Water Pollution in Minotola, NJ that effected the residential citizens and businesses nearby in the 1980s

Author Biography:

Iona Smith is a graduate student in the School of Management at the New Jersey Institute of Technology in the MBA Program. I also have an MSM degree in Master of Science in Management. I am drawn to write about the water contamination of tetrachloroethylend, trichoichloroethylene, and how it affected the water supply of the citizens in Minotola, NJ, and other establishments nearby.

Final Report:

Iona Smith

I. Intro

II. South Jersey Clothing Company and Pollution;
a. Trichoichloroethylene
b. Tetrachloroethylene
c. SJCC signs Administrative Consent Order

Transition: Public Officials EPA & NJDEP responds to the hazardous condition.

III. Impact on Locals;   

a. Public Health Assessment Performed
b. Water Supply Affected

Transition: The company was established in a non-wealthy community.

IV. Why – Because they are poor;
a. Low income
b. Low levels of education
c. Disenfranchised
d. Lack of Employment
e. Zoning laws

Transition: The residents of Minotola, NJ Responds to the hazardous conditions.

V. What residents did to fight back
a. Some residents refused to pay a fee to use municipal water supply
b. NJ Spill Fund Program
c. Residents respond to Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Survey
d. The citizens expressed their concerns at the NJ Senate Hearing with NJ Governor Thomas Kean
Transition: A hearing was held in Washington to address the toxic waste sites in NJ & I interviewed the US Environmental Protection Agency.

VI. Senator Lautenberg involvement with the EPA
a. Restoring the safety of the resident’s environment
b. NJ added to the NPL
c. Testimony of New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean
d. Interview with US Environmental Protection Agency

VII. Conclusion

Intro To Report
Water is the main essential that every human being needs to live on planet
earth. It is used for cooking, bathing, cleaning, drinking consumption, to
make products and etc. However, when it becomes contaminated with
pollutants, it can have adverse effects on people. It can greatly damage the
quality of life for humans.
It is the responsibility of the local, state, and federal officials to monitor the
quality of life that people are living in. When the bureaucrats fail to protect the
public’s health they are abandoning their job and the community. Water
pollution is supposed to monitored frequently. For example, reports from the
Newark, NJ, lead in the water crisis is an example of the failed bureaucracy.
Another example consists of Minotola, NJ also known as the Bueno Burrough.
The water pollution consists of Trichoichloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene.
Why did this happen in both communities where the local bureaucracy did not
take action earlier to prevent this problem from occurring? This happened
because of the social status of the residents and income inequality. “However, a
fragmented community response to pollution enabled industrial corporations to
maintain high levels of waste generated by diverting their refuse to land-based
sites in poor and minority neighborhoods where popular resistance was weak”
(Hurley 1995).12 Undoubtedly, with the federal government intervention,
contributed to better public policies with regards to water pollution. However,
local mayors had a different perspective with regards to water pollution.” In the
area of water pollution, public policy also contributed to a gradual
improvement in environmental quality, although, in this case, much the
initiative came from federal lawmakers. Except where drinking water was
concerned, city officials paid little attention to water quality” (Hurley 1995). The
main concerned of the local officials were economic prosperity of the local city.
In this research paper, I will discuss why this environmental injustice occurred
in Minotola, NJ, the water contamination problem, the response from local,
state and federal officials, and what was the remedies to fix the problem.

South Jersey Clothing Company and its pollutants
South Jersey Clothing Company is a clothing manufacturing company that
made military uniforms. The store opened in 1941, in Minotola, NJ. However,
while they made uniforms, they also dry cleaned them with chemicals that are
very hazardous. The chemicals consist of Trichoichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene. Most dry-cleaning companies use the chemicals listed
above for sanitation purposes. On the contrary, the company dumped their
wastewater onto the soil and it contained Tetrachloroethylene &
Tetrachloroethylene. They company has been illegally dumping their
wastewater onto the soil, without the permission of the NJDEP. It has been
determined that the company has been performing this activity from 1971 to
1981. “During the ensuing inspection of GSC, which is two blocks south of
SJCC, the owners acknowledged discharging wastes on the ground without
NJPDES permit” (II 2009) . To make matters worse SJCC had a fire in 1972
and their storage tank released a huge amount of toxins into the soil and
drinking water. “SJCC owners reported a fire at the facility in 1979 resulted in
release of an estimated 275 gallons of TCE from an on-site storage tank”
(II 2009).1 The illegal wastewater disposal from the company has also affected
the local residential drinking water considering that some of the wells were link
to the public drinking water. “In humans’ high exposure to high concentrations
of the primary contaminant of concern at the site TCE has been noted to affect
the central nervous system, and to cause eyes, nose, throat irritation”
(Agency 1995).1 PCE has the same effect on humans if they ingest or are
exposed to high levels of this chemical. Residents who used potable wells in
this location, has a high risk of using contaminated water that can make them
sick. Due to the continuous illegal wastewater disposal from SJCC, odors start
to form and become present in the residential drinking water and a resident
from Minotola, NJ called the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. “On April 3, 1981, a resident of the town of Minotola, in Buena
Borough, called the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) and complained of a noxious odor emanating from her drinking water”
(II 2009). 1 Following the telephone call complaint an investigation was done
by the New Jersey Environmental Protection Agency and the US Environmental
Protection Agency. SJCC cooperates with the NJDEP and signs an
Administrative Consent Order” An Administrative Consent Order (ACO) was
signed by the owners of SJCC and NJDEP 1984. As a result of ACO, discharge
of liquid and solid waste has ceased, and surface waste and sludges have been
removed. A groundwater treatment system was put into operation on-site in
July 1985 and has been operating since” (Agency 1995).

Public Officials EPA, NJDEP, & Atlantic County Health Department of NJ responds to the hazardous condition
In May 1981 the NJDEP responds to the complaint from a local Minotola, NJ
resident about pollution that may be present in the residential drinking water.”
Beginning in May 1981, NJDEP sampled potable wells in the vicinity of the
SJCC and discovered TCE in concentrations exceeding levels recommended for
drinking or consumptive purposes (up to 16,000 ppb for an immediately
adjacent well” (Agency 1995). The County of Atlantic Health Department-
Bueno Borrough also did an investigation and found that there were high levels
of contamination present during the water sample test and it did not
accommodate the U.S. EPA volatile organic compound standards. “Further
testing conducted by Buena Borrough in 1982 identified 87 wells which failed
to meet USEPA VOC’s. As a result, a municipal water supply was installed in
late 1984” (Agency 1995).2 In addition to the NJDEP and Atlantic County doing
their water contamination investigation, the USEPA also conducted an analysis
of water samples from the SJCC site. “In 1989, USEPA sampled seven domestic
potable wells (50-71 feed deep) and an irrigation well (208 ft.), Residential well
#1(71 ft.), contained PCE at13 ppb” (Agency 1995).2 After the first investigation
by NJDEP was done, residents of Minotola, NJ received municipal potable
water supply. The USEPA mandates to five-year reviews for the toxic hazardous
clean ups. The first five-year review was implemented in March 2004. The
second five-year review was established in September 2009.

South Jersey Clothing Company was established in a non-wealthy community.
It was established in Minotola, NJ which is a non-wealthy area due to the fact
that it is not listed in one of the top fifteen wealthiest towns of New Jersey. The
top fifteen cities of New Jersey consist of “Millburn, Montgomery, Chatham,
West Windsor, Colts Nectk, Glen Rock, Ridge Wood, Westfield, Millstone,
Holmdel, Franklin Lakes, Warren, Tenafly, Livingston, & Berkely Heights”
(Raychaundri 2019).11 South Jersey Clothing Store was established in this location because it is a
community with low income, low levels of education, high unemployment rate,
and disenfranchisement. According to the EJScreen Report, Minotola, NJ racial
population consists of 80% white, the low income is in 64th percentile in State,
the unemployment rate is in the 92nd percentile in the state, and the education
less than high school is in the 65th percentile. The residents in this community
is subjected to toxic waste and hazardous conditions because of the factors
listed above and makes them socially vulnerable that also attributes to “lack of
access to resources (including information, knowledge, and technology: limited
access to political power and representation; social capital, including social
networks and connections; beliefs and customs building stock and age, frail
and physically limited individuals; and type density of infrastructure and
lifelines” (Susan L. Cutter 2003). The social fabric consists of the social status
of the people that live in their community. It also pertains to how the citizens
respond to loss based on their limited options available to them such as
income, employment, and opportunities available to them on hand by their
location. “The hazard potential is either moderated or enhanced by a
geographic filter site and situation of the place, proximity, as well as the social
fabric of the place. The social fabric includes community experience with
hazards and community ability to respond to cope with recover from and adapt
to hazards, which in turn are influenced by economic, demographic, and
housing characteristics” (Susan L. Cutter 2003). Clearly, the citizens of
Minotola, NJ economics are very limited considering that a lot of citizens are
under educated and unemployed and the housing is very poor due to the fact
that some of the citizens live in trailers. The zoning laws differ in Minotola, NJ
because it is an industrial area. In an industrial area there are many
establishments nearby and unfortunately some of the companies are
hazardous. This affects the quality of life for the citizens because of the waste
that is generated from the establishments in Minotola, NJ. According to
Scholar Robert D. Bullard people of low income live in the locally unwanted
land use areas. In other words, this consists of cities that the affluent people
dose not want to live in because of the pollution and it is considered to be
hazardous living conditions. As a result, the poor has adapted to live in
hazardous conditions unwilling because they cannot afford to live in a healthier
clean environment and they have very little economic opportunities to choose
from. For this reason, the poor has also become a target for political
vulnerability because they had no one to fight for them. “because of their
economic and political vulnerabilities, have been routinely targeted for the
siting of noxious facilities; locally unwanted land uses, or LULUs, and
environmental hazards. People in these communities, in turn are likely to
suffer greater environmental and health risks than in the general population”
(Bullard 1990).10 Consequently, the poor are always placed in the least
desirable places to live because of their economic status, social status, and
their low levels of education. The affluent unfortunately exercises their desires
first and they don’t care how it affects everyone else. Another factor to consider
is that politicians’ views were different about pollution problems. Politicians
were more concerned about the prosperity of economics in their city.
“Ultimately, politicians refused to challenge industry’s environmental practices
because they believed that doing so might jeopardized the economic growth and
undermine the strength of the postwar political coalition” (Hurley 1995).12 In
other words if the politicians interfered with environmental regulations to
address the companies about pollution they felt that their city, state, or county
may not prosper and become stagnate. In addition to this, mayors and other
council representatives felt that managing decomposition was too expensive for
the government and industries. The politicians also felt that they would be held
accountable for the coercion of implementing a new ordinance for a more
habitable environment. “On the rare occasion when a gladly city council
representative raised the issue, other council members and the mayor’s office
quickly quelled discussion by arguing that pollution control was to costly, not
only for the industries, which would be forced to purchase expensive
equipment, but also for local government, which would be held responsible for
enforcing any regulations” (Hurley 1995). Proof of this, the politicians do not
want to be responsible for imposing new regulations for the environmental
reform and they do not want to fix the pollution problem considering that it is
costly. Overall, the private enterprise nor the politicians want to address the
decomposition that is occurring in their city. The politicians are only concerned
about gaining monetary capital. Environmental regulations was not a priority
that was listed on their agenda to address, unless it was a hardship on private
operations. “Given this political context, the only acceptable environmental
reform measures were those that imposed no burden on private enterprise”
(Hurley 1995). As previously stated, industrial economics have contributed
largely to environmental pollution in local cities. Environmental Injustice such
as water pollution that took place in Minotola, was also attributed by the
Industrial Revolution due to the fact that during this period” Sewage flowed in
the streets in some cities while manufacturers dumped waste from factories
into rivers. Water supplies were not tested and protected as they are today”
(James Chen 2022).13 For the most part, the main objective of The Industrial
Revolution was to provide and increase profits. In the same manner, South
Jersey Clothing Store dumped their waste illegally onto the soil of the city of
Minotola and it affected the local water supply of the city. On the contrary,
“historically, city governments in the United States have tended to make
economic growth their priority whereas the specific strategies employed to
attain growth have varied considerably according to time and place. In the City
of Gary, like the City of Minotola, the overwhelming economic importance of US
Steel encouraged public officials to identify industrial production as the key to
local prosperity” (Hurley 1995). This situation also attributes to the zoning
laws. The zoning laws consists of laws that establishments and citizens must
abide by. In this case we are talking about the municipalities zoning laws.
“Zoning is probably the most widely applied mechanism to regulate land use in
the United States. Externalities such as pollution discharges to the air and
water, noise, vibrations, and aesthetic problems are often segregated from
residential areas for the public good” (Bullard 1990). In this case the Zoning
laws were violated because of the pollution that South Jersey Clothing Store
produced called Trichoichloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene. This chemical
affected the local citizens, schools, and other nearby establishments drinking
water. The Zoning law failed to protect the citizens of Minotola, NJ.
As previously stated, South Jersey Clothing Store did not have a permit from
the State of NJ Environmental Protection to dump their toxins onto the soil.
The zoning laws of Minotola, NJ does not permit this, and they did not follow
the city ordinance. On the other hand, they were able to get away with this
unethical behavior because of the location of their establishment. “Zoning,
deed restrictions, and other protectionist land use mechanisms have failed to
effectively protect minority communities, especially low-income minority
communities” (Bullard 1990). In this case they failed to protect the citizens of
Minotola, NJ.
The residents of Minotola, NJ Responds to the hazardous conditions.
The residents refuse to pay a fee to use the municipal water supply. “
(Agency 1995). Residents were advised to hook up to a municipal water supply
at an initial cost of approximately $2,400 with an annual water fee of $240.00.
This figure represented an economic hardship to many residents who well
water was contaminated” (Agency 1995).3 Unquestionably, the Atlantic Health
Department has encountered some resistance from residents enforcing the
restrictions from the wells. Some residents resorted to using other potable wells
and some residents made attempts into recuperating their money back.
“Attempts are being made by residents to recover the service connection and
water cost from the New Jersey Spillfund Program” (Agency 1995).3 The NJ
Spillfund Program Assistance has a requirement to be eligible for help.
Elgibilities include “Damages, the cost of restoration and replacement,
where possible, of any natural resource damaged or destroyed by a discharge”
(NJAC NJDEP-N.J.A.C. 7:1J, Processing of Damage Claims Pursuant to the Spill Compensation and Control n.d.) .
Residents also expressed their concerns to the officials about the
contamination and feels that there are more contributing factors that caused
the waste in their community. For this reason, “a panel of citizens affected by
Superfund Sites showed up to the hearing held in front of the Senate
Committee on the Environmental Public works in the General Assembly
Chambers of the State of NJ Capital”.7 This meeting included the testimony of
the New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean. In this meeting the citizens were able
to express their concerns about the environment where they live and were also
given the opportunity to ask questions about what the state is doing to clean
up their environment.

A hearing was held in Washington to address the toxic waste sites in NJ.
South Jersey Clothing Company is added to the National Priority List for toxic
waste cleanup. There was a meeting in Washington with other government
officials and Senator Lautenberg expressed his concern about getting
assistance from the US EPA called the Superfund. “Now with a tighter law,
coupled with my new position as chairman of the oversight subcommittee, we
can be much more specific about what we ask the EPA the Federal
Environmental Protection” (Times 1987). The South Jersey Clothing Company
was also placed in the Star-Ledger Newspaper on April 14, 1988, EPA ready to
add 10 Jersey tract to superfund cleanup priority list Senator Lautenberg is in a
better position to make sure that NJ gets the proper funding to restore the
toxic waste sites considering the fact that he now holds a position in the
senate. Senator Lautenberg did not like the unsanitary position that New
Jersey is in nor did he like the fact that residents did not know that they are
living by dump sites and what they are being poisoned by. “We believe our
citizens in every community have a right to live without fear of pollution or
contamination from a nearby facility” (Times 1987).6

The testimony of New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean
In addition, there was a hearing held in front of the Senate Committee on the
Environmental Public works in the General Assembly Chambers of the State of
NJ Capital. The capital of New Jersey is in Trenton, New Jersey. This hearing
took place on Monday, June 4, 1984. The Governor of NJ Thomas H Kean
provided his testimony in front of Senator Stafford, Senator Lautenberg,
Senator Bradley, other public officials, and citizens. Governor Kean testimony
was about the” hearing on the issue of hazardous waste cleanup and more
particularly on the vital question of whether the National Superfund Law
should be reauthorized. The governor is saying in the hearing that what the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency budget that was allotted to clean up
the hazardous waste is not enough. The governor is saying that in the State of
NJ it will cost more money to clean up the hazardous conditions. “In the Fiscal
Year 1984, EPA budgeted $150 million for remedial action nationally. By
contrast, New Jersey alone will require $108 million for fiscal year 1985. It is
imperative that the congress act quickly to reauthorize the Superfund Program
this year and get the cleanup process moving in high gear. But can only do so
much without a great deal more federal help is need” (New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean,” Testimony Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works,” United States Senate, Trenton, New Jersey, 1984).
The governor is saying that the cleanup is more extensive than they thought it
would be and what the Federal EPA budgeted was projected was not a good
estimate to complete the cleanup and the funds would be exhausted. “As I
have often stated, I believe the size of the fund available to address the problem
of hazardous waste sites ought to be increased to at least $1.8 billion per year
for five years, for a total of $9 billion, we believe that this level of resources is
the minimum needed to address both sites currently on the national priorities
list as well as sited likely to be added to the list in the next few years” (New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean,” Testimony Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works,” United States Senate, Trenton, New Jersey, 1984).7
The governor is asking for a reauthorization bill due to the fact that it would a
allow the state to receive more assistance of federal monetary assistance.
Under the reauthorization bill if approved, “a state that proceeded would
receive a credit for eligible costs that could be applied to other listed site in the state” (New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean,” Testimony Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works,” United States Senate, Trenton, New Jersey, 1984).7
On the contrary, if the State of New Jersey dose not receive the credit
amendment that they are requiring about the governor is concerned “without a
cost credit amendment, we may lose any chance of recovering these monies
from the federal government” (New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean,” Testimony Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works,” United States Senate, Trenton, New Jersey, 1984).7
The State of NJ could face consequences if the hazardous waste is not clean up
in a timely manner. The Federal Environmental Agency can discipline them for
this. The New Jersey Governor is trying to avoid being disciplined by the
Federal EPA. On June 25, 1987, Senator Lautenberg, Frank presented the
reauthorization bill to the US Senate. “Hazardous Waste Reduction Act –
Requires filings of the annual toxic chemical release forms required under the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to include a toxic
chemical waste reduction and recycling report for each listed toxic chemical for
the preceding calendar year. Requires such report to include information on a
facility-by-facility basis as to the amounts and disposition of each toxic
chemical, including levels of waste reduction and recycling achieved and
expected” (S.1429 – Hazardous Waste Reduction Act, 100th Congress (1987-1988) 1987).8
As a result, from the Testimony of Governor Thomas Kean and Senator
Lautenberg efforts to reauthorize the Superfund was acknowledged by congress
and approved. Congress implemented several changes to the reauthorization of
the Superfund called Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARS).
The following information listed below consist of the changes that were made to
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act.
• “Stressed the importance of permanent remedies and innovative treatment technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites;
• required Superfund actions to consider the standards and requirements found in other State and Federal environmental laws and regulations;
• provided new enforcement authorities and settlement tools;
• increased State involvement in every phase of the Superfund program;
• increased the focus on human health problems posed by hazardous waste sites.
• encouraged greater citizen participation in making decisions on how sites should be cleaned up; and
• increased the size of the trust fund to $8.5 billion” (Protection 2022).9

Interview with US Environmental Protection Agency
On November 21, 2022, at 1:00 pm, I interviewed the US Environmental
Protection Agency using Webex. I asked them a series of questions with regards
to the historical site of South Jersey Clothing Company a historical site, that
once existed in Minotola, NJ. First, I introduced myself to the US
Environmental Protection Agency. I stated my name and then I
told them that I am a current graduate student at New Jersey Institute of
Technology. Next, I stated the purpose of the interview which consists of a
historical site that existed from the 1940’s to late 1997. Afterwards, I asked the
US Environmental Protection Agency Representatives to introduce themselves,
their title and their responsibilities. “All right, I’ll start, I’m Brian Quinn, we’d
call it remedial project manager for South Jersey, Garden State Cleaners my
responsibility was overseeing the clean-up for all the activities, the ground
water and associated soils at the site and up until 2019, September 2020,
when we turned over responsibilities to New Jersey” (Brian Quinn 2022).14 The
next representative consists of Natalie Loney. “This is Natalie Loney on the
community involvement coordinator for the site. My responsibilities is really to
help communities, navigate the Superfund Process” (Loney 2022). Lastly,
the third representative consists of Stephen McBay.’ I am the public affairs
office and help, primarily facilitate with press inquires on the supervised
program. So with that, I’ll put myself on mute and it’ll primarily be Brian and
Natalie speaking today” (McBay 2022). Next, I asked the US EPA
Representatives a series of questions. Question 1: What does the US EPA
stand for? “Well, it’s the Environmental Protection Agency as for as the
acronym goes by. Yes, the United State Environmental Protection” (Quinn
2022). Question 2: When was the US EPA created and what is the primary
function? “It was started with presidential, I think it was an executive order in
1970, by President Nixon to address any kind of environmental site cleanups,
anything that cloud companies had contaminated areas to give a federal
oversight to address these issues to clean up the soils and ground waters to,
that would be impacting” (Quinn 2022). In addition, Natalie the US EPA Rep
added some more information to Question 2 after Brian addressed it first.
“Environmental Protection Agency basically is tasked with protecting human
health in the environment and that’s a very far-reaching responsibility. It
includes cleaning up a Superfund sites, but it also addresses issues in terms of
air regulation, and water regulation, regulating hazardous material, and so it’s
very wide ranging. Not just cleaning up of Super Fund” (Loney 2022). Question
3: When did the US EPA get involved with the South Jersey Clothing Store
water pollution problem? “Uh well, 1 thing I just want to clarify it is called
South Jersey Clothing Company in this case. Uh, but in the early, mid, 80’s,
they noticed there was some contaminated water that they had some bad
smells. People were complaining. So, they took samples of the water and found
that there was some contaminants and did some investigating to find out
where it came from. In 1988, a letter was sent specifically to the South Jersey
Clothing Company the owners of the company. Were looking to do a full
investigation of the area. To which they decided not to participate, and EPA
took the lead to investigate the soil and groundwater to figure out what
contaminants were there” (Quinn 2022). Question 4. As a rule, the US EPA
reaches out to the responsible parties by mail to take the lead in the
investigation to find out what caused the pollution problem. Above all, in this
case South Jersey Clothing Company did not perform any investigation of their
own. As a result, of no response from South Jersey Clothing Company
performing an investigation of their own, the US Environmental Protection
Agency did their own investigation. “We usually let what we call the potentially
responsible parties, take the lead if they can financially do so, and then we over
see that, but in this case, they decline. So, EPA did the process” (Quinn 2022).
Without a doubt, the US EPA explains what recommendations that they
provided to the owners of the South Jersey Clothing Company to clean up the
water pollution. Question 4: What was the recommendation to address the water pollution
problem at the South Jersey Clothing Company? “We call a record of
decision, which is the formal document, that selects the remedy to address the
contamination found at the site for the Superfund Program. We sent the letter
to the owners that one of our intent to do, what’s called a remedial
investigation of feasibility study and that we will oversee it “(Quinn 2022). The
investigation from the US EPA consisted of putting wells in the ground and
taking soil samples to see what are the contaminants affecting the water.
” Depending on what site you’re at, or what your looking for, you put wells in
the ground, you take soil samples, and you try to determine what’s the
contamination that found at the site. And if you can determine the extent of
the contamination, how wide, how long the plume contaminated plume could
be and then that’s in the remedial investigation phase and the feasibility study
state” (Quinn 2022). Particularly, I explained to the US EPA Reps that I found
two remedial investigation and feasibility studies and if they could elaborate on
the two five-year studies that I found with regards to the South Jersey Clothing
Company. “What it is, while you’re doing the remedies every 5 years, EPA is
required by the Superfund Law to revisit the remedy to see if the remedy
working appropriately, if there’s anything needs to be tweaked if there’s any
new information that’s come out. As we move down the pipe, new
contaminants, come on the radar that were there 30, 40 years ago to see if that
something that needs to be addressed to the site” (Quinn 2022). Again, the US
EPA Rep continues to explain the significance of the five-year review. “Then
over the next five years, if there’s anything identified, that is the objective is to
fix those issues by the time the next five-year review rolls around. So, therefore,
at least we keep looking at it and we don’t just blindly let the remedy go on
without revisiting it” (Quinn 2022). Question 5: What is Superfund and when
was it created? “It came, I believe it came under the former US President
Carter Administration, but the purpose is to address abandoned hazardous
waste facilities. For example, let’s say a company was an operation it is no
longer in operation, but it contaminated the ground the soil, the water and
who’s going to clean up that mess? And so basically, the Superfund law was a
tax that was levied originally against chemical companies that they would pay
into this Superfund to finance the cleanup of abandoned facilities” (Loney
2022). Prior to the Superfund, companies were responsible for cleaning up
their own hazardous waste. On the contrary, some operations were closed
down that caused hazardous waste. The US EPA Rep explains the situation
where the operations that caused the waste and are no longer in operation and
who cleans up this contamination. “In the case of where they’re no longer a is
an existing company, or there’s no longer a viable response, responsible party,
the Superfund dollars would go to pay for the cleanup of the contaminated
site” (Loney 2022). As previously stated, the Superfund was started under
President Jimmy Carter. “It was December 11, 1980, Superfund establishment”
(Loney 2022). By the same token, the US EPA Representative also explains the
portion that the federal government pays and how much the state would pay
for the hazardous waste cleanup under the Superfund Program.
Question 6: Was the South Jersey Clothing Company placed on the
National Priority List, if so when? “It was placed on the national
priority list in October 1989” (Quinn 2022). Simultaneously, The US EPA Reps
explain what the national priority list means and how the funds are allocated
efficiently and effectively to the hazardous waste sites by ranking them.
Question 7: Can you explain what the national priority list means?
“That’s a list that’s created of the, I don’t want to say the worst, but the sites
with the greatest need, the biggest extent of contamination that need to be
addressed. They get ranked, as they get on the list, the higher you are the
greater, the more allocation of funds goes to your site. So, once you get to site,
the goal is to get the site off of the list. So that somebody else can come on the
list or money can then be reallocated to other sites as needed. Was just a way
of taking the sites, and rather than just throwing money at everything, lets try
to get targe and use the money in the best way we can most efficient” (Quinn
2022). At this time, the US EPA responds to answer what potable wells are due
to the fact that the residents of Minotola gets their water from potable wells.
Question 8: Can you explain what potable wells are because the residents
of Minotola, NJ receives their water from them and it was contaminated
with pollution? “People who don’t have public water supply, they have a
private well that they drill into the ground and the water is directly from their
well into their house specifically. It doesn’t mean they don’t share it with
anybody else. So, when you have those wells in an area where you have
contamination from a site, it’s most likely going to get into your potable wells to
domestic wells, and then you would be exposed to it with drinking, cooking,
bathing, and so that’s why the next step is to usually remove that point of risk.
(Quinn 2022). The last question consists of the current status of the water
pollution problem in Minotola, NJ and does the State of New Jersey now have
control over this problem. The US EPA address this question. Question 9:
What is the current status of the water pollution problem in Minotola, NJ
and does the State of New Jersey EPA now have control over this
problem? “We transferred the responsibility for the site to New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and they are now the full responsible
people to operate the treatment system. US EPA turned the system over to NJ
EPA in October 2020. The current status for the water pollution is it’s still
there. What happens is there were some stuff, because some site
contamination that they tried to take from some drums and thing that were left
on this property. But that was not sufficient to address it had gotten into the
ground water and had followed the pathway of the groundwater, roughly a mile
or so from the site down and spread. Can’t remember the exact distance.
But so it was lateral and long and that was what needed to be addressed and
they did not have the wherewithal because they declared bankruptcy and there
therefore, EPA came in, under the Superfund laws” (Quinn 2022). The US EPA
Representatives continues to explain how the Superfund law helped addressed
the clean for the South Jersey Clothing Company. South Jersey Clothing
Company “they declare bankruptcy and therefore, US EPA came in, under the
Superfund laws. Natalie said earlier, it could be an abandoned sight, or it be a
site like this where there’s a person who doesn’t have financial means to
address the contamination. And they settle for a small agreement and US EPA
and the state bears the majority of the cost to clean it up” (Quinn 2022). In this
case the South Jersey Clothing Company did not have the financial means to
clean up this hazardous waste site that they produced. They declared
bankruptcy and went out of business in 1997. Consequently, the US
Environmental Protection Agency and the New Jersey State Environmental
Agency bared the cost to cleanup this waste site under the Superfund Law.
As previously stated, The State of NJ Governor Thomas Kean requested for
amendment for additional monetary funds from the federal government
because the hazardous waste cleanup was larger than he thought it was. The
US EPA Representative explains more about the contamination problem and
how much the of the percentage that US EPA pays for hazardous waste
cleanups and how much the State of NJ pays for hazardous waste cleanups. “I
guess the contamination had gone deeper than was expected. So, it was kind of
going past some of the wells that we had installed. So new wells were installed
to address that contamination and they reset the clock. So, in 2010 the
treatment, split I mentioned earlier were US EPA pays 90%, the state paid 10%
started again from 2010 to 2020” (Quinn 2022). In short, another US EPA
review will be done in 2024. “So that was very helpful, Brian that you said
another review was coming up in year 2024. Right, and like I said, every 5
years, we will do this until such time is its methods goals and is probably
removed from the priorities list then we won’t have to do any more 5 year
reviews” (Smith & Quinn 2022).

In conclusion, environmental injustice occurs in many parts of the
United States. However, it is more prone to be found in low-income
areas. As previously stated, people who have low incomes, unemployed, and
under educated are subjected to more inequalities compared to affluent
members of society. Undoubtedly, environmental pollution was to “gravitate to
disadvantage areas: poor, minority, sparsely populated, or politically
underrepresented communities that cannot fight them off and become worse
places to live after they arrive” (Bullard 1990). Whereas, the affluent
members of society can afford to live in cleaner and healthier environments.
Another factor to consider is that the zoning laws are different in affluent areas
vs low-income areas. In an affluent area, certain companies cannot establish a
business there. For example, an incinerator company, dry cleaners, and etc
would not be able to set up these corporation in Morris Plains, NJ because this
is a more affluent area vs Minotola, NJ. Most industrial areas are placed in
non-priority communities that produce toxic waste. This further demonstrates
the environmental injustice inequity. Lastly, scholars tend to focus more on
black and brown communities for environmental injustice inequalities’,
whereas it affects also white communities as well. By the same token, there is
very little coverage about this. Minotola, NJ is a great example of this.

 Works Cited

Agency, New Jersey Environmental Protection. 1995. “Public Health Assement for Garden State Cleaners & South Jersey Clothing Company.” nj.state.gov/health. April 21. Accessed April 10, 2022.

https://www.state.nj.us/health/ceohs/documents/eohap/haz_sites/atlantic/buena_borough/garden_state_cleaners/gsc_sjcc_pha95.pdf.
Brian Quinn, Natalie Loney, & Stephen McBay | US Environmenatal Protection Agents, interview by Iona Smith. 2022. South Jersey Clothing Company (November 21).

Bullard, Robert D. 1990. DUMPING IN DIXIE | Race, Class, and Environmental Quality | Third Edition. Boulder: Westview Press.

Hurley, Andrew. 1995. ENVIRONMENTAL INEQUALITIES. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

II, US EPA Region. 2009. “Superfund Five – Year Review Report South Jersey Clothing Company & Garden Cleaners Sites.” Environmental Protection, New York.

James Chen, Julius Mansa, & Kirsten Rohrs Schmitt. 2022. “Industrial Revolution Definition: History, Pros, and Cons.” investopedia.com. October 02. Accessed November 20, 2022. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/industrial-revolution.asp.

1984. New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean,” Testimony Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works,” United States Senate, Trenton, New Jersey,. June 06. Accessed April 04, 2022. https://governors.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/kean_speech_1984-06-04_USSenSuperfund.pdf.

n.d. “NJAC NJDEP-N.J.A.C. 7:1J, Processing of Damage Claims Pursuant to the Spill Compensation and Control .” NJ.gov. Accessed 04 20, 2022. https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/rules/njac7_1j.pdf.

Protection, United States Environmental Agency. 2022. “The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).” epa.gov. April 25. Accessed October 20, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-amendments-and-reauthorization-act-sara#:~:text=The%20Superfund%20Amendments%20and%20Reauthorization%20Act%20amended%20the%20Comprehensive%20Environmental,)%20on%20October%2017%2C%201986.

Raychaundri, Disha. 2019. “The Wealthiest Towns in NJ., Ranked.” nj.com. June 07. Accessed November 07, 2022. https://www.nj.com/data/2019/06/the-wealthiest-towns-in-nj-ranked.html.

1987. “S.1429 – Hazardous Waste Reduction Act, 100th Congress (1987-1988).” congress.gov. June 25. Accessed October 19, 2022. https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/senate-bill/1429?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22reauthorization+of+Superfund%22%2C%22reauthorization+of+Superfund%22%5D%7D&s=3&r=1.

Susan L. Cutter, Bryan J. Boruff & W. Lynn Shirley. 2003. “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.” Social Science Quaterly 243-261.

Times, The New York. 1987. “LAUTENBERG GETS TOXIC-WASTE ROLE.” nytimes.com. 01 04. Accessed 04 19, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/04/nyregion/lautenberg-gets-toxic-waste-role.html.