TOMS RIVER – BASF recently hosted an event billed as an in-person poster session to detail its environmental restoration plans for the former Ciba-Geigy chemical plant site. However, many of those who attended expressed frustration at the lack of information actually provided to them.
Britta Forsberg, the Executive Director of Save Barnegat Bay, summed up her impression of the presentation which was echoed by others who hoped to secure some answers – and even some positive reassurances.
“I think it’s just a bunch of pretty pictures with very little substance,” said Forsberg. “I’ve seen pictures of birds, bees, and butterflies but nothing new in the way of information.”
“When you approached any one of the individuals standing near a poster,” Forsberg continued. “And you asked them a direct question, they deflected away from it.”
Some suggested that many of the posters mirrored slides used earlier in the year as part of an online presentation.
Graceanne Taylor, Education and Outreach Coordinator for Save Barnegat Bay, pointed out the problems that Ciba-Geigy caused. Its unsafe practices polluted everything including the groundwater, the forests, the ocean, the river, and more.
A disturbing number of children and adults became critically ill with experts tracing the environmental exposure as a detrimental health factor. Some deaths have also been attributed to the unsafe conditions caused by the contamination. However, trying to prove this in a court of law was impossible.
BASF, a German corporation inherited the need for remediating the property when it acquired the Ciba-Geigy site. A settlement agreement reached with the State of New Jersey calls for 1,000 acres to be permanently preserved for the benefit of the public, with hundreds of acres to be restored through a variety of ecological improvement projects.
“The company is coming forward and saying ‘we’re doing restoration to make up for the wrongs that we did,’” said Taylor. “The projects just aren’t very good. Long story short, it’s not doing Toms River any justice.”
Both the local municipality and Save Barnegat Bay submit that the Natural Resources Damages settlement agreement between the state and BASF is inadequate. They’ve filed a lawsuit in the state appeals court with hopes the agreement will be overturned.
The pending litigation appears to have no bearing on BASF’s plans to move forward with its restoration efforts.
The series of stations set up throughout the space within the Toms River Intermediate North Cafetorium began with a looping video display. A narrator painted the BASF site as representative of one of the best ecological diversities that the Jersey Shore has to offer.
The video also indicated that BASF intends to use the property as a peaceful sanctuary where conservation would serve an important role and as a habitat for endangered species.
Encouraging more wildlife seemed inconceivable to some of those who attended the event, saying that wildlife is already suffering injury as a result of the current conditions.
For Garitt “Tony” Kono, Chairperson of the Brick Township Environmental Commission, the handling of the presentation appeared surreal. Drawing parallels to “Westworld,” he likened BASF’s poster show to a scene where robots break down and die as they travel by train from town to town.
While BASF representatives refrained from speaking on behalf of the corporation, State Department of Environmental Protection officials emphasized the importance of public engagement in understanding and shaping the project. Michael Palmquist of NJDEP stressed the need for clarity and community involvement, acknowledging the project’s long-term nature.
“The idea is to let everyone know what is going on in their backyard,” Palmquist said. “It’s also so that people will be able to give some information as to what they’re looking for or what tweaks they are hoping will be made.”
Some of the grassland habitat improvements or connectivity improvement projects will most likely be the first to start when the work gets underway. Authorities have indicated that the bigger infrastructure like projects like the proposed educational center will take some time.
One of the most concerning issues cited by residents is the concept of allowing public recreation on top of what’s still polluted.
The DEP’s Office of Natural Resource Restoration provides oversight for the project to ensure it aligns with the terms of the settlement agreement. Palmquist said the DEP also offers some assistance in directing what permits are needed throughout the project.
Many of the less than 100 people who showed up for the poster presentation were members of Save Barnegat Bay or other environmental groups. They continue to ask questions about remediation of the site and its cleanup.
One Toms River resident, Philip Brilliant, an environmental consultant who deals with contaminated sites, saw the BASF session from a different perspective.
“A lot of people have a hard time understanding that this is about Natural Resource Damage,” explained Brilliant. “This is just about restoration projects to return it to where it was prior.”
“It has nothing to do with cleanup,” Brilliant said. “It has nothing to do with health. I think a lot of people think they are going to get something from this or answers on both issues.”
However, Taylor said that she viewed BASF’s presentation as extremely vague and therefore completely useless.
“From a technical point of view,” said Taylor, “If you care about more than just the surface level stuff, you can’t make an informed comment on the information provided.”
