PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
JANUARY 2000
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Volume 2D - Book 2 of 4
Fate and Transport Models
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
JANUARY 2000
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Volume 2D - Book 2 of 4
Fate and Transport Models
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc
Tetra Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
CONTENTS
List of Tables
List of Figures
Book 1 Tables
Book 1 Figures
Appendix A HUDTOX Exposure Concentrations for Risk Assessments
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE
3-1 Comparison of Manning's 'n' from Previous Studies
3-2 Modeled Hudson River Flows at the Upstream Boundary of Thompson
Island Pool
3-3 Comparison of Model Results with Rating Curve Data
3-4 Effect of Manning's 'n' on Model Results for 100-Year Flow Event
3-5 Effect of Turbulent Exchange Coefficients on Model Results
4-1 Summary of Inputs for Depth of Scour Model at Each High Resolution
Core
4-2 Predicted Depth of Scour Range for 100 Year Flood at Each High
Resolution Core Location
4-3 Thompson Island Pool Cohesive Sediment Expected Values of Solids
Erosion and Mean Depth of Scour for 100-Year Flood, from Monte Carlo
Analysis
5-1 a HUDTOX Water Column Segment Geometry in Thompson Island Pool
(2-dimensional segmentation)
5-1 b HUDTOX Water Column Segment Geometry Below Thompson Island
Pool (1-dimensional segmentation)
5-2 a HUDTOX Sediment Segment Geometry in Thompson Island Pool for
Surficial Sediment Segments (2-dimensional segmentation)
5-2 b HUDTOX Sediment Segment Geometry Downstream of Thompson Island
Pool for Surficial Sediment Segments (1-dimensional segmentation)
6-1 Sediment Data Sets Used in Development and Application of the
HUDTOX Model
6-2 USGS Gage Information For Gages Used In Flow Estimation
6-3 Drainage Areas and Reference Tributaries Used to Estimate Daily
Tributary Flows
6-4 Mean Seasonal USGS Flows For Select Flow Gauges in the Study Area
for the Period 3/1/77 to 6/30/92
6-5 Seasonal Tributary Flow Adjustment Factors applied to Tributaries
between Fort Edward and Stillwater, and between Stillwater and
Waterford
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE
6-6 Hudson River Flows Yearly Averages Estimated and USGS Gage Data
6-7 Summary of Available Solids Data for Mainstem Stations; Number of
Samples and Source of Suspended Solids Sample Data by Station
6-8 Summary of Available Solids Data for Tributaries; Number of Samples
and Source of Suspended Solids Sample Data by Station
6-9 Reference Tributaries for Unmonitored Tributaries
6-10 Tributary Solids Rating Curve Equations for Data-Based Rating Curves
and Adjusted Rating Curves for the Long-Term Solids Balance
6-11 Cumulative Mainstem Solids (SS) Loads and Yields
6-12 Cumulative Solids Loads and Corresponding Yields by Reach (10/1/77 -
9/30/97)
6-13 Solids (TSS) Trapping Efficiencies by Reach Estimated by QEA Using
SEDZL and Applied to Estimate Tributary TSS Loads in HUDTOX
6-14 Comparison of LTI and Literature-Based Annual Average Sediment Yield
Estimates by Watershed
6-15 Number of Tri+ PCB Data Available by Source and Year at Each Hudson
River Mainstem Sampling Station
6-16 Number of Days With Available PCB Data for Monitored Tributaries
(Batten Kill, Hoosic River, Mohawk River)
6-17 Number of PCB Data Available for Each Congener and Total PCB by
Source and Year at Each Hudson River Mainstem Sampling Station
6-18 Criteria and Factors Used in Adjustment of Thompson Island Dam West
Shore PCB Data Bias
6-19 Tri+ and Total PCB Concentration Statistics for Monitored Tributaries
6-20 Comparison of Annual Tri+ PCB Load Estimates at Hudson River
Mainstem Station Presented in the DEIR and Calculated in this Report
6-21 Estimated Average Annual Load at Fort Edward by PCB Type from 1991-
1997
6-22 Cohesive/non-cohesive Sample Classification Criteria Applied to 1977
NYSDEC Data to Compute HUDTOX Sediment Tri+ Initial Conditions
iii Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE
6-23 Sample Count and Averaging Groups for Specifying 1977 Sediment Initial
Conditions for HUDTOX from the NYSDEC Data
6-24 Averaging Groups for Specifying Sediment Initial Conditions from the
1991 GE Composite Sampling Data
6-25 Pool-Wide Average Surficial Sediment Concentrations for Each PCB
State Variable
6-26 3-Phase Partition Coefficients Estimated from Phase 2 Water Column
Data and GE Sediment Data
6-27 Mass Fraction of Total PCB Represented by Tri+, BZ#1, BZ#4, and BZ#8
at Mainstem Hudson River Stations Determined from GE and USEPA
Phase 2 (P2) Data
6-28 Estimated Partition Coefficients (KPOc, KDOC) for Total PCB by Source
and Agency at Mainstem Hudson River Stations
6-29 Estimated Partition Coefficients (KPOc, KDOc) for Total PCB at Mainstem
Hudson River Stations and Averaged Over Study Reach
6-30 Statistical Summary of Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Water Column
Data
6-31 Mean DOC Concentrations by Reach in Upper Hudson River
6-32 Mean Sediment foe Values Specified from GE 1991 Composite Data for
River Mile intervals in HUDTOX
6-33 Illustration of Typical Low and High Flow Partitioning Behavior During
Cold Weather and Warm Weather Periods
6-34 Henry's Law Constants Developed Experimentally by Brunner, et. al.
(1990) for Selected Congeners
6-35 Congener Distribution of Total PCB by Mass Fraction at Mainstem
Hudson River Stations Using 1993 USEPA Phase 2 Data (Number of
observations)
6-36 Congener Distribution of Total PCB by Mass Fraction at Mainstem
Hudson River Stations Using 1991-1998 GE Data (Number of
observations)
6-37 Estimated Henry's Law Constants (HLC) for Total and Tri+ PCB by
Source and Agency at Mainstem Hudson River Stations
iv Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE
6-38 Estimated Henry's Law Constants (HLC) for Total PCB at Mainstem
Hudson River Stations and Averaged Over Study Reach
6-39 Estimated Molecular Weight for Total and Tri+ PCB by Source and
Agency at Mainstem Hudson River Stations
6-40 Estimated Molecular Weight for Total PCB at Mainstem Hudson River
Stations and Averaged Over Study Reach
6-41 Estimated Henry's Law Constants and Molecular Weight by PCB Type
6-42 Coefficients Used to Estimate Depth and Velocity as a Function of Cross-
Section Average Flow in HUDTOX for Calculation of Liquid-Phase (KL)
Air-Water Transfer Rates
6-43 Annual Average Bulk Sediment Concentrations by PCB Type
6-44 Annual Average Pore Water Concentrations by PCB Type
6-45 Estimated Sediment Properties in Thompson Island Pool Based on Area
Weighting by Sediment Type
6-46 Annual Time Series of Sediment-Water Mass Transfer Rate for Tri+ PCBs
6-47 Correlation of Particulate-mediated Sediment-Water Mass Transfer
Coefficient with Suspended Solids Concentration, Fort Edward Flow, and
Water Temperature
6-48 Annual Time Series of Pore Water and Particulate Mass Transfer
Coefficients by PCB Type
7-1 HUDTOX Solids Model Calibration Parameter Values
7-2 HUDTOX Cohesive Sediment Resuspension and Armoring Parameters
7-3 HUDTOX Fraction Organic Carbon and Dissolved Organic Carbon
Parameterization by Reach
7-4 HUDTOX PCB Model Calibration Parameter Values
7-5 Tri+ Mass Loads (1977-1997) at Mainstem Stations for Sensitivity
Analyses
8-1 Sequencing of Annual Hydrographs to Develop 70-year Forecast
Hydrograph
8-2 Surface Sediment Tri+ Initial Conditions for the No Action and 100-Year
Event Simulations
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE
8-3 Effect of the 100-Year Flood Event on the Non-cohesive (N) and
Cohesive (C) Sediment Bed in Upper Hudson River Reaches between Fort
Edward and Federal Dam (Year 1 - 3/28 to 4/13)
vi Limno-Tcch, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
1 -1 Hudson River Watershed
1-2 Upper Hudson River Watershed
1-3 Thompson Island Pool
2-1 Upper Hudson River Modeling Framework
2-2 Upper Hudson River Modeling Framework with Model Inputs
3-1 Thompson Island Pool Study Area
3-2 Thompson Island Pool RMA-2V Model Mesh
3-3 Thompson Island Pool Velocity Vectors for 100-Year Flow Event
3-4 Shear Stress Computed from Vertically Averaged Velocity
3-5 Thompson Island Pool Bottom Shear Stress for 100-Year Flow Event
4-1 Erosion versus Shear Stress in Cohesive Sediments
4-2 Armoring Depth versus Shear Stress
4-3 a,b Likelihood of PCB Scour for Selected Phase 2 High Resolution Sediment
Cores
4-4 Cumulative Percent versus Mean Depth of Scour for Cohesive Sediment
in Thompson Island Pool
4-5 Cumulative Percent versus Total Solids Scoured from Cohesive Sediment
in Thompson Island Pool
5-1 Conceptual Framework for the HUDTOX PCB Model
5-2 Illustration of Sediment Scour in the HUDTOX Model
5-3 Illustration of Sediment Burial in the HUDTOX Model
5-4 a,b HUDTOX Model Water Column Segmentation Grid for Upper Hudson
River, Parts A and B
5-4 c,d HUDTOX Model Water Column Segmentation Grid for Upper Hudson
River, Parts C and D
5-5 Thompson Island Pool Study Area
5-6 Schematic of HUDTOX Water Column Segmentation Grid
5-7 HUDTOX Water Column Segment Depths by River Mile
vii Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
5-8 Percent Cohesive Area Represented in HUDTOX Sediment by River Mile
6-1 Upper Hudson River Basin USGS Flow Gage Stations Used in HUDTOX
Modeling
6-2 Log Pearson Flood Frequency Analysis for Fort Edward gage, Hudson
River, NY Analysis
6-3 USGS Flow Time Series at Fort Edward from 1/1/77 - 9/30/97
6-4 Comparison of LTI-Estimated Flow (DAR-based, seasonally & high-flow
adjusted) and the USGS-Reported Flow
6-5 Estimated Daily Average Mainstem and Tributary Flows for the Upper
Hudson River between Fort Edward and Federal Dam (1/1/77 - 9/30/97)
6-6 Relative Percent Flow Contribution from Fort Edward and Tributaries
between Fort Edward and Waterford
6-7 1993 - 1997 Estimated versus USGS-Reported Daily Average Flow at
Stillwater and Waterford
6-8 1993 - 1997 Estimated versus USGS-Reported Daily Average Flow Time
Series at Stillwater and Waterford
6-9 Upper Hudson River Basin Primary Mainstem and Tributary Sampling
Locations for Solids Used in HUDTOX Modeling
6-10 Monitored and Unmonitored Subwatesheds for Solids Between Fort
Edward and Waterford
6-11 GE versus USGS TSS Data at Fort Edward for High and Low Flow Data
Pairs from 4/1/91 to 9/15/97
6-12 Observed Total Suspended Solids (TSS) versus Flow, 1977-1997 and TSS
Rating Curves for this Period at Fort Edward, Stillwater and Waterford
6-13 Comparison of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) High-Flow Rating Curves
for Fort Edward, 1977-1997, Using MVUE (Cohn et al. 1989) and Non-
linear Regression Analysis.
6-14 Comparison of 1977-1990 and 1991-1997 Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Rating Curves at Fort Edward versus the 1977-1997 Rating Curve
6-15 Tributary TSS Rating Curves: Based on Data and Adjusted to Achieve
Solids Balance
viii Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
6-16 Mainstem and Tributary Suspended Solids Watershed Loads and Yields
based on HUDTOX Suspended Solids Loading Estimates (10/1/77-
9/30/97)
6-17 Relative Percent Solids Contribution from Fort Edward and Tributaries
between Fort Edward and Waterford
6-18 Distribution of TSS Load Over Flow Range at Fort Edward, Stillwater,
and Waterford from 1977-1997
6-19 Upper Hudson River Basin Primary Mainstem and Tributary Sampling
Locations for PCB Data Used in HUDTOX Modeling
6-20 a,b Distribution of Available Tri+ PCBs Concentration Data by Flow Intervals
for Mainstem Hudson River Sampling Stations (January 1977-May 1998)
6-21 Tri+ PCB concentrations and Load versus Flow at Fort Edward for
Selected Years
6-22 Tri+ PCB Concentrations and Loads versus Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Concentration at Fort Edward for Selected Years
6-23 Interpolated Daily Tri+ PCB Concentration and Flow at Fort Edward,
1977-1997
6-24 Examples of Apparent Tri+ Pulse Loading Events at Fort Edward in 1983
and 1994
6-25 Estimated Annual Tri+ Load at Mainstem Hudson River Sampling
Stations Compared to DEIR Estimates
6-26 Estimated Annual Tri+ Load at Hudson River Mainstem Sampling
Stations
6-27 Distribution of Tri+ Load Over Flow Range at Fort Edward, Stillwater,
and Waterford from 1977-1997
6-28 Distribution of Tri+ Load Gain Across Thompson Island Pool (TIP) Over
Flow Range for 1993-1997
6-29 Relative Contribution of Estimated External Tri+ PCB Loads to the Upper
Hudson River by Source, 1977-1997
6-30 Ratio of Congener BZ#4 to Total PCBs at Fort Edward, 1991-1997, GE
and Phase2 Data
6-31 Estimated Annual Total and Congener PCB Loads at Fort Edward
ix Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
6-32 1977 Sediment Tri+ PCB Initial Conditions Computed from the NYSDEC
Data, Fort Edward to Federal Dam
6-33 1977 Sediment Tri+ PCB Initial Conditions Computed from the NYSDEC
Data, Thompson Island Pool
6-34 a,b 1977 Sediment Tri+ Initial Conditions Computed from 1977 NYSDEC
Data: Vertical Profiles
6-35 Comparison of Measures Total PCB & Tri+ PCB Data to 1991 Model
Initial Conditions in the Top Layer (0-5 cm) of Cohesive and Non-
cohesive Sediments
6-36 Comparison of Measured BZ#4 (#10) & BZ#52 Data to Model Initial
Conditions in the Top Layer (0 to 5 cm) of cohesive and Non-cohesive
Sediment
6-37 Comparison of Measured BZ#28 and BZ#90+101 Data to 1991 Model
Initial Conditions in the Top Layer (0 to 5 cm) of Cohesive and Non-
cohesive Sediments
6-38 Comparison of Measured BZ#138 Data to Model Initial Conditions in the
Top Layer (0 to 5 cm) of Cohesive and Non-cohesive Sediments
6-39 Ratio of Average BZ#4 1991 Concentrations to Average BZ#52 1991
Concentrations by Sediment Depth
6-40 Monthly Average Water Temperature Functions Applied in HUDTOX and
Observed Water Temperatures
6-41 Comparison of Monthly Mean Temperatures at Mainstem Upper Hudson
River Stations
6-42 Estimated Partition Coefficients for Total PCB by Station and by Source
6-43 Observed Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Concentrations versus
Normalized Flow between Fort Edward and Federal Dam
6-44 Observed Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Data versus River Mile
between Fort Edward and Federal Dam
6-45 River-wide Fraction Organic Carbon (foc) Function Based on a Power
Function Fit to foc Data for Mainstem Hudson River Stations
6-46 Specified Sediment Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Concentrations in
HUDTOX
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
6-47 foc versus River Mile from the 1991 GE Composite Sampling and Values
Specified for Cohesive and Non-cohesive Sediment in HUDTOX
6-48 Estimated Henry's Law Constant for Selected Congeners Determined
Experimentally by Brunner, et. al (1990)
6-49 Estimated Henry's Law Constants for Tri+ and Total PCB by Station and
Data Source
6-50 Estimated Molecular Weight for Tri+ and Total PCB by Station and Data
Source
6-51 Specification of Historical Atmospheric Gas-Phase PCB Boundary
Concentrations for the 1977-1997 HUDTOX Calibration Period
6-52 a-c Vertical Profiles of PCB3+ within Finely Segmented Sediment Cores
Collected from the Upper Hudson River (from QEA, 1999)
6-53 Comparison of Same-Day Suspended Solids (TSS) Concentration Data at
Fort Edward and Thompson Island Dam when TSS Concentration is less
Than 10 mg/L and Fort Edward Flow is less Than 10,000 cfs (1993-1997)
6-54 Temporal Patterns in Water Column Tri+ PCB Concentration at Fort
Edward and Thompson Island Dam, Tri+ PCB Loading Increase Across
Thompson Island Pool, and Calculated Effective Sediment-Water Mass
Transfer Rates Across Thompson Island Pool
6-55 Computed Effective Mass Transfer Rate for Tri+ PCBs in Thompson
Island Pool, 1993-1997
6-56 Scatter Plots of Estimated Sediment-Water Mass Transfer Rate:
Congeners versus Total PCB
6-57 Comparison of Estimated Site-Specific Water Column and Sediment Koc
Values for Congeners as Determined in the DEIR
6-58 Average Observed versus Porewater and Particulate Predicted Relative
Load Gain at Thompson Island Dam by Season, 1991-1997
6-59 Comparison of Congener Specific Apparent Sediment-Water Mass
Transfer Rates by Date
6-60 Comparison of Fit using Ratio of Pore Water to Particulate Mass Transfer
Coefficients to Average Observed Predicted Relative Load Gain at
Thompson Island Dam by Season, 1991-1997
xi Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
7-1 Computed Annual Average Burial Rates, 1977-1997
7-2 Comparison between Model Estimated and Data Estimated In-River
Solids Loadings Stratified by Fort Edward Flow at 10,000 cfs (1/1/77-
9/30/97)
7-3 a,b Comparison Between Computed and Observed Solids Concentrations at
Mainstem Sampling Stations
7-4 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Total Suspended Solids
Concentrations (TSS) for the Spring 1983 High Flow Event
7-5 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Total Suspended Solids
Concentrations (TSS) for the Spring 1993 High Flow Event
7-6 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Total Suspended Solids
Concentrations (TSS) for the Spring 1994 High Flow Event
7-7 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Total Suspended Solids
Concentrations (TSS) for the Spring 1997 High Flow Event
7-8 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Suspended Solids
Concentrations for Fort Edward Flows less than 10,000 cfs
7-9 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Suspended Solids
Concentrations for Fort Edward Flows greater than 10,000 cfs
7-10 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Probability Distributions
for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) for Fort Edward Flows less than 10,000
cfs
7-11 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Probability Distributions
for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) for Fort Edward Flows greater than
10,000 cfs
7-12 Computed Cumulative Sediment Bed Elevation Change in Thompson
Island Pool, 1977-1997
7-13 Computed Annual Average Solids Burial Rates, 1977-1997
7-14 Computed Solids Mass Balance Components Analysis for 1977-1997
7-15 a Comparison between Computed and Observed (Surficial and Depth-
Composited) Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Thompson Island Pool
7-15 b Comparison between Computed and Observed (Surficial and Depth-
Composited) Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Schuylerville Reach
xii Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
7-15c Comparison between Computed and Observed (Surficial and Depth-
Composited) Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Stillwater Reach
7-15d Comparison between Computed and Observed (Surficial and Depth-
Composited) Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Waterford Reach
7-15 e Comparison between Computed and Observed (Surficial and Depth-
Composited) Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Federal Dam Reach
7-16 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Depth-Averaged Sediment
Tri+ Concentrations for Thompson Island Pool in 1984
7-17 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Depth-Averaged (0-5 cm)
Sediment Tri+ Concentrations from Fort Edward to Federal Dam in 1991
7-18 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Depth-Averaged (5-10 cm)
Sediment Tri+ Concentrations from Fort Edward to Federal Darn in 1991
7-19 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Depth-Averaged (10-26
cm) Sediment Tri+ Concentrations from Fort Edward to Federal Dam in
1991
7-20 a,b Comparison between Computed and Observed Sediment Tri+
Concentrations at Mainstem Stations
7-20 c Comparison between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations at
Thompson Island Dam, 1991-1997
7-21 Comparison of Same Day Tri+ Concentration Data by Source at Fort
Edward, Stillwater, and Waterford
7-22 Comparison between Model Estimated and Data Estimated In-River Tri+
Loadings from 1977-1997 Stratified by Fort Edward Flow at 10,000 cfs
7-23 Comparison between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations for the
Spring 1983 High Flow Event
7-24 Comparison between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations for the
Spring 1993 High Flow Event
7-25 Comparison between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations for the
Spring 1994 High Flow Event
7-26 Comparison between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations for the
Spring 1997 High Flow Event
xiii Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
7-27 Comparison between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations for
Fort Edward Flow Less Than 10,000 cfs
7-28 Comparison between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations for at
Fort Edward Flow Greater Than 10,000 cfs
7-29 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Probability Distributions
for Tri+ at Fort Edward Flow Less Than 10,000 cfs
7-30 Comparison Between Computed and Observed Probability Distributions
for Tri+ at Fort Edward Flow Greater Than 10,000 cfs
7-31 Computed Tri+ PCB Mass Balance Components Analysis for 1977-1997
7-32 Computed Cumulative Contribution Tri+ Load Gain between Mainstem
Hudson River Sampling Stations from 1991 to 1997
7-33 Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Alternate Solids Loads at
Fort Edward
7-34 Sediment Responses in Waterford to Alternative Solids Loads at Fort
Edward
7-35 Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Changes in Tributary
Solids Loadings
7-36 Sediment Responses at Waterford to Changes in Tributary Solids
Loadings
7-37 Water Column Responses to Changes in Tributary Solids Loadings
7-38 Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Changes in Tributary
Solids Loads due to Specification of Rating Curves
7-39 Sediment Responses at Waterford to Changes in Tributary Solids Loads
Due to Specification of Rating Curves
7-40 Water Column Responses to Changes in Tributary Solids Loadings Due to
Specification of Rating Curve
7-41 Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Changes in Partitioning
7-42 Sediment Responses in Waterford Reach to Changes in Partitioning
7-43 Water Column Responses to Changes in Partitioning
7-44 Time Series for Effective Mass Transfer Rate in HUDTOX
xiv Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
7-45 Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Changes in Sediment-
Water Mass Transfer Rate
7-46 Sediment Responses in Waterford Reach to Changes in Sediment-Water
Mass Transfer Rate
7-47 Water Column Responses to Changes in Sediment-Water Mass Transfer
Rate
7-48 Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Changes in Cohesive and
Non-cohesive Specific Sediment to Water Effective Mass Transfer Rates
7-49 Sediment Responses in Waterford to Changes in Cohesive and Non-
cohesive Specific Sediment to Water Effective Mass Transfer Rates
7-50 Responses of Burial Rates in Cohesive Sediments to Changes in Gross
Settling Velocities
7-51 Responses of Burial Rates in Non-Cohesive Sediments to Changes in
Gross Settling Velocities
7-52 Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Changes in Gross
Settling Velocities
7-53 Sediment Responses in Waterford Reach to Changes in Gross Settling
Velocities
7-54 Water Column Responses to Changes in Gross Settling Velocities
7-55 Sediment Responses in Schuylerville Reach to Enhanced Mixing (top 6
cm) in Non-cohesive Sediments
7-56 Sediment Responses in Stillwater Reach to Enhanced Mixing (top 6 cm)
in Non-cohesive Sediments
7-57 Sediment Responses at Waterford to Enhanced Mixing (top 6 cm) in Non-
cohesive Sediments
7-58 Sediment Responses in Federal Dam Reach to Enhanced Mixing (top 6
cm) in Non-cohesive Sediments
7-59 Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Changes in Sediment
Initial Conditions
7-60 Sediment Responses in Waterford to Changes in Sediment Initial
Conditions
xv Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
7-61 Water Column Responses to Changes in Sediment Initial Conditions
7-62 Water Column Responses to Changes in Henry's Law Constant
7-63 Predicted versus Observed BZ#4, BZ#28 and BZ#52 Concentrations
Using Historical Calibration Model Parameters
7-64 Comparison between Computed Surficial Sediment Tri+, BZ#28, BZ#52
and BZ#4 Concentrations for Thompson Island Pool
7-65 Predicted versus Observed BZ#4, BZ#28 and BZ#52 Concentrations
Using Sediment-Specific Partitioning (from GE Data)
7-66 a Predicted versus Observed BZ#4, BZ#28 and BZ#52 Concentrations
Using Sediment-Specific Partitioning (from GE Data) and Particulate and
Porewater Sediment-Water Mass Transfer Pathways
7-66 b Predicted versus Observed BZ[#90+101], BZ#138 and Total PCB
Concentrations Using Sediment-Specific Partitioning (from GE Data) and
Particulate and Dissolved Sediment-Water Mass Transfer Pathways
7-67 a Predicted versus Observed BZ#4 Concentrations below Thompson Island
Dam, 1991-1993
7-67 b Predicted versus Observed BZ#28 Concentrations below Thompson Island
Dam, 1991-1993
7-67 c Predicted versus Observed BZ#52 Concentrations below Thompson Island
Dam, 1991-1993
7-67 d Predicted versus Observed BZ#[90+101] Concentrations below Thompson
Island Dam, 1991-1993
7-67 e Predicted versus Observed BZ#138 Concentrations below Thompson
Island Dam, 1991-1993
7-67 f Predicted versus Observed Total PCB Concentrations below Thompson
Island Dam, 1991-1993
7-68 a Comparison of Model versus Observed Congener Concentrations Ratios:
Thompson Island Pool, September 25, 1996 Float Study
7-68 b Comparison of Model versus Observed Congener Concentrations Ratios:
Thompson Island Pool, September 26, 1996 Float Study
7-68 c Comparison of Model versus Observed Congener Concentrations Ratios:
Thompson Island Pool, June 4, 1997 Float Study
xvi Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
7-68 d Comparison of Model versus Observed Congener Concentrations Ratios:
Thompson Island Pool, June 17, 1997 Float Study
7-69 Model versus Observed Down-river [BZ#28]/[BX#52] Ratios by Season,
1991-1997
7-70 Model versus Observed Down-river [BZ#28]/[BZ#52]Ratios Stratified by
Fort Edward Flow (<10,000 cfs and >10,000 cfs), 1991-1997
8-1 70-Year Hydrograph for the No Action Forecast Simulation: 1998-2067
8-2 Observed Total PCB and Tri+ PCB Concentrations at Fort Edward During
1997 and 1998
8-3 Data-Based Estimate of Annual Total and Tri+ PCB Load by Year at Fort
Edward, 1991-1997
8-4 a Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Thompson Island Pool with
Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentrations at 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L,
1998-2067
8-4 b Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Schuylerville Reach with
Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentrations at 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L,
1998-2067
8-4 c Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Stillwater Reach with
Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentrations at 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L,
1998-2067
8-4 d Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Waterford Reach with
Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentrations at 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L,
1998-2067
8-4 e Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Federal Dam Reach with
Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentrations at 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L,
1998-2067
8-5 a Predicted Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Thompson Island Pool with
Forecasted Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration at 10 ng/L
8-5 b Predicted Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Schuylerville Reach with
Forecasted Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration at 10 ng/L
8-5 c Predicted Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Stillwater Reach with
Forecasted Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration at 10 ng/L
xvii Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
8-5 d Predicted Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Waterford Reach with
Forecasted Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration at 10 ng/L
8-5 e Predicted Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Federal Dam Reach with
Forecasted Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration at 10 ng/L
8-6 a Forecast Average Annual Tri+ Concentrations at Thompson Island Dam
and Schuylerville with Constant Upstream Concentrations of 10 ng/1, 30
ng/L, and 0 ng/L, Tri+ at Fort Edward, 1998-2067
8-6 b Forecast Average Annual Tri+ Concentrations at Stillwater and Waterford
with Constant Upstream Concentrations of 10 ng/1, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L,
Tri+ at Fort Edward, 1998-2067
8-7 a Forecast Average Summer Tri+ Concentrations at Thompson Island Dam
and Schuylerville with Constant Upstream Concentrations of 10 ng/L, 30
ng/L, and 0 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward, 1998-2067
8-7 b Forecast Average Summer Tri+ Concentrations at Stillwater and
Waterford with Constant Upstream Concentrations of 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L,
and 0 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward, 1998-2067
8-8 a . Predicted Average Annual Water Column Tri+ Concentrations at
Thompson Island Dam and Schuylerville with Forecasted Constant
Upstream Tri+ Concentration at 10 ng/L, 1977-2067
8-8 b Predicted Average Annual Water Column Tri+ Concentrations at
Stillwater and Waterford with Forecasted Constant Upstream Tri+
Concentration at 10 ng/L, 1977-2067
8-9 a No-action Forecast Annual Tri+ Load to the Lower Hudson River with
Constant Upstream Concentrations of 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L Tri+ at
Fort Edward, 1998-2067
8-9 b No-action Forecast Cumulative Annual Tri+ Load to the Lower Hudson
River with Constant Upstream Concentrations of 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0
ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward, 1998-2067
8-10 Adjustment of the Fort Edward Hydrograph to Include the 100 Year Flow
(47,330 cfs)
8-11 Predicted 100 Year Event (3/28 to 4/13) Impact on Tri+ PCB Levels at
Thompson Island Dam (West)
xviii Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
8-12 Predicted 100 Year Event (3/28 to 4/13) Impact on Tri+ PCB Levels at
Federal Dam
8-13 Cumulative Net Increase of Tri+ PCB Mass Loading at Various Locations
in the Upper Hudson River Due to the 100 Year Flood Event (versus the
No Action Scenario)
8-14 a Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Thompson Island Pool for
Alternative Hydrographs (Constant Upstream Tri + Concentration of 10
ng/L) at Fort Edward
8-14 b Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Schuylerville Reach for
Alternative Hydrographs (Constant Upstream Tri + Concentration of 10
ng/L) at Fort Edward
8-14c Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Stillwater Reach for
Alternative Hydrographs (Constant Upstream Tri + Concentration of 10
ng/L) at Fort Edward
8-14d Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Waterford Reach for
Alternative Hydrographs (Constant Upstream Tri + Concentration of 10
ng/L) at Fort Edward
8-14e Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Federal Dam Reach for
Alternative Hydrographs (Constant Upstream Tri + Concentration of 10
ng/L) at Fort Edward
8-15 a Forecast Annual Average Tri+ Concentrations at Thompson Island Dam
and Schuylerville for Alternative Hydrographs (Constant Upstream Tri +
Concentration of 10 ng/L at Fort Edward), 1998-2067
8-15 b Forecast Annual Average Tri+ Concentrations at Stillwater and Waterford
for Alternative Hydrographs (Constant Upstream Tri + Concentration of
10 ng/L at Fort Edward), 1998-2067
8-16 Sensitivity of Thompson Island Pool Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to an Alternative Total Suspended Solids Load at Fort
Edward, 1998-2047
8-17 a Sensitivity of Thompson Island Pool Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Changes in External Tributary Solids Loadings, 1998-
2067
xix Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
8-17b Sensitivity of Thompson Island Dam to Schuylerville Surface Sediment
Tri+ Concentrations to Changes in External Tributary Solids Loadings,
1998-2067
8-17c Sensitivity of Schuylerville to Stillwater Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Changes in External Tributary Solids Loadings, 1998-
2067
8-17 d Sensitivity of Stillwater to Waterford Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Changes in External Tributary Solids Loadings, 1998-
2067
8-17e Sensitivity of Waterford to Federal Dam Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Changes in External Tributary Solids Loadings, 1998-
2067
8-18 a Sensitivity of Thompson Island Pool Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Enhanced Mixing (top 6cm) in Non-Cohesive
Sediments, 1998-2067
8-18 b Sensitivity of Thompson Island Dam to Schuylerville Surface Sediment
Tri+ Concentrations to Enhanced Mixing (top 6cm) in Non-Cohesive
Sediments, 1998-2067
8-18 c Sensitivity of Schuylerville to Stillwater Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Enhanced Mixing (top 6cm) in Non-Cohesive
Sediments, 1998-2067
8-18 d Sensitivity of Stillwater to Waterford Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Enhanced Mixing (top 6cm) in Non-Cohesive
Sediments, 1998-2067
8-18e Sensitivity of Waterford to Federal Dam Surface Sediment Tri4-
Concentrations to Enhanced Mixing (top 6cm) in Non-Cohesive
Sediments, 1998-2067
8-19 Sensitivity of Tri+ Concentrations at Stillwater to Enhanced Mixing (top 6
cm) in Non-cohesive Sediments, 1998-2067
8-20 a Sensitivity of Thompson Island Pool Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Specification of Sediment Initial Conditions, 1998-2067
8-20 b Sensitivity of Schuylerville Reach Surface Sediment Tri+ Concentrations
to Specification of Sediment Initial Conditions, 1998-2067
xx Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2D - REVISED BASELINE MODELING REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSEMENT RI/FS
BOOK 2 of 4
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE
8-20 c Sensitivity of Stillwater Reach Surface Sediment Tri+ Concentrations to
Specification of Sediment Initial Conditions, 1998-2067
8-20 d Sensitivity of Waterford Reach Surface Sediment Tri+ Concentrations to
Specification of Sediment Initial Conditions, 1998-2067
8-20 e Sensitivity of Federal Darn Reach Surface Sediment Tri+ Concentrations
to Specification of Sediment Initial Conditions, 1998-2067
8-21 a Sensitivity of Forecasted Average Annual Tri+ Concentrations to
Specification of Initial Conditions at Thompson Island Dam and
Schuylerville, 1998-2067
8-21 b Sensitivity of Forecasted Average Annual Tri+ Concentrations to
Specification of Initial Conditions at Stillwater and Waterford, 1998-2067
9-1 HUDTOX Validation: Comparison of Predicted and Observed Thompson
Island Dam Tri+ Concentrations
9-2 HUDTOX Validation: Comparison of Predicted and Observed
Schuylerville Tri+ Concentrations
9-3 HUDTOX Validation: Predicted versus Observed Tri+ Concentrations at
Thompson Island Dam and Schuylerville
9-4 Monthly Average Scatter Plots of Observed Data and Model Output at
Thompson Island Dam, 1998-1999
9-5 Monthly Average Scatter Plots of Observed Data and Model Output at
Schuylerville, 1998-1999
xxi Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
-------
Tables
-------
Table 3-1
Comparison of Manning's 'n' from Previous Studies.
Source
Zimmie, 1985
FEMA, 1982
Main Channel
'n'
0.027
0.028 - 0.035
Floodplain
'n'
0.065
0.075
Table 3-2
Modeled Hudson River Flows at the Upstream Boundary of Thompson Island Pool.
Flow Description
Peak flow during spring and fall surveys, 1991
Peak flow for GE high flow survey, April 23-24, 1992
Peak flow for TAMS Phase 2 survey, April 12, 1993
Peak flow for spring 1994 (Bopp, 1994)
Peak flow in 1983
5-year high flow
25-year high flow
100-year high flow
River Discharge,
(cfs)
8,000
19,000
20,300
28,000
35,000
30,126
39,883
47,330
Source: USGS Gaging Records; Butcher, 2000
Limno-TechJnc,
-------
Table 3-3
Comparison of Model Results with Rating Curve Data
Flow
(cfs)
10,000
20,000
30,000
Downstream
Boundary Condition
feet (NGVD)
120.6
122.2
123.8
Model Predicted
Upstream Elevations
feet (NGVD)
121.5
123.8
126.1
Rating Curve Gauge 119
(Upstream) Elevations
feet (NGVD)
121.2
123.6
126.1
Table 3-4
Effect of Manning's 'n' on Model Results
for 100-Year Flow Event
Baseline
High 'n'
Low 'n' Main Channel
Low 'n'.Floodplain
High 'n' Floodplain
Main
Channel
Manning's 'n'
0.020
0.035
0.015
0.020
0.020
Floodplain
Manning's 'n'
0.060
0.075
0.060
0.040
0.080
River Elevation
at Roger's Island
feet (NGVD)
129.1
131.1
128.6
128.9
129.3
Table 3-5
Effect of Turbulent Exchange Coefficients on Model Results
Baseline
Low Turbulent
Exchange Coefficients
High Turbulent
Exchange Coefficients
Turbulent Exchange
Coefficients (lb-sec/ft2)
100
50
200
River Elevation
Roger's Island
feet (NGVD)
129.1
128.8
129.7
Limno-Tech.Inc.
-------
Table 4-1
Summary of Inputs for Depth of Scour Model at Each High Resolution Core.
Core Name
HR-19
HR-20
HR-23
HR-25
HR-26
100 Year Flood
Shear Stress (dynes/cm2)
12.7
29.8
19.1
53.1
31.7
Surficial Dry Bulk
Density (g/cm2)
0.369
0.207
0.619
0.590
0.276
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
Thompson Island Pool Hydrodynamic Model results
Table 4-2
Predicted Depth of Scour Range for 100 Year Flood at Each
High Resolution Core Location.
Core Name
HR-19
HR-20
HR-23 "
HR-25
HR-26
Depth of Scour (cm)
Median
0.074
1.820
0.158
3.714
1.643
5th
Percentile
0.016
0.311
0.030
0.500
0.275
95th
Percentile
0.356
7.695
0.819
21.789
8.262
Depth of PCB Peak
(cm)
20-24
24-28
28-32
2.5
12-24
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
Table 4-3
Thompson Island Pool Cohesive Sediment Expected Values of Solids Erosion and
Mean Depth of Scour for 100-Year Flood, from Monte Carlo Analysis.
Erosion Type
Depth (cm)
Solids (kg)
Expected Value
0.317
1,740,000
Limno-Tech,
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
-------
Table 5-la.
HUDTOX Water Column Segment Geometry in Thompson Island Pool (2-dimensional segmentation).
mensional segmentation
TJ
CM
HUDTOX
Segment
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Location
Description
West R. Island
East R. Island
West R. Island
East R. Island
west
center
east
west
center
east
west
center
east
west
center
east
west
center
east
west
center
east
west
center
east
west TI Dam
center TI Dam
east TI Dam
Downstream
River Mile Length Depth Surface Area
1 (m) 1 '(in) 1 (m2)
194.11
194.11
193.59
193.59
193.00
193.00
193.00
192.25
192.25
192.25
191.69
191.69
191.69
190.99
190.99
190.99
190.33
190.33
190.33
189.81
189.81
189.81
189.22
189.22
189.22
188.50
188.50
188.50
721
721
845
845
942
942
942
1,219
1,219
1,219
896
896
896
1,125
1,125
1,125
1,054
1,054
1,054
848
848
848
941
941
941
1,160
1,160
1,160
1.66
1.33
1.66
2.19
1.55
4.77
1.60
1.25
3.68
1.47
1.63
3.60
0.72
1.67
4.82
1.62
1.71
4.34
2.00
1.71
4.29
2.04
2.07
5.62
2.01
1.92
3.58
1.48
111,167
124,233
179,319
100,373
93,705
69,641
51,501
135,968
118,933
72,249
116,614
104,141
88,892
108,820
98,464
89,519
77,285
101,114
66,975
66,786
78,114
88,884
76,079
63,745
60,339
106,532
146,361
157,473
Volume
(m3)
184,239
164,924
301,100
219,502
145,320
331,926
82,167
170,143
437,877
106,095
190,137
374,750
65,047
181,319
481,381
145,283
132,461
439,168
133,699
113,979
335,126
181,045
157,460
358,258
121,202
200,215
517,870
232,375
Cross-
sectional Area
(m2)
256
229
357
260
154
353
87
140
359
87
212
418
73
161
428
129
126
417
127
134
395
214
167
381
129
173
446
200
Adjacent Segments
Below || Downstream
48
49
50
51
53
54
55
57
58
60
62
63
65
67
69
71
73
74
76
77
79
-
82
83
85
86
87
89
52
-
-
56
-
59
61
-
64
66
68
70
72
-
75
-
78
80
81
-
84
-
-
88
3
4
5,6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
29
29
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 5-lb.
HUDTOX Water Column Segment Geometry Below Thompson Island Pool (1-dimensional segmentation).
segmentation
II 1 -dimensional
HUDTOX
Segment
Number
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Location
Description
Lock 6
LockS
Stillwater Dam
Lock 3 Dam
Lock 2 Dam
Lock 1 Dam
Federal Dam
Downstream
River Mile
186.20
184.85
183.41
182.30
181.40
179.73
178.08
175.08
170.98
169.79
168.19
166.67
165.99
164.3 1
163.49
160.87
159.39
156.41
153.89
Length
(m)
3,757
2,178
2,317
1,767
1,446
2,699
2,647
4,833
6,597
1,918
2,566
2,454
1,087
2,715
1,309
4,214
2,384
4,795
4,056
Depth
(m)
1.95
3.49
3.86
3.92
3.12
2.84
3.76
4.20
4.24
3.69
2.99
1.93
4.18
3.18
2.47
2.89
4.15
4.56
5.77
Surface Area
(m2)
837,947
557,155
474,625
468,521
229,378
572,753
501,225
948,752
1,377,869
558,975
408,394
952,848
417,298
623,849
563,621
1,090,832
682,251
1,280,753
1,282,972
Volume
(m3)
1,634,430
1,946,807
1,832,981
1,835,130
715,684
1,628,112
1,882,175
3,985,892
5,844,528
2,064,033
1,222,268
1,835,070
1,743,711
1,982,413
1,390,352
3,148,431
2,831,358
5,841,577
7,405,588
Cross-
sectional Area
(m2)
435
894
791
1,039
495
603
711
825
886
1,076
476
748
1,605
730
1,062
747
1,188
1,218
1,826
Adjacent Segments
Below || Downstream
91
93
95
96
97
99
101
103
105
107
109
111
113
115
117
119
121
122
123
90
92
94
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
120
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
0
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 5-2a.
HUDTOX Sediment Segment Geometry in Thompson Island Pool for Surficial Sediment
Segments (2-dimensional segmentation).
Layer thickness = 2 cm
segmentation
2-dimensiona
HUDTOX
Segment
Number
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69 J
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Sediment
Type
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
C
N
N
C
N
C
N
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
N
C
N
N
C
N
C
C
N
N
C
N
N
N
C
N
Surface
Area
(m2)
86,468
64,616
104,029
66,458
9,251
25,142
69,532
34,250
67,706
22,071
102.034
5.886
32.421
16.475
33,064
103.509
28,928
19,719
34,407
23,202
17,791
71,668
36,064
24,256
22.973
22,891
84,520
8,939
13,685
31,066
12,148
53.177
58.927
22.523
23,873
50,643
19,342
4.315
64,343
138.185
63.742
31.981
Volume
(m3)
1,729
1.292
2.081
1,329
185
503
1.391
685
1,354
441
2,041
118
648
329
661
2.070
579
394
688
464
356
1.433
721
485
459
458
1.690
179
274
621
243
1.064
1,179
450
477
1,013
387
86
1.287
2.764
1.275
640
HUDTOX 1
Sediment
Layer
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Adjacent Segments
Above 1 Below
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
10
11
11
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
19
19
20
21
21
22
23
23
24
25
25
26
27
28
28
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 5-2b.
HUDTOX Sediment Segment Geometry Downstream of Thompson Island Pool for Surficial
Sediment Segments (1-dimensional segmentation).
Layer thickness = 2 cm
1-dimensional segmentation
HUDTOX
Segment
Number
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106-
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
Sediment
Type
C
N
C
N
C
N
N
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
N
N
Surface
Area
(m2)
79,269
449,376
189,009
160,637
268,967
145.117
468,567
229,401
68,901
503,907
97,432
403,842
89,073
859,771
346.399
1,031.605
295,637
263,392
34,953
373,481
213,454
739,487
171.255
246,085
18,739
605,171
51.928
511,748
3,092
1,087,846
64,524
617,793
1,280,878
1,283,097
Volume
(m3)
1,585
8,988
3,780
3,213
5,379
2,902
9,371
4,588
1,378
10.078
1,949
8.077
1,781
17,195
6,928
20,632
5,913
5,268
699
7,470
4.269
14.790
3.425
4,922
375
12.103
1,039
10.235
62
21,757
1.290
12.356
25,618
25,662
HUDTOX
Sediment
Layer
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Adjacent Segments
Above Below
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
33
34
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46
47
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-1. Sediment Data Sets Used in Development and Application of the HUDTOX Model.
Year || Agency ((Program description ((Purpose of study ((Parameters* ||Use in HUDTOX
1977
1984
1991
1994
1994
1994
1994
1997
1998
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
General
Electric
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
General
Electric
General
Electric
Sediment core and grab sampling
between Fort Edward and Federal
Dam
Sediment core and grab sampling
Composite sediment sampling
High resolution core sampling
Low resolution sediment core
sampling
Confirmatory sediment sampling
Sediment type mapping between
Fort Edward and Northumberland
Dam
Sediment type mapping between
Northumberland Dam and Federal
Dam at 77 transects
Extensive sediment sampling in TIP
and limited numer of locations
Detween TI Dam and Federal Dam
Extensive mapping and
sediment sampling to asses
extent of PCB pollution in the
UHR
Confirm locations of PCB
hotspots in TIP
Provide sufficient data to
calculate mean PCB
concentrations over 1 to 2
mile intervals of the UHR
Investigation of long-term
trends in PCB transport,
release and degradation via the
sediment record
Investigation of PCB levels in
selected hotspots of the UHR
Calibration of the side scan
sonar signal to sediment
properties
Side scan sonar survey of
bottom sediments
Qualitative sediment type
determinations based on visual
inspection of grab samples or
by probing
PCB Aroclors, visual
texture, grain size,
%sand/silt/clay
PCB Aroclors, visual texture,
bulk density
PCB congeners, porewater
PCB congeners, TOC, DOC,
bulk density, texture, grain
size
PCB congeners, porewater
PCB congeners, TOC, DOC,
bulk density, texture, grain
size, radionuclides
PCB congeners, bulk
density, texture, grain size,
organic carbon
Texture, grain size, bulk
density
Areal distribution of fine and
coares sediment
Qualitative sediment type
determination at specific
points
PCB congeners, bulk
density, radionuclides
Specification of sediment Tri+ PCB initial
conditions for the 1977-1997 calibration.
Specification of sediment Tri+ PCB
calibration targets.
Specification of Total PCB, BZ#4, BZ#52,
and Tri+ initial conditions for 1991-1997
calibration. Specification of sediment Tri+
PCB calibration targets. Specification of
sediment DOC levels.
Assesment of model-computed sediment
burial rates in calibration.
Specification of sediment Tri+ and Total
PCB calibration parameters and
determination. Specification of sediment
organic carbon levels.
Specification of mean cohesive and
noncohesive bulk density values.
Establishing cohesive and noncohesive
sediment segmentation, classification of
PCB samples as cohesive or noncohesive in
setting initial conditions.
Establishing cohesive and noncohesive
sediment segmentation.
HUDTOX surface sediment Tri+
concentrations for model calibration.
*The list of parameters is not comprehensive and only presents those of interest to the development and calibration of HUDTOX.
Linino-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-2. USGS Gage Information For Gages Used In Flow Estimation.
USGS gaging station
Hudson River at Fort Edward, NY
Hudson River at Stillwater, NY
Hudson River above Lock 1 near Waterford,
NY
Glowegee Creek at West Milton, NY
Kayaderosseras Creek near West Milton,
NY
Hoosic River near Eagle Bridge, NY
Mohawk River at Cohoes, NY
Mohawk River Diversion at Crescent Dam,
NY
USGS Station
No.
01327750
01331095
01335754
01330000
01330500
01334500
01357500
01357499
Drainage
Area (mi2)
2817
3773
4611
26
90
510
3450
N/A
Period of
Operation
1/1/77 - 9/30/97
1/1/77 - 9/30/97'
3/1/77 - 9/30/971
10/1/90 - 9/30/97
1/1/77 - 9/30/96
1/1/77 - 9/30/97
1/1/77 - 9/30/97
1/1/77 - 9/30/97
Source: USGS
1 Due to construction, many of the flows recorded after 6/30/92 were rated as "poor" by the USGS. "Poor" means that "about 95 percent
of the daily discharges have less than "fair" accuracy. "Fair" means that about 95 percent of the daily discharges are within 15 percent.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-3. Drainage Areas and Reference Tributaries Used to Estimate Daily
Tributary Flows.
Tributary
Snook Kill
Moses Kill
Thompson Island
Pool direct runoff
Batten Kill
Fish Creek
Flatey Brook
Schuylerville-
Stillwater direct
runoff
Hoosic River
Anthony Kill
Deep Kill
Stillwater-Waterford
direct runoff
Mohawk River1
Drainage Area
(mi2)
75
55
31
431
245
8
80
720
63
16
39
3,450
Gaged Reference Tributary
DAR to Kayaderosseras Creek for the
period 1/1/77 - 9/30/96.
DAR to Glowegee Creek for the
period 9/30/96 - 9/30/97.
(Note: Kayaderosseras Creek flow
data are unavailable after 6/30/96
so Glowegee Creek was used.)
DAR to Hoosic River at Eagle Bridge,
NY
USGS gage at Cohoes + Diversion at
Crescent Dam
Source: USGS 1982; This report.
'The Mohawk River stations are near the Mohawk-Hudson confluence so no drainage area adjustment was required.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
Table 6-4. Mean Seasonal USGS Flows For Select Flow Gauges in the Study Area for the
Period 3/1/77 to 6/30/92.
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Fort
Edward
5274.1
7773.6
3267.2
4489.8
Stilhvater
6582.5
10052.9
4000.1
5582.4
Waterford
8283.7
12866.1
4579.9
6579.0
Glowegee
Creek
36.1
56.0
16.5
31.5
Kay. Creek @
West Milton
133.6
254.3
80.2
106.1
Hoosic River @
Eagle Bridge
1042.9
1770.4
545.1
743.5
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4.1 b
Table 6-5. Seasonal Tributary Flow Adjustment Factors applied to Tributaries between Fort
Edward and Stillwater, and between Stillwater and Waterford.
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Fort
Edward
Yield
(cfs/mi2)
'1.872
2.760
1.160
1.594
Fort Edward - Stillwater
^ QFE-SMI
(cfs)
1175
2025
653
986
VFS
0.88
0.81
0.83
0.94
Incremental
Yield
(cfs/mi2)
0.311
0.537
0.173
0.261
Stillwater - Waterford
A Qsilll-Walfd
(cfs)
658
1043
35
253
asw
0.98
0.92
0.10
0.53
Incremental
Yield
(cfs/mi2)
0.143
0.226
0.0076
0.055
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-6. Hudson River Flows Yearly Averages Estimated and USGS Gage Data.
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Overall
Stillwater
Estimated (cfs) ||_ USGS (cfs)
8618
6415
7612
4515
5724
6203
7677
7450
5170
7542
6548
5000
6330
9111
5500
6084
6252
6593
5093
8694
7297
6616
8731
6235
7749
4327
5626
6107
7486
7360
5140
7291
6296
5030
6568
9303
5926
6374
6377
6862
5081
8940
7469
6654
RPD1
-1%
3%
-2%
4%
2%
2%
3%
1%
1%
3%
4%
-1%
-4%
-2%
-7%
-5%
-2%
-4%
0%
-3%
-2%
-1%
'RPD = Relative Percent Difference
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Overall
Waterford
Estimated (cfs) || USGS (cfs)
10154
7879
9652
5405
6902
7460
9455
9259
6172
9134
7865
6238
7783
11141
6823
7168
7758
8130
6187
11111
8691
8106
10538
7672
9672
5239
6635
7440
9358
9153
5868
8968
7648
6062
7902
11755
7503
7601
8068
8475
6255
11483
9039
8196
RPD
-4%
3%
0%
3%
4%
0%
1%
1%
5%
2%
3%
3%
-2%
-5%
-9%
-6%
-4%
-4%
-1%
-3%
-4%
-1%
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
Table 6-7. Summary of Available Solids Data for Mainstem Stations; Number of Samples
and Source of Suspended Solids Sample Data by Station.
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Ft. Edward
USGS
1
30
52
55
55
49
40
34
17
27
15
38
23
3
19
21
27
30
- 68
27
19
Phase
2
58
47
GE
65
67
56
31
68
71
155
TID
Phase
2
78
40
GE
4
190
Stillwater
USGS
•W
30
34
27
29
43
126
209
82
306
49
68
157
275
373
390
387
386
303
30
19
Phase
2
2
35
GE
60
28
Waterford
USGS
47
31
32
37
24
32
134
247
129
295
85
101
334
242
251
390
410
405
299
66
25
Phase
2
288
• 89
GE
120
34
1
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
Litnno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-8. Summary of Available Solids Data for Tributaries; Number of Samples and
Source of Suspended Solids Sample Data by Station.
Year
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Batten Kill
Phase 2
6
5
32
GE
25
28
1
Hoosic River
uses
2
4
1
4
9
12
3
Phase 2
6
32
GE
24
28
1
Mohawk River
USGS 1 Phase 2
2
10
5
2
9
18
25
10
6
31
Moses Kill II Snook Kill
Phase 2 | GE || Phase 2 II GE
32
115
31
117
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
Table 6-9. Reference Tributaries for Unmonitored Tributaries
Reference
Tributary
Moses Kill
Batten Kill
Hoosic River
Unmonitored Tributaries
TIP Direct Drainage Area, Flately Brook, TID-Schuylerville Direct
Drainage Area, Schuylerville-Stillwater Direct Drainage Area
Fish Creek
Anthony Kill, Deep Kill, Stillwater- Waterford Direct Drainage Area
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-10. Tributary Solids Rating Curve Equations for Data-Based Rating Curves
and Adjusted Rating Curves for the Long-Term Solids Balance.
Tributary1
Snook Kill
Moses Kill
Ungaged/Direct drainage to TIP
Batten Kill
Ungaged TID - Schuylerville
(Moses Kill)
Fish Creek (Batten Kill)
Flately Brook (Moses Kill)
Ungaged Schuylerville -
Stillwater (Moses Kill)
Hoosic River
Deep Kill (Hoosic River)
Anthony Kill (Hoosic River)
Ungaged Stillwater - Waterford
(Hoosic River)
Mohawk River
Flow cut-
point
(cfs)2
105
77
43
602
42
357
12
117
1,328
24
94
58
5,661
Unadjusted
A
0.0070
0.0437
0.0437
0.0110
0.0437
0.0010
0.0437
0.0437
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0002
B
1.5618
1.2943
1.2943
0.9933
1.2943
0.9933
1.2943
1.2943
1.2270
1.2270
1.2270
1.2270
1.2800
Adjusted
A
0.0070
0.0437
0.0437
0.0110
0.0437
0.0110
0.0437
0.0437
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0002
B
1.5618
1.2943
1.2943
1.2190
1.5910
1.1490
1.8500
1.2190
1.2870
2.2360
1.7880
1.9250
1.2800
10/1/77-9/30/97
Unadjusted
Average Load
MT/Year
4,222.4
2,619.4
197.9
7,797.0
691.2
3,035.8
78.2
11,411.1
45,736.3
47.1
313.3
150.6
246,673.7
10/1/77-9/30/97
Adjusted
Average Load
MT/Year
4,222.4
2,619.4
197.9
37,754.6
2,716.0
7,884.0
701.1
7,008.0
73,985.0
1,643.9
6,473.7
4,008.2
246,673.7
Tributaries in parentheses are the reference tributaries.
2 Flow cut-points are specified as the average flow.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-11. Cumulative Mainstem Solids (SS) Loads and Yields
Station
Fort Edward
Stillwater
Waterford
Cumulative SS
Load (MT)
(1/1/77 - 9/30/97)
622,518
1,737,328
3,574,041
Cumulative SS
Load (MT) (10/1/77
- 9/30/97)
587,550
1,640,581
3,239,717
Drainage
Area
(mi2)
2,817
3,773
4,611
Yield
(MT/mi2*yr)
(10/1/77 -
9/30/97)
10.43
21.74
35.13
Data Source: Hudson River Database Release 4.1b.
Table 6-12. Cumulative Solids Loads and Corresponding Yields by Reach (10/1/77 - 9/30/97)
Reach
Fort Edward -
Stillwater
Stillwater
Waterford
Cumulative Solids Load (MT)
Load increment
between mainstem
stations
1,053,031
1,599,136
Sum of
tributary
Solids
loads
601,061
924,948
Average Annual Yield by Reach
(MT/mi2*yr)
Yield increment
between mainstem
stations
55.1
95.4
Yield delivered by
tributaries using
rating curve
31.4
55.2
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-13. Solids (TSS) Trapping Efficiencies by Reach Estimated by QEA
Using SEDZL and Applied to Estimate Tributary TSS Loads in HUDTOX.
Reach
Fort Edward to TI Dam
TI Dam to Lock 6
Lock 6 to Northumberland Dam
Northumberland Dam to Stillwater Dam
Stillwater Dam to Lock 3
Lock 3 to Lock 2
Lock 2 to Lock 1
Lock 1 to Federal Dam
Trap%J computed
by SEDZL2
8.8
0.8
2.3
11
10
1.8
<0.1
<0.1
Area-weighted reach
average Trap %
applied to compute
tributary TSS loads
8.8
8.47
3.66
0
1 Trap% = TSS trapping efficiency, or percent of upstream and tributary solids load retained.
2 From QEA, 1999.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-14. Comparison of LTI and Literature-Based Annual Average Sediment Yield Estimates by Watershed.
Tributary
Snook Kill
Moses Kill
Batten Kill
Fish Creek
Flately Brook
Hoosic River
Deep Kill
Anthony Kill
TIP Direct
TI Dam-Schuylerville
Direct
Schuylerville-Stillwater
Direct
Stillwater-Watertord
Direct
IkcS t Load/area Calc. Using LTI land use
SCS Report - p. 34, 48, 49 ma dist (GIS) and SCS soil loss/year b>
p. 103 hnd use .DR=o.08
Tons
72,751
69,306
70,877
109,154
75,759
106,021
38,547
29,617
Square
Miles
122
69
176
256
85
236
68
66
Tons/square
mile-yr
(no DR)
595
1,003
402
427
887
448
570
445
Tons/mi2-yr
(8% DR)
47.6
80.2
32.1
34.2
71
35.9
45.6
35.6
33.6
w cropland
adequately
treated
32.2
47.9
33.2
36.5
42.8
39.4
46.4
53.4
53.3
45.2
44.2
54.8
w cropland
needing
treatment
32.2
47.9
33.2
36.5
42.9
39.4
46.4
53.5
53.3
45.2
44.2
54.8
Summary Yields (MT/mi2-
vr)
Minimum
32.2
47.9
32.1
34.2
42.8
35.9
45.6
33.6
53.3
45.2
44.2
54.8
Maximum
47.6
80.2
33.2
36.5
71
39.4
46.4
53.5
53.3
45.2
44.2
54.8
LTI
Estimate
56.3
47.6
87.6
32.2
87.6
102.8
102.8
102.8
6.4
87.6
87.6
102.8
Reference: USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Erosion and Sediment Inventory: New York.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-15. Number of Tri+ PCB Data Available by Source and Year at Each Hudson River Mainstem Sampling Station.
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Total
Fort Edward II Thompson Island Dam II Schuvlerville II Stillwater II Waterford
GE || P2 || USGS 1 GE || P2 || USGS || GE || P2 || USGS || GE || P2 || USGS || GE || P2 II USGS
38
79
60
37
73
107
97
38
529
99
99
3
35
53
55
58
49
44
34
17
28
15
38
23
26
19
21
27
30
71
26
19
691
32
54
51
35
67
93
185
50
567
99
99
35
22
1
17
35
110
6
6
33
12
15
14
34
34
41
29
18
25
10
20
20
5
310
36
27
63
3
3
35
31
36
28
33
44
49
35
18
25
8
23
19
15
16
24
22
19
21
21
19
541
36
27
1
64
91
91
52
31
37
42
25
33
51
39
67
24
24
21
26
18
17
25
30
30
22
26
20
660
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-16. Number of Days With Available PCB Data for Monitored Tributaries (Batten Kill, Hoosic River, Mohawk River).
Hoosic River
Mohawk River
BZ BZ#90
#52 +101
BZ#I|BZ#II BZ BZ#90 BZ#
138 IITri+IITotalll 4
=
17
25
816 7 7
28 #52 +101 138
Table 6-17. Number of PCB Data Available for Each Congener and Total PCB by Source and Year at Each Hudson River
Mainstem Sampling Station1.
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Total
Fort Edward II Thompson Island Dam || Schuylerville IL Stillwater II Waterford
GE II Phase2 II GE II Phase2 II GE II Phase2 II GE II Phase2 II GE II Phase2
30
73
60
32
55
85
78
32
445
12
12
30
51
51
35
50
75
147
41
480
12
12
30
20
1
16
29
96
6
6
31
26
57
2
2
31
24
1
56
13
13
1 The numbers in this table apply to each PCB type individually.
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
Umno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-18. Criteria and Factors Used in Adjustment of Thompson Island Dam
West Shore PCB Data Bias.
Fort Edward Condition
Low Flow,
Low Upstream Con-
centration
Low Flow,
High Upstream Con-
centration
High Flow,
Low Upstream Con-
centration
High Flow,
High Upstream Con-
centration
Criteria
Q < 4000 cfs
C < 17 ng/L (Total) or
< 15 ng/L (Tri+)
Q < 4000 cfs
C > 17 ng/L (Total) or
> 15 ng/L (Tri+)
Q > 4000 cfs
C < 17 ng/L (Total) or
< 15 ng/L (Tri+)
Q > 4000 cfs
C > 17 ng/L (Total) or
> 15 ng/L (Tri+)
Total PCBs
0.64
0.80
0.78
1.00
Tri+ PCBs
0.69
0.88
1.00
1.00
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-19. Tri+ and Total PCB Concentration Statistics for Monitored Tributaries.
Tributary
Batten Kill
Hoosic River
Mohawk River
PCB
Form
Tri+
Total
Tri+
Total
Tri+
Total
Count
5
50
6
50
6
7
Average.
Concentration
(ug/L)
0.00149
0.00606
0.00205
0.01132
0.00084
0.01162
Std. Dev.
0.00276
0.01052
0.00120
0.01282
0.00054
0.01568
Maximum
Concentration
(ug/L)
0.00710
0.04764
0.00437
0.05131
0.00146
0.03967
Minimum
Concentration
(ug/L)
0.00000
0.00000
0.00108
0.00000
0.00017
0.00115
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-20. Comparison of Annual Tri+ PCB Load Estimates at Hudson River
Mainstem Station Presented in the DEIR1 and Calculated in this Report
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Fort Edward
DEIR
1,414
544
1,272
439
354
374
657
477
294
423
197
119
445
398
185
825
310
90
LTI
673
351
978
430
291
325
551
617
186
191
220
65
103
224
259
604
234
155
108
59
29
Schuylerville | Stillwater
DEIR
2,519
2,747
4,635
760
962
528
997
830
324
320
213
83
195
LTI
2,215
1,821
3,987
772
1,207
490
967
478
157
180
157
59
136
363
465
655
283
240
157
219
130
DEIR || LTI
2,926
2,138
3,008
899
922
635
1,612
826
299
358
235
105
200
220
208
411
420
2,545
1,680
3,081
851
946
717
1,486
678
186
130
157
73
159
336
257
491
445
126
92
154
80
Waterford
DEIR
2,439
2,260
2,963
1,007
1,299
818
1,191
702
432
366
300
100
151
115
212
317
229
LTI
2,394
2,047
3,355
785
1,188
774
1,133
501
179
153
241
73
124
404
271
438
268
128
83
168
139
Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report (USEPA, 1997), Table 3-23 Ratio Method
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-21. Estimated Average Annual Load at Fort Edward by PCB Type from 1991-1997.
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Tri+
(kg/day)
0.7108
1.6496
0.6417
0.4246
0.2949
0.1618
0.1063
Total
(kg/day)
1.1784
1.8622
0.9880
0.4813
0.3462
0.2223
0.1258
BZ#4
(kg/day)
0.0415
0.0571
0.0738
0.0404
0.0192
0.0153
0.0120
BZ#28
(kg/day)
0.0901
0.1169
0.0931
0.0483
0.0335
0.0164
0.0068
BZ#52
(kg/day)
0.0638
0.0930
0.0865
0.0437
0.0216
0.0155
0.0072
BZ#90+101
(kg/day)
0.0189
0.0304
0.0238
0.0217
0.0116
0.0073
0.0043
BZ#138
(kg/day)
0.0140
0.0188
0.0098
0.0102
0.0080
0.0040
0.0015
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-22. Cohesive/non-cohesive Sample Classification Criteria Applied to 1977
NYSDEC Data to Compute HUDTOX Sediment Tri+ Initial Conditions.
Classification
Cohesive
Non-cohesive
Non-cohesive
Cohesive
Cohesive
Non-cohesive
Cohesive
Non-cohesive
Cohesive
Non-cohesive
Cohesive
Non-cohesive
Cohesive
Classification Critera
Reach
Fort Edward to Lock 5
Fort Edward to Lock 5
Fort Edward to Lock 5
Fort Edward to Lock 5
downstream of Lock 5
downstream of Lock 5
downstream of Lock 5
downstream of Lock 5
downstream of Lock 5
downstream of Lock 5
downstream of Lock 5
downstream of Lock 5
all
Side Scan Sonar
Region
Fine
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
either
Texture
Class*
n.appl.
8.9
<4
>4, <10
>10orNA
>10orNA
Principal
Fraction**
<=200
<=200
>=400
300
300
NA
NA
NA
NA
Other
%clay + %silt >_25
%clav + %silt < 25
Tri+ > 50 ppm
Tri+ < 50 ppm
foe > 0.10
NA=not available, shaded dash cells indicate not applicable
•Modified from Tofflemire and Quinn, 1979
Texture No. (txtno)
txtno
-------
Table 6-23. Sample Count and Averaging Groups for Specifying 1977 Sediment Initial
Conditions for HUDTOX from the NYSDEC Data.
HUDTOX
Segment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Number of samples
Cohesive
1
5
2
12
4
1
5
1
6
6
1
8
8
1
2
5
2
12
5
2
6
4
23
13
29
42
56
2
5
15
8
25
23
19
8
17
12
4
8
3
8
53
2
Non-cohesive
3
2
2
4
3
10
1
8
16
5
8
16
9
3
9
6
4
16
10
3
8
1
6
6
3
22
21
7
50
22
15
1
1
12
5
9
12
5
3
9
11
2
6
5
5
6
2
Averaging
Group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Count of samples in averaging group
Cohesive
8
29
15
11
19
13
40
29
42
56
22
56
27
29
12
11
55
Non-cohesive
25
62
18
30
12
15
50
50
22
15
14
26
8
20
8
10
8
Total
33
91
33
41
31
28
90
79
64
71
36
82
45
49
20
21
63
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-24. Averaging Groups for Specifying Sediment Initial Conditions from the 1991 GE
Composite Sampling Data.
HUDTOX
water column
segment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Number of samples
Cohesive || Non-cohesive
8
46
1
15
14
19
1
22
17
10
3
26
18
9
18
10
7
16
17
16
33
28
9
9
6
8
7
1
5
5
7
10
19
5
19
5
11
20
9
7
14
9
10
13
12
13
10
23
5
8
1
17
13
3
29
18
6
7
16
8
11
16
31
10
5
17
2
14
2
36
12
43
28
Grand Total:
Total number
of samples
5
5
7
10
27
5
19
51
11
21
24
7
28
28
11
35
29
13
20
23
8
26
26
1
9
17
13
21
39
25
22
7
16
25
27
49
59
19
14
17
8
22
9
37
12
43
28
978
Averaging
Group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
•>•?
23
24
Count of samples
Cohesive ][ Non-cohesive || Total
8
47
29
19
1
22
17
0
10
0
3
26
27
18
10
7
16
17
77
18
6
15
1
0
394
70
36
30
9
10
13
12
13
10
23
5
0
9
33
29
18
6
31
58
15
19
16
48
71
584
78
83
59
28
11
35
29
13
20
23
8
26
36
51
39
25
22
48
135
33
25
31
49
71
978
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-25. Pool-Wide Thompson Island Pool Average Surficial Sediment
Concentrations for Each PCB State Variable.
PCB Type
Total
Tri+
BZ#4
BZ#28
BZ#52
BZ#90+101
BZ#138
Concentrations in mg/L bulk
Cohesive
40.44
18.01
9.30
0.74
1.14
0.18
0.11
Non-Cohesive
28.28
14.51
5.16
0.95
0.79
0.13
0.07
Area-
Weighted
Average
31.08
15.31
6.11
0.90
0.87
0.14
0.08
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
Table 6-26.3-Phase Partition Coefficients Estimated from Phase 2 Water Column
Data and GE Sediment Data
Parameter
Tri+
BZ#4
BZ#28
BZ#52 .
BZ#101+90
BZ#138
Phase 2 Water Column
log kpoc
5.845
5.19
5.84
5.82
6.18
6.43
log kooc
3.96
5.43
4.16
4.28
4.54
4.86
GE Sediment Data
log kpoc
N/A
4.73
6.49
5.98
5.98
6.31
log kDOC
N/A
3.60
4.36
4.32
4.68
5.12
N/A = None Available
Linmo-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-27. Mass Fraction of Total PCB Represented by Tri+, BZ#1, BZ#4, and BZ#8 at Mainstem Hudson River Stations
Determined from GE and USEPA Phase 2 (P2) Data.
Location
Fort Edward
Thompson Island Dam
Schuylerville
Stillwater
Waterford
Total PCB II Tri+PCB II BZ#1 II BZ#4 II BZ#8
GE
98.13%
98.80%
98.69%
98.64%
98.41%
P2
89.70%
93.74%
94.97%
95.94%
94.07%
GE
90.59%
60.25%
66.86%
81.65%
82.25%
P2
74.76%
49.79%
62.95%
72.61%
71.56%
GE
0.08%
10.83%
8.55%
4.32%
2.87%
P2
4.26%
16.79%
11.45%
12.04%
5.20%
GE1
3.60%
24.38%
20.02%
9.53%
10.04%
P2 || GE2 L?2
8.28%
24.86%
18.61%
9.27%
15.60%
3.86%
3.33%
3.25%
3.14%
3.25%
2.40%
2.29%
1.96%
2.02%
1.70%
GE reports BZ#4 and BZ#10 together as one result.
2 GE reports BZ#8 and BZ#5 together as one result.
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-28. Estimated Partition Coefficients (KPOO KDOC) for Total PCB by Source and Agency at Mainstem Hudson
River Stations.
LTIID
Fort Edward
Thompson Island Dam
Schuylerville
Stillwater
Waterford
Log Kpoc (L/Kg) JL Log KDOC (L/Kg)
GE || P2 , |[_ GE |L P2
6.23
5.25
5.46
5.90
5.98
5.20
4.16
4.60
5.19
4.84
4.46
4.13
4.20
4.34
4.39
3.61
3.06
3.30
3.70
3.38
Number of GE |L . fmn
n . Number of P2 Data
LIB 1 3 ji
348
475
94
55
53
12
12
6
3
13
Table 6-29. Estimated Partition Coefficients (KPOO KDOC) for Total PCB at Mainstem Hudson River Stations and
Averaged Over Study Reach.
LTIID
Fort Edward
TIDam
Schuylerville
Stillwater
Waterford
Final Estimate2
Average Log Average Log Distance Used
Kpoc KDOC in Weighting
(L/kg) I (L/kg) 1 (m)
6.19
5.22
5.41
5.87
5.75
5.64
4.43
4.11
4.15
4.30
4.19
4.22
4,828
10,541
16,335
20,036
9,415
1 Average was determined by weighting each source's value with the number of data points presented in Table 6-28.
2 Final estimate was determined by weighting the station specific average value with the distance associated with each station in the last column of this
table.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-30. Statistical Summary of Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Water Column Data.
Location
Above Fort Edward
Above Fort Edward
Above Fort Edward
Above Fort Edward
Fort Edward
Fort Edward
Thompson Island Pool
Thompson Island Pool
Thompson Island Dam
Between TI Dam and Schuylerville
Schuylerville
Schuylerville
Stillwater
Waterford
Below Federal Dam
Below Federal Dam
Below Federal Dam
Below Federal Dam
River Mile
199.5
197.6
197
195.5
194.6
194.4
193.7
189
188.5
182.3
181.4
181.3
168.3
156.5
151.7
125
110
77
Count of DOC
Concentrations
13
29
6
14
25
8
2
11
28
6
17
8
29
50
3
2
1
2
Average DOC
Concentration
(mg/L)
5.75
4.82
3.58
4.65
5.03
4.41
3.44
4.43
5.00
3.60
4.25
5.30
4.35
4.01
4.34
4.04
3.80
3.55
Maximum DOC
Concentration
(mg/L)
9.69
5.94
5.00
5.28
6.30
7.00
3.92
7.00
5.53
5.34
7.00
6.57
8.00
6.00
4.63
4.39
3.80
3.83
Minimum DOC
Concentration
(mg/L)
3.97
4.01
2.00
3.75
4.15
2.00
2.96
1.00
4.11
1.93
2.00
4.46
0.94
1.00
4.16
3.69
3.80
3.26
Std. Dev.
1.77
0.51
1.28
0.51
0.62
1.70
0.68
1.44
0.39
1.56
1.36
0.76
1.29
1.01
0.26
0.50
0.40
Table 6-31. Mean DOC Concentrations by Reach in Upper Hudson River.
Reach IL River Miles
FE-TID
TID-Schuylerville
Schuylerville-Stillwater
Stillwater-Waterford
194.5-188.5
188.5-181.4
181.4-168.2
168.2-156.5
DOC
Concentration
(mg/L)
4.32
4.28
4.63
4.01
Limno-Tecli, Inc.
-------
Table 6-32. Mean Sediment foc Values Specified from GE 1991 Composite Data
for River Mile intervals in HUDTOX.
Downstream-Upstream
River Mile
193.5-194.5
192.5-193.5
191.5-192.5
190.5-191.5
189.5-190.5
188.5-189.5
188.5-183
183 -180
180 -175
175 -170
170 -155
Mean foc
Fine (Assigned
to Cohesive)
0.037
0.017
0.022
0.022
0.023
0.027
0.028
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.021
Coarse
(Assigned to
Non-cohesive)
0.013
0.008
0.011
0.013
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.013
0.01
0.007
0.008
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4.1b
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-33.
Illustration of Typical Low and High Flow Partitioning Behavior During
Cold Weather and Warm Weather Periods.
PCB state
variable
Total
Tri+
BZ#4
BZ#28
BZ#52
BZ#90+101
BZ#138
Summer II
low flow || high flow || low flow
fdisi
0.70
0.61
0.51
0.61
0.61
0.41
0.28
fdoc
0.04
0.02
0.43
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.06
f II f
*p || ldiss
0.26
0.37
0.07
0.35
0.36
0.54
0.65
0.26
0.18
0.35
0.19
0.19
0.09
0.06
Input Conditions
parameters
m,
es
foc-s
DOCs
Temp
winter
low flow
5
1
0.22
4.01
1.13
winter
high flow
100
1
0.08
4.01
1.13
summer
low flow
5
1
0.22
4.01
27.8
summer
high flow
100
1
0.08
4.01
27.8
fdoc
0.01
0.01
0.30
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
fp || f«. || fdoc
0.72 0.49 0.06
0.81 0.39 0.03
0.34 0.30 0.61
0.80 0.39 0.06
0.81 0.39 0.04
0.90 0.23 0.06
0.93 0.14 0.08
Winter
1 fp 1
0.45
0.58
0.10
0.55
0.57
0.72
0.78
1
If 1
Idiss |
0.13
0.09
0.18
0.09
0.09
0.04
0.02
high flow
f-oc !
0.02
0.01
0.38
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
fp
0.86
0.91
0.44
0.90
0.90
0.95
0.96
Linmo-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-34. Henry's Law Constants Developed Expirementally by Brunner, et. al. (1990) for
Selected Congeners.
BZ#
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
16
18
19
20
22
24
26
28
29
31
32
33
34
36
37
40
41
42
44
47
49
51
52
54
62
Brunner's HLC1
(atm-m3/mol)
0.000230
0.000230
0.000250
0.000280
0.000230
0.000280
0.000230
0.000140
0.000200
0.000250
0.000230
0.000160
0.000140
0.000220
0.000200
0.000200
0.000200
0.000190
0.000200
0.000160
0.000200
0.000170
0.000100
0.000100
0.000140
0.000140
0.000140
0.000190
0.000210
0.000140
0.000200
0.000200
0.000210
BZ#
64
66
67
69
70
74
79
85
87
91
95
97
99
101
102
119
120
128
129
130
131
132
134
135
136
138
141
143
146
147
151
153
159
Brunner's
HLC1
(atm-m3/mol)
0.000140
0.000120
0.000100
0.000210
0.000100
0.000100
0.000090
0.000066
0.000074
0.000120
0.000120
0.000074
0.000078
0.000090
0.000090
0.000074
0.000056
0.000013
0.000029
0.000037
0.000039
0.000044
0.000049
0.000056
0.000088
0.000021
0.000023
0.000039
0.000025
0.000051
0.000059
0.000023
0.000020
BZ#
160
163
165
170
172
173
174
178
179
180
185
194
195
196
198
199
201
202
Brunner's
HLC1
(atm-m3/mol)
0.000020
0.000015
0.000029
0.000009
0.000013
0.000014
0.000014
0.000023
0.000024
0.000010
0.000016
0.000010
0.000011
0.000010
0.000014
0.000010
0.000017
0.000018
Source: Brunner, S., et.al. "Henry's Law Constants for Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Experimental Determination and Structure-Property
Relationships." Environ. Sci. Tech., Vol. 24, No. 11, 1990.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-35. Congener Distribution of Total PCB by Mass Fraction at Mainstem Hudson River
Stations Using 1993 USEPA Phase 2 Data (Number of observations).
Congener Number
BZ#1
BZ#2
BZ#3
BZ#4
BZ#5
BZ#6
BZ#7
BZ#8
BZ#9
BZ#10
BZ#12
BZ#15
BZ#16
BZ#17
BZ#17NT
BZ#18
BZ#19
BZ#20
BZ#20 (as BZ#52)NT
BZ#22
BZ#23NT
BZ#24NT
BZ#25
BZ#26
BZ#27
BZ#27 & BZ# 24 •
BZ#28
BZ#29
BZ#31
BZ#32NT
BZ#33
BZ#33NT
BZ#34NT
BZ#37
BZ#40
BZ#41
BZ#42
BZ#42NT
BZ#44
BZ#45
BZ#45NT
BZ#47
BZ#48NT
BZ#49
BZ#51NT
BZ#52
BZ#53
BZ#56
BZ#58NT
BZ#59
Fort
Edward
(12)
4.258%
0.000%
0.151%
8.283%
0.005%
. 0.575%
0.061%
2.397%
0.196%
1.681%
0.060%
7.739%
0.990%
0.837%
1.471%
4.029%
3.257%
0.187%
0.514%
1.886%
0.168%
0.106%
0.380%
1.363%
1.002%
0.763%
6.012%
0.075%
4.289%
3.389%
0.429%
0.259%
0.378%
3.331%
0.739%
1.025%
0.476%
0.294%
3.340%
0.351%
0.561%
1.762%
0.900%
2.650%
0.429%
3.689%
1.202%
2.530%
0.083%
0.160%
Thompson
Island Dam
(12)
16.793%
0.000%
0.138%
24.865%
0.007%
0.603%
0.026%
2.292%
0.222%
4.261%
0.086%
1.019%
0.573%
0.613%
1.151%
3.121%
4.531%
0.093%
0.518%
1.152%
0.062%
0.078%
0.308%
1.657%
1.364%
1.009%
3.522%
0.057%
3.458%
2.201%
0.179%
0.125%
0.200%
1.918%
0.384%
0.454%
0.200%
0.200%
1.805%
0.227%
0.378%
1.104%
0.417%
1.642%
0.255%
2.596%
1.004%
0.507%
0.059%
0.086%
Schuylerville
(6)
11.449%
0.000%
0.000%
18.613%
0.000%
0.454%
0.022%
1.963%
0.101%
2.854%
0.055%
1.613%
0.658%
0.393%
1.687%
4.088%
3.508%
0.030%
0.890%
1.571%
0.172%
0.149%
0.355%
1.737%
1.589%
0.508%
5.456%
0.061%
4.430%
2.636%
0.100%
0.223%
0.164%
2.847%
0.401%
0.495%
0.138%
0.468%
2.501%
0.104%
0.596%
1.234%
0.600%
1.567%
0.320%
3.287%
1.115%
0.565%
0.127%
0.056%
Stillwater
(3)
12.040%
0.000%
0.000%
9.273%
0.009%
0.515%
0.000%
2.021%
0.106%
1.552%
0.114%
1.763%
0.520% |
0.000%
2.421%
5.016%
1.863%
0.000%
0.882%
1.994%
0.206%
0.245%
0.537%
2.332%
2.042%
0.000%
7.195%
0.058%
5.689%
3.063%
0.000%
0.303%
0.161%
4.048%
0.423%
0.337%
0.000%
0.653%
2.922%
0.000%
0.842%
1.153%
0.750%
1.512%
0.381%
3.937%
0.682%
0.494%
0.212%
0.000%
Waterford
(13)
5.201%
0.109%
0.181%
15.605%
0.000%
0.513%
0.013%
1.705%
0.068%
3.225%
0.140%
1.820%
0.712%
0.932%
1.722%
4.162%
4.620%
0.081%
0.652%
1.197%
0.144%
0.123%
0.524%
2.140%
1.264%
1.005%
5.390%
0.096%
5.096%
2.962%
0.106%
0.211%
0.237%
2.626%
0.611%
0.645%
0.309%
0.454%
2.548%
0.321%
0.566%
1.657%
0.706%
2.517%
0.399%
3.455%
1.231%
0.876%
0.125%
0.116%
Upper
Hudson
Average
9.240%
0.031%
0.126%
16.090%
0.004%
0.545%
0.029%
2.093%
0.148%
2.935%
0.092%
3.125%
0.729%
0.693%
1.549%
3.902%
3.917%
0.100%
0.627%
1.466%
0.137%
0.118%
0.409%
1.771%
1.315%
0.812%
5.191%
0.074%
4.410%
2.839%
0.202%
0.208%
0.250%
2.747%
0.546%
0.655%
0.282%
0.361%
2.579%
0.255%
0.538%
1.452%
0.670%
2.134%
0.358%
3.301%
1.113%
1.146%
0.103%
0.104%
l.imno-Tech. Inc.
-------
Table 6-35. Congener Distribution of Total PCB by Mass Fraction at Mainstem Hudson River
Stations Using 1993 USEPA Phase 2 Data (Number of observations).
Congener Number
BZ#60NT
BZ#63NT
BZ#64NT
BZ#66
BZ#67NT
BZ#69NT
BZ#70
BZ#72
BZ#74
BZ#74NT
BZ#75
BZ#77
BZ#82
BZ#83
BZ#84
BZ#85
BZ#87
BZ#91
BZ#92
BZ#95
BZ#96NT
BZ#97
BZ#99
BZ#101 with BZ# 90
BZ#105
BZ#105 & BZ# 168
BZ#107
BZ#110
BZ#110NT
BZ#114NT
BZ#115
BZ#118
BZ#119
BZ#122
BZ#123
BZ#126
BZ#128
BZ#129
BZ#135
BZ#135 (as BZ#52)NT
BZ#136
BZ#137
BZ#138
BZ#140NT
BZ#141
BZ#143
BZ#143NT
BZ#144NT
BZ#146NT
BZ#149
Fort
Edward
(12)
0.996%
0.140%
1.845%
2.445%
0.070%
0.008%
3.086%
0.000%
0.669%
1.481%
0.000%
0.378%
0.186%
0.074%
0.331%
0.268%
0.519%
0.171%
0.174%
0.643%
0.014%
0.411%
0.522%
0.831%
0.234%
0.055%
0.059%
0.459%
1.123%
0.000%
0.000%
0.673%
0.021%
0.011%
0.002%
0.005%
0.040%
0.013%
0.007%
0.000%
0.023%
0.024%
0.265%
0.004%
0.020%
0.000%
0.021%
0.005%
0.015%
0.152%
Thompson
Island Dam
(12)
0.498%
0.051%
1.228%
1.211%
0.033%
0.006%
1.637%
0.012%
0.261%
0.810%
0.000%
0.129%
0.102%
0.050%
0.203%
0.140%
0.274%
0.133%
0.097%
0.494%
0.015%
0.177%
0.247%
0.563%
0.141%
0.038%
0.031%
0.193%
0.719%
0.001%
0.000%
0.304%
0.009%
0.002%
0.000%
0.000%
0.025%
0.003%
0.010%
0.000%
0.024%
0.010%
0.176%
0.002%
0.019%
0.000%
0.008%
0.003%
0.024%
0.073%
Schuylerville
(6)
0.697%
0.032%
1.560%
1.715%
0.089%
0.010%
2.430%
0.009%
0.180%
1.392%
0.000%
0.114%
0.168%
0.082%
0.324%
0.216%
0.449%
0.181%
0.237%
1.092%
0.016%
0.295%
0.438%
0.845%
0.258%
0.000%
0.038%
0.156%
1.212%
0.002%
0.000%
0.523%
0.011%
0.004%
0.000%
0.000%
0.043%
0.000%
0.004%
0.000%
0.040%
0.028%
0.414%
0.000%
0.029%
0.000%
0.018%
0.006%
0.005%
0.103%
Stillwater
(3)
0.856%
0.041%
1.884%
2.265%
0.096%
0.031%
3.148%
0.000%
0.000%
2.112%
0.000%
0.161%
0.183%
0.091%
0.215%
0.219%
0.450%
0.136%
0.073%
1.444%
0.029%
0.348%
0.419%
0.928%
0.293%
0.000%
0.034%
0.000%
1.662%
0.000%
0.000%
0.472%
0.012%
0.000%
0.000%
0.002%
0.029%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.049%
0.044%
0.408%
0.000%
0.038%
0.000%
0.048%
0.012%
0.000%
0.089%
Waterford
(13)
0.976%
0.076%
1.976%
1.876%
0.083%
0.013%
2.585%
0.016%
0.418%
1.428%
0.000%
0.306%
0.194%
0.075%
0.315%
0.252%
0.558%
0.254%
0.250%
0.676%
0.015%
0.336%
0.538%
1.060%
0.319%
0.045%
0.073%
0.362%
1.485%
0.004%
0.000%
0.624%
0.021%
0.003%
0.001%
0.001%
0.045%
0.010%
0.012%
0.000%
0.055%
0.028%
0.478%
0.001%
0.028%
0.000%
0.015%
0.008%
0.020%
0.252%
Upper
Hudson
Average
0.812%
0.078%
1.687%
1.855%
0.069%
0.011%
2.485%
0.009%
0.384%
1.321%
0.000%
0.244%
0.164%
0.070%
0.284%
0.220%
0.452%
0.183%
0.177%
0.724%
0.016%
0.309%
0.437%
0.834%
0.241%
0.037%
0.051%
0.292%
1.167%
0.002%
0.000%
0.530%
0.016%
0.005%
0.001%
0.002%
0.037%
0.007%
0.009%
0.000%
0.036%
0.024%
0.331%
0.002%
0.024%
0.000%
0.017%
0.006%
0.016%
0.149%
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-35. Congener Distribution of Total PCB by Mass Fraction at Mainstem Hudson River
Stations Using 1993 USEPA Phase 2 Data (Number of observations).
Congener Number
BZ#151
BZ#153
BZ#156
BZ#156NT
BZ#157
BZ#158
BZ#165
BZ#167
BZ#169NT
BZ#170
BZ#171
BZ#172NT
BZ#174
BZ#174NT
BZ#175NT
BZ#176
BZ#177
BZ#178
BZ#178 (as BZ#52)NT
BZ#179
BZ#180
BZ#183
BZ#184NT
BZ#185
BZ#187
BZ#189
BZ#190
BZ#191
BZ#192 (as BZ#52)NT
BZ#193
BZ#194
BZ#195
BZ#196
BZ#197NT
BZ#198
BZ#199
BZ#200
BZ#201
BZ#202
BZ#203NT
BZ#205
BZ#206
BZ#207
BZ#208
Fort
Edward
(12)
0.058%
0.177%
0.003%
0.018%
0.014%
0.010%
0.000%
0.003%
0.387%
0.017%
0.005%
0.002%
0.001%
0.020%
0.000%
0.000%
0.020%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.041%
0.006%
0.004%
0.000%
0.043%
0.013%
0.010%
0.002%
0.009%
0.000%
0.011%
0.001%
0.010%
0.000%
0.000%
0.001%
0.002%
0.043%
0.007%
0.018%
0.000%
0.000%
0.001%
0.002%
Thompson
Island Dam
(12)
0.037%
0.140%
0.003%
0.006%
0.003%
0.005%
0.000%
0.003%
0.083%
0.008%
0.004%
0.001%
0.004%
0.006%
0.000%
0.000%
0.012%
0.000%
0.000%
0.002%
0.010%
0.003%
0.005%
0.000%
0.022%
0.000%
0.001%
0.000%
0.003%
0.001%
0.001%
0.001%
0.004%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.011%
0.003%
0.014%
0.000%
0.001%
0.000%
0.000%
Schuylerville
(6)
0.044%
0.231%
0.005%
0.003%
0.012%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.160%
0.016%
0.003%
0.004%
0.002%
0.014%
0.000%
0.000%
0.010%
0.000%
0.003%
0.000%
0.026%
0.005%
0.014%
0.001%
0.038%
0.000%
0.000%
0.001%
0.004%
0.000%
0.003%
0.002%
0.003%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.003%
0.016%
0.007%
0.012%
0.005%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
Still water
(3)
0.026%
0.242%
0.000%
0.011%
0.026%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.831%
0.019%
0.006%
0.011%
0.000%
0.022%
0.000%
0.000%
0.012%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.038%
0.007%
0.000%
0.002%
0.022%
0.000%
0.000%
0.002%
0.003%
0.000%
0.018%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.010%
0.045%
0.029%
0.008%
0.000%
0.015%
0.000%
0.007%
Waterford
(13)
0.077%
0.307%
0.007%
0.024%
0.002%
0.010%
0.000%
0.002%
0.055%
0.028%
0.010%
0.006%
0.002%
0.023%
0.000%
0.000%
0.027%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.066%
0.015%
0.008%
0.001%
0.066%
0.000%
0.004%
0.001%
0.009%
0.001%
0.009%
0.002%
0.009%
0.000%
0.000%
0.002%
0.000%
0.033%
0.008%
0.024%
0.000%
0.007%
0.000%
0.005%
Upper
Hudson
Average
0.054%
0.215%
0.004%
0.014%
0.008%
0.007%
0.000%
0.002%
0.213%
0.018%
0.006%
0.004%
0.002%
0.017%
0.000%
0.000%
0.018%
0.000%
0.000%
0.001%
0.038%
0.008%
0.007%
0.000%
0.042%
0.003%
0.004%
0.001%
0.006%
0.000%
0.007%
0.001%
0.006%
0.000%
0.000%
0.001%
0.002%
0.029%
0.008%
0.017%
0.001%
0.003%
0.000%
0.002%
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4. Ib
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
Table 6-36. Congener Distribution of Total PCB by Mass Fraction at Mainstem Hudson River
Stations Using 1991-1998 GE Data (Number of observations).
Congener Number
BZ#1
BZ#2
BZ#3
BZ#4 & BZ#10
BZ#5 & BZ#8
BZ#6
BZ#7 & BZ#9
BZ#11
BZ#12 & BZ#13
BZ#14
BZ#16 & BZ#32NT
BZ#17
BZ#18 & BZ#15
BZ#19
BZ#20 & BZ#33 & BZ#53
BZ#22 & BZ#51NT
BZ#23NT
BZ#24NT & BZ#27
BZ#25
BZ#26
BZ#28 & BZ#50
BZ#29
BZ#30
BZ#31
BZ#34NT& BZ#54
BZ#35NT
BZ#36
BZ#37 & BZ#42 & BZ#59
BZ#39NT
BZ#40
BZ#45
BZ#46NT
BZ#47
BZ#48NT & BZ#75
BZ#49
BZ#52 & BZ#73
BZ#55 & BZ#64NT & BZ#71
BZ#56 & BZ#60
BZ#58NT & BZ#63
BZ#62 & BZ#65
BZ#66 & BZ#93 & BZ#95
BZ#68
BZ#70 & BZ#76 & BZ#61
BZ#74 & BZ#94
BZ#77 & BZ#110
BZ#82
BZ#83 & BZ#109
BZ#85 & BZ#116
Fort
Edward
(350)
0.085%
0.000%
0.001%
3.599%
3.856%
0.868%
0.421%
0.000%
0.001%
0.003%
6.530%
5.385%
6.554%
0.557%
3.712%
4.127%
0.000%
0.541%
0.683%
0.847%
5.922%
0.050%
0.001%
4.526% '
0.029%
0.003%
0.008%
2.583%
0.000%
0.725%
0.624%
0.308%
0.494%
0.636%
2.382%
5.202%
3.618%
2.704%
0.129%
0.010%
6.132%
0.000%
2.233%
1.199%
2.145%
0.215%
0.130%
0.571%
Thompson
Island Dam
(475)
10.830%
0.000%
0.029%
24.383%
3.333%
0.798%
0.352%
0.000%
0.009%
0.014%
4.500%
3.845%
4.033%
3.074%
2.222%
2.223%
0.020%
1.815%
0.815%
1.103%
3.135%
0.059%
0.000%
3.230%
0.069%
0.001%
0.007%
1.555%
0.000%
0.397%
0.515%
0.224%
0.416%
0.385%
1.708%
3.866%
2.183%
1.327%
0.119%
0.005%
3.341%
0.015%
1.120%
0.621%
1.194%
0.106%
0.104%
0.304%
Schuylerville
(94)
8.553%
0.000%
0.150%
20.025%
3.247%
0.772%
0.309%
0.001%
0.027%
0.055%
4.937%
4.374%
4.541%
2.651%
2.442%
2.474%
L 0.000%
1.572%
0.814%
1.127%
3.807%
0.041%
0.000%
3.541%
0.075%
0.002%
0.000%
1.697%
0.001%
0.435%
0.605%
0.248%
0.381%
0.496%
1.760%
3.934%
2.049%
1.666%
0.096%
0.000%
4.024%
0.014%
1.427%
0.720%
1.342%
0.125%
0.101%
0.346%
Stillwater
(55)
4.319%
0.000%
0.151%
9.528%
3.140%
0.844%
0.335%
0.000%
0.030%
0.000%
6.081%
5.694%
5.945%
2.129%
3.007%
3.235%
0.000%
1.459%
0.989%
1.545%
5.212%
0.062%
0.000%
4.422%
0.040%
0.000%
0,007%
1.959%
0.001%
0.612%
0.673%
0.255%
0.659%
0.408%
2.223%
4.604%
2.812%
2.305%
0.161%
0.000%
4.703%
0.000%
1.924%
0.986%
1.515%
0.191%
0.180%
0.351%
Waterford
(53)
2.867%
0.000%
0.379%
10.041%
3.249%
0.849%
0.363%
0.000%
0.003%
0.000%
6.234%
5.659%
5.979%
2.025%
2.862%
3.005%
0.000%
1.493%
1.025%
1.707%
5.051%
0.056%
0.000%
4.589%
0.028%
0.000%
0.005%
2.002%
0.012%
0.528%
0.636%
0.281%
0.594%
0.402%
2.289%
4.689%
2.752%
2.458%
0.156%
0.000%
4.720%
0.000%
1.886%
0.894%
1.570%
0.172%
0.250%
0.392%
Upper
Hudson
Average
6.200%
0.000%
0.055%
15.366%
3.489%
0.825%
0.371%
0.000%
0.009%
0.012%
5.406%
4.611%
5.141%
2.073%
2.825%
2.989%
0.009%
1.323%
0.790%
1.073%
4.357%
0.055%
0.000%
^ 3.834%
0.052%
0.002%
0.007%
1.963%
0.001%
L 0.531%
0.575%
0.260%
0.461%
0.483%
2.000%
4.410%
2.722%
1.938%
0.125%
0.006%
4.499%
0.008%
1.610%
0.861%
1.569%
0.153%
0.124%
0.406%
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
Table 6-36. Congener Distribution of Total PCB by Mass Fraction at Mainstem Hudson River
Stations Using 1991-1998 GE Data (Number of observations).
Congener Number
BZ#87 & BZ#111 & BZ#119
BZ#89
BZ#91 & BZ#98 & BZ#55
BZ#96NT
BZ#99
BZ#100NT & BZ#67
BZ#101 & BZ#90NT
BZ#103 & BZ#57
BZ#104NT & BZ#44
BZ#107 &BZ#108 & BZ#147
BZ#122 & BZ#131 & BZ#133
BZ#123
BZ#128
BZ#129
BZ#130NT
BZ#132NT & BZ#105
BZ#134 & BZ#143 & BZ#114
BZ#135 & BZ#124
BZ#136
BZ#137
BZ#138 & BZ#163
BZ#139 & BZ#140
BZ#141
BZ#144NT
BZ#146NT & BZ#161
BZ#149 & BZ#118 & BZ#106
BZ#150 & BZ#112 & BZ#115
BZ#151
BZ#152 & BZ#86 & BZ#97
BZ#153
BZ#154
BZ#155 & BZ#84 & BZ#92
BZ#157
BZ#158
BZ#166
BZ#167
BZ#168
BZ#170
BZ#171 & BZ#156
BZ#172NT & BZ#192
BZ#173NT
BZ#174 & BZ#181
BZ#175NT
BZ#176
BZ#177
BZ#178
BZ#179
BZ#183
Fort
Edward
(350)
0.966%
0.030%
0.355%
0.560%
0.727%
0.042%
2.609%
0.037%
4.088%
0.021%
0.001%
0.019%
0.003%
0.000%
0.003%
0.335%
0.004%
0.057%
0.640%
0.002%
0.400%
0.002%
0.039%
0.079%
0.030%
3.824%
0.018%
1.561%
0.330%
0.119%
0.005%
1.980%
0.000%
0.005%
0.000%
0.001%
0.000%
0.002%
0.007%
0.001%
0.000%
0.025%
0.000%
0.000%
0.010%
0.010%
0.038%
0.013%
Thompson
Island Dam
(475)
0.477%
0.030%
0.262%
0.559%
0.395%
0.034%
1.328%
0.049%
2.142%
0.021%
0.001%
0.005%
0.001%
0.000%
0.001%
0.188%
0.003%
0.056%
0.314%
0.002%
0.253%
0.000%
0.017%
0.076%
0.013%
1.942%
0.013%
0.786%
0.177%
0.056%
0.001%
1.281%
0.000%
0.002%
0.000%
0.000%
0.008%
0.000%
0.004%
0.000%
0.000%
0.012%
0.000%
0.000%
0.006%
0.003%
0.024%
0.005%
Schuylerville
(94)
0.544%
0.045%
0.225%
0.508%
0.429%
0.032%
1.563%
0.020%
2.530%
0.008%
0.001%
0.007%
0.005%
0.001%
0.004%
0.436%
0.006%
0.058%
0.386%
0.004%
0.509%
0.000%
0.067%
0.093%
0.041%
2.277%
0.013%
0.868%
0.228%
0.261%
0.000%
1.480%
0.000%
0.004%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.009%
0.000%
0.000%
0.051%
0.000%
0.000%
0.017%
0.005%
0.093%
0.016%
Stillwater
(55)
0.665%
0.069%
0.285%
0.417%
0.449%
0.046%
1.625%
0.029%
3.262%
0.017%
0.008%
0.002%
0.004%
0.000%
0.000%
0.744%
0.011%
0.121%
0.488%
0.011%
0.910%
0.000%
0.019%
0.184%
0.058%
2.200%
0.018%
0.810%
0.344%
0.347%
0.011%
1.639%
0.000%
0.011%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.022%
0.010%
0.000%
0.072%
0.000%
0.000%
0.048%
0.001%
0.011%
0.033%
Waterford
(53)
0.717%
0.045%
0.282%
0.388%
0.479%
0.033%
1.810%
0.015%
3.307%
0.029%
0.002%
0.002%
0.004%
0.000%
0.000%
0.782%
0.005%
0.119%
0.558%
0.000%
0.879%
0.000%
0.011%
0.193%
0.047%
2.410%
0.021%
0.985%
0.327%
0.280%
0.000%
1.875%
0.000%
0.004%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.004%
0.000%
0.000%
0.013%
0.000%
0.000%
0.016%
0.002%
0.000%
0.002%
Upper
Hudson
Average
0.672%
0.034%
0.293%
0.538%
0.518%
0.037%
1.827%
0.039%
2.961%
. 0.020%
0.001%
0.009%
0.002%
0.000%
0.002%
0.321%
0.004%
0.063%
0.454%
0.003%
0.394%
0.001%
0.029%
0.090%
0.026%
2.652%
0.015%
1.069%
0.251%
0.123%
0.003%
1.587%
0.000%
0.004%
0.000%
0.000%
0.004%
0.001%
0.006%
0.001%
0.000%
0.023%
0.000%
0.000%
0.011%
0.005%
0.033%
0.010%
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-36. Congener Distribution of Total PCB by Mass Fraction at Mainstem Hudson River
Stations Using 1991-1998 GE Data (Number of observations).
Congener Number
BZ#185
BZ#187 & BZ#182
BZ#189
BZ#190
BZ#191
BZ#193
BZ#194
BZ#195
BZ#196 & BZ#203
BZ#197NT
BZ#198
BZ#199
BZ#200 & BZ#204
BZ#201
BZ#202
BZ#205
BZ#206
BZ#207
BZ#208
BZ#209
Fort
Edward
(350)
0.000%
0.049%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.001%
0.000%
0.002%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.003%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
Thompson
Island Dam
(475)
0.001%
0.021%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.001%
0.000%
0.002%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.002%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
Schuylerville
(94)
0.003%
0.071%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
Stillwater
(55)
0.006%
0.123%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.024%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.028%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
Waterford
(53)
0.004%
0.075%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.024%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.023%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
Upper
Hudson
Average
0.001%
0.044%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.001%
0.000%
0.004%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.004%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
0.000%
Source: Hudson River Database Release 4.lb
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-37. Estimated Henry's Law Constants (HLC) for Total and Tri+ PCB by Source and Agency at Mainstem
Hudson River Stations.
LTIID
Fort Edward
Thompson Island Dam
Schuylerville
Stillwater
Waterford
Tri+ HLC (atm-m3/mol) ][ Total HLC (atm-m3/mol)
GE || Phase 2 || GE ||_ Phase 2
1.62E-04
1.75E-04
1.70E-04
1.68E-04
1.68E-04
1.67E-04
1.75E-04
1.70E-04
1.66E-04
1.70E-04
1.71E-04
1.97E-04
1.90E-04
1.80E-04
1.80E-04
1.79E-04
2.00E-04
1.88E-04
1.78E-04
1.85E-04
Number of GE II Number of Phase 2
Data 1 Data
348
475
94
55
53
12
12
6
3
13
Table 6-38. Estimated Henry's Law Constants (HLC) for Total PCB at Mainstem Hudson River Stations and Averaged
Over Study Reach.
LTIID
Fort Edward
TIDam
Schuylerville
Stillwater
Waterford
Final Estimate2
Average Tri+
PCB HLC1
(atm-m3/mol)
1.62E-04
1.75E-04
1.70E-04
1.68E-04
1.68E-04
1.69E-04
Average Total
PCB HLC1
(atm-m /mol)
1.71E-04
1.97E-04
1.89E-04
1.80E-04
1.81E-04
1.85E-04
Distance Used
in Weighting
(m)
4,828
10,541
16,335
20,036
9,415
Average was determined by weighting each source's value with the number of data points presented in Table 6-37.
Final estimate was determined by weighting the station specific average value with the distance associated with each station in the last column of this
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-39. Estimated Molecular Weight for Total and Tri+ PCB by Source and Agency at Mainstem Hudson River
Stations.
LTIID
Fort Edward
Thompson Island Dam
Schuylerville
Stillwater
Waterford
Tri+ Mol. Wt. (g/mol) || Total Mol. Wt. (g/mol)
GE || Phase 2 || GE || Phase 2
288.6
283.9
286.0
285.7
286.0
281.1
276.5
278.4
279.2
279.6
282.8
256.4
262.5
272.9
274.0
264.9
244.2
254.5
259.7
262.4
Number of GE
Data
348
475
94
55
53
Number of Phase 2
Data
12
12
6
3
13
Table 6-40. Estimated Molecular Weight for Total PCB at Mainstem Hudson River Stations and Averaged Over Study
Reach.
LTIID
Fort Edward
TIDam
Schuylerville
Stillwater
Waterford
Final Estimate
Average Tri-f
PCB Mol. Wt.1
(g/mol)
288.4
283.8
285.5
285.4
284.8
285.3
Average Total
PCB Mol. Wt.1
(g/mol)
282.2
256.1
262.0
272.2
271.7
267.4
Distance Used
in Weighting
(m)
4,828
10,541
16,335
20,036
9,415
1 Average was determined by weighting each source's value with the number of data points presented in Table 6-39.
z Final estimate was determined by weighting the station specific average value with the distance associated with each station in the last column of this
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-41. Estimated Henry's Law Constants and Molecular Weight by PCB Type.
PCB Type
BZ#4
BZ#28
Total PCB
Tri+ PCB
BZ#52
BZ#90+101
BZ#138
Henry's Law Constant
(atm-m /mol)
2.30E-04
2.00E-04
1.85E-04
1.69E-04
2.00E-04
9.00E-05
2.10E-05
Henry's Law Constant @ 20°C
(unitless)
0.009561068
0.008313973
0.007690425
0.007025307
0.008313973
0.003741288
0.000872967
Molecular Weight
(gm/mol)
223.1
257.5
267.4
285.3
292.0
326.0
361.0
Linmo-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-42. Coefficients Used to Estimate Depth and Velocity as a Function of Cross-
Section Average Flow in HUDTOX for Calculation of Liquid-Phase (Kj) Air-Water
Transfer Rates.
Segments
Forming
Cross-section
1, 2,
3, 4,
5, 6, 7
8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13
14, 15, 16
17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22
23, 24, 25
26, 27, 28
29
30
31
32
33
.34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
a1
0.002064
0.001631
0.001683
0.001707
0.001424
0.001404
0.001495
0.001345
0.001477
0.001207
0.002300
0.001120
0.001260
0.000960
0.002020
0.001660
0.001410
0.001210
0.001130
0.000930
0.002100
0.001340
0.000620
0.001370
0.000940
0.001340
0.000840
0.000820
0.000550
bl
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
c2
1.483
1.851
2.604
2.183
2.032
2.699
2.874
2.695
3.182
2.343
1.951
3.494
3.862
3.917
3.120
2.843
3.755
4.201
4.242
3.693
2.993
1.926
4.179
3.178
2.467
2.886
4.150
4.561
5.772
d2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
' Average cross-section velocity, u = a ' Q b
Average cross-section depth, D = c ' Q (assumed constant)
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-43. Annual Average Bulk Sediment Concentrations by PCB Type.
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
PCB Type
Tri+
(mg/L)
18.435
17.085
15.834
14.674
13.599
12.603
11.680
10.825
Total
(mg/L)
32.870
30.462
28.231
26.164
24.247
22.471
20.825
19.300
BZ#4
(mg/L)
5.170
4.791
4.440
4.115
3.814
3.534
3.276
3.036
BZ#28
(mg/L)
0.650
0.602
0.558
0.517
0.479
0.444
0.412
0.382
BZ#52
(mg/L)
0.670
0.621
0.575
0.533
0.494
0.458
0.424
0.393
BZ#90+1
01 (mg/L)
0.120
0.111
0.103
0.096
0.089
0.082
0.076
0.070
BZ#138
(mg/L)
0.065
0.060
0.056
0.051
0.048
0.044
0.041
0.038
Table 6-44. Annual Average Pore Water Concentrations by PCB Type.
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
PCB TVPC
Tri+
(mg/L)
0.00198
.0.00184
0.00170
0.00158
0.00146
0.00136
0.00126
0.00116
Total
(mg/L)
0.00760
0.00704
0.00653
0.00605
0.00561
0.00520
0.00482
0.00446
BZ#4
(mg/L)
0.03225
0.02989
0.02770
^0.02567
0.02379
0.02205
0.02043
0.01893
BZ#28
(mg/L)
0.000108
0.000100
0.000092
0.000086
0.000079
0.000074
0.000068
0.000063
BZ#52
(mg/L)
0.000091
0.000084
0.000078
0.000072
0.000067
0.000062
0.000057
0.000053
BZ#90+1
01 (mg/L)
0.000013
0.000012
0.000011
0.000010
0.000010
0.000009
0.000008
0.000008
BZ#138
(mg/L)
0.000007
0.000007
0.000006
0.000006
0.000005
0.000005
0.000004
0.000004
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-45. Estimated Sediment Properties in Thompson Island Pool
Based on Area Weighting by Sediment Type.
Parameter
Surface Area
% cohesive
% noncohesive
Bulk Density
Solids Concentration
Porosity
Fraction Organic
Carbon
DOC Concentration
Symbol
A
Ac
An
Pb
»s
es
focw
DOCS
Fort
Edward -
TIDam
1,826,220
23.28
76.72
1.254
1,254,300
0.527
0.0182
41.25
Units
m2
%
%
gsolid/cmtotal
m§solid/Ltotal
'-water' J-total
gTOcarbon/gnisolid
m§carbon/M,ulksed
I.imno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-46. Annual Time Series of Sediment-Water Mass Transfer Rate for Tri+ PCBs.
Date
1/1
1/16
1/31
2/15
3/1
3/16
3/31
4/15
5/1
5/16
5/31
6/15
7/1
7/16
7/31
8/15
8/31
9/15
9/30
10/15
11/1
11/15
12/1
12/15
12/31
Day of
Year
1
15
31
46
61
76
92
107
122
137
153
168
183
198
214
229
244
259
275
290
305
320
336
351
365
kf
(cm/day)
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
19.39
23.51
21.49
12.16
10.99
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
10.17
kf
(m2/sec)
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
7.702E-08
9.341E-08
8.539E-08
4.831E-08
4.368E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
4.039E-08
Table 6-47. Correlation of Particulate-mediated Sediment-Water Mass Transfer Coefficient with
Suspended Solids Concentration, Fort Edward Flow, and Water Temperature.
kp (cm/day)
TSS (mg/L)
QFE (cfs)
Temp. (°C)
kp
(cm/day)
1
0.07695
-0.05006
0.38006
TSS
(mg/L)
1
-0.061872
-0.198501
QFF (cfs)
1
-0.61591
H2O
Temp.
(°C)
1
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 6-48. Annual Time Series of Pore Water and Participate Mass Transfer Coefficients
by PCB Type.
Julian
Day
0
15
31
46
61
76
92
107
122
137
153
168
183
198
214
229
244
259
275
290
305
320
336
351
365
k,, (cm/day)
All PCB Types
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
1.36603
1.65661
1.51450
0.85687
0.77472
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
0.68610
k,, (cm/day)1
BZ#4 + BZ#10| BZ#28
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.001740
0.002110
0.001929
0.001092
0.000987
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000879
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.001055
0.001280
0.001170
0.000662
0.000599
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
0.000436
BZ#52
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.001086
0.001317
0.001204
0.000681
0.000616
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
0.000454
BZ#[90+101]
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000731
0.000887
0.000811
0.000459
0.000415
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
0.000289
BZ#138
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000549
0.000666
0.000609
0.000344
0.000311
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
0.000220
Total
^000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.001264
0.001533
0.001401
0.000793
0.000717
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
0.000550
Tri+
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.001039
0.001260
0.001152
0.000652
0.000589
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
0.000424
kp' = kp * df where df = apparent dissolved fraction in the water column
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 7-1. HUDTOX Solids Model Calibration Parameter Values.
Parameter || Definition || Units || Value || Comments
vs (cohesive)
vs (non-
cohesive)
Qcut
vr
Wij
Wij
Wij
Wij
DL
Cs
a
Gross solids settling velocity
Gross solids settling velocity
Flow threshold for non-cohesive
resuspension
High flow solids resuspension velocity
Particle mixing rate between sediment
layer i and j (cohesive sediments) : TIP
Particle mixing rate between sediment
layer i and j (non-cohesive sediments) :
TIP
Particle mixing rate between sediment
layer i and j (cohesive sediments) : TID
to Fed. Dam
Particle mixing rate between sediment
layer i and j (non-cohesive sediments) :
TID to Fed. Dam
Longitudinal dispersion
Sediment solids bulk density (dry)
Solid density
m/day
m/day
cfs
mm/yr
m'/day
m'/day
m"/day
m /day
m2/sec
g/cm3
g/cm3
4.15
1.5
7,042-31,635
3.6-16.4
l.OE-05
(layers 1-2; 2-3; 3-4)
l.OE-05
(layers 1-2; 2-3)
l.OE-05 (layerl-2);
L.OE-06 (layer 2-3);
l.OE-07 (layer 3-4)
l.OE-05 (layerl-2);
18.8 - 37.2;
0.0 at dam interfaces
0.84 (cohesive)
1 .38 (non-cohesive)
2.65
Determined by calibration
Determined by calibration
Based on TSS rating curves by reach
See Table 7-3 for coefficients used to control
resuspension and sediment armoring during events in
cohesive sediments
Based on core depth profiles, expected biological
activity, and calibration of sediment temporal
trajectories.
Based on core depth profiles, expected biological
activity, and calibration of sediment temporal
trajectories.
Based on core depth profiles, expected biological
activity, and calibration of sediment temporal
trajectories.
Based on core depth profiles, expected biological
activity, and calibration of sediment temporal
trajectories.
Estimates based on USGS dye survey results (USGS,
1969)
Estimated using Phase 2 and NYSDEC 1984 data
-
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
Table 7-2. HUDTOX Cohesive Sediment Resuspension and
Armoring Parameters.
Segment
Cohesive Sediment
6 = 0 Flow
(1,000 cfs)
Above Thompson Island Dam
I
-.-166*6
-5.33
0.00221500
3.294
10.63
-40.00
0.07454000
2.909
8.68
^ .^noicohesive sediment identified here
-1.30
0.00334178
2.716
8.99
10
-32.03
0.03929738
2.950
9.70
11
-0.67
0.00323573
2.480
8.60
12
;5Q.07562286
13
-11.02
0.27144876
1.654
9.39
14
-2.18
0.00061881
3.440
10.74
15
-3.00
0.00471263
2.833
9.76
16
-7.05
0.02144044
2.501
10.14
17
-1.83
0.00663035
2.491
9.55
18
i&sm
1038
19
-12.39
0.02901571
2.524
11.02
20
^1:95
21
-7.84
0.01900183
2.557
10.54
22
-15.71
1.40936058
1.160
7.99
23
-7.05
0.01277475
2.618
11.15
24
-3.3:89,
; 9.77.
25
-68.42
2.16242877
1.562
9.14
26
-0.55
0.00534900
2.35
7.19
27
10:68^
28
Downstream of Thompson Island Pool
29-47 | -7.84 |
0.02144044
2.501
10.59
Cohesive sediment:
mg/cm
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 7-3. HUDTOX Fraction Organic Carbon and Dissolved Organic Carbon Parameterization by Reach.
Upper Hudson
River Miles
194.7 - 188.5
188.5 - 182.3
182.3 - 181.4
181.4-178.1
178.1-168.2
168.2-166.0
166.0 - 163.5
163.5 - 156.4
156.4-153.9
Upper Hudson River
Reach Description
Fort Edward - TID
TID - Batten Kill
Batten Kill - Fish Creek
Fish Creek - Flately Brook
Flately Brook - Hoosic River
Hoosic River - Anthony Kill
Anthony Kill - Deep Kill
Deep Kill - Waterford
Waterford - Federal Dam
HUDTOX
Water
Segment(s)
1-28
29-32
33
34-35
36-39
40-41
42-43
44-46
47
r '
'oc
Water la)
a II b
17.5%
17.5%
17.5%
17.5%
17.5%
17.5%
17.5%
17.5%
17.5%
-0.3687
-0.3687
-0.3687
-0.3687
-0.3687
-0.3687
-0.3687
-0.3687
-0.3687
Cohesive
Sediment
1.7 to 3.7%
2.8%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6 to 2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
Non-cohesive
Sediment
0.8 to 1.3%
0.8%
1.3%
1.3% to 1%
0.7 to 1.0%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
DOC (mg/L) 2
Water
4.32
4.28
4.28
4.63
4.63
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.01
Cohesive
Sediment
31.5
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
Non-cohesive
Sediment
31.5
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
1 Fraction organic carbon on participates were developed for:
a) Water, based on a relationship developed from the Phase2 water column data (USEPA, 1997) , where foe = a Qn b and Qn = normalized flow
b) Sediment, using the Phase2 low-resolution core dala and the 1991 GE composite sediment sampling data (O'Brien and Gere, 1993b).
2 Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations were developed for:
a) Water, using data from Vaughn, 1996.
b) Sediment, based on the 1991 GE composite sediment sampling dala (O'Brien and Gere, 1993b).
(see Section 6.9.2).
Lim/ia-Tectt, Inc.
-------
Table 7-4. HUDTOX PCB Model Calibration Parameter Values.
Parameter
MW
H25
log Kpoc
log KDOC
k,
k*
q/
tsf
k,
D(icep
Definition ]| Units
Molecular Weight; chemical specific
Henry's Law Constant; chemical
specific, and temperature dependent
Partition coefficient for sorbate on
POC, based on three-phase equilibrium
partitioning model; chemical specific
Partition coefficient for sorbate on
DOC, based on three-phase equilibrium
partitioning model; chemical specific
Air-water liquid film mass transfer rate
Air-water gas exchange mass transfer
rate
Arrenhius temperature correction for aii
water mass transfer rate
Temperature slope factor constant
affecting partitioning; chemical specific
Sediment-water mass transfer
coefficient for dissolved and DOC-
bound PCB.
Deep (>4 cm) sediment porewater
diffusion coefficient for dissolved and
DOC-bound PCB
g/rtiole
aim mVmole
log (L/kg C)
log (L/kg C)
m/day
m/day
dimensionless
°!C
cm/day
rn2/sec
Calibration Value
Total PCB || BZ#4 || BZ#28 || BZ#52 ||BZ#9(H10l|| BZ#138
267.41
1.85E-041
5.691
4.95 '
223.1
0.00023 2
5.19
5.43
257.5
0.0002 2
5.84
4.16
292.0
0.0002 2
5.82
4.28
326.0
9.00E-05
6.18
4.54
361.0
2.10E-05
6.43
4.86
TrU- PCB
279.01
1.69E-041
5.845 '
3.961
O'Connor - Dobbins formulation
100
(unadjusted for chemical-specific, temperature-corrected Ifenry's Law Constant)
1.024
1195.7
(representative across all PCB forms)
10-24
(see Section 6.13)
2.00E-10 (dissolved);
l.OOE- 10 (DOC-bound)
Comments
Estimated based on congener
distribution
Estimated based on congener
distribution or literature values
Congener-specific Kfoc values are
theoretical. DEIR (1997).
Congener-specific KOQC values are
theoretical. DEIR (1997).
Chapra, 1997;
Thomann and Mueller, 1987
WASPS User Guide (Ambrose et
al, 1993)
Chapra, 1997;
Thomann and Mueller, 1987
DEIR (USEPA, 1997)
Developed from site specific data
(see Section 6. 13)
Set approximately to molecular
diffusion rate
'Estimated based on apparent PCB congener distribution.
2Brunner et al. 1990
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 7-5. Tri+ Mass Loads (1977-1997) at Mainstem Stations for Sensitivity Analyses.
Model Run Description
Base HUDTOX Calibration
TSS:
Fort Edward Solids Loads with
Single Stratum Regression
TSS:
All external Tributary solids loads
50 % higher
TSS:
All external Tributary solids loads
50 % lower
TSS:
All external Tributary Loads
computed using Original Rating
Curve
Partitioning :
Lower Tri+ Partition Coefficient
Partitioning :
Higher Tri+ Partition Coefficient
Sediment-water Exchange:
Lower Sediment- Water Mass
Transfer Coefficient
Sediment-water exchange:
HigherSediment- Water Mass
Transfer Coefficient
Sediment-water exchange :
Cohesive rate twice non-cohesive
rate
Burial Rate:
Higher Gross Settling Velocity
into Cohesive Sediments
Burial Rate:
Lower Gross Settling Velocity
into Cohesive Sediments
Sediment Mixing:
Mixed Depth of 6 cm in Non-
cohesive Sediments below TID
Load at
Thompson
Island Dam
(kgTri+)
10,638
10,855
10,711
10,711
10,643
12,080
8,856
9,522
11,307
10,756
10,225
11,254
10,638
Load at
Schuylerville
(kgTri+)
13,374
13,831
13,521
13,663
13,494
15,251
11,003
11,895
14,240
13,620
12,334
14,702
13,701
Load at
Stillwater
(kgTri+)
13,649
14,112
13,289
14,800
15,203
16,287
10,645
11,967
14,708
14,011
12,216
15,570
14,476
Load at
Waterford
(kg Tri+)
15,730
16,190
14,792
18,194
18,815
18,376
12,716
13,980
16,830
16,066
14,037
18,171
17,566
Load at
Federal
Dam
(kgTri+)
16,367
16,829
15,261
19,226
19,483
19,071
13,287
14,561
17,501
16,690
14,675
18,801
18,522
Percent
Change in
Load at
Federal
Dam
0
3
-7
17
19
17
-19
-11
7
2
-10
15
13
(Page 1 of 2)
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 7-5. Tri+ Mass Loads (1977-1997) at Mainstem Stations for Sensitivity Analyses.
Model Run Description
Initial Conditions:
1977 Sediment Initial Conditions
Minus 1 Sstanard Error
Initial Conditions:
1977 Sediment Initial Conditions
Plus 1 Standard Error
Volatilization :
Higher Henry's Law Constant
Volatilization :
Lower Henry's Law Constant
Load at
Thompson
Island Dam
(kgTri+)
9,226
12,051
10,623
10,732
Load at
Schuylerville
(kgTri+)
11,295
15,454
13,345
13,551
Load at
Still water
(kgTri+)
11,141
16,156
13,603
13,937
Load at
Waterford
(kg Tri+)
12,346
19,113
15,665
16,145
Load at
Federal
Dam
(kg Tri+)
12,724
20,009
16,300
16,796
Percent
Change in
Load at
Federal
Dam
-22
22
0
3
(Page 2 of 2)
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 8-1. Sequencing of Annual Hydrographs to Develop 70-year Forecast
Hydrograph.
Forecast
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
- 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Annual
Hydrograph
1998
1999
2000
. 2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
Average
Annual
Flow (cfs)
3,904
4,240
5,985
7,183
4.955
4,981
4,240
4,889
5,879
5,991
3,904
3,675
7,183
5,991
6,265
6,762
5,985
5,985
3,904
4,240
4,943
4,134
5,049
4,955
4,240
4,240
6,265
4.955
4.981
4,462
5.049
5,049
5,171
6,045
5.260
Forecast
Year
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Annual
Hydrograph
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
Average
Annual
Flow (cfs)
. 4,981
5,985
5,879
6,265
6,265
5,049
7,183
4,981
5,171
3.904
7,183
6.762
6.045
5,985
5.260
5.260
4.605
6.045
6.265
4,981
4.605
4,605
6,045
3,904
4,889
5,147
4,955
6,265
7.183
4.955
4,955
4,605
5.171
5,049
4.605
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 8-2. Surface Sediment Tri+ Initial Conditions for
the No Action and 100-Year Event Simulations.
River Reach
Thompson Island Pool
TI Dam to Schuylerville
Schuylerville to Stillwater
Stillwater to Waterford
Waterford to Federal Dam
Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentration (mg/Kg)
Cohesive
Sediment
13.70
9.91
2.42
1.98
-
Non-cohesive
Sediment
6.47
2.03
1.48
0.96
0.76
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Table 8-3. Effect of the 100-Year Flood Event on the Non-cohesive (N) and Cohesive (C) Sediment Bed
in Upper Hudson River Reaches between Fort Edward and Federal Dam (Year 1 - 3/28 to 4/13).
Upper Hudson River
Reach
Sediment Type
Solids Deposited (MT)
Solids Resuspended (MT)
Net Change in
Sediment Solids Mass (MT)
Net Change in
Sediment Bed Elevation (cm)
Thompson Island
Pool (TIP)
N
119
-1,103
-984
-0.051
C
157
-1,161
-1,004
-0.281
TI Dam to
Schuylerville
N 1 C
158
-164
-5
-0.001
350
-5,336
-4,985
-1.105
Schuylerville to
Stillwater
N
2,114
-2.970
-855
-0.015
C
1,306
-105
1,202
0.153
Stillwater to
Waterford
N
4,395
-5,358
-963
-0.018
C
1,217
-3,715
-2,498
-0.569
Waterford to
Federal Dam
N
1,192
-901
291
0.008
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
-------
Figures
-------
Figure 1-1. Hudson River Watershed.
Limno -Tech, Inc.
-------
T. ,_„• fort Edward
Thompso
Island .-,. , . .
Poo/Jock A>
No. 7/>
ALBANY Green Island
Figure 1-2. Upper Hudson River Watershed.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
\
f' ~
\
Bakers )
Fa//s .,>"
Hudson Falls
GE Hudson Falls
GE Fort Edward /
Fort Edward
o
/
„
Former Fort\\ \\ Rogers
Edward Dam \ \ \\ Island
/
/
r1"'
0 0.5 1 / 1.5 2- Kilometers
0 0.25 0.5/6.75 1 Miles
Thompson
Island
Fort Miller Dam
Figure 1-3. Thompson Island Pool.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Pool Models
Hydrodynamic
Model
Transport and Fate Model
Bivariate
BAF
Model
FISHPATH1
FISHRAND2
Bioaccumulation Models
1 Deterministic Bioaccumulation Model
2 Probabilistic Bioaccumulation Model
Figure 2-1. Upper Hudson River Modeling Framework.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Pool Models
PCB
Concentration
Profiles
Hydrodynamic \
Model f
^
Bathymetry
Fluvial Plain
Flows
Flow Dependent Cohesive Resuspension Functions
Flow Routing
Transport and Fate Model
PCB Loads
Solids Loads
Sediment Properties
Sediment PCB Concentrations
Process Kinetics
Bioaccumulation Models
Bivariate
BAF
Model
FISHPATH1
FISHRAND2
1 Deterministic Bioaccumulation Model
2 Probabilistic Bioaccumulation Model
Figure 2-2. Upper Hudson River Modeling Framework with Model Inputs.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson
Island
Dam
Cohesive
sediments
Noncohesive
sediments
Roads
• i i i i i Railroad
RM194 River mile
1/2 mile
500 meters
Figure 3-1. Thompson Island Pool Study Area.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson
Island
Dam
1/2 mile
500 meters
Figure 3-2. Thompson Island Pool RMA-2V Model Mesh.
Limno -Tech, Inc.
-------
Former
Fort Edward
Dam
''»><&
' '' '/A
' ""' '///#
:^^
i«»>»" i\s.v>*Vw * \ '
-^t^
1 - ««^XN^^*^^,s
Snook
^^MJQ
A
Thompson
f- Island
Dam
B
cm/sec
100
150
200
250
1/2 mile
500 meters
Figure 3-3. Thompson Island Pool Velocity Vectors
for 100-Year Flow Event.
Limno-Tech.Inc.
-------
160
140
3 4
Velocity (ft/s)
Figure 3-4. Shear Stress Computed from Vertically Averaged Velocity.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Former
Fort Edward
Dam
\
1/2 mile
Figure 3-5. Thompson Island Pool Bottom Shear Stress
for 100-Year Flow Event.
500 meters
Umno-Tech. Inc.
-------
c
,0
'35
2
HI
-1
-2
-3 -L
Data
Regression
-*'
•
1.2
1.4 1.6 1.8
/n(Dimensionless Shear Stress)
2.2
2A
Figure 4-1. Erosion versus Shear Stress in Cohesive Sediments.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
All Shear Stresses
In (Shear Stress) (dynes/cm )
Shear Stress > 5 dynes/cm
In (Shear Stress) (dynes/cm2)
Figure 4-2. Armoring Depth versus Shear Stress.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
0.01
0.1 i
E
u
a.
a>
0
100 4
O.OE+00
CoreHR-19
5.0E+05
1.0E+06 1.5E+06
Total PCBs (ug/kg)
" 5th Percentile
" Median
95th Percentile
2.0E+06
2.5E+06
0.1 -
Core HR-20
5th Percentile
Median
95th Percentile
100 4
O.OE+00
0.01
2.5E+05 5.0E+05
Total PCBs (ug/kg)
Core HR-23
7.5E+05
O.OE+00 4.0E+05
8.0E+05 1.2E+06 1.6E+06
Total PCBs (ug/kg)
5th Percentile
Median
95th Percentile
1.0E+06
2.0E+06 2.4E+06
Figure 4-3a. Likelihood of PCB Scour for Selected Phase 2 High Resolution Sediment
Cores.
(I of 2)
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
E
o
Q.
0>
Q 10
Core HR-25
5th Percentile
Median
"95th Percentile
100 i
4.0E+03
6.0E+03 8.0E+03
Total PCBs (ug/kg)
1.0E+04
0.1
Core HR-26
100 -i i
O.OE+00 2.0E+05 4.0E+05
Total PCBs (ug/kg)
5th Percentile
Median
95th Percentile
6.0E+05
Figure 4-3b. Likelihood of PCB Scour for Selected Phase 2 High Resolution Sediment
Cores.
(2 of 2)
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
0.2
Mean Depth of Scour (cm)
Figure 4-4. Cumulative Percent versus Mean Depth of Scour for Cohesive Sediment in
Thompson Island Pool.
1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000
Total Solids Scoured (kg)
3,500,000
4,000,000
Figure 4-5. Cumulative Percent versus Total Solids Scoured from Cohesive Sediment in
Thompson Island Pool.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Figure 5-1
Conceptual Framework for the HUDTOX PCB Model
Tributary
Loading
Ungaged Tributary
and Runoff Loading
Air-Water
Exchange
Upstream
Loading
en
CD
U
Q.
%
Bound (Sorbed)
TSS-bound j
R>.-*?J !
PCB
DOC-bound
tefiS^aiiapts^j
Kpoc
KOOC
I
*
Unbound
n/^n
PCB
Dissolved
LfcM^Wr^j"
i
i
i
Water
a>
in
w
CO
O
0_
TSS-bound
A
1
s
r
1
!
i
DOC-bound
L t
•o
1.1
§§
Bound (Sorbed) PCB
i
Advection out
J
c/i c
^5
•^
i
Disp
r
i Unbound PCB i
^****N
Dechlorination
Limno Tech, Inc.
-------
Model Time
Water Segments
Sediment Segments S,
(constant "m" layers) S2
S3
Archive Sediments An
(variable "n" layers) A n.,
An-2
to
V
Legend
Chemical Concentration
I
Low
t,
V
Surface sediment
volume depletes
as resuspension
occurs.
High
v
V
I W,
Upon reaching a user-specified
minimum surfice sediment
volume upward movement from
the archive sediment layers is
triggered and segments are
renumbered. Vertical gradients
are maintained below the surface
layer, but the remaining surface
sediment is mixed with the
segment below to form the new
surface sediment segment.
112 = time when minimum surface sediment volume is reached.
Figure 5-2. Illustration of Sediment Scour in the HUDTOX Model.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Model Time
Water Segments W,
Sediment Segments S-,
(constant "m" layers) S2
S3
Archive Sediments
(variable "n" layers)
i
v
v
i I
W,
A3
A2
A1
Initial
condition of
sediment bed.
Surface sediment
concentration may
increase/decrease
as settling occurs.
Legend
Low
Chemical Concentration
High
Upon a doubling of surface
sediment volume the bottom
model segment is moved to the
archive layers and renumbering
of the computational segments
is triggered. Vertical gradients
through the bed are maintained
because no mixing occurs
between sediment layers.
t2 = time when a doubling of the surface sediment volume is reached.
Figure 5-3. Illustration of Sediment Burial in the HUDTOX Model.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
See detailed
Thompson Island
Pool map.
1 mile
1 km
29
Cohesive
sediments
Noncohesive
sediments
HUDTOX
segment number
Segment boundary
below Thompson Is. Dam
Segment boundary
above Thompson Is. Dam
Dam
RM188 River mile
Figure 5-4 A,B. HUDTOX Model Water Column Segmentation Grid
for Upper Hudson River, Parts A and B.
Limno-Tech.Inc.
-------
STILLWATER «««
1 mile
1 km
El
29
Cohesive
sediments
Noncohesive
sediments
HUDTOX
segment number
Segment hnimdary
below Thompson Is. Dam
Segment boundary
above Thompson Is. Dam
Dam
RMiaa River mile
Figure 5-4 C,D. HUDTOX Model Water Column Segmentation Grid
for Upper Hudson River, Parts C and D.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson
Island
Dam
Cohesive
sediments
Noncohesive
sediments
HUDTOX
72 segment
number
Roads
111111 Railroad
RM194 River mile
1/2 mile
500 meters
Figure 5-5. Thompson Island Pool Study Area.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Snook Kill
Schuylerville
Fish Creek —
Stillwater >
Anthony Kill
Waterford •
Mohawk River
4-
11
17
20
23
26
4-
• Ft. Edward
12
15
18
21
24
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
T
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
Champlain Canal
Legend
1 Flow input
•City
28 Segment number
Segment boundary
Lock or dam
I Moses Kill
Thompson Island Dam
Lock 6 Dam
Northumberland Dam
I Batten Kill
Flately Brook
Lock 4 Dam (Stillwater Dam)
' Hoosic River
Lock 3 Dam
Lock 2 Dam
Deep Kill
Lockl Dam
Federal Dam
Figure 5-6. Schematic of HUDTOX Water Column Segmentation Grid.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
River Mile
•center channel segments in TIP, 1-d segmentation below Tl Dam
•west bank segments in TIP
•east bank segments in TIP
Figure 5-7. HUDTOX Water Column Segment Depths by River Mile.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
o>
E
v
9)
(A
0)
C
0)
£
0)
a.
60% •
50% -
40%
30%
20%
10% •
Lock6
Dam
n
r
u
__
•
Thomp
Island C
k
I
L
son
am
^^•IM
•MM
^•H
Ian
^
d Dam
_T
1^
Stillw
C
^•M
ate
an
Lo
D
•
r
n
ck3
am
Loc
Da
Lr
<2
m
Locli
Dar
\
r
i
n • i
i
Federal i
Dam
;
... i
I
T !
193 191 189 187 185 183 181 179 177 175 173 171 169 167 165 163 161 159 157 155
River Mile
Note:
1. Percent cohesive area = (cohesive sediment area) / (cohesive sediment area + noncohesive sediment area)
2. Fort Edward to Northumberland Dam cohesive and noncohesive sediment areas were determined from USEPA Phase 2 side scan sonar
study (DEIR, USEPA, 1997)
3. Northumberland Dam to Federal Dam at Troy cohesive and noncohesive sediment areas were determined from the Sediment Bed Mapping Study
of the Upper Hudson River from Northumberland Dam to Troy Dam (QEA, 1998).
153
Figure 5-8. Percent Cohesive Area Represented in HUDTOX Sediment by River Mile.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Hudson River at Fort Edward
Hudson River at Stillwater
Hudson River above Lock 1 nearWaterford
Glowegee Creek at West Milton
Kayaderosseras Creek near West Milton
Hoosic River near Eagle Bridge
Mohawk River Diversion at Crescent Dam
Mohawk River at Cohoes
Figure 6-1. Upper Hudson River Basin USGS Flow Gage Stations
Used in HUDTOX Modeling.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
44.000 L
42,000
40,000 7
38,000 T
28,000 -r-
0
t°J|0 Year Return Frequency
10
20 30
Return Frequency (years)
40
50
I
50
5 to 500 Year Return Frequency
100
200 250 300 350
Return Frequency (years)
400
450
500
550
Figure 6-2. Log Pearson Flood Frequency Analysis for Fort Edward gage, Hudson
River, NY Analysis
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
40,000
Year
Figure 6-3. USGS Flow Time Series at Fort Edward from 1/1/77 - 9/30/97.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
o USGS
»«=«.+/. 30%
•1:1 line
Stillwater
70,000
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CM
s
o"
co
o
o
o
"
o
o"
LTI-Estimated flow (cfs)
Waterford
o
o
o
o"
o
o
o
o"
eg
o
o
o
o"
CO
o
o
o
o"
O
ui
o
o
o
o"
co
o
o
o
o"
r--
LTI-Estimated flow (cfs)
Figure 6-4. Comparison of LTI-Estimated Flow (DAR-based, seasonally &
high-flow adjusted) and the USGS-Reported Flow.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Snook Kill
(105 cfs)"
Fish Creek
(357 cfs)"
Schuylerville-
Stillwater Direct.
(117 cfs)"
Anthony Kill
(94 cfs)"
Stillwater -
Waterford Direct
(58 cfs)
Mohawk River
(5,661 cfs)"
FORT EDWARD
(5,248 cfs)
THOMPSON ISLAND DAM
(5,473 cfs)
STILLWATER (6,603 cfs)
WATERFORD (8,106 cfs)
T
FEDERAL DAM (13,767 cfs)
T
Moses Kill
"(77 cfs)
TIP Direct
"(43 cfs)
TID - Schuylerville
"Direct (42 cfs) |
Batten Kill
"(602 cfs)
Flately Brook
"(12 cfs)
Hoosic River
"(1,328 cfs)
Deep Kill
"(24 cfs)
Figure 6-5. Estimated Daily Average Mainstem and Tributary Flows for the
Upper Hudson River between Fort Edward and Federal Dam.
(1/1/77 - 9/30/97)
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Event
Non-event
% Flow at Waterford
Source
Note: Downstream of Waterford, the Mohawk River contributes 41% of the total flow at Federal Dam.
Figure 6-6. Relative Percent Flow Contribution from Fort Edward and Tributaries between Fort Edward and Waterford.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Stillwater
3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5
Waterford
4.5
«- 4
-------
50,000
Waterford
Figure 6-8. 1993 -1997 Estimated versus USGS-Reported Daily Average Flow Time Series at Stillwater and Waterford.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Long-term mamstem stations
Hudson River at Fort Edward
Hudson River at Thompson Island Dam
Hudson River at Schuylerville
Hudson River at Stillwater
Hudson River at Waterford
Tributary stations
Snook Kill
Moses Kill
Batten Kill - downstream
Batten Kill - upstream
Hoosic River - downstream
Hoosic River at Eagle Bridge
Mohawk River
Figure 6-9. Upper Hudson River Basin Primary Mainstem and Tributary
Sampling Locations for Solids Used in HUDTOX Modeling.
Limno-Tech.lnc.
-------
tt'-t-/ ?
' FOftT \ ) /
ED WARD L/ s
Afoses H
, w// ^
Jhompson Island .
f'-."• I
vU^iC"'^:
5CHUYLEnVILLEij\ ,. .
r- /r^ '
; •v-^/ l/n«'»'K '
•-• %l,.
Batten
Kill
Hoosic
River
Monitored
Not monitored
Not monitored, direct drainage
Figure 6-10. Monitored and Unmonitored Subwatersheds for Solids
Between Fort Edward and Waterford.
Limno -Tech, Inc.
-------
Q<10,000 cfs
12
10
"3)
ro
To
{2
V)
o _
10,000 cfs
in
tn
20H
10-
@
10
20 30 40
GE TSS data (mg/L)
50
60
Figure 6-11. GE versus USGS TSS Data at Fort Edward for High and Low
Flow Data Pairs from 4/1/91 to 9/15/97.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Fort Edward
0.1
1,000
1000
tn
100 -r
10-r
1 -r
0.1
1,000
1000
10,000
Flow, cfs
Still water
10,000
Flow, cfs
Waterford
1,000
10,000
Flow, cfs
100,000
100,000
100,000
Figure 6-12. Observed Total Suspended Solids (TSS) versus Flow, 1977-1997
and TSS Rating Curves for this Period at Fort Edward, Stillwater and
Waterford.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
90
80
70
+ Observed TSS
MVUE (Cohn et al. 1989)
Non-linear least squares regression rating curve
^ 50
O>
W
£40
20
+ +
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Flow (cfs)
30,000
35,000
40,000
Figure 6-13. Comparison of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) High-Flow Rating Curves
for Fort Edward, 1977-1997, Using MVUE (Cohn et al. 1989) and Non-linear
Regression Analysis.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
100
+ 1977-90 Observed TSS
Non-linear least squares regression
— —1977-1990 rating curve
— • 1991-1997 rating curve
1977-1990
10 ••
O)
E
w
V)
1 • •
0.1
+ +
& "j>>* l*k++tfc-+-f*v
ifr TT, ,** i »• •
» •»•» IUIIIIIII 1IHII 1 -H- + ++ +++++
-f + + » + +
1,000
10,000
Flow, cfs
100,000
100
1991-1997
0.1
1,000
10,000
Flow, cfs
100,000
Figure 6-14. Comparison of 1977-1990 and 1991-1997 Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) Rating Curves at Fort Edward versus the 1977-1997 Rating Curve.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Snook Kill
Batten Kill
1000'
_ 100-:
il
I w
Rating curve not adjusted
Q<104.7TSS=6.9
Q>104.7TSS=0.007Q1562
1000
100 f
10
100
Flow (cfs)
1000
1000
Moses Kill
~ 100 -r
TSS (mg
10-1
Rating curve not adjusted
Q<76.8 TSS=8.9
Q>76.8 TSS=0.0437Q1 294
10
100
Flow (cfs)
1000
£ 10--
(2
0.1
High flow rating curve adjusted
Post-adjustment:-.
Q<602TSS=6.1
Q>602TSS=0.011Q1^19
Pre-adjustment
Q>602TSS=0.011Q0
i
•H-
10
100 1,000
Flow (cfs)
10,000
1000
Hoosic River
„. 100 •:
TSS (mg
High flow rating curve adjusted
Post-adjustment:
Q<1328TSS=8.15
Q>1328TSS=0.0015Q1237
dl) QD OO
OD O
^re-adjustment:
1328TSS=0.0015Q1227
100
1,000 10,000 100000
Flow (cfs)
1000
Mohawk River
~ 100-r
B)
Rating curve not adjusted
;Q<5660.7TSS=13.89
Q>5660.7 TSS=0.0002Q12B
O
O
-------
FORT EDWARD
1Load=34,481.1 MT/yr Yield=12.2 MT/mi2*yr
2Load=21,308.1 MT/yr Yield=7.56 MT/mi2*yr
Snook Kill
Load=4,222.4 MT/yr-
Yield=56.3 MT/mi2*yr
Fish Creek
Load=7,884.0 MT/yr-
Yield=32.2 MT/mi2*yr
Schuvlerville-
S til I water Direct
Load=7,008.0 MT/yr-
Yield=87.6 MT/mi2*yr
. Anthony Kill
Load=6,473.7 MT/yr-
Yield=102.8MT/mi2*yr
Stillwater-
Waterford Direct
Load=4,008.2 MT/yr-
Yield=102.8MT/mi2*yr
Mohawk River
Load=246,673.7 MT/y_r
Yield=71.5MT/mi2*yr
I
THOMPSON ISLAND DAM
Load=33,321.8MT/yr
Yield=11.2MT/mi2*yr
T
STILLWATER
Load=82,029.1 MT/yr
Yield=21.7MT/mi2*yr
WATERFORD
Load=161,985.8 MT/yr
Yield=35,1 MT/mi2*yr
FEDERAL DAM
Load=425,265.5 MT/yr
Yield=52.8 MT/mi2*yr
1
Moses Kill
-Load=2,619.4 MT/yr
Yield=47.6 MT/mi2*yr
TIP Direct
-Load=197.9 MT/yr
Yield=6.4 MT/mi2*yr
TID-Schuylerville
Direct
-Load=2,716.0 MT/yr
Yield=87.6 MT/mi2*yr
Batten Kill
-Load=37,754.6 MT/yr
Yield=87.6 MT/mi2*yr
Flately Brook
•Load=701.1 MT/yr
Yield=87.6 MT/mi2*yr
Hoosic River
-Load=73,985.0 MT/yr
Yield=102.8 MT/mi2*yr
Deep Kill
-Load=1,643.9 MT/yr
Yield=102.8MT/mi2*yr
1 1/1/77 -12/31/90
2 1/1/91 -12/31/96
]TID loads are the sum of FE, Snook, Moses and TIP direct drainage loads, accounting for an 8.5% trapping efficiency in TIP
Figure 6-16. Mainstem and Tributary Suspended Solids Watershed Loads and
Yields based on HUDTOX Suspended Solids Loading Estimates (10/1/77-9/30/97).
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Event
Non-event
Cumulative % Load at Waterford
Source
Downstream of Waterford, the Mohawk River contributes 58% of the solids loads measured at Federal Dam.
Figure 6-17. Relative Percent Solids Contribution from Fort Edward and Tributaries between Fort Edward and Waterford.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
100%
Fort Edward, Qavg = 5,248 cfs
Q/Q,,
100%
Stillwater, Q = 6,603 cfs
Q/Q;
avg
100% T
•=: 80% •[
-------
Saratoga
Lake
Long-term malnstem stations
Hudson River at Fort Edward
Hudson River at Thompson Island Dam
Hudson River at Schuylerville
Hudson River at Stillwater
Hudson River at Waterford
Tributary stations
6 Batten Kill - downstream
Batten Kill - upstream
Hoosic River - downstream
Hoosic River at Eagle Bridge
Mohawk River
Figure 6-19. Upper Hudson River Basin Primary Mainstem and Tributary
Sampling Locations for PCS Data Used in HUDTOX Modeling.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
600 - -
Fort Edward
o o o o o
o o o o o
o ' in o m o
o" CM" m" r*-~ o"
i- T- i- r- CM
V V V V V
•- 100%
r 80%
- 60%
- 40%
I.!.•.•.•.•.•
= <5
CD
O Q.
- 20%
400
350 -
r/1
| 300
£250
Thornpson Island Dam
100%
I 120 -i
; ^
U 80
£ 60^
* 40 ••
20 -,
0 i-
^
Schuylerville
100%
I.I.•,•.!.•.•.•.-,•.•
- 20%
I • I — I
0%
°88888888888
inoinoinomoinom
o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
o in o in o in o
CM in
v v
t^ o CM in
V 1- T- T-
v v v
f- o CM m r-
•^ CM CM CM CM
V V V V V
CM in
CO CO
v v
CO
V
Flow (cfs)
Figure 6-20a. Distribution of Available Tri+ PCBs Concentration Data by Flow Intervals
for Mainstem Hudson River Sampling Stations (January 1977 - May 1998).
(1 of 2)
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
250
Stillwater
- 100%
o o o o o o
o o o o o
o m o m
in
v v v »- T- T- T-
v v v v
I
'5
a.
*
a
"5
350 --
300J
250 •
200 •;
150 -
100 -
50 •
0 i-
Waterford
I
I
• • 1 • •
H*+
M-"
100%
- 80%
- 60%
- 40%
- 20%
1 1 1 1 I-H 1 V 0%
o a
> O)
** (Q
§ "
3 O
U Q.
O
in
o
o
o
V T- T-
o o o
So o
o o
o in" o"
CN CN CO
V V V
O O O O
8888
in o" m" o"
CO TT -ej- m
V V V V
Flow (cfs)
o
o
in
o
o
o
o
in
(O
v
o
o
o
Figure 6-20b. Distribution of Available Tri+ PCBs Concentration Data by Flow Intervals
for Mainstem Hudson River Sampling Stations (January 1977 - May 1998).
a of ~2)
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1979
1979
I.4UU "• i ju ...,_..
1.200. * i : 8°-
* 70 -
u1-000 ; : :*6o-
» 0.800 - ; 0) 50 -
T 0.600 - . ! ± 40 -
f.,oo- . ' . ; i *»;
0.200 -1* « • ' 10 . • ,
1 ^* *A A 1 ' .A * *
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 ' , 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Q (cfs) , Q (cfs)
1983 1983
1 . UUU
0.900 -' •
0.800 -;
--. 0.700 - «
B, 0.600
2. 0.500 -
•t 0.400 -.
>- 0.300 - •
0.200 -i • •
0.100 - •»n_fc » • •
0 000 *^ *
1 - i
i 60 -j
1 !
i =o 5° 1
! 0) 40 -j
T 30 -1 •
K 20 -; « :
10 J • ^ ;
n i ^«f» t— *» * *
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Q (cfs) Q (cfs)
i
1992 1992
3.000 -j •
._. 2.500 ^
"3> 2.000 -j
£ 1-500 -j
*~ 1.000 -i
0.500 -. Z *
ft nnn • ^im**^~-*- * ^ A ^^
120 J »
— 100 -i ;
i : g> 80 -i i
— !
+ 60 -!
JE i !
^ 40 -j
20 I ^
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Q (cfs) Q (cfs)
1996 1996
n r\R(\ ,. .... H o
I
0.050 -
j 0.040 -1 *
3 0.030 -: .
+• i *
H 0.020 ^ V*» • •
i •*•% » *
0.010 •] ,*•«* *^
n firm *^ * ** * * * *
' '*• I
1.0 -i \ :
? 0.8 -i *
itoe-j . ; .
i ±
, t 0.4] ** , :
0.2 -j 4^»*^ ** , • • '
n /\ ^S*^ * I
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 0 10,000 20000 30,000
Q (cfs) Q (cfs)
Figure 6-21. Tri+ PCB Concentrations and Load versus Flow at Fort Edward
for Selected Years.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1979
1979
1.4UU - -
1.200 -
_ 1.000 -
0) 0.800 ••
T 0.600 • ,
^ 0.400 - * • ;
0.200 -|J , • i :
.UUU -v*^ — • . . ;
0 20 40 60 80
TSS (mg/L)
1983
.uuu •
0.900 - •
0.800 J
~ 0.700 - •
B, 0.600 -i
2. 0.500 -
± 0.400 -
•- 0.300 - *
0.200 - • •
0.100 *>.*.*•. ». *•
0.000 i— * • '
0 10 20 30 40
TSS (mg/L)
1992
3.000 -' •
i ;
~ 2.500 i
o> 2.000 -j
± L500 -
H 1.000 -I.
0.500 -i «I* |
± "i * , *
H 0.020 - •<*• •
*3f*» *
0.010 -j «^ ^ *
oooo i ****** ** * !
0 5 10 15 20
TSS (mg/L)
3U
80 - *
70
5 60 -
I1 50 -
T40 -
; E 30 -
20 -
' 10 "^ * *
0 20 40 60 80
TSS (mg/L)
1983
7(1
60 - »
_ 50 - '
1) 40 - *
|30-
20 ^ A
p «
10 - • »
• * *
0 10 20 30 40
; TSS (mg/L)
1992 ;
120 -i
_ 100 \
| 80 J
1 v !
± 60 -i
H 40 \
\
20 -j «
0 10 20 30 .
TSS (mg/L)
1996 :
1 *?
' • ;
1.0 -i ^
^ 0.8 ^ * •
•a
£. 0.6 - » ,
_+
i± 0.4 - *•
°'2 ": £*. * » t «
n n ^^*» * * • :
0 5 10 15 20
TSS (mg/L)
Figure 6-22. Tri+ PCB Concentrations and Loads versus Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) Concentration at Fort Edward for Selected Years.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
o
c
o
o
m
o
D.
0.001
1/1/77
1/1/78
1/1/79
1/1/80
12/31/80
40,000
1/1/82
o
o
O
K-
m
o
0.
1/1/82
1/1/83
1/1/84
12/31/84
12/31/85
40,000
- - 30,000 --
20,000
10,000
1/1/87
u
o
O
I-
m
o
Q.
1/1/87
1/1/88
12/31/88
12/31/89
12/31/90
30,000
1/1/92
0.001
40,000
•-30,000 •£•
20,000 ^
_o
10,000 "•
1/1/92
12/31/92
12/31/93
Date
1/1/95
1/1/96
12/31/96
Interpolation
Tri+ Data
Flow
Figure 6-23. Interpolated Daily Tri+ PCB Concentration and Flow at Fort Edward, 1977-1997.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
O)
o
O
o
1
u.
0.14
CO
— 20,000
16,000
Date
Figure 6-24. Examples of Apparent Tri+ Pulse Loading Events at Fort Edward in 1983
and 1994.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Fort Edward
01
^-*
•o
1
+
•c
auuu
n
I 0 DEIR Estimates (TAMS 1 997)
i DBMR Estimates (This report)
E
1
i
I-,
ifc^llmi^mm^lr^^^^^l^^llrT!-,^
Schuylerville
OUUU T
CO r
O E
-J OflAft :
•c !
n -i
r
\
\
P
T
\
\\x\v
|
jj
ilUmlllllTUi^^ ^nnllnrn^rn-
5000
Stillwater
4000 -t
I
3000 -i
2000
1000 -I
CTn ,
5000 -r-
Waterford
Annn J -
•^ I
""* onnn =
03 E
0 i
™ E
H innn ^
c
n J.
L _
^
^
?
,-,
tlllliil0ipui^wn__jn^ncn«-,
Year
Figure 6-25. Estimated Annual Tri+ Load at Mainstem Hudson River Sampling Stations
Compared to DEIR Estimates.
Limna-Tech, Inc.
-------
CO
CN C
§ C
I S
n CD
in
CO
O5
to h~
O5 O5
O5 CO
Year
Figure 6-26. Estimated Annual Tri+ Load at Hudson River Mainstem Sampling Stations.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
100%
Fort Edward, Qavg = 5,248 cfs
Q/Q,
•avg
100%
Stillwater, Qava = 6,603 cfs
100%
_ 80% -I
re
o
Q/Q,,
Waterford, Q,vg = 8,106 cfs
Q/Qa,
Figure 6-27. Distribution of Tri+ Load Over Flow Range at Fort Edward, Stillwater,
and Waterford from 1977 - 1997.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Load Gain vs Flow Range (kg)
I
c
'<5
O
•o
ra
5
±
'C
Q/Q
avg
C
'in
O
ra
O
c
0>
a
Q>
Q.
100%
90% |
|
80% j
Load Gain vs Flow Range (%}
Q/Q
avg
Figure 6-28. Distribution of Tri+ Load Gain Across Thompson Island
Pool (TIP) Over Flow Range for 1993-1997.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
100%
I Percent of Tri+
•Cumulative Load
•a
w
I
UJ
u.
•o
s,
ra
D)
C
I
re
m
Q =
If
u
>•
0)
V)
o
o
Q.
-------
• GE data O USEPA Phase 2 data
0.45
0.40 -
0.35
m
o
^ 0.25
3
o
W 0.20 »
0.15
01 n
rt nc
n nn
*
•
•
•
* » t.
» «**
c 5. i -C
™ < •? 9
^ CV, CM ,1
O
o°0
o
- A
4
*s?
u
«
*
%» I"* * « 4
Ol
6
0)
O
CO
CO
n
S
CO
8)
30-Jun-
01
a.
01
co
CO
CM
a>
29-Dec-
Ol
30-Mar-
S
-p
cn
CM
01
i
o
CO
CM
m
6
9
CO
(M
Ol
CO
O)
CM
CO
28-Jun-
CO
Q.
CU
CO
(N
Ol
1
ri
CM
cn
28-Mar-
Ol
c
3
CM
^
4
»
4
4
/•*
»
*
»
4
•
,«
*
.
>. .
•'
' *
cn
Q.
CU
CO
ub
CM
01
26-Dec-
CO
26-Mar-
CO
c
-J
IT)
CM
CO
Q.
01
CO
Ol
O
9
Csl
O)
CO
CM
o>
c
3
Ol
a
-------
Total PCB
•o
ra
m S
O >-
Q. o>
1991
1992
1993
S
N i
m
30
25 -
20 -
15 -r
10 - - -
5 -
1994
BZ#4
1995
1996
1997
04
1991
1992
1993
1994
BZ#28
1995
1996
1997
1991
1992
1993
m
a
•o
S
40
1994 1995
BZ#52
1996
1997
30 -
20 -
10
T ' '
0 4-
1991
1992
1993
•o
(0
o
12 -r-
1994 1995
BZ#90+101
1996
1997
O u<
it
co >,
« -g;
T- O)
m
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Figure 6-31. Estimated Annual Total and Congener PCB Loads at Fort Edward.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
10000 T-
A NYSDEC 1977 data + Censored Data """"^Average Tri+
Cohesive Sediment
1000 -,
0.01
10000 -F
-^ 1000
O)
*
"3)
p
'S
S
*-
o
u
o
O
+
River Mile
A 1977 NYSDEC data + Censored Data "^Average Tri+
0.01
River Mile
Figure 6-32. 1977 Sediment Tri+ PCB Initial Conditions Computed from the NYSDEC
Data, Fort Edward to Federal Dam.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
10000 r
• Cohesive Sediment
1000 --
O)
,§, 10° -'
c
_o
*«*
ra
o
3 1i
+ ;
15 0.1 ;
* Cohesive Sediments + Censored Data Average Tri+
0.01
S
o
s
o
f>
en
evi
O)
in
W
o
o
^
o
d
o
0
ci
en
CO
CO
River Mile
10000 -r-
Noncohesive Sediments + Censored Data ^"•••Average Tri+
Noncohesive Sediment
& 1000
"5)
•=• 100
c
o
10 ~
o
o
•c
0.1 i-
i
0.01
..
-)-* *A
rr
en
0
s
m o
CO CO
o) en
CO
m
00
00
River Mile
Figure 6-33. 1977 Sediment Tri+ PCB Initial Conditions Computed from the NYSDEC
Data, Thompson Island Pool.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1C.RM 194.7-RM 193.0
0 20 40 60
0 •
4 [•
B;
12'
16
20
I
! 24
2CRM 193.0-
0 50
0 -i
100
RM 191.7
150 200
1N , RM 194.7-RM 193.0
0 50 100 150 200
2CRM 193.0-RM 191.7
0 50 100 150 200 250
I
4
9
'^
20
24
3CRM 191.7 -RM191.0
50 100 15
I
',
I
F^
4CRM 191.0-RM 190.3
0 100 200 300 400
I
5CRM 190.3
0 100 200
-RM 189.8
300 400 500
--T
Up — ,
jj I
jtr
12 •
16 •
20 -
24
-E=p~i
3N RM 191.7-RM 191.0 j |
0 50 100 150
4N RM 191.0-RM 190.3
JO 20 40 60 80
i 0
100
5C RM 190.3 •
0 50 100
RM 189.8
150 200
I
! 20 .=1
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
7C RM 189.2-RM 188.5
100 200 300 400 500 600
. . ..J
C
n -i
4 -
S
2 •
6
0
4
9C RM 186.2 -RM 184.9
100 200 300
/ ,'
ij ' ,
'—i ' ,
r1 , '
r '
i
!
j
1
!
i
1
1
i
c
4
8
12 •
16
20
24
10C RM 184.9 -RM 183.4
20 40 6
i 1 ,
r '
1 l
— F^i '
9N RM 186.2-RM 184.9
0 20 40
10CRM 184.9-
0 20
RM 183 4
to
Vertical axis is depth in centimeters, horizontal axis is Tri+ concentration in mg PCB/ Kg dry weight. Group descriptions (e.g. 1C, 1N) are described in Table 6-23.
Average concentrations are plotted by layer with +/- 2 standard errors.
Figure 6-34a. 1977 Sediment Tri+ Initial Conditions Computed from 1977 NYSDEC Data: Vertical Profiles.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
| 10CRM 183.4 -RM 184.9
0 100 200 300
4
-a"
12"
18"
20
',
f .'
\ ' .
[j
— J — '
i
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
I ..
l
i
I *
B
12
16
20
24
10NRM 1 83.4 -RM 184.9
0 50 100 150
P.
',
'
'
15CRM
3 50
... ^
J
_I — r1
1
1 1C RM 179.7 -RM 183.4
0 20 40 60
4
8
12
!
16 '
20
24
; ,
....
' . '
i
-
>
11NRM 179.7 -RM 183.4
0 5 10 15
0 .. — . 1 ,
4
8.
16J.
24
Fj
V
-r -^
r-'
i
;
163.5- RM 166.0
100 150 200
- '
•:
'
,'
15NRM
0 10
4
8
12
16
20
24
166.0 -RM 168.2
20 30 40
1 1
L, ' ,
F
—I
—i
i
16CRM
0
0
4
8.
121
16
20
24
12CRM 171 .0-RM 179.3
0 50 100 150
0 -i , ' ri
4
8
16
20
24
1 1
i i
i— ' | '
12NRM 171.0- RM 179.7
0 10 20 30 40
Oj '-, > 1
4;
8"
12.
16 |
20
24
i, !
:
r-1
r-1 , '
d?--H '
I
159.4 -RM 163.5
20 40
"• — i" • -i
j |
__p=n._,
16NRM
0 5
4
8»
12
16"
20
24
i
r
I1
/
-
I 17CRM 153.9 -RM 159.4
0 50 100 150
1 59.4 -RM 163.5
10 15 20
tr— ' ,
J '.,
L I-
~J „.. |
4J
8
121
16 •
20
24
"[-j
L i
=" '
17NRM 153.9 - RM 159.4
0 10 20 30
0 i . , — i ,
A~
8 lj
12 I
,6 ]
20 j
24
1 L^^i — (
<2 . - ' i
rL, '
-ri
jf
i
13CRM 168.2-RM 171.0
0 25 50 75 100
14CRM 166.0 -RM 168.2
0 50 100
13NRM 168.2 - RM 171.0
0246
12.
14N RM 166.0-RM 168.2
0 10 20
30
Vertical axis is depth in centimeters, horizontal axis isTri+ concentration in mg PCB/ Kg dry weight. Group descriptions (e.g. 1C, 1N) are described in Table 6-23.
Average concentrations are plotted by layer with +/- 2 standard errors.
Figure 6-34b. 1977 Sediment Tri+ Initial Conditions Computed from 1977 NYSDEC Data: Vertical Profiles.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
total PCBs
cohesive sediment
300
194.5 189.5 184.5 179.5 174.5 169.5 164.5 159.5 154.5
River Mile
TIP
total PCBs
non-cohesive sediment
300
194.5 189.5 184.5 179.5 174.5 169.5 164.5 159.5 154.5
River Mile
Tri+
cohesive sediment
194.5 189.5 184.5 179.5 174.5 169.5 164.5 159.5 154.5
River Mile
TIP
Tri+
non-cohesive sediment
100
194.5 189.5 184.5 179.5 174.5 169.5 164.5 159.5 154.5
River Mile
Figure 6-35. Comparison of Measures Total PCB & Tri+ PCB Data to 1991 Model Initial Conditions
in the Top Layer (0-5 cm) of Cohesive and Non-cohesive Sediment
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
•mn ,
mn .
Q.
. 7«;
CQ en
0'
19
BZ#4&BZ#10
TIP
^ fcl cohesive sediment
I
I
. ..j
I
« I
1
I
1
. J
* 1
fjflhi^p t 1 1__
4.5 189.5 184.5 179.5 174.5 169.5 164.5 159.5 15
River Mile
4.5
i^n -.
19^
mn
CL
- 7K
3
CQ <;n
0.
"
1Q<
BZ#4 & BZ#10
TIP
non-cohesive sediment
»**
Mii * * t
Ifi IflPfi 184 fi 179 fi 1745 1R9 5 1645 1595 154
River Mile
10
BZM52
cohesive sediment
E
Q.
a
of
in
8
ffl
0
194.5 189.5 184.5 179.5 174.5 169.5 164.5 159.5 154.5 :
River Mile :
TIP
10
8
BZ#52
non-cohesive sediment
a.
a
1.5 189.5 184.5 179.5 174.5 169.5 164.5 159.5 154.5 i
River Mile
Figure 6-36. Comparison of Measured BZ#4 (& #10) & BZ#52 Data to 1991 Model Initial Conditions
in the Top Layer (0 to 5 cm) of Cohesive and Non-cohesive Sediments.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
BZ#28
cohesive sediment
BZ#90&BZ#101
TIP cohesive sediment
iu -
E
Q. U
00
^ 1^ ^ ^ T f j-frA^^-i^r-yi^-0->l
4.5 189.5 184.5 179.5 174.5 169.5 164.5 159.5 15'
River Mile
•
1.5
o n -
1 R
1.8
r- 1 R
E '•"
a. i 4
Q. -^
"12-
0 1 n
o 0 8
a>
CO 04
09 .
0.0 -<
19-
- - -TID ----------------
. . .A . . . I- _
friLi* *
UtSt U-* , • ' » t i*r* , , i • i
4.5 189.5 1 84.5 179.5 174.5 169.5 164.5 159.5 15'
River Mile
4.5
Figure 6-37. Comparison of Measured BZ#28 and BZ#90+101 Data to Model Initial Conditions
in the Top Layer (0 to 5 cm) of Cohesive and Non-cohesive Sediments.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
BZ#138
194.5 189.51184.5 179.5 174.5 169.5 164.5 159.5 154.5
I
River Mile
BZ0138
non-cohesive sediment
i
4.5 189.5 184.5 179.5 174.5 169.5 164.5 159.5 154.5 !
River Mile
j
Figure 6-38. Comparison of Measured BZ#138 Data to Model Initial Conditions
in the Top Layer (0 to 5 cm) of Cohesive and Non-cohesive Sediments.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
20 —
Sediment Depth: 0 to 5 cm
15
s- ! *»
£ 101*-**-.
>ft-
0 •£
194.5 189.5 184.5 179.5 174.5 169.5 164.5 159.5 154.5
River Mile
Sediment Depth: 5 to 10 cm
J7
in
iQ
m
a
o
—
n
cr
30 ->•
204
10 - -
0 -
194.5 189.5 184.5 179.5 174.5 169.5 164.5 159.5 154.5
River Mile
25
Sediment Depth: 10 to 25 cm
cv
a
a 15
a 10
o
13
K 5
-------
Fort Edward
30.0
L o
^
9 10 11 1
——Smoothed monthly average in HUDTOX
— Monthly mean
o GE and EPA Phase2 daily average data
Figure 6-40. Monthly Average Water Temperature Functions Applied in HUDTOX and Observed Water
Temperatures.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
_ 29
_ O 28
2 7 27
5 | 26
* S 25
"- 24
23
195
190
Peak Monthly (July) Water Temperature versus River Mile
185
180
175
River Mile
170
165
160
155
30.0
25.0 -
—o— Fort Edward —o— Schuylerville —A—Stillwater —o—Tl Dam —*— Waterford
Figure 6-41. Comparison of Monthly Mean Temperatures at Mainstem Upper Hudson River Stations.
Liinno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Log KpOC
0>
O)
o
O)
o
/.uu -
6.00
5.00-
4.00-
3.00-
2.00 -
1.00:
0.00 :
5.00 :
4.50;
4.00;
3.50
3.00 ;
2.50;
2.00;
:
u
0GE Data BUSEPA Phase 2 Data D Count-weighted Average
x/vv
R
I
Fon
tEdw
rard
....
— I —
I
I
T
'••• • •>
IDar
n
Log
^
b
Sch
S
•MH
uyler
tatlo
c
vllle
n
— i —
R
I
St
•^^H
illwal
er
....
— i —
y
Wi
L^J.
iterfc
rd
• •
0GE Data BUSEPA Phase 2 Data D Count-weighted Average
L .
1.50; -•
1.00; •
0.50 ~ - •
0.00 J —
I
\
Fort
Edw
ard
I
•
1
T
XXI
1 Dar
n
....
— i —
W
\
Sch
S
—
uyler
tatio
vile
n
....
— I —
w?\
\
St
llwat
er
— i —
w
\
Wj
Jterfc
rd
"
Figure 6-42. Estimated Partition Coefficients for Total PCB by Station and by Source.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
8.0
7.0
6.0 -
5.0
O)
£ 4.0
O
O
Q
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 t
A
«
si*
x
S"
o
• FE
STID
A Schuylerville
x Stillwater
o Waterford
3
Q/Qavg
Figure 6-43. Observed Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Concentrations versus Normalized Flow between Fort
Edward and Federal Dam.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
— Mean
oUSEPA AGE D J.Vaughn
10.0
o
9.0 -O-
8.0
7.0
^ 6.0-
O)
£ 5.0
O
o
Q
4.0
.§.
3.0 •
2.0
1.0
0.0
199.5
194.5
O
o
•
E
A
J.
l-t
§t
g- -i
a
b
L
H TT 5
• o A " •
189.5
184.5
179.5 174.5
River Mile
169.5
164.5
159.5
A
-A-
154.5
Figure 6-44. Observed Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Data versus River Mile between Fort Edward and Federal
Dam.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1.00 v
Log-Log Scale
0.10 + . "9
0.01 -
= 0.318
0.1
10
0.60 -
Log-Linear Scale
0.40 4- -o- -090-0
0.00
0.1
1
Q/Q.vg
10
0.60 T
Linear Scale
0.00
6
0/Q.vg
10
12
Figure 6-45. River-wide Fraction Organic Carbon (foc) Function Based on a Power
Function Fit to foc Data for Mainstem Hudson River Stations.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Reach Average Max Min Stdev Count ® GE 1991 composite c
TIP 31.51 81 10 16.70 49
Tl Dam to Stillwater 49.38 92 ' 12 23.48 21 X GE 1991 composite (
,-..... . , ... , ,. , ,, ,, .., 01 ,rt ,, .- considered to be outl
Stillwater to Waterford 61.53 117 21 30.56 13
All data 40.73 117 10 23.94 83 HlinTOX sediment F
^lote: 3 apparent outliers were excluded from averages. These values were 178, 212, and 169 mg/L i
DOC Concentration (mg/L)
-» -» NJ r«
n o en o c
5 O O O C
au -
'- >
xx
0
; 9
o o
o o o 8
I * °
o 0 u
°88nS 8 o° ° ° °
- 0 i H ° 8 ° ° e 9
194
189
184
179
174
River Mile
169
164 159
Figure 6-46. Specified Sediment Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Concentrations in HUDTOX.
154
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Fine and Coarse Sediment
U.U3
rt |"|Q i
One . . . <
nn
•o •
? J
0
.?.._.
?„**..«
.°. J. . . . • °. . ,
218 J....fl..8....g.A.8.2.4--8- *....„.!
§. ...lJ.i.i.1-!.". -4 i .J-i0 - -
Ifl" • .e .; : 1 * » 1 8 o 8 i § | 1 t o
190 185 180 175 170 165 160 155 150
River Mile
Noncohesive Sediment (Coarse )
O i
mS.e o..rrm_L_: a.-S--.- .. - !--
SIB- H fo o : .0 -8. i H* o 8 -f § § ! I o
190 185 180 175 170 165 160 155
River Mile
Cohesive Sediment (Fine)
" " "o !
:8z::v:::::::;;:;;:;;;;;;;:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:;;;;
2 o o o o
frrS~ i I 1 2 ! B o, « ° * I
F 8 o If" H"..;.?; ,n , J: • ,.;:«'• °- -° • • 9 -"• • :
ga§ 80 o w 28 go 8 o v
1 8 - - 0- ' "* 8 8 - -o ;
190 185 180 175 170 165 160 155
River Mile
Figure 6-47. foc versus River Mile from the 1991 GE Composite Sampling
and Values Specified for Cohesive and Non-cohesive Sediment in HUDTOX.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
I 3.00E-04
| IT 2.50E-04 |
Cj § 2.00E-04
— I .DUt-U4 f ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^_ ^_ ^^ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^B ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^_ ^_
Illlllllllllll Illlllllll II
= O.OOE+00 I •,•>•,• i • i •-^^ ,•,•,•.•, •,•,•,•,•.• .-•-r-»-rJ^-r-»i-,JB-. • , • , B-^B.
Congener BZ Number
| 3.00E-04
£ %> 2.50E-04 -
CJ J 2.00E-04
^ *| 1.50E-04
•^ g l.OOE-04
bS 5.00E-05
I O.OOE+00 4
"*" o\ — rNTrrsTrsDr^^OTro^w^r^ — v^r^o\ — ^>vo2p5.--rs
r<^f*^mTr^r^Trl'^lO>/^vOlO^Ot^r*"f^~l— r-(— OOOOCT^O^CT^C^V^OO
Congener BZ Number
Figure 6-48. Estimated Henry's Law Constant for Selected Congeners Determined Experimentally by Brunner, et. al (1990).
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Tri+ PCB
i .ouc-ut •
"•> 1 TKC.nA .
s Law Constant (atm-m3/mo
b> •>! -
en o c
m m r
S 2 5
c
I 1.60E-04-
1 .55E-04 -
2.05E-04 ;
2.00E-04 \
=> 1.95E-04J
•I :
£ 1.90E-04':
c ;
| 1 .80E-04 •
o :
5 1 .75E-04 -
3 :
y 1 .70E-04 ;
I 1.65E-04;
1 .60E-04 \
1.55E-04;
-
-
N
Fort
Edv
/ard
T
IDar
n
T
otalF
M
I
Sch
S
>CB
uyler
tatio
villa
n
— I —
r\
m
st
0
B
D
llwat
GE(
USE
Cou
er
Data
PAPh
nt-weig
— i —
aseS
hted
U
I
We
Dat
Aver
iterfc
a
age
>rd
-
0
Fort
i 1
Edw
/ard
M
T
Dar
n
, . . .
— i —
I
II
Sch
S
uyler
tatio
ville
n
. . . . .
— I —
M
I
St
—
llwat
er
u
H
Wj
iterfc
" *
>rd
•
Figure 6-49. Estimated Henry's Law Constants for Tri+ and Total PCB by Station and
Data Source.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
290
285-
O)
280
JO
O
275 -
270^-
Fort Edward
TIDam
Tri+
Schuylerville
El GE Data
BUSEPA Phase 2 Data
Q Count-weighted Average '•
I
Stillwater
Waterford
290
280 -
270-
£ 260
o>
'53
\. 250
JO
3
O
| 24°
i
230-
Total PCB
w,
0GE Data
ni I9FPA Phaco ") Data
D Count-weighted Average
220
I
I
Fort Edward
Tl Dam
Schuylerville
Stillwater
Waterford
Figure 6-50. Estimated Molecular Weight for Tri+ and Total PCB by Station and Data
Source.
Liinno-Tech, Inc.
-------
2,500
2,000
oi
Q.
C
o
u
§
O
m
2
o
1,500
1,000
500
atmospheric total PCB
concentrations used to specify
HUDTOX boundary conditions
(see inserted table for Tri+ and congeners)
i Buckley and Tofflemire, 1983
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
TrH-
liK/m]
1150
1068
1013
985.6
958.2
8097
684.2
5781
488.5
412.8
348.8
294.8
249.1
210.5
1778
150.3
127.0
107.3
90.7
76.6
64.7
BZA4
(ne/m i
4.02
3.40
2.87
2.43
2.05
0.00
1.46
BZ#28
fne/m3)
886
7.49
6.33
5.35
4.52
3.82
3.23
BZ#52
foe/m i
10.06
8.50
7.18
6.07
5.13
4.33
3.66
BZ#90+101
(ne/m i
362
3.06
258
2.18
184
1.56
1 32
BZ#138
(os/m )
1.91
1.61
1.37
1.15
0.97
0.82
0.70
Estimates scaled to IADN
Point Petre value of 170
Range of ambient
concentrations
measured at
Rensselaer, by
season (NYSDEC)
Year
Figure 6-51. Specification of Historical Atmospheric Gas-Phase PCB Boundary Concentrations for the 1977-1997 HUDTOX
Calibration Period.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
FS-08-7
FS-08-6
FS-08-5
.e
o.
2468
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-08-4
10 20 30
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-08-1
10
40
5 10 15 20 25 30
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
0
5
10
I*
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-08-3
50 100
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-09-5
150
0.0 OJ 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
Note: Core sections shown are the top 23 cm of each core, plotted at segment midpoint.
0
5
1 I0
.C
?L
D 15
20
25
0
5
I10
J=
H.
£ is
20
25
0
5
I 10
£
I 15
20
25
5 10 15 20 25
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-08-2
10 20 30
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-09-4
1 2 3
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
40
Figure 6-52a. Vertical Profiles of PCB3+ within Finely Segmented Sediment Cores
Collected from the Upper Hudson River (from QEA, 1999).
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
FS-09-3
FS-09-2
FS-09-1
0
s
10
15
20
25
j:
a
1)
O
0
5
10
15
20
25
1234
PCS,, (ppm Diy)
FS-14-1
50 100 150 200 250
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-16-3
5 10
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
15
U
O
012345
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-16-1
o
5
I10
f
a.
Q 15
20
25
0.5 1.0 1.5
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-28-1
50 100
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
150
Note: Core sections shown are the top 23 cm of each core, plotted at segment midpoint.
0
5
f 10
\^f
£
H.
O 1C
a i5
20
25
0
5
I10
«C
a_
& 15
20
25
5 10 15
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-16-2
246
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-28-2
20
200 400 600 800
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
Figure 6-52b. Vertical Profiles of PCB3+ within Finely Segmented Sediment Cores
Collected from the Upper Hudson River (from QEA, 1999).
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
FS-28-3
FS-28-4
FS-37-1
o
5
10
15
20
25
5 10 15 20 25 30
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-37-2
20 40 60
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
CS-01
80
50 100 150
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
200
0
5
1 10
.£
s.
U 1C
o 15
20
25
0
5
I'10
jz
H.
D I5
20
25
50 100 150
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-37-3
5 10 15
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
CS-03
200
20
2 4 6 8 10 12
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
Note: Core sections shown are the top 23 cm of each core, planed at segment midpoint.
0
5
I 10
o.
& 15
0
5
1 10
.fi
a
Q 15
20
25
0
5
I 10
JS
s.
& 15
20
25
10 20 30 40 50
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
FS-37-4
20 40 60 80 100
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
CS-04
100 200 300 400 500
PCB,. (ppm Dry)
Figure 6-52c. Vertical Profiles of PCB3+ within Finely Segmented Sediment Cores
Collected from the Upper Hudson River (from QEA, 1999).
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
O)
V)
y = 0.676x + 1.0049
R2 = 0.3619
456
Fort Edward TSS (mg/L)
10
Figure 6-53. Comparison of Same-Day Suspended Solids (TSS) Concentration Data at Fort Edward and Thompson Island Dam
when TSS Concentration Is Less Than 10 mg/L and Fort Edward Flow Is Less Than 10,000 cfs (1993-1997).
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
Concentration
o
3
U
o
+
m
1 -
0.01 -
0.001
• Fort Edward o TID
00 0»
i*-***.*
•,
«« «•« ««
», •«»•
30 61 91 121 152 182 212 243 273 304 334 364
2.00
•g 1-75
S 1.50
I 1.25
O
"° 1 00
TO
-1 0.75
H 0.50
CD
£ 0.25
Load Gain
0.00 -1
•
i • *
•, .
.• :•
-/-
*
, . * .
> • ••
...*•>
•*•••
*
-•••
•
• • • • »
. _ .*
4
• •
.«.«..
— . . . .»._
* *,
« V
« • 4- •
•
» «*• *
»^" '*»J
•
X*-
+
r^ - - - -
«
- ^ :,
• • •» •
•»
• «*M
• • «
•
. • . •
>", •>«
•
0 30 61 91 121 152 182 212 243 273 304
Note: Days when FE Q > 70,000 cfe or TSS a< FE or T1D > 10 mg/L were not used. 1991 and 1992 data were not used
Load gains < 0 were not included.
334
364
Effective Mass Transfer Rate
o
/u •• -•-
fin i
sol
50 1
on i . . . . ?
n ^ •
0 3
:-:*V
0 6
»
•
» * t
>*
•«
1 9
1 1;
•i
*
..**
>1 1£
* ^
* ' ^-*"
)2 1i
*
^«»*' ••
32 2'
>*•«*.•
2 2*
«
^v
13 2'
'3 3C
4 " " '
i>*
)4 3:
4
J4 36
Day of Year
Wofe: Days when FEQ> 10,000 cfs or TSS at FE or TID > 10 mgA. were not used. 1991 and 1992 data were not used.
Values ofkf<0 were not used.
Figure 6-54. Temporal Patterns in Water Column Tri+ PCB Concentration at Fort
Edward and Thompson Island Dam, Tri+ PCB Loading Increase Across Thompson Island
Pool, and Calculated Effective Sediment-Water Mass Transfer Rates Across Thompson
Island Pool.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
ra
•o
E
u
• Data Best Fit Line
121 152 182 212 243 273 304 334 364
30
Note: Days when FE Q > 10,000 cfs or TSS at FE or TID > 10 mg/L were not used. 1991 and 1992 data were not used. Values ofkf<0 were not
used.
Figure 6-55. Computed Effective Mass Transfer Rate for Tri-H PCBs in Thompson Island Pool, 1993-1997.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Total PCB and Congener BZ#4
5 10 15
Total PCB k, (cm/day)
Total PCB and Congener BZ#28
inn . _ _ _._ _ _
IUU ^ /
/
20 40 60 80
Total PCB k, (cm/day)
100
100
90 -
80 -
Total PCB and Congener BZ#52
Total PCB and Congener BZ#[90+101]
e eo -
~50-
S 40 -
| 30
20
10 J;
0
0
20 40 60 80
Total PCB k, (cm/day)
Total PCB and Congener BZ#138
20 40 60 80
Total PCB k, (cm/day)
100
100
20 40 60 80
Total PCB k, (cm/day)
100
Figure 6-56. Scatter Plots of Estimated Sediment-Water Mass Transfer Rate: Congeners
versus Total PCB.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
O)
J£
o
0)
a
(A
T3
5
ra
E
'••3
M
UJ
6.5 ±
5.5
i-
4.5 -!••
BZ#28»50
R2 = 0.6603
BZ#31
BZ#4+10
4.5
5.5
O 3-Phase Water Column Koc
• 3-Phase Sediment Koc
Water Column Koc Trend
•""Trend in Sediment Koc for Tri and Higher Congeners
6 6.5
Theoretical Log Koc (L/kg)1
1 Source: DEIR Table 3-9 (from Burkhard (19840 as cited in Machay et al. (1992)) (USEPA, 1997)
2 Source: DEIR Table 3-8, 3-1 Oa (USEPA. 1997) |
Figure 6-57. Comparison of Estimated Site-Specific Water Column and Sediment Koc Values for Congeners as Determined in
the DEIR.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
60%
NONSUMMER PERIOD (Sep.-May)
Observed Relative Load Gain
—*— Particulate Only
—D— Pore Water Only (Computed Using GE 1991 Sediment Partition Coefficients)
m
SUMMER PERIOD (Jun.-Aug.)
Observed Relative Load Gain
Particulate Only
Pore Water Only (Computed Using GE 1991 Sediment Partition Coefficients);
m
Figure 6-58. Average Observed versus Porewater and Particulate Predicted Relative Load Gain at Thompson Island Dam by
Season, 1991-1997.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Pool
PCB Congener
8/20/96 j
I
—*— 6/16/97!
! '~**~ 6/17/97'
•. —X -6/23/97
Figure 6-59. Comparison of Congener Specific Apparent Sediment-Water Mass Transfer Rates by Date.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
NONSUMMER PERIOD (Sep.-May)
Observed Relative Load Gain ! !
0)
c
o
c
o
o
c
0)
o
0)
Q.
o
>
SUMMER PERIOD (Jun.-Aug.)
•Observed Relative Load Gain
- - - Ratio (kd/kp) = 725
10%
0%
Congener
+
1
ffl
™
m
o
Figure 6-60. Comparison of Fit Using Ratio of Pore Water to Particulate Mass Transfer Coefficients to Average Observed
Predicted Relative Load Gain at Thompson Island Dam by Season, 1991-1997.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1.60
1.40
D Non-cohesive
• Cohesive
0.00
Thompson Island Dam
Schuylerville
Stillwater
Waterford
Federal Oam
Figure 7-1. Computed Annual Average Burial Rates, 1977-1997.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
2.50E+09
2.00E+09
I
"a 1.50E+09
o
(A
05
n
^ 1.00E+09
5.00E+08
O.OOE+00
<10,000
Stillwater
>10,000
Stillwater
<10,000
Waterford
>10,000
Waterford
0.70
0.60 -
0.50 •
•a
to
O
(0
•D
= 0.40
O
V)
o
"^
o
S
<10,000
Stillwater
>10,000
Stillwater
<10,000
Waterford
>10,000
Waterford
Location
Figure 7-2. Comparison Between Model Estimated and Data Estimated In-River Solids
Loadings Stratified by Fort Edward Flow at 10,000 cfs (1/1/77-9/30/97).
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
100
Fort Edward
Model • GE data * P2 data o USGS data
Thompson Island Dam
100 T
Schuylerville
Year
Figure 7-3a. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Solids Concentrations at Mainstem Sampling Stations.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
-j.1000
o>
£
£ 100
Stiilwater
Model
GE data * P2 data o USGS data
c • e a
r4^--tv--f----.7--^-^:|-^--|--.|l.t^"^^iv^-Tv"v^^^:
NPW^TOttitS
I H W ^WMlpiiWlW iJf^Bffi^Vwrwi?«W;
05 1 -j 1 1 1 o OB-O O -O OO O O i O hOO—O—^D€> ! • O OO
0
HiHSfif iia«
^IffiiJIliJAHj
oo
O)
CM
s
n
CO
o>
in
CO
at
g
Ol
i
g
O)
Waterford
i
Year
Figure 7-3b. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Solids Concentrations at Mainstem Stations.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Dam
-Model • GE data * P2 data o USGS data
4/8/83
4/13/83
200 —
Schuylerville
4/8/83
4/13/83
Stillwater
4/8/83
4/13/83
4/18/83
4/23/83
Date
4/28/83
5/3/83
5/8/83
•Model • GE data * P2 data o USGS data
4/18/83
4/23/83
Date
4/28/83
5/3/83
5/8/83
-Model
GE data * P2 data o USGS data
4/18/83
4/23/83
Date
4/28/83
5/3/83
5/8/83
250
Waterford
•Model
GE_data A P2_data o USGS_data
200 -!
4/8/83
4/13/83
4/18/83
4/23/83
Date
4/28/83
5/3/83
5/8/83
Figure 7-4. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Total Suspended Solids
Concentrations (TSS) for the Spring 1983 High Flow Event.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
100 —
80 ••
Thompson Island Dam
•Model • GE data * P2 data o USGS data
3/25/93
180
3/30/93
Schuylerville
4/4/93
4/9/93
Date
4/14/93
4/19/93
4/24/93
•Model
GE data A P2 data o USGS data
3/25/93
3/30/93
4/4/93
4/9/93
Date
4/14/93
4/19/93
4/24/93
200
Stillwater
-Model • GE data A P2 data o USGS data
3/25/93
3/30/93
4/4/93
4/9/93
Date
4/14/93
4/19/93
4/24/93
500 -r
450 -
400 -'
~ 350 -!
o) 300 J,
Waterford
-Model • GE data A P2 data o USGS data
3/25/93
3/30/93
4/4/93
4/9/93
Date
4/14/93
4/19/93
4/24/93
Figure 7-5. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Total Suspended Solids
Concentrations (TSS) for the Spring 1993 High Flow Event.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Dam
Model
GE data * P2 data o USGS data
3/29/94
100 r
4/3/94
Schuylerville
4/8/94
4/13/94
Date
4/18/94
4/23/94
4/28/94
-Model
GE data * P2 data o USGS data
80 -i
3/29/94
4/3/94
4/8/94
4/13/94
Date
4/18/94
4/23/94
4/28/94
200 -
175 -
Stillwater
- Model
GE data » P2 data o USGS data
3/29/94
4/3/94
4/8/94
4/13/94
Date
4/18/94
4/23/94
4/28/94
Waterford
-Model • GE data A P2 data o USGS data
140 \
3/29/94
4/28/94
Figure 7-6. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Total Suspended Solids
Concentrations (TSS) for the Spring 1994 High Flow Event.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Dam
Model
GE data * P2 data o USGS data
u
3/24/97
3/29/97
4/3/97
4/8/97
Date
100
Schuylerville
80 -i
3/29/97
Stillwater
3/24/97
3/29/97
4/13/97
4/18/97
4/23/97
-Model • GE data * P2 data o USGS data
4/3/97
4/8/97
Date
4/13/97
4/18/97
4/23/97
Model • GE_data A P2_data o USGS_data
4/3/97
4/8/97
Date
4/13/97
4/18/97
4/23/97
Model • GE data A P2 data o USGS data
3/24/97
3/29/97
4/3/97
4/8/97
Date
4/13/97
4/18/97
4/23/97
Figure 7-7. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Total Suspended Solids
Concentrations (TSS) for the Spring 1997 High Flow Event.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Dam
1991-1997
100
1000
100
"5
o
10
Stillwater
1977-1997
I
• •
• •V .
*»
Model
TWeaTT
10
Data
100
1000
1000
^|S;:v
•.v .jg—
&,*»$*:: ••/ .
Model
"Mean
Data
100
1000
Figure 7-8. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Suspended Solids
Concentrations for Fort Edward Flows Less Than 10,000 cfs.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
100
Thompson Island Dam
1991-1997
•:.
**
* t."
•*
Model
Mean
1000
100
IS
TJ
o
10
10
Data
100
Stillwater
1977-1997
(0 C
ii
Model
Mean
10
Data
100
1000
100:
Waterford
1977-1997
S '•
* ••
••
Model
0)
•o
o
10:
VTV^J—s*-
«t **?. • •
Mean
10
Data
100
1000
Figure 7-9. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Suspended Solids
Concentrations for Fort Edward Flows Greater Than 10,000 cfs.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
100%
Thompson Island Dam
1991-1997
c
ra
.c
in
8
c
Q)
s.
75%
50%
25%
100%
100%
0%
0.1
TSS Concentration (mg/L)
TSS Concentration (mg/L)
1 10
TSS Concentration (mg/L)
100
100
1000
1000
1000
Figure 7-10. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Probability Distributions for
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) for Fort Edward Flows Less Than 10,000 cfs.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
100% -r
Thompson Island Dam
1991-1997
100% r
100% T
TSS Concentration (mg/L)
1 10
TSS Concentration (mg/L)
1 10
TSS Concentration (mg/L)
100
100
1000
1000
1000
Figure 7-11. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Probability Distributions for
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) for Fort Edward Flows Greater Than 10,000 cfs.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Year
Figure 7-12. Computed Cumulative Sediment Bed Elevation Change in Thompson Island Pool, 1977-1997.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
1.60
m
0.00
RM
194.1-
192.3
RM
192.3-
191.0
RM
191.0-
190.3
Figure 7-13. Computed Annual Average Solids Burial Rates, 1977-1997.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
(Mass Balance Results in kilograms x 10s TSS)
Thompson Island Pool T.I. Dam to Schuylerville Schuylerville to Stillwater Stillwater to Waterford
RM 194.5 -RM 188.5 RM 188.5 - RM 183.4 RM 183.4- RM 168.2 RM 168.2 - RM 159.4
CNI
5
O)
c
TJ
§
U
1
•o
Tributaries 155.
\
> Settling
-125
^PP'iiil^lMi^^TiiW:;^
ililllillllffillllll
iillill|li|il!iif|fliiii|iii|ii
Distance: 6 miles
00
en
CD
Tributaries 57 ,.
V
>• Settling
-103
iHii:ii;;i:i;;ii:;iiiiiH!;iiii*liiyi;i!i!i:Ii!iii;i|iiiiiiiiiiii;!iiiii
IlliillllliilllilililliilillillSllil!!
||i|ll!i|ll|!i||H|!il*|i|||!i|llii!!!i
Distance: 5.1 miles
co
o
Tributories 1294\
V ^
>• Settling
-645
ijjjIiiliijjijiiHJ; ii;;:i;i;i:j^;;i:i;Hi:;;fil!;ili;i;i: ij iiiliijijii
iilliliiiiljijliliilliiiili^ililliinlliil!
Distance: 15.2 miles
CD
o
Tributaries 2065 \
- 16 ^
Dispersion
>• Settling
-799
i:*iW:^:ii;i:-T:;Wi:r;:1»T:^:T;W':T::T!rri";i-:'i'r':'!^
:;|i;lillill;:;:;:6pi::::"v:;;;::;:i;:^
;;ij;i;:;;^;;;;;;;;;y;!;i::i;;j;;;i;;:;Resysp:"::;;;-::; ]'.• -'I'J:' :
Distance: 8.8 miles
in
in
CD
CO
->
c
o
0
•o
Figure 7-14. Computed Solids Mass Balance Components Analysis for 1977 - 1997.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
200
180
160
Cohesive
Model (-0-5 cm)
* Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm) +/- 2 Standard Errors
O Model (-0-25 cm, 1984),(~0-23 cm, 1994)
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm & 1994 data from 0-23 cm
Year
Year
Figure 7-lSa. Comparison Between Computed and Observed (Surficial and Depth-
Composited) Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Thompson Island Pool.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
200
180
Model (-0-5 cm)
* Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm) +/- 2 Standard Errors
O Model (-0-23 cm, 1994)
A Depth-composited 1994 data from 0-23 cm
Year
Year
Figure 7-15b. Comparison Between Computed and Observed (Surficial and Depth-
Composited) Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Schuylerville Reach.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
o
1
c
o
o
O
Model (-0-5 cm)
* Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm) +/- 2 Standard Errors
O Model (-0-23 cm. 1994)
A Depth-composited 1994 data from 0-23 cm
.2 10
c
o
o
o
o
Year
Year
Figure 7-15c. Comparison Between Computed and Observed (Surficial and Depth-
Composited) Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Stilhvater Reach.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Cohesive
Model (-0-5 cm)
* Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm) +/- 2 Standard Errors
O Model (-0-23 cm, 1994)
A Depth-composited 1994 data from 0-23 cm
Q
Year
Year
Figure 7-15d. Comparison Between Computed and Observed (Surficial and Depth-
Composited) Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Waterford Reach.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Model (-0-5 cm)
Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm) +/- 2 Standard Errors
Year
Figure 7-15e. Comparison Between Computed and Observed (Surficial and Depth-
Composited) Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Federal Dam Reach.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1UUU
51 inn
01
0
+ Concentrat
k
>
•£ iv
1-
4
1<
mnn •
3 10(J
•&
o
m
+ Concentr
A
3
•1 .
1<
Cohesive
1984
I 5 2
T I 5 ooo
"' °
I o
i
4 >
54 193 192 191 190
River Mile
Non-cohesive
1984
f
T
: I ^
* O Q T
0 o o i I
z I
94 193 192 191 190
River Mile
*Data Mean •*•/- 2 SE
0 Model
.. .3
o
?
189 18
» Data Mean +/- 2 SE
O Model
j
5
0
I ^
O
189 18
Figure 7-16. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Depth-Averaged Sediment Tri+
Concentrations in Thompson Island Pool in 1984.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
100
o
2 10
c
0)
o
c
o
o
o
5
°0 *
oo 11$
ill
Cohesive
1991
0-5 cm
»Data Mean +1-2 SE
O Model
g 2
i
i
o o
I*
I*
oo o o
O O
193
188
183
178
173
River Mile
168
163
158
153
100
o>
"5)
c
o
2 10
c
Q)
U
C
O
U
+
,'i8
* *I °°
z zx o
o o
00
J
Non-cohesive
1991
0-5 cm
00
o o
i
*Data Mean +1-2 SE
O Model
193
188
183
178
173
River Mile
168
163
158
153
Figure 7-17. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Depth-Averaged (0-5 cm) Sediment Tri+
Concentrations From Fort Edward to Federal Dam in 1991.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
100
01
.§
o
2 10
c
0)
o
c
o
o
Si
°5 I
i ®
I 0
o
O I » I
Ol « I
0 Cohesive * Data Mean +/- 2
0 1991 °M°del
T 5-10 cm
500 9
0 O
Pi '
11
? ^ i II
1 o 5 5 °° 55 o o
I 0
i i i 1 i i i l i i i i 1 i i ' i 1 ' 1 i i l i i i i l 1 r i "i i i__i —
SE"
o
-•
193
188
183
178
173
River Mile
168
163
158
153
100
O)
I
o
| 10
c
o
o
o
o
1
00
r
I
Non-cohesive
1991
5-1 Ocm
o o
• Data Mean +1-2 SE
O Model
.0..0.
O O
o o
i
-t-
•+-
193
188
183
178 173 168
River Mile
163
158
153
Figure 7-18. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Depth-Averaged (5-10 cm) Sediment Tri+
Concentrations From Fort Edward to Federal Dam in 1991.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1000
100
o
I
u
c
o
o
• 10
00
i
01
Cohesive
1991
10-26 cm
*Data Mean +/- 2 SE
O Model
O O
00
O O
O O
mm
i
193
188
183
178
173
River Mile
168
163
158
153
1000
100
O)
o
S 10
a
o
o
O
O
I «
sag?
.&..a
o I
00
Non-cohesive
1991
10-26 cm
* Data Mean +/- 2 SE
O Model
O O
ii
OO O O
* *
o o
o o
o o
193
188
183
178
173
River Mile
168
163
158
153
Figure 7-19. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Depth-Averaged (10-26 cm) Sediment Tri+
Concentrations From Fort Edward to Federal Dam in 1991.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
Fort Edward
10,000
•Model • GE data A P2 data e USGS data
10,000
£ 1,000
o
~ 100
01
u
o
o
+
Thompson Island Dam
10,000
Schuylerville
S
01
in
oo
O)
<0
3
CO
§
s
01
o
§
o
O)
8
0>
s
O)
3
O)
Figure 7-20a. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations at Mainstem Stations.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
10,000
Stillwater
-Model • GE data * P2 data e USGS data
e.
O O O 00 O 00
fc
?!
co
r-
o>
O)
r--
0)
g
o>
S
n
GO
o>
i i i
10,000
Waterford
Figure 7-20b. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations at Mainstem Stations.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
10,000
Thompson Island Dam
Model • GE Data 4 USEPA Phase 2 Data © USGS Data
1 -1
10
91
*
s;
Date
Figure 7-20c. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations at Thompson Island Dam, 1991-1997.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Fort Edward
g 0.01
0.001
0.001
0.01 0.1
USGS Tri+ (ug/L)
1 q
Stillwater
=J 0.1
O)
0.01
0.001
0.001
0.01 0.1
USGS Tri+ (ug/L)
d 0.1
en
+
"C
0.01
0.001
0.001
Waterford
0.01 0.1
USGS Tri+ (ug/L)
Figure 7-21. Comparisons of Same Day Tri+ Concentration Data by Source at Fort
Edward, Stillwater and Waterford.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
12000
10000 -
8000-
•o
a
o
_i
(A
<0
CO
6000
4000-
2000 -
1
^ i
\
i
I
. . . .
i
"
* * -
'///.
\
0 Model 1
DData \
i
<10,000 >10,000 <10,000 >10,000 <10,000
TIDam(1) TIDam(1) Schuy (2) Schuy(2) Still
Location
(1) Tl Dam was evaluated over the period of 1/1/91 - 9/30/97.
(2) Schuylerville was evaluated over the period 1/1/77-12/31/92.
>10,000
Still
<10,000
Water
> 10,000
Water
80% -
70%
60% •
50% -
40% •
30% •
20% -
10% -
n% -
-
i
1
—
1
1
i
t
1
0 Model
DData
-
. . . .
i
-
<10,000 >10,000 <10,000 >10,000 <10,000
TIDam(1) TIDam(1) Schuy (2) Schuy (2) Still
Location
(1) Tl Dam was evaluated over the period of 1/1/91 - 9/30/97.
(2) Schuylerville was evaluated over the period 1/1/77-12/31/92.
>10,000 <10,000 >10,000
Still Water Water
Figure 7-22. Comparison Between Model Estimated and Data Estimated In-River Tri+
Loadings from 1977-1997 Stratified by Fort Edward Flow at 10,000 cfs.
Umno-Teck, Inc.
-------
10000
1000
Thompson Island Dam
•Model
j3E_data * P2_data° USGS_data
o g
o 100
10 -H
4/8/83
10000 -
4/13/83
Schuylerville
4/18/83
4/23/83
Date
4/28/83
5/3/83
5/8/83
-Model • GE data » P2 data o USGS data
10 4
4/8/83
4/13/83
4/18/83
4/23/83
Date
4/28/83
5/3/83
5/8/83
10000
Stillwater
•Model
GE_data * P2_data o USGS_data
4/8/83
4/13/83
4/18/83
4/23/83
Date
4/28/83
5/3/83
5/8/83
10000
Waterford
•Model • GE data A P2 data o USGS data
4/13/83
4/18/83
4/23/83
Date
4/28/83
5/3/83
5/8/83
Figure 7-23. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations for the
Spring 1983 High Flow Event.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
o
10000 •
1000 -•
Thompson IslandjDam
-Model
GE data A P2 data o USGS data
'AAAAAAAA
•in _ ^ „ __ .. __ , , ,
I U - • i
3/25/93 3/30/93 4/4/93 4/9/93 4/14/93 4/19/93 4/24/93 4/29/93
10000
Schuylerville
§o
S 1000
S?
1 =
O ~" 100
+
•c
Date
•Model • GE data * P2 data o USGS data
in j r_ ,
IU '"" ~~ ' " ' I :
3/25/93 3/30/93 4/4/93 4/9/93 4/14/93 4/19/93 4/24/93 4/29/93
Date
10000
Stillwater
- Model
GE data A P2 data o USGS data
3/25/93 3/30/93
4/4/93 4/9/93 4/14/93 4/19/93 4/24/93 4/29/93
Date
10000
Waterford
c
o
1000
>
II
O
-Model • GE_data A P2_data o USGS_data
100 -.
3/25/93 3/30/93
4/4/93 4/9/93 4/14/93 4/19/93 4/24/93 4/29/93
Date
Figure 7-24. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations for the
Spring 1993 High Flow Event.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1000
Thompson Island Dam J^0.?5' • GE_data _* P2_data o_ JJSGS_data
e
.g
'
c "7
o ^
u 01
§£
U
+
100
10
3/29/94
4/3/94
4/8/94
4/13/94
Date
4/18/94
4/23/94
4/28/94
1000^-
Schuylerville
•Model • GE_data * P2_data o USGS_data
3|, 100,
10
3/29/94
4/3/94
o
ra
U
.+
1000
100
Stillwater
3/29/94
4/3/94
1000
Waterford
c
O
S3
E
I ?
it
u
+
•c
100 :
104
3/29/94
4/3/94
4/8/94
4/13/94 4/18/94
Date
4/23/94
4/28/94
-Model • GE_data A P2_data » USGS_data
4/8/94
4/13/94 4/18/94
Date
4/23/94
4/28/94
-Model • GE_data * P2_data o USGS_data
4/8/94
4/13/94
Date
4/18/94
4/23/94
4/28/94
Figure 7-25. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations for the
Spring 1994 High Flow Event.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Dam
•Model • GE data * P2 data o USGS data
100 T
1 -
3/29/97
Schuylerville
4/3/97
4/8/97 4/13/97
Date
4/18/97
4/23/97
•Model • GE data * P2 data o USGS data
3/24/97
3/29/97
4/3/97
4/8/97 4/13/97
Date
4/18/97
4/23/97
100 T
Stillwater
•Model • GE data A P2 data o USGS data
1 4-
3/24/97
3/29/97
4/3/97
4/8/97 4/13/97
Date
4/18/97
4/23/97
100
Waterford
-Model • GE data A P2 data o USGS data
1
3/24/97
3/29/97 4/3/97 4/8/97 4/13/97
Date
4/18/97
4/23/97
Figure 7-26. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations for the
Spring 1997 High Flow Event.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
10000
1000 -:
Thompson Island Dam
1991-1997
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
Figure 7-27. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations for Fort
Edward Flow Less Than 10,000 cfs.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
10000
10000
Thompson Island Dam
1991-1997
10000
10000
10000
10000
10000
Figure 7-28. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Tri+ Concentrations for Fort
Edward Flow Greater Than 10,000 cfs.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
100%
I 75%
in
in
0)
C
IB
o
50%
25%
00% -1
Thompson Island Dam
1991-1997
1
§
100%
75%
50%
25%
00%
1
100% -
100% -r
75%
50%
25%
00% •
1
10 100
Tri+ Concentration (ng/L)
10 100
Tri+ Concentration (ng/L)
10
100
Tri+ Concentration (ng/L)
10 100
Tri+ Concentration (ng/L)
1000
10000
1000
10000
1000
10000
1000
10000
Figure 7-29. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Probability Distributions for
Tri+ at Fort Edward Flow Less Than 10,000 cfs.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
100%
Thompson Island Dam
1991-1997
00%
100%
10 100
Tri+ Concentration (ng/L)
100% n
c
re
in
in
0)
O.
75%
50%
25%
00%
100%
00%
100
Tri+ Concentration (ng/L)
10 100
Tri+ Concentration (ng/L)
10 100
Tri+ Concentration (ng/L)
1000
1000
1000
1000
10000
10000
10000
10000
Figure 7-30. Comparison Between Computed and Observed Probability Distributions for
Tri+ at Fort Edward Flow Greater Than 10,000 cfs.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
(Mass Balance Results in kilograms Tri+ PCBs)
Thompson Island Pool T.I. Dam to Schuylerville Schuylerville to Stillwater Stillwater to Waterford
RM 194.5 -RM 188.5 RM 188.5 - RM 183.4 RM 183.4 - RM 168.2 RM 168.2 - RM 159.4
O)
oo
m
CD
ve Loading I
Advect
Tributaries 0
\ A
\ I
Volatilization -220
>• Settling
-1006
m^m^mjma^m
::::::::>:::::::::::::::::rf:*1Qb::;:::'^difiie:::::H:H:'7'5;:;i:-::::
^;;;^;:;:;^;:;^;:;^;*8p:;:;i;*o95:;;;::!;:!:r:y^;li:;;;:
;!;i;iji;j;i;i;i;!;jii;j;i?e&$p;j;;;i;ipi^^^
Distance: 6 miles
oo
CO
CD
0
Tributaries 0 x.
\ A
* T
Volatilization -210
>• Settling
-1027
lli|iii|i||6|i|i|||ii:||||iniii
ipiiiyii!iliyiiji!i:iiii^^;iijj!|ji^jjiiji;yiiB65;|i ii;|
Distance: 5.1 miles
T
r^
oo
oo
Tributaries 18\
\ A
* I
Volatilization -407
^ Settling
-4070
iliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiilli^iiiiillllilijilllili
i:iii|ii;ii;ii!iii!i!!|!R«^ji:l^j$i^
Distance: 15.2 miles
05
s
CO
Tributaries 50 \
\ 4.
* \
Volatilization -426
^ Settling
-3393
iiiiiiiiiiiliililiiiiliBlllllllSIW!!:!:!!^;!:^
:;H:iH:;:!i;iiiyiiP;:ResuspJ;ii;;iPiff;i;Hi;;;i;C)p'C:i:;;i;i:
i^iHli^^^i^Hily^^iiHil^iiP^ii-Plilffil^-:1-!
Distance: 8.8 miles
O
CO
i--
m
Advection X
Figure 7-31. Computed Tri+ PCB Mass Balance Components Analysis for 1977-1997.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
700
600 -
en
£, 500-
O
TJ
ra
O
w
0)
E
O
400 -
300 -
200 -
100-
-100 -
-200-r
Date
"Load gain by reach computed as: (upstream load + tributary load) - load out - volatilization loss
Figure 7-32. Computed Cumulative Contribution Tri+ Load Gain Between Mainstem Hudson River Sampling Stations from
1991 to 1997.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
200
Cohesive
1977-1997
31 180
E, 160-
.1 140 •
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
^ Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
§
o>
5 S 8 S
O) G) O> O)
00
O)
CO
o>
0)
O)
O)
in
a>
01
fe
oi
Date
-Base Calibration
•Higher TSS at Fort Edward
O)
|
c
O
ra
O
O
c
-------
70
60
50
40
Cohesvie
1977-1997
I
o
I
§
c
o
O
£
flJ
1
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
^ Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
Date
-Base Calibration
•Higher TSS at Fort Edward
Non-cohesive
1977-1997
Date
Figure 7-34. Sediment Responses in Waterford to Alternative Solids Loads at Fort Edward.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
200
-, 18°
"3
I) 160
E,
c" 140
^o
Cohesive
1977-1997
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
^ Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
Date
•Base Calibration «asi3»Trjb Solids +50%
-Trib Solids-50%
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
Date
Figure 7-35. Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Changes in Tributary Solids
Loadings.
Limnu-Tecli, Inc.
-------
Cohesive
1977-1997
70
60-
50-
Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
a>
Date
•Base Calibration
Trib Solids +50%
-Trib Solids-50%
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
N
£
s
en
a>
t^
a>
O T-
co co
05 O)
s
O5
CO
co
en
in
co
en
co
§
O O i- CM CO •*
CO G) O) O^ O> O)
Oi O> O O"5 O> O)
in
O)
O)
s
i^
en
O5
Date
Figure 7-36. Sediment Responses at Waterford to Changes in Tributary Solids Loadings.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Pool
~ 250
I
J 200
1
c
o
o
o
100
ID
ffl 50
O)
ro
0 -1
f~ 00
s r»
O) O>
T- C\J CO
00 00 00
cocococn
O) O) en o
Q) O) Ol CJ)
IO O5
O) O O)
Year
•Base Calibration
Trib Solids -50%
-Trib Solids +50%
Waterford
350
i-c\jcoTm
-------
200
Cohesive
1977-1997
180
160 \
140
20 1
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
^Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
O)
fe
5 Si
OS O
8
05
05
CO
0)
fe
en
05
i- IN
O> O)
O) CD
CO
O5
(0
Date
•Base Calibration
•Trib Solids Using Original Rating Curve
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
Date
Figure 7-38. Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Changes in Tributary Solids Loads
Due to Specification of Rating Curves.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
o
to
70
60
50
Cohesive
1977-1997
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
•^Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
T- cj
O5 O) O> O5 O)
O5 O) O5 O5 Oi O)
Date
•Base Calibration
Trib Solids Using Original Rating Curve
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
Date
Figure 7-39. Sediment Responses at Waterford to Changes in Tributary Solids Loadings Due to
Specification of Rating Curves.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
~. 250
_j
"ft
o 200
Thompson Island Pool
o
u
150
100
ra
3
C
a
0>
E
$
<
50
GO O) O "*~ C**J **}
P- N. 00 CO 00 CO
en o O O en en
Year
•Base Calibration
•Trib Solids Using Original Rating Curve
350
£. 300
c
o
| 250
c
0)
200
O
150
100
O)
2 50
0)
Waterford
r-
O)
o *-
OO CO
o> en
S
_
oo
cp
o
cp
O T-
O) ~
en
o')
o>
o>
o)
o>
Year
Figure 7-40. Water Column Responses to Changes in Tributary Solids Loadings Due to
Specification of Rating Curve.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
200
180 -f
160
140
120 -I
100
80
60
40
20
0
Cohesive
1977-1997
f
^^
c
o
c
0)
o
o
o
c
0)
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
^Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
o T- CM co tr in
O} o> o) O) en o)
-------
Cohesive
1977-1997
70
60
50
40
o>
I
ADepth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
OModel Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
^Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
Date
•Base Calibration
•Kpoc Low
-KpocHigh
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
Date
Figure 7-42. Sediment Responses in Waterford Reach to Changes in Partitioning.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Pool
^ 400
§
300
fc
I
o
200 1
ra
3
100 ^
o J-
O
(O
co
O)
CO O
CO CO
o o
••- CM
O) O
o o
10 to r-
OJ O) O)
O> O> O3
Year
•Base Calibration
Kpoc Low
-KpocHigh
600
Waterford
•^ 500
5
2
c 400
o
o
c
" 300
3 200 ^
c
I 100-
1^ CO
O) O
o
CO
o
*- CM
co co
o o
m
CO
O)
CO
O
GO
OJ
CO
O)
COCOO
OOO
O
O
O
O
O
O>
OO
O)O
O
O
Year
Figure 7-43. Water Column Responses to Changes in Partitioning.
Liinno-Tecli. Inc.
-------
•Base
Lower Bound
• Upper Bound
ra
•o
0 30 61 91 121 152 182 212 243 273 304 334 364
Note: Days when FE Q > 10,000 cfs or TSS at FE or TID > 10 mg/L were not used. 1991 and 1992 data were
not used. Values of k( < 0 were not used.
Figure 7-44. Time Series for Effective Mass Transfer Rate in HUDTOX.
Limnn-Tech, Inc.
-------
200
Cohesive
1977-1997
2
•
180
160
140
120-1
ADepth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
OModel Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
^Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
Date
-Base Calibration
Kf Low
•KfHigh
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
Date
Figure 7-45. Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Changes in Sediment-Water Mass
Transfer Rate.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
70
60
o 50
40
c
O 30
0)
E 20
'•5
OJ
^ 10
Cohesive
1977-1997
»
ADepth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
OModel Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
^Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
t
V
M •
' — **^3as3!S^» S
^***' ' * ^^J^f^K'.'ftrVr ' LC"' 'V.Ujh ^^
. . . ,
f
o i- oj co •* !fl <§
CO CO CO CO 00 CO CO
en en co en en en en
co
o>
o>
00
O)
o t-
O3 O>
O5 O)
CVJ
O5
O)
O)
o>
Date
•Base Calibration
f Low
-Kf High
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
£
co
f~
O)
en
t^
en
o i- c\j co rj-
oo oo oo co oo
en en en 03 en
m
§
CO
s
CO
CO
CO
T
en
en
m
co
en
-------
300
Thompson Island Pool
-. 250-
ro
3 C
C O
< 'iS 150 -I
0> C
> o
< o
100-
50-
N
r-
O)
o *- c\j co
00 CO CO CO
CD 0> C) O
CO
co
en
ES
co
00
01
O O i-
OO Oi O)
O) O) O)
CD r-.
o> en
en en
Year
•Base Calibration
"Kf Low
-KfHigh
350
+ -. 300
^ |> 250
OJ **^
I I 200
< TO
o £ 150
5 c 100
> o
Waterford
CO
O)
O>
O)
i- CJ
CO CO
CO
CO
s
O3 O> O3
Year
Figure 7-47. Water Column Responses to Changes in Sediment-Water Mass Transfer
Rate.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
200
Cohesive
1977-1997
180
160 ]
140
120
04
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
+ Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +•/- 2 Standard errors
£
§ 5
O5 Cn
CM
CO
Cn
CO •*
CO CO
en en
CO
en
1
fe
en
co
CO
en
en
co
en
o *-
en en
en en
in
en
en
•f
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
Date
Figure 7-48. Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Changes in Cohesive and Non-
cohesive Specific Sediment to Water Effective Mass Transfer Rates.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
70
60
50-I
Cohesive
1977-1997
c
o
10
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
• Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
co cn o T- CM co -5-
f*» fs. CO CO CO CO CO
O) cn cn en cn cn CD
to
co
CD
CO
cn
CO
co
CO
O>
CO
cn
05 Cn
cn cn
Si
o
co
cn
cn
cn
cn
in to r^
cn cn cn
05 cn cn
Date
-Base Calibration
-Cohesive kf = 2x Non-cohesivs kf
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
Date
Figure 7-49. Sediment Responses in Waterford to Changes in Cohesive and Non-cohesive
Specific Sediment to Water Effective Mass Transfer Rates.
Limna-Tech, Inc.
-------
2.5
O Lower vs
0 Baseline
• Higher vs
"1
1.5
3
>•
o
CO
0.5
0
-0.5
Thompson Island Dam
Schuylerville Stillwater
Reach
Waterford
Figure 7-50. Responses of Burial Rates in Cohesive Sediments to Changes in Gross Settling Velocities.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
I Higher vs
ED Baseline
D Lower vs
0.12
Thompson Island Dam
Federal Dam
Figure 7-51. Responses of Burial Rates in Non-Cohesive Sediments to Changes in Gross Settling Velocities.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
200
180
c 160^
o
2 140
120-
20
0 -1
Cohesive
1977-1997
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
^ Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
en o •<- c\j co
f*"* oo co co oo
o> oi o> o> o>
in CD N.
co co oo
O> O O> Oi O)
8 2
O -i- CO CO
O5 O O> O>
O) O) O) O)
s
O)
I I
Date
•Base Calibration
•Lower vs
- Higher vs
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
O)ooc>o)O)O)O)O)O)O}cnoo
Figure 7-52. Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Changes in Gross
Settling Velocities.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
70
60
50-
Cohesive
1977-1997
o
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
^Surflcial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/• 2 Standard errors
r*- co
O) O)
en o
Date
•Base Calibration
•Lower vs
-Higher vs
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
Date
Figure 7-53. Sediment Responses in Waterford Reach to Changes in Gross Settling
Velocities.
Linmo-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Pool
250
1
8
o
o
CO
=
o
O>
200
150
100-
50-
s
en
co
fe
I 3
Sin(Oh.coo>Oi-CMCO«fin O)
in
00
CD
to
CO
§
CO
00
O)
§
en
O T-
cn oi
CO O)
CM to
en en
en en
CO
en
en
h-
en
en
Year
Figure 7-54. Water Column Responses to Changes in Gross Settling Velocities.
Limnn-Tecli, Inc.
-------
Cohesive
1977-1997
180
c
o
160
140 •
120
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
^ Surflcial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
s
O5
£
CO CO 00
Date
T- CVJ CO
O) O> O>
O) O) O)
co
O)
O>
•Base Calibration
-Non-cohesive Mixing to 6 cm
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
O^-CVJCO^Tl^
O3COCOCO03CO
Date
Figure 7-55. Sediment Responses in Schuylerville Reach to Enhanced Mixing (top 6 cm) in
Non-cohesive Sediments.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
60
50
Cohesive
1977-1997
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
^ Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
•Base Calibration
- Non-cohesive Mixing to 6 cm
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
CO O5 O i-
h- r- co oo
O O) G) O
eg co rj- to to r-- oo
CO OO 00 CO 00 00 CO
O)CF>O>O1O)O>O)O5O>O)
O) O) O) O>
Date
Figure 7-56. Sediment Responses in Stillwater Reach to Enhanced Mixing (top 6 cm) in Non-
cohesive Sediments.
Liintw-Tech. Inc.
-------
70
60
Cohesive
1977-1997
10
0-1
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
^ Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
P:
O)
en o i- CM
S. CO CO CO
Cn Cn O5 Cn
-------
10
Non-Cohesive
1977-1997
1 •
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
o i-
co oo
SI
in
CO
05
Si
S
O)
O)
Date
•Base Calibration
• Non-cohesive Mixing to 6 cm
Figure 7-58. Sediment Responses in Federal Dam Reach to Enhanced Mixing (top 6 cm) in
Non-cohesive Sediments.
Limno-Tecli. Inc.
-------
200
Cohesive
1977-1997
ADepth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
QModel Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm
^Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
GO CO CO CO O> Ot
O) o> O) 0) O) O)
fc fS
Date
•Base Calibration
- ICs Low
-ICsHigh
Non-cohesive
1977-1997
I
c
o
o
o
4-*
c
0>
'•5
d>
V)
Date
Figure 7-59. Sediment Responses in Thompson Island Pool to Changes in Sediment Initial
Conditions.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
Cohesive
1977-1997
I
o
2 <
+1 Af\
u
u
e
o
'•6
Q)
V)
+
A Depth-composited 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
O Model Depth Composite 1984 data from 0-25 cm. & 1994 data from 0-23 cm.
Surficial Data Mean (0-5 cm)
Error Bars represent +/- 2 Standard errors
00 CO
O) O)
S 3 fe S
0)
o *-
O) O
O) O)
£
O)
Date
•Base Calibration
- ICs Low
•ICsHigh
Non-cohesive
1977-1997
I
*••••
o
o
U
«rt
Q>
+
"C
Date
Figure 7-60. Sediment Responses in Waterford to Changes in Sediment Initial Conditions.
Limiw-Tech. Inc.
-------
300
•£• 250
c
o
ro
Thompson Island Pool
o>
o
c
200-
150-1
100-
o>
9 50
f-. co Oi O T- CM
^N.NCOOOOO-,-^--
0) O) O) O O> O) OJ O5 OJ
S S
IO CO r*- oo
CM CO ^ lO <0
O) O) O) CT1 O}
O -t-
O) O)
OiOO>O5OiO)OlO)
Year
•Base Calibration - - - iCsLow
•ICsHigh
Waterford
400
£350^
o
O
c
o
200 -
« 150-1
c
< 100
-------
Thompson Island Pool
250
I
^ 200-
(0
^
c
8 150
o
O
_ 10(H
ra
3
C
fl>
2
I
50
CO
fe
cn cn
SI
2Tf m
oO CO
00
O5
co
co
cn
g
o
O t-
cn O)
CO
O5
O5
8?
O) O>
Year
•Base Calibration
=« Henry's Constant =1.93E-04
- Henry's Constant = 0.69E-04
300
Waterford
i
O **~ CVJ C*3 ^ IO
Co cn cn cn cn cn
cn cn cn en cn cn
Year
Figure 7-62. Water Column Responses to Changes in Henry's Law Constant.
Liinno-Tech. Inc.
-------
1000
Thompson Island Dam-BZ#28
• GE.TID
GE, TID-E A GE, TID-W x USEPA.TID-W
1000 3
Thompson Island Dam-BZ#52
• Model
0.1
i- CM CM
en q> q>
C i
CO J
I 0
3 0)
3 Q
1
c
CO
~3
T 1 1 I 1 1
in
q>
c
CO
-3
CO
en
cz
CO
~3
9
c
CO
~3
CO
en
c
CO
1000 ?
Thompson Island Dam-BZ#4
» Date
Figure 7-63. Predicted versus Observed BZ#4, BZ#28 and BZ#52 Concentrations Using Historical Calibration Model Parameters.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
O)
o
I
o
o
Year
Year
Figure 7-64. Comparison Between Computed Surficial Sediment Tri+, BZ#28, BZ#52
and BZ#4 Concentrations for Thompson Island Pool.
Ijiimo-Tecli. Inc.
-------
1000
Thompson Island Dam-BZ#28
• GE, TID
GE, TID-E A GE, TID-W X USEPA.TID-W
•Model
1000 f
Thompson Island Dam-BZ#52
1000
Thompson Island Dam-BZ#4
Date
Figure 7-65. Predicted versus Observed BZ#4, BZ#28 and BZ#52 Concentrations Using Sediment-Specific Partitioning (from GE Data).
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1000?
Thompson Island
Dam-BZ#28
! • GE,
!
TID
• GE,
TID-E
A
GE, TID-W
X
USEPA,TID-W
Model
1000
Thompson Island Dam-BZ#52
• GE, TID « GE, TID-E A GE, TID-W X USEPA.TID-W
- Model
Thompson Island Dam-BZ#4
1000
• GE, TID • GE, TID-E A GE, TID-W X USEPA.TID-W
•Model
V co
Date
Figure 7-66a. Predicted versus Observed BZ#4, BZ#28 and BZ#52 Concentrations Using Sediment-Specific Partitioning (from GE Data) and Particulate
and Porewater Sediment-Water Mass Transfer Pathways.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
100 T
Thompson Island Dam-BZ#[90+101]
• GE.TID • GE.TID-E a GE, TID-W X USEPA.TID-W
•Model
O)
100
Thompson Island Dam-BZ#138
10000
Thompson Island Dam-Total PCB
co Date
Figure 7-66b. Predicted versus Observed BZ[#90+101], BZ#138 and and Total PCB Concentrations Using Sediment-Specific Partitioning (from GE Data)
and Particulate and Dissolved Sediment-Water Mass Transfer Pathways.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1000
Schuylerville - B2#4
Model A GE Data X USEPA Phase 2 Data
Ol
c
I
m
en
c
m
Model A GE Data X USEPA Phase
1000
Waterford - BZ#4
Model a GE Data X USEPA Phase 2 Data'
1000
Figure 7-67a. Predicted versus Observed BZ#4 Concentrations Below Thompson Island Dam, 1991-1993.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Schuylerville - BZ#28
Model A GE Data X USEPA Phase 2 Data,
0.1
I
T3
O
o
O
1000 T
Still water - BZ#28
Model A GEData X USEPA Phase 2 Data i
GE Data X USEPA Phase 2 Data
Figure 7-67b. Predicted versus Observed BZ#28 Concentrations Below Thompson Island Dam, 1991-1993.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1000
Schuylerville - BZ#52
USEPA Phase 2 Data'
"S)
c
f7
8
m
^>
c
JN
10
S
01
1000
0.1
)
5
0)
Q.
3
-»
a*
S
a
1
(N
O>
1-
CN
O>
"5
—i
s
g
t)
o
Waterford - BZ#52
1000
Figure 7-67c. Predicted versus Observed BZ#52 Concentrations Below Thompson Island Dam, 1991-1993.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Schuylerville - BZ890+101
-Model A GEData X USEPA Phase 2 Data
Figure 7-67d. Predicted versus Observed BZ#[90-H01] Concentrations Below Thompson Island Dam, 1991-1993.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Schuylerville-BZ#138
Model A GEData X USEPA Phase 2 Data'
0.01 4
Stillwater-BZ#138
-Model A GEData X USEPA Phase 2 Data
100
o>
c
0.01
O)
c
100
10
Waterford - BZ#138
a 0.14
E
•Model A GEData X USEPA Phase 2 Data'
0.01 4
0>
g
o
o
Figure 7-67e. Predicted versus Observed BZ#138 Concentrations Below Thompson Island Dam, 1991-1993.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
10000
Schuylerville - Total PCB
Model a GE Data X USEPA Phase 2 Data
10
1
O)
c
CO
—t
, A
»
5>
i
0)
t!
O
1 1 > —
CN
C
ra
—3
' 1 1
«
01
S.
1 1 " i ~*
CM
O>
S
CM
O>
§
s
1
s
1-
1 j 1
CO
O
"5
10000
Stillwater - Total PCB
-Model A GE Data X USEPA Phase 2 Data
Waterford - Total PCB
10000 T-
-Model A GEData X USEPA Phase 2 Data.
Figure 7-67f. Predicted versus Observed Total PCB Concentrations Below Thompson Island Dam, 1991-1993.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
•West
•Center
-East
•Model Center Channel
[BZ#28]/[BZ#52]
CM
i
CM
?5
a
,0
0.4 i
0.2 ~
0.0 -
194.5
193.5
192.5
191.5
River Mile
190.5
189.5
25.0
[BZ#4]/[BZ#52]
5"
CO
o
•«s
£
0.0 i
194.5
193.5
192.5 191.5
River Mile
190.5
189.5
188.5
188.5
a
s-
tn
ofl
o
13
Of.
[BZ#101&90]/[BZ#52]
194.5
193.5
192.5
191.5
River Mile
190.5
189.5
188.5
Figure 7-68a. Comparison of Model versus Observed Congener Concentration Ratios:
Thompson Island Pool, September 25,1996 Float Study.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
•West
• Center
-East
•Model Center Channel
a
a
a
5"
CM
B
n
or
[BZ#28]/[BZ#52]
0.2
0.0
194.5
193.5
192.5
191.5
River Mile
190.5
189.5
25.0 -,
[BZ#4]/[BZ#52]
188.5
o
•x
8.
sr
in
m
5"
Ol
<>a
s,
"5*
•&
a
20.0 4-
15.0 --
10.0
194.5 193.5 192.5 191.5 190.5
River Mile
[BZ#101&90]/[BZ#52]
1.0
0.0
194.5
193.5
192.5
191.5
River Mile
190.5
189.5
189.5
188.5
o.u -
2c _
9 O -
1 * -
, j
I
I
,
I
188.5
Figure 7-68b. Comparison of Model versus Observed Congener Concentration Ratios:
Thompson Island Pool, September 26,1996 Float Study.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
-West
- Center
•East
•Model Center Channel
[BZ#28]/[BZ#52]
5 193.5 192.5 191.5 190.5 189.5 188.5
River Mile
25.0
[BZ#4]/[BZ#52]
194.5 193.5 192.5 191.5 190.5 189.5 188.5
River Mile
[BZ#101&90]/[BZ#52]
194.5 193.5 192.5 191.5 190.5
River Mile
189.5
188.5
Figure 7-68c. Comparison of Model versus Observed Congener Concentration Ratios:
Thompson Island Pool, June 4,1997 Float Study.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
•West
- Center
•East
•Model Center Channel
[BZ#28]/[BZ#52]
2.0
194.5
193.5
192.5
191.5
River Mile
190.5
189.5
188.5
25.0
[BZ#4]/[BZ#52]
194.5
193.5
192.5
191.5
River Mile
190.5
189.5
[BZ#101&90]/[BZ#52]
194.5
193.5
192.5
191.5
River Mile
190.5
189.5
188.5
188.5
Figure 7-68d. Comparison of Model versus Observed Congener Concentration Ratios:
Thompson Island Pool, June 17,1997 Float Study.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
[BZ#28]/[BZ#52] - Summer
187 183 179 175 171 167 163 159 155
195 191
CM
I
h__l
5*
C>4
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
[BZ#28]/[BZ#52] - Non-summer
N
a 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
o o
.0-0
195
r. .o.
00
191
187
183
179 175
River Mile
171
167
163
159
155
Figure 7-69. Model versus Observed Down-river [BZ#28]/[BZ#52] Ratios by Season,
1991-1997.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
CM
m
I
CO*
s
m
CM
£
N
m
00
CM
I
[BZ#28]/[BZ#52]
FE Flow <10,000 cfs
195 191 187 183 179 175 171 167
163 159 155
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
[BZ#28]/[BZ#52]
FE Flow > 10,000 cfs
195 191 187 183 179 175 171 167 163 159 155
River Mile
Figure 7-70. Model versus Observed Down-river [BZ#28]/[BZ#52] Ratios Stratified by
Fort Edward Flow (< 10,000 cfs and > 10,000 cfs), 1991-1997.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
0 -i-
8
o
CM
8
8
CO
O
o
CM
O
CM
co
8
o
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
§
CM
CM
s
CJ
35000
Figure 8-1.70-Year Hydrograph for the No Action Forecast Simulation: 1998-2067
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Total PCS
250
e total PCB ug/L USGS WY98 flow
Tri+
35000
Figure 8-2. Observed Total PCB and Tri+ PCB Concentrations at Fort Edward During 1997 and 1998.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
800
1991
1992
1993
1994
Year
1995
1996
1997
Figure 8-3. Data-Based Estimate of Annual Total and Tri+ PCB Load by Year at Fort Edward, 1991-1997.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
20.0
18.0
B16'°
|> 14.0
I 12'°
1 10.0
c
0)
» 8.0
o
« 6.0
£ 4.0
2.0
0.0
Cohesive
1998 GE data
10 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
30 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
Zero PCB load at Fort Edward
CO
05
O>
CO
o
o
CM
CO CO
§ O
CM CM
O
CM
8
CM
CM
O
CM
CO
CO
o
CM
Year
CO
CO
o
CM
CO
S
CM
CO
IT)
O
CM
CO
IO
O
CM
CO
(O
O
CM
Year
Figure 8-4a. Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Thompson Island Pool with
Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentrations at 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L, 1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
10.0
9.0
B 8.0
J£
O)
7.0
6.0
™
S 5.0
o
O
U
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
CO
O)
O)
Cohesive
10 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
30 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
'Zero PCB load at Fort Edward
CO
O
O
O
O
(SI
CO
o
CM
o
CM
co
CM
o
CM
n
ro
o
CM
Year
o
CM
s
o
CM
CO
IT)
O
CM
(O
O
CM
(O
o
Year
Figure 8-4b. Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Schuylerville Reach with
Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentrations at 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L, 1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
10 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
30 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
Zero PCS load at Fort Edward
Year
OO CO
01 O
en o
*- CM
Year
Figure 8-4c. Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Stillwater Reach with
Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentrations at 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L, 1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
2.0 ;
1.8
1.5
0.0
*
Cohesive
10 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
30 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
Zero PCS load at Fort Edward
Year
Year
Figure 8-4d. Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Waterford Reach with
Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentrations at 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L, 1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1.0
~ 0.8
O)
j:
01
g
I 0.6
0.4
o
o
0.2
0.0
Non-Cohesive
10 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
30 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
Zero PCB load at Fort Edward
s s
Year
Figure 8-4e. Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Federal Dam Reach with
Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentrations at 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L, 1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
200
01
E.
c
o
I
c
o
c
o
o
01
£_
o
I
c
o
c
o
o
Model
Data Mean +/- 2 Standard Errors
O Model (-0-25 cm, 1984),(-0-23 cm, 1994)
A 1984 data from 0-25 cm & 1994 data from 0-23 cm
Year
Year
Figure 8-5a. Predicted Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Thompson Island Pool with
Forecasted Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration at 10 ng/L.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
i
i.
o
I
o
u
200
180
160
120
100
80
60
40
20
60
Cohesive
Model
* Data Mean +/- 2 Standard Errors
O Model (-0-23 cm, 1994)
A 1994 data from 0-23 cm
f- CM
r-» to
O) O>
(v.
O>
CM
o
O
CM
h- CN r-~
o ^ ^~
o o o
CM CN CM
O
CM
CO
O
s s
in
o
(O
o
Year
50'
o>
40
30
o>
u
O
O
± 20
10
Non-cohesive
r-
S
CM
S S
in
o
(N
tft
O
CM I--
(O (O
CM CM
Year
Figure 8-5b. Predicted Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Schuylerville Reach with
Forecasted Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration at 10 ng/L.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
01
c
0)
o
o
o
70
60
50
40
30
Cohesive
Model
» Data Mean +/- 2 Standard Errors
O Model (-0-23 cm, 1994)
A 1994 data from 0-23 cm
o
CN
r—
s
CN
S
Year
T- r- CNJ
Year
Figure 8-5c. Predicted Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Stillwater Reach with
Forecasted Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration at 10 ng/L.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
/u
bU
*if)
4
Af\
on
n -
Cohesive
\
\
v*
4 Data Mean +/- 2 Standard Errors
O Model (-0-23 cm, 1994)
A 1994 data from 0-23 cm
)
— v
o
o
o
O
CM
o
CN
O
CM
s s
CM CVJ
O
CM
O
CN
O
CM
O
CNJ
Year
Year
Figure 8-5d. Predicted Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Waterford Reach with
Forecasted Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration at 10 ng/L.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
18
16
14
D)
I,12'
o
C
o
o
10
± 6
Non-cohesive
- Model
» Data Mean +/- 2 Standard Errors
0 L-
cn
o
CM
o
CN
O
CN
O
CN
Year
Figure 8-5e. Predicted Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Federal Dam Reach with
Forecasted Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration at 10 ng/L.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Dam
55
| 50
^ 45
o
g 40
§ 35
§ 30
•t 25
1 20
I 15
& 10
s
2 5
<
0
10 ng/L Tri+ concentration at Fort Edward
—I— 30 ng/L Tri+ concentration at Fort Edward
"""•"Zero PCB loading at Fort Edward
Schuylerville
Figure 8-6a. Forecast Average Annual Tri+ Concentrations at Thompson Island Dam and
Schuylerville with Constant Upstream Concentrations of 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L Tri+ at
Fort Edward, 1998 - 2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Stillwater
45
f. 30
g 25
o
c 15
g, 10
2
> 5
10 ng/L Tri+ concentration at Fort Edward
30 ng/L Tri+ concentration at Fort Edward
'Zero PCB loading at Fort Edward
a
o
O
WaterforrJ
Figure 8-6b. Forecast Average Annual Tri+ Concentrations at Stillwater and Waterford with
Constant Upstream Concentrations of 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward, 1998
2067.
Ltmno-Tech. Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Dam
80
70
i60
50
fch 40
30
20
10 •
10 ng/L Tri+ concentration at Fort Edward
30 ng/L Tri+ concentration at Fort Edward
2ero PCB loading at Fort Edward
-r-f-H-N-
CO
o
o
n
s
CO
(N
o
(VJ
CO
CO
O
CM
80
70
50
Schuylerville
i
ra 40
>
30
20 -I
10
0
CO
o
o
CM
^S-A/x^/^-^
.^^
33'JI*gCTfCT-A£r «,i-~.
O
CM
O
CN)
CO
CM
O
CN
CO
CM
O
CM
CO
CO
O
CM
CO
CO
O
CM
o
CM
O
CM
o
CM
CO
in
o
CM
Figure 8-7a. Forecast Average Summer Tri+ Concentrations at Thompson Island Dam and
Schuylerville with Constant Upstream Concentrations of 10 ng/L,
30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward, 1998 - 2067.
Linmo-Tech, Inc.
-------
Stillwater
10 ng/L Tri+ concentration at Fort Edward
30 ng/L Tn> concentration at Fort Edward
Zero PCB loading at Fort Edward
60
50
40
d) 30 •
0)
I20
w
10
Waterford
CO
o>
O)
to
o
o
CM
§
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
CO
s
CM
CO
s
CM
CO
CO
O
CM
CO
CO
O
CM
O
CN
O
CM
o
CM
co
in
o
CM
co
CO
o
CM
Figure 8-7b. Forecast Average Summer Tri+ Concentrations at Stillwater and Waterford with
Constant Upstream Concentrations of 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and
0 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward, 1998 - 2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Dam
250
150
C 100
n
a
c
C
50
•10 ng/L Tn> concentration at Fort Edward, 1998-2067
N
1
r-
o
Schuylerville
300
1
S. 250
? 200
o
c
o
o
150
100
50
v
8-8a. Predicted Average Annual Water Column Tri+ Concentrations at
Thompson Island Dam and Schuylerville with Forecasted Constant Upstream
Tri+ Concentration at 10 ng/L, 1977-2067.
Litnno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Stillwater
300
i. 250
c
Q
"n
| 200
u
c
o
" 150
•c
t-
"(3
= 100
<
fl)
o 50
•10 ng/L Tri-t- concentration at Fort Edward. 1998-2067
300
£ 250
c
o
c 200
Waterford
O
150
100
50
8-8b. Predicted Average Annual Water Column Tri+ Concentrations at
Stillwater and Waterford with Forecasted Constant Upstream Tri+
Concentration at 10 ng/L, 1977-2067.
LimnO'Tech, Inc.
-------
Zero PCB load at Fort Edward
• 10 ng/LTri+ concentration at Fort Edward
A— 30 ng/L Tri+ concentration at Fort Edward
Year
Figure 8-9a. No-Action Forecast Annual TrH- Load to the Lower Hudson River with Constant Upstream
Concentrations of 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward, 1998-2067.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
12000
10000 •
8000 •
o
4000 -
2000 -
CO
en
en
-Zero PCB load at Fort Edward, Cumulative load
-10 ng/L Tri+ concentration at Fort Edward, Cumulative load
-30 ng/L Tri+ concentration at Fort Edward, Cumulative load
CO
8
C\J
o
C\J
o
CM
CO
s
CM
CO
s
CM
8
CO
s
CM
o
c\j
Year
Figure 8-9b. No-Action Forecast Cumulative Annual Trin- Load to the Lower Hudson River with Constant Upstream
Concentrations of 10 ng/L, 30 ng/L, and 0 ng/L Tri-h at Fort Edward, 1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
50,000
45,000 • •
^ 40,000 • •
"E 35,000
re
lii 30,000 •
™ 25,000
O
c
O
W
•o
X
20,000 •
15,000-
10,000 •
5,000 -
USGS Daily Flow
Scaled to 100 Year Peak Flow
The 1988 hydrograph adjusted
to include the 100 year flow
was used as the first year
hydrograph in the 70-year
forecast simulations.
Date in Forecast Year 1
Figure 8-10. Adjustment of the Fort Edward Hydrograph to Include the 100 Year Flow (47,330 cfs).
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
100
90 • • - -,
O)
.0
I
"c
0)
o
o
o
CO
o
Q.
80-
70-
60
50-
40
C 30
20
10
"PeaRIOOYea'r
Fort Edward flow
(47,330 cfs) on April 6th
-100 Year Flood
-No Action
CO
O)
CO
en
ro
CO
o>
ro
CO
o>
Q.
<
CO
O)
>N
0)
O
CO
0)
CN
CO
O)
Q.
(U
w
o
O
CO
CM
00
cn
6
CO
Q
Date
Figure 8-11. Predicted 100 Year Event (3/28 to 4/13) Impact on Tri+ PCB Levels at Thompson Island Dam (West)
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
300'
250 •••
o>
c
o
200"-
§ 150-
O
O
m
o
^ 100-
.Peak 100 Year Fort Edward
flow (47,330 cfs) on April 6th
-100 Year Flood
- No Action
Date
Figure 8-12. Predicted 100 Year Event (3/28 to 4/13) Impact on Tri+ PCB Levels at Federal Dam.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
90
"55
H 80
x
3
CO
o
Q.
.+
70 +
60 +
50 +
o>
> 40
+*
sz
3
E 30
3
O
•S 20
Q)
(0
n
, Schuylerville
. Waterford
• Federal Dam
Stillwater Dam
Tl Dam
8
c
(0
CO
en
CO
O)
CO
01
CO
en
>%
to
CO
en
CO
CD
CO
o>
o
O
CO
CNJ
CO
en
§
CO
en
6
cu
Q
ri
CM
Date
Figure 8-13. Cumulative Net Increase of Tri+ PCB Mass Loading at Various Locations in the Upper Hudson River Due to the
100 Year Flood Event (versus the No Action Scenario).
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
20.0
18.0 -
16.0'
14.0
12.0
10.0-
8.0
6.0 -
4.0-
2.0 •
0.0 -1
Cohesive
1998 GE data
"Hydrograph #3 (Base)
Hydrograph #1
Hydrograph #2
- Hydrograph #4
co
o
en
o
CM
CO CO
s s
CM CM
o
C\J
CO
s
CM
CM
in
o
8 8 8
Figure 8-14a. Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for Thompson Island Pool for
Alternative Hydrographs (Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration of 10 ng/L) at Fort
Edward.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
10.0
9.0-I
8.0
7.0 -
6.0 •
5.0 •
4.0
3.0 •
2.0 -
1.0 •
0.0
#3 (Base)
Hydrograph #1
Hydrograph #2
Hydrograph #4
00
O)
en
o
CM
o
CM
CO
OJ
O
CM
S S S
3
CO
IT)
O
CM
CO
CD
O
CVJ
CO
CD
O
Figure 8-14b. Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Schuylerville Reach for
Alternative Hydrographs (Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration of 10 ng/L) at Fort
Edward.
Limiw-Tech, Inc.
-------
Hydrograph #3 (Base)
Hydrograph #1
Hydrograph #2
Hydrograph #4
Figure 8-14c. Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Stillwater Reach for
Alternative Hydrographs (Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration of 10 ng/L) at Fort
Edward.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Hydrograph #3 (Base)
Hydrograph #1
Hydrograph #2
Hydrograph #4
Figure 8-14d. Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Waterford Reach for
Alternative Hydrographs (Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration of 10 ng/L) at Fort
Edward.
Limiin-Tech, Inc.
-------
1.0
~ 0.8
D)
I
0.6-
ra
*•<
8
c
O
O
0.4
0.2
0.0
Non-Cohesive
•Hydrograph #3 (Base)
- Hydrograph #1
•Hydrograph #2
- Hydrograph #4
3
o
CO
o
CM
o
CM
00
CM
O
CM
CM
8
CM
Year
o
c\j
§
CO
8
CM
CO CO
(p tp
o
CM
Figure 8-14e. Forecast Sediment Tri+ Concentrations for the Federal Dam Reach for
Alternative Hydrographs (Constant Upstream Tri+ Concentration of 10 ng/L) at Fort
Edward.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Dam
35
30 •
20-
10 -
5H
•Hydrograph #3 (Base)
- Hydrograph #1
-Hydrograph tt2
- Hydrograph #4
8
o
CM
Scrmytervllle
40
35-
25
^
o
« 20
•c
15 •
I
v
01
s
01
10 -
5 •
Figure 8-15a. Forecast Annual Average Tri+ Concentrations at Thompson
Island Dam and Schuylerville for Alternative Hydrographs (Constant
Upstream Tri+ Concentration of 10 ng/L at Fort Edward), 1998-2067.
LimnO'Tech. Inc.
-------
Stillwatsr
35
30 •
25-
20 ]
10 •
5 •
•Hydrograph #3 (Base)
- Hydrograph #1
•Hydrograph #2
- Hydrograph #4
35
en
o
o
CM
Waterford
f 30
25
i 20
o
£ 15
I 10
5H
I
Figure 8-15b. Forecast Annual Average Tri+ Concentrations at Stillwater and
Waterford for Alternative Hydrographs (Constant Upstream Tri+
Concentration of 10 ng/L at Fort Edward), 1998-2067.
Limnn-Tech, Inc.
-------
20.0
18.0-
12'°
1 10.0 -
c
Q>
g 8.0 ]
o
" 6.0
^ 4.0 •
2.0 •
0.0
8
10.0
en
I
c
o
c
o>
o
c
o
O
•f
Cohesive
1998 GE data
10 ng/L upstream concentration; Base hydrograph
'Solids sensitivity (1977-1997 Rating Curve)
s
O
CM
O
CVJ
O
CO
CD
CM
O
C\J
oo
CO
o
CM
o
CO
Year
Year
Figure 8-16. Sensitivity of Thompson Island Pool Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to an Alternate Total Suspended Solids Load at Fort Edward, 1998-
2047.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1998 GE data
Base Forecast
Tributary Solids Loads -50%
""—""Tributary Solids Loads +50%
Year
Year
Figure 8-17a. Sensitivity of Thompson Island Pool Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Changes in External Tributary Solids Loadings,
1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
10.0
9.0 -j
w 8.0
t,o
.0
I
c
0)
o
o
o
6.0
5.0
4.0 -\
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Cohesive
^^—Base Forecast
Tributary Solids Loads -50%
'''"'^Tributary Solids Loads +50%
00
O5
cn
3.0
2.7
^ 2.4
o>
Bi 2.1
"" 1.8
HI
» 1.2
o
% 0.9
H 0.6
0.3
0.0
to oo
So
o
CM CM
o
CM
O
CM
to
CM
o
CM
CO
CM
o
CM
co oo
CO CO
o o
CM CM
CO 00 CO
S S g
CM CM CM
00
IT)
O
CM
CO
g
CM
00
UD
O
CM
Year
Non-Cohesive
CO CO
en o
en o
*- CM
CO
O
O
o
CM
CO
o
CO
CM
O
CM
00 CO 00
CM. CO CO
o o o
CM CM CM
o
CM
CO
in
o
CM
00
If)
o
CM
CO
CO
o
CM
00
(0
8
Year
Figure 8-17b. Sensitivity of Thompson Island Dam to Schuylerville Surface Sediment
Tri+ Concentrations to Changes in External Tributary Solids Loadings,
1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
2.5 -r
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Cohesive
Base Forecast
Tributary Solids Loads -50%
Tributary Solids Loads +50%
CO
01
O)
CO
o
o
eg
oo
O
o
(M
o
CM
oo
o
CO
CM
o
CM
oo
s
CM
O
CM
oo
co
o
CO OO
•
-------
Base Forecast
Tributary Solids Loads -50%
Tributary Solids Loads +50%
Year
3.0
2.5
O)
E. 2.0
,0
'.M
S 1.5
e
01
o
3 1.0
+
H
0.5
0.0
Non-Cohesive
CO
en
en
ro
o
o
CM
CO
o
o
o
CM
CO
CM
o
CM
CO
s
CM
CO
CO
o
CM
Year
CO
CO
o
CM
CO 00
s s
CM CM
(O
in
o
CM
00
in
o
CM
CO
to
o
CM
Figure 8-17d. Sensitivity of Stillwater to Waterford Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Changes in External Tributary Solids Loadings,
1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
3.0
2.5
3
I)
E 2.0
| 1.5-
a
u
o 1.0
0.5
0.0
Non-Cohesive
Base Forecast
Tributary Solids Loads -50%
Tributary Solids Loads +50%
CO CO 00
O) O O
0)00
T- CM CM
O
CM
O
CM
CO
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
o
CM
O
CM
o
CM
o
CM
CO
8
CO
§
CM
Year
Figure 8-17e. Sensitivity of Waterford to Federal Dam Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Changes in External Tributary Solids Loadings,
1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
20.0
18.0
f 16.0
|> 14.0
I 12'°
I 10.0
0)
o 8.0
o
U 6.0
•c
>- 4.0
2.0
0.0
CO
O)
en
CO
en
en
Cohesive
* 1998 GE data
—Base Forecast (Mixing to 4 cm)
mia™*Mixing to 6 cm in Non-Cohesive Sediments
•X
CO CO
o o
o o
CM CN
O
CM
CO
CN
O
CM
O
CM
CO 00
CO CO
o o
CM CM
o
CN
s
co
m
o
CN
o
CM
CO
to
o
CM
o
CM
Year
o
CM
O
eg
o
CM
CO
CM
O
CM
CO
CO
CO CO
CO CO
o o o o
CM CM CM CM
CO
in
o
CM
CO
in
o
CM
CO
ID
O
Year
Figure 8-18a. Sensitivity of Thompson Island Pool Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Enhanced Mixing (top 6 cm) in Non-Cohesive Sediments,
1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
o 6.0
~ 5.0
c
o
o
+
4.0
3.0
2.0 •
1.0
0.0
CO
O)
O>
Cohesive
. —— 10 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
""""^Mixing to 6 cm in Non-Cohesive Sediments
CO
O
O
CO
O
o
CN
o
CN
CO
CM
o
CM
OO
CN
O
CM
ro
CO
o
CM
Year
00
CO
a
O
CM
o
CM
O
CM
CO
§
CN
00
to
o
CM
8 §
o o
CN CM
O
CM
O
CM
00 CO OO CO
CM CO CO rf
O O O O
CN CM CM CM
o
CM
CO
vn
o
CM
o
CM
CO
(O
o
CM
OO
(O
o
CM
Year
Figure 8-18b. Sensitivity of Thompson Island Dam to Schuylerville Surface Sediment
Tri+ Concentrations to Enhanced Mixing (top 6 cm) in Non-Cohesive Sediments,
1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
2.3
_ 2.0
01
O) 1.8
I1'5
1 1.3
0)
8 1.0
o
>8
* 0.5
0.3
0.0
"\i.
Cohesive
\
•10 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
"Mixing to 6 cm in Non-Cohesive
Sediments
3aus&teK»»*''aSB*s»'*jS5*5^^
co
o
O
o
O
CM
co
T-
O
co
CM
O
CM
O
C\l
o
(N
Year
O
o
o> o
T- (N
co f>
§ o
rg CM
n
s
CM
CO CO 00
CM CO CO
000
CM CM CM
CO
s
CM
o
CM
CO
m
o
CM
o
CM
co
(O
o
CM
00
(O
Year
Figure 8-18c. Sensitivity of Schuylerville to Stillwater Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Enhanced Mixing (top 6 cm) in Non-Cohesive Sediments,
1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
2.0
1.8
j? 1.5
•s.
f 1.3
o
1 1.0
CD
g 0.8
o
•= 0.5
0.3
0.0
Cohesive
10 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
to 6 cm in Non-Cohesive Sediments
co
O}
O
1.4 •,
O
CM
O
CM
co
*~
O
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
co
^'
O
O
CN
S
CO
•o-
0
CM
CO
in
0
CM
0
CN
CO
-------
10 ng/L Tri+ at Fort Edward
Mixing to 6 cm in Non-Cohesive Sediments . .
8 8 8
Year
Figure 8-18e. Sensitivity of Waterford to Federal Dam Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Enhanced Mixing (top 6 cm) in Non-Cohesive Sediments,
1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Stillwater
40
35
~ 30
en
c
o
0)
o
o
o
+
'l-
CO
c
a>
u>
£
v
25
20
15
10
04
Base Forecast (Mixing to 4 cm)
Mixing to 6 cm in Non-cohesive Sediment
00
-------
1998 GE data
1991 Initial Conditions (Base)
1977 Initial Conditions
Year
Year
Figure 8-20a. Sensitivity of Thompson Island Pool Surface Sediment Tri+
Concentrations to Specification of Sediment Initial Conditions, 1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
JC
B>
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
o 6.0
c
o
o
O
O
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1991 Initial Conditions (Base)
1977 Initial Conditions
CO
85
8
CO
O
O
O
CM
co
CM
o
co
CM
o
CM
(M
CO
O
CM
CO
CO
O
CM
o
C\J
(O
o
CO
(O
o
CM
Year
co co M
O Q i-
O O O
CM CM CM
O
CM
CO CM GO
CM CO CO
O O O
CM CM CM
5
CM
in
o
CM
co
in
O
CM
co
8
CM
CO
§
CM
Year
Figure 8-20b. Sensitivity of Schuylerville Reach Surface Sediment Tri+ Concentrations
to Specification of Sediment Initial Conditions, 1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1991 Initial Conditions (Base)
1977 Initial Conditions
O)
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00 •
8 8
Year
Non-cohesive
CO CO
8 8
i- CM
CO (N
§ O
CM CM
O
CM
CO
CM
O
CM
CO
CM
O
CN
(N
8
CM
Year
03
CO
O
CM
o
CM
in
o
(N
in
o
CM
(O
o
CM
CO
(O
o
CM
Figure 8-20c. Sensitivity of Stillwater Reach Surface Sediment Tri+ Concentrations to
Specification of Sediment Initial Conditions, 1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1991 Initial Conditions (Base)
1977 Initial Conditions
Year
Year
Figure 8-20d. Sensitivity of Waterford Reach Surface Sediment Tri+ Concentrations to
Specification of Sediment Initial Conditions, 1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
1.0
~. 0.8
O)
§ 0.6
c
-------
Thompson Island Dam
35
30
20
15
< 10
01
en
a
u 5
1991 Initial Conditions (Base)
1977 Initial Conditions
00
TT
a
Schuylerville
40
30
20
10
Figure 8-21a. Sensitivity of Forecasted Average Annual Tri+ Concentrations to Specification oflnitial Conditions
at Thompson Island Dam and Schuylerville, 1998-2067.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Stillwater
35
30
c 20
O
E is
10
| ,
1991 Initial Conditions (Base)
1977 Initial Conditions
Waterford
35
1 30
c
.2 '
2 25
'c
u
o 20
O
+
15 •
Figure 8-21b. Sensitivity of Forecasted Average Annual Tri+ Concentrations to Specification of Initial Conditions
at Stillwater and Waterford, 1998-2067.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
300 -
250
200
o>
£ 150
100 -
50
0 -
——Model Forecast
A Data Forecast
——Model Hindcast
A Data Hindcast
in
OJ
m
cn
ro
in
O)
0]
m
cn
in
cp
6>
o>
is
o
m
Cn
6
(D
Q
CD
cn
X)
0)
U.
to
cn
(D
CO
CJ)
O)
o
O
CO
o>
6
(U
Q
O
CF)
O)
"o
o
co
6
0)
Q
oo
cn
eo
cn
CO
O)
oo
cn
O)
Date
Figure 9-1. HUDTOX Validation: Comparison of Predicted and Observed Thompson Island Dam Tri+ Concentrations.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
310
260
—Model Forecast
A Data Forecast
Model Hindcast
A Data Hindcast
10
Date
Figure 9-2. HUDTOX Validation: Comparison of Predicted and Observed Schuylerville Tri+ Concentrations.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Dam
140
120
100
g> 80
60
40
20
• Model Forecast
A 1998 Verification data
00
en
CO
en
ro
CO
en
c
CO
CO
en
CO
en
CO
en
CO
en
o.
<
CO
O)
Date
(O
en
co oo oo oo co
en en en en en
c c -5 •=
O)
<
oo
CL
CO
(Tt
i.
eu
Schuylerville
Date
Figure 9-3. HUDTOX Validation: Predicted versus Observed Tri+ Concentrations at
Thompson Island Dam and Schuylerville.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
60
50 -
40
1:1 Line
D)
a
•3 30
O
"3
•o
o
20
20
30
Data (ng/L)
40
50
60
Figure 9-4. Monthly Average Scatter Plots of Observed Data and Model Output at Thompson Island Dam, 1998-1999.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
100 T
10
20
30
40
50
Data (ng/L)
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 9-5. Monthly Average Scatter Plots of Observed Data and Model Output at Schuylerville, 1998-1999.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
Appendix
-------
APPENDIX A
HUDTOX Exposure Concentrations for Risk Assessments
1. Introduction
The HUDTOX fate and transport model and the FISHRAND bioaccumulation model
were developed and refined over a period of years. Concurrent with these modeling
efforts, EPA conducted the risk assessments for the Reassessment. Accordingly, in the
risk assessments, EPA used modeled concentrations of PCBs in sediment, water and fish
from the most updated versions of HUDTOX and FISHRAND that were available at the
time. The HUDTOX results that were used in the risk assessments are presented below.
The FISHRAND results for the Upper Hudson River that were used in the risk
assessments are presented in Appendix B of Book 4.
2. HUDTOX Results Used in the August 1999 Ecological Risk Assessment for the
Hudson River (USEPA, 1999)1
For the August 1999 Ecological Risk Assessment for the Hudson River, EPA evaluated
current and future risks to ecological receptors in the Upper Hudson River for the time
period 1993 through 2018, using the calibration and forecast results for total PCBs in
water and sediment for 1993-2018, as presented in the May 1999 Baseline Modeling
Report (BMR). These were computed from HUDTOX based on initial conditions in
sediment specified from the 1991 GE composite data set and a specified PCB
concentration of 10 ng/L in the water column at the upstream boundary.
The HUDTOX forecasts for sediment and water that were used in the August 1999
Ecological Risk Assessment (1998 to 2018) are presented in Figures A-l and A-2,
respectively.
3. HUDTOX Results Used in the August 1999 Human Health Risk Assessment for
the Upper Hudson River (USEPA, 1999)2
For the August 1999 Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River, EPA
estimated average and high-end concentrations of PCBs in water and sediment for a 41-
year exposure duration from 1999 to 2040 using mean and 95lh percentile concentrations
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Phase 2 Report - Review Copy. Further Site
Characterization and Analysis. Volume 2E - Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment, Hudson River PCBs
Reassessment RL/FS. Prepared for US EPA by TAMS Consultants, Inc. and Menzie-Cura & Associates,
Inc., US EPA, Region II, New York, New York, August 1999.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Phase 2 Report - Review Copy. Further Site
Characterization and Analysis. Volume 2F - Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River,
Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Prepared for US EPA by Gradient Corporation. US EPA,
Region II, New York, New York, August 1999.
A-l Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
of total PCBs in water and sediment for 1999 through 2018, as presented in the May 1999
BMR. These results were computed from HUDTOX based on initial conditions in
sediment specified from the 1991 GE composite data set and a specified PCB
concentration of 10 ng/L in water at the upstream boundary.
The HUDTOX forecasts for sediment and water that were used in the August 1999
Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River (1999 to 2018) presented in
Figures A-l and A-2, respectively.
4. HUDTOX Results Used in the December 1999 Ecological Risk Assessment for
Future Risks in the Lower Hudson River (USEPA, 1999)3
In the December 1999 Ecological Risk Assessment for Future Risks in the Lower Hudson
River, EPA evaluated risks to ecological receptors in the Lower Hudson River for the
time period 1993-2018. To evaluate these risks, EPA used calibration and forecast
results for Tri+ PCBs for the Upper Hudson River for 1993-2018. These results were
computed from the revised HUDTOX model based on initial conditions in sediment
specified from the 1977 data set and a specified PCB concentration of 10 ng/L in water at
the upstream boundary.
The HUDTOX forecasts for sediment and water in the Upper Hudson River that were
used in the December 1999 Ecological Risk Assessment are compared to the results for
this RBMR (as presented in Chapter 8) in Figures A-3 and A-4, respectively. These
results subsequently were used as input into the Farley et al. (1999) model to calculate
concentrations of PCBs in sediment and water for the Lower Hudson River (see,
December 1999 Ecological Risk Assessment for Future Risks in the Lower Hudson
River).
5. HUDTOX Results Used in the December 1999 Human Health Risk Assessment
for the Mid-Hudson River (USEPA, 1999)4
For the December 1999 Human Health Risk Assessment for the Mid-Hudson River, EPA
estimated average and high-end concentrations of PCBs in water and sediment for a 41-
year exposure duration from 1999 to 2040, using mean and 95th percentile concentrations
of Tri+ PCBs in water and sediment for 1999 through 2040. These results were
computed from the revised HUDTOX model based on initial conditions in sediment
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (US EPA). 1999. Phase 2 Report - Review Copy. Further Site
Characterization and Analysis. Volume 2E-A, Ecological Risk Assessment for Future Risks in the Lower
Hudson River. Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Prepared by TAMS Consultants, Inc. and
Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc., US EPA, Region II, New York, New York, December 1999.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (US EPA). 1999. Phase 2 Report - Review Copy. Further Site
Characterization and Analysis. Volume 2F-A, Human Health Risk Assessment for the Mid-Hudson River.
Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS. Prepared by TAMS Consultants, Inc. and Gradient Corporation,
US EPA, Region II, New York, New York, December 1999.
A-2 Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
specified from the 1977 data set and a specified PCB concentration of 10 ng/L in water at
the upstream boundary.
The HUDTOX forecasts for sediment and water that were used in the December 1999
Human Health Risk Assessment (1999-2040) are compared to the results for this RBMR
(as presented in Chapter 8) in Figures A-5 and A-6, respectively.
A-3 Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Q.
£
CO
o
Q.
16
Thompson Islond Pool
16
16
16
~ 14-
= 12 -
| 10-
Q.
3
m
o
Q.
Total PCB concentration at Ft. Edward = 9.9 ng/L ;• • •;
Total PCB concentration at Ft. Edward = 0.0 ng/L ,
oooooo
CMCMCMCMCMCM
Schuylervllle Reach
i-T-C\ICMCMC\ICMC\IC\ICMC\ICJ(NC\JPJOgCMOJOJC\l°
Stillwater Reach
O1O1OOOOOO
i-T-CMCMCJCMCMCM
_ c\j ^j- ir> co co co
8Oi-v-i-v-T-v--r-T-r-
oooooooooo
CMCJCMCMCNJCMOvJCJCMCJCM
Waterford Reach
Year
Figure A-l. Predicted Annual Average PCB Sediment Concentration Model Results (May,
1999) Used in the Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper Hudson River.
Limno-Tech,lnc.
-------
60 —
Thompson Island Dam
t. Edward Total PCB concentration = 9.9 ng/L
Ft. Edward Total PCB concentration = 0.0 ng/L
oooooooooooooooo
CMCVICMC\IC\JC\JC»JC\ICMC\JC\JC\IC\IC\IC\1C\4
Year
60
Waterford
55 -
50 -
r
45 -:
-> 40 i
*- CM CO
§ i 8 o
(M CM
Year
Figure A-2. Predicted Annual Summer Average Water Column PCB Concentration
Model Results (May, 1999) Used in Human Health Risk Assessment for the Upper
Hudson River.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
I
O>
O)
o
o>
S
O)
O
O
CM
O
CVJ
O
CM
Year
Year
Figure A-3a. Predicted Model Sediment Concentration Results Used in Lower Hudson
River Ecological Risk Assessment (Dec., 1999) Compared to Base Model Forecast in
Thompson Island Pool, 1993-2018.
Linuio-Tech, Inc.
-------
Model Using 1991 Initial Conditions (Base Forecast)
Model (Used in Ecological Risk Assessment)
30
25 •
I 20
c
o
15
at
o
c
o
o
.± 10
5
Year
Non-cohesive
Year
Figure A-3b. Predicted Model Sediment Concentration Results Used in Lower
Hudson River Ecological Risk Assessment (Dec., 1999) Compared to Base Model
Forecast in the Schuylerville Reach, 1993-2018.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
I
c
o
I
o
o
o
o
20
18-]
16
14-1
12
10-
8-
6-
Cohesive
•Model Using 1991 Initial Conditions (Base Forecast)
-Model (Used in Ecological Risk Assessment)
Year
Year
Figure A-3c. Predicted Model Sediment Concentration Results Used in Lower
Hudson River Ecological Risk Assessment (Dec., 1999) Compared to Base Model
Forecast in the Stillwater Reach, 1993-2018.
Limna-Tech, Inc.
-------
Model Using 1991 Initial Conditions (Base Forecast)
Model (Used in Ecological Risk Assessment)
Year
Year
Figure A-3d. Predicted Model Sediment Concentration Results Used in Lower
Hudson River Ecological Risk Assessment (Dec., 1999) Compared to Base Model
Forecast in the Waterford Reach, 1993-2018.
Limno-Tecli, Inc.
-------
Model Using 1991 Initial Conditions (Base Forecast)
Model (Used in Ecological Risk Assessment)
Year
Figure A-3e. Predicted Model Sediment Concentration Results Used in Lower
Hudson River Ecological Risk Assessment (Dec., 1999) Compared to Base Model
Forecast in the Federal Dam Reach, 1993-2018.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Dam
t70
% 60
40
I: 30 •
a
a
I 20
S 10
I
~ "• Model (Base Calibration)
Model (Used in Ecological Risk Assessment)
in
o
Schuylerville
Figure A-4a. Predicted Model Water Column Results Used in Lower Hudson River Ecological
Risk Assessment (Dec., 1999) Compared to Base Model Forecast at Thompson Island Dam and
Schuylerville, 1993-2018.
Linvio-Tech, Inc.
-------
Stillwater
« ™ Motel (Base Calibration
Model (Used In Ecological Risk Assessment)
Waterford
I70
c" eo i
o
50
3 40
t 30
|
c
g>
en
2
u
20
10
Figure A-4b. Predicted Model Water Column Results Used in Lower Hudson River Ecological
Risk Assessment (Dec., 1999) Compared to Base Model Forecast at Stillwater and Waterford,
1993-2018.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
20
18
16-1
"3 14'
o)
„.
10 ]
6
4 -
2
Cohesive
Model (Base Calibration)
Model (Used in Human Health Risk Assessment)
Data Mean +/- 2 Standard Errors
8
o
CM
S
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
(£1 00
O
CM
O
CM
Year
o
s
CM
s
CM
-------
10
9
8
7-j
£ 6-
o
•&
CO
o
c
o
o
5-
4-
3-
2-
1 -
Model (Base Calibration)
Model (Used in Human Health Risk Assessment)
Data Mean +/- 2 Standard Errors
8 CM ^ CO
o o o
o o o o
CM CM CM CM
O
CM
CM
O
CM
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
Year
(O
8
CM
3.0
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
Year
Figure A-5b. Predicted Model Sediment Concentration Results Used in mid-Hudson
River Human Health Risk Assessment (Dec., 1999) Compared to Base Model
Forecast in the Schuylerville Reach, 1998-2038.
Limno-Tech. Inc.
-------
E,
c
0)
o
c
o
o
3.0
2.5-
2.0-
1.5
1.0
0.5 -
0.0 J-
Cohesive
Model (Base Calibration)
Model (Used in Human Health Risk Assessment)
Data Mean +/- 2 Standard Errors
?CMCMCMCMCMCMCM
CMCVJCMCMCMCgCMCVJCMCgCMOJ
Year
2.0
1.8
1.6-1
f 1-2-1
o
~ 1.0-1
0)
3 °-8
•" 0.6-
0.4-
0.2
0.0
00
o>
en
Non-cohesive
CM CM CM
T— T— T— T— r-CVj
oooooo
CM
CNJ
oooo
OvlC\lC\JCMC\JC\JC\l
Year
C\JOJC\ICMOJ£MC\J
Figure A-5c. Predicted Model Sediment Concentration Results Used in mid-Hudson
River Human Health Risk Assessment (Dec., 1999) Compared to Base Model
Forecast in the Stillwater Reach, 1998-2038.
Litnno-Tech, Inc.
-------
I
o
I
I
o
o
3.0
2.5
2.0 i
2.0
1.8-
1.6
oi 1.4
o)
£ 1.0 H
c
0)
u
o 0.8*
O
0.6-
0.4
0.2 -
0.0
Cohesive
Model (Base Calibration)
Model (Used in Human Health Risk Assessment)
Data Mean +/- 2 Standard Errors
Year
Non-cohesive
8
8
oo o
8 5
CM CM
O
OJ
CO O
T- CM
O O
CM CM
Year
§
CM
(O
CM
O
CM
00
s
CM
O
S
CM
Figure A-5d. Predicted Model Sediment Concentration Results Used in mid-Hudson
River Human Health Risk Assessment (Dec., 1999) Compared to Base Model
Forecast in the Waterford Reach, 1998-2038.
Limiio-Tech, Inc.
-------
I
1.0
0.9
0.8,-
0.7-
0.6-
0.5-
0.4-
0.3
0.2
0.1 •
0.0
Non-cohesive
>Model (Base Calibration)
Model (Used in Human Health Risk
Assessment)
Data Mean +/- 2 Standard Errors
O)
8
S 8
o
PJ
o
CM
O
OJ
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
00
8
CM
8 8
C\J CM
Year
Figure A-5e. Predicted Model Sediment Concentration Results Used in mid-Hudson
River Human Health Risk Assessment (Dec., 1999) Compared to Base Model
Forecast in the Federal Dam Reach, 1998-2038.
Limno-Tech, Inc.
-------
Thompson Island Dam
•7 70 •
c 60
.2
50 •
"Model (Base Calibration)
-Model (Used in Human Health Risk Assessment)
o
+
< 20
10
to co o
s 8 s
Schuylerville
60
E 50
Q
o
5 40
< 20
te 10
O-1
s s s §
8888
8 8
Figure A-6a. Predicted Model Water Column Results Used in mid-Hudson River Human Health
Risk Assessment (Dec., 1999) Compared to Base Model Forecast at Thompson Island Dam and
Schuylerville, 1998-2038.
Linmo-Tech, Inc.
-------
Stillwater
_ 70
•f 60
|
| 50
O
£
5 40
I-
< 20
8>
£
S 10 •
•Model (Base Calibration
-Model (Used in Human Health Risk Assessment)
? 8
S 8 S g
(M
O
------- |