NOAA's Response and Restoration Blog

An inside look at the science of cleaning up and fixing the mess of marine pollution


Leave a comment

University of Washington Helps ITOPF and NOAA Analyze Emerging Risks in Marine Transportation

Huge container ship MSC Oscar being guided by two small ships into port.

Massive container ships, carrying unprecedented amounts of fuel and cargo, are one of many developments in marine transportation that also is bringing new risks of oil spills to the high seas. Shown here is the MSC Oscar, one of the largest container ships in the world. (Credit: kees torn, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license)

This is a guest post by University of Washington graduate students Megan Desillier, Seth Sivinski, and Nicole White.

A warming climate is opening up new shipping routes—and hence, new avenues for trade—through the Arctic Ocean as summer sea ice shrinks and thins. Developing technologies have also allowed for mega-ships (unprecedented in size) and newer cargoes to begin transiting the ocean. These developments could bring new or greater hazards, including oil spills, for the maritime shipping network worldwide.

Our group of three graduate students at the University of Washington, with the support of the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF) and NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, sought to understand how the world’s shipping dynamic has changed in recent years and how these emerging challenges in marine transportation will affect that dynamic. The ITOPF, NOAA, and the marine industry can consider these emerging risks in marine transportation as they plan for the future.

Here’s what we found.

A Changing Climate

Based on climate changes that have already occurred, ports are likely to experience more intense storm events and increased precipitation. In the more distant future, this greater degree of storminess will combine with sea level rise, causing both the probabilities and consequences of risk to marine transportation to increase.

Given the resources and services that ports provide, climate change could seriously impact the efficiency of the greater maritime transportation network. While infrastructure risks can be mitigated, it is important to note that according to experts in the field interviewed during this project, the majority of ports have made few preparations or plans for sea level rise related to climate change.

Although Arctic climate change is creating new shipping opportunities, these come with great challenges for the marine transportation system, especially in the second half of this century. At sea, the retreat of sea ice is accompanied by an increase in storminess, increasing risks to ships and shipping infrastructure from storm surge and waves. On land, permafrost has already begun to thaw, contributing to impacts to infrastructure, including railroads, ice roads, airstrips, and pipelines.

Taken together, the changing Arctic climate will require changes in the marine transportation system both at sea and on land. These changes include improved infrastructure along shipping routes, harbors of refuge, search and rescue capabilities, ice-breaking services, and coordination among organizations with a central role in spill response.

Changing Patterns of Trade

Rough seas pound the hull of support ship USNS Arctic as it sails alongside aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman.

A changing climate opens up greater potential for marine traffic in the Arctic, but it is accompanied by an increase in storms and other threats to maritime infrastructure. Here, rough seas pound the hull of support ship USNS Arctic as it sails alongside aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman during a mission to the Arctic. (U.S. Navy)

An increase in maritime activity surrounding both the Panama and Suez Canals could increase the risk of incidents in these areas, especially as infrastructure development around them increases. Larger canals will allow for bigger ships, which will make more concentrated port calls. This means that the vessels will spend more time in ports and unload more cargo. This is expected to be most common on the eastern seaboard of the United States as the Panama Canal expands.

In addition, the lifting of the American ban on crude oil exports could impact imports and exports of both crude and refined products. Much of the increase in oil exports from the United States would head to Europe and Asia.

The Arctic is receiving considerable emphasis as an emerging trade shortcut for maritime shipping, especially from Asian nations, but currently the majority of the activity in this region comes from tourism, mining, and fossil fuel extraction. This includes marine traffic supplying these activities as well as the transport of extracted resources.

Developing Technologies

Recently, the marine transportation system witnessed the introduction of the “mega-container ship.” A “mega-container ship” could be considered any container ship over 10,000 twenty-foot equivalent units, or TEUs. However, the largest “mega-container ship” to date can handle 18,000 TEUs. The development of these vessels has brought a safer, more fuel-efficient method of transportation for shipping containers throughout the world.

However, these massive vessels potentially increase the consequences of pollution-related incidents, as they carry larger amounts of fuel and cargo, which could result in larger oil spills. Incidents involving these vessels may also be more difficult for salvage and response organizations to mitigate as they would have to remove more fuel and cargo from larger disabled ships.

Another vessel to watch is the LNG carrier. These vessels transport liquefied natural gas (LNG), which requires special attention to temperature and pressure for it to remain in liquid form. U.S. imports and exports of LNG are expected to increase. This will require monitoring during transit, as well as safe handling practices while being loaded and unloaded in port.

Increased vessel automation potentially introduces new risks via reduced crew size and increasing bridge automation, even though enhanced bridge automation ostensibly represents a safety improvement. For example, if a vessel is being operating by a “minimally manned crew,” crew members may find it harder to meet required rest hours, becoming fatigued. In a situation where a fatigued crewmember is operating automated equipment on the bridge, the chances for human error increase. Additionally, if that equipment fails, fatigued crewmembers might find themselves relying largely on their own technical skills to mitigate the risks—all while fatigued.

Finally, we’ve noted concern over the introduction of new ship propulsion fuels, such as LNG. The emergency response community lacks experience with LNG propulsion fuel incidents, leaving some uncertainty surrounding the probability and consequences of such an accident. As LNG is further adopted as a propulsion fuel, the supporting infrastructure to transport it will have to be updated as well. Training for safe handling and transport of the fuel will also need to be further introduced to crews and ports in order to mitigate the associated risks of managing this fuel.

Conclusions

Response organizations will need to emphasize new contingency planning and condition monitoring and assessment in response to these changes in the marine transportation system. For example, there is a fairly high certainty regarding how sea-level rise and other climate change–associated impacts will affect ports in coming years, and ports will need to take the changing environment into account in their planning and preparedness to reduce the likelihood of future incidents associated with these changes.

This contrasts with the Arctic where there are higher uncertainties associated with the emerging risks outlined here. In the Arctic, response organizations will need to focus on monitoring the evolution of climate change impacts and shipping activities as well as participate in the development of mitigation actions. All parties will need to identify the steps that will lead to safe Arctic shipping, salvage, and pollution response.

While there is no one complete solution to address all risks, our analysis offers information relevant to multiple sectors of the maritime transportation network. By forging relationships among these sectors, response organizations will be able to better develop the most comprehensive responses to address pressures and gaps emerging as a result of the changing environment, changing patterns of trade, and developing technologies. And hopefully these organizations will be even better prepared for the oil spills of the future, no matter the scenario.

Megan Desillier, Seth Sivinski, and Nicole White are Master’s candidates at the University of Washington (UW) in the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs working with faculty advisors Robert Pavia and Thomas M. Leschine. The team completed the research of emerging risks in marine transportation for the International Tanker Owner Pollution Federation (ITOPF) and was provided additional assistance in their research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The students completed this research over the course of an academic year as part of the thesis/capstone requirement for the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs at the UW. Our team would like to thank our sponsor, ITOPF, as well as NOAA for providing additional assistance. To contact the authors, please email Robert Pavia at bobpavia@uw.edu.

The views expressed in this post reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of ITOPF, NOAA, or the U.S. federal government.

Photo of MSC Oscar: kees torn,  Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license


7 Comments

At the U.S.-Canadian Border, Surveying a World War II Shipwreck for History and Oil

Historical photo of the Coast Trader at port in San Francisco.

The Coast Trader, first launched in 1920, was sunk by a Japanese torpedo in 1942. (San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park)

On June 2, 2016, an underwater survey team is looking at what they believe to be the wreck of the 324-foot-long Coast Trader, a U.S. Army-chartered freight ship sunk somewhere off the Washington coast during World War II. The shipwreck being surveyed is located near the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca just across the border of Washington state and British Columbia in Canadian waters.

The Coast Trader sank on June 7, 1942 after the Imperial Japanese Navy’s deadly I-26 submarine torpedoed it on its journey between Port Angeles, Washington, and San Francisco, California. Its precise location on the seafloor remained unknown until a 2010 survey by the Canadian Hydrographic Service. A wreck with the same dimensions and basic shape as the Coast Trader lies in 450 feet of water just two miles from where the ship’s master reported his ship was attacked.

The survey team is led by archaeologist James Delgado, director of maritime heritage for NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, and Michael Brennan, archaeological director for the Ocean Exploration Trust, which was founded by underwater explorer Robert Ballard, who years ago discovered the wreck of the Titanic.

Joining the team at the University of Rhode Island’s Inner Space Center is Frank Cantelas, archaeologist for NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration Research, along with naval architects, corrosion and oil spill response experts from the U.S. Coast Guard, and a Canadian historian from the Vancouver Maritime Museum. While the Coast Trader appears to rest in Canadian waters, it is just north of Washington’s Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

Natuical chart showing approximate location of Coast Trader wreck between Washington state and Vancouver Island.

A map of what was believed to be the approximate location of the wreck of the Coast Trader, on the border of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and Canada. The likeliest scenario of oil release from most sunken wrecks, including the Coast Trader, is a small, episodic release that may be precipitated by disturbance of the vessel in storms. However, NOAA’s modeling shows that a worst-case scenario spill would oil shorelines on the southern coast of Canada’s Vancouver Island. (NOAA)

Why the interest in a 74-year-old wreck? History and the threat of oil pollution. While the Coast Trader was a pretty typical ship of its era, the wreck is now considered historically significant for being one of a handful of ships sunk on this side of the Pacific during World War II.

In addition, in 2013, it was one of the priority shipwrecks NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration, along with the National Marine Sanctuaries program, identified for its potential risk of spilling oil. While the Coast Trader was carrying a cargo of newsprint when it sank, it was also loaded with more than 7,000 barrels of a heavy fuel oil known as Bunker C.

The marine archaeologists looking at the wreck will be trying to confirm that it is in fact the Coast Trader, and they’ll be searching for clues as to whether the ship’s hull is still intact and likely still holding its fuel.

Our 2013 assessment of the Coast Trader’s pollution potential [PDF] reports the following about the ship’s sinking and its potential condition:

The explosion blew the hatch covers off the cargo hold and sent rolls of newsprint flying through the air. Survivors of the attack reported looking down into the hatches and seeing a “sea of oil and water” in and around the damaged portion of the ship and that “quite a bit of fuel oil surrounded ship.” The vessel eventually sank by the stern and the survivors watched as each of the hatch covers were blown off in succession as the ship sank.

Based on the large degree of inaccuracy in the reported sinking location and the depths of water the ship was lost in, it is unlikely that the shipwreck will be intentionally located. Although the survivor reports of the sinking make it sound like substantial amounts of oil was lost when the vessel sank, it is not possible to determine with any degree of accuracy what the current condition of the wreck is and how likely the vessel is to contain oil since the shipwreck has never been discovered.

The only way to conclusively determine the condition of the shipwreck will be to examine the site after it is discovered.

Hopefully, we’ll soon find out if this wreck actually is the long-lost Coast Trader. You can watch video of the underwater survey as it takes place at http://www.nautiluslive.org/.

UPDATED JUNE 2, 2016: The survey team has confirmed that this wreck is, with very little doubt, the Coast Trader. Here are a few photos of the livestream exploration of the wreck:


Leave a comment

How Do You Begin to Clean up a Century of Pollution on New Jersey’s Passaic River?

A mechanical dredge pulls contaminated sediment from the bottom of the Passaic River.

A mechanical dredge removes sediment from an area with high dioxin concentrations on the Passaic River, adjacent to the former Diamond Alkali facility in Newark, New Jersey. (NOAA)

Dozens of companies share responsibility for the industrial pollution on New Jersey’s Passaic River, and several Superfund sites dot the lower portion of the river. But one of the perhaps best-known of these companies (and Superfund sites) is Diamond Alkali.

In the mid-20th century, Diamond Alkali (later Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company) and others manufactured pesticides and herbicides, including those constituting “Agent Orange,” along the Passaic. The toxic waste from these activities left an undeniable mark on the river, which winds about 80 miles through northern New Jersey until it meets the Hackensack River and forms Newark Bay.

Fortunately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with support from the natural resource trustees, including NOAA, U.S. Department of Interior, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the New York State Department of Environmental Protection, has released a plan to clean up the lower eight miles of the Passaic River, which passes through Newark.

Those lower eight miles are where 90 percent of the river’s contaminated sediments are located [PDF] and addressing contamination in this section of the river is an important first step.

A History of War

Ruins of an old railroad bridge end part way over the Passaic River.

Ruins of an old Central Railroad of New Jersey bridge along the Passaic River hint at a bustling era of industrialization gone by. (Credit: Joseph, Creative Commons)

A major contributor to that contamination came from what is known as Agent Orange, a mix of “tactical herbicides,” which the U.S. military sprayed from 1962 to 1971 during the Vietnam War. These herbicides removed tropical foliage hiding enemy soldiers.

However, an unwanted byproduct of manufacturing Agent Orange was the extremely toxic dioxin known as TCDD. Dioxins are commonly released into the environment from burning waste, diesel exhaust, chemical manufacturing, and other processes. The EPA classifies TCDD as a human carcinogen (cause of cancer).

Pollution on the Passaic River stretches back more than two centuries, but its 20th century industrial history has left traces of dioxins, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds in sediments of the Passaic River and surrounding the Diamond Alkali site. Testing in the early 1980s confirmed this contamination, and the area was added to the National Priorities List, becoming a Superfund site in 1984.

Many of these contaminants persist for a long time in the environment, meaning concentrations of them have declined very little in the last 20 years. As a result of this pollution, no one should eat fish or crab caught from the Lower Passaic River, a 17 mile stretch of river leading to Newark Bay.

Finding a Solution

But how do you clean up such a complex and toxic history? The federal and state trustees for the Lower Passaic River provided technical support as EPA grappled with this question, debating two possible cleanup options, or “remedies,” for the river. The cleanup option EPA ultimately settled on involves dredging 3.5 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the river bottom and removing those sediments from the site. Then, a two-foot-deep “cap” made of sand and stone will be placed over contaminated sediments remaining at the bottom of the river.

This will be an enormous effort—one cubic yard is roughly the size of a standard dishwasher. According to NOAA Regional Resource Coordinator Reyhan Mehran, it will be one of the largest dredging projects in Superfund history. While the entire project could take more than ten years, Judith Enck, EPA Regional Administrator for New York, has pointed out that the process involves “cleaning up over a century of toxic pollution.”

A Tale of Two Remedies

Aerial view of New York City skyline, Newark, and industrial river landscape.

Manhattan skyline from over Newark, New Jersey. The view is across the confluence of the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers and shows the industrial buildup in the area. (Credit: Doc Searls, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license)

Mehran describes the alternatives analysis as a complicated one—choosing between two cleanup remedies, the one described above and an “in-water” disposal solution. This second approach called for removing the contaminated sediments from the riverbed and burying them in Newark Bay, in what is known as a “confined aquatic disposal cell.” That essentially involves digging a big hole in the bottom of the bay, removing the clean sediments for use elsewhere, filling it with the contaminated sediments, and capping it to keep everything in place.

While the less expensive of the two options, serious concerns were raised about the potential effect this in-water solution would have on the long-term ecosystem health of Newark Bay.

The chosen remedy, which calls for removing the contaminated sediment from the riverbed and transporting it away by rail to a remote site on land, was selected as the better solution for the long-term health of the ecosystem. Finding the best option incorporated the scientific support and analysis of NOAA and the trustees.

As NOAA’s Mehran explains, “The site, with some of the highest concentrations of dioxins in sediment, is in the middle of one of the most densely populated parts of our nation, which makes the threat to public resources tremendous.”

While the upper and middle segments of the Passaic River flow through forests and natural marshes, areas bordering the lower river are densely populated and industrial. Because of industrialization, habitat for wildlife within Newark Bay has already been severely altered, yet the bay’s shallow waters continue to provide critically needed habitat for fish such as winter flounder, migratory birds including herons and egrets, and numerous other species.

“The watershed of the Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay is highly developed,” emphasizes Mehran, “and the resulting scarcity of ecological habitat makes it all the more valuable and important to protect and restore.”

Learn more about the cleanup plan for the Lower Passaic River [PDF].

Photo of Jersey Central Ruins used courtesy of Joseph, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license.

Photo of Manhattan skyline with Passaic and Hackensack Rivers used courtesy of Doc Searls, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.


Leave a comment

Preparing for What Can Go Wrong Because of Hurricanes

A view of the houses and highways along the New Jersey coast which were damaged by Hurricane Sandy.

A view of the houses and highways along the New Jersey coast which were damaged by Hurricane Sandy in 2012. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Sandy. Katrina. Andrew. These and many other names stand out in our memories for the power of wind and wave—and the accompanying devastation—which these storms have brought to U.S. shores. Atlantic hurricane season officially begins June 1 and ends November 30, but disasters can and do strike unexpectedly.

Being involved in disaster response, we at NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration know what can go wrong when a hurricane hits the coast—after all, we’ve seen it firsthand:

Clearly, a lot is at stake when a hurricane sweeps through an area, which is why preparing for hurricanes and other disasters is so important. We can’t stop these powerful storms, but we can prepare ourselves, our homes, and our coastal communities to lessen the impacts and bounce back more quickly after storms hit.

Hurricane Preparedness Week comes as a reminder each May before the Atlantic hurricane season begins. NOAA’s National Weather Service has plenty of tips and guidelines for preparing to weather these storms:

NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration also takes care to prepare for hurricanes and other disasters.

Sometimes that means building internet and phone access into the stormproof bathrooms of our facilities so that we can continue providing sound science and support to deal with pollution from a storm. Other times that means working with coastal regions to create response plans for disaster debris, training other emergency responders to address oil and chemical spills, and developing software tools that pull together and display key information necessary for making critical response decisions during disasters.

Learn more about how to protect yourself and your belongings from a hurricane.


Leave a comment

NOAA Supporting Spill Response in the Green Canyon Oil Reserve Area of the Gulf of Mexico

Vessels skim oil from the surface of the Gulf of Mexico.

Vessels conduct skimming operations, May 14, 2016, in response to an estimated 88,200 gallons of crude oil discharged from a segment of flow line at the Glider Field approximately 90 miles south of Timbalier Island, Louisiana. As of May 15, the vessels have removed a combined total of more than 51,000 gallons of oily-water mixture since the discharge on May 12, 2016. (U.S. Coast Guard)

NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration is supporting the U.S. Coast Guard response to an oil spill in the Green Canyon oil reserve area in the Gulf of Mexico. We are providing oil spill trajectory analysis and information on natural resources potentially at risk from the oil. The NOAA Scientific Support Coordinator has been on-scene.

The spill occurred at approximately 11:00 a.m. on May 12, 2016 when 2,100 barrels (88,200 gallons) of oil was discharged from a Shell subsea well-head flow line at the Glider Field. Since then, the source has been secured and the pipeline is no longer leaking. The U.S. Coast Guard reports that the spill happened approximately 90 miles south of Timbalier Island, Louisiana.

We are providing scientific support, including consulting with natural resource trustees and environmental compliance requirements, identifying natural resources at risk, coordinating overflight reports, modeling the spill’s trajectory, and coordinating spatial data needs, such as displaying response data in a “common operational picture.” The reported oil trajectory is in a westerly direction with no expected shoreline impact at this time.

For more details, refer to the May 15 U.S. Coast Guard press release or the May 15 Shell Gulf of Mexico Response press release.


1 Comment

How Does NOAA Model Oil Spills?

Dark oil drifts near the populated shores of Berkeley and Emerville, California.

After the cargo ship M/V Cosco Busan struck the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in 2007, NOAA oceanographers modeled how wind, waves, tides, and weather would carry the ship’s fuel oil across San Francisco Bay. Here, dark oil drifts near the shores of Berkeley and Emerville, California, on November 9, 2007. (NOAA)

One foggy morning in 2007, a cargo ship was gliding across the gray waters of San Francisco Bay when it ran into trouble, quite literally. This ship, the M/V Cosco Busan, struck the Bay Bridge, tearing a hundred-foot-long gash in its hull and releasing 53,000 gallons of thick, sticky fuel oil into the bay.

When such an oil spill, or even the threat of a spill, happens in coastal waters, the U.S. Coast Guard asks the oceanographers at NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration for an oil spill trajectory.

Watch as NOAA’s Ocean Service breaks down what an oil spill trajectory is in a one-minute video, giving a peek at how we model the oil’s path during a spill.

Using a specialized NOAA computer model, called GNOME, our oceanographers forecast the movement of spilled oil on the water surface. With the help of data for winds, tides, weather, and ocean currents, they model where the oil is most likely to travel and how quickly it may come ashore or threaten vulnerable coastal resources, such as endangered seabirds or a busy shipping lane.

During the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, we produced dozens of oil spill trajectory maps, starting on April 21 and ending August 23, 2010, when aerial surveys and satellite analyses eventually showed no recoverable oil in the spill area. You can download the trajectory maps from that spill.

Swirls of oil on the surface of San Francisco Bay west of the Golden Gate Bridge.

Specially trained observers fly over oil spills to gather information that is fed back into NOAA’s trajectory model to improve the next forecast of where the oil is going. (NOAA)

Learn more about how we model and respond to oil spills:

Attempting to Answer One Question Over and Over Again: Where Will the Oil Go?

“Over the duration of a typical spill, we’ll revise and reissue our forecast maps on a daily basis. These maps include our best prediction of where the oil might go and the regions of highest oil coverage, as well as what is known as a “confidence boundary.” This is a line encircling not just our best predictions for oil coverage but also a broader area on the map reflecting the full possible range in our forecasts [PDF].

Our oceanographers include this confidence boundary on the forecast maps to indicate that there is a chance that oil could be located anywhere inside its borders, depending on actual conditions for wind, weather, and currents.”

A Bird’s Eye View: Looking for Oil Spills from the Sky

“Aerial overflights are surveys from airplanes or helicopters which help responders find oil slicks as they move and break up across a potentially wide expanse of water … Overflights give snapshots of where the oil is located and how it is behaving at a specific date and time, which we use to compare to our oceanographic models. By visually confirming an oil slick’s location, we can provide even more accurate forecasts of where the oil is expected to go, which is a key component of response operations.”

Five Key Questions NOAA Scientists Ask During Oil Spills

“Responders can potentially clean up what is on top of the water but recovering oil droplets from the water column is practically impossible. This is why it is so important to spill responders to receive accurate predictions of the movement of the surface slicks so they can quickly implement cleanup or prevention strategies.”


Leave a comment

Restoration on the Way for New Jersey’s Raritan River, Long Polluted by Industrial Waste

The Raritan River as it runs through a wooded area.

A draft restoration plan and environmental assessment is now available for the American Cyanamid Superfund Site which affected the Raritan River in northern New Jersey. (U.S. Coast Guard)

Following years of intensive cleanup and assessment at the American Cyanamid Superfund Site, NOAA and our partners are now accepting public comment on a draft restoration plan and environmental assessment [PDF] for this northern New Jersey site.

For many years, the 575 acre site located along the Raritan River in Bridgewater Township was used by the American Cyanamid Company for chemical manufacturing and coal tar distillation.

However, chemical wastes released during manufacturing at the facility harmed natural resources in the sediments and surface waters of the Raritan River and its tributaries. The facility was designated a Superfund site in 1983 due to contamination by a variety of toxic substances including mercury, chromium, arsenic, lead, and PCBs.

The area affected by the contamination provides habitat for a variety of migratory fish, such as alewife, blueback herring, striped bass, rainbow smelt, American shad, American eel, and other aquatic life. In addition, large numbers of birds nest, forage, and migrate along the Raritan River, from raptors and songbirds to waterfowl and shorebirds.

Over the years, NOAA has worked with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ensure a thorough cleanup to protect natural resources in the Raritan River watershed. NOAA and our co-trustees, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, evaluated the extent of injury in the river and determined the best path toward restoration.

An Industrial History

Factories and trains at the American Cyanamid chemical manufacturing site, 1940.

The American Cyanamid Company, shown here circa 1940, produced fertilizers, cyanide, and other chemical products whose wastes were released directly into the Raritan River for decades. (Photographer unknown)

The American Cyanamid Company got its start in the early 1900s by developing an effective fertilizer ingredient, a compound of nitrogen, lime, and carbide called cyanamid. By the early 1920s, the company, whose focus had been primarily agricultural products, began producing cyanide for use in gold and silver extraction and hydrocyanic acid, important to rubber production.

Over the next several decades, the American Cyanamid Company diversified, adding chemicals, plastics, dyes, and resins to their growing line of products. Further expanding into pharmaceuticals, the company provided valuable medical products to the World War II effort.

Starting in the 1920s and continuing up to the 1980s, chemical waste associated with the company’s manufacturing practices became an issue. For decades, chemical waste was released directly into the Raritan River.

Waste treatment began in 1940, which meant it was buried at the site or stored in unlined “impoundments,” or reservoirs. That practice stopped in 1979 and dye manufacturing ended three years later. By 1985 there was no more direct discharge into the Raritan River and manufacturing at the site ceased in 1999. It is estimated that over time, 800,000 tons of chemical wastes were buried at the site.

A New Chapter for the Raritan River

The American Cyanamid site on the Raritan River in New Jersey.

The draft restoration plan for the Raritan River aims to restore passage for migratory fish while improving water quality and habitat due to years of industrial pollution at the American Cyanamid manufacturing site. (NOAA)

The restoration plan and environmental assessment were created by NOAA in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The plan proposes restoration actions that will compensate for any injuries to the river and related natural resources.

A major component of the restoration would be the removal of the Weston Mill Dam, near the confluence of the Millstone and Raritan Rivers. The original dam, a barrier to migratory fish, is thought to have been built around 1700 to power a mill. Removal of the current dam, a 1930s-era concrete replacement of the original, will help to achieve the restoration goals of restoring passage for migratory fish while improving water quality and habitat.

As explained in the plan, removing this dam will return the flow of the Raritan River and the streams it feeds closer to their natural states and do so without negative impacts to endangered species or cultural, sociological, or archaeological resources.

Long situated in an area of industrial activity, the American Cyanamid Superfund Site is only one of several contaminated sites along the Raritan River and its tributaries. Many of these sites are now being remediated, and the watershed is being restored.

According to NOAA Regional Resource Coordinator, Reyhan Mehran, “While it’s likely that this site is among those that contributed to the general degradation of the Raritan River over the last century, the site’s cleanup and compensatory projects will be important parts of the story of restoring the Raritan.”

Learn how to comment on the draft restoration plan and environmental assessment.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 700 other followers