Study Sediment Transport, Organic Carbon and Charge to ... Documents/2013...2013/02/12 · RM2 t...

Lower Passaic River, Lower Eight‐Mile Focused Feasibility Study

Sediment Transport, Organic Carbon and Contaminant Fate and Transport Model

Charge to Peer Reviewers

The peer reviewers are charged with reviewing a modeling tool developed for the Focused

Feasibility Study (FFS) of the Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River. The modeling tool is

described in Appendix B of the FFS (the other appendices contain other supporting analyses for

the FFS).

Background

The Focused Feasibility Study Area (FFS Study Area) is the lower eight miles of the Lower

Passaic River in northeastern New Jersey (NJ), 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 (Figure 1‐1). The FFS Study Area is part of the Lower Passaic River Study Area (LPRSA),

which is the 17‐mile, tidal portion of the Passaic River, from Dundee Dam (RM17.4) to the

confluence with Newark Bay (RM0), and its tributaries. During a comprehensive study of the 17‐

mile LPRSA, 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, the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) completed a Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) to

evaluate taking action to address those sediments, while the comprehensive study of the 17‐

mile LPRSA is on‐going.

The Lower Passaic River (LPR) is a partially‐stratified estuary that is connected to the NY/NJ

Harbor Estuary through Newark Bay. The LPR has an authorized navigation channel from RM0‐

15.5, which was constructed at the end of the 19th century, then sporadically maintained

through the 1950s above RM2 and through 1983 below RM2. As maintenance dredging was

declining, industries along the river were growing and disposing of their wastewaters in the

LPR. The coincidence of chemical disposal in the river, along with the filling‐in of the navigation

channel, created an ideal situation for the accumulation of contaminated sediments in the LPR.

LPR sediments have a number of contaminants at levels that cause risks and hazards to human

and ecological health (“contaminants of concern” or COCs) [see table below]. Sampling from

1995 to 2012 has shown that those high concentrations in surface sediments have not declined

over the last 15 years (Figures1 4‐8, 4‐15).

1 Figures are taken from FFS reports, so may not be numbered sequentially for this document.

FFS Study Area Surface Sediment Concentrations of the Contaminants of Concern (COCs)

Surface Sediments, Unita

Frequency of Detection

Minimum Maximum Mean Median 0‐6 inches

2,3,7,8‐TCDD pg/g 291 / 293 0.09 13,500 597 276

Total TCDD pg/g 239 / 240 2.2 13,300b 733 394

Total PCBs ug/kg 285 / 286 0.1 17,200 1,267 971

Total DDx ug/kg 289 / 289 1.9 10,229 250 99.6

Dieldrin ug/kg 198 / 283 0.01 152 12.6 5.5

Chlordane ug/kg 272 / 272 0.05 254 34.9 26.1

Total PAHs mg/kg 289 / 289 0.21 2,806 46.9 29.9

Mercury mg/kg 287 / 295 0.05 13.4 2.5 2.3

Copper mg/kg 298 / 298 11.5 2,470 182 173

Lead mg/kg 292 / 292 4.4 763 257 242 Notes: Based on 1995 – 2010 data. apg/g = picograms per gram or parts per trillion (ppt); ug/kg = micrograms per kilogram or parts per billion (ppb); mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram or parts per million (ppm). bThis value is based on 1995 data reported by Tierra Solutions Inc. The maximum concentration of Total TCDD should be higher than that of 2,3,7,8‐TCDD. Although the maximum concentration of the Total TCDD is lower than that of 2,3,7,8‐TCDD, this value is within measurement errors.

The LPR cross‐sectional area declines steadily from RM0 to RM17.4, with a pronounced

constriction at RM8.3. At that location, a change in sediment texture is also observed. The

river bed below RM8.3 is dominated by silt material with pockets of silt and sand mixtures,

while above RM8.3, the bed is characterized by coarser sediments with pockets of silt, often

outside the channel. About 85 percent of the silt surface area in the LPR is located below

RM8.3, and by volume, about 90 percent of silts in the LPR are located below RM8.3. Surface

sediment sampling results show that there is no trend in surface sediment concentrations with

river mile in RM2 to RM12 (Figures 4‐3, 4‐12, 4‐17b, 4‐32b, 4‐47b).

To address the persistently elevated and wide‐spread COC concentrations in FFS Study Area

sediments that are causing unacceptable risks and health hazards, the FFS evaluates the

following four remedial alternatives:

1) No Action (also called “Monitored Natural Recovery” or MNR in the modeling reports)

2) Deep Dredging with Backfill involves dredging all contaminated fine‐grained sediments

throughout the FFS Study Area and placing two feet of sand backfill. It results in the

restoration of the authorized navigation channel in RM0‐8.3.

3) Capping with Dredging for Flooding and Navigation (also called “Full Capping” in the

modeling reports) includes dredging of enough fine‐grained sediment so that an

engineered sand cap can be placed over the FFS Study Area without causing additional

flooding and to allow for a navigation channel between RM0.0 and RM2.2.

4) Focused Capping with Dredging for Flooding includes dredging of fine‐grained sediments

in selected portions of the FFS Study Area (about one third of the FFS Study Area

surface) with the highest gross and net fluxes of COPCs and COPECs to a depth of 2.5

feet so that an engineered sand cap can be placed over those portions dredged without

causing additional flooding. It does not include construction of a navigation channel.

Purpose and Objectives of the Modeling

Sediment transport, organic carbon and contaminant fate and transport modeling of the LPR

were performed to provide one of the tools used in comparative analyses of the four remedial

alternatives being evaluated in the FFS. Sediment transport results provided input to organic

carbon and contaminant fate and transport models. The objective of the sediment transport

modeling was to develop a mathematical representation of the processes affecting sediment

transport behavior, so that simulated sediment transport results could be used to assess the

transport of sorbed contaminants in the fate and transport modeling. The objective of the

organic carbon and contaminant fate and transport modeling was to develop a mathematical

representation of the processes affecting contaminant fate and transport behavior of dissolved

and sorbed contaminants based on the associated sediment transport results. The models

could then be used to assess the effect that implementation of the four remedial alternatives

would have on future surface sediment concentrations and their associated risks and health

hazards.

Peer Review

The sediment transport, organic carbon and contaminant fate and transport models for the LPR

were based on an existing, peer reviewed model of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary developed by the

Contamination Assessment and Reduction Program (CARP). The CARP model was modified to

be more applicable to conditions in the LPR. The peer reviewers are charged with determining

whether the LPR‐specific modifications to the CARP model have produced a tool that is

adequate for USEPA to use in the FFS to compare the relative effects that implementation of

each of the four remedial alternatives would have on future surface sediment concentrations.

The peer reviewers are tasked with reviewing the following documents that are appendices to

the FFS: Lower Passaic River Sediment Transport Model Report, Draft (Appendix B2) and Lower

Passaic River Contaminant Fate and Transport Model Report, Draft (Appendix B3) [both drafts

dated January 31, 2013].

Reviewer Charge Questions

The peer reviewers are also tasked with providing input on the following questions, with full

explanations supporting their conclusions:

1. Are the physical, biological and chemical processes represented in the model adequate for

describing sediment transport, organic carbon and contaminant fate and transport for the

LPR, with particular focus on the FFS Study Area?

2. Have the appropriate data sets been properly and adequately used to set up the model

input parameters and define forcing functions and initial conditions for the sediment

transport, organic carbon and contaminant fate and transport models?

3. Does the model adequately represent the spatial and temporal distributions of the COCs in

the water column and sediment bed for USEPA to use it as a tool to compare the relative

effects that implementing each remedial alternative will have on FFS Study Area surface

sediment quality?

4. Does the model adequately account for the contributions of COC sources that may re‐

contaminate FFS Study Area sediments during and after implementation of each remedial

alternative?

5. Does the model adequately account for the effect of extreme storm events contributing to

the resuspension and redistribution of contaminated sediments for USEPA to use it as one

tool to compare the effects that implementing each of the four remedial alternatives will

have on FFS Study Area sediment COC concentrations?

76

5 3

1

824

912

1610

13

1417

11

15

2012Figure 1-1

Lower Passaic River Restoration ProjectFFS Study Area Location Map

Queens

Bronx

Manh

attan

³

Lowe

rPa

ssaic

Rive

rBeatties Mill Dam

Dundee Dam

0 2.5 51.25Miles

Sad d

le Riv

er

Brooklyn

Third River

Bergen

Passaic

Hudson

Morris

Essex

Second River

Upper

Passa

ic Rive

rOradell Dam

Hack

ensa

ck R

iver

Legend

DamsLower Passaic River Study AreaState and County BoundariesFFS Study Area BoundaryRiver MileMajor Waterbodies

Path:

P:\0

2859

24\M

appin

g\CSM

_Mas

sBala

nce\s

iteloc

ation

_CSM

.mxd

Hohokus Brook

1

xwang

Text Box

Source: Remedial Investigation Report for the Focused Feasibility Study, July 2012.

RM0 to RM2

3

0

1

2

-1

All Pairs

Tukey-Kramer

0.05

95th Percentile

5th Percentile

50th Percentile25th Percentile

75th PercentileData Points

LegendNotes: 1) Horizontal line represents the mean concentration across all data points.See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.2) 2008 CPG data was corrected by applying a factor of 1.89 (CSC, 2010)

RM2 t RM8

Sampling Program

5 PercentileRM2 to RM8

3

4

5

8- g)

1

2

3

Log

2,3,

7,8

TC

DD

(ng

/kg

0

1995

RI

Pro

gram

CP

G 2

008

CP

G 2

009

CP

G 2

010

CP

G 2

012 All Pairs

Tukey-Kramer

0.05

Lower Passaic River Restoration Project 2012

Figure 4-82,3,7,8-TCDD by Sampling Programat RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

Sampling Program

xwang

Text Box


RM0 to RM2

2008

2008

2009

2010

2012

95 R

I og

ram

Note: Horizontal line represents the mean concentration across all data points.See text for explanation of Tukey-Kramer circles.

RM2 to RM8

95th Percentile

5th Percentile

50th Percentile25th Percentile

75th PercentileData Points

Legend

EP

A

CP

G

CP

G

CP

G

CP

G

199

Pro

Sampling Program

RM2 to RM8 5 Percentile

1995

RI

Pro

gram

CP

G 2

008

CP

G 2

010

CP

G 2

012

CP

G 2

009

Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River 2013

Figure 4-15Total PCBs by Sampling Programat RM0 to RM2 and RM2 to RM8

Sampling Program

xwang

Text Box



Figure 4-32,3,7,8-TCDD in Recently-Deposited Sediments in the Lower Passaic River, Newark Bay and the Upper Passaic River

2,3,7,8-TCDD vs. River Mile

2,3,7,8-TCDD TOC Normalized vs. River Mile

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

-10-505101520

2,3,

7,8

-TC

DD

/ T

OC

(pg

/g c

arbo

n)

River Mile

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

-10-505101520

2,3

,7,8

-TC

DD

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

pg/

g)

River Mile

Newark Bay

Lower Passaic RiverUpperPassaic River

Newark BayLower Passaic RiverUpperPassaic River

2008 CPG2007-2008 EPA Core Top2005 EPA High Resolution Cores2008 Upper Passaic2008 EPA Upper Passaic (Dr. Bopp)2005&2007 TSI Newark Bay

Note: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. The factor was provided by CSC Environmental Solutions, Inc., November 2010.



Figure 4-12Total PCBs in Recently -Deposited Sediments in the LowerPassaic River, Newark Bay and the Upper Passaic River

Total PCBs vs. River Mile

Total PCBs TOC Normalized vs. River Mile

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

-10-505101520

Tota

l PC

Bs

Con

cen

trat

ion

(ug/

kg)

River Mile

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

-10-505101520

Tota

l PC

Bs

/ TO

C (

ug/k

g ca

rbon

)

River Mile






Figure 4-17bTotal DDx in Recently -Deposited Sediments in the Lower Passaic River, Newark Bay and the Upper Passaic River

Total DDx vs. River Mile

Total DDx TOC Normalized vs. River Mile

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

-10-505101520

Tota

l 4,4

'-DD

x / T

OC

(u

g/k

g c

arb

on

)

River Mile

0.1

1.0

10

100

1,000

10,000

-10-505101520

Tota

l 4,4

'-DD

x C

on

cen

tra

tion

(u

g/kg

)

River Mile






Figure 4-32bTotal PAHs in Recently -Deposited Sediments in the LowerPassaic River, Newark Bay and the Upper Passaic River

Total PAHs vs. River Mile

Total PAHs TOC Normalized vs. River Mile

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

-10-505101520

Tota

l PA

H C

on

cen

tra

tion

(u

g/g

)

River Mile

2008 CPGat RM 9.53, 0.77 ug/gat RM 11.23, 0.01 ug/g

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

-10-505101520

Tota

l PA

H /

TO

C (

ug/g

ca

rbon

)

River Mile

2008 CPGat RM 11.23, 0.11 ug/g

Newark Bay

Lower Passaic RiverUpperPassaic River





Figure 4-47bMercury in Recently -Deposited Sediments in the LowerPassaic River, Newark Bay and the Upper Passaic River

Mercury vs. River Mile

Mercury Iron Normalized vs. River Mile

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

-10-505101520

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/K

g)

River Mile

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

-10-505101520

Mer

cury

/ Iro

n

River Mile





Study Sediment Transport, Organic Carbon and Charge to ... Documents/2013...2013/02/12 · RM2 t...

Documents

Transcript of Study Sediment Transport, Organic Carbon and Charge to ... Documents/2013...2013/02/12 · RM2 t...