[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 298-299]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           DO NOT TRANSPORT GEMS LANDFILL POLLUTANTS TO CCMUA

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 8, 2003

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the legislative 
intent of the Comprehensive Environment Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (CERCLA) and specifically on the cleanup of a Superfund 
site in my district, the Gloucester Environmental Management Services 
(GEMS) landfill (EPA Facility ID NJD980529192).
  I strongly oppose the transport of pollutants from the GEMS landfill 
through sewer lines to the Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority 
(CCMUA). I continue to believe that the only responsible option is for 
the GEMS Trust to build an on-site treatment facility that can treat 
the contaminated water to the highest standards possible. Further, I 
call on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), New Jersey 
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and CCMUA to step up and 
protect the public interest by insisting on on-site treatment, and only 
on-site treatment of the contaminants in the landfill. According to a 
letter from EPA Region 2 Administrator Jane Kenney dated November 25, 
2002, the CCMUA is under no legal obligation to accept contaminants 
from GEMS. As such, I continue to urge the CCMUA heed the call of the 
local community and reject any discharge from GEMS.
  The intent of Superfund is to hold polluters responsible for cleaning 
up the damage they have caused to a community. There is no plausible 
reason that a publicly financed municipal utility authority should be 
involved in the remediation process. Furthermore, committing the CCMUA 
to the long term burden of processing unpredictable wastewater is 
inconsistent with New Jersey's efforts to meet federal Total Maximum 
Daily Loads (TMDL) initiatives as prescribed in the Clean Water Act.
  Proponents of the CCMUA treatment option cite water quality tests 
that satisfy permit requirements for discharge to the CCMUA. I believe 
that this testing is inadequate evidence to send the GEMS pollutants 
off-site. It is likely that the customary ``grab samples'' will miss 
radioactive ``spikes'' and that the heavier radio isotopes will 
flocculate in the sludge, which is destined to be sent back into a 
community as part of the state's controversial ``beneficial use'' land 
application sludge policy. It is also predictable that under current 
testing and notification procedures, there will be a significant lapse 
of time from when a problem is detected, its source is determined, the 
flow to the sewer plant halted, and byproduct recipients are notified. 
I am convinced that this testing and monitoring regime will not fully 
protect the community.
  Insufficient review has been given to the synergistic and cumulative 
effects of discharges to CCMUA. Needless to say, any costs related to 
the disruption of the CCMUA system, environmental impairment and legal 
defenses, will immediately be a pass through cost to the CCMUA rate 
payers and ultimately, to New Jersey taxpayers in general. This is a 
risk that I am not will to pass on to my constituents.
  The GEMS Landfill has exposed our community to hazardous material for 
almost 50 years. Today, approximately 38,000 of my constituents live 
within a three mile radius of the GEMS Landfill, some as close as 300 
feet. Unfortunately the community has not been adequately involved in 
the decision making process. Many of my constituents have contacted me 
with their concerns about GEMS and to outline their difficulty in 
obtaining information about the remediation.
  Although the landfill has been closed for 22 years, amazingly we are 
still grappling with how to cleanup the site. The GEMS Trust should not 
get away with a band aid solution to a major environmental hazard. My 
constituents have suffered long enough. I sincerely hope that the EPA, 
NJDEP and constituents meet the responsibility they have to the public 
and to public health by supporting the construction of a treatment 
facility that will contain the pollution and treat it on-site rather 
than spread it around the community by sending it to the constituents. 
If, however, they do not do so, I am prepared to pursue any avenue 
necessary--including legislation or litigation or both--to block this 
unwelcome and risky plan.

[[Page 299]]



                          ____________________