documents. A survey recommended that sludge quality indicators, based on the kind of
numbers appearing in a Winter 1995 NJ Discharger, would be valuable.
C. Drinking Water
Facilitator: John Bourbon (EPA). Resources: Doug McKenna, Drinking Water/Ground Water
Protection Branch (EPA); Sandy Krietzman, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water; Judy Louis,
20
-------
Division of Science and Research (DEP).
Self Assessment:
Key Issues
—maintenance of base program for drinking water quality
-protection of source waters for drinking
—maintenance of adequate water supplies
—identification of important NJ contaminants: microbial contamination, lead, mercury, nitrates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
disinfection byproducts
Program Successes
-promulgating NJ maximum contaminant limits (MCLs) for VOCs, and revising and developing MCLs for 10 contaminants
-adequate water supply
—improved data management
-vulnerability ranking for all community water system (CWS) and nontransient, noncommunity water system (NTNCWS) wells
—maintaining research program on drinking water quality
—continuing water supply loan program
Program Weaknesses
—inflexible EPA regulations
-data management
-working relationship with county and local health agencies
—nonregulatory programs that deal with nonpoint source problems, groundwater management, and groundwater protection
-lack of coordinated program to collect and evaluate information on water quality problems in private wells
—uses of water that do not return it to its water basin of origin
—incomplete understanding of relation between potable water withdrawals and wastewater discharges
As with most state environmental agencies, DEP knows far more about drinking water
quality for public water systems than for private wells. Comparative risk analysis would
identify the critical environmental contaminants in New Jersey and whether public or private
sources (or drinking water) are their most important exposure route. Water supply and source
water protection are vital; one survey response emphasized that ground and surface sources
should be protected from pollution for public health and drinking water quality purposes. The
respondent felt that aquatic organisms seemed a higher priority than drinking water in setting
certain wastewater effluent limits for waters near potable water intakes. A discussion occurred
about how the common variability in test results makes the average of several samples, rather
than just one, more representative of the water quality in public water systems.
21
-------
GOAL: Every person in New Jersey will have safe drinking water.
Milestones/Obi ectives [for public water systems]
* By 2005, 95% of systems will provide water meeting microbiological drinking water standards
* By 2005, 95% of systems will provide water meeting New Jersey chemical drinking water standards
* By 2000, 90% of public water systems will have acceptable compliance evaluations
SUBGOALS:
#1 All source water in New Jersey used for drinking water will be protected from pollution.
Milestones/Obi ectives
* By 2005, 50% of all public water systems will have a fully implemented source water protection plan
#2 Every person in New Jersey should drink water that is free of disease-causing organisms.
Milestones/Obi ectives
* No detectable waterborne disease from the consumption of drinking water
#3 Every person in New Jersey should drink water with lead concentrations less than 15 ppb.
Milestones/Obi ectives
* 1992-2000: reduce the number of samples that exceed the lead action level by 50%
#4 Every person in New Jersey should drink water with nitrate concentrations less than 10 ppm.
Milestones/Obi ectives
* [public community water systems] Reduce number of nitrate concentrations above the standard by 50% by year 2005
* [private wells] Develop plan to address problem of nitrate concentrations by year 2000
#5 Every person in New Jersey should consume water with mercury concentrations less than 2 ppb.
Milestones/Obi ectives
* Determine the extent of mercury contamination in New Jersey private wells by the year 2005
#6 The concentrations of VOCs in finished drinking water shall be below the MCLs.
Milestones/Obi ectives
* [public community water systems] No system will have VOC levels greater than MCLs by 2005
* [private wells] Develop plan to address contamination by VOCs by the year 2005
#7 Every person in New Jersey shall drink water that contains the minimum concentration of disinfection by-products without
compromising microbial safety.
Milestones/Obi ectives [for Community Water Systems only]
* Reduce the running annual average total trihalomethane concentrations to 80 ppb in surface water systems by the year 2000
* Determine concentrations of haloacetic acids in distribution systems
Goals/Subgoals
Goals should be stated so that the goal is capable of being attained. The breakout
members asked that the main goal's wording be changed from "will have" to "should have safe
drinking water." There was disagreement about using "safe" in a goal: some people thought it
means meeting NJ drinking water standards; others thought adding the term obscures a clear
message about where the drinking water program is headed. DEP should clarify that the
numbers in the subgoals were drinking water standards, also called maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs).
Sub goal 1: Drinking water session members recommended defining source water as
both groundwater and surface water, since the goal/milestone/indicators seem to cover only
groundwater, and integrating the source water goal with those for freshwater watersheds. They
also asked whether there is regulatory authority for the activities needed to achieve this goal.
Sub goal 2: Some members asked that the goal be changed from "...is free from
disease-causing organisms" to "...meets microbiological standards," ensuring that goals are
attainable. DEP suggested that some goals may not be attainable but should be striven for (a
view endorsed in a survey).
Sub goal 3: DEP used a lead action level of 15 ppb (for a 1 liter sample in contact with
household plumbing overnight) based on current data collection methods for public water
systems. The only objection was that exposure to lead in private well water may be greater than
in public water supplies, although some members felt including private wells in the goal
statement could give consumers a false sense of safety if lead is not measured this way in
private wells. Discussion of phosphates and zinc as corrosion control inhibitors raised the
question of whether having less lead and copper in water distribution systems is better than
having potentially degraded stream water quality as a result of the addition of these inhibitors to
drinking water.
A discussion of the lack of comprehensive private well drinking water quality data
22
-------
produced two recommendations: (a) state legislation, similar to Ocean County's ordinance
requiring sampling at the time of real estate transfer, and (b) a new subgoal: "Coupled with a
public education outreach effort, a testing program should be initiated for private wells" (there
was no discussion on the frequency or scope of this testing). DEP's intention to explore means
to gather data on mercury, volatile organic chemicals, and nitrate in private wells to determine
the scope of contamination did not fully meet the need. There were no comments on Subgoals
4-7. Stakeholders asked that a subgoal be developed for radiological contaminants.
Obj ectives/Milestones
In general, objectives and milestones (listed under "Indicators," below) were acceptable
except for a question on whether private water systems had been excluded because DEP's
position is that the only reliable sources of drinking water are public water systems. DEP said
this was not the intent; where appropriate, private well issues were addressed as feasible within
resource and regulatory constraints (mercury, volatile organic chemicals and nitrate).
Stakeholders felt other mechanisms within DEP (e.g., County Environmental Health Act) could
be used to discuss the different ways that public and private wells are treated in New Jersey.
Percentages in milestones needed more justification (particularly 50% reduction in lead
samples above the action level, which DEP will adjust as needed based on evaluation of data
since 1992). Future NEPPS Agreements are expected to have a better basis for the percentages
in milestones. A survey response noted that small steps are appropriate for a pilot program, and
more dates (i.e., changing objectives to milestones) can be added as more experience is gained
and more DEP programs are added to NEPPS.
Indicators
DRINKING WATER GOAL: EVERY PERSON IN NEW JERSEY WILL HAVE SAFE DRINKING WATER
Objective/Milestones
A. By 2005, 95% of
the public water
systems will provide
water that meets the
microbiological
drinking water
standards
B. By 2005, 95% of the
public water systems
will provide water that
meets the New Jersey
chemical drinking
water standards
C. By 2000, 90% of
public water systems
will have compliance
evaluations that are
acceptable
Causes
Conditions and Effects
1. PERCENT OF PUBLIC
WATER SYSTEMS
(POPULATIONS) PROVIDING
DRINKING WATER THAT
MEETS ALL
MICROBIOLOGICAL
DRINKING WATER
STANDARDS THROUGHOUT
THE YEAR
1. PERCENT OF PUBLIC
WATER SYSTEMS
(POPULATIONS) PROVIDING
DRINKING WATER THAT
MEETS ALL NJ CHEMICAL
DRINKING WATER
STANDARDS THROUGHOUT
THE YEAR
1. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF
SYSTEMS INSPECTED
(POPULATION) THAT HAVE
ACCEPTABLE COMPLIANCE
EVALUATIONS
Responses
1. Total number of microbiological
monitoring and reporting violations at
Community Water Systems (CWS)
2. Total number of microbiological
Maximum Contaminant Limit (MCL)
violations at CWS
1. Total number of chemical monitoring
and reporting violations at CWS
2. Total number of chemical MCL
violations at CWS
1. NUMBER OF ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS FOR WATER SYSTEMS
THAT HAVE UNSATISFACTORY
COMPLIANCE EVALUATIONS
2. NUMBER OF WATER SYSTEMS
THAT VOLUNTARILY
RETURNED TO COMPLIANCE
3. NUMBER (%) OF NON-
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
INSPECTED IN THE LAST 4
YEARS
23
-------
SUBGOAL 1: ALL SOURCE WATER IN NEW JERSEY USED FOR DRINKING WATER WILL BE PROTECTED FROM POLLUTION
Objectives/
Milestones
Causes
Conditions and Effects
Responses
D. By 2005, 50% of all
public water systems
will have a fully
implemented source
water protection plan
1. Number (%) of
Well Head Protection
Areas (WHPA) with
point sources
discharges (Lim, F)
1. Number of CWS wells where
ground water quality standards are
being met (F)
2. Number of CWS intakes where
surface water quality standards are
being met (F)
1. NUMBER (%) OF CWS WITH
WELL HEAD PROTECTION
PROGRAMS/ WATERSHED
PROTECTION PLANS
a. DELINEATIONS
b. SOURCE INVENTORIES
c. SOURCE MANAGEMENT
PLANS
2. CONDUCT OUTREACH AND
TRAINING ACTIVITIES FOR
COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES,
PURVEYORS AND THE
REGULATED COMMUNITY.
3. DEVELOP GENERIC
GUIDANCE AND MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES FOR SOURCE
MANAGEMENT PLANS.
4. DETERMINE WHICH SURFACE
WATER PURVEYORS MONITOR
THEIR SOURCE WATERS, AND
THE AVAILABILITY OF THE
DATA.
5. DETERMINE WHICH
MONITORING STATIONS USED
BY THE AMBIENT MONITORING
NETWORKS COULD BE USED TO
DETERMINE SURFACE WATER
QUALITY FOR DRINKING
WATER INTAKES.
SUBGOAL 2: EVERY PERSON IN NEW JERSEY SHOULD DRINK WATER THAT IS FREE OF DISEASE-CAUSING ORGANISMS
24
-------
Objectives/
Milestones
E. No detectable
waterborne disease
from the
consumption of
drinking water
Causes
Surface water
1 . Number of intakes with
more than 103 fecal
coliform colony forming
units/ 100 ml in more than
10% of their samples. (F)
2. Number of intakes with
detectable amounts of
human enteric viruses (F)
3. Number of watersheds
with intakes susceptible to
non-point source (NFS)
microbiological loadings
from livestock/domestic
animals (F)
4. Number of publicly
owned treatment works
(POTWs) 1 mile/5 miles
upstream of potable water
intakes (F)
5. Number of upsets at
POTWs upstream of
potable water intakes
6. NUMBER OF
SURFACE WATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
WITHOUT
FILTRATION
Groundwater
7. Number of Tier 1 WHPA
in unsewered areas
8. NUMBER OF CWS
SUPPLY WELLS
UNDER THE
INFLUENCE OF
SURFACE WATER
Conditions and Effects
1. NUMBER OF
WATERBORNE
DISEASE OUTBREAKS
CAUSED BY DRINKING
WATER IDENTIFIED BY
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
Responses
1. PERCENT OF CWS AND NTNCWS
THAT HAVE DISINFECTION.
2. PERCENT OF SURFACE WATER
SYSTEMS BELOW THE MONTHLY
MCL FOR TURBIDITY AND PERCENT
OF MONTHS TREATMENT PLANTS
MEET CHLORINE CONTACT TIME
REQUIREMENTS IN A YEAR
3. NUMBER (%) OF CWS
(POPULATION) WITHOUT AN ACUTE
(FECAL) MCL VIOLATION IN A YEAR
AND NUMBER (%) OF MONTHS
WITHOUT AN ACUTE MCL
VIOLATION IN A YEAR
4. PERCENT OF CWS (POPULATION)
WITHOUT A MONTHLY TOTAL
COLIFORM MCL VIOLATION IN A
YEAR AND PERCENT OF MONTHS
WITHOUT A MONTHLY TOTAL
COLIFORM MCL VIOLATION IN A
YEAR
5. PERCENT OF NONCOMMUNITY
WATER SYSTEMS THAT TAKE AT
LEAST 2 TOTAL COLIFORM
SAMPLES A YEAR
SUBGOAL 3: EVERY PERSON IN NEW JERSEY SHOULD DRINK WATER WITH LEAD CONCENTRATIONS LESS THAN 15 PPB
Objectives/
Milestones
F. In the period from
1992-2000, reduce
the number of
samples that exceed
the lead action level
by 50%
Causes
1. NUMBER (%) OF
SYSTEMS WITH
CORROSIVE WATER
(F)
2. Number (%) of systems
with lead service lines (F)
Conditions and Effects
1. NUMBER (%) OF CWS
(POPULATIONS) AND
NTNCWS WITH LEAD
VIOLATIONS
2. NUMBER (%) OF
SAMPLES WITH LEAD
ABOVE 15 PPB
Responses
1. NUMBER (%) OF SYSTEMS
THAT HAVE SAMPLED FOR LEAD
2. NUMBER (%) OF SYSTEMS
WITH LEAD PROBLEMS THAT
HAVE ( a) SUBMITTED
CORROSION CONTROL PLANS (b)
INSTALLED CORROSION
CONTROL
3. NUMBER OF SYSTEMS THAT
HAVE REPLACED LEAD SERVICE
LINES, AND/OR WATER MAINS
4. NUMBER OF ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS ON SYSTEMS THAT
HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THE
LEAD/COPPER RULE
5. NUMBER OF SYSTEMS
REQUIRED TO CONDUCT PUBLIC
EDUCATION THAT HAVE
COMPLIED
6. EPA Region 2 will conduct a study of
the effectiveness of the public education
programs in the region
SUBGOAL 4: EVERY PERSON IN NEW JERSEY SHOULD DRINK WATER WITH NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS LESS THAN 10
PPM
25
-------
Obj ectives/Milestones
(for CWS, NTNCWS,
TNCWS)
G. Reduce the number of
POEs with nitrate
concentrations above the
MCLin 1993 by 50% by
the year 2005
(for private wells)
H. Develop a plan to
address the problem of
nitrate concentrations in
private wells by the year
2005.
Causes
Groundwater
1. NUMBER (%) OF CWS
WELLS LOCATED IN
SUSCEPTIBLE AQUIFERS
2. Pounds of fertilizer used on
agricultural land, golf courses,
lawns (Lim, F)
Surface water
3. Number of POTWs upstream
of intakes
a.Pounds of nitrogenous
compounds released from
POTWs
b. Concentrations of
nitrogenous compounds at the
intakes (Lim)
1 . Number of wells located in
susceptible aquifers (Lim)
2. Lbs of fertilizer used on
agricultural land, golf courses,
lawns (Lim)
3. Number of municipalities
with domestic well clusters
located in susceptible aquifers
(F)
Conditions and Effects
1. NUMBER (%) OF CWS
(POPULATION) AND
NTNCWS WITH NITRATE
CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN 10 PPM
2. NUMBER (%) OF CWS
AND NTNCWS POEs
WITH NITRATE
CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN 10 PPM
1. The percent of private wells
sampled with nitrate
concentrations greater than 10
mg/1 (Lim)
Responses
1. NUMBER (%) OF CWS
AND NTNCWS THAT HAVE
SAMPLED FOR NITRATE
2. NUMBER OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ON SYSTEMS THAT HAVE
NOT SAMPLED FOR
NITRATE
3. NUMBER OF SYSTEMS
IMPACTED BY NITRATE:
a. SYSTEMS THAT HAVE
INSTALLED TREATMENT
FOR NITRATE
b. SYSTEMS THAT HAVE
SWITCHED SOURCE
WATER DUE TO
NITRATE
c. SYSTEMS THAT HAVE
CONNECTED TO CWS DUE
TO NITRATE
1 . Number of private wells that
have installed treatment or have
been connected to a public water
system (F)
2. Number of counties/
municipalities having ordinances
requiring monitoring at time of
sale
SUBGOAL 5: EVERY PERSON IN NEW JERSEY SHOULD CONSUME WATER WITH MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS LESS THAN
2PPB
Objectives/ Milestones
I. Determine the extent
of mercury
contamination in NJ
private wells by the year
2005.
Causes
1 . Mercury pesticides applied in
susceptible aquifer (Lim)
2. Mercury released from point
source and nonpoint sources
(NFS) (Lim)
Conditions and Effects
1. The percent of private wells
in susceptible aquifers tested
for mercury with
concentrations greater than the
MCL
2. The percent of private wells
in susceptible aquifers tested
for mercury with detectable
concentrations of mercury
Responses
1 . Survey of susceptible aquifers to
determine geographical extent of
mercury contamination
2. Number of water source changes
and/or treatment installed due to
mercury contamination
SUBGOAL 6: THE CONCENTRATIONS OF VOCS IN FINISHED DRINKING WATER SHALL BE BELOW THE MCLS
26
-------
Obj active/Milestone
s
Causes
Conditions and Effects
Responses
(CWS and
NTNCWS)
J. No public water
system will have
levels of VOCs
greater than their
MCLsby2005
1. Number of point source
dischargers (POTWs and
industrial) upstream of potable
water intakes
2. Ibs of VOCs discharged by
point sources upstream of intakes
(F)
3. Number of hazardous waste
sites in WHPA (F)
4. Number of hazardous waste
sites with confirmed
contamination of ground water
(Lim, F)
1. NUMBER (%) OF CWS
(POPULATION) AND
NTNCWS WITH
CONCENTRATIONS OF
VOCS GREATER THAN
THE MCLS AND WITH
DETECTABLE
CONCENTRATIONS OF
VOCS LESS THAN THE
MCLS
2. NUMBER (%) OF POEs
WITH VOCs GREATER
THAN THE MCLS AND
WITH DETECTABLE
CONCENTRATIONS OF
VOCS LESS THAN THE
MCL
1. NUMBER OF:
a. CWS, NTNCWS THAT
HAVE INSTALLED
TREATMENT FOR VOCS
b. CWS, NTNCWS THAT
HAVE SWITCHED TO
ALTERNATE WATER
SOURCES
c. NUMBER OF WELLS
TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE
DUE TO VOC
CONTAMINATION
2. NUMBER (%) OF CWS AND
NTNCWS THAT HAVE
TAKEN AT LEAST ONE VOC
SAMPLE IN THE PERIOD
FROM 1993-1995
3. NUMBER OF
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
TAKEN FOR SYSTEMS THAT
DID NOT MEET THE NJ
STATUTORY ONE YEAR
COMPLIANCE PERIOD FOR
REMEDIATION
(for private wells)
K. Develop a plan to
address the
contamination of
private wells by
VOCs by the year
2005
1. Number of municipalities with
domestic well cluster located in
susceptible aquifers
2. Number of hazardous waste
sites with confirmed
contamination of ground water
1. Percent of private wells
tested with
a. detectable levels of VOCs
b. wells with VOCs above the
MCL
1. Number of letters issued by the
Bureau of Safe Drinking Water for
private wells tested for VOCs
2. Number of county/
municipalities with VOC testing
requirements for sale of property
3. Number of treatment units
installed for VOCs
4. Number of changes of water
SUBGOAL 7: EVERY PERSON IN NEW JERSEY SHOULD DRINK WATER THAT CONTAINS THE MINIMUM CONCENTRATION
OF DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS WITHOUT COMPROMISING MICROBIOLOGICAL SAFETY
Objectives/
Milestones
(CWS only)
L. Reduce the
running annual
average of total
trihalomethane
(TTHM)
concentrations to
80 ppb in surface
water systems by
2000.
M. Determine the
concentrations of
haloacetic acids in
CWS distribution
systems
Causes
1. Number of intakes with total
organic carbon (TOC) concentrations
greater than 4 mg/1 (F)
Conditions and Effects
1. NUMBER (%) OF
SURFACE WATER
SYSTEMS
(POPULATIONS) WITH
TTHM
CONCENTRATIONS
GREATER THAN 80 PPB
Responses
1. NUMBER OF
SYSTEMS THAT HAVE:
a. ALTERED
DISINFECTION
PRACTICES OR OTHER
TREATMENT
PRACTICES IN
RESPONSE TO
ELEVATED TTHM
CONCENTRATIONS
b. NUMBER OF
SYSTEMS THAT HAVE
CONDUCTED PILOT
STUDIES IN RESPONSE
TO ELEVATED TTHM
CONCENTRATIONS
1. Evaluate existing data on
concentrations of haloacetic
acids in the distribution
system
Indicators in bold capitals will be reported to EPA in FY96; others are possible future indicators. Unless otherwise labeled (N=data not
available; Lim=limited data available; F=feasibility will be explored), data are available with which to report these indicators.
There was general agreement on indicators, with stakeholders feeling risk assessment
should affect their selection; DEP explained that risk played a very large role in determining
what parameters to focus on, both in the Self-Assessment and in the NEPPS Agreement.
27
-------
"Compliance evaluation" for the overall goal should be clarified, and the indicator developed
more completely. Indicators in the FY96 NEPPS agreement were chosen based on data
currently collected under the Safe Drinking Water Act regulations; breakout members said
indicators should also be based on future data collection, with limitations on data collected
noted as part of the indicator development.
D. Site Remediation & Waste Management
Facilitators: Mary Ann Rosa (EPA), Mary Sue Topper (DEP). Resources: Dennis Santella,
Program Support Branch (EPA); Tom Sherman, Bureau of Hazardous Waste Engineering,
Dave Sweeney, Bureau of Ground Water Pollution Abatement (DEP).
Draft Key Environmental Issues (for FY97 Self-Assessment)
SITE REMEDIATION
WASTE MANAGEMENT
—releases of contaminants in high enough concentrations (including
catastrophic releases) to pose an acute risk to humans and other life
-releases of contaminants in concentrations that pose chronic risks to
humans and other life
-source areas of highly contaminated environmental media (air, water,
soil) and chemical waste that provide continuing discharges to the
environment
-remedial actions that may cause environmental impacts (transfer
treated water to different watershed; potable water source changes
affecting watershed balance; remedial pumping changing normal
groundwater flow, increased impervious surfaces causing lower
infiltration and greater runoff; increased waste generated due to
removal of contaminated soil and water; modification of wetland and
surface water ecosystems
—inadequate, environmentally unsound disposal practices
—promotion of improved solid waste management (collection,
separation, recovery,
disposal)
—waste of land for disposal
-minimizing hazardous waste generation (process substitution,
materials recovery,
recycling and reuse, treatment)
-proper closure and monitoring of waste disposal facilities
Key issues for stakeholders on site remediation included timing (initiation of the
process—letting sites sit too long, particularly in urban areas; duration in the system—especially
too much spent upfront in studying the site); location (urban vs. suburban priorities); economics
(costs and incentives-such as the incentive to clean up without a responsible party, or lack of
sufficient infrastructure); risk (need for flexible standards to address "real" risks, and take
future site uses into account); information (communication; education; perspective); legislative
and regulatory barriers; prevention; and equity (environmental justice-some felt this would be
addressed by a goal of reducing risk to human health). There was some dispute over the role of
the community: the social context (including locally desired future land uses) should be taken
into account in site remediation, versus government has little or no control over municipal and
developer decisions, regulated parties are unwilling to spend lots of money to redevelop a site
to community specifications, and every site will involve competing interests within the
community.
Issues for waste management included location (where does the waste go?-the "Not in
My Back Yard" response); inadequate information and education; monitoring of industry
activities; continued research and development on recycling and disposal methods; risk
balancing; waste minimization; source reduction; economics; interstate waste flow (Carbone
decision); proper disposal practices; and reduced waste production.
There were suggestions that, despite their links, site remediation should have separate
goals, objectives, and milestones from waste management; overlapping issues can be sorted out
later.
Draft Goals/Subgoals
28
-------
Primary goals were to protect human health and the environment at acceptable levels
using the most cost-effective measures; prevent creation of new sites to remediate (that is, use
pollution prevention as the core of a proactive approach, perhaps with joint involvement of the
community and industry in facility environmental audits); reduce, reuse, recycle, dispose
properly, remediate and redevelop; and return currently unusable land to some socially
productive purpose. There was sentiment to put a high priority on redevelopment of urban
sites, with community involvement and reduction of institutional barriers.
Draft Objectives/Milestones
[Examples from other agencies, for discussion only]:
—federal, state and private cleanups will significantly increase sites and acres remediated
-by 2000, the number of emergency release incidents with adverse offsite consequences will be reduced by 20% compared to 1995
—by 2005, groundwater monitoring will show more sites improving than degrading in quality
-by 2005, X% of existing Y sites on Known Contaminated Sites List will be cleaned up or have construction completed
-by 2005, X% of sites on the (suspected) Contaminated Sites List will have been assessed for the presence of contaminants
—by 2005, the number of accidental releases of hazardous chemicals potentially harmful to humans, animals and plants will be reduced by X% from
1996 levels
—by 2005, confirmed releases from underground storage tanks will be X% lower than in 1996
—by 2005, the number of cleaned up underground storage tank sites will be X% higher than in 1996
For waste management, concern was expressed for harmonizing the development of
standards with those of outside interests (for example, with ISO 14000, ASTM), with EPA,
DEP, and public participation. Encouraging self- assessments by industry also was thought
important.
The means for setting site remediation priorities was not resolved: some felt population
density, exposure and cumulative risk (the total risk that a set of adjacent sites pose to nearby
residents) should be accounted for, while others did not feel urban areas should be ranked
primarily on the basis of risk. Creation of an Office of Brownfield Development in DEP, to
share responsibility with responsible parties, was one possibility mentioned, given that
redevelopment is not entirely—perhaps not even mostly—an environmental issue. Favoring
voluntary cleanup (where private capital is used) over publicly funded cleanup, and studying
how feasibility and liability issues can be addressed so as to encourage new cleanup
technologies, were favored. A survey response suggested target dates for how many sites are
returned to productive use.
Draft Indicators
Site remediation response indicators: dollars spent per unit of risk reduced; time spent to achieve
remediation
A need exists for environmental indicators that show there is a risk to the community,
since without these one doesn't know what the next step should be. Finding feasible measures
for the goal of "reduce the risk" seemed difficult (such as exposure levels versus potential
exposure, or potential risk that has already been managed); some felt that actual risk posed by
these sites is minimal. The number of sites and acreage to be remediated can provide useful
response indicators; density of population near sites can be an indirect measure of risk.
E. Land & Natural Resources
Facilitator: Bruce Herrick (Industrial Ecology Associates). Resources: Harvey Simon, Policy
and Program Implementation Branch (EPA); Bob Tudor, Environmental Planning, Ernie Hahn,
29
-------
Natural and Historic Resources, Rick Kropp, Land Use Regulation (DEP).
Draft Key Environmental Issues (for FY97 Self-Assessment)
—Alteration, loss and creation of coastal and freshwater wetlands
—Ecosystem integrity, biodiversity, and habitat fragmentation and alteration: ecologically unique or threatened places (for example, "last great
places");
threatened and endangered species; exotic species; old growth forests; riparian corridors and headwaters; living resources: diversity; population levels,
toxics
-Open space/recreation: acquisition/maintenance/operation of existing lands (federal parks and wildlife refuges; federal military installations; state
parks
and forests; state wildlife management areas; state natural lands trust properties; private land trust activities); water supply management areas (source
water protection lands); prime agriculture lands; old growth forests; beaches and dunes; public access; cultural/historic landmarks and uses
—Hazards (public safety): flood prone areas; coastal high hazard areas; coastal bluffs
-Environmentally damaged lands: redevelopment; protect/preserve "environs"
Generic issues raised by DEP in opening remarks included: what do we as a state do
with our lands? who should make these decisions, and how? what needs are raised by, or
missing from, current land use laws? Issues raised by stakeholders included: how programs are
using available data and whether they have protected land as a result; the speed of land
"consumption"; how the economics of various land uses (agriculture, parks, etc.) affect the tax
base; incorporating the State Development and Redevelopment Plan into the NEPPS process;
considering links between habitat types; being sure that urban areas are not designated as
"damaged"; and preserving the physical integrity of all lands. A survey commented that
wildlife is "out of control," due primarily to a hunting emphasis, resulting in much stream and
pond pollution; federal and state wildlife agencies need to improve management, rather than set
a bad example for the private sector, which is expected to comply with rules the government
does not follow itself. General comments were that there is a need to define terms
(biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, habitat fragmentation, etc.), and examine the links between
these concepts.
Draft Goals/Subgoals
—Maintain and restore an assemblage of organisms and their habitat that contribute to the ecological diversity, stability, productivity, and aesthetic
appeal of the state.
-To enhance the quality of life for existing and future residents of New Jersey by preserving the open space essential for natural and cultural
resource
protection, provision of public recreation opportunities, and maintaining the state's landscape diversity, and developing the facilities required to
provide
needed recreation opportunities.
-identify the state's historic and natural features and coordinate efforts to protect them through acquisition, rehabilitation and other
methods
—preserve, protect and provide public access to water and water resource features through legislative initiative, regulation, planning and
public
participation, and the acquisition and development of public open space
-Protect the health, safety and welfare of the people who reside, work and visit in floodplains and coastal areas.
The group produced an overall goal of maintaining, enhancing, and restoring
functioning ecosystems and sustainable economies, adding that there is a need to understand the
relationship between these two entities. A survey respondent commented that "the major goal
to cut red tape is admirable and should be developed," but also felt that it would be difficult to
apply NEPPS to fish and wildlife management.
Draft Objectives/Milestones
30
-------
—no net loss of high quality wetlands
—identify problem exotic species; develop plans and disseminate information as appropriate to deal with them
-maintain, protect and restore riparian habitat and stream headwater areas
—by X date, X% of damaged lands will be restored to productive reuse.
-by X date, increase by X% above 1995 levels the acreage of ecologically unique, threatened, and/or important habitats,
including
old-growth forests, either protected or being managed specifically for their environmental integrity.
Among objectives mentioned for functioning ecosystems were: provide incentives to
encourage farmers to maintain farmland acreage; allow no net loss of wetlands, and establish
healthy (in quantity and quality) wetland communities; assemble blocks of land in increments
of 1200 acres to reduce habitat fragmentation; protect ecosystem integrity of private lands;
manage forests to encourage species diversity, and reduce acres lost and fragmentation due to
development; protect coastal waters, watersheds, and headwaters; and target damaged areas for
restoration.
Objectives for sustainable economies included: using incentives to encourage growth
where infrastructure already exists, in consultation with local planning boards and
environmental commissions; increase capacity of development and redevelopment lands within
areas designated as centers under the State Plan, while protecting the environs; evaluate
infrastructure integrity and carrying capacity; and ensure public access to urban recreational and
open space land.
Draft Indicators
Indicators proposed for ecosystem functioning included: annual wetland loss; spatial
and temporal distribution of human activities; and the number and impact of people on the land.
For sustainable economies suggestions were to track what is built, particularly site plan
approvals in state planning areas. General suggestions were made to examine existing systems
for dealing with land to extract possible indicators, and to be sure that people are part of the
indicator system.
-------
Generic NEPPS Comments
This section includes comments and questions by stakeholders—either volunteered or in
response to survey questions—that deal with topics cutting across breakout session topics.
Resource Allocation
Several comments addressed monetary issues. DEP noted that NEPPS will not
immediately shift resources, but in the long run (coupled with the results of comparative risk
analyses) it will. Stakeholders were concerned that there be consultation with them before any
reallocation. They felt without such help DEP managers and constituents will "scramble to
keep what they have," leaving such interprogram areas as monitoring and assessment without
enough money. In addition, there is a need for DEP to check whether its resource allocation
proposals contradict local priorities (for example, land use programs for specific watersheds)
before it makes decisions. Other issues raised concerned how total quality management issues
mesh with NEPPS goals, and the use of human resources in the DEP-EPA implementation
partnership; one participant argued that, while NEPPS may result in savings, it is critical for
progress (rather than bureaucratic shuffling) that the effort not be understaffed and
underfunded, as it appears to be now. Economic costs also need to be a primary issue, in terms
of both the costs of the DEP program and the costs to the environment of inaction or failure to
meet goals, which will be difficult to do. One commentator felt NEPPS would have a greater
impact on improving environmental quality if it set priorities (DEP noted that identification of
key issues is the beginning of a priority-setting process), and focused more on areas of greatest
risk.
Transition from Current to Future Planning and Regulation, and Relation to Regulated
Parties
A majority of survey respondents felt that NEPPS had the potential to significantly
improve environmental quality in New Jersey, although several wondered whether it was overly
ambitious. Some advice was that DEP should not eliminate existing regulatory structure (DEP
notes no such change is planned) until a concrete plan with suitable goals and standards, and
participation of regulated parties, is in place. Such continuing participation was emphasized,
whether with a "core group" (perhaps one that will continuously monitor NEPPS' success) or
simply distributing the workshop report. A couple of people suggested that regulated parties
will have an incentive if they see evidence of a reduced regulatory burden because goals can be
achieved with market-based approaches, and performance standards and other techniques that
allow them to figure out how to comply. A related comment is that NEPPS will have minimal
impact as long as it must operate under command-and-control legislation, such as the Clean Air
Act (particularly if the two processes are simply parallel, and if the impression is correct that
DEP, not EPA, shoulders most of the burden of NEPPS, it could add to the agency's workload
without freeing up resources). Negative impacts could include misuse of information, fear of
changing the regulatory process, and well-meaning groups attacking NEPPS as
environmentally degrading back-sliding; the NEPPS process will need to set realistic goals and
be very tactful. As one survey put it: "The approach is a great intellectual exercise which
should be run in parallel to existing programs and process. Until NJ has a sound environmental
plan that provides real goals and guidelines, policies, etc. to say nothing of resources to
establish and measure real improvements or real disasters in real current terms this whole thing
is too problematic, too scary (e.g., who are you going to blame when lead levels are still
32
-------
astronomical and meanwhile who suffers?)." Another survey suggested that indicators that
drive reform of delivery systems and free up resources, rather than promote existing interests,
are critical to avoid diminishing resources and DEP credibility. The agencies appear to be
committed to reform, but DEP-EPA talks will not get it done; they need many more "customer"
interactions (including other agencies, such as NJ Department of Transportation) to help define
the parameters for that reform. Yet another survey, from a stakeholder who attended the Land
and Natural Resources breakout session, suggested that the state take the lead in environmental
management while federal officials "provide service to do the job." A more general comment
was about the need to plan on a multimedia basis without weakening DEP's expertise in
monitoring specific media. There should be better understanding of how industrial activities
relate to the indicators, and inclusion of non-point as well as point sources (thereby requiring
involving the public, given their impact on transportation, runoff, and other causes).
Extending NEPPS to Local and County Governments
There was some disagreement about how useful this would be in the short run, before it
has had a chance to work at the state level and with DEP lacking a county-level administrative
structure (and county-level cutbacks occurring as well). But a slight majority of commentators
thought there were several benefits to working with lower-level governments, as well as
ANJEC and local environmental organizations, and making lower-level decisionmaking easier
and more responsive: bringing other political units into the process expands the scales at which
indicator data can most appropriately be collected, and can set up a network for public
awareness, "buy in" to the process, creation of stewardship attitudes to environmental
management, and continuing public education.
NEPPS, the General Public, and Public Communication and Education
Participants had mixed feelings about the public's response to NEPPS. Positive
comments were that it should be well received; it will enable citizens to focus on the most
important environmental issues and better understand the progress being made. On the more
pessimistic side, it was felt that a negative reaction would arise from the common belief that
detailed emission enforcement is the only way, or a perception that "The last time they tried to
change I put my all into it and nothing came of it. This won't be any different." Alternatively,
citizens might see NEPPS "as someone else's issue" without extensive outreach and education
concerning pollution sources, lifestyle impacts, and the individual's role in making a difference.
Superimposing regulatory functions on good management strategies would make things very
difficult, in one opinion. The public needs more environmental performance data for evaluation
and action; community-based environmental protection, environmental justice, pollution
prevention, and other approaches all require a different level of accountability than the current
system (or, in one view, the current version of NEPPS). The outcome will depend on the
quality of leadership provided by elected officials, and the quality of public education they are
willing to allow and support (such as explaining indicators clearly and repeatedly). For
example, one person proposed "proper" presentation and reinforcement of NEPPS by the
Governor's office in easily understandable terms, getting support lined up in the NJ legislature
and among local health officials and environmental commissions, and continual
communications on NEPPS and its accomplishments.
Stakeholders in all five breakout sessions had many comments about the need, and need
for improvement in, public communication and education (for example, very limited resources
are currently allocated to public outreach). Aside from these overall goals, they mentioned (1)
33
-------
the need to make relevant information—including "good science"-more accessible; (2) survey
public understanding and environmental awareness, in part to track effectiveness of public
outreach; (3) the public needs to understand its responsibility for creating and dealing with
environmental problems, and empower people to take action to reduce their contribution; (4)
the need to alert the public to the change in approach represented by NEPPS; (5) the need for
equal empowerment of the public, making them part of the process rather than simply talking
about public workshops; and (5) communications should be geared to all levels of public
understanding. Some even suggested having separate milestones and objectives for public
participation: for example, 100% of public should know about NEPPS and related issues by
1999.
Included in such comments were the need to bring the Agreement down to a fact sheet
approach and/or Executive Summary (the executive summary sent to workshop invitees was not
mentioned, and may have been overlooked), and phrasing all materials in plain, non-
bureaucratic English. Goals should be phrased so as to bring them down to the local level,
through such means as GIS.
With respect to these last remarks, DEP had not intended the Self-Assessment document
or the Agreement as means to communicate NEPPS or environmental quality to the public.
Rather, they were intended for audiences—either within agencies or among stakeholders—who
had a professional or avocational interest in environmental management in New Jersey. Other
means to communicate with the general public-such as a State of the Environment Report—will
be based on information in Self Assessments and Agreements, but designed specifically for that
audience.
Cross-Cutting Issues
There was little explicit discussion of cross-cutting issues, but such items as pollution
prevention were mentioned as important in several sessions, and there was some concern about
how to integrate policies or activities that crossed boundaries (for example, pesticides can have
impacts on both air and water quality). One discussion on whether to keep such issues separate
or include them within each "resource" area (air, water, etc.) did not lead to a conclusion.
More generally, there was a statement that environmental considerations should be included in
decision making and planning by institutions other than DEP, and a question as to whether it
made more sense to have interactions with communities about local issues occur program by
program, or to take a more holistic approach. One survey felt that pollution prevention
measures should relate directly to environmental releases, since "non-product impact,"
recycling and other indirect measures are inappropriate, and adding a risk "factor" to release
quantities would help focus attention to "areas of greatest impact." More enforcement
outreach, including non-enforceable information inspections (and indicators for these), would
reduce the need for penalties.
34
-------
NEAR FUTURE OF NEPPS IN NEW JERSEY
Future Outreach
Stakeholders were asked about how DEP and EPA should handle future outreach
concerning NEPPS in New Jersey. On the issue of who should be involved, there was
consensus on the need for broad, diverse, and continuing involvement of all interested parties,
as well as those who should be interested but may not initially see the value of participation
(e.g., municipal officials). Additional groups suggested as outreach targets (several of these
were invited to the workshop; some did not attend or reply) included: municipalities (including
local planning and zoning boards, and local sewage plant managers) and the League of
Municipalities; counties (for example, County Environmental Health Act agencies; planning
boards, especially transportation and energy planners); local civic groups (community-based
organizations, municipal environmental commissions, environmental groups, active watershed
and water research associations); national and statewide civic groups (such as the American
Lung Association and the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, both of
which attended the Workshop); business groups (trade associations, land developers, American
Automobile Association); regional agencies (New Jersey Turnpike Authority, Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission, South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization);
professional groups (Air and Water Management Association, the New Jersey chapter of the
American Water Works Association, county extension agents, American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
and other engineering societies); broadcast and other media; and secondary school teachers. It
was also suggested that outreach on a watershed basis be added to statewide outreach. DEP
should continue to communicate with everyone on the initial invitation even if they were unable
to attend.
Suggestions on how to involve people were equally diverse. Face-to-face meetings of
various kinds were most advocated: (1) additional workshops (whether of this type or at the
local level or for more focused topics); (2) workgroups; (3) an indicators symposium, in which
people make a presentation on their proposed indicators; and (4) get on agenda of other groups'
meetings. Electronic options included (5) Web pages; (6) state bulletin board system; and (7)
bulk e-mail (the Air Quality session collected several e-mail addresses). Written options
included (8) NEPPS newsletter; (9) NJ Outdoors articles; and (10) professional associations'
newsletters; and (11) follow up questionnaire on stakeholders meeting. Using the Green and
Gold Task Force, estuary programs and the ozone action program to reach out to audiences, and
community based planning (similar to the watershed management concept) that involves all
stakeholders were also suggested. Putting NEPPS data and information in GIS format would be
useful. Replication for New Jersey of a British Columbia effort—in which a State of the
Environment report was turned into a videotape broadcast on the national Knowledge Network,
and into an interactive CD-ROM so that interested people could engage in more detailed
examination of indicators—was seen as very useful for explaining the background and
philosophy of NEPPS. A media steering committee could prepare information and promote
media involvement. Attention must be paid to creating incentives for stakeholders to
participate in self-assessment and other NEPPS processes. Finally, one survey felt having a
single person as a "focal point" in DEP for NEPPS outreach and information would be
effective.
35
-------
Future NEPPS Schedule
DEP must submit a FY97 Self-Assessment document (including revision of the FY96
Self-Assessments as well as adding discussion of the two new areas) to EPA Region 2 by mid-
July, 1996. The two agencies must then produce a FY97 Agreement (including goals,
milestones/objectives, and indicators) by October 1, 1996. Current plans for outreach to
stakeholders take into account the need for their feedback as well as agency needs to meet these
deadlines. There will be further outreach after October.
The primary approach planned for further stakeholder input at this time is to schedule
separate meetings between interested stakeholders and particular workgroups—on the topics of
drinking water, water quality, air quality, site remediation, solid and hazardous waste, and land
and natural resources—rather than hold another all-inclusive workshop. Each of these groups
will have a somewhat different agenda, focused on what seem to be the most important topics
to discuss with stakeholders before completing an Agreement with EPA Region 2 to cover the
period from October 1, 1996 to June 30, 1998. These meetings are open; groups may issue
specific invitations to people they particularly wish to contribute to the discussion. Invitations
will include this report and the relevant portion of the FY97 Self-Assessment.
In addition, the FY97 Self-Assessment and other NEPPS-relevant documents will be
placed on DEP's electronic bulletin board, which allows people to download documents, read
about upcoming events and actions, and interact with DEP staff via computer. (To do this, set
your modem communications software for Data Bits:8, Parity:N, Stop Bit: 1, and dial 609-292-
2006; NEPPS information will appear on the Division of Science and Research section of the
bulletin board. If you have questions about dialing the bulletin board, call 609-292-4860; if you
have questions about obtaining NEPPS information not provided on the board, call 609-984-
6071.)
Outreach to the general public will be part of a longer-term communication strategy,
including a proposed State of the Environment report.
Drinking Water-August 6
Stakeholder discussion of, and feedback on, the status of this section of NEPPS will be
the major agenda item at the August 6 meeting of the Drinking Water Quality Institute, from
1:30-4:30 PM at the East Brunswick Public Library. Call Sandy Krietzman (609-292-5550) or
Judy Louis (609-984-3889) for information about this meeting.
Water Quality-August 6
On August 6, 9AM-1PM, a meeting with stakeholders will occur at DEP's Public
Hearing Room in its Trenton headquarters. Invitees will include members of the Clean Water
Council and other stakeholders in water quality, up to 150 people. The tentative agenda
includes (1) a summary of the FY97 Self Assessment (the water quality section of which would
be mailed to invitees), (2) discussion of whether the key issues are comprehensive and really
"key"; (3) feedback on the freshwater indicators, and suggestions for the marine and ground
water indicators to include in the FY97 Agreement, and (4) suggestions for short- and long-
term priorities for the future. A moderator with experience in water issues, but not involved in
NEPPS work on water quality, will conduct the meeting.
This is expected to be the first of several sessions with stakeholders over the next two
years. Another one will be held after the FY97 Agreement is complete, to confirm the key
36
-------
issues, assist with indicator selection, and assist with implementation of the Agreement.
Newsletter articles (e.g., for the NJ Discharger) also will be produced.
Call Karen Schaffer (609-292-9692) or Theresa Fenton (609-292-3859) for information
about this meeting.
Air Quality-August 9
A meeting on August 9, from 9AM-1PM in the DEP's Public Hearing Room, will
include members of the Clean Air Council and other interested parties in discussion of specific
goals and indicators, both those used and proposed in the FY96 Agreement and others that
stakeholders suggest as complements or substitutes. Call Joann Held (609-633-1113) or
Charlie Pietarinen (609-633-7648) for information about this meeting.
Site Remediation-August 14
This group will meet August 14, 9AM-12:30PM, in DEP's Public Hearing Room. Call
Dave Sweeney (609-292-8427) for information about this meeting.
Waste Management-August 21
A discussion of hazardous waste generation and management issues will occur August
21, 1-5PM, in DEP's Public Hearing Room. Call Tom Sherman (609-292-9880) for
information about this meeting.
Land and Natural Resources-September 20
Because of the complexity of the issues, and the range of interested stakeholders and
programs, this meeting requires more preparation than the others, and is less dependent on the
NEPPS deadlines because very few programs are EPA-funded or mandated. Thus their meeting
is scheduled for September 20, 1996, 9-12, in DEP's Public Hearing Room. Call Bob Tudor
(609-984-0058) for information about this meeting.
For questions about the overall implementation of NEPPS in New Jersey, contact Leslie
McGeorge, Division of Science & Research (609-984-6070) or Bryan lanni, Environmental
Regulation (609-292-2795) of DEP, or Dennis Santella of EPA (212-637-3706).
For questions about NEPPS outreach, contact Branden Johnson, Division of Science &
Research (609-633-2324).
37
-------
APPENDIX:
Managing for Environmental Results in NJ: Implementing NEPPS
April 30.1996
Darvene Adams
Narinder Ahuja
Karen Alexander
Clint Andrews
Donald Applegate
Candace Ashmun
William Baker
George Bakun
Sandy Batty
Janine Bauer
Dwight Bedsole
Jorge Berkowitz
James Blumenstock
Renee Bobal
Marilyn Booth
Joseph Boring
Susan Boyle
Peter Brandt
Cheryl Brennan
Kelly Brennan
Marybeth Brenner
Kevin Bricke
Curt Brown
Mike Buccigrossi
Nelson Carrasquello
Gail Carter
Julie Cerf
Donald Clark
Perry Cohn
Ann Cole
Catherine Cowan
Charles Coward Jr.
Dan Cunningham
Marie Curtis
Clifford Day
Joanne Dea
Dona deLeon
PARTICIPANTS
EPA - Region 2
DWQ - DEP
Ogden Projects
Princeton University
NJ Dept. Of Agriculture
NJ Assoc. Of Env. Commissions
EPA - Region 2
Tosco Refining Co.
ANJEC
Tri-State Transportation Campaign
Dupont
Sadat Associates Inc.
NJ Dept. of Health
Hoffman La-Roche
Atlantic Electric
Gloucester County Utilities
SRP - DEP
EPA - Region 2
NJ Dept. Of Transportation
New Brunswick Environmental Commission
OC - DEP
EPA - Region 2
PCP - DEP
EPA - Region 2
Comite de Apoyo A Los
DSR - DEP
Victoria Foundation
Cornucopia Network of NJ
NJDOH
EPA - Office of the Administrator
ER - DEP
Waddell Inc.
Atlantic Electric
NJ Environmental Lobby
US Fish & Wildlife Service
EPA - Regional & State Planning
CO - DEP
38
-------
Tim Dillingham
Marlen Dooley
Ed Dreby
William Dressel Jr
Thomas Drewes
Barry Durham
Steve Eisenreich
Eric Evenson
Jerald Fagliano
Diana Fainberg
Abigail Fair
Beverly Fedorko
Theresa Fenton
Marc Ferko
Robert Ferraiuolo
Ella Filippone
Eugenia Flatow
Nick Finamore
Anne Galli
John Gaston
Mary Gastrich
William Goldfarb
Robert Grasmere
Richard Guindon
Ernest Hahn
Sam Hamill
John Hannig
David Hassenzahl
Mark Hauser
Joann Held
Suzy Hess
Carl a Hobbs
Jeffrey Hoffman
George Horzepa
Bryan lanni
Michelle Infante
Judy Jengo
Branden Johnson
Liz Johnson
Rudy Kapichak
Marjorie Kaplan
Kerry Kirk Pflugh
Marie Kneser
Rao Kolluru
George Korfiatis
Sierra Club/NJ Chapter
ENF - DEP
Friends Env. Working Group
NJ League of Municipalities
USDA Natural Res. Cons. Service
GPU Generation Corp.
Cook College
USGS
NJDOH
Belle Mead Dev. Corp.
ANJEC
CO - DEP
MWA - DEP
OQA-DEP
Hudson Regional Health Dept.
Passaic River Coalition
Coalition for the Bight
DEP
NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Committee
Stony Brook Reg. Sewerage Auth.
OEP - DEP
Rutgers University
NJ State League of Municipalities
Anheuser-Busch Co., Inc.
NHR-DEP
NJ Future
Exxon Company
Princeton University
lYO-EPA/AmeriCorps
AQP - DEP
Hunterdon County Planning Board
Hunterdon County Health Dept.
ENF - DEP
NJ Department of Agriculture
ER - DEP
Rutgers Coop Ext. of Monmouth Cty.
Office of the Governor
DSR - DEP
Thomas Edison St. College
EPA - Region 2
DSR - DEP
DSR - DEP
South Branch Watershed Assn.
CH2M Hill
Stevens Institute of Technology
39
-------
Sylvia Kovacs
Sandy Krietzman
Richard Kropp
Bill Kruse
Henry Kurz
Ronald Lacey
Barbara Lawrence
Peter Lederman
Dick Lee
Paul Lioy
Roger Locandro
Judith Louis
John Malleck
Raymond Mangauelli
David Marino
Bradley Martin
John Maxwell
Leslie McGeorge
Patricia Mcllvaine
Doug McKenna
Roy Meyer
John Middlekoop
Radames Millan
Lance Miller
Linda Morehouse
Terrance Moore
Linda Morgan
Toni Moy
David Mueller
Edward Mullen
Mark Murphy
TavitNajarian
William Neil
Teresa Niedda
Jane Nogaki
Joel O'Connor
Barbara Pastalove
Dolores Phillips
Charles Pietarinen
Sally Price
Monique Purcell
Sam Race
Wendy Raynor
Barbara Rich
Mark Rob son
Genesis Research Institute
WS-DEP
LUR - DEP
Middlesex County Planning Board
Freeholder-Union County
JCP&L Company
NJ Future
HSMRC - NJIT
Mercer Co. Board of Agriculture
EOHSI
Fish and Game Council
DSR - DEP
EPA - Region 2
NJ Clean Air Council
NJ-American Water Co.
DuPont Chambers Works
NJ Petroleum Council
DSR - DEP
GPU Generation Corp.
EPA - Region 2
PCP - DEP
NYS DEC
Greater Newark Conservancy
EPA - Region 2
Bergen County Health Dept.
Pinelands Commission
Regional Plan Assoc/NJ
EPA - Region 2
Exxon Corporation
Elizabethtown Water Company
The Fund for New Jersey
Najarian & Associates
New Jersey Audubon
Farmworker Health & Safety Institute
Right-to-Know Coalition
EPA - Region 2
EPA - Region 2
NJ Environmental Federation
AQM - DEP
Pinelands Preservation Alliance
NJDept. of Agriculture
NJ Dept of Agriculture
CO - DEP
ANJEC
EOHSI
40
-------
Drew Ronneberg
Bob Runyon
Dennis Santella
Karen Schaffer
Rod Sharp
Thomas Sherman
Kevin Schuerman
Thomas Sikorski
Herb Simmens
Bill Simmons
Harvey Simon
Jim Sinclair
Terri Smith
Julia Somers
Linda Stansfield
Steven Strom
Richard Sullivan
Eric Svenson
Colin Sweeney
David Sweeney
Wayne Tamarelli
Edmund Tavernier
Harold Taylor
Kevin Thomas
Robert Tucker
Robert Tudor
Barbara Turpin
Neil Upmeyer
Hank Van Handle
John Verin
Reverend Vilas
Karen Waldron
Audrey Wendoloski
Ronald Williams
Karen Wintress
Nancy Wittenberg
Bill Wolfe
Areta Wowk
P.E. Wyszkowski
Nancy Zimmerman
Princeton University
EPA - Region 2
EPA - Region 2
DSR- DEP
Cook College
DSHW - DEP
Union County Regional Env. Health Comm.
Freeholder - Middlesex County
Office of State Planning
Monmouth County Health Dept.
EPA - Region 2
NJ Business & Industry Assoc.
DSHW - DEP
Great Swamp Watershed Assoc.
American Lung Association of NJ
Rutgers University
New Jersey First Inc.
PSE&G
JCP&L
SRP - DEP
Dock Resins Corp.
Rutgers Cooperative Extension
Riverside Homestead Farm
Cape May County Health Department
EcoPolicy Center - Rutgers University
OEP - DEP
EOHSI
Center for Analysis of Public Issues
Bay way Refinery
Greater Newark Conservancy
St. Paul's Episcopal Church
City of Trenton
LUR - DEP
Middlesex Water Company
American RE-Insurance
NJ Builders Association
NJ Environmental Federation
PCP- DEP
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Victoria Foundation
41
------- |