How NL Industries and Corporate America Turned a Jersey Shore Park into a Toxic Wasteland.

How NL Industries and 20 Corporate Co-Conspirators Poisoned a New Jersey Shoreline with Lead for Decades
EvilCorporations.com — Corporate Accountability Project
Environmental Crime NL Industries · Superfund · New Jersey

How NL Industries and 20 Corporate Co-Conspirators Poisoned a New Jersey Shoreline with Lead for Decades

For nearly half a century, battery manufacturers and metal smelters dumped lead-laced furnace slag onto a recreational shoreline bordering Raritan Bay. Wetlands were destroyed. Wildlife was poisoned. Residents were fenced away from their own beach.

Lead Manufacturing Middlesex County, NJ Filed September 2024 HIGH SEVERITY
The Short Version

NL Industries operated a lead smelting facility in Perth Amboy, New Jersey from 1928 to 1975, generating enormous quantities of toxic furnace slag and battery waste. Rather than disposing of this lead-contaminated material responsibly, NL hired a trucking company to dump it on the shore of Raritan Bay in Old Bridge Township and Sayreville. More than 20 battery manufacturers and metal companies sent their hazardous waste to NL’s facility, which compounded the contamination. The site now contains approximately 11,000 cubic yards of slag and battery casings, plus 80,000 cubic yards of lead-contaminated soil and sediment. The federal government has already spent over $32 million cleaning up this corporate mess, and the bill keeps growing. A residential neighborhood sits directly adjacent to a poisoned shoreline that residents were fenced off from in 2009 because public health officials confirmed it was simply too dangerous to swim, fish, or sunbathe there.

This is not an accident. This is a half-century of calculated decisions to treat a public shoreline as a private dumping ground. Demand full accountability for every corporation on this list.

Scale of Harm
$32M+
Federal cleanup costs incurred as of May 2023
21
Corporate defendants named in federal lawsuit
47
Years NL Industries operated the Perth Amboy lead smelter (1928-1975)
11,000
Cubic yards of slag and battery casings contaminating the site
80,000
Cubic yards of lead-contaminated soil and sediment
3
Contaminated sectors: wetlands, seawall, and jetty
2,200 ft
Length of the contaminated seawall along Raritan Bay
2009
Year EPA fenced off the beach, citing confirmed public health hazard
The Evidence
⚠️
Core Allegations
What they did
01NL Industries purchased the United Lead Co. in 1928 and ran a secondary lead smelting operation in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, continuously until 1975, generating decades of toxic industrial waste.high
02NL’s smelting operations processed scrap batteries, scrap metal, lead oxides, and battery plates, producing furnace slag loaded with lead, chromium, antimony, and arsenic.high
03NL hired Liberty Trucking to dispose of its toxic waste. That waste was transported to a recreational shoreline area in Old Bridge Township and dumped directly onto land adjacent to Raritan Bay.high
04Around 1967, lead furnace slag and battery casings were dumped on the federally authorized Western Jetty at Cheesequake Creek Inlet, contaminating a public navigation structure and the surrounding waterfront.high
05More than 20 battery manufacturers and metal companies arranged to send their own hazardous waste to NL’s Perth Amboy facility. That waste was also ultimately dumped at the Raritan Bay site.high
06The site sits directly adjacent to residential properties. The contaminated shoreline, wetlands, seawall, and jetty were used by the community for recreation until federal authorities confirmed the area was a public health hazard.high
07Old Bridge Township purchased the contaminated seawall property in 1983 with documented knowledge that lead waste had been deposited there, yet the contamination was not addressed for decades.med
☣️
Public Health and Safety
The harm to real people
01The New Jersey Department of Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry confirmed that the seawall, adjacent beach, and western jetty constitute a public health hazard due to elevated lead levels.high
02In 2009, EPA installed permanent fences around the beach, jetty, and wetlands and posted signs prohibiting swimming, fishing, and sunbathing at a recreational shoreline that a community depended on.high
03Lead, chromium, antimony, arsenic, and copper were identified in soils along the seawall, in sediments, and in surface water. These are not trace amounts; they are elevated above remediation thresholds.high
04Battery casings and furnace slag have produced confirmed adverse ecological effects on aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species. The contamination reached the bay itself, affecting the broader ecosystem.high
05Contamination in 2007 and 2008 sampling confirmed lead and heavy metal poisoning in soil, sediment, and surface water across multiple sectors of the site, years before any meaningful cleanup began.med
🏘️
Community Impact
What this cost the neighborhood
01The contaminated site sits in the Laurence Harbor section of Old Bridge Township, bordered by residential properties on three sides. Families living next to this site had no meaningful warning for decades.high
02The Margaret’s Creek Sector, a 47-acre wetland at the eastern end of the site, was contaminated with battery casings and furnace slag. Wetlands provide ecological services that cannot simply be replaced.high
03Residents and visitors were warned against swimming, fishing, and sunbathing at a shoreline on Raritan Bay that existed as a recreational resource for the Laurence Harbor community.med
04The site has been on the federal National Priorities List (Superfund) since November 4, 2009, marking it as one of the most contaminated sites in the United States requiring priority federal cleanup.med
05Natural resources including land, fish, wildlife, surface water, and groundwater in and around Raritan Bay have been injured, destroyed, or lost as a direct result of these companies’ disposal decisions.high
🏛️
Regulatory Failures and Accountability Gaps
How oversight failed
01NL Industries operated its Perth Amboy lead smelter and arranged toxic waste disposal for nearly five decades before regulators took meaningful action. The federal lawsuit was not filed until September 2024.high
02Old Bridge Township purchased the contaminated seawall property in 1983 with knowledge of lead waste deposits. The municipality is now listed as a defendant alongside the corporations responsible for the contamination.high
03EPA did not send NL Industries a formal liability notice until February 2012, and did not file suit until September 2024. In the intervening years, the federal government spent over $32 million in taxpayer money on cleanup.high
04Multiple successor corporations are named as defendants because the original polluting companies were acquired, restructured, or renamed. This corporate complexity delayed accountability for decades.med
05The remedial investigation did not begin until September 2010, more than 35 years after NL’s smelting operations ended. The Seawall Sector cleanup design was not even initiated until May 2017.med
📉
Economic Fallout
Who pays for corporate pollution
01As of May 31, 2023, the United States government had incurred $32,268,119 in unreimbursed cleanup costs at this site. Not one dollar of this cost was borne by the companies that created the problem before the lawsuit.high
02EPA expects to incur additional future response costs at the site. The Seawall Sector cleanup has not been completed as of the filing date, meaning taxpayers will continue to fund the cleanup.high
03New Jersey state agencies have also incurred independent cleanup and natural resource damage assessment costs that are being claimed against defendants under the New Jersey Spill Act.med
04The destruction of natural resources in Raritan Bay represents a loss of ecological services, including fisheries and coastal habitat, that benefits the public. These losses have not been fully quantified.med
⚖️
Corporate Accountability Failures
A system designed to delay
01The lawsuit names 21 corporate defendants plus Old Bridge Township. The involvement of so many companies, many operating through successor entities, illustrates how corporate restructuring shields polluters from accountability.high
02NL Industries received EPA’s first demand for cost reimbursement in February 2012. The company apparently refused to pay, requiring a federal lawsuit filed more than 12 years later to force accountability.high
03Several named defendants are successors in interest to the original polluting companies, including Rio Tinto entities (successor to Capper Pass and Son), Clarios (successor to Globe-Union), and EnerSys (successor to Electric Storage Battery Co.). Each corporate transaction created another layer of distance from liability.med
04The complaint seeks joint and several liability under CERCLA, meaning each defendant can be held responsible for the full cost of cleanup regardless of their individual contribution to the contamination. This is the only tool available to address decades of shared corporate misconduct.med

Timeline of Events

1928
NL Industries purchases United Lead Co. and begins operating a secondary lead smelting facility at 1050 State Street in Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
1928-1975
NL’s Perth Amboy facility processes scrap batteries, lead oxides, and battery plates, generating furnace slag and battery casings containing lead, arsenic, chromium, and antimony. Toxic waste is transported by Liberty Trucking to the Raritan Bay shoreline.
~1967
Charles Ludwig, president of Liberty Trucking, disposes of NL’s lead furnace slag and battery casings on the Western Jetty at Cheesequake Creek Inlet and adjacent land.
1975
NL Industries ends smelting operations at the Perth Amboy facility. Decades of toxic disposal have already contaminated the Raritan Bay shoreline.
May 1983
Old Bridge Township purchases the seawall property with documented knowledge that lead waste had been deposited there.
2007
NJDEP identifies elevated levels of lead, antimony, arsenic, chromium, and copper in soil along the seawall and at the beach edge.
2008
EPA and NJDEP confirm elevated lead and heavy metals in soils, sediment, and surface water at both the seawall and the western jetty.
2009
New Jersey Department of Health and ATSDR declare a public health hazard at the site. EPA installs permanent fences and posts warning signs. The 47-acre Margaret’s Creek Sector is added to the site. The site is placed on the National Priorities List (Superfund) on November 4, 2009.
2010-2011
EPA conducts Remedial Investigation field activities at the site.
Feb 2012
EPA sends NL Industries formal liability notice and a demand for reimbursement of costs related to the Raritan Bay Slag Superfund Site.
May 2013
EPA issues a Record of Decision selecting the site remedy: excavation and off-site disposal of slag, battery casings, and contaminated soils and sediment above remediation levels.
Sep 2016 – Sep 2018
EPA conducts remedial action at the Margaret’s Creek Sector using federal funds. Remediation of this sector is completed in September 2018.
Feb 2017
EPA sends Old Bridge Township a formal notice of potential CERCLA liability.
May 2017
EPA initiates design work for the Seawall Sector cleanup. Sampling occurs in July 2018. The sector’s cleanup remains incomplete.
May 2023
Federal unreimbursed response costs reach $32,268,119. No corporate defendant has reimbursed these costs.
Sep 4, 2024
The United States Department of Justice and New Jersey DEP file a federal lawsuit against 21 corporate defendants and Old Bridge Township seeking full cost recovery and natural resource damages.

Direct Quotes from the Legal Record

QUOTE 1 Public health hazard confirmed by state and federal agencies Public Health
“[The agencies] concluded that, due to the elevated lead levels, a public health hazard exists at the Seawall in Laurence Harbor, the beach adjacent to and west of the Seawall, and the Western Jetty at the Cheesequake Creek Inlet, including the waterfront area immediately west of the inlet.”

💡 This is the official government finding that the community’s beach was too dangerous to use. It took decades of contamination and active investigation to reach this conclusion.

QUOTE 2 The scale of contamination requiring removal Environmental Harm
“The ROD indicated that there were approximately 11,000 cubic yards of slag and other source material at the Site, and 80,000 cubic yards of additional contaminated soils and sediments that contain lead above cleanup levels.”

💡 The sheer volume of toxic material documents that this was not incidental pollution but decades of systematic dumping.

QUOTE 3 Old Bridge’s documented knowledge of contamination at time of purchase Accountability
“At the time of its purchase in 1983, Old Bridge had knowledge that lead waste had been deposited at the property on which the Seawall was located.”

💡 Old Bridge Township is not an innocent victim here. The municipality purchased contaminated land with eyes open and allowed the situation to fester for decades.

QUOTE 4 Wildlife destruction caused by corporate dumping Ecological Harm
“The presence of slag and battery casings have produced adverse ecological effects to natural resources such as aquatic, terrestrial and avian species. The continued presence of contaminated soil, sediment, and surface water pose further risk to natural resources and their services.”

💡 Fish, birds, and aquatic life have been harmed. The damage is ongoing. This was not a one-time spill but a perpetual source of poisoning.

QUOTE 5 NL Industries’ direct role in the disposal chain Core Allegations
“NL hired Liberty Trucking Co. (‘Liberty Trucking’) of Fords, New Jersey, to dispose of waste from NL’s Perth Amboy lead smelting operations, including furnace slag and battery casings.”

💡 NL did not accidentally pollute. It made a deliberate corporate decision to hire a company to take away its toxic waste. Where that waste went was the predictable result of that decision.

QUOTE 6 The State’s authority to act for its citizens Accountability
“NJDEP brings this action and has standing to sue to protect the sovereign and quasi-sovereign interests of the State, including public resources and the environment, in its parens patriae authority as sovereign and protector of its citizens and territory.”

💡 New Jersey is suing on behalf of its people. The communities who swam, fished, and sunbathed on this shoreline are the ones whose interests are being represented in court.

QUOTE 7 Taxpayer dollars already spent cleaning up corporate poison Economic Fallout
“As of May 31, 2023, the United States had incurred approximately $32,268,119 in unreimbursed response costs at the Site. EPA expects to incur future response costs at the Site as well.”

💡 Taxpayers have already paid over $32 million for a mess created by private corporations prioritizing cheap disposal over public safety. That bill will keep growing.

Commentary

What exactly did NL Industries do wrong?
NL Industries ran a lead smelting facility in Perth Amboy from 1928 to 1975. The smelting process generated furnace slag and battery casings loaded with lead, arsenic, chromium, and antimony. Instead of disposing of this hazardous material in an appropriate facility, NL hired a trucking company to take it away cheaply. That trucking company dumped NL’s toxic waste on the shoreline of Raritan Bay in Old Bridge Township. This was not an accident or an oversight. It was a cost-cutting decision that contaminated a public recreational shoreline for decades and poisoned the surrounding wetlands, beaches, and waterways. Dozens of families lived next to this dump site without knowing what was under the ground.
Why are 21 companies being sued, not just NL Industries?
NL Industries’ Perth Amboy facility was not only processing NL’s own waste. Dozens of battery manufacturers and metal companies sent their own hazardous waste to the Perth Amboy smelter for processing. That waste was then dumped at the Raritan Bay site along with NL’s waste. Companies including subsidiaries of Honeywell, Rio Tinto, Johnson Controls, East Penn Manufacturing, Crown Battery, and others arranged for their toxic battery and smelting waste to be handled at NL’s facility. Under CERCLA, any company that arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances at a site can be held jointly and severally liable for the full cleanup cost. That means each of these 21 companies helped create the contamination and each can be held responsible for cleaning it up.
Is this lawsuit credible, and does it have a serious chance of succeeding?
Yes. This is a CERCLA Superfund case filed by the United States Department of Justice on behalf of the EPA, NOAA, and the Department of the Interior, joined by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. CERCLA is one of the strongest environmental liability statutes ever passed. It imposes strict, joint and several liability without requiring proof of negligence or intent. The government simply needs to show that hazardous substances were disposed of at the site and that defendants arranged for or owned that disposal. The documented history of NL Industries’ smelting operations, Liberty Trucking’s disposal routes, the Superfund listing, and over $32 million in federal cleanup expenditures create a very strong factual record. The key legal fight will likely center on allocating liability among the 21 corporate defendants rather than whether liability exists at all.
What is lead poisoning, and why is this contamination so serious?
Lead is a neurotoxin with no safe level of exposure. In children, lead exposure causes permanent cognitive damage, reduced IQ, behavioral problems, and developmental delays. In adults, it causes cardiovascular disease, kidney damage, and neurological harm. The contamination at Raritan Bay includes not just lead but also arsenic, chromium, antimony, and copper at levels above cleanup thresholds. These substances leach into soil, sediment, and surface water. Anyone who swam in the bay, fished there, or even played on the beach before the site was fenced in 2009 was potentially exposed to these toxins. The fact that state and federal health officials declared the site a public health hazard means the contamination was not theoretical. It was dangerous enough to require permanent fencing and public warning signs.
Why did it take until 2024 to file a lawsuit if the contamination was known since 2007?
This is one of the most troubling aspects of this case, and it reflects a structural problem with how environmental enforcement works in America. The government identified contamination in 2007 and 2008, confirmed a public health hazard and fenced off the beach in 2009, and placed the site on the Superfund National Priorities List in 2009. EPA sent NL Industries a demand for cost reimbursement in 2012. And yet the lawsuit was not filed until September 2024: more than 15 years after the health hazard was confirmed, and more than 12 years after NL received its first payment demand. In the meantime, taxpayers spent over $32 million cleaning up the mess. This delay is not just bureaucratic slowness. It reflects a legal and political environment in which corporations can resist accountability for years, forcing the government to absorb cleanup costs while litigation threats hang unresolved. Enforcement must be faster and more aggressive to actually deter this conduct.
What harm was done to wildlife and the natural environment?
The complaint confirms that slag and battery casings have produced adverse ecological effects on aquatic species, land animals, and birds. Contaminated soil, sediment, and surface water continue to pose risks to natural resources and the services they provide, including clean water filtration, habitat for shellfish and migratory birds, and coastal stabilization. The 47-acre Margaret’s Creek Sector is wetlands, one of the most ecologically sensitive environments in any coastal region. Wetlands support a disproportionately large share of biodiversity and provide services like flood control and water quality improvement that benefit the surrounding community. Contaminating wetlands with lead furnace slag is not a minor harm. It is the destruction of a natural system that took centuries to develop and cannot simply be replaced by excavating dirt.
How does a municipality end up as a co-defendant alongside corporations in an environmental lawsuit?
Old Bridge Township purchased the contaminated seawall property in 1983 with documented knowledge that lead waste had been deposited there. Under CERCLA, the owner of a contaminated facility can be held liable for cleanup costs regardless of whether they caused the original contamination. Old Bridge did not dump the lead. But it bought the property knowing it was contaminated and became the “owner” of a facility releasing hazardous substances, which triggers CERCLA liability. This provision exists precisely to prevent municipalities and developers from acquiring contaminated sites on the cheap and then walking away from cleanup obligations. Whether Old Bridge exercised appropriate diligence after its purchase, and whether it took any steps to warn or protect nearby residents, are questions that the litigation may help answer.
What can I do to prevent this from happening again?
There are concrete steps that matter. First, contact your federal and state elected representatives and demand adequate funding for EPA enforcement and Superfund cleanup. The Superfund trust fund was depleted years ago and cleanup backlogs are enormous. Second, support organizations fighting for environmental justice in communities near industrial sites, including Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and local New Jersey environmental groups. Third, if you live near a former industrial site or Superfund location, request air and soil testing and stay informed through your local health department. Fourth, vote for candidates with serious environmental enforcement records and hold them accountable when they fail. Finally, share this story. Corporate polluters rely on public ignorance and short memories. The more people understand that a community in New Jersey had its beach fenced off because corporations chose cheap disposal over public safety, the harder it becomes for this conduct to go unpunished.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/09/10/2024-20336/notice-of-lodging-of-proposed-consent-decree-under-the-comprehensive-environmental-response

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-settlement-provide-151-million-cleanup-raritan-bay-slag-superfund-site

https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0200390#bkground


Explore by category

01

Antitrust

Monopolies and anti-competition tactics used to crush rivals.

View Cases →
02

Product Safety Violations

When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.

View Cases →
03

Environmental Violations

Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.

View Cases →
04

Labor Exploitation

Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.

View Cases →
05

Data Breaches & Privacy

Misuse and mishandling of personal information.

View Cases →
06

Financial Fraud & Corruption

Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.

View Cases →
07

Intellectual Property

IP theft that punishes originality and rewards copying.

View Cases →
08

Misleading Marketing

False claims that waste money and bury critical safety info.

View Cases →
Aleeia
Aleeia

I'm Aleeia, the creator of this website.

I have 6+ years of experience as an independent researcher covering corporate misconduct, sourced from legal documents, regulatory filings, and professional legal databases.

My background includes a Supply Chain Management degree from Michigan State University's Eli Broad College of Business, and years working inside the industries I now cover.

Every post on this site was either written or personally reviewed and edited by me before publication.

Learn more about my research standards and editorial process by visiting my About page

Articles: 1786