Focused Feasibility Study Report
for the Lower Eight Miles of the Lower
Passaic River
Prepared by:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
in conjunction with:
Battelle
HDR|HydroQual
2014
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
LOWER EIGHT MILES OF THE LOWER PASSAIC RIVER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1-1
1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1
1.1.1
Purpose ............................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.2
Organization ....................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2
2
Purpose and Organization .......................................................................................... 1-1
Summary of the Remedial Investigation Report ....................................................... 1-3
1.2.1
Site Description .................................................................................................. 1-3
1.2.2
Site History......................................................................................................... 1-6
1.2.3
Nature and Extent of Contamination.................................................................. 1-9
1.2.4
Contaminant Fate and Transport ...................................................................... 1-24
1.2.5
Baseline Risk Assessment ................................................................................ 1-31
Development of Remedial Action Objectives and Selection of Target Areas....................... 2-1
2.1
Remedial Action Objectives for FFS Study Area ..................................................... 2-1
2.2
Overview of ARARs ................................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.1
Definition of ARARs ......................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.2
Waiver of ARARs .............................................................................................. 2-5
2.3
Development of ARARs ............................................................................................ 2-6
2.3.1
Chemical-Specific ARARs and TBCs ............................................................... 2-7
2.3.2
Location-Specific ARARs and TBCs ................................................................ 2-8
2.3.3
Action-Specific ARARs and TBCs .................................................................... 2-8
2.4
Development of Preliminary Remediation Goals ...................................................... 2-8
2.4.1
Human Health Preliminary Remediation Goals ................................................. 2-8
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
i
2014
2.4.2
Ecological Preliminary Remediation Goals ..................................................... 2-10
2.4.3
Identification of Background Concentrations .................................................. 2-11
2.4.4
PRG Selection .................................................................................................. 2-14
2.4.5
Identification and Selection of Potential Target Areas and Volume Estimate for
Remediation .................................................................................................................... 2-15
3
Identification and Screening of General Response Actions, Remedial Technologies, and
Process Options ............................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1
Identification of General Response Actions .............................................................. 3-2
3.1.1
No Action ........................................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.2
Institutional Controls .......................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.3
Monitored Natural Recovery.............................................................................. 3-3
3.1.4
Containment ....................................................................................................... 3-4
3.1.5
In-Situ Treatment................................................................................................ 3-4
3.1.6
Sediment Removal ............................................................................................. 3-4
3.1.7
Ex-Situ Treatment ............................................................................................... 3-4
3.1.8
Beneficial Use of Dredged Sediments ............................................................... 3-5
3.1.9
Disposal of Dredged Sediments ......................................................................... 3-5
3.2
Sources and Methods for the Identification of Potentially Applicable Technologies3-5
3.3
Identification and Initial Screening of Technology Types ........................................ 3-6
3.4
Effectiveness, Implementability and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process
Options.................................................................................................................................. 3-7
3.5
Ancillary Technologies.............................................................................................. 3-9
3.5.2
Dewatering ....................................................................................................... 3-10
3.5.3
Wastewater Treatment...................................................................................... 3-11
3.5.4
Transportation .................................................................................................. 3-12
3.5.5
Restoration ....................................................................................................... 3-13
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ii
2014
4
3.6
Summary of Retained Technologies and Process Options ...................................... 3-14
3.7
Selection of Representative Technologies and Process Options ............................. 3-15
Development and Screening of Remedial Alternatives ......................................................... 4-1
4.1
Alternative Development ........................................................................................... 4-1
4.2
Common Elements of Active Remedial Alternatives................................................ 4-2
4.2.1
Institutional Controls .......................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2
Monitored Natural Recovery.............................................................................. 4-3
4.2.3
Sediment Removal ............................................................................................. 4-4
4.2.4
Sediment Capping .............................................................................................. 4-6
4.2.5
Removal Actions .............................................................................................. 4-10
4.2.6
Dredged Material Management Scenarios ....................................................... 4-10
4.2.7
Upland Sediment Processing Facility .............................................................. 4-17
4.2.8
Additional Considerations ................................................................................ 4-18
4.3
4.3.1
Modeling Framework ....................................................................................... 4-19
4.3.2
Application of Models for Simulating FFS Alternatives ................................. 4-23
4.4
Description and Screening of Remedial Alternatives.............................................. 4-26
4.4.1
Evaluation Criteria and Approach .................................................................... 4-26
4.4.2
Alternative 1: No Action .................................................................................. 4-27
4.4.3
Alternative 2: Deep Dredging with Backfill .................................................... 4-30
4.4.4
Alternative 3: Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation .............. 4-38
4.4.5
Alternative 4: Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding.......................... 4-45
4.5
5
Modeling Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives ...................................................... 4-19
Summary of Remedial Alternatives Retained for Detailed Analysis ...................... 4-50
Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives .......................................................................... 5-1
5.1
Evaluation Process and Evaluation Criteria .............................................................. 5-1
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
iii
2014
5.1.1
Threshold Criterion 1: Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment ...................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.2
Threshold Criterion 2: Compliance with ARARs .............................................. 5-3
5.1.3
Primary Balancing Criterion 1: Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ..... 5-4
5.1.4
Primary Balancing Criterion 2: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume
through Treatment ............................................................................................................. 5-7
5.1.5
Primary Balancing Criterion 3: Short-Term Effectiveness ................................ 5-8
5.1.6
Primary Balancing Criterion 4: Implementability.............................................. 5-8
5.1.7
Primary Balancing Criterion 5: Cost .................................................................. 5-8
5.1.8
Modifying Criterion 1: State Acceptance......................................................... 5-11
5.1.9
Modifying Criterion 2: Community Acceptance ............................................. 5-11
5.2
Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives ........................................................... 5-11
5.2.1
Alternative 1: No Action (described in Section 4.4.2) ..................................... 5-11
5.2.2
Alternative 2: Deep Dredging with Backfill (described in Section 4.4.3) ....... 5-15
5.2.3
Alternative 3: Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation (described
in Section 4.4.4) .............................................................................................................. 5-30
5.2.4
Alternative 4: Capping with Dredging for Flooding (described in
Section 4.4.5) .................................................................................................................. 5-45
5.3
Comparative Analysis and Cost Sensitivity Analyses ............................................. 5-60
5.3.1
Comparative Analysis ...................................................................................... 5-60
5.3.2
Cost Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................. 5-65
6
Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... 6-1
7
References .............................................................................................................................. 7-1
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
iv
2014
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
LOWER EIGHT MILES OF THE LOWER PASSAIC RIVER
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1
Lower Passaic River Authorized Dimensions of the Federal Navigation Channel
and Periods of Dredging
Table 1-2a
Summary Statistics for Concentrations of Contaminants in Surface Sediments in
the Lower Passaic River
Table 1-2b
Summary Statistics for Concentrations of Contaminants in Surface Sediments in
Newark Bay (2005 and 2007 data)
Table 1-2c
Summary Statistics for Concentrations of Contaminants in Surface Sediments
(0-1 inch) in the Upper Passaic River
Table 1-3
Concentrations of COPCs and COPECs by Depth within the FFS Study Area
Table 2-1a
ARARs and TBCs
Table 2-1b
Sediment Screening Values
Table 2-2
Summary of Biota Tissue PRG Levels Protective of the Adult Angler Receptor
Table 2-3
Summary of Sediment PRGs Based on Human Health
Table 2-4
Summary of Biota Tissue PRG Levels Protective of Ecological Receptors
Table 2-5
Summary of Sediment PRGs based on Ecological Health
Table 2-6
Background COPEC and COPC Concentrations in Sediment
Table 2-7
Estimates of the Cancer Risks and Non-cancer Health Hazards Associated with
Background Sediment Concentrations for Consumption of Fish and Crabs
Table 2-8
Summary of Hazard Quotients for Macroinvertebrate and Fish Receptors
Associated with Exposure to Background Conditions
Table 2-9
Summary of Hazard Quotients for Wildlife Receptors Associated with Exposure
to Background Conditions
Table 2-10
PRG Selection
Table 3-1
Initial Screening of Technology Types
Table 3-2
Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process
Options
Table 3-3
Dewatering Methods
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
v
2014
Table 4-1
Factors Affecting Dredging Depth Requirements
Table 4-2
Gross Cumulative Resuspension Fluxes in the FFS Study Area from 2030-2059
Table 4-3
Summary of Estimates for Remedial Alternatives
Table 5-1
Summary of Total Cancer Risks and Child Health Hazards
Table 5-2a
Sediment Benchmarks Hazard Quotients Based on Future Modeled Sediment
Exposures – Benthic Invertebrates
Table 5-2b
Critical Body Residues Based on Future Modeled Sediment Exposures – Crab
Tissue, Predatory Fish Tissue, and Mummichog Tissue
Table 5-2c
Wildlife Dose Model Based on Future Modeled Sediment Exposures – Heron
(general fish diet), Heron (mummichog diet), and Mink
Table 5-3
Summary of Present Value Estimates
Table 5-4
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Table 5-5
Sensitivity Analysis for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
vi
2014
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
LOWER EIGHT MILES OF THE LOWER PASSAIC RIVER
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1
FFS Study Area Location Map
Figure 1-2
NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Location Map
Figure 1-3
The History of Dredging in the Lower Passaic River
Figure 1-4
Locations of CPG Members as of July 2012
Figure 1-5
Footprint of the Phase I and Phase II Tierra Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Areas
Figure 1-6a
Sediment Texture Type – RM0 to RM8
Figure 1-6b
Sediment Texture Type – RM8 to RM13
Figure 1-6c
Sediment Texture Type – RM13 to RM17
Figure 4-1
Proposed Confined Aquatic Disposal Cells in Newark Bay
Figure 4-2
Capping Area for Alternative 4
Figure 4-3a
Average Concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study
Area versus PRGs (Linear Scale)
Figure 4-3b
Average Concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study
Area versus PRGs (Log Scale)
Figure 4-3c
Average Concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study
Area: Best Estimate and Uncertainty Bounds
Figure 4-3d
Average Concentration of Total PCB in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area
versus PRGs (Linear Scale)
Figure 4-3e
Average Concentration of Total PCB in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area
versus PRGs (Log Scale)
Figure 4-3f
Average Concentration of Total PCB in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area:
Best Estimate and Uncertainty Bounds
Figure 4-3g
Average Concentration of Total DDx in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area
versus PRGs (Linear and Log Scale)
Figure 4-3h
Average Concentration of Total DDx in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area:
Best Estimate and Uncertainty Bounds
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
vii
2014
Figure 4-3i
Average Concentration of Mercury in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area
versus PRGs (Linear Scale)
Figure 4-3j
Average Concentration of Mercury in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area
versus PRGs (Log Scale)
Figure 4-3k
Average Concentration of Mercury in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area:
Best Estimate and Uncertainty Bounds
Figure 4-4a
Cumulative Flux (from 2030) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at Newark Bay Passaic River
Boundary at RM0.9
Figure 4-4b
Cumulative Flux (from 2030) of Total PCB at Newark Bay Passaic River
Boundary at RM0.9
Figure 4-4c
Cumulative Flux (from 2030) of Total DDx at Newark Bay Passaic River
Boundary at RM0.9
Figure 4-4d
Cumulative Flux (from 2030) of Mercury at Newark Bay Passaic River Boundary
at RM0.9
Figure 4-5
Conceptual Design for Alternative 2: Deep Dredging with Backfill
Figure 4-6
Conceptual Design for Alternative 3: Capping with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation
Figure 4-7
Conceptual Design for Alternative 4: Focused Capping with Dredging for
Flooding
Figure 5-1a
Average Concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment (Top 15 cm)
between RM8 and RM17 in the Lower Passaic River
Figure 5-1b
Average Concentration of Total PCB in Surface Sediment (Top 15 cm) between
RM8 and RM17 in the Lower Passaic River
Figure 5-1c
Average Concentration of Total DDx in Surface Sediment (Top 15 cm) between
RM8 and RM17 in the Lower Passaic River
Figure 5-1d
Average Concentration of Mercury in Surface Sediment (Top 15 cm) between
RM8 and RM17 in the Lower Passaic River
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
viii
2014
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
LOWER EIGHT MILES OF THE LOWER PASSAIC RIVER
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A
Data Evaluation Reports
Appendix B
Modeling
Appendix C
Mass Balance Modeling Analysis
Appendix D
Risk Assessment
Appendix E
Development of Preliminary Remediation Goals
Appendix F
Engineering Evaluations
Appendix G
Dredged Material Management Assessments
Appendix H
Cost Estimates
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ix
2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During a comprehensive study of the Lower Passaic River, an Operable Unit of the Diamond
Alkali Superfund Site, the sediments of the lower 8.3 miles were found to be a major source of
contamination to the rest of the river and Newark Bay. Therefore, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) prepared this Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) to
evaluate potential actions to address those sediments, while the 17-mile Lower Passaic River
Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study (RI/FS) is on-going.
Site Background and Sediment Contamination
The FFS Study Area is the lower eight miles of the Lower Passaic River in northeastern New
Jersey, from the river’s confluence with Newark Bay at River Mile (RM) 0 to RM8.3 near the
border between the City of Newark and Belleville Township. The FFS Study Area is located
within the Lower Passaic River Study Area (LPRSA), which is the 17-mile, tidal portion of the
Passaic River from Dundee Dam (located at RM17.4) to the confluence with Newark Bay at
RM0 and its watershed, including the Saddle River (RM15.6), Third River (RM11.3) and Second
River (RM8.1).
This FFS builds on the results of the Remedial Investigation (RI) that characterized the nature
and extent of contamination in the FFS Study Area and established the existence of unacceptable
human health cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards from exposure to contaminants in fish
and crabs, as well as unacceptable ecological risks. The FFS evaluates remedial alternatives for
the sediments of the FFS Study Area to address these unacceptable human health and ecological
risks. Although a large number of contaminants are found in the FFS Study Area, the FFS
focuses on those that pose the greatest risks to human and ecological health. The contaminants of
potential concern (COPCs) and contaminants of potential ecological concern (COPECs) are
presented in the following table.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-1
2014
Surface Sediments,
0-6 inches 1
Unit 2
Frequency of
Detection
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
2,3,7,8-TCDD 3
ρg/g
363 / 365
0.09
34,100
951
280
Total TCDD
ρg/g
311 / 312
2.20
37,900
1,193
399
Total PCBs
µg/kg
357 / 358
0.10
28,600
1,668
1,004
Total DDx
µg/kg
361 / 361
0.32
10,229
235
102
Dieldrin
µg/kg
269 / 355
0.01
152
11
5.3
Total Chlordane
µg/kg
344 / 344
0.05
254
37
31
Total PAHs
mg/kg
361 / 361
0.21
2,806
48
31
Mercury
mg/kg
373 / 381
0.05
16
2.72
2.20
Copper
mg/kg
382 / 384
0.21
2,470
183
169
Lead
mg/kg
378 / 378
4.40
906
259
235
Based on 1995 – 2012 data.
1
The top six inches of sediment is where most organisms in contact with the sediment are exposed to COPCs and COPECs, because it is where
they are most active (e.g., burrowing or feeding).
2
ρg/g = picograms per gram or parts per trillion (ppt); µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram or parts per billion (ppb); mg/kg = milligrams per
kilogram or parts per million (ppm).
3
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin is the most toxic form of dioxin.
Total TCDD = Sum of dioxins and furans.
Total PCBs = Sum of Aroclors or sum of PCB congeners, depending on the analysis performed.
Total DDx = Sum of 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD) and 4.4’dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE).
Total PAHs = Sum of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs)
RAOs for the FFS Study Area are as follows:
•
Reduce cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards for people eating fish and shellfish by
reducing the concentrations of COPCs in the sediments of the FFS Study Area.
•
Reduce the risks to ecological receptors by reducing the concentrations of COPECs in the
sediments of the FFS Study Area.
•
Reduce the migration of COPC- and COPEC-contaminated sediments from the FFS
Study Area to upstream portions of the Lower Passaic River and to Newark Bay and the
New York / New Jersey (NY/NJ) Harbor Estuary.
In accordance with Superfund guidance (Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process,
OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04, [USEPA, 1995a]), reasonably anticipated future land and
waterway use in the FFS Study Area should be considered during remedial alternative
development and remedy selection. There is a federally-authorized navigation channel in the
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-2
2014
Lower Passaic River that has not been maintained since 1983. Despite various constraints
described in Chapter 3 of the RI Report (e.g., shallow depths, low vertical clearance bridges), the
lower two miles of the river are used for commercial navigation by a number of companies. A
berth-by-berth analysis for 1997-2006 done by United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) established current waterway use and a survey of commercial users showed clear
future waterway use objectives in the lower 2.2 miles of the river (USACE, 2010).
In addition, the communities located along the FFS Study Area have clearly planned for future
increases in recreational access to the river, particularly above RM2.2, through master plans
(City of Newark 2010, City of Newark et al. 2004, Clarke et al. 2004, Clarke et al. 1999, Heyer
et al. 2002, NJDOT, 2007) and municipal zoning regulations (City of Newark, 2012). These
RAOs and reasonably anticipated future land and waterway use objectives were considered
during the development and evaluation of the remedial alternatives described below.
Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)
Since there are no chemical-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) that pertain to sediments, PRGs for the FFS Study Area were developed based on: 1)
risk-based fish- and crab-tissue concentrations that are protective of human health; 2) sediment
and body burden concentrations that are protective of benthic organisms; 3) body burden
concentrations that are protective of fish and aquatic wildlife populations; and 4) background
sediment concentrations.
PRGs become final remediation goals when USEPA makes a final decision to select a remedy
for the FFS Study Area, after considering all public comments. According to USEPA guidance
(USEPA, 1991), the starting point for setting remediation goals is a cancer risk level of 1 × 10-6,
a non-cancer Hazard Index (HI) equal to one for protection of human health, and Hazard
Quotient (HQ) equal to one for the lowest ecological PRG set to protect the various ecological
receptors. However, remedial action may achieve remediation goals set anywhere within the
range of 1 × 10-4 to 1 × 10-6 and an HI at or below one (USEPA, 1997).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-3
2014
While all of the contaminants presented in the previous table (in the Site Background and
Sediment Contamination section) are considered COPCs and COPECs, risk-based PRGs were
only developed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCBs, Total DDx, and mercury because they are the
major risk drivers (refer to Section 2.4) and because there were multiple lines of evidence
developed to evaluate how the alternatives would achieve PRGs for these four COPCs and
COPECs after remediation (see Appendix E). The proposed remediation goals for the FFS Study
Area are summarized in FFS Table 2-10. For the contaminants with human health PRGs, the
proposed remediation goals are within the cancer risk range of 1 × 10-4 to 1 × 10-6 and at or
below an HI equal to one, so they are protective of human health. For mercury and Total DDx,
the proposed remediation goals are at or below an HQ equal to one, so they are protective of the
environment. In addition, modeling results presented in Section 5.2 show that the proposed
remediation goals would be met under at least two of the active remedial alternatives described
in the “Description of Alternatives” section, in conjunction with natural recovery processes. For
2,3,7,8-TCDD and Total PCBs, it is unlikely that the ecological PRGs could be met under any of
the alternatives within a reasonable time frame, even with natural recovery processes. However,
given that bank-to-bank remediation in the FFS Study Area would be necessary to achieve
protection of human health (see Section 5.2), the ecological PRGs would not result in any
additional remediation in the FFS Study Area, and those ecological PRGs were not selected as
remediation goals.
While the Superfund program generally does not clean-up to concentrations below natural or
anthropogenic background levels (USEPA, 2002b), the flow of water and suspended sediment
over Dundee Dam (background for the FFS Study Area) is just one of many sources of surface
water and sediment into the FFS Study Area. Post-remediation, the suspended sediment from the
Upper Passaic River will mix with suspended sediment from other sources entering the FFS
Study Area (e.g., Newark Bay, Saddle River, Third River, and Second River), with the cleaner
solids in the water column resulting from a remediated FFS Study Area and with any clean
material placed on the river bed as part of the remediation. As a result, contaminant
concentrations in the top six inches (bioactive zone evaluated in the risk assessment) can end up
being much less than background concentrations coming over Dundee Dam.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-4
2014
Cancer Threshold Sediment PRG for an Adult
Contaminant
Units
Overall
Eco
Sediment
PRG
56 fish meals per year
1 × 10-6
1 × 10-5
34 crab meals per year
1 × 10-4
1 ×10-6
1 × 10-5
1 × 10-4
Non-cancer
Threshold Sediment
PRG
56 fish
meals
per year
34 crab
meals
per year
Background
Sediment
Concentration
Mercury
ng/g
74 (W)
Classification — C; possible human carcinogen; There is no
quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk from oral exposure
550
45,000
720
Total PCBs
ng/g
7.8 (B)
3.2
44
82
460
Total DDx
ng/g
0.30 (W)
-
-
30
2,3,7,8-TCDD
ng/g
0.0011
(F/W)
0.0071
0.019
0.002
0.000095
32
0.0016
320*
1.6
-
-
0.022
0.00043
51
0.005
1600*
0.058
Overall Ecological PRG for each COPEC is the lowest of the values (benthos, fish, wildlife), so that all of the organisms, including the most
sensitive species, would be protected.
B = Benthos; F = Fish; W = Wildlife.
* = Indicates that the risk-based value exceeds the NJDEP advisory trigger level and would not be protective or allow additional consumption of
fish/crabs. The NJDEP uses ‘do not eat’ values of 0.0077 ng/g and 240 ng/g to set fish consumption advisories for TCDD TEQ.
Proposed remediation goals are shown in Bold.
General Response Actions, Remedial Technologies, and Process Options
The first step in developing and screening remedial alternatives in the FFS was to identify
general response actions (GRAs) that may be taken to satisfy the RAOs. GRAs identified for the
sediments of the FFS Study Area are No Action, institutional controls, monitored natural
recovery (MNR), containment, in situ treatment, sediment removal, ex situ treatment, beneficial
use of dredged sediment, and disposal of dredged sediment. Technologies and process options
that could not be effectively implemented for the FFS Study Area were screened out. Except for
in situ treatment, all of the technology types were found to be technically implementable. The
remaining technologies and processes were then evaluated and screened for effectiveness,
implementability, and cost – the same criteria that are used to screen alternatives prior to the
detailed analysis. In addition to the No Action response, the following technologies and process
options were retained for further evaluation in the FFS:
Retained
Technologies
Institutional
controls
Retained Process Options
Fish consumption advisories and dredging
restrictions
Fish consumption advisories, restrictions on
private sediment disturbance, and
limitations on recreational use of the river
MNR as a component of alternatives
comprising active remedial measures
Engineered caps (including stone or clay
aggregate material as armor), active caps, and
geotextiles
Engineered caps (with and without armor
stone)
MNR
Containment
Representative Process Options
(for cost estimation purposes)
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-5
2014
Retained
Technologies
Sediment
removal
Ex situ treatment
Beneficial use
Disposal
Representative Process Options
(for cost estimation purposes)
Retained Process Options
Excavation, mechanical dredging, and/or
hydraulic dredging
Immobilization, sediment washing,
vitrification, or thermal destruction
Sanitary landfill cover, construction fill, and
mined lands reclamation
Off-site landfill or confined aquatic disposal
(CAD) cell
Mechanical dredging
Thermal destruction, sediment washing, and
solidification/stabilization
Off-site landfill or CAD cell
Representative process options were used for FFS cost estimation purposes. Should an
alternative be selected that requires construction, the best process option would be determined
during the remedial design phase.
Development and Screening of Potential Remedial Alternatives
Four potential remedial alternatives were developed for addressing the contaminated sediments
in the FFS Study Area, by grouping the remedial technologies and representative process options
identified previously. These are:
•
Alternative 1: No Action
•
Alternative 2: Deep Dredging with Backfill
•
Alternative 3: Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
•
Alternative 4: Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
A modeling framework consisting of a hydrodynamic model, sediment transport model, organic
carbon cycling model and contaminant fate and transport model was developed and used to
simulate future sediment and water column concentrations for each of the remedial alternatives.
The simulation results were used to predict future human health and ecological risks under the
various alternatives to support the detailed analysis of alternatives described below.
The four selected alternatives were screened for effectiveness, implementability, and cost. The
effectiveness criterion was evaluated by comparing the average surface sediment concentrations
of COPCs and COPECs in the FFS Study Area forecast by the model for each of the alternatives
to PRGs. Effectiveness was also evaluated by examining surface sediment concentrations of
COPCs and COPECs in RM8.3 to RM17, as well as net fluxes from the FFS Study Area to
Newark Bay, for each of the alternatives. As a result of this analysis, it was determined that
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-6
2014
Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 4 (Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding)
would not be protective of human health and the environment and would not satisfy the RAOs
and PRGs (see human health and ecological risk tables in the Detailed Analysis section).
However, Alternative 1 was retained for detailed analysis, as required by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), to serve as a basis for comparison with other remedial alternatives.
Alternative 4 was retained for detailed analysis to serve as a basis for comparison with the other
active remedial alternatives which are both bank-to-bank in scope whereas Alternative 4 is more
limited.
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
The NCP provides nine key criteria to address CERCLA requirements for detailed analysis of
remedial alternatives. The first two are threshold criteria that must be met by each alternative:
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment; and Compliance with ARARs. The
next five are the primary balancing criteria upon which the analysis is based: Long-Term
Effectiveness and Permanence; Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through Treatment;
Short-Term Effectiveness; Implementability; and Cost. The final two are referred to as
modifying criteria (State Acceptance and Community Acceptance). They will be evaluated
following receipt of comments on the Proposed Plan and described in USEPA’s Record of
Decision (ROD) for the FFS Study Area.
Descriptions of Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
The No Action Alternative would not include any containment, removal, disposal, or treatment
of contaminated sediments. The No Action alternative would not include implementation of any
new institutional controls or new monitoring. The NJDEP fish and shellfish consumption
advisories are assumed to remain in place, but not as part of a CERCLA remedial action. The
17-mile LPRSA RI/FS would continue.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-7
2014
Alternative 2: Deep Dredging with Backfill
Alternative 2 evaluates a bank-to-bank remedy that would involve removal of all of the
contaminated fine-grained sediment throughout the FFS Study Area using mechanical dredging,
followed by placement of two feet of backfill material to cover residuals. This alternative is
intended to remove the contaminated sediment inventory causing the current and potential future
risks in the FFS Study Area. It also results in the restoration of the federally-authorized
navigation channel since the contaminated sediment inventory is coincident with the channel.
Within the horizontal limits of the federally-authorized navigation channel, the depth of
contaminated fine-grained sediment corresponds well with the depth of historical dredging.
Therefore, the depth of dredging is assumed to be the authorized channel depth plus an additional
three feet to account for historical over-dredging (two feet) and dredging accuracy (one foot).
The resulting sediment removal depths are 33 feet below mean low water (MLW) for RM0 to
RM2.6 (resulting in a 30-foot deep channel), 23 feet MLW for RM2.6 to RM4.6 (resulting in a
20-foot deep channel) 1, 19 feet MLW for RM4.6 to RM8.1 (resulting in a 16-foot deep channel),
and 13 feet MLW for RM8.1 to RM8.3 (resulting in a 10-foot deep navigation channel). Outside
the horizontal limits of the navigation channel (in the shoals), the depth of fine-grained sediment
targeted for dredging varies from 3 feet to 19.5 feet below the existing sediment surface.
Mudflats disturbed by implementation of Alternative 2 would be reconstructed to their original
grade, incorporating 1-foot of mudflat reconstruction (habitat) material.
A total volume of approximately 9.7 million cubic yards (cy) would be targeted for removal
under Alternative 2. The dredged material would be managed in accordance with one of three
dredged material management (DMM) scenarios:
•
DMM Scenario A: Confined Aquatic Disposal
•
DMM Scenario B: Off-Site Disposal
•
DMM Scenario C: Local Decontamination and Beneficial Use
1
The 20-foot deep section of the authorized navigation channel stops at RM4.1; however, historical dredging records show that the channel was
sometimes maintained to a 20-foot depth up to RM4.6 (refer to Table 1-1). Therefore, Alternative 2 includes dredging to the 20-foot depth (plus
three feet) up to RM4.6 to ensure removal of the contaminated fine-grained sediment that would have deposited there after maintenance dredging
stopped.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-8
2014
This alternative would include institutional controls, incorporating NJDEP’s fish and shellfish
consumption advisories and adding enhanced outreach activities to educate community members
about the advisories. MNR is also part of Alternative 2 and includes post-construction
monitoring of the water column, sediment, and biota tissue to determine the degree to which they
are recovering to PRGs.
Alternative 3: Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
Alternative 3 evaluates a bank-to-bank remedy that would place a 2-foot engineered cap (or
backfill, where appropriate) bank-to-bank over the FFS Study Area. Before placing the cap,
contaminated fine-grained sediment would be removed to targeted depths using mechanical
dredging. Alternative 3 would include dredging of the existing 300-foot wide federallyauthorized navigation channel to accommodate the continued and reasonably-anticipated future
use depths between RM0 to RM2.2. Where dredging depths coincide with the authorized
navigation channel (RM0 to RM1.2), an additional three feet would be dredged to account for
historical dredging accuracy and over-dredging followed by placement of 2 feet of backfill.
Where dredging depths are shallower than the authorized channel (RM1.2 to RM2.2), an
additional 5.5 feet would be dredged to accommodate an engineered cap (to account for
maintenance dredging, future over-dredge allowance for channel maintenance and cap
construction, cap protection buffer and engineered cap). The resulting sediment removal depths
are 33 feet MLW from RM0 to RM1.2 (resulting in a 30-foot navigation channel), 30.5 feet
MLW from RM1.2 to RM1.7 (resulting in a 25-foot channel), and 25.5 feet MLW from RM1.7
to RM2.2 (resulting in a 20-foot channel). Between RM2.2 and RM8.3, enough dredging would
be performed to prevent the engineered cap from causing additional flooding and to provide a
water depth of at least 10 feet below MLW over a 200-foot width (except between RM8.1 and
RM8.3 where dredging would be over a 150-foot width) to accommodate reasonably anticipated
recreational future uses above RM2.2. Alternative 3 would require modification of the navigation
channel from RM1.2 to RM2.2, and deauthorization of the navigation channel above RM2.2
under the federal River and Harbors Act through USACE procedures and Congressional action.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-9
2014
Approximately 4.3 million cy of sediment would be targeted for removal under Alternative 3.
Mudflats disturbed by implementation of Alternative 3 would be reconstructed to their original
grade. The cap placed over the mudflats would incorporate 1-foot of mudflat reconstruction
(habitat) material (see Appendix F Figure 2-1). As part of the post-construction monitoring
program, the thickness of the engineered cap would be monitored and maintained in perpetuity
following implementation.
The dredged material removed from the FFS Study Area under Alternative 3 would be managed
in accordance with one of three DMM scenarios described previously under Alternative 2.
Alternative 3 would also include institutional controls, such as NJDEP’s fish and shellfish
consumption advisories with enhanced outreach and restrictions on activities that might disturb
the engineered cap. MNR is also part of Alternative 3 and includes post-construction monitoring
of the water column, sediment, and biota tissue to determine the degree to which they are
recovering to PRGs.
Alternative 4: Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
Alternative 4 evaluates a remedy that is less than bank-to-bank in scope. It focuses on discrete
areas of the FFS Study Area sediments that release the most contaminants into the water column.
Alternative 4 includes dredging of contaminated fine-grained sediments in selected noncontiguous portions of the FFS Study Area (totaling approximately 220 acres, or about one third
of the FFS Study Area surface) with the highest gross and net fluxes of contaminants. Dredging
would occur to a depth of 2.5 feet to allow an engineered cap to be placed over dredged areas
without causing additional flooding (see Figure 4-2). Alternative 4 would not include any
dredging to accommodate the continued use of the federally-authorized navigation channel.
Since the depths after remediation would be shallower than the authorized channel depth from
RM0 to RM8.3, it would be necessary to obtain deauthorization of the federal navigation channel
under the federal River and Harbors Act through USACE procedures and Congressional action.
Approximately 1 million cy of sediment would be targeted for removal under Alternative 4.
Mudflats disturbed by implementation of Alternative 4 would be reconstructed to their original
grade. The cap placed over the mudflats would incorporate 1-foot of mudflat reconstruction
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-10
2014
(habitat) material (see Appendix F Figure 2-1). As part of the post-construction monitoring
program, the thickness of the engineered cap would be monitored and maintained in perpetuity
following implementation.
The dredged material removed from the FFS Study Area under Alternative 4 would be managed
in accordance with one of three DMM scenarios described previously under Alternative 2.
Alternative 4 would also include institutional controls, incorporating NJDEP’s fish and shellfish
consumption advisories and adding enhanced outreach activities and restrictions on activities that
might disturb the engineered caps. MNR is also part of Alternative 4 and includes postconstruction monitoring of the water column, sediment, and biota tissue to determine the degree
to which they are recovering to PRGs.
Detailed Analysis
The overall protection of human health and the environment criterion draws on the assessments
conducted under other evaluation criteria, especially long-term effectiveness and permanence,
short-term effectiveness, and compliance with ARARs, and provides a final assessment as to
whether each alternative adequately protects human health and the environment. Section 121(d)
of CERCLA requires that remedial actions comply with state and federal ARARs, unless a
waiver is justified. ARARs can fall into three categories (chemical-specific, location-specific,
and action-specific). ARARs are considered “potential” ARARs in this FFS and in the Proposed
Plan; final ARARs will be identified in the ROD.
Chemical-specific ARARs and other to-be-considered (TBC) criteria define concentration limits
or other chemical levels for environmental media. This FFS addresses the contaminated
sediments in the lower 8.3 miles but is intended to be consistent with future remedial actions that
may be proposed for the 17-mile Lower Passaic River. The other portions of the Lower Passaic
River, which include the sediments in RM8.3 to RM17.4 and the water column of the entire
17 miles, will be addressed as part of the RI/FS being conducted by the Cooperating Parties
Group (CPG). Although remediation of contaminated sediment would contribute to improved
water quality, implementation of one of these alternatives by itself would be unlikely to achieve
compliance with ARARs in the water column. However, because this FFS only addresses the
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-11
2014
sediments portion of the Lower Passaic River and is only part of the remedial activities under
consideration for the 17-mile Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay, compliance with surface
water ARARs would more likely be achieved after additional response actions have been
implemented. This FFS evaluates the extent to which each alternative meets RAOs and PRGs,
and complies with action-specific and location-specific ARARs including those that would apply
to dredging and to management of dredged materials.
Long-term effectiveness was evaluated using modeling results to project the human health and
ecological impacts over the exposure period for a human or ecological receptor. It was also
evaluated by examining: the magnitude of residual risks in terms of amounts and concentrations
of wastes remaining following implementation of a remedial action, considering the persistence,
toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate of such hazardous substances and their
constituents; the long-term reliability and adequacy of the engineering and institutional controls,
including uncertainties associated with land disposal of untreated wastes and residuals; and,
remedy replacement and the continuing need for repairs/maintenance.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment was evaluated by examining the
treatment processes that the alternatives employ and the materials they would treat, the amount
of hazardous materials that would be destroyed or treated, and the degree to which the treatment
would be irreversible. The short-term effectiveness of alternatives was assessed considering such
factors as: protection of the community and workers during remedial actions; potential adverse
environmental impacts resulting from construction and implementation; and time until remedial
response objectives (i.e., RAOs and PRGs) would be achieved. Implementability was assessed
by considering technical feasibility, administrative feasibility, and availability of services and
materials. Costs were examined in two principal categories - capital costs and annual operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs. Costs were converted to a present value (PV) to allow a
comparison of alternatives with differing implementation schedules.
Based on the modeled annual average projections of future concentrations in surface sediment
that consider natural attenuation and degradation over time, exposure point concentrations
(EPCs) were derived in order to estimate future risks (see Appendix D and Chapters 4 and 7 of
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-12
2014
the RI). The exposure duration began in the year immediately following completion of the
remediation and ended 30 years post remediation. The modeled future human health cancer risks
and non-cancer health hazards are shown in the tables below. Similar modeled future hazards for
ecological receptors are also estimated and are presented below.
Estimated Modeled Future Cancer Risks for Each Remedial Alternative
No Action
30-Year Exposure
Combined Risk (Adult + Child)
4 × 10-3
Deep Dredging with Backfill
5 × 10-4
Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
4 × 10-4
Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
No Action
2 × 10-3
30-Year Exposure
Combined Risk (Adult + Child)
2 × 10-3
Deep Dredging with Backfill
4 × 10-4
Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
3 × 10-4
Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
1 × 10-3
Remedial Alternative
Fish
Remedial Alternative
Crab
Estimated Modeled Future Non-Cancer Health Hazards for Each Remedial Alternative
Remedial Alternative
Fish
No Action
90
163
Deep Dredging with Backfill
10
22
Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
8
18
Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
Remedial Alternative
Crab
30-Year Exposure
Adult Hazard Child Hazard
55
97
30-Year Exposure
Adult Hazard Child Hazard
No Action
40
71
Deep Dredging with Backfill
7
15
Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
6
13
Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
27
47
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-13
2014
Estimated Modeled Future Ecological Hazards for Each Remedial Alternative
Receptor
Category
Species
Remedial Alternative(a)
No Action
Benthos
Macro
invertebrate
Deep Dredging with Backfill
Capping with Dredging for
Flooding and Navigation
Focused Capping with Dredging
for Flooding
No Action
Crab
Deep Dredging with Backfill
Capping with Dredging for
Flooding and Navigation
Focused Capping with Dredging
for Flooding
No Action
Generic
Fish
Deep Dredging with Backfill
Capping with Dredging for
Flooding and Navigation
Focused Capping with Dredging
for Flooding
No Action
Mummichog
Deep Dredging with Backfill
Capping with Dredging for
Flooding and Navigation
Focused Capping with Dredging
for Flooding
No Action
Bird
Great Blue Heron
(mummichog
diet)
Deep Dredging with Backfill
Capping with Dredging for
Flooding and Navigation
Focused Capping with Dredging
for Flooding
No Action
Mammal
Mink
Deep Dredging with Backfill
Capping with Dredging for
Flooding and Navigation
Focused Capping with Dredging
for Flooding
NOAEL= No Observed Adverse Effect Levels; LOAEL= Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-14
Year
2019
2048
2030
2059
2023
2052
2020
2049
2019
2048
2030
2059
2023
2052
2020
2049
2019
2048
2030
2059
2023
2052
2020
2049
2019
2048
2030
2059
2023
2052
2020
2049
2019
2048
2030
2059
2023
2052
2020
2049
2019
2048
2030
2059
2023
2052
2020
2049
Hazard Estimate
NOAEL
LOAEL
300
200
200
100
10
6
30
8
20
8
30
7
200
100
100
70
400
60
300
40
20
4
20
4
30
5
10
3
200
40
200
30
300
200
200
100
20
7
20
6
20
9
20
5
200
90
100
70
50
20
40
10
4
2
8
2
4
2
7
2
30
10
30
10
20
3
10
2
1
0.2
7
0.8
1
0.3
7
0.8
10
2
10
2
1000
50
700
30
50
3
40
3
60
4
30
2
600
30
400
20
2014
Present Value (PV)
The bar chart below presents the PV for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 (including the three DMM
scenarios). Each bar illustrates the relative contribution of the total capital costs, the total DMM
costs, the total O&M costs, and the contingency costs. Alternative 1 has a PV of $0.
3500
Total Contingency
Total Operation and Maintenance Costs
Total Dredged Material Management Costs
Total Capital Costs
3000
2500
Cost [$M]
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Alternative 3
Alternative 2
Alternative 2
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 4
Alternative 4
DMM Scenario A DMM Scenario B DMM Scenario C DMM Scenario A DMM Scenario B DMM Scenario C DMM Scenario A DMM Scenario B DMM Scenario C
Conclusions from Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Alternative 1 (No Action) would not be protective of human health and the environment, and
would not contribute significantly toward eventual achievement of ARARs. The No Action
Alternative does not use treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of the
contamination. The cancer risks and non-cancer human health hazards, and risks to ecological
receptors would remain one to well over two orders of magnitude above protective goals 30
years into the future and modeled surface sediment concentrations in the FFS Study Area would
remain one to two orders of magnitude above any of the proposed remediation goals. No Action
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-15
2014
has been retained for detailed analysis, in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP, to serve as a
basis for comparison with other remedial alternatives.
Alternatives 2 and 3, in conjunction with MNR and institutional controls, would be protective of
human health and the environment and effective in meeting the RAOs. The cancer risks and noncancer human health hazards, and risks to ecological receptors, would be significantly reduced
after completion of construction (six years earlier for Alternative 3 than for Alternative 2, given
the shorter construction period for the former) so that under both alternatives future risk levels
are predicted to get close enough to protective goals that MNR would result in reaching those
goals relatively shortly beyond the model simulation period. During the post-remediation period,
implementation of institutional controls would be effective in protecting human health until those
goals are achieved.
Alternative 4, even with institutional controls and MNR, would not be protective of human
health and the environment and would not be effective in meeting the RAOs. Although
Alternative 4 would address the unacceptable risks in the FFS Study Area sediments to some
extent by capping areas that contribute the most contaminant flux to the water column, the cancer
risks and non-cancer human health hazards as well as the risks to ecological receptors would not
be significantly reduced after completion of construction. These risks and hazards would remain
up to two orders of magnitude above protective goals 30 years into the future and surface
sediment concentrations in the FFS Study Area are predicted to remain one to two orders of
magnitude above the proposed remediation goals.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are designed to address sediment contamination in the FFS Study Area and
the bank-to-bank removal and/or capping of contaminated sediment would contribute to
improved water quality. Under Alternative 4, which is designed to cap areas that contribute the
most contaminant flux to the water column and is less than bank-to-bank in scope, the relative
contribution to improved water quality would be much lower. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have also
been designed to be consistent with future remedial actions but ultimately, compliance with
chemical-specific surface water ARARs would depend on future remedial actions including
those that may be performed following completion of the RI/FS for the Lower Passaic River
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-16
2014
being conducted by the CPG under USEPA oversight, or other source control measures.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would satisfy the location-specific and action-specific ARARs.
Under Alternative 2, the COPCs and COPECs present in fine-grained sediments within the FFS
Study Area would be permanently removed from the river. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, the
engineered caps (approximately 650 acres for Alternative 3 and approximately 220 acres for
Alternative 4) would have to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity. Under Alternatives 3
and 4 some, but not all (approximately 4.3 million cy for Alternative 3 and approximately
1 million cy for Alternative 4), of the COPCs and COPECs present in the predominantly finegrained sediments within FFS Study Area would be permanently removed from the river. For
DMM Scenario A, the engineered cap on the CAD cells would have to be monitored and
maintained in perpetuity. For DMM Scenario B, the off-site treatment and disposal would not
require further monitoring or maintenance. Similarly, for DMM Scenario C, local
decontamination and beneficial reuse would not require further monitoring or maintenance.
Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, with DMM Scenario A, the mobility of the COPCs and COPECs
would be effectively reduced, although not by treatment. There would be no reduction in the
toxicity or volume of the COPCs and COPECs, and long-term effectiveness would rely on
monitoring and maintenance of the engineered caps. For DMM Scenario B, the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of the COPCs and COPECs of a portion of the removed sediments would
be effectively reduced through thermal destruction (incineration) satisfying the statutory
preference under CERCLA. Approximately 4 percent for Alternative 4, 7 percent for Alternative
3, and 10 percent for Alternative 2 of the contaminated sediment would be thermally treated; the
remaining material would be placed untreated in a landfill. For DMM Scenario C, the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of the COPCs and COPECs would be reduced through treatment satisfying
the statutory preference under CERCLA.
Alternative 2 is expected to have a greater impact on the community and site workers, as well as
the environment than Alternative 3, because of the longer duration of the construction and the
handling of larger volumes of more contaminated dredged materials (9.7 million cy versus
4.3 million cy). Alternative 4 is expected to have the least impact on the community and site
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-17
2014
workers, as well as the environment because it has the shortest construction period and involves
handling the smallest volume of contaminated dredged materials (1 million cy). Within each of
these three alternatives, DMM Scenario A would have the least impact on the community and
site workers but the most impact on the aquatic habitat because all transport and disposal occurs
on or in the water. Further, DMM Scenario C would have a greater impact on the local
community and workers than DMM Scenario B because the decontamination technologies need
a larger upland sediment processing facility and may need more trucking to transport beneficial
end use products to local destinations (as opposed to reliance on rail for DMM Scenario B).
For Alternatives 2 and 3, the in-river work has been demonstrated to be technically and
administratively feasible. The necessary materials and expertise to implement Alternatives 2, 3
and 4 would be readily available. However, under Alternative 4, the process of reliably
identifying discrete areas that release the most contaminants into the water column would
involve a great degree of uncertainty given the complex estuarine environment of the FFS Study
Area. Also, Alternative 4 may face an administrative implementability hurdle with respect to
obtaining deauthorization of the federally-authorized navigation channel in the lower 2.2 miles
of the river, given that the USACE survey of commercial users showed clear current and future
waterway use objectives in that reach of the river.
DMM Scenario A has been demonstrated to be technically feasible. However, DMM Scenario A
is likely to face significant administrative and legal impediments, because the State of New
Jersey is the owner of the bay bottom and strongly opposes construction of CAD cells in Newark
Bay. This opposition is likely to make DMM Scenario A administratively infeasible. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) also oppose construction of CAD cells in Newark Bay. DMM Scenario
B is technically and administratively feasible although it may be challenging to locate an
approximately 26 to 28 acres upland processing facility in a dense urban area. DMM Scenario C
has the most uncertainty since the thermal treatment and sediment washing technologies have not
been built and operated on a commercial scale. Locating an approximately 36 to 40 acres upland
processing facility for DMM Scenario C in a dense urban area is likely to be more difficult than a
similar facility for DMM Scenario B. Also, DMM Scenario C involves the construction of a
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-18
2014
thermal treatment plant that may be subject to stringent limitations on air emissions and
regulatory requirements which may be administratively challenging.
Cost Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analyses have been performed to assess the significance that changing various factors
for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have on the overall PV for the three active remedial
alternatives. Five factors were identified as having the greatest impacts on costs. These factors
are the volume of sediment removed for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the thickness of the engineered
caps for Alternatives 3 and 4, the proportion of dredged material requiring thermal destruction
treatment for DMM Scenarios B and C for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the dredging productivity
rate, and the discount rate used for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 (see Section 5.3.2 for a detailed
discussion).
For Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, increasing the volume of sediment removed by approximately
10 percent is roughly equivalent to increasing the depth of dredging by 1- to 2-feet (depending
on alternative) and results in increasing the PV for DMM Scenarios B and C by approximately 5
to 9 percent and for DMM Scenario A by approximately 1 to 2 percent. Decreasing the volume
of sediment removed by approximately 10 percent is roughly equivalent to decreasing the depth
of dredging by 1- to 2-feet (depending on alternative) and results in decreasing the PV for DMM
Scenario A by approximately 2 percent, DMM Scenario B by approximately 4 to 9 percent, and
for DMM Scenario C by approximately 5 to 8 percent.
Increasing the thickness of the engineered cap in the river by 6 inches (or 25 percent) results in
increasing the PV by 3 to 5 percent (for Alternative 3) and 3 percent (for Alternative 4). If the
percentage of dredged material requiring thermal treatment is doubled to 20 percent, 14 percent,
and 8 percent, respectively for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, for DMM Scenario B, the PV increases
by approximately 12 percent, 7 percent, and 1 percent, respectively. Similarly, for DMM
Scenario C for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the PV increases by approximately 7 percent, 2 percent,
and 1 percent, respectively. DMM Scenario A does not involve treatment and is not affected.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-19
2014
Reducing the dredging productivity rate by 25 percent for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 decreases the
PV by approximately 3 percent, 2 percent, and zero percent, respectively for DMM Scenario A.
For DMM Scenario B, the PV for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 decreases by approximately 5 percent,
3 percent, and 2 percent, respectively. For DMM Scenario C, the PV for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4
decreases by approximately 5 percent, 3 percent, and 3 percent, respectively.
For Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, increasing the discount rate by 3 percentage points to 10 percent
decreases the PV by approximately 16 percent, 14 percent, and 13 percent, respectively for
DMM Scenario A. For DMM Scenario B, the PV for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 decreases by
approximately 18 percent, 14 percent, and 11 percent, respectively. For DMM Scenario C, the
PV for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 decreases by approximately 17 percent, 14 percent, and
12 percent, respectively. Similarly, for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, decreasing the discount rate by
4 percentage points to 3 percent increases the PV by approximately 32 percent, 26 percent, and
26 percent, respectively, for DMM Scenario A; for DMM Scenario B, the PV for Alternatives 2,
3, and 4 increases by approximately 34 percent, 25 percent, and 21 percent, respectively; for
DMM Scenario C, the PV for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 increases by approximately 33 percent,
25 percent, and 21 percent, respectively.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ES-20
2014
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Organization
1.1.1 Purpose
This Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for the sediments of the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower
Passaic River (FFS Study Area) builds on the results of the Remedial Investigation (RI) that
established the existence of unacceptable human health cancer risks and non-cancer health
hazards from exposure to contaminants in fish and crabs; 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2
(2,3,7,8-TCDD), TCDD Toxic Equivalency Quotient (TEQ 3), Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs 4) and methyl mercury had individual cancer risks above 1 × 10-4 and/or non-cancer health
hazards above a Hazard Quotient (HQ) equal to 1. The RI also established that the sediments
pose unacceptable ecological risks to benthic invertebrates, fish and wildlife with the following
contaminants causing at least one group of ecological receptors to have an HQ above 1: 2,3,7,8TCDD, TCDD TEQ, Total PCBs, Total DDx (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, the sum of
4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT) 5, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), copper,
mercury and dieldrin as the main risk drivers. This FFS evaluates remedial alternatives for the
sediments of the FFS Study Area to address the unacceptable human health and ecological risks
identified in the RI.
This FFS Report was prepared pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), consistent with the National Contingency Plan
(NCP) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Solid Waste and
2
Dioxin represents 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, which is the most toxic form of dioxin.
TCDD TEQ for D/F (Dioxin/Furans) – Sum of the products of the congener concentration and congener-specific Toxic Equivalency Factors
(TEF). A TEF is a measure of the relative potency of a compound to cause a particular toxic or biological effect relative to 2,3,7,8- TCDD. By
convention, TCDD is assigned a TEF of 1.0, and the TEFs for other compounds with dioxin-like effects range from 0 to 1. When TEFs are
derived based on the relative binding affinity to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor or induction of cytochrome P4501A1, it is assumed that these
biochemical responses correlate with toxicologically important effects (Van den Berg et al., 1998). The consensus TEF values published in 2005
by the World Health Organization (Van den Berg et. al., 2006) and recommended by USEPA (2010) are used in the risk evaluations.
4
For the risk assessment in Section 1.2.5 and in Appendix D, Total PCBs refers to the sum of non-dioxin-like congeners and TCDD TEQ (based
on PCBs) refers to the sum of 12 dioxin-like congeners. In Section 1.2.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination, Total PCBs refers to the sum of
Aroclors or the sum of PCB congeners, depending on the analysis performed.
5
DDT is a common name that refers to an industrially-produced, chlorinated pesticide. DDT is chemically known as
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; its metabolites include dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD) and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE).
The term Total DDx refers the sum of the 4,4’-DDT, 4,4’-DDD, and 4,4’-DDE concentrations in a sample.
3
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-1
2014
Emergency Response (OSWER) remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) guidance
(USEPA, 1988), USEPA contaminated sediment remediation guidance (USEPA, 2005) and other
USEPA guidance and policies as appropriate.
1.1.2 Organization
This FFS Report encompasses the following sections from this section forward:
Section 2.0, Development of Remedial Action Objectives and Selection of Target Areas:
describes the remedial action objectives (RAOs) for the FFS Study Area, identifies potentially
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and to-be-considered (TBC)
criteria, develops preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) for addressing human health and
ecological risks posed by contaminants in sediment and tissue, selects target areas for
remediation, and determines areas and volumes of contaminated sediments.
Section 3.0, Identification and Screening of General Response Actions, Remedial Technologies,
and Process Options: identifies and screens general response actions (GRAs) and classes of
remedial technologies for technical implementability, then further screens remedial technologies
and process options for effectiveness, implementability and cost, identifies remedial
technologies, and selects representative process options to be retained for development of
remedial alternatives.
Section 4.0, Development and Screening of Remedial Alternatives: defines criteria for the
development of remedial alternatives, including ARARs, statutory preferences, and navigation
and flood hazard requirements, develops concepts for common elements of potential remedial
alternatives, describes the modeling evaluation of potential remedial alternatives, and screens the
developed remedial alternatives for effectiveness, implementability and cost, identifying those
remedial alternatives that have been retained for detailed analysis.
Section 5.0, Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives: discusses the alternative evaluation
process, describing the nine evaluation criteria specified by CERCLA and the NCP, including
threshold criteria, primary balancing criteria and modifying criteria, and performs detailed
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-2
2014
analyses of the retained remedial alternatives including comparative and cost sensitivity
analyses.
1.2
Summary of the Remedial Investigation Report
The FFS Study Area is located in northeastern New Jersey (NJ), from the river’s confluence with
Newark Bay at River Mile (RM) 0 to RM8.3 6 near the border between the City of Newark and
Belleville Township. The FFS Study Area is located within the Lower Passaic River Study Area
(LPRSA), which is the 17-mile, tidal portion of the Passaic River from Dundee Dam (located at
RM17.4) to the confluence with Newark Bay at RM0 and the watershed of this river portion,
including the Saddle River (RM15.6), Third River (RM11.3) and Second River (RM8.1) [Figure
1-1]. The entire 17-mile LPRSA is the subject of another study (named the Lower Passaic River
Restoration Project) being implemented by USEPA under CERCLA in conjunction with United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection 7 (NJDEP) under the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) authorities and in
cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) [collectively, Partner Agencies]. During the Lower
Passaic River Restoration Project, the sediments of the FFS Study Area were found to be a major
source of contamination to the rest of the Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay. Therefore,
USEPA, in cooperation with the Partner Agencies, completed this FFS to evaluate remedial
alternatives to address those sediments, while the comprehensive study of the 17-mile LPRSA is
on-going.
1.2.1 Site Description
The FFS Study Area is located within the LPRSA, which is part of the 80-mile long Passaic
River, located in northern New Jersey. The Passaic River has a total watershed of 935 square
miles that empties into Newark Bay in the New York / New Jersey (NY/NJ) Harbor. Dundee
6
The river mile system used in the FFS is the one developed by USACE, which follows the centerline of the federally authorized navigation
channel.
7
In November 2007, New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) fulfilled its financial obligation for the Lower Passaic River
Restoration Project pursuant to the USACE Feasibility Study Cost Share Agreement and has relied on NJDEP to represent the State of New
Jersey in the governmental partnership.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-3
2014
Dam, originally built in 1845, divides the Upper Passaic River from the Lower Passaic River
(Figure 1-1). The Upper Passaic River meanders across several geologic settings, draining urban,
suburban, and rural portions of northern New Jersey. The Upper Passaic River watershed is
805 square miles (defined at the dam for the purpose of the RI and FFS) and includes
approximately 1,200 Known Contaminated Sites, 3 Chromate Waste Sites, 15 National Priorities
List (NPL) sites and 200 Toxic Release Inventory Facilities as defined by USEPA and NJDEP. 8
However, very few of these contaminated sites discharge directly into the Passaic River. The
cumulative effect of these and other natural and anthropogenic watershed contaminant sources
forms a background contaminant discharge over Dundee Dam into the Lower Passaic River.
The physical boundary of the dam isolates the proximal Dundee Lake and other Upper Passaic
River sediments from any Lower Passaic River influences, including releases from the former
Diamond Alkali facility in Newark. The proximity of these sediments to the proposed
remediation area and demonstrated geochemical connection to a portion of the Lower Passaic
River sediment contamination means that they are representative of “background” for the Lower
Passaic River for the purposes of the risk characterization for this FFS. The contaminant
concentrations in recently-deposited Dundee Lake sediments are representative of the
contaminant burden carried by the Upper Passaic River’s suspended solids into the Lower
Passaic River; therefore the recently-deposited sediments of Dundee Lake were chosen to be the
background location for the FFS.
The Lower Passaic River flows through some of the most urbanized and industrialized areas of
New Jersey, including the city of Newark. Approximately 2.8 million people reside in the New
Jersey counties of Essex, Bergen, Hudson, and Passaic, which surround the Lower Passaic River
(United States Census Bureau, 2010). Existing land use adjoining the FFS Study Area is
8
Geographic information system (GIS) data for the 2007 NPL were obtained from the USEPA at
www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/phonefax/products.htm. Data for the list of 2005 Known Contaminated Sites were obtained from NJDEP at
www.state.nj.us/dep/gis/lists.html. For this compilation, hazardous sites in the FFS Study Area were identified using the Known Contaminated
Site list and the Chromate Waste Site datasets provided by the NJDEP and the NPL, and the Toxic Release Inventory Facility lists provided by
the USEPA. The Known Contaminated Site list includes sites where soil and groundwater contamination have been identified or are suspected.
The Chromate Waste Sites list identifies site-specific chromate contamination to the soil or groundwater. The NPL sites are a subset of these
hazardous waste sites and are associated with the USEPA Superfund program. Lastly, sites identified on the Toxic Release Inventory Facility list
have used or stored toxic chemicals, have released such chemicals to the environment by air, water or land, or have been subject to any
combination of these. These hazardous waste sites may include complex industrial sites, small underground storage tank sites or homeowner
sites.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-4
2014
primarily developed (i.e., 85 percent of the area is classified as urban), while forests, wetlands,
and other land uses comprise the remaining 15 percent. Intensive commercial and industrial uses
occur near the mouth of the Lower Passaic River and around portions of Newark Bay, in part to
take advantage of the multi-modal transportation infrastructure that includes roadway, railway,
air, and marine transportation services. Proceeding upstream from approximately RM4, the
Lower Passaic River continues to include commercial uses, but also starts to include more
recreational and residential uses. The banks of the FFS Study Area between RM1 and RM7
consist of bulkheads and riprap (70 to 80 percent), bulkheads or bulkhead with overhanging
vegetation (10 to 30 percent) and aquatic vegetation (5 percent) (Tierra Solutions Inc. [TSI],
2002; Windward Environmental, 2011). Mudflats within the FFS Study Area total approximately
100 acres 9.
The FFS Study Area is connected to the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary and the Hackensack River
through Newark Bay. Newark Bay (approximately 6 miles long and 1 mile wide) extends
southward from the confluence of the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers and is connected to Upper
New York Bay by the Kill Van Kull and to Raritan Bay by the Arthur Kill. Although originally a
shallow tidal estuary, deep navigation channels are maintained in Newark Bay to provide oceangoing container ship access to the Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal along the bay’s
western side. These navigation channels originally extended northward from Newark Bay into
the Lower Passaic River and the Hackensack River, but the channels in the northern end of the
bay and the rivers have not been maintained for decades.
The NY/NJ Harbor Estuary encompasses an area of over 16,000 square miles, making it one of
the largest estuaries on the east coast of the United States. The estuary encompasses several
major water bodies, including the Hudson River, Raritan River, Upper and Lower New York
Bay, and Newark Bay and the tributaries to Newark Bay, including the Lower Passaic River
(Figure 1-2). Lower New York Bay is the primary means of marine access to Upper New York
Bay and to the Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal in Newark Bay.
9
According to Table 3-3 of the Cooperating Parties Group (CPG) habitat survey (Windward Environmental, 2011), the mudflat acreage is 117
acres. For the Mitigation Study in Appendix F GIS measurements were made based on NOAA maps, resulting in a calculation of 101 acres of
mudflats between RM0 and RM8.3.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-5
2014
Because of the relationship between the Lower Passaic River and the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary,
contaminated solids originating in the Lower Passaic River are distributed to the estuary and
back again by tidal action. It is important to understand how the estuary operates (i.e., how the
Lower Passaic River connects to the estuary and how contaminated solids are transported
through the system) in order to evaluate how best to remediate the sediments of the FFS Study
Area.
Three Conceptual Site Models (CSMs) have been developed for the Lower Passaic River: 1) a
CSM of the physical and chemical aspects of the system, 2) a human health CSM and 3) an
ecological CSM. The physical and chemical CSM is described in Chapter 6 of the RI Report.
The human health and ecological CSMs are described in Chapter 7 of the RI Report.
1.2.2 Site History
The Passaic River was one of the major centers of the American industrial revolution, starting
two centuries ago. By the end of the 19th century, a multitude of industrial operations, such as
manufactured gas plants, paper manufacturing and recycling facilities, petroleum refineries,
pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturers, and others had sprung up along the river’s banks as
the cities of Newark and Paterson grew. These industries and municipalities often discharged
wastewater directly to the river. Over 100 of the industrial facilities have been identified as
potentially responsible for discharging a number of contaminants to the river, including, but not
limited to, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, PCB mixtures, PAH compounds, Total
DDx and other pesticides, mercury, lead and other metals.
An important component of the development and urbanization of the Lower Passaic River was
the channelization of the river, which permitted commercial vessels better access into the city of
Newark from Newark Bay and the Kills. Several large dredging projects were undertaken by
USACE at the end of the nineteenth century to create a federally-authorized navigation channel
from RM0 to RM15.4. The various periods of dredging listed in Table 1-1 show the frequency of
maintenance and channel expansion activities. Note that for RM4.6 to RM7.1, the authorized
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-6
2014
depth was 20 feet but the channel was only constructed to a depth of 16 feet below mean low
water (MLW).
The volumes of sediments removed each year by dredging were recorded by the USACE and
summarized by Iannuzzi et al. (2002). These dredging data are presented graphically in Figure
1-3 to show the volume of sediment removed by maintenance dredging over the years. The
figure also highlights the portion of the dredged volume removed from the Lower Passaic River
below RM2. Over time, the total volume of sediments removed by dredging has declined. Since
the 1940s, approximately 85 percent of the material removed from the river (in limited dredging
projects) has been taken from below RM2 (Figure 1-3). Maintenance dredging of the channel
ceased in 1930-32 (RM7 to RM8), 1937-50 (RM2 to RM7) and 1983 (RM0 to RM2), resulting in
the accumulation of a large volume of sediments and yielding an average rate of deposition
substantially greater than would naturally occur if there were no navigation channel. The
coincidence of chemical disposal in the river along with the infilling of the navigation channel
created an ideal situation for contaminated sediments to accumulate in the Lower Passaic River.
In addition to various other accidental and intentional releases to the Lower Passaic River, the
river was significantly impacted by releases from a former manufacturing facility located at 80
Lister Avenue in Newark, NJ (near RM3), which began producing DDT and other products in
the 1940s. Between 1951 and 1969, the facility was operated by Diamond Alkali Company (later
purchased by and merged into Occidental Chemical Corporation [OCC]), which used the facility
for the production of the defoliant chemical known as “Agent Orange,” among other products. A
by-product of this manufacturing process was 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which was released into the river.
After investigations by the NJDEP and USEPA, the facility was listed on the National Priorities
List in 1984. A Record of Decision (ROD) was issued in 1987, which selected an interim
containment remedial action consisting of capping, subsurface slurry walls and a groundwater
treatment system. This remedial action was implemented under a judicial Consent Decree by
OCC and the property owner, Chemical Land Holdings, now known as TSI. Construction of the
interim remedial action was completed in 2001.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-7
2014
In 1994, OCC (with TSI performing the work on OCC’s behalf) agreed to investigate a six-mile
stretch (RM1 to RM7) of the Lower Passaic River, under USEPA oversight. The sampling
results from this investigation showed that sediments contaminated with hazardous substances
move into and out of the six-mile stretch leading USEPA, in 2002, to expand its investigation to
include the entire 17-mile tidal stretch of the Passaic River, from Dundee Dam to Newark Bay.
In 2004, USEPA signed a settlement agreement with a group of potentially responsible parties
named the Cooperating Parties Group (CPG) in which they agreed to pay for the LPRSA RI/FS.
The settlement agreement was amended in 2005 and 2007, adding more group members to reach
a total of over 70 potentially responsible parties (Figure 1-4). In 2007, the CPG entered into a
separate administrative order on consent (AOC) in which they agreed to take over the
performance of the LPRSA RI/FS from USEPA.
In 2004, USEPA and OCC signed an AOC in which OCC agreed to conduct a RI/FS of Newark
Bay, under USEPA oversight. As with the 1994 agreement, TSI is performing the work on
OCC’s behalf. The study of Newark Bay is underway.
In June 2008, USEPA, OCC and TSI signed an AOC for a non-time-critical removal of
contaminated sediments from the Lower Passaic River under USEPA oversight (Tierra
Removal). The Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Action
Docket No. 02-2008-2020 (USEPA, 2008) called for 200,000 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated
sediment to be taken out of the river adjacent to the former Diamond Alkali facility at 80 Lister
Avenue in Newark, NJ. This sediment is known to have the highest levels of dioxin measured to
date in the Lower Passaic River (maximum 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations of 9,410 ppb at depth).
OCC agreed to remove and dispose of the sediment in two phases.
In Phase 1, approximately 40,000 cy of sediment were dredged and dewatered at an upland
processing facility and shipped off-site for treatment and disposal. Phase 1 operations were
completed in 2012. For Phase 2 (160,000 cy of sediment), the agreement contemplates the siting
of a confined disposal facility (CDF) as a receptacle for the dredged materials. Phase 2 work is
expected to undergo a separate engineering study and proposal to be submitted for public review
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-8
2014
and comment at a later date. The target quantities for both phases are based on removal of the
uppermost 12 feet of sediments within the Action Areas delineated (see Figure 1-5).
In June 2012, USEPA and the CPG signed an agreement for a time-critical removal action to
address the risks posed by high concentrations of dioxins and PCBs (and other contaminants)
found at the surface of a mudflat on the east bank of the river at RM10.9 in Lyndhurst, NJ
(RM10.9 Removal). The AOC for Removal Action, CERCLA Docket No. 02-2012-2015
(USEPA, 2012) called for removing the volume of sediment necessary to place an engineered
cap over the identified contaminated sediments thereby reducing exposure and preventing
migration of the contaminants to other parts of the river. Dredging was performed in 2013 and
capping is on-going in 2014. The removal action is not a final remedy; a final decision for
RM10.9 will be made by USEPA as part of remedy selection for the LPRSA, to be set forth in
the LPRSA Record of Decision.
1.2.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination
The Lower Passaic River’s cross-sectional area declines steadily from RM0 to RM17.4, with a
pronounced narrowing at RM8.3. At that location, a change in sediment texture is also observed.
The river bed below RM8.3 is dominated, from bank-to-bank, by fine-grained sediment material
(silts) with pockets of coarser material (sand and gravel). Above RM8.3, the bed is
predominantly coarser sediments with smaller areas of silt, often located outside the channel as
shown in Figures 1-6a through 1-6c. About 85 percent of the surface area and, about 90 percent
of the volume of fine-grained materials (silts) in the Lower Passaic River are located below
RM8.3. Due to a combination of a wider cross-section and a deeper federally–authorized
navigation channel below RM8.3 (16 to 30 feet) than the channel above RM8.3 (10 feet), thicker
and wider beds of contaminated sediments accumulated below RM8.3 than above.
The contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) and contaminants of potential ecological
concern (COPECs) shown in the following table tend to bind tightly to fine sediment particles.
Therefore, the majority of COPCs and COPECs tend to be found in areas that are predominantly
comprised of fine sediments, which, for the Lower Passaic River, are the lower 8.3 miles, the
FFS Study Area.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-9
2014
Descriptive Statistics for COPC and COPEC Concentrations in Surface Sediments of the FFS Study
Area (0 to 6-inch samples)
COPC or COPEC
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
2,3,7,8-TCDD (ρg/g)
0.09
34,100
970
280
Total TCDD (ρg/g)
2.2
37,900
1,210
400
Total PCBs (µg/kg)
0.10
28,600
1,700
1,000
Total DDx (µg/kg)
0.32
10,200
240
99
Dieldrin (µg/kg)
0.01
150
11
5.3
Chlordane (µg/kg)
0.05
250
36
30
Total PAHs (mg/kg)
0.21
2,800
48
31
Mercury (mg/kg)
0.05
16.2
2.8
2.3
Copper (mg/kg)
12
2,470
190
170
Lead (mg/kg)
4.4
906
260
240
Notes:
1.
2.
ρg/g = picograms per gram or parts per trillion (ppt); µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram or parts per billion (ppb); mg/kg = milligrams
per kilogram or parts per million (ppm).
Statistics based on 1995 to 2012 data.
The Lower Passaic River is a partially-stratified estuary with a tidally-driven salt wedge that
pushes upstream from Newark Bay into the river, under a top layer of fresher water flowing in
from the Upper Passaic River over Dundee Dam. Near the upstream limit of the salt wedge is a
cloud of suspended sediments called an estuarine turbidity maximum (ETM). During low flow
conditions, the salt wedge and ETM reach as far upstream as approximately RM12, while during
storm events, they may be pushed out to Newark Bay. Under typical flow conditions, the salt
wedge and ETM are usually located between RM2 and RM10, and move back and forth along
about 4 miles of the river each tidal cycle (twice a day). The movement of the salt wedge and
ETM causes surface sediments to resuspend and redeposit on each tidal cycle, resulting in
longitudinal mixing of the surface sediments, so that, while there is a broad range of
concentration values present at the surface (typically two orders of magnitude variations or
more), there is little or no trend in COPC and COPEC median concentrations on recentlydeposited sediments by river mile from RM2 to RM12 (see RI Figures 4-3, 4-12, 4-17b, 4-32b,
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-10
2014
4-47b). This lack of trend in median concentration from RM2 to RM12 is also apparent even
when all surface sediment data are considered (see RI Figures 4-2, 4-11, 4-17a, 4-32a, 4-47a). As
noted previously, 85 percent of the surface area and 90 percent of the volume of fine sediments
are located in the FFS Study Area, so that there is much less contaminated silt above RM8.3 than
below RM8.3, even though median surface concentrations from RM2 to RM12 are very similar.
In addition, data show that between RM0 and RM8.3 surface sediments in channel and shoal
areas are comparably contaminated, exhibiting similar median concentrations and similar
concentration ranges (see RI Figures 4-7a and b, 4-14a and b, 4-23a and b, 4-38a and b, 4-57a
and b).
When maintenance dredging first declined and then stopped in the 1950s (above RM2) to 1983
(between RM0 and RM2), sediment infilling rates in the deep anthropogenic channel were
relatively high (on the order of several inches per year) and coincided with a period of highly
active industrial discharges, so that the deepest sediments are the most highly contaminated.
Then, in the 1970s-80s, industrial discharges declined under Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations
and the channel began to fill with less contaminated solids, leading to a slow decline in
concentrations in sediments deposited since 1980. Since the 2000s, however, the in-fill rate of
the channel has slowed and the river has begun to reach a quasi-steady state, with overall rates of
deposition slowing considerably and alternating with some scouring, particularly during high
flow events. This condition means that the river is not steadily filling with “cleaner” sediments
from outside the FFS Study Area. Daily tidal action resuspends and redeposits the contaminated
surface sediments, while occasional scouring during high flow events uncovers and resuspends
deeper, more highly-contaminated sediments. As a result, contaminant concentrations in the
surface sediments have been declining extremely slowly in recent years. Sampling from 1995
through 2012 confirms that median contaminant concentrations in FFS Study Area surface
sediment have remained almost unchanged over the 17 year period (see RI Figures 4-8, 4-9, 415, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, and 4-62), even though industrial
sources along the river have declined and generally ceased discharging.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-11
2014
1.2.3.1 Lateral Extent and Temporal Trend of Surface Sediment Contamination
The analysis of surface sediment contamination in the Lower Passaic River has provided a series
of observations that form much of the basis for the CSM. These observations provide insight into
the processes at work in the Lower Passaic River that govern the fate and transport of the
contaminants found there. This analysis and the conclusions that follow are based on a review of
data from 12 different studies of sediment contamination in the Lower Passaic River, involving
sampling intervals ranging from 0 to 1 inch to 0 to 6 inches thick. These conclusions are
supported by the information presented in RI Report Chapter 4 as well as in Data Evaluation
Report No. 4 in Appendix A.
•
Surface concentrations are locally variable but largely without trend in river mile from
RM2 to RM12. Of note, concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in 0 to 6 inch samples can vary
over 4 orders of magnitude within a single river mile interval. However, 2,3,7,8-TCDD
concentrations in recently-deposited sediments vary less than a factor of 3 from RM2 to
RM12, slowly and regularly increasing in value moving upstream. This gradual increase
is further reduced when concentrations are normalized to Total Organic Carbon (TOC).
Other compounds show similar distributions, with highly variable local concentrations
but little variation in the concentrations measured in recently-deposited sediments from
RM2 to RM12.
•
When Upper Passaic River contamination on recently-deposited sediments is less than
that of the Lower Passaic River (e.g., for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total TCDD, dieldrin and
chromium), an increasing concentration gradient occurs from RM17.4 to RM12.
•
When downstream contamination is less than that of the Lower Passaic River, a
decreasing concentration gradient occurs from RM2 to RM0 and sometimes extends to
the southern end of Newark Bay (e.g., for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total TCDD, dieldrin and
chromium).
•
Normalization to TOC for organics further reduces concentration variation and any trend
with river mile from RM2 to RM12 within the Lower Passaic River for Beryllium-7
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-12
2014
(Be-7) 10 bearing (i.e., recently-deposited) sediments. However, normalization does little
to reduce variability in 0 to 6 inch results from samples in depositional locations. This is
because 0 to 6 inch samples tend to incorporate much older materials (pre-1990s), which
are generally more contaminated, thus reducing the interpretative value of normalization.
Based on TOC-normalized contaminant concentrations, little difference exists between
shoal and channel areas.
•
Some component of the concentration gradient above RM12 is due to the greatly reduced
presence of fine-grained sediment in this region. In some instances, normalization to
TOC or iron largely eliminates the gradient for recently-deposited sediments, indicating
that the Upper Passaic River is contributing contaminant concentrations on a fine-grained
particle basis that are comparable to those observed in the Lower Passaic River for
contaminants such as PAHs, dieldrin and Total chlordane.
•
For metal contaminants, normalization to iron reduces sample-to-sample variability, often
fairly substantially, and typically more than TOC normalization does for organic
contaminants, indicating that fine-grained sediment content may control metal
contamination levels more closely than organic contamination levels.
•
Iron-normalized data in RM2 to RM12 exhibit significantly reduced variability for
cadmium, chromium, copper, and lead. Sample to sample variability for cadmium,
chromium, and copper was + 15 percent or less of the mean value for RM2 to RM12. For
lead, the variability was reduced to + 20 percent. Variation in mercury concentrations is
larger (roughly +45 percent) and was not reduced by normalization to iron. The reason
for the lack of improvement in mercury variation has not been explored.
•
The low variability in recently-deposited sediments indicates that tidal mixing
homogenizes water column fine-grained suspended matter contaminant burdens (i.e., the
particles that are the source of these recently-deposited sediments). That is, water column
concentrations of metals on fine-grained suspended matter vary less than + 20 percent
between RM2 and RM12 (when averaged over a 6 to 12 month period, which is the
measurement period for Be-7). It is likely that water column concentrations of organic
10
Be-7 is a naturally occurring radionuclide with a half-life of 53 days. It is detectable in sediments within approximately 4 to 5 half-lives of
deposition, or about 6-12 months. Be-7 bearing sediment samples settled out of the water column in the last 6-12 months and are considered
recently-deposited sediments (see Data Evaluation Report No. 3 in Appendix A).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-13
2014
contaminants have a similarly low range of variability over this region, based on the
similarly low variability noted in TOC-normalized samples.
•
Surface concentrations within RM2 to RM12 are affected by variations in fine-grained
sediment content (i.e., percent fines). Most variation in fine-grained sediment content in
surface sediments occurs above RM8.3, where most of the river bottom is characterized
as sands and coarser sediment with pockets of fine-grained sediments. In RM2 to RM8.3,
each contaminant shows comparable concentrations in channel and shoal areas, with local
variations. No contaminant showed a systematic trend with river mile in RM2 to RM8.3.
•
Extreme values of the compounds of concern occurred somewhat randomly across the
river bottom and do not always coincide with extreme values of other compounds of
concern. These observations were noted in the 0 to 6 inch and 0 to 2 inch non-Be-7
bearing samples. The randomness of these values indicates that care is necessary in
estimating local concentration averages. These extreme values are likely the result of
differences in release history for the various compounds such that different compounds
reach maximum values at different horizons with the sediment bed. Their presence at the
riverbed surface is evidence for reworking (i.e., erosion and redeposition) of the sediment
bed after initial deposition and burial. Alternatively, and particularly in the shallower
shoals, their presence at the riverbed surface may be evidence for lack of burial
subsequent to deposition 30 to 40 years ago.
•
Samples obtained from 0 to 6 inches integrate sediments over highly variable time scales,
whereas Be-7 bearing samples represent just the last year of deposition or less. As a
result, 0 to 6 inch samples have inherently more variable concentrations, incorporating
deeper, more contaminated sediments.
•
The observations of parallel trends in median contaminant concentrations across the
Lower Passaic River from both 0 to 6 inch samples and the Be-7 bearing sediments is the
result of the estuarine processes at work in the river. The spatial distribution of the
contaminants of concern in the Lower Passaic River is well explained by the occurrence
of extensive tidal mixing and reworking of the sediment bed, generating locally variable
concentrations as legacy sediments are exposed and reworked, while recent deposition is
evenly contaminated over distances of several miles.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-14
2014
•
Some compounds such as Total DDx, mercury and dieldrin appear to have lower surface
concentrations in the 2008 to 2012 sampling period than in 1995, unlike 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Comparison of 0 to 6 inch samples indicates higher PAHs concentrations in 2008 to 2012
relative to 1995. These observations are inconsistent with those from the dated sediment
cores (see Data Evaluation Report No. 3 in Appendix A) and probably result from
analytical differences among sampling programs and over time. Analytical differences
are not an issue for the dated sediment cores since a single analytical technique was used
across all cores for all core layers for any given analyte.
Based on these observations, the Lower Passaic River and its boundaries can be divided into
the following regions for the purposes of the CSM of contaminant transport:
•
The Upper Passaic River exhibits a generally low level of contamination relative to the
Lower Passaic River when viewed on a simple concentrations basis; the exception being
PAHs. Normalized concentrations further reduce the differences between the Upper
Passaic sediments for PCBs, dieldrin, and Total chlordane, which appear comparable to
or higher than normalized levels in the Lower Passaic River. This indicates that the level
of contamination in Upper Passaic River fine-grained sediment is comparable to levels
found in recently-deposited Lower Passaic River sediments for PAHs, PCBs, dieldrin,
and Total chlordane. Regardless of normalization, however, the Upper Passaic River is
still orders of magnitude lower in 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations relative to the Lower
Passaic River.
•
The RM12 to RM17.4 region is characterized by an increasing concentration gradient
with decreasing river mile (two-orders of magnitude gradient in 2,3,7,8-TCDD
concentrations). This is the result of the mixing of cleaner Upper Passaic solids with
more contaminated resuspended solids originating in the Lower Passaic River.
•
The RM8.3 to RM12 region is characterized by highly variable contaminant
concentrations but little-to-no trend in concentration with river mile. Some of the
concentration variability can be explained by variations in fine-grained sediment content.
In particular, the RM8.3 to RM12 region has wide areas of coarse-grained sediments and
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-15
2014
relatively few areas of fine-grained sediments. Higher contaminant concentrations occur
primarily in fine-grained sediments in this region.
•
The RM2 to RM8.3 region is also characterized by highly variable contaminant
concentrations but has a stronger central tendency to the distribution compared to the
RM8.3 to RM12 region, with many samples close to the median concentration for each
contaminant. This is attributed in part to the more spatially extensive fine-grained
sediment texture that is characteristic of this region. There is little area characterized as
coarse-grained in RM2 to RM8.3. Channel and shoal areas are comparably contaminated
in this region, showing little difference in contaminant concentrations and little difference
in sediment texture.
•
The RM0 to RM2 region is characterized by a shallow concentration gradient for most
contaminants. Although shallow, this gradient is substantively steeper than any trend
observed from RM2 to RM12. For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the gradient in this region is much
shallower than that observed in the RM12 to RM17.4 region. The gradient in the RM0 to
RM2 region is attributed to the mixing of solids from Newark Bay into the Lower Passaic
River as the result of tidal exchange. Like the region from RM2 to RM8.3, the channel
and shoals of this region are also comparably contaminated.
•
Newark Bay is characterized by a decreasing gradient that begins at RM2 and extends
south through the bay, as less contaminated solids from Upper New York Bay are mixed
with solids from the Lower Passaic River.
More information is presented in Tables 1-2 a, b and c, Chapter 4 of the RI Report and Data
Evaluation Report No. 4 in Appendix A.
1.2.3.2 Vertical Extent of Sediment Contamination
As mentioned above, the coincidence of chemical disposal in the river, along with the infilling of
the federally-authorized navigation channel when maintenance dredging stopped, created an
ideal situation for the accumulation of contaminated sediments in the Lower Passaic River. Since
many industries were most active in the decades when the navigation channel was first filling in,
the highest contaminant concentrations tend to be found deeper down into the sediment bed (see
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-16
2014
Table 1-3). The total inventory of contaminated sediments in the FFS Study Area is
approximately 9.7 million cy.
Low resolution sediment cores collected in 1995, 2006, and 2008 were used to assess the vertical
extent of contamination in the FFS Study Area for five COPCs: 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCBs,
Total PAHs, Total DDx, and mercury (see Table 1-3). The results show consistently greater
depths of contamination in the channel relative to the shoals. The depth of contamination in the
channel is about 12 feet for all contaminants examined, except Total PCBs. There are, however,
thicker contaminated shoal areas immediately adjacent to certain historical discharges (such as
the Tierra Removal footprint near the former Diamond Alkali plant at 80 Lister Avenue in
Newark, NJ, which was dredged in 2012 as part of the Phase I Removal). The consistency of the
depth of contamination for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PAHs, Total DDx, and mercury leads to the
conclusion that these contaminants were already present in the Lower Passaic River in the 1950s
and 1960s, when channel maintenance became more sporadic and eventually stopped. Based on
the dated sediment cores, peak discharges of PCBs probably occurred after the 1950s. In the
shoal areas, the depths of contamination are less consistent and probably reflect the interactions
of the release histories, proximity to the sources, and the local rate of deposition.
•
A large number of the cores obtained for the FFS Study Area do not penetrate the entire
thickness of contaminated sediment (i.e., incomplete cores) and thus provide limited
information on the depth of contamination at these locations.
•
There are sufficient cores to provide an estimate of average depth of contamination in
most river sections. In channel areas in the FFS Study Area, the depth of contamination
compares well with the estimated thickness of contaminated sediment based on dredging
history and post-dredging bathymetric changes.
•
Local measurements of the depth of contamination show the depth of contamination to
vary widely throughout the river. This is attributed to local depositional and erosional
histories and the continued reworking of the sediment bed to the present time.
•
Based on the sediment profiles, mercury and Total PAHs are present at the greatest
depths, followed by 2,3,7,8-TCDD and then by Total PCBs. This sequence is considered
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-17
2014
to represent the relative age of the contaminants in the FFS Study Area, from oldest to
youngest.
•
The depth of contamination is greatest in the FFS Study Area relative to other areas of the
LPRSA. This is attributed to the greater dredging depths in the FFS Study Area relative
to other regions of the river.
More information is presented in Chapter 4 of the RI Report.
1.2.3.3 Surface Water
The water column serves as a means for the transport and dispersal of contaminants throughout
the Lower Passaic River. In the context of the RI and FFS for the FFS Study Area, the water
column has not been evaluated as a potential source of contamination but rather a medium whose
contaminant inventory is transient and regularly replaced and replenished. The water column
inventory at any moment represents a dynamic balance of the various loads and sinks connected
to the water column.
The high resolution sediment cores located at RM1.4, RM2.2, RM7.8, RM11, and RM12.6,
collected in 2005 were used to examine contaminants in dated intervals as an indication of
historical water quality changes in the Lower Passaic River. Nearly all contaminants reached
significant maximum concentrations (indicating maximum water-borne loads) between the mid1950s and early 1970s. A few contaminants, like PAH compounds, exhibit earlier maxima.
These cores also document the decline in contaminant concentrations in the water column to the
present. Most contaminants, like 2,3,7,8-TCDD, mercury, and PCBs, exhibit a gradual
concentration decline to the most recent layers. These declines were examined in light of the
trends exhibited in the dated sediment core obtained above Dundee Dam, representing the
background water-borne contaminant loads from the Upper Passaic River. The trend in this core
along with concentrations from sediment traps and Be-7 bearing samples from the tributaries and
suspended matter samples from the combined sewer overflows (CSOs), were used to describe
baseline suspended matter concentrations and, by inference, baseline loads external to the Lower
Passaic River. The dated sediment core profiles for the Lower Passaic River and the Upper
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-18
2014
Passaic River at Dundee Dam describe the chronologies of contaminant concentrations in the
sediment.
The dated cores show that even though industrial discharges of contamination to the LPRSA
have been controlled under the CWA and other laws or regulations, annual sediment deposition
remains highly contaminated. In particular, concentrations of most contaminants examined on
recently-deposited sediments remain well above contaminant levels of any solids entering the
LPRSA. For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the concentrations on recently-deposited solids remain orders of
magnitude above any external solids source. This observation in combination with the absence of
substantive boundary loads leads to the conclusion that recently-deposited sediments are
contaminated by the resuspension of contaminated legacy sediments from within the LPRSA.
The dated cores also show the rate of contaminant concentration decline since 1980 to be quite
slow, with a concentration half-time 11 of approximately 30 years for most contaminants,
including 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Further, since 1980, these cores show close agreement in contaminant
levels on depositing sediments from RM1.4 to RM12.6.
The observation that concentrations and trends through time for many contaminants are
consistent from RM1.4 to RM12.6 forms the foundation for the geochemical understanding of
the Lower Passaic River. These observations can only be explained by a very active
hydrodynamic system, where suspended solids are mixed over long distances prior to long-term
deposition. This can be accomplished by either extensive mixing within the water column prior
to deposition or by extensive temporary settling and remobilization/redeposition combined with
water column mixing, repeatedly reworking settled solids. In either case, concentration gradients
are largely smoothed out over relatively short periods of time, currently on the scale of 6 months
to a year, yielding the observation of Be-7-bearing sediments with similar contaminant
concentrations over a 10-mile segment of the Lower Passaic River between RM2 and RM12.
11
The use of the term “half- time” in this sense is not to imply decay or destruction of a contaminant over time, akin to the decay of a
radionuclide. Rather, the term here is used to simply express a rate for the decline of contaminant concentrations in the solids accumulating at
each coring location. Specifically, the half-time is the time required for the concentration of a given contaminant to decline to half of its current
value. The processes that affect the decline are multifold, including many of the fluxes and processes that occur in an urban estuary. The “halftime” expression is just a means to encompass these processes and note their net effect on concentration through time.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-19
2014
The observation about concentrations and trends through time implies that the same sediment
mixing processes currently responsible for the similarity in recently-deposited sediments have
been operating since at least 1980. Lastly, the sustained slow rate of recovery observed in these
dated sediment cores also indicates that absent remediation, it can be anticipated that surface
sediment concentrations in the LPRSA and FFS Study Area will continue to decline in a similar
slow fashion.
As discussed earlier, daily tides mix, resuspend, and redeposit sediments, thereby reducing the
variability in chemical concentrations in the recently-deposited surface sediments across the
Lower Passaic River. Accordingly, suspended solids should possess the same contaminant
pattern as the recently-deposited surface sediments. To evaluate this premise, suspended solids
data from the Trace Organic Platform Sampler and Infiltrex samples collected during the large
volume water column sampling event in 2005 were converted from mass of contaminant per liter
of water to mass of contaminant per mass of suspended solids by dividing the contaminant
concentrations by the TSS concentration of the whole water sample. In addition to these samples,
the United States Geological Survey 2005 Water Monitoring Program data on pre-dredging
conditions obtained during the Lower Passaic River Environmental Dredging Pilot Study
conducted by NJDOT were also examined (The Louis Berger Group [LBG], 2012).
Concentrations and patterns of contamination in suspended solids collected during large volume
water column sampling were statistically compared to corresponding results in recentlydeposited sediments to assess their similarity. In general, the evaluations of these water column
data were hindered by either a limited amount of data, undefined datasets, or data variability.
Despite these issues, there are some important observations drawn from these datasets (see Data
Evaluation Report No. 4 in Appendix A), including:
•
For dioxins, Total PCBs, Total DDx, mercury, lead, and Total PAHs the suspended-phase
concentrations approximate the Be-7 bearing surficial sediment concentrations,
demonstrating the close link between the two media due to tidally-driven resuspension
and settling. The average suspended-phase concentration for 2,3,7,8-TCDD was 850 ρg/g
while the average concentration on the Be-7 bearing surficial sediment was 640 ρg/g. The
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-20
2014
average suspended-phase concentrations for mercury and lead were 1 and 300 mg/kg,
respectively, while the average concentrations on the Be-7 bearing surficial sediment
were 2 and 250 mg/kg for mercury and lead, respectively. Total PCBs and Total DDx
average concentrations on the suspended-phase were 1,000 mg/kg and 190 mg/kg,
respectively. These concentrations are comparable to the Be-7 bearing surficial sediment
concentrations of 1,000 mg/kg and 130 mg/kg for Total PCBs and Total DDx,
respectively.
•
A principal components analysis performed on all classes of contaminants as part of the
Empirical Mass Balance (EMB) model (Appendix C) further confirmed the hypothesis
that the Be-7 bearing suspended solids possesses the same contaminant pattern as the
recently-deposited surface sediments.
•
FFS Study Area contaminants in the water column are primarily borne by the suspended
solids as opposed to the dissolved-phase.
•
The suspended solids and dissolved-phase both have a 2,3,7,8-TCDD/Total TCDD ratio
of approximately 0.5 to 0.8, similar to that observed in the surface sediments of the
Lower Passaic River, as would be expected given the close link between the two media.
•
The principal components analysis further suggests that the contaminant patterns and
concentrations of recently-deposited Lower Passaic River sediment can be derived from a
simple combination of the solids contamination patterns observed for Newark Bay, the
Upper Passaic River, all the tributaries, CSOs/ storm water outfalls (SWOs), and the
legacy sediments. This indicates that no additional sources are required to recreate the
contaminant patterns and concentrations present in recently-deposited sediments, i.e., that
all sources of contamination have been identified.
1.2.3.4 Biota
During the RI, two separate analyses were conducted to examine the impact of the sediment
contamination in the Lower Passaic River on the existing biota:
•
An evaluation of the variation of fish and crab tissue concentrations over time and by
river mile in the FFS Study Area.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-21
2014
•
A multivariate regression on contaminant concentrations in fish and crab tissue and in
sediment to establish a relationship among these media for different contaminants, for use
in estimating fish and crab body burdens in response to surface sediment concentrations.
Both analyses were conducted to examine the functional relationship between the sediment
contamination in the Lower Passaic River and aquatic biota relevant to the risk assessment
process.
Overall, there were data for 26 fish species available in the project database considered in this
analysis, derived from four main studies of the Lower Passaic River. Of these species, four were
selected for detailed analysis based on the spatial and temporal availability of measurements,
their importance to human consumption, and their trophic level (representing the Lower Passaic
River estuarine food web). The four species selected for analysis were:
•
Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus)
•
Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus)
•
White perch (Morone americana)
•
American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
The specific tissue sample types for each of these four species varied among studies and included
whole body, skinless fillet, skin-on fillet, muscle, hepatopancreas, muscle/hepatopancreas, and
“all edible tissue” but were grouped together when appropriate. For the sake of consistency
across the various sampling programs, this analysis of contaminant concentrations in fish tissue
examined whole body fish tissue samples only whereas for blue crab, this analysis examined
samples labeled muscle/hepatopancreas, whole body soft tissue, and “all edible tissue”, which
were considered equivalent for blue crab.
Evaluations of the nature and extent and trends in contaminant concentrations over time for
mummichog, American eel, white perch, and blue crab were conducted for a subset of
contaminants that are considered to be most bioaccumulative, most persistent in the environment,
and toxic to human and/or ecological receptors, namely, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, PCB 126, Total PCBs,
Total DDx, dieldrin, Total chlordane, Low Molecular Weight (LMW) PAHs, High Molecular
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-22
2014
Weight (HMW) PAHs, copper, lead, and Total mercury. An analysis of the correlation between
contaminant concentrations in biota tissue samples and the concentrations in corresponding
sediment samples was conducted to determine site-specific sediment-tissue relationships
(estimated biota sediment accumulation factors or bioaccumulation factors, as appropriate), as
discussed in Data Evaluation Report No. 6 in Appendix A. This analysis was successful in
obtaining strong sediment-tissue regressions for the most important contaminants with respect to
risk, the chlorinated organic compounds.
In the FFS Study Area, contaminant concentrations in fish and crab tissue have similar patterns
and trends to those observed in the surface sediments. Spatially, there is a broad range of
contaminant concentrations in fish and crab tissue (more than an order of magnitude), but there is
little or no trend in COPC and COPEC median concentrations with river mile (see RI
Figures 4-77 through 4-87). Local variation in tissue concentration is often an order of
magnitude or more (i.e., maximum/minimum = 10 or more) while mean concentrations vary by
about a factor of two (i.e., maximum/minimum = 2) and often less with river mile. For most
contaminants, mean tissue concentrations gradually increase upstream, although trends are very
weak and only marginally significant. For the organic contaminants, lipid-normalized tissue
concentrations show less local variation than the absolute tissue concentrations, but still confirm
observations of little trend of the mean lipid-normalized tissue concentrations with river mile.
There are significant variations in the mean lipid content over time for three of the four species
examined. Specifically, blue crab, mummichog and white perch all show decreased lipid
concentrations with time. These lipid content variations help explain much of the study-to-study
variation in organic contaminant tissue concentrations. This is important since concentrations of
several organic contaminants otherwise appear to decline in biota tissue with time (without lipid
normalization).
Lipid-normalized contaminant concentrations in fish and crab tissue have not consistently
increased or decreased with time over the period 1999 to 2010 (see Data Evaluation Report No. 6
in Appendix A). Concentrations of contaminants may increase over time in one species, while
decreasing in another species, or even in another tissue type of the same species. The lack of
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-23
2014
consistent trends over time across species and tissue type, as well as the lack of trend with river
mile indicate that variations in contaminant concentrations in fish and crab tissue do not
represent variations in the sediment COPC and COPEC concentrations to which the fish or crab
are exposed, but are probably attributable to factors such as analytical differences among studies,
variations in sample types (e.g., variations in number, size age or tissue type of specimens in a
typical sample), seasonal variations in the time of collection or other environmental factors not
related to long-term trends in sediment exposure concentrations.
1.2.4 Contaminant Fate and Transport
The COPCs and COPECs of the Lower Passaic River are persistent and particle-reactive. As a
result, the RI emphasized those factors which govern particle-water interactions. Pertinent
physical and chemical properties of the COPCs and COPECs and the general chemical, physical,
and biological transport mechanisms that govern their fate and transport are described below.
1.2.4.1 Chemical Properties Affecting Contaminant Fate and Transport
COPC and COPEC transport in the Lower Passaic River occurs through several processes,
including:
•
Water-borne (dissolved phase) transport, both in surface water and in pore water;
•
Particle-borne (suspended matter) transport;
•
Burial in the sediments;
•
Resuspension of deposited sediments;
•
Bioturbation of sediments;
•
Volatilization into the atmosphere; and
•
Incorporation into the food chain.
In addition to these transport processes, contaminant concentrations in the Lower Passaic River
can be affected by chemical transformations such as in situ degradation and photolysis.
As a group, the COPCs and COPECs in the Lower Passaic River tend to sorb to sediment
particles, are resistant to biodegradation, volatilize slowly if at all, and bioaccumulate in aquatic
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-24
2014
organisms. Only the LMW PCBs and PAH compounds have non-negligible losses via gas
exchange at the river’s surface. The most important chemical properties affecting the
environmental fate of COPCs and COPECs in the Lower Passaic River are those affecting
partitioning, which can be characterized by the organic carbon partitioning coefficient, the
octanol-water partitioning coefficient, or the solid phase partitioning coefficient. Partitioning
characteristics are also important factors influencing the accumulation of contaminants in biota,
which can be described empirically as ratios of biota concentrations to exposure concentrations
(i.e., the bioaccumulation factors or biota-sediment accumulation factors, and the
bioconcentration factor). These properties and factors are summarized in Table 5-2 of the RI
Report. Other chemical properties such as vapor pressure, Henry’s Law constant, the
biodegradation rate, photolysis rate, and water solubility can also affect COPC and COPEC fate
and transport to a lesser degree.
1.2.4.2 Physical Transport Interactions
The Lower Passaic River is a tidal estuary connected to the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary and the
Hackensack River through Newark Bay. It is a partially-stratified estuary where freshwater and
solids flow from the Upper Passaic River downriver to Newark Bay. The tidal currents and
freshwater discharges are the main mechanisms for contaminant transport in the Lower Passaic
River. These currents move water, sediment, and their associated contaminants along the length
of the estuary, while also delivering contaminants to Newark Bay or depositing them in portions
of the Lower Passaic River bed. Hydrologic conditions in both Newark Bay and the river bed are
such that contaminants may be returned from these areas to the water column of the Lower
Passaic River. Depending on the contaminant, transport may take place as either dissolved or
suspended solids-borne phases or both. The actual distribution for each COPC/COPEC in the
water column is a function of partition coefficients described in Table 5- 2 of the RI Report and
the water column concentration of particulate and dissolved organic matter, and the grain size of
the particulate matter. Note that organic carbon, aluminum and iron can be used as surrogates for
particulate grain size. For metals, factors affecting speciation are also important. Refer to
Chapter 3 of the RI Report for a more detailed discussion of stream flow characteristics and
physical movement of sediment particles as suspended solids in the Lower Passaic River and
Newark Bay.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-25
2014
Contaminants sorbed to sediments and organic matter may be transported as suspended matter or
as bedload during higher flow events. Fine-grained material, such as silts and clays, will
generally be entrained in the water column as suspended solids. Due to their high surface area
per unit mass and their high organic carbon content, silts and clays tend to have higher
contaminant concentrations than coarser materials, such as sand. As water velocities increase due
to storm events or seasonal runoff, coarser-grained material (medium to coarse-grained sand or
larger particles) become suspended and/or move along the river bottom as bedload. During these
events, fine-grained deposited material and associated contaminants may become mobilized and
transported downstream as suspended matter, which eventually settles and deposits along the
length of the Lower Passaic River. In the Lower Passaic River, bottom sediments are subject to
repeated resuspension, returning the contaminated solids to the water column for redistribution
by tidally driven currents. High flows resulting from large storm events can also result in erosion
and redistribution of contaminated sediments in the Lower Passaic River. Within Newark Bay,
chemical and sediment transport occurs through tidally-driven currents as well as wind-driven
currents and wave action. Note that wind-driven currents and wave action are not important
factors in contaminant transport in the Lower Passaic River. With the exception of LMW PCBs
and PAHs where atmospheric exchange may represent a more important transport process, most
of the organic COPCs and COPECs of the Lower Passaic River persist in the estuary.
1.2.4.3 Biological Transport Interactions
The important biological processes that affect long-term COPC and COPEC persistence in
sediments include bioturbation of sediments, biodegradation, and bioaccumulation (i.e., increase
in contaminant concentration from the environment to the first organism in a food chain).
Sediment bioturbation will generally accelerate degradation rates of organic compounds through
oxygenation of surface sediments. Although biodegradation of chlorinated compounds such as
PCBs, pesticides, and dioxin can occur via anaerobic dechlorination, this process is generally
limited to fresh water; the abundance of chloride ions potentially inhibits the process in saline
waters. Microbial PCB dechlorination is widespread in many anaerobic environments, including
freshwater (pond, lake, and river) (Bedard and Quensen 1995; Wiegel and Wu 2000), estuarine
(Brown and Wagner 1990; Tiedje et al., 1993), and marine sediments (Ofjord et al,. 1994) for
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-26
2014
congeners with up to 10 chlorine substituents (Hartkamp-Commandeur et al,. 1996), although
other authors report dechlorination occurring for up to 7 (Quensen et al,. 1990), 8 (Abramowicz
1990; Kuipers et al., 1999), or 9 (Kuipers et al., 1999) chlorines only. Metals are not subject to
biodegradation although biological activity can mediate metal speciation. Examples of such
speciation are conversion of biologically available lead oxides or carbonates to less bioavailable
lead sulfides and the conversion of ionic mercury to more bioavailable methyl mercury.
Benthic infauna reside in the upper strata of sediment in the Lower Passaic River and Newark
Bay and mix sediment throughout their life cycles. The depth of sediment that is susceptible to
mixing varies with the sediment grain size, density, sediment chemistry, bottom current velocity,
and type of habitat available. Benthic insect larvae ingest bulk sediment and strip detritus from
the surface of the particles. Dioxins and PCBs (and other chlorinated compounds) partitioned to
sediments may enter into the food web principally from uptake of sediment solids (Capel and
Eisenrich, 1990).
Bioaccumulation occurs in an organism when the uptake rate exceeds the organism’s ability to
remove the chemical through metabolic functions, dilution, or excretion, so that the excess
chemical is stored in the body of the organism. One result of bioaccumulation may be
biomagnification of the chemical up the food chain. Biomagnification occurs at the upper end of
the food chain when the chemicals are passed from one organism to another through
consumption (e.g., phytoplankton contain low levels of PCBs which are passed to the fish and
ultimately to piscivorous birds or humans).
1.2.4.4 Fate and Transport Modeling
Contaminant transport was evaluated using an EMB Model developed for the Lower Passaic
River, as well as adaptations of existing numerical models. The EMB is a receptor-type chemical
mass balance model, where the total contaminant mass present in the sediments of the receptor
(i.e., the recently-deposited, Be-7 bearing sediments in the Lower Passaic River) is the sum of
the mass contributions from the individual sources. The EMB provides a quantitative mechanism
to estimate the importance of each potential source of COPCs and COPECs to the Lower Passaic
River, examining the portion of the river between RM2 and RM12. The results of the EMB show
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-27
2014
that the primary (dominant) source of contamination to recently-deposited sediments of the
Lower Passaic River is the resuspension of legacy contaminated sediments for 2,3,7,8-TCDD,
PCBs, pesticides, and metals. The Upper Passaic River and Newark Bay are the major external
sources to the contaminant burden in recently-deposited sediments but typically contribute much
less to the contaminant burden in recently-deposited sediments than legacy sediments (see table
below). The EMB results show that the Upper Passaic River was the primary source of PAHs
and a secondary source of PCBs, pesticides, copper, and lead (with resuspension of Passaic River
mainstem sediments as the primary source of the latter four contaminants). Newark Bay is shown
to be a secondary source for mercury. Contributions by tributaries, CSOs, and SWOs to the
Lower Passaic River are less than 10 percent for any individual source for any contaminant and
typically less than 10 percent in total. Contributions from the various sources are summarized
below.
Lower Passaic
Upper Passaic
Newark Bay
Tributaries
CSOs-SWOs
River
River (percent)
(percent)
(percent)
(percent)
Resuspension
(percent)
Solids
32
14
6
1
48
2,3,7,8-TCDD
0
3
0
0
97
Total TCDD
3
5
0
0
92
Total PCBs
11
6
1
0
81
DDE
10
8
3
1
78
Copper
14
12
1
1
72
Mercury
11
14
0
0
75
Lead
19
7
2
2
71
Chlordane
32
3
11
3
52
Benzo(a)pyrene
53
7
5
1
33
Fluoranthene
47
5
6
2
40
The legacy sediments of the FFS Study Area are the primary (dominant) driver of the highly
contaminated surface sediments and biota of the Lower Passaic River with active tidal exchange
and storm events. The legacy sediments of the FFS Study Area also distribute contamination to
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-28
2014
Newark Bay and the rest of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. The results of the EMB were used to
provide insight and constraints to the application of the numerical models.
In addition to the EMB, a numerical modeling approach using a mechanistic model (Lower
Passaic River-Newark Bay [LPR-NB] Model) was developed largely from an existing NY/NJ
Harbor-wide model 12 to understand the complex fate and transport of contaminants in the estuary
and to predict future sediment and surface water contaminant concentrations under various
remedial alternatives. The LPR-NB Model consists of a series of linked hydrodynamic (ECOM),
sediment transport (ECOM-SEDZLJS), organic carbon production and transport (ST-SWEM)
and contaminant fate and transport (RCATOX) models (see Appendix B).
To understand the fate and transport of sediments within the FFS Study Area, box diagrams
showing model results for the annual inputs and sinks in metric tons per year (MT/yr) into the
portion of river between RM0.9 and RM8.3 were plotted for a high flow year (water year 13
2011), a low flow year (water year 2002), and the overall annual average over the calibration
period (see RI Figure 5-1). The flux to Newark Bay was approximated at RM0.9, where the river
widens on its approach to the bay. Based on the model results, the following observations can be
made about the fate and transport of sediments in the FFS Study Area:
•
Over the 17-year simulation period, the gross internal processes of resuspension and
deposition are approximately 100 to 220 times greater than the net exchange of solids at
the boundaries of the FFS Study Area (i.e., at RM8.3 and at RM0 [or mouth of Newark
Bay]). The large gross internal recycling of sediments within the FFS Study Area (as
compared to the inputs from above RM8.3 and the flux to Newark Bay) is one of the
factors responsible for the slow recovery of contaminant concentrations observed in
surface sediments. The inputs from the CSOs and SWOs are negligible relative to all of
the other internal and external sources.
•
The sediment fluxes during high flow (storm) events are orders of magnitude greater than
the corresponding fluxes under low flow conditions.
12
13
Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Program (CARP) model (HydroQual, 2007).
A “water year” is defined as the 12-month period from October 1st of any given year through September 30th of the following year.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-29
2014
•
Under low flow conditions (water year 2002), the internal flux of resuspension and
deposition is on the order of 870,000 MT/yr and the FFS Study Area is a net source of
solids contributing about 1,000 MT/yr to Newark Bay and approximately 2000 MT/yr are
transported above RM8.3.
•
Under high flow conditions (water year 2011), the internal flux of resuspension and
deposition is on the order of 49 million MT/yr. Approximately 200,000 MT/yr are
transported into the FFS Study Area from the upstream area of RM8.3 to RM17.4 and
140,000 MT/yr are transported into Newark Bay.
•
Over the calibration period, the average flux of resuspension and deposition is on the
order of 5 million MT/yr. Approximately 47,000 MT/yr are delivered to the FFS Study
Area from the upstream area of RM8.3 to RM17.4 and 21,000 MT/yr are transported into
Newark Bay.
The purpose of the ST-SWEM sediment transport-organic carbon production model is to
calculate how organic carbon is being produced, decayed, and transported through the Passaic
River. This is important because hydrophobic organic contaminants such as PCBs, dioxin/furans,
pesticides, and PAHs bind to particulate organic carbon (POC) on the sediment, and to a lesser
extent dissolved organic carbon (DOC). RCATOX incorporates the chemical kinetics and
thermodynamics for each compound with the external loadings, hydrodynamics and sediment
transport into a water quality model framework. RCATOX helps understand the fate and
transport of contaminants within the Lower Passaic River, as well as the export to and import
from Newark Bay and other portions of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary (see Appendix B).
To understand the fate and transport of contaminants within the FFS Study Area, model results
of overall average annual inputs and sinks of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCBs, Total DDx, and
mercury were evaluated over the calibration period. Note that this period included both high and
low flows, and in particular the Hurricane Irene event in August 2011. In general, the
mechanistic model produced results that are consistent with empirical evaluation. Specifically,
both analyses indicate that the gross recycling of legacy sediments in the FFS Study area is the
primary source of contamination in the Lower Passaic River. The model results also indicate that
the Lower Passaic River is a significant source of COPCs and COPECs to Newark Bay.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-30
2014
Contributions from Lower Passaic River tributaries and CSOs are small relative to in-river
fluxes. The net fluxes computed by the mechanistic model above RM8.3 are smaller relative to
the gross recycling of contaminants in the FFS Study Area. Overall, for the calibration period,
the average annual flux from internal recycling of resuspension and deposition processes within
the FFS Study area is 3 to 10 times greater than the flux generated upstream of the FFS Study
Area. This internal recycling of sediments likely controls the surface sediment concentrations in
the FFS Study Area. The relatively small flux from the upstream portion between RM8.3 and
RM17.4 mixes with the large gross resuspension flux from the FFS Study Area and a large
component is redeposited in the FFS Study Area.
1.2.5 Baseline Risk Assessment
The human health risk assessment (HHRA) and the baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA)
were conducted following a streamlined approach based on USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund (RAGS) (1989; 1997; 1998a; 2001a, 2001b, 2001c) and other appropriate USEPA
risk assessment guidance, guidelines, and policies. Consistent with RAGS, these assessments
focused on providing sufficient information to evaluate potential remedial actions, establish
RAOs and PRGs, and evaluate reductions in risk associated with the various remedial options for
the FFS Study Area sediments. The HHRA and BERA are presented in Appendix D. Separate
baseline human health and ecological risk assessments are being prepared to support decisionmaking during the conduct of the comprehensive RI/FS for the entire 17-mile LPRSA, which is
currently underway.
1.2.5.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
Based on the results of Superfund HHRAs conducted for other river sites with bioaccumulative
COPCs, such as dioxins and PCBs, (e.g., Hudson River [TAMS Consultants, Inc., and Gradient
Corporation, 2000]; Housatonic River [Weston Solutions, 2005]; Centredale Manor
Woonasquatucket River [USEPA Region 1, 2005]) consumption of fish and shellfish (e.g., crabs)
is anticipated to be associated with the highest cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards
compared to ingestion, dermal contact or inhalation of chemicals in surface water or sediment
during recreational exposures. Despite New Jersey’s fish and crab consumption advisories, and
prohibitions on taking blue crabs in the Newark Bay Complex, individuals are known to catch
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-31
2014
fish and crab along the river banks and from docks and bulkheads (NJDEP, 1995; May and
Burger, 1996; Burger et al., 1999; Kirk-Pflugh et al., 1999 and 2011). The HHRA evaluated
exposure of the adult angler/sportsman and other family members (i.e., an adolescent aged 7 to
18 years and a child aged 1 to 6 years) to COPCs associated with the consumption of self-caught
fish and blue crab from the FFS Study Area. The HHRA determined that the total cancer risks to
the combined adult and child are 5 × 10-3 and 2 × 10-3 for fish and crab consumption, respectively
(based on reasonable maximum exposure [RME]). These risks are greater than the risk range
established in the NCP of 1 × 10-4 (one in ten thousand) to 1 × 10-6 (one in one million). Total
non-cancer health hazards to the adult are 126 and 43 for fish and crab consumption,
respectively. For the adolescent, the total non-cancer health hazards are 113 and 38 for fish and
crab consumption, respectively. Similarly, for the child the total non-cancer health hazards the
total non-cancer health hazards are 195 and 67 for fish and crab consumption, respectively,
which are much higher than USEPA’s goal of protection of a hazard index (HI) of one.
The majority of the cancer risk is associated with TCDD TEQ (based on D/F congeners)
(approximately 70 percent for fish ingestion and 80 percent for crab ingestion). Most of the
remaining cancer risk is from PCBs for both fish and crab consumption. Similarly,
dioxins/furans and PCBs combined contribute approximately 98 percent of the excess noncancer hazard (56 percent for dioxins/furans and 42 percent for PCBs), while the remaining
excess non-cancer hazard is associated with methyl mercury for all receptors for ingestion of
both fish and crab. The compound 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is found throughout the FFS Study
Area, by itself, comprises 82 to 97 percent of the TCDD TEQ in fish and crab tissue samples.
There are uncertainties associated with the results of the HHRA that may contribute to over- or
under-estimates of cancer risk and non-cancer hazard that should be considered when making
risk management decisions. However, given that there were COPC and exposure pathways
(e.g., boating, wading) not evaluated, risks may be underestimated, so that the conclusion that the
sediments of the FFS Study Area pose unacceptable risks to human health is robust.
1.2.5.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
Despite the extensively urbanized nature of the FFS Study Area, a wide range of ecological
receptors may be exposed to COPECs, including benthic invertebrates, fish and a variety of
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-32
2014
aquatic-dependent bird and mammal wildlife species. The BERA determined that under current
(baseline) conditions the risks estimated for each category of ecological receptor evaluated were
substantially greater than acceptable levels (i.e., HQs were substantially greater than one). For
benthic invertebrates, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCBs and pesticides (Total DDx and dieldrin)
contribute most substantially to the risk, followed by PAHs and mercury. For fish, TCDD TEQ
(based on D/F congeners) is the primary contributor to risk, followed by copper and Total PCBs.
For wildlife, TCDD TEQ (based on dioxin/furans and PCBs) and Total PCBs contribute most
substantially to the risk. Although the uncertainty analysis suggests that risks may have been
over-estimated in some cases (e.g., measurement endpoint [i.e., sediment benchmarks, critical
body residues (CBRs) and toxicity reference values (TRVs)] derivation and selection of sensitive
receptors), this is counter-balanced by other factors (e.g., COPECs and exposure pathways
evaluated) that may have resulted in risks being under-estimated; risks to sedentary organisms
such as benthic organisms may have also been under-estimated in parts of the study area
exhibiting higher contaminant concentrations than average. In addition, a potentially important
exposure route was not evaluated (i.e., the surface water pathway). Therefore, despite the
uncertainties in the BERA, the conclusion that the sediments of the FFS Study Area pose
unacceptable risks to ecological receptors is considered robust.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-33
2014
2
DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND
SELECTION OF TARGET AREAS
This Chapter of the FFS introduces the requirements that must be met by remedial actions, the
objectives that remedial actions are designed to achieve, and the risk-based selection of a target
area (or areas) for remediation. CERCLA requires the development of “...methods and criteria
for determining the appropriate extent of removal, remedy, and other measures...”for
responding to releases of hazardous pollutants and contaminants [CERCLA Section 105(a)(3)].
2.1 Remedial Action Objectives for FFS Study Area
RAOs provide a general description of what the cleanup is expected to accomplish and helps
focus the development of remedial alternatives in the FFS.
RAOs for the FFS Study Area are as follows:
•
Reduce cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards for people eating fish and shellfish by
reducing the concentrations of COPCs in the sediments of the FFS Study Area.
•
Reduce the risks to ecological receptors by reducing the concentrations of COPECs in the
sediments of the FFS Study Area.
•
Reduce the migration of COPC- and COPEC-contaminated sediments from the FFS
Study Area to upstream portions of the Lower Passaic River and to Newark Bay and the
NY/NJ Harbor Estuary.
In accordance with Superfund guidance (Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process,
OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04), reasonably anticipated future land and waterway use in the
FFS Study Area should be considered during the development of remedial alternatives and
remedy selection. Maintenance on the federally-authorized navigation channel in the FFS Study
Area has not been conducted since the 1950s to 1983, depending on location. Various physical
constraints described in RI Chapter 3, such as shallow depths and low vertical clearance bridges,
limit commercial use of most of the navigation channel. However, the lower two miles of the
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-1
2014
river are currently used for commercial navigation by a number of petroleum, chemical, and
other companies. A berth-by-berth analysis of commercial shipping for the period between 1997
and 2006 conducted by USACE demonstrates current waterway use and a USACE survey of
commercial users in 2009 (USACE, 2010) showed clear future waterway use objectives in the
lower two miles of the river.
In addition, the communities located along the banks of the FFS Study Area have clearly planned
for future increases in recreational access to the river, particularly above RM2, through master
plans (City of Newark 2010, City of Newark et al. 2004, Clarke et al. 2004, Clarke et al. 1999,
Heyer et al. 2002, NJDOT, 2007) and municipal zoning regulations (City of Newark, 2012).
The RAOs, along with the reasonably anticipated future land and waterway use objectives, are
considered during the development and evaluation of the remedial alternatives in Chapter 4.
2.2 Overview of ARARs
Section 121(d) of CERCLA requires that remedial actions comply with state and federal ARARs
as defined below unless a waiver is justified. ARARs are used in conjunction with risk-based
goals to determine the appropriate extent of cleanup, to scope and formulate remedial action
alternatives, and to govern the implementation of a selected response action.
The potential ARARs for the FFS Study Area in each of the three categories (chemical-specific,
location-specific, and action-specific), along with other TBC criteria, are summarized in
Table 2-1a and discussed below. It should be noted that the requirements listed are considered
potential ARARs in this FFS and in the Proposed Plan and become final upon issuance of the
ROD.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-2
2014
2.2.1 Definition of ARARs
ARARs 14, as defined in CERCLA Section 121(d), are:
•
Any standard, requirement, criterion, or limitation promulgated under federal
environmental law; and
•
Any promulgated standard, requirement, criterion, or limitation under a state
environmental or facility siting law that is more stringent than the associated federal
standard, requirement, criterion, or limitation that has been identified in a timely manner.
If a state is authorized to implement a program in lieu of a federal agency, state laws arising out
of that program provide the “applicable” standards. However, federal standards that are more
stringent may be considered “relevant and appropriate.”
“On-site” with regard to CERCLA remedial response actions means the areal extent of
contamination and all suitable areas in very close proximity to the contamination necessary for
implementation of the response action. On-site actions must comply with the substantive
requirements of a regulation, but not the administrative requirements (CERCLA Section
121(e)(1)). Substantive requirements are those requirements that pertain directly to actions or
conditions in the environment. Examples include health-based or risk-based standards for
hazardous substances (e.g., maximum contaminant levels [MCLs] in drinking water) and
technology-based standards (e.g., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] standards
for landfills). Administrative requirements include permit applications.
Applicable Requirements
Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, control standards, and other substantive
environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal or state
law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site. In order to be applicable, a standard,
14
Note that compliance with employee protection requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) is specifically required by 40
CFR §300.150. OSHA standards are not considered ARARs because they directly apply to all CERCLA response actions. A Health and Safety
Plan is developed for workers and describes the application of OSHA standards.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-3
2014
requirement, criterion, or limitation must satisfy all of the jurisdictional prerequisites of a
requirement including the party subject to the law, the circumstances or activities that fall under
the authority of the law, the time period during which the law is in effect, and the types of
activities the statute or regulations require, limit, or prohibit.
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Relevant and appropriate requirements are those cleanup standards, control standards, and other
substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under
federal or state law that, while not “applicable” to a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant,
remedial action, location, or other circumstance at an NPL site, address problems or situations
sufficiently similar (relevant) to those encountered, and are well-suited (appropriate) to
circumstances at the particular site. Requirements must be both relevant and appropriate to be
ARARs. During the FFS and remedy selection process, once USEPA has determined that a
requirement is relevant and appropriate, it is given the same weight and consideration as
applicable requirements.
The term “relevant” was included so that a requirement initially screened as non-applicable
because of jurisdictional restrictions could be reconsidered and, if appropriate, included as an
ARAR for a given site. For example, MCLs would not be applicable but relevant and appropriate
for a site with groundwater contamination in a potential (as opposed to an actual) drinking water
source.
The relevance and appropriateness of a requirement can be judged by comparing a number of
factors including the characteristics of the remedial action, the hazardous substances in question,
or the physical circumstances of the site with those addressed in the requirement. The objective
and origin of the requirement are also considered. A requirement that is judged to be relevant and
appropriate must be complied with to the same degree as if it were applicable. However, it is
possible for only part of a requirement to be considered relevant and appropriate, the rest being
dismissed if not judged to be both relevant and appropriate in a given case.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-4
2014
Other Information To Be Considered
To-be-considered information, or TBCs, are non-promulgated criteria, advisories, guidance, and
proposed standards issued by federal or state governments. TBCs are not potential ARARs
because they are neither promulgated nor enforceable although it may be necessary to consult
TBCs to interpret ARARs or to determine preliminary remediation goals when ARARs do not
exist for particular contaminants or are not sufficiently protective. Compliance with TBCs is not
mandatory as it is for ARARs.
2.2.2 Waiver of ARARs
CERCLA Section 121(d) provides that under certain circumstances an ARAR may be waived.
The six statutory waivers are as follows:
•
Interim Measure: Occurs when the selected remedial action is only part of a total
remedial action that will attain ARARs when completed.
•
Greater Risk to Health and the Environment: Occurs when compliance with such
requirements will result in greater risk to human health and the environment than
noncompliance.
•
Technical Impracticability: Occurs when compliance with such requirements is
technically impracticable from an engineering perspective.
•
Equivalent Standard of Performance: Occurs when the selected remedial action will
provide a standard of performance equivalent to that required under the otherwise
applicable standard, requirement, criteria, or limitation through use of another method or
approach.
•
Inconsistent Application of State Requirements: Occurs when a state requirement has
been inconsistently applied in similar circumstances at other remedial actions within the
state.
•
Fund-Balancing: Occurs when, in the case of an action undertaken using Superfund
resources, the attainment of the ARAR would entail extremely high costs relative to the
added degree of reduction of risk afforded by the standard such that remedial actions at
other sites would be jeopardized.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-5
2014
2.3 Development of ARARs
ARARs and TBCs fall into three broad categories, based on the manner in which they are
applied at a site:
•
Chemical-specific: These are health- or risk-based numerical values or methodologies
that establish concentration or discharge limits, or are a basis for calculating such limits
for particular contaminants. Examples of chemical-specific ARARs are drinking water
MCLs, ambient air quality standards, or ambient water quality criteria for dioxins and
PCBs. If more than one such requirement applies to a contaminant, compliance with the
more stringent applicable requirement is necessary.
•
Location-specific: These are restrictions based on the concentration of hazardous
substances or the conduct of activities in specific locations. Examples of natural features
include wetlands, scenic rivers, and floodplains. Examples of man-made features include
historic districts and archaeological sites. Remedial action alternatives may be restricted
or precluded depending on the location or characteristics of the site and the requirements
that apply to it.
•
Action-specific: Action-specific requirements set controls or restrictions on particular
kinds of activities related to the management of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants and are primarily used to assess the feasibility of remedial technologies and
alternatives. Examples of action-specific ARARs include RCRA monitoring
requirements and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) disposal requirements.
Chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific ARARs and TBCs are all considered in
the development and evaluation of remedial alternatives. Chemical- and location-specific
ARARs typically are identified during scoping of the RI/FS and during the site characterization
phase of the RI. Action-specific ARARs are identified during the development of the remedial
alternatives in the FFS.
When a remedial alternative is selected, it must be able to fulfill the requirements of all ARARs
including during the implementation of the remedy (or a waiver must be justified). ARARs
pertaining to both contaminant levels and performance or design standards should be attained at
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-6
2014
all points of potential exposure or at the point specified by the ARAR itself. Where the ARAR
does not specify the point of compliance, USEPA has the discretion to determine where the
requirement shall be attained to be protective.
2.3.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs and TBCs
Chemical-specific ARARs and TBCs define concentration limits or other chemical levels for
environmental media. This FFS addresses the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River, which
is an Operable Unit of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site. All of the contaminated media in the
LPRSA will be addressed in the remedy selected following completion of the 17-mile LPRSA
RI/FS being conducted by the CPG under USEPA oversight. Since the FFS for the sediments of
the lower 8.3 miles is intended to be consistent with any future remedial actions that might be
proposed for the 17-mile Lower Passaic River, any remedy proposed as a result of this FFS
would be formulated so as to contribute to the attainment of surface water ARARs that would be
required in the 17-mile RI/FS. However, since compliance with surface water ARARs depends
on an overall remedy for the 17 miles of the river those ARARs will be addressed in the remedy
selection process for the 17-mile LPRSA. This FFS evaluates attainment of RAOs, PRGs,
ARARs and TBCs for the sediments in the lower 8.3 miles.
No chemical-specific ARARs exist for the sediments of the FFS Study Area. A broad universe of
potential chemical-specific TBCs was initially identified from criteria developed by other
USEPA regions and a variety of other agencies (see Table 2-1a). Table 2-1a presents a detailed
inventory of these potential TBCs and their sources and Table 2-1b lists the associated
contaminant screening values. As described in Section 2.4, PRGs were developed for the FFS.
These PRGs, while not ARARs, are concentration limits that have been developed specifically
for the FFS based on site-specific risk-based concentrations (RBCs). They are thus more
appropriate benchmarks for an action at the FFS Study Area than any of the initially identified
chemical-specific TBCs. As a result, all of the potential chemical-specific TBCs were screened
from consideration as viable criteria for this FFS.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-7
2014
2.3.2 Location-Specific ARARs and TBCs
The location-specific ARARs and TBCs identified for the FFS are listed in Table 2-1a.
2.3.3 Action-Specific ARARs and TBCs
The action-specific ARARs and TBCs identified for the FFS are listed in Table 2-1a.
2.4 Development of Preliminary Remediation Goals
Generally, PRGs that are protective of human health and the environment are developed early in
the RI process based on readily-available screening levels for human health and ecological risks.
Since there are no chemical-specific ARARs that pertain to sediments, PRGs were developed for
this FFS using risk-based fish- and crab-tissue concentrations that are protective of human
health, sediment and body burden concentrations that are protective of benthic organisms, and
body burden concentrations that are protective of fish and aquatic wildlife populations.
Background sediment concentrations were also considered.
2.4.1 Human Health Preliminary Remediation Goals
Human Health PRGs were developed consistent with USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund (RAGS) Part B (USEPA, 1991) and based on the results of the HHRA presented in
Appendix D. Details on PRG development methods, data, and assumptions are presented in
Appendix E.
The HHRA determined that total cancer risks are above the NCP risk range of 1 × 10-4 (one in
ten thousand) to 1 × 10-6 (one in a million), and non-cancer health hazards are above an HQ of
one. The following COPCs have individual cancer risks above 1 × 10-4:
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-8
2014
•
Dioxins/furans as TCDD TEQ (D/F) 15
•
Total non-dioxin-like PCBs (sum of non-dioxin-like congeners)
•
PCBs (12 dioxin-like congeners evaluated as TCDD TEQ) [TCDD TEQ (PCB)].
The following COPCs have individual non-carcinogenic health hazards above an HQ of one:
•
TCDD TEQ (D/F)
•
TCDD TEQ (PCB)
•
Total non-dioxin-like PCBs (sum of non-dioxin-like congeners)
•
Methyl mercury.
A PRG based on carcinogenic effects was calculated for Total non-dioxin-like PCBs but not for
the TCDD TEQ (PCB), for two reasons. First, the estimated carcinogenic risks determined
during the HHRA for Total non-dioxin-like PCBs and dioxin-like PCB congeners [TCDD TEQ
(PCB)] are comparable and calculated PRGs using both Total non-dioxin-like PCBs and
coplanar PCBs separately would not significantly differ. Second, remedial action based on Total
non-dioxin-like PCBs PRGs would address the presence of the dioxin-like PCB congeners.
The methods, data, and exposure assumptions used to calculate the risk-based PRGs for the
protection of human health are described in Appendix E. The PRGs developed for the adult
angler who consumes fish or crabs from the FFS Study Area are summarized in Table 2-2. For
the analysis, the point of departure for cancer risks was calculated at 1 × 10-6 (i.e., one in a
million), and for non-cancer health hazards the point of departure was an HQ equal to one.
As presented in Table 2-2 16, tissue PRGs were first developed based on the adult consumption
rates of 34.6 grams per day for fish and 20.9 grams per day for crab, used in the HHRA. In State
fish and crab consumption advisories, those consumption rates are equivalent to 56 eight-ounce
15
TCDD TEQ for D/F – Sum of the products of the congener concentration and congener-specific Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEF). A TEF is a
measure of the relative potency of a compound to cause a particular toxic or biological effect relative to 2,3,7,8- TCDD. By convention, TCDD is
assigned a TEF of 1.0, and the TEFs for other compounds with dioxin-like effects range from 0 to 1. When TEFs are derived based on the relative
binding affinity to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor or induction of cytochrome P4501A1, it is assumed that these biochemical responses correlate
with toxicologically important effects (Van den Berg et al., 1998). The consensus TEF values published in 2005 by the World Health
Organization (Van den Berg et. al., 2006) and recommended by USEPA (2010) are used in the risk evaluations.
16
Twelve eight-ounce fish or crab meals per year is used as an interim PRG
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-9
2014
fish meals per year and 34 eight-ounce crab meals per year. An additional risk-based tissue
concentration was then developed for 12 eight-ounce fish or crab meals per year for use as
interim tissue PRGs (see Table 2-2).
Sediment concentrations required for biota to meet the risk-based tissue concentration levels
were estimated based on the results of regression analyses conducted to develop site-specific
sediment-tissue relationships for the FFS Study Area (as summarized in Attachment 1 and
described in Data Evaluation Report No. 6, located in Appendix A). Note that the regression
model derived for mercury was based on analytical tissue data for elemental mercury due to a
lack of methyl mercury analytical results in the historical tissue dataset. As such, the data for
elemental mercury and methyl mercury were assumed to be equivalent and treated as if all were
methyl mercury. This conservative assumption will tend to overestimate risks as discussed in
Appendix D under the human health uncertainty analysis.
The estimated risk-based sediment PRGs are presented in Table 2-3.
2.4.2 Ecological Preliminary Remediation Goals
Ecological risk PRGs were developed consistent with USEPA risk guidance (USEPA, 1991)
based on the results of the BERA presented in Appendix D. The BERA determined that
ecological risks attributable to exposure to a majority of the COPECs are substantial enough that
remedial action should be considered to address ecological concerns. COPECs include copper,
lead, mercury (including methyl mercury), LMW PAHs and HMW PAHs, Total non-dioxin-like
PCBs, Total DDx, dieldrin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, TCDD TEQ (D/F), and TCDD TEQ (PCB).
The methods, data, and assumptions used to calculate the PRGs for the ecological receptors are
described in detail in Appendix E. While all of the COPECs discussed in the BERA caused
unacceptable risks (HQ greater than 1) to some or all of the receptors evaluated, risk-based PRGs
were only developed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCBs, mercury, and Total DDx, because they are
the major risk drivers (based on the magnitude of HQs and number of receptors affected) and
because multiple lines of evidence were developed to evaluate how the alternatives would
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-10
2014
achieve PRGs for these four COPECs after remediation. In addition, most active remedial
alternatives designed to address the major risk drivers would also address the other COPECs.
For the analysis, the point of departure for ecological hazards was an HQ 17 equal to one.
Sediment PRGs protective of direct contact exposures to benthic macroinvertebrates were
derived as the geometric mean of the lower- and upper-based sediment benchmarks used to
characterize risks to this receptor group. Development of sediment PRGs protective of
accumulated contaminants in invertebrate tissue as well as in fish and in the diets of wildlife
involved a two-step calculation process. First, biota tissue PRGs (Table 2-4) were derived for
invertebrate tissue, fish tissue, fish tissue protective of fish and avian embryos (i.e., residuebased tissue PRGs) and fish tissue protective of food-web exposure of avian and mammalian
wildlife (dose-based tissue PRGs). PRGs were estimated based on the results of regression
analyses conducted to develop site-specific sediment-tissue relationships for the FFS Study Area
(as summarized in Attachment 1 of Appendix E and described in Data Evaluation Report No. 6,
located in Appendix A). The overall sediment PRG chosen was the lowest of the sediment PRGs
based on direct contact by macroinvertebrates and the various biota tissue PRGs, so that all of
the organisms, including the most sensitive species, would be protected (as shown in Table 2-5).
2.4.3 Identification of Background Concentrations
According to contaminated sediment remediation guidance, project managers should consider
background contributions to sites to adequately understand contaminant sources and establish
realistic risk reduction goals (USEPA, 2005). Potential contaminant sources for the Lower
Passaic River sediments include the Passaic River above the Dundee Dam, Newark Bay through
tidal exchange, and tributaries. The potential for these waterways to contribute contaminants to
the FFS Study Area following the implementation of a remedial alternative was evaluated in the
FFS.
Sediment contaminant concentration gradients from the mouth of the Lower Passaic River into
the Newark Bay Study Area (NBSA) were examined in Chapters 2 and 4 of the RI Report.
17
In all cases, the target HQ of 1 was based on the geometric mean of the lower- and upper-bound toxicity benchmark values (e.g., No Observed
Adverse Effect Level [NOAELs] and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect level [LOAEL]).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-11
2014
Sediment contaminant concentrations generally decrease from north to south, from the Lower
Passaic River into the NBSA. These data indicate that tidal exchange between the Lower Passaic
River and NBSA currently results in the net transport of contaminants from the Lower Passaic
River to Newark Bay. The NBSA RI/FS was initiated based on the concern that contaminants
related to the former Diamond Alkali facility (located at 80 Lister Avenue in Newark, NJ
adjacent to the Lower Passaic River) had impacted Newark Bay (USEPA, 2004). Remediation of
sediment contamination in the FFS Study Area is expected to reduce these impacts causing
sediment contaminant concentrations in the NBSA to decline. From this, it can be concluded that
NBSA sediments (and by extension, New York Harbor sediments) are too closely related to
contamination in the Lower Passaic River (i.e., not independent of site-related impacts) to be
considered as a potential “background” for the FFS Study Area.
Contaminant data collected from sediments in the Upper Passaic River above the Dundee Dam
show the presence of historic and ongoing upstream sources of COPCs and COPECs. USEPA
(2002b) defines “background” as constituents and locations that are not influenced by releases
from the site and includes both anthropogenic and naturally derived constituents. The physical
boundary of the dam isolates the proximal Dundee Lake and other Upper Passaic River
sediments from Lower Passaic River influences. The proximity of these sediments to the
proposed remediation area and demonstrated geochemical connection to a portion of the Lower
Passaic River sediment contamination means that they are representative of “background” for the
Lower Passaic River for the purposes of this FFS. The contaminant concentrations in recentlydeposited Dundee Lake sediments are representative of the contaminant burden carried by the
Upper Passaic River’s suspended solids into the Lower Passaic River; therefore the recentlydeposited sediments of Dundee Lake represent the background location for the FFS.
Table 2-6 lists the concentrations of COPCs and COPECs detected in recently-deposited
sediments as represented by four cores, two sediment traps, and four sediment grab samples
collected from the Upper Passaic River immediately above and below Dundee Dam (refer to
Sections 2 and 4 of the RI Report for more detail). Using geochemical principles discussed in the
RI Report, the chemicals found in the sediment samples have been determined to be
representative of the current water column solids contaminant concentrations being introduced to
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-12
2014
the Lower Passaic River from the Upper Passaic River. The chemical mass contributed by the
solids load from the Upper Passaic River represents a source for all of the COPCs and COPECs
and can be considered to be representative of background conditions for the Lower Passaic
River.
Estimates of cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards associated with background sediment
concentrations for consumption of fish and crabs were calculated for Total non-dioxin-like
PCBs, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and mercury, employing the same risk assessment methodology and
assumptions used in the baseline risk assessment for the adult and child angler/sportsman
(Appendix D). Table 2-7 summarizes the estimates of cancer risk and non-cancer health hazards
for ingestion of fish and crab. For dioxins, all of the estimated cancer risks are within the target
cancer risk range of 1 × 10-4 to 1 × 10-6 specified in the NCP and the HQs are less than the target
HQ of one. For Total non-dioxin-like PCBs, estimated cancer risks are within the target cancer
risk range of 1 × 10-4 to 1 × 10-6 specified in the NCP, and the HQs are greater than the target
HQ of one. For methyl mercury, HQs are equal to or marginally above the target HQ of one for
ingestion of fish, but less than the target HQ of one for ingestion of crab.
Estimates of ecological risk associated with background sediment concentrations were also
calculated for copper, lead, mercury, HMW PAHs, dieldrin, Total DDx, Total non-dioxin-like
PCBs, and TCDD TEQs. Again, risk calculations were made using the same risk assessment
methodology and assumptions as employed for the baseline risk assessment (Appendix D).
Tables 2-8 and 2-9 summarize the risk estimates for exposure of invertebrate, fish, and wildlife
receptors.
Although background concentrations of COPECs are substantially lower than current
concentrations in the Lower Passaic River, they are at levels that pose risk to ecological
receptors. Background concentrations of both inorganic and organic COPECs are at levels that
have a potential to cause adverse effects in fish and benthic macroinvertebrates. In the case of
wildlife receptors, background concentrations of lead and mercury, as well as Total PCBs (mink
only), and HMW PAHs (heron only) have the potential to cause adverse effects in piscivorous
mammal populations; however, background concentrations are only marginally greater than
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-13
2014
effect threshold concentrations (i.e., HQs are only slightly greater than one). In addition, the
potential for adverse effects is uncertain because background concentrations exceed NOAELs
but not LOAELs in most cases.
2.4.4 PRG Selection
A summary of the PRGs identified for the FFS Study Area is provided in Table 2-10. A single
PRG for each of the major risk drivers was selected to guide the analysis of target areas and
alternatives for remediation using the nine Superfund evaluation criteria (see Chapter 5).
PRGs become final remediation goals when USEPA makes a final decision to select a remedy
for the FFS Study Area, after taking into consideration all public comments. According to
USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1991), the starting point for setting remediation goals is a risk level
of 1 × 10-6 and a non-cancer HI equal to one for protection of human health and the lowest
ecological PRG set to protect the various ecological receptors evaluated at an HQ equal to one.
However, remedial actions may achieve remediation goals set anywhere within the range of 1 ×
10-4 to 1 × 10-6 and HI at or below one (USEPA, 1997).
While the Superfund program generally does not clean-up to concentrations below natural or
anthropogenic background levels (USEPA, 2002b), in the Lower Passaic River the flow of water
and suspended sediment over Dundee Dam is just one of many sources of surface water and
sediment into the FFS Study Area. Post-remediation, the suspended sediment from the Upper
Passaic River will mix with other sources into the FFS Study Area (Newark Bay, Saddle River,
Third River, and Second River), with the cleaner solids in the water column resulting from a
remediated FFS Study Area, and with any clean material placed on the riverbed as part of
remediation. The result of this mixing in the water column along with settling, remobilization
and redeposition, will be surface sediment concentrations of contaminants that are lower than the
background concentrations above the Dam.
The proposed remediation goals for the FFS Study Area are summarized in FFS Table 2-10. For
the contaminants with human health PRGs, the proposed remediation goals are within the risk
range and at or below an HI equal to one, so they are protective of human health. For mercury
and Total DDx, the proposed remediation goals are at an HQ equal to one, so they are protective
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-14
2014
of the environment. In addition, modeling results presented in Section 5.2 show that the proposed
remediation goals would be met by at least two of the active remedial alternatives described in
Section 4.4, in conjunction with natural recovery processes. For 2,3,7,8-TCDD and Total PCBs,
it is unlikely that the ecological PRGs could be met under any of the alternatives within a
reasonable time frame, even with natural recovery processes. However, given that bank-to-bank
remediation in the FFS Study Area would be necessary to achieve the protection of human health
(see Section 5.2), the ecological PRGs would not result in any additional remediation in the FFS
Study Area, and those ecological PRGs were not selected as remediation goals.
2.4.5 Identification and Selection of Potential Target Areas and Volume Estimate for
Remediation
When developing remedial alternatives, it is necessary to identify the sediments that should be
targeted for remediation to meet the RAOs. Criteria for making this identification typically
include ARARs, RBCs, and PRGs, as well as geochemical and statistical interpretations of
contaminant concentration data and sediment characteristics. These analyses are described in
detail in the RI Report and are summarized below.
The river’s cross-sectional area declines steadily from RM0 to RM17.4 (Dundee Dam), with a
pronounced narrowing at RM8.3. At that location, a change in sediment texture is also observed.
The FFS Study Area (below RM8.3) is dominated by fine-grained material (silts) bank-to-bank,
with pockets of coarser material (sand and gravel). The river bed upstream of RM8.3 is
predominantly coarser sediments with smaller areas of silt, often located outside the channel (see
Figures 1-6a through 1-6c). About 85 percent of the surface area and, about 90 percent of the
volume of fine-grained materials (silts) in the Lower Passaic River are located below RM8.3.
Due to a combination of a wider cross-section and a deeper federally-authorized navigation
channel below RM8.3 (16 to 30 feet) than above RM8.3 (10 feet), thicker and wider beds of
contaminated sediments accumulated below RM8.3 than above.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-15
2014
Analysis of surface sediment contamination (including 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total TCDD, and 13
other compounds representing the classes of PCBs, pesticides, PAHs and metals) 18 resulted in a
series of observations that form the basis for much of the CSM. Most of the contaminants
examined, in studies conducted between 1995 and 2010, exhibited a broad range of
concentrations (spanning an order of magnitude or more) within a given river mile interval
between RM2 to RM12, with very little or no discernible trend with respect to location. That is,
the concentrations are variable everywhere. More importantly, there is little or no trend of the
median concentration with river mile. In the FFS Study Area, the channel and shoal areas are
comparably contaminated with nearly all compounds (with local variations) but no systematic
trends with river mile. In many cases, the surface concentrations in the river are significantly
higher than those measured in Newark Bay or above Dundee Dam. This indicates that the source
of the continuing sediment contamination must be in the river itself and not from the Upper
Passaic River or Newark Bay.
The area and volume of the sediments targeted for remediation in the FFS Study Area (RM0 to
RM8.3) are approximately 650 acres and 9.7 million cy, respectively. Concentrations of COPCs
and COPECs within the FFS Study Area are summarized in Table 1-3 for varying depth ranges
measured from the surface to the bottom of the cores.
Based on this information, the entire (bank-to-bank) river area from RM0 to RM8.3 was selected
for remediation because it contains COPC and COPEC concentrations in surface sediment bankto-bank that exceed PRGs for each contaminant and even higher concentrations of each
contaminant at depth.
18
These 15 constituents were evaluated in the RI due to their potential usefulness in geochemical data interpretation and the EMB model
(Appendix C) as well in Data Evaluation Report No. 4 (Appendix A) as part of the assessment of COPCs and COPECs.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2-16
2014
3
IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF GENERAL RESPONSE
ACTIONS, REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES, AND PROCESS OPTIONS
General response actions (GRAs) are categories of actions that may be implemented to achieve
the RAOs for the sediments of the FFS Study Area. This chapter identifies and screens general
response actions, remedial technology types, and process options that are potentially applicable
to remediate contaminated sediment in the FFS Study Area. The technology selection and
screening processes are conducted in accordance with the RI/FS guidance (USEPA, 1988), the
Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites (USEPA,
2002a), and the Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites
(USEPA, 2005).
Various databases, technical reports, and publications (refer to Section 3.2) are used to identify
potentially applicable technologies based on the general response actions identified in
Section 3.1. The selected technology types are initially screened for technical implementability
as described in Section 3.3 and then expanded into lists of potentially applicable process options
as discussed in Section 3.4, and screened further for effectiveness, implementability, and relative
cost. Ancillary technologies, such as sediment dispersion control options, sediment dewatering,
wastewater treatment, sediment transportation options, and restoration options are discussed in
Section 3.5. Technologies and process options that were retained after the effectiveness,
implementability, and cost screening are summarized in Section 3.6 and representative process
options are selected in Section 3.7.
The screening processes conducted in this FFS (resulting in retention or elimination of
technologies and process options) are solely for the sediments of the lower eight miles of the
Lower Passaic River. The CPG will separately identify, evaluate, and screen technologies and
process options during the development of the FS for the overall 17-mile LPRSA.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-1
2014
3.1 Identification of General Response Actions
The first step in the development and screening of remedial alternatives is to identify GRAs that
may be taken to satisfy the RAOs identified in the previous chapter. These are:
•
No action
•
Institutional controls
•
Monitored natural recovery (MNR)
•
Containment
•
In-situ treatment
•
Sediment removal
•
Ex-situ treatment
•
Beneficial use
•
Disposal
Although an individual response action may be capable of satisfying the RAOs alone,
combinations of response actions are usually required to adequately address the contamination.
A brief description for each of the GRAs is provided below.
3.1.1 No Action
No Action will be considered throughout each phase of the FFS, as required by the NCP [40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §300.430(e)(6)]. The No Action response serves as a
baseline against which the performance of other remedial alternatives may be compared. Under
the No Action alternative, contaminated river sediments would be left in place without treatment
or containment. NJDEP could continue to implement existing fish and crab consumption
advisories pursuant to state legal authorities, but no institutional controls or monitoring would be
implemented as part of a CERCLA response action for the FFS Study Area. The CPG would
continue to conduct the 17-mile LPRSA RI/FS. According to the ROD guidance (USEPA, 1999),
No Action may be appropriate: 1) when the site or operable unit poses no current or potential
threat to human health or the environment; 2) when CERCLA does not provide the authority to
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-2
2014
take remedial action; or, 3) when a previous response has eliminated the need for further
remedial response (often called a “No Further Action” alternative).
3.1.2 Institutional Controls
Institutional controls are legal or administrative measures designed to prevent or reduce human
exposure to on-site hazardous substances. Fish and shellfish consumption advisories and
dredging restrictions are examples of relevant institutional controls for the Lower Passaic River.
Institutional controls are typically implemented in conjunction with other remedy components.
3.1.3 Monitored Natural Recovery
Natural recovery refers to the decline in contaminant concentrations in impacted media over time
via natural processes that contain, destroy, or reduce bioavailability or toxicity of contaminants.
These naturally occurring mechanisms include physical phenomena (e.g., burial and
sedimentation), biological processes (e.g., biodegradation), and chemical processes (e.g.,
sorption and oxidation). MNR includes monitoring to assess whether these natural processes are
occurring and at what rate they may be reducing contaminant concentrations, but does not
include active remedial measures. MNR should be considered as a stand-alone remedy when it
would meet remedial objectives within a time frame that is reasonable compared to active
remedies (USEPA, 2005). Factors that should be considered in determining whether the time
frame for MNR is “reasonable” include the following:
•
The extent and likelihood of human exposure to contaminants during the recovery period,
and if addressed by institutional controls, the effectiveness of those controls;
•
The value of ecological resources that may continue to be impacted during the recovery
period;
•
The timeframe in which affected portions of the site may be needed for future uses which
will be available only after MNR has achieved cleanup levels; and,
•
The uncertainty associated with the time frame prediction.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-3
2014
MNR may also be used as one component of a total remedy, either in conjunction with active
remediation or as a follow-up measure to monitor the continued reduction of contaminant
concentrations.
3.1.4 Containment
Containment entails the physical isolation (sequestration) or immobilization of contaminated
sediment by an engineered cap, thereby limiting potential exposure to, and mobility and
bioavailability of, contaminants bound to the sediment. Capping technologies require long-term
monitoring and maintenance in perpetuity to ensure that containment measures are performing
successfully because contaminated sediment is left in place.
3.1.5 In-Situ Treatment
In-situ treatment of sediments refers to chemical, physical, or biological techniques for reducing
contaminant concentrations, toxicity, or mobility while leaving the contaminated sediment in
place.
3.1.6 Sediment Removal
Sediment removal may be accomplished by dredging or excavation of contaminated sediment for
subsequent treatment or disposal. This response results in the removal of contaminant mass from
the river bed.
3.1.7 Ex-Situ Treatment
Ex-situ treatment involves the application of chemical, physical or biological technologies to
transform, destroy, or immobilize contaminants following removal of contaminated sediments.
After ex-situ treatment, treated dredged sediment could either be beneficially used (assuming
appropriate characterization) or disposed on land or in water. Both of these GRAs are discussed
in the following subsections.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-4
2014
3.1.8 Beneficial Use of Dredged Sediments
Following removal and, if necessary, ex-situ treatment, dredged material could potentially be
beneficially used. Sediment that meets applicable criteria for contaminant concentrations and
structural properties could serve a beneficial purpose such as structural fill, lower permeability
cover soils, or capping for a brownfield or landfill without pre-treatment. In some instances,
ex-situ treatment, such as ex-situ immobilization, is required prior to application of dredged
sediment as fill or cover material. In addition, certain ex-situ treatment processes result in an end
product that can be beneficially used (e.g., formation of glass following vitrification or cement
aggregate following certain thermo-chemical processes).
3.1.9 Disposal of Dredged Sediments
Disposal refers to the placement of dredged or excavated material into a permanent structure,
site, or facility (USEPA, 2005). Depending on the disposal location, the dredged or excavated
material may undergo limited or extensive prior ex-situ treatment.
3.2 Sources and Methods for the Identification of Potentially Applicable Technologies
Several databases, guidance documents, and feasibility studies for similar sediment remediation
projects were used to identify potentially applicable remedial technologies. The following
sources are of particular note:
•
Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (USEPA,
2005).
•
Technical Guidelines for the Environmental Dredging of Contaminated Sediments,
ERDC/EL TR-08-29 (USACE, 2008a).
•
Mass Balance, Beneficial Use Products, and Cost Comparisons of Four Sediment
Treatment Technologies near Commercialization, ERDC/EL TR-11-1 (USACE, 2011).
•
Monitored Natural Recovery at Contaminated Sediment Sites, ESTCP Project ER-0622
(ESTCP, 2009).
•
The Four Rs of Environmental Dredging: Resuspension, Release, Residual, and Risk,
ERDC/EL TR-08-4 (USACE, 2008b).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-5
2014
•
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable website
(www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html).
•
USEPA Hazardous Waste Clean-up Information website (www.clu-in.org/).
•
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program, Remediation
Guidance Document (USEPA, 1994).
•
Equipment and Placement Techniques for Subaqueous Capping (Bailey and Palermo,
2005).
•
Final Feasibility Study, Lower Fox River and Green Bay, Wisconsin (RETEC Group,
Inc., 2002).
•
Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS Phase 3 Report: Feasibility Study (TAMS
Consultants, Inc., 2000).
•
Dredging Technology Review Report (TAMS, an Earth Tech Company and Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc., 2004).
•
NJDOT Office of Maritime Resources (NJDOT-OMR), Sediment Decontamination
Technology Demonstration Program Website
(www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/maritime/dresediment.shtm).
3.3 Identification and Initial Screening of Technology Types
Technology types presented in this section are grouped by GRA as identified in Section 3.1. In
this step, the universe of potentially applicable technology types and process options is reduced
by evaluating the options with respect to technical implementability. The term "technology
types" refers to general categories of technologies, such as chemical treatment, thermal
destruction, immobilization, capping, or dewatering. The term "process options" refers to
specific processes within each technology type. For example, dredging is a type of removal
technology and the corresponding process options are mechanical dredging and hydraulic
dredging. During this initial screening step process options and entire technology types are
eliminated from further consideration on the basis of technical implementability. This is
accomplished by using readily available information from the RI site characterization on the
types and concentrations of contaminants, and other on-site physical characteristics to screen out
technologies and process options that cannot be effectively implemented for the FFS Study Area.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-6
2014
Table 3-1 presents the initial screening of technology types. The technology types that are
retained after this initial screening are discussed in Section 3.4.
3.4 Effectiveness, Implementability and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process
Options
The technologies and processes considered to be technically implementable are evaluated in
greater detail before selecting one representative process option to represent each technology
type. The representative process option is selected, if possible, for each technology type to
simplify the subsequent development and evaluation of alternatives without limiting flexibility
during remedial design. The representative process option provides a basis for developing
performance specifications during preliminary design; the specific process option actually used
to implement the remedial action may not be selected until the remedial design phase. More than
one process option may be selected for a technology type if two or more processes are
sufficiently different in their performance that one option would not adequately represent the
other option.
Process options are evaluated using the same criteria – effectiveness, implementability, and
cost - that are used to screen alternatives prior to the detailed analysis. An important distinction
is that at this point in the FFS process, these criteria are applied only to the technologies and the
GRAs, and not to the site as a whole. At this stage, the evaluation is primarily focused on the
effectiveness with less consideration given to the implementability and cost evaluation.
Because of the limited data available on most innovative technologies it may not be possible to
evaluate those process options on the same basis as other demonstrated technologies. Typically,
if innovative technologies are judged to be implementable they are retained for evaluation either
as a "selected" process option (if available information indicates that they will provide better
treatment, have fewer adverse impacts, or cost less than other options), or "represented" by
another process option of the same technology type (USEPA, 1988).
The effectiveness evaluation is focused on: (1) the potential effectiveness of process options in
handling the estimated areas or volumes of media and meeting the remediation goals identified in
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-7
2014
the RAOs; (2) the potential impacts to human health and the environment during the construction
and implementation phase; and (3) how proven and reliable the process is with respect to the
contaminants and conditions at the site.
Implementability encompasses both the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing
a technology process. As discussed, technical implementability is used in the initial screening of
technology types and process options to eliminate those that are clearly ineffective or
unworkable. The following, more detailed evaluation of process options places greater emphasis
on the institutional aspects of implementability, such as the ability to obtain necessary permits
for off-site actions; the availability of treatment, storage, and disposal services (including
capacity); and, the availability of necessary equipment and skilled workers to implement the
technology.
Cost plays a limited role in the screening of process options. Relative capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs are used rather than detailed estimates. At this stage, the cost analysis
is made on the basis of engineering judgment and each process option is evaluated as to whether
costs are high, low, or medium relative to other process options in the same technology type. For
the purposes of this discussion, costs of less than $100 per ton of sediments are considered low,
$100 to $500 per ton are considered moderate, costs between $500 and $1,000 per ton are
considered high, and costs over $1,000 per ton are considered very high. As evident in Chapter 5,
the greatest cost consequences in site remediation are usually associated with the degree to which
different general technology types (i.e., containment, treatment, excavation, etc.) are used. Using
different process options within a technology type usually has a less significant effect on cost
than does the use of different technology types.
Table 3-2 presents the effectiveness, implementability, and cost screening of technologies and
process options. Technologies and process options that are retained after this screening are
summarized in Section 3.6.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-8
2014
3.5 Ancillary Technologies
Additional technologies and process options that are ancillary to the retained process options
presented in Section 3.6 may be incorporated into any remedial alternative implemented in the
FFS Study Area. These ancillary systems are described here in relation to their potential
applicability to some of the primary technologies that are evaluated.
3.5.1.1 Sediment Dispersion Control
Water-borne transport of resuspended contaminated sediment released during dredging can often
be reduced by using physical barriers around the dredging operation area. Two of the more
common approaches include silt curtains, and sheetpile walls.
Silt curtains are floating barriers designed to control the dispersion of sediment in a body of
water. They are made of impervious flexible materials such as polyester-reinforced thermoplastic
(vinyl) and coated nylon. The effectiveness of silt curtains and screens is primarily determined
by the hydrodynamic conditions in a specific location. Under ideal conditions, turbidity levels in
the water column outside the curtain can be as much as 80 to 90 percent lower than the levels
inside or upstream of the curtain (Francingues and Palermo, 2005). Conditions that may reduce
the effectiveness of these and other types of barriers include significant currents, high winds,
changing water levels and current direction (i.e., tidal fluctuation), excessive wave height, and
drifting ice and debris (USEPA, 2005). Silt curtains are generally more effective in relatively
shallow, quiescent water. As water depth and turbulence due to currents and waves increase, it
becomes more difficult to isolate the dredging operation effectively from the ambient water.
In general, the use of silt curtains is not expected to be effective in the FFS Study Area during
dredging operations due to the presence of significant currents and tidal fluctuations.
Consideration has been given to the use of silt curtains across the entrance channel of a confined
aquatic disposal (CAD) cell in Newark Bay where the water velocities are much lower. This
approach would require developing a method for quickly removing and reinstalling the silt
curtain during barge unloading operations. A similar approach has been developed and is in use
at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site remediation work (Apex, 2013). Silt curtains are
retained for further consideration in the FFS.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-9
2014
Sheetpiling consists of a series of panels and piling with interlocking connections driven into the
subsurface with impact or vibratory hammers to form an impermeable barrier. While the sheets
can be made from a variety of materials such as steel, vinyl, plastic, wood, recast concrete, and
fiberglass, lightweight materials (e.g., plastic, fiberglass, vinyl) are typically surface mounted to
the piling.
Sheetpile containment structures are more likely to provide reliable containment of resuspended
sediment than silt curtains, although at significantly higher cost and with different technological
limitations. Sheeting and/or piling must be imbedded sufficiently deep into the subsurface to
ensure that the sheetpile structure will withstand hydraulic forces (e.g., waves and currents) and
the weight of material (if any) piled behind the sheeting. Sheetpile containment may increase the
potential for scour around the outside of the containment area and resuspension may occur
during placement and removal of the structures. The use of sheetpiling may significantly change
the carrying capacity of a stream or river and make it temporarily more susceptible to flooding
(USEPA, 2005). Sheetpiling may be used in localized areas to prevent migration of highly
contaminated sediment during dredging or during disposal operations. Sheetpiling is retained for
further consideration in the FFS.
3.5.2 Dewatering
Dewatering involves reducing the moisture content of dredged material to produce a material
more amenable to handling with general construction equipment and that meets landfill or
treatment plant criteria (e.g., paint filter test or percent moisture for thermal treatment).
The ARCS Remediation Guidance Document (USEPA, 1994) has classified dewatering
technologies into three general categories: passive dewatering, mechanical dewatering, and
active evaporative technologies. Information on these dewatering methods, as well as desiccation
via amendment, is summarized in Table 3-3; a brief discussion of concerns specific to the
dewatering of Lower Passaic River sediment is included in the table.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-10
2014
Selection of the appropriate dewatering technology depends on the physical characteristics of the
material being dredged, the dredging method, and the target moisture content of the dewatered
material. The design of a dewatering system should be based on consolidation tests performed on
material being dredged.
Dewatering of significant amounts of dredged material requires a land-based staging area in
close proximity to the dredging area. The area should be accessible to barges, large equipment,
and trucks. Although the optimal dewatering system operating characteristics include a small
footprint, high production rates, and low per unit cost large dewatering projects, even ones
incorporating mechanical dewatering systems, generally require large amounts of space. Based
on the limited availability of land for a dewatering facility adjacent to the FFS Study Area, along
Newark Bay, or within the NY/NJ Harbor area, only the mechanical dewatering process option is
retained for further consideration.
3.5.3 Wastewater Treatment
Dewatering dredged material requires managing the wastewater generated during the dewatering
process (dredged material typically has a water content ranging from 50 to 98 percent depending
on the dredging method) along with contact water (e.g., precipitation that has been in contact
with contaminated material, decontamination water, and wheel wash water) from other facility
operations. The purpose of wastewater treatment is to prevent adverse impacts on the receiving
water body from the dewatering discharge to the Lower Passaic River or Newark Bay.
A wastewater treatment plant would typically be included as part of the on-site management of
dredged material. An on-site wastewater treatment plant to manage wastewater for a facility
handling sediment from the FFS Study Area may include coagulation, clarification, multi-stage
filtration, and granular activated carbon adsorption with provision for metals removal, if
necessary. The primary difference in the wastewater treatment plant for a hydraulic dredging
operation as compared to a mechanical dredging operation would be the volume of wastewater to
be treated; hydraulic dredging results in a larger volume of sediment-water slurry to be managed.
The hydraulic dredging wastewater treatment plant would require a larger footprint.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-11
2014
An on-site wastewater treatment system is retained for further consideration.
3.5.4 Transportation
Transportation would be a component for any remedial alternative that involves removal of
contaminated sediments from the FFS Study Area. The transportation method included in each
remedial alternative would be based upon the compatibility of that transportation method to the
other process options. The most likely transportation methods are truck, rail, and barge. These
are briefly discussed below. Appendix G includes a summary of waterborne, rail, and road
access associated with potential sediment processing or placement sites.
Truck - Truck transportation includes the transport of dewatered dredged material over public
roadways using dump trucks, roll-off boxes, or trailers. This form of transportation is the most
flexible but can be very costly over long haul distances. Truck transport also has the greatest
potential to impact local streets and traffic depending on the location of the processing facility
with respect to major highways.
Rail - Rail transportation includes the transport of dewatered dredged material via railroad tracks
using gondolas or containers. Rail transport is desirable where sediment is shipped over long
distances, for example, to out-of-state treatment or disposal facilities. Because rail transport
requires coordination between multiple owners and many operators are unwilling to provide
detailed information prior to entering actual negotiations, it is difficult to obtain accurate cost
estimates. Rail transport may require the construction of a rail spur from a sediment handling
facility to a main rail line.
Barge - Barge transportation includes the transport of dredged solids directly to a processing
(i.e., dewatering facility) or a disposal (i.e., CAD site or CDF) facility, or the transport of
dewatered dredged material to a trans-shipment or disposal facility. Barge transport would likely
be used for short distances such as from the dredging location to the dredged material handling
facility. In addition, barge transport may be considered for longer distances if dredged material is
hauled to out-of-state treatment or disposal locations that have the ability to accept barge-loaded
dredged material.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-12
2014
Transportation of dredged sediments via truck, rail, and barge is retained for further
consideration.
3.5.5 Restoration
The implementation of a remedial action in the FFS Study Area would result in short-term
temporary impacts to existing aquatic and wildlife habitat in the FFS Study Area. However,
should a selected remedial action be implemented the degraded FFS Study Area would be
replaced with a healthier ecosystem of improved habitat. As part of the reconstruction of the
remediated area, the existing open water, mudflat, riparian fringe and intertidal wetlands would
be replaced with features of similar size and location but significantly improved substrate
quality. In addition, biostabilization techniques, such as the use of biologs and coir fiber mats
could be considered as an alternative erosion protection measure and have the added benefit of
providing submerged aquatic or tidal emergent habitat. The removal or capping of contaminated
sediments and the resulting improvements in water quality would improve the long-term health
and diversity of aquatic communities of the FFS Study Area.
Remediation may result in collateral benefits including removal of nuisance species,
reintroduction of native species, aeration of compacted anaerobic soils and other enhancements
of wetland and mudflat habitats (USEPA, 2002b). Since the remedial action would improve and
replace existing open water, mudflat and intertidal habitat, the FFS assumes that no additional
compensatory mitigation measures for in-river operations would be necessary for this aspect of
the remediation. This is consistent with other ongoing Superfund river dredging cleanup projects
(e.g., Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site). See Appendix F for analysis.
In-water disposal in a CAD cell or CDF in Newark Bay would involve the discharge of dredged
material into waters of the United States. If aquatic disposal is incorporated into the selected
remedy, mitigation of the temporal and permanent impacts from the aquatic disposal facility
would be necessary in accordance with Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1). In keeping
with the three-step Section 404 (b)(1) process, impacts to open waters that cannot be avoided are
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-13
2014
minimized and then mitigated with created, restored, enhanced and/or preserved areas to achieve
no net loss of functions of the aquatic system.
A restoration study is being implemented by the USACE with the State of New Jersey as the
local sponsor 19.This study will identify potential restoration opportunities (for example, wetland
creation or enhancement) that could be implemented following remediation, beyond
reconstruction to the original grade. These activities are conducted as part of the WRDA function
of the joint program (refer to Appendix F for additional information regarding restoration and
Appendix H for the estimated cost of restoration). Restoration activities conducted as part of the
remedial action for the FFS Study Area would require coordination with USACE and Federal
and State Trustees.
3.6 Summary of Retained Technologies and Process Options
In addition to the No Action response, the following process options have been retained for
further evaluation:
•
Institutional controls, including, but not limited to, fish and shellfish consumption
advisories, recreational boating restrictions, and dredging restrictions in shoal areas.
•
MNR processes, including, but not limited to, burial, sedimentation, bio-degradation,
sorption, and oxidation.
•
Containment via engineered caps (including stone or clay aggregate material as armor),
active caps, and geotextiles.
•
Sediment removal via excavation, mechanical dredging, and hydraulic dredging.
•
Ex-situ treatment via immobilization, sediment washing, vitrification, and thermal
treatment.
•
Beneficial uses including use as sanitary landfill cover, construction fill, and mined lands
reclamation.
•
Disposal in an off-site landfill or CAD cell.
19
The Lower Passaic River is part of one of the USACE Planning Regions of the Hudson Raritan Estuary Restoration Feasibility Study. The
remediation and restoration of the Lower Passaic River is critical to achieving the goals of the Hudson Raritan Estuary Comprehensive
Restoration Plan [USACE, 2009].
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-14
2014
3.7 Selection of Representative Technologies and Process Options
To proceed further with the development of the remedial alternatives and to evaluate and develop
costs in subsequent chapters for this FFS, it is necessary to select representative technologies and
process options. Other process options may be identified and selected during the design phase of
the FFS Study Area remedy or the FS for the 17-mile LPRSA.
No Action: The No Action response does not include any containment, removal, disposal, or
treatment of contaminated sediments, no new institutional controls, and no new monitoring.
Institutional Controls: Existing NJDEP fish and crab consumption advisories would continue
under any of the remedial actions. Further, enhanced outreach to educate community members
about the NJDEP consumption advisories and to emphasize that advisories would remain in
place during and after remediation would be incorporated into the active remedial alternatives.
Outreach activities would focus on communities (typically economically disadvantaged groups)
known to engage in sustenance fishing, with a special emphasis on sensitive populations (e.g.,
children, pregnant women, nursing mothers). These activities could also include posting multilingual signs in fishing areas, distributing illustrated, multi-lingual brochures, and holding
educational community meetings and workshops.
Additional institutional controls such as restrictions or special conditions (e.g., to protect the
integrity of engineered caps) imposed on private sediment disturbance activities could also be
implemented as components of alternatives comprising active remedial measures.
Monitored Natural Recovery: As discussed in Section 3.1.3, MNR could be included as a
component of alternatives comprising active remedial measures. It includes monitoring of the
water column, sediment, and biota tissue to determine the degree to which they are recovering to
PRGs. Once active remediation is completed, the influx, mixing and deposition of sediment
originating from freshwater flow over Dundee Dam, from resuspended sediment between the
dam and RM8.3, and from tidal exchange with Newark Bay, would subsequently determine the
extent to which the sediment surface in the FFS Study Area is recontaminated. However, the FFS
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-15
2014
Study Area is the major source of contaminants to the river above RM8.3 and to Newark Bay; so
remediation of the FFS Study Area would reduce the major source of contamination to those
areas, thereby reducing the contamination brought back into the FFS Study Area from those
areas over time, resulting in MNR being a more effective mechanism for reducing risk under the
active remedial alternatives.
Sediment Containment: Several process options using a variety of materials for sediment
containment are retained including engineered caps (using stone or clay aggregate material as
armor), active caps, and geotextiles. Due to the large area being considered for remediation and
the limited precedent for using active caps and geotextiles, engineered sand caps with, and
without, stone armor are selected as the representative process option for alternatives involving
sediment containment.
Sediment Removal: Three process options for sediment removal were retained including
excavation, hydraulic dredging, and mechanical dredging. The costs of remedial alternatives
involving sediment removal are based on mechanical dredging as the representative process
option because of the following:
•
The additional challenges to implementability associated with the infrastructure needs for
hydraulic dredging in the NY/NJ Harbor area
•
The availability of site-specific data regarding implementation.
Although it would be possible to extend a hydraulic transport pipeline across Newark Bay by
submerging it, due to the presence of berths and shipping lanes it is preferable to locate a
dewatering facility of sufficient size close to the FFS Study Area for the hydraulic dredging
option. Site-specific data were obtained during the Environmental Dredging Pilot Study [LBG,
2012].
Sediment Treatment: Process options retained for treatment include solidification / stabilization,
sediment washing, thermal treatment, and incineration. As described in Section 4.2.6, depending
on the concentrations of COPCs and COPECs, the four process options could be used for
treatment of the dredged materials from the FFS Study Area. The effectiveness of solidification/
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-16
2014
stabilization treatment is highly dependent on the initial COPC and COPEC concentrations, and
therefore, it is more suitable for sediment with lower COPC and COPEC concentrations.
The effectiveness of sediment washing also depends on the types of COPCs that are present as
well as their initial concentrations. A pilot study of sediment washing using Lower Passaic River
sediment (BioGenesisSM Enterprises, Inc., 2009), indicated that certain contaminants like VOCs,
dioxins and metals were treated more efficiently than PAHs and PCBs. The results of a 2012
bench scale study (de maximis, inc., 2012) failed to show any reduction in dioxin and PCB
concentrations in the highly contaminated sediments at RM10.9.
Thermal treatment (Cement-Lock®) and vitrification (Minergy) generally provide the highest
on-site treatment efficiencies with the least sensitivity to initial COPC and COPEC
concentrations. Similarly, off-site incineration at a permitted facility also provides the highest
treatment efficiency with the least sensitivity to initial COPC and COPEC concentrations. A
number of incineration facilities that accept hazardous waste are located in the United States and
Canada. Currently, thermal treatment and incineration are the only technologies known to be
able to treat dredged materials that contain hazardous constituents not suitable for direct land
disposal (as defined by RCRA) and that contain dioxin as an underlying hazardous constituent
(UHC) to the applicable RCRA standards (see Appendix G for more information).
Based on in-situ COPC and COPEC concentrations (final estimates to be determined during the
pre-design investigation sampling) and the presence of hazardous constituents, the dredged
material from the FFS Study Area would be segregated as hazardous or non-hazardous. For
purposes of developing the remedial alternatives and cost estimates, thermal destruction via the
Cement-Lock® process and off-site incineration were selected as the representative treatment
process options for handling hazardous materials. The Cement-Lock® process produces a
beneficial use product that offsets a significant portion of the treatment costs (Gas Technology
Institute [GTI], 2008a). In addition, based on the results of a pilot demonstration in which 16.5
tons of Passaic River sediment were treated (GTI, 2008b), the Cement-Lock® process was
shown to achieve a high treatment efficiency for Passaic River sediments.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-17
2014
For sediments with in-situ COPC and COPEC concentrations between one and ten times the
universal treatment standard (UTS) and exceeding the New Jersey Non-Residential Direct
Contact Soil Remediation Standards (NRDCSRS), sediment washing is selected as the
representative treatment process option for purposes of developing the remedial alternatives and
cost estimates. For sediments with in-situ COPC and COPEC concentrations below both the UTS
and the NRDCSRS, solidification/stabilization is selected as the representative treatment process
option. Other treatment processes may be considered during the design phase. For example,
sediment washing may be explored as a pre-treatment process for metals to offset potential costs
associated with removing metals from the thermal treatment air emission stream.
Beneficial Use of Dredged Sediments: Low value beneficial use options include landfill cover,
construction fill, brownfields remediation, and mined lands restoration. These options require
immobilization of dredged sediments to solidify, stabilize, and/or encapsulate COPCs and
COPECs. Given the uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of immobilization treatment for
highly contaminated sediments and the uncertain market factors for such beneficial use, these
lower value beneficial use options have not been selected for use in remedial alternative
development. It should be noted, however, that the representative treatment option (thermal
treatment via the Cement-Lock® process) results in a beneficial use end product.
Disposal of Dredged Sediments: The two process options for disposal include an off-site landfill
and a CAD cell. RCRA regulations exclude dredged material that is subject to the requirements
of CWA Section 404, which governs the disposal of the sediment in a disposal area within the
navigable waters of the United States, from the definition of hazardous waste. Further, if dredged
contaminated sediment is consolidated within the Area of Contamination, which includes the
Lower Passaic River and the areal extent of contamination within Newark Bay, land disposal
regulations (LDRs, refer to Appendix G) would not be triggered. In addition, CAD is more
efficiently integrated with dredging (e.g., transporting and offloading dredged material to a CAD
cell causes fewer short-term impacts to the community and would be more cost-effective than
transporting and offloading to an off-site landfill). Therefore, a CAD site is selected as the
representative process option for disposal of dredged sediments.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-18
2014
However, to provide greater flexibility in managing large quantities of dredged material, disposal
in an off-site landfill has also been retained as an alternative representative process option. Many
RCRA Subtitle C and D landfills are located in the United States. Non-hazardous dredged
materials (as defined under RCRA) are eligible for direct landfill disposal at a RCRA Subtitle C
or D facility if in compliance with the individual acceptance criteria of the receiving facility.
Hazardous dredged material that contain UHCs exceeding the UTS, but do not contain UHCs
exceeding ten times the UTS for soil or sediment are eligible for direct landfill disposal at a
RCRA Subtitle C facility, if the material is in compliance with the individual acceptance criteria
of the receiving facility. See Appendix G for more information.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
3-19
2014
4
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES
This chapter presents the development of remedial alternatives for addressing contaminated
sediments in the FFS Study Area. The remedial alternatives are developed by grouping the
remedial technologies and representative process options that were retained in Chapter 3. The
alternatives are presented and screened based on effectiveness, implementability, and cost as
required by CERCLA and the NCP, to narrow the field of potential alternatives while preserving
an appropriate range of options. Concepts for common elements of the remedial alternatives are
described and the contaminant fate and transport modeling framework used to simulate and then
screen the alternatives for protection of human health and the environment is discussed.
4.1 Alternative Development
CERCLA Section 121(b) establishes statutory preferences that must be considered when
developing and evaluating remedial alternatives:
•
Remedial actions that involve treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances are preferred over remedial
actions not involving such treatment.
•
Off-site transport and disposal of hazardous substances or contaminated materials without
treatment is considered the least favorable remedial alternative when practicable
treatment technologies are available.
•
Remedial actions using permanent solutions, alternative treatment technologies, or
resource recovery technologies that, in whole or in part, will result in a permanent and
significant decrease in toxicity, mobility, or volume of a hazardous substance are
preferred.
Remedial alternatives were developed to protect human health and the environment, attain
chemical-specific ARARs (unless a waiver is justified), comply with location-specific and
action-specific ARARs, and achieve the RAOs in a cost-effective manner.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-1
2014
The RI/FS Guidance (USEPA, 1988) and the NCP state that remedial alternatives should range
from those that will eliminate, to the degree possible, the need for long-term management
(including monitoring) at the site to those that treat the principal threats posed by hazardous
substances at a site but that otherwise vary in the degree of treatment employed and the
quantities and characteristics of the treatment residuals and untreated waste that must be
managed. The guidance and the NCP require that a containment option involving little or no
treatment, as well as a No Action Alternative, should be developed.
The potentially applicable technologies that were retained in Section 3.6 and the representative
technologies and process options that were selected in Section 3.7 were combined into four
alternatives listed below that span the range of alternatives described in the NCP and RI/FS
guidance.
•
Alternative 1: No Action
•
Alternative 2: Deep Dredging with Backfill
•
Alternative 3: Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
•
Alternative 4: Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
4.2 Common Elements of Active Remedial Alternatives
The three active remedial alternatives contain some common elements that were considered in
the evaluation process, as described below.
4.2.1 Institutional Controls
NJDEP’s fish and shellfish consumption advisories currently in place would continue under all
of the alternatives. Enhanced outreach efforts conducted in every municipality on both shores of
the FFS Study Area to educate community members about the NJDEP fish and shellfish
consumption advisories and to emphasize the fact that advisories would remain in place during
and after remediation, would be incorporated into the active remedial alternatives until PRGs are
reached. Enhanced outreach activities would focus on communities known to catch fish and
shellfish for consumption with a special emphasis on sensitive populations (e.g., children,
pregnant women, nursing mothers). These enhanced activities could include posting multiFocused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-2
2014
lingual signs in fishing and crabbing areas, distributing illustrated, multi-lingual brochures, and
holding community educational meetings and workshops.
For the active remedial alternatives that rely on an engineered cap for protectiveness, additional
institutional controls would be necessary to protect the integrity of the cap in perpetuity. These
controls could include vessel speed restrictions or depth of draft limitations; prohibitions on
anchoring vessels within the FFS Study Area to prevent damage to the cap (mooring to
bulkheads is already standard practice); limitations on recreational uses; restrictions on
construction and dredging in the FFS Study Area near or below the capping depth (while
allowing maintenance dredging in the navigation channel between RM0 and RM2.2); and/or
bulkhead maintenance agreements or deed restrictions in the FFS Study Area that specify or limit
what can be done with regard to bulkhead construction or repair. Additional institutional controls
could be developed during the remedial design.
4.2.2 Monitored Natural Recovery
After active remediation activities are completed, MNR would involve monitoring the water
column, sediment and biota tissue to determine the degree to which they are recovering to PRGs.
Once active remediation is completed, the influx, mixing and deposition of sediment originating
from freshwater flow over Dundee Dam, from resuspended sediment between the dam and
RM8.3, and tidal exchange with Newark Bay, would determine the extent to which the sediment
surface in the FFS Study Area is recontaminated. However, the FFS Study Area is the major
source of COPCs and COPECs to the river above RM8.3 and to Newark Bay; so remediation of
the FFS Study Area would reduce the major source of contamination to those areas, and thereby
reducing the contamination brought back into the FFS Study Area from those areas over time,
resulting in MNR being a more effective mechanism for reducing risk under the active remedial
alternatives.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-3
2014
4.2.3 Sediment Removal
The FFS conceptual development of alternatives assumed that dredging would occur using a
mechanical dredge fitted with an environmental clamshell bucket although costs for hydraulic
dredging were also estimated. After remedy selection, the most appropriate and effective
equipment would be determined during the design phase and used during construction. Several
major considerations drive the conceptual design, cost estimates, and feasibility evaluation for
the dredging included in the active remedial alternatives, such as the following:
•
Productivity: Because of the large volume of sediment proposed for removal under the
three active remedial alternatives, the ability of the contractor to dredge, transport, and
handle the contaminated sediment as expeditiously as possible will be critical. System
productivity was evaluated using information developed during the Environmental
Dredging Pilot Study (LBG, 2012) as well as operations at other large remediation
dredging projects. On the basis of this evaluation, an average production rate for each of
the two primary dredges has been conservatively estimated to be 2,000 cubic yards per
24-hour day. This production rate accounts for periods where a smaller secondary dredge
would operate at a lower production rate around obstructions such as bridge abutments
and bulkheads. Dredging was assumed to occur for 40 weeks per year to account for
equipment maintenance, weather, and some degree of fish window restrictions.
Additional information on dredging productivity is included in Appendix F.
•
Accuracy: Like productivity, accuracy is a major factor in effective implementation of a
dredging program. Poor accuracy can either result in the need for multiple passes to
achieve PRGs or the removal of excess amounts of clean material, slowing down and
adding costs to the project. Dredging depth accuracy can be attributed to several factors
such as experience of equipment operator, positioning system accuracy, site conditions
(e.g. water depths), and dredging bucket design. During the Environmental Dredging
Pilot Study (LBG, 2012), over 90 percent of the targeted area (1.2 acres) was dredged to
within12 inches and over 70 percent of the targeted area was dredged to within 6 inches
of the target elevation using single pass production dredging which is typical of modern
dredging practices. Given the specifications of the dredging equipment, the targeted
dredging depths, and the performance observed during the Pilot Study, a vertical
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-4
2014
accuracy of six inches was assumed for estimated depths of fifteen feet or less, and a
vertical accuracy of one foot was assumed for estimated depths greater than fifteen feet;
hence a six-inch or one-foot over-dredging allowance (depending on the dredging depth)
was used for volume estimates (refer to Appendix G).
When the existing federally-authorized navigation channel was constructed in the 1880s1910s, dredging accuracy was more typically one foot with an over-dredging allowance
of two feet (USACE, 2010). Where sediment volume estimates were based on the depth
of the existing navigation channel, historical dredging accuracy and over-dredging depth
estimates were used in lieu of assumed values. Additional information on dredging
accuracy is included in Appendix F.
•
Resuspension: This is the process by which dredging operations dislodge bedded
sediment particles and disperse them into the water column (USACE, 2008b).
Resuspended sediment particles settle and become part of the dredging residuals.
Dredging area containment to limit the spread of resuspended particles would not be
proposed except during placement of dredged materials in CAD cells under DMM
Scenario A (see Section 4.2.6). For the remainder of the FFS Study Area, it is assumed
that application of best management practices and state of the art technology would be
employed to minimize resuspension (refer to Appendix F).
•
Release: This is the mechanism by which dredging operations result in the transfer of
contaminants from sediment pore water and sediment particles into the water column or
air (USACE, 2008b). Contaminants adsorbed to resuspended particles may partition to
the water column and be transported great distances downstream in a dissolved form
along with dissolved contaminants in the pore water. Contaminants in the residuals may
also be released to the water column by consolidation, diffusion, and bioturbation. These
effects have been evaluated using the fate and transport model (refer to Appendix B).
•
Residuals: Environmental dredging residuals refer to contaminated sediment found at the
post-construction sediment surface, either within or adjacent to the construction footprint.
Based on the inspection of sediment profile imagery collected during the Environmental
Dredging Pilot Study (LBG, 2012), the thickness of the dredging residuals layer is
assumed to be up to six inches. Refer to Section 4 of Appendix F for a more detailed
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-5
2014
discussion on the construction-phase impacts of dredging including the generation and
mitigation of resuspended sediments and residuals.
•
Backfilling: In areas where all sediment inventory has been removed, a layer of backfill
would be placed to cover the exposed surface and chemically isolate the residuals layer
(capping is discussed in Section 4.2.4). The backfill material may be placed in a single
lift or in a series of lifts, with the first lift being placed soon after dredging is completed
in a given area to sequester residuals with the remainder of the backfill being placed after
dredging has been completed. Additional information on backfilling is included in
Appendix F.
In order to provide a basis from which assumptions can be made, data obtained from several
large environmental dredging projects like the Hudson River and Fox River were evaluated. This
evaluation was used to confirm data specific to the Lower Passaic River obtained from the
Environmental Dredging Pilot Study. The assumptions developed based on the data from the
Pilot Study may not fully represent large scale physical and environmental conditions applicable
to the FFS Study Area dredging remedies and warrant further evaluation during the design phase.
4.2.4 Sediment Capping
Containment alternatives involve leaving a portion of the contaminated sediment in place and
isolating these materials from the environment through the use of an engineered cap. Several
major considerations drive the conceptual design, cost estimates, and feasibility evaluation of
alternatives involving containment including the following.
•
Cap Material: Significant quantities of cap material would be required for alternatives
involving containment. For cost estimating purposes it is assumed that a nearby borrow
source(s) (either subaqueous or land-based) of coarse-grained sand would be available;
several potential borrow sources within 50 miles of the FFS Study Area were identified
as potential suppliers. Modeling of potential cap erosion (see Appendix B) shows that
sand meeting NJDOT Specification I-7 20 would remain stable under normal flow
20
See http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/specs/2007/spec900.shtm#s90101
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-6
2014
conditions so the feasibility analysis was performed assuming the use of this material.
During design, enhanced capping technologies such as additives to create an active cap or
thin layer capping techniques may be considered in areas where necessary or where
conditions are conducive to such approaches.
•
Cap Placement: It is assumed that cap material would be placed on the river bed using
either a hydraulic diffuser or clamshell bucket. As soon as practicable after removal of
dredged sediment from each sediment management unit (SMU), capping material would
be placed over the dredged area to cover the exposed surface and chemically isolate the
residuals layer and remaining contaminated sediment inventory.
•
Cap Thickness: The cap would be designed to provide chemical isolation with allowances
for consolidation, bioturbation, and erosion protection. The estimated cap thickness of
two feet is discussed in Appendix F. The computations for the chemical isolation layer
were performed using the steady-state Reible model version 1.18 which are also
discussed in Appendix F.
•
Engineered Cap Erosion/Armor Layer: The surface of a granular cap placed over the bed
of a large, tidally-influenced riverine system is an inherently dynamic environment. Cap
erosion modeling was conducted to investigate the extent of cap migration and the need
for armoring (see Appendix B). Erosion estimates developed using projected bottom
velocities from the hydrodynamic modeling indicate that certain capped areas in the river
would require armoring to reduce erosion of the capping material, particularly after large
storms (refer to Appendix F). Re-deposition of fine-grained material in capped and
armored areas would be anticipated to occur over time, making the armored areas similar
in surface grain size to non-armored areas. It is anticipated that, over time, the recolonized benthic community would be similar to the benthic community currently
residing in the Lower Passaic River. 21
21
Restoration components for the lower eight miles are presented in the Draft Final Restoration Opportunities Report (Earth Tech, Inc. and
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2006a) and Draft Restoration Vision: Balancing Ecosystem and Human Use (Earth Tech, Inc. and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.,
2006b) (both documents are posted on www.ourPassaic.org; refer to Appendix F “Engineering Evaluations” for additional information regarding
restoration).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-7
2014
•
Flooding Analysis: Flooding periodically occurs in some areas adjacent to the Lower
Passaic River. To determine whether an engineered cap would result in additional
flooding in these areas, an analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the water
elevation in the river to the modified bathymetry (post-capping), the surface roughness
(associated with the capping materials, e.g., sand), and the hydrodynamic conditions
present during an extreme flow event (see Appendix B). The extreme event modeled for
this analysis was a 100-year storm event (USEPA, 2005). New Jersey Flood Hazard Area
Control Act Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:13) implemented by NJDEP require that any planned
action in, or change to the river, result in a water surface elevation rise of no more than
0.1 foot under the 100-year flow event to minimize impacts on flooding (this is a
location-specific ARAR as shown in Table 2-1a). The flooding analysis evaluated two
capping options:
a) Capping with Dredging for Flooding. In this option, capped areas (whether armored
or not) would be pre-dredged prior to placement of the cap and armor layer such that
post-remediation depths would be equivalent to pre-remediation bathymetry.
b) Capping with Armor Area Pre-dredging. A two-foot thick engineered sand cap would
be placed over the entire riverbed in the FFS Study Area. Pre-dredging would be
conducted in armored areas only. Under this option, post-remediation depths would
be two feet shallower than pre-remediation bathymetry.
The results of the flood modeling indicate that water surface elevations associated with
the first option (Capping with Dredging for Flooding) would rise less than 0.1 feet
thereby complying with the regulatory criterion. However, water surface elevations
associated with second option (Capping with Armor Area Pre-dredging) are predicted to
rise up to 0.7 feet and, therefore, would not comply with regulatory requirements.
The two remedial alternatives incorporating capping developed for evaluation (i.e.,
Alternative 3 -Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation and Alternative 4 Focused Capping for Flooding) were not modeled directly but are expected to result in
water surface elevations similar to or less than those predicted by modeling for the first
option evaluated (Capping with Dredging for Flooding) as similar sediment surface
conditions but greater water depths are achieved by implementation of these alternatives.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-8
2014
•
Pore Water Fluxes: An analysis of the possible impact of pore water on the contaminant
levels in the FFS Study Area was performed using a model constructed based on Reible’s
solution to the advection/diffusion chemical transport equations (USEPA, 1998a).
Because of the lack of site-specific data, the model was run using a Monte Carlo analysis
allowing the input variables to vary within assigned distributions. The model results
showed that pore water is not likely to be a significant contributor of hydrophobic
contamination to the river, even when the ability of dissolved organic compounds
(solvents) to enhance chemical flux is taken into account (see Data Evaluation Report No.
2 in Appendix A).
•
Propeller Wash: Erosive forces associated with engine propeller (i.e., “prop”) wash have
not been considered in detail and should be evaluated further during the remedial design;
however, incorporation of an additional one foot of channel depth as a buffer (as shown
on Table 4-1) was assumed, on average, to limit impacts to the cap to acceptable levels.
•
Ice Scour: In colder regions, there is the potential for erosion of a cap due to ice jam
formations. The presence of ice reduces the cross-sectional area of the river, thereby
increasing water velocities and causing bottom scour. Submerged ice blocks can
physically damage the cap as they move downstream, and wind-driven ice scour can
occur as ice blocks contact the cap when traveling through shallow areas. In addition, ice
blocks that have adhered (frozen) to the surface of the cap can lift off potentially large
portions of the cap if the ice blocks become mobile. According to the Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory Ice Jam Database, there have been three ice jam
events recorded in the freshwater portions of the Passaic River in Chatham, New Jersey.
Although ice forms in the Lower Passaic River, no records of ice jams were found for the
FFS Study Area (USACE, 2007a). Therefore, cap erosion due to ice jams are not
considered a major concern in the FFS Study Area but should be evaluated more
thoroughly during the remedial design. Although ice scour could occur at the shoreline, it
could be mitigated via bio-stabilization or installation of armoring materials. Alternatives
involving containment include costs for annual visual cap inspections at low tide during
the spring to evaluate the need for cap maintenance.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-9
2014
•
Wind/Wave Effects: The effects of wind/wave action on cap stability have not been
evaluated quantitatively. Areas that are in deeper and/or open water would be less
influenced by wind- or wave-generated currents and are generally less prone to erosion
than shallow, near-shore environments. However, armoring techniques or selection of
erosion resistant capping materials make capping technically feasible in higher energy
environments.
4.2.5 Removal Actions
All of the alternatives assume that the Tierra Removal (Phase 1 and 2) and RM10.9 Removal
would be implemented since they are governed by existing AOCs. The removals were assumed
to occur prior to implementation of the remedial alternatives. However, the agreement for Phase
2 of the Tierra Removal contemplates the siting of a CDF 22 as a receptacle for the dredged
materials, which has not been done to date. If Phase 2 has not been implemented by the start of
the FFS Study Area remediation, then USEPA expects that Phase 2 would be implemented in
conjunction with the FFS Study Area remedy in a coordinated and consistent manner. See
Chapter 2 in the RI Report for more information.
4.2.6 Dredged Material Management Scenarios
Since the active remedial alternatives all involve dredging large volumes of contaminated
sediment, a number of dredged material management (DMM) scenarios were evaluated for each
active remedial alternative.
DMM Scenario A: CAD
As described in Chapter 3, CAD was retained as a feasible sediment disposal option. Multiple
CAD cells below the existing bathymetry would be constructed in Newark Bay, as shown in
Figure 4-1. The conceptual design assumes that approximately the first five feet of material
excavated from the first CAD cell would be contaminated requiring disposal at an upland
22
A CDF is an engineered structure enclosed by dikes designed to contain sediment. CDFs can be constructed at upland sites (similar to landfills)
or in-water, either nearshore (adjacent to land) or as self-contained islands. Dredged sediment is typically placed to an elevation above the water
surface creating dry land.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-10
2014
facility. For the remaining CAD cells, approximately the first five feet of material would be
disposed of in one of the previously-constructed CAD cells. Deeper, much less-contaminated
material (approximately 45 feet of clay) would be disposed in an ocean disposal area, such as the
Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) in the New York Bight east of Sandy Hook. Final
disposal locations would be determined during remedy design.
Dredged material from the active remedial alternatives would be barged directly to the CAD site
in a split hull or bottom-dump barge and released in the CAD cell under water. Under DMM
Scenario A, the dredged material would be placed directly into a CAD site and waste
classification would not be required 23. Passive consolidation of the dredged material would occur
within the cell and an extended consolidation/settling period may be required prior to cell
closure. An engineered cap (and armor if deemed necessary during design) would be placed over
the dredged material as final cover. The final grades of the CAD site would be consistent with
the existing adjacent bathymetry.
To the extent practicable, the most-highly contaminated dredged material would be placed in the
CAD cell first so that it would be confined in the deepest part of the cell, followed by lesscontaminated material as recommended by Palermo and Averett, (2000). Long-term monitoring
and maintenance of the engineered caps (i.e., in perpetuity) covering the CAD cells would be
required to ensure that they remain in place. A summary of monitoring measures to be
considered is presented in Appendix G.
CAD cells in Newark Bay operated without dissolved and particulate phase controls were
modeled over short time periods using USACE’s Particle Tracking Model (PTM) and Short
Term Fate (STFATE) model. The model simulations were run for a seven day period assuming a
total of 12 barge placements (approximately 38,400 cy of dredged materials) which is similar to
one week of operations of a CAD based on the current conceptual design. The model simulations
23
RCRA regulations exclude dredged material that is subject to the requirements of a CWA Section 404 permit, which would govern the disposal
of the sediment in a disposal area within the navigable waters of the United States, from the definition of hazardous waste 40 C.F.R. 261.4(g).
Because the Lower Passaic River is being remediated as part of a Superfund site, a permit is not required, but the remedial action will comply
with substantive requirements of CWA Section 404. Further, if dredged contaminated sediment is consolidated within the Area of Contamination,
which includes the Lower Passaic River and the areal extent of contamination within Newark Bay, RCRA land disposal restrictions would not be
triggered.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-11
2014
indicated that contaminant losses from the CAD cells would cause a maximum increase in
contaminant levels in surface sediments in parts of Newark Bay of 150 ppt for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 50
ppb for PAHs and 1.5 ppb for PCB-77 (see Attachment C of Appendix G). Based on the
modeling results, the conceptual design in DMM Scenario A includes a containment system (i.e.,
sheetpile walls) surrounding the CAD site, intended to minimize the migration of dissolved and
particulate-phase contaminants out of the CAD cells during construction and operation. There
would be an opening for barges to enter the CAD site. The conceptual design envisions that silt
curtains would be used across the entrance channel to minimize the escape of contaminants,
similar to that used in the New Bedford Harbor Superfund site design (Apex, 2013).
Even with the use of sheetpile walls, some of the dissolved-phase contamination could escape
the containment system. An evaluation of how much dissolved-phase contamination would
escape the containment system could not be performed within the scope of the FFS. In addition,
there is the potential for fish and semi-aquatic birds moving into the open CAD cells during their
years of operation and being exposed to highly concentrated contaminants by direct contact or
ingestion of prey. Also, engineering controls (containment system and silt curtains) may be
vulnerable to storm surges which were not modeled. That vulnerability includes the potential for
the sheetpile to be compromised by storm surges, potentially releasing contamination into
Newark Bay and requiring the containment system to be repaired/replaced before operations can
continue.
DMM Scenario B: Off-Site Disposal
This scenario includes two components retained in Chapter 3: thermal treatment and landfill
disposal. Under this scenario, the dredged material would be removed either mechanically or
hydraulically. For mechanically dredged sediment, dredged material would be placed on a barge,
transported to a local upland sediment processing facility, and offloaded. For hydraulically
dredged sediment, the dredged material slurry would be transported by pipeline (a mix of
floating and sunken pipelines with booster pump station) into a tank at a local upland processing
facility. For either dredging method, dredged material would be dewatered using mechanical
presses and stabilized as necessary. The dredged material would then be transported via rail offsite for thermal treatment, if necessary, and final disposal.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-12
2014
USEPA has determined that the sediments from the Lower Passaic River do not contain a listed
hazardous waste (USEPA, 2008). Management and disposal of dredged material would comply
with the requirements of RCRA, the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), and with the Off-Site
Rule, which requires that CERCLA wastes be placed in a facility operating in compliance with
RCRA or other applicable Federal or State requirements. Prior to disposal, the dredged material
would be characterized, and classified as either a non-hazardous or hazardous material based on
RCRA regulations. Dredged material must be managed as a hazardous waste if the material
exhibits a RCRA hazardous characteristic (toxicity, reactivity, ignitability, or corrosivity). Nonhazardous materials may be eligible for direct landfill disposal at a RCRA Subtitle D facility,
depending on the facility’s permit. It is not expected that dredged material would be regulated as
a TSCA waste because sampling to date for Total PCBs in the Lower Passaic River generally has
not detected concentrations above 50 parts per million (ppm) 24.
For FFS cost estimation purposes only, dredged material from the FFS Study Area were
evaluated with respect to whether it would be characterized as hazardous based on the RCRA
characteristic of toxicity, since past experience has shown that the sediment is not reactive,
ignitable, or corrosive. This evaluation was prepared using analytical results of samples taken
from historical sediment cores collected in 1995, sediment cores collected by USEPA in 2006
and by the CPG in 2008, as well as waste characterization data collected from the Tierra Phase 1
Removal near 80-120 Lister Avenue, which included toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) results. The analysis identified UHCs present at concentrations exceeding the UTS,
requiring treatment prior to disposal. To estimate the volume of sediment in the FFS Study Area
with contaminant concentrations that could exceed TCLP criteria, each core was assigned a
volume of influence in the river using statistical polygons. At this time, thermal treatment is the
only technology known to be able to treat sediments characterized as hazardous under RCRA
and containing dioxin as an UHC, to the applicable RCRA standards. Based on the above
analysis, for Alternative 2, 10 percent of the dredged material is estimated to require thermal
24
To date, only 1 sediment sample out of more than 1000 samples has shown Total PCB concentrations in excess of 50 ppm.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-13
2014
treatment; for Alternative 3, 7 percent; and for Alternative 4, 4 percent. See Appendix G for
additional information on this analysis.
For cost estimating purposes, it was conservatively assumed that sediment not requiring thermal
treatment would be disposed of in Subtitle C landfills consistent with the disposal method used
for the Tierra Removal (Phase 1) and RM10.9 Removal. In addition, the ash generated by
thermal treatment would be disposed of at a Subtitle C landfill.
Under this scenario, dredged materials from the active remedial alternatives would be barged to
an upland sediment processing facility ideally located in the vicinity of the Lower Passaic River
or Newark Bay shorelines, for dewatering using filter presses. The facility would treat the
process and contact water generated on-site using treatment processes such as multi-stage
filtration with polishing by granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption and provisions for
metals removal if necessary to meet regulatory discharge requirements (N.J.A.C. 7:14A; an
action-specific ARAR as presented in Table 2-1a) before being discharged into the river. Note
that the upland processing facility is expected to be sited along the shoreline of the Lower
Passaic River or Newark Bay, and so, may also be vulnerable to storm surges.
There are no thermal treatment facilities or Subtitle C landfills in the NY/NJ Harbor area so the
dewatered material would be transported to an existing, off-site facility for thermal treatment and
disposal or directly to an existing Subtitle C landfill, as appropriate. In order to evaluate the
feasibility of this DMM Scenario, thermal destruction facilities and Subtitle C landfills in the
United States and Canada were preliminarily identified and screened for their ability to accept
FFS Study Area dredged materials (should this DMM Scenario be selected, additional evaluation
and final identification of facilities would need to be done during the design phase). Four
domestic thermal destruction facilities (i.e., incinerators) located in Texas, Utah, and Nebraska,
and two international thermal destruction facilities located in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, were
identified and are capable of accepting dioxin-containing hazardous material (see Appendix G).
For cost estimating purposes, it has been assumed that rail transport would be employed.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-14
2014
Fifteen Subtitle C landfills were evaluated to assess their suitability for disposal of the nonhazardous dredged materials generated from the FFS Study Area (see Appendix G). The Subtitle
C facilities identified meet the requirements of the RCRA Off-Site Rule (CERCLA Section
121(d)(3)). Fourteen of the 15 facilities surveyed accept non-listed dioxin-containing waste.
Each facility generally has its own specific criteria for waste acceptance and requires a waste
profile for further evaluation. The cost for disposal can vary based on whether the material
requires additional stabilization and/or treatment. For this study, the primary factors for
determining appropriate Subtitle C landfill facilities are available capacity, location, and access
to rail transport. These factors are discussed further in Appendix G.
DMM Scenario C: Local Decontamination and Beneficial Use
Local decontamination with beneficial use includes three components retained in Chapter 3:
thermal treatment, sediment washing and solidification/stabilization. Under this scenario,
material would be dredged and transported to a local upland sediment processing facility as
described for DMM Scenario B. At the processing facility, treatment would be based on the
chemical characteristics of the dredged sediment.
As described above in the discussion of DMM Scenario B, dredged materials from the FFS
Study Area were evaluated with respect to whether they would be characterized as hazardous
based on the RCRA characteristic of toxicity. As noted, at this time thermal treatment is the only
technology known to be able to treat sediments characterized as hazardous under RCRA and
containing dioxin as an UHC, to the applicable RCRA standards. For Alternative 2, 10 percent of
the dredged material is estimated to require thermal treatment; for Alternative 3, 7 percent; and
for Alternative 4, 4 percent. See Appendix G for additional information on this analysis. Several
alternative thermal treatment technologies were evaluated in Appendix G. For FFS cost
estimation purposes, this scenario relies on the construction and operation of a self-contained
thermal treatment facility such as Cement-Lock® Technology. The size of the facility would be
based on the estimated throughput established during the remedial design.
For fine-grained dredged materials characterized as non-hazardous (the material does not exhibit
a RCRA characteristic of toxicity), but with in situ COPC and COPEC concentrations exceeding
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-15
2014
the New Jersey NRDCSRS, sediment washing was selected as the representative treatment
process option prior to beneficial use (see Appendix G). For Alternative 2, 88 percent of the
dredged material is estimated to require sediment washing; for Alternative 3, 92 percent; and for
Alternative 4, 94 percent. Sediment washing has not yet been developed on a commercial scale
but has been tested in a number of pilot studies. In a 2006 demonstration project sponsored by
USEPA and NJDOT using dredged material from the Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay (see
Appendix G), this process produced a manufactured soil that was used as a beneficial use
product (BioGenesisSM Enterprises, Inc., 2009). However, in mid-2012, bench scale studies by
two sediment washing technology vendors (Biogenesis and Pear Technology) showed that their
processes were unable to reduce Lower Passaic River sediment contamination to levels low
enough for beneficial use (de maximis, inc., 2012). It remains to be seen whether the beneficial
use products produced through sediment washing can receive regulatory approval and/or public
acceptance.
In addition, a small percentage (1 to 2 percent) of FFS Study Area sediments may not exhibit a
RCRA characteristic and may meet NRDCSRS, requiring only minimal treatment (see Appendix
G). That small percentage would be stabilized using solidification and stabilization technologies
and beneficially used. Selection of specific beneficial use options, such as sanitary landfill cover,
construction fill, or restoration of abandoned surface mined lands would depend on the physical
and chemical requirements of the proposed application, local site-specific restrictions, and
market demand for the material.
Under this scenario, dredged materials from the active remedial alternatives would be barged to
an upland sediment processing facility, ideally located in the vicinity of the Lower Passaic River
or Newark Bay shorelines. The material to be decontaminated using thermal treatment or
solidification/stabilization would be dewatered using filter presses prior to treatment; the
material to be decontaminated using sediment washing would be dewatered following treatment.
The facility would treat the process and contact water generated on-site using treatment
processes such as multi-stage filtration with polishing by GAC adsorption and provisions for
metals removal if necessary to meet regulatory discharge requirements, before being discharged
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-16
2014
into the river. Note that the upland processing facility is expected to be sited along the shoreline
of the Lower Passaic River or Newark Bay, and so, may also be vulnerable to storm surges.
4.2.7 Upland Sediment Processing Facility
As discussed in Section 4.2.6, an upland sediment processing facility would be required for the
DMM scenarios involving off-site or local treatment of dredged material. The feasibility-level
conceptual designs of upland processing facilities for both of these DMM scenarios are presented
in Appendix G. Assumptions inherent to the conceptual designs have been incorporated into the
cost estimates presented in Appendix H.
The siting of an upland sediment processing facility that includes dewatering and
decontamination technologies involves a number of logistical challenges. A number of variables
must be taken into account when selecting a suitable location including proximity to the Lower
Passaic River, adequate water frontage, sufficient land for materials processing and storage,
access to rail facilities and major highways, current land use at the proposed site of the treatment
facility and adjacent properties (e.g., proximity to sensitive receptors and potential restoration
sites 25), and quality of life issues (e.g., noise, odor) for surrounding land users. A preliminary
siting study (USACE, 2007b and Appendix G) was conducted in 2006 to aid in the selection of a
suitable sediment treatment facility location (not related to the FFS study). During the remedial
design this study would need to be updated and expanded based on current conditions and
project needs.
The upland processing facility is estimated to range from approximately 26 to 40 acres in size
depending on the Alternative and DMM Scenario (see Appendix G). In addition to a processing
facility building, space would be needed for an administrative building, employee and visitor
parking, decontamination facilities, material handling, loading and off-loading facilities, debris
processing and storage, and stormwater management. Water treatment facilities to treat water
25
Restoration components for the lower eight miles are presented in the Draft Final Restoration Opportunities Report (Earth Tech, Inc. and
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2006a) and Draft Restoration Vision: Balancing Ecosystem and Human Use (Earth Tech, Inc. and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.,
2006b) (both documents are posted on www.ourPassaic.org; refer to Appendix F for additional information regarding restoration).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-17
2014
from the dewatering system and contact water (including storm water within the exclusion zone,
decontamination water, and wheel wash water) would be located at the facility.
The active remedial alternatives include at least 6 months of storage for material waiting for
treatment or off-site shipment (refer to Appendix G). An analysis of throughput and storage
requirements for the different treatment facilities would be required during the design phase to
account for potential system downtimes and effective operating capacity.
Administrative challenges associated with the construction of a thermal treatment facility (DMM
Scenario C) would include obtaining regulatory approval and permits for air emissions, or, if the
facility is located at the Superfund site, addressing substantive requirements.
4.2.8 Additional Considerations
Additional common elements of the active remedial alternatives would include, but are not
limited, to the following:
•
Pre-design investigation – Extensive sampling of sediment and the water column during a
pre-design investigation is not uncommon for remedial actions at large Superfund sediment
sites to update site conditions; the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site is one example at
which such an investigation was required by USEPA.
•
Remedial design - A final design incorporating specifications and drawings would be
prepared addressing conditions identified during the predesign investigation, and a
contractor would be selected to perform the construction work.
•
Site selection – A preliminary site evaluation study for an upland sediment processing
facility was conducted by the USACE in 2006 (see Section 4.2.7 and Appendix G).
Depending on the selected DMM scenario, a more detailed study may be required during
design.
•
Contractor work plans - The contractor would be required to prepare work plans detailing
operational parameters for equipment to be used, quality assurance and quality control
procedures, health and safety procedures, work schedules, and other items.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-18
2014
•
Equipment mobilization/demobilization – Prior to the start of work, equipment would be
moved to the site and removed at the end of the project.
•
Annual project startup / shutdown - The project schedule is based on 40 weeks of in-water
work with an approximately three months down-period each year. An annual restart cost
was included to cover some remobilization or other down-period costs.
•
Debris management - Prior to dredging, it would be necessary to remove large debris from
the sediment bed to streamline subsequent dredging or capping operations. A side-scan
sonar survey performed in 2004 (Aqua Survey, Inc. (ASI), 2006) identified 47 large objects,
16 of which had signatures of automobiles. A shipwreck was also identified.
•
Environmental monitoring during construction – The program would include water quality,
sediment quality, and air monitoring. Appropriate data quality objectives for the
construction monitoring program would be developed during the design phase of the
project.
•
Confirmatory sampling - The thickness of the engineered cap and armoring layer (as
necessary) would be documented for Alternatives 3 and 4.
•
Long-term annual and periodic monitoring and maintenance – Conditions of the FFS Study
Area would be assessed over time. Ecological impacts of the construction on the habitat and
biological communities would be evaluated as well as the changes and recovery expected to
occur over the monitoring period. Maintenance would be performed as necessary.
•
Five year reviews - For each active remedial alternative, a review of site conditions would
be conducted at five-year intervals, as required by CERCLA Section 121(c).
These elements are not considered process options but are integral parts of the conceptual
design considered during development of the three active remedial alternatives. Background
assumptions and the associated cost for each element are provided in Appendix H.
4.3 Modeling Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives
4.3.1 Modeling Framework
The modeling framework for the Lower Passaic River was subjected to an independent peer
review in February and March 2013, in accordance with USEPA’s Peer Review Handbook
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-19
2014
(USEPA, 2006). The peer review process, charge questions, key issues, summary of changes
made to the model following the peer review and detailed response to peer review comments are
all documented in a peer review report dated September 2013 (HDR, 2013).
The modeling framework for the Lower Passaic River includes model components for
hydrodynamics, sediment transport and organic carbon production and transport, and
contaminant fate and transport (see Appendix B for more detailed descriptions). These modeling
components were derived from the previously peer-reviewed CARP (Contamination Assessment
and Reduction Project) models and revised in a number of ways, including a finer grid resolution
to capture spatial detail affecting the transport processes within the project domain.
Hydrodynamic and sediment transport model calculations were performed first to determine
intra-tidal transport, bottom shear stresses, erosion, deposition, and transport of sediment
throughout the model domain. Changes in river bed elevations were accounted for by allowing
feedback from the sediment transport model to the hydrodynamic model. The results of the
hydrodynamic and sediment transport models were transferred to an organic carbon production
and transport model to determine the movement of DOC and POC through the water column and
between the overlying water and the bed. Information from the hydrodynamic, sediment
transport and organic carbon production and transport models was transferred to a contaminant
fate and transport model. This model was then used (along with descriptions of contaminant
partitioning to organic carbon and other contaminant processes presented in Appendix B) to
determine contaminant concentrations in the overlying water and sediment. Finally, contaminant
concentrations in the water column and sediment were used in risk assessment calculations.
4.3.1.1 Hydrodynamic Model
The purpose of the hydrodynamic model is to develop a time-dependent, three-dimensional
description of transport through the Lower Passaic River. The hydrodynamic model is based on
HDR|HydroQual’s in-house model ECOM. ECOM is a three-dimensional model that simulates
the spatial and temporal variation of water levels, currents, and dispersive mixing, which
transport contaminants throughout the system, as well as salinity and temperature fields as they
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-20
2014
vary with freshwater inflows, tide, winds, and heating exchange between the atmosphere and
water.
4.3.1.2 Sediment Transport Model
The purpose of the sediment transport model is to provide a mathematical representation of the
processes affecting sediment transport behavior, so that simulated sediment transport results
could be used to determine the transport of sorbed contaminants in the fate and transport
modeling. The sediment transport model ECOMSED, with the bed model, SEDZLJS
(HydroQual, 2007) was used for these analyses. The ECOM-SEDZLJS model allows for the
following:
•
Computation of grain-shear stress based on bed composition and velocity and water depth
calculated by the hydrodynamic model.
•
Simulation of a user-defined number of particle size classes.
•
Computation of erosion fluxes as a function of grain-shear stress, bed composition and
erosion rates derived from site-specific erosion experiments.
•
Division of total erosion fluxes into bedload and suspended load components.
•
Simulation of bedload transport.
•
Computation of deposition fluxes as a function of defined or calculated critical values
shear stresses for each particle class size.
•
Flexible simulation of consolidation effects in deposited cohesive sediment layers.
The sediment transport model is dynamically linked to the hydrodynamics model so that changes
in bed elevation simulated in the sediment transport model are accounted for by modifying the
model bathymetry at every time step.
4.3.1.3 Organic Carbon (ST-SWEM) Production and Transport Model
The purpose of the organic carbon production and transport model for the Lower Passaic River
was to establish how organic carbon is being produced in, removed from, and transported
through the Lower Passaic River. This is important because in aquatic systems the partitioning of
hydrophobic organic contaminants such as PCBs, dioxin/furans, pesticides and PAHs is related
to the POC on the sediments and, to a lesser extent, to DOC. Therefore, the fate and transport of
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-21
2014
organic carbon are important to understanding the fate and transport of these hydrophobic
chemicals. An organic carbon production and transport and sediment diagenesis model of the
Lower Passaic River and contiguous waterways provides information on reducing/oxidizing
conditions, sulfate reduction rates, and sulfide concentrations which are critical in evaluating the
fate and transport of mercury and the production of methyl mercury in sediments.
4.3.1.4 Contaminant Fate and Transport Model
The purpose of the contaminant fate and transport model is to gain an understanding of the fate
and transport of contaminants within the Lower Passaic River, as well as the export to or import
from Newark Bay and other portions of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. An important feature of the
contaminant fate and transport model is the ability to predict future contaminant levels in surface
waters and sediments resulting from specific remedial actions.
The contaminant fate and transport model is analogous in structure to the model used for the
CARP (i.e., RCATOX) but it takes advantage of an improved bed layering scheme, higher grid
resolution and more refined hydrodynamics, sediment transport and organic carbon production
calculations. The contaminant fate and transport model was run on a collapsed grid, which is
coarser than the grid used in the hydrodynamic and sediment transport models. This was done to
achieve reasonable simulation times given the number of contaminants of interest, and the
number and duration of model scenarios for future forecast. Starting with the 1995 data as the
initial condition, the model was run until 2012 and the model results compared to data collected
between 1995 and 2012, including more extensive datasets collected by the CPG in 2008, 2009,
2010 and 2012. The comparison between model results and data should be interpreted with
caution because some of the sampling programs were not designed to be spatially representative
of the surface sediment bed in the FFS Study Area. In setting the initial conditions in the Lower
Passaic River portion of the model the following procedure was used:
•
In the FFS Study Area (below RM8.3) - Historical data from 1990-1995 were used to
populate the contaminant concentrations of the sediment bed.
•
Above the FFS Study Area in the Lower Passaic River (RM8.3 – RM17.4) - there are
only limited historical data available so more recent data that the CPG collected in 2008
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-22
2014
were also used. The 1995 initial sediment bed concentrations were scaled-up to values
that, on average, declined to the 2008 values in model year 2008 during simulations.
•
The sediment bed was divided into the following layers: 0 to 0.5 feet, 0.5 to 1.5 feet, 1.5
to 2.5 feet, 2.5 to 3.5 feet, 3.5 to 5.5 feet, and archive (greater than 5.5 feet).
•
The individual data points were averaged locally and spatially using geomorphic zones.
The geomorphic make up of each model grid cell was used to assign its concentration.
In Newark Bay, historical data from 1990-1995 were used to populate the contaminant
concentrations of the sediment bed. In addition, the specification of sediment initial conditions in
Newark Bay incorporated carbon-normalization and segregation of spatial interpolations within
and outside of the navigation channels of Newark Bay.
4.3.2 Application of Models for Simulating FFS Alternatives
One of the important tasks in the application of the models was to simulate the future sediment
and water column concentrations for the four FFS alternatives. The results show how the system
would react under each alternative and form the basis for calculation of future risks.
The four FFS alternatives are: No Action, Deep Dredging with Backfill, Capping with Dredging
for Flooding and Navigation, and Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding. Model
applications for these scenarios are as follows:
•
The initial condition year for the models was 1995.
•
The hydrodynamic and sediment transport models were simulated for the period 1995 to
2012. Note that Hurricane Irene, a 1 in 90 year storm event which occurred in August
2011, was included in the simulation (based on a peer review recommendation).
•
The hydrograph and other tidal forcing for the period October 1995 to September 2010
were repeated in 15-year cycles to simulate conditions in the future through September
2059, which is 30 years after remedy-related construction would be completed. (The
hydrographs for 2011 and 2012 were not included in the repeating cycle to avoid
simulating a 1 in 90 year storm event every 17 years.)
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-23
2014
•
Boundary conditions for contaminants were developed as a function of increasing
concentration with increasing river flow. The 15-year time-variable boundary condition
time series was repeated for future conditions along with the 15-year repeating
hydrograph cycle.
•
Modeling scenarios included the removal of sediments within an enclosure for the Tierra
Removal (Phases 1 and 2) and the implementation of the RM10.9 Removal 26.
•
Remediation of the active remedial alternatives was assumed to start in 2018 using the
No Action result as initial condition.
•
For dredging, a resuspension rate of three percent of the mass removed (solids, carbon,
and chemical) was assumed. This rate is based the Environmental Dredging Pilot Study
(LBG, 2012) results and similar measurements from other dredging projects. Therefore,
three percent of the material in the dredge bucket was added back into the water column
in the sediment transport, organic carbon production and transport, and contaminant fate
and transport models, with half introduced in the bottom layer and half in the surface
layer.
•
No resuspension or loss of solids was assumed during cap/backfill placement.
•
For the Focused Capping Alternative (Alternative 4), the No Action (Alternative 1)
modeling results were used in a knee-of-the-curve type analysis to determine the
following:
o Identify and rank the cells that contribute significantly to contaminant resuspension
on a gross and net basis.
o Select the cells constituting approximately 50 percent of the gross resuspension flux,
and about 75 percent of the net resuspension flux (Figure 4-2).
Gross flux is the sum of the resuspension flux from the sediment bed over the year of
simulation. For each time step, the model keeps track of the resuspension from the
sediment bed in each grid cell and these values are the summed to get a cumulative gross
26
At the time modeling was performed, the RM10.9 Removal had not yet been implemented, so for modeling purposes, the removal was assumed
to start and finish in 2013. In reality, the removal started in 2013, but has not yet been completed as of the writing of this report.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-24
2014
resuspension flux at the end of the year. For net flux, the net of resuspension and
deposition over the year of simulation are summed for each grid cell.
For all the active remedial alternatives, a projected schedule for progress of the dredging,
capping and/or backfill processes was provided as a model input.
In the hydrodynamic and sediment transport models, both the release of solids due to dredging
and the change in bathymetry associated with dredging were simulated in each model time step.
The composition of the solids released was based on the composition of the parent bed for the
cell being dredged from the sediment transport model initial conditions. Over the same duration,
the bathymetry for the cell being dredged was adjusted from the elevation at the start of dredging
to the post capping elevation. The net bed elevation change associated with the alternative was
used to avoid numerical stability issues associated with the gross elevation change due to
dredging and the subsequent backfill or capping. Both the mass of solids released and the
bathymetry change were distributed equally over the duration of dredging within the model grid
cell where remediation was occurring. Upon completion of dredging within a cell, the
composition of the bed was set to the capping or backfill composition. In most areas the
composition was sand with a one percent cohesive fraction. In locations where mudflats were to
be restored, the cohesive fraction was set to six percent in the top foot of the bed.
The simulation of remediation in the organic carbon production and transport model was similar
to the approach used in the sediment transport model. The release of organic carbon to the water
column due to dredging (three percent of the mass was released with half released to the surface
layer and half to the bottom layer) was simulated each time step. The composition of the organic
carbon released was based on the composition of the bed at the beginning of dredging within the
model grid cell being dredged. The mass of organic carbon released was distributed equally over
the duration of dredging within the model grid cell where remediation was occurring. Upon
completion of dredging within a cell the composition of the bed was set to the capping or backfill
composition. In most areas that composition was sand with a one percent cohesive fraction and
one tenth of a percent organic carbon. In locations where mudflats would be restored the organic
carbon fraction is set to six tenths of a percent, or one tenth of the cohesive fraction.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-25
2014
The simulation of remediation in the contaminant fate and transport model follows the same
approach. The release of contaminant (COPCs and COPECs) to the water column due to
dredging was simulated each time step (three percent of the mass was released with half released
to the surface layer and half to the bottom layer). The contaminant mass released was based on
the concentrations in the bed at the beginning of dredging within the cell being dredged. The
mass of contaminant released was distributed equally over the duration of dredging within the
model cell where remediation was occurring. Upon completion of dredging within a cell the
contaminant concentration of the bed was set to zero.
Uncertainties in model predictions of surface sediment contaminant concentrations for the FFS
Study Area were developed using an approach discussed in USEPA’s 2005 Contaminated
Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites, which relies on consideration of
residuals between model results and data (Connolly and Tonelli, 1985; see Appendix B for
details). These uncertainties are represented as upper and lower bounds on the best estimates of
average surface sediments concentrations and they were used to determine whether the model
projections for one alternative are significantly different from another alternative.
4.4 Description and Screening of Remedial Alternatives
4.4.1 Evaluation Criteria and Approach
The screening criteria discussed herein conform to the remedy selection requirements set forth in
Section 121 of CERCLA, the NCP [40 CFR 300.430(e)(7)], and the RI/FS Guidance (USEPA,
1988). The three criteria used for the initial screening of alternatives are effectiveness,
implementability, and cost.
Effectiveness
Effectiveness criteria are based on the outline presented in CERCLA, Section 121(b) and Section
300.430(e)(7)(I) of the NCP. The primary criterion in screening the effectiveness of a remedial
alternative is its ability to protect human health and the environment. Effectiveness of
alternatives was evaluated by comparing the following:
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-26
2014
•
The modeled COPC and COPEC concentrations in the FFS Study Area surface
sediments after completion of remediation to sediment PRGs.
•
The modeled cumulative gross resuspension flux of COPCs and COPECs from the
sediment bed in the FFS Study Area.
•
The modeled cumulative water column mass transport of COPCs and COPECs towards
Newark Bay at RM0.9.
Detailed modeling results for the complete set of COPCs and COPECs along with model
sensitivity analyses are presented in Appendix B.
Implementability
Implementability was considered in the screening process as a measure of the technical and
administrative feasibility of constructing, operating, and maintaining the proposed remedial
action.
Cost
The intent of the cost screening is to make order-of-magnitude comparisons between remedial
alternatives. Costs are identified as advantageous (low) or disadvantageous (high) to aid in
choosing between similar alternatives. Both capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
were considered. Alternatives that have excessive costs (at least an order of magnitude higher
than a comparable alternative) and do not provide an increase in protection were eliminated from
further consideration. Costs are used to compare on-site and off-site treatment technologies for
screening purposes but are not used to screen between treatment and non-treatment alternatives.
Cost details are presented in Appendix H.
4.4.2 Alternative 1: No Action
Description
The No Action Alternative does not include any dredging, capping or backfill, disposal or
treatment of contaminated sediments. NJDEP could continue the fish and shellfish consumption
advisories already in place pursuant to state legal authorities, but the No Action Alternative does
not include implementation of any new institutional controls or monitoring as part of a CERCLA
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-27
2014
response action for the FFS Study Area. Implementation of the 17-mile LPRSA RI/FS would
continue.
The model simulation for Alternative 1 assumed that the Tierra Removal (Phases 1 and 2) and
RM10.9 Removal would be implemented. Model simulations were prepared for Alternative 1
based on a start date of 1995 and a completion date of 2059. Although no active remediation
would be conducted under this alternative, the same project duration (based on the construction
schedule for Alternative 2) was used for comparison to be consistent with the other active
remedial alternative results. The model progression for Alternative 1 was based on the following
schedule assumptions for other work in the river:
Tierra Removal Phase 1 (completed)
2012 (February): Sheet pile enclosure constructed.
2012 (March): Start dredging within enclosure – 40,000 cubic yards removed.
2012 (August): Start backfill placement within enclosure.
2012 (November): Remove sheetpile enclosure.
RM10.9 Removal (assumed to be completed) 27
2013 (June): Start of RM10.9 Removal
2013 (August): End of RM10.9 Removal
Tierra Removal Phase 2 (planned)
2017 (February): Sheet pile enclosure constructed.
2017 (March): Start dredging within enclosure – 160,000 cy planned to be removed.
2017 (September): Start backfill placement within enclosure.
2017 (October): Remove Phase 2 sheetpile enclosure.
2018: Establish initial conditions for all model runs.
27
At the time modeling was performed, the RM10.9 Removal had not yet been implemented, so for modeling purposes, it was assumed that the
removal would start and finish in 2013. In reality, the removal started in 2013, but has not yet been completed as of the writing of this report.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-28
2014
Effectiveness
The No Action Alternative would not be effective in meeting the RAOs and PRGs. According to
the modeling results for the period from 2018 to 2059 (Alternative 1 is represented by the red
lines in Figures 4-3a through 4-3k) 28, the FFS Study Area surface sediment concentrations would
remain far above any of the proposed remediation goals or background levels for any COPC and
COPEC. The lack of any significant recovery under Alternative 1 is due to the combination of
the impact of contaminated sediments remaining in the river and the fact that accumulation of
less-contaminated solids has slowed down as the river has reached a quasi-steady state.
The modeled cumulative gross contaminant flux from the bed resulting from resuspension of
sediments in the FFS Study Area is presented in Table 4-2 for period 2030 to 2059. This period
(2030 to 2059) was evaluated so as to maintain the same hydrologic conditions across all of the
alternatives. For Alternative 1, the total gross resuspension from the FFS Study Area was
estimated at 0.9 kg of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,100 kg of Total PCBs, 230 kg for Total DDx, and
3,500 kg for mercury.
The modeled cumulative water column mass transport of contaminants towards Newark Bay at
RM0.9 is presented in Figures 4-4a through 4-4d for the period 2030 to 2059. The contaminant
mass transport model results for all alternatives and contaminants show gradual increases over
time, with step increases associated with high flow conditions in 2039 and 2054, which is when
the April 2007 high flow occurs in the 15-year repeating hydrograph. Smaller steps are also
noted in 2042 and 2057 when the 2010 high flow occurs in the 15-year cycle. The transport of
contaminants under Alternative 1 is higher than corresponding values under Alternatives 2 and 3.
Implementability
The No Action alternative is easily implemented from both a technical and an administrative
standpoint as it does not include active remediation or new monitoring requirements.
28
The same surface sediment concentration data is presented in both a linear and log scale for each of the four main COPCs in the Figure 4-3
plots. The log scale presentation of data in these figures magnifies the effect of storms, so that while storm-driven increases in contamination
might be visually better seen in Alternative 2 and 3, they also have significant effects on in Alternatives 1 and 4.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-29
2014
Cost
If Alternative 1 were the selected alternative, no action would be taken to address the
contamination in the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River at this time. Therefore, there are
no costs associated with this alternative. Further evaluation of remedial alternatives would be
addressed as part of the 17-mile LPRSA RI/FS.
Conclusion
Although Alternative 1 (No Action) is not effective in meeting RAOs and PRGs within a
reasonable time frame and is not protective of human health and the environment, it has been
retained for detailed analysis, as required by CERCLA and the NCP, to serve as a basis for
comparison with other remedial alternatives.
4.4.3 Alternative 2: Deep Dredging with Backfill
Description
Deep Dredging with Backfill evaluates a bank-to-bank remedy that would involve dredging the
contaminated fine-grained sediments throughout the FFS Study Area (9.7 million cy) to varying
depths followed by placement of two feet of backfill material over the dredged area. This
alternative is intended to remove the contaminated sediment inventory causing the current and
potential future risks in the FFS Study Area. This alternative would accommodate continued use
of the federally-authorized navigation channel, since the contaminated sediment inventory is
coincident with the authorized navigation channel. Enhanced outreach programs would be
implemented to educate local communities about the NJDEP fish and shellfish consumption
advisories already in place. Additional institutional controls may be developed during the
remedial design.
The sequence of dredging would be from RM8.3 to RM0. In-river construction duration for this
alternative is estimated to be 11 years starting in 2018 and ending in 2029, with no additional
time required to complete dredged material processing.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-30
2014
Within the horizontal limits of the authorized navigation channel, the depth of contaminated finegrained sediment corresponds well with the depth of historical navigation dredging (see
Table 1-1). Therefore, the depth of dredging is assumed to be the authorized channel depth plus
an additional three feet to account for historical dredging accuracy and over-dredging. The
resulting sediment removal depths (in MLW) are as follows:
•
RM8.3 to RM8.1: 13 feet (resulting in a 10-foot deep navigation channel) over a 150-foot
width
•
RM8.1 to RM7.1: 19 feet (resulting in a 16-foot deep navigation channel) over a 200-foot
width
•
RM7.1 to RM4.6: 19 feet (resulting in a 16-foot deep navigation channel) over a 300-foot
width
•
RM4.6 to RM2.629: 23 feet (resulting in a 20-foot deep navigation channel) over a
300-foot width
•
RM2.6 to RM0: 33 feet (resulting in a 30-foot deep navigation channel) over a 300-foot
width.
Outside the horizontal limits of the federally-authorized navigation channel (i.e., in the shoals),
the depth of contaminated fine-grained sediment varies. Data from geotechnical and chemical
cores were used to estimate the depth of contaminated fine-grained sediments targeted for
dredging at various locations in the river. For locations where the targeted depths are less than
15 feet, the sediment removal depth was assumed to be the estimated depth of fine-grained
sediment plus an additional six inches to account for dredging accuracy. For locations where the
targeted depths are greater than 15 feet, the sediment removal depth was assumed to be the
estimated depth of fine-grained sediment plus one foot. Sediment removal in shoal areas is
described in Appendix G. Mudflats dredged during implementation of Alternative 2 would be
reconstructed to their original grade and incorporating one foot of mudflat reconstruction
(habitat) material.
29
The 20-foot deep section of the federally-authorized navigation channel stops at RM4.1; however, historical dredging records show that the
channel was sometimes maintained to a 20-foot depth up to RM4.6 (refer to Table 1-1). Therefore, Alternative 2 includes dredging to the 20-foot
depth (plus three feet) up to RM4.6 to ensure removal of the contaminated fine-grained sediment that would have deposited there after
maintenance dredging stopped.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-31
2014
The objective of Alternative 2 is to remove as much of the contaminated fine-grained sediment
as practicable, resulting in the exposure of the underlying sandy material or red-brown clay.
Two feet of backfill material would then be placed to address residual contamination. The
backfill would not be monitored or maintained after placement.
The dredged material removed from the FFS Study Area under Alternative 2 would be managed
in accordance with one of the three DMM scenarios described previously:
•
DMM Scenario A: Confined Aquatic Disposal
•
DMM Scenario B: Off-Site Disposal
•
DMM Scenario C: Local Decontamination and Beneficial Use
As described in Section 4.2, institutional controls and MNR would be implemented after
construction until PRGs are met.
As with Alternative 1, the model simulation for Alternative 2 assumed that the Tierra Removal
and RM10.9 Removal would be implemented. The model progression for Alternative 2 was as
follows.
•
The Tierra Removal (Phases 1 and 2) and RM10.9 Removal were included in model
simulations under this alternative based on the same schedule presented for Alternative 1.
•
The following alternative specific schedule dates were used in the model simulations:
o 2018: Establish initial conditions using the No Action scenario results
o 2018 (March): Start dredging in the FFS Study Area
o 2028: Dredging activities end
o 2029: Placement of final backfill layer ends.
For the model run, it was assumed that each grid cell is a SMU. Dredging was assumed to
progress one SMU at a time. The conceptual design construction plan specifies that after
completing dredging at a specific SMU, a 1-foot layer of backfill would be placed in the SMU to
cover dredging residuals. After dredging is completed in all SMUs, a second 1-foot layer of
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-32
2014
backfill would be placed over the entire FFS Study Area. This approach was simulated in the
hydrodynamic and sediment transport models with changes in bathymetry to reflect grid cells
scheduled for dredging and backfilling at every time step. Upon completion of dredging within a
cell the composition of the bed was set to the backfill composition (see Section 4.3). In most
areas the backfill composition is sand with a one percent cohesive fraction and one tenth of a
percent organic carbon. In locations where mudflats are to be restored, the organic carbon
fraction would be six tenths of a percent, or one tenth of the cohesive fraction. Contaminant
concentrations are set to zero in the contaminant fate model in the individual cells representing a
SMU when dredging and backfilling are completed in the SMU.
The conceptual design for Alternative 2 is shown on Figure 4-5. Additional information on
material volumes is provided in Table 4-3.
Effectiveness
Model simulations predict a significant decline in surface sediment concentrations of COPCs and
COPECs in the FFS Study Area under Alternative 2 (Alternative 2 is represented by the orange
lines in Figures 4-3a through 4-3k), so this alternative, in conjunction with MNR and
institutional controls, would be protective of human health and the environment and would be
effective in meeting the RAOs and PRGs. From 2030 to 2059, under Alternative 2, average
2,3,7,8-TCDD surface sediment concentrations would decline by an order of magnitude relative
to current conditions, until they fluctuate around the proposed remediation goal (at HQ equal to
one); Total PCB concentrations would decline by over an order of magnitude relative to current
conditions, until they fluctuate around the proposed remediation goal (calculated at HQ equal to
one); Total DDx concentrations would decline by over an order of magnitude relative to current
conditions, until they fluctuate at a level about an order of magnitude higher than the proposed
remediation goal; and mercury concentrations would decline by over an order of magnitude
relative to current conditions, until they fluctuate around the proposed remediation goal. Future
risk levels are predicted to get close enough to protective goals that Alternative 2, in conjunction
with MNR, would achieve those goals relatively shortly beyond the model simulation period.
Model uncertainty bounds for surface sediment COPC concentrations (shown in Figures 4-3c, 43f, 4-3h, and 4-3k) show no overlap between Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 post-remediation.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-33
2014
The lack of an overlap in the uncertainty bounds indicates that the predicted surface sediment
concentrations of COPCs under Alternative 2 are significantly lower than corresponding
concentrations under Alternative 1.
The modeled cumulative gross contaminant flux from the bed resulting from resuspension of
sediments in the FFS Study Area under Alternative 2 is presented in Table 4-2 for the period
2030 to 2059. Implementation of Alternative 2, which is designed to remove the inventory of
contaminated sediment in the FFS Study Area, would significantly reduce the gross resuspension
flux from the bed into the water. In addition, lower tidal velocities resulting from the deeper
bathymetry following implementation of Alternative 2 reduce bed shear stresses that cause
resuspension. The modeled gross resuspension flux from the FFS Study Area under Alternative 2
would be lower by 63 percent, 53 percent, 56 percent and 48 percent for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total
PCB, Total DDx, and mercury, respectively, as compared to Alternative 1.
The modeled cumulative water column mass transport of contaminants towards Newark Bay at
RM0.9 for the period 2030 to 2059 is presented in Figures 4-4a through 4-4d. Implementation of
Alternative 2 would produce substantial reductions in the transport of contaminants in the water
column towards Newark Bay.
Under Alternative 2, the dominant carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazards to human
health and ecological receptors (benthic invertebrates, fish, piscivorous birds and mammals)
posed by the sediments with COPCs and COPECs would be significantly reduced after 2030.
There may be a risk of some adverse short-term impacts to human health and the environment
during the construction period due to the increased potential for exposure to the COPCs and
COPECs present in sediments resuspended during dredging. Measures to minimize and mitigate
such risks would be addressed in community and worker safety plans and by the use of dredging
best management practices. Sediment removal may result in short-term adverse impacts to the
river. These impacts would include biota in the water being exposed to higher concentrations of
contaminants than usually present in the water column due to resuspension of legacy sediments
during dredging and temporary loss of benthos and habitat for the ecological community in
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-34
2014
dredged areas. Risks due to resuspension could be minimized through the control of sediment
removal rate and other best management practices (see Appendix F). Placement of backfill
would cover residual sediments that may remain after dredging is completed (see Appendix F).
The continuous tidal action would result in benthic communities upstream of RM8.3 and in
Newark Bay re-colonizing the clean backfill in the FFS Study Area. Natural benthic recolonization following a disturbance is expected to be rapid and often full recovery to predisturbance species composition and abundance occurs within one to five years (see
Appendix F).
Sediment processing at the dewatering and transfer facilities (DMM Scenarios B and C) may
pose some short-term risks (e.g., spills, accidents) depending on the complexity of operations.
Risks due to stabilization using cement or other pozzolanic material are generally negligible with
proper handling of the reagent. More mechanically complex operations involving chemical
treatment may present somewhat greater risks. Short-term risks posed by emissions from thermal
treatment processes may be higher than those for other treatment processes like sediment
washing. However, these can be mitigated by the use of proper pollution controls. Transport of
contaminated sediments to off-site disposal or treatment facilities may pose some short-term
risks from spills or accidents although rail transport generally presents fewer risks than road
transport.
Under Alternative 2 with DMM Scenario A, the mobility of the COPCs and COPECs would be
effectively eliminated following placement in the CAD cells, although this would not be
accomplished through treatment but by sequestering the dredged sediments in the CAD cells
under an engineered cap that would need to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity. There
would be no reduction in the toxicity or volume of the COPCs and COPECs. With DMM
Scenarios B and C, the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the COPCs and COPECs would be
effectively reduced through treatment, satisfying the statutory preference under CERCLA. With
DMM Scenario B, approximately 10 percent of the dredged material is assumed to undergo
thermal destruction. With DMM Scenario C, approximately 10 percent of the dredged material is
assumed to undergo thermal treatment; 88 percent is assumed to undergo sediment washing; and,
2 percent is assumed to undergo solidification / stabilization.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-35
2014
Several pilot and treatability studies have addressed the technical feasibility of the different
systems in decontaminating dredged materials and reducing COPCs and COPECs
concentrations. However, the sediment washing pilot study results using Passaic River sediments
have been mixed (see Appendix G).
Implementability
Alternative 2 would be readily implementable from both the technical and administrative
standpoints. The remedial action as envisioned above could be constructed, operated, and
maintained within the site-specific and technology-specific regulations and constraints. Debris
removal, dredging, backfilling, CAD cell placement, dewatering, treatment, local and off-site
treatment, disposal, and beneficial use could all be implemented with proper planning of the
logistics and challenges involved in handling the large volumes of dredged materials. Depending
on the locations that are eventually selected, dewatering, water treatment, and transfer facilities
with good rail access and suitable wharf facilities are expected to be available or could be
developed. The remedial design would include procedures to more precisely locate utilities in the
FFS Study Area and determine appropriate dredging off-sets, as well as coordination with bridge
authorities regarding opening movable bridges when necessary.
The large volume of sediments to be removed would require significant coordination of the
dredging efforts, material handling activities, and off-site transportation logistics. No
insurmountable administrative difficulties are anticipated in getting the necessary regulatory
approvals for sediment removal or backfill placement. DMM Scenario A has been demonstrated
to be technically feasible. However, DMM Scenario A is likely to face significant administrative
and legal impediments, because the State of New Jersey is the owner of the bay bottom and
strongly opposes construction of a CAD site in Newark Bay. This opposition is likely to make
DMM Scenario A administratively infeasible. USFWS and NOAA also oppose construction of a
CAD site in Newark Bay. Since a large number of the activities are expected to occur on-site (as
defined under CERCLA Section 121(e)(1) and 40 CFR 300.5), federal, state and local permits
would not be required. Permits are expected to be obtained from the appropriate local, state and
federal agencies for actions that occur off-site. Key components of this alternative, including
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-36
2014
equipment and technical specialties and treatment, storage, and disposal services, are all
expected to be commercially available according to the proposed construction schedule
described above.
The sediment removal activities would result in some temporary disruption of commercial/
recreational uses and boating access during remediation. For this screening level assessment, the
implementability issues associated with shoreline disruption are assumed to be a function of the
length of shoreline that would be impacted. Although measures to mitigate or prevent impacts
and disruptions would be employed, local communities would be expected to experience some
measure of inconvenience during remedial activities. Measures that would be implemented in
conjunction with this alternative to minimize both short- and long-term disruption include:
•
Accommodation of existing boat traffic during construction, where feasible
•
Limited duration of the remediation period (a matter of months at any given location)
•
Shoreline stabilization and waterfront restoration
•
Control of sediment removal mechanics and rates.
Cost
Due to the large volume of sediments that would be removed from the FFS Study Area,
Alternative 2 would be expected to have the highest capital costs and present value (Table 4-3).
For Alternative 2, capital costs for debris removal, sediment removal, and backfill placement, are
higher than the costs of capping equivalent target areas (Alternative 3). O&M costs include costs
for monitoring of sediment, surface water, and biota, as well as the five-year reviews required by
CERCLA. In general, O&M costs for Alternative 2 would be lower than O&M costs for a
comparably sized capping alternative.
Conclusion
Alternative 2, in conjunction with MNR and institutional controls, would be protective of human
health and the environment and would be effective in meeting the RAOs and PRGs. Under
Alternative 2, the COPCs and COPECs present in fine-grained sediments within the FFS Study
Area would be permanently removed from the river. Based on the effectiveness,
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-37
2014
implementability and cost screening evaluation described above, Alternative 2 has been retained
for detailed analysis in Chapter 5.
4.4.4 Alternative 3: Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
Description
Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation evaluates a bank-to-bank remedy that
would place an engineered cap (or backfill where appropriate, as described below) bank-to-bank
over the FFS Study Area. Before cap placement, enough fine-grained sediment (4.3 million cy)
would be dredged so that the cap could be placed without causing additional flooding and to
accommodate continued use of the federally-authorized navigation channel between RM0 and
RM2.2. Enhanced outreach programs would be implemented to educate local communities about
the NJDEP fish and shellfish consumption advisories already in place. Additional institutional
controls would be implemented to maintain cap integrity in perpetuity, as described in
Section 4.2.1.
The anticipated sequence of dredging and capping would be from RM0 to RM2.2; RM8.3 to
RM2.2; and then the Kearny Point mudflats. In-river construction is estimated to take 4.5 years,
starting in 2018 and ending in 2023 with an additional 6 months to complete dredged material
processing.
Alternative 3 includes dredging the 300-foot wide federal navigation channel from RM0 to
RM2.2, to accommodate the reasonably-anticipated future use depths as determined with
reference to the USACE (2010) survey of commercial users described in Section 2.1 and
Appendix F. Where dredging depths coincide with the federally-authorized navigation channel
(RM0 to RM1.2), an additional three feet would be dredged to account for historical dredging
accuracy and over-dredging, followed by placement of two feet of backfill. Where future use
dredging depths are shallower than the authorized channel (RM1.2 to RM2.2), an additional
5.5 feet would be dredged to accommodate an engineered cap (including provisions for a cap
protection buffer and allowance for future maintenance dredging; refer to Table 4-1). Resulting
sediment removal depths are as follows (in MLW based on the 300-foot width):
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-38
2014
•
RM0 to RM1.2: 33 feet (resulting in a 30-foot deep navigation channel)
•
RM1.2 to RM1.7: 30.5 feet (resulting in a 25-foot deep navigation channel)
•
RM1.7 to RM2.2: 25.5 feet (resulting in a 20-foot deep navigation channel).
Between RM2.2 and RM8.3, enough dredging would be performed to prevent the engineered cap
from causing additional flooding and to provide a depth of at least 10 feet below MLW over a
200-foot width (except between RM8.1 and RM8.3 where dredging would be over a 150-foot
width) to accommodate reasonably anticipated recreational future uses above RM2.2. This
means dredging 2.5 feet below the existing sediment surface to accommodate the engineered
cap, with a relatively minimal amount of additional sediment removal to provide a depth of at
least 10 feet below MLW. Final dredging depths may be refined in the remedial design phase of
the project and would include enough dredging to ensure cap stability and integrity. Since the
depth after remediation in RM1.2 to RM8.3 would be shallower than the federally-authorized
navigation channel, it would be necessary to obtain modification of the authorized depth between
RM1.2 and RM2.2, and deauthorization of the navigation channel above RM2.2 under the
federal River and Harbors Act through USACE procedures and Congressional action. No
maintenance dredging of the navigation channel would occur in the future above RM2.2.
After sediment removal between RM0 and RM8.3 has been completed along the side slopes and
in shoal areas, it is likely that additional contaminant inventory would remain in place outside of
the targeted sediment removal areas. An engineered cap would be placed in these areas. Mudflats
disturbed by implementation of Alternative 3 would be reconstructed to their original grade. The
cap placed over the mudflat areas would consist of one foot of sand and one foot of mudflat
reconstruction (habitat) material (see Figure 2-1 in Appendix F). As part of the annual LongTerm Monitoring Program, the thickness of the engineered cap would be monitored and
maintained following implementation.
The dredged material removed from the FFS Study Area under Alternative 3 would be managed
in accordance with one of the three DMM scenarios described previously. Also, as described in
Section 4.2, institutional controls and MNR would be implemented after construction until PRGs
are met.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-39
2014
The model simulation for Alternative 3 assumed that the Tierra Removal and RM10.9 Removal
would be implemented. The model progression for Alternative 3 is as follows.
•
The Tierra Removal (Phases 1 and 2) and RM10.9 Removal were included in model
simulations under this alternative based on the same schedule presented for Alternative 1.
•
The following alternative specific schedule was used in the models simulations:
o 2018: Establish initial conditions using No Action
o 2018 (March): Start dredging and capping in the FFS Study Area
o 2023: Complete dredging activities and placement of the engineered cap.
For the model run, it was assumed that each grid cell is a SMU. Dredging was assumed to
progress one SMU at a time. The conceptual design construction plan specifies that after
completing dredging at a specific SMU, the 2-foot layer engineered cap or backfill is placed in
the SMU. This approach was simulated in the hydrodynamic and sediment transport models with
changes in bathymetry to reflect grid cells scheduled for dredging and capping at every time step.
After completion of dredging within a cell the composition of the bed was set to the capping
composition (see Section 4.3). In most areas that composition was sand with a one percent
cohesive fraction and one tenth of a percent organic carbon; in locations where mudflats would
be restored, the organic carbon fraction was set at six tenths of a percent, or one tenth of the
cohesive fraction. Contaminant concentrations were set to zero in the contaminant fate and
transport model in the individual cells representing a SMU when dredging and capping were
completed in the SMU.
The conceptual design for Alternative 3 is shown on Figure 4-6. Additional information on
material volumes is provided in Table 4-3.
Effectiveness
Model simulations predict a significant decline in surface sediment concentrations of COPCs and
COPECs in the FFS Study Area under Alternative 3 (Alternative 3 is represented by the green
lines in Figures 4-3a through 4-3k), so that this alternative, in conjunction with MNR and
institutional controls would be protective of human health and the environment and would be
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-40
2014
effective in meeting the RAOs and PRGs. From 2023 to 2059, under Alternative 3, average
2,3,7,8-TCDD surface sediment concentrations would decline by an order of magnitude relative
to current conditions, until they fluctuate around the proposed remediation goal (HQ equal to
one); Total PCB concentrations would decline by over an order of magnitude relative to current
conditions, until they fluctuate around the proposed remediation goal (HQ equal to one); Total
DDx concentrations would decline by over an order of magnitude relative to current conditions,
until they fluctuate at a level about an order of magnitude higher than the proposed remediation
goal; and mercury concentrations would decline by over an order of magnitude relative to current
conditions, until they fluctuate around the proposed remediation goal. Alternative 3, in
conjunction with MNR, would reduce human health risks to an acceptable range (HQ equal to
one; risk between 1 × 10-4 to 1 × 10-6) for COPCs and ecological risks would approach an HI
equal to one for COPECs.
Model uncertainty bounds for surface sediment COPC and COPEC concentrations (Figures 4-3c,
4-3f, 4-3h, and 4-3k) show no overlap between Alternative 3 and Alternative 1 post-remediation.
The lack of an overlap in the uncertainty bounds indicates that the predicted surface sediment
concentrations of COPCs under Alternative 3 are significantly lower than corresponding
concentrations under Alternative 1.
The modeled cumulative gross contaminant flux from the bed resulting from resuspension of
sediments in the FFS Study Area under Alternative 3 is presented in Table 4-2 for the period
2030 to 2059. Implementation of Alternative 3, which is designed to isolate the inventory of
contaminated sediment in the FFS Study Area, would significantly reduce the gross resuspension
flux from the sediment bed to the water column. The modeled gross resuspension flux from the
FFS Study Area under Alternative 3 would be lower by 45 percent, 35 percent, 30 percent and
25 percent for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCB, Total DDx and mercury, respectively, as compared to
Alternative 1.
The modeled cumulative water column mass transport of contaminants towards Newark Bay at
RM0.9 is presented in Figures 4-4a through 4-4d for the period 2030 to 2059. Implementation of
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-41
2014
Alternative 3 would produce substantial reductions in the transport of contaminants in the water
column towards Newark Bay.
Under Alternative 3, the dominant carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazards to human
health and ecological receptors (benthic invertebrates, fish, piscivorous birds and mammals)
posed by the sediments with COPCs and COPECs would be significantly reduced after 2030.
Alternative 3 would be effective in the long term in limiting exposure to risks posed by COPCs
and COPECs in the FFS Study Area sediments provided the integrity of the engineered cap is
maintained. Therefore, the cap would need to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity.
Engineered caps have been demonstrated to be effective in the long term in sequestering
contaminated sediments at other Superfund sites, when they are properly designed and
maintained.
As described under Alternative 2, during the construction period for Alternative 3, there may be
some adverse short-term impacts to human health and the environment due to the increased
potential for exposure to the COPCs and COPECs present in dredged materials. Measures to
minimize and mitigate such risks would be addressed in community and worker safety plans, and
by the use of best management practices. Sediment removal and engineered capping may result
in short-term adverse impacts to the river. These impacts would include biota in the water being
exposed to higher concentrations of contaminants than usually present in the water column due
to resuspension of legacy sediments during dredging and temporary loss of benthos and habitat
for the ecological community in dredged and capped areas. Risks due to resuspension could be
minimized through the control of sediment removal rate and other best management practices
(see Appendix F). The engineered cap would isolate residual sediments and un-targeted
inventory of contaminants remaining after dredging and capping are completed. The continuous
tidal action would result in the benthic community from upstream of RM8.3 and from Newark
Bay re-colonizing the clean backfill and engineered cap material in the FFS Study Area (see
Appendix F). Natural benthic re-colonization following a disturbance is expected to be rapid and
often full recovery to pre-disturbance species composition and abundance occurs within one to
five years (see Appendix F). Other short-term risks for Alternative 3 that can be attributed to
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-42
2014
processing and transport of contaminated sediments are similar to those discussed above under
the effectiveness evaluation for Alternative 2.
Under Alternative 3 with DMM Scenario A, the mobility of the COPCs and COPECs would be
effectively eliminated following placement in the CAD cells although this would not be
accomplished through treatment but by sequestering the dredged sediments in the CAD cells
under an engineered cap that would need to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity. There
would be no reduction in the toxicity or volume of the COPCs and COPECs. With DMM
Scenarios B and C, the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the COPCs and COPECs would be
effectively reduced through treatment, satisfying the statutory preference under CERCLA. With
DMM Scenario B, approximately 7 percent of the dredged material is assumed to require thermal
treatment. With DMM Scenario C, approximately 7 percent of the dredged material is assumed
to undergo thermal treatment, 92 percent is assumed to undergo sediment washing, and 1 percent
is assumed to undergo solidification / stabilization.
Several pilot and treatability studies have addressed the technical feasibility of the different
systems in decontaminating dredged materials and reducing COPCs and COPECs
concentrations. However, the sediment washing pilot study results using Passaic River sediments
have been mixed (see Appendix G).
Implementability
Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would be readily implementable from both the technical
and administrative standpoints. The remedial action as envisioned above could be constructed,
operated, and maintained within the site-specific and technology-specific regulations and
constraints. Debris removal, dredging, backfilling, engineered capping, CAD placement,
dewatering, treatment, local and off-site treatment, disposal, and beneficial use could be
implemented with proper planning of the logistics and challenges involved in handling the large
volumes of dredged materials. Depending on the facility location that is eventually selected,
dewatering, water treatment, and transfer facilities with good rail access and suitable wharf
facilities are expected to be available or could be developed. The remedial design would include
procedures to more precisely locate utilities in the FFS Study Area and determine appropriate
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-43
2014
dredging off-sets, as well as coordination with bridge authorities regarding opening movable
bridges when necessary.
The large volume of sediments to be removed would require significant coordination of the
dredging efforts, material handling activities, and off-site transportation logistics. No
insurmountable administrative difficulties would be anticipated in getting the necessary
regulatory approvals for sediment removal or backfill and engineered cap placement. DMM
Scenario A has been demonstrated to be technically feasible. However, DMM Scenario A is
likely to face significant administrative and legal impediments, because the State of New Jersey
is the owner of the bay bottom and strongly opposes construction of a CAD site in Newark Bay.
This opposition is likely to make DMM Scenario A administratively infeasible. USFWS and
NOAA also oppose construction of a CAD site in Newark Bay. Since a large number of the
activities are expected to occur on-site (as defined under CERCLA Section 121(e)(1) and
40 CFR 300.5), federal, state and local permits would not be required. Permits are expected to be
obtained from the appropriate local, state and federal agencies for actions that occur off-site. Key
components of this alternative, including equipment and technical specialties and treatment,
storage, and disposal services, are all expected to be commercially available according to the
proposed construction schedule described above.
The sediment removal as well as engineered cap and backfill placement activities would result in
some temporary disruption of commercial/ recreational uses and boating access during
remediation. For this screening level assessment, the implementability issues associated with
shoreline disruption are assumed to be a function of the length of shoreline that would be
impacted. Although measures to mitigate or prevent impacts and disruptions would be employed,
local communities would be expected to experience some measure of inconvenience during
remedial activities. Measures that would be implemented in conjunction with this alternative to
minimize both short- and long-term disruption include:
•
Accommodation of existing boat traffic during construction, where feasible
•
Limited duration of the remediation period (a matter of months at any given location)
•
Shoreline stabilization and waterfront restoration
•
Control of sediment removal and engineered cap placement mechanics and rates.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-44
2014
Cost
Due to the relatively large volume of sediment that would be removed from the FFS Study Area,
Alternative 3 would be expected to have high capital costs and present value (Table 4-3). For
Alternative 3, capital costs for debris removal, sediment removal, backfill and engineered cap
placement are lower than the costs of the complete dredging of equivalent target areas
(Alternative 2). In general, O&M costs for Alternative 3 would be significantly higher than
O&M costs for a complete dredging alternative for an equivalent area, as removal-only
alternatives do not result in in-river capped areas that require long-term maintenance for an
indefinite period. The O&M costs include costs for monitoring the condition of the cap as well as
sediment, surface water, and biota to prepare the five-year reviews required by CERCLA.
Conclusion
Alternative 3, in conjunction with MNR and institutional controls, would be protective of human
health and the environment and would be effective in meeting the RAOs and PRGs. Under
Alternative 3 some, but not all, of the fine-grained sediments within the FFS Study Area
contaminated with COPCs and COPECs would be permanently removed from the river; the rest
would be sequestered under an engineered cap that would have to be monitored and maintained
in perpetuity. Based on the effectiveness, implementability and cost screening evaluation
described above, Alternative 3 has been retained for detailed analysis in Chapter 5.
4.4.5 Alternative 4: Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
Description
Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding evaluates a remedy that is less than bank-to-bank
in scope. This alternative focuses on discrete areas of the FFS Study Area sediments that release
the most contaminants into the water column. It includes dredging of contaminated fine-grained
sediment in selected portions of the FFS Study Area with the highest gross and net fluxes of
COPCs and COPECs. Approximately 220 acres would be dredged and capped, or about one third
of the FFS Study Area surface. Dredging would occur to the targeted depth of 2.5 feet, so that an
engineered cap could be placed over the dredged portions without causing additional flooding
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-45
2014
(Figure 4-2). As part of the post-construction monitoring program, the thickness of the
engineered caps would be monitored and maintained following implementation. Alternative 4
would not include any dredging to accommodate the continued use of the federally-authorized
channel for navigation. Since the depths after remediation would be shallower than the
authorized channel depth from RM0 to RM8.3, it would be necessary to obtain deauthorization
of the federal navigation channel under the federal River and Harbors Act through USACE
procedures and Congressional action.
Enhanced outreach programs would be implemented to educate local communities about the
NJDEP fish and shellfish consumption advisories already in place. Additional institutional
controls would be implemented to maintain cap integrity in perpetuity, as described in
Section 4.2.1.
Mudflats disturbed by implementation of Alternative 4 would be reconstructed to their original
grade. The cap placed over the mudflat areas would consist of one foot of sand and one foot of
mudflat reconstruction (habitat) material (see Figure 2-1 in Appendix F).
The sequence of dredging and capping would be from RM8.3 to RM0. It is estimated that
1.0 million cy would be targeted for removal under Alternative 4. In-river construction for this
alternative is estimated to be 1.5 years starting in 2018 and ending in 2019, with an additional
six months to complete dredged material processing.
The model simulation for Alternative 4 assumed that the Tierra Removal and RM10.9 Removal
would be implemented. The model progression for Alternative 4 is as follows:
•
The Tierra Removal (Phases 1 and 2) and RM10.9 Removal were included in model
simulations under this alternative based on the same schedule presented for Alternative 1.
•
The following alternative specific schedule was used in the model:
o 2018: Establish initial conditions using No Action
o 2018 (March): Start dredging and capping in selected portions of the FFS Study Area
o 2020: Complete dredging activities and placement of the engineered cap.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-46
2014
For the model run, it was assumed that each grid cell was a SMU. Dredging was assumed to
progress one SMU at a time. The construction plan specifies that after completing dredging in a
specific SMU, a 2-foot layer of engineered cap would be placed in the SMU. This approach was
simulated in the hydrodynamic and sediment transport models with changes in bathymetry to
reflect grid cells scheduled for dredging and capping at every time step. Upon completion of
dredging within a cell the composition of the bed was set to the capping composition (see
Section 4.3). In most areas that composition was sand with a one percent cohesive fraction and
one tenth of a percent organic carbon. In locations where mudflats would be restored the organic
carbon fraction was set to six tenths of a percent or one tenth of the cohesive fraction.
Contaminant concentrations were set to zero in the contaminant fate model in the individual cells
representing a SMU when dredging and capping were completed in the SMU.
The dredged material removed from the FFS Study Area under Alternative 4 would be managed
in accordance with one of the three DMM scenarios described previously. Also as described in
Section 4.2, institutional controls and MNR would be implemented after construction.
The conceptual design for Alternative 4 is shown on Figure 4-7. Additional information on
material volumes is provided in Table 4-3.
Effectiveness
Alternative 4, even with MNR and institutional controls, would not be protective of human
health and the environment and would not be effective in meeting the RAOs and PRGs in the
foreseeable future. From 2029 to 2059, 2,3,7,8-TCDD surface sediment concentrations in the
FFS Study Area would be well over an order of magnitude above the proposed remediation goal;
concentrations of Total PCB, Total DDx, and mercury would approach background
concentrations although they would remain an order of magnitude (for Total PCBs and mercury)
and two orders of magnitude (for Total DDx) above the proposed remediation goals. Human
health risks would not achieve an acceptable range (HQ equal to one; risk between 1 × 10-4 and
1 × 10-6) for COPCs and ecological risks would significantly exceed an HI equal to one for
COPECs.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-47
2014
Model uncertainty bounds for surface sediment COPC and COPEC concentrations (Figures 4-3c,
4-3f, 4-3h, and 4-3k) show overlap between Alternative 4 and Alternative 1 post-remediation,
except for Total DDx. This overlap in the uncertainty bounds indicates that the predicted surface
sediment concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCB, and mercury under Alternative 4, while
slightly lower than corresponding concentrations under Alternative 1, do not show a statistically
significant difference.
The modeled cumulative gross contaminant flux resulting from resuspension of sediments in the
FFS Study Area for Alternative 4 is presented in Table 4-2 for the period 2030 to 2059.
Implementation of Alternative 4 would not significantly reduce the gross resuspension flux
because it is less than bank-to-bank in scope and would leave areas of contaminated sediment
unremediated. The modeled gross resuspension flux from the FFS Study Area under
Alternative 4 would be lower by 18 percent, 6 percent and 5 percent for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total
PCB, Total DDx, respectively, with no change in the mercury flux as compared to Alternative 1.
The modeled cumulative water column mass transport of contaminants towards Newark Bay at
RM0.9 for the period 2030 to 2059 is presented in Figures 4-4a through 4-4d. Implementation of
Alternative 4 would not produce substantial reductions in the transport of contaminants in the
water column towards Newark Bay.
Short term impacts to the community, workers and the environment would be similar to those
discussed above under the effectiveness evaluation for Alternatives 2 and 3, although the shorter
construction duration and smaller volume of sediment being handled under Alternative 4 would
reduce the scale of those potential impacts.
Under Alternative 4 with DMM Scenario A, the mobility of the COPCs and COPECs would be
effectively eliminated following placement in the CAD cells, although this would not be
accomplished through treatment, but by sequestering the dredged sediments in the CAD cells
under an engineered cap that would need to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity. There
would be no reduction in the toxicity or volume of the COPCs and COPECs. With DMM
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-48
2014
Scenarios B and C, the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the COPCs and COPECs would be
effectively reduced through treatment and satisfy the statutory preference under CERCLA. With
DMM Scenario B, approximately 4 percent of the dredged material is assumed to require thermal
destruction. With DMM Scenario C, approximately 4 percent of the dredged material is assumed
to undergo thermal treatment, 94 percent is assumed to undergo sediment washing, and 2 percent
is assumed to undergo solidification / stabilization.
Several pilot and treatability studies have addressed the technical feasibility of the different
systems in decontaminating dredged materials and reducing COPCs and COPECs
concentrations. However, the sediment washing pilot study results using Passaic River sediments
have been mixed (see Appendix G).
Implementability
The screening level implementability evaluation for Alternative 4 is similar to that for
Alternative 3 above, except that Alternative 4 may face an additional administrative
implementability challenge with respect to obtaining deauthorization of the federally-authorized
navigation channel in the lower 2.2 miles of the river, where a USACE study has shown
commercial navigation is ongoing and is projected to continue in the future.
Cost
Due to the relatively smaller volume of sediments that would be removed from the FFS Study
Area, Alternative 4 would be expected to have relatively moderate capital costs and present
value (Table 4-3). For Alternative 4, capital costs for debris removal, sediment removal, backfill
and engineered cap placement, dewatering and water treatment, on-site treatment, off-site
transportation, and disposal in a CAD site or off-site landfill or off-site treatment would be lower
than the costs for Alternative 3. The O&M costs include costs for monitoring of sediment,
surface water, and biota, as well as the five-year reviews required by CERCLA.
Conclusion
Although Alternative 4 is not effective in meeting RAOs and PRGs within a reasonable time
frame and is not protective of human health and the environment, it has been retained for
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-49
2014
detailed analysis to serve as a basis for comparison with the other active remedial alternatives
that are all bank-to-bank in scope.
4.5 Summary of Remedial Alternatives Retained for Detailed Analysis
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 have been retained for detailed analysis in Chapter 5.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
4-50
2014
5
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Chapter 5 presents a detailed description and analysis of the four remedial alternatives retained in
Chapter 4. The detailed analysis, through nine criteria required under CERCLA and the NCP,
provides the means by which facts are assembled and evaluated to develop the rationale for a
remedy selection.
5.1 Evaluation Process and Evaluation Criteria
The NCP provides nine key criteria to address the CERCLA requirements for analysis of
remedial alternatives. The first two criteria are threshold criteria that must be met by each
alternative. The next five criteria are the primary balancing criteria upon which the analysis is
based. The final two criteria are referred to as modifying criteria and are applied to evaluate state
and community acceptance. The two modifying criteria will be evaluated following comments
on the Proposed Plan and will be described in USEPA’s ROD for the FFS Study Area.
The two threshold criteria are:
•
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
•
Compliance with ARARs.
The five primary balancing criteria upon which the analysis is based are:
•
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
•
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through Treatment
•
Short-Term Effectiveness
•
Implementability
•
Cost.
The two modifying criteria are:
•
State Acceptance
•
Community Acceptance.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-1
2014
Brief discussions of each of the nine criteria and their application to remedial alternatives for the
FFS Study Area are presented in the sections below.
5.1.1 Threshold Criterion 1: Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This criterion draws on the assessments conducted under other evaluation criteria, especially
long-term effectiveness and permanence, short-term effectiveness, and compliance with ARARs,
and provides an overall assessment as to whether each alternative adequately protects human
health and the environment. It describes how risks associated with each exposure pathway would
be eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering, or institutional controls.
Specific information on the risk assessments on which this evaluation is based can be found in
Chapter 7 of the RI Report and Appendix D.
Protection of Human Health
For the FFS, the protection of human health for each remedial alternative is assessed
quantitatively through calculation of both carcinogenic health risks and non-cancer health
hazards for the adult angler and family members (adolescent and child), and their exposure to
COPCs associated with consumption of self-caught fish and blue crab over a 30-year exposure
duration post remediation (i.e., starting in 2019 for Alternative 1; 2030 for Alternative 2; 2023
for Alterative 3; and 2020 for Alternative 4). The project schedule assumed for FFS evaluation
purposes and presented graphically in Figure 1-1 of Appendix H, reflects the time required to
conduct predesign investigation, remedial design, and DMM facility construction. Note that all
alternatives assume that the Tierra Removal (Phase 1 and 2 30) and RM10.9 Removal have been
completed prior to the post remediation period, since they are governed by existing agreements
(refer to Chapter 4 for initial conditions established for model runs for all alternatives). The
following table presents a summary of the dates discussed in this chapter.
30
The agreement for Phase 2 of the Tierra Removal contemplates the siting of a CDF as a receptacle for the dredged materials, which has not
been done to date. If Phase 2 has not been implemented by the start of the FFS Study Area remediation, then USEPA expects that Phase 2 would
be implemented in conjunction with the FFS Study Area remedy in a coordinated and consistent manner. The project schedule assumed for FFS
evaluation purposes includes implementation of Phase 2 at the same time as the active remedial alternatives.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-2
2014
Alternative
Start of Modeled
End of Modeled
Start of Post
End of Post
End of
In-River
In-River
Remediation
Remediation
Modeled
Remediation
Remediation1
Exposure Period2
Exposure Period2
Period
2018
2019
2048
2029
2030
2059
2022
2023
2052
2019
2020
2049
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
2018
Alternative 4
2059
Notes:
1. Variations in estimated start and end years associated with the modeling may deviate slightly from estimated dates used in the cost estimates
(Figure 1-1 of Appendix H) based on initial assumptions. In general the differences were minor and resulted in completion dates for the model
and costs estimates that were within six months of each other.
2. Time period used for risk assessment purposes. The 30-year exposure period begins with the year immediately following completion of the
modeled remedial construction and ends 30 years post remediation.
Protection of the Environment
In the FFS, similar to protection of human health, protection of the environment is assessed
through the evaluation of risks to ecological receptors and the upstream and downstream
migration of COPCs and COPECs over the same 30-year time period. The risks to ecological
receptors (specifically blue crab, fish [multi-species composite], mummichogs, generic fish eggs,
herring gull and cormorant eggs, mink, and great blue heron) are addressed quantitatively
through calculation of NOAEL/LOAEL-based HQs. Upstream and downstream migration of
COPCs and COPECs are evaluated through modeled projections of contaminant loads
transported from the FFS Study Area to upstream portions of the Lower Passaic River and to
Newark Bay and the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary.
5.1.2 Threshold Criterion 2: Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives are assessed as to whether they attain legally applicable or relevant and appropriate
federal and state environmental requirements, standards, criteria and limitations, and state facility
siting laws, which are collectively referred to as “ARARs” (see Section 2.3) unless such ARARs
are waived under CERCLA Section 121(d)(4).
USEPA may select a remedial action that does not attain a particular ARAR under certain
conditions outlined in CERCLA Section 121(d)(4) and the NCP. These waivers are discussed in
Section 2.2.2.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-3
2014
5.1.3 Primary Balancing Criterion 1: Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives are assessed on the long-term effectiveness and permanence they afford and the
degree of certainty that the alternative would prove successful. Factors that may be considered,
according to the NCP and RI/FS Guidance (USEPA, 1988), are as follows:
•
Magnitude of residual risks in terms of amounts and concentrations of wastes remaining
following implementation of a remedial action, considering the persistence, toxicity,
mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate of such hazardous substances and their
constituents.
•
Long-term reliability and adequacy of the engineering and institutional controls,
including uncertainties associated with land disposal of untreated wastes and residuals.
•
Remedy replacement and the continuing need for repairs/maintenance.
The time period for the long-term effectiveness and permanence evaluation starts at the end of
the short-term, or in-river, remediation period, with the end dates varying as shown in the
summary table presented under Section 5.1.1.
Magnitude of Residual Risks
The magnitude of residual risks for each alternative is based on both human health and
ecological effects. Additional information is provided in Appendix D.
Long-Term Effectiveness – Human Health Evaluation
The process of evaluating modeled future risks uses essentially the same set of COPCs and the
same risk assessment methodology, including potential exposure scenarios and assumptions, as
presented in the baseline risk assessment described in Appendix D. The exceptions are that for
purposes of comparing modeled relative risk reductions, carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic
health hazards are estimated only for the RME individual and only for the adult angler/sportsman
and the child who consumes the adult’s catch (see Table 5-1). In addition, one COPC, dieldrin, is
not included in the future risk evaluation, because the model was unable to forecast future
concentrations (due to an inability to complete a mass balance; see Appendices B, C, and D for
more information).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-4
2014
The exposure point concentrations (EPCs) for future exposures were based on modeled annual
average projections of future contaminant concentrations in sediment that consider natural
attenuation and degradation over time (as described in Appendix D). EPCs were derived to
represent the ranges of concentrations that may be contacted over a 30-year exposure period,
comparable to the manner in which concentrations were assessed in the baseline current risk
assessment and consistent with USEPA guidance (1989). The 30-year exposure period of the No
Action alternative, begins in 2019 and ends in 2048. A 6-year exposure period is used for the
child, and a 24-year exposure period is used for the adult. Although concentrations of the COPCs
exhibit an overall decreasing trend over time, concentrations continue to fluctuate throughout
that time period due to storm-driven resuspension of contaminated sediments (at temporally and
spatially varying rates and concentrations) from within, upstream, or downstream of the FFS
Study Area. In order to capture these fluctuations in concentrations over the 30-year exposure
period, the maximum of 6- and 24-year rolling averages were summed 31 and used to estimate
EPCs for the child and adult scenarios.
The long-term human health modeled risk reduction calculations for fish and blue crab ingestion
for each alternative are presented in Section 5.2; more detail is provided in Appendix D.
Long-Term Effectiveness – Ecological Assessment
The ecological assessment is based on modeled effects for the receptors identified in
Section 5.1.1. HQs are calculated for both the NOAEL and the LOAEL to provide a range of
exposure risks.
The process used to evaluate potential future ecological risks is similar to that described above
for future human health risks. The same risk assessment methodology, including receptors,
potential exposure scenarios and assumptions, as presented in the baseline risk assessment
(Appendix D), was followed. However, two COPECs, LMW PAHs and dieldrin, were not
included in the future risk evaluation because the model was unable to forecast future
31
For example, for Alternative 1, for the child, averages of modeled COPC concentrations were calculated over 6-year periods for 2019 to 2025,
2020 to 2026, 2021 to 2027 and so on, while for the adult, averages of modeled COPC concentrations were calculated over 24-year periods, for
2019 to 2033, 2020 to 2034, 2021 to 2034 and so on. The maximum of the rolling 6-year averages was added to the maximum of the rolling 24year averages for use as the EPC for the COPC.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-5
2014
concentrations (due to an inability to complete mass balances; see Appendices B, C, and D for
more information). In addition, the evaluation of potential future ecological risks to the egg life
stage of birds and fish, part of the baseline assessment, was not conducted because future
trajectories for individual dioxin/furan and PCB congeners were not modeled. For these
constituents, a single sediment EPC for the FFS Study Area was evaluated. The EPC was not
evaluated separately for the entire sediment surface and the mudflats (shoals) as evaluated in the
baseline ecological assessment, because the model grid resolution was not sufficient to resolve
estimates of small individual mudflats.
Rather than the 95 percent upper confidence limits on the arithmetic mean COPEC
concentration, the EPCs for future exposures were based on annual average projections of
modeled concentrations in sediment that considered natural attenuation and degradation over
time (as described in Appendix D). Two separate time periods were evaluated for each remedial
alternative: one beginning with the year immediately following the completion of the
remediation and the other 30 years thereafter (see Tables 5-2a through 5-2c). In the case of the
No Action alternative, the time periods considered were 2019 and 2048. For each time period,
the average annual COPEC concentrations were used to estimate prey (and in some cases,
receptor) tissue concentrations using the uptake models described in Data Evaluation Report
No.6 in Appendix A. Future modeled tissue concentrations were used along with the projected
sediment concentrations to evaluate risks associated with ingested contaminant doses as well as
tissue residues as was done in the baseline assessment.
Adequacy and Reliability of Controls
This factor assesses the adequacy and suitability of controls, if any, that are used to manage
untreated wastes or treatment residuals that remain at the site. It includes an assessment of
containment systems (i.e., the engineered cap is a major component of two of the alternatives as
well as in DMM Scenario A for the three active remedial alternatives) and institutional controls
to determine if they are sufficient to ensure that exposures to humans and ecological receptors
are within protective levels. It also addresses the long-term reliability of these controls in
providing protection from residuals. This assessment is discussed in greater detail in the
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-6
2014
alternative-specific analysis of this criterion. Additional information is provided in Appendices F
and G.
Remedy Replacement and the Continuing Need for Repairs/Maintenance
Two design elements may require maintenance or other activities over the long term: the
engineered cap and monitoring. Maintenance of an engineered cap is a major component of two
of the active remedial alternatives as well as DMM Scenario A for all three of the active
remedial alternatives. Maintenance and repair of the engineered cap would be performed in
perpetuity. Monitoring, involving measurement of COPC and COPEC concentrations in
sediment, water column, and biota is another long-term component of the three active remedial
alternatives.
Both monitoring and cap maintenance requirements are discussed in other evaluation criteria.
Additional information on monitoring and cap maintenance is provided in Appendices F, G,
and H.
5.1.4 Primary Balancing Criterion 2: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through
Treatment
CERCLA expresses a preference for remedial alternatives employing treatment technologies that
permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances.
Relevant factors include:
•
The treatment processes that the alternatives employ and the materials they would treat
•
The amount of hazardous materials that would be destroyed or treated
•
The degree of expected reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume
•
The degree to which the treatment is irreversible
•
The type and quantity of residuals 32 that would remain following treatment, considering
the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate of such hazardous
substances and their constituents
32
Treatment residuals are contaminated materials that may be by-products of the treatment process and/or result from incomplete treatment.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-7
2014
•
The alternative’s ability to satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element.
5.1.5 Primary Balancing Criterion 3: Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to implement the remedy and the
adverse impacts that may be posed to workers, the community, and the environment during
construction and operation of the remedy until remedial response objectives are achieved.
For the FFS, the short-term, or in-river remediation period, includes the time from initiation of
remedial activities, assumed to be in the year 2018 for all alternatives based on the anticipated
project schedule discussed in Chapter 4 and presented in Section 5.1.1, through the alternativespecific completion of construction activities (i.e., 2029 for Alternative 2, 2022 for Alternative 3,
and 2019 for Alternative 4).
5.1.6 Primary Balancing Criterion 4: Implementability
This criterion addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing a remedy
from design through construction and operation. Factors such as the availability of services and
materials and coordination with other governmental entities are considered.
5.1.7 Primary Balancing Criterion 5: Cost
An estimate of the cost for each alternative is made so that those alternatives that achieve the two
threshold criteria to equal or similar degrees can be differentiated. The typical cost estimate
made during an FS is intended to provide an accuracy of +50 percent to -30 percent, as discussed
in the USEPA RI/FS guidance (1988). Individual costs are evaluated through a sensitivity
analysis if there is sufficient uncertainty concerning specific assumptions (see Section 5.3.2). A
sensitivity analysis is performed for those factors that can substantially change overall costs of an
alternative with only small changes in their values, especially if such factors have a high degree
of uncertainty associated with them. The types of costs that are assessed include capital and
O&M costs.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-8
2014
•
Capital Costs: This category includes direct costs related to construction, such as for
equipment, labor, materials, transportation and disposal, as well as indirect costs
associated with regulatory and legal activities, engineering, services during construction,
and contingencies.
•
O&M Costs: These costs include labor and materials associated with operation and
maintenance following the remedial action, such as operating a wastewater treatment
plant, long-term monitoring costs or periodic site reviews. The USEPA RI/FS guidance
(1988) recommends that O&M costs not be determined for longer than 30 years due to
their normally de minimis impact on the present value beyond that point.
•
Present Value (PV): Given the variations in the timing of work on each alternative to
allow a comparison of costs on an equivalent basis, the costs for each Alternative/DMM
Scenario combination were converted to a PV which represents the project’s monetary
value at a single point in time regardless of the actual date of each expenditure. Future
costs are discounted back to the present using a standard discount rate. The PV was
calculated based on a seven percent discount rate as recommended in guidance (USEPA,
2000). Constant dollar (no inflation) valuations were used also per USEPA guidance.
Figure 1-1 in Appendix H shows the anticipated project schedule that was used in the PV
analysis. The PV for each of the Alternatives and DMM Scenarios combinations is
presented in Table 5-3.
The capital and O&M cost estimates incorporated in this FFS were generated using information
from a variety of published and unpublished sources including RS Means, internal cost
databases, and communications with contractors, suppliers, vendors and other professionals
engaged in similar activities. Where appropriate, costs were based on delivery of goods and
services to Newark, New Jersey. Costs are presented in 2014 dollars (refer to Appendix H for
additional details).
Demolition and site remediation costs at the upland processing site (DMM location) are not
included in the cost estimate. Given the likely location of potential upland support or processing
facility sites in an urban industrial area, it is not unreasonable to assume that some remedial
activities would be required on the property before it can developed for the proposed project.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-9
2014
However, due to the unknown scope of this work, it is not possible to estimate these costs.
Similarly, costs for structural improvements to the soil at the site were not included in the cost
estimate. A variety of soil conditions exist in upland sites along the Lower Passaic River and
Newark Bay which would affect site development and it is not possible at this stage to determine
which conditions are likely to apply to the selected site. These conditions would impact each of
the remedial alternatives evaluated since each DMM scenario includes either an upland support
facility or an upland sediment processing facility. DMM Scenarios B and C with large upland
processing sites have the most potential to be impacted by these conditions; DMM Scenario A
with a small upland support site would have the least potential for impact. These factors would
need to be addressed during the site selection process. The costs for USEPA oversight are also
not included.
It is assumed that construction would be performed under multiple prime contracts procured by
the lead entity, not by a single prime/general contractor. A ten percent construction management
fee and a six percent design fee applied to construction phase capital costs (not including preconstruction activities costs) are included in the cost estimates. A twenty-five percent
contingency on costs, except construction management, is included in the cost estimates.
Further information on and detailed results from the cost estimating effort can be found in
Appendix H. Output from the cost estimation effort is summarized in this chapter for each
remedial alternative that is subject to detailed evaluation.
Present Value Analysis
For the alternatives that involve active remediation, the following timeline was used to calculate
the PV: pre-construction activities, design, and upland processing facility construction was
assumed to be conducted through 2017 and remediation (dredging, capping material processing
and disposal) was assumed to be conducted from 2018 through the alternative-specific
completion of construction activities (refer to Figure 1-1 of Appendix H), depending on the
remedial alternative. Costs for post-remediation monitoring and O&M are calculated for a
30-year period starting after remediation is complete for the three active remedial alternatives.
The No Action alternative has a PV of $0.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-10
2014
5.1.8 Modifying Criterion 1: State Acceptance
This criterion provides the government of the state where the project is located - in this case, the
State of New Jersey - with the opportunity to assess technical or administrative issues and
concerns regarding each of the alternatives. State acceptance is not addressed in this FFS but will
be addressed in the ROD for the FFS Study Area. Input and review of major RI/FFS documents
by the State of New Jersey was sought and considered throughout the development of the FFS.
5.1.9 Modifying Criterion 2: Community Acceptance
The alternatives evaluated in the FFS and the preferred remedy described in the Proposed Plan
will be presented to the public. Community acceptance will then be evaluated in the ROD for the
FFS Study Area. Issues raised by the community will be discussed in the Responsiveness
Summary of the ROD, which will respond to public questions and concerns on the FFS and
Proposed Plan. Input from the public, potentially responsible parties and interested stakeholders
was sought and considered throughout development of the FFS. This occurred through various
technical Workgroup sessions organized by USEPA, monthly Community Advisory Group
(CAG) meetings, meetings with the CPG, publication of information on the project website
www.ourPassaic.org, in ListServ notices, and other activities consistent with the Community
Involvement Plan (June 2006).
5.2 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives
5.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action (described in Section 4.4.2)
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 would not be protective of human health and the environment. Under Alternative 1,
the resuspension of contaminated sediments in the FFS Study Area would continue to impact
surface sediments and biota so that the unacceptable risks to humans and the environment
calculated in the baseline risk assessments would continue for the foreseeable future. Sediment
coring data show some decline in surface sediment concentrations over time due to natural
recovery processes, although these processes have slowed considerably over approximately the
past 15 years as the federally-authorized navigation channel has filled in and the river has begun
to reach a quasi-steady state. Modeling results for Alternative 1 (represented by the red lines in
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-11
2014
Figures 4-3a through 4-3k) show that the decline in concentrations is extremely slow, so that in
the period of 2019 to 2048 (30-year period chosen in order to allow comparison to the 30-year
period after remediation for the active remedial alternatives), human health total cancer risk (sum
for the adult and child for all contaminants) would be 4 × 10-3 and 2 × 10-3 for fish and crab
consumption, respectively (Table 5-1). The total non-cancer HIs for the adult would be 90 and
40 for fish and crab consumption, respectively, and for the child would be 163 and 71,
respectively (Table 5-1). By the end of that 30 year period, total ecological HQs for benthic
invertebrates would range from 40 to 300; for fish HQs would range from 10 to 200; and, for
wildlife HQs would range from 2 to 700 (Tables 5-2a through 5-2c). Since under Alternative 1
risk levels would remain one to well over two orders of magnitude above protective goals after
the 30 year post-remediation period, it would not be reasonable to expect natural recovery
processes to achieve protective goals in the foreseeable future beyond the modeling simulation
period.
The transport of contaminants from the FFS Study Area upstream to the Lower Passaic River
above RM8.3 and downriver into Newark Bay is projected to continue unabated under
Alternative 1. In the upstream portion of the Lower Passaic River between RM8.3 and RM17
(refer to red line in Figures 5-1a through 5-1d), surface sediment concentrations for 2,3,7,8TCDD, Total PCB, Total DDx and mercury were estimated to decline by less than one percent
per year between 2019 and 2059. Significant storm events (such as Hurricane Irene) and other
high flow events (in April 2007 and March 2010 flows of over 15,000 cubic feet per second were
measured at Little Falls) in the model hydrograph were evident in the model simulation results as
fluctuations in surface sediment concentrations. Because the model hydrograph was repeated in
15-year cycles, these events are evident as cyclical perturbations in the simulated future surface
sediment concentrations. It should be noted that differences in temporal patterns between the
four alternatives are due to the differences in dredging and capping schedule assumptions in the
model.
The modeled cumulative gross contaminant flux from the bed resulting from resuspension of
sediments in the FFS Study Area under Alternative 1 is presented in Table 4-2 for the period
from 2030 to 2059. This period (2030 to 2059) was evaluated so as to maintain the same
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-12
2014
hydrologic conditions across all of the alternatives. For Alternative 1, the total gross
resuspension from the FFS Study Area was estimated to be 0.9 kg of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,100 kg of
Total PCBs, 230 kg for Total DDx 33, and 3,500 kg for mercury. The greater cumulative
resuspension from the FFS Study Area under Alternative 1 would indicate greater export upriver
and into Newark Bay. The modeled cumulative water column mass transport of contaminants
towards Newark Bay at RM0.9 is presented in Figures 4-4a through 4-4d for the period 2030 to
2059. The transport of contaminants under Alternative 1 is higher than corresponding values
under Alternatives 2 and 3.
Compliance with ARARs
There are currently no chemical-specific state or federal ARARs for sediment management.
Alternative 1 would not contribute significantly toward eventual achievement of federal and state
surface water ARARs. Since there is no active remediation associated with this alternative,
action-and location-specific ARARs do not apply.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Magnitude of Residual Risks
Alternative 1 would not be effective in addressing the contaminated sediments that are causing
the unacceptable risks identified in the baseline risk assessments. Natural recovery processes
would cause some decline in surface sediment concentrations over time, but modeling results
(see red line in Figures 4-3a through 4-3k) for Alternative 1 show that, by the end of the 30-year
post remediation period, FFS Study Area surface sediment concentrations would remain far
above any of the proposed remediation goals or background levels for any COPC and COPEC.
•
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, by the end of the 30-year post-remediation period, FFS Study Area
surface sediment concentrations would remain well over an order of magnitude higher
than the proposed remediation goal.
•
For Total PCBs, Total DDx and mercury, by the end of the 30-year post-remediation
period, surface sediment concentrations would remain almost twice as high as
33
In the FFS, Total DDx = Sum of 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD) and 4.4’dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE).Total DDx does not include 2,4 DDx.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-13
2014
background concentrations and over an order of magnitude (for Total PCBs and mercury)
or two orders of magnitude (for Total DDx) higher than the proposed remediation goal.
Adequacy and Reliability of Controls
NJDEP could continue to implement fish and shellfish consumption advisories which rely on
voluntary compliance. However, studies show that the existing advisories are not sufficiently
effective in protecting human health since, despite their presence, some anglers still eat their
catch and bring their catch home for their families to eat (NJDEP, 1995; May and Burger, 1996;
Burger et al, 1999; Kirk-Pflugh et al, 1999 and 2011). In addition, consumption advisories are
ineffective in reducing risk to ecological receptors. No institutional controls or containment
systems would be implemented as part of a CERCLA response action for the FFS Study Area
under Alternative 1.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through Treatment
Under Alternative 1, natural recovery processes would potentially reduce COPC and COPEC
concentrations in sediments; however there is no mechanism included in this alternative to
measure or confirm such reductions. Under this alternative there would be no reduction of
toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants through treatment.
Short-Term Effectiveness
As discussed above, Alternative 1 is not effective in meeting RAOs and PRGs in a reasonable
timeframe (more than 30 years). Since there is no construction planned, there are no related
impacts on the community or workers, and no adverse environmental impacts from remedial
actions.
Implementability
There are no implementability issues with Alternative 1.
Cost
If Alternative 1 were selected, no action would be taken to address the contamination in the FFS
Study Area at this time. Therefore, no costs were included in this FFS associated with this
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-14
2014
alternative. Further remedial decision-making would be addressed as part of the 17-mile LPRSA
RI/FS process.
5.2.2 Alternative 2: Deep Dredging with Backfill (described in Section 4.4.3)
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 2, in conjunction with MNR and institutional controls, would be protective of human
health and the environment. Alternative 2 would address the unacceptable risks calculated in the
baseline risk assessments by removing the extensive inventory of contaminated fine-grained
sediments between RM0 to RM8.3 (approximately 9.7 million cy). Dredging residuals that
remain within the FFS Study Area after construction would be covered by a two-foot layer of
backfill. The extent to which the surface sediments in the FFS Study Area would be recontaminated would be determined by the influx, mixing, and deposition of sediment that enters
from above Dundee Dam, from between the dam and RM8.3, and from Newark Bay. The FFS
Study Area is the major source of COPCs and COPECs to the river above RM8.3 and to Newark
Bay; so removing those sediments would reduce that source of contamination to those areas,
thereby reducing the contamination brought back into the FFS Study Area from those areas over
time.
Modeling predicts that Alternative 2 would reduce risks by an order of magnitude after remedial
construction, so that in the 30-year period after construction, the human health total cancer risk
(for the adult and child for all COPCs) would be 5 × 10-4 and 4 × 10-4 for fish and crab
consumption, respectively (Table 5-1). The non-cancer HIs for an adult would be 10 and 7 for
fish and crab consumption, respectively, and for a child would be 22 and 15 for fish and crab
consumption, respectively (Table 5-1). Thirty years after construction, total ecological HQs for
benthic invertebrates would range from 4 to 30; for fish would range from 2 to 20; and, for
wildlife would range from 0.8 to 40 (Tables 5-2a through 5-2c). Future risk levels are predicted
to get close enough to protective goals that Alternative 2, in conjunction with MNR processes,
would achieve those goals relatively shortly beyond the model simulation period. During the
relatively short time until protective goals would be reached, an intensive outreach effort to
increase public awareness of institutional controls, such as NJDEP’s fish and crab consumption
advisories, could be implemented to maintain some protectiveness for human health.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-15
2014
The transport of contaminants from the FFS Study Area to the Lower Passaic River above
RM8.3 and into Newark Bay is projected to significantly decline under Alternative 2. The
modeled cumulative gross contaminant flux from the bed resulting from resuspension of
sediment in the FFS Study Area is presented in Table 4-2 for the period 2030 to 2059.
Implementation of Alternative 2 would significantly reduce the gross resuspension flux from this
area. The modeled gross resuspension flux from the FFS Study Area under Alternative 2 would
be reduced by 70 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent and 50 percent for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCB,
Total DDx, and mercury, respectively, as compared to Alternative 1. These reductions in gross
resuspension in the FFS Study Area would result in substantial reductions in the transport of
contaminants in the water column towards Newark Bay from 2030 to 2059 (see Figures 4-4a
through 4-4d).
Following remediation, under Alternative 2 surface sediment concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
upstream of the FFS Study Area would remain lower than under Alternative 1. Over the 30-year
post-remediation period, the average surface sediment concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD would be
approximately 25 percent lower than the corresponding average values upstream of the FFS
Study Area under Alternative 1; the average surface sediment concentrations of Total PCB, Total
DDx and mercury would be approximately 5 to 20 percent lower upstream of the FFS Study
Area compared to corresponding averages for Alternative 1.
For DMM Scenario A, an engineered cap would be placed over the CAD cells in Newark Bay
sequestering the contaminated sediment from the bay; the cap would be monitored and
maintained in perpetuity. For DMM Scenarios B and C, no such monitoring or maintenance
would be required after construction is completed; contaminated sediment would either be placed
in a commercially operated facility or treated to decontaminate the sediment allowing its
beneficial use.
Compliance with ARARs
There are currently no chemical-specific state or federal ARARs for sediment management.
Alternative 2 would satisfy the location-specific and action-specific ARARs (see Table 2-1a).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-16
2014
Alternative 2 is designed to address sediment contamination in the FFS Study Area. Although
remediation of contaminated sediment would contribute to improved water quality,
implementation of Alternative 2, by itself, would be unlikely to achieve compliance with ARARs
in the water column. However, because this FFS only addresses the sediment portion of the
Lower Passaic River and is only part of the remedial activities under consideration for the
17-mile Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay, compliance with surface water ARARs would
more likely be achieved after additional response actions have been implemented.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Under Alternative 2, approximately 9.7 million cy of contaminated fine-grained sediments
covering approximately 650 acres of river bottom between RM0 and RM8.3 would be
permanently removed from the ecosystem of the Lower Passaic River and would no longer
contaminate surface sediments and biota, or pose unacceptable impacts to humans and the
environment after construction is completed in 2029.
Magnitude of Residual Risks
Contaminated sediments in the FFS Study Area would be removed from the river ecosystem by
mechanical dredging. Dredging residuals remaining in the FFS Study Area would be addressed
by a two-foot layer of backfill.
Modeling has predicted that in order for any alternatives to achieve protectiveness of human
health (i.e., not only be within the risk range of 1 × 10-4 to 1 × 10-6, but also be at or below an HI
equal to 1), bank-to-bank remediation in the FFS Study Area would be required. Modeling
results also predicted that bank-to-bank alternatives would reduce surface sediment concentration
for some of the COPCs and COPECs to below background levels in the future. This is because
under post remediation conditions, suspended sediments coming from immediately above
Dundee Dam (background for the FFS Study Area) will mix with suspended sediments from
other sources coming into the FFS Study Area (e.g., Newark Bay, Saddle River, Third River, and
Second River) as well as with the cleaner solids in the water column resulting from a remediated
FFS Study Area and with clean material placed on the riverbed as part of remediation. As a
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-17
2014
result, contaminant concentrations in the top six inches (bioactive zone evaluated in the risk
assessment) can end up being much less than background concentrations coming over Dundee
Dam.
A significant decline in surface sediment concentrations in the FFS Study Area is forecast for
COPCs and COPECs under Alternative 2 (see orange line in Figure 4-3a through 4-3k).
•
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, during the 30 year period after construction, surface sediment
concentrations are predicted to fluctuate around the proposed remediation goal and be
about two orders of magnitude higher than the most protective risk-based PRG. Surface
sediment concentrations are expected to fluctuate above and below the proposed
remediation goal, although storm events which are programmed into the model at 15 year
intervals result in temporary increases in surface sediment concentrations above the
proposed remedial goal. In reality, the sequence of storm events cannot be predicted with
any degree of certainty.
•
For Total PCBs, during the 30 year period after construction, surface sediment
concentrations are predicted to achieve concentrations that are on average about six times
lower than background concentrations and about an order of magnitude higher than the
most protective risk-based PRG. Surface sediment concentrations are expected to
fluctuate above and below the proposed remediation goal, although storm events which
are programmed into the model at 15 year intervals result in temporary increases in
surface sediment concentrations above the proposed remedial goal.
•
For mercury, during the 30 year period after construction, surface sediment
concentrations are predicted to fluctuate around the proposed remediation goal depending
on the magnitude and frequency of storm events. For Total DDx, surface sediment
concentrations are predicted to decrease by over an order of magnitude relative to current
conditions and to approach and fluctuate near a level about an order of magnitude higher
than the proposed remediation goal.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-18
2014
Adequacy of Controls
In the FFS Study Area, no long-term containment system (i.e., no engineered cap) would be
required since the source of mobile contaminated fine-grained sediments would be removed
during dredging.
For DMM Scenario A, the engineered cap over the CAD cells would have to be monitored and
maintained in perpetuity in order for Alternative 2 to be protective of human health and the
environment. Appendix G provides information on the efficacy of CAD cells in use at other
locations and potential costs for cap maintenance (for CAD sites under DMM Scenario A) are
included in Appendix H. In contrast, there are no additional long-term maintenance requirements
built into the costs for DMM Scenario B (Off-Site Disposal) because existing landfills already
have provisions for long-term monitoring and maintenance by landfill owners and operators,
which are built into the tipping fees; for DMM Scenario C (Local Decontamination and
Beneficial Use) the sediment is treated to remove or stabilize the contaminants and no
monitoring is required.
The existing NJDEP fish and shellfish consumption advisories which rely on voluntary
compliance would be enhanced by additional outreach to improve their effectiveness in reducing
the risk to human health by limiting exposure to COPCs. Additional institutional controls (see
Section 4.2.1) would be necessary to maintain cap integrity for the CAD cells in perpetuity.
Under Alternative 2, this applies only to DMM Scenario A (CAD).
MNR is part of Alternative 2 and includes modeling and monitoring of the water column,
sediment, and biota tissue during and after construction of active remedial measures to verify
that risks to the ecosystem continue to decrease. The planned post-construction monitoring
program would result in collection of the data necessary to determine whether NJDEP could
relax or modify its fish and shellfish consumption advisories, and whether other restrictions
imposed on private sediment disturbance activities as part of the remedial action could be
relaxed. Interim tissue PRGs based on the consumption of 12 eight-ounce fish or crab meals per
year were developed for use during the post-construction monitoring period to evaluate if
contaminant concentrations are decreasing toward PRGs as expected.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-19
2014
Reliability of Controls
Sediment removal and backfilling are reliable and proven technologies. CAD cell disposal using
engineered caps is also a reliable and proven technology. Off-site thermal destruction
(incineration) and land-based disposal facilities are in operation and have proven to be reliable
technologies. The reliability of local decontamination technologies such as thermal treatment and
sediment washing is more uncertain since they have not been built and operated in the
United States on a scale approaching the capacity required for this project. In addition, sediment
washing may be less effective when the matrix contains multiple contaminants and the sediment
contains a large percentage of fine particles like silts and clays. Multiple treatment passes may be
required under such conditions which would increase cost.
The NJDEP fish and shellfish consumption advisories for the river, particularly when enhanced
with additional outreach efforts to increase effectiveness, would provide a limited measure of
protection of human health until COPC concentrations in fish and blue crabs are reduced and the
PRGs for protection of human health are attained.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through Treatment
For Alternative 2, reduction of mobility and volume of contaminated sediments in the FFS Study
Area would be achieved by dredging, not through in-situ treatment. The ultimate reduction of
toxicity, mobility and volume of the sediments removed from the FFS Study Area would depend
on the DMM Scenario selected.
Under Alternative 2 reduction of mobility and volume would be achieved through the permanent
removal of 9.7 million cy of contaminated fine-grained sediments, including approximately
24 kg of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 23,000 kg of Total PCBs, 4,200 kg of Total DDx and 41,000 kg of
mercury.
Under DMM Scenario A, the mobility of the COPCs and COPECs removed from the FFS Study
Area would be effectively eliminated, not through treatment but by sequestering the dredged
sediments in the CAD cells under an engineered cap that would need to be monitored and
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-20
2014
maintained in perpetuity. There would be no reduction in the toxicity or volume of the COPCs
and COPECs in the CAD site.
Under DMM Scenario B, the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the COPCs and COPECs
removed from the FFS Study Area would be reduced through thermal destruction (incineration)
of approximately 10 percent of the dredged material (sediment contaminant concentrations
would be reduced by more than 99 percent). For the remaining material, mobility would be
reduced by placing it into a permitted landfill (through sequestration, not treatment); there would
be no reduction in toxicity or volume. The actual amount of material subject to thermal
destruction would depend on the results of the waste characterization testing during the remedial
design.
Under DMM Scenario C, approximately 10 percent of the dredged material is assumed to
undergo thermal treatment, 88 percent is assumed to undergo sediment washing, and 2 percent is
assumed to undergo solidification / stabilization. The toxicity, mobility, and volume of the
COPCs and COPECs undergoing thermal treatment would be reduced by more than 99 percent.
The toxicity of the material undergoing sediment washing would be reduced by 10 to 80 percent
depending on the constituent. Where necessary, solidification / stabilization would further reduce
the mobility of the remaining contaminants in the sediment before it is placed in a landfill
potentially as capping material. The actual amount of material subject to each technology would
depend on the results of the waste characterization testing during the remedial design.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The implementation of Alternative 2 would have the greatest impact on the community, workers
and the environment as compared to other alternatives because the construction period would be
the longest (11 years) and Alternative 2 requires the handling of the largest volume of
contaminated sediments (9.7 million cy).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-21
2014
Protection of the Community during Remedial Actions
There may be a risk of some adverse short-term impacts to human health and the environment
during the construction period due to the increased potential for exposure to the COPCs and
COPECs present in sediments that are resuspended during dredging.
For FFS evaluation purposes, under Alternative 2 it was assumed that dredging would proceed
24 hours per day, six days per week, and 40 weeks per year for 11 years using two dredges. This
would result in temporary noise, light, odors, blocked views, potential air quality impacts and
disruptions to commercial and recreational river users on both sides of the river from RM0 to
RM8.3 (operating for a few months at a given location).
Under DMM Scenario A, dredged materials would be barged to the Newark Bay CAD site
minimizing on-land impacts to the community but increasing vessel traffic in the bay. For FFS
evaluation purposes, it was assumed that the CAD cells would be sited in the part of Newark Bay
where the thickest layer of clay (approximately 60 feet) is likely to be found. Since major
container terminals are located in Newark Bay near the assumed CAD site, increased barge
traffic to and from the CAD site may interfere with existing commercial port traffic and increase
the potential for waterborne commerce accidents. These risks can be managed through
engineering and navigation controls established by the dredging and/or materials management
contractor working in association with the Port Authority and other regulatory agencies, to
control traffic in and around the CAD site.
Under DMM Scenarios B or C, dredged materials would be barged to an approximately 28-acre
or 40-acre, respectively, upland sediment processing facility, ideally located on the banks of the
Lower Passaic River or Newark Bay. Both scenarios would increase in-water vessel traffic and
cause on-land impacts to the community (e.g., increased vehicle traffic and air quality impacts)
in the area of the upland sediment processing facility. DMM Scenario C would have the largest
on-land impact on the community because the dewatered dredged materials would be treated onsite with potential air quality impacts and a greater risk of accidents from vehicle and equipment
operations. In addition, under DMM Scenario C, end-products may be transported by truck offsite for beneficial use resulting in air quality impacts and traffic on area roads. The on-land
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-22
2014
impact from DMM Scenario B would be somewhat less than for DMM Scenario C since the
dewatered dredged materials would be placed in rail cars and transported from the FFS Study
Area for off-site disposal. Because the upland processing facilities would be constructed in an
urban, industrialized area, the impact to wildlife habitat is anticipated to be minimal.
Measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to the community would be addressed in community
health and safety plans and by the use of best management practices. Those plans would cover
such issues as the following:
•
Risks posed by sediment processing at the upland processing and transfer facilities
(e.g., from spills, accidents or emissions). Access to these areas would be restricted to
authorized and trained personnel. Monitoring and engineering controls would be
employed to minimize short-term effects due to material processing activities. For DMM
Scenario C, emissions from decontamination at a local facility may pose some short-term
risks to the surrounding community and environment. However, as with most industrial
processes, these can be mitigated by the use of proper pollution controls. Site-specific
pilot and treatability studies (LBG, 2012) already conducted have demonstrated the
effectiveness of such controls.
•
Risks posed by transportation of dewatered materials to off-site disposal or treatment
facilities (e.g., from spills or accidents). Increased traffic would present an incremental
risk to the community. The potential for traffic accidents may increase marginally due to
additional vehicles for site workers and the transport of processed sediments on the roads
in the area of the upland processing facility (mostly for DMM Scenario C but potentially
some for DMM Scenario B). These effects are expected to be minimal for DMM
Scenario B because transportation of sediments for treatment or disposal would likely be
accomplished by rail.
•
In addition to vehicular traffic, measures to mitigate risks posed by increased river traffic
would be implemented. Work areas in the river would be isolated (access-restricted) with
an adequate buffer zone so that pleasure craft and commercial shipping can safely avoid
such areas. Increased in-river barge traffic would be monitored and controlled to
minimize, to the extent possible, adverse effects on the commercial or recreational use of
the Lower Passaic River.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-23
2014
Protection of Workers during Remedial Actions
Alternative 2 would pose potential occupational risks to site workers from direct contact,
ingestion, and inhalation of COPCs and COPECs from the surface water and sediments, and
routine physical hazards associated with construction work and working on water. Measures to
minimize and mitigate such risks would be addressed in worker health and safety plans, by the
use of best management practices, and by following Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)-approved health and safety procedures.
Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts Resulting from Construction and Implementation
Sediment removal may result in short-term adverse impacts to the river including exposure of
fish and biota to contaminated sediments in the water column due to resuspension of
contaminated sediments during dredging. Resuspension rates for environmental dredging 34
projects are reported to range from less than 0.1 percent to over 5 percent of the mass removed
(USACE, 2008d). For the FFS, a resuspension rate of three percent of the mass removed (solids,
carbon, and chemical) was assumed. This rate is based on the Environmental Dredging Pilot
Study (LBG, 2012) results and similar measurements from other dredging projects. Risks due to
resuspension can be minimized through proper equipment selection for the location (e.g.,
navigation channel, open river, shoals) and site conditions (e.g., bottom slope, depth of water,
depth of sediment, depth of planned cut); control of the sediment removal process (e.g.,
placement of bucket, bucket removal speed); and the use of trained, skilled dredge operators and
crews. Environmental impacts from construction include temporary loss of benthos and habitat
for the ecological community in dredged areas and in areas affected by resuspension of
contaminated sediments during dredging.
Habitat replacement measures would be implemented to address these impacts. Since the
remedial action would replace existing intertidal habitat (i.e., mudflats) affected by remedial
construction, the FFS assumes that no additional compensatory mitigation measures are
necessary for this aspect of the remediation (i.e., in-river remediation). This approach is
34
No quantitative estimates are available for the amount of resuspension caused by cap placement, but USEPA assumes that less resuspension is
caused by capping than by dredging (USEPA, 2005).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-24
2014
consistent with other on-going Superfund river dredging projects, such as the Hudson River
PCBs Superfund Site. Detailed analyses of compensatory mitigation are presented in
Appendix F.
Natural benthic re-colonization following a disturbance is usually fairly rapid and can begin
within days after perturbation. In some cases, full recovery to pre-disturbance species
composition and abundance can occur within one to five years (see Appendix F).
Under DMM Scenario A, construction and operation of the CAD site could have substantial
impacts on the aquatic environment that could be minimized through engineering controls.
Intertidal and subtidal shallows, such as those where CAD cells would be located, provide
valuable habitat for various aquatic species including areas designated by NOAA as Essential
Fish Habitat. Operation of the CAD site would involve discharging dredged materials through
the water column into the CAD cell over the 11-year operating period. The area of the open
waters subject to temporary impacts from the CAD construction and operation would be
approximately 171 acres for Alternative 2 (165 acres for the CAD cells and 6 acres for the access
channels). In addition to restoring the bay bottom at the completion of the project, compensatory
mitigation for the CAD site would be required under the CWA; that is, provision of a separate
mitigation site to offset temporary ecological losses to habitat and their functional value. Local
mitigation banks tentatively identified in Appendix F could only provide about 55 percent of the
total mitigation acreage necessary to offset the temporal losses associated with the Alternative 2
CAD cells. Additional acres could be provided through restoration of sites identified in
USACE’s Hudson-Raritan Estuary Comprehensive Restoration Plan (USACE, 2009) and Lower
Passaic River Ecosystem Restoration Plan (USACE, undated (under development) 35). The cost
of this mitigation is included in the cost estimate for DMM Scenario A under Alternative 2 in
Appendix H.
DMM Scenarios B and C are likely to have a less direct impact on the aquatic environment than
DMM Scenario A primarily because they do not involve in-water disposal. While DMM
35
Draft available at www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/NewYorkNewJerseyHarbor/HudsonRaritanEstuary.aspx.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-25
2014
Scenarios B and C have greater on-land impacts (discussed above under “Protection of the
Community during Remedial Actions”) due to the need for a large upland processing facility,
those impacts can be mitigated through proven technologies such as air pollution control
technology and buffer zones around construction sites.
Time until Remedial Response Objectives are Achieved
During the 30 year period after construction under Alternative 2, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCB and
mercury surface sediment concentrations are predicted to fluctuate around the proposed
remediation goals, depending on the magnitude and frequency of storm events. Total DDx
surface sediment concentrations are predicted to fluctuate at a level about an order of magnitude
higher than the proposed remediation goal, depending on the magnitude and frequency of storm
events. The surface sediment concentrations predicted by computer modeling at the end of the 30
year period are close enough to proposed remediation goals that Alternative 2, in conjunction
with MNR processes, would achieve those goals relatively shortly beyond the model simulation
period.
Implementability
For Alternative 2, the remedial work in the FFS Study Area would be readily implementable
from both the technical and administrative standpoints. The in-river remedial action as
envisioned in this FFS can be constructed, operated, and maintained within the site-specific and
technology-specific regulations and constraints. However, the technical and administrative
implementability of the DMM Scenarios vary.
Technical Feasibility
The in-river construction activities (debris removal, dredging, backfilling and dredged material
transport) required for the implementation of Alternative 2 would be technically feasible and
have been implemented at many Superfund sites around the country (see Chapter 3 and
Appendix G). However implementing a remediation program the size and complexity of that
planned for the FFS Study Area adjacent to one of the major East Coast waterways would
require extensive planning and coordination. Given the large volume of material and longer
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-26
2014
project duration for the in-water removal, Alternative 2 would present a greater challenge to
implement than either Alternative 3 or 4.
The FFS Study Area river bed is crossed by utilities of various sizes and depths in a number of
locations. Dredging for Alternative 2 would affect more utilities than dredging for Alternative 3
because Alternative 2 would involve much deeper dredging cuts. Remedial design would
include additional work to locate utilities in the FFS Study Area and determine appropriate
dredging off-sets. The FFS Study Area is also crossed by 14 bridges of various heights. The
necessary coordination, which may include assisting bridge authorities with engineering
evaluations and maintenance of the bridges, would occur during the remedial design.
Similarly, the three DMM Scenarios are technically feasible. DMM Scenario A (placement in
CAD cells) and DMM Scenario B (dewatering, dredged material transport and off-site disposal)
can be implemented with proper planning of the logistics and challenges involved in handling
large volumes of dredged materials. The technologies have been successfully implemented at
other Superfund sites (see Chapter 3 and Appendix G). Depending upon the selected approach, a
suitable site for the CAD cells or upland sediment processing facility is expected to be available
or can be developed. The large volume of sediments to be removed would require significant
coordination of the dredging/excavation efforts, material handling activities, and transportation
logistics between the dredging contractor and/or materials management contractor and the Port
Authority to manage vessel traffic in the area safely.
The decontamination technologies involved in DMM Scenario C (thermal treatment and
sediment washing) have not been constructed and operated in the United States on a scale
approaching the capacity required for this project so the technical feasibility of using these
technologies to handle large volumes of highly contaminated sediments is more uncertain. The
performance of the sediment washing technology was demonstrated in 2006 (LBG, 2012) on a
pilot study level involving processing rates that were high enough (although for a relatively short
duration) to be considered equivalent to a commercial scale operation (see Appendix G).
However, more recently in 2012, bench-scale studies by two sediment washing technology
vendors showed that their technologies were unable to reduce Lower Passaic River sediment
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-27
2014
contamination to levels low enough for beneficial use (de maximis, inc., 2012). Thermal
treatment has been demonstrated to have very high treatment efficiencies although the
technology has only been tested on a pilot study level involving relatively small volumes and
short durations (see Appendix G).
Administrative Feasibility
No insurmountable administrative difficulties are anticipated in obtaining the necessary
regulatory approvals for sediment removal or backfill placement. Since a large number of the
activities are expected to occur on-site (as defined under CERCLA Section 121(e)(1) and
40 CFR 300.5), federal, state and local permits are not required. Permits are expected to be
obtained from the appropriate local, state and federal agencies for actions that occur off-site.
Sediment removal and backfill activities would result in some temporary disruption of
commercial/ recreational uses and boating access during remediation. Although measures to
mitigate or prevent impacts and disruptions would be employed, local communities would be
expected to experience some measure of inconvenience during remedial activities. Measures that
would be implemented in conjunction with this alternative to minimize both short- and long-term
disruption and adverse impacts include:
•
Accommodation of existing boat traffic during construction, where feasible
•
Limited duration of the remediation period in one location (operating only a few months
in the vicinity of any given shore location)
•
Shoreline stabilization and waterfront restoration
•
Proper equipment selection for the location and site conditions, control of the sediment
removal process, and the use of trained, skilled dredge operators and crews.
DMM Scenario A is likely to face significant administrative and legal impediments because the
State of New Jersey is the owner of the bay bottom and strongly opposes construction of a CAD
site in Newark Bay. The State’s position is clearly articulated in a letter dated November 28,
2012 from Governor Chris Christie to former USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. This
opposition is likely to make DMM Scenario A administratively infeasible. USFWS and NOAA
also oppose construction of a CAD site in Newark Bay. For DMM Scenario B, administrative
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-28
2014
feasibility is less of a concern, although siting a 28-acre upland processing facility for dewatering
of dredged materials, water treatment to satisfy regulatory requirements, and rail car loading may
be challenging in the densely populated urban areas around the Lower Passaic River and Newark
Bay. For DMM Scenario C, administrative feasibility is less of a concern than for DMM
Scenario A but more of a concern than for DMM Scenario B because DMM Scenario C requires
a larger upland area for dredged material processing and staging (40 acres). It also involves the
construction of a thermal treatment plant which may be subject to stringent limitations on air
emissions and regulatory requirements may be administratively challenging.
Availability of Services and Materials
For the remedial work in the FFS Study Area, services and materials are expected to be
commercially available. Equipment and technical expertise for dredging and backfill placement
are available through a number of commercial firms. While a large amount of backfill material
would be needed, adequate resources have been preliminarily identified at several local borrow
sources. Equipment and technical expertise for constructing CAD cells are available. Available
capacity at off-site thermal treatment and landfills has been preliminarily identified
(Appendix G). Several companies have expressed interest in and have demonstrated the technical
ability to construct the local thermal treatment and sediment washing facilities generating
beneficial use end-products. However, since no such facilities have been built locally, there
remains some uncertainty over the implementability of DMM Scenario C.
Cost
For Alternative 2, capital costs were broken into two main categories: in-river activities and
DMM. Operation and maintenance costs were broken down into three main categories: operation
of DMM facilities during dredging, activities conducted annually after dredging, and periodic
costs over the 30-year post-construction monitoring period. Details of the costs to implement
Alternative 2 are detailed in Appendix H and summarized in Table 5-3.
•
For Alternative 2 with DMM Scenario A (Deep Dredging with Backfill and CAD), the
estimated PV cost is approximately $1,341,000,000.
•
For Alternative 2 with DMM Scenario B (Deep Dredging with Backfill and Off-Site
Disposal), the estimated PV cost is approximately $3,245,000,000.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-29
2014
•
For Alternative 2 with DMM Scenario C (Deep Dredging with Backfill and Local
Decontamination and Beneficial Use), the estimated PV cost is approximately
$2,621,000,000.
The dredging cost estimates presented in Appendix H were developed using mechanical
dredging as the representative process option because mechanical dredging may be better able to
handle the debris-laden sediments in the FFS Study Area. The PV cost for Alternative 2,
assuming hydraulic dredging is used, is approximately $2,960,000,000 and $2,460,000,000 with
DMM Scenarios B and C, respectively. The cost of Alternative 2, assuming hydraulic dredging
in combination with DMM Scenario A, was not estimated because of the complexity of
maintaining a pumping line down the length of the FFS Study Area and crossing the federallyauthorized navigation channel one or more times. Detailed hydraulic dredging costs are not
presented in Appendix H.
5.2.3 Alternative 3: Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation (described in
Section 4.4.4)
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 3, in conjunction with MNR and institutional controls, would be protective of human
health and the environment. Alternative 3 addresses the unacceptable risks identified in the
baseline risk assessments by sequestering the extensive inventory of contaminated fine-grained
sediments in the FFS Study Area under a 650-acre engineered cap (or backfill layer where
appropriate). Before placement of the engineered cap, enough contaminated fine-grained
sediment would be dredged so that the cap could be placed without causing additional flooding
and to accommodate continued use of the federally-authorized navigation channel through
RM2.2. The extent to which the surface sediments in the FFS Study Area would be recontaminated would be determined by the influx, mixing, and deposition of sediment that enters
from above Dundee Dam, from between the dam and RM8.3, and from Newark Bay. The FFS
Study Area is the major source of COPCs and COPECs to the river above RM8.3 and to Newark
Bay; so removing those sediments would reduce that source of contamination to those areas,
thereby reducing the contamination brought back into the FFS Study Area from those areas over
time.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-30
2014
Modeling predicts that Alternative 3 would reduce risks by more than an order of magnitude
after remedial construction so that in the 30-year period after construction, human health total
cancer risk (for the adult and child for all COPCs) would be 4 × 10-4 and 3 × 10-4 for fish and
crab consumption, respectively (Table 5-1). The non-cancer health hazard for the adult would be
8 and 6 for fish and crab consumption, respectively, and for the child would be 18 and 13 for fish
and crab consumption, respectively (Table 5-1). Thirty years after construction, total ecological
hazards for benthic invertebrates would range from 3 to 30, for fish would range from 2 to 20
and for wildlife would range from 0.8 to 30 (Tables 5-2a through 5-2c). Future risk levels are
predicted to get close enough to protective goals that Alternative 3, in conjunction with MNR
processes, would achieve those goals relatively shortly beyond the model simulation period.
During the relatively short time until protective goals would be reached, an intensive outreach
effort to increase public awareness of institutional controls, such as NJDEP’s fish and crab
consumption advisories, could be implemented to maintain some protectiveness for human
health.
The transport of contaminants from the FFS Study Area to the Lower Passaic River above
RM8.3 and into Newark Bay is projected to significantly decline under Alternative 3. The
modeled cumulative gross contaminant flux resulting from resuspension of sediments in the FFS
Study Area under Alternative 3 is presented in Table 4-2 for the period 2030 to 2059.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would significantly reduce the gross resuspension flux in the
FFS Study Area. The modeled gross resuspension flux from the FFS Study Area under
Alternative 3 would be reduced by 45 percent, 35 percent, 30 percent and 25 percent for 2,3,7,8TCDD, Total PCB, Total DDx, and mercury, respectively, as compared to Alternative 1. These
reductions in gross resuspension in the FFS Study Area would result in substantial reductions in
the transport of contaminants in the water column towards Newark Bay from 2030 to 2059 (see
Figures 4-4a through 4-4d).
Upstream of the FFS Study Area between RM8.3 and RM17 (see green line in Figures 5-1a
through 5-1d), Alternative 3 modeling results display the same cyclical perturbations observed
for Alternative 1. It should be noted that differences in temporal patterns between the alternatives
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-31
2014
are due to the differences in dredging and capping schedule assumptions in the model. Over the
30-year post-remediation period, the average surface sediment concentrations between RM8.3
and RM17 of 2,3,7,8-TCDD under Alternative 3 would be approximately 2 percent lower than
corresponding average values under Alternative 1. For Total PCB, Total DDx, and mercury,
concentrations in surface sediments immediately following remediation would fluctuate above
and below corresponding values under Alternative 1; over the 30-year post-remediation period
the average surface sediment concentrations of these constituents would be approximately 2 to
4 percent lower than corresponding averages for Alternative 1.
Under DMM Scenario A, an engineered cap would be placed over the CAD cells in Newark Bay
sequestering the contaminated sediment; this cap along with the engineered cap in the river
would be monitored and maintained in perpetuity. For DMM Scenarios B and C, no such
monitoring or maintenance of the disposal site would be required after construction is completed;
contaminated sediment would either be placed in a commercially operated facility or treated to
decontaminate the sediment, allowing its beneficial use.
Compliance with ARARs
There are currently no chemical-specific state or federal ARARs for sediment management.
Alternative 3 would satisfy the location-specific and action-specific ARARs (see Table 2-1a).
Alternative 3 is designed to address sediment contamination in the FFS Study Area. Although
remediation of contaminated sediment would contribute to improved water quality,
implementation of Alternative 3, by itself, would be unlikely to achieve compliance with ARARs
in the water column. However, because this FFS only addresses the sediments portion of the
Lower Passaic River and is only part of the remedial activities under consideration for the
17-mile Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay, compliance with surface water ARARs would
more likely be achieved after additional response actions have been implemented.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Under Alternative 3, approximately 4.3 million cy of contaminated fine-grained sediments
covering approximately 650 acres of river bottom between RM0 and RM8.3 would be
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-32
2014
permanently removed from the ecosystem of the Lower Passaic River by dredging to targeted
sediment removal depths. A two-foot engineered cap (or backfill where appropriate) would be
placed over the entire FFS Study Area. After construction is completed in 2023, the resuspension
of contaminated sediments would no longer contaminate surface sediments and biota or pose
unacceptable impacts to humans and the environment.
Magnitude of Residual Risks
The remaining contaminated sediments and dredging residuals in the FFS Study Area would be
sequestered under an engineered cap (in areas where the intent is to remove all contaminated
sediment such as portions of the federal navigation channel, a backfill layer would be placed to
cover dredging residuals).
Modeling has predicted that in order for any alternatives to achieve protectiveness of human
health (i.e., not only be within the risk range of 1 × 10-4 to 1 × 10-6, but also be at or below an HI
equal to 1), bank-to-bank remediation in the FFS Study Area would be required. Modeling
results also predicted that bank-to-bank alternatives would reduce surface sediment
concentrations for some of the COPCs and COPECs to below background levels in the future.
This is because under post remediation conditions, suspended sediments coming from
immediately above Dundee Dam (background for the FFS Study Area) will mix with suspended
solids from other sources coming into the FFS Study Area (e.g., Newark Bay, Saddle River,
Third River, and Second River) as well as with the cleaner solids in the water column resulting
from a remediated FFS Study Area and with clean cap material placed on the riverbed as part of
remediation. As a result, contaminant concentrations in the top six inches (bioactive zone
evaluated in the risk assessment) can end up being much less than background concentrations
coming over Dundee Dam.
A significant decline in surface sediment concentrations in the FFS Study Area is forecast for
COPCs and COPECs under Alternative 3 (see green line in Figure 4-3a through 4-3k).
•
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, during the 30 year period after construction, surface sediment
concentrations are predicted to fluctuate around the proposed remediation goal and be
about two orders of magnitude higher than the most protective risk-based PRG. Surface
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-33
2014
sediment concentrations are expected to fluctuate above and below the proposed
remediation goal, although storm events which are included in the model at 15 year
intervals result in temporary increase in sediment concentrations above the proposed
remedial goal. In reality the sequence of storm events cannot be predicted with any
degree of certainty).
•
For Total PCBs, during the 30 year period after construction, surface sediment
concentrations are predicted to achieve concentrations that are on average about six times
lower than background concentrations in some years and an order of magnitude higher
than the most protective risk-based PRG. Surface sediment concentrations are expected to
fluctuate above and below the proposed remediation goal, although storm events which
are included in the model at 15 year intervals result in temporary increase in sediment
concentrations above the proposed remedial goal.
•
For mercury, during the 30 years period after construction, surface sediment
concentrations are predicted to fluctuate around the proposed remediation goal depending
on the magnitude and frequency of storm events. For Total DDx, surface sediment
concentrations are predicted to decrease by over an order of magnitude relative to current
conditions, to approach and fluctuate near a level about an order of magnitude higher
than the proposed remediation goal.
Adequacy of Controls
Alternative 3 would be effective in limiting exposure to risks posed by COPCs and COPECs in
the FFS Study Area sediments provided the integrity of the engineered cap is maintained.
Therefore, the cap would need to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity.
For DMM Scenario A, the engineered cap over the CAD cells would also have to be monitored
and maintained in perpetuity in order for the alternative to be protective of human health and the
environment. Appendix G provides information on the efficacy of CAD cells in use at other
locations and potential costs for cap maintenance (in-river and CAD site) are included in
Appendix H. In contrast, there are no additional long-term maintenance requirements built into
the cost for DMM Scenario B (Off-Site Disposal) because existing landfills already have
provisions for long-term monitoring and maintenance by landfill owners and operators, which
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-34
2014
are built into the tipping fees; for DMM Scenario C (Local Decontamination and Beneficial Use)
the sediment is treated to remove or stabilize the contaminants and no monitoring is required.
The existing NJDEP fish and shellfish consumption advisories, which rely on voluntary
compliance, would be enhanced by additional outreach to improve their effectiveness in reducing
risk to human health by limiting exposure to COPCs. Additional institutional controls (see
Section 4.2.1) would be necessary to maintain cap integrity in perpetuity. Under Alternative 3,
this would include the engineered cap in the river as well as DMM Scenario A (CAD).
MNR is part of Alternative 3 and includes modeling and monitoring of the water column,
sediment, and biota tissue during and after construction of active remedial measures to verify
that risks to the ecosystem continue to decrease. The planned post-construction monitoring
program would result in collection of the data necessary to determine whether NJDEP could
relax or modify its fish and shellfish consumption advisories and whether other restrictions
imposed on private sediment disturbance activities as part of the remedial action could be
relaxed. Interim tissue PRGs based on the consumption of 12 eight-ounce fish or crab meals per
year were developed for use during the post-construction monitoring period to evaluate if
contaminant concentrations are decreasing toward PRGs as expected.
Reliability of Controls
Sediment removal, engineered capping, and backfilling are reliable and proven technologies.
Disposal in a CAD cell under an engineered cap is also a reliable and proven technology. Offsite thermal destruction (incineration) and land-based disposal facilities are in operation and have
proven to be reliable technologies. The reliability of local decontamination technologies such as
thermal treatment and sediment washing is more uncertain since they have not been built and
operated in the United States on a scale approaching the capacity required for this project. In
addition, sediment washing may be less effective when the matrix contains multiple
contaminants and the sediment contains a large percentage of fine particles like silts and clays.
Multiple treatment passes may be required under such conditions which would increase costs.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-35
2014
The NJDEP fish and shellfish consumption advisories for the river, particularly when enhanced
with additional outreach efforts to increase effectiveness, would provide a limited measure of
protection for human health until COPC concentrations in fish and blue crabs are reduced and
the PRGs for protection of human health are attained.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through Treatment
For Alternative 3, reduction in the mobility and volume of contaminated sediments in the FFS
Study Area would be achieved by dredging and capping, not through treatment. The ultimate
reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume of the sediments removed from the FFS Study Area
would depend on the DMM Scenario selected.
Under Alternative 3, in the FFS Study Area, reduction of mobility and volume would be
achieved through the permanent removal of 4.3 million cy of contaminated fine-grained
sediments, including approximately 8 kg of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 7,000 kg of Total PCBs, 800 kg of
Total DDx, and 16,000 kg of mercury. The remaining 5.4 million cy of contaminated sediments
would be sequestered in the river under an engineered cap so that mobility is effectively
eliminated; no reduction of toxicity is achieved for the contaminants that remain under the cap
and cap integrity would need to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity.
Under DMM Scenario A, the mobility of the COPCs and COPECs removed from the FFS Study
Area would be effectively eliminated, not through treatment, but by sequestering the dredged
sediments in the CAD cells under an engineered cap that would need to be monitored and
maintained in perpetuity. There would be no reduction in toxicity or volume of the COPCs and
COPECs.
Under DMM Scenario B, the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the COPCs and COPECs
removed from the FFS Study Area would be reduced through incineration of approximately
7 percent of the dredged material (for which sediment concentrations would be reduced by more
than 99 percent). For the remaining material, mobility would be reduced by placing it in a
permitted landfill (through sequestration, not treatment), but there would be no reduction of
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-36
2014
toxicity and volume. The actual amount of material subject to incineration would depend on the
results of waste characterization testing during the design phase.
Under DMM Scenario C, approximately 7 percent of the dredged material is assumed to undergo
thermal treatment, 92 percent is assumed to undergo sediment washing, and 1 percent is assumed
to undergo solidification / stabilization. The toxicity, mobility, and volume of the COPCs and
COPECs removed from the FFS Study Area undergoing thermal treatment would be reduced by
more than 99 percent. The toxicity of the dredged material undergoing sediment washing would
be reduced by 10 to 80 percent (depending on the constituent). Where necessary, solidification /
stabilization would further reduce the mobility of the remaining contaminants in the sediment
before it is placed in a landfill, potentially as capping material. The actual amount of material
subject to each technology would depend on the results of waste characterization testing during
the design phase.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The implementation of Alternative 3 would have less of an impact on the community, workers
and the environment than Alternative 2 due to the shorter project duration. However, those
impacts would still be important to address since the remediation period would be five years and
would require the handling of 4.3 million cy of dredged materials.
Protection of the Community during Remedial Actions
There may be a risk of some adverse short-term impacts to human health and the environment
during the construction period due to the increased potential for exposure to the COPCs and
COPECs present in sediments that are resuspended during dredging.
For FFS evaluation purposes, under Alternative 3, it was assumed dredging would proceed
24- hours per day, six days per week, and 40 weeks per year for 4.5 years using two dredges.
This would result in temporary noise, light, odors, blocked views, potential air quality impacts
and disruptions to commercial and recreational river users on both sides of the river from RM0 to
RM8.3 (operating for a few months in the vicinity of any given shore location).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-37
2014
Under DMM Scenario A, dredged materials would be barged to the Newark Bay CAD site,
minimizing on-land impacts to the community but increasing vessel traffic in the bay. For FFS
evaluation purposes, it was assumed that the CAD cells would be sited in the part of Newark Bay
where the thickest layer of clay (approximately 60 feet) is likely to be found. Since major
container terminals are located in Newark Bay near the assumed CAD site, increased barge
traffic to and from the CAD site may interfere with existing commercial port traffic and increase
the potential for waterborne commerce accidents. These risks can be managed through
engineering and navigation controls established by the dredging and/or materials management
contractor working in association with the Port Authority, to control traffic in and around the
CAD site.
Under DMM Scenario B or C, dredged materials would be barged to an approximately 26- or 36acre, respectively, upland sediment processing facility, ideally located on the banks of the Lower
Passaic River or Newark Bay. Both scenarios would increase in-water vessel traffic and cause
on-land impacts to the community (e.g., increased vehicle traffic and air quality impacts) in the
area of the upland processing facility. DMM Scenario C would have the largest on-land impact
to the community because the dewatered dredged materials would be treated on-site resulting in
potential air quality impacts and a greater risk of accidents from vehicle and equipment
operations. In addition, under DMM Scenario C, end-products may be transported by truck offsite for beneficial use resulting in air quality impacts and traffic on area roads. The on-land
impacts from DMM Scenario B would be somewhat less than for DMM Scenario C since the
dewatered dredged materials would be loaded in rail cars and transported from the FFS Study
Area for off-site disposal. Because the upland processing facilities would be constructed in an
urban, industrialized area the impact to wildlife habitat is anticipated to be minimal.
The measures to minimize and mitigate impacts on the community described under Alternative 2
would also be implemented under Alternative 3.
Protection of Workers during Remedial Actions
Alternative 3 would pose potential occupational risks to site workers from direct contact,
ingestion, and inhalation of COPCs and COPECs from the surface water and sediments, and
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-38
2014
routine physical hazards associated with construction work and working on water. Measures to
minimize and mitigate such risks would be addressed in worker health and safety plans, by the
use of best management practices and by following OSHA-approved health and safety
procedures.
Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts Resulting from Construction and Implementation
Sediment removal may result in short-term adverse impacts to the river including exposure of the
water column, fish, and biota to contaminated sediments due to resuspension of contaminated
sediments during dredging. Resuspension rates for environmental dredging 36 projects are
reported to range from less than 0.1 percent to over 5 percent of the mass removed (USACE,
2008d). For the FFS, a resuspension rate of three percent of the mass removed (solids, carbon,
and chemical) was assumed. This rate is based on the Environmental Dredging Pilot Study
(LBG, 2012) results and similar measurements from other dredging projects. Risks due to
resuspension can be minimized through proper equipment selection for the location
(e.g., navigation channel, open river, shoals) and site conditions (e.g., bottom slope, depth of
water, depth of sediment, depth of planned cut); control of the sediment removal process
(e.g., placement of bucket, bucket removal speed); and the use of trained, skilled dredge
operators and crews. Environmental impacts from construction include temporary loss of benthos
and habitat for the ecological community in dredged and capped areas and in areas affected by
resuspension of contaminated sediments during dredging.
Habitat replacement measures would be implemented to address these impacts. Since the
remedial action would improve and replace existing intertidal habitat (i.e., mudflat) affected by
remedial construction, the FFS assumes that no additional compensatory mitigation measures are
necessary for this aspect of the remediation (i.e., in-river remediation). This approach is
consistent with other on-going Superfund river dredging projects, such as the Hudson River PCB
Superfund Site. Detailed analyses of compensatory mitigation are presented in Appendix F.
36
No quantitative estimates are available for the amount of resuspension caused by cap placement, but USEPA assumes that less resuspension is
caused by capping than by dredging (USEPA, 2005).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-39
2014
Natural benthic re-colonization following a disturbance is rapid, and in many instances, the
process begins within days after perturbation. In some cases, full recovery to pre-disturbance
species composition and abundance occurs within one to five years (see Appendix F).
Under DMM Scenario A, construction and operation of the CAD site would have substantial
impacts on the aquatic environment that could be minimized through engineering controls.
Intertidal and subtidal shallows, such as those where CAD cells would be located, provide
valuable habitat for various aquatic species, including areas designated by NOAA as Essential
Fish Habitat. Operation of the CAD site involves discharging dredged materials through the
water column into the CAD cells for disposal over a five year operating period. The area of the
open waters subject to temporary impacts from the CAD site construction and operation would
be approximately 80 acres for Alternative 3 (76 acres for the CAD cells and 4 acres for the
access channels). In addition to restoring the bay bottom at the completion of the project,
compensatory mitigation for the CAD site would be required under the CWA; that is, provision
of a separate mitigation site to offset temporary ecological losses to habitat and their functional
value. Local mitigation banks tentatively identified in Appendix F provide the total mitigation
acreage necessary to offset the temporal losses associated with the Alternative 3 CAD cells. The
cost of this mitigation is included in the cost estimate for DMM Scenario A in Appendix H.
DMM Scenarios B and C are likely to have a less direct impact on the aquatic environment than
DMM Scenario A primarily because they do not involve in-water disposal. While DMM
Scenarios B and C have greater on-land impacts (discussed above under “Protection of the
Community during Remedial Actions”) due to the need for an upland processing facility, those
impacts can be mitigated through proven technologies such as air pollution control technology
and buffer zones around construction sites.
Time until Remedial Response Objectives are Achieved
For Alternative 3, during the 30 year period after construction, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCB and
mercury surface sediment concentrations are predicted to fluctuate around the proposed
remediation goals, depending on the magnitude and frequency of storm events. Total DDx
surface sediment concentrations are predicted to fluctuate at a level about an order of magnitude
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-40
2014
higher than the proposed remediation goal, depending on the magnitude and frequency of storm
events.
Alternative 3 would achieve significant reductions in surface sediment concentrations sooner
than Alternative 2 given the shorter construction period (5 years versus 11 years). The surface
sediment concentrations predicted by computer modeling at the end of the 30 year period would
be close enough to proposed remediation goals that Alternative 3, in conjunction with MNR
processes, would achieve those goals relatively shortly beyond the model simulation period.
Implementability
For Alternative 3, the remedial work in the FFS Study Area would be readily implementable
from both the technical and administrative standpoints. The in-river remedial action as
envisioned in this FFS can be constructed, operated, and maintained within the site-specific and
technology-specific regulations and constraints. However, the technical and administrative
implementability of the DMM Scenarios vary.
Technical Feasibility
The in-river construction activities (debris removal, dredging, backfilling, engineered capping
and dredged material transport) required for the implementation of Alternative 3 would be
technically feasible and have been implemented at many Superfund sites around the country (see
Chapter 3 and Appendix G). However implementing a remediation program the size and
complexity of that planned for the FFS Study Area adjacent to one of the major East Coast
waterways would require extensive planning and coordination. Given the volume of material to
be handled and the project duration of the in-water removal, Alternative 3 should be easier to
implement than Alternative 2 but more of a challenge than Alternative 4.
The FFS Study Area river bed is crossed by utilities of various sizes and depths, in a number of
locations. Dredging for Alternative 3 may affect some utilities where dredging extends to
greater depths in the river. The remedial design would include additional work to locate utilities
in the FFS Study Area and determine appropriate dredging off-sets. The FFS Study Area is also
crossed by 14 bridges of various heights. The necessary coordination, which may include
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-41
2014
assisting bridge authorities with engineering evaluations and maintenance of the bridges, would
occur during the remedial design.
The three DMM Scenarios are technically feasible. DMM Scenario A (placement in CAD cells)
and DMM Scenario B (dewatering, dredged material transport and off-site disposal) can be
implemented with proper planning of the logistics and challenges involved in handling large
volumes of dredged materials. The technologies have been successfully implemented at other
Superfund sites (see Chapter 3 and Appendix G). Depending on the selected approach, a suitable
site for the CAD site or upland sediment processing facility is expected to be available or can be
developed. The large volume of sediments to be removed would require significant coordination
of the dredging/excavation efforts, material handling activities, and transportation logistics
between the dredging contractor and/or materials management contractor and the Port Authority
and other regulatory agencies to manage vessel traffic in the area safely. As stated previously,
the volume of dredged material for Alternative 3 is smaller than for Alternative 2.
The decontamination technologies involved in DMM Scenario C (thermal treatment and
sediment washing) have not been constructed and operated in the United States on a scale
approaching the capacity required for this project, so the technical feasibility of using these
technologies to handle large volumes of highly contaminated sediments is more uncertain. The
performance of the sediment washing technology was demonstrated in 2006 (LBG, 2012) on a
pilot study level involving processing rates that were high enough (although for a relatively short
duration) to be considered equivalent to a commercial scale operation (see Appendix G).
However, more recently, in 2012, bench-scale studies by two sediment washing technology
vendors showed that their technologies were unable to reduce Lower Passaic River sediment
contamination to levels low enough for beneficial use (de maximis, inc., 2012). Thermal
treatment has been demonstrated to have very high treatment efficiencies although the
technology has only been tested on a pilot scale level involving relatively small volumes and
short durations (see Appendix G).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-42
2014
Administrative Feasibility
No insurmountable administrative difficulties are anticipated in getting the necessary regulatory
approvals for sediment removal or engineered cap and backfill placement. Since a large number
of the activities are expected to occur on-site (as defined under CERCLA Section 121(e)(1) and
40 CFR 300.5), federal, state and local permits are not required. Permits are expected to be
obtained from the appropriate local, state and federal agencies for actions that occur off-site.
Since the post-remediation depths would be shallower than the federally-authorized channel
depths, it would be necessary to obtain modification of the authorized depths in RM1.2 to RM2.2
and deauthorization of the federally-authorized navigation channel in RM2.2 to RM8.3, under
the federal River and Harbors Act, through USACE administrative procedures and Congressional
action.
Sediment removal and engineered capping activities would result in some temporary disruption
of commercial/ recreational uses and boating access during remediation. Although measures to
mitigate or prevent impacts and disruptions would be employed, local communities would be
expected to experience some degree of inconvenience during remedial activities. Measures that
would be implemented in conjunction with this alternative to minimize both short- and long-term
disruption and adverse impacts include:
•
Accommodation of existing boat traffic during construction, where feasible
•
Limited duration of the remediation period (operating a few months in the vicinity of any
given shore location)
•
Shoreline stabilization and waterfront restoration
•
Proper equipment selection for the location and site conditions, control of the sediment
removal and capping process, and the use of trained, skilled dredge operators and crews.
DMM Scenario A is likely to face significant administrative and legal impediments, because the
State of New Jersey is the owner of the bay bottom and strongly opposes construction of a CAD
site in Newark Bay. The State’s position is clearly articulated in a letter dated November 28,
2012 from Governor Chris Christie to former USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. This
opposition is likely to make DMM Scenario A administratively infeasible. USFWS and NOAA
also oppose construction of a CAD site in Newark Bay. For DMM Scenario B, administrative
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-43
2014
feasibility is less of a concern, although siting a 26-acre upland processing facility for dewatering
of dredged materials, water treatment to satisfy regulatory requirements, and rail car loading may
be challenging in the densely populated urban areas around the Lower Passaic River and Newark
Bay. For DMM Scenario C, administrative feasibility is less of a concern than for DMM
Scenario A but more of a concern than DMM Scenario B, because Scenario C requires more
upland area for dredged material processing and staging (36 acres). It also involves the
construction of a thermal treatment plant which would be subject to stringent limitations on air
emissions and regulatory requirements may be administratively challenging.
Availability of Services and Materials
For the remedial work in the FFS Study Area, services and materials are expected to be
commercially available. Equipment and technical expertise for dredging and backfill or
engineered cap placement are available through a number of commercial firms. While a large
amount of backfill and cap material would be needed, adequate resources have been
preliminarily identified at several local borrow sources. Equipment and technical expertise for
constructing CAD cells are available. Available capacity at off-site thermal treatment and
landfills has been preliminarily identified (Appendix G). Several companies have expressed
interest in and have demonstrated the technical ability to construct the local thermal treatment
and sediment washing facilities generating beneficial use end-products. However, since no such
facilities have been built locally, there remains some uncertainty over the implementability of
DMM Scenario C.
Cost
For Alternative 3, capital costs were broken into two main categories: in-river activities and
DMM. Operation and maintenance costs were broken down into three main categories: operation
of DMM facilities during dredging, activities conducted annually after dredging, and periodic
costs over the 30-year post-construction monitoring period. Details of the costs to implement
Alternative 3 are detailed in Appendix H and summarized in Table 5-3.
•
For Alternative 3 with DMM Scenario A (Capping with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation and CAD), the estimated PV cost is approximately $953,000,000.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-44
2014
•
For Alternative 3 with DMM Scenario B (Capping with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation and Off-Site Disposal), the estimated PV cost is approximately
$1,731,000,000.
•
For Alternative 3 with DMM Scenario C (Capping with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation and Local Decontamination and Beneficial Use), the estimated PV cost is
approximately $1,585,000,000.
The dredging cost estimates presented in Appendix H were developed using mechanical
dredging as the representative process option, because mechanical dredging may be better able to
handle the debris-laden sediments in the FFS Study Area. The PV cost for Alternative 3
assuming hydraulic dredging is used is approximately $1,257,000,000 and $1,260,000,000 with
DMM Scenarios B and C, respectively. The cost of Alternative 3 assuming hydraulic dredging in
combination with DMM Scenario A was not estimated because of the complexity of maintaining
a pumping line down the length of the FFS Study Area and crossing the federally-authorized
navigation channel one or more times. Detailed hydraulic dredging costs are not presented in
Appendix H.
5.2.4 Alternative 4: Capping with Dredging for Flooding (described in Section 4.4.5)
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 4, even with MNR and institutional controls, would not be protective of human
health and the environment in the foreseeable future. Alternative 4 addresses the unacceptable
risks identified in the baseline risk assessments by sequestering the sediment with the highest
gross and net fluxes of COPCs and COPECs in the FFS Study Area under discrete engineered
caps. Before placement of the caps, enough fine-grained sediment would be dredged so the caps
could be placed without causing additional flooding. Contaminated sediment in approximately
220 acres, or one third of the FFS Study Area surface area between RM0 and RM8.3, would be
addressed by this alternative; contaminants in the remaining two thirds of the FFS Study Area
would not be addressed.
After in-water construction is completed in 2019, the resuspension of contaminated sediments
from within the FFS Study Area would be limited to areas that had not been capped. Over time,
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-45
2014
resuspension from uncapped areas is likely to recontaminate remediated areas resulting in
impacts to humans and biota. COPCs and COPECs released into the surface water from
contaminated sediments in uncapped areas may migrate upstream above RM8.3 and downriver
towards Newark Bay. While Alternative 4 reduces the potential risks for a period of time after
remedial construction, it is unlikely that PRGs would be achieved because of the remaining
exposed contaminated sediments (totaling two-thirds of the FFS Study Area).
Modeling predicts that Alternative 4 would not come close to achieving protectiveness of human
health and the environment in the 30 years after construction (duration of model simulation).
Implementation of Alternative 4 would reduce the risks by about half after remedial construction,
so that in the 30-year period after construction, total cancer risk (for adult and child for all
COCs) would still be 2 × 10-3 and 1 × 10-3 for fish and crab consumption, respectively
(Table 5-1). The non-cancer HI for the adult would be 55 and 27 for fish and crab consumption,
respectively, and for the child would be 97 and 47 for fish and crab consumption, respectively
(Table 5-1). Thirty years after construction, total ecological HQs for benthic invertebrates would
range from 30 to 200; for fish would range from 10 to 100; and, for wildlife would range from 2
to 400 (Tables 5-2a through 5-2c). Since under Alternative 4 risk levels would remain up to two
orders of magnitude above protective goals 30 years after construction, it would not be
reasonable to expect natural recovery processes would achieve protective goals in the foreseeable
future beyond the modeling simulation period.
The transport of contaminants from the FFS Study Area to the Lower Passaic River above
RM8.3 and into Newark Bay is projected to continue. The modeled cumulative gross
contaminant flux resulting from resuspension of sediments in the FFS Study Area under
Alternative 4 is presented in Table 4-2 for the period 2030 to 2059. Implementation of
Alternative 4 would not significantly reduce the gross resuspension flux because it is less than
bank-to-bank in scope and leaves areas of contaminated sediment unremediated. The modeled
gross resuspension flux from the FFS Study Area under Alternative 4 would be lower by
18 percent, 6 percent and 5 percent for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCB, Total DDx, respectively, with
no change in the mercury flux, as compared to Alternative 1. The transport of contaminants in
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-46
2014
the water column towards Newark Bay (see Figures 4-4a through 4-4d) under Alternative 4 for
the period from 2030 to 2059, is close to values simulated for Alternative 1.
Upstream of the FFS Study Area between RM8.3 and RM17 (see blue line in Figures 5-1a
through 5-1d), Alternative 4 modeling results displayed the same cyclical perturbations shown
under Alternative 1. It should be noted that differences in temporal patterns between alternatives
are due to the differences in dredging and capping schedule assumptions in the model. Over the
30 year post-remediation period, the average surface sediment concentrations would decline by
less than 2 percent for the COPC and COPECs compared to the corresponding values under
Alternative 1
For DMM Scenario A, an engineered cap would be placed over the CAD cell in Newark Bay,
sequestering the contaminated sediment from the bay; this cap along with the engineered caps in
the river would be monitored and maintained in perpetuity. For DMM Scenarios B and C, no
such monitoring or maintenance of the disposal site would be required after construction is
completed; contaminated sediment would either be placed in a commercially operated facility or
treated to decontaminate the sediment, allowing its beneficial use.
Compliance with ARARs
There are currently no chemical-specific state or federal ARARs for sediment management.
Alternative 4 would satisfy the location-specific and action-specific ARARs (see Table 2-1a).
Alternative 4 is designed to address sediment contamination in the FFS Study Area. Although
remediation of contaminated sediment would contribute to improved water quality,
implementation of Alternative 4, by itself, would be unlikely to achieve compliance with ARARs
in the water column. However, because this FFS only addresses the sediments portion of the
Lower Passaic River and is only part of the remedial activities under consideration for the
17-mile Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay, compliance with surface water ARARs would
more likely be achieved after additional response actions have been implemented.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-47
2014
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 4, even with MNR and institutional controls, would not be protective of human
health and the environment and would not be effective in meeting all of the RAOs and PRGs in
the foreseeable future. Under Alternative 4, approximately 220 acres of river bottom between
RM0 and RM8.3 would be capped following the removal of approximately 1.0 million cy of
contaminated fine-grained sediments from the ecosystem of the Lower Passaic River. Dredging
would be conducted to targeted depths to allow placement of the caps on the dredged areas
without causing additional flooding. After in-water construction is completed in 2019, the
resuspension of contaminated sediments that were not capped would continue to contaminate
surface sediments and biota, and impact human health and the environment although to a lesser
degree than before implementation of Alternative 4.
Magnitude of Residual Risks
Contaminated sediments in high COPC and COPEC flux areas would be dredged to
accommodate discrete engineered caps and the contaminated sediments in the dredged areas
would be sequestered under the caps. In low flux areas, contaminated sediment would remain in
place.
Modeling results (see blue line in Figure 4-3a through 4-3k) show that by the end of the 30-year
post remediation period, FFS Study Area surface sediment concentrations would remain far
above any of the proposed remediation goals, although some background levels might be
reached.
•
For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, during the 30-year post remedy period, FFS Study Area surface
sediment concentrations would remain well over an order of magnitude higher than the
proposed remediation goals and three orders of magnitude higher than the most protective
risk-based PRG.
•
For Total PCBs and Total DDx, during the 30-year post remedy period, surface sediment
concentrations would be 25 percent higher than background concentrations and an order
of magnitude (for Total PCBs) or two orders of magnitude (for Total DDx) higher than
the proposed remediation goals.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-48
2014
•
For mercury, during the 30-year post remedy period, surface sediment concentrations
would just meet background concentrations and be an order of magnitude above the
proposed remediation goal.
Adequacy of Controls
Alternative 4 would reduce, but not eliminate, the exposure risks posed by COPCs and COPECs
in the FFS Study Area sediments provided that the integrity of the engineered caps is maintained.
For DMM Scenario A, the engineered cap over the CAD cell would have to be monitored and
maintained in perpetuity in order for Alternative 4 to be protective of human health and the
environment. Appendix G provides information on the efficacy of CAD cells in use at other
locations and costs for cap maintenance (in river and CAD site) are included in Appendix H. In
contrast, there are no additional maintenance requirements built into cost for DMM Scenario B
(Off-Site Disposal) because existing landfills already have provisions for long-term monitoring
and maintenance by landfill owners and operators which are built into the tipping fees, or DMM
Scenario C (Local Decontamination and Beneficial Use) because the sediment is treated to
remove or stabilize the contaminants.
The existing NJDEP fish and shellfish consumption advisories which rely on voluntary
compliance would be enhanced by additional outreach to improve their effectiveness in reducing
the risk to human health by limiting exposure to COPCs. Additional institutional controls (see
Section 4.2.1) would be necessary to maintain cap integrity in perpetuity. Under Alternative 4,
this would include the engineered caps in the river as well as DMM Scenario A (CAD).
MNR is part of Alternative 4 and includes modeling and monitoring of the water column,
sediment, and biota tissue during and after construction of active remedial measures to verify
that risks to the ecosystem continue to decrease. The planned post-construction monitoring
program would result in collection of the data necessary to determine whether the NJDEP fish
and shellfish consumption advisories and other restrictions imposed on private sediment
disturbance activities can be relaxed. Interim tissue PRGs based on the consumption of 12 eight-
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-49
2014
ounce fish or crab meals per year were developed for use during the post-construction
monitoring period to evaluate if contaminant concentrations are decreasing toward PRGs.
Reliability of Controls
Sediment removal and engineered capping are reliable and proven technologies. CAD cell
disposal using engineered caps is also a reliable and proven technology. Off-site thermal
destruction (incineration) and land-based disposal facilities are in operation and have proven to
be reliable technologies. The reliability of the local operation of decontamination technologies
such as thermal treatment and sediment washing is more uncertain since they have not been built
and operated in the United States on a scale approaching the capacity required for this project. In
addition, sediment washing may be less effective when the matrix contains multiple
contaminants and the sediment contains a large percentage of fine particles like silts and clays.
Multiple treatment passes, which would increase costs, may be required under such conditions.
For Alternative 4, long-term reliance on fish and crab consumption advisories would not provide
adequate protection of human health since published studies show that despite the NJDEP
advisories currently in place, people still catch and eat fish and crabs from the river. Enhanced
outreach to increase awareness of the advisories would be unlikely to be sufficient to ensure
protectiveness over the long term. In addition, institutional controls do not address ecological
risks.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through Treatment
For Alternative 4, reduction of mobility and volume of contaminated sediments in the FFS Study
Area would be achieved by dredging and capping, not through treatment. The ultimate reduction
of toxicity, mobility and volume of the sediments removed from the FFS Study Area would
depend on the DMM Scenario selected.
Under Alternative 4, in the FFS Study Area, a reduction of mobility and volume would be
achieved by the removal of approximately 1.0 million cy of sediments in approximately 220
acres (one third of the river) containing approximately 1 kg of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 1,300 kg of Total
PCBs, 100 kg of Total DDx, and 2,300 kg of mercury. The remaining contaminated sediments in
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-50
2014
dredged areas would be sequestered in the river under discrete engineered caps so that
contaminant mobility, in some areas, would be effectively eliminated; however, in approximately
two thirds of the river, the contaminated sediment would not be remediated. No reduction of
toxicity is achieved for the contaminants that remain in place under the caps or for the
contaminated sediment that would be excluded from the Alternative 4 capping and dredging
footprint.
Under DMM Scenario A, the mobility of the COPCs and COPECs removed from the FFS Study
Area would be effectively eliminated, not through treatment but by sequestering the dredged
sediments in a CAD site under an engineered cap that would need to be monitored and
maintained in perpetuity; there would be no reduction in the toxicity or the volume of the COPCs
and COPECs in the CAD site.
Under DMM Scenario B, the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the COPCs and COPECs
removed from the FFS Study Area would be reduced through the thermal destruction
(incineration) of approximately 4 percent of the contaminated sediment (for which sediment
contaminant concentrations would be reduced by more than 99 percent). For the remaining
material, mobility would be reduced by placing it in a permitted landfill (e.g., through
sequestration, not treatment), but there would be no reduction in toxicity or volume. The actual
amount of material subject to thermal destruction would depend on the results of waste
characterization testing during the remedial design.
Under DMM Scenario C, approximately 4 percent of the dredged material is assumed to undergo
thermal treatment, 94 percent is assumed to undergo sediment washing, and 2 percent is assumed
to undergo solidification / stabilization. The toxicity, mobility, and volume of the COPCs and
COPECs removed from the FFS Study Area undergoing thermal treatment would be reduced by
more than 99 percent. The toxicity of the dredged material undergoing sediment washing would
be reduced by 10 to 80 percent (depending on the constituent). Where necessary, solidification /
stabilization would further reduce the mobility of the remaining contaminants in the sediment
before it is placed in a landfill, potentially as capping material. The actual amount of material
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-51
2014
subject to each technology would depend on the results of waste characterization testing during
the remedial design.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The implementation of Alternative 4 would have less of an impact on the community, workers
and the environment than Alternatives 2 and 3 due to the smaller volume of material handled and
the shorter project duration. However, those impacts would still be important to address since the
construction period would be two years and would require handling of 1.0 million cy of dredged
materials.
Protection of the Community during Remedial Actions
There may be a risk of some adverse short-term impacts to human health and the environment
during the construction period due to the increased potential for exposure to the COPCs and
COPECs present in sediments that are resuspended during dredging.
For FFS evaluation purposes, under Alternative 4, it was assumed that dredging would proceed
24 hours per day, six days per week, 40 weeks per year, for 1.5 years using two dredges. This
would result in temporary noise, light, odors, blocked views, potential air quality impacts and
disruptions to commercial and recreational river users on both sides of the river from RM0 to
RM8.3 (operating for a few months in the vicinity of any given shore location).
Under DMM Scenario A, dredged materials would be barged to the Newark Bay CAD site,
minimizing on-land impacts to the community, but increasing vessel traffic in the bay. For FFS
evaluation purposes, it was assumed that the CAD cells would be sited in the part of Newark Bay
where the thickest layer of clay (approximately 60 feet) is likely to be found. Since major
container terminals are located in Newark Bay near the assumed CAD site, increased barge
traffic to and from the CAD site may interfere with existing commercial port traffic and increase
the potential for waterborne commerce accidents. These risks can be managed through
engineering and navigation controls established by the dredging and/or materials management
contractor working in association with the Port Authority and other regulatory agencies, to
control traffic in and around the CAD site.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-52
2014
Under DMM Scenarios B or C, dredged materials would be barged to an approximately 26- or
36-acre, respectively, upland sediment processing facility, ideally located on the banks of the
Lower Passaic River or Newark Bay. Both scenarios would increase in-water vessel traffic and
cause on-land impacts to the community (e.g., increased vehicle traffic and air quality impacts)
in the area of the upland processing facility. DMM Scenario C would have the largest on-land
impact on the community because the dewatered dredged materials would be treated on-site
resulting in potential air quality impacts and a greater risk of accidents from vehicle and
equipment operations. In addition, under DMM Scenario C, end-products may be transported by
truck off-site for beneficial use resulting in air quality impacts and traffic on area roads. The
on-land impact from DMM Scenario B would be somewhat less than that for DMM Scenario C,
since the dewatered dredged materials would be placed in rail cars and transported from the FFS
Study Area for off-site disposal. Because the upland processing facilities would be constructed in
an urban, industrialized area the impact to wildlife habitat is anticipated to be minimal.
The measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to the community described under Alternative 2
above would also be implemented under Alternative 4.
Protection of Workers during Remedial Actions
Alternative 4 would pose potential occupational risks to site workers from direct contact,
ingestion, and inhalation of COPCs and COPECs from the surface water and sediments, and
routine physical hazards associated with construction activities and working on and around
water. Measures to minimize and mitigate such risks would be addressed in worker health and
safety plans and by the use of best management practices and following OSHA-approved health
and safety procedures.
Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts Resulting from Construction and Implementation
Sediment removal may result in short-term adverse impacts to the river including exposure of the
water column, fish and biota to contaminated sediments due to resuspension of contaminated
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-53
2014
sediments during dredging. Resuspension rates for environmental dredging 37 projects are
reported to range from less than 0.1 percent to over 5 percent of the mass removed (USACE,
2008d). For the FFS, a resuspension rate of three percent of the mass removed (solids, carbon,
and chemical) was assumed. This rate is based on the Environmental Dredging Pilot Study
(LBG, 2012) results and similar measurements from other dredging projects. Risks due to
resuspension can be minimized through proper equipment selection for the location
(e.g., navigation channel, open river, shoals) and site conditions (e.g., bottom slope, depth of
water, depth of sediment, depth of planned cut); control of the sediment removal process
(e.g., placement of bucket, bucket removal speed); and the use of trained, skilled dredge
operators and crews. Environmental impacts from in-water construction include temporary loss
of benthos and habitat for the ecological community in dredged and capped areas and in areas
affected by resuspension of contaminated sediments from dredging.
Habitat replacement measures would be implemented to address these impacts. Since the
remedial action would improve and replace existing intertidal habitat (i.e., mudflats) affected by
remedial construction, the FFS assumes that no additional compensatory mitigation measures are
necessary for this aspect of the remediation (i.e., in-river remediation). This approach is
consistent with other on-going Superfund river dredging projects, such as the Hudson River
PCBs Superfund Site. Detailed analyses of compensatory mitigation are presented in
Appendix F.
Natural benthic re-colonization following a disturbance is rapid and in many instances the
process begins within days after perturbation. In many cases, full recovery to pre-disturbance
species composition and abundance occurs within one to five years (see Appendix F).
Under DMM Scenario A, construction and operation of the CAD site could have substantial
impacts on the aquatic environment that could be minimized through engineering controls.
Intertidal and subtidal shallows, such as those where CAD cells would be located, provide
valuable habitat for various aquatic species, including areas designated by NOAA as Essential
37
No quantitative estimates are available for the amount of resuspension caused by cap placement, but USEPA assumes that less resuspension is
caused by capping than by dredging (USEPA, 2005).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-54
2014
Fish Habitat. Operation of the CAD site would involve discharging dredged materials through
the water column into the CAD cells for disposal over the operating period. The area of the open
waters subject to temporary impacts from the CAD construction and operation would be
approximately 19 acres for Alternative 4 (17 acres for the CAD cells and 2 acres for the access
channel). In addition to restoring the bay bottom at the completion of the project, compensatory
mitigation for the CAD site would be required under CWA; that is, provision of a separate
mitigation site to offset the temporary ecological losses to habitat and their functional value.
Local mitigation banks tentatively identified in Appendix F provide the total mitigation acreage
necessary to offset the temporal losses associated with the Alternative 4 CAD cells. The cost of
this mitigation is included in the cost estimate for the DMM Scenario A in Appendix H.
DMM Scenarios B and C are likely to have a less direct impact on the aquatic environment than
DMM Scenario A primarily because they do not involve in-water disposal. While DMM
Scenarios B and C have greater on-land impacts (discussed above under “Protection of the
Community during Remedial Actions”) due to the need for a large upland processing facility,
those impacts can be mitigated through proven technologies such as air pollution control
technology and buffer zones around construction sites.
Time until Remedial Response Objectives are Achieved
Alternative 4, even in conjunction with MNR, would not be effective in reaching risk-based
PRGs for any COPCs and COPECs by the end of the 30 year post-remediation period or
relatively shortly after the post-remediation period. Surface sediment concentrations of the
COPCs and COPECs would remain one to two orders of magnitude higher than the proposed
remediation goals. Alternative 4 would also not be effective in reaching background levels for
any COPCs and COPECs except for mercury, whose background level would just be met in the
2050s.
Implementability
For Alternative 4, the remedial work in the FFS Study Area faces both technical and
administrative implementation issues. The in-river remedial action can be constructed, operated,
and maintained within the site-specific and technology-specific regulations and constraints.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-55
2014
However, the process of reliably identifying discrete areas that release the most contaminants
into the water column would involve a great degree of uncertainty given the complex estuarine
environment of the FFS Study Area. In addition, Alternative 4 faces an administrative hurdle in
obtaining deauthorization of the federal navigation channel. Finally, the technical and
administrative implementability of the DMM Scenarios vary from one to the next.
Technical Feasibility
The in-river construction activities (debris removal, dredging, engineered capping and dredged
material transport) required for the implementation of Alternative 4 would be technically feasible
and have been implemented at many Superfund sites around the country (see Chapter 3 and
Appendix G). However implementing a remediation program the size and complexity of that
planned for the FFS Study Area adjacent to one of the major East Coast waterways would
require extensive planning and coordination. Given the smaller volume of material to be handled
and the shorter duration of the in-water removal, Alternative 4 could be seen as presenting fewer
challenges than either Alternatives 2 or 3.
Under Alternative 4, the process of reliably identifying discrete areas that release the most
contaminants into the water column would involve a great degree of uncertainty given the
complex estuarine environment of the FFS Study Area. The river bottom changes constantly as
the tides move back and forth twice a day and unpredictably as storm events scour different areas
depending on intensity, location and direction of travel.
The FFS Study Area river bed is crossed by utilities of various sizes and depths, in a number of
locations. Dredging for Alternative 4 may not affect utilities due to the shallower dredging
depths; however, remedial design would include additional work to locate utilities in the FFS
Study Area and determine appropriate dredging off-sets. The FFS Study Area is also crossed by
14 bridges of various heights. The necessary coordination, which may include assisting bridge
authorities with engineering evaluations and maintenance of the bridges, would occur during
remedial design.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-56
2014
The three DMM Scenarios are technically feasible. DMM Scenario A (placement in CAD cells)
and B (dewatering, dredged material transport and off-site disposal) can be implemented with
proper planning. The technologies have been successfully implemented at other Superfund sites
(see Chapter 3 and Appendix G). Depending on the selected approach, a suitable site for the
CAD or upland sediment processing facility is expected to be available or can be developed. The
large volume of sediments to be removed would require significant coordination of the
dredging/excavation efforts, material handling activities, and transportation logistics between the
dredging contractor and/or materials management contractor and the Port Authority and other
regulatory agencies to manage vessel traffic in the area safely. As stated previously, the volume
of dredged material and project duration for Alternative 4 is significantly smaller than that for
Alternatives 2 and 3.
The decontamination technologies involved in DMM Scenario C (thermal treatment and
sediment washing) have not been constructed and operated in the United States on a scale
approaching the capacity required for this project so the technical feasibility of using these
technologies to handle large volumes of highly contaminated sediments is more uncertain. The
performance of the sediment washing technology was demonstrated in 2006 on a pilot study
level involving processing rates that were high enough (although for a relatively short duration)
to be considered equivalent to commercial scale operation (see Appendix G). However, more
recently, in 2012, bench-scale studies by two sediment washing technology vendors showed that
their technologies were unable to reduce Lower Passaic River sediment contamination to levels
low enough for beneficial use (de maximis, inc., 2012). Thermal treatment has been
demonstrated to have very high treatment efficiencies although the technology has only been
tested on a pilot scale level involving relatively small volumes and short durations (see
Appendix G).
Administrative Feasibility
No insurmountable administrative difficulties are anticipated in getting the necessary regulatory
approvals for sediment removal or engineered cap placement. Since a large number of the
activities are expected to occur on-site (as defined under CERCLA Section 121(e)(1) and
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-57
2014
40 CFR 300.5), federal, state and local permits are not required. Permits are expected to be
obtained from the appropriate local, state and federal agencies for actions that occur off-site.
Alternative 4 may face an administrative implementability challenge with respect to obtaining
deauthorization of the federally-authorized navigation channel in the lower 2.2 miles of the river.
To obtain deauthorization, a request would need to be submitted to the USACE. The process
requires that, after a public comment period, the USACE regional office make a recommendation
to USACE HQ, which would forward its report to Congress for action. However, the USACE
berth-by-berth analysis and survey of commercial users showed future waterway use objectives
in the lower two miles of the river (USACE, 2010). USACE and Congressional support for
deauthorization of the lower two miles of the navigation channel is highly uncertain.
Sediment removal and engineered capping activities would result in some temporary disruption
of commercial/ recreational uses and boating access during remediation. Although measures to
mitigate or prevent impacts and disruptions would be employed, local communities would be
expected to experience some degree of inconvenience during remedial activities. Measures to be
implemented in conjunction with this alternative to minimize both short- and long-term
disruption and adverse impacts include:
•
Accommodation of existing boat traffic during construction, where feasible
•
Limited duration of the remediation period (a few months in the vicinity of any given
shore location)
•
Shoreline stabilization and waterfront restoration
•
Proper equipment selection for the location and site conditions, control of the sediment
removal and capping process, and the use of trained, skilled dredge operators and crews.
DMM Scenario A is likely to face significant administrative and legal impediments, because the
State of New Jersey is the owner of the bay bottom and strongly opposes construction of a CAD
site in Newark Bay. The State’s position is clearly articulated in a letter dated November 28,
2012 from Governor Chris Christie to former USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. This
opposition is likely to make DMM Scenario A administratively infeasible. USFWS and NOAA
also oppose construction of a CAD site in Newark Bay. For DMM Scenario B, administrative
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-58
2014
feasibility is less of a concern, although siting a 26-acre upland processing facility for dewatering
of dredged materials, water treatment to satisfy regulatory requirements, and provisions for a rail
car loading spur may be challenging in the densely populated urban areas around the Lower
Passaic River and Newark Bay. For DMM Scenario C, administrative feasibility is less of a
concern than for DMM Scenario A but more of a concern than for DMM Scenario B because
DMM Scenario C requires a larger upland area for dredged material processing and staging
(36 acres). It also involves the construction of a thermal treatment plant which would be subject
to stringent limitations on air emissions and regulatory requirements may be administratively
challenging.
Availability of Services and Materials
For the remedial work in the FFS Study Area, services and materials are expected to be
commercially available. Equipment and technical expertise for dredging and engineered cap
placement are available through a number of commercial firms. While a large amount of cap
material would be needed, adequate resources have been preliminarily identified at several local
borrow sources. Equipment and technical expertise for constructing CAD cells are available.
Available capacity at off-site incinerators and landfills has been preliminarily identified
(Appendix G). Several companies have expressed interest in and have demonstrated the technical
ability to construct the local thermal treatment and sediment washing facilities generating
beneficial use end-products. However, since no such facilities have been built locally, there
remains some uncertainty over the implementability of DMM Scenario C.
Cost
For Alternative 4, capital costs were broken into two main categories: in-river activities and
DMM. Operation and maintenance costs were broken down into three main categories: operation
of DMM facilities during dredging, activities conducted annually after dredging, and periodic
costs over the 30-year post-construction monitoring period. Details of the costs to implement
Alternative 4 are detailed in Appendix H and summarized in Table 5-3.
•
For Alternative 4 with DMM Scenario A (Capping with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation and CAD), the estimated PV cost is approximately $365,000,000.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-59
2014
•
For Alternative 4 with DMM Scenario B (Capping with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation and Off-Site Disposal), the estimated PV cost is approximately $614,000,000.
•
For Alternative 4 with DMM Scenario C (Capping with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation and Local Decontamination and Beneficial Use), the estimated PV cost is
approximately $606,000,000.
The dredging cost estimates presented in Appendix H were developed using mechanical
dredging as the representative process option, because mechanical dredging may be better able to
handle the debris-laden sediments in the FFS Study Area. The PV cost for Alternative 4
assuming hydraulic dredging is used is approximately $483,000,000 and $543,000,000 with
DMM Scenarios B and C, respectively. The cost of Alternative 4 assuming hydraulic dredging in
combination with DMM Scenario A was not estimated because of the complexity of maintaining
a pumping line down the length of the FFS Study Area and crossing the federally-authorized
navigation channel one or more times. Detailed hydraulic dredging costs are not presented in
Appendix H.
5.3 Comparative Analysis and Cost Sensitivity Analyses
5.3.1 Comparative Analysis
A detailed comparative analysis of alternatives is presented in Table 5-4.
Alternative 1 is not protective of human health and the environment and does not comply with
ARARs. The Alternative 1 does not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
contamination through treatment. The cancer risks and non-cancer human health hazards posed
by fish and crab consumption and risks to ecological receptors would remain above acceptable
levels (PRGs) and surface water quality would continue to be degraded indefinitely.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are protective of human health and the environment, are effective in meeting
the RAOs, and rely on MNR after active remediation to reach the PRGs relatively shortly after
the modeled forecast period. The cancer risks and non-cancer hazards to human health, and risks
to ecological receptors (benthic invertebrates, fish, piscivorous birds and mammals) posed by the
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-60
2014
sediments with COPCs and COPECs would be significantly reduced after completion of
construction (construction completion occurs in 2022 for Alternative 3 and in 2029 for
Alternative 2). Alternatives 2 and 3 are designed to address sediment contamination in the FFS
Study Area and reduce the migration of contamination to Newark Bay and the NY/NJ Harbor
Estuary. Alternative 4, even with MNR and institutional controls, is not protective of human
health and the environment. While Alternative 4 reduces the risks posed by contaminated
sediment by about half to below Alternative 1 levels, ultimately PRGs would not be achieved in
the foreseeable future because the unremediated two-thirds of surface sediments in the FFS
Study Area are ubiquitously contaminated at levels at least an order of magnitude above
acceptable levels (PRGs). The cancer risks and non-cancer human health hazards posed by fish
and crab consumption and risks to ecological receptors would remain above acceptable levels.
All alternatives would satisfy the location-specific and action-specific ARARs; however,
Alternative 4 would result in placing of capping material within an actively used federallyauthorized navigation channel, effectively limiting the channel to below-authorized depths and
hindering current and reasonably-anticipated future use.
Under Alternative 2, the COPCs and COPECs present in fine-grained sediments within the FFS
Study Area would be permanently removed from the river and no in-river maintenance would be
required. Under Alternative 3, some, but not all, of the COPCs and COPECs present in the
predominantly fine-grained sediments within the FFS Study Area would be permanently
removed from the river and the remainder sequestered under an engineered cap. For Alternative
3, the engineered cap would have to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity. This would
require annual maintenance to ensure the performance and protectiveness of the cap. For
Alternative 4, a portion of the COPCs and COPECs present in fine-grained sediments (in
approximately 220 acres, or one third of the FFS Study Area) would be permanently removed
from the river. Some of the remaining sediment inventory would be sequestered under an
engineered cap with the remainder (two thirds of the FFS Study Area) not receiving any controls.
For Alternative 4, the discrete engineered caps would have to be monitored and maintained in
perpetuity. This would require annual maintenance to ensure the performance and protectiveness
of the caps.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-61
2014
Following removal, the dredged sediment would be placed in CAD cells (DMM Scenario A),
disposed of off-site (DMM Scenario B), or locally decontaminated for beneficial use (DMM
Scenario C). For DMM Scenario A, the engineered cap on the CAD cells would also have to be
monitored and maintained in perpetuity. For DMM Scenario B, the off-site treatment and
disposal are permanent remedy components and do not require further monitoring or
maintenance. Similarly, for DMM Scenario C, local decontamination and beneficial reuse are
permanent and do not require further monitoring or maintenance.
For DMM Scenario A, under Alternatives 2 and 3 the mobility of the COPCs and COPECs
would be reduced through sequestration not treatment; there would be no reduction in the
toxicity or volume of the COPCs and COPECs and long-term effectiveness relies on monitoring
and maintenance of the engineered caps for the CAD cells. For Alternative 4, the mobility of
approximately 3 million cy (including 1 million cy removed and 2 million cy sequestered, or
approximately 30 percent) of the sediment inventory would be reduced.
Under DMM Scenario B, approximately 4 to 10 percent of the contaminated sediment would be
incinerated; the toxicity and volume of the COPCs and COPECs would be effectively reduced
through thermal destruction satisfying the statutory preference under CERCLA. The remaining
material would be placed untreated in a landfill reducing contaminant mobility with no impact on
contaminant volume. For DMM Scenario C, the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the COPCs
and COPECs would be reduced through treatment (thermal treatment [approximately 4 to
10 percent] or sediment washing [88 to 94 percent]) satisfying the statutory preference under
CERCLA. The remaining material (1 to 2 percent) would undergo solidification or stabilization,
reducing the mobility of contaminants.
Alternative 2 is expected to have a greater impact on the community and site workers because of
the long duration of the construction and the handling of larger volumes of more contaminated
dredged material (9.7 million cy versus 4.3 million cy versus 1 million cy). Alternative 4 would
have the least impact on the community and site workers.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-62
2014
DMM Scenario A would have the least impact on the community and site workers but the most
impact on the aquatic habitat because the transport and disposal occurs on or in the water. DMM
Scenario C would have a greater impact on the local community and workers than DMM
Scenario B because the decontamination technologies require a slightly larger upland processing
facility, incorporates a local thermal treatment unit with potential air emissions, and may require
more trucking to transport beneficial end use products to local destinations (as opposed to the
reliance on rail for DMM Scenario B).
For Alternatives 2 and 3 the in-river work has been demonstrated to be technically and
administratively feasible. Alternative 4 may not be technically feasible due to the uncertainty
involved in the process of reliably identifying discrete areas of sediment with the highest gross
and net fluxes of contaminants. In addition, deauthorization of the federally-authorized
navigation channel between RM0 to RM2.2, required under Alternative 4, may not be
administratively feasible. For all three active remedial alternatives, the necessary materials and
expertise are readily available.
DMM Scenario A has been demonstrated to be technically feasible. DMM Scenario A is likely to
face significant administrative and legal impediments because the State of New Jersey is the
owner of the bay bottom and strongly opposes construction of a CAD site in Newark Bay. The
State’s position is clearly articulated in a letter dated November 28, 2012 from Governor Chris
Christie to former USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. This opposition is likely to make DMM
Scenario A administratively infeasible. USFWS and NOAA also oppose construction of a CAD
site in Newark Bay. DMM Scenario B is technically and administratively feasible although it
may be difficult to site a 26- to 28-acre upland processing facility in a densely populated urban
area. DMM Scenario C has the most uncertainty since the thermal treatment and sediment
washing treatment technologies have not been built and operated in the United States on a scale
approaching what is required for this project. Siting a 36- to 40-acre upland processing facility in
a densely populated urban area is likely to be difficult and meeting regulatory requirements for
thermal treatment locally may be administratively challenging.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-63
2014
Present Value Costs
The bar chart below and Table 5-3 present the PV for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 (including the
three DMM scenarios). Each bar illustrates the relative contribution of the total capital costs, the
total DMM costs, the total O&M costs, and the contingency costs. Removal alternatives range
from complete removal of contaminated sediments (Alternative 2) to partial removal and
containment (Alternative 3) to limited removal and containment (Alternative 4) to no action
(Alternative 1).
3500
Total Contingency
Total Operation and Maintenance Costs
Total Dredged Material Management Costs
Total Capital Costs
3000
2500
Cost [$M]
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Alternative 2
Alternative 2
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 3
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 4
Alternative 4
DMM Scenario A DMM Scenario B DMM Scenario C DMM Scenario A DMM Scenario B DMM Scenario C DMM Scenario A DMM Scenario B DMM Scenario C
The alternatives and the associated DMM scenarios for the FFS Study Area include a No Action
alternative (Alternative 1), in-water containment alternatives involving little or no treatment
(Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 with DMM Scenario A); upland containment alternatives involving
limited treatment (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 with DMM Scenario B); and alternatives that
maximize to the degree possible, treatment and beneficial use of the end-products of the
treatment system (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 with DMM Scenario C).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-64
2014
The model simulation of these alternatives and calculations of modeled future risks demonstrate
that Alternatives 2 and 3, in conjunction with MNR and institutional controls, are protective of
human health and the environment, are consistent with location-specific and action-specific
ARARs, and are capable of achieving the RAOs and meeting the PRGs with varying degrees of
cost-effectiveness. Alternative 4, even with MNR and institutional controls, is not protective of
human health and the environment, is not capable of achieving RAOs or meeting PRGs, and
therefore is not cost effective. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 involve solutions that, in whole or in part,
permanently reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances.
5.3.2 Cost Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact that changing various assumptions used
in the conceptual design for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, would have on the overall PV costs for each
alternative. Based on the cost estimates described in Section 5.2 (base case) and presented in
detail in Appendix H, five critical factors were identified that are likely to have the greatest
impact on the project PV. These critical factors are as follows:
•
Changes in the proportion of dredged material requiring thermal destruction treatment
for DMM Scenarios B and C for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4.
•
Changes in the volume of sediment removed for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.
•
Changes in the thickness of the engineered cap for Alternatives 3 and 4.
•
Changes in the discount rate used for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.
•
Changes in the dredge production rate for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.
5.3.2.1 Cost Structure
In preparing the cost estimates for each of the alternatives and DMM scenarios, a cost model was
prepared (see Appendix H), breaking the costs into four major categories:
•
Capital Costs (in-river costs)
•
DMM Capital Costs
•
DMM O&M Costs
•
Long Term O&M Costs
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-65
2014
For the base case estimates presented in Appendix H, the combined O&M costs (i.e., DMM and
the Long Term O&M costs) represent less than fifteen percent of the project PV (see Table 1-11
in Appendix H). Even major changes in fuel or labor costs (which make up a significant portion
of these O&M costs) would have relatively little impact on the overall PV. Because of this cost
distribution the focus of the analysis was on the capital costs and the DMM capital costs, which
comprise the bulk of the PV for the remedial alternatives.
The cost structure of the different alternatives and DMM scenarios affected the degree of impact
each change had on the PV. For example, under DMM Scenario A, fixed costs (e.g., costs not
directly related to the volume of contaminated sediment such as the predesign investigation,
remedial design, and construction costs) were up to 80 percent of the total capital costs. With
DMM Scenarios B and C, this ratio was flipped with variable costs (e.g., costs directed related to
the volume of contaminated sediment such as dredging and processing costs) accounting for up
to 80 percent of the capital costs. The ratio of fixed to variable costs varied for each
alternative/scenario combination. These variations impacted how the PV for each alternative
reacted to changes in the project costs. In the alternatives evaluated in this FFS, fixed costs
generally occur early in the project. Because of the timing, the fixed costs are not as deeply
discounted as costs occurring later in the project. On the other hand, variable costs generally
occur later in the project and are more deeply discounted.
As noted in Section 5.1.7, the PV is impacted by the timing of the expenditures as well as the
actual costs. Changes during the predesign investigation/design phase are likely to have a more
limited impact when the facility design can be more readily modified whereas changes during
operations to address conditions encountered in the field are likely to have a greater impact. For
this analysis, it was assumed that the changes that occurred during project implementation were
after construction of the upland processing facility or CAD site.
It should be noted that this analysis is based on the calculated PV (Appendix H) of the three
active remedial alternatives based on current assumptions in the conceptual designs, and is not a
measure of the actual costs that would be incurred or the actual changes in the project costs
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-66
2014
arising from changes to basic assumptions. Rather this an assessment of which factors have the
greatest potential to impact the PV of the different alternatives and is intended for comparison
purposes only.
5.3.2.2 Critical Cost Factors
Cost Sensitivity to Factor 1: Proportion of Dewatered Dredged Material Requiring Thermal
Treatment
It is currently estimated that approximately 10 percent of the dredged material under
Alternative 2, 7 percent under Alternative 3, and 4 percent under Alternative 4 would require
thermal destruction treatment to comply with RCRA disposal requirements (see Chapter 4 and
Appendix G).
Doubling the percentage of material requiring treatment under DMM Scenarios B and C would
have a low to moderate impact on the PV. The PV increased by approximately 1 to 12 percent
under DMM Scenario B and approximately 1 to 7 percent under DMM Scenario C. For both
DMM Scenarios, Alternative 2 would be impacted the most and Alternative 4 would be impacted
the least. DMM Scenario A does not involve treatment and would not be impacted by changes in
this factor.
This suggests that within the accuracy of the cost estimates, the two upland DMM scenarios
would be similarly impacted by changes in the volume of material requiring thermal treatment.
Of the three alternatives, Alternative 2 would be impacted the most because it has the greatest
percentage of the material receiving thermal treatment.
Cost Sensitivity to Factor 2: Volume of Sediment Removed
The horizontal extent of the contamination was used to establish the limits of the removal
program in the river for each of the alternatives. For Alternatives 2 and 3, the limits were set by
the banks of the FFS Study Area, with the primary variable being the depth of excavation.
Changes in the depth of excavation would have the impact of increasing (or decreasing) the
volume of material to be removed or capped in place. For Alternative 4, the limits were set by
the contaminant flux, with sediment removal in the areas with the highest flux. Under
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-67
2014
Alternative 4, dredging is primarily aimed at preventing any additional flooding from capping.
Changes in threshold level of flux to be addressed would impact the volume of the sediment to
be removed.
A small increase or decrease in the dredged sediment volume would have a relatively small
impact on the PV, if it could be handled by increasing or decreasing the marginal productivity of
the dredging and processing operations without changing the number of dredges, making
substantial equipment modifications to the sediment processing/disposal train, or lengthening the
project duration. A large increase or decrease in the sediment volume would have a much more
significant impact because the conceptual design would have to be reconfigured to efficiently
handle the revised volume, the equipment would have to be resized or additional equipment
added, or, in the case of increased sediment volume, the project duration would have to be
extended.
In general, dredging costs increase in a stepwise manner based on the operating schedule (days
per week, weeks per year) and the number of dredges used. Each dredge has a maximum daily
rate and an optimal range for efficient operation based on site specific conditions. For purposes
of this estimate, an average production rate of 2,000 cy per day was assumed.
The processing costs (DMM Scenarios B and C) also increase in a stepwise manner based on the
equipment capacity and the degree of redundancy built into the design. Some redundancy in
equipment capacity must be included in the system or the schedule must allow for planned down
time for equipment maintenance, particularly in a remediation program extending over a number
of years.
The disposal capacity of a CAD cell (DMM Scenario A) may have some available capacity due
to consolidation of the in-place material during fill operations or through capacity allowances
made in the original facility design to accommodate overdredging or unforeseen conditions.
Because of the number of variables, reliably predicting the impact of an increase in the volume
of material on the PV is difficult. Minor increases in volume (approximately 10 percent) may be
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-68
2014
accommodated under the existing design; however, a more substantial increase in the volume of
sediment dredged (e.g., a 25 percent increase) would result in the need for additional equipment
and crews or increasing the project schedule, which would have a more substantial impact on the
PV as well as requiring significant modifications to the DMM system. This analysis evaluates
only a small change in sediment volume.
Increasing the volume of sediment removed by 10 percent
For this analysis, it was assumed that the total volume of material dredged would be increased by
approximately 10 percent. For example, under Alternative 2, a 10 percent increase in the volume
of sediment is roughly equivalent to increasing the depth of dredging by approximately 1 foot
over the entire area being dredged.
•
DMM Scenario A was the least sensitive to an increase in sediment volume with the PV
increasing approximately 1 to 2 percent for the three alternatives.
•
DMM Scenario B and DMM Scenario C had similar responses to the increase in the
sediment volume, increasing approximately 5 to 9 percent. Alternative 2 showed the
greatest impact with the PV increasing by 8 to 9 percent; Alternative 4 showed the least
impact increasing by 5 percent.
Decreasing the volume of sediment removed by 10 percent
For this analysis, it was assumed that volume of material dredged would be decreased by
approximately 10 percent. For example, under Alternative 2, a 10 percent decrease in the volume
of sediment is roughly equivalent to decreasing the depth of dredging by approximately 1 foot
over the entire area being dredged. The changes in the PV were relatively consistent within each
of the DMM Scenarios.
•
DMM Scenario A was also the least sensitive to a decrease in sediment volume with the
PV decreasing approximately 2 percent for the three alternatives.
•
DMM Scenario B and DMM Scenario C had similar responses to a decrease in the
sediment volume, with the PV decreasing by approximately 4 to 9 percent. The change in
sediment volume had the greatest impact on Alternatives 2, with the PV decreasing by 8
and 9 percent for DMM Scenarios B and C, respectively; the PV for Alternative 3
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-69
2014
decreased by 7 percent for both scenarios; and, Alternative 4 showed the least impact
with the PV decreasing by 4 and 5 percent for DMM Scenarios B and C, respectively.
Cost Sensitivity to Factor 3: Thickness of the Engineered Cap for Alternative 3
For this analysis, it was assumed that the thickness of the engineered cap would have to be
increased to account for increased flux through the cap. The thickness of the cap was increased
by approximately 6 inches, or 25 percent. This was only applied to the engineered cap in the
river, not to the engineered cap over the CAD cells or to the volume of backfill material.
Alternative 2 would not be impacted because it does not include an engineered cap.
The impacts to Alternatives 3 and 4 were similar for each of the three DMM Scenarios, with
increases in the PV ranging from 3 to 5 percent.
Cost Sensitivity to Factor 4: Discount Rate
The discount rate used in this analysis is based on USEPA guidance in OSWER 9355.0-75
(USEPA, 2000) which specifies a 7 percent rate unless justification is provided for a different
rate. To assess the impact of varying discount rates, the PV was calculated for each alternative
based on a 3 percent discount rate and a 10 percent discount rate.
Increasing the Discount Rate to 10 percent
Increasing the discount rate by 3 percentage points to 10 percent decreased the PV, on average,
by approximately $120,000,000. The changes in PV were relatively constant with the Alternative
2 PV decreasing by 16 to 18 percent; Alternative 3 PV decreasing by 14 percent, and Alternative
4 PV decreasing by 12 to 14 percent.
Decreasing the Discount Rate to 3 percent
Decreasing the discount rate by 4 percentage points to 3 percent increased the PV, on average, by
approximately $225,000,000. This factor had the greatest impact on the PV, of all the variables
evaluated, with the changes ranging from approximately 21 to 33 percent, although the changes
were relatively constant for each alternative. The PV increased by 32 to 34 percent for
Alternative 2; by 25 to 26 percent for Alternative 3; and by 21 to 26 percent for Alternative 4.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-70
2014
Cost Sensitivity to Factor 5: Changes in the Dredging Productivity Rate
A reach by reach analysis was prepared to assess the impact of dredging production rates on
project costs for the FFS comparative evaluation of alternatives. In this evaluation, consideration
was given to several factors including the ability to move vessels up and down river, the impact
of obstructions in the river on vessel sizing, dredge production rates, and capping rates. The river
was broken into three reaches and for each of the reaches a maximum dredge production rate was
estimated based on site restrictions. For additional information on this analysis, refer to
Appendix F.
In each case, the controlling factor on the overall dredging production rate was the bridges that
limit the size of equipment that could access the site. While additional dredges could be used to
increase the sediment removal rate from the river, there is a practical limitation on the ability to
transport the sediment to the CAD site or upland sediment processing facility. Based on
discussions with equipment suppliers it was determined it is not feasible to purchase or lease
equipment small enough to allow passage under the closed bridges in Reach 2 (with vertical
clearances of 10 to 13 feet at MLW) that would allow production scale dredging operations.
Therefore, when operating in Reach 2 and 3, it was assumed equipment sizing would be dictated
by the beam limitations for the bridges and that it would be necessary to coordinate barge
shipments with bridge openings. A similar analysis was prepared for the handling of
backfill/capping materials.
The dredge production rate was used as a surrogate measure for the overall productivity of the
project. For this analysis, the dredge production rate was assumed to be approximately
25 percent less than the rate assumed during the design process (i.e., 1,500 cy per day versus
2,000 cy per day).
Decreasing the dredging productivity by approximately 25 percent increased the project duration
by roughly 25 percent (e.g., Alternative 2 went from 11 to 14 years) but decreased the PV by
approximately 0 to 5 percent. On the surface, this appears counter intuitive since a longer project
duration would be assumed to have higher project costs. There are several reasons for this small
response in the PV to this change in the cost model:
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-71
2014
•
In the cost model, the majority of the capital costs were based on unit quantity pricing
(e.g., cost per sample, cost of cy) with approximately 5 percent of the costs based on unit
time pricing (e.g., cost per day, cost per year) under Alternative 2A; the other alternatives
have similar patterns. So while decreasing the productivity rate increased the project
duration, it did not substantially increase the overall project costs.
•
Under USEPA cost estimating guidance (USEPA, 2000), FS costs are prepared in
constant (non-inflationary) dollars. This means that extending the project duration does
not impact unit pricing rates.
•
Extending the project duration results in some costs being more deeply discounted than
they would be under the original project duration. This would impact alternatives that
have the longest project durations the most (Alternative 2A, 2B, and 2C).
The net effect is that decreasing the productivity had the net effect of reducing the PV.
5.3.2.3 Other Cost Factors Considered
Consideration was given to other cost factors that could have a potentially significant impact on
the PV but were not included in the sensitivity analysis due the potential range of variables.
Remedy failure was one of these factors. For analysis purposes, potential failure modes were
divided into two categories: failure to control the risk of exposure to contaminated sediment and
failure to manage the contaminated sediments after dredging.
•
Failure to control the future risk of exposure is primarily related to the dredging and
backfill placement/capping process and could include one or more of the following
factors: failure to remove targeted inventory, failure to design/construct an adequate cap
over remaining inventory, or failure to protect the engineered cap (from anthropogenic or
natural forces). For this analysis, it was assumed that remedy failure was separate from
performance failure (poor performance on the part of contractors doing the work) which
can be addressed through appropriate bonding and contractual arrangements.
•
Failure to appropriately manage contaminated sediments could include one or more of the
following: failure to select appropriate technologies or disposal sites, failure to meet
treatment standards during operations, or failure to comply with beneficial use standards.
For this analysis it was assumed that treatment and disposal would be contracted to an
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-72
2014
approved vendor with appropriate performance guarantees, such as bonding, or
insurance. This would minimize the potential risk associated with this type of remedy
failure.
The financial implications of failure, in either mode, can vary substantially depending on the
work required to repair the damage – to attempt to estimate the cost and the impact on the PV is
speculative at best.
The impact of increasing the amount of the engineered cap that is armored under Alternatives 3
and 4 were also considered for review. However, the cost of purchasing and installing the armor
represents less than 0.5 percent of the capital costs for the project. Doubling or tripling the
amount of armoring would have a negligible impact on the PV.
5.3.2.4 Summary of Cost Sensitivity Analyses
A summary of the results of the sensitivity analyses are presented in Table 5-5.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
5-73
2014
6
ACRONYMS
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
AOC
Administrative Order on Consent
ARARs
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
ARCS
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
BERA
baseline ecological risk assessment
Be-7
Beryllium-7
CAD
Confined aquatic disposal
CAG
Community Advisory Group
CARP
Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project
CBR
critical body residues
CDF
Confined Disposal Facility
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
cm
centimeter
COPCs
contaminants of potential concern
COPECs
chemicals of potential ecological concern
CPG
Cooperating Parties Group
CSMs
Conceptual Site Models
CSO
combined sewer overflow
CWA
Clean Water Act
cy
cubic yard
D/F
Dioxins/furans
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
6-1
2014
DDD
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDE
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DDx
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DMM
dredged material management
DOC
dissolved organic carbon
ECOM
Estuarine, Coastal and Ocean Model
EMB
empirical mass balance
EPCs
exposure point concentrations
ERDC
Environmental Dredging of Contaminated Sediments
ETM
estuarine turbidity maximum
FCSA
USACE Feasibility Study Cost Share Agreement
FFS
Focused Feasibility Study
FRTR
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
ft
feet
GAC
granular activated carbon
GIS
geographic information system
GRAs
general response actions
GTI
Gas Technology Institute
HARS
Historic Area Remediation Site
HHRA
human health risk assessments
HI
hazard index
HMW
high molecular weight
HQ
hazard quotient
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
6-2
2014
kg
kilograms
LDR
Land Disposal Restriction
LBG
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
LMW
low molecular weight
LOAEL
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels
LPR-NB
Lower Passaic River-Newark Bay
LPRSA
Lower Passaic River Study Area
MCLs
maximum contaminant levels
mg/kg
milligram per kilogram
MLW
mean low water
MNR
Monitored Natural Recovery
MT/yr
metric tons per year
NBSA
Newark Bay Study Area
NCP
National Contingency Plan
ng
nanograms
ng/g
nanograms per gram
NJ
New Jersey
N.J.A.C.
New Jersey Administrative Code
NJDEP
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NJDOT
New Jersey Department of Transportation
NJDOT-OMR
NJDOT Office of Maritime Resources
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAEL
No Observed Adverse Effect Levels
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
6-3
2014
NPL
National Priorities List
NY/NJ
New York/New Jersey
O&M
operation and maintenance
OCC
Occidental Chemical Corporation
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Act
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PAH
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCBs
polychlorinated biphenyls
ρg/g
picograms per gram
POC
particulate organic carbon
ppb
parts per billion
ppt
parts per trillion
PRGs
preliminary remediation goals
PTM
Particle Tracking Model
PV
present value
RAGS
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
RAOs
remedial action objectives
RBC
risk-based concentration
RCATOX
Row Column Aesop Toxics
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI
Remedial Investigation
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
RM
river mile
RME
reasonable maximum exposure
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
6-4
2014
ROD
Record of Decision
SMU
sediment management unit
ST-SWEM
Sediment Transport-System Wide Eutrophication Model
STFATE
Short Term Fate
SWO
stormwater outfall
TBC
to-be-considered
TCLP
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TEF
toxic equivalency factors
TEQ
toxic equivalency quotient
TOC
total organic carbon
TRV
toxicity reference value
TSCA
Toxic Substances Control Act
TSI
Tierra Solutions, Inc.
UHC
underlying hazardous constituent
µg/kg
micrograms per kilogram
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UTS
universal treatment standard
WRDA
Water Resources Development Act
Acronyms Presented in the Tables
°F
Degrees Fahrenheit
BROM DIOX/F
Brominated Dioxins/Furans
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
6-5
2014
BCD
Base catalyzed decomposition
CAA
Clean Air Act
CZMA
Coastal Zone Management Act
CLP PQL
Laboratory Program Practical Quantification Limit
DIOX/F
Dioxins/Furans
EDQLs/ESLs
Environmental Data Quality Levels/Ecological Screening Levels
EO
Executive Orders
EqP
Equilibrium Partitioning
ER-L
Effects Range – Low
ER-M
Effects Range – Median
ETs
Ecotox Thresholds
GCL
Geosynthetic Clay Liners
HPAH
High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
HMTA
Hazardous Material Transportation Act
ISQG
Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines
LDR
Land Disposal Restrictions
LEL
Lowest Effects Level
LPAH
Low Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
MET
Metal
NAWQC
National Ambient Water Quality Criteria
ND
Not Detect
NEC
No Effect Concentration
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
N.J.S.A.
New Jersey Statutes Annotated
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
6-6
2014
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Services
OENJ
Orion of Elizabeth New Jersey
Ontario MOE
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
ORNL
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
OTS
Office of Technical Services
PADEP
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
PELs
Probable Effects Levels
PEST
Pesticides
PEC
Probable Effect Concentration
POTW
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
SECs
Sediment Effect Concentrations
SEL
Sediment Effects Level
SLC
Screening Level Concentration
SQBs
Sediment Quality Benchmarks
SQC
Sediment Quality Criteria
SMCRA
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
SV
Semi Volatile
SVOCs
Semi Volatile Organic Compounds
TEC
Threshold effect concentration
TEL
Threshold Effects Level
TPH
Total petroleum hydrocarbon
U.S.C.
United States Code
VOA
Volatile Organic Aromatic Compound
WHO
World Health Organization
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
6-7
2014
7
REFERENCES
Abramowicz, D.A., 1990. “Aerobic and Anaerobic Biodegradation of PCBs: A Review.” Crit
Rev Biotechnol. 10(3):241-251.
ALCOA, 2006. “Activated Carbon Pilot Study Work Plan.” Submitted to USEPA Region 2.
Apex, 2013. “Invitation for Bid, New Bedford Harbor Development Commission: New Bedford
Harbor, Lower Harbor CAD Cell,” Contract No. HDC-FY12-006. New Bedford, Massachusetts.
September 2013.
ASI, 2006. Technical Report, Geophysical Survey, Lower Passaic
River Restoration Project. Final. Prepared for Office of Maritime Resources, NJDOT and
USACE-NY District. Aqua Survey, Inc. Flemington, NJ. June 2006
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 1989. “Toxicological Profile for
Selected PCBs.” ATSDR/TP-88/21, U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
Bailey, S.E., and M.R. Palermo, 2005. “Equipment and Placement Techniques for Subaqueous
Capping.” Dredging Operations and Environmental Research (DOER) Technical Notes
Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-R9), United States Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, MS. September 2005.
Beckingham B., U. Ghosh, 2011. “Field-scale Reduction of PCB Bioavailability with Activated
Carbon Amendment to River Sediments.” Environ Sci Technol. 45(24):10567-74.
Bedard, D.L and J.F. Quensen, 1995. “Microbial Reductive Dechlorination of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls.” Cited in: Young L.Y., C.E. Cerniglia, ed. Ecological and Applied Microbiology;
Microbial Transformation and Degradation of Toxic Organic Chemicals. New York, NY:
Wiley-Liss, 127-216.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-1
2014
BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc., 2009. Demonstration Testing and Full-Scale Operation of the
BioGenesis Sediment Decontamination Process. BioGenesis Washing BGW, LLC., Keasbey,
NJ. December 2009.
Brown, J.F. and R.E. Wagner, 1990. “PCB Movement, Dechlorination, and Detoxication in the
Acushnet Estuary.” Environ Toxicol Chem. 9:1215-1233.
Burger, J., K.K. Pflugh, L. Lurig, L. Von Hagen, and S. Von Hagen, 1999. “Fishing in Urban
New Jersey: Ethnicity Affects Information Sources, Perception, and Compliance.” Risk Analysis,
Vol. 19, No. 2: 217-227.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2001. “Canadian Reference Canadian
Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life 1999.” Available at: http://ceqgrcqe.ccme.ca/. Retrieved on January 21, 2014. Updated on 2001.
Capel, P. and S. Eisenreich, 1990. Relationship between Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and Organic
Carbon in Sediment and Porewater. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 16(2):245-257.
Cho,Y.M., U. Ghosh, A.J. Kennedy, A. Grossman, G. Ray, J.E. Tomaszewski, D.W. Smithenry,
and R. G. Luthy, 2009 Field Application of Activated Carbon Amendment for in situ
Stabilization of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Marine Sediment. Environ. Sci. Tech 43(10) pp
3815-3823.
City of Newark, 2012. “Newark’s River: A Public Access & Redevelopment Plan.” Draft
submitted to Newark Central Planning Board and Newark Municipal Council for approval.
February 2012.
City of Newark, 2010. “The Riverfront that Newark Wants, Progress Report: 2009-2010.
Presentation. City of Newark, NJ. June 2010.
City of Newark, Phillips Preiss Shapiro Associates, Inc., in association with Schoor DePalma,
2004. “Land Use Element of the Master Plan for the City of Newark.” Prepared for the Central
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-2
2014
Planning Board, City of Newark. City of Newark Department of Economic and Housing
Development,Newark, NJ., Phillips Preiss Shapiro Associates, Inc., Hoboken, NJ., Schoor
DePalma., Manalapan, NJ. December 6, 2004.
Clarke Caton Hintz, Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn, 2004. “Passaic Riverfront Redevelopment
Plan, Newark, NJ.” Presentation to City of Newark. Clarke Caton Hintz, Trenton, NJ.,
Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn, New York, NY. January 2004.
Clarke Caton Hintz, Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn, 1999. “Passaic Riverfront Revitalization,
Newark, NJ.” Presentation to City of Newark. Clarke Caton Hintz, Trenton, NJ., Ehrenkrantz
Eckstut & Kuhn, New York, NY. December 1999.
Connolly, J.P., and R. Tonelli, 1985. Modeling Kepone in the Striped Bass Food Chain of the
James River Estuary. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science (20), pp 349-366, 1988.
de maximis, inc., 2012. “RM 10.9 Removal Action – Sediment Washing Bench-Scale Testing
Report, Lower Passaic River Study Area.” CERCLA Docket No.02-2012-2015. de maximis,
inc., Clinton, NJ. September 2012.
Earth Tech, Inc. and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2006a. Draft Final Restoration Opportunities Report.
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. Earth Tech, Inc., Bloomfield, NJ. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.,
White Plains, NY. July 2006.
Earth Tech, Inc. and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2006b. Draft Restoring Vision: Balancing Ecosystem
and Human Use Map. Presented at the Restoration Workgroup Meeting. held on July 26, 2006.
Earth Tech, Inc., Bloomfield, NJ. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., White Plains, NY. July 2006.
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), 2009. “Monitored Natural
Recovery at Contaminated Sediment Sites.” ESTCP Project ER-0622. U.S. Department of
Defense, Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, Washington, D.C.
May 2009.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-3
2014
Environment Canada, 1994. “Interim Sediment Quality Assessment Values.” Ecosystem
Conservation Directorate. Evaluation and Interpretation Branch. September 1994.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR), undated. “Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0.” Available at:
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html. Retrieved on January 2014. Updated on January
2002.
Francingues, N. R., and M. R. Palermo, 2005. “Silt Curtains as a Dredging Project Management
Practice.” DOER Technical Notes Collection. ERDC TN-DOER-E21. U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
GTI, 2008a. Cement-Lock® Technology for Decontaminating Dredged Estuarine Sediments.
Topical Report on Beneficial Use of Ecomelt from Passaic River Sediment at Montclair State
University, New Jersey. Available at:
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/airwater/maritime/documents/Beneficial-Use-demoreport.pdf. April 2008.
GTI, 2008b. “Sediment Decontamination Demonstration Program – Cement-Lock® Technology.
Final Report: Phase II Demonstration Tests with Stratus Petroleum and Passaic River
Sediments.” July 2008.
General Electric, 2012. “Phase 2 Year 2 Final Design Report.” Submitted to USEPA Region 2.
Hartkamp-Commandeur, L.C.M., J. Gerritse and H.A.J. Govers, 1996. “Reductive
Dehalogenation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls by Anaerobic Microorganisms Enriched from
Dutch Sediments. Chemosphere. 32(7):1275-1286.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-4
2014
HDR|HydroQual, 2013. “Report of the Peer Review of Sediment Transport, Organic Carbon and
Contaminant Fate and Transport Model.” Project Number: 337-193191, HDR|HydroQual,
September 2013.
Heyer, Gruel and Associates 2002. “Town of Kearny Master Plan Reexamination Report.”
Heyer, Gruel & Associates, Red Bank, NJ.
HydroQual, 2007. “A model for the Evaluation and Management of Contaminants of Concern in
Water, Sediment and Biota in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary: Contaminant Fate & Transport &
Bioaccumulation Sub-Models.” Prepared for the Contamination Assessment and Reduction
Project (CARP) Management Committee. HydroQual, Inc., Mahwah, NJ.
Iannuzzi T.J., D.F. Ludwig, J.C. Kinnell, J.M. Wallin, W.H. Desvousges, and R.W. Dunford,
2002. “A Common Tragedy: History of an Urban River.” First Edition. Amherst Scientific
Publishers, Amherst, MA.
Jones, D.S. G.W. Suter, and R.N. Hull, 1997. “Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening
Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 Revision.”
ES/ER/TM-95/R4 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental
Management. November 1997.
Kirk-Pflugh, K., A.H. Stern, L. Nesposudny, L. Lurig, B. Ruppel, and G.A. Buchanan, 2011.
“Consumption Patterns and Risk Assessment of Crab Consumers from the Newark Bay
Complex, New Jersey, USA.” Science of the Total Environment 409: 4536-4544.
Kirk-Pflugh, K., L. Lurig, L. Von Hagen, S. Von Hagen, and J. Burger, 1999. “Urban Anglers’
Perception of Risk from Contaminated Fish.” Science of the Total Environment 228: 203-218.
Kuipers B., W.R. Cullen and W.M. Mohn, 1999. “Reductive Dechlorination of
Nonachlorobiphenyls and Selected Octachlorobiphenyls by Microbial Enrichment Cultures.”
Environ Sci Technol 33:3579-3585.Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder,
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-5
2014
1995. “Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in
Marine and Estuarine Sediments.” Environmental Management 19(1) 81-97.
Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan, 1991. “The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed
Contaminants in the National Status and Trends Program.” NOAA Technical Memorandum
NOS OMA 52, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.
LBG, 2012. Environmental Dredging Pilot Study Report. Prepared for USACE New York
District. LBG, Inc., Elmsford, NY, July 2012.
MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, and T. A. Berger, 2000. “Development and Evaluation of
Consensus-based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems.” Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 39(1):20-31.
MacDonald D.D., 1994. “Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and
Estuarine Sediments, Threshold Effects Level and Probable Effects Level.” Florida Department
of Environmental Protection.
Macdonald, D.D,. M.P. Wong, and P. Mudroch, 1992. “The Development of Canadian Marine
Environmental Quality Guidelines.” Ecosystem Science and Evaluation Directorate,
Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada, Ottawa.
Maher, A., 2009. “Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials from Inter-Coastal Confined Disposal
Facilities in South Jersey.” Presentation to the State of New Jersey, Department of
Transportation, Office of Maritime Resources. Rutgers University, Center for Advanced
Infrastructure and Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation University Transportation
Center, Piscataway, NJ. September 3, 2009.
Maher, A., H. Najm, and M. Boile, 2005. Solidification/Stabilization of Soft River Sediments
Using Deep Soil Mixing. Final Report. FHWA-NJ-2005-028. Center for Advanced Infrastructure
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-6
2014
& Transportation (CAIT), Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, Rutgers, the State
University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ. October 2005.
Maher, A., T. Bennert, N. Gucunski, F. Jafari and S. Douglass, 2003. “Dredged Material
Evaluation and Utilization Plan for New Jersey.”, Final Report. SROA-RU3971. Rutgers, the
State University, Piscataway, NJ, Soilteknik, Inc., Basking, NJ, and NJDOT Office of Maritime
Resources, Trenton, NJ. July 2003.
May H. and J. Burger, 1996. “Fishing in a Polluted Estuary: Fishing Behavior, Fish
Consumption, and Potential Risk.” Risk Analysis 16(4):459-71.
NJDEP, 2012. “Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance. Version 1.2.” Available at:
http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/srra/ecological_evaluation.pdf. Retrieved on January 24,
2014. Updated on August 29, 2012.
NJDEP, 1998. “Guidance for Sediment Quality Evaluations. Site Remediation Program.”
Available at: http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/sediment/. Updated on November, 1998.
NJDEP, 1995. “A Survey of Urban Anglers from the Newark Bay Complex – Risk Perception,
Knowledge and Consumption.” Final Report to USEPA Region 2, Office of Water.
NJDOT, 2007. “New Jersey’s Position on the Future Navigational Use on the Lower Passaic
River, River Miles 0-8.” March 29, 2007.
Ofjord, G.D., J.A. Puhakka and J.F. Ferguson, 1994. “Reductive Dechlorination of Aroclor 1254
by Marine Sediment Cultures.” Environ Sci Technol 28:2286-2294.
Palermo, M.R. and D.E. Averett, 2000. “Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) Containment
Measures: A Summary of Field Experience”. DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TNDOER-R7), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-7
2014
Palermo, M. R., 1991. “Design requirements for capping,” Dredging Research Technical Notes
DRP-5-03, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton, August 1993. “Guidelines for the Protection and
Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario.” Ontario Ministry of the Environment and
Energy.
Quensen, J.F. III, S.A. Boyd and J.M. Tiedje, 1990. “Dechlorination of Four Commercial
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Mixtures (Aroclor) by Anaerobic Microorganisms from Sediments.”
Appl Environ Microbiol 56(8):2360-2369.
RETEC Group, Inc., 2002. Final Feasibility Study: Lower Fox River and Green Bay, Wisconsin
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. Prepared for Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. RETEC Group, Seattle, WA.
Schroeder, P.R. and J.Z. Gailani, 2009. “Exposure Processes and Assessment.” Presentation
at Dredged Material Assessment and Management Seminar 15-17 September 2009,
Detroit, MI.
Suter, G.W. II, and C.L. Tsao, 1996. “Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential
Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision.” ES/ER/TM-96/R2, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Suter, G.W. II, and J. Mabrey, 1994. “Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
Contaminants of Concern for Effects of Aquatic Biota on Oak Ridge Reservation: 1994
Revision.ES/ER/TM-86/R2. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
TAMS, an Earth Tech Company and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2004. “Dredging Technology Review
Report.” Prepared for New Jersey Department of Transportation Office of Maritime Resources.
TAMS, Bloomfield, NJ and Malcolm Pirnie, White Plains, NJ. June 2004.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-8
2014
TAMS Consultants, Inc., 2000. “Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS Phase 3 Report:
Feasibility Study”. Prepared for USEPA Region 2 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas
City District. TAMS Consultants, Inc., Williamburg, VA. December 2000.
Tetra Tech EC, Inc., 2009. “Draft Final Cap Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan, Fox
River Remedial Design.” Submitted to WDNR and USEPA Region 5.
Tiedje, J.M., J.F. Quensen III, and J. Chee-Sanford, 1993. “Microbial Reductive Dechlorination
of PCBs.” Biodegradation 4(4):231-240.
Tierra Solutions, Inc., 2002. “Passaic River Study Area Habitat Characterization.” Tierra
Solutions, Inc., Newark, NJ. September 26, 2002.
USACE, undated (under development). “Comprehensive Restoration Plan for the HudsonRaritan Estuary.” Available at:
http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/NewYorkNewJerseyHarbor/HudsonRaritan
Estuary.aspx. Retrieved on January 24, 2014.
USACE, 2011. “Mass Balance, Beneficial Use Products, and Cost Comparisons of Four
Sediment Treatment Technologies Near Commercialization.” ERDC/EL TR-11-1. Prepared for
USACE and USEPA. March 2011.
USACE, 2010. “Lower Passaic River Commercial Navigation Analysis.” Prepared by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers New York District. Revision 2. Available at:
http://passaic.sharepointspace.com/Public%20Documents/2010-0729%20USACE%20Lower%20Passaic%20River%20Commercial%20Navigation%20Analysis.p
df. Retrieved on January 21, 2014. Updated on July 2010.
USACE, 2009. “Hudson-Raritan Estuary Comprehensive Restoration Plan.” Draft. Prepared by
USACE in partnership with their non-Federal sponsor, The Port Authority of New York & New
Jersey (PANYNJ). March 2009.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-9
2014
USACE, 2008a. “Technical Guidelines for the Environmental Dredging of Contaminated
Sediments.” ERDC/EL TR-08-29. Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, September, 2008.
USACE, 2008b. “The Four Rs of Environmental Dredging: Resuspension, Release, Residual,
and Risk.” ERDC/EL TR-08-4. USACE, Washington, DC, January 2008.
USACE, 2007a. “Ice Jam Database.” Engineering and Research Development Center, Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL). Available at:
http://icejams.crrel.usace.army.mil/. Retrieved on: January 21, 2014.
USACE, 2007b. “Site Evaluation for a Dredged Material Public Processing and Storage
Facility.” Prepared for the Port of New York and New Jersey. Prepared by USACE, New York,
NY, August 2007.
USACE, 2006. “Hydraulic Design of Deep Draft Navigation Projects.” EM 1110-2-1613.
USACE, Washington, DC, May 2006.
United States Census Bureau, 2010. Available online http://www.census.gov/2010census/.
Retrieved on January 23, 2014.
USEPA, 2012. “Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal
Action.” Docket No. 02-2012-2015.
USEPA, 2010. "Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk
Assessments of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds". EPA/100/R10/005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Science Advisor Risk Assessment
Forum, Washington, DC. December, 2010.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-10
2014
USEPA, 2008. “United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 Administrative
Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Action in the Matter of Lower Passaic
River Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site Occidental Chemical Corporation and
Tierra Solutions, Inc.” CERCLA Docket No. 02- 2008-2020. June 23 2008.
USEPA, 2006. “Peer Review Handbook 3rd Edition.” EPA/100/B-06/002. Prepared for the
USEPA by Members of the Peer Review Advisory Group, for EPA’s Science Policy Council.
USEPA, 2005. “Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites.”
EPA-540-R-05-012. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 9355.0-85.
USEPA, 2004. “Minergy Corporation Glass Furnace Technology Evaluation – Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report.” EPA/540/R-03/500.
USEPA, 2003. “Region 5, RCRA – Ecological Screening Levels.”
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/Region5/waste/cars/pdfs/ecological-screening-levels200308.pdf. Retrieved on January 21, 2014. Updated on August 22, 2003.
USEPA, 2002a “Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste
Sites.” OSWER Directive 9285.6-08. February 2002. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
USEPA, 2002b. “Policy Considerations for the Application of Background Data in Risk
Assessment and Remedy Selection. Role of Background in the CERCLA Cleanup Program.”
OSWER 9285.6-07P. April 26, 2002.
USEPA, 2002c. “Guidance on Demonstrating Compliance With the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) Alternative Soil Treatment Standards.” EPA530-R-02-003
July, 2002.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-11
2014
USEPA, 2001a. “Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk
Assessments).” Final. December 2001.
USEPA, 2001b. “Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Ecological Risk
Assessment.” Originally published November 1995. Website version last updated November 30,
2001: http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/ots/ecolbul.htm.
USEPA, 2001c. “Region 4 Sediment Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites. Ecological
Risk Assessment Bulletins – Supplement to RAGS.” Waste Management Division. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/riskassess/ecolbul.html. Retrieved on January
24, 2014. Updated November 30, 2011.
USEPA, 2000. “Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories.
Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits - Third Edition. Appendix C. Dose
Modifications Due to Food Preparation and Cooking.” EPA 823-B-00-008. November 2000.
USEPA, 1999. “A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and
Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents.” EPA 540-R-98-031, OSWER 9200.1-23P,
PB98-963241. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington D.C.
USEPA, 1998a. “Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program
Guidance for In-Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments.” EPA 905/B-96/004.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, Illinois.
USEPA, 1998b. “Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum.”
EPA/630/R-95/002F. USEPA, Washington, D.C. April 1998.
USEPA, 1997. “Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments.” Interim Final. EPA 540-R-97-006. June 1997.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-12
2014
USEPA, 1996a. “Calculation and Evaluation of Sediment Effect Concentrations for the
Amphipod Hyalella azteca and the Midge Chironomus riparius.” EPA 905-R96-008, Great Lakes
National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
USEPA, 1996b. “Ecotox Thresholds”. EPA 540/F-95/038. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
USEPA, 1995a. “Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process.” OSWER Directive No.
9355.7-04. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. May 25,
1995.
USEPA, 1995b. “Ecological Screening Values, Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletin No. 2.”
Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
USEPA, 1995c. “National Sediment Inventory: Documentation of Derivation of Freshwater
Sediment Quality.”, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
USEPA, 1994. “Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program,
Remediation Guidance Document.” EPA 905-B94-003. Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL.
USEPA, 1993. “Interim Report on Data and Methods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Life and Associated Wildlife.” EPA/600/R93/055.
USEPA, 1991. “Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals).”
EPA/540/R-92/003. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
December 1991.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-13
2014
USEPA, 1990. “National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan: Final
Rule.” Codified as amended at 40 CFR Part 300.
USEPA, 1989. “Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health
Evaluation. Manual (Part A, Baseline Risk Assessment).” Inerim Final. USEPA/540/1-89/002.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, USEPA, Washington DC. December 1989
USEPA, 1988. “Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA.” Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. EPA/540/G-89/004. USEPA Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. October 1988.
Van den Berg, M., L.S. Birnbaum, M. Denison, M. De Vito, W. Farland, M. Feeley, H. Fiedler,
H. Hakansson, A. Hanberg, L. Haws, M. Rose, S. Safe, D. Schrenk, C. Tohyama, A. Tritscher, J.
Tuomisto, M. Tysklind, N. Walker, and R.E. Peterson, 2006. "The 2005 World Health
Organization Re-evaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins
and Dioxin-like Compounds." Toxicol Sci. 93(2):223-241.
Van den Berg, M., L. Birnbaum, A.T.C. Bosveld, B. Brunstrom, P. Cook, M. Feeley, J.P. Giesy,
A. Hanberg, R. Hasegawa, S.W. Kennedy, T. Kubiak, J.C. Larsen, F.X.R. van Leeuwen, A.K.D.
Liem, C. Nolt, R.E. Peterson, L. Poellinger, S. Safe, D. Schrenk, D. Tillitt, M. Tysklind, M.
Younes, F. Warn, and T. Zacharewski, 1998. “Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs,
PCDDs, PCDFs for Humans and Wildlife.” Environ Health Perspect. 106(12):775-792.
Weston Solutions, 2005. “Human Health Risk Assessment GE/Housatonic River Site Rest of
River.” DCN:GE-021105-ACMT. Prepared for USACE New England District and USEPA New
England Region. Weston Solution, Inc., West Chester, PA. February 2005.
Wiegel J. and Q. Wu, 2000. “Microbial Reductive Dehalogenation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls.
FEMS.” Microbiol Ecol. 32:1-15.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-14
2014
Wilk C., 2008. “Applying Solidification/Stabilization for Sustainable Redevelopment of
Contaminated Property”. Portland Cement Association.
Windward Environmental, 2011. “Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. Lower Passaic River
Study Area RI/FS. Habitat Identification Survey Data Report for the Lower Passaic River Study
Area Fall 2010 Field Effort.” Draft. Prepared for Cooperating Parties Group, Newark, NJ.
Windward Environmental LLC, Seattle, WA. June 17, 2011.
Wintermyer M., Cooper K, 2003. “Dioxin/furan and Polychlorinated Biphenyl Concentrations in
Eastern Oysters (Crassostrea virginica Gmelin) Tissues and the Effects on Egg fertilization and
Development.” J. Shellfish Res. 22, 737-746.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
7-15
2014
TABLES
Table 1-1 Lower Passaic River Authorized Dimensions of the Federal Navigation Channel
and Periods of Dredging
Dredging History (Iannuzzi, et. al. 2002 )
Passaic River Reaches
Kearny Point Reach:
RM0 to RM1.2
Authorized Depth: 30 feet
1884 – Constructed to 10 Feet
1906 – Deepened to 12 Feet
1913 – Deepened to 16 Feet
1914 – Deepened to 20-22 Feet
1916 – Maintained at 16-17 Feet
1917 – Maintained at 21-22 Feet
1921 – Maintained at 20 Feet
1932 – Constructed to 30 Feet
1933 – Maintained at 30 Feet
1941 – Maintained at 30 Feet
1946 – Maintained at 30 Feet
1951 – Maintained at 30 Feet
1957 – Maintained at 30 Feet
1962 – Maintained at 30 Feet
1965 – Maintained at 30 Feet
1971 – Maintained at 30 Feet
1972 – Maintained at 30 Feet
1977 – Maintained at 30 Feet
1983 – Maintained at 30 Feet
Point No Point Reach:
RM1.2 to RM2.5
Authorized Depth: 30 feet
1884 – Constructed to 10 Feet
1899 – Maintained at 10 Feet (from RM1.9)
1906 – Deepened to 12 Feet
1913 – Deepened to 16 Feet
1914 – Deepened to 20-22 Feet (to RM1.9)
1916 – Maintained at 16-17 Feet
1917 – Maintained to 21-22 Feet (to
RM2.0)
1921 – Maintained at 20 Feet
1922 – Maintained at 20 Feet (from RM1.4)
1932 – Constructed to 30 Feet
1933 – Maintained at 30 Feet
1941 – Maintained at 30 Feet
1946 – Maintained at 30 Feet
1951 – Maintained at 30 Feet
(to RM1.3)
1957 – Maintained at 30 Feet
(to RM2.1)
1965 – Maintained at 30 Feet
(to RM1.8)
1971 – Maintained at 30 Feet
(to RM1.5)
1972 – Maintained at 30 Feet
(to RM1.8)
1983 – Maintained at 30 Feet
(to RM1.9)
Harrison Reach:
RM2.5 to RM4.6
Authorized Depth: 30 feet to
RM2.6
Authorized Depth: 20 feet
From RM2.6
1884 – Constructed to 10 Feet
1899 – Maintained at 10 Feet
1906 – Deepened to 12 Feet
1913 – Deepened to 16 Feet
1916 – Maintained at 16-17 Feet
1916 – Deepened to 20-21 Feet (RM2.6 to RM4.5)
1921 – Maintained at 20 Feet
1922 – Maintained at 20 Feet (to RM4.2)
1923 – Maintained at 20 Feet (RM4.2 to RM4.6)
1932 – Constructed to 30 Feet (to RM2.6)
1937 – Maintained to 20 Feet (starting at RM2.6)
Newark Reach:
RM4.6 to RM6.1
Authorized Depth: 20 feet
(Constructed Depth: 16 feet)
1884 – Constructed to 10 Feet (to RM5.4)
1899 – Maintained at 10 Feet (to RM5.4)
1906 – Deepened to 12 Feet
1913 – Deepened to 16 Feet (to RM5.8)
1916 – Maintained at 16-17 Feet
1919 – Maintained at 16 Feet (starting at RM4.6)
1933 – Maintained at 10 Feet (from RM6.0)
1950 – Maintained at 16 Feet (from RM5.5)
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 2
2014
Table 1-1 Lower Passaic River Authorized Dimensions of the Federal Navigation Channel
and Periods of Dredging
Dredging History (Iannuzzi, et. al. 2002 )
Passaic River Reaches
Kearny Reach:
RM6.1 to RM7.1
Authorized Depth: 20 feet
(Constructed Depth: 16 feet)
Arlington Reach:
RM7.1 to RM8.1
Authorized Depth: 16 feet
1883 – Constructed to 6 Feet
1906 – Deepened to 12 Feet (to RM6.5)
1906 – Deepened to 12 Feet (from RM6.5)
1913 – Deepened to 16 Feet (to RM5.8)
1916 – Maintained/Deepened at 16-17 Feet
1919 – Maintained at 16 Feet (to RM6.4)
1933 – Maintained at 16 Feet (to RM6.3)
1950 – Maintained at 16 Feet (to RM7.0)
1883 – Constructed to 6 Feet
1906 – Deepened to 10 Feet (to RM8.0)
1915 – Constructed to 6-7 Feet (from RM8.0)
1916 – Deepened to 16-17 Feet (to RM8.0)
1927 – Maintained to 6 Feet (from RM8.0)
1929 – Maintained to 6 Feet (from RM8.0)
1930 – Constructed to 10 Feet (from RM8.0)
Belleville Reach:
RM8.1 to RM8.3 (Partial
Reach)
Authorized Depth: 16 feet
1915 – Constructed to 6-7 Feet
1927 – Maintained to 6 Feet
1929 – Maintained to 6 Feet
1930 – Constructed to 10 Feet
1931 – Maintained to 10 Feet
1932 – Maintained to 10 Feet
Above Erie/Montclair &
Greenwood Lake Railroad
Bridge:
RM8.3 to RM15.4
Authorized Depth: 10 feet
1915 – Constructed to 6-7 Feet (to RM13.2)
1927 – Maintained to 6 Feet (to RM9.0)
1929 – Maintained to 6 Feet (to RM9.0)
1930 – Constructed to 10 Feet (to RM9.0)
1931 – Maintained to 10 Feet (to RM9.0)
1931 – Constructed to 10 Feet (RM9.0 to RM15.4)
1932 – Maintained to 10 Feet (to RM15.4)
1950 – Maintained to 10 Feet (RM14.3 to RM15.4)
1976 – Maintained to 10 Feet (RM9.0 to RM10.2)
Source: Table 1 of USACE 2010 Lower Passaic River Commercial Navigation Analysis Report (USACE, 2010).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 2 of 2
2014
Table 1-2a Summary Statistics for Concentrations of Contaminants in Surface Sediments
in the Lower Passaic River
Chemical Parameters
Unit
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
Dieldrin
Total Chlordane
Total DDx
Total PAH
Total PCB
Copper
Lead
Mercury
ρg/g
ρg/g
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
Dieldrin
Total Chlordane
Total DDx
Total PAH
Total PCB
Copper
Lead
Mercury
ρg/g
ρg/g
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
Dieldrin
Total Chlordane
Total DDx
Total PAH
Total PCB
Copper
Lead
Mercury
ρg/g
ρg/g
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
Dieldrin
Total Chlordane
Total DDx
Total PAH
Total PCB
Copper
Lead
Mercury
ρg/g
ρg/g
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Count
Min
Max
Mean
1995-2012 Data for RM0 to RM2
87
0.09
2,370
293
66
32
2,880
433
85
0.02
42
7.0
85
0.05
230
31
86
3.3
410
98
86
2.0
359
34
86
0.10
6,960
1,155
103
0.21
289
147
102
28
565
197
103
0.32
8.3
2.3
1995-2012 Data for RM2 to RM8
278
0.77
34,100
1,157
246
2.2
37,900
1,396
270
0.01
152
13
259
0.31
254
39
275
0.32
10,229
278
275
0.21
2,806
52
272
2.3
28,600
1,831
281
0.28
2,470
196
276
4.4
906
281
278
0.05
16
2.9
1995-2012 Data for RM8 to RM12
84
4.9
23,200
1,305
67
7.7
25,100
1,859
85
0.11
85
7.0
84
0.43
154
52
84
1.5
1,045
139
85
0.50
98
35
85
0.23
17,588
1,657
88
5.7
778
170
88
8.6
1,030
252
88
0.02
16
2.4
1995-2012 Data for RM12 to RM17.4
61
0.05
585
78
40
3.2
666
123
61
0.02
43
4.5
61
0.38
330
34
61
0.19
568
42
61
0.76
242
38
61
0.06
4,010
458
64
7.7
382
71
62
14
641
153
64
0.02
5.5
0.81
Median
Std Dev
Std Err
210
337
4.4
21
76
28
871
143
194
2.0
306
398
7.7
34
79
42
994
53
84
1.3
33
49
0.84
3.7
8.6
4.5
107
5.2
8.4
0.13
293
419
5.9
36
112
32
1,050
176
256
2.3
3,452
3,905
20
34
787
177
3,352
172
143
2.5
207
249
1.2
2.1
47
11
203
10
8.6
0.15
294
450
4.6
48
85
36
770
151
225
1.7
3,502
4,301
10
37
193
21
3,063
140
188
2.7
382
525
1.1
4.0
21
2.2
332
15
20
0.29
3.8
27
2.8
26
18
29
210
46
124
0.38
145
187
6.4
44
82
43
646
68
123
1.0
19
30
0.82
5.7
11
5.5
83
8.5
16
0.13
Notes:
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; CPG = Cooperating Parties Group; DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane;
µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram; mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl;
ρg/g = picograms per gram; RM = river mile.
1995, 1999 and 2000 Total DDx data were adjusted to high resolution method using the following equation:
C(HRGC/HRMS)=0.87795*[C(GC/ECD)]^1.0767
2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations generated during the 2008 CPG coring program were biased low and have been corrected by applying a factor of 1.89,
2008 EPA river mile 0-1 Total PCB data were calculated as sum of 209 congeners.
2008 CPG Total TCDD data were not used because the correction factor was not developed.
All non-detects were equal to 1/2 method detection limits.
1999-2000 Dieldrin and Total Chlordane data were all non-detect.
1995-2000 individual DDx isomers were not adjusted to high resolution method.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1 of 1
2014
Table 1-2b Summary Statistics for Concentrations of Contaminants
in Surface Sediments in Newark Bay (2005 and 2007 data)
Chemical Parameters
Unit
Count
Min
Max
Mean
Median
Std Dev
Std Err
2,3,7,8-TCDD
ρg/g
82
0.95
592
77
55
85
9.4
Total TCDD
ρg/g
82
7.1
946
145
127
126
14
Dieldrin
µg/kg
81
1.3
230
13
8.5
27
3.0
Total Chlordane
µg/kg
82
0.58
115
7.9
4.9
14
1.5
Total DDx
µg/kg
82
2.7
1,000
55
26
116
13
Total PAH
µg/kg
82
1,765
516,100
21,749
8,048
60,682
6,701
Total PCB
µg/kg
82
4,390
7,690,000
736,043
465,000
1,044,256
115,319
Copper
mg/kg
80
23
781
135
103
119
13
Lead
mg/kg
82
22
863
135
107
118
13
Mercury
mg/kg
82
0.27
21
2.6
1.8
3.1
0.35
Notes:
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram;
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl; ρg/g = picograms per gram.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1 of 1
2014
Table 1-2c Summary Statistics for Concentrations of Contaminants in
Surface Sediments (0-1 inch) in the Upper Passaic River
Chemical Parameters
Unit
Count
Min
Max
Mean
Median
Std Dev
Std Err
2,3,7,8-TCDD
ρg/g
11
1.0
4.6
2.3
1.9
1.1
0.34
Total TCDD
ρg/g
11
16
73
40
34
18
5.3
Dieldrin
µg/kg
10
3.1
50
10
4.3
14
4.5
Trans-Chlordane
µg/kg
11
14
120
41
24
40
12
Total DDx
µg/kg
11
22
133
54
37
41
12
Total PAH
µg/kg
11
41
130
70
60
28
8.3
Total PCB
µg/kg
11
220
1,500
510
430
360
109
Copper
mg/kg
13
44
260
89
68
65
18
Lead
mg/kg
13
87
390
170
140
91
25
Mercury
mg/kg
13
0.43
1.8
0.70
0.59
0.37
0.10
Notes:
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram;
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl; ρg/g = picograms per gram.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1 of 1
2014
Table 1-3 Concentrations of COPCs and COPECs by Depth Within the FFS Study Area
Contaminant Concentrations in Sediment with Depth
0.5 to 1.5 feet
COPCsCOPECs
1.5 to 2.5 feet
2.5 to 3.5 feet
3.5 feet to bottom of
cores1
Min
Mean
Min
Mean
Min
Mean
Min
Mean
Max
(Median)
Max
(Median)
Max
(Median)
Max
(Median)
0.29
1,900
0.26
3,620
0.46
9,900
0.07
19,300
50,400
(-400)
77,900
(-520)
932,000
(-470)
5,300,000
(-280)
0.032
1,920
0.11
3,390
0.021
3,670
0.021
12,400
27,700
(-500)
60,200
(-620)
67,900
(-790)
2,760,000
(-380)
0.15
2,940
0.33
3,570
0.0062
4,050
0.00059
3,360
33,000
(-1640)
1,800
(-1880)
29,960
(-1650)
133,000
(-940)
Total DDx
(µg/kg)
0.024
230
0.04
580
0.02
460
0.0038
29,300
1,800
(-120)
30,800
(-130)
7,800
(-180)
14,000,000
(-120)
Dieldrin
(µg/kg)
0.019
15
0.024
17
0.0014
25
0.0016
27
250
(-3.6)
250
(-3.9)
580
(-3.9)
1,000
(-3)
Chlordane
(µg/kg)
0.011
45
0.033
45
0.0037
61
0.0023
35
180
(-41)
220
(-36)
290
(-48)
240
(-10)
Total PAHs
(mg/kg)
0.006
73
0.0013
140
0.0011
45
0.00032
64
6,500
(-30)
7,750
(-32)
720
(-29)
1,270
(-33)
Mercury
(mg/kg)
0.0034
4.6
0.017
5.9
0.01
5.9
0.0016
6.6
28
(-3.7)
29
(-4.4)
28
(-4.8)
30
(-5.5)
Copper
(mg/kg)
1.5
270
3.4
290
2.3
280
2.1
330
3,020
(-220)
1,210
(-270)
1,040
(-280)
4,700
(-310)
1.9
460
1.7
430
1.7
410
1
430
17,900
(-340)
1,100
(-410)
980
(-420)
7,860
(-460)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
(ρg/g)
Total TCDD
(ρg/g)
Total PCB
(µg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg)
Note:
1. Depths of cores are highly variable, but average about 12 to 20 feet.
Statistics based on 1990 to 2012 data.
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; COPC = contaminants of potential concern;
COPEC = chemicals of potential ecological concern; DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon;
ρg/g = picograms per gram; μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram; mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 2-1a ARARs and TBCs
Authority/Source
General Description
ARAR or TBC
Potential Chemical-Specific ARARs or TBCs
Federal
Ecological screening values are based on contaminant levels associated with a low
probability of unacceptable risks to ecological receptors. The Office of Technical Services
(OTS) has developed the screening values for surface water, sediment, and soil for use at
Region 4 hazardous waste sites. Since these numbers are based on conservative endpoints
USEPA Region 4 Waste Management
and sensitive ecological effects data, they represent a preliminary screening of site
Division Sediment Screening Values
contaminant levels to determine if there is a need to conduct further investigations at the
for Hazardous Waste Sites
site. Ecological screening values should not be used as remediation levels. For sediments,
these are the higher of two values, the EPA Contract Laboratory Program Practical
Quantitation Limit and the Effects Value, which is the lower of the Effects Range – Low
(ER-L) and the Threshold Effects Level (TEL). These are possible effects benchmarks.
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Ecological Screening
Levels
Jones, D.S., G.W. Suter II, R.N. Hull.
November 1997. Toxicological
Benchmarks for Screening
Contaminants of Potential Concern for
Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota:
1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM-95/R4.
(Section 3, Recommended Sediment
Benchmarks)
Environmental Data Quality Levels/Ecological Screening Levels (EDQLs/ESLs). EDQLs
are media-specific (soil, water, sediment, and air) values that can be used for initial
screening levels to use in ecological risk assessments; values are included for organics,
pesticides, PCBs, and inorganics.
TBC
TBC
USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Ecotox Thresholds
(ETs) are available for screening of 8 metals and 41 organics at Superfund sites. Sediment
Quality Benchmarks (SQBs) used to calculate the ETs are from the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative, Suter and Mabrey (1994), or were calculated by OSWER.
ER-L and Effects Range-Median (ER-M) values were calculated by Long et al. (1995),
incorporating National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sediment
sampling data.
TBC
TELs and Probable Effects Levels (PELs) were calculated by MacDonald (1994) and are
employed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) Benchmarks developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL). Lowest chronic values developed for fish, daphnids, and non-daphnid
invertebrates.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 7
2014
Table 2-1a ARARs and TBCs
Authority/Source
General Description
Sediment effects concentrations (SECs) calculated by the National Biological Service for
the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office as part of the Assessment and Remediation
Jones, D.S., G.W. Suter II, R.N. Hull of Contaminated Sediment (ARCS) Program.
(cont'd)
Screening Level Concentration (SLC) benchmarks developed by the Ontario Ministry of the
ARAR or TBC
TBC
Environment. Lowest effect levels and severe effect levels are provided (Persaud et al.
1993).
Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines
for the Protection of Aquatic Life.
Dioxin and furan values given in the units of ng Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (TEQ)/kg.
(Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment) 1999. updated 2001.
TBC
State
Ecological Evaluation Technical
Guidance (NJDEP 2012)
Provides guidance for the evaluation of ecological risk in aquatic and terrestrial habitats
associated with contaminated sites. The ecological screen criteria are available at:
TBC
www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/guidance/ecoscreening
Potential Location-Specific ARARs or TBCs
Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA), 16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq.,
CZMA § 307 Coordination and
cooperation
The CZMA Federal Consistency Determination provisions require that any Federal agency
undertaking a project in the coastal zone of a State shall insure that the project is, to the
maximum extent practicable, consistent with the enforceable policies of approved State
Coastal Zone Management Act Federal management programs.
Consistency Regulations, 15 CFR Part
930: 15 CFR 930.30
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 2 of 7
ARAR
2014
Table 2-1a ARARs and TBCs
Authority/Source
Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.
§1531 et seq.
50 CFR Part 17, Subpart I, Part 402
National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.
Protection of Historic Properties, 36
CFR. Part 800
General Description
ARAR or TBC
The Endangered Species Act provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife and
plants that are listed as threatened or endangered in the U.S. or elsewhere. Applicable if any
action may have an impact on an endangered species.
ARAR
The NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of any federally
assisted undertaking on any district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. If the undertaking results in
adverse effects, the agency must consult with the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office
and other parties to develop ways to avoid, reduce, minimize, or mitigate any adverse
impacts to those identified properties.
ARAR
Floodplain Management: Executive
Order 11988, 40 CFR Part 6
Requires federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of actions that may be taken in a
floodplain and to avoid, to the extent possible, long-term and short-term adverse affects
associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid direct or
indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.
TBC
Protection of Wetlands, Executive
Order 11990, 40 CFR Part 6
Requires that activities conducted by federal agencies avoid, to the extent possible, longterm and short-term adverse affects associated with the modification or destruction of
wetlands. Federal agencies are also required to avoid direct or indirect support of new
construction in wetlands when there are practical alternatives; harm to wetlands must be
minimized when there is no practical alternative available. These requirements are
applicable to alternatives involving remedial actions (including construction) in wetlands.
TBC
Requires consideration of the effects of a proposed action on wetlands and areas affecting
streams (including floodplains), as well as other protected habitats. Federal agencies must
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the appropriate state
U.S.C. § 662, 40 CFR 6.302(g).
agency with jurisdiction over wildlife resources prior to issuing permits or undertaking
actions involving the modification of any body of water (including impoundment, diversion,
deepening, or otherwise controlled or modified for any purpose).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 3 of 7
ARAR
2014
Table 2-1a ARARs and TBCs
Authority/Source
General Description
ARAR or TBC
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act,
Public Law 94-265, as amended
through October 11, 1996
Requires that federal agencies consult with National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) on
actions that may adversely affect essential fish habitats, defined as “those waters and
substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.”
ARAR
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C.
§703
Requires that federal agencies consult with USFWS during remedial design and remedial
construction to ensure that the cleanup of the site does not unnecessarily impact migratory
birds.
ARAR
Statement of Procedures on Floodplain
Sets forth USEPA policy and guidance for carrying out Executive Orders (EO) 11990 and
Management and Wetlands Protection;
11988.
40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A
TBC
State
New Jersey Soil Erosion and Sediment
Regulates construction that will potentially result in erosion of soils, such as upland
Control Act , N.J.S.A. 4:24-39,
processing facility.
N.J.A.C. 2:90
ARAR
New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands
Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 13:9B-1,
N.J.A.C. 7:7A
Regulates construction or other activities (including remedial action) that will have an
impact on wetlands, including working and transporting across coastal zone to upland
processing facility.
ARAR
New Jersey Flood Hazard Area
Control Act, N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50,
N.J.A.C. 7:13
Regulates activities (including remedial action) within flood hazard areas that will impact
stream carrying capacity or flow velocity to avoid increasing impacts of flood waters, to
minimize degradation of water quality, protect wildlife and fisheries, and protect and
enhance public health and welfare.
ARAR
New Jersey Tidelands Act, N.J.S.A.
12:3
Requires a tidelands lease, grant or conveyance for use of State-owned riparian lands,
including sediment removal and backfill. Tidelands, also known as riparian lands, are all
those lands now or formerly flowed by the mean high tide of a natural waterway, except for
those lands for which the States has already conveyed its interest in the form of a riparian
grant.
ARAR
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 4 of 7
2014
Table 2-1a ARARs and TBCs
Authority/Source
New Jersey Waterfront Development
Law, N.J.S.A. 12:5-3,
New Jersey Coastal Zone
Management, N.J.A.C. 7:7E, New
Jersey Coastal Permit Program,
N.J.A.C. 7:7
General Description
Regulates any waterfront development, including sediment removal and fill, at or below
mean high water and up to 500 feet from mean high water in the coastal zone and tidal
waters of the State. Implemented through Coastal Zone Management (NJAC 7:7E) and
Coastal Permit Program Rules (NJAC 7:7), which provide rules and standards for use and
development of resources in New Jersey’s coastal zone.
If federally assisted undertaking on any district, site, building, structure or object included
in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places results in adverse
New Jersey Register of Historic Places
effects, the agency must consult with the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office and other
Act N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.128 et seq.
parties to develop ways to avoid, reduce, minimize, or mitigate any adverse impacts to those
identified properties.
ARAR or TBC
ARAR
ARAR
Potential Action-Specific ARARs
Federal
Governs coordination of activities occurring in navigable waters. Congressional approval
Rivers & Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403 required for any obstruction of the navigable capacity of the waters of the United States,
and for construction of bridges, wharfs, piers, and other structures across navigable waters.
ARAR
33 CFR Parts 322, 323, 329
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulations in 33 CFR 322, 323 and 329 provide
permitting authority for work in or affecting navigable waters, and discharge of dredged or
fill material in the waters of the US.
Provides authority for USEPA to establish water quality criteria for the protection of
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251, et
aquatic life and human health. New Jersey has promulgated surface water quality criteria.
seq.,
Federally recommended water quality criteria established under Section 304(a) of the CWA
that are more stringent than state criteria may be relevant and appropriate.
CWA §§ 303, 304(a)
40 CFR Parts 129, 131
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
ARAR
Specific toxic pollution effluent standards that may apply: Aldrin/Dieldrin 129.4(a), DDT
129.4(b), PCBs 129.4(f)
Page 5 of 7
2014
Table 2-1a ARARs and TBCs
Authority/Source
General Description
ARAR or TBC
Clean Water Act, §401
40 CFR §121.2
Requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit provide a certification that any
discharges (e.g., dredged material dewatering effluent, placement of fill, discharges of
decants water) will comply with the Act, including water quality standard requirements
(water quality certification).
ARAR
Clean Water Act, §404
40 CFR Part 230 (Guidelines for
Specification of Disposal Sites for
Dredged or Fill Material).
Regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States,
including wetlands.
ARAR
Federal Pretreatment Regulations For
Existing And New Sources Of
Pollution - 40 CFR § 403, and as
Adopted by NJ Utility Authorities
Provides pretreatment criteria that waste streams must meet prior to discharge to Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW).
ARAR
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq
, Section 112, 40 CFR Parts 61, 63
Provides emissions standards for specific contaminants and for categories of operating
(National Emission Standards for
equipment.
Hazardous Air Pollutants)
ARAR
Resource Conservation and Recovery Establishes requirements for generators, transporters and facilities that manage nonAct (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6921 et seq. hazardous solid waste, and hazardous wastes. Provides for evaluation and control of
materials that contain a listed waste, or that display a hazardous waste characteristic based
on the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test. Regulate storage, treatment
and disposal of listed or characteristic waste unless an exemption applies.
40 CFR Parts 239 – 299
ARAR
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976
(TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.
Regulates PCBs from manufacture to disposal.
ARAR
40 CFR Part 761 Subpart D
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 6 of 7
2014
Table 2-1a ARARs and TBCs
Authority/Source
General Description
Hazardous Material Transportation Act
Regulates the transportation of hazardous materials, and include the procedures for the
(HMTA), 49 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1819
packaging, labeling, manifesting and transporting of hazardous materials to a licensed offHazardous Waste Transportation: 49 site disposal facility.
CFR Parts 171-177
ARAR or TBC
ARAR
State
New Jersey Water Pollution Control
Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10A, et seq., New
Jersey Water Quality Planning Act,
N.J.S.A 58:11 A, et seq.
Establishes the designated uses and antidegradation categories of the State's surface waters,
classifies surface waters based on those uses (i.e., stream classifications), and specifies the
water quality criteria and other policies and provisions necessary to attain those designated
uses.
ARAR
New Jersey Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NJPDES),
N.J.A.C. 7:14A
Establishes effluent discharge standards to protect water quality.
ARAR
Stormwater Management Rules,
N.J.A.C. 7:8
Establishes the design and performance standards for stormwater management measures.
ARAR
Noise Control, N.J.S.A., §13:1g-1 et
seq., N.J.A.C. 7:20
Regulates noise levels for certain types of activities and facilities such as commercial,
industrial, community service and public service facilities.
ARAR
New Jersey Surface Water Quality
Standards, N.J.A.C. 7:9B
New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act, Governs emissions that introduce contaminants into the ambient atmosphere for a variety of
N.J.S.A. § 26:2C et seq., N.J.A.C.
substances and from a variety of sources; controls and prohibits air pollution, particle
7:27
emissions and toxic VOC emissions.
ARAR
New Jersey Solid Waste Management
Act, N.J.S.A. §13:1E-1, et seq., New Establishes requirements for generators, transporters and facilities that manage solid waste
Jersey Solid and Hazardous Waste
and hazardous waste, and for thermal destruction facilities.
Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:26, 7:26B and 7:26G
ARAR
Notes:
ARAR = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements; CFR = Code of Federal Regulations; N.J.A.C. =New Jersey Administrative Code;
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl; TBC = to-be-considered; USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency; VOC = volatile organic compounds.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 7 of 7
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
Description
Class
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
NOAA: TBC, FL DEP: TBC
(1) USEPA Region 4, 2001
(2) USEPA
Region 5, 2003
(3) NJDEP 1998
(3) NJDEP 1998
(3) NJDEP 1998
(4) Jones et al. (1997)
RCRA Ecological
Screening Levels
(f)
Freshwater Sediment Screening Guidelines
(Persaud et al., 1993) (k)
Marine/Estuarine Sediment Screening
Guidelines (Long et al., 1995) (k)
Volatile Organic Sediment
Screening Guidelines, Freshwater
and Estuarine/Marine Systems
(MacDonald et al., 1992)
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments
Region 4 Waste Management Division Sediment
Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (note: also
given in ARCS)
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
0.01
87-61-6
540-59-0
591-78-6
108-10-1
67-64-1
AVS
71-43-2
75-25-2
75-15-0
108-90-7
124-48-1
67-66-3
75-27-4
100-41-4
74-87-3
78-93-3
75-09-2
108-88-3
127-18-4
79-01-6
1330-20-7
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene (Historical)
1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
2-HEXANONE (Historical)
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
ACETONE
Acid Volatile sulfides (Historical)
BENZENE
BROMOFORM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TOLUENE
Tetrachloroethene
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE (Historical) (total)
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
95-94-3
120-82-1
105-67-9
51-28-5
28804-88-8
606-20-2
95-57-8
99-09-2
59-50-7
106-44-5
100-02-7
95-15-8
65-85-0
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,6-/2,7-DIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
3-NITROANILINE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-METHYLPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
BENZO(b)THIOPHENE
BENZOIC ACID
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CHLOROBENZILATE
Chlorpyrifos (Historical)
DACTHAL
DIBENZOFURAN
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
DIBUTYLTIN
DIMETHYLPHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
M-DICHLOROBENZENE (1,3-DCB)
MONOBUTYLTIN
N-NITROSO-DI-PHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSO-DI-PROPYLAMINE
O-CRESOL (2-Methylphenol)
O-DICHLOROBENZENE (1,2-DCB)
PENTACHLOROANISOLE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE
PHENOL
TETRABUTYLTIN
TRIBUTYLTIN
Trifluralin (Historical)
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SVOL
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SVOL
117-81-7
85-68-7
510-15-6
2921-88-2
1861-32-1
132-64-9
132-65-0
1002-53-5
131-11-3
84-74-2
117-84-0
87-68-3
541-73-1
78763-54-9
86-30-6
621-64-7
95-48-7
95-50-1
1825-21-4
608-93-5
82-68-8
108-95-2
1461-25-2
56573-85-4
1582-09-8
106-46-7
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
METHYL_NAP167 1,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene (Historical)
90-12-0
832-69-9
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-Methylnaphthalene
1-Methylphenanthrene
PAH
Effects Value
CLP PQL (a)
Screening Value
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg);
Dioxin (ng/kg)
(µg/kg)
Lowest Effects Level
(LEL)
Severe Effects Level
(SEL)
Effects Range Low (ER-L)
Effects Range Median (ER-M)
Chronic Value
(mg/kg, dry weight)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (mg/kg
OC, dry weight)
(mg/kg, dry
weight)
(mg/kg, dry weight)
(mg/kg dry weight at 1% TOC)
NOAA (l): ER-L
NOAA (l): ER-M
FL DEP (l): TEL
FL DEP (l): PEL
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
58.2 (j)
25.1 (j)
9.9 (j)
142
492 (j)
23.9 (j)
291
0.34
121
-175
-42.4 (j)
159 (j)
1220 (j)
990
112(j)
433 (j)
1.4
0.45
1.6
>0.12
1252 (j)
5062 (j)
304
6.21
39.8
31.9
-388
20.2
13.3
182 (c)
3.6
182
182 (g)
1970 (j)
860
--
--
182
2647
449 (j)
1114
40600
26.5 (j)
1315 (j)
--55.4
294
24 (j)
-49.1
318 (j)
PAH
PAH
PAH
Page 1 of 14
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
Description
0.01
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene (Historical)
1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
2-HEXANONE (Historical)
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
ACETONE
Acid Volatile sulfides (Historical)
BENZENE
BROMOFORM
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
CHLOROFORM
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYL CHLORIDE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TOLUENE
Tetrachloroethene
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
XYLENE (Historical) (total)
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
95-94-3
120-82-1
105-67-9
51-28-5
28804-88-8
606-20-2
95-57-8
99-09-2
59-50-7
106-44-5
100-02-7
95-15-8
65-85-0
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,6-/2,7-DIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
3-NITROANILINE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-METHYLPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
BENZO(b)THIOPHENE
BENZOIC ACID
BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CHLOROBENZILATE
Chlorpyrifos (Historical)
DACTHAL
DIBENZOFURAN
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
DIBUTYLTIN
DIMETHYLPHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
M-DICHLOROBENZENE (1,3-DCB)
MONOBUTYLTIN
N-NITROSO-DI-PHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSO-DI-PROPYLAMINE
O-CRESOL (2-Methylphenol)
O-DICHLOROBENZENE (1,2-DCB)
PENTACHLOROANISOLE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE
PHENOL
TETRABUTYLTIN
TRIBUTYLTIN
Trifluralin (Historical)
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SVOL
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SV
SVOL
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
PAH
106-46-7
METHYL_NAP167 1,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene (Historical)
90-12-0
832-69-9
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1-Methylnaphthalene
1-Methylphenanthrene
TBC
TBC
TBC
(5) Jones et al. (1997)
(6) Jones et al. (1997)
(7) Jones et al. (1997)
(8) Canadian Sediment Guidelines
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments (p)
Summary of Selected Toxicity Test- and Screening Level Concentration-Based Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Freshwater
Sediments
Sediment Screening Values (aa)
Class
87-61-6
540-59-0
591-78-6
108-10-1
67-64-1
AVS
71-43-2
75-25-2
75-15-0
108-90-7
124-48-1
67-66-3
75-27-4
100-41-4
74-87-3
78-93-3
75-09-2
108-88-3
127-18-4
79-01-6
1330-20-7
117-81-7
85-68-7
510-15-6
2921-88-2
1861-32-1
132-64-9
132-65-0
1002-53-5
131-11-3
84-74-2
117-84-0
87-68-3
541-73-1
78763-54-9
86-30-6
621-64-7
95-48-7
95-50-1
1825-21-4
608-93-5
82-68-8
108-95-2
1461-25-2
56573-85-4
1582-09-8
TBC
NAWQC
Chronic
Secondary
Chronic Value
Fish
Daphnids
Nondaphnid
invertebrates
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
-- (r)
-- (r)
-- (r)
22 (r)
33 (r)
8.7 (r)
7,400 (r)
15,000 (r)
3,000 (r)
-- (r)
-- (r)
9.1 (r)
-- (r)
-- (r)
-- (r)
--
160
--
> 120,000
--
57
SQB
---
0.85
410
8800
7800
230
97,000
---
820
SQB
--
22
960
3500
--
--
89
> 5400
160,000
--
3600
SQB
-- (r)
------
270 (r)
370
50
410
220
160
5,400 (r)
18,000
6400
3500
51,000
740,000
27,000 (r)
7200
130,000
3200
33,000
--
-- (r)
------
670
530
1600
25
SQB
SQB
SQB
SQB
--
9600
--
--
--
9200
SQB
---
890,000
11,000
---
---
---
-11,000
SQB
--
420
--
110,000
--
2000
SQB
--
11,000
240,000
240,000
--
11,000
SQB
--
1700
-
--
--
1700
SQB
-- (r)
--
12 (r)
330
440 (r)
--
1200 (r)
--
-- (r)
--
340
SQB
--
700
--
--
--
31
--
< 57
570
--
--
340
--
--
--
350
SQB
--
130
34000
--
--
ARCS (b) - TEC
ARCS (u) - PEC
ARCS (u) - NEC
Ontario MOE (v) - Low
Ontario MOE (v) Severe
OSWER (bb)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
Interim Freshwater
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
ISQG (dd)
Type (cc)
µg/kg
Interim Marine
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
PEL (dd) ISQG (dd)
µg/kg
µg/kg
PEL (dd)
µg/kg
PAH
PAH
PAH
Page 2 of 14
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
Description
Class
(1) USEPA Region 4, 2001
Region 4 Waste Management Division Sediment
Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (note: also
given in ARCS)
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
2245-38-7
0.01
Effects Value
CLP PQL (a)
Screening Value
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg);
Dioxin (ng/kg)
(2) USEPA
Region 5, 2003
(3) NJDEP 1998
(3) NJDEP 1998
(3) NJDEP 1998
(4) Jones et al. (1997)
RCRA Ecological
Screening Levels
(f)
Freshwater Sediment Screening Guidelines
(Persaud et al., 1993) (k)
Marine/Estuarine Sediment Screening
Guidelines (Long et al., 1995) (k)
Volatile Organic Sediment
Screening Guidelines, Freshwater
and Estuarine/Marine Systems
(MacDonald et al., 1992)
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments
Lowest Effects Level
(LEL)
Severe Effects Level
(SEL)
Effects Range Low (ER-L)
Effects Range Median (ER-M)
Chronic Value
(µg/kg)
(mg/kg, dry weight)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (mg/kg
OC, dry weight)
(mg/kg, dry
weight)
(mg/kg, dry weight)
(mg/kg dry weight at 1% TOC)
NOAA (l): ER-L
NOAA (l): ER-M
FL DEP (l): TEL
FL DEP (l): PEL
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene
PAH
91-57-6
2-Methylnaphthalene
PAH
20.2 (c)
330
330
20.2 (g)
See Marine/Estuarine
--
0.07
0.67
70
670
20.2
201
83-32-9
Acenaphthene
PAH
6.71 (c)
330
330
6.71 (g)
See Marine/Estuarine
--
0.016
0.5
16
500
6.71
88.9
15067-26-2
208-96-8
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
192-97-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
56832-73-6
92-52-4
218-01-9
1719-03-5
53-70-3
CARP002
206-44-0
86-73-7
T_HMW_PAH
CARP399
193-39-5
T_LMW_PAH
CARP400
91-20-3
Acenaphthene d-10
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzoflouranthenes, total
biphenyl
Chrysene
Chrysene d-12
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Dibenz[ah]anthracene d-14
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
High molecular weight PAHs, total
(Historical)
HPAH
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]-pyrene
Low molecular weight PAHs, total
(Historical)
LPAH
Naphthalene
1146-65-2
1146-54-2
T PAH
198-55-0
85-01-8
1517-22-2
129-00-0
SUM PAH
CARP407
Naphthalene d-8
d8-Naphthalene
PAHs, total (Historical)
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene d-10
Pyrene
Sum of PAH
Total PAH
7429-90-5
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-70-2
7440-47-3
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
57-12-5
7439-89-6
7439-92-1
7439-95-4
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7440-09-7
7782-49-2
7440-21-3
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
Arsenic
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
Cadmium
CALCIUM
Chromium
COBALT
Copper
CYANIDE
IRON
Lead
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
Mercury
Nickel
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
PAHSURR
PAH
5.87 (c)
330
330
5.87 (g)
See Marine/Estuarine
--
0.044
0.64
44
640
5.87
128
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAHSURR
PAH
PAHSURR
PAH
PAH
46.9 (c)
74.8 (c)
88.8 (c)
330
330
330
330
330
330
57.2 (i)
108 (i)
150 (i)
10400
0.22
0.32
0.37
370
1480
1440
0.085
0.261
0.43
1.1
1.6
1.6
85.3
261
430
1100
1600
1600
46.9
74.8
88.8
245
693
763
170 (h)
240 (h)
0.37
0.17
0.24
1440
320
1340
See Freshwater
See Freshwater
---
PAH
330
330
166 (i)
0.34
460
0.384
2.8
384
2800
108
846
6.22 (c)
330
330
33 (i)
0.06
130
0.063
0.26
63.4
260
6.22
135
113 (c)
21.2 (c)
330
330
330
330
423 (i)
77.4 (i)
0.75
0.19
1020
160
0.6
0.019
5.1
0.54
600
19
5100
540
113
21.2
1494
144
655 (c)
330
655
1700 (o)
9600 (o)
655 (o)
6676 (o)
312 (c)
330
330
552 (o)
3160 (o)
312 (o)
1442 (o)
34.6 (c)
330
330
160
2100
34.6
391
4022 (o)
44792 (o)
1684 (o)
16770 (o)
PAH
PAH
PAH
200 (h)
0.2
320
See Freshwater
--
PAH
PAH
PAHSURR
SURR
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAHSURR
PAH
PAH
PAH
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
7440-22-4
Silver
MET
7440-23-5
7440-28-0
7440-31-5
SODIUM
Thallium
TIN
MET
MET
MET
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
108 (c)
176 (i)
See Marine/Estuarine
--
0.16
2.1
86.7 (c)
330
330
204 (i)
0.56
950
0.24
1.5
240
1500
86.7
544
153 (c)
330
330
195 (i)
0.49
850
0.665
2.6
665
2600
153
1398
1684 (c)
330
1684
4
10000
4
45
2 (b)
7.24 (c)
12
2
12
7.24
9790 (i)
6
33
8.2
70
2 (m)
8.2
25 (m)
70
-7.24
-41.6
0.676 (c)
1
1
990 (i)
0.6
10
1.2
9.6
1.2
9.6
0.68
4.21
52.3 (c)
2
52.3
26
110
81
370
81
370
52.3
160
18.7 (c)
5
18.7
43400 (i)
50000 (h)
31600 (i)
0.1 (h)
16
110
34
270
34
270
18.7
108
30.2 (c)
0.6
30.2
35800 (i)
31
250
47
218
46.7
218
30.2
112
0.13 (c)
15.9 (d)
0.02
8
0.13
15.9
174 (g)
22700 (i)
0.2
16
2
75
0.15
21
0.71
52
0.15
20.9
0.71
51.6
0.13
15.9
0.7
42.8
See Marine/Estuarine
--
1
3.7
1
3.7
0.73
1.77
-0.733 (c)
2
2
500 (h)
---
Page 3 of 14
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
Description
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
2245-38-7
91-57-6
Class
0.01
2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene
PAH
2-Methylnaphthalene
PAH
(5) Jones et al. (1997)
(6) Jones et al. (1997)
(7) Jones et al. (1997)
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments (p)
Summary of Selected Toxicity Test- and Screening Level Concentration-Based Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Freshwater
Sediments
Sediment Screening Values (aa)
NAWQC
Chronic
Secondary
Chronic Value
Fish
Daphnids
Nondaphnid
invertebrates
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
1300 (q)
--
5300
470,000
16,000
----
220
110
140
27
---
<620
2600
3000
----
ARCS (b) - TEC
ARCS (u) - PEC
ARCS (u) - NEC
Ontario MOE (v) - Low
Ontario MOE (v) Severe
OSWER (bb)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
192-97-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
56832-73-6
92-52-4
218-01-9
1719-03-5
53-70-3
CARP002
206-44-0
86-73-7
T_HMW_PAH
CARP399
193-39-5
T_LMW_PAH
CARP400
91-20-3
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthene d-10
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzoflouranthenes, total
biphenyl
Chrysene
Chrysene d-12
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Dibenz[ah]anthracene d-14
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
High molecular weight PAHs, total
(Historical)
HPAH
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]-pyrene
Low molecular weight PAHs, total
(Historical)
LPAH
Naphthalene
1146-65-2
1146-54-2
T PAH
198-55-0
85-01-8
1517-22-2
129-00-0
SUM PAH
CARP407
Naphthalene d-8
d8-Naphthalene
PAHs, total (Historical)
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene d-10
Pyrene
Sum of PAH
Total PAH
7429-90-5
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-70-2
7440-47-3
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
57-12-5
7439-89-6
7439-92-1
7439-95-4
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7440-09-7
7782-49-2
7440-21-3
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
Arsenic
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
Cadmium
CALCIUM
Chromium
COBALT
Copper
CYANIDE
IRON
Lead
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
Mercury
Nickel
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAHSURR
PAH
PAHSURR
PAH
PAH
--
6200 (q)
--
1100
-540
--
32,000
--
--
16,000
--
--
---
547.72
4200
393.7
1700
3500
440
220
320
370
3700
14,800
14,400
290
--
6300
--
3800
--
170
240
3200
13,400
500
5200
4000
340
4600
1100
--
--
28.2
870
60
1300
--
64.23
34.64
834.27
651.92
7500
1800
750
190
10,200
1600
2900
--
2900
4353.82
51,000
--
--
78
836.66
3800
200
3200
PAH
786
3369
3040
--
--
32.75
687.39
290
--
--
3553
13,660
84,600
4000
100,000
--
--
--
560
570
3225
6100
490
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAHSURR
SURR
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAHSURR
PAH
PAH
PAH
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
Silver
MET
7440-23-5
7440-28-0
7440-31-5
SODIUM
Thallium
TIN
MET
MET
MET
--
1800 (q)
240
--
12,000
--
23,000
59,000
--
--
---430
31.62
260
350
PAH
PAH
7440-22-4
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
620
PAHSURR
Interim Freshwater
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
ISQG (dd)
Type (cc)
-15067-26-2
(8) Canadian Sediment Guidelines
µg/kg
Interim Marine
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
PEL (dd) ISQG (dd)
µg/kg
µg/kg
PEL (dd)
µg/kg
20.2
201
20.2
201
SQC
6.71
88.9
6.71
88.9
ER-L
5.87
46.9
31.7
31.9
128
245
385
782
5.87
46.9
74.8
88.8
128
245
693
763
57.1
862
108
846
6.22
135
6.22
135
111
21.2
2355
144
113
21.2
1494
144
34.6
391
34.6
391
SQB
SQC
--
-480
SQB
9500
850
SQC
41.9
515
86.7
544
8500
660
ER-L
53
875
153
1398
4000
ER-L
--
58,030
73,160
--
--
12.1
57
92.9
6
33
-8.2
ER-L
5900
17,000
7240
4160
0.592
11.7
41.1
0.6
10
1.2
ER-L
600
3500
700
4200
56
159
312
26
110
81
ER-L
37,000
90,000
52,300
160,000
28
77.7
54.8
16
110
34
ER-L
35,700
197,000
18,700
108,000
-34.2
-396
-68.7
2%
31
4%
250
47
ER-L
35,000
91,300
30,200
112,000
1673
-39.6
1081
-38.5
819
-37.9
460
0.2
16
1110
2
75
0.15
21
ER-L
ER-L
170
486
130
700
--
Page 4 of 14
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
Description
Class
(1) USEPA Region 4, 2001
Region 4 Waste Management Division Sediment
Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (note: also
given in ARCS)
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
7440-32-6
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
1746-01-6
19408-74-3
30402-15-4
3268-87-9
34465-46-8
35822-46-9
36088-22-9
37871-00-4
38998-75-3
39001-02-0
39227-28-6
40321-76-4
41903-57-5
51207-31-9
55673-89-7
55684-94-1
55722-27-5
57117-31-4
57117-41-6
57117-44-9
57653-85-7
60851-34-5
67562-39-4
70648-26-9
72918-21-9
PCD T5
PCD T6
PCD T7
PCDD12478
PCF T5
PCF T6
PCF T7
0.01
Titanium
VANADIUM
Zinc
2,3,7,8-TCDD (toxic equivalent)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total PeCDF
OCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total PeCDD
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDF
OCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HxCDF
Total TCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Dioxins, 5PCDD, total (Historical)
Dioxins, 6HxCDD, total (Historical)
Dioxins, 7HpCDD, total (Historical)
PCDD12478 (Historical)
Furans, 5PCDF, total (Historical)
Furans, 6HxCDF, total (Historical)
Furans, 7HpCDF, total (Historical)
MET
MET
MET
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
PCF23467
2,3,4,6,7-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
(Historical)
DIOX/F
PCF2367
2,3,6,7-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
(Historical)
DIOX/F
PCF3467
3,4,6,7-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
(Historical)
DIOX/F
TCDD_T
Dioxins, 4TCDD, total (Historical)
DIOX/F
TCDF_T
Furans, 4TCDF, total (Historical)
CARP037
CARP038
CARP039
CARP040
CARP041
CARP042
CARP043
CARP044
CARP045
CARP046
CARP047
CARP048
CARP049
CARP050
CARP051
CARP052
13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDD
13C12-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
13C12-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
13C12-OCDD
13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDF
13C12-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
13C12-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
13C12-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
13C12-2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
13C12-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
37Cl-2,3,7,8-TCDD
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Effects Value
CLP PQL (a)
Screening Value
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg);
Dioxin (ng/kg)
124 (c)
4
124
(2) USEPA
Region 5, 2003
(3) NJDEP 1998
(3) NJDEP 1998
(3) NJDEP 1998
(4) Jones et al. (1997)
RCRA Ecological
Screening Levels
(f)
Freshwater Sediment Screening Guidelines
(Persaud et al., 1993) (k)
Marine/Estuarine Sediment Screening
Guidelines (Long et al., 1995) (k)
Volatile Organic Sediment
Screening Guidelines, Freshwater
and Estuarine/Marine Systems
(MacDonald et al., 1992)
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments
Lowest Effects Level
(LEL)
Severe Effects Level
(SEL)
Effects Range Low (ER-L)
Effects Range Median (ER-M)
Chronic Value
(µg/kg)
(mg/kg, dry weight)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (mg/kg
OC, dry weight)
(mg/kg, dry
weight)
(mg/kg, dry weight)
(mg/kg dry weight at 1% TOC)
-121000 (i)
120
820
150
410
NOAA (l): ER-L
NOAA (l): ER-M
FL DEP (l): TEL
FL DEP (l): PEL
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
150
410
124
271
1.2E-04 (j)
--
DIOX/F
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOXCLEAN
Page 5 of 14
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
Description
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
7440-32-6
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
1746-01-6
19408-74-3
30402-15-4
3268-87-9
34465-46-8
35822-46-9
36088-22-9
37871-00-4
38998-75-3
39001-02-0
39227-28-6
40321-76-4
41903-57-5
51207-31-9
55673-89-7
55684-94-1
55722-27-5
57117-31-4
57117-41-6
57117-44-9
57653-85-7
60851-34-5
67562-39-4
70648-26-9
72918-21-9
PCD T5
PCD T6
PCD T7
PCDD12478
PCF T5
PCF T6
PCF T7
Class
0.01
Titanium
VANADIUM
Zinc
2,3,7,8-TCDD (toxic equivalent)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total PeCDF
OCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total PeCDD
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDF
OCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HxCDF
Total TCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
Dioxins, 5PCDD, total (Historical)
Dioxins, 6HxCDD, total (Historical)
Dioxins, 7HpCDD, total (Historical)
PCDD12478 (Historical)
Furans, 5PCDF, total (Historical)
Furans, 6HxCDF, total (Historical)
Furans, 7HpCDF, total (Historical)
MET
MET
MET
2,3,4,6,7-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
(Historical)
DIOX/F
PCF2367
2,3,6,7-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
(Historical)
DIOX/F
PCF3467
3,4,6,7-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
(Historical)
DIOX/F
TCDD_T
Dioxins, 4TCDD, total (Historical)
DIOX/F
TCDF_T
Furans, 4TCDF, total (Historical)
13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDD
13C12-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
13C12-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
13C12-OCDD
13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDF
13C12-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
13C12-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
13C12-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
13C12-2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
13C12-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
37Cl-2,3,7,8-TCDD
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
(6) Jones et al. (1997)
(7) Jones et al. (1997)
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments (p)
Summary of Selected Toxicity Test- and Screening Level Concentration-Based Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Freshwater
Sediments
Sediment Screening Values (aa)
NAWQC
Chronic
Secondary
Chronic Value
Fish
Daphnids
Nondaphnid
invertebrates
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
ARCS (b) - TEC
ARCS (u) - PEC
ARCS (u) - NEC
Ontario MOE (v) - Low
Ontario MOE (v) Severe
OSWER (bb)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
159
1532
541
120
820
150
(8) Canadian Sediment Guidelines
Interim Freshwater
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
ISQG (dd)
Type (cc)
ER-L
Interim Marine
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
PEL (dd) ISQG (dd)
PEL (dd)
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
123,000
315,000
124,000
271,000
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
DIOX/F
PCF23467
CARP037
CARP038
CARP039
CARP040
CARP041
CARP042
CARP043
CARP044
CARP045
CARP046
CARP047
CARP048
CARP049
CARP050
CARP051
CARP052
(5) Jones et al. (1997)
DIOX/F
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOX/FSURR
DIOXCLEAN
Page 6 of 14
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
Description
Class
(1) USEPA Region 4, 2001
Region 4 Waste Management Division Sediment
Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (note: also
given in ARCS)
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
0.01
CARP200
Total Tetra-Dioxins
CARP201
Total Penta-Dioxins
CARP202
Total Hexa-Dioxins
CARP203
Total Hepta-Dioxins
CARP204
Total Tetra-Furans
CARP205
Total Penta-Furans
CARP206
Total Hexa-Furans
CARP207
Total Hepta-Furans
1016 1242
1016 1248 1254
1221 1232
13029-08-8
15862-07-4
15968-05-5
16605-91-7
16606-02-3
2050-68-2
2051-24-3
2051-60-7
2051-61-8
2051-62-9
2136-99-4
2437-79-8
25323-68-6
25569-80-6
25663-74-8
26601-64-9
26914-33-0
27323-18-8
28655-71-2
2974-92-7
31508-00-6
32598-10-0
32598-11-1
32598-12-2
32598-13-3
32598-14-4
32690-93-0
32774-16-6
33025-41-1
33091-17-7
33146-45-1
33284-50-3
344883-43-7
34883-39-1
34883-43-7
35065-27-1
35065-28-2
35065-29-3
35065-30-6
35298-10-0
35693-99-3
35694-06-5
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Screening Value
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg);
Dioxin (ng/kg)
(3) NJDEP 1998
(3) NJDEP 1998
(4) Jones et al. (1997)
RCRA Ecological
Screening Levels
(f)
Freshwater Sediment Screening Guidelines
(Persaud et al., 1993) (k)
Marine/Estuarine Sediment Screening
Guidelines (Long et al., 1995) (k)
Volatile Organic Sediment
Screening Guidelines, Freshwater
and Estuarine/Marine Systems
(MacDonald et al., 1992)
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments
(µg/kg)
Lowest Effects Level
(LEL)
Severe Effects Level
(SEL)
Effects Range Low (ER-L)
Effects Range Median (ER-M)
Chronic Value
(mg/kg, dry weight)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (mg/kg
OC, dry weight)
(mg/kg, dry
weight)
(mg/kg, dry weight)
(mg/kg dry weight at 1% TOC)
NOAA (l): ER-L
NOAA (l): ER-M
FL DEP (l): TEL
FL DEP (l): PEL
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
2.5 (e)
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
(µg/kg - Region 5 entry)
AR1016-AR1242 (Historical)
AR1016-AR1248-AR1254 (Historical)
AR1221-AR1232 (Historical)
2,2'-dichlorobiphenyl
2,4,5-trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',6,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3-dichlorobiphenyl
2,4',5-trichlorobiphenyl
4,4'-dichlorobiphenyl
decachlorobiphenyl
2-chlorobiphenyl
3-chlorobiphenyl
4-chlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',5,5',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
TRICHLOROBIPHENYL
2,3'-dichlorobiphenyl
BZ172NT
HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL
MONOCHLOROBIPHENYL
HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL
3,4-dichlorobiphenyl
2,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3',4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,4,4',6-tetrachlorobiphenyl
3,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,4,4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
3,3',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,3,4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,4',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl
2,6-dichlorobiphenyl
2,4-dichlorobiphenyl
BZ#8 (Historical)
2,5-dichlorobiphenyl
2,4'-dichlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,4',5-heptachlorobiphenyl
BZ#66 and BZ#95
2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',5-hexachlorobiphenyl
CLP PQL (a)
(3) NJDEP 1998
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
Dioxin (ng/kg - Region 4 entry)
PCDD-S
Effects Value
(2) USEPA
Region 5, 2003
0.011
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
Page 7 of 14
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
Description
Class
0.01
CARP200
Total Tetra-Dioxins
CARP201
Total Penta-Dioxins
CARP202
Total Hexa-Dioxins
CARP203
Total Hepta-Dioxins
CARP204
Total Tetra-Furans
CARP205
Total Penta-Furans
CARP206
Total Hexa-Furans
CARP207
Total Hepta-Furans
(5) Jones et al. (1997)
(6) Jones et al. (1997)
(7) Jones et al. (1997)
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments (p)
Summary of Selected Toxicity Test- and Screening Level Concentration-Based Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Freshwater
Sediments
Sediment Screening Values (aa)
NAWQC
Chronic
Secondary
Chronic Value
Fish
Daphnids
Nondaphnid
invertebrates
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
ARCS (b) - TEC
ARCS (u) - PEC
ARCS (u) - NEC
Ontario MOE (v) - Low
Ontario MOE (v) Severe
OSWER (bb)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
(8) Canadian Sediment Guidelines
Interim Freshwater
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
ISQG (dd)
Type (cc)
Interim Marine
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
PEL (dd) ISQG (dd)
PEL (dd)
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
µg/kg
0.85 (ee)
21.5 (ee)
0.85 (ee)
21.5 (ee)
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
BROM
DIOX/F
Dioxin (ng/kg - Region 4 entry)
PCDD-S
1016 1242
1016 1248 1254
1221 1232
13029-08-8
15862-07-4
15968-05-5
16605-91-7
16606-02-3
2050-68-2
2051-24-3
2051-60-7
2051-61-8
2051-62-9
2136-99-4
2437-79-8
25323-68-6
25569-80-6
25663-74-8
26601-64-9
26914-33-0
27323-18-8
28655-71-2
2974-92-7
31508-00-6
32598-10-0
32598-11-1
32598-12-2
32598-13-3
32598-14-4
32690-93-0
32774-16-6
33025-41-1
33091-17-7
33146-45-1
33284-50-3
344883-43-7
34883-39-1
34883-43-7
35065-27-1
35065-28-2
35065-29-3
35065-30-6
35298-10-0
35693-99-3
35694-06-5
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
(µg/kg - Region 5 entry)
AR1016-AR1242 (Historical)
AR1016-AR1248-AR1254 (Historical)
AR1221-AR1232 (Historical)
2,2'-dichlorobiphenyl
2,4,5-trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',6,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3-dichlorobiphenyl
2,4',5-trichlorobiphenyl
4,4'-dichlorobiphenyl
decachlorobiphenyl
2-chlorobiphenyl
3-chlorobiphenyl
4-chlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',5,5',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
TRICHLOROBIPHENYL
2,3'-dichlorobiphenyl
BZ172NT
HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL
MONOCHLOROBIPHENYL
HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL
3,4-dichlorobiphenyl
2,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3',4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,4,4',6-tetrachlorobiphenyl
3,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,4,4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
3,3',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,3,4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,4',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl
2,6-dichlorobiphenyl
2,4-dichlorobiphenyl
BZ#8 (Historical)
2,5-dichlorobiphenyl
2,4'-dichlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,4',5-heptachlorobiphenyl
BZ#66 and BZ#95
2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',5-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
Page 8 of 14
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
Description
Class
(1) USEPA Region 4, 2001
Region 4 Waste Management Division Sediment
Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (note: also
given in ARCS)
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
35694-08-7
36559-22-5
37680-65-2
37680-65-5
37680-66-3
37680-68-5
37680-73-2
38379-99-6
38380-01-7
38380-02-8
38380-03-9
38380-04-0
38380-05-1
38380-07-3
38380-08-4
38411-22-2
38411-25-5
38444-73-4
38444-76-7
38444-77-8
38444-78-9
38444-81-4
38444-84-7
38444-85-8
38444-86-9
38444-90-5
38444-93-8
39635-31-9
40186-70-7
40186-71-8
0.01
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5'-octachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',5-trichlorobiphenyl
Cl3(34)
2,2',4-trichlorobiphenyl
2',3,5-trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,5',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4',5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,4'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4',5-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',6,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',6-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3',6-trichlorobiphenyl
2,4',6-trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',3-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3',5-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3,3'-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3,4'-trichlorobiphenyl
2',3,4-trichlorobiphenyl
3,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl
CLP PQL (a)
Screening Value
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg);
Dioxin (ng/kg)
(3) NJDEP 1998
(3) NJDEP 1998
(3) NJDEP 1998
(4) Jones et al. (1997)
RCRA Ecological
Screening Levels
(f)
Freshwater Sediment Screening Guidelines
(Persaud et al., 1993) (k)
Marine/Estuarine Sediment Screening
Guidelines (Long et al., 1995) (k)
Volatile Organic Sediment
Screening Guidelines, Freshwater
and Estuarine/Marine Systems
(MacDonald et al., 1992)
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments
(µg/kg)
Lowest Effects Level
(LEL)
Severe Effects Level
(SEL)
Effects Range Low (ER-L)
Effects Range Median (ER-M)
Chronic Value
(mg/kg, dry weight)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (mg/kg
OC, dry weight)
(mg/kg, dry
weight)
(mg/kg, dry weight)
(mg/kg dry weight at 1% TOC)
NOAA (l): ER-L
NOAA (l): ER-M
FL DEP (l): TEL
FL DEP (l): PEL
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
40186-72-9
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-nonachlorobiphenyl
PCB
41411-62-5
41411-64-7
41464-39-5
41464-40-8
41464-41-9
41464-43-1
41464-47-5
41464-49-7
41464-51-1
42740-50-1
51908-16-8
52663-58-8
52663-59-9
52663-60-2
52663-61-3
52663-62-4
52663-63-5
52663-64-6
52663-65-7
52663-66-8
52663-67-9
52663-68-0
52663-69-1
52663-70-4
52663-71-5
52663-72-6
52663-73-7
52663-74-8
52663-75-9
52663-76-0
2,3,3',4,5,6-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4',5,6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',5,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3',4,5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,4',5',6-octachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,3,4',6-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,5,5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',5,6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4',5,6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,4',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,3',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5,6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6'-octachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
52663-77-1
2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6,6'-nonachlorobiphenyl
PCB
52663-78-2
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6-octachlorobiphenyl
PCB
52663-79-3
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6,6'-nonachlorobiphenyl
PCB
52704-70-8
2,2',3,3',5,6-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Effects Value
(2) USEPA
Region 5, 2003
Page 9 of 14
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
35694-08-7
36559-22-5
37680-65-2
37680-65-5
37680-66-3
37680-68-5
37680-73-2
38379-99-6
38380-01-7
38380-02-8
38380-03-9
38380-04-0
38380-05-1
38380-07-3
38380-08-4
38411-22-2
38411-25-5
38444-73-4
38444-76-7
38444-77-8
38444-78-9
38444-81-4
38444-84-7
38444-85-8
38444-86-9
38444-90-5
38444-93-8
39635-31-9
40186-70-7
40186-71-8
Description
Class
0.01
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5'-octachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',5-trichlorobiphenyl
Cl3(34)
2,2',4-trichlorobiphenyl
2',3,5-trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,5',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4',5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,4'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4',5-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',6,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',6-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3',6-trichlorobiphenyl
2,4',6-trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',3-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3',5-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3,3'-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3,4'-trichlorobiphenyl
2',3,4-trichlorobiphenyl
3,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl
(6) Jones et al. (1997)
(7) Jones et al. (1997)
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments (p)
Summary of Selected Toxicity Test- and Screening Level Concentration-Based Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Freshwater
Sediments
Sediment Screening Values (aa)
NAWQC
Chronic
Secondary
Chronic Value
Fish
Daphnids
Nondaphnid
invertebrates
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
ARCS (b) - TEC
ARCS (u) - PEC
ARCS (u) - NEC
Ontario MOE (v) - Low
Ontario MOE (v) Severe
OSWER (bb)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
(8) Canadian Sediment Guidelines
Interim Freshwater
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
ISQG (dd)
Type (cc)
µg/kg
Interim Marine
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
PEL (dd) ISQG (dd)
µg/kg
µg/kg
PEL (dd)
µg/kg
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
40186-72-9
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-nonachlorobiphenyl
PCB
41411-62-5
41411-64-7
41464-39-5
41464-40-8
41464-41-9
41464-43-1
41464-47-5
41464-49-7
41464-51-1
42740-50-1
51908-16-8
52663-58-8
52663-59-9
52663-60-2
52663-61-3
52663-62-4
52663-63-5
52663-64-6
52663-65-7
52663-66-8
52663-67-9
52663-68-0
52663-69-1
52663-70-4
52663-71-5
52663-72-6
52663-73-7
52663-74-8
52663-75-9
52663-76-0
2,3,3',4,5,6-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4',5,6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',5,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3',4,5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,4',5',6-octachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,3,4',6-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,5,5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',5,6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4',5,6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,4',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,3',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5,6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6'-octachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
52663-77-1
2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6,6'-nonachlorobiphenyl
PCB
52663-78-2
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6-octachlorobiphenyl
PCB
52663-79-3
2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6,6'-nonachlorobiphenyl
PCB
52704-70-8
2,2',3,3',5,6-hexachlorobiphenyl
PCB
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
(5) Jones et al. (1997)
Page 10 of 14
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
Description
Class
(1) USEPA Region 4, 2001
Region 4 Waste Management Division Sediment
Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (note: also
given in ARCS)
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
52712-04-6
52712-05-7
52744-13-5
55215-17-3
55215-18-4
55702-46-0
55712-37-3
55720-44-0
56558-17-9
57465-28-8
58702-45-9
59291-64-4
60145-20-2
60145-23-5
60233-24-1
65194-04-7
65510-44-3
65510-45-4
68194-05-8
68194-14-9
68194-15-0
68194-17-2
69782-90-7
69782-91-8
7012-37-5
70362-45-7
70362-47-9
70362-50-4
70424-68-9
73575-53-8
73575-54-9
74472-35-8
74472-36-9
74472-37-0
74472-38-1
74472-38-8
74472-42-7
74472-48-3
74472-50-7
74472-51-8
74472-53-0
76842-07-4
87-86-5
CARP397
CARP402
0.01
PCB DCBP
Total PCB
2,2',3,4,5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',5,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,3,4-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3',4-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3,5-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3',4,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
3,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
BZ#24NT
2,2',3,4,4',6'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',5,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,3',4,6-tetrachlorobiphenyl
BZ#51 (Historical)
2',3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,5,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,6-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
3,4,4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3',4,5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,6,6'-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',5,6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3,4,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
BZ#63 (Historical)
2,3,3',4,4',6-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4',5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4',5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl
2',3,3',4,5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3,4,5,6-PENTACHLOROPHENOL
Unidentified PCB Congener Cl2(18)
PCB
NONACHLOROBIPHENYL
(Historical)
DICHLOROBIPHENYL (Historical)
Total PCB (Historical)
65510-44-3C
BZ#123"&"BZ#149 (Historical)
69782-90-7C
BZ#157"&"BZ#201 (Historical)
NONA_PCB
CLP PQL (a)
Screening Value
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg);
Dioxin (ng/kg)
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
(3) NJDEP 1998
(3) NJDEP 1998
(3) NJDEP 1998
(4) Jones et al. (1997)
RCRA Ecological
Screening Levels
(f)
Freshwater Sediment Screening Guidelines
(Persaud et al., 1993) (k)
Marine/Estuarine Sediment Screening
Guidelines (Long et al., 1995) (k)
Volatile Organic Sediment
Screening Guidelines, Freshwater
and Estuarine/Marine Systems
(MacDonald et al., 1992)
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments
(µg/kg)
Lowest Effects Level
(LEL)
Severe Effects Level
(SEL)
Effects Range Low (ER-L)
Effects Range Median (ER-M)
Chronic Value
(mg/kg, dry weight)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (mg/kg
OC, dry weight)
(mg/kg, dry
weight)
(mg/kg, dry weight)
(mg/kg dry weight at 1% TOC)
0.07
530
0.023
0.18
0.005
24
See Freshwater
--
0.06
34
See Freshwater
--
0.03
150
See Freshwater
--
NOAA (l): ER-L
NOAA (l): ER-M
FL DEP (l): TEL
FL DEP (l): PEL
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
23000 (j)
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB_GROUPI
NGS
PCB_GROUPI
NGS
1336-36-3
PCB, TOTAL
PCB_SUM
CARP408
PCB SUM
Total PCB
PCBs, total (Historical)
11096-82-5
Aroclor 1260
11097-69-1
Aroclor 1254
11104-28-2
Aroclor 1221
11141-16-5
Aroclor 1232
12672-29-6
Aroclor 1248
PCB SUM
PCB SUM
PCBAROCLOR
PCBAROCLOR
PCBAROCLOR
PCBAROCLOR
PCBAROCLOR
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Effects Value
(2) USEPA
Region 5, 2003
21.6 (c)
33 (67 for Aroclor 33 (67 for Aroclor
1221)
1221)
67
59.8 (i)
22.7
180
21.6
189
67
Page 11 of 14
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
Description
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
52712-04-6
52712-05-7
52744-13-5
55215-17-3
55215-18-4
55702-46-0
55712-37-3
55720-44-0
56558-17-9
57465-28-8
58702-45-9
59291-64-4
60145-20-2
60145-23-5
60233-24-1
65194-04-7
65510-44-3
65510-45-4
68194-05-8
68194-14-9
68194-15-0
68194-17-2
69782-90-7
69782-91-8
7012-37-5
70362-45-7
70362-47-9
70362-50-4
70424-68-9
73575-53-8
73575-54-9
74472-35-8
74472-36-9
74472-37-0
74472-38-1
74472-38-8
74472-42-7
74472-48-3
74472-50-7
74472-51-8
74472-53-0
76842-07-4
87-86-5
CARP397
CARP402
0.01
PCB DCBP
Total PCB
2,2',3,4,5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',5,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,3,4-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3',4-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3,5-trichlorobiphenyl
2,3',4,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
3,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
BZ#24NT
2,2',3,4,4',6'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',5,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,3',4,6-tetrachlorobiphenyl
BZ#51 (Historical)
2',3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,5,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,6-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',4,5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
3,4,4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3',4,5-tetrachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,6,6'-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',5,6-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3,4,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
BZ#63 (Historical)
2,3,3',4,4',6-hexachlorobiphenyl
2,2',3,4,4',6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4',5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
2,3,3',4,4',5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl
2',3,3',4,5-pentachlorobiphenyl
2,3,4,5,6-PENTACHLOROPHENOL
Unidentified PCB Congener Cl2(18)
PCB
NONACHLOROBIPHENYL
(Historical)
DICHLOROBIPHENYL (Historical)
Total PCB (Historical)
65510-44-3C
BZ#123"&"BZ#149 (Historical)
69782-90-7C
BZ#157"&"BZ#201 (Historical)
NONA_PCB
Class
(6) Jones et al. (1997)
(7) Jones et al. (1997)
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments (p)
Summary of Selected Toxicity Test- and Screening Level Concentration-Based Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Freshwater
Sediments
Sediment Screening Values (aa)
NAWQC
Chronic
Secondary
Chronic Value
Fish
Daphnids
Nondaphnid
invertebrates
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
ARCS (b) - TEC
ARCS (u) - PEC
ARCS (u) - NEC
Ontario MOE (v) - Low
Ontario MOE (v) Severe
OSWER (bb)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
(8) Canadian Sediment Guidelines
Interim Freshwater
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
ISQG (dd)
Type (cc)
µg/kg
Interim Marine
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
PEL (dd) ISQG (dd)
µg/kg
µg/kg
PEL (dd)
µg/kg
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB_GROUPI
NGS
PCB_GROUPI
NGS
1336-36-3
PCB, TOTAL
PCB_SUM
CARP408
PCB SUM
Total PCB
PCBs, total (Historical)
11096-82-5
Aroclor 1260
11097-69-1
Aroclor 1254
11104-28-2
Aroclor 1221
11141-16-5
Aroclor 1232
12672-29-6
Aroclor 1248
PCB SUM
PCB SUM
PCBAROCLOR
PCBAROCLOR
PCBAROCLOR
PCBAROCLOR
PCBAROCLOR
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
(5) Jones et al. (1997)
31.62
244.66
194
70 (a)
5300 (z)
--
4,500,000
< 63,000
--
--
--
--
--
5 (x,z)
240 (y,z)
--
810
--
71,000
--
--
--
--
60 (x,z)
340 (y,z)
--
120
25,000
--
--
--
600
130,000
--
--
--
1000
--
--
--
--
--
--
30 (x,z)
1500 (y,z)
Page 12 of 14
23
ER-L
34.1
277
21.5
189
60
340
63.3
709
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
Description
Class
(1) USEPA Region 4, 2001
Region 4 Waste Management Division Sediment
Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (note: also
given in ARCS)
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
0.01
12674-11-2
Aroclor 1016
PCBAROCLOR
53469-21-9
Aroclor 1242
PCBAROCLOR
DDD
DDE
DDT
634-66-2
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene (Historical)
1,2,3,5 Tetrachlorobenzene (Historical)
PEST
53-19-0
3424-82-6
789-02-6
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDE
2,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
2,4'-DDD + 4,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDT + 4,4'-DDT
DDT, Total
Aldrin
BHC, alpha
BHC, beta
BHC, delta
BHC, gamma (Lindane)
BHCs, total (Historical)
CHLORDANE
Chlordane,alpha (cis)
Chlordane,gamma (trans)
Chlordane,oxyChlordene - alpha (Historical)
Chlordene - gamma (Historical)
DDTS, total of 6 isomers (Historical)
Dieldrin
Dieldrin+aldrin, total (Historical)
Diphenyl disulfide (Historical)
Endosulfan sulfate
Endosulfan, alpha
Endosulfan, beta
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Isopropalin (Historical)
Kelthane (Historical)
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Nonachlor, cisNonachlor, transOctachlorostyrene (Historical)
Perthane (Historical)
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
012789-03-6
Total chlordane (alpha+cis+oxy+trans)
(Historical)
PEST
CARP406
Total DDT
8001-35-2
Total DDT
Total DDT (Historical)
Toxaphene
PEST
PEST
PEST
CARP409
TPH
TPH
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
CLP PQL (a)
Screening Value
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg)
Inorg: (mg/kg);
Org: (µg/kg);
Dioxin (ng/kg)
2 (b)
2 (b)
1 (b)
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
1.22 (c)
2.07 (c)
1.19 (c)
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
(3) NJDEP 1998
(3) NJDEP 1998
(3) NJDEP 1998
(4) Jones et al. (1997)
RCRA Ecological
Screening Levels
(f)
Freshwater Sediment Screening Guidelines
(Persaud et al., 1993) (k)
Marine/Estuarine Sediment Screening
Guidelines (Long et al., 1995) (k)
Volatile Organic Sediment
Screening Guidelines, Freshwater
and Estuarine/Marine Systems
(MacDonald et al., 1992)
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments
(µg/kg)
Lowest Effects Level
(LEL)
Severe Effects Level
(SEL)
Effects Range Low (ER-L)
Effects Range Median (ER-M)
Chronic Value
(mg/kg, dry weight)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (mg/kg
OC, dry weight)
(mg/kg, dry
weight)
(mg/kg, dry weight)
(mg/kg dry weight at 1% TOC)
0.007
53
See Freshwater
--
0.008
0.005
0.06
0.19
0.0022
0.027
0.008
0.71
0.002
0.006
0.005
8
10
21
See Freshwater
--
1
12
6
See Freshwater
See Freshwater
NOAA (l): ER-L
NOAA (l): ER-M
FL DEP (l): TEL
FL DEP (l): PEL
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
PEST
634-90-2
309-00-2
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
BHC TOTAL
57-74-9
5103-71-9
5103-74-2
27304-13-8
CHLORDEN A
CHLORDEN G
DDT TOTAL
60-57-1
T DIE A LDRIN
882-33-7
1031-07-8
959-98-8
33213-65-9
72-20-8
7421-93-4
53494-70-5
76-44-8
1024-57-3
118-74-1
33820-53-0
115-32-2
72-43-5
2385-85-5
5103-73-1
39765-80-5
29082-74-4
72-56-0
Effects Value
(2) USEPA
Region 5, 2003
4.88 (i,j)
3.16 (i)
4.16 (i)
-2.2
-2 (m)
1 (m)
1.58 (n)
-27
-20 (m)
7 (m)
46.1 (n)
1.22
2.07
1.19
--3.89 (n)
7.81
374
4.77
--51.7 (n)
---
---
---
---
---
--0.5 (m)
--6 (m)
0.32
-2.26
0.99
-4.79
0.32 (c)
3.3
3.3
2 (h)
6 (h)
5 (h)
71500
2.37 (i)
0.5 (b)
1.7
1.7
3.24 (i,j)
0.003
0.003
0.007
0.02 (b)
3.3
3.3
1.9 (i,j)
0.007
0.002
12
91
0.0016
See Freshwater
0.046
--
0.02 (m)
8 (m)
0.72
4.3
0.003
130
See Freshwater
--
0.02 (m)
45 (m)
--
--
0.005
0.02
5
24
See Freshwater
See Freshwater
---
0.007
130
See Freshwater
--
0.02 (b)
3.3
3.3
34.6
3.26
1.94
2.22 (i,j)
480 (j)
0.6 (g)
2.47 (i)
20 (h)
13.6
1.58 (d)
3.3
3.3
0.077 (j)
Page 13 of 14
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
CAS No.
Description
TOC (used for
NJDEP 1998, SEL)
Class
0.01
12674-11-2
Aroclor 1016
PCBAROCLOR
53469-21-9
Aroclor 1242
PCBAROCLOR
DDD
DDE
DDT
634-66-2
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene (Historical)
1,2,3,5 Tetrachlorobenzene (Historical)
PEST
53-19-0
3424-82-6
789-02-6
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
2,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDE
2,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
2,4'-DDD + 4,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDT + 4,4'-DDT
DDT, Total
Aldrin
BHC, alpha
BHC, beta
BHC, delta
BHC, gamma (Lindane)
BHCs, total (Historical)
CHLORDANE
Chlordane,alpha (cis)
Chlordane,gamma (trans)
Chlordane,oxyChlordene - alpha (Historical)
Chlordene - gamma (Historical)
DDTS, total of 6 isomers (Historical)
Dieldrin
Dieldrin+aldrin, total (Historical)
Diphenyl disulfide (Historical)
Endosulfan sulfate
Endosulfan, alpha
Endosulfan, beta
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Isopropalin (Historical)
Kelthane (Historical)
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Nonachlor, cisNonachlor, transOctachlorostyrene (Historical)
Perthane (Historical)
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
012789-03-6
Total chlordane (alpha+cis+oxy+trans)
(Historical)
PEST
CARP406
Total DDT
8001-35-2
Total DDT
Total DDT (Historical)
Toxaphene
PEST
PEST
PEST
CARP409
TPH
TPH
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
(6) Jones et al. (1997)
(7) Jones et al. (1997)
Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments (p)
Summary of Selected Toxicity Test- and Screening Level Concentration-Based Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Freshwater
Sediments
Sediment Screening Values (aa)
NAWQC
Chronic
Secondary
Chronic Value
Fish
Daphnids
Nondaphnid
invertebrates
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
(µg/kg)
ARCS (b) - TEC
ARCS (u) - PEC
170
29,000
--
Ontario MOE (v) - Low
Ontario MOE (v) Severe
OSWER (bb)
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
Inorg: (mg/kg dry
weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
weight)
--
--
ARCS (u) - NEC
--
--
7 (x,z)
(8) Canadian Sediment Guidelines
Interim Freshwater
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
ISQG (dd)
Type (cc)
µg/kg
Interim Marine
Sediment Quality
Guidelines (dd)
PEL (dd) ISQG (dd)
µg/kg
µg/kg
PEL (dd)
µg/kg
530 (y,z)
16,000
--
340 (t)
19,000
420
--
--
110
17,000
--
--
----
3.54
1.42
1.19
8.51
6.75
4.77
1.22
2.07
1.19
7.81
374
4.77
4.5
8.87
2.26
4.79
PEST
634-90-2
309-00-2
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
BHC TOTAL
57-74-9
5103-71-9
5103-74-2
27304-13-8
CHLORDEN A
CHLORDEN G
DDT TOTAL
60-57-1
T DIE A LDRIN
882-33-7
1031-07-8
959-98-8
33213-65-9
72-20-8
7421-93-4
53494-70-5
76-44-8
1024-57-3
118-74-1
33820-53-0
115-32-2
72-43-5
2385-85-5
5103-73-1
39765-80-5
29082-74-4
72-56-0
(5) Jones et al. (1997)
---
---
---
8
5
60
190
--- (w)
----
--- (w)
----
--- (w)
----
8
7 (w)
2
6
5
710
120 (w)
80
100
210
----
----
3 (x,z)
3
7
10 (y,z)
120
60
3.7
--
--
2
910
52
SQC
2.85
6.67
0.71
4.3
2.9
14
20
SQB
SQB
SQC
2.67
62.4
2.67
62.4
0.6
2.74
0.69
2.74
-- (s)
-- (s)
-- (s)
3.7
120 (s)
120 (s)
120 (s)
--
-- (s)
-- (s)
-- (s)
680
5200 (s)
5200 (s)
5200 (s)
670
-- (s)
-- (s)
-- (s)
150
2800
--
26,000
260,000
18,000
----
110 (q)
--
--
--
--
--
--42 (q)
5.5
5.5
--
----
----
----
--
68
12,000
31,000
--
--
19
--
--
--
--
--
--
3
1300
--
--
--
5 (x)
20
50 (y)
240
--
--
--
7
1300
Page 14 of 14
---
SQB
--
19
SQB
1.6
ER-L
28
SQB
0.1
0.1
2014
Table 2-1b Sediment Screening Values
Notes:
(1) USEPA 2001
(a):
(b):
(c):
(d):
(e):
(2) USEPA 2003
(f):
(g):
(h):
(i):
(j):
(3) NJDEP, 1998
(k):
(4) Jones et al. (1997)
(l):
(m):
(n):
(o):
(5) Jones et al. (1997)
(p):
(q):
(r)
(s):
(t):
(6) Jones et al. (1997)
(7) Jones et al. (1997)
(8) Canadian Reference
(9) " --"
USEPA, 2001c. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Ecological Risk Assessment. Originally published November 1995. Website version last updated November 30, 2001: http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/ots/ecolbul.htm
Contract Laboratory Program Practical Quantification Limit.
Long, Edward R., and Lee G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52.
MacDonald, D.D. 1994. Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Long, Edward R., Donald D. MacDonald, Sherri L. Smith, and Fred D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments. Environmental Management 19(1):81-97.
USEPA. 1993. Interim Report on Data and Methods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8 - Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Life and Associated Wildlife. EPA/600/R-93/055.
U.S. EPA, Region 5, RCRA. Ecological Screening Levels. August 22, 2003.
Unless noted otherwise, all sediment Ecological Screening Levels were derived using equilibrium partitioning equation and the corresponding water ESL. ESLsediment = Koc x ESLwater x 0.01
Environment Canada. September 1994. Interim Sediment Quality Assessment Values. Ecosystem Conservation Directorate. Evaluation and Interpretation Branch.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. August 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario.
Consensus based threshold effect concentrations (TECs) as presented in MacDonald et al., 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based guidelines for freshwater ecosystems.
Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39:20-31 (see Table 2 of Region 5 ESLs). The TEC for mercury had a high incidence of toxicity and was not used.
These values do not consider bioaccumulation or biomagnification.
New ESL data is lower than the previous table.
Guidance for Sediment Quality Evaluations. NJDEP. November 1998.
NJDEP = New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; LEL = Lowest Effect Level; SEL = Severe Effect Level; LEL are ecological screening levels to be used in the Baseline Ecological Evaluation.
Jones, D.S., G.W. Suter II, R.N. Hull. November 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM-95/R4
NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; ER-L = Effects Range-Low; ER-M = Effects Range Median; except where noted, effects levels are the updated and revised values from Long et al. (1995).
FL DEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection; TEL = Threshold Effects Level; PEL = Probable Effects Level. Source document is MacDonald (1994).
Source document is Long and Morgan (1991).
Total DDT is the sum of the concentrations of the o,p'- and p,p'-isomers of DDD, DDE, and DDT.
LMW = low molecular weight and is the sum of the concentrations of acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluorene, 2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, and phenanthrene.
HMW = high molecular weight and is the sum of the concentrations of benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysens, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene.
Total is the sum of the concentrations of the aforementioned low and high molecular weight PAHs.
Equilibrium Partitioning-Derived Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Nonionic Organic Chemicals Corresponding to Conventional Aqueous Benchmarks
Conventional aqueous benchmars are presented in Suter and Tsao (1996). Estimated to 2 significant figures assuming 1% TOC.
Estimated sediment quality benchmarks greater than 10% (100,000,000 µg/kg) not included because such concentrations are assumed unlikely to be exceeded under natural conditions [applies to bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n-octylphthalate].
Denotes proposed EPA sediment quality criteria.
Column C denotes polar nonionic compounds, for which the EqP model is likely to provide a conservative estimate of exposure.
Most conservative (i.e., lowest) recommended value for reported configurations. BHC (other) is lowest of alpha-, beta-, and delta-BHC only.
Source is USEPA (1995b) and Source is ATSDR (1989).
Summary of Selected Toxicity Test- and Screening Level Concentration-Based Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Freshwater Sediments
(u): ARCS = Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Program; TEC = Threshold Effect Concentration; PEC = Probable Effect Concentration; NEC = high No Effect Concentration from (USEPA, 1996a).
(v): Ontario MOE = Ontario Ministry of the Environment;
Low = lowest effect level and is the 5th percentile of the screening level concentration except where noted otherwise;
Severe = severe effect level and is the 95th percentile of the screening level concentration except where noted otherwise;
Source document is Persaud et al. (1993). Values for organic chemicals were normalized assuming 1% TOC.
(w): Total DDT is the sum of the concentrations of the o,p'- and p,p'-isomers of DDD, DDE, and DDR.
(x): 10th percentile of the screening level concentration.
(y): 90th percentile of the screening level concentration.
(z): Denotes tentative guideline.
OSWER Sediment Screening Values
(aa): Screening values are presented with the same number of significant digits used in the EPA source documents.
(bb): OSWER = EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Ecotox Thresholds (ET). Only the most preferred ET, as defined in (USEPA,1996b), is presented
(cc): ER-L = effects range-low and, except where noted otherwise, is from Long et al. (1995);
SQC = the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the proposed EPA sediment quality criteria, assuming 1% TOC;
SQB = the EPA sediment quality benchmark based EPA Tier II Chronic value (USEPA, Region IV, 1995b), assuming 1% TOC.
Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment) 1999. updated 2001.
(dd): ISQG = Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines; PEL = Probable Effects Level
(ee): Values expressed as ng TEC/kg; TEQ = units of Toxicity Equivalence Quotient
Based on WHO 1998 TEF values for fish.
Indicates that the chemical was listed in the guidance document but no value was provided.
(10) Jones et al. (1997) sources:
Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants in the National Status and Trends Program , NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Suter, G.W. II, and C.L. Tsao. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision , ES/ER/TM-96/R2, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995c. National Sediment Inventory: Documentation of Derivation of Freshwater Sediment Quality , Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) 1989. Toxicological Profile for Selected PCBs , ATSDR/TP-88/21, U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. August 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy.
Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. "Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments," Environmental Management 19(1), 81-97.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. 1995b. Ecological Screening Values , Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletin No. 2, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. Calculation and Evaluation of Sediment Effect Concentrations for the Amphipod Hyalella azteca and the Midge Chironomus riparius , EPA 905-R96-008, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
USEPA, 1996b. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). "Ecotox Thresholds," ECO Update 3(2):1-12.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 15 of 15
2014
Table 2-2 Summary of Biota Tissue PRG Levels Protective of the Adult Angler Receptor
Cancer Risk-Based Tissue Concentrations Based on Number of Fish and Crab Meals1 per Year for an Adult (ng/g)
COPC
TCDD TEQ 3
56 fish meals per year
12 fish or crab meals per year2
34 crab meals per year
1 x 10-6
1x10-5
1x10-4
1x10-6
1x10-5
1x10-4
1x10-6
1x10-5
1x10-4
0.000039
0.00039
0.0039
0.000064
0.00064
0.0064
0.00018
0.0018
0.018
2.9
29
290
4.8
48
480
14
140
1400
Total Non-dioxin-like PCBs3
Classification — C
Possible human carcinogen
There is no quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk from oral exposure.
Methylmercury
Non-cancer Hazard-Based Tissue Concentrations Based on Number of Fish or Crab Meals1 per Year for an Adult (ng/g)
COPC
56 fish meals per year
34 crab meals per year
12 fish or crab meals per year2
0.0014
0.0023
0.0066
Total Non-dioxin-like PCBs3
40
66
190
Methylmercury
200
330
940
TCDD TEQ3
Notes:
Concentrations are presented as two significant figures.
COPC = contaminants of potential concern; HHRA = human health risk assessments; ng/g = nanograms per gram; NJDEP = New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection;
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl; PRG = preliminary remediation goal; TCDD TEQ = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Toxic Equivalency Quotient.
Consumption of 12 fish or crab meals per year is an interim PRG.
Indicates that the risk-based value exceeds the NJDEP advisory trigger level and would not be protective or allow additional consumption of fish/crabs. The NJDEP uses
‘do not eat’ values of 0.0077 ng/g, 240 ng/g, and 540 ng/g to set fish consumption advisories for TCDD TEQ, PCBs, and mercury, respectively. Use of PRGs that exceed these
NJDEP advisory triggers would not be protective or allow additional consumption of fish/crabs.
1. For fish, 56 meals/year = ~1 fish meal every week (consistent with the HHRA ingestion rate [Appendix D]); For crab, 34 meals/year = ~1.5 crab meal every week
(consistent with the HHRA ingestion rate [Appendix D]); 12 meals/year = 1 fish or crab meal every month.
2.
12 fish or crab meals per year is an interim PRG.
3. For Total Non-dioxin-like PCBs and TCDD TEQ, PRGs have been calculated for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects. It is recommended that the
toxicological effect resulting in the more conservative PRG be used to be protective of both types of health effects.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 2-3 Summary of Sediment PRGs Based on Human Health
1
Cancer Risk-Based Sediment Concentrations Based on Number of Fish and Crab Meals per Year for an Adult (ng/g)
COPC
TCDD TEQ3
Total Non-dioxin-like
PCBs3
56 fish meals per year
2
34 crab meals per year
12 fish or crab meals per year
1 x 10-6
1x10-5
1x10-4
1 x 10-6
1x10-5
1x10-4
1 x 10-6
1x10-5
1x10-4
0.000095
0.0016
0.022
0.00043
0.0050
0.058
0.00080
0.012
0.19
3.2
32
320
1.6
51
1600
13
170
2000
Classification — C (Possible human carcinogen)
There is no quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk from oral exposure.
Methylmercury
1
Non-cancer Hazard-Based Sediment Concentrations Based on Number of Fish or Crab Meals per Year for an Adult (ng/g)
COPC
2
56 fish meals per year
34 crab meals per year
12 fish or crab meals per year
0.0071
0.019
0.059
Total non-dioxin-like
PCBs3
44
82
230
Methylmercury
550
45,000
67,000
TCDD TEQ3
Notes:
Concentrations are presented as two significant figures.
COPC = contaminants of potential concern; HHRA = human health risk assessments; ng/g = nanograms per gram; NJDEP = New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection;
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl; PRG = preliminary remediation goal; TCDD TEQ = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Toxic Equivalency Quotient.
Indicates that the risk-based value exceeds the NJDEP advisory trigger level and would not be protective or allow additional consumption of fish/crabs. The NJDEP uses
‘do not eat’ values of 0.0077 ng/g, 240 ng/g, and 540 ng/g to set fish consumption advisories for TCDD TEQ, PCBs, and mercury, respectively. Use of PRGs that exceed these NJDEP
advisory triggers would not be protective or allow additional consumption of fish/crabs.
1. For fish, 56 meals/year = ~1 fish meal every week (consistent with the HHRA ingestion rate [Appendix D]); For crab, 34 meals/year = ~1.5 crab meal every week
(consistent with the HHRA ingestion rate [Appendix D]); 12 meals/year = 1 fish or crab meal every month.
2. 12 fish or crab meals per year is an interim PRG.
3. For Total Non-dioxin-like PCBs and TCDD TEQ, PRGs have been calculated for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health effects. It is recommended that the
toxicological effect resulting in the more conservative PRG be used to be protective of both types of health effects.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 2-4 Summary of Biota Tissue PRG Levels Protective of Ecological Receptors
Category1
Residue-Based
COPEC
Mercury
Total PCBs
Total DDx
2,3,7,8-TCDD
TCDD TEQ
Lowest2
Dose-Based
Invertebrate
Fish
Fish Embryo
Bird
Embryo
Bird
Mammal
Invertebrate
Fish
Wildlife
Overall
68
14
88
0.00044
NA
120
300
170
NA
0.0013
NA
0.036
80
100
NA
0.013
180
150
NA
0.086
69
250
NA
0.0014
68
14
88
0.00044
NA
120
300
170
NA
0.0013
69
80
100
NA
0.0014
68
14
88
0.00044
0.0013
Notes:
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; CPG = Cooperating Parties Group; COPECs = chemicals of potential ecological concern;
DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyls; PRGs = preliminary remediation goals;
TCDD TEQ = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Toxic Equivalency Quotient; NA – not available.
“–” indicates that a PRG was not necessary for the particular combination of COPEC and receptor.
Units in ng/g (ppb) wet weight.
Bolded values are the lowest tissue PRGs by category and overall.
1. Biota PRGs were only developed for dioxins (2,3,7,8-TCDD and Toxic Equivalents [TEQ]), PCBs, Total DDx and mercury because these are the major ecological risk drivers and there are multiple lines
of evidence developed to evaluate how alternatives would achieve clean-up goals for these COPECs after remediation. In addition, most active alternatives that are designed to address the major risk drivers would
also address the other COPECs as well.
2. The lowest biota tissue PRGs summarized by receptor category and overall lowest ecological value.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 2-5 Summary of Sediment PRGs Based on Ecological Health
Residue-Based2
Direct Contact1
COPEC
Invertebrate
Mercury
Total PCB
Total DDx
2,3,7,8-TCDD
TCDD TEQ
260
110
8.6
0.0032
NA
Invertebrate4
660
7.8
250
0.0033
NA
Summary3
Dose-Based2
Fish5
Wildlife6
Wildlife7
Fish
Wildlife
Overall
320
82
1.4
NA
0.0011
22
0.30
NA
0.012
74
69
0.98
NA
0.0011
320
82
1.4
NA
0.0011
74
22
0.30
NA
0.0011
74
7.8
0.30
0.0032
0.0011
Notes:
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; CBR = critical body residues; COPEC = chemicals of potential ecological concern;
DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; RI/FS = remedial investigation and feasibility study;
HQ = Hazard Quotient; LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels; NA – not available/applicable; NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Levels;
PCB = polychlorinated Biphenyl; PRGs = preliminary remediation goals; TCDD TEQ = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Toxic Equivalency Quotient.
Units in ng/g (ppb) dry weight; bolded values are lowest values for one or more receptor categories and included in the summary column.
“–” indicates that a PRG was not necessary for the particular combination of COPEC and receptor.
1. Geometric mean value from Table 2-6 of Appendix E.
2. Sediment PRGs were calculated using appropriate equation in Attachment 1 of Appendix E.
3. Summary PRGs are the lowest values across different measurement endpoints (e.g., residue- and dose-based endpoints for wildlife) within a receptor category
or across all receptor categories (overall).
4. Invertebrate values derived using the invertebrate tissue PRGs (Table 2-5 of Appendix E) as input to the appropriate equation in Attachment 1 of Appendix E.
5. Fish values derived using the fish tissue PRGs (Table 2-5 of Appendix E) as input to the appropriate equations in Attachment 1; selected
value is the lowest estimated value derived using specified models for white perch, American eel and mummichog.
6. Based on CBRs for avian embryo tissue (Table 2-3 of Appendix E).
7. Wildlife values derived by dividing the sediment concentration by the sediment hazard quotient, assuming a target HQ of 1; selected value is the lowest of the
great blue heron and mink model, and the PRG is the geometric mean of the NOAEL-based and LOAEL-based hazard quotient.
8. The sediment PRGs for wildlife were estimated using a general exposure model (Equation 3 in Appendix E) that included the consumption of contaminated prey
but not the incidental sediment ingestion exposure pathway. The resulting sediment PRGs are protective of ecological assessment endpoints for COPECs
such as those included in this analysis, that present primarily a bioaccumulation hazard.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 2-6 Background COPEC and COPC Concentrations in Sediment
Analyte
Units
Concentration
Inorganics
Copper
Lead
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
PAHs
63,000
130,000
720
ng/g
ng/g
PCB Aroclors
7,900
53,000
Total PCB
ng/g
Pesticides/Herbicides
460
Dieldrin
Total DDx
Chlordane
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
PCDD/F
5
30
23
ng/g
0.002
Mercury 1
LMW PAHs
HMW PAHs
2,3,7,8-TCDD 2
Notes:
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; COPC = contaminants of potential concern;
COPEC = chemicals of potential ecological concern; DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane;
D/F = Dioxins/furans; HMW = High Molecular Weight; LMW = Low Molecular Weight;
ng/g = nanograms per gram; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyls;
PCDD/F = Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/furan;
TCDD TEQ = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Toxic Equivalency Quotient.
1. All occurrences of mercury are assumed to be methylated for the purposes of this evaluation.
2. TCDD TEQ (D/F) is represented by the background concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 2-7 Estimates of the Cancer Risks and Non-cancer Health Hazards Associated with Background Sediment
Concentrations for Consumption of Fish and Crabs
Ingestion of Fish
Adult
COPC1
TCDD TEQ (D/F)
Total PCB
Methyl mercury
2
Child
Combined Adult/Child
Risk
Hazard
Risk
Hazard
Risk
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
ND
0.3
10
1
5.0E-06
6.0E-05
ND
0.5
16
2
2.0E-05
2.0E-04
ND
Ingestion of Crab
Adult
COPC1
TCDD TEQ (D/F)
Total PCB
Methyl mercury
2
Child
Combined Adult/Child
Risk
Hazard
Risk
Hazard
Risk
4.0E-06
4.0E-05
ND
0.1
4
0.2
2.0E-06
2.0E-05
ND
0.2
6
0.3
6.0E-06
6.0E-05
ND
Notes:
COPC = contaminants of potential concern; D/F = Dioxins/furans; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl;
TCDD TEQ = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Toxic Equivalency Quotient; ND - not determined because toxicity values are not available for
this exposure route.
1. Cancer risk and non-cancer health hazard were estimated for background sediment concentrations for those COPCs with individual
cancer risks above 10-4 and individual non-cancer health hazards above 1.0 in the remedial alternatives future risk assessment (Appendix
D “Risk Assessment”).
2. TCDD TEQ (D/F) is represented by the background concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Although USEPA generally uses 1 × 10-4 in making risk management decisions, the upper boundary of the risk range is not a discrete line
at 1 × 10-4 (USEPA, 1991a). A specific risk estimate around 1 x 10-4 may be considered acceptable if justified based on site-specific
conditions (USEPA, 1991a).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 2-8 Summary of Hazard Quotients for Macroinvertebrate and Fish Receptors
Associated with Exposure to Background Conditions
COPEC
Copper
Lead
Mercury
LMW PAHs
HMW PAHs
Total PCB
Dieldrin
Total DDx
2,3,7,8-TCDD
TCDD TEQ (PCBs)
TCDD TEQ (D/F)
Total TCDD TEQ
Total (HI)
Tissue/Critical Body Residues
Sediment Benchmark
Crab
Generic Fish
Mummichog
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
2
4
5
10
30
10
6
20
0.6
100
0.7
1
2
3
6
1
2
0.7
0.6
20
1
0.2
1
0.2
1
30
3
0.4
2
40
0.6
0.05
0.7
0.02
0.1
8
0.6
0.2
0.2
10
6
0.5
3
0.7
0.5
7
4
4
2
2
30
1
0.05
0.6
0.07
0.05
2
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
7
4
1
0.5
0.2
0.4
1
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.5
9
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.02
0.04
0.3
0.2
0.06
0.3
0.3
2
Notes:
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; COPEC = chemicals of potential ecological concern;
DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; D/F = Dioxins/furans; HI = hazard index; HMW = High Molecular Weight; LMW = Low Molecular Weight;
LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels; NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Levels; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl;
TCDD TEQ = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Toxic Equivalency Quotient.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 2-9 Summary of Hazard Quotients for Wildlife Receptors Associated
with Exposure to Background Conditions
Wildlife Dose Models
COPEC
Heron – Generic fish diet
Copper
Lead
Mercury
LMW PAHs
HMW PAHs
Total PCB
Dieldrin
Total DDx
2,3,7,8-TCDD
NOAEL
0.3
4
1
0.09
6
0.3
0.06
3
-
LOAEL
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.009
0.6
0.2
0.02
1
-
NOAEL
0.2
4
0.6
0.07
6
0.05
0.01
0.3
-
LOAEL
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.007
0.6
0.04
0.004
0.9
-
NOAEL
0.4
1
3
0.002
0.6
4
0.6
0.1
-
LOAEL
0.2
0.1
2
0.0006
0.1
4
0.3
0.02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.05
0.05
10
0.005
0.005
3
0.02
0.02
10
0.002
0.002
2
5
5
10
0.2
0.2
6
TCDD TEQ (PCBs)
TCDD TEQ (D/F)
Total TCDD TEQ
Total (HI)
Heron – Mummichog diet
Mink
Notes:
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; COPEC = chemicals of potential ecological concern;
DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; D/F = Dioxins/furans; HI = hazard index; HMW = High Molecular Weight;
LMW = Low Molecular Weight; LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels; NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Levels;
PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl;
TCDD TEQ = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Toxic Equivalency Quotient.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 2-10 PRG Selection
Ecological PRG3
Cancer Threshold Sediment Concentration Based on Number of Meals per Year for an Adult3, 5, 6
Sediment PRGs2,6
Units
56 fish meals per year
34 crab meals per year
12 meals per year
Noncancer Threshold Sediment
Concentration Based on Number
of Meals per Year3, 5, 6
Background
Values6
Proposed
Remediation
Goals
Chemical
Lowest
1 x 10-6
1x10-5
1x10-4
1 x 10-6
1x10-5
1x10-4
1 x 10-6
56 fish
meals per
year
34 crab
meals per
year
550
45,000
67,000
720
74
2000
44
82
230
460
44
-
-
-
-
-
30
0.30
0.012
0.19
0.0071
0.019
0.059
0.002
0.0071
1x10-5
Benthos
Fish
Wildlife
260
320
74
Wildlife
7.8
82
22
Benthos
3.2
32
320
1.6
51
1600
13
170
8.6
1.4
0.30
Wildlife
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0011
0.0011
Fish /
Wildlife
0.000095
0.0016
0.022
0.00043
0.0050
0.058
0.00080
1x10-4
12 meals Above Dundee
per year
Dam 2007
Inorganics
ng/g
1
Mercury
Classification — C (possible human carcinogen)
There is no quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk from oral exposure
PCB Aroclors
ng/g
Total PCB
Pesticides/Herbicides
ng/g
Total DDx
Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin/furan (PCDD/F)
ng/g
2,3,7,8-TCDD
0.0032
4
Notes:
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; HHRA = human health risk assessments; HQ = Hazard Quotient; NCP = National Contingency Plan;
NJDEP = New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; ng/g = nanograms per gram; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl; PRGs = preliminary remediation goals; TCDD TEQ = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Toxic Equivalency Quotient; USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
1.
All occurrences of mercury assumed to be methylated for purposes of this evaluation.
2.
Derived as described in Appendix E.
3.
Benthic benchmark derived by USFWS using sediment chemistry for Arthur Kill and oyster effect data presented in Wintermyer and Cooper, 2003.
4.
For fish, 56 meals/year = ~1 fish meal every week (consistent with the HHRA ingestion rate [Appendix D]); For crab, 34 meals/year = ~1.5 crab meal every week (consistent with the HHRA ingestion rate [Appendix D]); 12 meals/year = 1 fish or crab meal every month;
6 meals/year = 1 fish or crab meal every other month; 2 meals/year = 1 fish or crab meal every six months.
5.
Values rounded to the nearest 2 significant digits.
Indicates that the risk-based value exceeds the NJDEP advisory trigger level and would not be protective or allow additional consumption of fish/crabs. The NJDEP uses ‘do not eat’ values of 0.0077 ng/g, 240 ng/g, and 540 ng/g to set fish consumption advisories for TCDD TEQ,
PCBs, and mercury, respectively. Use of PRGs that exceed these NJDEP advisory triggers would not be protective or allow additional consumption of fish/crabs.
-4
"-" indicates that the constituent was not identified as having carcinogenic risk above the NCP risk range of 10 or non-cancer health hazard above a HQ of 1 for human receptors; or a HQ above 1 for ecological receptors.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 3-1 Initial Screening of Technology Types
Technology Type
Process Option
Description
Technically Implementable?
Retained for Further
Consideration?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
General Response Action: No Action
Under No Action, no active remediation of any kind is implemented. The No Action response serves as a baseline against which the performance of other remedial
alternatives may be compared. The NCP requires that No Action be considered as a potential remedial action in a feasibility study.
No Action
Under the No Action alternative in the FFS Study Area, contaminated river sediments would be left in place, without treatment or containment. In this FFS, NJDEP fish
and crab consumption advisories, implemented under State authorities, would remain in place, but no new controls or monitoring would be implemented as part of a
CERCLA response action. The CPG would continue to conduct the 17-mile LPRSA RI/FS. As described in Section 3.1.1, the NCP requires that No Action be considered
as a baseline potential remedial action in a feasibility study.
General Response Action: Institutional Controls
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls are legal or administrative measures designed to prevent or reduce human exposure to on-site hazardous substances. Institutional controls are
already in place in the FFS Study Area in the form of NJDEP fish consumption advisories for PCDD/F and PCBs. Institutional controls such as fish consumption
advisories, community outreach to increase awareness of fish advisories, limitations on recreational use, restrictions on private activities that disturb sediment, and
dredging moratoria could be implemented as components of alternatives that also include active remedial measures.
General Response Action: Monitored Natural Recovery
Monitored Natural
Recovery (MNR)
Natural recovery refers to the decline in contaminant concentrations in impacted media over time via natural processes that contain, destroy, or reduce bioavailability or
toxicity of contaminants. These naturally occurring mechanisms include physical phenomena (e.g., burial and sedimentation), biological processes (e.g., biodegradation),
and chemical processes (e.g., sorption and oxidation).
Changes in surface sediment concentrations over time indicate that natural recovery occurred in the last half of the twentieth century but has slowed considerably over the
past fifteen years in the sediments of the lower eight miles (see Chapter 4 of the RI Report). MNR could be implemented alone or as a component of alternatives that also
include active remedial measures. Monitored natural recovery includes implementation of long-term monitoring programs to track the ongoing, naturally occurring
processes that contain, destroy, or reduce the bioavailability or toxicity of contaminants in sediments.
General Response Action: Containment
Capping
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Sediment containment is the physical isolation or immobilization of contaminated sediment through use of a barrier layer. It is usually achieved via the placement of a
subaqueous covering or a cap of clean material over contaminated material that remains in place. Containment generally requires less infrastructure than sediment
removal, in terms of materials handling, dewatering, and treatment (USEPA, 2005). For containment, as compared to removal, there is no need for transport and disposal
of contaminated sediment (which is more costly when ex-situ treatment is required). Capping technologies require long-term monitoring and maintenance.
Page 1 of 6
2014
Table 3-1 Initial Screening of Technology Types
Technology Type
Process Option
Description
Technically Implementable?
Retained for Further
Consideration?
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
General Response Action: In-Situ Treatment
In-situ immobilization methods typically involve amending sediments in place with agents such as cement, quicklime, grout, or pozzolanic1 materials. These agents are
mixed through the zone of contamination using conventional excavation equipment or a specially designed injection apparatus. Full-scale applications of in-situ
solidification/stabilization of sediments are limited and have primarily focused on the improvement of the geotechnical properties of sediment for construction projects,
as opposed to stabilization with the goal of contaminant mass remediation. The improvement of geotechnical properties of sediments in an area to be dredged may render
the sediment more suitable for accurate dredging, and may also result in a stronger sediment bed which may not require sheet pile to maintain sidewall stability during
dredging operations. If successful, solidification/stabilization might have the benefit of reducing resuspension during dredging, as well as improving the handling
Immobilization
characteristics of the sediment for transportation and disposal or treatment. The two most applicable case studies that were found during a literature search are the
(solidification/stabili
Minamata Bay project in Japan (Hosokawa, 1993), and a pilot study sponsored by NJDOT-OMR in the New York-New Jersey Harbor described below.
zation)
In-situ solidification/ stabilization of sediments in the New York/New Jersey Harbor was performed in a demonstration project in 2004 sponsored by NJDOT-OMR
(Maher, Najm, and Boile, 2005). The project demonstrated a significant increase in the shear strength of the solidified/stabilized sediments (refer to Appendix F).
However, such in-situ solidification/ stabilization may also result in adverse impacts on the benthic habitat and the release of gases (due to an exothermic reaction) which
were observed but not measured during the demonstration. In addition, neither the Minamata Bay project nor the New York/New Jersey Harbor demonstration project
provided sufficient data to evaluate the effectiveness of immobilization for the purpose of contaminant fixation.
In-situ Treatment
Sequestration is an innovative in-situ technology that involves the use of remedial agents like activated carbon, organoclays, apatite, and zeolites to reduce the toxicity,
bioavailability and mobility of sediment contaminants. These agents are mixed into the sediment surface layer typically by mechanical means. Several demonstration
projects have been conducted using various forms of activated carbon. Examples of such demonstration projects where sediments are contaminated with PCBs include
the Grasse River in Massena, NY and Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco Bay, CA.
Sequestration2
Biological Treatment
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
SediMiteTM is a low impact system for delivery of remedial agents to the sediment surface. It is an agglomerate comprised of a treatment agent like activated carbon, a
weighting agent, and an inert binder. The weighting agent enables the SediMiteTM granular material to sink to the surface and release the activated carbon which is then
mixed by bioturbation. Examples of demonstration projects using this technology include the Bailey’s Creek project in Fort Eustis, VA and the Canal Creek at the
Edgewood Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground in Aberdeen, MD.
Since many of the Lower Passaic River contaminants are either not biodegradable (particularly heavy metals) or are very persistent in the environment (e.g. , PCDD/F,
PCB, pesticides), it is not considered feasible to implement in-situ biological treatment.
Page 2 of 6
2014
Table 3-1 Initial Screening of Technology Types
Technology Type
Process Option
In-situ Treatment
(cont'd)
Chemical Treatment
Description
There are no known sediment applications of in-situ chemical treatment involving the injection and subsequent removal of chemical reagents to demonstrate
effectiveness and implementability of forming less toxic by-products on a large scale.
Technically Implementable?
Retained for Further
Consideration?
No
No
General Response Action: Sediment Removal
Excavation
Excavation of contaminated sediment involves pumping or diverting water from the area to be excavated, managing the continuing inflow of water, and excavating
contaminated sediment using conventional land-based excavators (such as backhoes). Excavation is considered both implementable and effective for mass remediation
of sediments in the FFS Study Area.
Yes
Yes
Dredging
Dredging involves mechanically grabbing, raking, cutting, or hydraulically scouring the bottom of a waterway to dislodge sediment. Once dislodged, the sediment may
be removed either mechanically with dredge buckets, or hydraulically by pumping. Dredging has been implemented at a large scale for the Hudson River (mechanical)
and Fox River (hydraulic) sediment remediation projects, among many others.
Yes
Yes
Ex-situ Treatment
Ex-situ immobilization methods involve mixing setting agents such as cement, quicklime, grout, pozzolanic materials, and/or reagents with sediments in a treatment unit.
Immobilization
Sediments generally require some pre-processing, such as screening of oversized material prior to solidification/stabilization. This technology has been used in the Port
(solidification/stabili of New York and New Jersey region with dredged material from navigation projects; examples include the Orion of Elizabeth New Jersey (OENJ) shopping mall
zation)
construction (Maher et al., 2003& Maher, 2009) and OENJ Bayonne golf course (Wilk, 2008). The potential for public concerns regarding beneficial use of immobilized
dioxin-containing sediments would need to be thoroughly evaluated if this technology were selected.
Yes
Yes
Ex-situ Treatment
Biological treatment is a technique in which the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of a contaminated medium are manipulated to accelerate the natural
Biological Treatment biodegradation and mineralization processes. Since many of the contaminants present in the FFS Study Area are either not biodegradable (e.g. , heavy metals) or are
resistant to biological degradation (e.g. , PCDD/F, Total PCB, pesticides), biological treatment is not considered to be effective or feasible.
No
No
Yes
Yes
General Response Action: Ex-Situ Treatment
Physical/ Chemical
Extraction
Sediment Washing
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Sediment washing is a physio-chemical process that uses impact forces in conjunction with chemicals to desorb contaminants from solid sediment particles of all sizes.
During this process, contaminants are extracted and concentrated into the sludge associated with water treatment. Depending on the reagents used, in some instances,
contaminants may be oxidized. In a demonstration project sponsored by EPA and NJDOT using dredged material from the Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay, this
process was shown to be implementable and potentially effective for some contaminants (see Appendix G), with the additional production of a beneficial use product
which is a manufactured soil (BioGenesisSM Enterprises, Inc., 2009).
Page 3 of 6
2014
Table 3-1 Initial Screening of Technology Types
Technology Type
Technically Implementable?
Retained for Further
Consideration?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sanitary Landfill
Cover
A sanitary landfill cover is used to control odors and the waste from contaminated surface water runoff from precipitation. Restrictions are placed on the types of
materials that can be used for this purpose. Sanitary landfills accept dredged material on a case-by-case basis. Given the restrictions placed on land disposal of PCDD/Fcontaining materials (refer to Appendix G), only a small portion of the dredged material from the lower eight miles would likely be suitable for landfill cover without
treatment.
Yes
Yes
Construction Fill
This beneficial use option may be suitable for dredged material with low concentrations of contaminants (especially if the dredged material is subjected to a relatively
low-cost treatment such as solidification/stabilization) or for more contaminated dredged material that has been more aggressively treated. One example of such
beneficial use is for the OENJ Bayonne golf course redevelopment project in Bayonne, New Jersey (Wilk, 2008). Selection of this beneficial use option would require
testing to demonstrate that risks from runoff and volatilization are within permissible limits.
Yes
Yes
Mined Lands
Restoration
Dredged material can be beneficially used in the restoration of abandoned surface-mined lands and to restore, protect and enhance lands damaged by mining. The goal is
to successfully use the dredged material to stabilize and re-vegetate the damaged lands, reduce acid mine drainage and restore the local ecosystem. The successful
reclamation project at the Bark Camp Mine Reclamation Experimental Facility in central Pennsylvania demonstrated the effectiveness and the potential for the
acceptance of large quantities of sediment.
Yes
Yes
Process Option
Thermal destruction
Thermal Treatment
Vitrification
Description
Thermal destruction is a controlled process that uses high temperatures (typically between 1,400°F and 2,200°F) to volatilize and combust organic chemicals. Thermal
destruction has been demonstrated to be very effective in destroying organic contaminants such as PCDD/F, PCBs, and PAHs. The process is potentially implementable
as there are several facilities in the United States (primarily in Texas and other western states) and Canada that operate on a commerical basis and are permitted to accept
such waste materials.
In a 2004 demonstration project sponsored by EPA and NJDOT using dredged material from the Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay, this process was shown to be
implementable and potentially effective [Gas Technology Institute (GTI), 2008b], with the additional production of a beneficial use product (GTI, 2008a). This
beneficial use product is construction-grade cement in which the non-volatile metals originally present in the sediment are bound via an ionic replacement mechanism.
Volatile heavy metals – such as mercury – are removed from the flue gas as it passes through a bed of activated carbon pellets.
Vitrification is a process in which higher temperatures (2,500°F to 3,000°F) are used to destroy organic chemicals by melting the contaminated dredged material to form
a glass aggregate product. The glass aggregates can be used for beneficial use products such as hot mix asphalt, construction fill, cement substitutes and ceramic floor
tiles. Vitrification has been demonstrated to be very effective in destroying organic contaminants such as PCDD/F, PCBs, and PAHs in dredged material. It is also one of
the few technologies proven to be effective in treating the organic COPCs and COPECs in the sediment of the lower eight miles. Vitrification technology has been
commercialized in facilities in Neenah and Winneconne, Wisconsin, among others.
General Response Action: Beneficial Use of Dredged Sediments
Beneficial Use of
Dredged Sediment
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 4 of 6
2014
Table 3-1 Initial Screening of Technology Types
Technology Type
Process Option
Description
Technically Implementable?
Retained for Further
Consideration?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Options involving sediment removal from the Lower Passaic River will require some means of final placement after dewatering or treatment via ex-situ techniques
described above. One of the placement options considered includes land disposal in off-site landfills.
Sediments in the FFS Study Area contain many hazardous substances3 including, but not limited to, dioxins (including 2,3,7,8-TCDD), furans, DDT, PCBs, PAHs,
mercury, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. However, as explained in EPA guidance, contaminated environmental media such as sediment is not in and of itself
hazardous waste and, generally, is not subject to regulation under RCRA, unless it “contains” hazardous waste (USEPA, 1998c). USEPA has determined that the
sediment in the Lower Passaic River does not contain a listed hazardous waste, so for purposes of offsite disposal, the sediment will be managed as either a nonhazardous or hazardous material based on whether it exhibits a RCRA hazardous characteristic (toxicity, reactivity, ignitability, or corrosivity), pursuant to 40 CFR Part
261, Subpart C. Non-hazardous material may be eligible for direct landfill disposal at a RCRA Subtitle D facility, depending on the facility’s permit.
Off-site Landfill
Land Disposal
For the portion of the sediment that exhibits a RCRA characteristic (based on experience, this would likely be toxicity) RCRA regulations (40 CFR 268.48-268.49) allow
disposal in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill without treatment as long as the underlying hazardous constituents (UHCs) do not exceed the alternative treatment standard (ten
times the Universal Treatment Standards [UTS]) for soil or sediment. Because the average concentration of dioxin within the FFS Study Area is greater than the dioxin
UTS of 1 ppb (40 CFR Part 268 Subpart D), it is anticipated that some of the sediment will require treatment for dioxin prior to land disposal or beneficial use. In that
case, to comply with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions, the sediment would be treated to reduce concentrations of UHCs by 90 percent, or meet hazardous constituent
concentrations that are less than 10 times the UTS (40 CFR 268.48) whichever is greater. For soil that exhibits the RCRA characteristic of toxicity, the characteristic
constituent would also be treated. See also “Guidance on Demonstrating Compliance With The Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Alternative Soil Treatment Standards
(USEPA, 2002c).”
During design, a comprehensive waste characterization program will be implemented to identify the proportion of sediment requiring treatment prior to disposal or
beneficial use. If the sediment does not contain characteristic hazardous waste with UHCs above 10 times the UTS, it is unlikely that the sediment will require treatment
prior to land disposal. If treatment is required for dioxin, the most likely option is incineration but the use of other thermal destruction technologies described in Section
3.7 will be considered as well. In addition, land disposal must also comply with any additional conditions in the facility's operating permit.
Upland Confined
Disposal Facility
(CDF)
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
CDFs are engineered structures enclosed by dikes similar to landfills, but specifically designed to contain sediment. CDFs may accommodate mechanically or
hydraulically dredged sediments and can be designed and operated to accomplish both dewatering and encapsulation. CDFs may serve as final disposal sites or
temporary storage or processing sites prior to sediment treatment. A CDF may be integrated with site reuse plans to reduce environmental risk and simultaneously foster
redevelopment in urban areas and at brownfields sites.
CDFs have been widely used for navigational dredging projects and some combined navigational/ environmental dredging projects, but are less common for
environmental dredging sites due in part to siting considerations (USEPA, 2005). There are a number of factors that must be considered when siting a CDF including
proximity to source area and adequate space to construct a CDF and ancillary facillities capable of accepting large volumes of contaminated sediments. Site restrictions
(height, buffer zone, landscaping, depth to groundwater, depth to bedrock, wetlands and floodplains setbacks) could increase the footprint necessary to achieve the
required disposal volume. Competing land uses may restrict the availability of suitable sites.
Page 5 of 6
2014
Table 3-1 Initial Screening of Technology Types
Technology Type
Process Option
Confined Aquatic
Disposal (CAD)
Description
Technically Implementable?
Retained for Further
Consideration?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
RCRA regulations exclude dredged material that is subject to the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which would govern disposal of sediment in a
disposal area within the navigable waters of the United States, from the definition of hazardous waste. Further, if dredged contaminated sediment is consolidated within
the Area of Contamination, which includes the Lower Passaic River, Newark Bay, and areal extent of contamination, LDRs are not triggered (see Appendix F). One of
the placement options considered includes aquatic disposal in CAD cells.
Confined aquatic disposal of dredged material has been practiced for many years, primarily for navigational dredging projects (Providence Harbor, RI; Boston Harbor,
MA), but also for Superfund sites (New Bedford Harbor [http://www.epa.gov/nbh/lhcadcell.html]). CAD involves placement of dredged material, deposited in
depressions or excavated pits, or placed behind subaqueous lateral berms (at a nearshore location) followed by subaqueous covering or capping. If an engineered cap is
used in conjunction with CAD at the disposal site, the potential need for armor in erosive areas must be evaluated, and cap maintenance would be required to ensure longterm chemical isolation of the disposed material. The final grade of a capped CAD cell would be similar to the adjacent subaqueous surface elevation.
Aquatic Disposal
Confined Disposal
Facility (In-water
and Nearshore)
RCRA regulations exclude dredged material that is subject to the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which would govern disposal of sediment in a
disposal area within the navigable waters of the United States, from the definition of hazardous waste. Further, if dredged contaminated sediment is consolidated within
the Area of Contamination, which includes the Lower Passaic River, Newark Bay, and areal extent of contamination, LDRs are not triggered (see Appendix F). The
placement options considered include aquatic disposal in in-water CDFs and nearshore CDFs.
A CDF may be constructed as an in-water site (i.e., a containment island). An in-water CDF can be constructed with dikes or other containment structures to contain the
contaminated dredged material, isolating it from the surrounding environment. The in-water CDF ultimately converts open water to dry land. A CDF may also be
constructed as a nearshore site (i.e., in water with one or more sides adjacent to land). The Nearshore CDF converts open water to dry land. In some cases, a Nearshore
CDF can be integrated with site reuse plans to both reduce environmental risk and simultaneously foster redevelopment in urban areas and brownfields sites (USEPA,
2005).
Notes:
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; CPG = Cooperating Parties Group; COPC = contaminants of potential concern; COPEC = chemicals of potential ecological concern;
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; FS = Feasibility Study; FFS = Focused Feasibility Study; NCP =National Contingency Plan; NJDEP = New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; NJDOT = New Jersey Department of Transportation;
NJDOT-OMR = NJDOT Office of Maritime Resources; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl; PCDD/F = Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/furan; RI/FS = remedial investigation and feasibility study; UHC = underlying hazardous contaminant.
1. Pozzolan or pozzolana is a porous variety of volcanic tuff or ash used in making hydraulic cement. The cement is made by grinding pozzolan with hydrated powdered lime. Slag from a blast furnace is a form of artificial pozzolan that can also be used to make hydraulic cement.
2. This use of sequestration refers to in-situ remediation of contaminated sediment, however, the term sequestration is also used when discussing isolation of sediment under engineered caps.
3. Hazardous substances are substances that are considered severely harmful to human health and the environment. Many are commonly used substances which are harmless in their normal uses, but are quite dangerous when released. They are defined in terms of those substances either specifically designated as hazardous under CERCLA,
commonly known as the Superfund law, or those substances identified under other laws. In all, the Superfund law designates more than 800 substances as hazardous, and identifies many more as potentially hazardous due to their characteristics and the circumstances of their release. Superfund's definition of a hazardous substance includes the
following:
· Any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated as hazardous under section 102 of CERCLA.
· Any hazardous substance designated under section 311(b)(2)(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), or any toxic pollutant listed under section 307(a) of the CWA. There are over 400 substances designated as either hazardous or toxic under the CWA.
· Any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified or listed under section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
· Any hazardous air pollutant listed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended. There are over 200 substances listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
· Any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture which the EPA Administrator has "taken action under" Section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
4. Hazardous waste is defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as a solid waste (or combination of solid wastes) which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may: (1) cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. In addition, under RCRA, EPA establishes four characteristics that will determine whether a substance is considered hazardous, including ignitability,
corrosiveness, reactivity, and toxicity. Any solid waste that exhibits one or more of these characteristics is classified as a hazardous waste under RCRA and, in turn, as a hazardous substance under Superfund.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 6 of 6
2014
Table 3-2 Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process Options
Technology Type
Process Option
Description
Effectiveness
Implementability
Retained for Further
Consideration?
Cost
General Response Action: No Action
No Action
The No Action response is not effective in reducing the unacceptable human health and ecological risks currently
posed by exposure to the contaminated sediments in the FFS Study Area (see Chapter 7 in RI Report). In this FFS,
NJDEP fish and crab consumption advisories, implemented under State authorities, would remain in place, but no Not Effective.
new controls or monitoring would be implemented as part of a CERCLA response action. As described in Section
3.1.1, the NCP requires that No Action be considered as a baseline potential remedial action in a feasibility study.
Easily Implemented.
No short- or long-term
costs.
Yes.
Easily Implemented.
Low.
Yes. As a component of
alternatives that also include
active measures.
Readily Implementable.
Yes. As a component of
Short-term and long-term
alternatives that also include
costs are relatively low.
active measures.
General Response Action: Institutional Controls
Institutional
Controls
The action is potentially effective for reducing risk to human health by limiting exposure but is not effective in
reducing mobility, toxicity, or volume of contaminants. They do not reduce or alleviate ecological impacts. The
effectiveness of institutional controls if implemented without active remediation is low because RAOs would not
be met. Since compliance with fish and shellfish consumption advisories is voluntary, the reduction in risk to
human health by limiting exposure may not always be achieved.
Low Effectiveness.
While institutional controls are easily implemented from a technical and administrative perspective, effective
compliance by the public may be difficult to maintain in the long term. Studies have shown that despite the
existence of advisories, some anglers will eat their catch.
General Response Action: Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR)
Monitored Natural
Recovery (MNR)
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
MNR includes monitoring to assess whether these natural processes are occurring and at what rate they may be
reducing contaminant concentrations. Since contaminant concentrations in the sediments of the FFS Study Area
have not declined substantially from 1995 to 2010 (see Chapter 4 in RI Report), MNR by itself may not be
Not effective by itself.
effective in reducing existing unacceptable human health and ecological risks to reach RAOs and PRGs for several
decades (see Appendix B and FFS Section 3.1.3).
Page 1 of 10
2014
Table 3-2 Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process Options
Technology Type
Process Option
Description
Effectiveness
Implementability
Retained for Further
Consideration?
Cost
General Response Action: Containment
There are practical limits to the application of capping to the Lower Passaic River due to its geometry (water
depths), navigation needs and flooding concerns. Large sections of the river within the FFS Study Area contain
fairly shallow shoal areas. In these areas, installation of an engineered cap of any significant thickness could move
the shoreline as much as 20 to 50 feet toward the channel (reducing the effective width of the river), changing both
the character of the waterfront and the hydraulic features of the shoals. Based on the preliminary hydrodynamic
modeling described in Appendix B, placement of an engineered cap over the existing sediment bed will result in
unacceptable flooding conditions. Thus, in-river capping may be impractical unless removal of an equivalent
Capping Without
thickness of sediment has been accomplished first. Capping also may not be feasible in the authorized navigation
Limited Prior
Not effective.
channel unless enough sediment is removed to allow sufficient clearance above an engineered cap for purposes of
Sediment Removal
regular maintenance dredging. Therefore, capping without limited prior removal of sediment is eliminated from
further consideration in this FFS.
Not Implementable due to
flooding concerns and
obstruction of navigation
channel and maintenance
dredging.
Moderate.
No.
Implementable with prior
sediment removal in federal
navigation channel and to
address flooding concerns.
Low to Moderate.
Yes.
In an estuarine system, capping of individual operational areas may have to be implemented incrementally over the
duration of the project to avoid a final surface that is unacceptably re-contaminated by remobilization of
contaminated sediments from adjacent, un-remediated areas. This constraint reduces an advantage over dredging
that is typically realized in other settings with respect to the speed with which surface exposures are reduced.
Capping
Engineered Caps
A wide variety of capping materials can be used to minimize or reduce leaching, bioturbation, and erosive
transport of contaminants. Engineered caps are implementable, and many full-scale applications have been
documented (Fox River and Hudson River). They are effective in reducing mobility of contaminants by isolating
impacted sediments from the water column and reducing the exposure to fish and other biota but will not affect
toxicity or volume of contaminants. Factors that may affect the effectiveness of an engineered cap include large
groundwater fluxes, scour due to movement of ice chunks during spring thaw (ice rafting), possible damage due to
watercraft navigation, and drying/cracking or freeze/thaw cycles on cap areas exposed during low-flow periods.
Long-term monitoring and maintenance would be required to ensure that a cap remained effective despite these
factors. The organic carbon content of the primary capping material may provide some sorptive capacity in an
engineered cap allowing the cap to both physically and chemically sequester contaminants and increase its
effectiveness.
Effective.
The implementability of engineered caps may be limited because of the navigation and flooding concerns. A
variety of cap placement techniques are available (Palermo, 1991).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 2 of 10
2014
Table 3-2 Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process Options
Technology Type
Process Option
Armored Caps
Description
Effectiveness
Engineered caps may use armor material to add physical stability in erosive settings (refer to Appendix F). The
primary capping material is typically covered with stone or another armoring material such as articulated concrete
mats. The armor would be designed to be effective in eliminating or reducing the erosion of the engineered cap;
however, armoring along the channel bed increases bed friction and, consequently, may increase water depths
during floods. Armoring may be required in navigation channels to overcome the erosion caused by propeller
wash. The design of an armor layer should take habitat considerations into account (e.g. , appropriateness of
Effective.
angular versus rounded stone [see Appendix F]).
Active Caps
Retained for Further
Consideration?
Cost
Implementable with prior
sediment removal in federal
navigation channel and to
address flooding concerns.
Low to Moderate.
Yes.
Effective.
Implementable with limited
prior sediment removal.
Higher than engineered
caps.
Yes.
Porous geotextile cap layers do not achieve sediment isolation, but are effective in reducing the potential for
mixing and displacement of the underlying sediment with the cap material. Geotextiles allow the sediments to
consolidate and gain strength under the load of additional cap material. They are effective in reducing the mobility
Effective.
of contaminants by isolating impacted sediments from the water column and reducing the exposure to fish and
other biota but will not affect toxicity or volume of contaminants. Geotextile caps may be considered during the
design phase, potentially in selected areas that otherwise do not have adequate strength to support a cap.
Implementability over large
areas may be challenging.
Moderate.
Yes, for areas that do not
otherwise have the strength to
support a cap.
Armored caps are effective in reducing mobility of contaminants by isolating impacted sediments from the water
column and reducing the exposure to fish and other biota but will not affect the toxicity or the volume of
contaminants. Armored engineered caps are being used on the Hudson River and the Fox River and they have been
shown to be effective, technically implementable, and administratively feasible.
Capping (cont'd)
Implementability
Active caps (reactive caps) incorporate materials such as activated carbon, iron filings, apatite, or other agents into
the capping material to enhance adsorption or in-situ chemical reaction. Organoclays® and Reactive Core MatsTM
are examples of such products made by CETCO Remediation Technologies. They are effective in reducing
mobility of contaminants by isolating impacted sediments from the water column and reducing the exposure to fish
and other biota but will not affect toxicity or volume of contaminants. Active caps eventually lose their sorptive or
chemically reactive treatment capabilities. Site monitoring would be required to determine whether the active
layer should be replaced and the cap reconstructed to remain protective.
Active capping is an emerging innovative technology that has shown much promise in bench-scale, and in limited
example pilot-scale (Anacostia River Study, Washington DC) and commercial scale applications (Grand Calumet
River, Indiana; Stryker Bay, Minnesota). Short-term results have shown that this innovative technology can be
effective and is technically implementable and administratively feasible.
Active caps are similar in size (thickness) to engineered caps and have raised similar concerns regarding
navigation and flooding.
Geotextile Caps
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 3 of 10
2014
Table 3-2 Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process Options
Technology Type
Process Option
Description
Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Clay Caps
Clay aggregate materials (e.g. , AquaBlok™) consist of a gravel/rock core covered by a layer of clay mixed with
polymers that expand in water decreasing the material’s permeability. Geosynthetic clay liners (GCL)
(e.g., Bentomat®) can also be used to place an impermeable in-situ subaqueous cap over contaminated sediments
to provide scour and bio-intrusion protection. Such materials can also be used for maintaining slope stability. They
Effective for scour and bioare effective in reducing mobility of contaminants by isolating impacted sediments from the water column and
intrusion protection and
reducing the exposure to fish and other biota but will not affect toxicity or volume of contaminants.
maintaining slope stability. Implementable as armor layer Higher than engineered
caps.
to prevent erosion.
A primary concern with the use of clay caps is their long-term performance (with respect to maintaining integrity)
Effectiveness unknown over
in areas of significant groundwater upwelling or diversion. Since the use of subaqueous clay caps over large areas
large areas.
has not been well documented, the effectiveness is unknown. However, clay aggregate material and GCLs may be
technically implementable and administratively feasible as an armor layer to protect an underlying engineered cap
from erosive forces while also reducing friction in erosive areas (compared to friction anticipated to be generated
using stone armor).
Thin Layer Caps
Thin layer caps are similar to conventional caps using inert materials except that the cap thickness is typically less
than 6 inches. Thin layer capping is an emerging innovative technology that has shown much promise in benchscale and limited example pilot-scale scale applications. Based on calculations performed using the Reible Model
(Appendix F ), thin layer caps are not effective in providing containment of the contaminant flux for several
Not effective.
COPCs in most areas of the river. Thin layer caps are readily implementable and the material and construction
costs are relatively low. Thin layer caps could be further evaluated during the design phase for use in selected lowenergy areas of the FFS Study Area with a lower contaminant flux.
Capping (cont'd)
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 4 of 10
Readily Implementable.
Low.
Retained for Further
Consideration?
No for overall capping material.
Yes as potential armoring and
slope stabilization material.
No for overall capping material
but may be evaluated in design
phase for use in selected areas.
2014
Table 3-2 Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process Options
Technology Type
Process Option
Description
Effectiveness
Implementability
Retained for Further
Consideration?
Cost
General Response Action: In-Situ Treatment
A sequestration demonstration project on the Grasse River in Massena, NY was conducted in 2006 on a 0.5 acre
area with PCB concentrations ranging from 5 to 15 ppm in surface sediments (Alcoa, 2006). Activated carbon was
applied as a slurry to the surface sediments using three methods: 1) mixed using an enclosed tilling device; 2)
layered without mixing; and 3) injected using two rows of hollow tines. After treatment with activated carbon and
monitoring over a three year period, bioaccumulation in freshwater oligochaete worms was reduced by 69 to 99
percent compared to pre-amendment conditions and concentrations of PCBs in water at equilibrium with the
sediment were reduced by greater than 93 percent at all treatment locations (Beckingham and Ghosh, 2011).
In-situ Treatment
Sequestration1
The demonstration project at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco Bay, CA was conducted in 2006
in a tidal mudflat where the surface concentration of PCBs was 2 ppm. At this site activated carbon was mixed
into the sediment to a depth of one foot using commercial equipment. This three year project showed that the
activated carbon amendment reduced the availability of PCBs to the water and biota without adversely affecting
the natural benthic community of macroinvertebrates or releasing PCBs into overlying water.
Effectiveness unknown in
larger areas and sites with
higher contamination.
Implementability unknown in
larger areas and sites with
Low to Moderate.
higher contamination.
No.
Implementable.
Yes.
A cost analysis performed as part of the study concluded that scaling-up this treatment method would reduce the
costs of dredging and disposal by nearly 70 percent (Cho et al., 2009). Although these results appear to be
promising, the effectiveness and implementability of this technology over the long term for other sites with larger
contaminated sediment areas and higher concentrations of contaminants like the FFS Study Area are unknown.
General Response Action: Sediment Removal
Excavation
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Excavation technologies can be effectively used for mudflats and other smaller areas inside a sediment barrier like
a sheet pile adjacent to the shoreline. The primary issue is preventing/managing the inflow of water in the
Effective.
excavation area, particularly in larger water bodies. Excavation is considered both implementable and effective for
remediation of contaminant mass in the FFS Study Area.
Page 5 of 10
Moderate to High.
2014
Table 3-2 Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process Options
Technology Type
Process Option
Description
Effectiveness
Implementability
Retained for Further
Consideration?
Cost
Mechanical dredges remove sediments from the bottom of a waterway using dredge buckets. The mechanical
dredges most commonly used in the United States for environmental dredging are the clamshell, enclosed bucket,
and articulated mechanical dredges (USEPA, 2005 and USACE, 2008a). Mechanical dredging is currently being
used for the Hudson River remediation project (General Electric, 2012). Dredged material either needs to be
handled ex-situ or through aquatic disposal. Ex-situ treatment typically requires significant infrastructure be
constructed to transport and unload, process, and dewater dredged materials; this infrastructure would likely
require a large operational area near the dredging site.
Mechanical
Dredging
Challenges associated with mechanical dredging include the presence of debris that could hinder productivity and
the difficulty in accessing material to be dredged in shallow areas. While the presence of debris can prevent the
proper closing of dredge buckets resulting in a release, mechanical dredging is more suitable for removal of such
debris than hydraulic dredging. Dredging in shallow areas could require additional dredging to create an access
path for the dredge platform.
Effective.
Implementable.
Low to Moderate.
Yes.
Effective.
Implementable.
Low to Moderate.
Yes.
Effective in special
situations.
Implementable in special
situations.
Moderate to High.
No for overall dredging, but
may be considered for specific
situations identified during the
design phase.
A Dredging and Decontamination Pilot Study was conducted in the FFS Study Area over the period of one week in
December 2005. The pilot study provided data related to dredging accuracy, working time, productivity, and
resuspension for a mechanical clamshell dredge bucket (LBG, 2012).
Dredging
Hydraulic
Dredging
Hydraulic dredges remove and transport sediment along with water as a pumped slurry potentially reducing
sediment transportation costs. However, this can result in the generation of a large volume of water that would
potentially need to be treated before discharge (likely back to the river). Hydraulic dredging is currently being used
for the Fox River remediation (Tetra Tech EC, 2009). Dredged materials either need to be handled ex-situ or
through aquatic disposal. Ex-situ treatment typically requires significant infrastructure be constructed to transport
and unload, process, and dewater dredged materials; this infrastructure would likely require a large operational
area near the dredging site.
Challenges associated with hydraulic dredging include the presence of debris that could hinder productivity,
encumbrances associated with pipelines needed to convey the dredged slurry and the difficulty in accessing
material to be dredged in shallow areas. Hydraulic dredging is more susceptible than mechanical dredging to
damage of the cutting equipment due to the presence of debris. The latter issue could require additional dredging
to create an access path for the dredge platform.
Despite these challenges, given the typically soft, unconsolidated nature of the sediment in the FFS Study Area,
hydraulic dredging is a potentially effective means of sediment removal and conveyance.
Specialty Dredges
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Specialty dredges have been designed to address project-specific issues, such as accessibility and resuspension.
Although specialty dredging techniques exist that may be technically implementable, conventional dredges are
generally more effective with regard to productivity and working conditions.
Page 6 of 10
2014
Table 3-2 Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process Options
Technology Type
Process Option
Description
Effectiveness
Implementability
Retained for Further
Consideration?
Cost
General Response Action: Ex-Situ Treatment
Immobilization
Solidification/
Stabilization
Physical/ Chemical Base Catalyzed
Treatment
Decomposition
Physical/ Chemical
Extraction
Ex-situ immobilization may effectively fix or bind contaminants in dredged material, and such immobilized
dredged material has potential beneficial uses (including sanitary landfill cover, construction fill, and mined land
restoration). In addition, solidification/stabilization of dredged sediments can be effective in controlling the
moisture content and improving the geotechnical properties of dredged material depending on the additives used.
Use of this technology is both technically implementable and administratively feasible.
Effective.
Base catalyzed decomposition (BCD) is a process developed by the USEPA that uses a combination of heat and
sodium bicarbonate to treat soils and sediments contaminated with PCB and PCDD/F. Contaminated media are
heated to above 630 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to partially decompose and volatilize the contaminants. The
technology is better suited to small-scale applications and may not be implementable for the FFS Study Area.
Not Effective.
High clay content and high moisture content result in high treatment costs associated with BCD, and the capture
and treatment of residuals may be difficult particularly when the contaminated medium contains high levels of finegrained material and moisture.
Solvent extraction involves the use of an organic solvent as an agent to separate contaminants from dredged
material. While solvent extraction can be effective in separating organic COPCs from sediment it is not effective
for treatment of the inorganic COPCs that are present in the sediments of the FFS Study Area. Solvent extraction
Solvent Extraction
could be one step in a treatment train when combined with other treatment processes. Issues that affect the
implementability of this technology are the number of passes required to meet the treatment goals due to the large
fraction of fine-grained material and the requirement to dispose of spent solvents and related waste materials.
Effective for organic
COPCs. Not effective for
inorganic COPCs.
Sediment washing using the BioGenesisSM Enterprises, Inc. process was part of a sediment decontamination pilot
study conducted with FFS Study Area sediments from the Harrison Reach in 2006 to 2007. The pilot study showed
Effective for some
Sediment Washing that the process was effective for some contaminants (see Appendix G) and implementable. However, the results of
contaminants.
a 2012 bench scale study (de maximus, inc., 2012) failed to show any reduction in dioxin and PCB concentrations
in the highly contaminated sediments at RM10.9.
Thermal
Thermal Treatment
Desorption
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Implementable.
Low to Moderate.
Yes.
Not Implementable.
High.
No, sediments from the FFS
Study Area are mostly finegrained.
Implementability affected by
number of passes to meet
Low to Moderate.
treatment goals.
No.
Implementable.
Yes (as represented by the
BioGenesisSM Enterprises, Inc.
process).
Thermal desorption is a treatment technology which is designed to remove contaminants from solid media by
volatilizing them with heat at below-combustion temperatures [typically 200°F to 1,000°F] in a primary chamber.
The desorbed contaminants are then treated in a secondary unit to control air emissions. The efficiency of thermal
desorption decreases rapidly with increased soil moisture content and compromises the effectiveness of the
Effectiveness compromised
technology. Clay and silty soils and high humic content soils increase reaction time as a result of binding of
Implementable.
by high moisture content.
contaminants (FRTR, 2002). Under the conditions present in the sediments of the FFS Study Area, thermal
desorption is not likely to be implementable or cost-effective. While thermal desorption can separate organic
COPCs from the sediment once it is dewatered, it does not treat metals and would have to be part of a treatment
train combined with other treatment processes. The treated residue would need to be further processed to
immobilize the metals.
Page 7 of 10
Low to Moderate.
No, sediments from the FFS
Not cost-effective due to Study Area are mostly finegrained and contain high
high moisture content.
concentrations of heavy metals.
2014
Table 3-2 Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process Options
Technology Type
Process Option
Pyrolysis
Thermal Treatment
(cont'd)
Thermal
Destruction
Vitrification
Description
Effectiveness
Implementability
Retained for Further
Consideration?
Cost
Pyrolysis is a form of chemical decomposition which is designed to remove contaminants from solid media by
heating in the absence of oxygen. Pyrolysis typically occurs under pressure at operating temperatures above
800°F. The target groups of contaminants for pyrolysis are SVOCs and pesticides. The process has been
effectively used for a wide range of organic COPCs (including SVOCs, pesticides, PCDD/F, PCBs, and PAHs),
but it is not effective in destroying or physically separating metals from the contaminated medium. Under the
conditions present in the sediments of the FFS Study Area, pyrolysis is not likely to be implementable or costeffective. In addition, high moisture content results in higher treatment costs (FRTR, 2002).
Effective for organic
COPCs. Not effective for
metal COPCs.
Not Implementable.
Not cost-effective due to
No.
high moisture content.
Thermal destruction using the Cement-Lock® process was part of a sediment decontamination pilot study
conducted with FFS Study Area sediments from the Harrison Reach in 2006 to 2007. Although the demonstration
process encountered some material handling problems, the thermal destruction process was generally shown to be
effective and implementable. This process produces a higher value beneficial use product (EcoMelt®) that can be
used to manufacture cement.
Effective.
Implementable.
Moderate to High.
Yes (as represented by the
Cement-Lock® process).
Vitrification technology forms glass by melting silica in the feed material. Most sediments have mineralogical
characteristics suitable for this purpose. The Fox River sediment used for a pilot demonstration of this technology
Effective.
contained 60 to 80 percent silt with lesser amounts of sand and clay (0 to 40 percent each; USEPA, 2004). The
process was shown to be effective and implementable and produces a higher value beneficial use product (glass
aggregate) that is suitable for hot mix asphalt, construction fill, cement substitute, and ceramic floor tiles.
Implementable.
Moderate to High.
Yes (as represented by the
Minergy Corporation glass
furnace technology process).
General Response Action: Beneficial Use of Dredged Sediments
Sanitary Landfill
Cover
Use of dredged materials (either with or without treatment) at a given sanitary landfill must satisfy the federal, state
Effective.
and local requirements, be addressed in the facility's operating permit, and approved on a case-by-case basis.
Implementable.
Low.
Yes.
Construction Fill
One example of such beneficial is for the OENJ Bayonne golf course redevelopment project in Bayonne, New
Jersey. Use of dredged material (either with or without treatment) as construction fill would need to demonstrate Effective.
that the material met the fill specifications and demonstrate that risks from runoff and volatilization are acceptable.
Implementable.
Low.
Yes.
Mined Lands
Restoration
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation
administers a program which eliminates health and safety hazards and reclaims lands and waters damaged by coal
mining that occurred prior to passage of stricter federal reclamation laws in the 1977 Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The goal is to successfully use the dredged material to stabilize and re-vegetate the
damaged lands, reduce acid mine drainage and restore the local ecosystem. The effectiveness and
implementability of this process option was observed during the successful reclamation project at the Bark Camp
Mine Reclamation Experimental Facility in central Pennsylvania.
Implementable.
Low to Moderate.
Yes.
Beneficial Use of
Dredged Sediment
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 8 of 10
Effective.
2014
Table 3-2 Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process Options
Technology Type
Process Option
Description
Effectiveness
Implementability
Retained for Further
Consideration?
Cost
General Response Action: Disposal of Dredged Sediments
Off-site Landfill
Land Disposal
Upland Confined
Disposal Facility
(CDF)
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Landfill acceptance of dredged material is determined on a case-by-case basis because permit requirements are
facility-specific. Off-site landfill disposal in a local non-hazardous landfill may be effective and implementable for
Effective.
less-contaminated, untreated dredged material from the FFS Study Area or for more contaminated dredged
material that has been treated to an acceptable degree.
An upland CDF may be considered as a final disposal site or as a temporary storage location prior to dredged
material treatment. The organic material and open water (from undrained sediment during disposal) in the CDF
may attract birds to the site potentially causing safety concerns related to air traffic (the LPR is located within 2 to
19 miles of three of the largest airports in the United States and in the flight paths of several runways). Secondary
impacts associated with CDFs include lights, noise, odors, and vectors. The facility would operate 24 hours per
day during dredging periods impacting area residents and local businesses near the site. The large volume of truck
traffic would add to congestion on area roads and could damage roadways.
The required footprint of the facility varies depending on the material characteristics. Unprocessed material
(placed in the CDF without dewatering) generally has a high water content and low strength, limiting the height of
the fill. Dewatered sediment has a higher strength meaning the facility can have a greater overall depth and smaller Effective.
footprint. Buffer areas, surface water management facilties, wastewater treatment systems and other ancillary
facilities will add to the space requirements.
A lternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Dewatering material in situ (acres)
265
162
75
Dewatered material (acres)
128
79
43
While an upland CDF can be effective for disposal of dredged sediments, it would not be possible to site an upland
CDF within the areal extent of contamination and therefore it would be necessary to obtain permits and other
administrative approvals. The large amount of land necessary would make the siting process very challenging.
Page 9 of 10
Implementable.
Moderate to High.
Implementability hindered by
Moderate to High.
siting challenges.
Yes.
No.
2014
Table 3-2 Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process Options
Technology Type
Process Option
Confined Aquatic
Disposal (CAD)
Description
Effectiveness
Compared to in-water or nearshore CDFs (see below), when constructing and filling CAD cells there is typically a
reduced ability to control effluent, precisely place the material into the unit, and minimize sediment resuspension.
However, impacts to aquatic and benthic habitat associated with use of a CAD cell are significantly reduced as
compared to placement in a CDF, because the aquatic habitat can be restored at the disposal site after closure of
the CAD cell (see Section 404(b)(1) mitigation analysis in Appendix F). The operation of the Newark Bay CDF
(although referred to as a CDF, the Newark Bay facility is technically a CAD cell as defined in this document) near Effective.
the Elizabeth Channel demonstrates that this option is technically feasible and implementable in the New YorkNew Jersey Harbor Estuary.
Implementability
Implementable.
Retained for Further
Consideration?
Cost
Low to Moderate.
Yes.
CAD cells may be implemented with solid phase controls, such as silt curtains or berms, in order to address
concerns with potential sediment transport outside the CAD area during filling events.
Aquatic Disposal
In-water Confined
Disposal Facility
Although an in-water CDF can be effective, challenges to implementability include waterway impacts such as
disruption of circulation patterns, impact on flooding, need for low permeability subgrade formation, and
avoidance of buried utilities. In addition, because of the permanent loss of aquatic habitat, extensive mitigation
would be required. See Section 404(b)(1) analysis in Appendix F.
Nearshore
Although a nearshore CDF can be effective, challenges to implementability are similar to those of in-water CDFs,
Confined Disposal including waterway impacts such as disruption of circulation patterns, impact on flooding, need for low
permeability subgrade formation, avoidance of buried utilities, and permanent loss of aquatic habitat.
Facility
Effective.
Implementability hindered by
siting challenges, permanent Moderate to High.
impacts on aquatic habitat.
No.
Effective
Implementability hindered by
siting challenges, permanent Moderate to High.
impacts on aquatic habitat.
No.
Notes:
1. This use of sequestration refers to in-situ remediation of contaminated sediment, however, the term sequestration is also used when discussing isolation of sediment under engineered caps.
CPG = Cooperating Parties Group; COPC = contaminants of potential concern; EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; FFS = Focused Feasibility Study; FRTR = Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable; LBG = Louis Berger Group Inc.;
NCP = National Contingency Plan; OENJ = Orion of Elizabeth New Jersey; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCBs = Polychlorinated Biphenyls; PCDD/F = Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin/furan;
RI/FS = remedial investigation and feasibility study; RM = river mile; SVOC = semi-volatile organic compounds; USACE = United States Army Corps of Engineers; USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 10 of 10
2014
Table 3-3 Dewatering Methods
Category
Description
Methods
Advantages
Disadvantages
Concerns Specific to the Lower
Passaic River
Passive
Relies on settling, surface
drainage, consolidation, and
evaporation to remove water
Settling basins with underdrains;
tanks, lagoons, surface
impoundments; geotextile tubes
Low cost; relatively small
footprint when using geotextile
tubes due to stacking ability
Settling basins and tanks require
large amounts of time and space
and are not feasible for large
dewatering projects; potential for
air emissions
Mechanical
Input of energy to squeeze, press
or draw water from sediments
Belt filter presses, plate filter
presses, membrane filter presses,
hydrocyclones, centrifuges
High processing rates, less time
and space required
Low to moderate operations and
More equipment maintenance
maintenance costs but higher than
required than other dewatering
passive or active amendment
technologies
categories
Active
evaporative
Active
amendment
Availability of sufficient space in
highly urban area; protection of the
community from air emissions in a
densely-populated area
High energy cost to treat large
volume of dredged material;
protection of the community from
air emissions in a denselypopulated area
Artificial energy sources to heat
sediments and remove moisture
Flash dryers, rotary dryers,
Can achieve the highest solids
modified multiple hearth furnaces content (up to 90 percent)
High energy costs; capture and
treatment of air emissions
Addition of pozzolanic material
Portland Cement, quicklime, grout,
Low cost, easily implementable
ash
Increase in volume, heat generated
by exothermic reaction could
Significant increase in already
potentially volatilize mercury,
large volume of dredged material
PAHs and PCBs
Notes:
PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaice River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 4-1 Factors Affecting Dredging Depth Requirements
Dimension (Not to scale)
Design Vessel Depth
Authorized Channel
Depth
Armor
Sand
Assumed Dimension
for FFS
Basis for Assumption
Depths vary with river
Reasonably anticipated future use.
mile
Applicable References
Lower Passaic River Commercial Navigation Analysis (USACE, 2010)
New Jersey’s Position on the Future Navigational Use on the Lower
Passaic River, River Miles 0 – 8 (NJDOT, 2007)
2' to 4' typical. Includes: freshwater effects (0.5' for
brackish ports); 2' safety clearance; trim, wave, and
shallow water effects.
Engineering and Design – Hydraulic Design of Deep Draft Navigation
Projects (USACE, 2006)
1'
2' to 3' typical. Depends on shoaling rate and cost
effective maintenance interval.
Engineering and Design – Hydraulic Design of Deep Draft Navigation
Projects (USACE, 2006)
Future Overdredge
Allowance for Channel
Maintenance
1'
1' to 3' typical. Expect payment for overdredging to be
minimized because of potential for disposal costs.
Engineering and Design – Hydraulic Design of Deep Draft Navigation
Projects (USACE, 2006)
Cap Protection Buffer
1'
Future dredging operations may exceed overdredging
payment depths. Buffer zone required to prevent
dredging of the cap during future channel maintenance.
Professional judgment; discussions with USACE; Guidance for In-Situ
Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments (USEPA, 1998b)
2'
Designs vary considerably.
Erosional areas: 0.5' sand (top of armor), 0.5' armor, 1'
sand (below armor; assumes 0.5' of consolidation).
Non-erosional areas: minimum 2' sand (assumes no
consolidation).
Refer to Appendix F for cap concept design
0.5'
0' to 2' typical for environmental remediation projects.
Vertical accuracy achieved during December 2005
environmental dredging pilot results: ±12 inches more
than 90 percent of the time and ±6 inches more than 70
percent of the time.
LBG, 2012
Gross Underkeel Clearance
3' soft bottom
Advanced Maintenance
Dredging
Top of Cap
Bottom of Cap
Overdredge Allowance for
Cap Construction
Total in addition to
authorized depth
Dimensions Used for .
FFS 1
5.5'
Notes:
FFS = Focused Feasibility Study; LBG = Louis Berger Group Inc.; NJDOT = New Jersey Department of Transportation; USACE = United States Army Corps of Engineers; USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
1. When inventory may remain.
Cap components as presented in this table do not include a habitat layer for restoration. The need for navigation is not anticipated in areas of mudflat reconstruction.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 4-2 Gross Cumulative Resuspension Fluxes in the FFS Study Area from 2030-2059
2,3,7,8-TCDD
(kg)
Total PCB
(kg)
Total DDx (kg)
Mercury
(kg)
Alternative 1 - No
Action
0.9
2100
230
3500
Alternative 2 - Deep
Dredging
0.3
1000
100
1800
Alternative 3 Capping with
Dredging for Flooding
and Navigation
0.5
1400
160
2700
Alternative 4 Focused Capping with
Dredging for Flooding
0.7
2000
220
3600
Alternative
Notes:
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane;
FFS = focused feasibility study; kg = kilogram; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 4-3 Summary of Estimates for Remedial Alternatives
Dredged
Material
Volume
Alternative
Volume of Material Required For Placement
Dredged
Sediment
Volume [Cubic
Yards]
Backfill
Material
[Cubic
Yards]
Capping
Material
[Cubic
Yards]
Armor
Material
[Cubic
Yards]
Mudflat
Reconstruction
Material [Cubic
Yards]
0
0
0
0
0
Alternative Net Present Value 1
Construction Durations
Preconstruction
Activities, DMM
Dredging and
Processing
Capping/
Facilities
Construction, and Backfilling3
Mobilization/
[Years]
Demobilization
[Years]
Total
Project
[Years]
Capital
Dredge Material
Management 2
Operation and
Maintenance
Construction
Management and
Contingency
Total
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$549,000,000
$522,000,000
$18,000,000
$252,000,000
$1,341,000,000
$657,000,000
$1,967,000,000
$13,000,000
$608,000,000
$3,245,000,000
Alternative 2 with DMM Scenario C:
Deep Dredging with Backfill, Local
Decontamination and Beneficial Use
$657,000,000
$1,460,000,000
$13,000,000
$491,000,000
$2,621,000,000
Alternative 3 with DMM Scenario A:
Capping with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation, CAD
$408,000,000
$322,000,000
$45,000,000
$179,000,000
$953,000,000
$463,000,000
$903,000,000
$41,000,000
$324,000,000
$1,731,000,000
Alternative 3 with DMM Scenario C:
Capping with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation, Local Decontamination and
Beneficial Use
$463,000,000
$784,000,000
$41,000,000
$297,000,000
$1,585,000,000
Alternative 4 with DMM Scenario A:
Focused Capping with Dredging for
Flooding, CAD
$140,000,000
$116,000,000
$41,000,000
$68,000,000
$365,000,000
$154,000,000
$306,000,000
$39,000,000
$115,000,000
$614,000,000
$154,000,000
$299,000,000
$39,000,000
$113,000,000
$606,000,000
Alternative 1 - No Action
0
0
Alternative 2 with DMM Scenario A:
Deep Dredging with Backfill, CAD
Alternative 2 with DMM Scenario B:
Deep Dredging with Backfill, Off-Site
Disposal
Alternative 3 with DMM Scenario B: Capping with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation, Off-Site Disposal
Alternative 4 with DMM Scenario B: Focused Capping with Dredging for
Flooding, Off-Site Disposal
9,681,000
4,304,000
1,021,000
1,799,000
141,000
0
-
1,960,000
707,000
-
96,000
46,000
916,000
407,000
207,000
3
3
3
Alternative 4 with DMM Scenario C:
Focused Capping with Dredging for
Flooding, Local Decontamination and
Beneficial Use
11
5
2
14
8
5
Notes:
CAD = Confined Aquatic Disposal; DMM = dredged material management.
1. Costs are calculated based on 2012 constant dollars.
2. Dredged material management costs include DMM operation and maintenance costs.
3. DMM scenarios B and C extend 6 months beyond dredging and capping activities.
Costs are rounded to the nearest million.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 5-1 Summary of Total Cancer Risks and Child Health Hazards
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Deep Dredging with Backfill
Capping with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation1
Focused Capping with Dredging
1
for Flooding
2030
2023
2020
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
1
1
2019
Year
Fish
Risk
Hazard
(Adult)
Hazard
(Child)
Risk
Hazard
(Adult)
Hazard
(Child)
Risk
Hazard
(Adult)
Hazard
(Child)
Risk
Hazard
(Adult)
Hazard
(Child)
2.00E-03
1.00E-03
5.00E-04
6.00E-06
9.00E-06
8.00E-06
3.00E-06
ND
4.00E-03
38
27
24
ND
ND
0.1
0.04
1
90
65
50
45
ND
ND
0.2
0.06
2
163
2.00E-04
2.00E-04
4.00E-05
3.00E-06
5.00E-06
4.00E-06
3.00E-06
ND
5.00E-04
3
4
2
ND
ND
0.05
0.03
0.6
10
10
7
4
ND
ND
0.09
0.05
1
22
2.00E-04
2.00E-04
3.00E-05
2.00E-06
4.00E-06
4.00E-06
3.00E-06
ND
4.00E-04
3
3
2
ND
ND
0.05
0.03
0.6
8
7
6
4
ND
ND
0.08
0.05
1
18
1.00E-03
1.00E-03
3.00E-04
5.00E-06
8.00E-06
7.00E-06
3.00E-06
ND
2.00E-03
20
19
15
ND
ND
0.09
0.04
1
55
35
33
27
ND
ND
0.1
0.06
2
97
Risk
Hazard
(Adult)
Hazard
(Child)
Risk
Hazard
(Adult)
Hazard
(Child)
Risk
Hazard
(Adult)
Hazard
(Child)
Risk
Hazard
(Adult)
Hazard
(Child)
9.00E-04
9.00E-04
1.00E-04
6.00E-07
1.00E-06
8.00E-07
2.00E-07
ND
2.00E-03
17
18
5
ND
ND
0.01
0.002
0.3
40
29
32
10
ND
ND
0.02
0.004
0.5
71
8.00E-05
3.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.00E-07
3.00E-07
2.00E-07
2.00E-07
ND
4.00E-04
1
5
1
ND
ND
0.003
0.002
0.1
7
4
8
2
ND
ND
0.005
0.004
0.2
15
7.00E-05
2.00E-04
2.00E-05
1.00E-07
2.00E-07
2.00E-07
2.00E-07
ND
3.00E-04
1
4
1
ND
ND
0.002
0.002
0.1
6
3
7
2
ND
ND
0.004
0.004
0.1
13
5.00E-04
7.00E-04
8.00E-05
4.00E-07
8.00E-07
7.00E-07
2.00E-07
ND
1.00E-03
9
14
4
ND
ND
0.008
0.002
0.2
27
15
24
7
ND
ND
0.01
0.004
0.4
47
1
TCDD TEQ (D/F)
TCDD TEQ (PCBs)
Total PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Total Chlordane
Methylmercury
Total
1
1
1
Crab
1
TCDD TEQ (D/F)
TCDD TEQ (PCBs)
Total PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Total Chlordane
Methylmercury
Total
1
1
1
Notes:
DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane; DDE = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene; DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; D/F = Dioxins/furans; ND = non-detect; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl;
TCDD TEQ = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Toxic Equivalency Quotient.
1. Sum of individual receptor risk results for the adult and the child.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 5-2a Sediment Benchmarks Hazard Quotients Based on Future Modeled Sediment Exposures
Benthic Invertebrates
Alternative 1
No Action
2019
Year
Basis
Alternative 2
Deep Dredging with Backfill
2048
2030
Alternative 3
Capping with Dredging for
Flooding and Navigation
2059
2023
Alternative 4
Focused Capping with Dredging
for Flooding
2052
2020
2049
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Bound Bound Bound Bound Bound Bound Bound Bound Bound Bound Bound Bound Bound Bound Bound Bound
Copper
5
2
4
1
0.1
0.05
2
0.6
0.1
0.05
2
0.7
3
1
3
1
Lead
8
3
7
2
0.2
0.07
3
1
0.2
0.07
3
1
5
1
5
2
Mercury
20
5
8
2
0.9
0.3
0.7
0.2
1
0.4
0.6
0.2
10
3
6
2
HMW PAHs
30
4
30
4
1
0.2
20
3
1
0.2
20
3
10
2
20
4
Total DDx
60
2
40
1
4
0.1
4
0.1
5
0.2
3
0.1
40
1
20
0.9
Total PCBs
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total HI
40
4
30
2
2
0.2
1
0.1
3
0.2
1
0.1
30
2
20
2
200
200
100
100
5
5
3
3
7
7
2
2
80
80
60
60
300
200
200
100
10
6
30
8
20
8
30
7
200
100
100
70
Notes:
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; HMW = High Molecular Weight; PAHs = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl;
COPEC = chemicals of potential ecological concern.
Future modeled concentrations for LWM PAHs and dieldrin are not available; therefore, future risks were not estimated for these COPECs. Discrepancies between the sum of the values for the individual
COPECs (hazard quotients) and the total hazard index (HI) are due to rounding error associated with presentation of a single significant figure for all values.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 5-2b Critical Body Residues Based on Future Modeled Sediment Exposures
Crab Tissue, Predatory Fish Tissue, and Mummichog Tissue
Alternative 1
No Action
2019
Year
Alternative 3
Capping with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation
Alternative 2
Deep Dredging with Backfill
2048
2030
2059
2023
Alternative 4
Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
2052
2020
2049
Critical Body Residues - Crab Tissue
Basis
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
5
2
4
2
0.05
0.02
1
0.6
0.06
0.02
1
0.6
2
1
3
1
0.4
0.08
0.3
0.06
0.03
0.005
0.2
0.04
0.03
0.005
0.2
0.04
0.3
0.05
0.3
0.05
2
1
2
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.9
0.5
0.6
0.3
2
1
2
0.8
HMW PAHs
0.9
0.09
0.9
0.09
0.1
0.01
0.7
0.07
0.1
0.01
0.7
0.07
0.6
0.06
0.8
0.08
Total DDx
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.06
0.1
0.06
0.1
0.07
0.1
0.05
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
Aroclor, Total
60
20
40
10
6
2
6
2
9
3
5
2
40
10
30
9
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total HI
300
40
200
30
10
2
8
0.9
20
2
6
0.7
200
20
100
10
400
60
300
40
20
4
20
4
30
5
10
3
200
40
200
30
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Copper
20
3
10
3
0.4
0.09
6
1
0.4
0.1
6
1
9
2
10
2
Lead
0.9
0.09
0.7
0.07
0.06
0.006
0.4
0.04
0.06
0.006
0.4
0.04
0.6
0.06
0.6
0.06
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Critical Body Residues - Generic Fish Tissue
Basis
4
0.9
3
0.6
1
0.3
1
0.3
2
0.3
1
0.2
4
0.7
3
0.6
0.4
0.04
0.4
0.04
0.02
0.002
0.3
0.03
0.02
0.002
0.3
0.03
0.2
0.02
0.3
0.03
Total DDx
6
1
5
1
2
0.5
2
0.5
3
0.5
2
0.5
5
1
5
0.9
Aroclor, Total
20
7
10
4
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.2
1
0.4
0.6
0.2
10
4
9
3
TCDD TEQ (D/F)
3
1
2
0.8
0.2
0.09
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
2
0.9
1
0.6
Mercury
HMW PAHs
TCDD TEQ (PCBs)
Total TCDD TEQ
Total HI
300
100
200
100
10
6
8
4
20
8
6
3
200
80
100
60
300
100
200
100
10
6
8
4
20
8
6
3
200
80
100
60
300
200
200
100
20
7
20
6
20
9
20
5
200
90
100
70
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Critical Body Residues - Mummichog Tissue
Basis
NOAEL
Copper
10
2
9
2
0.3
0.06
4
0.8
0.3
0.06
4
0.8
6
1
7
1
Lead
2
0.2
2
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.9
0.09
0.1
0.01
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
Mercury
0.8
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.06
0.3
0.05
0.3
0.07
0.2
0.05
0.7
0.1
0.6
0.1
HMW PAHs
0.3
0.03
0.3
0.03
0.05
0.005
0.2
0.02
0.05
0.005
0.2
0.03
0.2
0.02
0.3
0.03
Total DDx
0.5
0.09
0.4
0.08
0.2
0.03
0.2
0.03
0.2
0.04
0.2
0.03
0.4
0.08
0.3
0.07
3
0.9
2
0.6
0.1
0.04
0.1
0.04
0.2
0.07
0.1
0.03
2
0.6
1
0.4
TCDD TEQ (D/F)
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.06
0.1
0.07
0.1
0.05
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
TCDD TEQ (PCBs)
30
10
20
10
3
1
2
0.9
3
2
2
0.8
20
9
10
7
30
10
20
10
3
1
2
1
3
2
2
0.8
20
9
20
7
50
20
40
10
4
2
8
2
4
2
7
2
30
10
20
10
Aroclor, Total
Total TCDD TEQ
Total HI
Note:
2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; COPEC = contaminants of potential ecological concern; DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; D/F = Dioxins/furans; HI = hazard index; HMW = high molecular weight; LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels; NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Levels;
TCDD TEQ = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Toxic Equivalency Quotient.
Future modeled concentrations for LWM PAHs and dieldrin are not available; therefore, future risks were not estimated for these COPECs. Discrepancies between the sum of the values for the individual COPECs (hazard quotients) and the total hazard index (HI) are due to rounding error associated with presentation of a
single significant figure for all values. To avoid double-counting, the Total TCDD TEQ values, which are the sum of the dioxin/furan (D/F) and PCB congeners, were not included in the total calculations.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 5-2c Wildlife Dose Risks Based on Future Modeled Sediment Exposures
Heron (general fish diet), Heron (mummichog diet), and Mink
Alternative 1
No Action
2019
Year
Alternative 3
Capping with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation
Alternative 2
Deep Dredging with Backfill
2048
2030
2059
2023
Alternative 4
Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
2052
2020
2049
Wildlife Dose Modeling - Heron (Generic Fish Diet)
Basis
Copper
Lead
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.02
0.008
0.3
0.1
0.02
0.009
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
7
0.7
6
0.6
0.2
0.02
3
0.3
0.2
0.02
3
0.3
4
0.4
4
0.4
Mercury
3
1
2
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.2
2
1
1
0.7
HPAHs
5
0.5
5
0.5
0.2
0.02
3
0.3
0.2
0.02
3
0.3
3
0.3
4
0.4
Total DDx
5
2
4
1
2
0.6
2
0.6
2
0.7
2
0.6
4
1
3
1
Total PCBs
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
TCDD TEQ (PCBs)
7
0.7
4
0.4
0.3
0.03
0.3
0.03
0.5
0.05
0.3
0.03
4
0.4
3
0.3
TCDD TEQ (D/F)
10
1
7
0.7
0.4
0.04
0.3
0.03
0.5
0.05
0.2
0.02
6
0.6
4
0.4
Total TCDD TEQ
20
2
10
1
0.8
0.08
0.6
0.06
1
0.1
0.5
0.05
10
1
7
0.7
Total HI
40
7
30
5
4
1
9
2
4
1
9
2
20
5
20
4
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.02
0.007
0.2
0.1
0.02
0.008
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.2
Lead
7
0.7
6
0.6
0.2
0.02
3
0.3
0.2
0.02
3
0.3
4
0.4
4
0.4
Mercury
1
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.09
0.2
0.08
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.08
1
0.5
0.6
0.3
HPAHs
5
0.5
5
0.5
0.2
0.02
3
0.3
0.2
0.02
3
0.3
3
0.3
4
0.4
Total DDx
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.2
0.05
0.1
0.04
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.1
Total PCBs
0.1
0.1
0.09
0.07
0.008
0.006
0.007
0.006
0.01
0.009
0.006
0.005
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.05
Wildlife Dose Modeling - Heron (Mummichog Diet)
Basis
Copper
TCDD TEQ (PCBs)
2
0.2
1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.2
0.02
0.09
0.009
1
0.1
0.7
0.07
TCDD TEQ (D/F)
2
0.2
2
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.09
0.009
0.2
0.02
0.07
0.007
1
0.1
1
0.1
Total TCDD TEQ
4
0.4
3
0.3
0.2
0.02
0.2
0.02
0.3
0.03
0.2
0.02
2
0.2
2
0.2
Total HI
20
3
10
2
1
0.2
7
0.8
1
0.3
7
0.8
10
2
10
2
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Wildlife Dose Modeling - Mink (Generic Fish Diet)
Basis
NOAEL
Copper
1
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.02
0.01
0.4
0.2
0.02
0.01
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.3
Lead
2
0.2
2
0.2
0.07
0.007
0.8
0.08
0.07
0.007
0.9
0.09
1
0.1
1
0.1
Mercury
5
3
3
2
1
0.8
1
0.7
2
1
1
0.7
4
2
3
2
HPAHs
0.4
0.09
0.4
0.09
0.02
0.004
0.3
0.06
0.02
0.004
0.3
0.06
0.3
0.05
0.4
0.08
Total DDx
0.1
0.03
0.1
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.1
0.03
0.1
0.02
Total PCBs
10
10
8
7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.3
8
7
5
5
TCDD TEQ (PCBs)
100
3
60
2
7
0.3
10
0.4
10
0.4
9
0.3
70
2
50
2
TCDD TEQ (D/F)
900
30
600
20
40
1
20
0.9
50
2
20
0.7
500
20
300
10
Total TCDD TEQ
1000
30
700
20
40
2
30
1
60
2
30
1
500
20
400
10
Total HI
1000
50
700
30
50
3
30
3
60
4
30
2
600
30
400
20
Notes:
COPECs = chemicals of potential ecological concern; DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; D/F = Dioxins/furans; HPAH = High-Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons; LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels; NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Levels;
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl; TCDD TEQ = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Toxic Equivalency Quotient.
Future modeled concentrations for LWM PAHs and dieldrin are not available; therefore, future risks were not estimated for these COPECs. Discrepancies between the sum of the values for the individual COPECs (hazard quotients) and the total hazard index (HI) are due to rounding error associated with presentation of a single
significant figure for all values. To avoid double-counting, the Total TCDD TEQ values, which are the sum of the dioxin/furan (D/F) and PCB congeners, were not included in the total calculations.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 5-3 Summary of Present Value Estimates
Present Value Costs
Alternative
2
Capital
Alternative 1: No Action
DMM
3,4
O&M
5
1
Contingency
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Alternative 2 with DMM Scenario A: Deep
Dredging with Backfill, CAD
$549,000,000
$522,000,000
$18,000,000
$252,000,000
$1,341,000,000
Alternative 2 with DMM Scenario B: Deep
Dredging with Backfill, Off-Site Disposal
$657,000,000
$1,967,000,000
$13,000,000
$608,000,000
$3,245,000,000
Alternative 2 with DMM Scenario C: Deep
Dredging with Backfill, Local Decontamination and
Beneficial Use
$657,000,000
$1,460,000,000
$13,000,000
$491,000,000
$2,621,000,000
Alternative 3 with DMM Scenario A: Capping with
Dredging for Flooding and Navigation, CAD
$408,000,000
$322,000,000
$45,000,000
$179,000,000
$953,000,000
Alternative 3 with DMM Scenario B: Capping with
Dredging for Flooding and Navigation, Off-Site
Disposal
$463,000,000
$903,000,000
$41,000,000
$324,000,000
$1,731,000,000
Alternative 3 with DMM Scenario C: Capping with
Dredging for Flooding and Navigation, Local
Decontamination and Beneficial Use
$463,000,000
$784,000,000
$41,000,000
$297,000,000
$1,585,000,000
Alternative 4 with DMM Scenario A: Focused
Capping with Dredging for Flooding, CAD
$140,000,000
$116,000,000
$41,000,000
$68,000,000
$365,000,000
Alternative 4 with DMM Scenario B: Focused
Capping with Dredging for Flooding, Off-Site
Disposal
$154,000,000
$306,000,000
$39,000,000
$115,000,000
$614,000,000
Alternative 4 with DMM Scenario C: Focused
Capping with Dredging for Flooding, Local
Decontamination and Beneficial Use
$154,000,000
$299,000,000
$39,000,000
$113,000,000
$606,000,000
Notes:
CAD = Confined Aquatic Disposal.
1. Present value costs calculated using a seven percent discount rate and project schedule shown in Figure 1-1 in Appendix H. Values are rounded to the nearest million.
2. Capital Costs includes Construction Management.
3. DMM = Dredged Material Management (includes Construction Management).
4. Total DMM Costs = DMM Capital Cost + DMM O&M Costs.
5. O&M = Operation and Maintenance.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
Table 5-4 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
NCP Criterion
Alternative 1- No Action
Alternative Description
Under Superfund, the No Action
Alternative is considered as a baseline
for comparison with other alternatives.
Active remedial measures like
containment, removal, disposal, or
treatment of contaminated sediments
are not included.
NJDEP fish and crab consumption
advisories, implemented under state
authorities, would remain in place. No
institutional controls would be
implemented as part of a CERCLA
remedial action.
Alternative 2- Deep Dredging with Backfill Placement
Alternative 2 is a bank-to-bank remedy. Mechanical dredging of
predominantly fine-grained sediments throughout the FFS Study Area
to varying depths would be followed by placing two feet of backfill
material.
The existing federal navigation channel would be dredged to 33 feet
MLW from RM0.0 to RM2.6; 23 feet MLW from RM2.6 to RM4.6; 19
feet MLW from RM4.6 to RM8.1; and 13 feet MLW from RM8.1 to
RM8.3. The resulting elevations would accommodate continued use of
the navigation channel to its federally-authorized depths. Shoal areas
would be dredged to varying depths ranging from 3 to 19.5 feet. The
total volume removed under Alternative 2 would be 9.7 MCY.
Disturbed mudflats would be reconstructed to original grade with the
top foot as mudflat reconstruction material. Surrounding areas would
be regraded to restore hydrologic conditions.
MNR would be implemented including monitoring of the water
column, sediment, and biota tissue after construction to determine the
degree to which they are recovering to PRGs. Institutional controls
would include enhanced outreach activities to educate community
members about NJDEP’s fish and crab consumption advisories.
Dredged materials would be managed by one of three possible
approaches:
 DMM Scenario A: Confined Aquatic Disposal
 DMM Scenario B: Off-Site Disposal
 DMM Scenario C: Local Decontamination and Beneficial Use
Alternative 3- Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
Alternative 4- Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
Alternative 3 is a bank-to-bank remedy. Mechanical dredging of
predominantly fine-grained sediments throughout the FFS Study Area
of the river to varying depths would be followed by construction of an
engineered cap or placement of backfill (as appropriate). Select areas of
the engineered cap would be armored to prevent erosion during high
flow events.
Alternative 4 is a remedy that is less than bank-to-bank in scope.
Mechanical dredging in areas having the highest gross or net
contaminant flux based on modeling results would be followed by
construction of engineered caps over the dredged areas. Select areas of
the engineered caps would be armored to prevent erosion during high
flow events. The Alternative 4 footprint covers approximately one third
of the FFS Study Area.
The existing federal navigation channel would be dredged to RM 2.2
with depths of 33 feet MLW from RM0 to RM1.2, 30.5 feet MLW
from RM1.2 to RM1.7, and 25.5 feet MLW from RM1.7 to RM2.2.
The resulting elevations would accommodate continued use of the
navigation channel in RM0 to RM2.2 with final depths of 30 feet MLW
from RM0 to RM1.2, 25 feet MLW from RM1.2 to RM1.7, and 20 feet
MLW from RM1.7 to RM2.2 (refer to Chapter 4). Between RM2.2 and
RM8.3, enough dredging would be performed to allow capping without
causing additional flooding and to accommodate recreational use of the
river. This would mean dredging approximately 2.5 feet below the
sediment surface. The total volume removed under Alternative 3 would
be 4.3 MCY. Alternative 3 would require modification of the
navigation channel from RM1.2 to RM2.2, and deauthorization of the
navigation channel above RM2.2 under the federal River and Harbors
Act through USACE procedures and Congressional action.
Disturbed mudflats would be reconstructed by removing 2.5 feet and
replacing it with one foot of sand and one foot of mudflat
reconstruction material.
MNR would be implemented including monitoring of the water
column, sediment, and biota tissue after construction to determine the
degree to which they are recovering to PRGs. Institutional controls
would include enhanced outreach activities to educate community
members about NJDEP’s fish and crab consumption advisories, and
restrictions on private and recreational activities that would disturb the
engineered cap.
Dredged materials would be managed by one of three possible
approaches:
 DMM Scenario A: Confined Aquatic Disposal
 DMM Scenario B: Off-Site Disposal
 DMM Scenario C: Local Decontamination and Beneficial Use
Overall Protection of
Human Health and the
Environment
With no change in current conditions,
unacceptable risks to human health and
the environment in the FFS Study Area
would continue to exist.
Resuspension of contaminated
sediments in the FFS Study Area of the
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
The dominant risks and hazards to human health and ecological
receptors posed by the sediments with COPCs and COPECs would be
significantly reduced soon after remediation is completed (2029).
Alternative 2, in conjunction with MNR and institutional controls,
would be protective of human health and the environment and effective
in meeting the RAOs and PRGs relatively shortly beyond the 30-year
Dredging would be to a depth of 2.5 feet below sediment surface and
sufficient to allow capping without causing additional flooding. The
total volume removed under Alternative 4 would be 1 MCY.
Alternative 4 would not include any dredging to accommodate the
continued use of the federally-authorized navigation channel. Since the
depths after remediation would be shallower than the authorized
channel depth from RM0 to RM8.3, it would be necessary to obtain
deauthorization of the federal navigation channel under the federal
River and Harbors Act through USACE procedures and Congressional
action.
Disturbed mudflats would be reconstructed by removing 2.5 feet and
replacing it with one foot of sand and one foot of mudflat
reconstruction material.
MNR would be implemented including monitoring of the water
column, sediment, and biota tissue after construction to determine the
degree to which they are recovering to PRGs. Institutional controls
would include enhanced outreach activities to educated community
members about NJDEP’s fish and crab consumption advisories, and
restrictions on private and recreational activities that would disturb the
engineered cap.
Dredged materials would be managed by one of three possible
approaches:
 DMM Scenario A: Confined Aquatic Disposal
 DMM Scenario B: Off-Site Disposal
 DMM Scenario C: Local Decontamination and Beneficial Use
The engineered cap would be effective in containing the release of
COPCs and COPECs into the surface water. The dominant
carcinogenic risks to human health and ecological receptors posed by
the sediments with COPCs and COPECs would be significantly
reduced soon after remediation is completed (2022).
The discrete areas of the FFS Study Area that release the most
contaminants into the water column would be addressed, sequestering
the sediment in those areas under the cap. However, COPCs and
COPECs would continue to be released into the surface water from the
uncapped areas.
Alternative 3, in conjunction with MNR and institutional controls,
Alternative 4, even with MNR and institutional controls, would not be
Page 1 of 7
2014
Table 5-4 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
NCP Criterion
Alternative 1- No Action
river would continue to release
contaminants into the surface water,
further contaminating Newark Bay and
the upstream portion of the river.
The No Action Alternative would not
be effective in meeting the RAOs and
PRGs over the 30-year model forecast
period or relatively shortly beyond that
period.
Cancer risks would remain an order of
magnitude above the acceptable risk
range of 1 × 104 and 1 × 106
(Table 5-1).
Noncancer Hazard Index (30-year
exposure duration)
 Fish: Adult: 90; Child: 163
 Crab: Adult: 40; Child: 71
(Table 5-1)
The sum of hazard quotients post
remedy and 30 years later would range
from:
 40 to 300 for benthic invertebrates
 10 to 200 for fish
 2 to 700 for wildlife
Body residues and wildlife HI totals
would be an order of magnitude greater
than Alternatives 2 and 3 and
approximately double those of
Alternative 4.
No significant recovery in surface
sediment contaminant concentrations
between RM8.3 and RM17.
Cumulative flux of contaminants from
the FFS Study Area to Newark Bay is
higher than corresponding values under
Alternatives 2 and 3.
The model shows that spikes in
contaminant concentrations correlate to
storm events.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Alternative 2- Deep Dredging with Backfill Placement
Alternative 3- Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
Alternative 4- Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
model forecast period.
would be protective of human health and the environment and effective
in meeting the RAOs and PRGs relatively shortly beyond the 30-year
model forecast period, assuming the engineered cap is maintained in
perpetuity.
protective of human health and the environment and would not be
effective in meeting the RAOs and PRGs in the foreseeable future.
Total cancer risks for Alternative 2 would be 5 x 10-4 and 4 x 10-4 for
fish and crab consumption, respectively, in the 30-year period after
construction.
Total cancer risks for Alternative 3 would be 4 x 10-4 and 3 x 10-4 for
fish and crab consumption, respectively, in the 30-year period after
construction.
Total cancer risks for Alternative 4 would be 2 x 10-3 and 1 x 10-3 for
fish and crab consumption, respectively, in the 30-year period after
construction.
Noncancer Hazard Index (30-year exposure duration)
 Fish: Adult: 10; Child: 22
 Crab: Adult: 7; Child: 15
(Table 5-1)
Noncancer Hazard Index (30-year exposure duration)
 Fish: Adult: 8; Child: 18
 Crab: Adult: 6; Child: 13
(Table 5-1)
Noncancer Hazard Index (30-year exposure duration)
 Fish: Adult 55; Child: 97
 Crab: Adult: 27; Child: 47
(Table 5-1)
The sums of hazard quotients for benthic invertebrates would be an
order of magnitude lower for Alternative 2 post remedy and 30 years
later, as compared to Alternatives 1 and 4.
The sums of hazard quotients for benthic invertebrates would be an
order of magnitude lower for Alternative 3 post remedy and 30 years
later as compared to Alternatives 1 and 4.
Body residues and wildlife HI totals would be an order of magnitude
lower than Alternatives 1 and 4 and approximately the same as
Alternative 3.
Body residues and wildlife HI totals would be an order of magnitude
lower than Alternatives 1 and 4 and approximately the same as
Alternative 2.
The sum of hazard quotients post remedy and 30 years later would
range from:
 30 to 200 for benthic invertebrates
 10 to 100 for fish
 2 to 400 for wildlife
Values can be found in Tables 5-2a through 5-2c.
Values can be found in Tables 5-2a through 5-2c.
Body residues and wildlife HI totals would be an order of magnitude
greater than Alternatives 2 and 3 and approximately half those of
Alternative 1.
Once active remediation is completed, the influx, mixing and
deposition of sediment, originating from freshwater flow over Dundee
Dam, from resuspended sediment between the dam and RM8.3, and
tidal exchange with Newark Bay, would determine the extent to which
the sediment surface in the FFS Study Area is recontaminated.
Once active remediation is completed, the influx, mixing and
deposition of sediment, originating from freshwater flow over Dundee
Dam, from resuspended sediment between the dam and RM8.3, and
tidal exchange with Newark Bay, would determine the extent to which
the sediment surface in the FFS Study Area is recontaminated.
Because two-thirds of the contaminated sediment surface area in the
FFS Study Area remains exposed, this material would serve as an
ongoing source of contaminants in the FFS Study Area as well as
potentially impacting sediment quality in Newark Bay and upstream of
RM8.3.
Since the contaminated sediments in the FFS Study Area are a major
contributor of contamination to the river above RM8.3 and to Newark
Bay, remediation would substantially reduce that major source of
contamination to those areas, thereby reducing the contamination
brought back into the FFS Study Area from those areas over time for
most COPCs and COPECs.
Since the contaminated sediments in the FFS Study Area are a major
contributor of contamination to the river above RM8.3 and to Newark
Bay, remediation would substantially reduce that major source of
contamination to those areas, thereby reducing the contamination
brought back into the FFS Study Area from those areas over time for
most COPCs and COPECs.
The presence of the remaining exposed contaminated sediments would
keep the FFS Study Area from recovering fully and would contribute to
continued contamination to the surrounding areas.
Page 2 of 7
2014
Table 5-4 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
NCP Criterion
Compliance with
ARARs
Alternative 1- No Action
Alternative 3- Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
Alternative 4- Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
No federal or state chemical-specific
sediment quality ARARs for the FFS
Study Area.
No federal or state chemical-specific sediment quality ARARs for the
FFS Study Area. PRGs were specifically developed for the FFS Study
Area.
No federal or state chemical-specific sediment quality ARARs for the
FFS Study Area. PRGs were specifically developed for the FFS Study
Area.
No federal or state chemical-specific sediment quality ARARs for the
FFS Study Area. PRGs were specifically developed for the FFS Study
Area.
Does not comply with federal or state
surface water quality ARARs for the
entire 30-year forecast period.
Although remediation of contaminated sediment would contribute to
improved water quality, implementation would be unlikely to achieve
compliance with ARARs in the water column. This FFS only addresses
the sediments portion of the Lower Passaic River; compliance with
surface water ARARs would more likely be achieved after additional
response actions have been implemented.
Although remediation of contaminated sediment would contribute to
improved water quality, implementation would be unlikely to achieve
compliance with ARARs in the water column. This FFS only addresses
the sediments portion of the Lower Passaic River; compliance with
surface water ARARs would more likely be achieved after additional
response actions have been implemented.
Although remediation of contaminated sediment would contribute to
improved water quality, implementation would be unlikely to achieve
compliance with ARARs in the water column. This FFS only addresses
the sediments portion of the Lower Passaic River; compliance with
surface water ARARs would more likely be achieved after additional
response actions have been implemented.
Would satisfy all the location-specific and action-specific ARARs and
TBCs.
9.7 million cy of contaminated sediments removed from the FFS Study
Area would no longer contaminate surface sediments and biota or pose
unacceptable impacts to humans and the environment after construction
is completed in 2029.
Would satisfy all the location-specific and action-specific ARARs and
TBCs.
The contaminated sediments in the FFS Study Area would be
sequestered under the bank to bank engineered cap, so that
resuspension of contaminated sediments from the FFS Study Area
would no longer contaminate surface sediments and biota or pose
unacceptable impacts to humans and the environment after construction
is completed in 2022.
During the 30-year period after construction, FFS Study Area surface
sediment concentrations:
 of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCBs and mercury, would decline
significantly and fluctuate around the proposed remediation
goals, depending on the magnitude and frequency of storm
events.
 of Total DDx, would decline significantly, approaching and
fluctuating near a level about an order of magnitude higher
than the proposed remediation goal.
Would satisfy all the location-specific and action-specific ARARs and
TBCs.
Not effective in substantially reducing impacts to humans and the
surrounding environment due to remaining exposed contaminated
sediments.
NJDEP’s existing fish and shellfish consumption advisories, which rely
on voluntary compliance, would be enhanced by additional outreach to
improve their effectiveness in reducing risk to human health.
Advisories are ineffective in reducing risk for ecological receptors.
Additional restrictions imposed on private activities that disturb
sediment, such as vessel speed reductions, limitations on anchoring and
limitations on recreational use of the river, would be required to protect
the engineered cap in perpetuity.
NJDEP’s existing fish and shellfish consumption advisories, which rely
on voluntary compliance, would be enhanced by additional outreach to
improve their effectiveness in reducing risk to human health.
Advisories are ineffective in reducing risk for ecological receptors.
Action-specific ARARs do not apply.
No location-specific ARARs are
applicable to this alternative.
Long-Term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Continued degradation of surficial
sediments and surface water with no
effective remedial outcome.
Magnitude of Residual
Risks
The magnitude of residual risks
essentially remains the same, with
future changes occurring only through
natural processes.
The 2,3,7,8-TCDD surface sediment
concentrations in the FFS Study Area
would remain well over an order of
magnitude higher than the proposed
remediation goal. Total PCB and
mercury surface sediment
concentrations would remain over an
order of magnitude higher than the
proposed remediation goal. Total DDx
would remain over two orders of
magnitude higher than the proposed
remediation goal.
Adequacy of Controls
Alternative 2- Deep Dredging with Backfill Placement
No controls would be implemented as
part of a CERCLA response action.
NJDEP’s existing fish and shellfish
consumption advisories, implemented
under state authorities, rely on
voluntary compliance. They are
somewhat effective in reducing risk to
human health, but some anglers still eat
their catch despite the advisories.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
During the 30-year period after construction, FFS Study Area surface
sediment concentrations:

of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCBs and mercury, would decline
significantly and fluctuate around the proposed remediation
goals, depending on the magnitude and frequency of storm
events.
 of Total DDx, would decline significantly, approaching and
fluctuating near a level about an order of magnitude higher
than the proposed remediation goal.
NJDEP’s existing fish and shellfish consumption advisories, which rely
on voluntary compliance, would be enhanced by additional outreach to
improve their effectiveness in reducing the risk to human health.
Advisories are ineffective in reducing risk for ecological receptors.
Removal of all contaminated sediments would result in an eventual
decrease in the risk of exposure to ecological receptors.
MNR would reduce exposure risks to the ecosystem over time.
Removal of some of the contaminated sediments and sequestration of
the remaining sediments would result in an eventual decrease in the risk
Page 3 of 7
During the 30-year period after construction, FFS Study Area surface
sediment concentrations for 2,3,7,8-TCDD would remain well over an
order of magnitude higher than the proposed remediation goal. Total
PCB and mercury surface sediment concentrations would remain an
order of magnitude above proposed remediation goals while Total DDx
would remain two orders of magnitude above the proposed remediation
goal.
Residual risks remain because of the resuspension of contaminated
sediments from the two-thirds of the FFS Study Area that remain
unremediated.
Additional restrictions imposed on private activities that disturb
sediment, such as vessel speed reductions, limitations on anchoring and
limitations on recreational use of the river, would be required to protect
the engineered caps in perpetuity. Removal and capping of a fraction of
contaminated sediments would result in an eventual decrease but not
elimination of the risk of exposure to ecological receptors.
2014
Table 5-4 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
NCP Criterion
Alternative 1- No Action
Alternative 2- Deep Dredging with Backfill Placement
Alternative 3- Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
Advisories are ineffective in reducing
risk for ecological receptors.
of exposure to ecological receptors.
Sediment removal and backfilling are reliable and proven technologies.
Sediment removal and backfilling are reliable and proven technologies.
While MNR would reduce exposure risks to the ecosystem over time,
resuspension of remaining contaminants in the FFS Study Area would
continue to impact surface sediment quality, posing an ongoing risk to
the ecosystem.
Sediment removal and backfilling are reliable and proven technologies.
CAD and engineered caps are reliable and proven technologies.
Similarly, off-site incineration and disposal are also reliable and proven
technologies. Local treatment and beneficial use technologies have
been tested in pilot scale operations on Passaic River sediment.
However, thermal treatment and sediment washing are unproved
technologies at the scale envisioned for the project and sediment
washing has been proven less effective with some contaminants
identified in the sediment.
CAD and engineered caps are reliable and proven technologies.
Similarly, off-site incineration and disposal are also reliable and proven
technologies. Local treatment and beneficial use technologies have
been tested in pilot scale operations on Passaic River sediment.
However, thermal treatment and sediment washing are unproved
technologies at the scale envisioned for the project and sediment
washing has been proven less effective with some contaminants
identified in the sediment.
CAD and engineered caps are reliable and proven technologies.
Similarly, off-site incineration and disposal are also reliable and proven
technologies. Local treatment and beneficial use technologies have
been tested in pilot scale operations on Passaic River sediment.
However, thermal treatment and sediment washing are unproven
technologies at the scale envisioned for the project and sediment
washing has been proven less effective with some contaminants
identified in the sediment.
Existing fish and shellfish consumption advisories which rely on
voluntary compliance are somewhat effective. Enhanced outreach
would educate the community about advisories that would remain in
place during and after remediation until PRGs are reached.
Existing fish and shellfish consumption advisories which rely on
voluntary compliance are somewhat effective. Enhanced outreach
would educate the community about advisories that would remain in
place during and after remediation until PRGs are reached.
Existing fish and shellfish consumption advisories which rely on
voluntary compliance are somewhat effective. Enhanced outreach
about advisories is unlikely to be sufficient to ensure protectiveness
over the long term until PRGs are reached.
Permanent removal from the FFS Study Area of 38 kg of 2,3,7,8TCDD, 42,000 kg of mercury, 23,500 kg of Total PCBs and 29,000 kg
of Total DDx.
Permanent removal from the FFS Study Area of 22 kg of 2,3,7,8TCDD, 17,000 kg of mercury, 7,800 kg of Total PCBs and 26,000 kg
of Total DDx.
Permanent removal from the FFS Study Area of 1 kg of 2,3,7,8-TCDD,
2,300 kg of mercury, 1,300 kg of Total PCBs and 100 kg of Total DDx.
Under DMM Scenario A, the mobility of the COPCs and COPECs
would be effectively reduced by containment under a cap that would
need to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity. Toxicity or volume
of contaminated sediment would not be reduced.
Under DMM Scenario A, the mobility of the COPCs and COPECs
would be effectively reduced by containment under a cap that would
need to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity. Toxicity or volume
of contaminated sediment would not be reduced.
Under DMM Scenario B, the toxicity and volume of approximately
10 percent of the COPCs and COPECs in the contaminated sediment
would be reduced through incineration; the contaminant mobility of the
remaining 90 percent would be reduced by landfill disposal.
Under DMM Scenario B, the toxicity and volume of approximately
7 percent of the COPCs and COPECs in the contaminated sediment
would be reduced through incineration; the contaminant mobility of the
remaining 93 percent would be reduced by landfill disposal.
Under DMM Scenario C, the mobility, toxicity, and volume of the
COPCs and COPECs would be effectively reduced through a
combination of thermal treatment (10 percent), sediment washing
(88 percent) and solidification (2 percent).
Under DMM Scenario C, the mobility, toxicity, and volume of the
COPCs and COPECs would be effectively reduced through a
combination of thermal treatment (7 percent), sediment washing
(92 percent) and solidification (1 percent).
There may be a risk of some adverse short-term impacts to human
health and the environment during the construction period due to the
increased potential for exposure to COPCs and COPECs present in
dredged materials. After construction it is expected that risks would
drop substantially in the short term. Implementation of Alternative 2
would have the greatest impact as compared to Alternatives 3 and 4.
There may be a risk of some adverse short-term impacts to human
health and the environment during the construction period due to the
increased potential for exposure to the COPCs and COPECs present in
dredged materials. After construction it is expected that risks would
drop substantially in the short term. Implementation of Alternative 3
would have less impact as compared to Alternative 2 but more impact
compared to Alternative 4.
MNR would reduce exposure risks to the ecosystem over time.
Reliability of Controls
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility or Volume
through Treatment
NJDEP’s fish and shellfish
consumption advisories, implemented
under state authorities, would remain in
place. No institutional controls would
be implemented as part of a CERCLA
response action.
Only natural processes such as burial
by cleaner sediments, biodegradation,
bioturbation, and dilution can
potentially reduce COPC and COPEC
concentrations in sediments and surface
water.
There is no reduction of toxicity,
mobility or volume through treatment.
Short-Term
Effectiveness
Not effective in meeting RAOs and
PRGs in a reasonable timeframe
(within 30 year modeled time period or
relatively shortly beyond that period).
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Alternative 4- Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
Page 4 of 7
Under DMM Scenario A, the mobility of the COPCs and COPECs
would be effectively reduced by containment under a cap that would
need to be monitored and maintained in perpetuity. Toxicity or volume
of contaminated sediment would not be reduced.
Under DMM Scenario B, the toxicity and volume of approximately
4 percent of the COPCs and COPECs in the contaminated sediment
would be reduced through incineration; the contaminant mobility of the
remaining 96 percent would be reduced by landfill disposal.
Under DMM Scenario C, the mobility, toxicity, and volume of the
COPCs and COPECs would be effectively reduced through a
combination of thermal treatment (4 percent), sediment washing
(94 percent) and solidification (2 percent).
There may be a risk of some adverse short-term impacts to human
health and the environment during the construction period due to the
increased potential for exposure to the COPCs and COPECs present in
dredged materials. While water quality would improve with
implementation of Alternative 4, risks to humans and ecological
receptors remain throughout the short term. Implementation of
Alternative 4 would have the least impact as compared to
Alternatives 2 and 3.
2014
Table 5-4 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
NCP Criterion
Protection of the
Community during
Remedial Actions
Protection of Workers
during Remedial
Actions
Potential Adverse
Environmental Impacts
Resulting from
Construction and
Implementation
Alternative 1- No Action
No construction so no impact on
community.
Because there are no activities
performed, no risks to workers.
No construction activities and therefore
no resulting adverse environmental
impacts.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Alternative 2- Deep Dredging with Backfill Placement
Alternative 3- Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
Alternative 4- Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
Potential quality of life impacts (noise, odors, lighting, traffic, impacts
to navigation, aesthetics, and recreation) related to dredging and
processing activities.
Potential quality of life impacts (noise, odors, lighting, traffic, impacts
to navigation, aesthetics, and recreation) related to dredging and
processing activities.
Potential quality of life impacts (noise, odors, lighting, traffic, impacts
to navigation, aesthetics, and recreation) related to dredging and
processing activities.
Potential impacts due to accidents from dredging and processing
activities are similar to other navigational dredging projects conducted
periodically in the river and bay.
Potential impacts due to accidents from dredging and processing
activities are similar to other navigational dredging projects conducted
periodically in the river and bay.
Potential impacts due to accidents from dredging and processing
activities are similar to other navigational dredging projects conducted
periodically in the river and bay.
DMM Scenario A would have the least impact on the volume of onland traffic, but have the most impact on vessel traffic in Newark Bay.
DMM Scenario C would have the greatest impact on the volume of onland traffic. Barge transport operations could potentially increase road
congestion due to periodic road closures to open bridges. The location
of the processing facility and selected DMM Scenario would impact the
number of bridge openings required on a daily basis.
DMM Scenario A would have the least impact on the volume of onland traffic, but have the most impact on vessel traffic in Newark Bay.
DMM Scenario C would have the greatest impact on the volume of onland traffic. Barge transport operations could potentially increase road
congestion due to periodic road closures to open bridges. The location
of the processing facility and selected DMM Scenario would impact the
number of bridge openings required on a daily basis.
DMM Scenario A would have the least impact on the volume of onland traffic, but have the most impact on vessel traffic in Newark Bay.
DMM Scenario C would have the greatest impact on the volume of onland traffic. Barge transport operations could potentially increase road
congestion due to periodic road closures to open bridges. The location
of the processing facility and selected DMM Scenario would impact the
number of bridge openings required on a daily basis.
Measures to minimize and mitigate such impacts would be addressed in
community health and safety plans, and by the use of best management
practices.
Measures to minimize and mitigate such impacts would be addressed in
community health and safety plans, and by the use of best management
practices.
Measures to minimize and mitigate such impacts would be addressed in
community health and safety plans, and by the use of best management
practices.
Impacts are the greatest under Alternative 2 due to the project duration
and the volume dredged.
Shorter project duration and smaller volume dredged under
Alternative 3 (compared to Alternative 2) would lessen the impacts.
Potential risk of accidents associated with dredging or processing
activities. In-water accidents associated with dredging or the
construction and operation of DMM Scenario A would be similar, both
in type of accident and frequency to other similar in-water projects. Onland accidents associated with DMM Scenarios B and C could occur
during either construction or operation of the upland processing
facility. Accidents would be typical to those related to the construction
of similar sized industrial facilities, involving a range of hazards
including mechanical, electrical, chemical, material and equipment
handling, falls, etc.
Potential risk of accidents associated with dredging or processing
activities. In-water accidents associated with dredging or the
construction and operation of DMM Scenario A would be similar, both
in type of accident and frequency to other similar in-water projects. Onland accidents associated with DMM Scenarios B and C could occur
during either construction or operation of the upland processing
facility. Accidents would be typical to those related to the construction
of similar sized industrial facilities, involving a range of hazards
including mechanical, electrical, chemical, material and equipment
handling, falls, etc.
Shortest project duration and smallest volume dredged under
Alternative 4 (compared to Alternatives 2 and 3) would lessen the time
of impacts.
Potential risk of accidents associated with dredging or processing
activities. In-water accidents associated with dredging or the
construction and operation of DMM Scenario A would be similar, both
in type of accident and frequency to other similar in-water projects. Onland accidents associated with DMM Scenarios B and C could occur
during either construction or operation of the upland processing
facility. Accidents would be typical to those related to the construction
of similar sized industrial facilities, involving a range of hazards
including mechanical, electrical, chemical, material and equipment
handling, falls, etc.
Measures to minimize and mitigate risks would be addressed in worker
health and safety plans, by the use of best management practices, and
by following OSHA-approved health and safety procedures.
Measures to minimize and mitigate risks would be addressed in worker
health and safety plans, by the use of best management practices, and
by following OSHA-approved health and safety procedures.
Measures to minimize and mitigate risks would be addressed in worker
health and safety plans, the use of best management practices, and by
following OSHA-approved health and safety procedures.
Impacts are the greatest under Alternative 2 due to the project duration
and volume dredged.
Shorter project duration and smaller volume dredged under Alternative
3 (compared to Alternative 2) would lessen the impacts.
Water quality and ecological concerns resulting from resuspension,
contaminant release and residuals related to dredging. Impacts can be
addressed by dredging procedures and backfilling as soon as possible
following dredging.
Water quality and ecological concerns resulting from resuspension,
contaminant release and residuals related to dredging. Impacts can be
addressed by dredging procedures and capping or backfilling as soon as
possible following dredging.
Shortest project duration and smallest volume dredged under
Alternative 4 (compared to Alternatives 2 and 3) would lessen the time
of impacts.
Water quality and ecological concerns resulting from resuspension,
contaminant release and residuals related to dredging. Impacts can be
addressed by dredging procedures and capping as soon as possible
following dredging.
Temporary loss of benthos and habitat for the ecological community in
mudflats, wetlands, and disturbed areas during dredging, until
Temporary loss of benthos and habitat for the ecological community in
mudflats, wetlands, and disturbed areas during dredging, until
Temporary loss of benthos and habitat for the ecological community in
mudflats, wetlands, and disturbed areas during dredging, until
Page 5 of 7
2014
Table 5-4 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
NCP Criterion
Alternative 1- No Action
Alternative 2- Deep Dredging with Backfill Placement
Alternative 3- Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
conditions are restored over time.
conditions are restored over time.
conditions are restored over time.
Under DMM Scenario A, potential water quality and ecological
concerns associated with construction of the CAD and temporary loss
of habitat and benthos while CAD cells are operational. DMM
Scenarios B and C would be developed in an urban developed area with
potentially few environmental impacts. Potential air quality impacts
from thermal treatment process under DMM Scenario C.
Under DMM Scenario A, potential water quality and ecological
concerns associated with construction of the CAD and temporary loss
of habitat and benthos while CAD cells are operational. DMM
Scenarios B and C would be developed in an urban developed area with
potentially few environmental impacts. Potential air quality impacts
from thermal treatment process under DMM Scenario C.
Under DMM Scenario A, potential water quality and ecological
concerns associated with construction of the CAD and temporary loss
of habitat and benthos while CAD cells are operational. DMM
Scenarios B and C would be developed in an urban developed area with
potentially few environmental impacts. Potential air quality impacts
from thermal treatment process under DMM Scenario C.
Impacts are the greatest under Alternative 2 due to the project duration
and volume dredged, extending the recovery period.
Shorter project duration and smaller volume dredged under
Alternative 3 (compared to Alternative 2) would lessen the impacts and
allow for more rapid recovery.
Shortest project duration and smallest volume dredged under
Alternative 4 (compared to Alternatives 2 and 3) would lessen the time
of impacts and allow for more rapid recovery in the areas dredged and
capped.
Surface sediment concentrations at the end of the 30 year period after
construction predicted by computer modeling would remain one to two
orders of magnitude higher than the proposed remediation goals.
Alternative 4 would also not be effective in reaching background levels
for any COPCs and COPECs, except for mercury, whose background
level would just be met in the 2050s. Alternative 4, even in conjunction
with MNR, would not be effective in reaching proposed remediation
goals in the foreseeable future.
Time until Remedial
Response Objectives
are Achieved
Would not satisfy the RAOs and PRGs
over the 30-year model forecast period
or relatively shortly beyond that period.
Surface sediment concentrations at the end of the 30-year period after
construction predicted by computer modeling fluctuate around
proposed remediation goals for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCBs and
mercury, depending on magnitude and frequency of storm events. Total
DDx surface sediment concentrations are predicted to fluctuate at a
level about an order of magnitude higher than the proposed remediation
goal. Surface concentrations are close enough to proposed remediation
goals that Alternative 2, in conjunction with MNR processes, would
achieve those goals in a relatively short time beyond the model
simulation period, as compared to Alternative 4.
Surface sediment concentrations at the end of the 30 year period after
construction predicted by computer modeling fluctuate around
proposed remediation goals for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Total PCBs and
mercury, depending on magnitude and frequency of storm events. Total
DDx surface sediment concentrations are predicted to fluctuate at a
level about an order of magnitude higher than the proposed remediation
goal. Surface concentrations are close enough to proposed remediation
goals that Alternative 3, in conjunction with MNR processes, would
achieve those goals in a relatively short time beyond the model
simulation period, as compared to Alternative 4.
Implementability
Implementable from both technical and
administrative standpoints as it requires
no action.
Alternative 2 can be constructed, operated, and maintained within the
site-specific and technology-specific regulations and constraints.
Alternative 3 can be constructed, operated, and maintained within the
site-specific and technology-specific regulations and constraints.
For DMM Scenario C, multiple treatment passes may be required due
to the amount of fines in the sediment.
For DMM Scenario C, multiple treatment passes may be required due
to the amount of fines in the sediment.
Technical Feasibility
No Action is technically feasible.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Alternative 4- Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
Alternative 4 can be constructed, operated, and maintained within the
site-specific and technology-specific regulations and constraints.
However, Alternative 4 may face some technical difficulties and
administrative hurdles, as described below.
Dredging, treatment, and disposal can be implemented with proper
planning of the logistics and challenges involved in handling the large
volumes of dredged materials. Suitable dewatering, water treatment,
and transfer facilities are expected to be available or can be developed.
Dredging, treatment, and disposal can be implemented with proper
planning of the logistics and challenges involved in handling the large
volumes of dredged materials. Suitable dewatering, water treatment,
and transfer facilities are expected to be available or can be developed.
For DMM Scenario C, multiple treatment passes may be required due
to the amount of fines in the sediment.
Dredging, treatment, and disposal can be implemented with proper
planning of the logistics and challenges involved in handling the large
volumes of dredged materials. Suitable dewatering, water treatment,
and transfer facilities are expected to be available or can be developed.
For DMM Scenario C, multiple treatment passes may be required for
sediment washing to achieve decontamination levels allowable for
beneficial use due to the type of contaminants and the material
characteristics.
For DMM Scenario C, multiple treatment passes may be required for
sediment washing to achieve decontamination levels allowable for
beneficial use due to the type of contaminants and the material
characteristics.
The process of reliably identifying discrete areas that release the most
contaminants into the water column would involve a great degree of
uncertainty given the complex estuarine environment of the FFS Study
Area.
Alternative 3 would be technically more feasible than Alternative 2
because of the smaller volume of sediment and shorter project duration.
For DMM Scenario C, multiple treatment passes may be required for
sediment washing to achieve decontamination levels allowable for
beneficial use due to the type of contaminants and the material
characteristics.
Page 6 of 7
2014
Table 5-4 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
NCP Criterion
Administrative
Feasibility
Alternative 1- No Action
Alternative 2- Deep Dredging with Backfill Placement
Alternative 3- Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
Alternative 4- Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
No Action is administratively feasible.
No administrative difficulties are anticipated in obtaining the necessary
regulatory approvals for sediment removal or backfill placement.
No administrative difficulties are anticipated in obtaining the necessary
regulatory approvals for sediment removal or cap/backfill placement.
No administrative difficulties are anticipated in obtaining the necessary
regulatory approvals for sediment removal or cap placement.
Sediment removal may cause temporary disruption of
commercial/recreational uses and boating access.
Modification (RM1.2 to RM2.2) and deauthorization (RM2.2 to
RM8.3) of the federally-authorized navigation channel would be
necessary under the federal River and Harbors Act, through USACE
administrative procedures and Congressional action.
Deauthorization (RM0 to RM8.3) of the federally-authorized
navigation channel would be necessary under the federal River and
Harbors Act, through USACE administrative procedures and
Congressional action. USACE and Congressional support for
deauthorization of the lower 2.2 miles of the federal navigation channel
is highly uncertain due to studies showing future waterway use
objectives in the lower 2.2 miles of the river (USACE 2010).
DMM Scenario A is likely administratively infeasible due to strong
opposition from the State of New Jersey to construction of a CAD site
in Newark Bay.
Local thermal treatment facility under DMM Scenario C would have to
meet air emission standards.
Sediment removal and capping may cause temporary disruption of
commercial/recreational uses and boating access.
DMM Scenario A is likely administratively infeasible due to strong
opposition from the State of New Jersey to construction of a CAD site
in Newark Bay.
Local thermal treatment facility under DMM Scenario C would have to
meet air emission standards.
Sediment removal and capping may cause temporary disruption of
commercial/recreational uses and boating access.
DMM Scenario A is likely administratively infeasible due to strong
opposition from the State of New Jersey to construction of a CAD site
in Newark Bay.
Local thermal treatment facility under DMM Scenario C would have to
meet air emission standards.
Availability of Services
and Materials
No services or materials required.
Key components of this alternative including: equipment and technical
specialties; treatment, storage, and disposal services; and the expertise
required to install and start-up the process equipment are expected to be
commercially available.
Key components of this alternative, including: equipment and technical
specialties; treatment, storage, and disposal services; and the expertise
required to install and start-up the process equipment are expected to be
commercially available.
Key components of this alternative, including: equipment and technical
specialties; treatment, storage, and disposal services; and the expertise
required to install and start-up the process equipment are expected to be
commercially available.
Cost
The estimated PV is $0.
DMM Scenario A estimated PV cost: $1,341,000,000.
DMM Scenario B estimated PV cost: $3,245,000,000.
DMM Scenario C estimated PV cost: $2,621,000,000.
DMM Scenario A estimated PV cost: $953,000,000.
DMM Scenario B estimated PV cost: $1,731,000,000.
DMM Scenario C estimated PV cost: $1,585,000,000.
DMM Scenario A estimated PV cost: $365,000,000.
DMM Scenario B estimated PV cost: $614,000,000.
DMM Scenario C estimated PV cost: $606,000,000.
A seven percent discount rate was used in calculating the PV.
A seven percent discount rate was used in calculating the PV.
A seven percent discount rate was used in calculating the PV.
Notes: ARARs = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements; CAD = Confined aquatic disposal; COPC = contaminants of potential concern; COPEC = chemicals of potential ecological concern; cy = cubic yards; D/F = Dioxins/furans; DDx = Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane;
DMM = dredged material management; FFS = Focused Feasibility Study; HI = hazard index; HQ = Hazard Quotient; MCY = million cubic yards; MLW = mean low water; MNR = monitored natural recovery; NJDEP = New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; OSHA =
Occupational Safety and Health Act; PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls; PRGs = preliminary remediation goals; PV = present value; RAOs = remedial action objectives; RM = River Mile; TBC = To-be-considered; TCDD = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; TEQ = Toxic Equivalency
Quotient; USACE = United States Army Corps of Engineers; USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 7 of 7
2014
Table 5-5 Sensitivity Analysis for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4
Alternative 2 with
DMM Scenario A: Deep
Dredging with Backfill,
CAD
Baseline Present Value
Alternative 2 with DMM
Alternative 2 with
Scenario C: Deep
DMM Scenario B: Deep
Dredging with Backfill,
Dredging with Backfill,
Local Decontamination
Off-Site Disposal
and Beneficial Use
$1,341,000,000
$3,245,000,000
$2,621,000,000
Alternative 3 with
DMM Scenario A:
Capping with Dredging
for Flooding and
Navigation, CAD
Alternative 3 with
DMM Scenario B:
Capping with Dredging
for Flooding and
Navigation, Off-Site
Disposal
Alternative 3 with DMM
Scenario C: Capping with
Dredging for Flooding
and Navigation, Local
Decontamination and
Beneficial Use
$953,000,000
$1,731,000,000
$1,585,000,000
$365,000,000
$614,000,000
$606,000,000
Alternative 4 with
DMM Scenario A:
Focused Capping with
Dredging for Flooding,
CAD
Alternative 4 with
DMM Scenario B:
Focused Capping with
Dredging for Flooding,
Off-Site Disposal
Alternative 4 with
DMM Scenario B:
Focused Capping with
Dredging for Flooding,
Off-Site Disposal
Cost Sensitivity to Factor 1: Changes in the Proportion of Dewatered Dredged Material Requiring Thermal Destruction Treatment
Double the estimated
percentage of material
requiring thermal treatment
No Impact
Increase PV by
approximately12%
Increase PV by
approximately 7%
No Impact
Increase PV by
approximately 7%
Increase PV by
approximately 2%
No impact
Increase PV by
approximately 1%
Increase PV by
approximately 1%
Cost Sensitivity to Factor 2: Changes in the Volume of Sediment Removed
Increase volume of
material removed by
10 percent
Increase PV by
approximately 2%
Increase PV by
approximately 9%
Increase PV by
approximately 8%
Increase PV by
approximately 2%
Increase PV by
approximately 7%
Increase PV by
approximately 7%
Increase PV by
approximately 1%
Increase PV by
approximately 5%
Increase PV by
approximately 5%
Decrease volume of
material removed by
10 percent
Decrease PV by
approximately 2%
Decrease PV by
approximately 9%
Decrease PV by
approximately 8%
Decrease PV by
approximately 2%
Decrease PV by
approximately 7%
Decrease PV by
approximately 7%
Decrease PV by
approximately 2%
Decrease PV by
approximately 4%
Decrease PV by
approximately 5%
No Impact
No Impact
Increase PV by
approximately 5%
Increase PV by
approximately 3%
Increase PV by
approximately 3%
Increase PV by
approximately 3%
Increase PV by
approximately 3%
Increase PV by
approximately 3%
Cost Sensitivity to Factor 3: Changes in the Thickness of the Engineered Cap
Increase the depth of the
cap by 0.5 foot
No Impact
Cost Sensitivity to Factor 4: Changes in the Discount Rate
Increase the discount rate
to 10 percent
Decrease PV by
approximately 16%
Decrease PV by
approximately 18%
Decrease PV by
approximately 17%
Decrease PV by
approximately 14%
Decrease PV by
approximately 14%
Decrease PV by
approximately 14%
Decrease PV by
approximately 13%
Decrease PV by
approximately 11%
Decrease PV by
approximately 12%
Decrease the discount rate
to 3 percent
Increase PV by
approximately 32%
Increase PV by
approximately 34%
Increase PV by
approximately 33%
Increase PV by
approximately 26%
Increase PV by
approximately 25%
Increase PV by
approximately 25%
Increase PV by
approximately 26%
Increase PV by
approximately 21%
Increase PV by
approximately 21%
Decrease PV by
approximately 5%
Decrease PV by
approximately 2%
Decrease PV by
approximately 3%
Decrease PV by
approximately 3%
No impact
Decrease PV by
approximately 2%
Decrease PV by
approximately 3%
Cost Sensitivity to Factor 5: Changes in the Dredging Productivity Rate
Reduce the productivity of
the dredging/transport of
material by 25 percent
Decrease PV by
approximately 3%
Decrease PV by
approximately 5%
Note:
CAD = Confined Aquatic Disposal; DMM = dredged material management.
PV = present value, see Appendix H.
This analysis is based on the assumption and conceptual design as presented in the FFS and are developed for comparison purposes only. Actual costs and impacts of changes in the cost sensitivity factors may vary substantially based on the final remedial design.
Focused Feasibility Study
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Page 1 of 1
2014
FIGURES
iver
le R
Sad
d
³
Rockland
Passaic
ho
Ho
ku
sB
o
ro
k
Morris
Oradell Dam
r er
pe Riv
p
U aic
ss
Pa
Beatties
Mill Dam
Hacken
sack R
iver
Bergen
Dundee
Dam
B
P
Low
e
14
13assaic Rr
iv
16
er
17
15
12
Riv
on
Hu
ds
r
ive
Ea
s
Queens
2
4
tR
Ma
nh
6
Hudson
3
5
1
Legend
State and County Boundaries
FFS Study Area Boundary
) River Mile
Po
r
tE
liz
a
rk
y
ew
a
Ba
Lower Passaic River Study Area
Qu
tN
Brooklyn
rk
Po
r
be
th
Ne
wa
Dams
Upper
New York
Bay
0
Major Waterbodies
1
2
4
Kil
l
Miles
ur
Van Kull Map
FFS Study Area Kill
Location
Art
h
s:\Projects\Passaic\MapDocuments\Final_FFS_Figures_2013\Figure 1-1_FFSStudyAreaLocationMap.mxd
7
att
an
8
Se
c
Ri o n d
ve
r
Essex
11
er
R
Bronx
9 10
Th
ird
r
ive
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Figure 1-1
Brooklyn
2014
Oradell Dam
c
ai
s
as r
P
r e
pe Riv
p
U
le R
iver
Beatties
Mill Dam
Sad
d
Dundee Dam
USGS Gauge Station
at Little Falls NJ
Bronx
er
Riv
rd
r
ve
be
th
Ea
s
tR
ive
r
att
an
y
Ba
rk
rk
liz
a
Queens
Ne
wa
tE
ew
a
Upper
New York
Bay
Brooklyn
Kill Van Kull
Jamaica
Bay
Staten Island
Lower
New York
Bay
Rockaway
Point
New York Bight
Ri v e r
Legend
r it
an
Ra
s:\Projects\Passaic\MapDocuments\Final_FFS_Figures_2013\Figure 1-2_NYNJHarborEstuaryLocationMap.mxd
Art
h
ur
Kil
l
Po
r
tN
Ma
nh
Hac
Low
e
Po
r
Hu
ds
ken
Riv sack
er
Ri v
r Pa
ssa
ic
Se
c
Ri o n d
ve
r
New Jersey
on
er
i
Th
Ri
USGS Gauge Station
Raritan Bay
Sandy
Hook
0
1.25
2.5
5
Dams
Streams/Rivers
Major Waterbodies
Miles
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Location Map
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Figure 1-2
2014
Legend
Below RM2
Above RM2
Notes
Data Sources: Iannuzzi, et al.,
2002 (refer to Section 7.0
“References” for complete
citation).
The History of Dredging in the Lower Passaic River
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Figure 1-3
2014
!
(
!
(
) ) ) ) ) ) )
)
)
)
Chevron Environmental Management Co. for itself,
Texaco, Inc. and TRMI-H LLC
!
(
Vertellus Specialties, Inc.
!
(
Sun Chemical Corporation
!
(
Ashland Inc
!
(
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co
!
(
!
(
!
(
0
1,000
CNA Holdings LLC
on behalf of Celanese LTD
2,000
Feet
!
(
BASF Corp on behalf of itself and
BASF Catalysts LLC
Elan Chemical Co
) ) ) ) )
!
(
Revere Smelting & Refining
1
Sequa Corporation
Saddle
) )
) )
Leemilt's Petroleum, Inc.,
successor to Power Test of NJ, Inc.
R i ver
!
(!
(
Quality Carriers, Inc.
Croda Inc
³
PSE&G Corp
)
4
!
(
) )
) ) )
) ) ) )
!
(
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
The Newark Group
)
STWB
!
(
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,Inc.
!
(
Covanta
Essex
Company
Covanta
Essex
Company
(
!
(!
(!
!
(
News Publishing Australia, Ltd
Benjamin Moore & Co
2
)
)
)
The Sherwin Williams Co
3
Essex Chemical Corp
!
(
!
(
!
(
Textron Inc
Reichhold, Inc.
Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed, GeoEye
INSET
!
(
!
(
!
(
ISP Chemicals LLC
Purdue Pharma Technologies Inc
Eden Wood Corporation
Note:
Occidental Chemical Corporation, located at
80-120 Lister Avenue, Newark (on the
southern bank of the river near RM3) was a
member of the CPG until 2013.
Hexcel Corp
Wyeth
17
!
(
National-Standard LLC
!
(
16
!
(
14
!
(
Hoffman-La Roche Inc.
on behalf of itself and
Roche Diagnostics
Coats & Clark, Inc.
r
DiLorenzo Properties Company
!
(
!
(
!
(
Novelis Corp, f/k/a Alcan Aluminum Corp.
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(3
(!
(
(!
(!
!
(!
!!
(
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
4
!
(
!
(!
!
(
(
See
!
(
!
(
( !
Inset
!
(
!
(
Coltec Industries Inc
Hess Corporation on behalf of itself and
Atlantic Richfield Co.
Pharmacia Corp, f/k/a Monsanto Company
Newell Rubbermaid, Inc.
1
2
Otis Elevator Co
Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc.
DII Industries, LLC
!
(!
(
6
!
(
The Hartz Consumer Group, Inc.
on behalf of the Hartz Mountain Corporation
CPG Member Locations
Federally Authorized (USACE) Navigation Channel Centerline
Shoreline as Defined by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Arkema Incorporated
5
S:\Projects\passaic\MapDocuments\201207_Locations of CPG Members_Fig1-4.mxd
!
(
!
(
!
(
General Electric Company
!
(
Linde LLC on behalf of
The BOC Group, Inc.
PSE&G Corp
!
(
Teval Corporation
Legend
!
(
7
Coats & Clark, Inc.
2
Miles
Three County Volkswagen
9
8
!
(
!
( con
!
( d Ri
ve
!
(r
!
(
Franklin Burlington Plastics Inc
1
!
(
Belleville Industrial Center
Se
PPG Industries Inc
0.5
Conopco, Inc., d/b/a Unilever
10
!
(
Cooper Industries, LLC
0
Excelis Inc. for itself and
ITT Industries, Inc.
!
(
Seton Tanning
General Electric Company
!
(
11
Tiffany & Company
BASF Catalysts LLC
Garfield Molding Company Inc
Givaudan Fragrances Corp.
!
(
Flexon Industries Corp
KAO U.S.A. Inc.
CBS Corporation
EPEC Polymers Inc.on behalf of itself and
EPEC Oil Company Liquadating Trust
13
R
e
iv
!
(
Newell Rubbermaid on behalf of itself,
Goody Products, and Berol Corporation
!
(
15
12
ird
Th
Coats & Clark, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Honeywell International Inc
!
(
!
(
Mallinckrodt Inc
!
(
Pfizer Inc
Cooper Industries, LLC
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.
BASF Corp on behalf of itself and
BASF Catalysts LLC
McKesson Corporation for itself and
for Safety-Klean Envirosystems, Inc.
Legacy Vulcan Corp.
Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed, GeoEye
Locations of CPG Members
as of July 2012
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Figure 1-4
2014
³
Legend
Shoreline as Defined by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigation Channel Centerline
Tierra Removal Action Areas
Phase 1
Phase 2
3
s:\passaic\mapdocuments\Final_FFS_Figures_2013\Figure2-2 Phase12 Removal Areas.mxd
4
0
500
1,000
2
2,000
Feet
Footprint of the Phase I and Phase II Tierra Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Areas
Figure 1-5
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
³
6
7
BERGEN COUNTY
HUDSON COUNTY
3
5
2
4
ESSEX COUNTY
Legend
1
Project Centerline
Shoreline as Defined by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
County Boundaries
City Boundaries
Rock and Coarse Gravel
Gravel and Sand
Sand
Silt and Sand
Silt
0
0.25
0
Path: S:\Projects\passaic\MapDocuments\Final_FFS_Figures_2014\Figure 1-6 SedimentTexture - base map.mxd
Sediment Type
0.5
Miles
1
Sediment Texture Type – RM0 to RM8
Figure 1-6a
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
13
³
PASSAIC COUNTY
12
Third River
11
10
ESSEX COUNTY
BERGEN COUNTY
Legend
Project Centerline
9
Shoreline as Defined by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
County Boundaries
City Boundaries
Second River
Sediment Type
Gravel and Sand
Sand
Silt and Sand
Silt
8
Path: S:\Projects\passaic\MapDocuments\Final_FFS_Figures_2014\Figure 1-6 SedimentTexture - base map.mxd
Rock and Coarse Gravel
HUDSON COUNTY
0
0.25
0.5
Miles
1
Sediment Texture Type – RM8 to RM13
Figure 1-6b
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
17
³
16
Saddle River
PASSAIC COUNTY
BERGEN COUNTY
14
15
Legend
Project Centerline
Shoreline as Defined by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
County Boundaries
City Boundaries
Sediment Type
Gravel and Sand
Sand
Silt and Sand
Silt
13
Path: S:\Projects\passaic\MapDocuments\Final_FFS_Figures_2014\Figure 1-6 SedimentTexture - base map.mxd
Rock and Coarse Gravel
0
0.15
0.3
Miles
0.6
Sediment Texture Type – RM13 to RM17
Figure 1-6c
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
³
³
Alternative 2
s:\passaic\mapdocuments\Final_FFS_Figures_2013\Figure4-2 Proposed Confined Aquatic Disposal Cells in Newark Bay.mxd
Entrance Channel:
Depth = 25 feet MLW
Width = 150 feet
³
Alternative 3
Entrance Channel:
Depth = 25 feet MLW
Width = 150 feet
Entrance Channel:
Depth = 25 feet MLW
Width = 150 feet
CAD Cell:
Area = 17 acres
Dimensions = 1000 x 750 feet
CAD Cell:
Area = 38 acres
Dimensions = 1500 x 1100 feet
CAD Cell:
Area = 55 acres
Dimensions = 1500 x 1600 feet
Alternative 4
Legend
CAD Cell Entrance Channel
CAD Cell
Federally Authorized Navigation Channel
Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed,
Channel Top of Slope
(Approximate)
GeoEye
Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed,
GeoEye
0 0.252013
0.5ESRI, i-cubed,
1
Copyright:©
Miles
GeoEye
Proposed Confined Aquatic Disposal Cells in Newark Bay
Figure 4-1
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
8
³
7
6
3
5
2
4
1
Legend
Shoreline as Defined by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Federally Authorized (USACE) Navigation Channel Centerline
Alternative 4 Capping Area
0
0.25
0.5
1
Miles
0
Capping Area for Alternative 4
Figure 4-2
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
Fish Consumption
2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (µg/kg)
1
Legend
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
Human Health PRGs
0
56 Fish Meals per year:
Risk = 10-6
0
1995
2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (µg/kg)
1
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Crab Consumption
1
Risk = 10-4
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
1995
HQ = 1 (Proposed
Remediation Goal)
34 Crab Meals per year:
Risk = 10-6
Risk = 10-4
HQ = 1
0
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Time (Years)
Average Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs
(Linear Scale)
Figure 4-3a
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
Fish Consumption
2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (µg/kg)
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
0.0001
0.0001
0.00001
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Crab Consumption
10
Human Health PRGs
56 Fish Meals per year:
Risk = 10-6
Risk = 10-4
10
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
0.0001
0.0001
0.00001
1995
Legend
1
0.1
0.00001
1995
2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (µg/kg)
10
HQ = 1 (Proposed
Remediation Goal)
34 Crab Meals per year:
Risk = 10-6
Risk = 10-4
HQ = 1
0.00001
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Time (Years)
Average Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs
(Log Scale)
Figure 4-3b
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
10
10
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (µg/kg)
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001
1995
10
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
Alternative 1 and Alternative 3
0.001
2060
10
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001
1995
10
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
0.001
2060
10
Legend
Alternative 1 Uncertainty
Bounds
Alternative 2 Uncertainty
Bounds
Alternative 3 Uncertainty
Bounds
Alternative 4 Uncertainty
Bounds
Alternative 1
Best Estimate
Alternative 2
Best Estimate
Alternative 3
Best Estimate
Alternative 4
Best Estimate
Proposed Remediation
Goal
Alternative 1 and Alternative 4
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.001
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
0.001
2060
Time (Years)
Average Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area: Best
Estimate and Uncertainty Bounds
Figure 4-3c
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
Fish Consumption
Total PCB Concentration (µg/kg)
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
1995
0
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Crab Consumption
2500
Total PCB Concentration (µg/kg)
2500
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
1995
Legend
Human Health PRGs
56 Fish Meals per year:
Risk = 10-6
Risk = 10-4
HQ = 1 (Proposed
Remediation Goal)
34 Crab Meals per year:
Risk = 10-6
Risk = 10-4
HQ = 1
0
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Time (Years)
Average Concentrations of Total PCB in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs
(Linear Scale)
Figure 4-3d
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
Fish Consumption
Total PCB Concentration (µg/kg)
10000
1000
1000
100
100
10
10
1
1995
1
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Crab Consumption
10000
Total PCB Concentration (µg/kg)
10000
10000
1000
1000
Legend
Human Health PRGs
56 Fish Meals per year:
Risk = 10-6
Risk = 10-4
HQ = 1 (Proposed
Remediation Goal)
34 Crab Meals per year:
Risk = 10-6
Risk = 10-4
100
100
10
10
1
1995
HQ = 1
1
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Time (Years)
Average Concentrations of Total PCB in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs
(Log Scale)
Figure 4-3e
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
10000
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
1000
10000
1000
100
100
Legend
Alternative 1 Uncertainty
Bounds
Alternative 2 Uncertainty
Bounds
Total PCB Concentration (µg/kg)
Alternative 3 Uncertainty
Bounds
10
1995
10000
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
Alternative 1 and Alternative 3
10
2060
10000
Alternative 4 Uncertainty
Bounds
Alternative 1
Best Estimate
1000
1000
100
100
Alternative 2
Best Estimate
Alternative 3
Best Estimate
Alternative 4
Best Estimate
10
1995
10000
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
10
2060
10000
Proposed Remediation
Goal
Alternative 1 and Alternative 4
1000
1000
100
100
10
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
10
2060
Time (Years)
Average Concentrations of Total PCB in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area: Best Estimate
and Uncertainty Bounds
Figure 4-3f
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
Total DDx Concentration (µg/kg)
250
250
200
200
150
150
100
100
0
1995
Total DDx Concentration (µg/kg)
50
50
0
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
1000
1000
100
100
10
10
1
1
0.1
1995
Legend
(Proposed
Remediation Goal)
Note: Human Health PRGs
were not calculated for
Total DDX because it does
not contribute significantly
to human health risk.
0.1
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Time (Years)
Average Concentrations of Total DDx in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs
(Linear and Log Scale)
Figure 4-3g
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
Total DDx Concentration (µg/kg)
1000
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
1000
100
100
10
10
1
1
0.1
1995
1000
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
0.1
2060
1000
Alternative 1 and Alternative 3
100
100
10
10
1
1
0.1
1995
1000
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
0.1
2060
1000
Legend
Alternative 1 Uncertainty
Bounds
Alternative 2 Uncertainty
Bounds
Alternative 3 Uncertainty
Bounds
Alternative 4 Uncertainty
Bounds
Alternative 1
Best Estimate
Alternative 2
Best Estimate
Alternative 3
Best Estimate
Alternative 4
Best Estimate
Proposed Remediation
Goal
Alternative 1 and Alternative 4
100
100
10
10
1
1
0.1
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
0.1
2060
Time (Years)
Average Concentrations of Total DDx in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area: Best Estimate
and Uncertainty Bounds
Figure 4-3h
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
Fish Consumption
Mercury Concentration (µg/kg)
4000
3500
3500
3000
3000
2500
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
1995
0
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Crab Consumption
4000
Mercury Concentration (µg/kg)
4000
4000
3500
3500
3000
3000
2500
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
1995
Legend
(Proposed
Remediation Goal)
Human Health PRGs
56 Fish Meals per year:
HQ = 1
34 Crab Meals per year:
HQ = 1
Note: 34 Crab Meals per year
PRG at the HQ = 1 threshold is
not shown in the figure
because the concentration is
45000 µg/kg.
0
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Time (Years)
Average Concentrations of Mercury in Surface Sediments in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs
(Linear Scale)
Figure 4-3i
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
Fish Consumption
Mercury Concentration (µg/kg)
100000
10000
10000
1000
1000
100
100
10
1995
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Crab Consumption
100000
Mercury Concentration (µg/kg)
100000
10
100000
10000
10000
1000
1000
100
100
10
1995
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
Legend
(Proposed
Remediation Goal)
Human Health PRGs
56 Fish Meals per year:
HQ = 1
34 Crab Meals per year:
HQ = 1
10
Time (Years)
Average Concentrations of Mercury in Surface Sediments in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Log
Scale)
Figure 4-3j
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
10000
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
1000
10000
1000
100
100
Legend
Alternative 1 Uncertainty
Bounds
Alternative 2 Uncertainty
Bounds
Mercury Concentration (µg/kg)
Alternative 3 Uncertainty
Bounds
10
1995
10000
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
10
2060
10000
Alternative 1 and Alternative 3
Alternative 4 Uncertainty
Bounds
Alternative 1
Best Estimate
1000
1000
100
100
Alternative 2
Best Estimate
Alternative 3
Best Estimate
Alternative 4
Best Estimate
10
1995
10000
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
10
2060
10000
Proposed Remediation
Goal
Alternative 1 and Alternative 4
1000
1000
100
100
10
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
10
2060
Time (Years)
Average Concentrations of Mercury in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area: Best Estimate
and Uncertainty Bounds
Figure 4-3k
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
Legend
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
350
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
2,3,7,8-TCDD Cumulative Flux (g)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Year
Cumulative Flux (from 2030) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at Newark Bay Passaic River Boundary at RM0.9
Figure 4-4a
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
Legend
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
700
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Total PCB Cumulative Flux (kg)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Year
Cumulative Flux (from 2030) of Total PCBs at Newark Bay Passaic River Boundary at RM0.9
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Figure 4-4b
2014
Legend
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
80
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
70
Total DDx Cumulative Flux (kg)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Year
Cumulative Flux (from 2030) of Total 4,4'-DDx at Newark Bay Passaic River Boundary at RM0.9
Figure 4-4c
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
Legend
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
900
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
800
Mercury Cumulative Flux (kg)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Year
Cumulative Flux (from 2030) of Mercury at Newark Bay Passaic River Boundary at RM0.9
Figure 4-4d
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014
³
TRANSECT R
TRANSECT Q2
30
20
20
10
R
0
-10
-20
Q
-30
Railroad Crossing
-40
-50
R'
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
10
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
Map Legend
30
0
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
30
20
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
10
P
0
-10
-20
-30
Kearny
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
Navigation Channel River Mile Designation
(per Federal Channel centerline)
Political Boundary - Municipalities
Utilities (by Location)
Submerged
Overhead Cable Lines
Tierra Removal - Phase 1 and Phase 2
(removed under separate action)
0
-10
Unknown
-20
-30
Section Legend
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
Authorized Navigation Channel Lateral Limits
(1)
Approximate Removal Depth
Existing Sediment Surface (2004)
Future Use Depth of Navigation Channel
MLW = 0
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
7+00
30
20
10
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
O
TRANSECT N
30
20
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
10
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
0
-10
TRANSECT O1
-20
-30
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
20
7+00
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
-50
30
N
-40
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
TRANSECT M
30
Railroad Crossing
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
10
0
M
-20
TRANSECT G
TRANSECT H
30
-40
20
20
-50
10
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
I-280 West
I-280 East
Newark
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
7+00
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
NJ
-30
G
-40
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
H
7+00
Ra
K
30
d
oa
ilr
C
ss
ro
-10
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
Jackson St.
0
I
-20
-30
-40
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
1+00
1+50
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
TRANSECT I
10
1+50
0+50
0+00
g
in
20
1+00
0+00
Harrison
TRANSECT K
0+50
F
J
7+00
TRANSECT E
E
30
30
20
20
10
10
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
1+50
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
0+00
-50
20
-20
-50
-40
30
-10
1+00
-30
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
0
0+50
-20
TRANSECT F1
Ra
10
0+00
-10
ng
npi
ke
Tur
L
20
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
7+00
0
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
30
-50
10
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
Street
Bridge
TRANSECT L
1+50
20
Cr o
ssi
1+00
30
ilro
ad
0+50
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
0+00
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
30
Central Ave
-30
TRANSECT F2
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
East Newark
-10
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
Political Boundary - Counties
10
TRANSECT O2
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
Bridges and Bridge Abutments
Tidal Mudflats
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
Federally Authorized Navigation Channel
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigation Channel Centerline
TRANSECT Q1
20
Debris Targets (Sunken Cars)
-30
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
30
j
Proposed Extent of Dredging
-20
7+00
TRANSECT P
Transects
Shoreline as Defined by NJDEP
-10
0
US 1
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
US 1
T ru
Rou ck
te
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
D
TRANSECT J1
30
20
10
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\FFS_Final_Figures_2013\Figure4-19_Conceptual Design for Alternative 2-Deep Dredging With Backfill.mxd
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
500 1,000
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
7+00
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
Notes on Data Sources
Debris Targets - Digitized from June 2006 Geophysical Survey by Aqua Survey, Inc.
Utilities - Combined NOAA electronic navigational data; Digitized by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. from NJDOT
hard copy maps.
Bridge and Bridge Abutments - NOAA electronic navigation data
Federal Navigation Channel - USACE
Lower Passaic River Centerline - Generated by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. based on Federal Channel.
Shoreline - NJDEP
Existing Sediment Surface - 2004 USACE Bathymetry
Mudflats - NOAA
Acronyms
ft - feet
MLW - Mean Low Water as defined by USACE
NJDEP - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NJDOT - New Jersey Department of Transportation
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers
Section Notes
Where vertical removal cuts are shown and competent bulkhead structures are not present,
slope stabilization measures are required.
(1) Approximate Removal Depth: Represents the targeted removal elevation plus overdredging
allowance. In areas of armor placement or mudflat reconstruction, additional removal will be necessary
and is included in the volume calculations (see Appendix G).
0
10
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
C
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
TRANSECT C
30
20
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
0+50
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
B
TRANSECT B
TRANSECT A
30
20
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
0+00
30
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
20
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
30
-50
TRANSECT D
30
10
20
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
A
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
TRANSECT J2
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
5+00
5+50
6+00
Jersey City
2,000
Feet
Conceptual Design for Alternative 2: Deep Dredging With Backfill
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
6+50
Figure 4-5
2014
7+00
³
TRANSECT R
Map Legend
30
20
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
R
TRANSECT P
30
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
20
Q
Railroad Crossing
10
0
R'
-10
8
Shoreline as defined by NJDEP
10
0
-20
7
-30
-40
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
-30
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
TRANSECT Q
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
30
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
20
10
Kearny
0
10
-20
0
-10
-20
-40
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
-40
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
Utilities (by Location)
Submerged
Overhead Cable Lines
Unknown
Authorized Navigation Channel Lateral Limits
Top of Cap
(1)
Approximate Removal Depth
Existing Sediment Surface (2004)
Future Use Depth of Navigation Channel
MLW = 0
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
0+50
Political Boundary - Counties
Section Legend
-30
-30
-50
0+00
Political Boundary - Municipalities
Tierra Removal - Phase 1 and Phase 2
(removed under separate action)
-50
0+00
-10
Navigation Channel River Mile Designation
(per Federal Channel centerline)
Armor Areas
20
TRANSECT O
Bridges and Bridge Abutments
Tidal Mudflats
30
P
Debris Targets (Sunken Cars)
Federally Authorized Navigation Channel
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigation Channel Centerline
-40
-50
j
Proposed Extent of Cap or Backfill
-10
-50
0+00
-20
Transects
O
7
TRANSECT N
30
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
20
j
10
0
-10
-20
N
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
j
TRANSECT M
j
j
30
Railroad Crossing
-10
-20
Central Ave
-30
6
-40
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
I-280 West
I-280 East
j
Newark
30
30
20
20
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
7+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
npi
ke
6+50
7+00
j
-20
G
-30
F
-40
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
H
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
R
K
30
5
20
10
ad
l ro
i
a
g
in
j
j
j4
I
-30
J
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
10
2
0
-10
20
20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
10
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
US 1
T ru
Rou ck
te
7+00
-30
-40
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
0+50
1+00
1+50
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
TRANSECT D1
30
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
C
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
TRANSECT C1
1
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
B
TRANSECT B
30
TRANSECT A
20
10
30
0
20
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
6+50
7+00
A0
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
500 1,000
7+00
-20
-50
0+00
20
Notes on Data Sources
Debris Targets - Digitized from June 2006 Geophysical Survey by Aqua Survey, Inc.
Utilities - Combined NOAA electronic navigational data; Digitized by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. from NJDOT
hard copy maps.
Bridge and Bridge Abutments - NOAA electronic navigation data
Federal Navigation Channel - USACE
Lower Passaic River Centerline - Generated by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. based on Federal Channel.
Shoreline - NJDEP
Existing Sediment Surface - 2004 USACE Bathymetry
Mudflats - NOAA
Acronyms
ft - feet
MLW - Mean Low Water as defined by USACE
NJDEP - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NJDOT - New Jersey Department of Transportation
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers
Section Notes
Where vertical removal cuts are shown and competent bulkhead structures are not present,
slope stabilization measures are required.
(1) Approximate Removal Depth: Represents the targeted removal elevation plus overdredging
allowance. In areas of armor placement or mudflat reconstruction, additional removal will be necessary
and is included in the volume calculations (see Appendix G).
0
6+50
30
30
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
0+50
6+00
-10
TRANSECT C2
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
0+00
5+50
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
-50
US 1
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
30
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
30
-40
5+00
0
TRANSECT I
TRANSECT J
-30
4+50
TRANSECT D2
-20
D
-20
4+00
20
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
-10
3+50
20
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
0
3+00
E
7+00
10
2+50
30
j
-20
2+00
10
-50
0+00
TRANSECT H
0
-10
1+50
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
Jackson St.
TRANSECT K
C
ss
ro
1+00
Harrison
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
1+50
0+50
20
3
-10
1+00
-40
30
0
0+50
-30
TRANSECT E1
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
10
-50
0+00
-20
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
Ra
NJ
Tur
L
20
s:\projects\passaic\MapDocuments\Final_FFS_Figures_2013\Figure 4-20_Conceptual Design for Alternative 3 - CApping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
6+00
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
30
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
5+50
-10
ng
TRANSECT L
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
5+00
0
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
Street
Bridge
2+50
10
-50
0+00
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
1+00
30
Cr o
ssi
0+50
TRANSECT E2
ilro
ad
-50
0+00
TRANSECT F
TRANSECT G
East Newark
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
j
j
j
M
0
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
10
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (FEET)
20
Jersey City
2,000
Feet
Conceptual Design for Alternative 3:
Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Figure 4-6
2014
7+00
³
Map Legend
Shoreline as defined by NJDEP
TRANSECT II
JJ
30
10
20
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
8
R'
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
7
10
0
-10
-30
-50
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
10
-10
-20
TRANSECT HH2
-30
-40
30
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
20
7+00
7
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
Submerged
Overhead Cable Lines
Unknown
Proposed Cap Lateral Extent
Top of Cap
(1)
Approximate Removal Depth
Existing Sediment Surface (2004)
Future Use Depth of Navigation Channel
MLW = 0
0
2+50
Utilities (by Location)
Section Legend
Kearny
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
20
2+00
Political Boundary - Counties
Tierra Removal - Phase 1 and Phase 2
(removed under separate action)
30
1+50
Political Boundary - Municipalities
Armor Areas
TRANSECT HH1
1+00
Navigation Channel River Mile Designation
(per Federal Channel centerline)
Tidal Mudflats
II
0+50
Bridges and Bridge Abutments
-40
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
0+00
Debris Targets (Sunken Cars)
Proposed Extent of Cap
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigation Channel Centerline
-20
0+00
-50
j
Federally Authorized Navigation Channel
30
Railroad Crossing
20
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
TRANSECT JJ
Transects
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
j
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
HH
j
j
j
TRANSECT GG2
Railroad Crossing
TRANSECT CC2
30
20
East Newark
Central Ave
6
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
30
20
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
I-280 West
I-280 East
j
TRANSECT EE
30
10
-10
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
7+00
-30
-40
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
ng
10
npi
ke
0
-10
-20
TRANSECT CC1
30
20
-30
-40
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
CC
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-30
-50
DD
-40
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
R
5
ad
l ro
i
a
C
ss
ro
g
in
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
EE
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
TRANSECT BB2
Harrison
FF
j
j
0+00
30
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
0+50
j4
Jackson St.
0+00
6+50
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
-20
-20
-50
6+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
-50
j
0
1+00
3
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
20
0+50
Ra
GG
0+00
Tur
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
TRANSECT GG1
-40
-50
0+00
20
-30
-10
-50
30
Street
Bridge
0
-20
NJ
Newark
10
-10
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
-30
0
Cr o
ssi
-20
TRANSECT DD
10
ilro
ad
0
-10
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
10
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
30
j
j
j
20
j
20
10
0
-10
2
-20
US 1
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
US 1
T ru
Rou ck
te
TRANSECT FF2
30
10
30
0
-40
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
30
0
20
-10
TRANSECT AA
-20
-30
30
-40
-50
0+00
20
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
s:\projects\passaic\MapDocuments\Final_FFS_Figures_2013\Figure 4-20_Conceptual Design for Alternative 3 - CApping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
-30
10
Notes on Data Sources
Debris Targets - Digitized from June 2006 Geophysical Survey by Aqua Survey, Inc.
Utilities - Combined NOAA electronic navigational data; Digitized by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. from NJDOT
hard copy maps.
Bridge and Bridge Abutments - NOAA electronic navigation data
Federal Navigation Channel - USACE
Lower Passaic River Centerline - Generated by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. based on Federal Channel.
Shoreline - NJDEP
Existing Sediment Surface - 2004 USACE Bathymetry
Mudflats - NOAA
Acronyms
ft - feet
MLW - Mean Low Water as defined by USACE
NJDEP - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NJDOT - New Jersey Department of Transportation
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
USACE - United States Army Corps of Engineers
Section Notes
Where vertical removal cuts are shown and competent bulkhead structures are not present,
slope stabilization measures are required. Some transects have upstream and downstream cross
sections because of the capping footprint geometry.
(1) Approximate Removal Depth: Represents the targeted removal elevation plus overdredging
allowance. In areas of armor placement or mudflat reconstruction, additional removal will be necessary
and is included in the volume calculations (see Appendix G).
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
-20
-50
TRANSECT BB1
20
-10
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
DEPTH RELATIVE TO MLW (ft)
BB
TRANSECT FF1
20
10
10
0
-10
-20
-30
0
-40
-10
-50
0+00
-20
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
-30
-40
-50
0+00
0+50
1+00
1+50
2+00
2+50
3+00
3+50
4+00
4+50
5+00
DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)
5+50
6+00
6+50
7+00
AA
1
0
Jersey City
0
500 1,000
2,000
Feet
Conceptual Design for Alternative 4:
Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Figure 4-7
2014
Legend
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (µg/kg)
Alternative 4
RM8 to RM17
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
1995
0
2005
2015
2025
2035
Time (Years)
2045
2055
Average Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment (Top 15 cm) between RM8
and RM17 in the Lower Passaic River
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Figure 5-1a
2014
Legend
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
RM8 to RM17
Total PCB Concentration (µg/kg)
1800
1800
1600
1600
1400
1400
1200
1200
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
1995
0
2005
2015
2025
2035
Time (Years)
2045
2055
Average Concentrations of Total PCB in Surface Sediment (Top 15 cm) between RM8 and RM17
in the Lower Passaic River
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Figure 5-1b
2014
Legend
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
RM8 to RM17
Total DDx Concentration (µg/kg)
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
1995
0
2005
2015
2025
2035
Time (Years)
2045
2055
Average Concentrations of Total DDx in Surface Sediment (Top 15 cm) between RM8
and RM17 in the Lower Passaic River
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
Figure 5-1c
2014
Legend
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
RM8 to RM17
Mercury Concentration (µg/kg)
2500
2500
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0
1995
0
2005
2015
2025
2035
Time (Years)
2045
2055
Average Concentrations of Mercury in Surface Sediment (Top 15 cm) between RM8 and RM17
in the Lower Passaic River
Figure 5-1d
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
2014