Buried Toxicity: Corporate Dumping and the Politics of Superfund Cleanup at the Ringwood Mines Landfill, 1960s–2006
by Jinan Hussain
Site Description:
Ringwood Mines Landfill is a 500 acre Superfund site located in Ringwood, New Jersey in a historic iron mining area that includes abandoned mine pits, an inactive landfill, and around 50 private homes. In the early 1960s, Ford Motor Company and other groups dumped paint sludge, car parts, solvents, and chemical waste into abandoned mine shafts and open areas in the site. This dumping took place in a Native American Ramapough Lenape community, which raised serious issues of racial and political injustice. In 1983, the site was placed on the federal Superfund list and was removed off the list in 1994 when the cleanup efforts were considered complete. However, more paint sludge and contaminated materials were discovered in the following years which led to the site being relisted in 2006. Since then, lots of contaminated soil has been removed from the site under the sight of EPA, but the groundwater contamination and long term monitoring is still ongoing. In this project, I want to understand how corporate dumping and decision making allowed contamination to reappear even after the site was officially recognized as hazardous, and why cleanup efforts were insufficient even when the site was declared “clean.” More broadly, this research shows how political and large systems can create long term environmental harm even when they are intended to provide protection for affected communities.
Section I: Introduction
“We remediated the site and were cleared by the EPA, so we considered the site clean,” said a Ford Motor Company representative following the 1994 decision to remove the Ringwood Mines site from the federal list of hazardous waste locations.[1] At the time, the cleanup appeared complete and the issue seemed resolved. However, for residents living in the area, that was not the reality. “There have been so many people… saying they were going to get something done… and then we never hear from them again,” recalled a local resident, Wayne Mann.[2] This contrast between official claims and lived experiences raises questions about whether the site was declared “clean” prematurely and whether that decision was shaped by more than just environmental evidence.
This gap between official claims versus experienced residents points to a bigger issue in how cleanup decisions were made at the Ringwood Mines. The site, a former iron mining area in New Jersey, became a dumping site in the 1960s and 1970s when the Ford Motor Company dumped paint sludge and other industrial waste from its Mahwah plant.[3] Because this waste was abandoned into old mine shafts and open areas, contamination spread below the surface and became difficult to fully track and remove.[4] It was no longer just visible waste but instead, affected the soil, groundwater, and surrounding environmental systems. A Public Health Assessment found that “paint sludge remains widespread at the site” and that multiple environmental media were impacted.[5] Despite this, the EPA declared the site “clean” in 1994, suggesting that the criteria used to evaluate cleanup may not have fully reflected actual conditions.
The events at Ringwood Mines point to a bigger issue with how environmental cleanup decisions were made. If contamination was still present in the soil and groundwater, then the 1994 decision to declare the site “clean” becomes harder to understand. Why was the site considered safe if pollution remained, and why did contamination continue even after cleanup efforts were considered complete? These questions raise a deeper issue about what decisions allowed pollution to persist in the first place. This paper argues that the pollution at Ringwood Mines persisted because of political pressure from Ford Motor Company, the limited political power and marginalization of the Ramapough Lenape community, and weak and incomplete regulatory decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency, which led to the site being declared “clean” too early, allowing contamination to remain and disproportionately impact the surrounding community.
Most existing literature on the Ringwood Mines Landfill focus on the environmental and health impacts of the toxic waste, specifically its effects on the Ramapough Lenape community. Sources like Thomas E. Franklin’s documentary series, Toxic Legacy, focus on residents’ experiences living near the site, while government reports like the Public Health Assessment show how the contamination was spread across different parts of the environment.[6] [7] While both are important to understand the effects of the pollution, they focus more on the outcomes rather than the decision itself. This paper instead examines how the 1994 decision to label the site as “clean” was shaped by political pressure, weak regulations, and structural inequalities, offering a more analytical perspective on why contamination was allowed to continue.
To understand how this outcome occurred, this paper first examines Ford’s dumping practices and how they created contamination that was difficult to fully remove as waste spread underground. It then analyzes the EPA’s early cleanup efforts, showing how these methods focused on removing visible waste while leaving buried contamination behind. Next, it evaluates the 1994 decision to declare the site “clean,” arguing that it was based on an incomplete understanding of contamination. The paper then turns to the rediscovery of pollution and the relisting in 2006, showing how this confirmed the failure of earlier cleanup efforts. Finally, it looks into the impact of the remaining waste on the Ramapough Lenape community, highlighting how limited political power made it more difficult to challenge the incomplete cleanup decisions.
Section II: Background
Ringwood Mines is a 500 acre Superfund site located in Ringwood, New Jersey, in an area originally used for iron mining.[8] The site was added to the Superfund list in the 1980s and later declared “clean” in 1994 after cleanup efforts were considered complete at the time. The landscape includes abandoned mine shafts, pits, and uneven terrain left behind from earlier industrial activity, which created conditions where contamination could spread beyond a single location.[9] Because pollution was not confined to one contained area, it became more difficult to fully understand the extent of contamination. These conditions did not just complicate cleanup but also made it easier for surface level cleanup to be treated as enough, since contamination that remained underground was harder to measure and therefore easier to exclude from how “clean” was defined.
The Ramapough Lenape are an Indigenous community that has lived in the Ringwood area before industrial contamination began. Many members still lived in the area during the 1960s and 1970s, when the mines were used as a dumping site. This meant they lived directly near or on the land that later became labeled as hazardous. In the documentary, Toxic Legacy, community members describe growing up in this environment, reflecting how closely their daily lives were tied to the site. As one resident, Wayne Mann, recalls, “I used to… play cowboys and Indians… and would paint our faces with [the sludge].” [10]
Over time, residents started to connect their exposure to the waste with serious health concerns, including cancer and other chronic conditions. Throughout this, the Lenape community had limited political and economic power to fight against the injustice they were facing. Local members describe repeated promises of cleanup that were never fully carried out, with one community member recalling, “they keep telling us it’s going to be cleaned up… but nothing ever really changes.”[11] Their concerns were often ignored or delayed. This lack of influence did not just reflect inequality, but made it more difficult to push for a complete cleanup, allowing contamination to persist.
The main source of contamination at the Ringwood Mines was the Ford Motor Company’s Mahwah Assembly plant, which operated during the mid twentieth century. During the 1960s and early 1970s, the plant produced large amounts of industrial waste including paint sludge and other automotive materials. Instead of using proper disposal methods, the waste was transported to Ringwood and dumped into the mines and different pits.[12] Because Ford was responsible for the contamination and therefore required to fund the cleanup efforts, the company had a clear financial incentive to limit the scope and cost of remediation.[13] This relationship between responsibility and cost can explain why the disposal and cleanup practices prioritized short term solutions over long term environmental protection.
The way waste was dumped at the Ringwood Mines played a huge role in how the contamination spread across the site. Instead of being contained, a lot of the material was dumped directly into mine shafts and pits. [14] Because the waste was spread out instead of kept in one area, the contamination ended up spreading across the site early on. This also made cleanup more difficult later because a lot of the pollution was no longer easy to reach or remove.[15] [16]
The environmental conditions at the mines played a huge role in how the contamination spread and continued. The former mining landscape, with its pits and shafts, allowed the waste to move underground and across different parts of the site, make it harder to determine the full extent of the pollution. As a result, the soil, groundwater, and nearby surface water were all affected.[17] Because contamination existed across multiple environmental systems, exposure was not limited to a single source but occurred through everyday interaction with the land. By the time cleanup efforts started, contamination had already become widespread, increasing the likelihood that risks would continue even after the site was later considered “clean.”
Section III: EPA’s Early Cleanup Strategy (First Cleanup)
The listing of Ringwood Mines as a Superfund site in 1983 showed that the government officially recognized the contamination as a serious environmental and public health concern. According to the Record of Decision, the site was labeled hazardous because industrial waste, including paint sludge and other toxic materials, had spread throughout the area.[18] After the site was added to the Superfund list, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) became responsible for overseeing the cleanup and deciding how it would be handled. Although the goal of the Superfund program was to remove toxic waste and protect both the community and the environment, the EPA still worked within official and political constraints that shaped how cleanup decisions were made.[19] Because of this, the decision to label the site “clean” depended not only on the actual environmental conditions, but also on the decisions made by the agency.
After the site was listed, cleanup efforts mostly focused on the areas that were easily accessible, especially the large amounts of paint sludge left on the surface. Efforts also included digging up affected soil and dealing with the most obvious sources of the pollution. In total, thousands of cubic yards of contaminated material were removed during the late 1980s and early 1990s.[20] At the time, this seemed effective because it got rid of what was visible which made it seem like real progress was being made. However in reality, the waste collected was just surface level and not nearly from the underground pits. In the end, the cleanup focused on what was visible while leaving behind pollution in areas that were harder to reach.
While these efforts seemed to be successful, the decisions behind them were influenced by a misunderstanding of how the contamination spread. Because all the waste was spread across uneven land and underground shafts, it was hard to understand how far the contamination actually reached. As a result, decisions relied on the most easily available information rather than a deeper assessment of the environmental conditions. This uncertainty is shown in Toxic Legacy, where both members of the community and officials describe not knowing how much waste had been dumped or removed.[21] In some cases, there were no clear records of the total amount of material making it hard to decide whether the cleanup was enough to begin with. At the same time, factors within the Superfund program influenced how the cleanup was carried out since decisions were influenced by funding limits and the need to show visible progress.[22] Together, these conditions led to a cleanup approach that focused more on making the site appear cleaned instead of fully removing all the contamination.
Section IV: The 1994 Delisting Was a Premature Regulatory Decision
In 1994, the Environmental Protection Agency removed the Ringwood Mines site from the federal Superfund list, officially declaring it to be “clean”. The agency came to a conclusion that enough cleanup had been done to reduce environmental and health risks to acceptable levels. At the time, the visible waste that was removed, including contaminated soil and large amounts of paint sludge, was enough evidence to show that the site had been successfully remediated. This idea was reinforced by Ford, which stated that it had “remediated the site” and had been cleared by the EPA.[23] As a result, the site was considered safe after the initial cleanup. However, this conclusion depended on how the EPA chose to define “clean”, relying on visible improvements instead of an in depth assessment of environmental conditions. By treating the surface level restoration as enough, the agency created a very limited idea of what a successful cleanup looked like. This led to the site eventually being declared safe even though contamination had already spread beyond those areas.
Although the site was declared “clean” in 1994, there was still evidence at the time that contamination hadn’t actually been fully removed. While some surface areas were cleaned up, mine shafts and some pits weren’t really dealt with and were just covered with soil leaving all the waste underneath.[24] On top of that, visible paint sludge and other waste were still present around the site, which goes against the idea that everything had properly been cleaned up.[25] The Public Health Assessment also shows that contamination remained in the soil, groundwater, and surface water, meaning it spread beyond the areas that were actually addressed.[26] This suggests that the cleanup didn’t fully consider how far the contamination had spread. Instead, removing the most obvious waste was treated as enough to say the problem was solved, even though pollution was still there in less visible ways. Overall, this shows that what was used to justify declaring the site “clean” didn’t match the actual conditions at the site.
The decision to declare the site “clean” in 1994 was not just because of technical limitations, but also because of larger political issues that shaped how the cleanup was handled. One major problem was that no one fully knew how much waste had been dumped or how far it spread across the site.[27] Cleanup efforts mostly focused on removing the most accessible waste instead of fully dealing with more complicated underground contamination. These decisions were also influenced by larger problems within the Superfund program where cleanup outcomes were shaped not only by environmental risk, but also funding limits, political pressure, and the need to show progress.[28] The Ford Motor Company also had a financial reason to support a more limited cleanup since the company was responsible for paying for the restoration costs.[29] At the same time, the Lenape community had limited political power which made it harder for residents to fight back and push for a more complete cleanup.[30] [31] All together, it shows how the 1994 decision to declare the site clean wasn’t just a environmental decision, but one shaped by money, institutional limits, and unequal power. As a result, the site was declared clean before contamination had actually been removed, starting a false sense of safety and setting the stage for pollution to be rediscovered later on.
Section V: The Rediscovery of Paint Sludge Revealed the Failure of the “Clean” Designation
Even after the Ringwood Mines was initially declared clean, waste continued to be found in the following years. Additional areas of paint sludge was discovered in 1995, 1998, and again in 2004.[32] This shows that contamination remained in areas that were assumed to be safe and in some cases, still visible, indicating that it had never been fully removed. This pattern of continuous rediscovery makes it evident that the original cleanup never actually eliminated the problem, but instead left contamination that continued to surface over time. Rather than being an unexpected discovery, this showed the consequences of a cleanup strategy that prioritized visible progress over complete remediation.
The rediscovery of paint sludge proved that the original cleanup did not fully work. Contamination was still spread throughout the site and affected the soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water.[33] The report also found that contaminated sludge and soil remained at levels still considered a health concern meaning the site had risks even after it was declared “clean.”[34] Instead of fully removing the contamination, earlier cleanup efforts left behind pollution that either was not properly identified or was too difficult to access. Because of this, the rediscovery of paint sludge was not really a new problem, but proof that the original remediation had failed to deal with the full extent of contamination at the site.
Because contamination continued to resurface, the EPA added the Ringwood Mines back onto the Superfund list in 2006, officially recognizing that the earlier cleanup was not sufficient. This happened after more contaminated materials were found throughout the site which directly went against the earlier claim that all necessary cleanup work was already completed. The site was originally removed from the Superfund list because officials believed that “all appropriate cleanup actions had been taken,” but the continued discovery of waste showed that this was not actually true. Putting the site back onto the list acknowledged that the 1994 decision didn’t match the real conditions at the mines. Instead of proving the cleanup was successful, it showed the problems with defining the site as clean while toxic waste was still left behind in less visible areas.
Even after the site was added back onto the Superfund list, contamination at the Ringwood Mines continued to create long lasting environmental and health risks. People could still be exposed to hazardous materials through contaminated soil and water meaning residents were still coming into contact with pollution years later.[35] Continuous cleanup and monitoring was still needed as the site still had toxic waste. Instead of fully solving the problem, the 1994 decision delayed a more complete cleanup and allowed contamination to continue because earlier decisions focused more on short term closure than long term environmental protection.
Section VI: Impact of Remaining Toxic Waste
The continued presence of paint sludge and other waste directly impacted the Lenape community’s day to day lives. Because many residents lived within and around the site, exposure was built into the spaces where people lived and spent their time.[36] Hazardous materials were physically present in the landscape, including “lead paint residue jutting from the yards and woodlands,” showing how close contamination was to people’s homes.[37] For many residents, contact with these materials was difficult to avoid since everyday activities took place in areas where waste still existed. Community members said that they would “run around in it barefoot” without understanding the risks.[38] Even after cleanup efforts began, residents continued living with contamination, with one resident explaining that “everybody else… can go home… this is where we live… the contamination is still there.”[39] These experiences show that the effects of contamination were not temporary but became part of everyday life for the community living around the site.
The contamination at Ringwood Mines also created long term health concerns for residents.[40] Because exposure continued years after the site had already been declared “clean,” many residents connected these conditions to patterns of illness within the community, including cancer, respiratory problems, and chronic skin conditions.[41] [42] Rather than protecting residents from harm, the incomplete cleanup allowed health risks to continue long after remediation was supposedly completed.
The lasting impact of the contamination at Ringwood Mines can’t be fully understood without looking into the political and structural inequalities that shaped these outcomes. The Ramapough Lenape community had limited political and economic power which made it harder for residents to voice their opinions. Judith Zelikoff, a professor from New York University who studied the health impacts of the Ringwood Superfund site said, “Whenever you look at any kind of marginalized or underserved community, be it the Ramapough Nation or other Native American or marginalized communities, they are going to get hit the hardest.”[43] This lack of influence affected how the situation was handled because it made it easier for incomplete cleanup efforts to remain as is without significant opposition. Because of this, decisions made by the EPA and other agencies were less likely to be seriously challenged, even while the waste continued to affect the community. Research on the Superfund program shows that cleanup outcomes are shaped not only by environmental risks, but also by social and structural factors as well.[44] Funding limits and pressure to show off visible progress encouraged partial remediation instead of a complete environmental recovery. In the case of Ringwood Mines, these inequalities meant that the community most affected by contamination had the least power to influence the decisions that allowed it to persist, making the site a clear example of environmental injustice.
Section VII: Conclusion
The 1994 decision to declare the Ringwood Mines “clean” was portrayed as a successful end of a major environmental cleanup effort. At the time, both the EPA and Ford treated the removal of visible waste as proof that the site no longer had any serious risks. However the continued discovery of paint sludge shows that the announcement of the site being clean was not the result of full environmental restoration, but of how the cleanup was defined and evaluated in the eyes of others. What appeared to mark the end of contamination instead reveals how a site could be officially closed while pollution remained.
The failure of cleanup at the Mines was not just the result of a environmental misunderstanding, but rather from decisions shaped by power. The Ford Motor Company as the responsible party, had a financial incentive to limit the scope and cost of remediation. The EPA accepted a definition of clean that prioritized visible progress over full environmental recovery. At the same time, the Lenape community had limited political power to fight against these decisions. All together, these conditions made it possible for the site to be declared “clean” in 1994 before the waste was fully addressed, allowing pollution to continue and disproportionately impact the surrounding community.
In one aspect, the Ringwood Mines reflects a bigger issue within environmental policy rather than just one failure alone. Cleanup can be defined in ways that make it look successful without actually fully getting rid of the pollution especially when decisions are affected by funding limits and pressure to show progress. In this case, the 1994 delisting wasn’t a simple mistake, but the result of a system that focused more on managing environmental risk than fully eliminating it.
At the same time, these decisions didn’t affect everyone equally. The Lenape community continued living with contamination even after the site was declared safe, showing how environmental decisions can have different impacts depending on who has the power to influence them.
Ultimately, Ringwood Mines isn’t just a case of environmental pollution and toxic waste but rather an example of how political, economic, and structural forces shape environmental outcomes. The site was declared “clean” not because contamination was fully removed but because it met a limited definition of success set by those in power. By doing so, the decision prioritized closure over accountability and efficiency over accuracy. This raises a bigger question that goes beyond Ringwood itself: when environmental decisions are shaped this way, who gets protected and who is left to live with the consequences?
[1] Barbara Williams and Jan Barry, “EPA Tells Ford to Retest Toxic Waste Dump in Ringwood, N.J.,” Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, March 22, 2004, 2, https://login.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fwire-feeds%2Fepa-tells-ford-retest-toxic-waste-dump-ringwood-n%2Fdocview%2F463727639%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D13626
[2] Thomas E. Franklin, Toxic Legacy, documentary series, https://www.thomasfranklin.com/work/toxiclegacy
[3] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[4] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Decision for OU3 for the Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site Operable Unit Three (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 29, 2020), 2, 5-6, https://semspub.epa.gov/work/02/615708.pdf
[5] New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Public Health Assessment: Ringwood Mines/Landfill Site, Ringwood, New Jersey (Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, 2005),1, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHA/ringwood/PHA%20Text.pdf
[6] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[7] New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Public Health Assessment, 1.
[8] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Decision, 1.
[9] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Decision, 1.
[10] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[11] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[12] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Decision, “Site Description,” 2.
[13] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Revises Final Cleanup Plan for Ringwood Mines Superfund Site in Ringwood, New Jersey (NJ),” March 30, 2015, 1-2, https://login.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Freports%2Fepa-revises-final-cleanup-plan-ringwood-mines%2Fdocview%2F1674481031%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D13626
[14] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Decision, “Site Description,” 2.
[15] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Decision, “Site Description,” 3.
[16] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[17] New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Public Health Assessment, 1.
[18] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Decision, “Site Description,” 2.
[19] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Decision, “Site Description,” 3.
[20] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Revises Final Cleanup Plan,” 2.
[21] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[22] John A. Hird, “Superfund Expenditures and Cleanup Priorities: Distributive Politics or the Public Interest?,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 9, no. 4 (1990): 460, 463–464, https://login.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/login?qurl=https://www.jstor.org%2fstable%2fpdf%2f3325258.pdf
[23] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[24] New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Public Health Assessment, 17-18.
[25] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[26] New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Public Health Assessment, 1, 5-9.
[27] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[28] Hird, “Superfund Expenditures and Cleanup Priorities,” 460, 463–465.
[29] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Revises Final Cleanup Plan,” 1–2.
[30] Williams and Barry, “EPA Tells Ford to Retest,” 2–3.
[31] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[32] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Record of Decision, 3.
[33] New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Public Health Assessment, 1.
[34] New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Public Health Assessment, 2.
[35] New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Public Health Assessment, 2.
[36] Michael Sol Warren and Andrew S. Lewis, “Hazard NJ: For Generations Now, a Tribe Fights Legacy Left by Polluter,” NJ Spotlight News, June 22, 2022, https://www.njspotlightnews.org/special-report/hazard-nj-toxic-contamination-ford-motor-company-turtle-clan-ramapough-lenape-nation-superfund-paint-sludge-solvents-ringwood-mines-cancer-road/
[37] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[38] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[39] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[40] Warren and Lewis, “Hazard NJ.”
[41] Franklin, Toxic Legacy.
[42] Warren and Lewis, “Hazard NJ.”
[43] Warren and Lewis, “Hazard NJ.”
[44] Sandra George O’Neil, “Superfund: Evaluating the Impact of Executive Order 12898,” Environmental Health Perspectives 115, no. 7 (2007): 1087–1088, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1913562/pdf/ehp0115-001087.pdf
Primary Sources:
Toxic Legacy: Three-part documentary by Thomas E. Franklin
Link: https://www.thomasfranklin.com/work/toxiclegacy
Location: Online digital archive / photo essay hosted on Thomas Franklin’s professional website
Description: This source is useful for my project because it provides detailed evidence of how political and legal decisions shaped the cleanup process at Ringwood. It specifically discusses the 2006 Mann v. Ford lawsuit, where the Ramapough Lenape community sued Ford, its contractors, and the borough, and even brought their case before Congress. This shows how residents used legal and political systems to challenge both corporate actions and government oversight. The source also explains how the case resulted in a relatively small $11 million settlement, with many families receiving only about $8,000, highlighting limitations in legal accountability and environmental justice. In addition, the website includes interviews and documentation from the time, which reveal ongoing community concerns, corporate responses, and government involvement. Overall, this source helps me analyze how policy decisions, legal processes, and power dynamics influenced both the cleanup and its outcomes.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Record of Decision: Ringwood Mines/Landfill Superfund Site (Operable Unit 3).
Link: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/02/615708.pdf
Location: EPA Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) Document Repository
Description: This Record of Decision outlines the official cleanup strategy chosen by the EPA to address the groundwater contamination at the Ringwood Mines/Landfill site. The document explains the environmental risks associated with toxic waste disposal and details the cleanup methods chosen to reduce pollution and protect nearby communities. This source provides insight into the government’s decision making process to determine cleanup strategies.
EPA Revises Final Cleanup Plan for Ringwood Mines Superfund Site in Ringwood, New Jersey (NJ)
Link: https://www.proquest.com/docview/1674481031?accountid=13626&parentSessionId=ZVkwNxdPsEX%2BKpNKiS1S5EZ9GxN0u7485mjf96gcLRc%3D&pq-origsite=primo&sourcetype=Reports
Location: ProQuest database (Environmental Protection Agency Documents and Publications)
Description: This source is useful for my project because it provides direct insight into how the EPA made cleanup decisions at the Ringwood Mines site. As an official government press release, it explains the reasoning behind specific actions, such as modifying the cleanup plan to allow a recycling center instead of full excavation, showing how local government interests and land use priorities influenced environmental decisions. It also reveals that the EPA chose to cap and monitor contamination rather than fully remove it, which helps explain how hazardous materials were allowed to remain on site. Additionally, the source outlines the timeline of delisting in 1994 and relisting in 2006 after more contamination was discovered highlighting mistakes in earlier regulatory decisions. Overall, this source helps me analyze how political, economic, and regulatory factors shaped the cleanup process and contributed to the persistence of contamination.
Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Oversight Hearing
Link: https://www.proquest.com/docview/1535039207?accountid=13626&parentSessionId=UTJIQCZb8%2BPomjJgwmzxUX1FeiZ9Cyldq8AC5Z%2BCVUA%3D&pq-origsite=primo&sourcetype=Other%20Sources
Location: ProQuest (Congressional Documents and Publications)
Description: This source is useful for my project because it shows how political decisions and funding issues affected the Superfund cleanup process. Since it’s a U.S. Senate hearing, it gives insight into how policymakers and environmental advocates discussed problems with the EPA, especially the lack of funding and weak enforcement. It explains how the removal of the “polluter pays” fees made it harder to hold companies accountable and slowed down cleanups at sites like Ringwood. It also shows how communities have to compete for limited resources, which helps explain why some sites were not fully cleaned. Overall, this source helps me understand how government policies and funding decisions played a big role in allowing contamination to continue.
Public Health Assessment: Ringwood Mines/Landfill Site, Ringwood, New Jersey
Link: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHA/ringwood/PHA%20Text.pdf
Location: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) / New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services report
Description: This source is useful for my project because it shows how government agencies assessed contamination and made decisions about whether the site was safe. It explains how the site was removed from the Superfund list in 1994 after officials believed there were no major exposure risks, even though later investigations found that contamination was still widespread in soil, water, and sludge. This highlights how earlier decisions were based on incomplete data or assumptions about risk. The report also outlines how agencies like the EPA and NJDEP monitored the site and relied on long term testing instead of fully removing contaminants which helps explain why pollution remained. It also includes community concerns and health data, showing how residents challenged these decisions and pushed for further investigation. Overall, this source helps me analyze how government risk assessments and policy decisions contributed to the site being declared “clean” too early and allowed contamination to continue.
Secondary Sources:
Warren, Michael Sol, and Andrew S. Lewis. Hazard NJ: For generations now, a tribe fights legacy left by polluter. NJ Spotlight News, 2022.
https://www.njspotlightnews.org/special-report/hazard-nj-toxic-contamination-ford-motor-company-turtle-clan-ramapough-lenape-nation-superfund-paint-sludge-solvents-ringwood-mines-cancer-road/
This source is an investigative news article that looks at the history of contamination at the Ringwood Mines Superfund site and the political issues surrounding its cleanup. This source will help me understand how political and government decisions played a big role in what happened at Ringwood Mines, instead of it just being an environmental problem. It talks about how the EPA removed the site from the Superfund list in 1994 even though contamination was still there, which shows how decisions were made based on limited information or other priorities. The article also explains how cleanup methods like capping and monitoring were chosen instead of fully removing the waste which suggests that cost and practicality influenced these decisions. It also shows how Ford’s responsibility for the pollution was handled through negotiations rather than strict enforcement, which connects to bigger issues with how environmental laws are applied. On top of that, the source highlights how the Ramapough Lenape community responded by taking political action like filing lawsuits and speaking out against both the government and Ford. Overall, this source helps show that the contamination at Ringwood continued because of political choices and compromises, not just because of the pollution itself.
Hird, John A. Superfund: The Political Economy of Environmental Risk. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.
This source is an academic study that analyzes how the Superfund program works and how political and economic factors shape environmental cleanup decisions in the United States.
This source will help me understand how government decisions about sites like Ringwood Mines are influenced by politics, funding, and economic priorities rather than just public health concerns. Hird explains how the Superfund program often prioritizes certain sites over others based on cost, risk assessments, and political pressure which can lead to delays or incomplete cleanups. This connects to Ringwood because the site was removed from the Superfund list even though contamination remained, showing how government decisions may not fully reflect the needs of affected communities. The book also highlights how responsibility between corporations and the government is often negotiated, which helps explain why companies like Ford were not always held fully accountable. Overall, this source supports the idea that environmental cleanup is shaped by political trade offs and economic limitations and not just science or safety.
Borough of Ringwood. Petition in Commitment to Full Remediation of O’Connor Disposal Area and the Contaminated Water in Peters and Cannon Mines. Ringwood, NJ.
https://www.ringwoodnj.net/filestorage/3886/9451/Packet_15.pdf
This source is an official government document that outlines a petition and proposed actions related to the cleanup of the Ringwood Mines Superfund site.
This source will help me understand how local government decisions and community pressure influenced environmental policy at Ringwood Mines. The document shows that the Borough of Ringwood formally pushed for full remediation including removing contaminated waste instead of just capping it, which highlights disagreements over how cleanup should be handled. It also references EPA decisions, like choosing capping as a “remedy,” which suggests that government agencies sometimes prioritize cost or feasibility over long term safety. The document also discusses holding Ford accountable under environmental laws like CERCLA showing how responsibility for pollution becomes a legal and political issue rather than just an environmental one. Overall, this source shows that cleanup efforts were shaped by negotiations between the local government, federal agencies, and corporations, revealing how political decisions directly affected how much cleanup actually happened.
Image Analysis:
A house immediately adjacent to the Ringwood Mines Superfund site in Ringwood, NJ on April 4, 2022.
A house right next to the Ringwood Mines Superfund site in Ringwood, NJ (Taken by Michael Sol Warren- NJ Spotlight News). The image of a house beside the Ringwood Mines Superfund site in Ringwood, New Jersey captures the way environmental harm becomes part of regular daily life. Taken by Michael Sol Warren for NJ Spotlight News, the picture shows a residential space directly next to a fenced and restricted area connected to the long history of contamination at Ringwood. Ringwood Mines became a major environmental justice site after the Ford Motor Company and other groups dumped toxic paint sludge and industrial waste in the area during the 1960s, affecting a community that included many Ramapough Lenape residents. Even after the site was placed on the federal Superfund list and later declared cleaned, contamination continued to reappear showing how official cleanup didn’t fully remove the burden from the people living nearby. This image is important because it shows that the harm at Ringwood was not only environmental but also social and political. Pollution was allowed to consistently remain in an actual lived in community, forcing residents to live with the long term consequences of corporate dumping and unfinished cleanup.
One of the most noticeable parts of the image is the house sitting right next to the restricted site. The house, driveway, parked cars, and mailbox, represents normal everyday life. At first it looks like a typical suburban space where people live comfortably. But that normal feeling is disrupted by how close it is to the fenced off contaminated area. Instead of pollution being far away or hidden, it exists right next to where people live. This shows that the residents aren’t separated from the environmental damage, they have to live with it as part of their daily lives. The image suggests a form of environmental inequality where certain communities are more likely to be placed in or stuck in areas affected by long term contamination. There are also economic effects since living near a toxic site can make it harder to sell a home or move away, which means residents can end up feeling trapped in a place shaped by decisions they didn’t make.
Another important feature in the image is the fence and warning signs that separate the contaminated land from the residential area. The tall fence, closed gate and posted signs clearly mark the space as restricted and dangerous. These elements show that the land behind the fence is recognized as hazardous but at the same time, they highlight how close that danger is to where people live. The fence creates a visible boundary but it doesn’t actually remove the risk for the surrounding community. Instead it shows that the pollution has been contained rather than fully cleaned up. This raises questions about how effective the cleanup efforts really were since residents are still living right next to a space that requires warning signs and restricted access. The image points to the limits of the Superfund process showing that even when action is taken, it doesn’t always fully protect the people most affected.
The natural landscape in the image adds another layer as well. There are trees, open space, and greenery that make the area look calm and normal at first glance. Nothing immediately stands out as dangerous which makes the setting feel like a typical outdoor environment. However this changes once the fenced off section is noticed. The contrast between the natural surroundings and the restricted contaminated area shows how environmental damage can be hidden within places that appear safe. Someone passing by might not even realize that toxic waste was dumped there. This makes the pollution less visible but not any less harmful for the people who live nearby. The image suggests that environmental hazards are not always obvious and that they can exist quietly within everyday landscapes especially in communities that have less power to challenge or change those conditions.
Just as important as what is visible in the image is what is missing from it. There are no signs of Ford Motor Company, government officials, or cleanup workers anywhere in the scene. The people and institutions responsible for the contamination and its management are completely absent. Instead the image focuses on the space where residents continue to live, placing attention on those who are left to deal with the long term effects. This absence suggests that while corporations and policymakers played a major role in creating and handling the problem, they’re not the ones experiencing its ongoing consequences. The burden is placed on the local community including the Ramapough Lenape, who have had to live with the impacts of contamination for decades. By leaving out those responsible, the image reinforces the idea that environmental harm is unevenly distributed with marginalized communities carrying the lasting effects of decisions made by more powerful groups.
Overall, this image shows how environmental contamination doesn’t just go away after the initial pollution happens. The Ringwood Mines site isn’t just a place where toxic waste was dumped, it’s a place where people still have to live with the consequences years later. By showing a regular home right next to a restricted contaminated area, the image makes it clear that this isn’t some distant issue but something that directly affects everyday life. It also shows that environmental harm isn’t experienced equally. Instead, certain communities, like the Ramapough Lenape, end up dealing with the long term impacts of decisions made by corporations and government agencies. This connects to a bigger pattern in post World War II America, where industrial waste and pollution were often placed in or near marginalized communities. Even when cleanup efforts happen they don’t always fully fix the problem, which means people are still left dealing with the effects. Overall, the image helps show that environmental inequality is not just about pollution itself, but about who is forced to live with it over time.
A house immediately adjacent to the Ringwood Mines Superfund site in Ringwood, NJ on April 4, 2022.
Data Analysis:
Oral Interviews:
Video Story:
This video tells the story of the Ringwood Mines Landfill in Ringwood, New Jersey, a Superfund site where toxic waste was dumped beginning in the 1960s. It focuses on how corporate actions, especially by Ford Motor Company, and government decisions allowed contamination to continue even after the site was declared “clean” in 1994. By tracing the history of dumping, cleanup efforts, and the site’s relisting in 2006, the video highlights how environmental policies failed to fully protect the local community. Overall, this story shows how environmental injustice can persist over time when accountability and effective regulation are lacking.