focused feasibility study report for the lower eight miles of the lower passaic river

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 i 2014 Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

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 Purpose and Organization .......................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.2 Organization ....................................................................................................... 1-2

1.2 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

2 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 ii 2014 Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

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 iii 2014 Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

3.6 Summary of Retained Technologies and Process Options ...................................... 3-14

3.7 Selection of Representative Technologies and Process Options ............................. 3-15

4 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 Modeling Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives ...................................................... 4-19

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 Summary of Remedial Alternatives Retained for Detailed Analysis ...................... 4-50

5 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives .......................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Evaluation Process and Evaluation Criteria .............................................................. 5-1

Focused Feasibility Study iv 2014 Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

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 v 2014 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 vi 2014 Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

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 vii 2014 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:


Focused Feasibility Study viii 2014 Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

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:


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


Figure 5-1d Average Concentration of Mercury in Surface Sediment (Top 15 cm) between


Focused Feasibility Study ix 2014 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 ES-1 2014 Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

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.


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). 2ρg/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


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).


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.


Contaminant Units

Overall Eco

Sediment PRG

Cancer Threshold Sediment PRG for an Adult Non-cancer Threshold Sediment

PRG Background Sediment

Concentration 56 fish meals per year 34 crab meals per year

1 × 10-6 1 × 10-5 1 × 10-4 1 ×10-6 1 × 10-5 1 × 10-4 56 fish meals

per year

34 crab meals

per year

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 32 320* 1.6 51 1600* 44 82 460

Total DDx ng/g 0.30 (W) - - - - 30

2,3,7,8-TCDD ng/g 0.0011 (F/W) 0.000095 0.0016 0.022 0.00043 0.005 0.058 0.0071 0.019 0.002

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

Retained Process Options

Representative Process Options (for cost estimation purposes)

Institutional controls

Fish consumption advisories and dredging restrictions

Fish consumption advisories, restrictions on private sediment disturbance, and limitations on recreational use of the river

MNR MNR as a component of alternatives comprising active remedial measures

Containment Engineered caps (including stone or clay aggregate material as armor), active caps, and geotextiles

Engineered caps (with and without armor stone)


Retained Technologies

Retained Process Options

Representative Process Options (for cost estimation purposes)

Sediment removal

Excavation, mechanical dredging, and/or hydraulic dredging

Mechanical dredging

Ex situ treatment Immobilization, sediment washing, vitrification, or thermal destruction

Thermal destruction, sediment washing, and solidification/stabilization

Beneficial use Sanitary landfill cover, construction fill, and mined lands reclamation

Disposal Off-site landfill or confined aquatic disposal (CAD) cell

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


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.


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

1The 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.


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 federally-

authorized 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.


Approximately 4.3 million cy of sediment would be targeted for removal under Alternative 3.


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 non-

contiguous 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.


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.


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 post-

construction 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


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


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

Fish

Remedial Alternative 30-Year Exposure Combined Risk (Adult + Child)

No Action 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 2 × 10-3

Crab

Remedial Alternative 30-Year Exposure Combined Risk (Adult + Child)

No Action 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

Estimated Modeled Future Non-Cancer Health Hazards for Each Remedial Alternative

Fish

Remedial Alternative 30-Year Exposure

Adult Hazard Child Hazard 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 55 97

Crab

Remedial Alternative 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


Estimated Modeled Future Ecological Hazards for Each Remedial Alternative

Receptor Category Species Remedial Alternative(a) Year

Hazard Estimate NOAEL LOAEL

Macro invertebrate

Benthos

No Action 2019 300 200 2048 200 100

Deep Dredging with Backfill 2030 10 6 2059 30 8

Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation

2023 20 8 2052 30 7

Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding

2020 200 100 2049 100 70

Crab

No Action 2019 400 60 2048 300 40



2023 30 5 2052 10 3


2020 200 40 2049 200 30

Fish

Generic

No Action 2019 300 200 2048 200 100



2023 20 9 2052 20 5


2020 200 90 2049 100 70

Mummichog

No Action 2019 50 20 2048 40 10



2023 4 2 2052 7 2


2020 30 10 2049 30 10

Bird Great Blue Heron

(mummichog diet)

No Action 2019 20 3 2048 10 2

Deep Dredging with Backfill 2030 1 0.2 2059 7 0.8


2023 1 0.3 2052 7 0.8


2020 10 2 2049 10 2

Mammal Mink

No Action 2019 1000 50 2048 700 30



2023 60 4 2052 30 2


2020 600 30 2049 400 20

NOAEL= No Observed Adverse Effect Levels; LOAEL= Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels


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.

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

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Alternative 2DMM Scenario A

Alternative 2DMM Scenario B

Alternative 2DMM Scenario C







Total Contingency

Total Operation and Maintenance Costs

Total Dredged Material Management Costs

Total Capital Costs

Cos

t [$M

]


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 non-

cancer 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


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 fine-

grained 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


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


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.


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 1-1 2014 Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

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-dioxin2

(2,3,7,8-TCDD), TCDD Toxic Equivalency Quotient (TEQ3), Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls

(PCBs4) 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: 2,3,7,8-

TCDD, 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. 3 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.


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


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 RM8.36 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

Protection7 (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.


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.


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 acres9.

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 ocean-

going 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.


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


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.


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


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.


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. 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). 2. 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 recently-

deposited sediments by river mile from RM2 to RM12 (see RI Figures 4-3, 4-12, 4-17b, 4-32b,


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, 4-

15, 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.


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


(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).


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.


• 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


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


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


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 mid-

1950s 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


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-time11 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 “half-time” expression is just a means to encompass these processes and note their net effect on concentration through time.


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 recently-

deposited 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


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.


• 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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.

Upper Passaic

River (percent)

Newark Bay

(percent)

Tributaries

(percent)

CSOs-SWOs

(percent)

Lower Passaic

River

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


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 model12 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 year13

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 Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Program (CARP) model (HydroQual, 2007). 13 A “water year” is defined as the 12-month period from October 1st of any given year through September 30th of the following year.


• 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.


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 decision-

making 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


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 non-

cancer 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


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.


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


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.


2.2.1 Definition of ARARs

ARARs14, 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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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:


• 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 2-216, 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


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


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 HQ17 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., residue-

based 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]).


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 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 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


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


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


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.


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 bank-

to-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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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).


• 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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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 sponsor19.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].


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 multi-

lingual 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


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/


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.


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.


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.


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.


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 multi-


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.


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


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 1880s-

1910s, 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


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-720 would remain stable under normal flow

20 See http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/specs/2007/spec900.shtm#s90101

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/specs/2007/spec900.shtm#s90101


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 re-

colonized 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).


• 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.


• 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.


• 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 CDF22 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.


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 required23. 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 less-

contaminated 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.


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 off-

site for thermal treatment, if necessary, and final disposal.


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). Non-

hazardous 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.


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.


Fifteen Subtitle C landfills were evaluated to assess their suitability for disposal of the non-

hazardous 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


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


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

sites25), 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).


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.


• 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


(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


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


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


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.)


• 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 Removal26.

• 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.


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.


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:


• 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


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.


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.


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.


Within the horizontal limits of the authorized navigation channel, the depth of contaminated fine-

grained 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


width


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.


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.


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


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, 4-

3f, 4-3h, and 4-3k) show no overlap between Alternative 2 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 2 are significantly lower than corresponding

concentrations under Alternative 1.


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.


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


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 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).

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.


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


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,


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):


• 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 Long-

Term Monitoring Program, the thickness of the engineered cap would be monitored and

maintained following implementation.


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.


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 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.



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


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.



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.


RM0.9 is presented in Figures 4-4a through 4-4d for the period 2030 to 2059. Implementation of


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


processing and transport of contaminated sediments are similar to those discussed above under

the effectiveness evaluation for Alternative 2.


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




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.





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


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:


• Limited duration of the remediation period (a matter of months at any given location)


• Control of sediment removal and engineered cap placement mechanics and rates.


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


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


(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.


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 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.


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


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





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.





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


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.


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.


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 230) 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.


Alternative

Start of Modeled

In-River

Remediation

End of Modeled

In-River

Remediation1

Start of Post

Remediation

Exposure Period2

End of Post

Remediation

Exposure Period2

End of

Modeled

Period

Alternative 1

2018

2018 2019 2048

2059 Alternative 2 2029 2030 2059

Alternative 3 2022 2023 2052

Alternative 4 2019 2020 2049 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.


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).


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 summed31 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 24-year averages for use as the EPC for the COPC.


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


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 residuals32 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.


• 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 alternative-

specific 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.


• 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.


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 pre-

construction 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.


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


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 2,3,7,8-

TCDD, 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.



from 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 to be 0.9 kg of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,100 kg of

Total PCBs, 230 kg for Total DDx33, 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


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.


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


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)



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 re-

contaminated 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.


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.



Alternative 2 would satisfy the location-specific and action-specific ARARs (see Table 2-1a).


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.


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.


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


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



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.


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.


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


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.


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).


Protection of the Community during Remedial Actions



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 on-

site 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 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 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.


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 dredging34

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).


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.


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


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


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


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:


• Limited duration of the remediation period in one location (operating only a few months

in the vicinity of any given shore location)


• 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


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.


• 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 federally-

authorized 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)



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 re-

contaminated 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 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.


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 2,3,7,8-

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).

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


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.







in the water column. However, because this FFS only addresses the sediments portion of the





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


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.


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


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



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


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


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).




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.


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. 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 costs.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.





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).


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







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 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

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 off-

site 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.





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.


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 dredging36 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.


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


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).


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



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.




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.


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


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.


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


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.



approaching the capacity required for this project, so the technical feasibility of using these


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).



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



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


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



• Limited duration of the remediation period (operating a few months in the vicinity of any

given shore location)



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








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.



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 with DMM Scenario A (Capping with Dredging for Flooding and

Navigation and CAD), the estimated PV cost is approximately $953,000,000.


• 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.


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)



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,


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.


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


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.







in the water column. However, because this FFS only addresses the sediments portion of the







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.


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.


• 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.


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


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).




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-


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


subject to each technology would depend on the results of waste characterization testing during

the remedial design.


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.





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







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 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.




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.


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 dredging37 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.


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


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



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).


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.




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.


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.


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.


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.


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.



approaching the capacity required for this project so the technical feasibility of using these


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).


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





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


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



• Limited duration of the remediation period (a few months in the vicinity of any given

shore location)



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








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.



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 with DMM Scenario A (Capping with Dredging for Flooding and

Navigation and CAD), the estimated PV cost is approximately $365,000,000.


• 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.


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


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 federally-

authorized 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.


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.


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.


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).

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).

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500










Total Contingency

Total Operation and Maintenance Costs

Total Dredged Material Management Costs

Total Capital Costs

Cos

t [$M

]


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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:


• 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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Beckingham%20B%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22077959

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Ghosh%20U%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=22077959

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22077959


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://ceqg-

rcqe.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

http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/

http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/


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.


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-demo-

report.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.

http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/airwater/maritime/documents/Beneficial-Use-demo-report.pdf.%20April%202008

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/airwater/maritime/documents/Beneficial-Use-demo-report.pdf.%20April%202008


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,


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


& 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 TN-

DOER-R7), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/srra/ecological_evaluation.pdf

http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/sediment/


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.

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/foxriver/feasabilitystudy.html


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 Hudson-

Raritan 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/2010-07-

29%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.

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/NewYorkNewJerseyHarbor/HudsonRaritanEstuary.aspx

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/NewYorkNewJerseyHarbor/HudsonRaritanEstuary.aspx

http://passaic.sharepointspace.com/Public%20Documents/2010-07-29%20USACE%20Lower%20Passaic%20River%20Commercial%20Navigation%20Analysis.pdf



http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/harbor/crp/pdf/vol1.pdf




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/R-

10/005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Science Advisor Risk Assessment

Forum, Washington, DC. December, 2010.

http://icejams.crrel.usace.army.mil/

http://www.census.gov/2010census/


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-levels-

200308.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.

http://www.epa.gov/Region5/waste/cars/pdfs/ecological-screening-levels-200308.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/Region5/waste/cars/pdfs/ecological-screening-levels-200308.pdf


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.

http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/ots/ecolbul.htm

http://www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/riskassess/ecolbul.html


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/R-

93/055.

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.


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.


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.

TABLES

Table 1-1 Lower Passaic River Authorized Dimensions of the Federal Navigation Channel and Periods of Dredging

Focused Feasibility StudyLower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River Page 1 of 2 2014

Passaic River Reaches

Kearny Point Reach:RM0 to RM1.2Authorized Depth: 30 feet

1884 – Constructed to 10 Feet1906 – Deepened to 12 Feet1913 – Deepened to 16 Feet1914 – Deepened to 20-22 Feet1916 – Maintained at 16-17 Feet1917 – Maintained at 21-22 Feet1921 – Maintained at 20 Feet1932 – Constructed to 30 Feet1933 – Maintained at 30 Feet1941 – Maintained at 30 Feet

1946 – Maintained at 30 Feet1951 – Maintained at 30 Feet1957 – Maintained at 30 Feet1962 – Maintained at 30 Feet1965 – Maintained at 30 Feet1971 – Maintained at 30 Feet1972 – Maintained at 30 Feet1977 – Maintained at 30 Feet1983 – Maintained at 30 Feet

Point No Point Reach:RM1.2 to RM2.5Authorized Depth: 30 feet

1884 – Constructed to 10 Feet1899 – Maintained at 10 Feet (from RM1.9)1906 – Deepened to 12 Feet1913 – Deepened to 16 Feet1914 – Deepened to 20-22 Feet (to RM1.9)1916 – Maintained at 16-17 Feet1917 – Maintained to 21-22 Feet (toRM2.0)1921 – Maintained at 20 Feet1922 – Maintained at 20 Feet (from RM1.4)1932 – Constructed to 30 Feet1933 – Maintained at 30 Feet

1941 – Maintained at 30 Feet1946 – Maintained at 30 Feet1951 – 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 RM4.6Authorized Depth: 30 feet to RM2.6Authorized Depth: 20 feetFrom RM2.6

Newark Reach:RM4.6 to RM6.1Authorized Depth: 20 feet (Constructed Depth: 16 feet)

Dredging History (Iannuzzi, et. al. 2002 )

1884 – Constructed to 10 Feet1899 – Maintained at 10 Feet1906 – Deepened to 12 Feet1913 – Deepened to 16 Feet1916 – Maintained at 16-17 Feet1916 – Deepened to 20-21 Feet (RM2.6 to RM4.5)1921 – Maintained at 20 Feet1922 – 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)

1884 – Constructed to 10 Feet (to RM5.4)1899 – Maintained at 10 Feet (to RM5.4)1906 – Deepened to 12 Feet1913 – Deepened to 16 Feet (to RM5.8)1916 – Maintained at 16-17 Feet1919 – Maintained at 16 Feet (starting at RM4.6)1933 – Maintained at 10 Feet (from RM6.0)1950 – Maintained at 16 Feet (from RM5.5)

Table 1-1 Lower Passaic River Authorized Dimensions of the Federal Navigation Channel and Periods of Dredging


Passaic River Reaches Dredging History (Iannuzzi, et. al. 2002 )

Kearny Reach:RM6.1 to RM7.1Authorized Depth: 20 feet (Constructed Depth: 16 feet)

Arlington Reach:RM7.1 to RM8.1Authorized Depth: 16 feet

Belleville Reach:RM8.1 to RM8.3 (Partial Reach)Authorized Depth: 16 feet

Above Erie/Montclair &Greenwood Lake RailroadBridge:RM8.3 to RM15.4Authorized Depth: 10 feet

Source: Table 1 of USACE 2010 Lower Passaic River Commercial Navigation Analysis Report (USACE, 2010).

1915 – Constructed to 6-7 Feet1927 – Maintained to 6 Feet1929 – Maintained to 6 Feet1930 – Constructed to 10 Feet1931 – Maintained to 10 Feet1932 – Maintained to 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)

1883 – Constructed to 6 Feet1906 – 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 Feet1919 – 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 Feet1906 – 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)

Table 1-2a Summary Statistics for Concentrations of Contaminants in Surface Sediments in the Lower Passaic River

Focused Feasibility StudyLower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River 1 of 1 2014

Chemical Parameters Unit Count Min Max Mean Median Std Dev Std Err

2,3,7,8-TCDD ρg/g 87 0.09 2,370 293 210 306 33Total TCDD ρg/g 66 32 2,880 433 337 398 49Dieldrin µg/kg 85 0.02 42 7.0 4.4 7.7 0.84Total Chlordane µg/kg 85 0.05 230 31 21 34 3.7Total DDx µg/kg 86 3.3 410 98 76 79 8.6Total PAH µg/kg 86 2.0 359 34 28 42 4.5Total PCB µg/kg 86 0.10 6,960 1,155 871 994 107Copper mg/kg 103 0.21 289 147 143 53 5.2Lead mg/kg 102 28 565 197 194 84 8.4Mercury mg/kg 103 0.32 8.3 2.3 2.0 1.3 0.13

2,3,7,8-TCDD ρg/g 278 0.77 34,100 1,157 293 3,452 207Total TCDD ρg/g 246 2.2 37,900 1,396 419 3,905 249Dieldrin µg/kg 270 0.01 152 13 5.9 20 1.2Total Chlordane µg/kg 259 0.31 254 39 36 34 2.1Total DDx µg/kg 275 0.32 10,229 278 112 787 47Total PAH µg/kg 275 0.21 2,806 52 32 177 11Total PCB µg/kg 272 2.3 28,600 1,831 1,050 3,352 203Copper mg/kg 281 0.28 2,470 196 176 172 10Lead mg/kg 276 4.4 906 281 256 143 8.6Mercury mg/kg 278 0.05 16 2.9 2.3 2.5 0.15

2,3,7,8-TCDD ρg/g 84 4.9 23,200 1,305 294 3,502 382Total TCDD ρg/g 67 7.7 25,100 1,859 450 4,301 525Dieldrin µg/kg 85 0.11 85 7.0 4.6 10 1.1Total Chlordane µg/kg 84 0.43 154 52 48 37 4.0Total DDx µg/kg 84 1.5 1,045 139 85 193 21Total PAH µg/kg 85 0.50 98 35 36 21 2.2Total PCB µg/kg 85 0.23 17,588 1,657 770 3,063 332Copper mg/kg 88 5.7 778 170 151 140 15Lead mg/kg 88 8.6 1,030 252 225 188 20Mercury mg/kg 88 0.02 16 2.4 1.7 2.7 0.29

2,3,7,8-TCDD ρg/g 61 0.05 585 78 3.8 145 19Total TCDD ρg/g 40 3.2 666 123 27 187 30Dieldrin µg/kg 61 0.02 43 4.5 2.8 6.4 0.82Total Chlordane µg/kg 61 0.38 330 34 26 44 5.7Total DDx µg/kg 61 0.19 568 42 18 82 11Total PAH µg/kg 61 0.76 242 38 29 43 5.5Total PCB µg/kg 61 0.06 4,010 458 210 646 83Copper mg/kg 64 7.7 382 71 46 68 8.5Lead mg/kg 62 14 641 153 124 123 16Mercury mg/kg 64 0.02 5.5 0.81 0.38 1.0 0.13Notes:

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

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.

1995-2012 Data for RM0 to RM2



1995-2012 Data for RM12 to RM17.4

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,

Table 1-2b Summary Statistics for Concentrations of Contaminants in Surface Sediments in Newark Bay (2005 and 2007 data)



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 0.35Notes:

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.

Table 1-2c Summary Statistics for Concentrations of Contaminants in Surface Sediments (0-1 inch) in the Upper Passaic River



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 0.10Notes:

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.

Table 1-3 Concentrations of COPCs and COPECs by Depth Within the FFS Study Area


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)

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)

0.019 15 0.024 17 0.0014 25 0.0016 27

250 (-3.6) 250 (-3.9) 580 (-3.9) 1,000 (-3)

0.011 45 0.033 45 0.0037 61 0.0023 35

180 (-41) 220 (-36) 290 (-48) 240 (-10)

0.006 73 0.0013 140 0.0011 45 0.00032 64

6,500 (-30) 7,750 (-32) 720 (-29) 1,270 (-33)

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)

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)

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.

Contaminant Concentrations in Sediment with Depth

COPCs- COPECs

0.5 to 1.5 feet 1.5 to 2.5 feet 2.5 to 3.5 feet3.5 feet to bottom of

cores1

Lead (mg/kg)

2,3,7,8-TCDD (ρg/g)

Total TCDD (ρg/g)

Total PCB (µg/kg)

Total DDx (µg/kg)

Dieldrin (µg/kg)

Chlordane (µg/kg)

Total PAHs (mg/kg)

Mercury (mg/kg)

Copper (mg/kg)



Authority/Source General Description ARAR or TBC

USEPA Region 4 Waste Management Division Sediment Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites

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 and sensitive ecological effects data, they represent a preliminary screening of site contaminant levels to determine if there is a need to conduct further investigations at the 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.

TBC

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Ecological Screening Levels

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

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.

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.

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)

TBC

Potential Chemical-Specific ARARs or TBCs

Federal




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 of Contaminated Sediment (ARCS) Program.

Screening Level Concentration (SLC) benchmarks developed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Lowest effect levels and severe effect levels are provided (Persaud et al. 1993).

Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment) 1999. updated 2001.

Dioxin and furan values given in the units of ng Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (TEQ)/kg. TBC

Provides guidance for the evaluation of ecological risk in aquatic and terrestrial habitats associated with contaminated sites. The ecological screen criteria are available at: www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/guidance/ecoscreening

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq., CZMA § 307 Coordination and cooperation

Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Regulations, 15 CFR Part 930: 15 CFR 930.30

Jones, D.S., G.W. Suter II, R.N. Hull (cont'd) TBC

State

Potential Location-Specific ARARs or TBCs

Federal

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 management programs.

ARAR

Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance (NJDEP 2012) TBC

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/guidance/ecoscreening




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

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, long-term 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

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. § 662, 40 CFR 6.302(g).

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 consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the appropriate state 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).

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.

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

ARAR




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 Management and Wetlands Protection; 40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A

Sets forth USEPA policy and guidance for carrying out Executive Orders (EO) 11990 and 11988. TBC

New Jersey Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act , N.J.S.A. 4:24-39, N.J.A.C. 2:90

Regulates construction that will potentially result in erosion of soils, such as upland processing facility. 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

State




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

New Jersey Register of Historic Places Act N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.128 et seq.

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 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

Rivers & Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403 Governs coordination of activities occurring in navigable waters. Congressional approval 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.

33 CFR Parts 322, 323, 329US 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.

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251, et seq.,

CWA §§ 303, 304(a)

40 CFR Parts 129, 131 Specific toxic pollution effluent standards that may apply: Aldrin/Dieldrin 129.4(a), DDT 129.4(b), PCBs 129.4(f)

Potential Action-Specific ARARs

Federal

ARAR

ARAR

Provides authority for USEPA to establish water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health. New Jersey has promulgated surface water quality criteria. 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.

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.

ARAR




Clean Water Act, §40140 CFR §121.2

Clean Water Act, §40440 CFR Part 230 (Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material).

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 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)

Provides emissions standards for specific contaminants and for categories of operating equipment. ARAR

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6921 et seq.

40 CFR Parts 239 – 299

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.

40 CFR Part 761 Subpart D

Regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.

ARAR

Regulates PCBs from manufacture to disposal. ARAR

Establishes requirements for generators, transporters and facilities that manage non-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.

ARAR

ARAR

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).




Hazardous Material Transportation Act (HMTA), 49 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1819

Hazardous Waste Transportation: 49 CFR Parts 171-177

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.

New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards, N.J.A.C. 7:9B

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 Air Pollution Control Act, N.J.S.A. § 26:2C et seq., N.J.A.C. 7:27

Governs emissions that introduce contaminants into the ambient atmosphere for a variety of substances and from a variety of sources; controls and prohibits air pollution, particle emissions and toxic VOC emissions.

ARAR

New Jersey Solid Waste Management Act, N.J.S.A. §13:1E-1, et seq., New Jersey Solid and Hazardous Waste Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:26, 7:26B and 7:26G

Establishes requirements for generators, transporters and facilities that manage solid waste and hazardous waste, and for thermal destruction facilities. 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.

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

State

Regulates the transportation of hazardous materials, and include the procedures for the packaging, labeling, manifesting and transporting of hazardous materials to a licensed off-site disposal facility.

ARAR



TBC TBC

(2) USEPA Region 5, 2003 (3) NJDEP 1998

RCRA Ecological Screening Levels

(f)

Volatile Organic Sediment Screening Guidelines, Freshwater

and Estuarine/Marine Systems (MacDonald et al., 1992)

TOC (used for NJDEP 1998, SEL) 0.01 Effects Value CLP PQL (a) Screening Value Lowest Effects Level

(LEL)Severe Effects Level

(SEL)Effects Range -

Low (ER-L)Effects Range - Median (ER-M) Chronic Value NOAA (l): ER-L NOAA (l): ER-M FL DEP (l): TEL FL DEP (l): PEL

Inorg: (mg/kg); Org: (µg/kg)


Inorg: (mg/kg); Org: (µg/kg);

Dioxin (ng/kg)(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)

Inorg: (mg/kg dry weight); Org: (µg/kg dry

weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)

87-61-6 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene (Historical) VOA540-59-0 1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE VOA591-78-6 2-HEXANONE (Historical) VOA 58.2 (j)108-10-1 4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE VOA 25.1 (j)67-64-1 ACETONE VOA 9.9 (j)

AVS Acid Volatile sulfides (Historical) VOA71-43-2 BENZENE VOA 142 0.3475-25-2 BROMOFORM VOA 492 (j)75-15-0 CARBON DISULFIDE VOA 23.9 (j)108-90-7 CHLOROBENZENE VOA 291124-48-1 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE VOA67-66-3 CHLOROFORM VOA 12175-27-4 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE VOA --100-41-4 ETHYLBENZENE VOA 175 1.474-87-3 METHYL CHLORIDE VOA --78-93-3 METHYL ETHYL KETONE VOA 42.4 (j)75-09-2 METHYLENE CHLORIDE VOA 159 (j)108-88-3 TOLUENE VOA 1220 (j)127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene VOA 990 0.4579-01-6 TRICHLOROETHYLENE VOA 112(j) 1.6

1330-20-7 XYLENE (Historical) (total) VOA 433 (j) >0.12

95-94-3 1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE SV 1252 (j)120-82-1 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE SV 5062 (j)105-67-9 2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL SV 30451-28-5 2,4-DINITROPHENOL SV 6.21

28804-88-8 2,6-/2,7-DIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE SV606-20-2 2,6-DINITROTOLUENE SV 39.895-57-8 2-CHLOROPHENOL SV 31.999-09-2 3-NITROANILINE SV --59-50-7 4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL SV 388106-44-5 4-METHYLPHENOL SV 20.2100-02-7 4-NITROPHENOL SV 13.395-15-8 BENZO(b)THIOPHENE SV65-85-0 BENZOIC ACID SV

BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER SV117-81-7 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE SV 182 (c) 3.6 182 182 (g) -- -- 182 264785-68-7 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE SV 1970 (j)510-15-6 CHLOROBENZILATE SV 860

2921-88-2 Chlorpyrifos (Historical) SVOL1861-32-1 DACTHAL SV132-64-9 DIBENZOFURAN SV 449 (j)132-65-0 DIBENZOTHIOPHENE SV

1002-53-5 DIBUTYLTIN SV131-11-3 DIMETHYLPHTHALATE SV84-74-2 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE SV 1114117-84-0 DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE SV 4060087-68-3 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE SV 26.5 (j)541-73-1 M-DICHLOROBENZENE (1,3-DCB) SV 1315 (j)

78763-54-9 MONOBUTYLTIN SV86-30-6 N-NITROSO-DI-PHENYLAMINE SV --621-64-7 N-NITROSO-DI-PROPYLAMINE SV --95-48-7 O-CRESOL (2-Methylphenol) SV 55.495-50-1 O-DICHLOROBENZENE (1,2-DCB) SV 294

1825-21-4 PENTACHLOROANISOLE SV608-93-5 PENTACHLOROBENZENE SV 24 (j)82-68-8 PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE SV --108-95-2 PHENOL SV 49.1

1461-25-2 TETRABUTYLTIN SV56573-85-4 TRIBUTYLTIN SV1582-09-8 Trifluralin (Historical) SVOL

106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene PAH 318 (j)

METHYL_NAP167 1,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene (Historical) PAH

90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene PAH832-69-9 1-Methylphenanthrene PAH

TBC TBC NOAA: TBC, FL DEP: TBC

Region 4 Waste Management Division Sediment Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites (note: also

given in ARCS)

Freshwater Sediment Screening Guidelines (Persaud et al., 1993) (k)

Marine/Estuarine Sediment Screening Guidelines (Long et al., 1995) (k) Selected Integrative Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Marine and Estuarine Sediments

CAS No. Description Class (1) USEPA Region 4, 2001 (3) NJDEP 1998 (3) NJDEP 1998 (4) Jones et al. (1997)

TBC



TOC (used for NJDEP 1998, SEL) 0.01

87-61-6 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene (Historical) VOA540-59-0 1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE VOA591-78-6 2-HEXANONE (Historical) VOA108-10-1 4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE VOA67-64-1 ACETONE VOA

AVS Acid Volatile sulfides (Historical) VOA71-43-2 BENZENE VOA75-25-2 BROMOFORM VOA75-15-0 CARBON DISULFIDE VOA108-90-7 CHLOROBENZENE VOA124-48-1 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE VOA67-66-3 CHLOROFORM VOA75-27-4 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE VOA100-41-4 ETHYLBENZENE VOA74-87-3 METHYL CHLORIDE VOA78-93-3 METHYL ETHYL KETONE VOA75-09-2 METHYLENE CHLORIDE VOA108-88-3 TOLUENE VOA127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene VOA79-01-6 TRICHLOROETHYLENE VOA

1330-20-7 XYLENE (Historical) (total) VOA

95-94-3 1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE SV120-82-1 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE SV105-67-9 2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL SV51-28-5 2,4-DINITROPHENOL SV

28804-88-8 2,6-/2,7-DIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE SV606-20-2 2,6-DINITROTOLUENE SV95-57-8 2-CHLOROPHENOL SV99-09-2 3-NITROANILINE SV59-50-7 4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL SV106-44-5 4-METHYLPHENOL SV100-02-7 4-NITROPHENOL SV95-15-8 BENZO(b)THIOPHENE SV65-85-0 BENZOIC ACID SV

BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER SV117-81-7 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE SV85-68-7 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE SV510-15-6 CHLOROBENZILATE SV

2921-88-2 Chlorpyrifos (Historical) SVOL1861-32-1 DACTHAL SV132-64-9 DIBENZOFURAN SV132-65-0 DIBENZOTHIOPHENE SV

1002-53-5 DIBUTYLTIN SV131-11-3 DIMETHYLPHTHALATE SV84-74-2 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE SV117-84-0 DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE SV87-68-3 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE SV541-73-1 M-DICHLOROBENZENE (1,3-DCB) SV

78763-54-9 MONOBUTYLTIN SV86-30-6 N-NITROSO-DI-PHENYLAMINE SV621-64-7 N-NITROSO-DI-PROPYLAMINE SV95-48-7 O-CRESOL (2-Methylphenol) SV95-50-1 O-DICHLOROBENZENE (1,2-DCB) SV

1825-21-4 PENTACHLOROANISOLE SV608-93-5 PENTACHLOROBENZENE SV82-68-8 PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE SV108-95-2 PHENOL SV

1461-25-2 TETRABUTYLTIN SV56573-85-4 TRIBUTYLTIN SV1582-09-8 Trifluralin (Historical) SVOL

106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene PAH

METHYL_NAP167 1,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene (Historical) PAH

90-12-0 1-Methylnaphthalene PAH832-69-9 1-Methylphenanthrene PAH

CAS No. Description Class

NAWQC Chronic

Secondary Chronic Value Fish Daphnids Nondaphnid

invertebrates ARCS (b) - TEC ARCS (u) - PEC ARCS (u) - NEC Ontario MOE (v) - Low Ontario MOE (v) - Severe ISQG (dd) PEL (dd) ISQG (dd) PEL (dd)

(µg/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg)Inorg: (mg/kg dry

weight); Org: (µg/kg dry weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)Type (cc) µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg

-- (r) 22 (r) 7,400 (r) -- (r) -- (r) -- (r) 33 (r) 15,000 (r) -- (r) -- (r) -- (r) 8.7 (r) 3,000 (r) 9.1 (r) -- (r)

-- 160 -- > 120,000 -- 57 SQB

-- 0.85 8800 230 ---- 410 7800 97,000 -- 820 SQB

-- 22 960 3500 --

-- 89 > 5400 160,000 -- 3600 SQB

-- (r) 270 (r) 5,400 (r) 27,000 (r) -- (r) -- 370 18,000 7200 ---- 50 6400 130,000 -- 670 SQB-- 410 3500 3200 -- 530 SQB-- 220 51,000 33,000 -- 1600 SQB-- 160 740,000 -- -- 25 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) 440 (r) 1200 (r) -- (r) -- 330 -- -- -- 340 SQB

-- 700 -- -- --

31 -- < 57 570 --

-- 340 -- -- -- 350 SQB

-- 130 34000 -- --

TBC TBC

Interim Marine Sediment Quality Guidelines (dd)

OSWER (bb)

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)

Interim Freshwater Sediment Quality Guidelines (dd)

TBC TBC

(5) Jones et al. (1997) (6) Jones et al. (1997) (7) Jones et al. (1997) (8) Canadian Sediment Guidelines





(f)












OC, dry weight)



weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)


given in ARCS)




2245-38-7 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 Acenaphthene d-10 PAHSURR

208-96-8 Acenaphthylene PAH 5.87 (c) 330 330 5.87 (g) See Marine/Estuarine -- 0.044 0.64 44 640 5.87 128

120-12-7 Anthracene PAH 46.9 (c) 330 330 57.2 (i) 0.22 370 0.085 1.1 85.3 1100 46.9 24556-55-3 Benzo[a]anthracene PAH 74.8 (c) 330 330 108 (i) 0.32 1480 0.261 1.6 261 1600 74.8 69350-32-8 Benzo[a]pyrene PAH 88.8 (c) 330 330 150 (i) 0.37 1440 0.43 1.6 430 1600 88.8 763205-99-2 Benzo[b]fluoranthene PAH 10400192-97-2 Benzo[e]pyrene PAH 0.37 1440191-24-2 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene PAH 170 (h) 0.17 320 See Freshwater --207-08-9 Benzo[k]fluoranthene PAH 240 (h) 0.24 1340 See Freshwater --

56832-73-6 Benzoflouranthenes, total PAH92-52-4 biphenyl PAH218-01-9 Chrysene PAH 108 (c) 330 330 166 (i) 0.34 460 0.384 2.8 384 2800 108 846

1719-03-5 Chrysene d-12 PAHSURR53-70-3 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene PAH 6.22 (c) 330 330 33 (i) 0.06 130 0.063 0.26 63.4 260 6.22 135

CARP002 Dibenz[ah]anthracene d-14 PAHSURR206-44-0 Fluoranthene PAH 113 (c) 330 330 423 (i) 0.75 1020 0.6 5.1 600 5100 113 149486-73-7 Fluorene PAH 21.2 (c) 330 330 77.4 (i) 0.19 160 0.019 0.54 19 540 21.2 144

T_HMW_PAH High molecular weight PAHs, total (Historical) PAH 655 (c) 330 655 1700 (o) 9600 (o) 655 (o) 6676 (o)

CARP399 HPAH PAH193-39-5 Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]-pyrene PAH 200 (h) 0.2 320 See Freshwater --

T_LMW_PAH Low molecular weight PAHs, total (Historical) PAH 312 (c) 330 330 552 (o) 3160 (o) 312 (o) 1442 (o)

CARP400 LPAH PAH

91-20-3 Naphthalene PAH 34.6 (c) 330 330 176 (i) See Marine/Estuarine -- 0.16 2.1 160 2100 34.6 391

1146-65-2 Naphthalene d-8 PAHSURR1146-54-2 d8-Naphthalene SURR

T PAH PAHs, total (Historical) PAH 4022 (o) 44792 (o) 1684 (o) 16770 (o)198-55-0 Perylene PAH85-01-8 Phenanthrene PAH 86.7 (c) 330 330 204 (i) 0.56 950 0.24 1.5 240 1500 86.7 544

1517-22-2 Phenanthrene d-10 PAHSURR129-00-0 Pyrene PAH 153 (c) 330 330 195 (i) 0.49 850 0.665 2.6 665 2600 153 1398

SUM PAH Sum of PAH PAHCARP407 Total PAH PAH 1684 (c) 330 1684 4 10000 4 45

7429-90-5 ALUMINUM MET7440-36-0 ANTIMONY MET 2 (b) 12 12 2 (m) 25 (m) -- --7440-38-2 Arsenic MET 7.24 (c) 2 7.24 9790 (i) 6 33 8.2 70 8.2 70 7.24 41.67440-39-3 BARIUM MET7440-41-7 BERYLLIUM MET7440-43-9 Cadmium MET 0.676 (c) 1 1 990 (i) 0.6 10 1.2 9.6 1.2 9.6 0.68 4.217440-70-2 CALCIUM MET7440-47-3 Chromium MET 52.3 (c) 2 52.3 43400 (i) 26 110 81 370 81 370 52.3 1607440-48-4 COBALT MET 50000 (h)7440-50-8 Copper MET 18.7 (c) 5 18.7 31600 (i) 16 110 34 270 34 270 18.7 10857-12-5 CYANIDE MET 0.1 (h)

7439-89-6 IRON MET7439-92-1 Lead MET 30.2 (c) 0.6 30.2 35800 (i) 31 250 47 218 46.7 218 30.2 1127439-95-4 MAGNESIUM MET7439-96-5 MANGANESE MET7439-97-6 Mercury MET 0.13 (c) 0.02 0.13 174 (g) 0.2 2 0.15 0.71 0.15 0.71 0.13 0.77440-02-0 Nickel MET 15.9 (d) 8 15.9 22700 (i) 16 75 21 52 20.9 51.6 15.9 42.87440-09-7 POTASSIUM MET7782-49-2 SELENIUM MET --7440-21-3 SILICON MET

7440-22-4 Silver MET 0.733 (c) 2 2 500 (h) See Marine/Estuarine -- 1 3.7 1 3.7 0.73 1.77

7440-23-5 SODIUM MET7440-28-0 Thallium MET --7440-31-5 TIN MET --





2245-38-7 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene PAH

91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene PAH

83-32-9 Acenaphthene PAH

15067-26-2 Acenaphthene d-10 PAHSURR

208-96-8 Acenaphthylene PAH

120-12-7 Anthracene PAH56-55-3 Benzo[a]anthracene PAH50-32-8 Benzo[a]pyrene PAH205-99-2 Benzo[b]fluoranthene PAH192-97-2 Benzo[e]pyrene PAH191-24-2 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene PAH207-08-9 Benzo[k]fluoranthene PAH

56832-73-6 Benzoflouranthenes, total PAH92-52-4 biphenyl PAH218-01-9 Chrysene PAH

1719-03-5 Chrysene d-12 PAHSURR53-70-3 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene PAH

CARP002 Dibenz[ah]anthracene d-14 PAHSURR206-44-0 Fluoranthene PAH86-73-7 Fluorene PAH

T_HMW_PAH High molecular weight PAHs, total (Historical) PAH

CARP399 HPAH PAH193-39-5 Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]-pyrene PAH

T_LMW_PAH Low molecular weight PAHs, total (Historical) PAH

CARP400 LPAH PAH

91-20-3 Naphthalene PAH

1146-65-2 Naphthalene d-8 PAHSURR1146-54-2 d8-Naphthalene SURR

T PAH PAHs, total (Historical) PAH198-55-0 Perylene PAH85-01-8 Phenanthrene PAH

1517-22-2 Phenanthrene d-10 PAHSURR129-00-0 Pyrene PAH

SUM PAH Sum of PAH PAHCARP407 Total PAH PAH

7429-90-5 ALUMINUM MET7440-36-0 ANTIMONY MET7440-38-2 Arsenic MET7440-39-3 BARIUM MET7440-41-7 BERYLLIUM MET7440-43-9 Cadmium MET7440-70-2 CALCIUM MET7440-47-3 Chromium MET7440-48-4 COBALT MET7440-50-8 Copper MET57-12-5 CYANIDE MET

7439-89-6 IRON MET7439-92-1 Lead MET7439-95-4 MAGNESIUM MET7439-96-5 MANGANESE MET7439-97-6 Mercury MET7440-02-0 Nickel MET7440-09-7 POTASSIUM MET7782-49-2 SELENIUM MET7440-21-3 SILICON MET

7440-22-4 Silver MET

7440-23-5 SODIUM MET7440-28-0 Thallium MET7440-31-5 TIN MET

NAWQC Chronic






weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)




OSWER (bb)




-- 20.2 201 20.2 201

1300 (q) -- 5300 470,000 16,000 620 SQC 6.71 88.9 6.71 88.9

-- 5.87 128 5.87 128-- 220 27 <620 -- 31.62 547.72 1700 220 3700 -- 46.9 245 46.9 245-- 110 -- 2600 -- 260 4200 3500 320 14,800 -- 31.7 385 74.8 693-- 140 -- 3000 -- 350 393.7 440 370 14,400 430 ER-L 31.9 782 88.8 763

290 6300 3800 170 3200-- -- -- 240 13,400

-- 1100 -- -- -- 1100 SQB500 5200 4000 340 4600 -- 57.1 862 108 846

-- 28.2 870 60 1300 -- 6.22 135 6.22 135

6200 (q) -- 32,000 16,000 -- 64.23 834.27 7500 750 10,200 2900 SQC 111 2355 113 1494-- 540 -- -- -- 34.64 651.92 1800 190 1600 -- 21.2 144 21.2 144

2900 4353.82 51,000 -- -- --

78 836.66 3800 200 3200

786 3369 3040 -- -- --

-- 240 12,000 23,000 -- 32.75 687.39 290 -- -- 480 SQB 34.6 391 34.6 391

3553 13,660 84,600 4000 100,000

1800 (q) -- -- 59,000 -- -- -- -- 560 9500 850 SQC 41.9 515 86.7 544

570 3225 6100 490 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

-- -- -- 2% 4%34.2 396 68.7 31 250 47 ER-L 35,000 91,300 30,200 112,000

1673 1081 819 460 1110-- -- -- 0.2 2 0.15 ER-L 170 486 130 700

39.6 38.5 37.9 16 75 21 ER-L

--





(f)












OC, dry weight)



weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)


given in ARCS)




7440-32-6 Titanium MET7440-62-2 VANADIUM MET --7440-66-6 Zinc MET 124 (c) 4 124 121000 (i) 120 820 150 410 150 410 124 271

2,3,7,8-TCDD (toxic equivalent)1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-TCDD DIOX/F 1.2E-04 (j)19408-74-3 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD DIOX/F30402-15-4 Total PeCDF DIOX/F3268-87-9 OCDD DIOX/F34465-46-8 Total HxCDD DIOX/F35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD DIOX/F36088-22-9 Total PeCDD DIOX/F37871-00-4 Total HpCDD DIOX/F38998-75-3 Total HpCDF DIOX/F39001-02-0 OCDF DIOX/F39227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD DIOX/F40321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD DIOX/F41903-57-5 Total TCDD DIOX/F51207-31-9 2,3,7,8-TCDF DIOX/F --55673-89-7 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF DIOX/F55684-94-1 Total HxCDF DIOX/F55722-27-5 Total TCDF DIOX/F57117-31-4 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF DIOX/F57117-41-6 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF DIOX/F57117-44-9 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF DIOX/F57653-85-7 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD DIOX/F60851-34-5 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF DIOX/F67562-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF DIOX/F70648-26-9 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF DIOX/F72918-21-9 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF DIOX/F

PCD T5 Dioxins, 5PCDD, total (Historical) DIOX/FPCD T6 Dioxins, 6HxCDD, total (Historical) DIOX/FPCD T7 Dioxins, 7HpCDD, total (Historical) DIOX/F

PCDD12478 PCDD12478 (Historical) DIOX/FPCF T5 Furans, 5PCDF, total (Historical) DIOX/FPCF T6 Furans, 6HxCDF, total (Historical) DIOX/FPCF T7 Furans, 7HpCDF, total (Historical) DIOX/F

PCF23467 2,3,4,6,7-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (Historical) DIOX/F

PCF2367 2,3,6,7-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (Historical) DIOX/F


TCDD_T Dioxins, 4TCDD, total (Historical) DIOX/F

TCDF_T Furans, 4TCDF, total (Historical) DIOX/F

CARP037 13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDD DIOX/FSURRCARP038 13C12-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD DIOX/FSURRCARP039 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD DIOX/FSURRCARP040 13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD DIOX/FSURRCARP041 13C12-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD DIOX/FSURRCARP042 13C12-OCDD DIOX/FSURRCARP043 13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP044 13C12-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP045 13C12-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP046 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP047 13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP048 13C12-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP049 13C12-2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP050 13C12-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP051 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP052 37Cl-2,3,7,8-TCDD DIOXCLEAN





7440-32-6 Titanium MET7440-62-2 VANADIUM MET7440-66-6 Zinc MET

2,3,7,8-TCDD (toxic equivalent)1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-TCDD DIOX/F19408-74-3 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD DIOX/F30402-15-4 Total PeCDF DIOX/F3268-87-9 OCDD DIOX/F34465-46-8 Total HxCDD DIOX/F35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD DIOX/F36088-22-9 Total PeCDD DIOX/F37871-00-4 Total HpCDD DIOX/F38998-75-3 Total HpCDF DIOX/F39001-02-0 OCDF DIOX/F39227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD DIOX/F40321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD DIOX/F41903-57-5 Total TCDD DIOX/F51207-31-9 2,3,7,8-TCDF DIOX/F55673-89-7 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF DIOX/F55684-94-1 Total HxCDF DIOX/F55722-27-5 Total TCDF DIOX/F57117-31-4 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF DIOX/F57117-41-6 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF DIOX/F57117-44-9 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF DIOX/F57653-85-7 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD DIOX/F60851-34-5 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF DIOX/F67562-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF DIOX/F70648-26-9 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF DIOX/F72918-21-9 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF DIOX/F

PCD T5 Dioxins, 5PCDD, total (Historical) DIOX/FPCD T6 Dioxins, 6HxCDD, total (Historical) DIOX/FPCD T7 Dioxins, 7HpCDD, total (Historical) DIOX/F

PCDD12478 PCDD12478 (Historical) DIOX/FPCF T5 Furans, 5PCDF, total (Historical) DIOX/FPCF T6 Furans, 6HxCDF, total (Historical) DIOX/FPCF T7 Furans, 7HpCDF, total (Historical) DIOX/F

PCF23467 2,3,4,6,7-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (Historical) DIOX/F



TCDD_T Dioxins, 4TCDD, total (Historical) DIOX/F

TCDF_T Furans, 4TCDF, total (Historical) DIOX/F

CARP037 13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDD DIOX/FSURRCARP038 13C12-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD DIOX/FSURRCARP039 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD DIOX/FSURRCARP040 13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD DIOX/FSURRCARP041 13C12-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD DIOX/FSURRCARP042 13C12-OCDD DIOX/FSURRCARP043 13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP044 13C12-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP045 13C12-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP046 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP047 13C12-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP048 13C12-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP049 13C12-2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP050 13C12-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP051 13C12-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF DIOX/FSURRCARP052 37Cl-2,3,7,8-TCDD DIOXCLEAN

NAWQC Chronic






weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)




OSWER (bb)




159 1532 541 120 820 150 ER-L 123,000 315,000 124,000 271,000





(f)












OC, dry weight)



weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)


given in ARCS)




CARP200 Total Tetra-Dioxins BROM DIOX/F

CARP201 Total Penta-Dioxins BROM DIOX/F

CARP202 Total Hexa-Dioxins BROM DIOX/F

CARP203 Total Hepta-Dioxins BROM DIOX/F

CARP204 Total Tetra-Furans BROM DIOX/F

CARP205 Total Penta-Furans BROM DIOX/F

CARP206 Total Hexa-Furans BROM DIOX/F

CARP207 Total Hepta-Furans BROM DIOX/F

Dioxin (ng/kg - Region 4 entry) 2.5 (e)

PCDD-S Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (µg/kg - Region 5 entry)

0.011

1016 1242 AR1016-AR1242 (Historical) PCB1016 1248 1254 AR1016-AR1248-AR1254 (Historical) PCB

1221 1232 AR1221-AR1232 (Historical) PCB13029-08-8 2,2'-dichlorobiphenyl PCB15862-07-4 2,4,5-trichlorobiphenyl PCB15968-05-5 2,2',6,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB16605-91-7 2,3-dichlorobiphenyl PCB16606-02-3 2,4',5-trichlorobiphenyl PCB2050-68-2 4,4'-dichlorobiphenyl PCB2051-24-3 decachlorobiphenyl PCB2051-60-7 2-chlorobiphenyl PCB2051-61-8 3-chlorobiphenyl PCB2051-62-9 4-chlorobiphenyl PCB2136-99-4 2,2',3,3',5,5',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl PCB2437-79-8 2,2',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB25323-68-6 TRICHLOROBIPHENYL PCB25569-80-6 2,3'-dichlorobiphenyl PCB25663-74-8 BZ172NT PCB26601-64-9 HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL PCB26914-33-0 TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL PCB27323-18-8 MONOCHLOROBIPHENYL PCB28655-71-2 HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL PCB2974-92-7 3,4-dichlorobiphenyl PCB31508-00-6 2,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB32598-10-0 2,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB32598-11-1 2,3',4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB32598-12-2 2,4,4',6-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB32598-13-3 3,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB32598-14-4 2,3,3',4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB32690-93-0 2,4,4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB32774-16-6 3,3',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB33025-41-1 2,3,4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB33091-17-7 2,2',3,3',4,4',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl PCB33146-45-1 2,6-dichlorobiphenyl PCB33284-50-3 2,4-dichlorobiphenyl PCB

344883-43-7 BZ#8 (Historical) PCB34883-39-1 2,5-dichlorobiphenyl PCB34883-43-7 2,4'-dichlorobiphenyl PCB35065-27-1 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB35065-28-2 2,2',3,4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB35065-29-3 2,2',3,4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB35065-30-6 2,2',3,3',4,4',5-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB35298-10-0 BZ#66 and BZ#95 PCB35693-99-3 2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB35694-06-5 2,2',3,4,4',5-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB





CARP200 Total Tetra-Dioxins BROM DIOX/F

CARP201 Total Penta-Dioxins BROM DIOX/F

CARP202 Total Hexa-Dioxins BROM DIOX/F

CARP203 Total Hepta-Dioxins BROM DIOX/F

CARP204 Total Tetra-Furans BROM DIOX/F

CARP205 Total Penta-Furans BROM DIOX/F

CARP206 Total Hexa-Furans BROM DIOX/F

CARP207 Total Hepta-Furans BROM DIOX/F

Dioxin (ng/kg - Region 4 entry)

PCDD-S Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (µg/kg - Region 5 entry)

1016 1242 AR1016-AR1242 (Historical) PCB1016 1248 1254 AR1016-AR1248-AR1254 (Historical) PCB

1221 1232 AR1221-AR1232 (Historical) PCB13029-08-8 2,2'-dichlorobiphenyl PCB15862-07-4 2,4,5-trichlorobiphenyl PCB15968-05-5 2,2',6,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB16605-91-7 2,3-dichlorobiphenyl PCB16606-02-3 2,4',5-trichlorobiphenyl PCB2050-68-2 4,4'-dichlorobiphenyl PCB2051-24-3 decachlorobiphenyl PCB2051-60-7 2-chlorobiphenyl PCB2051-61-8 3-chlorobiphenyl PCB2051-62-9 4-chlorobiphenyl PCB2136-99-4 2,2',3,3',5,5',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl PCB2437-79-8 2,2',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB25323-68-6 TRICHLOROBIPHENYL PCB25569-80-6 2,3'-dichlorobiphenyl PCB25663-74-8 BZ172NT PCB26601-64-9 HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL PCB26914-33-0 TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL PCB27323-18-8 MONOCHLOROBIPHENYL PCB28655-71-2 HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL PCB2974-92-7 3,4-dichlorobiphenyl PCB31508-00-6 2,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB32598-10-0 2,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB32598-11-1 2,3',4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB32598-12-2 2,4,4',6-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB32598-13-3 3,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB32598-14-4 2,3,3',4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB32690-93-0 2,4,4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB32774-16-6 3,3',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB33025-41-1 2,3,4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB33091-17-7 2,2',3,3',4,4',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl PCB33146-45-1 2,6-dichlorobiphenyl PCB33284-50-3 2,4-dichlorobiphenyl PCB

344883-43-7 BZ#8 (Historical) PCB34883-39-1 2,5-dichlorobiphenyl PCB34883-43-7 2,4'-dichlorobiphenyl PCB35065-27-1 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB35065-28-2 2,2',3,4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB35065-29-3 2,2',3,4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB35065-30-6 2,2',3,3',4,4',5-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB35298-10-0 BZ#66 and BZ#95 PCB35693-99-3 2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB35694-06-5 2,2',3,4,4',5-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB

NAWQC Chronic






weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)




OSWER (bb)




0.85 (ee) 21.5 (ee) 0.85 (ee) 21.5 (ee)





(f)












OC, dry weight)



weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)


given in ARCS)




35694-08-7 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5'-octachlorobiphenyl PCB36559-22-5 2,2',3,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB37680-65-2 2,2',5-trichlorobiphenyl PCB37680-65-5 Cl3(34) PCB37680-66-3 2,2',4-trichlorobiphenyl PCB37680-68-5 2',3,5-trichlorobiphenyl PCB37680-73-2 2,2',4,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB38379-99-6 2,2',3,5',6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-01-7 2,2',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-02-8 2,2',3,4,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-03-9 2,3,3',4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-04-0 2,2',3,4',5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-05-1 2,2',3,3',4,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-07-3 2,2',3,3',4,4'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-08-4 2,3,3',4,4',5-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB38411-22-2 2,2',3,3',6,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB38411-25-5 2,2',3,3',4,5,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB38444-73-4 2,2',6-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-76-7 2,3',6-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-77-8 2,4',6-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-78-9 2,2',3-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-81-4 2,3',5-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-84-7 2,3,3'-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-85-8 2,3,4'-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-86-9 2',3,4-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-90-5 3,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-93-8 2,2',3,3'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB39635-31-9 2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB40186-70-7 2,2',3,3',4,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB40186-71-8 2,2',3,3',4,5',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl PCB

40186-72-9 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-nonachlorobiphenyl PCB

41411-62-5 2,3,3',4,5,6-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB41411-64-7 2,3,3',4,4',5,6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-39-5 2,2',3,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-40-8 2,2',4,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-41-9 2,2',5,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-43-1 2,3,3',4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-47-5 2,2',3,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-49-7 2,3,3',5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-51-1 2,2',3',4,5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB42740-50-1 2,2',3,3',4,4',5',6-octachlorobiphenyl PCB51908-16-8 2,2',3,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-58-8 2,3,4',6-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-59-9 2,2',3,4-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-60-2 2,2',3,3',6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-61-3 2,2',3,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-62-4 2,2',3,3',4-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-63-5 2,2',3,5,5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-64-6 2,2',3,3',5,6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-65-7 2,2',3,3',4,6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-66-8 2,2',3,3',4,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-67-9 2,2',3,3',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-68-0 2,2',3,4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-69-1 2,2',3,4,4',5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-70-4 2,2',3,3',4',5,6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-71-5 2,2',3,3',4,4',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-72-6 2,3',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-73-7 2,2',3,3',4,5,6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-74-8 2,2',3,3',4,5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-75-9 2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6'-octachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-76-0 2,2',3,4,4',5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl 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





35694-08-7 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5'-octachlorobiphenyl PCB36559-22-5 2,2',3,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB37680-65-2 2,2',5-trichlorobiphenyl PCB37680-65-5 Cl3(34) PCB37680-66-3 2,2',4-trichlorobiphenyl PCB37680-68-5 2',3,5-trichlorobiphenyl PCB37680-73-2 2,2',4,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB38379-99-6 2,2',3,5',6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-01-7 2,2',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-02-8 2,2',3,4,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-03-9 2,3,3',4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-04-0 2,2',3,4',5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-05-1 2,2',3,3',4,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-07-3 2,2',3,3',4,4'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB38380-08-4 2,3,3',4,4',5-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB38411-22-2 2,2',3,3',6,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB38411-25-5 2,2',3,3',4,5,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB38444-73-4 2,2',6-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-76-7 2,3',6-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-77-8 2,4',6-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-78-9 2,2',3-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-81-4 2,3',5-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-84-7 2,3,3'-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-85-8 2,3,4'-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-86-9 2',3,4-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-90-5 3,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl PCB38444-93-8 2,2',3,3'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB39635-31-9 2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB40186-70-7 2,2',3,3',4,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB40186-71-8 2,2',3,3',4,5',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl PCB

40186-72-9 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-nonachlorobiphenyl PCB

41411-62-5 2,3,3',4,5,6-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB41411-64-7 2,3,3',4,4',5,6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-39-5 2,2',3,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-40-8 2,2',4,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-41-9 2,2',5,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-43-1 2,3,3',4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-47-5 2,2',3,6'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-49-7 2,3,3',5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB41464-51-1 2,2',3',4,5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB42740-50-1 2,2',3,3',4,4',5',6-octachlorobiphenyl PCB51908-16-8 2,2',3,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-58-8 2,3,4',6-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-59-9 2,2',3,4-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-60-2 2,2',3,3',6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-61-3 2,2',3,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-62-4 2,2',3,3',4-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-63-5 2,2',3,5,5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-64-6 2,2',3,3',5,6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-65-7 2,2',3,3',4,6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-66-8 2,2',3,3',4,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-67-9 2,2',3,3',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-68-0 2,2',3,4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-69-1 2,2',3,4,4',5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-70-4 2,2',3,3',4',5,6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-71-5 2,2',3,3',4,4',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-72-6 2,3',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-73-7 2,2',3,3',4,5,6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-74-8 2,2',3,3',4,5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-75-9 2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6'-octachlorobiphenyl PCB52663-76-0 2,2',3,4,4',5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl 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

NAWQC Chronic






weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)




OSWER (bb)








(f)












OC, dry weight)



weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)


given in ARCS)




52712-04-6 2,2',3,4,5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB52712-05-7 2,2',3,4,5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52744-13-5 2,2',3,3',5,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB55215-17-3 2,2',3,4,6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB55215-18-4 2,2',3,3',4,5-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB55702-46-0 2,3,4-trichlorobiphenyl PCB55712-37-3 2,3',4-trichlorobiphenyl PCB55720-44-0 2,3,5-trichlorobiphenyl PCB56558-17-9 2,3',4,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB57465-28-8 3,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB58702-45-9 BZ#24NT PCB59291-64-4 2,2',3,4,4',6'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB60145-20-2 2,2',3,3',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB60145-23-5 2,2',3,4,4',5,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB60233-24-1 2,3',4,6-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB65194-04-7 BZ#51 (Historical) PCB65510-44-3 2',3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB65510-45-4 2,2',3,4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB68194-05-8 2,2',3,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB68194-14-9 2,2',3,4,5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB68194-15-0 2,2',3,4,5,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB68194-17-2 2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl PCB69782-90-7 2,3,3',4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB69782-91-8 2,3,3',4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB7012-37-5 2,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl PCB70362-45-7 2,2',3,6-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB70362-47-9 2,2',4,5-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB70362-50-4 3,4,4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB70424-68-9 2,3,3',4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB73575-53-8 2,3',4,5-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB73575-54-9 2,2',3,6,6'-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-35-8 2,3,3',4,6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-36-9 2,3,3',5,6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-37-0 2,3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-38-1 2,3,4,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-38-8 BZ#63 (Historical) PCB74472-42-7 2,3,3',4,4',6-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-48-3 2,2',3,4,4',6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-50-7 2,3,3',4,4',5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-51-8 2,3,3',4,5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-53-0 2,3,3',4,4',5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl PCB76842-07-4 2',3,3',4,5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB

87-86-5 2,3,4,5,6-PENTACHLOROPHENOL PCB 23000 (j)CARP397 Unidentified PCB Congener Cl2(18) PCBCARP402 PCB PCB

NONA_PCB NONACHLOROBIPHENYL (Historical) PCB

PCB DCBP DICHLOROBIPHENYL (Historical) PCBTotal PCB Total PCB (Historical) PCB

65510-44-3C BZ#123"&"BZ#149 (Historical) PCB_GROUPINGS


1336-36-3 PCB, TOTAL PCB_SUM 21.6 (c) 33 (67 for Aroclor 1221)

33 (67 for Aroclor 1221)

59.8 (i) 0.07 530 0.023 0.18 22.7 180 21.6 189

CARP408 Total PCB PCB SUMPCB SUM PCBs, total (Historical) PCB SUM

11096-82-5 Aroclor 1260 PCB-AROCLOR 0.005 24 See Freshwater --


11104-28-2 Aroclor 1221 PCB-AROCLOR

67 67







52712-04-6 2,2',3,4,5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB52712-05-7 2,2',3,4,5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB52744-13-5 2,2',3,3',5,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB55215-17-3 2,2',3,4,6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB55215-18-4 2,2',3,3',4,5-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB55702-46-0 2,3,4-trichlorobiphenyl PCB55712-37-3 2,3',4-trichlorobiphenyl PCB55720-44-0 2,3,5-trichlorobiphenyl PCB56558-17-9 2,3',4,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB57465-28-8 3,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB58702-45-9 BZ#24NT PCB59291-64-4 2,2',3,4,4',6'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB60145-20-2 2,2',3,3',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB60145-23-5 2,2',3,4,4',5,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB60233-24-1 2,3',4,6-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB65194-04-7 BZ#51 (Historical) PCB65510-44-3 2',3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB65510-45-4 2,2',3,4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB68194-05-8 2,2',3,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB68194-14-9 2,2',3,4,5',6-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB68194-15-0 2,2',3,4,5,6'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB68194-17-2 2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl PCB69782-90-7 2,3,3',4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB69782-91-8 2,3,3',4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB7012-37-5 2,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl PCB70362-45-7 2,2',3,6-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB70362-47-9 2,2',4,5-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB70362-50-4 3,4,4',5-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB70424-68-9 2,3,3',4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB73575-53-8 2,3',4,5-tetrachlorobiphenyl PCB73575-54-9 2,2',3,6,6'-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-35-8 2,3,3',4,6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-36-9 2,3,3',5,6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-37-0 2,3,4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-38-1 2,3,4,4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-38-8 BZ#63 (Historical) PCB74472-42-7 2,3,3',4,4',6-hexachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-48-3 2,2',3,4,4',6,6'-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-50-7 2,3,3',4,4',5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-51-8 2,3,3',4,5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl PCB74472-53-0 2,3,3',4,4',5,5',6-octachlorobiphenyl PCB76842-07-4 2',3,3',4,5-pentachlorobiphenyl PCB

87-86-5 2,3,4,5,6-PENTACHLOROPHENOL PCBCARP397 Unidentified PCB Congener Cl2(18) PCBCARP402 PCB PCB

NONA_PCB NONACHLOROBIPHENYL (Historical) PCB

PCB DCBP DICHLOROBIPHENYL (Historical) PCBTotal PCB Total PCB (Historical) PCB



1336-36-3 PCB, TOTAL PCB_SUM

CARP408 Total PCB PCB SUMPCB SUM PCBs, total (Historical) PCB SUM






NAWQC Chronic






weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)




OSWER (bb)




31.62 244.66 194 70 (a) 5300 (z) 23 ER-L 34.1 277 21.5 189

-- 4,500,000 < 63,000 -- -- -- -- -- 5 (x,z) 240 (y,z)

-- 810 -- 71,000 -- -- -- -- 60 (x,z) 340 (y,z) 60 340 63.3 709

-- 120 25,000 -- --

-- 600 130,000 -- --

-- 1000 -- -- -- -- -- -- 30 (x,z) 1500 (y,z)





(f)












OC, dry weight)



weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)


given in ARCS)






DDD 2 (b) 3.3 3.3DDE 2 (b) 3.3 3.3DDT 1 (b) 3.3 3.3

634-66-2 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene (Historical) PEST

634-90-2 1,2,3,5 Tetrachlorobenzene (Historical) PEST

53-19-0 2,4'-DDD PEST3424-82-6 2,4'-DDE PEST789-02-6 2,4'-DDT PEST72-54-8 4,4'-DDD PEST 1.22 (c) 3.3 3.3 4.88 (i,j) 0.008 0.06 -- -- 1.22 7.8172-55-9 4,4'-DDE PEST 2.07 (c) 3.3 3.3 3.16 (i) 0.005 0.19 0.0022 0.027 2.2 27 2.07 37450-29-3 4,4'-DDT PEST 1.19 (c) 3.3 3.3 4.16 (i) -- -- 1.19 4.77

2,4'-DDD + 4,4'-DDD PEST 2 (m) 20 (m) -- --2,4'-DDT + 4,4'-DDT PEST 0.008 0.71 1 (m) 7 (m) -- --DDT, Total PEST 1.58 (n) 46.1 (n) 3.89 (n) 51.7 (n)

309-00-2 Aldrin PEST 2 (h) 0.002 8 See Freshwater --319-84-6 BHC, alpha PEST 6 (h) 0.006 10 -- -- -- --319-85-7 BHC, beta PEST 5 (h) 0.005 21 -- -- -- --319-86-8 BHC, delta PEST 7150058-89-9 BHC, gamma (Lindane) PEST 0.32 (c) 3.3 3.3 2.37 (i) 0.003 1 -- -- 0.32 0.99

BHC TOTAL BHCs, total (Historical) PEST 0.003 12 See Freshwater -- -- -- -- --57-74-9 CHLORDANE PEST 0.5 (b) 1.7 1.7 3.24 (i,j) 0.007 6 See Freshwater -- 0.5 (m) 6 (m) 2.26 4.79

5103-71-9 Chlordane,alpha (cis) PEST5103-74-2 Chlordane,gamma (trans) PEST27304-13-8 Chlordane,oxy- PEST

CHLORDEN A Chlordene - alpha (Historical) PESTCHLORDEN G Chlordene - gamma (Historical) PESTDDT TOTAL DDTS, total of 6 isomers (Historical) PEST 0.007 12 0.0016 0.046

60-57-1 Dieldrin PEST 0.02 (b) 3.3 3.3 1.9 (i,j) 0.002 91 See Freshwater -- 0.02 (m) 8 (m) 0.72 4.3T DIE A LDRIN Dieldrin+aldrin, total (Historical) PEST

882-33-7 Diphenyl disulfide (Historical) PEST1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate PEST 34.6959-98-8 Endosulfan, alpha PEST 3.26

33213-65-9 Endosulfan, beta PEST 1.9472-20-8 Endrin PEST 0.02 (b) 3.3 3.3 2.22 (i,j) 0.003 130 See Freshwater -- 0.02 (m) 45 (m) -- --

7421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde PEST 480 (j)53494-70-5 Endrin ketone PEST

76-44-8 Heptachlor PEST 0.6 (g)1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide PEST 2.47 (i) 0.005 5 See Freshwater --118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene PEST 20 (h) 0.02 24 See Freshwater --

33820-53-0 Isopropalin (Historical) PEST115-32-2 Kelthane (Historical) PEST72-43-5 Methoxychlor PEST 13.6

2385-85-5 Mirex PEST 0.007 130 See Freshwater --5103-73-1 Nonachlor, cis- PEST39765-80-5 Nonachlor, trans- PEST29082-74-4 Octachlorostyrene (Historical) PEST

72-56-0 Perthane (Historical) PEST

012789-03-6 Total chlordane (alpha+cis+oxy+trans) (Historical) PEST

CARP406 Total DDT PEST 1.58 (d) 3.3 3.3Total DDT Total DDT (Historical) PEST8001-35-2 Toxaphene PEST 0.077 (j)

CARP409 TPH TPH







DDDDDEDDT

634-66-2 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene (Historical) PEST

634-90-2 1,2,3,5 Tetrachlorobenzene (Historical) PEST

53-19-0 2,4'-DDD PEST3424-82-6 2,4'-DDE PEST789-02-6 2,4'-DDT PEST72-54-8 4,4'-DDD PEST72-55-9 4,4'-DDE PEST50-29-3 4,4'-DDT PEST

2,4'-DDD + 4,4'-DDD PEST2,4'-DDT + 4,4'-DDT PESTDDT, Total PEST

309-00-2 Aldrin PEST319-84-6 BHC, alpha PEST319-85-7 BHC, beta PEST319-86-8 BHC, delta PEST58-89-9 BHC, gamma (Lindane) PEST

BHC TOTAL BHCs, total (Historical) PEST57-74-9 CHLORDANE PEST

5103-71-9 Chlordane,alpha (cis) PEST5103-74-2 Chlordane,gamma (trans) PEST27304-13-8 Chlordane,oxy- PEST

CHLORDEN A Chlordene - alpha (Historical) PESTCHLORDEN G Chlordene - gamma (Historical) PESTDDT TOTAL DDTS, total of 6 isomers (Historical) PEST

60-57-1 Dieldrin PESTT DIE A LDRIN Dieldrin+aldrin, total (Historical) PEST

882-33-7 Diphenyl disulfide (Historical) PEST1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate PEST959-98-8 Endosulfan, alpha PEST

33213-65-9 Endosulfan, beta PEST72-20-8 Endrin PEST

7421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde PEST53494-70-5 Endrin ketone PEST

76-44-8 Heptachlor PEST1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide PEST118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene PEST

33820-53-0 Isopropalin (Historical) PEST115-32-2 Kelthane (Historical) PEST72-43-5 Methoxychlor PEST

2385-85-5 Mirex PEST5103-73-1 Nonachlor, cis- PEST39765-80-5 Nonachlor, trans- PEST29082-74-4 Octachlorostyrene (Historical) PEST

72-56-0 Perthane (Historical) PEST

012789-03-6 Total chlordane (alpha+cis+oxy+trans) (Historical) PEST

CARP406 Total DDT PESTTotal DDT Total DDT (Historical) PEST8001-35-2 Toxaphene PEST

CARP409 TPH TPH

NAWQC Chronic






weight)


weight)


weight)


weight)




OSWER (bb)




-- -- -- 7 (x,z) 530 (y,z)

-- 170 29,000 -- 16,000

-- 3.54 8.51 1.22 7.81-- 1.42 6.75 2.07 374

-- 340 (t) 19,000 420 -- -- 1.19 4.77 1.19 4.77

-- 110 17,000 -- -- -- -- -- 8 60 ---- -- -- 5 190

--

-- -- -- 8 710-- (w) -- (w) -- (w) 7 (w) 120 (w)

-- -- -- 2 80-- (s) 120 (s) -- (s) 5200 (s) -- (s) -- -- -- 6 100-- (s) 120 (s) -- (s) 5200 (s) -- (s) -- -- -- 5 210-- (s) 120 (s) -- (s) 5200 (s) -- (s)3.7 -- 680 670 150 -- -- -- 3 (x,z) 10 (y,z) 3.7 SQB

-- -- -- 3 1202800 -- 26,000 260,000 18,000 -- -- -- 7 60 -- 4.5 8.87 2.26 4.79

110 (q) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 910 52 SQC 2.85 6.67 0.71 4.3

-- 5.5 -- -- -- 2.9 SQB-- 5.5 -- -- -- 14 SQB

42 (q) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 1300 20 SQC 2.67 62.4 2.67 62.4

-- 68 12,000 31,000 ---- -- -- 5 (x) 50 (y) 0.6 2.74 0.69 2.74

20 240

-- 19 -- -- -- 19 SQB-- -- -- 7 1300

1.6 ER-L

28 SQB 0.1 0.1


Focused Feasibility Study Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River Page 15 of 15 2014

Notes:(1) USEPA 2001 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

(a): Contract Laboratory Program Practical Quantification Limit.(b): 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.(c): MacDonald, D.D. 1994. Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.(d): 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.(e): 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.

(2) USEPA 2003 U.S. EPA, Region 5, RCRA. Ecological Screening Levels. August 22, 2003.(f): 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(g): Environment Canada. September 1994. Interim Sediment Quality Assessment Values. Ecosystem Conservation Directorate. Evaluation and Interpretation Branch.(h): Ontario Ministry of the Environment. August 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario.(i): 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.

(j): New ESL data is lower than the previous table.(3) NJDEP, 1998 Guidance for Sediment Quality Evaluations. NJDEP. November 1998.

(k): 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.(4) Jones et al. (1997) 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

(l): 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).

(m): Source document is Long and Morgan (1991).(n): Total DDT is the sum of the concentrations of the o,p'- and p,p'-isomers of DDD, DDE, and DDT.(o): 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.

(5) Jones et al. (1997) Equilibrium Partitioning-Derived Sediment Quality Benchmarks for Nonionic Organic Chemicals Corresponding to Conventional Aqueous Benchmarks(p): 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].(q): Denotes proposed EPA sediment quality criteria.(r) Column C denotes polar nonionic compounds, for which the EqP model is likely to provide a conservative estimate of exposure.

(s): Most conservative (i.e., lowest) recommended value for reported configurations. BHC (other) is lowest of alpha-, beta-, and delta-BHC only.(t): Source is USEPA (1995b) and Source is ATSDR (1989).

(6) Jones et al. (1997) 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.

(7) Jones et al. (1997) 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.

(8) Canadian Reference 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.(9) " --" 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.

Table 2-2 Summary of Biota Tissue PRG Levels Protective of the Adult Angler Receptor


1 x 10-6 1x10-5 1x10-4 1x10-6 1x10-5 1x10-4 1x10-6 1x10-5 1x10-4

TCDD TEQ 3 0.000039 0.00039 0.0039 0.000064 0.00064 0.0064 0.00018 0.0018 0.018

Total Non-dioxin-like PCBs3 2.9 29 290 4.8 48 480 14 140 1400

Methylmercury

TCDD TEQ3

Total Non-dioxin-like PCBs3

Methylmercury

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.

40 66 190

200 330 940

0.0014 0.0023 0.0066

COPC

Cancer Risk-Based Tissue Concentrations Based on Number of Fish and Crab Meals1 per Year for an Adult (ng/g)

56 fish meals per year 34 crab meals per year 12 fish or crab meals per year2

Classification — CPossible human carcinogen

There is no quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk from oral exposure.

COPCNon-cancer Hazard-Based Tissue Concentrations Based on Number of Fish or Crab Meals1 per Year for an Adult (ng/g)


Table 2-3 Summary of Sediment PRGs Based on Human Health


1 x 10-6 1x10-5 1x10-4 1 x 10-6 1x10-5 1x10-4 1 x 10-6 1x10-5 1x10-4

TCDD TEQ3 0.000095 0.0016 0.022 0.00043 0.0050 0.058 0.00080 0.012 0.19

Total Non-dioxin-like PCBs3 3.2 32 320 1.6 51 1600 13 170 2000

Methylmercury

TCDD TEQ3

Total non-dioxin-like PCBs3

Methylmercury

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.

44 82 230

550 45,000 67,000

0.0071 0.019 0.059

COPC

Cancer Risk-Based Sediment Concentrations Based on Number of Fish and Crab Meals1 per Year for an Adult (ng/g)


Classification — C (Possible human carcinogen)There is no quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk from oral exposure.

COPCNon-cancer Hazard-Based Sediment Concentrations Based on Number of Fish or Crab Meals1 per Year for an Adult (ng/g)


Table 2-4 Summary of Biota Tissue PRG Levels Protective of Ecological Receptors


Invertebrate Fish Fish Embryo Bird Embryo Bird Mammal Invertebrate Fish Wildlife Overall

Mercury 68 120 - - 180 69 68 120 69 68Total PCBs 14 300 - 80 - 250 14 300 80 14Total DDx 88 170 - 100 150 - 88 170 100 882,3,7,8-TCDD 0.00044 NA NA NA NA NA 0.00044 NA NA 0.00044TCDD TEQ NA 0.0013 0.036 0.013 0.086 0.0014 NA 0.0013 0.0014 0.0013Notes:

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.

2. The lowest biota tissue PRGs summarized by receptor category and overall lowest ecological value.

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.

COPEC

Category1

Lowest2

Residue-Based Dose-Based

Table 2-5 Summary of Sediment PRGs Based on Ecological Health


Direct Contact1 Dose-Based2

Invertebrate Invertebrate4 Fish5 Wildlife6 Wildlife7 Fish Wildlife OverallMercury 260 660 320 - 74 320 74 74Total PCB 110 7.8 82 22 69 82 22 7.8Total DDx 8.6 250 1.4 0.30 0.98 1.4 0.30 0.302,3,7,8-TCDD 0.0032 0.0033 NA NA NA NA NA 0.0032TCDD TEQ NA NA 0.0011 0.012 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011Notes:

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.

COPECResidue-Based2 Summary3

Table 2-6 Background COPEC and COPC Concentrations in Sediment


Analyte Units Concentration

Copper ng/g 63,000Lead ng/g 130,000Mercury 1 ng/g 720

LMW PAHs ng/g 7,900HMW PAHs ng/g 53,000

Total PCB ng/g 460

Dieldrin ng/g 5Total DDx ng/g 30Chlordane ng/g 23

2,3,7,8-TCDD 2 ng/g 0.002

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.

Inorganics

PAHs

PCB Aroclors

Pesticides/Herbicides

PCDD/F

Notes:

Table 2-7 Estimates of the Cancer Risks and Non-cancer Health Hazards Associated with Background Sediment Concentrations for Consumption of Fish and Crabs


Combined Adult/Child

COPC1 Hazard Risk Hazard RiskTCDD TEQ (D/F)2 1.0E-05 0.3 5.0E-06 0.5 2.0E-05Total PCB 1.0E-04 10 6.0E-05 16 2.0E-04Methyl mercury 1 ND 2 ND

Combined Adult/Child

COPC1 Risk Risk Hazard RiskTCDD TEQ (D/F)2 4.0E-06 2.0E-06 0.2 6.0E-06Total PCB 4.0E-05 2.0E-05 6 6.0E-05Methyl mercury ND ND 0.3 NDNotes:

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).

0.2

Ingestion of Fish

Adult Child

Risk

NDIngestion of Crab

Adult Child

Hazard0.14

Table 2-8 Summary of Hazard Quotients for Macroinvertebrate and Fish ReceptorsAssociated with Exposure to Background Conditions


Lower Bound Upper Bound NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAELCopper 2 0.7 1 0.6 6 1 4 0.9Lead 4 1 0.2 0.05 0.5 0.05 1 0.1Mercury 5 2 1 0.7 3 0.6 0.5 0.1LMW PAHs 10 3 0.2 0.02 0.7 0.07 0.2 0.02HMW PAHs 30 6 1 0.1 0.5 0.05 0.4 0.04Total PCB 10 1 30 8 7 2 1 0.3Dieldrin 6 2 3 0.6 4 0.8 0.8 0.2Total DDx 20 0.7 0.4 0.2 4 0.8 0.3 0.062,3,7,8-TCDD 0.6 0.6 2 0.2 - - - -TCDD TEQ (PCBs) - - - - - - - -TCDD TEQ (D/F) - - - - 2 0.8 0.5 0.3Total TCDD TEQ - - - - 2 0.8 0.5 0.3Total (HI) 100 20 40 10 30 7 9 2

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;


Notes:

COPECSediment Benchmark

Tissue/Critical Body Residues

Crab Generic Fish Mummichog

Table 2-9 Summary of Hazard Quotients for Wildlife Receptors Associated with Exposure to Background Conditions


NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAELCopper 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2Lead 4 0.4 4 0.4 1 0.1Mercury 1 0.7 0.6 0.3 3 2LMW PAHs 0.09 0.009 0.07 0.007 0.002 0.0006HMW PAHs 6 0.6 6 0.6 0.6 0.1Total PCB 0.3 0.2 0.05 0.04 4 4Dieldrin 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.004 0.6 0.3Total DDx 3 1 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.022,3,7,8-TCDD - - - - - -

TCDD TEQ (PCBs) - - - - - -

TCDD TEQ (D/F) 0.05 0.005 0.02 0.002 5 0.2Total TCDD TEQ 0.05 0.005 0.02 0.002 5 0.2Total (HI) 10 3 10 2 10 6Notes:

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;


COPEC

Wildlife Dose Models

Heron – Generic fish diet Heron – Mummichog diet Mink

Table 2-10 PRG Selection


ng/g Mercury1 260 320 74 Wildlife 550 45,000 67,000 720 74

ng/g Total PCB 7.8 82 22 Benthos 3.2 32 320 1.6 51 1600 13 170 2000 44 82 230 460 44

ng/g Total DDx 8.6 1.4 0.30 Wildlife - - - - - - - - - - - - 30 0.30

ng/g 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.0032 4 0.0011 0.0011 Fish / Wildlife 0.000095 0.0016 0.022 0.00043 0.0050 0.058 0.00080 0.012 0.19 0.0071 0.019 0.059 0.002 0.0071

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.

"-" indicates that the constituent was not identified as having carcinogenic risk above the NCP risk range of 10-4 or non-cancer health hazard above a HQ of 1 for human receptors; or a HQ above 1 for ecological receptors.

Pesticides/Herbicides

Polychlorinated dibenzodioxin/furan (PCDD/F)

34 crab meals per

year

12 meals per year

Above Dundee Dam 2007

Inorganics

Classification — C (possible human carcinogen)There is no quantitative estimate of carcinogenic risk from oral exposure

PCB Aroclors

1x10-5 1x10-4 1 x 10-6 1x10-5 1x10-456 fish

meals per year

Background Values6

Proposed Remediation

Goals

Sediment PRGs2,6

Lowest

56 fish meals per year 34 crab meals per year 12 meals per year

Benthos Fish Wildlife

Noncancer Threshold Sediment Concentration Based on Number

of Meals per Year3, 5, 6

Units Chemical

Ecological PRG3 Cancer Threshold Sediment Concentration Based on Number of Meals per Year for an Adult3, 5, 6

1 x 10-6 1x10-5 1x10-4 1 x 10-6



Technology Type Process Option Description Technically Implementable? Retained for Further Consideration?

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.

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.

Yes Yes

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.

Yes Yes

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.

Yes Yes

Capping

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.

Yes Yes

General Response Action: No Action

General Response Action: Institutional Controls

General Response Action: Monitored Natural Recovery

General Response Action: Containment




Immobilization (solidification/stabilization)

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 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 Minamata Bay project in Japan (Hosokawa, 1993), and a pilot study sponsored by NJDOT-OMR in the New York-New Jersey Harbor described below.

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.

No No

Sequestration2

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.

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.

Yes Yes

Biological Treatment 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. No No

General Response Action: In-Situ Treatment

In-situ Treatment




In-situ Treatment (cont'd) Chemical Treatment 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. No No

ExcavationExcavation 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

DredgingDredging 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 TreatmentImmobilization (solidification/stabilization)

Ex-situ immobilization methods involve mixing setting agents such as cement, quicklime, grout, pozzolanic materials, and/or reagents with sediments in a treatment unit. Sediments generally require some pre-processing, such as screening of oversized material prior to solidification/stabilization. This technology has been used in the Port of New York and New Jersey region with dredged material from navigation projects; examples include the Orion of Elizabeth New Jersey (OENJ) shopping mall 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 TreatmentBiological treatment is a technique in which the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of a contaminated medium are manipulated to accelerate the natural 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

Physical/ Chemical Extraction Sediment Washing

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).

Yes Yes

General Response Action: Sediment Removal

General Response Action: Ex-Situ Treatment




Thermal destruction

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.

Yes Yes

Vitrification

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.

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/F-containing 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

Thermal Treatment

General Response Action: Beneficial Use of Dredged Sediments

Beneficial Use of Dredged Sediment




Off-site Landfill

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 non-hazardous 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.

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.

Yes Yes

Upland Confined Disposal Facility (CDF)

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.

Yes Yes

Land Disposal




Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD)

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 long-term chemical isolation of the disposed material. The final grade of a capped CAD cell would be similar to the adjacent subaqueous surface elevation.

Yes Yes

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).

Yes Yes

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.

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.

· 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.

Aquatic Disposal

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.

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.

Table 3-2 Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost Screening of Technologies and Process Options


Technology Type Process Option Description Effectiveness Implementability Cost Retained for Further Consideration?

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 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.

Not Effective. Easily Implemented. No short- or long-term costs. Yes.

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.

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.

Low Effectiveness. Easily Implemented. Low.Yes. As a component of alternatives that also include active measures.

Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR)

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 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).

Not effective by itself. Readily Implementable. Short-term and long-term costs are relatively low.

Yes. As a component of alternatives that also include active measures.

General Response Action: No Action

General Response Action: Institutional Controls

General Response Action: Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR)




Capping Without Limited Prior Sediment Removal

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 thickness of sediment has been accomplished first. Capping also may not be feasible in the authorized navigation channel unless enough sediment is removed to allow sufficient clearance above an engineered cap for purposes of regular maintenance dredging. Therefore, capping without limited prior removal of sediment is eliminated from further consideration in this FFS.

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.

Not effective.

Not Implementable due to flooding concerns and obstruction of navigation channel and maintenance dredging.

Moderate. No.

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.

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).

Effective.

Implementable with prior sediment removal in federal navigation channel and to address flooding concerns.

Low to Moderate. Yes.

General Response Action: Containment

Capping




Armored Caps

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 angular versus rounded stone [see Appendix F]).

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.

Effective.

Implementable with prior sediment removal in federal navigation channel and to address flooding concerns.

Low to Moderate. Yes.

Active Caps

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.

Effective. Implementable with limited prior sediment removal.

Higher than engineered caps. Yes.

Geotextile Caps

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 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.

Effective. Implementability over large areas may be challenging. Moderate.

Yes, for areas that do not otherwise have the strength to support a cap.

Capping (cont'd)




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 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.

A primary concern with the use of clay caps is their long-term performance (with respect to maintaining integrity) in areas of significant groundwater upwelling or diversion. Since the use of subaqueous clay caps over 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).

Effective for scour and bio-intrusion protection and maintaining slope stability.

Effectiveness unknown over large areas.

Implementable as armor layer to prevent erosion.

Higher than engineered caps.

No for overall capping material.

Yes as potential armoring and slope stabilization material.

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 bench-scale 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 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 low-energy areas of the FFS Study Area with a lower contaminant flux.

Not effective. Readily Implementable. Low.No for overall capping material but may be evaluated in design phase for use in selected areas.

Capping (cont'd)




In-situ Treatment Sequestration1

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).

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.

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.

Effectiveness unknown in larger areas and sites with higher contamination.

Implementability unknown in larger areas and sites with higher contamination.

Low to Moderate. No.

Excavation

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 excavation area, particularly in larger water bodies. Excavation is considered both implementable and effective for remediation of contaminant mass in the FFS Study Area.

Effective. Implementable. Moderate to High. Yes.

General Response Action: In-Situ Treatment

General Response Action: Sediment Removal




Mechanical Dredging

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.

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.

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).

Effective. Implementable. Low to Moderate. Yes.

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 DredgesSpecialty 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.

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.

Dredging




Immobilization Solidification/ Stabilization

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.


Physical/ Chemical Treatment

Base Catalyzed Decomposition

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. 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 fine-grained material and moisture.

Not Effective. Not Implementable. High.No, sediments from the FFS Study Area are mostly fine-grained.

Solvent Extraction

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 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.

Implementability affected by number of passes to meet treatment goals.

Low to Moderate. No.

Sediment Washing

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 that the process was effective for some contaminants (see Appendix G) and implementable. However, the results of 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.

Effective for some contaminants. Implementable. Low to Moderate.

Yes (as represented by the BioGenesisSM Enterprises, Inc. process).

Thermal Treatment Thermal Desorption

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 technology. Clay and silty soils and high humic content soils increase reaction time as a result of binding of 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.

Effectiveness compromised by high moisture content. Implementable. Not cost-effective due to

high moisture content.

No, sediments from the FFS Study Area are mostly fine-grained and contain high concentrations of heavy metals.

General Response Action: Ex-Situ Treatment

Physical/ Chemical Extraction




Pyrolysis

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 cost-effective. 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 high moisture content. No.

Thermal Destruction

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

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 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.

Effective. Implementable. Moderate to High.Yes (as represented by the Minergy Corporation glass furnace technology process).

Sanitary Landfill Cover

Use of dredged materials (either with or without treatment) at a given sanitary landfill must satisfy the federal, state and local requirements, be addressed in the facility's operating permit, and approved on a case-by-case basis. Effective. Implementable. Low. Yes.

Construction FillOne 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 that the material met the fill specifications and demonstrate that risks from runoff and volatilization are acceptable.

Effective. 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.


Thermal Treatment (cont'd)

General Response Action: Beneficial Use of Dredged Sediments

Beneficial Use of Dredged Sediment




Off-site Landfill

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 less-contaminated, untreated dredged material from the FFS Study Area or for more contaminated dredged material that has been treated to an acceptable degree.

Effective. Implementable. Moderate to High. Yes.

Upland Confined Disposal Facility (CDF)

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 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 75Dewatered 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.

Effective. Implementability hindered by siting challenges. Moderate to High. No.

General Response Action: Disposal of Dredged Sediments

Land Disposal




Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD)

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 the Elizabeth Channel demonstrates that this option is technically feasible and implementable in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary.

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.


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.

Effective.Implementability hindered by siting challenges, permanent impacts on aquatic habitat.

Moderate to High. No.

Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility

Although a nearshore CDF can be effective, challenges to implementability are similar to those of in-water CDFs, 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.

EffectiveImplementability hindered by siting challenges, permanent impacts on aquatic habitat.

Moderate to High. 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.

Aquatic Disposal

Table 3-3 Dewatering Methods

Focused Feasibility StudyLower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaice River Page 1 of 1 2014

Category Description Methods Advantages Disadvantages Concerns Specific to the Lower Passaic River

PassiveRelies 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

Availability of sufficient space in highly urban area; protection of the community from air emissions in a densely-populated area

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 maintenance costs but higher than passive or active amendment categories

More equipment maintenance required than other dewatering technologies

Active evaporative

Artificial energy sources to heat sediments and remove moisture

Flash dryers, rotary dryers, modified multiple hearth furnaces

Can achieve the highest solids content (up to 90 percent)

High energy costs; capture and treatment of air emissions

High energy cost to treat large volume of dredged material; protection of the community from air emissions in a densely-populated area

Active amendment Addition of pozzolanic material Portland Cement, quicklime, grout,

ash Low cost, easily implementable

Increase in volume, heat generated by exothermic reaction could potentially volatilize mercury, PAHs and PCBs

Significant increase in already large volume of dredged material

Notes:

PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.

Table 4-1 Factors Affecting Dredging Depth Requirements


Assumed Dimension for FFS Basis for Assumption Applicable References

Design Vessel Depth Depths vary with river mile Reasonably anticipated future use.

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)

Authorized Channel Depth Gross Underkeel Clearance 3' soft bottom

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)

Advanced Maintenance Dredging 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

Maintenance1' 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)

Armor Top of Cap

Sand Bottom of Cap

Overdredge Allowance for Cap Construction 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

.

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.

2' Refer to Appendix F for cap concept design

Dimension (Not to scale)

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).

Total in addition to authorized depth

Dimensions Used for FFS 1

Table 4-2 Gross Cumulative Resuspension Fluxes in the FFS Study Area from 2030-2059


Alternative 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

Notes:

2,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin; DDx = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane;

FFS = focused feasibility study; kg = kilogram; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.

Table 4-3 Summary of Estimates for Remedial Alternatives


Dredged Material Volume

Dredged Sediment

Volume [Cubic Yards]

Backfill Material [Cubic Yards]

Capping Material [Cubic Yards]

Armor Material [Cubic Yards]

Mudflat Reconstruction Material [Cubic

Yards]

Preconstruction Activities, DMM

Processing Facilities

Construction, and Mobilization/

Demobilization [Years]

Dredging and Capping/

Backfilling3

[Years]

Total Project [Years]

Capital Dredge Material Management 2

Operation and Maintenance

Construction Management and

ContingencyTotal

Alternative 1 - No Action 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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; 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.

Alternative

Construction Durations Alternative Net Present Value 1

9,681,000 1,799,000 - - 916,000 3

1,021,000 0 707,000 46,000

Volume of Material Required For Placement

4,304,000 141,000 1,960,000 96,000 407,000

207,000 3 2 5

11 14

3 5 8

Table 5-1 Summary of Total Cancer Risks and Child Health Hazards


Year

Risk1 Hazard (Adult)

Hazard (Child) Risk1 Hazard

(Adult)Hazard (Child) Risk1 Hazard


(Adult)Hazard (Child)

TCDD TEQ (D/F) 2.00E-03 38 65 2.00E-04 3 10 2.00E-04 3 7 1.00E-03 20 35TCDD TEQ (PCBs) 1.00E-03 27 50 2.00E-04 4 7 2.00E-04 3 6 1.00E-03 19 33Total PCBs 5.00E-04 24 45 4.00E-05 2 4 3.00E-05 2 4 3.00E-04 15 274,4'-DDD 6.00E-06 ND ND 3.00E-06 ND ND 2.00E-06 ND ND 5.00E-06 ND ND4,4'-DDE 9.00E-06 ND ND 5.00E-06 ND ND 4.00E-06 ND ND 8.00E-06 ND ND4,4'-DDT 8.00E-06 0.1 0.2 4.00E-06 0.05 0.09 4.00E-06 0.05 0.08 7.00E-06 0.09 0.1Total Chlordane 3.00E-06 0.04 0.06 3.00E-06 0.03 0.05 3.00E-06 0.03 0.05 3.00E-06 0.04 0.06Methylmercury ND 1 2 ND 0.6 1 ND 0.6 1 ND 1 2Total 4.00E-03 90 163 5.00E-04 10 22 4.00E-04 8 18 2.00E-03 55 97

Risk1 Hazard (Adult)

Hazard (Child) Risk1 Hazard



(Adult)Hazard (Child)

TCDD TEQ (D/F) 9.00E-04 17 29 8.00E-05 1 4 7.00E-05 1 3 5.00E-04 9 15TCDD TEQ (PCBs) 9.00E-04 18 32 3.00E-04 5 8 2.00E-04 4 7 7.00E-04 14 24Total PCBs 1.00E-04 5 10 2.00E-05 1 2 2.00E-05 1 2 8.00E-05 4 74,4'-DDD 6.00E-07 ND ND 1.00E-07 ND ND 1.00E-07 ND ND 4.00E-07 ND ND4,4'-DDE 1.00E-06 ND ND 3.00E-07 ND ND 2.00E-07 ND ND 8.00E-07 ND ND4,4'-DDT 8.00E-07 0.01 0.02 2.00E-07 0.003 0.005 2.00E-07 0.002 0.004 7.00E-07 0.008 0.01Total Chlordane 2.00E-07 0.002 0.004 2.00E-07 0.002 0.004 2.00E-07 0.002 0.004 2.00E-07 0.002 0.004Methylmercury ND 0.3 0.5 ND 0.1 0.2 ND 0.1 0.1 ND 0.2 0.4Total 2.00E-03 40 71 4.00E-04 7 15 3.00E-04 6 13 1.00E-03 27 47Notes:

DDD = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane; DDE = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene; DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; D/F = Dioxins/furans; ND = non-detect; PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl;


1. Sum of individual receptor risk results for the adult and the child.

Fish

Crab

Alternative 4

Focused Capping with Dredgingfor Flooding1

2019 2030 2023 2020

Alternative 3

Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation1

Deep Dredging with Backfill1No Action1

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Table 5-2a Sediment Benchmarks Hazard Quotients Based on Future Modeled Sediment ExposuresBenthic Invertebrates


Year

Basis Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Copper 5 2 4 1 0.1 0.05 2 0.6 0.1 0.05 2 0.7 3 1 3 1Lead 8 3 7 2 0.2 0.07 3 1 0.2 0.07 3 1 5 1 5 2Mercury 20 5 8 2 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.2 1 0.4 0.6 0.2 10 3 6 2HMW PAHs 30 4 30 4 1 0.2 20 3 1 0.2 20 3 10 2 20 4Total DDx 60 2 40 1 4 0.1 4 0.1 5 0.2 3 0.1 40 1 20 0.9Total PCBs 40 4 30 2 2 0.2 1 0.1 3 0.2 1 0.1 30 2 20 22,3,7,8-TCDD 200 200 100 100 5 5 3 3 7 7 2 2 80 80 60 60

Total HI 300 200 200 100 10 6 30 8 20 8 30 7 200 100 100 70Notes: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.

2020 2049

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.

Alternative 1No Action

Alternative 2Deep Dredging with Backfill

Alternative 3Capping with Dredging for

Flooding and Navigation

Alternative 4Focused Capping with Dredging

for Flooding

2019 2048 2030 2059 2023 2052

Table 5-2b Critical Body Residues Based on Future Modeled Sediment Exposures Crab Tissue, Predatory Fish Tissue, and Mummichog Tissue


Year

Basis NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAELCopper 5 2 4 2 0.05 0.02 1 0.6 0.06 0.02 1 0.6 2 1 3 1Lead 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 0.05Mercury 2 1 2 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.3 2 1 2 0.8HMW 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 0.08Total 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 0.2Aroclor, Total 60 20 40 10 6 2 6 2 9 3 5 2 40 10 30 92,3,7,8-TCDD 300 40 200 30 10 2 8 0.9 20 2 6 0.7 200 20 100 10

Total HI 400 60 300 40 20 4 20 4 30 5 10 3 200 40 200 30

Basis NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAELCopper 20 3 10 3 0.4 0.09 6 1 0.4 0.1 6 1 9 2 10 2Lead 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 0.06Mercury 4 0.9 3 0.6 1 0.3 1 0.3 2 0.3 1 0.2 4 0.7 3 0.6HMW PAHs 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 0.03Total DDx 6 1 5 1 2 0.5 2 0.5 3 0.5 2 0.5 5 1 5 0.9Aroclor, Total 20 7 10 4 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.2 1 0.4 0.6 0.2 10 4 9 3TCDD 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 0.6TCDD TEQ (PCBs) 300 100 200 100 10 6 8 4 20 8 6 3 200 80 100 60Total TCDD TEQ 300 100 200 100 10 6 8 4 20 8 6 3 200 80 100 60

Total HI 300 200 200 100 20 7 20 6 20 9 20 5 200 90 100 70

Basis NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAELCopper 10 2 9 2 0.3 0.06 4 0.8 0.3 0.06 4 0.8 6 1 7 1Lead 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 0.1Mercury 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 0.1HMW 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 0.03Total 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 0.07Aroclor, Total 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 0.4TCDD 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 0.2TCDD TEQ (PCBs) 30 10 20 10 3 1 2 0.9 3 2 2 0.8 20 9 10 7Total TCDD TEQ 30 10 20 10 3 1 2 1 3 2 2 0.8 20 9 20 7

Total HI 50 20 40 10 4 2 8 2 4 2 7 2 30 10 20 10Note:

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.

Critical Body Residues - Crab Tissue

Critical Body Residues - Generic Fish Tissue

Critical Body Residues - Mummichog Tissue



Alternative 3Capping with Dredging for Flooding and

Navigation

Alternative 4Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding

2019 2048 2030 2059 2023 2052 2020 2049

Table 5-2c Wildlife Dose Risks Based on Future Modeled Sediment Exposures Heron (general fish diet), Heron (mummichog diet), and Mink


Year

Basis NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL Copper 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 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 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

Basis NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL Copper 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 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

Basis NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL 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 20Notes:

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.

Wildlife Dose Modeling - Heron (Mummichog Diet)

Wildlife Dose Modeling - Heron (Generic Fish Diet)

Wildlife Dose Modeling - Mink (Generic Fish Diet)



Alternative 3Capping with Dredging for Flooding and

Navigation

Alternative 4Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding

2019 2048 2030 2059 2023 2052 2020 2049

Table 5-3 Summary of Present Value Estimates


Capital2 DMM3,4 O&M5 Contingency Total

Alternative 1: No Action $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


$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


$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

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.

AlternativePresent Value Costs1


Focused Feasibility Study Page 1 of 7 2014 Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

NCP Criterion 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

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 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 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. 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

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. 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


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

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

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). Alternative 3, in conjunction with MNR and institutional controls,

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 4, even with MNR and institutional controls, would not be




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.

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.

Cancer risks would remain an order of magnitude above the acceptable risk range of 1 × 104 and 1 × 106 (Table 5-1). Noncancer Hazard Index (30-year exposure duration) Fish: Adult: 90; Child: 163 Crab: Adult: 40; Child: 71 (Table 5-1)

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. Noncancer Hazard Index (30-year exposure duration) Fish: Adult: 10; Child: 22 Crab: Adult: 7; Child: 15 (Table 5-1)

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. Noncancer Hazard Index (30-year exposure duration) Fish: Adult: 8; Child: 18 Crab: Adult: 6; Child: 13 (Table 5-1)

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 55; Child: 97 Crab: Adult: 27; Child: 47 (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.

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. 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. Values can be found in Tables 5-2a through 5-2c.

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 2. Values can be found in Tables 5-2a through 5-2c.

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 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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.





No federal or state chemical-specific sediment quality ARARs for the FFS Study Area. Does not comply with federal or state surface water quality ARARs for the entire 30-year forecast period. Action-specific ARARs do not apply. No location-specific ARARs are applicable to this alternative.

No federal or state chemical-specific sediment quality ARARs for the FFS Study Area. PRGs were specifically developed for the FFS Study Area. 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.




Continued degradation of surficial sediments and surface water with no effective remedial outcome.

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.

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.

Not effective in substantially reducing impacts to humans and the surrounding environment due to remaining exposed contaminated sediments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Adequacy of Controls 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.

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.

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. Removal of some of the contaminated sediments and sequestration of the remaining sediments would result in an eventual decrease in the risk

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 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.




Advisories are ineffective in reducing risk for ecological receptors.

of exposure to ecological receptors. MNR would reduce exposure risks to the ecosystem over time.

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.

Reliability of Controls 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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 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 about advisories is unlikely to be sufficient to ensure protectiveness over the long term until PRGs are reached.


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.

Permanent removal from the FFS Study Area of 38 kg of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 42,000 kg of mercury, 23,500 kg of Total PCBs and 29,000 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 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 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).

Permanent removal from the FFS Study Area of 22 kg of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 17,000 kg of mercury, 7,800 kg of Total PCBs and 26,000 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 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 (7 percent), sediment washing (92 percent) and solidification (1 percent).

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 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).


Not effective in meeting RAOs and PRGs in a reasonable timeframe (within 30 year modeled time period or relatively shortly beyond that period).

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.

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.




Protection of the

Community during

Remedial Actions

No construction so no impact on community.

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. DMM Scenario A would have the least impact on the volume of on-land traffic, but have the most impact on vessel traffic in Newark Bay. DMM Scenario C would have the greatest impact on the volume of on-land 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. Impacts are the greatest under Alternative 2 due to the project duration and the volume dredged.

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. DMM Scenario A would have the least impact on the volume of on-land traffic, but have the most impact on vessel traffic in Newark Bay. DMM Scenario C would have the greatest impact on the volume of on-land 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. Shorter project duration and smaller volume dredged under Alternative 3 (compared to Alternative 2) would lessen the impacts.

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. DMM Scenario A would have the least impact on the volume of on-land traffic, but have the most impact on vessel traffic in Newark Bay. DMM Scenario C would have the greatest impact on the volume of on-land 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. Shortest project duration and smallest volume dredged under Alternative 4 (compared to Alternatives 2 and 3) would lessen the time of impacts.

Protection of Workers

during Remedial

Actions

Because there are no activities performed, no risks to workers.

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. On-land 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. Impacts are the greatest under Alternative 2 due to the project duration and volume dredged.

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. On-land 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. 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. On-land 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, the use of best management practices, and by following OSHA-approved health and safety procedures. Shortest project duration and smallest volume dredged under Alternative 4 (compared to Alternatives 2 and 3) would lessen the time of impacts.

Potential Adverse

Environmental Impacts

Resulting from

Construction and

Implementation

No construction activities and therefore no resulting adverse environmental 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. Temporary loss of benthos and habitat for the ecological community in mudflats, wetlands, and disturbed areas during dredging, until

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. Temporary loss of benthos and habitat for the ecological community in mudflats, wetlands, and disturbed areas during dredging, until

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




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. Impacts are the greatest under Alternative 2 due to the project duration and volume dredged, extending the recovery period.

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. Shorter project duration and smaller volume dredged under Alternative 3 (compared to Alternative 2) would lessen the impacts and allow for more rapid recovery.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. For DMM Scenario C, multiple treatment passes may be required due to the amount of fines in the sediment.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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. Alternative 3 would be technically more feasible than Alternative 2 because of the smaller volume of sediment and shorter project duration.

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. 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. 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.




Administrative

Feasibility

No Action is administratively feasible. No administrative difficulties are anticipated in obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals for sediment removal or backfill placement. Sediment removal 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.

No administrative difficulties are anticipated in obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals for sediment removal or cap/backfill placement. 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. 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.

No administrative difficulties are anticipated in obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals for sediment removal or cap placement. 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). 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. A seven percent discount rate was used in calculating the PV.

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. A seven percent discount rate was used in calculating the PV.

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.

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.

Table 5-5 Sensitivity Analysis for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4


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 A: Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation, CAD



Alternative 4 with DMM Scenario A: Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding, CAD



Baseline Present Value $1,341,000,000 $3,245,000,000 $2,621,000,000 $953,000,000 $1,731,000,000 $1,585,000,000 $365,000,000 $614,000,000 $606,000,000

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%

Increase volume of material removed by 10 percent










Decrease volume of material removed by 10 percent

Decrease PV by approximately 2%









Increase the depth of the cap by 0.5 foot No Impact No Impact No Impact Increase PV by






approximately 3%

Increase the discount rate to 10 percent










Decrease the discount rate to 3 percent










Reduce the productivity of the dredging/transport of material by 25 percent






Decrease PV by approximately 3% No impact Decrease PV by

approximately 2%Decrease PV by

approximately 3%

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.

Cost Sensitivity to Factor 1: Changes in the Proportion of Dewatered Dredged Material Requiring Thermal Destruction Treatment

Cost Sensitivity to Factor 2: Changes in the Volume of Sediment Removed

Cost Sensitivity to Factor 3: Changes in the Thickness of the Engineered Cap

Cost Sensitivity to Factor 4: Changes in the Discount Rate

Cost Sensitivity to Factor 5: Changes in the Dredging Productivity Rate

FIGURES

Manh

attan

Brooklyn

Newa

rk B

ay

Huds

on R

iver

Low

er

Pass

aic

Riv

er

Hac

kens

ack

Riv

er

UpperNew York

Bay

Kill Van Kull

Arth

ur K

ill

Second River

Third Rive

r

Sadd

le R

iver

East

Rive

r

Queens

Essex

Bronx

Port NewarkPort Elizabeth

Oradell Dam

Beatties Mill Dam

Upper

Passaic

River

Brooklyn

Bergen

Hudson

Morris

Passaic

Rockland

Queens

Bronx

Hohokus Brook

Dundee Dam

76

5 3

1

24

912

16

10

1417

8

11

13

15

³

0 2 41Miles

2014Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic RiverFFS Study Area Location Map

Legend Dams

Lower Passaic River Study Area

State and County Boundaries

FFS Study Area Boundary

) River Mile

Major Waterbodies

Figure 1-1

s:\P

roje

cts\

Pas

saic

\Map

Doc

umen

ts\F

inal

_FFS

_Fig

ures

_201

3\Fi

gure

1-1

_FFS

Stu

dyA

reaL

ocat

ionM

ap.m

xd

Manh

attan

Staten Island

Brooklyn

Newa

rk B

ay

Huds

on R

iver

Low

er P

assa

ic R

iver

Hac

kens

ack

Riv

er

UpperNew York

Bay

Kill Van Kull

Arth

ur K

ill

Second River

Third Rive

r

Sadd

le R

iver

Rarita

n River

LowerNew York

Bay

New York Bight

East

Rive

r

JamaicaBay

Queens

New Jersey

Bronx

Port NewarkPort Elizabeth

Oradell Dam

USGS Gauge Stationat Little Falls NJ

Beatties Mill Dam

Raritan Bay

Rockaway Point

Sandy Hook

Upper P

assaic

River

Dundee Dam

0 2.5 51.25Miles

2014New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Location Map

Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

LegendUSGS Gauge Station

Dams

Streams/Rivers

Major Waterbodies

Figure 1-2

s:\P

roje

cts\

Pas

saic

\Map

Doc

umen

ts\F

inal

_FFS

_Fig

ures

_201

3\Fi

gure

1-2

_NY

NJH

arbo

rEst

uary

Loca

tionM

ap.m

xd

wqiu

Typewritten Text

wqiu

Typewritten Text

wqiu

Typewritten Text

Legend

Above RM2

Below RM2

Notes

Above RM2

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 2014

Figure 1-3

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Second River

Third River

Sadd

le Ri

ver

Wyeth

PSE&G Corp

Pfizer Inc

Hexcel Corp

Seton Tanning

CBS Corporation

KAO U.S.A. Inc.

Otis Elevator Co

Mallinckrodt Inc

Teval Corporation

ISP Chemicals LLCISP Chemicals LLC

BASF Catalysts LLC

PPG Industries Inc

Coats & Clark, Inc.

Coats & Clark, Inc.

Coats & Clark, Inc.

Legacy Vulcan Corp.

DII Industries, LLC

Arkema Incorporated

Goodrich Corporation

National-Standard LLC

Eden Wood Corporation

Coltec Industries Inc

Cooper Industries, LLC

Cooper Industries, LLC Flexon Industries CorpThree County Volkswagen

Newell Rubbermaid, Inc.

Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.General Electric Company

Givaudan Fragrances Corp.

Honeywell International Inc

Garfield Molding Company Inc

DiLorenzo Properties Company

Belleville Industrial Center

Conopco, Inc., d/b/a Unilever

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,Inc.

Purdue Pharma Technologies Inc

Franklin Burlington Plastics IncTate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc.

Pharmacia Corp, f/k/a Monsanto CompanyNovelis Corp, f/k/a Alcan Aluminum Corp.

Linde LLC on behalf of The BOC Group, Inc.

Excelis Inc. for itself and ITT Industries, Inc.

BASF Corp on behalf of itself and BASF Catalysts LLC

Hoffman-La Roche Inc.on behalf of itself and Roche Diagnostics

McKesson Corporation for itself andfor Safety-Klean Envirosystems, Inc.

Newell Rubbermaid on behalf of itself,Goody Products, and Berol Corporation

The Hartz Consumer Group, Inc. on behalf of the Hartz Mountain Corporation

BASF Corp on behalf of itself and BASF Catalysts LLC

Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc.

General Electric Company

EPEC Polymers Inc.on behalf of itself and EPEC Oil Company Liquadating Trust

Tiffany & Company

Hess Corporation on behalf of itself and Atlantic Richfield Co.

3

1

2

4

11

1614

76

5

89

12

10

13

17

15

Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed, GeoEye

2014

Figure 1-4

0 1 20.5Miles

³S

:\Pro

ject

s\pa

ssai

c\M

apD

ocum

ents

\201

207_

Loca

tions

of C

PG

Mem

bers

_Fig

1-4.

mxd

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

)))))

)))))))))

)

)))))))))))

)

))))

))

STWB

Croda Inc

PSE&G Corp

Textron Inc

Ashland Inc

Reichhold, Inc.

The Newark Group

Elan Chemical Co

Sequa Corporation

Covanta Essex Company

Quality Carriers, Inc.

Sun Chemical Corporation

CNA Holdings LLC on behalf of Celanese LTD

Leemilt's Petroleum, Inc.,successor to Power Test of NJ, Inc.

Chevron Environmental Management Co. for itself, Texaco, Inc. and TRMI-H LLC

News Publishing Australia, Ltd

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co

Vertellus Specialties, Inc.

Revere Smelting & Refining

The Sherwin Williams Co Covanta Essex CompanyBenjamin Moore & Co

Essex Chemical Corp

3

4

1

2

Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed, GeoEye

Legend!( CPG Member Locations

Federally Authorized (USACE) Navigation Channel CenterlineShoreline as Defined by the New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection

Locations of CPG Membersas of July 2012


INSET

0 1,000 2,000Feet

See Inset

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.

Figure 1-5Footprint of the Phase I and Phase II Tierra Non-Time-Critical Removal Action Areas


0

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

³

0 1,000 2,000500Feet

LegendShoreline as Defined by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Federally Authorized (USACE) Navigation Channel Centerline

Tierra Removal Action Areas

Phase 1

Phase 2

2014

s:\pa

ssaic

\map

docu

ments

\Fina

l_FFS

_Figu

res_2

013\F

igure2

-2 Ph

ase1

2 Rem

oval

Area

s.mxd

0

7

6

5

3

1

2

4

HUDSON COUNTY

ESSEX COUNTY

BERGEN COUNTY

³

2014Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic RiverSediment Texture Type – RM0 to RM8

0 0.5 10.25Miles

Path:

S:\Pr

ojects

\pass

aic\M

apDo

cume

nts\Fi

nal_F

FS_F

igures

_201

4\Figu

re 1-6

Sed

imen

tTextu

re - b

ase m

ap.m

xd

Legend

Project CenterlineShoreline as Defined by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection County Boundaries

City BoundariesSediment Type

Rock and Coarse Gravel

Gravel and Sand

Sand

Silt and Sand

Silt

Figure 1-6a

Second River

Third River

8

9

12

1011

13ESSEX COUNTY

BERGEN COUNTY

PASSAIC COUNTY

HUDSON COUNTY

³

2014Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic RiverSediment Texture Type – RM8 to RM13

0 0.5 10.25Miles

Path:

S:\Pr

ojects

\pass

aic\M

apDo

cume

nts\Fi

nal_F

FS_F

igures

_201

4\Figu

re 1-6

Sed

imen

tTextu

re - b

ase m

ap.m

xd

Legend




Gravel and Sand

Sand

Silt and Sand

Silt

Figure 1-6b

Saddle River16

13

1417

15

BERGEN COUNTY

PASSAIC COUNTY

³

2014

Sediment Texture Type – RM13 to RM17 Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River

0 0.3 0.60.15Miles

Path:

S:\Pr

ojects

\pass

aic\M

apDo

cume

nts\Fi

nal_F

FS_F

igures

_201

4\Figu

re 1-6

Sed

imen

tTextu

re - b

ase m

ap.m

xd

Legend




Gravel and Sand

Sand

Silt and Sand

Silt

Figure 1-6c

Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed,GeoEye

CAD Cell:Area = 38 acresDimensions = 1500 x 1100 feet

Entrance Channel:Depth = 25 feet MLWWidth = 150 feet





Figure 4-1


³

Proposed Confined Aquatic Disposal Cells in Newark Bay

LegendCAD Cell Entrance Channel

CAD Cell

Federally Authorized Navigation Channel

Channel Top of Slope (Approximate)

2014s:\pa

ssaic

\map

docu

ments

\Fina

l_FFS

_Figu

res_2

013\F

igure4

-2 Pr

opos

ed C

onfin

ed Aq

uatic

Disp

osal

Cells

in Ne

wark

Bay.m

xd

0 0.5 10.25Miles

Alternative 2 Alternative 3³



³ Alternative 4

0

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Figure 4-2

2014Capping Area for Alternative 4


LegendShoreline as Defined by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Federally Authorized (USACE) Navigation Channel Centerline Alternative 4 Capping Area

0 0.5 10.25Miles

³

Legend


Figure 4-3a Average Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Linear Scale)

Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4

HQ = 1 (Proposed Remediation Goal)

Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4

HQ = 1

56 Fish Meals per year:

34 Crab Meals per year:

Human Health PRGs

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

2,3,

7,8-

TCDD

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Fish Consumption

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

2,3,

7,8-

TCDD

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Crab Consumption

Time (Years)

Legend


Figure 4-3b Average Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Log Scale)

Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4


Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4

HQ = 1



Human Health PRGs

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

2,3,

7,8-

TCDD

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Fish Consumption

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

2,3,

7,8-

TCDD

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Crab Consumption

Time (Years)

Legend

Average Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area: Best Estimate and Uncertainty Bounds


0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Figure 4-3c

Time (Years)

2,3,

7,8-

TCD

D C

once

ntra

tion

(µg/

kg) Alternative 1 and Alternative 2

Alternative 1 and Alternative 3


Alternative 1 Uncertainty Bounds


Alternative 1 Best Estimate




Alternative 3 Uncertainty Bounds Alternative 4 Uncertainty Bounds

Proposed Remediation Goal

Legend


Figure 4-3d Average Concentrations of Total PCB in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Linear Scale)

Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4


Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4

HQ = 1



Human Health PRGs

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l PCB

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Fish Consumption

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l PCB

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Crab Consumption

Time (Years)

Legend


Figure 4-3e Average Concentrations of Total PCB in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Log Scale)

Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4


Risk = 10-6

Risk = 10-4

HQ = 1



Human Health PRGs

1

10

100

1000

10000

1

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l PCB

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Fish Consumption

1

10

100

1000

10000

1

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l PCB

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Crab Consumption

Time (Years)

Legend

Average Concentrations of Total PCB in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area: Best Estimate and Uncertainty Bounds


10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Figure 4-3f

Tota

l PC

B C

once

ntra

tion

(µg/

kg)












Time (Years)

Legend


Figure 4-3g Average Concentrations of Total DDx in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Linear and Log Scale)

Note: Human Health PRGs were not calculated for Total DDX because it does not contribute significantly to human health risk.

(Proposed Remediation Goal)

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

50

100

150

200

250

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l DDx

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l DDx

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Time (Years)

Legend

Average Concentrations of Total DDx in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area: Best Estimate and Uncertainty Bounds


0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.1

1

10

100

1000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Figure 4-3h

Time (Years)

Tota

l DD

x C

once

ntra

tion

(µg/

kg)












Legend


Figure 4-3i Average Concentrations of Mercury in Surface Sediments in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Linear Scale)

HQ = 1

HQ = 1



Human Health PRGs

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

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Fish Consumption

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Crab Consumption

Time (Years)

Legend


10

100

1000

10000

100000

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Fish Consumption

Figure 4-3j Average Concentrations of Mercury in Surface Sediments in the FFS Study Area versus PRGs (Log Scale)

HQ = 1

HQ = 1



Human Health PRGs


Time (Years)

10

100

1000

10000

100000

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Crab Consumption

Legend

Average Concentrations of Mercury in Surface Sediment in the FFS Study Area: Best Estimate and Uncertainty Bounds


10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

10

100

1000

10000

10

100

1000

10000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Figure 4-3k

Time (Years)

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

) Alternative 1 and Alternative 2











Legend


Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Figure 4-4a Cumulative Flux (from 2030) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at Newark Bay Passaic River Boundary at RM0.9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

2,3,

7,8-

TCDD

Cum

ulat

ive

Flux

(g)

Year

Legend


Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Figure 4-4b Cumulative Flux (from 2030) of Total PCBs at Newark Bay Passaic River Boundary at RM0.9

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Tota

l PCB

Cum

ulat

ive

Flux

(kg)

Year

Legend


Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Figure 4-4c Cumulative Flux (from 2030) of Total 4,4'-DDx at Newark Bay Passaic River Boundary at RM0.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Tota

l DDx

Cum

ulat

ive

Flux

(kg)

Year

Legend


Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Figure 4-4d Cumulative Flux (from 2030) of Mercury at Newark Bay Passaic River Boundary at RM0.9

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Mer

cury

Cum

ulat

ive

Flux

(kg)

Year

US 1 TruckRoute

US 1

Railro

ad Cr

ossin

g

NJ Tu

rnpike

Jack

son S

t.

Railroad Crossing

Bridge Street

I-280 East

I-280 West

Central Ave

Railroad Crossing

Railroad Crossing

I

F

P

J

C

B

E

D

G

A

K

L

H

N

O

Q

R

M

³

Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic RiverConceptual Design for Alternative 2: Deep Dredging With Backfill

S:\P

roje

cts\

PAS

SA

IC\M

apD

ocum

ents

\FFS

_Fin

al_F

igur

es_2

013\

Figu

re4-

19_C

once

ptua

l Des

ign

for A

ltern

ativ

e 2-

Dee

p D

redg

ing

With

Bac

kfill

.mxd

0 1,000 2,000500Feet

Figure 4-5

2014

Newark

Jersey City

Harrison

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)

DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT H

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT M

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT N

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)DISTANCE FROM WEST BANK (FEET)

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT O2

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT Q2

East Newark

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT G

Kearny

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT E

R'

Map LegendShoreline as Defined by NJDEP

Proposed Extent of Dredging


Navigation Channel River Mile Designation (per Federal Channel centerline)


Tidal Mudflats

Tierra Removal - Phase 1 and Phase 2 (removed under separate action)

Transects

j Debris Targets (Sunken Cars)

Bridges and Bridge Abutments

Political Boundary - Municipalities

Political Boundary - Counties

Utilities (by Location)

Submerged

Overhead Cable Lines

Unknown

7

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEET

)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT J1

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT K

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT J2

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT A

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT D

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT L

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT I

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT F2

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT P

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT Q1

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT B

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT C

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEET

)-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT R


DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT F1

Section LegendAuthorized Navigation Channel Lateral LimitsApproximate Removal DepthExisting Sediment Surface (2004)Future Use Depth of Navigation ChannelMLW = 0

(1)

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT O1

Notes on Data SourcesDebris Targets - Digitized from June 2006 Geophysical Survey by Aqua Survey, Inc.Utilities - Combined NOAA electronic navigational data; Digitized by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. from NJDOThard copy maps.Bridge and Bridge Abutments - NOAA electronic navigation dataFederal Navigation Channel - USACELower Passaic River Centerline - Generated by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. based on Federal Channel.Shoreline - NJDEPExisting Sediment Surface - 2004 USACE BathymetryMudflats - NOAAAcronymsft - feetMLW - Mean Low Water as defined by USACENJDEP - New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionNJDOT - New Jersey Department of TransportationNOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationUSACE - United States Army Corps of EngineersSection NotesWhere 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 overdredgingallowance. In areas of armor placement or mudflat reconstruction, additional removal will be necessaryand is included in the volume calculations (see Appendix G).

0

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

j

j

jj

j

j

j

jjj

jjj

j

j

j

US 1 TruckRoute

US 1

Railro

ad Cr

ossin

g

NJ Tu

rnpike

Jack

son S

t.

Railroad Crossing

Bridge Street

I-280 East

I-280 West

Central Ave

Railroad Crossing

Railroad Crossing

I

F

P

J

C

B

E

D

G

A

K

L

H

N

O

Q

R

M

³


Conceptual Design for Alternative 3:Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation

s:\p

roje

cts\

pass

aic\

Map

Doc

umen

ts\F

inal

_FF

S_F

igur

es_2

013\

Figu

re 4

-20_

Con

cept

ual D

esig

n fo

r Alte

rnat

ive

3 - C

App

ing

with

Dre

dgin

g fo

r Fl

oodi

ng a

nd N

avig

atio

n

0 1,000 2,000500Feet

Figure 4-6

2014

Notes on Data SourcesDebris Targets - Digitized from June 2006 Geophysical Survey by Aqua Survey, Inc.Utilities - Combined NOAA electronic navigational data; Digitized by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. from NJDOThard copy maps.Bridge and Bridge Abutments - NOAA electronic navigation dataFederal Navigation Channel - USACELower Passaic River Centerline - Generated by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. based on Federal Channel.Shoreline - NJDEPExisting Sediment Surface - 2004 USACE BathymetryMudflats - NOAAAcronymsft - feetMLW - Mean Low Water as defined by USACENJDEP - New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionNJDOT - New Jersey Department of TransportationNOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationUSACE - United States Army Corps of EngineersSection NotesWhere 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 overdredgingallowance. In areas of armor placement or mudflat reconstruction, additional removal will be necessaryand is included in the volume calculations (see Appendix G).

Newark

Jersey City

Harrison

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT H

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT M

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT N

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT O

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT Q

East Newark

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT G

Kearny

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT E1

R'

Map LegendShoreline as defined by NJDEP

Proposed Extent of Cap or Backfill




Tidal Mudflats

Armor Areas


Transectsj Debris Targets (Sunken Cars)




Utilities (by Location)Submerged


Unknown

7

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT J

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT K

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT D2

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT A

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEET

)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT D1

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT L

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT I

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEET

)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT F

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT P

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT C2

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT B

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT C1

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT R

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(FEE

T)


-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

TRANSECT E2

Section LegendAuthorized Navigation Channel Lateral LimitsTop of CapApproximate Removal DepthExisting Sediment Surface (2004)Future Use Depth of Navigation ChannelMLW = 0

(1)

0

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

j

j

jj

j

j

j

jjj

jjj

j

j

j

US 1 TruckRoute

US 1

Railro

ad Cr

ossin

g

NJ Tu

rnpike

Jack

son S

t.

Railroad Crossing

Bridge Street

I-280 East

I-280 West

Central Ave

Railroad Crossing

Railroad Crossing³


Conceptual Design for Alternative 4:Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding

s:\p

roje

cts\

pass

aic\

Map

Doc

umen

ts\F

inal

_FF

S_F

igur

es_2

013\

Figu

re 4

-20_

Con

cept

ual D

esig

n fo

r Alte

rnat

ive

3 - C

App

ing

with

Dre

dgin

g fo

r Fl

oodi

ng a

nd N

avig

atio

n

0 1,000 2,000500Feet

Figure 4-7

2014

Notes on Data SourcesDebris Targets - Digitized from June 2006 Geophysical Survey by Aqua Survey, Inc.Utilities - Combined NOAA electronic navigational data; Digitized by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. from NJDOThard copy maps.Bridge and Bridge Abutments - NOAA electronic navigation dataFederal Navigation Channel - USACELower Passaic River Centerline - Generated by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. based on Federal Channel.Shoreline - NJDEPExisting Sediment Surface - 2004 USACE BathymetryMudflats - NOAAAcronymsft - feetMLW - Mean Low Water as defined by USACENJDEP - New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionNJDOT - New Jersey Department of TransportationNOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationUSACE - United States Army Corps of EngineersSection NotesWhere vertical removal cuts are shown and competent bulkhead structures are not present,slope stabilization measures are required. Some transects have upstream and downstream crosssections because of the capping footprint geometry.(1) Approximate Removal Depth: Represents the targeted removal elevation plus overdredgingallowance. In areas of armor placement or mudflat reconstruction, additional removal will be necessaryand is included in the volume calculations (see Appendix G).

Newark

Jersey City

Harrison

East Newark

Kearny

R'

Map LegendShoreline as defined by NJDEP


Proposed Extent of Cap



Tidal Mudflats

Armor Areas


Transectsj Debris Targets (Sunken Cars)




Utilities (by Location)Submerged


Unknown

7

Section LegendProposed Cap Lateral ExtentTop of CapApproximate Removal DepthExisting Sediment Surface (2004)Future Use Depth of Navigation ChannelMLW = 0

(1)

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT JJ

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT HH1

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT HH2

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT GG1

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT GG2

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT FF2

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00 DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT FF1

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT EE

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT DD

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT CC2

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT CC1

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT BB1

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT BB2

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT AA

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00 AA

BB

CC

DD

EE

FF

GG

HH

II

JJ

DEPT

H RE

LATIV

E TO

MLW

(ft)


TRANSECT II

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

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 7+00

Legend

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 2014

Figure 5-1a

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

2,3,

7,8-

TCDD

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Time (Years)

RM8 to RM17

Legend

Average Concentrations of Total PCB in Surface Sediment (Top 15 cm) between RM8 and RM17 in the Lower Passaic River


Figure 5-1b

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l PCB

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Time (Years)

RM8 to RM17

Legend

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 2014

Figure 5-1c

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Tota

l DDx

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Time (Years)

RM8 to RM17

Legend

Average Concentrations of Mercury in Surface Sediment (Top 15 cm) between RM8 and RM17 in the Lower Passaic River


Figure 5-1d

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (µ

g/kg

)

Time (Years)

RM8 to RM17