Cleaning Up the
Lower Passaic River
An Overview of the Options for Cleaning up Contaminated Sediment
in the Lower Eight Miles
May 2014
The Proposed Plan and the Focused Feasibility Study
report have a considerable amount of detail on the
cleanup options that were considered.
They are available at www.ourpassaic.org
In early 2015 the EPA expects to make a decision
about how to clean up the sediment of the lower eight
miles of the Passaic after considering public comments
on the Proposed Plan. After completion of the on-going
study of the 17-mile, tidal stretch of the Lower Passaic
the EPA expects to propose a plan that addresses the
entire Lower Passaic River.
Evaluating Cleanup Options
The EPA conducted a multi-year “Focused Feasibility
Study” of an eight mile section of the Lower Passaic
River. The study evaluated three cleanup options (also
referred to as “Remedial Alternatives”) to address
contaminated sediment in this area of the river, as
well as a fourth option of taking no action. Information
collected during a larger
The Passaic River’s
study of the entire 17-mile
Polluted Past fact
stretch of the Lower Passaic
sheet contains
River, from Newark Bay to
an overview of
the Dundee Dam in Garfield,
the problems
which is ongoing, showed that
and the Remedial
contaminated sediment in the
Investigation
lower eight miles, as deep as
Report for the
15 feet, is a major source of
lower eight miles
contamination to the rest of
provides details
the river and Newark Bay.
on the history and
On April 11, 2014, the EPA
nature and extent
issued for public review
of contamination.
and comment a “Proposed
Plan” outlining the Agency’s preferred cleanup plan for
the lower eight miles of the river. The EPA’s preferred
cleanup plan is “Capping with Dredging for Flooding
& Navigation” with “Off-Site Disposal of Dredged
Materials”, described in the Focused Feasibility Study
and Proposed Plan as “Alternative 3 with Dredged
Materials Management Scenario B.”
Cleanups under Superfund must protect human health
and the environment. A cleanup option is considered
protective if it reduces current and potential future risks
associated with the pathways by which people and
wildlife are, or will be, exposed to site contaminants to
acceptable levels.
The EPA uses nine criteria to evaluate cleanup options.
Page 26 of the Proposed Plan provides more details about these criteria
Superfund Remedy Evaluation Criteria
1
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
2
3
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements
4
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of
Contaminants through Treatment
5
6
7
8
9
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Short-term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
www.ourpassaic.org
1
Elements Common to Cleanup Options
All of the cleanup options (i.e., options other than
“No Action”) contain some common elements:
Dredging. Refers to the method for removing sediment
from the river bottom. “Mechanical” and “Hydraulic” are two
common types of dredging. The actual method used would
be decided during the design.
Capping/Backfilling. Refer to the method of covering the
river bed to isolate the contaminated sediment from the food
chain. Cap and backfill material both typically consist of
coarse-grained sand acquired locally. Backfill refers to sand
placed on the river bed after dredging that is intended to
mitigate the impact of remaining contaminated sediment and
would not be maintained after placement. An engineered
cap is a physical barrier constructed primarily of sand and
stone that would be placed over the dredged areas to
protect against erosion or other physical disturbances and
would be maintained in perpetuity.
Fish Consumption Advisories. The New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) fish and crab
consumption advisories currently in place would continue
under all of the alternatives. Enhanced outreach efforts
would be conducted in municipalities on both shores of the
Passaic River to educate community members about the
advisories and to emphasize that they will remain in place
during and after cleanup until cleanup goals are reached.
Controls to Protect the Cap Following Cleanup.
Cleanup options which rely on an engineered cap for
protectiveness require additional institutional controls to
maintain cap integrity in perpetuity. Such controls might
include: prohibitions on anchoring vessels, restrictions
on dredging except in the federally-authorized navigation
channel, and/or bulkhead maintenance agreements or
deed restrictions.
Dredged Material Management (DMM). Refers to the
method for disposing of contaminated sediment after being
dredged from the river. Scenario A: A confined aquatic
disposal (CAD) site in Newark Bay is a pit dug in the tight
clay bottom of the bay into which dredged sediment can
be disposed. After the pit is filled, an engineered cap would
be placed over it to isolate the dredged sediment from the
bay. Scenario B: Off-site disposal would involve barging the
dredged sediment to a facility on the shores of the Passaic
River or Newark Bay to be dewatered, loaded onto trains
and sent to incinerators and landfills in the U.S. or Canada.
Scenario C: Decontamination would involve barging the
dredged sediment to a facility on the shores of the Passaic
River or Newark Bay to be treated through technologies
that would separate the sediment particles from the
contaminants. The contaminants would be disposed of in
landfills in the U.S. or Canada and the cleaner sediment
particles could be beneficially re-used.
2
www.ourpassaic.org
Cleanup Options
(Remedial Alternatives)
Four alternatives were evaluated by EPA:
Alternative 1: No Action.
The Superfund program requires that the No
Action alternative be considered as a baseline
for comparison with the other remedial
alternatives. Alternative 1 would not result in
any risk reduction for people who consume
fish and crabs, therefore this alternative
fails to meet the protectiveness standard for
Superfund cleanups.
Alternative 2: Deep Dredging with
Backfill and Alternative 3: Capping
with Dredging for Flooding and
Navigation.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are considered to be
protective because the risk of people getting
cancer from consuming fish and crabs
would be reduced by ten times after cleanup
and monitoring would be implemented to
make sure that contaminant concentrations
continue to go down towards protective
goals. Approximately 10 years after
construction, EPA could recommend that
NJDEP start relaxing the stringency of fish
and crab consumption advisories to allow
one fish meal per month, as opposed to the
current advisory of eat none.
Alternative 4: Focused Capping with
Dredging for Flooding.
Alternative 4 is not considered to be
protective because dredging and capping only
220 out of 650 acres in the lower eight miles
is unlikely to lead to substantial decreases
in concentrations of major contaminants
and the risk of people getting cancer from
consuming fish and crabs would continue for
the forseeable future.
Key Features of Cleanup Options (Alternatives)
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Brief Description
Deep Dredging with Backfill
is a bank-to-bank cleanup
with dredging all 9.7 million
cubic yards of contaminated
fine-grained sediment in the
lower eight miles followed by
placement of two foot thick
layer of backfill.
Capping with Dredging for
Flooding and Navigation is a
cleanup with placement of a
two foot thick bank-to-bank
engineered cap (or backfill)
in the lower eight miles.
The cap would be placed
after dredging 4.3 million
cubic yards of contaminated
fine grained sediment to
avoid additional flooding
and accommodate use of
navigation channel.
Focused Capping with
Dredging for Flooding is
a cleanup over discrete
areas that release the most
contaminants into the water
in the lower eight miles. A
two foot thick engineered cap
would be placed over these
areas after dredging 1 million
cubic yards of contaminated
fine-grained sediment to avoid
additional flooding.
Federally Authorized
Navigation Channel.
The channel between River
Mile 0 and River Mile 8.3
would be restored.
Continued use from River Mile
0 to River Mile 2.2. Modification
from River Mile 1.2 to River Mile
2.2. De-authorization from
River Mile 2.2 to River Mile 8.3.
No dredging to accommodate
channel. De-authorization
between River Mile 0 and
River Mile 8.3.
Cost with CAD
$1.34 billion
$0.95 billion
$0.37 billion
Cost with Off-Site
Disposal
$3.25 billion
Cost with Sediment
Decontamination
$2.62 billion
$1.59 billion
$0.61 billion
Volume Dredged
9.7 million cubic yards
4.3 million cubic yards
1 million cubic yards
Area Dredged /
Capped/ Backfilled
650 acres
650 acres
220 acres
Estimated Volume
contained with CAD
9.7 million cubic yards in
CAD cells
4.3 million cubic yards in
CAD cells
1 million cubic yards
in CAD cells
Estimated Volume
Treated/Landfilled
with Off-Site Disposal
10% incinerated
90% landfilled
Estimated Volume
Treated/Landfilled
with Sediment
Decontamination
10% thermal treatment
88% sediment washing
2% solidification
7% thermal treatment
92% sediment washing
1% solidification
4% thermal treatment
94% sediment washing
2% solidification
Construction Time
11 years
5 years
2 years
Cancer Risk
Reduction
By a factor of 10 to reach
protective levels 30 years after
construction
By a factor of 10 to reach
protective levels 30 years after
construction
By half but would not reach
protective levels 30 years after
construction
Non-Cancer Hazard
Reduction
Not enough to meet
protective levels 30 years after
construction
Not enough to meet
protective levels 30 years after
construction
Not enough to meet
protective levels 30 years after
construction
NJDEP Fish
Consumption
Advisories
May be able to relax stringency May be able to relax stringency Would not be able to relax
10 years after construction
10 years after construction
stringency in foreseeable future
In-River Cap
Protection Controls
There is no cap
$1.73 billion
7% incinerated
93% landfilled
Maintained in perpetuity
$0.61 billion
4% incinerated
96% landfilled
Maintained in perpetuity
River Miles are depicted on the map on the reverse side.
www.ourpassaic.org
3
10
Authorized and 9Proposed Navigation
Channel Dimensions
EPA’s Preferred Cleanup Plan:
Capping with Dredging for Flooding
and Navigation with Off-Site Disposal
of Dredged Materials
14
15
Despite fish and shellfish advisories warning against
eating local fish and shellfish, some people ignore the
advisories or are unaware of them and catch and eat
local fish and crab out of cultural practice or to put food
on the table for their families.
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
³
8
15
Alternative
2
14
7
13
13
The EPA’s cleanup proposal would:
6
12
11
5
2
4
2.Reduce the risks to wildlife by reducing
the concentrations of contaminants in
10 miles.
the sediment of the lower eight
10
3.Reduce the migration of contaminated
sediment from the lower eight
miles to
9
upstream portions of the Lower Passaic
River and to Newark Bay and the New
York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary.
³
3
1.Reduce cancer risks and non-cancer 1
2
health hazards for people eating fish and
shellfish by reducing the concentrations
11 of the
of contaminants in the sediment
lower eight miles.
1
Depth
9
Numbers in orange refer to river miles
0
Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed, GeoEye
8
8
Alternative 3
Authorized and Proposed Navigation
Lower Eight Miles of the Lo
Off-site Disposal Process
1
Dredging
7
Off-site
Disposal
7
6
5
6
3
5
Dewatered
material for
4
offsite treatment/
disposal
6
3
2
Water
Treatment2
Plant
Scow Transport
SEDIMENT
Hydraulic Offloading
Dewatering
2
4
0
Depth of Navigation Channel
Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed, GeoEye
www.ourpassaic.org
5
*There would be no navigation
channel maintained above RM2.2
WATER
14
3
4
(Feet
10
16
20
25
30
(Feet below Mean Low Water)
10
16
20
25
30
Authorized and Proposed Navigation Channel Dimensions
Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River
1
0
Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed, GeoEye
2014