Lower 8 Miles
of the
Lower Passaic River
Focused Feasibility Study
March 20, 2013
New YorkNew Jersey
Harbor
Estuary
Lower Passaic River
2
Diamond Alkali
Superfund Site:
Contaminated
with dioxins,
PCBs, pesticides,
metals, PAHs
Phased approach
to clean up
RIVER MILE 10.9
TIME-CRITICAL
REMOVAL ACTION
Why the Lower 8 Miles?
Contaminants bind to fine-grained sediments
(i.e., silts)
Sediment texture maps
Below RM8.3: mostly silts with pockets of sand
Above RM8.3: mostly sand with pockets of silt
85% of fine-grained sediment surface area is
below RM8.3
For LPR, majority of contamination found in
the lower 8 miles
4
)
)
)
17
)
) )
³
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
16
)
Saddle River
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
14
)
Sediment Type
)
Rock and Coarse Gravel
) 15 )
)
)
)
) )
)
) ) )
)
Gravel and Sand
)
Sand
)
Silt and Sand
)
)
)
)
)
)
) ) ) 13
0
0.2
0.4
Miles
0.8
)
1
) 2)
)
)
)
)
Third River
Sediment Texture
)
Path: P:\0285924\Mapping\CSM_MassBalance\SurfaceSed_Maps\SedimentTexture_forNRRB_presentation_121127.mxd
)
)
Silt
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
2012
)
)
)
) 12)
)
³
11
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
10
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Sediment Type
)
Rock and Coarse Gravel
)
Gravel and Sand
)
Sand
)
Silt and Sand
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 8
)
)
Second River
0
0.2
0.4
Miles
0.8
)
Path: P:\0285924\Mapping\CSM_MassBalance\SurfaceSed_Maps\SedimentTexture_forNRRB_presentation_121127.mxd
)
9
)
Silt
Sediment Texture
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
2012
)
6
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 7
)
)
)
)
)
)
³
)
Legend
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Sand
)
Gravel and Sand
3
)
Rock and Coarse Gravel
)
Sediment Type
)
Shoreline as defined by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
)
Tributaries
)
Passaic River Above Dundee Dam
)
)
Lower Passaic River Centerline
(1/10-Mile River Segments)
)
)
5
2
)
Silt and Sand
)
)
)
Silt
)
)
)
)
)
) )
)
)
0.2
0.4
Miles
0.8
)
0
) )
)
)
)
)
) 1)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Path: P:\0285924\Mapping\CSM_MassBalance\SurfaceSed_Maps\SedimentTexture_forNRRB_presentation_121127.mxd
)
)
)
4
Sediment Texture
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
2012
How Contaminated is the River?
No decline in concentrations over last 15 yrs
Nav channel filled in, river approaching equilibrium
Concentrations are higher deeper down
Resuspension of sediments is the major ongoing source of contamination.
5
2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediments, RM 1-7 (0-6 inches)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
TCDD Concentration (pg/g)
100,000
10,000
1,000
100
10
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
River Mile
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
6
7
8
2012
Human Health Risks
Highest risks are from eating fish/shellfish
Goal (cancer):
1 excess cancer in 10,000 (1 x 10-4) to
1 excess cancer in 1,000,000 (1 x 10-6)
Goal (non-cancer): Hazard Index = 1
Fish
Crab
Total Cancer Risk
(Adult/Child)
Total Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
(Child)
5 x 10-3
2 x 10-3
195
67
6
Ecological Risks
Benthic invertebrates, Fish, Birds, Mammals
Hazard Quotients as high as 900
Primary contributors:
(compared to a goal of 1)
Dieldrin, Total DDx
Copper, Mercury
Dioxin/Furans; PCBs
7
Alternatives Summary
FFS evaluates 4 alternatives:
1) No Action
2) Deep Dredging with Backfill
3) Capping with Dredging for Flooding
and Navigation
4) Focused Dredging and Capping
Active
Alternatives
Active alternatives have 3 disposal options:
A. CAD (confined aquatic disposal) in Newark Bay
B. Off-Site Disposal
C. Local Decontamination & Beneficial Use
8
FFS Active Alternatives
(1 of 2)
Deep Dredging with Backfill:
Remove all contaminated fine sediments in lower 8 mi
Backfill with 2 feet of sand to address residuals (no
maintenance required)
Capping with Dredging:
Engineered cap over lower 8 miles (w/maintenance)
Dredge enough contaminated fine sediments to:
Prevent additional flooding after cap is installed
Allow for navigation channel in RM 0-2
FFS Active Alternatives
(2 of 2)
Focused Capping with Dredging:
Dredge and Cap about 220 acres in lower 8 miles
Areas that send the most contaminants into the water
Selected less than 150 acres in lower 13 miles
Similar to CPG’s Targeted Remedy
EPA’s focused alternative does not adequately
protect human health and the environment.
Modeling Predictions
Issues with Partial Remedies
CPG’s claims of risk reduction for Targeted Remedy
cannot be verified, because based on rudimentary mass
balance calculations, not modeling (national standard).
Upland projects do nothing to reduce risks in the river
Assume that small areas of high contaminant flux can be
reliably identified.
Rely on natural recovery outside of small capped areas,
when in reality:
Those areas will be covered over by neighboring contamination
on the next tide or during next storm
River is approaching equilibrium, so deposition alternates with
erosion, making natural recovery extremely slow.
Disposal Options
(1 of 2)
CAD in Newark Bay
2-3 cells dug deep in Newark Bay clay bottom
Dredged materials barged directly to CAD
Engineered cap closes CAD, restores Bay bottom
Off-Site Disposal
Dredged materials dewatered at local upland
processing facility
Transported by rail for disposal at incinerators and
landfills.
13
Disposal Options
(2 of 2)
Local Decontamination & Beneficial Use
All work done at local upland processing facility
Dredged materials are decontaminated using:
Thermal treatment (after dewatering)
Sediment washing
Resulting products beneficially used:
Thermally treated materials used to produce cement
Sediment washing products stabilized and used for landfill
cover
14
Summary of Alternatives
Alternative
Volume
Dredged
Remedy
Implementation Time
1) No Action
N/A
N/A
2) Deep
9.7 million
Dredging
cubic
with Backfill
yards
3) Capping
with
Dredging
4.3 million
cubic
yards
4) Focused
0.9 million
Dredging
cubic
and Capping
yards
12 years
6 years
3 years
Dredged Materials
Management
Options
Cost
(NPW)
N/A
$0
CAD
$1.4 B
Off-Site Disposal
$3.5 B
Decon./Benefic Use
$3.0 B
CAD
$1.0 B
Off-Site Disposal
$1.8 B
Decon./Benefic Use
$1.8 B
CAD
Off-Site Disposal
Decon./Benefic Use
$0.4 B
$0.6 B
$0.5 B
15
FFS Evaluation Against 9 Criteria
Overall protection of human health & the
environment
Compliance with ARARs
• Long-term effectiveness & permanence
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, volume
through treatment
• Short-term effectiveness
• Implementability
• Cost
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
Threshold
Balancing
Modifying
(after Proposed Plan)