Natural Resource Damages at the ExxonMobil Bayway and

Transcription

Natural Resource Damages
at the ExxonMobil Bayway
and Bayonne Sites
Prepared for:
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Kanner & Whiteley, LLC
Nagel Rice & Mazie, LLP
Natural Resource Damages
at the ExxonMobil Bayway
and Bayonne Sites
Prepared for:
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
PO Box 404
Trenton, NJ 08625-0402
and
Kanner & Whiteley, LLC
701 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
and
Nagel Rice & Mazie, LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Prepared by:
Stratus Consulting Inc.
PO Box 4059
Boulder, CO 80306-4059
(303) 381-8000
and
Toxicological & Environmental Associates, Inc.
307 North University Boulevard
HSB Suite 1100, Room 1160
Mobile, AL 36688
November 3, 2006
SC10982
Contents
List of Figures..............................................................................................................................iv
List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................vi
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1
Introduction and Summary ............................................................................ 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
Background and Report Organization ............................................................... 1-2
Sources of Information ...................................................................................... 1-3
Authors’ Qualifications...................................................................................... 1-4
Chapter 2
Site Description ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1
2.2
2.3
Affected Habitats ............................................................................................... 2-2
Ecological Setting .............................................................................................. 2-8
2.2.1 Regional context .................................................................................... 2-8
2.2.2 Description of affected habitats ........................................................... 2-11
Conclusions...................................................................................................... 2-17
Chapter 3
Nature and Extent of Contamination............................................................. 3-1
3.1
Contaminants ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Contaminant evaluation criteria........................................................... 3-11
3.1.2 Evaluating site data.............................................................................. 3-19
Nature and Extent of Contamination ............................................................... 3-19
3.2.1 Bayway ................................................................................................ 3-19
3.2.2 Bayonne ............................................................................................... 3-34
Contaminant Transport and Migration in the Environment............................. 3-38
3.3.1 Soil pathways ....................................................................................... 3-42
3.3.2 Sediment pathways .............................................................................. 3-42
3.3.3 Surface and groundwater pathways ..................................................... 3-43
3.3.4 Exposure to biota ................................................................................. 3-43
Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 3-43
3.2
3.3
3.4
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Contents (11/3/2006)
Chapter 4
Restoration Plan............................................................................................... 4-1
4.1
4.2
4.4
Background: Ecological Restoration of Contaminated Sites............................. 4-2
Amount and Cost of Restoration Needed .......................................................... 4-5
4.2.1 On-site restoration.................................................................................. 4-6
4.2.2 Off-site restoration ................................................................................. 4-9
Technical Feasibility of Restoration ................................................................ 4-14
4.3.1 Opportunities ....................................................................................... 4-15
Conclusions...................................................................................................... 4-16
Chapter 5
Literature Cited ............................................................................................... 5-1
4.3
Appendices
A
B
C
Site Histories of the ExxonMobil Bayway and Bayonne Refineries
Calculating the Required Amount of Off-Site Replacement
Off-Site Restoration Costs
Page iii
SC10982
Figures
1.1
Location of the Exxon Bayway and Bayonne refineries ............................................... 1-1
2.1
2.2
Location of the Exxon Bayway and Bayonne refineries ............................................... 2-1
Bayway habitats from an 1889 New Jersey resources map, showing the
extent of intertidal wetlands, forested areas, and waterways......................................... 2-3
1898 USGS quadrangle map of the location of the Bayway Refinery .......................... 2-4
1889 New Jersey resources map of Bayonne Refinery location ................................... 2-5
1898 USGS map of Bayonne Refinery location ............................................................ 2-5
Affected habitats at the Exxon Bayway site .................................................................. 2-7
Affected habitats at the Bayonne site ............................................................................ 2-8
Great egret.................................................................................................................... 2-10
Crab fishing in the Arthur Kill..................................................................................... 2-11
Intertidal salt marsh, Rahway River ............................................................................ 2-11
Intertidal salt marsh along Piles Creek ........................................................................ 2-12
Diamondback terrapin.................................................................................................. 2-13
Palustrine wetland........................................................................................................ 2-14
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
Excerpts from a safety brochure describing chemical hazards at the
ConocoPhillips Bayway refinery in Linden, NJ, obtained during a site
visit in October 2006...................................................................................................... 3-2
Locations of contaminated groundwater at the Bayway Refinery, as
designated by TRC Raviv Associates .......................................................................... 3-21
Contaminant threshold exceedences and organic contaminant detections
in soils and sediments at the Bayway refinery............................................................. 3-22
View across Morses Creek to the Pitch Area .............................................................. 3-31
Close-up view of tarry sludge deposited at the Pitch Area and along
Morses Creek ............................................................................................................... 3-32
Petroleum “pop-up” at the Fire Fighter Landfill ......................................................... 3-33
Approximate locations of groundwater petroleum plumes at the
Bayonne Refinery ........................................................................................................ 3-35
Petroleum products and sludge in the Platty Kill Creek.............................................. 3-36
Petroleum products discharged into the Platty Kill Creek........................................... 3-37
Threshold concentration exceedences and detectable organic contaminants
in Bayonne soils and sediment..................................................................................... 3-39
Pathways of contaminant transport from sources to natural resource receptors.......... 3-42
Great egret along Morses Creek, Bayway Refinery .................................................... 3-44
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Figures (11/3/2006)
Intertidal wetland restoration project on the Arthur Kill at the base of the
Goethals Bridge, Staten Island....................................................................................... 4-3
Woodbridge River wetland restoration project.............................................................. 4-5
Plan for on-site restoration at the Bayway facility ........................................................ 4-7
Plan for on-site restoration at the Bayonne facility ....................................................... 4-8
Page v
SC10982
Tables
2.1
2.2
2.3
Areal coverage of historic habitats at the Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ...................... 2-6
Areal coverage of historic habitats at the Bayonne Refinery, Bayonne, NJ.................. 2-6
Federally and state-listed species of concern in the Arthur Kill/Newark Bay
region ............................................................................................................................. 2-9
3.1
Organic contaminants that have been detected in soils and/or sediment at the
Bayway and Bayonne refineries .................................................................................... 3-3
Contaminant screening threshold values used to evaluate soil and sediment data
at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries ........................................................................ 3-12
Likelihood of marine amphipod toxicity at the soil screening threshold
concentration................................................................................................................ 3-18
Contaminants that exceeded thresholds in soil and sediment samples
collected at the Bayway Refinery ................................................................................ 3-24
Summary of groundwater plumes identified in the RI at the Bayonne Refinery......... 3-34
Contaminants that exceeded thresholds in soil and sediment samples
collected at the Bayonne Refinery ............................................................................... 3-40
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.1
4.2
4.3
Present value habitat loss for the Bayway and Bayonne sites ..................................... 4-11
Acres of off-site replacement habitat restoration required .......................................... 4-12
Off-site replacement costs, Exxon Bayway and Bayonne sites................................... 4-13
SC10982
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AOCs
areas of concern
BEE
Baseline Ecological Evaluation
EPA
ESLs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ecological Screening Levels
FS
feasibility study
HEA
HEP
Habitat Equivalency Analysis
Harbor Estuary Program
IAOCs
investigative areas of concern
msl
MTBE
mean sea level
methyl tertiary butyl ether
NAPL
NJCF
NJDEP
NOAA
NRCS
NRDA
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
New Jersey Conservation Foundation
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Natural Resource Damage Assessment
PCBs
polychlorinated biphenyls
RCRA
RI
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
remedial investigation
SLOU
Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit
USACE
USFWS
USGS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
SC10982
1. Introduction and Summary
The ExxonMobil Corporation’s Bayway and Bayonne
refineries have been in operation for over 100 years.
The Bayway Refinery is located in Linden, NJ in an
area that previously consisted of wetlands overlooking
the Arthur Kill and Newark Bay (Figure 1.1). The
Bayonne Refinery is located in Bayonne, NJ and
borders the Kill van Kull and New York Harbor
(Figure 1.1). Over the past 100 years, actions at the
two refineries have caused widespread contamination
of important habitats such as intertidal salt marsh,
marsh creeks, and wetlands. If not polluted, these
habitats would support a wide variety of natural
resources, including plants, birds, invertebrates,
mammals, and fish. Removal of the contamination,
followed by ecologically sound restoration, is
necessary and can successfully restore natural
resources. Additional ecological restoration must be
performed off-site to compensate the public for the
environmental harm caused by the many decades of
contamination and because some of the natural
resources at the refinery properties cannot be restored.
This environmental restoration will substantially
benefit natural habitats and wildlife that currently are Figure 1.1. Location of the Exxon Bayway
and Bayonne refineries.
limited in this highly urbanized region.
This report presents a plan for restoring and replacing natural resources1 harmed by the decades
of contamination at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries.2 The total cost of the restoration and
replacement is $8.9 billion.
1. The Society for Ecological Restoration defines restoration as “the process of assisting the recovery of an
ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (Society for Ecological Restoration, 2004). The
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP, 2006b) states that “restoration is the remedial
action that returns the natural resources to pre-discharge conditions. It includes the rehabilitation of injured
resources, replacement, or acquisition of natural resources and their services, which were lost or impaired.
Restoration also includes compensation for the natural resource services lost from the beginning of the injury
through to the full recovery of the resource.”
2. This report addresses the refinery properties and certain wetlands and creeks within those properties. The
report does not consider the Arthur Kill, the Kill van Kull, Newark Bay, New York Harbor, or the broader
Hudson-Raritan Estuary. These areas will be addressed in future reports.
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Introduction and Summary (11/3/2006)
1.1 Background and Report Organization
In 2004, the State of New Jersey brought a lawsuit against the ExxonMobil Corporation
(hereafter “Exxon”)3 for cleanup and removal costs, including natural resource damages, at the
Exxon Bayway site in Linden and the Exxon Bayonne site in Bayonne. On May 26, 2006, Judge
Anzaldi of the New Jersey Superior Court ruled that Exxon was liable for restoration of the
natural resources impacted by discharges of hazardous pollutants.
This report presents a plan for restoring and replacing natural resources harmed by the decades
of contamination at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries, and details the total cost of the
restoration and replacement.4
The following information is contained in our report:
In Chapter 2, we describe the ecological habitats that were present at the refinery sites before
they became contaminated. Important affected habitats include intertidal salt marsh, marsh
creeks, subtidal open water areas, freshwater marsh/meadow/forest areas, and upland
meadows/forests. These habitats still exist elsewhere in the region, despite extensive
urbanization, and support a wide array of plants, wildlife, and fish species.
In Chapter 3, we evaluate the nature and extent of contamination at the sites.5 Contamination of
the land and water at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries, which began as early as the 1870s in
Bayonne and the early 1900s in Bayway, continues to this day. Petroleum products and waste
related to the refining of petroleum products were spilled, discharged, or discarded on the ground
and in the water. Materials released into the environment included hundreds of different organic
contaminants and hazardous metals. Dredge materials that were used to fill salt marshes
commonly contained high concentrations of petroleum products and metals. Even today, these
dredge materials show clear evidence of petroleum contamination. Since landfills were
constructed without liners, landfilled substances leaked to surrounding groundwater, soils, and
3. In this report, “Exxon” refers to the current ExxonMobil Corporation, as well as all the predecessor and
subsidiary companies that conducted operations at these sites, including Standard Oil of New Jersey, Esso
Standard Oil Company, Humble Oil & Refining Company, Exxon Chemical Americas, and Exxon Company,
USA.
4. The New Jersey Spill Control Act provides for recovery of “the cost of restoration and replacement.” No
specific method of calculating these costs is required. In developing our restoration plans and costs, we
employed standard and reasonable professional approaches and scientific judgment, input from the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, and methods that have been developed and employed by other
resource agencies throughout the United States.
5. Detailed information about the industrial history of the two sites is contained in Appendix A.
Page 1-2
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
surface water. Spilled materials from pipeline ruptures, tank failures, overflows, and explosions
resulted in widespread groundwater, soil, and sediment contamination.
In reviewing data collected by Exxon and its contractors, we found that contamination at both
sites is pervasive and ubiquitous. The pollution at the sites consists of elevated levels of heavy
metals and hundreds of organic chemicals that are associated with refinery and chemical
manufacturing operations. These pollutants have contaminated soils, sediments, waterways,
wetlands, and groundwater.
In Chapter 4, we present restoration and replacement plans for the two sites. These plans
include descriptions and costs of restoration actions that can be conducted at the two properties
to restore natural resources. We also describe the additional ecological replacement, and the
costs of those replacement actions, that must be performed off-site to compensate the public for
the environmental harm caused by the many decades of contamination and because some of the
natural resources at the refinery properties cannot be restored. The restoration and replacement
will benefit natural habitats and wildlife in the Arthur Kill/Newark Bay environment. These
environmental improvements are of particular importance in this highly urbanized region.
Literature cited is provided in Chapter 5.
1.2 Sources of Information
In developing our restoration plans, we used the following sources and types of information:
Published reports, documents, site assessments, ecological assessments, and peerreviewed and gray literature, as presented in the Literature Cited section of this
document.
Historical maps, more recent site maps, and aerial photos compiled by Aero-Data
Corporation of Baton Rouge, LA.
A database containing the results of contaminant sampling and analysis performed by
ExxonMobil and its contractors. This database was compiled by DPRA, Inc. at the
request of counsel.
In-person meetings and discussions with staff with the NJDEP who are responsible for
Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) and restoration, and for overseeing
Exxon’s remedial site assessment and cleanup activities.
A helicopter overflight of the two facilities and a boat tour of the Arthur Kill and Rahway
River adjacent to the Exxon Bayway facility on Tuesday, June 27, 2006.
Page 1-3
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
An on-site inspection of the two facilities performed by Dr. Blancher, NJDEP staff, and
other experts for New Jersey on August 23-24, 2006, and an on-site inspection of the two
facilities performed by Dr. Lipton and NJDEP staff on October 13, 2006.
Guidance from NJDEP staff, in particular, Mr. John Sacco, Administrator of the NJDEP
Office of Natural Resource Restoration, regarding restoration objectives, approaches, and
policies.
1.3 Authors’ Qualifications
Joshua Lipton, PhD, is CEO and president of Stratus Consulting Inc. located in Boulder,
Colorado. A native of New Jersey, Dr. Lipton is a nationally recognized expert in Natural
Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), having performed over 50 NRDAs for State and
Federal Trustees throughout the United States. Dr. Lipton holds PhD and MS degrees in natural
resources from Cornell University, and a BA in environmental biology from Middlebury
College. Dr. Lipton is the author or coauthor of over 40 peer-reviewed scientific publications and
over 100 presentations at national and international scientific meetings and symposia, and has
been an invited speaker and instructor at a number of State, Federal, and legal NRDA training
courses. Dr. Lipton, who also holds the position of Research (Full) Professor in the Department
of Geochemistry at the Colorado School of Mines, has served as an elected member of the
editorial boards of the scientific journals Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and Science
of the Total Environment. Dr. Lipton’s expertise includes environmental toxicology and
chemistry, ecology, and natural resources investigations. He has designed and directed laboratory
and field toxicity tests, environmental sampling and monitoring studies, ecological field
investigations, fisheries and wildlife population monitoring studies, and environmental modeling
projects.
Eldon (Don) Blancher II, PhD, is the manager of Southeast Operations at Toxicological &
Environmental Associates, Inc. in Mobile, Alabama. Dr. Blancher holds a PhD in environmental
engineering science from the University of Florida, an MS in zoology and physiology from LSU,
and a BA in biology from the University of New Orleans. Dr. Blancher has over 30 years of
experience in marine, freshwater, and wetlands ecology; wetland assessment and analysis;
benthic macroinvertebrate assessment; environmental toxicology; and ecological assessment.
Dr. Blancher, who also holds the position of Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of
South Alabama, has served as the Chairman of the Water Environment Federation’s committees
on Ecology and Water Resources and Marine Water Quality, and served as Vice-Chair of the
Ecology Committee.
Page 1-4
SC10982
2. Site Description
The Exxon Bayway and Bayonne facilities are located in northeastern New Jersey along the
shores of Newark Bay and the Upper Bay of New York Harbor. The Bayway Refinery has been
in operation since 1909. It is located in the cities of Linden and Elizabeth, west of the Arthur
Kill. The Arthur Kill is a tidal strait that
connects the Kill van Kull and Newark
Bay to the north with Raritan Bay and the
Raritan River to the south (Figure 2.1).
Industrial activities at Bayway have
included oil refining, distillation, catalytic
cracking, finishing, and blending
processes to produce petroleum products
such as butane, propane, gasoline, liquid
petroleum gas, jet and diesel fuels, heating
oil, mineral oils, and asphalt. Other
operations at the site have included
chemical processing to produce
compounds such as motor oil additives,
propylene, methyl ethyl ketone, tertiary
butyl alcohol, secondary butyl alcohol,
methyl isobutyl ketone, isopropyl alcohol,
and acetone.
The Bayonne Refinery currently covers
some 288 acres in Bayonne on the Kill van
Kull and the Upper Bay of New York
Harbor (Figure 2.1). The refinery has been
in operation since about 1877. Industrial
activities at the site have included crude
oil distillation, petroleum storage,
chemical and asphalt manufacturing, and
wax production.
Appendix A contains a summary of
historical refinery operations at the two
facilities.
Figure 2.1. Location of the Exxon Bayway and
Bayonne refineries. The two refineries are connected by
a pipeline and operated as a single integrated facility for
many years.
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Site Description (11/3/2006)
2.1 Affected Habitats
The Bayway and Bayonne facilities are located in areas that historically supported important
ecological habitats and natural resources, including intertidal salt marshes and tidal creeks,
freshwater wetlands, and upland meadows and forests. Even today, despite widespread
industrialization, these habitats can be found throughout the area of Newark Bay and the
Hudson-Raritan Estuary (Box 2.1).
Box 2.1. The Hudson-Raritan
Estuary
The Hudson-Raritan Estuary and
watershed is a damaged but recovering
ecosystem − a home to 15 million people
and a rich diversity of wildlife. From
space, the Estuary appears to jab like a
blue arrowhead deep into the Northeast
coast − a 20-mile indent with 650 miles
of shore divided between urban New
Jersey and New York City. The Estuary −
where freshwater streams mix with salty
tides − is a rich and diverse ecosystem of
bays, straits, islands, rivers, salt and
freshwater wetlands, mudflats, and
beaches. Its dredged channels, natural
harbors and port facilities also offer
shelter to the world’s busiest commercial
port complex.
Text: NY/NJ Baykeeper, 2006.
Photo: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting.
To develop environmentally appropriate restoration plans, we determined the types of ecological
habitats that have been affected at the refineries. This enabled us to determine the ecological
feasibility and appropriateness of on-site restoration and to determine the types of off-site
replacement actions necessary to fully compensate for the environmental harm.
Page 2-2
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Because contamination at the two sites has occurred for more than 100 years (see Appendix A
and Chapter 3), we evaluated the historical habitats at the sites to help us determine the nature of
restoration that would be appropriate. Historical descriptions of the sites are presented by
Southgate (2006), who used historical sources to determine that the refineries are located in areas
that originally contained a
mixture of intertidal salt
marshes, intertidal creeks,
meadows, wetlands, and open
water. To develop more precise
estimates of the affected habitats,
we reviewed historical maps of
the region. The sources we
reviewed included maps obtained
from the U.S. National Archives,
state forestry and resource maps
from the 1800s, historical coastal
surveys from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and
historical U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) maps. Additional
historic aerial photo imagery
(Aero-Data, 2006) was utilized
to further confirm, as much as
possible, the extent of wetlands
and palustrine habitats.
Historical maps of the Bayway
Refinery property from 1889 and
1898 are presented in Figures 2.2
and 2.3. These maps clearly
show forested areas and intertidal
wetlands adjacent to waterways.
As is still the case in less
disturbed areas of the Arthur
Kill/Newark Bay region,
intertidal marsh habitats included
low marsh [dominated by smooth
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora)]
and high marsh [dominated by
salt hay (Spartina patens) and
Figure 2.2. Bayway habitats from an 1889 New Jersey
resources map, showing the extent of intertidal wetlands
(stippled shading), forested areas (green shading), and
waterways (blue shading). The Bayway Refinery is now located
west of the Arthur Kill between Piles and Morses creeks.
Page 2-3
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
marsh elder (Iva fructescens)].
Landward of tidal areas, at
elevations greater than about 10 feet
above mean sea level (msl), the
habitats further graded into
palustrine (freshwater) marshes,
meadows, and forests. At the upper
reaches of these palustrine areas, the
palustrine forests graded into upland
forests and meadows at elevations
greater than about 20 feet above
msl. The 1898 USGS quadrangle
(Figure 2.3) presents a very similar
map of the habitats, depicting
intertidal marshes in the same areas
as the 1889 map shown in
Figure 2.2.
Historical maps also were obtained
of the Bayonne site (Figures 2.4 and
2.5). By the late 1800s the Bayonne
area had already undergone early
industrialization. Nonetheless, both
the 1889 (Figure 2.4) and 1898
(Figure 2.5) maps show tidal creeks
and extensive subtidal and intertidal
habitats. These descriptions are
consistent with early historic
Figure 2.3. 1898 USGS quadrangle map of the location
accounts that describe Constable
of the Bayway Refinery. Intertidal wetlands are depicted by
stippled blue shading. The Bayway Refinery is located west of the
Hook as an oyster fishery area and
Arthur Kill in the vicinity of Morses Creek.
an area with extensive production of
salt hay (see Southgate, 2006).
Unlike the Bayway site that had extensive palustrine forests and some upland forested areas, no
forests were identified on the Bayonne site.
In developing our habitat designations, we supplemented the historical maps with information
obtained from well and soil boring logs from Exxon reports. Those logs provided confirmation
of the presence of buried “meadow mat.” This material consists of a layer of partially
decomposed marsh vegetation and serves as a key indicator of the presence of former marsh
habitats. Because coastal and wetland habitats are influenced by elevation above sea level, we
also used elevation contours to aid in our interpretation and mapping.
Page 2-4
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 2.4. 1889 New Jersey resources map of Bayonne Refinery location. Intertidal
wetlands are shown in stippled areas. Tidal creeks also can be seen in the wetlands.
Figure 2.5. 1898 USGS map of Bayonne Refinery location. Intertidal wetlands are shown as
blue stippled areas.
Page 2-5
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Using the approach describe above, we determined that the affected habitats include estuarine
subtidal habitats (as formerly found in Morses Creek and adjacent to the Bayonne Refinery),
estuarine intertidal (emergent salt marsh) habitat, palustrine forest and meadow habitat extending
landward from the formerly tidal creeks, and upland forest and meadow habitat.1 Figure 2.6 and
Figure 2.7 show the affected habitats at the Bayway and Bayonne facilities, respectively.
Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 show the acreages of the affected habitats. At Bayway, the area included
extensive intertidal salt marsh (461 acres) connected with subtidal and intertidal channels. The
subtidal channels of Morses Creek and Piles Creek, in the historical footprint at Bayway, covered
almost 90 acres. The marsh systems graded upstream along Morses Creek to a more brackish
system in the upper extent of the tidal areas in Morses Creek. Directly upstream of these areas,
especially in the riparian areas along the upper continuation of the tidal creeks, were some
625 acres of palustrine meadow/forest habitat and about 150 acres of upland forest and meadow
habitat. Over 103 acres of intertidal wetlands existed within the footprint of the former Exxon
holdings at Bayonne. Originally, about 134 acres of subtidal bay bottom existed within the
property boundaries. The remainder of the Bayonne area consisted of about 212 acres of
palustrine meadow and 27 acres of upland meadow.
Table 2.1. Areal coverage of historic habitats at the Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ
Affected habitat types
Intertidal salt marsh
Subtidal (creeks and bottoms)
Palustrine meadow/forest
Upland meadow/forest
Cowardin classification
Acres
Estuarine Intertidal Emergent Marsh
461.4
Estuarine Subtidal Unconsolidated Bottom
89.8
Palustrine Wet Meadow and Prairie and Palustrine Forest 625.5
Upland Meadow and Upland Forest
149.4
Total acreage 1,326.0
Table 2.2. Areal coverage of historic habitats at the Bayonne Refinery, Bayonne, NJ
Affected habitat types
Subtidal
Palustrine meadow
Upland meadow
Cowardin classification
Estuarine Intertidal Emergent Marsh
Estuarine Subtidal Unconsolidated Bottom
Palustrine Wet Meadow and Prairie
Upland Meadow
Total acreage
Acres
103.4
134.3
211.6
26.7
476.0
1. We based our habitat classification on the system presented in Cowardin et al. (1979). The three major
systems described by Cowardin et al. that are applicable to the Bayonne and Bayway sites are the estuarine,
riverine, and palustrine systems. The estuarine system is divided by Cowardin et al. into subtidal and intertidal
systems. For purposes of this report, we have used the classification system down to Cowardin’s Class level
designations and have defined habitats as either estuarine, palustrine, or upland (we assume the riverine
system to be embedded in our defined palustrine areas in the smaller channels with low salinities on the site).
Page 2-6
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 2.6. Affected habitats at the Exxon Bayway site. Affected habitats consist of tidal
creeks (shown in blue), intertidal salt marsh (shown in light blue), palustrine meadow/forest, and upland
meadow/forest.
Page 2-7
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 2.7. Affected habitats at the Bayonne site. Affected habitats included subtidal areas
(including creeks and former bay bottom), intertidal wetland areas, and palustrine and upland meadows.
2.2
Ecological Setting
2.2.1
Regional context
The affected habitats at the Bayway and Bayonne facilities occur within the broader regional
context of the Arthur Kill/Newark Bay environment. Despite the extensive urbanization of the
area, the region still supports a network of upland and wetland open spaces. These remaining
natural communities support regionally important fish and wildlife populations. For example, the
environment of the Arthur Kill supports seasonal or year-round populations of 178 species of
special emphasis (USFWS, 1997), including 37 species of fish and 128 species of birds, and
many federally and state-listed species of concern (Table 2.3).
Page 2-8
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table 2.3. Federally and state-listed species of concern in
the Arthur Kill/Newark Bay region
Federally listed endangered
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
Federal species of concern
Northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin)
Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea)
State-listed endangered – New Jersey
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)
Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Least tern (Sterna antillarum)
Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)
State-listed threatened – New Jersey
American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus)
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Barred owl (Strix varia)
Red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus)
Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus)
State-listed endangered – New York
Least tern
Rose pink (Sabatia angularis)
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana)
Eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum)
Northern harrier
American bittern
Osprey
State-listed special concern – New York
Short-eared owl
Common barn owl (Tyto alba)
Common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor)
Source: USFWS, 1997.
Page 2-9
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
The area supports major nesting colonies and foraging areas for herons, egrets, and ibises in
natural habitats that exist in this major metropolitan area. Three island colonies of herons were
established along the Arthur Kill in the 1970s (see Chapter 4, Box 4.2); in 1995 these heronries
supported nearly 1,400 nesting pairs of colonial wading birds of special regional emphasis or
management concern, including black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), glossy ibis
(Plegadis falcinellus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), great egret (Casmerodius albus) (Figure 2.8),
cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), yellow-crowned night-heron (Nyctanassa violacea), green-backed
heron (Butorides striatus), and little blue
heron (Egretta caerulea) (USFWS, 1997).
Herring gulls (Larus argentatus), great
black-backed gulls (Larus marinus), and
double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax
auritus) also nest on these same sites,
constituting one of the southernmost nesting
areas for the Canadian sub-population of the
cormorant. Adult and young herons and
egrets forage extensively in the wetlands,
feeding on forage fish such as mummichog
(Fundulus heteroclitus) and Atlantic
silverside (Menidia menidia), and
invertebrates such as grass shrimp
Figure 2.8. Great egret.
(Paleomonetes spp.) in the marshes, flats,
and shallow waters of ponds and tidal creeks. Source: NPS, 2003.
Nesting waterfowl that live in the Arthur Kill/Newark Bay region include American black duck
(Anas rubripes), gadwall (Anas strepera), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), green-winged teal
(Anas crecca), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), and wood
duck (Aix sponsa); and also breeding Virginia rail (Rallus limicola), common moorhen
(Gallinula chloropus), least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), American coot (Fulica americana), and
pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps). Goethals Bridge Pond is an important feeding area for
migratory shorebirds, particularly black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), red knot (Calidris
canutus), pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos), semipalmated sandpiper (Calidris pusilla),
sanderling (Calidris alba), common tern (Sterna hirundo), and least tern. Waterfowl of regional
importance that winter in the open waters and marshes in this complex include greater and lesser
scaup (Aythya marila and A. affinis), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), brant (Branta bernicla),
American black duck, Canada goose, mallard, bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), and American
wigeon (Anas americana). Northern harriers forage over many of the wetland marshes of this
complex, particularly in winter, as did numbers of short-eared owls until the mid-1980s
(USFWS, 1997).
Page 2-10
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Over 60 species of fish have been
collected in surveys of the Arthur
Kill, including mummichog, grubby
sculpin (Myxocephalus aeneus),
inland silversides (Menidia
beryllina), striped mullet (Mugil
cephalus), alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus), bluefish
(Pomatomus saltatrix), and striped
bass (Morone saxatilis) (USFWS,
1997). Blue crabs (Callinectes
sapidus) are an important part of the
benthic community (USFWS, 1997),
and some residents engage in crab
fishing (Figure 2.9).
2.2.2
Figure 2.9. Crab fishing in the Arthur Kill.
Description of affected habitats
Historical and current ecological information indicate
that the dominant habitat types affected at the Bayway
and Bayonne sites are intertidal salt marsh, palustrine
(freshwater) meadow and forest, and upland meadow
and forest. The following subsections provide an
overview of these habitat types.
Intertidal salt marshes (also referred to as intertidal
wetlands and estuarine emergent marshes) are among
the most productive ecosystems in the world (Teal,
1986). Figures 2.10 and 2.11 show intertidal salt
marshes along the Rahway River and Piles Creek near
the Bayway facility.
Intertidal salt marshes support a wide variety of
invertebrates, fish, birds, and other biota. Salt marsh
ecologists have long recognized that the high
productivity of salt marshes means that even small
patches of marsh can have considerable ecological
value. For example, researchers at the Virginia Institute
Page 2-11
SC10982
Figure 2.10. Intertidal salt marsh,
Rahway River.
Stratus Consulting
of Marine Sciences observed, “Any marsh
greater than 0.1 acre in size may have,
depending on type and viability, significant
value in terms of productivity, detritus
availability, and habitat” (Silberhorn et al.,
1974; as cited in Gill, 1985). Urban
wetlands have unique ecological and social
values precisely because they occur in an
urban context. As available natural and open
spaces dwindle, their importance – both
ecologically and sociologically – increases.
Ehrenfeld (2000) concluded that wetlands
located in urban settings may provide an
oasis used by a wide variety of species.
Figure 2.11. Intertidal salt marsh along
Piles Creek.
Salt marshes typically include two
vegetation zones based on elevation and the
frequency and duration of tidal flooding
(Teal, 1986). Low marsh occurs below the mean high tide level and is regularly flooded by the
daily tides. High marsh is above the mean high tide level and is only irregularly flooded.
Throughout coastal New Jersey, low marsh is characterized by stands of Spartina alterniflora.
Salt marshes with large tidal ranges are generally dominated by the tall form of S. alterniflora,
whereas the short form is more common in marshes with restricted tidal ranges (Edinger et al.,
2002).
The low marsh is an important nursery area for larval and juvenile fish and shellfish (Weinstein,
1979). It also provides forage and shelter for juveniles of estuarine and marine species that move
into the marshes seasonally, such as winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), alewife,
and bluefish (Rountree and Able, 1992). Characteristic bird species include clapper rail (Rallus
longirostris), willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), seaside
sparrow (Ammospiza maritima), and American black duck (Edinger et al., 2002).
As elevation increases and flooding frequency decreases, the low marsh zone transitions to high
marsh where a mixture of salt hay, spike grass (Distichlis spicata), and saltmeadow rush (Juncus
gerardii) grow in combination. Higher still in the marsh at the marsh-upland border, a mixture of
plants such as switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and shrubs such as marsh elder, groundsel tree
(Baccharis halimifolia), Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), and wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera) dominate (Teal, 1986; Dreyer and Niering, 1995).
Page 2-12
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
The most visible invertebrates of the high marsh include snails, periwinkles, and crabs. Small
fishes of the low marsh are often found in pools of water on the surface of the high marsh and in
marsh creeks during high tides (Talbot and Able, 1984). Characteristic bird species include
saltmarsh sharp-tailed sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus), black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis),
and northern harrier. Many of these high marsh bird species are adapted to nesting only in short
grasses like salt hay and spike grass and may not thrive in the tall grasses of the low marsh.
Small mammals such as meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus),
and raccoon (Procyon lotor) are also found here (Teal, 1986).
Intertidal creeks (see Figure 2.11) meander across the marsh plain, distributing sea water,
nutrients, and organic matter throughout the marsh. They also drain the marsh. Fiddler crabs
(Uca pugnax) and ribbed mussels (Geukensia demissa) are common along banks of intertidal
creeks (Edinger et al., 2002). Fish use the low marsh when it is flooded at high tide and are found
in intertidal creeks at low tide. Characteristic benthic biota of intertidal creeks include mud
snails, grass shrimp, and hermit crabs. Other benthic infauna include northern quahog
(Mercenaria mercenaria), softshell clam, razor clam (Siliqua patula), and polychaete worms.
Crustaceans commonly found in tidal creeks include blue crab and horseshoe crab (Limulus
polyphemus) (Edinger et al., 2002).
Diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin)
(Figure 2.12), the only estuarine turtle, resides in salt
marshes and uses tidal creeks to move in and out of
the marsh (Feinberg and Burke, 2003). Great blue
heron (Ardea herodias) and egrets are among the
many waterbirds that commonly feed on the small
fish and benthic invertebrates in tidal creeks (Teal,
1986; Dreyer and Niering, 1995).
Tidal creeks are important routes in and out of the
marsh for various estuarine and marine species.
Rountree and Able (1992) observed 64 species of
fish, 13 invertebrates, diamondback terrapins, and
Figure 2.12. Diamondback terrapin.
horseshoe crabs in subtidal marsh creeks in southern
New Jersey. Juveniles of many marine species use
Source: Central Pets Educational
marshes, including Atlantic herring (Clupea
Foundation, 2006.
harengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis),
alewife, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), bluefish, summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), white
mullet (Mugil curema), and Atlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina).
Page 2-13
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
The open water habitats within the marsh area are also important, particularly for many bird
species. Studies by Erwin et al. (2006) indicate that use of tidal creeks, marsh ponds, and tidal
flats is much more significant than vegetated marsh surface for waterfowl, shorebirds, colonial
nesting seabirds and wading birds, and clapper rails.
Salt marshes provide many ecological services that promote the continued functioning of the
marsh as well as the surrounding estuary. These important ecological services include providing
habitat for wildlife species, supporting the estuarine food web, generating biological
productivity, cycling nutrients, and buffering the coastline from storms (Box 2.2).
Palustrine meadow and forest
Palustrine wetlands (Figure 2.13) of coastal New Jersey
occur inland of intertidal salt marsh. Palustrine wetlands
may be forested, scrub/shrub wetland, or emergent. In
the Arthur Kill area, palustrine forested wetlands
support ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapillus), woodpeckers,
sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter striatus), flycatchers,
vireos, and warblers, among others (Greiling, 1993).
Red tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and wood ducks
may nest in these forests. Ring necked pheasants
(Phasianus colchicus) have been documented in pin oak
(Quercus palustris) forests near the Woodbridge River
headwaters (Greiling, 1993).
Forested palustrine wetlands of the New Jersey coastal
plain consist of freshwater wetlands (containing less
than 0.5 parts per thousand of salt) dominated by woody
vegetation greater than 20 feet tall. Typically these
forests are dominated by hardwoods such as red maple
(Acer rubrum) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
or non-alluvial forest species such as Atlantic white
cedar and pin oak.
Figure 2.13. Palustrine (freshwater)
wetland.
Source: Sandy Hook Ocean Institute, 2006.
Freshwater wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall are classified as
palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands. These habitats include formerly forested wetlands that have
been cleared and are now experiencing regrowth, and shrub dominated bogs.
Page 2-14
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Box 2.2. Ecological services provided by intertidal salt marsh habitats
Intertidal salt marshes that are not impacted by contamination provide a number of important ecological
functions. Some of these functions include:
Generation of biological productivity. Salt marshes are among the most biologically productive
ecosystems in the mid-Atlantic region. Although much primary production is used within the marsh
itself, some is exported to adjacent estuaries and marine waters (Odum, 2000).
Provision of habitat for biota. Providing habitat for the many species that are permanent or temporary
residents is one of the most critical and best-known functions of salt marshes. Salt marshes provide all of
the major habitat values to a broad array of species, including areas for food and water, reproduction,
care of young, shelter from weather, and protection from predators.
Vital support of the estuarine food web. Salt marshes are the primary source of much of the organic
matter and nutrients that form the basis of the estuarine food web. Primary productivity includes both
above-ground production (stalks and leaves) and below-ground production (roots and tubers) by marsh
plants as well as benthic algae. Most vascular plant material enters a detritus-based food web driven by
fungi, bacteria, and benthic algae (Currin et al., 1995). Small invertebrates such as copepods,
amphiphods, annelids, snails, and insect larvae feed on this detritus. In turn, these organisms provide
food for invertebrates such as saltmarsh snails (Melampus bidentatus), ribbed mussels, and fiddler crabs,
and small resident fishes such as mummichog, sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus), and
Atlantic silversides. The abundant invertebrates and small fishes of the marsh provide food for larger
fish, birds, and other wildlife (Teal, 1962; Boesch and Turner, 1984; Kneib, 1986, 1997, 2000; Deegan
et al., 2000).
Nutrient cycling. The soils of salt marshes play an important role in the nitrogen cycle by transforming
ammonia and nitrate (from organic waste products or fertilizer) into nitrogen gas in the process of
denitrification. This is particularly important for fisheries because high nitrogen levels can be toxic.
Marshes also remove excess nutrients in runoff from developed areas, helping to protect coastal water
quality.
Buffering from storms. The presence of salt marsh grasses such as Spartina alterniflora reduces the
energy of waves moving shoreward, buffering shorelines from the impact of storm tides and helping to
prevent shoreline erosion. The buffering effect of marsh vegetation also helps maintain water clarity
(Grant and Patrick, 1970; as cited by Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). By reducing wave and current energy,
salt marsh grasses are able to trap sediments, helping to control turbidity in nearshore waters. Excess
sediments can fill underwater habitats and create turbid water conditions that harm aquatic life.
Page 2-15
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Emergent palustrine wetlands are dominated by rooted erect soft-stemmed plants. Plant species
typically found in these wetlands include cattail (Typha spp.) and arrowhead (Sagittaria
latifolia). No trees and few woody shrubs grow in these marshes, giving them the appearance of
grassy and herb-covered fields. These wetlands often develop around shallow edges of rivers,
ponds, and lakes. In northern New Jersey, emergent palustrine wetlands are often dominated by
common reed (Phragmites australis). Native and non-native genotypes of Phragmites australis
are present in North America (Saltonstall, 2002). Phragmites can choke out other vegetation
resulting in a loss of diversity. Other desirable vegetation common in emergent palustrine
wetlands includes arrowhead, arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), common rush (Juncus effusus),
woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus), bur-reed (Sparganium spp.),
spike rushes (Eleocharis spp.), blue flag (Iris versicolor), sweet flag (Acorus calamus), lizard’s
tail (Saururus cernuus), smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis
canadensis), and manna-grass (Glyceria striata) (Collins and Anderson, 1994).
Forests develop in floodplains and as a late stage in pond succession. As shallow ponds fill with
vegetation and silt, trees and shrubs invade. Wet sites near ponds and river edges are often
dominated by thickets of alders (Alnus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis), with lesser amounts of winterberry (Ilex verticillata), arrowwood (Viburnum
dentatum), nannyberry (Virburnum lentago), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),
swamp azalea (Rhododendron viscosum), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and witchhazel
(Hamamelis virginiana). In drier areas, red maple, yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis),
American elm (Ulmus americana), pin oak, and silver maple (Acer saccharinum) dominate, with
the amount of yellow birch declining south of the northern part of the state. Associated species
include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum, tulip poplar, silver maple, hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis), white ash (Fraxinus americana), basswood (Tilia americana), black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica), and underlying shrubs (Collins and Anderson, 1994).
Forested upland
As elevation increases, palustrine wetlands shift into forested uplands. In addition to freshwater
marshes, the upper reaches of the Arthur Kill watershed include upland forests of sycamore,
sweetgum, red maple, pin oak, red oak (Quercus rubra), black oak (Quercus velutina), tulip
poplar, hickories (Carya spp.), and silver maple (Greiling, 1993; USFWS, 1997). These forests
are important for numerous wildlife species, particularly as stopover sites for migrating
neotropical songbirds (USACE, 2004a). The remnant forest patches in the Arthur Kill area
receive heavy use during migration seasons, particularly by warblers (Greiling, 1993).
Preservation of existing forest patches, and expansion of the size of existing parcels, would
increase the number and kind of species that can make use of the habitat.
Page 2-16
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
In the Arthur Kill watershed, remnant patches of undisturbed upland forest and wetland habitats
are critically important for a number of regionally rare plant species such as native persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), and sweet bay (Magnolia
virginiana), as well as a population of southern leopard frogs (Rana sphenocephala) (USACE,
2004a).
2.3 Conclusions
The Exxon Bayway and Bayonne refineries are located in areas that historically supported
important ecological habitats and natural resources, including intertidal salt marshes and tidal
creeks, freshwater meadows and wetlands, and upland meadows and forests. Even today, and
despite widespread industrialization of the area, these habitats – and the wildlife resources
supported by them – can be found in Newark Bay, the Arthur Kill, and throughout the HudsonRaritan Estuary. If restored to a more natural state, the contaminated lands and waters at the
Bayway and Bayonne sites will provide important environmental benefits in this urbanized
region.
Page 2-17
SC10982
3. Nature and Extent of Contamination
Contamination of the land and water at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries began as early as the
1870s in Bayonne and the early 1900s in Bayway and continues to this day. Petroleum products
and refinery waste products were spilled, discharged, or discarded on the ground and in the water
(see Appendix A). Materials released to the land and water include hundreds of different organic
contaminants and hazardous metals. Chemical wastes, including spilled products, effluents, and
sludges, were generally routed into low-lying wetland areas adjacent to refinery operations.
Many types of refinery waste were disposed of in these landfills, including sludges, separator
bottoms, tank bottoms, petroleum-stained soils, filter clay, filter cake, and catalyst (Geraghty &
Miller, 1993). Dredge materials that were used to fill salt marshes commonly contained high
concentrations of petroleum products, chemicals, and metals.
Today, many of these dredge fill areas still look and smell like petroleum waste dumps. Dredge
fill areas and landfills were constructed without liners, so contaminants disposed in these areas
have leaked into surrounding groundwater, soils, wetlands, and surface water. Spilled materials
from pipeline ruptures, tank failures or overflows, and explosions have resulted in widespread
groundwater, soil, and sediment contamination. Estuarine tidal creeks such as Morses Creek and
its tributaries were illegally dammed, converting them from naturally brackish intertidal creeks
to freshwater collection basins for spilled petroleum.
This chapter provides more details on the nature and extent of contamination at the refineries.
The results of our analysis confirm that both sites are contaminated with hundreds of pollutants
associated with refinery operations. This contamination is pervasive throughout both properties.
3.1 Contaminants
Both refineries manufactured, handled, and processed heavy metals and many hundreds of
organic contaminants. Figure 3.1 provides excerpts of a safety brochure from ConocoPhillips,
the current Bayway refinery owner, that describes some of the current chemical hazards at the
facility. Appendix A contains a site history report compiled using information that Exxon
contractors assembled in the 1990s about the timeline and types of products handled at the
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Nature and Extent of Contamination (11/3/2006)
Figure 3.1. Excerpts from a safety brochure describing chemical hazards at the
ConocoPhillips Bayway refinery in Linden, NJ, obtained during a site visit in October
2006.
Page 3-2
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
refineries.1 In addition to crude oil and its derivatives, the refineries handled strong acids,
caustics, gasoline additives such as methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and organic lead, and
many other organic compounds (see Appendix A). These pollutants are now found in the soils,
sediments, and water at the sites.
To determine the spatial extent of contamination at the refineries, we relied on data that Exxon
contractors collected as part of the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process.
DPRA, Inc. compiled the data into an electronic database. The database contained records for
groundwater, surface water, soil, and sediment samples; over 270,000 records contained soil and
sediment data. Records that did not contain complete information for attributes such as location,
sample type, or chemical concentration units, as well as records with rejected analytical data,
were not used in the analysis. We also attempted to correct obvious spelling and notation errors.
Table 3.1 shows a list of the almost 600 organic contaminants that have been detected in soil
and/or sediment samples at the refineries. Due to spelling inconsistencies, truncated names in the
original data files provided by Exxon to NJDEP, and other anomalies, it is possible that some of
the compounds listed in Table 3.1 are synonymous. However, the list in Table 3.1 clearly
demonstrates the extensive suite of contaminants found at the refineries.
Table 3.1. Organic contaminants that have been detected in soils and/or sediment at the
Bayway and Bayonne refineries. The original data files provided to NJDEP contained truncated
analyte names, and those are reproduced here. While we attempted to remove duplicate, misspelled, and
synonymous analyte names, some may remain.
Analyte
1(2H)-Naphthalenone,-dihydro
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2,5,6-Tetramethylacenaphthylene
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane
1,2-Benzenedicarboxilic acid
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
1,1,3,3,5-Pentamethylcyclohexane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,1’-Biphenyl, 2,2’-diethyl1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1’-Biphenyl, 3,4-diethyl1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethanecis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1. Our use of information from Exxon contractor reports is not intended to reflect or limit our ability to offer
opinions that differ from those presented in the reports, and we reserve the right to differ from conclusions or
representations made in those original reports, including conclusions regarding site remediation, the efficacy of
contaminant removals, or other mitigation claimed by Exxon and their consultants. Moreover, the documents
we reviewed were prepared by Exxon as part of remedial investigation activities; the documents do not address
restoration, replacement, or natural resource damages.
Page 3-3
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Bayway and Bayonne refineries (cont.)
Analyte
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Butadiyne
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Heptadiene, 3-methyl1,4-Methanoazulene, Decahydr
1-Butanol, 2-methyl1-Butyne, 3-chloro1-Chloro-2,2-Bis(p-chlorophenyl)
1-Chloro-2,2-Bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane
1-Decene, 3,4-dimethyl1-Docosene
1-Ethyl-3-methylcyclohexane (c,t)
1-Heptene
1-Hexene
1-Hexene, 3-methyl1H-Indene, 2,3-dihydro-1,1,5-trimethyl1H-Indene, 2,3-dihydro-1,3-dimethyl1H-Indene, octahydro-2,2,4,4,7,7-hexamet
1H-Indene-octahydro-hexamethyl
1H-Phenalene
1H-Tetrazole, 5-methyl1-Iodo-2-Methylnonane
1-Iodo-2-methylundecane
1-Methylnaphthalene
1-Pentene, 2,4,4-trimethyl1-Phenanthrenecarboxaldehyde
1-Propene, 2-methyl-, tetramer
1-Propene, 2-methyl-, trimer
1-Propene, 3-chloro-2-(chloromethyl)1-Propene-2-thiol, 1,1-diphenyl2,2,4,4,5,5,7,7-Octamethyloctane
2,2-Dichloro-1,1-bis(4-methoxyphenyl)eth
2,2-Dichloropropane
2,2’-Oxybis butane
2,2’-Oxybis(1-chloropropane)
2,3-Dihydro-dimethyl-1H-indene
2,3-Dihydro-dimethyl-indene
2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentane
2,4,6(1H,3H,5H)-Pyrimidinetrione, 5-ethy
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,4-Dinonylphenol
2,4-Diphenyl-4-methyl-1(E)-P
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2,8-Dimethyldibenzo(B,D)thiophene
2.pentene...trimethyl.
28-Nor-17.alpha.(H)-hopane
28-Nor-17.beta.(H)-hopane
2-Butanol
2-Butanone
2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro-, (E)2-Butene, 2,3-dichloro2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Chlorotoluene
2-cyclohexen-1-one
2-Cyclohexen-1-one, 4-(3-hydroxy-1-buten
2-Ethoxy-1-methyl-6-oxo-1,2-azaphosphina
2-Ethyl-1,4-dimethyl-alkene
2-Hexanone
2H-Pyran-2-one, tetrahydro-6-tridecyl2-Mercaptobenzothiazole
2-Methyl-1-pentene
2-Methylchrysene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
2-Nonadecanone
2-Nonylphenol
2-Octene, 2,6-dimethyl2-Pentanone, 4-hydroxy-4-methyl2-Pentene, 2,4,4-trimethyl3-(3-Pyridyl)propenoic acid
3,5-Dimethyl-3-heptene
3,7-Decadiyne, 2,2,5,5,6,6,9,9-octamethy
3-Heptene, 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl-
Page 3-4
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Analyte
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDT
4,4’-Dichloro-.alpha.-(trichlorome
4,4’-Dichlorobenzophenone
4,4’-Dimethylbiphenyl
4,5,11,12-Tetrahydrobenzo[a]pyrene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Chlorotoluene
4H-Cyclopenta[def]phenanthrene
4-Mercaptophenol
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitrophenol
4-Nonylphenol
4-Octen-3-one
6-Octen-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, acetate
6-Tridecene, 7-methyl7-Azabicyclo[4.1.0]heptane, 1-methyl7H-Benz[de]anthracen-7-one
9,10-Anthracenedione
9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,4-bis(aminomethy
9,10-Dimethylanthracene
9,9-Dimethyl-9-silafluorene
9-Borabicyclo[3.3.1]nonane, 9-hydroxy9H-Fluorene dimethyl
9H-Fluorene, 1-methyl9-Octadecenamide,(Z)Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acetone
Acetophenone
Acridine, 9-methylAcrolein
Acrylonitrile
Adamantane
Adamantane, dimethylAldrin
alpha-BHC
alpha-Pinene
Anthracene
Anthracene, 1,4-dimethoxyAnthracene, 2-methylAnthracene, 9-butyltetradecahydroAnthracene, 9-cyclohexyltetradecahydroAnthracene, 9-dodecyltetradecahydroAnthracene, 9-methylAroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
Azulene, 7-ethyl-1,4-dimethylBaccharane
Benz[a]anthracene, 1,2,3,4,7,12-hexahydr
Benz[a]anthracene, 7,12-dimethylBenz[j]aceanthrylene, 3-methylBenzanthracenone
Benzenamine methyl
Benzenamine, 4-methoxy-N-(2-pyridinylmet
Benzene
Benzene, (1-methyl-1-butenyl)Benzene, (2-methyl-1-propenyl)Benzene, [1-(2,4-cyclopentadien-1-yliden
Benzene, 1,1’-sulfonylbis[4-chloroBenzene, 1,2,3,5-tetramethylBenzene, 1,2,3-trimethylBenzene, 1,2,4,5-tetramethylBenzene, 1,2-dichloro-4-isocyanatoBenzene, 1,3,5-tribromo-2-methoxyBenzene, 1,4-dimethyl-2-(1-methylethyl)Benzene, 1-ethyl-2,3-dimethylBenzene, 1-ethyl-2-methylBenzene, 1-ethyl-3-methylBenzene, 1-methoxy-2-[(4-methoxyphenyl)m
Benzene, 1-methyl-(1-methylethyl)Benzene, 1-methyl-(-methylethyl)Benzene, 1-methyl-2-(1-methylethy)Benzene, 1-methyl-3-(1-methylethyl)-
Page 3-5
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Analyte
Benzene, 1-methyl-3-[(4-methylphenyl)met
Benzene, 1-methyl-3-propylBenzene, 1-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)Benzene, 2-ButenylBenzene, 2-ethyl-1,3-dimethylBenzene, 4-ethyl-1,2-dimethylBenzene, chlorotriethylBenzene, cyclopropylBenzene, -ethenyl-methylBenzeneacetonitrile, .alpha.-phenylBenzenethiol
Benzo(1,2-b:4,3-b’)dithiophene, 1-phenyl
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)naphtho(2,1-d)thiophene
Benzo(b)naphtho(2,3-d)thiophene, 6-methy
Benzo(b)naphtho(2,3-d)thiophene, 7,8-dim
Benzo(c)phenanthrene, 5,8-dimethylBenzo(c)thiophene,-dihydroBenzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(ghi)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo.b.fluorene
Benzo.e.pyrene
Benzoic acid
Benzonaphthothiophene
Benzopyrene
Beta-BHC
Bicyclo[2.2.1]heptane, 2-methyl-, exoBiphenyl
Biphenyl dimethyl
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Borneol
Bromobenzene
Bromochlorobenzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Butane, 2,2,3,3-tetramethyl-
Butane, 2,3-dimethylButane, 2-iodo-2-methylButane, 2-methylButyl benzyl phthalate
Butyl hexadecanoate
Butylated hydroxytoluene
C10H10.isomer
C10H12.isomer
C10H14.isomer
C10H16O isomer
C10H18.isomer
C10H20.isomer
C11H10.isomer
C11H12.isomer
C11H14.isomer
C11H16.isomer
C11H24
C12H12.isomer
C12H20 isomer
C12H22.isomer
C12H24 isomer
C13H10S.isomer
C13H12
C13H14.isomer
C14H10.isomer
C14H12.isomer
C14H14
C14H14.isomer
C14H22O
C14H9CL.isomer
C15H12 isomer
C15H28 isomer
C16H10.isomer
C16H12.isomer
C16H14.isomer
C17H12
C17H12 isomer
C17H16.isomer
C18H10
Page 3-6
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Analyte
C18H14.isomer
C19H14.isomer
C20H12
C20H16.isomer
C21H21o4p.isomer
C29H50.isomer
C6H12.isomer
C7H14.isomer
C7H16.isomer
C8H16.isomer
C8H18.isomer
C9H12.isomer
C9H18.isomer
C9H8.isomer
Camphene
Carbazole
Carbon disulfide
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chloropropylate
Cholestane, (5.alpha.,14.beta.)Cholesterol
Chrysene
Chrysene, 3-methylChrysene, 4-methylCinnamic acid, 3,4-dimethoxy-, trimethyl
cis-(-)-2,4a,5,6,9a-Hexahydro-3,5,5,9-te
Coronene
Cyanide
Cyclobutaphenanthrene
Cyclododecanemethanol
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexane, (4-methylpentyl)Cyclohexane, 1,1,3-trimethylCyclohexane, 1,1-dimethylCyclohexane, 1,2-dimethyl-, transCyclohexane, 1,3,5-trimethyl-
Cyclohexane, 1,3-dimethyl-, cisCyclohexane, 1,3-dimethyl-, transCyclohexane, 1,4-dimethylCyclohexane, 1-ethyl-2-methyl-, cisCyclohexane, 1-ethyl-4-methyl-, cisCyclohexane, 1-ethyl-4-methyl-, transCyclohexane, 2,4-diethyl-1-methylCyclohexane, 2-butyl-1,1,3-trimethylCyclohexane, butylCyclohexane, ethylCyclohexane, pentylCyclohexane, propylcyclohexane..methyl.
Cyclohexanone, 2-ethylCyclohexanone, 3,3,5-trimeth
Cyclohexene, 1-methylCyclohexenol
Cyclohexenone
Cyclopentane, 1,1,2-trimethylCyclopentane, 1,1,3-trimethylCyclopentane, 1,2,3-trimethylCyclopentane, 1,2,4-trimethyl-, (1.alpha
Cyclopentane, 1,2-dimethyl-, cisCyclopentane, 1,2-dimethyl-, transCyclopentane, 1,3-dimethyl-, transCyclopentane, 1-ethyl-2-methyl-, cisCyclopentane, methylCyclotetracosane
D:C-Friedoolean-8-en-3-one
DDD/DDT
DDE
DDMU
Decahydro-4,4,8,9,10-pentamethylnaphthal
Decahydro-9-ethyl-4,4,8,10-tetramethylna
Decane
Decane, 2,2,7-trimethylDecane, 2,2-dimethylDecane, 2,3,6-trimethylDecane, 2,5,6-trimethyl-
Page 3-7
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Analyte
Decane, 3,3,4-trimethylDecane, 3,6-dimethylDecane, 3,8-dimethylDecane, 4-methylDecane, 5-propylDecanedioic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl
delta-BHC
D-Friedoolean-14-en-3-one
D-Homoandrostane, (5.alpha.,
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzo(c,h)(2,6)naphthyridine
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiophene
Dibenzothiophene, 3-methylDibenzothiophene, 4-methylDibenzpyrene
Dibutylether
Dichloromethane
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Diethylbenzene
Diethylthiophene
Diethyltoluamide
Dihydrodimethylindene
Diisopropyl ether
Dimethyl benzenamine
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethylbiphenyl
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioctyl ester hexanedioic acid
Di-sec-butyl ether
Docosane
Dodecane
Dodecane, 2,6,10-trimethylDodecane, 2,6,11-trimethylDodecane, 2,7,10-trimethylDodecane, 2-methyl-8-propyl-
Dodecane, 4,6-dimethylDodecylcyclohexane
Eicosane
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroEthanone, 1-(2,4-dihydroxyphenyl)Ethyl 2-octynate
Ethyl naphthalene
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Fluoromethylbenzene
gamma chlordane
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
gamma-Sitosterol
Germanicol
Heneicosane
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Heptacosane
Heptadecane
Heptadecane, 2,6,10,15-tetramethylHeptadecane, 2,6-dimethylHeptadecane, 9-octylHeptane
Heptane, 2,2,3,4,6,6-hexamethylHeptane, 2,2,4-trimethylHeptane, 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl
Heptane, 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-methylene
Heptane, 2,2-dimethylHeptane, 2-methylHeptane, 3-ethyl-2-methylHeptane, 3-methylHeptane, 4-ethyl-2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-
Page 3-8
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Analyte
Heptane, 5-ethyl-2-methylHexachlorobenzene
Hexacosane
Hexadecane
Hexadecane, 2,6,10,14-tetramethylHexadecanoic acid
Hexane
Hexane, 2,2,4-trimethylHexane, 2,2,5-trimethylHexane, 2,3-dimethylHexane, 2,4-dimethylHexane, 2,5-dimethylHexane, 2-methylHexane, 3,3-dimethylHexane, 3-methylHexanedioic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
Indan, 1-methylIndane
Indene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Isophorone
Isopropanol
Isoquinoline, 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-7-metho
Ketone (unknown)
Limonene
Lupeol
m,p’-DDT
Methyl phenanathrene
Methyl.t.butyl.ether
Methylanthracene
Methylbenzanthracene
Methylchrysene
Methyldibenzothiophene
Methylethylnaphthalene
Mitotane
Molybdenum
Morpholine, 4-phenylMuurolane-B
Naphthalene
Naphthalene decahydro-dimethyl
Naphthalene decahydro-pentamethyl
Naphthalene, 1-(2-propenyl)Naphthalene, 1,2(or 2,3)-diethylNaphthalene, 1,4,5-trimethylNaphthalene, 1,4,6-trimethylNaphthalene, 1,6,7-trimethylNaphthalene, 1,7-dimethylNaphthalene, 1,8-dimethylNaphthalene, 2,3,6-trimethylNaphthalene, 2-ethylNaphthalene, 2-methyl-1-propylNaphthalene, decahydro-, transNaphthalene, decahydro-1,1,4a-trimethylNaphthalene, decahydro-2-methylNaphthalenone, octahydro
Naphtho[2,3-b]thiophene, 4,9-dimethylN-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Nonacosane
Nonadecane
Nonane
Nonane, 2,2,4,4,6,8,8-heptamethylNonane, 2,6-dimethylNonane, 3-methylNonane, 3-methyl-5-propylNonane, 4-methylNonylphenol
n-Propylbenzene
o,p’-DDT
O,p’-TDE olefin
Octadecane
Octadecane, 2,6-dimethylOctadecanoic acid
Octadecanoic acid, 2-hydroxy-1-(hydroxym
Octadecanoic acid, 2-methylpropyl ester
Octadecanoic acid, butyl ester
Octane
Octane, 2,2,6-trimethyl-
Page 3-9
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Analyte
Octane, 2,3,7-trimethylOctane, 2,6-dimethylOctane, 2-methylOctane, 3,4-dimethylOctane, 3-methylOctane, 4-methylOlean-12-ene
o-Xylene
p,p’-Methoxychlor
Pentachlorophenol
Pentacosane
Pentadecanal
Pentadecane
Pentadecane, 2,6,10,14-tetramethylPentadecane, 2-methylPentamethylheptene
Pentane, 2,2,3-trimethylPentane, 2,2,4,4-tetramethylPentane, 2,2,4-trimethylPentane, 2,3,3-trimethylPentane, 2,3,4-trimethylPentane, 2,3-dimethylPentane, 2,4-dimethylPentane, 2-methylPentane, 3-methylPentane, -methylPhenanthrene
Phenanthrene, 2,3,5-trimethylPhenanthrene, 2,3-dimethylPhenanthrene, 2,5-dimethylPhenanthrene, 2,7-dimethylPhenanthrene, 3,4,5,6-tetramethylPhenanthrene, 3,6-dimethylPhenanthrene, 9-dodecyltetradecahydroPhenol
Phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)Phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylpropyl)Phenol, 3-(2-phenylethyl)Phenol, 3-pentadecyl-
Phenol, 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)Phenol, 4-(1,1-dimethylpropyl)Phenol, 4-(2,2,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)Phenol, 4-(tetramethylbutyl)Phenol, 4-(-tetramethylbutyl)Phenol, 4,4’-(1,2-diethyl-1,2-ethanediyl
Phenothiazine
Phenylnaphthalene
Phthalate ester
Phthalic anhydride
PNA (unknown)
Propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, 1-(1,1-dimeth
Pulegone
Pyrene
Pyrene, 1,3-dimethylPyrene, 1-methylResorcinol, 4-[(2-hydroxy-3-pyridyl)azo]
Spiro[4.5]decane
Squalene
Styrene
Substituted acid ester
Substituted aquilene
Substituted benzanthracene
Substituted benzeneamine
Substituted cyclopentanone
Substituted ester
Substituted furan
Substituted hexadiene
Substituted methanonapthalene
Substituted pyridine
Taraxasterol
Taraxerol
t-Butyl alcohol
Tetrachloroethene
Tetracosane
Tetradecane
Tetrahydrotrimethylnaphthale
Thiophene, tetrahydro-2-methylToluene
Page 3-10
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Analyte
Triacontane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Tricosane
Tridecane
Tridecane, 2-methylTridecane, 4,8-dimethylTrimethyl-1,4-pentadiene
Trimethyl-2-pentene
Trimethylbenzene
Trimethylcyclohexane
3.1.1
Trimethylcyclopentane
Trimethylhexene
Trimethylnaphthalene
Triphenylene, 2-methylUndecane
Undecane, 2,5-dimethylUndecane, 2,6-dimethylUndecane, 3,6-dimethylUndecane, 3,7-dimethylVinyl Acetate
Contaminant evaluation criteria
To describe the extent of on-site contamination at the refineries, we evaluated the concentrations
of contaminants in soils and sediments. We also transcribed the locations of groundwater
contamination as depicted in the RI documents, but we did not re-evaluate the groundwater data
or the plumes generated from those data as part of the RI.
Regulatory, toxicological, and ecological screening thresholds were first used to identify soils
and sediments at Bayway and Bayonne in which the concentration of one or more contaminants
exceeded criteria. Screening thresholds are designed by regulatory agencies as indicator
thresholds above which ecological resources may be at risk of adverse effects from exposure to a
contaminant. Most areas at the refineries exceeded thresholds for many different contaminants,
often exceeding thresholds by orders of magnitude. Also, our analysis did not account for
additive and/or synergistic toxicity that often occurs when biota are exposed to multiple
contaminants. Thus, our reliance on individual contaminant thresholds will underestimate
toxicity effects.
Table 3.2 contains a list of 144 contaminants measured at the refineries for which we identified a
threshold concentration. Hundreds of other organic compounds were detected in the soils and
sediment at the refineries (see Table 3.1) for which we did not identify thresholds concentrations.
Most of these contaminants are associated with refinery operations, so detectable concentrations
are indicative of refinery releases. Therefore, we also included those organic compounds in our
analysis of site contamination.
Page 3-11
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table 3.2. Contaminant screening threshold values used to evaluate
soil and sediment data at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries
Threshold
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Source
0.46
ADL (2000a)
29.8
U.S. EPA (2003)
0.127
U.S. EPA (2003)
3.1
ADL (2000a)
1,1-Dichloroethane
20.1
U.S. EPA (2003)
1,1-Dichloroethene
0.07
ADL (2000a)
30
ADL (2000a)
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
3.36
U.S. EPA (2003)
11.1
U.S. EPA (2003)
0.0352
U.S. EPA (2003)
1.23
U.S. EPA (2003)
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
30
ADL (2000a)
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.16
ADL (2000a)
1,2-Dichloroethene
4.1
ADL (2000a)
1,2-Dichloropropane
0.23
ADL (2000a)
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
30
ADL (2000a)
1,3-Dichloropropane
0.23
ADL (2000a)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
30
ADL (2000a)
2,2-Dichloropropane
0.23
ADL (2000a)
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
0.199
U.S. EPA (2003)
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
4
U.S. EPA (2001)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
9.94
U.S. EPA (2003)
2,4-Dichlorophenol
10
2,4-Dimethylphenol
0.01
U.S. EPA (2003)
2,4-Dinitrophenol
0.0609
U.S. EPA (2003)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1.28
U.S. EPA (2003)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
0.0328
U.S. EPA (2003)
2-Butanone
38
ADL (2000a)
ADL (2000a)
2-Chloronaphthalene
0.0122
U.S. EPA (2003)
2-Chlorophenol
0.243
U.S. EPA (2003)
2-Hexanone
12.6
U.S. EPA (2003)
Page 3-12
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
soil and sediment data at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries (cont.)
Threshold
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Source
2-Methylnaphthalene
3.24
U.S. EPA (2003)
3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine
0.646
U.S. EPA (2003)
3-Methylcholanthrene
0.0779
U.S. EPA (2003)
4,4’-DDD
0.5
ADL (2000a)
4,4’-DDE
0.5
ADL (2000a)
4,4’-DDT
0.0035
U.S. EPA (2003)
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
0.144
U.S. EPA (2003)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
443
U.S. EPA (2003)
Acenaphthene
20
U.S. EPA (2001)
Acenaphthylene
682
U.S. EPA (2003)
Acetone
2.5
U.S. EPA (2003)
Acetophenone
300
U.S. EPA (2003)
Acrolein
5.27
U.S. EPA (2003)
Acrylonitrile
0.0239
U.S. EPA (2003)
Aldrin
0.0025
U.S. EPA (2001)
alpha-BHC
0.0994
U.S. EPA (2003)
alpha chlordane
0.29
Aniline
ADL (2000a)
0.0568
U.S. EPA (2003)
Anthracene
0.1
U.S. EPA (2001)
Antimony
3.5
U.S. EPA (2001)
Aroclor-1016
1
ADL (2000a)
Aroclor-1221
1
ADL (2000a)
Aroclor-1232
1
ADL (2000a)
Aroclor-1242
1
ADL (2000a)
Aroclor-1248
1
ADL (2000a)
Aroclor-1254
1
ADL (2000a)
Aroclor-1260
1
ADL (2000a)
Arsenic
33
ADL (2000a)
Benzene
0.05
Benzo(a)anthracene
1
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.1
Page 3-13
SC10982
U.S. EPA (2001)
ADL (2000a)
U.S. EPA (2001)
Stratus Consulting
Threshold
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Source
19
ADL (2000a)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
35
ADL (2000a)
19
ADL (2000a)
Benzyl alcohol
65.8
U.S. EPA (2003)
Beta-BHC
0.00398
U.S. EPA (2003)
Biphenyl
60
U.S. EPA (2001)
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
0.302
U.S. EPA (2003)
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
0.66
ADL (2000a)
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
2.6
ADL (2000a)
0.925
Bromodichloromethane
25
U.S. EPA (2003)
ADL (2000a)
Bromoform
15.9
U.S. EPA (2003)
Bromomethane
4.5
ADL (2000a)
Cadmium
5
ADL (2000a)
Carbazole
43
ADL (2000a)
Carbon disulfide
0.0941
U.S. EPA (2003)
Carbon tetrachloride
2.98
U.S. EPA (2003)
Chlordane
0.224
U.S. EPA (2003)
Chlorobenzene
1
ADL (2000a)
Chloroform
1.19
U.S. EPA (2003)
Chromium
250
ADL (2000a)
Chrysene
4.73
U.S. EPA (2003)
Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
0.1
ADL (2000a)
Copper
100
ADL (2000a)
Cyclohexane
0.1
U.S. EPA (2001)
delta-BHC
0.49
ADL (2000a)
Di-n-butyl phthalate
0.15
U.S. EPA (2003)
Di-n-octyl phthalate
709
U.S. EPA (2003)
1.9
ADL (2000a)
Dibenzofuran
10
ADL (2000a)
Dibromochloromethane
2.05
Page 3-14
SC10982
U.S. EPA (2003)
Stratus Consulting
Threshold
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Methylene chloride
Dieldrin
Source
2
U.S. EPA (2001)
0.0005
U.S. EPA (2001)
Diethyl phthalate
0.71
ADL (2000a)
Dimethyl phthalate
0.66
ADL (2000a)
Endosulfan I
0.119
U.S. EPA (2003)
Endosulfan II
0.119
U.S. EPA (2003)
Endosulfan sulfate
0.0358
U.S. EPA (2003)
Endrin
0.001
U.S. EPA (2001)
Endrin aldehyde
0.0105
U.S. EPA (2003)
Endrin ketone
0.05
ADL (2000a)
Ethylbenzene
0.05
U.S. EPA (2001)
Fluoranthene
0.1
ADL (2000a)
Fluorene
30
U.S. EPA (2001)
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.49
ADL (2000a)
gamma chlordane
0.29
ADL (2000a)
Heptachlor
0.00598
U.S. EPA (2003)
Heptachlor epoxide
0.09
ADL (2000a)
Hexachlorobenzene
0.0025
U.S. EPA (2001)
Hexachlorobutadiene
0.0398
U.S. EPA (2003)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
0.755
U.S. EPA (2003)
Hexachloroethane
0.596
U.S. EPA (2003)
19
ADL (2000a)
Isophorone
139
U.S. EPA (2003)
Lead
200
ADL (2000a)
Manganese
1500
ADL (2000a)
2
ADL (2000a)
Mercury
p,p’-Methoxychlor
0.0199
Molybdenum
40
U.S. EPA (2003)
ADL (2000a)
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
0.545
U.S. EPA (2003)
Naphthalene
0.0994
U.S. EPA (2003)
Nickel
100
Page 3-15
SC10982
ADL (2000a)
Stratus Consulting
Threshold
(mg/kg)
Analyte
Source
Nitrobenzene
1.31
U.S. EPA (2003)
Pentachlorophenol
0.002
U.S. EPA (2001)
Petroleum hydrocarbons (total)
1,000
ADL (2000a)
Phenanthrene
0.1
U.S. EPA (2001)
Phenol
0.05
U.S. EPA (2001)
Pyrene
0.1
U.S. EPA (2001)
Pyridine
0.1
U.S. EPA (2001)
Styrene
0.1
U.S. EPA (2001)
Sulfur
2
U.S. EPA (2001)
Tetrachloroethene
0.01
U.S. EPA (2001)
Toluene
0.05
U.S. EPA (2001)
Toxaphene
0.119
U.S. EPA (2003)
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.784
U.S. EPA (2003)
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
0.398
U.S. EPA (2003)
Trichloroethene
0.001
U.S. EPA (2001)
Trichlorofluoromethane
2000
ADL (2000a)
Vinyl acetate
12.7
U.S. EPA (2003)
Vinyl chloride
0.01
U.S. EPA (2001)
Xylenes (total)
5
ADL (2000a)
350
ADL (2000a)
Zinc
Page 3-16
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Soil thresholds for the 144 contaminants in Table 3.2 were compiled from the following
documents:
Bayway Phase 1B RI: Baseline Ecological Evaluation (BEE), Appendix R (ADL, 2000a).
This Exxon report contains criteria compiled from Soil Benchmarks prescribed by
NJDEP; soil criteria as compiled for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the
report entitled “Evaluating Soil Contamination” (Beyer, 1990); and soil cleanup criteria
for the decommissioning of industrial sites (Persaud et al., 1994).
EPA Region 5, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Ecological Screening
Levels (ESLs) August 2003 update (U.S. EPA, 2003). The majority of soil criteria
specified in this document are based on exposure to a masked shrew (Sorex cinerus).
Some of the criteria were based on exposure to a meadow vole or plants (species not
specified). Both masked shrews and meadow voles are found in New Jersey (New Jersey
Division of Fish & Wildlife, 2004).
EPA Region 4 Ecological screening values for soil (U.S. EPA, 2001). These soil criteria
are based on five sources: Beyer (1990); ecotoxicity benchmarks developed by Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (Efroymson et al., 1997a, 1997b); soil quality guidelines
issued by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME, 1997);
maximum permissible standards issued by the Dutch Ministry of Environment
(Crommentuijn et al., 1997); and soil quality values issued by the Dutch Ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning, and Environment (MHSPE, 1994).
The contaminant thresholds shown in Table 3.2 have been established for soils. Most sediment
quality thresholds for these contaminants are lower than the selected soil thresholds, so our
analysis would tend to underestimate the extent of sediment contamination. As an additional
check, we performed a comparison of some of the thresholds from Table 3.2 against
concentrations found to be toxic to marine amphipods. Field et al. (2002) created statistical
models to predict amphipod toxicity at given concentrations of selected contaminants. Table 3.3
shows the likelihood of toxicity to amphipods at the threshold concentrations (Table 3.2) for 31
of the 144 contaminants. Most of the calculated likelihoods exceed 70% for individual
chemicals. Thus, an exceedence of the threshold concentration for any one of the contaminants in
Table 3.2 is likely to be toxic to marine amphipods. At most of the refinery locations,
concentrations exceed thresholds for many of the contaminants, indicating a very high likelihood
of toxicity.
Page 3-17
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table 3.3. Likelihood of marine amphipod toxicity (Field et al.,
2002) at the soil screening threshold concentration (see Table 3.2)
Analyte
Threshold (mg/kg)
Toxicity likelihood
2-Methylnaphthalene
3.24
92%
4,4’-DDD
0.5
89%
4,4’-DDE
0.5
65%
4,4’-DDT
0.0035
30%
Acenaphthene
20
98%
Acenaphthylene
682
99%
Anthracene
0.1
34%
Arsenic
33
66%
Benzo(a)anthracene
1
63%
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.1
24%
19
86%
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
35
95%
19
92%
Biphenyl
60
100%
Cadmium
5
80%
Chromium
250
68%
Chrysene
4.73
79%
Copper
100
52%
1.9
90%
0.0005
13%
Fluoranthene
0.1
18%
Fluorene
30
99%
19
93%
Lead
200
72%
2
83%
0.0994
37%
Nickel
100
72%
Phenanthrene
0.1
25%
Pyrene
0.1
18%
Zinc
350
63%
Dieldrin
Mercury
Naphthalene
Page 3-18
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
3.1.2
Evaluating site data
The criteria shown in Table 3.2 were compared to records in the database to identify soils and
sediments at Bayway and Bayonne in which the concentration of one or more contaminants
exceeded criteria. For each sampling station, the maximum concentration of each contaminant
was compared to the applicable criteria, if available. If results were available from multiple
depths at a single sampling station, the maximum concentration was used in the comparison. We
classified sample sites according to the following criteria:
1.
If the maximum concentration of any analyte exceeded a criterion, the station was
designated as an exceedence site.
2.
If none of the contaminants in Table 3.2 exceeded thresholds, but organic contaminants
from Table 3.1 were detected, the site was designated as a detectable organics site.
3.
If there were no exceedences and no measured organics, we designated the site as a no
exceedence site. However, we further subdivided the no exceedence sites into sites with
no exceedences when at least 10 different contaminants were analyzed, and sites with no
exceedences but fewer than 10 different contaminants were analyzed.
The results of the analysis were plotted on maps. Sample sites where concentrations exceeded
one or more criteria were marked with a red circle. Sites with no exceedences but detectable
organic contaminants were marked with a pink circle. Sample sites with no exceedences and no
detectable organic contaminants were indicated with a green circle if at least 10 contaminants
were analyzed, and a white circle if fewer than 10 contaminants were analyzed.
3.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
3.2.1
Bayway
Groundwater contamination is pervasive and soil and sediment contamination is ubiquitous at the
Bayway Refinery. Spills, discharges, leaks, and landfilling with waste and dredge material, in
combination with transport of contaminants in groundwater and surface water, have effectively
spread contamination throughout the refinery property. To eliminate sources and pathways and
to restore the ecological integrity of the site, soils and sediments throughout the site must be
replaced with clean materials. Restoration needs are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.
Page 3-19
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Groundwater
Figure 3.2 shows the location of contaminated groundwater as depicted originally in TRC Raviv
Associates (2005). Contaminated groundwater underlies much of the site: the plumes depicted in
Figure 3.2 cover over 565 acres. These plumes are indicative of widespread spills and
indiscriminant disposal of petroleum products and hazardous substances.
In addition to the contamination of the groundwater itself, groundwater flow and discharge is an
ongoing source of contamination to surface water. In the northern part of the Bayway site,
groundwater flows toward and discharges into Morses Creek and the Arthur Kill; in the southern
part of Bayway, groundwater flows toward the Rahway River (TRC Raviv Associates, 2005).
Petroleum product seeps historically discharged to surface water from the Domestic Trade
Terminal, the Spheroid No. 196 area, the Tank No. 519 area, and the Waterfront Barge Pier
(TRC Raviv Associates, 2005). As recently as 2004, Exxon contractors reported that blue
iridescent sheens and strong petroleum odors emanated from the sediments along Morses Creek
in the refinery area and near Dam 1 (AMEC Earth & Environmental, 2005). These conditions
were still evident during our 2006 site inspections.
Soils and sediments
Of the 144 contaminants with screening level thresholds (Table 3.2), 82 exceeded those
thresholds in soil or sediment samples from the Bayway site. The types of contaminants that
were found to exceed criteria included hydrocarbons, volatile organics, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated pesticides, and metals. In addition, hundreds of organic
contaminants for which we did not have thresholds were detected in Bayway soils and
sediments.
Figure 3.3 shows the spatial extent of threshold exceedences and measured organic contaminants
at the Bayway site. Contamination with organic chemicals is clearly ubiquitous throughout the
site. Contaminants exceeded threshold concentrations in the vast majority of sample locations.
Nearly every sample taken from the former intertidal marsh areas adjacent to Morses Creek
exceeded threshold values. Although occasional samples of clean soils can be found across the
refinery, there are no areas of the site where the majority of soil samples are not contaminated.
Many of the samples in which contaminants were not detected or did not exceed thresholds were
targeted samples that Exxon analyzed for fewer than 10 contaminants (Figure 3.3).
Page 3-20
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 3.2. Locations of contaminated groundwater at the Bayway Refinery, as
designated by TRC Raviv Associates (2005).
Page 3-21
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 3.3. Contaminant threshold exceedences and organic contaminant detections in
soils and sediments at the Bayway Refinery.
Page 3-22
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Inspecting the pattern of threshold exceedences and detected organic contaminants in the RI
investigative units, we found that:
A total of 312 organic compounds have been detected in Unit A. Fifty-seven
contaminants have exceeded criteria, including hydrocarbons, volatile organics, PCBs,
chlorinated pesticides, and metals (Table 3.4). Exceedences of multiple analytes occurred
throughout each of the 21 investigative areas of concern (IAOCs) in this unit.
Contaminant concentrations exceeded criteria in the majority of sampling points at 18 of
the 21 IAOCs. At A18, 126 organic compounds were detected, with 42 different
contaminants exceeding threshold concentrations, and 96% of the samples containing at
least one contaminant above a threshold. Figures 3.4 and 3.5 are photographs of A18,
known as the Pitch Area, along the banks of Morses Creek, taken during our October
2006 site inspection. What appears as a mud flat from a distance (Figure 3.4) is in fact a
tarry sludge (Figure 3.5) with a strong hydrocarbon odor.
In Unit B, 186 organic compounds have been detected, and 51 contaminants have
exceeded criteria, including hydrocarbons, volatile organics, chlorinated pesticides, and
metals (Table 3.4). Exceedences of multiple analytes were observed throughout each of
the three IAOCs in this unit. In B03, concentrations of contaminants at 96% of the
sampling sites exceeded criteria.
In Unit C, 229 organic compounds have been detected, and 49 individual analytes have
metals (Table 3.4). Three of the IAOCs contained at least 34 analytes that exceeded
criteria. In four of the IAOCs, at least 92% of the samples exceeded criteria, including
100% of the samples at area C02. Figure 3.6 are photographs from C02, known as the
Fire Fighter Landfill, adjacent to Arthur Kill. The photographs show petroleum “popups,” where viscous petroleum buried in the landfill pops out at the surface and oozes
downgradient.
In Unit D, 328 organic compounds have been detected, and 52 individual analytes have
metals (Table 3.4). Exceedences of multiple analytes occurred throughout each of the
seven IAOCs in this unit. In D02 and D04, concentrations of compounds at all of the
sampling sites exceeded criteria. Some 43 contaminants exceeded thresholds in D04
alone.
In the Sludge Lagoon Operating Unit (SLOU), 92 organic compounds were detected, and
44 individual analytes exceeded criteria, in samples collected prior to the attempted
remediation of the SLOU in 2003 (see Appendix A). Contaminants that exceeded criteria
included hydrocarbons, volatile organics, chlorinated pesticides, and metals (Table 3.4).
Page 3-23
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
In Unit E, 281 organic compounds have been detected, and 58 individual analytes have
exceeded criteria, including hydrocarbons, volatile organics, PCBs, chlorinated
pesticides, and metals (Table 3.4). In IAOC E03, E04, and E05, 100% of the samples
exceeded soil criteria. Forty-six different analytes exceeded threshold concentrations in
E05 alone.
Fewer samples exceeded contaminant thresholds in Units F and G than in the other units
at Bayway (Figure 3.3). Most of the samples that did not exceed thresholds still contained
detectable organic contaminants, or the samples were analyzed for only a small subset of
contaminants. In Unit F, 141 organic compounds have been detected, and 27 individual
analytes have exceeded criteria, including hydrocarbons, volatile organics, chlorinated
pesticides, and metals (Table 3.4). In Unit G, 74 organic compounds have been detected,
and 16 individual analytes have exceeded criteria, including volatile organics, chlorinated
pesticides, metals, and, in IAOC G5, hydrocarbons (Table 3.4).
Contaminant concentrations in sediments at points located in creeks and reservoirs
exceeded criteria for multiple analytes. In Morses Creek, 152 organic compounds have
been detected, 100% of the samples have exceeded a threshold value, with 52 different
contaminants exceeding in total. In Piles Creek, 44 organic compounds have been
detected, and 97% of samples exceeded a threshold value. Far fewer contaminants were
analyzed in most of the Piles Creek sediment samples than in the other refinery soil and
sediment samples (Brown and Caldwell et al., 2006). A total of 17 individual
contaminant compounds exceeded criteria, including hydrocarbons, volatile organics,
chlorinated pesticides, and metals (Table 3.4).
Table 3.4. Contaminants that exceeded thresholds in soil and sediment samples collected at
the Bayway Refinery
IAOC
Unit A
A01
Number of
analytes
exceeded
17
A02
15
A03
8
A04
A05
4
6
Analytes exceeded
Acetone, Anthracene, Antimony, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Copper, Ethylbenzene,
Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, Naphthalene, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total)
Antimony, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Copper, Dieldrin, Endosulfan
I, Ethylbenzene, Lead, Mercury, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene,
Toluene, Xylenes (Total)
Arsenic, Benzo(a)pyrene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, bis(2Ethylhexyl)phthalate
4,4’-DDT, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Lead, Mercury, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Xylenes (Total)
Page 3-24
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
the Bayway Refinery (cont.)
IAOC
A06
A07a
A07b
A08
A09
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
Number of
analytes
exceeded
Analytes exceeded
1
39
1,2-Dichloroethane, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, Acetone,
Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony, Aroclor-1254, Aroclor-1260, Arsenic, Benzene,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Cadmium, Carbon disulfide, Chromium, Chrysene,
Copper, Cyclohexane, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dibenzofuran, Dieldrin, Ethylbenzene,
Fluoranthene, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Molybdenum, Naphthalene, Nickel, Petroleum
Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2Ethylhexyl)phthalate
24
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, Acetone, Aroclor-1260, Benzene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlordane, Copper, Di-n-butyl phthalate, Dieldrin, Fluoranthene, Lead,
Manganese, Mercury, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene,
Tetrachloroethene, Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, gamma chlordane
25
2-Butanone, Acetone, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead,
Mercury, Molybdenum, Naphthalene, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene,
Pyrene, Toluene, Trichloroethene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc
18
2-Methylnaphthalene, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Di-n-butyl phthalate, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene,
Molybdenum, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene,
13
2-Methylnaphthalene, Aldrin, Antimony, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Copper,
Ethylbenzene, Lead, Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene,
Toluene, Xylenes (Total)
1
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
14
4,4’-DDT, Aldrin, Antimony, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Copper, Dieldrin, Lead,
Mercury, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc
13
Antimony, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene,
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene,
Pyrene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc
14
2-Methylnaphthalene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Copper, Lead, Manganese, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Zinc
32
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDT, Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Chlorobenzene, Chrysene,
Copper, Cyclohexane, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dieldrin, Endrin ketone, Ethylbenzene,
Fluoranthene, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Phenanthrene, Phenol, Pyrene, Sulfur, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Page 3-25
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
IAOC
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
Unit B
B01
Number of
analytes
exceeded
Analytes exceeded
22
1,2-Dichloroethane, 2-Methylnaphthalene, Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic,
Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Copper, Ethylbenzene,
Fluoranthene, Lead, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene,
Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
25
2-Methylnaphthalene, Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Copper, Cyclohexane, Dieldrin,
Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene,
Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2Ethylhexyl)phthalate
42
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, Acetone, Aldrin, Anthracene,
Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chlorobenzene, Chrysene,
Copper, Cyclohexane, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dibenzofuran, Dichloromethane,
Dieldrin, Endosulfan sulfate, Endrin aldehyde, Endrin ketone, Ethylbenzene,
Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Lead, Mercury, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine,
Naphthalene, Nickel, Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene,
Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
13
4,4’-DDT, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzo(a)pyrene, Copper, Dieldrin, Lead, Manganese,
Mercury, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Trichloroethene, Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
2
Benzo(a)pyrene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons
37
B02
23
B03
44
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony,
Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Beta-BHC, Cadmium, Chrysene,
Copper, Cyclohexane, Di-n-butyl phthalate, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dieldrin, Diethyl
phthalate, Endrin aldehyde, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Heptachlor, Lead, Mercury, NNitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Phenol,
Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor
2,4-Dimethylphenol, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Cadmium, Chrysene, Copper, Fluoranthene, Lead,
Mercury, Molybdenum, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene,
Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-Dinitrophenol, 2,6-Dinitrotoluene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’DDT, Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Anthracene, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Beta-BHC, Cadmium,
Carbon disulfide, Chloroform, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper, Cyclohexane, Di-n-butyl
phthalate, Endrin, Endrin aldehyde, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Heptachlor,
Lead, Mercury, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum
Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Styrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor
Page 3-26
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
IAOC
Unit C
C01
Number of
analytes
exceeded
37
C02
36
C03
28
C04
34
C05
20
Unit D
D01
24
D02
23
Analytes exceeded
2,4-Dinitrotoluene, 2-Chlorophenol, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDT, Aldrin,
Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Cadmium, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper, Di-n-butyl phthalate, Dieldrin, Endrin
aldehyde, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, Molybdenum, NNitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Nickel, Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum
Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc,
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor
2,4-Dimethylphenol, 2-Chloronaphthalene, 2-Chlorophenol, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’DDD, 4,4’-DDT, Acetone, Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Cadmium, Chloroform, Chrysene, Copper, Di-nbutyl phthalate, Dieldrin, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, NNitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Phenol,
Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, gamma-BHC
(Lindane), p,p’-Methoxychlor
4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDT, Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Carbon disulfide, Chrysene, Copper, Dieldrin,
Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene,
Nickel, Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Phenol, Pyrene,
Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc
Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Cadmium, Chromium,
Chrysene, Copper, Di-n-butyl phthalate, Dieldrin, Endrin, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene,
Heptachlor, Heptachlor epoxide, Lead, Mercury, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene,
Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor
4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDT, Anthracene, Antimony, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Cadmium, Chrysene, Copper, Dieldrin, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Hexachlorobenzene, Lead,
Mercury, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Zinc
4,4’-DDT, Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Copper, Cyclohexane, Di-n-butyl phthalate, Ethylbenzene,
Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene,
Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDT, Aldrin, Anthracene, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Beta-BHC, Chrysene, Copper, Dieldrin, Endrin, Ethylbenzene,
Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene,
Pyrene, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene, Trichloroethene
Page 3-27
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
IAOC
D03a
D03b
D04
D05
D06
SLOU
SLOU
Number of
analytes
exceeded
Analytes exceeded
28
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDT, Aldrin, Anthracene, Aroclor-1254, Arsenic, Benzene,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Beta-BHC, Chrysene, Copper, Di-n-butyl
phthalate, Endrin, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Naphthalene,
Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Phenol, Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc,
11
2-Methylnaphthalene, Anthracene, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Endrin, Ethylbenzene,
Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total)
43
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, Acetone, Aldrin, Anthracene,
Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Cadmium, Carbon
disulfide, Chlorobenzene, Chloroform, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper, Di-n-butyl
phthalate, Dichloromethane, Dieldrin, Endosulfan sulfate, Endrin aldehyde, Endrin
ketone, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Heptachlor, Heptachlor epoxide, Lead, Manganese,
Mercury, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2Ethylhexyl)phthalate
36
2,4-Dimethylphenol, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT,
Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Cadmium, Carbon disulfide, Chlorobenzene, Chromium, Chrysene,
Copper, Cyclohexane, Dieldrin, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Manganese, Mercury,
Molybdenum, Naphthalene, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene,
Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
23
4,4’-DDT, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Cadmium, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper, Cyclohexane, Dieldrin,
Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, Naphthalene, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
44
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, Acetone,
Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Cadmium, Carbazole, Carbon disulfide,
Chlorobenzene, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper, Cyclohexane, Di-n-butyl phthalate,
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dibenzofuran, Diethyl phthalate, Endrin, Ethylbenzene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Lead, Mercury, Molybdenum, NNitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene,
Pyrene, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Page 3-28
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
IAOC
Unit E
E01
Number of
analytes
exceeded
32
E02
31
E03
35
E04
37
E05
46
Analytes exceeded
2,4-Dimethylphenol, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 3-Methylcholanthrene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE,
4,4’-DDT, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Cadmium, Carbon disulfide, Chrysene, Copper, Di-n-butyl phthalate,
Dibenzofuran, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Lead, Mercury, Naphthalene,
Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc,
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, Acetone, Antimony, Arsenic,
Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Carbon disulfide, Chlorobenzene,
Chrysene, Copper, Dieldrin, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Heptachlor, Lead, Mercury,
Molybdenum, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Phenanthrene, Phenol, Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Beta-BHC, Cadmium, Carbon
disulfide, Chlorobenzene, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper, Cyclohexane, Dieldrin,
Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Lead, Mercury, Molybdenum, Naphthalene,
Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene, Xylenes
(Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, Anthracene, Antimony, Aroclor1260, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
Cadmium, Carbon disulfide, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
Dieldrin, Endosulfan II, Endrin, Endrin aldehyde, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead,
Mercury, Naphthalene, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene,
Trichloroethene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor
Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene,
Cadmium, Chlordane, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper, Cyclohexane,
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dibenzofuran, Dieldrin, Endrin, Endrin aldehyde, Endrin ketone,
Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Lead, Mercury, Molybdenum, Naphthalene,
Nickel, Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Phenol, Pyrene,
Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor
Page 3-29
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
IAOC
Unit F
F01
Number of
analytes
exceeded
16
F02
19
F03
14
F04
Unit G
G01
G02
G03
G04
G05
1
Analytes exceeded
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDT, Anthracene, Antimony, Benzo(a)pyrene, Dieldrin,
Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Naphthalene, Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum
Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDT, Anthracene, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Beta-BHC,
Endrin, Endrin aldehyde, Endrin ketone, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Naphthalene,
Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Trichloroethene, Xylenes (Total), bis(2Ethylhexyl)phthalate
4,4’-DDT, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Copper, Cyclohexane, Di-n-butyl phthalate,
Dieldrin, Fluoranthene, Lead, Manganese, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene,
Pyrene, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(a)pyrene
2
0
0
3
9
4,4’-DDT, Benzene
None
None
4,4’-DDT, Copper, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
4,4’-DDT, Anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Copper, Fluoranthene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
G06
8
4,4’-DDT, Antimony, Arsenic, Copper, Dieldrin, Diethyl phthalate, Manganese, Zinc
Beds and banks of surface water bodies at the Bayway Refinery
Morses
52
Creek
Acenaphthene, Acetone, Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, BetaBHC, Cadmium, Carbon disulfide, Chlorobenzene, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper, Di-nbutyl phthalate, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dibenzofuran, Dichloromethane, Dieldrin,
Endrin ketone, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Heptachlor, Heptachlor epoxide,
Lead, Manganese, Mercury, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Nickel,
Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Phenol, Pyrene, Styrene,
Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, alpha-BHC, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’Methoxychlor
Piles
17
4,4’-DDT, Anthracene, Arsenic, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Cadmium,
Creek
Chromium, Copper, Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Page 3-30
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 3.4. View across Morses Creek to the Pitch Area (A18). According to an Exxon
report (ADL, 2000b), the tarry sludge in the floodplain ranges in thickness from 4 feet to 15 feet.
Photo: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting, October 2006.
Page 3-31
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 3.5. Close-up view of tarry sludge deposited at the Pitch Area (A18) and along
Morses Creek.
Page 3-32
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 3.6. Petroleum “pop-ups” at the Fire Fighter Landfill (C02). Viscous petroleum
buried in the landfill pops out at the surface and oozes downgradient.
Page 3-33
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
3.2.2 Bayonne
Petroleum contamination at the Bayonne Refinery is geographically pervasive and ubiquitous.
Most of the areas underlying the current and historical extent of the refinery contain petroleum in
the groundwater. Soils at the surface exceed multiple contaminant thresholds. Sediments in
Platty Kill Creek contain high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons. The distribution of
contaminants shows that spills, discharges, and leaks have effectively spread contamination
throughout the refinery property.
Groundwater
Petroleum product was identified at a measurable thickness (> 0.01 foot) in 54 of 99 groundwater
wells evaluated throughout the site in the RI. Most of this contamination was encountered in the
shallow-water zone. Seventeen petroleum plumes were observed throughout the site. Table 3.5
summarizes the locations and characteristics of these plumes and Figure 3.7 shows the
approximate locations of these plume areas as defined in a 2006 RI Work Plan (Parsons, 2006).
The plumes, as depicted in the RI Work Plan, extend under nearly 185 acres of the site. These
plumes are consistent with the types of historical activities and spills that occurred in these areas.
Table 3.5. Summary of groundwater plumes identified in the RI at the Bayonne Refinery
Descriptive location or area
Piers and East Side, Treatment Plant
Area, MDC Building Area
Low Sulfur and Solvent Tankfields
General Tankfield
AV-Gas Tankfield and Domestic Trade
Area
Asphalt Plant and Exxon Chemicals
Plant
No. 3 Tankfield
Plume
number
1, 2, and 3
4
5 and 6
7
8 and 9
Apparent
Inferred type of petroleum
thickness
range (feet)
contaminationa
0.16-3.57 Degraded gasoline, diesel, kerosene,
No. 5 and No. 6 fuel oils, high viscosity
lube base stock
0.15-13.6 Gasoline and heavy fuel oils (e.g., No.
6 fuel oil)
0.24-2.07 No. 6 fuel oil
0.20-9.9 Diesel/aviation fuel, lube oil, and No. 6
fuel oil
0.11-4.67 Lube oil, No. 6 oil, and asphalt
10
0.16-4.81
Kerosene or cutback
naphtha/powerformer feedstock
No. 2 Tankfield and Main Building Area
11 and 12
0.10-2.98 Diesel, No. 2 and No. 6 fuel oils
“A”-Hill Tankfield and ICI Subsite
13
0.11-8.0 Diesel
Lube Oil and Stockpile Area
14, 15, and 16 0.11-3.23 Lube oil and No. 2 fuel oil
Pier No. 1
17
0.38-4.18 Lube oil and No. 6 oil
a. Based on specific gravity measurements and operating characteristics.
Source: Geraghty & Miller, 1995, Table 5-10.
Page 3-34
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 3.7. Approximate locations of groundwater petroleum plumes at the Bayonne Refinery.
Source: Parsons, 2006.
Page 3-35
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Petroleum sheens have also been observed on surface water along the shore/bulkheads in Kill
van Kull and upper New York Bay (Parsons, 2004), suggesting movement of the contamination
from groundwater to surface water.
Platty Kill Creek has received direct discharge from refinery operations as well as discharge of
petroleum products migrating from adjacent contaminated soils and groundwater. The Bayonne
Refinery RI identified a deep groundwater plume in the creek area (Geraghty & Miller, 1995).
Sheens were observed in the Kill van Kull in 1993 and attributed to Platty Kill Creek (Bluestone
Environmental Services et al., 2000). In 1998, a sheetpile dam was installed in an effort to retard
the migration of oil and contaminated sediments to the Kill van Kull (Bayonne Industries, 1998),
essentially turning Platty Kill Creek into an oil collection basin. Figures 3.8 and 3.9 show recent
photographs of oil and sludge in Platty Kill Creek during our October 2006 site visit.
Figure 3.8. Petroleum products and sludge in Platty Kill Creek.
Page 3-36
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 3.9. Petroleum products discharged into the Platty Kill Creek.
Page 3-37
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Soils and sediments
Criteria exceedences and/or detectable organic contaminants were observed at 99% of the
sampling stations within the current Bayonne property (Figure 3.10). A total of 51 contaminants
have exceeded criteria, with exceedences in the majority of samples in each of the areas of
concern (AOCs) as well as in Platty Kill Creek and in areas that were historically part of the
refinery (Table 3.6). Contaminants that have exceeded criteria include hydrocarbons, volatile
organics, chlorinated pesticides, and metals. At least 20 contaminants exceeded thresholds in
eight of the AOCs. In the General Tankfield, 100% of the samples exceeded a threshold, with a
total of 33 different analytes exceeding a threshold. A total of 90 organic compounds were
detected in the Solvent Tankfield, and 89 organic compounds were detected in the No. 3
Tankfield (Table 3.6). Although much of the Bayonne Refinery was constructed on fill that
contained high chromium concentrations, it is clear from the above data that releases from the
refinery have resulted in many contaminants besides chromium exceeding thresholds.
Platty Kill Creek sediments were analyzed as part of the former Bayonne Industries RI (Bayonne
Industries, 1998). The DPRA database does not have sample locations and/or data for these
samples, so our analysis relied on the RI report (Bayonne Industries, 1998).
Petroleum hydrocarbons exceeded the 1,000 mg/kg threshold (Table 3.2) in all of the samples
collected from the creek. Concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons ranged from 4,000 mg/kg to
180,000 mg/kg. Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations were highest in the northern portion of
the creek and decreased toward the mouth (Bayonne Industries, 1998).
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes were detected above threshold concentrations in
five of the six surface sediment samples, five of the six middle sediment samples, and in all five
deep sediment samples. Hydrocarbons, chlorinated pesticides, and metals also exceeded criteria
in the creek (Bayonne Industries, 1998).
3.3 Contaminant Transport and Migration in the Environment
Releases from the facility have directly exposed soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water
to contamination. This contamination can be transported in the environment, resulting in further
exposure of natural resources to contaminants from the site (Figure 3.11).
Page 3-38
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 3.10. Threshold concentration exceedences and detectable organic contaminants in Bayonne soils and sediment.
Page 3-39
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table 3.6. Contaminants that exceeded thresholds in soil and sediment samples collected
at the Bayonne Refinery
IAOC
Number of
analytes
exceeded
“A” Hill Tankfield
10
AV-GAS Tankfield
23
Asphalt Plant Area
24
Domestic Trade Area
8
Exxon Chemicals
Plant Area
25
General Tankfield
33
Historical Extent of
Refinery
13
Lube Oil Area
32
Analytes exceeded
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDT, Arsenic, Copper, Ethylbenzene, Lead,
Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
2-Chloronaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDT, Aldrin,
Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Chromium, Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Endrin aldehyde,
Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Zinc, p,p’-Methoxychlor
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDT, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlorobenzene, Chromium,
Chrysene, Copper, Dieldrin, Endrin aldehyde, Fluoranthene, Lead,
Naphthalene, Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene,
Pyrene, Toluene, Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor
Anthracene, Copper, Fluoranthene, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
1,2-Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-Dichlorobenzene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, Aldrin,
Antimony, Arsenic, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chlorobenzene, Chrysene,
Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead,
Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene,
Xylenes (Total), Zinc, p,p’-Methoxychlor
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDT, Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic,
Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Cadmium, Chromium,
Chrysene, Copper, Di-n-butyl phthalate, Dieldrin, Endrin, Endrin
aldehyde, Endrin ketone, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury,
Naphthalene, Nickel, Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor
4,4’-DDT, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Cyclohexane,
Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDT, Aldrin,
Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chrysene,
Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dieldrin, Endrin ketone, Ethylbenzene,
Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, Naphthalene, Pentachlorophenol,
Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene, Zinc, bis(2Ethylhexyl)phthalate, gamma chlordane, p,p’-Methoxychlor
Page 3-40
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table 3.6. Contaminants that exceeded thresholds in soil and sediment samples collected
at the Bayonne Refinery (cont.)
IAOC
Number of
analytes
exceeded
MDC Building Area
Main Building Area
2
19
No. 2 Tankfield
19
No. 3 Tankfield
36
Pier No. 1 Area
14
Piers and East Side
Treatment Plant Area
Platty Kill Creek
Solvent Tankfield
1
1
24
Stockpile Area
24
Utilities Area
6
Analytes exceeded
Lead, Petroleum Hydrocarbons
2-Methylnaphthalene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Beta-BHC, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper,
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Nickel,
Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, bis(2Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDT, Antimony, Benzene,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Beta-BHC, Chromium, Copper, Ethylbenzene, Lead,
Mercury, Naphthalene, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes
(Total), bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), 2Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDT, Acetone, Acrolein, Acrylonitrile, Aldrin,
Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene,
Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlorobenzene, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper,
Cyclohexane, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dieldrin, Endrin, Ethylbenzene,
Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene,
Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene,
Xylenes (Total), Zinc, p,p’-Methoxychlor
Anthracene, Arsenic, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene,
Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury,
Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDT, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic,
Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chromium, Chrysene,
Copper, Endrin, Endrin aldehyde, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead,
Naphthalene, Nickel, Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
2-Methylnaphthalene, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic,
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper,
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dieldrin, Endrin, Endrin ketone, Fluoranthene,
Lead, Mercury, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene,
Pyrene, Zinc, p,p’-Methoxychlor
4,4’-DDT, Benzo(a)pyrene, Dieldrin, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Pyrene,
p,p’-Methoxychlor
Page 3-41
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Refinery
Spills, discharges, disposal, leaks, fill activities
Soil
Sediment
Surface water
Groundwater
Biota
Figure 3.11. Pathways of contaminant transport from sources to natural resource
receptors.
3.3.1
Soil pathways
Soils have been exposed directly to contamination by spills, discharges, leaks, filling with
contaminated materials, and disposal of hazardous materials into landfills. The contaminated soil
has itself exposed other natural resources to contamination. At the Bayway site, surface water
has been exposed by overland flow and drainage from areas of contaminated land and soils. The
erosion of contaminated surface soils and creek banks has exposed sediments in aquatic areas of
the site. Hydrocarbon waste contained in soils can be mobilized by shallow groundwater and
infiltrating precipitation in the unsaturated zone. Soil-water agitation tests conducted as part of
the 2005 Revised Comprehensive BEE confirmed that soils collected throughout the site
produced petroleum sheens upon agitation (AMEC Earth & Environmental, 2005).
3.3.2
Sediment pathways
Sediments were exposed to contamination by historic discharges, spills, and dumping of refinery
waste in the creeks, sloughs, ditches, canals, and reservoirs, and by erosion of contaminated land
surfaces and stream banks (Geraghty & Miller, 1993).
Page 3-42
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Contaminated sediments can serve as a continual source of contamination to surface water and
aquatic biota. When flows are sufficient, or when physical disturbance causes resuspension of
sediment, contaminated sediments can be transported and redeposited on the banks and beds of
downstream reaches.
3.3.3
Surface and groundwater pathways
Surface water resources have been exposed to contamination by historic discharges, disposal
activities, leaks, and spills. Surface water has been and continues to be exposed through the
migration of contaminants from other natural resources, including surface water runoff over
contaminated land that drains into the reservoirs and creeks, groundwater transport and discharge
to surface water, and resuspension of contaminated sediments. Contaminated shallow
groundwater at Bayway flows toward and discharges into Morses Creek, Piles Creek, the Arthur
Kill, and the Rahway River (TRC Raviv Associates, 2005). At Bayonne, contaminated
groundwater flows into Platty Kill Creek, the Kill van Kull, and Upper New York Bay.
3.3.4
Exposure to biota
As discussed in Chapter 2, the Hudson-Raritan Estuary supports a diverse array of birds, fish,
mammals, invertebrates, and other biological resources. These biological resources, or “biota,”
can be exposed to contaminants when the contamination is released directly to the ground
surface or to surface water. Biota may also be exposed when contaminants are transported and
released into the environment. Local wildlife such as egrets (Figure 3.12) can be attracted to the
disposal area and exposed directly to the contamination. Biota that live in sediments may be
exposed to contaminants that are transported from groundwater to surface water, and then
migrate from the surface water into the sediment. As a result of these ecological processes,
contamination at the refineries can be transported throughout the local environment, resulting in
widespread exposure to biota.
3.4 Conclusion
Petroleum contamination at the refineries is geographically pervasive and ubiquitous. Exxon
contractors have identified at least 750 acres of groundwater contaminated with petroleum
products at the two refineries. Spills, discharges, leaks, and landfilling with waste and dredge
material, in combination with transport of contaminants via groundwater and surface water
pathways, have effectively spread contamination throughout the refinery properties. Local
wildlife and biota are exposed to these toxic contaminants in soils, sediments, and surface water.
Page 3-43
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 3.12. Great egret along Morses Creek, Bayway Refinery.
Page 3-44
SC10982
4. Restoration Plan
The contaminated salt marsh, palustrine, and upland areas of the Bayway and Bayonne can be
cleaned up and restored as viable habitats. In this chapter we describe a plan for that restoration.
Our plan involves intensive contaminant removal and ecological restoration on-site, in portions
of the facilities that currently are largely inactive. Without this restoration, the contamination
will continue to impact natural resources for decades to come. In addition, to compensate for
harm that cannot be addressed on-site because of ongoing industrial operations, and to
compensate for harm that has accumulated over many decades of contamination, our plan also
involves extensive off-site replacement actions. This off-site replacement will enhance natural
resources in New Jersey.
The value that New Jersey citizens place on restoration of coastal habitats and remaining green
spaces in the New York Harbor, Newark Bay, and Arthur Kill areas is evident in the support they
have given restoration and protection plans developed in the past several decades. From 1961
through 1995, New Jersey voters approved bond issues that earmarked over $1.4 billion for land
acquisition and park development (NJDEP, 2006a). The New Jersey Meadowlands Commission
was created by an act of the New Jersey Legislature in 1968 and was passed into law in January
1969 to preserve natural and open areas of the Meadowlands, to restore degraded wetlands, and
to improve the water quality of the Hackensack River Estuary. In 1998, New Jersey voters
approved a referendum that created a stable source of funding for open space, farmland, and
historic preservation and recreation development. In 1999, the Garden State Preservation Trust
Act was signed into law. This bill established a stable source of funding for preservation efforts
(NJDEP, 2006a).
Programs and conservation agencies and organizations such as the NJDEP Green Acres
Program, NJ Meadowlands Commission, NJ Meadowlands Conservation Trust, NJDEP’s
Landscape Project, the New Jersey Natural Lands Trust, the New Jersey Conservation
Foundation (NJCF), the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program (HEP), the NY/NJ BayKeeper, the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), USFWS, and NOAA are actively working to
protect, preserve, and restore the ecological integrity and productivity of natural resources in the
area, and to provide public access to such green spaces. These thriving preservation and
restoration programs evidence local and regional support for restoration and preservation of
natural areas.
Our proposed restoration and replacement projects will seamlessly complement existing visions
for green space corridors in Union, Essex, and Hudson counties. Open spaces in these counties
are at a premium. Implementing the required environmental restoration in this area will
substantially benefit natural habitats and wildlife that currently are limited in this highly
urbanized region.
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Restoration Plan (11/3/2006)
4.1 Background: Ecological Restoration of Contaminated Sites
The Society for Ecological Restoration defines restoration as “the process of assisting the
recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (Society for
Ecological Restoration, 2004). The NJDEP (2006b) states that “restoration is the remedial action
that returns the natural resources to pre-discharge conditions. It includes the rehabilitation of
injured resources, replacement, or acquisition of natural resources and their services, which were
lost or impaired. Restoration also includes compensation for the natural resource services lost
from the beginning of the injury through to the full recovery of the resource.”
Ecological restoration has become a common business practice of socially responsible industry,
and conservation of environmental integrity a recognized objective in the petroleum industry (see
Box 4.1). Industry associations reflect and support this trend by providing guidance for
conservation and restoration activities undertaken by corporations. The International Petroleum
Industry Environmental Conservation Association provides support with such publications as
“The Oil and Gas Industry: Operating in Sensitive Environments” and “A Guide to Developing
Biodiversity Action Plans for the Oil and Gas Sector.”
Box 4.1. Petroleum industry statements regarding environmental management
“ExxonMobil recognizes the importance of conserving biodiversity – the variety of life on Earth.
Because our business spans the globe, we face the challenge of conducting operations in many areas
with sensitive biological characteristics. Our systematic approach to environmental management and our
commitment to understanding the human and natural environments in which we work provide us with a
framework to meet these challenges effectively.” (ExxonMobil, 2005)
“When environmental laws and regulations don’t meet our basic standards of doing business, our
responsibility takes us beyond compliance.” – Steve Elbert, head of BPs remediation management
group. (Conte, 2006)
“We consider biodiversity to be a key element in decision-making and an integral part of our operations.
In 2001, we were the first energy company to adopt a Biodiversity Standard outlining our commitment
to work with others to maintain ecosystems, respect protected areas and make a positive contribution to
the conservation of global flora and fauna.” (Shell.com, 2006)
Indeed, Exxon previously funded actions to restore coastal wetlands of the Arthur Kill estuary to
compensate the public for losses related to petroleum contamination. In January 1990, a Bayway
pipeline running beneath the Arthur Kill ruptured, spilling 567,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil.
Over 100 acres of salt marsh were oiled, killing the marsh vegetation, fish, crabs, clams, and
other invertebrates dependent on the wetland habitat. An estimated 700 birds died as a result of
the spill. As a result of natural resource damage claims brought by federal and state natural
resource trustees, Exxon agreed to pay $11.5 million in settlement to restore injured natural
resources (NOAA et al., 2006).
Page 4-2
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
With part of the settlement funds, the natural resource trustees planted approximately
250,000 seedlings of Spartina alterniflora in three oiled locations (Old Place Creek, Saw Mill
Creek, and Prall’s Island). Approximately six acres of hand-planted native marsh grasses are
flourishing (Bergen et al., 2000), and additional plantings are ongoing. The trustees also used
settlement monies to acquire land for conservation purposes and to restore or enhance resources
similar to those that were damaged by the oil spill (Figure 4.1 and Box 4.2). Other actions
undertaken as part of the restoration plan included:
Purchasing over 30 acres of land in the Goethals Bridge Pond complex on Staten Island
that were exposed to oil during the spill. The acquired lands are a mixture of upland
forested habitats and freshwater, brackish, and salt marsh environments. The lands buffer
Goethals Bridge Pond, a brackish water pond that is a critical feeding habitat for wading
birds.
Acquiring and protecting 25 acres of freshwater wetlands and upland forest habitat in
Edison, NJ, at the headwaters of the Rahway River, a tributary of the Arthur Kill.
Enhancing and restoring salt marshes in the Saw Mill Creek Preserve. Restoration actions
included removal of restrictions on tidal flow, removal of Phragmites, and propagation
and planting of Spartina alterniflora seedlings.
Restoring 18 acres of wetlands at Bridge Creek, Staten Island, removing Phragmites,
restoring tidal flow, and creating habitat for nearshore and inshore finfish, crabs, ocean
bottom invertebrates, and numerous waterfowl.
Figure 4.1. Intertidal wetland restoration project on the Arthur Kill at the base of the
Goethals Bridge, Staten Island.
Page 4-3
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Box 4.2. Harbor Herons Wildlife Refuge. Located in the Arthur Kill near the Bayway Refinery, the
refuge is an example of how sensitive ecosystems and wildlife can thrive in highly urbanized areas.
In the heart of New York City lies an environmental treasure partially created out of the provisions of the
Clean Water Act and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement. This “diamond-in-therough” is Harbor Herons Wildlife Refuge near Staten Island. Once a highly polluted area, the 278-acre
refuge is now home to some 1,200 nesting pairs of herons, egrets and ibises. During the spring and winter
migrations, the refuge also serves as an important resting point along the Atlantic Flyway. The area now
comprising the refuge is situated in the Arthur Kill, an ocean waterway separating Staten Island from New
Jersey. In the 1970s, the Arthur Kill was plagued with high levels of industrial pollution. Decades of misuse
had degraded the Kill’s tidal wetlands and driven waterfowl away. Beginning in the mid-1970s, however,
permits issued under the Clean Water Act severely restricted discharges in the New York Harbor area. Over
the next decade, water quality improved, the wetland ecosystem recovered and waterfowl populations
returned and began to flourish. In 1990, an untimely event stopped the area’s recovery short. An underwater
pipeline owned by Exxon ruptured in the Arthur Kill. Over 560,000 gallons of oil spilled from the ruptured
pipe, damaging marsh grasses and ruining much of the area’s habitat and food sources. A lawsuit was filed
by government agencies to recover the damages caused by the spill. In the ensuing case, Exxon was
required to pay a substantial fine and to establish a trust fund dedicated to restoring the natural resources
damaged by the oil. Soon thereafter, land was purchased using the newly established fund, and was
officially designated Harbor Herons Wildlife Refuge. From a troubled environmental past, the Arthur Kill
and Harbor Herons Wildlife Refuge have emerged as examples of the benefits of environmental protection.
Text: U.S. EPA, 1996.
Page 4-4
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
In addition to these projects, the NJDEP,
working with its local and government
partners, is currently implementing a
17-acre wetland restoration project on the
Woodbridge River, a tributary of the
Arthur Kill in Woodbridge, NJ
(Figure 4.2). The project involves
removing portions of a dike that restricts
tidal flushing and creating tidal channels
through the wetland to restore natural
tidal flow, as well as removing an
existing degraded Phragmites wetland
and restoring a Spartina intertidal marsh
(NOAA et al., 2006). This project, when
complete, will provide habitat for birds,
wildlife, and estuarine fish and shellfish.
4.2 Amount and Cost of
Restoration Needed
Actions that should be undertaken
include both the restoration of
contaminated habitats in inactive areas of
the refineries and off-site restoration of
similar habitats. This off-site replacement
compensates for the ecological
impairments that have accrued over the
years since contamination began at the
refineries and for the active areas of the
refineries where restoration cannot be
performed. In the sections below, we
describe the on- and off-site restoration
actions and costs.
Figure 4.2. Woodbridge River wetland
restoration project.
Photos: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting.
Page 4-5
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
4.2.1
On-site restoration
Development of the plan for on-site restoration involved input from a number of scientists,
engineers, and the NJDEP. Restoration specifications and costs were developed by 3TM
International (2006). The following principles were used in developing the plan:
Preference was given for on-site restoration where feasible and where restoration could
be performed without unreasonably restricting ongoing refinery operations at active units
Active refinery areas will be segregated from restored habitats using slurry walls and
other contaminant control technologies such as trenches, barriers, and pumping systems
to prevent migration of contamination from active refinery areas into the restored habitats
Refinery infrastructure (above- and below-ground) will be removed and relocated, as
necessary, to enable ongoing refinery operations and to minimize interference with
restoration.
Contaminated and degraded, damaged, or destroyed habitat on the Bayway Refinery property
and within the channels of Morses and Piles creeks includes 551 acres of intertidal salt marsh
connected with subtidal and intertidal channels, 626 acres of palustrine forest and meadow
habitat, and 149 acres of upland forest (see Chapter 2). Some 464 acres of intertidal marsh and
connecting channels, 59 acres of palustrine meadow or forest, and 28 acres of upland forest and
meadow habitat fall outside of active refinery areas and can be restored. The remaining acreage
(774 acres) is part of the active operations at the refinery, and cannot currently be restored.
Compensation for these areas is achieved through off-site replacement (Section 4.2.2).
Within the historical extent of the Bayonne Refinery property and Platty Kill Creek,
contaminated and destroyed habitat includes over 103 acres of intertidal wetlands, 134 acres of
subtidal habitat, 212 acres of palustrine meadows, and 27 acres of upland meadows (see
Chapter 2). Some 132 acres of subtidal habitat was destroyed by fill prior to being contaminated,
so we excluded these areas from our calculations of required restoration and replacement.
Because of restrictions associated with active industrial uses of the facility, only 25 acres can be
restored on-site at Bayonne. The remaining impacts must be compensated through off-site
replacement.
Figure 4.3 depicts the plan for habitat restoration at Bayway; Figure 4.4 shows the plan for
habitat restoration at Bayonne.
Page 4-6
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 4.3. Plan for on-site restoration at the Bayway facility. Intertidal wetlands will be
restored adjacent to the Arthur Kill and along Morses Creek. The dams on Morses Creek will be removed
to return it to its former condition as a tidal creek. Palustrine meadow/forest will be created on the western
boundaries of the site. Upland forest will be restored to the far southwest near the Linden Airport.
Page 4-7
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure 4.4. Plan for on-site restoration at the Bayonne facility. Because of ongoing industrial
activities, on-site restoration is limited to restoring intertidal wetlands along Platty Kill Creek to the
southwest and near the current golf course to the east.
Page 4-8
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
The specific steps required to restore habitats at the sites are detailed in 3TM International
(2006). In summary, restoration of habitats at Bayway and Bayonne will involve:
Contaminant removal from inactive areas of the refinery, the reservoirs, and the channels,
and secure disposal of removed materials. This will include delineation of areas and
volumes for removal; establishment of cleanup criteria; performing a feasibility study to
select technical alternatives for cleanup; removal or relocation of above ground and
below ground infrastructure; removal, treatment, and disposal of contaminated materials;
and confirmation sampling after removals are complete.
Regrading and recontouring soils and sediments to create appropriate subtidal, intertidal,
and palustrine forest and meadow slopes and elevations.
Removal of dams and barriers to tidal flow on Morses Creek and through restored
intertidal wetland habitats.
Constructing a series of trenches, barriers, and pumping systems to prevent migration of
contamination from active refinery areas into the restored habitats.
Replanting and reseeding to establish desirable native vegetation.
Monitoring and maintenance to protect plantings; ensure their survival, establishment,
and growth; and to track the development of the habitat and ecosystem functions and
services that are the goal of restoration.
3TM International (2006) contains a detailed cost estimate for on-site restoration at Bayway and
Bayonne. The estimate includes the costs of program management, pre-construction activities,
contaminant removal, habitat restoration activities, and maintenance and monitoring. The
estimated cost of on-site restoration at the Bayway and Bayonne sites, implemented over the
course of many years, is $2.5 billion.
4.2.2
Off-site restoration
Additional off-site restoration is required to compensate for past harm and because active areas
of the refineries cannot be restored. To determine the correct amount of off-site replacement, we
employed the Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) method. This method, originally developed
by NOAA, has been described in a number of published technical articles (e.g., Chapman et al.,
1998; Peacock, 1999; NOAA, 2000; Strange et al., 2002, 2004; Allen et al., 2005), and has been
applied by government agencies and industries at a large number of contaminated sites
throughout the United States.
Page 4-9
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
To determine the total loss at the refinery sites, the acreage of contaminated habitat is summed
each year, starting from the year that the contamination began and ending in the year in which
the habitat is expected to be restored. If the on-site habitat is not going to be restored, we assume
that harm will continue for an additional 100 years. Based on standard practice, an economic
discount rate of 3% is included in quantifying losses and in quantifying the ecological benefits of
off-site replacement.1 This discount rate compounds losses from the past, and discounts losses
that occur in the future. The resulting sum is expressed in present-value terms as “discounted
acre-years” of harm.
The amount of off-site replacement required was determined by calculating the acres of habitat
restoration that will provide environmental benefits equal to the harm. The cost of those
replacement actions represent the off-site restoration cost. The same process of applying a
3% discounting of future replacement actions is performed to ensure that both the benefits of
replacement actions and the total harm are expressed in present value terms. Details of our
calculations are provided in Appendix B.
We used information on historical operations compiled by Exxon’s contractors to identify the
time at which contamination began in different areas of the Bayway and Bayonne refineries. We
overlayed maps of historical habitats, as described in Chapter 2, with maps depicting areas of
common operational history. In addition, we identified parcels of land that can be restored on
site. Using the acreages of historical habitat type, the dates at which contamination began in each
parcel, and estimates of when certain acreage may be restored, we calculated a present-value
acreage of lost intertidal habitat, palustrine meadow/forest habitat, and upland meadow/forest
habitat (see Appendix B).2
Table 4.1 summarizes the present-value of lost acreage in units of discounted acre-years. The
total represents the present value of the acre-years of off-site restoration needed to compensate
for losses of intertidal and subtidal habitat, palustrine meadow/forest habitat, and upland
meadow/forest habitat at the two refineries.
1. Use of a 3% discount rate is standard industry practice in calculating damages back to 1980 or the 1970s
(see NOAA, 1999, 2000). However, selection of the appropriate discount rate to apply as far back as the late
1800s is a matter of debate among economists. For consistency with standard NRDA practice and absent
information suggesting an alternative approach, we have applied a constant 3% discount rate for all
calculations.
2. Intertidal salt marsh and associated subtidal creek and bottom areas, functionally, are restored through
similar projects. Therefore, we combined these two associated habitat types in developing our plan for off-site
replacement.
Page 4-10
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table 4.1. Present value habitat loss for the Bayway and Bayonne sites (in
discounted acre-years, rounded for presentation)
Habitat
Bayway
Bayonne
Combined
Intertidal and subtidal
148,330
91,255
239,584
214,886
168,663
383,549
34,997
21,756
56,753
In determining the amount of off-site replacement required, we estimated the time required for
ecological recovery after implementing a typical restoration project in the New York
Harbor/Newark Bay/Arthur Kill area.
Reported recovery rates for intertidal wetlands vary depending on the indicator used to
gauge ecological improvement. For example, salt marsh plants recover fairly rapidly
(within several years), whereas recovery of food-chain structures and nutrient cycling
may take decades (Strange et al., 2002 and references therein). Based on a review of
published literature (Strange et al., 2002) and discussions with the NJDEP, we concluded
that a reasonable assumption regarding intertidal salt marsh restoration was that
ecosystem functions and services will improve linearly after restoration actions are
complete, and that full recovery will take 20 years.
Palustrine wetlands develop around shallow edges of rivers, ponds, and lakes, and above
intertidal marsh. In northern New Jersey, palustrine meadows are often dominated by
Phragmites, and forested and scrub/shrub wetlands by the invasive Ailanthus altissima (tree-ofheaven). Invasion by these species can choke out native species and reduce the quality of the
habitat for nesting birds. Palustrine forest/meadow restoration typically involves removal of nonnative vegetation, regrading to establish appropriate soil salinity and hydroperiod, replanting
with native species, and maintenance to protect plantings. Vegetation establishment and
development of critical habitat features (such as the branch structure needed for bird nesting
habitat) in palustrine wetlands takes longer than in intertidal habitats. Therefore, for palustrine
meadow and forest, we assumed that complete recovery will take 25 years.
Upland forests in the Arthur Kill area typically comprise sycamore, sweetgum, red maple, pin
oak, red oak, black oak, tulip poplar, hickories, and silver maple (Greiling, 1993; USFWS,
1997). These forests are important for numerous wildlife species, and particularly as stopover
sites for migrating neotropical songbirds (USACE, 2004a). Upland forest restoration typically
requires identifying an area with suitable soil and topography to support the growth of native
hardwood species, clearing existing vegetation or structures, planting seedlings and saplings, and
maintenance to suppress competing invasive species and control herbivory (e.g., deer browsing).
Based on the time required for natural succession of woodland habitat in New Jersey (Collins
Page 4-11
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
and Anderson, 1994, Figure 1-3), we assumed that restoration of full upland forest services will
take 40 years.
We calculated services provided through the year 2109, as the benefits provided after 100 years
are negligible when discounted at a 3% rate. Using these parameters, we determined that each
acre of restored intertidal habitat will provide a total of 21.8 discounted acre-years of benefit
through 2109; each acre of restored palustrine meadow/forest habitat will provide
20.3 discounted acre-years of benefit; and each acre of restored upland meadow/forest habitat
will provide 16.6 discounted acre-years of benefit. More details on the calculations are provided
in Appendix B.
To determine how many acres of habitat replacement are needed, we divided the total accrued
harm for each habitat type by the ecological benefit that will be realized from each acre of
replacement habitat. The following acreage of offsite habitat restoration is required (Table 4.2):
Intertidal salt marsh:
239,584 discounted acre-years ÷ 21.5 acre-years per acre =
10,998 acres of off-site intertidal habitat
Palustrine meadow/forest:
18,896 acres of off-site palustrine meadow/forest habitat
Upland meadow/forest:
3,425 acres of off-site upland meadow/forest habitat.
In order to calculate the total cost of the off-site replacement, we developed average unit costs
for restoration of intertidal habitat, palustrine meadow/forest habitat, and upland meadow/forest
habitat. Details of the cost analysis are presented in Appendix C.
Table 4.2. Acres of off-site replacement habitat restoration required. Values
rounded for presentation.
Habitat
Bayway
Bayonne
Combined
Intertidal
6,809
4,189
10,998
10,587
8,310
18,896
2,112
1,313
3,425
Page 4-12
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Our average per-acre unit costs included consideration of the following cost elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Land acquisition
Project design, evaluation, and permitting
Implementation, including labor, equipment and supplies
Allowance for contingencies
Operations and maintenance
Monitoring
Oversight and administration
Contingency costs.
We obtained information on restoration costs from agencies and organizations that have
completed restoration projects or land acquisition in the area, or that have developed cost
estimates for recently proposed restoration projects. Our sources included: NJDEP, New Jersey
Meadowlands Commission, NOAA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Land
Dimensions Inc., an ecological restoration contractor.
The unit price for restoring an acre of intertidal habitat in New Jersey is $274,000 (rounded to
the nearest $1,000); for palustrine meadow/forest, $161,000; and for upland meadow/forest,
$90,000. The details of these calculations are presented in Appendix C.
Using these per-acre costs, the cost of the necessary off-site replacement is obtained by
multiplying the total number of acres of required replacement by the per-acre restoration cost. As
detailed in Table 4.3, the total cost of off-site replacement actions is $6.364 billion (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3. Off-site replacement costs, Exxon Bayway and Bayonne sites (2006$)
Habitat to be replaced
Required restoration
(acres)
Cost
($million/acre)
Cost
($millions)
Bayway
6,809
$0.274
$1,866
10,587
$0.161
$1,704
2,112
$0.090
$190
Bayway total
$3,760
Bayonne
4,189
$0.274
$1,148
8,310
$0.161
$1,338
1,313
$0.090
$118
Bayonne total
$2,604
Cumulative total
$6,364
Page 4-13
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
4.3 Technical Feasibility of Restoration
Implementation of numerous coastal restoration projects in this region confirms that restoration
of intertidal, palustrine, and upland habitat is possible, even adjacent to highly urbanized and
industrial centers. As efforts by the leading New Jersey conservation agencies and organizations
progress, habitat corridors and functional, fully communicating subtidal-intertidal-freshwater
ecosystems are being restored and protected as integral and essential components of the urban
landscape.
In addition to the projects completed in response to the 1990 Exxon Bayway Oil Spill described
in Section 4.1, the following examples demonstrate that salt marsh restoration in the Arthur Kill
area is technically feasible and successful.
The Chelsea Bridge, Saw Mill Creek, Staten Island project (1998) included excavation of
debris, replacement with clean sand fill, and planting of 16,000 square feet of marsh with
Spartina alterniflora and S. patens. The restoration is highly successful (C. Alderson,
Marine Habitat Resource Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Sandy
Hook, NJ, personal communication, October 24, 2006).
Prall’s Island originally supported high marsh habitat and high quality nesting for wading
birds. The habitat was degraded by dumping of dredge spoils, which facilitated invasion
by the non-native tree-of-heaven and subsequent displacement of gray birch (Betula
populifolia). As cover of native gray birch declined, so did the number of nesting pairs of
wading birds, because tree-of-heaven lacks suitable branch structure for nesting. In 1996,
invasive species removal and replacement with native tree species began (New
York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, 2000). As of 2000, efforts had yielded one
acre of invasive species management and one acre of planting (C. Alderson, Marine
Habitat Resource Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Sandy Hook, NJ,
personal communication, October 24, 2006).
Approximately 14 acres of tidal wetlands in Medwick Park on the southern bank of the
Rahway River are being restored by the USACE and the Port Authority, in partnership
with Middlesex County, NJ Department of Parks and Recreation (USACE and the Port
Authority of NJ & NY, 2006). The project included removal of Phragmites and
excavating and grading. As of late September 2006, approximately 30,000 cubic yards of
marsh soils had been removed and approximately 172,000 native wetland plants had been
planted. Once tidal inundation to the area is re-established, water and sediment quality
are expected to improve and to promote the return of native fish and wildlife.
Page 4-14
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
In the Skeetkill Creek Marsh, an undeveloped area surrounded by industry, Phragmites
was removed and tidal flow and areas of open water were re-established (New Jersey
Meadowlands, 2006). The marsh surface was graded to create additional meanders in
existing tidal channels and pools were excavated to provide open water habitats. Upland
waterfowl habitat islands were created to provide nesting areas with access to open water
areas.
In Harrier Meadow, dense monocultures of Phragmites that displaced the native salt
marsh plant communities were controlled, and the marsh surface was graded to create
channels, impoundments, low marsh habitat, and upland habitat islands (New Jersey
Meadowlands, 2006). These habitat features provide dabbling duck, shorebird, and
wading bird breeding, wintering and migratory habitats, lowland scrub-shrub passerine
habitat bordering the marsh/upland ecotone, and greater fishery access.
In the Mill Creek Wetlands Enhancement Site, densely packed Phragmites that had
choked the wetland was removed, and channels, impoundments, low marsh habitat, and
upland habitat islands were created to restore historical tidal exchange and habitat
diversity (New Jersey Meadowlands, 2006). The enhancement of the Mill Creek area
yielded dramatic results. Where once only two bird species existed, now more than
260 species are found.
4.3.1
Opportunities
To determine whether opportunities for off-site replacement exist in sufficient quantity in the
area, we reviewed lists of potential project inventories compiled by the following organizations:
American Littoral Society: Wetland and in-stream restoration projects identified in
Atlantic Coast Restoration Inventory, April 14, 2006 (American Littoral Society, 2006)
New Jersey Meadowlands Commission: Candidate intertidal wetland restoration projects
identified in Meadowlands Environmental Site Investigation Compilation (MESIC)
(USACE, 2004b)
NJDEP: Restoration projects identified by the Office of Natural Resource Restoration
and the Green Acres preservation program (J. Sacco, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection: Office of Natural Resource Restoration, personal
communication, August 3, 2006)
New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program: Restoration project opportunities from
numerous organizations, including projects identified by the staff of the New York
District of the USACE (New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, 2006)
Page 4-15
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
USFWS – New Jersey Field Office – Habitat Restoration Group: Wetland restoration
projects of interest (E. Schrading, Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Private Lands
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office, personal
communication, August 10, 2006).
We confirmed that opportunities for restoration of approximately 18,000 acres of intertidal
wetland, palustrine wetland, and upland forest/meadow habitat have already been identified in
coastal New Jersey. Since few of the sources of project opportunities listed potential project size,
we are confident that thousands of additional acres of potential restoration project exist.
Implementation of the required scale of off-site restoration is both feasible and consistent with
ongoing restoration initiatives in New Jersey.
4.4 Conclusions
The results of our analysis indicate that restoration of contaminated habitats at the Bayway and
Bayonne facilities is feasible and will provide important environmental benefits. Implementation
of the restoration plan at the Bayway facility will result in restoration of 464 acres of intertidal
wetlands, 59 acres of palustrine meadow, and 28 acres of upland forest. This restoration will
create important environmental benefits in a highly urbanized area. Less restoration is feasible at
Bayonne because of site operations. However, on-site restoration will create 25 acres of intertidal
habitat along the Kill van Kull and New York Harbor. The cost of the on-site restoration is
$2.5 billion.
Additional off-site replacement is necessary to compensate for the decades of harm at the two
facilities and because portions of the refinery sites cannot be restored. Approximately
11,000 acres of intertidal salt marsh, 19,000 acres of palustrine meadow/forest, and 3,400 acres
of upland meadow/forest must be replaced to compensate for this harm. The cost of this
replacement is $6.4 billion.
The total cost of the plan for on- and off-site restoration, implemented over a period of many
years, is $8.9 billion.
The restoration and replacement actions described in our plan will provide valuable ecological
and societal benefits that the New Jersey public has been denied previously because of the many
decades of contamination at the Bayway and Bayonne sites.
Page 4-16
SC10982
5. Literature Cited
3TM International. 2006. Summary Expert Report. New Jersey Natural Resource Damage
Claims New Jersey v ExxonMobil Corporation Bayonne and Bayway, New Jersey Sites. 3TM
International, Inc., Houston, TX. November 3.
ADL. 2000a. Bayway Phase IB Remedial Investigation: Baseline Ecological Evaluation,
Appendix R. Prepared by Arthur D. Little for ExxonMobil.
ADL. 2000b. Bayway Phase IB Remedial Investigation. Draft Report, Volumes I through VI.
Prepared by Arthur D. Little.
Aero-Data. 2006. Historical aerial photo series of the Bayonne and Bayway refineries, from 1939
through 2003. Aero-Data Corporation, Baton Rouge, LA.
Allen II, P.D., D.J. Chapman, and D. Lane. 2005. Scaling environmental restoration to offset
injury using habitat equivalency analysis. Chapter 8 in Economics and Ecological Risk
Assessment, Applications to Watershed Management, R.J.F. Bruins and M.T. Heberling (eds.).
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 165-184.
AMEC Earth & Environmental. 2005. Draft Revised Comprehensive Baseline Ecological
Evaluation, Bayway Refinery, Linden, New Jersey. Volume I: Report, Figures, Tables. Prepared
for ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company, Linden, NJ. June. Somerset, NJ.
American Littoral Society. 2006. Atlantic Coast Restoration Inventory. April 14.
Bayonne Industries. 1998. Platty Kill Canal Phase II Sediment Investigation Report, Bayonne,
New Jersey. March 25.
Bergen, A., C. Alderson, R. Bergfors, C. Aquila, and M.A. Matsil. 2000. Restoration of a
Spartina alterniflora salt marsh following a fuel oil spill, New York City, NY. Wetlands Ecology
and Management 8(2-3):185-195.
Beyer, W.N. 1990. Evaluating Soil Contamination. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Biological Report
90(2). U.S. Department of the Interior.
Bluestone Environmental Services, Bayonne Industries, and ExxonMobil. 2000. Remedial
Action Selection Report, Platty Kill Canal, Bayonne, New Jersey. Prepared for Bayonne
Industries and ExxonMobil, Bayonne, New Jersey. February.
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Literature Cited (11/3/2006)
Boesch, D.F. and R.E. Turner. 1984. Dependence of fishery species on salt marshes: The role of
food. Estuaries 7:460-468.
Brown and Caldwell, QEA, Hydroqual, Entrix, and ISP-ESI. 2006. Off site conditions ISP-ESI
Linden Site. Prepared for ISP Environmental Services Inc. using information generated by
Brown and Caldwell, QEA, Hydroqual, Entrix, and ISP-ESI.
CCME. 1997. Recommended Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines. Canadian Council of Ministers
of the Environment. March.
Central Pets Educational Foundation. 2006. Index of Critter Images/Reptiles/Turtles. Available:
http://www.centralpets.com/animals/reptiles/turtles/tur4983.html. Accessed 10/26/2006.
Chapman, D., N. Iadanza, and T. Penn. 1998. Calculating Resource Compensation: An
Application of the Service-to-Service Approach to the Blackbird Mine, Hazardous Waste Site.
Technical Paper 97-1. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Damage
Assessment and Restoration Program.
Collins, B.R. and K.H. Anderson. 1994. Plant Communities of New Jersey: A Study in
Landscape Diversity. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
Crommentuijn, T., D.F. Kalf, M.D. Polder, R. Posthumus, and E.J. van de Plassche. 1997.
Maximum Permissible Concentrations and Negligible Concentrations for Pesticides. RIVM
Report No. 601501002.
Currin, C.A., S.Y. Newell, and H.W. Paerl. 1995. The role of standing dead Spartina alterniflora
and benthic macroalgae in salt marsh food webs: Considerations based on multiple stable isotope
analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 121:99-116.
Deegan, L.A., J.E. Hughes, and R.A. Rountree. 2000. Salt marsh ecosystem support of marine
transient species. In Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, M.P. Weinstein and
D.A. Kreeger (eds.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 333-368.
Dreyer, G.D. and W.A. Niering (eds.). 1995. Tidal Marshes of Long Island Sound: Ecology,
History, and Restoration. The Connecticut College Arboretum, New London.
Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (eds.). 2002.
Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of
Page 5-2
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Carol Reschke’s Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage
Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany.
Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II. 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for
Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic
Process: 1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. Prepared for the U. S. Department of Energy.
November.
Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter, and A.C. Wooten. 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks
for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997
Revision. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. for the U.S.
Department of Energy. November.
Ehrenfeld, J.G. 2000. Evaluation of wetlands within an urban context. Urban Ecosystems 4:6985.
Erwin, M.R., D.R. Cahoon, D.J. Prosser, G.M. Sanders, and P. Hensel. 2006. Surface elevation
dynamics in vegetated Spartina marshes versus unvegetated tidal ponds along the mid-Atlantic
coast, USA, with implications to waterbirds. Estuaries and Coasts 29:96-106.
Feinberg, J.A. and R.L. Burke. 2003. Nesting ecology and predation of diamondback terrapins,
Malaclemys terrapin, at Gateway National Recreation Area, New York. Journal of Herpetology
37:517-526.
Field, L.J., D.D. MacDonald, S.B. Norton, C.G. Ingersoll, C.G. Severn, D. Smorong, and R.
Lindskoog. 2002. Predicting amphipod toxicity from sediment chemistry using logistic
regression models. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21(9):1993-2005.
Geraghty & Miller. 1993. Site History Report, Volume I: Bayway Refinery, Linden, New Jersey.
Rochelle Park, NJ.
Geraghty & Miller. 1995. Phase IA Remedial Investigation, Bayonne Plant, Bayonne, New
Jersey. Volume I of III: Text and Tables. Prepared for Exxon Company, U.S.A., Linden, New
Jersey. December. Rochelle Park, NJ.
Gill, J.W. 1985. Wetland values to upland wildlife. In Proceedings of the Conference-Wetlands
of the Chesapeake, H.A. Groman, T.R. Henderson, E.J. Meyers, D.M. Burke, and J.A. Kusler
(eds.). Second Printing 1987. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 96-104.
Grant, R.R., Jr. and R. Patrick. 1970. Tinicum marsh as a water purifier. In Two Studies of
Tinicum Marsh, Delaware and Philadelphia Counties, Pennsylvania, J. McCormick, R.R. Grant,
Jr., and R. Patrick (eds.). The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Page 5-3
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Greiling, D.A. 1993. Greenways to the Arthur Kill: A Greenway Plan for the Arthur Kill
Tributaries. New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Morristown, NJ.
Kneib, R.T. 1986. The role of Fundulus heteroclitus in salt marsh trophic dynamics. American
Zoologist 26:259-269.
Kneib, R.T. 1997. The role of tidal marshes in the ecology of estuarine nekton. Oceanography
and Marine Biology 35:163-220.
Kneib, R.T. 2000. Salt marsh ecoscapes and production transfers by estuarine nekton in the
southeastern U.S. In Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, M.P. Weinstein and
D.A. Kreeger (eds.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 267-291.
MHSPE. 1994. Invention Values and Target Values – Soil Quality Standards. Ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning, and Environment. Directorate-General for Environmental Protection,
Department of Soil Protection, The Hague, The Netherlands. May 9.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, Third Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York.
New Jersey Division of Fish & Wildlife. 2004. Mammals of New Jersey. Available:
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/chkmamls.htm. Accessed 9/22/2006.
New Jersey Meadowlands. 2006. Wetlands Enhancement. Available:
http://www.meadowlands.state.nj.us/natural_resources/wetlands/Wetlands.cfm. Accessed
10/5/2006.
New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. 2000. New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary
Program Habitat Workgroup 2000 Status Report. Prepared by City of New York Parks &
Recreation Natural Resources Group and New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program
Habitat Workgroup. October.
New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. 2006. New York — New Jersey Harbor Estuary
Program Habitat Workgroup: Priority Acquisition and Restoration Sites. Revised February 8,
2006.
NJDEP. 2006a. Green Acres Program. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Available: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/greenacres/. Accessed 9/28/2006.
NJDEP. 2006b. Natural Resource Restoration: Definitions. New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection. Available: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/nrr/about/defs.htm. Accessed
11/1/2006.
Page 5-4
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
NOAA. 1999. Discounting and the Treatment of Uncertainty in Natural Resource Damage
Assessment. Technical Paper 99-1. Prepared by the Damage Assessment and Restoration
Program, Damage Assessment Center, Resource Valuation Branch. February 19.
NOAA. 2000. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: An Overview. Prepared by the Damage
Assessment and Restoration Program, March 21, 1995. Revised October 4, 2000.
NOAA, USFWS, and NJDEP. 2006. Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment
Woodbridge Creek Wetland Restoration Project, Woodbridge, NJ. Prepared by National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior — Fish and Wildlife Service,
and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Available:
http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/Full%20Woodbridge%20DRAFT%20EA%2005_03_06.p
df. Accessed 10/24/2006.
NPS. 2003. Great egret (Casmerodius albus). Available:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/prsf/nathist1/wildlife/birds/great_egret.htm. Accessed 10/30/2006.
NY/NJ Baykeeper. 2006. Geography: The Hudson-Raritan Estuary. Available:
http://www.nynjbaykeeper.org/geography/. Accessed 10/26/2006.
Odum, E.P. 2000. Tidal marshes as outwelling/pulsing systems. In Concepts and Controversies
in Tidal Marsh Ecology, M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger (eds.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht,
The Netherlands, pp. 3-7.
Parsons. 2004. Surface Water Investigation Report: Former Exxon Site, Bayonne, New Jersey
Free Oil Recovery Project (FORP). Volume 1: Text, Table, Figures. Prepared for ExxonMobil
Refining and Supply – Global Remediation, Bayonne, New Jersey. August; Revised September
2004. Boston, MA.
Parsons. 2006. Remedial Investigation Work Plan for IAOCs A, B, C, D, E; Former Exxon Site,
Bayonne, New Jersey. Volume 1: Text, Tables, Figures. Prepared for ExxonMobil Refining &
Supply, Bayonne, NJ. August.
Peacock, B. 1999. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: Conceptual Background and Hypothetical
Example. National Park Service, Environmental Quality Division, Washington, DC. April 30.
Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. 1994. Proposed Guidelines for the Clean-up of
Contaminated Sites in Ontario. ISBN 0-7778-3024-8. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. July.
Rountree, R.A. and K.W. Able. 1992. Fauna of polyhaline subtidal marsh creeks in southern
New Jersey: Composition, abundance and biomass. Estuaries 15:171-185.
Page 5-5
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Saltonstall, K. 2002. Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites
australis, into North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A.
99:2445-2449.
Sandy Hook Ocean Institute. 2006. New Jersey Wetlands. Available:
http://www.brookdale.cc.nj.us/staff/sandyhook/tripdata/wetland/index.htm.
Society for Ecological Restoration. 2004. The SER International Primer on Ecological
Restoration. Version 2. Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy
Working Group, Tucson, AZ. October.
Southgate, E.W.B. 2006. Pre-Twentieth Century Site History of the Bayonne Plant, Constable
Hook, Bayonne, New Jersey, and Bayway Refinery, Linden. October 29.
Strange, E.M., P.D. Allen, D. Beltman, J. Lipton, and D. Mills. 2004. The habitat-based
replacement cost method for assessing monetary damages for fish resource injuries. Fisheries
29(7):17-23.
Strange, E.M., H. Galbraith, S. Bickel, D. Mills, D. Beltman, and J. Lipton. 2002. Determining
ecological equivalence in service-to-service scaling of salt marsh restoration. Environmental
Management 29:290-300.
Talbot, C.W. and K.W. Able. 1984. Composition and distribution of larval fishes in New Jersey
high marshes. Estuaries 7(4A):434-443.
Teal, J.M. 1962. Energy flow in the salt marsh ecosystem of Georgia. Ecology 43:614-624.
Teal, J.M. 1986. The Ecology of Regularly Flooded Salt Marshes of New England: A Community
Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Reports 85(7.4).
TRC Raviv Associates. 2005. Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination: RCRA
Corrective Action Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS Code (CA 750) Migration of
Contaminated Groundwater Under Control. Bayway Refinery — Linden, New Jersey. Prepared
for ExxonMobil Global Remediation, Clinton, NJ. March 22. Millburn, NJ.
USACE. 2004a. Hudson-Raritan Estuary Environmental Restoration Feasibility Study, Arthur
Kill/Kill Van Kull Study Area Report. Prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York
District.
USACE. 2004b. Meadowlands Environmental Site Investigation Compilation (MESIC). HudsonRaritan Estuary Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey. Prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers New York District. May.
Page 5-6
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
USACE and the Port Authority of NJ & NY. 2006. Joseph P. Medwick Park Restoration,
Carteret, NJ. Project Facts. Available:
http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/project/newjers/factsh/pdf/carteret.pdf. Accessed 10/25/2006.
U.S. EPA. 1996. Harbor Herons Wildlife Refuge. U.S. EPA’s 25th Anniversary Report: 19701995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/25year/WATER7.PDF. Accessed 10/2/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2001. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Ecological Risk
Assessment. Originally published November 1995. Website version last updated November 30,
2001. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/ots/ecolbul.htm. Accessed 9/27/2006.
U.S. EPA. 2003. U.S. EPA Region 5, RCRA Ecological Screening Levels. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/Region5/rcraca/ESL.pdf. Accessed 9/27/2006.
USFWS. 1997. Arthur Kill Complex, Complex # 18. In Significant Habitat and Habitat
Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South New
England, New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program, Charlestown, RI, pp. 577-589.
Available: http://training.fws.gov/library/pubs5/begin.htm.
Weinstein, M.P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fishes and shellfish, Cape
Fear River, North Carolina. Fishery Bulletin 77:339-357.
Page 5-7
SC10982
A. Site Histories of the ExxonMobil Bayway
and Bayonne Refineries
A.1 Introduction
A.1.1 Background
In 2004, the State of New Jersey (“State”) brought a suit against the ExxonMobil Corporation
(“Exxon”)1 for cleanup and removal costs, including natural resource damages, at the Exxon
Bayway site located in Linden, NJ, and the Exxon Bayonne site in Bayonne, NJ. On May 26,
2006, Judge Anzaldi of the New Jersey Superior Court ruled that Exxon should be held strictly
liable for natural resource damages, including restoration.
This appendix contains a summary of site history information obtained from reports prepared by
Exxon and its contractors. We used this to provide background information and context in
quantifying natural resource damages. However, we emphasize that the summary is not
intended to reflect or limit our ability to offer opinions that differ from those presented in
the Exxon reports, and we reserve the right to differ from conclusions or representations
made in those original reports, including conclusions regarding site remediation, the
efficacy of contaminant removals, or other mitigation claimed by Exxon and their
consultants. Moreover, the documents we reviewed were prepared by Exxon as part of
remedial investigation activities; the documents do not address restoration, replacement, or
natural resource damages.
This appendix is organized as follows: Section A.1.2 describes the data sources from which the
information in this document originated. Section A.2 summarizes the industrial history of the
Bayway Refinery. Section A.3 summarizes the industrial history of the Bayonne Refinery.
1. In this report, “Exxon” and “ExxonMobil” refer to the current ExxonMobil Corporation, as well as all the
predecessor and subsidiary companies that conducted operations at these sites, including but not limited to
Standard Oil of New Jersey, Esso Standard Oil Company, Humble Oil & Refining Company, Exxon Chemical
Americas, and Exxon Company, USA.
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Appendix A (11/3/2006)
A.1.2 Data sources
This report contains a summary of information provided in previous remedial investigation (RI)
reports prepared by Exxon and its contractors.2 Information from the following documents was
compiled in this review:
Bayway
Bayway Site History Report (Geraghty & Miller, 1993)
Phase 1B Remedial Investigation Report (ADL, 2000b)
Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit Remedial Investigation (Geraghty & Miller, 1995c)
Baseline Environmental Evaluations (ADL, 1994, 2000a; AMEC Earth & Environmental,
2004, 2005; TRC Raviv Associates, 2005)
ISP-ESI Linden Site Off-Site Conditions Report (Brown and Caldwell et al., 2006)
Aerial photos taken between 1939 and 2003 (Aero-Data, 2006).
Bayonne
Bayonne Site History Report (Geraghty & Miller, 1994)
A Superior Court ruling from 1977 that presents some details of the past industrial history
at Bayonne (Superior Court of New Jersey, 1977)
Platty Kill Creek site background summary (Author Unknown, Undated)
An historical map showing the extent of the refinery property in 1933 (NJDEP, 1990)
Aerial photos taken between 1939 and 2003 (Aero-Data, 2006).
A.2 Bayway Refinery
The Bayway Refinery is an active industrial facility located in the cities of Linden and Elizabeth,
NJ, west of the Arthur Kill in New York Harbor (Figure A.1). The New Jersey Turnpike passes
through the refinery property. Elevations are generally less than 10 feet above mean sea level.
2. Exxon reports did not address natural resource restoration or damages.
Page A-2
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure A.1. Location of the Exxon Bayway and Bayonne refineries.
Page A-3
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
The Bayway Refinery has been operating continuously since 1909. Exxon owned and operated
the refinery from 1909 to 1993. Exxon sold the facility to Tosco Refining in 1993. Phillips
Petroleum Company bought Tosco Corporation in 2001 and merged with Conoco Inc. in 2002 to
form the ConocoPhillips Company, which continues to operate the Bayway Refinery. The
Bayway Refinery receives crude oil by tanker and distributes refined products by barge, pipeline,
truck, and railcar.
At the refinery, crude and partially refined oil are refined by distillation, catalytic cracking,
finishing, and blending processes to produce petroleum products that include butane, propane,
gasoline, liquid petroleum gas, jet and diesel fuels, heating oil, and asphalt. White oils (baby oil),
or purified mineral oils, were produced until about 1980. The West Side Chemical Plant (WSCP)
produces additives for motor oils and high purity propylene for use in the manufacture of plastic.
The former East Side Chemical Plant manufactured methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), tertiary butyl
alcohol, secondary butyl alcohol, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), isopropyl alcohol, and acetone
until the late 1980s (Figure A.2).
In the early 1900s, the refinery comprised facilities that processed crude oil into finer grades.
Between 1914 and 1919, the main products were kerosene and gasoline, and the main processing
units were crude stills and a series of small tanks. The facilities were centered between Union
and Central avenues and Standard and Railroad avenues. Additional stills were located along the
west side of Union Avenue. The Gasoline Blending Tankfield (Figure A.2) and the East
Retention Basin, both on the northern bank of Morses Creek, were also part of the original
refinery operations. The West Separator, the main oil/water separator that treats process water
collected from the refinery and tankfields west of Central Avenue and wastewater from the East
Retention Basin, began operating in 1917.
Over the years, the refinery expanded. The East Side Chemical Plant, which processed lighter
hydrocarbons refined from crude oil, and the White Oils Plant, which produced white oils and
related products, began operating in the 1920s. In addition, the Tremley Tankfield and the
40-Acre Tankfield (Figure A.2) were in operation by the 1920s. In the 1930s, the storage
capacity in the 40-Acre Tankfield was increased and the No. 4 Component Tankfield and the
Domestic Trade Terminal and Tankfield were operating. In the 1950s, the Rahway River
Tankfield was constructed. Filling of the salt marshes to the east of the New Jersey Turnpike
with dredge material from Morses Creek probably began in the 1930s and continued at least into
the 1970s. Filling with refinery waste, including white oil filter clays, garbage, contaminated
soil, and rubble, was common practice. Landfilling of refinery waste and debris in former salt
marshes along the Arthur Kill, and in the area south of Morses Creek and East of the Tremley
Tankfield (Figure A.2), took place between the 1940s and 1970s.
Page A-4
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure A.2. Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ. The yellow borders outline areas of concern, Units
A through G, defined by Exxon and its contractors.
Page A-5
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
The Bayway Refinery currently covers 1,252 acres and comprises the main petroleum refining
facility, a petrochemical manufacturing facility, several tankfields, a fuel distribution terminal,
process areas, offices, chemical plants, mechanical shops, wastewater treatment units (WWTUs),
pipelines, railroad sidings, and tanker docks.
Contamination of the land and water at the Bayway Refinery began in the early 1900s and
continues to this day. Petroleum products and waste related to the refining of petroleum products
were spilled, discharged, or discarded on the ground and in the water. Materials released to the
land and water included organic contaminants and hazardous metals. Dredge materials that were
used to fill salt marshes commonly contained high concentrations of petroleum products and
metals, and these dredge materials even today retain visual evidence of petroleum staining.
Landfills were constructed without liners, and landfilled substances have leaked to surrounding
groundwater, soils, and surface water. Spilled materials from pipeline ruptures, tank failures or
overflows, and explosions have resulted in widespread groundwater, soil, and sediment
contamination.
In November 1991, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and
Exxon entered into Administrative Consent Orders (ACOs) that specify technical requirements
for site remediation, including conduct of an RI, implementation of interim remedial measures
(IRMs), and remediation at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries (see Section A.3 for a
description of the Bayonne Refinery).
ExxonMobil conducted certain RI activities in an effort to characterize soil, groundwater, surface
water, sediment, and geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics at the site. The RI included
several phases. A Site History Report was completed in 1993, and is the source of much of the
information presented in this section. The Phase 1A for the Site-wide RI was prepared in 1995
(Geraghty & Miller, 1995a). The RI for a portion of the site investigated separately, the Sludge
Lagoon Operable Unit (SLOU), was submitted in 1995 (Geraghty & Miller, 1995c). The
Phase 1B Site-wide RI was submitted in 2000 (ADL, 2000b), and the Phase II Site-wide RI was
prepared in 2004 (TRC Raviv Associates, 2004).
As part of the Site-wide RI, the refinery was subdivided into seven investigative units (Units A
through G; Operational Unit H covers surface waters, generally). Each unit was further
subdivided into investigative areas of concern (IAOCs) (Figure A.2). Operations in these units
and IAOCs – including hazardous waste materials disposed or handled, and the numerous leaks,
overflows, and spills reported by Exxon – are described in the sections that follow.
Page A-6
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
A.2.1 Investigative Unit A
Unit A includes the Refinery Area, the West and East Side Chemical plants, the biological
oxidation (BIOX) area, tankfields, and other process areas (Figure A.3). The unit was divided
into 21 IAOCs for the RI (Table A.1). IAOCs A01 through A06 comprise the Refinery Area and
the central area of operations at the Bayway Refinery. Unit A covers approximately 540 acres.
The Pipe Stills (IAOC A01) were part of the original operations area that processed crude oil into
kerosene and gasoline starting in 1909. The area originally contained crude stills and groups of
small tanks. The small tanks were removed during the 1940s and 1950s, and pipe stills and a
catalytic cracking unit replaced the original crude stills by 1951. The pipe stills produced a range
of petroleum products, from asphalt and crude oil to gasoline. Materials associated with the
catalytic cracker include gasoline, gas oil, heating oil, fuel oil, caustic, sour water (H2S),
monoethanolamine (MEA), and catalyst. Documented spills in IAOC A01 include a gas oil spill
of 2,700 pounds in 1991, and a heavy oil spill when a vessel exploded on Refinery Avenue in
1970. Tables A.2, A.3, and A.4 summarize waste materials disposed or handled in Unit A, and
reported spills in Unit A.
The Powerformer (IAOC A02) was part of the original operations area. The area originally
contained crude stills and groups of small tanks, and after 1940, plants for production of poly,
pentane, and propane. The IAOC is divided into three process areas: the Powerformer, the
alkylation area, and the polymerization area. Materials associated with the Powerformer include
gasoline, di-tertiary nonyl polysulfide (TNPS), and chlorine. Materials associated with the
alkylation area include sulfuric acid, caustic, and gasoline. Materials associated with the
polymerization area include gasoline, sour water, caustic, and MEA. Documented spills in IAOC
A02 include a release of heavy oil from an explosion at the Heavy-Oil unit in 1970, and base oil
leaks near Brunswick and Standard avenues (no date given).
Operations in the Catalytic Light Ends area (IAOC A03), the Utilities Unit (IAOC A04), the
Sulfur Recovery Unit (IAOC A05), and the Isomerization Unit (IAOC A06) began before 1940.
Materials currently associated with these IAOCs include gasoline (A03, A06), fuel oil (A03,
A04), water treatment chemicals (A04), sulfur and Stretford solution (A05), and diesel (A06).
An explosion occurred at the Catalytic Light Ends unit in 1978.
Page A-7
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure A.3. Investigation areas of concern at the Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ.
Page A-8
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.1. Investigative units and IAOCs at Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ
IAOC
Unit A
A01
A02
A03
A04
A05
A06
A07a
A07b
A08
A09
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
Unit B
B01
B02
B03
Unit C
C01
C02
C03
C04
C05
Name
Acres
Pipe Stills (refinery area)
Powerformer
Catalytic Light Ends
Utilities Unit
Sulfur Recovery Unit
Isomerization Unit
East Side Chemical Plant
White Oils Plant
Gas Blending Tankfield
Conservation Area (West Separator, BIOX)
Gasoline Component Tankfield
Hydrofiner Unit
No. 4 Component Tankfield
Domestic Trade Terminal and Tankfield
Greater Elizabeth Tankfield
West Side Chemical Plant (WSCP)
Cogeneration Plant (and Fuel Gas area)
Caverns Area
Pitch Area (and East retention basin)
Administration and Mechanical Area
Park Avenue Administration
28.6
29.7
3.9
13.5
5.1
5.9
70.0
19.7
43.4
35.5
46.7
7.8
19.3
22.4
31.2
35.8
28.2
30.2
20.0
33.3
9.2
Tank 336 Creek Dredgings Area
Western Waterfront Tankfield
Tank 301 Creek Dredgings
30.4
20.8
7.7
Tank 319 Waterfront Landfill Area
Fire Fighting Landfill
Eastern Waterfront Tankfield/Pier
No. 1 Dam Creek Dredgings Area
Steamer Dock Area
18.1
11.3
40.2
14.3
17.5
Page A-9
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.1. Investigative units and IAOCs at Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ
(cont.)
IAOC
Unit D
D01
D02
D03a
D03b
D04
D05
D06
Unit E
E01
E02
E03
E04
E05
Unit F
F01
F02
F03
F04
Unit G
G01
G02
G03
G04
G05
G06
SLOU
Total
Name
Tremley Tankfield
Former Lower Tremley Tankfield Separator
Current and Former Diesel Tankfield
Tank 519 and Former Diesel Tankfield
Tank 519 Creek Dredging Area
SLOU Boundary
Western Shore of Reservoir
Acres
135.6
2.5
28.5
4.3
6.2
11.1
90.3
Clean Fill Area
Eastern Landfill
Central Landfill and Landfarm
Western Landfill
Southern Landfill
46.7
13.8
16.3
7.5
4.8
40-Acre Tankfield – east and west
Former 40-Acre Tankfield Separator
40-Acre Tankfield Undeveloped Property
Unit F Connector Piperun
49.5
3.4
19.3
0.7
Rahway River Tankfield Heavy Oil and Naphtha Tanks
Rahway River Tankfield East Separator
Rahway River Tankfield West Separator
Rahway River Tankfield Heating Oil and Motor Gas Tanks
Unit G Connector Piperun
G – PA Area
Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit
Page A-10
SC10982
24.5
1.4
1.0
27.5
4.3
11.1
42.0
1,252.0
Stratus Consulting
Table A.2. Materials handled or disposed in Unit A, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ
IAOC
Name
Approximate
years of
operations in
the IAOC
Materials handled or disposed
A01
Pipe Stills
1909 to present Process wastewater and oil asphalt, crude, gasoline, gas oil,
heating oil, caustic, sour water, caustic (sodium hydroxide),
MEA, catalyst
A02
Powerformer
1909 to present Gasoline, TNPS, chlorine, sulfuric acid, caustic, sour water,
MEA
A03
Catalytic Light
Ends
1940 to present Gasoline, fuel oil
A04
Utilities
1940 to present Fuel oil, water treatment chemicals
A05
Sulfur Recovery
Unit
1940 to present Sulfur, Stretford solution
A06
Isomerization Unit 1940 to present Gasoline, diesel
A07a East Side
Chemical Plant
1920 to present MEK, tertiary butyl alcohol, secondary butyl alcohol, MIBK,
isopropyl alcohol, acetone, propylene, isophorone, fuel gas,
white filter clay, sulfuric acid, nickel, zinc, and palladium
catalysts, ceramic balls, chromium, filter cake, process water,
storm water
A07b White Oils
1924 to 1981
Base oil feedstock, sulfuric acid, caustic, filter clay, oil,
methylbutyl carbinol, ketones, alcohols, acetone
A08
Gasoline Blending 1908 to present Gasoline, sulfuric acid, asphalt, butane, petrolite, water white,
Tankfield
standard white, gas oil, treated naphtha, crude naphtha, sulfidic
caustic, gasoline additives, heavy catalytic naphtha
A09
Conservation Area 1917 to present Process wastewater from cracking coil units, slop oil,
(West Separator,
hydrocarbon solids from erosion and sandblasting, stormwater
BIOX)
and oil from the separator
A10
Gasoline
Component
Tankfield
1940 to present Feedstocks, MTBE, intermediate reformate, powerformer feed,
isomerization unit feed, light sulfur vacuum, light catalytic
naphtha, isomerate, alkylate, domestic heavy virgin naphtha,
toluene, oil
A11
Hydrofiner Unit
1940 to present Gasoline, jet fuel, caustic, gas oil
A12
No. 4 Component
Tankfield
1935 to present Gas oil, No. 6 light sulfur fuel oil, naphtha, AC-20 asphalt, slop
oil, cresylic caustic, sulfidic caustic, bleach oil, powerformer
feed
Page A-11
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.2. Materials handled or disposed in Unit A, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ (cont.)
IAOC
Name
Approximate
years of
operations in
the IAOC
A13
Domestic Trade
Terminal and
Tankfield
1940 to present Waste motor oil, gasoline, gasoline additives, heating oil, diesel,
tank bottoms, wastewater, oil
A14
Greater Elizabeth
Tankfield
1940 to present Gas oil, AC-20 asphalt, fuel oil, volatile materials
A15
West Side
Chemical Plant
1940 to present Chlorinated hydrocarbons, caustics, acids, boiler slag, additives
for motor oils, iso-octane, base oil, oil, butylene, vinyl acetate,
alcohol, cyclohexame, phenol, ashless product, hydrogen sulfide,
hexane, zinc dialkyl-dithiophosphate, tank car oil, varsol
A16
Cogeneration Plant 1933 to present Asphalt, other unknown materials
(and Fuel Gas
area)
A17
Caverns Area
1935 to present Butane, propane, dredge spoils, base oil
A18
Pitch Area (and
East retention
basin)
1908 to present Process water, storm water, unleaded gasoline tank bottoms,
pitch (a viscous crude oil distillate), dredge spoils from Morses
Creek and possibly from Arthur Kill
A19
Administration
and Mechanical
Area
1940 to 1990
A20
Park Avenue
Administration
1951 to present No information available in documents reviewed.
No information available in documents reviewed.
MEA: monoethanolamine.
MEK: methyl ethyl ketone.
MIBK: methyl isobutyl ketone.
MTBE: methyl tertiary butyl ether.
TNPS: di-tertiary nonyl polysulfide.
Page A-12
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.3. Spills greater than 100 gallons with known locations in Unit A, Bayway
Refinery, Linden, NJ
Date
Spill
Comments
Reported spills and operator log summaries
Greater Elizabeth and gasoline component tankfields
12/11/1984 Asphalt
Tank 217, Seepage
11/12/1985 Power former feed
Tank 212, Spilling over side of tank
2/24/1986
Naphtha
Tank 201, Spill covering large area
1/1/1987
Unknown
Tank 202, Floor leak
7/15/1987
Oil
Tank 242, Large volume of oil
6/9/1989
Oil
Tank 234, Oil overflowing from sewer to ground
7/5/1989
Bleach oil
Tank 202, Oil in fire bank
Domestic trade terminal
9/29/1976
76,230 gallons gasoline
Tank 230, Overfill
4/26/1979
Tank 230, Overfill
8/25/1983
Tank 224, Overfill
West separator
5/8/1986
Oil
Tank 133, Down sewer, pure oil coming out
BIOX area
12/1985Oil
Dam No. 2, Coming out of dam
1/1986
11/25/1988 Unknown
Tank 136, Gasket leak
Gasoline blending tankfield
2/26/1985
Gasoline
Floor leak, gasoline seeping from numerous areas around Tank 350
11/12/1985 Gasoline
Large amount of gasoline inside fire bank of Tank 354 mixer
3/27/1986
Butane
Spheroid 195, Spheroid 195 ruptured, leaking badly
4/29/1987
165 barrels caustic
Tank 105, LHC steam leak
2/13/1990
2,000 gallons sulfuric acid Tank 101, Historical
Refinery area
7/22/1985
Oil
Sewers, Large oil leak coming out of old sewer at Morses Mill
Road opposite West Separator until August 11, 1985
10/17/1987 Base oil
Railroad Avenue and Public Service right-of-way, Large amount
3/5/1988
Unknown
Tank 128, Bottom leak
11/14/1991 100-300 gallons caustic/
Tank 3, Historical
water
12/2/1991
2,000 pounds gas oil
DSU-1, T-104 PSV, faulty equipment
Page A-13
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Refinery, Linden, NJ (cont.)
Date
Spill
Comments
1/15/1987
2,000 gallons methyl
Tank 880, Leak to sewers, cleaned up by vacuum trucks
isobutyl ketone
7/23/1991
Oil sheen
ESR basin, Historical
Cogeneration and Fuel Gas area
11/8/1991
Oil
Fuel Gas area, Historical
Spills noted by Bayway Refinery personnel
No date
Catalyst
Used as landfill material in flare area
No date
Low pH groundwater
Leaking sewer
No date
Acid coke
Washed out of tanks onto ground
No date
Lead
From lead coil cooler overflows and leaks
No date
Sulfur
From white oil sludge
No date
Ketone and acid
From tank overfills
No date
High TOCs and sulfate
In dismantled IBW Unit
No date
Filter cake
Used as fill in ESCP control house
No date
Catalyst and ceramic balls Used as fill material
No date
Methyl ethyl ketone
From numerous spills
No date
Acid coke
SBW area used for drum storage and transfers
No date
Caustic and acid
From leaks and overfills at Tanks 872 and 878
No date
Possibly sulfur
In fire banks of Tank 880
No date
Alcohols
From operating units for ketone, methyl isbutyl ketone, and for
butyl extraction
No date
Acids and hydrocarbons
In ditch leading to Morses Creek
No date
Oil
From spills at Tanks 7901 and 7902
No date
Acetone
From major spill in ESCP
No date
Methyl isobutyl carbinol, Near loading rack
ketones, alcohols
No date
Butyl alcohol
From tank leak
1930
Unknown
Alcohol plant, Explosion
West Side Chemical Plant
No date
Oil
Near old Paratone Tank 631
No date
Unknown
From spills at railcar unloading area near West Side Avenue
No date
Unknown
From spills over 20 years at tanks along West Side Avenue
Page A-14
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Refinery, Linden, NJ (cont.)
Date
No date
No date
Spill
Comments
Base oil
Unknown
From spills at Tank 100 area
Spills at low flash tankage on Standard Avenue; leaks in unloading
lines and pumps near roadways
No date
Base oil
From major leak in underground line
No date
MDFI/vinyl acetate
Unknown
No date
Unknown
From 950 drums, which were removed between 1978 and 1980
No date
Chlorinated hydrocarbons, From chemical cleaning site located in WSCP
caustics, and acids
No date
Light polymer
From major spill (ground saturation) at Sphere 59/Flare 5 area
No date
Boiler slag
Used as fill in blending unit
No date
Butylene or Vis J
Overfills at test tanks onto stoned areas
Other spill areas within the refinery area
No date
Base oil
Leaks soaked under pipe rack and along the tracks along Public
Service right-of-way
No date
Unknown
Numerous tank overfills to the north and west of the west separator
No date
Base oil
On both sides of Brunswick Avenue at Standard Avenue
No date
Oil
Ditch between WSCP and Greater Elizabeth tankfield
No date
1,000 gallons (estimated) Spill from pipeline; history of naphtha spills from leaking pipelines
naphtha
1970
H-oil (heavy oil)
Vessel explosion in the refinery between Brunswick and Union
avenues, to the north of Morses Mill Road
1978
Unknown
Catalytic light ends unit explosion in the West Side Chemical Plant
BIOX: Biological oxidation.
DSU: Desulfurization unit.
ESCP: East Side Chemical Plant.
ESR: East Side retention.
IBW: Unknown.
LHC: Unknown.
MDFI: Middle distillate flow improver.
SBW: Unknown.
TOC: Total organic carbon.
Vis J: Unknown.
WSCP: West Side Chemical Plant.
Page A-15
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.4. Spills greater than 100 gallons with general or unknown locations in Unit A,
Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ
Date
Spill
Comments
Domestic trade terminal
12/8/1987
Gasoline and butane
Dug up underground storage tank and hole filled up with
gasoline and butane
2/2/1991
300 gallons diesel fuel
12/15/1991 100 gallons gasoline
West Side Chemical Plant
10/21/1985 Zinc dialkly-dithiophosphate
2/1986
Ashless product
5/12/1986
C12 lime pit
2/19/1988
Zinc, T/C, hydrogen sulfide
5/31/1987
200 gallons unknown material
6/23/1987
2,000 gallons PX-15 (zinc)
7/14/1987
Unknown
9/16/1987
100-200 gallons alcohol
9/29/1987
1,500-3,000 gallons cycloxylene
1/30/1990
200 pounds phenol
6/12/1990
3,000 gallons base oil
6/28/1990
Phenol
2/10/1991
Hexane
4/4/1991
Base oil
9/10/1991
Zinc dialkyl-dithiophosphate (ZDDP)
11/18/1991 Tank car oil
11/19/1991 Tank car oil
11/25/1991 Varsol/water
Gasoline blending tankfield
10/11/1991 < 400 gallons zinc compound/base oil
Refinery area and other unknown locations
6/27/1986
1,000 gallons unknown material
3/14/1987
P 60
7/3/1987
Gas oil and asphalt
7/27/1988
Oil
12/3/1988
Acetic acid
Metering station flange leak, faulty equipment
Odor; paid $75,000 fine
$12,000 fine
$7,000 fine
Railcar decomposition; $35,000 fine
Tank
Tank 124 bottom leak
Sewers
Spill to land
Spill to land
Spill to water
Spill to land
Spill to land
Spill to land
Tank 105/107
Tank 156
6 inches of P 60 in ditch. P 1506
Railroad tracks; large amount
Flange blowing oil on top of TPS desalter; much oil to
sewer; extra vacuum trucks called in
Tank 10D55 exploded, acid was vacuumed up
Page A-16
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.4. Spills greater than 100 gallons with general or unknown locations in Unit A,
Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ (cont.)
Date
Spill
2/23/1989
Ashless product 5025
5/7/1989
210 pounds ammonia
11/19/1989 100 gallons sulfuric acid
5/8/1991
10 barrels Stretford solution
No date
Sulfuric acid
12/25/1980 Butane leak
12/29/1982 Sulfuric acid
7/9/1983
Sulfuric acid
6/26/1984
Methyl isobutyl carbinol
7/26/1987
White oil
11/18/1987 Sulfuric acid
6/13/1990
Oil
10/3/1990
Catalytic tar
TPS: Unknown.
PRPW: Unknown.
CBU: Unknown.
PSE&G: Public Service Electric & Gas.
ESCP: East Side Chemical Plant.
Comments
Tank 164 valve open; toe wall overflow to sewer
Refinery, Into Morses Creek
Refinery, Into water
Refinery, Avenue ditch
Leak, $5,500 paid
Filled sewers and large area around tank 775, PRPW
Chemico Avenue
ESCP coolers leak to water
CBU, Leak to water
Spill to land
White oils plant – GRP II. Coming out of ground
ESCP coolers leak to water
PSE&G property line. Historical
New Jersey Turnpike. Historical
The East Side Chemical Plant (IAOC A07a) processed lighter hydrocarbons refined from crude
oil between 1920 and 1988. Chemicals produced over the years included MEK, tertiary butyl
alcohol, secondary butyl alcohol, MIBK, isopropyl alcohol, acetone, propylene, isophorone, and
fuel gas. Meadow and swamp areas that comprised most of the IAOC were filled to
accommodate an expansion of the East Side Chemical Plant in 1938, and by 1951, most of the
IAOC was filled. The fill material may have been white filter clay, a waste product from the
production of white oil, in the earlier years, and white fill material in later years. The East Side
Retention Basin received and neutralized process wastewater from solvent manufacturing
operations from 1969 to 1988. It currently collects stormwater. All production in the area was
phased out in the late 1980s, and the chemical process units were dismantled. Current refinery
process units in the IAOC include the Propylene Recovery Bayway, the Fuel Gas Bayway, the
Butylene Isomerization Bayway, and the Butylene Fractionization Bayway. Recorded spills in
Page A-17
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
the IAOC included 2,000 gallons of MIBK in 1987, oil that leaked to the East Side Retention
Basin in 1991, a fuel gas spill in 1991, other acids and hydrocarbons dumped into the East Side
Equalization and Neutralization Basin (ESEN) ditch, tank overfills, leaks and discharges of
sulfuric acid, and a large explosion in 1930. Much of the waste material generated by the East
Side Chemical Plant was landfilled in Unit D. Certain waste, including nickel, zinc, palladium
catalysts, and white oil filter clay, may also have been used as fill material at times, and possibly
in the East Side Chemical Plant Landfill. The location of that landfill is unknown.
The White Oils Plant (IAOC A07b) produced white oils and related products between 1924 and
1988. White oils were produced by treating base oil with sulfuric acid and caustic soda and
polishing through filter clay. The original White Oil Acid Treating facility was demolished in
1960 and was replaced by a new White Oils Plant. The latter was dismantled in the 1990s. A
large polypropylene unit was under construction in this IAOC in 2000. Materials known to have
been spilled in this IAOC included oil, methylbutyl carbinol, ketones, alcohols, and acetone.
The Gasoline Blending Tankfield (IAOC A08) is the location of eight large motor gasoline
storage tanks; two smaller tanks; eight spheroids, six of which contain butane; eight cylindrical
drums containing protofuel; and several buildings. IAOC A08 has been a tankfield since 1908. A
channel of Morses Creek flowed through the spheroid area until about 1940. The number of
tanks located in the tankfield and their contents have varied over time. Tank contents in IAOC
A08 have included gasoline, petrolite, water white, standard white, gas oil, treated naphtha,
crude naphtha, sulfuric acid, sulfidic caustic, and AC-20 asphalt. The spheroids have contained
butane, gasoline additives, and heavy catalytic naphtha. Until about 1961, solvents were stored in
the IAOC. Currently, eight drums containing proto fuel are located on site. Buildings in IAOC
A08 have included the Foam Pumping House, Pump House No. 3, the tetraethyl lead (TEL) and
control office buildings, the Mechanical Field Office, and the Analyzing Building; some of these
remain. Materials known to have spilled in IAOC A08 include gasoline, butane, sulfuric acid,
and caustic.
The Conservation Area (IAOC A09) is the location of the West Separator, the BIOX-WWTU
Area, and several tanks. The West Separator is the main oil/water separator that treats process
water collected from the refinery and tankfields west of Central Avenue and wastewater from the
East Retention Basin. The West Separator began operating in 1917, and expanded over the years.
Water from the West Separator goes to the WWTU. The WWTU treats process water,
stormwater, and groundwater and discharges the treated water to Morses Creek. The WWTU
facilities, including the biological wastewater treatment lagoons, were built between 1970 and
1987. Between about 1935 and 1961, a filter plant with a basin for slop oils was also located in
the area. Four tanks store the oil recovered from the separator and a fifth stores hydrocarbon
solids from erosion and sandblasting. Historically, additional tanks were located in this area.
Materials known to have spilled in this area include oil from refinery sewers, process water, and,
Page A-18
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
before 1970 and the construction of the WWTU, water from the West Separator was discharged
to the Greater Elizabeth Sewer.
The Gasoline Component Tankfield (IAOC A10) comprises 17 large floating roof storage tanks
that contain intermediate reformate, powerformer feed, isomerization unit feed, light sulfur
vacuum, light catalytic naphtha, isomerate, alkylate, domestic heavy virgin naphtha, toluene, and
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Historically, the number of tanks in this area has varied, and
over the years, fixed roof tanks were upgraded and replaced by floating roof tanks. Materials
known to have spilled in this area include oil from one of the tanks and oil from a sewer.
The Hydrofiner Unit (IAOC A11) dates to before 1940. Materials associated with the hydrofiner
unit include gasoline, jet fuel, and caustic. A spill of caustic and a spill of gas oil were reported
in IAOC A11 in 1991.
The No. 4 Component Tankfield (IAOC A12) currently consists of 10 large storage tanks that, in
recent years, have stored cycle gas oil, No. 6 light sulfur fuel oil, naphtha, AC-20 asphalt, and
slop oil. Several smaller tanks constructed between 1961 and 1979 store cresylic caustic, sulfidic
caustic, and AC-20 asphalt. The area has been a tankfield since before 1935. Materials known to
have spilled in IAOC A12 include bleach oil, asphalt, naphtha, and powerformer feed.
The Domestic Trade Terminal and Tankfield (IAOC A13) contains a tankfield with seven tanks
that store gasoline, gasoline additives, heating oil, and diesel, and a terminal where tanker trucks
are filled. In addition, there is a main building, a garage, and a guard house. The area has been in
operation since at least 1935. Two separators built in 1976 and 1979 contain storage tank
bottoms and sludge. A surface drainage system in IAOC A13 acts as a surface spill containment
area. Gasoline spills known to have occurred in this IAOC include 76,200 gallons in 1976,
44,800 gallons in 1979, and 32,000 gallons in 1983.
The Greater Elizabeth Tankfield (IAOC A14) currently contains five large storage tanks, four of
which contain process gas oil. The fifth contains AC-20 asphalt. A small tank contains process
gas oil. All of the current tanks were built after 1974. Before about 1980, the western part of
IAOC A14 was occupied by a group of about 12 large storage tanks called the B&O Tankfield.
Some of these tanks are believed to have stored low-volatility materials such as fuel oil. Others
had floating roofs and are believed to have stored volatile materials. These tanks have since been
removed.
The WSCP (IAOC A15) produces additives for motor oils and propylene for use by other
manufacturers in plastic components. Current facilities include the Additives Blending, Packing
and Shipping Section; the Paratone Unit; the No. 1 and No. 2 Catalytic Light Ends Units; the
Paranox Section with Reactor and Filter Buildings; control houses; and a storage building. The
area contains small tanks used in processing and a sphere used as a reference fuel tank. The
Page A-19
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
sphere was used historically to store iso-octane, a gasoline additive, and base oil used to flush
process lines. Materials known to have been spilled include oil, base oil, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, caustics, acids, butylene or Vis J, MDFI/vinyl acetate, alcohol, cyclohexane,
pheno, ashless product, hydrogen sulfide, hexane, base oil, zinc dialkyl-dithiophosphate, tank car
oil, and varsol. In addition, spills of unknown or unreported materials occurred over the years.
The Cogeneration Plant (IAOC A16) produces steam and electric energy for the refinery and is
currently active. The Cogeneration Plant was constructed between 1987 and 1991. Between 1930
and 1970, this area consisted of tanks, pipeline systems, and several buildings. The main
facilities were the Aviation Fuel Laboratory and the Gas House, which probably supplied the
refinery with steam power. These were removed in 1974. Four “Running Tanks” and a large Gas
Holder tank were located near the Aviation Fuel Laboratory. Four fixed-roof storage tanks with
unknown contents were located in the area. Railroad spurs were built in the area between 1951
and 1956.
The Caverns Area (IAOC A17) consists of the Butane and Propane Caverns that store liquid
butane and propane under pressure, 300 feet below the ground surface. Several pipelines and
smaller storage tanks that look like propane tanks are in the area. The area above the caverns was
previously called the Poly Ditch Dredgings Area. This area was filled with a light colored
material in 1940 and housed a gas burner until 1961. The northwesternmost part of the area may
have contained the Esso Mixing Plant in 1935, and agitators and tanks were removed between
1951 and 1961. A section of the Poly Ditch flows through this area. A base oil leak (date
unknown) is reported to have occurred in the western portion of this IAOC.
The Pitch Area (IAOC A18) contained the East Retention Basin, the Pitch Area, sections of the
Boat Lines, the Boat Lines Dredgings Area, the Poly Ditch, the East Separator, and the Heat
Exchange Cleaning Pad. The East Retention Basin was constructed in 1908 to store process
water, storm water, and unleaded gasoline tank bottoms. It functioned until the late 1980s. The
Pitch Area section of the Pitch Area IAOC lies in a marshy area that was filled sometime
between 1940 and 1961 with a dark viscous residue of crude oil distillation. The Heat Exchange
Cleaning Pad was used for cleaning heat exchanger tube bundles. This area previously was a
storage area for barrels. The boat lines are pipelines that transport crude oil to the Tremley
Tankfield. The Boat Lines Dredging area is an unvegetated mud flat between the Pitch Area and
Morses Creek. The Boat Lines Dredging Area and the Poly Ditch Dredging Area were filled with
sediments dredged from Morses Creek sometime before 1940. The dredged sediments contain
petroleum hydrocarbons wastes similar to the dark viscous residues found in the pitch area.
The Administration and Mechanical Area (IAOC A19) contains warehouses, mechanical shops,
office buildings, laboratories, and the Exxon Turbo Fuels Building. Historically this area
contained one tank, two spheroids, machine shops, the main office building, the cafeteria, and
several laboratories.
Page A-20
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
The Park Avenue Administration area (IAOC A20) is adjacent to the Greater Elizabeth
Tankfield, and across the Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad from the rest of Unit A. This area
includes the Bayway Refinery office building and a parking lot. It was an open area until 1951,
when the parking lot was constructed. The office building was constructed in 1961.
A.2.2 Investigative Unit B
Unit B comprises approximately 59 acres in the northeastern part of the refinery, along the
northern bank of Morses Creek. Tanks in Unit B store motor gas and No. 6 heating oil.
Historically, asphalt, sulfidic caustic, cresylic caustic, jet aviation fuel, and fuel oil were also
stored in the area. Unit B also contains areas of saltwater marsh, shrub-scrub habitat, and dredge
spoils. Unit B was divided into three IAOCs for the RI.
The Tank 336 Creek Dredgings Area (IAOC B01): filling of this area with dredge material
probably began in the 1930s and continued in the 1940s and 1970s. Material deposited in the
IAOC included spoils dredged from the Steamer Docks (see Section A.2.3). Tables A.5 and A.6
summarize waste materials disposed or handled in Unit B, and reported spills in Unit B.
Table A.5. Materials handled or disposed in Units B and C, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ
Name
Approximate
years of
operation
in the IAOC
B01
Tank 336 Creek Dredgings Area
1935-
B02
Western Waterfront Tankfield
B03
C01
Tank 301 Creek Dredgings
Tank 319 Waterfront Landfill
Area
IAOC
C02
C03
Fire Fighting Landfill
Eastern Waterfront
Tankfield/Pier
C04 No. 1 Dam Creek Dredgings
C05 Steamer Dock
TEL: Tetraethyl lead.
API: American Petroleum Institute.
Lead, arsenic, poly aromatic hydrocarbons,
dredge spoils
1940 to 1990 AC-10 and AC-20 asphalt, jet fuel, sulfidic
caustic, Oxflux (roof tar), white oil filter clay,
dredge spoils
1940 to 1979 Crude pipelines, dredge spoils
1950 to 1974 Trash, refinery waste, concrete, oily sludge,
WSCP filter cake, white oil filter clay, API
separator bottoms, TEL sludge, catalysts, tar
1966 to 1974 Trash, rubble
1940 to present Bunker oil, crude oil, slop oil, fuel oil, AC-10
and AC-20 asphalt, cresylic caustic
1969 to 1987 White oil, dredge spoils
1940 to present Various petroleum grades (see spills)
Page A-21
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.6. Reported spills in Units B and C, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ
Date
Spill
Comments
2/4/1980
White oil
No. 1 dock area, 200 gallons
8/7/1980
Gasoline
8/22/1980
Bunker oil
No. 1 dock area, amount unknown
11/24/1980
Crude oil
No. 1 dock area, large spill
12/2/1980
Crude oil
No. 1 dock area, amount unknown
3/26/1984
Oxflux (roofer’s asphalt)
75,000 barrels; due to Tank 302 foundation failure
1/21/1985
Bunker oil
1/23/1985
Slop oil
Pier A slop line break
3/2/1985
Caustic
140 gallons from pipeline break in Tank 307 area (or Tank 317)
5/3/1986
Crude oil
No. 1 dock area < 400 gallons
8/1-2/1988
Unknown
Pier A 400 gallon spill
8/30/1988
Asphalt/crude mix
No. 2 dock area < 400 gallons from hole in barge
1/2/1990
No. 2 heating oil
567,000 gallons from line No. 1 of IRPL at terminal
3/1/1990
Crude oil
4,560 gallons from arm coupling leak at terminal
7/18/1990
Heating oil
35,000 gallons from collision of vessel
7/29/1990
Oily water
200 gallons from bilge tank overflow from vessel
11/8/1990
Crude oil
420 gallons from vessel
3/26/1991
Gasoline
210-420 gallons from Sound Shore manifold (Block 44)
IRPL: Inter-refinery pipeline.
The Western Waterfront Tankfield (IAOC B02) is currently inactive and no tanks remain.
Historical aerial photos indicate that drainage ditches bisected the IAOC. Parts of the area were
filled with white material thought to be white oil filter clays or clean sand. Dredge material from
Morses Creek was also used as fill during the 1940s and 1970s. Before 1961, five tanks in the
IAOC stored AC-10 and AC-20 asphalt, jet aviation fuel, sulfidic caustic, caustic, and Oxflux
(roofing asphalt). In 1984, the tank storing Oxflux failed and released an estimated 3 million
gallons of asphalt. The spill overflowed the secondary containment, covered approximately eight
acres, and flowed under the New Jersey Turnpike into Unit A. Despite cleanup efforts that
continued for several years, an estimated 12,000 to 20,000 cubic yards of asphalt-contaminated
soil remain in the area of the spill. In 1985, 140 gallons of caustic spilled from a pipeline near
Tank 307.
Page A-22
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
The Tank 301 Creek Dredgings Area (IAOC B03) lies along Morses Creek. The Morses Creek
bank is bulkheaded in this reach. The bulkhead was constructed in the 1970s. Saltwater cooling
water pipelines and the Boat Lines crude pipelines cross the IAOC. This area was filled
sometime before 1940 with unknown materials. Filling continued in the 1940s and 1970s with
Morses Creek dredge material and Steamer Dock spoils.
A.2.3 Investigative Unit C
Unit C is the land between Morses Creek and the Arthur Kill, east of the New Jersey Turnpike.
The unit covers about 100 acres and is currently used primarily for storage and transport of crude
oil and refined product into and out of the refinery. Historically, the area was salt marsh. Filling
with contaminated spoils and refinery wastes eliminated the original salt marsh.
The Tank 319 Waterfront Landfill Area (IAOC C01) was used from 1950 to 1960 for disposal of
trash and refinery waste, including concrete rubble, oily sludge, WSCP filter cake, white oil filter
clay, American Petroleum Institute (API) Separator bottoms, TEL sludge, and catalysts. Before it
was used as a landfill, the area was a marshland and a creek flowed across the western part of it.
The creek was filled by 1951 during the construction of the New Jersey Turnpike. In the eastern
portion of IAOC C01, there are several areas of sparsely vegetated ground where a tar-like
substance is present on the ground surface.
Tables A.5 and A.6 summarize waste materials disposed or handled in Unit C, and reported spills
in Unit C.
The Fire Fighting Landfill (IAOC C02) was used some time after 1940 for disposal of trash and
rubble. Landfilling ceased some time in the 1970s. Black viscous hydrocarbons, filter cake, and
oil are present in the fill. The northern part of the area currently is used for fire fighter training,
the eastern edge is on the Arthur Kill, and a pipe rack runs along the western edge of the landfill.
The Eastern Waterfront Tankfield Pier (IAOC C03) lies between Morses Creek and the Arthur
Kill. It includes the Eastern Waterfront Tankfield and the Waterfront Barge Pier. The area was
filled by 1940. Four tanks in the Eastern Waterfront Tankfield currently store bunker oil, crude
oil, and slop oil. Historically, 11 tanks in the area stored fuel oil, AC-10 and AC-20 asphalt, and
cresylic caustic. Several pipelines cross the area. The waterfront Barge Pier on the Arthur Kill is
used for receiving crude oil destined for the refinery and loading petroleum products for
distribution. Materials known to have spilled in IAOC C03 include various grades of petroleum
spilled at the docks and piers. In 1991, free product was discovered in the northern part of IAOC
C03. The cause was determined to be a leak from one of the tanks that stored a bunker oil type
petroleum.
Page A-23
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
The No. 1 Dam Creek Dredgings Area (IAOC C04) borders Morses Creek to the east. Morses
Creek dredge material was used as fill in the area. Historically, two tanks in the northeastern
corner of IAOC C04 stored white oil. The tanks have been removed. Currently, railroad tracks
and a road run along the western side of IAOC C04.
The Steamer Dock Area (IAOC C05) includes Steamer Docks 1 and 2 and pipelines along the
eastern side on the Arthur Kill. At the Steamer Docks, petroleum products are received and
exported and piped to and from the Refinery and Process Area. In 1990, a seep of free product
was discovered discharging to the Arthur Kill. Trenches were excavated and pumped in an effort
to recover the free product. The source was determined to be the pipelines.
A.2.4 Investigative Unit D
Unit D is primarily used for storage of crude oil and refined petroleum products in above-ground
storage tanks. Parts of the unit have been in use since the early 1920s. The unit covers about
279 acres east and west of the Central and West Brook reservoirs and south of Morses Creek.
Parts of the unit were filled with Morses Creek dredge material. Filling in the tankfields with
rubble, trash, and refinery debris was common practice in the past. Unit D was investigated as
seven IAOCs.
In the Tremley Tankfield (IAOC D01), 41 tanks currently store or previously stored crude oil,
process gas oil, base heating oil, jet aviation fuel, and catalytic cracking plant feed. As of 1994,
35 of the Tremley Tankfield tanks were in use. Most of the Lower Tremley Tankfield tanks were
constructed between 1922 and 1926. Most of the Upper Tremley Tankfield tanks were
constructed between 1954 and 1974. Tanks have been added and removed over the years. The
Tremley Tankfield Separator, which collects stormwater runoff and spilled product from the
Tremley Tankfield, began operating before 1940. Extensive filling activity around tanks and in
areas of removed tanks, using garbage, contaminated soil, and “white fill” has been documented.
Soil from the Cogeneration Area was placed in the Lower Tremley Tankfield in 1991. Materials
known to have spilled in the IAOC include base heating oil, crude oil, jet aviation fuel, and
process gas oil.
Tables A.7 and A.8 summarize waste materials disposed or handled in Unit D, and reported
spills in Unit D.
The Former Lower Tremley Tankfield Separator (IAOC D02) functioned from sometime before
1940 until 1970. In the 1970s, the facility was filled and leveled. Soil sampling has confirmed
the presence of oily sludge at the site.
Page A-24
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.7. Waste materials disposed or handled in Unit D, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ
IAOC
Name
D01 Tremley Tankfield
D02
Former Lower Tremley Tankfield
Separator
D03a Current and Former Diesel Tankfield
D03b Tank 519 and Former Diesel
Tankfield
D04 Tank 519 Creek Dredging Area
D05 SLOU Boundary
D06
Former Ignition Stack Area and West
Brook Reservoir Former Tank Area
SLOU: Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit.
Approximate
years of
operation in
the IAOC
1922 to
Crude oil, process gas oil, base heating oil,
present
catalytic cracking plant feed stock, jet fuel,
heating oil, fill including garbage, contaminated
soil, white fill, soil from the cogeneration area
1940 to 1970 Oily sludge, slop oil, stormwater, spilled product
runoff
1951 to 1974 Diesel, white oil filter clay, WSCP filter cake
1940 to 1961 Diesel, crude oil
1969 to 1991 Diesel, Morses Creek dredge spoils
1940 to 1955 Separator outfall, seepage from the SLOU, filled
with unknown materials
1933 to 1961 Refrigerated gas, diesel
Before 1974, the Current and Former Diesel Tankfield (IAOC D03a) contained as many as
10 diesel storage tanks. By 1961, only four of the original 10 remained. After 1974, the area was
filled, possibly with white oil filter clays and WSCP filter cake. In recent years, the southeastern
corner of the IAOC was used by Tosco Refining as a storage area for concrete waste to be
crushed. A vacuum truck station occupied the central part of IAOC D03a, and a helicopter pad
was in the western part.
The Tank 519 and Former Diesel Tankfield (IAOC D03b) was constructed sometime between
1960 and 1971. A small diesel storage tank occupied the site before Tank 519 was built.
Tank 519 originally held crude oil but was used for water storage after 1984.
Before 1961, the Tank 519 Creek Dredging Area (IAOC D04) contained diesel fuel storage
tanks. By 1974, the tanks were gone and the area had been filled and leveled. Between 1969 and
1977, dredge spoils from Morses Creek were placed in the area. Fill thickness in the area of the
former tanks is approximately 4 to 7 feet.
Page A-25
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.8. Reported spills in Unit D
Date
Spill
Comments
Upper Tremley Tankfield
2/19/1980
Base heating oil
Tank 524 overfilled
3/8/1985
Crude oil
Tank 553 spill
5/8/1985
Crude oil
Tank 553 remediation – vacuum trucks
5/9/1985
Crude oil
Tank 553 overfilled – 100 barrels
5/8/1986
Crude oil
Tank 540 remediation – vacuum truck
8/3/1986
Crude oil
Tank 551 leak – pipe rack alley
2/11/1988
Crude oil
4/21/1988
Crude oil
Tank 542 bottom leak
5/18/1988
Process gas oil
Tank 532 oil floating on water
10/16/1988
Process gas oil
Tank 531 leak around base
10/18/1988
Crude oil
Tank 534 leak from floor
11/29/1988
Process gas oil
Lower Tremley Tankfield
7/2/1986
Jet aviation fuel
Tank 571 floor leak – tank out of service
The SLOU Boundary (IAOC D05) is a 100-foot wide strip east of the SLOU owned by Public
Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G). A part of the Lower Tremley Tankfield outfall ditch ran
through the strip. The area was filled with various materials between 1961 and 1974 and was
contaminated by outfall ditch materials and seepage from the SLOU.
The Western Shore of Reservoir Area (IAOC D06) is on the western shore of the West Brook
Reservoir. Before 1961, material from the Former West Brook Reservoir Tank Area was piped to
the Former Ignition Stack Area and burned. The Former West Brook Reservoir Tank Area
contained tanks believed to store refrigerated gas or diesel fuel. By 1961, the stack and tanks
were gone, the area was filled and leveled, and Brunswick Avenue was completed through the
area.
A.2.5 Investigative Unit E
The Clean Fill Area (IAOC E01) was a non-process area of approximately 89 acres. American
Cyanamid acquired the land in about 1940 and used the area to deposit gypsum slurry and other
waste. The city of Linden purchased the area by 1951; Linden’s use of the land is unknown. In
1970, Exxon purchased the land to dispose of “clean fill” and demolition debris from
construction at the Bayway Refinery. The Clean Fill Area contained approximately 12 feet of silt
and sand with concrete and wood fragments overlying approximately 2 to 6 feet of gypsum
slurry.
Page A-26
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
The Eastern, Western, and Southern landfills (IAOCs E02, E04, and E05) and the Central
Landfill and Landfarm (IAOC E03) lie to the south of Morses Creek, between Unit D and the
New Jersey Turnpike. The Eastern Landfill received refinery waste in the 1960s and 1970s.
Before filling, it was a marshy area. Fill material included construction debris, petroleum-stained
soils, a spongy green material with a strong pungent odor, and garbage. The Western Landfill
received refinery waste from 1961 until 1976. Wastes were placed inside the berms that
surrounded four former diesel storage tanks. The storage tanks were constructed before 1931.
The Southern Landfill is the former location of Tank 389. The tank berm area was filled between
1961 and 1974, possibly with construction debris and petroleum waste. The Central Landfill
received refinery waste from 1950 until 1973. Landfilled waste included trash, demolition debris,
building and packing materials, jet filter clay, drums and pallets, coke, catalyst, oil spill cleanup
debris, tank bottoms, API separator bottoms, oily sludges, and TEL sludges. In 1973, the Central
Landfill was capped with approximately 3 feet of clay. The Landfarm, which operated from
about 1974 to 1984, was constructed on top of the Central Landfill. The Landfarm was a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility that
treated API separator solids (a listed hazardous waste), sewer cleanings, oil-contaminated soil
from spills and excavations, and tank bottoms. Table A.9 summarizes waste materials disposed
or handled in Unit E.
Table A.9. Waste materials disposed or handled in Unit E, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ
Approximate
years of
operation in
IAOC
Name
the IAOC
E01
Clean Fill Area
1940 to 1993 Gypsum, other unknown waste, clean fill, demolition debris
E02
Eastern Landfill
1961 to 1970s Trash, jet filter clay, oily sludge, WSCP filter cake, API
separator bottoms, TEL sludges, catalyst, construction debris,
petroleum stained soils, a spongy green material with a strong
pungent odor, garbage
E03
Central Landfill and
1950 to 1984 Trash, construction and demolition debris, jet filter clay,
Landfarm
building and packing materials, drums and pallets, coke,
catalyst, oil spill cleanup debris, tank bottoms, API separator
bottoms, oily sludges, TEL sludges, sewer cleanings, oilcontaminated soil, WSCP filter cake, sewer cleanings, oil
contaminated soil, slop emulsions
E04
Western Landfill
1931 to 1976 Diesel, trash, unknown waste
E05
Southern Landfill
1930s to 1974 Construction debris, petroleum waste
Page A-27
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
A.2.6 Investigative Unit F
Unit F is a tankfield and adjacent lands south of the main refinery, covering approximately
73 acres. It was investigated as four IAOCS.
The 40-Acre Tankfield (IAOC F01) originally consisted of 14 tanks built in 1926 to store heating
oil and 260 diesel. Three additional tanks were built in 1953. Currently, three tanks remain but
are no longer in use.
The 40-Acre Tankfield Separator (IAOC F02) was built sometime before 1931. The present
40-Acre Tankfield Separator, located in the same place, has been in use since 1950.
The 40-Acre Tankfield Undeveloped Property (IAOC F03) is an undeveloped area between the
eastern and western sections of the 40-Acre Tankfield.
The Unit F Connector Piperun (IAOC F04) is a strip of land between the Tremley Tankfield and
the 40-Acre Tankfield. Eight aboveground pipelines run along the strip.
Tables A.10 and A.11 summarize waste materials disposed or handled in Unit F, and reported
spills in Unit F.
Table A.10. Waste materials disposed or handled in Unit F 40-Acre Tankfield and Unit G
Rahway River Tankfield, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ
Operational area or facility
Years of operation Waste material disposed or handled
Old 40-Acre Tankfield Separator
~1931 to 1950
Storm water and tank water draw-off
40-Acre Tankfield Separator
1950 to present
Storm water
40-Acre Tankfield
Unknown
Sludge and TEL
West Rahway River Tankfield Separator
1953 to present
Storm water
East Rahway River Tankfield Separator
1953 to present
Storm water
West Rahway River Tankfield
~1959 to present
Clean fill
East Rahway River Tankfield
~1959 to present
Sludge
Page A-28
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.11. Reported spills in Units F and G
Date
Spill
Comments
2/12/1985
500 barrels of heavy oil
40-Acre Tankfield pipeline failure
2/4/1991
23,100 gallons of heating oil
40-Acre Tankfield – blown flange gasket
11/9/1980
Unknown quantity of heating oil
Tank 600 overfilled
8/19/1991
600 gallons of oil/water mixture
Rahway River Tankfield Contractor equipment failure
5/92
Substantial amount of oil
Rahway River Tankfield tank leak
A.2.7 Investigative Unit G
Unit G is the Rahway River Tankfield and adjacent lands. The unit comprises approximately
70 acres. The area was investigated as six IAOCs.
The Rahway River Tankfield Heavy Oil and Naphtha Tanks (IAOC G01) and the Rahway River
Tankfield Heating Oil and Motor Gas Tanks (IAOC G04) are contiguous and comprise 19 tanks
built in 1953. The tanks to the north (IA0C G04) contain heating oil or motor gas. The tanks to
the south (IA0C G01) contain heavy oil or naphtha. As of 1994, all of the tanks were in use.
The Rahway River Tankfield East Separator (IAOC G02) is located east of the tankfield, and the
Rahway River Tankfield West Separator (IAOC G03) is in the southwest corner of the tankfield.
Dates of the initiation of operation of the separators are not known. A third separator was located
in the northeast corner of the field until at least 1979. The separators receive runoff and
uncontained spills in the tankfield. Water is discharged to an unnamed tributary of the Rahway
River.
The Unit G Connector Piperun (IAOC G05) is a narrow strip of land between the 40-Acre
Tankfield and the Rahway River Tankfield. The PA Area (IAOC G06) is an upland hardwood
forest south of the Rahway River Tankfield and West Separator. To the south of IAOC G06 is
the Linden Landfill. Exxon historically disposed of materials in an area south of the West
Separator.
Tables A.10 and A.11 summarize waste materials disposed or handled in Unit G, and reported
spills in Unit G.
Page A-29
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
A.2.8 Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit
The SLOU is a former 42-acre waste management area between the Tremley Tankfield and the
PSE&G right of way. It was originally defined as part of Unit D RI. Early in the RI, Exxon and
NJDEP decided that the area warranted special focus, and they decided to accelerate the RI in the
SLOU. The SLOU includes the Sludge Lagoons, the Sand Filter Impoundments, the White Oil
Filter Clay Area/Tank 567 Clay Area, the Tank Bottoms Weathering Area, the Former Paint and
Sandblast Area, and the Sludge Lagoon Seep.
The Sludge Lagoons consisted of 11 lagoons used for disposal of refinery and chemical plant
waste between 1940 and 1955. Waste may have included oily sludge, acid sludge, TEL sludge,
separator bottoms, WSCP filter cake, jet filter clay, and white oil filter clay.
The Sand Filter Impoundments were used from 1970 to 1975 as waste management units. The
three sand filters may have received oil sludge, TEL sludge, WSCP filter cake, filter clays, and
API separator bottoms. Waste filtered through 5 feet of sand overlying drainage tiles. Collected
water was sent to an on-site treatment plant. The White Oil Filter Clay Area/Tank 567 Clay Area
was used between 1950 and 1972 for disposal of clay generated during production of white oils.
White fill, possibly white oil clay, may have been deposited in the northwest part of the area in
1940. The Tank Bottoms Weathering Area was used for disposal of weathered tank bottoms
from storage tanks that contained leaded gasoline. White oil filter clays may have been landfilled
in the area in 1940 and 1961. The Former Paint and Sandblast Area contained waste associated
with sand blasting and painting. Exxon removed about 800 5-gallon paint (or paint related) pails
and 20 55-gallon drums, some of which contained styrene, in 1991. A ground penetrating radar
survey was conducted in 1991 to identify drums missed. Remaining pails and drums were
removed in 1995. The Sludge Lagoon Seep was a non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) seep east of
the sludge lagoons first observed in June 1990. Exxon vacuumed the NAPL for two years. A
recovery sump was installed in May 1993 and a recovery trench was installed and pumped. In
September 1993, 11 seeps containing hydrocarbons appeared on east embankment of the
operable unit.
Remediation of the SLOU was attempted in 2003. The primary actions included installation of a
slurry wall to prevent off-site migration of contamination, solidification and immobilization of
oily waste, and removal and treatment of contamination groundwater (Walters, 2006). NJDEP
states that recent monitoring reports “are clearly indicating that construction and/or design flaws
in several of the remedy’s components may prevent remedial objectives from being achieved”
and that “failure to adequately address these deficiencies may require the selection of an
alternative remedy for the SLOU” (Walters, 2006, p. 1).
Table A.12 summarizes some of the materials disposed or handled in the SLOU.
Page A-30
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.12. Waste materials disposed or handled in the SLOU, Bayway Refinery,
Linden, NJ
Operational area or facility
Approximate
years of operation
Eleven lagoons
1940 to 1955
Oily sludge, acid sludge, TEL sludge, API separator
bottoms, WSCP filter cake, jet filter clay, white oil
filter clay
Sand Filter Impoundments
1970 to 1975
Oily sludge, TEL sludge, WSCP filter cake, filter
clays, API separator bottoms
White Oil Filter Clay Area/
Tank 567 Clay Area
1950 to 1972
White oil filter clays
Tank Bottoms Weathering Area
1940 to 1974
Tank bottoms, leaded gasoline, white oil filter clays
Former Pain and Sandblast Area
-
Paint pails, styrene, drums
A.2.9 Reservoirs, Morses Creek, Piles Creek
West Brook and Peach Orchard Brook originate west of the Bayway Refinery. West Brook flows
into Morses Creek upstream of the Bayway Refinery. The three reservoirs on the refinery are
formed by impoundments on the two brooks. The three reservoirs are shallow (< 2 m), each 15 to
20 acres, with soft silty beds. West Reservoir is the long linear reservoir west of Brunswick
Avenue on Peach Orchard Brook. Central Reservoir receives drainage from West Reservoir and
West Brook Reservoir. The Brunswick Avenue Bridge, built sometime before 1961, forms a
constriction between the two reservoirs. West Brook Reservoir is fed by Morses Creek and its
tributary, West Brook. West Brook Reservoir is separated from Central Reservoir by a dam
constructed in 1931.
Central Reservoir flows into Morses Creek, which is dammed in two places. In the reach
between Dam 2 (which forms Central Reservoir) and Dam 1 (near the mouth of Morses Creek),
tidal influence on the marine subtidal habitat of Morses Creek is dampened. The banks of Morses
Creek in this reach are riprapped (e.g., lined with rocks) where it flows through the heavily
developed area of the refinery. East of the turnpike, the north bank of Morses Creek is
bulkheaded and developed.
Piles Creek is a tidally influenced watercourse that originates east of the SLOU. South of the
Clean Fill Area and west of the New Jersey Turnpike, Piles Creek becomes a sinuous stream
Page A-31
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
averaging 75 to 100 feet wide and 3 feet deep at high tide. The land south of the Clean Fill Area
and south of Piles Creek is owned by Cytec Industries. East of the turnpike, Piles Creek flows
through lands owned by E.I. duPont deNemours and Company, ISP-ESI Linden and Co. (ISPESI), and PSE&G, and ultimately enters the Arthur Kill.
The ISP-ESI land was the site of chemical manufacturing operations extending back to 1919
(Brown and Caldwell et al., 2006). Products manufactured included materials related to dyeing,
surfactants, ethylene oxide, tetrahydrofuran, and herbicides. Wastewater from the site was
discharged to the Arthur Kill as early as the 1920s. Surface water and shallow groundwater in the
northern part of the site flows toward Piles Creek, but surface water and groundwater over most
of the site naturally flowed to the Arthur Kill. The northwestern portion of the site near Piles
Creek was undeveloped marshlands until 1954. By 1956, the Ethylene Oxide area and a
warehouse were constructed. A dam was built between the site and Piles Creek in 1967,
providing a barrier to surface water runoff to Piles Creek. The Ethylene Oxide process operated
until 1971. Materials used in the process included thylene, platinum, and silver catalyst. The
warehouse was used for packaging and storage of surfactants. A landfill was operated in the area
near Piles Creek between 1970 and 1973.
ISP-ESI entered into an ACO with NJDEP in 1989 to perform environmental investigations and
necessary remedial actions (Brown and Caldwell et al., 2006). The RI indicated that soil and
groundwater at the site were contaminated with volatile organic carbons (VOCs), semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals. A
remedial action work plan (RAWP) and Conceptual Brownfield Redevelopment Plan were
approved by NJDEP in 2002. Remedial activities included asbestos removal, building
demolition, installation of a perimeter shallow groundwater collection system and barrier wall,
installation of groundwater extraction systems, improvements to an existing light non-aqueous
phase liquid (LNAPL) removal system, upgrades to the existing wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP), a site cover system, and institutional controls restricting future use. No remediation of
groundwater or soil was required in the northwestern area of the site near Piles Creek. NJDEP
issued a No Further Action Letter and Covenant Not to Sue for soils in 2005.
The duPont property is the site of chemical manufacturing processes that operated between 1885
and 1990 (Brown and Caldwell et al., 2006). DuPont acquired the land in 1928. The duPont plant
manufactured inorganic salts and acids, organic pesticides, sulfuric acid, ammonium thiosulfate,
and a sodium bisulfate solution. Aqueous manufacturing waste (including gypsum and phosphate
residuals, metal sulfides, mud, ash, coal, and celestite residues) were discharged directly to
surrounding marshes from 1928 until the mid 1970s.
Page A-32
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
The surface waters of Bayway Refinery have been impacted by spilled products and waste,
runoff over contaminated ground, seeps from contaminated groundwater sources, sewer
discharges, and pipeline failures over the years. Table A.13 summarizes reported spills into
surface waters of the Bayway Refinery.
Table A.13. Reported spills to surface waters, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ
Date
Spill
8/2/1978
Visible sheen of 840 gallons
10/22/1980
Undefined quantity of oil
10/14/1980
Oil film on ditch
12/85 to 1/86
Oil flowing out of No. 2 dam
11/18/1987
20 gallons of sulfuric acid
5/7/1989
Undefined quantity of oil
5/8/1989
210 lbs of ammonia
9/10/1991
Zinc dialkyl-dithiophosphate
5/8/1991
420 gallons of Stretford solution
Comments
Below No. 1 Dam
Morses Creek between No. 1 and No. 2 dams
Railroad Avenue Condenser Ditch
No. 2 Dam
Morses Creek, equipment failure
Morses Creek into Arthur Kill
Morses Creek into Arthur Kill
Sewers
Refinery Avenue Ditch, split piping
A.3 Bayonne Refinery
From 1877 to 1972, Exxon refined petroleum to produce various products and also manufactured
chemicals at the Bayonne Refinery (see Figure A.1). The Exxon Chemical Plant, also called the
Paramins Plant, manufactured viscosity modifiers, pour depressants, and friction modifiers, and
was used as an on-site product testing and research laboratory between the early 1930s and the
early 1990s (Geraghty & Miller and Exxon Company, 1993).
Before 1877, Prentice Oil operated a kerosene refinery at the site. When the property transferred
to Standard Oil in 1877, the refinery covered 176 acres. By the mid-1930s it encompassed
approximately 650 acres (Figure A.4). From 1936 to 1947, Exxon sold several parcels to other
manufacturing companies. By 1963, Exxon’s Bayonne facilities covered about 330 acres, with
nearly one-third of those vacant as a result of modernization and dismantling of the old plant
(Geraghty & Miller and Exxon Company, 1993; Geraghty & Miller, 1994). In 1972, Exxon
dismantled the refinery and thereafter used the refinery site for petroleum storage, wholesale
distribution of blending and packaging operations, and oil additives manufacturing (Geraghty &
Miller and Exxon Company, 1993). In 1991, when the ACO with NJDEP was signed, Exxon’s
Bayonne holdings totaled 288 acres (Geraghty & Miller, 1994). In 1993, Exxon sold most of the
acreage to International Matex Tank Terminals (IMTT), retaining ownership of 80 acres for lube
oil and wax products storage, blending, and packaging (Geraghty & Miller, 1994). Figure A.5
shows the refinery area and areas of concern (AOCs).
Page A-33
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure A.4. Approximate historical extent of Bayonne Refinery in 1933, as depicted in
Map 1b of NJDEP (1990).
Source: NJDEP, 1990.
Page A-34
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Figure A.5. Bayonne Refinery AOCs and other areas.
Page A-35
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Contamination of the land and water at the Bayonne Refinery began in the late 1800s and
continues to this day. Products that were manufactured at and/or transported through the
Bayonne facility include, but are not limited to, naphtha, aviation gasoline (AV-gas), aliphatic
and aromatic solvents, distillate fuels, heavy fuel oils, process oils, waxes, asphalt, and
petroleum additives. Petroleum products and related waste were spilled and disposed of at the
refinery, on the ground and in surface water.
Site history documents summarize operations in 13 AOCs at the Bayonne Refinery through the
mid-1990s. The AOCs were delineated as part of RI activities that began in the early 1990s but
still are not complete. Figure A.5 shows the location of these AOCs, plus six additional areas
defined at the site. Table A.14 presents the size of each of the areas discussed in this section as
well as the historical extent of the refinery not included in these areas. Table A.15 summarizes
the history of operations and materials handled in each of these areas. Table A.16 documents
nearly 100 spills of over 100 gallons at the Bayonne Refinery between 1970 and 1992. The
boundaries of AOCs along the Kill van Kull and New York Bay have been revised to follow the
shoreline/bulkhead.
Sources of information about the history of operations at Bayonne include the ACO Site History
Deliverable Items (Geraghty & Miller and Exxon Company, 1993), the Site History Report
(Geraghty & Miller, 1994), and the Phase 1A RI report (Geraghty & Miller, 1995b). Information
more recent than 1994 was not available.
“A”-Hill Tankfield
The “A”-Hill Tankfield comprises approximately 16 acres in the northwestern part of the
Bayonne facility (Figure A.5). In 1994, the tankfield consisted of 10 tanks in three bermed areas.
The oldest two tanks were constructed in 1923 and contained recycled oil. Three other tanks,
constructed between 1928 and 1953, held stormwater that was subsequently transferred to a
water treatment plant. The other five tanks were not being used in 1994.
Although the “A”-Hill Tankfield has retained the same general configuration since 1940, at that
time there were 22 tanks. Many of the tanks were removed or modified in the mid-1960s. The
tank configuration at the “A” field was constant from the 1970s to 1994. A wax separator was
also located in this area in the mid-1900s.
Two spills of greater than 100 gallons were documented in the “A”-Hill Tankfield (Table A.16).
In 1978, Exxon spilled 252,000 gallons of heating oil, and in 1983, 42,000 gallons of process
fuel oil. In the early 1990s, NAPL was found on the water table in two monitoring wells.
Page A-36
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.14. AOCs and other areas at Bayonne Refinery,
Bayonne, NJ
Area
Acres
16.1
Lube Oil Area
54.1
Pier No. 1 Area
4.3
No. 2 Tankfield
10.8
Asphalt Plant Area
15.3
AV-GAS Tankfield
5.8
Exxon Chemicals Plant Area
11.7
No. 3 Tankfield
19.0
General Tankfield
34.9
Solvent Tankfield
14.7
Low Sulfur Tankfield
10.1
Piers and East Side Treatment Plant Area
8.3
Domestic Trade Area
5.5
Stockpile Area
6.3
MDC Building Area
5.1
Utilities Area
4.4
Main Building Area
13.5
Platty Kill Creek
2.0
ICI Subsite
34.9
Historical Extent (not included in other areas)
199.3
Total
475.7
Page A-37
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.15. Materials handled or disposed in AOCs and other areas at Bayonne Refinery,
Bayonne, NJ
Area
Approximate initial
year of operations
1877
Recycled oil, heating oil, process gas oil, waxes
Lube Oil Area
1877
Transmission fluid, lube oil, additives, waxes, solvents,
electric insulating oil, motor oil, Exxon formulas, PCB
transformer oils
Pier No. 1 Area
1877
Heavy fuel oil, waste oil, waxes, emulsion flux
No. 2 Tankfield
1907
No. 2 fuel oil
Asphalt Plant Area
1921
Cutback asphalt, asphalt cement (solids), kerosene,
Varsol (white oil), Exxon formulas, lube oil additives
AV-GAS Tankfield
1920
Kerosene, aviation gasoline, toluene, hexane, heptane,
cutback naphtha, diesel, heavy fuel oil
1921
Exxon formulas; cyclohexane; naphthalene; additives
for lubricants, fuels, and automatic transmission fluids;
cobalt-60
No. 3 Tankfield
1921
Gasoline, light naphtha, asphalt, residual fuel oil, F540
powerformer feed
General Tankfield
1925
Diesel, residual fuel oil, No. 2 oil, turbo fuel A, storm
water
Solvent Tankfield
1921
Blends of alphaltic and aromatic solvents, other
volatiles, Isopar L (a heavy naphtha), heavy oil, diesel,
xylene, PCB transformer oils
1932
Residual fuel oil, No. 6 oil, PCB transformer oils
Piers and East Side
Treatment Plant Area
1918
Gear oil, asphalt, No. 6 oil, No. 2 fuel oil, emulsion,
diesel, xylene, recycled oil, light-oil
Domestic Trade Area
1925
Various fuels, waste oil, diesel oil
Stockpile Area
1921
MEK, phenols, waxes
MDC Building Area
1914
Naphtha, fuel, diesel
Utilities Area
1920
Fuel oil
Main Building Area
1887
Unleaded gasoline, kerosene, PCB transformer oils
Platty Kill Creek
1898
Lube oil, MEK, waxes
ICI Subsite
1898
Oil, polyurethane, carbon tetrachloride, paraffin
Historical Extent (not
included in other areas)
1933
Unknown
Page A-38
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table A.16. Documented spills of over 100 gallons at the Bayonne Refinery
Area or general location
“A”-Hill Tankfield
Lube Oil Area
Pier No. 1 Area
No. 2 Tankfield
Asphalt Plant Area
Date
Reported spill
volume (gallons)
10/1978
252,000
Heating oil
2/15/1983
42,000
Process gas oil
3/28/1972
1,500
Lube oil additive
4/21/1973
700
12/23/1978
840-1,050
12/24/1978
6,300
Univolt 60
3/24/1987
10,000
1919 motor oil
8/10/1989
500
Lube base oil
8/23/1989
100
Exxon formula No. 1367
1/3/1990
100
Slop oil
7/30/1990
400
Wax
8/14/1990
300
Lube oil
8/28/1990
250
Slop oil
11/28/1990
100
Raw lube oil (CORAY 220)
1/15/1991
2,500
Univolt 60
7/8/1991
421
Turbo oil
8/26/1991
100
Wax
2/14/1992
100
Nuto H-46
2/18/1992
600
Unknown
7/9/1992
840
Wax
9/22/1972
2,100
6/28/1978
670
10/30/1979
1,050-2,100
Heavy fuel oil
11/15/1979
> 672
Emulsion flux
6/4/1989
840
3/1/1989
Unknown
11/19/1970
300
Asphalt
11/22/1970
300
Asphalt
11/25/1970
100
Asphalt
12/2/1970
300
Asphalt
12/15/1970
150
Asphalt
Page A-39
SC10982
Material spilled
Lube oil
Electric insulating oil
Wax (MEK feed)
Waste oil
Fuel oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Stratus Consulting
Table A.16. Documented spills of over 100 gallons at the Bayonne Refinery (cont.)
Date
Reported spill
volume (gallons)
Asphalt Plant Area (cont.)
12/23/1970
400
Asphalt
1/5/1971
600
Asphalt
1/8/1971
300
Asphalt
3/19/1971
350
Asphalt
5/25/1971
100
Asphalt
5/28/1971
200
Asphalt
7/15/1971
200
Asphalt
7/30/1971
1,000
Asphalt
8/9/1971
500
Asphalt
8/11/1971
200
Asphalt
8/13/1971
300
Asphalt
9/3/1971
100
Asphalt
9/10/1971
100
Asphalt
10/3/1971
600
Asphalt
1/18/1972
100
Asphalt
2/9/1972
200
Asphalt
5/8/1972
100
Asphalt
12/14/1972
1,000
Asphalt
1/5/1973
300
Asphalt
3/20/1973
100
Asphalt
3/20/1973
500
Asphalt
4/4/1973
1,500
Asphalt
1/5/1987
500
1/30/1988
5,000
1/8/1992
100
1992
Unknown
1/8/1987
700
1/17/1987
100
2/12/1987
300
2/14/1987
300
Slop oil
2/15/1987
300
AV-Gas Tankfield
Page A-40
SC10982
Material spilled
Exxon Formula No. 82899
Toluene
Heavy fuel oil
Diesel
Stratus Consulting
Date
Reported spill
volume (gallons)
11/4/1988
6,000
Cyclohexane
Unknown
Unknown
Naphthalene
1/26/1988
500
8/3/1978
Unknown
10/14/1990
300
10/30/1990
1,000
Oily sludge
9/22/1982
92,400
Isopar L
2/18/1992
2,400
Heavy oil and diesel
9/10/1990
1,114
Xylene
2/21/1976
142,800
Piers and East Side Treatment Plant
8/12/1971
4,200
Gear oil
5/30/1972
4,200
Asphalt
8/22/1972
21,000
No. 6 oil
9/10/1972
21,000
Gas-oil
9/19/1973
126
Unknown
10/21/1973
210
No. 2 fuel oil
2/11/1979
168
No. 2 fuel oil
12/19/1985
< 1,134
No. 2 fuel oil
11/23/1987
100
Emulsion
3/21/1988
200
Oil
5/1/1988
200
1941 ATF
10/24/1989
100
Diesel fuel
11/3/1989
100
Diesel fuel
2/9/1990
20,000
5/22/1991
350
6/18/1991
16,000
8/1/1991
100
Blend oil
11/23/1976
147
No. 2 fuel oil
7/13/1978
168
Diesel
10/10/1978
630
Asphalt
12/25/1978
210
Bunker fuel oil
Exxon Chemicals Plant Area (cont.)
No. 3 Tankfield
General Tankfield
Solvent Tankfield
Other areas
Page A-41
SC10982
Material spilled
F540
Unknown
Oil
F-942 No. 6 oil
No. 2 fuel oil
Xylene
No. 2 heating oil
Stratus Consulting
Other areas (cont.)
Date
Reported spill
volume (gallons)
3/28/1988
200
EXXMARX 70-5720
12/28/1988
110
No. 2 fuel oil
12/28/1988
130
Fuel oil
1/18/1989
6,000
2/28/1990
715
1/21/1992
2,500
10/6/1992
100
Material spilled
Motor oil dispersant
No. 6 oil blend
Black oil
Unknown product
Lube Oil Area
The Lube Oil Area is the largest operational area at Bayonne, covering approximately 55 acres in
the west-central part of the refinery (Figure A.5). In 1940, the Lube Oil Area included a refining
area, mixing and blending area, wax production area, barrel factory, refrigeration buildings, pipe
stills, storage tanks, and shipping areas. About 50 tanks were built in the Base Stock Tankfield in
the 1950s. By 1961, the Finished Products Tankfield was completed, and many of the
manufacturing facilities had been dismantled. Exxon built the West Side Treatment Plant by
1970.
In 1994, the Lube Oil Area contained approximately 236 tanks in five tankfields (Finished
Products, Base Stock, Necton, Wax, and Old Wax). Approximately 200 of the tanks were still
being used in 1994. The tanks contained various petroleum products, including transmission
fluid, lubrication oils, oil additives, and waxes. Ten tanks located near the Pier No. 1 area
(Figure A.5) held hazardous waste oil and tanks associated with the West Side Treatment Plant.
Exxon documented 18 separate spills of more than 100 gallons between 1972 and 1992 in the
Lube Oil Area (Table A.16). Most of the spills were apparently due to leaking tanks. The largest
of the spills include 10,000 gallons of motor oil spilled in 1987, and 2,500 gallons of electric
insulating oil (Univolt 60) spilled in 1992. NAPL was found in six monitoring wells in the Lube
Oil Area between 1991 and 1993. At one location, the NAPL floating on the water table was
calculated to be 7.58 feet thick.
Pier No. 1
Pier No. 1 covers approximately 4.5 acres in the southwestern part of the plant (Figure A.5). In
1994, it was one of three active piers used for loading and unloading marine vessels. Several
large above-ground pipes run from Pier No. 1 to the Lube Oil Area.
Page A-42
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Historically, the Pier No. 1 area included four active piers, a compounding plant, a shipping
warehouse, a barrel handling/storage area, a super heater, and a coal bin. The compounding plant
operated from 1887 to 1963; a glue factory also operated at the site from 1913 to 1921. The
compounding plant included 27 small tanks in 1940; the contents of the tanks and the materials
and operations at the compounding plant are not described in the site history documents.
Exxon documented six spills of more than 100 gallons between 1972 and 1989 at the Pier No. 1
Area (Table A.16). The largest of these spills include a 2,100-gallon release of MEK feed (a
solvent) to the Kill van Kull in 1972, and a release of between 1,050 and 2,100 gallons of heavy
fuel oil to the Kill van Kull in 1979. NAPL has been detected in this area at thicknesses of up to
4.13 feet.
No. 2 Tankfield
The No. 2 Tankfield covers approximately 11 acres in the northwestern part of the plant. In
1994, it contained eight tanks containing No. 2 fuel oil in one bermed area (Figure A.5).
Historically, this area included sweetening stills, a crude still, a boiler house, a water purification
plant, a gas compression plant, and a laboratory. The sweetening stills were most likely built in
1907; the other process areas operated from the 1920s to the 1950s. In the 1950s, all the process
areas were removed and the eight existing large tanks were built.
Exxon documented one spill of greater than 100 gallons in the No. 2 Tankfield between 1970
and 1994 (Table A.16). This spill occurred in 1989 and the exact volume of the spill was not
documented.
Asphalt Plant Area
In 1994, the Asphalt Plant Area contained 41 storage tanks in six bermed areas covering about
15 acres. Most of the tanks contained asphalt grades that are not liquid at ambient temperatures.
Three tanks contained kerosene or the liquid petroleum-based solvent Varsol.
Historically, this area contained several refinery facilities. Between 1921 and 1959, as many as
85 storage tanks were located on part of the Asphalt Plant property. In addition, condensers, pipe
stills, and a power plant were located in this area from 1921 to the late 1950s. Other refinery
facilities in the Asphalt Plant Area included a pitch plant from 1932 to 1951, an oxidizing plant
from 1940 to 1966, an off-gas incinerator, oxidizer, and a ferric chloride tank. Some of the
facilities were dismantled in the 1950s, and most of the rest were dismantled in the early 1970s.
A 500-gallon spill of a lube oil additive was reported in the area in 1987. Another 27 spills were
reported between 1970 and 1973, although these were reported as spills of asphalt onto roadways
at the Bayonne Plant (Table A.16).
Page A-43
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
AV-Gas Tankfield
In 1994, the AV-Gas Tankfield consisted of two bermed areas covering about 6 acres. The area
had 10 tanks containing kerosene, AV-gas, toluene, hexane, heptane, and cutback naphtha.
Runoff in this area is routed to the East Side Wastewater Treatment Plant through catch basins
and drains.
The area contained crude stills from at least 1920 to 1932, a pitch filling plant from 1932 to
1947, and a TEL building in the late 1950s. The area remained mostly unchanged from 1959 to
at least the time of the Site History Report in 1994. In the 1940s, this area contained “Colprovia
asphalt pans,” which were rectangular tanks or troughs located near the pitch filling plant. The
function of the pans in the asphalt process was unknown at the time of the Site History Report.
Exxon documented three spills in the AV-Gas Tankfield between 1988 and 1992 (Table A.16).
In 1988, 5,000 gallons of toluene spilled near one of the 10 tanks. Details of the two spills in
1992 are missing; about 100 gallons of heavy fuel oil spilled in an unknown location, and an
unknown quantity of diesel spilled near the northern boundary of the tankfield on an unknown
date in 1992 (Geraghty & Miller, 1994).
In 1991, prior to the dismantling and sale of the area, the Chemicals Plant Area comprised
14 small tankfields on approximately 12 acres in the center of the site. It contained a total of
90 tanks, plus a hazardous waste drum storage area, a chemical wastewater separator, and reactor
vessels. This area supported various petroleum manufacturing processes from the early 1920s
until the early 1970s. After manufacturing ended, the area was essentially used as a tank farm
until 1991, when most of the structures were dismantled.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the Exxon Chemicals Plant Area contained rows of crude stills, which
were replaced by more modern pipe stills. Most of those stills were inoperable by the 1940s,
though the “B” Pipe Still operated until 1960 and the No. 1 Pipe Still operated from 1960 to
1970. Asphalt stills operated on the site from 1945 to 1959. Exxon focused on the manufacturing
of various petroleum additives at the site. They manufactured Parapoid, a lube oil additive, from
1931 to 1959, and Paraflow, another lube oil additive, from 1940 to 1961. They manufactured
several other additives to lubricants, fuels, and transmission fluids using small batch reactor
vessels. In the 1960s, Exxon produced a biodegradable detergent in this area using a process that
involved exposure of petroleum to gamma rays from cobalt-60 in an above-ground vault. The
vault and the cobalt, which decayed to cesium, were removed from the plant prior to 1994.
Exxon documented seven spills of more than 100 gallons in this area (Table A.16). Materials
spilled included additives, slop oil, and cyclohexane. A 6,000-gallon spill of cyclohexane from a
Page A-44
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
tank occurred in November 1988. The Site History Report also described an explosion at a tank
in the area that caused a naphthalene spill, but no specifics were provided. NAPL was observed
in two wells in this area at thicknesses of less than 2 feet.
No. 3 Tankfield
The No. 3 Tankfield is located in the southeast part of the site. In 1994, the 19-acre area
contained nine tanks in three bermed areas containing gasoline, light naphtha, asphalt, and
residual fuel oil. Stormwater from the No. 3 Tankfield drains to the East Side Treatment Plant.
The No. 3 Tankfield has been a tank farm since at least 1921. The Site History Report discusses
various configurations of tanks that have been present at the site since that time. However, there
does not appear to be a record of what products were stored in the tanks historically. The tank
configuration did not change appreciably between 1940 and 1994. An oil/water separator was
located in this tank farm from before 1940 until the early 1970s.
Exxon documented two spills of greater than 100 gallons each in the No. 3 Tankfield
(Table A.16). Inspectors found holes at the bottom of a Tank 916 in 1978, and oily soils were
noted near the base of that tank in the early 1990s when RI activities began, but no specific spills
were quantified. One quantified spill occurred in 1988, when 500 gallons of “F540”
powerformer feed oil was spilled from Tank 920. Floating NAPL was found in two wells drilled
in this area in the early 1990s.
General Tankfield
The General Tankfield is an approximately 35-acre area in the eastern part of the site
(Figure A.5). It contained 13 tanks in 1994 when the Site History Report was written, though
Figure A.5 shows 14 tanks currently. In the early 1990s, the tanks contained No. 2 heating oil
and stormwater. Stormwater from the General Tankfield enters collection basins that route the
water to the East Side Treatment Plant.
The General Tankfield has been used as a tankfield since at least 1925, when six of the tanks
were constructed. The tanks historically held diesel fuel, residual fuel oil, No. 2 heating oil, and
turbo fuel A. A pump house was located on the site from 1925 to 1951, and from the 1940s to
1968, the northwestern corner of the property was part of the Bayonne Municipal Dump. From
approximately 1956 to 1965, Exxon maintained a lead-contaminated separator sludge dump in
the northwest corner of the area, presumably adjacent to the Bayonne Dump.
Two spills in the General Tankfield were noted in October 1990: 300 gallons of oil spilled from
Tank 1058, and 1,000 gallons of oily sludge spilled from Tank 1059 (Table A.16). Tank 1059
was subsequently removed in 1991. Residual hydrocarbons were found in one of 18 soil borings
drilled along the perimeter of the General Tankfield in the early 1990s.
Page A-45
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Solvent Tankfield
The Solvent Tankfield consists of 15 acres in the eastern part of the site. In 1994, this area
contained 18 tanks in two bermed areas. The tanks contained various blends of aliphatic and
aromatic solvents. Stormwater from the Solvent Tankfield enters collection basins that route the
water to the East Side Treatment Plant.
Tanks were constructed in the Solvent Tankfield at least as early as 1921. The area has
maintained various tank configurations over time but has been used primarily as a tankfield. The
Site History Report notes that various pump houses have been in the area, including the Case &
Can Pump House, which was in this area from 1893 to 1961. The Lower Hook NAP Acid
Tankfield was part of the Solvent Tankfield area from 1921 until it was dismantled in 1992. This
consisted of eight aboveground storage tanks that stored recovered oil and heavy naphtha.
Exxon spill records compiled for the Site History Report include three spills at the Solvent
Tankfield (Table A.16). The largest spill occurred in September 1992, when 92,400 gallons of
Isopar L heavy naphtha were released near Tank 1033. Another 1,114 gallons of xylene spilled at
the truck loading rack in September 1990, and about 2,400 gallons of Isopar L spilled in an
unknown location in February 1992.
An underground storage tank referred to as the “light oil sump” was installed in 1973 and
removed in 1992 after failing an integrity test. Contamination was observed when the tank was
pulled, with residual contamination to be addressed as part of RI activities.
The Low Sulfur Tankfield is an area of 10 acres in the east-central part of the site (Figure A.5).
In 1994, it contained six tanks in a bermed area, filled with residual fuel oil. Stormwater from the
Low Sulfur Tankfield enters sumps and sewers that lead to the East Side Treatment Plant.
The Low Sulfur Tankfield has always been used as a tankfield and has been part of refinery
operations at Bayonne since at least 1932, when up to 38 tanks and two pump houses were
located in this area. The two pump houses were present until 1947 and 1959. From at least 1932
to 1966, up to 38 tanks and one spheroid were present at this field, though no information is
provided regarding the materials stored in the tanks historically.
Between 1967 and 1969, all older tanks were removed from this field and replaced with six large
tanks in one bermed area. In 1994, these tanks contained residual fuel oil.
In 1976, Exxon documented a 142,800-gallon spill of No. 6 oil from the vicinity of Tank 1069
(Table A.16). In 1993, a NAPL plume was identified under a portion of the Solvent Tankfield
Page A-46
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
and most of the Low Sulfur Tankfield, which contained two types of NAPL, gasoline, and a
more viscous brown NAPL. NAPL thickness in this plume was up to 17.75 feet.
Piers and East Side Treatment Plant Area
The Piers and East Side Treatment Plant Area is located in the eastern part of the site and
comprises eight acres of land (Figure A.5). In 1994, the Piers and East Site Treatment Plant Area
contained eight tanks in three bermed areas. The tanks were constructed between 1947 and 1991.
Three of the tanks contained recycled oil; it is not clear what products were stored in the
remaining five tanks. This area was part of refinery operations at least as early as 1918.
Historical facilities include the Cooperage and Light-Oil Filling building (1918-1963), a barrel
staging area (1921-1963), a Lower Hook Separator Outfall Basin (1931-1963) that received
effluent from the separator and then discharged to New York Bay, and an oil/water separator
(1932-1970). A solvent drum filling and storage area was on the site.
Between 1971 and 1991, Exxon documented 17 spills of greater than 100 gallons at the Piers and
East Side Treatment Plant Area, including four spills of greater than 15,000 gallons
(Table A.16). In August 1972, 21,000 gallons of No. 6 oil spilled into New York Bay at Pier 6.
Less than three weeks later, another 21,000 gallons of No. 6 oil spilled from Pier 6 into New
York Bay. In February 1990, 20,000 gallons of No. 2 oil spilled from Pier 7 into the Kill van
Kull. Finally, in June 1991, another 16,000 gallons of No. 2 oil spilled into Upper New York
Bay. NAPL was observed in wells in this area in the early 1990s at thicknesses up to 3.27 feet.
Domestic Trade Area
The Domestic Trade Area is an approximately six-acre area located in the north-central part of
the site (Figure A.5). In 1994, the area contained one tank used for storage of heating oil and a
truck loading rack.
From at least 1925 until 1940, the northern part of the Domestic Trade Area contained
12 cracking coil units, used to convert heavy naphtha to gasoline. Four aboveground storage
tanks were located in this area from at least 1932 to 1951. They may have been associated with
former process areas to the west. Two of the tanks were removed in 1986; one contained waste
oil, while the other contained diesel oil.
Stockpile Area
The Stockpile Area (a “miscellaneous area”) is a six-acre area at the west end of the site
(Figure A.5). In 1994, the area was vacant, and had been so since about 1984.
Historically, the Stockpile Area was an active process area with several plants and tanks. A pipe
still was documented in this area from about 1921 to 1947. In the 1930s, a wax plant building
Page A-47
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
was constructed, and in 1934 a phenol lube oil treating plant began operating in the northeastern
corner of this area, and operated until about 1947. A MEK dewaxing plant operated from 1950 to
1972. Two to 10 large tanks were located along the eastern edge of the Stockpile Area from at
least 1921 to 1963, and an additional 10 to 12 tanks were located in the southeastern part of this
area from at least 1921 through 1947. These tanks may have been associated with pipe stills, but
their contents are undocumented. Oil/water separator basins were also located in this area
between about 1932 and 1951. These separators may have discharged to Platty Kill Creek.
NAPL was observed in this area in the early 1990s at thicknesses up to 3.9 feet.
MDC Building Area
The MDC Building Area (a “miscellaneous area”) consists of five acres of land and riparian
acreage in the southeastern part of the site (Figure A.5). In 1994, it contained six storage tanks, a
large building, parking areas, and docks. Most of this area was leased to the Apple Freight
Company from 1989 to 1990, but a small portion was leased to the Constable Terminal
Corporation since 1960.
The MDC Building was built in 1914 as a box factory. Between 1918 and 1963, a cooperage and
light oil filling building in the Piers and East Side Treatment Plant Area extended into the MDC
Building Area. A naphtha filling building was located in this area in 1921, as was a fuel station
in 1972. Three tanks in this area were used to store diesel, and were removed sometime between
1986 and 1994.
Utilities Area
The Utilities Area (a “miscellaneous area”) consists of four acres in the central part of the site
(Figure A.5). In 1994, it contained several structures and a parking lot.
Historical operations in this area include a barrel factory, a stave kiln and sheds, and a boiler
dating back to before 1920. In 1940, the area contained tanks, railroad facilities, a power plant,
and warehouses. About 10 tanks were located in the Utilities Area. Five that were associated
with the Central Boiler house existed from at least 1951 to 1984. Two others were used for fuel
oil and remained until 1992.
Main Building Area
The Main Building Area (a “miscellaneous area”) consists of approximately 14 acres in the
northwestern part of the site (Figure A.5). In 1994, it contained the main office building for
IMTT, a guard house, a metering station, and parking lots. The metering station was out of
service in 1994 because of a rupture in the pipeline in 1990.
Page A-48
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
The area was originally a process area occupied by process units and tanks. Kerosene production
dates back to as early as 1887. In 1915, two reducing stills and a paraffin plant were built in this
area. By 1921, refining was reduced and the area was primarily occupied by tanks. Two oil/water
separators were located in this area in the 1940s but details about their operation are not known.
In 1940, there were 15 large tanks but their contents were not documented. Most of these tanks
were removed by 1959 when the Main Building was built, and the final two tanks were removed
by 1961. One underground storage tank containing unleaded gasoline was installed in 1979. The
tank failed a leak test in 1989 and was replaced by another tank which remained in service as of
1994.
NAPL was found in an interceptor trench along the central portion of the north property line in
the early 1990s. The trench was constructed in 1977 to prevent migration of NAPL off the
property. The source of the NAPL is unknown, but anecdotal evidence suggests that it may be
related to historic spills.
Platty Kill Creek
The Platty Kill Creek is now an approximately two-acre abandoned barge slip located to the west
of the Bayonne Refinery Lube Oil Area and to the south of the Stockpile Area (Figure A.5). The
Kill van Kull borders the creek to the south and the Platty Kill Pond, a former surface
impoundment, lies to the north and is separated from the creek by an earthen dam (Bayonne
Industries, 1998).
From the 1800s to 1956, the area west of the Platty Kill Creek was owned by the Tidewater Oil
Company and used as a refinery (Bluestone Environmental Services et al., 2000). Since 1956, it
was used as a bulk liquid terminal. Operations at the Bayonne Lube Oil Area, such as wax
manufacturing, lube oil manufacturing, and production of MEK (see discussion above), have
affected the Platty Kill Creek since the late 1890s.
ICI Subsite
The ICI Subsite is a 35-acre area that was part of the historical extent of the refinery, located to
the north of the “A”-Hill Tankfield and to the northwest of the Main Building Area (Figure A.5).
ICI Americas, Inc., acquired the property from Exxon between 1965 and 1969 (Superior Court of
New Jersey, 1977). As of 2003, it was owned by Asahi Glass Fluorpolymers USA, Inc.
(Malcolm Pirnie, 2003). Historic activities in this area included a polyurethane tank farm,
hazardous waste storage, and a paraffin/carbon tetrachloride loading area and sump (Malcolm
Pirnie, 2003).
In a court finding in 1977, the Superior Court of New Jersey determined that Exxon had
contaminated the ICI Subsite prior to ownership by ICI Americas, Inc., and that an estimated
Page A-49
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
7,000,000 gallons of oil were underground below the site (Superior Court of New Jersey, 1977).
This NAPL consists of both crude oil and refined petroleum product and is up to 18 feet thick
(Superior Court of New Jersey, 1977).
References
ADL. 1994. Baseline Ecological Evaluation: Ecological Report, Bayway Refinery, Linden, New
Jersey. Prepared by Arthur D. Little for Exxon Company, Cambridge, MA. July.
ADL. 2000a. Bayway Phase IB Remedial Investigation: Baseline Ecological Evaluation,
Appendix R. Prepared by Arthur D. Little for ExxonMobil.
ADL. 2000b. Bayway Phase IB Remedial Investigation. Draft Report, Volumes I through VI.
Arthur D. Little.
Aero-Data. 2006. Historical aerial photo series of the Bayonne and Bayway refineries, from 1939
through 2003. Aero-Data Corporation, Baton Rouge, LA.
AMEC Earth & Environmental. 2004. Supplemental Baseline Ecological Evaluation, Bayway
Refinery, Linden, NJ. Volume I. Prepared for ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company,
Linden, NJ. June. Somerset, NJ.
AMEC Earth & Environmental. 2005. Draft Revised Comprehensive Baseline Ecological
Evaluation, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ. Volume I: Report, Figures, Tables. Prepared for
ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company, Linden, NJ. June. Somerset, NJ.
Author Unknown. Undated. Platty Kill Creek Background. Unattributed table obtained in
discovery from ExxonMobil.
Bayonne Industries. 1998. Platty Kill Canal Phase II Sediment Investigation Report, Bayonne,
New Jersey. March 25.
Bluestone Environmental Services, Bayonne Industries, and ExxonMobil. 2000. Remedial
Action Selection Report, Platty Kill Canal, Bayonne, NJ. Prepared for Bayonne Industries and
ExxonMobil, Bayonne, NJ. February.
Brown and Caldwell, QEA, Hydroqual, Entrix, and ISP-ESI. 2006. Off site conditions ISP-ESI
Linden Site. Prepared for ISP Environmental Services Inc. using information generated by
Brown and Caldwell, QEA, Hydroqual, Entrix, and ISP-ESI.
Geraghty & Miller. 1993. Site History Report, Volume I: Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ.
Page A-50
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Geraghty & Miller. 1994. Site History Report: Bayonne Plant, Bayonne, NJ. Prepared for Exxon
Company. November 21.
Geraghty & Miller 1995a. Phase IA Remedial Investigation Interim Report, Bayway Refinery,
Linden, NJ, May 1995. Prepared for Exxon Company, USA.
Geraghty & Miller. 1995b. Phase IA Remedial Investigation, Bayonne Plant, Bayonne, NJ.
Volume I of III: Text and Tables. Prepared for Exxon Company, U.S.A., Linden, NJ. December.
Rochelle Park, NJ.
Geraghty & Miller. 1995c. Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit Remedial Investigation, Bayway
Refinery, Linden, NJ. Volume I of IV: Text. Prepared for Exxon Company, Linden, NJ. May.
Rochelle Park, NJ.
Geraghty & Miller and Exxon Company. 1993. Administrative Consent Order Site History
Deliverable Items, Exxon Company, U.S.A., Bayonne Plant, Bayonne, NJ. Prepared for Exxon
Company, USA, Linden, NJ. January.
Malcolm Pirnie. 2003. Remedial Action Selection Report/Groundwater Remedial Investigation
Workplan. ICI Subsite, 229 East 22nd Street, Bayonne, Hudson County, NJ. Prepared for
ExxonMobil Global Remediation. April.
NJDEP. 1990. Site Inspection: Exxon Bayonne Plant, Bayonne, Hudson County. NJ Department
of Environmental Protection. December 27.
Superior Court of New Jersey. 1977. The State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental
Protection, Plaintiff, v. Exxon Corporation and ICI America, Inc., Defendants. 151 N.J. Super.
464, 376 A.2d 1339.
TRC Raviv Associates. 2004. Bayway Refinery Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Report, Volume
I of IV (Sections 1 through 24). Prepared for ExxonMobil Global Remediation, Annandale, NJ.
April 30. Millburn, NJ.
TRC Raviv Associates. 2005. Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination: RCRA
Corrective Action Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS Code (CA 750) Migration of
Contaminated Groundwater Under Control. Bayway Refinery – Linden, NJ. Prepared for
ExxonMobil Global Remediation, Clinton, NJ. March 22. Millburn, NJ.
Walters, J.M. 2006. Memo re: In the Matter of the ExxonMobil Bayway Refinery, ISRA Case
Nos. 92726 & 94703, November 27, 1991 Administrative Consent Order (ACO), Amended
4/8/93 and 12/22/94: Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit Remedial Action Reports. To Brent B.
Archibald, ExxonMobil Site Remediation. September 20.
Page A-51
SC10982
B. Calculating the Required Amount of
Off-Site Replacement
This appendix describes the methods used to calculate the required amount of off-site
replacement presented in Chapter 4. Off-site habitat replacement is required because (1) not all
contaminated areas at the site can be cleaned up, and (2) on-site restoration does not compensate
for the environmental impacts that have been occurring at the refineries for many decades (over a
century in some areas).
B.1 Introduction: The Habitat Equivalency Analysis Method
The method we used to determine the required off-site replacement is called Habitat Equivalency
Analysis (HEA). HEA was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) in the 1990s to determine the amount of restoration needed to offset damages to natural
resources from oil spills, hazardous waste releases, and vessel groundings (NOAA, 2000). HEA
has been applied at numerous sites around the United States, as well as internationally, and the
technical approach for using HEA is described in published articles (e.g., Chapman et al., 1998;
Peacock, 1999; NOAA, 2000; Strange et al., 2002, 2004; Allen et al., 2005).
HEA is based on balancing the amount of environmental harm that has occurred at a site with an
equivalent amount of environmental restoration, taking into account the duration of the harm and
the timing and rate of restoration.1 Using HEA, we calculated the amount of habitat that has been
damaged at a site and integrated that damage over time. We then calculated the amount of habitat
that needs to be restored to exactly offset the damaged habitat, again integrating the habitat
improvements over time.
HEA requires the following inputs:
The acreage of damaged habitat
When the damage began, and when it will end (or when it ended, if the damage has
already ended)
When the restoration of off-site habitat will begin, and how long it will take.
1. Time is an important consideration in assessing environmental harm. Environmental impacts that have
persisted for a long time clearly require more restoration or replacement than those of a shorter duration.
Similarly, time plays an important part in the value of restoration. Restoration that is completed today has
greater value than restoration that is postponed until the future.
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Appendix B (11/3/2006)
HEA also requires use of a discount rate. HEA incorporates the discount rate into the integration
of damages over time, so that damages that occur in different years are weighted differently.
Using a discount rate, damages that occurred in the past are compounded, and damages that
occur in the future are discounted. Discounting the value of a good over time is standard practice
in economics, and discounting is included in the standard HEA model (NOAA, 2000). An annual
discount rate of 3% is typically used in HEA calculations (NOAA, 1999).2
Since HEA integrates the damages and restoration benefit over both acres and years, the units in
which the results are expressed are “acre-years.” For example, if a 10-acre marsh is destroyed for
two years, then the damage is 20 acre-years (not taking into account the discount rate).
Incorporating the discount rate into the calculations converts the units into discounted acre-years,
or DAYs. The appropriate amount of off-site replacement is determined by calculating the offsite replacement that provides the same DAYs of benefit as the DAYs of harm.
B.2 HEA Inputs
B.2.1 Quantifying natural resource losses
To express the environmental harm caused by contamination at the refineries, we determined the
acreage of each contaminated area and the number of years that the acreage has been affected.
We delineated specific habitat areas harmed by contamination at the two refineries (Chapter 2),
and used information on historical refinery operations compiled by Exxon’s contractors to
determine the timeline of contamination. Tables B.1 and B.2 list the individual habitat areas at
the Bayonne and Bayway refineries by habitat type, size, the estimated year in which the
contamination began, and whether the area will be improved by implementing the on-site
restoration plan presented in Chapter 4 and 3TM International (2006).
We calculated losses, in DAYs, for each row of Tables B.1 and B.2. For intertidal salt marsh,
palustrine meadow/forest, and subtidal habitat, impacts were assumed to begin in the years
shown in Tables B.1 and B.2. These habitats are sensitive to petroleum contamination and to the
changes in elevation or water level that often occur when waste is dumped in an area. For upland
meadow/forest habitat, we assumed a 10-year period from the start year before full impacts
occurred.
2. Use of a 3% discount rate is standard industry practice in calculating damages at least as far back as 1980
(see NOAA, 1999, 2000). However, selection of the appropriate discount rate that would be applied as far back
as the late 1800s is a matter of debate among economists. For consistency with standard practice and absent
information suggesting an alternative approach, we applied a constant 3% discount rate for all calculations.
Page B-2
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table B.1. Contaminated habitat areas at the Bayonne Refinery
Habitat type
Subtidal
Year contamination
began
Will the area be restored
on-site?
2.4
1887
No
9.3
1898
No
2.6
1920
No
18.5
1921
No
0.5
1925
No
3.8
1932
No
66.3
1933
No
8.4
1877
Yes, as intertidal
52.1
1877
No
11.1
1887
No
18.0
1898
No
10.1
1907
No
2.5
1914
No
7.1
1920
No
6.2
1921
Yes, as intertidal
34.9
1921
No
6.6
1925
No
6.3
1932
No
48.3
1933
No
4.1
1877
Yes, as intertidal
2.0
1898
Yes
2.5
1914
No
0.4
1918
Yes, as intertidal
7.9
1918
No
0.1
1921
Yes, as intertidal
6.8
1921
No
3.7
1925
Yes, as intertidal
29.2
1925
No
77.6
1933
No
Acres
Page B-3
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table B.1. Contaminated habitat areas at the Bayonne Refinery (cont.)
Habitat type
Total for all habitat types
Total acres restored
Year contamination
began
Will the area be restored
on-site?
9.8
1877
No
7.7
1898
No
0.7
1907
No
0.3
1920
No
0.7
1921
No
0.4
1925
No
7.1
1933
No
Acres
476
24.9
Table B.2. Contaminated habitat areas at the Bayway Refinery
Habitat type
Year
contamination
began
Will the area be restored on-site?
16.5
1908
Yes
14.2
1908
No
1.8
1909
No
15.8
1910
No
34.6
1920
No
7.4
1922
No
15.3
1930
No
2.1
1931
Yes
43.9
1933
Yes
1.5
1933
Yes, as palustrine meadow/forest
0.6
1933
No
28.7
1935
Yes
13.2
1935
No
161.2
1940
Yes
1.4
1940
Yes, as subtidal
27.5
1940
No
30.2
1950
Yes
Acres
Page B-4
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table B.2. Contaminated habitat areas at the Bayway Refinery (cont.)
Habitat type
Intertidal salt marsh (cont.)
Year
contamination
began
0.1
1950
No
6.2
1951
Yes
13.8
1961
Yes
10.7
1966
Yes
0.6
1966
No
13.3
1969
Yes
0.9
1969
No
32.0
1908
No
42.2
1909
No
18.9
1910
No
35.4
1920
No
0.8
1922
Yes, as intertidal
127.5
1922
No
16.9
1924
No
40.7
1926
Yes
0.7
1926
No
13.0
1930
No
5.4
1931
Yes, as intertidal
3.3
1931
Yes
16.5
1933
Yes, as intertidal
13.8
1933
Yes
3.7
1933
No
26.2
1935
No
6.2
1940
Yes, as intertidal
125.9
1940
No
4.2
1950
Yes, as intertidal
7.6
1951
Yes, as intertidal
24.2
1951
No
40.6
1953
No
Acres
Page B-5
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table B.2. Contaminated habitat areas at the Bayway Refinery (cont.)
Habitat type
Palustrine meadow/forest (cont.)
Subtidal
Total for all habitat types
Year
contamination
began
1.0
1958
No
0.9
1965
No
6.2
1969
Yes, as intertidal
15.4
1933
Yes
0.1
1933
No
1.8
1935
Yes
71.5
1940
Yes
1.0
1940
No
14.0
1909
No
0.8
1910
No
2.9
1924
No
8.8
1926
Yes
10.1
1935
No
77.2
1940
No
19.3
1953
Yes
15.7
1953
No
0.5
1965
No
Acres
1,315
551.9
For areas that are not being restored on-site, the habitat loss continues into the future. In the HEA
model, we stopped the calculations in the year 2109, at which point use of the 3% discount rate
reduces the present value of impacts to near zero. For habitat parcels that will be restored on-site
(as listed in Tables B.1 and B.2), we assumed that restoration will be finished in the year 2014
(3TM International, 2006). At that time, the restored areas can begin to recover. As discussed in
Chapter 4, we assumed the following recovery rates for restored habitats: 20 years for intertidal
salt marsh, 25 years for palustrine meadow/forest, and 40 years for upland meadow/forest. We
assumed that the recovery over this time is linear (for a 20-year recovery period, for example,
ecological services increase by 5% each year to 100%).
The base year for all present-value calculations was 2006.
Page B-6
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
B.2.2 HEA inputs to calculate the environmental benefits of off-site replacement
In addition to using the 3% discount rate and 2006 as the base year for calculations, the inputs
necessary to calculate the environmental benefits of off-site replacement are the year in which
restoration actions will be completed, and the rate of environmental recovery following
completion of the actions.
We assumed that off-site restoration will be completed and ecological recovery will begin in
2010. As with the calculation of natural resource loss, the off-site benefits are summed annually
through the year 2109.
The intertidal, palustrine, and upland habitat types typically require different types of
restoration. As noted above, we used recovery rates specific to each habitat type.
Replacement projects focused on intertidal habitat restoration typically involve removal of
invasive Phragmites, excavation of land to re-establish appropriate slope, elevation, and tidal
flush, and planting of native salt marsh vegetation. Periodic maintenance in the initial years
following implementation is needed to control herbivory (e.g., goose grazing), to ensure that
native vegetation becomes established, and to eliminate invasive plant species. We assumed that
ecosystem functions and services will improve linearly after restoration actions are complete,
and that full recovery will take 20 years.
Palustrine wetlands develop around shallow edges of rivers, ponds, and lakes, and above
intertidal marsh. In northern New Jersey, palustrine meadows are often dominated by
Phragmites, and forested and scrub/shrub wetlands by the invasive Ailanthus altissima (tree-ofheaven). Invasion by non-native species can choke out native species and reduce the quality of
the habitat for nesting birds. Replacement projects undertaken to restore palustrine
forest/meadow habitat typically involve removing non-native vegetation, regrading to establish
appropriate soil salinity and hydroperiod, replanting with native species, and providing
maintenance to protect plantings. We assumed that palustrine ecosystem functions and services
will improve linearly after restoration actions are complete, and that full recovery will take
25 years.
Upland forests in the Arthur Kill area include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubra), pin oak (Quercus palustris), red oak
(Quercus rubra), black oak (Quercus velutina), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), hickories
(Carya spp.), and silver maple (Acer saccharinum) (Greiling, 1993; USFWS, 1997).
Replacement projects to restore upland forest habitat typically require identifying an area with
suitable soil and topography to support the growth of native hardwood species, clearing existing
vegetation or structures, planting seedlings and saplings, and providing maintenance to suppress
competing invasive plant species and to control herbivory (e.g., deer browsing). We assumed
Page B-7
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
that upland forest ecosystem functions and services will improve linearly after restoration actions
are complete, and that full recovery will take 40 years.
B.3 HEA Results
Table B.3 presents the results of the calculations of natural resource loss by habitat type. The
calculated benefits of off-site replacement projects are shown in Table B.4. These benefits are
expressed as the DAYs of environmental benefit that will be realized for each acre of off-site
replacement that is completed.
Table B.3. Summary of natural resource loss for Bayway
and Bayonne refineries
Habitat types
Habitat loss (in DAYs)
Bayway
148,330
214,886
34,997
Bayonne
91,255
168,663
21,756
Bayway and Bayonne combined
679,887
Table B.4. Calculated environmental benefits of off-site
replacement projects
Habitat type
Environmental benefits per acre of offsite restoration (DAYs)
21.8
20.3
16.6
By dividing the total environmental loss (Table B.3) by the environmental benefits of off-site
replacement projects (Table B.4) for each habitat type, we determined the total amount of off-site
replacement required (Table B.5).
Page B-8
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table B.5. Acres off-site habitat restoration required as replacementa
Intertidal habitat
Palustrine
meadow/forest
habitat
Upland
meadow/forest
habitat
148,330
214,886
34,997
Credit per acre of restored offsite habitat
(DAYs per acre)
21.8
20.3
16.6
Required off-site habitat restoration
(acres)
6,809
10,587
2,112
91,255
168,663
21,756
Credit per acre of restored offsite habitat
(DAYs per acre)
21.8
20.3
16.6
(acres)
4,189
8,310
1,313
10,998
18,896
3,425
HEA results
Bayway
DAYs lost (after accounting for DAYs
gained with on-site restoration)
Bayonne
DAYs lost (after accounting for acre-years
gained with on-site restoration)
Combined acreage
(acres)
a. Values have been rounded for presentation.
References
3TM International. 2006. Summary Expert Report. New Jersey Natural Resource Damage
Claims New Jersey v ExxonMobil Corporation Bayonne and Bayway, New Jersey Sites. 3TM
International, Inc., Houston, TX. November 3.
Allen II, P.D., D.J. Chapman, and D. Lane. 2005. Scaling environmental restoration to offset
injury using habitat equivalency analysis. Chapter 8 in Economics and Ecological Risk
Assessment, Applications to Watershed Management, R.J.F. Bruins and M.T. Heberling (eds.).
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 165-184.
Chapman, D., N. Iadanza, and T. Penn. 1998. Calculating Resource Compensation: An
Application of the Service-to-Service Approach to the Blackbird Mine, Hazardous Waste Site.
Technical Paper 97-1. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Damage
Assessment and Restoration Program.
Page B-9
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Greiling, D.A. 1993. Greenways to the Arthur Kill: A Greenway Plan for the Arthur Kill
Tributaries. New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Morristown, NJ.
NOAA. 1999. Discounting and the Treatment of Uncertainty in Natural Resource Damage
Assessment. Technical Paper 99-1. Prepared by the Damage Assessment and Restoration
Program, Damage Assessment Center, Resource Valuation Branch. February 19.
NOAA. 2000. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: An Overview. Prepared by the Damage
Assessment and Restoration Program, March 21, 1995. Revised October 4, 2000.
Peacock, B. 1999. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: Conceptual Background and Hypothetical
Example. National Park Service, Environmental Quality Division, Washington, DC. April 30.
Strange, E.M., P.D. Allen, D. Beltman, J. Lipton, and D. Mills. 2004. The habitat-based
replacement cost method for assessing monetary damages for fish resource injuries. Fisheries
29(7):17-23.
Strange, E.M., H. Galbraith, S. Bickel, D. Mills, D. Beltman, and J. Lipton. 2002. Determining
ecological equivalence in service-to-service scaling of salt marsh restoration. Environmental
Management 29:290-300.
USFWS. 1997. Significant Habitats of the New York Bight Watershed. Prepared by the United
States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern New England-New York
Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program, Charlestown, RI. Available:
http://training.fws.gov/library/pubs5/begin.htm.
Page B-10
SC10982
C. Off-Site Restoration Costs
This appendix describes the methods and results for determining the cost of the off-site habitat
restoration described in the accompanying report. Habitat restoration costs are determined here
on a per-acre basis. In the accompanying report the numbers of acres of off-site restoration
required are multiplied by the per-acre costs to determine the total cost of off-site habitat
restoration.
Per-acre restoration costs are developed separately for three of the habitat types damaged by
contamination at the Exxon Bayonne and Bayway refineries: intertidal, palustrine meadow/forest
(or freshwater wetland), and upland forest. Although subtidal habitats are also damaged at the
refineries, off-site restoration to compensate for damage to this habitat type will be achieved
through restoration of intertidal habitat.
C.1 Approach
To determine costs for off-site restoration we obtained cost information for restoration projects
in the region that are similar to the types of off-site restoration projects described in the
accompanying report. Projects that have already been completed and those that are planned were
both included in the analysis.
Habitat restoration project costs included fall into the following cost elements:
Land acquisition
Design and permitting
Implementation, including labor, equipment, and supplies
Allowance for contingencies
Operations and maintenance after the initial construction is completed
Monitoring
Oversight and administration.
Restoration costs can vary from project to project, even when costs are expressed on a per-acre
basis (King and Bolen, 1995). Costs vary primarily because the specific restoration construction
activities that are necessary can vary from site to site. Specific projects and project designs have
not yet been developed for the off-site restoration required for the Exxon Bayonne and Bayway
refineries. In our compilation of actual restoration costs from other projects in the area, we
included projects that vary in their scopes and costs to reflect that the actual projects conducted
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Appendix C (11/3/2006)
for off-site restoration will also vary. The ranges observed in our compilations of actual project
costs reflect the kinds of cost ranges that will also occur for off-site restoration.
We derived an average per-acre restoration cost for each habitat type from the compilation of
project costs. For each habitat type, the total acres and the total cost of all of the projects were
first added up separately. The average per-acre cost then was calculated by dividing the total cost
of all of the projects by the total acres of all of the projects. Averaging in this way is different
than calculating the average per-acre cost across the individual projects, which would give equal
weight to small projects and large projects. The averaging method we used produces an average
across all of the acres restored, rather than the average cost across individual projects. An
average across all acres restored is a better measure of off-site restoration costs that will involve
different projects of varying sizes.
C.2 Intertidal Salt Marsh Restoration Costs
C.2.1 Restoration project costs
We relied on costs for intertidal salt marsh restoration projects that were conducted in New
Jersey or nearby coastal states. Costs were obtained from the following sources:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) summaries of restoration
costs for six projects conducted in 2004-2006 in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts,
and Maryland, including three projects that were performed as compensation for Exxon’s
1991 Bayway oil spill (J. Catena, Northeast Regional Supervisor – NOAA Restoration
Center, personal communication, August 25, 2006)
Contract award summaries prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for
intertidal marsh restoration projects being conducted in New Jersey (USACE, Undated;
USACE and the Port Authority of NJ & NY, 2006)
Intertidal marsh restoration costs for the proposed Liberty State Park ecosystem
restoration project (USACE, 2005)
Land acquisition costs for degraded intertidal habitat lands purchased by the New Jersey
Meadowlands Commission (USACE, 2004).
Page C-2
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Restoration projects conducted by NOAA
Table C.1 lists costs for salt marsh restoration projects recently conducted or overseen by the
Northeast Regional Office of NOAA’s Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration
Program (DARRP). The costs in Table C.1 include planning and design, permitting, project
implementation, monitoring, and general administration and oversight. Land acquisition costs are
not included in the costs. The per-acre costs for these projects range from approximately $47,000
to $376,000 per acre.
Table C.1. Costs for recent intertidal marsh habitat restoration projects by NOAA
Project name
Year completed
Acres
Cost
Cost per acre
Beaver Dam Creek, Eastern Shore, NJ
2005
8
$372,500
$46,563
Marsh creation for Chalk Point oil spill,
Mechanicsville, MD
2005
6
$477,000
$79,500
Bridge Creek, Staten Island, NY
2005
13
$1,553,085
$119,468
Saw Mill Marsh, Staten Island, NY
2004
1
$376,000
$376,000
Woodbridge Creek, Woodbridge, NJ
2006
14
$3,148,000
$224,857
Mill Creek Marsh, Chelsea, MA
2005
1
$328,000
$328,000
Restoration projects conducted by USACE
Table C.2 presents cost information for three intertidal habitat restoration projects being
conducted or planned by USACE. Land acquisition costs are not included in the costs.
Table C.2. Costs for intertidal marsh habitat restoration projects by USACE
Project name
Acres
Cost
Cost per acre
Joseph P. Medwick Park, Carteret, NJ
14
$3,300,000
$235,714
Woodbridge Creek, Woodbridge, NJ
23
$3,252,000
$141,391
Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ
46
$25,490,353
$554,138
USACE has recently awarded contracts to restore degraded salt marsh habitat at the Joseph P.
Medwick Park in Carteret New Jersey (USACE and the Port Authority of NJ & NY, 2006) and at
Woodbridge Creek in Woodbridge, New Jersey (USACE, Undated). At both locations, the
restoration involves removing the invasive common reed (Phragmites australis) through
excavation and replanting native marsh vegetation (e.g., Spartina spp.). Excavation to remove
contaminated soils is also being conducted at the Woodbridge Creek site.
Page C-3
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
The total cost for restoring 14 acres at Joseph P. Medwick Park is $3.3 million (USACE and the
Port Authority of NJ & NY, 2006), equivalent to a per-acre cost of $236,000. The cost for
restoring 23 acres of habitat at Woodbridge Creek is $3.25 million, or $141,000 per acre
(USACE, Undated).1
USACE has also developed cost estimates for restoring 46 acres of intertidal wetland habitat at
Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey (USACE, 2005). The intertidal wetland habitat
restoration project will be conducted as part of a larger effort to restore a total of 234 acres of
different types of habitat at the park, as well as other park improvements. Restoration costs
specific to the intertidal salt marsh habitat are not provided in the document, but they can be
derived using line item cost summary tables and other information in the document. Based on
our analysis of the information presented in the document, the restoration of the 46 acres of
intertidal habitat will cost $25.49 million (including contingency costs), or $554,000 per acre.2
C.2.2 Final cost for intertidal habitat restoration
In addition to the project costs listed and described above, three additional types of costs were
added to the project-specific costs.
First, many potential restoration sites with degraded habitat may include contaminated soil or
sediment. In these cases, contaminated soil or sediment would have to be disposed of safely.
Two of the projects included in our compilation include removal and disposal of contaminated
soil and sediment (Woodbridge Creek and Liberty State Park), but in both cases the
contaminated soil and sediment are being disposed of on-site. Off-site disposal of contaminated
soil or sediment would require higher costs for transporting the contaminated material. To
account for this possibility, we include a 5% contingency on costs for waste disposal.
Second, the project costs described above do not include the cost of purchasing land to be
restored. These costs are available from USACE (2005), which include the prices paid by the
New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for degraded tidal wetland sites that are targeted for
1. The total cost for the Woodbridge Creek site, as reported in USACE and the Port Authority of NJ & NY
(2006), is $6.4 million. However, this cost includes the cost of the NOAA restoration included in Table C.1.
The $3.25 million cost for the USACE project was determined by subtracting the cost of the NOAA
component. The 14-acre size of the USACE project was provided by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP; D. Bean, NJDEP Office of Natural Resource Restoration, personal
communication, September 15, 2006).
2. Costs for planning, engineering, design, and construction management were presented as a total amount for
all of the work being conducted at the park. We estimated that 84% of these costs apply to intertidal wetland
habitat, because the construction costs for intertidal wetland habitat are 84% of the total habitat restoration
construction costs.
Page C-4
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
future restoration (USACE, 2005). The land purchase price information is presented in
Table C.3. We applied an annual 3% increase in land purchase prices to convert the costs in
Table C.3 to 2006 dollars.
Table C.3. Prices paid by New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for degraded intertidal
habitat
Initial
purchase
price
Adjusted
Adjusted
purchase
purchase
price (2006$) price per acre
Year of
purchase
Acres
Berry’s Creek Marsh
1999
168
$1,181,997
$1,453,707
$8,653
Kearney Brackish Marsh
1999
116
$933,085
$1,147,577
$9,893
Kearney Freshwater Marsh
1999
279
$1,180,000
$1,451,251
$5,202
Lyndhurst Riverside Marsh
1999
31
$306,470
$376,920
$12,159
Metro Media Tract
2003
74
$1,000,000
$1,092,727
$14,767
Oritani Marsh
1998
224
$2,200,000
$2,786,894
$12,441
Riverbend Wetland Preserve
1996
57
$475,000
$638,360
$11,199
949
$7,276,552
$8,947,436
$9,428
Parcel name
Total
Third, the current projects do not account for the costs of NJDEP Office of Natural Resource
Restoration (ONRR) project management and oversight. To address this we have added a 1.5%
project management and administration adjustment to total project costs based on discussions
with John Sacco, Administrator of the NJDEP ONRR.
Table C.4 presents the cost per acre of intertidal salt marsh restoration. The estimate derives
from the costs of restoration projects from Tables C.1 and C.2, plus costs for contaminated soil
disposal, land acquisition, and ONRR management and oversight. The Liberty State Project was
an unusually large and expensive project. To reduce the weight of that project on our estimate,
we gave all other projects twice the weight of the Liberty State Project. In Table C.4, we show
this by subtotaling the cost and acreage of all projects, and then subtotaling the cost and acreage
of all projects except the Liberty State Project. We then add the subtotaled costs and divide by
the sum of the subtotaled acreage. To that amount ($248,075), we add costs of waste disposal,
land acquisition, and ONRR management and oversight, for a final result of $274,000 per acre.
Page C-5
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table C.4. Final per-acre cost for intertidal habitat restoration
Project name
Acres
Cost
Cost per acre
Beaver Dam Creek, Eastern Shore, NJ
8
$372,500
$46,563
Marsh creation for Chalk Point oil spill,
Mechanicsville, MD
6
$477,000
$79,500
Bridge Creek, Staten Island, NY
13
$1,553,085
$119,468
Saw Mill Marsh, Staten Island, NY
1
$376,000
$376,000
Woodbridge Creek, Woodbridge, NJ (NOAA)
14
$3,148,000
$224,857
Mill Creek Marsh, Chelsea, MA
1
$328,000
$328,000
Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ
46
$25,490,353
$554,138
Joseph P. Medwick Park, Carteret, NJ
14
$3,300,000
$235,714
Woodbridge Creek, Woodbridge, NJ (USACE)
23
$3,252,000
$141,391
Subtotal (including Liberty State Park)
126
$38,296,938
$303,944
Subtotal (excluding Liberty State Park)
80
$12,806,585
$160,082
Total (combination of above subtotals)
206
$51,103,523
$248,075
5%
$12,404
Contingency for contaminated soil handling and disposal
Per-acre land acquisition cost
$9,428
Revised per-acre cost for restoration before agency oversight and administration
adjustment
ONRR oversight and administration
1.5%
Final cost per acre of restored intertidal wetland (nearest thousand)
$269,907
$4,049
$274,000
C.3 Palustrine Meadow/Forest Restoration Costs
We used costs of restoration projects conducted in or near New Jersey to develop an estimate of
unit costs for palustrine meadow and forest habitat. Cost information was obtained from the
following sources:
Current prices per acre of mitigation credit from private New Jersey wetland mitigation
banks that had credits available for sale as of November 11, 2004 (NJDEP, 2004b;
Wilkinson and Thompson, 2006)
Costs for wetland creation and enhancement projects conducted by New Jersey’s Land
Use Regulation Program (LURP) between 2000 and 2002 (NJDEP, 2004a).
Page C-6
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Wetland mitigation bank prices
With the approval of NJDEP, adverse impacts to freshwater wetland habitats in New Jersey can
be offset with the purchase of mitigation credits from state-approved wetland mitigation banks.
These banks conduct large-scale restoration projects, then sell per-acre credits for the projects to
parties who are required to mitigate for damage they cause to wetlands. The per-acre price for
these mitigation credits provides a market-based estimate of restoration costs for palustrine
meadow and forest habitat. The market price captures the actual habitat restoration costs,
including expenditures that were required to address any contingencies arising during
construction, along with anticipated long-term expenses for operating, maintaining, and
monitoring the restoration projects.
Table C.5 presents the per-acre costs of purchasing credit at five wetland mitigation banks
operating in New Jersey.
Table C.5. Costs of purchasing wetland restoration credit from New Jersey
mitigation banks
Wetland mitigation bank
Price per acre of
restoration credit
(2006$)
Date of
price quote
Source of information
Rancocas Wetland
Mitigation Bank
$140,000
October 12, 2006 Nick Rudi, GreenVest
MRI (Meadowlands)
Mitigation Bank
$160,000
October 10, 2006 Alex Smith, Marsh Resources
Incorporated
Wyckoff’s Mills Wetland
Mitigation Bank
$168,350
October 10, 2006 Matthew B. Noblet, Shaw
Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc.
Willow Grove Wetlands
Mitigation Bank
$116,500a
October 12, 2006 Tom Wells, The Nature Conservancy
Pio Costa Wetland
Mitigation Bank
$200,000b
October 12, 2006 Ed Grasso, consultant for Anthony Pio
Costa
Average
$156,970
a. This is the midpoint from the provided range of $100,000 to $133,000 per acre of undiscounted credit.
b. This is the midpoint from the provided range of $150,000 to $250,000 per acre of credit.
Page C-7
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Wetland enhancement and creation prices presented to the LURP
The New Jersey LURP requires mitigation for impacts to freshwater palustrine or meadow
wetlands. This requirement can be satisfied through a cash contribution intended to match the
cost to restore, or through creation of freshwater wetland habitat similar to that being impacted.
Table C.6 presents estimates of the cash value that the LURP determined to be appropriate
compensation for specific projects, from 2000 to 2002 (NJDEP, 2004a).
Table C.6. Costs of freshwater wetland restoration and creation as presented to
the New Jersey LURP from 2000 to 2002
Permit applicant
Habitat
Acres
Cost for wetland
restoration
Cost for wetland
(2004$)
creation (2004$)
Otto Ensiedler
Forested wetland
0.070
$6,646
$10,639
Ian Gertner
Forested wetland
0.150
$43,434
$50,528
Lakeside Village
Wetland
0.650
$70,280
$97,498
NJHA
Wetland
0.110
$19,152
$34,038
Transco
Wetland
0.027
$3,651
$4,611
Merck
Wetland
0.490
$46,071
$72,759
AC MUA
Wetland
0.960
$66,535
$95,091
Lakewook MPG
Wetland
0.250
$16,719
$46,770
Total
2.707
$272,488
$411,934
$100,661
$152,174
Average cost per acre
Average of wetland restoration and creation costs (2004$)
$126,417
Average for wetland restoration and creation (2006$)
$134,116
Contingency (20%)
$26,823
Total average cost for wetland restoration and creation
(2006$)
$160,939
The average per-acre costs for wetland restoration and creation from these projects are $100,661
and $152,174, respectively, in 2004 dollars. The average of these two costs is $126,417 (in 2004
dollars). Using an annual increase of 3% per year, the average cost in 2006 dollars is $134,116.
We then applied a standard 20% engineering contingency because this cost element is not
addressed in the LURP estimates. The resulting total cost per acre from the LURP data in 2006
dollars is $160,939.
Page C-8
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
C.3.2 Final cost for palustrine meadow/forest habitat restoration
As shown in Table C.7, the final per-acre cost for palustrine meadow/forest restoration is
$161,000. This cost is equal to the average of the per-acre costs for the mitigation bank
purchases (Table C.5) and the LURP cash value for mitigation projects (Table C.6). This value is
then adjusted by 1.5% to account for necessary ONRR oversight and administration.
Table C.7. Final cost for palustrine meadow/forest habitat restoration
Cost per acre
(2006$)
Cost component
Average cost of purchasing wetland mitigation credits
$156,970
Average of wetland restoration and creation costs reviewed by the LURP
adjusted for 20% contingency
$160,939
Average
1.5% for ONRR oversight and administration
$158,955
$2,384
Total (rounded to nearest $1,000)
$161,000
C.4 Upland Meadow/Forest Restoration Costs
Our principal source of information for developing per-acre upland habitat restoration costs
comes from generic project cost estimates developed for this report by Bob Williams of Land
Dimensions Inc. of Glassboro, New Jersey. These estimates draw on Mr. Williams’ more than
30 years of experience in forest resource management and upland habitat restoration.
Mr. Williams and Land Dimensions Inc. have conducted restoration projects that have restored
over 2,500 acres of habitat in New Jersey. In addition, prior to joining his current firm,
Mr. Williams conducted projects that restored over 5,000 acres of habitat in New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Washington.
The project for which Mr. Williams developed cost estimates assumes that the restoration site is
relatively clear of large trees, but it may have some grasses, herbaceous growth, and limited
woody brush. In addition, it was assumed for costing purposes that the land to be restored is free
from any contamination that would require excavation and offsite transport, and that there are no
access restrictions to the site.
To develop generic upland habitat restoration costs, Mr. Williams first developed a list of actions
that might be required and their unit costs. That list is presented in Table C.8.
Page C-9
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table C.8. Restoration actions and costs for restoring upland habitat
Restoration action
Price (2006$)
Site preparation
Bush hogging heavy brush
$1,700/acre
Disking (forest disk)
$200/acre
Root raking
$800/acre
Herbicide
$125/acre
Planting material
Bare root hardwood trees
$250 @ 1,000/acre
Whip trees
$350 @ 1,000/acre
Pine seedlings
$170 @ 1,000/acre
Ball burlapped trees
$67,500 @ 500/acre
Shrubs
$6,250 @500/acre
Seeding grass
$65/acre
Installation
Bare root hardwood
$90 @ 1,000/acre
Whips hardwood
$1,500 @ 1,000/acre
Ball burlapped hardwood
$4,500 @ 1,000/acre
Pine
$170 @ 1,000/acre
Dipping seedlings in Terra Sorp
$50 @ 1,000/acre
Shrubs
$2,500 @ 500/acre
Maintenance
Herbicide
$125/acre
Mowing
$50/acre
Deer fencing (coated wire installed)
$4/foot
Professional services
Oversight, administration, contingency
$275/acre/year (for 1-15 years)
Engineering and permitting
Engineering and permit fees
$500/acre
Page C-10
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Mr. Williams then developed cost estimates to reflect the range of actions that might be
undertaken. The low and high ends of the range are presented in Table C.9. Since the high end of
the range reflects, in part, a higher intensity of work that will lead to a higher probability of
project success, we take 75% of the difference between the low and high end costs and add it to
the low end cost to develop a weighted estimate of $66,879. We used this approach, rather than
the midpoint between the two values, since the Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) credit
analysis in the accompanying report assumes a high restoration project success rate. Therefore, a
relatively high level of effort will be necessary.
Table C.9. Costs for low and high levels of effort to restore upland habitat
Cost component
Low level
of effort
High level
of effort
Site preparation
$400/acre
$1,825/acre
Plant material
$6,700/acre
$75,000/acre
Installation of plant material
$3,300/acre
$7,500/acre
Maintenance (one year)
$200/acre
$200/acre
Seeding
$60/acre
$60/acre
Administration oversight and contingency
$275/acre
$275/acre
Engineering and permitting
$500/acre
$500/acre
$11,435/acre
$85,360/acre
Total
75th percentile of the range between low and high level of effort
$66,879/acre
C.4.2 Final cost for upland habitat restoration
The restoration project costs developed by Mr. Williams do not include contingency costs,
project oversight and administration by ONRR, or land acquisition. Land acquisition costs were
estimated from 2004 information from New Jersey’s Green Acres program. This program was
established to purchase lands for protection and restoration, and it has compiled a database of
land purchase transactions. In 2004, the average cost per acre purchased by the Green Acres
program was $6,860. This value was converted to 2006 dollars to yield a cost of $7,278. A
standard 20% contingency then was added. As with other habitat restoration costs, ONRR
oversight and administration was added as 1.5% of project costs.
As shown in Table C.10, the total cost of upland habitat restoration is $90,000 per acre.
Page C-11
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
Table C.10. Cost of upland habitat restoration
Item
Per-acre cost (2006$)
Land purchase price
$7,278
Restoration project work
$66,879
Subtotal
$74,157
Project contingency (20%)
$14,831
Subtotal
$88,988
ONRR administration and oversight (1.5%)
$1,335
Total (rounded to nearest thousand)
$90,000
C.5 Conclusions
Table C.11 presents the final per-acre costs for off-site restoration of intertidal salt marsh,
palustrine forest/meadow, and upland habitats.
Table C.11. Final costs for off-site restoration
Habitat
Restoration cost (per acre)
Intertidal
$274,000
$161,000
Upland
$90,000
References
King, D. and C. Bolen. 1995. The Cost of Wetland Creation and Restoration. DOE/MT/92006-9.
Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
NJDEP. 2004a. Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Costs. New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection October 12.
NJDEP. 2004b. Wetlands Mitigation Council of NJ: Approved Mitigation Banks as of 11/24/04.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Available:
http://www.nj.gov/dep/landuse/forms/wmcbank_list.doc/. Accessed October 11, 2006.
Page C-12
SC10982
Stratus Consulting
USACE. Undated. Woodbridge Creek Restoration and Mitigation Project: Project Facts. New
York District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Available:
http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/project/newjers/factsh/pdf/woodbridge.pdf. Accessed September
15, 2006.
USACE. 2004. Meadowlands Environmental Site Investigation Compilation (MESIC): HudsonRaritan Estuary, Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New
York District. May.
USACE. 2005. Hudson-Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park Ecosystem Restoration: Integrated
Feasibility Report & Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 (Main Report & Appendix A).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York District. October.
USACE and the Port Authority of NJ & NY. 2006. Joseph P. Medwick Park Restoration,
Carteret, NJ. Project Facts. Available:
http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/project/newjers/factsh/pdf/carteret.pdf. Accessed 10/25/2006.
Wilkinson, J. and J. Thompson. 2006. 2005 Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the
United States. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC.
Page C-13
SC10982
S T R AT U S C O N S U LT I NG
1881 Ninth Street, Suite 201
Boulder, Colorado 80302
phone 303.381.8000
fax 303.381.8200
1920 L Street, N.W., Suite 420
Washington, D.C. 20036
phone 202.466.3731
fax 202.466.3732
www.stratusconsulting.com
(headquarters)

Natural Resource Damages at the ExxonMobil Bayway and

Transcription

Similar documents

Farrel McWhirter Park

THE PIGHTLE, TOWN YARD

Porsche 1955 Speedster - Willhoit Auto Restoration

VIEW FULL SIZE POSTER (pdf 6 MB)

Ecological Restoration of an altered area at the Majuy Mountain in

Honda CB450 Restoration

Pargeting is sometimes characterized as a dying art, but

Disasters Happen. - First Response Services, Inc.

IAOC Membership Application