Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
22 user(s) are online (22 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 22

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 »


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#85
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/20 18:20
Last Login :
10/1 2:00
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2712
Offline

New site administrator for Jersey City chromium cleanup peppered with questions

By Jonathan Lin | The Jersey Journal 
on April 01, 2016 at 4:04 PM, updated April 01, 2016 at 5:08 PM

JERSEY CITY -- Residents concerned about a section of city land contaminated by chromium questioned the thoroughness of remediation efforts at a community meeting earlier this week.

The inquiries about 900 Garfield Ave., the former site of a chromium-processing plant run by PPG Industries from 1954 to 1963, were posed Tuesday night to attorney Ronald J. Riccio, who took over as site administrator on Jan. 4.

read more. http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... _chromium_cleanup_in.html


Posted on: 2016/4/2 13:57
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#84
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21
Last Login :
2019/12/26 15:30
From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4954
Offline
Residents in the southwest section of Jersey City who filed a class-action lawsuit against Honeywell over chromium contamination on their properties would receive roughly $2,000 each in a $10 million settlement.

Honeywell will put $10 million into a pool for homeowners who participate in the settlement of the lawsuit, which was filed in May 2010. If all eligible property owners participate in the settlement, it is estimated each property would receive $1,850, according to the http://honeywelljerseycitysettlement.com website.

A federal court judge will hold a hearing on Sept. 24 at 11 a.m. to decide whether to give final approval to the settlement. Payments will be made within 15 days of when the settlement becomes final.

The chromium sites are properties along Route 440 where chromium chemical products were made and chromium ore processing residue was disposed between about 1895 and 1954.

Story

Posted on: 2015/6/9 14:55
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#83
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4440
Offline
Well, I limit my insults to those in the public eye (unlike the names some posters here call other posters), and my objection to the fat jokes is simply that it's hypocrisy from those who'd be offended if someone made a similar comment about, say, Hilary's backside in a pantsuit. But I'm glad you agree on this issue, it's a very transparent attempt to squeeze PPG to save political allies some cash. Don't forget that Florio's partner was the former/sorta Republican who was enlisted to run as an Independent to siphon votes from Christie vs Corzine! And it almost worked!

Quote:

La_Verdad wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
This seems like an attempt at a cash grab to benefit Flim Flam Forio.


Weird how you writhe around on the floor in tears if someone mentions the governor's physical immensity and yet you throw around childish names like "Flim Flam", "McSlimey", "Whizzy" and "Whiney". What's up with that?

However... I agree with your general thesis here. Helping Florio (and Bertoli) is in the mayor's political interests. Has zero to do with what is best for the city. This issue has been in front of him for a year and a half and suddenly he's holding press conferences and shutting down work. Hmm.

Posted on: 2015/2/12 19:49
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#82
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/9/24 1:55
Last Login :
2019/6/18 15:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 231
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
This seems like an attempt at a cash grab to benefit Flim Flam Forio.


Weird how you writhe around on the floor in tears if someone mentions the governor's physical immensity and yet you throw around childish names like "Flim Flam", "McSlimey", "Whizzy" and "Whiney". What's up with that?

However... I agree with your general thesis here. Helping Florio (and Bertoli) is in the mayor's political interests. Has zero to do with what is best for the city. This issue has been in front of him for a year and a half and suddenly he's holding press conferences and shutting down work. Hmm.

Posted on: 2015/2/12 16:41
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#81
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4440
Offline
Simple solution-halt the project, let the redevelopers (Flim Flam Florio et al) plan the streets, sewage, power, gas, FIOS/cable, pay for it, get it installed, then let PPG finish the remediation. I can't imagine the consent decree mandates that PPG is required to do the job of the redeveloper.

Posted on: 2015/2/11 1:55
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/20 18:20
Last Login :
10/1 2:00
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2712
Offline

Posted on: 2015/2/11 1:43
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#79
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4440
Offline
PPG remediated the land that Lafayette Village is built upon, and won an award from the Federal EPA for excellence in doing so. They also did the remediation for Berry Lane Park, which the city of JC is very happy with.

This seems like an attempt at a cash grab to benefit Flim Flam Forio. Don't forget, the property in question was operated by PPG for 9 years, and had been processing chromium for decades and decades, including during two World Wars where they produced chemicals vital for the military.

Posted on: 2015/2/11 1:43
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#78
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
9/27 17:22
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5127
Offline
Former Govern Whitman lowered the standards for cleanups. The standard Fulop wants should be published in detail.

Posted on: 2015/2/11 1:03
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#77
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/2/8 16:51
Last Login :
2019/9/4 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 350
Offline
Good for someone to stand up to this weasel corporation skirting responsibility for the untold damage it has caused to the land and public health.

Even if it proves futile, at least the mayor has the cahones to call them out on it same with the PA.

Posted on: 2015/2/11 0:59
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#76
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/8/22 16:42
Last Login :
2017/1/30 20:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 80
Offline
Quote:

PotStirJC wrote:
I still don't understand the Mayor's argument here...

PPG bought the site, destroyed it, and has now repaired it in accordance with their agreement.


From reading the articles I am not quite sure either, but would like to understand.

Am also not familiar with how clean-up works - so insert speculation alert here.

But one argument that I could see them put forward is if the the way the clean-up has been conducted somehow prevents future development and it is explicitly stated in the agreement that the purpose is to prepare for future development.

For example if rather than removing all contaminated soil, PPG is installing a barrier to encapsulate the contaminated soil, and this barrier is installed at a too shallow depth to allow the subsequent installation of streets, sewer, etc.

Again speculation - does anyone know the facts?

Posted on: 2015/2/10 14:43
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#75
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/10/27 1:59
Last Login :
2021/7/6 17:17
From Paulus Hook
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 21
Offline
I still don't understand the Mayor's argument here...

PPG bought the site, destroyed it, and has now repaired it in accordance with their agreement.

The mayor wants them to also perform the site improvement work for roads, sewers, water lines, etc. without being the investor developing the site? That seems quite absurd.

When you buy a site for development, you install the site improvements. You don't try to evict the seller from the site and demand they install the site improvements you need before you close.

The mayor was never going to win this one.

Posted on: 2015/2/10 12:56
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4440
Offline
What is it with Fulop trying to do favors for disgraced former NJ Governors?

First he gives a job to McSlimey, and now he's trying to save Flim Flam Florio some money?

Posted on: 2015/2/10 11:49
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/20 18:20
Last Login :
10/1 2:00
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2712
Offline

Judge says Jersey City mayor cannot halt cleanup of toxic land

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal The Jersey Journal 
February 09, 2015 at  6:37 PM

JERSEY CITY -- A Hudson County Superior Court judge on Friday halted Mayor Steve Fulop's attempt to bar PPG Industries from the chromium-contaminated land the firm is cleaning up on Garfield Avenue.

Fulop said last week that he wanted to stop the cleanup effective today because, he said, the firm refuses to clean up the land to the city's preferred standards. But Judge Hector Velazquez on Friday afternoon said the city cannot keep PPG from the site until after both sides meet in court.

"PPG, its agents, employees and independent contractors, shall have unrestricted access to the property, without any conditions," Velazquez said in the order.

Read more:  http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/02/judge_fulop_ppg.html


Posted on: 2015/2/10 6:39
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#72
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/2/9 3:46
Last Login :
2018/8/14 15:19
From Lafayette
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 291
Offline
ATTN Bergen Lafayette Residents:

Just a heads up, tonight's Lafayette neighborhood meeting (6:45 PM @ Nu Bar) will be attended by Mayor Fulop, Councilwoman Coleman, and a representative from PPG. They will all be there to discuss the cleanup issues happening in the area north of Berry Lane Park. We need to let PPG know that our community won't stand for a half-assed remediation job and that we deserve to have all the chromium in the contaminated area cleaned up. Below is an article with more information about what's going on.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... t_at_chromi.html#comments

Posted on: 2015/2/5 20:01
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#71
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18
Last Login :
2020/9/25 20:40
From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1578
Offline
Quote:

DanL wrote:
the press conference is devoid of details, how is the court settlement not being adhered to?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/nyregion/06chromium.html?_r=0

the community secured a full clean up, so now what has happened?


What the community secured was a cleanup, which PPG wants to literally perform. In doing so, the site will become economically disadvantaged because of the lack of any willingness on the part of PPG to take ownership and do things in a forward looking manner, to facilitate development. Simple things like allowing sewer lines to be relocated while the streets are dug up. The liner that was agreed to is so shallow that it needs to be punctured for simple things like street signs. Relocating streets. The agreement should have been structured they way the Honeywell/Bayside agreement was. Honeywell retains ownership in the development and is committed to remediating fully and to benefit development.

Posted on: 2015/2/4 3:08
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4440
Offline
Is that a real number, PPG has spent $600 million dollars on remediating the site? What exactly has PPG been delinquent in doing, if anything? This is a point of discussion on the agenda of the Morris Canal Conservancy meeting Thursday night at NuBar so perhaps we'll learn more.

Quote:

DanL wrote:
the press conference is devoid of details, how is the court settlement not being adhered to?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/nyregion/06chromium.html?_r=0

the community secured a full clean up, so now what has happened?

Posted on: 2015/2/4 2:35
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13
Last Login :
2021/7/30 1:08
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1204
Offline
the press conference is devoid of details, how is the court settlement not being adhered to?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/nyregion/06chromium.html?_r=0

the community secured a full clean up, so now what has happened?

Posted on: 2015/2/4 1:29
 Top 


Re: Mayor tosses PPG off city property!
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/1/10 22:45
Last Login :
2016/6/1 22:03
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 161
Offline
The Mayor now understands how PPG plays the games. Delay, delay, delay. I didn't see the previous deputy mayor, the Honorable Kablili "sleepy" at the press event. He must have been catching a few winks at the new DPW building.

Posted on: 2015/2/4 0:28
 Top 


Mayor tosses PPG off city property!
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/1/10 22:45
Last Login :
2016/6/1 22:03
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 161
Offline

Posted on: 2015/2/4 0:23
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#66
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/9/15 19:03
Last Login :
2020/8/25 18:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 9077
Offline
700,000-Ton Cleanup Settlement Reached in Jersey City Toxic Chromium Case

IBTimes - 11 April 2011
http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/201104 ... y-toxic-chromium-case.htm

PPG Industries has agreed to clean-up of one of the largest remaining sites contaminated with cancer-causing hexavalent chromium in New Jersey. The cleanup is estimated to cost PPG up to $600 million and remove an estimated 700,000 tons of chromium waste from a Jersey City neighborhood. The settlement stems from a 2009 citizen?s lawsuit filed in federal court by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Interfaith Community Organization (ICO), and GRACO Community Organization (GRACO) on behalf of Jersey City residents who have been fighting for a comprehensive clean-up since the early 1980s.


?After decades of foot dragging, we now know this cleanup is going to happen, and it?s going to happen right,? said Nancy Marks, NRDC senior attorney. ?What could have been a Swiss cheese approach to the cleanup is now a comprehensive removal of the contamination ? no holes to be found. This Jersey City community should never have been stuck living on top of someone else?s toxic waste in the first place. They?re finally receiving the justice they deserve and will be soon free from this poisonous legacy.?

The settlement ensures PPG will clear a nearly 17-acre, densely populated area of Jersey City of 700,000 tons of cancer-causing toxic waste that has plagued it for over 50 years. PPG has agreed to finance the cleanup of the area, which includes the company?s former Garfield Avenue chromium plant, surrounding sites and contaminated groundwater. Wherever possible, the cleanup will involve the excavation and removal of chromium wastes, and disposal in offsite hazardous waste landfills. Strict dust control measures will protect residents and workers during the cleanup.

Since the lawsuit?s filing in 2009, PPG twice attempted to have the citizen?s suit thrown out of federal court in order to move forward with a less stringent state settlement. Both attempts were denied by two different judges. Notably, the federal court settlement agreement ensures the cleanup will reduce chromium levels to 5 parts per million (ppm), which reflects the best available science about the health effects of exposure to the chemical and is much more stringent that the state?s enforceable limit of 20 ppm. PPG will also test residential properties near the Garfield Avenue site upon request and clean up any contaminated properties to the 5ppm level. Since this agreement was reached in federal court, it also includes binding deadlines that cannot be delayed by state bureaucracy.

?This is a victory for environmental justice, for public health, and for the economic rebirth of an area that for half a century has been a toxic wasteland in the midst of a densely populated section of Jersey City,? said Reverend Willard Ashley, co-chairperson of ICO and pastor of Abundant Joy Community Church in Jersey City. ?It's a victory that will mean more jobs and less cancer.?

Another key element of the settlement is a commitment to allow community monitoring of the cleanup process, empowering local citizens with a level of control over the cleanup of their own community. PPG will fund a community-hired expert, who will be provided full access to watch over the process.

?State chromium standards are insufficiently protective of public health,? saaid Public Justice environmental attorney Richard Webster. ?Through our lawsuit we sought and won better, higher standards.?

The cleanup will begin this spring and will take approximately five years to complete. The settlement, submitted to the court today, will become final when signed by the federal judge. It does not prevent other pending legal claims against PPG, including a state court class action for individual damages, from moving forward. Public Justice helped represent NRDC and ICO in the case, and GRACO was represented by the firm of Lieberman & Blecher from Princeton, New Jersey.

?This settlement proves once again that environmental laws can produce effective results in New Jersey and that communities do not have to continue to be victimized by environmental dangers,? said Stuart Lieberman of Lieberman & Blecher. ?Communities can work together to secure a healthier environment for themselves and for their children. This settlement means cleaner soil, water and air for this community.?

BACKGROUND:

PPG Industries, a Pittsburgh-based corporation, first began investigating the chromium contamination in 1982. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began enforcement efforts at the PPG complex soon thereafter, and in 1990 reached an agreement requiring PPG to clean up dozens of sites the DEP believed they had contaminated. Those clean-up efforts should have been completed by the late 1990s, but PPG did not move forward with the chromium removal project and the DEP failed to enforce a clean-up. After years of inaction by PPG and the state, NRDC and ICO filed their lawsuit in federal district court in Newark in 2009 under the citizens? suit provisions of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In June of 2009, GRACO was added as a third plaintiff in the lawsuit. GRACO is a community group comprised of individuals living in direct proximity to the main PPG chromium contaminated site.

A byproduct of the chromate chemical production facility housed on the site 50 years ago, hexavalent chromium ? the real-life villain in the Erin Brockovich story ? is toxic to humans and animals. PPG itself sampled soil and groundwater and reported elevated levels ? some more than 2,500 times the state clean-up standard ? of the toxic chemical throughout the site. Tests also reveal that chromium contamination has migrated off the site to surrounding areas, including inside homes and schools in the densely populated African American and Latino community. It will continue to spread until the site is cleaned up.

Exposure to this type of chromium has been found to cause cancer, respiratory problems, kidney and liver damage, chromium ulcers, and nasal septum perforations, as well as pregnancy and delivery complications for women. A study found that Jersey City residents living closer to contaminated sites have significantly higher incidence of lung cancer than those who live further away.

Source: The Green Living Guy

Posted on: 2011/4/12 2:08
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#65
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/11/23 19:38
Last Login :
2019/10/14 1:50
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 150
Offline
Quote:

cheese7 wrote:
Quote:
The property, near the Holland Tunnel and a stone?s throw away from two-family homes and a health clinic, is one of the last major sites in New Jersey contaminated with hexavalent chromium still to be addressed. The Environmental Protection Agency describes hexavalent chromium as a human carcinogen.


Does anyone know exactly where this site is?


Nowhere near the Holland... this is close to exit 14B off of 78. It's a giant sea of concrete. The golf course, just across the freeway from it, was similarly contaminated before the massive cleanup that reclaimed it.

Posted on: 2011/4/8 20:24
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#64
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/4/28 20:04
Last Login :
2012/8/30 14:20
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 112
Offline
Quote:
The property, near the Holland Tunnel and a stone?s throw away from two-family homes and a health clinic, is one of the last major sites in New Jersey contaminated with hexavalent chromium still to be addressed. The Environmental Protection Agency describes hexavalent chromium as a human carcinogen.


Does anyone know exactly where this site is?

Posted on: 2011/4/8 15:15
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#63
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13
Last Login :
2021/7/30 1:08
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1204
Offline
Congratulations GRACO and the Interfaith Community Organization (ICO) for fighting for the residents and not just wining a full clean up, but beating the city administration that tried to sell the nearby residents out back in Spring '09 for money to plug yet another budget hole just before municipal elections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/nyr ... r=1&scp=2&sq=graco&st=cse

Better Cleanup Planned at Former Chrome Plant

JERSEY CITY ? Some 25 years ago, Ellen Wright was driving home through her neighborhood of single-family wood-frame houses here when she noticed that the streets were slick with ?green water.?
Enlarge This Image
Aaron Houston for The New York Times

Ellen Wright, 77, of Jersey City was one of the founders of an interfaith group that took on polluters of her neighborhood.

?It was a terrible thing,? said Mrs. Wright, now 77, recalling her unease.

The liquid turned out to be runoff from the site of a former chrome production plant that operated for decades in Jersey City in Hudson County, once a major center for the nation?s chromium ore processing and manufacturing industry. Residents like Mrs. Wright, who were already organizing through their churches to demand better police protection and other basic community services, decided to take on the polluters.

It took years, but they won ? so far, twice.

Under a federal court settlement announced on Tuesday, PPG Industries of Pittsburgh has again committed itself to removing chromium waste from a 17-acre site in a densely populated area of Jersey City where the company and its predecessors ran a chromium manufacturing complex from 1924 to 1963. The project includes pollution that reached homes in the neighborhood. The new deal sets a higher standard for the cleanup than was previously agreed to.

The property, near the Holland Tunnel and a stone?s throw away from two-family homes and a health clinic, is one of the last major sites in New Jersey contaminated with hexavalent chromium still to be addressed. The Environmental Protection Agency describes hexavalent chromium as a human carcinogen.

The settlement resolves a citizens? lawsuit filed in 2009 in Federal District Court by the Natural Resources Defense Council and two community groups ? the Interfaith Community Organization and the Graco Community Organization ? whose members had been fighting for the removal of chromium waste from their mostly African-American neighborhoods since the 1980s.

Cleanup began at the site recently under the supervision of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection as a result of an earlier court settlement. The new settlement calls for a more stringent cleanup than required by the state. It also requires PPG to pay for an expert hired by the community to monitor the progress.

Jeremy Neuhart, a PPG spokesman, called the settlement ?a positive development? that reflected a decision by the plaintiffs to focus ?on remediation rather than litigation.?

For the church-based Interfaith Community Organization, it is a second legal victory; it was also a plaintiff in a case that ended in a 2003 federal judgment forcing Honeywell International to clean up another legacy of Jersey City?s industrial past: 34 acres that had been used as a dumping ground for chromium along the waterfront.

The group, now part of an interfaith organization called New Jersey Together, went to court after years of what it viewed as foot-dragging by companies and the state on cleanups mandated under previous agreements with the Department of Environmental Protection. Some of the group?s members contend that their willingness to go to court provided the pressure needed for the state to reach its own, earlier court settlement with PPG.

?When a company leaves a community, it shouldn?t leave behind an open wound,? the Rev. Willard W. C. Ashley Sr., co-chairman of the Interfaith Community Organization, told his congregation at Abundant Joy Community Church in Jersey City at a recent Sunday service.

?Our goal has been very simple: less death and more life ? new life for Jersey City ,? he said to a chorus of ?Yeah!? and ?Amen!? ?We wanted a complete cleanup so that fewer people in our community would get cancer. It means new development, new jobs.?

Yet Lawrence Hajna, a spokesman for the state environmental department, played down the significance of the latest settlement. An earlier one, he said, ?calls for complete excavation; It doesn?t get much better than that.?

New Jersey officials have identified more than 160 sites in Hudson County, most of them in Jersey City, contaminated by chromium. Most of it came from the production of coatings for machine parts and from chromium-laced waste used as fill material in construction in the 1950s and the 1960s.

Ingesting and inhaling hexavalent chromium, the most toxic form, through air and water can result in lung and intestinal cancers and other health problems.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the settlement, which will become final when signed by a federal judge, does not interfere with other pending legal claims. They include a class-action lawsuit filed in May in state court against both Honeywell and PPG seeking compensation for landowners whose properties have been devalued and payments for regular medical screenings.

In the years since Mrs. Wright first spotted the green liquid, she said, the fight has taught her that ?you don?t have to take what they give you.?

?You can organize,? she continued. ?It makes a difference.?

Mrs. Wright, a founder of the Interfaith Community Organization, and her husband, Melvin, 80, raised two sons in the five-bedroom house where they have lived for 45 years in the Bergen-Lafayette section of Jersey City, just a few blocks from the former PPG site.

They have been talking about moving to a smaller place, but first Mrs. Wright wants her backyard, whose soil tested positive for chromium exceeding safe levels a few years ago, cleaned up under the terms of the settlement. ?I?m old,? she said, but ?I?m thinking about the kids.?
A version of this article appeared in print on April 6, 2011, on page A19 of the New York edition.

http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/ ... tion-chromium-settlement/

http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/ ... ment-calls-for-revisions/

http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/ ... ns-and-lawsuits-continue/

Posted on: 2011/4/7 4:05
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#62
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/9/15 19:03
Last Login :
2020/8/25 18:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 9077
Offline
Company settles suit; agrees to chromium clean-up in Jersey City

Apr 06, 2011

JERSEY CITY AND BEYOND ? Under a settlement agreement reached this week in federal court, PPG Industries has agreed to clean up one of the last remaining chromium contamination sites in New Jersey, according to a national environmental organization that filed a lawsuit to get the clean-up completed.

Under the settlement agreement, PPG has agreed to remove 700,000 tons of chromium waste from Jersey City?s Lafayette neighborhood, and will likely spend an estimated $600 million to complete the remediation, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

PPG, a Pittsburgh-based company, will clear a nearly 17-acre site of hexavalent chromium, a cancer-causing toxin that has plagued the Lafayette area for more than 50 years. The area to be remediated includes a former PPG chromium plant site on Garfield Avenue and the surrounding community, including groundwater. Wherever possible, the cleanup will involve the excavation and removal of chromium wastes, and disposal in offsite hazardous waste landfills. Strict dust control measures will protect residents and workers during the cleanup.

PPG first began investigating the possibility of chromium contamination in 1982, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began enforcement efforts at the PPG complex soon thereafter. In 1990 the company reached an agreement with the DEP to clean up the contaminated areas, but the agreement was never enforced.

In 2009, NRDC ? in conjunction with Interfaith Community Organization (ICO), and GRACO Community Organization (GRACO) ? filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of Jersey City residents. PPG twice tried unsuccessfully to have the lawsuit dismissed and was refused both times by the court.

?After decades of foot dragging, we now know this cleanup is going to happen, and it?s going to happen right,? said NRDC Senior Attorney Nancy Marks in a release issued Tuesday. ?What could have been a Swiss cheese approach to the cleanup is now a comprehensive removal of the contamination ? no holes to be found. This Jersey City community should never have been stuck living on top of someone else?s toxic waste in the first place. They?re finally receiving the justice they deserve and will be soon free from this poisonous legacy.?

The settlement ensures the cleanup will reduce chromium levels to 5 parts per million (ppm), which reflects the best available science about the health effects of exposure to the chemical and is much more stringent that the state?s enforceable limit of 20 ppm. PPG will also test residential properties near the Garfield Avenue site upon request and clean up any contaminated properties to the 5ppm level. Since this agreement was reached in federal court, it also includes binding deadlines that cannot be delayed by the state.


Read more: Hudson Reporter - Company settles suit agrees to chromium clean up in Jersey City

Posted on: 2011/4/7 1:27
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#61
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/9/15 19:03
Last Login :
2020/8/25 18:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 9077
Offline
More than 50,000 tons of soil removed from chromium site in Jersey City Sunday, March 06, 2011, 4:01 PM By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal More than 50,000 tons of potentially hazardous soil has been removed from a chromium site on Garfield Avenue in Jersey City that used to be home to a chrome-processing plant, according to officials. Though some residents are still unnerved by the amount of potentially hazardous waste still sitting on the 16-acre site, 42 blood samples taken from residents and 54 residential inspections have shown no evidence of chromium contamination, said Michael McCabe, the court-appointed site administrator. "So far, it's all good news," said McCabe, who urged residents who live near the site to sign up for blood testing and residential inspections. McCabe appeared Thursday night at a community meeting at the Mary McLeod Bethune Life Center on MLK Drive to inform members of the public about the status of the chromium cleanup at 900 Garfield Ave. About three dozen residents attended. Last November, PPG Industries -- which acquired the Garfield Avenue plant in 1954 and processed chromium there until 1963 -- agreed to remove 700,000 tons of hazardous waste from the site. Joyce Willis, whose home overlooks the site, told officials that a tarp intended to cover the hazardous waste was left uncovered for four days after a recent windstorm. Workers at the site are sloppy, Willis said. "I don't feel like you're concerned about my health," she said. "You don't care. You don't live here." McCabe responded by telling Willis that air-quality monitors at the site registered nothing abnormal after the windstorm. Carla Williams, who lived near the site until moving closer to Bayonne several years ago, said she felt the lack of a public showing at the meeting leads her to believe she is not in any danger. "If it was that detrimental or that serious, this place would have been packed," she said, adding that she's satisfied PPG and state officials are cleaning up the site properly.

Posted on: 2011/3/6 22:09
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#60
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/3/4 18:42
Last Login :
2020/12/12 19:15
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 94
Offline
Bear with me here as I am new to JC-list and posting stuff. I have been browsing the forum for some time and came across the JC Chromium contamination thread.

As I was considering signing my kids up for Camp Liberty this summer, I also wanted to check the area in the light of the above, and it seems to me that Cabana Club, i.e. Camp Liberty, i.e. Hudson Chromate Site 178 are one and the same.

I used the NJ-GEOweb http://www.nj.gov/dep/gis/geowebsplash.htm
and searched for Chromium sites.

Am I right that this is where the Camp is located and if so, is this news at all or a well-known fact? Does anybody know more about what the RI-status of this site means (the GeoWeb also says Surface Soil Sampling result in 1992 was 100 ppm, but 100 ppm of what? Hexavalent Chromium or "just" plain old Chromium?), and, since it says responsible party is Allied Signal could that make it part of the Honeywell lawsuit even if the site is Public Land?

Thanks.

Posted on: 2011/3/4 19:12
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/9/15 19:03
Last Login :
2020/8/25 18:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 9077
Offline
Jersey City residents' class-action lawsuit over chromium exposure is given green light by federal judge

Thursday, March 03, 2011
By TERRENCE T. McDONALD - JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Jersey City residents who say they have been exposed to cancer-causing hexavalent chromium can proceed with a class-action lawsuit seeking cancer screening and financial compensation, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

Honeywell International, the successor of a company that processed chromium at a plant on Route 440 across from the old Roosevelt Drive-In, sought to have the suit dismissed, but Judge Susan Wigenton ruled against the company.

"It's an important victory for the citizens of Jersey City, and it puts them a giant step closer to having the opportunity to tell their story to a jury," said Howard Janet, one of several attorneys for the plaintiffs.

"And it is indeed a rather compelling story," he added. The suit, filed in May 2010, charges that PPG Industries, which acquired a Garfield Avenue plant in 1954 and processed chromium there until 1963, and Honeywell, failed to clean up chromium waste, called hexavalent chromium, at sites across Jersey City.

PPG did not seek to dismiss the plaintiffs' case.

Victoria Ann Streitfeld, a Honeywell spokeswoman, said Honeywell is working with the state Department of Environmental Protection on the remediation of chromium sites in New Jersey.

"We are committed to continuing to work with - and listen to - the Jersey City community while we safely remediate those sites for which we are responsible," Streitfeld said.

A massive cleanup of the 34-acre Roosevelt Drive-In site kicked off in March 2005 as a result of the settlement of a lawsuit between the Interfaith Community Organization, a citizens group, and Honeywell.

Posted on: 2011/3/3 19:13
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#58
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/11/15 16:09
Last Login :
2012/1/12 17:03
From The Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 89
Offline
Jersey Journal is reporting that there will be a public meeting on Thursday to review the PPG's layout for chromium cleanup.

Chromium cleanup meeting

Posted on: 2011/1/24 18:29
Jay Res
 Top 


Re: PPG and Chromium in Jersey City - Garfield Avenue
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/9/15 19:03
Last Login :
2020/8/25 18:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 9077
Offline
Jersey City residents file suit against PPG, Honeywell over chromium contamination

By Melissa Hayes/The Jersey Journal
May 20, 2010, 2:24PM

Citing a federal study showing increased risk of cancer from chromium exposure, three Jersey City residents have filed a lawsuit against Honeywell International and PPG Industries saying the companies should pay for long-term health monitoring.

?Health and environmental regulators publicly assured Jersey City residents that the presence of this chromium did not increase their risk of developing cancer,? said Howard Janet, one of the attorneys representing the residents. ?However, a subsequent study completed recently by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reveals they were wrong.?

The 2008 federal study found that of the participating residents, those living closest to the waste sites had a 17 percent higher rate of lung caner than those living farther away.

Representatives from both companies said they have been working under the supervision of the state Department of Environmental Protection to remediate the contaminated sites, which stretch beyond the two former processing plants.

Jeremy Neuhart, a spokesman for PPG, said he could not comment on the lawsuit at this time, but said the company would ?continue to satisfy its remedial obligations.?

Victoria Streitfeld, as spokeswoman for Honeywell, refuted the allegations.

?We vigorously deny the allegations of the lawsuit and remain committed to continuing to work with and listen to the Jersey City community to resolve these matters,? she said.

The contamination was caused through chromate ore processing. PPG Industries acquired the Garfield Avenue plant in 1954 and processed chromium until 1963, when it opened a facility in Texas. The substance was later found to be hazardous.

Honeywell is the successor of Mutual Chemical Company of America, which processed chrome from about 1895 to 1954 at a 32-acre site on Route 440 known as the Roosevelt Drive-In.

The suit alleges the companies generated over 1 million tons of contaminants.

The 45-page lawsuit is filed on behalf of two Jersey City residents and a former city residents who lived near chromium-contaminates sites. The group is seeking class-action status. Janet said there are thousands of people with concerns about the disposal of chromium waste.

Read the full lawsuit, filed Monday in Hudson County Superior Court, here.

The lawyers are seeking other residents interested in joining the suit.

The residents are seeking payments for periodic medical screenings and damages for their properties being devalued by the contaminants.

?We know early detection brings about the best outcome for people,? Janet said.

The suit sites a 1937 internal memo from Honeywell that says chromium might be ?actually harmful,? and notes that in 1938 the company began to maintain records on ?chrome dust and lung cancer.?

Also in 1954, PPG commissioned a study, which warned that processing chromium could cause lung cancer and other health issues.

The same year, both companies jointly commissioned a study. In 1957, a report detailed the association of chromium and lung cancer.

?The defendants? internal records demonstrate they had early knowledge of cancer risks associated with exposure to hexavalent chromium,? said Steven German, one of the attorneys representing the Jersey City residents.

The suit alleges, ?Despite this knowledge, defendants engaged in a campaign to mislead federal and state government regulators and the public of the health risks associated with chromium then and through the present.?

Posted on: 2010/5/21 8:21
 Top 


Re: Greenville: Court gives groups go-ahead to sue about chromium site
#56
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/3/25 13:40
Last Login :
2017/11/21 19:53
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 48
Offline
Judge rules to allow stricter chromium cleanup standards for Jersey City site to proceed

By Melissa Hayes/The Jersey Journal
March 31, 2010, 1:20PM

UPDATED: A federal judge on Monday ruled that a lawsuit seeking stricter standards for the cleanup for a chromium site along Garfield Avenue in Jersey City can proceed.

But city officials said yesterday the cleanup plan in place with Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries, the responsible party for carrying out the remediation, will move forward unless some court in the future tells them otherwise.

In February 2009, environmental and residential groups filed the federal suit, arguing that state standards for the cleanup are not stringent enough and asked the court to impose more stringent standards.

The state Department of Environmental Protection requires levels of chromium, a known carcinogen, to be 20 parts per million or less as far down as 20 feet. But the groups argue that state and federal studies have shown that the standard should be one part per million.

PPG contested the suit, arguing among other things that a 2009 court-approved consent agreement with Jersey City and the DEP for the Garfield Avenue site resolved the issue.

But on Monday, Federal District Judge Joseph Greenway agreed to let the case proceed, dismissing PPG's argument and an attempt for a stay of the federal case until the remediation is completed in five years.

"Such a lengthy stay would defeat the purpose of an environmental provision seeking to remediate imminent and substantial endangerment and run contrary to this court's unflagging obligation to exercise its jurisdiction," Greenway wrote in his 33-page opinion.

Manhattan-based Natural Resources Defense Council and the Interfaith Community Organization, who successfully sued to have Honeywell remediate the Roosevelt Drive-In site along Route 440, filed the suit with GRACO, a neighborhood group.

"We don't have a lot of confidence in the state's ability to supervise a cleanup," said Nancy Marks, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

PPG said it is evaluating the judge's decision and would continue to meet the obligations of the consent agreement that Superior Court Judge Thomas Olivieri approved.

Posted on: 2010/3/31 18:07
 Top 




(1) 2 3 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017