To the Editor,
For millions of years, way before man walked this planet; the earth’s climate has gotten warmer and cooler. It is evident that the climate today is growing warmer. Mankind’s influence has played a significant role on the outcomes of the world’s climate.
We know that the earth has gotten warmer in the past 100 years or so. The warmest years of the past century have occurred within the past decade. During this same period the burning of fossil fuels has increased the greenhouse gas content of the earth’s atmosphere, all thanks to man’s activities. The most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, which is known for trapping heat near the planet’s surface.
A substantial amount of the earth’s energy comes from the sun. This energy is absorbed by the land, sea, and air and then reflected back into space. This is all called the earth’s energy budget. The “greenhouse effect” is a part of the energy budget. Just like the glass walls of a greenhouse keep the inner temperature higher than the outside, the earth’s atmosphere catches the energy given off from the earth near the planet’s surface.
Greenhouse gases keep the earth’s average temperature at a hospitable 15 degrees celsius. There is no question that these gases increase the greenhouse effect and add as a contributing factor to global warming. Although, it is uncertain the exact effects the greenhouse gases have had on the global climate.
The data collected indicates that Earth's surface temperature is rising. One of the main causes of this is because of man’s own increase in greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. It is becoming clear that these climactic changes are negatively affecting physical and biological systems worldwide.
In the last century, carbon dioxide and other toxins have been released into the Earth’s atmosphere due to burning coal that is use to help produce electricity. The use of automobiles has also increased climate change. Cars burn a lot of gas in a week and that gas releases carbon dioxide, which is another contributing factor to the planet’s temperature shift. It is evident that the places in the United States that create pollution the most are cities.
Recent studies have also shown how agriculture has played a part in climate change. Methane gas, which is used in agriculture, is produced when bacteria decomposes organic matter. It has been predictable that nearly a quarter of methane gas from human activities is due to livestock and the decomposing animal manure. Paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes are also agricultural processes that could contribute to the release of methane to the atmosphere. The use of fertilizers also leads to higher nitrogen dioxide concentrations.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Camargo
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Saving a Swamp in New Jersey
By Vanessa Camargo
New Jersey is the home of garbage, bumper to bumper routes and toxic waste all over the state. But still there are some good areas of farm and forestland, full of fresh green and wild life. These landscapes were preserved by the campaigns of citizens and a popular taxpayer-funded Green Acres program.
The oldest and first campaign was the struggle to save the Great Swamp. As described in “Saving a Swamp and Other Landmark Campaigns,” the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey planned on turning it into an airport. Neighboring citizens wanted to maintain the peace and quiet of this beauty of a natural world. Neighbors began to organize a campaign to stop the Port Authority from demolishing this natural haven for wildlife. During five years they got the help of over four hundred local organizations in twenty-nine states. They also purchased the main part of land they planned on saving by raising over four million dollars.
This put environmental issues on the map in the years before Earth Day was created in 1970. Stewart L. Udall, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, dedicated the Great Swamp as a national wildlife refuge in 1964. He praised the residents’ campaign for saving a “unique outdoor place” from development. The Great Swamp supporters further raised awareness of the wetlands by holding an event that labeled it as a national wilderness area to make sure that it would stay unharmed. Counties like Morris and Somerset were convinced to go the extra mile by constructing county parks and environmental education centers along the borders.
The spot that the Port Authority claimed needed a new intercontinental airport was conserved as an East Coast rest stop for migratory ducks and geese. The Great Swamp is currently one of the most frequently visited swamplands by birds and birdwatchers. Although the Port Authority’s plan for a new airport fell through, they still managed to serve millions of traveling people by remodeling their major airports in Newark and New York.
A Passaic River historian said that the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge is a memorial to all of those who devoted their time, hard work, and financial support to achieve a dream come true. Democratic Governor Richard J. Hughes said the campaign was the perfect example of how citizen actions can change the outcome of things. The governor got aboard the mission to save the Great Swamp after many of the Republicans had joined.
The Great Swamp salvation was the start of many other environmental projects. The Great Swamp Committee started a statewide protection movement. The New Jersey Conservation Foundation began helping other eco-friendly protestors protect more cherished areas. Many contributors documented the Great Swamp campaign and retold it in a book. So many citizen action events are recorded badly and therefore not featured in U.S. history books.
When Cam Cavanaugh wrote, in Saving the Great Swamp, about how the United States constantly faces plans that threaten areas for jetports or dams or a mall center, she provided information on how activist groups can successfully appeal to government agencies for help. A good way to bring attention to the cause is to advertise it. Try getting politicians and power brokers involved. Make sure to make a statement in the media to be recognized in a public way. And most importantly, try getting others involved, especially organizations that deal with similar matters.
New Jersey is the home of garbage, bumper to bumper routes and toxic waste all over the state. But still there are some good areas of farm and forestland, full of fresh green and wild life. These landscapes were preserved by the campaigns of citizens and a popular taxpayer-funded Green Acres program.
The oldest and first campaign was the struggle to save the Great Swamp. As described in “Saving a Swamp and Other Landmark Campaigns,” the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey planned on turning it into an airport. Neighboring citizens wanted to maintain the peace and quiet of this beauty of a natural world. Neighbors began to organize a campaign to stop the Port Authority from demolishing this natural haven for wildlife. During five years they got the help of over four hundred local organizations in twenty-nine states. They also purchased the main part of land they planned on saving by raising over four million dollars.
This put environmental issues on the map in the years before Earth Day was created in 1970. Stewart L. Udall, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, dedicated the Great Swamp as a national wildlife refuge in 1964. He praised the residents’ campaign for saving a “unique outdoor place” from development. The Great Swamp supporters further raised awareness of the wetlands by holding an event that labeled it as a national wilderness area to make sure that it would stay unharmed. Counties like Morris and Somerset were convinced to go the extra mile by constructing county parks and environmental education centers along the borders.
The spot that the Port Authority claimed needed a new intercontinental airport was conserved as an East Coast rest stop for migratory ducks and geese. The Great Swamp is currently one of the most frequently visited swamplands by birds and birdwatchers. Although the Port Authority’s plan for a new airport fell through, they still managed to serve millions of traveling people by remodeling their major airports in Newark and New York.
A Passaic River historian said that the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge is a memorial to all of those who devoted their time, hard work, and financial support to achieve a dream come true. Democratic Governor Richard J. Hughes said the campaign was the perfect example of how citizen actions can change the outcome of things. The governor got aboard the mission to save the Great Swamp after many of the Republicans had joined.
The Great Swamp salvation was the start of many other environmental projects. The Great Swamp Committee started a statewide protection movement. The New Jersey Conservation Foundation began helping other eco-friendly protestors protect more cherished areas. Many contributors documented the Great Swamp campaign and retold it in a book. So many citizen action events are recorded badly and therefore not featured in U.S. history books.
When Cam Cavanaugh wrote, in Saving the Great Swamp, about how the United States constantly faces plans that threaten areas for jetports or dams or a mall center, she provided information on how activist groups can successfully appeal to government agencies for help. A good way to bring attention to the cause is to advertise it. Try getting politicians and power brokers involved. Make sure to make a statement in the media to be recognized in a public way. And most importantly, try getting others involved, especially organizations that deal with similar matters.
Toxic Legacy: Mob Aspect
By Vanessa Camargo
A few residents of Greenwood Lake were threatened with death and vandalizing after speaking up about trash-hauling trucks carrying chemicals and medical waste and dumping it into the woods. Those who stood up against this crime faced a disturbing reality with the mob since the truck dumpers were linked to them. This is one of the most disturbing elements in the “Toxic Legacy” investigative report by The Record.
According to this report, Mafia transporters had a firm grasp on industrial waste in New Jersey and New York for over a generation. They would carry the toxic trash from factories like Ford and dump it wherever possible. Authorities discovered how they’re rooted into Superfund sites in New Jersey and New York, which costs taxpayers and corporations millions of dollars in waste cleanups.
The Ford plant in Mahwah had thousands of truck-loads for just paint sludge, which made it the biggest hauling contract in the state. Other opportunities for hauling were presented in the 1970s when 15,000 New Jersey businesses produced industrial waste.
Making toxic waste disappear was easy. Haulers could flush it down sewers or bury it with ordinary garbage. They could also pour it into creeks or abandon it in vacant lots. Ford’s waste was dumped in various locations. Truck drivers were ordered to dump things like paint and solvents along streams. The Record did an investigation and found it in the banks of the Hudson in Edgewater and left behind a college in Wanaque. They also buried it in municipal landfills that were solely allowed to accept domestic garbage.
According to state and federal officials, they had a shortage of people to seek this waste that could possibly be running into waterways, wells, or be around homes and woods. According to congressional testimony, New Jersey produced 1.5 billion gallons of liquid toxic waste and chemical sludges in 1977. It would vanish quickly. Haulers would mix waste oils with industrial chemicals and sold it as fuel to New York schools, hospitals, and apartments during an oil shortage in the early 1970s.
A New Jersey State Police detective, Dirk Ottens, witnessed how these haulers would handle their business. The truck containers would be lined with sawdust to absorb the chemicals. He watched as they poured the waste in and clamped sheets of plywood over loads to keep them from spilling. They also put trash on top so they could carry it out into municipal landfills without being noticed.
In 1976, Congress became stricter with disposal laws. They made paperwork a requirement and started tracking where the hazardous waste ended up. The changes ended up having the opposite effect. It actually made it easier for deceitful garbage companies to make a profit.
In the ‘70s, toxic waste became a growing industry for the mob. For decades they had complete control over the garbage industry. The mafia controlled the haulers. They would intimidate others to reserve property rights. The one who transported to a particular address would now own that location for good. If a guy were to go to someone else’s property they would then face endangering the safety of their lives and truck.
A few residents of Greenwood Lake were threatened with death and vandalizing after speaking up about trash-hauling trucks carrying chemicals and medical waste and dumping it into the woods. Those who stood up against this crime faced a disturbing reality with the mob since the truck dumpers were linked to them. This is one of the most disturbing elements in the “Toxic Legacy” investigative report by The Record.
According to this report, Mafia transporters had a firm grasp on industrial waste in New Jersey and New York for over a generation. They would carry the toxic trash from factories like Ford and dump it wherever possible. Authorities discovered how they’re rooted into Superfund sites in New Jersey and New York, which costs taxpayers and corporations millions of dollars in waste cleanups.
The Ford plant in Mahwah had thousands of truck-loads for just paint sludge, which made it the biggest hauling contract in the state. Other opportunities for hauling were presented in the 1970s when 15,000 New Jersey businesses produced industrial waste.
Making toxic waste disappear was easy. Haulers could flush it down sewers or bury it with ordinary garbage. They could also pour it into creeks or abandon it in vacant lots. Ford’s waste was dumped in various locations. Truck drivers were ordered to dump things like paint and solvents along streams. The Record did an investigation and found it in the banks of the Hudson in Edgewater and left behind a college in Wanaque. They also buried it in municipal landfills that were solely allowed to accept domestic garbage.
According to state and federal officials, they had a shortage of people to seek this waste that could possibly be running into waterways, wells, or be around homes and woods. According to congressional testimony, New Jersey produced 1.5 billion gallons of liquid toxic waste and chemical sludges in 1977. It would vanish quickly. Haulers would mix waste oils with industrial chemicals and sold it as fuel to New York schools, hospitals, and apartments during an oil shortage in the early 1970s.
A New Jersey State Police detective, Dirk Ottens, witnessed how these haulers would handle their business. The truck containers would be lined with sawdust to absorb the chemicals. He watched as they poured the waste in and clamped sheets of plywood over loads to keep them from spilling. They also put trash on top so they could carry it out into municipal landfills without being noticed.
In 1976, Congress became stricter with disposal laws. They made paperwork a requirement and started tracking where the hazardous waste ended up. The changes ended up having the opposite effect. It actually made it easier for deceitful garbage companies to make a profit.
In the ‘70s, toxic waste became a growing industry for the mob. For decades they had complete control over the garbage industry. The mafia controlled the haulers. They would intimidate others to reserve property rights. The one who transported to a particular address would now own that location for good. If a guy were to go to someone else’s property they would then face endangering the safety of their lives and truck.
Children's Books and Nature
To the Editor,
I am writing regarding a piece published by KJ Dell’ Antonia titled “Children’s Books Lose Touch with Nature.” I must say how refreshing it is to read something that is as interesting as it is important. Discovering that children’s books offering images of more environmental friendly and natural environments have “all but disappeared” was shocking.
It is no secret that environmental issues are not getting the attention they should be receiving. I think sometimes people get sick and tired of hearing the same complaints about why they should recycle and “go green,” so for them to hear a new spin on an environmental related topic and how it is affecting us is wonderful
This is a topic that I don’t think many people think much about, which is why I am so glad that this writer took the time to research and write about this issue that has been presumed unimportant. Articles like these, which shed new light and research into the realm of nature, can only accomplish good outcomes. I have high hopes that many readers will absorb this material and pay much closer attention to such matters instead of dismissing them as they frequently do.
Sincerely,
Alexis Lopez
I am writing regarding a piece published by KJ Dell’ Antonia titled “Children’s Books Lose Touch with Nature.” I must say how refreshing it is to read something that is as interesting as it is important. Discovering that children’s books offering images of more environmental friendly and natural environments have “all but disappeared” was shocking.
It is no secret that environmental issues are not getting the attention they should be receiving. I think sometimes people get sick and tired of hearing the same complaints about why they should recycle and “go green,” so for them to hear a new spin on an environmental related topic and how it is affecting us is wonderful
This is a topic that I don’t think many people think much about, which is why I am so glad that this writer took the time to research and write about this issue that has been presumed unimportant. Articles like these, which shed new light and research into the realm of nature, can only accomplish good outcomes. I have high hopes that many readers will absorb this material and pay much closer attention to such matters instead of dismissing them as they frequently do.
Sincerely,
Alexis Lopez
Toxic Legacy: What a Shame
By Alexis Lopez
When I see all of the documents and research pertaining to the “Toxic Legacy” reports of hazardous waste from the Ford Motor Company being dumped without any care, I feel sick to my stomach. Although I am not from Ringwood, substantial data that shows the deliberate sneakiness and foul play is concerning. Not only as a New Jersey resident, but as an American, I find the reports appalling.
I’m still having a hard time understanding how claims could have been made that these toxic sites were “taken care of” when that clearly was not the case. It’s also a shame that it took so long to come to this conclusion. I would hate to know that my nine-year-old twin nephews from Bergen County can potentially be playing in copious amounts of paint sludge when they go over to a friends’ house. To me, this revelation is completely and entirely unacceptable.
It is not too much to ask for a clean and safe environment where people live. For those who were assigned to clean up these damaged areas, shame on you. We all have jobs and tasks to attend to in life as adults, and skimping out on those duties is pitiful. I am glad for the research and the data that has been collected thus far, which will help get these areas that are in dire need of help the attention they deserve.
I think such reports give peace of mind to those who have been physically, emotionally and mentally affected by the wrongdoings of the Ford Motor Company. The fact that there are people who are reportedly ill from living in those areas is concerning. This is an event that never should have taken place to begin with, which is costing many innocent people their health and unnecessary grief.
Out of all the materials that I have read about “Toxic Legacy,” the part that strikes me the most is how long Ford was able to get away with this without being “found out,” so to speak. Another reason why I am so appalled has to do with the role the government played in enabling Ford to get away with this toxic behavior. This is an issue which absolutely should have had full attention 40 years ago, and certainly since then.
At this point, due to the negative publicity Ford and the federal government have received, I can only hope that these issues will be evaded no longer. Hopefully now, the rightful steps will be taken to alleviate the hazardous materials that are endangering North Jersey residents. Such disgraceful actions cause me to wonder how many other stories similar to this one are out there, beyond Ringwood, and beyond New Jersey—similar stories that have gone undetected and need immediate attention.
When I see all of the documents and research pertaining to the “Toxic Legacy” reports of hazardous waste from the Ford Motor Company being dumped without any care, I feel sick to my stomach. Although I am not from Ringwood, substantial data that shows the deliberate sneakiness and foul play is concerning. Not only as a New Jersey resident, but as an American, I find the reports appalling.
I’m still having a hard time understanding how claims could have been made that these toxic sites were “taken care of” when that clearly was not the case. It’s also a shame that it took so long to come to this conclusion. I would hate to know that my nine-year-old twin nephews from Bergen County can potentially be playing in copious amounts of paint sludge when they go over to a friends’ house. To me, this revelation is completely and entirely unacceptable.
It is not too much to ask for a clean and safe environment where people live. For those who were assigned to clean up these damaged areas, shame on you. We all have jobs and tasks to attend to in life as adults, and skimping out on those duties is pitiful. I am glad for the research and the data that has been collected thus far, which will help get these areas that are in dire need of help the attention they deserve.
I think such reports give peace of mind to those who have been physically, emotionally and mentally affected by the wrongdoings of the Ford Motor Company. The fact that there are people who are reportedly ill from living in those areas is concerning. This is an event that never should have taken place to begin with, which is costing many innocent people their health and unnecessary grief.
Out of all the materials that I have read about “Toxic Legacy,” the part that strikes me the most is how long Ford was able to get away with this without being “found out,” so to speak. Another reason why I am so appalled has to do with the role the government played in enabling Ford to get away with this toxic behavior. This is an issue which absolutely should have had full attention 40 years ago, and certainly since then.
At this point, due to the negative publicity Ford and the federal government have received, I can only hope that these issues will be evaded no longer. Hopefully now, the rightful steps will be taken to alleviate the hazardous materials that are endangering North Jersey residents. Such disgraceful actions cause me to wonder how many other stories similar to this one are out there, beyond Ringwood, and beyond New Jersey—similar stories that have gone undetected and need immediate attention.
What a Crude World
By Alexis Lopez
A topic I think deserves more attention is the Chevron Ecuador lawsuit over conditions where Ecuadoreans were left living on contaminated lands, due to the oil company Chevron’s careless actions. This occurrence was brought to my attention after seeing the movie Crude.
It is terribly frustrating to see the deception that was going on and the helplessness that the people of Ecuador felt while being forced to live off of potentially fatal lands. To see such awful things happening without the ability to stop it must be a debilitating and terrible feeling. Not only were the unfortunate people of Ecuador left feeling helpless, but also many of them were ill, and many could not afford the health care they needed in order to become healthy again. Furthermore, Chevron would not even take responsibility for the unfortunate results to a problem they were responsible for. Instead, they placed blame on PetroEcuador, the national oil company for Ecuador, and tried completely omitting themselves from the equation.
I have a great deal of empathy for the people who wanted and deserved justice. The people of Ecuador have the right to clean water. I am truly appalled that this catastrophe took place, let alone the length of time in which it persisted. To further delve into what happened, there were oil spills and mass contamination that were ruining innocent people’s lives. The outcomes were beyond catastrophic for this region—causing illnesses, stunting the growth of crops that were an everyday part of their lives and essential for survival, causing skin rashes, causing animals to die and much more.
Images of huge oil pits cast a dismal light on the many unfortunate things that happened during the time of the contamination. In the 2009 film, when I saw how deep into the soil the oil had seeped, allowing this destructive substance to travel to what should be a clean and available water source for the people of Ecuador to drink, cook with, bathe in, took the wind right out of my sails. No one should have to worry about what is in his or her bath water in fear of getting chronically or even fatally ill.
I would have respected Texaco/Chevron so much more had they stood up and taken responsibility for their wrong doings, but instead, they consistently placed blame wherever it was that they could. In specific, Chevron made reference to the oil, stating that you cannot prove that it was Chevron’s oil because the oil “had no logo on it.”
It is especially tough to think about all of the families and people of Ecuador who were directly affected. Crude showed a house that was built basically on top of one of the many oil pits that had formed. Because of this, homeowners were entirely unable to have access to clean and safe drinking water. One of the saddest parts about all of this, is that the people of Ecuador not only felt sorry for the situation they were in as individuals, they were sorrowful for their entire country. The Ecuadoreans were saddened for their fellow people, that they too were dealing with these problems, some of whom were in tougher positions.
These unfortunate people were left to manage and make do with what they now had due to something that was entirely out of their control. Simply put, the entire situation was unfair for the people of Ecuador.
Thankfully, there were people who cared, who were not only from Ecuador but also from the United States. These people fought strongly for the rights of the Ecuadorian people. Justice needed to be served and wrongs were in need of being corrected. As ridiculous as it is that Chevron failed to take responsibility and continued to defend themselves, I think having people outside of Ecuador show they cared, provided Ecuadoreans with an element of solace.
Although the efforts are still on going and will sadly continue to be a pressing issue for at least another ten years, according to observers. Thankfully and reliving, rain collection units and filtration systems have been actively been put into place, providing clean water for at least a fraction of the country. Also, I was glad to discover that Chevron was recommended to pay twenty-seven billion dollars in damages to Ecuador in order to compensate for environmental remediation, excess cancer deaths, and impacts on indigenous culture.
Despite Chevrons attempts to dispute the report, from what I have read about this matter, I feel as though steps are being made towards the right direction for Ecuador. I only wish more could be done and at a more efficient rate. These people deserve justice. I hope all those interested in learning more about this case set the time aside to watch Crude, as it is a powerful movie with a powerful message.
A topic I think deserves more attention is the Chevron Ecuador lawsuit over conditions where Ecuadoreans were left living on contaminated lands, due to the oil company Chevron’s careless actions. This occurrence was brought to my attention after seeing the movie Crude.
It is terribly frustrating to see the deception that was going on and the helplessness that the people of Ecuador felt while being forced to live off of potentially fatal lands. To see such awful things happening without the ability to stop it must be a debilitating and terrible feeling. Not only were the unfortunate people of Ecuador left feeling helpless, but also many of them were ill, and many could not afford the health care they needed in order to become healthy again. Furthermore, Chevron would not even take responsibility for the unfortunate results to a problem they were responsible for. Instead, they placed blame on PetroEcuador, the national oil company for Ecuador, and tried completely omitting themselves from the equation.
I have a great deal of empathy for the people who wanted and deserved justice. The people of Ecuador have the right to clean water. I am truly appalled that this catastrophe took place, let alone the length of time in which it persisted. To further delve into what happened, there were oil spills and mass contamination that were ruining innocent people’s lives. The outcomes were beyond catastrophic for this region—causing illnesses, stunting the growth of crops that were an everyday part of their lives and essential for survival, causing skin rashes, causing animals to die and much more.
Images of huge oil pits cast a dismal light on the many unfortunate things that happened during the time of the contamination. In the 2009 film, when I saw how deep into the soil the oil had seeped, allowing this destructive substance to travel to what should be a clean and available water source for the people of Ecuador to drink, cook with, bathe in, took the wind right out of my sails. No one should have to worry about what is in his or her bath water in fear of getting chronically or even fatally ill.
I would have respected Texaco/Chevron so much more had they stood up and taken responsibility for their wrong doings, but instead, they consistently placed blame wherever it was that they could. In specific, Chevron made reference to the oil, stating that you cannot prove that it was Chevron’s oil because the oil “had no logo on it.”
It is especially tough to think about all of the families and people of Ecuador who were directly affected. Crude showed a house that was built basically on top of one of the many oil pits that had formed. Because of this, homeowners were entirely unable to have access to clean and safe drinking water. One of the saddest parts about all of this, is that the people of Ecuador not only felt sorry for the situation they were in as individuals, they were sorrowful for their entire country. The Ecuadoreans were saddened for their fellow people, that they too were dealing with these problems, some of whom were in tougher positions.
These unfortunate people were left to manage and make do with what they now had due to something that was entirely out of their control. Simply put, the entire situation was unfair for the people of Ecuador.
Thankfully, there were people who cared, who were not only from Ecuador but also from the United States. These people fought strongly for the rights of the Ecuadorian people. Justice needed to be served and wrongs were in need of being corrected. As ridiculous as it is that Chevron failed to take responsibility and continued to defend themselves, I think having people outside of Ecuador show they cared, provided Ecuadoreans with an element of solace.
Although the efforts are still on going and will sadly continue to be a pressing issue for at least another ten years, according to observers. Thankfully and reliving, rain collection units and filtration systems have been actively been put into place, providing clean water for at least a fraction of the country. Also, I was glad to discover that Chevron was recommended to pay twenty-seven billion dollars in damages to Ecuador in order to compensate for environmental remediation, excess cancer deaths, and impacts on indigenous culture.
Despite Chevrons attempts to dispute the report, from what I have read about this matter, I feel as though steps are being made towards the right direction for Ecuador. I only wish more could be done and at a more efficient rate. These people deserve justice. I hope all those interested in learning more about this case set the time aside to watch Crude, as it is a powerful movie with a powerful message.
Dredging Delayed: Pompton Lakes Residents Win Small Victory in Fight for DuPont Cleanup
By Bliss Sando
POMPTON LAKES, NJ – 24 years is a long time to wait for justice to be done, and the residents of Pompton Lakes are still waiting. However, the recent announcement by the federal Environmental Protection Agency that it will reconsider its widely criticized plan to remove 26 acres of contaminated soil from a portion of Pompton Lake gives some residents hope.
Former Mayor Jack Sinsimer and some residents began uncovering DuPont’s pollution in the late 1980’s and since then the small lake community has discovered that it's been left with an inheritance of toxic waste and pollution from the old explosives plant, the former main employer in the town. DuPont’s plant once covered a 576-acre site on elevated ground. The industrial complex closed down in 1994, but during its long operation (mainly under the ownership of DuPont), it leaked hazardous chemicals and heavy metals such as mercury and lead into the surrounding area. These toxins have seeped deep into the soil, groundwater and lake sediment, and have even entered some 400 homes in vapor form.
The northern New Jersey site has not been added to the federal Superfund list, however, despite pleas to the federal government from environmental groups and residents. The Environmental Protection Agency’s website acknowledges the pollution, but claims that substantial progress has already been made to clean up the site and will continue to be made. Residents are not inclined to agree.
For years, DuPont has been taking what residents say are small, insignificant steps toward remediation, and the residents have continued to demand a proper cleanup. Residents worry that if DuPont continues their “cleanup” at this rate, it will take a lifetime or more to complete the decontamination.
Earlier this month, tests were done that confirmed the recontamination of Acid Brook, which runs through the former DuPont site and past several homes. Over 15 years ago, DuPont and the federal government confirmed that this stream was completely cleaned up, yet now toxic metals and chemicals are showing up again, some in dangerous proportions. Specifically PCE, a chemical linked to cancer, was at an unsafe level, according to EPA officials. This proves that DuPont’s small cleanup attempts have been unsuccessful and are simply not enough.
Since the EPA’s tests confirming the recontamination of Acid Brook have been made public, DuPont’s recent application to remove 26 acres of contaminated soil has been scrutinized by the public and was finally delayed. The residents expressed concern about the heavy truck traffic that will result from the dredging. “We’re going to have large trucks coming through residential streets for more than a year,” worries Raymond Bosna, whose home is located on Jefferson Avenue, one of the roads that the trucks will use to carry out the toxic soil. Raymond also worries about his two small children who frequently play outside.
Jeffrey Marsden, the Pompton Lakes borough engineer, expressed his concerns in a February 3 letter about possible damage to residential roads by the 4,000 trucks that will be needed to carry out the soil and the spread of contaminated dust throughout the neighborhood, among others.
In addition to these concerns, many residents believe that the EPA’s original plan for this dredging was insufficient. Former Governor James Florio and well-known environmental activist Lois Gibbs recently endorsed the residents’ pleas to add the site to the Superfund list.
More support for the critics of the EPA and DuPont came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS field supervisor J. Eric Davis Jr. called the plan inadequate, and described the soil dredging as only “an important first step.” Davis wrote, “[T]he Service does not believe that the proposed remedial action, as currently planned, will completely address historic releases, nor be sufficient to protect against future injury.”
The original proposal called for approximately 68,000 cubic yards of highly contaminated soil and sediment to be removed from a lake delta created by Acid Brook, along with 7,800 additional cubic yards from the shore. All of this would take place inside a 26-acre area.
Lisa Riggiola, of the grassroots group Citizens for a Clean Pompton Lakes, stated: “The important thing is that the entire lake is cleaned up. It's 250 acres, not just the 26 acres they're talking about.” She also stated that, “of course,” the DuPont plant site itself must be cleaned up as well.
The major flaw residents point to in the EPA’s plan is the fact that DuPont’s former plant site has yet to be cleaned up. Consequently, since the plant sits on top of a hill, the highly concentrated contaminants there have found their way downhill toward the lake, particularly via the Acid Brook. The recontamination of the Acid Brook only supports this theory. However, the EPA plans to clean up a small area of the lake and shore, which sits at the bottom of the hill, despite the fact that this area will probably continue to receive new contaminants from uphill/upstream.
Dana Patterson, the toxic coordinator for the Edison Wetlands Association, said that “If they don’t address the source first, the plant, then the lake could just become re-contaminated.”
Patterson said that the Edison Wetlands Association, an environmental organization which has been assisting residents in their campaign for a full cleanup, is “excited” about the recently announced delay of the dredging. However they, along with many residents, still worry about the incomplete nature of the EPA’s original plan.
Residents and environmental organizations hope to keep the public pressure on the EPA and DuPont until they agree to a complete cleanup of the area.
POMPTON LAKES, NJ – 24 years is a long time to wait for justice to be done, and the residents of Pompton Lakes are still waiting. However, the recent announcement by the federal Environmental Protection Agency that it will reconsider its widely criticized plan to remove 26 acres of contaminated soil from a portion of Pompton Lake gives some residents hope.
Former Mayor Jack Sinsimer and some residents began uncovering DuPont’s pollution in the late 1980’s and since then the small lake community has discovered that it's been left with an inheritance of toxic waste and pollution from the old explosives plant, the former main employer in the town. DuPont’s plant once covered a 576-acre site on elevated ground. The industrial complex closed down in 1994, but during its long operation (mainly under the ownership of DuPont), it leaked hazardous chemicals and heavy metals such as mercury and lead into the surrounding area. These toxins have seeped deep into the soil, groundwater and lake sediment, and have even entered some 400 homes in vapor form.
The northern New Jersey site has not been added to the federal Superfund list, however, despite pleas to the federal government from environmental groups and residents. The Environmental Protection Agency’s website acknowledges the pollution, but claims that substantial progress has already been made to clean up the site and will continue to be made. Residents are not inclined to agree.
For years, DuPont has been taking what residents say are small, insignificant steps toward remediation, and the residents have continued to demand a proper cleanup. Residents worry that if DuPont continues their “cleanup” at this rate, it will take a lifetime or more to complete the decontamination.
Earlier this month, tests were done that confirmed the recontamination of Acid Brook, which runs through the former DuPont site and past several homes. Over 15 years ago, DuPont and the federal government confirmed that this stream was completely cleaned up, yet now toxic metals and chemicals are showing up again, some in dangerous proportions. Specifically PCE, a chemical linked to cancer, was at an unsafe level, according to EPA officials. This proves that DuPont’s small cleanup attempts have been unsuccessful and are simply not enough.
Since the EPA’s tests confirming the recontamination of Acid Brook have been made public, DuPont’s recent application to remove 26 acres of contaminated soil has been scrutinized by the public and was finally delayed. The residents expressed concern about the heavy truck traffic that will result from the dredging. “We’re going to have large trucks coming through residential streets for more than a year,” worries Raymond Bosna, whose home is located on Jefferson Avenue, one of the roads that the trucks will use to carry out the toxic soil. Raymond also worries about his two small children who frequently play outside.
Jeffrey Marsden, the Pompton Lakes borough engineer, expressed his concerns in a February 3 letter about possible damage to residential roads by the 4,000 trucks that will be needed to carry out the soil and the spread of contaminated dust throughout the neighborhood, among others.
In addition to these concerns, many residents believe that the EPA’s original plan for this dredging was insufficient. Former Governor James Florio and well-known environmental activist Lois Gibbs recently endorsed the residents’ pleas to add the site to the Superfund list.
More support for the critics of the EPA and DuPont came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS field supervisor J. Eric Davis Jr. called the plan inadequate, and described the soil dredging as only “an important first step.” Davis wrote, “[T]he Service does not believe that the proposed remedial action, as currently planned, will completely address historic releases, nor be sufficient to protect against future injury.”
The original proposal called for approximately 68,000 cubic yards of highly contaminated soil and sediment to be removed from a lake delta created by Acid Brook, along with 7,800 additional cubic yards from the shore. All of this would take place inside a 26-acre area.
Lisa Riggiola, of the grassroots group Citizens for a Clean Pompton Lakes, stated: “The important thing is that the entire lake is cleaned up. It's 250 acres, not just the 26 acres they're talking about.” She also stated that, “of course,” the DuPont plant site itself must be cleaned up as well.
The major flaw residents point to in the EPA’s plan is the fact that DuPont’s former plant site has yet to be cleaned up. Consequently, since the plant sits on top of a hill, the highly concentrated contaminants there have found their way downhill toward the lake, particularly via the Acid Brook. The recontamination of the Acid Brook only supports this theory. However, the EPA plans to clean up a small area of the lake and shore, which sits at the bottom of the hill, despite the fact that this area will probably continue to receive new contaminants from uphill/upstream.
Dana Patterson, the toxic coordinator for the Edison Wetlands Association, said that “If they don’t address the source first, the plant, then the lake could just become re-contaminated.”
Patterson said that the Edison Wetlands Association, an environmental organization which has been assisting residents in their campaign for a full cleanup, is “excited” about the recently announced delay of the dredging. However they, along with many residents, still worry about the incomplete nature of the EPA’s original plan.
Residents and environmental organizations hope to keep the public pressure on the EPA and DuPont until they agree to a complete cleanup of the area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)