Natural Resource Damages at the ExxonMobil Bayway and

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

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

Natural Resource Damages at the ExxonMobil Bayway

and Bayonne Sites

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 Background and Report Organization ............................................................... 1-2 1.2 Sources of Information ...................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Authors’ Qualifications...................................................................................... 1-4

Chapter 2 Site Description ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Affected Habitats ............................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Ecological Setting .............................................................................................. 2-8

2.2.1 Regional context .................................................................................... 2-8 2.2.2 Description of affected habitats ........................................................... 2-11

2.3 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

3.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination ............................................................... 3-19 3.2.1 Bayway ................................................................................................ 3-19 3.2.2 Bayonne ............................................................................................... 3-34

3.3 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

3.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 3-43

Stratus Consulting Contents (11/3/2006)

Page iii SC10982

Chapter 4 Restoration Plan............................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Background: Ecological Restoration of Contaminated Sites............................. 4-2 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

4.3 Technical Feasibility of Restoration ................................................................ 4-14 4.3.1 Opportunities ....................................................................................... 4-15

4.4 Conclusions...................................................................................................... 4-16

Chapter 5 Literature Cited ............................................................................................... 5-1

Appendices

A Site Histories of the ExxonMobil Bayway and Bayonne Refineries B Calculating the Required Amount of Off-Site Replacement C Off-Site Restoration Costs

SC10982

Figures

1.1 Location of the Exxon Bayway and Bayonne refineries ............................................... 1-1 2.1 Location of the Exxon Bayway and Bayonne refineries ............................................... 2-1 2.2 Bayway habitats from an 1889 New Jersey resources map, showing the

extent of intertidal wetlands, forested areas, and waterways......................................... 2-3 2.3 1898 USGS quadrangle map of the location of the Bayway Refinery .......................... 2-4 2.4 1889 New Jersey resources map of Bayonne Refinery location ................................... 2-5 2.5 1898 USGS map of Bayonne Refinery location ............................................................ 2-5 2.6 Affected habitats at the Exxon Bayway site .................................................................. 2-7 2.7 Affected habitats at the Bayonne site ............................................................................ 2-8 2.8 Great egret.................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.9 Crab fishing in the Arthur Kill..................................................................................... 2-11 2.10 Intertidal salt marsh, Rahway River ............................................................................ 2-11 2.11 Intertidal salt marsh along Piles Creek ........................................................................ 2-12 2.12 Diamondback terrapin.................................................................................................. 2-13 2.13 Palustrine wetland........................................................................................................ 2-14 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...................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Locations of contaminated groundwater at the Bayway Refinery, as designated by TRC Raviv Associates .......................................................................... 3-21

3.3 Contaminant threshold exceedences and organic contaminant detections in soils and sediments at the Bayway refinery............................................................. 3-22

3.4 View across Morses Creek to the Pitch Area .............................................................. 3-31 3.5 Close-up view of tarry sludge deposited at the Pitch Area and along

Morses Creek ............................................................................................................... 3-32 3.6 Petroleum “pop-up” at the Fire Fighter Landfill ......................................................... 3-33 3.7 Approximate locations of groundwater petroleum plumes at the

Bayonne Refinery ........................................................................................................ 3-35 3.8 Petroleum products and sludge in the Platty Kill Creek.............................................. 3-36 3.9 Petroleum products discharged into the Platty Kill Creek........................................... 3-37 3.10 Threshold concentration exceedences and detectable organic contaminants

in Bayonne soils and sediment..................................................................................... 3-39 3.11 Pathways of contaminant transport from sources to natural resource receptors.......... 3-42 3.12 Great egret along Morses Creek, Bayway Refinery .................................................... 3-44

Stratus Consulting Figures (11/3/2006)

Page v SC10982

4.1 Intertidal wetland restoration project on the Arthur Kill at the base of the Goethals Bridge, Staten Island....................................................................................... 4-3

4.2 Woodbridge River wetland restoration project.............................................................. 4-5 4.3 Plan for on-site restoration at the Bayway facility ........................................................ 4-7 4.4 Plan for on-site restoration at the Bayonne facility ....................................................... 4-8

SC10982

Tables 2.1 Areal coverage of historic habitats at the Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ...................... 2-6 2.2 Areal coverage of historic habitats at the Bayonne Refinery, Bayonne, NJ.................. 2-6 2.3 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 3.2 Contaminant screening threshold values used to evaluate soil and sediment data

at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries ........................................................................ 3-12 3.3 Likelihood of marine amphipod toxicity at the soil screening threshold

concentration................................................................................................................ 3-18 3.4 Contaminants that exceeded thresholds in soil and sediment samples

collected at the Bayway Refinery ................................................................................ 3-24 3.5 Summary of groundwater plumes identified in the RI at the Bayonne Refinery......... 3-34 3.6 Contaminants that exceeded thresholds in soil and sediment samples

collected at the Bayonne Refinery ............................................................................... 3-40 4.1 Present value habitat loss for the Bayway and Bayonne sites ..................................... 4-11 4.2 Acres of off-site replacement habitat restoration required .......................................... 4-12 4.3 Off-site replacement costs, Exxon Bayway and Bayonne sites................................... 4-13

SC10982

Acronyms and Abbreviations AOCs areas of concern BEE Baseline Ecological Evaluation EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESLs Ecological Screening Levels FS feasibility study HEA Habitat Equivalency Analysis HEP Harbor Estuary Program IAOCs investigative areas of concern msl mean sea level MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid NJCF New Jersey Conservation Foundation NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RI remedial investigation SLOU Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS 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 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.

Figure 1.1. Location of the Exxon Bayway and Bayonne refineries.

Stratus Consulting Introduction and Summary (11/3/2006)

Page 1-2 SC10982

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 1-3 SC10982

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 peer-reviewed 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 1-4 SC10982

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.

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.

Stratus Consulting Site Description (11/3/2006)

Page 2-2 SC10982

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).

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.

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.


Page 2-3 SC10982

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 2-4 SC10982

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 accounts that describe Constable Hook as an oyster fishery area and 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.

Figure 2.3. 1898 USGS quadrangle map of the location of the Bayway Refinery. Intertidal wetlands are depicted by stippled blue shading. The Bayway Refinery is located west of the Arthur Kill in the vicinity of Morses Creek.


Page 2-5 SC10982

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 2-6 SC10982

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 Cowardin classification Acres Intertidal salt marsh Estuarine Intertidal Emergent Marsh 461.4 Subtidal (creeks and bottoms) Estuarine Subtidal Unconsolidated Bottom 89.8 Palustrine meadow/forest Palustrine Wet Meadow and Prairie and Palustrine Forest 625.5 Upland meadow/forest 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, NJAffected habitat types Cowardin classification Acres Intertidal salt marsh Estuarine Intertidal Emergent Marsh 103.4 Subtidal Estuarine Subtidal Unconsolidated Bottom 134.3 Palustrine meadow Palustrine Wet Meadow and Prairie 211.6 Upland meadow Upland Meadow 26.7 Total acreage 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 2-7 SC10982

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 2-8 SC10982

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).

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.


Page 2-9 SC10982

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 2-10 SC10982

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 (Paleomonetes spp.) in the marshes, flats, and shallow waters of ponds and tidal creeks.

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).

Figure 2.8. Great egret. Source: NPS, 2003.


Page 2-11 SC10982

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 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 marsh

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

Figure 2.9. Crab fishing in the Arthur Kill. Photo: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting.

Figure 2.10. Intertidal salt marsh, Rahway River. Photo: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting.


Page 2-12 SC10982

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.

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).

Figure 2.11. Intertidal salt marsh along Piles Creek. Photo: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting.


Page 2-13 SC10982

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 horseshoe crabs in subtidal marsh creeks in southern New Jersey. Juveniles of many marine species use marshes, including Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), alewife, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), bluefish, summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), white mullet (Mugil curema), and Atlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina).

Figure 2.12. Diamondback terrapin. Source: Central Pets Educational Foundation, 2006.


Page 2-14 SC10982

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.

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.

Figure 2.13. Palustrine (freshwater) wetland. Source: Sandy Hook Ocean Institute, 2006.


Page 2-15 SC10982

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 2-16 SC10982

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 2-17 SC10982

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 Hudson-Raritan 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.

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

Stratus Consulting Nature and Extent of Contamination (11/3/2006)

Page 3-2 SC10982

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 3-3 SC10982

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 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,2,5,6-Tetramethylacenaphthylene 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 1,2-Benzenedicarboxilic acid 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 1,1,3,3,5-Pentamethylcyclohexane 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,1’-Biphenyl, 2,2’-diethyl- 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1’-Biphenyl, 3,4-diethyl- 1,2-Dichloroethene 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane- cis-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 3-4 SC10982

Table 3.1. Organic contaminants that have been detected in soils and/or sediment at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries (cont.)

Analyte 1,2-Dichloropropane 2,4,6(1H,3H,5H)-Pyrimidinetrione, 5-ethy 1,3-Butadiyne 2,4-Dimethylphenol 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 2,4-Dinitrophenol 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 1,4-Heptadiene, 3-methyl- 2,4-Dinonylphenol 1,4-Methanoazulene, Decahydr 2,4-Diphenyl-4-methyl-1(E)-P 1-Butanol, 2-methyl- 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 1-Butyne, 3-chloro- 2,8-Dimethyldibenzo(B,D)thiophene 1-Chloro-2,2-Bis(p-chlorophenyl) 2.pentene...trimethyl. 1-Chloro-2,2-Bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane 28-Nor-17.alpha.(H)-hopane 1-Decene, 3,4-dimethyl- 28-Nor-17.beta.(H)-hopane 1-Docosene 2-Butanol 1-Ethyl-3-methylcyclohexane (c,t) 2-Butanone 1-Heptene 2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro-, (E)- 1-Hexene 2-Butene, 2,3-dichloro- 1-Hexene, 3-methyl- 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 1H-Indene, 2,3-dihydro-1,1,5-trimethyl- 2-Chloronaphthalene 1H-Indene, 2,3-dihydro-1,3-dimethyl- 2-Chlorophenol 1H-Indene, octahydro-2,2,4,4,7,7-hexamet 2-Chlorotoluene 1H-Indene-octahydro-hexamethyl 2-cyclohexen-1-one 1H-Phenalene 2-Cyclohexen-1-one, 4-(3-hydroxy-1-buten 1H-Tetrazole, 5-methyl- 2-Ethoxy-1-methyl-6-oxo-1,2-azaphosphina 1-Iodo-2-Methylnonane 2-Ethyl-1,4-dimethyl-alkene 1-Iodo-2-methylundecane 2-Hexanone 1-Methylnaphthalene 2H-Pyran-2-one, tetrahydro-6-tridecyl- 1-Pentene, 2,4,4-trimethyl- 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole 1-Phenanthrenecarboxaldehyde 2-Methyl-1-pentene 1-Propene, 2-methyl-, tetramer 2-Methylchrysene 1-Propene, 2-methyl-, trimer 2-Methylnaphthalene 1-Propene, 3-chloro-2-(chloromethyl)- 2-Methylphenol 1-Propene-2-thiol, 1,1-diphenyl- 2-Nonadecanone 2,2,4,4,5,5,7,7-Octamethyloctane 2-Nonylphenol 2,2-Dichloro-1,1-bis(4-methoxyphenyl)eth 2-Octene, 2,6-dimethyl- 2,2-Dichloropropane 2-Pentanone, 4-hydroxy-4-methyl- 2,2’-Oxybis butane 2-Pentene, 2,4,4-trimethyl- 2,2’-Oxybis(1-chloropropane) 3-(3-Pyridyl)propenoic acid 2,3-Dihydro-dimethyl-1H-indene 3,5-Dimethyl-3-heptene 2,3-Dihydro-dimethyl-indene 3,7-Decadiyne, 2,2,5,5,6,6,9,9-octamethy 2,4,4-Trimethyl-2-pentane 3-Heptene, 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl-


Page 3-5 SC10982


Analyte 3-Methylcholanthrene alpha-BHC 4,4’-DDD alpha-Pinene 4,4’-DDE Anthracene 4,4’-DDT Anthracene, 1,4-dimethoxy- 4,4’-Dichloro-.alpha.-(trichlorome Anthracene, 2-methyl- 4,4’-Dichlorobenzophenone Anthracene, 9-butyltetradecahydro- 4,4’-Dimethylbiphenyl Anthracene, 9-cyclohexyltetradecahydro- 4,5,11,12-Tetrahydrobenzo[a]pyrene Anthracene, 9-dodecyltetradecahydro- 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol Anthracene, 9-methyl- 4-Chlorotoluene Aroclor-1248 4H-Cyclopenta[def]phenanthrene Aroclor-1254 4-Mercaptophenol Aroclor-1260 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Azulene, 7-ethyl-1,4-dimethyl- 4-Methylphenol Baccharane 4-Nitrophenol Benz[a]anthracene, 1,2,3,4,7,12-hexahydr 4-Nonylphenol Benz[a]anthracene, 7,12-dimethyl- 4-Octen-3-one Benz[j]aceanthrylene, 3-methyl- 6-Octen-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, acetate Benzanthracenone 6-Tridecene, 7-methyl- Benzenamine methyl 7-Azabicyclo[4.1.0]heptane, 1-methyl- Benzenamine, 4-methoxy-N-(2-pyridinylmet 7H-Benz[de]anthracen-7-one Benzene 9,10-Anthracenedione Benzene, (1-methyl-1-butenyl)- 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,4-bis(aminomethy Benzene, (2-methyl-1-propenyl)- 9,10-Dimethylanthracene Benzene, [1-(2,4-cyclopentadien-1-yliden 9,9-Dimethyl-9-silafluorene Benzene, 1,1’-sulfonylbis[4-chloro- 9-Borabicyclo[3.3.1]nonane, 9-hydroxy- Benzene, 1,2,3,5-tetramethyl- 9H-Fluorene dimethyl Benzene, 1,2,3-trimethyl- 9H-Fluorene, 1-methyl- Benzene, 1,2,4,5-tetramethyl- 9-Octadecenamide,(Z)- Benzene, 1,2-dichloro-4-isocyanato- Acenaphthene Benzene, 1,3,5-tribromo-2-methoxy- Acenaphthylene Benzene, 1,4-dimethyl-2-(1-methylethyl)- Acetone Benzene, 1-ethyl-2,3-dimethyl- Acetophenone Benzene, 1-ethyl-2-methyl- Acridine, 9-methyl- Benzene, 1-ethyl-3-methyl- Acrolein Benzene, 1-methoxy-2-[(4-methoxyphenyl)m Acrylonitrile Benzene, 1-methyl-(1-methylethyl)- Adamantane Benzene, 1-methyl-(-methylethyl)- Adamantane, dimethyl- Benzene, 1-methyl-2-(1-methylethy)- Aldrin Benzene, 1-methyl-3-(1-methylethyl)-


Page 3-6 SC10982


Analyte Benzene, 1-methyl-3-[(4-methylphenyl)met Butane, 2,3-dimethyl- Benzene, 1-methyl-3-propyl- Butane, 2-iodo-2-methyl- Benzene, 1-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)- Butane, 2-methyl- Benzene, 2-Butenyl- Butyl benzyl phthalate Benzene, 2-ethyl-1,3-dimethyl- Butyl hexadecanoate Benzene, 4-ethyl-1,2-dimethyl- Butylated hydroxytoluene Benzene, chlorotriethyl- C10H10.isomer Benzene, cyclopropyl- C10H12.isomer Benzene, -ethenyl-methyl- C10H14.isomer Benzeneacetonitrile, .alpha.-phenyl- C10H16O isomer Benzenethiol C10H18.isomer Benzo(1,2-b:4,3-b’)dithiophene, 1-phenyl C10H20.isomer Benzo(a)anthracene C11H10.isomer Benzo(a)pyrene C11H12.isomer Benzo(b)fluoranthene C11H14.isomer Benzo(b)naphtho(2,1-d)thiophene C11H16.isomer Benzo(b)naphtho(2,3-d)thiophene, 6-methy C11H24 Benzo(b)naphtho(2,3-d)thiophene, 7,8-dim C12H12.isomer Benzo(c)phenanthrene, 5,8-dimethyl- C12H20 isomer Benzo(c)thiophene,-dihydro- C12H22.isomer Benzo(g,h,i)perylene C12H24 isomer Benzo(ghi)fluoranthene C13H10S.isomer Benzo(k)fluoranthene C13H12 Benzo.b.fluorene C13H14.isomer Benzo.e.pyrene C14H10.isomer Benzoic acid C14H12.isomer Benzonaphthothiophene C14H14 Benzopyrene C14H14.isomer Beta-BHC C14H22O Bicyclo[2.2.1]heptane, 2-methyl-, exo- C14H9CL.isomer Biphenyl C15H12 isomer Biphenyl dimethyl C15H28 isomer bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate C16H10.isomer Borneol C16H12.isomer Bromobenzene C16H14.isomer Bromochlorobenzene C17H12 Bromodichloromethane C17H12 isomer Bromoform C17H16.isomer Butane, 2,2,3,3-tetramethyl- C18H10


Page 3-7 SC10982


Analyte C18H14.isomer Cyclohexane, 1,3-dimethyl-, cis- C19H14.isomer Cyclohexane, 1,3-dimethyl-, trans- C20H12 Cyclohexane, 1,4-dimethyl- C20H16.isomer Cyclohexane, 1-ethyl-2-methyl-, cis- C21H21o4p.isomer Cyclohexane, 1-ethyl-4-methyl-, cis- C29H50.isomer Cyclohexane, 1-ethyl-4-methyl-, trans- C6H12.isomer Cyclohexane, 2,4-diethyl-1-methyl- C7H14.isomer Cyclohexane, 2-butyl-1,1,3-trimethyl- C7H16.isomer Cyclohexane, butyl- C8H16.isomer Cyclohexane, ethyl- C8H18.isomer Cyclohexane, pentyl- C9H12.isomer Cyclohexane, propyl- C9H18.isomer cyclohexane..methyl. C9H8.isomer Cyclohexanone, 2-ethyl- Camphene Cyclohexanone, 3,3,5-trimeth Carbazole Cyclohexene, 1-methyl- Carbon disulfide Cyclohexenol Chlordane Cyclohexenone Chlorobenzene Cyclopentane, 1,1,2-trimethyl- Chloroform Cyclopentane, 1,1,3-trimethyl- Chloromethane Cyclopentane, 1,2,3-trimethyl- Chloropropylate Cyclopentane, 1,2,4-trimethyl-, (1.alpha Cholestane, (5.alpha.,14.beta.)- Cyclopentane, 1,2-dimethyl-, cis- Cholesterol Cyclopentane, 1,2-dimethyl-, trans- Chrysene Cyclopentane, 1,3-dimethyl-, trans- Chrysene, 3-methyl- Cyclopentane, 1-ethyl-2-methyl-, cis- Chrysene, 4-methyl- Cyclopentane, methyl- Cinnamic acid, 3,4-dimethoxy-, trimethyl Cyclotetracosane cis-(-)-2,4a,5,6,9a-Hexahydro-3,5,5,9-te D:C-Friedoolean-8-en-3-one Coronene DDD/DDT Cyanide DDE Cyclobutaphenanthrene DDMU Cyclododecanemethanol Decahydro-4,4,8,9,10-pentamethylnaphthal Cyclohexane Decahydro-9-ethyl-4,4,8,10-tetramethylna Cyclohexane, (4-methylpentyl)- Decane Cyclohexane, 1,1,3-trimethyl- Decane, 2,2,7-trimethyl- Cyclohexane, 1,1-dimethyl- Decane, 2,2-dimethyl- Cyclohexane, 1,2-dimethyl-, trans- Decane, 2,3,6-trimethyl- Cyclohexane, 1,3,5-trimethyl- Decane, 2,5,6-trimethyl-


Page 3-8 SC10982


Analyte Decane, 3,3,4-trimethyl- Dodecane, 4,6-dimethyl- Decane, 3,6-dimethyl- Dodecylcyclohexane Decane, 3,8-dimethyl- Eicosane Decane, 4-methyl- Endosulfan I Decane, 5-propyl- Endosulfan II Decanedioic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl Endosulfan sulfate delta-BHC Endrin D-Friedoolean-14-en-3-one Endrin aldehyde D-Homoandrostane, (5.alpha., Endrin ketone Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro- Dibenzo(c,h)(2,6)naphthyridine Ethanone, 1-(2,4-dihydroxyphenyl)- Dibenzofuran Ethyl 2-octynate Dibenzothiophene Ethyl naphthalene Dibenzothiophene, 3-methyl- Ethylbenzene Dibenzothiophene, 4-methyl- Fluoranthene Dibenzpyrene Fluorene Dibutylether Fluoromethylbenzene Dichloromethane gamma chlordane Dieldrin gamma-BHC (Lindane) Diethyl phthalate gamma-Sitosterol Diethylbenzene Germanicol Diethylthiophene Heneicosane Diethyltoluamide Heptachlor Dihydrodimethylindene Heptachlor epoxide Diisopropyl ether Heptacosane Dimethyl benzenamine Heptadecane Dimethyl phthalate Heptadecane, 2,6,10,15-tetramethyl- Dimethyl sulfide Heptadecane, 2,6-dimethyl- Dimethylbiphenyl Heptadecane, 9-octyl- Di-n-butyl phthalate Heptane Di-n-octyl phthalate Heptane, 2,2,3,4,6,6-hexamethyl- Dioctyl ester hexanedioic acid Heptane, 2,2,4-trimethyl- Di-sec-butyl ether Heptane, 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl Docosane Heptane, 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-methylene Dodecane Heptane, 2,2-dimethyl- Dodecane, 2,6,10-trimethyl- Heptane, 2-methyl- Dodecane, 2,6,11-trimethyl- Heptane, 3-ethyl-2-methyl- Dodecane, 2,7,10-trimethyl- Heptane, 3-methyl- Dodecane, 2-methyl-8-propyl- Heptane, 4-ethyl-2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-


Page 3-9 SC10982


Analyte Heptane, 5-ethyl-2-methyl- Naphthalene decahydro-dimethyl Hexachlorobenzene Naphthalene decahydro-pentamethyl Hexacosane Naphthalene, 1-(2-propenyl)- Hexadecane Naphthalene, 1,2(or 2,3)-diethyl- Hexadecane, 2,6,10,14-tetramethyl- Naphthalene, 1,4,5-trimethyl- Hexadecanoic acid Naphthalene, 1,4,6-trimethyl- Hexane Naphthalene, 1,6,7-trimethyl- Hexane, 2,2,4-trimethyl- Naphthalene, 1,7-dimethyl- Hexane, 2,2,5-trimethyl- Naphthalene, 1,8-dimethyl- Hexane, 2,3-dimethyl- Naphthalene, 2,3,6-trimethyl- Hexane, 2,4-dimethyl- Naphthalene, 2-ethyl- Hexane, 2,5-dimethyl- Naphthalene, 2-methyl-1-propyl- Hexane, 2-methyl- Naphthalene, decahydro-, trans- Hexane, 3,3-dimethyl- Naphthalene, decahydro-1,1,4a-trimethyl- Hexane, 3-methyl- Naphthalene, decahydro-2-methyl- Hexanedioic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl) Naphthalenone, octahydro Indan, 1-methyl- Naphtho[2,3-b]thiophene, 4,9-dimethyl- Indane N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine Indene N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Nonacosane Isophorone Nonadecane Isopropanol Nonane Isoquinoline, 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-7-metho Nonane, 2,2,4,4,6,8,8-heptamethyl- Ketone (unknown) Nonane, 2,6-dimethyl- Limonene Nonane, 3-methyl- Lupeol Nonane, 3-methyl-5-propyl- m,p’-DDT Nonane, 4-methyl- Methyl phenanathrene Nonylphenol Methyl.t.butyl.ether n-Propylbenzene Methylanthracene o,p’-DDT Methylbenzanthracene O,p’-TDE olefin Methylchrysene Octadecane Methyldibenzothiophene Octadecane, 2,6-dimethyl- Methylethylnaphthalene Octadecanoic acid Mitotane Octadecanoic acid, 2-hydroxy-1-(hydroxym Molybdenum Octadecanoic acid, 2-methylpropyl ester Morpholine, 4-phenyl- Octadecanoic acid, butyl ester Muurolane-B Octane Naphthalene Octane, 2,2,6-trimethyl-


Page 3-10 SC10982


Analyte Octane, 2,3,7-trimethyl- Phenol, 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)- Octane, 2,6-dimethyl- Phenol, 4-(1,1-dimethylpropyl)- Octane, 2-methyl- Phenol, 4-(2,2,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)- Octane, 3,4-dimethyl- Phenol, 4-(tetramethylbutyl)- Octane, 3-methyl- Phenol, 4-(-tetramethylbutyl)- Octane, 4-methyl- Phenol, 4,4’-(1,2-diethyl-1,2-ethanediyl Olean-12-ene Phenothiazine o-Xylene Phenylnaphthalene p,p’-Methoxychlor Phthalate ester Pentachlorophenol Phthalic anhydride Pentacosane PNA (unknown) Pentadecanal Propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, 1-(1,1-dimeth Pentadecane Pulegone Pentadecane, 2,6,10,14-tetramethyl- Pyrene Pentadecane, 2-methyl- Pyrene, 1,3-dimethyl- Pentamethylheptene Pyrene, 1-methyl- Pentane, 2,2,3-trimethyl- Resorcinol, 4-[(2-hydroxy-3-pyridyl)azo] Pentane, 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl- Spiro[4.5]decane Pentane, 2,2,4-trimethyl- Squalene Pentane, 2,3,3-trimethyl- Styrene Pentane, 2,3,4-trimethyl- Substituted acid ester Pentane, 2,3-dimethyl- Substituted aquilene Pentane, 2,4-dimethyl- Substituted benzanthracene Pentane, 2-methyl- Substituted benzeneamine Pentane, 3-methyl- Substituted cyclopentanone Pentane, -methyl- Substituted ester Phenanthrene Substituted furan Phenanthrene, 2,3,5-trimethyl- Substituted hexadiene Phenanthrene, 2,3-dimethyl- Substituted methanonapthalene Phenanthrene, 2,5-dimethyl- Substituted pyridine Phenanthrene, 2,7-dimethyl- Taraxasterol Phenanthrene, 3,4,5,6-tetramethyl- Taraxerol Phenanthrene, 3,6-dimethyl- t-Butyl alcohol Phenanthrene, 9-dodecyltetradecahydro- Tetrachloroethene Phenol Tetracosane Phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)- Tetradecane Phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylpropyl)- Tetrahydrotrimethylnaphthale Phenol, 3-(2-phenylethyl)- Thiophene, tetrahydro-2-methyl- Phenol, 3-pentadecyl- Toluene


Page 3-11 SC10982


Analyte Triacontane Trimethylcyclopentane Trichloroethene Trimethylhexene Trichlorofluoromethane Trimethylnaphthalene Tricosane Triphenylene, 2-methyl- Tridecane Undecane Tridecane, 2-methyl- Undecane, 2,5-dimethyl- Tridecane, 4,8-dimethyl- Undecane, 2,6-dimethyl- Trimethyl-1,4-pentadiene Undecane, 3,6-dimethyl- Trimethyl-2-pentene Undecane, 3,7-dimethyl- Trimethylbenzene Vinyl Acetate Trimethylcyclohexane

3.1.1 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 3-12 SC10982

Table 3.2. Contaminant screening threshold values used to evaluate soil and sediment data at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries

Analyte Threshold

(mg/kg) Source 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.46 ADL (2000a) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 29.8 U.S. EPA (2003) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.127 U.S. EPA (2003) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.1 ADL (2000a) 1,1-Dichloroethane 20.1 U.S. EPA (2003) 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.07 ADL (2000a) 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 30 ADL (2000a) 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 3.36 U.S. EPA (2003) 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 11.1 U.S. EPA (2003) 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 0.0352 U.S. EPA (2003) 1,2-Dibromoethane 1.23 U.S. EPA (2003) 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 ADL (2000a) 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) 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 3-13 SC10982

Table 3.2. Contaminant screening threshold values used to evaluate soil and sediment data at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries (cont.)

Analyte Threshold

(mg/kg) 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 ADL (2000a) Aniline 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 U.S. EPA (2001) Benzo(a)anthracene 1 ADL (2000a) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 U.S. EPA (2001)


Page 3-14 SC10982


Analyte Threshold

(mg/kg) Source Benzo(b)fluoranthene 19 ADL (2000a) Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 35 ADL (2000a) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 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) bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.925 U.S. EPA (2003) Bromodichloromethane 25 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) Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1.9 ADL (2000a) Dibenzofuran 10 ADL (2000a) Dibromochloromethane 2.05 U.S. EPA (2003)


Page 3-15 SC10982


Analyte Threshold

(mg/kg) Source Methylene chloride 2 U.S. EPA (2001) Dieldrin 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) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 ADL (2000a) Isophorone 139 U.S. EPA (2003) Lead 200 ADL (2000a) Manganese 1500 ADL (2000a) Mercury 2 ADL (2000a) p,p’-Methoxychlor 0.0199 U.S. EPA (2003) Molybdenum 40 ADL (2000a) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0.545 U.S. EPA (2003) Naphthalene 0.0994 U.S. EPA (2003) Nickel 100 ADL (2000a)


Page 3-16 SC10982


Analyte Threshold

(mg/kg) 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) Zinc 350 ADL (2000a)


Page 3-17 SC10982

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 3-18 SC10982

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% Benzo(b)fluoranthene 19 86% Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 35 95% Benzo(k)fluoranthene 19 92% Biphenyl 60 100% Cadmium 5 80% Chromium 250 68% Chrysene 4.73 79% Copper 100 52% Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1.9 90% Dieldrin 0.0005 13% Fluoranthene 0.1 18% Fluorene 30 99% Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 19 93% Lead 200 72% Mercury 2 83% Naphthalene 0.0994 37% Nickel 100 72% Phenanthrene 0.1 25% Pyrene 0.1 18% Zinc 350 63%


Page 3-19 SC10982

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 3-20 SC10982

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 3-21 SC10982

Figure 3.2. Locations of contaminated groundwater at the Bayway Refinery, as designated by TRC Raviv Associates (2005).


Page 3-22 SC10982

Figure 3.3. Contaminant threshold exceedences and organic contaminant detections in soils and sediments at the Bayway Refinery.


Page 3-23 SC10982

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 exceeded criteria, including hydrocarbons, volatile organics, chlorinated pesticides, and 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 “pop-ups,” 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 exceeded criteria, including hydrocarbons, volatile organics, chlorinated pesticides, and 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 3-24 SC10982

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

Number of analytes exceeded Analytes exceeded

Unit A A01 17 Acetone, Anthracene, Antimony, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Copper, Ethylbenzene,

Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, Naphthalene, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total)

A02 15 Antimony, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Copper, Dieldrin, Endosulfan I, Ethylbenzene, Lead, Mercury, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total)

A03 8 Arsenic, Benzo(a)pyrene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

A04 4 4,4’-DDT, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons A05 6 Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Lead, Mercury, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Xylenes (Total)


Page 3-25 SC10982

Table 3.4. Contaminants that exceeded thresholds in soil and sediment samples collected at the Bayway Refinery (cont.)

IAOC


A06 1 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate A07a 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(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

A07b 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

A08 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

A09 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, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

A10 13 2-Methylnaphthalene, Aldrin, Antimony, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Copper, Ethylbenzene, Lead, Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total)

A11 1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons A12 14 4,4’-DDT, Aldrin, Antimony, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Copper, Dieldrin, Lead,

Mercury, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc A13 13 Antimony, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene,

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc

A14 14 2-Methylnaphthalene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Copper, Lead, Manganese, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Zinc

A15 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(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate


Page 3-26 SC10982


IAOC


A16 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

A17 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(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

A18 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

A19 13 4,4’-DDT, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzo(a)pyrene, Copper, Dieldrin, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Trichloroethene, Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

A20 2 Benzo(a)pyrene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons Unit B B01 37 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, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Phenol, Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor

B02 23 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

B03 44 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(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor


Page 3-27 SC10982


IAOC


Unit C C01 37 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, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Nickel, Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor

C02 36 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-n-butyl phthalate, Dieldrin, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Phenol, Pyrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, gamma-BHC (Lindane), p,p’-Methoxychlor

C03 28 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

C04 34 2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony, 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(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor

C05 20 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

Unit D D01 24 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

D02 23 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 3-28 SC10982


IAOC


D03a 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, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

D03b 11 2-Methylnaphthalene, Anthracene, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Endrin, Ethylbenzene, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total)

D04 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(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

D05 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

D06 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

SLOU SLOU 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, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate


Page 3-29 SC10982


IAOC


Unit E E01 32 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, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

E02 31 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

E03 35 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, 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

E04 37 2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, Anthracene, Antimony, Aroclor-1260, 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

E05 46 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, 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 3-30 SC10982


IAOC


Unit F F01 16 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

F02 19 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(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

F03 14 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

F04 1 Benzo(a)pyrene Unit G G01 2 4,4’-DDT, Benzene G02 0 None G03 0 None G04 3 4,4’-DDT, Copper, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate G05 9 4,4’-DDT, Anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Copper, Fluoranthene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,

Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Zinc 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 Creek

52 2,4-Dimethylphenol, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, Acenaphthene, Acetone, Aldrin, Anthracene, Antimony, Arsenic, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Beta-BHC, Cadmium, Carbon disulfide, Chlorobenzene, Chromium, Chrysene, Copper, Di-n-butyl 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 Creek

17 4,4’-DDT, Anthracene, Arsenic, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Zinc, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate


Page 3-31 SC10982

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 3-32 SC10982

Figure 3.5. Close-up view of tarry sludge deposited at the Pitch Area (A18) and along Morses Creek. Photo: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting, October 2006.


Page 3-33 SC10982

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. Photo: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting, October 2006.


Page 3-34 SC10982

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 Plume

number

Apparent thickness

range (feet)Inferred type of petroleum

contaminationa Piers and East Side, Treatment Plant Area, MDC Building Area

1, 2, and 3 0.16-3.57 Degraded gasoline, diesel, kerosene, No. 5 and No. 6 fuel oils, high viscosity lube base stock

Low Sulfur and Solvent Tankfields 4 0.15-13.6 Gasoline and heavy fuel oils (e.g., No. 6 fuel oil)

General Tankfield 5 and 6 0.24-2.07 No. 6 fuel oil AV-Gas Tankfield and Domestic Trade Area

7 0.20-9.9 Diesel/aviation fuel, lube oil, and No. 6 fuel oil

Asphalt Plant and Exxon Chemicals Plant

8 and 9 0.11-4.67 Lube oil, No. 6 oil, and asphalt

No. 3 Tankfield 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 3-35 SC10982

Figure 3.7. Approximate locations of groundwater petroleum plumes at the Bayonne Refinery. Source: Parsons, 2006.


Page 3-36 SC10982

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. Photo: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting, October 2006.


Page 3-37 SC10982

Figure 3.9. Petroleum products discharged into the Platty Kill Creek. Photo: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting, October 2006.


Page 3-38 SC10982

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 3-39 SC10982

Figure 3.10. Threshold concentration exceedences and detectable organic contaminants in Bayonne soils and sediment.


Page 3-40 SC10982

Table 3.6. Contaminants that exceeded thresholds in soil and sediment samples collected at the Bayonne Refinery

IAOC


“A” Hill Tankfield 10 2-Methylnaphthalene, 4,4’-DDT, Arsenic, Copper, Ethylbenzene, Lead, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene

AV-GAS Tankfield 23 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

Asphalt Plant Area 24 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

Domestic Trade Area 8 Anthracene, Copper, Fluoranthene, Nickel, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Zinc

Exxon Chemicals Plant Area

25 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

General Tankfield 33 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(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor

Historical Extent of Refinery

13 4,4’-DDT, Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Cyclohexane, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Naphthalene, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toluene, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

Lube Oil Area 32 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(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, gamma chlordane, p,p’-Methoxychlor


Page 3-41 SC10982

Table 3.6. Contaminants that exceeded thresholds in soil and sediment samples collected at the Bayonne Refinery (cont.)

IAOC


MDC Building Area 2 Lead, Petroleum Hydrocarbons Main Building Area 19 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(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’-Methoxychlor

No. 2 Tankfield 19 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

No. 3 Tankfield 36 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), 2-Methylnaphthalene, 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

Pier No. 1 Area 14 Anthracene, Arsenic, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Lead, Mercury, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Pyrene

Piers and East Side Treatment Plant Area

1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Platty Kill Creek 1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons Solvent Tankfield 24 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

Stockpile Area 24 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

Utilities Area 6 4,4’-DDT, Benzo(a)pyrene, Dieldrin, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Pyrene, p,p’-Methoxychlor


Page 3-42 SC10982

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).

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.


Page 3-43 SC10982

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 3-44 SC10982

Figure 3.12. Great egret along Morses Creek, Bayway Refinery. Photo: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting, October 2006.

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.

Stratus Consulting Restoration Plan (11/3/2006)

Page 4-2 SC10982

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.”

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).

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)


Page 4-3 SC10982

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. Photo: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting.


Page 4-4 SC10982

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-the-rough” 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. Photo: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting.


Page 4-5 SC10982

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 4-6 SC10982

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 4-7 SC10982

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 4-8 SC10982

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 4-9 SC10982

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 4-10 SC10982

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 4-11 SC10982

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 Palustrine meadow/forest 214,886 168,663 383,549 Upland meadow/forest 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-of-heaven). 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 non-native 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 4-12 SC10982

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:

383,549 discounted acre-years ÷ 20.3 acre-years per acre = 18,896 acres of off-site palustrine meadow/forest habitat

Upland meadow/forest:

56,753 discounted acre-years ÷ 16.6 acre-years per acre = 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 Palustrine meadow/forest 10,587 8,310 18,896 Upland meadow/forest 2,112 1,313 3,425


Page 4-13 SC10982

Our average per-acre unit costs included consideration of the following cost elements:

1. Land acquisition 2. Project design, evaluation, and permitting 3. Implementation, including labor, equipment and supplies 4. Allowance for contingencies 5. Operations and maintenance 6. Monitoring 7. Oversight and administration 8. 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

Intertidal salt marsh 6,809 $0.274 $1,866 Palustrine meadow/forest 10,587 $0.161 $1,704 Upland meadow/forest 2,112 $0.090 $190 Bayway total $3,760

Bayonne Intertidal salt marsh 4,189 $0.274 $1,148 Palustrine meadow/forest 8,310 $0.161 $1,338 Upland meadow/forest 1,313 $0.090 $118 Bayonne total $2,604 Cumulative total $6,364


Page 4-14 SC10982

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 4-15 SC10982

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 4-16 SC10982

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.

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.

Stratus Consulting Literature Cited (11/3/2006)

Page 5-2 SC10982

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 5-3 SC10982

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 4:69-85.

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 5-4 SC10982

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 5-5 SC10982

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.pdf. 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 5-6 SC10982

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). Hudson-Raritan Estuary Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey. Prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York District. May.


Page 5-7 SC10982

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: 1970-1995. 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.

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.

Stratus Consulting Appendix A (11/3/2006)

Page A-2 SC10982

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-3 SC10982

Figure A.1. Location of the Exxon Bayway and Bayonne refineries.


Page A-4 SC10982

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-5 SC10982

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-6 SC10982

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-7 SC10982

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-8 SC10982

Figure A.3. Investigation areas of concern at the Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ.


Page A-9 SC10982

Table A.1. Investigative units and IAOCs at Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ IAOC Name Acres Unit A A01 Pipe Stills (refinery area) 28.6 A02 Powerformer 29.7 A03 Catalytic Light Ends 3.9 A04 Utilities Unit 13.5 A05 Sulfur Recovery Unit 5.1 A06 Isomerization Unit 5.9 A07a East Side Chemical Plant 70.0 A07b White Oils Plant 19.7 A08 Gas Blending Tankfield 43.4 A09 Conservation Area (West Separator, BIOX) 35.5 A10 Gasoline Component Tankfield 46.7 A11 Hydrofiner Unit 7.8 A12 No. 4 Component Tankfield 19.3 A13 Domestic Trade Terminal and Tankfield 22.4 A14 Greater Elizabeth Tankfield 31.2 A15 West Side Chemical Plant (WSCP) 35.8 A16 Cogeneration Plant (and Fuel Gas area) 28.2 A17 Caverns Area 30.2 A18 Pitch Area (and East retention basin) 20.0 A19 Administration and Mechanical Area 33.3 A20 Park Avenue Administration 9.2 Unit B B01 Tank 336 Creek Dredgings Area 30.4 B02 Western Waterfront Tankfield 20.8 B03 Tank 301 Creek Dredgings 7.7 Unit C C01 Tank 319 Waterfront Landfill Area 18.1 C02 Fire Fighting Landfill 11.3 C03 Eastern Waterfront Tankfield/Pier 40.2 C04 No. 1 Dam Creek Dredgings Area 14.3 C05 Steamer Dock Area 17.5


Page A-10 SC10982

Table A.1. Investigative units and IAOCs at Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ (cont.) IAOC Name Acres Unit D D01 Tremley Tankfield 135.6 D02 Former Lower Tremley Tankfield Separator 2.5 D03a Current and Former Diesel Tankfield 28.5 D03b Tank 519 and Former Diesel Tankfield 4.3 D04 Tank 519 Creek Dredging Area 6.2 D05 SLOU Boundary 11.1 D06 Western Shore of Reservoir 90.3 Unit E E01 Clean Fill Area 46.7 E02 Eastern Landfill 13.8 E03 Central Landfill and Landfarm 16.3 E04 Western Landfill 7.5 E05 Southern Landfill 4.8 Unit F F01 40-Acre Tankfield – east and west 49.5 F02 Former 40-Acre Tankfield Separator 3.4 F03 40-Acre Tankfield Undeveloped Property 19.3 F04 Unit F Connector Piperun 0.7 Unit G G01 Rahway River Tankfield Heavy Oil and Naphtha Tanks 24.5 G02 Rahway River Tankfield East Separator 1.4 G03 Rahway River Tankfield West Separator 1.0 G04 Rahway River Tankfield Heating Oil and Motor Gas Tanks 27.5 G05 Unit G Connector Piperun 4.3 G06 G – PA Area 11.1 SLOU Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit 42.0 Total 1,252.0


Page A-11 SC10982

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 Tankfield

1908 to present Gasoline, sulfuric acid, asphalt, butane, petrolite, water white, standard white, gas oil, treated naphtha, crude naphtha, sulfidic caustic, gasoline additives, heavy catalytic naphtha

A09 Conservation Area (West Separator, BIOX)

1917 to present Process wastewater from cracking coil units, slop oil, hydrocarbon solids from erosion and sandblasting, stormwater 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-12 SC10982

Table A.2. Materials handled or disposed in Unit A, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ (cont.)

IAOC Name


operations in the IAOC Materials handled or disposed

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 (and Fuel Gas area)

1933 to present Asphalt, other unknown materials

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 No information available in documents reviewed.

A20 Park Avenue Administration

1951 to present 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-13 SC10982

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 44,768 gallons gasoline Tank 230, Overfill 8/25/1983 32,000 gallons gasoline Tank 224, Overfill West separator 5/8/1986 Oil Tank 133, Down sewer, pure oil coming out BIOX area 12/1985-1/1986

Oil Dam No. 2, Coming out of dam

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/

water Tank 3, Historical

12/2/1991 2,000 pounds gas oil DSU-1, T-104 PSV, faulty equipment


Page A-14 SC10982

Table A.3. Spills greater than 100 gallons with known locations in Unit A, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ (cont.)

Date Spill Comments East Side Chemical Plant 1/15/1987 2,000 gallons methyl

isobutyl ketone Tank 880, Leak to sewers, cleaned up by vacuum trucks

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 East Side Chemical Plant 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,

ketones, alcohols Near loading rack

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-15 SC10982

Table A.3. Spills greater than 100 gallons with known locations in Unit A, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ (cont.)

Date Spill Comments No date Base oil From spills at Tank 100 area No date Unknown 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,

caustics, and acids From chemical cleaning site located in WSCP

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)

naphtha Spill from pipeline; history of naphtha spills from leaking pipelines

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. Source: Geraghty & Miller, 1993, Table 3-2.


Page A-16 SC10982

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 Metering station flange leak, faulty equipment West Side Chemical Plant 10/21/1985 Zinc dialkly-dithiophosphate Odor; paid $75,000 fine 2/1986 Ashless product $12,000 fine 5/12/1986 C12 lime pit $7,000 fine 2/19/1988 Zinc, T/C, hydrogen sulfide Railcar decomposition; $35,000 fine 5/31/1987 200 gallons unknown material Tank 6/23/1987 2,000 gallons PX-15 (zinc) 7/14/1987 Unknown Tank 124 bottom leak 9/16/1987 100-200 gallons alcohol 9/29/1987 1,500-3,000 gallons cycloxylene Sewers 1/30/1990 200 pounds phenol 6/12/1990 3,000 gallons base oil 6/28/1990 Phenol Spill to land 2/10/1991 Hexane Spill to land 4/4/1991 Base oil 9/10/1991 Zinc dialkyl-dithiophosphate (ZDDP) Spill to water 11/18/1991 Tank car oil Spill to land 11/19/1991 Tank car oil Spill to land 11/25/1991 Varsol/water Spill to land Gasoline blending tankfield 10/11/1991 < 400 gallons zinc compound/base oil Tank 105/107 Refinery area and other unknown locations 6/27/1986 1,000 gallons unknown material Tank 156 3/14/1987 P 60 6 inches of P 60 in ditch. P 1506 7/3/1987 Gas oil and asphalt Railroad tracks; large amount 7/27/1988 Oil Flange blowing oil on top of TPS desalter; much oil to

sewer; extra vacuum trucks called in 12/3/1988 Acetic acid Tank 10D55 exploded, acid was vacuumed up


Page A-17 SC10982

Table A.4. Spills greater than 100 gallons with general or unknown locations in Unit A, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ (cont.) Date Spill Comments 2/23/1989 Ashless product 5025 Tank 164 valve open; toe wall overflow to sewer 5/7/1989 210 pounds ammonia Refinery, Into Morses Creek 11/19/1989 100 gallons sulfuric acid Refinery, Into water 5/8/1991 10 barrels Stretford solution Refinery, Avenue ditch East Side Chemical Plant No date Sulfuric acid Leak, $5,500 paid 12/25/1980 Butane leak Filled sewers and large area around tank 775, PRPW

Chemico Avenue 12/29/1982 Sulfuric acid ESCP coolers leak to water 7/9/1983 Sulfuric acid CBU, Leak to water 6/26/1984 Methyl isobutyl carbinol Spill to land 7/26/1987 White oil White oils plant – GRP II. Coming out of ground 11/18/1987 Sulfuric acid ESCP coolers leak to water 6/13/1990 Oil PSE&G property line. Historical 10/3/1990 Catalytic tar New Jersey Turnpike. Historical TPS: Unknown. PRPW: Unknown. CBU: Unknown. PSE&G: Public Service Electric & Gas. ESCP: East Side Chemical Plant. WSCP: West Side Chemical Plant. Source: Geraghty & Miller, 1993, Table 3-3.

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-18 SC10982

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-19 SC10982

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-20 SC10982

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-21 SC10982

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

IAOC Name


operation in the IAOC Materials handled or disposed

B01 Tank 336 Creek Dredgings Area 1935- Lead, arsenic, poly aromatic hydrocarbons, dredge spoils

B02 Western Waterfront Tankfield 1940 to 1990 AC-10 and AC-20 asphalt, jet fuel, sulfidic caustic, Oxflux (roof tar), white oil filter clay, dredge spoils

B03 Tank 301 Creek Dredgings 1940 to 1979 Crude pipelines, dredge spoils C01 Tank 319 Waterfront Landfill

Area 1950 to 1974 Trash, refinery waste, concrete, oily sludge,

WSCP filter cake, white oil filter clay, API separator bottoms, TEL sludge, catalysts, tar

C02 Fire Fighting Landfill 1966 to 1974 Trash, rubble C03 Eastern Waterfront

Tankfield/Pier 1940 to present Bunker oil, crude oil, slop oil, fuel oil, AC-10

and AC-20 asphalt, cresylic caustic C04 No. 1 Dam Creek Dredgings 1969 to 1987 White oil, dredge spoils C05 Steamer Dock 1940 to present Various petroleum grades (see spills) WSCP: West Side Chemical Plant. TEL: Tetraethyl lead. API: American Petroleum Institute.


Page A-22 SC10982

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 No. 1 dock area, 840 gallons 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 No. 1 dock area, 200 gallons 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. Source: Geraghty & Miller, 1993, Table 3-11.

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-23 SC10982

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-24 SC10982

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-25 SC10982

Table A.7. Waste materials disposed or handled in Unit D, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ

IAOC Name



D01 Tremley Tankfield 1922 to present

Crude oil, process gas oil, base heating oil, catalytic cracking plant feed stock, jet fuel, heating oil, fill including garbage, contaminated soil, white fill, soil from the cogeneration area

D02 Former Lower Tremley Tankfield Separator

1940 to 1970 Oily sludge, slop oil, stormwater, spilled product runoff

D03a Current and Former Diesel Tankfield 1951 to 1974 Diesel, white oil filter clay, WSCP filter cake D03b Tank 519 and Former Diesel

Tankfield 1940 to 1961 Diesel, crude oil

D04 Tank 519 Creek Dredging Area 1969 to 1991 Diesel, Morses Creek dredge spoils D05 SLOU Boundary 1940 to 1955 Separator outfall, seepage from the SLOU, filled

with unknown materials D06 Former Ignition Stack Area and West

Brook Reservoir Former Tank Area 1933 to 1961 Refrigerated gas, diesel

WSCP: West Side Chemical Plant. SLOU: Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit.

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-26 SC10982

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 Tank 537 remediation – vacuum trucks 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 Tank 536 remediation – vacuum trucks Lower Tremley Tankfield 7/2/1986 Jet aviation fuel Tank 571 floor leak – tank out of service Source: Geraghty & Miller, 1993, Table 3-18.

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-27 SC10982

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

IAOC Name



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 Landfarm

1950 to 1984 Trash, construction and demolition debris, jet filter clay, building and packing materials, drums and pallets, coke, catalyst, oil spill cleanup debris, tank bottoms, API separator bottoms, oily sludges, TEL sludges, sewer cleanings, oil-contaminated 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 API: American Petroleum Institute. TEL: Tetraethyl lead. WSCP: West Side Chemical Plant.


Page A-28 SC10982

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 TEL: Tetraethyl lead. Source: Geraghty & Miller, 1993, Table 3-27.


Page A-29 SC10982

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 Source: Geraghty & Miller, 1993, Table 3-28.

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-30 SC10982

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-31 SC10982

Table A.12. Waste materials disposed or handled in the SLOU, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ

Operational area or facility Approximate

years of operation Materials handled or disposed 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 WSCP: West Side Chemical Plant. TEL: Tetraethyl lead. API: American Petroleum Institute.

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-32 SC10982

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. (ISP-ESI), 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-33 SC10982

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 Comments 8/2/1978 Visible sheen of 840 gallons Below No. 1 Dam 10/22/1980 Undefined quantity of oil Morses Creek between No. 1 and No. 2 dams 10/14/1980 Oil film on ditch Railroad Avenue Condenser Ditch 12/85 to 1/86 Oil flowing out of No. 2 dam No. 2 Dam 11/18/1987 20 gallons of sulfuric acid Morses Creek, equipment failure 5/7/1989 Undefined quantity of oil Morses Creek into Arthur Kill 5/8/1989 210 lbs of ammonia Morses Creek into Arthur Kill 9/10/1991 Zinc dialkyl-dithiophosphate Sewers 5/8/1991 420 gallons of Stretford solution Refinery Avenue Ditch, split piping Source: Geraghty & Miller, 1993, Table 3-32.

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-34 SC10982

Figure A.4. Approximate historical extent of Bayonne Refinery in 1933, as depicted in Map 1b of NJDEP (1990). Source: NJDEP, 1990.


Page A-35 SC10982

Figure A.5. Bayonne Refinery AOCs and other areas.


Page A-36 SC10982

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-37 SC10982

Table A.14. AOCs and other areas at Bayonne Refinery, Bayonne, NJ Area Acres “A” Hill Tankfield 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-38 SC10982

Table A.15. Materials handled or disposed in AOCs and other areas at Bayonne Refinery, Bayonne, NJ

Area Approximate initial year of operations Materials handled or disposed

“A” Hill Tankfield 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 Exxon Chemicals Plant Area 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

Low Sulfur Tankfield 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-39 SC10982

Table A.16. Documented spills of over 100 gallons at the Bayonne Refinery

Area or general location Date Reported spill

volume (gallons) Material spilled “A”-Hill Tankfield 10/1978 252,000 Heating oil 2/15/1983 42,000 Process gas oil Lube Oil Area 3/28/1972 1,500 Lube oil additive 4/21/1973 700 Lube oil 12/23/1978 840-1,050 Electric insulating oil 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 Pier No. 1 Area 9/22/1972 2,100 Wax (MEK feed) 6/28/1978 670 Waste oil 10/30/1979 1,050-2,100 Heavy fuel oil 11/15/1979 > 672 Emulsion flux 6/4/1989 840 Fuel oil No. 2 Tankfield 3/1/1989 Unknown No. 2 fuel oil Asphalt Plant Area 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-40 SC10982

Table A.16. Documented spills of over 100 gallons at the Bayonne Refinery (cont.)


volume (gallons) Material spilled 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 Exxon Formula No. 82899 AV-Gas Tankfield 1/30/1988 5,000 Toluene 1/8/1992 100 Heavy fuel oil 1992 Unknown Diesel Exxon Chemicals Plant Area 1/8/1987 700 Exxon formula No. 80831 1/17/1987 100 Exxon formula No. 81348 2/12/1987 300 Exxon formula No. 80682 2/14/1987 300 Slop oil 2/15/1987 300 Exxon formula No. 81744


Page A-41 SC10982



volume (gallons) Material spilled Exxon Chemicals Plant Area (cont.) 11/4/1988 6,000 Cyclohexane Unknown Unknown Naphthalene No. 3 Tankfield 1/26/1988 500 F540 8/3/1978 Unknown Unknown General Tankfield 10/14/1990 300 Oil 10/30/1990 1,000 Oily sludge Solvent Tankfield 9/22/1982 92,400 Isopar L 2/18/1992 2,400 Heavy oil and diesel 9/10/1990 1,114 Xylene Low Sulfur Tankfield 2/21/1976 142,800 F-942 No. 6 oil 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 No. 2 fuel oil 5/22/1991 350 Xylene 6/18/1991 16,000 No. 2 heating oil 8/1/1991 100 Blend oil Other areas 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


Page A-42 SC10982



volume (gallons) Material spilled Other areas (cont.) 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 Motor oil dispersant 2/28/1990 715 No. 6 oil blend 1/21/1992 2,500 Black oil 10/6/1992 100 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-43 SC10982

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-44 SC10982

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).

Exxon Chemicals Plant Area

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-45 SC10982

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-46 SC10982

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.

Low Sulfur Tankfield

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-47 SC10982

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-48 SC10982

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-49 SC10982

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-50 SC10982

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-51 SC10982

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.

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.

Stratus Consulting Appendix B (11/3/2006)

Page B-2 SC10982

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 off-site 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-3 SC10982

Table B.1. Contaminated habitat areas at the Bayonne Refinery

Habitat type Acres Year contamination

began Will the area be restored

on-site? Intertidal salt marsh 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 Palustrine meadow/forest 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 Subtidal 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


Page B-4 SC10982

Table B.1. Contaminated habitat areas at the Bayonne Refinery (cont.)

Habitat type Acres Year contamination

began Will the area be restored

on-site? Upland meadow/forest 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 Total for all habitat types 476 Total acres restored 24.9

Table B.2. Contaminated habitat areas at the Bayway Refinery

Habitat type Acres

Year contamination

began Will the area be restored on-site? Intertidal salt marsh 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


Page B-5 SC10982

Table B.2. Contaminated habitat areas at the Bayway Refinery (cont.)

Habitat type Acres

Year contamination

began Will the area be restored on-site? Intertidal salt marsh (cont.) 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 Palustrine meadow/forest 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


Page B-6 SC10982

Table B.2. Contaminated habitat areas at the Bayway Refinery (cont.)

Habitat type Acres

Year contamination

began Will the area be restored on-site? Palustrine meadow/forest (cont.) 1.0 1958 No 0.9 1965 No 6.2 1969 Yes, as intertidal Subtidal 15.4 1933 Yes 0.1 1933 No 1.8 1935 Yes 71.5 1940 Yes 1.0 1940 No Upland meadow/forest 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 Total for all habitat types 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-7 SC10982

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-of-heaven). 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-8 SC10982

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 Intertidal salt marsh 148,330 Palustrine meadow/forest 214,886 Upland meadow/forest 34,997 Bayonne Intertidal salt marsh 91,255 Palustrine meadow/forest 168,663 Upland meadow/forest 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 off-

site restoration (DAYs) Intertidal salt marsh 21.8 Palustrine meadow/forest 20.3 Upland meadow/forest 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-9 SC10982

Table B.5. Acres off-site habitat restoration required as replacementa

HEA results Intertidal habitat

Palustrine meadow/forest

habitat

Upland meadow/forest

habitat Bayway DAYs lost (after accounting for DAYs gained with on-site restoration) 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 Bayonne DAYs lost (after accounting for acre-years gained with on-site restoration) 91,255 168,663 21,756 Credit per acre of restored offsite habitat (DAYs per acre) 21.8 20.3 16.6 Required off-site habitat restoration (acres) 4,189 8,310 1,313 Combined acreage Required off-site habitat restoration (acres) 10,998 18,896 3,425 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-10 SC10982

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.

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

Stratus Consulting Appendix C (11/3/2006)

Page C-2 SC10982

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-3 SC10982

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-4 SC10982

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-5 SC10982

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

Parcel name Year of

purchase Acres

Initial purchase

price

Adjusted purchase

price (2006$)

Adjusted purchase

price per acre 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 Total 949 $7,276,552 $8,947,436 $9,428

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-6 SC10982

Table C.4. Final per-acre cost for intertidal habitat restoration Project name Acres Cost Cost per acreBeaver 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 Contingency for contaminated soil handling and disposal 5% $12,404 Per-acre land acquisition cost $9,428 Revised per-acre cost for restoration before agency oversight and administration adjustment $269,907 ONRR oversight and administration 1.5% $4,049 Final cost per acre of restored intertidal wetland (nearest thousand) $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-7 SC10982

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-8 SC10982

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

(2004$) Cost for wetland creation (2004$)

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

Average cost per acre $100,661 $152,174 Average of wetland restoration and creation costs (2004$) $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-9 SC10982

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 component Cost per acre

(2006$) 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 $158,955 1.5% for ONRR oversight and administration $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-10 SC10982

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-11 SC10982

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 Total $11,435/acre $85,360/acre 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-12 SC10982

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 Palustrine meadow/forest $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-13 SC10982

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): Hudson-Raritan 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.

STRATUS CONSULTING

1881 Ninth Street, Suite 201 Boulder, Colorado 80302 phone 303.381.8000 fax 303.381.8200 (headquarters)

1920 L Street, N.W., Suite 420 Washington, D.C. 20036 phone 202.466.3731 fax 202.466.3732

w w w . s t r a t u s c o n s u l t i n g . c o m

Documents

Natural Resource Damages at the ExxonMobil Bayway and