Beneath the Surface: Chromium Groundwater Contamination, Property Damage, and Public Health at the Garfield, New Jersey Superfund Site, 1980s-Present

I. Introduction

Lightning flashes across the sky, followed by the low rumble of thunder. Heavy raindrops begin to fall, striking the ground in a steady rhythm. At first glance, it appears to be just another storm. Beneath the surface, however, toxic chromium mixes with the rainwater and seeps into the basement of Fire Company 3. Storm after storm, contamination accumulates, frosting the basement walls in greenish residue as chromium levels reach 250 times what is considered safe.[1] Eventually, Fire Company 3 is forced to shut down. Long dedicated to protecting the residents of Garfield, New Jersey, it now sits in quiet abandonment.

Fire Company 3 was not the only site affected by chromium seepage in Garfield. In total, 14 residential basements, Garfield School No. 7, and the Passaic River were polluted with hexavalent chromium released from E.C. Electroplating.[2] The contamination reflects Garfield’s long history of textile and chemical industries operating alongside dense residential neighborhoods.[3] For many residents, many of whom were working-class, immigrant families, these industries provided economic opportunity, but also brought long-term environmental risks that were not immediately visible. The contamination at E.C. Electroplating is a window into how industrial practices, regulatory gaps, and community vulnerability intersected in Garfield. This crisis did not emerge overnight but developed over decades as industrial waste spread through the surrounding environment.

This unfolding story raises several important questions. How did chromium contamination from E.C. Electroplating develop and persist over time? In what ways did this pollution affect the environment, residents’ health, and the safety of their homes? How did it shape property values and economic stability in Garfield? What actions did residents take in response, and what does this case reveal about environmental inequality, government responsibility, and the helplessness of working-class communities in the United States? This paper explores these key questions and ultimately argues that the chromium contamination caused by E.C. Electroplating in Garfield illustrates environmental injustice, as a predominantly working-class, immigrant, and minority community experienced environmental, public health, and economic harm due to inadequate government response, ultimately forcing residents to rely on activism to seek accountability.

To address these questions, the paper begins by discussing the history of E.C. Electroplating, its designation as a Superfund site under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ongoing contamination, and lack of cleanup progress. It pays particular attention to the people of Garfield and why their community came to bear the burden of this contamination. It next examines environmental harm from hexavalent chromium, its effects on public health, and its impact on economic stability in the city. The paper then shifts to community activism through public meetings and resident testimony. The government’s response, or lack thereof, is tracked throughout the sections. The paper ultimately concludes with the broader environmental justice implications, highlighting how Garfield reflects ongoing patterns of vulnerability.

II. Origins of Contamination at E.C. Electroplating and Garfield

E.C. Electroplating (ECE) was founded in the late 1930s and operated as a custom metal plating facility that relied on large storage tanks to hold chromic acid solutions used in plating processes. In December 1983, one of these tanks failed, releasing approximately 3,640 gallons of chromic acid and 5,400 pounds of chromium into the groundwater beneath the site. ECE installed a recovery well in 1984, but they shut down cleanup efforts “after only 29% of the mass of chromic acid was recovered.” Despite the severity of the spill and incomplete cleanup, ECE continued to operate. In May 1996, the Bergen County Hazardous Materials emergency team was called to ECE to contain a spill of process wastewater. Subsequent EPA investigations of the groundwater revealed evidence of additional leaks or spills between 1983 and 1996, none of which ECE formally documented.[4] Repeated releases, documented and undocumented, allowed contamination to accumulate in the groundwater over decades.

Image from “Photos: North Jersey’s worst toxic sites.” Northjersey.com. December 12, 2018. https://www.northjersey.com/picture-gallery/news/environment/2018/12/12/photos-north-jerseys-worst-toxic-sites-superfund-epa-dep-nj-trump/2289469002/.  

In October 2002, EPA assistance was requested by the state of NJ because chromium-contaminated groundwater was discovered seeping into basements in Garfield. While EPA conducted investigations throughout the late 2000s, ECE closed operations in March 2009. When EPA assessed the abandoned facility in June 2011, they found “hazardous materials within vats, tanks and drums… and further identified the facility as the source of chromium contamination in groundwater.” In September 2011, the site was added to the EPA’s National Priorities List, officially designating it as a Superfund site. Cleanup efforts followed, including the removal of hazardous materials, demolition of the ECE building, and excavation of contaminated soil, with the site ultimately capped in 2014, three decades after the initial spill.4

The exaggerated timeline and delayed government response intensified exposure. This disproportionate impact on Garfield becomes clearer when examining the city’s demographics. As of 2024, Garfield’s population stood at 32,783, with 47.7% foreign-born, 47.3% Hispanic, and a 13.4% poverty rate, compared to U.S. averages of 14%, 19.5%, and 10.6%, respectively.[5] The city has large immigrant populations from Italy, Slovakia, Russia, Poland, and multiple Spanish-speaking nations.3 Former mayor Joseph Delaney described Garfield as “ a multiethnic, multicultural and multi-religious community… a microcosm of America itself.”[6] While the city has presence of organized crime, mafias, and mobsters, it is characterized by strong community engagement, small businesses, and cultural activity. In 2025, teachers and students protested changes to health insurance plans, demonstrating Garfield residents’ willingness to organize against perceived injustices.[7]

The persistence of contamination in Garfield reflects broader patterns of environmental inequality and government inaction. A high-risk Superfund site of this scale is unlikely to be located in more affluent, predominantly white communities in Bergen County. As Cole and Foster show in their analysis of Kettleman City, such sites are disproportionately placed in low-income, minority communities, like Garfield, where hazardous conditions have remained unresolved for decades.[8] Furthermore, designation as a Superfund site is meant to give the federal government power to “chase down pollution-causing companies and force them to pay for the poisoning,” but in Garfield, the owners of ECE and their insurance company have conveniently “disappeared.” As a result, Garfield has become an “orphan site,” relying almost entirely on federal support. Yet, as reflected in ongoing debates over environmental funding, there is limited consensus in Congress on how to allocate sufficient resources for cleanup efforts. Garfield therefore remains in limbo, waiting among dozens of other Superfund sites in NJ, all competing for a shrinking pool of federal remediation funds.[9]

III. Environmental Harm Through Inaction, Not Accident

EPA official Rich Puvogelan called the ECE investigation “a subterranean detective story,” but the reality was less a mystery and more a failure of environmental oversight.[10] The pollution involved hexavalent chromium, a toxic and carcinogenic compound highly mobile in groundwater.[11] Once released, it disperses underground in a diluted “plume” trackable through monitoring wells that measure contamination and guide cleanup efforts.[12] Although contamination at ECE could have been contained, “the initial investigation was deeply flawed,” from day one. Monitoring wells were drilled on site, but not in the neighborhood, and were too shallow to reach the bulk of the chromium. By 1985, engineers reported to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that chromium was migrating into nearby areas, yet no testing was conducted in the nearby homes or at the 350-student elementary school half a block away. The company was even allowed to consider ending cleanup efforts. Despite clear warning signs and an estimated 70% of contamination still unaccounted for, regulators did not expand investigation or intervene, leaving thousands of pounds of chromium to enter living spaces and community infrastructure.1 Exposure risk was created; it was not just movement of pollution.

This was not uncertainty, but a pattern of inaction that allowed environmental harm to spread unchecked. Chromium was later found in ECE’s basement after heavy rain and in Fire Company No. 3 a mile away, yet nearby neighborhoods still were not systematically tested. DEP oversight also failed to enforce even basic monitoring requirements for years. State officials ultimately acknowledged this breakdown, with Assistant Commissioner David Sweeney calling the case a “poster child” for mismanagement and admitting “it wasn’t handled with the urgency that it needed.”1 The ECE case demonstrates that the scale of environmental harm was not only driven by industrial contamination, but amplified by delayed recognition, limited investigation, and regulatory failure, leaving Garfield residents to bear the consequences of a preventable toxic plume left unmanaged.

IV. Public Health Risk, Exposure, and Uncertainty in Garfield

Hexavalent chromium not only moves through groundwater, but also through the human body. Dermal contact, inhalation of dust, or ingestion of contaminated water can cause severe health consequences, including skin ulcers, asthma, respiratory disease, gastrointestinal damage, and cancers of the lung, kidney, prostate, and bladder.1 In Garfield, when chromium entered basements, it created a direct pathway from environmental contamination to human exposure. When it went unchecked for so long, delayed response turned what could have been a contained hazard into prolonged exposure in homes, schools, and businesses. By the time EPA official Neil Norrell stated in 2011, “We want to make sure there is as little impact to the community as possible,” the harm had already been unfolding for decades.[13]

Contamination also produced ongoing concern among residents about long-term health outcomes. Liz Werling, a 16-year resident, reported chromium in her basement and said she lost two pets to midlife cancers, leaving her to “wonder if the high chromium levels were to blame.”[14] Another resident expressed similar concern: “I’m a breast cancer survivor, my daughter had to have her breast removed, and my other daughter’s contemplating it, so uh we’re concerned.”[15] For many, the most basic sense of safety in the home was eroded, with one resident explaining, “I won’t go down to my basement until a man from the government puts his hand on the Bible and says everything is safe.”1 The testimony of former mayor Delaney before Congress further illustrates this uncertainty: “I have a grandson with autism. I have a godson with autism, both born in the city of Garfield. I love them dearly. I can’t say that this caused it, I can’t say that it didn’t cause it either.”7 This kind of public uncertainty from local leadership stresses the depth of concern within the community. These accounts represent only a fraction of community experience, showing how contamination produced not only physical exposure but also sustained fear, mistrust, and unresolved health concerns.

In a 2019 NYU study, researchers came to Garfield to combine a toenail biomarker analysis with a resident survey to assess chromium exposure and community awareness. Toenail analysis showed higher average chromium levels among residents living within the contaminated plume compared to those outside it. However, the needs assessment survey revealed widespread uncertainty, with many residents unsure whether they had been exposed at all.[16] Together, these findings show a clear disconnect between measured exposure and public understanding. Residents’ uncertainty points to a broader failure to adequately communicate environmental risk and its implications for the community. Rather than providing clarity about exposure pathways, health risks, and the extent of contamination, residents were left without a clear understanding of what they were being exposed to or how seriously to interpret it.

V. Trapped by Toxic Property Values

As chromium spread into residential basements, property values in Garfield declined, turning homes into financial liabilities rather than assets. Many homeowners became effectively trapped, unable to sell or relocate after their properties lost significant value. Former Mayor Tana Raymond captured this reality, explaining, “Their property values went way down and now they’re kind of stuck with this house,” while also expressing concern: “I’m concerned about those people, their property values, and what they’re going to do.”4 Even when officials attempted to address the crisis, economic relief remained limited. Former Mayor Delaney and former City Manager Thomas Duch met with the EPA in 2008, describing the agency as showing “competence and genuine interest… in helping our people.” However, Delaney also noted that while the EPA offered “reassurance to a scared populace… property values in the area have definitely declined.”6 In this way, contamination extended beyond physical damage, revealing environmental injustice as it undermined housing security and left a predominantly working-class community financially immobilized.

The recognition of the crisis was even present at higher government levels in 2012, when New Jersey introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 120. It explicitly called for federal intervention, expedited cleanup, and temporary relocation assistance for affected residents. Importantly, the resolution also recognized that property values declined so severely that they were “rendering any chance of independent evacuations a financial impossibility.” It also pointed out that designation of the site on the National Priorities List should make it eligible for federal funding to help cover the costs of temporary relocation.[17] Together, these provisions suggested potential relief that would have especially supported working-class and immigrant families; however, despite its urgency and hopeful framing of government responsibility, these promises never turned into results.9

Funding limitations slowed progress and prolonged financial harm. As an “orphan site,” Garfield must compete with other contaminated communities for limited federal cleanup funds. EPA press officer Elias Rodriguez stated, “There are far more orphan sites than money available,” meaning Garfield would have to simply wait its turn. The estimated cleanup cost of $37 million places the site in direct competition with other environmental disasters, and as one report noted, it must “compete for funds” with no guaranteed timeline for action. Concerns grew further as officials warned that budget reductions could worsen delays, with Thomas Dutch emphasizing, “If the EPA can’t help, we’re going to live with the Superfund site.”1 Ultimately, these funding barriers illustrate how environmental injustice is sustained not only through contamination, but through delayed and unequal access to the resources needed for recovery. Environmental cleanup should be basic human rights, not dependent on winning a funding competition.

VI. When Residents Became Activists

English is not the first language for many Garfield residents, but this barrier did not prevent them from organizing, speaking out, and demanding accountability for ECE’s poisoning. At a 2008 EPA public meeting, community members questioned how contamination had been allowed to spread for decades without intervention and why residents had only recently been informed of the risks. One resident voiced what everyone was wondering: “we’d like to know why it took over 20 years for this to become an issue.” Residents also shared fears about health effects, property values, and the long-term safety of their homes, while others participated in surveys and door-to-door outreach efforts.15 These actions demonstrate that Garfield residents were forced to become advocates for their own safety and recognition after decades of institutional inaction.

Image from “With toxic plant ready for demolition, NJ residents voice concerns.” People’s World. September 14, 2012. https://peoplesworld.org/article/with-toxic-plant-ready-for-demolition-nj-residents-voice-concerns/.

By 2012, community frustration had evolved into visible and organized protest. This public meeting involving the EPA, Garfield officials, and the local school board was no ordinary meeting, but an open confrontation between a community and those in power. A photograph published by People’s World captures this moment of activism: three residents stand at the back of the meeting room wearing coordinated neon green shirts reading “Got Chromium?” while holding a bright pink protest sign declaring “Garfield is ‘Irresponsibly’ Responsible.” The shirts, which included the Spanish translation “¿Tiene Cromo?” on the back, reflected organized, multilingual activism within Garfield’s multiethnic immigrant community.[18] Despite their diverse backgrounds, residents came together and formed a group they called “U.R.G.E.N.T.”[19] The protestors’ decision to stand while officials and attendees remained seated visually reinforced the idea that residents were literally and politically standing up for their rights, health, and neighborhoods. Rather than remaining silent, Garfield residents transformed frustration into collective activism that publicly challenged institutional failure.

Community organizing and public pressure continued for years as residents pushed for cleanup funding and accountability. At a 2016 EPA meeting held at the Garfield Senior Center, residents and city officials openly criticized the slow pace of remediation, uncertainty surrounding federal funding, and the economic burden placed on families whose homes had lost value. Garfield officials encouraged residents to “write to your congressman” and “lobby our legislators,” recognizing that sustained public pressure was necessary to keep the cleanup effort alive. Discussions at the meeting reflected how deeply residents felt abandoned by the institutions responsible for protecting them. Deputy Mayor Glenn Mati summarized this frustration bluntly: “In the meantime, we just have to live with the way it is until we can come across some money.”4 These meetings show that Garfield residents were forced to become activists not by choice, but by necessity, as government delays and inadequate responses left the community to fight on its own for visibility, resources, and environmental justice.

VII. Conclusion: The Unfinished Story of Garfield

Today, when one searches “Garfield Fire Company” on Google Maps, addresses appear for Fire Companies 1, 2, 4, and 5, but Fire Company 3 is still missing. Driving past where it once stood reveals an empty plot, and driving two minutes down to Clark Street is another empty plot: the former E.C. Electroplating site, which remains fenced off behind signs reading “Superfund Project.” Despite decades of attention, Garfield remains on the National Priorities List, and cleanup is still incomplete. The EPA’s last community update to residents was in 2023, outlining the upcoming work, including well installation, treatment plans, and long-term monitoring, while also indirectly confirming that remediation remains unfinished.[20] Although major cleanup efforts began in 2021, EPA site records show that key objectives, like fully controlling groundwater migration and eliminating exposure pathways, remain incomplete, with no clear end date for construction.[21] More than four decades later, Garfield residents continue to live above a shifting toxic plume.

The E.C. Electroplating case reveals environmental injustice in Garfield through interconnected harms. Industrial spills and weak regulatory oversight allowed hexavalent chromium to spread through groundwater into homes and community buildings. Delayed investigations and poor monitoring turned a containable problem into decades of exposure. Residents faced serious health risks and lingering uncertainty about long-term effects, while declining property values left many working-class and immigrant families financially trapped. In response, the community organized, attended public meetings, and protested to demand accountability and faster cleanup. This pattern reflects a broader reality: Superfund sites disproportionately burden underserved communities like Garfield, which must fight for the recognition, resources, and protection they were denied. As EPA Administrator Michael Regan acknowledged, roughly 60% of Superfund sites are in historically underserved communities.[22]

This incident unfolded during a broader period of economic decline in the U.S. leaving “its working class gutted by deindustrialization and globalization.”[23] Part of the Rust Belt, NJ experienced industrial reduction that left abandoned, poorly regulated industrial sites with lasting environmental risks. Nationwide hazardous waste sites led the federal government to enact the Superfund Act (CERCLA), which empowered the EPA to lead cleanup efforts. However, as scholars like Markowitz and Rosner in Deceit and Denial and Sze in Noxious New York have shown, these policies often fell short in protecting vulnerable communities.[24] Redlining and urban inequality also made places like Garfield more likely to face environmental hazards and injustice. Until this pattern is addressed, promises of environmental justice and Superfund remediation remain incomplete. Environmentalist Jeff Tittel wrote: “We need a real clean-up plan to adequately address the extent of this pollution… the EPA must ensure adequate funding and an appropriate clean-up of the Garfield site to protect the human health of people who have been suffering for far too long.”[25] Forty-three years later, contamination is still present, and so is the injustice.

[1] Years of Serious Health Risks, The Record, November 20, 2011. p A-8.

[2] School Shutdown from “Cleanup of Garfield Superfund Site Set to Begin,” NJ Spotlight News, October 1, 2012, YouTube; Passaic River spread from EPA. “Superfund Site: GARFIELD GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION GARFIELD, NJ.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0206317.

[3] “About the City of Garfield.” The City of Garfield, NJ. https://www.garfieldnj.org/pages/about-the-city-of-garfield.

[4] United States Environmental Protection Agency. Record of Decision: Garfield Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site. September 2016. p 1–192. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/02/377072.pdf.

[5] Garfield Demographics from Data USA: Garfield, NJ. https://datausa.io/profile/geo/garfield-nj#household_income.; United States national Hispanic average from “Hispanic Heritage Month: 2024.” United States Census Bureau. August 15, 2024. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2024/hispanic-heritage-month.html.; United States poverty rate from Emily A. Shrider and Christina Bijou. “Poverty in the United States: 2024.” United States Census Bureau. September 09, 2025. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-287.html.

[6] “PROTECTING TAXPAYERS AND ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY: FASTER SUPERFUND CLEANUPS FOR HEALTHIER COMMUNITIES.” U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE. JUNE 10, 2014. p 49–50. https://www.congress.gov/113/chrg/CHRG-113shrg98180/CHRG-113shrg98180.pdf.

[7] Mary Ann Koruth. “Teachers, Students Protest as Garfield Board Swaps Health Plans with Little Notice,” NorthJersey.com. January 28, 2025. https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/education/2025/01/28/teachers-students-protest-as-garfield-board-swaps-health-plans/77976584007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=true&gca-epti=z1171xxp001950c001950e1171xxv003133d–39–b–39–&gca-ft=167&gca-ds=sophi.

[8] Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster. From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. New York: New York University Press, 2001. p 1–33.

[9] Mike Kelly. “Waiting for Help, Three Decades and Counting.” The Record. June 22, 2014. p 1.

[10] Scott Fallon. “A subterranean mystery.” HeraldNews. December 12, 2011. p A1.

[11] National Institutes of Health (NIH). “Chromic Acid.” NIH PubChem. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Chromic-Acid.

[12] First American Natural Hazard Disclosures. “Formation of Plumes.”

https://orderform.fanhd.com/Resources/Child?partial=Environment%2F_plumes&title=Plumes.

[13] “Chromium: Spreading.” The Herald-News. December 12, 2011. p A8.

[14] Anthony Johnson. “Garfield Residents Concerned about High Levels of Chromium in Neighborhood.” Eyewitness News ABC 7. June 18, 2014. https://abc7ny.com/post/garfield-residents-concerned-about-high-levels-of-chromium-/122334/.

[15] NorthJersey. “Chromium Testing in Garfield.” YouTube. September 18, 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kbVb4OHBN0.

[16] Doherty, L.S., et al. Community Health Perceptions and Human Environmental Exposure to Chromium Contamination in a Small New Jersey City. Preventive Medicine Community Health, 2019. 

[17] New Jersey Senate. “SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION No. 120.” 215th Legislature, June 25, 2012.

https://pub.njleg.gov/bills/2012/SCR/120_I1.HTM. 

[18] Skylar, Blake. “With toxic plant ready for demolition, NJ residents voice concerns.” People’s World. September 14, 2012. https://peoplesworld.org/article/with-toxic-plant-ready-for-demolition-nj-residents-voice-concerns/.

[19] U.R.G.E.N.T. Facebook Page. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/URGENT.Garfield/.; U.R.G.E.N.T is an independent non-profit advocacy watchdog group that was created to act, serve and protect the rights and civil liberties of Garfield, NJ. No additional information except for this Facebook group was found in research.

[20] US EPA. “Current and Upcoming Activities.” October 2023. https://www.garfieldnj.org/_Content/pdf/Groundwater-Contamination-Superfund-Site-Information.pdf.

[21] EPA. “Superfund Site: GARFIELD GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION GARFIELD, NJ.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0206317.

[22] Patricia Hilliard. “NJ’s Superfund Sites: Cleanups Give Hope!” Sierra Club. December 11, 2023.

https://www.sierraclub.org/new-jersey/blog/2023/12/nj-s-superfund-sites-cleanups-give-hope.

[23] Joseph Locke and Ben Wright, eds., The American Yawp, vol. 2, Since 1877. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2019. chap. “The Sixties.” p 370.

[24] Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner. Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.; Julie Sze, Noxious New York: The Racial Politics of Urban Health and Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007.

[25] Tittel, Jeff. “Letter to Shane Nelson, Remedial Project Manager.” Sierra Club. June 7, 2016.

Primary Sources: