Expert-Report-Lipton-Stratus-November-3-2006

Natural Resource Damages 

at the ExxonMobil Bayway 

and Bayonne Sites 

Prepared for: 

State of New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Kanner & Whiteley, LLC 

Nagel Rice & Mazie, LLP

Natural Resource Damages 

at the ExxonMobil Bayway 

and Bayonne Sites 

Prepared for: 

State of New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

PO Box 404 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 

and 

Kanner & Whiteley, LLC 

701 Camp Street 

New Orleans, LA 70130 

and 

Nagel Rice & Mazie, LLP 

103 Eisenhower Parkway 

Roseland, NJ 07068 

Prepared by: 

Stratus Consulting Inc. 

PO Box 4059 

Boulder, CO 80306-4059 

(303) 381-8000 

and 

Toxicological & Environmental Associates, Inc. 

307 North University Boulevard 

HSB Suite 1100, Room 1160 

Mobile, AL 36688 

November 3, 2006 

SC10982

Contents 

List of Figures..............................................................................................................................iv 

List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................vi 

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... vii 

Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary ............................................................................ 1-1 

1.1 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 

SC10982

Stratus Consulting Contents (11/3/2006) 

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 

B 

C 

Site Histories of the ExxonMobil Bayway and Bayonne Refineries 

Calculating the Required Amount of Off-Site Replacement 

Off-Site Restoration Costs 

Page iii 

SC10982

Figures 

1.1 Location of the Exxon Bayway and Bayonne refineries ............................................... 1-1 

2.1 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 

SC10982

Stratus Consulting Figures (11/3/2006) 

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 

Page v 

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 

BEE 

EPA 

ESLs 

FS 

HEA 

HEP 

IAOCs 

msl 

MTBE 

NAPL 

NJCF 

NJDEP 

NOAA 

NRCS 

NRDA 

PCBs 

RCRA 

RI 

SLOU 

USACE 

USFWS 

USGS 

areas of concern 

Baseline Ecological Evaluation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ecological Screening Levels 

feasibility study 

Habitat Equivalency Analysis 

Harbor Estuary Program 

investigative areas of concern 

mean sea level 

methyl tertiary butyl ether 

Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid 

New Jersey Conservation Foundation 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment 

polychlorinated biphenyls 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

remedial investigation 

Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

SC10982

1. Introduction and Summary 

The ExxonMobil Corporation’s Bayway and Bayonne 

refineries have been in operation for over 100 years. 

The Bayway Refinery is located in Linden, NJ in an 

area that previously consisted of wetlands overlooking 

the Arthur Kill and Newark Bay (Figure 1.1). The 

Bayonne Refinery is located in Bayonne, NJ and 

borders the Kill van Kull and New York Harbor 

(Figure 1.1). Over the past 100 years, actions at the 

two refineries have caused widespread contamination 

of important habitats such as intertidal salt marsh, 

marsh creeks, and wetlands. If not polluted, these 

habitats would support a wide variety of natural 

resources, including plants, birds, invertebrates, 

mammals, and fish. Removal of the contamination, 

followed by ecologically sound restoration, is 

necessary and can successfully restore natural 

resources. Additional ecological restoration must be 

performed off-site to compensate the public for the 

environmental harm caused by the many decades of 

contamination and because some of the natural 

resources at the refinery properties cannot be restored. 

This environmental restoration will substantially 

benefit natural habitats and wildlife that currently are Figure 1.1. Location of the Exxon Bayway 

limited in this highly urbanized region. 

and Bayonne refineries. 

This report presents a plan for restoring and replacing natural resources 1 harmed by the decades 

of contamination at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries. 2 The total cost of the restoration and 

replacement is $8.9 billion. 

1. The Society for Ecological Restoration defines restoration as “the process of assisting the recovery of an 

ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (Society for Ecological Restoration, 2004). The 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP, 2006b) states that “restoration is the remedial 

action that returns the natural resources to pre-discharge conditions. It includes the rehabilitation of injured 

resources, replacement, or acquisition of natural resources and their services, which were lost or impaired. 

Restoration also includes compensation for the natural resource services lost from the beginning of the injury 

through to the full recovery of the resource.” 

2. This report addresses the refinery properties and certain wetlands and creeks within those properties. The 

report does not consider the Arthur Kill, the Kill van Kull, Newark Bay, New York Harbor, or the broader 

Hudson-Raritan Estuary. These areas will be addressed in future reports. 

SC10982

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

1.1 Background and Report Organization 

In 2004, the State of New Jersey brought a lawsuit against the ExxonMobil Corporation 

(hereafter “Exxon”) 3 for cleanup and removal costs, including natural resource damages, at the 

Exxon Bayway site in Linden and the Exxon Bayonne site in Bayonne. On May 26, 2006, Judge 

Anzaldi of the New Jersey Superior Court ruled that Exxon was liable for restoration of the 

natural resources impacted by discharges of hazardous pollutants. 

This report presents a plan for restoring and replacing natural resources harmed by the decades 

of contamination at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries, and details the total cost of the 

restoration and replacement. 4 

The following information is contained in our report: 

In Chapter 2, we describe the ecological habitats that were present at the refinery sites before 

they became contaminated. Important affected habitats include intertidal salt marsh, marsh 

creeks, subtidal open water areas, freshwater marsh/meadow/forest areas, and upland 

meadows/forests. These habitats still exist elsewhere in the region, despite extensive 

urbanization, and support a wide array of plants, wildlife, and fish species. 

In Chapter 3, we evaluate the nature and extent of contamination at the sites. 5 Contamination of 

the land and water at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries, which began as early as the 1870s in 

Bayonne and the early 1900s in Bayway, continues to this day. Petroleum products and waste 

related to the refining of petroleum products were spilled, discharged, or discarded on the ground 

and in the water. Materials released into the environment included hundreds of different organic 

contaminants and hazardous metals. Dredge materials that were used to fill salt marshes 

commonly contained high concentrations of petroleum products and metals. Even today, these 

dredge materials show clear evidence of petroleum contamination. Since landfills were 

constructed without liners, landfilled substances leaked to surrounding groundwater, soils, and 

3. In this report, “Exxon” refers to the current ExxonMobil Corporation, as well as all the predecessor and 

subsidiary companies that conducted operations at these sites, including Standard Oil of New Jersey, Esso 

Standard Oil Company, Humble Oil & Refining Company, Exxon Chemical Americas, and Exxon Company, 

USA. 

4. The New Jersey Spill Control Act provides for recovery of “the cost of restoration and replacement.” No 

specific method of calculating these costs is required. In developing our restoration plans and costs, we 

employed standard and reasonable professional approaches and scientific judgment, input from the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection, and methods that have been developed and employed by other 

resource agencies throughout the United States. 

5. Detailed information about the industrial history of the two sites is contained in Appendix A. 

Page 1-2 

SC10982


surface water. Spilled materials from pipeline ruptures, tank failures, overflows, and explosions 

resulted in widespread groundwater, soil, and sediment contamination. 

In reviewing data collected by Exxon and its contractors, we found that contamination at both 

sites is pervasive and ubiquitous. The pollution at the sites consists of elevated levels of heavy 

metals and hundreds of organic chemicals that are associated with refinery and chemical 

manufacturing operations. These pollutants have contaminated soils, sediments, waterways, 

wetlands, and groundwater. 

In Chapter 4, we present restoration and replacement plans for the two sites. These plans 

include descriptions and costs of restoration actions that can be conducted at the two properties 

to restore natural resources. We also describe the additional ecological replacement, and the 

costs of those replacement actions, that must be performed off-site to compensate the public for 

the environmental harm caused by the many decades of contamination and because some of the 

natural resources at the refinery properties cannot be restored. The restoration and replacement 

will benefit natural habitats and wildlife in the Arthur Kill/Newark Bay environment. These 

environmental improvements are of particular importance in this highly urbanized region. 

Literature cited is provided in Chapter 5. 

1.2 Sources of Information 

In developing our restoration plans, we used the following sources and types of information: 

 

 

 

 

 

Published reports, documents, site assessments, ecological assessments, and peerreviewed 

and gray literature, as presented in the Literature Cited section of this 

document. 

Historical maps, more recent site maps, and aerial photos compiled by Aero-Data 

Corporation of Baton Rouge, LA. 

A database containing the results of contaminant sampling and analysis performed by 

ExxonMobil and its contractors. This database was compiled by DPRA, Inc. at the 

request of counsel. 

In-person meetings and discussions with staff with the NJDEP who are responsible for 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) and restoration, and for overseeing 

Exxon’s remedial site assessment and cleanup activities. 

A helicopter overflight of the two facilities and a boat tour of the Arthur Kill and Rahway 

River adjacent to the Exxon Bayway facility on Tuesday, June 27, 2006. 

Page 1-3 

SC10982


 

 

An on-site inspection of the two facilities performed by Dr. Blancher, NJDEP staff, and 

other experts for New Jersey on August 23-24, 2006, and an on-site inspection of the two 

facilities performed by Dr. Lipton and NJDEP staff on October 13, 2006. 

Guidance from NJDEP staff, in particular, Mr. John Sacco, Administrator of the NJDEP 

Office of Natural Resource Restoration, regarding restoration objectives, approaches, and 

policies. 

1.3 Authors’ Qualifications 

Joshua Lipton, PhD, is CEO and president of Stratus Consulting Inc. located in Boulder, 

Colorado. A native of New Jersey, Dr. Lipton is a nationally recognized expert in Natural 

Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA), having performed over 50 NRDAs for State and 

Federal Trustees throughout the United States. Dr. Lipton holds PhD and MS degrees in natural 

resources from Cornell University, and a BA in environmental biology from Middlebury 

College. Dr. Lipton is the author or coauthor of over 40 peer-reviewed scientific publications and 

over 100 presentations at national and international scientific meetings and symposia, and has 

been an invited speaker and instructor at a number of State, Federal, and legal NRDA training 

courses. Dr. Lipton, who also holds the position of Research (Full) Professor in the Department 

of Geochemistry at the Colorado School of Mines, has served as an elected member of the 

editorial boards of the scientific journals Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and Science 

of the Total Environment. Dr. Lipton’s expertise includes environmental toxicology and 

chemistry, ecology, and natural resources investigations. He has designed and directed laboratory 

and field toxicity tests, environmental sampling and monitoring studies, ecological field 

investigations, fisheries and wildlife population monitoring studies, and environmental modeling 

projects. 

Eldon (Don) Blancher II, PhD, is the manager of Southeast Operations at Toxicological & 

Environmental Associates, Inc. in Mobile, Alabama. Dr. Blancher holds a PhD in environmental 

engineering science from the University of Florida, an MS in zoology and physiology from LSU, 

and a BA in biology from the University of New Orleans. Dr. Blancher has over 30 years of 

experience in marine, freshwater, and wetlands ecology; wetland assessment and analysis; 

benthic macroinvertebrate assessment; environmental toxicology; and ecological assessment. 

Dr. Blancher, who also holds the position of Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of 

South Alabama, has served as the Chairman of the Water Environment Federation’s committees 

on Ecology and Water Resources and Marine Water Quality, and served as Vice-Chair of the 

Ecology Committee. 

Page 1-4 

SC10982

2. Site Description 

The Exxon Bayway and Bayonne facilities are located in northeastern New Jersey along the 

shores of Newark Bay and the Upper Bay of New York Harbor. The Bayway Refinery has been 

in operation since 1909. It is located in the cities of Linden and Elizabeth, west of the Arthur 

Kill. The Arthur Kill is a tidal strait that 

connects the Kill van Kull and Newark 

Bay to the north with Raritan Bay and the 

Raritan River to the south (Figure 2.1). 

Industrial activities at Bayway have 

included oil refining, distillation, catalytic 

cracking, finishing, and blending 

processes to produce petroleum products 

such as butane, propane, gasoline, liquid 

petroleum gas, jet and diesel fuels, heating 

oil, mineral oils, and asphalt. Other 

operations at the site have included 

chemical processing to produce 

compounds such as motor oil additives, 

propylene, methyl ethyl ketone, tertiary 

butyl alcohol, secondary butyl alcohol, 

methyl isobutyl ketone, isopropyl alcohol, 

and acetone. 

The Bayonne Refinery currently covers 

some 288 acres in Bayonne on the Kill van 

Kull and the Upper Bay of New York 

Harbor (Figure 2.1). The refinery has been 

in operation since about 1877. Industrial 

activities at the site have included crude 

oil distillation, petroleum storage, 

chemical and asphalt manufacturing, and 

wax production. 

Appendix A contains a summary of 

historical refinery operations at the two 

facilities. 

Figure 2.1. Location of the Exxon Bayway and 

Bayonne refineries. The two refineries are connected by 

a pipeline and operated as a single integrated facility for 

many years. 

SC10982

Stratus Consulting Site Description (11/3/2006) 

2.1 Affected Habitats 

The Bayway and Bayonne facilities are located in areas that historically supported important 

ecological habitats and natural resources, including intertidal salt marshes and tidal creeks, 

freshwater wetlands, and upland meadows and forests. Even today, despite widespread 

industrialization, these habitats can be found throughout the area of Newark Bay and the 

Hudson-Raritan Estuary (Box 2.1). 

Box 2.1. The Hudson-Raritan 

Estuary 

The Hudson-Raritan Estuary and 

watershed is a damaged but recovering 

ecosystem − a home to 15 million people 

and a rich diversity of wildlife. From 

space, the Estuary appears to jab like a 

blue arrowhead deep into the Northeast 

coast − a 20-mile indent with 650 miles 

of shore divided between urban New 

Jersey and New York City. The Estuary − 

where freshwater streams mix with salty 

tides − is a rich and diverse ecosystem of 

bays, straits, islands, rivers, salt and 

freshwater wetlands, mudflats, and 

beaches. Its dredged channels, natural 

harbors and port facilities also offer 

shelter to the world’s busiest commercial 

port complex. 

Text: NY/NJ Baykeeper, 2006. 

Photo: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting. 

To develop environmentally appropriate restoration plans, we determined the types of ecological 

habitats that have been affected at the refineries. This enabled us to determine the ecological 

feasibility and appropriateness of on-site restoration and to determine the types of off-site 

replacement actions necessary to fully compensate for the environmental harm. 

Page 2-2 

SC10982


Because contamination at the two sites has occurred for more than 100 years (see Appendix A 

and Chapter 3), we evaluated the historical habitats at the sites to help us determine the nature of 

restoration that would be appropriate. Historical descriptions of the sites are presented by 

Southgate (2006), who used historical sources to determine that the refineries are located in areas 

that originally contained a 

mixture of intertidal salt 

marshes, intertidal creeks, 

meadows, wetlands, and open 

water. To develop more precise 

estimates of the affected habitats, 

we reviewed historical maps of 

the region. The sources we 

reviewed included maps obtained 

from the U.S. National Archives, 

state forestry and resource maps 

from the 1800s, historical coastal 

surveys from the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), and 

historical U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) maps. Additional 

historic aerial photo imagery 

(Aero-Data, 2006) was utilized 

to further confirm, as much as 

possible, the extent of wetlands 

and palustrine habitats. 

Historical maps of the Bayway 

Refinery property from 1889 and 

1898 are presented in Figures 2.2 

and 2.3. These maps clearly 

show forested areas and intertidal 

wetlands adjacent to waterways. 

As is still the case in less 

disturbed areas of the Arthur 

Kill/Newark Bay region, 

intertidal marsh habitats included 

low marsh [dominated by smooth 

cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora)] 

and high marsh [dominated by 

salt hay (Spartina patens) and 

Figure 2.2. Bayway habitats from an 1889 New Jersey 

resources map, showing the extent of intertidal wetlands 

(stippled shading), forested areas (green shading), and 

waterways (blue shading). The Bayway Refinery is now located 

west of the Arthur Kill between Piles and Morses creeks. 

Page 2-3 

SC10982


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). 

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. 

Unlike the Bayway site that had extensive palustrine forests and some upland forested areas, no 

forests were identified on the Bayonne site. 

In developing our habitat designations, we supplemented the historical maps with information 

obtained from well and soil boring logs from Exxon reports. Those logs provided confirmation 

of the presence of buried “meadow mat.” This material consists of a layer of partially 

decomposed marsh vegetation and serves as a key indicator of the presence of former marsh 

habitats. Because coastal and wetland habitats are influenced by elevation above sea level, we 

also used elevation contours to aid in our interpretation and mapping. 

Page 2-4 

SC10982


Figure 2.4. 1889 New Jersey resources map of Bayonne Refinery location. Intertidal 

wetlands are shown in stippled areas. Tidal creeks also can be seen in the wetlands. 

Figure 2.5. 1898 USGS map of Bayonne Refinery location. Intertidal wetlands are shown as 

blue stippled areas. 

Page 2-5 

SC10982


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, NJ 

Affected 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 2-6 

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 2-7 

SC10982


Figure 2.7. Affected habitats at the Bayonne site. Affected habitats included subtidal areas 

(including creeks and former bay bottom), intertidal wetland areas, and palustrine and upland meadows. 

2.2 Ecological Setting 

2.2.1 Regional context 

The affected habitats at the Bayway and Bayonne facilities occur within the broader regional 

context of the Arthur Kill/Newark Bay environment. Despite the extensive urbanization of the 

area, the region still supports a network of upland and wetland open spaces. These remaining 

natural communities support regionally important fish and wildlife populations. For example, the 

environment of the Arthur Kill supports seasonal or year-round populations of 178 species of 

special emphasis (USFWS, 1997), including 37 species of fish and 128 species of birds, and 

many federally and state-listed species of concern (Table 2.3). 

Page 2-8 

SC10982


Table 2.3. Federally and state-listed species of concern in 

the Arthur Kill/Newark Bay region 

Federally listed endangered 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) 

Federal species of concern 

Northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) 

Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) 

State-listed endangered – New Jersey 

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 

Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) 

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) 

Least tern (Sterna antillarum) 

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) 

State-listed threatened – New Jersey 

American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) 

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) 

Barred owl (Strix varia) 

Red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) 

Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) 

State-listed endangered – New York 

Least tern 

Rose pink (Sabatia angularis) 

Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) 

Eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum) 

Northern harrier 

American bittern 

Osprey 

State-listed special concern – New York 

Short-eared owl 

Common barn owl (Tyto alba) 

Common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) 

Source: USFWS, 1997. 

Page 2-9 

SC10982


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, Figure 2.8. Great egret. 

and shallow waters of ponds and tidal creeks. Source: NPS, 2003. 

Nesting waterfowl that live in the Arthur Kill/Newark Bay region include American black duck 

(Anas rubripes), gadwall (Anas strepera), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), green-winged teal 

(Anas crecca), blue-winged teal (Anas discors), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), and wood 

duck (Aix sponsa); and also breeding Virginia rail (Rallus limicola), common moorhen 

(Gallinula chloropus), least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), American coot (Fulica americana), and 

pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps). Goethals Bridge Pond is an important feeding area for 

migratory shorebirds, particularly black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), red knot (Calidris 

canutus), pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos), semipalmated sandpiper (Calidris pusilla), 

sanderling (Calidris alba), common tern (Sterna hirundo), and least tern. Waterfowl of regional 

importance that winter in the open waters and marshes in this complex include greater and lesser 

scaup (Aythya marila and A. affinis), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), brant (Branta bernicla), 

American black duck, Canada goose, mallard, bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), and American 

wigeon (Anas americana). Northern harriers forage over many of the wetland marshes of this 

complex, particularly in winter, as did numbers of short-eared owls until the mid-1980s 

(USFWS, 1997). 

Page 2-10 

SC10982


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). 

Figure 2.9. Crab fishing in the Arthur Kill. 


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 2.10. Intertidal salt marsh, 

Rahway River. 


Page 2-11 

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 

Figure 2.11. Intertidal salt marsh along 

Piles Creek. 


(Teal, 1986). Low marsh occurs below the mean high tide level and is regularly flooded by the 

daily tides. High marsh is above the mean high tide level and is only irregularly flooded. 

Throughout coastal New Jersey, low marsh is characterized by stands of Spartina alterniflora. 

Salt marshes with large tidal ranges are generally dominated by the tall form of S. alterniflora, 

whereas the short form is more common in marshes with restricted tidal ranges (Edinger et al., 

2002). 

The low marsh is an important nursery area for larval and juvenile fish and shellfish (Weinstein, 

1979). It also provides forage and shelter for juveniles of estuarine and marine species that move 

into the marshes seasonally, such as winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), alewife, 

and bluefish (Rountree and Able, 1992). Characteristic bird species include clapper rail (Rallus 

longirostris), willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), seaside 

sparrow (Ammospiza maritima), and American black duck (Edinger et al., 2002). 

As elevation increases and flooding frequency decreases, the low marsh zone transitions to high 

marsh where a mixture of salt hay, spike grass (Distichlis spicata), and saltmeadow rush (Juncus 

gerardii) grow in combination. Higher still in the marsh at the marsh-upland border, a mixture of 

plants such as switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and shrubs such as marsh elder, groundsel tree 

(Baccharis halimifolia), Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides), and wax myrtle (Myrica 

cerifera) dominate (Teal, 1986; Dreyer and Niering, 1995). 

Page 2-12 

SC10982


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), 

Figure 2.12. Diamondback terrapin. 

Source: Central Pets Educational 

Foundation, 2006. 

alewife, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), bluefish, summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), white 

mullet (Mugil curema), and Atlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina). 

Page 2-13 

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. 

Figure 2.13. Palustrine (freshwater) 

wetland. 

Source: Sandy Hook Ocean Institute, 2006. 

Freshwater wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall are classified as 

palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands. These habitats include formerly forested wetlands that have 

been cleared and are now experiencing regrowth, and shrub dominated bogs. 

Page 2-14 

SC10982


Box 2.2. Ecological services provided by intertidal salt marsh habitats 

Intertidal salt marshes that are not impacted by contamination provide a number of important ecological 

functions. Some of these functions include: 

Generation of biological productivity. Salt marshes are among the most biologically productive 

ecosystems in the mid-Atlantic region. Although much primary production is used within the marsh 

itself, some is exported to adjacent estuaries and marine waters (Odum, 2000). 

Provision of habitat for biota. Providing habitat for the many species that are permanent or temporary 

residents is one of the most critical and best-known functions of salt marshes. Salt marshes provide all of 

the major habitat values to a broad array of species, including areas for food and water, reproduction, 

care of young, shelter from weather, and protection from predators. 

Vital support of the estuarine food web. Salt marshes are the primary source of much of the organic 

matter and nutrients that form the basis of the estuarine food web. Primary productivity includes both 

above-ground production (stalks and leaves) and below-ground production (roots and tubers) by marsh 

plants as well as benthic algae. Most vascular plant material enters a detritus-based food web driven by 

fungi, bacteria, and benthic algae (Currin et al., 1995). Small invertebrates such as copepods, 

amphiphods, annelids, snails, and insect larvae feed on this detritus. In turn, these organisms provide 

food for invertebrates such as saltmarsh snails (Melampus bidentatus), ribbed mussels, and fiddler crabs, 

and small resident fishes such as mummichog, sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus), and 

Atlantic silversides. The abundant invertebrates and small fishes of the marsh provide food for larger 

fish, birds, and other wildlife (Teal, 1962; Boesch and Turner, 1984; Kneib, 1986, 1997, 2000; Deegan 

et al., 2000). 

Nutrient cycling. The soils of salt marshes play an important role in the nitrogen cycle by transforming 

ammonia and nitrate (from organic waste products or fertilizer) into nitrogen gas in the process of 

denitrification. This is particularly important for fisheries because high nitrogen levels can be toxic. 

Marshes also remove excess nutrients in runoff from developed areas, helping to protect coastal water 

quality. 

Buffering from storms. The presence of salt marsh grasses such as Spartina alterniflora reduces the 

energy of waves moving shoreward, buffering shorelines from the impact of storm tides and helping to 

prevent shoreline erosion. The buffering effect of marsh vegetation also helps maintain water clarity 

(Grant and Patrick, 1970; as cited by Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). By reducing wave and current energy, 

salt marsh grasses are able to trap sediments, helping to control turbidity in nearshore waters. Excess 

sediments can fill underwater habitats and create turbid water conditions that harm aquatic life. 

Page 2-15 

SC10982


Emergent palustrine wetlands are dominated by rooted erect soft-stemmed plants. Plant species 

typically found in these wetlands include cattail (Typha spp.) and arrowhead (Sagittaria 

latifolia). No trees and few woody shrubs grow in these marshes, giving them the appearance of 

grassy and herb-covered fields. These wetlands often develop around shallow edges of rivers, 

ponds, and lakes. In northern New Jersey, emergent palustrine wetlands are often dominated by 

common reed (Phragmites australis). Native and non-native genotypes of Phragmites australis 

are present in North America (Saltonstall, 2002). Phragmites can choke out other vegetation 

resulting in a loss of diversity. Other desirable vegetation common in emergent palustrine 

wetlands includes arrowhead, arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), common rush (Juncus effusus), 

woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus), bur-reed (Sparganium spp.), 

spike rushes (Eleocharis spp.), blue flag (Iris versicolor), sweet flag (Acorus calamus), lizard’s 

tail (Saururus cernuus), smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis 

canadensis), and manna-grass (Glyceria striata) (Collins and Anderson, 1994). 

Forests develop in floodplains and as a late stage in pond succession. As shallow ponds fill with 

vegetation and silt, trees and shrubs invade. Wet sites near ponds and river edges are often 

dominated by thickets of alders (Alnus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus 

occidentalis), with lesser amounts of winterberry (Ilex verticillata), arrowwood (Viburnum 

dentatum), nannyberry (Virburnum lentago), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), 

swamp azalea (Rhododendron viscosum), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and witchhazel 

(Hamamelis virginiana). In drier areas, red maple, yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), 

American elm (Ulmus americana), pin oak, and silver maple (Acer saccharinum) dominate, with 

the amount of yellow birch declining south of the northern part of the state. Associated species 

include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum, tulip poplar, silver maple, hemlock (Tsuga 

canadensis), white ash (Fraxinus americana), basswood (Tilia americana), black gum (Nyssa 

sylvatica), and underlying shrubs (Collins and Anderson, 1994). 

Forested upland 

As elevation increases, palustrine wetlands shift into forested uplands. In addition to freshwater 

marshes, the upper reaches of the Arthur Kill watershed include upland forests of sycamore, 

sweetgum, red maple, pin oak, red oak (Quercus rubra), black oak (Quercus velutina), tulip 

poplar, hickories (Carya spp.), and silver maple (Greiling, 1993; USFWS, 1997). These forests 

are important for numerous wildlife species, particularly as stopover sites for migrating 

neotropical songbirds (USACE, 2004a). The remnant forest patches in the Arthur Kill area 

receive heavy use during migration seasons, particularly by warblers (Greiling, 1993). 

Preservation of existing forest patches, and expansion of the size of existing parcels, would 

increase the number and kind of species that can make use of the habitat. 

Page 2-16 

SC10982


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. 

Page 2-17 

SC10982

3. Nature and Extent of Contamination 

Contamination of the land and water at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries began as early as the 

1870s in Bayonne and the early 1900s in Bayway and continues to this day. Petroleum products 

and refinery waste products were spilled, discharged, or discarded on the ground and in the water 

(see Appendix A). Materials released to the land and water include hundreds of different organic 

contaminants and hazardous metals. Chemical wastes, including spilled products, effluents, and 

sludges, were generally routed into low-lying wetland areas adjacent to refinery operations. 

Many types of refinery waste were disposed of in these landfills, including sludges, separator 

bottoms, tank bottoms, petroleum-stained soils, filter clay, filter cake, and catalyst (Geraghty & 

Miller, 1993). Dredge materials that were used to fill salt marshes commonly contained high 

concentrations of petroleum products, chemicals, and metals. 

Today, many of these dredge fill areas still look and smell like petroleum waste dumps. Dredge 

fill areas and landfills were constructed without liners, so contaminants disposed in these areas 

have leaked into surrounding groundwater, soils, wetlands, and surface water. Spilled materials 

from pipeline ruptures, tank failures or overflows, and explosions have resulted in widespread 

groundwater, soil, and sediment contamination. Estuarine tidal creeks such as Morses Creek and 

its tributaries were illegally dammed, converting them from naturally brackish intertidal creeks 

to freshwater collection basins for spilled petroleum. 

This chapter provides more details on the nature and extent of contamination at the refineries. 

The results of our analysis confirm that both sites are contaminated with hundreds of pollutants 

associated with refinery operations. This contamination is pervasive throughout both properties. 

3.1 Contaminants 

Both refineries manufactured, handled, and processed heavy metals and many hundreds of 

organic contaminants. Figure 3.1 provides excerpts of a safety brochure from ConocoPhillips, 

the current Bayway refinery owner, that describes some of the current chemical hazards at the 

facility. Appendix A contains a site history report compiled using information that Exxon 

contractors assembled in the 1990s about the timeline and types of products handled at the 

SC10982

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

Figure 3.1. Excerpts from a safety brochure describing chemical hazards at the 

ConocoPhillips Bayway refinery in Linden, NJ, obtained during a site visit in October 

2006. 

Page 3-2 

SC10982


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 3-3 

SC10982



Bayway and Bayonne refineries (cont.) 

Analyte 

1,2-Dichloropropane 

2,4,6(1H,3H,5H)-Pyrimidinetrione, 5-ethy 

1,3-Butadiyne 

2,4-Dimethylphenol 


2,4-Dinitrophenol 


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 3-4 

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 3-5 

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 


Butyl hexadecanoate 


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 3-6 

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 


Chloromethane 


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- 


Cyclohexane, 1,3,5-trimethyl- 


Page 3-7 

SC10982




Analyte 


Dodecane, 4,6-dimethyl- 


Dodecylcyclohexane 


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- 


Heptane, 3-ethyl-2-methyl- 


Heptane, 3-methyl- 

Dodecane, 2-methyl-8-propyl- 

Heptane, 4-ethyl-2,2,6,6-tetramethyl- 

Page 3-8 

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 


Hexane 


Hexane, 2,2,4-trimethyl- 

Naphthalene, 1,7-dimethyl- 

Hexane, 2,2,5-trimethyl- 

Naphthalene, 1,8-dimethyl- 

Hexane, 2,3-dimethyl- 



Naphthalene, 2-ethyl- 


Naphthalene, 2-methyl-1-propyl- 

Hexane, 2-methyl- 

Naphthalene, decahydro-, trans- 


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-propylm,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 3-9 

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)- 


Phenol, 4-(-tetramethylbutyl)- 


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 


Squalene 


Styrene 


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 


Substituted pyridine 


Taraxasterol 

Phenanthrene, 3,4,5,6-tetramethyl- 

Taraxerol 


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 3-10 

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- 


Trimethyl-1,4-pentadiene 


Trimethyl-2-pentene 


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 3-11 

SC10982


Table 3.2. Contaminant screening threshold values used to evaluate 

soil and sediment data at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries 

Threshold 

Analyte 

(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) 





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 3-12 

SC10982



soil and sediment data at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries (cont.) 

Threshold 

Analyte 

(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) 







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 3-13 

SC10982




Threshold 

Analyte 

(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 3-14 

SC10982




Threshold 

Analyte 

(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 3-15 

SC10982




Threshold 

Analyte 

(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 3-16 

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 3-17 

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 3-18 

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 3-19 

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 3-20 

SC10982


Figure 3.2. Locations of contaminated groundwater at the Bayway Refinery, as 

designated by TRC Raviv Associates (2005). 

Page 3-21 

SC10982


Figure 3.3. Contaminant threshold exceedences and organic contaminant detections in 

soils and sediments at the Bayway Refinery. 

Page 3-22 

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 


metals (Table 3.4). Three of the IAOCs contained at least 34 analytes that exceeded 

criteria. In four of the IAOCs, at least 92% of the samples exceeded criteria, including 

100% of the samples at area C02. Figure 3.6 are photographs from C02, known as the 

Fire Fighter Landfill, adjacent to Arthur Kill. The photographs show petroleum “popups,” 

where viscous petroleum buried in the landfill pops out at the surface and oozes 

downgradient. 

In Unit D, 328 organic compounds have been detected, and 52 individual analytes have 


metals (Table 3.4). Exceedences of multiple analytes occurred throughout each of the 

seven IAOCs in this unit. In D02 and D04, concentrations of compounds at all of the 

sampling sites exceeded criteria. Some 43 contaminants exceeded thresholds in D04 

alone. 

In the Sludge Lagoon Operating Unit (SLOU), 92 organic compounds were detected, and 

44 individual analytes exceeded criteria, in samples collected prior to the attempted 

remediation of the SLOU in 2003 (see Appendix A). Contaminants that exceeded criteria 

included hydrocarbons, volatile organics, chlorinated pesticides, and metals (Table 3.4). 

Page 3-23 

SC10982


 

 

 

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 

Number of 

analytes 

IAOC 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 3-24 

SC10982



the Bayway Refinery (cont.) 

Number of 

analytes 

IAOC exceeded 


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- 


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, 


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- 


Page 3-25 

SC10982




Number of 

analytes 

IAOC exceeded 


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- 


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 3-26 

SC10982




Number of 

analytes 

IAOC exceeded 


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-nbutyl 

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- 


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 3-27 

SC10982




Number of 

analytes 

IAOC exceeded 


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, 


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- 


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 3-28 

SC10982




Number of 

analytes 

IAOC exceeded 


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, 


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 3-29 

SC10982




Number of 

analytes 

IAOC exceeded 


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- 


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, 


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-nbutyl 

phthalate, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dibenzofuran, Dichloromethane, Dieldrin, 

Endrin ketone, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Heptachlor, Heptachlor epoxide, 

Lead, Manganese, Mercury, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Naphthalene, Nickel, 

Pentachlorophenol, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Phenanthrene, Phenol, Pyrene, Styrene, 

Toluene, Xylenes (Total), Zinc, alpha-BHC, bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, p,p’- 

Methoxychlor 

Piles 

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 3-30 

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 3-31 

SC10982


Figure 3.5. Close-up view of tarry sludge deposited at the Pitch Area (A18) and along 

Morses Creek. 


Page 3-32 

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. 


Page 3-33 

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 

Piers and East Side, Treatment Plant 

Area, MDC Building Area 

Plume 

number 

Apparent 

thickness 

range (feet) 

Inferred type of petroleum 

contamination a 

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

Plant 

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 3-34 

SC10982


Figure 3.7. Approximate locations of groundwater petroleum plumes at the Bayonne Refinery. 

Source: Parsons, 2006. 

Page 3-35 

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. 


Page 3-36 

SC10982


Figure 3.9. Petroleum products discharged into the Platty Kill Creek. 


Page 3-37 

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 3-38 

SC10982


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

Page 3-39 

SC10982


Table 3.6. Contaminants that exceeded thresholds in soil and sediment samples collected 

at the Bayonne Refinery 

Number of 

analytes 

IAOC 

exceeded 


“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, 


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- 


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 3-40 

SC10982


Table 3.6. Contaminants that exceeded thresholds in soil and sediment samples collected 

at the Bayonne Refinery (cont.) 

Number of 

analytes 

IAOC 

exceeded 


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- 


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 1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

Treatment Plant Area 

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 3-41 

SC10982


Refinery 

Spills, discharges, disposal, leaks, fill activities 

Soil Sediment Surface water Groundwater 

Biota 

Figure 3.11. Pathways of contaminant transport from sources to natural resource 

receptors. 

3.3.1 Soil pathways 

Soils have been exposed directly to contamination by spills, discharges, leaks, filling with 

contaminated materials, and disposal of hazardous materials into landfills. The contaminated soil 

has itself exposed other natural resources to contamination. At the Bayway site, surface water 

has been exposed by overland flow and drainage from areas of contaminated land and soils. The 

erosion of contaminated surface soils and creek banks has exposed sediments in aquatic areas of 

the site. Hydrocarbon waste contained in soils can be mobilized by shallow groundwater and 

infiltrating precipitation in the unsaturated zone. Soil-water agitation tests conducted as part of 

the 2005 Revised Comprehensive BEE confirmed that soils collected throughout the site 

produced petroleum sheens upon agitation (AMEC Earth & Environmental, 2005). 

3.3.2 Sediment pathways 

Sediments were exposed to contamination by historic discharges, spills, and dumping of refinery 

waste in the creeks, sloughs, ditches, canals, and reservoirs, and by erosion of contaminated land 

surfaces and stream banks (Geraghty & Miller, 1993). 

Page 3-42 

SC10982


Contaminated sediments can serve as a continual source of contamination to surface water and 

aquatic biota. When flows are sufficient, or when physical disturbance causes resuspension of 

sediment, contaminated sediments can be transported and redeposited on the banks and beds of 

downstream reaches. 

3.3.3 Surface and groundwater pathways 

Surface water resources have been exposed to contamination by historic discharges, disposal 

activities, leaks, and spills. Surface water has been and continues to be exposed through the 

migration of contaminants from other natural resources, including surface water runoff over 

contaminated land that drains into the reservoirs and creeks, groundwater transport and discharge 

to surface water, and resuspension of contaminated sediments. Contaminated shallow 

groundwater at Bayway flows toward and discharges into Morses Creek, Piles Creek, the Arthur 

Kill, and the Rahway River (TRC Raviv Associates, 2005). At Bayonne, contaminated 

groundwater flows into Platty Kill Creek, the Kill van Kull, and Upper New York Bay. 

3.3.4 Exposure to biota 

As discussed in Chapter 2, the Hudson-Raritan Estuary supports a diverse array of birds, fish, 

mammals, invertebrates, and other biological resources. These biological resources, or “biota,” 

can be exposed to contaminants when the contamination is released directly to the ground 

surface or to surface water. Biota may also be exposed when contaminants are transported and 

released into the environment. Local wildlife such as egrets (Figure 3.12) can be attracted to the 

disposal area and exposed directly to the contamination. Biota that live in sediments may be 

exposed to contaminants that are transported from groundwater to surface water, and then 

migrate from the surface water into the sediment. As a result of these ecological processes, 

contamination at the refineries can be transported throughout the local environment, resulting in 

widespread exposure to biota. 

3.4 Conclusion 

Petroleum contamination at the refineries is geographically pervasive and ubiquitous. Exxon 

contractors have identified at least 750 acres of groundwater contaminated with petroleum 

products at the two refineries. Spills, discharges, leaks, and landfilling with waste and dredge 

material, in combination with transport of contaminants via groundwater and surface water 

pathways, have effectively spread contamination throughout the refinery properties. Local 

wildlife and biota are exposed to these toxic contaminants in soils, sediments, and surface water. 

Page 3-43 

SC10982


Figure 3.12. Great egret along Morses Creek, Bayway Refinery. 


Page 3-44 

SC10982

4. Restoration Plan 

The contaminated salt marsh, palustrine, and upland areas of the Bayway and Bayonne can be 

cleaned up and restored as viable habitats. In this chapter we describe a plan for that restoration. 

Our plan involves intensive contaminant removal and ecological restoration on-site, in portions 

of the facilities that currently are largely inactive. Without this restoration, the contamination 

will continue to impact natural resources for decades to come. In addition, to compensate for 

harm that cannot be addressed on-site because of ongoing industrial operations, and to 

compensate for harm that has accumulated over many decades of contamination, our plan also 

involves extensive off-site replacement actions. This off-site replacement will enhance natural 

resources in New Jersey. 

The value that New Jersey citizens place on restoration of coastal habitats and remaining green 

spaces in the New York Harbor, Newark Bay, and Arthur Kill areas is evident in the support they 

have given restoration and protection plans developed in the past several decades. From 1961 

through 1995, New Jersey voters approved bond issues that earmarked over $1.4 billion for land 

acquisition and park development (NJDEP, 2006a). The New Jersey Meadowlands Commission 

was created by an act of the New Jersey Legislature in 1968 and was passed into law in January 

1969 to preserve natural and open areas of the Meadowlands, to restore degraded wetlands, and 

to improve the water quality of the Hackensack River Estuary. In 1998, New Jersey voters 

approved a referendum that created a stable source of funding for open space, farmland, and 

historic preservation and recreation development. In 1999, the Garden State Preservation Trust 

Act was signed into law. This bill established a stable source of funding for preservation efforts 

(NJDEP, 2006a). 

Programs and conservation agencies and organizations such as the NJDEP Green Acres 

Program, NJ Meadowlands Commission, NJ Meadowlands Conservation Trust, NJDEP’s 

Landscape Project, the New Jersey Natural Lands Trust, the New Jersey Conservation 

Foundation (NJCF), the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program (HEP), the NY/NJ BayKeeper, the 

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), USFWS, and NOAA are actively working to 

protect, preserve, and restore the ecological integrity and productivity of natural resources in the 

area, and to provide public access to such green spaces. These thriving preservation and 

restoration programs evidence local and regional support for restoration and preservation of 

natural areas. 

Our proposed restoration and replacement projects will seamlessly complement existing visions 

for green space corridors in Union, Essex, and Hudson counties. Open spaces in these counties 

are at a premium. Implementing the required environmental restoration in this area will 

substantially benefit natural habitats and wildlife that currently are limited in this highly 

urbanized region. 

SC10982

Stratus Consulting Restoration Plan (11/3/2006) 

4.1 Background: Ecological Restoration of Contaminated Sites 

The Society for Ecological Restoration defines restoration as “the process of assisting the 

recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (Society for 

Ecological Restoration, 2004). The NJDEP (2006b) states that “restoration is the remedial action 

that returns the natural resources to pre-discharge conditions. It includes the rehabilitation of 

injured resources, replacement, or acquisition of natural resources and their services, which were 

lost or impaired. Restoration also includes compensation for the natural resource services lost 

from the beginning of the injury through to the full recovery of the resource.” 

Ecological restoration has become a common business practice of socially responsible industry, 

and conservation of environmental integrity a recognized objective in the petroleum industry (see 

Box 4.1). Industry associations reflect and support this trend by providing guidance for 

conservation and restoration activities undertaken by corporations. The International Petroleum 

Industry Environmental Conservation Association provides support with such publications as 

“The Oil and Gas Industry: Operating in Sensitive Environments” and “A Guide to Developing 

Biodiversity Action Plans for the Oil and Gas Sector.” 

Box 4.1. Petroleum industry statements regarding environmental management 

“ExxonMobil recognizes the importance of conserving biodiversity – the variety of life on Earth. 

Because our business spans the globe, we face the challenge of conducting operations in many areas 

with sensitive biological characteristics. Our systematic approach to environmental management and our 

commitment to understanding the human and natural environments in which we work provide us with a 

framework to meet these challenges effectively.” (ExxonMobil, 2005) 

“When environmental laws and regulations don’t meet our basic standards of doing business, our 

responsibility takes us beyond compliance.” – Steve Elbert, head of BPs remediation management 

group. (Conte, 2006) 

“We consider biodiversity to be a key element in decision-making and an integral part of our operations. 

In 2001, we were the first energy company to adopt a Biodiversity Standard outlining our commitment 

to work with others to maintain ecosystems, respect protected areas and make a positive contribution to 

the conservation of global flora and fauna.” (Shell.com, 2006) 

Indeed, Exxon previously funded actions to restore coastal wetlands of the Arthur Kill estuary to 

compensate the public for losses related to petroleum contamination. In January 1990, a Bayway 

pipeline running beneath the Arthur Kill ruptured, spilling 567,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil. 

Over 100 acres of salt marsh were oiled, killing the marsh vegetation, fish, crabs, clams, and 

other invertebrates dependent on the wetland habitat. An estimated 700 birds died as a result of 

the spill. As a result of natural resource damage claims brought by federal and state natural 

resource trustees, Exxon agreed to pay $11.5 million in settlement to restore injured natural 

resources (NOAA et al., 2006). 

Page 4-2 

SC10982


With part of the settlement funds, the natural resource trustees planted approximately 

250,000 seedlings of Spartina alterniflora in three oiled locations (Old Place Creek, Saw Mill 

Creek, and Prall’s Island). Approximately six acres of hand-planted native marsh grasses are 

flourishing (Bergen et al., 2000), and additional plantings are ongoing. The trustees also used 

settlement monies to acquire land for conservation purposes and to restore or enhance resources 

similar to those that were damaged by the oil spill (Figure 4.1 and Box 4.2). Other actions 

undertaken as part of the restoration plan included: 

 

 

 

 

Purchasing over 30 acres of land in the Goethals Bridge Pond complex on Staten Island 

that were exposed to oil during the spill. The acquired lands are a mixture of upland 

forested habitats and freshwater, brackish, and salt marsh environments. The lands buffer 

Goethals Bridge Pond, a brackish water pond that is a critical feeding habitat for wading 

birds. 

Acquiring and protecting 25 acres of freshwater wetlands and upland forest habitat in 

Edison, NJ, at the headwaters of the Rahway River, a tributary of the Arthur Kill. 

Enhancing and restoring salt marshes in the Saw Mill Creek Preserve. Restoration actions 

included removal of restrictions on tidal flow, removal of Phragmites, and propagation 

and planting of Spartina alterniflora seedlings. 

Restoring 18 acres of wetlands at Bridge Creek, Staten Island, removing Phragmites, 

restoring tidal flow, and creating habitat for nearshore and inshore finfish, crabs, ocean 

bottom invertebrates, and numerous waterfowl. 

Figure 4.1. Intertidal wetland restoration project on the Arthur Kill at the base of the 

Goethals Bridge, Staten Island. 


Page 4-3 

SC10982


Box 4.2. Harbor Herons Wildlife Refuge. Located in the Arthur Kill near the Bayway Refinery, the 

refuge is an example of how sensitive ecosystems and wildlife can thrive in highly urbanized areas. 

In the heart of New York City lies an environmental treasure partially created out of the provisions of the 

Clean Water Act and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement. This “diamond-in-therough” 

is Harbor Herons Wildlife Refuge near Staten Island. Once a highly polluted area, the 278-acre 

refuge is now home to some 1,200 nesting pairs of herons, egrets and ibises. During the spring and winter 

migrations, the refuge also serves as an important resting point along the Atlantic Flyway. The area now 

comprising the refuge is situated in the Arthur Kill, an ocean waterway separating Staten Island from New 

Jersey. In the 1970s, the Arthur Kill was plagued with high levels of industrial pollution. Decades of misuse 

had degraded the Kill’s tidal wetlands and driven waterfowl away. Beginning in the mid-1970s, however, 

permits issued under the Clean Water Act severely restricted discharges in the New York Harbor area. Over 

the next decade, water quality improved, the wetland ecosystem recovered and waterfowl populations 

returned and began to flourish. In 1990, an untimely event stopped the area’s recovery short. An underwater 

pipeline owned by Exxon ruptured in the Arthur Kill. Over 560,000 gallons of oil spilled from the ruptured 

pipe, damaging marsh grasses and ruining much of the area’s habitat and food sources. A lawsuit was filed 

by government agencies to recover the damages caused by the spill. In the ensuing case, Exxon was 

required to pay a substantial fine and to establish a trust fund dedicated to restoring the natural resources 

damaged by the oil. Soon thereafter, land was purchased using the newly established fund, and was 

officially designated Harbor Herons Wildlife Refuge. From a troubled environmental past, the Arthur Kill 

and Harbor Herons Wildlife Refuge have emerged as examples of the benefits of environmental protection. 

Text: U.S. EPA, 1996. 


Page 4-4 

SC10982


In addition to these projects, the NJDEP, 

working with its local and government 

partners, is currently implementing a 

17-acre wetland restoration project on the 

Woodbridge River, a tributary of the 

Arthur Kill in Woodbridge, NJ 

(Figure 4.2). The project involves 

removing portions of a dike that restricts 

tidal flushing and creating tidal channels 

through the wetland to restore natural 

tidal flow, as well as removing an 

existing degraded Phragmites wetland 

and restoring a Spartina intertidal marsh 

(NOAA et al., 2006). This project, when 

complete, will provide habitat for birds, 

wildlife, and estuarine fish and shellfish. 

4.2 Amount and Cost of 

Restoration Needed 

Actions that should be undertaken 

include both the restoration of 

contaminated habitats in inactive areas of 

the refineries and off-site restoration of 

similar habitats. This off-site replacement 

compensates for the ecological 

impairments that have accrued over the 

years since contamination began at the 

refineries and for the active areas of the 

refineries where restoration cannot be 

performed. In the sections below, we 

describe the on- and off-site restoration 

actions and costs. 

Figure 4.2. Woodbridge River wetland 

restoration project. 

Photos: Joshua Lipton, Stratus Consulting. 

Page 4-5 

SC10982


4.2.1 On-site restoration 

Development of the plan for on-site restoration involved input from a number of scientists, 

engineers, and the NJDEP. Restoration specifications and costs were developed by 3TM 

International (2006). The following principles were used in developing the plan: 

 

 

 

Preference was given for on-site restoration where feasible and where restoration could 

be performed without unreasonably restricting ongoing refinery operations at active units 

Active refinery areas will be segregated from restored habitats using slurry walls and 

other contaminant control technologies such as trenches, barriers, and pumping systems 

to prevent migration of contamination from active refinery areas into the restored habitats 

Refinery infrastructure (above- and below-ground) will be removed and relocated, as 

necessary, to enable ongoing refinery operations and to minimize interference with 

restoration. 

Contaminated and degraded, damaged, or destroyed habitat on the Bayway Refinery property 

and within the channels of Morses and Piles creeks includes 551 acres of intertidal salt marsh 

connected with subtidal and intertidal channels, 626 acres of palustrine forest and meadow 

habitat, and 149 acres of upland forest (see Chapter 2). Some 464 acres of intertidal marsh and 

connecting channels, 59 acres of palustrine meadow or forest, and 28 acres of upland forest and 

meadow habitat fall outside of active refinery areas and can be restored. The remaining acreage 

(774 acres) is part of the active operations at the refinery, and cannot currently be restored. 

Compensation for these areas is achieved through off-site replacement (Section 4.2.2). 

Within the historical extent of the Bayonne Refinery property and Platty Kill Creek, 

contaminated and destroyed habitat includes over 103 acres of intertidal wetlands, 134 acres of 

subtidal habitat, 212 acres of palustrine meadows, and 27 acres of upland meadows (see 

Chapter 2). Some 132 acres of subtidal habitat was destroyed by fill prior to being contaminated, 

so we excluded these areas from our calculations of required restoration and replacement. 

Because of restrictions associated with active industrial uses of the facility, only 25 acres can be 

restored on-site at Bayonne. The remaining impacts must be compensated through off-site 

replacement. 

Figure 4.3 depicts the plan for habitat restoration at Bayway; Figure 4.4 shows the plan for 

habitat restoration at Bayonne. 

Page 4-6 

SC10982


Figure 4.3. Plan for on-site restoration at the Bayway facility. Intertidal wetlands will be 

restored adjacent to the Arthur Kill and along Morses Creek. The dams on Morses Creek will be removed 

to return it to its former condition as a tidal creek. Palustrine meadow/forest will be created on the western 

boundaries of the site. Upland forest will be restored to the far southwest near the Linden Airport. 

Page 4-7 

SC10982


Figure 4.4. Plan for on-site restoration at the Bayonne facility. Because of ongoing industrial 

activities, on-site restoration is limited to restoring intertidal wetlands along Platty Kill Creek to the 

southwest and near the current golf course to the east. 

Page 4-8 

SC10982


The specific steps required to restore habitats at the sites are detailed in 3TM International 

(2006). In summary, restoration of habitats at Bayway and Bayonne will involve: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contaminant removal from inactive areas of the refinery, the reservoirs, and the channels, 

and secure disposal of removed materials. This will include delineation of areas and 

volumes for removal; establishment of cleanup criteria; performing a feasibility study to 

select technical alternatives for cleanup; removal or relocation of above ground and 

below ground infrastructure; removal, treatment, and disposal of contaminated materials; 

and confirmation sampling after removals are complete. 

Regrading and recontouring soils and sediments to create appropriate subtidal, intertidal, 

and palustrine forest and meadow slopes and elevations. 

Removal of dams and barriers to tidal flow on Morses Creek and through restored 

intertidal wetland habitats. 

Constructing a series of trenches, barriers, and pumping systems to prevent migration of 

contamination from active refinery areas into the restored habitats. 

Replanting and reseeding to establish desirable native vegetation. 

Monitoring and maintenance to protect plantings; ensure their survival, establishment, 

and growth; and to track the development of the habitat and ecosystem functions and 

services that are the goal of restoration. 

3TM International (2006) contains a detailed cost estimate for on-site restoration at Bayway and 

Bayonne. The estimate includes the costs of program management, pre-construction activities, 

contaminant removal, habitat restoration activities, and maintenance and monitoring. The 

estimated cost of on-site restoration at the Bayway and Bayonne sites, implemented over the 

course of many years, is $2.5 billion. 

4.2.2 Off-site restoration 

Additional off-site restoration is required to compensate for past harm and because active areas 

of the refineries cannot be restored. To determine the correct amount of off-site replacement, we 

employed the Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) method. This method, originally developed 

by NOAA, has been described in a number of published technical articles (e.g., Chapman et al., 

1998; Peacock, 1999; NOAA, 2000; Strange et al., 2002, 2004; Allen et al., 2005), and has been 

applied by government agencies and industries at a large number of contaminated sites 

throughout the United States. 

Page 4-9 

SC10982


To determine the total loss at the refinery sites, the acreage of contaminated habitat is summed 

each year, starting from the year that the contamination began and ending in the year in which 

the habitat is expected to be restored. If the on-site habitat is not going to be restored, we assume 

that harm will continue for an additional 100 years. Based on standard practice, an economic 

discount rate of 3% is included in quantifying losses and in quantifying the ecological benefits of 

off-site replacement. 1 This discount rate compounds losses from the past, and discounts losses 

that occur in the future. The resulting sum is expressed in present-value terms as “discounted 

acre-years” of harm. 

The amount of off-site replacement required was determined by calculating the acres of habitat 

restoration that will provide environmental benefits equal to the harm. The cost of those 

replacement actions represent the off-site restoration cost. The same process of applying a 

3% discounting of future replacement actions is performed to ensure that both the benefits of 

replacement actions and the total harm are expressed in present value terms. Details of our 

calculations are provided in Appendix B. 

We used information on historical operations compiled by Exxon’s contractors to identify the 

time at which contamination began in different areas of the Bayway and Bayonne refineries. We 

overlayed maps of historical habitats, as described in Chapter 2, with maps depicting areas of 

common operational history. In addition, we identified parcels of land that can be restored on 

site. Using the acreages of historical habitat type, the dates at which contamination began in each 

parcel, and estimates of when certain acreage may be restored, we calculated a present-value 

acreage of lost intertidal habitat, palustrine meadow/forest habitat, and upland meadow/forest 

habitat (see Appendix B). 2 

Table 4.1 summarizes the present-value of lost acreage in units of discounted acre-years. The 

total represents the present value of the acre-years of off-site restoration needed to compensate 

for losses of intertidal and subtidal habitat, palustrine meadow/forest habitat, and upland 

meadow/forest habitat at the two refineries. 

1. Use of a 3% discount rate is standard industry practice in calculating damages back to 1980 or the 1970s 

(see NOAA, 1999, 2000). However, selection of the appropriate discount rate to apply as far back as the late 

1800s is a matter of debate among economists. For consistency with standard NRDA practice and absent 

information suggesting an alternative approach, we have applied a constant 3% discount rate for all 

calculations. 

2. Intertidal salt marsh and associated subtidal creek and bottom areas, functionally, are restored through 

similar projects. Therefore, we combined these two associated habitat types in developing our plan for off-site 

replacement. 

Page 4-10 

SC10982


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-ofheaven). 

Invasion by these species can choke out native species and reduce the quality of the 

habitat for nesting birds. Palustrine forest/meadow restoration typically involves removal of nonnative 

vegetation, regrading to establish appropriate soil salinity and hydroperiod, replanting 

with native species, and maintenance to protect plantings. Vegetation establishment and 

development of critical habitat features (such as the branch structure needed for bird nesting 

habitat) in palustrine wetlands takes longer than in intertidal habitats. Therefore, for palustrine 

meadow and forest, we assumed that complete recovery will take 25 years. 

Upland forests in the Arthur Kill area typically comprise sycamore, sweetgum, red maple, pin 

oak, red oak, black oak, tulip poplar, hickories, and silver maple (Greiling, 1993; USFWS, 

1997). These forests are important for numerous wildlife species, and particularly as stopover 

sites for migrating neotropical songbirds (USACE, 2004a). Upland forest restoration typically 

requires identifying an area with suitable soil and topography to support the growth of native 

hardwood species, clearing existing vegetation or structures, planting seedlings and saplings, and 

maintenance to suppress competing invasive species and control herbivory (e.g., deer browsing). 

Based on the time required for natural succession of woodland habitat in New Jersey (Collins 

Page 4-11 

SC10982


and Anderson, 1994, Figure 1-3), we assumed that restoration of full upland forest services will 

take 40 years. 

We calculated services provided through the year 2109, as the benefits provided after 100 years 

are negligible when discounted at a 3% rate. Using these parameters, we determined that each 

acre of restored intertidal habitat will provide a total of 21.8 discounted acre-years of benefit 

through 2109; each acre of restored palustrine meadow/forest habitat will provide 

20.3 discounted acre-years of benefit; and each acre of restored upland meadow/forest habitat 

will provide 16.6 discounted acre-years of benefit. More details on the calculations are provided 

in Appendix B. 

To determine how many acres of habitat replacement are needed, we divided the total accrued 

harm for each habitat type by the ecological benefit that will be realized from each acre of 

replacement habitat. The following acreage of offsite habitat restoration is required (Table 4.2): 

 

Intertidal salt marsh: 

239,584 discounted acre-years ÷ 21.5 acre-years per acre = 

10,998 acres of off-site intertidal habitat 

 

Palustrine meadow/forest: 


18,896 acres of off-site palustrine meadow/forest habitat 

 

Upland meadow/forest: 


3,425 acres of off-site upland meadow/forest habitat. 

In order to calculate the total cost of the off-site replacement, we developed average unit costs 

for restoration of intertidal habitat, palustrine meadow/forest habitat, and upland meadow/forest 

habitat. Details of the cost analysis are presented in Appendix C. 

Table 4.2. Acres of off-site replacement habitat restoration required. Values 

rounded for presentation. 

Habitat Bayway Bayonne Combined 

Intertidal 6,809 4,189 10,998 

Palustrine meadow/forest 10,587 8,310 18,896 

Upland meadow/forest 2,112 1,313 3,425 

Page 4-12 

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$) 

Required restoration 

(acres) 

Cost 

($million/acre) 

Cost 

($millions) 

Habitat to be replaced 

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 4-13 

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 4-14 

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 4-15 

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. 

Page 4-16 

SC10982

5. Literature Cited 

3TM International. 2006. Summary Expert Report. New Jersey Natural Resource Damage 

Claims New Jersey v ExxonMobil Corporation Bayonne and Bayway, New Jersey Sites. 3TM 

International, Inc., Houston, TX. November 3. 

ADL. 2000a. Bayway Phase IB Remedial Investigation: Baseline Ecological Evaluation, 

Appendix R. Prepared by Arthur D. Little for ExxonMobil. 

ADL. 2000b. Bayway Phase IB Remedial Investigation. Draft Report, Volumes I through VI. 

Prepared by Arthur D. Little. 

Aero-Data. 2006. Historical aerial photo series of the Bayonne and Bayway refineries, from 1939 

through 2003. Aero-Data Corporation, Baton Rouge, LA. 

Allen II, P.D., D.J. Chapman, and D. Lane. 2005. Scaling environmental restoration to offset 

injury using habitat equivalency analysis. Chapter 8 in Economics and Ecological Risk 

Assessment, Applications to Watershed Management, R.J.F. Bruins and M.T. Heberling (eds.). 

CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 165-184. 

AMEC Earth & Environmental. 2005. Draft Revised Comprehensive Baseline Ecological 

Evaluation, Bayway Refinery, Linden, New Jersey. Volume I: Report, Figures, Tables. Prepared 

for ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company, Linden, NJ. June. Somerset, NJ. 

American Littoral Society. 2006. Atlantic Coast Restoration Inventory. April 14. 

Bayonne Industries. 1998. Platty Kill Canal Phase II Sediment Investigation Report, Bayonne, 

New Jersey. March 25. 

Bergen, A., C. Alderson, R. Bergfors, C. Aquila, and M.A. Matsil. 2000. Restoration of a 

Spartina alterniflora salt marsh following a fuel oil spill, New York City, NY. Wetlands Ecology 

and Management 8(2-3):185-195. 

Beyer, W.N. 1990. Evaluating Soil Contamination. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Biological Report 

90(2). U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Bluestone Environmental Services, Bayonne Industries, and ExxonMobil. 2000. Remedial 

Action Selection Report, Platty Kill Canal, Bayonne, New Jersey. Prepared for Bayonne 

Industries and ExxonMobil, Bayonne, New Jersey. February. 

SC10982

Stratus Consulting Literature Cited (11/3/2006) 

Boesch, D.F. and R.E. Turner. 1984. Dependence of fishery species on salt marshes: The role of 

food. Estuaries 7:460-468. 

Brown and Caldwell, QEA, Hydroqual, Entrix, and ISP-ESI. 2006. Off site conditions ISP-ESI 

Linden Site. Prepared for ISP Environmental Services Inc. using information generated by 

Brown and Caldwell, QEA, Hydroqual, Entrix, and ISP-ESI. 

CCME. 1997. Recommended Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines. Canadian Council of Ministers 

of the Environment. March. 

Central Pets Educational Foundation. 2006. Index of Critter Images/Reptiles/Turtles. Available: 

http://www.centralpets.com/animals/reptiles/turtles/tur4983.html. Accessed 10/26/2006. 

Chapman, D., N. Iadanza, and T. Penn. 1998. Calculating Resource Compensation: An 

Application of the Service-to-Service Approach to the Blackbird Mine, Hazardous Waste Site. 

Technical Paper 97-1. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Damage 

Assessment and Restoration Program. 

Collins, B.R. and K.H. Anderson. 1994. Plant Communities of New Jersey: A Study in 

Landscape Diversity. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, DC. 

Crommentuijn, T., D.F. Kalf, M.D. Polder, R. Posthumus, and E.J. van de Plassche. 1997. 

Maximum Permissible Concentrations and Negligible Concentrations for Pesticides. RIVM 

Report No. 601501002. 

Currin, C.A., S.Y. Newell, and H.W. Paerl. 1995. The role of standing dead Spartina alterniflora 

and benthic macroalgae in salt marsh food webs: Considerations based on multiple stable isotope 

analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 121:99-116. 

Deegan, L.A., J.E. Hughes, and R.A. Rountree. 2000. Salt marsh ecosystem support of marine 

transient species. In Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, M.P. Weinstein and 

D.A. Kreeger (eds.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 333-368. 

Dreyer, G.D. and W.A. Niering (eds.). 1995. Tidal Marshes of Long Island Sound: Ecology, 

History, and Restoration. The Connecticut College Arboretum, New London. 

Edinger, G.J., D.J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T.G. Howard, D.M. Hunt, and A.M. Olivero (eds.). 2002. 

Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition. A revised and expanded edition of 

Page 5-2 

SC10982


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 5-3 

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 5-4 

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.p 

df. Accessed 10/24/2006. 

NPS. 2003. Great egret (Casmerodius albus). Available: 

http://www.nps.gov/archive/prsf/nathist1/wildlife/birds/great_egret.htm. Accessed 10/30/2006. 

NY/NJ Baykeeper. 2006. Geography: The Hudson-Raritan Estuary. Available: 

http://www.nynjbaykeeper.org/geography/. Accessed 10/26/2006. 

Odum, E.P. 2000. Tidal marshes as outwelling/pulsing systems. In Concepts and Controversies 

in Tidal Marsh Ecology, M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger (eds.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 

The Netherlands, pp. 3-7. 

Parsons. 2004. Surface Water Investigation Report: Former Exxon Site, Bayonne, New Jersey 

Free Oil Recovery Project (FORP). Volume 1: Text, Table, Figures. Prepared for ExxonMobil 

Refining and Supply – Global Remediation, Bayonne, New Jersey. August; Revised September 

2004. Boston, MA. 

Parsons. 2006. Remedial Investigation Work Plan for IAOCs A, B, C, D, E; Former Exxon Site, 

Bayonne, New Jersey. Volume 1: Text, Tables, Figures. Prepared for ExxonMobil Refining & 

Supply, Bayonne, NJ. August. 

Peacock, B. 1999. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: Conceptual Background and Hypothetical 

Example. National Park Service, Environmental Quality Division, Washington, DC. April 30. 

Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. 1994. Proposed Guidelines for the Clean-up of 

Contaminated Sites in Ontario. ISBN 0-7778-3024-8. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. July. 

Rountree, R.A. and K.W. Able. 1992. Fauna of polyhaline subtidal marsh creeks in southern 

New Jersey: Composition, abundance and biomass. Estuaries 15:171-185. 

Page 5-5 

SC10982


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 5-6 

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. 

Page 5-7 

SC10982

A. Site Histories of the ExxonMobil Bayway 

and Bayonne Refineries 

A.1 Introduction 

A.1.1 Background 

In 2004, the State of New Jersey (“State”) brought a suit against the ExxonMobil Corporation 

(“Exxon”) 1 for cleanup and removal costs, including natural resource damages, at the Exxon 

Bayway site located in Linden, NJ, and the Exxon Bayonne site in Bayonne, NJ. On May 26, 

2006, Judge Anzaldi of the New Jersey Superior Court ruled that Exxon should be held strictly 

liable for natural resource damages, including restoration. 

This appendix contains a summary of site history information obtained from reports prepared by 

Exxon and its contractors. We used this to provide background information and context in 

quantifying natural resource damages. However, we emphasize that the summary is not 

intended to reflect or limit our ability to offer opinions that differ from those presented in 

the Exxon reports, and we reserve the right to differ from conclusions or representations 

made in those original reports, including conclusions regarding site remediation, the 

efficacy of contaminant removals, or other mitigation claimed by Exxon and their 

consultants. Moreover, the documents we reviewed were prepared by Exxon as part of 

remedial investigation activities; the documents do not address restoration, replacement, or 

natural resource damages. 

This appendix is organized as follows: Section A.1.2 describes the data sources from which the 

information in this document originated. Section A.2 summarizes the industrial history of the 

Bayway Refinery. Section A.3 summarizes the industrial history of the Bayonne Refinery. 

1. In this report, “Exxon” and “ExxonMobil” refer to the current ExxonMobil Corporation, as well as all the 

predecessor and subsidiary companies that conducted operations at these sites, including but not limited to 

Standard Oil of New Jersey, Esso Standard Oil Company, Humble Oil & Refining Company, Exxon Chemical 

Americas, and Exxon Company, USA. 

SC10982

Stratus Consulting Appendix A (11/3/2006) 

A.1.2 Data sources 

This report contains a summary of information provided in previous remedial investigation (RI) 

reports prepared by Exxon and its contractors. 2 Information from the following documents was 

compiled in this review: 

Bayway 

Bayway Site History Report (Geraghty & Miller, 1993) 

Phase 1B Remedial Investigation Report (ADL, 2000b) 

Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit Remedial Investigation (Geraghty & Miller, 1995c) 

 

Baseline Environmental Evaluations (ADL, 1994, 2000a; AMEC Earth & Environmental, 

2004, 2005; TRC Raviv Associates, 2005) 

ISP-ESI Linden Site Off-Site Conditions Report (Brown and Caldwell et al., 2006) 

Aerial photos taken between 1939 and 2003 (Aero-Data, 2006). 

Bayonne 

Bayonne Site History Report (Geraghty & Miller, 1994) 

 

 

A Superior Court ruling from 1977 that presents some details of the past industrial history 

at Bayonne (Superior Court of New Jersey, 1977) 

Platty Kill Creek site background summary (Author Unknown, Undated) 

An historical map showing the extent of the refinery property in 1933 (NJDEP, 1990) 

Aerial photos taken between 1939 and 2003 (Aero-Data, 2006). 

A.2 Bayway Refinery 

The Bayway Refinery is an active industrial facility located in the cities of Linden and Elizabeth, 

NJ, west of the Arthur Kill in New York Harbor (Figure A.1). The New Jersey Turnpike passes 

through the refinery property. Elevations are generally less than 10 feet above mean sea level. 

2. Exxon reports did not address natural resource restoration or damages. 

Page A-2 

SC10982


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

Page A-3 

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-4 

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-5 

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-6 

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 (H 2 S), 

monoethanolamine (MEA), and catalyst. Documented spills in IAOC A01 include a gas oil spill 

of 2,700 pounds in 1991, and a heavy oil spill when a vessel exploded on Refinery Avenue in 

1970. Tables A.2, A.3, and A.4 summarize waste materials disposed or handled in Unit A, and 

reported spills in Unit A. 

The Powerformer (IAOC A02) was part of the original operations area. The area originally 

contained crude stills and groups of small tanks, and after 1940, plants for production of poly, 

pentane, and propane. The IAOC is divided into three process areas: the Powerformer, the 

alkylation area, and the polymerization area. Materials associated with the Powerformer include 

gasoline, di-tertiary nonyl polysulfide (TNPS), and chlorine. Materials associated with the 

alkylation area include sulfuric acid, caustic, and gasoline. Materials associated with the 

polymerization area include gasoline, sour water, caustic, and MEA. Documented spills in IAOC 

A02 include a release of heavy oil from an explosion at the Heavy-Oil unit in 1970, and base oil 

leaks near Brunswick and Standard avenues (no date given). 

Operations in the Catalytic Light Ends area (IAOC A03), the Utilities Unit (IAOC A04), the 

Sulfur Recovery Unit (IAOC A05), and the Isomerization Unit (IAOC A06) began before 1940. 

Materials currently associated with these IAOCs include gasoline (A03, A06), fuel oil (A03, 

A04), water treatment chemicals (A04), sulfur and Stretford solution (A05), and diesel (A06). 

An explosion occurred at the Catalytic Light Ends unit in 1978. 

Page A-7 

SC10982


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

Page A-8 

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-9 

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-10 

SC10982


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

Approximate 

years of 

operations in 

IAOC Name 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 1940 to present Gasoline, fuel oil 

Ends 

A04 Utilities 1940 to present Fuel oil, water treatment chemicals 

A05 Sulfur Recovery 1940 to present Sulfur, Stretford solution 

Unit 

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 

A09 

A10 

Gasoline Blending 

Tankfield 

Conservation Area 

(West Separator, 

BIOX) 

Gasoline 

Component 

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 

1917 to present Process wastewater from cracking coil units, slop oil, 

hydrocarbon solids from erosion and sandblasting, stormwater 

and oil from the separator 

1940 to present Feedstocks, MTBE, intermediate reformate, powerformer feed, 

isomerization unit feed, light sulfur vacuum, light catalytic 

naphtha, isomerate, alkylate, domestic heavy virgin naphtha, 

toluene, oil 

A11 Hydrofiner Unit 1940 to present Gasoline, jet fuel, caustic, gas oil 

A12 No. 4 Component 

Tankfield 

1935 to present Gas oil, No. 6 light sulfur fuel oil, naphtha, AC-20 asphalt, slop 

oil, cresylic caustic, sulfidic caustic, bleach oil, powerformer 

feed 

Page A-11 

SC10982


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

Approximate 

years of 

operations in 



A13 Domestic Trade 

Terminal and 

1940 to present Waste motor oil, gasoline, gasoline additives, heating oil, diesel, 

tank bottoms, wastewater, oil 

Tankfield 

A14 Greater Elizabeth 

Tankfield 

1940 to present Gas oil, AC-20 asphalt, fuel oil, volatile materials 

A15 

A16 

West Side 

Chemical Plant 

Cogeneration Plant 

(and Fuel Gas 

area) 

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 

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 1940 to 1990 No information available in documents reviewed. 

and Mechanical 

Area 

A20 Park Avenue 1951 to present No information available in documents reviewed. 

Administration 

MEA: monoethanolamine. 

MEK: methyl ethyl ketone. 

MIBK: methyl isobutyl ketone. 

MTBE: methyl tertiary butyl ether. 

TNPS: di-tertiary nonyl polysulfide. 

Page A-12 

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 



West separator 

5/8/1986 Oil Tank 133, Down sewer, pure oil coming out 

BIOX area 

12/1985- Oil 

Dam No. 2, Coming out of dam 

1/1986 

11/25/1988 Unknown Tank 136, Gasket leak 

Gasoline blending tankfield 

2/26/1985 Gasoline Floor leak, gasoline seeping from numerous areas around Tank 350 

11/12/1985 Gasoline Large amount of gasoline inside fire bank of Tank 354 mixer 

3/27/1986 Butane Spheroid 195, Spheroid 195 ruptured, leaking badly 

4/29/1987 165 barrels caustic Tank 105, LHC steam leak 

2/13/1990 2,000 gallons sulfuric acid Tank 101, Historical 

Refinery area 

7/22/1985 Oil Sewers, Large oil leak coming out of old sewer at Morses Mill 

Road opposite West Separator until August 11, 1985 

10/17/1987 Base oil Railroad Avenue and Public Service right-of-way, Large amount 

3/5/1988 Unknown Tank 128, Bottom leak 

11/14/1991 100-300 gallons caustic/ Tank 3, Historical 

water 

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

Page A-13 

SC10982



Refinery, Linden, NJ (cont.) 


East Side Chemical Plant 

1/15/1987 2,000 gallons methyl Tank 880, Leak to sewers, cleaned up by vacuum trucks 

isobutyl ketone 

7/23/1991 Oil sheen ESR basin, Historical 

Cogeneration and Fuel Gas area 

11/8/1991 Oil Fuel Gas area, Historical 

Spills noted by Bayway Refinery personnel 


No date Catalyst Used as landfill material in flare area 

No date Low pH groundwater Leaking sewer 

No date Acid coke Washed out of tanks onto ground 

No date Lead From lead coil cooler overflows and leaks 

No date Sulfur From white oil sludge 

No date Ketone and acid From tank overfills 

No date High TOCs and sulfate In dismantled IBW Unit 

No date Filter cake Used as fill in ESCP control house 

No date Catalyst and ceramic balls Used as fill material 

No date Methyl ethyl ketone From numerous spills 

No date Acid coke SBW area used for drum storage and transfers 

No date Caustic and acid From leaks and overfills at Tanks 872 and 878 

No date Possibly sulfur In fire banks of Tank 880 

No date Alcohols From operating units for ketone, methyl isbutyl ketone, and for 

butyl extraction 

No date Acids and hydrocarbons In ditch leading to Morses Creek 

No date Oil From spills at Tanks 7901 and 7902 

No date Acetone From major spill in ESCP 

No date Methyl isobutyl carbinol, Near loading rack 

ketones, alcohols 

No date Butyl alcohol From tank leak 

1930 Unknown Alcohol plant, Explosion 

West Side Chemical Plant 

No date Oil Near old Paratone Tank 631 

No date Unknown From spills at railcar unloading area near West Side Avenue 

No date Unknown From spills over 20 years at tanks along West Side Avenue 

Page A-14 

SC10982



Refinery, Linden, NJ (cont.) 


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, From chemical cleaning site located in WSCP 

caustics, and acids 

No date Light polymer From major spill (ground saturation) at Sphere 59/Flare 5 area 

No date Boiler slag Used as fill in blending unit 

No date Butylene or Vis J Overfills at test tanks onto stoned areas 

Other spill areas within the refinery area 

No date Base oil Leaks soaked under pipe rack and along the tracks along Public 

Service right-of-way 

No date Unknown Numerous tank overfills to the north and west of the west separator 

No date Base oil On both sides of Brunswick Avenue at Standard Avenue 

No date Oil Ditch between WSCP and Greater Elizabeth tankfield 

No date 1,000 gallons (estimated) Spill from pipeline; history of naphtha spills from leaking pipelines 

naphtha 

1970 H-oil (heavy oil) Vessel explosion in the refinery between Brunswick and Union 

avenues, to the north of Morses Mill Road 

1978 Unknown Catalytic light ends unit explosion in the West Side Chemical Plant 

BIOX: Biological oxidation. 

DSU: Desulfurization unit. 

ESCP: East Side Chemical Plant. 

ESR: East Side retention. 

IBW: Unknown. 

LHC: Unknown. 

MDFI: Middle distillate flow improver. 

SBW: Unknown. 

TOC: Total organic carbon. 

Vis J: Unknown. 

WSCP: West Side Chemical Plant. 


Page A-15 

SC10982


Table A.4. Spills greater than 100 gallons with general or unknown locations in Unit A, 

Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ 


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-16 

SC10982


Table A.4. Spills greater than 100 gallons with general or unknown locations in Unit A, 

Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ (cont.) 


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 


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. 



The East Side Chemical Plant (IAOC A07a) processed lighter hydrocarbons refined from crude 

oil between 1920 and 1988. Chemicals produced over the years included MEK, tertiary butyl 

alcohol, secondary butyl alcohol, MIBK, isopropyl alcohol, acetone, propylene, isophorone, and 

fuel gas. Meadow and swamp areas that comprised most of the IAOC were filled to 

accommodate an expansion of the East Side Chemical Plant in 1938, and by 1951, most of the 

IAOC was filled. The fill material may have been white filter clay, a waste product from the 

production of white oil, in the earlier years, and white fill material in later years. The East Side 

Retention Basin received and neutralized process wastewater from solvent manufacturing 

operations from 1969 to 1988. It currently collects stormwater. All production in the area was 

phased out in the late 1980s, and the chemical process units were dismantled. Current refinery 

process units in the IAOC include the Propylene Recovery Bayway, the Fuel Gas Bayway, the 

Butylene Isomerization Bayway, and the Butylene Fractionization Bayway. Recorded spills in 

Page A-17 

SC10982


the IAOC included 2,000 gallons of MIBK in 1987, oil that leaked to the East Side Retention 

Basin in 1991, a fuel gas spill in 1991, other acids and hydrocarbons dumped into the East Side 

Equalization and Neutralization Basin (ESEN) ditch, tank overfills, leaks and discharges of 

sulfuric acid, and a large explosion in 1930. Much of the waste material generated by the East 

Side Chemical Plant was landfilled in Unit D. Certain waste, including nickel, zinc, palladium 

catalysts, and white oil filter clay, may also have been used as fill material at times, and possibly 

in the East Side Chemical Plant Landfill. The location of that landfill is unknown. 

The White Oils Plant (IAOC A07b) produced white oils and related products between 1924 and 

1988. White oils were produced by treating base oil with sulfuric acid and caustic soda and 

polishing through filter clay. The original White Oil Acid Treating facility was demolished in 

1960 and was replaced by a new White Oils Plant. The latter was dismantled in the 1990s. A 

large polypropylene unit was under construction in this IAOC in 2000. Materials known to have 

been spilled in this IAOC included oil, methylbutyl carbinol, ketones, alcohols, and acetone. 

The Gasoline Blending Tankfield (IAOC A08) is the location of eight large motor gasoline 

storage tanks; two smaller tanks; eight spheroids, six of which contain butane; eight cylindrical 

drums containing protofuel; and several buildings. IAOC A08 has been a tankfield since 1908. A 

channel of Morses Creek flowed through the spheroid area until about 1940. The number of 

tanks located in the tankfield and their contents have varied over time. Tank contents in IAOC 

A08 have included gasoline, petrolite, water white, standard white, gas oil, treated naphtha, 

crude naphtha, sulfuric acid, sulfidic caustic, and AC-20 asphalt. The spheroids have contained 

butane, gasoline additives, and heavy catalytic naphtha. Until about 1961, solvents were stored in 

the IAOC. Currently, eight drums containing proto fuel are located on site. Buildings in IAOC 

A08 have included the Foam Pumping House, Pump House No. 3, the tetraethyl lead (TEL) and 

control office buildings, the Mechanical Field Office, and the Analyzing Building; some of these 

remain. Materials known to have spilled in IAOC A08 include gasoline, butane, sulfuric acid, 

and caustic. 

The Conservation Area (IAOC A09) is the location of the West Separator, the BIOX-WWTU 

Area, and several tanks. The West Separator is the main oil/water separator that treats process 

water collected from the refinery and tankfields west of Central Avenue and wastewater from the 

East Retention Basin. The West Separator began operating in 1917, and expanded over the years. 

Water from the West Separator goes to the WWTU. The WWTU treats process water, 

stormwater, and groundwater and discharges the treated water to Morses Creek. The WWTU 

facilities, including the biological wastewater treatment lagoons, were built between 1970 and 

1987. Between about 1935 and 1961, a filter plant with a basin for slop oils was also located in 

the area. Four tanks store the oil recovered from the separator and a fifth stores hydrocarbon 

solids from erosion and sandblasting. Historically, additional tanks were located in this area. 

Materials known to have spilled in this area include oil from refinery sewers, process water, and, 

Page A-18 

SC10982


before 1970 and the construction of the WWTU, water from the West Separator was discharged 

to the Greater Elizabeth Sewer. 

The Gasoline Component Tankfield (IAOC A10) comprises 17 large floating roof storage tanks 

that contain intermediate reformate, powerformer feed, isomerization unit feed, light sulfur 

vacuum, light catalytic naphtha, isomerate, alkylate, domestic heavy virgin naphtha, toluene, and 

methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Historically, the number of tanks in this area has varied, and 

over the years, fixed roof tanks were upgraded and replaced by floating roof tanks. Materials 

known to have spilled in this area include oil from one of the tanks and oil from a sewer. 

The Hydrofiner Unit (IAOC A11) dates to before 1940. Materials associated with the hydrofiner 

unit include gasoline, jet fuel, and caustic. A spill of caustic and a spill of gas oil were reported 

in IAOC A11 in 1991. 

The No. 4 Component Tankfield (IAOC A12) currently consists of 10 large storage tanks that, in 

recent years, have stored cycle gas oil, No. 6 light sulfur fuel oil, naphtha, AC-20 asphalt, and 

slop oil. Several smaller tanks constructed between 1961 and 1979 store cresylic caustic, sulfidic 

caustic, and AC-20 asphalt. The area has been a tankfield since before 1935. Materials known to 

have spilled in IAOC A12 include bleach oil, asphalt, naphtha, and powerformer feed. 

The Domestic Trade Terminal and Tankfield (IAOC A13) contains a tankfield with seven tanks 

that store gasoline, gasoline additives, heating oil, and diesel, and a terminal where tanker trucks 

are filled. In addition, there is a main building, a garage, and a guard house. The area has been in 

operation since at least 1935. Two separators built in 1976 and 1979 contain storage tank 

bottoms and sludge. A surface drainage system in IAOC A13 acts as a surface spill containment 

area. Gasoline spills known to have occurred in this IAOC include 76,200 gallons in 1976, 

44,800 gallons in 1979, and 32,000 gallons in 1983. 

The Greater Elizabeth Tankfield (IAOC A14) currently contains five large storage tanks, four of 

which contain process gas oil. The fifth contains AC-20 asphalt. A small tank contains process 

gas oil. All of the current tanks were built after 1974. Before about 1980, the western part of 

IAOC A14 was occupied by a group of about 12 large storage tanks called the B&O Tankfield. 

Some of these tanks are believed to have stored low-volatility materials such as fuel oil. Others 

had floating roofs and are believed to have stored volatile materials. These tanks have since been 

removed. 

The WSCP (IAOC A15) produces additives for motor oils and propylene for use by other 

manufacturers in plastic components. Current facilities include the Additives Blending, Packing 

and Shipping Section; the Paratone Unit; the No. 1 and No. 2 Catalytic Light Ends Units; the 

Paranox Section with Reactor and Filter Buildings; control houses; and a storage building. The 

area contains small tanks used in processing and a sphere used as a reference fuel tank. The 

Page A-19 

SC10982


sphere was used historically to store iso-octane, a gasoline additive, and base oil used to flush 

process lines. Materials known to have been spilled include oil, base oil, chlorinated 

hydrocarbons, caustics, acids, butylene or Vis J, MDFI/vinyl acetate, alcohol, cyclohexane, 

pheno, ashless product, hydrogen sulfide, hexane, base oil, zinc dialkyl-dithiophosphate, tank car 

oil, and varsol. In addition, spills of unknown or unreported materials occurred over the years. 

The Cogeneration Plant (IAOC A16) produces steam and electric energy for the refinery and is 

currently active. The Cogeneration Plant was constructed between 1987 and 1991. Between 1930 

and 1970, this area consisted of tanks, pipeline systems, and several buildings. The main 

facilities were the Aviation Fuel Laboratory and the Gas House, which probably supplied the 

refinery with steam power. These were removed in 1974. Four “Running Tanks” and a large Gas 

Holder tank were located near the Aviation Fuel Laboratory. Four fixed-roof storage tanks with 

unknown contents were located in the area. Railroad spurs were built in the area between 1951 

and 1956. 

The Caverns Area (IAOC A17) consists of the Butane and Propane Caverns that store liquid 

butane and propane under pressure, 300 feet below the ground surface. Several pipelines and 

smaller storage tanks that look like propane tanks are in the area. The area above the caverns was 

previously called the Poly Ditch Dredgings Area. This area was filled with a light colored 

material in 1940 and housed a gas burner until 1961. The northwesternmost part of the area may 

have contained the Esso Mixing Plant in 1935, and agitators and tanks were removed between 

1951 and 1961. A section of the Poly Ditch flows through this area. A base oil leak (date 

unknown) is reported to have occurred in the western portion of this IAOC. 

The Pitch Area (IAOC A18) contained the East Retention Basin, the Pitch Area, sections of the 

Boat Lines, the Boat Lines Dredgings Area, the Poly Ditch, the East Separator, and the Heat 

Exchange Cleaning Pad. The East Retention Basin was constructed in 1908 to store process 

water, storm water, and unleaded gasoline tank bottoms. It functioned until the late 1980s. The 

Pitch Area section of the Pitch Area IAOC lies in a marshy area that was filled sometime 

between 1940 and 1961 with a dark viscous residue of crude oil distillation. The Heat Exchange 

Cleaning Pad was used for cleaning heat exchanger tube bundles. This area previously was a 

storage area for barrels. The boat lines are pipelines that transport crude oil to the Tremley 

Tankfield. The Boat Lines Dredging area is an unvegetated mud flat between the Pitch Area and 

Morses Creek. The Boat Lines Dredging Area and the Poly Ditch Dredging Area were filled with 

sediments dredged from Morses Creek sometime before 1940. The dredged sediments contain 

petroleum hydrocarbons wastes similar to the dark viscous residues found in the pitch area. 

The Administration and Mechanical Area (IAOC A19) contains warehouses, mechanical shops, 

office buildings, laboratories, and the Exxon Turbo Fuels Building. Historically this area 

contained one tank, two spheroids, machine shops, the main office building, the cafeteria, and 

several laboratories. 

Page A-20 

SC10982


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 

Approximate 

years of 

operation 

IAOC 

Name 

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) 


TEL: Tetraethyl lead. 

API: American Petroleum Institute. 

Page A-21 

SC10982


Table A.6. Reported spills in Units B and C, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ 


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. 


The Western Waterfront Tankfield (IAOC B02) is currently inactive and no tanks remain. 

Historical aerial photos indicate that drainage ditches bisected the IAOC. Parts of the area were 

filled with white material thought to be white oil filter clays or clean sand. Dredge material from 

Morses Creek was also used as fill during the 1940s and 1970s. Before 1961, five tanks in the 

IAOC stored AC-10 and AC-20 asphalt, jet aviation fuel, sulfidic caustic, caustic, and Oxflux 

(roofing asphalt). In 1984, the tank storing Oxflux failed and released an estimated 3 million 

gallons of asphalt. The spill overflowed the secondary containment, covered approximately eight 

acres, and flowed under the New Jersey Turnpike into Unit A. Despite cleanup efforts that 

continued for several years, an estimated 12,000 to 20,000 cubic yards of asphalt-contaminated 

soil remain in the area of the spill. In 1985, 140 gallons of caustic spilled from a pipeline near 

Tank 307. 

Page A-22 

SC10982


The Tank 301 Creek Dredgings Area (IAOC B03) lies along Morses Creek. The Morses Creek 

bank is bulkheaded in this reach. The bulkhead was constructed in the 1970s. Saltwater cooling 

water pipelines and the Boat Lines crude pipelines cross the IAOC. This area was filled 

sometime before 1940 with unknown materials. Filling continued in the 1940s and 1970s with 

Morses Creek dredge material and Steamer Dock spoils. 

A.2.3 Investigative Unit C 

Unit C is the land between Morses Creek and the Arthur Kill, east of the New Jersey Turnpike. 

The unit covers about 100 acres and is currently used primarily for storage and transport of crude 

oil and refined product into and out of the refinery. Historically, the area was salt marsh. Filling 

with contaminated spoils and refinery wastes eliminated the original salt marsh. 

The Tank 319 Waterfront Landfill Area (IAOC C01) was used from 1950 to 1960 for disposal of 

trash and refinery waste, including concrete rubble, oily sludge, WSCP filter cake, white oil filter 

clay, American Petroleum Institute (API) Separator bottoms, TEL sludge, and catalysts. Before it 

was used as a landfill, the area was a marshland and a creek flowed across the western part of it. 

The creek was filled by 1951 during the construction of the New Jersey Turnpike. In the eastern 

portion of IAOC C01, there are several areas of sparsely vegetated ground where a tar-like 

substance is present on the ground surface. 

Tables A.5 and A.6 summarize waste materials disposed or handled in Unit C, and reported spills 

in Unit C. 

The Fire Fighting Landfill (IAOC C02) was used some time after 1940 for disposal of trash and 

rubble. Landfilling ceased some time in the 1970s. Black viscous hydrocarbons, filter cake, and 

oil are present in the fill. The northern part of the area currently is used for fire fighter training, 

the eastern edge is on the Arthur Kill, and a pipe rack runs along the western edge of the landfill. 

The Eastern Waterfront Tankfield Pier (IAOC C03) lies between Morses Creek and the Arthur 

Kill. It includes the Eastern Waterfront Tankfield and the Waterfront Barge Pier. The area was 

filled by 1940. Four tanks in the Eastern Waterfront Tankfield currently store bunker oil, crude 

oil, and slop oil. Historically, 11 tanks in the area stored fuel oil, AC-10 and AC-20 asphalt, and 

cresylic caustic. Several pipelines cross the area. The waterfront Barge Pier on the Arthur Kill is 

used for receiving crude oil destined for the refinery and loading petroleum products for 

distribution. Materials known to have spilled in IAOC C03 include various grades of petroleum 

spilled at the docks and piers. In 1991, free product was discovered in the northern part of IAOC 

C03. The cause was determined to be a leak from one of the tanks that stored a bunker oil type 

petroleum. 

Page A-23 

SC10982


The No. 1 Dam Creek Dredgings Area (IAOC C04) borders Morses Creek to the east. Morses 

Creek dredge material was used as fill in the area. Historically, two tanks in the northeastern 

corner of IAOC C04 stored white oil. The tanks have been removed. Currently, railroad tracks 

and a road run along the western side of IAOC C04. 

The Steamer Dock Area (IAOC C05) includes Steamer Docks 1 and 2 and pipelines along the 

eastern side on the Arthur Kill. At the Steamer Docks, petroleum products are received and 

exported and piped to and from the Refinery and Process Area. In 1990, a seep of free product 

was discovered discharging to the Arthur Kill. Trenches were excavated and pumped in an effort 

to recover the free product. The source was determined to be the pipelines. 

A.2.4 Investigative Unit D 

Unit D is primarily used for storage of crude oil and refined petroleum products in above-ground 

storage tanks. Parts of the unit have been in use since the early 1920s. The unit covers about 

279 acres east and west of the Central and West Brook reservoirs and south of Morses Creek. 

Parts of the unit were filled with Morses Creek dredge material. Filling in the tankfields with 

rubble, trash, and refinery debris was common practice in the past. Unit D was investigated as 

seven IAOCs. 

In the Tremley Tankfield (IAOC D01), 41 tanks currently store or previously stored crude oil, 

process gas oil, base heating oil, jet aviation fuel, and catalytic cracking plant feed. As of 1994, 

35 of the Tremley Tankfield tanks were in use. Most of the Lower Tremley Tankfield tanks were 

constructed between 1922 and 1926. Most of the Upper Tremley Tankfield tanks were 

constructed between 1954 and 1974. Tanks have been added and removed over the years. The 

Tremley Tankfield Separator, which collects stormwater runoff and spilled product from the 

Tremley Tankfield, began operating before 1940. Extensive filling activity around tanks and in 

areas of removed tanks, using garbage, contaminated soil, and “white fill” has been documented. 

Soil from the Cogeneration Area was placed in the Lower Tremley Tankfield in 1991. Materials 

known to have spilled in the IAOC include base heating oil, crude oil, jet aviation fuel, and 

process gas oil. 

Tables A.7 and A.8 summarize waste materials disposed or handled in Unit D, and reported 

spills in Unit D. 

The Former Lower Tremley Tankfield Separator (IAOC D02) functioned from sometime before 

1940 until 1970. In the 1970s, the facility was filled and leveled. Soil sampling has confirmed 

the presence of oily sludge at the site. 

Page A-24 

SC10982


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

Approximate 

years of 

operation in 

IAOC 

Name 

the IAOC Materials handled or disposed 

D01 Tremley Tankfield 1922 to 

present 

D02 Former Lower Tremley Tankfield 

Separator 

D03a Current and Former Diesel Tankfield 

D03b Tank 519 and Former Diesel 

Tankfield 

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 

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

runoff 

1951 to 1974 Diesel, white oil filter clay, WSCP filter cake 

1940 to 1961 Diesel, crude oil 

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 1933 to 1961 Refrigerated gas, diesel 

Brook Reservoir Former Tank Area 


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-25 

SC10982


Table A.8. Reported spills in Unit D 


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 


The SLOU Boundary (IAOC D05) is a 100-foot wide strip east of the SLOU owned by Public 

Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G). A part of the Lower Tremley Tankfield outfall ditch ran 

through the strip. The area was filled with various materials between 1961 and 1974 and was 

contaminated by outfall ditch materials and seepage from the SLOU. 

The Western Shore of Reservoir Area (IAOC D06) is on the western shore of the West Brook 

Reservoir. Before 1961, material from the Former West Brook Reservoir Tank Area was piped to 

the Former Ignition Stack Area and burned. The Former West Brook Reservoir Tank Area 

contained tanks believed to store refrigerated gas or diesel fuel. By 1961, the stack and tanks 

were gone, the area was filled and leveled, and Brunswick Avenue was completed through the 

area. 

A.2.5 Investigative Unit E 

The Clean Fill Area (IAOC E01) was a non-process area of approximately 89 acres. American 

Cyanamid acquired the land in about 1940 and used the area to deposit gypsum slurry and other 

waste. The city of Linden purchased the area by 1951; Linden’s use of the land is unknown. In 

1970, Exxon purchased the land to dispose of “clean fill” and demolition debris from 

construction at the Bayway Refinery. The Clean Fill Area contained approximately 12 feet of silt 

and sand with concrete and wood fragments overlying approximately 2 to 6 feet of gypsum 

slurry. 

Page A-26 

SC10982


The Eastern, Western, and Southern landfills (IAOCs E02, E04, and E05) and the Central 

Landfill and Landfarm (IAOC E03) lie to the south of Morses Creek, between Unit D and the 

New Jersey Turnpike. The Eastern Landfill received refinery waste in the 1960s and 1970s. 

Before filling, it was a marshy area. Fill material included construction debris, petroleum-stained 

soils, a spongy green material with a strong pungent odor, and garbage. The Western Landfill 

received refinery waste from 1961 until 1976. Wastes were placed inside the berms that 

surrounded four former diesel storage tanks. The storage tanks were constructed before 1931. 

The Southern Landfill is the former location of Tank 389. The tank berm area was filled between 

1961 and 1974, possibly with construction debris and petroleum waste. The Central Landfill 

received refinery waste from 1950 until 1973. Landfilled waste included trash, demolition debris, 

building and packing materials, jet filter clay, drums and pallets, coke, catalyst, oil spill cleanup 

debris, tank bottoms, API separator bottoms, oily sludges, and TEL sludges. In 1973, the Central 

Landfill was capped with approximately 3 feet of clay. The Landfarm, which operated from 

about 1974 to 1984, was constructed on top of the Central Landfill. The Landfarm was a 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility that 

treated API separator solids (a listed hazardous waste), sewer cleanings, oil-contaminated soil 

from spills and excavations, and tank bottoms. Table A.9 summarizes waste materials disposed 

or handled in Unit E. 

Table A.9. Waste materials disposed or handled in Unit E, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ 

Approximate 

years of 

operation in 



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, oilcontaminated 

soil, WSCP filter cake, sewer cleanings, oil 

contaminated soil, slop emulsions 

E04 Western Landfill 1931 to 1976 Diesel, trash, unknown waste 

E05 Southern Landfill 1930s to 1974 Construction debris, petroleum waste 




Page A-27 

SC10982


A.2.6 Investigative Unit F 

Unit F is a tankfield and adjacent lands south of the main refinery, covering approximately 

73 acres. It was investigated as four IAOCS. 

The 40-Acre Tankfield (IAOC F01) originally consisted of 14 tanks built in 1926 to store heating 

oil and 260 diesel. Three additional tanks were built in 1953. Currently, three tanks remain but 

are no longer in use. 

The 40-Acre Tankfield Separator (IAOC F02) was built sometime before 1931. The present 

40-Acre Tankfield Separator, located in the same place, has been in use since 1950. 

The 40-Acre Tankfield Undeveloped Property (IAOC F03) is an undeveloped area between the 

eastern and western sections of the 40-Acre Tankfield. 

The Unit F Connector Piperun (IAOC F04) is a strip of land between the Tremley Tankfield and 

the 40-Acre Tankfield. Eight aboveground pipelines run along the strip. 

Tables A.10 and A.11 summarize waste materials disposed or handled in Unit F, and reported 

spills in Unit F. 

Table A.10. Waste materials disposed or handled in Unit F 40-Acre Tankfield and Unit G 

Rahway River Tankfield, Bayway Refinery, Linden, NJ 

Operational area or facility Years of operation Waste material disposed or handled 

Old 40-Acre Tankfield Separator ~1931 to 1950 Storm water and tank water draw-off 

40-Acre Tankfield Separator 1950 to present Storm water 

40-Acre Tankfield Unknown Sludge and TEL 

West Rahway River Tankfield Separator 1953 to present Storm water 

East Rahway River Tankfield Separator 1953 to present Storm water 

West Rahway River Tankfield ~1959 to present Clean fill 

East Rahway River Tankfield ~1959 to present Sludge 



Page A-28 

SC10982


Table A.11. Reported spills in Units F and G 


2/12/1985 500 barrels of heavy oil 40-Acre Tankfield pipeline failure 

2/4/1991 23,100 gallons of heating oil 40-Acre Tankfield – blown flange gasket 

11/9/1980 Unknown quantity of heating oil Tank 600 overfilled 

8/19/1991 600 gallons of oil/water mixture Rahway River Tankfield Contractor equipment failure 

5/92 Substantial amount of oil Rahway River Tankfield tank leak 


A.2.7 Investigative Unit G 

Unit G is the Rahway River Tankfield and adjacent lands. The unit comprises approximately 

70 acres. The area was investigated as six IAOCs. 

The Rahway River Tankfield Heavy Oil and Naphtha Tanks (IAOC G01) and the Rahway River 

Tankfield Heating Oil and Motor Gas Tanks (IAOC G04) are contiguous and comprise 19 tanks 

built in 1953. The tanks to the north (IA0C G04) contain heating oil or motor gas. The tanks to 

the south (IA0C G01) contain heavy oil or naphtha. As of 1994, all of the tanks were in use. 

The Rahway River Tankfield East Separator (IAOC G02) is located east of the tankfield, and the 

Rahway River Tankfield West Separator (IAOC G03) is in the southwest corner of the tankfield. 

Dates of the initiation of operation of the separators are not known. A third separator was located 

in the northeast corner of the field until at least 1979. The separators receive runoff and 

uncontained spills in the tankfield. Water is discharged to an unnamed tributary of the Rahway 

River. 

The Unit G Connector Piperun (IAOC G05) is a narrow strip of land between the 40-Acre 

Tankfield and the Rahway River Tankfield. The PA Area (IAOC G06) is an upland hardwood 

forest south of the Rahway River Tankfield and West Separator. To the south of IAOC G06 is 

the Linden Landfill. Exxon historically disposed of materials in an area south of the West 

Separator. 

Tables A.10 and A.11 summarize waste materials disposed or handled in Unit G, and reported 

spills in Unit G. 

Page A-29 

SC10982


A.2.8 Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit 

The SLOU is a former 42-acre waste management area between the Tremley Tankfield and the 

PSE&G right of way. It was originally defined as part of Unit D RI. Early in the RI, Exxon and 

NJDEP decided that the area warranted special focus, and they decided to accelerate the RI in the 

SLOU. The SLOU includes the Sludge Lagoons, the Sand Filter Impoundments, the White Oil 

Filter Clay Area/Tank 567 Clay Area, the Tank Bottoms Weathering Area, the Former Paint and 

Sandblast Area, and the Sludge Lagoon Seep. 

The Sludge Lagoons consisted of 11 lagoons used for disposal of refinery and chemical plant 

waste between 1940 and 1955. Waste may have included oily sludge, acid sludge, TEL sludge, 

separator bottoms, WSCP filter cake, jet filter clay, and white oil filter clay. 

The Sand Filter Impoundments were used from 1970 to 1975 as waste management units. The 

three sand filters may have received oil sludge, TEL sludge, WSCP filter cake, filter clays, and 

API separator bottoms. Waste filtered through 5 feet of sand overlying drainage tiles. Collected 

water was sent to an on-site treatment plant. The White Oil Filter Clay Area/Tank 567 Clay Area 

was used between 1950 and 1972 for disposal of clay generated during production of white oils. 

White fill, possibly white oil clay, may have been deposited in the northwest part of the area in 

1940. The Tank Bottoms Weathering Area was used for disposal of weathered tank bottoms 

from storage tanks that contained leaded gasoline. White oil filter clays may have been landfilled 

in the area in 1940 and 1961. The Former Paint and Sandblast Area contained waste associated 

with sand blasting and painting. Exxon removed about 800 5-gallon paint (or paint related) pails 

and 20 55-gallon drums, some of which contained styrene, in 1991. A ground penetrating radar 

survey was conducted in 1991 to identify drums missed. Remaining pails and drums were 

removed in 1995. The Sludge Lagoon Seep was a non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) seep east of 

the sludge lagoons first observed in June 1990. Exxon vacuumed the NAPL for two years. A 

recovery sump was installed in May 1993 and a recovery trench was installed and pumped. In 

September 1993, 11 seeps containing hydrocarbons appeared on east embankment of the 

operable unit. 

Remediation of the SLOU was attempted in 2003. The primary actions included installation of a 

slurry wall to prevent off-site migration of contamination, solidification and immobilization of 

oily waste, and removal and treatment of contamination groundwater (Walters, 2006). NJDEP 

states that recent monitoring reports “are clearly indicating that construction and/or design flaws 

in several of the remedy’s components may prevent remedial objectives from being achieved” 

and that “failure to adequately address these deficiencies may require the selection of an 

alternative remedy for the SLOU” (Walters, 2006, p. 1). 

Table A.12 summarizes some of the materials disposed or handled in the SLOU. 

Page A-30 

SC10982


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

Linden, NJ 

Approximate 

Operational area or facility 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/ 1950 to 1972 White oil filter clays 

Tank 567 Clay Area 

Tank Bottoms Weathering Area 1940 to 1974 Tank bottoms, leaded gasoline, white oil filter clays 

Former Pain and Sandblast Area - Paint pails, styrene, drums 




A.2.9 Reservoirs, Morses Creek, Piles Creek 

West Brook and Peach Orchard Brook originate west of the Bayway Refinery. West Brook flows 

into Morses Creek upstream of the Bayway Refinery. The three reservoirs on the refinery are 

formed by impoundments on the two brooks. The three reservoirs are shallow (< 2 m), each 15 to 

20 acres, with soft silty beds. West Reservoir is the long linear reservoir west of Brunswick 

Avenue on Peach Orchard Brook. Central Reservoir receives drainage from West Reservoir and 

West Brook Reservoir. The Brunswick Avenue Bridge, built sometime before 1961, forms a 

constriction between the two reservoirs. West Brook Reservoir is fed by Morses Creek and its 

tributary, West Brook. West Brook Reservoir is separated from Central Reservoir by a dam 

constructed in 1931. 

Central Reservoir flows into Morses Creek, which is dammed in two places. In the reach 

between Dam 2 (which forms Central Reservoir) and Dam 1 (near the mouth of Morses Creek), 

tidal influence on the marine subtidal habitat of Morses Creek is dampened. The banks of Morses 

Creek in this reach are riprapped (e.g., lined with rocks) where it flows through the heavily 

developed area of the refinery. East of the turnpike, the north bank of Morses Creek is 

bulkheaded and developed. 

Piles Creek is a tidally influenced watercourse that originates east of the SLOU. South of the 

Clean Fill Area and west of the New Jersey Turnpike, Piles Creek becomes a sinuous stream 

Page A-31 

SC10982


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-32 

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 


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 


A.3 Bayonne Refinery 

From 1877 to 1972, Exxon refined petroleum to produce various products and also manufactured 

chemicals at the Bayonne Refinery (see Figure A.1). The Exxon Chemical Plant, also called the 

Paramins Plant, manufactured viscosity modifiers, pour depressants, and friction modifiers, and 

was used as an on-site product testing and research laboratory between the early 1930s and the 

early 1990s (Geraghty & Miller and Exxon Company, 1993). 

Before 1877, Prentice Oil operated a kerosene refinery at the site. When the property transferred 

to Standard Oil in 1877, the refinery covered 176 acres. By the mid-1930s it encompassed 

approximately 650 acres (Figure A.4). From 1936 to 1947, Exxon sold several parcels to other 

manufacturing companies. By 1963, Exxon’s Bayonne facilities covered about 330 acres, with 

nearly one-third of those vacant as a result of modernization and dismantling of the old plant 

(Geraghty & Miller and Exxon Company, 1993; Geraghty & Miller, 1994). In 1972, Exxon 

dismantled the refinery and thereafter used the refinery site for petroleum storage, wholesale 

distribution of blending and packaging operations, and oil additives manufacturing (Geraghty & 

Miller and Exxon Company, 1993). In 1991, when the ACO with NJDEP was signed, Exxon’s 

Bayonne holdings totaled 288 acres (Geraghty & Miller, 1994). In 1993, Exxon sold most of the 

acreage to International Matex Tank Terminals (IMTT), retaining ownership of 80 acres for lube 

oil and wax products storage, blending, and packaging (Geraghty & Miller, 1994). Figure A.5 

shows the refinery area and areas of concern (AOCs). 

Page A-33 

SC10982


Figure A.4. Approximate historical extent of Bayonne Refinery in 1933, as depicted in 

Map 1b of NJDEP (1990). 

Source: NJDEP, 1990. 

Page A-34 

SC10982


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

Page A-35 

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-36 

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-37 

SC10982


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

Bayonne, NJ 

Approximate initial 

Area 

year of operations 


“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-38 

SC10982


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

Reported spill 

Area or general location 

Date 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-39 

SC10982


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




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 



2/14/1987 300 Slop oil 


Page A-40 

SC10982






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-41 

SC10982






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-42 

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-43 

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-44 

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-45 

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-46 

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-47 

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-48 

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-49 

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-50 

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. 


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. 


Geraghty & Miller and Exxon Company. 1993. Administrative Consent Order Site History 

Deliverable Items, Exxon Company, U.S.A., Bayonne Plant, Bayonne, NJ. Prepared for Exxon 

Company, USA, Linden, NJ. January. 

Malcolm Pirnie. 2003. Remedial Action Selection Report/Groundwater Remedial Investigation 

Workplan. ICI Subsite, 229 East 22nd Street, Bayonne, Hudson County, NJ. Prepared for 

ExxonMobil Global Remediation. April. 

NJDEP. 1990. Site Inspection: Exxon Bayonne Plant, Bayonne, Hudson County. NJ Department 

of Environmental Protection. December 27. 

Superior Court of New Jersey. 1977. The State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental 

Protection, Plaintiff, v. Exxon Corporation and ICI America, Inc., Defendants. 151 N.J. Super. 

464, 376 A.2d 1339. 

TRC Raviv Associates. 2004. Bayway Refinery Phase 2 Remedial Investigation Report, Volume 

I of IV (Sections 1 through 24). Prepared for ExxonMobil Global Remediation, Annandale, NJ. 

April 30. Millburn, NJ. 

TRC Raviv Associates. 2005. Documentation of Environmental Indicator Determination: RCRA 

Corrective Action Environmental Indicator (EI) RCRIS Code (CA 750) Migration of 

Contaminated Groundwater Under Control. Bayway Refinery – Linden, NJ. Prepared for 

ExxonMobil Global Remediation, Clinton, NJ. March 22. Millburn, NJ. 

Walters, J.M. 2006. Memo re: In the Matter of the ExxonMobil Bayway Refinery, ISRA Case 

Nos. 92726 & 94703, November 27, 1991 Administrative Consent Order (ACO), Amended 

4/8/93 and 12/22/94: Sludge Lagoon Operable Unit Remedial Action Reports. To Brent B. 

Archibald, ExxonMobil Site Remediation. September 20. 

Page A-51 

SC10982

B. Calculating the Required Amount of 

Off-Site Replacement 

This appendix describes the methods used to calculate the required amount of off-site 

replacement presented in Chapter 4. Off-site habitat replacement is required because (1) not all 

contaminated areas at the site can be cleaned up, and (2) on-site restoration does not compensate 

for the environmental impacts that have been occurring at the refineries for many decades (over a 

century in some areas). 

B.1 Introduction: The Habitat Equivalency Analysis Method 

The method we used to determine the required off-site replacement is called Habitat Equivalency 

Analysis (HEA). HEA was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) in the 1990s to determine the amount of restoration needed to offset damages to natural 

resources from oil spills, hazardous waste releases, and vessel groundings (NOAA, 2000). HEA 

has been applied at numerous sites around the United States, as well as internationally, and the 

technical approach for using HEA is described in published articles (e.g., Chapman et al., 1998; 

Peacock, 1999; NOAA, 2000; Strange et al., 2002, 2004; Allen et al., 2005). 

HEA is based on balancing the amount of environmental harm that has occurred at a site with an 

equivalent amount of environmental restoration, taking into account the duration of the harm and 

the timing and rate of restoration. 1 Using HEA, we calculated the amount of habitat that has been 

damaged at a site and integrated that damage over time. We then calculated the amount of habitat 

that needs to be restored to exactly offset the damaged habitat, again integrating the habitat 

improvements over time. 

HEA requires the following inputs: 

 

 

 

The acreage of damaged habitat 

When the damage began, and when it will end (or when it ended, if the damage has 

already ended) 

When the restoration of off-site habitat will begin, and how long it will take. 

1. Time is an important consideration in assessing environmental harm. Environmental impacts that have 

persisted for a long time clearly require more restoration or replacement than those of a shorter duration. 

Similarly, time plays an important part in the value of restoration. Restoration that is completed today has 

greater value than restoration that is postponed until the future. 

SC10982

Stratus Consulting Appendix B (11/3/2006) 

HEA also requires use of a discount rate. HEA incorporates the discount rate into the integration 

of damages over time, so that damages that occur in different years are weighted differently. 

Using a discount rate, damages that occurred in the past are compounded, and damages that 

occur in the future are discounted. Discounting the value of a good over time is standard practice 

in economics, and discounting is included in the standard HEA model (NOAA, 2000). An annual 

discount rate of 3% is typically used in HEA calculations (NOAA, 1999). 2 

Since HEA integrates the damages and restoration benefit over both acres and years, the units in 

which the results are expressed are “acre-years.” For example, if a 10-acre marsh is destroyed for 

two years, then the damage is 20 acre-years (not taking into account the discount rate). 

Incorporating the discount rate into the calculations converts the units into discounted acre-years, 

or DAYs. The appropriate amount of off-site replacement is determined by calculating the offsite 

replacement that provides the same DAYs of benefit as the DAYs of harm. 

B.2 HEA Inputs 

B.2.1 Quantifying natural resource losses 

To express the environmental harm caused by contamination at the refineries, we determined the 

acreage of each contaminated area and the number of years that the acreage has been affected. 

We delineated specific habitat areas harmed by contamination at the two refineries (Chapter 2), 

and used information on historical refinery operations compiled by Exxon’s contractors to 

determine the timeline of contamination. Tables B.1 and B.2 list the individual habitat areas at 

the Bayonne and Bayway refineries by habitat type, size, the estimated year in which the 

contamination began, and whether the area will be improved by implementing the on-site 

restoration plan presented in Chapter 4 and 3TM International (2006). 

We calculated losses, in DAYs, for each row of Tables B.1 and B.2. For intertidal salt marsh, 

palustrine meadow/forest, and subtidal habitat, impacts were assumed to begin in the years 

shown in Tables B.1 and B.2. These habitats are sensitive to petroleum contamination and to the 

changes in elevation or water level that often occur when waste is dumped in an area. For upland 

meadow/forest habitat, we assumed a 10-year period from the start year before full impacts 

occurred. 

2. Use of a 3% discount rate is standard industry practice in calculating damages at least as far back as 1980 

(see NOAA, 1999, 2000). However, selection of the appropriate discount rate that would be applied as far back 

as the late 1800s is a matter of debate among economists. For consistency with standard practice and absent 

information suggesting an alternative approach, we applied a constant 3% discount rate for all calculations. 

Page B-2 

SC10982


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 


7.9 1918 No 


6.8 1921 No 


29.2 1925 No 

77.6 1933 No 

Page B-3 

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 

Year 

contamination 

Habitat type 

Acres 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-4 

SC10982


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

Year 

contamination 

Habitat type 


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 


127.5 1922 No 

16.9 1924 No 

40.7 1926 Yes 

0.7 1926 No 

13.0 1930 No 


3.3 1931 Yes 


13.8 1933 Yes 

3.7 1933 No 

26.2 1935 No 


125.9 1940 No 



24.2 1951 No 

40.6 1953 No 

Page B-5 

SC10982


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

Year 

contamination 

Habitat type 


Palustrine meadow/forest (cont.) 1.0 1958 No 

0.9 1965 No 


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-6 

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-ofheaven). 

Invasion by non-native species can choke out native species and reduce the quality of 

the habitat for nesting birds. Replacement projects undertaken to restore palustrine 

forest/meadow habitat typically involve removing non-native vegetation, regrading to establish 

appropriate soil salinity and hydroperiod, replanting with native species, and providing 

maintenance to protect plantings. We assumed that palustrine ecosystem functions and services 

will improve linearly after restoration actions are complete, and that full recovery will take 

25 years. 

Upland forests in the Arthur Kill area include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum 

(Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubra), pin oak (Quercus palustris), red oak 

(Quercus rubra), black oak (Quercus velutina), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), hickories 

(Carya spp.), and silver maple (Acer saccharinum) (Greiling, 1993; USFWS, 1997). 

Replacement projects to restore upland forest habitat typically require identifying an area with 

suitable soil and topography to support the growth of native hardwood species, clearing existing 

vegetation or structures, planting seedlings and saplings, and providing maintenance to suppress 

competing invasive plant species and to control herbivory (e.g., deer browsing). We assumed 

Page B-7 

SC10982


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 

Environmental benefits per acre of offsite 

restoration (DAYs) 

Habitat type 

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-8 

SC10982


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

HEA results 

Bayway 

Intertidal habitat 

Palustrine 

meadow/forest 

habitat 

Upland 

meadow/forest 

habitat 

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 


(acres) 4,189 8,310 1,313 

Combined acreage 


(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-9 

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. 

Page B-10 

SC10982

C. Off-Site Restoration Costs 

This appendix describes the methods and results for determining the cost of the off-site habitat 

restoration described in the accompanying report. Habitat restoration costs are determined here 

on a per-acre basis. In the accompanying report the numbers of acres of off-site restoration 

required are multiplied by the per-acre costs to determine the total cost of off-site habitat 

restoration. 

Per-acre restoration costs are developed separately for three of the habitat types damaged by 

contamination at the Exxon Bayonne and Bayway refineries: intertidal, palustrine meadow/forest 

(or freshwater wetland), and upland forest. Although subtidal habitats are also damaged at the 

refineries, off-site restoration to compensate for damage to this habitat type will be achieved 

through restoration of intertidal habitat. 

C.1 Approach 

To determine costs for off-site restoration we obtained cost information for restoration projects 

in the region that are similar to the types of off-site restoration projects described in the 

accompanying report. Projects that have already been completed and those that are planned were 

both included in the analysis. 

Habitat restoration project costs included fall into the following cost elements: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Land acquisition 

Design and permitting 

Implementation, including labor, equipment, and supplies 

Allowance for contingencies 

Operations and maintenance after the initial construction is completed 

Monitoring 

Oversight and administration. 

Restoration costs can vary from project to project, even when costs are expressed on a per-acre 

basis (King and Bolen, 1995). Costs vary primarily because the specific restoration construction 

activities that are necessary can vary from site to site. Specific projects and project designs have 

not yet been developed for the off-site restoration required for the Exxon Bayonne and Bayway 

refineries. In our compilation of actual restoration costs from other projects in the area, we 

included projects that vary in their scopes and costs to reflect that the actual projects conducted 

SC10982

Stratus Consulting Appendix C (11/3/2006) 

for off-site restoration will also vary. The ranges observed in our compilations of actual project 

costs reflect the kinds of cost ranges that will also occur for off-site restoration. 

We derived an average per-acre restoration cost for each habitat type from the compilation of 

project costs. For each habitat type, the total acres and the total cost of all of the projects were 

first added up separately. The average per-acre cost then was calculated by dividing the total cost 

of all of the projects by the total acres of all of the projects. Averaging in this way is different 

than calculating the average per-acre cost across the individual projects, which would give equal 

weight to small projects and large projects. The averaging method we used produces an average 

across all of the acres restored, rather than the average cost across individual projects. An 

average across all acres restored is a better measure of off-site restoration costs that will involve 

different projects of varying sizes. 

C.2 Intertidal Salt Marsh Restoration Costs 

C.2.1 Restoration project costs 

We relied on costs for intertidal salt marsh restoration projects that were conducted in New 

Jersey or nearby coastal states. Costs were obtained from the following sources: 

 

 

 

 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) summaries of restoration 

costs for six projects conducted in 2004-2006 in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, 

and Maryland, including three projects that were performed as compensation for Exxon’s 

1991 Bayway oil spill (J. Catena, Northeast Regional Supervisor – NOAA Restoration 

Center, personal communication, August 25, 2006) 

Contract award summaries prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for 

intertidal marsh restoration projects being conducted in New Jersey (USACE, Undated; 

USACE and the Port Authority of NJ & NY, 2006) 

Intertidal marsh restoration costs for the proposed Liberty State Park ecosystem 

restoration project (USACE, 2005) 

Land acquisition costs for degraded intertidal habitat lands purchased by the New Jersey 

Meadowlands Commission (USACE, 2004). 

Page C-2 

SC10982


Restoration projects conducted by NOAA 

Table C.1 lists costs for salt marsh restoration projects recently conducted or overseen by the 

Northeast Regional Office of NOAA’s Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration 

Program (DARRP). The costs in Table C.1 include planning and design, permitting, project 

implementation, monitoring, and general administration and oversight. Land acquisition costs are 

not included in the costs. The per-acre costs for these projects range from approximately $47,000 

to $376,000 per acre. 

Table C.1. Costs for recent intertidal marsh habitat restoration projects by NOAA 

Project name Year completed Acres Cost Cost per acre 

Beaver Dam Creek, Eastern Shore, NJ 2005 8 $372,500 $46,563 

Marsh creation for Chalk Point oil spill, 

Mechanicsville, MD 2005 6 $477,000 $79,500 

Bridge Creek, Staten Island, NY 2005 13 $1,553,085 $119,468 

Saw Mill Marsh, Staten Island, NY 2004 1 $376,000 $376,000 

Woodbridge Creek, Woodbridge, NJ 2006 14 $3,148,000 $224,857 

Mill Creek Marsh, Chelsea, MA 2005 1 $328,000 $328,000 

Restoration projects conducted by USACE 

Table C.2 presents cost information for three intertidal habitat restoration projects being 

conducted or planned by USACE. Land acquisition costs are not included in the costs. 

Table C.2. Costs for intertidal marsh habitat restoration projects by USACE 

Project name Acres Cost Cost per acre 

Joseph P. Medwick Park, Carteret, NJ 14 $3,300,000 $235,714 

Woodbridge Creek, Woodbridge, NJ 23 $3,252,000 $141,391 

Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ 46 $25,490,353 $554,138 

USACE has recently awarded contracts to restore degraded salt marsh habitat at the Joseph P. 

Medwick Park in Carteret New Jersey (USACE and the Port Authority of NJ & NY, 2006) and at 

Woodbridge Creek in Woodbridge, New Jersey (USACE, Undated). At both locations, the 

restoration involves removing the invasive common reed (Phragmites australis) through 

excavation and replanting native marsh vegetation (e.g., Spartina spp.). Excavation to remove 

contaminated soils is also being conducted at the Woodbridge Creek site. 

Page C-3 

SC10982


The total cost for restoring 14 acres at Joseph P. Medwick Park is $3.3 million (USACE and the 

Port Authority of NJ & NY, 2006), equivalent to a per-acre cost of $236,000. The cost for 

restoring 23 acres of habitat at Woodbridge Creek is $3.25 million, or $141,000 per acre 

(USACE, Undated). 1 

USACE has also developed cost estimates for restoring 46 acres of intertidal wetland habitat at 

Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey (USACE, 2005). The intertidal wetland habitat 

restoration project will be conducted as part of a larger effort to restore a total of 234 acres of 

different types of habitat at the park, as well as other park improvements. Restoration costs 

specific to the intertidal salt marsh habitat are not provided in the document, but they can be 

derived using line item cost summary tables and other information in the document. Based on 

our analysis of the information presented in the document, the restoration of the 46 acres of 

intertidal habitat will cost $25.49 million (including contingency costs), or $554,000 per acre. 2 

C.2.2 Final cost for intertidal habitat restoration 

In addition to the project costs listed and described above, three additional types of costs were 

added to the project-specific costs. 

First, many potential restoration sites with degraded habitat may include contaminated soil or 

sediment. In these cases, contaminated soil or sediment would have to be disposed of safely. 

Two of the projects included in our compilation include removal and disposal of contaminated 

soil and sediment (Woodbridge Creek and Liberty State Park), but in both cases the 

contaminated soil and sediment are being disposed of on-site. Off-site disposal of contaminated 

soil or sediment would require higher costs for transporting the contaminated material. To 

account for this possibility, we include a 5% contingency on costs for waste disposal. 

Second, the project costs described above do not include the cost of purchasing land to be 

restored. These costs are available from USACE (2005), which include the prices paid by the 

New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for degraded tidal wetland sites that are targeted for 

1. The total cost for the Woodbridge Creek site, as reported in USACE and the Port Authority of NJ & NY 

(2006), is $6.4 million. However, this cost includes the cost of the NOAA restoration included in Table C.1. 

The $3.25 million cost for the USACE project was determined by subtracting the cost of the NOAA 

component. The 14-acre size of the USACE project was provided by the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP; D. Bean, NJDEP Office of Natural Resource Restoration, personal 

communication, September 15, 2006). 

2. Costs for planning, engineering, design, and construction management were presented as a total amount for 

all of the work being conducted at the park. We estimated that 84% of these costs apply to intertidal wetland 

habitat, because the construction costs for intertidal wetland habitat are 84% of the total habitat restoration 

construction costs. 

Page C-4 

SC10982


future restoration (USACE, 2005). The land purchase price information is presented in 

Table C.3. We applied an annual 3% increase in land purchase prices to convert the costs in 

Table C.3 to 2006 dollars. 

Table C.3. Prices paid by New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for degraded intertidal 

habitat 

Initial 

purchase 

price 

Adjusted 

purchase 

price (2006$) 

Adjusted 

purchase 

price per acre 

Parcel name 

Year of 

purchase Acres 

Berry’s Creek Marsh 1999 168 $1,181,997 $1,453,707 $8,653 

Kearney Brackish Marsh 1999 116 $933,085 $1,147,577 $9,893 

Kearney Freshwater Marsh 1999 279 $1,180,000 $1,451,251 $5,202 

Lyndhurst Riverside Marsh 1999 31 $306,470 $376,920 $12,159 

Metro Media Tract 2003 74 $1,000,000 $1,092,727 $14,767 

Oritani Marsh 1998 224 $2,200,000 $2,786,894 $12,441 

Riverbend Wetland Preserve 1996 57 $475,000 $638,360 $11,199 

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-5 

SC10982


Table C.4. Final per-acre cost for intertidal habitat restoration 

Project name Acres Cost Cost per acre 

Beaver Dam Creek, Eastern Shore, NJ 8 $372,500 $46,563 

Marsh creation for Chalk Point oil spill, 

Mechanicsville, MD 6 $477,000 $79,500 

Bridge Creek, Staten Island, NY 13 $1,553,085 $119,468 

Saw Mill Marsh, Staten Island, NY 1 $376,000 $376,000 

Woodbridge Creek, Woodbridge, NJ (NOAA) 14 $3,148,000 $224,857 

Mill Creek Marsh, Chelsea, MA 1 $328,000 $328,000 

Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ 46 $25,490,353 $554,138 

Joseph P. Medwick Park, Carteret, NJ 14 $3,300,000 $235,714 

Woodbridge Creek, Woodbridge, NJ (USACE) 23 $3,252,000 $141,391 

Subtotal (including Liberty State Park) 126 $38,296,938 $303,944 

Subtotal (excluding Liberty State Park) 80 $12,806,585 $160,082 

Total (combination of above subtotals) 206 $51,103,523 $248,075 

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-6 

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 

Price per acre of 

Wetland mitigation bank 

restoration credit 

(2006$) 

Date of 

price quote 

Source of information 

Rancocas Wetland 

$140,000 October 12, 2006 Nick Rudi, GreenVest 

Mitigation Bank 

MRI (Meadowlands) 


$160,000 October 10, 2006 Alex Smith, Marsh Resources 

Incorporated 

Wyckoff’s Mills Wetland 


$168,350 October 10, 2006 Matthew B. Noblet, Shaw 

Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. 

Willow Grove Wetlands $116,500 a October 12, 2006 Tom Wells, The Nature Conservancy 


Pio Costa Wetland 


$200,000 b October 12, 2006 Ed Grasso, consultant for Anthony Pio 

Costa 

Average $156,970 

a. This is the midpoint from the provided range of $100,000 to $133,000 per acre of undiscounted credit. 

b. This is the midpoint from the provided range of $150,000 to $250,000 per acre of credit. 

Page C-7 

SC10982


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 

Cost for wetland 

Permit applicant Habitat Acres 

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-8 

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 per acre 

Cost component 

(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-9 

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-10 

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-11 

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-12 

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. 

Page C-13 

SC10982

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

Expert-Report-Lipton-Stratus-November-3-2006

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?