Off Site Contaminant Plume May Impact Nearby Homes and Day Care Center
Why would Lockheed not answer a question about whether they provided public notification to all parties about the vapor intrusion risk?
The Star Ledger has a long overdue and superb editorial today raising concerns about Gov. Christie’s corporate subsides, see:
This caught my eye:
Lockheed Martin, a defense contractor with multi-billion dollar profits, is one of the most recent benefactors. The firm got more than $100 million in state tax breaks to move just 250 jobs from its headquarters in Moorestown down the road to Camden. This was thanks to a last-minute provision slipped into the law that favored South Jersey, and Camden in particular.
To be sure, it’s a city in desperate need of development. But Camden is also inextricably tied to the political ambitions of South Jersey powerbroker George Norcross, which raises eyebrows.
But it’s not just Lockheed’ multi-billion dollar profits and George Norcross that should raise eyebrows.
The Lockheed Martin Moorestown site has massive groundwater contamination.
The plume of groundwater contamination has migrated off site and may be impacting nearby homes and business, including a day care center.
According to Lockheed Martin’s most recent Report to DEP, the groundwater is polluted with volatile organic toxic chemicals, including benzene, toluene, vinyl chloride, TCE, PCE, and others above DEP groundwater quality standards (GWQS) set to protect human health.
TCE levels were detected as high as 98,000 ppb in one monitoring well – that is 98,000 TIMES IN EXCESS of the DEP’s 1 ppb GWQS.
Curiously, the prior Lockheed Martin Report to DEP provided far more detailed information.
The prior Lockheed Report to DEP – known as a “Bi-ennial certification” – revealed that the groundwater plume had expanded, migrated off site, and may have impacted homes and a day care center.
Expansion and off-site migration of the plume were inconsistent with the conditions established by DEP’s prior “Classification Exception Area” (CEA) and were evidence of serious problems at the site. Under DEP’s CEA regulations, the plume is required to shrink over time (not expand), be contained on site (not migrate off site) and the concentrations of pollutants are supposed to decline, eventually to meet GWQS.
The prior Report included maps of the expanded plume, the expanded CEA, and the vapor intrusion impacted homes and day care center.
Curiously, that Report has been taken down – hit this link to confirm that:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/corporate/documents/remediation/moorestown-remedial-action-protectiveness-biennial-cert-form.pdf
The current report to DEP vaguely describes the toxic groundwater pollution and off site vapor intrusion problems in nearby homes and day care center like this:
The current Report does not include maps, and merely lists the owners and addresses of impacted off site homes and day care center at the very end of a lengthy document – an apparent attempt to hide that critical information.
The current Report leaves this DEP question unanswered:
Why would Lockheed not answer a question about whether they provided public notification to all parties about the vapor intrusion risk?
How could DEP approve the Report with that glaring omission?
Why would the Christie Administration give a $100 million subsidy to a corporation that is poisoning its neighbors and a day care center?
Why has there been virtually no press coverage of the Lockheed Martin pollution and risks to nearby homes and day care center?
Pingback: valentino roma dress shirts
Pingback: italy away jersey world cup 2014
Pingback: maillot foot championnat mexique
Pingback: camiseta de portugal cr7
Pingback: office nike roshe
Pingback: camisetas seleccion espa?ola a?os
Pingback: maillot equipe d'italie 2012
Pingback: warum ist das trikot von italien blau
Pingback: ajax away shirt 1989
Pingback: dortmund trikot nummern
Pingback: louis vuitton nettbutikk
Pingback: fitflop pas cher
Pingback: cheap michael kors australia
Pingback: montres guess pas cher
Pingback: maillot foot manchester united
Pingback: jersey ac milan 2013 player issue
Pingback: camisetas de futbol replicas baratas en espa?a
Pingback: tottenham new shirt 13 14
Pingback: manchester united home shirt van persie
Pingback: maillot foot france 2016
Pingback: ray ban new wayfarer polarized
Pingback: maillot de foot joueur psg
Pingback: cheap real madrid jersey uk
Pingback: fitflops sales
Pingback: manchester united shirt sponsor dhl
Pingback: trikot tottenham bale
Pingback: jag
Pingback: camisetas de futbol alternativas chile
Pingback: presentacion nueva camiseta espa?a
Pingback: chelsea fc champions of europe t shirt
Pingback: ray ban sunglasses womens
Pingback: camiseta rosa del palermo de italia
Pingback: ブランドコピー
Pingback: camisa ronaldinho psg
Pingback: liverpool third jersey 2012
Pingback: nike laser football boots
Pingback: david beckham signed real madrid shirt
Pingback: chile nationaltrikot
Pingback: camiseta de holanda suplente
Pingback: neues trikot dortmund 12 13
Pingback: nike roshe run hi
Pingback: maillot mexique foot
Pingback: olympic lyon trikot 2013
Pingback: mac wholesale makeup
Pingback: hogan
Pingback: jimmy choo uk
Pingback: christian louboutin men shoes
Pingback: cheap mac makeup wholesale
Pingback: ray ban round sunglasses
Pingback: official england world cup shirt 2014