Order amid Chaos

April 2000

  • T.E.A.C.H. would like to thank Wagner College of Staten Island, New York for the "Certificate of Appreciation", for working with their class on Toms River environmental issues, click on this line to view certificate.
    Ciba-Geigy Superfund Site


    As the second phase, called OU-2, (OU stands for Operating Unit) of the cleanup of the Ciba Geigy Superfund Site by the USEPA progresses on, the EPA terminology used has a different meaning than would be expected.

    The word "cleanup" is used and the public believes that the site will be cleaned up and no further remediation will be necessary in the future.

    The actual cleanup is a "partial cleanup" of the Ciba-Geigy site. Partial cleanup means exactly what it says, only some of the drummed waste is being treated. Partial cleanup is taking place on those "source areas" currently thought to be polluting the groundwater or to prevent direct contact with surface soils, which exceed the EPA's standards.

    For example, the EPA plans on treating approximately thirty five thousand (35,000 drums) drums of highly toxic waste from the buried unlined "drummed waste storage area". But NOTHING will be done with the approximately twenty some thousand (20,000 drums) drums in Cell 1 on the Ciba Site.

    Yes, a partial cleanup is better than no cleanup, but shouldn't the land be returned to its natural state for the future of our children?!

    How many years will it take until the next time bomb goes off?

  • Our November 1999 cover page reported on the true meaning of term, "thermal treatment", click on this line to read the article.

  • To read the following sections of the Health Assessment on the Ciba Geigy site, click on this line.

    Clean water, the important issue for generations to come.

    Mr. Joe Kotran from TEACH

    Mr. Joe Kotran from TEACH at press conference in Trenton on the grading of the water utilities Consumer Confidence Reports.

    TEACH supports the NJ Environmental Federation effort in grading and evaluating 110 Drinking Water Right-to-Know Reports (known as Consumer Confidence Reports). These reports were produced by the water utilities that serve over 4 million NJ residents. The NJ Environmental Federation determined that over 61% of the NJ Reports contained unqualified statements of safety, such as "Your Water Is Safe." This may be true for some people, but not for those more vulnerable to drinking water contaminants such as infants, the frail elderly, people under going chemotherapy or people with HIV/AIDS. The EPA strongly discouraged these unqualified statements of safety in its guidance. Sixty-four and a half percent (64.5%) of the reports received grades of "D" or "F" because they missed important federal requirements.

    We would hope that state and federal officials would adopt stronger and safer drinking water standards, instead of considering weaker ones. Testing of only 84 contaminants in our drinking water out of several thousand in the environment is not representative of what could be in our drinking water. We support more stringent testing requirements, among them testing for certain contaminants at the well head, especially for known chemicals from contamination plumes or Superfund Sites.

  • Our November 1999 cover page reported on the Toms River area Consumer Confidence Report on our drinking water. Click here and look towards the bottom of November cover page.

  • Our December 1999 cover page reported on the Drinking Water Quality Analyses. Click here to look at the December cover page.

  • The next public meeting on the Citizen Action Committee on Childhood Cancer Cluster is April 10, 2000 at 7:00 pm.
    For further details look under "Meeting/Events"

  • The previous cover page can be found under "RESOURCES", Previous Month's Cover Pages.