IMUS
CORPORATION
Park West Two
Cliff Mine Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15275
412-788-1080
R-31-7-3-5
HR
VOLUME I
FEASIBILITY STUDY
HUDSON RIVER RGBs SITE
NEW YORK
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT
NUMBER 01-2V84.0
CONTRACT NUMBER 68-01-6699
NUS PROJECT NUMBER 0723.01
APRIL 1984
SUBMITTED FOR NUS BY:
STEPHEN F. PEDERSEN, P.E.
PROJECT MANAGER
APPROVED:
6 Jki^^v £1
E. DENNIS ESCHER, P.E
MANAGER, REMEDIAL PLANNING
pA Halliburton Company
-------
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-i
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2 SETTING 1—2
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK 1-6
2.0 ThE SF E 2—1
2.1 LOCATION 2-1
2.2 SITE HISTORY 2-4
2.3 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION 2-5
2.4 RESPONSE ACTIONS TO DATE 2-6
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTiNG 3-1
3.1 LANDFORMS 3-1
3.2 SURFACE WATERS 3-1
3.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3-2
3.3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY 3-2
3.3.2 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY 3-5
3.3.3 SOILS 3—10
3.4 GROUNDWATER 3-11
3.5 CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY 3-12
3.6 LAND USE 3-14
3.7 WATER USE 3-15
3.7.1 SURFACE WATER USE 3-15
3.7.2 GROUNDWATER USE 3-17
4.0 ENVIRON MENTAL CONCENTRATIONS 4-1
4.1 CONCENTRATIONS, DISTRIBUTION AND TRENDS 4-1
4.1.1 SEDIMENTS 4-1
4.1.2 WATER 4-33
4.1.3 AIR 4—51
4.1.4 BIOTA 4—53
4.2 ADEQUACY OF EXISTING DATA BASE 4-67
4.2.1 REMNANT DEPOSITS 4-67
4.2.2 SEDIMENT 4—67
4.2.3 WATER 4—69
4.2.4 AIR 4—70
4.2.5 BIOTA 4—70
4.3 EVALUATION OF PCB TRANSPORT MODEL 4-70
4.3.1 HYDRAULIC SUBMODEL 4-71
4.3.2 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT SUBMODEL 4-76
4.3.3 PCB INVENTORY SUBMODEL 4-84
4.3.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSiONS 4-96
-------
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION PAGE
5.0 PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS 5-1
5.1 DISCUSSION OF PCBs 5-1
5.2 AIR POLLUTION 5-4
5.3 SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION 5-5
5.4 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION 5-6
5.5 SURFACE WATER CONTAMINATION 5-7
5.6 GENERAL RISK ASSESSMENT 5-12
6.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY PROCEDURES 6-1
81 PERSONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PROTECTION 6-1
6.1,1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION 6-1
6.1.2 REMEDIAL ACTION 6-2
6.2 HEALTH AND SAFETY MONITORING 6-4
7.0 REVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGY 7-1
7.1 TREATMENT PROCESSES 7-3
7 1.1 ACUREX 7-3
7.1.2 BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS 7-3
7.1.3 CONTROLLED AIR INCINERATOR 7-4
7.1.4 FLUIDIZED BED INCiNERATOR 7-4
7.1.5 GOODYEAR 7-4
7.1.6 HYDROTHERMAL 7-4
7.1.7 KOHPEG 7-5
7.1.8 LARC 7—5
7.1.9 MOLTEN SALT INCINERATOR 7-5
7.1.10 NaPEG 7—6
7.1.11 OZONATION 7-6
7 1.12 PCBX 7—6
7.1.13 PHOTODECOMPOSITION 7-7
7.1.14 PLASMA ARC 7-7
7.1.15 PYROMAGNET1CS INCINERATOR 7-7
7.1.16 ROTARY KILN 7-7
7.1.17 THAG.ARD HTFW 7-8
7.1.18 ULTRAVIOLET/OZONE 7-8
7.1.1 WET-AIR OXIDAT 1ON 7-8
7.2 ANALYTICAL PROCESS 7-9
8.0 INVESTiGATION OF REMEDiAL ALTERNATIVES 8-1
8.1 REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED ALTERNATIVES 8-1
8.1.1 ALTERNATIVES FOR PCBs IN RIVER SEDIMENTS 8—1
8.1.2 ALTERNATIVES FOR PCBs IN REMNANT DEPOSIT AREAS 8-12
8.2 REVIEW OF NEW ALTERNATIVES 8-16
8.3 REVIEW OF POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES 8-18
8.3.1 RIVER SEDIMENTS 8-19
8.3.2 REMNANT DEPOSITS 8-21
II ’
-------
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION PAGE
8.4 PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES 8-23
8.4.1 SCREENING OF DETOXIFICATION OR DESTRUCTION 8-24
TECHNIQUES
8.4.2 SCREENING OF SINGLE ALTERNATIVES 8-27
8.4.3 SCREENING OF COMBINATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES 8-29
9.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 9-1
9.1 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 9-1
9.2 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 9-1
9.2.1 EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES 9—1
9.2.2 COSTS 9-5
9.2.3 WEIGHTING FACTORS 9-7
9.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 9-8
9.3.1 EXAMINATION OF REMAINING ALTERNATIVES 9-8
9.3.2 EVALUATION PROCEDURE 9-62
9.3.3 SELECTION OF COST-EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE 9-64
9.3.4 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES 9-68
9.3.5 SUMMARY 9-69
10.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLANNING ACTIVITIES 10-1
10.1 SITE REMEDIATION OBJECTIVES 10-1
10.2 REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE HUDSON RIVER PCBs SITE 10-1
10.2.1 FINAL DESIGN 10—1
10.2.2 IMPLEMENTATION 10-2
10.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 10-3
10.3 PRELIMINARY WORK PLAN OUTLINE FOR THE REMEDIAL 10-4
INVESTIGATION OF THE REMNANT DEPOSIT SITES
10.3.1 WORK PLAN SUMMARY 10-4
10.3.2 PROBLEM ASSESSMENT 10-4
10.3.3 SCOPE OF WORK 10—5
10.3.4 MANAGEMENT PLAN 10-10
10.3.5 COSTS AND SCHEDULE 10-11
10.4 PRELIMINARY WORK PLAN OUTLINE FOR PHASE I 10-11
OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RIVER
10.4.1 WORK PLAN SUMMARY 10-11
10.4.2 PROBLEM ASSESSMENT 10-12
10.4.3 SCOPE OF WORK 10—12
10.4.4- MANAGEMENT PLAN 10-26
10.4.5 COSTS AND SCHEDULE 10—27
Iv
-------
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION PAGE
REFERENCES R—i
APPENDICES
A SITE CHRONOLOGY HUDSON RIVER PCBs SITE, NEW YORK A-i
B COST EFFECTIVENESS MATR iCES B—I
C AL7ERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES C-I
D PHASE II. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE 0 -i
HUDSON RiVER
E ANALYSIS OF 1983 SAMPLING DATA E-1
F REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION COSTS AND SCHEDULESI F - i
REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES
V
-------
TABLES
NUMBER PAGE
ES-i REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES AND COST COMPARISONS ES-13
1-1 NYSDEC RECOMMENDED PROGRAM 1-3
1—2 EPA RECOMMENDED PROGRAM (DE1S) (MAY 1983) 1-5
2-1 ESTIMATED MASS OF PCB IN THE HUDSON RIVER BASiN 2-7
3-1 CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY - ALBANY COUNTY AIRPORT 3-13
4-1 PCB CONTAMINATION IN REMNANT DEPOSITS 4-4
4-2 STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PCB AND PCB MASS
ESTIMATES FOR RIVER REACHES IN THE UPPER
HUDSON RIVER 4-12
4-3 CONTAMINATED AND REMOVAL VOLUMES AND PCB
QUANTiTIES 4-25
4-4 CONTAMINATION OF PCBs (Aroclor 1242) IN RECENT
SEDIMENTS OF THE LOWER HUDSON RIVER 4-30
4-5 PRELIMINARY PCB BALANCE FOR THE LOWER HUDSON 4-32
4-6 COMPARISON OF SURVEY DATA FROM SUSPECTED HOT SPOTS
IN THE LOWER HUDSON RIVER 4-34
4-7 PHYSiCAL PHASE OF PCBs IN WATER COLUMN (WATERFORD) 4-36
4-8 AVERAGE PCB CONCENTRATIONS FOR THREE FLOW REGIMES -
FOR 1977-1979 USGS DATA 4-40
4-9 LOW FLOW PCB CONCENTRATIONS 4-41
4-10 RECENT FLOW DATA FROM THE GAGING STATION AT
STILLWATER 4-45
4-11 CALCULATED PCB MIGRATION POTENTIAL FROM
CONTAMINATED LANDFILLS AND DREDGE SPOIL
AREAS IN THE UPPER HUDSON RIVER AREA 4-49
4-12 PCB LOSSES TO THE RECEIVING STREAMS 4-50
UNSECURE DREDGE DISPOSAL SITES
4-13 TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES - HIGH VOLUME AIR
SAMPLERS, SELECTED STATIONS - UPPER HUDSON
RIVER, 1976 4—52
4-14 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, PCB AIR
SAMPLING 4_54
4-15 SUMMARY TABULATION OF AIR PCB DATA BY NYSDEC
DIVISION OF AIR RESOURCES 4-56
4-16 LIPID-BASED AND WET-WEIGHT-BASIS PCB
CONCENTRATIONS IN FRESH WATER RESIDENT
FISH SPECIES 4—58
4-17 LIPID-BASED AND WET-WEIGHT-BASIS PCB
CONCENTRATIONS IN MARINE SPECIES 4-60
4-18 CURRENT APPROXIMATE AVERAGE TOTAL PCB
CONCENTRATIONS IN HUDSON RIVER MIGRANT/MARINE
FISH (WET BASIS) ENCOUNTERED BELOW TROY 4-64
5-1 PCB CONCENTRATIONS, HOT SPOTS AND WETLANDS 5-2
5-2 PCB LEVELS IN THE VILLAGE OF WATERFORD 5-9
DRINKING WATER
VI
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
NUMBER PAGE
5-3 PCB CONCENTRATION OF UNTREATED AND
FINISHED DRINKING WATER 5-10
5-4 PCB LEVELS IN WATERFORD DRINKING WATER 5-11
8-1 PCB TRANSPORT PROJECTIONS USING LMS MODEL 8-2
DATA COMPARED WITH TRANSPORT PROJECTIONS
USING CURRENT ESTIMATED TRANSPORT RATE
8-2 TECHNOLOGY STATUS AND APPLICABILITY 8-17
9-1 WEIGHTiNG FACTORS FOR EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES 9-9
9-2 SUMMARY OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS 9-66
FIGURES
NUMBER PAGE
2-lA PROJECT AREA. UPPER HUDSON RIVER 2-2
2-lB PROJECT AREA, LOWER HUDSON RIVER 2-3
3-1 STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION - BEDROCK 3-3
3-2 STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION - UNCONSOLIDATED MATERIAL 3-7
3-3 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY OF SARATOGA COUNTY 3-8
3-4 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY 3-9
4-1 PLAN VIEW, REMNANT DEPOSITS 4-2
4-2A TYPICAL CROSS SECTION AT REMNANT DEPOSIT 1 4-5
4-2B TYPICAL CROSS SECTION AT REMNANT DEPOSIT 2 4-6
4-2C TYPICAL CROSS SECTION AT REMNANT DEPOSIT 3 4-7
4-2D TYPICAL CROSS SECTION AT REMNANT DEPOSIT 4 4-8
4-2E TYPICAL CROSS SECTION AT REMNANT DEPOSIT 5 4-9
4-3 ESTIMATED PCB IN POUNDS BY RIVER POOL, 4-15
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK
4-4 HOT SPOT AND REMNANT AREA LOCATIONS 4-17
4-4A PLAN VIEW - UPPER HUDSON RIVER AREA 4-18
4 4B PLAN VIEW - UPPER HUDSON RIVER AREA 4-19
4-4C PLAN VIEW - UPPER HUDSON RIVER AREA 4-20
4-4D PLAN VIEW - UPPER HUDSON RIVER AREA 4-21
4-4E PLAN VIEW - UPPER HUDSON RIVER AREA 4-22
4-4F PLAN VIEW - UPPER HUDSON RIVER AREA 4-23
4-4G PLAN VIEW - UPPER HUDSON RIVER AREA 4-24
v i i
-------
FIGURES
NUMBER PAGE
4-5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FLOW RATE AND TOTAL PCB 4-37
CONCENTRATION FOR SCHUYLERVILLE AND STILLWATER DATA
4-6 YEARLY PCB TRANSPORT ESTIMATES 4-43
4-7 RELATION OF PCB LOAD TO FLOW RATE DURING SPRING 4-47
FLOOD FLOWS AT WATERFORD
4-8 HEC-6 HYDRAULIC CALIBRATION LOCK 7 TO THOMPSON 4-74
ISLAND DAM REACH
4-9 APPROXIMATE RATING CURVE TO ILLUSTRATE DEFICIENCIES 4-75
IN HYDRAULIC SUBMODEL CALIBRATION
4-bA SUSPENDED AND TOTAL SEDIMENT LOAD VS FLOW, HUDSON 4-77
RIVER, GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK
4-lOB TOTAL SEDIMENT LOAD VS FLOW, MODEL CALIBRATION - 4-78
PERIOD DECEMBER 1976 - MAY 1977
4-1OC TOTAL SEDIMENT LOAD VS FLOW, MODEL CALIBRATION 4-79
PERIOD DECEMBER 1976 — MAY 1977
4-1OD TOTAL SEDIMENT LOAD VS FLOW, MODEL CALIBRATION 4-80
PERIOD DECEMBER 1976 - MAY 1978
4-11 COMPARISON OF SEDIMENT LOAD VS FLOW, 4-83
RELATIONSHIPS AT VARIOUS MONITORING STATIONS
4-12 PCB WATER COLUMN CONCENTRATION VS FLOW 4-86
COMPARiSON: MODEL PCB RESULTS AND USGS DATA,.
MODEL CALIBRATiON PERIOD DECEMBER 1976 - MAY 197?
4-13 PCB WATER COLUMN CONCENTRATION VS FLOW 4-88
COMPARISON: PCB MODEL RESULTS AND USGS DATA, LOCK 4
4-14 GREEN ISLAND, PCB LOAD VS FLOW, MODEL CALIBRATION 4-89
PERIOD DECEMBER 1976 - MAY 1977
4-15 TOTAL PCB LOAD VS FLOW COMPARISON: PCB MODEL 4-90
RESULTS AND USGS DATA, MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD
DECEMBER 1976 - MAY 1977
4-16 COMPARISON OF TOTAL PCB LOAD VS FLOW AT VARIOUS 4-92
MONITORING STATIONS (OCTOBER 1975 - SEPTEMBER 1977)
4-17 COMPARISON OF PCB CONCENTRAT1ON VS FLOW AT VARIOUS 4-93
MONITORING STATIONS (OCTOBER 1975 - SEPTEMBER 1977)
4-18 COMPARISON OF PCB CONCENTRATION VS FLOW AT VARIOUS 4-94
MONITORING STATiONS (OCTOBER 1977 - APRIL 1979)
8—1 FLOW CHART OF INITIAL SCREENING PROCESS 8-25
9—1 COST EFFECTIVENESS MATRIX 9-63
9-2 REMEDIAL ALTERNATiVE EVALUATION - FLOW DIAGRAM 9-65
V I II
-------
GLOSSARY
I cts (cubic feet per second) = 448.83 gpm (gallons per minute)
1 MGD (million gallons per day) = 694.4 gpm (gallons per minute)
1 1/mm (liters per minute) = 0.26418 gpm (gallons per minute)
1 m 3 /sec (cubic meters per second) = 15,850.3 gpm (gallons per minute)
1 ton/day (tons per day) = 730,480 lb/yr (pounds per year)
1 lb/yr (pounds per year) = 0.002738 lb/day (pounds per day)
1 lb/day (pounds per day) 0.0417 lb/hr (pounds per hour)
1 lb/hr (pounds per hour) = 0.0167 lb/mm (pounds per minute)
1 ig/day (micrograms per day) = 2 203 x 109 lb/day (pounds per day)
1 lb (pound) = 0.45359 kg (kilograms)
1 ppm- (parts per million) = 1 ug/g (micrograms per gram)
1 ppb (parts per billion) 1 ig/l (micrograms per liter)
1 j g/g (milligrams per gram) 1 ppm (parts per million)
1 ig/l (micrograms per liter) 1 ppb (parts per billion)
1 mg/I (milligram per liter) 1 ppm (parts per million)
1 g/m 3 (micrograms per cubic meter) 1000 ng/m 3 (nanograms per cubic meter)
1 cu yd (cubic yard ) = 0.76456 m 3 (cubic meters)
1 yd (yards) 0.91440 m (meters)
1 ft (feet) = 0.30480 rn (meters)
1 in (inches) 2.540 cm (centimeters)
1 ac (acres) 43,560 sq ft (square feet)
DEIS — Draft Environmental Impact Statement
EIS — Environmental Impact Statement
EPA — Environmental Protection Agency
F.D.A. — U.S. Food & Drug Administration
NEPA — National Environmental Policy Act
NIOSH — National Institute of Ocbupational Safety and Health
NYSDEC — New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOH — New York State Department of Health
PCB — polychiorinated biphenyl
SDEIS — Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
SEQIS — State Environmental Quality Review Act Environmental Impact
Statement
USGS — United States Geological Survey
DFS — Draft Feasibility Study
Receptor — Person or persons who could be potentially exposed to PCB occurring
in air, water, sediment, soil, or biota.
ix
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Feasibility Study for the Hudson River PCB site is prepared in accordance with
the rules of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) published pursuant to Section 105
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA).
The original Work Assignment issued by EPA was for the development of a
Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP). Before the RAMP was completed, the
Hudson River PCBs Site was placed on the EPA’s National Priorities List, and, as a
result, became eligible for the funding of remedial actions. Since the elements
required by the Work Assignment are equivalent to those for a feasibility study
under CERCLA, the title of the document was changed to a Draft Feasibility Study
(DFS).
The Draft Feasibility Study was submitted for public review in October of 1983,
and was subsequently revised to reflect many of the concerns expressed in public
comments. The final document includes those changes and is entitled “Volume I —
Final Feasibility Study” although the title of RAMP is used in the text to eliminate
wide—spread revision. A separate document contains detailed responses to
individual comments and is entitled “Volume II Responses to Comments,
Feasibility Study, Hudson River PCBs Site, New York.”
A significant amount of scientific and engineering information currently exists
regarding the problems of PCBs in the Hudson River, and this ‘information was used
in the preparation of this document. Major objectives of the Feasibility Study were
to reevaluate a previously prepared environmental impact statement and
subsequently to compile a list of proposed and newly devisoped remedial
alternatives. These alternatives were evaluated using a cost—effective approach
consistent with the goals and objectives of CERCLA.
ES-i
-------
The Site
The Hudson River originates in the Adirondack Mountains in Essex County, New
York. and empties into the Atlantic Ocean at the Battery in New York City. The
river’s 17 major tributaries drain 13, 365 square miles of land located in eastern
New York State and in parts of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. The
Lower Hudson River, from its mouth in the upper New York harbor to its
confluence with the Mohawk River near Albany, is a tidal estuary subject to
periodic fluctuations in water level. This 150—mile reach is maintained and
regulated as a Federal waterway by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide
waterborne access to the port of Albany and the New York State Barge Canal. The
river above Albany (Upper Hudson River) is a high—gradient, fresh—water stream
confined by 15 dams. The 30—mile reach in the Upper Hudson River between
Albany and Fort Edward is officially part of the New York State Barge Canal
System and is maintained and regulated by the State Department of
Transportation.
Over a 30—year period ending in 1977, two General Electric (GE) capacitor
manufacturing plants near Fort Edward and Hudson Falls, New York discharged
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to the Hudson River. Much of the PCBs in the
discharges were trapped In sediments behind a 100—year—old dam at Fort Edward.
After the removal of the dam in 1973, large spring floods scoured an estimated 1.1
million cubic yards of material from the former dam pool. Subsequent studies have
revealed that the discharges, in combination with the removal of the Fort Edward
Dam. have ultimately resulted in the dispersal of 887,000 to 1.1 million pounds of
PCB throughout the entire Hudson River, System south of Fort Edward. Today, it
appears that much of this PCB has either been dredged or washed out to sea so that
only 498,000 to 656,000 pounds remains in the river. GE Is also reported to have
placed an additional 528,000 to 745,000 pounds of PCB in upland dumps. The latter
PCBs are not directly related to the Hudson River problem.
Action brou ht against GE by th New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) in 1975 resulted in a 7—million—dollar program for the
investigation of PCBs and the development of methods to reduce or remove the
ES-2
-------
threat of PCB contamination. Subsequent sediment surveys revealed that the most
extensive contamination was confined to 40 submerged PCB hot spots located in
the river between Fort Edward and Albany and to five exposed remnant deposits
located in the former dam pool. PCBs were also found to exist in dredge spoils on
the banks of the Upper Hudson River and in sediments of the estuary. Other
NYSDEC studies showed that minor quantities of PCBs were being released from
river—bottom sediments to the water column and to the air and land adjacent to the
river. The detection of severe PCB contamination In Hudson River fish resulted in
a State—mandated ban on all fishing in the Upper Hudson River between Albany and
Fort Edward and in restrictions on commercial and recreational fishing in the
Lower Hudson. In addition, it was feared that the continued presence of PCBs
might disrupt dredging activities needed to maintain the barge canal and Federal
waterways and might curtail the development of the river for hydroelectricity.
For these reasons, NYSDEC proposed a partial cleanup of the river by dredging
selected PCB hot spots and containing them In a secure upland containment
facility.
In September 1980, Congress passed an amendment to the Clean Water Act (CWA)
under Title 1, Section 116(a) and (b), entitled, “The Hudson River PCB Reclamation
Demonstration Project. Under this legislation, construction grant funds up to
$20,000,000 could be authorized If the EPA Administrator determined that funds
were not first available under Section 115 or 311 of the CWA or from the then
proposed CERCLA. Congress authorized the EPA to make grants to the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in order to carry out
the intent of the Act.
As a result of Federal involvement and in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and requirements In Section 116, the EPA Region
II, on May 8, 1981, issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the
Hudson River PCB problem. This was followed by a Supplemental Draft EIS on
August 18, 1981. After review of the Final EIS (Issued October 8, 1982), the NEPA
process was concluded on December 30, 1982 with a Record of Decision in which
the EPA Administrator determined that funds for addressing this problem were
available under CERCLA and that the problem rated sufficiently high to be
ES-3
-------
considered for inclusion on the National Priorities List. The Hudson River PCBs
Site was included on the currently proposed update of the National Priorities List
issued in August 1983. Although the funding authorization of Section 116 was due
to expire on September 30, 1983, the Administrator of EPA has extended the option
to support a demonstration project with CWA funds under the conditions that
NYSDEC develop a suitable disposal method and redefine the extent of river
contamination.
Environmental Setting
The environment affected by the Hudson River PCB problem Includes all waters,
lands, ecosystems, communities, and facilities located in -or Immediately adjacent
to the 200—mile stretch of river from Fort Edward to the Battery. This project
focuses on, but is not limited to, the most heavily contaminated reach between
Albany and Fort Edward (Upper Hudson River).
Problems and possible actions involving PCBs in upland dumps within the Upper
Hudson River Basin are not within the scope of this study. Likewise, dredge spoils,
although possibly contributing very minor quantities of PCBs to the present
problem are not directly within the scope of the report since they are being
addressed by NYSDEC and GE In a separate agreement, not related to the Hudson
River project.
The surficlal sediments near the Upper Hudson River vary In thickness from a few
Inches to more than 200 feet and consist of unconsolidated materials including till,
glacial outwash deposits, proglacial lacustrine deposits, recent alluvium, and
modern dredge spoils. The underlying bedrock Is predominantly folded and
fractured, black Ordovician shale.
The climate of the area Is continental; however, seasonal variations In temperature
and precipitation are often moderated by the maritime climate which prevails In
the southeastern portion of the state. The annual average temperature of the area
is 47°F and the annual precipitation totals an average of 30 inches.
ES-4
-------
The mean annual discharge at Stlllwater, located midway between Fort Edward and
Albany, is about 6.000 cubic feet per second (cfs). River flows are regulated by
five reservoirs above Fort Edward. The mean annual flood flow at Stiilwater
(approximately 31,000 cfs) usually generates flow velocities sufficient to cause
scouring of the banks and river bottom.
Land use in the Upper Hudson River area is predominantly agricultural. Petroleum
refineries, grain bins, and paper mills are located at various sites along the river.
Albany is the largest population center along the upper Hudson River. Other cities
with populations greater than 25,000 are Troy, Poughkeepsie, Newburgh, and New
York. New York, and Newark, New Jersey.
The Hudson River Is an important source of hydroelectric power, public water
supplies, transportation, and recreation. The Upper Hudson River is the greatest
hydroelectric—producing area in the basIn, with a total of 10 plants located above
Fort Edward. Waterford, New York Is supplied with drinkIng water by the Upper
Hudson River. The city of Poughkeepsie, the Highland Water DIstrict, Port Ewen
Water District, and the village of Rhinebeck take their water supplies directly
from the Lower Hudson River. A water intake located at Chelsea, which is north
of Beacon, New York. may be used to suppiement New York City water supplies
during periods of drought.
Environmental Concentrations
More than 1,200 core and grab samples from the Upper Hudson River bottom, taken
by NYSDEC and other agencies in 1977 and 1978, revealed the following:
• That fIve exposed remnant deposits left in the former Fort Edward Dam
pool, with average PCB concentrations ranging from 5 to 250 parts per
million (ppm), contained from 63,820 to 139, 820 pounds of PCBs. 1
1 Since the removal of remnant area 3A in 1978, the estimate is 46,800 to 108,000
pounds.
ES—5
-------
• That 40 PCB hot spots located in the Upper Hudson River between Fort
Edward and Albany contained from 158,000 to 170,000 pounds of PCBs.
These hot spots were of limited areal extent and had average PCB
concentrations in excess of 50 ppm.
• That extensive cold areas# of the Upper Hudson River, with average PCB
concentrations of 20 ppm, contained from 123,000 to 177,000 pounds of
PCBs.
Separate sampling surveys by other NYSDEC consultants revealed that Lower
Hudson River sediments had an average PCB concentration of about 10 ppm and
contained from 169,000 to 200,000 pounds of PCBs.
The total mass of PCBs residing In Hudson River sediments and remnant deposits Is
estimated at 498,000 to 656,000 pounds. When every known source of PCB Is
considered, including PCBs in dredge spoils, and upland dumps, as well as those
PCBs washed out to sea, the final total of PCB associated with GE is between 1.4
to 1.8 million pounds.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has periodically monitored river—water
PCB concentrations in the Upper Hudson River at Glens Falls, Rogers Island,
Stlllwater, Schuylervllle, and Waterford, New York since 1977. The amount and
form of PCBs in the water column have been shown to vary with flow. During low
flow periods, PCBs are present mostly In a desorbed form. At flows higher than
21,000 cfs at Waterford, large amounts of PCB are present In an adsorbed form on
resuspended sediments. During average flaws, however, PCB concentrations are
much lower than at other times, probably because dissolved PCB Is diluted and
scour Is occurring at a lower rate. During low flows at Waterford ( , 7000 cfs),
PCB concentrations average between 0.6 and 0.7 parts per billion (ppb). At flows
above 20,000 cfs, total PCB concentrations Increase to about 1.0 ppb. During
average flows, however, total PCB levels decrease to about 0.2 ppb. Low—flow
average PCB concentrations have shown a significant decrease since 1977.
Existing information Is not sufficient to show whether the decreasing trends will
continue.
ES—6
-------
A PCB transport model developed for NYSDEC has previously been used to
estimate the annual PCB load at the Federal Dam at Troy, and to predict the time
period over which PCB—contaminated material would exist In, and continue to be
transported out of, the Upper Hudson River. The model was also used by NYSDEC
to predict the change in PCB transport rate accompanying various proposed
remedial activities. According to a reevaluation carried out in the Feasibility
Study, however, the model, appears to overestimate PCB transport rates as well as
to overstate the importance of high flows in PCB transport. The model also
indicates deposition and scour In river reaches where sediment loads were actually
conserved. Recent estimates of PCB transport, developed from USGS monitoring
data, show that the annual rate of PCB transport has dropped to about 1500 to 2500
pounds per year. This may contradict the model, which projects a 20—year average
PCB transport rate of 6,800 to 7,200 pounds per year.
In the Upper Hudson River, wet—weight average PCB concentrations in fish
routinely exceeded the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) imposed limit of 5
ppm. PCB concentrations in the migrant marine species of the Lower Hudson
River are usually much lower; however, severely contaminated individuals of some
species (American eel, striped bass) can be found. The distribution of PCB
concentrations in fish Is log normal, indicating that the probability of catching a
severely contaminated fish is much lower than that which the arithmetic mean
would Indicate. Lipid—based PCB concentrations in fish have shown a decrease of
50 to 90 percent since 1977, and the average PCB content of striped bass dropped
to 4.8 ppm in 1983. This decrease, in most cases, may be due to the metabolic
elimination of Aroclor 1016, a more volatile PCB compound. The decrease,
however, may also be related to some physical cause such as a reduction In the
release of dissolved PCB from bed sediments. It Is not known whether exposure of
more highly contaminated sediments after flood scouring could lead to an increase
in fish contamination.
PCB levels in the atmosphere have occasIonally been high near concentrated
sources of PCB such as dumps, dredge spoils, and remnant sites; however, river—
related air pollution such as that measured near riffles and dams h s been quite
low, usually less than 0.01 .tg/cu m.
ES—7
-------
Treated drinking water from the Waterford supply system rarely exceeds 0.1 ppb
according to USGS studies. According to results of 35 NYSDOH samples, the total
PCB concentration of Waterford drinking water averages 0.06 ppb. No study of
Waterford drinking water has ever found PCB in excess of 1 ppb, which is the
maximum allowable exposure promulgated by the New York State Department of
Health (NYSDOH).
The data base for the Hudson River PCB problem is quite extensive. There are,
however, a number of technical problems with the information. Only one
comprehensive sediment survey has been performed on the 40 mIles of the Hudson
River which contain hot spots. This analytical survey, completed In 1977 and 1978,
consisted of 1200 core and grab samples taken along transverse transects 700 feet
or more apart. Some deficiencies In this data are apparent. Because of the
distance between transects and the size of the sampling area, only a very small
percentage of the river was represented In the survey. It Is possible that many
areas of contaminated sediments have not been located. Also, the variability of
PCB concentration is very large. within relatively short distances. Therefore, hot—
spot delineations are very subjective and the standing estimates of PCB mass in hot
spots, as well as in cold areas, are probably subject to a high degree of error.
There Is no quantitative estimate of the amount of over or underestimation of PCB
quantities.
Secondly, although the surveys may have been adequate for planning purposes In
1978, there are questions regarding its validity in 1983. The constant shifting and
redistribution of sediments brought about by bedload movement and the seasonal
patterns of scour and deposition may have significantly changed the shape, size,
and location of hot spots.
Documentation of trends in fish contamination has been satisfactory, although
other authors have questioned the validity of the statistical analysis performed on
the data.
Documentation of PCB concentrations in ambient river water has also been
satisfactory, and up—to—date Information is readily accessible. Records of PCB
ES-8
-------
concentrations In drinking water supplies at Waterford are available from NYSDOH
and U.S.G.S. These data provided valuable Information but are not as complete as
might be desired. Records of PCB concentrations In other water supplies are not
readily available.
Air monitoring for PCBs was performed in 1980—1981 near dump sites and remnant
deposits, and also near dams where air transport was expected. Air monitoring
near receptor sites, along the Hudson River, however, Is lacking.
It should be emphasized that the results of the evaluation contained In this report
are only as good as the original data provided. Given the lack of knowledge
regarding the total quantity of contaminated sediments and their location In 1983,
the authors of this Feasibility Study based their selection of alternatives on the
1977 data, assuming no movement. A limited amount of sampling was performed
at selected hot spots in August 1983 for comparison with 1977 survey results. The
1983 data suggest that some hot spots may have shifted, while others stayed in
place. Before any action Is taken on this project, it is essential that a new and
more complete series of PCB analyses in the river be performed so that an
accurate knowledge of quantities and locations can be obtained.
Public Health Concerns
Potential public exposure to PCBs can occur via various routes due to the presence
of the compounds In the sediments and in the remnant deposits of the Hudson
River. Recorded levels of PCBs reached more than 500 ppm In the sediment hot
spots. ‘and some of the remnant deposits contain average PCB concentrations of
more than 50 ppm.
While the contaminated sediments are the prImary source of PCB, potential
exposures will likely occur only through the atmospheric, aquatic, and blotic
pathways.
Although the danger of groundwater contamination does not seem to be great,
surface water contamination of the Hudson River with PCBs is a potential problem,
ES—9
-------
because the river serves as a source of drinking water for various communities.
However, PCB monitoring at the Waterford, New York, public water supply has
shown no values above the NYSDOH guideline of 1.0 ppb in normally treated
drinking water. In fact, the PCB concentration rarely exceeds 0.1 part per billion
(ppb) in samples of treated water. At this level of contamination, the incremental
risk due to exposures seems to be undetectably small.
Recreation on or nearby the Hudson River may cause human exposure to PCB
levels. This may occur during swimming, where there is a risk of dermal and oral
exposure, or by Illegal fishing, which poses a risk if the contaminated fish are
ingested.
At present, the only major health threat is posed by human consumption of aquatic
organisms. Although the PCB concentration of fish and other organisms is
decreasing with time, many individual organisms still contain PCB in excess of the
5 ppm limit set by the Food and Drug Administration. However, a continuation of
fishing restrictions, in combination with the publication of advisories which suggest
limiting the intake of seafood from the Hudson River, Is a cost—effective remedy.
Results
Two points must be taken into consideration when assessing the public health risks
associated with the remedial alternatives. First, although a large amount of
information was gathered in 1977 and 1978 regarding PCBs In the Hudson River,
very little of .that Information dealt with PCB concentrations at the receptors.
Furthermore, the information which was developed at that time, may not r’efiect
current conditions. Some limited Information that is available relative to the
receptors (i.e., Waterford water supply) does indicate that the risks associated with
the site have decreased. While difficult to precisely delineate, some risk continues
to exist at the present time. Second, the alternatives under consideration,
including dredging, all contain some element of risk since no alternative can
remove all of the PCBs in the Hudson River. Some alternatives may result in a
short—term Increase in public health risk during Implementation. The cost—
ES—i 0
-------
effective evaluation must consider the relative ability of each alternative to
reduce the overall, long—term and short—term risk.
Cost—Effective Approach
A major objective of this study was to evaluate remedial alternatives using a cost—
effective approach consistent with the goals and objectives of CERCLA. A cost—
effective remedial alternative Is defined In the National Contingency Plan (NCP)
(40 CFR 300.68J) as 1 ’. ..the lowest cost alternative that Is technologically feasible
and reliable and which effectively mitigates and minimizes damage to and provides
adequate protection of public health, welfare, or envlronment. The National
Contingency Plan (NCP) outlines procedures and criteria to-be used in selecting the
most cost—effective alternative.
The first step is to evaluate public health and environmental effects and welfare
concerns connected with the problem. Criteria to be considered are outlined in
Section 300.68(e) of the NCP and include, among many others, such factors as
actual or potential direct contact with hazardous material, degree of
contamination of drinking water, and extent of Isolation and/or migration of the
contaminant.
The next step is to develop a limited list of possible remedial actions which could
be used. The no—remedial—action alternative may be Included on the list.
The third step In the process Is to provide an initial screening of alternatives. The
costs, possible adverse effects, relative effectiveness In minimizing threats, and
reliability of the methods are reviewed here. The no—action alternative may be
included for further evaluation when response actions may cause greater
environmental or health damage than no—action responses. No—action alternatives
may also be included if It is appropriate relative to the extent of the existing
threat or If response actions provide no greater protection.
The next step Is a detailed analysis of the remaining alternatIves. This analysis
requires a more detailed estimation of costs and engineering implementation and a
ES—il
-------
closer assessment of the ability of alternatives to minimize or mitigate threats. In
this study, the detailed analysis was aided by a cost effectiveness—matrix which
was developed by independent consultants under the direction of EPA. The
alternatives subjected to the matrix analysis and their estimated costs are given In
Table ES—i.
The final step requires that the lead agency evaluate the cost—effectiveness of the
selected response action against the need to respond to problems with hazardous
materials at other sites. Thus, the fund—balancing theme of the NCP generally
allows only for the implementation of proven technologies which can be shown to
demonstrate a higher level of protection.
River Sediments
The matrix evaluation process was used to determine the cost—effective solution as
provided for by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA). Based on the current data available on the PCB problem
in the Hudson River, the result of a matrix analyses evaluation with respect to the
contaminated sediments In the Hudson River is aflO remedial action.N The results
of the analysis were interpreted to mean that the questionable and limited
effectiveness of major action alternatives such as hot—spot dredging may not
Justify the expenditure of large sums of money in light of the present low impacts
and improving conditions associated with the Hudson River PCB problem.
The findings of this study appear to be justified. The estimated cost of dredging all
40 previously identified hot spots is approximately $55,000,000 including disposal at
a local secure containment site. The estimated cost of dredging Thompson island
pool hot spots, the reduced—scale alternative, is approximately $34,000,000
Including disposal. If existing information is accepted as being reliable, we find
that these programs will remove only an estimated 22 to 49 percent of the PCB In
the Upper Hudson River and only an estimated 19 to 22 percent of all of the PCB in
the river, excluding dredge—spoil and remnant—deposit PCB. With full—scale
remedial dredging, It could take longer than 46 years for PCBs to be depleted,
assuming a constant transport rate and a PCB source of about 350,000 pounds. By
ES—12
-------
TABLE ES-i
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES AND COST COMPARISONS
hUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, NEW YORK
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
8.
7.
8.
9.
10.
m 11.
12.
c ,3 13.
14.
CapItal Costs
$289 , 877 . 000
$109,340 000
$249. 787 • 000
$ 15.203,000
$ 54.987.000
$ 34,048.000
$ 120.000*
$ 114000
$ 12.894.000
$ 6.917.000
$ 372.000
$ 2.324.000
$ 66.696,000
$ 154,000
$ 9.010.000
$ 7,144,000
$ 1.053.000
$ 38,878.000
$ 42.622.000
$ 36,853.000
O&M Costs
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 1,887,000
$ 5,321,000
$ 5,321,000
$ 3.434.000
$ 3.617.000
$ 1,887,000
$ 3.011.000
$ 1.124.000
$ 1.124,000
$ 0
$ 1,124,000
$ 3,011.000
$ 3,011.000
$ 1.124.000
$ 1,124,000
$ 1,887.000
$ 1.124.000
Total Costs
$289. 877 .000
$109,340,000
$249. 787.000
$ 17.090.000
$ 60.308.000
$ 39.369.000
$ 3.434,000
$ 3,731.000
$ 14,781.000
$ 9.928.000
$ 1,496.000
$ 3.406,000
$ 66.696.000
$ 1,278,000
$ 12,021.000
$ 10. 155.000
$ 2.177.000
$ 40,002;000
$ 44,509,000
$ 37.977.000
RemedIal Alternative
Detox. of Sediments with KOHPEO
Wet air oxIdation of sediments
Incineration of sediments
Secure landfill disposal of sediments
Dredging of 40 hot spots
Reduced scale dredging
No remedial action, water supply not treated
No remedial action, water supply treated
Total removal of all remnant deposits
Partial removal of remnant deposits
Restricted access to remnant deposits
in-place containment of remnant deposits
In—situ detoxification of remnant deposits
No action on #1. 2. &4/restrict access to
#3 & 5
15. PartIal removal/contaminant of remnant deposits
16. Partial removal/restricted access of remnant deposits
17. Partial containment/restricted access to
remnant deposits
18. Partial containment/In—situ detoxification of
remnant deposits
19. PartIal removal/in—situ detoxification of
remnant deposits
20. Partial detoxification/restricted access of
remnant deposits
ainciudes Proposed Treatability Study
-------
the same reasoning, it may take longer than 64 years for PCBs in the Upper Hudson
River to be depleted, assuming maintenance dredging continues and removes a
constant amount of PCB per year.
Even If these objectives are achieved, they may not result In a substantial
improvement. Other factors should be considered. Hot—spot dredging Is only a
partial solution: some level of risk will continue to exist with or without hot—spot
dredging. Furthermore it Is not clear that the majority of the PCB5 which enter
the environment each year emanate from hot spots. Since hot spots cover only 8
percent of the total area, It Is entirely possible that cold spots, although less highly
contaminated, contribute the majority of dissolved and suspended PCBs due to
their far greater surface areas.
Past studies have merely defined the extent and possible consequences of the PCB
problem and cite dredging as the only alternative available. Few studies have
attempted to measure the actual impact of the problem or tried to quantify the
actual effectiveness of dredging In reducing these impacts. Six veers after the
initiation of PCB studies, this report finds that the actual health Impacts appear to
be lower than previously expected, and that environmental contamination Is
decreasing much more rapidly than had been anticipated. A review of studies into
PCB—environmental interactions and PCB transport has left many questions
unanswered but it has indicated that mechanisms are much too complex to
conclude that dredging would lead to a measurable amout of Improvement.
However, because of the inadequacies of present understanding, it Is recommended
that an in—depth health risk assessment be conducted, with future sampling and
analysis focusing on PCB levels reachIng human receptors rather than on
environmental (e.g., sediment) concentrations. The following study programs are
recommended:
• Air sampling at residences near dams and rapids on the rivers and near
contaminated wetlands.
ES—14
-------
• Sampling of private wells which utilize groundwater Immediately adjacent
to’ the river.
• Sampiing of the public water supplies withdrawing water from the Hudson
River.
• Sampling of terrestrial vegetation
It is also suggested that a study be conducted to access the linkage of aquatic food
chains to PCBs which reside in wetlands. Such a study would Involve the sampling
of wetland vegetatIon, macro organisms, fish, and sediment.
It is further recommended that a treatablllty or water supply replacement
assessment be made for the Town of Waterford. The above Investigations are
estimated to cost over $500,000.
Sampling of sediments in proposed maintenance dredging areas should be performed
prior to initiation of dredging. An environmental monitoring program should
continue to be implemented. This program would monitor PCB concentrations in
fish and river water, and in drinking water supplied by the Hudson River.
Remnant Deposits
The selected remedial action for the remnant deposits Is in—place containment of
remnant deposits. This response action would reduce the potential for direct
contact with contaminated sediments and would reduce atmospheric pollution near
the remnant sites. A Remedial Investigation should be performed to accurately
delineate areas of contamination for covering. Those areas designated to be
covered should have approximately 18 to 36 inches of subsoil followed by a 6—inch
layer of topsoil placed on them. The cover will then be graded and seeded to
minimize erosion. Where needed, bank stabilization will be placed along the
riverbank to prevent scour. The estimated cost for the remedial action is
approximately $2,300,000, and for the Remedial investigation is $200,000.
ES—15
-------
1.0 INTRODU 11ON
1.1 Background
This Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) Is prepared in accordance with
Subpart F, Sections 300.67 and 300.68 of the Final Rules of the National
Contingency Plan (NCR) (47 CFR 137, July 16, 1982). This RAMP is Intended to
provide the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a basis on
which to decide, under the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), future actions to be
taken with respect to the problems identified at this site.
The original Work Assignment issued by EPA was intended to begin the
development of a Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP). Before the RAMP was
completed, the Hudson River PCBs Site was placed on the EPA’s National Priorities
List, and, as a result, became eligible for the funding of remedial actions. Since
the elements required by the Work Assignment are equivalent to those for a
feasibility study under CERCLA, the title of this document has been changed to a
Feasibility Study. However, the title of RAMP will be used within the text when
referring to the document, to eliminate extensive revisions to the document.
RAMPs are prepared exclusively from existing information. This information may
include sampling data, maps, topographic information, site records, and previous
regulatory and remedial actions. Since a significant amount of scientific and
engineering information currently exists regarding the problems of PCBs in the
Hudson River, this RAMP proceeded beyond the normal objectives of similar
documents. Although normal RAMP guidelines were used during its preparation, a
major objective of the Hudson River PCB Site RAMP was to reevaluate a
previously prepared Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which had been
developed in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and directed by requirements in Section 116 of the Clean Water Act
regarding the relative public Impact of long—term land storage of PCBs. The
alternatives studied under the EIS were reevaluated in terms of the criteria
established under CERCLA and the NCP. While NEPA requires evaluation in terms
1—1
-------
of the environmental impact of a particular proposal, CERCLA stresses the
protection of public health, welfare, and the environment in the most cost—
effective manner.
1.2 Setting
During a 30—year period ending in 1977, It is estimated that between 887,000 and
1.1 mIllion pounds of PCBs were discharged into the Hudson River from two
General Electric (G.E.) capacitor manufacturing plants at Fort Edward and Hudson
Falls, New York. Much of the discharged PCBs were adsorbed by the bottom
sediments of the river and accumulated behind the Fort Edward Dam. When the
dam was removed in 1973 due to its deteriorating condition; a large amount of the
PCB—contaminated sediments was released and migrated downstream. The
downstream migration was further accelerated during subsequent flood situations,
causing PCB—contaminated sediments to move down the entire length of the
Hudson River.
Based on extensive river—sampling program studies conducted from 1977 to 1978,
forty PCB “hot spots” were defined as sediments containing 50 parts per million
(ppm) or more of PCBs. In addition, five PCB—contaminated remnant deposits were
identified. The remnant deposits are sediment deposifs which were exposed as a
result of the removal of the Fort Edward Dam and subsequent drop in the water
level of the river. PCB concentrations in two of these exposed remnant deposits
average from 5 to 250 ppm.
In 1976, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
and General Electric (G.E.) agreed on a $7,000,000 settlement agreement to
conduct research studies on PCBs, investigate the extent of PCB contamination in
the Hudson River, and develop methods to reduce and remove the threat of
continued PCB contamination. As a result of investigations conducted by
NYSDEC, a draft Environmental Impact Statement (SEQIS) was prepared in
accordance witb the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Recommendations
of this study are presented in Table 1—1.
1—2
-------
TABLE 1-1
NYSDEC Recommended Program
Full—scale
Reduced—Scale
Dredging of all 40 hot—spot areas
in the river bed with containment in
a secure upland site.
Design and construction of a secure
upland containment site capable of
long—term isolation of contaminated
material
Excavation of two remnant deposits
(areas 3 and 5) located above the
former Fort Edward Dam site, and
removal to the upland containment
site.
Provision for containment of material
from three PCB—contaminated dump
sites (old Fort Edward, Fort Miller,
and Caputo) should removal be found
more suitable than in—place contain-
ment.
Reduction of the number of hot spots
to be dredged, from 40 to approximately
20.
Same, except for a reduction in capacity
at the containment site.
Deletion of remnant deposit removal
and upland containment; instead, pro-
vision of top dressing and fencing for
remnant deposits 3 and 5.
Elimination of provision for the con-
tainment of PCB—contaminated material
from Old Fort Edward, Fort Miller, and
Caputo dump sites.
Provision for containment of contam-
inated materials from three NYSDOT
dredge spoil sites (212. 13 and 204
Annex).
Destruction of the recovered PCBs at
such time as a technologically and
economically feasible procedure
becomes available.
Same
Same
Provision for funding of research
studies related to environmental
monitoring.
Reduction in the level of funding for
research studies.
* New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
** New York State Department of Transportation
Source: DEIS, 1981
1—3
-------
In September 1980, Congress passed an amendment to the Clean Water Act (CWA)
under Title I, Section 116(a) and (b), entitled the Hudson River PCB Reclamation
Demonstration Project. Under this legislation, construction grant funds up to
$20,000,000 could be authorized by the EPA Administrator if it was determined
that funds were not first available under Section 115 or 311 of the CWA or from
the proposed CERCLA. Congress authorized the EPA to make grants to the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in order to carry
out the intent of the Act. The funding authorization which was due to expire on
September 30, 1983, has been extended.
As a result of this Federal involvement and in accordance with NEPA and the
requirements of Section 116 of the Clean Water Act, EPA—Region II issued a Notice
of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ,on January 12, 1981
followed by the publication of a Draft EIS (DEIS) on May 8, 1981.
Recommendations of the DEIS are presented in Table 1—2. In August of 1981, due
to the State’s development of detailed public health and environmental contingency
and mitigation plans, EPA issued a Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS). On April 22,
1982, approximately eight months after the publication of the SDEIS, the New York
State Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Board rendered its decision to approve the
selected site for the disposal of PCB—contaminated sediments. After completing
EPA’s required “peer review” process and evaluating the Siting Board Decision,
EPA issued the Final EIS on October 8, 1982.
The NEPA—EIS process was concluded on December 30, 1982 with a record of
Decision in which the EPA Administrator determined that funds for addressing this
problem were available under CERCLA and that the problem rated sufficiently
high to be considered for inclusion on the National Priorities List.
At the end of April 1983, a Work Assignment for the Hudson River PCB Site RAMP
was issued by EPA to NUS Corporation, the USEPA Zone 1 contractor for
implementation of tasks. In June 1983, four Hudson River citizens’ groups filed
notice of an intent to sue to require that EPA utilize the funds appropriated under
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-2
EPA—Recommended Program (DEIS) (May 1983)
Full—Scale Reduced—Scale
Dredging or in—river containment of Reduction of the number of hot spots to
all 40 hot—spot areas in the river be dredged or contained In—river.
bed with containment In a secure
upland site.
Design and construction of a secure Same, except for a reduction In capacity
upland containment site capable of at the containment site.
Indefinite long—term Isolation of
contaminated material.
Deletion of remnant deposit removal Same
and upland containment; instead,
provision of secure cap and top
dressing, and further bank stabili-
zation if necessary.
Elimination of provision for the Same
containment of PCB—contarninated
material from dump sites in the
Fort Edward area.
Provision-for containment of con— Same
taminated materials from three New
York State Department of Transpor-
tation (NYSDOT) dredge spoil sites
(212, 13, and 204 Annex).
Provision for dredging and contain— Same
ment operational standards and
procedures, mitigation measures,
monitoring programs, and contingency
plans necessary to safeguard public
health and agricultural resources.
Provision for research studies/environ— Same
mental monitoring programs necessary
to demonstrate the Improvement in the
rate of recovery of the river and
storage of contaminated material.
Source: DEIS, 1981
1—5
-------
the Clean Water Act Amendment to conduct the proposed demonstration dredging
project. In July 1983, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation filed a similar notice. These legal actions are in progress.
In August 1983, the New York State Hazardous Waste Siting Board’s approval of the
sediment disposal site was overturned by the New York State Supreme Court.
Although the proposed PCB—disposal site is currently unavailable, this RAMP
assumes the availability of this site or a similar site in the same vicinity for
containment of dredge spoils.
1.3 Scope of Work
For the purposes of this study, the Hudson River PCB problem is defined by the
PCBs contained within river—bottom sediments and the remnant deposits, as well as
the environmental contamination which originated from these sources. PCBs
contained within upland dumps are not within the scope of the report. PCBs in
dredge spoils are being addressed by NYSDEC and are also not within the scope of
this report.
The EPA Work Assignment required analysis of all previously prepared studies. It
required reevaluation of all alternatives studied through the EIS process. It also
required review of new technologies for PCB remediation developed since
prepération of the EIS to determine If any-were appropriate to the Hudson River
problem. The Work Assignment required determination o f one scheme of remedial
actions which would meet the goals and objectives required by CERCLA. This
scheme should be sufficiently developed so that design activities can begin upon
conclusion of the RAMP. EPA Is expecting development of a work plan for the
preparation of plans, specifications, health and safety plans, QAJQC plans, and
other plans and documents as needed for implementation. The RAMP must provide
a cost estimate for both design activities and remedial actions, and a project
schedule for design activities and remedial actions Including appropriate
milestones.
1—6
-------
2.0 THE SITE
2.1 Location
The Hudson River, a major transportation route for East Coast products, from its
head—waters in Essex County at 43°15’ North latitude and 74°00’ East longitude.
traverses 14 counties on its 300—mile journey through eastern New York State.
Before emptying into New York Bay, the river flows through 7 locks, and over 15
dams and 3 natural waterfalls. Figure 2—1 shows the general layout of the Hudson
River area and the nearby cities.
Pollution of the river sediments with polychlorinated biplTenyls (PCBs) began in
1947 at a point approximately 200 river miles upstream of New York City.
Contamination of the river originated from two General Electric capacitor
manufacturing plants located in the Glens Falls, New York area, approximately
three miles upstream of the former dam site at Fort Edward (see Figure 2—1).
The river has been arbitrarily divided Into two sections; the upper and the lower
Hudson River. The Upper Hudson (study area), where nearly two thirds of PCB
contamination is located, covers a 40 river—mile length beginning at Glens Falls and
ending at the Federal Dam at Troy (Draft EIS, 1981). Five miles south of Glens
Falls is a former dam site at Fort Edward, which, when removed, left significant
PCB concentrations termed remnant deposits. Also contained in the Upper Hudson
are 40 hot spots” (areas with PCB concentrations of 50 ig/g [ ppm] or greater)
which have been identified in this area by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) as containing the majority of
contamination located in the Upper Hudson (Phase I Engineering Report, December
1978). The Lower Hudson begins at the dam at Troy and continues downstream 160
river miles to the New York Bay.
Hudson River Basin topographic features include fiat lowland areas near the coast
and steep rolling hills throughout mld tate New York. The headwaters of the
2—1
-------
ALBANY Co.
(Source - Malcolm Pirnie, Sept. 1980)
Jhompso Is
Darn
GLENS
FALLS
-
HUDSON
FALLS
PROJECT AREA
UPPER HUDSON
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE. HUDSON RIVER, NY
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 2-Ia
. [ NUS
____CORPORATkJN
0 A HaII Ion Company
ALAANY
140
SARATOGA CO.
RENSSELAER
WAlER VIlE
hop Lock
MECIIANICvft .L(
TROY
Lock I
RENSSELAER CO.
RREN CO.
Lock 4
roil Edwoid
I
Dorn
Sill
I WASHINGTON CO.
FORT
EDWARD
-------
FIGURE 2-lb
PROJECT AREA
LOWER HUDSON
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVERJ NY
SCALE: 1= P6 MILES
NUS
_CORPORATD
0 A Hatibu ton Company
0 j
(- .
c )
4
OPANSI Co
C.,
U I. S v £ s
C
*I$TC HIS TI Co
S U
(P 1*
N £ $
C
(Source - Malcolm Pirnie Sept. 1980)
Co
Co
N 5
Co
-------
Hudson are found in the Adirondack and Catskill Mountain ranges, which are
covered by large wilderness and forest areas. In the valleys and lowlands, urban
and rural developments prevail.
2.2 Site History
Years of production of PCB—containing capacitors and disposal of PCB—laden waste
have left more than 500,000 pounds of PCBs in the Hudson River (Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc., 1980). This contamination has been traced to two General Electric
manufacturing plants that used PCBs in manufacturing capacitors beginning in the
late 1940s and ending in 1976. In December of 1972, General Electric applied for a
discharge permit, stating that the two plants were dischar ing an average of 30
pounds per day of “chlorinated hydrocarbons,” with a 47.6 pound per day maximum.
As of January 1975, General Electric obtained approval to discharge its waste
according to the permit request (DEC Technical Paper No. 51).
It was not until 1975 that polychlorinated biphenyls were discovered to be a
problem in the Hudson River (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., September 1980). Subsequently,
five years of engineering and scientific studies were made, and 40 PCB hot spots
were identified in the Hudson River (Draft EIS, 1981).
A large portion of the PCB waste in the river was, until 1973, contained behind the
Fort Edward Dam at river mile 195. Much of this waste was transported
downstream after the removal of the dam in the summer of 1973. Adding to the
problem was an April 1976 (100—year) flood, which scoured approximately 260,000
cubic yards of additional material frbm the former dam pool (Malcolm Plrnie, Inc.,
September 1980). Sediment scouring also occurred In the spring of 1983, during an
80—year—occurrence river level.
UntIl 1970, navigational dredging removed approximately 23,000 cubic yards of
sediment from the Upper Hudson. This sediment, along with 615,000 cubic yards of
dredge between 1974 and 1978, is contaminated with PCBs, and has been placed In
seven disposal sites along the river bank (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1980).
2—4
-------
2.3 Potential Sources of Contamination
The problem of PCB5 in the Hudson River was discovered in 1975, when the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discovered high levels of PCBs in
fish taken from the river. Sampling of the river by the NYSDEC produced evidence
to implicate two General Electric capacitor manufacturing plants near Glens Falls,
New York, as the major contributors of PCBs to the river sediments (DEC
Technical Paper No. 58). These plants disposed of approximately 890,000 to 1.1
mIllion pounds of PCBs into the river during a 30—year period. In addition to the in—
river disposal, General Electric also landfUled transformers containing PCBs,
adding approximately 528,000 to 745,000 pounds to The environment (Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc., 1978).
The continued presence of PCBs in the Hudson River basin leads to a possibility of
more widespread contamination through contaminant migration. The sources that
continue to contribute PCB waste are (Weston, 1978):
• Sediment exposed or released upon the removal of the Fort Edward Dam
• Disposal areas for dredged bottom sediment contaminated with PCBs
• Landfills containing PCB liquids and impregnated solids
• Wastes containing PCBs unrelated to the General Electric plants
In the summer of 1973, the Fort Edward Dam was removed due to its advanced
state of deterioration. Sediments that had collected behind the dam became
exposed due to the lowering of the river. Portions were subsequently scoured by
high river flows and transported down river. The exposed areas, known as remnant
deposit areas, have high levels of PCB contamination. These areas are subject to
erosion by the river, surface water runoff, or wind (only 2 of 5 remnant deposit
areas have had bank stabilIzation work performed), as they have little or no
vegetative cover on them.
The sediments that have been exposed to the higher river flows have been
transported down river, with the majority of the contamination remaining in the
2—5
-------
Upper Hudson region (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1978). Sampling done in 1975—77 has
delineated 40 hot spots where high levels of PCBs exist and could potentially move
downstream, further contaminating the river.
Because of the increased amount of sediments in the river due to the removal of
the dam, it became necessary to dredge some areas that were left unnavigable
when large volumes of sediment were deposited in the river channel.
Approximately 790,000 cubic yards of material were deposited In the channel near
Rogers Island. During 1974 and 1975 the New York Department of Transportation
(DOT) removed approximately two thirds of this material and placed the PCB—
contaminated spoils in five riverside disposal sites. In 1977 and 1978 DOT removed
additional deposits and increased the number of disposal sites by two. These
disposal sites contain an estimated 103,000 to 160,000 pounds of PCB5,
approximately 9 percent of the river basin total (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1978).
While disposing of wastes In the river, General Electric also landfilled its old
transformers which contained PCBs as a dielectric fluid. The amount of PCB5
landfilled is approximately 528,000 — 745,000 pounds, or 40 percent of the basin
total. The security and containment controls at these sites are minimal in some
cases, thus leading to PCB transport due to groundwater flow and leaching, or
erosional effects from surface water drainage (Weston, 1978). Table 2—1 shows the
estimated overall distribution of PCBs in the Hudson River Basin.
PCB contamination from sources other than the two. General Electric plants Is
unknown. No report of additional PCB contaminant sources has been made to date.
2.4 Response Actions to Date
The following Is a list of response actions to date for the Hudson River. Included
are physical, remedial, and legal actions as well as river sampling and testing.
2—6
-------
TABLE 2-1
ESTIMATED MASS OF PCB IN ThE HUDSON RIVER BASIN
ASSOCIATED WITH GENERAL ELECTRIC PLANTS NEAR
FORT EDWARD. N.Y.
UPPER HUDSON RIVER BASIN
Remnant Deposits
Thompson Island Pool Sediments 2
Hot Spots
Cold Areas
Remaining Upper Hudson Pools
Hot Spots
Cold Areas
Subtotal, Upper Hudson River Sediments Only
Hot Spots
Cold Areas
Dredge Spoils
Dumps 3
Subtotal, Upper Hudson River Basin Only
LOWER HUDSON RIVER BASIN
Sediments
Dredged
Washed Out To Sea
46,820—108,600 pounds 1
97,700—105,800
22,000—30,900
60,600—64.100
101.400—146,400
158,300—169,900
123 400—177 ,300
281,700—347,200
103,455—160,000
528,000—745,000
959,975-1,360,800
169 ,000—200, 000
86,000
200,000
TOTAL PCB
1,414,975—1,837,930
1 Remnant Deposit Totals do not include estimates for area 3A.
2 Thompson Island Pool totals include estimates for sediments above Lock 7.
3 Includes PCBs in the Moreau Facility.
Sources: Bopp et al. 1978; Hetling et al., 1978; Tofflemire and Quinn, 1979;
Malcolm Pirnie, 1980.
2—7
-------
Date Response Action
1950—1974 Navigational dredging removes an average of 23,000
yards of sediment per year in Fort Edward Area.
1974 (Apr.—Dec.) Dredging of 175,000 yd 3 of debris from main river
channel at and downstream of Lock 7 by DOT maintenance
forces.
Dredging of 85,000 yd 3 of debris and sediments
from Fort Edward Terminal Channel betwen Lock 7 and
o & H Railroad Bridge by DOT maintenance forces.
1975 (Jan., May—Nov.) New York State Department of Transportation (DOT)
performed maintenance dredging, which included removal
of debris and sediment that accumulated in the barge
canal system.
July 974—June 1975 Removal of 180,000 yd 3 of debris and sediment from
Fort Edward Terminal Channel upstream of D & H Railroad
Bridge and northerly tip of Ro 9 ers Island and excavation
of sediment trap of 70,000 yd capacity.
Oct 1974—Nov. 1975 Placement of Rock from cribs on banks of remnant pool
deposils 3 and 4.
Placement of dumped rock at remnant deposit 5.
1975 PCB levels in some Hudson River fish were found to
exceed Food and Drug Administration levels (5 ppm
maximum) during USEPA fish sampling.
May—Nov. 1975 Removal of 13,000 ‘jd 3 of debris and sediment from
west channel near Rogers Island.
September 8, 1975 Administrative proceedings were begun charging
General Electric with the disposal of PCBs into the
Hudson River.
September 8, 1976 Settlement agreed upon between the NYSDEC and G.E.
for 7 million dollars to investigate the PCB problem
In the Hudson River.
1976 New York State Department of Health certified that a
human health problem existed due to consumption of
fish taken from certain areas of the Hudson River.
Fishing was banned in the Upper Hudson from the Troy
Dam north to Fort Edward, N.Y.
2—8
-------
Date Response Action
1976 con’t. Dredging of 35,000 yci 3 of sediment near bouy 212
by DOT maintenance forces.
1977 As a result of the settlement with the NYSDEC,
General Electric ceased all discharge of PCBs.
Fall 77 Spring 78 Dredging of 170,000 yd 3 of sediment from channel
near Rodgers Island and containment of these
sediments in New Moreau Site.
Additional bank stabilization measures at Site 3.
August—December Weston Environmental Consultants conducted a surface
1977 mapping of 12 PCB disposal site6. Weston concurrently
conducted initial soil, water, and blotic sampling.
October 1978 Remnant deposit 3A (14,000 cubic yards) was
excavated and transported to the New Moreau Site.
September 1980 Congress passed an amendment to the Clean Water
Act under Title I, Section 116(a) and (b) authorizing
the Hudson River PCB Reclamation Demonstration
Project.
May 1981 USEPA prepared a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) addressing the dredging demonstration
project.
August 1981 A supplement to the May EIS was prepared by the
EPA. This Supplemental EIS included additional
material omitted in the Draft
September 16, 1982 The EPA conducted a Mitre model ranking of the
Hudson River. As a result, the river was given a score
of 54.66.
December 1982 The Final EIS was completed by the EPA. )ncluded in
this report were updates and comments on the earlier
Draft and Supplemental EISs.
December 30, 1982 Funding for the project became available through the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund).
2—9
-------
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTiNG
3.1 Landforms
The Hudson River Basin lies In the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province. Pt
covers 13,365 square miles or 27 percent of the State of New York (Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc., 1980) , Ninety —fIve percent of the basin is in New York State, but Its
heaciwaters include small portions of Vermont Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
The basin topography Includes steep and rolling hills, undulating land, and some
mountainous areas. Landscape varies from wilderness in the Catskill and
Adirondack Mountains to agricultural areas in the valleys (NYSDEC, 1979a).
The Hudson River itself is located in the Hudson—Champlain lowlands of the Valley
and Ridge Physiographic Province. The lowlands are composed of a plain ranging
from 1/4 to 2—1/2 miles in width that was once pro—glacial Lake Albany. Elevation
of the lowland areas ranges from 100 feet to 400 feet above mean sea level.
3.2 Surface Waters
The Hudson River from New York Harbor to Albany Is a tidal estuary of 150 miles
in length. From the Federal Darn at Troy north to Fort Edward are eight dams
with locks to accommodate New York barge traffic. The locks and dams in this
area form a series of pools throughout this reach. From Fort Edward north to the
Hudson—Sacandaga River junction are seven dams and three natural waterfalls that
are used to generate hydroelectric power (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1980).
Several reservoirs above Glens Falls are used to regulate flows in the Upper
Hudson. These reservoirs are Indian Lake, Piseco Lake, Spier Falls Reservoir,
Sherman Island Reservoir, and Sacandaga Reservoir. The Sacandaga Reservoir is
the largest with 760,000 acre-feet of storage (NYSDEC, 1979). Reservoir flow is
regulated during low flows to maintain navigation, water quality, and hydroelectric
power generation. During high flows, the reservoir is regulated to prevent
excessive flooding. Water is released from the Sacandaga Reservoir to keep a
minimum flow of 300 cubic feet per second (cfs) for maintaining navigation and
3 —1
-------
power generation. A minimum depth of 12 feet is also maintained for barge
navigation (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1980).
The major tributaries to the Hudson River from New York Harbor in the south, to
Troy in the north, are as follows: the Croton River, Moodna Creek, Fishkill Creek,
Wappinger Creek, Rondout Creek, Esopus Creek, Roeliff—Hansen Kill, Catskill
Creek, Kinderhook Creek, and the Normans Kill. The major tributaries north of
Troy are the Mohawk River, Hoosic River, Fish Creek, Batten Kill, Champlain
Canal, Schroon River, and Indian River.
The drainage area of the Hudson River at Fort Edward is 2,818 square miles and
increases at the Federal Dam at Troy to 8,090 square miles, including the
additional 3,450—square—mile drainage of the Mohawk River.
33 Geology and Soils
The area of geologic study will be limited to the stretch of the Hudson River from
Troy north to Hudson Falls encompassing the eastern quarter of Saratoga County,
northwestern Rensselaer County, and southwestern Washington County. Geologic
units in the study area are composed of both consolidated and unconsolidated
deposits. Ordovician shaIes are the predominate bedrock, whereas Pleistocene
glacial deposits comprise the unconsolidated surficial geology.
3.3.1 Bedrock Geology
The major bedrock formations in the study area are the Snake Hill Formation
(shale), Normanskill Shale, Beekmantown Limestone, and the Schodack Formation
(shale). The bedrock formations have a general northeast—southwest strike and
southeasterly dip. These formations, with the exception of the Snake Hill, are not
indigenous to the study area but belong to a series of formations deposited in a
trough farther to the east and moved to their present position by folding and
faulting along a multiple of thrust—fault planes. The folding and faulting created
numerous fractures and fissures which control the movement of groundwater
(Cushman. 1950). Figure 3—1 depicts a stratigraphic section of bedrock within the
study area.
3—2
-------
MOST RECENT FORMATiON. LOCATED IN LOW-LYING AREAS
OF HUDSON RIVER VALLEY. CONSIS TS OF DARK GRAY TO
BLACK, BLUISH AND 6L CK CARBONACEOUS BANDS.
A MEMBER OF THE TACONIC SEQUENCE OF ROCKS COM-
PRISING THE HILLY AND MOUNTAINOUS AREAS OF WEST-
ERN NSS AER AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES. SEPARATE
FROM THE SNAKE HILL FORMATION TO TIE WEST BY AN
EASTWARD DIPPtIG THRUST FAULX PLANE. CONSISTS OF
A DARK-GREEN TO BLACK AGRILLACEOUS SHALE CON-
TAINING WHITE - WEATHERING CALCAREOUS CHERT BEDS.
UNDERLIES THE TACONLC SEQUENCE OF ROCKS AND
OVERUES SNAKE HILL FORMATION AWNG AN EASVNAR
DIPPING THRUST FAULT PLANE. CONS 1STS OF MASSIVE
COARSE TO FiNE - .GRAINED DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE.
A UNIT OF THE 1 ONIC SEQUENCE OF ROCKS. CONSIST
OF A BRICK - RED WEATHERU G GRIT, A CALCARECUS SANC
STONE, A THIN - 9EDD LIMESTONE, AND RED AND PUR
PLE SHALE.
FIGURE 3-I
STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION - BEDROCK
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
NOT TO SCALE
NUE
_____ ccRPc AflcN
0 A HailiburtonCompan’
8
0
8
0
0
8
3—3
-------
The Snake Hill Formation is the most recent bedrock formation in the study area
(Middle Ordovician). The Snake Hill is located in the low—lying areas of the Hudson
River Valley and consists of dark, gray to black, bluish and greenish shales with
thin sandy and black carbonaceous bands (Cushman, 1950). Beds in the Snake Hill
are severely crumbled and contorted, and cut by cleavage planes as well as
smoothed slip planes that give it a glazed appearance. In the vicinity of Hudson
Falls, the Snake Hill lies almost flat and undisturbed, with a thickness near 600
feet (Cushman, 1953).
The Normanskill Shale (Middle Ordovician) is a member of the Taconic sequence of
rocks that comprise the hilly and mountainous areas of western Rensselaer and
Washington Counties. It is separated from the Snake Hill Formation to the west by
an eastward dipping thrust fault plane. It consists of a dark—green to black
argillaceous shale containing white—weathering, calcareous chert beds (Cushman,
1950). The Normanskill is highly folded and has a total thickness of approximately
1000 feet (Cushman, 1953).
The Beekmantown Limestone outcrops near the town of Middle Falls, underlies the
Taconic sequence of rocks, and overlies the Snake Hill Formation along an
eastward dipping thrust—fault plane. It forms a small ridge running north to south
on the western foothills of the Taconic mountainous sequence of rocks. The
Beekmantown Limestone also occurs north and northwest of Hudson Falls in the
low—lying areas. It consists of massive, coarse to fine—grained dolomitic limestone
with an average thickness of 900 feet and is Cambrian—Ordovician in age (Cushman,
1953).
The Schodack Formation is also a unit of the Taconic sequence of rocks and
occupies a large part of the Taconic mountainous areas. The formation was formed
during the Lower Cambrian Period and is composed of greenish—gray, fine—grained,
siliceous shale presenting a highly folded appearance; locally it includes a brick—red
weathering grit, a calcareous sandstone, a thin—bedded limestone, and red and
purple shale. Total thickness of the Schodack Formation is believed to be 1000
feet (Cushman, 1950).
3—4
-------
3.32 Surflcial Geology
In most places within the study area, the bedrock Is overlain by unconsolidated
glacial materials and more recent materials that range in depth from a few inches
to more than 200 feet. The unconsolidated sediments within the study area are
glacial till, glacial outwash, lacustrine deposits, recent alluvium, and modern
dredge spoUs.
The glacial deposits of the study area are the result of the Wisconsin age glacial
advancement, the most recent advance of the Pleistocene Epoch.
Till deposits occupy approximately 10 percent of the study érea. Glacial till Is a
highly variable assortment of rock material that ranges in size from clay—size
particles to rock fragments and boulders. The till usually occurs as ground
moraines or drumlins of thickness varying from 30 to 100 feet (Cushman, 1950).
Generally, the till is not stratified but local deposits of sand, gravel, silt, or clay
within the till mass do occur as a result of local sorting. Deep till deposits in this
area tend to be more dense than shallow deposits which have undergone more
weathering (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.. 1978).
Glacial outwash deposits cover approximately a quarter of the study area. These
deposits consist of sand and gravel left by glacial meltwater. They show a fair
degree of sorting and frequently show cross—bedding and evidence of scour and fill
(Cushman, 1950). Outwash Is found on such landforms as outwash terraces, eskers,
valley trains, kames, deltas, and outwash fans. These deposits are generally
younger than ‘(and commonly rest on) till. Valley—filled deposits were formed in
local lakes or stream channels where spillways which were controlled by ice or
glacial debris were located. The thickness of the deposits is influenced by the
shape and bedrock of the valleys. These highly variable sediments are usually
stratified, consisting of gravel, coarse through fine sand, and clay. Deltaic
deposits are outwash formations that were built at points where streams laden with
large rock debris entered the still waters of proglacial Lake Albany and spread out
3—5
-------
into a fan shape. Deltaic deposits are composed of material ranging in size from
coarse gravel to fine sand and silt (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1978).
Glacial lacustrine sediments comprise over half of the study area. These sediments
were deposited on the bottom of proglacial Lake Albany, which extended from
Rensselaer County to Essex County some 10 to 15 thousand years ago. These clays
were laid down in the quiet water of the glacial lake and were exposed as flat
terraces or bottom lands when the lake drained, near the end of the Pleistocene
Epoch. The formations occur along the Hudson River as terraces, covering flat to
gently rolling valley floors. The lower beds are predominantly varved, fine—
grained, bluish clays grading into yellowish—red silts (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.. 1978).
Recent river deposits or alluvium consist of various sediments deposited along
streams. Alluvial deposits are compo5ed of a veneer of silt, clay, sand, and some
gravel that was laid down by streams (Cushman, 1950). These deposits are usually
located on the flood plains within half a mile of the banks of the Hudson River and
tributaries (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1978).
Canal—dredging spoils deposited along the Hudson River constitute the man—made
land encountered within the study area. These deposits are generally of a coarse
nature, consisting of quartz—feldspar sands, cinders, and shale cobbles mixed with
wood fragments of all sizes (sawdust to pieces several feet in length) (Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc., 1978).
Figure 3—2 depIcts a stratigraphic section of unconsolidated sediments within the
study area.
Figures 3—3 and 3—4 depict surficial geology maps of the Hudson River In the
northeastern region of Saratoga County and the southwestern region of Washington
County, respectively.
3—6
-------
0’
o• ..‘:.. .•...
. . s.:
•.f j.” . ...:
tj.e.
: 2
CANAL DREDGE SPOILS: CONSITUTES THE MAN MADE
LAND ENCOUNTERED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA.
CONSISTS OF QUARTZ-FELDSPAR SANDS, CINDERS,
SHALE COBBLES MIXED WITH WOOD FRAGMENTS OF
ALL SIZES.
ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS NORMALLY LOCATED ON THE FLOOD
PLAINS WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THE RIVER BANKS.
CONSISTS OF CLAY, SILT, SAND, AND SOME GRAVEL.
GLACIAL OUT WASH DEPOSITS: COVER APPROXIMATELY
1/4 OF THE STUDY AREA. CONSISTS OF SAND AND
GRAVEL DEPOSiTED BY GLACIAL MELTWATER.
TILL DEPOSITS: COVER APPROXIMATELY I/tO OF THE
STUDY AREA CONSISTS OF A HIGHLY VARIABLE
ASSORTMENT OF ROCK MATERIAL RANGING IN SIZE
FROM CLAY-SIZE PARTICLES TO ROCK FRAGMENTS
AND BOULDERS.
GLACIAL LACUSTRINE SEDIMENTS: COMPRISE OVER
1/2 OF THE STUDY AREA. CONSISTS OF BLUISH CLAYS
AND YELLOWISH-RED SILT.
-e 200’
STR flGRAPHIC
UNCONSOLiDATED
SECTION
HUDSON RIVER
MATERIAL
PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
FiGURE 3-2
NOT TO SCALE
___CORPCRAflON
0 A Halliburton Company
3—7
-------
SURFICIAL
GEOLOGY
SCALE
OF SARATOGA
COUNTY
LEGEND
SAND AND GRAVEL
CHIEFLY SAND BUT INCLUDES SOME
GRAVEL. SMALL ISOLATED DEPOSITS
NOT SHOWN. YIELDS MODERATE TO
LARGE SUPPLIES OF WATER.
CLAY AND SILT
YIELDS WATER. MAINLY TO LARGE-
DIAMETER WELLS.
TILL
CHIEFLY AN UNSORTED MIXTURE OF
ROCK FRAGMENTS RANGING IN DIA-
METER FROM SMALL FRACTIONS OP
AN INCH TO SEVERAL FEET. INCLUDE
ThIN SAND LENSES IN PLACES. BED-
ROCK OUTCROPS ARE COMMON BUT
ARE NOT SHOWN. YIELDS SMALL
SUPPLIES OF WATER TO LARGE-
DIAMETER WELLS.
(REF’ R.C.HEATH, ET AL, 1963)
FIGURE 3-3
NUS
cOR RAnON
0 A Halliburton Company
I I/ o I 2 I12S
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
3-8
-------
LEGEND
FLOOD-PLAIN AND
RI VER - TERRACE
AU.UVIUN. FINE
SAND AND SILT.
Fm-flu
LACUSTRINE CLAY;
VARVED CLAY AND
SILT
Z DELTA DEPOSITS;
FINE SRAVEL, SAND
O AND CLAYEY SAND.
U)
w
0.
4
z
I -
4
a
Z
:-:- - -:-±J ft-: ---: -- :
acu n
- ffl : : :- :- -:
) -:--:-:-:- € - th :-:
__
- !- -
- - k-:- -:-;
- -- t :g /4=:: - ___
. -:-: -:-- J:
::-:-:-
- - -
:
-:- --. _
-:- -- - --: --i i
—
.rij jw - $•• 9
7
FIGURE 3-4
SURF1CIAL GEOLOGY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY - JLJS
- CORPORATiON
0 A Halliburton Company
OUTWASH; FINE
GRAVEL AND SAND
TILL AND BEDROCK
OUTCROP.
(REF’ CUSHUAN,I9 3.)
SCALE
I ZNI I .L3
$
I JLI
9
-
CO U NT ’? LI N
( N S S £ LA
-------
3.3.3 Soils
Most of the soils within the study area have been formed in glacial drift that was
deposited by the Wisconsin advance of the Pleistocene Epoch. Additional soils have
been formed in more recent deposits of alluvium or dredge spoil.
Soils developed in till over bedrock are of minor occurrence within the study area.
Depth to bedrock in these soils is shallow, ranging from 1 to 3.5 feet. These soils
are usually found on undulating to hilly uplands. The drainage of these soils ranges
from moderately well drained to somewhat excessively drained. Fragipan, a dense
subsurface horizon which is low in organics and permeability that sometimes causes
perching of the groundwater table, is often encountered in ‘these soils (Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc.. 1978).
Soils in glaciolacustrine sediments on lake plains and valleys are extensive within
the study area. These soils are found on nearly level, depressional, or very steep
slopes. Glaciolacustrine soils are generally deep, 3.5 feet or more, and have
variable drainage classes, ranging from somewhat poorly drained to well drained
(Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1978). Wetness increases with depth in these clayey and silty
deposits. Water contents as high as 60—70 percent have been reported (SCS, 1975).
The soils formed on plains, terraces, kames, eskers, and glacial outwash deposits in
the valley are generally deep (6 feet or more), excessively drained, and coarse
textured gravelly soils. Many of these soils are underlain by silt and clay lenses
which impede their drainage.
Soils that are formed in recent river or alluvial deposits are 4 feet deep or more,
and medium textured (high in silt and fine sand), with variable drainage classes
(very poorly drained to well drained). These soils are subject to flooding except
where the flow is regulated (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1978).
3—10
-------
3.4 Groundwater
Groundwater aquifers within the study area can be classified in either of two
catagories: Ordovician and Cambrian consolidated rocks or Pleistocene
unconsolidated sediments. The consolidated rocks generally have low effective
primary porosities. In many consolidated formations, the presence of joints.
fractures, and faults Increases formation permeability greatly. The Pleistocene
unconsolidated sediments generally yield greater amounts of water than the
consolidated rocks due to high permeabilities.
The consolidated formations that yield noticeable amounts of water within the
study area are the Snake Hill Formation, Beekmantown Limestone, Normanskill
Shale, and the Schodack Formation. The Snake Hill Formation is the highest
water—bearing consolidated formation within the study area. It is generally
crumbled and contorted and cut by cleavage planes. Occasional sandy limestone
strata within the Snake Hill help yield water at an average of 16 gallons per minute
(gpm). Water yields are highly variable in these shales since permeability is
dependent upon joints, fractures, and faults. The Beekmantown Limestone is
generally a good source of water, with average well yields of 12.7 gpm. Joints are
the chief water bearers in the Beekmantown. The Normanskill and Schodack
Formations have average groundwater yields of 6 and 5 gpm, respectively. The
yields within these formations are dictated by Joints, and by cleavage and bedding
plane fractures (Cushman. 1950, 1953; Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1983).
The Pleistocene unconsolidated sediments yield groundwater at various rates. The
sediments that yield considerable amounts of water are glacial outwash and till.
Other sediments that yield small amounts of water ar lacustrine and alluvial
deposits.
Glacial outwash deposits are the most productive water bearers in the study area.
These high—permeability, stratified sands and gravels have water yields ranging
from 15 gpm for unscreened wells to 300 gpm for screened and developed wells.
Deltas are the most productive water—bearing glacial outwash deposits (Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc., 1983).
3—11
-------
Low porosity till yields water very slowly. The estimated average yield of these
deposits is from 1 to 2 gpm (Malcolm Pirnie. Inc., 1983). The more productive
wells obtain their water from thin sand lenses within the deposit and are suitable
for domestic use. Till deposits are usually found on hillsides, highlands, and in
small localized areas in the river valleys.
Other types of aquifers that yield small quantities of water in the study area are
lacustrine deposits and alluvial deposits. Lacustrine deposits of clay and silt yield
water very slowly and in negligible quantities. Alluvial deposits are not coarse
enough or of sufficient thickness to be important sources of groundwater. Shallow
wells that obtain water from the alluvium probably intersect lenses of sand.
The aquifers within the study area are generally bordered by or underlain by
relatively impermeable silt, clay, till, shale, or crystalline bedrock. Therefore,
migration from aquifer to aquifer is minimal. Measurements of streamflow in the
area indicate that most of the streams are effluent. Accordingly, groundwater
recharge is most likely to occur by way of precipitation, which readily enters the
aquifers through the permeable surface. Average annual precipitation in the Glens
Falls area is about 40 inches. Of this, 10 inches is estimated to recharge the sand
aquifers from mid—fall to mid—spring (Glese, 1970). The remaining precipitation is
probably direct runoff to surface water.
3.5 Climate and Meteorology
The average monthly temperature and precipitation figures for Albany County
Airport, Albany, New York, for 1981 are shown In Table 3—1.
The climate at Albany is primarily continental in character but is subjected to
some modification from the maritime climate which prevails in the extreme
southeastern portion of New York State. The moderating effect on temperatures is
more pronounced during the warmer months than in the cold winter season, when
outbursts of cold air sweep down from Canada with greater vigor than at other
times of the year. In the warmer portion of the year, temperatures rise, rapidly
3—12
-------
TABLE 3-1
CUMATE AND METEOROLOGY
Albany County Airport
The average monthly temperature arid precipitation figures for Albany County
Airport, Albany, New York. for 1981 are shown below.
Average Monthly Average Monthly
Month Temperature (°F) Rainfall (inches )
January 14.0 0.59
February 33.1 5.02
March 34.7 0.26
Apri l 48.1 1.99
May 58.9 2.44
June 66.7 2.78
July 69.3 3.50
August 68.5 1.76
September 58.8 3.45
October 44.8 3.55
November 37.7 1.56
December 25.7 3.54
Yearly Average 46.7 Total 30.44
3—13
-------
during the daytime to moderate levels. As a rule, temperatures fall rapidly after
sunset so that the nights are relatively cool. Occasionally the area experiences
extended periods of oppressive heat up to a week or more in duration. The highest
temperature of record is 104°F, but since 1874, 100°F temperatures have been
recorded on only 15 days (National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration
(NOAA), 1981).
Winters are usually cold and occasionally severe. Maximum temperatures during
the winter months often fall below freezing and nighttime low temperatures
frequently drop to 10°F or lower. Subzero temperatures occur infrequently, about
a dozen times a year. Yearly snowfall in the area is highly variable and some of
the higher elevations experience accumulations in excess of 75 inches.
Precipitation is sufficient to serve the regional economy in most years, and only
occasionally do periods of drought become an environmental threat. A
considerable portion of the rainfall in the warmer months Is from showers
associated with thunderstorms, but hail is usually not of any consequence (NOAA,
1981). Surface water runoff of the Hudson Basin varies from about 19 inches to
24.5 inches, with the remainder of the precipitation returning to the atmosphere
through evapotranspiration (NYSDEC, 1979).
3.6 Land Use
The Hudson River Basin has a total population of 2.5 million. The basin borders the
New York metropolitan area, which has an approximate population of 12 million
(NYSDEC, 1979). Albany, the largest city in New York along the Hudson, has an
approximate population of 100,000. Cities with populations greater than 25,000 In
New York are Newburgh, Poughkeepsie, and Troy (Rand McNally, 1982).The major
industries of the Hudson River Basin are agricultural, service, and manufacturing.
Dairy farming and apple and pear orchards comprise a large part of the agricultural
development. Petroleum refineries, grain bins, and paper mills are located at
various sites along the river.
Significant portions of the Northern Hudson River Basin lie in the Adirondack Park.
while portions of the southcentral basin are in the Catskill Park. Camping, hiking,
3—14
-------
and skiing are some of the forms of recreational activities available within the
basin.
Several furbearers are abundant in the river valley. Mink, otter, and muskrat are
valuable fur—bearing species. Common game species Include deer, eastern
cottontail rabbit, gray squirrel, and raccoon, as well as game birds, such as ruffed
grouse, pheasant, and woodcock. Bears are also occasionally noted. The bobcat
and coyote are much less common species In the Hudson River Basin (NYSDEC, no
date). Birdlife in the Hudson River Valley Is abundant and Includes many common
birds of the woodlands and open fields, The wild turkey, a game species, has been
successfully reintroduced in New York and Is found in upland areas along the
Hudson River estuary (Malcolm Plrnie, Inc., 1983).
Several species of birds and plants are considered endangered by New York State
andlor the U.S. Fish and WIldlife Service. Those bird species are the bald eagle,
peregrine falcon, and osprey. The endangered plant species include heartleaf
plantaIn ( Plantaqo cordataj , Nuttall’s Micranthemum ( Micranthemurn micran—
themoides) , bur marigold ( Bidens bidentoldes ) and golden club ( Qj ontium
apuaticum ) (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1983).
3.7 Water Use
3.7.1 Surface Water Use
The Hudson River has 2 million acre—feet of storage, most of which Is In the upper
basin. Various primary uses Include hydroelectric power, public supplies,
navigation, water recreation, and flood damage reduction.
The stretch of the Upper Hudson River from the Mohawk—Hudson Junction north to
the Sacandaga—Hudson Junction Is the greatest hydroelectric—producing area in the
basin. A total of ten hydroelectric plants are located on the main—stem Hudson
River, with most of these being on the Upper Hudson.
3—15
-------
Several communities obtain drinking water from the Hudson River, including the
City of Poughkeepsie, the Highland Water District, the Port Ewen Water District.
the Village of Rhinebeck, and the Village of Waterford (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1980).
A water intake located at Chelsea, north of Beacon, New York, may be used to
supplement New York City water supplies during periods of drought.
The Village of Waterford is the northernmost community that receives its water
supply directly from the Hudson downstream from the General Electric outlets.
The intake is located on the west side of the Hudson, at the northern end of the
village limits. The daily withdrawal is approximately one million gallons. The
water is treated by coagulation, flocculation, and settling, followed by rapid
filtration, and chlorination (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1978). -
The Hudson River itself is a major industrial transportation route. Total tonnage
of commerce on the Hudson River waterway has declined over the past 21 years of
record, ranging from a high of 42,421,533 tons in 1957 to a low of 28,220,192 tons
in 1977 (Corps of Engineers, 1972, 1977; Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1983). The cargoes
consisted almost entirely of petroleum products enroute to communities on the
Champlain Canal and Lake Champlain. The shipping season usually begins in late
April and continues until early December (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1978).
The Hudson River supports a variety of water—based recreattonal activities, which
include sport fishing, waterfowl hunting, fur trapping, swimming. and boating. The
recreational fishery of the mid—Hudson River, from the Federal Dam at Troy to
Poughkeepsie, includes largemouth and smailmouth bass, brown bullhead, yellow
perch, walieye, blueback herring, alewife, rainbow smelt, sunfish, and black
crappie. Catches of striped bass and American shad have also been reported as far
upriver as Troy Dam. Sheppard (1976) estimates fishing activity in this segment to
be about 30,000 angler—days per year. The fishery of the lower Hudson south of
Poughkeepsie includes striped bass, American eel, Atlantic tomcod, blue fish, white
perch, white catfish, winter and summer flounder, blueback herring, and alewife.
Important aquatic invertebrates include the freshwater mussel and the blue crab,
the latter an important recreational species harvested from the shallow waters of
Peekskill Bay. Based on aerial surveys in 1972 through 1974, the lower fishery
3—16
-------
supports an estimated 20,165 angler—days annually (Sheppard, 1976). As a spawning
ground for striped bass and a nursery for bluefish, the Hudson also contributes to
the marine fishery. Sheppard also estimates that the striped bass fishery supports
1,417,000 angler—days annually with an economic value of more than $28 million
(Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1983).
The shortnose sturgeon, which Is an endangered fish species, exists In the Hudson
River estuary. This reach of the river is utilized as a spawning ground, a major
overwinter area, a nursery area for young of the year fish, and as a summer feeding
ground. The shortnose sturgeon is very susceptible to PCB contamination due to its
occurrence and spawning in the highly polluted area located just below the Federal
Dam at Trov (DEIS, 1981).
The flood control reservoirs within the Hudson River Basin are used to control river
flows during flood or drought conditions in order to maintain barge navigation and
hydroelectric power generation.
Some homes and farms along the Hudson River also use the river as a supplemental
water supply for watering lawns and gardens, and for irrigating crops.
3.7.2 Groundwater Use
Several municipalities, industries, and private Individuals obtain water from wells
located adjacent to the Hudson River. The Town of Stiliwater operates four wells,
and Green Island draws water from infiltration galleries located on an Island in the
Upper Hudson River (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1980). The amount of water drawn
exclusively for industrial use is small and restricted mainly to light Industries such
as creameries and garages. Most of the heavy Industry in the area is situated in or
near the larger towns and cities and utilize municipal water supplies. In areas not
served by a public water system, domestic water supplies are obtained almost
exclusively from wells and springs. The domestic uses of water include drinking,
cooking, washing, and sewage disposal, arid these needs are normally met by dug or
drilled wells of low yield. Water for cattle and other farm animals is also obtained
by the same method, and in many cases where the number of stock to be cared for
3—17
-------
is small, one well may suffice for both the farm and the household. The average
consumption from this type of well is generally less than 500 gallons per day
(Cushman, 1950).
3—18
-------
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS
4.1 Concentrations, Distribution, and Trends
PCBs are water insoluble compounds which have a pronounced tendency to adsorb
onto fine particulate matter. These chemicals have an especially high affinity for
carbon—rich materials such as activated carbon, humus, and soil organic matter.
Because of this property, a large portion of the PCBs in the General Electric
discharges adhered to organic—rich sediments, particularly those that accumulated
behind the Fort Edward Dam. Between 1974 and 1977, approximately 1 1 million
cubic yards of PCB—contaminated sediments were released to the river during high
flows following the removal of the dam in 1973. Since the court mandated
elimination of PCBs from the 0. E. discharges in 1977, these contaminated
sediments and the exposed deposits in the former dam pool are believed to be the
primary source of PCBs in the Hudson River environment. This section presents
major conclusions of five years of scientific and engineering studies on PCB
contamination in sediments, water, air, and biota of the Hudson River Basin.
4.1.1 Sediments
4.1.1.1 Remnant Sediment Deposits
The removal of the Fort Edward Dam left more than 1.5 million cubic yards of
contaminated sediments in five discrete deposits exposed along the edges of the
river in a 1.5 mile stretch upstream of Fort Edward. The locations of these
remnant deposits are illustrated in Figure 4—1. Approximately 850,000 cubic yards
of this material was scoured by high flows between July 1973 and July 1974
(Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1975). Another 260,000 cubic yards of sediment were
transported during a 100—year frequency flood in April 1976——220,000 cubic yards of
which came from the remnant deposits. In 1977—78 17,000 cubic yards of highly
contaminated sediment from area 3A was removed to the New Moreau secure
containment site, along with 170,000 cubic yards of material dredged from the
channel just below the old dam site (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1980).
4—1
-------
• LIMIT OF 100 YEAR FLOOD STAGE
FIGURE 4 -I
PLAN VIEW, REMNANT DEPOSITS
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
SCALE: I” 2,000’
NUB
____CORPORIC T(JNJ
0 A Halliburton Company
REMNANT AREA
AREA IA
REMNANT AREA
2
AREA 2
SARATOGA COUNTY
REMNANT AREA $
4
COVERED BY THE $00 YEAR FLOOD
-------
Remnant deposits contain high amounts of sawdust, wood chips, and other debris
remaining from a once thriving lumber industry. Because of their high organic
carbon content and their proximity to the former G. E. discharge points, the
remaining exposed deposits are among the most highly contaminated sediments in
the river.
Results ol core sampling b the NYSDEC and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., are summarized
In Table 4—1. The values in the table represent the latest volume and mass
estimates by NYSDEC (Tofflemire, 1980a). Arithmetic average PCB
concentrations on a dry—weight basis ranged from 5 to 1000 ppm. Estimates of the
PCB mass In the remnant deposits ranged from 64,000 pounds to 140,000 pounds
(Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1980).
The most highly contaminated sediments were generally found in the top few
inches- of the sample cores; however, significant contamination extended up to 10
feet below the surface. PCB levels ranged from 5620 ppm at the surface of a core
from site 3a to less than 3 ppm, which was commonly found a few inches deep in
many samples. PCB concentrations tended to increase with distance from the edge
of the present bank to a maximum near the old pool shore. This trend is
characteristic of the river below the remnant deposits and is related to velocity
distributions and sediment characteristics as will be discussed later.
The remnant deposits were subjected to a number of remedial activities between
1974 and 1978, the most significant of which was the excavation and containment
of area 3a. The unstable banks of areas 3 and 5 were graded and stabilized with
stone riprap and these areas, along with area 2, were revegetated. An aerial
inspection In 1983, however, revealed that the plantings had not taken well.
Remnant deposit 1, which is an island, has not been subjected to - any remedial
action. The aerial inspection in 1983 showed It to be much smaller than before.
Figures 4—2a through 4—2e depict typical cross sections at the remnant deposits and
relate contaminated material and remedial construction features to river stages.
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-’!
PCB CONTAMINA11ON IN REMNANT DEPOSITS
Avg. PCB Contaminated Contaminated PCB
Remnant Area Concentration Depth Volume Mass
Area ( acres) ( ppm) ( ft) ( yd 3 ) ( Ib )
1 4.0 20 2 12,900 450
2 8.0 5 5 64,530 570
3 13.3 65 8 160,925 18,550
3a 6.0 1000 1 9,680* 17,000*
4 12.0 25 2 38,720 1,700
4a 8.5 40 3 41,140 2,900
5 4.0 250 8 31,630 22,650
Total 55.8 359,525 63,820
Less Area 3a 17,000
Remaining 46,820
Source: (Tofflemlre, 1980).
* The actual volume excavated from area 3a in 1978 was 14,000 yd 3 . Based on
an assumed bulk density of 65 lb’ft ” 3 the PCB mass removed from Area 3a
could be 24,500 lb. The remaining mass of PCB, however, does not change.
4—4
-------
WEST EAST
150
L ii
I ii
tL
-J
hi
>
hi
I4O
4 -
hi 100 YEAR FLOOD
U) ______
GROUND
hi ___
AVG. ANNUAL FLOOD ___________________________________
0
m
(11 . I3O
90% DURAT ___________________
z
0
Lii
120 I
hi 0 200 400
DISTANCE (FEET)
SOURCE’ TRANSECT 92+00, MALCOLM PIRNIE (1977)
FIGURE 4-2a
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION AT REMNANT DEPOSIT 1 FIII I%JLJB
_ ORPORA11ON
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
0 A Halliburlon Company
-------
WEST EAST
0 200 400
MARCH 1976
SOURCE. TRANSECT 80400, MALCOLM PIRNIE( 1977)
DISTANCE (FEET)
FIGURE 4-2b
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION AT REMNANT DEPOSIT 2
NUB
_CORPORA ON
0 A Haltiburton Company
150
140
p
w
Iii
IL
-J
tiJ
>
w
-J
4
Iii
U)
I d
m
4
z
GROUND SURFACE
130 -
DEPTH
.nn
EXISTING BANK
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
-------
‘Ii
U-
-J
U
>
U i
-J
U
(I)
U
>
0
0
2
0
I-
LU
-J
LU
WEST
145
135
125
115 —
SOURCE: TRANSECT 52440, MALCOLM PIRNIE (1977)
0 400
DISTANCE (FEET)
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION AT REMNANT DEPOSIT 3
NUS
_CORPOR flON
0 A Halhburton Company
ASSUMED TOP OF STONE
RIP-RAP
EAST
GROUND SURFACE
AVG. CONTAMINATED DEPTH
I
200
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
FIGURE 4-2c
-------
WEST EAST
LU 145
L ii
LL
GROUND SURFACE
-J
Lii
>
Lii ASSUMED TOP OF STONE
135 RIP-RAP
100 YEAR FLOOD
AVG. CONTAMINATED AVG. ANNUAL OOD
m
125-
9Q0 DURATION FLOW
0
I-
>
I i i
II ‘ - I
bi 0 200 400
DISTANCE (FEET)
SOuRCE TRANSECT 20600, MALCOLM PIRNI E (1977)
FIGURE 4-2d
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION AT REMNANT DEPOSIT 4
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY I Icon oFv rIoN
A Halliburton Company
-------
WEST
145
DISTANCE (FEET)
SOURCE TRANSECT 2400, MALCOLM PIRNIE (1977)
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION AT REMNANT DEPOSIT 5
FIGURE 4-2e
jNUB
____CORPORATPN
0 A Halliburton Company
GROUND SURFACE
EAST
135 ASSUMED TOP OF STONE
RIP-RAP
125 -
I
0 200
DEPTH
400
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
-------
Ninety percent of the time the pool surface elevation is at or below the lower
boundary of significant PCB contamination within the remnant deposits (Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc., 1978). Thus, bank scour during periods of high flow is the principal
mechanism responsible for the transfer of PCB to the lower reaches.
Infiltrating rain water and runoff, as well as groundwater movement, carry some
desorbed PCBs to the river; however, this contribution Is insignificant compared to
the PCB load passing Rogers Island (see section 4.1.2.2 for a discussion of
groundwater migration potentials). Remnant deposit saturation during floods would
not contribute significant amounts of PCBs to the river since the hydraulic
gradient would slope away from the river during these periods and dèsorbed PCBs
would be carried inland where it would be attenuated by soil particles. Although
air transport from the remnant deposits is surprisingly high, WAPORA, Inc., (1980)
concluded that PCB redistribution in rainfall and dry deposition Is not a significant
-component to the total PCB mass balance.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., (1978) estimated that approximately 8600 pounds of PCB per
year were lost to the river from the remnant deposits before remedial activities
were implemented. Tof-flemire and Quinn (1979b) suggested that after
remedlation, the unstable bank areas of remnant deposit 4 presented the greatest
potential for future erosion losses. The most highly contaminated deposits, areas
3 and 5. are not likely to erode because they are adequately protected against
flows substantially higher than the average annual flood. Consequently, it Is
contended by some NYSDEC officials that the majority of the PCB contamination
which moves into lower reaches comes from contaminated bottom sediments and
not from remnant deposit scour, because the remaining unstable remnant areas are
not highly contaminated.
4.1.1.2 Upper Hudson River Sediments
The NYSDEC and its consultants began an extensive survey in 1976 to determine
the magnitude of PCB contamination In Upper Hudson River sediments. Over 1200
core and grab samples were taken from a 40 mile stretch of river from 1976 to
1981. Approximately 700 of these were analyzed for PCBs and a large number of
4—10
-------
samples were tested for particle size class distribution, volatile solid content,
heavy metals, and the radioisotope cesium 137 O 37 Cs).
The bulk of sediment sampling was completed in 1977. The main survey consisted
of 640 grab samples collected along surveyed transects which were more common
near Fort Edward and less closely spaced down river, plus an additional 200 core
samples which were recovered randomly from soft near—shore deposits. A second
survey in 1978 included 200 grab samples collected to refine the results of the 1977
sampling effort. No major sediment surveys (>50 samples with accompanying PCB
analysis) have occurred since 1978. The major findings of numerous studies are
discussed below.
Estimates of mean PCB concentrations and mass vary from report to report
depending on the type of averaging used, how sectioned core samples were
averaged, and the method used to determine depth and areal extent of
contaminated deposits. Table 4—2 gives a summary of typical statistics collected
from various sources characterizing deposits. The mean PCB concentrations in the
table reflect frequently reported arithmetic means; yet it should be considered
that the frequency distribution of PCB levels Is log normal and these values may
not be the best estimates of central tendency (Toftiemire and Quinn, April 1979).
The distribution of PCBs on the river bottom is extremely variable. Tofflemire and
Quinn (April 1979) reported an overall standard deviation of 188.2 ppm for 434 grab
samples with a mean of 66.7 ppm. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., (1978) noted that very high
PCB levels could be fo.und close to e ctremeiy low values; for a single sampling
curve they reported PCB levels ranging from 0.02 ppm at 28 inches in one core
sample, to 2273 ppm at a 4—inch depth in a core that was recovered less than 1300
feet from the first. The highest single PCB concentration ever found was 3707
ppm, while values below detection limits have occasionally been observed in the
contaminated zone.
The concentration of PCB decreases with distance below the former disharge
points. The decreasing PCB gradient, however, is not regular. Average PCB
concentration decreases from 86.2 ppm in the Thompson Island Dam pool to 14.2
4-11
-------
TABLE 4-2
STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PCI) AND PCB MASS ESTIMATES
FOR RIVER REACHES IN ThE UPPER HUDSON RIVER
Arithmet lc(b)
Mean PCB
(ppm)
MPI(d) NVsDEc(°r
Reach(a)
Total(b)
%(C)
Sample(C)
No.
Samples
Dens lt
Samples
>50 ppm
per ml
Standard”
Deviation
(ppm)
PCB Mass
(Ib )
9
6
—-
——
297.2
-—
900
3.000
8
301
25.1
430
86.2
245.3
133.700
117.600
7
86
30.0
253
64.0
63.3
18.900
15.600
6
126
37.0
300
76.0
141.2
41.600
48.900
5
98
12.2
50
14.2
17.2
62.100
42,600
4
35
22.0
69
39.7
74.9
23.700
15.200
3
18
14.3
35
42.7
105.7
24.800
18.000
t
2
18
12.5
27
13.4
17.8
16.900
13.500
R
1
18
14.0
20
9.6
12.0
23.800
12,500
Total
706
66.7*
188.2*
347,200
286.900
NOTE: Footnotes appear on Page 2 of this table.
-------
TABLE 4-2
STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PCB AND MASS ESTIMATES
FOR RIVER REACHES IN ThE UPPER HUDSON RIVER
PAGE TWO
a. Average
Length WIdth
Reach Location ( In) ( ft) Area
1 Troy Dam to Lock 1 5.5 845 560
2 Lock 1 to Lock 2 4.0 875 420
3 Lock 2 to Lock 3 2.6 1.050 330
4 lock 3 to Lock 4 2.2 1.230 330
5 Lock 4 to Lock 5 15.2 690 1,260
6 Lock 5 to Lock 6 1.8 800 270
7 Lock 6 to Thompson IS (670)
c Dam 2.3 790 220
8 Thompson Is. Dam to 5.2 710 445
Rogers Island
9 Rogers Island to
Bakers Falls
b. Source (Tofflemire and Quinn. April 1979).
c. Sources (Malcolm Pirnle Inc.. January 1978).
d. Source (Malcolm Pirnie Inc., September 1980).
e. Source (Tofflemlre. March 1980).
* StatistIcs for grab samples only.
-------
ppm In the Lock 4 pool and then increases again in the Lock 3 and Lock 2 pools to
39.7 and 47.7 ppm, respectively. The smaller value for the Lock 4 pool may be
related to the poor sampling density relative to adjacent sections. However,
Tofflemire and Quinn (1979) proposed that the rate of deposition of PCB—
contaminated sediments in the downstream reaches is high compared to the Lock 4
reach because of the wider channel and the presence of many low—velocity marsh
areas where PCB—Iaden sediments tend to accumulate. They also suggest that
unidentified additional PCB sources on the west side of the river near
Mechanlcsville may be responsible for the rise in PCB concentrations in the Lock 2
and 3 pool sediments.
Total PCB mass estimates also tended to decrease with distance downstream.
Mass estimates for the Upper Hudson River varied betwen 290,000 pounds and
350,000 pounds (Malcolm Pirnie, inc., 1980). The rahge in mass estimates for river
reaches is illustrated in Figure 4—3.
The lateral distribution of PCB—contaminated sediments is influenced by a number
of. factors. Typically. PCB levels In channel sediments and along eroding banks are
lower than those in soft, near—shore deposits (Malcolm Plrnie, Inc., 1980). This
trend is related to sediment particle size and composition and the variation of flow
velocities across the channel. Tofflemlre and Quinn (1979) statistically determined
that high PCB values are associated with finer sediments which are rich in organic
carbon. These associations are attributed to the high surface area to volume
ratio of the inorganic fraction and to the high affinity of PCBs for carbon. Organic
mucks normally collect in low—velocIty areas in marshes and backwaters and to a
lesser extent near the shore. The NYSDEC has shown that mean log 10 PCB levels
of the Outer two thirds of the river area are statistically higher than those of the
middle third (Toffiemire & Quinn, 1979). Typically the PCB concentration of near—
shore deposits ranged from 50 to 1000 ppm, while concentrations In the coarser
sediments from the channel ranged between 5 and 20 ppm.
The variation of PCBs with depth in the sediment profile differs with the reach of
the river considered. In the Thompson Island Dam pool, peak mean PCB levels of
4—14
-------
SOURCE :(MALCOLM PIRNIE INC. 1980).
FIGURE 4-3
ESTIMATED
PCB IN POUNDS BY RIVER POOL
NUS
_coR JR O J
0 A Halliburlon Company
a)
0
I L
C ,)
0
z
0
0
0
L i i
1-
U)
Lii
-a
U i
REMNANT THOMPSON
DEPOSITS ISLAND DAM RIVER LOCATION
LOCK LOCK LOCK
3 2
FEDERAL ESTUARY
DAM
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER,NY
-------
133 ppm were found between 12 to 18 inches in depth. As distance below the
Thompson Island Dam Increased, peak mean PCB levels decreased, peak levels were
found closer to the surface, and the distribution of PCBs within the profile became
more homogeneous (Tofflemire and Quinn, 1979). Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., (1978)
proposed a dredge depth of 24 inches for the Thompson Island Pool to avoid
exposing highly contaminated sediments to the water. A 15—inch cut was proposed
for all other areas.
To view the areal distribution of PCB contamination In the river, offIemire and
Quinn (1979) plotted all survey data on one inch to 200 feet scale planimetric
maps and drew isoconcantration contours to delineate PCB Thot spots. Sample
points exhibiting a PCB concentration of 50 ppm or more were the primary criteria
for drawing contours. Subjective judgments based on knowledge of sediment
composition and river hydrology were used to locate boundaries when survey data
were scarce. The arithmetric mean PCB concentration of all samples within a hot
spot was compared with the mean value of the adjacent cold area, and the hot spot
boundaries were adjusted until the average concentration was 50 ppm or more.
Using this method, 40 hot spots were identified within a 40—mile section of river
stretching from Rogers Island to Mechanicsvllle. The location and configuration of
NYSDEC PCB hot spots are shown in Figure 4—4. Tofflemire and Quinn’s detailed
tabulation of hot—spot concentration and mass estimates Is reproduced in Table 4—3.
From this table It Is evident that, hot spots as delineated by NYSDEC in 1978
contained 58 percent of the estimated PCB mass within the Upper Hudson River
while only covering 8 percent of the area.
Hot spots are regarded as conservative but adequate estimates of the
configurations of areas of major PCB contamination in the river in 1977 to 1978.
PCB distributions around hot spot number 6 were further examined using a
computer application of a digital extrapolatIon/InterpolatIon technique. The
program used gradient analysis and inverse distance methods to approximate PCB
concentra.tions for points at 50—foot grid intervals. Isoconcentration contours were
4—16
-------
(Source — Malcolm Pirnie Sept. 1980)
Co.
GLENS
FALLS
-
HUDSON
FALLS
FIGURE 4-4
HOT SPOT AND REMNANT AREA LOCATIONS
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
NOT TO SCALE
I NUS
____CDRPORATKJ1 J
0 A Halliburlon Company
ALBANY CO.
AIRANY
RENSSELAER
WAI
-I
Tiop Lock
SARATOGA CO.
MECHANIC VILLE
ock 3
RE NSSELAER
Lock I
C
WARREN
Lock 4
I
Fo’t
FIG.4-41
Own Site
I-.
FIG. 4-4s
I
I—
FIG. 4-4d
I hompion Is
Oem
FIG. 4-4c
ID WARD
WASHINGTON
Co.
-------
LEGEND :
REMNANT AREA
PCB HOT SPOT
STREAM MILE ABOVE THE
BATTERY
PLAN VIEW UPPER HUDSON
SCALE: ¼: I MILE
FIGURE 4- 4a
NUE
___CCP RAT1 N
0 A Hailiburton Company
RIVER AREA
4-18
-------
LEGEND :
Is
PCB HOT SPOT
o—t i STREAM MILE ABOVE THE BATTERY
THOMPSON
FIGURE 4-4b
PLAN VIEW UPPER HUDSON
SCALE: 1Y4’:I MILE
RIVER / RLi\
NUB
____CORPORAT(JN
0 A Halliburton Company
.
LOCK
-a
C D
FORT MILLER
-4
10
I.”
0l
‘0
ia
I
-------
PCB HOT SPOT
—iae STREAM MILE ABOVE
THE BATTERY
HGURE 4-4c
PLAN VIEW UPPER HUDSON RIVER AREA
SCALE: I/ 4 N I MILE
NUS
_COAPOFW1ON
0 A Halliburton Company
(0
z
‘0
0
r
‘SI.
2
10
LOCK 5
6)
C
U I
LEGEND :
-------
—
/
ISARATOGA NATI0
I H%S1O L PAR)
-J
I -. - - --
•_-.-_--_-—Jl
LEGENDS
I8
PCB HOT SPOT
°—iee STREAM MILE ABOVE THE BATTLR
UPPER HUDSON RIVER
SCALE:. I V 4 I MILE
AREA
[ NUS
____CORPORATKJN
0 A Halliburton Company
F )
2
fill
-1
0
C l
C
m
‘ L i
C D
Li
0
I-
(I ’
C,
LLI
z
x
0
r LAN VIEW
FIGURE 4-4d
-------
I L
0 ’
I-
z
C
-l
0
11
C)
C
ml
( 1
LEGEND :
PCB HOT SPOT
o—188 STREAM MILE ABOVE
THE BATTERY
FIGURE 4-4e
PLAN VIEW UPPER HUDSON RIVER AREA ‘
SCALE i’4’ I MILE
L_ J J CORPORATION
0 A Halliburton Company
-------
LEGEND
PCB HOT SPOT
STREAM MILE
BATTERY
ABOVE THE
FIGURE 4 - 4f
PLAN VIEW UPPER HUDSON
SCALE: 1V 4 11 = I MILE
RIVER AREA
[ NUS
L COFRPORATKJN
0 A Hafliburton Company
0
tIo
I L ’
0, s
L0CK
I
o—i ae
L i i
I L
0
I,-
1W
Iz
-i
x
0
-------
LEGEND :
PCB HOT SPOT
o—1a8 STREN l MILE ABOVE THE BATTERY
FIGURE 4.- 4p
PLAN VIEW
UPPER HUDSON
SCALE: IY : I MILE
RIVER AREA
4-24
ThEI\!UB
___ OR RAT1ON
0 A Hailiburton Company
T OY
-
1w
M.
g
-J
-------
TABLE 4-3
CONTAMINATED AND REMOVAL VOLUMES AND PCB QUANTITIES OF HOT SPOTS
Hot Spot (1)
Area No.
Area
Contaminated (2)
Volume
Mean (3)
PCB Conc.
PCB 1 )
Quantity
Removal (5)
Volume
(sq
ft)
(Cu yd)
(ppm)
(Ibs)
(Cu yd)
1
66,600
3,100
63
340
7,400
2
21,200
1,000
81
140
2,350
3
38,300
1,750
46
140
4,250
4
78,800
3,650
50
320
- 8,750
Subtotal
204,900
9,500
57
940
22,750
5
460,400
34,100
62
3,710
51.150
6
1,033,700
76,550
69-
9,270
114,850
7
110,600
8,200
39
560
12,300
8
1,462,700
108,350
99
18,830
162,500
9
118,500
8,800
38
590
13,150
10
191,200
14,150
78
1,940
21,250
11
57,100
4,250
39
290
6,350
12
45,700
3,400
71
420
5,100
13
28,000
2,050
89
320
3,100
14
974,200
72,150
279
35,330
108,250
15
286,600
21,250
103
3,840
31,850
16
446,500
33,050
380
22,060
49,600
17
83,200
6,150
256
2,770
9,250
18
201,700
14,950
94
2,460
22,400
19
42,000
3,100
83
450
4,650
20
62,700
4,650
249
2,030
6,950
Subtotal
5,604,800
415,150
144
104,870
622,700
21
30,800
1,450
143
360
3,400
22
97,600
4,500
75
600
10,850
23
4 I,000
2,050
506
180
4,900
24
129,000
5,950
506
520
14,350
25
300,100
13,900
100
2,440
33,350
26
119,800
5,550
47
460
1,300
27
78,400
3,650
63 .
340
8,700
Subtotal
799,700
37,050
75
4,900
88,850
4—25
-------
TABLE 4-3
CONTAMINATED AND REMOVAL VOLUMES AND PCB QUANTITIES
OF HOT SPOTS
PAGE 2
1. Hot Spot Area No. 1—4
5—20
21—27
28—35
36
37
38—40
Above Lock 7
Thompson Is. Dam — Lock 7
Lock 6 — Thompson Is. Dam
Lock 5 — Lock 6
Lock 4 — Lock 5
Lock 3 — Lock 4
Lock 2 — Lock 3
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2. Contaminated Volumes based on a contaminated depth of:
15 in. — Above Lock 7
24 In — TID — Lock 7
15 In. — Lock 6 — TID
15 In. — Lock 5 — Lock 6
15 In. — Lock 4 — Lock 5
15 in. — Lock 3 — Lock 4
15 in. — Lock 2 — Lock 3
Hot Spot (1)
Area No.
Area
(sq ft)
1,026,800
32,700
54,400
194,300
41,200
119,400
955,800
245,400
2,670,000
Contamlnated( 2 )
Volume
(Cu yd)
Mean( 3 )
PCB Conc.
(ppm)
109
81
155
516
51
98:
159
105
155
PCB( 4 )
Quantity
(Ibs)
9,090
220
690
8,150
170
950
12,350
2,090
33,710
Remova l( 5 )
Volume
(cu yd)
114,100
3,650
6,050
21,600
4,600
13,250
106,200
27,250
296,700
47,550
1,500
2,500
9,000
1,900
5,550
44,250
11,350
123,000
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Subtotal
36
37
38
39
40
Subtotal
1,207,500
1,239,700
318,850
284,000
743,550
1,346,400
55,900
57,400
14,750
13,150
34,400
62,300
51
116
506
161
62
80
5,000
11,860
1,300
3,720
3,750
8,770
134,140
137,750
35,450
31,550
82,600
149,600
Total
13,073,000
760,300
127
169,870
1,452,500
Reach
4—26
-------
TABLE 4-3
CONTAMINATED AND REMOVAL VOLUMES AND PCB QUANTITIES
OF HOT SPOTS
PAGE 3
3. Mean PCB Conc. based on average concentration of all surface samples and
weighted average concentration of core samples within the hot spot area.
4. PCB Quantity based on a bed material density of 65 lb/cu ft.
5. Removal Volume based on a 36 in. removal depth.
Source: Toffiemire and Quinn, April 1979.
4-27
-------
then fitted to the grid points. As might be expected, hot spots appeared as
localized cells of influence on the river bottom. However, a grouping of these cells
corresponds with hot spot number 6 as mapped by NYSDEC.
PCB hot spots shown in Figure 4—4 are generally a manifestation of the trends
described earlier In this section. Many hot spots encompass areas of fine,
organic—rich—matter sediments isolated along quiet banks and in shallow, low
velocity marsh areas. Often, however, highly contaminated deposits are found near
the center of the channel and on the outside banks of bends where they would not
normally be expected to occur. This characteristic is more pronounced closer to
the old Fort Edward Dam site and is explained by the tremendous oversupply of
sediment occurring after the removal of the dam. Normally a mature river such as
the Hudson is in a dynamic equilibrium state with its basin such that the overland
sediment supply neither greatly exceeds nor falls substantially below the sediment
transport ability of the river (Chow, 1964). if the sediment supply suddenly
increases as a result of dam removal, for example, the net effect is a steady
sediment buildup over the entire river bed. This appears to be the case with the
sediments in the Thompson Island pool, and the PCB profile within the sediment
column provides support for this hypothesIs. The fact that peak levels of PCB are
relatively well defined and buried beneath 6 to 8 Inches of cleaner sediment
mirrors the effects of a mass release of highly contaminated sediments with the
removal of the Fort Edward Dam and the deposition of less contaminated
sediments corresponding to the virtual elimination of PCB from the G.E.
dIscharges (Brown and Werner, 1983).
D’ownstream, highly contaminated PCB hot spots are found more often in classic
low—velocity marsh areas and backwaters, and the homogeneous distribution of PCB
with depth in the profile indicates a more uniform and diffuse dispersal of
PCB—Iaden sediments. This is explained by the slow return of the Thompson Island
pool to an equilibrium state after the removal of excess sediment supply with the
stabilization of the remnant deposits. Consequently the flux of sediment to lower
reaches is lower and substantial deposition does not occur except when suspended
4—2B
-------
sediments are washed into low—velocity deposition areas. As the river sediments
return to equilibrium, scour from the Thompson Island pool can be expected to
decrease and the PCB load to the estuary should show a similar trend.
The transient nature of sediment deposits, however, cannot be overemphasized.
The effects of excessively large flows on deposits in the Thompson Island pool.
especially those now occupying high velocity areas, are unknown. Perhaps even the
disturbance caused by barge traffic Is enough to destabilize some hot—spot areas.
It is possible that the hot—spot mapping done in 1978 may not be valid in 1983,
especially with the return of flows exceeding 50,000 cfs at Waterford in May.
Refer to AppendIx E for a discussion of the results of recent sedIment sampling In
the U per Hudson.
4.1.1.3 Lower Hudson River Sediments
Sediment sampling by the Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory has provided
valuable information on PCB contamination In the reach below the Federal Dam at
Troy. Their surveys routinely include analysis for the 137 Cs
Isotope which is useful as an independent indicator of the recent nature of
sediments that can be used to date sediments and compute deposition ‘rates (Bopp,
1979).
Lamont Doherty data (Table 4—4) show a regular decrease in PCB levels with
distance below the Federal Dam (Bopp, 1979). Average concentrations ranged from
3 ppm In the Upper .Harbor area to 30 ppm near Albany. The highest PCB
concentration measured by Lamont Doherty was 140 ppm found in a core from the
Albany turning basin. The overall average PCB concentration of the Lower Hudson
River Is about 10 ppm, which is considerably less than that of the Upper Hudson
River, but which is one to two orders of magnitude more contaminated than other
water bodies in the area (Bopp, 1979). Using the absence of 137 Cs as a
stratigraphic indicator of pre—1954 conditions, Bopp estimated that pre—G.E.
discharge PCB levels were 0.2—0.6 ppm, which Is more in line with recent sediments
from other rivers.
4-29
-------
TABLE 4-4
CONTAMINATION OF PCBs (Arockr 1242)
IN RECENT SEDIMENTS OF THE LOWER HUDSON RIVER
No. of Samples
___________________ averaged _________ __________
(1.6 —140)
(4.1—29)
(0.5—26)
(0.7—5.8)
All samples with 137 Cs at least two standard deviations greater than zero were
included In the average. This value may be somewhat misleading because of
extremely high values in the top 60 cm of core 143.4. Eliminating this core gives
an average of 16 ppm 1242, with a range from 7.6 to 35 ppm.
Source: Bopp, 1979
Cores (mile paints )
146.3, 144.2, 143.4
109.5, 91.8 , 83,2
53.8, 44.4, 43.2
6.0, 0.1, — 1.5
PCB (1242) Concentration,
21
24
25
27
Range
- ppm
Average
ppm
30
10
6
3
4—30
-------
From basic data on PCB concentrations and sediment deposition rates developed
from the Lamont Doherty data, Bopp, et al., (1980) estimated the area! distribution
of PCB contamination and developed a rough PCB mass balance for the Lower
Hudson River. The preliminary results of this analysis are presented In Table 4—5.
Low deposition areas which accumulated little or no recent sediment, such as
channel and subtidal banks, made up approximately 65 percent of the river area but
contained only about 14 percent of the PCB burden associated with bottom
sediments. Coves and broad shallow areas where deposition was on the order of 1
cm/yr accounted for 25 percent of the area and 35 percent of the PCB
contamination. The remainder of the PCB—contaminated sediments had been
deposited in frequently dredged areas where accumulation rates of 5—20 cm/yr
were common. Most of this area was in the New York harbor, but other high
deposition areas were identified In the river near Kingston and Germantown and in
the Albany turning basin. Bopp estimated that between 1960 and 1980 over 86,000
pounds of PCB were removed from these areas by maintenance dredging. From
data on PCB partitioning between sediment and water, Bopp further estimated that
200,000 pounds of PCB have left the river with the water.
The EPA obtained two sets of core samples for PCB analysis from 29 stations in
the Lower Hudson In 1976 and again in 1981 (U. S. EPA 1977, 1981). For the most
part, PCB levels in 1981 were less than half of those measured in 1976. In 1976,
the highest total PCB values were 58.3 ppm (dry weight basis), measured in the
Albany turning basm. In 1981, the Albany turning basin sample had a depth—
weighted average of only 6.9 ppm. The overall average decrease In the top half of
the cores was 11.3 ppm and the average decrease in the lower core segments was
10.5 ppm.
The only sample showing an Increase in PCB concentration was collected at
Foundry Cove, which Is located north of West Point. PCB levels in the top portion
of the cores increased from 11.07 ppm to 15.8 ppm, and PCB concentrations in the
bottom sections increased from “not detected” to 0.06 ppm.
No explanation for the drastic decreases which were observed has been developed.
Bopp (1979) has provided evidence which shows that the more highly chlorinated
4-3 1
-------
TABLE 4 ’5
PREUMINARY PCB BALANCE FOR ThE LOWER HUDSON
Location
1. New York Harbor ( in—situ )
2. Coves and Marginal Areas
a. Coves and bays
b. Havarstraw Bay and Tappan Zee
3. Low Deposition Areas (Channel & Subtidal Bank)
4. Upstream Areas of High Deposition
a. Albany Turning Basins, mp 109.5 and Lent s Cove
b. Kingston area
Total PCBs associated with sediments of the
Lower Hudson ( in—situ )
PCBs dredged from New York Harbor
washed out to sea
TOTAL
Source: Bopp et al., 1980
PCB Burden
(pounds)
54,000
24.000
36 . 000
24,000
5,000
26,000
169,000
86,000
200,000
455,000
Total
PCB5
4-32
-------
PCB isomers are preferentially adsorbed onto particles. Depletion of the more
volatile Aroclors (1016 and 1242) in sediments may partly explain the decreases in
PCB concentrations which occurred between 1976 and 1981. It Is also possible that
sediments had been disturbed and reworked or that contaminated sediments
observed in 1976 had been buried under cleaner sediments. Although the variability
of PCB levels in the sediment is high, it is unlikely that the differences in the
results of the two EPA surveys were due to minor errors in relocating the sample
stations since 28 of the 29 stations showed drastic decreases.
The results of the 1976 EPA survey suggested the existence of five PCB hot spots
in the Lower River. These Included, from north to south, the Albany turning basin,
the Germantown reach, Foundry Cove, Peeksklll Bay, and Pierport Marsh.
Table 4—6 compares the results of the 1976 EPA survey with the results of two
other surveys in these areas. The values in the table do not agree well. Bopp, et
al., (1980) maintain that PCB values obtained from these areas fall wIthin the
variability of the general patterns of contamination observed through the river and
that the Idea of anomalous hot spots is erroneous.
4.1.2 Water
4.1.2.1 Surface Water
PCBs entrapped in stream bed deposIts are an environmental concern because of
the potential for their- uptake and biomagnlfication in the aquatic food chain.
However, when these PCBs enter the water column via sediment scour,
bloperturbation, or other physical or chemical processes, not only do they become
available for direct uptake by a larger segment of the aquatic communIty, but they
can now migrate by way of flowing water to previously uncontaminated areas or
even to critical receptors such as potable water supply Intakes. Further, the PCBs
can enter the atmosphere, creating the potential for bioaccumulatlon In the
terrestrial food chain and directly threatening air breathing organisms. It Is for
these reasons that PCB health criteria and related monitoring focus on the water
column concentration of PCB rather than on the sediment PCB content.
4-33
-------
TABLE 4-6
COMPARISON OF SURVEY DATA FROM SUSPECTED HOT SPOTS
IN ThE LOWER HUDSON RIVER
EPA 1976 Bopp EPA 1981
Survey 1979í Survey
Location ( ppm) ppm ppm -
Albany 58.3 140 9.81
River miles 143—146
Germantown 2.5 5 ND
River miles 108—109
Foundry Cove 11.7 26 15.8
River miles 53—54
Peekskill Bay 11.7 8 0.92
River miles 44—45
Pierpont Marsh 56.4 4 0.33
River miles 22—24 -
ND — Not Detected (<0.01 .ig/g).
Compilation by NUS Corporation. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. August 1983.
4-34
-------
Since March 1977, the USGS has regularly collected PCB concentration and
suspended sediment data from the Upper Hudson River at the Glens Falls, Rogers
Island, Schuylerville, Stillwater, and Waterford gaging stations. The agency has
also obtained limited records of PCB concentration data from the Lower Hudson
River at stations near Castleton, Catskill, Staalsburg, Clinton Point, and Highland.
This section presents and discusses the major conclusions of a number of previous
studies that examined these data.
Filtration of raw river water samples and subsequent analysis of the two fractions
(Table 4—7) has shown that the water column contains PCBs in both dissolved and
adsorbed forms (Bopp, 1979; ,Turk and Troutman, 1981; Tofflemire, 1980). The
adsorbed form is associated with sediment particles in transport. The amounts of
dissolved PCBs are often surprisingly high (up to 0.50 ppb) considering the
relatively insoluble nature of the compound. The predominant form in the water
column at any given time is highly dependent on the flow rate. This relationship Is
addressed in depth in subsequent paragraphs. Unless otherwise noted the PCB
concentrations of river water reported herein are total values reflecting the sum of
both forms.
The concentration of PCBs in Hudson River water is related to flow rate in a
manner that makes identification of trends extremely difficult. A plot of river
discharge rate versus PCB concentration for three years of data collected at
Stiliwater and Schuylervllle is shown in Figure 4—5. The plot shows that at low
flows, PCB concentration decreases with Increasing river discharge and that above
a critical flow range, PCB concentration increases in direct proportion to discharge
(Turk and Troutman, ‘1981). Similar relationships exist at all gaging stations on the
Upper Hudson River.
This bi—modal relationship is thought to correspond to two different processes
affecting the transfer of PCB from contaminated—bed deposits to the water
column. At low flows desorbed PCBs are Introduced by physical—chemical
processes which are not yet fully understood. This transfer occurs at an
approximately constant rate and, therefore, as discharge increases, dilution takes
place and the PCB concentration drops. The rate at which PCB is supplied to the
4—35
-------
TABLE 4- 7
PHYSICAL PHASE OF PCBs IN WATER COLUMN (WATERFORD)
Discharge Concentration (p /l)
Date ( ft. 3 sec -1) Dissolved Total
77 Mar 11 15,900 0.0 0.0
13 24.400 0.0 0.0
14 65,500 0.0 0.9
15 70.500 0.0 1.4
17 38,500 0.0 0.0
23 16.400 0.2 0.2
78 Jul 5 580 0.5 0.6
10 1,120 0.4 0.3
17 1,160 0.3 0.4
79 Mar 6 30,400 0.0 0.8
7 47,400 0.2 0.3
79 Jul 5 2,540 0.2 0.3
16 1,810 0.4 0.4
23 1,860 0.3 0.3
79 Aug 06 2,500 0.2 0.4
9 2,800 0.0 0.5
13 1,600 0.1 0.2
79 Nov 27 21,800 0.0 0.3
28 27,200 0.0 0.4
80 June 23 1,550 0.1 0.2
July 4 1,100 0.2 0.4
28 1,882 0.1 0.3
Source: Tofflemire, 1980
4—36
-------
I0
0
0
0 .
w
U i
>
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FLOW RATE A TOTAL
PCB CONCENTRATION FOR SCHUYLERVILLE
AND ST1LLWATER DATA
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
FLOW (CFS )
FIGURE 4 5 . -
fl NUB
_CC AT N
0 A Hailiburton Company
WATER YEAS
5 — £ 1976 1977
• 1977 l978 ______
€) 1978 1979J
NOTE: AU.. .0 VALUES PLOTTED
AS .03 PPB
£
£
£
I
1
•
• • .
‘p
£
• • .
£
/
p
.5
.1
.05
.03
£
/
£
/
I
/
‘I
1,000
5,000 10,000 50,000 100,000
4-37
-------
water column at low flow was estimated by the USGS to be about 6.6 pounds per
day (Turk and Troutman, 1981).
As discharge continues to increase, a flow velocity is reached wherein -the tractive
forces at the sediment—water interface begin to exceed the forces holding sediment
particles in place. At this point, sediments are resuspended into the water column.
Since the amount of reentrained PCB—contaminated sediment has been observed to
be proportional to river discharge, the total PCB concentration likewise increases
with flow rate.
Plume experiments on Hudson River sediments have shown that the critical
velocity at which resuspension occurs for cohesive sediment is about 1.8 ft/sec.
Resuspension of coarser, particles was observed to take place at a lower flow
velocity of 1.2 ft/sec (Zimmie, 1981). These flow velocities roughly correspond to
the average annual flood stage.
The significance of these relationships is that at low flows, PCBs are present
predominantly in a dissolved state, and at high flows PCBs are mostly associated
with the suspended sediment load. The transition from one form of PCB to the
other is not fixed at a certain discharge, and at intermediate flows, PCBs are
thought to be present in both desorbed and adsorbed forms. Hand—fitted
relationships such as those shown in Figure 4—5 reveal that the transition from one
form of PCB to the other varies at flows ranging from 10,000 c-ft to 20,000 cfs.
However it is quite evident from Table 4—7 that significant sediment—borne PCBs
can be present at flows as low as 1000 cfs.
Commonly, PCB concentrations at the Glens Falls station, which is located above
this former discharge point, are less than USGS detection limits (0.1 ppb). At the
downstream stations the USGS has reported PCB concentration ranging from•
detection limits to over 5 ppb. A significant part of this variability was due to the
flow relationships discussed above: however, a large portion remains unexplained.
When trying to assess public health concerns some of the data variation can be
removed by separating the data into low, medium, and high flow regimes.
Toffiemire (1980) has attempted this approach by computing means of several
4—38
-------
years of accumulated data at Rogers Island, Schulyerville, Stiliwater, and
Waterford using the 7,000 cfs and 20,000 cfs flow values to demonstrate the three
flow regimes.
Tofflemire’s summary (Table 4—8) shows that, St low flows, PCB concentrations
averaged about 0.6 ppb. Medium—flow PCB concentrations dropped to about 0.2
ppb, and high—flow PCB concentrations rose to an average level of about 1.0 ppb.
Because of the variability of PCB transport during high—flow periods, the
indentification of time—dependent trends Is best limited to consideration of PCB
concentrations at low flows. Table 4—9 presents arithmetic mean concentrations
for water samples collected at discharge rates less than 12,000 cfs for the period
1976 to 1981. In this table, reproduced from Tofflemire (1983a), data for
Stiliwater and Schuylervllie were combined, and Rogers Island data were divided
between east and west channels. Low—flow concentrations at all stations have
decreased since 1979, the decrease being statistically significant between 1979 and
1980. The decline ranged from 0.036 ppb in the west channel at Rogers Island to
0.537 ppb at the Stillwater and Schuylerville stations. Overall, the mean low—flow
PCB concentration fell from 0.69 ppb in 1977 to 0.11 ppb in 1982 (Brown and
Werner, 1983).
Even though comparisons between arithmetic averages within a selected range of
flow can identify long—term trends and significant differences in the data, the
results can also be misieading since the technique involves arithmetic averaging of
data that range between one and two orders of magnitude (Figure 4—5). Further,
the data at the various gages are not directly comparable due to varying
frequency—flow relationships resulting from ‘increased drainage areas and because
the data were not collected concurrently at the respective gages. For example,
the data for 1977—1979 appear to Indicate that the mean low—flow rate at
Waterford is less than the corresponding value at Schuylerville, which has only 55
percent as much drainage area. What is not obvious, is that the 7,000 cfs upper
cutoff value is exceeded only about 20 percent of the ‘time at Schuyiervllle, but
about 40 percent of the time at Waterford. Consequently, the reported PCB
concentrations do not have a common frequency basis.
4—39
-------
TABLE 4-8
AVERAGE PCB CONCENTRATIONS FOR THREE FLOW REGIMES
FOR 1977-1979 USGS DATA
Low Flow Medium Flow HIgh Flow
< 7000 cfs 7000—20,000 cfs > 20,000• cfs
Schuylerville
Mean Flow 3306 12881 30064
(cf s)
Mean PCB 0.665 0.214 1.17
(pg/I)
Stillwater
Mean Flow 3553 12583 27933
(cfs)
Mean PCB 0.594 0.206 1.08
(i. g/l)
Waterford
Mean Flow 3153 17119 41733
(Cf s)
Mean PCB 0.384 0.230 .693
(j . gIl)
Less Than
— More Than
Source: Tofflemire, 1980.
4—40
-------
TABLE 4-9
LOW FLOW PCB CONCENTRATIONS
Parameter
3yrs lyr lyr lyr
1976—79 1979—80 1980—81 1981—82
Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow
*Rogers Island, E.C.
Observations 35 17 21
mean PCB ug/g 0.229 0.200 0.067#
mean flow cfs —— ——
Rogers Island, W.C.
Observations 61 18 22
mean PCB ugh 0.131 0.166 O.036#
mean flow cfs 3056 2398 2877
Stiliwater —
Schuylerville
Observations 38+27 26 69 36
mean PCB/ug/l 0.594, 0.665 0.307 O.156# 0.092#
mean flow cfs 3550, 3306 2404 3282 3718
Waterford
Observations 43 31 20 16
mean PCB ugh 0.384 0.239 0.145# 0.111
mean flow cfs 3153 2298 3400 4615
Source: Toffiemire, 1980.
* For Rogers Island, the a year data base, is 1977—80; there is little data for the
1976—77 year.
# The 1980—81 means are significantly lower than the 1979—80 means at the .05
probability level.
4—41
-------
The latter shortcoming can be approximately accounted for by adjusting all data
for the respective drainage areas under the assumption that average flows are
roughly proportional to drainage area. This does not eliminate the extreme
variability of the data, however, and any conclusions based on an averaging
procedure must be very general and welt scrutinized. An approach more consistent
with the scatter of the data is to simply overlay the data from the various sources
and to observe general trends and differences. This nonquantitative approach,
which eliminates the potential for generating misleading numbers, proved
worthwhile in the assessment of previous modeling studies (SectIon 4.3). A
conclusion of that effort Is that all the PCB concentration and load data from
Schuylerville, Stillwater, and Waterford are indistinguishable within the scatter of
the data when corrected for the respective drainage areas -(refer to Figures 4—16
through 4—18). This would not be an obvious conclusion from the quantitative
averaging reported In Tables 4—8 and 4—9.
PCB transport rates have shown declines corresponding to the decreases in PCB
concentrations which have been observed. Figure 4—6 Illustrates some estimates of
average annual PCB transport rates based on USGS data from Waterford and
Stlllwater. Also shown In this figure Is the 20—year average PCB transport rate
predicted by the PCB transport model of Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly (1978).
Although the estimates in the figure show a substantially elevated transport rate
for 1979, the general trend appears to be declining, with the most recent estimates
apparently leveling off to a base loading rate. The trend seems to satisfy a
logarithmic relationship with time.
The transport rate trends reported above are similar to those predicted by the
Law er, Matusky, and Skelly model for the corresponding years. The annual
average transport rate from the model (7200 pounds per year), however, is
substantially larger than average transport estimates calculated from measured
4-42
-------
10,000 -
C’)
-I
—a
I—
0
a-
U)
z
4
I—
0
0
0
-J
4
z
z
4
1978 1979
CALENDAR YEAR
FIGURE 4-6
YEARLY PCB TRANSPORT ESTIMATES
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
F- NUS
_CORPORA ON
0 A Halliburton Company
9022
8,000-
6,000
4,000-
LEGEND
— TOFFLEMIRE( 1980)
— — — BROWN 8 WERNER( 1983)
•• s TURK& TROUTMAN(198 1)
LMS (1979) 7200 LBS/YR
—
6726
6576 6244
I r—-’
I I
I
I
— 1
I 4259
3740 L ... 2 8 .i.....J
.o Qee
I
I
I
TOFFLEMIRE(I98 1) 4789 LBS/YR
R0WN&WERNER(I983)3873 LBS/YR
1
I
2 00 -
- L - - -
0
1976
1977
1980
1981
1982
-------
values because of the high transport rates generated by the model In wet years. It
Is now suspected that model results are biased because it grossly overestimates
PCB transport at high flows and underestimates transport at low flows (see Section
4.3). The possible effect of large river flows, however, Is a concern which Is
discussed further in later paragraphs.
The elimination of industrial discharges, stabilization of the remnant deposits, and
reduction in PCB releases from bed sediments are cited as the primary factors
contributing to the overall decline in PCB concentrations observed in recent years
(Brown and Werner, 1983). The flow regime and the processes controlling the
transfer of PCBs from sediment to water will likely control PCB concentrations in
the future. An assessment of the factors controlling the transfer process in
relation to recent trends was made by Brown and Werner (1983). The authors found
that mixing and covering contaminated deposits with cleaner sediment may have
played a part In the declines in PCB concentrations which were observed. The
writers further suggested that depletion of more readily volatilized PCB isomers
may In part be responsible for the recent trends. It may be that decreases in PCB
concentratIons In the water column are directly related to decreases In the PCB
content of the bed sediments. Recent sampling from the Upper Hudson River (see
Appendix E) Indicates a large decrease in the overall average PCB concentration of
the sediments. This trend Is as yet unconfirmed and possible mechanisms that
might be responsible, including the degradation of PCB compounds due to
environmental exposure, need to be Investigated.
It remains to be seen how the flow regime influences trends in PCB contamination.
It has been suggested that an absence of excessively high flows W recent years has
resulted In the observation of misleading relationships (Sloan and Armstrong, 1980).
Inherent In this suggestIon Is the Idea that large floods will rework the sediments,
disturb hot spots, and generally expose more highly contaminated sediments to the
water Interface, ultimately resulting in an overall Increase in PCB concentration.
Table 4—10 summarizes recent flow data from the gaging station at Stiliwater. The
maximum daily flow values at StlIlwater have exceeded the 99 percent flow
frequency value of 30,000 cfs In all of the calendar years shown except 1978 and
4-44
-------
TABLE 4-10
RECENT FLOW DATA FROM THE GAGING STATION AT STILLWATER
Calendar Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
Annual Mean
cf S
8,755
6,250
7.732
4,837
5, 614
6.497
Maximum Mean
Daily Flow
cf S
40,390
17,302
36,581
26.094
31,214
33,721
Mean Annual Discharge
99 percent flood frequency
= 5,000 cfs
= 30,000 cfs
Source: Brown and Werner 1983
4—45
-------
1980. With the exception of 1980, mean annual flows have been slightly above
normal, indicating that the recent annual flow regimes have not been unusually
low. The appearance of flow rates greater than 50,000 cfs at Waterford during
May 1983 raised concern over the scouring of contaminated sediments. Flows in
this range had not been observed at Waterford since March 1977, when peak flows
of more than 70,000 cfs were recorded, and It was suggested that perhaps
distribution of PCB contaminated sediments had been altered. Preliminary analysis
of USGS data for the 1983 flood indicated that PCB transport rates during peak
flows were from 175 to 250 pounds per day, which is three times more than usually
picked up during annual high flows. Additionally, the ratio of suspended sediment
to total PCB concentration indicated that the sediments in transport were three
times more contaminated than in previous years, possibly Indicating that some of
the more contaminated sediments were being picked up. A plot of instantaneous
PCB loads measured at Waterford during spring flood peaks (Figure 4—7), however,
reveals that PCB transport in 19ä3 was in line with recent floods and substantially
less than PCB transport in 1977.
It is Interesting to note that measured PCB loads in 1979 were substantially higher
for given flows than In other years. This may be residual effects of disturbances to
the bottom occurring during dredging and the removal of remnant area 3a in 1978.
At present a definitive statement on the effects of large river flows on water
column concentration, PCB transport, and sediment distributions is not possible.
Additional monitoring data will be needed before such trends can be identified.
4.1.2.2 Groundwater
In 1980, there were approximately 630,000 to 900,000 pounds of PCBs stored in
dredge spoil sites and upland municipal landfills in the Upper Hudson basin area
(Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1980). Study and cleanup of many of these areas is not
directly within the scope of this project. Some of these sites (Caputo Landfill, Old
Moreau dredge spoil site) are Superfund projects and others (the remaining landfill
sites) are being cleaned up as part of the agreement between G. E. and the
NYSDEC. However, because they are situated on the banks of the river, the
4—46
-------
I0
LEG END
• 1983
o 1982
o 1981
A 1979
6 977
0
I I
10,000 20,000 ,O00 4O 00 50,000 60,000 70,000
FLOW R 1t (CFS)
FIGURE 4-7
RELATION OF PCB LOAD TO FLOW RATE
DURING SPRING FLOOD FLOWS AT WATERFORD
NUB
_D CRA11ON
0 A Haibburton Company
A
6
A
A
0
0•
a
C ,,
C,
4
0
-J
C-)
0 .
0
0
•
A
0•
.0 —
0.I
0.0I
0
6
•
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
4-47
-------
dredged disposal sites have a direct bearing on this study because of their PCB
contributions to river water as well as their relation to the suitability of the
proposed containment site.
Weston Environmental Consultants (1978) computed the PCB groundwater
migration potential for 12 sites designated by NYSDEC as having significant
amounts of PCBs contained In them. The PCB migration potential is the calculated
quantity of PCBs leaving a site via groundwater after accounting for PCB
adsorption onto soil particles. The calculations were based on preliminary field and
laboratory data collected by Weston in 1977.
Table 4—11 summarizes the results of the Weston Study. PCB migration potentials
were two to three orders of magnitude lower than annual PCB—contaminated
groundwater discharge rates estimated with mass balance techniques which did not
include the effects of soil attenuation. As a result of the PCB—porous media
interactions, the PCB contamination plume was found to advance at velocities
approximately two orders of magnitude slower than calculated groundwater flow
velocities.
The Lock 1 and Lock 2 sites, Buoy sites 212 and 518, the Moreau sites, and special
dredge area 13 are dredge spoil areas located on the banks of the Upper Hudson
River. Assuming that alt unattenuated PCBs that leave these sites in groundwater
discharge enters the Hudson River, then, according to the values in Table 4—11, the
total contribution of dredge spoil sites to the Hudson River PCB load is only 17.0
pounds per year. This is a relatively insignificant part of the annual PCB load at
Rogers Island.
In comparison, PCB losses from these sites as a result of erosion outweigh the
losses from groundwater transport Weston estimates based on the Wischmeier
equation (Bayer, et al. , 1979) and soil PCB content are summarized for dredge
disposal areas in Table 4—12. The total PCB load from this mechanism of 20 pounds
per year js still small in comparison with the total PCB balance of the system.
4-48
-------
TABlE 4—li
CALCULATED PCB MIGRATION POTENTIAL FROM
CONTAMINATED LANDFILLS AND DREDGE SPOIL
AREAS IN THE UPPER HUDSON RIVER AREA
Groundwater
Site
Flow
Site a
Type* MOD
PCB
Cpncentration
ppb
PCB Front
Advance Velocity
ft/yr
PCB
Migration Potential
lbs/yr
* A — Dredged material disposal site
B — landfill site
Lock Number 1
A
1.5 x i0
37.4
1.3
3 x i0
Lock Number4
A
2.0 x iO1
37.4
11.7
4 x
Caputo
Site 578
B
A
2.7 x i0
4.3 x i0
41.7
37.4
2.3
9.9
6 x
8.8 x i0
Site 212
A
2.2 ii 101
16.7
2.1
2.0 x
t
Old Fort Edward
Fort Miller
B
B
2.0 x 10-1
1.5 x 10—6
693.0
45.1
23.4
1.3 x 10
7.5 c 10-1
3.5 x
Klngsburg
Moreau
B
A
1.3
7.4 x io2
580.1
55.4
24.3
2.3
3.8
2.2 x
S.A. 13
A
2.9 x 10—1
58.0
2.3
9 , i02
Source: Weston Environmental Consultants 1978.
-------
TABLE 4-12
Lock 1
Lock 4
518
Buoy 212
Moreau
SA 13
PCB LOSSES TO THE RECEIVING STREAMS
UNSECURE DREDGE DISPOSAL SITES
1.66
6.36
16.97
41.05
45.46
27.24
Total PCBs
Lost to Watershed
lb/yr
0.015
20.8
17.3
24.2
4.2
4.5
Source: Weston Environmental Consultants, 1978.
Estimated Soil Loss
to Watershed
Receiving Stream
Tons/YeAr
4—50
-------
The New Moreau site is a secure có ntainment area designed to hold dredge spoils
from remnant area 3a and from the terminal channel at Fort Edward. As such, it
contains some of the most contaminated sediments in the study area. Details of
the site’s construction may be found on Malcolm Pirnie , Inc., contract D95278
drawings.
Because the designs and geologic settings are similar, monitoring results from the
New Moreau site should reflect the behavior of the proposed Hot—Spot Dredging
Program disposal site. PCB analyses are routinely made on samples taken from the
leachate collection system and from an upgradlent monitoring well. Unfortunately.
there are no downgradient wells and an assessment of leaching cannot be made.
Three leachate samples have been collected from the internal drainage system
(Treiling, July 1983). since 1978. PCB concentrations in these samples have ranged
from less than 0.05 ppb to 1.5 ppb, with an average of 0.46 ppb. The maximum
concentration of 1.5 ppb occurred in -September 1979 and again in November 1982.
The upgradient monitoring wells have, surprisingly, yielded a higher average PCB
concentration of 0.94 ppb for four samples collected between June through
November 1982. These concentrations have ranged from less than 0.06 ppb to 3
ppb, which was found in the Weston welt in November 1982. The Weston well is
thought to be finished in the unsecure Old Moreau dredge spoil area, which may
explain the relatively high PCB value. As of this time, there is not enough
groundwater data available to properly assess the performance of the New Moreau
containment design.
4.t3 Air
Total suspended particulates have been monitored with high—volume air samplers at
five locations in the Upper Hudson Valley. Results of the monitoring program are
included in Table 4—13. Although most readings were within State and Federal
standards, one of the Glens Falls stations exhibited readings that exceeded the
standard for the annual geometric mean in 1973 and 1975. Readings obtained in
1976 were again in compliance with the State standard.
4—51
-------
TABLE 4-13
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES - hiGh VOLUME AIR SAMPLERS
SELECTED STATIONS - UPPER IIIJDSON RIVER
1976
Station
NYS
Fed. kAas.
Sid. G.M.
( p g /rn 3 ) ( pg/rn 3 )
Annual Geometric Mean — pg/rn 3
not to exceed &A.Q.S
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
24 hour eve. pg/rn 3
no! to exceed A.A.O.S.(3)
is! maxi 4 P 2nd max. 3rd max .
t
C l ’
Glens Fails 75 55(2) 53 56(1) 47 63(1) 45 119 (0) 114 112
Glens Falls 75 65 — — 43 49 43 132(0) 117 93
Fort Edward 75 55 — - — — 36 128(0) 108 91
Mechanlcviiie 75 65 — — — — 45 114(0) 111 107
Troy 75 65 52 55 53 46 39 112(0) 95 92
1. Denotes a violation of Ambient Air Quality Standards.
2. The State is dividod by air quality priorities Into (our levels: Level I. denoting areas of least pollution to Level p.1. areas of
heaviest poilullon. The two Giens Fails stations are located in different level areas, thus the difference in the A.A.Q.S. values.
3 Slate standard for 24 hour average Is 250 pg/rn 3 . Federal standard is 260 pg/rn 3 .
4. 1st. 2nd. and 3rd maximum averages measured during 1976. The number in parenthesis Indicates number of times 24 hour max.
was exceeded.
Source: NYS Air Quality Report
Continuous and Manual Air Monitoring Systems
NYSDEC 1976
As Printed in: Malcolm Pirnie. Inc.. January 1978
-------
In 1977, PCB air sampling was conducted at five locations in the Upper Hudson
Valley over an eight—month period. PCB readings in the Glens Falls and
Warrenburg areas were generally less than 20 ng/m 3 , while the stations in the
Hudson Falls and Fort Edward areas recorded higher PCB levels. One of the Fort
Edward stations, which was in close proximity to the General Electric Company
facilities, recorded the highest concentrations, ranging from approximately 60
ng/m 3 to 3260 ng/m 3 (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1978) (see Table 4—14).
Thirty—day dustfall jar tests were also conducted for PCBs at stations in the Fort
Edward, Glens Falls, and Warrensburg areas in 1977. Results Indicated that PCB
contamination of settleable particulates was higher at the Fort Edward area than
at either of the other two areas (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1978).
About 1979, several field air samples were taken over dump or dredge sites.
Sampling was generally conducted 3 to 4 feet above the ground and was repeated
about 3 to 5 times. The data Is presented in Table 4—15. - Several background
stations in the Fort Edward area had less than 20 ng/m 3 , which is about the
detection limit of the method for a 24—hour sample (NYSDEC, 1981).
Air samples taken in 1981 wIth a high volume sampler employing polyurethane
sponges contained air PCB concentrations of roughly 5 ng/m 3 for farm fields near
the Hudson River. Additional air sam ling over the Lock 5 dam during the summer
revealed PCB concentrations of 0.11 to 0.52 ng/m 3 (NYSDEC, 1981).
4.1.4 Biota
4.1.4.1 Fish
The PCB problem in the Hudson River was first detected in the late 1960’s during a
state—wide investigation of DDT contamination In fish (NYSDEC, 1983).
Subsequent studies have provided a relative wealth of data for PCB concentrations
in aquatic biota.
4—53
-------
TABLE 4-14
NEW YORK STATE - DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
PCB AIR SAMPLING
ng PCB/m 3
Glen Falls Warrensburg Hudson Falls Fort Edward I Fort Edward I!
Date 5601—4 5660-02 5726—01 5755—01 5755—02
1/1/77 R R R R <30
1/7/77 R LA 40 R R
1/13/77 R R <190 1020 <60
1/19/77 LA <30 LA 530 <20
1/25/77 R <40 R 1800 R
1/31/77 <20 <20 R 1800 <30
2/6/77 <20 <20 50 STB <20
2/12/77 <20 <20 80 500 20
2/18/77 <20 <20 130 360 40
2/24/77 R <20 <20 870 280
t 3/2/77 <50 <30 <20 <600 80
3/14/77 <20 <20 190 60(1) 560(1)
3/20/77 R <20 <20 <320 <70
3/26/77 <20 <20 <20 Th4 0 240
4/1/77 <20 <20 <20 100 130
4/7/77 <20 NR 100 1210 <20
4/13/77 <20 <20 120 1180 160
4/19/77 <20 <20 160 740 200
4/28/77 <20 <20 260 3060 <20
5/3/77 <20 <20 30 330 210
5/13/77 <20 <20 <20 850 120
5/19/77 <20 <20 <20 580 100
5/25/77 R <20 200 1140 130
5/31/77 <20 <20 100 970 <20
6/6/77 <20 <20 30 R 320
6/12/77 <20 <20 20 130 30
6/18/77 R R R 90 R
6/24/77 R <20 R R 30
6/30/77 <20 <20 110 3260 <20
7/6/77 <20 20 140(2) 150(2) 70
7/12/77 <20 <20 50 290 <20
7/18/77 <20 <20 50 350 <20
7/24/77 <20 <20 100 520 <20
7/30/77 <20 <20 30 590 <20
-------
TABLE 4-14
NEW YORK - PCI3 AIR SAMPUNG
PAGE TWO
Glen Falls Warrensburg Hudson Falls Fort Edward I Fort Edward II
Date 5601—4 5660—02 5726—01 5755—01 5755—02
8/5/77 R <20 120 H <20
8/11/77 R <20 R R R
8/17/77 <20 <20 R 480 <20
(ii
D l
560 1—04 = Continuous Air Monitoring Station, Glens Falls
5660—02 = DEC Region 5 Suboffice, Warrensburg
5726—01 = Main Street School. Hudson Falls
5755—01 Washington County Office Building, Fort Edward
5755-02 = Fort Hudson Nursing Home, Fort Edward
H Reject
LA. = Lab Accident
STB Sampling Train Broken
NH = Not Run
Less Than
> = Greater Than
(1) = Appear to have been switched but can’t be verified
(2) Results are inconsistent with each other: 5726—01 is usually
ten percent
of 5755—01.
Source: NYSDEC Division of Air Resources. 1977. General Electric
PCB Study — Fort Edward area (weekly laboratory reports).
As reprinted in: ‘Malcolm Pirnie, inc., January. 1978.
-------
TABLE 4-15
SUMMARY TABULATION OF AIR PCB DATA BY NYSDEC DIV. OF AIR RESOURCES
(Data taken at Temperature of 65—85°F)
Air PCB Sediment Ratio
Site Comment i nii _pfl / Air/sediment Reference
Caputo Dump Max. 300 10,000—50.000 Dr. Hawley
Caputo Ave. 130 10,000-50,000 0043 2/26/79 memo
and original
Air Resource
Data
Ft. Miller Dump Max. 35 5.000—15,000
Ave. 24 5,000—15,000 .0024
Remnant Area Max. 10 1,000—2.000
Ave. 9 1,000—2,000 .006
Moreau site with
excavated 3A
material Max. 15 600—1 .000
Ave. 5.6 600—1,000 .007
Buoy 212 SIte On sample
Summer 1979 85 F 0.7 50100 .0093 Summer 1979
Air Resources Data
Old Moreau Site
Summer 1979 Ave. 0.3 20—50 .0085 Summer 1979
Air Resources
Data
Source: DEIS. 1981
-------
An early paper (Hullar, et al., 1976) reported data gathered from 1972 to 1975
which showed that Hudson River fish contained the highest known PCB
concentrations within the United States. The report also indicated that PCB
contamination in fish decreased regularly with distance below Thompson Island.
A second report by Spagnoli and Skinner (1977) summarizes the results of a state-
wide survey which showed that edible fish flesh from the Hudson River frequently
contained wet—weight—basis PCB concentrations of 50 ppm or more and that
concentrations up to 599 ppm could be found In the larger oil—rich species. A
survey of Spagnoll and Skinners data revealed that between Fort Edward. New
York. and Waterford, New York. not a single member of the species studied
exhibited an average PCB concentration less than the FDA temporary limit of 5
ppm (wet weight basis), and although the average concentrations appeared to
decline with distance downstream, concentrations exceeding the limit could still be
found below the Federal Dam at Troy, New York. Migrant marine species, such as
American eel and striped bass, appeared to be especially susceptible to PCB
contamination in the Lower Hudson estuary.
The New York State Bureau of Fish and Wildlife inferred temporal trends of PCB
contamination in fish between 1976 and 1981 by collecting specimens from specific
locations during the same annual time frame (Armstrong and Sloan,-1981; Sloan and
Armstrong, 1981). In these studies it was discovered that lipid content rather than
size or age was the primary factor determining PCB contamination. This
relationship apparently confirmed that the aquatic biota was under the influence of
a homogeneous, unidirectional flux of PCB. In order to provide meaningful trends
for evaluation, analytical PCB levels based on wet tissue were converted to PCB
concentration per unit—weight of lipid in individual fish. The results of these
studies are discussed below.
Table 4—16 summarIzes the Armstrong and Sloan data for fresh—water resident
species collected from the river reach between Fort Edward and Catskill, New
York. Fresh—water species showed an overall annual decline in total PCB content
of 34.0 + 12.6% for the interval between 1977 and 1980. This decline was due
almost entirely to decreases in Aroclor 1016, which showed an average annual
4—57
-------
UPID-BASED AND WET-WEIGHT-BASIS PCB CONCENTRATIONS
IN FRESH WATER RESIDENT FISH SPECIES
Lipid—based PCB (ppm)
Total PCB AROCLOR AROCLOR Total
Location Species Year ( ppm, wet) 1016 1254 _____________
StUiwatar Drown Bullhead 1977 106.5+49.2 1908+799 388+253 2508+1.056
1979 8.97+12.26 734+359 589+567 1336+854
1980 12.34+6.56 694+190 750+290 1479+466
Goldfish 1977 559.4+506.8 3961+3065 589+467 5255+3700
1978 273.6+237.4 2684+1278 565+330 3571+1645
1980 72.62+55.42 537+326 660+424 1206+654
Largemouth Bess 1977 70.72+62.04 4470+1589 1114+333 6010+2020
1978 153.08+81.57 3135+1175 915+413 4318+1588
1980 10.44+13.83 840+347 868+379 1735+722
(1 Yellow Perch 1977 12.60+8.85 2555+1295 851+353 3725+1690
1980 0.84+0.60 450+171 507+272 957+420
Albany/Troy Brown Bullhead 1977 37.90+27.90 676+422 185+115 904+511
1978 25.16+10.46 359+117 101+38 515+146
1979 7.15+9.20 169+88 136+75 306+139
1980 2.09+1.66 96+63 88+64 206+135
White Perch 1977 118.4+73.2 1066+840 182+146 1365+976
1978 85.4+41.1 715+187 171+87 948+229
1980 16.04+9.87 122+72 182÷91 316+129
Catskill Largemouth Bass 1977 29.56+19.33 1732+959 671+500 2436+1170
1978 28.96+21.17 1034+649 539+450 1600+1056
1980 1.08+0.69 119+76 183+133 350+223
Redbreast Sunfish 1978 4.08+2.42 247+132 195+117 458+231
1980 2.63+5.51 98+70 223+170 380+287
Yellow Perch 1977 4.58+3.19 1080+741 367+334 1497+1081
1980 0.54+0.31 67+75 164+141 277+168
Source: Armstrong an Sloan, 1981
-------
decline of 147.3+ 10.0%, convertible to an approximate half—life value of 1.15
0.38 years.
De, ,clines in the more highly chlorinated homologs (Aroclor 1254) were less
extensive, approximately 6.8 17.5%. In some species——brown bullhead, goldfish.
and redbreast sunfish——a small but signIficant increase in Aroclor 1254 was noted.
The authors concluded that the heavier PCB homoiogs continued to contaminate
fish flesh at rates roughly equivalent to those present years ago.
The moderate decline in Arocior 1254 content was attributed to the higher stability
of the compound relative to the lower chlorinated Aroclors, although the authors
acknowledged that difficulties with anal ’ticai interpretation of Aroclor mixtures
and possible secondary point sources may have been affecting the trends.
In 1982 monitoring data showed that lipid—based PCB concentrations in fresh water
species had continued to drop. Mean PCB concentrations in brown bullhead,
goldfish, and largemouth bass had reached 428, 310, and 1000 ppm, respectively
(Brown and Werner, 1983), an overall decline of almost 90 percent since 1977.
The temporal and spatial trends of PCB in migrant marine species were not as
obvious because of their complex life histories. For instance, some species, such as
rainbow, smelt, blueback herring, alewife, and American Shad, enter the river only
to spawn and do not feed there. In such cases PCB contamination occurs
principally by diffusion so relationships between PCB content and lipid content, or
size, age, or sex, are -not as clear. In other species having both migrant and
resident pop ilations, such as striped bass, trends are difficult to follow.
Nevertheless, there have been notable decreases in total PCB content in all salt-
water species since 1977.
Sloan and Armstrong’s data for migrant marine species are summarized in
Table 4—17. The overall annual decline for total PCB was 28 percent between 1977
and 1980. Most of the decline in PCBs was due to reductions in Aroclor 1016 just
as it was for fresh—water fish (42 percent). The average annual decline in Aroclor
1254 was only 5 percent.
4-59
-------
TABlE 4-17
LIPID-BASED AND WET-WEIGHT-BASIS PCB CONCENTRATIONS
IN MARINE SPECIES
PCB (ppm) wet basis Total PCB
Location Species Year Total ARO1O16 AR01254 ( ppm)—ilpld basis
Below Newburgh Blue Claw Crab—Muscle 1976 <0.75 —— 204
Blue Claw Brab—Muscle 1979 <0.50 + 0.45 <0.10 + 0.002 0.34 +0.44 179 + 115
- — Hepatopancrease 6.70 + 5.49 0.71 + 0.56 5.91 ± 5.06 152 + 70
Atlantic Sturgeon
IndIan Pt. — immature 1980 2.80 + 2.02 0.65 + 0.66 2.06 + 1.55 280 1- 391
Catskill — adult 1981 4.96 <0.20 4.76 3 •5
Shortnose Sturgeon
IndIan Pt. — fIllet 1980 1.83 0.19 1.54 165
— liver 7.10 0.67 6.33 122
29.6 2.62 25.9 148
Mohawk B. Blueback HerrIng 1979 2.50 + 0.95 106 ÷ 0.47 1.34 + 0.60 75.1 + 39.4
(lock 7) 1978 3.91 1 78 1.67 49.9
Albanv/Trov 1980 1.81 0.72 0.95 32.3
Albanyulroy Alewife 1978 5.64 3.73 1.40 109
1979 3.98 + 1.28 1.77 + O 65 1.67 + 0.51 50.1 + 11.8
Catskill 1979 2.16 ± 0.99 0.66 + 0.57 1.35 ± 0.56 45.0 + 39.9
Saugertone 1979 2.41 ± 1.47 0.76 ± 0.58 1.40 + 0.71 44.0 ± 18.2
Kingston 1979 2.50± 1.04 0.69 ± 0.45 1.71 ± 0.84 31.7 + 12.8
1980 3.02 0.70 2.22 32.8
Newburgh 1979 2.60 + 1.12 0.61 + 0.44 1.84 + 0.73 33.8 + 13.6
-------
TABLE 4-17
PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN MARINE SPECIES
PAGE TWO
PCB (ppm) wet basis
Total ARO1O16
__________ Total PCB
AR O 1254 ( ppm)-lipid basis
Albany/TroV
American Shad
1980
1.72 ± 1.52
0.96 + 1.04
0.63 ± 0.44
26.6 ±
- male
— female
— female
— male
— female
1980 2.38 ± 1.02
0.92 + 0.35
1978
1980
2.23 + 1.16
2.98
1.22 ÷ 0.79
0.95 + 0.50
0.21 + 0.12
1.05 ± 0.47
0.52 + 0.21
0.61 4 0.47
1.32
0.54 + 0.17
20.3 + 103
10.4 ± 5.8
15.4 + 9.6
27.5
10.5 + 6.7
Location
Species
Year
0 )
-a
Catskill
Poughkeepsle
Peekskil l
Tappan Zee
Bridge
—
male
1977
7.04 ± 2.88
-
female
5.51 + 2.23
-
male
4/20/78
3.98 + 1.90
-
female
1.66 + 0.86
-
male
5/5/78
4.21 ± 1.79
—
female
1.63 + 0.77
—
female
5/16/78
3.25 + 2.46
—
male
5/9/00
2.46 + 1.21
—
female
1.20 + 0.41
2.89
0.90
2.03
1.06
2.15
1.02
0.36
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
1.54
0.59
1.50
0.55
1.92
0.79
0.28
0.85
0.53
0.90
0.36
0.79
1.16
0.64
+
+
+
+
+
+
4
0.46
0.30
0 50
0.23
0.48
0.61
0.23
24.2 + 10.6
12.4 + 5.7
20.7 + 9.2
8.6 ÷ 40
17.3 ! 7.1
19.4 + 15.1
12.0 + 7.2
1.19 ± 0.74
1.36
0.22 + 0.18
— male
— male
— female
— male
— female
— male
— female
— male
— female
1977
4/13/78
5/12/78
1979
1980
3.55
3.28
2.73
3.18
1.46
1.54
1.17
1.93
1.22
± 1.11
+ 2.13
± 5.44
± 1.83
+ 0.48
+ 0.68
± 0.44
1.09
+ 0.67
2.14
1.23
1.89
049
0.71
0.37
0.75
0.33
+ 1.73
± 2.71
+ 1.51
0.37
± 0.33
± 0.11
+ 0.51
+ 0.29
0.67
1.14 ±
0.88 ±
0.60 ±
0.84 ±
0.80 ±
0.83
0.63 ±
0.37
2.62
0.43
0.12
0.40
0.35
0.47
0.33
10.1 ± 12.1
19.2 ± 28.8
17.9 ± 8.6
10.4 ÷ 3.4
8.7 + 4.1
7.0 ÷ 2.1
16.3 11.1
10.1 + 4.9
-------
TABLE 4—17
PCu CONCENTRATIONS IN MARINE SPECIES
PAGE THREE
Poughkeepsie
Indian Point
Haverstraw Ray
Riverwide
Year
1981
1981
1978
1980
1981
1980
1980
1980
1980
1979
1979
1980
1980
1979
1980
1977
1980
1978
1980
1981
1979
Totat
13.1 ÷ 11.81
10.70 0- 9.68
73.9 :!: 66.7
9.07 + 8.61
10.83 ± 6.22
8.15 + 4.30
5.89 + 2.50
6.76 -I- 12.89
7.13 ± 8.73
4.07 ± 2.34
4.51 ± 2.78
4.33
2.36 + 0.31
0.46 ± 0.35
0.66 + 0.21
0.96 + 0.74
10.37 ± 0.08
18.10 + 28.22
6.13 ! 7.43
4.81 + 5.98
3.15 ± 1.74
PCB (ppm) wet basis
ARO1O16
0.93 + 0.56
0.73 4. 0.66
39.9 + 41.6
0.46 + 0.29
0.49 ± 0.33
0.53 ± 0.23
0.38 + 0.19
0.22 + 0.14
0.44 + 0.32
1.31 ± 0.75
1.32 4- 0.79
1.22
0.65 ± 0.27
0.22 + 0.24
0.25 + 009
0.65 + 0.55
10.14 1- 0.05
9.64 ± 18.32
1.68 + 2.95
1.02 + 2.20
0.62 + 0.31
ARO 1254
12.24 4- 11.46
9.85 + 9.08
33.2 + 28.6
8.51 ± 8.25
10.23 ± 5.97
7.52 ± 4.10
5.41 ± 2.33
6.44 -0- 12.79
6.57 ± 8.52
2.64 ± 1.59
3.10 :!: 1.93
3.01
1.61 ± 0.12
0.14 + 0.11
0.31 ± 0.13
0.21 + 0.20
10.13 + 0.05
7.70 10.34
4.28 + 4.83
3.50 ± 3.94
2.43 ± 1.48
Total PCB
( ppm)-Ilpid basis
129 + 134
184 + 333
612 ± 418
190 + 64
109 4- 79
71.0 ± 13.8
66.0 ± 23.9
98.4 ± 87.8
78.2 ± 55.2
184 .1 70.6
213 ± 89.3
185
121 + 17.7
246 87.7
119 + 34.3
166 ± 81.4
86.8 ± 40.1
270.24 + 417.95
168.38 + 144.13
152.00 186.29
227 ± 84.0
Species
Location
Poughkeepsie American eel
Peekski li
Indian Point
- Nyack
Pier 40 (NYC)
Verrazano Bridge
i’, Queensboro Bridge
Kingston Rainbow Smelt
Newburgh
Atlantic tomcod
Striped Bass
Bluefish
Peekskiii
Source: Sloan and Armstrong 1981
-------
The authors cautioned that the new decreases could be artificial since the study
was carried out during a period of exceptionally stable river flows and, therefore,
the data did not reflect possible responses to increased PCBs in the water column
occurring during extreme flood conditions. They also pointed out that PCB
concentrations in fish should not continue to substantially decline under present
conditions because of the depletion of Aroclor 1016. In conclusion, the authors
state that even with the declining trend, most fresh—water species contained PCB
contamination exceeding the FDA—recommended limit and that current
contamination (Table 4—18) in marine species is well above background levels.
Brown and Werner (1983) caution that due to the distribution of various—sized fish
in annual samples and the positive correlations between fish length or weight and
PCB concentrations. PCB contamination on a wet—weight basis Is skewed to the low
end of the distribution. Therefore the arithmetic means shown in the tables (for
wet—weight concentrations only) are considerably higher than either the median
value or the log o mean PCB concentration.
Brown and Werner also argue that because large flood events In the tipper Hudson
River are infrequent, It is the low—flow water column PCB concentrations which
control fish contamination. Because of this, large floods will Increase PCB
concentrations in fish flesh only If scour exposes more highly contaminated
sediments at the sediment—water—interface. They further point out that PCB—laden
suspended sediment is likely to control fish contamination in the Lower Hudson
because of the long residence time of flood peaks in the estuary.
4.1.4.2 Invertebrates
In 1981, the NYSDEC Division of Water Research studied PCB in the fresh water
clam Elliptio complanatus in connection with DOT dredging in contaminated
sediments (NYSDEC, 1981b). Clean sets of clams were exposed both upstream and
downstream of the dredge site and a third set of clams was maintained upstream of
Glen Falls as a control.
4—63
-------
TABLE 4-18
CURRENT APPROXIMATE AVERAGE TOTAL PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN
HUDSON RIVER MIGRANT/MARINE FISH (WET BASIS) ENCOUNTERED
BELOW TROY
Year Approximate Average
__________________________ Analyzed _ CB (ppm) Value
Blue Claw Crab—Muscle 1979 <1
hepatopancreas >5
Atlantic Sturgeon—immature 1980 2—5
— adult 1981 p5(a)
Shortnose Sturgeon 1980 < 2 (b)
Blueback Herring 1980 2—5
Alewife 1980 2—5
American Shad 1980 1—3
American Eel 1981 Ji0
Rainbow Smelt 1980 3—5
Atlantic Tomcad 1980 <1
Striped Bass 1981
Bluefish—Immature 1979 t3
(a) Only one analyzed.
(b) Endangered species; possession is prohibited.
Less than
Greater than
— Approximately
Source: Sloan and Armstrong, 1981
4-64
-------
After a two—week exposure, the dredge site clams had accumulated an average
lipid—based PCB concentration of 75.5 ppm compared to 6.0 ppm in the control
sample. After a 2—week depurification period the PCB concentration in the
contaminated clams decreased to an average of 12.4 ppm, and the corresponding
value in the control sample dropped to less than 0.02 ppm. There did not appear to
be a significant difference in the PCB concentrations between contaminated clams
above or below the dredge site.
Results of a Department of Health freshwater macroinvertebrate study appear in a
NYSDEC Report (NYSDEC. 1982). This study Included PCB analyses of a number
of aquatic Insects in the Upper Hudson, the Lower Hudson. and above Glens Falls.
The results for caddis fly larva, the most frequently sampled. species, are reported
below.
In the control area (above Glens Falls), PCB concentration on a dry—weight basis
averaged less than 5.3 ppm between 1979 and 1981. The average PCB content of
the insect in the Upper Hudson reach dropped from a high of 50.14 ppm in 1979 to
27.59 ppm inl9BO. In 1981 the PCB content of the species In the reach rose slightly
to 28.57 ppm. PCB contamination of the caddis fly was less in the Lower Hudson
reach, dropping from 21.66 ppm to 11.60 ppm between 1980 and 1981. This
decreasing trend is consistent with that observed in fish over the same period.
A number of PCB analyses for blue claw crabs, the only marine invertebrate to be
studied, appear for 1979 samples in NYSDEC Technical Report No. 81—1 (1981).
Results show PCB concentrations both for muscle tissue and for the
hepatopancreas, which Is consumed by many local people as a delicacy (Sloan and
Armstrong, 1981). PCB contamination in muscle tissue is relatively low, ranging
from less than 0.34 to less than 0.40 ppm on a lipid—based measure for various
areas. Contamination of the hepatopancreas, however, is more serious, with PCB
concentrations ranging from an average of 9.64 ppm at Foundry Cove to a low of
4.62 ppm at Havestraw Bay. Concentrations as high as 20.21 ppm were found in
hepatopancreas tissues. These values, however, represented a substantial reduction
in PCB since 1976 (Armstrong and Sloan, 1980, 1981).
4—65
-------
4.1.4.3 VegetatIon
In 1977, Weston, Inc., documented the presence of PCB contamination in plants
around PCB dumps and dredge spoil sites of the Upper Hudson River. PCB levels of
up to ‘2800 ppm were found in the leaves of plant species growing on PCB dumps,
while undetectable concentrations were generally found in plants from other areas
(NYSDEC, 1981).
Boyce Thompson Institute later determined that measurable PCB accumulations In
foliage extended as far as 700 to 1000 meters from highly contaminated local
sources. The following table presents measured PCB content of leaves of
trembling aspen, as determined along an easterly transect from the Fort Miller
dump site, and the considerably lower levels of PCB content found in aspen leaves
east of Buoy 212 dredge spoil site and east of a riffle area in the Hudson River near
Lock 6. it must be noted, however, that PCB uptake varies markedly among
different plant species (NYSDEC. 1981).
PCB content in trembling aspen leaves ( Populus tremuloides Mlchx..) along easterly
transects from three local sources of volatile PCBs, the Fort Miller dump site, the
Buoy 212 dredge spoil site, and a Hudson River riffle area near Lock 6, Fort Miller,
New York, is as follows:
Dump Site Dredge Site Riffle Area
Distance Content DIstance Content Distance Content
( ml ( ppm) ( ml ( ppm) ( m) ( ppm )
on sIte 180 on site 2.52 on site N.A.
41 - 6.58 30 0.89 10 1.26
55 4.18 50 0.44 40 0.45
92 1.96 110 0.26 450 0.11
148 0.90 400 0.19 1500 0.12
250 0.54 700 0.18
370 0.26 1300 0.17
530 0.25 2300 0.10
820 0.15
960 0.13
1600 0.12
4—66
-------
4.2 Adequacy of Existing Data Base
The data base on PCB contamination of sediments, water, air, and biota of the
Hudson River area is quite extensive. In addition, substantial research into
sediment PCB transport and PCB contaminant trends has been performed; yet after
5 years of study and the expenditure of more than $7 million dollars, there are still
important questions and deficiencies which must be addressed.
4.2.1 Remnant Deposits
The extent of the contamination in the remnant deposits Is known only through
approximately two dozen core samples. PCB mass estimates for these areas vary
from 45,000 to 150,000 pounds. Most of the sampling at these areas was done in
1978. No recent data documenting the amount or distribution of PCB in these
deposits is available.
Current information on river hydrology as it relates to remnant deposit scour
appears to indicate that most remnant deposits are adequately protected from
flows up to the 100—year flood stage. A comparison between aerial photographs
between 1978 and 1983 reveals that massive erosion at remnant site 1 may have
occurred. However, this site is an isolated Island with a low PCB content and it
may not be contributing much PCB to the river. Sampling should be done to
confirm this conclusion.
4.2.2 Sediment
The present understanding of PCB distributions 1n submerged sediment comes from
a single comprehensive analytical survey completed In 1977 and 1978. This survey
consisted of approximately 700 PCB analyses from 1200 core and grab samples
taken along cross—river transects which were spaced a minimum of 700 feet apart
in the Thompson Island pool and farther apart south of the Thompson Island Dam.
4—67
-------
This data base has several serious problems. One problem concerns the variability
of PCB contamination on the river bottom and the accuracy of hot spot
delineation. Measured PCB concentrations varied widely within short distances.
exhibiting almost no regionalized trends. Very high PCB concentrations were found
adjacent to and In the same hot spot with concentrations less than 50 ppm. This
may Indicate that hot spots are actually very localized phenomena consisting of
contaminated sediments which have settled in small depressions and pockets in the
river bottom. In some cases, hot spot delineations have been based on one or two
high concentration samples, and intuitive assumptions on sediment deposits based
on particle size distribution and river hydrology. There is a distinct possibility that
delineated hot spots Contain extensive areas of sediments containing less than 50
ppm of PCB. if this is the case, then PCB mass estimates based on hot spot area
and average concentrations may be extremely misleading.
At this time, there is no cost—effective statistical method appropriate for
estimating the degree of error involved with mapping PCB hot spots.
A more serious Implication of this problem is that many small, localized hot spots
may have been missed by the survey. In looking at the original survey data, about a
dozen PCB concentration values which could have been Included in hot spots were
‘not. The sampling density for the 5—mile stretch of the river above the Thompson
Island Dam Is low and it decreases as the distance downstream from the Ft. Edward
Dam Increases. A 1983 aerial survey revealed many shallow areas which could
contain hot spots that had not been heavily sampled. The possibility Is great that
a substantial amount of high concentration sediments was missed while high
volumes of low concentration sediments. were included in hot spots.
Another problem with the survey concerns the dynamic nature of the river system
and the age of the survey. A certain amount of sediment reworking is expected
over the 5 years since the survey was completed, especially with the occurrence of
an 80—year return period flood in May of 1983. Suspended sediment transport
estimates calculated from U.S.G.S. measurements have shown that, up to 1982, the
amount of PCB removed from the Upper Hudson River by suspended sediment
4-68
-------
transport over the Troy Dam has been relatively small. The amount of sediment
reworking by bed—load movement in individual pools is completely unknown. Many
of the more extensive contaminated deposits, especially those In the Thompson
Island pool, appear to be located in unprotected high velocity areas where even
during an average annual flood, flow velocities may be sufficient to cause scour.
A third problem concerns the quality of PCB analysis performed on the sediments.
Even today, PCB quantification is a difficult process subject to a high degree of
error. Some of the methods used by the original contractors may have been faulty
since information in some NYSDEC publications shows that ratios of the results of
some duplicate samples were at least 1 to 3. This is a source of variation which
adds to the uncertainty about the amount and concentration .of PCBs in delineated
hot spots.
Many of these problems were recognized by State officials, which is why they had
proposed an extensive sampling survey prior to the implementation of a dredging
program. However, It must be pointed out that PCB mass estimates, cleanup
operations, and most other conclusions are based on hot—spot delineations and
sediment PCB data, with a significant amount of uncertainty associated with it in
1977. This data Is even more uncertain in 1983.
A limited sampling program was conducted in August of 1983 in the upper hot spots
to try to determine whether movement of the contaminated sediments had
occurred. The results and analysis of this survey can be found In Appendix E. The
results showed movement in some but not all of the hot spots. They also appeared
to show a decrease in the concentrations of PCBs in those hot spots sampled.
4.2.3 . Water
The water—column data generated by the USGS has some minor problems which
have already been mentioned. It is generally sufficient for environmental
monitoring. There are, however, two important aspects of PCB water—column
concentrations which have not been addressed.
4-69
-------
The first Is the amount of water—column PCB originating from hot spots and cold
areas. Since highly contaminated hot spots cover only 8 percent of the river
bottom, it is not known whether water column and air PCB concentrations, as well
as fish contamination, will lessen significantly if hot spots are removed. The
relative contribution of areas of relatively small extent with high concentrations
compared to the contributions of extensive areas of moderate contamination
(average 20 g/g) needs to be assessed.
The second area that has not been addressed is the concentration of PCBs In water
supplies. This type of data has not been provided in NYSDEC publications.
4.2.4 Air
As with PCB concentrations in water, the PCB concentration In air has not been
extensively studied at receptor sites.
4.2.5 Biota
The data base for PCB contamination of Hudson River blota Is sufficient for
Indicating trends. Some authors have questioned the validity of reporting wet—
weight PCB concentrations as an arithmetic mean since wet—weight concentrations
are skewed to the low end of the scale. Median values for most fish species are
substantially lower than reported arithmetic averages, which means that the
probability of obtaining a highly contaminated fish is much less than the arithmetic
mean would indicate. However, as long as highly contaminated individual fish do
exist, the public health concerns cannot be ignored
4.3 Evaluation of PCB Transport Model
Mathematical models of the fate of PCBs In a natural water system can potentially
cover a wide spectrum of empiricism versus theory, and simplicity versus
complexity. The principal reason for such a diversity of models is that the
dynamics of PCBs are governed by many disciplines in which a complete
4—70
-------
understanding of basic processes and their rates is still lacking. Hydrodynamics,
chemistry, and biology represent the major sciences involved. At one extreme are
attempts to incorporate available kinetic descriptions of simple systems from each
discipline into one uultimate predictive model. T.he drawback of this approach Is
that when models from various disciplines are interfaced, a compounding of the
uncertainties of each submodel may lead to overall results in which one can have
little confidence. The other extreme is the empirical approach, which could
involve either a rigorous analysis of available data or a comparison of parameter
values for the case under study with similar parameters for water bodies previously
studied. In the empirical approach, no a priori consideration is given to the basic
physical, chemical, and biological processes governing the observed responses,
although the processes are often cited to explain observed trends.
Almost all modeling studies lie between these two extremes, with the relative
position commonly dictated by the available data base, budgetary constraints, and
the imposed schedule of performance. The Hudson River model under review
appears to be no exception, and thus to judge its adequacy one must carefully
consider whether the selected modeling framework is consistent with the available
data, modeiing objectives, and ultimate use of the results. In order to best track
the reports on which this review Is based (Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly (LMS), 1978—
1979), the hydraulic, sediment transport, and PCB inventory submodels will be
addressed separately in the following sections. Model selection (and/or
development), calibration, and validation will provide the primary points of
discussion.
4.3.1 Hydraulic Submodel
The hydraulic submodei, which was provided via the generalized computer program
HEC—6 (aScour and Deposition in Rivers and Reservoirs), has its basis in the
computational algorithms of the computer program HEC—2 (“Water Surface
Profiles”). Where applicable, these programs are widely accepted for engineering
studies and have been thoroughly tested and validated in various applications over
the years.
4—71
-------
Two principal technical concerns related to the direct application of the HEC
hydraulic model to the Hudson River study have been identified. These include the
one—dimensionality of the model, and the artificial control imposed by the locks
and dams on the hydraulics of the river system. The one—dimensional limitation of
the model is important In that it prohibits both a differentiation between the
computed average streamfiow velocity and the local bottom velocity that is
critical to the sediment—water interchange, and a resolution of lateral velocity
variations that would be of value in explaining observed depositlonal patterns and
assessing proposed remediation of hot spot areas. The lack of vertical resolution
is directly related to the locks and dams issue, as the primary concern is whether
the hydrodvnamic effects of the resultant backwater pools would negate the use of
a one—dimensional model when the local bottom velocity is of ultimate importance
to sediment transport.
in the case of the Hudson River above the Federal Dam at Troy, the latter concern
is minimized because the length of each reach (at least two miles) is large relative
to the dam height (generally less than 10 feet). The significant hydrodynamic
effects in the vertical direction are thus limited to river zones immediately
upstream and downstream of the structures, with a large portion of each reach
exhibiting velocity distributions similar to those of a free—flowing river. The
Increased depth of flow created by the backwater from the dam does result in an
increased cross—sectional area of flow, however, and thus a lesser velocity than
would occur under natural flow conditions. This decrease in velocity represents the
primary effect of the dams on the sediment transport process and is adequately
treated in the HEC hydraulic algorithms (McArthur, 1983).
The one—dlmensionallty of the model generally remains a technical drawback
relative to a comprehensive assessment of alternatIve courses of action. Two— or
three—dimensional hydrodynamic models are available within the state of current
practice that could potentially generate a refined understanding of velocity
profiles. However, the effective use of such models requires an extensive
hydrologic and hydrographic data base that is not currently availabie for the
Hudson River. in addition, a hydrodynamic modeling effort at this level of
refinement would be inconsistent with the current state of modeling of the
4—72
-------
sedimentation and erosion behavior of organic and cohesive materials; that is, an
interfaced modeling effort is only as reliable as its weakest component, and to go
beyond the one—dimensional hydrodynamic model would not be technically or
financially effective when less understood sediment transport and PCB interaction
processes also play principal roles in PCB transport.
Given this affirmative judgment as to the suitability of the HEC hydraulic model
for the case under study, the remaining issue is model calibration. The only
comparative data available in the Hudson River study report (LMS, 1978) is for the
reach between Lock 7 and Thompson Island Dam. For each of the three flows
tested, the water surface elevation from the model exceeded the mean observed
elevation (see Figure 4—8). The primary source of these differences appears to be
the rating curve (i.e., the initial condition) at the dam, since in each case the water
surface elevation within the drawdown curve at the dam already exceeds the
observed elevation at the upstream end of the reach. In order to assess the
potential error of this level of calibration, the mean flow rate was plotted against
the elevation of the observed water surface with respect to the dam crest
elevation (see Figure 4—9). A relatively linear relationship Is observed on the log—
log plot, as would be expected under weir flow conditions: (Note that this analysis
is approximate since the observed elevations are at the upstream end of the reach.
but nevertheless the linear relationship appears to be satisfied.) The respective
flow rates corresponding to the water surface elevations from the model are also
noted on Figure 4—9, and are observed to be consistently about 30 percent higher
than measured values. Even though no documentation of the calibration was
available for this review, improvement In hydraulic model performance could likely
have been achieved. The eventual result of this discrepancy is that the cross—
sectional area of flow for a given discharge is overestimated to a comparable
degree, and in turn the resultant average velocities that drive the sediment
transport model are underestimated. This observation could be Important with
respect to a recommended remedial measure to modify the channel geometry in
order to reduce the scour velocity. It is doubtful whether any channelization that
would reduce stream velocity in excess of the perceived modeling discrepancy
could be implemented, at least cost—effectively.
4-73
-------
130
MEAN
MEAN HEC 6 OBSERVED
JRVEYOR .0w ( CFS) COMPUTED EVA11ON
NY DEC SEP. 22, 1976 4720 o
NORMANOEAU NOV. 18-22,1976 7440 A
NORMANDEAU APR. 30,1977 21,000 0
128 MAY , 1977
26
- . . . — ‘--.- -
124 —
U i
U i
0
122 —
U)
Ui
a —
a — C — — —
120
0
118
ThOMPSON IS. -
DAM CREST
REF: LMS (1978)
116 I I I —
194 193 192 191 190 189 188
RIVER MILE INDEX
FIGURE 4 -8
HEC-6 HYDRAULIC CALIBRATION
LOCK 7 TO THOMPSON IS. DAM REACH
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, N _____
474 A Hailiburton Company
-------
44 29,000 CFS vs
- 21,000CFS
4.3 —
4.2
(-LINEAR RELATIONSHIP
-d BASEDONOBSERVED
WATER SURFACE
4.1 ELEVATIONS.
Ct)
0
z
4.0
0
-J
z
LiJ39
o
-J
3.8 —
LEGEND
— 6,100 CFS vs a OBSERVED ELEVATION
. MODEL ELEVATION
3.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
LOG (W.S. ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE THE DAM CREST)
FIGURE 4-9
APPROXIMATE RATING CURVE TO ILLUSTRATE
DEFiCIENCIES IN HYDRAULIC SUBMODEL CALIBRATiON :I’ _ILJB
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY ____ OORPCRA1ION
4-75 0 A Halliburton Company
10,000 CFS vs
7,440 CFS
-------
4.3.2 Sediment Transport Submodel
The HEC-6 sediment transport model is Intended primarily for studies involving
coarse or noncohesive sediments. Therefore, to realistically apply the model to a
situation such as the Hudson River, in which organic and fine—grained cohesive
materials play an important role, becomes problematical. This limitation was
addressed by the model—study authors but was not considered by them to be a fatal
flaw In model usage since high flow conditions corresponding to the transport of
noncohesive sands were found to dominate total PCB transport. If the latter
finding was Indeed the case, then the use of the model could be justified, given the
lack of basic knowledge of the physical—chemical processes of organic and cohesive
sediment transport, and the paucity of site—specific data. However, as will be
discussed in subsequent paragraphs, there is evidence from the baseline data that
suggests otherwise.
In order to assess the sediment transport model, only those river sites for which
data were available will be considered. Intermediate reaches for which only model
results of sediment behavior are provided will be ignored since there is no field
data to test the reliability of the respective results. Calibration plots of sediment
load versus flow for the four points of Interest are reproduced as Figures 4—lOa
through 4—lOd. At Glens Falls, a regression relationship is simply imposed onto the
data to establish an initial condition for Lock 7, and as such, is Inherently an
excellent fit to the data (Figure 4—lOa).
The next point Is at Lock 4 (Stlllwater) and represents the model performance
through the first four reaches (Figure 4—lOa). The model is observed to
consistently underestimate measured sediment concentrations by an approximate
factor of two at high flows and by at least an order of magnitude at low flows.
This initial test of the model is extremely poor and led to a decision by the
modelers to suppress the use of the model output from Lock 4 as input to the next
reach. Rather, the actual field data was substituted for use as a starting condition
for the remaining reaches. The primary reason given by the authors for this poor
model performance was the lack of data differentiating the fractions of silts and
clays that would affect low—flow predictions. However, two points are noteworthy.
4-76
-------
LEGEND /
- USGS SUSPENDED SEDIMENT DATA(MAR—SEP 177) /
- — — —— SUSPENDED SEDIMENT LOAD REGRESSED /
TOTAL SEDIMENT LOAD IN HEC-6
•. /
UPSTREAM BOUNDARY
/
.
/
/
o S
I — : S.
S
• S
/1
o
-J .1
S • •
I— •S /.••
z
w
6
LiJ
C t) S
I.
SI’ .
I.
S
- / • REF: LMS (1978).
• /
- I I I I liii I I
I 111111 Il,. I J J
FLOW (CFS)
FiGURE 4-104
SUSPENDED AND TOTAL SEDIMENT LOAD VS FLOW - ____
HUDSON RIVER, GLENS FALLS, NY
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY ____ cC CRA11CN
Q A Haikburton Company
4-77
-------
.
1,000 10,000
FLOW (CFS)
TOTAL SEDIMENT LOAD VS FLOW
MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD DEC ‘76-MAY ‘77
USGS DATA (STILLWATER)-RMI 68.5
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
FIGURE 4-lOB
— NUE
_CO AflON
0 A Haihburton Company
LEGEND
—0—’ “NO DEPOSITION, NO SCOUR” MODEL RESULTS
HEC 6 MODEL RESULTS REGRESSED
USGS DATA MAR SEP’77
e/0 OF TIME FLOW NOT EXCEEDED
I
.
100 ,000
101000
1 ,000
100
I0
.
• S
S •5
S
• I
S
• S
p
3
.1 • •
S
S
I
I.
1•
I
I
I
S
S
S
REF LMS ( 1978)
100
0
0 ”
a’ s
I00,000
4—78
-------
I 0OpOO
— LEGEND
10,000 —
1,000
100
I0
100
“NO DEPOSITION ,NO SCOUR” MODEL RESULTS
HEC6 MODEL RESULTS - REGRESSED
USGS DATA OCT ‘76 - SEP ‘77
% OF TIME FLOW NOT EXCEEDED
I
I.
• ••
I • I.
• •
S
.
S
•: :
I I I I I iii’I
1,000
o o 0
— 0 ’
I 11 I I ’iIIi1 I ’
10,000
FLOW (CFS)
TOTAL SEDIMENT L D VS FLOW
MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD
USGS DATA (WATERFORD) - RM I
FIGURE 4- IOC
±NUB
I - CC CRA11CN
0 A Halliburton Company
S
S
S
I.
• I
S
•.
•
S
S •
S
• I. •
S • ••••
• S
I
•,
I ,
S
I
S
S
S
• •
••
S
I
I
I
.1
REF: LMS (1978)
100,000
11
DEC’76-MAY ‘77
HUDSON RIVER PC SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
157.2
4—79
-------
LEGEND
—Q--- “NO DEPOSITION 1 NO SCOUR” MODEL RESULTS
HEC6 MODEL RESULTS - REGRESSED
USGS DATA 1970 ‘-1976
04 OF TiME FLOW NOT EXCEEDED
REF: LMS (1978)
0
I C ,
0
.
S
I I I I titti I I
I I I’ I t’ ! I i
I I ill
100 1,000 10,000 100,000.
FLOW (CFS)
TOTAL SEDIMENT LOAD VS FLOW
MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD DEC ‘76- MAY ‘ 78
USGS DATA (GREEN ISLAND)—RMI 153.9
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
FIGURE 4-100
H NUB
______ CC R. AT)ON
0 A Halliburton Company
I
100,000
I0,000
1,000
I00
I0
S
.
I.
I
.,
. I
S
I
.
I
V
I.
S
I
I
4—80
-------
First, the model at each intermediate reach predicted a net deposition of sediment
for all flows less than the 1 percent exceedance value. This is inconsistent with
field data that indicate a net increase in sediment concentration for essentially all
flows, as discussed below. Second, even though the modelers recognized that the
silt component reported as a single value in the data base ranged in size from
0.004 mm to 0.062 mm, they assigned all silt to the coarsest model category (0.032
mm to 0.062 mm). This contributed to the low—flow problems, and it Is
questionable why this “unknown” distribution of grain size was not used as a model—
fitting parameter.
An alternative test of model performance Is to compare the suspended sedIment
data at Lock 4 with the results of a simple model that assumes that neither
deposition nor scour is occurring between Lock 7 and Lock 4. Under this
assumption, the concentration of suspended sediment at Locks 7 and 4 would
remain constant for a given frequency of flow, and the total suspended sediment
load would be proportional to the flow rate (under the assumption that all inflow
between the two points, as approximated by drainage area scaling, enters with the
same concentration as occurred at Lock 7). The results of this simple “no
deposition, no scour” model are also shown in Figure 4—lOb. The results
satisfactorily follow the trend of the data, but even in this case the observed
sediment load is underestimated. This indicates that either significant scour Is
occurring or else tributary inflows are relatively high in suspended sediment due,
for example, to local variations in erosion factors such as soil type or vegetative
cover. This raises serious doubts about the HEC—6 model that predicts sediment
deposition throughout the reaches between Lock 7 and Lock 4.
The HEC—6 model appears to perform more reliably between Lock 4 and Lock 1
(Waterford), but even in This case the model develops problems below the 50
percent flow value (Figure 4—lOc). A better fit is achieved by an extension of the
simple “no deposition, no scour” model from Lock 4 to Lock 1. The results shown in
Figure 4—lOc for the simple model are based on the curve at Locl 4 that
underestimated sediment loads at that point, and as such even a better fit could be
achieved at Lock 1 If the actual field data from Lock 4 was used, as was done in
the H C—6 model. The reason that the HEC—6 model performs well at the higher
4—81
-------
flows Is that the shallower reaches between Lock 4 and Lock 1 produced higher
velocities that inhibited deposition for flows greater than 10,000 cfs.
Both the HEC—6 and “no deposition, no scour” models are shown to perform well
between Lock 1 and Green Island (Figure 4—lOd). The primary reason for this result
Is that the Mohawk River contributes a large percentage of the sediment load, and
actual field data rather than model predictions were utilized to account for this
contribution. For example, the sediment load at the 99 percent flow value
Increased fivefold, from 2,000 pounds/day at Lock 1 to almost 10,000 pounds/day at
Troy Dam, due primarily to the sediment input from the Mohawk River.
Consequently, the final model results at Green island are relatively Insensitive to
upstream model results and do not provide a good test of HEC—6 model reliability.
in general, the HEC—6 sediment transport submodel, as utilized In the Hudson River
study, appears to have overstated the importance of the deposition and scour
processes to net sediment transport. A model based solely on an assumption of Tho
deposition and no scour” is shown to perform more reliably. To further Illustrate
this point, sediment data reported in the earlier modeling study (LMS, 1978) have
been corrected for increasing downstream flow (under the assumption of constant
sediment concentration in all inflows) and are plotted on Figure 4—11. Also
included Is the “best fit” line for 1978—1979 data from Rogers Island, as reported in
the 1979 LMS reference. (Note that 1978—1979 data for other sites were not
provided in LMS, 1979, but a statement was made that the more recent data
conformed to the earlier data plotted on Figure 4—11.) it is observed that the
measured sediment load Is conserved between Glens Fails and Rogers island,
approximately doubles prior to reaching Lock 4 (possibly as a result of unstable
sediment deposits in the Thompson Island pool), and then agaIn is conserved
between Lock 4 and Lock 1. Becau e the overall sediment budgets predicted by the
HEC—6 model were not consistent with even this observed regional pattern, concern
must be expressed as to the reliability of model predictions related to very
localized deposition and scour patterns within the reaches. For example, to place
4—82
-------
0
0
0
0
0
00
Io0po0
LEGEND
— £ —••— GLENS FALL.S0977)
O — — S11LLWATER (1977)
o WATERFORD( 1976-1977)
— ROGERS ISLAND (LMS;1979)
I0pO0
I,000
100
Jo. — ________________
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
£
O
000
A
‘I
00
0
0
£
0
0
£
0
£
0
0
0
£
£0
0 Oô
I I I 1 I itil
1000
0
a
I 1111111
REF LMS (1978)
I I I I iiii
PLOW (CFS)
10,000
COMPARISON OF
RELATIONSHIPS AT
100,900
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON
SEDIMENT LOAD VS FLOW
VARIOLS MONITORING STATiONS
RIVER. NY
FiGURE 4 -Il
NUB
_ RATCN
0 A Hailiburton Comparry’
4-83
-------
significance on model results that indicate net deposits of tenths of a foot within
the Thompson Island pool is meaningless when field data indicate both a general
increase In resuspended sediment load in the water column and spatial variations of
several feet in bed elevations within the pool.
A more serious concern of poor model performance Is that the predicted sediment
loads represent a principal forcing function for the PCB inventory model and
consequent recommendations for future actions, which are addressed in the next
section.
It is noteworthy that an update of the Hudson River PCB model was provided in
1979 (L.MS, 1979). However, most of the reported recalibration appears to have
involved the PCB submodel, and no update or revisions to the sediment transport
submodel were documented.
4.3.3 PCB Inventory Submodel
The PCB inventory submodel represents a simple mass balance approach that, in
theory, is appropriate to the Hudson River problem under study. However, because
adequate data are not available to empirically define the principal forcing
functions under all current and future scenarios, the ultimate performance of the
PCB submodel is highly dependent on both the reliability of output from an
independent mathematical model of the governing physical process (i.e., the
sediment transport submodel) and a proper interpretation of available PCB data.
The performance of the sediment transport submodel has already been discussed in
the previous se tIon. In the following paragraphs, the data used as input to the
PCB submodel will be assessed. These include the PCB concentration in the
suspended material that forms the bed of each reach, and the initial PCB versus
flow rate relationship that provides an upstream boundary condition. A general
discussion of the overall impacts on the conclusions and recommendations of the
modeling study will then be presented.
4-84
-------
An assessment of the input data on PCBs in bed sediments is made difficult by the
widespread variation of PCB concentration in the lateral, longitudinal, and even
vertical directions. However, results of the PCB submodel presented in LMS, 1978
and 1979, indicate that any errors introduced into the model by a lack of data on
bed sediments would not significantly alter the overall modeling study results. For
example, the predicted PCB load versus flow rate relationship at each station
closely parallels the results of the sediment transport model. This indicates that it
is the physical transport of PCB—laden sediments that dominates model results
rather than local variations in the concentration of PCBs in the deposits on coured
sediments. It is also indicated that the suspended material being transported
across the upstream boundary represents a large percentage of the PCBs being
accounted for in the mass conservation model within each reach. The PCB versus
flow relationship would, therefore, be a more critical input factor than PCBs in the
bed sediments.
The initial modeling effort reported in the 1978 LMS reference utilized four data
points relating PCB concentration to flow at Fort Edward to establish the upstream
boundary condition. The available data points, which included only flows greater
than 8,000 cfs, exhibited a definite trend of decreasing PCB concentration with
decreasing flow. A linear regression relationship (on a log—log basis) for these data
points was extrapolated to other lower and higher flow values to comprehensively
treat the range of flows under consideration. It is now recognized that PCB
concentrations do not continue to decrease for decreasing flows in the
intermediate and low—flow range. In fact, PCB concentration begins to increase
with decreasing flows within the low flow range. In retrospect, the adopted PCB
versus flow relationship introduced serious errors into intermediate and low—flow
model results, as for example at Stillwater (Figure 4—12). ThIs modeling deficiency
was aggravated by the previously discussed underestimation of sediment loads. As
a result, an empIrical low—flow correction was eventually imposed on the model
output at Green Island.
At the time of the earlier study, the low and Intermediate flow results were not
considered to be a significant shortcoming of the model since the overall transport
of PCBs was thought to be dominated by high flow eveiits. Nevertheless, as more
4-85
-------
10.0
PCB MODEL RESULTS REGRE ED
USGS DATA JUL -SEPT 1977
USGS TA MAR -JUNE 1977
% OF TiME FLOW NOT EXCEEDED
tOO 500 l O0O 5,000 101000
50,000 lOO O0
FLOW (CFS)
PCS WATER COLUMN CONCENTRATION VS FLOW
COMPARISON: MODEL PCB RESULTS USGS DATA
MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD DEC ‘76-MAY ‘77
USGS D A (ST1LLWATER) RMI 68.5
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
FIGURE 4-12
Q A Halliburton Company
REF LMS (1978)
1.0
0
A
A A
d A
0
0
0
A
0.1
0
0
LEGEND
0
A
00
0.0t
0
0 i
0)
4—86
-------
data on PCB concentration at low and intermediate flows became available at
Rogers Island, a recalibration of the upstream boundary condition was performed
(LMS, 1979). This provided a much more satisfactory fit to the PCB concentration
data, as exemplified by the Stiliwater data (Figure 4—13).
The critical output of the PCB inventory submodel is the current and projected
PCB load over the Federal Dam at Troy. Based on the model results shown In
Figure 4—14, the study estimated that an average of 6,500 pounds of PCB per year
passes over the dam at Troy, with only a few percent of this total due to flows
which occur about 80 percent of the time (i.e., flows less than 20,000 cfs). The
low—flow correction adds 1,500 pounds per year to the total, resulting in 23 percent
of all PCB flux due to flows less than 20,000 cfs.
Because no field data on PCBs exist at Troy, a direct evaluation of these model
projections is prohibited. However, model results indicate that the PCB load
passing Troy Dam is approximately equal to the load passing Waterford for each
flow—frequency value, which is consistent with the assumption of no significant
PCB contribution from the Mohawk River. Under this scenario, the validity of the
model at Troy should mirror the validity of the model at Waterford for which field
data exist. Figure 4—15 presents both the results of the PCB inventory model and a
best—fit regression line through the available data at Waterford. The figure shows
that the model overestimates PCB loads by almost an order of magnitude at high
flows, with an even more serious underestimation of loads at low flows. This
introduces considerable error into the model projections at Troy Dam, as
illustrated by a comparison of the model results in Figure 4—14 to the load curve
corresponding to the best—fit regression line at Waterford. The introduction of the
low—flow correction achieves a better fit, but the resultant model still
overestimates both the total contribution of PCBs to the lower estuary and the
proportion of the load carried by high flows. Field data generally support neither
conclusion that the total PCB load nor the distribution of this load among flow
ranges is adequately predicted by the PCB transport model. For example, the U.S.
Geological Survey has estimated a total PCB load of 3,740 pounds passing
4—87
-------
100
a
PC9 MODEL RESULTS REMNANT POOL
DEPOSITS MITIGATION (POST 1978)
I
0 0 /
0 /
0/
I •
10 : -
a • \.? 1 /
- 1
a U
— \. 0
U 0
a
A0
LEGEN b
• USGS DATA JUL - SEPT !977 C 0 00
o USGS DATA MAR - JUN 1977 0
C USGS DATA SEP 1977 - JUN 1978
I USGS DATA JUL - SEP 1978
USGS DATA OCT 1978 APR 1979
* % OF TiME FLOW NOT EXCEEDED REF: LMS (1979)
0 0 o
— - C ., O
111111 I 4 11111 •
lOG 500 1,000 5,000 10,000 50,000 100,000
FLOW (CFS)
PCB WATER COLUMN CONCENTRATION VS FLOW
COMPARISON: PCB MODEL RESULTS & USGS DATA FIGURE 4 13
LOCK 4
USGS DATA (STILLWATER) RMI 168.5 I ____
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY I 1 —P R flCN
4-88 0 A Haltiburton Company
-------
CONSERVATIVE LOW PLOW
ADJUSTMENT
20 40
120 140
GREEN ISLAND FLOW (CFS) x OOO
FIGURE 4-14
GREEN ISLAND, PCB LOAD VS FLOW
MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD DEC ‘76-MAY ‘ 77
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
0 A Hailiburton Company
OoO
1 ,000
100
10
>.
C l ,
-J
0
S
0
0
z
-J
U,
w
w
LEGE ND
..
MODEL RESULTS BASED ON
USGS AT WATER FORD
PCB MODEL F 9ITS F P SSED
—— — — a —
1
/e OF TiME FLOW
EXC DED
NOT
0.1
0
F: LMS (1978)
60
80
100
4—89
-------
I,000
(00
I0
(00 500 1,000 5,000 10,000 50,000 (00,000
FLOW (CFS)
TOTAL PCB LOAD VS FLOW
COMPARISON: PCB MODEL RESULTS & USGS DATA FIGURE 4-15
MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD DEC ‘ 76— MAY ‘77
USGS DATA (WATERFORD) RMI 157.2 j j J _fl
HUDSON RIVER PC8 SiTE, HUDSON RIVER, NY ____ GO1 OF ATcN
0 A Hailiburton Company
LEGEND
A.
0
4,
PC8 MODEL RESULTS
USGS DATA REGRESSED
USGS DATA JUL-SEP,1977
USGS DATA MAR-JUN,1977
% OF TIME FI..OW NOT EXCEEDED
0
0/I
I
I
8
a
A
A
A
0
0
A 0
A
REF: LMS (1978)
I I I i Li I i1
0
20 0
I 4
a’
I I i ui
4—90
-------
Waterford during the 1977 water year (Turk. Troutman, 1981), a year In which the
expected 4 percent exceedance flow of 20,000 cfs (600 m 3 /sec) was actually
exceeded on 28 days (8 percent exceedance). This load is approximately half of the
average annual load predicted by the model using the low—flow correction.
It is of Interest at this point to consider the simple no deposition, no scour model
in relation to PCB load data. Recall that this model provided a satisfactory fit to
observed sediment loads throughout the study area, with the exception of
underestimating the load at Lock 4 (Stillwater). Under the assumption that
tributary and lateral inflows do not contribute significant quantities of PCB to the
Hudson River system, two conditions would test the reliabilIty of the model. These
are:
1. The overall mass rate of flow of PCBs (i.e., the PCB load) should remain
essentially constant at each monitoring station for the respective flow
frequency values.
2. PCB concentration should decrease approximately in proportion to river
flow (I.e., to drainage area) as one proceeds downstream, or alternatively,
for purposes of this study, the PCB concentrations should remain constant
if corrected by drainage area scaling.
Figure 4—16 presents all PCB—load data reported in Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly
(1978) for the period November 1975 to September 1977. Figure 4—17 depicts PCB
concentration data for the same period, while Figure 4—18 presents all PCB
concentration data reported in Lawler, Matusky, and Skeily (1979) for the period
October 1977 to April 1979. With few exceptions, all the data from the various
stations follow the same trend and can be considered indistinguishable within the
scatter of the data. The exceptions are high PCB concentrations and loads at Fort
Edward (Figures 4—16 and 4—17), and particularly low values of PCB concentration
at Rogers Island (Figure 4—18). Since only the Fort Edward data are from the 1975—
4—91
-------
100
• S
S
I S.
5 •1
10 •S h1
.. I
I I I
LEGEND
• FORT W RD (‘75 -‘76)
• WATERFORD (‘76-’77)
• ST1LLWATER (1977)
REF: LMS (1978)
0.1 1 1111111 ii iiiil r i,I,,ii
00 500 1,000 5,000 10,000 50,000 100,000
FLOW (CFS)
COMPARISON OF TOTAL PCB LOAD ‘ VS FLOW FIGURE 4-16
AT VARIOUS MONITORING STATIONS
( OCTOBER, 1975-SEPTEMBER, 1977 ) ___
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY ____ CC POP flON
0 A Hailiburton Company
4-92
-------
IC
— REF: LMS (1978)
6
• ••6.
LO
&
£ •6
£ 6
a_ ••m U
a-
£
.
o a U
a- £6
S • •
0i — LEGEND • UI.
— • FORT EDWARDS (‘75-’76) £
a
— S WATERFORD (‘76-77)
— I ST LLWATER (1977)
£ SCHUYLERVILLE (‘76 77)
001 I 1 .1 Ii ittl i 1 1 II iii I I 11111
100 500 000 5,000 10,000 50,000 100,000
FLOW (CFS)
FiGURE 4-17
COMPARISON OF PCB CONCENTRATION
VS FLOW AT VARIOUS MONITORING STATIONS
( OCTOBER,1975-SEPTEMBER, 1977) 1 ±JI JLJB
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, L i RA I N
0 A Halliburton Company
4—93
-------
I0.0
: REF: LMS (1979)
A
1.0
• £
es. .1* •
•
• 4,”. .•y.’I’#..
I. •!?
• *s
0. 1 1
LEGEND
+ ROGERS SL4ND (‘77-’79)
£ SCHUYLERVILLE (‘77’79)
• ST1LLWATER (‘77 ‘79)
• W ERF0RD (‘77’79)
0.0I I If itii tI I 1111 11 1
1,000 t O,000 100,000
FLOW (CFS)
COMPARISON OF PCB CONCENTRATION FiGURE 4-18
VS FLOw AT VARIOUS MONI1DRING STATIONS
( OCTOBER, 1977-APRIL, 1979) __
HUDSON RIVER PC8 SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY ____ R4TX N
0 A Haltiburton Company
4-94
-------
1976 period, the relatively high PCB values could reflect short—term resIdual
effects from removal of the dam and subsequent dredging activities. The lower
PCB values at Rogers Island, on the other hand, can be explained by the efforts to
mitigate the remnant pool deposits prior to data collection.
More recent data indicate that the same overall trend in PCB transport rates, from
a relatively low value at Rogers island to a generally constant value at
Schuylerville, Stiliwater, and Waterford, has continued through 1981. These same
data show that Rogers Island PCB loads have remained relatively constant between
1978 and 1981. whereas the loads at each of the downstream points have been
significantly decreasing.
These data observations, which support the simple no deposition, no scours ’ model,
provide an interesting scenario of PCB transport In the Hudson River that is
generally consistent with historical activities. From a historical perspective,
removal of the Fort Edward Dam and subsequent dredging caused a large quantlty
of PCB—contaminated sediment to enter the Thompson Island pool and, to a lesser
degree, other downstream pools. With subsequent mitigation measures completed
upstream of Rogers Island, the overall transport of PCB across this point was
quickly reduced. However, the large slug of sediment deposited in the Thompson
Island pool would not have Immediately stabilized, thereby causing an increased
concentration and flux of sediments and PCBs across the Thompson Island Dam
that continues at a reduced rate today. The material being transported, Including
the associated PCBs, appears to remain In suspension with little loss or gain prior
to being discharged ever the Federal Dam at Troy. This would explain the
measured increase in both suspended sediment and PCB loads between Rogers
Island and Lock 4, and the approximate conservation of each parameter between
Lock 4 and Waterford. (Recall that no data exist between the Fort Edward Dam
and Lock 4 to document where the transition from increasing to conserved
sediment load actually occurs.) The progressive decrease in PCB loads with time
at the various monitoring points Indicates the gradual return of Thompson island
and other pools to their more stable, natural state. The previously documented hot
spots near bends In the downstream channel reaches could be remnants of a slug
release of PCB—contaminated sediments, due, for example, to dam removal or
4-95
-------
subsequent short—term flood events that scoured the unstable, highly contaminated
sediments in the pools above Fort Edward and Thompson island.
In summary, available data indicate that deposition and scour of bed sediments
within the reaches under study are currently not dominant processes in the overall
transport of PCBs to the Hudson River estuary. An exception is the Thompson
island pool, which appears to contribute PCB—contamlnated sediments to
downstream reaches as a consequence of a historical overload of sediment Inflow
to the pool. Recent data trends indicate that stabilization of the Thompson island
pool is occurring as sediment Is progressively lost from the pool. Many of the PCB
transport—model results appear to be in conflict with field observations and the
analysis thereof. These will be itemized In the next section.
4.3.4 Summary and Conclusions
The PCB transport model for the Upper Hudson River is composed of three distinct
submodels — a river hydraulics submodei, a sediment transport submodei, and a PCB
inventory submodel. The HEC—6 hydraulics submodel selected for use is considered
to be suitable for Hudson River conditions, but deficiences in model calibration are
judged to exist However, because errors in the overall PCB transport model
appear to be more sensitive to shortcomings in the sediment transport submodel,
any adjustments to the hydraulics submodel would not have significantly altered
the final results and conclusions. The sediment transport component of the HEC—6
model is problematical as applied to the current study because organic, and fine—
grained materials that play a dominant role In PCB transport are not adequately
treated in the model. This deficiency was recognized during the modeltng study
but was not believed by the modelers to Introduce significant errors Into the
overall study results. This conclusion is now being disputed, and in general the
sediment transport submodel is thought to have introduced serious errors into the
overall PCB transport predictions. The PCB inventory submodel is a simple PCB
mass conservation accounting procedure that, in itself, is adequate for the current
level of study. However, the reliability of the results of the submodel is highly
dependent on the input data and the results of the sediment transport submodel
that have been shown to be deficient.
4—96
-------
The various shortcomings of the three submodels collectively yield results that are
inconsistent with field data. The following discrepancies highlight the
unsatisfactory performance of the overall PCB transport model and the
implications thereof with respect to the study conclusions and recommendations.
1. Model Result : The low flow contribution is a relatively small portion of
the overall PCB transport.
Data From This Study : The model seriously overestimated high flow
contributions. Approximately 50 percent of the PCB load is contributed
by low and intermediate flows.
Implications : The recommended alternative of reservoir development to
reduce flood flows may have less effect on overall PCB transport than
was originally estimated. Also, the influence of PCB loadings on Hudson
River fish would be more significant since it Is the consistent, low—flow
concentrations rather than short—term, storm—related loadings that are
more impoitant in this regard.
2. Model Result : Roughly 60 percent of the load over the Federal Dam at
Troy originates upstream of the Thompson Island Dam.
Data From This Study : Most of the PCB load at Troy originates upstream
of the Thompson Island Dam, with a significant portion originating within
the pool downstream from Rogers Island.
Implications : Dredging of the hot spots within the Thompson Island pool
could .acce lerate a stabilization and reduction of PCB loads to the Lower
Hudson River estuary.
3. Model Result : Ten percent of the PCB load passing the Thompson Island
Dam results from scour within the pool.
4—97
-------
Data From This Study : The PCB transport model overestimated the PCB
flux across the upstream boundary (Lock 7) and predicted a net deposition
of sediments within the Thompson island pool except during high flows.
This Is inconsistent with available data, and leads to an underestimation
of the relative PCB contribution from the Thompson island pool.
Implication : Based on the 10 percent PCB contribution from the
Thompson Island pool, the modeling study concluded that hot—spot
dredging within this highly contaminated pool would be more costly but no
more effective in reducing PCB loads at Troy than dredging in other
pools. The relative contribution of PCBs from the Thompson Island pool is
now judged to be more significant than the model results indicate.
4. Model Result : Over the 20—year projection period, 80,000 pounds of PCBs
will pass over the Thompson Island Dam and 130,000 pounds of PCBs will
pass over the Troy Dam. A related Issue is that dredging the scourable
deposits In the lower reaches that contribute to the 50,000—pound increase
would effectively reduce PCB loads.
Data From This Study : The PCB load is relatively conserved once It
passes the Thompson Island Dam.’ That is, there appears to be little net
loss or gain of the PCB load between the Thompson Island Dam and Troy
Dam.
implication : This reinforces the notion that dredging within the Thompson
Island pool would be more effective than dredging within downstream
pools.
5. Model Result : Total cIeanup of PCB—contamlnated sediment sources
upstream from Lock 7 could reduce the PCB load at Tray by 54 percent.
Data From This Study : Recent data Indicate very little PCB contributions
from above Lock 7 for low and intermediate flow conditions. Data for
4—98
-------
high flow conditions which erroneously dominated the model results
exhibit consideréble scatter but also appear to contribute less PCBs than
previously predicted.
Implication : The removal .of remnant deposits 3 and 5 above Lock 7 may
not provide PCB load reductions to the extent projected by the model.
4—99
-------
5.0 PUBUC HEALTH CONCERNS
In examining the public health concerns for the Hudson River PCBs Site, two points
must be taken into consideration. First, although a large amount of information
was gathered in 1977 and 1978 regarding PCBs in the Hudson River, very little of
that information dealt with PCB concentrations at the receptors. Furthermore,
the information which was developed then may not reflect current conditions.
Limited recent information which is available relative to the Waterford water
supply does indicate that the risks associated with the site are low. While difficult
to precisely delineate, some risk continues to exist at the current time.
Second, all the alternatIves under consideration, including dreciging, contain some
element of risk since no alternative can remove all of the PCBs in the Hudson
River. Some alternatives may result in a short—term increase In public health risk
during implementation. The remedial alternatives evaluation must consider the
relative ability of each alternative to reduce the overall, long—term and short—term
risks.
5.1 Discussion of PCBs
PCBs have been found in the water of the Hudson River, in the air above and near
the Hudson, In contaminated sediments, and in remnant deposit areas.
Concentrations detected in hot spots and wetlands are shown in Table 5—1.
Potential public exposure to these PCBs can occur via the following routes:
o Ingestion of drinking water from the Hudson River.
• Ingestion of fish and other aquatic life contaminated with PCBs.
• Dermal and possible oral exposure during use of the Hudson River for
recreational purposes such as swimming.
• Inhalation of PCBs adsorbed onto particulate matter.
5—1
-------
Hot Spot
1_7(l)
8( 1)
9_12(1)
13(1)
14(1)
15_17(1)
g(1)
19 20 ( 1)
21 ,24
25
26,27
28
29—34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Note (1):
Source:
TABLE 5-1
HUDSON RIVER PCBs SITE
PCB CONCENTRATIONS
HOT SPOTS AND WETLANDS
Mean PCB
Concentration
uq/q (ppm)
Contaminated
Volume
m 3 (yd 3 )
39—81
98,150 (128,350)
99
82,850 (108,350)
28—78
23,400 (30,600)
89
1,550 (2,050)
279
55,150 (72,150)
103—380
46,200 (60,450)
94
11,450 (14,950)
83-249
5,950 (7,750)
75—143
10,650 (13,950)
100
10,650 (13,900)
47—53
7,050 (9,200)
109
36,350 (47,440)
51—516
49,450 (67,700)
105
8,700 (11,350)
51
42,750 (55,900)
116
43,900 (57,400)
501
11,300 (14,750)
161
10,050 (13,150)
62
26,300 (34.400)
These hot spots are in the Thompson
Malcolm Pirnie, 1980d.
Island
pool.
5—2
-------
• Ingestion of terrestrial wildlife feeding on vegetation from contaminated
marshlands.
In addition to the existing concentrations of PCBs, sediment dredging may cause
desorption of PCBs from their adsorption sites, with solubilization of certain PCBs
Into river water.
In the ensuing discussion of public health concerns, the following factors were
considered:
• Concentration of PCBs found at a site (river, sediment, etc.)
• Types of PCBs present
• Exposure routes
• Water flow conditions, rates, and patterns
• Nature and stability of sediments and remnant deposits
• Nature of surrounding soil
• Location of persons “at risk”
PCBs are usually present as a mixture of various chlorinated biphenyls, which
differ In number and sites of attachment of chlorine atoms. Tests on animals
indicate that oral exposure to PCBs at a 1300 ppm level may result in changes In
liver pathology and/or function and In changes in female reproductive capacity.
Exposure of the skin to PCBs may result in chloracne and possible tumor formation.
Absorption of PCBs can occur via respiratory, dermal, or oral routes. By nature,
PCBs are lipophilic and this lipid solubillty seems to increase as the number of
chlorine atoms bound to the molecule increases. PCBs have been shown to
concentrate in fatty tissue of animals and humans and to cross the blood/brain
barrier in man. When considering the toxic effect cited above, the contribution of
dibenzofurans, a contaminant found In PCBs, thust be considered.
Metabolism of PCBs seems to occur predominantly via the liver—mixed function
oxidase system of enzymes which results in hydroxylation at one or more positions
of the PCB molecule. PCBs may alter the body’s metabolism of other toxic
compounds.
5—3
-------
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS, May 1981) gave a “worst caseu
value of about 1 milligram per day of PCBs if contaminated fish were eaten and
background PCB exposure levels were at least 9 pg/day (EIS, 1981). The report
concluded that at this level, sensitive individuals could possibly experience
deleterious effects, although these eftects were not specified. At this level of
exposure, immune system suppression might also occur. Since evidence of tumor
formation in mammals by PCBs has been found, there can be no zero effect-level
presently calculated.
Several toxicology studies elsewhere have found PCBs in milk of pregnant and
nursing women, a situation which poses a possible danger to nursing infants. A
possible danger may exist to the unborn fetus whose mother has been or is being
exposed to PCBs since some transfer of PCBs by maternal blood may occur and
since induction of the maternal microsomal oxidase system of enzymes may lead to
increased fetal exposure to toxic metabolites.
5.2 Air Pollution
it is believed that air pollution consists mainly of PCBs adsorbed on particulate
matter which may be subsequently inhaled. Under the current situation, It is
estimated that the air transport rate of PCBs is approximately 3000 lbs/yr from
sediments and from the water column (DEIS, 1981).
Volatilization of PCBs is dependent upon vapor pressure of the various compounds
which, In turn, is a function of the temperature. Volatilization is generally very
low. Transport of the PCBs is dependent upon wind conditions and presence or
absence of particulate matter. Remedial measures such as dredging and
excavation can be expected to dislodge PCBs from sediments and remnant deposits
and to enhance the amount of PCBs transported. This may yield concentrations
(*TWA = Time Weighted Average).
Time Weighted Average (TWA) is the time weighted average concentration for up
to a 10—hour workday, 40—hour workweek, to which nearly all workers may be
repeatedly exposed, day after day, without adverse effect.
5—4
-------
exceeding the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOSH) TWA 1 value of 1
pg/rn 3 , and the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) recommended
maximum of 1.0 pg/rn 3 for ambient air at “...occupied residences and other
sensitive receptors.... Data cited in the Malcolm Pirnie report indicate onsite
values from <1 pg/rn 3 after 1977, to 8—9 pg/rn 3 during excavation at remnant
deposit area 3A. In addition, remnant deposits, especially those on the east side of
the river, are in fairly close proximity to residential areas. Some of the remnant
deposits are also accessible to the public. No sampling has been conducted to
determine the levels of PCB concentrations of the residences or at the undisturbed
remnant sites.
PCBs are readily absorbed through the lungs. The NIOSH recommendation of a
maximum value of 1 pg/rn 3 was based on potential liver damage, adverse
reproductive effects, and potential carcinogenicity.
5.3 Sediment Contamination
Contaminated sediment represents the largest possible source of PCBs In the
Hudson River. There is an estimated 281,700 to 347,200 pounds of PCBs in the bed
and banks of the Upper Hudson, of which an estimated 34 percent (134,000 Ibs) was
located In the Thompson Island pool in 1977. Remnant deposits are estimated to
contain between 46,820 and 108,600 pounds of PCBs.
A certain amount of PCBs are removed from the sediments by the processes of
desorption or erosion, and enter the water. The rate at which this occurs is
dependent upon water flow conditions. Erosion is thought to be the primary
mechanism of PCB transport in the Upper Hudson River during high water flows.
Desorption predominates at low flows. The process is also dependent upon the
nature and stability of the sediments. Organic—rich sediment tends to adsorb PCBs
more strongly than less organic—rich sediments. High surface area—to—volume ratio
sediment particles will also trap PCBs more effectively than lower surface area—
to—volume ratio particles because of an increased number of adsorption sites.
5—5
-------
Some analyses cited by the Malcolm Pirnie report showed concentrations of 5—20
ppm PCB in the river center and along eroding banks, and 50—100 ppm in fine—
grained sediment along the depositional shore. The average core or surface
concentration of the 20 cited “hot spots” in the Thompson Island pool was 142 ppm.
The potential risk to the public from exposure to these PCBs lies in:
• Continuous desorption and erosion, causing PCB solubilization and
presence of PCBs in water supplies that use intakes on the Hudson River.
• Storm events and high flow conditions that would cause resuspension and
downstream movement of PCB—laden sediments.
• Consumption of PCBs by bottom—feeding organisms with entrance of PCB5
Into food chain.
Contaminated sediments may make PCBs available for uptake by the aquatic life.
These sediments may be, at least in part, responsible for the levels of PCBs (1980)
exceeding the FDA temporary tolerance level of 5 ppm in many fish. (Note: The
FDA has proposed reducing the PCB human consumption limits for fish and
shellfish from 5 ppm to 2 ppm.) Fishing has been banned in most of the Upper
Hudson River, although illegal fishing does occur. The total daily intake of PCBs
(Ingestion) may be expected to be about 1 mg if contaminated fish are eaten on a
regular basis (Draft EIS, 1981).
5.4 Groundwater Contamination
Groundwater contamination occurs from dredge spoil sites and upland municipal
landfills in the Upper Hudson basin area. Transport of PCBs from dredge spoil sites
via groundwater to the Hudson River is calculated to be 17 pounds per year. Those
sites contributing are Lock 1 and 2 sites, Buoy sites 212 and 518, Moreau sites, and
special dredge area 13. Loss of PCBs from the areas via erosion was calculated at
20 pounds per year.
5—6
-------
Various wells used for domestic supplies are located in the area of the proposed
sediment containment site. These wells range in depth from 25 to 190 feet (8 to 58
meters) (Draft EIS, 1981) and produce up to 76 liters per minute (20 gallons per
minute) of potable water. However, the clays in the area of the site are described
as uslowly permeable,° and thin lenses of fine sand are present wherein the
groundwater is supposed to be essentially immobilized.
There is no data showing PCB concentrations In well water in the area. The danger
of conta.minatlon of these wells from containment site groundwater does not seem
to be great, but more data is needed to substantiate this fact.
5.5 Surface Water Contamination
Surface water contamination of the Hudson River, with PCBs emanating from
contaminated sediments and remnant deposits, may pose a concern.
Hudson River water is used by a number of communities as a source of drinking
water. This includes the Village of Waterford, Port Ewen Water District, Village of
Rhinebeck, City of Poughkeepsie, and the Highland Water District. In addition,
numerous private individuals obtain water from wells near the river.
Since the Hudson River serves as the source for the drinking supply of various
communities, human consumption of PCBs is possible. The New York State
Department of Health guidelines for maximum PCB concentration in drinking
water is 1.0 ppb based on health considerations. Using an average daily water
consumption for a person of 2 liters per day, then this translates into a maximum
possible 2.0 }.tg per day oral intake of PCBs from drinking waters. The oral intake
via water must then be added to PCBs inhaled or ingested via fish and aquatic life,
and any other background PCB levels.
The drinking water supply of Waterford has been periodically sampled by the
NYSDOH and by the U.S.G.S. In addition, O’Brien and Gere, a consulting firm, was
retained by the State to evaluate the treatability of Hudson River water and in the
course, of the report presented PCB concentrations for raw and untreated water.
5—7
-------
NYSDOH results and the O’Brien and Gere (1981) data list are presented in
Tables 5—2 and 5—3. It should be noted that in a very recent report dated
January 18, 1984 the NYSDOH reported different levels of PCB for approximately
the same time interval. Those values are presented in Table 5—4. The U.S.G.S. did
not tabulate their data but an inspection of Figure 4 in Schrocler and Barnes (1983)
reveals that treated water in their samples usually contained less than 0.1 pg/I of
PCB and that out of 46 samples only one contained PCB in excess of 0.3 pg/I (0.62
pg/I).
U.S.G.S. data also shows that raw river water did not usually go above 0.7 pg/I in
PCB concentration. The concentrations did not approach or exceed 1 pg/I except
in a few samples taken at unusually high flow conditions.
A level of 0.16 pg/I has been calculated by NYSDOH to represent a lifetime
cancer risk ofone in one millIon (10—6). The maximum acceptable exposure level
promulgated by NYSDOH is 1.0 pg/I, although the department does not list what
health effects it Is designed to protect against.
A stricter recommended limit and risk level may be derived from the EPA Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for PCB (45 Federal Register No. 231). The derivation is as
follows:
The concentration of PCBs in ambient water and aquatic organisms which may
result in one additional cancer—related death per every 100,000 individuals (105) i
0.79 ng/I. This value assumes that 99 percent of the PCB Intake is from the
consumption of fish and also assumes a bioconcentration factor (BCF) of 31,200 in
the fish. The BCF is the number of times an organism is capable of
bioconcentrating a chemical over the ambient concentration of the chemical In the
environmental pathway in which the organisms were exposed.
Therefore, at this level of health risk the unit PCB concentration of fish is:
(0.79 ng/I) (31,200) = 24.648 pg/I or 24.648 pg/kg, assuming 1 liter of
water has a mass equivalent to 1 kilogram.
5—8
-------
TABLE 5-2
PCB LEVELS IN THE ViLLAGE OF WATERFORD
DRINKING WATER
High Low Average
Samples Sampling Value Value Value
Organic Chemical Analyzed Period up/I up/I ug/I
Arochlor 1221 3 9/29/77 <0.05 <0.05 0
6/1/83
Arochlor 1016/1242 3 9/29/77 0.3 <0.05 0.10
6/1/83
Arochlor 1254 3 9/29/77 0.5 <0.05 0.16
6/1/83
Arochlor 1260 2 10/22/81 <0.05 <0.05 0
6/1/83
Arochlor 1248 1 6/1/83 <0.05 <0.05 0
PCB Total 23 11/15/76 0.01 0 0.02
9/27/77
No value was above the 1 ug/l guideline for PCBs, set by NYSDOH.
Source: NY State Department of Health, September 1983. Letter to S. Pedersen,
NUS Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
5—9
-------
TABLE 5-3
Date
7/19/78
8/2/78
8/29/78
9/28/78
10/13/78
10/25/78
11/2/78
12/6/78
1/15/7
2/16/79
Date
8/29/78
9/13/78
10/3/78
10/12/78
11/15/78
12/8/78
1/4/78
2/16/79
5/11/79
5/17/79
5/24/79
5/31/79
6/7/79
6/12,79
6/21/79
6/28/79
7/5/79
7/17/79
8/2/79
8/15/79
8/30/79
10/10/79
10/22/79
PCB CONCENTRATiON OF UNTREATED
AND FINISHED DRINKING WATER
Poughkeepsie, New York
0.10
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
0.30
0.10
0.14
<0.01
0.06
0.07
Waterford. New York
0.20
0.70
0.30
0.40
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.20
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.10
0.01
0.11
0.01
0.14
o .08
<0.01
0.07
o .06
0.08
0.03
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
Untreated (ua/fl
Finished (ugh)
Untraated (ua/ll
Finished (u /l)
Source: OBrien and Gere, April 1981.
prepared for NYSDEC. Albany, NY
Hudson River Water Treatability Study,
5—10
-------
TABLE 5-4
PCB LEVELS IN WATERFORD DRINKING WATER
Not Detected
Polychiorinated No. of In # High Low Mean
biphenyls Samples Dates Samples iq/l ugh _ j
Aroclor 1016/1242 11 9/77—6/83 4 0.3 < 0.5 0.07
Aroclor 1254 11 9/77—6/83 4 0.5 <0.05 0.06
PCB (total) 51 6/74—10/81 36 0.6 0. 0.06
Source: NYSDOH. January 1984. Cancer Incidence in Waterford, New York.
Final Report.
5—11
-------
When fish or seafood is consumed at a rate of 6.5 g/day, the daily PCB dosage at
this level of risk is:
(24.648 g/kg)(0.065 kg/day) = 1.6 pg/day
This is the daily dose at the 10 cancer risk level regardless of the route of
exposure. The PCB concentration of water associated with this level of risk is
computed by assuming the consumption of 2 liters of water per day:
1.602 J!Q/dav 0.80 zg/l
2 liters/day
The 0.80 . g/I concentration is the recommended limit for the cancer risk
level for consumption of PCB contaminated water only. This mâans that on the
average, one additional person out of 100,000 people may get cancer if the
population drinks 2 liters of water per day with 0.80 g/l of PCB in it. PCB
concentrations in Waterford water are generally much lower than this. Given that
the average rate of cancer is one person Out of 10, the incremental risks due to
PCB in the water seem to be undetectably small. This is also the conclusion of
recent U.S.G.S. reports and NYSDOH reports. It should be reali2ed that this limit
does not account for other pollutants in the water or for consumption of PCB in
other sources. For this reason an in—depth health Impact study and treatability
study for Waterford Is recommended.
Waterford should represent the worst—case health risk since it is the community
closest to the highly contaminated areas. The health risk here appears to be low
and it should be even lower in other communities.
5.6 General Risk Assessment
There are high PCB concentrations present in the 40 PCB hot spots and in the
remnant deposits. Recorde d levels reach 500 ppm ( . g/g) in hot spots (see
Table 5—1). PCB movement can occur in the Hudson River via desorption or
erosion and consequent solubilization. Conditions of high river flow and scour may
5—12
-------
cause resuspension of PCB—Iaden sediments and movement downstream. increased
release of PCBs from remnant deposits due to erosion may also occur under these
conditions. Floods and high flow conditions may rework the sediments, disturb hot
spots, and expose more highly contaminated sediments to the water interface,
making them available to bottom—feeding organisms.
The risk to those exposed to PCBs in drinking water alone Is low. The PCB
concentration of drinking water has never exceeded either the State—set standard
or the EPA—recommended levels for PCB exposure. It appears that incremental
risks due to PCBs in drinking water alone are undetectably small.
Contaminated fish represent the most serious human health hazard. Many fish
levels undoubtedly continue to exceed the FDA—imposed tolerance limit of 5 ppm.
The current ban on fishing, in addition to State advisories, is presently designed to
eliminate hazards which would be caused by eating fish.
Communities situated near concentrated sources of PCB such as dumps and
remnant deposits could be exposed to deleterious concentrations of PCB in the
atmosphere. Such locations should be monitored. Air contamination is nearly
negligible near river sources such as riffles and dams and probably does not
represent a problem. Groundwater contamination has not been shown to be serious,
but insufficient data are available.
In summary, PCBs are present in sediments, remnant deposits, and fish. They are
also found, to a very limited extent, dissolved In the river. Given the properties of
biomagnification, bioaccumulation, chemical persistence, and stability of PCBs,
chronic exposure is of concern. Remnant deposits could pose- a hazard to people
crossing over them through direct contact with the contamination. Further data is
needed, including, as a minimum, air monitoring at potential receptors, and
monitoring of water samples from private drinking wells and from public water
supplies, and biotic assays. Remedial actions should be designed to deal with these
concerns.
5—13
-------
6.0 HEALTh AND SAFETY PROCEDURES
6.1 Personal Health and Safety Protection
6.1.1 Remedial Investigation
Personnel in the Remedial Investigation stage will be Involved in the sampling of
sediments, air and water. Level of protection is based upon the following:
• PCBs are lipid soluble and can be absorbed through the skin. Lipid
solubility increases as the degree of chlorination increases.
• Some PCBs may be carcinogenic in humans.
• Other toxic chemical compounds such as dibenzofurans may be found
associated with PCBs.
• Workers sampling water can be expected to come into contact with water
containing about 0.3 pg of PCBs/l (the average concentration found in the
river).
• Workers doing air sampling near residences may encounter air
concentrations of 0.05 — 0.32 pg PCBs/m 3 .
Workers sampling sediment are recommended to have PCB—resistant, hooded,
Saranex—coated Tyvek Suits with butyl rubber aprons (ankle length with sleeves);
inner surgical gloves with outer butyl rubber or neoprene gauntlets; and neoprene
boots with disposable outer boot covers. Contact with PCBs and PCB—containing
material is likely as the samplers are pulled from the water and contaminated
water and sediment drip out.
Workers sampling water are advised to have Saranex—coated, hooded, Tyvek suits
with butyl rubber aprons (ankle length with sleeves); Inner surgical gloves with
outer butyl rubber or neoprene gauntiets; and neoprene boots with disposable outer
6—1
-------
boot covers. Contact with PCBs may occur as integrated depth sampling bottles
are pulled from the water and contaminated water drips out.
Workers sampling air near residences would not be required to have special
protective clothing, because of the low levels expected to be encountered.
Decontamination procedures should be implemented for personnel who are sampling
sediment and/or water. These personnel should refrain from eating, drinking, or
smoking until after they have undergone decontamination, showered, changed
clothes, and left the areas of suspected contamination. In addition, people
conducting air sampling should also shower and change clothes as soon as possible.
They should refrain from eating, drinking, or smoking until they have done so, and
have gone off site.
61.2 Remedial Action
Personnel in this stage may be involved in the following activities:
• Removal of contaminated sediments.
• In—place covering of sediments.
• Detoxification or destruction of contaminated sediments.
• Fencing of remnant areas to restrict access.
• Landfilling of contaminated sediments.
Decision as to the level of protection necessary is based upon the following:
• PCBs are lipid soluble and can be absorbed through the skin. Lipid
solubility increases as the degree of chlorination increases.
• Some PCBs may be carcinogenic in humans.
• Other toxic chemical compounds such as dlbenzofurans may be found
associated with PCBs.
6—2
-------
• The majority of PCBs in the air are adsorbed onto particulate matter.
• The New York State Department of Health maximum acceptable exposure
level is 1 pg/rn 3 for ambient air at “... occupied residences and other
sensitive receptors ..., (24 hour average applicable to Hudson River
reclamation project only).
• The NIOSH recommended permissible exposure limit for PCBs is 1 pg/rn 3
in air averaged over a work shift of up to 10 hours per day, 40 hours per
week, with chlorodiphenyls containing 42% chlorIne and 54% chlorine
being regulated as occupational carcinogens. These guidelines are for
workplace situations.
• Workers may come into contact with air concentrations of PCBs
exceeding 1 pg/rn 3 .
Personnel working at the remnant areas are recommended to have PCB—resistant,
Saran x—coated, hooded Tyvek suits with butyl rubber aprons (ankle length with
sleeves); inner surgical gloves with outer butyl rubber or neoprene gauntlets; and
neoprene boots with disposable outer boot covers. Respiratory protection should
consist of a full—face cartridge respirator for particulates. Hard hats should be
worn over Tyvek hoods. Contact with PCBs and PCB—containing materials can
occur as PCB—laden dirt is stirred up during the clearing and cutting and as winds
stir up PCB—contaminated dirt.
Workers involved in the placement of fill at the remnant areas are recommended to
have PCB—resistant, Saranex—coated Tyvek suits; neoprene or butyl rubber gloves;
and disposable outer boot covers over w’rk boots. Respiratory protection consists
of a full—face, cartridge respirator for particulates which should be put on if wind
blows PCB contaminated soil, or if sampling indicates measurable PCB levels in
air. Hard hats should also be worn. Exposure to PCB containing materials can
occur if winds stir up PCB—contaminated soil and the dumping process stirs up
PCB—contaminated soil.
6—3
-------
Bulldozer operators at the remnant areas are recommended to have PCB—resistant,
Saranex—coated Tyvek suits; rubber or neoprene gloves; and disposable outer boot
covers over work boots. Respiratory protection consists of a full face, cartridge
respirator for particulates which should be put on if wind blows PCB—contaminated
soil or If sampling indicates measurable PCB levels in air. Hard hats should also be
worn.
Exposure to PCB—contaminated material can occur during operations if the
bulldozer stirs up PCB contaminated soil or winds may stir up PCB contaminated
soil. In addition, the bulldozer operator may have to exit the cab onto the remnant
area in event of mechanical failure, thus allowing for further exposure to PCB—
contaminated soil.
Workers involved 1n fencing off remnant areas are recommended to have PCB—
resistant, Saranex—coated, hooded Tyvek suits with butyl rubber aprons (ankle
length with sleeves); inner surgical gloves with outer butyl rubber or neoprene
gauntlets; and neoprene boots with disposable outer boot covers. Respiratory
protection should consist of full—face cartridge respirators for particulates. Hard
hats should be worn over Tyvek hoods.
Decontamination of major equipment will be performed according to the procedure
outlined in the NUS Quality Control Procedures Manual (NUSQCP 11—11).
Personnel decontamination will be performed according to the NUS Health and
Safety Manual. These procedures may be modified, depending on site conditions.
Decontamination procedures must be implemented for all personnel mentioned In
Section 6.1.2. Personnel should refrain from eating, drinking, or smoking until
after having undergone decontamination, showered, changed clothes, and left work
areas.
61 Health and Safety Monitoring
Periodic monitoring of air, water, and sediment samples for PCBs is needed to
ensure protection of personnel. Use of a respirable dust monitor may also be
6-4
-------
warranted. All workers expected to come into contact with PCBs or PCB—
contaminated material should have a blood PCB analysis performed prior to
working on site and following completion of their task.
6—5
-------
7.0 REVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGY
In the past few years there has been a strong interest in the development of PCB
treatment technologies. The impetus of this search for new disposal methods is the
need to eliminate the vast quantities of PCBs presently in storage throughout the
United States. Incineration at high temperatures (2,000°F and above) has been the
only procedure recommended by the EPA to date. One problem that this presents
is that there are only two EPA—approved incinerators, one in Texas and the other in
Arkansas. These incinerators are non—mobile and would require substantial
transportation costs for the shipment of Hudson River sediments. This establishes
the need for portable, more cost—effective PCB destruction methods. This review
of new technologies will include chemical treatment methods, advanced thermal
(non—incineration) techniques, and biological treatment methods.
For this purpose, a literature search was conducted to locate advances in PCB
treatment (Detoxification, Degradation, Destruction) and analysis technologies
since 1980, which is the year in which the NYSDEC prepared its EIS. The criteria
for the evaluation of these technologies were based upon the state of development
and the effectiveness of a process for treatment of Hudson River sediments. Three
categories of treatment processes were studied as listed below:
• Biological systems
• Dechlorination processes
• Destruction processes.
Microbial degradation or biodegradation of PCBs in river sediments is dependent on
the degree of chlorination and the position of the chlorine atom on the biphenyl
molecule. At least 20 different bacteria are believed to be capable of breaking
down PCBs into water and carbon dioxide, in a period of 90 to 130 days (Chemical
Engineering, 1983). This process has shown only limited success during laboratory
work for wastewater treatment processes.
The dechlorination process involves the removal of the chlorine atoms from the
biphenyl molecule. The process mechanism includes bringing the PCBs in contact
7—1
-------
with a sodium or potassium compound that will band to the chlorine. The end
products of this method are reportedly hydrocarbons and a salt. The processes
looked at in this study are listed below:
Processes found to be applicable for the dechlorination of PCBs
in contaminated sediments
• Acurex
• Hydrothermal
• KOHPEG
• NaPEG
• PCBX
• Goodyear
Processes with which dechlorination treatments could not be used with
contaminated sediments
• LARC — Light Activated Reduction of Chemicals
• Photodecomposition
PCB destruction mechanisms are all essentially the same, with one exception: wet
oxidation (Wet Air Oxidation). The destruction process involves the thermal
annihilation or chemical oxidation of PCBs. Only one of these processes, rotary
kiln incineration, has been demonstrated on a full scale and is permitted by the
EPA. The, following is a listing of those destruction processes which were
considered.
Processes found to be applicable for destruction of PCBs in sediments
• Plasma Arc
• Pyromagnetics Incinerator
• Rotary Kiln
• Thagard HTFW (High Temperature Fluid Walt) Reactor
• Wet Air Oxidation
7—2
-------
Destruction processes inapplicable for use with contaminated sediments :
• Molten Salt Incinerator
• Controlled Air Incineration
• Fluidized Bed Incineration
• Ozonation
• Ultraviolet/Ozone
7.1 Treatment Processes
The following subsection includes descriptions of PCB treatment technologies. A
short description of the process is given, along with a discussion of the applicability
of the process to contaminated sediments.
7.1.1 Acurex
The Acurex system is a dechlorination process using a sodium reagent in a nitrogen
atmosphere to decompose PCBs. A portable batch unit using the sodium—based
reactant is used to change PCBs in transformer oil to NaCl and polyphenyl (Miille,
1982). PCB—contaminated sediments must first be solvent washed to extract the
PCBs before entering the reactor. The solvent is later reclaimed for reuse.
This process should prove applicable for use with contaminated sediments although
it has been tried only at the laboratory level. Large—scale use should follow,
pending approval of current testing (Baker 1983).
7.1.2 Biological Systems
Biological degradation of various PCB species has met with only limited success
(National Research CouncIl, 1979). Highly chlorinated biphenyls (6 chlorines)
undergo negligible degradation due to biological processes, while the lesser
chlorinated compounds (1—5 chlorines) decompose much more readily. This
inconsistency is explained by the fact that no specific microorganism has been
discovered that will selectively oxidize or degrade the higher chlorinated
compounds (Baker, 1983).
7-3
-------
7.13 Controlled Air Incinerator
The Los Alamos National Laboratory has modified a controlled—air, radioactive
waste incinerator to burn PCB waste. The incinerator is a conventional dual—
chamber, controlled—air design with operating temperatures for PCB destruction
ranging from 1,600°F (Chamber No. 1) to 2,000°F (Chamber No. 2). Attempts are
currently under way to obtain a permit for a PCB test burn (Fradkin, 1982);
however, the state of development renders this process unsuitable for use on
contaminated sediments.
7.1.4 Fluidized Bed Incinerator
PCB destruction is obtained with this method at a temperature of 1250°F using a
chromic oxide and aluminum catalyst. Rockwell International’s (the developer)
fluidized bed incinerator recently underwent a successful one—gallon test burn of
PCBs (at 700°F) for the EPA (Fradkin, 1982). Although this process has been
proven useful for PCB destruction, there are no plans to develop this system any
further, or to use it in connection with contaminated sediments.
7.1.5 Goodyear
The Goodyear system includes a non—mobile, exothermic process using sodium
naphthalide in an inert atmosphere for the destruction of PCBs in oil. Operating at
ambient temperatures, the system destroys PCBs in 5 minutes, producing sodium
chloride and nonhalogenated polyphenyls as by—products (Berry, 1981). Treatment
of sediments would first require solvent extraction so that the PCBs would be in a
liquid medium.
7.1.6 Hydrothermal
The Japanese—developed Hydrothermal PCB decomposition process has, in the
laboratory, replaced the chlorine atoms of PCBs with hydroxyl groups in the
presence of methanol and sodium hydroxide. Operating at a temperature of 570°F
and a pressure of 2,560 pounds per square inch, this process is reportedly safe,
7-4
-------
simple, and rapid. Since much testing and development need to be done, this
process will most likely not be available for use with this project In the near
future.
7.1.7 KOHPEG
The KOHPEG process uses polyethylene glycols and potassium hydroxide to destroy
PCBs in nonpolar liquids. This process is reportedly more reactive and tolerant of
impurities than the similar process, NaPEG (Brunelle, 1983). The reaction
conditions are mild, with complete PCB degeneration in 2 hours at temperatures of
170°F to 250°F. This technology is apparently applicable to contaminated
sediments, although testing has not yet been completed (Baker, 1983).
7.1.8 LARC
The Light Activated Reduction of Chemicals (LARC) process, developed by the
Atlantic Research Corporation, uses ultraviolet light (UV) and hydrogen gas to
effect. dehalogenation (Fradkin, 1982). This process involves a stepwise
dechlorination of the biphenyl, with the formulation of a lesser chlorinated and
eventually dechlorinated compound (Valentine, 1982). Its use on river sediments is
restricted by IJV light—absorbent materials present in the water, and the
requirement of a constant hydrogen source. The process Is patented but has not
been proven useful on contaminated sediments (Baker, 1983).
7.1.9 Molten Salt Incinerator
The molten salt incineration, process, demonstrated by Rockwell International,
destroys PCB waste by injecting a mixture of the waste and air into a sodium
carbonate/molten salt mixture at 1450°F to 1800°F (Johnson, 1982). By mid—1983, a
portable incinerator rated at 225 pounds per hour should be available. Very good
results have been achieved for PCB removal using this method, but this system has
not been recommended by Rockwell for use with organic river sediments (a high
ash material) due to the high flow requirements needed for transport through the
sodium carbonate solution (Baker, 1983).
7-5
-------
7.1.10 NaPEG
The NaPEG (trademark) system, developed by the Franklin Research institute, uses
molten sodium metal dispersed in a polyethylene glycol solution to treat PCB—
contaminated oils. This process, which is insensitive to moisture or air, was
successful in laboratory bench—scale testing of PCB breakdown in soils. The
reaction products are oxygenated organics, sodium chloride, and polyglycol or
glycols that do not bioaccumulate and will biodegrade (Fradkin, 1982). Although
the EPA is optimistic about the use of NaPEG with contaminated sediments,
testing results will not be available for some time (Baker, 1983).
7.1.11 Ozonation
The ozonation of PCB—contaminated waste is a Canadian process in which ozone is
used to destroy PCBs in liquids (oils and water). Laboratory work shows that 95
percent of PCBs in wastewater is destroyed by this process. This process is
currently in the developmental stage, and has not been applied to contaminated
sediments. Accordingly, it is not kr own if it will be available for use with the
Hudson River project (Berry, 1981).
7.1.12 PCBX
The PCBX system is a mobile system used for the destruction of PCBs found
primarily in transformer oils. This system was developed by Sun Ohio, and was the
first chemical PCB—treatment—method approved by the EPA. The system
reportedly uses sodium salts of organic compounds in an amine solution to eftect
PCB destruction (Fradkin, 1982). The use of this system for contaminated
sediments is possible, although more tests must be conducted before a
recommendation can be made (Baker, 1983). Solvent extraction of the PCBs from
the sediment would be required.
7—6
-------
7.1.13 Photodecomposition
Photodecomposition of PCBs in liquids occurs when PCBs are Irradiated by light in
the presence of an amine. Tests on contaminated soils showed that no significant
reduction of PCBs occurred after irradiation of the soils (Battelle, 1982).
7.1.14 Plasma Arc
The plasma arc process is a dechlorination technique developed for PCB solids
destruction by molecular fracture (Fradkin, 1982). The plasma arc is produced by a
low—pressure gas through which an electric current (arc) is passed. The by—products
that result from passing PCBs through this arc are simple because the final states
are atomic (Cl, H, C atoms) (Barton; Arsenault, 1981). This process Is expected to
work on contaminated sediments and has the advantage of not requiring a solvent
extraction of the solids. The development of a soil/sediment facllit is still in the
future, with the expectations of an energy—efficient process (Baker, 1983).
7.1.15 Pyromagnetics incinerator
This Incinerator, developed by the Pyromagnetics Corporation, is a portable unit
for the detoxification of approximately one ton per hour of total solids. The
destruction process uses 5,000 pounds of molten Iron at 2,600 to 2,700°F in a
primary chamber into which 200—300 pounds of sand in addition to the
contaminated sediments are added (per hour). The volatiles are removed and
burned in a second chamber at 4,000°F, while the nonvolatiles are siagged off with
the molten sediment and sand (Fradkin, 1982). EPA approval has yet to be given to
this process since a test with PCBs has not been completed. One problem that may
be encountered is the likelihood of the byproducts being greater in volume than the
contaminated feedstock (Baker, 1983).
7.1.16 Rotary Kiln
The rotary kiln is a high—temperature PCB destruction technique currently
available to the market. Two facilities have EPA permits (Texas and Arkansas) to
7—7
-------
operate incinerators in the 1800 to 2,200°F temperature range. In addition, a test
by the EPA is underway using a mobile rotary kiln that will operate at a
temperature of 2,200 °F (Fradkin, 1982).
7.1.17 Thagard HTFW
Thagard Research Corporation has developed a high—temperature—fluid wail reactor
(HTFW) that completely pyrolyzes PCBs, and fixes the residues into nonleachable
glasses (Matovich, 1982). This reactor maintains a high temperature (4,000°F) by
radiant heat emanating from a gaseous fluid. envelope (generally nitrogen),
operating without catalysts, and thus unaffected by impurities in the feed (water,
sulfur, metal). Laboratory tests using hexachlorobenzene (HCB) as a surrogate for
PCBs showed a destruction order of 99.9999 percent upon a 0.1 second reaction
time (Hornig, 1981).
7.1.18 Ultraviolet/Ozone
The technique of using ultraviolet light and ozone to destroy PCBs in wastewater is
currently in the pilot plant stage. The process costs are reported to compare
favorably with carbon adsorption and incineration (Arismen; Music, 1980). A
deterrent to the use of this system on river sediments is that this method cannot
handle wastes where the ultraviolet• light cannot penetrate the contaminated
material (Edwards, et al., 1981).
7.1.19 Wet—Air Oxidation
The wet—air oxidation system uses a co—catalyst and moderate temperatures to
achieve 99 plus percent destruction of even highly chlorinated biphenyls (Randall,
1981; Miller, et al., 1980). One method uses a bromide and nitrate anion catalyst in
an acidic aqueous solution. Additional information is proprietary although it is
reported that this system would be very useful for soil/sediment detoxification
(Randall, 1981).
7—8
-------
72 Analytical Process
A new technique has been developed for the analysis of PCBs in soils and
sediments. The process, developed by EPA Region I, uses solvent extraction to
remove the PCBs from the soil or sediment, and sample analysis is effected by gas
chromotography and electron capture detection. Accuracy levels of 0.5 parts per
million (ppm) are obtainable In field work using an Analytical Instruments
Development Inc. (AID) 511 portable gas chromatograph (Porco, 1983).
The extraction process is a three—step process beginning with the addition of water
to the soil/sediment sample. A second phase is then added——either methyl or ethyl
alcohol——and the sample agitated. After the final phase——hexane——is added and
agitated, the hexane phase is separated and then analyzed. The analytical process
is accomplished by Injecting the sample into a heated column where component
separation takes place. PCBs are then detected by electron capture.
The use of the analytical method in the field should be very useful for obtaining
quick turnarounds when many samples must be taken or when results are needed In
a hurry.
7... 9
-------
8.0 INVES11GAT1ON OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATiVES
8.1 Review of Previously Developed Alternatives
8.1.1 Alternatives for PCBs in River Sediments
8.1.1.1 No—remedial—action Alternative
The following two options are available under the no—remedial—action alternative:
• No Remedial Action with Continued Routine Dredging
This alternative assumes that no remedial action will be taken, and
routine channel maintenance dredging will be continued by New York
Department of Transportation. It is estimated that such dredging would
remove PCBs at an approximate rate of 5,000 lb/yr (Hetling et al., 1978).
The PCB transport model developed by Lawler, Matusky, arid Skelly (1978)
has previously been used to estimate the annual average PCB load at Troy
Dam and to predict the time period over which significant amounts of
contaminated sediment would exist in and continue to be transported from
the Upper Hudson River. The model was later used to estimate the
change in PCB transport rate brought about by various remedial
activities. More recently the model results were adjusted to account for
PCB losses due to routine maintenance dredging and atmospheric PCB
transfer. The analysis of Section 4.3 indicated a number of shortcomings
in the model. One problem was that the model overestimated sediment
PCB transport at high flows and underestimated it at low flows. Some
recent calculations of PCB transport from USGS monitoring data
indicates that the current transport rate may be leveling to about 1,500
lbs/yr (Section 4.0). Table 8—1 compares PCB transport projections using
the model results and recent estimates of PCB transport from measured
values for various alternatives. The projections In the table account for
8—1
-------
TABLE 8-1
*
PCB TRANSPORT PROJECTIONS USING LMS MODEL DATA
COMPARED WITH TRANSPORT PROJECTIONS USING CURRENT ESTIMATED
TRANSPORT RATE (SECTION 4)
No Remedial Action — Discontinued Maintenance Dredging 1
Transport Years to PCB PCB PCB
Rate Exhaust PCB Transport Volatilized Dredged
( Ib/yr) Supply Year ( Ibs) ( Ibs) ( Ibs )
LMS Model 7200 40 2018 290,000 60,000
RAMP 1500 117 2095 175.000 175,000
No Remedial Action — Continued Maintenance Dredging 1
LMS Model 7200 31 2009 225,000 78,000 47,000
RAMP 1500 64 2042 96,000 95,000 159,000
Reduced—Scale Dredging Alternative 2
LMS Model 6700 25 2003 170,000 47,000 105,000
RAMP 1500 55 2033 82,500 62,500 205,000
.3
Full—Scale Dredging Alternative
LMS Model 5700 21 1999 127,000 20,000 205,000
RAMP 1500 46 2024 69,000 41,300 240,000
Table computations assumed:
350,000 pounds of PCB in storage.
Negligible contribution of PCB by remnant deposits.
A base year of 1978.
48 percent removal under full—scale alternative and 30 percent removal under
reduced—scale alternative. -
*
Lawler, Matusky and Skelly.
Footnotes continued on page 8—3.
8—2
-------
TABLE 8-1
PCB TRANSPORT PROJECTIONS
PAGE TWO
1. Assumes dredge removal rate of 2,500 lb/year of PCB. Also assumes air
transport rate of 1,500 lb/year of PCB.
2. Assumes 5 years to complete cleanup, during which transport rates, air
transport rates, and dredge removal rates are equal to no—action. After clean-
up, air transport rates and dredge removal rates are 70 percent of original.
3. Assumes 5 years to complete cleanup, during which transport rates, air
transport rates, and dredge removal rates are equal to no—action. After clean—
up, air transport rates and dredge removal rates are 62 percent of original.
4. Includes amount of PCBs dredged during remedial action.-
8—3
-------
PCB losses due to maintenance dredging and atmospheric transport. The
average annual volatilization rate of 1,500 lb/yr and the average annual
dredge removal rate of 2,500 lb/yr adopted in the DEIS are assumed.
According to Table 8—1, the number of years it would take to deplete the
PCB stored in the Upper Hudson River, with no remedial action and
continued maintenance dredging, will vary from 31 to 64 years. During
this time, between 96,000 and 225,000 pounds of PCB would be
transported to the estuary.
Currently, the PCB—removal rate due to dredging in thern New York Harbor
is estimated at 4,000 lb/yr (DEIS, 1981). Earlier work (DEIS, 1981)
estimated that if this rate is maintained and if 100 percent of the PCB
mass at Tray enters New York Harbor, then the average PCB
concentration in harbor sediments would increase to approximately 6 ppm
by the year 2013. This analysis involved the assumption that the PCB
concentration of the sediments being dredged remains the same regardless
of the effects of deposition and dredge spoil removal. This is a faulty
assumption because dredging generally removes only the most recently
deposited sediments, and according to Bopp (1982), the recent material
being deposited in the Harbor area has been dramatically decreasing in
PCB content.
It is in no way certain that all of the PCBrcontaminated material in the
Upper Hudson will be removed and transported to the harbor in the time
periods specified. It is estimated that dredging in the vicinity of Albany
(between milepoints 140 and 150) removes between 1,500 and 1,800 pounds
of PCB per year. This removal rate equals the current estimated
transport rate at Troy. In any event, It is likely that PCBs will continue
to migrate to the harbor in decreasing amounts for a greatly extended
period of time. It is expected that, at the worst, the concentration of
PCBs in previously—deposited harbor sediments will remain at current
levels, and that the level of PCB5 in fresh dredge material will decrease.
8-4
-------
The previously used sediment transport model (Lawler, Matusky, and
Skelly, 1978) was used for quantitative evaluation of PCB transport.
However, the model does not evaluate the effects of uneven downstream
deposition. A knowledge of the distribution of the sediment deposition is
critical for the evaluation of potential for deposition near potable water
intakes, fish spawning grounds, navigational channels, and docking areas
(DEIS, May 1981).
• No Remedial Action with Discontinued Routine Dredging
This alternative assumes that no remedial actions will be taken, and that
routine channel maintenance dredging in the Upper Hudson River will be
discontinued to eliminate the need for secure containment sites.
According to the projections in Table 8—1, between 175,000 and 290,000
pounds of PCB will be transported to the estuary If routine dredging Is
discontinued. Approximately 40 to 117 years would be needed for cleanup
of the Upper Hudson to be completed. Most of the difference in the
projections of Table 8—1 lies in the fact that over a period of 117 years,
twice as much PCBs will be transported Into the air.
Earlier work (DEIS, 1981) reported that resultant PCB concentrations In
the Albany turning basin would increase, but that concentrations In the
New York Harbor sediments would not. However, as was pointed out in
the previous section, the current removal rate of PCBs near Albany equals
the currently estimated transport rate.
Should routine channel maintenance be discontinued, PCB transport will
be more significant than the preceeding no—remedial—action alternative.
Between 30 and 80 percent more PCBs would be transported into the
estuary, and transport would continue to 2018 at the least and possibly
extend until 2095 and beyond. It also should be noted if navigational
channels were not maintained, that all shipping would eventually cease
due to sediment build—up.
8—5
-------
8.1.1.2 River Sediment Dredging
These alternatives assume that various portions of the contaminated sediments will
be removed by mechanical or hydraulic dredging. Three different dredging
alternatives have been investigated:
• Bank—to—bank dredging
• Full—scale dredging of 40 hot spots (EPA recommendations vs NYSDEC
recommendations)
• Reduced—scale dr dging of a portion of the hot spots
Bank—to—Bank Dredging
Bank—to—bank dredging would require a much greater amount of operating
equipment, operating time, and a much larger containment area than would be
required for either of the other two less extensive dredging alternatives. The
estimated total cost is on the order of $250,000,000 (DEIS, 1981).
Full—scale Dredging of 40 Hot Spots
The full—scale dredging of the 40 hot spots would be expected to occur over a
2—year period. During the first year of operation, the 20 hot spots in the Thompson
Island pool would be dredged using either the hydraulic or clamshell method. All
waste materials would be disposed of in the containment site, and the filled portion
of the containment area would be covered at the end of the season. During the
second year, the remaining hot spots in the lower pools would be dredged using the
clamshell method. The waste material would be disposed of in the containment
site, and the rest of the containment area covered and sealed (DEIS, 1981).
As a result of the full—scale dredging program, it is expected that approximately 48
percent of the total PCBs would be removed from the river. After the cleanup
8—6
-------
action, it would take from 16 to 41 years bra total of between 69,000 and 127,000
pounds of PCB to be transported to the estuary (Table 8—1).
Both landfilling and detoxification methods have been considered for the disposal
of contaminated sediments. Those methods include:
• Detoxification/Destruction — Incineration has been recommended as the
most effective and best understood means of destruction of liquid PCBs.
Biological degradation has been found to be successful on lower Aroclors.
However, no organism has yet been found to degrade PCBs within a
reasonable time span. PCBX has been demonstrated on transformer oils
but not on contaminated sediments (DEIS, 1981).
• Containment — A 250—acre site has been selected by NYSDEC near Fort
Edward for use as a secure containment site. Previously conducted field
investigations indicated that subsurface conditions at the proposed site
were suitable for construction of a secure landfill. Both gravity and
mechanical methods of sediment dewatering were considered; gravity
dewatering was expected to require from 1 to 2 years for completion,
whereas mechanical dewatering would Incur additional costs on the order
of $5,000,000 (DEIS, 1981).
Following the second season of dredging, the landfill is to receive a clay cap in
order to reduce both infiltration and volatilization. A design capacity of 2,260,000
yd 3 was selected for the full—scale dredging of 40 hot spots (DEIS, 1981).
Reduced—scale Dredpinq of a Portion of the Hot Spots
Because of Federal funding limitations under the Clean Water Act, It was
necessary to consider a reduced—scale dredging project. The Thompson Island pool
would be selected as the first dredge site since transportation and treatment costs
are low compared to other hot areas. The selection of hot spots to be dredged in
the lower pools will proceed following an evaluation of results from a proposed
probing and sampling program. Due to cost constraints, a clamshell dredge with
8—7
-------
hydraulic pumpout systems may be required for the dredging in the Thompson
Island pool (DEIS, 1981). In addition, remnant deposits 3 and 5 would be provided
with top covering and fencing, rather than removed and disposed into the
containment site (DEIS, 1981).
It is expected that the reduced—scale project would allow for the removal of
approximately 30 percent of the PCBs from the river. Under the reduced—scale
dredging alternative it would take from 20 to 50 years after cleanup for some
82,500 to 170,000 pounds of PCB to be transported to the estuary (Table 8—1). This
is between 14,000 and 55,000 fewer pounds of PCB transported to the estuary than
would be transported if the no—remedial—action/continued maintenance dredging
alternative were to be implemented. Alternately, approximately 32,000 pounds
less PCB will be transferred to the atmosphere and from 46,000 to 58,000 pounds
more PCB will be dredged under the reduced—scale dredging option.
Sediment disposal alternatives are the same as those discussed under the full—scale
dredging project. Should a secure containment site be chosen, it is expected that a
capacity of about 1,100,000 Vd 3 would be required.
8.1.1.3 Control River Flows
In order to reduce PCB migration during high river flows, this alternative suggests
controlling the Upper Hudson River flows from the Great Sagandaga Lake at the
Conklingville Dam. Flows from the Conklingvllle Dam account for approximately
28 percent of the total flow at Fort Edward during normal flows and approximately
20 percent during the 100—year flood (DEIS, 1981). There are no other flow
controls on the Upper Hudson River.
PCB concentration data obtained from U.S.G.S. monitoring stations have indicated
that PCB concentrations in the Upper Hudson River are flow—dependent.
Considering the load of PCBs in the river water column, it appears that flows of
8—8
-------
less than 12,000 cfs between Schuylerville and Stillwater carry very low loads of
PCBS, on the order of less than 20 lb/day (DEIS, 1981). Accordingly, It would be
necessary to maintain river flows of 12,000 cfs or less in order to avoid substantial
transport of PCBs.
Since the water flow over the Conklingville Dam constitutes only 20 to 28 percent
of the total flow at Fort Edward and since flows greater than 12,000 cfs occur 10
percent of the time between Schuylerville and Stillwater, It is apparent that either
a substantial reduction of flow from Great Sagandaga Lake or additional dams
would be required. Such a reduction may have a deleterious impact on the
generation of hydroelectric power, maintenance of navigable flows, and protection
of recreational value of the lake (DEIS, 1981).
8.1.1.4 In—River Detoxification
The in—river detoxification alternatives include techniques used to Isolate or
destroy the PCBs without removing them from the river. Major alternatives
include:
• Degradation by ultraviolet ozonation
• Chemical treatment
• Bioharvesting
• Activated carbon adsorption
Degradation by Ultraviolet Ozonation
The technique of ultraviolet ozonation encompasses two consecutive chemical
reactions: (1) use of ultraviolet radiation to decompose ozone which has been
previously added to the waste, and (2) formation of highly reactive radicals to
oxidize the PCBs. Ilowever, this technique is currently only applicable to eftluent
water treatment (Malcolm Pirnie, 1980d). and is therefore not suitable for
neutralization of PCBs in contaminated river sediments.
8—9
-------
Chemical Treatment
In—river chemical treatment has not been extensively investigated. It is expected
that it would be difficult to selectively treat the river sediments without affecting
the water column. All of the potential treatment techniques examined for this
RAMP have not yet been developed beyond the laboratory stage (Malcolm Pirnie,
1980d).
Bi oh a rvesti n p
This technique includes the removal of all aquatic organisms from the Hudson
River which have accumulated high PCB concentration, and subsequent disposal in
an environmentally acceptable manner. It has been estimated that this method
may require from 100 to 10,000 years to complete. (DEIS, 1981).
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Carbon adsorption is presently the most widely used process for the removal of
PCBs from industrial wastewater (Malcolm Pirnie, 1980d). To apply the principle
to river sediments, it has been proposed that a magnetized granular activated
carbon media be applied to the bottom sediments. The media would then be
retrieved with a continuous belt—type collection device (DEIS, 1981).
It has been estimated that costs for utilization of this alternative would be within
the range of $300/acres to $3,000/acres, excluding the cost of storage and
destruction of the contaminated carbon (DEIS, 1981). However, the concept has
not been fully developed and applied to a river system.
8.1.1.5 In—River Containment of Hot Spots
In—river containment of PCB hot spots has been considered for depositional areas
that are not located in the main channel. This alternative could reduce the
possibility of PCB transport and dispersal from contaminated areas.
8—10
-------
For relatively shallow deposits, In—river containment can be accomplished by a
variety of methods including:
• Earthen dikes or berms. These structures would be built parallel to the
river bank, separating the contaminated sediments from the deeper river
channel. A clay cap could additionally be utilized to further isolate the
PCBs from the active environment. Wetland vegetation would be planted
to stabilize the site (Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(SDEIS), 1981).
• Spur dikes. This method consists of the placement of riprap along the
upstream shoreline of the wetland and the construction of a dike at the
end of the riprap, angled downstream and outward into the river. Riprap
is also placed on the face of the downstream end of the dike for scour
protection (SDEIS, 1981).
• Bulkheads, which are constructed of pilings and sheetings and are used
similarly to dikes or berms (SDEIS, 1981).
• Sheet pilings, which are driven into the river bottom parallel to the
direction of flow. The pilings then form a relatively impervious boundary
by an interlock of the sheet pile edges.
• Impermeable liner. Hot spots would be covered with an impermeable
material which is resistant to scour.
The preceding methods are suitable for hot spots which are located in areas with a
history of deposition. Typical areas would include:
• Backwater or eddy deposits, commonly formed behind projecting points of
stable land (SDEIS. 1981).
• Deposits at the mouths of tributaries (SDEIS, 1981).
8—11
-------
• Historically stable deposits on the insides of meander bends (SDEIS, 1981).
• Areas of partially restricted flow conditions resulting from the disposal of
dredge spoil during routine channel maintenance (SDEIS, 1981).
The cost—effectiveness of stabilizing two wetland hot spots (hot spots 8 and 35j was
evaluated by the SDEIS (1981). It was determined that earthen diking of these
areas would, on the average, be slightly more expensive than dredging and
containing the contaminated sediments. In areas that are less than 6 feet below
the mean river stage, earthen diking may be slightly less costly than dredging.
However, in—place stabilization by earthen dikes would not be effective in reducing
scour at river flows higher than the 5 year flood, and the transfer of PCB to the
water column and aquatic biota during low flows would not be abated.
Another alternative, which is applicable to deep as well as shallow deposits, has
been considered for in—river containment of PCB hot spots. The recommended
procedure would be to cover the contaminated sediments with a plastic liner, silt
and rocks. However, during high flows, the silt may be scoured free and the liner
ruptured with a subsequent release of contaminated sediments (SDEIS, 1981).
8.1.2 Alternatives for PCBs in Remnant Deposit Areas
8.1.2.1 No Remedial Action
This alternative assumes that no additional remedial actions will be taken at the
remnant areas; bank stabilization, seeding, and material removal measures of
varying degrees have already been taken between 1975 and 1978. Volatilization,
high—river—flow scour, and long—term erosion would be allowed to continue. This
action is proposed as a component cit the reduced—scale dredging project (DEIS.
1981).
8—12
-------
8.1.2.2 Restricted Access
Under this alternative, measures would be taken to deter access of people,
vehicles, animals, etc., to the remnant deposits. Measures that .would be taken
include:
• Construction of chain—link fences on the landward sides of the deposits.
• Signs, which warn of the presence of toxic wastes, would be placed on all
sides of the deposits.
• Continued maintenance of fence and signs.
• Grass seeding of disturbed and unvegetated areas.
• Safety precautions for workers at the sites.
Although this alternative would reduce the potential for human contact with PCB—
contaminated sediments, it would not prevent losses from high flows and long—term
erosion (DEIS, 1981).
8.1.2.3 In—Place Containment of Remnant Deposits
To encapsulate the contaminated remnant areas, the following construction
procedures would be required:
• Placement of an impermeable cover, either man—made or clay or soil.
• Construction of a protective blanket, composed of graded material and
designed to withstand flood flow velocities.
• For complete encapsulation, installation of a curtain wall to deter
groundwater infiltration.
8—13
-------
Associated construction costs can be expected to be extensive, as access roads
would be required and between 5,000 and 10,000 truck trips would be needed to
transport materials to the sites (Malcolm Pirnie, 1980d).
This alternative would reduce river contamination from the remnant sites, protect
against scouring under flood conditions, and nearly eliminate volatilization.
However, the remnant areas would still remain a long—term risk dependent on
erosional changes of the river channel. Continual maintenance and monitoring
would be required. Also, the construction of a surging dam at Fort Edward would
submerge and eventually destabilize the remnant deposits, resulting in further
release of PCBs (DEIS, 1981).
8.1.2.4 Removal of Contaminated Materials at Remnant Deposit Areas
These alternatives assume that all or a portion of the remnant deposit areas will be
removed.
Complete Removal of all Remnant Deposit Areas
Comp(ete excavation of all of the remnant deposit sites would require the
movement of approximately 370,000 cubic yards of contaminated
sediments, and between 20,000 and 40,000 truck trips would be required
for transportation. About 46,000 pounds of PCBs would be removed from
the site, which would account for 14 percent of the total PCB mass
believed to be in the Hudson River (DEIS, 1981).
The major disadvantage of this concept is the removal of sediments with
low levels of contamination, resulting in low cost—effectiveness.
• Complete Removal of Deposit Areas 3 and 5
Complete excavation of remnant deposits 3 and 5 would require the
movement of approximately 215,500 cubic yards of contaminated
sediment and require between 11,000 and 22,000 truck trips to remove the
8-14
-------
matenal. No additional measures would be taken at remnant sites 1, 2
and 4 (Malcolm Pirnie, 1980d).
Under this alternative, several advantages become apparent, Including:
— Removal of the material (remnant sites 3 and 5) with the highest
concentration of PCBs in the Hudson River system.
— Substantial reduction of a potential long—term source of
contamination.
— Substantial reduction of PCB volatilization.
— The lower cost of PCB removal compared to the costs associated with
removal or containment of PCBs at other contaminated sites in the
Hudson River system (DEIS, 1981).
• Partial Removal of Deposit Areas 3 and 5
The NYSDEC has considered, as an alternative, removing only a portion of
the contaminated sediments from remnant deposits 3 and 5. It was
suggested that deposit 5 be excavated to a depth of 8 feet. Also, It was
recommended that deposit 3 be excavated to a depth of 1.5 feet and/or to
an elevation of 134 feet, and, at the southern end of the deposit, to the
depth of the water table. A total of about 73,400 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment would be removed from the two remnant deposit
sites (DEIS, 1981).
Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly (LMS) have also proposed a partial removal
plan for remnant deposits 3 and 5 which would excavate all material
above an elevation of 134 feet in the remnant areas. Under this proposal.
approximately 44,500 cubic yards of contaminated sediments would be
removed (DEIS, 1981), and roughly 3,700 to 7,400 truck trips would be
required (Malcolm Pirnie, 1980d).
8—15
-------
The LMS proposal was planned to accommodate the potential
reconstruction of the Fort Edward Dam. Fluctuations in dam pool
elevations would tend to wash PCB5 trom remnant deposits of equal
elevation. Correspondingly, excavation to an elevation of 134 feet would
remove all contaminated sediments in the area of pool fluctuation which
would be between 136 and 142 feet (Malcolm Pirnie, 1980d).
Partial removal of remnant deposit 3 is an advantageous alternative since
a large mass of PCBs could be removed by excavation of a relatively
small amount (13 percent) of the remnant deposit. Hauling costs would be
substantially reduced from the complete removal alternative.
AddItionally, it would be possible to seal the -remaining PCBs and
contaminated sediment in place.
8.2 Review of New Alternatives
An evaluation of the treatment technologies discussed In Section 7.0 indicated that
although all of the technologies proved to be useful——or potentially so——for
removing PCBs from oils, not all of the treatment methods could be used in
connection with PCB—contaminated sediments. Twelve of the treatment
technologies were found to be applicable to sediment decontamination, but none of
these could be used to treat sediments in river. A breakdown of these technologies
by applicability and stage of development can be found in Table 8—2. Only two
processes, KOHPEG and NaPEG, were found to be applicable as an in—situ solution.
This in—situ solution refers only to those sediments that are exposed (not covered
by water), as is the case with the remnant deposits. For all of the other
treatments the sediments must first be exposed——by dredging or by river—level
reduction——and treatment takes place after dewatering.
In addition to the In—river containment systems previously discussed, a new
containment option will be considered. This in—place capping option has been
8—16
-------
TABLE 8-2
TECHNOLOGY STATUS AND APPLICABILITY
Applicability Status
Can be used in Not Applicable
connection with for Sediment
Contaminated Sediments Decontamination Laboratory Developmental Production
Acurex X X
Biological Systems X x
Controlled Air Incinerator X x
Fluidized Bed Incinerator X x
Goodyear x
Hydrothermal X x
KOHPEG X x
LARC X X
Molten Salt Incinerator X x
NaPEG X x
Ozonation X X
PCBX X x
Photodecompositlon X X
Plasma Arc X x
Pyromagentics Incinerator X x
Rotary Kiln X x
Thagard HTFW x x
Ultraviolet/ozone X x
Wet Oxidation X X
-------
proven useful in deep as well as shallow ocean waters. The method, discussed in a
study presented to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, states that a sand cap placed
over the ocean bottom will provide good stability to covered sediments even during
very high energy conditions (O ’Connor, December 1982).
An in—river application of the method would be accomplished by placing a layer of
sand over contaminated river bed sediments. The placement of a cover would be
accomplished to immobilize PCB—contaminated sediments by preventing their
movement through the river system, and preventing the interchange of sediments
and accompanying organic material with the water column. The uncertainty
associated with this methbd is its applicability to a dynamic river system,
especially when considering the thickness of the cover needed (4 feet).
Another new alternative considered was in—river solidification. This process
involves the mixing of contaminated sediments with a thermoplastic, cementitious
or resinous material for in—place (under water) containment. The layering of this
material over the contaminated sediments for erosion control was also considered.
8.3 Review of Possible Combinations of Alternatives
The combination of remedial alternatives for PCB—contaminated sediments allows
for the maximization of an effective solution. This initial review of the
alternative combinations will incorporate only the general aspects of compatability
and effectiveness. After an evaluation and preliminary screening (Section 8.4), the
remaining alternatives and combinations •f alternatives will undergo an in—depth
analysis according to criteria outlined in the National Contingency Plan, as will be
discussed in Section 9 (NCP, Federal Register , 1982).
In keeping with previous discussions of alternatives, a review of alternative
combinations for river sediments (40 hot spots) and remnant deposits will be
treated as separate and independent actions.
8—18
-------
8.3.1 River Sediments
The alternatives discussed in this section will include those combinations applicable
to contaminated riverbed sediments.
8.3.1.1 Detoxification of River Sediments In Combination with Control of River
Flows
The control of river flows would be accomplished to allow for the maximum
exposure of river sediments throughout numerous reaches of the Hudson. By
lowering the river level in a reach, many of the hot spots would become exposed
and an in—situ detoxification method could be applied. Thern reasoning behind the
need to lower the river levels is that there are no in—Situ detoxification methods
available that will work in an underwater environment. B constructing (or
reconstructing) numerous dams on the river and adding flow control gates, water
levels could be controlled to any desirable level.
Unexposed sediments would not be removed under this alternative because of the
detoxification limitations. The same dams——and additional upstream dams——would
later be used to control river flows so that the remaining contaminated sediments
would not undergo transport due to high river flows.
8.3.1.2 Dredging In Combination with :
• Control of River Flows
River flow controls would be undertaken with similar objectives as those
for the previous method. With this alternative the exposed sediments
would be removed before treatment and/or landfilling.
Conventional river dredging techniques could be employed for the
unexposed sediments, while a dragline would be used to remove the
exposed sediments. The advantage to be gained by this combination will
be an increased access to the sediments, and the facilitated removal of
8—19
-------
dried sediments (lower volume) by the more efficient dragline. The
control of river flows can be used in connection with the bank—to—bank, 40
hot spot, or reduced—scale dredging alternative.
• In—River Containment
This pairing should optimize the use of the dredging and containment
alternatives; however, the bank—to—bank dredging alternative will not be
considered, for obvious reasons. Wetland and shallow (a maximum depth
of 6 feet below mean river stage) hot spots would be contained by the use
of barriers, etc., and the deeper sediments (where this containment is not
possible) would be dredged and the spoils removed from the system. The
advantage to be gained by this method is a cost savings realized by the
use of in—river containment methods instead of an initially more costly
dredging program. A ma]or drawback to the use of the containment
alternative is that there will be a continual maintenance cost associated
with each contained area.
8.3.1.3 Control of River Flows in Combination with In—River Containment
In—river containment would——as stated in the previous alternative——be used for
those hot spots located in the shallow (6—foot or less) areas along the banks and
islands of the Hudson. In addition, a river flow control program would be instituted
to reduce river velocities during periods of high river flows. This would serve to
prevent or reduce contaminated sediment transport during periods of high river
flows. To accomplish this, a system of up—river dams (new and existing) would be
used to control high river flows. By adjusting the drawdown of the reservoirs
during low flow periods to increase retention capacity, high flows could be reduced
by holding back some of the flow in the dam pool (Draft EIS, 1981).
Because a large dredging project would not be needed, a significant savings could
be realized in this area; however, the modification of existing dams and the
construction of new dams would prove to be a very expensive procedure.
8—20
-------
8.3.1.4 Multiple Combination of Partial Dredging, Detoxification of Spoils,
Control of River Flows, and Partial Containment
By implementing each component of the alternative in its most productive and
efficient way, a significant cost savings could result. While containment practices
could most efficiently be used in the shallow areas (6—foot water levels or less),
dredging could be more effectively used for deeper river sediments. To facilitate
the removal and containment processes, a river flow control program could be
implemented as discussed in previous sections. Finally, the removed sediments
would be detoxified, thus eliminating the need for a secure landfill.
8.3.2 Remnant Deposits
The alternatives discussed In this section wIlt include those combinations applicable
to contaminated remnant deposit sediments.
8.3.2.1 Partial Removal of Remnant Deposits in Combination with :
• In—Place Containment
For this alternative, the most highly contaminated sediments would be
removed. The remaining remnant deposits would be contained in—place.
This combination would remove the hlghestconcentrations of PCBs while
containing those areas where the health risk is not as severe. The
advantage to be gained here would be a cost savings associated with the
reduction of truck trips needed to relocate the contaminated sediments.
• Restricted Access
This alternative is similar to the previous alternative in that the highly
contaminated sediments would be removed, but the difference would be
that the remaining sediments would not be contained. Measures would be
taken at the remaining areas that would limit or prohibit access to these
areas by the public or wildlife.
8—21
-------
• Detoxification
In—place detoxification of sediments with PCB concentrations greater
than 50 ppm would be accomplished with the KOHPEG or NaPEG
methods, and the other contaminated sediments would be removed from
the sites.
8.3.2.2 In—Place Containment in Combination with :
• Restricted Access
With the addition of public access restrictions to contained and
uncontained areas, the problem of potential contact with contaminated
sediments should be greatly reduced. Those remnant areas with PCB
concentrations of 50 ppm and above would be contained using methods
described in Section 8.1. Security fences and warning signs would be
constructed around all of the remnant areas——contained or otherwise——to
limit public and wildlife access to the site.
• Detoxification
In—place detoxification of sediments with PCB concentrations greater
than 50 ppm would be accomplished with the KOHPEG or NaPEG
methods. After detoxification, the sediments would be solidified or
contained by dikes or berms on site for an environmentaIly safe and cost—
effective solution.
8.3.2.3 Restricted Access in Combination with Detoxification
Those remnant deposits that are located above the river level would be detoxified
using the KOHPEG or NaPEG methods. Those areas that cannot be detoxified or
have PCB concentratior s of less than 50 ppm would be restricted to public and
wildlife by fencing and posting of warning signs.
8—22
-------
8.3.2.4 The Combination of Removal, Restricted Access, and Detoxification
For this alternative, the sediments having PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm
would be removed, treated (either incinerated, or detoxified), and either landfilled
or replaced. The final approach to the problem would be to limit all public and
wildlife access to the remaining sediments with fences, barriers, and signs.
8.3.2.5 The Combination of Removal, Restricted Access, and Partial
Containment
Removal of the most highly contaminated (50 ppm PCB and over) sediments from
the remnant areas would be the initial phase of the in plementation of this
alternative. The remaining sediments——those that would be too difficult or
expensive to remove——would be stablized by using those methods discussed in
Section 8.1.1.5. The final measure taken would be by fencing and posting signs
around the areas to limit public or wildlife contact with these sediments where
contaminated sediments remain.
8.3.2.6 The Combination of Removal, Restricted Access, Detoxification,, and
Partial Containment
This alternative combination would be similar to the previous alternative except
that the removed sediments would be treated or detoxified by one of the methods
described in Section 8.2. Other areas——less contaminated——could be either
contained or detoxified as dictated by cost or Implementation problems. Finally,
all areas where contaminated sediments remain would be fenced and posted (except
for remnant area number 1) to limit access, except for remnant area number 1)
which is located in the middle of the river.
8.4 Preliminary Screening of Alternatives
An initial screeiiing of alternatives is required in order to eliminate obviously
infeasible or inappropriate technologies from consideration as viable remedial
actions. The remaining alternatives will then undergo a detailed evaluation in
order to determine the cost—effective alternative.
8—23
-------
The NCP has established three criteria for the initial screening of remedial
alternatives:
• Acceptable engineering practices
• Effects of the alternative
• Cost
A flow chart of the proposed screening process is presented in Figure 8—1. In the
technical screening phase, all infeasible, unapplicable, or unreliable technologies
will be eliminated. The remaining alternatives will then enter the
environ mental/public health/institutional (i.e., social concerns, legal concerns,
etc.) screening phase, where technologies that have significant adverse effects or
do not contribute substantially to the protection of health, welfare, or the
environment will be eliminated. This includes all remaining technologies/alterna-
tives whose costs are relatively expensive and do not offer substantial benefits.
Alternatives which have passed the previous screenings will enter into a much more
detailed evaluation/cost analysis.
8.4.1 Screening of Detoxification or Destruction Techniciues
Because the majority of the following technologies are still in the early stages of
development, little information is known about the environmental effects and cost
of each alternative. Acceptable engineering practices were weighted the highest
during the screening, with an advantage going to those processes that are fully
developed or nearly so. EPA screening criteria state that any alternative that
relies on unproven technology will be rated low. Those alternatives which passed
the initial screening process are further discussed in Chapter 9.
• Acurex — removed from further consideration
This process, although available for use, is difficult to implement and is
not permitted by the EPA for use on PCB—contaminated sediments.
• Biological Destruction — removed from further consideration
8-24
-------
INFEASIBLE,
NOT APPLICABLE, AND
UNRELIABLE TECHNOLOGIES
EXPENSIVE TECHNOLOGIES
OFFERING SAME OR
LESSER BENEFITS
OFFER ADEQUATE PROTECTION
FLOW CHART OF INITIAL SCREENING PROCESS
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
NUB
_CORPORA ON
0 A Halliburton Company
(7 ’
STEP 2
ENVIRONMENTAL;
PUBUC HEALTh;
INSTITUTIONAL
SCREENING
TECHNOLOGIES ThAT HAVE
ADVERSE EFFECTS OR DO NOT
REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE 8 -I
-------
Because this system has not proven itself effective for use on the highly
chlorinated biphenyls, it will not undergo any additional evaluation.
• Goodyear — removed from further consideration
This process is non—mobile and is difficult to use in conjunction with
contaminated sediments, and therefore has been removed from further
evaluation.
• Hydrothermal — removed from further consideration
Because work on this process is still in the early developmental stage, it
would not be available in the near future for use with Hudson River
sediments.
• KOHPEG — passed initial screening
Although testing has not been completed for this process, the EPA is
optimistic that this process will be effective. It is being included in the
final screening since it may be approved as a result of field testing by the
time this RAMP is implemented.
• NaPEG — removed from further consideration
This process would involve similar costs and effects as the KOHPEG
process, but it is not as reactive and is more sensitive to impurities; thus
it was removed from further evaluation.
• PCBX — removed from further consideration
The PCBX system has not been approved by the EPA for use on PCB—
contaminated sediments. In addition, the fact that the process requires a
solvent extraction of the sediments poses difficulties for onsite
implementation and thus removes this technology from further evaluation.
8-26
-------
• Plasma Arc removed from further consideration
This process Is still in the laboratory stage, and is thus considered too
preliminary for use with this project.
• Pyromagnetics Incinerator — removed from further consideration.
This process is currently relying on unproven technology, and the existing
unit is too small to be useful for the large volumes of Hudson River
sediments.
• Rotary Kiln — passed initial screening
• Thagard HTFW reactor — removed from further consideration
Because this reactor Is a non—mobile unit, the associated high operating
costs preclude further evaluation of this technology.
• Wet Air Oxidation — passed Initial screening
8.4.2 Screening of Single Alternatives
8.4.2.1 In—rIver Sediments
• Dredging — bank—to—bank — removed from further consideration
Bank—to—bank dredging would be difficult to implement, would incur large
capital costs, and would be destructive to the ecology of the river. It was
eliminated on this basis.
• Dredging — 40 Hot Spots — passed initial screening
• Dredging — Reduced—Scale — passed initial screening
8-27
-------
• In—river Containment — removed from further consideration
The containment option offers no advantage over the dredging option and.
after implementation, has more drawbacks. Although the initial costs
associated with in—river containment are approximately equal to that of
• dredging, maintenance and monitoring costs would continue and would
perpetually add costs to the project (DE 1S, 1981).
Although experimental capping of contaminated mud deposits with clean
sediments and sand in the New York Bight has proven successful
(O’Conner, 1982). capping of contaminated deposits in a river system has
not been studied. Three problems would hamper the use of such an
alternative in the Hudson River. First, uncontaminated sediments and
sand would have to be transported a great distance since any such
material found above Glens Falls is not accessible by barge, and suitable
material may not be available downstream in the Hudson River. Secondly,
future maintenance dredging could disturb the liner over many of the
larger hot spots. Only a few isolated wetland hot spots would be suitable.
Thirdly, silt and sand would not provide enough protection against scour
and, therefore, large volumes of expensive gravel and stone would be
required. For this reason in—river containment will not undergo further
evaluation.
• Control of River Flows — removed from further consideration
The cost of constructing the numerous dams necessary for this program
was considered too expensive for the limited benefits produced.
• No—Action — routine dredging ceases — removed from further consideration
Although this would be a cost—effective solution, the economic losses
would be too great after the cessation of commercial shipping in the river
as a result of sediment—blocked channels.
8—28
-------
• No—Action — routine dredging continues, with water treatment passed
initial screening
• No Action — routine dredging continues, without water treatment — passed
initial screening
8.4.2.2 Remnant Deposits
• Removal — total — passed Initial screening
• Removal — partial — passed initial screening
• Detoxification — In—situ — passed initial screening
• In—place Containment — passed initial screening
• Restricted Access — passed initial screening
• No Action — passed initial screening
8.43 Screening of Combinations of Alternatives
8.4.3.1 River Sediments
• Detoxification in combination with control of river flows — removed from
further consideration
Although the detoxification of river sediments exposed by low river levels
is possible, the construction of enough dams to accomplish this project
would be cost prohibitive.
• Dredging in combination with control of river flows •— removed from
further consideration
8—29
-------
The decision to remove this alternative from consideration was based
upon excessive construction costs. Included in this screening were all
three alternatives for dredging: bank—to—bank, 40 hot spot, and reduced—
scale.
• Bank—to—bank dredging in combination with in—river containment —removed
from further consideration
Bank—to—bank dredging has been removed from consideration during the
initial screening of alternatives as too costly a project.
• Dredging of the 40 hot spots in combination with in—river containment —
removed from further consideration
Because the in—river containment option offers no advantage over
dredging——as discussed before——this alternative will not be evaluated
further.
• Reduced—scale dredging project in combination with in—river contain-
ment — removed from further consideration
In—river containment would offer no advantage over dredging for a
reduced—scale project as well as the full—scale project. This alternative
was therefore removed from consideration.
• Control of river flows in combination with in—river containment — removed
from further consideration
The control of river flows alternative has been eliminated as a non—cost—
effective alternative.
• The combination of partial dredging, control of river flows, and partial
containment — removed from further consideration
8—30
-------
This alternative will no longer be considered due to the removal of the
control of river flow alternative.
8.4.3.2 Remnant DeDosits
• Partial removal in combinatioi with In—place containment — passed initial
screening
• Partial removal in combination with restricted access — passed initial
screening
• Partial removal in cOmbination with detoxiflcatio n (in—Situ) — passed
initial screening
• in—place containment in combination with restricted access — passed
initial screening
• in—place containment in combination with detoxification (in—situ) — passed
initial screening
o Restricted access in combination with detoxification (in—situ) — passed
initial screening
• The combination of partial removal, detoxification (in—situ), and
restricted access — removed from further consideration
This alternative was removed from further consideration because there is
not enough information available at this time about the location of PCBs
to determine where each technique would be appropriate.
• The combination of partial removal, partial containment, and restricted
access — removed from further consideration
Removed by the same reasoning as discussed above.
8—31
-------
• The combination of partial removal, detoxification (in—situ), partial
containment, and restricted access — removed from further consideration
Removed by the same reasoning as discussed above.
8—32
-------
9.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
9.1 Methodology for Evaluation of Alternatives
After completion of the initial screening of alternatives, a detailed evaluation of
the remaining alternatives was conducted In order to recommend a cost—effective
alternative. The cost—effective alternative is the lowest cost alternative that is
technologically feasible and reliable and which effectively mitigates and minimizes
damage to and provides adequate protection of public health, welfare, or the
environment (47 Federal Register 137). A trade—off matrix was used for evaluating
the cost—effectiveness of the remedial actions. The candidate alternatives were
rated according to several measures of effectiveness and cost. Weighting factors
were applied to the various measures as a technique to assign relative i17%portaflCe
to each measure. The final scores (sum of ratings times weighting factors for the
cost and effectiveness measures) were then compared in order to determine the
recommended alternative.
9.2 Criteria for Evaluation of Alternatives
9.2.1 Effectiveness Measures
The critical components of effectiveness measures were determined to be:
technical feasibility as well as public health, Institutional, and environmental
effects. Particular emphasis was placed on the following:
Technical FeasibIlity
— Proven or experimental technology
— Risk of failure
9—1
-------
• Public health effects
— Reduction of health and environmental impacts
— Degree of cleanup
• Institutional effects
— Legal requirements, Institutional requirements
- Community impacts
— Impacts on fishing, navigation, and generation of hydroelectric power
— Approval of land use
• Environmental effects
— Impact of failure
— Length of time required for cleanup
— Amount of- environmental contamination with respect to acceptable
levels
Based on these components, a set of independent effectiveness measures were
synthesized, as follows:
• Technology Status
• Risk and Effect of Failure
• Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation
• Ability to Meet Public Health & Environmental Criteria
• Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable
• Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements
• Ability to Minimize Community impacts
• Commercial impacts
9—2
-------
9.2.1.1 Technology Status
Technologies involved in a remedial alternative are either proven, widely used, or
experimental when applied to uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Generally, a
proven and widely used technology is to be rated highest, and experimental
technologies lower. For some specific pollution problems, the only technology
available for use at uncontrolled sites may be In the experimental stage. In such a
case, an experimental technology may be chosen as cost—effective If It Is highly
rated with respect to the other effectiveness measures.
Special attention should be paid to whether experience, in other less demanding
situations is applicable to a remedial action situation. 1
9.2.1.2 RIsk and Effect of Failure
The risk factor is the product of the probability of failure and the consequences of
such a failure. A high risk is associated with high probability of failure and
significant impacts. At most uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, a no actIons
alternative would be considered a high risk. Alternatives with a low probability of
failure and relatively minor potential Impacts resulting from failure are considered
low—risk alternatives. 1
9.2.1.3 Level of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable
In the context of this .methodology, cleanup implies that pollutants are removed
from the site and/or the environment by the remedial action alternative. Isolation
means that the transport of pollutants from the site to the environment Is stopped
or slowed. 1
1 This definition has been extracted from a methodology manual entitled
Evaluating Cost—Effectiveness of Remedial Actions of Uncontrolled Hazardous
organizing cltzens’ groups to review the remedial action, seeking legal advice, and
attending public meetings.
9—3
-------
9.2.1.4 Ability to Minimize Community Impacts
A community impact is broadly defined as any change in the normal way of life
which can be directly or indirectly attributed to the execution of the remedial
action. These changes Include those actions which people would not normally
undertake, such as moving permanently from a condemned property, moving to
temporary lodging during the remedial action, or undergoing health monitoring.
The above impacts are in some cases merely a source of irritation to a community.
However, some possible community impacts are clearly negative, such as increased
noise during the action, traffic congestion, loss of access to the site or to roads
near the site, decline in property values, and stress related to all of the above and
to uncertainty about health risks. 1
9.2.1.5 Ability to Meet Relevant Public Health and Environmental Criteria
This measure compares the remedial alternatives in terms of how well they attain
relevant public health and environmental standards such as those under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, or Clean Air Act. Alternatives would be
compared on level of attainment rather than just attainment or non—attainment. 1
9.L1.6 Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements
This measure assesses the ability of a given remedial measure to meet
requirements of local, State, and Federal permits; and suitability of the measure to
meet other pertinent legai requirements.
1 This definition has been extracted from a methodology manual entitled
Evaluating Cost—Effectiveness of Remedial Actions of Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Sites produced by the Radian Corporation, Austin, Texas, in 1983.
9—4
-------
9.2.1.7 Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/isolation
The time required for a remedial action alternative to achieve its designed degree
of cleanup or isolation may range from weeks to many years, depending on the
technology and site conditions. 1
9.2.1.8 Commercial Impacts
This measure evaluates the impacts of the remedial alternatives on the commercial
environment of the Hudson River. important factors may include the effects on
transportation, fisheries, public water supplies, hydroelectric power generation,
future construction, and agriculture.
9.2.2 Costs
According to CERCLA, a total cost estimate for a remedial action must include
both construction costs and annual operation and maintenance costs. .The Total
Construction Cost can be defined as the sum of the Total Direct Capital Cost and
the Total Indirect Capital Cost (Radian Corp.. January 1983).
Direct capital costs may Include the following cost components:
Construction Costs — Components include equipment, labor (including fringe
benefits and workman’s compensation), and materials required to install a remedial
action.
Equipment Costs — In addition to the construction equipment cost component,
remedial action and service equipment should be included.
Land and Site—Development — Costs include land—related expenses associated with
purchase of land and development of existing property.
Buildings and Services — Costs include process and non—process buildings and utility
hook—ups.
9—5
-------
Indirect Capital Costs may include the following components:
Engineering Expenses — Components will include administration, design.
construction surveillance, drafting, and testing of remedial action alternatives.
Legal Fees and License/Permit Costs — Components will include administrative and
technical costs necessary to retain licenses and permits for facility Installation and
operation.
Relocation Expenses — Relocation expenses should include costs for temporary or
permanent accommodation’s for affected nearby residents.
Start—up and Shake—down Costs — Costs incurred during remediai action start—up for
long—term activities should be Included.
Contingency Allowances — Contingency allowances should correlate with the
reliability of estimated costs and experience with the remedial action technology.
The operation and maintenance cost may include the following components:
Operating labor costs — Include aD wages, salaries, training, overhead, and fringe
benefits associated with the labor needed for post—construction operations.
Maintenance materials and labor costs — Include the costs for labor, parts, and
other materials required to perform routine maintenance of facilities and
equipment for the remedial alternative.
Auxiliary materials and energy — Include such items as chemicals and electricity
needed for treatment plant operations, water and sewer service, and fuel costs.
Purchased services — include such items as sampling costs, laboratory fees, and
professional services for which the need can be predicted.
9—6
-------
Disposal costs — Costs should include transportation and disposal of any waste
materials, such as treatment plant residues, generated during remedial operations.
Administrative costs — Cover all other O&M costs, including labor—related costs not
included under that category.
Insurance, taxes, and licensing costs — Include such items as: liability and sudden
and accidental insurance; real estate taxes on purchased land or right—of—way;
licensing fees for certain technologies; and permit renewal and reporting Costs.
Maintenance reserve and contingency funds — Represent annual payments into
escrow funds to cover anticipated replacement or rebuilding of equipment and any
large, unanticipated O&M costs, respectively. 2
Construction costs and operation and maintenance costs were estimated for the
above criteria. For operating and maintenance costs, a present—vaIue analysis
was used to convert the annual costs to an equivalent single value. Operation and
maintenance costs were considered over a 20 year period; a 10 percent discount
rate and 0 percent inflation rate were assumed. For the Hudson River PCBs Site,
costs for an environmental monitoring program were included as operation and
maintenance costs where appropriate. Estimated costs and supporting calculations
are included in Appendix C.
9.2.3 Weighting Factors
Weighting factors were previously defined as a means of assigning relative
Importance to the cost and effectiveness measures. A high weighting factor, which
identifies an Important measure, increases the effect of that measure with respect
2 The above definitions have been extracted from a draft Superfund Feasibility
Study Guidance Document compiled by .,JRB Associates. McLean. Va., 1983.
9—7
-------
to the final evaluation. Correspondingly, a low weighting factor reduces the effect
of a “low Importance” measure with respect to the final evaluation. Selected
weighting factors are presented in Table 9—1. WeightIng factors were developed by
an internal technical group using EPA guidance documents.
It was the decision of the evaluation committee that operation and maintenance
costs were more critical to the final ranking than construction costs.
Correspondingly, a higher weighting factor was assigned to operation and
maintenance costs (1.2) than to construction costs (1.0).
s.3 Evaluation of Alternatives
• 9.3.1 ExamInation of Remaining Alternatives
Alternatives which passed the Initial screening were further examined/developed so
that the alternatives could later be evaluated with respect to each of the
previously discussed effectiveness measures.
These examinations are summarized in the following subsections.
9.3.1.1 Remedial Alternative: Detoxification of Removed Sediments with KOHPEG
Description: Potassium hydroxide (KOH) and polyethylene glycols (PEG) react with
and destroy polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), producing reaction products of aryl
polyglycols and biphenyls. The presence or absence of air apparently has little
effect on the reaction. Reaction time Is reduced with increased temperature;
however, the reaction will proceed under ambient conditions.
KOHPEG has not been .applled in the field to soils containing PCBs, but application
to dredged sediments conceptually might proceed as follows. The dredged material
would be placed in a lagoon for dewatering to a suitable water content level. The
water would be decanted, tested, and possibly treated before discharge. Dredging
would only proceed until the calculated depth of dewatered sediments would not
9—8
-------
TABLE 9-1
WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES
Effectiveness Measures and Costs Weighting Factors
Technology Status 0.6
Risk & Effect of Failure 1.1
Level of Cleanup!
IsolatIon Achievable 1 .0
Ability to Minimize
Community Impacts 0.6
Ability to Meet
Relevant Public Health
and Environmental Criteria 0.6
Time Required to Achieve
Cleanup/Isolation 0.5
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional 0.5
Requirements
Commercial Impacts 0.4
Construction Cost 1 .0
Operation & Maintenance Cost 1.2
9—9
-------
exceed the effective treatment depth of one application of KOHPEG. Dredging
would be staged to meet this requirement. An initIal assumption of a one foot
depth could be made. KOHPEG could then be sprayed over the area, followed by
rototHling. The application rate would be a weight of reagent equal to 6 percent of
the weight of the removed sediment being treated. One fuii summer should be
allowed for the reaction to proceed. Testing could then be done to determine
whether the PCBs have been destroyed. The sequence of operations could then be
repeated, with the dredged sediments being placed over the decontaminated
sediments. Adjustments in the amount of dredging, application rate, and rototilling
on subsequent cycles could be made, based upon the results of the previous cycle.
An alternative method could also be used. The dredging could be completed In one
operation, with all material going to a lagoon for dewatering. The destruction of
PCBs would then follow the plan for the remnant deposit sites. in summary, this
would be the application of KOHPEG, rototilling, testing to determine the depth at
which the PCBs had been destroyed, excavating that material, and then repeating
the sequence until the full depth of dredged sediments had been treated.
Applicability: The detoxification of contaminated materials with KOHPEG could
be applicable to river sediments having a high PCB concentration.
Technology Status: The KOHPEG system is still in the laboratory stage, where
work that has been done on PCBs contained in transformer oils and soils seems to
show promise. Laboratory work indicates that PCBs contained In soils with
significant organic content will be destroyed, but may take several months. The
treatment system will tolerate some water In the soil, but the limit has not been
established. Use on dredged sediments will require testing to establish the limiting
water content level. A field application test Is expected to begin in the summer of
1984, and it is estimated that 12 to 18 months will be required for development of
techniques for large—scale application. Additional research is required to establish
dilution ratios for the reagent, dosage rates, and methods of application and to
develop procedures that will assure contact of the reagent with the contained
PCBS.
9—10
-------
Risk and Effect of Failure: The probability of failure of KOHPEG is dependent
upon the degree to which the solution comes in conta t with the PCBs. Assuming
the solution is rototilled into the sediments properly, the PCBs should become
detoxified and, hence, present no risk to the public. Should this assumption prove
invalid, the sediments will remain hazardous and must be treated as such.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: It may take several months for the
reagent to destroy the contained PCBs, and the speed of the reaction Increases
with increasing temperatures. It follows that it will likely require at least one
summer season for destruction of PCBs in a treated area. it is unlikely that all
sediment areas would be dredged at the same time, and dewaterlng before
treatment may be required. In addition, the time required to treat all dredged
sediment areas to the full depth of contamination will depend upon availability of
adequate quantities of reagent and upon the manpower commitment to treat
several areas concurrently. It is not possible at this time to predict the total
elapsed time.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: Acute toxicity tests
have been performed on the reaction products which result from the destruction of
PCBs in transformer oils. The products were found to have no biological activity
other than being a mild eye irritant, but no long—term biological tests have been
performed. Polyethylene glycols in the laboratory have been degraded by
anaerobic bacteria. It is expected that reaction products will be biodegradable
since they contain oxygen. Analyses of transformer oil and the reaction products
after treatment of PCB contaminated transformer oil were unable to detect PCBs,
polychlorinated dlbenzofurans (PCDF) or polychlorodibenzodioxins (dioxins).
Degree of Cleanup/isolation Achievable: Using this method, essentially 100
percent cleanup of the contaminated sediments can be obtained.
AbilIty to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: The treatment process may
require a Hazardous Waste Management Facilities permit as well as a National
Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the discharge of
decanted water. Additional State permits may be required for the construction of
9—11
-------
treatment facilities and the transport, discharge, and disposal of hazardous wastes.
Local building permits may also be required for land use.
Ability to Minimize Community impacts: This process will minimize community
Impacts if no digging of the dredged sediments is required for the reagent to
contact all contained PCBs. There may be some volatilization of PCBs if the soil
requires rototilling, but it should be minimal. No transport or treatment off site
would be required.
Commercial impacts: The periodic dredging of sediments may interrupt traffic on
the river. Once the treatment is completed; however, the river will eventually be
restored to a less contaminated state. This will enable it to be used once more for
recreation and commercial fishing.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included in Appendix C.
9.3.1.2 Remedial Alternative: Detoxification of Removed Sediments
with Wet Air Oxidation
Description: Wet air oxidation (WAD) is a commercially proven technology for the
•destruction of organics in wastewater and sludges; however, it is expected that
higher temperatures and pressures will be needed to destroy more environmentally
persistent chlorinated organic compounds. This difficulty apparently can be
overcome with the use of catalysts. WAO using catalysts will destroy chlorinated
compounds, such as PCBs, at relatively low temperatures, and will oxidize
essentially all organic materials.
In this application, the dredged sediments would have to be routed to a storage
basin because the dredge removal rate to attain an optimum solids and organic
content likely will exceed the WAO processing rate. As the organic content of the
waste increases, the amount of external heat required in the reaction is reduced.
However, the slurry needs to be fluid In order to be handled try the reactor.
Literature reports that the process can be self—sustaining at organic concentrations
which range from 1 to 4 percent. Actual sediment analyses show an average
9—12
-------
organic content of 5 percent on a dry—weight basis. Since dredging typically
provides a material with a solids content of 10 to 30 percent, as removed dred ed
material will have an organics content of 0.5 to 1.5 percent. The high end of this
range appears to be adequate for sustaining WAC without using external energy for
heating and is judged to be a pumpable slurry. Therefore, it is likely that the
storage basin would have to be mixed in order to maintain a pumpable slurry. For
cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that the basin Inlet and slurry discharge
to the WAC process will be about 25 percent solids and have an organic content of
1.25 percent. The slurry will be pumped into a continuously stirred tank reactor
containing the catalysts. Here, the air is sparged into the reactor to oxidize
organics, with the heat of reaction driving off water. The developer of the open
system indicates that catalyst poisoning has not been observed. The destruction
products of PCBs are water, carbon dioxide, lower volatile acids, and inert solids.
A heat exchanger will be used to preheat feed slurry. Condensed steam may
Contain oxidation product intermediates and thus may require further polishing
before discharge. Solids removed from the reactor should be inert if process
performance can be optimized; however, further testing will be required to assure
that a suitable disposal option is employed.
Applicability: Catalyzed WAO is applicable to the destruction of chlorinated
organics contained in slurries or sludges, although pilot work on PCBs In such
materials has not been done.
Technology Status: The work on WAO as applied to PCBs has been on a laboratory
scale only. It is believ.ed that catalyzed WAO will destroy PCBs in soil because of
success in destroying other chlorinated organlcs. Production units in operation are
limited to two units treating 10 gallons per minute of liquid waste containing
40 grams per liter of COD. Units to freat soils containing PCBs could be made
portable. Large—scale production facilities for the use intended in this study have
not been constructed or tested.
Risk and Effect of Failure: A relatively high risk is associated with the
implementation of this alternative.
9—13
-------
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: A process design for a 25 gallon per
minute unit has been conceptualized. With a slurry containing 15 percent solids,
31 pounds of sediments per minute would be treated. Such a unit operating around—
the—clock would process about 100 cubic yards of sediment per day. It is proposed
that sufficient WAO units be used in order to maintain a detoxification rate equal
to the dredging rate. Therefore, the detoxification process should be completed
shortly after completion of dredging operations.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: Reportedly, catalyzed
WAO should completely destroy PCBs contained in soils and thus present no
violations of public health and environmental criteria. Testing has not been done
on production—scale units to establish the fate of other potentially hazardous
materials that might be present In the sediments before treatment.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: Catalyzed WAO should completely
destroy the PCBs contained in the river sediments.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: The treatment process may
require a Hazardous Waste Management Facilities permit as well as an NPDES
permit for the discharge of decanted water. Additional State permits may be
required for the construction of treatment facilities and the transport, discharge.
and disposal of hazardous wastes. Local building permits may also be required for
land use.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: There will be no transport or spill Impact
on the community because the sediments will not be transported off site. The
potential for possible air contamination by materials other than PC9s contained in
the sediments is unknown. Disposal of dredged sediment after application fo the
process should present no problems since It could be used as clean fill. etc.
Commercial Impacts: Once the treatment is completed, the river will eventually
be restored to a less contaminated state. This will enable it to be used once again
for commercial fishing and recreational purposes.
9-14
-------
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included in Appendix C.
9.3.1.3 Remedial Alternative: Destruction of Removed Sediments by Incineration
Description: In order to develop the costs for this alternative, an incineration
system which is technically feasible has been proposed. it includes the following
operations: de—watering of the influent, batch feeding of the solids into the
incineration unit, incineration, disposal of the residue, and air pollution control.
The original design of the system uses a movable incinerator with the thought that
this may minimize transportation costs of the dredge spoils. A movable rotary kiln
has been selected which could be either batch fed or continuously fed. Since the
possibility of installing the unit on a barge is also under consideration, the decision
was made to use the batch—feed option. Some coagulation and dewatering
procedures have been included in order to put the dredge spoils slurry Into a form
suitable for incineration. The residue expected after incineration would be a
sterile, clean material.
Applicability: This process is applicable to processing dewatered sediments or
remnant deposits which contain adsorbed PCBs.
Technology Status: This technology has been in use for years and is considered to
be standard technology.
Risk and Effect Failure: This risk factor will be low for the following reasons:
• In order to provide a common costing basis, the incineration was required
to be completed within two years. This resulted in a number of units
being used rather than just one. Although the use of multiple units
provides a redundancy factor, the result is that breakdown of individual
units will not halt the incineration process.
• The technology is common, and is not liable to fail.
As a result, the proposed system should be considered to be a low—risk alternative.
9—15
-------
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: It is proposed that the Incineration
be completed within two dredging seasons; that is. as the sediment is dredged, it Is
almost immediately incinerated.
The Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: As long as the
incineration process Is operated to meet Federal requi ements regarding
temperature and dwell time, this alternative will completely destroy the PCBs and
the sediments.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: The incineration alternative should
completely eliminate the PCB’s in the sediments incinerated.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: The treatment process may
require a Hazardous Waste Management Facilities permit as well as an NPDES
permit for the discharge of air pollution control water and water from the de—
watering process. Additional State permits may be required for the construction of
treatment facilities and the transport, discharge and disposal of hazardous waste.
State and/or Federal permits may be required for the air emissions. Local building
permits may also be required for land use.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: Since multiple units will be required, a
number of sites can be located along the river. This would minimize transportation
of waste on the roads and reduce community Impact. However, there will be
Increased noise as a result of the operation of the incinerators. In addition, there
will also be increased traffic required by delivery of supplies and fuel, and removal
of the incinerated residue to an unsecure landfill. There may also be some air
pollution due to dust and steam from the incineration operations.
Commercial Impacts: This alternative will result in complete elimination of the
PCBs. It will reduce the requirements for disposal capacity to approximately one
third of that needed for disposal of non—incinerated dredge spoils. In this way the
amount of agricultural land taken out of service will be reduced.
9—16
-------
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and were included in Appendix C.
9.3.1.4 Remedial Alternative: Secure Landfill Disposal of Removed Sediments
Description: This alternative includes siting, design, construction, operation,
closure and post—closure monitoring and maintenance of a single, multi—celled,
controlled access, dredged, PCB—laden sediment landfill. According to Malcolm
Pimie, Inc., Containment Site No. 10, near Fort Edward, New York, appears to be
the most favorable site (see Figure 4—3). The basic design, construction, operation,
closure, and post closure monitoring and maintenance are described by Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc. (September 1980, Dredging System Report Program No. 2; September
1980, Design Report; September 1981. Contract No. t Containment Site—
Specifications) and U.S. EPA (August 1981, Supplemental Draft EIS; October 1982,
Final EIS).
This alternative provides an encapsulated, stable, dewatered, monitored, and
secured containment area which is essentially equivalent to, or exceeds,
appropriate regulatory requirements and commonly acceptable engineering
practices for PCB landfills.
The following is a description of the proposed 250—acre containment site provided
by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.:
Containment Area — The containment area is an earthen basin bisected by a cross
dike. It occupies appro dmately 63 acres in area at its maximum water surface and
its total containment volume at the maximum water surface is 2,260,000 Cu yds.
This volume is sufficient to hold all of the 40 hot spot sediments, the remnant
deposits, and the DOT spoil areas, If necessary.
The containment area will be designed for long—term encapsulation of PCB—
contaminated materials, and will therefore be capped with a clay cover after each
season of dredging.
9—17
-------
Roughing and Storage Pond — The roughing and storage pond (R&SP) Is an earthen
basin with a maximum water surface area of approximately 12 acres.
After the slurried dredge material is pumped into the containment area, weir
overflow is transported via pipeline to the R&SP. The primary purpose of this
basin is to ensure efficient sedimentation near the end of each dredging season as
the effective overflow rate In the containment area increases. The R&SP also
provides protection for the subsequent treatment units from any upsets in the
containment area which might lead to transient escape of dredged material.
A small portable dredge will be operated to recycle settled dredgea material back
into the containment area.
The R&SP is not a permanent containment unit. At the end of the dredging
program, all of the contaminated material In the R&SP will be relocated to the
containment area and the pond will be filled in and regraded.
Surge Pond — The surge pond is an earthen basin with a maximum water surface
area of 2.4 acres. This pond receives weir overflow from the R&SP. Its purpose is
to buffer the treatment plant units from surges in the dredging process and to
provide a convenient, sediment—free point for treatment feed and recycle supply
pump suctions if a recycle dredging procedure is Implemented. A detailed
discussion of dredging options is presented in the Containment Site Design Report.
Water Treatment Plant — The water treatment plant consists of two earthen basins:
the flocculation basin and the settling basin, with maximum water surface areas of
0.1 and 1.0 acres, respectively. The planf has a capacity of 13 millIon gallons per
day (mgd) and Consists of coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation units. The
purpose of the water treatment plant is to reduce PCB concentration In the dredge
return flow before discharge to the rIver.
9—18
-------
The water treatment plant is expected to achieve effluent suspended solids of less
than 4 milligrams per liter and turbidity of less than 10 Nephelometric Turbidity
Units ( JTU) with proper chemical doses. The average PCB concentration in the
discharge is expected to be in the 10—20 microgram per liter range.
Pump Station — The pump station consists of three mixed—flow pumps, each with a
capacity of 4500 gallons per minute (gpm). One of the three pumps functions as a
standby. The pump station’s function is to provide a reasonably constant influent
feed to the water treatment plant.
- Leachate Collection System — The leach ate collection system is a network of
perforated drainage piping laid in gravel—filled, filter—.cloth—lined collection
trenches at the base of the containment area. The bottom of the containment area
is sloped to transmit flow towards the trenches.
The leachate collection system will be utilized in two phases: short—term
dewatering and long—term percolation.
Valves, collection and sampling wells, and a flow metering and monitoring manhole
are provided to determine the quantity and concentration of PCBs in the leachate.
Discharge to the Hudson River will only be permitted If the observed leachate
quantities and concentrations will have no adverse impact on the river. If river
discharge proves unacceptable, the leachate will be collected and treated.
Stormwater Drainage System — The stbrmwater drainage system will intercept and
convey stormwater runoft that will directly affect the containment site. Runoff
on the containment site and from the watershed north of the containment site, will
be transported by the drainage system to the Hudson River.
The components of the drainage system entail a combination of swal s, open
channels, and closed conduits.
g—i 9
-------
Access Road — An access road will be provided between Route 4 and the chemical
feed building. This roadway will permit access to tank trucks delivering bulk
chemicals, as well as access and parking for contractor, engineering, and DEC
personnel.
Chemical Feed System — The pumps, piping, tanks, and dilutIon water needed for
the chemical feed system for the treatment of the dredged slurry will be housed in
a chemical feed building.
Appurtenances — Also included in the construction site requirements are electrical
services, fencing, seeding, clearing and grubbing of wooded areas, and
establishment of monitoring wells.
Applicability: This alternative applies to long—term storage of PCB—Iaden remnants
and sediments which are dredged from the Upper Hudson River. The alternative is
well suited in this application because of the location and specific siting and design
criteria which have evolved during its development.
Technology Status: This alternative requires technology which is generally
available, routine, and nonexperimental. Key elements, which are surface
dewatering, landfill design, treatment of leachate, collection and routing of
leachate. and closure and post—closure maintenance, are widely practiced in the
management of hazardous waste sites. The IntegratIon of these elements, though
not commonly applied to hazardous waste sites because hydraulic loading is
generally not a factor, is very commonly applied and Integrated in well—established
Industrial waste management Such Industry experience is common for red—mud
aluminum waste, papermill waste, and copper mining wastes.
Risk and Effect of Failure: This alternative has a very low probability of failure
and very low probability of risk, and is therefore an extremely low—risk alternative.
This assessment is based on the fact that it is technically feasible to contain and
store PCB—laden sediments in a properly designed landfill as proposed. and that the
consequences of failure to contain are slight because of site factors, such as
abundance of native clay subsoil, and distance to potential health vectors.
9—20
-------
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: The construction of the containment
site and treatment plant facilities would occur during the first year of the dredging
program. Dredging will begin in the second year and will be completed in the third
year. Final cover and regrading of the site and destruction of the earthen dikes for
the roughing and storage pond and surge pond will take place in the fourth year.
Therefore, the containment of PCB—laden sediments will require a total of four
years.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: This alternative meets
or exceeds current approprIate regulatory requirements, environmental standards,
and public policies under current enforcement guidelines. These requirements.
standards, policies and guidelines are dynamic and subject to future change.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: Based upon review of the design for the
containment site, the degree of isolation appears to be high to very high.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: This alternative should meet
the requirements under RCRA for a PCB landfill. However, the contair ment area
as designed will not meet groundwater or liner requirements, because of the
proximity to groundwater, and a waiver from the EPA administrator would be
required. In addition, a NPDES permit would be required for any discharge from
the leachate collection system. State permits may be required for the construction
of the containment site and the transport and disposal of hazardous material. Land
use may also require local building permits.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: This alternative has a moderate ability
to minimize community impacts. There is current litigation ‘and citizen—group
organization, but these are not necessarily negative Impacts.
Commercial Impacts: This alternative will have a very low impact on the oftsite
commercial sector after completion, with a moderate impact during construction
and operation. The site itself would not have wildlife or agricultural value
equivalent to Its earlier potential use.
9—21
-------
Costs: Deta iled costs were estimated and are included in Appendix C.
9.3.1.5 Remedial Alternative: Dredging of 40 Hot Spots
Description: The alternative addressed In this section is essentially a combination
of activities comprising the removal phase of the 40—hot—spot dredging program set
forth by NYSDEC in the Draft Environmental Quality Review Document of
September 1980. This program called for the use of conventional hydraulic and
mechanical dredging systems to achieve the removal of the 40 hot spots which
ware identified in the Upper Hudson River.
The first year of the program is to be spent resampling and emapping the bottom
sediments to afford more accurate and up—to—date hot—spot delineations and
sediment characterizations. It is recognized by State officials that it will not
always be desirable to dredge contaminated wetlands because of their valuable
contributions to river species diversity and bioproduction. Therefore, in the year
prior to dredging, an analysis of PCB losses from wetlands due to volatilization,
scour, and blouptake is to be made so that the ecological value of wetlands can be
weighed against the risks posed by the continued presence of PCBs.
In the second year of the program, both hydraulic cutterhead suction dredges and
clamshell dredges with mechanical pumpout systems are to be employed In
removing the hot spots in the Thompson island Pool. in the third year, the clam
shell dredge/hydraulic pumpout system alone is to accomplish the removal of the
20 remaining hoy spots in the Lock 6 through Lock 1 pools.
Detailed, contractually binding, mitigating measures designed to limit adverse
environmental Impacts and to maximize the efficiency of PCB removal are to be
incorporated in the final design specifications. Mitigating measures applicable to
dredging and transportation of dredged material include:
Hot Spot Delineation-— Additional sediment sampLes would be taken prior
to any remedial dredging to better define the depth and areal extent of
contamination. The existing sediment PCB data—base is accurate enough
9-22
-------
for planning, but not for implementation of a hot—spot dredging program.
The data are fairly complete for the upper pools, but become more
intermittent with distance downstream. Additional data are desirable to
more precisely define the hot spots in order to ensure accurate removal of
contaminated material.
• Overcutting — when possible, a removal depth of approximately 36 Inches
will be maintained to ensure the removal of all contaminated sediments
and to avoid the direct exposure of highly contaminated strata to the
water.
• Scheduling — Dredging would take place during the low—flow period
between May 15 and September 15 (or until higher flows resume in the
fall) to minimize-downstream PCB losses.
• Operator Precautions, Hydraulic Dredge — PCB losses from the hydraulic
dredge would be minimized by contractual control of the cutter and swing
speed.
• Operator Precautions, Clamshell Dredge — PCB losses from th& clamshell
dredge would be reduced by limiting the hoisting speed through the water
column, and by positioning the dredge and receiving barge so as to
minimize the length of bucket swing about the water. A dredge bucket
with a capacity of at I’east 5 cu yd will be specified to ensure the proper
depth of cut. Overlapping of dredge cuts will be specified to ensure that
contaminated sediments which slough into the previous cut will be
recovered.
• Hydraulic Dredge Modifications — The feasibility of placing a shroud over
the top of the cutter in order to increase suction effIciency and to limit
the escape of suspended material will be examined carefully in the design
phase. Other innovative approaches, including installation of a dustpan—
type head, will be examined.
9-23
-------
• Clamshell Dredge Modifications — Tight seals on the bucket lips will be
required. The feasibility of placing a shroud over the top of the bucket or
completely enclosing the bucket to reduce washout during hoisting will be
assessed in the design phase.
• Floating Boom — Where dredging results In a floating scum, a floating
boom would be positioned downstream from the work site. The
employment of such a boom should not Impede navigation and would be
dependent on favorable current conditions. The boom would be cleaned at
least daily, and the trapped matenal placed in the disposal site.
• Silt Curtain — Where dredgIng results in an extensive surface plume, a silt
curtain may be required. The curtain would extend from the water
surface to a point midway in the water column.
• Marsh Restoration — if it is determined that the benefits of dredging a
particular contaminated marsh-hot—spot outweigh the adverse impacts of
habitat loss, and one or more.wetlands are removed, marsh restoration
may be a feasible mitigating measure. Malcolm Pirnie (1980) has outlined
the steps required for marsh replacement following dredging. These steps
are summarized below:
— Dredged areas would- be filled with uncontaminated sediments to
predetermined, above—grade elevation.
— Following settling and consolidation, areas would be filled and/or
graded to final elevation.
— Upstream structures may be required in order to minimize scour
downstream silt screens may be needed to minimize sediment loss.
— After final grading, nursery—grown stock or sprigs from nearby
marshes would be transplanted and maintained for at least one season.
9—24
-------
Malcolm Pirnie noted that replacement plants must be set out at the same
elevations that pre—existing or nearby plants of the same species are
established. Avoidance of areas subject to high velocity and scour is
necessary in achieving successful restoration.
Pirnie reported successful regeneration of wetlands with Peitandra
virginica (arrow arum), Pontederia cordata (pickerel weed), Sagittaria
latifolia (duck potato), Scirpus americanus (American three square), Typha
sp. (cattail) and Leersia orvzoides (rice cut grass). All of these species
are found in the existing Upper Hudson marshes.
• Shoreline Conditions — During the dredging design phase, detailed field
studies and analyses will be undertaken to minimize interferences with
overhanging trees and to avoid river bank instability.
• Hydraulic Dredge Pipeline — Where navigation may be impeded, it would
be necessary to submerge the pipeline.
• Pipeline Leaks — While small ieak& are inevitable, operation would be
stopped immediately if a major leak or a break occurred.
• Hydraulic Pumpout of Barges — In order to reduce leakage, welded
connections would be used in the pipeline construction, and a check valve
installed at the pumpout station to prevent backflow.
• Loading of Barges — Sufficient freeboard must be maintained inside the
barge to prevent overflow or spillage during transport. Alternatively, a
splashboard could be - installed around the top of the barge, permitting
complete filling and thereby maximizing productivity.
Applicability: This alternative is applicable to contaminated river bottom
sediments only.
9-25
-------
Technology Status: Standard mechanical and hydraulic dredging equipment has
been in use for years and Is currently used in the study area for routine channel
maintenance. The application of conventional dredging equipment for removal of
contaminated sediments for a natural waterway has not been tested on a large
scale.
The Mudcat dredge, a small hydraulic dredge with a horizontal cutting bar, has, in
recent years, been successfully employed In removing toxic sludges from industrial
waste’impoundments. In the Lower Hudson River, a Mudcat was used to attempt
the cleanup of cadmium—contaminated sediment in Foundry Cove . After multiple
passes and removal of 5,000 cu yd of sediment, the dredge was found to have
removed an estimated 5—6 tons of cadmium, while Ieavin nearly 50 tons still
remaining. Dredging by this method was judged to be ineffectual.
The Pneuma dredge, a small flexible pneumatic system, has been used to clean up
PCB—contaminated sediments from the Duwamish River estuary in Washington.
This dredge, in combination with hand dredging, effected 90 percent recovery of
265 gallons of Aroclor 1242. Unfortunately the conclusions of this study are not
applicable to Hudson River dredging since the Duwamish problem was one of a
fresh PCB liquid spill confined to a relatively small area of soft, fine sediment.
Dredging system alternatives have been evaluated by Malcolm Pirnie, Gahagan and
Bryan. and WAPORA. and the conclusions were that a combination of cutterhead
suction dredging and mechanical clamshell dredging with hydraulic unloading of
hopper barges was the most appropriate method available. A brief discussion of
each is provided below.
Hydraulic dredges mix ambient water with subaqueous material to form a slurry
which is pumped through a floating or submerged pipeline to Its destination.
Cutterhead suction dredges of the type specified for the program make use of
rotating, circular cutter blades at the end of a suction pipe. With the cutterhead, a
wide variety of material, from fine silts to decomposed rock fragments. may -be
removed. The use of such dredges is advantageous for dredging in the Upper
9—26
-------
Hudson River, where a heterogeneous mixture, including chunks of wood, is
expected to be encountered.
This system offers the additional advantage of one—time handling of material
between the dredging operation and disposal area. Subsequently, large volumes of
material are moved economically because of a virtually Continuous operating cycle.
Continuous handling also minimizes the potential for accidental spills.
One of the technical drawbacks of the suction dredge system is that it requires
approximately one booster pumping station for each mile of pipe through which the
dredge material must be transported. Under the original program, the operation of
the hydraulic system was to have been limited to the Thompson Island pool because
of the high costs associated with booster stations and long pipelines needed to
connect the proposed containment area with the dredge operation in remote pools.
With the availability of the proposed’ containment site in question, the use of
hydraulic dredges can be considered for downstream pools, if multiple sites are
used.
Gahagan and Bryan report that the operation of a single, 16—inch cutterhead
suction dredge would require one derrick barge, two 16—inch booster pumps, two
bulldozers, one small tug, one tender tug, one fuel barge, one work barge, pipeline,
and miscellaneous machinery.
Clam shell dredges consist of a barge—mounted crane equipped with a heavy,
double—leaved, hinged bucket which is lowered into the sediment. The bucket is
then hoisted above the hopper, and excavated material is loaded into adjacent
hopper scows for transport to the disposal area. A hydraulic pumpout system is to
be used to transfer dredged material from the barge to -the handling area. This is
preferable to mechanical handling since It speeds up handling and reduces spillage.
To operate the hydraulic pumpout system, the sediment in the hopper scow is
mixed either with ambient river water or recycled water from the treatment plant
to form a 15 percent slurry. The slurry is then pumped to the handling area.
9—27
-------
The clam shell dredge has the advantages of being easily obtainable and very
mobile. When the clam shell dredge/hydraulic pUmpout system is used with
recycled treatment plant water, it has the advantage of avoiding the contamination
of large volumes of river water.
Clam shell dredges are less precIse than hydraulic dredges, and the potential for
loss of contaminated material is greater. Clam shell dredge buckets also have
problems with penetratIng compacted layers of sediment. These disadvantages can
be minimized by a skilled operator and the specified use of certain mitigatIng
measures.
Under the proposed plan this system would require two clam shell dredges, two
work barges, five hopper scows, one 800 hp tug boat. two tender tugs, pumpout and
unloading machinery and piping, plus miscellaneous equipment
Since all equipment needed is currently available and all mitigating measures and
special modifications. require no substantial research and development, the
technical feasibility is high.
Risk and Effect of Failure: It was contended by NYSDEC and their consultants
that this program was the most implementable and cost—effective approach.
achieving the greatest reduction in sediment PCB—load per dollar expended and per
acre of riverbed exposed. Considering the expected PCB losses during the dredging
operation In addition to the uncertainties in PCB recovery due to the hot—spot
scour and analytical and sampling variability, the risk of failure to achieve the
objective may be moderate.
In the tong term, failure to achieve the objective wilt not result In a level of
environmental damage or public health risk which is substantially higher than that
which now exIsts. Short term problems, In the form of elevated water and air
concentrations and Increased fish contamination as a result of the disturbance of
highly contaminated sediments, are a distinct possibility. The project expenditures
in the case of failure will not be a total loss since valuable information regarding
the cleanup of contaminated waterways will be obtained.
9-28
-------
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: Writing and reviewing technical
specifications, bidding, making contractual arrangements, and obtaining all
necessary permits will take a minimum of one year. During this time resampling
and wetland analysis can take place. Actual dredging operations will take two
seasons. The completion of the project can therefore take place within a minimum
of three years.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: The rationale behind
the 40—hot—spot dredging program assumes that river bed contributions to water,
biota, and air pollution are related to the sediment PCB concentration and that, all
factors being equal, elimination of the areas of highest contamination will achiev
a reduction in biouptake, desorption, resuspension, and volatilization of PCBs.
It is reasonable to assume that PCB contributions to the water column by bottom
sediments are heavily dependent on concentration. On a system—wide basis,
however, the relative areal extent of highly contaminated sediments versus less
contaminated areas should be considered. The areal extent of cold areas is nearly
17 times the total area of hot spots. The relative contributions of extensive cold
areas with average PCB concentrations of 20 g/g should be weighed against the
contribution of a relatively small area with an average concentration of 1.27 g/g.
Moreover, when the contention is accepted that hot spots, by their nature, form in
protected, low—velocity, low—turbulence areas; then It must also be accepted that
scouring during high flows would be less for hot spots than for cold areas, and also
that during low flows the dispersal of desorbed PCBs Is less because turbulent and
diffusive transfer mechanisms are reduced. In the short term, removal of PCB hot
spots may not reduce water oIumn concentrations, and hence PCB volatilization
rates as dramatically as expected. In the long run, removal of hot spots will reduce
the amount of PCBs in the river and possibly the time of exposure of the
environment to PCB contamination.
Removal of PCB hot spots could reduce fish contamination. Much of the
microfauna and small fish biomass on which the larger species feed Is produced in
shallow, protected areas, many of which are highly PCB—contaminated. Removal
of these areas would substantially reduce the potential for biouptake and
9—29
-------
accumulation. Removal of only hot spots ‘would ensure that not alt of this critical
habitat would be destroyed.
Simplified food—web modeling by consultants of NYSDEC revealed that the Upper
Hudson hot—spot dredging could possibly reduce fish PCB body burdens by 50 per-
cent. Unfortunately this still leaves an average PCB concentration of 20—40 ppm,
and It Is estimated that fish concentrations may not reach acceptable levels in less
than a decade unless the ambient water concentration is reduced to 0.01 ppb. A
strong connection between hot spot removal and the recovery of the fishery.
however, has never been made.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: The hot—spot dredging program wilt
attempt to recover 1,453,000 cu yds of sediment contaminated with 170,000 pounds
of the 290,000 pounds of PCB estimated to be in the Upper Hudson River bottom
sediments. Factors detrimental to the achievement of this goal include:
• Sediment losses to the dredge plume.
• PCB—contaminated sediments missed by the bucket or dredgehead.
• Accidental spills and pipeline breaks.
• Hot—spot movement.
• Accuracy of hot—spot delineations.
Inaccuracies in dredge cut positioning and depth control, sediment sloughing, and
difficulties with obstructions and debris will cause any dredging project to be less
than 100 percent effective in retrieving all of the desired material. In addition,
the operations themselves generate plumes of suspended material, most of which
may never by recovered.
A review of common dredging practices in relation to the recovery of
contaminated sediments revealed that during normal operations, efficiencies may
9—30
-------
be as low as 65 percent. On the other hand, implementation of double—pass
dredging to obtain the remaining contamination yields a substantial amount of
uncontaminated sediment which must be treated as hazardous material.
Tofflemire concluded by recommending the consideration of preplanned overlaps
and dredge cuts controlled with the aid of modern electronic locating equipment.
In another study, Tofflemire reported that conventional dredges in the Hudson
River often created a highI PCB—contaminated surface scum. This scum could be
contained with a floating boom positioned downstream from the dredge.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., estimated that unrecovered sediment resulting from these
loss mechanisms would total about six percent of the amount of material to be
dredged when a depth of 36 Inches was specified. Assuming that the percentage of
PCBs missed or lost during the dredging operation is equal to the percentage of
sediment missed or lost, approximately 10,000 pounds of the estimated 170,000
pounds of PCBs residing in hot spots will not be recovered.
The amount of PCBs missed or lost during the dredging operation can be minimized
if the mitigating measures which have already been specified are followed. In
addition, a comprehensive monitoring plan will be Implemented which will require
an immediate cessation of dredging activities if specific water quality criteria
indicate excessive tosses.
Accidental spills and pipe breaks are distinct possibilities. Such losses could be
minimized by requiring t e immediate halt to activities If such an event occurs. In
addition, incentives for secure operating procedures will be offered.
The effectiveness of the 40—hot—spot dredging program will depend heavily on the
degree of scour and amount of movement which has occurred in the river since the
initial survey was completed in 1978. According to estimates presented earlier in
this, report, approximately 25,000 pounds of PCBs have been transported over the
Federal Dam at Troy. Assuming that the locations of hot spots have not changed
substantially and that the transported PCBs originated from turbulent, high—
velocity “cold areaS,” then the maximum amount of PCBs which could be removed
9—31
-------
(with dredge losses at 6 percent) is about 160,000 pounds, or 55 percent of the total
PCB burden of the sediments in the Upper Hudson River. If, on the other hand, the
25,000 pounds of transported PCBs came from the hot spots, then the maximum
amount which could be recovered would be 136,000 pounds. This is still 47 percent
of the total PCB burden.
The accuracy of hot—spot delineation Is an unknown quantity which may
substantially influence the effectiveness of the dredging alternative. The ratio of
low—to—high PCB analysis results for duplicate samples is at least 3 to 1. ThIs fact
casts some doubt about the quality of the data with which hot spots were mapped.
The variability of PCB concentration in the sediment itself is extremely high. It is
suspected that because low PCB values are often found: very close to high
concentration values, hot deposits are actually very localized phenomena. It is
possible that many more small areas of high PCB concentrations may exist which
were never detected. It Is also possible that much of the material in designated
hot spots need not be removed.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements If contaminated sediments
exceeding 50 ppm of PCB concentrations are removed, they are subject to the
regulations and standards under TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). In addition,
a permit authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act would be required. State permits would be required for
the dredging and transport of contaminated sediments and for the disturbance of
wetlands.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: Excessive noise during the dredging
process Is a possible adverse community Impact. The State estimated that
residents within a radius of 1600 feet may experience annoying levels of noise,
especially at night. The population density along the project area, however, is low,
and dredging should not extend beyond several weeks in any one location.
Furthermore, noise levels will be minimized by equipment maintenance and by
mufflers.
9—32
-------
Removal of PCB—contaminated sediments will cause an adverse community impact
in the form of anxiety about PCB volatilization, contaminated cash crops, lower
market values for adjacent properties, and general inconvenience. This problem
was made clear in the lawsuit against NYSDEC. This lawsuit seeks to overturn the
state’s decision to grant siting and operating permits. It is likely that many of
these fears will not be quieted by scientific reasoning and that the final outcome
will be decided by litigation. Therefore the ability of the project to minimize
community impacts is low.
Commercial Impacts: Dredging of 40 hot spots in the Upper Hudson River will
Improve the rate of recovery of the fishery, but the time it will take before the
fish population becomes suitable for use is unknown. In th short term, dredging
equipment may interfere with river traffic; however, the future use of the river for
transportation and hydroelectric power would be assured. Therefore, the effects of
the 40—hot—spot program on the commercial environment is favorable.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included in Appendix C.
9.3.1.6 Remedial Alternative: Reduced—Scale Dredging
DescriptIon: The original 40—hot—spot dredging program was rescoped, and
substantial changes were made to increase the cost—effectiveness of the dredging
alternative. Cost analyses by Malcolm Pimie, Inc., have shown that the costs of
dredging, transport, and treatment of the sediments in the 20 hot spots of the
Thompson Island pool are the lowest of any other pool in the Upper Hudson River.
Dredging of Thompson Island Dam pool hot spots is advantageous for a number of
reasons; these deposits have, with few exceptions, the highest PCB concentrations
per unit area when compared to other hot spots. Studies have also shown that hot
spots in this reach are the most susceptible to scour. Only one hot spot
(number 18) Is associated, with a major wetland. Finally, If the proposed
containment site is approved, transportation difficulties will be minimized by the
close proximity of the site.
9—33
-------
The reduced—scale dredging program will proceed along the lines outlined by
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., for the 40—hot—spot dredging program. Sampling and wetland
analysis will take place during the first year before dredging. Both hydraulic and
clamshell dredging systems, similar to those outlined above, will be used to dredge
the hot spots in the second season. If the program is highly successful, information
and experience gained can be used to evaluate the cost—effectiveness of dredging
hot spots in lower reaches.
Applicabillty: The reduced—scale project is applicable to bottom sediments
between the Thompson Island Dam and Rogers Island.
Technology Status: Applicable dredging technology has already been reviewed and
shown to be suitable for recovering contaminated sediments. Essentially no
dredging process design changes are required for the reduced—scale project.
Risk and Effect of Failure: The reduced—scale project does not introduce
additional risks beyond those of the original 40—hot—spot program. In fact, the
reduced—scale project will have less of a conflict with wetland destruction than the
original plan.
The effects of failure, in terms of cost, will be reduced because of the lower
expenditures.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: As in the original project, probing
and sampling the sediments will taka approximately one year. The dredging of the
Thompson Is ’Iand pool will require one season. Therefore, the cleanup and isolation
of the desired material will take less than two years to accomplish.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: As with the full scale
project, the relative contribution to PCB buildup of the hot spots, compared to the
contribution of cold areas, should be evaluated. However, the reduced—scale
project will attempt to clean up a relatively larger area for the amount of money
expended. Therefore, even though the degree of environmental cleanup may be
9—34
-------
less for the reduced—scale project, the amount of improvement per dollar expended
should be greater than for the full—scale project.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation A’chi&iable: Dredging of the Thompson Island pool will
attempt to remove 645,000 Cu yds of material and 106,000 pounds of PC8s.
Assuming a 6 percent loss of material, which is proportional to the amount of PCBs
missed or lost, the maximum amount of PCBs which could be removed is 99,000
pounds, or 35 percent of the total PCB burden of Upper Hudson River bottom
sediments.
Movement and scour of hot spots in the Thompson Island Dam Pool Is liable to be
much more severe than In other pools. If hot—spot dispersal- has occurred, it may
not be desirable to implement the reduced—scale project unless new hot spots have
been formed and can be located. A limited sampling program designed to detect
changes in hot spots has recently been completed. Analysis of the data showed
that some hot spots may have moved while others did not, confirming the need for
sampling if any in—river remediation Is taken (see Appendix E).
In light of the possible changes in hot spots in the Thompson Island pool, it might be
desirable to consider the dredging of hot spot number 34 in the lock 5 pool. This is
a massive deposition area which is located at the mouth of lock 6. It is possible
that if substantial scouring has occurred in the Thompson I iand pool, much of the
transported material may have settled in that area.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: If contaminated sediments
exceeding 50 ppm of PCB concentrations are removed, they are subject to the
controls under TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). In addition, a permit
authorized under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act would be required. State permits would be required for the
dredging and transport of contaminated sediments and for the disturbance of
wetlands.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: Reduction in the amount of sediment to
be removed is expected to reduce those community concerns that were outlined in
9—35
-------
the 40—hot—spot alternative. Therefore the ability to minimize community impacts
is only moderate to low.
Commercial Impacts: Dredging in one pool will not require any barge traffic
through the lock system; therefore, the impact of the reduced—scale project on
commercial shipping may be lower than for the 40—hot—spot project.
It is believed that most of the PCB—contaminated material which moves into the
estuary originates from the Thompson Island Dam pool. Cleanup of sediment in
this area, if the expected amount of material can be recovered, should have the
same effect on the lower Hudson River fishery as the 40—hot—spot program. The
dredging of the 20 Thompson island pool hot spots, however, may not substantially
improve the recreational fishery in the Upper Hudson below the Thompson Island
Dam.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included in Appendix C.
9.3.1.7 Remedial Alternative: No—Action for River Sediments,
Routine Dredging Continues, Water Supply is Not Treated
Description: Routine channel—maintenance dredging would remove approximately
5,000 lbs of PCBs per year over the next 10 years or about 15 percent of the
estimated Hudson River PCBs according to estimates in the DEIS. No other action
Will be taken with respect to the contaminated sediments.
AØplicability: Routine channel dredging Is necessary for navigational purposes.
Technology Status: The technology for dredging currently exists; routine dredging
is currently performed.
Risk and Effect of Failure: No PCBs are being removed under this alternative
except those PCBs removed by routine dredging. The possible impacts of this
alternative are reviewed in Chapter 5.
9—36
-------
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: None
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: The concerns expressed
in Chapter 5 will still exist. Natural mechanisms will predominate in the reduction
of PCB levels. Fish—flesh PCB levels will remain elevated, and monitoring of PCB
levels in air, drinking water, and fish flesh will have to be maintained.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: None.
AbilIty to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: None needed.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: Short—term, construction—related effects
would be avoided. Long—term effects due to concern about the presence of the
contamination in the river would continue.
Commercial Impacts: Commercial and recreational fisheries of the Hudson River
would still be threatened. A potential impact of increased contamination of the
Lower Hudson River sediments would require routine monitoring.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included In Appendix C.
9.3.1.8 RemedIal Alternative: No Action for River Sediments,
Routine Dredging Continues, Water Supply is Treated
Description: Routine channel maintenance dredging would remove approximately
5000 pounds of PCBs per year over the next 10 years or about 15 percent of the
estimated Hudson River PCBs. Water treatment can reduce PCB content in
drinking water by 40—80 percent using granular activated carbon filtration,
reducing PCB levels from the present approximate level of 0.02 ppb to an
undetectable level.
Applicability: Granular activated carbon filtration is applicable to removal of
PqBs from potable water supplies; this method is currently being used.
Technology Status: The technologies currently exist and are well established.
9—37
-------
Risk and Effect of Failure: Failure of the granular activated carbon filtration
would result in higher PCB concentration in water for human consumption.
Concentrations would be expected to increase to the present level of about 0.02
ppm.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: The total time required would
depend on the time required to design and bid the water—supply granular—activated--
carbon filtration system. This aiternative could be implemented within one month.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: Under this alternative.
exposure to PCBS could still occur by:
• Ingestion of contaminated fish and aquatic life
• inhalatIon of PCBs absorbed onto particulate matter
• Dermal and possible oral exposure through use of the Hudson River for
recreational purposes
• Ingestion of terrestrial wildlife feeding on contaminated materials
Monitoring of air and fish flesh will be required on a continuing basis.
Degree of Cleanup/isolation Achievable: This alternative will virtually eiiminate
PCBs in the potable water system at Waterford. it will not affect the PCBs in the
river.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: No permits would be
required.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: Short—term, construction—related effects
would be avoided. Long—term effects due to concern about the existence of the
PCBs in the river will continue to exist.
9-38
-------
Commercial Impacts: Commercial and recreational fisheries of the Hudson River
would still be adversely affected. Because of the potential for increased
contamination of sediments in the Lower Hudson River, routine monitoring would
be required.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included in Appendix C.
9.3.1.9 Remedial Alternative: Total Removal of all Remnant Deposits
Description: Total removal of the remnant deposits would entail movement of
370,000 cubic yards of contaminated material containing some 49,000 lb of PCBs.
This alternative would include removal of materials .with low levels of
contamination. The contaminated material would have to be disposed of by hauling
to a secure containment site or by detoxification or incineration. This alternative
would involve an extensive amount of sampling for PCBs on exposed sediment
banks above the former Fort Edward Dam to ensure that all contaminated
sediments were removed.
ApplicabIlity: Total excavation of the remnant sites is applicable to all material
which contains PCBs upstream from the former Fort Edward Dam. This would
include, but not be limited to, the five previously defined remnant deposits.
Technology Status: Complete excavation and removal of contaminated soils is a
proven technique for remedlation of uncontrolled hazardous materials.
Risk and Effect of Failure: Failure could occur due to missed small PCB deposits,
from contaminated areas formed during hauling, from contamination at the
containment site,, or from incomplete disposal methods. The impacts of these
failures would be minimal because they should be very small in scale.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: This alternative would require the
clearing, grubbing, and construction of haul roads; excavation, hauling, and disposal
of contaminated sediments; and regrading and revegetation of the disturbed areas.
Assuming that construction proceeds simultaneously at all five remnant deposit
9—39
-------
sites, the construction phase would probably require two construction seasons to
complete. This period does not include the completion of a containment site which
may or may not be constructed concurrently.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: Total removal of the
remnant deposits may lead to slight decreases in the PCB contamination levels in
the Hudson River. It wilt reduce the possibility that humans could be directly
exposed to contaminants by walking on the site.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: Complete cleanup of the contaminated
material in the remnant deposits is possible through this alternative.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: Regulations under TSCA
will be applicable to the removal of sediments with PCB concentrations greater
than 50 ppm. A State permit would be required for the transport of contaminated
material from the remnant deposit Sites. Local permits might also be required.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: If implemented, this alternative would
have separate effects during construction and after construction. During
construction, if disposal of the hazardous material involves trucking, there may be
impacts on traffic, roads, air pollution levels, noise levels, and the employment in
the surrounding communities. Employment opportunities may increase regardless
of the alternative chosen; however, the alternative with the largest quantity of
work will provide the most stimulation of the local economy. Other post—
construction impacts include rise in property values and higher health standards:
Commercial Impacts: Impacts on the commercial Industry should be positive.
Future construction along the river below Glens Fall would be more likely because
the threat and notoriety of PCBs would be reduced.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included in Appendix C.
9—40
-------
9.3.1.10 Remedial Alternative: Partial Removal of Remnant Deposits
Description: With an assumed cut—off point of 50 ppm for PCB concentratIon,
partial removal of the remnant deposits will entail removal of material from
deposits 3 and 5. Deposit 3a has previously been removed, while deposits 1, 2, and
4 have an average PCB concentration of below 50 ppm throughout the deposits and
would not require removal.
Applicability: This alternative is applicable to remnant sites 3 and 5, since they
meet the assumed requirements of PCB concentrations higher than 50 ppm. If the
50 ppm requirement is changed for any reason, the sampling information must be
reviewed.
Technology Status: The partial removal of the remnant deposits would have a high
technology rating according to state—of—the—art procedures. This alternative leads
to complete or nearly complete removal of PCBs above 50 ppm within the remnant
deposits.
Risk and Effect of Failure: If proper construction and safety techniques are
followed,-there Is a very small risk of PCBs entering the environment from deposits
3 and 5. Problems could occur from exposed PCBs at the remaining deposits and
from PCB remaining at deposits 3 and 5, but the low concentrations in these areas
make It unlikely that they will be serious.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: In order to excavate, haul, and
dispose of the sediments, and to regrade and revegetate the disturbed areas, one
construction season would be required, assuming that operations would proceed
simultaneously at both remnant deposit sites.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: Partial removal of the
remnant deposits will prevent public contact with highly contaminated soils.
Although deposits 1, 2, and 4 will not be removed, their relatively low PCB
9—41
-------
concentrations pose decreased public and environmental threats. One concern Is
the increased air and (to a lesser degree) water contamination by PCBs due to
direct handling of the contaminated material during construction, and potential
spills during transport. This should be a short—term environmental effect.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: If the results of the testing program are
updated sufficiently to allow for correct estimates of PCB concentrations versus
depth, this alternative should eliminate high—level PCB concentrations in the
remnant deposits. It will not eliminate public access to remnant areas with less
than 50 ppm PCBs.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: Regulations under TSCA
will be applicable to the removal of sediments with PCB concentrations greater
than 50 ppm. A State permit would be required for the transport of contaminated
material from the remnant deposit sites. Local permits may also be required.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: Community impacts will result from the
truck traffic while contaminated material is removed and topsoil replaced.
Leaving some sites untouched may cause concern among the residents in the areas.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are Included In Appendix C.
-9.3.1.1 1 Remedial Alternative: Restricted Access to Remnant Deposits
Description: Under this alternative, measures would be taken to deter access of
people, vehicles, and wildlife to remnant deposits. The measures would Include:
• Fencing of landward edge of all remedial areas
• Seeding of remnant sites
Applicability: This is applicable to remnant sites with concentrations of PCBs or
other hazardous waste materials, and to general cases of restriction from public
contact.
9—42
-------
Technology Status: Restricted access methods are proven, well—established
methods. They are easily implemented in a situation similar to this, but in the
same manner they are easily removed through such acts as vandalism.
Risk and Effect of Failure: A relatively low—to—medium probability of failure is
associated with these measures. Problems may arise from human ignorance or
error, such as ignoring warning signs or incorrect construction techniques. The
probability of these types of problems is highly variable.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: One construction season will be
required to install the fences and signs and to seed the remnant deposits.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: Restricting access to
the remnant deposits does curb public contact with PCBs, but does not affect PCB
movement Into the environment:
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: This alternative will provide only minimal
isolation.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: No requirements are
expected with the possible exception of local permits.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: Community impacts from construction
would be low due to the ease of construction for the alternative; however, the
impacts would be high due to concerns resulting from the PCBs remaining.
Commercial Impacts: Commercial impacts will be very low from this alternative.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included in Appendix C.
9—43
-------
9.3.1.12 RemedIal Alternative: In—Place Containment of Remnant Deposits
Description: This alternative entails the placement of a 2—foot—thick layer of soil
over the existing remnant deposits, seeding the soil, and protecting the associated
river banks with riprap. Remnant deposits 3 and 5 have previously been regraded
and rlprapped so this action will be required at deposits 2 and 4 only.
Applicability: This alternative is applicable to the remnant sites upstream from
the former Fort Edward Dam. Remnant deposit 3a has already been removed,
thereby eliminating it. The exact extent of the deposits will have to be determined
in the field during Remedial Investigation to assure complete containment of the
hazardous material.
Technology Status: Use of an Impermeable cover and bank reinforcement to
contain hazardous wastes has proven adequate In the past. Proper equipment and
procedures must be maintained during placement of the cover, while bank
reinforcement material must be properly placed and sized to prevent scour and
erosion.
Risk and Effect of Failure: A relatively low probability of failure exists If proper
engineering and construction techniques are followed. PCB—contaminated material
may enter the environment through groundwater movement beneath the proposed
cap; however, the likelihood of contamination spreading would be decreased if a
soil cover were emplaced.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: This alternative would require the
clearing, grubbing, .and construction of haul roads; development of a borrow site;
excavation, hauling, and placement of topsoil, subsoil, and riprap; and revegetation
of the remnant deposit areas. Approximately two construction seasons may be
required for the simultaneous containment of all five deposits
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: In—place containment of
the existing remnant deposits will reduce PCB losses into the environment. This
9-44
-------
alternative is also beneficial from an environmental standpoint since contaminated
sediments should not be stirred up during construction.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: This alternative will prevent public
contact with the PCB—contaminated remnant material. It will not prevent the such
material from entering the environment.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: Federal permitting may be
applicable under RCRA. State construction permit(s) may also be required for the
placement of soil cover. Local permits may be applicable as well.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: This alternative will minimize -
community impacts. Traffic noise and pollution will last only during construction.
Commercial Impacts: Covering the remnant areas will have minimal commercial
impact.
PCB entry Into the river will be reduced, thus reducing the threat of increased
contamination in the lower estuary.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included in Appendix C.
9.3.1.13 Remedial Alternative: In— Situ Detoxification of Remnant Deposits
By Use of KOHPEG System
Description: Potassium hydroxide (KOH) and polyethylene glycols (PEG react with
and destroy polychlorlnated biphenyls (PCBs), producing reaction products of aryl
polyglycols and biphenyls. The presence or absence of air apparently has little
effect on the reaction. Reaction time is reduced with increased temperatures;
however, the reaction will proceed under ambient conditions.
KOHPEG has not been applied In the field to soils containing PCBs, but application
to remnant sites conceptually might proceed as follows. KOHPEG could be sprayed
on the remnant site, followed by rototilling. The amount of reagent to be applied
9—45
-------
would be equal to 6 percent of the weight of remnant deposits being treated. This
weight could be determined initially by assuming a depth of treatment, perhaps 12
inches. The best time for applying the reagent would be late spring in order for the
reaction to have the benefit of the warm temperatures during a full summer. The
following year. testing could be done to establish the level at which PCBs have
been destroyed, and that layer of decontaminated remnants could be removed for
disposal.
This sequence of operations could be repeated until the full depth of the remnant
deposits had been decontaminated. Adjustments in the application rate and the
frequency of rototilling (or perhaps even deleting rototilling) on subsequent
applications could be made, based on the results obtained from the previous
application.
Applicabiilty: The in—situ detoxification of remnant deposits could be applicable
to all five remnant deposit areas, if it were to be used.
Technology Status: The KOHPEG system is still .in the laboratory stage, where
work has been done on PCBs contained in transformer oils, sands, and soils.
The use of KOHPEG to destroy PCBs contained in soils seems to show promise.
While PCBs contained in sand have been destroyed In the laboratory in a few days,
PCBs in soils containing significant organics take significantly longer, perhaps
several months. A field application test is expected to begin in the summer of
1984, and a projection is that 12 to 18 months will be required for development of
techniques for large—scale application. Additional research is required to establish
dilution ratios for the reagent dosage rates, and methods of application, as well as
to develop procedures that will assure contact of the reagent with the contained
PCBs.
Risk and Effect of Failure: The probability of failure of KOHPEG is dependent
upon the degree to which the solution comes in contact with the PCBs. Providing
sufficient contact is made for the required period of time, virtually all PCBs will
be destroyed. In the event of failure, however, the PCBs may possibly become
9—46
-------
exposed to the atmosphere and to the general public, or may be transported into
the river through erosion.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: It may take several months for the
reagent to destroy the contained PCBs, and the speed of the reaction increases
with increasing temperatures. It would follow that it will likely require at least
one summer season for destruction of PCBs after the reagent is applied. The time
to treat all remnant areas to full depth of contamination will depend upon the
availability of adequate quantities of reagent and upon the manpower commitment
to treat several areas concurrently. It is not possible at this time to predict the
total elapsed time.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: Acute toxicity tests
have been performed on the reaction products from the destruction of PCBs in
transformer oils, and they were found to have no biological activity other than
being a mild eye irritant. No long—term biological tests have been performed.
Polyethylene glycols in the laboratory have been degraded by anaerobic bacteria.
It is expected that reaction products will be biodegradable since they contain
oxygen. Analyses of transformer oil and the reaction products after treatment of
PCB—contaminated transformer oil revealed no evidence of PCBs, polychiorinated
dlbenzofurans (PCDF), or polychlorodibenzodioxins (dioxins).
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: Assuming that the KOHPEG mixture
comes in contact with all PCBs present, essentially 100 percent cleanup is
achievable.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: No requirements are
expected.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: This process will minimize community
Impacts if no digging of the contaminated remnants is required for the reagent to
contact all contained PCBs. There may be some volatilization of PCBs during
rototilling, but it should be .minimal. No transport or treatment off site would be
required.
9—47
-------
Commercial impacts: The commercial Impacts resulting from the implementation
of this alternative will be minimal.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are Included in Appendix C.
9.3.1.14 Remedial Alternative: No—Action on Remnant Deposits
with Restricted Access to Deposits 3 and 5 .
Description: This alternative entails no action on remnant deposits 1, 2, and 4; and
restricting access to deposits 3 and 5. Under this assumption, remnant deposits 3
and 5 will require fencing, warning signs, and reseeding.
Applicability; The restricted—access portion of this alternative is applicable to
remnant deposits 3 and 5. while no action will be taken on deposits 1, 2 and 4.
Technology Status: There Is no technology status involved with the no—action
portion of this alternative. The restricted—access portion of the alternative is a
well established method. It can be easily Implemented for deposits such as those
encountered behind the former Fort Edward Dam.
Risk and Effect of Failure: The no—action portion would not appreciably remove or
decrease the current PCB concentrations In the environment. Concentrations of
PCBs would decrease slowly and it would be many years before the PCBs would
finally be flushed from the system.
Restricted access to remnant deposits 3 and 5 would have a low to medium
probability of failure. Problems may arise due to human Ignorance, error, or
vandalism. Major flooding would also cause problems, such as scour and
destruction of the chain—link fence and of warning signs. This destruction process
would allow the public to be in direct contact with the PCBs.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: Isolation could easily be achieved n
a matter of one construction season.
9—48
-------
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: With no action
performed at remnant sites 1, 2, and 4. there will be no restrictions on the
availability of PCBs to the environment.
Restricting access to remnant deposits 3 and 5 does curb public contact with the
PCBs, but does not allow for decreasing stream concentrations of the substance.
As stated in the Risk and Effect of Failure section. scour allows for direct contact
of PCBs with the environment. In addition the levels of PCBs will not be
significantly reduced In the Hudson River and PCBs can still leach from the
remnant areas.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: Since 17.3 out of 5 acres of the remnant
deposits will have restricted access, approximately 35 percent of the hazardous
materials will be eliminated from direct contact with the public. There will be
very little reduction of PCBs in the water system since all of the areas are still
uncovered and rainwater can Infiltrate the contaminated sediments, washing them
into the groundwater system and eventually into the Hudson River. It is therefore
assumed that a minimal Isolation of the PCBs will be achieved.
AbilIty to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: No requirements are
expected with the possible exception of local permits.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: Since minimal isolation of PCBs from the
environment occurs, there would be a large number of community impacts. It is
possible that property values will decrease and Individual stress levels increase. If
implemented, this alternative would have a noticeable impact on the community.
Commercial Impacts: Impact on the recreational and fishing Industries would
cause continued losses. Commercial impacts would not be signflcantly reduced by
this alternative.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included in Appendix C.
9—49
-------
9.3.1.15 Remedial Alternative: Partial Remnant Deposit
Removal/Partial In—Place Containment
Description: Under this alternative, remnant deposits 3 and 5 (deposits with PCB
concentrations greater than 50 ppm) would be excavated and removed from the
site. The remaining deposits would be contained in—place with a soil cover layer
and reseeded.
Applicability: This alternative Is suitable for all existing remnant deposit areas.
As previously mentioned, sediments with PCB concentrations of greater than 50
ppm would be removed, and the remaining contaminated sediments would be
contained in place.
Technology Status: Excavation and removal of contaminated soils or sediment is a
well established and widely used technology. Surface capping Is also a widely
utilized construction technique, commonly used for isolation of hazardous wastes in
landfills. The overall technology status rating is consequently very high.
Risk and Effect of Failure: Essentially no failure risk is present for removal of
contaminated deposits. Proper engineering/construction techniques must be
followed to ensure satisfactory performance of a soil cap. There Is Increased
potential for surface water infiltratIon if the cap is improperly installed or
maintained, and a corresponding release of PCBs to the environment may result.
Overall, the risk and effect of failure could be low to moderate.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/isolation: It is expected that two construction
seasons may be required to complete both simultaneous removal of remnant
deposits 3 and 5 and simultaneous containment of deposits 1, 2 and 4.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: A combination of
removal and in—place containment will largely eliminate the release of PCBs into
the environment. Air transport should be greatly reduced by the covering of the
remaining deposits. Surface infiltration will be negated, and development of
leachate in groundwaters would be minimized.
9—50
-------
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: Assuming proper construction/placement
of the protective coverings, nearly 100 percent of the PCBs in the remnant
deposits will be isolated or removed from the environment.
Ability to Meet Legal Institutional Requirements: Requirements under TSCA will
be applicable to the removal of sediments with PCB concentrations greater than
50 ppm. State permits might be required for the transport of contaminated
material and placement of the soil covers. Local permits may apply.
AbilIty to Minimize Community Impacts: This alternative will result in low to
moderate impacts on the community. It can be expected that traffic congestion
and noise will be present at moderate levels during the construction phase.
Additionally, it is likely that some pubIic concern about potential health risks may
arise since not all of the contaminated material will be removed from the vicinity.
There is a possibility of spills during transport and of dust dissemination during
excavation activities.
Commercial Impacts: No negative commercial impacts are expected as a result of
this alternative. There will be a decreased threat of high PCB levels in
navigational dredge spoils requiring secure containment sites for disposal (with a
resultant increase in navigation costs). A commercial fishery in the Hudson can be
reestablished more quickly than if no remedial action Is taken as a result of this
option.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included in Appendix C.
9.3.1.16 Remedial Alternative: Partial Remnant Deposit
Removal/Partial Restricted Access
Description: This alternative involves the removal of remnant deposits 3 and 5,
which have PCB concentrations above 50 ppm, and restricted access to all
remaining contaminated sediments. Access would be restricted by means of fences
9—51
-------
on the landward sides of the deposits and by placement of warning signs on-all sides
of the deposits. Additionally, the surfaces of all deposits would be reseedea to
induce the establishment of turf.
Applicability: This alternative is applicable to all existing remnant deposit sites.
Only the deposit portions with average PCB concentrations above 50 ppm will be
removed. Access will be restricted from the remaining contaminated areas.
Technology Status: Both excavation and access restriction techniques are well
established and commonly used. The technology status is therefore very high.
Risk and Effect of Failure: Contaminated sediment removal offers minimal “risk
of failure. The restricted access methods previously discussed should be suffIcient
to eliminate the potential for people or animals to come in contact with
contaminated sediments. However, the access restriction methods do little to
prevent surface water infiltration or high flow scour of the unremoved sediments.
As a result, PCBs may be introduced into groundwater or reintroduced into the
river system. Accordingly, the overall risk and effect of failure of the combined
alternative is moderate.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: This alternative would require less
than one construction season to restrict access to deposits 1, 2 and 4. However,
removal of deposits 3 and 5 may require two construction seasons for completion,
assuming that operations at both sites are conducted simultaneously:
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: Up to 88 percent of the
total remnant—area PCB mass can be expected to be removed from the remnant
deposit areas as a result of this alternative. The remaining contaminated
sediments will be subject to surface infiltration, high flow scour, and volatilization.
Since these areas constitute a small portion of the overall contamination, the
environmental effects should be minimal. Additionaily, the restricted access
should negate any public contact with the remaining sediments.
9—52
-------
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: The removal of a large portion of the
highly contaminated sediments is proposed. Access by people, animals, and
vehicles would be minimized from the remaining contaminated sediments, but
scour during high river flows and surface water infiltration into the contaminated
sediments would not be controlled in these areas. On the whole, the degree of
isolation achievable would still be high since a very large percentage of the PCB
mass would be removed from the immediate environment.
AbilIty to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: Regulations under TSCA
will be applicable to the removal of sediments with PCB concentrations greater
than 50 ppm. A State permit may be required for the transport of contaminated
material; local permits may also be applicable.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: During the excavation/construction
phase of this alternative both noise and traffic congestion are likely to be present
to a moderate degree. Public concern is likely since not all of the contaminated
sediments will be removed, and the signs and fences will be a constant visual
reminder of the presence of hazardous materials in the community. Dust created
during excavation and spills during transport could adversely affect the community.
Commercial Impacts: No negative commercial impacts are expected as a result of
this alternative. Beneficial impacts could result in that there would be a lower risk
of having to deposit dredge spoils In a secure landfill, and quicker reestablishment
of the commercial fishery in the river.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included In Appendix C.
9.3.1.17 Remedial Alternative: Partial Remnant Deposit In—Place
Containment/PartIal Restricted Access
Description: Under this alternative, access will be restricted from remnant
deposits 1, 2, and 4, which contain PCBs in concentrations less than 50 ppm, by
chain—link fencing and by warning signs. Remnant deposits 3 and 5 have PCB
concentrations in excess of 50 ppm and will be covered by a soil-layer and seeded.
9—53
-------
Applicability: This combination of alternatives Is applicable to the remnant
deposits to control the transport of PCBs into the environment.
Technology Status: In terms of state—of—the—art solutions, restricting access and
in—place containment of hazardous waste deposits have proven to be a successful
approach. Although complete removal or total containment would prove to be
more effective In eliminating future PCB contamination, this alternatIve has a
relatlv&y high technology status.
Risk and Effect of Failure: The risk of failure associated with the restricted
access to deposits 1, 2, and 4 Is high simply because PCBs are still able to come in
contact with the environment. Conversely the risk of failure for deposits 3 and 5
would be relatively low, with only the removal alternatives providing a lower risk
of failure. PCBs from deposits 3 and 5 would be able to enter the environment if
scouring of the impermeable cap occurred as would PCBs from groundwater
movement.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/isolation: It is expected that both the
containment of remnant deposits 3 and 5 and access restriction to the other
deposits can be completed in one construction season if deposits 3 and 5 are
covered simultaneously.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: The combination of
restricted access and In—place containment will result in various public health and
environmental eftects. Restricting access only prevents direct contact with PCBs
by the public. The problems of water and air pollution will not be solved.
Selection of this remedial measure will leave the fishing and recreational activities
with their current restrIctIons.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: This particular combination of
alternatives will achieve Isolation from the environment at deposits 3 and 5, and
very little isolation at deposits 1, 2, and 4. Thus 41,000 out of the 47,000 lbs will
be isolated, or 88 percent of the PCBs contained in the five remnant deposits.
9-54
-------
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: State construction permit(s)
may be applicable for the placement of the soil cover. Local permits may also be
applicable.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: Reduction of community impacts from
high—level PCB concentrations will be achieved. PCBs from deposits 1, 2. and 4
will be able to enter the environment at the same rate as is presently being
experienced. This situation may lead to decline In property values, health
monitoring programs, and increased stress related to these impacts. It is also
possible that due to scouring and groundwater movement, small concentrations of
PCBs may enter the environment from areas 3 and 5, resultIng in the same effects
previously mentioned. In all, even though the overall PCB availability is being
decreased, there will still be PCBs entering the environment.
Due to the large volume of material which has to be hauled to remnant deposits 3
and 5. traffic problems and roadway damage may occur.
Commercial Impacts: This alternative results in a decrease in PCB movement
from the remnant deposits; however, there is very little commercial impact
overall.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included in Appendix C.
9.3.1.18 Remedial Alternative: Partial Remnant Deposit
In—Place ContaLnment/Partial In—Situ Detoxification
Description: The combined alternative, in—place containment and in—situ
detoxification, will be designed to detoxify those areas with greater than 50 ppm
PCB concentrations (remnant areas 3 and 5) with KOHPEG and to contain or
Isolate those areas with PCB concentrations less than the 50 ppm level (1, 2, and 4)
with a soil cover layer.
1 his combination offers the advantage of detoxification of the most contaminated
sediments and isolation of those sediments which are not governed by the Toxic
9—55
-------
Substances Control Act (TSCA). The recommended detoxification method Is the
KOHPEO process and the recommended containment process is that described In
Section 9.3.1.12. The final result is that all of the PCBs located in the remnant
area will be either detoxified or stabilized and contained.
Applicability: This combination alternative will be applicable to all of the remnant
sites and will detoxify or contain all of the PCB’s. The detoxification process —
KOHPEG — will be used on remnant areas 3 and. 5, while areas 1. 2. and 4 will
undergo containment and stabilization measures.
Technology Status: The technologies to be used for the containment of the
remnant deposits are widely used methods for hazardous waste containment. If
correct and accurate measures are taken to assure the integrity of the cover and
bank reinforcement, there should be no problems with the PCB’s leaching or being
scoured during periods of high river flows.
The KOHPEG process is based on technology which is currently experimental in
nature. This process is the best suited technology for the in—situ detoxification of
remnant sediments. EPA is encouraged by this process and is optimistic about its
results.
Risk and Eftect of Failure: There is some risk associated with the in—place
containment of remnant deposits because PCBs would not be removed from the
river system. If a containment liner or erosion control measure were to fail, a PCB
release would result. There is not enough information available at this time to
determine what effect a release would have, although any release could be a cause
for concern.
The risk involved with the use of the KOHPEG process would entail knowing what
by—products were formed as a result of the dechlorination process as well as what
by—products may result from other contaminants located on site. An additional risk
the process poses is that a contaminated source may still exist if 100 percent
detoxification is not achieved (due to process or operational errors).
9—56
-------
Overall a low risk would result from decontamination of remnant areas 3 and 5, but
the critical factor to consider is the status of the technology. Because the
KOHPEG process is a laboratory—scale project. the process must be assigned a high
risk factor (See Section 9.1.1.2).
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: The in—place containment of remnant
deposits 1, 2 and 4 should be completed in one construction season. However, it is
likely that the detoxification process will require at least one summer season for
destruction of PCBs after the reagent is applied, and it is not possible at this time
to accurately predict the total elapsed time.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria:. Environmental and
public health criteria can be met with adherence to a strict Quality Control and
Quality Assurance program. If the actions are constructed as final designs
indicate, no major releases of PCBs should result.
The implementation of this alternative will not reduce the PCB levels already in
the river system; it will reduce PCB releases from the remnant sites. In the past,
scouring and erosion has removed contaminated sediments from these sites, adding
PCBs to the environment. The level of reduction of PCB addition from scouring
and erosion cannot be fully determined at this time.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: Estimates of work done with the
KOHPEG process shows that when used on contaminated soils or sediments, a 100
percent detoxificatIon of PCBs Is achievable. This process would be used to
detoxify those sediments In areas 3 and 5.
Remnant areas 1, 2, and 4 could effectively be 100 percent isolated from potential
scouring or leaching.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: State construction permit(s)
may be applicable for the placement of the soil cover. Local permits may also
apply.
9—57
-------
AbIlity to Minimize Community Impacts: Community impacts should be moderate.
While detoxification or covering of the remnant areas will reduce community
concern in the long—term, anxiety may be increased due to the use of an
experimental procedure. Increased traftic and noise will occur during
implementation.
Commercial Impacts: There are no foreseeable negative commercial Impacts
associated with the Implementation of this project. Positive impacts would result
from securing or destroying the PCBs. The commercial fishery on the Hudson may
be reestablished in a somewhat shorter period of time, since some PCBs are being
destroyed.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included In Appendix C.
9.3.1.19 Remedial Alternative: Partial Removal of Remnant
Deposits/Partial In—Situ Detoxification
Description: This alternative entails the removal of materIal in remnant deposits
1, 2, and 4 and detoxifying deposits 3 and 5 with KOHPEG. The estimated volume
of,matertal to be removed is 157,300 yd 3 , which leaves a volume of 192,600 yd 3 to
be treated.
The in—situ detoxification method to be considered is KOHPEG. which involves
applying a mixture of potassium hydroxide• and polyethylene glycol to the
contaminated materials and mixing with a rotary tiller. This process dechlorinates
the PCBs, producing compounds which are either biodegradable or non—
bloaccumulative.
Applicability: The removal segment of this alternative applies to remnant deposits
1, 2, and 4, while the in—Situ detoxification segment will be applied to remnant
deposits 3 and 5, which have the highest concentration of PCBs.
Technology Status: The technology used for the removal of PCB—contaminated
materials is well—accepted practice for hazardous waste disposal. when state—of—
9—58
-------
the—art procedures are used. The KOHPEG process has proved promising during the
experimental stages, although it has not yet been used on a large—scale project.
Risk and Effect of Failure: There is minimal risk involved with removing the
contaminated materials from deposits 1, 2. and 4, provided that strict safety and
construction techniques are utilized. Some volatilization of PCBs may occur
during removal, but the effects of this disturbance should be minimal.
A greater risk is involved with the KOHPEG method of detoxification, however,
since it has not been demonstrated on a larger scale. Crucial to its success is the
degree to which the detoxifying agents can be mixed with and come in contact with
the PCBs.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: It Is expected that at least one
construction season may be required to complete the simultaneous removal of
remnant deposits 3 and 5. Detoxification of deposits 1. 2 and 4 would require at
least two construction seasons.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: The combined actions
of removing and detoxifying the contaminated materials in the remnant deposits
should virtually eliminate the presence of PCBs in these areas if performed
correctly.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: The removal and detoxification of the
remnant deposits will be theoretically capable of eliminating all of the PCBs from
these areas, provided strict quality control practices are followed during
Implementation.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: A State permit may be
required for the transport of contaminated material from the remnant deposit
sites. Local permits may also be required.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: Some impacts on the surrounding
communities will be felt during the removal of contaminated materials and the
9—59
-------
application of KOHPEG. Truck traffic will have significant effects on the traffic
patterns and road conditions In the community. Long—term effects will be
beneficial due to the elimination of the PCBs.
Commercial Impacts: Commercial impacts will be limited. Elimination of the
PCBs will Improve chances of river edge construction above Fort Edwards. It will
reduce the PCB Inventory in the Upper Hudson River, helping to speed up the PCB
flush—out.
Costs: Detailed Costs were estimated and are included in Appendix C.
9.3.1.20 Remedial Alternative: Partial In—Situ Detoxification of
Remnant Deposits/Partial Restricted Access
Description: This alternative involves detoxifying remnant deposits 3 and 5
(deposits having the highest PCB concentrations) and restricting access to those
deposits which are not detoxified. The detoxification will be performed in situ
using the KOHPEG method. Access to the remaining deposits will be restricted by
chain—link fences on the Iandward sides of the remnant deposits and warning signs
placed on all sides of the deposits.
Applicability: Detoxification of the remnant deposits is applicable to deposits 3
and 5. where PCB concentrations are greatest, a volume of approximately 192,600
yd. 3 . Access to areas 1, 2, and 4 wIll be restricted to prevent people, animals, and
vehicles from entering the areas. The total area to be restricted is approximately
32.5 acres.
Technology Status: In—situ detoxification of PCBs using KOHPEG has been
successful in the experimental stages; however, it has not yet been demonstrated
on a larger scale. Restricting access to the deposit areas Is done with well—
established methods which are easily implemented. Acts of vandalism, however,
can easily destroy the components of this method and render the site insecure.
9—60
-------
Risk and Effect of Failure: The probability of failure of the KOHPEG method is
dependent on the degree to which the detoxifying agents can come in contact with
the PCBs. If all PCBs are not destroyed, they will adversely affect the public and
the environment through volatilization, surface water/sediment transport, and
groundwater and biota effects.
A relatively low—to—medium probability of failure is associated with restricting
access to the remnant deposit areas. Problems may arise due to incorrect
construction techniques, human ignorance of the warning measures, and intrusion
onto the sites by wild animals. The probability of these problems is highly variable.
The risk assàciated with these problems would be to those who come In direct
contact with the area.
Time Required to Achieve Cleanup/Isolation: Access restriction to remnant
deposit areas 1, 2 and 4 could be completed in one construction season.
Detoxification of deposits 3 and 5 would be conducted simultaneously in one
summer season.
Ability to Meet Public Health and Environmental Criteria: If performed correctly,
the combined effects of detoxifying the higher concentrations of waste materials
and restricting access to the other remnant areas should protect the public from
direct contact with the hazardous materials on site. However, the materials still
have the potential of coming In contact with rising river waters or being eroded
and carried downstream.
Degree of Cleanup/Isolation Achievable: A high degree of cleanup is expected for
those deposits treated with KOHPEG. For the remainder of the deposits, isolation
of PCBs from the environment will not be accomplished.
Ability to Meet Legal and Institutional Requirements: No requirements are
expected with the possible exception of local permits.
Ability to Minimize Community Impacts: The surrounding communities would feel
the impact of the implementation of this alternative during the applicatIon of
9—61
-------
KOHPEC. Trucks will be needed to bring the materials to the deposit areas. Noise
from Implementation may disturb the community. Reduction in anxiety will not be
as great as total removal or destruction because some PCBs will remain.
Commercial Impacts: The commercial impact should be minimal.
Costs: Detailed costs were estimated and are included In Appendix C.
9.3.2 Evaluation Procedure
Using the previously discussed effectiveness measures and weighting factors, the
trade—oft matrix was established for the evaluation of the remedial alternatives.
An example of the cost—effectiveness matrix Is presented as Figure 9—1.
The evaluation procedure was conducted in the following manner
1) The appropriate remedial alternatives were entered into the matrix.
2) Each alternative was then rated relative to the measures of effectiveness,
on a 1—to—5 scale; a 5 was used as a maximum rating, while 1 was used as
a minimum rating.
3) Construction costs and operation and maintenance costs were calculated
for each alternative (see Appendix C). Each alternative was rated
relative to the measures of cost on a 1.0 to 2.0 scale; a 2.0 was used to
represent the maximum construction or operation and maintenance cost,
while 1.0 represented zero cost. Intermediate costs were rated to the
nearest one—tenth.
4) The final ratings for each effectiveness measure and cost measure were
computed by multiplying the rating by the corresponding weighting factor.
5) The final ratings of the cost measures were summed for each alternative.
Likewise, the final ratings of the effectiveness measures were summed.
9—62
-------
COST EFFECTIVENESS
MATRIX
FIGURE 9- I
____ cORPORATKJNJ
0 A Halliburlon Company
COST
MFn IIPr
EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES
ALTERNATIVES
I- )
.4
Z
I-
z
o
2
tE -
z w
o o
0 0
U)
w
(
i -i
U)
ci
ii i
I-
0.4
I L ,
(iJ
o 8 U)
j 5 oz
0 N WW .J0
9 i- f1 0-
ho ILl
— uI
hi hi U i 5 4 (Lb
z n
-j gw o
cn j
O IA
0
<_ . . 0
U)
U) (9
o
U)
U)
(ii
>
,
l
Iii W
ft
tti Ui
I-J 14
0)
‘3
TYPE OF
RATING
U)
C,
I—
4
1-
U)
0
C-,
I - ,
WEIGHTINGFACTORS —
P.O
1.2
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
WE IGHTED
RATING
.
= -iiiiiiiiiiiii
WEIGHTED
RAT I N G
WEIGHTED
RATING
-------
6) The overall cost—effectiveness score was obtained by dividing the final
effectiveness rating sum by the final cost rating sum. The cost—effective
alternative was thereby determined as the alternative with the highest
score.
Initially, the remedial alternatives for disposition of removed river
sediments/remnant deposits were evaluated. After selection of the cost—effective
alternative, the corresponding cost data was Included with the river dredging and
remnant deposit alternatives. A separate evaluation was conducted for single and
combined alternatives for in—river sediments, and a separate evaluation was
conducted for single and combined alternatives for the remnant deposits. The final
recommendation was based on the cost—effective remedial alfernatlve from each of
the two analyses. A flow diagram which depicts the evaluation procedure is
presented as Figure 9—2.
Completed matrices used in the cost—effectiveness analyses are presented In
Appendix B. A summary of the cost—effectiveness ratings is presented as
Table 9—2.
9.3.3 Selection of Cost—Effective Alternative
A review of previously developed and new alternatives Is detailed In Chapter 8 of
this report. Those alternatives that were maintained following the initial screening
underwent detailed evaluation as described in Section 9.3.1. The selectIon of the
cost—effective alternative is a result of the evaluation procedure summarized
herein.
During the final evaluation, it became obvious that although the KOHPEG process
had passed the initial screening, the detailed analysis found that the process was
extremely costly. For this reason, and also because the process was unproven, the
KOHPEG process was screened out
9-64
-------
KOHPEO
I
II1CI ERATlON
I
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION - FLOW DIAGRAM
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVERI NY
NUB
_CORPORAT N
0 A Halliburton Company
WET AIR
L TI
SECURE
LAMWILL
DISPOSAL
I
a)
Ill
FIGURE 9-2
-------
TABLE 9-2
SUMMARY OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Cost—Effectiveness
Alternative Rating
Detoxification with KOHPEG
Detoxification with Wet Air OxidatIon 6 .6
Destruction by IncineratIon 7. 1
Secure Landfill Disposai 7.1
RIVER SEDIMENT ALTERNATiVES
Dredging of 40 Hot Spots 5.3
Reduced Scale Dredging 5.9
No Action. Water Supply is Not Treated 7.9
No Action, Water Supply is Treated 7.9
REMNANT DEPOSIT ALTERNATIVES
Total Removal 7.5
Partial Removal 6.1
Restricted Access 5.6
In—Place Containment 8.3
In—Situ Detoxification —
Partial No Action/Partial Restricted Access 5.3
Partial Removal/Partial In—Place Containment 7.0
Partial Removal/Partial Restricted Access 6.4
Partial In—Place Containment/Partial Restricted Access 7.3
Partial Containment/Partial tn—Situ Detoxification —
Partial Removal/Partial In—Situ Detoxification —
Partial Restricted Access/Partial In—Situ Detoxification —
9—66
-------
The evaluation matrices for the alternatives which were considered are found in
Appendix B. Alternatives for disposal, dredging, and remnant areas were evaluated
separately. As discussed before, a rating of 5 was given to those alternatives as
the maximum favorable ranking. The cost—effective alternative was selected from
the overall cost—effectiveness score by ranking the cost and effectiveness ratings.
The alternatives listed below are the conclusions resulting from the matrix analysis
for the Hudson River PCB site.
Disposal of Contaminated Material: Secure Landfill . If, as a result of the
other two evaluations, contaminated material was removed and had to be
disposed of, landfilling and incineration would be found to be
approximately equal in terms of cost—effectiveness. However, since
incineration is an order of magnitude more expensive than landfilllng, the
secure landfill disposal alternative will be the recommended remedial
action for disposal.
• River Sediments No Immediate Corrective Action with Further Study . It
was found that the no remedial actiona alternative was the cost—
effective solution although further sampling will be required to
adequately determine the effects of contaminated sediments upon the
local Inhabitants. Based on existing data, the contamination in its current
location does not appear to pose undue risk to local inhabitants and may
not justify the large sums of money needed to accomplish removal.
Because, available data Is sparse and/or outdated, a two—phase remedial
investigation should be performed to further characterize the locations,
pathways, and quantities of PCBs present. During the InitIal phase,
drinking water, air, wetlands, terrestrial vegetation, and fish samples
should be taken to define the Impact of PCBs on potential receptors. If
analysis of Phase I data shows a major health impact, the second phase of
the Remedial investigation may be implemented, which would consist of
sediment sampling and bed—load movement analysis. An environmental
monitoring program should be implemented to monitor concentrations of
PCBs in drinking water, fish flesh, and dredge spoils. A treatability
9-67
-------
assessment of the Waterford water supply will be conducted on the basis
of historical information and data obtained from the recommended
sampling program.
• Remnant Deposits: In—Place Containment . In—situ capping of the
contaminated deposits was determined to be the cost—effective
alternative for the remnant areas. The capping would include the
placement of 18 inches of subsoil, followed by 6 inches of topsoil and
revegetation. These measures would serve to minimize erosion, leaching,
and air transport of PCBs. In addition, all appropriate river banks would
be riprapped,” in order to eliminate remnant deposit scour during high—
river flows. Biannual Inspection of the cover is also reàommended in
order to identify any erosion/damage of the cover material.
9.3.4 Sensitivity Analyses
Sensitivity analyses were conducted in order to assess the potential effects of
variation of the numerical elements within the cost—effectiveness matrix on the
overall rankings of the alternatives. The variations were intended to reflect the
uncertainty of the assumptions made during the rating of the alternatives, since
these assumptions were based on the accuracy of investigative/sampling data and
on the predIction of the future behavior of the remedial technology. Elements of
the cost—effectiveness matrix which were varied include:
• weighting factors
• costs
• numerical ratings of effectiveness measures
The weighting factors were individually varied in both an upward and downward
direction, as were the individual cost and effectiveness ratings. A separate
analysis was conducted for the detoxification/destruction/disposal alternatives,
river sediment alternatives, and remnant de osit alternatives.
9—68
-------
• Detoxification/destruction/disposal alternatives : It was previously
determined that landfilling and incineration scored equally in terms of
cost—effectiveness. Accordingly, small changes in the cost and
effectiveness weighting factors, on the order of 0.1, were found to vary
the overall rankings. Similar variations were observed when changes of
0.1 were made in the cost ratings, or changes of 1.0 were made in the
effectiveness ratings.
• River sediment alternatives : The sensitivity analysis indicated that the
selection of one of the two no—action alternatives, as opposed to the two
dredging alternatives, was not sensitive to large changes in the weighting
factors or ratings. V riations of the weighting factors by 0.5, the cost
ratings by 0.5, or the effectiveness ratings by 2 had no effect on the
recommendation of a no—action alternative. However, the two no—action
alternatives received equal overall ratings. A cordingly, variations as
small as 0.1 in the effectiveness weighting factors, 0.1 in the cost ratings,
or 1 in the effectiveness ratings were significant to the final ranking of
these alternatives.
• Remnant deposit alternatives : It was determined that the selection of the
in—place containment alternative was not influenced by large variations of
the cost/effectiveness weighting measures (variations of up to 0.5) or
effectiveness rating.s (variations of up to 2). Variations of greater than
0.2 in the cost ratings of the in—place containment alternative were found
to switch the top ranking to the total remnant deposit removal
alternative, however.
9.3.5 Summary
In summary, the authors have applied the guidelines of the NCP to identify a series
of cost—effective remedial actions which are applicable to the Hudson River PCB
problem.
9—69
-------
In Sections 3.0 through 5.0 of the Feasibility Study, the authors drew upon existing
information to evaluate public health and environmental effects and health and
welfare concerns associated with the problem. A major conclusion of that effort
was that the present health impacts associated with PCB In air and water were
low. Another conclusion was that although PCB contamination in fish, as well as
other organisms, was high, previously imposed State regulations on fishing and
State advisories on consumption of fish could be a cost—effective remedy.
particularly In view of the fact that such measures would likely be required for
some period after any type of remedial action. It was also concluded that levels of
PCB in fish and air, as well as PCB transport, have declined much more rapidly
than had been anticipated. It was concluded that the impact of the PCB problem in
activities such as routine maintenance dredging had been overstated.
In the next step (Sections 7—8), the authors drew—up a list of possible remedial
alternatives. This list included all previously proposed methods, as well as some
newly developed alternatives——including some promising PCB detoxification
destruction techniques. The reliability, technological feasibility, possible adverse
effects, and relative effectiveness in minimizing threats of the methods were
reviewed. As a result, only technically feasible and promising processes were
passed on to the next level of screening.
Four disposal alternatives were proposed for further study: 1) Detoxification of
Removed Sediments with KOHPEG; 2) Detoxification of Removed Sediments by
Wet—air Oxidation; 3) Destruction of Removed PCBs by Incineration; and 4) Secure
Landfill Disposal. Twelve remedial alternatives were proposed for the remnant
deposits. These alternatives consisted of various combinations of 1) No—Remedial—.
Action; 2) Restricted Access; 3) in—place containment; 4) In—situ Detoxification;
and 5) Removal methodologies. Also, four river—sedIment alternatives, two
dredging options, and two No—Remedial—Action options were considered. The No—
Remedial—Action alternatives were included in the final analysis on the premise
1) that present public health impacts appeared to be low; 2) that environmental
effects appeared to be decreasing without any remedial action; 3) that limited
clean—up afforded by other alternatives might not result in a significant
9—70
-------
improvement over no—remedial action; and 4) that removal and dredging options
could produce adverse short—term effects.
In Section 9, a detailed analysis of the proposed alternatives was carried out. This
analysis required the development of a conceptual design for each alternative, a
more detailed estimation of costs, and a closer assessment of engineering
implementation in relation to the ability of alternatives to satisfy the
effectiveness criteria used in the evaluation. The detailed screening used a cost—
effectiveness matrix analysis developed for the EPA specifically for the Superfund
program.
The evaluation resulted in a recommended alternative for.covering the remnant
sites with 18 Inches of subsoil, six inches of top soil, and revegetating; and
performing an analysis to assess the need and design parameters for upgrading the
Waterford Water Supply.
The matrix evaluation also resulted in the Identification of a no—remedial—action
alternative for river sediments as the most cost—effective option. This was
interpreted to mean that the limited improvement which might be expected after a
dredging program does not justify the cost to implement such a program, especially
In light of the present low and decreasing health and environmental impacts of the
PCB problem.
A sensitivity analysis was performed on the matrix analysis to determine what
effect changes in costs. or effectiveness measures might have on the recommended
alternatives. It was found that significant changes either in cost or in
effectiveness ratings would not change the recommended alternative for river
sediments. Changes In effectiveness measures by a factor of 2 and In the costs by
a 20 percent variance would not change the recommended alternative for remnant
deposits.
9—71
-------
10.0 REMEDIAL AC110N PLANNING ACTIVITIES
10.1 Site Remediation Objectives
One objective of the site remediatlon activities discussed in the Hudson River
PCBs Site RAMP is to eliminate direct human contact with contaminated remnant
deposits by covering or restricting access to them. Another objective Is to assess
possible health impacts from the contaminated sediments through one phase of a
Remedial Investigation (Section 9.3.3).
In the event studies identify a significant health impact in the Upper Hudson River
area, the second phase of the Remedial Investigation should be conducted. The
purpose of this phase should be to locate PCBs in the river sediments and to
identify bed—load transport rates. Details on the proposed Remedial Investigation
can be found in Section 10.3, Section 10.4, and Appendix D.
10.2 Remedial Action for the Hudson River PCBs Site
10.2.1 Final Design
The remedial action selected as a result of the remedial alternative evaluation
consists of: (1) covering 4 remnant areas (areas 2, 3, 4, and 5) with approximately
18 inches of subsoil and about 6 inches of topsoil, and subsequently revegetating
these areas; and (2) no remedial action on the contaminated river sediments.
However, it is recommended that a Remedial Investigation be conducted to better
quantify any potential health or environmental impacts associated with the
sediments. In addition, a treatability assessment of the Waterford Public Water
supply is recommended. It is also recommended that the NYSDEC and USGS fish
and rlverwater sampling programs be continued. The Remedial Investigation
includes monitoring of drinking water, air, terrestrial vegetation and sediments
proposed for routine maintenance dredging. A wetlands study, including the
collection and analysis for PCBs of vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fish,
should be implemented to determine the importance of wetlands (which in many
10—1
-------
cases are highly contaminated) in the present PCB problem with the Hudson River
fishery.
The remnant area remedial action includes a Remedial Investigation of the
remnant areas in order to delineate the areat extent of the contaminated
sediments. Elements which should be included in the proposed Remedial
Investigation are described in Section 10.3. Once the Remedial Investigation is
completed, detailed design specification activities will take place. A suitable
borrow area from which soil will be taken will be searched for and located and
negotiations will be conducted for its use. Quantities of fill and schedules for work
will be finalized once the total area to be covered has been determined.
The estimated capital cost of the remedial activities at the remnant sites is
approximately $2,323,930. Operation and maintenance at the remnant deposits
sites for a 20—year period will have an approximate present worth value of
$1,123,790.
The estimated cost for Remedial Investigation activities at the remnant sites prior
to design activities is approximately $186,000 Including laboratory analyses.
Environmental monitoring under the proposed Remedial Investigation is estimated
to cost about $396,000 excluding costs of the NYSDEC fish monitoring program,
the USGS river monitoring program and additional sediment sampling.
The treatability study is estimated to cost about $120,000. Detailed cost
breakdowns may be found in Appendix C under the no—action and in—place
containment of remnant deposit options and in Appendix F.
10.2.2 implementation
During this stage contractors will be procured and development of the borrow area
will begin. This development should begin at the start of the construction season.
The borrow area will be cleared and grubbed, and topsoil will be scraped off and
stockpiled for future use. Subsoil will be removed and transported to the remnant
areas. While the borrow area is being developed, clearing of the remnant sites
10—2
-------
should begin. No grubbing is recommended at remnant areas 2 and 3 since growth
over these areas is sparse at this time. Stormwater diversion should be installed in
order to prevent erosion of the remnant areas as well as to divert stormwater from
running over the remnant site. Fill from the borrow area should be placed in 6—inch
lifts on the remnant sites. Once the subsoil has been placed, a 6—inch layer of
topsoil should be placed. followed by seeding. At the borrow area the slopes should
be graded and the exposed soil should be seeded.
Following construction, a continuing inspection program will be conducted of storm
water diversion and of bank stabilization and erosion in order to determine the
need for maintenance or repairs.
The final Feasibility Study recommends a Treatability Study for the Waterford
water supply. It is likely that this study would be tied in with the drinking water
study of the Environmental Monitoring Program, however it Is not included as part
of the Remedial investigation. It Is estimated that this study would cost about
$120,000.
10.2.3 Environmental Monitoring
An environmental monitoring program, including the existing NYSDEC fish and
U.S.G.S. river—water monitoring programs, should be continued. Monitoring of the
public water supplies obtaining water from the Hudson should be conducted on a
representative basis. This would involve baseline sampling at selected public water
supplies on at least a quarterly basis for two years. In addition, two other samples
should be obtained: one following a major storm event during the spring season and
a second similarly during the low—flow season. A number of private drinking water
wells in the Upper Hudson River area should be selected and sampled also. During
the following years, two or three public supplies should be selected for monitoring
during high flows and low flows (spring and summer respectively) as a check to
ensure that there is no dramatic increase in PCB concentrations. Air monitoring,
vegetation sampling, and wetlands sampling should be carried out as described in
Tasks 11, 12, and 13 under Section 10.4.3. Finally, sampling should be conducted at
any proposed maintenance dredging area to determine the concentration of PCBs in
10—3
-------
the sediments proposed for dredging. This sampling is necessary in order to
determine the degree of contamination and appropriate method for disposal of the
sediments.
The Remedial Investigation proposed in Section 10.4 includes only the air, drinking
water, wetlands, and terrestrial vegetation sampling programs. It is assumed that
the regular U.S.G.S. river—water and NYSDEC fish monitoring programs will
continue. It Is also assumed that the State will insure that all proposed dredging
areas will be adequately sampled.
10.3. PrelIminary Work Plan Outline for the Remedial Investigation of the
Remnant Deposit Sites
A work plan shall be prepared by the Contractor, prior to the start of the Remnant
Area Remedial Investigation (RI) of the Hudson River PCBs Site. A Preliminary
Outline of the proposed work plan is presented below.
10.3.1 Work Plan Summary
The Work Plan Summary will present an overview of the technical, financial, and
logistical requirements of the Remedial Investigation. Subsections will include:
• Remedial Investigation Objectives
• Scope of Work
• Manpower Estimates and Cost
• Schedule
10.3.2 Problem Assessment
The majority of information to be included in the problem assessment has been
included in this RAMP. The level of detail in this section should be sufficient to
acquaint the reader with the problems associated with the site. This section will
be developed from all available information, but it is not designed to be an
assessment of all existing data.
10-4
-------
10.3.3 Scope of Work
An outline and specific description of each work task needed for the Remedial
Investigation is provided in this section. Individual task descriptions will be
expanded during the preparation of a Work Plan for the Remedial Investigation of
the Hudson River. The discussion of those tasks pertaining to site activities which
parallel current actions will include the description of these activities. The final
task will include the Remedial Investigation report.
10.3.3.1 Preliminary Remedial Investigation Activities
A total of TO tasks have been identified during the investigation of preliminary
remedial activities. These activities are required before the site Remedial
Investigation activities can be initiated. Additional tasks may be added during the
preparation of the work plan as determined necessary due to project schedule and
budget constraints.
Task 1 — Prepare Remedial Investigation Work Plan
The Work Plan outlines those activities of the Remedial Investigation necessary to
delineate the limits and extent of contamination. Detailed manpower estimates, a
schedule of remedial actions, and project costs will be provided in the Work Plan.
This activity may require 450 man—hours to complete and is estimated to cost
$18,930.
Task 2 — Perform Community Relations Support Functions
Community relations support provided by the contractor will be at the request of
the EPA and may include logistical support for the planning and execution of the
activities at the site and technical support to ensure that all information is
accurate and current. Due to the nature of public involvement. community
relations input must be flexible to accommodate fluctuations in public interest.
Community relations input must also remain flexible to dovetail with technical
progress at the site.
10—5
-------
The Contractor will assist the EPA in presenting the findings of the RI to the
public. It is estimated that this task will require about 250 manhours and will cost
about $13,900.
Task 3 — Collect and Evaluate Existing Data
It may be necessary to collect and evaluate additional information which was not
available for the preparation of the RAMP. These data will be used in conjunction
with existing reports to establish additional testing, sampling, and analyses
necessary to successfully complete the RI. Additional data requirements not
addressed by this Work Plan will be identified and used to complete the sampling
plan. This task may require 150 man—hours, and is expected to cost about $6,700.
Task 4 — Perform Health, Safety, and General Site Reconnaissance
An initial site reconnaissance will be conducted by an investigation team to fully
evaluate the existing site conditions. Several objectives have been identified for
the site reconnaissance:
• Conduct onsite start—up meeting with EPA and NYSDEC
• Perform health and safety reconnaissance
• Locate physical hazards and features
• Evaluate site conditions for location of initial sediment sampling points
This task will require about 90 man—hours to complete and will cost an estimated
$6,300.
Task 5 — Secure Permits, Rights of Entry, and Other Authorizations
Access to the work areas will be obtained by EPA prior to initiation of site
activities. A verification of property boundaries will be made to identify all
property owners within the projected work area. Permits for emedial
Investigation activities and onsite treatability studies will be obtained by EPA
where necessary. This task may cost approximately $2,800.
10—6
-------
Task 6 — Procure Subcontractors
The ground surveying program for the purposes of the determination of sample
point locations and the development of topographic map(s) may be subcontracted.
The subcontractors will be obtained using normal Superfund procurement
procedures. The process of advertising for and evaluating bids will begin upon
receipt of EPA authorization. Subcontracting arrangements will require an
estimated 200 man—hours and cost an estimated $7,700.
Task 7 — Develop Site—Specific Health and Safety Plan
A site—specific Health and Safety Plan will be developed for the remnant deposit
sites, based on guidelines established jn the contractor’s Health and Safety Manual
and EPA’s Occupational Health and Safety Manual. The Health and Safety Plan
could require approximately 40 man—hours to complete and cost about $2,300.
The purpose of the plan will be to:
• Provide safety protection requirements and procedures for site field
crews and subcontractors.
• Ensure adequate training and equipment to perform expected tasks.
• Provide ongoing site monitoring to verity preliminary safety requirements
and revise specific protection levels as required.
• Protect the general public and the environment.
Task 8 — Develop Site—Specific Quality Assurance Plan
A Quality Assurance Plan will be developed based upon the Contractor’s Quality
Assurance Project Plan. The plan will refer to or include site—specific details on
sampling; field testing; surveying; chain—of—custody; sample handling, packaging,
preservation and shipping; record keeping and documentation. Analysis
10—7
-------
requirements, in addition to those listed in the Contract Laboratory Program
(CLP), will be given along with any other procedures needed for the Remedial
Investigation. It is estimated that this task will cost about $3,500.
Task 9 — Develop Site—Specific Sampling Plan
A site—specific sampling plan will be developed. The plan will be related to the
Health and Safety and Quality Assurance Plans and will include procedures for
sampling various media expected to be found on site.
If possible, definite sampling locations will be established. These locations will be
based on site data obtained during the field reconnaissance and from detailed
review of existing referenc e sources. This task will cost about $2,800.
Task 10 — MobIlize Field Equipment
The equipment needed during the Remedial Investigation will be provided by the
Contractor or by subcontractors. Equipment scheduled for use may include:
• SurveyIng equipment
• Sampling tools and equipment
• Health and safety equipment
• Decontamination equipment
Mobilization of field equipment Is estimated to cost about $500.
10.3.3.2 Site Remedial tnvesti atlon Activities
Task 11 - Perform Ground Survey
A ground survey will be performed to:
• verify property lines
• determine sample point locations
• obtain data for the development of topographic maps
10—8
-------
Sample points wiN be located on a 100—foot grid and corresponding elevations will
be determined for use in the preparation of topographic maps. The costs for this
task are based on 40 hours of effort and is estimated to cost $13,800.
Task 12 — Prepare Topographic Map
A topographic map will be prepared using the data obtained during the ground
survey.
The product of this task shall be a single, scribed, double matte. 3 mil, washoff
mylar with reversed image. The product shall have a horizontal scale of 1 inch =
50 feet and a contour interval of 1 foot. A grId coordinate system will be
established based on the highest order of accuracy control points available in the
immediate vicinity of the site. Control points to be considered include, but are not
limited to, State plane coordinate system, U.S.G.S. monuments, Army map service
monuments, county highway monuments, or, in rural areas, local monuments.
Mapping and ground surveys will be completed in accordance with the National Map
Accuracy Standards for the scale indicated. The preparation of a topographic map
may require 60 man—hours and is estimated to cost $6,700.
Task 13 — Collect Surface Soil Samples
Soils will be sampled to determine the extent and degree of surface soil
contamination. The area of the remnant deposits is about 60 acres. Samples will
be taken from a 100—foot grid sampling regime at each of the remnant deposits. It
is therefore assumed that a total of approximately 300 surface soil samples will be
collected using either trowels or shovels. Sample depths will vary from 0 to 12
inches. All samples will undergo PCB analyses. The cost of this task is estimated
to be $56,000.
10—9
-------
Task 14 — Reduce and Evaluate Data
Following the applicable RI tasks, data generated during the study will be reduced
and evaluated. The evaluation will be used in the production of a report to be
submitted following the completion of all RI tasks. In addition, continuous data
reduction and evaluation during the RI can also provide input for succeeding RI
tasks. This task is expected to cost an estimated $31,900.
Task 15 — Prepare Remedial Investigation Report
After completion of the field investigations, all pertinent field and laboratory data
will be assembled into a detailed report of the Remedial Investigation. This report
will include the following items:
• Objectives of the Remedial Investigation.
• A description of the study areas based on the field investigations
and the results of the laboratory testing.
• Conclusions and recommendations of the study.
Maps, figures and tables will be prepared to support the text. The Remedial
Investigation report is estimated to cost $12,200.
10.3.4 Management Plan
The management plan shall include the administrative and management
requirements for performing the RI work activities. The principal sections of the
management plan are described below.
10.3.4.1 Prolect Organization and Staffing
This section descrIbes the project’s organizational plan with regard to personnel as
well as the level of effort required to complete each task. The project manager
will be identified as well as other key project personnel.
10—10
-------
10.3.4.2 Prolect Rei orts
The reporting requirements, including the quantity and distribution, will be
specified in this section. The. reporting requirements for technical submittals, as
well as financial and progress reporting requirements, will be specified.
Other components include:
• Procurement
• Meetings
• Change Orders
• Community Relations Program
• Quality Assurance
• Health and Safety
10.3.5 Costs and Schedule
The RemedIal Investigation at the remnant sites will last about 32 weeks and is
estimated to cost about $186,000. A detailed breakdown of costs for each task in
the Remedial Investigation will be included in the costs and schedule section of the
Work Plan. Also, a Remedial Investigation project schedule will be presented.
Preliminary project schedules and cost estimates are provided In Appendix F.
10.4 Preliminary Work Plan Outline for Phase I of the Remedial Investigation of
the River
Prior to the start of the Remedial Investigation (RI) of the Hudson River PCBs
Site, a Work Plan shall be prepared by the contractor. A preliminary outline of the
proposed work plan is presented below.
10.4.1 Work Plan Summary
The Work Plan Summary will present an overview of the technical, financial, and
logistical requirements of the Remedial Investigation. Subsections will include:
10—11
-------
• Remedial Investigation Objectives
• Scope of Work
• Manpower Estimates
• Schedule
10.4.2 Problem Assessment
The majority of the information to be included in the problem assessment has been
included in this RAMP. The level of detail In this section should be sufficient to
acquaint the reader with the problems associated with the site. This section will
be developed from all available information, but it is not designed to be an
assessment of all existing data.
10.4.3 Scope of Work
An outline and specific description of each work task which is needed for the
Remedial Investigation is provided in this section. Individual task descriptions will
be expanded during the preparation of the Work Plan (Task 1) for the Remedial
Investigation of the Hudson River. In addition, the delineation of those tasks which
parallel current sampling programs will include a description of the current work
and an explanation of any additional work needed to complete the task. The final
task will include the preparation of the Remedial Investigation report.
10.4.3.1 Preliminary Remedial Investigation Activities
A total of nine tasks have been identified during the investigation of preliminary
remedial activites. These tasks must be performed before the site remedial
investigation activites can be initiated. Additional tasks may be added during the
preparation of the work plan as determined necessary due to project schedule and
budgetary constraints.
10—12
-------
Task 1 — Prepare Remedial Investigation Work Plan
The Work Plan outlines those activities of the Remedial Investigation necessary to
update existing data on PCB concentrations in the river and ecosystem. Detailed
manpower estimates, a schedule of remedial actions, and project costs will be
provided in the Work Plan. This activity may require 450 man—hours to complete
and is estimated to cost $19,000.
Task 2 — Perform Community Relations Support Functions
Community relations support provided by the contractor wilt be at the request of
the EPA and may include both logistical support for the planning and execution of
the activities at the Hudson River PCBs Site and technical support to ensure that
all information is accurate and current. Because of the nature of public
involvement, community relations input must be flexible to accommodate
fluctuations in public interest.
The contractor wilt assist the EPA in presenting the findings of the Remedial
Investigation to the public. It Is estimated that this task will require about 250
man—hours and cost approximately $14,000.
Task 3 — Collect and Evaluate Existing Data
It may be necessary to collect and evaluate additional information which was not
available during the preparation of this RAMP. These data will be used in
conjunction with existing reports to establish additional testing, sampling, and
analyses necessary to successfully complete the RI.
After collection of all available information, an evaluation of the data base
adequacy will be made regarding area contamination. Additional data
requirements not addressed by this Work Plan will be identified and used to
complete the sampling plan. This activity may require about 150 man—hours and is
estimated to cost about $6,700.
10—13
-------
Task 4 — Develop Site—Specific Health and Safety Plan
A site—specific Health and Safety Plan will be developed based on the available site
information, guidelines established in the contractor’s Health and Safety Manual,
and EPA’s Occupational Health and Safety Manual.
The purpose of the plan will be to:
• Provide minimum safety protection requirements and procedures for
onsite field crews and subcontractors.
• Ensure adequate training and equipment to perform expected tasks.
• Provide ongoing site monitoring to verify preliminary safety requirements
and to revise specific protection levels as required.
• Protect the general public and the environment.
The Health and Safety Plan will cost an estimated $5,500.
Task 5 — Develop Site—Specific Quality Assurance Plan
A site—specific Quality Assurance Plan will be developed based on the available site
information and the guidelines established in the contractor’s Quality Assurance
Manual.
The Quality Assurance Plan will be designed to incorporate the following
objectives:
• To maintain the evidentlary value of the data produced.
• To ensure the integrity of the results of site investigations, laboratory
analyses, and technical reports.
10—14
-------
e To provide assurance that remedial designs and assessments are properly -
prepared and reviewed.
• To control the activity of subcontractors, consultants, and support
agencies or organizations to ensure that they maintain the same quality
standards applied to the Nt iS activities.
This task may require 60 man—hours and is expected to cost approximately $2,800.
Task 6 — Develop Site—Specific Sampling and Analyses Plan
A site—specific sampling plan will be developed. The plan will be related to the
Health and Safety and Quality Assurance Plans and will include procedures for
sampling various media expected to be found in the river basin.
Definite sampling locations will be established, if possible, for the air, surface -
water, groundwater, and sediment samples. Locations will also be determined for
the fish, macroinvertebrate, and vegetation surveys. These locations will be based
on site data obtained from a review of existing data and additional data obtained
from personal observation. The site specific Sampling and Analysis Plan will
require an estimated 200 man—hours and is estimated to cost $2,800.
Task 7— Procure Subcontractor(s)
Bid documents (Plans & Specifications) will be developed and competitive bids will
be solicited from prequailfied firms for each task to be subcontracted. The process
of advertising for and evaluating bids will begin upon receipt of EPA authorization.
The Contractor will review the bids and select the subcontractor. The EPA
Contracting Officer will review and approve the subcontractor selection prior to
award of the subcontract.
10—15
-------
The following elements of work are under consideration for subcontracting:
• Wetland study
• Model development for assessment of PCB movement in the wetlands.
Subcontracting arrangements are estimated to cost approximately $8,900.
Task 8 — Secure Permits, Rights of Entry, and Other Authorization Requirements
Access permission to the work areas will be obtained prior to initiation of site
activities. Permits for Remedial Investigation activities and onsite treatability
studies will be obtained where necessary. This task is estimated to cost $5,900.
10.4.3.2 Site Remedial Investigation Activities
Task 9 — Mobilize Field Equipment
The equipment needed during the Remedial Investigation will be provided by the
Contractor or by subcontractors. Equipment scheduled for use includes:
• Field office
• River transportation
• Surveying equipment
• Sampling tools and equipment
• Health and Safety equipment
• Decontamination equipment
Equipment may be stored on site in a secure field office trailer. The placement of
the trailer will be specified in the site—specific Health and Safety Plan.
Mobilization may cost approximately $500 although this cost depends on the
availability of NYSDEC equipment already purchased for the monitoring the
Hudson River PCB problem.
10—16
-------
Task 10 — Collect Drinking Water Samples
Present Sampling Efforts
There is, at present, only limited potable—water monitoring of public or residential
water supplies.
Description
The sampling of public and residential potable—water supplies for PCBs will be
conducted to determine whether any health hazard exists In the use of water from
surface or groundwater resources. Public water supplies are drawn from surface
water intakes along the river, while private supplies are drawn from local aquifers.
Public drinking—water sampling should be conducted quarterly and also during
periods of high (spring) and low (fall) flows. This should be done to include those
periods of high—sediment PCB transport potential (high— Iver flows) and high
dissolved PCB—trarisport potential (low—river flows). It may onlV be necessary to
sample residential wells once during the low—flow period when dissolved PCB is
most prevalent in the river.
Method
Residential wells should be sampled at the well head or just before the holding
tank. Before taking the sample, the water should be run for five minutes to ensure
that a true sample of the aquifer Is taken. Sampling techniques should conform to
those specified in the Contractor’s Quality Control Procedures Manual (NUS QCP
11—1, 1983). It will be necessary to conduct a well—location survey to determine
which wells should be sampled. Approximately 30 wells are suggested.
Public . water system sampling will include the influent, effluent, and waste
discharge waters. At least three supplies, including Waterford should be sampled.
Each sample should be taken at the same approximate time during each sample
visit. Sampling techniques will be similar to those mentioned above, as referenced
10—17
-------
in the Contractor’s Quality Control Procedures Manual. Costs for this task
($35,000) are for one year only and are based on 300 manhours and 75 samples.
Costs could change if local technicians are to be used.
Task 11 — Collect Air Monitoring Samples
Present Sampling Efforts
There are, at present, no ongoing air monitoring programs to detect volatile or
particulate—borne PCBs in the Hudson River Basin.
Description
The transport of PCBs into the air is accomplished by two mechanisms:
volatilization, and suspension on dust or other small particles. An air monitoring
program will be conducted to determine the extent of PCB volatilization or
particulate suspension throughout specifically designated areas of the Upper
Hudson. Ambient, levels of PCBs will be determined for residential and agricultural
areas. This monitoring will be conducted during the months of highest potential
PCB volatilization (July and August).
The following is a list of suggested areas of study.
• Thompson Island and local dams and pools, including the following:
— area homes
— shore areas/farmland
— riffles or rapid areas
Methods
A sampling program of this nature should include four sampling sessions (every
other week) in approximately 10 to 15 sampling locations. The focus of this effort
should include those areas having the highest potential for airborne PCB
10—18
-------
concentrations. Those areas of greatest concern would include homes or farmland
near riffle or rapid areas, and those areas directly below high turbulent areas, such
as dams.
Each sample should be collected by drawing air through a Fluorasil tube in which
volatile PCBs are trapped. Particulates laden with PCBs are adsorbed next on a
filter. After exposure, the sample tube and filters will be shipped to a lab where
the PCBs will be desorbed from the cartridge with hexane. The resulting solution
will be analyzed by gas chromatography (GC)(NIOSH, 1983).
In addition to the sampling for PCBs, local weather conditions should be measured.
The parameters included should be: wind speed and direction, temperature, dew
point, solar radiation, rainfall, and barometric pressure. This task is estimated to
cost $24,000. Again, costs could change if local technicians are used.
Task 12 — Perform Wetland Study
Subtask 1 — Fish Sampling
Present Sampling Efforts
There are at present no fish sampling programs being conducted specifically for
fish which feed in the wetlands.
Description
The game fish that feed in the wetland areas of the Hudson represent a large part
of the recreational fishing potential of this area. These fish consume the majority
of their total food intake in the wetlands, and along with that, possibly the largest
portion of their PCB intake. To determine this, a modeling program will be
conducted including all the elements of the wetland food chain. At this time, the
wetlands to be studied are unknown. For costing purposes it has been assumed that
nine wetlands with differing characteristics would be studied. The selection of
wetlands will be made in cooperation with NYSDEC biologists.
10—19
-------
The objective of this study will be to determine the extent to which recreational
and commercial fish are adversely affected by PCBs originating in the sediments of
the wetlands. For this purpose an attempt will be made to correlate fish—flesh PCB
concentrations with sediment (subtask 4) and “lower food chain organism” (subtask
2) PCB concentrations. A determination should then be made as to the importance
of the wetlands in regard to the PCB balance in the aquatic food chain.
Method
The methods to be used for the fish sampling are similar to those described in the
NYSDEC Environmental Monitoring Plan (NYSDEC, April 1982). Sampling will
Involve the electro—shocking of wetland game fish. The fish will be collected and
frozen for later analysis. The fish will first be counted, then separated according
to species; later the flesh of each fish will be analyzed for its PCB content. In
addition the stomach of each fish will be analyzed to determine the dietary content
and the PCB concentration of the food. This analysis, in combination with the
results of the study of Hudson River macroinvertebrates (subtask 2), can be used to
determine PCB transport through the wetland food chain. Costs for this subtask
($70,000) are based on 480 hours of effort and 180 samples. Costs could change
depending on the availability of State equipment and technicians.
Subtask 2 — Macroinvertebrate Study
Present Sampling Efforts
New York State eaâh year conducts a macroinvertebrate study of the Hudson
River, but this study is not specifically designed for wetland macroinvertebrates.
Description
The wetland benthic community may comprise a large component of the Hudson
River game fish diet. The communhiy s potentially a continuous source of PCB
contamination in these fish, and, in effect, the predators of these fish (animals,
birds, larger fish) as this contamination moves up the food chain. By equating
10—20
-------
wetland macroinvertebrate PCB content with fish—flesh and stomach analysis
results (subtask 1), a relationship may be determined (via modeling), revealing the
mechanism of PCB transport through the food chain.
Method
Wetland sampling will be conducted according to the schedule currently followed
by the State. Samples are collected at 5—week intervals during the sampling season
(June—September) (NYSDEC, April 1982). Macroinvertebrate organisms will be
collected by three methods: multiplate, dlpnet, and bottom dredge sampling.
Used to collect a large varIety of insect larva, the multiplate sampler consists of a
series of parallel concentric plates, which act as an artificial substrate for the
development of macroinvertebrate communities. Placed under water in the
wetlands for approximately two weeks, small colonies develop on the hardboard
plates of the sampler. After the removal of the sampler from the river, the plates
are separated and an inventory of the colonized organisms is taken——identifying
species diversity——and afterward representative samples of the organisms are taken
and analyzed for PCB content (NYSDEC, April 1982).
Caddisfly larvae (not collected by the muitiplate sampler) are collected with a
D—frame aquatic dipnet or by picking tI le larvae directly off rocks removed from
the river (NYSDEC, April 1982). An inventory and analysis is performed as noted
above,
In addition, organisms living in the sediments will be sampled using a bottom
dredge (small mechanical clam—shell), and the organisms will be separated from the
sediments by screening. Samples will first be separated according to species and
later analyzed for PCB content. This subtask is estimated to cost about $34,000.
10—21
-------
Subtask 3 — Wetland Vegetation Sampling
Present Sampling Efforts
Presently there is no information on the PCB content of wetland vegetation.
Malcolm Pirnie (1980) indicated that PCB uptake by marshland vegetation would be
minimal. PCB analysis of terrestrial vegetation, however, indicates that
absorption of airborne PCBs can result in PCB levels in foliage which are
significantly higher than background levels.
Description
Wetland vegetation sampling will consist of compositing stem and foliage samples
from species occupying each of the wetland areas in question and analyzing them
for PCBs.
Methods
At each wetland area, 20 stem and leaf subsamples from resident species will be
collected and composited to form two samples for analysis. Collections will be
made near the end of the growing season in September so the total accumulation of
PCB will be determined. Sample preparation and analysis will be done according to
the procedures described under terrestrial vegetation sampling. Costs for this
subtask are based on 18 samples and are estimated at $26,000.
Subtask 4 — Wetland Sediment Sampling
Present Sampling Efforts
There are, at present, no sediment sampling programs being conducted to quantify
PCB contamination in the wetlands.
10—22
-------
Des cr1 ptlon
A sediment sampling and analysis program will be conducted to determine the
extent of PCB contamination throughout certain wetland areas of the Upper
Hudson. The results of this sampling, used in conjunction with the results of the
other sampling programs (subtasks 1 through 3), will be used to determine the
pathways and amount of PCB transport through the food chain from the wetlands.
The sediment sampling effort is paramount to the other tasks In that, without an
adequate determination of PCB concentrations in the organic sediments of the
wetlands, an accurate trace of PCB movement through the food chain would be
impossible. In other words, large errors made in the determinatlon of PCB
concentrations and volumes in the sediments indigenous to the wetlands will
invalidate any assumptions made about the importance of the wetlands in the food
chain transport system.
To effectively establish an adequate data base, the sampling program should
include extensive sample coring and wetland staking efforts. The sample cores will
be taken to quantify the distribution and depth of contamination, while a staking
program will delineate net deposition or scour in given wetland areas.
Method
Sample cores will be taken in relatively undisturbed areas of the wetlands.
Samples should be taken as close as possible to predetermined grid locations. At
each location a three—foot core (approximately) will be taken and split by layers
into subsamples, yielding three or four samples each. All of the samples will be
analyzed for PCB content. In addition some of the samples will also be analyzed
for particle—size class and organic content. The exact Aroclors to be analyzed for
and the method for reporting total PCBs will be specified in the Work Plan.
A staking program wilt be condUcted in all wetland areas. Metal stakes will be
placed at specific locations in the wetlands and the depth to the sediment (from
the top of the stake or a predetermined mark) will be measured on a monthly basis.
10—23
-------
As the sediment levels rise or fall in each area, an indication of net deposition or
scour will be determined for areas of individual wetlands. Costs for this subtask
are based on approximately 135 analyses. The estimated cost is $53,000.
Task 13 — Collect Terrestrial Vegetation Samples
Present Sampling Efforts
In 1978 and 1979, sampling of foliage from 10 plant species (both annual and
perennial types) was conducted throughout Washington and Saratoga Counties to
assess the levels of accumulation of PCBs in plants. In addition, background levels
of PCB in forage and row crops in four replicate plots near the proposed
containment area have been studied since 1981. These studies have revealed PCB
contamination significantly higher than background levels in species growing near
heavily contaminated PCB disposal sites. Evidence shows that PCB contamination
of plants and crops increases with decreasing distance from the river, and that
these trends are related to atmospheric PCB concentrations; however, the data are
inconclusive because there is no corresponding information on air monitoring.
Description
Foliage will be collected near the end of the growing season along road transects
corresponding to those studied by Buckley (1980), near Lock 6 (Callahan Road, East
Road), and up—river from Griffin Island (Clark Road). Plants along these transects
have shown increases In PCB content with decreasing distance from the river.
These transects also correspond to air sampling that will be performed in the area.
The species to be studied include alfalfa, red clover, field corn, trembling aspen,
large—toothed aspen, timothy, staghorn sumac, brome grass, orchard grass, and
goldenrod. Background levels and PCB trends for these species have been reported
by Buckley (1980).
Multiples of background levels (MBL) (Buckley 1980) as an expression of PCB
content in plants will be examined and used if appropriate.
10—24
-------
Methods
From 5 to 10 sampling stations will be selected at distances corresponding to
previous studies on transects placed perpendicular to the river. Vegetation
sampling will take place within 10 percent of the specified distance from the
river. A minimum of 20 subsamples from each species will be taken to comprise
one composite sample. Appropriate duplicate samples will be taken.
Sample preparation and analysis will be conducted according to methods described
in the Monitoring’ Plan (NYSDEC, 1982). This task requires the analysis of 100
composite samples and will cost approximately $18,800.
Task 14 — Reduce and Evaluate Data
Following applicable RI tasks, data generated during the study will be reduced and
evaluated. The evaluation will be used in the production of a report (Task 15) to be
submitted following the completion of all RI tasks.
The data reduction and evaluation process is necessary to ensure that all data
obtained will be usable in the course of making conclusions or data comparisons. In
addition, continuous data reduction and evaluation during the RI can provide input
for succeeding RI tasks. This task will require an estimated 1,620 man—hours of
effort and will cost approximately $60,800.
Task 15 — Prepare Remedial Investigation Report
After completion of the field investigations, all pertinent field and laboratory data
will be assembled into a detailed draft report of the Remedial Investigation. This
report will include the following items:
• Objectives of the Remedial Investigation
• Groundwater and surface water quality in the study area
10—25
-------
• A model evaluation of PCB transport through the wetland food chain
• A discussion of the current levels of PCB transport to the environment via
air, water, and biotic pathways as well as the health impacts of this
transport.
• Conclusions and recommendations of this study
The Remedial Investigation Report is estimated to cost Si 1,500.
10.4.4 Management Plan
The management plan shall include the administrative and management
requirements for performing the RI work activities. The principal sections of the
management plan are described below.
10.4.4.1 Proiect Organization and Staffing
This section describes the project’s organizational plan with regard to personnel as
well as the level of effort required to complete each task. The project manager
will be identified as well as other key project personnel.
10.4.4.2 Proiect Reports
The reporting requirements, including the quantity and distribution, will be
specified In this section. The reporting requirements for technical submittals, as
well as financial and progress reporting requirements, will be specified.
Other components of the Management Plan Include:
• Procurement
• Meetings
• Change Orders
• Community Relations Program
10—26
-------
Quality Assurance
. Health arid Safety
10.4.5 Costs and Schedule
The Remedial Investigation of the Hudson RIver will require about 55 weeks to
complete and will cost an estimated $396,000. These times and costs do not
Include NYSDEC— and USGS—sponsored fish and water monitoring programs nor do
they consider additional sediment sampling. A detailed breakdown of costs for
each task in the Remedial Investigation will be included in the Costs and Schedule
section of the Work Plan. Also , a Remedial Investigation project schedule will be
presented. Preliminary prolect schedules and cost estimates are provided in
Appendix F.
10—27
-------
REFERENCES
Site—Specific
Technical
Giese, C. L and W. A. Hoppa, Jr., 1970. Water Resources of the Champlain —
Upper Hudson Basins in New York State . U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey, Albany, New York.
Spagnoli, J. J. and L C. Skinner, 1975. PCBs in Fish from Selected Waters in New
York State . New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau
of Environmental Protection, Albany, New York.
Hullar, T., R. Mt. Pleasant, S. Pagano, J. Spagnoli, & W. Stasiuk, 1976. PCB Data
in Hudson River Fish, Sediments, Water and Wastewater . New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Sheppard, J. D., April 1976. ValuatIon of Hudson River Fishery Resources: Past.
Present, and Future. Internal Report, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation . Bureau of Fisheries, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Tofflemire, T. J., April 1976. Preliminary Report on Sediment Characteristics and
Water Column Interactions Relative to Dredging the Upper Hudson River for PCB
Removal . New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany,
New York.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, March 1976. PCB
Data in Hudson River Fish, Sediments, Water and Wastewater . Albany, New York.
Zimmie, T. F., April 19, 1976. Hudson River Bedload Sediment Samples . New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation.
R- 1
-------
Texas Instruments, Inc., May 1976. A Synthesis of Available Data Pertaining to
Major Physiochemical Variables within the Hudson River Estuary .
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., June 1976. Preliminary Appraisal, Sediment Transport
Relations, Upper Hudson River . Prepared for New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, November 1976. PCB Non—Dredging
Alternative Evaluation . Prepared for New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Spagnoli, J. J. and L C. Skinner, 1977. PCBs in Fish from Sel cted Waters of New
York State . New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany.
New York.
Horstman, K. H., May 30, 1977. Evaluation of Non—Dredging Alternatives for the
Removal of PCB Contamination from the Hudson River . Unpublished thesis,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Hydroscience, Inc., 1978. EstimatIon of PCB Reduction by Remedial Action on the
Hudson River Ecosystem . Prepared for New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1978. Feasibility Report on Dredging of PCB—Contaminated
River Bed Materials, Upper Hudson River, New York . Three volumes. Prepared
for New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New
York.
Hetling, L., E. Horn, and J. Tofflemire, April 1978. Summary of Hudson River PCB
Study Results . Prepared for New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York.
R-2
-------
Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers, September 1978. Upper Hudson River PCB
No—Action Alternative Study, Final Report . Prepared for New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Weston, November 1978. Migration of PCBs from Landfills and Dredge Spoil Sites
in the Hudson River Valley, New York — Final Report . Prepared for New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Hydroscience, Inc., 1979. Analysis of the Fate of PCBs in the Ecosystem of the
Hudson Estuary . Prepared for New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York.
Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers, 1979. Upper Hudson River PCB Transport
Modeling Study . Prepared for New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1979. The Water and
Related Land Resources of the Hudson River Basin . Albany. New York.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, January 1979.
Hudson River PCB Study Description and Detailed Work Plan . Prepared for New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Tofllemire, 1. J., L J. Hetling and S. 0. Quinn, January 1979. PCB in the Upper
Hudson River: Sediment Distributions, Water Interactions and Dredging . Prepared
for New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New
York.
Tofflemire, 1. J., February 1979. Summary Report on Lock 4 Dredging Monitoring .
Prepared for New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany,
New York.
R-3
-------
Toffiemire, T. J. and S. 0. Quinn, April 1979. PCB in the Upper Hudson River:
Mapping and Sediment Relationships . Prepared for New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Hetling, L J., 1. J. Tofflemire, and E. G. Horn, May 31, 1979. The Hudson River
PCB Problem: Management Alternatives . Reprinted from the Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, Volume 320, pp. 630—650.
Horn, E. G., L J. Hetling, and T. J. Tofflemire, May 31, 1979. The Problem of
PCBs in the Hudson River System . Reprinted from the Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, Volume 320, pp. 591—609.
Tofflemire, T. J., November 1979. Improving the Efficiency of Dredging Several
Feet of Contaminated Sediment Off the Top of an Uncontaminated Sediment .
Prepared for New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany,
New York.
Lawier, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers, December 1979. Upper Hudson River PCB
Transport Modeling Study: Final Report . Peart River, New York. Prepared for
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Armstrong, R. W. and R. ,J. Sloan, circa 1980, Patterns in Hudson River FIsh ’
Resident—Freshwater Species . New York State Department of Environmental
Cobservation, Bureau of Fish & Wildlife.
Buckley, E. H. 1980. PCBs in Vegetation . Boyce Thompson institute, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York.
Gahagan and Bryant, 1980. Boring logs — Thompson Island Pool . Prepared for New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
O’Brien and Gere, 1980. Environmental Monitoring Program, Hudson River
Maintenance Dredging . Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York
District.
R-4
-------
Zimmie, T. F., 1980. Determining Rates of Cohesive Sediment Erosion for the
Hudson River, Final Report . Prepared for New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Tofflemire, 1. J., March 1980. PCB in Sediments and Water and their Transport,
Draft Report . Prepared for New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York.
Armstrong, R. W. and R. J. Sloan, June 1980. Trends in Levels of .Several Known
Chemical Contaminants in Fish from New York State Waters . Prepared for New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Tofflemire, 1. J., August 25, 1980. Letter to I. Carcich — Wetland Sediment Work:
August 21, 1980 . New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, New York.
Tofflemire, 1. J., S. 0. Quinn, and I. G. Carcich, September 1980. Sediment and
Water Sampling and Analysis for Toxics: Relative to PCB in the Hudson River .
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany. New York.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., September 1980. Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
New York State Environmental Quali-ty Review: PCB Hot Spot Dredging Program,
Upper Hudson River, New York . Prepared for New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, December 1980.
Results of 1978 Barge Sampling In the Hudson River . Albany, New York.
Armstrong, R. W. and R. J. Sloan, circa 1981. PCB Patterns in Hudson River
Fish I. Resident/Freshwater Species . New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, circa 1981. General
1981—1985 Hudson River PCB Sampling Design for Fish Monitoring . Albany, New
‘York.
R-5
-------
Sloan, R. J. and R. W. Armstrong, circa 1981. PCB Patterns in Hudson River Fish
II. Migrant/Marine Species . New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York.
Bopp, A. F., H. J. Simpson, C. R. Olsen, and N. Kostyk. 1981. Polychlorinated
Biphenyls in Sediments of the Tidal Hudson River. New York .
Johnson, B. J., 1981. PCBs in Hudson River Sediments . Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Obrien and Gere, 1981. Hudson River Water Treatabilitv Study . Prepared for New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Turk, J. T. and D. E. Troutman, 1981. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Transport in the
Hudson River, New York . U.S.G.S., Albany, New York.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, April 1981. PCB
Desorption from River Sediments Suspended During Dredging . Albany, New York.
Tofflemire, 1. J., April 20, 1981. Letter to I. Carcich — Darmer PCB Summary .
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Zimmie, T. F., May 1981. Determining Rates of Cohesive Sediment Erosion for the
Hudson River . Prepared for New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York.
Tofflemire, T. J., October 14, 1981. Letter to Mr. Carcich — PCB Hot Spot Maps —
New Contour Line at 20—25 ppm . New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. December 1981.
Volatilization of PCB from Sediment and Water: Experimental and Field Data .
Albany, New York.
R-6
-------
Tofflemira, T. J., and M. B. Werner. March 29, 1982. Letter to Mark Brown —
Analysis of U.S.G.S. 1980—1981 Water Year Data . New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, AprIl 1982. Industrial
Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Board—Decision . Albany. New York.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, May 1982.
Department of Environmental Conservation Decision . Albany, New York.
New York State Department of Environmenta’ Conservation. August 1982.
Environmental Monitoring Program, Hudson River PCB Reclarriation Demonstration
Proiect . Albany, New York.
Malcolm Plrnie, Inc., 1983. Hudson River Federal Channel Maintenance Dredging .
Prepared for Department of the Army, New York District Corps of Engineers.
Tofflemire. T. J., March 16, 1983. Letter to Mr. Carcich — 1981—82 Year Water
Data from U.S.G.S . New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, New York.
Brown, M. P. and M. B. Werner, April 1983. Recent Trends in the Distribution of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the Hudson River System . Prepared for New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Tofflemire, T. J., May 10, 1983. Letter to Mr. Carcich — Summary of Hudson Pool
Elevations During May 2—5 Flood . New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York.
Tofftemire, 1. J., May 31, 1983. Letter to J. Werling of NUS Corporation —
Recommended Sample Locations . New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York.
R-7
-------
Drew, R. S., June 1983. Letter to J. Werling of NUS Corporation — Hudson River
PCB Dredging Reclamation Proiect . New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
McArthur, R., June 1983. Personal Communication with J. Yeasted of NUS
Corporation . Hydrologic Engineering Center. Davis, California.
Treiling, K. S., July 6, 1983. Letter to J. Werling, NUS Corporation — Design
Specifications and Monitoring Data for the Moreau Dredge Disposal Site . New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Shuckrow, A. J., July 8, 1983. “ PCB Immobilization, Detoxification, Degradation,
and Destruction — Technological Advances Since 1980. ” Prepared for NUS
Corporation by Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., Beaver, Pennsylvania.
Tofflemire, 1. J., no date. Lower Hudson River PCB Data . New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Community Relations/Legal
Stuart, A., May 19, 1983 “U.S. sued for funds to clean up Hudson.” The
Knickerbocker News . Albany, New York.
Non—Site—Specific
Cushman, 1950. The Groundwater Resources of Rensselaer County. New York .
NYS Water Power and Control Commission, Bulletin GW—21.
Cushman, 1953. The Groundwater Resources of Washington County, New York .
NYS Water Power and Control Commission, Bulletin GW—33.
R-8
-------
Heath, R. C., F. K. Mack. and J. A. Tannanbaum, 1963. Groundwater Studies in
Saratoga County, New York . NYS Department of Conservation Water Resources
Commission, Bulletin GW—49.
Chow, V. T., 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology . McGraw Hill, Inc., New York,
New York.
Suggs, I. D., D. H. Petersen, and J. B. Middlebrook, Jr., 1972. Mercury Pollution
Control in Stream & Lake Sediments, USEPA Water Pollution Control Research
Series 16080HT D7427 . Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1975. QJj
Survey of Washington County, New York . Washington, D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976. Operating Manual for HEC—6 Model .
Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), April 1977. NIOSH Manual of Analytical
Methods . U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio.
National Research Council, 1979. Polychlorinated Biphenyls . National Academy of
Sciences.
Zimmie, T. F., 1979. Measurement of Toxic Substances Transport via Bedload
Sediment . Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.
Shen, T. and T. J. Tofflemire, March 1979. Air Pollution Aspects of Land Disposal
of Toxic Waste . Prepared for New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, New York.
Arismen, R. K., R. C. Music, General Electric; J. D. Zeff, T. C. Crase, Westgate
Research; May 1980. “Experience in Operation of an Ultraviolet—Ozone (Ultox)
Pilot Plant for Destroying Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Industrial Waste Influent.”
R-9
-------
Proceedings — 35th Industrial Waste Conference , Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana.
Miller. R. A., J. D. Johnson, R. W. Helsel, and D. M. PiUs, May 1980. “Destruction
of Toxic Chemicals by Catalyzed Wet Oxidation.” Proceedings — 35th Industrial
Waste Conference . Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, September 1980. A Safe, Efficient Chemical
Disposal Method for Potychlorinated Biphenyls — PCBs . Akron, Ohio.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981. Local Climatological
Data Annual Summaries for 1981 . Asheville, North Carolina.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, January 1981. Position Paper . Syracuse, New
York.
Valentine. R. S., February 1981. “LARC — Light Activated Reduction of
Chemicals” Pollution Engineering . Atlantic Research Corporation.
Edwards, B. H., J. N. Pacellin, and K. Caghlan—Jordan, March 1981. “Emerging
Technologies for the Destruction of Hazardous Waste — Ultraviolet/Ozone
Destruction.” Proceedinq of EPA Seventh Annual Research Symposium .
Barton, T. C., and C. P. Arsenault, May 1981. “Toxic Waste Destruction by Plasma
Pyrolysis. Proceedings — 36th Industrial Waste Conference , Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana.
Hornig, A. W., May 1981. Decomposition of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Using a
Novel High—Temperature Fluid Wall Reactor.” Proceedings — 36th Industrial Waste
Conference , Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, June 1981. Toxic
Substances in Fish and Wildlife: 1979 and 1980 Annual Report , Vol. 4, No. 1.
Albany, New York.
R- 10
-------
Randall, T. L, June 1981. lNet Oxidation of Toxic and Hazardous Compounds.
Proceedings — 13th Mid—Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference .
Berry, R. J., August 10, 1981. “New Ways to Destroy PCBs.H Chemical
Engineering , Vol. 88, No. 16, New York, New York.
Lihach, N., October 1981. Managing PCBs . ” EPRI JournaL Vol. 6, No. 8, Palo
Alto, California.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, December 1981.
Toxic Substances in Fish and Wildlife: May 1 to November 1, 1981. Volume 4,
No. 2 . Albany, New York.
Brown, M. P., J. A. McLaughlin, and J. M. O’Connor, 1982. A Mathematical Model
of PCB Bloaccumulation in Plankton . Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
Amsterdam.
Rand McNally, 1982. Road Atlas . Rand McNally and Company, Chicago, Illinois.
Craddock, J. H., March 8—10, 1982. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Disposal and
Treatment Technologies — An Update . Presented by Monsanto Company at the
Fertilizer institute Environmental Symposium.
Fradkin, L, and S. Barisas, June 1982. Waste Management Options for PCBs.#
Proceedings — 14th Mid—Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference . Argonne National
Laboratory.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, June 1982. Toxic
Substances in Fish and Wildlife, November 1, 1981 to Aprrl 30, 1982 . Vol. 5, No. 1:
Albany, New York.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. July 1, 1982. Amine—Enhanced
Photodegradation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls EPRI Report CS2513.
R—1 1
-------
Johanson, J., September 1982. “Molten Salt Destruction of PCBs. Proceedings:
1981 PCB Seminar , EPRI Report EL2572.
Matovich, E., September 1982. “Treatment of PCB—Contaminated Soils with the
Thagard High—Temperature Fluid — Wall Reactor.” Proceedings: 1981 PCB
Seminar , EPRI Report EL2572.
Miille, i3. J., September 1982. “Chemical Decomposition of PCBs in Transformer
Fluids: The Acurex process.” Proceedings: 1981 PCB Seminar , EPRI Report EL
2572.
O’Connor, J. M., December 17, 1982. Evaluating of Capping Operations at the
Experimental Mud Dump Site, N.Y. Bight Apex, 1980 . New York University
Medical Center Institute of Environmental Medicine, Tuxedo, New York.
Brunelle. D. J. and D. A. Singleton, 1983.- “Destruction/Removal of Poly—
chlorinated Biphenyls from Non—Polar Media. Reaction of PCB with Polyethylene
GlycoI/KOH. ” Chemosphere , Vol. 12, No. 2.
Schink. B. and M. Stieb, June 1983. “Fermentative Degradation of Polyethylene
Glycol by a Strictly Anaerobic Gram—negative, Nonsporeforrning Bacterium.”
Applied and Environmental Microbiology , Vol. 45, No. 6, University of Konstanz,
West Germany.
Greene, R., July 11, 1983. “CE Alert: New Technology.” Chemical Engineering ,
Vol. 90, No. 14, New York. New York.
Hague, R., 0. W. Schmedding and V. H. Freed, no date. Aqueous Solubility,
Adsorption and Vapor Behavior of Polychlorinated Biphenyt Aroclor 1254 . Oregon
State University, Corvallis. Oregon.
NUS Corporation, Superfund Division. 1983. Quality Control Procedures Manual .
NUS Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
R— 12
-------
APPENDIX A
SITE CHRONOLOGY
HUDSON RIVER PCBs SITE. NEW YORK
-------
APPENDIX A
SITE CHRONOLOGY
HUDSON RIVER PCBs SITE. NEW YORK
1822 Fort Edward Dam completed.
1898 Fort Edward Dam reconstructed.
1950—1970 Navigational dredging removes an average of 23,000 cubic
yards of sediment per year in Ford Edward area.
1950—1976 General Electric discharges approximately 500,000 pounds
of PCBs into Hudson River from two capacitor plants in
Hudson Falls.
1969 Elevated levels of PCBs were first discovered in Hudson
River biota.
December 18, 1972 General Electric applies for a discharge permit, for an
average discharge of 30 pounds/day of Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons. Permit became effective January 1975.
Spring 1973 30,000 cubic yards of sediment dredged by contractor to
Scott Paper Company.
July—October 1973 Fort Edward Dam was removed because of its
deteriorating condition.
July 1973—July 1974 850,000 cubic yards of sediment are scoured from former
dam pool and 790,000 cubic yards deposited in east and
west channels near Rogers Island.
A-i
-------
1974—1975 615,000 cubic yards of sediment dredged by NYSDOT
from east and west channels near Rogers Island.
April 1974 Attorney General of State of New York brought suit
against Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation for permit
violation due to excessive downstream transport of
sediment and debris following removal of Fort Edward
Dam.
August 1974 USEPA found PCB levels in fish as high as 350 ppm in the
Upper Hudson River.
October 1974— Timber rock cribs removed; rock placed to stabilize
July 1975 remnant deposits 3 and 4; banks shaped; dumped rock
stabilized remnant deposit 5.
January 1975 G.E. permit to discharge 30 pounds/day of “Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons” became effective.
September 8, 1975 NYSDEC brought suit against GE for PCB contamination
of tI e Hudson River.
1975—1976 PCB levels in all species of fish sampled in some areas of
the Hudson River were found to be exceeding the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration tolerance level of 5 ppm.
1976 35,000 cubic yards dredged in the vicinity of buoy 212 by
NYSDOT; fishery closed.
February 9, 1976 HearIng Officer found that DEC had presented
overwhelming evidence of GE’s responsibility for PCB
contamination of Hudson River.
A-2
-------
April 2, 1976 100—year flood occurs; additional 260,000 cubic yards of
sediment scoured from unstabilized areas in former dam
pool.
Summer 1976 Survey of Hudson River begins and lasts until 1978 from
which 40 hot spots were identified.
September 8, 1976 Settlement of Hudson River PCB contamination hearing
was reached.
September 1976 General Electric reduces daily PCB discharges to 454 g
(1.0 Ib) into Hudson River from the capacitor plants in
Hudson Falls and Fort Edward.
July 1977 General Electric reduces daily PCB discharges to less
than 0.0022 lb into Hudson River from two capacitor
plants in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward.
September— 180,000 cubic yards of sediment dredged from east
December 1977, channel and placed in new Moreau site, along with
April—June 1978 material removed from remnant deposit 3a.
April 1978 NYSDEC issued summary of Hudson River PCB study
results.
June—August 1978 Banks of remnant deposits 3 and 5 were restabilized.
October 1978 NYSDEC removed 14,000 cubic yards of sediment from
the most contaminated remnant pool deposits and
deposited them in the Moreau Landfill.
September 1980 Clean Water Act (CWA) amendment entitled Hudson
River PCB Reclamation Demonstration Project was
A-3
-------
passed by Congress; EPA was authorized to spend up to
$20,000,000 toward a proposed demonstration/reclamation
project for removal and disposal of PCB—contaminated
sediments from the Hudson River.
September 1980 Malcolm Pirnie issued Environmental Impact Statement
on PCB Hot Spot Dredging Program, Upper Hudson River,
New York.
October 1980 CWA Section 10 Amendments passed, which authorized
EPA to make grants to the NYSDEC for the Hudson River
PCB Reclamation Demonstration ProjeOt.
January 12, 1981 EPA — Region II issued Notice of Intent to prepare an
E.I.S.
May 8, 1981 EPA — Region II issued draft Environmental Impact
Statement on Hudson River PCB Reclamation
Demonstration Project.
June 23—25. 198) EPA and Army Corps of Engineers co—chaired public
hearings on the Draft E.I.S.
August 28, 1981 EPA — Region II Issued Supplemental Draft to E.l.S.
April 22, 1982 NYS Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Board rendered
decision to approve a site for the disposal of PCB—
contaminated sediments.
October 8, 1982 EPA — Region II issued final E.l.S. on Hudson River PCB
Reclamation Demonstration Project.
A-4
-------
December 30, 1982 EPA — Region I I issued Record of Decision for the
Environmental Impact Statement on the Hudson River
PCB Reclamation/Demonstration Project, which switched
project funding from CWA to CERCLA.
April—May 1983 Return of flood flows approaching the 80—year recurrence
frequency.
April 27, 1983 RemedIal Action Master Plan (RAMP) was assigned to
NUS Corporation by EPA.
May 19, 1983 Four environmental groups and a Weschester County, New
York. Congressman sue EPA for release of CWA
authorized cleanup funds.
June 1983 NYSDEC files intent to sue EPA for release of CWA
authorized cleanup funds.
August 1983 Site permit overturned.
September 8, 1983 EPA added the upper Hudson River to the CERCLA list
for New York State.
September, 1983 Court order drops September 30, 1983 deadline for
commitment or loss of CWA funds assigned to New York.
A- 5
-------
APPENDIX B
COST EFFECTIVENESS MATRICES
HUDSON RIVER PCBs SITE. NEW YORK
-------
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
9.3.1.1
DETOXIFICATION OF REMOVED
SEDIMENTS WITH KOHPEG’
TYPE OF
RATING
FACTORS
INIT IAL
RATING
WEIGHTED
RATING
9.3.1.2
DETOXIFICATION OF REMOVED
SEDIMENTS WITH WET AIR
OXIDATION
INITIAL
RATING
WEIGHTED
RATING
9.3.1.3
DESTRUCTION OF REMOVED
SEDIMENTS BY INCINERATION
INITIAL
RATING
WEIGHTED
RAT IN G
REMOVED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION DURING REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PROCESS
COST EFFECTIVENESS MATRIX
FIGURE B-I
- 1NU9
_COR JR flON
0 A HaIlib; 1 Company
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, NY
-------
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
9.3.1.4
SECURE LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF
REMOVED SEDIMENTS
COST EFFECTIVENESS MATRIX
FIGURE B-2
NUB
____ ORPORATKJN
0 A Halliburlon Company
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE 1 NY
-------
RIVER SEDIMENT ALTERNATIVES
9.3.1.5
DREDGING OF 40 HOT SPOTS
9.3.1.7
NO ACTION FOR RIVER SEDIMENTS
ROUTINE DREDGING CONTINUES,
WATER SUPPLY IS NOT TREATED
COST EFFECTIVENESS MATRIX
FIGURE B-3
NUB
_CO flRA ON
0 A HaIlibu Company
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE,NY
-------
COST EFFECTIVENESS MATRIX
FIGURE B-4
NUB
_COF JRA ON
0 A Halliburlon Company
RIVER SEDIMENT ALERNATIVES
COST
L4FARIIR
EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES
ALTERNATIVES
t
1;;
z
0
0
ki
C.)
2
S d
2
2
I-
‘
I a
0
0
0
s .i
U)
S
z
X
C.)
If:!
tI1
F
It.
0
urn
Z
8
i
U)
j
IL 4w
>
0
-J
j t J
m ?o 5 4
O 0 WLIJ
0
0
U)
2’-4
‘ I i
> ?
1 tL
U i Iii
U U
TYPE OF
RATING
U)
2
I-
4
0
U
WEIGHTINOFACTORS
1.0
1.2 Ø’.
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
9.3.1.8
NO ACTION FOR RIVER SEDIMENTS,
ROUTINE DREDGING CONTINUES,
WATER SUPPLY IS TREATED
INITIAL
RATING
1.0
—
1.0
I
2
5
6
4
I
WEIGHTED
RATING
1.0
1.2
2.2
3.0
4.4
1.0
1.2
3.0
2.5
2.0
0.4
7.5
79
INITIAL
RATING
WEIGHTED
RAT I N 6
.
INITIAL
RATING
WEIGHTED
RATING
.
HUDSON RIVER PCB SIT ,NY
-------
COST EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES
1&E I ......
r
or
U i Ui Z
o F 4w w U)
z _i >
REMNANT DEPOSIT ALTERNATIVES 8 U,
I L. iO o U )!
w5 c. z I-
U) c i 1 ..
hi_i 0_i
2 Z 12: 9 4WO _i
z z c u
2 9 0 b .U) U) U
___________ ________ I-. O > . ., ...
w w
z I—o Z
U) o x
TYPEOF z w .,
o a. U, w w
ALTERNATIVES RATING ° ° “ ‘
I_i
WEIGHTING FACTORS (.0 1.2 0.6 1.1 (.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4
9.3.1.9
TOTAL REMOVAL OF REMNANT
DEPOSITS
INITIAL
RATING
2.0
1.1
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
5
WEIGHTED
RATING
2.0
1.3
3.3
3.0
5.5
6.0
2.4
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
24.9
7.5
9.3.1.10
PARTIAL REMOVAL OF REMNANT
DEPOSITS
INITIAL
RATING
I
.
2
3
3
4
4
4
3
WEIGHTED
RATING
(.5
(.4
2.9
0
2.2
3.0
(.8
2.4
2.0
2.0
(.2
(7.0
6.1
9.3.1.11
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO REMNANT
DEPOSITS
INITIAL
RATING
.
1.0
—
(.0
I
I
‘
WEIGHTED
RATING
(.0
(.2
2.2
3.0
1.1
(.0
1.2
0.6
2.5
2.6
0.4
(2.3
6.6
COST EFFECTIVENESS MATRIX FIGURE B-5
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, NY
____ ORPIJRATKJN
0 A Halbburt COmpany
-------
COST
MEARIIR
REMNANT DEPOSIT ALTERNATIVES
S
EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES
ALTERNATIVES
0
t
z
o
°
l U
z
C.)
2
w
a.
°
.
co
4U)
2
1;:;
0 X
2
, o
1.1
UI
(I)
o
j
ljI.
c ’
14
)-
I-
2
8
(
‘
2
‘ ‘
4W UI
W 0 z
‘ o
U)
U )
2
W
8
2
U)
U)
UI
>
j
()
UI
I L
‘U
TYPEOF
RATING
WEIGHTING FACTORS I
.0 I .2
U)
2
I-
4
0
0
14
0.6 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4
&3.I. 12
IN-PLACE CONTAINMENT OF
REMNANT DEPOSITS
INITIAL
RATING
WEIGHTED
RATING
1.1
1.2
2.3
30
33
30
2.4
1.0
2.5
20
1.2
192 8.3
9.3.1.13
IN-SITU DETOXIFICATION OF
REMNANT DEPOSITS WITH KOHPEG*
INITIAL
RATING
WEIGHTED
RATING
9.31.14
NO ACTION ON REMNANT DEPOSITS
WITH RESTRICTED ACCESS TO
DEPOSITS 3 AND 5
INITIAL
RATING
‘°
1.0
liEu
ii
iii
iii
iii
liEu
IEI
lii
I
WEIGHTED
RATING
1.2
2.2
30
II
10
06
06
2.5
2
04
I
II.? 5.3
* REMOVED FROM FURThER CONSIDERATION DURING REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATIoN PROCESS
ST_EFFECTIVENESS MATRIX
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, NY
FIGURE B-6
NUB
_CORPORAT N
0 A Halliburlon Company
-------
REMNAMT DEPOSIT ALTERNATIVES
9.3.1.15
PARTIAL REMNANT DEPOSIT
REMOVAL /PARTIAL IN-PLACE
CONTAINMENT
9.3.1.16
PARTIAL REMNANT DEPOSIT
REMOVAL/PARTIAL RESTRICTED
ACCESS
&3.1 17
PARTIAL REMNANT DEPOSIT
IN-PLACE CONTAINMENT/
PARTIAL RESTRICTED ACCESS
COST EFFECTIVENESS MATRIX
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, NY
FIGURE 8-7
HINUB
_ OR AT N
0 A Halbbui. .. ompany
‘-.1
-------
REMNANT DEPOSIT ALTERNATIVES
TYPE OF
RATING
FACTORS
9.3.118
PARTIAL REMNANT DEPOSIT
IN-PLACE CONTAINMENT/PARTIAL
IN-SITU DETOXIFICATION *
9.3.1.19
PARTIAL REMNANT DEPOSIT
REMOVAL/PARTIAL IN-SITU
DETOXIFICATION *
IMT IAL
RATING
WE IGHTED
RATING
INITIAL
RATING
WE IGHTED
RATING
9.3. 1.20
PARTIAL RESTRICTED ACCESS TO
REMNANT DEPOSITS/ PARTIAL
IN-SITU DETOXIFICATION*
INITIAL
RATING
FIGURE B-8
H NUB
_CCFPORA ON
0 A Halliburlon Company
WEIGHTED
RATING
REMOVED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION DURING REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
COST EFFECTIVENESS MATRIX
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE 1 NY
PROCESS
-------
APPENDIX C
ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
HUDSON RIVER PCBs SITE, NEW YORK
-------
The estimated costs used in the matrix evaluation of remedial alternatives are
exhibited in Appendix A. The Capital Cost items are presented for each
alternative, in order of appearance of alternatives in Chapter 9, on pages C2—C21.
Operation and maintenance cost Items are presented on pages 22 through 41.
C - i
-------
9.3.1.1 DETOX. OF SEDIMENTS WITH KOEPEG
COMPONENT
UNITS UNIT COST
SUBTOTALS
TOTALS
MOB/DEMOB
CONTAINMENT BASIN
OPERATING COST
TREATMENT COST
TESTING AND MONITORING
LANDFILL OF REFUSE
HEALTH & SAFETY
0 00
2 ,000
150,000
100
45,000
9,200,000
.25
3,0 00
75,0 00
300,000
145,00 0,’) 00
45,000
9,200 , 000 -
36)337,000
SUBTOTAL
19 OS 6 0,0 00
20% CONTINGENCY
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT
15% ENGINEERING
38,]. 9 2,0 00
229,]. 52,000
22.9 1 5 2 00
252.067,2 00
37,8 1 Q 0 80
)TAL CAPITAL COST
289S77,280
1
3
2
] 4 500 00
1
1
145 ,348D00
C-2
-------
9.3.1.2 WET AIR OXIDATION OF SEDIMENTS
COMPONENT
UNITS UNIT COST
SUBTOTALS
TOTALS
SUBTOTAL
1
1
2
1
1452.000
1
25
127 ,0 00,0 00
1
1
10,187,000
3000
75,000
150,0 00
20,000
1
- 5,000
2,00 0,0 00
.066
45,0 00
9 00 ,O00
.25
3000
7 5 ,0 00
30 0,0 00
20,000
1.452,000
5,000
50,000,000
8,382,000
45,000
9200,000
2 46,750
72,02 8 50
20% CONTINGENCY
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT
15% ENGINEERING
1440 5 50
86434500
95 , 077 __ -
14261.693
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
109,339.643
MOB/DEMOB
CONTAINMENT BASIN
OPERATING COST
SCREENING
OPERATING COST
CRUSHING AND SLURRYING
OXIDATION UNITS
TREATMENT COSTS
TESTING AND MONITORING
LANDFILL OF REFUSE
HEALTH & SAFETY
8 4 3A 50
C-3
-------
9.3.1.3 INCINERATION OF SEDIMENTS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
IRECT COSTS: 0
KILNS/ANCILLARY UNITS 1 -118,89E .000 118,895,000
RESIDUE DISPOSAL 1 500,000 500,000
MOB/DEMOB 3 .000 3,000
LABOR 0
OPERATING LABOR 2 a736 ,000 17,472000
MAINTENANCE 1 S969 ,750 969 ,750
SUPERVISORY 1 46 8 350 4,68 350
MATERIALS 0
FLOCCULANT 2 116,500 233,000
MAINTENANCE 1 5 96-9 750 5 ,969 .750
UTILITIES 0
ELECTRICITY 2 50 000 1 OQ .000
FUEL OIL 2 1 ,543 00O 3,086.000
SECONDARY WASTE DISPOSAL 2 300D00 60 000
HEALTH & SAFETY 28,133,100 .25 7,033,275
SUBTOTAL 164,550,125
20% CONTINGENCY 32910,025
197,460150
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 19,746,015
217,206,165
15% ENGINEERING 32580,925
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 249,787,090
C-4
-------
SUBTOTALS
1 5,843,000
1 1,740,000
1 426,000
0
3 3,000
8,012,000 2,003,000
9.3.1.4 SECURE LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SEDIMENTS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST
SITE CONSTRUCTION 5,843,000
COVER COSTS 1,740,000
SITE MODIFICATIONS AFTER 426,000
CLOSURE
MOB/DEMOB 1,000
HEALTH & SAFETY .25
SUBTOTAL
20% CONTINGENCY
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT
15% ENGINEERING
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
TOTA.
10,015,0 00
2,003,000
12,018,000
1201,800
1321 8 00
1,982,970
15,20 2,7 70
C-S
-------
9.3.1.5 DREDGING OF 40 HOT SPOTS
OMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
PREDREDGE SAMPLING
DREDGING:
THOMPSON ISLAND
LOCK #6
LOCK #5
LOCK #4
LOCK #3
LOCK #2
MAT’L REHANDLING
SEDIMENT DISPOSAL
MOB/DEMOB
HEALTH & SAFETY
SUBTOTAL 36223 ,500
20% CONTINGENCY 7244700
4346 8,2 00
47 , 81S020
5% ENGINEERING 7 .72,253
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 54 87 ,273
1
1,370,000
1,370,000
0
1
7,204,000
7,204,000
1
838,000
838,000
1
2,800,000
2,800,000
1
1,318,000
1,318,000
1
1,360,000
1,360,000
1
1,446000
1,446,000
1
441,000
441,000
3,452,000
8.4
12,196,800
5
3,000
5 ,000
28,978,800
.25
7,244,700
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT
4,346,820
C-6
-------
9.3.1.6 REDUCED SCALE DREDGING
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTA
PREDREDGE SAMPLING 1 1 ,370000 3 ,37Q000
DREDGING: 0
THOMPSON ISLAND 1 7 ,204000 7,204000
LOWER POOL 1 3 ,503 00 3,503,000
MAT’L REHANDLING 1 441000 443,000
SEDIMENT DISPOSAL 645 450 8.4 5,423,780
MOB/DEMOB 4 1 000 000
HEALTH & SAFETY 17,943;780 .25 4485945
SUBTOTAL — — 22 ,429 725
20% CONTINGENCY 4485,945
2 9 1 5.6 70
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 2,691,567
2 6 07,237
15% ENGINEERING 4,441.086
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 34048 23
C-7
-------
9.3.1.7 NO REMEDIAL ACTION, WATER SUPPLY NOT TREATED
TREATABILITY ASSESSMENT 120,000
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 120,000
C-8
-------
9.3.1.8 NO ACTION, WATER SUPPLY TREATED
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
CARBON ADSORPTION TREAT- 1 75,000 75,000
MENT 0
SUBTOTAL 75,000
20% CONTINGENCY 15,000
90,000
10% OVERBEAD AND PROFIT 9,000
9 9,0 00
15% ENGINEERING 14,850
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 113,850
C-9
-------
9.3.1.9 TOTAL REMOVAL OF ALL REMNANT DEPOSITS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
CONSTRUCT HAUL ROADS 27,000 3 BLOOD
CLEAR & GRUB FOR ROADS .9 45 40.5
EXCAVATION 350200 6 2 1 10L200
HAULING 350,200 4 1,400,800
REGRADING 80,650 3 24L950
REVEGETATION 49.8 1000 49,800
NOB/DEMOB 5 1000 5,000
SECURE LANDFILL DISPOSAL 0
OF #1—5 350,200 8.4 2 ,94L680
HEALTH & SAFETY 6,690,630 .25 1472 ,657.5
SUBTOTAL 84 94,128
20% CONTINGENCY 1 98 ,826
10,192,954
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 1 19 ,295
1),,2 12,249
15% ENGINEERING Z681$37
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 12894,086
c-i 0
-------
4,556,909
911382
546 &2 91
546,829
6 , 015120
902268
6917,?
TOTh.
SUBTOTALS
1,]. 56,2 00
84000
17,300
2,000
9
770,800
0
1,618,680
907,9 20
9.3.1.10 PARTIAL REMOVAL OF REMNANT DEPOSITS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST
EXCAVATION OF #3 & 5 192 00 6
REGRADING OF #3 & 5 28 00 3
REVEGETATION OF #3 & 5 17.3 1 ,000
MOB/DEMOB 2 1,000
CLEAR & GRUB FOR ROADS .2 45
HAULING OF #3 & #5 192,700 4
SECURE LANDFILL DISPOSAL
OF #3 & 5 192700 8.4
HEALTH & SAFETY 3,63 1.6 80 .25
SUBTOTAL
20% CONTINGENCY
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT
15% ENGINEERING
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
c-Il
-------
9.3.1.11 RESTRICTED ACCESS TO REMNANT DEPOSITS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
IAINLINK FENCE-LANDWARD 12,100 12.5 151 50
MAN GATES 8 250 2000
VEHICLE GATES 8 650 5,200
SIGNS 257 75 19275
REVEGETATION 49.8 1000 49,800
MOB/DENOB 5 1000 5,000
HEALTH & SAFETY 49 800 .25 12,450
St}BTOTAL 244 ,975
20% CONTINGENCY 48,995
29 3S 70
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 29,397
323367
15% ENGINEERING 48505
TOTAL CAPI TAL COST 3714872
C-i 2
-------
9.3.1.12 IN-PLACE CONTAINMENT OF REMNANT DEPOSITS
COMPONENT
UNITS UNIT COST
SUBTOTALS
‘TA
SUBTOTAL
35,000
93,000
30,300
7,000
7,000
37
0.9
5
1, 140 , 700
3
7
9
22
3
1,000
45
1,000
0.25
105,000
651,000
272,700
154,000
21,000
37,000
40.5
5,000
285,175
1,530,9
20% CONTINGENCY
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT
15% ENGINEERING
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
306,1
1,837,0
CONSTRUCT HAUL ROADS
SUBSOIL (1.5 FT THICK)
TOPSOIL (0.5 FT THICK)
RIP-RAPOF 2&4
REGRADING OF 2 & 4
REVEGATATION
CLEAR & GRUB FOR ROADS
MOB/DEMOB
HEALTH & SAFETY
183,7
2,020,8
303,1.
2,323,9
C- 3
-------
5
350,000
200
27 , 000
49.8
.9
3 5 ,0 8 4$ 00
SUBTOTALS
5,000
35,00 0 ,0 00
30,000
81,000
49 00
40.5
8,771200
9.3.1.13 IN-SITU DETOXIFICATION OF REMNANT DEPOSITS
OMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST
MOB/DEMOB 1,000
TREATMENT 100
TESTING & MONITORING 150
ACCESS ROADS 3
REVEGETATION 1 ,000
CLEAR & GRUB ROADS 45
HEALTH & SAFETY .25
SUBTOTAL
20% CONTINGENCY
TOTALS
43 $37,041
887,408
52724 449
5272445
57 $9 6 8 93
8 99,534
66 96427
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT
15% ENGINEERING
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
C- 4
-------
9.3.1.14 NO ACTION ON #1,2 & 4/RESTRICT ACCESS TO #3 & 5
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TO’I
CHAINLINX FENCE-LANDWARD 0
ON #3 & 5 5,300 12.5 66,250
MAN GATES 4 250 1,000
VEHICLE GATES 4 650 2,600
SIGNS 100 75 7,500
REVEGETATION ON #3 & 5 17.3 1)000 17,300
MOB/DENOB 2 ])000 2,000
HEALTH & SAFETY 19,300 .25 4,825
SUBTOTAL 10J ,475
20% CONTINGENCY 20,295
121.7 70
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 12 .177
133.947
15% ENGINEERING 20 92
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 154p39
C-is
-------
.3.1.15 PARTIAL REMOVAL/CONTAINMENT OF REMNANT DEPOSITS
COMPONENT
UNITS UNIT COST
SUBTOTALS
TOTALS
20% CONTINGENCY
15% ENGINEERING
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
1,187,103
7,1.22,6 19
7,834,880
1,175,232
9,010,113
CONSTRUCT HAUL ROADS
27,000
3
81,00-0
EXCAVATION OF #3
& 5
192,700
6
.
1,156,200
REGRADING OF #1,
2 & 4
11700
3
35,100
REVEGETATION OF
#1—5
49.8
1000
49,800
MOB/DENOB
5
1000
5,000
SUBSOIL ON #1,2
& 4
79,000
7
55 000
TOPSOIL ON #1,2
& 4
26,400
9
237,600
RIP—RAP #1,2 & 4
11,700
22
257,400
CLEAR & GRUB FOR
ROADS
.9
45
40.5
HAULING
192700
4
770,800
DISPOSAL (SECURE
LANDFILL)
0
OF #3 & 5
192,700
8.4
1,618,680
HEALTH & SAFETY
4,68 3 5 80
.25
1.17-0,895
SUBTOTAL
‘0 % OVERHEAD AND PROFIT
5,935,516
7]. 2,2 62
C-i 6
-------
9.3.1.16 PARTIAL REMOVAL/RESTRICTED ACCESS OF REMNANT DEPOSITS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOT
EXCAVATION 192 00 6 1,156,200
REGR.ADING OF #3 & 5 28 00 3 84,000
REVEGETATION OF #1-5 49.8 3,000 49,800
CHAINLINK FENCE-LANDWARD 6$00 12.5 85,000
MAN GATES 4 250 1,000
VEHICLE GATES 4 650 2,600
SIGNS 157 75 11,775
MOB/DEMOB 5 3,000 5,000
HAULING OF #3 & 5 192,700 4 770,800
CLEAR & GRUB ROADS .2 45 9
DISPOSAL OF #3 & 5 192,700 8.4 3,618,680
HEALTH & SAFETY 1684480 .25 921,120
SUBTO AL 4,705,984
20% CONTINGENCY 941,197
5,647,181
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 564,718
6213,899
15%ENGINEERING 93] -’ c
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 7 .43 ,6 4
C-i 7
-------
9.3.1.17 PARTIAL CONTAINMENT/RESTRICTED ACCESS OF REMNANT DEPOSITS
OMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
SUBSOIL (1.5 FT THICK) 42,000 7 294,000
TOPSOIL (0.5 FT THICK) 14 ,000 9 126,000
REVEGETATION 49.8 1,000 49,800
CHAINLINK FENCE-LANDWARD 6,800 12.5 85,000
MAN GATES 4 250 1,000
VEHICLE GATES 4 650 2,600
SIGNS 157 75 11,775
MOB/DEMOB 5 1,000 5,000
CLEAR & GRUB FOR ROADS .2 45 9
HEALTH & SAFETY 474,800 .25 118,700
SUBTOTAL 693,884
20% CONTINGENCY 13 777
83Z66].
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 8 266
91 E 9 27
15% ENGINEERING 137,389
‘ OTAL CAPITAL COST 105 316
C- 18
-------
9.3.1.18 PARTIAL CONTAINMENT/IN-SITU DETOX OF REMNANT DEPOSITS
COMPONENT
UNITS UNIT COST
SUBTOTALS
20% CONTINGENCY
15% ENGINEERING
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
3 V 3 8 49
3,07 3,3 85
33,807,233
5,071, . j
38,878.318
CONSTRUCT HAUL ROADS
27,000
3
81 ,000
SUBSOIL FOR #1,2 &4
79,000
7
553,000
TOPSOIL FOR #1, 2 & 4
26,400
9
237,600
RIP-RAP OF *1, 2 & 4
11,700
22
257,400
REGRADING OF #1,2 & 4
11,700
3
35,100
REVEGETATION
49.8
1,000
49,800
MOB/DEMOB
5
1,000
5,000
CLEAR & GRUB FOR ROADS
0
TO #2, 3 & 4
.9
45
40.5
DETOXIFICATION WI KORPEG
192700
100
19, 70,000
TESTING & MONITORING
110
150
16,500
HEALTH & SAFETY
20,424400
.25
5,106,100
SUBTOTAL
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT
25,611,541
5,122,308
C-i 9
-------
9.3.1.19 PARTIAL REMOVAL/IN-SITU DETOXIFICATION OF REMNANT DEPOSITS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
CONSTRUCT HAUL ROADS 27.000 3 81,000
EXCAVATION 157500 6 945,000
REGRADING OF 1, 2 & 4 52700 3 158.100
REVEGETATION 49.8 1,000 49200
MOB/DEIIOB 5 1,000 5,000
CLEAR & GRUB FOR ROADS .9 45 40.5
HAULING OF #1, 2 & 4 15:7,500 4 63Q.000
DISPOSAL (SECURE LANDFILL) 0
OF *1, 2 & 4 1 7 ,500 8.4 1,323,000
DETOXIFICATION WI KOHPEG 192,700 10’O 19,270,000
TESTING & MONITORING 110 150 16,500
HEALTH & SAFETY 22,397,400 .25 5,599,350
SUBTOTAL
20% CONTINGENCY
0% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT
15% ENGINEERING
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
28.077,791
5,615,558
33,693,349
3,369 35
37,062 83
5,559 403
42,622,086
C-20
-------
4
157
49.8
5
.2
192,700
110
19,341,300
REMNANT DEPOSITS
COST SUBTOTALS
12.5 85,000
250 1,000
650 2.600
75 11,775
1000 49,800
1000 5,000
45 9
100 19,270,000
150 16,500
.25 4,835,325
9.3.1.20 PARTIAL DETOX/RESTRICTED ACCESS OF
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT
CHAINLINK FENCE-LANDWARD 6,800
NAN GATES 4
VEHICLE GATES
SIGNS
REVEGETATION OF #1-5
MOB /DENOB
CLEAR & GRUB FOR ROADS
DETOXIFICATION W/ KOHPEG
TESTING & MONITORING
HEALTH & SAFETY
SUBTOTAL
20% CONTINGENCY
TOTALS
24,277,009
4,855,402
29,3.32,411
2,913,241
32,045,652
4,806
36,852,500
10% OVERHEAD AND PROFIT
15% ENGINEERING
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
C-2I
-------
.3.1.1 DETOX. OF SEDIMENTS WITH KOEPEG
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
NO O&M COSTS 0
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 0
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 0
20% CONTINGENCY 0
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST 0
C-22
-------
9.3.1.2 WET AIR OXIDATION OF SEDIMENTS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
NO O&M COSTS 0
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 0
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 0
20% CONTINGENCY 0
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST 0
C 23
-------
.3.1.3 INCINERATION OF SEDIMENTS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
NO O&M COSTS 0
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 0
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 0
20% CONTINGENCY 0
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST 0
C -24
-------
COMPONENT
S.T. LEACEATE MONITORING:
SAMPLING
TESTING
AIR MONITORING:
SAMPLING
TESTING
VEGETATION MONITORING:
SAMPLING
TESTING
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (2 YEAR PERIOD)
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE)
SUBTOTALS
0
210,000
374400
0
72,000
81,250
0
30 00
600
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
20% CONTINGENCY
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
286,056
1,286,467
1,572.523
31 4 5 05
1887,027
9.3.1.4 SECURE LANDFILL DISPOSAL OF SEDIMENTS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST
GROUNDWATER MONITORING:
SAMPLING 1 16,000
TESTING 64 200
LEACHATE MONITORING:
SAMPLING 1 2,000
TESTING 4 200
INSPECTIONS 2 1 000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD)
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE)
UNITS UNIT COST
SUBTOTALS
0
16,000
12800
0
2000
800
2000
TOL
33,600
286,056
TOTALS
741,250
1286467
1
936
1
650
1
4
2]. 0 0 00
400
72,000
125
3,000
150
C-25
-------
.3.1.5 DREDGING OF 40 HOT SPOTS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
FISH MONITORING: 0
COLLECTION 1 63,000 63,000
ANALYSIS 1 70.000 70,000
LABOR 8 Th28 6L024
RAW WATER SAMPLING 0
& TESTING 1 110,000 110,000
WATER SUPPLY MONITORING: 0
SAMPLING 1 5,000 000
TESTING 24 150 3400
DREDGE SPOIL MONITORING: 0
SAMPLING 1 16,000 16,000
TESTING 50 150 7,500
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 336,124
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 2,861613
20% CONTINGENCY 572323
MONITORING OF SECURE LANDFILL DISPOSAL 1887 27
3TAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST 5320863
C-26
-------
9.3.1.6 REDUCED SCALE DREDGING
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
FISH MONITORING: 0
COLLECTION 1 63,000 63,000
ANALYSIS 1 70,000 74000
LABOR 8 7,628 6 024
RAW WATER SAMPLING 0
& TESTING 1 110,000 110,000
WATER SUPPLY MONITORING: 0
SAMPLING 1 5000 5000
TESTING 24 150 1600
DREDGE SPOIL MONITORING: 0
SAMPLING 1 16.000 16 000
TESTING 50 150 7,500
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 336.124
PRESENT.WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 2.86L613
20% CONTINGENCY 572.323
MONITORING OF SECURE LANDFILL DISPOSAL ] ,887I
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST 5 ,320963
C-27
-------
9.3.1.7 NO ACTION FOR SEDS., ROUTINE DREDGING, WATER NOT TREATED
. .DMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
FISH MONITORING: 0
COLLECTION 1 63 ,000 6 ,0O0
ANALYSIS 1 7O 00O 70,000
LABOR 8 7,628 6] O24
RAW WATER SAMPLING 0
& TESTING 1 110,000 110,000
WATER SUPPLY MONITORING: 0
SAMPLING 1 5,000 5,000
TESTING 24 150 3,600
DREDGE SPOIL MONITORING: 0
SAMPLING 1. 16 000 16,000
TESTING 50 150 7,500
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 336,124
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 2,86]4613
20% CONTINGENCY 572,323
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST 3 ,43 936
C-28
-------
9.3.1.8 NO ACTION FOR SEDS., ROUTINE DREDGING, WATER SUPPLY TREATED
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
FISH MONITORING: 0
COLLECTION 1 63 000 6 000
ANALYSIS 1 70,000 70,000
LABOR 8 7,628 61,024
RAW WATER SAMPLING 0
& TESTING 1 110,000 110,000
WATER SUPPLY MONITORING: 0
SAMPLING 1 5 000 5,000
TESTING 24 150 3,600
DREDGE SPOIL MONITORING: 0
SAMPLING 1 16,000 16000
TESTING 50 150 7,500
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 336,124
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 286] 613
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
CARBON CHANGEOUT 1 81000 83,000
PERIODIC COST, 4 YEAR INTERVAL
(20 YEAR PERIOD) 81000
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 152.257
2.861,613
152.257
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH 3,013,870
20% CONTINGENCY 602,774
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST 3,616,644
C-29
-------
9.3.1.9 TOTAL REMOVAL OF REMNANT DEPOSITS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
ONITORING OF SECURE
LANDFILL DISPOSAL 1 ,8B7,O27 1 887,O27
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST 1 ,887 ,027
C-30
-------
9.3.1.10 PARTIAL REMOVAL OF REMNANT DEPOSITS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
MONITORING OF RIVER 1 11Q 000 110,000
ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 110.000
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 936,492
20% CONTINGENCY 187.298
MONITORING OF SECURE LANDFILL DISPOSAL 1.887,027
TOTAL OPERATI ON AND MAINTENANCE COST 3,01 0.8 17
C3 1
-------
9.3.1.11 RESTRICTED ACCESS TO REMNANT DEPOSITS
)MPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
MONITORING OF RIVER 1 110,000 110,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 110,000
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 936,492
20% CONTINGENCY 187,298
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENA}ICE COST 1 ,123790
C-32
-------
9.3.1.12 IN-PLACE CONTAINMENT OF REMNANT DEPOSITS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
MONITORING OF RIVER 1 110,000 110,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 110,000
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 936A92
20% CONTINGENCY 187,298
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST 1,123,790
C-33
-------
.3.1.13 IN-SITU DETOXIFICATION OF REMNANT DEPOSITS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
NO O&M COSTS 0
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 0
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 0
20% CONTINGENCY 0
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST 0
C-34
-------
9.3.1.14 NO ACTION ON #1,2 & 4/RESTRICT ACCESS TO #3 & 5
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTA l
MONITORING OF RIVER 1 110000 110000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 110000
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 936492
20% -CONTINGENCY 187298
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST 1123790
C-35
-------
9.3.1.15 PARTIAL REMNANT DEPOSIT REMOVAL/IN-PLACE
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST
ONITORING OF RIVER 1 110,000
ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD)
PRESENT WORTE (10% DISCOUNT RATE)
20% CONTINGENCY
MONITORING OF SECURE LANDFILL DISPOSAL
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
CONTAINMENT
SUBTOTALS
110,000
TOTALS
11 0 0 00
93 6,492
187298
1,8 87,027
3,010,817
C-36
-------
9 .3.1.16 PARTIAL REMNANT DEPOSIT REMOVAL/RESTRICTED ACCESS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
MONITORING OF RIVER 1 110,000 110 D00
ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 110,000
PRESENT WORTh (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 936,492
20% CONTINGENCY 187,298
MONITORING OF SECURE LANDFILL DISPOSAL ] 887,027
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST 3,010,817
C-37
-------
9.3.1.17 PARTIAL REMNANT IN-PLACE CONTAINMENT/RESTRICTED ACCESS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS
iONITORING OF RIVER 1 11Q,000 110,000
TOTAL A1 T UAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD)
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE)
20% CONTINGENCY
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
TOTALS
1]. 0 0 00
93 64 92
187,2 98
] 12 3,7 90
C-38
-------
9.3.1.18 PARTIAL REMNANT IN-PLACE CONTAINMENT/IN-SITU DETOXIFICATION
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
MONITORING OF RIVER 1 11 000 11OP OO
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 110,000
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT ATE) 936,492
20% CONTINGENCY 187,298
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ],123,790
C-39
-------
9.3.1.19 PARTIAL REMOVAL OF REMNANT DEPOSITS/IN-SITU DETOXIFICATION
.)MPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
MONITORING OF SECURE
LANDFILL DISPOSAL 1 1,887,027 — 1,887,027
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ]. ,887 027
C-40
-------
9.3.1.20 PARTIAL IN-SITU DETOX. OF REMNANT DEPOSITS/RESTRICTED ACCESS
COMPONENT UNITS UNIT COST SUBTOTALS TOTALS
MONITORING OF RIVER 1 110,000 110,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (20 YEAR PERIOD) 110 1000
PRESENT WORTH (10% DISCOUNT RATE) 936492
20% CONTINGENCY 187,298
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ],123,790
C-41
-------
APPENDIX D
PHASE II. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE
HUDSON RIVER
-------
APPENDIX D
PHASE II. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION OF ThE HUDSON RIVER
The following are two Remedial Investigation tasks scheduled to proceed in Phase
II of the Remedial Investigation of the Hudson River. Phase II will proceed only if
It is determined from the results of Phase I that PCB contamination of the
sediments pose a significant health threat to area residents and that further
remedial action will be required. The alternatives presented here are only
suggested alternatives, arid It may be determined later that additions or deletions
will be required.
D.1 Sediment Sampling Survey
Present Sampling Efforts
The present information on the distribution of PCB—contaminated bed sediments
stems from NYSDEC surveys completed in 1977 through 1978. These surveys
consisted of 1200 core and grab samples (approximately 700 of which were
analyzed for PCB5) distributed over 40 miles of river. The only recent results
come from an EPA—sponsored survey consisting of core samples from 66 stations
which duplicated approximately 45 earlier NYSDEC sampling locations. This
survey was conducted in August 1983. PrelIminary results of the August survey
indicate that, in some areas, the older data are still reliable, while in other areas
the distributions of PCB—contaminated sediments have changed. There are a
number of important questions which must be answered by additional samplipg
before efficient planning can take place.
Description
The proposed comprehensive sampling program will have the following objectives:
• Validating the PCB hot—spot theory. This objective will investigate
questions such as:
D- 1
-------
— Do continuous areas of highly contaminated sediments actually exist?
— Are contaminated sediments confined to localized packets, but
clustered in a way that, in effect, simulates continuous areas of high
contamination?
— Are contaminated sediments confined to localized pockets and
distributed in a manner that makes remedial actions infeasible?
— If contaminated sediments actually do exist as localized pockets, what
is the probability that a large number of these have been missed by
sampling?
• The distribution of contaminated sediment deposits suitable for remedial
actions. This objective would assume a PCB action level of 50 g/g and
investigate better methods of sampling and mapping, leading to the
accurate delineation of contaminated sediments.
• The total error involved with sampling, analytical, and mapping
procedures. This objective would result in the expression of a confidence
level or interval which would be used in critical evaluations of PCB mass
estimates, hot spot delineations, and remedial designs.
• Correlations between PCB contamination and stream channel or sediment
characteristics. This objective Is essential for a strong conceptual
understanding which would be invaluable for further work in the Hudson
River and in other contaminated waterways.
• The mobility status of the features which are being sampled. This
objective refers to the determination of the likelihood of scour or
deposition at the area of interest. This type of information will be used
to generate estimates of the time period over which the data is valid, how
soon remedial actions should be completed, or to what extent PCB—
contaminated deposits can be left alone.
D-2
-------
To efficiently meet the objectives specified above, the proposed plan will be
carried out in two stages. Stage I will concentrate a large number of samples In
previously delineated hot spots representing the following conditions:
• Upstream hot spots
• Downstream hot spots
• Large hot spots covering bank and channel areas
• Small localized hot spots
The study will investigate the variation of PCBs with distance from the center of
contamination, with depth in the sediment, and with other parameters, including
sediment characteristics, channel characteristics, and other toxic materials.
Studies in these areas will be described in detail in other sections. Bed—load
movement to and from selected areas will also be measured.
Strengthened relationships or lack of relationships developed from Stage I studies
will dictate the procedures In Stage Ii. The second stage will essentially be a
comprehensive survey of the sediments in the Upper Hudson River from the Glens
Falls area to Albany. This stage will address the accurate delineation of
contaminated sediments, and estimation of PCB amounts located in these areas.
Methods
Stage I will consist of obtaining relatively undisturbed sample cores, at least 3 feet
In length, from locations specified by 100—foot sampling grids Imposed on the
selected hot spots. The sampling grids will extend past the present hot—spot
boundaries to include cold areas. All sample stations will be required to have
accurate and precise locations assigned to them; however, it will not be necessary
to prelocate the sample station exactly on the intersections. The proposed sample
location can Initially be estimated from maps but it will be necessary to get an
accurate position on the station once the core is retrieved. This is easily done with
electronic survey equipment. Base—line survey information Is adequate in the
Thompson island pool area; however, base—lines may have to be surveyed in lower
pools.
D-3
-------
Hot spots 6, 14, 20, 28, and 35 are tentatively selected for the Stage I study.
Approximately 275 sample stations will be required to cover this area in detail.
Each 3—foot core will be subsampled according to its morphologic layers.
Approximately 3 to 4 subsamples each may be expected. Half of the cores from
each study area will be analyzed for particle size class and organic content, and
selected samples will be analyzed for priority pollutants. Other data which will be
recorded include river stage, depth to sample, and flow velocities.
Bed load transport studies (described in another section) will also be clone in
selected areas.
The analysis and quantification of PCBs is subject to a great deal of
misinterpretation. Therefore every effort will be made to acquire the most highly
qualified contractor using the most accurate and up—to—date analytical methods.
The exact Aroclors to be analyzed and the method for reporting total PCBs will be
specified. Appropriate field duplicates, spikes, and blanks will be specified. To
ensure comparability, analytical methods will not be modified for the duration of
the study.
To handle the great amounts of information generated in the study and to aid data
analysis, a computerized data base management system will be used, which will be
compatable with appropriate mapping and statistical software. Each data point
will be screened for quality and authenticity to ensure that only quality data will
be used In later analyses.
Bed—load Transport Studies
Present Sampling Efforts
Cursory measurements of bed—load transport were made by Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute in 1977. This information; however, Is not sufficient for interpreting local
patterns of deposition and scour. Presently, only suspended sediment transport Is
being measured. Bed—load transport is an important factor controlling the micro—
relief of the river bottom surface. In a low—velocity river such as the Hudson. this
D-4
-------
process may have a large Influence on the distribution and movement of PCB—
contaminated sediment.
Description
Bed—load transport will be measured across the river above and below selected hot
spot areas studied in Stage I of the bed sediment survey. Bed—load transport will
also be measured In the Champlain Canal above Lock 6. The canal location is
important because substantial amounts of contaminated sediments, helped along by
large traffic and lock operation, could move through Lock 6 to lower reaches of the
river. Transport rates will be measured at each location at low, medium, and high
flows. Channel cross—section measurements and a full range of flow measurements
will be made so that measured bed—load transport can be compared with estimates
calculated from various bed—load transport formula.
Analysis of bed—load transport data will reveal the dynamics of the river in critical
areas and aid in the evaluation of the stability of hot spots and the likelihood that
contaminated deposits will either be buried or exposed.
Methods
Structure—type sediment traps with sliding, water—tight lids, which are inserted into
the sediment so that the trap openings are even with the surface of the bed, will be
used. Two rows of traps will be installed across the river at each test reach. It
should be possible to use digging frames to install all traps; however, divers may be
needed .to place traps In deeper water. If operation of these traps becomes
problematical, then simpler but less efficient pan type or pressure difference type
samplers will be used. Bed—load samples will be collected for an extended period of
time during low, medium, and high flow periods. The flow velocity profile, depth,
mean channel slope, and water temperature will be recorded to facilitate the
calibration of the bed—load functions which will be used. Suspended—sediment
transport measurement above the transects is also desirable.
D-5
-------
APPENDIX E
ANALYSIS OF 1983 SAMPUNG DATA
-------
APPENDIX E
ANALYSIS OF 1983 SAMPUNG DATA
In August 1983 Upper Hudson River sediments were resampled at selected locations
to update the 1977—1978 sediment data. Fifty—four core samples and twelve grab
samples were recovered from 66 locations along a 9—mile stretch of river between
Rogers Island and a point approximately 1/2 mile south of Lock 6. Sample station
locations in 1983 were surveyed in and plotted on 1:4200 planimetric maps courtesy
of NYSDEC. Plotted sampling locatlons are provided in Attachment 1.
Core samples were subdivided according to visible strata, and each subsection was
sampled for PCB analysis. PCB analytical procedures similar to those used for the
NYSDEC survey were used to maximize comparability. Sample preparation
procedures and analytical methods are outlined In Attachment 2.
A summary of the 1983 sampling results is presented in Table E—1. Only depth—
weighted average PCB concentrations and maximum PCB values are reported.
Forty—two of the sixty—five samples were located on or within the boundaries of
PCB hot spots that were delineated on maps received from NYSDEC. A total of 15
hot spots were sampléo. The arithmetic mean PCB concentration of hot spot
samples was 52.6 ppm. The corresponding mean for the 24 samples from cold areas
was 13.3 ppm.
Fifteen of forty—two samples taken from PCB hot spots contained concentrations
greater .than 50 ppm in some part of the core, and twelve cores showed depth—
weighted averages greater than 50 ppm. Two cores taken from cold areas below
Griffin Island had depth—weighted averages that exceeded 50 ppm.
The depth of maximum concentration within the cores was equally distributed
between surface and deeper layers, but the more highly contaminated sediments
E 1
-------
TABLE E-1
1983 SAMPUNG RESULTS
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE. NEW YORK
Sample
N urn b or
Location
Depth—Weighted
Average PCB
Concentration
(ppm)
Total
Depth
(inches)
High
Concentration
(ppm)
Depth Interval
of High
Concentration
(inches)
1
3
4
5
6
7
BA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15A
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
25
26
Hot Spot 2
Border Line,
Hot Spot 6
Hot Spot 4
Hot Spot 5
Hot Spot 5
Hot Spot 5
Hot Spot 6
Hot Spot 6
Hot Spot 6
Hot Spot 6
Hot Spot 6
Border Line,
Hot Spot 6
Hot Spot 6
Hot Spot 8
Hot Spot 8
Hot Spot 8
Border Line.
Hot Spot 9
5.8
7.7
2.6
13.8
29.9
ND
39.8
6.7
58.6
11.0
21.6
5.0
9.0
24.6
7.9
41.0
55.0
240.0
3.3
255.0
3.2
8.2
89.1
14
12
22
15
22
Grab Sample
20
Grab Sample
16
Grab Sample
Grab Sample
15
B
Grab Sample
8
Grab Sample
Grab Sample
33
7
18
Grab Sample
10
13
11.0
13.0
6.0
65.0
36.4
120.0
71.2
5.0
12.0
9.0
683.0
3.5
307.0
11.3
110.0
0—7
6 — 12
15 — 22
0-3
5 — 14
0-3
0-4
4-8
15 — 23
0-4
0-9
5 - 10
3 - 13
1
0-5
4 — 16
25.1 18
24.8 0-3
-------
TABLE E-1
1983 SAMPUNG RESULTS
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE. NEW YORK
PAGE TWO
Sample
Number
Location
Depth-weighted
Av rage PCB
Concentration
(ppm)
Total
Depth
(inches)
High
Concentration
(ppm)
Depth Interval
of High
Concentration
(inches)
26A
27
28
28A
29
30
32
(1) 33
34A
36
37
38
39
40
419
42B
43B
44
44B
45B
46B
47A
48
49
Border Lines
Hot Spot 8
Hot Spot 14
Hot Spot 14
Hot Spot 16
Border Line,
Hot Spot 16
Hot Spot 16
Border Line,
Hot Spot 17
Hot Spot 18
8.9
3.9
35.5
23.7
433.0
28.6
3.1
12.8
58.8
11.9
11.7
0.3
7.6
25.0
4.0
9.0
135.0
9.0
87.0
161 .0
17.8
1.0
4.0
41.0
167.0
28
9
6
15
7
12
10
14
20
Grab Sample
9
14
9
9
Grab Sample
29
20
7
12
13
16
9
5
15
15
8.0
3.9
54.6
29.1
641.0
65.3
3.1
20.9
125.0
22.2
7.6
25.0
9.0
240.0
9.0
7.0
200.0
31.0
2.0
0.0
41.0
210.0
0 — 12
3—9
3—6
3 — 15
3—7
4—7
0—4
5 - 10
8 — 17
0—3
0—3
0—9
0—3
3—4
0-3
0—6
3 — 13
4—8
0—3
0—2
0 - 15
7 — 15
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Spot 10
Spot 10
Spot 10
Spot 11
Spot 12
Spot 14
Spot 14
Spot 14
-------
TABLE E-1
1983 SAMPLING RESULTS
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, NEW YORK
PAGE ThREE
Sample
Number
Location
Depth-weighted
Average PCB
Concentration
(ppm)
Total
Depth
(Inches)
High
Concentration
(ppm)
Depth Interval
of High
Concentration
(inches)
519
52
54
55
57
59
63
r 64
65
66
70
71
P—3--15—l
P—3-15-2
P—3—15-3
P—3—15-4
P—3-15-5
Depth-weighted Average (C 1 d 1 )/D
0.9
0.7
4.0
4.0
1.0
86.6
3.9
58.7
1.9
25.7
4.8
15
Grab Sample
17
10
Grab Sample
10
11
16
21
20
13
0.9
4.0
4.0
90.0
4.0
130.0
6.1
27.8
6.0
0-3
0—3
0—3
2 — 11
0-3
3—6
2—7
3 - 20
4 - 13
where C 1 = concentration of layer I
di = length of layer I
D total depth
Layers where PCB was Identified be’ow detection limit were assigned a concentration
equal to the concentration of the next least contaminated layer.
Hot Spot 20
Hot Spot 28
Hot Spot 28
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Hot
Spot 15
Spot 18
Spot 18
Spot 18
Spot 18
Spot 18
11.0
0.6
4.4
1.0
3.3
2.0
22
17
35
18
27
15
11.0
0.6
4.4
1.0
10.6
5.1
0—5
0—3
0—3
0—3
0-3
0-3
ND — Not Detected
-------
were usually found deeper than 3 inches in depth. The core samples averaged 15
inches long.
An arbitrary distance of 100 feet was set as the limit over which 1983 and older
data could be compared. Overall, there were 62 NYSDEC survey points within a
100—foot radius of 1983 sample stations. Comparisons ‘were made strictly on a
depth—related basis. For example, PCB values from grab samples were compared
only with the results from the first 3 inches of a core, and different length cores
would be compared only when depth—weighted averages could be computed for
depths comparable within plus or minus 5 inches. Most of the older data used In
the comparisons were from grab samples.
The new data were compared to 1977—1978 data for locations within -both 50 and
100 feet of the new sample locations, and then were plotted on log—log plots.
These plots are presented in Figures E—1 and E—2. Since both surveys were
theoretically sampling the same population, on the average, there should be a one
to one correspondence between the data sets, and a line of slope 1.0 should fit the
points on a log—log plot Practically speaking, a perfect fit would be unrealistic
because of the naturally high variability of PçB—contaminated sediment deposits
and the low number of comparisons which are available.
There is some correlation between the two data sets Indicating that in 1983, the
higher concentrations are generally found where high concentrations were found in
1977—78. ThIs relationship is reflected In the cold— and hot—spot means reported
above. The spread of the data, however, on the log—log plots indicates that real
PCB concentration values may differ by up to 1 or 2 orders of magnitude within
100 feet. Also, In 53 cases, the values from the 1977—1978 sutvey are substantially
higher than PCB values from the 1983 survey. Only 9 of the 62 comparisons In
1983 showed higher results In 1983 than in 1977—1978.
Such a bias in the data could be caused by many mechanisms. Differences in the
analysis and quantification of PCB Aroclors and the method of expressing total
E—5
-------
3—
.
2-
S
0
.
4
z S
U i
z S
0
C.)
C.)
.
0
S
2
. S S
0
V.. I .1
0 I 2 3
LOG 10 ( PCB CONCENTRATION 1977- 1978 )
FIGURE E-I
ALL POSSIBLE COMPARISONS WIThIN A 50’
RADIUS; 977-1978 vs. 1983 SEDIMENT DATA - F±I IP4JL.JS
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY Il I- N
0 A Hailiburton Company
E—6
-------
3—
2-
.
C ,
0 S
z
0
I-
z
• S
z -
o - S
C .)
S 0
C .) S
0
Q S •S
C,
o S
.
0- I - p
I 2 3 4
0
LOG ( PCB CONCENTRA11ON 977-1978)
ALL POSSiBLE COMPARISONS WITHIN A 1001 ____
RADIUS; 1977-1978 vs. 1983 SEDIMENT DATA -
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE. HUDSON RIVER, NY ______
E-7 0 A Hailiburton Company
-------
PCB may introduce large differences in the data sets. Without a detailed
evaluation and comparison of analytical methods used in each survey, a
quantification is impossible. Mechanisms including desorption and removal of PCBs
from the sediments, chemical degradation of PCB compounds, and the dilution of
contaminated sediments through mixing during deposition and shifting of
contaminated sediments, could also account for the drop in PCB contamination.
Differences of the magnitude indicated by this analysis could substantially affect
the interpretation of the Hudson River PCB problem. Unfortunately, the limited
amount of 1983 data prohibits a determination of whether the decrease in PCB
concentration is real, as well as identification of possible physical chemical
processes which could be responsible. The problem warrants further investigation.
A brief discussion of results from some critical areas may give some qualitative
insight into the stability and movement of PCB hot spots.
Hot spot number 20 is a small marshland hot spot north of the eastern portion of
Thompson Island Dam. This area has exhibited extremely high PCB values in the
past. The 1983 sample from this area had a depth—weighted average of 86.6 ppm
with a high value of 90 ppm occuring between 2 and 12 inches in depth. The closest
NYSDEC sample point contained a depth—weighted average PCB concentration of
323 ppm. Although the later value shows much less PCB, It appears that this area
is still hot.
Five samples were takerf near the Thompson Island Dam to detect contaminated
sediments which might have collected there. No samples were recovered from two
of the stations because the bottom was either too herd or too rocky to recover
sediment. The other three samples turned up no appreciable contamination.
Unfortunately none of these samples fell within the boundaries at hot spot number
19. Two of the samples fell within 20 feet of previous grab samples which had
indicated PCB contamination of 79.4 and 25 ppm. It may be that the drawdown
behind the dam maintains a swift current which scoured the previously
contaminated material and prevents further buildup of sediments.
E—8
-------
Hot spot 18 is a large, highly contaminated deposit associated with a major
riverbank wetland. Seven core samples were collected from this deposit in areas
where PCB concentrations of between 68 and 300 ppm had been previously found.
In 1983 highly contaminated sediments (170 ppm) were found near the upstream
portion of the hot spot. However, six core samples collected over a small area
within the lower half of the hot spot contained concentrations of less than 5 ppm.
It is not known why highly contaminated sediments were not found in the
downstream portion of this hot spot. Field observations indicated that the current
over this deposit was rapid even though the area was surrounded by aquatic and
emergent vegetation. It is possible that contaminated sediments found here in the
past have moved.
HighlV contaminated sediments (135 ppm) were found in a core collected near the
center of the channel at the south end of Griffin Island. This area had not been
sampled before, and shore line samples near this area had not indicated any
appreciable contamination. Since this Is a channel location subject to high
velocities, it may be that the contaminated sediments found here in 1983 have been
recently deposited material from upstream hot spots.
Hot spot 14 was an extensive, heavily contaminated area which contained a
relatively large mass of PCB. Nearly every previous sample from this area
contained PCBs in excess of 50 ppm and many contained concentrations higher than
100 ppm. Of the five samples taken from this area in 1983. only one at the
extreme upstream end of the deposIt contained concentrations in excess of 50 ppm.
The other samples contairTed less than 15 ppm. Members of the survey in 1983
indicated that the river bottom where they attempted to take samples was
composed of hard or decomposing shale fragments. They also indicated that the
current over the lower end of this area was relatively swift. The highly
contaminated channel deposits reported above were found Immediately downstream
of hot spot ‘14. it is suggested that the fine sediments found In hot spot 14 in 1977-
1978 have been moved downstream and that some of them have been deposited
near the end of Griffin Island.
E—9
-------
One core sample retrieved from hot spot twelve, less than 20 feet from a previous
NYSDEC sample, contained 12.8 ppm PCBs where the previous sample contained
PCBs at about 100 ppm. This may be-a reflection of the extreme variability in the
distribution of contaminated sediments or it may be due to other mechanisms.
Hot spot number 10 is a mid—channei deposit which was expected to show some
signs of degradation or scour. However, three core samples taken within the
boundaries of this hot spot, reveal that highly contaminated sediments still exist
here. It is not known why this particular chanhel deposit has remained stable while
others appear to have shifted.
Four samples were retrieved from hot spot 8. Two samples had concentrations of
more than 50 ppm and two did not. This deposit, however, is so large that a
definitive statement or its status cannot be made. This is also the case with hot
spot 28, which is located below Lock 6.
Hot spot 6 is a large hot spot which traverses the river at Its upstream end and
extends down both banks for a quarter of a mile. The 1983 survey’s most highly
contaminated samples were found in the east bank areas of hot spot 6. Four
sediment grabs from the upstream channel areas of this hot spot, however, did -not
show the level of contamination that had been previously found. Current surface
PCB concentrations In this area are only about 20 ppm. It is not known If
contaminated sediments exist below the surface because the information came
from grab samples. Thus it cannot be determined if the reduction in surface
concentration found in the upstream portion of hot spot.6 is due to scour or the
deposition of less contaminated sediment
The discussions and conclusions presented above are only one interpretation of data
collected from an extremely variable medium. The analysis indicates that, due to
unknown mechanisms, the concentrations and distributions of PCB—contaminated
sediments have undergone some degree of change since the completion of the 1977—
1978 survey. Some contaminated deposits, namely parts of hot spots 18, 14, 12 and
E— 10
-------
6, each of which contained relatively large amounts of PCBs, appear to have
undergone some reduction in contamination. Other areas——particularly the hot
spots 20, 17, 15, 11, 10, 5 and 4 and parts of hot spots 6, and 18——are still highly
contaminated.
E —1 1
-------
APPENDIX E
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
/
( I
. ocK
‘ FORT MILLER
//
-------
FORT EDWARD
-------
I,
/
/
‘ \ /
4%.!
#i / ; (I$\\
0
\
/
/ N
/
6 ’
0
‘S
,
/
,
a
0
6
I
‘I
N
• I 0A
\
LJ 47
0
w
1
I -loT 5?oT
zg’
1’
A 4 . 4 ,
N
0
6 -
0
92
-------
e.
0
/
/
/
$
186
‘4
‘ 4’
I ’,
4;’
/
‘4
‘4
I ’
6
U
/
,0
/
I
5
I49
\
9!
a
T I’
0
‘p
3
0
sa
6-
I ,.
/
I
HOT
pcT
/
1/
3
0
‘a
a
LKE—4T
56
CII)
93
-------
/
/
I..
II
sPo r is 1 I
/
LK7 4
5PoT
I
100
/
I
I
-------
/
I
II /
1
/
1
LK7-40
/
H
1 j
9C-4u U
-
: T R.7
I
F’u.D. II
n
0
II’
101
-------
Is,
/
6
(
ci
K
\
0
0
0
:7
\
I.
7-3G
,
I
/
0
“I
I
7.
.,,z
I
K
4
102
-------
- 2- 2 C.
H
.LK7-33
L$7 34A1
• :
I
.1
•1
/
I
t
LK7-35
LK7- ’ 2
\
C
C
C
C
1
‘
ISLAND
5
6
4 S.
mu 0
• ,#
d
/
/
0
‘1
‘J
,
Li
I
103
-------
,#1 .-a.c7 \
\
\.
ii.
\\
/
,f .
0
0
0
0
IS? .
7-p o
‘¼
1.
H
1.
poT ILt
/
f7 \
K7i 3
104
-------
.“lI
pq
/
/
I
1 ‘ê
T c1
I
/
4
•200
‘ ‘S
e 2
/
F
/
/1
SPO T. -c4
/
,
—I - - -.,
105
—I
/
7-’ZB
0
NO T$
-------
/
4
0
- 5
SPoT
/
LK?-2.5..
‘rec
Ii4OT
/
I.
/
I
/
‘I
SPOT
11
‘ -p
106
-------
/
1
( j
I. /
/
I ,
I!
/
Hor Por
.1
107
7-re-Ce
I
I
N
‘5
LK7-21
3
0
I
7 .i’Ø-CS
/
a
C
HoT S 7
/
Co
F
-------
T5
2 ae
/
0
\
t.
I
I
OT PoT
\
\
\
\
.\
4 .
1°
/
1 r 5 .9 t
3
I)
Li4
0
/
/
/
J
5
0
sa
108
-------
/
/
//
II
/
ii•
(I
£ K7-i5
LX7- I4
J . IT
‘ *I ‘ /1
7 /
I
spc,T g
//
/
rvc
I i.
/
/
/
/
/
I
109
/
‘7-
LK7-46
.. K7-I7
-------
‘I LK7’ I2
LK7- 3
If’ •.‘V i
*
/ \;
\1
1.
*4
I
4
a
sr r .
:. LX7u’14
LK7 - 5
I
213•
•1
-i
2
o
3m’
SPoT 6
\
110
‘4’
“4’
SPor s,
-------
I.’.
/
-c
0
I ;’
3
0
$. 0
‘ p l c
113
I
3
1 -
\\
\
2.
m
I
\ )
I
(
2 3
4oTskor 6
S POT
S
a
a,
4
a
3
LIc7 12
N’
*
—,, ,
-4
L
NOR r
111
-------
/
I
4”
)
1•
I;
I /
i/I /
I
I
I
I
19
,1
0
I
1
/
‘7
J
A
/
LK?-9
112
-------
‘p
TOwER
.LK7 GA
113
,w.D.
\
2191 \
- . . LK7-4
sq
\
\
\
‘1
HOT
1c -
I
/
/
/
-------
I
‘J.
1•
1A
‘4
I
‘4
I
LXI-2
O. .LD. 13
çLx 7_3
114
-------
•22 6
tE 3
\
I
N
\•
N
I
N
\
12
i s or\
\
ROGERS
I
115
-------
,
7
/
7
/
)
SPoT j,
1/
/
/
I
/
A
IS 4,vD
‘I
/
/
2
‘I
/
/
2
. U
116
-------
) /1
/
/
/
‘7
I
‘I
E I.
L,oc.kllCM
‘S
•1
\...
/
/
ii
/.
(,7
I.
/
/
C
-
117
-------
APPENDIX E
ATTACHMENT 2
-------
UPPER HUDSON RIVER PCB SURVEY
Procedure for Segmenting Core Samples
Objective
Core samplers are used to collect essentially undisturbed samples which
represent the profile of strata in sediments or sludges. Core samples will be taken
from Upper Hudson River sediments and analyzed for PCB contamination.
Methodology
Every effort will be made in the field to insure the integrity of -core samples 0
Each sample will be marked in the field ‘Top! and ‘Bottom’ and stored upright. Core
samples requiring segmenting or subsampling will be frozen overnight prior to
processing. Each core will be examined, measured and photographed prior to
processing. The condition of the core and the color, texture and relative position
of any strata will be recorded.
Core liners will be cut with a pipe cutting tool. The tool should only be used
to cut the liner and should not enter the core sample to any appreciable degree. A
stainless steel spatula or knife will be used to subsample the sediment. Laboratory
tools and work area wiLL be cleaned with distilled water, acetone and methylene
chloride between each sample.
Figure 1 provides a schematic of the procedure for segmenting core samples.
To ensure comparability of data collected with the existing data base, cores will be
segmented in the following manner.
• Uniform Core - one sample taken from the top 3”; one sample from the
remainder of the core.
• Uniform Core top- 12” with strata below - one sample taken from the top
3”; one sample taken from the remainder of the strata and one each from
each remaining strata 0
• Stratified Core - one sample from each strata.
Stratification within the core shall be defined by significant changes in
texture, color or grain size of sediments. Strata will be recognized through gross
examination of cores and sampled when sufficient volumn is present for laboratory
analysis.
Samples taken from the various cores will be placed into 8 oz. glass jars and
shipped using normal chain of custody procedures
-------
TOP
_T
SAMPLE ) i 3’•
SAMPLE —p
SAMPLE—42”
SAMPLE >12”
SAMPLE >
SAMPI..E—.—4’
SAMPLE —+
Indivi i1 san 1e f iu
tcp 3” and san 1e f iu
rEnainder of the re.
Indivjr mil s 1e fran
each strata.
PROCEDURE FOR
SEGMENTING CORE
SAMPLES
FiGURE 1
NUB
- ORPC A11 N
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
-------
UPPER HUDSON RIVER PCB SURVEY
Procedure for Segmenting Core Samples
Objective
Core samplers are used to collect essentially undisturbed samples which
represent the profile of strata in sediments or sludges. Core samples wilt be taken
from Upper Hudson River sediments and analyzed for PCB contamination.
Methodology
Every effort wilt be made in the field to insure the integrity of core samples.
Each sample will be marked in the field ‘Top’ and ‘Bottom’ arid stored upright. Core
samples requiring segmenting or subsampling will be frozen overnight prior to
processing. Each core will be examined 9 measured and photographed prior to
prDcessing. The condition of the core and the color, texture and relative position
of any strata will be recorded.
Core liners will be cut with a pipe cutting tool. The tool should only be used
to cut the liner and should not enter the core sample to any appreciable degree. A
stainless steel spatula or knife will be used to subsample the sediment. Laboratory
tools and work area will be cleaned with distilled water, acetone and methylene
chloride between each sample.
Figure 1 provides a schematic of the procedure for segmenting core samples.
To ensure comparability of data collected with the existing data base, cores will be
segmented in the following manner,
• Uniform Core one sample taken from the top 3”; one sample from the
remainder of the core.
• Uniform Core top 12” with strata below - one sample taken from the top
3”; one sample taken from the remainder of the strata and one each from
each remaining strata.
• Stratified Core - one sample from each strata.
Stratification within the core shall be defined by significant changes in
texture, color or grain size of sediments. Strata will be recognized through gross
examination of cores and sampled when sufficient volumn is present for laboratory
analysis.
Samples taken from the various cores will be placed into 8 oz. glass jars and
shipped using normal chain of custody procedures.
-------
Ir dividua 1 sa le fran
top 3” ax s t 1e £ R
rEna.thder of the re.
TOP
SAMPLE— 3”
SAMPLE >12”
I
SAMPt.E—
Individual sample fran
each strata.
PROCEDURE FOR
FiGURE 1
SEGMENTING CORE
NUB
- CPPCRATCN
SAMPLE — 3”
k
- SAMPLE
SAMPLE—.-.-
SAMPLE
4 . ;
SAMPLES
-------
ANALYSIS OF PCBs IN HUDSON RIVER SEDLMENTS
SAMPLE PREPARATION AND EXTRACTION
I. Thoroughly mix the sample.
2. Ac urataly weigh and record the desired quantity of
prepared sample, commonly 50 gm.
3. In a 250 ml Erfenmeyer flask, mix the sample and a
sufficient quantity of 1:1 (v/v) acetone-hexane to
produce a slurry.
4. Place on a mechanical shaker for thirty minutes.
5. Decant the solvent to a separatory funnel containing
500 ml disthled water.
6. Add 25 ml of 1:1 (v/v) acetone-hexane to the flask and
shake for an additional 30 minutes.
7. Repeat Steps 5 and 6 and combine all extracts.
8. DIscard the aqueous layer, wash with two 500 ml portion
of distilled water and discard the washings.
9. A : sufficient quantity of anhydrous sodium su1fat to
‘1ve crystals that aro free flowi i unon wirli1’!.
10. Concentrate volume to 10 ml in a Kuderna—Danish evaporator,
11. Proceed with steplO.3 of the attached”Me hod for Polychiorinated
Biphenyls (PC3s) In Water and Wastewater published in EPA 600/4—
81 ..054, Methods for Benzidine, Chlorinated Organic Comoounds,
Pentachloropherrol and Pesticides in Water and Wastewater , Seot.
1978.
NOTE: Report results In terms of ug g dry weight based upon weight
loss obtained by dryi 1 ig at 60 C. Report the individual PCBs
and total PC3s.
-------
M TH0D FOR POL?CHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) IN WATER AND WASTEIJIATER
1. Scooe and ADplicatlon
1.1 This method covers the determination of various polychlorlnatad
biphenyl (PC3) mixtures In water and wastewater.
1.2 The fo11 1ng mixtures of chlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors) may be
determined by this method:
Parameter Storet No .
PC3- 1015 34671
PCB—1221 39488
PC3— 1232 39492
PCS—1242 39496
PCB—1248 39500
PCS .- 1254 39504
PCB- 1 260 39508
1.3 The method Is an extension of the Method for C i1or1nated
Hydrocarbons in Water and Wastewater (1). It is designed so
that determination of both the PC3s and the organochlorlne
pesticides may be made on the same sample.
2. Sunvnary
2.1 The PCSs and the organochioririe pesticides are co—extracted by
liquid—liquid extraction and, insofar as possible, the two
classes of compounds separated from one another prior to gas
chromatographic. determination. A contination of the standard
Florisil column cleanup procedure and a silica gel microcolumn
separation procedure (2)(3) are employed. Identification is
43
-------
made from gas chromatographic patterns obtained through the use
of two or more unlike columns. Detection and measurement is
accon llshed using an electron capture, rnicrocoulcmetric, or
electrolytic conductivity detector. Techniques for confirming
qualitative identification are suggested.
3. Interferences
3. 1 Solvents, reagents, glassware, and other san le processing
hardware may yield discrete artifacts and/or elevated baselines
cau si ng nrf Si nterpretat ion of gas chromatograms. Al 1. of these
materials mist be. demonstrated to be free from interferences
under the conditions 0 f the analysis. Specific selection of
reagents and the purification of solvents by distillation in
all-glass systen may be required. Refer to Appendix I.
3.2 The interferences In Industrial effluents are high and varied
and pose great difficulty In obtaining accurate and precise
measurement of PCBs and organochioririe pesticides. Separation
and clean—up procedures are generally required and may result
in the loss ol certain organochiorine c rr ounds. Therefore,
great care should be exeroised in the selection and use of
methods fo eliminating or minimizing Interferences. It Is not
possible to describe procedures for overcoming all of the
interferences that may be encountered in industrial effluents.
3.3 Phttialate esters, certain orgartophosphorus pesticides, and
elemental sulfur wifl interfere when using electron capture for
detection. These materials do not interfere when the
44
-------
rnicrocoulornetric or electrolytic conductivity detectors are
used in the halogen mode.
3.4 Organochlorlne pesticides and other halogenated compounds
constitute interferences in the determination of PC8s. Most of
these are separated by •the method described below. However,
certain compounds, if present.in the sample, will occur with
the PCBs. Included are: Sulfur,. Heptachior, aldrin, DDE,
technical chlordane, nirex, and to some extent, o,p’-DDT and
p,p’-CDT.
4. ADparatus and Materials
4. 1 Gas Chromatograph - Equipped with glass lined injection port.
4.2 Detector Options:
4.2.1 Electron Capture - Radioactive (tritium or nlckeT-63)
4.2.2 Mlcrocoulometric Titration
4.2.3 Electrolytic Conductivity
4.3 Recorder - Potentlometric strip chart (10 in.) compatible with
the detector.
4.4 Gas Chromatograph I c Column Materials:
4.4.1 Tubing Pyrex (180 cn long X 4 im ID)
4.4.2 Glass Wool - Sllanized
4.4.3 Solid Support — Gas—Chrom Q (100—120 mesh)
4.4.4 Liquid Phases - Expressed as weight percent coated on
solid support.
4.4.4.1 SE-30 or OV—1, 3%
4.4.4.2 - OV—17, 1.5% + QF-l or OV—210, 1.95%
45
-------
4.5 Kuderna—Oartish-(K—C) Glassware
4.5.1 Snyder Column - three—ball (macro) and two—ball (micro)
4.5.2 Evaporative flasks - 500 ml
4.5.3 Receiver Ampuls - 10 ml, graduated
4.5.4 Ampul Stoppers
4.6 C iromatographlc Column Chromaflex (400 rrri long x 19 rim ID)
with coarse fritted plate on bottom and Teflon stopcock; 250-mi
reservoir bulb at top of column with flared out funnel shape at
top of bulb - a special order (Kontes K.-420540—9011).
4.7 Chromatographic Column - pyrex (approximately 400 nm long x 20
nm ED) with coarse fritted plate on bottom.
4.8 Micro Column Pyrex - constructed according to Figure 1.
4.9 CapIllary pipets disposable (5—3/4 In.) with rubber bulb
(Scientific Products P5205—I).
4.10 Low pressure regulator - 0 to 5 PSIG - with low—flow needle
valve (see FIgure 1, Matheson Model 70).
4.11 Beaker - 100 nil
4.12 MIcro Syringes - 10, 25, 50 and 100 ul.
4.13 . Separatory funnels — 125 ml, 1000 ml and 2000 ml with Teflon
stopcock,
4.14 Blender High speed, glass or stainless steel cup.
4.15 Graduated cylinders 100 and 250 ml.
4.16 Florisil - PR Grade (60—100 mesh); purchase activated at
1250 0 F and store in the dark in glass containers with glass
stoppers or foil-lined screw caps. Before use, activate each
46
-------
AIR
SUPPLY
SHUT-OFF
VAt_yE
REGULATOR
PRESSURE
0 • 5 GAUGE
VALVE
SILICA GEL
5cm
Icm{
I cm
FLEXIBLE
TUBING
10/30
15m 1
10/30
23cm x 4.2mm 1.0.
2cm x 2 mm 1.0.
FIGURE
I.
SYSTEM
3 ,
M l CROCOLUMN
47
-------
batch overnight at 130°C in fofi-covered glass container.
Detertnirte lauric-acid value (See Appendix U).
4.17 Silica gel - Davison code 950—08008—226 (60/200 mesh).
4.18 Glass Wool - Hexane extracted.
4.19 Centrifuge Tubes Pyrex calibrated (15 ml).
5. Reagents, !olvents, and Standards
5.1 SodIum Chloride - (ACS) Saturated solution In distilled water
(pre-rinse MaCi with hexarie).
5.2 Sodium Hydroxide - (ACS) 10 N In distilled water.
5.3 Sodium Sulfate (ACZ) Granular, anhydrous (c nd1tioned at 400°
C for 4 hrs.).
5.4 SulfurIc Acid (ACZ) Mix equal volumes of conc. H SO 4 with
distilled water.
5.5 Diethyl Ether - Nanograde, redlstflled in glass, if necessary.
5.5.1 bst be free of peroxides as indicated by EM Quart test
strips. (Test strips are ava l1aD1e front EM Labora-
tories, Inc., 500 Executive Blvd., Elmsford, N.Y.
10523).
5.5.2 Procedures recotmnended for removal of peroxides are
provided with the test strips.
5.6 n —Hexane Pesticide quality (NOT MIXW KEXANES).
5.7 Acetonitrile, Hexane, Methanol, Methylene Chloride, Petroleum
Ether (boiling range 30—60°C) - pesticide quality, redistill in
glass if necessary.
503 Standards Aroclors 1221, 1232, 1242, 1243, 1254, 1260, and
1016.
43
-------
5.9 Anti-static Solution - STATNUL, Daystrom, Inc., Weston Instru-
ment Division, Newark, N.J., 95212.
6. CalibratIon
6.1 Gas chromatographic operating conditions are considered accept-
able if the response to dicapthon Is at least 50% of full scale
when 0.06 ng is injected for electron capture detection and
100 ng is injected for rnicrocoulometric or electrolytic con-
ductivity detection. For all quantitative measurements, the
detector must be operated within its linear response range and
the detector noise level should be less than 2% of full scale.
6.2 Standards are injected frequently as a check on the stability
of operating conditions, detector and column. Example chro-
matograms are shown in Figures 3 through 8 and provide
reference operating conditions.
7. QualIty Control
7.1 Duplicate and spiked sample analyses are recomended as quality
control checks. Quality control charts (4) should be developed
and used as a check on the analytical system. Quality control
check samples and performance evaluation samples should be
analyzed on a regular basis.
7.2 Each time a set of samples is extracted, a method blank is
determined on a volume of distilled water equivalent to that
used to dilute the sample.
8. Samole Preparation
8.1 Blend the sample if suspended matter is present and adjust pH
49
-------
to near neutral (pH 6.5-7.5) with 50% sulfuric acid or 10 N
sodium hydroxide.
8.2 For sensitivity requirement of 1 g/1, when using micro—
coulometric or electrolytic conductivity methods for detection
take 1000 ml of sai 1e for analysis. If interferences pose no
problem, the sensitivity of the electron capture detector
should p -in1t as little as 100 nil of san le to be used. Back-
ground information on the extent and nature of interferences
will assist the analyst in choosing the required san 1e size
and preferred detector.
8.3 QuantitatIvely transfer the proper aliquot Into a two—liter
separatory funnel and dilute to one liter.
9. ExtractIon
9.1
Add 60 ml of 15% methylene chloride In hexane (v:v) to the
san 1e in the separatory funnel and shake vigorously for two
minutes.
9.2 Allow the mixed solvent to separate from the san 1e, then draw
the water into a one—liter Erlermieyer flask. Pour the organic
layer into a 100—mi beaker and then pass it through a column
containing 3-4 inches of anhydrous sodium sulfate, and collect
it in a 500-mi K-O flask equipped with a 10 ml—an u1. Return
the water phase to the separatory funnel. Rinse the Erlenmeyer
flask with a second 60—mi volume of solvent; add the solvent to
the separatory funnel and complete the extraction procedure a
second time. Perform a third extraction in the same manner.
50
-------
9.3 Concentrate the extract in the K—O evaporator on a hot water
bath.
9.4 Qualitatively analyze the sample by gas chromatography with an
electron capture detector. From the response obtained decide:
a. If there are any organochlorfne pesticides present.
b. If there are any PCBs present.
c. If there Is a contination of a and b.
d. If ele ienta1 sulfur is present.
e. If the response is too con lex to determine a, b or C.
f. If no response, concentrate to 1.0 ml or less, as. required,
and repeat the analysis looking for a, b, c, d, and e.
Samples containing Aroclors with a low percentage of
chlorine, e.g., 1221 and 1232, may require this concentra-
tion In order to achieve the detection limit of 1 ugh.
Trace quantities of PCSs are often masked by background
which usually oc ir In samples.
9.5 If condition a exists, quantitatively determine the organo-
chlorine pesticides according to (1).
9.6 If condition b exists, PC3s only are present; no further
separation or cleanup is necessary. Quantitatively determine
the PCBs according to step ‘11.
9.7 If condition e exists, coir are peaks obtained from the sample
to those of standard Aroclors and make a judgment as to wbich
Aroclors may be present. 1o separate the PC3s from the organo—
chlorine pesticides, continue as outlined in 10.4.
51
-------
g . If condition d exists, separate the sulfur from the sample
using the method outlined in 10.3 followed by the method in
10.5.
g,g If condition e exists, the following macro cleanup arid separa—
tiort procedures (10.2 and 10.3) should be employed and, if
necessary, followed by the micro separation procedures (10.4
and 10.5).
10. Cleanuo and Seoaratlon Procedures
10.1 Interferences in the form of distinct peaks and/or high back-
ground th the initial gas chromatographic analysis, as well as
the physical characteristics of the extract (color, cloudiness,
viscosity) and background knowledge of the sample will indicate
whether clean-up is required. When these Interfere with
measurement of the PC3s, or affect column life or detector
sensitivity, proceed as directed below.
10.2 Acetonitrile Partition - This procedure is used to remove fats
and oils from the sample extracts. It should be noted that not
all pesticides are quantitatively recovered by this procedure.
The analyst mist be aware of this and demonstrate the effi
ciency of the partitioning for the compounds interest.
10.2.1 Quantitatively transfer the previously concentrated
extract to a 125—mi separatory funnel with enough hexane
to bring the final volume to 15 m i, Extract the sample
four times by shaking vigorously for one minute with
30-mi portions of hexane—saturated acetonitrile.
52
-------
10.2.2 Combine and transfer the acetonitrfle phases to a
one—liter separatory funnel and add 650 ml of distilled
water and 4.0 rn.l of saturated sodium chloride solution.
Mix thoroughly for 30-45 seconds. Extract with two
100-mi portions of hexane by vigorously shaking about 15
seconds.
10.2.3 Contlne the hexane extracts In a one—liter separatory
funnel and wash with two 100—mi portions of distilled
water. Discard the water layer and pour the hexane
layer through a 3-4 Inch anhydrous sodium sulfate column
into a 500—mi K-0 flask equipped with a 10—mi a,i u1.
Rinse the separatory funnel and column with three 10—mi
portions of hexane.
10.2.4 Concentrate the extracts to 6—10 ml in the K—0 eva-
porator in a hot water bath.
10.2.5 Analyze by gas chromatography unless a need f or further
cleanup Is indicated.
10.3 Florlsll Column Adsorption Chromatography
10.3.1 Adjust the san le extract volume to 10 ml.
10.3.2 Place a charge of activated Florisil (weight determined
by lauric-acid value, see Appendix II) in a Chromaflex
column. After settling the Florisil by tapping the
column, add about one-l a1f inch layer of anhydrous
granular sodium sulfate to the too.
53
-------
10.3.3 Pre—elute the column, after cooling, with 50—60 ml of
petroleum ether. Discard the eluate arid just prior to
exposure of the sulfate layer to air, quantitatively
transfer the sample extract into the column by
decaritaticn and subsequent petroleum ether washings.
Adjust the elution rate to about 5 ml per minute and,
separately, collect up to three eluates In 500-m I K-O
flasks equipped with 10-mi ampuls (see Eluate Composi-
tion 10.4.). Perform the first elution with 200 ml of
6% ethyl ether in petroleum ether, and the second
elution with 200 ml of 15% ethyl ether in petroleum
ether. Perform the third elutlon with 200 ml of 50%
ethyl ether - petroleum ether and the fourth elution
with 200 ni of 100% ethyl ether.
10.3.3.1 Eluate Composition — By usi rig an equivalent
quantity of any batch of Florisli as deter-
mined by its lauric acid value, the pesti-
cides will be separated into the eluates
Indicated as follows.
6% Eluate
Aidrin DOT Peritach1cro
BHC Heptach lor riitrobenzene
ailordane Heptachior Epoxide Strobane
DOD Lindane Toxaphene
ODE Methoxychior Trifluralin
Mlrex PCSs
15% Eluate 50% Eluate
Endasulfan I èsulfan El
Endrin Captan
Dieldrirt
Dich loran
Phthalate esters
54
-------
Certain thiophosphate pesticides will occur in
each of the above fractions as well as the 100%
fraction. For additional information regarding
eluate composition, refer to the FDA Pesticide
Analytical Manual (5).
10.3.4 Concentrate the eluates to 6—10 ml in the K-0 evaporator
In a hot water bath.
10.3.5 Analyze by gas chromatography.
10.4 SIlica Gel Micro-Column Separation Procedure (6)
10.4.1 Actlvaticn for Silica Gel
10.4.1.1 Place about 20 of silica gel in a 700—mi
beaker. Activate at 180°C for approximately
16 hours. Transfer the silica gel to a 100—mi
glass—stoppered bottle. When cool, cover with
about 35 ml of 0.50% diethyl ether in benzene
(volume:volume). Keep bottle 11 sealed. f
silica gel collects on the ground glass
surfaces, wash off with the above solvent
before resealing. Always maintain an excess of
the mixed solvent in bottle (aproxTmately 1/2
in. above silica gel). Silica gel can be
effectively stored in this manner for several
days.
10.4.2 Preparation of the C tromatographic Column
10.4.2.1 Pack the lower 2 rmT ZD s ection of the micro—
column with glass wool. Permanently mark
55
-------
the column 120 m it above the glass wool. Using
a clean rubber bulb from a disposable pipet
seal the lower end of the microcolumn. Fill
the mlcrocolumn with 0.50% ether in benzene
(v:v) to the bottom of the 10/30 joint (Figure
1). Using a disposable capillary pipet,
transfer several aliquots of the silica gel
slurry into the microcolumn. After approxi—
rnately 1 an of silica gel collects in the
bottom of the inicroco lunm, remove the rubber
bulb seal, tap the column to insure that the
silica gel reaches the 120 2 nm mark. Be
sure that there are no air bubbles in the
column. Add about 10 nmn of sodium sulfate to
the top of the silica gel. Under low humidity
conditions, the silica gel may coat the sides
of the column and not settle properly. This
can be minimized by wiping the outside of the
column with an anti-static solution.
10.4.2.2 Deactivation of the Sflica Gel
a. Fill the mcrocolumn to the base of the
10/30 joInt with the 0.50% ether. .benzene
mixture, assen le reservoir (using. spring
clamps) and fill with approximately 15 ml
of the 0.50% ether-benzene mixture. Attach
the air pressure device (using spring
56
-------
clamps) and adjust the elution rate to
approximately 1 mi/mm. with the air
pressure control. Release the air pressure
and detach reservoir just as the last of
the solvent enters the sodium sulfate.
Fill the column with n—hexane (not mixed
hexanes) to the base of the 10/30 fItting.
Evaporate all residual benzene from the
reservoir, assemble the reservoir section
and fill with 5 ml of n-.hexane. Apply air
pressure and remove the reservoir just as
the n-hexane enters the sodium sulfate.
The column, is oow ready for’ use.
b. Pipet a 1.0 ml aliquot of the concentrated
sample extract (previously reduced to a
total volume of 2.0 ml) on to the column.
As the last of the sample passes into the
sodium sulfate layer, rinse down the
internal wall of the column twice with 0.25
ml of n—hexane. Then assemble the upper
section of the column. As the last of the
n—hexane rinse reaches the surface of the
sodium sulfate, add enough n—hexane (volume
predetermined, see 10.4.3) to just eTute
all of the PCSs present In the sample.
Apply air pressure and adjust until the
57
-------
flow is 1 mi/mm. Collect the desired
volume of eluate (predetermined, see
10.4.3) In an accurately calibrated an u1.
As the last of the n—hexane reaches the
surface of the sodium sulfate, release the
air pressure and change the collection
asnpu 1.
c. Ff11 the column with 0.50% diethyl ether In
benzene, again apply air pressure and
adjust flow to 1 ml/mnin. Collect the
eluate until all of the orgariochiorine
pesticides of interest have been eluted
(volume prdetermined, see 10.4.3).
d. Analyze the eluates by gas chromatography.
10 .4.3 Determination of 1ution Volumes
10.4.3.1 The elution volumes for the PCBs and the
pesticides depend upon a nunter of factors
hith are difficult to control. These include
variation in:
a. Mesh size of the silica gel
b Adsorption properties of the silica gel
c. Polar contaminants present in the eluting
solvent
d. Polar materials present in the sar, le..and
sample solvent
58
-------
e. The dimensions of the microcolumns
Therefore, the optimum elution volume must
be experimentally determined each time a
factor is changed. To determine the
elution volumes, add standard mixtures of
Aroc1or and pesticides to the column and
serially collect 1-nil elution volumes.
Analyze the individual eluates by gas
chromatography and determine the cut-off
volume for n—hexane and for ether-benzene.
FIgure 2 shows the retention order of the
various PC! con onents and of the pesti-
cides. Using this Information, prepare the
mixtures required for calibraton of the
inicroco lumn.
10.4.3.2 In determining the volume of hexane required to
elute the PC3s the sample volume (1 ml) and the
volume of n—hexane used to rinse the colunwi
wall rmjst be considered. Thus, If It Is
determined that a 10.0—mi elution volume is
required to elute the PC3s, the volume of
hexane to be added in addition to the sample
volume but including the rinse volume should be
9.5 ml.
59
-------
E TACIILOR DE
AL IN
DAIIE
ECHNflCAL CHIORO
50
260
40
-J
4
1- 4
0
a)
a 30
1 ’
0
I
I
I—.
2
2fl
I
ft
I d
a-
I0
u 2 4 6 8 J
I
-------
10.4.3.3 Figure 2 shows that as the average chlorine
content of a PCB mixture decreases the solvent
volume f r o lete elution increa.ses. Quali-
tative determination (9 ,4) Indicates which
Aroclors are present and. provides the basis for
selection of the Ideal elution volume. This
helps to minimize the quantity of organo
chlorine pesticides which will elute along with
the low percent chlorine PC3s and insures the
most efficient separations possible for
accurate analysis.
10.4.3.4 For critical analysis where the PC3s and pesti—
cides are not separated con 1ete1y, the coli.mui
should be accurately calibrated according to
(10.4.3.1) to determine the peroent of material
of interest that elutes in each fraction. Then
flush the column with an additIonal 15 ml of
0.50% ether in b izene followed by 5 ml of
n-hexane and use this reconditioned column for
the san 1e separation. Using this technique
one car accurately predict the amount (%) of
materials in each micro column fraction.
10.5 Micro Column Separation of Sulfur, PCBs, and Pesticides
10.5. 1 See procedure for preparation and packing micro column
in PCB analysis section (10.4.1 and 10.4.2).
61
-------
10.5.2 Microcolumn Calibration
10.5.2.1 Calibrate the microcclumn for sulfur and PCB
separation by collecting l.0—ITI1 fractions and
analyzing. them by gas chromatography to
determine the following:
1) The fraction with the first eluting PCSs
(those present in 1260),
2) The fraction with the last.eluting PCSs
(those present in 1221),
3) The elution volume for sulfur,.
4) The elution volume for the pesticides of
interest in the 0.50% ether-benzene
fraction.
From these data determine the following:
1) The eluting volume containing only sulfur
(Fraction I),
2) The eluting volume containing the last of
the sulfur and the early eluting PC8s
(Fraction II) ,
3) The eluting volume containing the remaining
PC3s (Fraction III),
4) The ether-benzene e1utir g volume containing
the pesticides of thterest (Fraction I V).
10.5.3 separation Procedure
10.5.3.1 Carefully concentrate the 6 eluate from the
62
-------
florisil column to 2.0 ml in the graduated
arnpul on a warm water bath.
10.5.3.2 Place 1.0 ml (50%) of the concentrate into the
microcolwnn with a 1-mi pipet. Be careful not
to get any sulfur crystals into the pipet.
10.5.3e3 Collect Fractions I and II in calibrated
centrifuge tubes. Collect Fractions III and IV
in calibrated ground g1a s stoppered ampuls.
10.5.3.4 Sulfur Rei oval (7) - Add 1 to 2 drops of
mercury to Fraction II stopper and place on a
wrist-action shaker. A black precipitate
indicates the presence of sulfur. After
approximately 20 minutes the mercury may become
entirely reacted or deactivated by the
precipitate. The sa 1e should be quariti-
tatively transferred to a clean centrifuge tube
and additional mercury added. When crystals
ai-e present in the san le, three treateents may
be necessary to remove all the. sulfur. After
all the sulfur has been removedfrom Fraction II
(check using gas chromatography) combine
Fractions II and III. Adjust the volume to 10
ml and analyze by gas chromatography. Be sure
no mercury is transferred to the combined
Fractions H and III, since it can react with
certain pesticides.
63
-------
By combining Fractions I I and H , if PC8s are
present, it is possible to identify the
Aroclor(s) present and a quantitative analysis
can be performed accordingly. Fraction r can
be discarded since it oniy contains the bulk of
the sulfur. Analyze Fractions I II and IV for
the PCSs and pesticides. If CDT and its
hontlegs,. a ldrin, heptachlor, or technical
chlordane are present along with the PCSs, an
additional raicrocolunin separation can be
performS which may help to further separate
the PC3s from the pesticides (See 10.4).
11. Quantitative Determination
11.1 Measure the volume of rt—hexane eluate containing the PCZs and
inJect 1 to 5 , l into the gas chromatograpri. If necessary,
adjust the volume of the eluate to give linear response to the
electron capture detector. The ml crocou I ometri c or the
electrolytic detector may be ei loyed to improve specificity
for samples having higher concentrations of PCBs.
11.2 CalculatIons
11.2.1 When a single Aroclor is present, compare quantitative
Aroclor reference standards (e.g., 1242, 1250) to the
unknown. Measure and sum the areas of the unknown and
the reference Aroclor and calculate the result as
fo I lows:
64
-------
Microgram/Uter X [ N ]
A na of Standard rniected
B of Sample Peak Areas - ( 2)
= Volume of saii le injected (ul)
Volume of Extract (U!) from which sample
is injected into gas chromatograph
V 5 Volume of water sample extracted (ml)
N 2 when micro column used
1 when nrtcro column not used
Peak Area Peak height (im x Peak Width at 1/2
height
11.2.2 For complex situatons, use the calibration method
described below (3). Small variations In co onents
between different Aroclor batches make ft necessary to
obtain samples of several specific Proc lors. These
reference Aroclors can be obtained from the Southeast
Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA, Athens, Georgia,
30601. The procedure is as follows:
ll.2.2.1’Using the OV-l column, chromatograph a known
quantity of each Araclor reference standard.
Also chromatograph a sample of p,p’-ODE.
Suggested concentration of each standard is 0.1
ng/ul for the Aroclors and 0.02 ng/Ul for the
p,p ‘—ODE.
65
-------
11.2.2.2 Determine the relative retention time (RST) of
each PC3 peak in the resulting chrcmatograms
using p,p’-ODE as 10 0.
RTx 100
RR
RRT Relative Retention lime
RI Retention time of peak of interest
s Retention time of p,p’-ODE
Retention time is measured as that distance in
rim between the first appearance of the solvent
peak and the maximum for the convoiznd.
11.2.2.3 To calibrate the instrument for each PCB
measure the area of each peak.
Area • Peak height (an) x Peak width at 1 12
height. Using Tables 1 through S obtain the
proper mean weight factor, then determine the
response factor ng/rvn 2 .
(ng 1 ) ( mean wei qt’t percent ) , .
2 100
ng/rIn —
(Area)
ng 4 • ng of Aroclor Standard Injected
Mean weight percent - obtained from Tables I
through 6.
11.2.2.4 Calculate the RRT value and the area for each
PCE peak in the sample chromatogram. Compare
the sample chromatogram to those obtained for
each reference Aroclor standard. tf it is
66
-------
Table
Con os1tion of Aroclor .1221 (8)
Mean
.
RRTa
Weight
Percent
Rel
Std.
ative
Dev.b
Number of
Ch lorinesC
11
31.8
15.8
1
14
19.3
9.1
1
16
10.1
9.7
2
19
2.8
9.7
2
21
20.8
9.3
2
28
5.4
13.9
2
.,
85%
1 w
32
1.4
30.1
2
3
10%
90%
37
1.7
48.8
3
40
aRetention time relative to p,p’—DDE 10O. Measured from first appearance
of solvent. Overlapptng peaks that are quantitated as one peak are
bracketed.
b5tandard devi ation of seventeen results as a percentage of the mean of
the results.
cFrom GC-MS data. Peaks containing mixtures of Isomers 0 f different
cfllorine nurthers are bracketed.
67
-------
Table 2
ConVosltlon of Ar c1or 1232 (8)
Rwra
Mean
Weight
Percent
Relative
Std. Dev.b
Number-of
ChlortnesC
11_
16.2
3.4
1
14
9.9
2.5
1
16
7.1
6.8
2
20
17.8
2.4
2
21
28
9.6
3.4
2 40%
3 50%
•
32
3 .9
4.7
3
37
6.8
2.5
3
40
6.4
2.7
3
47
4.2
4.1
4
54
3.4
3.4
3 33%
4 67%
58
2.5
3.7
4
70
4.6
3.1
4 90%
5 10%
78
1.7
7.5
4
Total
94.2
aR nti time relative to p,p 1 -OOE lC0. Measured from first appearance
of solvent. Overlapping peaks that are quantltated as one peak are
bracketed.
b5t dard deviation of four results as a mean of the results.
Cffrom GC MS data. Peaks containing mixtures of isomers of-different
chlorine riunters are bracketed.
68
-------
Table 3
Ccnposition of Aroclor 1242 (8)
Mean
Weight Relative b Nrber of
RRTa Percent Std. 0ev. C),lorinesC
11 1.1 35.7 1
16 2.9 492 2
21 11.3 3.0 2
28 11.0 5.0 2 25%
., r w
32 6.1 4.7 3
37 11.5 5.7 3
40 11.1 6.2 3
47 8.8 4.3 4
54 6.8 2.9 3 33%
4 67%
58 5.6 -3.3 4
70 10.3 2.8 4 90%
5 10%
78 3.6 4.2 4
84 2.7 9.7 5
98 1.5 94 5
104 2.3 16,4 5
125 1.6 20.4 5 85%
6 15%
146 l.0 19.9 5 75%
6 25%
aRetention time relative to p,p’—0DE 100. Measured from first appearance
of solvent.
b5t dard deviation of six results as a percentage of the mean of the
results.
CFrom GC—MZ data. Peaks containing mixtures of isomers of different
chlorine nurtters are bracketed.
69
-------
Table 4
Con osition of Aroclor 1248 (8)
Mean
Weight Relative Number of
RRTa Percent Std. Dev.b . ChlorinesC
21 1.2 23.9 2
28 5.2 3.3 3
32 3.2 3.8 3
47 8.3 3.6 3
40 8.3 3.9 3 85%
4 15%
47 15.5 1.1 4
54 9.7 6.0 3 10%
4 90%
58 9.3 5.8 4
70 19.0 1.4 4 80%
520%
78 6.5 2.7 4
84 4.9 2.6 5
98 3.2 3.2 5
104 3.3 3.6 4 10%
5 90%
112 1.2 6.6 5
125 2.6 5.9 5 .90%
6 10%
146 1.5 10.0 5 85%
U
Total 103.1
aRetention time relative to p,p -0DEl00. Measured from first appearance
of solvent.
deviation of six results as a percentage of the mean of the,
results.
CFrom GC . MS data. Peaks containing mixtures of Isomers of different
chlorine nuriters are bracketed.
70
-------
Table 5
Ca tpositiori of Aroclor 1254 (8)
Mean
Weight Relative b Number of
RRTa Percent Std. 0ev. ChlorInesC
47 6.2 3.7 4
54 2.9 2.6 4
58 1.4 2.8 4
70 13.2 2.7 4 25%
5 75%
84 17.3 1.9 5
98 7.5 5.3 5
104 13.6 3.8 5
125 15.0 2.4 5 70%
6 80%
146 10.4 2.7 5 30%
5 70%
160 1.3 8.4 6
174 8.4 5.5 6
203 1.8 18.5 6
232 1.0 26.1 7
Total 100.0
aRetention time relative to p,p -ODE=l00. Measured from first appearance
of solvent.
b ndard deviation 0 f six results as a percentage of the mean of the
results.
Cffr GC-MS c ata. Peaks containing mixtures of isomers are bracketed.
71
-------
Table 6
Con osition of Aroclor 1260 (8)
Mean
Weight Relative b Nimter of
RRT 4 Percent Std. 0ev. Chiorlnes
70 2.7 5.3 5
84 47 1.5 5
98 3.8 3.5 d
104 5 60%
6 40%
117 3.3 6.7 6
125 12.3 3.3 5 15%
J .
146 14.1 3.6 6
160 4.9 2.2 6 50%
7 50%
174 12.4 2 .7 6
203 9.3 4.0 6 10%
7 90%
232 e
244 9.8 3.4 6 10%
7 90%
280 11.0 2.4 7
332 4.2 5.0. 7
372 4.0 8.6 8
448 .6 25.3 8
528 1.5 10.2 8
Total 98.6
aRetention time relative to p,p ODE 100. Measured from first appearance
of solvent. Overlapping peaks that are quantitated as one peak are
bracketed.
bStandard deviation of six results as a mean of the results.
CFram GC MS data. Peaks containing mixtures of isomers of different
chlorine nurters are bracketed.
dCcmposltlon determined at the center of peak 104.
eCompositian determined at the center of peak 232.
72
-------
apparent that the PCB peaks present are due to
only one Aroclor, then calculate the concen-
tration of each PCB using the following formula:
ng PCB ng/m 2 x Area
Where Area Area (m 2 ) of sample peak
ng/m 2 Response factor for that peak
measured.
Then add the nanogran of PCBs present In the
Injection to get the total nur ber of nanograms
of PCBs present. Use the following formula to
calculate the concentration of PCBs in the
sanv 1 e:
Micrograms/Liter
a volume of water extracte (ml)
Vt volume of extract ( al)
V 1 volume of sample injected ( l)
ng • sum of all the PCBs in nanograms for that
Aroclor identified
N 2 when microcolumn used
N a when microcolumn not used
The value can then be reported as micro—
gran5/liter PCSs or as the Aroclor. For
samples containing more than one Aroclor, use
Figure 9 chromatogram divisional flow chart to
assign a proper response factor to each peak
and also identify the t ’most llkelyu Aroclors
73
-------
present. Calculate the ng of each PCB isomer
present and sum them accOrding to the
divisional flow chart. Using the formula
above, calculate the concentration of the
various Aroclors present In the saIT le.
12. Reoort1n Results
12.1 Report results in microgran per liter without correction for
recovery data. When duplicate and spiked samples are analyzed,-
all data obtained should be reported.
74
-------
37
AROCLOR 1242
70
78
Figure 3. Column: 3% OV-1, Carrier Gas: Nitrogen at 60 mI/mm,
Column Temperature: 170 C, Detector: Electron Capture
125 146
75
-------
Figure 4. Ca umn: 3% OY•1, Carrier Gas: Nitrogen at 60 mI/mm,
Column Temperature: 170 C, Detector: Electron Capture.
76
70 AROCLOR 1254
125
174
-------
ii
Figure 5. Column: 3% OY•1, Carrier Gas: Nitrogen at GO mi/mm,
Column Temperature: 170 C, Detector: Electron Capture.
AROCLOR 1260
280
372
521
77
-------
3 S 9 12 15
RETENTION TIME IN
6. Colunrn: 1.5% OY17 + 1.35%
nil/mm, Ca uinn Temperature: 200
18 21 24
MINUTES
ÜF•1, Carrier gas: Nitrogen
C, Oetectnr: Electran Capture.
AROCLOR 1242
I
I
I
a
Figure
at 60
I
I
78
-------
HIINIIOI IIMI IN MINUJU
Figuie 7. Columi: 1.5% OV•l7 1 1.95% O1•l, CauI.r Gas: NIti.is. at
Detect.,: Ilseti.. Capluis.
SO mi/mi., C.Ivm . Temperatute: 200 C,
-.1
lb
1 1OCt01 1254
IaJ
-.
0 3 9 S 12 IS IS 21 21 27 39 33 31 39 42 45
-------
I-
I .
0 3 $ S 1? IS i i 21 21 U
IIUNT ION TIMI
Ilguts S. CsIwng: 1 .5% OV•U I 1.55% 01.1. Csulsr Gu: Niliogs. at
IN NINUU S
10 mI/mis, Celumu 1smps, Iurs: 200C. Ostscto.: (Isction Capluis.
Q
Aloctol 1250
I I I I I I I I I I
II 33 35 3$ 42 45 4$ SI SI
-------
L RRT of first peak 47?
Is there a distinct
peak w
ith RRT
78?
YES / \\No
I Use 1242 for Use 1242 for
1peaks . UT 84 peaks . Ui 701
/r
[
Is there a d stioct
peak with RRT 117?
YES
NO
Use 1254 for, all
psaks . UT 174
Use 1260 for
all other p.eaks
I
Figure 9. Chromatogram Division Flowchart [ 8).
Use 1260 for
all peaks
81
-------
REFtRENCES:
1. “Method for Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Water and Wastewater ’, this
manual, p. 7.
2. Leoni, V., “The Separation of Fifty Pesticides and Related Compounds and
Palychlorinated Biphenyls into Four Groups by Silica Gel Mlcrocolumn
Chronatography , Journal of Chromatography , 52, 63 (1971).
3. McClure, V. E., “Precisely Deactivated Adsorbents Applied to the Separa-
tion of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons ’, Journal of Chromatoq aphy , 70, 168
(1972).
4. “Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater
Laboratories”, Chapter 6, Section 6.4, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Environmental Research Canter, -Analytical Quality
Control Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268, 1972.
5. “PestIcide Analytical ManuaP, U. S. Dept. of Health, Education and
Welfare, Food. and Drug A iiinistratlon, Washington, 0. C.
6. Bellar, T. A. and Lichtanberg, J. J., “Method for the Determination of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Water and Sediment”, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Environmental Research Center, Analytical
Quality Control Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268, 1973.
7. Goerlitz, 0. F. and Law, L. M., “Note on Renoval of Sulfur Interferences
from Sediment Extracts for Pesticide Analysis”,. Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology , 6, 9 (1971).
8. Webb, R. G. and McCall, A. C., “Quantitative PCB Standards for Electron
Capture Gas Chromatography”, Journal of Chromatographic Science , 11, 366
(1973).
82
-------
APPENDIX F
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION COSTS AND SCHEDULES!
REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES
HUDSON RIVER PCBs SITE
NEW YORK
-------
Cost estimates and project schedules for the Remedial Investigation programs
proposed in Section 10.0 are presented in Appendix F. Estimated pre—constructlon
and construction schedules are also presented.
Direct cost items and a Cost Summary Table for the Remnant Deposit Remedial
Investigation described in Section 10.3 are presented on pages F—2 and F—3.
Similar tables for the Phase One Remedial Investigation of the river, described in
Section 10.4 are presented on pages F—4 and F—5.
Pages F—6 and F—7 present estimated project schedules for the Remnant Deposit
and River Monitoring Remedial Investigations. Pages F—8 and F—9 present
preconstruction and construction schedules for the actual remedial activities at the
Remnant Sites.
F—i
-------
HUDSON RIVER PCBs SITE. NEW YORK
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION. REMNANT DEPOSITS
DIRECT COST TABLE
(JANUARY 1983 DOLLARS)
Preliminary Site
Activities Activities
Total Hours 1 .360 1 .430
Travel & Living $5,000 S 2.500
CLP Lab Analysis 0 36,000
Special Equipment 800 300
Subcontracts 0 13,000
Other Direct Costs 5,600 6,300
F—2
-------
HUDSON RIVER PCBs SITE, NEW YORK
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, REMNANT DEPOSITS
COST SUMMARY
(JANUARY 1983 DOLLARS)
Direct Labor $ 37,800
Travel & Uving 7,500
Special Equipment 1 .100
Subcontracts 13,000
Other Direct Costs 11 .900
Subtotal $ 71,300
Overhead & Profit (125% direct labor) 47.200
CLP Lab Analysis 36,000
Subtotal 154,500
G&A + Fees (20%) 30,900
Total Cost $185,400
F—3
-------
HUDSON RIVER PCBs SITE, NEW YORK
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, RIVER ACTIViTiES
DIRECT COST TABLE
(JANUARY 1983 DOLLARS)
Preliminary Site
Activities Activities
Total Hours 1,370 4,140
Travel & Living $4,600 $17,000
CLP Lab Analysis 0 88,900
Special Equipment 300 13.900
Subcontracts 0 19,000
Other Direct Costs 5,800 22,800
F—4
-------
HUDSON RIVER PCBs SITE. NEW YORK
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATiON. RIVER ACTIV ES
COST SUMMARY
(JANUARY 1983 DOLLARS)
Direct Labor $ 70,000
Travel & Living 21.600
Special Equipment 14,200
Subcontracts 19,000
Other Direct Costs 28,700
Subtotal $153,300
Overhead & Profit (125% direct labor) ‘87,500
CLP Lab Analysis 8&900
Subtotal S329,700
G & A fees (20%) 65,900
Total Cost $395,600
F—5
-------
YEAR 0NE IN WEEKS)
I 1 — i ! ! J! IL !!. !!. !t I iL !! !! !2 .!! !! 1! i fl 1! 1! 1! ! ! . ii ! 1± ii 11
PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTiVITiES
TASK I - PREPARE RI WORK PLAN — IL Ii I1 u
TASK 2 - PERFORM COMMUNITY RELATiONS
SUPPORTFUNCT1ONS : = =
TASK 1 - COLLECT AND EVALUATE EXISTING
DATA
TASK 4 - PERFORM HEALTH, SAFETY. AND
GENERAL SITE RECONNAISSANCE —
TASKS - SECURE PERMITS, RIGHTS OF ENTRY
AND OIlIER AUThORIZATiONS • • U
TASKS - PROCURE SUBCONTRACTORS — — •
TASK 7 - DEVELOP SITE-SPECIFIC hEALTh
AND SAFETY PLAN
TASK * - DEVELOP SITE-SPECIFIC QUALITY
ASSURANCE PLAN
TASKS - DEVELOP SITE-SPECIFIC SAMPLING
PLAN
TASK 10 - MOBILIZE FIELD EQUIPMENT
SITE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
TASK II - PERFORM GROUND SURVEY — — • • •
TASK 12 - PREPARE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP —
TASK IS - COLLECT SURFACE S L SAMPLES
TASK 14 - REDUCE AND EVALUATE DATA • • — — • —
-n TASK IS - PREPARE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
REPORT — . —
— —— — — — — — —— — i_k Li
CONTRACTOR ACTIVITY
U _ -i PERIODIC CONTRACTOR ACTIVITY AS REQUIRED
i.u ’ EPA/NYSDEC REVIEW
FIGURE F-I
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROJECT SCHEDULE, REMNANT DEPOSITS I JUS
I I _
0 A Halliburton Company
-------
PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL INVESTKATION ACTIYITI [ ..S
TASK I - PREPARE RI WORK PLAN
TASK 2 - PERFORM COMMUNITY RELATIONS
SUPPORT FUNCTIONS
TASK I - COLLECT AND EVALUATE EXISTING
DATA
TASK - DEVELOP SITE-SPECIFIC HEALTH
AND SAFETY PLAN
TASK S - DEVELOP SITE-SPECIFIC QUAUTY
ASSURANCE PLAN
TASKS - DEVELOP SITE-SPECIFIC SAMPLING
AND ANALYSIS PLAN
TASK 1 - PROCURE SUBCONTRACTORS
TASK $ - SECURE PERMITS, RKHTS OF ENTRY,
AND OTHER AUThORIZATIONS
TASK 9 - MOBILIZE FIELD EQUIPMENT
-n STE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
TASK 10 - COLLECT DRINKING WATER SAMPLES
TASK II - COLLECT AIR MONITORING SAMPLES
TASK $2 - PERFORM WETLAND STUDY
TASK I) - COLLECT TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION
SAMPLES
TASK I - REDUCE AND EVALUATE DATA
TASK IS - PREPARE REMEDIAL INVESTK ATION
REPORT
LE GE P lO
• CONTRACTOR ACTIVITY
D PERIODIC CONTRACTOR ACTMTY AS
113 EPA/NYSDEC REVIEW
REGJIAEO
‘ MEDIAL INVESTIGATION PROJECT SCHEDULE ‘ VER ACTIVITIES
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RI ., NY
FIGURE F-2
NWB
COFF ORATKJN
-------
WttKI 0
ACI VITY
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION WORK PLAN
REMEDIAL INVESTIGAIION
WORK PLAN APPROVAL
RIGIITS OF ENTRY
SUBCONTRACTOR
PROCUREMENT
DEVELOP
HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
DEVELOP
QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
DEVELOP SAMPLING PLAN
PRELIMINARY
LOCATION OF BORROW SITES
OWNER CONTACT FOR
PRELIMINARY BOWTOW SITES
FIELD INVES lIGATION RECON•
NAISSANCE OF BORROW SITES
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
OF BORROW SITES
GROUND/AERIAL
SLIRVEYSOF REMNANT SITES
SAMPLE
COLLECTION-REMNANT SITES
SAMPLE ANALYSISfVALIDATIOH
DATA REDUCTION /EVAUJATION
CONCEPTUAL REMEDIAL DESIGN
ARMY CORPS PROCUREMENT
FOR FINAL DESIGN
SUBCONTRACTOR
DESI ON/SPECIFICAI IONS
ARMY CORPS PROCUREMENT
FOR CONSTRUCTION
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PREC()NSTRUCTION PHASE
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE, HUDSON RIVER, NY
FIGURE F
NUS
CXJRPORAT
0 A Hallsburton Company
I nc B9 90 97 9E qfl flI()
Pp
11
CO
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
II- PLACE CONTAINMENT
Of REMNANT DEPOSITS
-------
ACTIV iTY
PRECONSTRUCTION PHASE
PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING
HEALTH AND SAFETY I
MOBILIZATION AT BORROW
AREA ___________
CLEAR/GRUB AT BORROW
AREA
DEMOBILIZATION AT
BORROW, MOBILIZATION AT
REMNANT AT DEPOSITS,
BORROW——
E*CAVATE/SIOCKPILE TOP-
SOIL AT BORROW -
CLEAR/GRUB AT REMNANT
DEPOSITS ____________
CONSTRUCT SIORMWAtJR
DIVERSION AT REMNANT
fl DEPOSITS ——-—— — -
(0 EXCAVATE/HAtS/PLACE —
SUBSOIL AT REMNANT
DEPOSITS -- - --- — -
HAUL/PLACE TOPSOIL AT
RIGRADE FOR RIPRAP AT
NO2 AND NO.4
PLACE RIPRAP AT NOt
AND NO.4——----—-—- —
REVEGETATE AT BORROW -
REVEBETATE AT REMNANT
-
DEMOBILIZATION AT BORROW
DEMOBILIZATION AT
REMNANT DEPOSITS
CONSTRUCTION PHASE ____ FIGURE F-4
- IN-PLACE CONTAINMENT OF .. 4NANT DEPOSITS
HUDSON RIVER PCB SITE. kIDSON RIVERINY I EjI\J ’ iS
_________ JRATUN
------- |