1.0
INTRODUCTION
The following document discusses the results of an initial geochemical analysis of
historical sediment data and presents components of a preliminary conceptual site model
(CSM) for the Lower Passaic River. This geochemical analysis is a continuation of the
historical data evaluation conducted by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. in 2004. (Refer to the Work
Plan (Malcolm Pirnie, 2005) for more detail on the study area boundaries, site
background, and site characterization.)
This memorandum provides information on the nature and extent of contamination in the
Lower Passaic River and describes observations related to the fate and transport of
selected contaminants between the Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay and the
Hudson-Raritan Estuary. These geochemical observations will lay the foundation for the
geochemical CSM. Other CSMs, such as those figures presented in the Pathways
Analysis Report (Battelle, 2005), are focused on human health and ecological risk
assessments. While these figures were started with different emphases, they will
eventually be reconciled into one comprehensive picture of the Lower Passaic River as
the project progresses (see Section 3.2.1 “Conceptual Site Model” of the Work Plan).
The rest of section 1.0 provides a general overview of the historical data evaluation and
geochemical analysis; section 2.0 describes the methodology and data analysis; section
3.0 describes the geochemical results and observations; section 4.0 provides important
observations to support components of a preliminary CSM; and section 5.0 provides
recommendations for future work. It is anticipated that the CSM will continue to evolve
as more data are evaluated; hence, this memorandum summarizes our progress to date
and should not be considered a complete work.
1.1
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL DATA EVALUATION
This geochemical analysis examined historical sediment data (collected from 1990 to
2000) for the following chemicals (note that these chemicals represent a range of
geochemical parameters and are among the more frequently detected compounds in the
historical data set):
•
•
•
•
•
•
1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2-bis-(p-chloro phenyl)ethane (DDT) and its metabolites.
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD).
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Mercury.
Cesium-137 (Cs-137).
Lead-210 (Pb-210).
Since the majority of historical sediment data were collected from the lower 6 miles of
the Passaic River, extensive data gaps exist for the upper reaches of the Passaic River
(river mile (RM) 7 to RM 17). Hence, results and interpretations presented in this
memorandum are restricted to the lower 6 miles. Our geochemical analysis yielded the
following observations:
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 1 of 18
•
•
•
•
•
The historical sediment data are consistent with the models proposed by Bopp et al.
(1991) and Chaky (2003). Both authors suggest that the Passaic River is an important
source of polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDD) to the entire Hudson-Raritan
Estuary due to tidal mixing.
Surface concentrations for select contaminants are relatively uniform from RM 0 to
RM 6, suggesting that tidal mixing may be sufficient to homogenize these
contaminants. Based on an examination of contaminant patterns, the data suggest that
the number of sources is small or located close together.
In general, a large data gap exists from RM 7 to RM 17. This gap is of great
importance to the assessment of contaminants in the river since there may be
additional sources of contaminants in that upper stretch and tidal excursion will serve
to move water and suspended solids throughout the 17-miles of the river and
potentially into Newark Bay.
Sedimentation rates (calculated by radionuclide and bathymetry) are heterogeneous
from RM 0 to RM 6, varying from non-depositional areas to measured rates as high
as 5 inches per year. Moreover, differences between bathymetric surfaces (1995 to
2001) suggest that depositional rates vary significantly with water depth, resulting in
high sedimentation rates in the channel and low sedimentation rates on the shoals.
A large depositional environment is located at the mouth of the Passaic River,
apparently impacted by contaminated sediment from the Passaic River. This area is
also characterized by a strong concentration gradient for several contaminants
between the mouth of the Passaic River and Newark Bay. Contaminants that are
transported out of the Passaic River are then transported out of Newark Bay and into
the Hudson-Raritan Estuary due to tidal mixing.
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 2 of 18
2.0
2.1
METHODOLOGY
AVAILABLE SEDIMENT DATA
Historical sediment data for the Lower Passaic River are available from two Microsoft ®
Access databases: the Passaic River Estuary Management Information System (PREmis)
database (Malcolm Pirnie, 2005) and the database compiled by Tierra Solutions, Inc.
(TSI) to supplement the Newark Bay Study Area Remedial Investigation Work Plan (TSI,
2004).
The PREmis database, which was created for the Lower Passaic River Restoration
Project, has electronic data from 60 studies that were funded through various federal,
state, and private programs (Malcolm Pirnie, 2005). Thirty-eight of these 60 studies
contain sediment data that were collected from 1990 to 2000. Table 1A provides a brief
overview of the available sediment data on PREmis, which is organized by study name,
and marks the sampling year, depth of sampling, number of samples, and classes of
chemicals that were analyzed. Only two chemical classes were subdivided: the
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) class, which was divided into Aroclors, congeners, and
total PCB, and the PAH class, which was subdivided from other semi-volatile organic
compounds (SVOCs). Note that the number of locations per water body has not been
tallied on these tables, and that total PCBs were not analyzed as part of this geochemical
review. The PREmis data are available to the public via the web site
www.ourPassaic.org.
The Newark Bay database (TSI, 2004) was created as part of the historical review of the
Newark Bay remedial investigation. The objective of the historical review was to collect
data pertaining to the Lower Passaic River, Newark Bay, Hackensack River, Arthur Kill,
and Kill van Kull. Relevant references were compiled from searching several literary
databases, and the post-1990 studies were added to the Newark Bay database (TSI, 2004).
Instead of researching the Lower Passaic River and its tributaries, the Newark Bay
database incorporates part of the PREmis database. Overall, the Newark Bay database
contains 32 studies, but 20 of these studies are duplicates of data on PREmis. Of the
remaining 12 unique studies identified by TSI, only 7 studies have sediment information.
Table 1B is similar to Table 1A and provides a brief overview of the available sediment
data on the Newark Bay database. A direct comparison of the Newark Bay database and
PREmis database yielded several discrepancies between the data sets whose origin is still
being investigated. Reconciliation of the databases was beyond the scope of this effort.
As a result, Malcolm Pirnie relied exclusively on the PREmis database to avoid
duplicates.
Note that both the PREmis database and the Newark Bay database contain non-sediment
data (Appendix A), such as elutriate data, water data, tissue data, and soil data; however,
these data are limited and do not cover a large temporal and spatial extent. For example,
the PREmis database contains 12 samples of dissolved contaminants collected from 1993
to 1996, and Newark Bay database contains only 23 dissolved phase samples collected
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 3 of 18
from 1997 to 1999. Hence, non-sediment data were not reviewed as part of this initial
geochemical analysis, but will be analyzed as the project progresses.
2.2
DATABASE QUERIES AND DOWNCORE PROFILES
All queries were restricted to the PREmis database. The data sources for each analyte
queried are provided in Table 2. As an initial examination of the data, queries were
restricted to certain time periods (see chemical-specific sections below). Note that
further work is warranted to complete the geochemical analysis of historical data.
The sediment concentrations are reported with the units of µg/kg, or parts per billion
(ppb), unless otherwise noted. Sediment concentrations that were nondetected (denoted
with a laboratory qualifier of U) were set equal to zero in these initial queries1. Since
different sampling programs segmented their sediment cores differently, the depth of
surficial sediment is defined as 0 to <1 foot, unless otherwise noted. For mapping
purposes, sample locations were plotted (ArcGIS 8.3, ArcMap-Arc View, ESRI) directly
with the x and y coordinates noted in PREmis. On these maps, some points may appear
on land, as delineated by the shoreline data from New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP), because of tidal conditions at the time of collection,
data collection methods, or coordinate resolution. For graphing purposes, sample
locations were projected to the centerline to determine the nearest river mile.
Downcore sediment profiles were constructed using Microsoft ® Excel; the depth of the
profile is in the units of feet. Points on the profile represent the analyte concentrations
for a given core horizon; however, they are plotted as the top of the core segment (not the
mid-point of the core segment) unless otherwise noted. For the 1991 and 1993 data sets,
all available sediment cores that had more than 3 core segments (totaling 23 cores) were
examined. The 1995 data set contained 72 cores that had more than 3 core segments.
Instead of plotting all 72 sediment cores, one core per river mile was randomly selected
from the data set. Note that while the points in the 1991 and 1993 profiles are connected,
the core segments are discontinuous.
2.2.1 Total DDT Query
Total DDT is defined as the sum of DDT and its metabolites: 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis-(pchlorophenyl)ethane (DDD) and 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis-(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE).
Sediment samples that were not analyzed for all three isomers were excluded from the
analysis to avoid bias-low summations. Surface concentrations (0 to <1 foot) for total
DDT were compiled for three time periods 1990-1991, 1992-1993, and 1994-1995 and
presented on maps. Downcore profiles were constructed to assist in the interpretation of
the surface concentration data. On downcore profiles of total DDT, the ratio of
DDD+DDE to total DDT was also calculated and presented. Ratios equal to 1 imply that
unaltered DDT accounts for zero percent of the total DDT value. Ratios were not
1
For the purpose of this geochemical analysis, nondetects must be assigned to a value of zero since
chemical concentrations will be used in a ratio. This zero assignment will avoid a confounding of the ratio
analysis from the introduction of detection level estimates that are not directly proportional to the actual
concentrations.
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 4 of 18
calculated for points where the total DDT was nondetected (or equal to zero) to avoid an
undefined ratio.
Note that three other isomers of DDT exist, which include 2,4′-DDT, 2,4′-DDD, and 2,4′DDE; however, the 2,4′-series was not considered in the geochemical analysis because an
insufficient amount of data were available on the PREmis database, and because the
toxicity and risk of the 2,4′-series is undetermined (ATSDR, 2002). However, future
sampling collections and analyses are anticipated to include the 2,4′-series in order to
fingerprint sources of total DDT.
2.2.2 2,3,7,8-TCDD Query
Surface concentrations (0 to 0.5 foot) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and “total tetra-CDD” were
extracted from the 1995 data set. Note that no metadata was available to define which
analytes were included in the summation of total tetra-CDD. A separate summation of
tetra-CDD was not possible since the concentrations of other individual tetra-CDD
analytes were unavailable in the PREmis database. The ratio of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total
tetra-CDD was calculated, except for locations where total tetra-CDD was nondetected
(or equal to zero) to avoid an undefined ratio.
An additional graph of 2,3,7,8-TCDD versus the toxic equivalent quotient (TEQ) was
constructed for all 1995 sediment data (all studies and all depths, totaling 586 samples).
The TEQ was calculated by multiplying the concentration of 17 individual PCDD/F
compounds within a sample by its toxic equivalent factor (TEF) and then summing the
results. The TEF expresses the toxicity of each PCDD/F as a fraction of the toxicity
attributed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is the most toxic PCDD/F compound (Van den Berg
et al., 1998). Sediment samples that were not analyzed for all 17 compounds were
excluded from the analysis to avoid bias-low summations. The 17 PCDD/F compounds
included in this summation were those compounds outlined by the World Health
Organization through the work of Van den Berg et al. (1998). Since data were plotted on
a logarithmic scale, data that were nondetect (or equal to zero) were excluded from the
graph to avoid undefined values (52 nondetect samples).
Downcore profiles of 2,3,7,8-TCDD were constructed from the 1991, 1993, and 1995
data sets for comparison with the total DDT profiles. For these profiles, the ratio of total
DDT to 2,3,7,8-TCDD was also calculated. Ratios were not calculated for points where
the 2,3,7,8-TCDD was nondetected (or equal to zero) to avoid an undefined ratio.
2.2.3 Total PAH Query
Surface concentrations (0 to 0.5 foot) of 16 individual PAHs were extracted from the
1995 data set. These PAHs are listed on the US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) priority pollutant list and include: acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene,
benz[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[g,h,i]perylene,
benzo[k]fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene,
indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene. Total PAH was defined
as the sum of these 16 PAHs. Sediment samples that were not analyzed for all 16
isomers were excluded from the geochemical analysis to avoid bias-low totals.
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 5 of 18
Normalized concentrations were then imported as a matrix (sorted by the number of
molecular rings and river mile) into JMP (Release 5.1) 2003 SAS Institute, Inc., which is
a statistical software package equipped with principal component analysis (PCA). Note
that in this data set five outliers were confirmed with the “Jackknife Distance” test and
deleted from further analysis. PCA was then performed on the remaining 87 samples.
PCA is a statistical tool that explains the variation in a data set with a combination of
linear equations applied to the normalized analyte concentrations (Burns et al., 1997).
Each set of linear combinations is represented by one principal component. The first
principal component explains the most variance; the second principal component explains
the next highest variance, and so on. The PCA analysis also shows correlations among
the various PAH analytes through loading values. Note that this initial examination of
PAH data was restricted to the 1995 data set to avoid errors associated with different
laboratory methods and detection limits.
2.2.4 Mercury Query
The PREmis database was queried for total mercury (Hg-T) in sediments from the 1993
and 1995 data sets. Surface concentrations of Hg-T (0 to <1 foot) for these two time
periods were plotted on maps. Four representative downcore profiles of 1995 Hg-T
values were constructed to assist in the interpretation of surface concentration and to
understand the history of Hg-T contamination in the system. The corresponding Cs-137
profile was included on each of these plots as a temporal reference. The four mercury
profiles were selected (from a data set of 72 sediment cores) because the sediment cores
penetrated deep enough to resolve the Hg-T peak.
2.2.5
Radionuclides Query and Analysis
2.2.5.1
CESIUM NORMALIZATION OF CONTAMINANTS
Concentrations of organic contaminants in surface sediments were normalized to the Cs137 (parameter code 10045-97-3) concentration as a means to identify areas of potential
sources. For this analysis, the Cs-137 concentration on surface sediments was assumed
constant throughout the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River for sediments that were
deposited within a given year. Therefore, local sources of contamination will generate a
change in the ratio of contaminant/Cs-137 since sediments in the vicinity of the source
point will sorb more of the contaminant while the cesium concentration remains
unchanged. Contaminant concentrations were normalized to Cs-137 instead of the total
organic carbon (TOC) content of the sediments because Cs-137 is more sensitive to
temporal variations whereas TOC has no temporal component.
At each sampling location in the 1995 data set, a query was designed to extract the
contaminant concentration for only the core segment with a core top equal to zero foot.
These contaminants included total DDT (units of ppb), 2,3,7,8-TCDD (units of ppb), and
total PAH (units of mg/kg, or parts per million, ppm). This query was repeated to extract
the corresponding Cs-137 concentration (pCi/g). Note that the bottom of these core
segments did not align properly, but all core segments were less than 1 foot. This
situation probably occurred because parallel cores were collected at the given location;
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 6 of 18
however, one core was used to measure radionuclide and other core was used to measure
contaminants. A ratio was then calculated by dividing the contaminant concentrations by
the Cs-137 concentration. These ratios were calculated, except for locations where Cs137 was nondetected (or equal to zero) to avoid undefined ratios.
2.2.5.2
SEDIMENTATION RATE
The PREmis database was queried for Cs-137 and polonium-210 (Po-210; parameter
code 13981-52-7), which is the daughter product of Pb-210. Data were restricted to
samples collected in 1995. All data were transferred into Microsoft® Excel, and
downcore profiles of Cs-137 (units of pCi/kg) and Po-210 (units of logarithm [pCi/g])
were constructed with the data plotted as the mid-point of each core segment. (All
profiles are presented in Appendix B.)
Location-specific sedimentation rates (inches/year) were calculated for each cesium
profile (whenever possible). One sedimentation rate calculation was based on identifying
the depth of the 1963 time horizon, which is marked by a peak in Cs-137 concentration
with levels >1,000 pCi/kg. The other sedimentation rate calculation was based on
identifying the depth of the 1954 time horizon, which is marked at the base of the Cs-137
concentration peak (Figure 1A). Note that some cores only showed one time horizon;
other cores showed neither time horizon; and some cores were not useable due to
discontinuities, suggesting natural or man-made disruptive events. In these calculations,
rate of cesium fallout was assumed constant.
A second location-specific sedimentation rate was calculated with the Po-210 profile.
Po-210 is a daughter product of Pb-210 (half life of 22 years); hence, in secular
equilibrium, the Po-210 concentration is proportional to the Pb-210 concentration. Pb210 is commonly used to date sediments that are less than 100 years old. Pb-210 dating
is based on excess Pb-210 (or unsupported Pb-210, which originates from atmospheric
deposition and is included as the sediments deposit). The slope of the logarithmic Po-210
concentration can yield an average location-specific sedimentation rate for a given core
(Figure 1A; Faure, 1986). An inconsistent slope from the top to bottom of the cores is
indicative of a changing sedimentation rate; however, severe breaks (or discontinuities) in
the slope are indicative of disturbances, such as dredging or storm events. If a
discontinuity was identified in a given core, only radionuclide data located above this
discontinuity were considered usable (Figure 1B).
2.2.6 Bathymetric Data and Analysis
Bathymetric survey data for the Lower Passaic River were collected periodically from
1989 to 2004. The 1989 survey was conducted by Tallamy, Van Kuren, Gertis and
Associates (TVGA). This survey covered the lowest 15 miles of the river, with the lower
7.8 miles surveyed in the spring and RM 7.8 to RM 15 surveyed in the fall. Surveys were
conducted in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2001 by TSI. These surveys covered
approximately the lowest 7 miles of the river, with the exception of the 1995 survey,
which extended approximately 8.2 miles of the river. In the spring of 2004, Aqua
Survey, Inc. (ASI) collected survey points in a small section of the Harrison reach. In the
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 7 of 18
fall of 2004, a survey was conducted of the Lower Passaic River extending to the Dundee
Dam. The fall 2004 survey was conducted by Rogers Surveying.
All comparisons of the bathymetric data were done relative to the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). The survey data for the 1989 survey by TVGA and
the 1995-2001 surveys by TSI were originally referenced to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Mean Low Water (MLW). The conversion from MLW to NGVD29 in the
Lower Passaic River (from the river mouth to the Dundee Dam) was done by determining
the difference between MLW and NGVD29. From the confluence with Newark Bay to
approximately RM 6.8, MLW is 2.4 feet below NGVD29. Above RM 6.8, MLW is 2.3
feet below NGVD29. The location where this shift occurs was noted both on the 1989
hard copy map (as a note between map sheet 797/14 and 797/15) and on DGN files for a
2002 survey of the Passaic River also conducted by TVGA. All sounding points in the
1989 dataset were assigned a datum correction value of 2.3 or 2.4 based on their location
in the Passaic River. The depth, originally referenced to MLW, was converted to the
depth according to NGVD29 by subtracting the datum correction value from the original
depth.
Two comparisons of changes in bathymetry were conducted using these data: 1989-2004
and 1995-2001. For each comparison, a bathymetric surface was created by first creating
a Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN). To create the TIN, a boundary file was created
for each dataset. This boundary defines the extent of extrapolation or interpolation when
creating a TIN; it was defined by connecting the outermost point on the banks of the river
to create a polygon. Using the aerial imagery and cross referencing with the hard copy
mapping, the location of bridge supports and pylons were determined. These areas were
excluded from the polygon to ensure that no depths would be interpolated in areas where
structures existed.
A TIN was created from the sounding points for each dataset using ESRI’s ArcGIS
software and the 3D Analyst extension. The two resulting TINs were each converted to a
raster data layer using a grid cell size of 5 feet, also using the 3D Analyst extension. The
ArcGIS raster calculator was used to calculate the difference between resulting grids; this
difference indicates the change in depth during the time period.
The 1989 and fall 2004 data were used to examine the change in the bathymetric surface
covering the lower 15-miles of the Passaic River. However, the transects for the 1989 to
2004 data were often located up to 50 feet apart (Figure 2A). This misalignment of
transects indicates that comparisons between surfaces rely more heavily on interpolated
results between the transects. Points further away from the original data points (i.e.
further from the transects) are associated with higher uncertainty. This comparison
provides a useful depiction of change in depth over the 15 year period for 15 miles of the
river. A second, more precise comparison between the 1995 and 2001 surveys was
conducted for comparison with isotope data. As shown in Figure 2B, the transects for the
data collected by TSI between 1995 and 2001 align well and may be considered
coincident. The sedimentation rate (inches/year) depicted as a surface was calculated
based on the change in bathymetry from 1995 to 2001. The change of depth was divided
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 8 of 18
by the 6-year period. In a similar fashion, the deposition rate for the 1989 to 2004
comparison was determined by dividing the net change in depth by the 15 year period
between the surveys. For both comparisons (1989 to 2004 and 1995 to 2001), the
uncertainty inherent in bathymetric measurements must be considered. The uncertainty
in the bathymetric surveys was assumed to be ±6 inches. Hence, differences of 6 inches
between surveys are not considered significant. For the 1995 to 2001 comparison, which
covers 6 years, this measurement-uncertainty translates to a depositional rate-uncertainty
of 1 inch/year. As a result, sedimentation rates less than or equal to 1 inch/year are not
distinguishable from the absence of deposition.
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 9 of 18
3.0
GEOCHEMICAL OBSERVATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The following section describes the results of an initial geochemical analysis. These
results are subdivided into chemical-specific observations including total DDT and
2,3,7,8-TCDD, total PAH, mercury, and radionuclides and bathymetry.
3.1
TOTAL DDT AND 2,3,7,8-TCDD OBSERVATIONS
3.1.1 Total DDT Surface Concentrations
In the samples analyzed, DDD and DDE typically accounted for >75% of the total DDT
concentration in the sediment beds, indicating that most DDT was present as metabolites
of the original compound. Surface concentrations (0 to <1 foot) of total DDT in RM 0 to
RM 2 were less than surface concentrations in RM 2 to RM 6 in 1990 to 1995 (Figures 3
to 5). For example, in 1994 to 1995 (Figure 5) the average total DDT concentration in
RM 0 to RM 2 was 99 µg/kg (sample size = 14), which is less than the concentration in
RM 2 to RM 4 of 240 µg/kg (sample size = 34) and in RM 4 to RM 6 of 220 µg/kg
(sample size = 23). Moreover, concentrations in the lower 2 miles of the Passaic River
were normally distributed while concentrations in RM 2 to RM 6 were skewed and
possibly logarithmically distributed (Table 3). These surface concentrations are
significantly higher than the NJDEP sediment guidelines for total DDT in a
marine/estuarine environment, which has an effects range low (ERL) value of 1.6 ppb
(NJDEP, 1998). The 1990-1991 and the 1992-1993 maps show a few sample locations in
the upper reaches of the Passaic River; however, the number of points is insufficient to
determine the extent of surface contamination by total DDT in these areas.
Relatively uniform surface concentrations in RM 2 to RM 6 suggest that tides are mixing
the sediment faster than local sources can create gradients in the surface sediments.
Meanwhile, the concentration gradient at RM 2 to the mouth of the Passaic River and into
Newark Bay (Figure 4 1992-1993 map) is characterized by a factor of 3 in concentration.
The total DDT concentration gradient suggests a high depositional environment and/or
the mixing of relatively clean sediment at the mouth of the river. Solids may be entering
Newark Bay from other areas of the harbor, and based on the degree of “dilution,” the
magnitude of this source(s) of suspended solids may be at least 3 to 4 times greater than
the annual flux of solids from the Passaic River. (Note that future work should include a
mass balance of solids on the Passaic River to assess the load of solids entering Newark
Bay from the Passaic River.) Similar concentration gradients were observed by
HydroQual for six other analytes in surface sediment (Appendix C). In their analysis,
surface sediment concentrations (0 to <8 inches; 1990 to 2000) were averaged and plotted
versus linear distance for the Passaic River and Newark Bay. The average concentration
of octa-CDD decreased by a factor of 2.5 between the mouth of the Passaic River to
Newark Bay; polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congener PCB77 decreased by a factor of
3.5; pyrene and benzo(a)pyrene decreased by a factor of 4.0; PCB153 decreased by a
factor of 5.0; and 2,3,7,8-TCDD decreased by a factor of 15.
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 10 of 18
Surface concentrations of total DDT may also be locally impacted by other potential
sources, such as combined sewer overflows (CSO), manufacturing facilities along the
shore with contaminated soils or groundwater, or erosional areas in the river bed resulting
in exposure of more highly contaminated sediments. For example, relatively high total
DDT concentrations are observed at RM 3 and RM 5 on the 1994-1995 map (i.e.
concentrations >300 ppb). These locations coincide with relatively high values for the
ratio of total DDT/Cs-137 (Figures 6A to 6C). Similar results were observed with plots
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD/Cs-137 (Figures 7A to 7C), and total PAH/Cs-137 (Figure 7D). As
shown in Figures 6A, 7A, and 7D, several CSO sites are located within RM 5, which is
located near Interstate 280. The effluent from one or more of these CSOs may represent
a potential local source of contamination to the river. (Note that other CSOs are
presented throughout the Passaic River; however, those CSOs do not appear to be
important sources, based on the absence of change in the local contaminant/Cs-137
ratios.) Alternatively, RM 5 may be an erosional area, resulting in exposure of more
highly contaminatned sediment with a lower contaminant/Cs-137 ratio.
3.1.2 Total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD Sediment Profiles
Bopp et al. (1991) showed that the highest PCDD concentration occurs in sediment
dating to the 1950s and 1960s, based on the geochronology of a sediment core from
Newark Bay. This peak concentration coincides with the peak production and discharge
of PCDD into the Passaic River in the 1950s and 1960s. Likewise, the highest DDD
concentrations occur in sediment dating from the 1940s and 1950s, coinciding with the
manufacturing of DDT. Hence, in a sediment core, the peak loading of PCDDs will
occur at shallower depths than the peak loading of total DDT (Figure 8), reflecting the
historical industrial patterns on the Passaic River.
Profiles for total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD consistent with this history were observed
throughout the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River. For example, location No. 69 (RM
3.5) from the 1991 data set shows the peak concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at 7.7 feet and
the peak concentration of total DDT at 12 feet (Figure 3); location No. 211 (RM 4) and
location No. 216 (RM 5) also show similar profiles, however, the sediment core did not
penetrate deep enough to resolve the bottom of the total DDT peak (Figure 5). To
produce similar profiles on the Passaic River and Newark Bay, sediment from the Passaic
River must be transported from the Passaic River to Newark Bay. Moreover, these
profiles lead to the same conclusions as Bopp et al. that the initial release of DDT predates the release of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the system. Hence, total DDT may be a useful tool
to delineate the depth of PCDD contamination in the Lower Passaic River.
Some profiles of total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD did not clearly resolve the total DDT peak
and 2,3,7,8-TCDD peak. For example, profiles similar to location No. 68 (1991) show
total DDT and TCDD peaking in the same depths, which may be the result of
compositing large core segments (Figure 3). Some profiles do no appear consistent with
the Bopp et al. (1991) model because of discontinuous sediment deposition caused by
dredging or storm events as well as noncontiguous core segmenting. Other cores, such as
location No. 261 (1995), showed concentrations of total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD
exponentially decaying to nondetectable values at depths >2 feet (Figure 5), suggesting a
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 11 of 18
non-depositional area. Similar low-level profiles were observed by HydroQual (2005)
when they constructed downcore profiles of octa-CDD and total PCB.
An additional feature of the total DDT profile and the 2,3,7,8-TCDD profile was the
correlation between the total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in the upper 6 feet
of the individual cores in 1995. This suggests that total DDT may be useful as a possible
tracer of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in surficial sediment. Plots showing the ratio of total DDT to
2,3,7,8-TCDD downcore are presented in Appendix D. At many locations, the total
DDT/2,3,7,8-TCDD ratio is higher at the surface (0 to <1 foot) than at depth, suggesting
a change in the relationship of the two compounds. One possibility is that the source of
DDT is ongoing, but the source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD is diminishing. At depths of 1 to 6 feet,
the ratio of total DDT/2,3,7,8-TCDD is fairly consistent within individual cores;
however, this ratio is not consistent from core to core nor at depths greater than 6 ft,
based on 1991 and 1993 data. Initial review of these ratios suggests that the magnitude
of the total DDT/2,3,7,8-TCDD ratio may be correlated with depositional area; however,
more analysis is necessary to confirm this relationship.
3.1.3
2,3,7,8-TCDD Interpretation
3.1.3.1
2,3,7,8-TCDD FINGERPRINT
Work by Chaky (2003) complemented the Bopp et al. (1991) model, which suggests that
the Passaic River is an important source of PCDD into the Hudson-Raritan Estuary due to
tidal mixing. Chaky showed that Newark Bay, which is impacted by PCDD from the
Passaic River, has a ratio of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total tetra-CDD equal to 0.71. This ratio is
distinctly different from other inputs to the Hudson-Raritan Estuary like atmospheric
deposition, upstream sediment transport, and sewage discharge, which have ratios less
than 0.06 (Figure 9). The 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total tetra-CDD ratio that marks Passaic-like
PCDD contamination is traced throughout the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, suggesting tidal
transport as far north as Hastings-on-Hudson.
A ratio of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total tetra-CDD of 0.7 ±0.1 (±1 sigma) was calculated for the
lower 6 miles of the Passaic River using the 1995 data set (Figure 10) based on a sample
size of 95. The consistency and uniqueness of this ratio throughout the lower 6 miles of
the Passaic River suggests either a single source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD or, alternatively, a
limited number of relatively unique sources whose discharges are well mixed by the tidal
circulation. Moreover, the calculated ratio of 0.7 ±0.1 is consistent with Chaky’s
observations of 0.71 in Newark Bay, suggesting that the ratio of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total
tetra-CDD can be used to fingerprint Passaic-related PCDD contamination throughout the
Passaic River and Newark Bay.
3.1.3.2
TOXIC EQUIVALENT QUOTIENT
Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD were detected in surface sediments and deep sediment
beds. For sediment data collected in 1995, concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD ranged from
nondetected to 5.3 ppb in a sample size of 586 samples. To address these concentrations
in terms of TEQ, a plot of concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD versus TEQ was constructed
(Figure 11). The results show that when concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD are greater than
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 12 of 18
0.0001 ppb (or 0.1 ng/kg), 2,3,7,8-TCDD accounts for 70% to 100% of the TEQ. Only at
concentrations less than 0.0001 ppb (or 0.1 ng/kg) does 2,3,7,8-TCDD account for less
than half of the TEQ, implying that other PCDD/F compounds are contributing to the
toxicity in these sediment samples.
3.2
TOTAL PAH OBSERVATIONS
3.2.1 Total PAH Surface Concentration
Similar to the total DDT observations, surface concentrations (0 to 0.5 foot) of total PAH
were relatively uniform with 86% of the data (sample size equal to 91) ranging between
10 and 50 ppm (Figure 12). High-molecular weight (HMW) PAHs accounted for 60% to
80% of the total PAH concentration (data not shown). This observation is expected since
HMW PAHs are more particle-reactive and less volatile than their counterparts (low
molecular weight PAHs). A local maximum total PAH concentration of 2,800 ppm
occurred near RM 5, which corresponded to a relatively high ratio for total PAH/Cs137.
This observation again suggests a secondary source or sediment erosion near RM 5,
which is consistent with the observation for the total DDT/Cs137 (Figures 6A-6C) and
TCDD/Cs137 plots (Figures 7A-7C). Similar results were observed by HydroQual, who
examined the concentration of individual PAHs in the 1995 data set (study name: Passaic
River EPA RI 1995) at different depths from 0 to 5.5 feet. Their results showed that
many of the individual PAHs had high concentrations at all depths at RM 4.5, indicating
a steady source of PAHs to the system.
3.2.2 Principal Component Analysis
To investigate the PAH pattern further, a principal component analysis (PCA) was
performed on the PAH data set. Notably, the first principal component (PCA1)
accounted for 61% of the variance in the data; moreover, the PCA1 loadings show that
much of the variation in the PAH data can be explained by molecular chemistry (Figure
13). For example, a bar graph of the PCA1 loading shows a strong, positive correlation
between the 2-ring and 3-ring PAHs (except phenanthrene) with the 6-ring PAHs and
dibenz[a,h]anthracene (a 5-ring PAH). For example, naphthalene, acenaphthene,
acenaphthylene, fluorene, and dibenz[a,h]anthracene all have a PCA1 loading factor of
0.31, indicating their importance to this first component as well as their close correlation
to each other. PCA1 also shows that the 2 and 3-ring PAHs and 6-ring PAHs are
inversely correlated with the 4 and 5-ring PAHs (excluding dibenz[a,h]anthracene). A
scatter plot of the PAH concentrations also show these strong correlations (Figure 14).
The ability of PCA1 to explain more than half of the variation in the PAH data plus the
strong correlations among a subset of the PAHs suggests at least one distinct source of
PAHs to the Passaic River with one or more less well defined sources. The loading
factors for the second and third principal components (PCA2 and PCA3, respectively)
were less intense as expected since these principal components only accounted for 17%
of the variation in the data (Figures 15-16).
Further analysis was performed by comparing PCA1 to PCA2 and PCA1 to PCA3 to
show relationships, or patterns in the PAH data set, over river miles (Figures 17-18). The
plot of PCA1 to PCA2 suggests at least a two end-member mixing system with one
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 13 of 18
source originating from RM 0 to RM 1, and another source (or sources) from RM 4 to
RM 6. This gradient in PAH pattern is also emphasized in the plot of PCA1 versus
PCA3, which shows the majority of the RM 0 to RM 2 data on the right side of the y-axis
(noted by a positive PCA1) and the majority of the RM 4 to RM 6 on the left side of the
y-axis (noted by a negative PCA1). By combining these PCA plots with the loading bar
graphs, the data suggest that RM 0 to RM 2 is dominated by a source marked with a 2
and 3-ring PAHs and 6-ring PAHs signature; meanwhile, RM 4 to RM 6 is dominated by
one or more sources marked with a 4 and 5-ring signature. These PCA results are notable
because even though the absolute concentrations of total PAH are relatively uniform, a
gradient appears within the PAH signature, which suggests that local sources are not as
well mixed as total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Lower Passaic River.
3.3
MERCURY INTERPRETATION
Surface concentration of Hg-T in 1993 ranged from 1 to 10 ppm within the Passaic River
and adjacent waterbodies (Figure 19). These surface concentrations are significantly
higher than the NJDEP sediment guidelines for mercury in a marine/estuarine
environment, which has an ERL value of 0.15 ppm (NJDEP, 1998). Only a few points
were sampled above RM 4 and no concentration gradient is apparent within the Passaic
River. However, the data do suggest a gradient between the Lower Passaic River and
Newark Bay, with higher surface concentrations in the Lower Passaic. The lower
concentrations of Hg-T in Newark Bay relative to the Lower Passaic suggest that the
Passaic is a net source of Hg-T to Newark Bay and that there is little Hg-T transport from
Newark Bay to the Passaic. In 1995, Hg-T concentrations also ranged from 1 to 10 ppm;
however, samples were only collected within the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River
(Figure 20).
Four typical downcore profiles of Hg-T are shown in Figure 21A-D (sediment cores
sampled between RM 3.5 and RM 4.0). In all four cores, the concentration of Hg-T in
surface sediment was approximately 2 to 5 ppm. Concentrations in the cores then
increased to a peak value of approximately 10 to 20 ppm at various depths depending on
local depositional rates. At the bottom of the sediment core, Hg-T concentrations were
typically observed to equal 10 ppm. A comparison of the Hg-T peaks with the
corresponding Cs-137 peaks showed that peak Hg-T contamination occurred before the
Cs-137 peak, or the two peaks were co-located in the core, suggesting that peak mercury
contamination in the Lower Passaic River occurred in the early 1960s. Moreover, the
profiles suggest that Hg-T contamination pre-dates the deposition of Cs-137 to the
system, suggesting that mercury contamination began earlier than the 1950s. For
example, location No. 203 shows Hg-T concentration equal to 12 ppm at a depth of 14
feet, which is deeper than the base of the Cs-137 peak that represents the 1954 time
horizon.
3.4
RADIONUCLIDES AND BATHYMETRIC OBSERVATIONS
Both the radionuclide data and the bathymetric data suggest a range of depositional rates
in the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River (Figures 22-23). There is a general consistency
between the location-specific sedimentation rates based on coring and the surfacecalculated sedimentation rates based on bathymetry. Note that the location-specific
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 14 of 18
sedimentation rates do not align perfectly with the bathymetric surfaces, but in general
the radionuclide data appear to coincide with the bathymetric data.
Spatially, the sedimentation rates appear heterogeneous, ranging from areas of scour to
areas of high sedimentation rates (greater than 5 inches/year), which suggests episodic
deposition, erosion, and dredging events throughout the river. Moreover, differences
between the bathymetric surfaces (1995 to 2001 and 1989 to 2004) suggest that
depositional rates vary with water depth, resulting in high sedimentation rates in the
channel and low sedimentation rates on the shoals. Hence, the data suggest a dynamic
sediment transport system such that areas of scour and deposition are not strictly dictated
by the curvature of the channel. For example, areas of scour are located both on the
straight sections as well as the meanders. These results contrast with a typical model of
an estuary, which has the greatest deposition on the shoals. The observation of high
sedimentation rates in the channel is probably an artifact of dredging, which creates deep,
slower moving waters that are favorable for deposition.
These observations contrast with the conclusions by Huntley et al. (1991) who examined
9 selective sediment cores (1991) from RM 2 to RM 4. Note that Huntley et al. did not
explain their rationale for selecting 9 cores out of 25 cores; moreover, they did not
explain why they eliminated core P14 from their discussion, which showed a nondepositional environment. Huntley et al. characterized the Lower Passaic River (RM 2 to
RM 4) as a high depositional area with sedimentation rates on the order of 2.5 inches/year
by averaging the results of their selected 9 cores, and they concluded that sediment from
the Passaic River was not being transported to Newark Bay (Huntley et al., 1991).
However, by selectively choosing certain cores and eliminating cores that showed nondeposition, they overlooked the heterogeneous sedimentation rates in the Lower Passaic
River.
The bathymetric and radionuclide data also suggest an extensive depositional zone at the
mouth of the Passaic River. Coincident with this depositional zone is the strong
concentration gradient for several contaminants between the mouth of the Passaic River
and Newark Bay. For example, this depositional zone at the mouth is co-located with the
observed concentration gradient for total DDT (Figure 4) and the contaminant gradients
reported by HydroQual (see section 3.1.1). While some contaminated sediments may be
deposited at the mouth of the Passaic River, downcore sediment profiles in Newark Bay
and a distinct 2,3,7,8-TCDD/total tetra-CDD signature suggest that sediment escapes this
depositional zone at the mouth. Contaminated sediments that are transported to Newark
Bay could then be transported throughout the Hudson-Raritan Estuary due to tidal mixing
(Konsevick, 1991).
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 15 of 18
4.0
COMPONENTS OF THE PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL
SITE MODEL
Components of the preliminary CSM for the Lower Passaic River were identified with
the observations and results of the initial geochemical analysis. These observations
depict the Lower Passaic River as a dynamic sediment transport system. Sediments are
being scoured from one area and deposited in others. This conceptual view contradicts
the traditional view of an estuarine bay where distinct erosional and depositional areas
exist. Instead, these observations of the Lower Passaic River are more consistent with a
riverine setting with depositional and non-depositional zones interspersed and aligned
roughly parallel to flow. However, unlike a river, where deposition occurs on the banks
and little accumulation occurs in the main channel, the center channel of the Passaic
River appears to be a (if not “the”) primary area of deposition.
In general, our geochemical observations concur with the models proposed by Bopp et al.
(1991) and Chaky (2003). Once escaping the mouth of the Passaic River, contaminated
sediments are being transported to Newark Bay, resulting in contaminated sediment beds
that have similar historical deposition to the Passaic River but reduced concentration
levels (see section 3.1.2). Due to tidal action in Newark Bay, these contaminated
sediments would then be mixed and transported throughout the Hudson-Raritan Estuary.
Linear mixing would result in the highest contaminant concentrations or signatures in
Newark Bay and the lowest concentrations or signatures at locations farthest from
Newark Bay (Figure 9).
Due the large data gap between RM 7 and RM 17, the extent of sediment contamination
is uncertain. However, total DDT and Pb-210 may be useful tools for delineating the
contamination on the Passaic River. Pb-210 measurements will identify depositional and
non-depositional environments; total DDT will identify the depth of contamination since
the peak loading of total DDT will occur at greater depths than 2,3,7,8-TCDD. In
addition, the ratio of total DDT/2,3,7,8-TCDD may be a useful diagnostic tool to
delineate the extent of contamination originating from the lower 6 miles and from the
upper watershed. Historical discharges of total DDT to the lower 6 miles of the Passaic
River would result in high values of the ratio of total DDT/2,3,7,8-TCDD whereas the
absence (or greatly diminished loading) of total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the upper
watershed would result in a lower ratio values.
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 16 of 18
5.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our initial geochemical analysis, the following recommendations are provided.
Note that this list is not exhaustive and will continue to evolve as more data are collected.
•
•
•
•
•
•
A large set of radionuclide data is available and has proved valuable in determining
deposition rates and site history. This observation suggests that future sediment
samples should include the analysis of radionuclides (including Cs-137 and Pb-210).
A full interpretation of these data will require close attention to detail, based on the
apparent occurrence of discontinuities in the cores that suggests dredging or flooding
events.
In general, a large data gap exists from RM 7 to RM 17. Additional sampling in this
area is of great importance to determine the full extent of contamination in the river
since there may be additional sources of contaminants in that upper stretch and the
tidal excursion will serve to move water and suspended solids throughout the 17miles of the river and potentially into Newark Bay.
Together, total DDT and Pb-210 appear suitable to determine the vertical extent of
PCDD contamination in the Lower Passaic River. Pb-210 measurements will identify
depositional and non-depositional environments; total DDT will identify the depth of
contamination since the peak loading of total DDT will occur at greater depths than
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Several contaminants point to a local external source or a region of sediment erosion
on the Passaic River near RM 5. An aerial map of this area reveals the presence of
several CSOs sites within this river mile. Future sampling should include testing the
effluents of these CSO sites including contaminant load on total suspended solids and
the dissolved concentrations.
Based on total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD data, high-resolution sediment cores should
be able to capture the entire period of contaminant deposition at RM 3 to RM 4 and
RM 6 to RM 7. It may be possible to collect “long” high-resolution cores in some of
these areas, thereby providing ample sediment for multiple contaminant analyses.
High-resolution cores are not recommended for the left bank at RM 2 despite the
thick sequence of contaminated sediments there, since the data often displayed a
random zig-zag pattern for both total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations with
depth at this location.
Overall the analyses presented here show the value of the historical data in
developing an understanding of contamination in the Passaic. These analyses
represent only an initial examination of the data and highlight the need for further
data analysis. In particular, the fate and transport of other analytes such as PCBs and
heavy metals (including lead and chromium) are unexplored. Further analysis is also
warranted to understand the ratio of total DDT/2,3,7,8-TCDD in surficial sediment.
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 17 of 18
6.0
REFERENCES
ATSDR, 2002. “Toxicological Profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD.” US Department of
Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
PB2003-100137.
Bopp RF et al., 1991. Environmental Science Technology, Volume 25, Number 5, pp:
951-956.
Burns WA et al., 1997. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Volume 16, Number
6, pp: 1119-1131.
Chaky, D.A., 2003. Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and
Furans in the New York Metropolitan Area; Interpreting Atmospheric Deposition and
Sediment Chronologies. PhD Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
August 2003..
Faure G, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2nd
edition.
Huntley SL et al., 1991. Estuaries, Volume 18, Number 2, pp: 351-361.
HydroQual, 2005. Lower Passaic River Restoration Study – Draft Modeling Work Plan.
Mahwah, NJ. April 2005.
Konsevick E, 1991. “Sediment Geochemistry of the Hackensack Meadowlands.”
Hackensack River Symposium V, Fairleigh Dickinson University.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2005. Work Plan, Lower Passaic River Restoration Project.
Prepared in conjunction with Battelle Memorial Institute and HydroQual, Inc. April
2005.
NJDEP, 1998. “Guidance for Sediment Quality Evaluations.” New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (Trenon, NJ).
Tierra Solution, Inc., 2004. “Newark Bay Study Area Remedial Investigation Work Plan:
Sediment Sampling and Source Identification Program, Newark Bay, New Jersey.
Volume 1 of 3: Inventory and Overview Report of Historical Data.” (East Brunswick,
New Jersey).
Van den Berg et al., 1998. “Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs
for Humans and for Wildlife.” Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 106, pp: 775.
Technical Memorandum:
Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation
August 2005
Page 18 of 18
TABLES
Malcolm Pirnie
DRAFT
April 2005
Table 2: Study Names of Contaminant Data Sources
Total DDT
93F62MT: MOTBY (MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL AT BAYONNE)
93F64CL: CLAREMONT 93 REACH III (93FCLMT)
93F64HR: HACKENSACK RIVER
93F64PE: PORT ELIZABETH 93
EPA EMAP 90-92
NOAA NS&T Hudson-Raritan Phase I, 1991
NOAA NS&T Hudson-Raritan Phase II, 1993
PASSAIC 1990 Surficial Sediment Investigation
PASSAIC 1991 Core Sediment Investigation
PASSAIC 1992 Core Sediment Investigation
PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 01 (March)
PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 02 (July)
PASSAIC 1994 Surficial Sediment Investigation
PASSAIC 1995 RI Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1995 USACE Minish Park Investigation
PASSAIC 1996 Newark Bay Reach A Sediment Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1997 Newark Bay Reach B,C,D Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1998 Newark Bay Elizabeth Channel Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1999 NewarkBay Reach ABCD Baseline Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1999 Sediment Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program
PASSAIC 2000 Spring ESP Sampling Program
REMAP, 1993
REMAP, 1994
2,3,7,8-TCDD
93F64CL: CLAREMONT 93 REACH III (93FCLMT)
NOAA NS&T Hudson-Raritan Phase II, 1993
PASSAIC 1990 Surficial Sediment Investigation
PASSAIC 1991 Core Sediment Investigation
PASSAIC 1992 Core Sediment Investigation
PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 01 (March)
PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 02 (July)
PASSAIC 1994 Surficial Sediment Investigation
PASSAIC 1995 RI Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1996 Newark Bay Reach A Sediment Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1997 Newark Bay Reach B,C,D Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1998 Newark Bay Elizabeth Channel Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1999 NewarkBay Reach ABCD Baseline Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1999 Sediment Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program
PASSAIC 2000 Spring ESP Sampling Program
REMAP, 1993
REMAP, 1994
PAH
PASSAIC 1995 RI Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1995 USACE Minish Park Investigation
Cesium-137
PASSAIC 1995 RI Sampling Program
Mercury
93F62MT: MOTBY (MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL AT BAYONNE)
93F64CL: CLAREMONT 93 REACH III (93FCLMT)
93F64HR: HACKENSACK RIVER
93F64PE: PORT ELIZABETH 93
NOAA NS&T Hudson-Raritan Phase II, 1993
PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 01 (March)
PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 02 (July)
PASSAIC 1995 RI Sampling Program
PASSAIC 1995 USACE Minish Park Investigation
REMAP, 1993
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
DRAFT
APRIL 2005: Table 2
FIGURES
Malcolm Pirnie
DRAFT
April 2005
log [Polonium-210, pCi/gram]
-1.5
0
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Lead-210 Calculation
slope = - λ / (2.3×M)
where λ is the decay
constant and M is the
sedimentation rate.
2
Depth (feet)
Cesium-137 Calculation
M = Depth/(1995-1963)
where M is the sedimentation
rate and "depth" is the cesium
peak.
-1
4
Cesium-137 Calculation
M = Depth/(1995-1954)
where M is the
sedimentation rate and
"depth" is the base of the
cesium peak
Location 186 (RM 1.5)
April 1995
6
0
500
1000
1500
Cesium-137 (pCi/kg)
2000
Malcolm Pirnie DRAFT April 2005: Figure 1A
log [Polonium-210, pCi/gram]
-1.5
0
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
0.05
0.05
0.55
0.55
1.05
1.05
1.55
1.55
2
2.05
Depth (feet)
2.05
Po-210
Cs-137
2.55
2.55
3.05
3.05
DISCONTINUITY reflecting
a possible dredge event
3.55
3.55
4
1
4.05
4.05
4.55
4.55
Location 206 (RM 4.5)
May 1995
6
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Cesium-137 (pCi/kg)
Malcolm Pirnie DRAFT April 2005: Figure 1B
Legend
1989
November 2004
100 50 0
100 Feet
Data Source:
Bathymetric Survey Points from 1995-2001 TSI
survey data
DRAFT April 2005: Figure 2A
Legend
1995
1996
1997
1999
2001
Data Source:
Bathymetric Survey Points from 1995-2001 TSI
survey data
DRAFT April 2005: Figure 2B
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
0
0
5
5
10
200
400
600
Depth (feet)
0
600
Depth (feet)
Depth (feet)
400
17
200
0
0
0
5
5
10
PASSAIC
Location 81,
December 1991
400
600
10
Location 70,
December 1991
Location 70,
December 1991
16
Location 81,
December 1991
200
15
20
0.00
15
20
0.00
600
15
10
15
400
Depth (feet)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
Dundee
Dam
200
DDT Concentration (ppb)
20
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0
1.25
2
4
6
8
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
Ratio
20
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
0.0
Ratio
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
150
0
500
1000
1500
DDT Concentration (ppb)
2000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0
14
5
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
0
5
5
10
5000
10000 15000 20000
Depth (feet)
0
Depth (feet)
10000 15000 20000
10
15
10
20
0.00
20
0.25
0.50
1.00
1.25
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
BERGEN
600
0
0
200
400
DDT Concentration (ppb)
600
0
0
200
DDT Concentration (ppb)
400
600
0
0
5
10
15
15
10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
1.25
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
Ratio
Shoreline (26)
10
DDT Concentration
20
0.00
Unit : ppb, Depth : 0 - 1 foot
Location 73,
December 1991
Location 73,
December 1991
10
1.00
Stream
15
20
0.75
600
5
15
Location 68,
December 1991
Location 68,
December 1991
400
0
Depth (feet)
10
200
River Centerline
County
Depth (feet)
Depth (feet)
Depth (feet)
11
5
5
Legend
12
DDT Concentration (ppb)
400
0.50
15
MAP 1
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0.25
10
20
Ratio
20
0.00
5
Location 69,
December 1991
20
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
200
0.75
Ratio
Location 69,
December 1991
0
Location 71,
December 1991
Location 71,
December 1991
15
15
10
15
13
5000
DDT Concentration (ppb)
Depth (feet)
Depth (feet)
0
5
20
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0
1.25
1
2
0
3
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
Ratio
1 - 3.2
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
DDT Concentration (ppb)
400
600
800
0
0
400
600
Depth (feet)
Depth (feet)
5
10
15
10
0.50
0.75
1.00
60
80
10 - 32
5
5
32 - 100
10
20
0.00
Ratio
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
100 - 320
10
320 - 1000
15
Location 74,
December 1991
Location 74,
December 1991
8
Location 67,
November 1991
1.25
40
0
15
Location 67,
November 1991
0.25
20
0
15
20
0.00
0
80
800
0
5
Depth (feet)
200
60
Depth (feet)
200
40
9
0
DDT Concentration (ppb)
20
3.2 - 10
DDT Concentration (ppb)
20
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0
1.25
5
10
15
20
Ratio
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0.10
1000 - 3200
20
3200 - 10000
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
ESSEX
0
250
500
750
1000
0
0
250
500
750
1000
0
7
50
100
150
0
50
100
150
0
0
5
10
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0
1.25
1
2
20
0.0
1.25
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
3
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
800
0
200
400
600
50
100
DDT Concentration (ppb)
150
0
50
150
0
(1) The shoreline represented in this map is based on the shoretype dataset available from
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and shows a general depiction
of the river boundary. The shoreline was delineated by stereoscopic interpretation of
aerial orthophotography. The aerial images used are a snapshot image of the New Jersey
coastline and may not be high tide conditions. Some areas that may be submerged during
high tide appear as dry land.
5
5
(2) The sample locations shown on this map were from the EPA EMAP 90-92; NOAA
NS&T Hudson-Raritan Phase I, 1991; PASSAIC 1990 Surficial Sediment Investigation;
and PASSAIC 1991 Core Sediment Investigation. Coordinates for each point were
provided with the original study data, and these data points were uploaded to the PREmis
database. Some points may appear on land as delineated by the NJDEP shoreline data;
this may be due to the tidal condition at the time the samples were taken (see Note 1).
Samples appearing on land may also occur due to data collection methods or coordinate
resolution of the original source data.
Depth (feet)
Depth (feet)
800
Source of Data for DDT and TCDD:
0
10
10
This (map/publication/report) was developed using New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection Geographic Information System digital data, but this secondary
product has not been verified by NJDEP and is not state-authorized.
15
15
All available core (with more than 3 core horizons) are displayed.
0
Location 62,
November 1991
Location 62,
November 1991
Depth (feet)
5
10
20
0.00
1
5
Depth (feet)
100
2
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
20
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
Ratio
10
Location 63,
November 1991
Location 63,
November 1991
Data: 1990 - 1991
DRAFT April 2005
15
15
20
0.25
0.50
0.75
Ratio
1.00
1.25
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0
Map Document: (G:\4553-001\Geochem and Statistical Analysis\Manali\DDT\MXD\1990_91.mxd)
4/14/2005 -- 8:49:05 AM
4
HUDSON
5
DDT Concentration (ppb)
20
0.00
3
Ratio =
(4,4-DDD + 4,4-DDE)/(4,4-DDD + 4,4-DDE + 4,4-DDT)
TCDD = 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
600
Location 72,
November 1991
Ratio
4
400
DDT Concentration (ppb) =
(4,4-DDD + 4,4-DDE + 4,4-DDT) (ppb)
20
0
200
AXIS LABELS:
15
20
0.00
Ratio
0
10
Location 64,
November 1991
Location 64,
November 1991
20
0.00
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
Location 72,
November 1991
15
15
10
15
10
Ratio
5
6
Depth (feet)
5
Depth (feet)
5
DDT Concentration (ppb)
Depth (feet)
0
DDT Concentration (ppb)
Depth (feet)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
PROFILES
Figure 3
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
0
UNION
2,500
5,000
10,000
Feet
17
Dundee
Dam
16
PASSAIC
DDT Concentration (ppb)
100
200
300
400
0
0
0
2
2
200
300
400
15
0.75
1.00
4
Depth (feet)
Location 116
March 1993
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
Ratio
6
8
10
14
0.00
1.25
0
4
12
0.50
800
8
12
0.25
600
2
10
14
0.00
400
2
10
Location 116,
March 1993
200
6
13
Depth (feet)
8
0
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
14
6
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
4
4
Depth (feet)
100
Depth (feet)
0
DDT Concentration (ppb)
200
400
600
800
6
8
10
12
12
Location 126,
July 1993
14
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Location 126
July 1993
14
0.00
1.25
Ratio
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
BERGEN
DDT Concentration (ppb)
200000
300000
0
0
0
2
2
4
4
6
8
200000
300000
River Centerline
Stream
County
11
6
8
10
10
12
12
Location 125,
July 1993
100000
12
Shoreline (26)
DDT Concentration
Location 125
July 1993
14
14
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
0
0
100
200
300
100
200
Depth (feet)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
0
0
2
2
4
4
200
400
600
6
8
Depth (feet)
400
Unit : ppb, Depth : 0 - 1 foot
0.1 - 3.2
6
3.2 - 10
8
12
Location 123,
July 1993
8
14
0.00
9
4
6
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Location 123
July 1993
14
32 - 100
0
1.25
1
3
4
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
Ratio
6
2
100 - 320
8
320 - 1000
10
10
12
Location 124,
July 1993
14
0.00
0.25
0.50 0.75
Ratio
1.00
Location 124
July 1993
14
0.0
1.25
100
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
1000 - 3200
3200 - 10000
8
12
DDT Concentration (ppb)
300
400
0
0
0
2
2
100
200
300
400
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
ESSEX
4
100
200
DDT Concentration (ppb)
300
0
100
200
300
0
0
2
2
4
4
DDT Concentration (ppb)
6
Ratio
PROFILES
8
10
10
12
Location 122
July 1993
14
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.0
1.25
0.2
0.4
0.6
200
300
0
400
100
200
300
8
10
12
12
14
0.00
14
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
Location 121
July 1993
AXIS LABELS:
0.0
1.25
0.1
0
0.3
200
DDT Concentration (ppb) =
(4,4-DDD + 4,4-DDE + 4,4-DDT) (ppb)
Ratio =
(4,4-DDD + 4,4-DDE)/(4,4-DDD + 4,4-DDE + 4,4-DDT)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
400
0.2
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
Ratio
DDT Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
100
Location 121,
July 1993
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
Ratio
0
8
6
14
0.00
6
10
12
Location 122,
July 1993
Depth (feet)
8
6
7
6
Depth (feet)
4
Depth (feet)
400
0
600
0
0
2
2
4
4
200
400
600
TCDD = 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Location 120,
July 1993
2
Location 120
July 1993
2
4
Depth (feet)
4
6
8
3
6
HUDSON
6
8
10
10
10
12
12
12
0.50
0.75
1.00
14
0.00
1.25
Ratio
2
0.25
5
8
14
0.00
0.10
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.0
1.25
2
4
4
6
8
10
50
100
150
0
Location 117,
July 1993
0.25
0.50
0.75
Ratio
1.00
1.25
2
4
4
6
8
8
12
14
0.00
0.005
0.010
0.015
150
This (map/publication/report) was developed using New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection Geographic Information System digital data, but this secondary
product has not been verified by NJDEP and is not state-authorized.
0.020
6
8
Data: 1992 - 1993
10
Location 118,
July 1993
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Ratio
Location 117
July 1993
1.25
12
Location 118
July 1993
14
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
0.10
DRAFT April 2005
Figure 4
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
0
UNION
2
10
14
0.000
100
0
30
6
12
50
0
14
0.00
20
10
12
2.0
DDT Concentration (ppb)
Depth (feet)
2
1.5
(2) The sample locations shown on this map were from the PASSAIC 1992 Core
Sediment Investigation; PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 01 (March);
PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 02 (July); 93F62MT: MOTBY
(MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL AT BAYONNE); 93F64CL: CLAREMONT 93
REACH III (93FCLMT); 93F64HR: HACKENSACK RIVER; 93F64PE: PORT
ELIZABETH 93; NOAA NS&T Hudson-Raritan Phase II, 1993; and REMAP, 1993.
Coordinates for each point were provided with the original study data, and these data
points were uploaded to the PREmis database. Some points may appear on land as
delineated by the NJDEP shoreline data; this may be due to the tidal condition at the time
the samples were taken (see Note 1). Samples appearing on land may also occur due to
data collection methods or coordinate resolution of the original source data.
All available core (with more than 3 core horizons) are displayed.
Depth (feet)
0
Depth (feet)
0
10
1.0
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
1
0
30
0.5
0.15
DDT Concentration (ppb)
20
Location 119
July 1993
14
0
10
(1) The shoreline represented in this map is based on the shoretype dataset available from
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and shows a general depiction
of the river boundary. The shoreline was delineated by stereoscopic interpretation of
aerial orthophotography. The aerial images used are a snapshot image of the New Jersey
coastline and may not be high tide conditions. Some areas that may be submerged during
high tide appear as dry land.
12
Location 119,
July 1993
0
0
Source of Data for DDT and TCDD:
8
Ratio
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
6
10
14
0.00
4
0.05
Depth (feet)
0
0
Depth (feet)
Depth (feet)
300
10 - 32
2
4
Depth (feet)
200
10
10
12
Map Document: (G:\4553-001\Geochem and Statistical Analysis\Manali\DDT\MXD\1992_93mxd.mxd)
4/14/2005 -- 8:50:50 AM
100
0
2
Depth (feet)
0
400
0
10
DDT Concentration (ppb)
200
400
600
0
Depth (feet)
300
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
Ratio
0
DDT Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
Depth (feet)
100000
Legend
DDT Concentration (ppb)
Depth (feet)
Depth (feet)
0
Map 2
2,500
5,000
10,000
Feet
Dundee Dam
17
16
PASSAIC
DDT Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
200
400
600
0
800
400
600
800
0
0
14
15
2
Depth (feet)
2
Depth (feet)
200
4
6
4
6
13
8
8
Location 274,
June 1995
10
0.00
Location 274,
June 1995
MAP 3
10
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
0.0
Ratio
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
0
25
50
75
0
100
25
50
75
1000
1500
0
2000
DDT Concentration (ppb)
500
1000
1500
2000
River Centerline
0
Stream
Location 211,
May 1995
100
0
0
500
0
DDT Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
Legend
BERGEN
12
County
2
2
Depth (feet)
4
6
8
4
0.75
1.00
DDT Concentration
6
Unit : ppb, Depth : 0 - 1 foot
8
0
10
10
0.00
Location 261,
May 1995
10
0.00
1.25
Shoreline
4
Location 211, May
1995
Ratio
10
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0
1.25
Ratio
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
Depth (feet)
9
8
500
1000
1500
0
2000
0
0
2
2
500
1000
6
8
4
320 - 1000
6
1000 - 3200
8
10
0.00
10
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
0
0
1000
0
0
2
2
4
6
250
500
750
0.50
0.75
1.00
6
200
300
400
2
4
6
8
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
4
AXIS LABELS:
6
DDT Concentration (ppb) =
(4,4-DDD + 4,4-DDE + 4,4-DDT) (ppb)
8
Location 221,
June 1995
Location 221,
June 1995
10
0.00
Location 216,
May 1995
1.25
0
5
10
15
0
1500
500
1000
TCDD = 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
10
0.25
0.50
0.75
HUDSON
Ratio
20
1.00
1.25
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
3
Source of Data for DDT and TCDD :
(1) The shoreline represented in this map is based on the shoretype dataset available from
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and shows a general depiction
of the river boundary. The shoreline was delineated by stereoscopic interpretation of
aerial orthophotography. The aerial images used are a snapshot image of the New Jersey
coastline and may not be high tide conditions. Some areas that may be submerged during
high tide appear as dry land.
2
(2) The sample locations shown on this map were from the PASSAIC 1994 Surficial
Sediment Investigation; PASSAIC 1995 RI Sampling Program; PASSAIC 1995 USACE
Minish Park Investigation; and REMAP, 1994. Coordinates for each point were provided
with the original study data, and these data points were uploaded to the PREmis database.
Some points may appear on land as delineated by the NJDEP shoreline data; this may be
due to the tidal condition at the time the samples were taken (see Note 1). Samples
appearing on land may also occur due to data collection methods or coordinate resolution
of the original source data.
4
DDT Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
1500
0
0
DDT Concentration (ppb)
Ratio =
(4,4-DDD + 4,4-DDE)/(4,4-DDD + 4,4-DDE + 4,4-DDT)
5
1000
100
6
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
500
PROFILES
Ratio
4
Ratio
0
20
1000
10
0.25
0
400
2
Location 216,
May 1995
10
0.00
15
0
8
8
300
Depth (feet)
750
200
0
Depth (feet)
500
Depth (feet)
Depth (feet)
250
100
10
DDT Concentration (ppb)
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0
5
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
ESSEX
0
3200 - 10000
Location 245,
May 1995
Ratio
DDT Concentration (ppb)
2000
100 - 320
4
7
1500
10 - 32
32 - 100
Location 245,
May 1995
DDT Concentration (ppb)
0 - 3.2
5
10
15
20
25
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
3.2 - 10
Depth (feet)
0.50
6
8
Location 261,
May 1995
0.25
4
6
8
10
0.00
Depth (feet)
2
2
Depth (feet)
Depth (feet)
11
This (map/publication/report) was developed using New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection Geographic Information System digital data, but this secondary
product has not been verified by NJDEP and is not state-authorized
Cores (with more than 3 core horizons) displayed are from a data set of 72. Cores were
randomly chosen one per mile.
2
Map Document: (G:\4553-001\Geochem and Statistical Analysis\Manali\DDT\MXD\1995.mxd)
4/14/2005 -- 8:54:12 AM
1
Depth (feet)
Depth (feet)
2
4
6
8
4
Data: 1994 - 1995
6
DRAFT APRIL 2005
8
Location 185,
April 1995
10
0.00
Location 185,
April 1995
10
0.25
0.50
0.75
Ratio
1.00
1.25
0
2
4
6
8
Figure 5
10
TCDD Concentration (ppb)
0
UNION
2,500
5,000
10,000
Feet
Figure 6A
Figure 6B
6C
Figure 7A
Figure 7B
7C
Figure 7D
Figure 1: Reprint from Bopp et al. (1991) Environ. Sci. Technol. 25 (5). Note that 2,4,5-T
(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-acetic acid) was analyzed in the sediment core as a proxy for PCDD.
Malcolm Pirnie DRAFT April 2005: Figure 8
D.A. Chaky (2003) "Polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, and furans in the NY
ensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, NY).
Malcolm Pirnie DRAFT April 2005: Figure 9
Figure 10
10000
• 1995 sediment data (all depths)
• Sample size = 534 (52 samples are not shown since the log 0 is
1000
Toxic Equivalent Quotient (ng TEQ/kg)
100
10
1
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (ng/kg)
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
Figure 11
DRAFT
APRIL 2005
Total PAH Concentration (mg/kg)
10000
1000
100
10
1
0
1
2
3
4
River Mile
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
Figure 12
5
6
7
8
Malcolm Pirnie DRAFT, April 2005
DRAFT
APRIL 2005
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Mercury Concentration (ppm)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
Depth (feet)
2
4
Mercury
Cesium-137
6
8
Location 222 (RM 3.6) 1995
10
0
1000
2000
3000
Cesium-137 (pCi/kg)
4000
5000
Malcolm Pirnie, DRAFT, April 2005: Figure 21A
Mercury Concentration (ppm)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
2
Depth (feet)
4
6
Mercury
Cesium-137
8
10
12
Location 197 (RM 4.0) 1995
14
0
1000
2000
3000
Cesium-137 (pCi/kg)
4000
5000
Malcolm Pirnie, DRAFT, April 2005: Figure 21B
Mercury Concentration (ppm)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
2
4
Depth (feet)
6
8
Mercury
Cesium-137
10
12
14
16
18
Location 203 (RM 4.0) 1995
20
0
1000
2000
3000
Cesium-137 (pCi/kg)
4000
5000
Malcolm Pirnie, DRAFT, April 2005: Figure 21C
Mercury Concentration (ppm)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
Depth (feet)
2
4
Mercury
Cesium-137
6
8
Location 210 (RM 3.8) 1995
10
0
1000
2000
3000
Cesium-137 (pCi/kg)
4000
5000
Malcolm Pirnie, DRAFT, April 2005: Figure 21D
Figure 22
Figure 23
APPENDIX A
Malcolm Pirnie
DRAFT
April 2005
APPENDIX B
Malcolm Pirnie
DRAFT
April 2005
APPENDIX C
HydroQual Figure 3.8: polychlorinated biphenyl, number 77 (PCB77)
HydroQual Figure 3.9: polychlorinated biphenyl, number 153 (PCB153)
HydroQual Figure 3.10: 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
HydroQual Figure 3.11: octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD)
HydroQual Figure 3.12: pyrene (PYRENE)
HydroQual Figure 3.13: benzo[a]pyrene (BAP)
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
APPENDIX
C
APPENDIX D
Malcolm Pirnie
DRAFT
April 2005